For most Christians, the phrase “Old Testament” evokes printed English Bibles. For the first generations of Christians, however, the Old Testament was usually read in Greek. The Septuagint, often abbreviated LXX, was their Bible. It is the earliest substantial translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, produced for Greek–speaking Jews of the diaspora several centuries before Christ.

Because of its antiquity and its central role in early Christianity, the Septuagint stands as a major witness to the Old Testament text. At the same time, it is a translation, shaped by the choices, limitations, and theology of its translators. That dual character makes the Septuagint both a precious asset and a persistent challenge for textual criticism.

This chapter examines the Septuagint as a Greek witness to the Old Testament. It surveys its historical setting, explores its translation techniques, explains why it often diverges from the Masoretic Text, and evaluates its impact on early Christianity and on modern attempts to reconstruct the original Hebrew. Throughout, one controlling conviction guides the discussion: the Masoretic Text remains the primary base, and the Septuagint serves as a valuable but subordinate witness that must be weighed carefully alongside other evidence.

Historical Setting: From Alexandria to the Synagogue

The Septuagint arose in a world where many Jews no longer spoke Hebrew as their primary language. After the exile and the spread of Jewish communities throughout the Mediterranean, Greek became the daily tongue for large segments of the covenant people, especially in Egypt and Asia Minor. Yet the Scriptures remained in Hebrew.

The earliest part of the Septuagint is the Pentateuch, translated in Alexandria, probably in the third century B.C.E. Later books followed over the next two centuries. These translations were not all produced at one time or by one committee. Different translators worked on different books, in different places, with different levels of skill and different philosophies of translation. The result is a collection rather than a single unified project.

From the start, the Greek Torah was used in synagogue settings among Greek–speaking Jews. As time passed, Greek translations of the Prophets and Writings also entered liturgical and instructional life. For many diaspora Jews, the Septuagint was their daily Bible, even as Hebrew retained its central role in Palestine and in more conservative circles.

By the first century C.E., the Septuagint had become sufficiently established that Christians could quote it freely in evangelism and teaching. That Christian usage, however, also contributed to a later Jewish distancing from the Septuagint, and eventually to the production of new, more literal Greek versions aligned closely with the Hebrew consonantal text.

The Septuagint as a Translation: Varied Techniques and Styles

The Septuagint is not a uniform translation. The Torah, for example, was rendered with relatively high care and often sticks closely to the Hebrew structure. Many of its translation choices are consistent and predictable. This conservative style makes the Pentateuchal Greek especially valuable for textual work.

In the Prophets and Writings, translation technique varies more widely. Some books—such as certain parts of the Historical Books—are translated with considerable literalness, preserving Hebrew word order and syntax to an almost wooden degree. Others, such as Proverbs, show a freer approach, reshaping clauses into idiomatic Greek and occasionally reshuffling the order of sayings.

In poetic books, translators sometimes adjusted imagery to fit Greek rhetorical expectations, or smoothed abrupt metaphors. In prophetic oracles they could be interpretive, choosing Greek words that reflect an understanding of how the prophecy applied to Israel’s history.

Across the collection, certain general tendencies appear. The translators often expanded phrases to make implicit information explicit. They sometimes resolved ambiguities by choosing one interpretive option. They occasionally avoided anthropomorphic expressions about God, replacing them with more abstract terms. And in some books they seem to have been working from a Hebrew text that, at specific points, differed from the later Masoretic tradition.

Understanding these translation techniques is crucial. Before we can claim that the Septuagint preserves a different Hebrew reading, we must first ask whether a given divergence is simply the result of translation style, interpretive paraphrase, or a deliberate theological adjustment.

Why the Septuagint and Masoretic Text Diverge

When modern readers compare a Septuagint-based Old Testament with a translation from the Masoretic Text, they quickly notice differences. Sometimes the wording diverges; sometimes the order of material in a book is different; in a few cases, whole verses or paragraphs appear in one textual tradition and not the other.

These divergences arise from several distinct causes.

One source is ordinary translation practice. A Hebrew verb with a broad range of meaning might be rendered by a Greek term that covers only part of that range. A Hebrew idiom might be replaced with a more straightforward Greek phrase. Such differences do not imply a different Hebrew Vorlage; they simply reflect the translator’s choice of equivalent wording.

Another source is interpretive expansion. The Septuagint sometimes inserts brief clarifications that are not present in the Hebrew. For example, an allusion that would be obvious to a Hebrew audience might be spelled out for Greek readers, or an implied object might be expressed. These additions are best viewed as explanatory glosses, comparable to what we see in Aramaic Targums, though usually with less freedom.

A third source is theological or exegetical preference. In certain passages, translators appear to have avoided literal anthropomorphic descriptions of Jehovah, or to have highlighted aspects of Israel’s history or law that seemed especially important in their context. While such renderings still depend on the Hebrew base, they go beyond mere translation and shape the reader’s understanding in subtle ways.

Finally, in some books the Septuagint truly reflects a different Hebrew textual form. This is particularly evident in parts of Samuel and Jeremiah, where the order and wording in the Greek correspond to Hebrew readings preserved in some Dead Sea Scrolls. In these cases, the Septuagint provides evidence that more than one Hebrew edition of a book circulated in the Second Temple period.

The task of the textual critic is to discern, passage by passage, which of these factors is at work. Only the last of them—the use of a different Hebrew Vorlage—has direct implications for reconstructing the original wording.

Weighing Manuscripts to Determine the Original Words

In evaluating the Septuagint’s textual value, one principle is decisive: the weight of external evidence normally belongs to the original language manuscripts. For the Old Testament, that means the Hebrew text as preserved in the Masoretic tradition, especially the great codices such as Aleppo and Codex Leningrad B 19A.

Old Testament textual criticism begins with the Masoretic Text and departs from it only when the evidence demands it. The Masoretic Text is not flawless; scribal slips and rare secondary readings do occur. But it is the most carefully preserved and internally controlled textual line, and its readings carry a presumption of originality. Any challenge must bear a heavy burden of proof.

When the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic Text, we therefore do not automatically prefer the Greek. We first ask basic questions. Does the difference arise from an obvious translational move? Does the Greek simply smooth a difficulty, harmonize with another passage, or avoid a theologically sensitive expression? If so, the Masoretic reading should be retained.

There are, however, situations where the Masoretic Text stands isolated. If the Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, one or more Qumran Hebrew manuscripts, the Aramaic Targums, and the Latin Vulgate all agree on a form that differs from the Masoretic wording, and if that form fits the context naturally and can be explained as the earlier reading, then the burden shifts. In such rare cases, the Masoretic reading may represent a later modification or a copying error, and the combined witness of the versions and early Hebrew manuscripts helps us recover the original.

The Septuagint is thus significant, but it cannot stand alone. Its readings must be tested against other evidence. It is one member in a chorus, not a soloist with veto power. Only when the chorus sings together against a particular Masoretic reading do we seriously consider leaving the Masoretic Text.

This framework also highlights the role of the Masoretes. Between the sixth and tenth centuries C.E., these Jewish scholar–scribes received the consonantal text that had become standard between the first and second centuries. They did not invent that text; they inherited it. Their passion was accuracy. They annotated the margins with notes about unusual words, rare forms, and variant traditions. They counted consonants, listed the middle word and letter of certain books, and created cross-checking systems that required near-total memorization of the Hebrew Bible.

The Small Masora in the side margins and the Large Masora in the top and bottom margins record how often particular forms occur and where parallels are found. These tools demonstrate that, long before printed editions and concordances, scribes had robust internal controls on the text. When we weigh the Septuagint against the Masoretic Text, we are not comparing a free Greek rendering with a casual Hebrew line. We are comparing a translation with a heavily guarded original-language tradition.

Jewish Reception of the Septuagint: From Esteem to Suspicion

In its early centuries, the Septuagint enjoyed high esteem among Jews. It allowed Greek–speaking communities to hear the Law and Prophets in a familiar tongue, and there is good evidence that many viewed it as a legitimate, even inspired, representation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The first-century situation altered that perception. Christians, proclaiming Jesus as the promised Messiah, frequently quoted the Septuagint in their preaching and debates. Because Greek was the common language of the Roman world, the Septuagint became the natural textual base for Christian evangelism. Passages where the Greek wording highlighted messianic implications were especially prominent in Christian argumentation.

As this Christian use intensified, many Jewish leaders began to view the Septuagint with suspicion. It became associated not with synagogue teaching but with the claims of the church. In reaction, Jewish scholarship shifted attention back to the Hebrew text and, in the second century C.E., produced new Greek translations that adhered much more strictly to the Hebrew consonants.

Three names stand out: Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Aquila’s version is extremely literal, almost to the point of obscurity, reflecting a desire to prevent Christians from exploiting ambiguous Greek renderings. Symmachus produced a more elegant and idiomatic translation, though still controlled by the Hebrew. Theodotion’s work seems to blend revision of the Septuagint with fresh translation.

These later Greek versions, while not part of the original Septuagint, testify to the growing authority of the Hebrew consonantal text. By the second century C.E., that text had become the standard, and Greek translations were judged by how well they mirrored it.

The Septuagint’s Strengths as a Textual Witness

Despite the complexities just described, the Septuagint offers several clear strengths as a textual witness.

Its antiquity gives it special value. The Greek translation of the Pentateuch and several other books predates the earliest surviving Hebrew manuscripts by many centuries. Where the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text agree closely, this agreement supports the antiquity of the shared textual tradition.

In certain passages, especially in books with more complex textual histories, the Septuagint preserves a reading that appears superior to the Masoretic form. This is most evident where the Greek aligns with an early Hebrew manuscript from Qumran or with a consistent pattern in other ancient versions. In such cases, the Septuagint may preserve an older textual state that the Masoretic tradition, for whatever reason, did not retain.

The Septuagint also illuminates how ancient readers understood the Hebrew. The choice of Greek equivalents reveals how translators interpreted ambiguous words, difficult syntax, or rare idioms. Even when the Hebrew text itself is not in doubt, the Septuagint helps us see how Second Temple Jews heard and explained the passage.

Moreover, the Septuagint preserves evidence of the canon’s shape and order at a relatively early date. The books included, the order of sections, and the way headings and superscriptions are handled all shed light on how Scripture was organized and presented in the centuries leading up to Christ.

The Septuagint’s Limits and Challenges

Alongside these strengths stand serious limitations.

Because the Septuagint is a translation, not a fresh inspired document, its wording is one step removed from the Hebrew original. Every translation involves choices, and in the Septuagint those choices sometimes blur fine distinctions present in Hebrew. For example, different Hebrew terms for sacrificial offerings may be rendered by a single Greek word. Subtle shifts in verb aspect can be lost. In these cases, the Masoretic Text retains precision that the Greek cannot match.

The Septuagint is also textually complex in its own right. Our main manuscripts—such as major Christian codices—reflect centuries of copying and occasional revision. In some books, later scribes attempted to bring the Greek text into closer alignment with the Hebrew, producing a “corrected” Septuagint that complicates efforts to identify the original translation. Hexaplaric revisions influenced portions of the textual tradition, blending the old Greek with readings derived from Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion.

Furthermore, the varying translation philosophies across books mean that one cannot treat “the Septuagint” as a single homogeneous witness. A highly literal book like Judges or parts of the Minor Prophets offers different textual value from a more free rendering like Job or Proverbs. The critic must know each book’s character before using the Greek text to challenge the Hebrew.

Theologically, the Septuagint sometimes reflects the concerns of its translators and their communities. As with the Targums, certain anthropomorphic phrases are softened, or particular interpretations of prophecies are embedded in the wording. While such features are valuable for the history of exegesis, they limit the Septuagint’s authority as a neutral textual witness.

All of these factors mean that the Septuagint, though important, must be used with caution. It can illuminate, support, and occasionally correct our understanding of the Hebrew text, but it cannot function as the controlling standard.

The Septuagint and Early Christianity

The impact of the Septuagint on early Christianity cannot be overstated. For Greek–speaking Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah, the Septuagint was already their Bible. The apostles and evangelists, writing in Greek, naturally quoted from it or from similar Greek renderings.

Many New Testament citations of the Old Testament match the Septuagint’s wording rather than a hypothetical direct translation from the Masoretic Text. This shows that the early church’s mission field operated within a Greek scriptural environment. When Paul reasoned in synagogues or before Gentile audiences, he could appeal to a shared Greek Bible to demonstrate that Jesus fulfilled the prophetic Scriptures.

Certain differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text play a role here. In some messianic passages, the Septuagint’s wording highlights aspects—such as the virginity implied in Isaiah’s prophecy of a young woman conceiving—that fit Christian proclamation particularly well. This does not mean the Septuagint invented those ideas; it means that its translation choices, made earlier for Jewish audiences, proved providentially useful in the spread of the gospel.

At the same time, the New Testament writers did not abandon the Hebrew text. In some cases their citations align more closely with the Masoretic form than with the Septuagint. In others they combine elements, paraphrase, or provide Spirit-guided interpretations that go beyond both textual forms.

For textual criticism, this means that New Testament use of the Septuagint can sometimes support a particular reading, but it cannot be treated as decisive on every detail. The apostles cited Scripture as teachers and evangelists, not as textual critics commenting on variant readings. Their use of the Septuagint shows its importance in early Christian life, but it does not confer new canonical authority on the Greek translation itself.

Principles for Responsible Use of the Septuagint

Given all of the above, how should the Septuagint be used in Old Testament textual criticism today? A few clear principles emerge.

First, the Masoretic Text remains the starting point. It is the product of a long, disciplined scribal tradition capped by the Masoretes’ extraordinary efforts at preservation. Deviations from it must be justified, not assumed.

Second, every divergence between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text must be examined with attention to translation technique. If the Greek difference can reasonably be explained as a translational choice or interpretive expansion, there is no basis for altering the Hebrew.

Third, when the Septuagint appears to reflect a different Hebrew reading, its evidence must be tested against other witnesses. Agreement with one or more early Hebrew manuscripts, with the Syriac Peshitta where it is literal, or with the Vulgate where it clearly reflects a Hebrew base, increases the likelihood that we are dealing with an ancient variant rather than a translator’s creativity.

Fourth, even when a combined witness suggests that the Masoretic reading is secondary, caution is required. The goal is to recover the original text as nearly as possible, not to abandon the Masoretic Text at every difficult point. Emendation or adoption of a non-Masoretic reading should remain the exception, not the rule.

Fifth, in passages where the evidence is genuinely divided and no solution commands full confidence, it is better to acknowledge the uncertainty while retaining the Masoretic reading in the main text and noting alternatives in the apparatus or footnotes. Transparency about the limits of our knowledge is preferable to speculative reconstruction.

By following these principles, textual critics honor both the Masoretic Text as the preserved standard and the Septuagint as a significant but limited witness.

Conclusion: A Greek Witness That Confirms More Than It Challenges

The Septuagint occupies a unique position in the history of the Old Testament. It is the earliest extensive translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Bible of many Jews in the diaspora, and the scriptural foundation for much of early Christian preaching. Its pages preserve not only the words of Scripture in Greek dress but also the interpretive instincts of ancient translators and communities.

As a textual witness, the Septuagint confirms far more than it challenges. In passage after passage, it stands close to the Masoretic Text, demonstrating that the Hebrew tradition behind our Bibles today was already present centuries before Christ. Where it differs, the reasons often lie in translation style, theological prudence, or interpretive expansion rather than in a fundamentally different Hebrew text.

In a modest number of cases, especially in books with more complex histories, the Septuagint helps us see that another ancient Hebrew form once circulated. When such evidence converges with other witnesses, it allows careful refinement of the Masoretic Text at the margins. Yet even these refinements do not overturn central doctrines or narratives; they adjust wording, not revelation.

The larger story remains clear. Jehovah entrusted His Word to Israel in Hebrew, preserved it through generations of faithful scribes, and allowed it to be translated into Greek for the sake of a scattered people and, later, for the spread of the gospel. The Septuagint is part of that providential history. It is not a rival to the Masoretic Text, but a supporting voice that, when rightly understood, strengthens our confidence that the Old Testament we possess is a reliable reflection of the words originally inspired.

You May Also Enjoy

What Does the Manuscript Evidence Show About Old Testament Text Preservation?

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS