We may earn from qualifying purchases

Gregory R. Lanier and William A. Ross co-edited and recently published a book titled The Authority of the Septuagint: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Approaches and the fifth footnote on the second page seems to contain a formal fallacy.

The introduction begins by describing two ends of the spectrum when it comes to the authority of the Septuagint. The first end of the spectrum “is the position is that today’s church should reduce its reliance on the Hebrew Bible and embrace the Septuagint as its primary Old Testament text” (pg. 2).

The other end of the spectrum “is the view–often held by proponents of the exclusivity of the King James Bible–that the Septuagint either did not exist prior to the first century (but was fabricated later) or was never meaningfully used by the apostles” (pg. 2).

The Reformation Bible Society [RBS] would agree that these are the two ends of the spectrum and rejects them both. Sadly, and presumably to prejudice their readers against RBS, Messrs. Lanier and Ross seem to resort to the formal fallacy of “guilt by association” in footnote number 5:

For example, see Harrison Williams, The Septuagint: The So-called LXX (Dahlonega, GA: Old Paths, 2019; David W. Daniels, Did Jesus Use the Septuagint? (Ontario: Chick, 2017); and the various publications, keynotes, and blog posts of the Reformation Bible Society (particularly by Jeffrey T. Riddle).

For those who do not know how the fallacy works, here is a summary:

Group A makes a particular claim.

Group B, which is viewed negatively by some, makes the same claim as Group A.

Therefore, Group A is viewed as associated with Group B, and is now also viewed negatively.

Group A, in this case, is RBS which exists to foster and promote scholarly study, defense, and interpretation of the traditional Reformation text of Christian Scripture (i.e., the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Old Testament and Received Text of the Greek New Testament) by providing a medium for the oral exchange and written expression of thought and research.

Group B is the independent fundamental Baptists who insist on the exclusive use of the King James Version. This group, based on the authors in the footnote, is represented by organizations such as the Dean Burgon Society, the King James Bible Research Council, and Chick Publications.

Both groups claim that the Septuagint should not be used to “correct” the Hebrew original, so Messrs. Lanier and Ross successfully associate the groups in the footnote (which is at very least sloppy, and at worst, slanderous).

Consider first the sloppiness of the footnote. While the first two references are properly cited, the reader is then offered a vague reference to “various” materials produced by RBS and particularly Jeffrey T. Riddle. There is no link, there is no timestamp, there is only the unsubstantiated attribution to RBS something that RBS does not say and does not believe.

Second, consider the slanderous implication. RBS is wrongly associated with “the view–often held by proponents of the exclusivity of the King James Bible–that the Septuagint either did not exist prior to the first century (but was fabricated later) or was never meaningfully used by the apostles” (pg. 2).

I offered one of the plenary lectures at the 2024 RBS conference on the Septuagint and also edited the video recordings of every paper presented and did not hear a single person question the existence of the Septuagint prior to the first century or that it may have been used by the apostles. Dr. Ross attended the conference, so he heard everything I heard.

Dr. Riddle did indeed deny that there was a standardized text called “The Septuagint” that enjoyed the status of “the Bible of the early church,” but he did not deny that various Greek translations of the Old Testament were in circulation and used during the apostolic era. This view is consistent with that of mainstream evangelical scholars such as Karen H. Jobes, Moises Silva, and Peter J. Williams (all of whom were cited in Dr. Riddle’s keynotes).

The Reverend Doctors Lanier and Ross are highly educated men, with PhDs from Cambridge. It is unbecoming of them to resort to a formal fallacy so early in their book. I will, nevertheless, plod on in my reading, remaining ready to give and receive “a good report” if it is warranted in the end (cf., WLC 144).