A Rejoinder to Kyle Young’s Critique of My Arguments Regarding Matthew’s Dependence Upon Greek Jonah in Matthew 12:40 and a Simple Challenge to Those Leading (Rösel and Cook) and Septuagint Scholars and the Current Approach to Understanding any “Theology of the Septuagint”.
A Rejoinder to Kyle Young’s Critique of My Arguments Regarding Matthew’s Dependence Upon Greek Jonah in Matthew 12:40 and a Simple Challenge to Those Leading (Rösel and Cook) and Septuagint Scholars and the Current Approach to Understanding any “Theology of the Septuagint”.
As background, I had asked the editor of the journal quite some time ago for the opportunity to write a review of “Toward a theology of the Septuagint: Stellenbosch Congress on the Septuagint”. Given the fact that I had published my own views of how that task might be responsibly accomplished based on an understanding of what is meant by “Theology”, and the fact that my position contradicted the views of others, I deemed it as what actually should occur within scholarly, critical discussion.
At the same time, I was not surprised when my request, after being taken to the editorial board, or was it the IOSS executive?, was denied. How is it that a scholarly guild would seek to ignore and suppress discussion with someone well-published and well-reviewed who served on the IOSCS executive for years? Obviously, the unpublished article that I circulated prior to that congress that critiqued multiple aspects of what has taken place in Septuagint studies and with some of the leadership of the IOSCS got some noses out of joint. However, the fact that it may have hurt someone’s feelings is irrelevant to the substantial criticisms that I wrote and the evidential basis for them. In addition, the subject was writing a book review of the Congress volume.
As I argued in a lengthy introduction to that unpublished paper, the IOSCS is supposed to be an academic society in which people’s views are subject to critique. If they are inadequate, that is not my problem and a real critical scholar has to prove they are worth their salt.
One of the major criticisms that I made in that paper was the foundation for and aims of the IOSCS commentary series and that it was wrong-headed for multiple reasons. I pointed out that under the leadership of Al Pietersma that the whole decision-making process was commandeered by Al based on his ideas, which I always believed and argued were faulty. More importantly, I expressed that the endeavour was being carried out more or less as if they were PhD dissertations similar to the slew of Harvard PhD’s on Theodotion in the seventies. Furthermore, the volumes would not make a significant contribution to or advance the discipline and would be a financial failure. I note that there has still not been even one volume published and I am pretty certain it has to do with the original problem that plagued the production of the Septuagint translation into English.. I wrote in that paper:
When the project was first conceived the general guide for translators was they should be able to: “retain the majority of the English text and change what you must.” After several years and the issues being encountered by translators, the guiding principle became: “change the majority of the English text and retain what you can.” This was never acknowledged as any change in understanding of the texts relationship, nor did the difficulties with the approach have any influence when Al determined the nature of the commentary series.
I assume that the 20 year absence of even one volume is because the individual contributors are faced with dilemmas in the text that they have no idea how to reconcile, especially when senior scholars should have been writing the volumes in the first place. Of course, they preferred to be the editorial board, because they did not want to write such drivel anyway.
In any case, in early March of 2025 I decided to track down the volume and checkout the articles. I was not surprised by what I found because I expected that the IOSCS and the leaders of the movement to write about the theology of the Septuagint would blithely ignore my critique of their views and my position.
To my total surprise and encouragement there was a solitary contribution by Gideon R. Kotzé that gave me some hope. Among other things, he stated,
Based on the presupposition that “theology of/in the Septuagint is not limited to or controlled by the intentions of the translator,” [which goes to the heart of what we mean by theology!] he [McLay] discusses three points that merit close attention in future discussions on the topic: (a) theology of/in the Septuagint, is not limited to the Old Greek text; (b) theology of/in the Septuagint is not limited to differences between the Greek texts and the presumed Semitic source texts; and (c) theology of/in the Septuagint may be examined and described with the same legitimacy and using the same basic principles as a theology of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible or New Testament. Proponents of a different view ignore these points, and McLay’s arguments, only to the detriment of their own designs.
