The Septuagint, commonly abbreviated as LXX, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, also referred to as the Old Testament (OT), and serves as the Greek Bible adopted by early Christians. The term “Septuagint” encompasses both the canonical collection of sacred books in Greek and the textual translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. While these two aspects—canon and text—are interrelated, they warrant distinct consideration due to their unique implications for biblical studies.

Canon of the Septuagint

The Septuagint includes the books of the Hebrew Bible but expands to incorporate additional texts composed in Greek, which are not found in the Hebrew canon. Scholars debate whether this broader collection, sometimes referred to as an “Alexandrian canon,” circulated among Jewish communities in the Diaspora, particularly in Egypt. Evidence for such a canon remains inconclusive, and it is unlikely that the Christian adoption of the Septuagint was intended to supplant a specifically Jewish version of the LXX. Instead, the formation of the Christian canon likely evolved through a complex process, later summarized by Athanasius in his Easter Letter of 367 C.E.

Athanasius described the Hebrew canon as comprising 22 books, a number symbolically tied to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. To achieve this count, he grouped certain books as single units: 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah. He also attached supplementary texts, such as Baruch, Lamentations, and the Letter of Jeremiah to the book of Jeremiah, and included additions to Daniel (e.g., Susanna, Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Young Men, Bel and the Dragon). Beyond these, Athanasius recognized additional books—Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit—not as canonical but as valuable for edification. Notably, 1-4 Maccabees were omitted from his list and are absent from significant manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus. Other texts, such as the Apocalypse of Enoch, were explicitly excluded from the canon.

Following the practical approach of Alfred Rahlfs’ manual edition of the Septuagint, the additional books can be categorized as follows:

• Historical Books: 1 Esdras, Judith, Tobit, 1-4 Maccabees.

• Poetical Books: Psalm 151, Odes, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Psalms of Solomon.

• Appended to Jeremiah: Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah.

• Additions to Daniel: Susanna, Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Young Men, Bel and the Dragon.

Some of these texts, such as Wisdom of Solomon, the Additions to Daniel, and 2-4 Maccabees, were originally composed in Greek during the 1st century C.E., without Hebrew or Aramaic originals. The Odes, a collection of hymns, were primarily compiled by Christians. This inclusion of non-translated works underscores that the Septuagint is not solely a translation but a broader corpus reflecting the religious and cultural milieu of Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity. As such, it offers valuable insights into the beliefs and practices of these communities during the Greco-Roman period.

Text of the Septuagint

The term “Septuagint” also denotes the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, which is significant as the earliest known translation of the Hebrew scriptures. In textual criticism, a distinction is made between the “Septuagint” as the standardized Greek text preserved in major 4th-century C.E. codices (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus) and the “Old Greek,” referring to earlier Greek translations evidenced in manuscripts like 4QLXXLeva (4Q119) and 4QLXXNum (4Q121) from Qumran.

The Septuagint’s textual value lies in its role as a witness to the Hebrew text from which it was translated. Variations between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text (the standardized Hebrew text) may reflect differences in the underlying Hebrew manuscripts or interpretive choices by the translators. These differences are critical for reconstructing the textual history of the OT and understanding the development of biblical texts.

Language of the Septuagint

The Septuagint was written in Koine Greek, the common language of the eastern Mediterranean following the dissolution of Alexander the Great’s empire. Koine Greek was widely used in politics, commerce, and daily life, particularly in Egypt and among Hellenistic Jews in the Diaspora, for whom it was often their native tongue. The use of Koine Greek in the Septuagint is noteworthy because it reflects the linguistic and cultural context of the Hellenistic period rather than a specialized “translation Greek.”

This linguistic choice has implications for textual criticism. Variations in the Septuagint’s text may not always indicate a different Hebrew source but could reflect interpretive adaptations to Hellenistic Jewish thought. For example, a translator might have adjusted the text to align with the cultural or theological perspectives of their audience. Consequently, understanding the Septuagint requires consideration of its cultural and historical context, as relying solely on its textual differences from the Hebrew may oversimplify complex interpretive decisions.

Canonical Comparison

The Septuagint’s canon differs from both the Hebrew Bible and the King James Version (KJV) in its organization and content. Below is a comparative overview of the canonical structures, adapted from Martin Buber’s work:

• Hebrew Bible:

  • Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

  • Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings.

  • Latter Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Book of the Twelve (Hosea–Malachi).

  • Writings: Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra/Nehemiah, 1-2 Chronicles.

• King James Version:

  • Historical Books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I-II Samuel, I-II Kings, I-II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.

  • Wisdom Books and Psalms: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon.

  • Prophetic Books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

• Septuagint:

  • Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri (Numbers), Deuteronomium (Deuteronomy).

  • Historical Books: Josue (Joshua), Iudices (Judges), Ruth, I–II Regnorum (I–II Samuel), III–IV Regnorum (I–II Kings), I–II Paralipomenon (I–II Chronicles), I Esdras, II Esdras (Ezra/Nehemiah), Esther (with Additions), Judith, Tobit, 1-4 Maccabees.

  • Poetical Books: Psalms (including Psalm 151), Odes, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles (Song of Songs), Job, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Psalms of Solomon.

  • Prophetic Books: Hosea to Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah (with Baruch, Lamentations, Epistle of Jeremiah), Ezekiel, Daniel (with Additions: Susanna, Bel and the Dragon).

This comparison highlights the Septuagint’s inclusion of additional books and textual expansions, reflecting its distinct role in early Christian and Hellenistic Jewish traditions.

The Origins Legend

The origins of the Septuagint are detailed in the Letter of Aristeas, a text from around 100 B.C.E., which, despite its legendary nature, provides some historical insights. Additional sources include Philo of Alexandria (Moses 2.29–41), Flavius Josephus (Antiquities 12.11–119), Justin (Dialog with Trypho), and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.21.2), with the latter offering the most elaborate version of the legend.

The Letter of Aristeas

The Letter of Aristeas recounts that Demetrius of Phaleron, director of the royal library in Alexandria, secured funding to collect all the world’s books, including a Greek translation of the Jewish Law (Torah). King Ptolemy II (285–247 B.C.E.) commissioned Aristeas to request assistance from Eleazar, the high priest in Jerusalem. Eleazar selected 72 scholars—six from each of the twelve tribes—who brought Hebrew scrolls to Egypt. After a grand reception and discussions with the king, the scholars worked on Pharos Island, completing the translation in 72 days through collaborative comparison. The resulting Greek Torah was approved by the Jewish community in Alexandria and presented to Ptolemy II, who received it with admiration. The translators were then honored and returned to Jerusalem.

Evaluation of the Legend

The Letter of Aristeas is a pseudepigraph, likely written by a Jewish author (Pseudo-Aristeas) posing as a pagan official. Its purpose appears to be to elevate the Greek Torah’s status among Alexandrian Jews, portraying it as a prestigious work endorsed by a Hellenistic ruler. The text suggests the translation began around 300 B.C.E., aligning with early Greek translations, and its Egyptian origin is supported by its use of Hellenistic administrative vocabulary.

However, several elements are questionable. The translators were likely Egyptian Jews fluent in both Hebrew and Greek, rather than scholars from Jerusalem with luxurious manuscripts. Recent studies suggest the Hebrew exemplars used were often singular or of poor quality, undermining claims of a direct connection to the Jerusalem temple. The initiative for the translation is also debated: while the Letter credits Ptolemy II’s library, the practical needs of the Alexandrian Jewish community—many of whom could not understand Hebrew—likely drove the project. The text’s claim that the translation was first presented to the Jewish community for approval supports this view.

The Letter may also oversimplify a complex process. Evidence from the Pentateuch indicates that different books were translated from varied Hebrew exemplars by different translators, challenging the notion of a uniform project. Nevertheless, Ptolemaic interest in cultural exchange could have supported the endeavor, framing it as a collaborative effort between Jewish and Greek interests.

Christian Reception

In Hellenistic Judaism, the “translation of the 72 elders” referred solely to the Torah. Early Christians expanded this legend to encompass the entire Septuagint, associating its canonicity with divine inspiration. Philo’s account, which describes the 70 (or 72) translators working in isolation yet producing identical translations, reinforced this view. By attributing the Septuagint’s creation to a miracle, Christians solidified its status as a divinely authorized text, distinct from its Jewish origins, and integrated it into their scriptural tradition.

This exploration of the Septuagint highlights its dual role as a canonical collection and a textual translation, shaped by the linguistic, cultural, and religious dynamics of the Hellenistic world. Its significance extends beyond its textual content, offering a window into the interplay of Jewish and Christian traditions in antiquity.

The translation of the Old Testament (OT) into Greek, known as the Septuagint (LXX), was a prolonged endeavor that began with the Torah in the 3rd century B.C.E. and extended into the 2nd century C.E. The prologue to the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach, penned by the author’s grandson around 117 B.C.E., suggests that by that time, Greek translations of the Torah, the Prophets, and parts of the Writings (Hagiographa) were in circulation. This might imply that the translation process was largely complete, but a closer examination of the Septuagint tradition reveals a more intricate and dynamic history. Translation efforts persisted, particularly for the Writings, and multiple translations of certain books emerged, reflecting diverse approaches and textual traditions.

For instance, the book of Judges exists in two distinct Greek translations. Codex Alexandrinus (A) preserves an older version, aligning with texts used by Origen and other Christian manuscripts, while Codex Vaticanus (B) contains a later, more literal translation, marked by consistent renderings such as ἐνώπιον for the Hebrew לִפְנֵי (“in the presence of”). Similarly, the book of Esther in the 1st century B.C.E. had a longer Greek version with approximately 100 additional verses compared to the Masoretic Text (MT), alongside a shorter version, known as the Alpha text, from the 1st century C.E. Additionally, the Septuagint’s translation of Ecclesiastes, likely from the 2nd century C.E., closely resembles the style of Aquila’s recension, if not attributed to him directly. These examples illustrate that the Septuagint’s development was not a singular event but a gradual process involving evolving translation techniques and textual traditions.

Translation Timeline and Profiles

The following table, adapted from Folker Siegert, outlines the approximate dates and translation methodologies for individual Septuagint books, ranging from functional equivalence (freer renderings) to literal translations:

This table highlights the diversity in translation approaches, influenced by the period, text type, and translator’s intent.

Translation of Genesis and Its Influence

The translation of Genesis marked a pioneering effort, undertaken without the aid of Hebrew-Greek dictionaries or established translation theories. The lack of formal resources suggests that translators relied on the linguistic practices of Greek-speaking Jewish communities to establish key Greek equivalents for Hebrew terms. This foundational work not only shaped the vocabulary of the Torah translations but also set a precedent for subsequent Septuagint translators, who drew on Genesis as a model for style and terminology.

Factors Influencing Translation Profiles

Several factors contributed to the varied translation profiles across Septuagint books:

1. Translator Background: The training and cultural context of individual translators influenced their stylistic choices and interpretive approaches.

2. Text Type: Legal texts, such as those in Leviticus, demanded precise, literal renderings to preserve their authoritative nature, whereas narrative texts allowed for freer, more adaptive translations. Prophetic texts were often updated to reflect contemporary concerns.

3. Purpose of Translation: Liturgical translations favored an archaizing style to maintain a sacred tone, avoiding colloquialisms, while educational translations prioritized clarity, sometimes harmonizing texts for accessibility.

4. Quality of Hebrew Exemplars: The Hebrew manuscripts used for translation were often individual copies, not standardized texts. These exemplars frequently predated the proto-Masoretic tradition, representing earlier textual stages that differed from the later MT.

Textual Development and Editions

The Septuagint’s early history coincided with the final editing of many biblical books during the Hellenistic period. This overlap meant that Hebrew texts were still undergoing revision while Greek translations were being produced. As a result, multiple editions of biblical books could circulate simultaneously, with translations based on different Hebrew exemplars. This fluidity in textual transmission was likely common, though direct evidence from OT manuscripts is limited.

A modern analogy illustrates this process. Emanuel Tov’s manual on textual criticism, first published in Hebrew in 1989, was revised and expanded for an English edition in 1992. A German edition in 1997 built on the English version, and a second English edition in 2001 introduced minor updates. These four editions reflect a single work evolving over time, akin to the development of biblical texts. Unlike modern books, however, OT texts were traditional literature shaped anonymously through redaction and copying, resulting in distinct editions, such as the varying versions of Jeremiah and the David and Goliath narrative.

• Jeremiah (LXX): The Septuagint’s Jeremiah is shorter than the MT by approximately 3,000 words, with a different structure and sequence of prophecies. The LXX follows a three-part prophetic scheme (judgment on Israel/Judah, prophecies against nations, salvation), while the MT places the prophecies against nations last. The brevity of the LXX likely reflects an earlier Hebrew exemplar, supported by Qumran fragments like 4QJerb (4Q71) and 4QJerd (4Q72a). The MT’s longer version, attested by 2QJer (2Q13), 4QJera (4Q70), and 4QJerc (4Q72), suggests the coexistence of two textual traditions.

• 1 Samuel 17–18 (David and Goliath): The account of David and Goliath in Codex Vaticanus (B) is 39 verses shorter than the MT and Codex Alexandrinus (A), omitting sections like 1 Sam 17:12–31, 41, 48b, 50, 55–58; 18:1–6a, 10–11, 12b, 17–19, 21b, 29b–30. The shorter Vaticanus text likely represents an earlier version, with the MT’s additions suggesting midrashic expansion to resolve narrative inconsistencies.

Early Witnesses to the Septuagint

Textual criticism relies on the Septuagint to reconstruct early Hebrew texts, but studying the Septuagint’s own development is equally crucial. Early Greek manuscripts from before Origen’s Hexapla (3rd century C.E.), which standardized later Septuagint texts, are vital for tracing its textual history. However, surviving manuscripts are scarce and often fragmentary.

• Qumran Manuscripts: Few Greek biblical texts were found at Qumran. The earliest, 4QLXXDeut (4Q122) from the 2nd century B.C.E., preserves only a few words of Deuteronomy 11:4. Among Cave 4 fragments, 4QLXXLeva (4Q119) is significant, offering a free translation of Leviticus 26:2–16 that reflects the Old Greek. Cave 7 yielded about 20 papyrus fragments, but only 7QpapLXXExod (7Q1) and 7QpapLXXEpJer (7Q2) were identified as biblical texts.

• Nahal Hever Scroll (8HevXIIgr): This Greek Twelve Prophets scroll, previously discussed, is a key witness to the pre-Hexaplaric Septuagint text.

• Papyrus Greek 458 (Rahlfs 957): Housed in the John Rylands Library, this mid-2nd century B.C.E. papyrus from mummy wrappings contains Deuteronomy 23–28. Written in uncial script, it uniquely features spaces between words and phrases, resembling verse divisions in some Qumran Hebrew manuscripts. Its peculiar readings are rare among other textual witnesses.

• Papyrus Fouad 266 (Rahlfs 942, 847, 848): Discovered in Fayyum, these fragments from three scrolls date to the 1st century B.C.E. (Genesis, Deuteronomy) and slightly later (Deuteronomy 10–11, 31–33). Notably, the Deuteronomy scrolls render the Tetragrammaton in Old Hebrew script, a practice also seen in 8HevXIIgr and 4QLXXLevb (4Q120), which uses Ιαω. The standard Septuagint rendering κύριος likely emerged later, though possibly hinted at in Papyrus Greek 458 (Deut 26:18).

• Chester Beatty Papyri (Rahlfs 961–967, 2149–2151): These 2nd–4th century C.E. codices, containing Genesis, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther, Sirach, 1 Enoch, New Testament texts, and a homily by Melito of Sardis, are the most extensive pre-Hexaplaric witnesses. Papyrus 967 preserves an earlier Ezekiel text and the original Septuagint Daniel, later replaced by the Theodotion version. Most are held in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin.

• Other Papyri: Papyrus Bodmer XXIV (Rahlfs 2110), a 3rd-century C.E. codex of Psalms 17–118, is marred by careless errors. The Berlin Genesis fragments (Rahlfs 911), from the 3rd/4th century C.E., cover Genesis 1–35 in a transitional uncial-cursive script and are housed at the University of Warsaw.

These early witnesses underscore the Septuagint’s complex textual evolution, shaped by diverse translators, purposes, and Hebrew exemplars, and preserved in fragmentary yet invaluable manuscripts.

The Jewish Recensions of the Septuagint

The diverse quality of the Greek translations within the Septuagint (LXX), coupled with variations in their Hebrew source texts and deviations from the Masoretic Text (MT), prompted early editorial interventions in the Greek versions of individual biblical books. These interventions, broadly termed “revisions,” encompassed corrections to align with the Hebrew text, enhancements to the Greek language, and other modifications. Within this broader category, “recension” refers specifically to revisions that build on the vocabulary of the Old Greek translations and aim for greater fidelity to the Hebrew text. In contrast, “editions” involve more comprehensive reworkings of a text to address perceived deficiencies in earlier translations. The Jewish recensions, which emerged as part of this process, reflect efforts to refine the Septuagint in response to textual and cultural developments, particularly as Rabbinic Judaism sought to distinguish its textual traditions from those adopted by Christians.

Kaige Recension (Palestinian Recension)

Named for its characteristic rendering of the Hebrew conjunctions גַם or וְגַם as the Greek καί γε (“and indeed”), the kaige recension represents an early effort to enhance the accuracy of the Greek text in relation to the Hebrew. Initially linked to Theodotion and dated to around 190 C.E., this attribution was reconsidered after “Theodotionic” readings appeared in New Testament quotations, indicating an earlier origin. The discovery of the Twelve Prophets scroll at Nahal Hever in 1952 (8HevXIIgr) clarified this issue, revealing a text that combines features of the kaige recension with Theodotion’s later work. Consequently, scholars now refer to the kaige-Theodotion tradition, dating the kaige recension to between 50 B.C.E. and 50 C.E.

The kaige recension is marked by several traits:

• Retention of the Tetragrammaton in Old Hebrew script, rather than translating it as κύριος (“Lord”), as typical in the LXX.

• Use of Old Greek transcriptions for names of people and places.

• Close alignment with the emerging Masoretic textual tradition.

• Hebraizing corrections to enhance fidelity to the Hebrew source.

Identifying which books fully reflect the kaige recension remains challenging. In Samuel and Kings, for example, the recension appears only in specific sections: 2 Samuel 10:1–1 Kings 2:22 (section βγ) and 1 Kings 22:1–2 Kings 25:30 (section γδ). Other portions retain the Old Greek text, which diverges from the MT and shares similarities with the Lucianic or Antiochene recension. This patchwork application underscores the complexity of the recension process.

Aquila (αʹ)

Aquila, a convert to Judaism and reputedly a student of Rabbi Aqiba, produced a highly literal recension around 130 C.E. Influenced by Aqiba’s emphasis on the significance of every word and letter in the Hebrew Bible, Aquila’s translation prioritizes strict adherence to the MT. His approach, characterized by formal parallelism, consistently renders Hebrew words with the same Greek equivalents, regardless of context. For instance, the Hebrew verb הלך (“go”) is uniformly translated as πορεύομαι, even when this choice obscures meaning, unlike the Septuagint’s context-sensitive renderings (functional equivalence). Similarly, Aquila translates the Hebrew accusative marker אֶת־ as the preposition σύν, treating it as if it were the homographic preposition את, a practice evident in a translation of Ecclesiastes closely associated with his work.

This extreme literalism often rendered Aquila’s text unintelligible in Greek, raising questions about its intended use and whether it functioned as an independent text. Nevertheless, Aquila’s recension served as a significant alternative to the Septuagint, distancing Jewish communities from a text increasingly associated with Christianity. His avoidance of Septuagint terms adopted in the New Testament, such as rendering משיח (“Messiah”) as ἠλειμμένος (“anointed”) instead of Χριστός, reflects this deliberate divergence.

Symmachus (σʹ)

Symmachus, identified by Epiphanius as a Samaritan convert to Judaism and possibly a student of Rabbi Meir, produced a recension around 170 C.E. that blends elements of translation and revision. Building on Aquila’s work, Symmachus sought to balance fidelity to the Hebrew source with the linguistic conventions of the Greek receptor language. His translation employs a broader vocabulary and adopts a polished late Roman-Hellenistic style, aiming for clarity and literary elegance without sacrificing equivalence to the Hebrew. Jerome praised Symmachus’ work, but its limited survival in Hexapla fragments and quotations complicates efforts to fully define its textual character.

Theodotion (θʹ)

Theodotion’s recension, dated to around 190 C.E. during the reign of Caesar Commodus, builds on the earlier kaige recension. A proselyte from Asia Minor, according to Irenaeus, Theodotion furthered the hebraizing tendencies of the kaige tradition. His revisions often avoid using the same Greek word for distinct Hebrew terms and transliterate Hebrew words for animals or plants lacking Greek equivalents. However, the extent of Theodotion’s contributions remains debated, as some scholars argue that the so-called Theodotion text merely preserves the kaige recension without significant new editing. This perspective refers to the combined tradition as kaige-Theodotion.

The “Theodotion” text of Daniel poses a particular challenge. It largely supplanted the earlier, freer Septuagint translation of Daniel in most manuscripts but lacks the consistency seen in Theodotion’s other works. Scholars suggest that this text may not be Theodotion’s but rather an early recension based on a Hebrew-Aramaic original, partially revised using the Septuagint. This hypothesis, along with the kaige recension, indicates that revisions of the Septuagint were underway by the turn of the era.

The Three (οἱ γʹ or οἱ λʹ)

Ancient sources collectively refer to the recensions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion as “the Three” (γʹ, the Greek numeral for three) or “the others” (λʹ, from λοιποί, meaning “remaining”). These designations appear in the apparatus of the Göttingen Septuagint, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), and Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). Beyond these three, Origen’s Hexapla incorporated other pre-Hexaplaric recensions, some anonymous but considered Jewish in origin. Distinguishing Jewish from Christian recensions is methodologically complex, though Jewish recensions are typically identified by their use of the Tetragrammaton instead of κύριος and their production in scroll form rather than codices.

Jewish Recensions and the Septuagint’s Divergence

The rise of Jewish recensions reflects the growing estrangement between Rabbinic Judaism and the Septuagint, which became increasingly associated with Christian communities. Rather than revising the Septuagint, Jewish scholars produced competing translations to assert their textual authority. In Jewish-Christian debates over biblical interpretation, Christians relied on the Septuagint, while Jews countered with alternative versions, particularly Aquila’s strongly Hebraic translation. This dynamic deepened the Jewish alienation from the Septuagint, culminating in its eventual abandonment by Jewish communities. A post-Talmudic tractate, Sopherim 1:8, later equated the completion of the Septuagint with the calamitous day of the golden calf’s creation, underscoring the extent of this rift.

The Jewish recensions, through their focus on fidelity to the Hebrew text and divergence from Christianized Septuagint terminology, played a pivotal role in reshaping the textual landscape of the Greek Bible, highlighting the complex interplay of religious, cultural, and textual identities in the early centuries of the Common Era.

The Great Codices

The Septuagint (LXX) manuscripts from late antiquity to the medieval period were primarily written in majuscule script, characterized by large, squarish Greek capital letters without ligatures or word divisions (scriptio continua). This style, resembling painted inscriptions with distinct strokes and hairlines, is also known as uncial due to the rounded form of the letters. Early uncial manuscripts, such as Codex Marchalianus (Q), lacked accents, though some later examples include them and feature letters extending above or below the line. Producing a complete Bible in uncial script was expensive, but costs were mitigated by using ligatures and abbreviations for common words, marked with a superscript line (e.g., θ̅ς̅ for “God,” κ̅ς̅ for “Lord,” χ̅ς̅ for “Christ”). Approximately 250 majuscule manuscripts exist, though many survive only as single leaves or fragments, identified by Latin or Greek capital letters.

By the 9th century C.E., majuscule script gave way to minuscule script, a cursive style that was more economical, requiring less space and enabling faster writing. Minuscule manuscripts introduced word divisions, accents, breathings, and punctuation, while retaining some abbreviations. Despite their later date (9th–16th centuries), minuscules can preserve early readings if copied carefully from majuscule texts. Notably, minuscules like b, o, c2, and e2 (9th–13th centuries) are key witnesses to the Lucianic recension, underscoring their textual significance.

This section focuses on the majuscule codices containing both the Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT), recognized as complete Christian Bibles. In Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) and Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ), these are cited with superscript symbols. For NT studies, they are denoted by a letter and a number beginning with zero, indicating their majuscule status.

Codex Vaticanus (GB)

Housed in the Vatican Library, Codex Vaticanus, a 4th-century manuscript (300-330 C.E.), spans 768 parchment leaves and is the premier witness to the pre-recensional Septuagint text. It includes the full Greek OT, excluding 1-4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon. Missing sections (Gen 1:1–46:28 and LXX Ps 105:27–137:6) were supplemented in the 15th century. The only exception to its pre-recensional status is the book of Isaiah, which reflects the Hexaplaric recension. Likely produced in Egypt, though evidence is inconclusive, Vaticanus was first documented in a 1475 Vatican Library record. It was briefly taken to Paris during Napoleon’s 1797 campaign but returned after his defeat.

Codex Sinaiticus (GS)

Written between 340 and 360 C.E., Codex Sinaiticus survives in 412 leaves, crafted by three scribes. Two 6th-century correctors addressed scribal errors and collated it against another manuscript, introducing variant readings. Colophons in Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther note corrections against a Hexaplaric text by Pamphilius. The OT includes partial texts of Genesis, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, the Prophets, poetical books, and deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, 1-4 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach), with minor gaps. Its text aligns closely with Vaticanus in the Prophets and poetical books, retains a non-recensional text in Ezra-Nehemiah, and shows Hexaplaric influence elsewhere. Likely produced in Caesarea and later moved to St. Catherine’s Monastery in Egypt, it was bound in the 6th century.

Constantin von Tischendorf’s rediscovery of Sinaiticus is legendary. In 1844, he found 129 leaves at St. Catherine’s Monastery, taking 43 to Leipzig University Library (Codex Friderico-Augustanus). In 1859, he located the main codex (347 leaves), copied it in Cairo, and arranged its transfer to Czar Alexander II, placing it in St. Petersburg’s National Library. In 1933, the British Library acquired it, though one leaf and four fragments remained in St. Petersburg. In 1975, 12 additional leaves and 14 fragments were found during monastery repairs. A 2010 facsimile edition, produced with the British Library, National Library of Russia, St. Catherine’s Monastery, and Leipzig University Library, documents the surviving leaves.

Codex Alexandrinus (GA)

Dated to the mid-5th century, Codex Alexandrinus, now in four volumes, lacks only 1 Sam 12:19–14:9 and LXX Ps 49:20–79:11. Its text is highly mixed: it aligns with Vaticanus in Leviticus but follows the Hexaplaric recension in 1 Samuel–2 Kings, shows slight Hexaplaric influence in Isaiah, and preserves a pre-recensional text in Jeremiah. Its unique readings necessitate caution in textual criticism. Originally in Constantinople, it was sent to King Charles I of England in 1627 by the patriarch of Constantinople, who had brought it from Alexandria’s library, giving it its name. Its origin and earlier history remain unknown.

Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (GC)

A 5th-century palimpsest, Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus was overwritten in the 12th century with 38 tractates by Ephraem Syrus. Its underwriting preserves 64 leaves of the OT Writings (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach) and 145 leaves of the NT. Housed in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, it exhibits distinctive readings in Job but is in poor condition due to Tischendorf’s use of chemical reagents to reveal the underwriting, making it difficult to read.

Codex Venetus (GV)

An 8th-century codex, Codex Venetus exists in two parts: one in the Vatican Library (Rome) and the other in Venice, their connection identified by Erich Klostermann in the late 19th century. The Roman part includes the Pentateuch (lacking Gen 1:1–Lev 13:59) and historical books, while the Venetian part covers Job, the poetical books, Prophets, and deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, 1-4 Maccabees). The Psalter is likely missing due to a division between the parts. The codex reflects varied textual traditions, and a passage by Eusebius at the end of the Venetian part suggests a transition to the NT, though no NT text follows. It is classified as a complete Bible based on this structure.

The great codices—Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Syri rescriptus, and Venetus—are foundational for Septuagint studies, preserving a range of textual traditions from pre-recensional to Hexaplaric texts. Their production in uncial script and later transitions to minuscule reflect the evolving practices of biblical manuscript creation, balancing cost, legibility, and fidelity to earlier texts. These codices, alongside later minuscules, remain critical for reconstructing the Septuagint’s textual history and understanding its role in early Christian communities.

The Septuagint and the Hebrew Text

The intricate history of the Septuagint (LXX) underscores its complex relationship with the Hebrew Bible, a dynamic illuminated by textual criticism and recent manuscript discoveries. The Göttingen Septuagint Project provides essential resources for reconstructing the earliest form of the LXX text, a task critical for understanding its interface with the Hebrew Bible. The Qumran scrolls have demonstrated that Greek translations diverging from the Masoretic Text (MT) often reflect specific Hebrew exemplars, challenging earlier reliance on hypothetical back-translations. These back-translations faced hurdles such as selecting appropriate Hebrew vocabulary, resolving syntactic ambiguities, and distinguishing between literal and interpretive elements in the Greek. Despite these challenges, precise reconstructions of words, phrases, or expressions are achievable, supporting initiatives like the Oxford Hebrew Bible (OHB) to produce a critical edition of the Hebrew text. However, this endeavor presupposes a reliable Greek source text, raising the question of how to access the earliest LXX text—a question shaped by historical theories and contemporary scholarship.

Urtext Theory (Paul de Lagarde)

Paul de Lagarde (1827–1891), a prominent orientalist and biblical scholar, proposed the Urtext theory, which posits that the three major LXX manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) derive from early recensions associated with (kaige-)Theodotion, (proto-)Lucian, and Hesychius. By stripping away Jewish and Christian recensional layers, Lagarde believed the original LXX text could be recovered. His approach, while fundamentally sound, assumed a uniform initial translation based on a single Hebrew exemplar, an assumption misaligned with the diverse origins of the LXX books. Each book was translated independently, often from distinct Hebrew exemplars, suggesting multiple “original texts” rather than a singular LXX Urtext. Lagarde’s work on the Lucianic recension, focusing on Genesis–Ruth using minuscules 19 and 108, faltered when his student Alfred Rahlfs demonstrated that these manuscripts switched to the Lucianic text only at Ruth 4:11, rendering much of Lagarde’s edition non-Lucianic. Despite this, Lagarde’s emphasis on the uniformity of individual book translations remains influential.

Note: Lagarde’s contributions to LXX studies are marred by his anti-Semitic writings, which anticipated later Nazi propaganda. While his scholarly work is significant, this context cannot be ignored.

Targum Hypothesis (Paul Kahle)

In contrast, Paul Kahle (1875–1964) proposed the Targum hypothesis, likening the LXX to the Aramaic Targums—translations created for worship and education in the Diaspora. Kahle argued that multiple Greek translations, both oral and written, emerged simultaneously across different regions to meet local needs, as suggested by the Letter of Aristeas (314), which mentions earlier, inadequate Greek Torah translations. He viewed the LXX as a composite of these diverse translations rather than a unified project. While Kahle recognized the textual plurality of the LXX tradition more acutely than Lagarde, his conclusion overstates the case. The existence of varied translations for individual books supports plurality, but each book’s translation is generally uniform, with variants attributable to copying, correction, or recension processes. The Targum hypothesis, therefore, does not significantly advance textual criticism.

Contemporary Discussion

Modern scholarship focuses on identifying the earliest attainable LXX text (Old Greek) and verifying hypothetical retroversions with Qumran Hebrew exemplars. This effort addresses whether the Old Greek or the proto-Masoretic tradition preserves an earlier Hebrew text stage. The fluidity of textual transmission in the Hellenistic period, where final editing overlapped with copying and translation, suggests that the Old Greek could reflect a Hebrew text predating the MT. For instance, a completed Hebrew scroll might serve as the exemplar for a Greek translation, while subsequent revisions to the Hebrew text align it with the proto-Masoretic tradition.

Adrian Schenker’s research on the books of Kings exemplifies this approach. He proposes that the Old Greek preserves the earliest form of the text, with the proto-Masoretic text representing a later, revised edition. Schenker’s methodology requires that Greek variants meet three criteria: they must not result from Hebrew exemplar corruption, translation techniques (inner-Greek variants), or redactional dependence on the proto-MT. Using Codex Vaticanus, the Antiochene (Lucianic) text, and the Old Latin (Vetus Latina), which often aligns with early LXX readings unaffected by MT influence, Schenker argues that the Old Greek of Kings is the direct predecessor of the proto-MT. The proto-Masoretic readings, he suggests, form a new literary edition with an anti-Samaritan theological slant, predating the final Samaritan-Jewish schism. The Old Greek, likely from the 3rd century B.C.E., appears as a gradually evolving work compared to the more deliberate revisions in the proto-MT.

Schenker’s thesis, while compelling, requires further validation to confirm whether these proto-Masoretic readings reflect a systematic editorial agenda. His approach emphasizes case-by-case analysis, acknowledging broader historical implications where evidence permits. This ongoing discussion may restore the LXX’s significance in textual criticism, echoing its 19th-century prominence but grounded in Qumran evidence and refined methodologies.

Weighing Manuscripts to Determine the Original Words

In Old Testament textual criticism, the Masoretic Text, exemplified by Codex Leningrad B 19A and the Aleppo Codex, is the primary starting point due to its status as the original-language text. Departing from the MT requires substantial evidence, as it is generally reliable despite imperfections. The Septuagint remains a vital tool for identifying copyist errors—intentional or unintentional—in Hebrew manuscripts, but it must be corroborated by other sources, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Syriac, Aramaic Targums, or Vulgate, especially when multiple witnesses diverge from the MT.

Historically, the Septuagint was initially revered by Jews as divinely inspired, equivalent to the Hebrew Scriptures. However, its adoption by Christians in the 1st century C.E. for evangelism and debates about Jesus as the Messiah led to Jewish skepticism. By the 2nd century C.E., Jews abandoned the LXX, reverting to the Hebrew text and producing alternative Greek translations (e.g., Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion). This shift coincided with the standardization of the consonantal Hebrew text, reducing scribal alterations common in the earlier Sopherim period (from Ezra to Jesus’ time).

From the 6th to 10th centuries C.E., the Masoretes, meticulous Jewish scribe-scholars, prioritized precise transmission of the Hebrew text, down to individual letters. They used marginal notes—Small Masora (side margins), Large Masora (top margins), and Final Masora (elsewhere)—to document changes, unusual forms, word frequencies, and cross-references. To manage limited space, they employed abbreviated codes and marked middle words or letters in books, even counting every letter of the Hebrew OT. For cross-referencing without numbered verses or concordances, they listed partial parallel verses, often a single word, requiring near-memorization of the entire Hebrew Bible. These practices ensured unparalleled accuracy, making the Masoretic Text a cornerstone of textual criticism, with the LXX and other witnesses serving as critical complements.

This section highlights the evolving role of the Septuagint in relation to the Hebrew text, from its early parity to its critical use in modern scholarship, enriched by Qumran discoveries and rigorous textual methodologies.