Perhaps, like most of us, you have never even thought to ask whether the Septuagint (LXX) should be preferred over the Hebrew Masoretic text (MT), which is the basis of our English Old Testament Bibles. You may not even know what the LXX is. Likewise you may be unaware of the history of the MT. Perhaps you have noticed, however, that some of the quotations from the Old Testament (LXX) cited in the New Testament do not fully agree with the Old Testament (MT) version of those verses in our Bibles? If you pay attention to details, you have, and, like me, you may have wondered about this. Did Jesus and the apostles misquote the Old Testament? Are our current Old Testament translations superior to what was available then, or might it be the other way around? This article is my attempt to answer these questions.

In order to do this, I will address the following:

1. In what language were the original Hebrew scriptures written?
2. Do we still have any of those original documents or copies of them?
3. When did modern Hebrew come into use?
4. What is the Septuagint (LXX), who authored it, why was it written, and when? What older Hebrew texts did it rely upon?
5. When and how did the Masoretic text (MT) come to be? 
6. How did the MT become the standard for Protestant Old Testament scriptures?
7. What are some examples of the significant differences between the LXX and the MT?

The original Hebrew scriptures were written in what is called paleo-Hebrew (c. 1000-586 BC). The only fragments we have left of documents written in that language are among the Dead Sea scrolls discovered at Qumran.

Paleo-Hebrew, pictured at right, was more of a pictograph script related to the Phoenician language. Modern Hebrew was developed from Aramaic and has a block style script.

The fact that these paleo-Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls are the only extant examples of the early writings of the Israelites amazes me. Why would the Jews not have taken more care to preserve such important documents? Perhaps the originals were largely destroyed in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed. Perhaps there was a deliberate destruction, as some suppose. It is noteworthy that the Dead Sea Scrolls generally support the Septuagint.

The Babylonian Exile of the Jews took place between 586-539 BC. It was approximately during this time that the modern Hebrew square script began to be developed from Aramaic. 

From 500-300 BC paleo-Hebrew began to be replaced by the new square script. During the restoration of the second temple, proto-Masoretic texts began to be developed.

The Septuagint (LXX) was a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures put together by 72 (perhaps 70) Jewish scholars under the auspices of King Ptolemy II of Egypt who wished to add the Hebrew scriptures to his library in Alexandria. 

Greek at the time was the dominant language in the world; so, the LXX soon became the most used compilation of the Old Testament in the Greek speaking world, which included Palestine. Hebrew had become limited to scholars for the most part; so, for the scriptures to be properly understood by common people, they needed to be in Greek. The Pentateuch portion was completed by 282 BC. The rest of the Old Testament was completed around 246 BC. This original version of the Septuagint is called the Alexandrian version. Other versions came later and were called the Septuagint, but only a few were based on the original. Some were based on the Masoretic Text.  

Barry Setterfied, who did extensive research on the LXX, says that it was translated from Paleo-Hebrew directly into Greek. (The Alexandrian Septuagint History) This is extremely significant since these would have been the oldest copies of the original scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The LXX gained widespread acceptance among the Jews and was the version used by Christians and quoted for the most part (70-80 %) in the New Testament. Manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (4th century CE) are major witnesses to this. 

The early Christians, many of whom were Jewish, quoted the Old Testament often in personal letters which still exist. Those quotes, as well as those made by the New Testament authors, usually match the Septuagint instead of the MT.

The Masoretes were a group of Jewish scholars who worked between roughly 500-1000 AD. They finished compiling the modern Hebrew block script during the time ranging from 600-1000 AD.

They solidified the textual tradition that became known as the Masoretic Text (MT) Experts agree that the Masoretes used different sources than those used by the authors of the Septuagint for some of their work. The Septuagint preserves textual variants sometimes older or different from the later Hebrew MT.

Rabbi Akiba and The Council of Jamnia

This is where things get very interesting. Following the fall of Jerusalem, the Pharisees were the only religious group who retained power among the Jewish Diaspora. They used their influence to establish what is called Rabbinic Judaism in the absence of a temple and sacrificial system. At this time Christianity was flourishing and using Jewish scriptures to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. Rabbi Akiba was a fierce opponent of Christianity and convened a council in Jamnia.

Since the Council of Jamnia is frequently claimed never to have existed, here are some historical facts. When Vespasian became Emperor, in fulfillment of a statement by Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai, this rabbi was given the imperial right to establish an Academy or Rabbinical School at Yavneh (Jamnia). Over a period of time, through a series of cunning maneuvers, Rabbi Akiba gained control over the Academy. He had a passionate hatred of Jesus and he admired Bar Kokhba. Rabbi Akiba ended up supporting Bar Kokhba as the Messiah. Akiba came with a purpose in mind: to give rabbinical Judaism complete control over every aspect of Jewish life. This process did not happen overnight. However, over a period of time, this was achieved by Akiba and the Council of Jamnia.

This process is outlined in detail in Dan Gruber’s book Rabbi Akiba’s Messiah. He says

Akiba’s opposition to the [Christians] led him to sponsor a new rabbinical Greek Bible and a rabbinical, colloquial Targum [commentary]. It also led him to alter Pharasaic tradition. In his efforts to bring Jewish life under rabbinic authority, Akiba was consistent and relentless. Sometimes Akiba intentionally held to certain doctrines just to contradict the beliefs of the [Christians], as he had done in his struggle against Gamaliel…. He put the oral law in writing to increase his leverage against the traditional rabbis…

The new Greek translation was done by Akiba’s pupil Aquila and was completed in 128 AD. We know that this was a Greek version of what is now called the Masoretic text. This means that the Masoretic text must have been Akiba’s rabbinic version of the Hebrew Old Testament. All existing texts which were in accord with the LXX used by the Christians were then burnt. This is hinted at by Gruber’s comment that  “The Rabbis decreed that even a Tanakh scroll should be burned if it was written by a [Christian]. ‘R. Nahman said: We have it on tradition that a scroll of the Law which has been written by a [Christian] should be burnt.’ R. Akiba says: One burns the whole thing, because it was not written in holiness.‘”13 It was under these conditions that the Masoretic text came into being and every divergent text they could find was destroyed [Professor S.H. Horne, “The Old Testament Text in Antiquity.”] Thus the process called the Council of Jamnia gave us the Hebrew Masoretic text in opposition to the paleo-Hebrew which gave us the LXX. (Setterfield)

It is instructive that the only paleo-Hebrew Old Testament documents are those found at Qumran. It seems very odd to me that more care was not taken to preserve them, unless they were deliberately destroyed because the Masoretic texts disagreed with them.

Rabbi Akiba and others at the Council of Jamnia denied that Jesus of Nazareth is the long-awaited Messiah. The Christians, however, had been using the Scriptures to prove that Jesus is the Savior and Messiah. Thus, it was either the Council of Jamnia itself or a group related to or supported by them who literally re-wrote the ancient Scriptures. The most obvious thing they did was to write them in a more modern Hebrew type. The ancient, or Paleo-Hebrew was more like Phoenician script and the modern Hebrew which they used was and is comprised of the square characters we see today which is derived from Aramaic. However, that was not all they did.

They appeared to quietly change a number of the prophecies used by the Christians so they would not appear to be fulfilled by Jesus, or at least not match what was being quoted in the Christian writings.14 They also, for a rather strange reason, chose to shorten the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, effectively chopping off about 1300 years in total.

There is a systematic omission of 100 years from the age of the Patriarchs at the birth of the son in the chosen line in Genesis 5 and 11 in the Masoretic Text from Jamnia when compared with the ancient Septuagint, LXX. It needs to be noted that this omission was NOT there in the early work of Josephus prior to Jamnia. This is documented, as well, in the comments and responses to this article in the sections on the genealogies and the section on Josephus. Why was this cipher for 100 omitted from so many ages of the men at the birth of their sons? There was a strong belief at the time that it was dishonoring to the Lord to wait for a long time before the first child/son was born. What is interesting is that the men mentioned as being born in Genesis 5 and 11 are nowhere stated to be the firstborn sons. But evidently on the assumption that they were, the cipher for 100 was systematically chopped from the ages of the fathers at the sons’ births, as this was felt to be more honoring to the Lord.

Setterfield elsewhere shows that Akiba’s tampering with the genealogies of Genesis was done to accomplish two anti-Christ purposes. First, he wished to prove that Noah was the second Adam, not Christ. Secondly, he wished to claim that Melchisadek was Shem, not a type of Christ. (Setterfield, Genealogy Differences)

The old original form of written Hebrew, used at least from the time of the Exodus, was called Paleo-Hebrew. Its appearance was rather like a semi-pictogram-script form when compared with the square ‘modern’ Hebrew characters. A comparison of the two can be found in the Wikipedia article on the two. Paleo Hebrew was used right up until 135 AD by which time Modern Hebrew had taken over completely. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that Paleo-Hebrew was often used for Scriptural work up until 70 AD. However, around 100 AD, the Council of Jamnia, under Rabbi Akiba, produced a version of Scripture written in the square ‘modern’ characters, without the vowel pointings. This meant the Jews had to depend on the rabbis to tell them what the words actually were (hill? hell? hall? etc.), thus reinforcing Rabbinical tradition rather than remain true to the original text. Dan Gruber, in Rabbi Akiba’s Messiah, the Origins of Rabbinic Authority, explains it in the following:

“The Rabbis are the source of their own authority to annul the Torah. .. The Rabbis could establish conditions and practices that contradicted and even nullified the Torah. According to the Rabbis, God Himself would obey whatever they decided. … The Rabbis claimed the sanction of the Torah for whatever they decreed, even if it was the uprooting of Torah. … This was more than the assertion of a different ‘religious’ system. The Torah governs every aspect of the life of Israel. By governing the Torah, the Rabbis would govern Israel. … The objective was to bring Israel under the rule of the Rabbis. If the Scriptures stood in the way, the Scriptures had to be uprooted. … There was a radical and irreconcilable conflict between the Torah and the Rabbis as to the basis and structure of authority, as well as its source and administration. That is why the Rabbis gave themselves the right to alter, revise, trespass and uproot the original commandments. … R. Akiba sought to fence the people off from the Torah and from all other influences that would have challenged rabbinic authority. In the system he erected, no one else had the right to interpret Torah. Not the am ha’aretz, nor the priests, nor the prophets, nor the Sadducees, the Qumran Covenanters, the Talmedei Yeshua, nor anyone else. Not even God.” [Daniel Gruber, Rabbi Akiba’s Messiah: The Origins of Rabbinic Authority, pp.82-85, Elijah Publishing, 1999 with references].

The changes we find dating from the time of the Council of Jamnia are deliberate. There are too many of them in specific places to be the result of accumulated errors by isolated copyists over the centuries or millennia.

Evidence of the many changes dispels any impression that Akiba’s “scribes were careful not to lose a jot or tittle,” as rabbinic tradition has indicated. That is simply not true. Akiba and his colleagues had a specific agenda to fulfill and they left no stone unturned to accomplish that

Professor S.H. Horn (Archaeology, Andrews University, Michigan) writes:

“However, the facts – that a unified [Hebrew] text suddenly became the standard at the end of the first century and that not one copy of a divergent text survived (except the Dead Sea scrolls that had already been hidden when Jamnia convened), indicate clearly that the Council of Jamnia must have taken action in this matter. Moreover, the fact that Aquila, one of Akiba’s pupils, soon thereafter produced a new Greek translation that slavishly translated the [new] unified Hebrew text for the use of the Diaspora Jews gives credence to the idea that Akiba must have been a key influence in the standardization of the Hebrew text.”15

In other words, the Masoretic text that is in common use today apparently originated at the Council of Jamnia around 100 AD, and Aquila’s Greek translation from Akiba’s Masoretic was finalized about 128 AD.

By 100 A.D., when Akiba and the Council of Jamnia were altering the Old Testament Scriptures, the New Testament Gospels and letters had already been written.  However we know from the letters written back and forth by the early church fathers that the quotes being used by them and referred to by them were from the ancient Septuagint and not from the Masoretic.

It would take over 200 more years for the Masoretic text to be accepted by the church, as a result of a request Constantine made. (Setterfield)

The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) provide us with more evidence.  The DSS fall into two distinct groups:  those written before 70 A.D. and those written after 100 A.D. The earlier DSS were written between 250 BC and 68 AD.  At this time there were three distinct groups of Jewish leaders:  the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes.  The Essenes lived in the caves near Qumran, and had in their possession some of the ancient Scriptures.  In addition to preserving these, they also copied some of the scrolls themselves between 150 BC and 68 AD.

Biblia Hebraica concludes from these and other facts:  “Recent Aramaic findings among the Dead Sea Scrolls read most closely with the LXX, and not with the Masoretic text. … This suggests that the older LXX may be more accurate than the newer Masoretic text which was given to Jerome.” [When Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate, he was preparing to use the ancient LXX text. But his Jewish friends convinced him that the newer Masoretic Hebrew text was superior 21].

A more recent comment concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls is also relevant: In a review of some of this scholarship, Hershal Shanks notes that ”…many Hebrew texts [are available] that were the base text for Septuagintal translations…”. Further he notes that what “…texts like 4QSama show is that the Septuagintal translations are really quite reliable” and ”…gives new authority to the Greek translations against the Masoretic text”. Quoting Frank Moore Cross (a co-author of the book under review), Hershal continues ”We could scarcely hope to find closer agreement between the Old Greek [Septuagintal] tradition and 4QSama than actually is found in our fragments”.22 Modern scholarship on the DSS therefore supports the contention that the ancient LXX text is in accord with the original Hebrew Old Testament as it existed in the 1st and 2nd centuries BC and the early 1st century AD. (Setterfield)

How the Masoretic text became the standard for Protestant Bibles

[Evidence shows that the existence and persistent use of the ancient LXX can be traced from about 282 BC right through until 325 AD. Its common use is attested to by the quotations from it by the Jewish historian Eupolemos in the 2nd century BC and by the Dead Sea Scrolls from the 1st and 2nd centuries BC and 1st century AD. The Jewish writers Philo and Josephus also testify to its existence and use in the 1st century AD. From there, Christ, the Apostles, and the Church Fathers affirm its presence and validity right up until the period of the Council of Nicaea. It is around the time of this Council, and for some time after, that the next development takes place. The ancient LXX existed, then, as a generally available manuscript, but its existence became threatened by the orders of the Emperor Constantine in 331 AD. (Setterfield)

Origen was an influential scholar and heretic from the third century who denied the physical resurrection of Christ, the historicity of some parts of the Bible, and was a universalist. He was heavily influenced by Gnostic thought as well.

Origen sought to make the LXX mesh with the Masoretic text, thus compromising the LXX.  

Origen was interested in coordinating the different translations of Scripture in existence. By this time the Jews had moved away from the ancient Alexandrian LXX as well as their own old form of Hebrew writing, known as paleo-Hebrew. They had gravitated toward the Masoretic Scriptures, which had been formulated in an effort to discredit the use of Old Testament Scripture being used by the Christians to show those Scriptures prophesies (sic) were fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth. Discussions between Jews and Christians had shown the ancient LXX and the newer Masoretic texts had some definite differences, especially in matters of Christology. Origen attempted to address the differences between them. By 250, he had completed his six-column comparison of Scripture versions, called the Hexapla.25

It is agreed that the six columns of Origen’s Hexapla in order were 1). The Masoretic Hebrew text, 2). A transliteration of the Masoretic Hebrew into Greek, 3). The Greek version of the Masoretic text produced by Rabbi Akiba’s pupil Aquila, 4). An overall precise Greek version of the Masoretic produced by Symmachus at the end of the 2nd century AD, 5). The ancient LXX Greek version, 6). Theodotion, who used the LXX but corrected it freely to conform it with the Masoretic text.26 Extant evidence shows that Origen made every effort to reconcile the different versions of Scripture present at his time. His goal was to produce an updated version of the ancient LXX, and in doing so, he changed parts to conform to the Masoretic.  (Setterfield)

In 319 AD, the Arian controversy broke out and spread throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. Its origin is uncertain, although it may have started via Origen. But however it started, this theology denied the deity of Jesus. In 321AD, Arius — after whom the heresy was named — was denounced by the Synod of Alexandria for his denial of Jesus’ deity.   Arius went into Palestine under the protection of the historian Eusebius, who became the Bishop of Caesarea about 314 AD. He was also protected by another Eusebius, the Bishop of Nicomedia.  It was here in Caesarea, which was now held by Eusebius as Bishop, that Origen’s manuscript was still stored.

It must also be noted that Eusebius of Caesarea’s’ tutor had been Pamphilus, and together they had written the “Defense of Origen.”27 Thus the works of Origen were viewed with favor by Eusebius and colored his theology.

It is against this background of the Arian heresy, that another event occurred which is important in the context of the ancient LXX. In 331 AD, 12 years since the Arian heresy broke out, the Emperor Constantine asked his friend and historian, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, to make 50 copies of the Bible. Which version was he going to choose? Would it be the LXX which the church had used for over 300 years, or would he choose the newer Masoretic text, and if so, why?

The fifty copies were made from Origen’s attempts to update the ancient LXX, bringing it in line with the Masoretic. The impetus for Eusebius to do this followed from his appreciation of Origen and the adherence of both of them to the heresy which did not accept Jesus as God. Interestingly, Rabbi Akiba, who had commissioned that same Masoretic text at the Council of Jamnia, had not accepted Jesus’ claims either. (He supported Bar Kochba as Messiah instead.)

Thus, the Masoretic from which our Old Testament translations come today, was the result of Akiba, Origen, and Eusebius, none of whom believed in the deity of Jesus Christ. (Setterfield)

Jerome (c. 347–420 AD) helped to shift the Western Church toward using the Hebrew text as the primary basis for the Old Testament rather than the Greek Septuagint. However, he did not translate from the Masoretic Text as we know it today, because the fully developed Masoretic tradition would not be completed for several centuries.

Instead, Jerome worked from the Hebrew manuscripts available in Palestine around 390–405 AD. Those manuscripts were likely predecessors of what scholars call the proto-Masoretic text, the textual family from which the later Masoretic Text developed. When Jerome began producing what became the Latin Vulgate, he argued that Christians should return to the Hebrew text, which he called the Hebraica Veritas (“Hebrew Truth”). He learned Hebrew from Jewish teachers in Palestine and translated much of the Old Testament directly from Hebrew rather than from the Septuagint. This caused controversy. Augustine worried that replacing the familiar Septuagint could create confusion and potentially undermine passages Christians had traditionally used in theological arguments.

For centuries after Jerome:

• • The Western Church primarily used the Latin Vulgate.
  • The Eastern churches continued using the Septuagint.
  • The Church did not formally declare that the Hebrew text was superior to the Septuagint.

What Jerome did accomplish was to preserve in Latin a translation based on a Hebrew textual tradition very close to the later Masoretic Text. Jerome’s influence became much greater over a thousand years later. Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin strongly preferred the Hebrew text for the Old Testament. Jerome’s arguments for the Hebraica Veritas were frequently cited in support of that position.

As a result:

• • Most Protestant Old Testaments came to be translated primarily from the Masoretic Text.
  • The Roman Catholic Church retained the Vulgate as its official Bible for many centuries.
  • The Eastern Orthodox churches continued to give the Septuagint a central role. (Chat GPT)

Some Examples of Differences between the LXX and Masoretic Text

In the short time that I have been comparing the LXX to the what my NKJV (MT) says, I have noted quite a few differences, some of them being quite significant. Some of the variances in the MT hide obvious allusions to Christ. One that is rather startling is the rendering of Jeremiah 23:6. The MT says:

6 In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS Jeremiah 23:6 (NKJV)

The Septuagint reads as follows:

6 In his days both Judah will be delivered, and Israel will encamp confidently, and this is his name, which the Lord will call him: “Jozadak.” Jeremiah 23:6 (LES2) 

I believe this is a clear example of the MT removing an allusion to Christ. Jozadak was a priest whose son was the high priest, Joshua (Jesus). Here is what Zechariah 6:11 says in the LXX:

11 And you will take silver and gold, and you will make crowns and place them upon the head of the great priest Joshua, the son of Jehozadak.  Zechariah 6:11 (LES2) 

Since all scripture ultimately points to Christ, this passage in Zechariah, alluded to in Jeremiah 23:6, must refer to Christ’s  being granted lordship in heaven after his ascension. 

13 I continued to watch in a vision of the night, and look, upon the clouds of the heavens, a being like a son of man came, and the ancient of days was present, and his attendants were present with him. 14 Authority and royal honor was granted to him, and all the peoples of the earth according to races, and all honor will be directed to him, and his authority is an eternal authority that will not be removed, and his kingdom is one that will not perish. Daniel 7:13–14 (LES2) 

Another striking example occurs in Hebrews 1:6.  There we read,  “And again, when God brings his first begotten into the world He says: ‘Let all the angels of God worship him’. ” This is referenced as a quote from Deuteronomy 32:43 in both the ancient Septuagint  and the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as in the footnotes of a number of modern translations. However, when you try to look it up in our modern translations (all of which are from the Masoretic), it does not exist in Deuteronomy 32.  Our modern translations only read “Rejoice, O Gentiles with His people; for He will avenge the blood of His servants … ”  It is in the ancient versions we  find the words: “Rejoice you heavens with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice you Gentiles with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons…”  Thus the Masoretic text from Rabbi Akiba deletes a key passage pointing to the deity of Christ, a passage which the Apostles used in their presentation of the Gospel and which was part of their Old Testament.

Again in Hebrews 10:5, we find a difference.  The writer quotes Psalm 40:6 from the ancient LXX. (Note that some Psalms in the LXX are numbered differently from the standard usage today. Thus Psalm 40 in our Bibles is actually Psalm 39 in the LXX). Hebrews quotes the Psalm, saying “Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: ‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me’…”  Again, we cannot find these words in the modern translations.The Masoretic text is contorted by Rabbi Akiba to omit these words in Psalm 40.  They have been replaced with “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire; my ears you have opened…”  Thus, any implication regarding the Incarnation was deleted.  These are but two of the many examples of quotes used by writers of the New Testament which do not match what we read today in our Old Testaments. (Setterfield)

If you take the time to read through the MT Old Testament and compare it to a parallel LXX translation, you will see for yourself.  

Conclusion

Setterfield makes a strong case historically for Christians to use the Septuagint.

When one compares key verses that have a connection to Christ, it is apparent that changes were made to blunt this testimony and cast doubt on the New Testament scriptures.

The fact that the Septuagint is quoted in the New Testament is the strongest argument that it is the version Christians should use.

Anything that is written or quoted in the New Testament is, by definition, the inspired Word of God. This means that any quote from the LXX is the inspired Word of God, too. Where it differs from the MT, it means the MT is not correct. The logic is simple and inescapable. The Orthodox Study Bible will be published in November 2026. It will have the LXX as the basis for the Old Testament, but I do not particularly like the English translation they use. If you wish to purchase an English translation of the LXX, I have found that the Lexham English Septuagint, published in 2019, is a very good translation.

I am currently reading the MT and LXX side by side using Logos Bible software to help me sort through the Hebrew and Greek meanings of the words each uses. I am making notes of the differences. At this point, I have found many. I have written some articles highlighting why I think the LXX is to be preferred above the MT based on those findings.

I  am enjoying viewing the Old Testament through the lens of the Septuagint. The various characters have come alive. Often their words and dialogues seem more real and believable. I encourage everyone to compare for yourself.

More articles on identifying and countering deception.