Hope of Israel Ministries (Ecclesia of YEHOVAH):

The Masoretic and Septuagint: Ancient Texts That Shaped the Bible

Compiled by John D. Keyser

How did the New Testament writers and the earliest Christians come to adopt the Israelite scriptures as their first Old Testament? And why are our modern Bibles related more to the Rabbinic Hebrew Bible than to the Greek Bible of the early Church?

The Septuagint, the name given to the translation of the Hebrew scriptures between the third century BC and the second century AD, played a central role in the Bible's history. Many of the Masoretic scriptures were still evolving when the Israelite scriptures were translated into Greek, and these Greek translations, along with several new Greek writings, became Holy Scripture in the early Church.

Yet, gradually the Septuagint lost its place at the heart of Western Christianity. At the end of the fourth century, one of antiquity's brightest minds rejected the Septuagint in favor of the Bible of the rabbis. After Jerome, the Septuagint never regained the position it once had.

Writes Timothy Michael Law:

"Many modern Christians are fixated with the search for an 'original text,' but from the beginning it was not so. Early Christians were able to appreciate the diversity of divine communication, and even when some began to recognize the divergences between the Bible of the [rabbinic] Jews and the Greek Christian Bible most welcomed the opportunity to learn more, showing no anxiety at the thought of not having the 'original.' This is a distinctively modern theological anxiety" (When God Spoke Greek, p. 168).

When we open our Bibles today, we rarely stop to consider the extraordinary journey the text has made through history. Behind our English translations lie ancient manuscripts copied by hand across centuries, in different languages, by different communities, for different purposes. Two great textual traditions stand at the heart of this story: the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX). Understanding these two traditions -- their origins, their differences, and their relationship -- gives us a richer and more confident understanding of how YEHOVAH God has preserved His Word.

The Masoretic Text is the authoritative Hebrew Bible, the textual foundation of almost every modern Protestant Old Testament. The Septuagint -- its name coming from the Latin word for 70 (hence the Roman numerals LXX) -- is the oldest known Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Completed over the course of the 3rd to 1st centuries BC, it became the primary Old Testament of the early church and remains central to Eastern Orthodox Christianity today.

These aren’t mere academic curiosities. The differences between the two texts touch on Messianic prophecy, the canon of Scripture, chronology, and the cosmic scope of YEHOVAH’s plan for the nations. Let’s examine each in turn.

Origin And History

The Septuagint (LXX)

The Septuagint was produced in Alexandria, Egypt, beginning in the 3rd century BC. Alexandria was home to one of the largest Israelite communities in the ancient world -- Israelites who spoke Greek rather than Hebrew as their daily language. To make the Scriptures accessible to this community, Israelite scholars began translating the Hebrew texts into Greek. According to an ancient tradition preserved in the Letter of Aristeas, 72 scholars, six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, completed the translation of the Pentateuch (the first five books of Moses) in 72 days -- a tradition that gave the translation its name.

Notes Timothy M. Law:

"In Egypt for several generations and now in the cultural efflorescence of Alexandria, the Egyptian Jewish [Israelite] population in the third century BCE had enough learned men to accomplish the tremendous feat of translating the Hebrew Torah. The Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Torah into the lingua franca of the Hellenistic world, was 'at once the greatest achievement of Hellenistic Jewry and its most important legacy to western mankind'" (When God Spoke Greek, p. 35).

Law goes on to say:

"What the translators had created was in effect a new Torah, and we did not need the Letter of Aristeas to tell us that. Some Jews and most Christians would soon come to believe it was indeed a new revelation from God Himself" (ibid., p. 39).

While the church father Origen never used the Letter of Aristeas to bolster his claim of the Septuagint's authority as his contemporaries and predecessors had, "he nonetheless believed that Providence guided the translators to produce exactly what God wanted the church to have."

In regard to the discrepancies found between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, he believed that "when the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint were at odds with one another, there were two possible explanations: copyists introduced genuine errors in the transmission of the manuscripts, or Providence introduced the divergences for the church's edification. Indeed, the 'errors' could have been laid as bricks, to provide stepping stones to reach a higher level of understanding....

"This approach to scripture characterized much of early Christian interpretation in Alexandria and was another way the church's Bible was superior to the Hebrew Bible: it was richer, more pregnant with interpretive possibilities, such that even scribal errors were Spirit-produced readings for the benefit of the church" (ibid., pps. 144-145).

