The Question Must Be Framed Textually, Not Polemically

The question of whether the New Testament authors quoted the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text requires careful definition before any answer is given. The issue is not whether the apostles rejected the Hebrew Scriptures, because the New Testament consistently treats the Old Testament as the written Word of Jehovah given through Israel. Jesus said, “Scripture cannot be broken” at John 10:35, and He appealed to the written text as final authority when He answered Satan with quotations from Deuteronomy in Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:7, and Matthew 4:10. Paul likewise wrote that “all Scripture is inspired by God” in 2 Timothy 3:16, referring first to the sacred writings Timothy had known from childhood, as stated in 2 Timothy 3:15. The real question is narrower: when the New Testament writers cited the Old Testament in Greek, did their wording come from the Greek translation commonly called the Septuagint, from a fresh rendering of the Hebrew, or from a Greek form that reflected a Hebrew Vorlage different from the later medieval Masoretic tradition. The answer is that the New Testament writers used more than one manner of citation, and the evidence must be weighed passage by passage. Some New Testament quotations correspond closely to the Septuagint; some agree more closely with the Hebrew consonantal tradition represented later by the Masoretic Text; and some reflect a Greek rendering of an Old Testament text-form known in the first century C.E. The matter therefore cannot be reduced to the claim that the apostles simply preferred Greek over Hebrew, because the surviving evidence shows a disciplined use of Scripture in the language needed by the audience.

The Septuagint Was a Translation, Not a Second Original

The Septuagint was not one single translation produced with the same method across every Old Testament book. The Pentateuch was translated earlier and with greater care than several later books, while books such as Job, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Esther show substantial differences in translation technique and textual form. This matters because saying “the New Testament quotes the Septuagint” often hides the fact that the Septuagint itself is a collection of Greek renderings with different levels of literalness, paraphrase, and textual dependence. The Hebrew Scriptures remained the original-language base, because Jehovah gave His covenant revelation through Hebrew-speaking prophets and scribes, as reflected in Romans 3:2, where Paul says that the Jews “were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.” A translation can faithfully convey inspired meaning without becoming an independent original-language authority over the Hebrew source. This is the same principle used when an English reader quotes a faithful Bible translation today; the quotation is Scripture in translation, yet the original-language text remains the proper textual foundation. When the apostles quoted Greek wording, they were not granting all Septuagint readings equal textual value in every place. They were using a Greek form of Scripture that communicated the inspired Old Testament message to Greek-speaking readers, while the Hebrew text remained the documentary base for Old Testament textual criticism.

Greek Was the Natural Written Medium of the New Testament

The New Testament was written in Koine Greek because that language functioned widely across the eastern Roman world in the first century C.E. A quotation of the Old Testament inside a Greek New Testament document naturally had to appear in Greek, whether the writer used an existing Greek translation, adapted it, or translated the Hebrew directly. This is an important distinction, because a Greek quotation does not automatically prove dependence on a specific Septuagint manuscript form. Matthew, Luke, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and the writer of Hebrews wrote for readers who could receive the Scriptural argument in Greek, and a Greek citation served that purpose. For example, Acts 17:2-3 describes Paul reasoning from the Scriptures in synagogue settings, while Acts 17:17 shows him also reasoning in the marketplace with others who needed the message expressed in a public Greek-speaking environment. In such settings, Greek scriptural wording was useful, especially among Jews of the Dispersion and Gentile God-fearers. The same practical reality appears in Acts 8:32-35, where the Ethiopian official is reading Isaiah, and Philip explains the passage concerning Jesus. The inspired argument rests on the authority of the Old Testament text, not on the claim that every Greek word used in a citation must represent the original Hebrew wording with mechanical precision.

Some New Testament Quotations Closely Follow the Septuagint

There are places where the New Testament wording closely follows the Greek Septuagint, and denying this weakens sound textual analysis. Hebrews 10:5 quotes Psalm 40:6 with the wording, “a body you prepared for me,” while the Hebrew text of Psalm 40:6 reads literally in the sense of ears being opened or dug. The writer of Hebrews uses that Greek form to develop the argument that Jesus came to do God’s will through His prepared human body, as Hebrews 10:5-10 explains. The doctrinal point is not foreign to the Hebrew psalm, because the psalm contrasts external offerings with obedient submission to God’s will, and Jesus fulfilled that obedient submission perfectly. Another example is Hebrews 1:6, where the wording “let all the angels of God worship him” corresponds to the expanded Greek form associated with Deuteronomy 32:43 rather than the shorter Masoretic wording. The writer of Hebrews does not build a doctrine from a loose paraphrase; he uses a known Greek textual form that expressed the Son’s superiority over angels within the inspired argument of Hebrews 1:4-14. Acts 7:14 gives the number seventy-five for Jacob’s family entering Egypt, aligning with the Greek tradition of Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 rather than the seventy found in the Masoretic Text. These examples show that the New Testament writers sometimes used Greek Old Testament wording known to their readers and suitable for their inspired argument.

Some New Testament Quotations Follow the Hebrew Sense More Closely

Other New Testament quotations do not fit a simple Septuagint-dependence model, because they follow the Hebrew sense more closely or present a rendering independent of the extant Septuagint form. Matthew 2:15 quotes Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt I called my son,” and the quotation corresponds closely to the Hebrew text’s plain historical wording concerning Israel, which Matthew applies to Jesus as the true Son called out of Egypt. Matthew does not invent a new meaning; he identifies the historical pattern of Israel’s exodus as fulfilled in the life of the Messiah. At Matthew 8:17, the evangelist quotes Isaiah 53:4 in connection with Jesus healing the sick, using wording that reflects the Hebrew sense of bearing sicknesses and carrying pains rather than merely following a broad Greek rendering. The same Gospel shows direct engagement with Hebrew forms in names and explanations, as seen in Matthew 1:21, where the name Jesus is connected with salvation. Paul also shows deep familiarity with the Hebrew text when he argues from the singular “offspring” in Genesis 22:18 at Galatians 3:16. That argument depends on the form and sense of the Old Testament wording, not on a free Greek paraphrase detached from the Hebrew. These cases demonstrate that the New Testament authors were not limited to copying a Greek translation when the Hebrew sense required precise argumentation.

The Dead Sea Scrolls Clarify the First-Century Textual Setting

The discovery of Hebrew manuscripts from the Dead Sea region has clarified why some New Testament quotations agree with Greek forms that differ from the later Masoretic Text. Before those discoveries, some differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text were often assigned only to translator freedom or scribal alteration in Greek transmission. The Hebrew manuscript evidence now shows that certain Greek readings were translated from Hebrew texts that differed from the proto-Masoretic form. This does not mean the Hebrew text was uncontrolled or unreliable; it means that several Hebrew textual forms circulated before the consonantal text became more firmly standardized between the first and second centuries C.E. Jeremiah provides a major example, because the Greek Jeremiah is shorter and arranged differently than the Masoretic Jeremiah, and Hebrew evidence from the Dead Sea region confirms that shorter Hebrew forms existed. The same principle helps explain smaller New Testament citation differences where a Greek reading reflects a Hebrew Vorlage no longer preserved in the medieval Masoretic manuscript line. This is why the question should not be phrased as though the apostles chose the Septuagint against the Hebrew text. In several cases, the Greek form they used was itself a witness to an ancient Hebrew form, making the relationship more documentary than oppositional.

Matthew 1:23 and Isaiah 7:14 Show Translation and Fulfillment Together

Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 with the wording, “Look, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call his name Immanuel.” The Greek word used in Matthew corresponds to the Septuagint’s rendering of the Hebrew term in Isaiah 7:14, and Matthew applies the prophecy to the virgin conception of Jesus. The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 refers to a young woman of marriageable age and, in the prophetic context, is properly understood in harmony with virginity when fulfilled in the Messiah. Matthew’s Greek citation does not override the Hebrew; it gives the inspired fulfillment in the language of the New Testament. The angel’s explanation in Matthew 1:20 states that what was conceived in Mary was “by the Holy Spirit,” and Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph had no relations with her until she gave birth to a son. These details show that Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 is not dependent merely on a Greek lexical choice. The inspired fulfillment rests on the historical fact of Jesus’ conception by the Holy Spirit and on the prophetic wording of Isaiah. The Greek Septuagint provided a fitting wording for Matthew’s Greek readers, while the Hebrew prophecy remained the source text being fulfilled.

Acts 7:14 and Exodus 1:5 Show a Textual Variant, Not an Error

Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:14 says that Joseph summoned Jacob and “all his relatives, seventy-five persons in all.” Exodus 1:5 in the Hebrew Masoretic tradition gives seventy persons, while the Greek tradition gives seventy-five. Genesis 46:26-27 explains the count in Hebrew by distinguishing those who came from Jacob’s body and then giving the total connected with Jacob’s house in Egypt. The larger number in the Greek tradition reflects a different counting method that includes additional descendants associated with Joseph’s line. Stephen’s use of seventy-five is therefore not a mathematical error, and it is not proof that he dismissed the Hebrew Scriptures. He speaks in a Greek literary context preserved by Luke, and the number corresponds to a known Greek textual tradition. Since Acts presents Stephen addressing a Jewish council in Jerusalem, the speech itself likely occurred in a Semitic setting, while Luke’s inspired record gives it in Greek. The point of Acts 7:14 is not the arithmetic of Jacob’s household but Jehovah’s providential preservation of the patriarchal family in Egypt before the exodus described in Acts 7:17-36.

Hebrews 10:5 and Psalm 40:6 Show Inspired Use of a Greek Rendering

Hebrews 10:5 is one of the strongest examples raised in discussions of the Septuagint because it quotes Psalm 40:6 with “a body you prepared for me.” The Hebrew wording of Psalm 40:6 refers to ears being opened, emphasizing obedient hearing and submission to Jehovah’s will. The Greek rendering expresses that obedient submission through the prepared body of the speaker, and Hebrews applies it to Jesus’ entrance into the world. This is not a contradiction, because obedient hearing and embodied obedience belong together in the argument. Hebrews 10:7 continues by saying, “Look, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written about me, to do your will, O God,” which reflects the central meaning of Psalm 40:6-8. The writer of Hebrews uses the Greek wording because it directly serves the inspired argument that animal sacrifices could not permanently remove sins, while Jesus’ obedient offering did. Hebrews 10:10 then states that believers “have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” The Greek wording therefore functions as an accurate vehicle for the theological force of the Hebrew psalm, not as an apostolic rejection of the Hebrew text.

Romans 3:10-18 Shows Composite Citation Rather Than Mechanical Quotation

Romans 3:10-18 brings together a chain of Old Testament statements to prove the universal sinfulness of Jews and Greeks under sin. Paul draws from passages such as Psalm 14:1-3, Psalm 5:9, Psalm 140:3, Psalm 10:7, Isaiah 59:7-8, and Psalm 36:1. The sequence resembles Greek textual forms in several places, but Paul’s method is composite citation rather than a single continuous quotation from one Old Testament location. This is important because the apostle is not pretending that every sentence appears in one psalm exactly as arranged in Romans. He gathers inspired testimony from several places and presents the combined witness of Scripture. Romans 3:19 then states that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those under the Law, so that every mouth may be stopped. The authority rests on the written Old Testament witness as a whole, whether Paul cites individual statements in a Greek form or arranges them for a focused legal argument. The passage illustrates apostolic use of Scripture with precision of purpose, not the kind of rigid citation style demanded by later academic conventions.

The Masoretic Text Remains the Proper Old Testament Base

The Masoretic Text remains the proper base text for Old Testament textual criticism because it preserves the Hebrew tradition with exceptional care and consistency. The Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex represent the mature Masoretic tradition, while the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that proto-Masoretic readings already existed long before the medieval Masoretes. This means that the Masoretic tradition is not a late invention detached from earlier Hebrew transmission. At the same time, the Masoretic Text is not treated as doctrinally immune from examination, because textual criticism must weigh all documentary evidence. Where the Septuagint agrees with ancient Hebrew witnesses against the Masoretic Text, the evidence deserves serious attention. Where the Septuagint stands alone, especially in books with freer translation style, it cannot automatically displace the Hebrew. This balance protects textual criticism from both extremes: rejecting the Septuagint as useless and elevating it above the Hebrew original. The sound method begins with the Hebrew documentary base and uses ancient versions, including the Septuagint, as witnesses that can confirm, clarify, or occasionally preserve an earlier reading.

The Apostles Did Not Treat Translation as a Threat to Inspiration

The New Testament authors’ use of Greek Old Testament wording shows that faithful translation does not threaten the authority of Scripture. Jesus and the apostles treated the written Word as binding even when its meaning was communicated across languages. Matthew 22:31-32 shows Jesus grounding His argument about the resurrection in the wording of Exodus 3:6, where Jehovah identifies Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The force of the argument depends on the continuing covenant identity of Jehovah as the God of the patriarchs, not on a claim that only one language can convey divine truth. The apostles preached to Jews and Gentiles across language boundaries, and Acts 2:5-11 shows the good news being heard by people from many lands in their own languages. A translation that accurately conveys the inspired message functions as the Word of God for the reader, while textual criticism still distinguishes between the original-language text and later versions. This distinction is necessary because translations can be more literal in one place and more interpretive in another. The New Testament’s use of Greek Scripture therefore supports careful translation and textual study rather than careless dependence on any one version.

The Use of the Septuagint Does Not Undermine Biblical Reliability

The fact that New Testament writers sometimes quoted Septuagintal wording does not undermine the reliability of Scripture. It demonstrates that the inspired writers could use an accepted Greek rendering when that rendering accurately conveyed the Old Testament meaning or preserved an ancient Hebrew reading. The New Testament authors were not bound to modern citation conventions, such as exact verbal reproduction from a printed edition with quotation marks and footnotes. They cited, translated, summarized, and combined Scripture in ways recognized in Jewish teaching and synagogue argumentation of the first century C.E. Their use of Scripture was controlled by truth, context, and fulfillment, not by the speculative methods of higher criticism. When a New Testament quotation differs from the medieval Masoretic wording, the responsible question is whether the difference arises from translation technique, a variant Hebrew Vorlage, a condensed citation, or an inspired application of the passage. Each explanation has concrete examples, such as Hebrews 10:5 for Greek rendering, Acts 7:14 for textual tradition, Romans 3:10-18 for composite citation, and Matthew 2:15 for fulfillment application. The manuscript evidence therefore gives confidence that the Old Testament text was preserved and that the New Testament writers used it with authority, accuracy, and purpose.

The Documentary Method Gives the Best Answer

The documentary approach gives the best answer to the question because it begins with actual manuscript evidence rather than theory. In New Testament textual criticism, early papyri such as P66 and P75, along with Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, demonstrate the strength of the Alexandrian textual tradition in preserving the Greek New Testament. In Old Testament textual criticism, the Hebrew Masoretic tradition, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and other ancient versions must be weighed according to age, textual character, and relationship to the original language. Internal considerations have value, but they must not override strong documentary support. This principle prevents the interpreter from choosing readings merely because they appear smoother, harder, longer, shorter, or more useful for a preferred argument. It also prevents the false claim that every agreement between the New Testament and the Septuagint proves apostolic preference for Greek over Hebrew. The better conclusion is that the New Testament authors used the Old Testament text in Greek form when writing Greek Scripture, and their wording sometimes reflects the Septuagint, sometimes the Hebrew text, and sometimes an ancient Hebrew form represented through Greek translation. That conclusion fits the evidence without weakening confidence in either Testament.

The Answer Is Yes, but Not in the Simplistic Sense

The New Testament authors really did quote wording that often corresponds to the Greek Septuagint, but the word “rather” in the question creates a false contrast when it implies rejection of the Hebrew text. The apostles and other New Testament writers quoted Scripture as the authoritative Word of God, and in Greek writings they naturally gave those quotations in Greek. In many cases, the Greek wording available to them was the Septuagint or a related Greek textual form. In other cases, their wording shows closer contact with the Hebrew text or an independent rendering of the Hebrew sense. The Old Testament text available in the first century C.E. was not limited to the later medieval Masoretic manuscripts, even though the Masoretic tradition remains the best-preserved Hebrew base. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that Hebrew textual forms existed that help explain several differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. The New Testament use of the Old Testament therefore reflects a real historical setting in which Hebrew Scripture, Greek translation, and textual transmission intersected. The result is not confusion but a richer documentary picture of how Jehovah preserved His Word and how the inspired New Testament writers used that Word accurately in proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah.

You May Also Enjoy

Has the Text of the Bible Been Corrupted?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS