Introduction: Weighing Translational Motivations and Manuscript Evidence

In the study of Old Testament textual criticism, particularly regarding the Septuagint (LXX), a theory has circulated that translators sometimes altered their readings of Hebrew letters based not on the actual manuscript evidence, but on theological or exegetical concerns. This hypothesis, often called “tendentious paleographical exegesis,” proposes that translators exploited graphic similarities between Hebrew letters—such as daleth (ד) and resh (ר), or he (ה) and tav (ת)—to justify readings that aligned better with their interpretive preferences or theological agendas. However, such claims must be approached with caution and skepticism, especially when simpler explanations are at hand, such as actual Hebrew manuscript variants or honest visual misreadings by translators.

Two illustrative examples often cited in support of this theory are Psalm 9:6 and Genesis 8:21. By examining these examples closely in light of the Masoretic Text (MT), the Septuagint (LXX), and the realities of ancient Hebrew paleography, we can better understand the strengths and limits of this theory.

Psalm 9:6 – Graphic Similarity Between ת and ה

Psalm 9:6 in the Updated American Standard Version reads:

“The enemy has been ruined forever; their cities you rooted out; the very memory of them has perished.”

In the Masoretic Text (MT), the Hebrew reads: אבדת רשע (“You destroyed the wicked”), where the verb אבדת (“you destroyed”) ends with a tav (ת), making it a second person perfect verb, with God as the subject.

However, the Septuagint renders this verse as: ἀπώλετο ὁ ἀσεβής (“the wicked has perished”), implying a third person perfect and reading the Hebrew instead as אבד הרשע, with the final letter being a he (ה) instead of a tav (ת), changing both the morphology and the subject.

It has been argued by some that the LXX translator intentionally altered the Hebrew reading by exploiting the similarity between ת and ה in paleo-Hebrew or early square script, with the intent of softening the portrayal of Jehovah as the active agent of destruction. This argument assumes a theological motivation to reduce God’s direct involvement in judgment. Yet this proposal is weak on several grounds.

First, the LXX of the Psalms has no aversion to portraying God as the active destroyer of the wicked. Consider Psalm 5:6–7 (LXX), which reads:

“You will destroy those who speak falsehood; Jehovah abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.”

And again, Psalm 143[142]:12 states:

“And in Your mercy, You will destroy my enemies, and You will cut off all those who afflict my soul; for I am Your servant.”

These passages demonstrate no hesitation in attributing the action of destruction directly to God. If the translator had a theological discomfort with such portrayals, it is inconsistent with the rest of his work. Thus, the more reasonable explanation is that the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX either read אבד הרשע or that the translator accidentally misread a tav as a he—a common enough visual slip, particularly in earlier scripts. The theory of tendentious rereading is far less convincing than the possibility of a legitimate textual variant or scribal misreading.

Genesis 8:21 – Confusion Between ד and ר

Genesis 8:21 in the Updated American Standard Version reads:

“Jehovah smelled the soothing aroma; and Jehovah said in His heart, ‘I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.’”

In Hebrew, the phrase is: בעבור האדם (“on account of man”), with the key preposition being בעבור.

Yet, the LXX renders the phrase as διὰ τὰ ἔργα τῶν ἀνθρώπων (“because of the works of men”). This reading presupposes a Hebrew Vorlage reading something like בעבוד האדם—a phrase that replaces the letter resh (ר) with daleth (ד), shifting the noun from “account” to “work.”

G. Bertram, writing in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), goes further by suggesting that this change reflects a theological bias: namely, that the Hellenistic Jewish translators held a negative view of human labor or “works” and altered the reading accordingly. However, this interpretation stretches the evidence far beyond what is warranted.

In actuality, the supposed theological polemic against “works” is foreign to the translator’s general approach in Genesis. Moreover, similar forms are found in Genesis 3:17, where God curses the ground “because of” (בעבור) Adam, again without any pejorative implication toward human labor.

It is much more likely that the LXX translator encountered a Hebrew manuscript where a daleth had been miswritten in place of a resh, or vice versa. Such errors are well-documented in the manuscript tradition. The visual similarity between these two letters—particularly in ancient scripts—makes such a misreading plausible and far more likely than a deliberate theological reinterpretation. In fact, the LXX translation may even have been influenced contextually by the repeated emphasis in Genesis on man’s works—both righteous and evil—without suggesting that the translator intentionally imposed a foreign theological agenda on the text.

The Case Against Tendentious Paleographical Exegesis

The proposal of tendentious paleographical exegesis posits a complex, intentional maneuver on the part of the translator—a deliberate choice to read a similar-looking letter differently because of theological concerns. Yet such a hypothesis is methodologically weak unless it can demonstrate three things: (1) a clear pattern of such behavior; (2) contextual theological pressure strong enough to warrant deviation; and (3) the absence of simpler explanations like scribal error or extant textual variants.

In both Psalm 9:6 and Genesis 8:21, we find no convincing evidence for theological pressure. The LXX translators elsewhere affirm the very theological ideas they are purported to avoid. Furthermore, the visual similarities between tav/he and daleth/resh are known paleographic problems, attested in multiple Hebrew manuscripts and Qumran texts. These facts argue far more convincingly for unintentional scribal errors or divergent Vorlage texts than for any deliberate theological tampering.

Additionally, if the LXX translators were consistently prone to such ideological reinterpretations, we would expect a pattern across multiple texts in the same book or author. But such a pattern is not discernible in Genesis or the Psalms. In fact, the general approach of the LXX translators is marked by faithfulness to the Hebrew source, despite occasional stylistic and syntactical liberties.

To attribute theological motivations to what is most likely a paleographic or transmissional variant introduces unnecessary speculation into the already complex discipline of textual criticism. The principle of lectio difficilior potior—“the more difficult reading is stronger”—also cautions us against assuming a simplified or smoothed-over reading unless the manuscript evidence demands it.

Conclusion: Upholding Sound Textual Methodology

While we cannot completely rule out the possibility of intentional midrashic or exegetical reinterpretation by the LXX translators, such scenarios must be demonstrated, not assumed. The textual scholar must operate from a posture of skepticism toward speculative theories, prioritizing manuscript evidence and sound paleographic reasoning over theological conjecture.

In the examples of Psalm 9:6 and Genesis 8:21, the balance of probability rests firmly on the side of transmissional or paleographical explanations, not theological revisionism. The Masoretic Text, supported by its internal coherence and corroborated by ancient witnesses like the Dead Sea Scrolls, remains the foundational text. Any departure from it must meet a high evidentiary threshold.

We do well to remember that the scribes, copyists, and translators who preserved the text were not immune to error, but neither were they reckless or driven by theological agendas at odds with the text they revered. The Scriptures, as inspired by God, have been remarkably preserved through millennia. Our responsibility is to handle them with precision, reverence, and scholarly integrity.

You May Also Enjoy

The Critical Role of the Demonstrative Pronoun in Leviticus 1:17: Textual-Critical Implications and Hebrew Linguistics

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS