Framing the Question: What Kind of “Differences” Are We Talking About?

When readers first compare the Greek Septuagint with the Hebrew Masoretic Text, they quickly encounter three broad kinds of differences. First are differences of scope—places where a Greek book is longer or shorter than the received Hebrew form, or arranged in a different order. Second are differences of wording that arise from translation technique—where the translator renders the same Hebrew words with Greek phrasing that clarifies, paraphrases, or occasionally misreads, without implying a different Hebrew base. Third are genuine textual differences—places where the Greek preserves, or points toward, an older Hebrew reading than what stands in the Masoretic tradition, a fact that can often be tested by comparison with the Hebrew manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Our task in this chapter is to sort these with care, to give the Masoretic tradition its rightful primacy as the base text for the Old Testament, and then to show how the Septuagint, properly weighed, helps the church restore the earliest attainable wording and read the Scriptures with confidence.

The Septuagint is not a single, uniform translation produced at a single moment; it is a collection of Jewish translations completed in stages from the early third to the first century B.C.E., later transmitted in large Christian codices (notably Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus) with evidence of regional recensions. That historical reality explains why different books show different profiles of difference and why each book must be evaluated on its own terms, always with the Masoretic Text as the starting point.

Additions and Omissions: What Is Longer or Shorter in the LXX?

Length differences belong to the most visible category. Sometimes the Greek form is shorter, sometimes longer, and sometimes the order of material differs even when overall length is comparable. These shifts must not be sensationalized. They reflect the real history of transmission, including earlier Hebrew editions, later expansions, and the translator’s handling of repeated material. The question in every case is simple and sober: does the Greek length reflect a different Hebrew exemplar, or is it a translational or editorial development within the Greek tradition?

Jeremiah is the classic example of a shorter Greek form that is also differently arranged. The Greek book is approximately one-seventh shorter than the Masoretic Jeremiah and places the oracles against the nations within the main body in a different position than in the Hebrew arrangement. Importantly, Hebrew manuscripts from Qumran align with the Greek order and length, demonstrating that the translators of Jeremiah worked from a shorter Hebrew edition known in antiquity. In other words, Jeremiah circulated in more than one Hebrew edition before the Masoretic tradition stabilized the longer form after the exile (Jeremiah’s ministry running from the thirteenth year of Josiah, 627 B.C.E., to after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E.). This is neither chaos nor contradiction; it is the ordinary life of a prophetic book in more than one authorized edition.

Job, in its Old Greek form, also appears shorter than the received Hebrew text by a significant margin. Here, however, the explanation cannot be pressed without careful book-level analysis. Some of Job’s Greek brevity reflects the translator’s tendency to compress parallel lines and to streamline difficult poetry to keep sense accessible in Greek; other places likely indicate a translator working from a Hebrew copy with fewer expansions in repeated formulas. In either case, the message of Job—set against the patriarchal backdrop and wrestled with anew by exiles and post-exilic readers—remains intact, and the discipline of weighing evidence book by book protects us from sweeping claims.

Samuel–Kings (1–2 Kingdoms in the Greek enumeration) supply instances of Greek “pluses” that correspond to early Hebrew material absent in the medieval Masoretic line. The well-known paragraph describing Nahash the Ammonite’s practice of gouging out right eyes, which explains the alarm that triggers Saul’s deliverance of Jabesh-Gilead, stands in the Greek and is preserved in a Hebrew Samuel manuscript from the Judean wilderness. This tells us that the “plus” is not a Greek invention but an early Hebrew paragraph that did not pass into the later Masoretic tradition. Another small but striking case is the measurement of Goliath’s height, where the Greek reads “four cubits and a span,” a figure that matches a Hebrew Samuel copy from Qumran and can account for how a later “six cubits and a span” arose in the Masoretic line through a numerical slip or harmonizing tendency. These are not random; they are transparent instances where the Septuagint’s length or content matches independent Hebrew evidence.

Psalms presents both longer and shorter forms at the margins of the canonical collection. Psalm 151 appears in Greek codices as an additional psalm. A Hebrew copy of that composition was found at Qumran (in two parts corresponding to the Greek), demonstrating that Psalm 151 is an ancient Hebrew piece known in some Judean circles. Its presence in Greek codices does not expand the canon; it helps us trace the history of psalm collections and explains why some Greek copies include the composition as an appendix to the canonical 150.

Esther shows the opposite profile: Greek copies transmit sizable expansions—prayers, dream sequences, and interpretive edicts—that are absent from the Hebrew Masoretic text. In this case, there is no independent Hebrew evidence for those additions, and no Hebrew Esther was found among the Scrolls to support them. The expansions function as Greek interpretive supplements that make explicit what the Hebrew narrative implies, often highlighting God’s providence where the Hebrew remains understated. They tell us how Greek-speaking Jews and, later, Christians expounded the book’s theology; they do not alter the Hebrew canon received by Israel.

Daniel exhibits both expansion and substitution. The Greek tradition transmits two Greek “additions” (Susanna; Bel and the Dragon) and a liturgical prayer with a hymn (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three) inserted into Daniel 3. These are not part of the Hebrew canonical text. Moreover, the form of Daniel most widely copied in Greek Christian codices is not the Old Greek, but the later revision made by Theodotion in the second century C.E., which hewed more closely to the Hebrew of his day. For textual criticism, the original Old Greek Daniel remains crucial evidence for how Jewish translators first rendered the book; for ecclesiastical reading in late antiquity, Theodotion’s Daniel predominated.

The Twelve Minor Prophets and Isaiah offer smaller but numerous length differences tied to recurring translation habits and, in the Twelve, occasional recensional activity. Such differences rarely affect translation of doctrine; they matter for local exegesis and for reconstructing early Hebrew readings where independent support exists.

Translational versus Textual: When a Difference Reflects Interpretation Rather Than a Different Hebrew Vorlage

Discerning whether a Greek difference is translational or textual is the core skill for pastors and seminary students who will use the Septuagint responsibly. The process is methodical. Begin with the Masoretic reading as the base. Note the Greek difference precisely. Ask whether the difference can be explained by known translation habits in that book: simplification of rare idioms, expansion for clarity in legal or poetic lines, harmonization to parallel passages, or the substitution of a common Greek word where a rare Hebrew term stands. Then ask whether any early Hebrew witness aligns with the Greek; if so, weigh the combined force of the witnesses.

Psalm 40:6 is a well-known case where the Greek reflects interpretive translation, not a different Hebrew text. The Hebrew reads, “Ears You have opened for me,” a vivid idiom for obedience. The Greek renders, “A body You prepared for me,” a formulation that emphasizes the whole person offered to God. Early Hebrew Psalms manuscripts support the Masoretic idiom about ears. The Greek translator moved from the particular “ears” to the comprehensive “body” to capture obedient availability in Greek idiom. The difference is translational, not textual. Recognizing this allows the preacher to explain both readings with clarity, honoring the Hebrew while understanding why the Greek reads as it does.

Amos 9:11–12 supplies another instructive example. The Masoretic Text speaks of Israel possessing “the remnant of Edom,” while the Greek reads “the remnant of mankind.” The difference has far-reaching implications when the passage is cited in Acts 15 and applied to the Gentiles. A Qumran Hebrew copy supports “Edom.” The Greek likely reflects a translator’s deliberate choice—perhaps influenced by consonantal similarity and the immediate context—that generalizes the point. This again is translational, not a different Hebrew Vorlage. The right response is to teach the Masoretic wording while noting how the Greek translator expressed the promise’s universal scope in language readily understood by Greek hearers.

By contrast, Deuteronomy 32:8 and 32:43 provide classic instances where the Greek reading aligns with early Hebrew witnesses against the later Masoretic form. In 32:8 the Masoretic Text reads that the Most High fixed the nations’ boundaries “according to the number of the sons of Israel,” while Greek copies preserve “according to the number of the sons of God” (or “angels of God”), and a Qumran Hebrew copy confirms the older reading. Likewise, in 32:43 the Greek preserves lines missing from the received Hebrew, with Qumran Hebrew supporting those lines. In these cases the Septuagint does not merely interpret; it points to earlier Hebrew wording that was later adjusted or shortened in the Masoretic line. Here, textual difference—not translational choice—is in view, and responsible editions will signal this for readers.

