Septuagint vs Masoretic Text: Which is Authoritative?
Question 1046
When we open our Old Testament, we are reading a translation of ancient Hebrew manuscripts. But which Hebrew manuscripts? And what about the Greek translation that Jesus and the apostles so often quoted? This question sits at the heart of how we received our Bible and which text we should trust as authoritative.
Understanding the Two Texts
The Masoretic Text (MT) is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish scriptures. The name comes from the Masoretes, Jewish scribes who worked primarily between the 6th and 10th centuries AD to preserve and standardise the Hebrew Bible. They added vowel points to the consonantal Hebrew text (since ancient Hebrew was written without vowels), along with accent marks and marginal notes called the Masorah. The oldest complete Masoretic manuscript is the Leningrad Codex, dating to around AD 1008, though the Aleppo Codex (c. AD 930) is slightly older but incomplete. The Masoretic Text forms the basis for nearly all modern Old Testament translations, including the ESV, NIV, and NASB.
The Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, produced in Alexandria, Egypt, beginning around 250 BC. According to the Letter of Aristeas, seventy-two Jewish scholars (hence the name, from the Latin septuaginta meaning “seventy”) translated the Torah for the library of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Over the following centuries, the rest of the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek. The Septuagint was the Bible of the early Church and remains the Old Testament of the Eastern Orthodox churches today.
Why Do They Differ?
The differences between these two texts are not merely translation variations. In some places, the Septuagint appears to reflect an older Hebrew text than what the Masoretes preserved. This became dramatically clear with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. Among the scrolls found at Qumran were Hebrew manuscripts dating from the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD—over a thousand years older than the Leningrad Codex. What scholars discovered was remarkable: some scrolls aligned closely with the Masoretic Text, others with the Septuagint, and still others represented a previously unknown textual tradition.
Take Jeremiah as an example. The Septuagint version of Jeremiah is about one-eighth shorter than the Masoretic Text, and the material is arranged differently. For years, scholars debated whether the Greek translators had abbreviated the text or whether the Hebrew had been expanded. The Dead Sea Scrolls provided the answer: fragments of Jeremiah found at Qumran matched the shorter Septuagint version, proving that the Greek translators were faithfully rendering a different (and possibly older) Hebrew text.
Another significant difference appears in the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11. The Septuagint gives ages for the patriarchs that are consistently 100 years higher than the Masoretic Text. According to the Masoretic chronology, the Flood occurred around 2348 BC; according to the Septuagint, it was closer to 3168 BC. Some scholars, including Henry B. Smith Jr., have argued that the Masoretic numbers may have been deliberately altered in the early centuries AD to undermine Christian claims about Messianic chronology, though this remains debated.
The Question of Authority
So which text is authoritative? This question requires careful thinking. Let me suggest several principles.
First, we must remember that inspiration applies to the original autographs, not to any particular manuscript tradition. When Paul wrote to Timothy that “all Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16), he was referring to the Hebrew scriptures as originally given through the prophets. Neither the Masoretic Text nor the Septuagint is the original; both are witnesses to it. The Masoretic Text preserves the Hebrew, but through a line of transmission that was standardised relatively late. The Septuagint preserves an earlier witness to certain readings, but it is a translation, with all the interpretive decisions that translations involve.
Second, we should recognise that God has providentially preserved His Word through multiple textual streams. The fact that we have both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (along with the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic Targums, and other witnesses) allows scholars to compare readings and identify where copying errors or deliberate alterations may have occurred. This is not a problem for biblical authority; it is a gift for textual scholarship.
Third, the New Testament’s use of the Septuagint is significant. When the Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament authors to quote the Old Testament, they frequently quoted the Septuagint rather than translating directly from Hebrew. This does not mean the Septuagint is superior to the Hebrew, but it does indicate that God was willing to use the Greek translation as an authoritative witness to His Word. We will explore this more in the next question.
Fourth, for most practical purposes, the differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint do not affect any significant doctrine. The core teachings of Scripture—creation, the fall, God’s covenant with Abraham, the Exodus, the Law, the Davidic kingdom, the prophetic hope of a coming Messiah—are clearly taught in both textual traditions. Where there are differences, careful comparison usually reveals which reading is more likely original.
A Balanced Approach
The best approach is neither to absolutise the Masoretic Text nor to replace it with the Septuagint, but to use both wisely. The Masoretic Text remains our primary witness to the Hebrew scriptures because it is in the original language and represents a carefully preserved tradition. However, where the Septuagint (especially when supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls or other ancient witnesses) appears to preserve an older or more accurate reading, we should not dismiss it simply because it is Greek.
Most modern translations follow the Masoretic Text but include footnotes where the Septuagint or other ancient versions offer significant variant readings. The ESV, for example, notes these variants in its footnotes, allowing readers to be aware of textual questions without being distracted by them in the main text.
Some scholars have argued for a return to the Septuagint for Old Testament translation, particularly given its widespread use in the early Church. While there is historical merit to this argument, the practical reality is that the Hebrew text was what God originally inspired, and the Masoretic tradition, despite its relatively late standardisation, has preserved that Hebrew text remarkably well. The Dead Sea Scrolls, despite being over a thousand years older than the Leningrad Codex, confirmed the accuracy of the Masoretic Text in the vast majority of readings.
Conclusion
The authority of Scripture does not depend on any single manuscript or translation but on the original words God spoke through His prophets and apostles. Both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint are valuable witnesses to that original revelation. The Masoretic Text preserves the Hebrew that God inspired; the Septuagint often preserves earlier readings and was used extensively by Jesus, the apostles, and the early Church. Rather than pitting one against the other, we should thank God for preserving His Word through multiple streams of transmission, allowing us to read and study Scripture with confidence that we have what He intended us to have.
“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand for ever.” Isaiah 40:8
Bibliography
- Brotzman, Ellis R. Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994.
- Jobes, Karen H. and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.
- Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.
- Würthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
- Smith, Henry B. Jr. “The Case for the Septuagint’s Chronology in Genesis 5 and 11.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism 8 (2018): 117-132.