Hebrew Texts Behind the Greek

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ca. 1947–1956) placed before us hundreds of Hebrew and Aramaic biblical manuscripts copied between roughly the mid–third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., alongside a few Greek biblical fragments. These manuscripts let us examine, with unprecedented closeness, the Hebrew textual landscape that stood behind the Greek Septuagint. Because the Septuagint (LXX) is a translation produced by Jewish scholars in the third–second centuries B.C.E., and because the Scrolls include Hebrew copies from just before and after that same window, their convergence and divergence are directly relevant to restoring the earliest attainable text of the Old Testament and to understanding how Jewish translators read their Hebrew exemplars.

The principal value of the Scrolls for Septuagint studies is twofold. First, the Scrolls display the range of Hebrew textual forms in circulation during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. These include copies closely aligned with the later Masoretic tradition (“proto-Masoretic”), copies showing the systematizing traits later prominent in the Samaritan Pentateuch (“pre-Samaritan”), and copies that do not fall neatly into either stream (“non-aligned”). Second, the Scrolls allow us to ask, book by book, whether an LXX rendering reflects a faithful translation of a Hebrew reading now preserved at Qumran, or whether the LXX translator made an interpretive choice while the underlying Hebrew remained the same as the proto-Masoretic form. The first scenario gives the LXX independent probative force for earlier Hebrew; the second shows the LXX as an early witness to Jewish interpretation rather than to a different Vorlage.

This distinction guards the proper primacy of the Hebrew Masoretic Text in textual criticism while using the LXX and the Scrolls as corroborating and clarifying witnesses. The Masoretic tradition—stabilized in the centuries after 70 C.E. and meticulously preserved in codices such as the Aleppo Codex (c. 930 C.E.) and Codex Leningrad B 19A (1008/1009 C.E.)—remains the base text. Where the LXX aligns with one or more Qumran Hebrew witnesses against a difficult or anomalous Masoretic reading, the combined evidence may point to an earlier Hebrew form. Where the LXX departs but Qumran supports the Masoretic tradition, we generally have a translational issue rather than a different Hebrew text.

The Scrolls also illuminate reverence for Jehovah’s Name. Several early Greek biblical fragments from the Judean wilderness (notably the late first-century B.C.E./early first-century C.E. Greek Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever) write the Tetragrammaton not as κύριος but in ancient Hebrew characters within a Greek line, and one early Hebrew-to-Greek witness (a Qumran Leviticus fragment) transliterates the Name as IAO. These practices, standing in Jewish transmission before extensive Christian copying, confirm that the Divine Name was marked out as holy even in Greek contexts. When we translate Old Testament verses in which the Hebrew bears the Tetragrammaton, it is appropriate to use “Jehovah,” reflecting the Hebrew text and the earliest Greek documentary habits known to us.

Chronologically, the Scrolls meet the LXX precisely where we need them to. The earliest LXX books (Pentateuch) were rendered in the early third century B.C.E. in Alexandria, with additional books translated across the second and first centuries B.C.E. The Scrolls’ Hebrew manuscripts span this same era. The result is a direct laboratory for comparing the Greek translation with Hebrew exemplars that are close in time to the translators’ Hebrew. This is not a post-medieval reconstruction; it is a contemporaneous comparison. In practice, that means a pastor or student can look at a difficult Old Testament verse, ask how the LXX renders it, then check whether any Qumran Hebrew copy attests the same underlying wording. When all three—LXX, Qumran Hebrew, and a reasoned explanation of Masoretic variation—converge, our confidence rises that we are looking at the original reading.

Parallel Witnesses

When the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls are placed side by side, several patterns emerge that are reliable enough to guide exegesis and textual decisions. The following cases illustrate the main types of convergence and divergence without exhausting the data.

One of the clearest convergences appears in the Song of Moses. In Deuteronomy 32:8 the Masoretic Text reads that the Most High fixed the boundaries of the peoples “according to the number of the sons of Israel.” The Septuagint has “according to the number of the angels of God” or “sons of God,” and a Qumran Hebrew copy of Deuteronomy preserves “sons of God” (בני אלוהים/בני אל). This is a classic instance in which the LXX is not innovating; it is translating a Hebrew form older than the Masoretic wording. The context of Deuteronomy 32, which views the nations under heavenly oversight while Jehovah’s own portion is Jacob, supports the Qumran-LXX reading. Here the Scrolls and the Greek converge to clarify an early Hebrew text that later copyists, in the stream leading to the Masoretic tradition, rendered differently.

The same song ends with another strong convergence. Deuteronomy 32:43 is longer in the LXX, incorporating poetic cola that summon the nations and the heavenly beings to rejoice with God’s people and to worship Him. A Qumran Hebrew copy preserves this longer form, demonstrating that the LXX length is not a Greek expansion but a translation of a Hebrew text also known in Judea before 70 C.E. The additional lines harmonize with the entire song’s theme of judgment and mercy and illuminate New Testament echoes that call on “all the angels of God” to worship the Son. The point for textual criticism is straightforward: where Qumran Hebrew and the LXX align, the earlier Hebrew form gains concrete support.

Another frequently discussed convergence concerns Exodus 12:40. The Masoretic Text as commonly pointed states that the sojourning of the sons of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, lasted 430 years. The Septuagint reads that the sojourning of the sons of Israel “which they dwelt in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan” was 430 years. A Qumran Hebrew manuscript preserves a form that includes “and in the land of Canaan,” as does the Samaritan Pentateuch. The combined testimony shows that a Hebrew text existed in the Second Temple period that counted the patriarchal years in Canaan as part of the 430, matching the LXX. This does not force a change to the Masoretic base, but it enables a reasoned explanation of how the chronology was understood in ancient Jewish communities and why Stephen’s speech in Acts reflects the 75/430 schema tied to LXX numerical conventions.

Genesis 4:8 supplies a simpler case. The LXX includes Cain’s words to Abel, “Let us go out to the field,” before the murder. The Masoretic consonants could be read that way, but the Masoretic pointing does not include the phrase. A Qumran Hebrew fragment attests a form with the invitation, confirming that the LXX translated a fuller Hebrew line known in the Second Temple period. Here the Scrolls remove any suspicion that the LXX invented dialogue; they show that the translator rendered wording present in at least one Hebrew exemplar.

The Psalter provides several instructive parallels. Psalm 145 is an alphabetic acrostic that lacks the nun line in the standard Masoretic arrangement. The LXX contains an additional verse that fits the acrostic sequence, and a Qumran Psalms manuscript also includes a nun verse. The shared presence in LXX and Qumran shows that a Hebrew form with the nun line circulated alongside the form without it. Because acrostic discipline is a structural feature integral to this psalm’s design, the existence of the nun line in early witnesses argues that the acrostic once stood complete. Retaining the Masoretic order for liturgical purposes is perfectly acceptable, but noting the nun line’s ancient attestation strengthens exegesis by restoring deliberate symmetry.

Psalm 151 is known in Greek outside the Masoretic 150-psalm count. A Qumran Psalms manuscript preserves this psalm in Hebrew (actually in two parts that correspond to the Greek composition), demonstrating that Psalm 151 is not a Greek invention but a Hebrew composition copied in some Judean circles. This does not expand the canon; it clarifies the history of psalmic collections and explains why some Greek codices include the piece. Pastors can acknowledge Psalm 151’s existence as Second Temple liturgy without implying that the canonical Psalter should be altered.

The historical books offer some of the most dramatic Qumran–LXX convergences. In 1 Samuel 10:27–11:1 the Masoretic Text moves directly from the mention of worthless men despising Saul to the siege of Jabesh-Gilead by Nahash the Ammonite. The Septuagint, however, contains an explanatory paragraph that reports how Nahash had been gouging out the right eyes of Israelites, a practice that incited the crisis at Jabesh. A Qumran Hebrew manuscript of Samuel preserves essentially the same paragraph. Here the LXX records material present in an early Hebrew edition but absent from the later Masoretic line. Because the added paragraph makes historical and narrative sense, and because it explains the sudden urgency in 1 Samuel 11, its early attestation is weighty for reconstructing Samuel’s original shape.

In 1 Samuel 17:4 the Masoretic Text gives Goliath’s height as “six cubits and a span.” The LXX reads “four cubits and a span,” and a Qumran Samuel manuscript also reads “four.” The coincidence shows that the LXX again translates a Hebrew figure preserved independently at Qumran. The difference may reflect a later Masoretic harmonization to emphasize the giant’s enormity, or simply a copyist’s numerical slip in a tradition that otherwise handles numbers with care. Either way, the Qumran–LXX agreement establishes that “four cubits and a span” is an early Hebrew reading.

In 1 Samuel 14:41 Saul’s appeal to Jehovah for an oracle before casting lots appears in a shorter Hebrew form in the Masoretic Text but in an expanded, balanced prayer in the LXX. Qumran’s Samuel manuscript supports the fuller prayer in Hebrew. The LXX therefore reflects a Hebrew form that maintained a parallelism appropriate to priestly lots and preserved a request explicitly seeking clarity from God. Here again, the Scrolls and the Greek together disclose an older Hebrew shape.

The prophetic books also yield important data. The Greek Jeremiah is shorter than Masoretic Jeremiah by about one-seventh and has a different internal arrangement. Qumran Jeremiah manuscripts attest a Hebrew text whose order and length align with the Greek form. This shows that two Hebrew editions of Jeremiah circulated in antiquity, a shorter form with a particular order and a longer form that became standard in the Masoretic tradition. The LXX translators of Jeremiah worked from the shorter Hebrew exemplar. This is not textual chaos; it is the ordinary life of a prophetic book that existed in more than one authorized edition before stabilization. For exposition, the difference chiefly affects macro-structure and the placement of oracles; the message remains the same.

Isaiah 53:11 gives a celebrated example where the Septuagint and a Qumran Hebrew copy converge against the later Masoretic form. The LXX reads that the Servant will “see light and be satisfied,” while the Masoretic Text reads, “He will see… and be satisfied,” without the noun “light.” A Qumran Isaiah scroll preserves “light,” which accords with the poetic logic of the passage and the chapter’s sequence from suffering to vindication. The convergence argues that “light” belongs to the earliest Hebrew text.

The Scrolls also provide instances where the LXX’s reading is better explained as an interpretive translation of the standard Hebrew rather than as a witness to a different Hebrew Vorlage. Psalm 40:6 in the Masoretic Text reads, “Ears You have opened for me.” The Septuagint has “A body You prepared for me.” Qumran Psalms manuscripts support the Hebrew idiom about ears. The LXX rendering, while theologically significant in New Testament use, is best understood as an interpretive move connecting obedience (open ears) with the whole person offered to God. It is not evidence for a different Hebrew wording at this locus. Recognizing this preserves the Masoretic form while still valuing the LXX’s early exposition.

Another example appears in Amos 9:11–12. The Masoretic Text speaks of Israel possessing “the remnant of Edom,” while the LXX reads “the remnant of mankind,” a wording cited in Acts 15 in the context of the nations turning to God. A Qumran Hebrew witness preserves “Edom.” The LXX’s “mankind” likely reflects a deliberate Greek translation choice stemming from consonantal similarity and context, not a different Hebrew exemplar. This case teaches restraint: where Qumran supports the Masoretic wording and the LXX can be explained by translation technique or vocabulary, the Hebrew text stands.

The Scrolls also remind us that not every LXX–Qumran convergence mandates amending the Masoretic Text in modern printed Hebrew Bibles. In several places the LXX preserves an earlier Hebrew reading attested at Qumran, but the Masoretic line represents the form that became standard in synagogue and later church use. The prudent course is to note the earlier reading in apparatus and, where exegetically relevant, in translation margin notes. Pastors can teach these places transparently, demonstrating how Jehovah preserved His Word through ordinary transmission and how early witnesses work together to clarify details without unsettling the message.

Finally, the Scrolls give insight into deliberate Hebrew harmonizations and layout features that bear on Greek translation. So-called “pre-Samaritan” Pentateuch manuscripts at Qumran sometimes expand or smooth the text for clarity, particularly in Exodus and Numbers. Where the LXX agrees with such expansions, it may be because the translator worked from a Hebrew exemplar already harmonized in this way. Elsewhere, where the LXX does not agree, the translator likely worked from a more austere Hebrew line closer to the later Masoretic tradition. This awareness prevents over-generalization about the LXX being “loose” or “strict.” The translator often followed the Hebrew he had, whether that Hebrew reflected a harmonized stream or a more restrained one.

Implications for Old Testament Textual Criticism

Bringing the Scrolls and the LXX into the same frame yields several methodological conclusions that strengthen, rather than weaken, the church’s confidence in Scripture. We begin where we must: with the privileged status of the Hebrew Masoretic tradition as the base text for establishing the Old Testament. The Masoretic line is the direct heir of synagogue copying that stabilized after 70 C.E. and that was refined by the Sopherim and Masoretes through intricate checking methods. Its internal coherence and external discipline justify its primacy. The Scrolls and the LXX do not displace this primacy; they supply the early comparative evidence that enables us to identify and correct the small places where earlier Hebrew readings can be restored with integrity.

The first implication is that textual criticism in the Old Testament is a matter of weighing converging witnesses, not tallying votes. A single early Qumran Hebrew reading supported by an early LXX rendering and explaining the rise of the Masoretic form can outweigh dozens of medieval copies that reproduce the later wording. This is simply the logic of historical evidence. Deuteronomy 32:8 and 32:43 illustrate this well. The proto-Masoretic stream stabilized in later centuries with a particular reading; earlier Hebrew witnesses at Qumran, combined with the LXX, show that a different Hebrew wording stood in the period closest to the authorial context. The right response is not to discount the Masoretic tradition but to acknowledge how the evidence indicates an earlier stratum and to read the passage accordingly.

The second implication is that the LXX’s evidentiary value rises sharply when it aligns with independent Hebrew witnesses at Qumran. Where the LXX stands alone against the Masoretic tradition, the prudent question is whether translation technique accounts for the difference. Psalm 40:6 and Amos 9:12 show that it often does. But where the LXX and Qumran Hebrew converge—1 Samuel’s Nahash paragraph, Goliath’s height, Saul’s fuller oracle; Jeremiah’s shorter, differently ordered edition; the nun line in Psalm 145; Isaiah’s “light” in 53:11—the case for an earlier Hebrew reading is robust. This is the disciplined use of the LXX envisioned throughout this book: not to supplant Hebrew, but to support it where the evidence justifies.

The third implication concerns editions. Jeremiah’s dual forms demonstrate that some biblical books circulated in more than one authorized edition in antiquity. The LXX preserves one, Qumran Hebrew copies the same, while the Masoretic tradition preserves the other. Recognizing this prevents false dilemmas. A teacher need not choose between “Greek Jeremiah” and “Hebrew Jeremiah.” He can explain that Jeremiah existed in shorter and longer forms, that the Greek translation follows the shorter, and that the church and synagogue later read the longer form without denying the prophet’s message. This kind of clarity calms hearers who might otherwise assume disorder.

A fourth implication concerns the Divine Name. The earliest Greek biblical fragments from the Judean wilderness and some Qumran-region witnesses preserve the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters or a specialized transliteration in Greek lines. This confirms that the Jewish scribal world that produced and first transmitted the LXX revered Jehovah’s Name even while translating the surrounding words into Greek. Later Christian copies standardized κύριος as a reverential surrogate, commonly written as a nomen sacrum. In study and public reading, therefore, it remains fitting to render JHVH as “Jehovah” in Old Testament passages and to teach congregations why early Greek practice and the Hebrew base justify this. This is not a sectarian affectation; it is a response to the textual evidence.

A fifth implication is pedagogical. Because the Scrolls and the LXX display the same fundamental message in convergent streams, pastors can use their agreement to build confidence in Scripture. When a congregation hears that the text of Deuteronomy 32 or of Isaiah 53 is confirmed by independently preserved Hebrew and Greek witnesses more than a millennium older than medieval codices, respect for Scripture’s preservation grows. When a sermon clarifies that a difficult verse in Samuel or a structural question in Jeremiah reflects earlier Hebrew editions known to faithful Jews, hearers see that careful scholarship removes confusion rather than fostering doubt.

The sixth implication concerns practice in translation and exegesis. Modern translations rightly reflect the Masoretic base. They should also, without apology, note ancient alternate readings when the evidence is strong and exegetically meaningful. A footnote that reads, “Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint read ‘sons of God’ here,” or “Qumran Hebrew and Septuagint include an additional paragraph describing Nahash’s brutality,” equips serious Bible students to see how textual evidence clarifies sense. This noting of evidence is not destabilizing. It reflects the reality that Jehovah preserved His Word through an abundance of witnesses and that learning from them honors Him.

A seventh implication touches chronology and authorship. Literal biblical chronology, already used throughout this work, provides a stable frame in which to place textual phenomena. The destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E., the return in 537 B.C.E., the translation of the Pentateuch in the early third century B.C.E., the Maccabean period in the mid-second century B.C.E., and the fall of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. are chronological anchors. Qumran manuscripts copied during the second–first centuries B.C.E. and the first century C.E. lie within this frame. When a Qumran Hebrew reading agrees with the LXX, we are not comparing distant medieval guesses but texts within a few centuries of the original compositions, or within a few centuries of the first translations. This proximity warrants sober confidence.

An eighth implication is that claims of pervasive textual corruption in the Old Testament lack evidence. The Scrolls show a remarkable stability in the Hebrew text across centuries, with variation clustered in known categories: small orthographic differences, occasional expansions or harmonizations, and in a limited number of places, alternate editions or earlier readings. The LXX, when judged by the Scrolls, stands as a faithful translation tradition that often confirms the Hebrew and, at times, preserves a reading that helps restore the earliest text. The overwhelming agreement between these diverse witnesses is precisely what we would expect if the Old Testament was preserved through painstaking transmission, checked by communal reading and scribal discipline.

A ninth implication involves the careful use of categories such as “proto-Masoretic,” “pre-Samaritan,” and “non-aligned.” These terms are descriptive, not evaluative. A “proto-Masoretic” Qumran manuscript shows that the textual tradition leading to the Masoretic Text already existed and was robust in the Second Temple period. A “pre-Samaritan” manuscript exhibits harmonizing tendencies that later characterized the Samaritan Pentateuch; its presence at Qumran shows that even communities devoted to strict observance copied such forms. A “non-aligned” manuscript reminds us that neat modern groupings do not capture the full richness of textual transmission. The LXX can reflect any of these streams, depending on the book and the translator’s exemplar. Because the Scrolls disclose the texture of the Hebrew base, they help us place each LXX book within its proper Hebrew neighborhood.

Finally, a tenth implication centers on pastoral communication. Congregations are sometimes unsettled by hearing that “the LXX reads X and the Hebrew reads Y.” The remedy is accurate explanation. Where the Scrolls show that the LXX translated a different Hebrew reading, say so and show why the earlier form is credible. Where the LXX reflects an interpretive translation of the same Hebrew, honor the Masoretic wording and explain the translator’s choice. Where editions differ (as in Jeremiah), teach the historical situation without dramatizing it. Always emphasize how the converging witnesses confirm the message of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This transparent handling of evidence strengthens trust in the Scriptures.

Later chapters will examine how these LXX–Qumran convergences interact with the Masoretic tradition in detail and will address case studies book by book—Jeremiah’s editions, Daniel’s Greek forms, and Esther’s Greek expansions—alongside the major critical editions of the Septuagint used today. Those discussions presuppose the conclusions reached here: the Scrolls illuminate the Hebrew texts behind the Greek; the LXX usually confirms the Hebrew and sometimes preserves an earlier reading; and the prudent, evidence-guided use of both yields the most reliable reconstruction of the Old Testament text.

The result is ordered confidence. The Greek and Hebrew witnesses from the last centuries B.C.E. and the first century C.E. show that the Old Testament we hold is the same Scripture transmitted through synagogue and church. The three great codices present mature, careful Greek texts; the Qumran Hebrew manuscripts verify that Greek renderings often rest on early Hebrew forms; and the convergences explain why the New Testament writers and the earliest congregations could preach Christ from Moses and the Prophets with assurance. This is exactly how faithful preservation looks across time: many witnesses, disciplined copying, and the kind of agreement that allows us to restore the original words and to proclaim them with clarity.

You May Also Enjoy

Is the Vowel Pointing of BHS the Correct Pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew?

See more

About the Author