The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) that originated in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE. The Hebrew Bible, especially in its standard form, is based on the Masoretic Text (MT), which was finalized between the 6th and 10th centuries CE. These two textual traditions reflect differences in language, canon, textual content, and theological nuances. Below are the key distinctions:

1. Language and Translation

• Septuagint (LXX): The Septuagint is written in Koine Greek, the common dialect during the Hellenistic period. It represents a translation from Hebrew into Greek, which inevitably brought about linguistic shifts and interpretative decisions.
• Hebrew Bible (Masoretic Text): The Hebrew Bible is in Biblical Hebrew, with a few sections in Aramaic (e.g., parts of Daniel and Ezra). The Masoretic Text was developed by Jewish scribes (Masoretes) who meticulously copied and transmitted the text with precision.

2. Canon and Books

• Septuagint Canon: The Septuagint includes additional books and sections not found in the Masoretic Text. Some of these are known as the Deuterocanonical books (e.g., Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch). These books are part of the Catholic and Orthodox Christian Old Testament canons but are not included in the Protestant canon.
• Hebrew Bible Canon: The Masoretic Text forms the basis of the Jewish Tanakh, which does not include the Deuterocanonical books. The canon consists of 24 books divided into three sections: Torah (Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). These correspond to the Protestant Old Testament but differ in the order and division of some books.

3. Textual Variants

• Septuagint: There are numerous textual variants between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. For example, in the book of Jeremiah, the Septuagint version is about one-eighth shorter than the Hebrew version. In some cases, the Septuagint preserves earlier Hebrew readings that were not included in the later Masoretic tradition, as is supported by certain findings in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
• Masoretic Text: The Masoretic Text is generally more uniform and standardized, reflecting the careful transmission practices of the Masoretes. It does not contain some of the expansions or variations found in the Septuagint, but it may include additions or omissions that occurred during the textual history before the standardization.

Examples of Textual Variants Between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text

As you work on expanding your article, here are specific examples of textual variants between the Septuagint (LXX) and the Masoretic Text (MT), particularly in the book of Jeremiah and other Old Testament books. These examples highlight how the LXX sometimes reflects earlier or alternative Hebrew readings, which in some cases align with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), supporting their antiquity.

1. Book of Jeremiah

• Septuagint (LXX):
  • The Septuagint version of Jeremiah is approximately one-eighth shorter than the Masoretic Text version. This shorter text in the LXX omits several passages found in the MT, particularly in the sections of oracles against the nations. For example, in Jeremiah 10:6–8 and Jeremiah 10:10, the LXX omits these verses entirely, while they appear in the MT.
• Masoretic Text (MT):
  • The Masoretic version of Jeremiah includes the fuller text, including the passages mentioned above, leading to a longer overall version of the book. The DSS fragments of Jeremiah (4QJer) generally support the shorter text of the Septuagint in some instances, suggesting that the LXX may reflect an earlier Hebrew version that was later expanded in the MT.

Example:

• Jeremiah 33:14-26: This entire passage, which is a prophecy about the restoration of Israel and Judah, is absent in the Septuagint but is present in the MT. Some scholars suggest that this might be a later addition in the MT tradition, not found in the Hebrew Vorlage (source text) that the LXX translators used.

2. Genesis 4:8 (Cain’s Speech)

• Septuagint (LXX):
  • The LXX includes the dialogue between Cain and Abel before Cain kills his brother. It reads: “And Cain said to Abel his brother, ‘Let us go out into the field.'”
• Masoretic Text (MT):
  • The MT lacks this additional dialogue and simply reads: “And Cain said to Abel his brother…” without any further speech before Cain’s action.
• Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS):
  • The DSS (4QGen) include this added speech, supporting the reading found in the LXX and suggesting that this might have been part of the original Hebrew text but later dropped in the MT.

Example:

• Genesis 4:8 in the MT: “And Cain said to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.”
• LXX (and DSS): “And Cain said to Abel his brother, ‘Let us go into the field.’ And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.”

3. Deuteronomy 32:43 (Song of Moses)

• Septuagint (LXX):
  • The LXX version of Deuteronomy 32:43 is significantly longer, with additional lines that call the heavens to rejoice and for the angels to worship God. It reads: “Rejoice, O heavens, together with Him, and let all the sons of God worship Him; rejoice, O nations, with His people, and let all the angels of God strengthen themselves in Him.”
• Masoretic Text (MT):
  • The MT is shorter and lacks these additional lines. It simply reads: “Rejoice, O nations, with His people, for He will avenge the blood of His servants.”
• Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS):
  • The 4QDeut manuscripts from Qumran support the longer LXX version, with some additional material similar to the LXX but not found in the MT. This suggests that the LXX may preserve an earlier form of the text.

Example:

• Deuteronomy 32:43 (MT): “Rejoice, O nations, with His people, for He will avenge the blood of His servants.”
• Deuteronomy 32:43 (LXX/DSS): “Rejoice, O heavens, together with Him, and let all the sons of God worship Him; rejoice, O nations, with His people, and let all the angels of God strengthen themselves in Him; for He will avenge the blood of His sons.”

4. 1 Samuel 17:4 (Height of Goliath)

• Septuagint (LXX):
  • In the LXX, Goliath’s height is recorded as four cubits and a span (approximately 6 feet 9 inches or 2.06 meters), a more realistic measurement.
• Masoretic Text (MT):
  • The MT gives Goliath’s height as six cubits and a span (approximately 9 feet 9 inches or 2.97 meters), much taller than the LXX version.
• Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS):
  • Some DSS fragments (4QSam) align with the LXX, suggesting that the LXX might reflect an earlier Hebrew reading, while the MT height may have been exaggerated in later transmission.

Example:

• 1 Samuel 17:4 (MT): “Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.”
• 1 Samuel 17:4 (LXX/DSS): “And a champion came out of the camp of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was four cubits and a span.”

5. Psalm 22:16 (Pierced Hands and Feet)

• Septuagint (LXX):
  • In Psalm 22:16, the LXX translates the phrase as: “They have pierced my hands and my feet.” This translation has significant Messianic implications for Christians, as it is seen as a prophecy of Christ’s crucifixion.
• Masoretic Text (MT):
  • The MT reads: “Like a lion are my hands and feet,” which is a more obscure and debated reading.
• Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS):
  • Some DSS fragments (e.g., 5/6HevPs) support the LXX reading with “pierced,” indicating that this may have been the original reading before the MT’s more cryptic version emerged.

Example:

• Psalm 22:16 (MT): “Like a lion are my hands and feet.”
• Psalm 22:16 (LXX/DSS): “They have pierced my hands and my feet.”

These examples reflect how the Septuagint and Masoretic Text diverge in their transmission of the Old Testament. The Septuagint sometimes preserves earlier or alternative readings supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls, while the Masoretic Text reflects the later standardized Hebrew tradition. Such textual variants enrich our understanding of the transmission history of the biblical text and offer insights into how these ancient scriptures were interpreted and used in different communities.

4. Theological and Interpretive Differences

• Septuagint: The translation of certain words and phrases in the Septuagint reflects a more interpretive approach. For instance, the Hebrew term for “young woman” (ʿalmāh) in Isaiah 7:14 is translated as “virgin” (parthenos) in the Septuagint, which aligns with the Christian interpretation of the prophecy regarding the virgin birth of Christ. The LXX’s translation choices sometimes reflect early Jewish theological perspectives that were later embraced by early Christians.
• Masoretic Text: The Masoretic Text adheres closely to a literal rendering of the Hebrew language. Jewish interpreters during the Second Temple period often understood these texts in ways that did not necessarily align with later Christian theological readings. The Masoretic tradition places a high value on preserving the precise wording of the text.

Examples of Theological and Interpretive Differences Between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text

Here are specific examples of how the Septuagint (LXX) and the Masoretic Text (MT) diverge theologically and interpretively, especially in terms of key translations that shaped later Christian and Jewish readings of the Old Testament.

1. Isaiah 7:14 – “Virgin” vs. “Young Woman”

• Septuagint (LXX):
  • In Isaiah 7:14, the LXX translates the Hebrew word ʿalmāh (which typically means “young woman”) as παρθένος (parthenos), meaning “virgin.” This translation played a critical role in early Christian theology, particularly in the context of the virgin birth of Christ. The LXX’s use of “virgin” aligns with the New Testament citation of this verse in Matthew 1:23, where it is applied directly to the birth of Jesus through the Virgin Mary.
• Masoretic Text (MT):
  • The MT uses the Hebrew term ʿalmāh, which means “young woman” or “maiden,” without implying that she is a virgin. Jewish interpreters generally understood this prophecy in its historical context, where it referred to a sign for King Ahaz involving a young woman in his time, rather than a Messianic prophecy about a future virgin birth.

Example:

• Isaiah 7:14 (LXX): “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.”
• Isaiah 7:14 (MT): “Behold, the young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

2. Psalm 40:6 – “Body” vs. “Ears”

• Septuagint (LXX):
  • In Psalm 40:6 (Psalm 39:6 in the LXX), the Greek text translates the Hebrew phrase as: “A body you have prepared for me.” This is notably quoted in Hebrews 10:5 to support the idea that Christ’s incarnation fulfilled this passage, with the emphasis on the prepared body referring to Christ’s human form.
• Masoretic Text (MT):
  • The MT renders the Hebrew phrase as: “My ears you have opened” (literally, “dug out”), which refers to obedience rather than incarnation. Jewish interpreters typically saw this as a metaphor for attentiveness to God’s will rather than anything related to bodily preparation or Messianic prophecy.

Example:

• Psalm 40:6 (LXX): “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me.”
• Psalm 40:6 (MT): “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have opened.”

3. Exodus 14:14 – Divine Action vs. Human Participation

• Septuagint (LXX):
  • In Exodus 14:14, the LXX adds a more passive role for the people of Israel. It reads: “The Lord will fight for you, and you shall be silent.” This implies a complete reliance on God’s action alone, with no human intervention necessary. The LXX tends to emphasize divine intervention more strongly.
• Masoretic Text (MT):
  • The MT is more balanced, reflecting both divine intervention and human participation. It reads: “The Lord will fight for you, and you shall hold your peace,” suggesting a more active role in maintaining composure and trust in God’s deliverance.

Example:

• Exodus 14:14 (LXX): “The Lord will fight for you, and you shall be silent.”
• Exodus 14:14 (MT): “The Lord will fight for you, and you shall hold your peace.”

4. Deuteronomy 32:8 – “Sons of God” vs. “Sons of Israel”

• Septuagint (LXX):
  • In Deuteronomy 32:8, the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls preserve a reading where God divided the nations according to the number of the angels of God (Greek: ἄγγελοι θεοῦ). This reflects a more supernatural worldview, where divine beings play a role in the governance of nations. Early Jewish interpreters (like in the Qumran community) and Christian theologians found this version significant in understanding the spiritual realities behind nations.
• Masoretic Text (MT):
  • The MT reads: “He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.” This reflects a more nationalistic view where Israel is central in God’s plan for the nations, and it shifts the focus from angelic beings to the descendants of Jacob.

Example:

• Deuteronomy 32:8 (LXX): “When the Most High divided the nations, He fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the angels of God.”
• Deuteronomy 32:8 (MT): “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, He divided mankind according to the number of the sons of Israel.”

5. Proverbs 8:22 – Creation of Wisdom

• Septuagint (LXX):
  • In Proverbs 8:22, the LXX translates the Hebrew in a way that emphasizes the creation of Wisdom by God. It reads: “The Lord created me at the beginning of His work.” This translation was significant in the early Christian understanding of Christ as the personification of divine Wisdom (e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:24), with an emphasis on the pre-existence but also the subordination of the Son in creation.
• Masoretic Text (MT):
  • The MT renders this verse as: “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His work.” Jewish interpreters generally understood this to mean that Wisdom, as a personified concept, was always inherent in God and not a separate created entity.

Example:

• Proverbs 8:22 (LXX): “The Lord created me at the beginning of His way.”
• Proverbs 8:22 (MT): “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way.”

These examples illustrate how the Septuagint often provides a more interpretive and theological reading of key Old Testament texts, sometimes aligning with Christian theological perspectives, particularly regarding Messianic prophecies and the nature of divine action. On the other hand, the Masoretic Text emphasizes a literal and historical rendering, reflecting the Jewish tradition of precise textual preservation. Such differences are critical to understanding how early Christians and Jews read and applied the scriptures within their respective theological frameworks.

5. Historical Context of Transmission

• Septuagint: The LXX emerged during a time of Hellenistic influence on the Jewish diaspora, particularly in Alexandria, Egypt. The translation reflects the cultural and linguistic context of Greek-speaking Jews who were often removed from Hebrew as their first language.
• Masoretic Text: The Masoretic Text is the product of Rabbinic Judaism and reflects the scribal traditions that developed after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. It became the authoritative text for Jewish communities in the Middle Ages.

6. Textual Examples of Key Differences

• Genesis 4:8:
  • LXX: Adds a phrase where Cain tells Abel that he is going to kill him, which is absent in the Masoretic Text. This addition is also supported by some of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
  • MT: The Masoretic Text simply states, “And Cain said to Abel his brother…” without the added dialogue.
• Deuteronomy 32:43:
  • LXX: Contains additional lines where the heavens rejoice with God, also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
  • MT: Lacks this expanded reading, showing a shorter version of the verse.

7. Quotations in the New Testament

• The majority of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament align more closely with the Septuagint than the Masoretic Text. For instance, Hebrews 10:5 cites Psalm 40:6 from the LXX, “a body you prepared for me,” whereas the MT reads, “my ears you have opened.”

The Trustworthiness of the Texts

While both the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text have textual differences, these variations do not undermine the trustworthiness of the Old Testament scriptures. Evangelical scholars argue that God preserved His Word faithfully through both traditions. The textual variants are viewed as valuable for understanding the development of the biblical text and are not seen as contradictions to the inspiration of scripture. These differences provide a fuller picture of the historical transmission of the Bible.

The primary weight of external evidence generally goes to the original language manuscripts, and the Codex Leningrad B 19A and the Aleppo Codex are almost always preferred. In Old Testament Textual Criticism, the Masoretic text is our starting point and should only be abandoned as a last resort. While it is true that the Masoretic Text is not perfect, there needs to be a heavy burden of proof if we are to go with an alternative reading. All of the evidence needs to be examined before concluding that a reading in the Masoretic Text is corrupt. The Septuagint continues to be very much important today and is used by textual scholars to help uncover copyists’ errors that might have crept into the Hebrew manuscripts either intentionally or unintentionally. However, it cannot do it alone without the support of other sources. There are a number of times when you might have the Syriac, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic Targums, and the Vulgate that are at odds with the Masoretic Text; the preferred choice should not be the MT.

Initially, the Septuagint (LXX) was viewed by the Jews as inspired by God, equal to the Hebrew Scriptures. However, in the first century C.E., the Christians adopted the Septuagint in their churches. It was used by the Christians in their evangelism to make disciples and to debate the Jews on Jesus being the long-awaited Messiah. Soon, the Jews began to look at the Septuagint with suspicion. This resulted in the Jews of the second century C.E. abandoning the Septuagint and returning to the Hebrew Scriptures. This has proved to be beneficial for the textual scholar and translator. In the second century C.E., other Greek translations of the Septuagint were produced. We have, for example, LXX^Aq Aquila, LXX^Sym Symmachus, and LXX^Th Theodotion. The consonantal text of the Hebrew Scriptures became the standard text between the first and second centuries C.E. However, textual variants still continued until the Masoretes and the Masoretic text. However, scribes taking liberties by altering the text was no longer the case, as was true of the previous period of the Sopherim. The scribes who copied the Hebrew Scriptures from the time of Ezra down to the time of Jesus were called Sopherim, i.e., scribes.

From the 6th century C.E. to the 10th century C.E., we have the Masoretes, groups of extraordinary Jewish scribe-scholars. The Masoretes were very much concerned with the accurate transmission of each word, even each letter, of the text they were copying. Accuracy was of supreme importance; therefore, the Masoretes used the side margins of each page to inform others of deliberate or inadvertent changes in the text by past copyists. The Masoretes also use these marginal notes for other reasons as well, such as unusual word forms and combinations. They even marked how frequently they occurred within a book or even the whole Hebrew Old Testament. Of course, marginal spaces were very limited, so they used abbreviated code. They also formed a cross-checking tool where they would mark the middle word and letter of certain books. Their push for accuracy moved them to go so far as to count every letter of the Hebrew Old Testament.

In the Masoretic text, we find notes in the side margins, which are known as the Small Masora. There are also notes in the top margin, which are referred to as the Large Masora. Any other notes placed elsewhere within the text are called the Final Masora. The Masoretes used the notes in the top and bottom margins to record more extensive notes, comments concerning the abbreviated notes in the side margins. This enabled them to be able to cross-check their work. We must remember that there were no numbered verses at this time, and they had no Bible concordances. One might wonder how the Masoretes could refer to different parts of the Hebrew text to have an effective cross-checking system. They would list part of a parallel verse in the top and bottom margins to remind them of where the word(s) indicated were found. Because they were dealing with limited space, they often could only list one word to remind them where each parallel verse could be found. To have an effective cross-reference system by way of these marginal notes, the Masoretes would literally have to have memorized the entire Hebrew Bible.

About the Author

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION