The Greek translation of the Old Testament (OT), known as the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), was extremely influential on Jesus and the apostles. In fact, it was so influential that the New Testament (NT) authors usually quote from the Greek LXX rather than the Hebrew Old Testament (known at the Masoretic Text, or MT).
However, this regular quotation of the Greek LXX over the Hebrew MT raises many issues regarding the relationship of the different versions of the OT. The issues related to NT citations in particular are part of the field of study known as the “New Testament use of the Old Testament.”
The influence of the LXX is unsurprising since Greek was widely spoken by the Jews in Jesus’ day. The Hebrew Bible had been translated into Greek beginning in the 3rd century B.C. by Jews in Egypt, and thus the LXX became the common Bible of many Jews.
Problems Posed by the Septuagint
For the most part, the influence of the LXX on the NT is not a problem. We all rely on translations of the Bible today, and most of our English translations are quite good. However, translators can make mistakes. And this is seen in the LXX, as there are occasional mistranslations of the Hebrew Bible. For example, the book of Revelation cites the Greek Septuagint (LXX) of Psalm 2:9 three times (Revelation 2:27; 12:5; 19:15), saying that Jesus will “rule” the nations, whereas the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) says Jesus will “break” the nations. (A possible solution is provided below.)
Yet there are additional challenges specific to the LXX. For one, there are different versions of the LXX. As with all ancient documents, there were scribal errors in the copying and transmission of the text. So we have to carry out the science (and art) of textual criticism in order to determine the original words of the LXX (as we also do with the Hebrew MT and the Greek NT). However, this is complicated by the fact that the LXX underwent revisions (including those by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion). Thus, it is not entirely accurate to speak of one Greek translation of the OT, as there was the LXX and its variations. This is seen in the Hexapla by Origen (d. 254 AD), where he placed the Greek revisions in columns next to the LXX.
Another challenge of the LXX is that it includes books not found in the Hebrew Bible—what are often called the Apocrypha. Most of these are books originally written in Greek, so they are not translations. The Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox consider these books canonical. The Protestant Reformers rejected the Apocryphal books as Scripture because (1) they were not in the Hebrew Bible, (2) they were not cited as authoritative by the apostles, (3) and they were not considered canonical by most of the early church (though the church fathers still cited them and some of them did consider some Apocrypha to be Scripture).
Again, the reason the LXX is so important as an OT edition is that the NT apostles regularly quote from it. So, we are not dealing with just any translation of the Bible. Rather, we are dealing with a translation of the OT on which the authors of the NT heavily relied.
Thus, the issues of mistranslations and textual variations of the LXX are magnified. But I do not think Christians should shy away from these facts. Instead of avoiding this challenging issue, I want to face it head on. In particular, I want to ask the following question—What do we do if the apostles cite a passage from the Greek OT that is a mistranslation of the Hebrew OT?
This then leads to the question of this article’s title—Is the Greek Septuagint the Word of God? In other words, we will address whether Christians should consider the LXX to be a translation inspired by God’s Spirit in the same way as the Hebrew OT.
What About NT Citations of the Septuagint that Differ from the Hebrew?
In his book When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible, Timothy Michael Law makes a big deal of the LXX’s textual issues. Taking a more liberal approach to the Bible, he argues that there were actually different versions of the Hebrew text in the 3rd century BC when the LXX was translated. This complicates things further, as Law argues that the various editions of the LXX are not just a result of revisions, but they bear witness to different versions of the Hebrew text—“the forms that later became biblical books were in an extraordinary state of fluctuation between the third century BCE and second CE” (19).
Now, I think Law vastly overstates his case. He assumes the Hebrew Scriptures were far more diverse than they actually were, and he promotes skepticism about our knowledge of the OT canon. He even claims that “contradictions and inconsistencies” in the OT textual tradition do not seem to have been “problematic at all” to the people of the Bible times, but he does not explain why these supposed contradictions are not actually a problem for Christians (31).
Yet while Law overstates things, there are still very real challenges here for Christians to address. The most important question to me is this—What are we to do in cases where the NT quotations of the OT differ from the Hebrew version in our possession?
There may be occasions where there are textual variants of a NT text that quotes the OT (meaning there are different readings of the Greek NT passage). But assuming the NT text is secure, there are several possible conclusions we can draw in the cases where NT quotations differ from the Hebrew OT:
The NT authors erred by quoting Greek mistranslations/variants of the OT.
The Greek LXX is a more faithful witness to the OT Scriptures than our current Hebrew editions.
Greek mistranslations and variants of the OT become authoritative Scripture when quoted by God’s inspired apostles in the NT.
Liberal-critical scholars will certainly affirm view 1, but I think this undermines the Scriptures as God’s Spirit-expired Word (2 Timothy 3:16). How can we trust the Bible if it contains errors? Thus, view 1 is not an option for the orthodox Christian.
On the contrary, I think a combination of views 2 and 3 adequately address this issue. View 3 should be our starting point—whatever the apostles quote becomes God’s Word. This is true even of Greek philosophy (Acts 17:28) or adages of the day (Titus 1:12). It does not matter if the LXX translator erred (or used a loose translation of the Hebrew). If Paul or John quotes it, then we must consider it Scripture.
It is unclear how familiar all the NT authors were with the Hebrew OT text compared with the Greek LXX. If they were familiar with both and were aware of differences in a passage, and they still quoted the LXX, then they likely did this intentionally to make a theological point.
That being said, the Hebrew Bible is the original text breathed out by God, not the Greek LXX. We should primarily be reading from English versions directly translated from the Hebrew OT, not from the LXX (as the Eastern Orthodox churches do). However, the LXX in some sense is still the Word of God, just as our English translations are the Word of God. Such translations do not carry the exact authority of the original Hebrew OT and Greek NT, but faithful translations are God’s Word nonetheless. And the LXX translation was the OT that many of the apostles were most familiar with (which is why it is valuable for Christians to read the LXX today).
Yet there are times where the LXX may actually render a more faithful witness to the original Hebrew text (view 2). Thus, it is the task of textual criticism to use the LXX to help determine the original Hebrew reading (known as the Hebrew vorlage). Textual scholars differ over how often this is the case, but I do think there are occasions where the LXX provides a more faithful reading of the Hebrew original than the current Hebrew manuscripts we have. This is in part because we have far older manuscripts of the LXX than we do for our Hebrew manuscripts, most of which only go back to the Masoretic Text (MT) of the 10th century AD.
The Masoretes were faithful preservers of the Hebrew Bible and masters of the Hebrew language. But there are some problems with their text. For example, the Hebrew text of the book of Samuel is notorious for its textual problems. The LXX is very helpful here in establishing the original reading. Moreover, the Masoretes added vowel pointing to the Hebrew that may be incorrect at times. Thus, it is possible that the LXX translators actually got the Hebrew right when the Masoretic tradition got it wrong.
Example—Revelation’s Citation of the Septuagint Mistranslation of Psalm 2:9
Let’s look at Psalm 2:9 to demonstrate the above problem and offer a proposed solution. The Hebrew MT says:
You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel (ESV).
תְּרֹעֵם בְּשֵׁ֣בֶט בַּרְזֶ֑ל כִּכְלִ֖י יוֹצֵ֣ר תְּנַפְּצֵֽם׃
The Hebrew MT of Psalm 2:9 speaks of the Son “breaking” the nations with a rod of iron and dashing them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. This is the judgment the nations will face if they do not repent and submit to the Son of God.
However, the Greek LXX translates the Hebrew word “break” [תְּרֹעֵם] as “shepherd” [ποιμανεῖς]. This is because there are two Hebrew words with different meanings that sound exactly the same—raa (רעע, “to break” and רעה ,“to shepherd”). Here is the Greek version of Psalm 2:9 [LXX]:
You shall shepherd them with an iron rod; like a potter’s vessel you will shatter them (NETS).
ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ, ὡς σκεῦος κεραμέως συντρίψεις αὐτούς.
What is significant here is that the book of Revelation quotes the LXX version of Psalm 2:9 three times:
and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces (Revelation 2:27)
καὶ ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ ὡς τὰ σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται
She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron [ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ] (Revelation 12:5).
From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron [καὶ αὐτὸς ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ] (Revelation 19:15).
Many English versions, such as the ESV above, translate ποιμανεῖ as “rule” because it fits the context better than the literal “shepherd.” A comparison between the Greek of Revelation 2:27 and the Greek of Psalm 2:9 shows that Revelation follows the LXX very closely.
Timothy Law notes that Aquila and Symmachus, the revisers of the LXX, caught this mistranslation and corrected it to read “break” in Greek, in accordance with the Hebrew text. Law says Revelation’s following of the LXX is important because “it contains an obviously erroneous reading of an Old Testament passage that was left uncorrected by the New Testament writer” (When God Spoke Greek, 115).
However, there are two issues in addressing this problem. First, it is not certain that the LXX got Psalm 2:9 wrong. It is possible that “shepherd/rule” is the correct reading and that the MT has the vocalization of the Hebrew consonants wrong (and thus Aquila and Symmachus were also wrong). In such a case, the LXX properly translated the original Hebrew, and the Hebrew MT got the vowels of the word wrong. This would mean the mistake was in the Masoretes’ vowel pointing of the Hebrew of Psalm 2:9, not the LXX translation of the Hebrew (nor the NT quotation of the LXX).
But let’s assume the LXX is wrong and that John in Revelation quotes a mistranslated LXX text. This raises a second issue—What would a NT quote of a mistranslated LXX text mean for us? The important thing is that we should not assume Revelation is in error. As argued above, whatever the NT authors cite becomes Scripture. This does not mean the entire LXX is breathed out by God. But it does mean that the LXX reading of Psalm 2:9 is breathed out by God as quoted in Revelation. It is possible that John knew about the difference between the LXX and the MT here and still chose to quote the LXX in order to make a theological point.[1] In this case, he wanted to emphasize Jesus’ rule over the nations (or shepherding of them) rather than His breaking them.
Conclusion
Following the view advocated above, we conclude that the Hebrew MT of Psalm 2:9 is true (the Son shall “break” the nations), and the Greek LXX of Psalm 2:9 is also true (the Son shall “rule/shepherd” the nations). Both are true because both are contained in the canonical text of the Bible (the latter being quoted in the NT).
Thus, we need not worry that the NT authors occasionally cite variants or even mistranslations of the Septuagint (LXX). The NT authors, inspired by God’s Spirit, cited the text at hand, which was often the Greek LXX. They may have even known of differences between the MT and LXX and cited the LXX to make a theological point.
This should not lead us to hold too high a view of the LXX (i.e. that it is inspired in the same way as the original Hebrew). Rather, it should lead us to hold a high view of the Greek NT, in addition to a high view of the original Hebrew OT. Whatever God breathed out in the Greek NT, including quotations from the LXX, is the Word of God.
[1] Moises Silva has a helpful article dealing with the quotation of Genesis 47:31 in Hebrews 11:21, where he discusses possible solutions and argues that the author of Hebrews deliberately quoted the LXX’s “staff” instead of the MT’s “bed” in order to make a theological point. See Moises Silva, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Text Form and Authority,” in Scripture and Truth, D.A. Carson and John Woodbridge, eds. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992), 147-165.
*For those wanting to study the Septuagint further, I recommend the book Invitation to the Septuagint by Jobes and Silva.
Postscript
After writing the above article, I came across Moises Silva’s excellent review of Timothy Law’s When God Spoke Greek in the Westminster Theological Journal, 76/1 (Spring 2014), 222-228. Silva shows how Law overstates his case for different textual traditions, which includes ignoring the substantial agreement between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the MT. Here is a notable comment by Silva: “Moreover, since the author has a thesis to prove, it is understandable that he would want to present his arguments in toe most favorable light and to play down unfavorable evidence. The problem, however, is that the book is clearly intended for a general audience that he considers uninformed about these matters—in other words, readers who need and deserve a balanced and unprejudiced discussion, not a fragmented picture that can only prove misleading” (224).