Despite my paper that was published in 2010, the remainder of those in the discipline sail merrily along without any self-evaluation or critical assessment. It’s another example, like the commentary series, of, “this is the way we are doing it, regardless if it is theoretically sound”. That would be a kind assessment of the mentality of those involved.
I read a good portion of the volume, and decided it would be more productive to write a response to Kyle Young’s article, “Product Received: Influence of ‘the Old in the New’ on the Formulation of Theologies of ‘the’ Septuagint.” It is an interesting example of the theological use of the Greek versions by a NT author and an opportunity for me to engage with someone who believes they have undermined my argument.
After an initial note to Kyle via LinkedIN because I was not sure how lengthy a message I could send, my initial comments to Kyle were as follows:
Hey Kyle, I could only send 200 characters, so had to be pointed. My email is mclaytim at yahoo dot com if you want to send a message. I'll reply with more. You are probably unaware of an unpublished article I circulated prior to Stellenbosch critiquing numerous aspects of what is going on in LXX. I am somewhat interested in the misguided approach to theology. Finally, for this brief message, you wrote, "“Besides McLay, all in favor of writing a theology of the Septuagint conclude that theologizing should focus only on differences between the translations and underlying forms. (p. 84)". a. I would hope you would realize that majority opinion has ZERO to do with what is true/ethical/ etc. in any circumstance and if you think that is the only instance in my life, you are sadly mistaken; b. the previous article by Gideon R. Kotzé contradicts that claim. I was curious what I would read, and expected the same old, So, I was pleasantly surprised that at least one person could see. People double down in their BELIEFS and they follow their path, even when they don't know what they are talking about. Tov[‘s article in the same volume], for example is hilarious. Most LXX people have ZERO clue about theology, which is a big part of the problem. They are text-critics.
The above is all pretty self-explanatory. Though my remark regarding Tov is not as germane to the present purposes, a few comments are in order. I don’t need to go into any more detail than critique his opening paragraph to demonstrate that his understanding of theology is devoid of substance or merit.
First, he is just another Septuagintalist who has failed to respond to my criticisms or how my view is lacking compared to the majority view. Failure to address foundational issues of methodology reflects the views of those who think far too highly of their own opinion. I am quite certain that he is aware of my paper on theology as well as the unpublished paper and his exclusion of dealing with James Barr, who is one of the best minds and theologians of the past century, is a symptom of his abject failure to engage in meaningful critical discussion of the nature of theology.
Second, is his opening paragraph where he states:
This study focuses on the interaction between theological and other approaches to the LXX, especially the text-critical approach. In my view, the recognition of theology in a translation is not a solid fact, neither does it reflect a statement about what we identify in the translation, but it is a subjective recognition of a way of understanding elements in the translation. The description of theology in a translation can hardly ever be descriptive, since there is always an element of interpretation involved: deviations from MT that appear to us to be theological also could have been caused by other factors. (pp. 23-24)
To lead with, ‘In my view, “the recognition of theology in a translation is not a solid fact,” is mostly a comment on his own lack of understanding. Even if one were to employ what I have argued is a flawed approach by the other contributors, such a remark is irresponsible. He then adds his reasoning that, “since there is always an element of interpretation involved.” Really?
How is there “always an element of interpretation” in books or parts of books where even he would have to admit it is an original composition? The additions to Esther come to mind. Another easy example is that I have provided incontrovertible textual evidence that the manuscripts that remain for OG Daniel Chs. 4-6 have been completely revised with “Theodotion’s text”. Most of the stories that remain have no relation to MT and do not reflect anything like translation Greek. If Tov continues to maintain that it is the other way around and that the completely independent versions of these chapters are somehow Midrashic in nature, when up to 90% of the remaining has Theodotion readings literally word for word, then that is more evidence of his disregard for the evidence, and obstinance at best.
Third, and even more to the point, is his arbitrary declaration that, “theology in a translation can hardly ever be descriptive, since there is always an element of interpretation involved”, is a classic logical fallacy based on a false dichotomy. The fact that interpretation may be involved does not exclude that the resulting translation reflects a theological understanding. If there is interpretation involved, it MUST reflect the views of the writer or translator by definition.
Fourth, what makes the statement even more elementary as a position is his remark that theology is, “ the subjective recognition of a way of understanding elements in the translation.” Of course it MUST reflect a subjective evaluation, just as any description must, because that is the nature of theology!
Finally, his dogmatic pronouncements, like Al’s, are based in very specific notions of how the Greek translation is a. essentially an inter-linear to MT; b. that because of its interlinear nature that the MT is always the arbiter of meaning, which underpins his comments and limited understanding of what theology is.
As noted above, there are original compositions, which flatly contradicts such a draconian point of view. As an aside, I have argued in that unpublished paper that LXX studies has marginalized all of the evidence that indicates that, at minimum, nullifies the relationship of Greek versions to the MT, in particular.
What is even more mind-boggling is Tov’s assertions are at complete odds with his own position about the pluriformity of texts at the beginning of the Common Era and is, therefore, logically incompatible.
So, yes, I think Tov’s strongly stated views of such naïve opinions are “hilarious”.
I had not heard a response from Kyle after providing my email, so on Mar. 9, I decided that I would write up my response and send it to Kyle through LinkedIn, if possible. I did that. Then, I figured I may as well expand that response and create the present paper response. So, I spent several hours more on this Sunday, compiling this paper.
Let’s being with my lengthier response to Kyle that follows below:
So Kyle, Apparently you are not willing to engage in critical discussion. So, I’ll make my response to your comments as concise as I can. 1. What is your evidential basis that the writer of Matthew, let alone any of the NT writers, knew Hebrew (p. 79)? I saw long afterwards [many years] that A. Salvesen had made the same unsubstantiated claim in a review of my volume and you are just parroting. This is significant, especially when you cite my more explicit claim in my theology paper in 2003 [should be 2010] that, ““it would seem reasonable to assume, based on his use of the Jewish Scriptures in Greek, that Paul (and all the other NT writers) (my bold) was influenced in his theological thinking because of reading the Scriptures in Greek” (p.74). People’s views change and develop. Though I may not have understood as clearly and stated it as explicitly that the NT writers only used Greek, the implications are prominent in my volume. So, you actually cite my more mature view and then you make a criticism based on a faulty, unsubstantiated premise. That’s without even pursuing the question about the relationship, if any, between the original Greek to a presumed Hebrew Vorlage.
2. You slough off my analysis based primarily on one phrase that is based on the assumption above, when it is only part of the verse. You first claim, ”the Greek κοιλία replacing both בֶּ טֶ ן , “internal organs” and מֵ עֶ ה , “womb” offers no significant divergence from the Hebrew, though two nouns indeed collapse into one.” What? The use of “belly” is a rendering (I would no longer accept that it HAS to be a change in the Greek from the Hebrew) that connects “the belly of the sea monster” with the “belly of Hades” in Greek Jonah for “three days and three nights”. How is that not important? This connection is crucial to what Matthew does. The Greek Jonah that we have then reads, “into the depths of the heart of the sea”. Whether it [i.e. Greek Jonah] is or isn’t a rendering of the Hebrew לְ בַ ב יַמִ ים בּ מְ צוּלָ ה is immaterial. What is important is that Matthew reads ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς “into the heart of the earth.” So, Matthew omits “into the depths” and renders “sea” with “earth”. In what world is “sea” in MT and Greek Jonah the same as “earth”? Finally, the Hebrew and Greek both state that Jonah cries out “out of [from] the belly of Hades”. However, the connection between the “belly of the sea monster, the belly of the earth and the belly of Hades” is ONLY derivable from what is rendered in the Greek.
