Preface by Raymond:- This is an extract from an over 200 page document on the Septuagint that sheds valuable light of the benefits and accuracy of the LXX bible scriptures. The Appendices will be available as separate downloads at the end of the post. Some of the tables could not be imported into this post and thus have been left out but can be viewed in the full pdf which will be available at the end.
Notes on the Septuagint
by R. Grant Jones, Ph.D. July 2000 revised February 2006
The author can be reached via e-mail at ignatios_antioch@hotmail.com.
1.0 Preface
This project was begun to satisfy my curiosity about the New Testament authors’ reliance on the Septuagint and to provide a framework to address the question of the appropriate source text for Old Testament translations into English. For those who are new to the Septuagint, I have provided an “Introduction,” discussing the history of that translation. “The Septuagint in the Early Church” addresses how the Church in the West departed from reliance on the Septuagint under the influence of Jerome, though earlier writers had generally read the Septuagint and defended its use.
I investigated the New Testament authors’ dependence on the Septuagint largely by comparing New Testament quotations of the Old with both the Septuagint and an English translation of the Masoretic (Hebrew) text. “The Septuagint in the New Testament” summarizes the methodology I employed in assessing those comparisons and the results I discovered. A large number of quotations agree in sense with the Septuagint, but disagree with the Masoretic text – I compiled a list of these verses, and a list of the occasions (far smaller in number) where the New Testament author used a Masoretic reading rather than one from the Septuagint.
Appendix B, “The Table of Quotations in New Testament Order,” includes a set of symbols to indicate the extent of agreement (in terms both of meaning and of word choice) between quotations and sources. Each quotation is shown in Appendix C, “Detailed Comparisons,” which displays the Greek of the New Testament, the Greek of the Septuagint, and English translations of the New Testament, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic text. Appendix C lists the quotations in New Testament order for ease of use with Appendix B. In Appendix D, the reader will find a sample of readings from the Dead Sea Scrolls which support the Septuagint against the Masoretic text. Appendix E consists of a table showing the books of the Septuagint as they appear in Rahlfs and in the three great uncial manuscripts. Appendix F is a collection of possible New Testament references to the books of the Septuagint outside the Hebrew canon (the “Septuagint Plus”).
2.0 Introduction
The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament into Greek. The translators were likely Jews of the dispersion, living in Alexandria, Egypt.
The beginning of the Jewish presence in Egypt is difficult to date precisely. There may have been a Jewish colony there as early as the tenth century BC, when Shishak (Shashanq) invaded Palestine and took treasures from the temple and the king’s palace (2 Chronicles 12.1-8). But certainly a number of Jews lived in Egypt after the murder of Gedaliah (~586 BC), when “the captains of the forces set out and went to Egypt; for they were afraid of the Chaldeans” (2 Kings 25-26). Jeremiah, Baruch, and the princesses also went into Egypt at that time, though Jeremiah prophecied that they would all “perish by the sword and by famine, until not one is left” (Jeremiah 43.6, 44.27). One expects, on the basis of that prophecy, that this was not the beginning of a permanent settlement. A lasting Jewish presence in Egypt can, however, be definitely dated from the the time of the founding of the city of Alexandria in 332 BC, when Alexander the Great granted them citizenship.
In time, the Jews in Alexandria lost familiarity with Hebrew, and spoke Greek instead. It was natural, then, that they would require a translation of the scriptures into Greek for public worship in the synagogues and for private study. An account of the translation of the Septuagint is told in The Letter of Aristeas, which claims that Demetrius Phalereus, who ran the royal library in Alexandria, urged the king (Philadelphus (285-247 BC)) to obtain a copy of the Jewish law for the library. Philadelphus sent a deputation to the high priest Eleazar in Jerusalem, and the result was that seventy-two elders arrived in Egypt with a copy of the Hebrew law written on rolls of skins in golden letters. They were given accommodations on the island of Pharos, and completed their translation in seventy-two days. The same basic account is given in Aristobulus, Philo, and Josephus.
Even if the account given in the Letter of Aristeas is inaccurate, it seems clear that the Hebrew Old Testament was available in Greek in Alexandria before the birth of Christ. As Christianity began to spread, the Septuagint was used with persuasive effect by Christian apologists – so well, in fact, that in time the Jews of the dispersion replaced it with newer works. For instance, a proselyte to Judaism named Aquila completed a extremely literal translation of the Old Testament into Greek about the year 128. Other translations were made by Theodotion of Ephesus and a certain Symmachus, called an Ebionite, also in the second century.
The most ancient manuscripts of the complete (or nearly complete) Septuagint are known as Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have been dated to the mid-fourth century, and Alexandrinus to the fifth.
Based on an earlier Hebrew original, the Septuagint departs from the Masoretic text [2] frequently. “The book of Jeremiah is noteworthy,” for instance, “in that the present Hebrew text differs substantially from the Greek version (the Septuagint) in both content and order. Thus the Septuagint omits several passages (e.g., 33.14-26) and combines the oracles against foreign nations into a single section following 25.14, though in a different order. In addition, there are many smaller differences from verse to verse. Remarkably, among the portions of the text of Jeremiah in Hebrew that are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls are not only those that reflect the standard Hebrew text but also those that reflect the text tradition represented by the Septuagint. It is likely, then, that these two text traditions represent the contrasting editorial work on the book of Jeremiah that took place in Egypt (the Septuagint tradition) and in Palestine or Babylon (the traditional Hebrew text).” [Introduction to the book of Jeremiah, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, page 960.] Around the end of the first century, the Hebrew text was standardized to a form nearly identical with the modern Masoretic text. Variant readings, such as those represented in the Septuagint, were no longer transmitted in the Hebrew language.
[2] The Masoretic text is the source from which modern translations into English are made. While the oldest complete manuscripts of the Septuagint date from the fourth century, the oldest complete Hebrew Old Testament, the Leningrad Codex, was copied in ~ 1008 A.D. Modern English translations of the Old Testament rely primarily on the Leningrad Codex as published in the Hebraica Stuttgartensia. For examples of Septuagint departures from the Masoretic text supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Appendix D.
Another contrast between the Septuagint and the modern Hebrew Old Testament involves the canon of scripture. The Septuagint includes several books and sections of books absent from the modern Hebrew text: 1 Esdras; Tobit; Judith; 1-3 Maccabees; the Wisdom of Solomon; the Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus); Baruch; the Epistle of Jeremiah; The Song of the Three Children; Daniel and Susanna; Daniel, Bel and the Dragon; Additions to the Book of Esther; Psalm 151; and the Prayer of Manasseh. The difference in content has been explained in various ways. Perhaps the most straightforward account is that the Jews of Alexandria had a relatively broad canon, which was generally adopted by the Christians as they employed the Septuagint as their Old Testament. The Jews of Palestine, when they established their canon around the turn of the first century at the council of Jamnia, may have been reiterating the position that had been more or less settled in Palestine for some time – though some books just made (Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and Ezekiel, for instance) or missed (Sirach) the cut. The conflict with Christians may have served as a catalyst to push the Jews of the dispersion into the Palestinian camp. This article – concerned with the text of the books within the Hebrew canon – will not address the controversy surrounding the Old Testament canon in any depth.
From the time of Jerome (early fifth century), Old Testament translations to the vernacular in the West have used the Hebrew as the primary source – the Septuagint has been relegated to a secondary role. (Incidentally, some are under the mistaken impression – given by misleading language in the preface to the 1899 edition – that the Douay Old Testament was translated from a Latin text based on the Septuagint. Unfortunately, Jerome’s Vulgate – apart from the Psalms and the books then available only in Greek – by and large follows the Hebrew text.) It is hoped that the reader will reconsider the wisdom of this course of action, given the clear New Testament reliance on Septuagint readings. Fortunately, new English translations of the Septuagint are being prepared for publication in the near future.
What follows comprises two main sections. The first deals with the early Church’s use of the Septuagint – particularly their sense that the Hebrew text was unreliable. It begins with the discussion between Jerome and Augustine regarding the former’s decision to craft his Latin translation from the available Hebrew text, rather than from the Septuagint. It is from Jerome’s fateful choice that the West derives its tradition of favoring the Hebrew to the Greek. The second section, “The Septuagint in the New Testament,” assesses the extent to which the New Testament authors depended on the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew text.
3.0 The Septuagint in Early Christian Writings
A fundamental change in the way the Church viewed the Old Testament was engineered by St. Jerome, early in the fifth century. Until that time, the Church had relied on the Septuagint in the East and on a Latin translation of the Septuagint in the West. When Jerome set about to make a new translation into Latin, he determined to revert to Hebrew for his source text.
The Church being an essentially conservative institution, his decision to follow such a novel course was criticized. It is interesting to read his response to that criticism, for he explains his decision on the basis of apostolic precedent – that is, that the New Testament authors made reference to the Hebrew Old Testament rather than to the Septuagint on several occasions:
I have received letters so long and eagerly desired from my dear Desiderius … entreating me to put our friends in possession of a translation of the Pentateuch from Hebrew into Latin. The work is certainly hazardous and it is exposed to the attacks of my calumniators, who maintain that it is through contempt of the Seventy that I have set to work to forge a new version to take the place of the old. They thus test ability as they do wine; whereas I have again and again declared that I dutifully offer, in the Tabernacle of God what I can, and have pointed out that the great gifts which one man brings are not marred by the inferior gifts of another. But I was stimulated to undertake the task by the zeal of Origen, who blended with the old edition Theodotion’s translation and used throughout the work as distinguishing marks the asterisk and the obelus, that is the star and the spit, the first of which makes what had previously been defective to beam with light, while the other transfixes and slaughters all that was superfluous.
But I was encouraged above all by the authoritative publications of the Evangelists and Apostles, in which we read much taken from the Old Testament which is not found in our manuscripts. For example, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my Son’ (Matt. 2.15): ‘For he shall be called a Nazarene’ (Ibid. 23): and ‘They shall look on him whom they pierced’ (John 19.37): and ‘Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly’ (John 7.38): and ‘Things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that love him’ (1 Cor. 2.9), and many other passages which lack their proper context. Let us ask our opponents then where these things are written, and when they are unable to tell, let us produce them from the Hebrew. The first passage is in Hosea, (11.1), the second in Isaiah (11.1), the third in Zechariah (12.10), the fourth in Proverbs (18.4), the fifth also in Isaiah (64.4). …
Are we condemning our predecessors? By no means; but following the zealous labors of those who have preceded us we contribute such work as lies in our power in the name of the Lord. They translated before the Advent of Christ, and expressed in ambiguous terms that which they knew not. We after His Passion and Resurrection write not prophecy so much as history. For one style is suitable to what we hear, another to what we see. The better we understand a subject, the better we describe it. Hearken then, my rival: listen, my calumniator; I do not condemn, I do not censure the Seventy, but I am bold enough to prefer the Apostles to them all. It is the Apostle through whose mouth I hear the voice of Christ, and I read that in the classification of spiritual gifts they are placed before prophets (1 Cor. 12.28; Eph. 4.11), while interpreters occupy almost the lowest place. Why are you tormented with jealousy? Why do you inflame the minds of the ignorant against me? Wherever in translation I seem to you to go wrong, ask the Hebrews, consult their teachers in different towns. The words which exist in their Scriptures concerning Christ your copies do not contain. [From Jerome’s Apology, Book II, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol 3.]
This is a fascinating passage. First, note that Jerome was correct in his statement that several New Testament passages follow the Hebrew meaning in distinction from the reading in the Septuagint. But it is curious that he believed the passage “For He shall be called a Nazarene” from Matthew 2.23 is a quotation from Isaiah – it is not. That passage does not exist in any of our current texts – in Hebrew or in Greek. (Isaiah 11.1 does, however, contain the Hebrew word for branch, neser.) Similarly, the passage “Things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that love him” is not to be found in Isaiah 64.4, according to the Masoretes. Again, the passage “Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly” which Jerome attributes to Proverbs is not in our current Hebrew – though Proverbs 18.4 and Isaiah 58.11 both speak of water, there is no reference to that water’s pouring out of anyone’s belly. Did Jerome have access to a substantially different Hebrew source than we have today?
The other two examples Jerome provided to show how the Hebrew text enjoyed New Testament sanction are indeed absent from the Septuagint – see the list of similar passages. However, can Jerome have been ignorant of the far larger number of New Testament quotations from the Septuagint where the Greek version differs from the Hebrew? If New Testament warrant is the key determinant in deciding the source text to be employed in translation, the evidence fairly clearly supports the Septuagint over the Hebrew.
St. Augustine of Hippo was one of those who criticized Jerome’s decision to make his translation into Latin out of the Hebrew. He was concerned about two issues: (1) that the new Latin translation would lead to divergences with the Greek-speaking part of the Church, and (2) that the translation would not be authoritative since Jerome’s skill in the interpretation of Hebrew would be questioned, and validated only with great difficulty.
For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended. And when they are obtained, who will submit, to have so many Latin and Greek authorities: pronounced to be in the wrong? Besides all this, Jews, if consulted as to the meaning of the Hebrew text, may give a different opinion from yours: in which case it will seem as if your presence were indispensable, as being the only one who could refute their view; and it would be a miracle if one could be found capable of acting as arbiter between you and them. [From Augustine of Hippo’s, Letter LXXI, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Volume 1.]
It would perhaps be an interesting study to determine the extent to which using different Old Testament texts has contributed to the separation between East and West through the centuries. Some say that Augustine’s own reliance on a poor Latin translation of the book of Romans led him into erroneous conclusions regarding original sin.
Augustine went on to state his desire that Jerome would provide a fresh translation of the Old Testament into Latin from the Septuagint, since it “has no mean authority, seeing that it has obtained so wide circulation, and was the one which the apostles used, as is … proved by looking to the text itself.” In that statement, I think, it is clear that Augustine was correct. Yet Jerome was of a contrary opinion, stating “Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew [Jerome’s Apology, Book II].” But that claim is manifestly false – unless Jerome’s Hebrew text was radically different from what we possess today.
Jerome accused the Jews who translated the Septuagint of deliberately altering the Hebrew meaning in order to avoid offending or misleading the Ptolemaic king of Egypt for whom the work of translation was done. His desire, he stated, was to bring to light the underlying Hebrew meaning that had been repressed by those Jewish translators. Jerome thus lacked the near-ubiquitous suspicion of the Hebrew text shared by those who were in polemical combat with the Jews in the early centuries. He seemed to take the Hebrew text available to him at the time as verity. The notion that the Septuagint may have been based on a different underlying Hebrew – for which hypothesis the Dead Sea Scrolls furnish positive evidence (see Appendix D) – seems never to have occurred to him.
One difficulty Jerome brought forth for those who would wish to prepare a translation into the Latin from the Septuagint, instead of the Hebrew, was the rarity of manuscripts that were not based on Origen’s Hexapla edition. Origen had attempted to reconstruct the text of the Septuagint by comparing that text available to him with the Hebrew and other Greek translations. Following Origen’s reconstructed Greek, Jerome had translated some of the canonical books into Latin. Augustine wrote to Jerome to ask him why he did not follow the same procedure in his new translation. Jerome replied:
In another letter you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the Seventy have said more than is found in the Hebrew. But the asterisks indicate what has been added by Origen from the version of Theodotion. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense than the order of the words. I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world, but as they have been corrected, or rather corrupted, by Origen, with his obelisks and asterisks; and that you refuse to follow the translation, however feeble, which has been given by a Christian man, especially seeing that Origen borrowed the things which he has added from the edition of a man who, after the passion of Christ, was a Jew and a blasphemer. Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one Ms. here and there which has not these interpolations.
The copies of the Septuagint then widely available, according to Jerome, were actually Origen’s redaction – and perhaps the editorial symbols that would have allowed one to locate the true Septuagint reading were missing from many of the copies in the libraries. But clearly Jerome had access to copies which contained Origen’s symbols – in fact, the Hexapla was still extant in Caesarea of Palestine at the time Jerome wrote. And Jerome, as is clear, had translated some books into Latin from a copy of the Septuagint containing Origen’s symbols.
Origen’s reconstruction of the Septuagint was thought necessary, apparently, because of the diversity of readings in the many copies in circulation. In fact, in addition to Origen’s version, two other recensions of the Septuagint were prepared early in the fourth century: one by Lucian of Antioch, and the other by Hesychius of Egypt. The Hebrew then available to Jerome did not share the problem of multiple variant readings. This is perhaps the true reason why Jerome chose to translate from the Hebrew instead of the Greek. Yet, from Jerome’s remarks earlier, we can only surmise that his Hebrew text was somewhat different from our own, or his knowledge of the Hebrew language was inexact.
(One hundred years ago, it was though that the fourth century uncial manuscript known as Vaticanus reflected a neutral Septuagint text – neutral in the sense that it is relatively uneffected by Origen, Lucian and Hesychius’ efforts. Alexandrinus was said to show signs of both Origen and Lucian’s revisions. But the frequent correspondence between Alexandrinus and the New Testament suggested that it preserved a more ancient text. At that time, no firm judgment of Sinaiticus had been formed. I do not know what the current state of scholarship is on this matter. In terms of printed editions of the Septuagint, the Complutensian Polyglot, printed in 1517, reflects the Lucianic recension to an extent, while the Aldine edition of 1519, the Hesychian. The Septuagint text used in the comparisons in this article is that of Sir Lawrence Brenton (1851). Brenton’s text is based on Valpy’s 1819 edition, which in turn depends upon the Sixtine edition of 1587. This last corresponds roughly with Vaticanus. Extensive use has also been made of Alfred Rahlfs’ semi-critical edition of 1935, especially to identify variant readings.)
The difficulty involved in locating a relatively uniform source from which to translate should not be an overwhelming deterrent to translation. If it were, we would not have the New Testament in English today: variant readings in the multiple extant New Testament manuscripts have elicited several recensions of that text since Erasmus’ time. So, though it was true that the Hebrew text had been standardized to an extent since the Septuagint was generated, and was thus likely to be more uniform than the Greek, these facts hardly justify abandoning the Old Testament of the apostles.
Contrast Origen’s viewpoint with Jerome’s. Though he was aware of numerous instances of divergence between the Septuagint readings and those of the Hebrew, yet his trust in God’s providence prevented him from automatically assuming that the Greek version was in error. How could God have suffered His Church to use an erroneous version of scripture for the first two hundred years of Its existence?
Again, through the whole of Job there are many passages in the Hebrew which are wanting in our copies, generally four or five verses, but sometimes, however, even fourteen, and nineteen, and sixteen. But why should I enumerate all the instances I collected with so much labor, to prove that the difference between our copies and those of the Jews did not escape me? In Jeremiah I noticed many instances, and indeed in that book I found much transposition and variation in the readings of the prophecies. Again, in Genesis, the words, “God saw that it was good,” when the firmament was made, are not found in the Hebrew, and there is no small dispute among them about this; and other instances are to be found in Genesis, which I marked, for the sake of distinction, with the sign the Greeks call an obelisk, as on the other hand I marked with an asterisk those passages in our copies which are not found in the Hebrew. What needs there to speak of Exodus, where there is such diversity in what is said about the tabernacle and its court, and the ark, and the garments of the high priest and the priests, that sometimes the meaning even does not seem to be akin? And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery! Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died; whom, although His Son, God who is love spared not, but gave Him up for us all, that with Him He might freely give us all things?
Indeed, Origen remained true to the Septuagint, but he also perceived great value in knowledge of the Hebrew, particularly in discussions with the Jews.
In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, “Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.” Nor do I say this because I shun the labor of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, laboring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community. And I make it my endeavor not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them. [Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4.]
We find the same regard for the Septuagint a few years earlier, in the second century, when we examine the writings of Sts. Irenaeus of Lyons and Justin Martyr. In his Against Heresies, Irenaeus discussed one point of contention between the Jews and Christians of his day over the Old Testament – the prophecy of the virgin in Isaiah 7.14:
God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus: ] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvelous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humor, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, are disinherited from the grace of God. [From Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXI, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1.]
Irenaeus argued that since the Jews themselves made this translation – which proves the deity of the Savior – long before the advent of Christ, it is free from bias; while their new translations (those of Aquila and Theodotion) are tainted by their hatred for Christianity. The extent of Irenaus’ admiration for the Septuagint can be gauged from the following account of the history of the translation, which hints at divine involvement. This account differs somewhat from that given in The Letter of Aristeas, discussed in the Introduction:
For before the Romans possessed their kingdom, while as yet the Macedonians held Asia, Ptolemy the son of Lagus, being anxious to adorn the library which he had founded in Alexandria, with a collection of the writings of all men, which were [works] of merit, made request to the people of Jerusalem, that they should have their Scriptures translated into the Greek language. And they – for at that time they were still subject to the Macedonians – sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders, who were thoroughly skilled in the Scriptures and in both the languages, to carry out what he had desired. But he, wishing to test them individually, and fearing lest they might perchance, by taking counsel together, conceal the truth in the Scriptures, by their interpretation, separated them from each other, and commanded them all to write the same translation. He did this with respect to all the books. But when they came together in the same place before Ptolemy, and each of them compared his own interpretation with that of every other, God was indeed glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine. For all of them read out the common translation [which they had prepared] in the very same words and the very same names, from beginning to end, so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God. And there was nothing astonishing in God having done this, – He who, when, during the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, the Scriptures had been corrupted, and when, after seventy years, the Jews had returned to their own land, then, in the times of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, inspired Esdras the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of the former prophets, and to re-establish with the people the Mosaic legislation.
Irenaeus, as Augustine did more than two centuries later, acknowledged that the witness of the New Testament authors is in favor of the Septuagint:
Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and by the grace of God, and since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished, fleeing from the famine in Canaan; where also our Lord was preserved when He fled from the persecution set on foot by Herod; and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord’s descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared – for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted; – [since these things are so, I say, ] truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations, when we refute them out of these Scriptures, and shut them up to a belief in the advent of the Son of God. But our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.
Thus, in Irenaeus’ view, just as God preserved the Israelites through the time of famine safe in the land of Egypt, God kept his word safe in Alexandria though the instrumentality of unbiased Jewish translators.
Writing just a few years earlier than Irenaeus, Justin Martyr presented the same history of the Septuagint’s production. Then he added:
These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little cots at the Pharos still preserved, and having heard these things from the inhabitants, who had received them as part of their country’s tradition, we now tell to you what you can also learn from others, and specially from those wise and esteemed men who have written of these things, Philo and Josephus, and many others. [From Justin’s Hortatory Address to the Greeks, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1.]
Though he was willing to debate the Jews on the basis of their version of scripture, Justin alleged that the Jews had removed passages which he discovered only in the Septuagint.
In short, the vast majority of early Christian writers quoted extensively from the Septuagint, and some considered it a divinely inspired translation. St. Clement of Rome, writing in the first century, provides the earliest non-canonical example. It has been estimated that approximately half of his Old Testament quotations are directly from the Septuagint, the remainder being variations due to imperfect memory on the one hand and the use of a text closer to the second century Greek translations of Theodotion or Aquila on the other. Until the religious controversy with Christians arose, the Septuagint was held in very high regard by Jews also. Philo of Alexandria – who, with Irenaeus and Justin, believed that the seventy-two translators had miraculously produced identical translations though isolated in separate cells – and Josephus are eminent examples.
But it is also true that all the Fathers of the Church did not share an aversion to the Hebrew text. One can find examples where they consulted with those knowledgeable in Hebrew in order to gain a deeper understanding of the Biblical message. St. Basil the Great, for instance, in commenting on the text “the Spirit of God was borne upon the face of the waters” says:
How then did the Spirit of God move upon the waters? The explanation that I am about to give you is not an original one, but that of a Syrian, who was as ignorant in the wisdom of this world as he was versed in the knowledge of the Truth. He said, then, that the Syriac word was more expressive, and that being more analogous to the Hebrew term it was a nearer approach to the scriptural sense. This is the meaning of the word; by “was borne” the Syrians, he says, understand: it cherished the nature of the waters as one sees a bird cover the eggs with her body and impart to them vital force from her own warmth. Such is, as nearly as possible, the meaning of these words – the Spirit was borne: let us understand, that is, prepared the nature of water to produce living beings: a sufficient proof for those who ask if the Holy Spirit took an active part in the creation of the world [The Hexaemeron, Homily II, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 8].
Similarly, St. Gregory of Nyssa consulted Aquila and Symmachus’ translations from an original very close to the Masoretic Hebrew to clarify the meaning of Genesis 1.2. (See his Hexaemeron.) When discussing the meaning of Proverbs 8.27, Gregory indicated a willingness to consult the Hebrew to ascertain the meaning of the word rendered “created” in the Septuagint [Against Eunomius, Book I, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 5, page 63]. Perhaps we should emulate the early Christians’ faithfulness to the Septuagint – on the grounds that it is the Old Testament largely witnessed by the New – but temper that loyalty with appreciation for the current Hebrew text.
The claim, repeated above by Irenaeus and Augustine, that the New Testament authors relied upon the Septuagint, is examined in the second major section of this: “The Septuagint in the New Testament.”
4.0 The Septuagint in the New Testament
4.1 General Observations
The following table provides a summary overview of New Testament quotations from the Old Testament. Twenty-four Old Testament books, listed in the first column of the table – Genesis through Malachi – , are quoted in sixteen New Testament books – Matthew through 2 Peter -, named in the top row. The next row provides the total number of quotations from the Old Testament in each New Testament book. In addition, this line shows the total of all verses in the Old Testament books quoted, the total number of quotations (320), and the frequency of quotations for those books taken as a whole. Thus, for the 24 Old Testament books listed, the average frequency of quotations is 18.0 per every thousand verses. Of course, if the entire Old Testament were taken into account, the quotation frequency would be much lower. To include verse counts from books not quoted (Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Chronicles, etc.) would, however, ensnare us in the question of the Old Testament canon, which is outside the scope of the present investigation. Appendix F provides evidence that the New Testament authors were influenced by Deuterocanonical material, but draws no conclusions regarding the boundaries of the canon.
As a guide to reading the table, note that the book of Genesis has 1508 verses and is quoted 31 times in the New Testament. The number of quotations from Genesis, divided by the number of verses in that book and multiplied by 1000, yields 20.6 – implying that Genesis was a bit more popular with New Testament authors than the average Old Testament book. Continuing along the “Genesis” row, we see that four of these quotations appear in the book of Acts, and nine in Romans. Looking along the columns, observe that the book of John quotes the Old Testament only 14 times – the least of any gospel. John quotes the Psalms seven times, Isaiah four times, and Zechariah twice. (Fractional quotations will be explained shortly.)
Some additional remarks about the table:
(1) the reader may notice that fractional quotations are listed. The reason for this is that in cases such as Matthew 5.33 and 5.38, multiple Old Testament books contain the same quotation. Since it is impossible to tell which book is being quoted, each is given partial credit. For instance, Matthew may have had Exodus 21.24, Leviticus 19.12 or Deuteronomy 19.21 in mind in Matthew 5.38. Each Old Testament book is thus given one-third credit.
(2) The verse count for each book is based on the Authorized Version. The Septuagint will have different verse counts for some of these books. It was my judgment that the variation in book length between the Septuagint and Hebrew-based English translations would be an insignificant factor. The greatest discrepancies will be for Jeremiah, Daniel and Job, books not particularly popular with New Testament authors.
(3) Many of these 320 distinct quotations are of the same Old Testament passage. For instance, each time the author of the book of Hebrews quotes Psalm 95.7, it is counted as a separate citation.
Table 1: Quotations Overview
| Book | # of verses | # of quot. | Quot. freq. | Mt | Mk | Lk | Jn | Acts | Rom | 1 Cor | 2 Cor | Gal | Eph | 1 Tm | 2 Tm | Heb | Jam | 1 Pet | 2 Pet |
| Total | 17,764 | 320 | 18.0 | 54 | 27 | 26 | 14 | 40 | 61 | 17 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 37 | 4 | 12 | 1 |
| Genesis | 1508 | 31 | 20.6 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 1 | |||||||
| Exodus | 1213 | 31.33 | 25.8 | 4.33 | 3 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 3 | 0.5 | 1 | ||||
| Leviticus | 859 | 15.33 | 17.8 | 3.83 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0.5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Numbers | 1288 | 2 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Deut. | 927 | 43.33 | 46.8 | 10.3 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0.5 | 1 | 4 | 0.5 | ||||
| 1 Samuel | 810 | 1 | 1.2 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| 2 Samuel | 694 | 2.5 | 3.6 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| 1 Kings | 816 | 2 | 2.5 | 2 | |||||||||||||||
| Job | 1070 | 2 | 1.9 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Psalms | 2461 | 76.5 | 31.1 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 11 | 12.5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 2 | |||||
| Proverbs | 915 | 6 | 6.6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Isaiah | 1292 | 65.5 | 50.7 | 11 | 4.5 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 18 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 | |||||
| Jeremiah | 1364 | 5 | 3.7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||
| Ezekiel | 1273 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.5 | |||||||||||||||
| Daniel | 356 | 5 | 13.7 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Hosea | 186 | 7 | 37.6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Joel | 73 | 2 | 27.4 | 1 | 1 |
| Book | # of verses | # of quot. | Quot. freq. | Mt | Mk | Lk | Jn | Acts | Rom | 1 Cor | 2 Cor | Gal | Eph | 1 Tm | 2 Tm | Heb | Jam | 1 Pet | 2 Pet |
| Amos | 146 | 2 | 13.7 | 2 | |||||||||||||||
| Jonah | 48 | 1 | 20.8 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Micah | 105 | 2 | 19.0 | 2 | |||||||||||||||
| Habakkuk | 56 | 4 | 71.4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Haggai | 38 | 1 | 26.3 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Zechariah | 211 | 7 | 33.2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Malachi | 55 | 4 | 72.7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Notice that fifteen Old Testament books from the Hebrew canon are not quoted at all: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah.
Of those that are quoted, Psalms and Isaiah are the most popular, followed by Deuteronomy and Exodus. These four books show good strength of usage across the span of New Testament books. Eighty-two percent of all Old Testament quotations are from just six books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms and Isaiah.
If the size of the Old Testament books is taken into account, one realizes that the tiny works of Malachi and Habakkuk were very rich with meaning for the New Testament authors. When popularity is measured in this way, Isaiah and Deuteronomy come in third and fourth respectively. Hosea is fifth and Zechariah sixth.
Other observations: almost one-third of the quotations in Romans are from Isaiah, while 43% of the quotations in Hebrews are from Psalms. Matthew and Luke rely on the books of the Law for almost 40% of their quotes (this jumps to 50 % with Mark), but John avoids the Torah almost completely, concentrating instead on Psalms, Isaiah and Zechariah.
Ezekiel, a relatively large book, is quoted only one and one-half times in the New Testament. It has the lowest quotation frequency for any book actually referenced.
4.2 Agreement with the Septuagint
4.2.1 Methodology
The basic set of quotations for this study was furnished by the “Index of Quotations” in Aland, Karavidopoulos, Martini and Metzger’s The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, published by the United Bible Societies. Hereafter, I will refer to this source as UBS. I was unable, however, to see any connection between 2 Samuel 7.8 and 2 Corinthians 6.18, listed in UBS as a quotation, so I deleted this item from the set. Two additional exceptions: UBS presents Mt 21.5 as a single quotation from two sources – Isaiah 62.11 and Zechariah 9.9. It seems clear, however, that this should be viewed as two non-overlapping quotations, since Isaiah 62.11 simply provides an opening phrase which the quotation from Zechariah follows. In addition, UBS views Luke 4.18-19 as a quotation from Isaiah 61.1 alone. However, since Luke has introduced a line from Isaiah 58.6 into the midst of that quotation, I have followed suit.
I must say that several of the quotations in the Index hardly seem like quotations at all. In addition, several passages which seem fairly clearly to be quotations (Daniel 11.31/12.11 in Matthew 24.15/Mark 13.14; Isaiah 66.24 in Mark 9.48; Sirach 4.1 in Mark 10.19; Jeremiah 11.7 in Mark 11.17; Isaiah 53.12 in Mark 15.28; Malachi 4.5-6 in Luke 1.17; Psalm 62.12/Psalm 24.12 in Romans 2.6; Isaiah 8.12 in 1 Peter 3.14; Psalm 2.8, 9 in Revelation 2.27; Isaiah 22.22 in Revelation 3.7; Leviticus 5.7 in Luke 2.24; and others) are missing from the Index. I was tempted to scrub the list of quotations of questionable entries (Deuteronomy 25.5 is a good example) and augment it with more worthy ones. However, employing an objective set of quotations provided by an outside source bolsters the objectivity of the work. In addition, the questionable quotations and the candidates for inclusion appear not to influence the overall conclusions in any significant way.
For each quotation, I have prepared a side-by-side comparison of the New Testament and Septuagint Greek texts (Appendix C). The New Testament column is from UBS, while the Septuagint is Brenton’s text – although textual variations were considered for both testaments. To add clarity, and to provide an opportunity to assess agreement with the Masoretic Hebrew text, I supplemented this primary Greek comparison with Brenton’s English translation of the Septuagint, and the Old and New Testament passages in the English of the 1901 American Standard Version (with editorial modifications of my own, such as the replacement of “Jehovah” with “Yahweh”). My own comments appear in the footnotes.
(One word of caution: I am no expert in Greek. With tools such as those provided at the Perseus Project web site, I can translate New Testament and Septuagint passages. However, I have little to no familiarity with Hebrew. Thus, I have relied on a variety of translations – and the definitions given in Young’s Analytical Concordance – to assess the meaning of the Masoretic text.)
As I proceeded to prepare side-by-side comparisons of the quotations, I noticed a tendency on the part of New Testament authors to deviate from the exact wording of the Septuagint, though they often kept the same sense, or applied the text in a novel way. For instance, they would change the person and/or number of a verb to suit their purposes. Strictly speaking, these were usually deviations from both the Hebrew and the Septuagint; thus, these deviations seemed of no consequence in the evaluation of the influence of the Septuagint on the New Testament. However, there were cases where the Septuagint and the Hebrew differed in meaning, and the New Testament followed one against the sense of the other.
I determined, therefore, to categorize the comparisons in two separate ways. First, I would assess the meaning of the texts, and evaluate the degree of agreement: where the Septuagint and the Masoretic text differ in meaning, did the New Testament author follow the sense of the Septuagint against the Hebrew, or did he follow the Hebrew against he Septuagint? Second, I would assess the degree to which the New Testament author employed poetic license in his use of the Septuagint.
4.2.2 Assessment of Agreement in Meaning
The New Testament authors show a clear tendency to use Septuagint rather than Masoretic readings. The following table provides a selection of thirty of the more significant New Testament deviations toward the Septuagint. The second column shows the New Testament wording, and the rightmost column has the wording from the Hebrew Old Testament. In each case, the New Testament author is true to the Septuagint. Bold font is used to highlight differences between Hebrew and Greek. All quotations are from the Revised Standard Version.
Table 2: Sample New Testament Quotations of the Septuagint
| New/Old Testament Reference | New Testament/Septuagint | Old Testament/Masoretic Text |
| Mt 1.23/ Is 7.14 | “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).” | Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. |
| Mt 12.21/ Is 42.4 | “and in his name will the Gentiles hope.” | And the coastlands wait for his law. |
| Mt 13.14-15/ Is 6.9-10 | “For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed” | Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes |
| Mt 15.8-9/ Is 29.13 | “in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” | and their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote |
| Mt 21.16/ Ps 8.2 | “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast brought perfect praise” | by the mouths of babes and infants thou hast founded a bulwark |
| Lk 3.4-6/ Is 40.3-5 | “and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” | And all flesh shall see it together |
| Lk 4.18-19/ Is 61.1-2 | “to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind” | to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound |
| Acts 7.42- 43/ Amos 5.25- 27 | “And you took up the tent of Moloch, and the star of the god Rephan, the figures which you made to worship” | You shall take up Sakkuth your king, and Kaiwan your star-god, your images, which you made for yourselves |
| Acts 8.32- 33/ Is 53.7-8 | “In his humiliation justice was denied him, Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken up from the earth.” | By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living |
| Acts 13.41/ Hab 1.5 | “Behold, you scoffers, and wonder, and perish” | Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded |
| Acts 15.16- 17/ Amos 9.11- 12 | “that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name” | that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name |
| Rom 2.24/ Is 52.5 | “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” | Their rulers wail, says the LORD, and continually all the day my name is despised |
| Rom 9.27- 28/ Is 10.22- 23 | “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall be saved” | For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return |
| New/Old Testament Reference | New Testament/Septuagint | Old Testament/Masoretic Text |
| Rom 10.20/ Is 65.1 | “I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” | I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me |
| Rom 11.9- 10/ Ps 69.22 | “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a pitfall and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs for ever.” | Let their own table before them become a snare; let their sacrificial feasts [Heb. – for security] be a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see; and make their loins tremble continually |
| Rom 11.26- 27/ Is 59.20-21 | “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob” | And he will come to Zion as Redeemer, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression |
| Rom 11.34/ Is 40.13 | “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” | Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or as his counselor instructed him? |
| Rom 15.12/ Is 11.10 | “The root of Jesse shall come, he who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles hope.” | the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek |
| Heb 1.6/ Deut 32.43 | “Let all God’s angels worship him.” | The Masoretic Text omits this quotation |
| Heb 2.6-8/ Ps 8.4-6 | “Thou didst make him a little lower than the angels” | thou hast made him a little less than God |
| Heb 2.13/ Is 8.17 | “I will put my trust in him.” | I will hope in him |
| Heb 3.15/ Ps 95.7-8 | “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” | O that today you would hearken to his voice! Harden not your hearts, as at Meribah |
| Heb 8.8-12/ Jer 31.31-34 | “for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord” | my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD |
| Heb 10.5-7/ Ps 40.6-8 | “Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired; but a body hast thou prepared for me” | Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire; but thou hast given me an open ear |
| Heb 10.37- 38/ Hab 2.3-4 | “and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” | Behold, he whose soul is not upright in him shall fail [Heb. – is puffed up] |
| Heb 11.21/ Gen 47.31 | “By faith Jacob … bowing in worship over the head of his staff.” | Then Israel bowed himself upon the head of his bed |
| Heb 12.5-6/ Prov 3.11-12 | “For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” | for the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights |
| James 4.6/ Prov 3.34 | “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” | Toward the scorners he is scornful, but to the humble he shows favor |
| 1 Pet 2.22/ Is 53.9 | “He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips” | although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth |
| 1 Pet 4.18/ Prov 11.31 | “If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?” | If the righteous is requited on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner! |
Matthew relies on the Septuagint for the assertion that the Messiah’s mother was to be a virgin (Matthew 1.23). Jesus himself follows the traditional Septuagint wording in condemning the Pharisees’ traditions (Matthew 15.8-9). The Septuagint clearly prophesies that Jesus will heal the blind (Luke 4.18-19) – but the Masoretic text is more obscure. The Septuagint foretold that the Messiah’s death would be unjust (Acts 8.32- 33) and that the Gentiles would seek the Lord (Acts 15.16-17). The Hebrew has the nations being “possessed” along with Edom. Paul knows that a remnant of Israel will be saved because he was reading the Old Testament in Greek (Romans 9.27-28). Perhaps if his topic were the return to the Holy Land and not salvation, he would have found the Hebrew reading more suitable. Following the Greek, he knows that the Messiah will conquer his people’s sin – not that he would come to those who had already cleansed themselves from sin, as the Hebrew would have it (Romans 11.26-27). Paul’s thought that Jesus would rule the Gentiles also depends on a Septuagint reading (Romans 15.12). The author of the book of Hebrews – to prove the deity of Christ – proclaims the truth that Jesus is worshipped by all the angels of God (Hebrews 1.6). But the Hebrew Old Testament does not contain that verse. Also on the basis of the Greek Old Testament, that author asserts that the incarnation was prophesied (Hebrews 10.5-7) – that Jesus would have a body, which he would offer for our sanctification (Hebrews 10.10). The Masoretic text at this point stresses auditory capability. Finally, where the Masoretic text described a nonviolent suffering servant, the Septuagint prophesied a sinless Messiah (1 Peter 2.22).
The Table of Quotations in New Testament Order (Appendix B) contains a column entitled “Meaning.” Some quotations are annotated in this column with a “J,” an “H,” or a “D.” A “J” indicates that the quotation agrees with the Septuagint against the sense of the Masoretic text, an “H” that the quotation supports the Hebrew sense against the Septuagint. The quotation is marked by a “D” when the quotation disagrees in meaning with both the Septuagint and the Hebrew. The following table summarizes the disagreement of the New Testament with the Septuagint as a source. The general structure of the table is the same as Table 1 above. For each New Testament book, the number of quotations from each Old Testament book is shown, but the number of times the New Testament reading differs in meaning from the Septuagint text – both “H” and “D” readings – is also indicated. Thus, Matthew differs in sense from the Septuagint 9 times out of 54 quotations. Three of these disagreements occur when Matthew quotes from Isaiah. Looking along the rows, note that Deuteronomy is quoted against the sense of the Septuagint 7 times, two of these quotations occurring in the book of Romans.
Table 3: Instances where the New Testament Differs in Meaning from the Septuagint
| Book | #/tot # of quot | Mt | Mk | Lk | Jn | Acts | Rom | 1 Cor | 2 Cor | Gal | Eph | 1 T m | 2 T m | Heb | Jam | 1 Pet | 2 Pet |
| Total | 22.5/32 0 | 9/54 | 3/27 | 2/26 | 1/14 | 0/4 0 | 3.5/6 1 | 2/1 7 | 0/10 | 0/1 0 | 0/5 | 0/ 1 | 0/ 1 | 1/37 | 0/4 | 1/1 2 | 0/ 1 |
| Genesis | 0/31 | 0/2 | 0/2 | – | – | 0/4 | 0/9 | 0/2 | – | 0/4 | 0/1 | – | – | 0/6 | 0/1 | – | – |
| Exodus | 0/31.33 | 0/4.3 3 | 0/3 | 0/2. 5 | 0/0. 5 | 0/11 | 0/3 | 0/1 | 0/1 | – | 0/0. 5 | – | – | 0/3 | 0/0. 5 | 0/1 | – |
| Leviticus | 0/15.33 | 0/3.8 3 | 0/2 | 0/2 | – | 0/1 | 0/2 | – | 0/0. 5 | 0/2 | – | – | – | – | 0/1 | 0/1 | – |
| Numbers | 0/2 | 0/0.5 | – | – | 0/0. 5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0/ 1 | – | – | – | – |
| Deut. | 7/43.33 | 1/10.3 | 2/6. 5 | 1/5.5 | – | 0/3 | 2/7 | 0/2 | 0/1 | 0/2 | 0/0. 5 | 0/ 1 | – | 1/4 | 0/0. 5 | – | – |
| 1 Samuel | 0/1 | – | – | – | – | 0/1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 2 Samuel | 0/2.5 | – | – | – | – | – | 0/0.5 | – | 0/1 | – | – | – | – | 0/1 | – | – | – |
| 1 Kings | 0/2 | – | – | – | – | – | 0/2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Job | 0/2 | – | – | – | – | – | 0/1 | 0/1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Psalms | 1/76.5 | 1/9 | 0/5 | 0/7 | 0/7 | 0/11 | 0/12. 5 | 0/3 | 0/2 | – | 0/2 | – | – | 0/1 6 | – | 0/2 | – |
| Proverbs | 0/6 | – | – | – | – | – | 0/1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0/1 | 0/1 | 0/2 | 0/ 1 |
| Isaiah | 5.5/65.5 | 3/11 | 0/4. 5 | 0/6 | 0/4 | 0/5 | 0.5/1 8 | 1/6 | 0/2 | 0/1 | – | – | – | 0/2 | – | 1/6 | – |
| Book | #/tot # of quot | Mt | Mk | Lk | Jn | Acts | Rom | 1 Cor | 2 Cor | Gal | Eph | 1 T m | 2 T m | Heb | Jam | 1 Pet | 2 Pet |
| Jeremiah | 0/5 | 0/1 | – | – | – | – | – | 0/1 | 0/1 | – | – | – | – | 0/2 | – | – | – |
| Ezekiel | 0/1.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0/1.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Daniel | 0/5 | 0/2 | 0/2 | 0/1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Hosea | 1/7 | 1/3 | – | 0/1 | – | – | 0/2 | 0/1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Joel | 0/2 | – | – | – | – | 0/1 | 0/1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Amos | 0/2 | – | – | – | – | 0/2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Jonah | 0/1 | 0/1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Micah | 1/2 | 1/2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Habakku k | 0/4 | – | – | – | – | 0/1 | 0/1 | – | – | 0/1 | – | – | – | 0/1 | – | – | – |
| Haggai | 0/1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0/1 | – | – | – |
| Zecharia h | 2/7 | 1/3 | 0/1 | – | 1/2 | – | – | – | – | – | 0/1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Malachi | 3/4 | 1/1 | 1/1 | 1/1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
The following two tables summarize these results, providing percentage agreement for each Old Testament and New Testament book. For instance, Zechariah is quoted 7 times, 5 of which are in agreement with the meaning of the Septuagint text. Thus, the New Testament follows the Septuagint’s version of Zechariah 71.4% of the time. Similarly, Luke follows the Septuagint in 24 of 26 passages, for a percentage agreement = 92.3.
Masoretic readings prevail in the New Testament when the source is Job, Zechariah or Malachi. It is understandable, therefore, that Jerome, in his critiques of the Septuagint, emphasized passages from Hosea and Zechariah to support his contention that the New Testament authors diverged from the Septuagint whenever the Greek departed in meaning from the Hebrew. Evidently, he was embarrassed by the Septuagint – and this embarrassment blinded him to the New Testament’s reliance on readings found in that version. “It would be tedious now to enumerate, what great additions and omissions the Septuagint has made, and all the passages which in church- copies are marked with daggers and asterisks [symbols indicating words present in the Greek but absent in the Hebrew, and vice versa]. The Jews generally laugh when they hear our version of this passage of Isaiah, ‘Blessed is he that hath seed in Zion and servants in Jerusalem [Is. 31.9].’ In Amos also … But how shall we deal with the Hebrew originals in which these passages and others like them are omitted, passages so numerous that to reproduce them would require books without number? [Letter LVII]” One wonders whether Jerome would have been able to overcome this evident social pressure against the Greek version if he had been aware of the diversity of the ancient Hebrew texts.
As a rule, each New Testament author agrees with the Septuagint translators more frequently than with the Massoretes. The most striking contrasts are in John’s gospel, Acts, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, James and 1 Peter.
Although, as noted above, the disagreement with the Septuagint is most pronounced in the synoptic gospels, these diverge from the Masoretic text even more strongly than they do from the Septuagint. This is not at all what one would have expected from reading Jerome’s Lives of Illustrious Men. “Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Borea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew.” The reader can himself test the verity of this statement directly or by consulting Figure 3 (page 26), which shows that even Matthew’s quotations agree with the Septuagint more frequently than with the Hebrew.
4.2.3 Presentation of New Testament Divergences from the Septuagint
For completeness, I present here a table (similar to Table 2 above) showing those instances where the New Testament follows the Hebrew sense against the Septuagint. Two of these, Malachi 3.1 (3 times) and Isaiah 8.14 (twice), are quoted by several New Testament authors. Since Romans 9.33/Isaiah 8.14 is counted as half a quotation, the New Testament follows the Hebrew against the sense of the Septuagint 8.5 times.
Table 6: New Testament Quotations in Agreement with the Hebrew Against the Sense of the Septuagint
| New/Old Testament Reference | New Testament/Masoretic Text | Septuagint |
| Mt 2.15/ Hosea 11.1 | “Out of Egypt have I called my son.” | out of Egypt have I called his children. |
| Mt 11.10/ Mal 3.1 | “Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.” | Behold, I send forth my messenger, and he shall survey the way before me. |
| John 19.37/ Zech 12.20 | “They shall look upon him whom they have pierced.” | They shall look upon me, because they have mocked me. |
| Rom 9.33/ Is 8.14 | “a stumbling stone and a rock of offense.” | a stumbling stone, neither against the falling of a rock |
| Mt 21.16/ Ps 8.2 | “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast brought perfect praise” | by the mouths of babes and infants thou hast founded a bulwark |
| Rom 11.33/ Job 41.11 | “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid.” | or who will resist me, and abide |
| 1 Cor 3.19/ Job 5.13 | “He catches the wise in their craftiness” | who takes the wise in their wisdom |
As with Table 2, the quotations from the New Testament in Table 7 are from the Revised Standard Version. The Septuagint column is from Brenton’s translation, as it is in the following.
The next table depicts occasions where the New Testament diverges in meaning from both the Hebrew of the Massoretes and the Septuagint. Bold type is used to indicate discrepancies in meaning. Italic type indicates the words are omitted from the New Testament quotation. Certain words are underlined in Mark 12.29-30 to facilitate comparison. The translations in both the New Testament and Masoretic Text columns are from the Revised Standard Version.
Table 7: New Testament Quotations in Disagreement with both the Hebrew and the Septuagint
| New/Old Testament Reference | New Testament | Septuagint | Masoretic Text |
| Mt 2.6/ Micah 5.2 | “And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel.” | And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel | But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel |
| Mt 4.15-16/ Is 9.1-2 | “The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, toward the sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles – the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned” | O land of Zebulun, land of Nephthalim, and the rest inhabiting the sea-coast, and the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. O people walking in darkness, behold a great light: ye that dwell in the region and shadow of death, a light shall shine upon you | the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he will make glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. |
| Mt 8.17/ Is 53.4 | “He took our infirmities and bore our diseases” | He bears our sins, and is pained for us | Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows |
| Mt 12.18- 20 / Is 42.1-3 | “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom I am well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will any one hear his voice in the streets; he will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick, till he brings justice to victory; and in his name will the Gentiles hope.” | Jacob is my servant, I will help him; Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor shall his voice be heard without. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench; but he shall bring forth judgement to truth. He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, | Behold, my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not fail or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands will wait for |
| New/Old Testament Reference | New Testament | Septuagint | Masoretic Text |
| until he shall have set judgment on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust. | his law | ||
| Mt 13.35/ Ps 78.2 | “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.” | I will open my mouth in parables: I will utter dark sayings which have been from the beginning | I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings from of old |
| Mt 22.37/ Deut 6.5 | “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” | And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy mind, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength | and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might |
| Mt 27.9-10 / Zech 11.12-13 | “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” | And they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me, Drop them into the furnace, and I will see if it is good metal, as I was proved for their sakes. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them into the furnace in the house of the Lord. | And they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver. Then the LORD said to me, “Cast into the treasury” – the lordly price at which I was paid off by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of the LORD. |
| Mk 12.29- 30 / Deut 6.4-5 | “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” | Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy mind, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength | Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD; and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might |
| Rom 10.6-8 / Deut 30.12-14 | “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down) or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart” | It is not in heaven above, as if there were one saying, Who shall go up for us into heaven, and shall take it for us, and we will hear and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, saying, Who will go over for us to the other side of the sea, and take it for us, and make it audible to us, and we will do it? The word is very near thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart, and in thine hands to do it | It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?” Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?” But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it |
| Rom 12.19/ Deut 32.35 | “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” | In the day of vengeance I will recompense | Vengeance is mine, and recompense |
| New/Old Testament Reference | New Testament | Septuagint | Masoretic Text |
| 1 Cor 15.54 / Is 25.8 | “Death is swallowed up in victory” | Death has prevailed and swallowed men up | He will swallow up death for ever |
All together, there are 14 such instances in the New Testament (the additional 3 being duplicates of quotations presented in Table 8). The distribution is as follows: Matthew (7), Mark (2), Luke (1), Romans (2), 1 Corinthians (1) and Hebrews (1). These 14 instances, together with the 8.5 from Table 7, tally to 22.5 cases where the New Testament disagrees with the sense of the Septuagint (see Table 3 above).
4.2.4 Assessment of the Agreement in Wording between the New Testament and the Septuagint
In the previous section, the agreement in meaning between New and Old Testament passages was evaluated. In the following, the precision of agreement in wording will be examined. As is expected, the percentage of quotations with exact or near exact duplication in wording is lower than the percentage agreeing in sense or intention. Jerome (Letter LVII), after reviewing passages such as those in Table 8 above, remarked: “From all these passages it is clear that the apostles and evangelists in translating the old testament scriptures have sought to give the meaning rather than the words, and that they have not greatly cared to preserve forms or constructions, so long as they could make clear the subject to understanding.” While it is true that these authors did not feel rigorous fidelity in quotation was a requirement, the degree to which “forms or constructions” in the Septuagint were preserved in the New Testament is remarkable.
The table of quotations in New Testament order (Appendix B) includes a column labeled with the following letters:
P – perfect or near-perfect quotation from the Septuagint – only minor differences, such as word order, articles, inconsequential pronouns, etc.
S – perfect but some words replaced with synonyms (example – Romans 9.17) or with words of related meaning.
O – the New Testament omits portions of the Septuagint text – ellipsis (example – Mark 7.6-7).
L – poetic license employed by the New Testament author: a portion of the Septuagint is replaced or reconstructed (example – Hebrews 10.5-7).
A – the New Testament author augments the Septuagint with additional wording (example – Romans 11.9-10).
F – fragmentary (some words in common – replacements as frequent or more so). E – few to no words in common (empty set).
Perfect (P) quotations and those simply involving an ellipsis (O) show the highest fidelity to the Septuagint, while the other end of the spectrum is represented by cases where few to no common words can be found (E) or where the same words appear, but in a fragmentary fashion (F). In between are the cases of poetic license (L) and those where liberty of a more restrained form has been taken – through the use of synonyms (S) and by the augmentation (A) of the Old Testament wording with an idea foreign to the literal sense of the text.
Examples of these last three are perhaps in order. Malachi 3.1 is an example of an “L” – the New Testament author, following the sense of the Masoretic text – replaces the idea of the messenger surveying the way of the Messiah with that of preparation. Another example of an “L” is provided by 1 Corinthians 3.20/Psalm 94.11. There, “the Lord knows the thoughts of men” is altered to “the Lord knows the thoughts of the wise.”
As an example of the New Testament authors’ use of synonymns (S), consider Galatians 4.30/Genesis 21.10. The Septuagint translates as, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for the son of this bondswoman shall not inherit with my son Isaac.” Paul has transformed this to read, “Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.”
Augmentation (A) is seen in, for instance, in Acts 2.17-21/Joel 2.28-32. Luke appends the words “and they shall prophesy” to the quotation “Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days will I pour forth of my Spirit.”
The following table shows the distribution of quotations among the various categories (with P and O taken together) for the New Testament books. The distributions are shown in terms of percentage of quotations for each book in each category.
Table 8 – Categorization of the Fidelity of New Testament Quotations of the Septuagint
| Book | P&O | A | S | L | F | E |
| Matthew | 61.1 | 1.9 | 7.4 | 14.8 | 9.2 | 5.6 |
| Mark | 55.6 | 9.3 | 5.5 | 22.2 | 3.7 | 3.7 |
| Luke | 69.2 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 23.1 | 0 | 3.9 |
| John | 46.4 | 0 | 3.6 | 35.8 | 7.1 | 7.1 |
| Acts | 60 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 5 | 0 |
| Romans | 73.8 | 3.3 | 2.5 | 17.2 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| 1 Corinthians | 47 | 5.9 | 11.8 | 23.6 | 11.7 | 0 |
| 2 Corinthians | 50 | 5 | 10 | 25 | 10 | 0 |
| Galatians | 80 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ephesians | 80 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 Timothy | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 Timothy | 50 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hebrews | 71.6 | 9.5 | 8.1 | 8.1 | 2.7 | 0 |
| James | 75 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 Peter | 58.3 | 0 | 25 | 16.7 | 0 | 0 |
| Book | P&O | A | S | L | F | E |
| 2 Peter | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| Total | 63.9 | 4.1 | 7.0 | 18.1 | 4.7 | 2.2 |
Several conclusions can be drawn. First, the majority of New Testament quotations are taken from the Septuagint without change or with relatively minor changes – 64 percent. Second, the New Testament authors felt no qualms about modifying the Old Testament passages to support their message – A, S, and L-type quotations amounting to about 29 percent. Third, roughly 7 percent of quotations (22 altogether) are fragmentary or unrecognizable as quotations. Of these, only 12 are introduced by a formula of quotation, such as “it is written.” Thus, only 12 quotations – unambiguously identified as quotations – depart radically from the wording of the Septuagint.
4.3 Further Evidence of the Influence of the Septuagint
Why does Stephen say that seventy-five entered into Egypt when Joseph sent for them (Acts 7.14), when the Masoretic text clearly reports there were seventy in all? “All the persons of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt were seventy” – Genesis 46.27. It appears, however, that Stephen was not in error. He was simply backing the Septuagint account: “all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt were seventy-five souls.” (Incidentally, this Septuagint reading of seventy-five is also found in one of the scrolls from Qumran.)
The Hebrew backs this reading of Genesis 10.24: “And Arphaxad begat Salah.” The Septuagint has, “And Arphaxad begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Sala.” Similarly, the Hebrew in Genesis 11.12-13 is translated as: “And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah; And Arphaxad lived after he had begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber.” But the Septuagint has, “And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Cainan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.” The apostle Luke apparently had the Septuagint account in mind when he listed the ancestry of the Christ. He wrote, “which was the son of Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad.” (Luke 3.35-36).
Paul leaves a clue in Galatians 3.16-17: “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” Does the Hebrew support a span of 430 years from the giving of the promises to Abraham and the giving of the Law? Apparently not, for the evangelical apologist Gleason Archer in his Bible Difficulties asserts that 645 years passed between those two events. Archer’s conclusion is that the time interval in mind is between a subsequent confirmation of the promises (to Jacob in Genesis 46.2-4) and the production of the tablets on Sinai. This, however, seems a clever dodge. Paul says clearly that the time between God’s making the promises to Abraham and the giving of the law was 430 years. Where did he get such an idea – if a careful examination of the chronology supports a number closer to 645 years? The likely explanation is that that Paul was reading the Septuagint’s Exodus 12.40: “And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan, was four hundred and thirty years.”
That Paul relied upon the Septuagint is made strikingly clear from Romans 3.12-18. This entire passage is contained in one psalm in the Septuagint.
The Hebrew for Psalm 14.3 ends with “no, not so much as one,” so Paul cannot have obtained the entire quotation from this Psalm alone if he were reading from the Hebrew. In fact, if Paul were relying upon the Hebrew, he had to string together phrases from six separate locations in this passage: Psalm 14.1-3 (or 53.1-3), 5.9, 140.3, 10.7, Isaiah 59.7- 9, and Psalm 36.1. It would be a remarkable coincidence if Paul – using the Hebrew alone – were to collect just these fragments in just the same order as they appear in the Septuagint. (Another explanation is that the Septuagint’s rendering of Psalm 14.3 is a later modification by Christians, a falsification of the original Septuagint reading to bring it into agreement with Romans. However, if that were the case, one wonders why a more exact representation of Romans 3.10 and 11 is not presented in the Septuagint’s Psalm 14.1-2, leading into the quotation in Table 9 above.) Quite plainly, the most plausible explanation is that, in Romans 3.12-18, Paul was quoting Psalm 14.3 from the Septuagint.
The statement in Hebrews 11.5 that before Enoch’s translation “he had this testimony, that he pleased God” appears to depend on the Septuagint wording of Genesis 5.22 and 24. In the Masoretic text, Enoch is said not to have pleased, but to have walked with, God.
There are also many allusions in the New Testament to the Septuagint. For instance, in Revelation 1.4, John sends greetings to the seven churches in Asia from “he who is.” In English, the reference may not be obvious. But, in the Greek, John uses the phrase o wn, the exact words God spoke from the burning bush in Exodus 3.14 (Septuagint) after Moses asked His name. As a second example, the author of the book of Hebrews seems to have had Wisdom 7.25-26 in mind when writing Hebrews 1.3.
4.4 Conclusions
The New Testament is a witness to the Church’s use of the Septuagint as sacred scripture in its earliest days. This use continued throughout the Church until early in the fourth century, when Jerome undertook a translation from the Hebrew of his day. The Greek-speaking portion of the Church was not influenced by Jerome’s Latin translation and so continued to rely on the Septuagint.
We have seen in the section on the Septuagint in the Fathers that Jerome agreed with the proposition that the Church’s Old Testament should be the same one quoted in the New Testament. But he held the view – which we have shown above to be manifestly incorrect – that the New Testament authors were faithful to the Hebrew Old Testament.
Is the example of New Testament usage sufficient grounds for a return to the Septuagint as the basis for Old Testament translation? Are there good reasons for translating from the Hebrew Masoretic text, as is the almost universal pattern in the Western world? It might be argued that the Hebrew of the Massoretes is truer to the original that the Septuagint, but this is doubtful given the existence of variant readings in the Hebrew before the second century A.D.
The current Hebrew text is indeed the one selected by the rabbis at the end of the first century, which became the standard Hebrew Old Testament thereafter. However, legislation by a body outside the boundaries of the Church can hardly be binding on Her. It could be argued that, even though there were variant readings in the Hebrew at earlier times, we can often be fairly certain that the Hebrew of the Massoretes and the Hebrew the Septuagint was based on are identical. In those cases, we should translate from the Hebrew, and by doing so bring the sense into English with greater exactness. In response, this seems more of an argument for using the Hebrew as a translation aid than as the basis for translation. Such usage would doubtless be laudable. However, this approach should be undertaken with caution. As the meaning of words changes with time, the Septuagint Greek may often provide insight into the meaning of the Hebrew at the time of translation, and so should not be freely replaced with an academic conjecture.
Jerome mentioned with embarrassment certain passages in the Septuagint which he believed to be incorrectly translated from the Hebrew. But before we can convict the Septuagint of translation error, we have to produce, at a minimum, the Hebrew text upon which the Septuagint is based. Since that text no longer exists, accusations of mistranslation remain unproven conjectures. And even if the Septuagint is thick with mistranslation, its errors are frequently sanctioned by the New Testament. For instance, if the word “virgin (parthenos in Greek)” in Isaiah 7.14 is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word almah, Matthew has given his assent to this error. In fact, those of us who believe the New Testament to be inspired by God are required to believe that many “errors” of the Septuagint are inspired also, because they are incorporated into the New Testament directly. If the errors that are quoted have Divine sanction, on what basis can we reject the errors that are not quoted? Or, consider what we imply if we say that the Masoretic text alone can lay claim to being the genuine Old Testament. The clear implication is that the authors of the New Testament were benighted and, ignorant of the truth, used an inferior text. The theological implications they drew when they quoted from “mistranslations” in the Septuagint should be rejected. Thus, the logical corollaries to the proposition that the Masoretic text alone is worthy to be considered the Old Testament include: Christ was not born of a virgin, the angels do not worship the Son, Christ did not come to restore sight to the blind, the behavior of the Jews was not cause for God’s name to be blasphemed among the Gentiles, etc. In short, we are forced to conclude that the New Testament is not inspired.
I have yet to discover any sufficient reason to consider the Masoretic text as preferable to the Septuagint. However, the case in favor of the Septuagint is subject to criticism. Even assuming that the New Testament warrant is sufficient grounds for using a text, one could argue that the New Testament witness is muddled. Although we do find the apostles and their followers using the Septuagint as we know it with great frequency, they also stray toward other sources – sometimes to a text very similar to the Masoretic, sometimes to a text we do not currently possess. Though our failure to recognize the basis for the quotation may often be due to paraphrase, there are cases that are very difficult to explain in this way. Jerome mentioned two of them in a passage quoted in the section on the fathers: “For he shall be called a Nazarene” (Matthew 2. 23) is one example. Another is, “Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly” (John 7.38).
It is possible that every quotation in the New Testament is from a Septuagint, but from one, though popular in the first century, we no longer possess in its entirety. It is reasonable to conclude from the writings of Irenaeus and Justin Martyr that their scriptures were slightly different from our own. When the New Testament strays from the Masoretic Text, these fathers do too, at least where common quotations can be examined. But there are also portions of scripture quoted in the fathers that are not available in our version of the Greek text. For instance, in his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin claimed that the Jews had deleted the verse, “The Lord remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.” Irenaeus also quoted the same verse, though he attributed it to Jeremiah on one occasion and to Isaiah on the other. Justin also claimed that the Jews had removed the words “from the wood” from the verse in Psalm 96: “Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned from the wood.” Neither of these is in the Septuagint we possess today.
As a third example, Justin quoted the following, possibly from Ezra or Nehemiah: “And Esdras said to the people, This Passover is our Savior and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, and we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you will be a laughingstock to the nations.”
In short, neither the Greek nor the Hebrew Old Testament in existence today is perfect. The decision to abandon the Septuagint in favor of the Hebrew was made on the mistaken belief that the New Testament quotes exclusively from the Hebrew Old Testament. A more modern argument in favor of the Hebrew might stress the near- perfect preservation of that text through the centuries – a contention proven false by the variant readings discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls – or it might emphasize the mistranslations in the only other real contender, the Septuagint – which implies the rejection of the authority of the New Testament. The argument in favor of returning to the Septuagint notes the general (though not universal) reliance on it by the New Testament authors and their followers in the early Church.
The New Testament can be more fully understood and appreciated, it is argued, if read in conjunction with the Septuagint, because the language of the Greek Old Testament is present throughout the New, both in overt quotations and through allusions. The theology of the Church, as explained by the Fathers of the first several centuries, rests on the wording of the Septuagint. If this theology is true and worthy of defense, then it is critical that the Church be thoroughly familiar with the Bible of Her founders and early defenders.
It seems clear to me that the case in favor of the Septuagint is the stronger of the two. But the same primary argument in favor of translation from the Septuagint – New Testament precedent – implies that the Christian should be aware of Masoretic readings. In like manner, our desire to understand the theology of the early Church in the light of Her scriptures entails the need to retain familiarity with those scriptures – such as the ones quoted by Justin Martyr above – which appear to have dropped out of the Old Testament over the years.
In my view, then, the ideal Old Testament will be based on the Septuagint as the primary source, and will include extensive footnotes including significant variant readings from all other sources, including the Masoretic text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Fathers of the Church.
Living as a Christian in this World 