Why the Greek Septuagint?

Understand that we didn’t start out with the thought of creating an entire Bible, but with just the intention of providing a more accurate and easier-to-read NT text. However, once that project was completed, we decided to continue translation of the OT using the Septuagint for the following reasons:

* No one here was qualified to translate the Hebrew and Aramaic texts (our expertise is ancient Greek)

* We could find no accurate and easy-to-read English texts of the Septuagint, so we felt that providing one would offer another look at what Bible readers understood it to say more than two-thousand years ago.

And after starting this massive project, we are delighted with what we have found, because it becomes very clear that there are many errors in the existing Hebrew and Aramaic texts that have gone unnoticed.

Is the Septuagint More Accurate?

Understand that there are problems with the Greek Septuagint text, as there are problems with the existing Hebrew texts. And while the Septuagint is older than the current Hebrew renderings, all we are providing is a translation of a translation, for the Septuagint was a translation from the ancient Hebrew text to begin with. This means that the wording can be no more accurate than the abilities of the purported seventy Jewish translators who each translated a portion of the Ancient Scriptures of Israel into Greek to create the Greek Septuagint. And the fact is; some did a much better job than the others did. And, there are several versions of the Septuagint available today that differ quite markedly.

However, the wording of the Septuagint does more closely resemble the wording of the most ancient existing Bible books that were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, so we must assume that much has been lost from the existing Hebrew and Aramaic texts. As the result, we suggest that you examine translations from both sources before drawing major conclusions.

It is interesting to note that the Septuagint appears to be the Bible of preference for the Apostle Paul, and by the mid-Second Century C.E., it was the preferred Bible of most (if not all) early Christians. In fact, Jewish scholars reject the Septuagint, because it is viewed as a ‘Christian Bible’… which causes us to wonder why Christians ever got away from using this text that was so important to First-Century Christians. For more information on the Septuagint and its sources, see the link Septuagint Online, and also, Septuagint Ten Commandments.

Few people (other than Bible translators) understand the profound effect that the Septuagint has had on the Christian Bible. For, several of the names of the OT books (such as Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc.) come from a Greek, not Hebrew, source. Also, many Bible names, such as Adam, Eve, David, etc., show a Greek influence and pronunciation (see the Note Eue, Euan or Eve?). So, the Septuagint has had a strong impact on Christians and their Bible, even when the text is being translated from Hebrew or Aramaic.

It has also been brought to our attention that some Hebrew scholars claim that the Septuagint was never a complete work and that it originally only contained the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy). They say that the addition of the rest of the books was a First-Century Christian fabrication, which was developed to slander the Jews. However, we have found no words condemning Israel and the Jews, which aren’t also found in the Hebrew/Aramaic texts; so this charge seems unfounded. In addition; the ancient name of this work, Septuagint (the Seventy), implies that those seventy Jewish scholars translated the entire Bible. And even if such claims were true (that the Septuagint originally only covered the Pentateuch and the remaining books were copied by Christians), they still represent older texts than what are currently available in Hebrew, and we have no reason to trust Hebrew scribes more than Christian scribes.

Proofs of Flaws in the Hebrew Text

One interesting proof that there may be problems in the Hebrew text can be found at Genesis 21:22, 32. And while no doctrinal changes are involved, it is significant that one name is found in the Greek text that isn’t found in the Hebrew, indicating that changes and errors have crept into the Hebrew text. The missing name is OchoZath, who is described as the ‘bride finder’ of King AbiMelech.

What is so significant about this, is that the particular portion of the Ancient Scriptures of Israel (the whole middle portion of Genesis) is written in the oldest form of Hebrew found in the Bible, a pre-Israelite dialect called Ugarit (from the tablets found in the ancient City of Ugarit on the coast of Modern Syria). This is likely Hebrew as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob spoke it before their descendant’s 400 years of captivity in Egypt, which surely affected their language. And, if this name (OchoZath) wasn’t in the original ancient Hebrew text, how would anyone have known about it to add it more than a thousand years later? We trust the Septuagint on this one, and believe that this proves there are other errors in the existing Hebrew text.

We also find the Septuagint’s rendering of Genesis 2:8-15 (that there was no ‘Garden of Eden,’ but it was called the ‘Paradise of Delights,’ and it was located on ‘the east side of the Land of Edom’) far more likely (see the account and the linked Notes). And there are several other scriptures where we’ve found reasons to trust the Septuagint text… but then again, we’ve also found many obvious errors in the Greek text.

Something that was recently brought to our attention, is there appears to be a discrepancy between the names found at Matthew 23:35 and Second Chronicles 24:20. The account in Matthew reads, ‘And then you will become responsible for all the righteous blood that was spilled on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of ZechariJah (the son of BarachiJah), who you murdered between the Holy Place and the Altar.’

However, the account in Second Chronicles says that ZechariJah’s father was JehoiAda (check your own Bible).

Then when we compared the Aramaic text of Matthew, we found the same names (with spelling variations) as in the Greek text of Matthew (that ZechariJah’s father was BarachiJah), and ZechariJah himself said his father’s name was BarachiJah, at Zechariah 1:1. So, we trust the name of ZechariJah’s father as it is shown in Matthew’s account.

Then why the discrepancy? Well, the Septuagint seems to be speaking of other people at Second Chronicles 24:20, for there it says: ‘Then the Breath of God came over AzariJah the Priest (who was JehoiAda’s son)!’

As you can see, it is quite evident that there is an error in the Hebrew-based text that is corrected in the Septuagint. For there it wasn’t the Prophet ZechariJah speaking, but the Priest AzariJah, who was the son of JehoiAda. And ZechariJah’s father was truly BarachiJah.

Also consider the content of the three following verses:

Amos 5:26 (Septuagint), ‘But then you took up with the tent of Molech, and the star of your god Raiphan… and images of them you made for yourselves.’

Amos 5:26 (Hebrew text), ‘And will actually carry Sukkuth your king, and Kaiwan, your images, the star of your god, whom you made for yourselves.’

Acts 7:43; ‘Rather, you took the images that you made for worship to the tent of Moloch and to the star of the god Rephan.’

So from Stephen’s words at Acts 7:43, which rendering of the names of Amos 5:26 seems to be correct? Judge for yourself. Of course, recognize that the slight differences in the spelling of the names are probably just the differences between the Hebrew and Greek pronunciations… or the natural changes in languages over hundreds of years.

And while speaking of stars, notice how even Jesus seems to have preferred the wording of the Septuagint to the existing Hebrew texts. For at Revelation 22:16 he said of himself: ‘I (Jesus) sent my messenger to [provide] you testimony about these things that are [coming] to the congregations. I am the root and the descendant of David… the bright morning star.’

These words appear to be taken from the Septuagint rendering of Psalm 110:3, where David wrote under inspiration: ‘In that mighty day you’ll be the sovereign, and in the brightness of your holy ones you will shine. For, since the time that you came from the womb, I made you to be the morning star.’

However, compare this to the way that the modern Hebrew-based texts render this verse (KJ): ‘Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.’

It just seems to make sense to us that; since Jesus mentioned David in the verse above, he was obviously quoting David’s famous words about the Messiah (at Psalm 110), and applying the words about the morning star to himself… yet there is no mention of the morning star in the Hebrew text. However, this could just be the result of mistranslating the Hebrew text.

To read about a verse that appears to be wrong in both the Masoretic and Septuagint texts, see the Note in Ephesians, Captives and Gifts.

The Changes We Have Made

The fact is; we are constantly finding obvious errors in both the Greek and Hebrew texts. Some are misspelled names, others are scribal notes that were included as text but shouldn’t have been; we have found portions or words that were copied from the wrong line, and we have found differences in chronology between the Hebrew and Greek texts. We can say this with surety because the errors are obvious. There is enough redundancy in the Bible, and we have two different texts to compare against each other (the Greek and the Masoretic), so where we find differences we are prompted to do research.

Unfortunately, most current English copies of the Septuagint include the Apocryphal books (writings that most Christian scholars reject as uninspired), because of its links to the Eastern Orthodox Church. We have examined these works, and although they may provide some valuable insights into Jewish history, we agree that they truly are uninspired writings, because they do not harmonize with the rest of the Bible, so we have not included them. Also, in the Septuagint there are extra Chapters at the end of the book of Daniel, which we feel are uninspired, so we have not included them either.

You will also notice that, for the purpose of helping American English readers, we have chosen the same names, order, and numbering of the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Psalms as found in most English Bibles based on the Hebrew/Aramaic texts.

Notice that there are thirty-eight extra verses in the Greek text of Lamentations Chapter Three, which appear to be authentic and inspired, and which seem to include a messianic prophecy! In fact, much of the text that follows is very different from that of the Hebrew text, and some of that also includes messianic prophecies. So, could this be the reason why the two texts read so differently today… could there have been anti-messianic bias on the part of Jewish copyists?

Also, notice that the Hebrew text totally fails to mention how women in Israel actually boiled and ate their own children during the famine in that city (which was prophesied in the Law), but you find this description at Lamentations 4:10 in just the Septuagint text.

Differences in Bible Books

One area where errors in the text become very clear is in the book of Psalms, for Hebrew songs and poetry follow clear guidelines or order and rhythm. Yet, some of the Psalms in the Greek text follow very little order or rhythm, indicating that much was lost in translation. However, when checking the same verses in the Hebrew text we find the same errors, leading us to conclude that either some existing Hebrew texts were translated from the Greek (a possibility), or that the song was poorly remembered by those who initially recorded it for posterity.

We recently read an online commentary about this Bible in which the writer called our selecting the Septuagint for its source foolish. For he asked: ‘What will they do when they get to the book of Isaiah where the text is totally different from what is found in the Hebrew text?’

In reply, we ask: ‘What about the Proverbs?’ The text there is also quite different from the Hebrew, and it makes more sense! So, which should we trust as being right? We are currently leaning toward the Septuagint, for the natural rhythm of the Greek text in the Proverbs shows that it more closely reflects the original writing of Solomon, which was obviously done as poetry.

Also, our translating of the book of Isaiah seems to make more sense than what we find in popular Hebrew texts; so could it be that this most maligned Greek text is more accurate than its Hebrew counterpart? If so, this could change many of the most important prophecies of the Bible.

The interesting thing about the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, is that in most cases where God (or His spokesman) speaks, the words were spoken in poetry… and this can be clearly seen in the Greek text! Yet, when we compare His words from modern translations of the Hebrew text, we find clunky, difficult wording that could never be fit into what is obviously the original poetry, and it often makes no sense at all.

For more information, see the linked document, The Bible’s Internal Proofs of its Authentic History.

Differences in Bible Names

One of the things you will notice in your reading of the Septuagint, is that many names and their pronunciations are quite different from what we find in Hebrew-based texts. However, recognize that due to its lack of vowels, and the many years that have elapsed since ancient Hebrew was spoken, no one knows how most words and names were actually pronounced in Hebrew. Yet in the Septuagint, we can see how Hebrew-speaking Jews thought they should be pronounced in Greek; so there is more reason to trust the Greek pronunciations. And in certain instances, you will find names totally changed (as in the names of the kings of Persia that are found in Ezra Chapter Four), but these names were apparently the ones that were in common use during the Third Century B.C.E.

Another example, which involves a difference in the names of a land or country, is found in the book of Job. For, at Job 1:1 we read that Job lived in the land of the Ausitidi in the Septuagint, but in the Hebrew text it says that he was from the land of Uz. Why the difference? Because the name of the land had probably changed by the time that the Greek text was translated. For more information, see the Note Who Was Job? in the book of Job.

We have also changed the spelling of many common names to more closely reflect how they were actually pronounced (for those who are interested), and to give you some idea of what those names meant to ancient Israelites. We realize that this will be unpopular with those who prefer familiarity to accuracy, but these changes should have been made by Bible translators hundreds of years ago (for more information see the Note Why the Name Changes?).

Home Page