3. You preface your dismissal of my argument with the statement, “McLay ‘purportedly’ (my quotes) finds evidence of the ‘descent into Hades’ and solves the crux interpretum of the resurrected saints in Matt 27:51b–53.” So, you dismiss my whole argument about 27:51b-53 without presenting or interacting with my arguments about Matthew’s use of Greek Jonah as a whole. Personally, I have NEVER used such irresponsible language EVER. I have dismissed inadequate and unsubstantiated views of people plenty but they were dismissed based on a fair examination and critique of their position and all the relevant evidence. Check my publications. Greek Jonah has the rendering that makes explicit connections between the belly of the sea monster, the earth and Hades for three days and nights. Matthew employs that connection in 12:40 in what he says about the Son of Man and specifically repeats that it is for “three days and three nights.” Matthew’s theological use and dependence upon Greek Jonah is evidenced further in 16:18 and 27:51b-53. If anything is “alleged” in your article, it is your alleged scholarly critique.
4. Your appeal to authority with the comment, “Besides McLay, all in favor of writing a theology of the Septuagint conclude that theologizing should focus only on differences between the translations and underlying forms,” is a further reflection of a logical fallacy and lack of critical thought. In my Theology paper I gave REASONS why the position you follow is inadequate and presented an alternative that I ARGUED is [a] better way based on an understanding of theology. In contrast, I am unaware that even ONE of the authorities to whom you appeal has EVER even attempted to respond to my arguments or to demonstrate why my understanding is lacking. How does that characterize scholarship in any way? You blindly follow authorities, yet you, like them, offer no reasons to explain how my position is somehow insufficient in comparison.
Believing something doesn’t make it so. There is nothing commendable in such lazy and uncritical thought. So, I encourage or DARE you to learn about theology and actually engage in real scholarship. Write a paper to explain the error of my ways and unlike the pack you follow, I will freely acknowledge that my view is insufficient or wrong-headed, and sing your praises IF you are capable of doing such. Otherwise, the views of those authorities are hollow and arrogant at best.
The basis of critical thinking is to assume the person is WRONG until proven correct not to proceed as if valid criticisms don’t exist. I have already given reasons to show why they are wrong. If you just believe something then it just shows why you are not a critical thinker. Why accept someone else’s view?. Show me, Kyle. Be an actual scholar. . Tim McLay
I conclude with a call to action by anyone in LXX studies, but particularly those leading and contributing to the project for the theological use of the Septuagint. I encourage you, even more, I DARE you to actually learn something about what theology is and how it is practiced and defend your point of view. Argue how mine is misguided. You should start with James Barr and his volume on Biblical Theology . It is excellent reading as always, as well as one of the funniest books I have ever read. I never mastered his use of understatement and have preferred to “say what I mean and mean what I say”.
Do I expect any of you, especially those on the executive to take up my challenge? LOL Not a hope in Hades (pun definitely intended!). Your intransigence says far more about you and academic hubris than it ever could about me and your personal feelings about me calling out flawed methodologies and leadership.
R. Tim McLay
March 9, 2025
PS: I presume that you are all are smart enough to figure out that I will circulate and publish this paper, regardless of your attempts to stifle scholarly debate and actual critical discussion. What little I know about your interference with the content Gideon R. Kotzé’s paper is telling in and of itself.
The fact is most people are sheep, and it is quite evident in the criticisms I have made with respect to the IOSCS and the scholarly hubris with respect to theology is an excellent example. However, not everyone is a sheep. People will read this paper and my article on theology in 2010 and question the approach to theology by textual-critics, just as they should. That is what scholarly interaction and publishing is supposed to foster rather than protect insecure people and squelch those who question and critique those in power. In the end, the attitude has been quite laughable and pathetic in my view but hey, the ones who have led and are leading various aspects of the IOSCS are the ones who don’t want to be questioned.
I distributed the above paper (though I have corrected some minor typos) to over 20 members of the IOSCS on Mar. 9, 2025.
