Introduction: What We Mean by “Masoretic Text” and “Septuagint”

The Old Testament text that has been copied, studied, and preserved by Jewish scribes for centuries survives today in a form commonly called the Masoretic Text. By “Masoretic Text” (MT), we mean the stabilized Hebrew consonantal text together with the Tiberian vocalization and accentuation system and the extensive Masorah notes transmitted by the Masoretes of Tiberias and related centers between the sixth and tenth centuries C.E. The earliest complete manuscript that reflects this tradition is the Leningrad Codex (B 19A, dated 1008/1009 C.E.), with the Aleppo Codex (c. 930 C.E.) widely regarded as the most authoritative exemplar where it is extant. Although the MT is medieval in manuscript date, it is the crystallized form of a much earlier textual stream that stretches back to the age of the Sopherim after the return from Babylon in 537 B.C.E. and, in its consonantal substance, to the age of Ezra and Nehemiah in the fifth century B.C.E.

By “Septuagint” (LXX), we mean the ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures produced primarily in Alexandria and elsewhere from roughly the third to the second centuries B.C.E., together with later revisions and recensions. The Pentateuch was likely translated first, perhaps during the reigns of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 B.C.E.) and beyond. The rest of the books followed across subsequent generations. The “LXX” that appears in modern editions is a composite tradition shaped by Jewish revisions (often called the Kaige-Theodotion movement) and Christian transmitters, as well as the monumental collation undertaken in Origen’s Hexapla in the third century C.E. One must therefore speak carefully: the Septuagint is not a single translator’s work, nor a single unchanging text, but a collection of Greek translations of varying technique and date.

This study compares the MT and the LXX as textual witnesses to the original Hebrew Scriptures. It does so with a commitment to weigh the MT first as the primary point of departure, giving it proper weight because of its demonstrable stability and meticulously preserved features. Other ancient versions, including the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, the Latin Vulgate, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, are valuable as supporting witnesses, not as rival authorities that supplant the Hebrew. The goal is the restoration of the original Hebrew text through rigorous, faithful textual criticism, not by skepticism, nor by assuming “miraculous preservation,” but by recognizing the providential preservation through painstaking transmission and objective scholarship. Throughout, I will employ literal Bible chronology where relevant: the Exodus in 1446 B.C.E., the monarchy of David around 1010–970 B.C.E., the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E., and the return in 537 B.C.E.

The Masoretic Tradition: Stability Through Precision

The Masoretic tradition is a system, not merely a text. The consonantal text had already stabilized in the centuries before the Masoretes, but those scholars inherited the sacred duty to preserve it with incomparable strictness. The Masoretes developed and standardized the Tiberian vocalization, the accents that assist cantillation and syntactic division, and the Masorah Parva and Masorah Magna—densely compressed marginal annotations that record counts, spellings, unusual forms, and cross-references. They also maintained qere/ketiv traditions, noting how a word is traditionally read (qere) when the written consonants (ketiv) are anomalous, archaic, or reflect an accepted scribal conservatism.

The Masorah’s counting practices—noting the middle word of a book, the frequency of certain forms, and the number of verses—served as internal controls. Their craft virtually eliminated casual corruption in the period of Masoretic dominance. Because they anchored each manuscript with a net of checks and balances, significant divergences could not survive unquestioned. This disciplined verification explains the remarkable uniformity of medieval Masoretic manuscripts.

The Divine Name: Jehovah in the Masoretic Tradition

The Tetragrammaton (יהוה) appears in the Hebrew Scriptures more than six thousand times. The Masoretes’ consistent vocalization of the divine name with the pointing יְהֹוָה reflects the authentic Levitical pronunciation Jehovah, not a hybridization of the consonants of JHVH with the vowels of ʾAdonai or Elohim. The later practice, in many translations, of replacing the divine name with “the Lord” blurs the textual fact that the Tetragrammaton is an actual name. In this study, when translating or referring to places where the name occurs, I will use Jehovah to reflect the Masoretic vocalization. Within direct Scripture quotations from existing versions, capitalization customs are preserved as printed, but in my own renderings I maintain Jehovah.

Hebrew After the Exile and the Transmission Context

Hebrew remained a living language after the Babylonian Exile. Evidence for this includes the Hebrew of the late biblical books, inscriptions, the Hebrew of Qumran, and post-biblical Hebrew literature such as the Apocrypha and the Mishnah. While Aramaic functioned widely as an administrative lingua franca, Hebrew did not disappear. It continued in synagogue readings, in legal and liturgical contexts, and in learned usage. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. diminished Hebrew’s everyday prominence, but it persisted in religious life and learning, passing through the Sopherim into the Masoretic tradition.

The Masoretic Codices: Aleppo and Leningrad

The Aleppo Codex (c. 930 C.E.) is the crown of the Masoretic tradition as far as quality and authority of pointing and accents are concerned. It is the work of the Ben Asher school and was long regarded within Judaism as the most accurate exemplar. Unfortunately, portions were lost in the twentieth century. The Leningrad Codex (B 19A, 1008/1009 C.E.) is complete and underlies many critical editions. Together with the Cairo Prophets (895 C.E.) and other early manuscripts, these codices exhibit a controlled tradition of transmission that argues for the reliability of the MT as the base text.

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Early Witness to Proto-Masoretic Text

The Dead Sea Scrolls (third century B.C.E. to first century C.E.) present our earliest substantial Hebrew biblical manuscripts. These finds demonstrated that a proto-Masoretic text-type already existed centuries before the Masoretes. In the Pentateuch and Prophets, a sizable proportion of Qumran manuscripts align closely with the MT. Other scrolls reflect text-types akin to the Vorlage of the LXX or to the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Scrolls therefore confirm two points at once: the antiquity of the MT tradition and the existence of textual plurality in certain eras. Where a Qumran text agrees with the LXX against the MT, that convergence can carry weight; where Qumran supports the MT, the MT’s claim to originality strengthens.

The Septuagint: Origins, Character, and Recensions

The LXX emerged as a series of translations by different translators at different times. The Pentateuch’s Greek is generally more literal, while later books often show freer renderings. Because the LXX is a translation, its testimony is indirect: it bears witness to a Hebrew Vorlage, and to the translator’s skill, method, and interpretation. Where the LXX is literal, it may closely mirror its Hebrew source. Where it is paraphrastic or interpretive, it can obscure the underlying Hebrew.

The LXX underwent revisions. Jewish revisers in the late Second Temple period produced a “Kaige” recension that systematically aligned the Greek more closely to a form of the Hebrew text. Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion produced Jewish Greek versions in the second century C.E., not to be confused with the original LXX, though later Christian transmission sometimes intermingled readings. Origen’s Hexapla in the third century C.E. arranged multiple columns (Hebrew, Hebraica Secunda, Aquila, Symmachus, LXX, Theodotion) and marked LXX additions and omissions relative to a Hebrew base. Later, the so-called Lucianic recension influenced parts of the LXX tradition. The result is that “the LXX” in our printed editions is a carefully reconstructed, but complex, textual river with multiple streams and eddies.

The Divine Name in Greek Transmission

Early Greek biblical manuscripts often did not substitute κύριος for the divine name, but preserved the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters or in an Old Hebrew script within the Greek text. This indicates that Jewish translators treated the Name with sensitivity and did not originally erase it from the Greek. The later Christian practice of rendering the divine name with κύριος became standard in most Greek copies, but the earlier habit confirms that the divine name was recognized as a real lexical element in the source text and, in the earliest phases, was copied accordingly.

Method: How to Weigh the MT and the LXX

Because the MT preserves the Hebrew in its own language and in a meticulously controlled tradition, it is the primary witness. Deviations from it require substantial evidence. The LXX, as a translation, can support a reading when corroborated by independent Hebrew evidence (especially Qumran), or when the translation is demonstrably literal and reflects a specific Hebrew consonantal form. The Syriac and Latin versions can serve as additional controls. Internal considerations also apply: the reading that best explains the rise of others, that matches the author’s style, and that conforms to Hebrew grammar and usage has claim to originality. Emendations without manuscript support must remain a last resort.

Case Study 1: Genesis 4:8 (“Let Us Go into the Field”)

In the MT, Genesis 4:8 reads that Cain spoke to Abel his brother, and then the narrative proceeds directly to the murder. The LXX and some other witnesses include Cain’s words: “Let us go out to the field.” A Qumran Hebrew fragment supports the longer reading. The question is whether the MT lost a short speech due to a parablepsis (eye-skip), or whether the LXX (or a Hebrew base behind it) supplied what the translator inferred from the context. Because the addition is a plausible speech and is short enough to omit accidentally after “said to Abel his brother,” some modern editions accept the longer text. The MT’s brevity, however, is not un-Hebraic; Hebrew narrative frequently moves from a speech verb to an action without filling in the content when the narrative focus lies elsewhere. The decision rests on weighing the external support of a Hebrew witness among the Scrolls and the LXX against the intrinsic economy of the MT and the known tendency of translators to supply ellipses. On balance, one can acknowledge that an early Hebrew tradition contained the phrase, yet the MT’s form is coherent, and its omission does not create an implausible narrative gap. A cautious apparatus note suffices; no correction is mandatory to preserve sense. The MT is readable, though the longer reading has early support.

Case Study 2: Genesis 5 and 11 (Genealogical Ages)

The ages in Genesis 5 and 11 differ significantly between the MT and the LXX, with the LXX adding one hundred years to a number of begetting ages and altering some lifespans. The Samaritan Pentateuch exhibits its own pattern. The question concerns harmonization and chronology. The MT yields a chronology that coheres with the broader biblical timeline, including the Flood at 2348 B.C.E. and subsequent patriarchal spans. The patterned nature of the LXX adjustments appears secondary, designed perhaps to stretch the pre-Abrahamic timeline. The weight of internal coherence and the absence of compelling Hebrew evidence for the LXX figures favor the MT’s numbers as original. The LXX here functions as a history of interpretation rather than as a direct window upon an earlier Hebrew numerical tradition.

Case Study 3: Exodus 1:5 (“Seventy” or “Seventy-Five”)

The MT in Exodus 1:5 gives the total of Jacob’s household as seventy. The LXX reads seventy-five, a figure echoed in a New Testament citation when recounting Joseph’s kin. The difference can be explained by whether one includes the grandsons born in Egypt to Joseph’s sons. Genesis 46 in the MT tallies the household as seventy. The Samaritan and the LXX exhibit a different counting method that yields seventy-five. The MT’s internal Pentateuchal arithmetic is consistent; the LXX offers a legitimate alternative mode of counting but not necessarily a different Hebrew numeral at Exodus 1:5. Without independent Hebrew evidence that the figure in Exodus itself was seventy-five, the MT’s “seventy” stands. The LXX’s number reflects either a different textual tradition of the genealogical list or an interpretive inclusion of additional descendants.

Case Study 4: Deuteronomy 32:8 (“Sons of Israel” or “Sons of God”)

The MT reads that the Most High apportioned the nations “according to the number of the sons of Israel.” The LXX (in many manuscripts) reads “angels of God,” while a Qumran manuscript reads “sons of God.” The question is well known. The LXX may reflect an interpretive move that paraphrases bene ʾElohim with “angels.” The Qumran reading is straightforward. Yet the MT’s “sons of Israel” fits the Pentateuch’s theology and the contextual link to Jacob/Israel in the immediate verse. It also coheres with the traditional count of nations corresponding to the seventy members of Jacob’s household. Because the MT’s reading is ancient in its own right and the LXX itself exhibits paraphrastic elements here, the burden of proof remains on those who would displace it. The presence of a Qumran variant shows textual plurality but does not compel an alteration of the base text. The MT is defensible on both internal and canonical grounds, and the LXX’s rendering likely reflects an exegetical tradition rather than an earlier Hebrew form that must replace the MT.

Case Study 5: 1 Samuel 13:1 (Missing Numerals)

The MT of 1 Samuel 13:1 lacks the numerals that normally form the regnal formula, yielding a text that appears incomplete. The LXX contains a different and not entirely satisfactory solution. Here we encounter a rare place where the received text shows a known lacuna. The broader scriptural chronology fixes Saul’s reign as forty years; Saul’s age at the beginning of his reign remains unspecified by the MT tradition as transmitted. The judicious course retains the MT as is, acknowledging the ancient lacuna in the regnal formula rather than importing numbers from outside. This is one of those few places where textual criticism records the imperfection but refrains from conjectural patchwork.

Case Study 6: 1 Samuel 14:41 (The Casting of Lots)

In 1 Samuel 14:41, the MT’s text of the lot-casting speech is terse. The LXX and a Qumran Samuel manuscript preserve a fuller wording that explicitly mentions the Urim and Thummim and sets out a two-stage lot. Because this longer form is supported by an independent Hebrew witness and explains the origin of the shorter MT form through accidental omission, adopting the fuller reading in translation notes is warranted. This is an instance where deviation from the MT is justified by strong, converging evidence. It does not undermine the MT’s authority; rather, it shows the usefulness of ancient versions and the Scrolls in restoring a lost line.

Case Study 7: 1 Samuel 17–18 (David and Goliath: Shorter Greek Text)

The LXX of 1 Samuel 17–18 lacks sizable portions found in the MT, resulting in a “shorter” narrative. A Qumran Samuel fragment aligns at points with the shorter tradition. The issue is whether the MT has expansions or whether the LXX translator abridged or worked from a shorter Hebrew exemplar. The stylistic coherence of the MT, the narrative balance, and the common phenomenon of abridgment in translation argue that the MT preserves the complete Hebrew story. Where Qumran supports elements of brevity, this shows that a shorter Hebrew form circulated, but not that the shorter form is original. The MT’s fullness better accounts for the rise of the shorter Greek text than vice versa.

Case Study 8: 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5 (Elhanan and “the Brother of Goliath”)

The MT of 2 Samuel 21:19 appears to say that Elhanan killed Goliath, while 1 Chronicles 20:5 says that Elhanan killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath. The two texts can be reconciled by recognizing how easily the Hebrew of “Lahmi” could be assimilated to “Bethlehemite” and by noting the complex syntactic string involving “weaver’s beam,” which may have shifted. Chronicles regularly clarifies earlier narratives. The lecture of Chronicles is transparent, and the nature of the confusion in Samuel can be explained as a scribal transposition. Many translations clarify Samuel with a marginal note, preserving the MT while making the sense explicit by reference to Chronicles. No dependence on the LXX is necessary here; the solution lies in Hebrew orthography and parallel passage analysis.

Case Study 9: 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 (Numerical Differences)

The MT reports different numbers of horsemen between Samuel and Chronicles (1,700 vs. 7,000). Hebrew numerals are especially susceptible to graphic confusion in ancient scripts. The divergence likely arose from a copyist’s misreading of a numeral in one tradition. Because each book exhibits internal coherence and no independent witness decisively tips the scale, a cautious note that preserves both readings is the most responsible path. The divergence is numerically limited and does not affect the substance of the historical account.

Case Study 10: Psalm 22:16 (“Like a Lion” or “They Pierced”)

The MT at Psalm 22:16 reads “kaʾari” (“like a lion”) in a phrase describing the treatment of the sufferer’s hands and feet. Some ancient witnesses, including the LXX, reflect a reading equivalent to “they pierced my hands and my feet,” and there is early Hebrew support for a consonantal form that can be vocalized as “kaʾaru,” which points toward “pierced.” Because this is one of the clearest cases where the LXX’s rendering is supported by independent Hebrew evidence and because the MT reading creates a syntactic difficulty (“like a lion my hands and my feet” without an obvious verb), many textual scholars accept “pierced” as original. This constitutes a justified, evidence-based departure from the MT that nevertheless leaves the MT’s overall authority intact. The MT’s form can be explained as a graphic confusion between yod and vav or a misdivision at an early stage.

Case Study 11: Jeremiah in Hebrew and Greek (Order and Length)

The Greek Jeremiah is about one-seventh shorter than the Hebrew MT and orders the oracles against the nations differently. Qumran Jeremiah manuscripts attest to Hebrew exemplars that match the LXX’s shorter arrangement and to others aligned with the MT’s longer form. This is a prime example of multiple Hebrew editions circulating in antiquity. The safest conclusion is that Jeremiah’s prophecies existed in more than one organized edition, perhaps reflecting Jeremiah’s or Baruch’s editorial activities across time. For canonical purposes, the MT preserves the expanded edition that Israel’s scribal tradition embraced; the LXX preserves an earlier stage of arrangement. Both are valuable; the MT remains the base because it represents the final form of the Hebrew book as received.

Case Study 12: Isaiah 7:14 and Translation Technique

The Hebrew ʿalmah in Isaiah 7:14 denotes a young woman of marriageable age. The LXX translates with parthenos, a Greek term commonly meaning “virgin,” though it can in some contexts mean “maiden.” The LXX here is quite literal for its time and reflects the translator’s understanding of the Hebrew term within the semantic range. This case illustrates an important principle: the LXX can bear witness to ancient lexical interpretation even when the MT’s consonants are uncontested. The MT preserves the Hebrew word; the LXX shows how a pre-Christian Jewish translator understood it. Textually, there is no reason to depart from the MT; translationally, the LXX informs how ancient readers grasped the prophetic sign.

Case Study 13: The Psalter’s Ordering and Numbering

The LXX sometimes numbers psalms differently than the MT and occasionally exhibits expansions (for example, an expanded form of Psalm 14 mirrored in a later catena of citations). These differences are not signs of textual chaos but of liturgical and translational history. The MT’s division and numbering reflect the Hebrew books of the Psalter, with accentual and stichometric notations that guided synagogue chant. The LXX’s alternative placements and wording exemplify Greek liturgical usage and sometimes interpretive translation. The base for reconstructing the Hebrew Psalter remains the MT, with occasional assistance from Qumran Hebrew manuscripts where they confirm details such as psalm headings or orthographic forms.

Case Study 14: The Book of Daniel and Greek Versions

The Hebrew/Aramaic book of Daniel in the MT stands over against multiple Greek forms. The early Greek Old Greek (OG) version was later displaced in the Greek church by Theodotion’s more literal rendering. The OG Daniel and Theodotion witness to the interpretive range that a translator can introduce. Here, the MT anchors the base text, while the Greek versions serve primarily as aids to lexical and syntactic interpretation of the Aramaic and Hebrew, not as sources for displacing the consonantal text.

Proverbs and the Nature of Wisdom Translation

Proverbs in Greek occasionally rearranges or rephrases sayings. The LXX translator exercised freedom to render pithy Hebrew parallelisms in vivid Greek aphorisms. This creates the impression of significant textual differences, but most of these are translational rather than evidence of a different Hebrew book. The MT’s terse parallelism is often more compact; the LXX’s expansions reflect the translator’s didactic aims. Without independent Hebrew evidence, the MT’s order and lines stand.

Esther: Additions in Greek and the Hebrew Base

The Greek Esther includes several expansions that supply prayers and explicit references to God’s providence. These are pious and instructive additions, but they are not part of the Hebrew Esther preserved in the MT. The Hebrew book’s silence about the divine name is intentional and literary, not an accident. The Hebrew base takes priority. The Greek additions are valuable for understanding later Jewish reflection on Esther but are not witnesses to an earlier Hebrew form of the canonical book.

The Role of the Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate

The Syriac Peshitta, translated directly from Hebrew for most books, reflects a conservative textual tradition that often supports the MT. The Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome from Hebrew (with recourse to Greek in some instances), also functions as a historical witness to the Hebrew text known in the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. When the Peshitta and Vulgate align with the MT against the LXX, the cumulative probability favors the MT. When either preserves a distinctive reading supported by Hebrew evidence (such as Qumran), that reading deserves attention. Yet because these are versions, their value is confirmatory; they do not replace the Hebrew base.

Qere and Ketiv: What They Tell Us about the History of the Text

Qere/ketiv notes illuminate the Masoretes’ approach. They refused to alter the consonantal text they received, even when rare spellings or archaic forms appeared. Instead, they recorded the traditional reading in the margin. This allows us to see layers of linguistic history without disfiguring the written text. Many qere readings clarify morphology or update pronunciation; some harmonize rare forms to a more common usage. The textual critic starts with the ketiv as the actual letters transmitted, using the qere to understand traditional reading practice. This conservative approach helped to preserve the original consonants while acknowledging a living reading tradition.

Orthography, Plene Spellings, and Scribal Conventions

Hebrew orthography across the centuries varies in its use of vowel letters (mater lectionis). Qumran texts, for example, frequently employ fuller (plene) spellings. The MT often preserves a more classic consonantal spelling. Differences of this sort do not usually signal different words or meanings; they reflect orthographic habits. The Masoretes’ pointing system supplies the vowels, enabling readers to recover the pronunciation while honoring the older orthography. Many supposed “variants” evaporate once orthographic conventions are appreciated.

The Masorah: A Web of Controls

The Masorah Parva (small Masorah) lists statistics and cross-references at the margins; the Masorah Magna expands on unusual words, rare forms, and counts. These notes make the MT self-policing. For example, the Masoretes carefully recorded the number of occurrences of certain forms and the middle verse or word of a book. Such data help detectives of the text to spot intrusions or losses. The resulting stability is not accidental; it is the fruit of intentional craft tested across generations.

Paleography and Papyrology: Dating and Material Culture

Paleography, the science of dating scripts, and papyrology, the study of manuscripts as physical artifacts, ground textual criticism in tangible evidence. The square Aramaic script of the MT represents a later development from earlier Hebrew scripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls include both square Aramaic and paleo-Hebrew scripts, sometimes reserving paleo-Hebrew specifically for the divine name. The material substrates—parchment and papyrus—explain typical damage patterns, from lacunae to abrasion, which in turn account for certain textual anomalies. Understanding how a vav can be mistaken for a yod or how a scribe’s eye can skip from one similar ending to another (homoioteleuton) equips the critic to evaluate variant readings sensibly.

The Septuagint’s Translation Technique: Literal, Free, and Everything Between

The LXX translators employed a spectrum of techniques. In the Pentateuch, the translation often aims at lexical correspondence and preserves Hebrew idioms in Greek dress, giving the critic confidence in retroversion to Hebrew. In books like Proverbs or Job, the Greek may tilt toward paraphrase. Isaiah’s Greek can be interpretive, at times elegant, at times compressed. This variability means that the LXX cannot be treated as a singular, uniform witness. The task is to ask, book by book and sometimes pericope by pericope, whether the Greek translator tended to literalism or freedom. Only then can one weigh the LXX’s evidentiary value for a disputed Hebrew reading.

When and Why to Depart from the MT

The MT is not flawless; no manuscript tradition is. But its errors are few and usually small. The responsible method to depart from it requires converging lines of evidence. First, there should be independent Hebrew support, ideally from Qumran or a distinct medieval Hebrew tradition. Second, the LXX should be demonstrably literal at the locus in question, not interpretive. Third, the internal logic of the passage should favor the alternative reading as the one that best explains the others. When these factors converge—as in 1 Samuel 14:41 and Psalm 22:16—adopting the alternative in a footnote or even in the running text can be justified. When they do not converge, the MT should be retained.

The Role of the Septuagint in Exegesis and Theology

The LXX is invaluable for exegesis because it shows how ancient Jewish scholars understood difficult Hebrew phrases. Its Greek vocabulary choices reveal how they mapped Hebrew concepts into Hellenistic linguistic categories. This is especially helpful in poetic and prophetic texts where metaphors are dense. The LXX can clarify or confirm a Hebrew idiom by the way it renders it, even when the MT as text stands firm. But the LXX must be used with humility: where it is clearly interpretive, it reflects the translator’s exegesis, not necessarily the prophet’s Hebrew. Thus, the LXX is a faithful servant to the Hebrew text, not its master.

The Divine Name and the Witness of the LXX to Ancient Reverence

The earliest LXX practice of preserving the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters inside Greek lines demonstrates the ancient reverence for the divine name. This practice harmonizes with the Masoretic tradition’s careful vocalization Jehovah and confirms that the Name was not a mere title to be swapped for κύριος as a matter of course. Later Christian scribal habits, while understandable, should not retroactively define the earliest Jewish practice. In the Hebrew Bible itself, the Name functions as a covenantal identifier. Respecting that in translation is not a novelty; it is fidelity to the text.

Canonical Shape and the Final Form of the Hebrew Text

The MT preserves the canonical shape of the Hebrew Scriptures as they were received in Judaism. The order of books, the accentual divisions, and the parashah markers all guide the reader toward the intended structure of the text. The LXX’s different ordering or grouping of some books reflects translation history and Greek codicological conventions. For textual criticism, the “final form” of the Hebrew canon in the MT provides the base; differences of order in Greek editions are of historical interest but do not alter the Hebrew text’s identity.

Language History: Hebrew’s Continuity from Abraham to the Masoretes

Hebrew is rooted in the family of Shem, with Abraham and his descendants carrying forward the linguistic heritage of the pre-Babel “one language” preserved among the faithful. Through the patriarchal period, the Exodus in 1446 B.C.E., and the united monarchy under David (1010–970 B.C.E.) and Solomon (970–930 B.C.E.), Hebrew flourished as the language of revelation and worship. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. and the return in 537 B.C.E., Hebrew continued as a living language, distinct from Aramaic in the first century C.E., even as Aramaic held daily sway in many regions. The Masoretes inherited not a dead tongue, but a reverently preserved language used in Scripture reading and teaching. Their vocalization system captured the traditional pronunciation and safeguarded it for generations to come.

Balanced Conclusions: The MT as the Base, the LXX as a Valued Ally

A comparative study of the MT and the LXX yields a consistent picture. The MT, stabilized by the Sopherim and perfected in preservation by the Masoretes, is the primary witness to the Old Testament text. Its uniformity is not the result of suppression but of discipline and skill. The LXX, a venerable and ancient translation, is a valued ally. It sometimes preserves details that, when corroborated by independent Hebrew evidence, restore a lost line or clarify an obscure reading. It often illuminates how ancient readers understood the Hebrew. It occasionally reflects an earlier stage of a book’s arrangement, as in Jeremiah. But it cannot bear the weight of supplanting the Hebrew base where no Hebrew evidence supports such a change.

The proper method is neither skeptical nor credulous. It honors the MT as the foundational text, tests variants with the full range of ancient witnesses, and adopts departures only when the evidence compels. In this way, the textual critic participates in the preservation-through-restoration that Jehovah has providentially afforded to His Word through the faithful labors of scribes and scholars. The outcome is textual certainty wherever the evidence allows and careful transparency where small uncertainties remain. Nothing in this process undermines confidence in Scripture; rather, it demonstrates how securely the Old Testament text has been transmitted from antiquity to the present.

Practical Implications for Translation and Exegesis Today

Modern translations that use the MT as their base and consult the LXX and other versions judiciously exemplify the right approach. Where the MT is clear and secure, translations should follow it. Where early, converging witnesses support an alternative Hebrew reading, a prudent footnote or, in select cases, an adoption in the running text serves both accuracy and honesty. Translators should also reckon with the value of preserving the divine name Jehovah where it occurs in Hebrew, reflecting the original text rather than obscuring it with generic titles. Exegetes, likewise, should leverage the LXX to understand ancient Jewish interpretation, while always returning to the Hebrew consonants as the court of final appeal.

Final Assessment: Confidence Rooted in Evidence

The comparative evidence compels a confident conclusion. The MT is the best, most carefully preserved witness to the Hebrew Scriptures. The LXX offers ancient, sometimes indispensable, support and interpretive insight. Properly weighed, both together lead the textual critic toward the original words. The sheer mass of agreement among these witnesses far exceeds their few points of difference. Those differences are largely explainable by well-known scribal and translational phenomena. Thus, one may affirm without hesitation that the Old Testament text we possess, anchored in the MT and illumined by the LXX and other early witnesses, faithfully reflects the words given through Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings. Where the evidence allows, we can and should speak with textual certainty.

Select Passages: Illustrative Renderings with Jehovah

Translational practice can model the textual stance. Where the Tetragrammaton occurs, the translator should render it Jehovah to reflect the Hebrew text itself. For example, in a typical MT passage of the Psalms, one might translate: “Jehovah is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?” This does not impose later tradition; it simply respects the written Name in the Hebrew text. Likewise, in the narrative books, preserving Jehovah marks covenantal contexts and invokes the theological weight the original authors intended. This practice harmonizes with the earliest Greek habit of keeping the divine name visible and with the Masoretic vocalization that preserves the authentic pronunciation.

Where the LXX Can Strengthen Our MT-Based Reading

Even while affirming the MT as base, modern readers should consult the LXX in critical notes for passages like 1 Samuel 14:41 and Psalm 22:16, where independent Hebrew support converges. In Jeremiah, careful introductions should note the existence of two Hebrew­-based editions reflected in the Greek and in the MT. In Genesis 4:8, an explanatory footnote can acknowledge the ancient longer form while retaining the MT text. Such notes educate readers without unsettling their confidence. They demonstrate how the versions corroborate, clarify, and occasionally correct details—small in number, significant in precision—within an overwhelmingly stable text.

The Goal of Textual Criticism: Faithful Restoration, Not Endless Doubt

Textual criticism of the Old Testament is not an exercise in dismantling Scripture but in serving it. The discovery of variant readings and the rigorous testing of evidence aim at the faithful restoration of the original words. The Masoretic tradition’s precision, the Qumran manuscripts’ antiquity, and the LXX’s venerable translation together give us a text that is not precarious but secure. In this secure space, theology, exegesis, preaching, and teaching can proceed with confidence, honoring Jehovah, whose Word He has preserved through the dedicated labors of His people. The work is careful, but the conclusion is calm: the text of the Old Testament, grounded in the MT and informed by the LXX, reliably communicates the revelation given in history, from the days of Moses in 1446 B.C.E., through the monarchy and the exile, to the time of the Masoretes who carefully guarded what had been entrusted to them.

A Comparative Study that Strengthens Confidence

When the MT and the LXX are studied together with sobriety and respect for their natures—Hebrew original and ancient Greek translation—they yield a richer understanding of Scripture’s words and their early reception. The MT remains the decisive base. The LXX is the most ancient and significant versional ally, especially when its testimony is anchored in independent Hebrew evidence. By following this balanced, evidence-driven method, we honor the providential means by which Jehovah has preserved His Word, and we demonstrate that rigorous textual criticism, far from undermining faith, undergirds it with clarity, transparency, and truth.

The Tetragrammaton (Divine Name; Jehovah JHVH) in both the Greek Septuagint and the Masoretic Text

Purpose and Method

This article sets out the textual evidence for the Divine Name—JHVH—across the Hebrew Masoretic tradition and the Greek Septuagint, demonstrating that the authentic pronunciation preserved by the Masoretes is Jehovah, not a late hybrid nor an uncertain reconstruction. The approach is simple and disciplined. The Masoretic Text is the primary witness to the Old Testament, carefully transmitted and stabilized through the work of Jewish scribes. All other ancient versions, including the Septuagint, function as secondary witnesses that support, clarify, and, in a small number of cases, help restore earlier Hebrew wording when converging evidence demands it. The tone is objective, free from speculative theory, and grounded in manuscript realities, paleography, and translation history. Throughout, when the Hebrew text contains the Tetragrammaton, this article will refer to Him as Jehovah. When speaking of the four Hebrew letters themselves, JHVH will be used.

The Name in Israel’s Scriptures: Scope, Meaning, and Chronology

The Tetragrammaton appears some 6,828 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Its very frequency testifies that the Name is central, not peripheral, to Israel’s faith. Jehovah revealed His Name within history and covenant. When Moses stood before the burning bush in 1446 B.C.E., God declared, “This is My name forever, and this is My memorial unto all generations” (Exod. 3:15). The Name identifies the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and anchors His covenant actions in time and space. The shortened form “Jah” in “Hallelujah” and the many theophoric personal names such as Jehoshaphat, Jehoiakim, and Jonathan embed Jehovah’s Name in Israel’s speech and memory.

The Masoretic Text: A Carefully Preserved Witness to Jehovah

The Masoretic Text is not an invention; it is a meticulously preserved presentation of an already ancient consonantal text with a vocalization tradition faithfully recorded. The consonants JHVH are unambiguous. The Masoretes supplied the vowel signs to record the received pronunciation, not to conceal or erase it. Their marginal notes (Masora parva and Masora magna) guard the text by counting, comparing, and cross-checking each occurrence. The Name’s vocalization is consistent: יְהֹוָה reflects the traditional reading that underlies the English form Jehovah. The oft-repeated claim that the Masoretes inserted the vowels of Adonai into JHVH to “mask” the pronunciation fails on the evidence. The vocalization of hundreds of theophoric names confirms the same pattern we see in the Tetragrammaton: the initial yeho- and yo- prefixes (e.g., Yehoshua, “Jehovah is salvation,” and Yonatan, “Jehovah has given”) and the -yahu and -yah suffixes (e.g., Yesha‘yahu/Isaiah; Jeremiah’s frequent -yahu endings). These names function as living, continuous testimony to the same covenant Name heard in synagogue and home.

The reading tradition in public worship did employ reverential surrogates at times—most commonly Adonai when the Tetragrammaton stood in the consonantal line—but this liturgical habit neither created nor altered the Masoretic vowels for the Name. The Masoretes recorded what they received: the consonants JHVH and the vocalization Jehovah. Their scribal ethic is transparent in the notation of qere/ketiv pairs elsewhere; had they intended a universal substitution, they would have marked it. Instead, they guarded the exact letters and preserved the traditional pronunciation that aligns with the living theophoric onomastics of Hebrew.

Theophoric Names as Linguistic Evidence for Jehovah

The pattern of divine-name elements in Hebrew personal names is decisive. The prefixal forms yeho-/yo- and the suffixed forms -yahu/-yah are pervasive in pre-exilic and exilic inscriptions as well as in the biblical text. These are not late medieval creations; they are the living speech of ancient Israel. Yehoshaphat (“Jehovah judges”), Yehoiakim (“Jehovah raises up”), Yehoiada (“Jehovah knows”), and Jehonathan (older spelling of Jonathan, “Jehovah has given”) display the same vowel framework that undergirds Jehovah. On the other side, names like Yesha‘yahu (“Jehovah is salvation”) or Yirmeyahu (“Jehovah exalts”) preserve the suffixed element -yahu, while liturgical usage crystallizes the short form “Jah.” There is no theophoric pattern that demands a “Yahweh” vocalization; the actual data of Hebrew names used and heard across centuries align with Jehovah.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Earlier Hebrew Scribal Practice

Second Temple Hebrew manuscripts illuminate both reverence for and preservation of the Name. Several scrolls alternate script when writing JHVH, inserting the Name in paleo-Hebrew characters inside otherwise square-script lines. This scribal convention visually marks the sanctity of the Name without suppressing it. The practice shows continuity with pre-exilic tradition, not innovation. The phenomenon is significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that Jewish scribes kept the Name in the text—distinctively written, but there. Second, it reveals that reverence never required erasure. The Divine Name was written, read, and honored.

The Septuagint’s Origin and Its Handling of the Name in Jewish Transmission

The Septuagint began as a Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Koine Greek for Greek-speaking Jews in the Hellenistic world. The Pentateuch was rendered in the early third century B.C.E., followed by other books across the second and first centuries B.C.E. It is historically inaccurate to treat the Septuagint as a Christian creation; it is a Jewish translation reflecting Jewish reverence for the Hebrew text. How did those Jewish translators handle the Divine Name?

Earliest Greek biblical fragments and Jewish Greek scrolls show that the translators, or the scribes copying their work, did not replace the Name with Greek “Lord” in the base text. Instead, they often wrote JHVH in Hebrew characters within the Greek lines. In some Greek Jewish biblical manuscripts the Name appears in archaic Hebrew script; in some, a doubled yodh marks the Name; Jewish revisers of the second century C.E. such as Aquila and Symmachus continued the practice of writing the Name in Hebrew letters within Greek columns. This is not a curiosity; it is the best window we possess into early Jewish Septuagint practice. The translators worked from Hebrew exemplars and carried the sanctity of the Name into Greek copies by preserving it visually.

From Jewish to Christian Transmission: The Rise of κύριος as a Surrogate

As Greek Scripture moved increasingly into Christian copying and ecclesial use in the second to fourth centuries C.E., scribal convention crystallized around the reverential surrogate κύριος (“Lord”), usually abbreviated as a nomen sacrum (ΚΣ with a horizontal stroke). This convention is neither surprising nor sinister. Early Christian scribes developed a set of nomina sacra for key divine terms (God, Lord, Christ, Spirit) as an index of reverence and as a unifying visual code across copies. Where later Christian codices of the Septuagint read κύριος in places where the Hebrew has JHVH, that reading reflects Christian scribal convention, not the earliest Jewish practice of the Greek translations. This simple historical observation explains why Old Testament quotations in the Greek New Testament commonly read κύριος while the Hebrew Old Testament reads JHVH. It also clears the ground for modern translators to render Old Testament passages with “Jehovah” without confusion, while explaining in teaching how Greek convention functions.

Origen’s Hexapla and Jewish Revisions: Witnesses to the Name’s Presence

In the third century C.E., Origen prepared the Hexapla, a massive scholarly edition with multiple columns: the Hebrew in Hebrew letters, the Hebrew transliterated into Greek letters, and four Greek versions (Aquila, Symmachus, the Old Greek, and Theodotion), with critical signs marking differences. Jewish revisers like Aquila and Symmachus consistently wrote the Divine Name in Hebrew characters inside their Greek columns. This fact matters: Jewish textual work after the time of the apostles still wrote the Name. It shows that the disappearance of the written Name from many surviving later Greek copies is a feature of Christian scribal practice, not a correction of “original” Jewish Septuagint usage.

Paleography of the Name: Scripts, Spacing, and Scribal Discipline

The graphic presentation of the Name across Hebrew and Greek witnesses underscores scribal care. In Hebrew scrolls, the Name often receives spacing attention, and in some earlier witnesses it is written in paleo-Hebrew even when the rest of the line is in the square Aramaic hand. In Jewish Greek copies, the Name interrupts the Greek script as a block of Hebrew letters. This bilingual presentation is a paleographic signal to the reader: the Name is present, untouched, and to be read with reverence. The result is that a Greek-speaking Jew in Alexandria or the Levant listening to the Pentateuch read aloud would hear the Name where it stands, just as a Hebrew-speaking Jew in Jerusalem hearing the Torah would hear it.

The Masoretic Vocalization Is Not a Medieval Masking of Adonai

The assertion that the Masoretes “hid” the Divine Name by inserting the vowels of Adonai into JHVH is a popular claim that fails both linguistically and historically. First, the Masoretes did not traffic in guesses; they recorded the received pronunciation tradition with a coherence that is checkable across the entire Hebrew Bible. Second, the vowels written with the Tetragrammaton match the theophoric patterns found in proper names that no one imagines to be artificial. Third, if the Masoretes had intended to impose a mandatory surrogate across the board, they possessed a robust system of qere/ketiv notation to tell readers precisely what to say; they did not employ it to erase the Name. The consistent vocalization יְהֹוָה is a record of the traditional pronunciation Jehovah, not a clever caution sign saying “say Adonai here.”

Jehovah and the Theophoric Evidence: Prefixes and Suffixes That Speak

The morphology of Hebrew names does not permit a reconstruction driven by speculative comparative Semitic models; it compels us to listen to Hebrew usage. The initial yeho- element provides a sustained, ancient witness that aligns perfectly with Jehovah. When the divine element is in reduced form at the front of a name, the vocalization yo- remains congruent with the same pattern. In suffixal position, -yahu and -yah carry the same vocal frame into the name’s cadence. These diverse placements—front, shortened front, end, shortened end—supply continuous, embedded, and audible evidence of how Israel pronounced the Name that they confessed, praised, and bore. The Hebrew Bible itself, together with inscriptions, ostraca, and seals from the monarchic and exilic periods, confirms that pattern. These are not post-Masoretic inventions. They are the onomastic footprints of Israel’s living confession.

What About “Yahweh”? Sorting Reconstruction from Evidence

The preference for “Yahweh” in much modern scholarship rests on reconstructive arguments, not on direct Hebrew manuscript evidence. Those arguments often appeal to a theoretical verb form (“He causes to be”) drawn from Exodus 3:14 and to comparative forms outside Hebrew. But Hebrew data—vocalized theophoric names across centuries, the Masoretic vocalization, and Jewish reading tradition—do not testify to “Yahweh.” Appeals to stray Greek transcriptions in later writers or to non-biblical magical texts are not probative against the sustained Hebrew evidence. Nor does the existence of a short form “Yah” require “Yahweh” as the full form; “Jah” and Jehovah stand together just as “Josh” and “Joshua” do. The conclusion is straightforward: in the balance of manuscript realities and living Hebrew onomastics, Jehovah has the evidence. “Yahweh” is a reconstruction that lacks Hebrew textual support.

The Septuagint and Jehovah: How the Greek Supports the Hebrew

Because the Septuagint originated as a Jewish translation and earliest Greek Jewish witnesses preserve the Name in Hebrew script, the Greek tradition confirms, rather than undermines, the Hebrew testimony to Jehovah. Greek transliteration norms offer no rival; Greek lacked a native letter for the initial consonant of JHVH and employed established reverential practice rather than phonetically spelling the Name. The consistent rendering of Jehovah’s titles in the Septuagint—God as θεός, Most High as ὕψιστος, Almighty as παντοκράτωρ—shows the translators’ discipline at key theological points. Where κύριος stands in later Christian copies in Old Testament passages, the responsible teacher simply explains the history: the Hebrew reads JHVH; earliest Jewish Greek copies wrote the Name; later Christian copies employ a reverential surrogate. The Old Testament in translation should say Jehovah where the Hebrew has the Name.

New Testament Citations and Teaching Clarity

The New Testament writers quote the Old Testament frequently, and many of those citations in extant Greek New Testaments read κύριος in places where the Hebrew Old Testament reads JHVH. This is a fact of Greek scribal convention, not a denial of the Name. When teaching these passages, the pastor explains two lines clearly: first, that the Hebrew text being quoted says Jehovah; second, that in the Greek citation tradition, κύριος functions as the established surrogate for the Divine Name in Greek Scripture. This explanation eliminates confusion without creating artificial harmonizations. It also protects the integrity of Old Testament translation by preserving Jehovah where He stands in the Hebrew and by clarifying Greek convention where the New Testament quotes those verses.

Case Studies that Illuminate Practice

Consider Exodus 3:15, a pivotal verse in the revelation to Moses in 1446 B.C.E. The Hebrew reads JHVH and commands that this is His Name forever. In Jewish Greek transmission, the Name is preserved visually within Greek lines; in later Christian codices, κύριος appears. The proper modern translation renders “Jehovah” in Exodus 3:15 and explains the Greek convention when expounding New Testament texts that quote the verse.

Joel 2:32 promises deliverance to “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah.” The Hebrew text is explicit. The Septuagint tradition, in its later, Christian-copied form, reads κύριος. A careful teacher renders Joel with “Jehovah,” then shows how the apostolic proclamation of salvation (e.g., Romans 10) inherits the Septuagint’s Greek vocabulary while resting on the Hebrew promise. The result is doctrinal clarity and textual fidelity.

The Psalter repeatedly summons worshipers to praise Jehovah by Name. The shortened “Jah” in “Hallelujah” is neither an accidental survivance nor a license to expel the full form from translation. It is a liturgical witness to the same Name that stands in the Law and the Prophets. The Septuagint’s handling of these vocatives in Greek for public worship again demonstrates reverential practice, not revision of the Hebrew base.

Addressing Common Pushbacks with Evidence

When one hears, “There was no ‘J’ in ancient Hebrew,” the answer is linguistic clarity, not polemic. English orthography and phonology are not the measure of ancient Hebrew. “Jehovah” is the standard English representation of the Hebrew name vocalized in the Masoretic tradition; the initial consonant, represented in English with J, corresponds to Hebrew yod in a phonemic system that is mapped into English for readers. The issue is not the letter shapes of modern alphabets; it is whether the Masoretic vocalization and theophoric data support Jehovah—which they do.

When one hears, “Jehovah is a late invention,” the answer is chronology and manuscripts. The consonantal Name is ancient and pervasively written. The Masoretic vocalization records the received pronunciation, which aligns with the living pattern embedded in names centuries before the Masoretes. The reverential reading of Adonai in synagogue is a distinct, transparent tradition; it did not create the vowels of the Tetragrammaton.

When one hears, “The Septuagint never contained the Name,” the reply is to point to earliest Jewish Greek practice: the Name is present, often in Hebrew characters within Greek lines, and Jewish revisers two centuries into the Christian era still wrote JHVH. The later Christian convention of κύριος is a historical development in scribal practice, not a window into the translators’ original handling of the Name.

Textual Criticism in Service of Certainty

The proper use of the Septuagint and other ancient versions is conservative and evidence-driven. The Masoretic Text remains the baseline. Deviations from it must be supported by converging early witnesses and explainable scribal processes. The Divine Name is one place where the direction of influence is textual and historical, not conjectural: the Hebrew writes JHVH; the Masoretes preserve the vocalization Jehovah; the theophoric names confirm it; early Jewish Greek witnesses preserve the Name within Greek lines; later Christian copies employ κύριος as a reverential surrogate. There is no textual warrant for suppressing Jehovah in Old Testament translation or exegesis.

Translation and Teaching Today: Restoring What God Wrote

Because Scripture commands, “Call upon the name of Jehovah,” translators and teachers bear responsibility to render the Name where God placed it. Substituting titles where the Hebrew has JHVH deprives readers of precision that the Holy Spirit inspired and that faithful scribes preserved. Restoring Jehovah in the Old Testament does not create doctrinal imbalance; it restores biblical clarity. In the New Testament, where Greek citation tradition reads κύριος, expositors teach the historical connection so congregations grasp how Old and New relate at this point. This is not complicated to do. It requires only the will to be as clear as the text is and as transparent about scribal history as ancient evidence allows.

Paleographic and Papyrological Notes that Strengthen Confidence

Readers should know why physical features of manuscripts matter for this question. Distinct scripts for the Name in Hebrew scrolls and Jewish Greek copies, the presence of the Name in paleo-Hebrew amidst square script, and the visual marking of the Name in Greek columns all function as guardrails in transmission. They are early, widespread, and coherent. They testify that reverence in scribal practice meant preserving the Name, not removing it. When later Christian codices display nomina sacra, they are doing so within a different tradition—one that employs a set of contracted sacred words as markers of devotion. Recognizing the difference protects the Old Greek where it survives and allows modern translators to give readers Jehovah where He stands in the Hebrew.

The Septuagint’s Real Role under Masoretic Primacy

The Septuagint excels at three tasks in this discussion. First, it confirms the pervasive presence of the Name in Israel’s Scripture by its early Jewish handling. Second, it illuminates how the Name was reverenced in Greek-speaking synagogues, thereby explaining New Testament usage without confusion. Third, in select textual decisions, it aligns with early Hebrew witnesses to restore earlier forms where later copies slipped—though the Divine Name is not such a case, because the Masoretic consonants and vocalization stand firm and are confirmed by living Hebrew onomastics. The LXX serves the Hebrew; it does not master it.

Conclusion: Confidence, Clarity, and Obedience

Jehovah placed His Name in Israel’s Scriptures as a gift and a command. The Masoretic scribes preserved that Name with the consonants and the vocalization Jehovah; Israel’s theophoric names echo it across the centuries. Jewish translators carried the Name into Greek copies with visible reverence, and later Christian scribes developed a surrogate convention in their own manuscript culture without erasing the historical fact that early Jewish Greek copies wrote JHVH. The responsible path forward is straightforward. Translate the Old Testament with Jehovah where God wrote His Name; teach the Septuagint’s history so that New Testament usage is clear; and refuse conjectural reconstructions that are not grounded in Hebrew evidence. This posture honors the God Who revealed His Name to Moses in 1446 B.C.E., Who preserved His Word through faithful scribes, and Who calls all people to “call upon the name of Jehovah” and be saved.

Appendix: Brief Answers to Four Common Questions

Was the Divine Name pronounced in Israel after the exile? Yes. Hebrew remained a living language after the exile, as demonstrated by inscriptions, the Dead Sea Scrolls, intertestamental literature, and early rabbinic texts. The Name appears consistently in the manuscripts. Liturgical caution in public reading never entailed removing the Name from the text or forgetting its pronunciation; the very shape of Hebrew names demonstrates continued knowledge.

Does the presence of κύριος in Greek Bibles mean the Name is gone? No. It signals a reverential Greek convention in Christian copying. Early Jewish Greek witnesses still write JHVH, and Jewish revisers in the second century C.E. do the same. The Old Testament in translation should render Jehovah; teaching will explain the Greek convention where needed.

Is “Jehovah” merely an English preference? It is the established English representation of the Masoretic vocalization of JHVH, supported by the living patterns in Hebrew theophoric names and by the Masoretic tradition’s consistent recording of the pronunciation. English represents the Hebrew sounds with English letters, just as every language must do. The issue is not modern letter shapes but fidelity to the Hebrew evidence.

Does textual criticism introduce uncertainty here? No. When the evidence converges—the Masoretic text, Hebrew name patterns, early Jewish Greek practice—textual criticism strengthens certainty. The Septuagint, properly used, confirms the Hebrew testimony to Jehovah and clarifies the history of Greek scribal practice without undermining the Name.

You May Also Enjoy

The Coptic Versions of the Bible

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS