The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, occupies a crucial role in biblical history and early Jewish and Christian thought. A common claim by critics today—especially among those unfamiliar with Second Temple Judaism—is that the Septuagint was always viewed by Jews as a paganized or corrupt distortion of the Hebrew text. They assert that no faithful Jew ever regarded the LXX as inspired or authoritative. However, this claim ignores strong historical evidence to the contrary. In truth, prior to the rise of Christianity, many Jews did accept the Septuagint as a faithful, even divinely sanctioned, translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Only after Christians began using the LXX to defend Jesus as the Messiah did Jewish opinion shift dramatically.

This article will examine the historical, textual, and rabbinic record to demonstrate that the Septuagint was originally viewed with honor and spiritual significance by many Jews, particularly in Alexandria and the Hellenistic Diaspora. Far from being dismissed as pagan, the LXX was embraced as the Word of God in Greek. The later rabbinic rejection was a reaction to its Christian use, not a reflection of its original Jewish reception.

---

The Historical Origins of the Septuagint Translation

The Context of Alexandria and the Greek-Speaking Jews

By the third century B.C.E., following Alexander the Great’s conquests, a large number of Jews lived outside of Judea, particularly in Alexandria, Egypt. These Diaspora Jews largely spoke Koine Greek as their primary language and had diminishing knowledge of Hebrew. As a result, a Greek translation of the Torah became a practical and religious necessity.

According to historical tradition preserved in the Letter of Aristeas, the Septuagint originated during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 B.C.E.) when 72 Jewish elders were invited to translate the Law of Moses into Greek for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria. Though not inspired itself, this account reflects the reverence that many Jews had toward the translation, viewing it as a miraculous and faithful rendering of the Hebrew text.

---

The Letter of Aristeas: A Jewish Defense of the LXX

The Letter of Aristeas, dated to around 130–100 B.C.E., offers the earliest record of the translation of the Torah into Greek. It is not Scripture, but it is a valuable historical and apologetic document, widely accepted and circulated among Hellenistic Jews. The letter describes how the translators, working separately, produced identical translations, which was interpreted as a miracle, demonstrating divine guidance.

“As they read in the presence of the king, he was greatly impressed by their clarity and precision… and he marveled that all the translations agreed though made separately.”
(Letter of Aristeas, §§302–308)

This reflects an early Jewish attitude of high regard toward the Septuagint. The document was not written by pagans, nor was it crafted to please Greek authorities. Instead, it served to promote Jewish Scripture to a Greek-speaking world and show that the Torah could be preserved in translation without compromising its truth.

---

Philo of Alexandria: The LXX as Spirit-Led Translation

The greatest Jewish scholar of Alexandria during the first century was Philo Judaeus (c. 20 B.C.E. – 50 C.E.), a contemporary of Jesus and the apostles. Philo wrote extensively on Jewish theology and philosophy using the Greek Septuagint exclusively. Importantly, he never criticized the LXX, even where it deviates from the Hebrew text.

In Life of Moses (Book II, §37–40), Philo declares that the translators were not merely scholars, but men guided by the Holy Spirit, giving oracular, prophetic translations:

“The interpreters, not as men, but as prophets… were guided by inspiration… and gave a rendering in every case as if from an oracle of God.”

This is powerful testimony. A leading Jewish thinker in a major Jewish city declares that the LXX was not only accurate but divinely inspired. For Philo, the Septuagint was no less sacred than the Hebrew Torah.

---

Josephus: Historical Testimony to the Esteem of the Septuagint

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–100 C.E.), a priest and historian of the Pharisaic tradition, also describes the origin of the Septuagint in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 12, §2. Though writing decades after the rise of Christianity, Josephus does not condemn the Septuagint as corrupt or pagan. On the contrary, he emphasizes the supernatural agreement among the translators and the dignity of the translation:

“They did not differ in a single word. And this was truly amazing, as if the translation came by divine guidance.”
(Josephus, Antiquities, 12.2.12)

Even though Josephus remained loyal to the Hebrew Scriptures, his favorable presentation of the LXX—especially in light of growing Christian-Jewish tensions—demonstrates that Jews had historically honored the Septuagint before its adoption by Christians.

---

Synagogue Use and Canonical Function

Before the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., the Greek Septuagint was already in widespread use in Diaspora synagogues, especially in Alexandria, Antioch, and Asia Minor. It was read publicly and regarded as Scripture, fulfilling the same role as the Hebrew text in Judea.

Jews in the Diaspora often did not know Hebrew, so the LXX became their functional canon. There is no evidence of any wide-scale rejection of the LXX in this early period. In fact, the LXX was often the only Bible available to many Greek-speaking Jews, and it was used devotionally, liturgically, and theologically.

---

The Rabbinic Rejection of the Septuagint: A Post-Christian Shift

Why Did Jews Later Reject the Septuagint?

The negative attitude toward the Septuagint in rabbinic Judaism developed after Christians began using it to argue that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies. Key texts such as Isaiah 7:14 (“virgin”), Psalm 22:16 (“they pierced My hands and My feet”), and Isaiah 53 were interpreted by early Christians from the Septuagint version, and these interpretations were effective.

In reaction, Jewish authorities sought to distance themselves from the LXX and created new translations:

• Aquila (c. 130 C.E.) produced a hyper-literal Greek version aligned more closely with the Hebrew text.

• Theodotion and Symmachus followed with their own revisions.

• These translations were responses to the Christian use of the Septuagint, and they show a deliberate realignment away from the Greek text that had once been honored.

Talmudic Denunciation: A Later Revisionism

The Babylonian Talmud (Megillah 9a) later records that the day the Torah was translated into Greek was as sorrowful as the day Israel worshipped the golden calf. However, this view is clearly reactionary, reflecting anti-Christian sentiment rather than the original Jewish perspective.

This rabbinic condemnation is centuries removed from the original translation and cannot be used to argue that the Septuagint was always viewed negatively. On the contrary, the strength of the rabbinic denunciation underscores the impact the LXX had in early theological debates.

---

Misleading Appeals to Hillel or Ramban

Some critics demand citations from Hillel the Elder (1st century B.C.E.) or Ramban (13th century C.E.) condemning the Septuagint. This is a flawed demand:

• Hillel left no writings, and there is no recorded statement from him regarding the Septuagint.

• Ramban (Nachmanides) lived long after the Septuagint had been rejected by rabbinic Judaism, so any statement from him would reflect a medieval anti-LXX bias, not an ancient view.

Such appeals are anachronistic and ignore the well-documented evidence from Philo, Josephus, and synagogue use that the LXX was originally accepted and honored.

---

Textual Evidence of Suppression and Revision

Several LXX readings that supported Christian claims were later modified or omitted in the Hebrew Masoretic Text. For example:

• Isaiah 7:14: LXX = parthenos (virgin); MT = almah (young woman).

• Psalm 22:16: LXX = “they pierced My hands and My feet”; MT = “like a lion”.

• Daniel 9:26: LXX provides clear references to the death of the Messiah before the destruction of Jerusalem.

These differences are not accidental. They are part of a pattern of deliberate divergence as Jewish scribes and scholars distanced their canon from Christian interpretation. This further confirms the initial power and influence of the Septuagint before that shift.

---

The Septuagint Was Originally Esteemed by Jews

The historical evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that the Septuagint, especially the Torah portion, was initially respected, even revered, by many Jews, particularly in the Hellenistic world. It was used in synagogues, interpreted by scholars like Philo, defended in the Letter of Aristeas, and acknowledged by Josephus. The rabbinic rejection came only after Christians began to use the LXX to prove that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the Messianic prophecies.

To claim that the LXX was always seen as corrupt is not only historically inaccurate—it is a distortion of the actual Jewish reverence for this early translation. The reactionary abandonment of the LXX by post-Christian rabbinic Judaism only testifies further to its early authority, accuracy, and impact.

Weighing Manuscripts to Determine
the Original Words

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

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

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

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

You May Also Enjoy

Textual Witnesses in the Jewish Midrash and Talmudic Citations

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS