Too lazy to read? Watch the video!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe4R9ThNA5g
Notable New Testament Quotations
that follow the Septuagint (not the Masoretic)
Post-Apostolic Church
INTRO
This is the fourth video in a series on the Septuagint. If you haven't already, please see the
introduction video.
NEW TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS
This video will
explain the Septuagint's influence on the New Testament writers as they quoted
from the Old Testament. It will also
share what happened to the Septuagint which was once so popular.
Jesus and the apostles had access to both Greek and Hebrew Old
Testament manuscripts. Since
the Septuagint and the Masoretic—as we have them today—have such obvious
differences, which Old Testament manuscripts do you think Jesus and the
apostles used? Did they favor the Hebrew
or the Greek?
If there was a set of Scriptures that Jesus and the apostles used, it
would certainly be the Septuagint, not today's Masoretic Text.
For the Christian,
there is a wonderful way to know which manuscript family is more accurate. When one compares a New Testament quotation from the Old Testament, 20% of the
time, the quotation is the same in the Septuagint and the Masoretic. But of the 80% that differ, 90% follow the Septuagint while only 10% follow the
Masoretic. In other words, the writers
of the New Testament favored the Greek Septuagint over today's Masoretic Hebrew
9 times out of 10. This isn't really
surprising since the Septuagint family of manuscripts is 1100 years older than
the Masoretic family of manuscripts.
Whenever the New Testament quotes a passage from the Old Testament,
most Bibles have a footnote giving the reference for where that passage can be
found. One may also notice that a number
of these footnotes may include the letters "LXX." This means that the New Testament writer
followed the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew.
For example, if you were to go to that Old Testament reference in your
Bible, you may notice that it reads a lot differently than how the New
Testament writer quoted it. Why would a cross reference send
you to a verse that reads so differently than it does in the New
Testament? This is because practically
all English translations of the Old Testament used the Hebrew Masoretic Text
while the New Testament writers primarily used the Greek Septuagint.
DIFFERENCES IN LIGHT OF NT QUOTATIONS
Let's look at a few significant examples of New Testament quotations
from the Old Testament and how they follow the Septuagint.
Luke 4:18,
"Recovery of sight to the blind."
Jesus quoted an Old Testament prophecy about Himself, saying, “The
Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to
the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim
freedom to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the
oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19). This is a quotation of Is 61:1-2. The second portion of the prophecy reads in our Bibles, “He has sent Me to heal
the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and freedom to the
prisoners; to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Is 61:1-2). There are some noticeable differences here,
but the main thing is that Isaiah in our Bibles omits an important phrase that
appeared in Luke’s gospel: “recovery
of sight to the blind.” This phrase,
which Jesus said about Himself is not found in the Hebrew we have today. Where is the prophecy about the Messiah
giving sight to the blind? It is found in the Septuagint
(Brenton), “He has sent Me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the
broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to
the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord.” What does this mean? This means that when Jesus read from the
Scriptures, He read from the Greek Septuagint and not from today’s Masoretic
Hebrew.
Heb 10:5, "A
body you have prepared for me."
Heb 10:5 quotes the Old Testament, saying, "You did not want
sacrifice and offering, but You prepared a body for Me." This is a prophecy about Jesus' incarnation
and crucifixion. But if you search for
this in our English Bibles, which is based off the Masoretic manuscripts, you
will not find this in the Old Testament. Yet this is a quotation
of Ps 40:6 which reads in our Bibles, "You do not delight in sacrifice and
offering; you open my ears to listen."
Where is the prophecy about the sacrifice of the Messiah's body? It is found in the Septuagint (Brenton), "Sacrifice and offering you will
not; but a body have you prepared me."
The writer of Hebrews quoted this prophecy about Jesus being the Messiah
from the Greek Septuagint and not the Hebrew Masoretic.
Gal 3:13,
"Everyone who is hung on a tree is cursed."
Paul quotes from the Old Testament in Gal 3:13 saying, "It is
written, 'Everyone who is hung on a tree is cursed.' " You will find this in our Bibles at Deut
21:23. Though Paul is showing that this is referring to Jesus
Christ, who hung on a tree and became a curse for us, our Old Testament leaves
out the tree. Our Bibles--which follow the Masoretic--read (NKJV),
"He who is hanged is accursed of God." If your Bible has the phrase "on a
tree" in Deut 21:23, this means that the translators have favored either
Paul's quotation or the Septuagint. This
is because the Masoretic omits the words “on a tree” in that phrase. Yet the Septuagint reads (Brenton), "Every one that is hanged on a tree is
cursed of God."
Ps 22
Though not quoted in the New Testament, a popular passage in the Old
Testament that prophesied Jesus' crucifixion is Ps 22. Though the Masoretic still has strong
prophecies about Christ in Ps 22, there are a couple more in the Septuagint.
In the Septuagint Ps 22:16 reads (Brenton), "For many dogs encompassed
me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round: they pierced my hands
and my feet." This is such a strong
prophecy about the crucifixion, that most English Bible translations actually
quote the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic.
The Masoretic Text
reads, "For dogs have encompassed me: a company of evildoers have enclosed
me: like a lion they are at my hands and my feet."
In the Masoretic, Ps 22:20 reads, "Deliver my soul from the sword,
my only life from the power of these dogs." However, the Septuagint reads (Brenton), "Deliver my soul from the sword;
my only-begotten one from the power of the dog." Does that title, "only-begotten," ring a bell? The Apostle John used the exact same Greek
word that the Septuagint used, "monogenes," when he wrote, "For God so loved the world that He gave
his only begotten Son" (John 3:16).
Contrary to a common belief, John didn't use a brand new title for
Jesus; He used the same Greek word the Septuagint translators used 300 years
before.
Is 7:14
The most significant difference between the Masoretic and the
Septuagint is where Matthew quotes a prophecy from Is 7:14, saying, "See,
the virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they will name Him
Immanuel" (Matt 1:23).
There has been
important discussions among Christians regarding Isaiah's prophesy in Is
7:14. The Old Testament reads, "The Lord Himself will give
you a sign: (SHE) will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel." Now, what does Isaiah call this woman? Of course, because of Matthew’s quotation, Christians recognize that she should
be called a virgin. This is an essential
prophecy about Jesus being the Messiah. When the Revised Standard
Version published this verse in 1952, it said she was a “young woman.” This caused a number of Christians to accuse
the RSV for mistranslating this verse.
In the Masoretic Text, the Hebrew word is "almah" (H5959)
which literally means, "a young woman." Now, young woman is a general term. It might include virgin women, but it does
not have to be that specific. In fact, the Hebrew word for
virgin is "bethulah" (H1330), and this word is not found in Is 7:14. But in the Septuagint, the Greek word is "parthenos" (G3933), which
means virgin, the exact same word Matthew used.
Here is a
question. When the translators of the Septuagint came to Is 7:14 in
their Hebrew manuscripts, to translate it into Greek, did they find
"almah" (young woman) or did they find "bethulah" (virgin)? Sadly, the Hebrew manuscript family from the
third century BC has been lost. But
think about it this way. Who has ever heard of a virgin
giving birth? Certainly, the
translators, who lived 300 years before Christ, would think that such an idea
was ridiculous. If they had come across
the "almah," then they would have easily translated it as "young
woman." However, the fact that they still translated this word into
the Greek as "parthenos" (virgin) shows that they went against
logic--which demands that only non-virgin women give birth--and they chose to
be true to the Hebrew they saw--which must have read "bethulah"
(virgin). However, our Masoretic
manuscripts today have "almah" ("young woman"). So amazingly, the Revised Standard Version’s translation saying “young woman”
is actually completely accurate to the Hebrew!
But because of Christianity, most translations abandon the Hebrew word
there and favor the Septuagint’s word: virgin.
When looking at the New Testament, we have seen six major differences
between the Septuagint and the Masoretic.
All of them had to do with prophecies about the Messiah. These differences will continue in future
videos in this series. One by one, we
will go through every New Testament quotation from the Old Testament. Stay tuned for those!
SEPTUAGINT'S LOST POPULARITY
So why is the Old Testament in every English Bible translated from the Hebrew
Masoretic instead of the Greek Septuagint?
If Jesus, the apostles, and the early church used the Septuagint, why don't
we?
First, we have to talk about the Jews.
Legend has it that around AD 90, the Jews called a meeting, called the
Council of Jamnia. There, they decided
to react to the rapid spread of Christianity.
They saw how the Christians were proving the deity of Jesus Christ
through the Septuagint. So they began saying that the
Septuagint was an inferior translation, abandoning it, even though it had been
fully approved for at least 300 years before the Christians came. The Hebrew manuscripts in their day had various differences. The Jews let the manuscripts that more
supported the prophecies about Jesus being deity and Messiah die off while they
let the manuscripts that minimized the prophecies about Jesus survive. The Jews might very well have altered some
Hebrew manuscripts. Though it is true that the Jews completely abandoned the
Septuagint because of Christianity, there is no evidence that the Council of
Jamnia itself was a real council.
But the sudden Jewish rejection of the Septuagint was so clear that, in
the second century, the Jews introduced three new Greek translations of the Old
Testament. These were translated by
Theodotion, Aquila of Sinope, and Symmanchus.
As time passed, the Jewish tradition of copying the Greek Septuagint was
lost in favor of these other translations.
The translations by Theodotion and Aquila
were different from the Septuagint. They
might have purposefully attempted to reduce the prophecies that proved Jesus
was the Messiah. For example, their translations did not translate Is 7:14 as
"virgin," as the Septuagint did, which is a major proof that Jesus is
the Christ, but they translated it as "young woman."
About that Irenaeus wrote,
Among those now presuming to expound
the Scripture, "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a
son," as interpreted by Theodotion the Ephesian and Aquila of Pontus, both
Jewish proselytes.... But [the
Septuagint] was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, long before the
period of our Lord's coming. [The Jews]
did put this interpretation of these words [that is, translating it
"virgin"]. They indeed, had
they known of our future existence..., would themselves never have hesitated to
burn their own Scriptures [that is, their copies of the Septuagint]. (ANF, vol 1, page 451.)
We saw how the Jews rejected the Septuagint. But the question remains: why do today's
English Bibles reject the Septuagint? When
the Reformation occurred in the 1500s, the Reformers went to the Masoretic Text
for two reasons. (1) It was in the possession of the Jews and (2) it was in the
Hebrew language. Certainly, going to the
Jews and the Hebrew language for the Old Testament is the best way to get it,
right? But the Reformers failed to recognize the value of the
Septuagint and how it was THE translation of the Old Testament for Jesus, the
apostles, and Pre-Nicene Christianity. They
also failed to recognize that the Septuagint manuscripts are over 1000 years older
than the Masoretic manuscripts and that the Septuagint had been translated and
accepted by the Jews before Christianity.
And this tradition from the Reformers has been passed down to today and
is why English Bibles are translated from the Masoretic Text.
PRE-NICENE CHRISITIANS
Here are some quotations from pre-Nicene Christians concerning their
belief that the Septuagint is superior to the Hebrew.
Irenaeus recognized that Jesus and the apostles followed the Septuagint
and agreed with it,
For the apostles, since they are of
more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this translation. And the translation harmonizes with the
tradition of the apostles. For Peter,
John, Matthew, Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers,
explained all prophecies just as the interpretation of the [seventy] elders
contains them. (Irenaeus. AD 180.
ANF, vol 1, page 452.)
As to why there was less content in the Hebrew than there was in the
Septuagint, Origen said that wicked Jews removed these additional passages. He wrote,
Why
then is the “History” not in their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand
down by tradition such stories? The
answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the
passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges, as
they could, some of which have been preserved in uncanonical writings (Apocrypha).
As an example, take the story told about
Isaiah; and guaranteed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is found in none of
their public books. For the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, in speaking of the prophets, and what they
suffered, says, “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with
the sword*.” To whom, I ask, does the
“sawn asunder” refer (for by an old idiom, not peculiar to Hebrew, but found
also in Greek, this is said in the plural, although it refers to but one
person)? Now we know very well that tradition says that Isaiah the prophet
was sawn asunder; and this is found in some apocryphal work, which probably the
Jews have purposely tampered with, introducing some phrases manifestly
incorrect, that discredit might be thrown on the whole.... Let us see now if in these cases we are not
forced to the conclusion, that while the Savior gives a true account of them,
none of the Scriptures which could prove what He tells are to be found. For they who build the tombs of the prophets
and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous, condemning the crimes their
fathers committed against the righteous and the prophets, say, “If we had been
in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the
blood of the prophets**.” In the blood of what prophets,
can anyone tell me? For where do we find
anything like this written of Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or any of the twelve [minor
prophets], or Daniel? Then about Zechariah
the son of Berechiah, who was slain between the temple and the altar, we learn
from Jesus only, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture. Wherefore I think no other supposition is
possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and
elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into
discredit among the people. We need not
wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders
against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by
men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders. In the Acts of the Apostles also, Stephen, in his other testimony, says, “Which
of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which showed before
of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers***.” That Stephen speaks the truth, everyone will
admit who receives the Acts of the Apostles; but it is impossible to show from
the extant books of the Old Testament how with any justice he throws the blame
of having persecuted and slain the prophets on the fathers of those who
believed not in Christ.... What I have said is, I think,
sufficient to prove that it would be nothing wonderful if this history were
true, and the licentious and cruel attack was actually made on Susanna by those
who were at that time elders, and written down by the wisdom of the Spirit, but
removed by these rulers of Sodom,**** as the Spirit would call them. (Origen.
AD 235. ANF, vol 4, page
388-389.)
*
Heb 11:37.
**
Matt 23:30.
***
Acts 7:52.
****
Reference to Is 1:10.
Origen said it was foolish for Christians to go to the Jews for the Old
Testament, especially when Jesus and the apostles used the Greek
Septuagint. Origen said this very sarcastically,
[Sarcastically:] Indeed!
When we notice such things [differences], we immediately reject as false
the copies in use in our Churches, [we] command the brotherhood to put away the
sacred books currently used among them, [and we] coax and persuade the Jews to
give us copies which will [certainly] be untampered with and free from forgery!
(Origen.
AD 235. ANF, vol 4, page 387.)
CONCLUSION
In the end, what should we do with the Masoretic? Should we throw it out along with all our
English Bibles which are translated from it?
No. The Masoretic is still
contains many strong prophecies that Jesus is the Messiah. Don't be afraid to use the Old Testament in
your Bible. But, be aware that the Old
Testament in your hands could be much more accurate.
If you consider yourself to be a student of the Bible and have been
convinced of the Septuagint's superiority, pray that it will become more
popular among Christians in the future.
You can help by sharing this series of videos with your friends and
church leaders.
Also, I highly recommend adding an English translation of the Septuagint
to your library. Here are a few good
options. Sir Lancelot Brenton's
translation is extremely good (which is used in this video). He translated it in the early 1800s, so it is somewhat
difficult to read. There is also the
NETS translation of the Septuagint which is currently free to download. And there is the Orthodox Study Bible. It is a 2008 translation of the Septuagint
with the New King James Version for the New Testament.
Again, this will be an on-going series. Videos following this one will go through the
New Testament and analyze each quotation from the Old Testament and compare
them between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. There is a link to the full playlist in the
description.
Thank you for
watching.
