eng-Brenton_book( CLICK here for a FREE E-BOOK OF THE SEPTUAGINT)
LXX vs. MT
The Septuagint (LXX) translation of the ancient Hebrew Tanakh into Greek (285 B.C. – 100 B.C.)
The Masoretic Text (MT) of the ancient Hebrew text into a new Hebrew alphabet with the addition of vowel points. (135 A.D. – 700 A.D.) Which one is closer to the original manuscript.
Unnecessary Confusion
When I was in Seminary at Queen’s Theological College in Kingston, my room-mate went through a crisis in his faith. This shaking of his beliefs was caused by the Church’s UNCONSIDERED use of the MT (Masoretic text) of the Old Testament rather than the LXX (Septuagint text).
In a study of Isaiah 7:14 my friend was confused by the accepted masoretic Hebrew text which replaced the words “ a VIRGIN shall conceive and bear a son “ with “ a young woman shall conceive …” . Quoting Isaiah, Matthew 1:23 reads “ a VIRGIN shall be with child (KJV) or a VIRGIN shall become pregnant (AMP).”
Was the New Testament writer’s quote of Isaiah wrong? Was he purposely misleading? For my friend, these questions were extremely disturbing and left his confidence in the Christian scriptures shaken.
But what about the Tanakh or the Torah? Can Christians be confident that scholars have made the right choices regarding accepted manuscripts? Have these Documents been Doctored to suit the aims of one group over another?
Background Articles
I include here links to articles that can supply you with additional background details.
Stolen and Forgotten Books of the Church
Masoretic Text versus Original Hebrew by Fr. Joseph Gleason Masoretic Text vs
Guns, Lies and Forgeries: a Bible Story by Robert Reis. Guns
HISTORY
Let me give a brief history of the two manuscripts.
LXX or Septuagint: named after the 70 Hebrew scholars chosen to translate the Tanakh into Greek (which was the language in common use) from Hebrew (which was used only in the religious circles.) The translation was commissioned in the 3rd century B.C. (around 285) and completed in 132 B.C. in Alexandria Egypt. The scholars were chosen by Jewish leaders, and supervised by the Temple and Sanhedrin (religious and political leaders of Jerusalem).
The Masoretic text (MT) is named after the ‘masoretes’ who copied it. This Rabbinic school arose out of the school of Rabbi Akiva (died 135 A.D.) who supported Simon Bar Kochva as the Messiah. The manuscript was not completed until 700 A.D. This is 1000 years after the initiation of the Septuagint. There was no religious or political supervision of these scholars from Jerusalem. Rome had scattered the Jews throughout their empire after they destroyed Jerusalem.
CONTROVERSY
Comparison of the Septuagint LXX to the Masoretic text MT is a controversial topic. It has been labelled Anti-Semitic to compare the LXX favourably with the MT. Such criticism is ABSURD! Both groups of writers were Jewish! The LXX translated the ancient Hebrew text into Greek. The MT translated the ancient Hebrew text into a new Hebrew alphabet with the addition of vowel points.
Bias
In the Academic community, the MT seems to enjoy unqualified acclaim. This is not reasonable or balanced. The MT is 1000 years newer than the LXX. Therefore it must be farther removed from original sources of the text. Also, the Bias of the Masoretic scribes Must be taken into account. They were All Non-Christians – having rejected the idea that Jesus was their Messiah. (The LXX writers were also Non-Christians because Jesus had not yet been born.) This rejection is not a crime but it must certainly be recognized as a Bias. Scripture passages, that could be translated as supporting Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah, could be treated prejudicially by scribes who had already decided that Jesus was Not the Messiah. It is not certain that they did but their bias is clear.
Changes to the Text
The MT scribes have shown a willingness to Change the Text solely on the basis of their own religious convictions. 134 times the Name of God ‘YHWH’ was changed by the masoretes into Adonai, Lord or G-d. This cannot be described as slavish obedience to the text as it was written. There were many other changes made by the masoretic editors including the removal of verses entirely. This is clear Editorial Bias.
Given these facts, it is necessary and reasonable to Question whether differences between the LXX and MT, where the MT version Changes references that would confirm Jesus as Messiah for example ‘young woman’ instead of ‘virgin’.
More ‘Love’ for the Septuagint
The MT text is Not Unbiased and it is Not the closest to the original sources. It should not be given preference without reservations. The LXX needs to be more fully appreciated and studied.
If the New Testament writers and the Early Church Fathers quoted from the LXX (since the MT was not even written yet) we must deduce that THE LXX WAS THE MOST ACCURATE RENDERING OF THE ORIGINAL HEBREW.
If a non-Christian group decided to change the text to suit their biases at a later time, there is NO REASON for the Church to lose confidence in the New Testament. Doubts introduced by antagonists need to be researched and responded to but there is no reason to re-write our scriptures.
Repent of Intellectual Bias Against the Septuagint
I am not recommending unqualified acceptance of the LXX over the MT in every instance but I do strongly recommend it where such passages can be confirmed by the New Testament and writings of early Church Fathers.
There are other manuscripts of the Tanakh/ Old Testament which can be consulted as well (although they are not as complete). The Samaritan Pentatuch, the Peshitta, the Dead Sea scrolls all have useful information to add to our research and study.
At the same time, the SEPTUAGINT needs to be given higher recognition for it’s accuracy and fidelity. The Orthodox Church has long upheld the value of this manuscript and has been marginalized for this position. We would go a long way towards respecting our Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters and we would prevent the shaking of confidence in the New Testament such as my room mate endured if we would GIVE THE SEPTUAGINT THE HONOUR THAT IT IS DUE.
