I hope you will journey with me in rediscovering the beauty of God’s Word in the Septuagint (LXX). In 285 BC, the LXX was translated from paleo-Hebrew by 70 Jewish translators into Greek, the language of most of the civilized world at that time. Due to its pre-Christ and pre-fall of Jerusalem date, the LXX cannot be accused of being influenced by any underlying animosity toward Christ or Christianity or desire to elevate Judaism’s claim to God’s blessings or the promised land. Most Christians believe the Masoretic Text (MT), upon which our English Old Testament is based, is written in the original Hebrew, but it too is a translation from the ancient and by then dead paleo-Hebrew Phoenician pictograph script into the modern Hebrew block script derived from Aramaic. The Masoretes completed it between 600 t0 1000 AD, by which time the Jews had become hostile to the Christian message, which shows up in various omissions, changes, and obfuscations of verses and passages that clearly point to Christ in the LXX.
Jesus taught us that all scripture points to him (John 5:39). As a rule, the Septuagint more clearly points to Jesus than does the MT.
In the West, Christians have not questioned the MT since Jerome chose it as the basis for his Latin Vulgate Old Testament. The Eastern Orthodox Church, to their credit, never deviated from the Septuagint, preserving it for later generations to rediscover. Because of the power of tradition, it is quite difficult for many of us in the West to think of the LXX as being more trustworthy than the MT, but I have found that a side-by-side comparison indicates otherwise.
In this series of articles, I have undertaken to illustrate the similarities and differences between the MT and LXX by examining various passages. Below is another example. The Septuagint version I am using is the Lexham English Septuagint 2nd Edition. It is available in print or digitally through Logos Bible Software. Occasionally I reference Brenton’s translation, which is a good one, but the English is somewhat dated.
| Masoretic Text | Septuagint | Significance |
|
1 Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. Isaiah 53:1–2 (NKJV) |
1 O Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 We proclaimed as a child before him, as a root in a thirsty land. He has no appearance or glory. And we saw him, and he had no appearance or beauty. Isaiah 53:1–2 (LES2) |
The MT and LXX perfectly agree on how they translate the first verse, but that synchronicity is short lived. The MT says, “He shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground.” The LXX, however, says, “We proclaimed him as a child before him, as a root in a thirsty land.” I have already decided to go with the LXX as a rule, unless I have a good reason not to do so, because it was used by the early church and most often quoted in the NT. So let’s see what we can make of it in this case. The Greek word for “proclaimed” is anangello, which means to proclaim or announce. We see the word for angel woven into it. Angels were messengers. What comes to my mind is the announcement of the arrival of the Christ child by the angels the night Jesus was born. (Luke 2:8-12) Both the MT and LXX speak of our Lord being a root out of dry ground or in a thirsty land. Paul later writes about Christ being the root. 16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. Romans 11:16–18 (NKJV) It is apparent that the root to which Isaiah and Paul both refer is Jesus. Sadly, many Dispensationalists and Christian Zionists teach that the root is Israel, the natural offspring of Abraham, but that is simply another example taking what belongs to Christ and giving it to someone else, in this case to the nation of Israel. In the MT, the Lord is described as having “no form or comeliness.” The Hebrew word for “comeliness” can also mean splendor, which is more in keeping with the LXX’s “glory.” For the remainder of verse 2, the MT and LXX are in agreement. |
|
3 He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Isaiah 53:3 (NKJV) |
3 Instead, his appearance was dishonored and coming to an end among the sons of humans, a human who is in misfortune and who knows how to bear sickness, for his face has been turned back; he was dishonored and was not esteemed. Isaiah 53:3 (LES2) |
The MT, in my opinion, hits the nail on the head with its translation of the first part of verse 3. Jesus was dishonored and rejected because his appearance was not “comely.” His appearance, social status, political disconnectedness, and humility did not fit the profile of a highly esteemed person in the world. The second part of the verse, which the MT translates as “a man of sorrows,” in the Greek literally means someone who has suffered blows and knows how to carry malakia, a word that means sickness, debility, weakness, or infirmity. The NT says that Jesus purchased our healing through the blows he received during his passion and death. 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. 1 Peter 2:24 (NKJV) The word for “stripes” in Greek is molops, which means bruise, wale, or wound that trickles with blood. The MT next says that we hid our faces from him, but the LXX says that his face was turned back or away apparently from those who observed or mistreated him, or, perhaps, from us in a spiritual sense. This would have been because of the dishonor and shame he endured during his passion and crucifixion. The suffering Jesus experienced was not simply physical. The Creator and Lord was humiliated and put to scorn as he suffered as God’s Lamb. Anyone who has experienced such treatment knows how painful it can be. Nevertheless, Jesus willingly endured it for our sake. His resoluteness and courage had been prophesied. 7 And the … Lord has become a helper to me; on account of this I was not ashamed, but I set my face like a solid rock, and I knew that I would surely not be ashamed. 8 Because the one who justifies me is approaching. Isaiah 50:7–8a (LES2) |
|
4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. Isaiah 53:4–5 (NKJV) |
4 This one carries our sins and suffers pain for us, and we regarded him as one who is in difficulty, misfortune, and affliction. 5 But he was wounded because of our sins, and he became weakened because of our lawless acts. The discipline of our peace was upon him; by his bruise we were healed. Isaiah 53:4–5 (LES2) |
I have taught and written on the healing ministry of Jesus based on this passage in the MT. The Hebrew says that Jesus carried our sicknesses (Hebrew – choli) and carried our pain or suffering (Hebrew – makob). The verbs are the same ones used later to describe our Lord bearing our sins in verse 12. The divine logic is that Jesus procured our healing as surely as he did our forgiveness. Now let’s see if the LXX supports this view. Verse 4 in the LXX says that Jesus carries our sins and suffered pain for us. This is quite different. What does the NT say? Matthew quoted Isaiah 53:4 to provide the theology for Jesus’ healing ministry. 16 When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, 17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: “He Himself took our infirmities And bore our sicknesses.” Matthew 8:16–17 (NKJV) Matthew’s quote agrees with a literal rendering of the MT, rather than the LXX or the traditional English rendering of the MT in many Bible translations, which seems to steer us away from Jesus’ healing ministry. The early church understood Isaiah 53 as the basis for divine healing, and so should we. This is one of the few times the MT agrees more with the NT than does the LXX; so, what do we do with the LXX’s rendering of this verse? I already pointed out that verse 3 in the LXX testifies to Jesus’ healing ministry; so, that is not in question. Verse 5 also supports this – “by his stripes or bruise we were healed,” as corroborated by 1 Peter 2:24. Even though the NT usually follows the LXX, which it does 70-80% of the time, this time it does not. I can only conclude that Matthew had another source, perhaps a proto-Masoretic text such as the Great Isaiah scroll found at Qumran, that he chose and which the Holy Spirit confirmed is the word of God. It certainly agrees with the rest of Isaiah 53 and other scriptures. My general rule is to go with the LXX, except when the MT better points to Jesus or is quoted in the NT. Moving on, in the second part of verse 4, the MT says, “we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.” The LXX reads, “we regarded him as one who is in difficulty, misfortune, and affliction,” making no mention of its being done by God. Nevertheless, I am sure Jesus’ persecutors thought that he was being justly punished by God for his blasphemy, something the Talmud continues to teach. The Greek words literally can also mean, “great trouble, blows, and oppression.” Next, the MT says he “was wounded (or pierced through – NASB) for our transgressions. The LXX says he was wounded, (literally – traumatized) for our sins. The MT goes on to say that “he was bruised (or crushed) for our iniquities. The LXX says, “he was weakened because of our lawless acts.” Our sin traumatized and weakened our Lord on the cross! Both the MT and LXX agree that Jesus was chastened or disciplined for our peace. His suffering and death followed by his resurrection earned our justification, which is the source of our peace. (Romans 5:1) This verse in Isaiah concludes with both the MT and LXX agreeing that his stripes or bruises earned our healing. This brings us back to the beginning of this passage and confirms that our physical, emotional, and spiritual healing was provided by what Jesus suffered while making atonement for us. So far, it seems that this chapter can be best appreciated by combining the insights of the MT and LXX. To my knowledge, this one of the few times that this is the case in all the passages I have compared. Perhaps because this chapter is so pivotal in understanding Jesus’ Lamb of God ministry God did not allow anyone to tamper with or falsify it in any way. |
Conclusion
If you want to know more about why Christians should prefer the Septuagint to the MT, click on this link. In another article, I share some of the things I have so far learned by making this comparison. As for me, I now prefer the LXX. It was Paul’s and the other apostles’ standard for Old Covenant truth, was used by synagogues in Jesus’s day, and is most often quoted in the New Testament. That makes it good enough for me.