Jeremiah’s shorter, differently ordered Greek, confirmed by Qumran Hebrew, is the largest-scale example of textual, not merely translational, difference. The shorter Greek rests on a shorter Hebrew edition known in the prophet’s transmission history. The longer Masoretic edition became the synagogue’s standard. The church honors both facts by reading the Masoretic Jeremiah as canonical while allowing the shorter Greek, backed by early Hebrew, to illuminate the prophet’s editorial history and, at points, to clarify the flow of oracles.

In short, differences that can be explained by translation technique should be categorized as translational; differences supported by independent Hebrew witnesses deserve to be treated as textual. Weight is assigned, not votes counted. One early Hebrew witness aligning with the Greek and explaining the rise of a later Masoretic form outweighs a stack of medieval copies repeating the later wording. This is not skepticism; it is the sober logic of historical evidence applied to Scripture with reverence.

Working Principles for Weighing the Evidence (Without Counting Noses)

The Masoretic Text remains the base for establishing the Old Testament’s wording. It is the direct heir of the synagogue’s stabilized text after 70 C.E., refined and meticulously transmitted by the Masoretes, with representative codices such as the Aleppo Codex (c. 930 C.E.) and Leningrad B 19A (1008/1009 C.E.) standing as reliable anchors. The Septuagint, because it is a translation from earlier Hebrew exemplars, functions as an essential comparative witness, especially when its reading converges with independent Hebrew evidence from the Judean wilderness.

This means that an LXX reading on its own seldom warrants preferring it to the Masoretic form; when it aligns with a Qumran Hebrew witness and makes contextual and linguistic sense, its probative value rises sharply. Conversely, where the LXX diverges but the Scrolls support the Masoretic tradition, we are looking at a translational move, not a different Vorlage. This weighing requires book-by-book sensitivity to recensional streams in the Greek (e.g., Antiochene/Lucianic tendencies in the historical books; Hexaplaric influence in some prophetic books; Egyptian habits in Isaiah), awareness of early papyri that carry pre-hexaplaric readings and Divine Name conventions, and the discipline to check whether a “plus” is really a Greek embellishment or a preserved Hebrew paragraph.

The treatment of Jehovah’s Name belongs here as well. Early Greek biblical fragments often write the Tetragrammaton in ancient Hebrew characters within the Greek line, or occasionally transliterate as IAO. Later codices typically write the surrogate κύριος, often as a nomen sacrum. The earliest habit shows reverence carried over from Hebrew to Greek. For public reading and modern translation, fidelity to the Hebrew warrants using “Jehovah” wherever the Hebrew bears the Name, while understanding the Greek scribal conventions within their historical setting.

Famous Examples: Jeremiah, Daniel, and Esther as Case Studies

These three books give pastors and seminary students clear sightlines into how to weigh additions and omissions, and how to distinguish translational choices from textual differences, all while holding fast to the Masoretic Text as the base.

Jeremiah: Two Hebrew Editions and a Shorter Greek

Jeremiah prophesied through the last decades of Judah’s kingdom, from 627 B.C.E. to after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. The book’s composition and collection reflect that turbulent era, including oracles delivered under Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah; prose sermons; biographical narratives; and letters. The Greek Jeremiah is roughly one-seventh shorter than the Masoretic book and orders the oracles differently, particularly the oracles against the nations. Hebrew manuscripts from the Judean wilderness confirm the shorter, differently ordered form, demonstrating that the Greek translators were rendering a Hebrew exemplar that represented a shorter edition of Jeremiah circulating in the late pre-exilic and early exilic period.

What does this mean for exegesis and textual criticism? First, the difference is textual, not merely translational. The Greek length and order rest on a shorter Hebrew edition. Second, the Masoretic tradition’s longer Jeremiah is the synagogue’s standard and the base for preaching and translation. Third, the shorter Greek—and the Hebrew that supports it—protects us against assuming that every difference between Greek and Hebrew indicates error; rather, it shows how a prophetic book could exist in more than one authorized arrangement before stabilization. Fourth, when a local wording differs between the two forms, the presence of a shorter edition can sometimes explain why a phrase drops out (or appears) in one line and not the other; but local decisions should still be made case by case, weighing internal sense and external witnesses. The student learns to say, “Jeremiah existed in shorter and longer Hebrew forms; the Septuagint renders the shorter; the Masoretic tradition transmits the longer; the message remains the same; and the differences reveal the prophet’s editorial history without unsettling doctrine.”

Daniel: Old Greek, Theodotion, and the Greek Additions

Daniel belongs to the exilic and early post-exilic era (visions and narratives from the Babylonian period beginning with the deportation of 605 B.C.E., with Daniel living into the first years of Medo-Persian rule). In the Greek tradition, Daniel is exceptional in two ways. First, most Christian codices transmit not the Old Greek Daniel but the later revision of Theodotion (second century C.E.), which brought the Greek more tightly in line with the Hebrew that was current in his day. Second, Greek copies include three expansions absent from the Hebrew canon: the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three (inserted into Daniel 3), Susanna (often placed before Daniel 1 or after Daniel 12), and Bel and the Dragon (usually placed as chapter 14 in Greek order). These expansions represent later Jewish-Greek narratives and liturgical material that circulated widely; they are not part of the Hebrew canonical text.

For textual criticism, the Old Greek Daniel remains crucial. It preserves the earliest Jewish translation choices and, where it differs from Theodotion, informs us about how Greek-speaking Jews originally heard the book. For ecclesiastical history, Theodotion’s predominance in Christian copying is instructive: readers preferred a Greek Daniel that closer matched the Hebrew known to them in the second–fourth centuries C.E. Pastors and students should therefore consult both Greek forms where available, always keeping the Masoretic Text as the base, and treat the Greek expansions as interpretive narratives of later date that are edifying for historical background but not canonical for doctrine. When preaching Daniel’s fiery furnace narrative (set in the Babylonian crisis under Nebuchadnezzar around the 580s B.C.E.), the Hebrew text supplies the canonical wording; the Greek Song of the Three shows how later worshippers voiced praise within that story-cycle.

Esther: Greek Expansions and the Hebrew Canon

Esther unfolds in the Persian court under Ahasuerus, historically identified with Xerxes I (reigned 486–465 B.C.E.), within the wider post-exilic period that began with the Jews’ return in 537 B.C.E. The Masoretic Esther is concise and strikingly reticent: it never names God and narrates Providence through reversals that occur in human decisions and court intrigues. Greek Esther includes substantial expansions—Mordecai’s dream, prayers by Mordecai and Esther, editorial clarifications, and elaborated royal edicts—that make explicit the theology implicit in the Hebrew. These additions do not rest on independent Hebrew evidence; they are Greek interpretive developments that circulated widely and were later copied in Christian codices.

How should these be handled? First, they should be appreciated as early Jewish exposition that makes clear what faithful readers discern in the Hebrew: Jehovah’s hidden hand guiding events for His people’s preservation. Second, they should not be treated as part of the canonical Hebrew text. For translation and preaching, the Masoretic Esther remains the base; the Greek expansions can be discussed in introductions and footnotes to show how Second Temple readers prayed and interpreted the story. This approach equips congregations to see Providence in Esther without assuming the Hebrew needed supplementation to be theologically meaningful.

Why These Differences Do Not Undermine Confidence

Agreement between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint across the vast majority of Old Testament content is the single most important fact. Where differences do occur, they are limited, identifiable, and explainable. Shorter and longer editions (as in Jeremiah) reveal the prophet’s transmission history, not doctrinal instability. Greek additions (as in Esther and Daniel) show how Second Temple and early Christian readers expounded the text; they do not rewrite the Hebrew canon. Translational paraphrases (as in Psalm 40 and Amos 9) belong to normal cross-language communication and are recognizable when checked against the Hebrew and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Genuine textual differences (as in Deuteronomy 32 and in specific historical paragraphs in Samuel) demonstrate that the Septuagint sometimes preserves an earlier Hebrew reading—precisely what we would expect from translations made centuries before the medieval codices. Each category, handled with disciplined method, strengthens confidence that we can restore the original wording and teach it with authority.

For pastors, the practical counsel is simple. Start with the Masoretic Text. Use the Septuagint to illuminate translation challenges and to test places where earlier Hebrew readings may be preserved, especially when Qumran Hebrew aligns with the Greek. Explain the options to your people without dramatizing the differences. Where the Septuagint is clearly an interpretive translation, honor the Hebrew wording. Where the Septuagint converges with independent Hebrew witnesses and explains the rise of the Masoretic form, acknowledge the earlier reading and show why it belongs. This transparent, evidence-based approach produces ordered confidence, not doubt, because it displays how richly God has preserved His Word through ordinary means of careful copying, synagogue reading, and converging witnesses across languages.

The Divine Name Across the Traditions and Its Relevance Here

Because Jehovah’s Name appears thousands of times in the Hebrew Scriptures (JHVH in consonants), its treatment in Greek witnesses intersects with this chapter’s claims. Early Greek biblical fragments often preserve the Name in Hebrew characters inside Greek lines; later codices use κύριος as a reverential surrogate. This history demonstrates continuity of reverence, not erasure of the Name. In comparing Septuagint and Masoretic forms, therefore, it is appropriate in teaching and translation to voice “Jehovah” wherever the Hebrew bears the Tetragrammaton, while recognizing how Greek scribes marked the Name in their own conventions. This practice keeps our handling of LXX–MT differences tethered to the concrete realities of ancient manuscripts and to the way God’s people actually heard Scripture read in synagogue and church.

Bringing It All Together in Exegesis Without Losing the Forest for the Trees

When opening a passage where the English footnotes mention “LXX” or where a commentary notes that “the Greek is shorter,” take the following steady steps. Identify whether the difference affects scope or order (as in Jeremiah), local wording (as in Deuteronomy 32), or interpretive clarity (as in Psalm 40). Check whether any Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew copy aligns with the Greek. Consider the translation profile of the book you are in: is it generally literal (as in much of the Pentateuch and Ezekiel), or does it often clarify (as in Proverbs and parts of Job)? Ask whether the difference changes exegesis materially, or whether it simply offers another way of phrasing the same meaning. Then teach the passage with the Masoretic wording in hand, using the Greek to illuminate, corroborate, or, in a few cases, correct toward an earlier Hebrew reading. The church does not need to fear these steps; they are the ordinary work of faithful, evidence-guided textual criticism aimed at restoring and explaining the words Jehovah gave through Moses and the Prophets.

Application to the Three Case Studies in Detail

Returning to our exemplars consolidates the method.

In Jeremiah, preach and teach from the Masoretic Text’s longer edition, marking in introductions that an earlier shorter Hebrew edition also circulated and underlies the Greek. Where the order of oracles differs, explain how the Greek arrangement groups certain materials differently without changing meaning. Where local differences affect translation or interpretation, weigh the witnesses and comment briefly in study notes so that students learn how editions work.

In Daniel, present the Masoretic Text as the canonical base, note that most Greek copies transmit Theodotion’s Daniel rather than the Old Greek, and explain the status of the Greek additions as later Jewish-Greek narratives and prayers. In advanced study settings, consult both Greek forms to understand early translation choices and later revisions, and always distinguish between the canonical Hebrew narrative and the Greek expansions.

In Esther, acknowledge the Greek prayers and expansions as later interpretive material. Use them to illustrate how Second Temple readers voiced faith in a book where the Hebrew author communicated Providence by restraint. Keep the Hebrew narrative central, set in the Persian court of Xerxes I (486–465 B.C.E.), and let the Greek expansions serve as historical windows into reception rather than as sources for the canonical text.

A Final Word on Confidence, Method, and Pastoral Communication

Differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, rightly handled, increase rather than decrease confidence in Scripture. They give us independent cross-checks that reach back centuries before our complete medieval Hebrew codices. They disclose where earlier Hebrew editions or lines stood (Jeremiah; Samuel’s historical notes; Deuteronomy’s poetic lines). They show how translators of proven reverence expressed Hebrew idioms in Greek for synagogue use across the diaspora. And they teach pastors and serious students to weigh, not merely to count, witnesses—always honoring the Masoretic Text, always listening to the Septuagint, always grateful for the Qumran Hebrew that helps us decide hard cases. This is not a posture of doubt. It is firm confidence grounded in abundant evidence and exercised through the historical-grammatical method that reads the text as God gave it in history, language, and manuscript tradition.

You May Also Enjoy

The Hebrew University Bible Project (HUBP): A Diplomatic Edition of The Aleppo Codex With a Comprehensive Textual Apparatus for Old Testament Studies

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS