The Septuagint

Many of the quotations of the OT in the NT are from the Septuagint, or even early revisions of it, and as a result differ from the Masoretic text. The differences range from superficial to significant. Sometimes the “quotations” are not actually quotations in a modern sense but are the NT author’s modification and adaptation of the Septuagint wording to apply to a new circumstance (see, e.g., Acts 4:11, borrowing words from Ps. 118:22; and 2 Cor. 6:18a, borrowing from 2 Sam. 7:14). At other times the NT authors correct the Septuagint reading, bringing it closer to the Hebrew (e.g., 1 Cor. 14:21, using Isa. 28:11–12; Eph. 4:30, using Isa. 63:10).

Differences due to copyist errors in textual transmission and variations in translation do not in any way weaken the strong claim made by Jesus and the apostles concerning the inspiration and accuracy of the Scriptures. They affirmed the divine authority both of the OT itself and of their own writings as they at various times used and adapted both the Masoretic text and some of the readings found in copies of the Septuagint. The differences and variations in the texts were there in Jesus’ time just as they are today. No doubt in many cases the NT authors were aware of the differences but were able to use them for their own purposes. This does not imply that they thought the Septuagint always represented the wording of the documents as originally written, but only that they affirmed the truthfulness of the words they quoted or adapted to the new context of their own writing.

Before the end of the first century a.d., Jews were reacting against the use of the Septuagint, partly because it did not reflect current rabbinic teaching and partly because of Christian apologetics based on the Septuagint, not only where it was accurate but even sometimes where it had faulty renderings. Therefore, the Jews produced a number of revisions of the Septuagint to make it conform to the Hebrew text more closely. The most important of these were by Theodotion (50 b.c.–a.d. 50; literal), Aquila (c. a.d. 120; extremely literalistic), and Symmachus (c. 180; dynamic). Almost all later translations of the OT (Old Latin, Syro-Hexapla, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Gothic, Old Georgian, Old Slavic) were made from the Septuagint rather than directly from the Hebrew. (But the Syriac Peshitta version and the Latin Vulgate made extensive use of a Hebrew text, and the Samaritan Pentateuch was itself a Hebrew text.)

Christian codices (plural of “codex,” which is an early kind of book consisting of bound sheaves of handwritten pages) of the Bible from the fourth/fifth century a.d. contain additional books beyond the 39 books of the OT and 27 books of the NT. Some of these additional books are translations of Hebrew originals, but most were originally written in Greek. These books represent Jewish literature written between 300 b.c. and a.d. 100 and were called the Apocrypha by Jerome. (See The Apocrypha.) Some have mistakenly thought that these books were included by Alexandrian Jews in their canon. Yet Judaism in Alexandria was not independent of Palestinian Judaism, as even Aristeas reveals.

Not all of the books of the Apocrypha were originally composed in Greek or even in Egypt. Moreover, 1 Maccabees, one of the books of the Apocrypha, acknowledged that inspiration had ceased (1 Macc. 4:46; 9:27; 14:41) before it was written. The prologue to Sirach (c. 130 b.c.) does not seem to include the Apocrypha as Scripture, and Philo, who ought to be a key source of information on Alexandria, does not quote the Apocrypha. Nor did he write commentaries on these books, even though he wrote on all the books in the Hebrew canon. Since the extant manuscripts of the Septuagint are of Christian, not Jewish, origin and are copies made 500 years after the original translations, the great uncial codices (early codices written entirely with capital letters called “uncials”) cannot be guides as to what was canonical in Alexandria in the third century b.c. The books of the Apocrypha were not considered inspired by either Jews or Christians, but were popular reading among both groups.

The Septuagint is important for many reasons. First, the Septuagint represents an extremely early text of the OT. Our oldest complete manuscripts of the Hebrew OT date to c. a.d. 1000, and even the portions of the OT found in the Dead Sea Scrolls date from around 200 b.c. to a.d. 68. But the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch was done in the third century b.c. To the extent that we can use it to determine the Hebrew text from which it was translated, we have a much older testimony to the text of the OT. (On the other hand, the Hebrew Masoretic text is the result of an extremely careful process of copying and transmission and often represents a more accurate preservation of the original wording than that found in the Septuagint, although this can be decided only on a case-by-case basis. At times the Septuagint better preserves the more original wording.) And in spite of some variations, the Septuagint usually shows the same text later preserved in the Masoretic text. Since the Septuagint predates the Dead Sea Scrolls and is complete while they are fragmentary, it is more important than the Dead Sea Scrolls as a textual witness.

Second, the Greek OT, as a translation, gives us an extremely early understanding of difficult points of grammar in the Hebrew text and the meanings of Hebrew words otherwise unknown to us.

Third, since all translation involves interpretation, the Greek OT is, in effect, the earliest commentary on the Hebrew text.

Fourth, since the Greek OT was produced between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT, it represents a key witness to the thought and worldview of Second Temple Judaism (c. 516 b.c.–a.d. 70).

Fifth, the Greek translation was often used by the apostles when quoting the OT in the NT and was adopted early on as the ordinary Bible of the Christian church. Understanding the language of the Greek OT is key to understanding the Greek of the NT. The Septuagint affected the language of the apostles just as the kjv has influenced the vocabulary of Christians in our time. Such influence is especially evident in the writings of Luke, who contributed more to the NT than Paul in amount of text. For example, in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10) Jesus asks who was a neighbor to the man who fell among thieves. An expert in the Torah answers, “the one who did ‘mercy’ with him.” The expression is as strange in Greek as in English, but comes by way of the Septuagint from the expression in Hebrew for performing acts of kindness that demonstrate and fulfill covenant loyalty and love.

Finally, the history of the Greek Old Testament bears witness to debates over approaches to translation and to the problem of variations in the text of the Bible at the time of Jesus. This can shed some light on debates over similar topics today.

For these reasons, the study of the Greek OT can be of great value to the church today.