Biblical texts like the book of Genesis exist in a Septuagint version, and they exist in a Masoretic Hebrew version. Unsurprisingly, that has led to historical arguments about which is the “real” or “true” version of the biblical books.
Over the last 100 years new archaeological evidence has emerged which sheds new light on this old question.
1. What Is the Septuagint?
The Septuagint (known as the LXX) is a set of ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was made about 300 to 100 years before the birth of Jesus.
The set of texts constituting the Septuagint has been through many editions and revisions. (For example, see Kaige Revisions.) When we talk of the Septuagint today, we are typically referring to a unified text such as the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, or the recently published NETS: The New English Translation of the Septuagint.
The Septuagint was very popular 2000 years ago. It was quoted as Scripture by Jews such as Philo (d. 50 CE) and Josephus (d. 100 CE). (For examples see: Septuagint Old Testament.) It was also popular with Christians, as we can also see that more than half of the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament come from the Septuagint (see Old Testament quotes in the New Testament).
Some people think that Jesus even quoted the Septuagint. In Luke 4:17–18 Jesus quotes Isaiah 61:1. He refers to restoring sight to the blind, but that is not in the Hebrew version of Isaiah. (See New American Bible Isaiah 61:1). That line exists only in the Septuagint version of Isaiah (see LXX Isaiah 61:1).
2. The Hebrew Bible
The Hebrew Bible (or Tanakh) is the Jewish Bible. It is sometimes referred to as the Masoretic Text (abbreviated as MT), because the preservation and copying of the text was carried out between the 5th and 10th century by Jewish scholars known as Masoretes.
This means that when people compare and contrast the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible, they will typically refer to LXX and MT versions of biblical books. For example, there is an LXX Genesis and there is an MT Genesis.
Until relatively recently, the oldest versions of the MT Hebrew texts were to be found in thousand-year-old manuscripts such as the Codex Sassoon, Leningrad Codex and Aleppo Codex. Until the discovery of texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls (1946–56) scholars believed that the Hebrew text was older than the Septuagint, but they did not have Hebrew manuscripts that were older than the actual manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint.
Although the New Testament sometimes quotes from the LXX Septuagint, it also quotes from the MT Hebrew version of the Old Testament. For example, Matthew 2:15 quotes Hosea, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” The MT Hebrew text uses the word “son” (MT Hosea 11:1), while the Septuagint uses the word “children” (LXX Hosea 11:1). So clearly this New Testament quote comes from the MT Hebrew version of Hosea.
3. Differences
There are significant differences between LXX Septuagint and MT Hebrew versions of the biblical books of Genesis, Exodus, Samuel, Kings, Job, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Esther, and Daniel. For example, LXX Jeremiah is 1/8 shorter than MT Jeremiah, and LXX Job is 1/6 shorter than MT Job. (For further details see Timothy Law, When God Spoke Greek, Chap. 3).
Some of the disagreements between the LXX and MT are contradictory. MT Genesis 5:3 tells us that when Seth was born Adam was 130 years old. But LXX Genesis 5:3 says that Adam was 230 years old.
Some of the differences have potential doctrinal implications. For example, Matthew’s Gospel opens with a reference to Isaiah’s prophecy that a virgin will conceive and bear a son (Matthew 1:23). But the word “Virgin” does not appear in MT Isaiah 7:14. It appears only in LXX Isaiah 7:14.
The miraculous fulfillment of the prophecy of the Virgin Birth is a central theme in the earliest Christian apologetics. If the Septuagint isn’t the “true” version of the Bible, does that mean that the Evangelists, Apostles and Early Church authors mistakenly believed in a prophecy because they were using a “wrong” version of Scripture?
Or, if the early Church was using the “true” Septuagint Scripture, does that mean that modern Christians who use the MT Hebrew version must be now using a “false” version of Scripture?
4. Preferring the Septuagint
When the Early Church considered the differences between the Septuagint and the MT Hebrew version, they tended to dismiss the MT Hebrew as a corrupted text. St. Irenaeus (d. 202) argued that point (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chap 21, #3); and Origen (d. 253) made similar comments (Letter to Africanus, #9).
The rationale for their position was an unthinkable alternative. If “all the Churches” (as Origen put it) were following the Apostolic tradition of using the Septuagint, then the Septuagint must be the authentic Scripture; otherwise, divine providence would have failed in allowing the whole Church to have the wrong Bible. Therefore, differences between the LXX and MT must be due to corruption of the MT Hebrew version of the text.
The superiority of the Septuagint continues to be argued today, especially by Orthodox Churches where it is still considered the authentic Scripture. Arguments can include the claim that the Septuagint timelines are more plausible than the MT Hebrew version, and so the Septuagint is more reliable as a biblical text than the MT Hebrew Bible.
Biblical scholars know that some parts of the Hebrew text have indeed been corrupted, especially in the book of Samuel. In MT, Hannah brought 3 bulls as a sacrifice. The Septuagint says that she brought a single three-year-old bull (LXX 1 Samuel 1:24). That LXX reading can be seen in Hebrew texts from Qumran (e.g., 4QSama). So many modern Bible translations quietly change the MT Hebrew reading to the Septuagint version of Hannah’s bull(s). (For example, see New American Bible 1 Samuel 1:24).
However, archaeological discoveries at Qumran, Masada, Wadi Murabba’at, Wadi Sdeir, Nahal Hever, Nachal Arugot and Nachal Ze’elim show that there is evidence to justify thinking that, on the whole, the majority of the MT Hebrew text has been faithfully transmitted. This means that it is no longer credible to claim that differences between the LXX and MT can be explained away as due to corruptions throughout the MT Hebrew version.
5. Preferring the MT Hebrew
If differences between the Septuagint and MT Hebrew version cannot be explained by blaming the MT, then could it be the Septuagint that is the corrupted text?
Historically, this position sometimes appeared in Protestant Reformation polemics. Modern versions of the argument tend to blame dubiously inclined Catholics (or demons) for inventing the Septuagint to try and discredit the MT Hebrew Bible. (See Chick Publications and the extraordinary claims in Answers to Your Bible Version Questions).
As a result of discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can see that that kind of argument is wrong. In Cave 4 at Qumran there is a Hebrew version of Jeremiah (4Q Jeremiah B) and a Hebrew version of Samuel (4QSama) which are closer to the Septuagint than they are to the MT Hebrew Bible. (For more examples see “Versions and Variants in the Old Testament Text”.) Estimates vary but it could be that around 1/2 the Hebrew fragments found at Qumran are closer to Septuagint versions of the Scriptures.
What this means is that it is becoming implausible to argue that the MT Hebrew text is a more ancient or more original version of the Bible, and that the LXX is just a later corrupt Greek translation of it. At Qumran we seem to have evidence contemporaneous with Jesus, of both the LXX and MT versions of biblical books existing in Hebrew, simultaneously and side by side.
As a result of that fact, biblical scholars such as Professor Emanuel Tov are now arguing that the Septuagint should be recognized as being an alternative textual tradition, and thus as having “equal status” to the MT Hebrew text. (See “The Septuagint Translation of the Hebrew Bible”.)
6. Different Hebrew Versions
If the MT Hebrew version and the LXX version are indeed alternative or “equal” versions of the Hebrew texts, then that leads to two possible conclusions.
One radical response is to argue that there can only be a single version of an inspired Scripture so the MT and the LXX must both be viewed as corrupted versions of a more primitive Urtext or Vorlage version of the Scriptural texts. As we do not have that more primitive text, then it means that no modern Christian (or Jew) has access to the authentic original inspired Scriptures.
But there is no evidence that a more primitive original version of (inspired) biblical books existed, from which the MT and LXX both diverge. There is also no reason to think that a Revelation can only be channeled in a single Scriptural version. After all, Christians have four versions of Jesus’ life in the New Testament.
So a very different response to a recognition that the LXX and MT are alternative or equal versions of Scriptural texts, could be to accept that they both have an enduring significance for Christians, and that the message of Revelation is therefore to be understood partly in comparing and contrasting the versions of the texts. (See Interview with Timothy Law.)
7. The Catholic Position
The early Church used the Septuagint as their version of Scripture. Thus the oldest Latin (Vetus Latina) translations of the Bible were made from the Septuagint.
The Church switched from a preference for the Septuagint, following St. Jerome’s (d. 420) decision to translate the new Vulgate directly from the Hebrew. (The Vulgate preference for the Hebrew can be seen in Vulgate Genesis 5.3 which states that Adam was 130 years old at the birth of Seth. That agrees with the MT Hebrew version, not the Septuagint. (See references in Section 3, above.)
St. Augustine (d. 430) disagreed with Jerome’s rejection of the Septuagint. But he struggled to articulate a convincing reason for doing so, especially when he shared Jerome’s assumption that the Hebrew version was the “original” inspired Scripture. (See “Correspondence of Augustine and Jerome concerning the Latin Translation of the Bible”.)
Due to resistance such as Augustine’s, the Vulgate ended up being a compromise. It followed the contents list of the Septuagint, and thus included Deuterocanonical Books. But its translations were from the Hebrew version of texts.
The Council of Trent confirmed the Vulgate as “an” authentic version of Scripture in 1546 (Session 4 – Decree concerning Canonical Scriptures). However, the Church has never lost its reverence for the Septuagint. For example, in 1893 Pope Leo XIII referred to editions of the Vulgate and Septuagint as both being “authorized” (Providentissimus Deus, 8).
But as long as it was assumed that the MT Hebrew version was the “original” version of biblical text, then it was always difficult to explain why the Septuagint should have any continuing relevance.
The archaeological discoveries of the last hundred years have now eroded that historical assumption. In 2006 Pope Benedict XVI accepted the implications of the archaeological evidence, when he stated:
Today we know that the… Septuagint… is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation. (Regensburg Address, p. 3)
If the Septuagint does indeed have an “independent” and a “distinct” role “in the history of Revelation,” then perhaps modern Christians should be a little more sympathetic to St. Augustine’s fourth-century concerns about abandoning the Septuagint? Perhaps modern preferences for the MT Hebrew version of Scripture, to the exclusion of the Septuagint, need revisiting?
8. Conclusion
Arguments about preferences for the Septuagint or Hebrew version of Scripture have gone on for centuries. They have divided saints and they have split Churches. This is because they have typically taken the form of a zero-sum question, forcing an either/or which pitches the Septuagint against the MT Hebrew Bible. For one text to be “true” was for the other to be “false.”
But the findings of archaeology are raising an intriguing alternative possibility. If the Septuagint and the MT Hebrew text are “alternative” or “independent” textual traditions, then rather than asking which is the true version of Scripture, perhaps there is a new question to ask. Could they both be true versions of Scripture?
All of you need to be born again. Admit you deserve judgement by the one and only Creator, God of the Bible. That same God, in human form as Jesus, died for your sin and mine on a bloody cross. He loves you. He suffered for us and rose again that third day proving He was God.
He also offers us peace and joy with that redemption, in place of that empty void in your spirit. The only Deity is Yahweh. He is a Triune God. He revealed Himself as three in one. That God (the only big G, God) came here to live amongst us. Born through the miracle of God placing God The Son in a virgin to be born, live a perfect sinless life, suffer, and die for our sins. Don’t overcomplicate things. Get saved and worship Jesus. Worship all three because they are One. Apprehending and comprehending every doctrine fully, aren’t both required for faith. Sincerely,
David
[Comment Edited due to length]
And just to be clear, I’m not criticizing you gentlemen for a scholarly discussion and I enjoyed your article, sir. Non Catholic intellectuals do the same thing in discussions and many of them aren’t saved either. The majority of self professing Christians and self professing Catholics are not in relationship with Jesus. I simply want you all to be saved and that’s why I wrote. And for the next person searching for truth who may read my words. I want people to be saved by Jesus and His payment for their sin. Then debate and discuss all you like. I encourage such. I was simply trying to keep the main thing the main thing. Both the Hebrew and the Latin Septuagint agree with the way of salvation I presented. The same way of Jesus and all the text He supernaturally inspired men to write in the New Testament. I hope to shake your hands in Heaven, sirs.
Dear Gentleman
Your analysis of both texts appears fully convincing. As of today my selected one is THE SEPTUAGENT, very more reliable. I have taken into account, you haven’t mentioned it, since The Judges times, Judaism was corrupt. Remember the Prophets calling to repentance since Elijah’s times. Tha KS so much.
It is difficult to argue from a corruption within a religion to a preference for a Scripture, as I’m sure most religions will admit that they sometimes have followers whose conduct fails to live up the religion’s ideals.
Nevertheless, the Septuagint is indeed an interesting version of the bible. But some of its interesting differences only become visible when read alongside the Masoretic text. So perhaps there is merit in not limiting a reading of Scripture to just one version ?
[…] Until relatively recently, the majority of scholars believed that the Hebrew Masoretic text was the “original” and therefore the “authentic” version of Scripture. So, the Greek Septuagint version was often dismissed as just a bad translation of it. However, archaeological discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, may now be suggesting that the Septuagint represents an alternative, “original” version of the text (see “Septuagint or Masoretic Text: Which Is the True Version of the Bible?”). […]
[…] Luscious Color Trend: Lavender – Meghan Ashley Styling, a Catholic Wardrobe Stylist Septuagint or Masoretic Text: Which Is the True Version of the Bible? – Rory Fox/Catholic Stand Literature & the Foundations of the West – Jeffrey P. […]
As we say in Hebrew ,yesher ko’ach ,well done for a brilliant explanation.
As you know , the Torah scroll is written without vowels or cantillations. When the weekly portion from it is read in synagogue on Monday,Thursday and theSabbath ,it must be read perfectly. If any word is mispronounced or wrongly chanted ,learned members of the congregation will call out and it will be repeated.
So what does the reader,or ba’al koreh do ? Before chanting the required portion he consults the Masoretic Text in a separate copy of the Pentateuch which has the vowels and cantillations ,and learns it by heart. This obviously takes some preparation but it is’nt too difficult for someone with a good Hebrew knowledge.
…Although there are also valid questions about whether some of the vowel pointing is ‘correct’ in the Masoretic text. Some of the differences between the Hebrew and Septuagint may actually arise due to different pre-Masoretic traditions about which vowels to add to the text.
It was precisely the “theocracy” that invented the idea of an all-benevolent God, using theology to override the Scriptural witness. The gospel (the real one) is good news for some and bad news for others.
One of the questions raised by the biblical questions like the Septuagint is which comes first: Scripture or Theology. Yes Theology is based on, and draws from Scripture. But Theological presuppositions influence how Scripture is read, and perhaps even which documents are counted as Scripture. So perhaps there is a chicken or egg issue to reflect upon?
I have read the argument that there are three interpretations of Scripture (per Aquinas): The literal, the allegorical, and the anagogic. The latter form of interpretation involves the spiritual/mystical interpretation, and is said to be the best of the three. In the course of reading the entire Old and New Testaments cover-to-cover twelve times, I have found that God is revealed in the Scripture, no matter how much man interjects his own particular lens in the work of redaction.
Yes that’s a helpful interpretative paradigm. Other medieval approaches identified 4 senses, adding ‘moral’ to the three senses you noted. A key issue which readers of scripture need to always distinguish, is the difference between exegesis (reading out of the text) and eisegesis (reading into the text). Its a common human bias to assume that one’s eisegesis is actually an exegesis of God’s revelation.
According to Jewish tradition, the Septuagint was commissioned by King Ptolemy who gathered 72 Elders (the meaning of Septuagint) to translate the Hebrew to Greek (“He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned.”)
It is reasonable to assume that the correct translation is “virgin”. How else could 72 Elders agree that a “virgin” would give birth? A “young pregnant woman” giving birth is hardly a sign from God. It becomes even more clear since Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew – using the MT, yet still says, “virgin”.
Jerome in his “Illustrious Men” says of Matthew’s Gospel, “whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord and Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the Septuagint but the Hebrew”, but yet he says, “virgin”.
I don’t know of any Jewish authority who says it’s “virgin”.
And the bit about 72 translators is a myth. Even if it’s just two people, perfectly fluent in both Greek and Hebrew, you will never get word for word agreement in their translations.
Yes ancient sources talk of 70 (or 72) translators but it was for the Torah, the first 5 books of the bible. There is considerable difference of opinion about the translation of other portions of the Septuagint.
Even in ancient times the story of the 70 was disputed. Theoretically, if a God who created the universe exists, then it would be a relatively simple miracle to get a group of humans to translate a document identically. But the key question is whether such a miracle actually occurred, or not.
The Hebrew word ‘almah’ isn’t a synonym for ‘virgin’ but nor is it an opposite sense. People sometimes argue that ‘virgin’ was an ‘inspired’ interpretation of the Hebrew, thus adding more specification to an openness in the original text. The new ‘twist’ in the ancient argument is that there is now a question about the original word itself.
So glad there is only one definitive copy of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’
Was revised later, because parts of the original were incorrect. As was freely admitted.
… although there is also a ‘Descent of Man’ …
Another scholarly, thoughtful masterpiece by Rory. Thanks!
Humans are not perfect and translations are colored by political influences. The simple premise to follow in accepting scripture as holy is the question “what would a benevolent deity give to mankind?” And “ does it treat others as you would want yourself to be treated?” Taking them so literally that you forget these simple tests renders you subject to having conflicts over typographical errors. Remember that theocracy will always infest theology with harmful doctrine. It’s simply human nature to use theology for personal gain. Stick to benevolence and reject otherism. No benevolent deity would endorse conflict amongst humans.
Yes it can be helpful to apply an a priori framework of expectations, as that can help with sifting different claims to Revelation. Problems arise because ‘benevolent deity’ under determines different outcomes. Perhaps a benevolent deity might be expected to give just 1 Revelation to avoid conflict between humans. That rules out Christianity (a 2nd Revelation) in favour of the truth of Judaism. Or perhaps both are ruled out in favour of claims for a more ancient Hinduism (?). Or perhaps a benvolent deity could be expected to have a gradual revelation, to prepare people over time. That might mean that Judaism gives way to Christianity… and perhaps both give way to Islam (?)
There is certainly something to think about in terms of a priori criteria, but the issues are complicated (!). Perhaps something to explore in a future piece.