Septuagint Superiority

Behold the various differences in meaning when comparing passages in the Masoretic Text to the Septuagint. Translations used are based on whichever make for the closest comparison. (This page will be expanded continually over time.)

Note that italics indicate words supplied by the translator on the basis of it seeming implied by the context.

Manuscript sigla and abbreviations

• A: Codex Alexandrinus – good witness for Isaiah
• B: Codex Vaticanus – lacks most of Genesis in its original pages; poor witness for Isaiah due to Hexaplaric corruptions
• Q: Codex Marchalianus – Göttingen says this is one of the best witnesses for Isaiah
• S: Codex Sinaiticus – good witness for Isaiah
• V: Codex Venetus – poor witness for Isaiah due to Hexaplaric corruptions
• Cp: Complutensian Polyglot
• Ald: Aldine Bible
• _: manuscript _ (no difference between main text and correctors / margins)
• _^*: the original text of manuscript X
• _^c_: the reading of a later hand in manuscript X
• Ra-#: a manuscript with Rahlfs number #

Just a couple of verses after Isaiah 7:14, which many modern translations weaken to say “young woman” instead of “virgin” due to the vagueness of the Masoretic Text (whereas the Septuagint rendering unambiguously means “virgin”), there is another prophetic description of Christ which is weakened in the Masoretic Text. The Septuagint faithfully preserves the proclamation of Christ’s perfect innocence.

Isaiah: and his name is called…

One of the earliest witnesses to the bracketed section is Irenaeus, who in Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 19 alludes to it when he says “the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God“. Later in Book IV, Chapter 33, Irenaeus loosely but explicitly references Isaiah, listing the titles “Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God“.

Outside of commentaries, the best manuscript witness containing the section is the main text Codex Alexandrinus, which is generally regarded as having a high quality copy of the LXX Isaiah.

However, although it does appear quite early, it is nevertheless absent in several early witnesses, including Codex Marchalianus (which is considered by Göttingen to be one of the best witnesses to the LXX Isaiah) and the base text of Codex Sinaiticus.

I opine that the bracketed section is not original to the LXX, but rather originates as an attempt to translate a Proto-Masoretic Text and import it into the existing Greek.

Notice that the LXX-exclusive “Great-Counsel Angel” resembles “Wonderful, Counselor, God” (recall that Masoretic Psalm 8:5 has “God”/”gods” while the LXX counterpart & Hebrews 2:7 have “angels”), and also that the words “rulers, peace” resemble “Ruler of Peace“. Note also that in Masoretic Hebrew, the difference between “I will bring” and “Father of” is a single consonant. You can thus begin to imagine how the LXX-exclusive section and the bracketed section are both derived from the same source, but one has suffered textual corruption.

Usually, one would expect such a section to be introduced by the influence of the Hexapla. However, the bracketed section is also absent from Codex Vaticanus, which is somewhat unexpected since its Isaiah is considerably more Hexaplaric than the other codices aforementioned. Furthermore, the section does not match the wording of the three Jewish competitor Greek versions, and it also diverges more than one would expect from the standard Masoretic Text.

Note also the subtle difference between the Masoretic “Father of Eternity” (or “Father Eternal“) and the Greek “Father of the Coming Age“. The Masoretic produces much tension for Trinitarian doctrine, since its placement in a list of titles for the Son favors the Modalist heresy by confounding the Persons. The spurious Greek is a bit less difficult, since it limits the scope of the title to Christ’s unique role in bringing about the next age. Of course, if the section is simply rejected as non-original, then it presents no problem at all.

The bruised reed passage referenced in Matthew

Coloring explanation

• Red text is found only in the NT and Masoretic.
• Orange text has a similar meaning in all three, but the NT resembles the Masoretic more.
• Yellow text has a similar meaning in all three, with no exact Greek matches between LXX and NT.
• Light green text has a similar meaning in all three, but the NT resembles the LXX more than the Masoretic.
• Dark green text has a similar meaning in all three, but the Greek of the NT & LXX is identical.
• Cyan text is similar in NT and LXX and absent from the Masoretic.
• Blue text is identical and found only in the NT and LXX.
• Pink text has a similar meaning in all three, but LXX and Masoretic are closer to each other than either is to the NT.
• Purple text has a similar meaning in LXX and Masoretic, but is not in NT.

Obviously, this is not an exact quote, but the functional meaning favors the LXX because of the final line.

See also Isaiah 44:2–3 and Ezekiel 3:4–8.

For if the Septuagint translators are accepted when they write, “Jacob my son, I will lift him up; Israel my chosen, my soul has lifted him up,” then how can we understand the text fulfilled in Jesus, since it was obviously written about Jacob and Israel?

Jerome in Letter 121.2

To Jerome I say this: it is actually quite fitting that Christ be called both Jacob and Israel—particularly in our present age, when the Dispensationalist heresy is rampant.

The literal Isaiah reading in Luke

A bit further into Isaiah we see one of the most powerful arguments in favor of the Septuagint: Christ’s reading of the Book of Isaiah in the Nazareth synagogue.

And now in English, with the Masoretic Isaiah added to the comparison:

And now, for the sake of preempting and shutting up the ignorant who might otherwise claim it as a “gotcha”: there is technically another passage in Isaiah which speaks of God’s Servant giving sight to the blind, which also bears some resemblance to the passage in Luke.

Some might contend that Christ is referencing Isaiah 42:7 and synthesizing it with Isaiah 61:1–2, in a similar way to how Isaiah 58:6 has been incorporated, and that therefore, it cannot be certainly claimed that Christ is referencing anything specific to the Septuagint. This objection, however, does not hold up well under scrutiny.

Although there is obviously an overlap in meaning (contextually, the passage speaks of God’s Servant making blind men see and leading men out of prison), the actual words are quite different. For example, the Greek term used in LXX Isaiah 61:1 and Luke 4:18 rendered as “recovery of sight” is ἀνάβλεψιν; etymologically, this term could woodenly be rendered as “a looking up“. This is different from the phrasing of “to open eyes” (ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς) that is used in Isaiah 42:7 as well as in the New Testament (e.g. John 10:21 & Acts 26:18).

Now, the “looking up” terminology does appear in LXX Isaiah 42:18, but the context and tone are rather different (God is chastising the Israelites for their idolatry, calling them spiritually blind and deaf), and the form of the words are still not as close to Luke 4:18 as LXX Isaiah 61:1 is. Somewhat ironically, the Masoretic Hebrew of this verse is less similar than the Greek, since only the Greek specifically conveys the sense of looking up.

Had Christ intended to specifically reference Isaiah 42:7 (the most similar passage in terms of meaning that appears in the Masoretic Text), He could have used the same terminology of opening eyes (ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς) that already occurs both in the Greek of Isaiah 42:7 as well as in the New Testament (e.g. John 10:21 & Acts 26:18). That the exact words of LXX Isaiah 61:1 are used instead is clearly an endorsement of its particular reading over that of the Masoretic Text.

Furthermore, I must reiterate that Luke describes Christ as reading from a written copy of the Book of Isaiah, so such a loose paraphrase would be quite inappropriate (and entirely unnecessary, since Isaiah has no shortage of relevant passages that could’ve been quoted here). I’d further posit that the slight deviations from our now-common LXX that occur in Christ’s reading may have been actual variants in the manuscript Christ was reading from, and that He (knowing they made no real difference to the meaning of the prophecy) simply read the text exactly as written.

Finally, to “answer a fool according to his folly” (Proverbs 26:5): consider that Luke specifically says “the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place [singular] where it was written”. The words of Isaiah 58:6 and Isaiah 61:1–2 are not incredibly distant from each other, but Isaiah 42:7 is quite far indeed from both. Are we to assume that “place” in the scroll covered the entirety of 42:7 to 61:2?

The simple, reasonable conclusion is that Christ was indeed reading and quoting from the Septuagint.

(Blind ones seeing is also mentioned in Isaiah 29:18, Isaiah 35:5, and Isaiah 42:16, but those are all even more dissimilar to the passage in Luke, and most of the previously-given points still apply.)

Life like the days of the tree of life

Later on in Isaiah, there is another interesting difference:

*”also” supplied by Brenton.

The Septuagint preserves the promise of the Resurrection of the Dead, wherein the children of the Faithful who died young will receive eternal life, and the sinners who lived a long life will be damned.

The callback to the Garden of Eden (and call-forward to Christ, who is the Tree of Life) is also preserved.

This prophecy in the Septuagint was recognized by Cyprian of Carthage (“To Quirinus: Testimonies Against the Jews 2.20”), Lactantius (“Divine Institutes 4.14”), and Rufinus of Aquileia (“Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 22”). Even Jerome accepted the wood-and-bread portion (“Six Books on Jeremiah 2.110.2–4”) and included it in the Vulgate, which may suggest that its loss in the Masoretic Text was especially late.

In the majority of cases where the New Testament quotes the Old, the meaning will agree with the Septuagint manuscripts against the Masoretic manuscripts.

*alternatively rust (NETS), cankerworm (Thomson, Brenton), or blight (ABP)

Septuagint renderings tend to clarify passages that are confusing in the Masoretic.

In Micah chapter 4 there is a verse with a small but significant difference. But first, let’s see the preceding verses for context (which are mostly the same in meaning across versions):

And at the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest, established on the tops of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and the peoples shall hasten to it.

And many nations shall go, and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and they shall shew us his way, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Sion shall go forth a law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

And he shall judge among many peoples, and shall rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into sickles; and nation shall no more lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn to war any more.

And every one shall rest under his vine, and every one under his fig-tree; and there shall be none to alarm them: for the mouth of the Lord Almighty has spoken these words.

Micah 4:1-4 (Brenton’s Septuagint Translation)

And now for the difference:

*Brenton adds the word “other” there, assuming it to be implied, but I disagree (and Thomson, ABP, NETS, and Lexham did not consider it necessary).

**Greek δέ (“de”): one of several conjunctions which may be translated as either “and” or “but” depending on the context. (The Hebrew is similar in this regard.) Every existing English translation of the Septuagint (and most translations of the Masoretic Text) render “but” here, presumably because they are following the interpretation that “his god” in the Masoretic Text refers to idols. I believe this is a mistake; disregarding the Masoretic rendering leads to a superior understanding.

The Septuagint declares that, as every man will rest under his fig tree, so also will every nation walk in his way (i.e. its culture and language), yet all will worship the Lord. This calls to mind the multitude of every tongue and tribe in Revelation; the tongues and tribes still exist in eternity. The “we” refers to all the Elect collectively, I think.

*Acts uses a slightly different form of the Greek word for “for” here compared to the LXX Habakkuk.

**The Byzantine/Majority Text of Acts 13:41 lacks this 3rd “work”.

The Acts version is abbreviated and having some implied words at the end made explicit, yet it contains both the LXX “despisers” and the detail of perishing which is absent in the Masoretic Text.

Habakkuk 2 in Hebrews 10

todo: add section

Zechariah

todo: add section for Jesus and Dawn / Rising / Dayspring / Orient in Zechariah 3 and 6. Note the connection to Luke 1:78 and the star in Matthew 2, as well as the connection of the term “Rising” to the Resurrection.

The Masoretic Text compares the house of David directly to God, but the Septuagint says only that it will be like the house of God. This passage refers, I think, to Christ’s earthly lineage coming from the line of David. (Note also the use of the term “angel of the Lord”, which often refers to Christ in the Old Testament.)

Words in italics are assumed/supplied by the English translator.

The part in yellow is only in some Greek manuscripts; they may be interpolated due to influence from Origen’s Hexapla.

Seeing as that John 19:37 says “look on him whom they have pierced” (which doesn’t match any of these exactly), I wonder if perhaps it is not intended to be an exact quote of Zechariah 12:10, but rather a summary of one or more prophecies, including Psalm 22 (LXX 21), which contains “they pierced my hands and my feet. They counted all my bones; and they observed and looked upon me.” (Notably, “pierced” is not in the Masoretic version of that Psalm.) After all, there are no quotation marks in the Greek, so the verse could be rendered as “another Scripture says they will look upon him whom they have pierced”.

Variants (pulled from Lambert Bos’ LXX and my own research):

source	Greek	translation	notes
Swete-1930	καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς μὲ, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο καὶ κόψονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν	and they will look on me, because they have mocked, and they will mourn over him	The common version.
Codex Alexandrinus, Cyr. (presumably Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Twelve Prophets)	είς ὃν κατωζχήσαντο	on whom they mocked	Cyril was aware of the difference from the Masoretic rendering. (Also, Cyril quotes John 19:37 in Five Tomes Against Nestorius, Tome IV Chapter 5 (see Greek).)
Codex Barberini (New Testament mss.), Aldine Text	είς ὃν εξεκέντησαν	on whom they pierced	Matches the end of John 19:37; resembles apparent meaning of common Masoretic version of Zechariah 12:10.
Codex Barberini margin, Aquila of Sinope	σύν ᾧ έξεκέντησαν, ϗ̀ κόψονται αὐτόν	with which they pierced, and they will mourn him	Clearly an anti-Christian rendering originating with Aquila.
Theodotion (Θ)	καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς μὲ εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν, καὶ κόψονται αὐτόν	and they will look on me, whom they pierced, and they will mourn him
Symmachus (Σ)	ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεξεκέντησαν, καὶ κόψονται αὐτόν	before, they pierced, and they will strike him	Another terrible rendering from the translation of a judaizer.

todo: the rest of the variant notes

There’s another curious difference in the very next verse:

*”the” supplied by Brenton (and ABP); “a” is probably more correct (and that’s what Thomson, NETS, and Lexham go with).

King Josiah was killed in the plain of Megiddo, but there are no clues as to who Hadad-rimmon might be. As such, the Septuagint rendering is clearer and timeless, tying into the language of trees and fruit throughout Scripture, including the specific mentions of pomegranates in Joel 1 and Haggai 2.

https://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/NRWakademie/papyrologie/PTheol/PT29_3v.jpg

todo: Daniel section

todo: title of Psalm footnote thing

“Vaticanus [h.e. Vat. 754, non πολυθρύλητος ille Vat. 1209, qui error est Brunsii in Kennicotti Dissert. Gen. p. 204: “Commata sublestae fidei Psal. xiv adsunt tantum in margine Codicis Vatic., test Montfauc. in Hexaplis”] in haec verba, quae sunt ad marginem, et non in textu conscripta, haec notat: Οὐδαμοῦ κεῖνται τῶν ψαλμῶν· πόθεν δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος εἴληφεν αὐτοὺς ζητητέον.”—Montef. Sub obelis leguntur in Psalt. Gall.; Syro-hex. vero, quod mireris, sine nota distinctionis affert.

Hieron. in Praefatione libri XVI Commentariorum in Jesaiam (Opp. T. IV, p. 668): “Denique omnes Graeciae tractatores, qui nobis eruditionis suae in Psalmos commentarios reliquerunt, hos versiculos veru annotant atque praetereunt, liquido confitentes in Hebraico non haberi, sed in editione vulgata, quae Graece κοινὴ dicitur, et in toto orbe diversa est.” Fusius hanc quaestionem tractabit Jo. Theoph. Plüschke in libello cui titulus: De Psalterii Syriaci Mediol. peculiari indole etc. pp. 29–39.

Between Proverbs 22:8 and Proverbs 22:9 is a phrase that is entirely absent from the Masoretic Text:

The underlying Greek: