Questioning Everything Propaganda
The controversy between the Septuagint (LXX) and the Masoretic Text (MT) centers on which version of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is more authoritative and accurate. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, traditionally dated to around 250-150 BC, produced by Jewish scholars in Alexandria for Greek-speaking Jews. The Masoretic Text, on the other hand, is a standardized Hebrew version finalized by Jewish scribes (Masoretes) around the 7th-10th centuries AD, though based on earlier Hebrew manuscripts. This debate often involves textual differences, historical influences, and theological implications, particularly for Christianity, as the New Testament (NT) frequently quotes the Old Testament in ways that align more closely with the Septuagint than the MT.
Several historical, theological, and scholarly factors contributed to the MT gaining prominence, especially in Western Christianity and modern Bible translations:
Reformation Influence and Preference for Hebrew Originals: During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, figures like Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized returning to the "original" Hebrew texts over Greek translations like the Septuagint, which they associated with the Catholic Church's Latin Vulgate (itself partly based on earlier Hebrew texts but incorporating Septuagint elements). This shift was driven by a desire to break from Catholic traditions and rely on rabbinic Hebrew scholarship available at the time. For instance, the 1524-25 edition of the Hebrew Bible by Daniel Bomberg, edited by rabbi Jacob ben Chayyim, became a foundational source for Reformation Bibles, including the King James Version (KJV) of 1611. Some argue this preference was influenced by 16th-century rabbis who promoted the MT to subtly undermine Christian interpretations, though this view is contested as conspiratorial.
Perceived Authority of the Hebrew Language: The MT is in Hebrew (with Aramaic sections), seen by many as the language of the original autographs, giving it precedence over the "secondary" Greek Septuagint. This view persisted in Protestant circles, where the MT was adopted as the standard for Old Testament translations, sidelining the Septuagint as a product of the Eastern Orthodox Church or as potentially corrupted. By the 19th-20th centuries, critical scholarship and editions like the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia further entrenched the MT in academic and evangelical contexts.
Historical and Political Factors: In the West, the Great Schism of 1054 divided Christianity, associating the Septuagint more with Eastern Orthodoxy, while the West leaned toward Hebrew-based texts via Jerome's Vulgate. Additionally, some claim broader influences like Kabbalistic or Zionist agendas helped maintain the MT's status in Protestant Bibles to support certain eschatological views, but these are minority opinions lacking broad scholarly consensus. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947-1956) complicated this, as they sometimes align with the MT but often support Septuagint readings, yet the MT remained the default for most translations due to its completeness and standardization.
Critics of this precedence argue the MT is younger and potentially edited, while the Septuagint predates Christianity and was translated from Hebrew texts at least 1,200 years older than the MT's base manuscripts.
Proponents of the Septuagint often allege that the MT contains intentional changes by post-Christian Jewish scribes to diminish messianic prophecies that could point to Jesus as the fulfillment. This theory stems from the period after the destruction of the Second Temple (70 AD) and the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-136 AD), when rabbinic Judaism sought to consolidate and differentiate from emerging Christianity. However, mainstream scholars attribute most differences to natural textual variants rather than deliberate sabotage.
Alleged Intentional Alterations: Some point to changes in key prophecies. For example, Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint uses "parthenos" (virgin), aligning with the NT's virgin birth narrative (Matthew 1:23), while the MT uses "almah" (young woman), which could be interpreted more ambiguously. Other examples include Psalm 22:16 ("they pierced my hands and feet" in Septuagint vs. "like a lion" in MT), which Christians see as foreshadowing crucifixion; Isaiah 53's suffering servant passages, where subtle word changes in the MT might soften messianic implications; and chronological adjustments in Genesis 5 and 11, shortening timelines by about 1,500 years, allegedly to make Jesus appear "too early" for the expected Messiah around the 6,000-year mark from creation. Deuteronomy 32:43 in the Septuagint includes "let all the angels worship him," quoted in Hebrews 1:6 to affirm Jesus' divinity, but omitted in the MT. Early Church fathers like Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) accused Jewish leaders of altering texts to counter Christian claims.
Counterarguments: Many scholars reject these as purposeful omissions, noting that the MT predates its final form but reflects a conservative transmission by scribes who revered the text. Differences are often explained by variant Hebrew traditions or translation choices, not anti-Christian editing. For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls show a mix, sometimes favoring the MT. No direct evidence exists of scribes "removing Jesus," as the MT doesn't mention him explicitly anyway—it's about interpreting prophecies.
By prioritizing the MT, some argue Christianity loses access to a more authentic and Christ-centered Old Testament, particularly since Jesus and his disciples appear to have used and quoted a Greek version akin to the Septuagint.
Alignment with New Testament Quotes: Around 80-90% of the approximately 300 Old Testament citations in the NT match the Septuagint more closely than the MT, suggesting it was the primary scripture for Jesus and the Apostles in a Hellenistic world where Greek was the lingua franca. Examples include Jesus' quote of Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18-19, which includes "recovery of sight to the blind" from the Septuagint but omitted in the MT; Mark 7:6-7's use of Isaiah 29:13, matching the Septuagint's wording; and Paul's citations in Romans and Hebrews that diverge from the MT. This implies the Septuagint preserves readings that better support NT theology, such as Jesus' messiahship, miracles, and inclusion of Gentiles.
Loss of Deuterocanonical Books and Broader Canon: The Septuagint includes books like Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and 1-2 Maccabees (deuterocanonical or apocryphal), which the MT excludes. These contain prophecies and themes echoed in the NT, such as Wisdom 2:12-20 foreshadowing Jesus' passion or Sirach paralleling the Sermon on the Mount. Omitting them, as in Protestant Bibles based on the MT, removes historical context (e.g., Maccabees on Hanukkah, referenced in John 10:22-23) and ethical teachings valued in Catholic and Orthodox traditions.
Theological and Chronological Integrity: The Septuagint's longer chronology aligns better with archaeological evidence for events like the Flood and supports a timeline where Jesus arrives at the prophesied time. It also emphasizes universal salvation (e.g., Gentiles in Isaiah 42:1-4), which some see as diluted in the MT to favor a Judean-centric Messiah. Prioritizing the MT might thus obscure Jesus' full fulfillment of scripture, potentially leading to interpretations like Christian Zionism that rely on alleged MT forgeries (e.g., Jeremiah 33:14-26 on Israel's restoration).
Overall, while the MT provides a meticulously preserved Hebrew tradition, advocates for the Septuagint argue it offers a pre-Christian witness that's more harmonious with the NT, preserving elements that affirm Jesus' identity and mission. Eastern Orthodox and some Catholic Bibles still use the Septuagint as their Old Testament base, highlighting its enduring value. The debate underscores the complexity of textual transmission, with no single "original" text but rather families of manuscripts.
The MT gained dominance in Western Christianity largely through Reformation-era preferences for Hebrew originals over Greek translations, influenced by rabbinic scholarship and a desire to distance from Catholic traditions (e.g., the Vulgate, which incorporated LXX elements).1 Protestant reformers like Luther and Calvin prioritized the Hebrew text, leading to the adoption of MT-based editions (e.g., Bomberg's 1524-1525 Hebrew Bible) in translations like the KJV.2 The MT's Hebrew language was seen as closer to the "original," while the LXX was viewed as secondary or associated with Eastern Orthodoxy.3 The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) later showed mixed alignments, often supporting the MT but sometimes the LXX, yet the MT remained standard due to its standardization and completeness.4
Some traditional Christian sources (especially Orthodox) allege post-Christian rabbinic edits to the proto-MT tradition to diminish messianic prophecies pointing to Jesus, such as Isaiah 7:14 ("virgin" in LXX vs. "young woman" in MT), Psalm 22:16 ("pierced" in LXX vs. "like a lion" in MT), or additions/omissions in Deuteronomy 32:43.5,6 Early Church fathers like Justin Martyr accused Jewish leaders of textual changes.7 Chronological differences (e.g., shorter timelines in Genesis 5/11 MT) are sometimes claimed to disrupt messianic timing.8 However, mainstream textual scholars attribute most variants to natural transmission differences, pre-existing Hebrew text families, or scribal practices, not systematic anti-Christian editing; DSS evidence supports a mix without proving deliberate corruption.4,9
Prioritizing the MT may obscure elements harmonious with the New Testament (NT), as ~2/3 to ~80-90% of OT quotations in the NT align more closely with the LXX (e.g., Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18-19, including "recovery of sight to the blind," absent in MT).10,11 Jesus and the apostles, in a Greek-speaking context, appear to have primarily used a LXX-like text.12 The LXX includes deuterocanonical books (e.g., Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees) with NT parallels (e.g., Wisdom 2 foreshadowing the passion), excluded in MT-based Protestant canons.13 Longer LXX chronologies better fit some archaeological views and messianic timing.14 Eastern Orthodox traditions retain the LXX as authoritative, preserving a pre-Christian witness more aligned with NT theology.3