“Warding Off” Confessional Bibliology

“Warding Off” Confessional Bibliology: A Reply to The Authority of the Septuagint

I subtitle this “A Reply to” rather than “A Review of” The Authority of the Septuagint. It contains some review, but I also make severe criticisms and strong complaints about the work, and focus on certain authors, traits, and chapters far above the others.

The Authority of the Septuagint: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Approaches was released by IVP Academic October 30, 2025.[i] Edited by Gregory R. Lanier and William A. Ross, they add contributions from ten other scholars: Levi Berntson, J. V. Fesko, Edmon L. Gallagher, Karen Jobes, Thomas Keene, Joshua McQuaid, James B. Prothro, Myrto Theocharous, Daniel Treier, and Mark Ward. (When I look at the list, the last name seems to be the “odd man out,” in several ways.)[ii] The contributors combine to create nine chapters (one an introduction by Lanier and Ross and one a summary by Theocharous), two excursuses, and an afterword. The bulk of the work is followed by an extensive bibliography, brief information about the contributors, a meager general index, as well as scripture and ancient text indices.

In the introduction, Lanier and Ross introduce their purpose, provide overviews for the coming chapters, and set up three interesting categories of test cases. The purpose of the book is to address the question of whether the Septuagint has any authority for churches today (and, if so, what is the nature of that authority). Up front they make it clear that voices at the far poles will be excluded – the Greek Orthodox because they hold the LXX as their definitive text, and any variety of Protestants who believe the LXX has no authority. Here, on page 2, they boldly conflate as one two different views that are not the same – exclusive use of the King James Bible and Confessional Bibliology. In this they will go from bad to worse. While the Greek Orthodox position will simply be ignored, the Confessional Bibliology position will not. The Greek Orthodox gets no place at the table, while the Confessional Bibliologist gets no place at the table and gets an entire “chapter” (excursus) attacking their position. Myrto Theocharous, in her summary, mildly rebukes the exclusion of the insights of “the Christian traditions of the East” (pp. 205-206, 232), but seems to generally accept as “gospel” the hatchet job on Confessional Bibliology.

The three categories of test cases (pp. 6-17) are (1) New Testament citations that align with the LXX against the Hebrew; (2) New Testament citations that align with the Hebrew against the LXX; and (3) New Testament citations that do not align with one another. These cases have interesting potential, but are not engaged by every contributor. I have not analyzed all the test cases, but one caught my eye – NT quotations of Genesis 2:24 (pp. 15-16). This example is presented as textual diversity or non-alignment of citations. One difference cited is the difference “of the verb for ‘cling’.” Matthew, in NA-28, has κολληθήσεται while Mark and Paul have προσκολληθήσεται. However, there is a variant here, a case where some MSS of Matthew have προσκολληθήσεται (compare NA-28 with TR and RP in Matthew 19:5).[iii] It does not exude confidence, whether the editors simply did not know this or chose not to mention this to their readers.

Chapter Six – but especially the two excursuses – appear designed to challenge and refute the Confessional Bibliology view of the Septuagint. Confessional Bibliology almost seems to be a burr under the saddles of the editors. On the one hand, they wish to sideline it as a view unworthy of notice, while on the other hand giving it prominent notice in their design to refute it! Berntson has a good historical overview of the Reformed view of the LXX, but, in my opinion, seems to overemphasize the minority views (pp. 113-137). In her summary, Theocharous, without drawing attention to Berntson, corrects this with her conclusion (Table 9.1, p. 232) by stating the consensus view of the Reformers and Early Scholastics was that the Hebrew text was authoritative and the LXX was not.

In his excursus “‘Kept Pure in All Ages’?” (pp. 138-146), J. V. Fesko fires a warning shot across the bow of Confessional Bibliology by addressing the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8, which states (among other things) that “The Old Testament in Hebrew” is “Authenticall.”[iv] Without specifically mentioning it, Fesko reviews a primary point of Confessional Bibliology. When all is said and done, however, the shot misses its mark. The Westminster Confession still places authority in “The Old Testament in Hebrew” – the Old Testament in Hebrew, not the Old Testament in Greek!

The excursus by Mark Ward is titled “The Septuagint and Confessional Bibliology.”[v] Rather than have a proponent discuss their view and its relation to the Septuagint, the editors hired a hit man to write a hit piece. Ward is not a random scholar chosen to write about this subject, but an opponent who has prayed imprecatory prayers against Confessional Bibliology![vi] The excursus begins its excursion poorly and ends it badly. In violation of his promise to stop identifying Confessional Bibliology with IFB King James Bible “Onlyism,” he calls the two views “fraternal twins” (p. 169).[vii] For his schtick, Ward “reviews” the Reformation Bible Society Conference of 2024 (p. 170). He undertakes to summarize and reply to “the main confessional bibliology arguments levied against the use of the Septuagint.” He further misunderstands, since the conference focused on the Old Testament and the LXX, that Confessional Bibliology has found some new direction.[viii] Something is not new simply because it just dawned on him!

Ward falsely indicates that he is interacting with “the four key presenters at the Reformation Bible Society conference” (p. 170, fn 6).[ix] He includes three of the plenary lectures given at the Reformation Bible Society conference, but avoids the fourth. He knows he is misrepresenting the facts – and so does editor William Ross, who attended the conference. The four plenary lectures were: “What Exactly is the Septuagint?” by Russell Fuller; “How Did the Early Church Use the LXX?” by Jeffrey Riddle; “What was the Reformation Perspective on the LXX?” by David Kranendonk; and “Why Does the Septuagint Matter Today?” by Christian McShaffrey.[x] He avoids the fourth and replaces it by mentioning – and then dismissing – a short paper that was not particularly relevant to his cause (because it was a paper given in a breakout session).[xi] When Ward excludes one of the primary speakers at the conference he is reviewing, how can we have any confidence when he says things like, “none of the speakers reckon in any detail with…” (p. 173). How can the reader know this, when Ward refuses to present all the facts?

On page 173 Ward muddies the waters by implying that Confessional Bibliologists are tilting at windmills, then gives examples that show they are not, including citing the ESV preface concerning using the LXX (and other ancient versions) “to support a divergence from the Masoretic text” (p. 174). He further stirs the mud by saying that Confessional Bibliologists oppose use of the LXX (p. 176), as if the conference presenters do not know the difference between using the LXX to help understand Hebrew words and using it to emend the base text to reflect the reading of the LXX rather than the MT. Their opposition is not to use of the LXX or other early versions to help understand words and such like, but to the use of the LXX to change the Hebrew Masoretic text. Ward even points to examples where modern versions do just that, such as the NIV at Genesis 4:8.[xii] Who’s tilting at whom?

Perhaps Ward raises some questions that Confessional Bibliologists will need and want to answer, but the overall excursus runs off in the wrong direction, smattered with misrepresentations and falsehoods.

While excluding the Confessional Bibliologists from giving their viewpoint, the editors chose to have a Roman Catholic scholar give a Catholic viewpoint. James B. Prothro’s chapter “A Roman Catholic Approach” injects further questions about the authoritative canon (pp. 190-191), gives due deference to the deuterocanonicals (pp. 184, 187, 204), and even in an indirect way questions sola scriptura (pp. 193).[xiii] However, “A Roman Catholic Approach” fits the mold for which the editors were looking – a view between the poles that gives some authority to the LXX, rather than all or none (p. 2).[xiv] The book ends with Myrto Theocharous summarizing things, and Septuagint scholar Karen Jobes reflecting on the overall topic.[xv]

Straight talk, no excursus.

The Authority of the Septuagint contains a lot of information that I found interesting, educational, and even helpful, even though I disagree with the book’s aim and its conclusions. Nevertheless, to a greater degree, I found that The Authority of the Septuagint, like sheep and commentaries, went far astray. This is especially true in the choice to have Mark Ward – of all people – write the excursus on Confessional Bibliology. In his so-called review of the Confessional Bibliology book Why I Preach from the Received Text, Mark Ward ended with an imprecatory prayer against Confessional Bibliology, “I pray that its days will be few.” On his blogpost “Breaking My Two-Year Silence on Confessional Bibliology,” Ward professed to disliking leading proponents of Confessional Bibliology.[xvi] Yet Lanier and Ross chose this man to run off and on about Confessional Bibliology.[xvii] They obviously knew that Ward was an opponent of the position. Ross, in fact, was a guest on the podcast when Ward “broke his silence.”[xviii] Ross also attended the very Reformation Bible Society conference that Ward misrepresented in his excursus! He knew better. The editors could not have not known that Ward misrepresented parts of the conference, dislikes leading proponents of the position, and desires that the Confessional Bibliology position should be destroyed! I find their choice of Mark Ward to write about Confessional Bibliology in their book to be misguided, reprehensible, and unsuitable for a book foisted on the public as “academic.”

In their “Preface,” Lanier and Ross say that a project like this could easily “go off the rails” (p. vii).[xix] I believe it did. This book will stand as a perpetual stain on the reputation, honesty, and decency of its editors, as well as a question mark on the quality of oversight and care put into the materials published by InterVarsity Press/IVP Academic.

Endnotes.

---

[i] https://www.ivpress.com/the-authority-of-the-septuagint
[ii] The information about contributors says that Mark Ward “serves as editor for Crossway Publishers.” Ward was not an editor with Crossway when the book was published in 2025. He was only there from May to November in 2024. However, he probably was in that position at the time he contributed the excursus. https://byfaithweunderstand.com/c-v/ | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wewxfs5gE9Q
[iii] For example, κολληθήσεται appears in B D W Θ 078; προσκολληθήσεται appears in א C L Z f¹ 33.
[iv] Authentical = original, genuine, trustworthy, reliable.
[v] He also includes this “chapter” on his YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w2hkulghmI
[vi]  https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2022/07/24/review-why-i-preach-from-the-received-text/ “I am dismayed that the tiny Confessional Bibliology movement has gathered enough strength to publish it. I pray that its days will be few.”
[vii] http://www.jeffriddle.net/2022/07/wm-243-responding-to-another-comment-by.html I was one of several individuals – including Dane Jöhannson, Dwayne Green, and Tim Berg – who advised and asked Mark to stop calling Confessional Bibliology “KJV-Onlyism” – to which he agreed, writing, “I have prayerfully considered their appeals and yours, and I have decided to stop using that label” for Confessional Bibliology. However, he did not stop.
[viii] This is another instance showing that Ward misunderstands Confessional Bibliology and is not qualified to lecture or write about it. First, it implies that Ward is not familiar with the OT views of the Reformers and the Protestant Scholastics. Westminster 1.8 (as well as the Savoy and 1689 London Confessions) is a touchstone of the Confessional Bibliology movement, and clearly includes the Old Testament in Hebrew as one of the two confessional texts. Additionally, this is addressed in Why I Preach from the Received Text (e.g., pp. 15-17), which Mark Ward reviewed as soon as it was available in July 2022. To address Confessional Bibliology’s position on the Old Testament as if it were some new thing suggests either pretense or incompetence.
[ix] Ward again misrepresents that he is discussing the “four main presenters” on page 178.
[x] https://www.textandtranslation.org/videos-2024-reformation-bible-society-conference/
[xi] Not that there was anything wrong with this short paper, just that it is misrepresented by Ward as if it were one of the plenary lectures. Short papers in breakout sessions are usually situated somewhat more peripherally to the main topic than the plenary lectures. Ward knows how conferences work in this regard.
[xii] The ESV adds from the LXX to the text of Psalm 145:13, and this book notes other places where the LXX “corrects” the Hebrew.
[xiii] Prothro provides a “fraternal twin” to Daniel Wallace’s “gift that keeps on giving.” Prothro writes: “At the same time, it is not as though we do not have God’s Word unless we have a perfect Bible. Given the textual evidence, it would be difficult in most cases to know that we had such a Bible even if we did” (p. 190).
[xiv] …there must be some option between these two poles…” Another interesting thing about the inclusion of a Roman Catholic view: Many modern Protestants and evangelicals sound closer to the Roman Catholics who were debating the Protestant Scholastics and further from the view of men like John Owen and Francis Turretin. Greogry Lanier describes Prothro as “one of our Cambridge buddies who is now Roman Catholic.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JlFGgO7g4
[xv] It was my impression that Myrto Theocharous is not all that familiar with Confessional Bibliology and assumed that Ward was shooting straight.
[xvi] https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2024/09/26/breaking-my-two-year-silence-on-confessional-bibliology/
[xvii] Gregory Lanier has also exhibited personal distaste for representatives of Confessional Bibliology. He has described them as “grumpy Protestants who really don't like what we’re doing.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JlFGgO7g4

[xviii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wozfw14b4n8
[xix] There is an interesting “fraternal twinship” between “go off the rails” and “excursus.” The latter comes from Latin excurrere, “to run out of.”

Not compromising the method

Continuing Alan Jacobs’s thought on translation, from last week.

“It is noteworthy that Tyndale never thought to adopt such a strategy, despite his concern that the boy at the plow know the Bible. He understood perfectly well that many of the English words a faithful translation required him to employ would be unknown to many of his readers; however, his response to this problem was not to use only common words but to append to his translation a glossary of difficult terms. (At a time when real dictionaries were unheard of, this was a brilliant and innovative solution. Alas, Tyndale did not live to implement it.) Otherwise, readers would be in the lamentable situation of being unable to distinguish Tyndale’s words from those of the text; and if he intruded his own words—even if those words were only meant to clarify or explain the Bible’s—he would, by his own lights, have become a traitor rather than a translator.

“...Wycliffe: ‘The faithful whom he calls in meekness and humility of heart, whether they be clergy or laity, male or female, bending the neck of their inner man to the logic and style of Scripture will find In it the power to labour and the wisdom hidden from the proud.’ God indeed reveals to the ‘little children’ what is hidden from the ‘wise and understanding,’ but transforming oneself into a little child is the arduous work of a lifetime. Christ’s yoke is easy and his burden light, but we don’t like bending our necks to receive it—and no translation, however it accommodates itself to our language and understanding, can change that.”

 Alan Jacobs, Wayfaring: Essays, Pleasant and Unpleasant, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010, pp. 14-15

Alan Jacobs is Distinguished Professor of Humanities in the Honors Program at Baylor University, and a Senior Fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virsginia.

The Christian’s Consolation

1. Come and taste, along with me,
Consolation running free,
From my Father’s glorious throne,
Sweeter than the honey comb.

2. Wherefore should I seek alone?
Two are better still than one;
More that come, of free good will.
Makes the banquet sweeter still.

3. Saints in glory sing aloud,
To behold an heir of God,
Coming in at grace’s door,
Making up the number more.

4. Goodness running like a stream
From the New Jerusalem,
By its constant breaking forth,
Sweetens earth and heaven both.

5. Sinful nature, vile and base,
Cannot stop the run of grace,
While there is a God to give,
Or a sinner to receive.

6. When I go to heaven’s store,
Asking for a little more,
Jesus gives a double share,
Calling me a gleaner there.

7. Then, rejoicing, home I go,
From this feast of heaven below,
Gleaning manna on the road
Dropping from the mouth of God.

8. Heaven there and heaven here,
Comforts every where appear,
This I boldly can declare,
Since my soul receives a share.

The above hymn was written by John Leland. It is printed in The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland: including Some Events in His Life (Miss L. F. Greene, New York, NY: G. W. Wood, 1845, page 325). Sometimes it is confused with a hymn by Caleb Jarvis Taylor, which shares the same first line. Taylor’s hymn is paired with Weary Pilgrim in The Sacred Harp (p. 326). Leland’s hymn is paired with Come and Taste with Me (with additional material) in The Southern Harmony (p. 105). The tune Moberly by W. L. Card (p. 181) is recommended for Leland’s hymn in The Primitive Baptist Hymnal by Sears & Ausmus.

John Leland was an influential Baptist minister in America, before, during, and after the Revolution. He was born at Grafton, Massachusetts May 14 or 15, 1754, the son of James Leland. He began to preach at the age of 20 in Massachusetts He moved to Virginia for about 15 years, ministering there, then returned to Massachusetts circa 1790.  Leland supported the struggle for religious liberty, and exerted some influence on Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others. He married Sarah Devine in 1776, and they had several children. Leland died January 14, 1841. He and his wife are buried at the Cheshire Cemetery in Berkshire County, Massachusetts. John Julian describes Leland as eccentric and states, “His influence seems to have been equalled by his peculiarities” (John Julian, Dictionary of Hymnology, 1907, p. 670).

Other hymns written by John Leland include:

• The day is past and gone
• O when shall I see Jesus
• Christians, if your hearts are warm. 

Building the House of God

Speaking in the square

In Imagined space in Sacred Harp singing, Jonathon M. Smith writes about controlling divisiveness by limiting leaders addressing the class from the hollow square. Today, this is often presented and misrepresented as the standard historical practice which must be held as the norm. Yet, Smith himself acknowledges this is a teaching method imposed in modernity that does not actually square with historical practice.[i] On page 246, footnote 139, Smith writes:

“Documentary evidence suggests that this norm was regularly breeched in Sacred Harp singings in the Southeast throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by singers who addressed the class when called to lead. However, modern singing schools promote the ideal of refraining from speaking from the center of the square as an important historical precedent.”

Just because you can get up a singing camp to promote the views of a select group as normative does not change historical facts. In days gone by, when the standard practitioner of Sacred Harp was a Christian, no one tried to suppress testimonies in the square. They were offensive to none, with the possible exception of someone who went on and on with no end in sight! However, that was about the consumption of time, not the content of the talk. Today, many modern practitioners feel a special need to suppress such spiritual expressions, since they offend their worldview of unbelief. Somehow they are able to compartmentalize the sacred nature of the old Christian hymns in The Sacred Harp, but cannot abide a real-time expression of the same sacred nature made by living Christian witnesses. May God help us.

---

[i] Smith twice alludes to this being standard historical practice, including claiming that “early Sacred Harp singings” adopted the practice of not speaking in the square. Significantly, he does not actually provide any historical evidence.

[ii] Some things to think about. Who says the purpose was to control divisiveness? Is there any historical evidence that it was used this way? Why is this a modern concern? Who brought in divisiveness?

Religious effect of a hymn

When Joshua Leavitt sent out The Christian Lyre, he testified that “the work is not designed to please scientific musicians, so much as to profit plain christians…” He generally gave a melody and bass for the tune, but sometimes only the melody, writing, “As the number of parts is apt to distract the attention of an audience, or to occupy them with the music instead of the sentiment, the tunes here printed will generally be accompanied with only a simple bass, and sometimes not even with that. In a vast multitude of cases the religious effect of a hymn is heightened by having all sing the air only.”

He also possesses a good attitude about its future: “Possessing no musical skill beyond that of ordinary plain singers, I send out my work, without pretensions. If it aids the progress of Christ’s cause, I shall be rewarded. If not, I shall be accepted according to what I had, and not according to what I had not. And it will prepare the way for some other person to do it better.” (Preface, page 3)

Looking at the Lord’s Supper

I Corinthians 11:23-29 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Notice five views or ways we ought to “look at” or approach the Lord’s Supper. As we observe the Lord’s Supper, may these thoughts enter and affect our hearts and minds.

Five Looks of the Lord’s Supper

1. Appreciation (gratitude; thankful recognition). In the Lord’s Supper we look upward in thanks for God’s provision, verse 24 “when he had given thanks.”

In everything give thanks. In general, we are to be thankful for God’s provisions for us. All we have is the Lords and we owe him all. He supplies us bread and drink. In the context of the Lord’s Supper, he supplies the bread and wine, which is his body and his blood. Let us be thankful that God provided a Lamb for the offering, a Lamb to take away the sin of the world.

2. Retrospection (the act or process of looking back on things past). In the Lord’s Supper we look backward in memory of the crucifixion, verse 24-25 “this do in remembrance of me.”

As we thank him for his life and blood, we look backward in memory to the event of the past. The event from all eternity. The event that shapes the future. The crucifixion is why the Son of God came into world, to give his life a ransom for many. It is backward in time; it is an historical event. In looking back, we are brought face to face with the past, the present, and the future. But not just the event – the man of the event – “this do in remembrance of me!”

3. Manifestation (an act of demonstration; making evident or showing plainly). In the Lord’s Supper we look outward in proclamation to others, verse 26 “ye do shew the Lord’s death.”

The Lord’s Supper teaches the truth; the Lord’s Supper paints a picture. It manifests in bread and wine the Lord’s death. Those who participate and those who watch see what we cannot say. We preach the gospel with our tongues. We praise his name with our lips. But here in the Lord’s Supper, in common elements from our common experience, we portray the truth in tones we cannot speak and in tunes we cannot sing. Oh, the mystery of the divine.

4. Prospection (the act of looking forward). In the Lord’s Supper we look forward in hope of our Lord’s return, verse 26 “till he come.”

In terms of frequency or the time of the Lord’s Supper, it hard to find a specific schedule that must be followed. But we are to do it “oft” and do it “till he comes.” While looking backward to the marvelous death of our Lord, we are reminded that he yet lives and that he is coming back again. Every time we eat this bread and drink this cup we ought to whisper, at least in our minds if not on our tongues, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”

5. Introspection (an act of the examining of one’s own thoughts, impressions, and feelings). In the Lord’s Supper we look inward in examination of our participation, verse 28 “let a man examine himself.”

The Lord’s Supper is not an impersonal and perfunctory experience in which we just go through outward formal motions of eating and drinking some symbolic thing. It calls us to introspection, an examination of our deepest motives of observance. Look not to determine your worthiness, for we are all unworthy and yet made worthy by the blood of Jesus. Drink it worthily, a description of the manner of observance rather than the merit of the person observing, discerning the Lord’s body as you partake of him in that which symbolizes him. The examination is not to keep us from eating and drinking, but to prepare us for eating and drinking! Let a man examine himself, and so – in that self-examined state – let him eat and drink.

To these five looks in verses 23-29 we may add a sixth, where we look from –

6. Participation (or cooperation, an instance of acting together in a common purpose or activity). In the Lord’s Supper we look from inside the congregation, verse 18 “when ye come together in the church” (cf. also, “unto the church of God which is at Corinth,” 1:2)

The Lord’s Supper is not an individual, personalized, or isolated experience. It is a church ordinance, observed when the local congregation gratefully and prayerfully comes together to remember the Lord’s substitutionary death on the cross for our sins.

May we (in the assembly) solemnly, thankfully, and joyfully commune together and with our Lord – looking upward, looking backward, looking outward, looking forward, and looking inward. Praise ye the Lord!

Translating true to the original

Alan Jacobs criticizes the trend in modern translation toward preferring clarity for the reader above fidelity to the original.

“In translation, fidelity is the ultimate imperative and trumps every other virtue: even clarity or readability…modern translations operate under the (perhaps unconscious) ‘feeling that the Bible, because of its canonical status, has to be made accessible—indeed, transparent, to all.’…

“…later translators of Scripture have operated under the (again, often unconscious) assumption that the ideal experience of reading Scripture is one in which clarity manifests itself fully and immediately.

“Undergirding this assumption is, I think, a memory of Christ’s disturbing statement: ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children.’ Does this suggest that any translation that presents more difficulties to the ‘little children’ than to the ‘wise and understanding’ is somehow un-Christian? The idea may seem absurd, but it would be unwise to underrate the pressure of such thoughts in an assertively egalitarian, democratizing, and anti-elitist culture like our own today. Only in such a culture would something like ‘dynamic equivalence’ models of translation be developed, because dynamic equivalence—which encourages translators to ask how we in our time and place might say whatever the Bible is taken to say—allows one to deal with difficult passages in the original text not by translating them but by interpreting their obscurities out of existence. Such passages must be cleared away, whenever possible, in order to make the crooked places straight and the rough places plain. The simple and problem-free translation then offers itself as evidence of the simplicity and problem-freeness of the biblical text itself. The translators thus stand to their readers in loco parentis: the ‘little children’ never have to know what struggles their scholarly fathers undertook in order to protect them from the agonies of interpretive confusion.”

Alan Jacobs, Wayfaring: Essays, Pleasant and Unpleasant, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010, pp. 12-14