Since I began reading through the Old Testament comparing the Masoretic Text (MT) of our English
Bibles to the English Translation of the Septuagint (LXX) I have learned some important things for myself. I was told that the differences between the two are minor, but that is not true. Most of the differences are not theological in nature, but when one sees differences throughout, it makes one question which one is the true Word of God. I have come to some conclusions, which I will share below. I encourage you to make your own comparison. Don’t just take my word for it.
- Death by a thousand cuts. Theoretically it is possible to kill someone by making small cuts all over his or her body, rather than inflicting one critical wound. This is what I believe has happened to the Old Testament by the introduction of the MT. There are so many changes, both big and small, that it hinders our ability to know what is what. It is claimed that they are derived from different textual traditions, the MT being derived from the best available. But that means one is not the Word of God. This is what I mean by death by a thousand cuts. Such ambiguity is not a good thing.
- Both the MT and the LXX are translations. Both are derived from the original paleo-Hebrew, which was a Phoenician script that died out as an active language around 400 BC. The LXX was translated presumably from the paleo-Hebrew into Greek around 285 BC and became the de facto Bible for the Jews who lived in the Greek speaking world, which was most everywhere in the Roman Empire. As a result, the LXX was what Jesus would have read, been familiar with, and quoted since it was being used in the synagogues. The apostles and early church used the LXX for hundreds of years. In addition, it is what is quoted in the New Testament about 70-80% of the time, thus giving it the Holy Spirit’s stamp of approval. The MT was also a translation from the paleo-Hebrew into a more modern form of Hebrew based on Aramaic and words incorporated from other languages. So, it too is a translation, but it was not completed until around 1000 AD by the Masoretes. By this time Christianity had spread all over the world and was using quotes from the LXX to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. The Jews were decidedly hostile to Christianity and to Jesus; so, there is no reason to suppose that they harbored any good will toward either when making their more recent translation, which shows up quite starkly.
- The most egregious changes are found in the prophetic writings. I do not believe the changes that are theological and Christological are due to accident or differences in textual traditions. That is because those changes are almost always in one direction – pointing away from Christ or elevating Israel. The passages most used by Christians to prove that Jesus is the Messiah are often obscured, changed, or even omitted. Other passages that should be applied to Christ are changed to elevate Israel. Judgments against Israel are softened, but those against her enemies are made more severe. I believe that prophecy was the target because by nature it points to Christ. Revelation 19:10 says that the revelation of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. 2 Peter 1:19-21 says that prophecy is like a day star that points to Christ, which agrees with Jesus’ words that all scripture points to him. (John 5:39) Even the prophetic portions of historical sections have been altered. If one compares Genesis 49 in the MT to that of the LXX, the changes are so numerous that it sometimes does not seem like the same material. At this point, I have been through Isaiah 40-49. The changes are huge. I will have more to say after going through all the prophets. Many of the psalms are prophetic in nature, too; so, those have been changed to a great degree in some places.
- The LXX seems more literal and authentic. The best way to illustrate the difference between the LXX and the MT is to compare it to the difference between the NASB and the New Living Translation. The NLT is more readable, but doesn’t always give you the exact wording as does the NASB. Not being able to read paleo-Hebrew, and since hardly any manuscripts in that ancient language still exist, I cannot say for sure, but when reading the two, it seems to me that the literal LXX translation has been refined by the MT to make it more readable, while perhaps making it less accurate in the process. I thoroughly enjoy reading the LXX. I some cases, it seems that I am getting to know Old Testament characters more intimately. The wording often seems more believable. Check it out for yourself.
So there you have my interim report. I will write again later after I have compared a greater number of books.