By the time of the Messiah, the LXX was the Scripture of the Greek-speaking Israelite world. It had spread throughout the Roman Empire and shaped the theological vocabulary of Hellenistic Judaism. When the New Testament authors quoted the Old Testament, they very frequently drew on the Septuagint’s wording. This is not a minor detail: it means the LXX was woven into the very fabric of apostolic preaching and early Christian theology.

The Masoretic Text (MT)

The Masoretic Text represents the standardized Hebrew Bible as preserved and transmitted by rabbinic scholars known as the Masoretes -- a word derived from the Hebrew masorah, meaning “tradition.” Working between roughly the 7th and 11th centuries AD, the Masoretes did far more than simply copy text. They developed an intricate system of vowel markings and cantillation signs (pronunciation guides) to safeguard the precise reading of Scripture for future generations. The underlying consonantal text they worked from, however, was considerably older, with roots stretching back to the period before the Messiah.

Timothy Law states that,

"the Masoretic Text actually refers not to a single text but to a group of manuscripts that have shared features. The text, or the text group, was edited between the seventh and eleventh centuries CE by a group of scholars known as Masoretes. Up to that time, all biblical Hebrew manuscripts contained only consonants, as Modern Hebrew does today....

"Perhaps most importantly, we must recognize that the Hebrew Bible editions in our hands today, those based on the medieval Masoretic Text, do not represent the "original text" of the Bible. The greatest modern authority on the Hebrew textual tradition put it bluntly: 'One thing is clear, it should not be postulated that the Masoretic Text better or more frequently reflects the original text of the biblical books than any other text. That this text became prominent in early Judaism and its proponents eventually stamped out all rivals does not mean it is the best or most original text'" (ibid., pps 22 and 23).

The Reformers -- Luther, Calvin, and others -- gave the Hebrew text renewed prominence. Rather than relying on the Latin Vulgate (Jerome’s 4th-century translation) or the Greek Septuagint, they insisted on ad fontes -- returning to the sources. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) enshrined this principle, affirming the Old Testament in Hebrew is “immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages” (WCF 1.8). Protestant translations have, therefore, historically treated the Masoretic Text as the primary Old Testament authority.

Key Differences Between The MT And The LXX

1). Differences in Canon: Which Books Are Scripture?

The most immediately visible difference concerns the scope of the Old Testament itself. The Masoretic Text contains the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible that Protestant Christians recognize today. The Septuagint includes additional books -- works like Tobit, Judith, 1–4 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, and expanded versions of Daniel and Esther.

Protestant traditions classify these additional books as Apocrypha -- writings worthy of reading but not authoritative Scripture. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions regard many of them as Deuterocanonical (meaning “second canon”), considering them fully part of Scripture. The Catholic Church formally affirmed their canonical status at the Council of Trent in 1546, in part as a response to the Protestant Reformation’s rejection of them.

The Reformers rejected the Apocryphal books on the grounds that they were never part of the Hebrew canon recognized by the rabbinic community, a principle also articulated by Jerome himself, who distinguished between books suitable for edification and those authoritative for establishing doctrine.

2). Textual Differences: Windows Into the Ancient Text

Beyond the canon question, the MT and LXX sometimes diverge in the wording of specific passages. The differences matter enormously -- not because they undermine Scripture’s reliability, but because they illuminate the history of the text and, in several cases, open up rich Christological and theological depth. Here are five examples that serve far more attention than they typically receive.

Example 1: Deuteronomy 32:8 -- The Nations and the Sons of God

This may be the single most theologically significant textual difference in the entire Old Testament, yet it rarely appears in popular discussions.

Masoretic Text: “He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel”

Septuagint: “He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the angels of God.”

The MT’s reading -- ”sons of Israel” -- suggests YEHOVAH God divided the nations according to the 70 descendants of Jacob (Genesis 46). The LXX reads “angels of God” (some manuscripts say “sons of God”), which paints a vastly different picture: YEHOVAH God assigning the nations of the world to the oversight of heavenly beings, while reserving Israel as His own special inheritance (Deuteronomy 32:9).

This is reinforced by the Masoretic Text that says in Daniel 10:13: "The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, so I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia." Here the word "prince" is defined by Michael who, as we know, is an archangel described as a chief prince, protector of Israel (Daniel 12:1), and leader of YEHOVAH’s angelic army, appearing in Daniel, Jude, and Revelation.

Crucially, this isn’t simply a Greek interpretive flourish. The Dead Sea Scrolls -- ancient Hebrew manuscripts discovered near Qumran between 1947 and 1956, predating both the Masoretic standardization and the LXX by centuries -- preserve a Hebrew text of this verse that reads “sons of God” (bene elohim), not “sons of Israel.” This suggests the MT may reflect a later scribal revision, while the LXX preserves an older reading.

The theological stakes are high. The “sons of God” reading underlies the concept of the Divine Council -- the heavenly court over which YEHOVAH God presides as sovereign (see Psalm 82; Daniel 10:13–21). It provides the cosmic backdrop to Paul’s language about the Messiah’s supremacy over all “thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities” (Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 1:21) and to the New Testament’s vision of the church as the reclaimed inheritance of all Israel under one Lord.

Example 2: Amos 9:11–12 -- The Fallen Tent and the Gentile Mission

Masoretic Text: “…that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by My name.“

Septuagint: “…that the remnant of mankind may seek the LORD, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name.“

At the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, the apostle James cited this passage from Amos to justify the inclusion of Gentiles [House of Israel] in the church without requiring circumcision -- one of the most consequential decisions in church history. The text he quoted was the Septuagint version. The MT’s reading, “possess the remnant of Edom,” would have made his argument considerably less clear, since it speaks of conquest rather than seeking the LORD.

Some scholars argue the LXX here reflects a different (and perhaps older) Hebrew prototype -- the underlying Hebrew text from which the translators worked -- rather than being a free Greek paraphrase. Either way, the theological point is striking: the LXX reading opened the door, textually, for the Diaspora mission, and James’ use of it at the Jerusalem Council shaped the entire trajectory of Israelite Christianity.

Example 3: Psalm 40:6 -- Ears Opened or a Body Prepared?

Masoretic Text: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have opened [or ‘dug’]“

Septuagint: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me.”

The author of Hebrews quotes this verse in Chapter 10, verses 5–7, applying it directly to the Messiah: The Messiah coming in a prepared body to offer the one perfect sacrifice that animal offerings could only shadow. Also, it could be referring to the "body of the Messiah" -- the Congregation of Israel or the Church, and he quotes the Septuagint.

The MT’s phrase “ears you have opened” is a genuine Hebrew idiom for attentiveness and obedience -- to have one’s ears opened is to be made ready to hear and do YEHOVAH God’s will (compare Exodus 21:6; Isaiah 50:5). The Septuagint’s rendering, “a body you have prepared,” moves from the part (ears) to the whole (body), drawing out the implication: the Church. This isn’t a mistranslation so much as a theologically perceptive rendering that the New Testament author recognized as pointing directly to the Messiah.

Here the LXX does not contradict the MT -- it extends its logic toward its ultimate fulfillment in the Messiah.

Example 4: Isaiah 9:6 -- Where the Septuagint Excels

This example also confirms the LXX, and intellectual honesty requires saying so.

Masoretic Text: “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

Septuagint: “Angel of Great Counsel” [collapsing all four titles into one].”

The MT’s fourfold title carries implications about the Messiah’s so-called divine nature the false church has long treasured. The LXX condenses all four titles into a single phrase, “Angel of Great Counsel”, thereby reinforcing the fact that the Messiah did not preexist and that the trinity is complete nonsense. This is a case where the LXX text preserves an accurate reading that refutes the MT.

Example 5: Exodus 15:4 -- The Red Sea

Masoretic Text: "Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea [Yam Suph].”

Septuagint: "He has cast the chariots of Pharaoh and his host into the sea, the chosen mounted captains: they were swallowed up in the Red Sea [eruthra thalassa]."

The MT word "yam" means "sea" or "large body of water," and the term "suph" is often translated as "reeds" or "rushes." However, it can also carry the idea of something at the end or boundary.

In the Septuagint "yam suph" is rendered as the Greek "eruthra thalassa" or "Red Sea." This same phrase appears in the New Testament when referencing the Exodus event -- see Acts 7:36 and Hebrews 11:29. Why "Red"? Because the boundary of the territory of Edom (which means "Red") bordered the Gulf of Aqaba.

The lesson isn’t that one text is always superior to the other. It’s that both traditions are ancient witnesses, each preserving readings of genuine value, and that reading them together -- as scholars, translators, and pastors have done across the centuries -- produces a richer understanding than either alone.

3). Differences in Chronology

The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 differ significantly between the MT and the LXX, producing substantially different biblical timelines. Using the MT numbers, Archbishop James Ussher famously calculated the Flood at approximately 2,348 BC. The LXX genealogies add roughly 1,300 extra years, placing it closer to 3,300 BC.

This affects the dating of Adam, Noah, the Flood, and the call of Abraham, and in turn shapes how the biblical timeline relates to archaeology and ancient history. Scholars continue to debate whether the MT or the LXX better preserves the original numbers, with some arguing the LXX’s longer figures better align with ancient Near Eastern historical records. This remains an open question.

Evaluating The Reliability Of Both Texts

Why Protestants Trust the Masoretic Text

The Masoretic Text represents the Hebrew Scriptures as preserved within the rabbinic community -- the Edomite Jewish people. While errors crept in, the Masoretes were very careful scribes: they counted letters, tracked the middle word of each book, and developed elaborate checking systems to catch copying errors. The consistency of the MT across surviving manuscripts is remarkable.

The Reformers also observed the rabbinic Jewish community never accepted the Apocryphal books as Scripture -- a significant point for those who believed the Old Testament canon was more accurate. The Westminster Confession accordingly declares that the books of the Apocrypha, “not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God” (WCF 1.3).

The Septuagint as an Ancient Witness

Yet the LXX is far from irrelevant to Protestant theology. Its value lies in several areas.

1). The New Testament authors cited it as Scripture -- a fact that cannot simply be dismissed.

2). As we have seen, the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that some LXX readings reflect ancient Hebrew texts that predate the Masoretic standardization.

3). The LXX provides an invaluable second witness: it agrees with the MT-- which is the great majority of the time. The agreement of two independent traditions strengthens our confidence in the faithful transmission of YEHOVAH God’s Word.

One significant complication is that the Septuagint isn’t a single, uniform text. It exists in multiple manuscript traditions with varying readings, which means it cannot always be cited as a single unified authority against the MT. The MT, by contrast, is highly standardized.

The Move Toward Hebrew Priority: A Gradual History

It is sometimes assumed that the early church always preferred the Hebrew text. The reality is more nuanced. The early church was predominantly Greek-speaking, and the LXX was simply the Scripture most Christians knew. Augustine, writing in the early 5th century, defended the authority of the LXX against Jerome, who had controversially chosen to translate his Latin Vulgate directly from the Hebrew rather than the Greek.

Jerome’s decision was itself a significant moment: it planted the seed for later Hebrew priority by insisting that the hebraica veritas -- the Hebrew truth -- was the authentic original. The Reformers built on this instinct. Luther, Calvin, and the translators of the major Protestant Bible versions turned to the Hebrew as the “original tongue” of the Old Testament, the text YEHOVAH God had given to His covenant people and which the rabbinic community had faithfully preserved.

This wasn’t a wholesale rejection of the LXX, but a principled decision about primary authority. Reformed theologians have always recognized the LXX’s value for textual criticism, translation history, and New Testament background -- while maintaining that the Hebrew text is the foundational source for Old Testament doctrine.

The Septuagint stood at the heart of the early church. "Except for a small number of Christians in the Syriac Church, every Christian who heard or read the Bible in the first few centuries of the Christian era would have heard of the text of the Septuagint or of its translation in the Old Latin version in the languages of the East. Only a few early apologists and fathers were aware that their Bible was different from the Hebrew [Masoretic] Bible of the synagogue, and fewer cared...for most Christians, and even most of the fathers, the Septuagint was simply taken for granted. It was the Christian Old Testament" (When God Spoke Greek, p. 139).

Conclusion: So Which Do We Trust?

The Masoretic and the Septuagint aren’t rivals to be played off against each other. They’re two ancient streams of a single river -- the river of YEHOVAH’s revealed Word flowing through human history. Each tradition has distinctive strengths. The MT offers a meticulously preserved rabbinic text with extraordinary stability across the centuries. The LXX provides earlier manuscript witnesses, highlights the theological vocabulary of the New Testament and, in certain passages, preserves readings of demonstrable antiquity.

Where they agree -- which is the great majority of the time, on every matter essential to Christian faith -- their independent witness is a powerful testimony to the faithful transmission of Scripture. Where they differ, those differences invite us into deeper study rather than into doubt.

The Westminster Confession of Faith affirms that YEHOVAH God, by His singular care and providence, has kept the Scriptures pure in all ages (WCF 1.8). The convergence of the MT and LXX on all essential doctrines -- the nature of YEHOVAH God, human sin, the Messianic hope, salvation, and resurrection -- is itself evidence of that providential preservation. YEHOVAH God worked through Israelite scholars in Alexandria and through Masoretic scribes in Tiberias alike, ensuring His revelation was not lost but faithfully handed on.

In an age of uncertainty, the two streams of ancient testimony aren’t a problem to be solved. They’re a gift to be received with gratitude. However, we must always remember that the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:2) were given to the Israelites -- not the Edomite Jews (John 8).