Septuagint: The Greek Old Testament – Authorized Version Blog

Note: Click the blue numbered links to expand the footnotes on this page

We have a few important points to review regarding the Septuagint, which have not already been discussed more broadly on other pages. The Septuagint is a translation of the Old Testament into Greek. This translation is commonly referred to as “LXX”. The Septuagint has this name (LXX meaning Seventy) due to the fact that it was supposed to have been transcribed by seventy “elders” of Israel. The beginning of this translation is usually placed in the city of Alexandria in the third century BC, at the earliest date, which is the usual date ascribed to it by ancient sources mentioning it.

In any case, it is important to note that the Septuagint is often claimed to be the unique source for many of the direct quotes of the Old Testament that are found within the New Testament. This translation, containing the Old Testament in Greek, is often mentioned as an equally ancient source as the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, having been given in very ancient times based on its translation date in the 3rd century BC. However, the implication of making such a comparison is that the original Hebrew version of the Old Testament must be lost – for if the original Old Testament exists today, it would surely take priority in understanding the Old Testament over a later translation of the same Scriptures, such as what the LXX is commonly understood to be.

The matter of preservation of the original inspired scriptures, including the Old Testament, has been discussed in this post. The arguments and details of interest related to this are available on that page. Based on the observations explained there, we mention that the original Old Testament existed long before this Greek version was made. The LXX translation is undoubtedly a translation, so it must derive its authority from the source in the original languages that it was translated from. However, there are no received original-language manuscripts that agree with the LXX to provide this. As a translation, the Septuagint naturally should have a source in the original language. In reality, it is standalone. In fact, it will be explained that we are not in possession of the original LXX translation (the one that was made in the third century BC) either. Rather, what we have today is but a rescension of this Greek version of the Old Testament, with additional alterations that have been made within it up until the third century AD before it has reached us in its complete form.

The version of the LXX that now survives (or is extant) can be shown to differ substantially from the original-language, received sources of the Old Testament, which the Authorized Version (KJV) and other received-text translations use as a basis to translate the Old Testament. This would be the original “Hebrew version” of the Old Testament.

Before I begin, I want to highlight one thing: the language of the Old Testament is not entirely Hebrew, although primarily it is. Some portions are written in a language that is called Syriac-Chaldee Aramaic, or just Syriac-Aramaic for short. A few passages, mainly Ezra 4:8 – 6:18, Ezra 7:12 – 7:26 and Daniel 2:4b – 7:28, based on modern-day chapter and verse divisions, are written in this language, instead of Hebrew. But for the sake of brevity I will in this article a refer to it as the Hebrew Old Testament, as the majority is written in this language.

We can now discuss the central points and the controversies.

Some assert that the New Testament (which is also written in Greek) must have drawn its quotations from the LXX. It is reasoned that this is where the Septuagint derives its authority, for the New Testament writers supposedly quoted from it. However, this is not required to be the case. Neither premise nor conclusion is necessarily the case. In fact, such an idea supposes that the original language source for the Old Testament, which this Greek translation must have been based on originally (as we are told), is lost. The only other way to avoid this conclusion would be to admit that the LXX must be a corruption of its own real source, since there is no complete Hebrew equivalent to it. Then it might still be possible that the source for the Septuagint could be found among extant Hebrew literature. The fact is that no existing Hebrew Old Testament agrees with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Advocates of the Greek Septuagint are caught between these alternatives, as we do not have a copy of a Hebrew Old Testament that confirms what the Greek LXX version contains.

In fact, it is even true that the original form of the LXX itself is known to be significantly different from what we call the Hexaplar LXX. The Hexaplar LXX is the form of the Septuagint that has survived until today, as we mentioned before. Origen, a writer of the 3rd century AD, author of the Hexapla, was involved in editing this Old Testament version. The LXX is contained within the Hexapla as one of the six parallel columns. This version of the LXX is the oldest surviving complete rescension of the LXX now. The Hexaplar LXX may be substantially different from the older, third century BC version, of which there is no complete copy. In fact according to sources of the time,¹ the original LXX may have only included the Pentateuch, which are the original five books of Moses. In this translation, there may have also been a limited number of other texts in addition to this, but there is no indication that the original LXX comprised of a complete Old Testament. Whatever translations of the remaining part of the Old Testament that were made between the 3rd century BC and the 3rd century AD would have been performed by other translators besides the original seventy elders, and this material may have been compiled together by Origen into the form that it is now known today. This Hexaplar rescension of the LXX could differ in any number of details from older versions of the Septuagint translation which preceded the Hexapla.

For instance, it would have been possible for later compilations of the LXX to emerge, centuries after the original LXX was made, which added new materials from the translation work of various other men who translated other parts of the Old Testament into Koine Greek. This would have eventually resulted in the Hexaplar LXX that Origen published in the 3rd century AD. Origen, working from 3rd century Egypt, could have taken isolated excerpts of Greek translations of the Old Testament from historical works that had been written before his day and placed them into the Hexaplar LXX. This may also give the Hexapla version of the LXX the appearance of having existed when those historical works were written, although it is in fact a compilation of those historical works rather than their actual source.

Some supporters of the LXX have said that the original Hebrew version, on which the LXX was originally based (they say), is now lost. Taking this into consideration, this is not much different from the claims being made by others about the New Testament, and the corresponding suggestion that the original language form that it was given in has been lost as well. Once this proposition has been suggested, an “imperfect” solution is proposed, which is to refer to a translation of the (lost) original. However, said version is not held to be entirely accurate, being a translation of the original and not the original version itself. To suppose that the original-language copies of God’s word are lost now, is essentially the same as saying that some part of God’s original word was lost in transmission between today and the time that it was given.

Similar to this, those who advocate for the LXX fall into this same assumption that the original Hebrew Old Testament was lost. This is because, if they did believe that the original Hebrew Old Testament was extant, then there would be no reason not to refer to it primarily, instead of referring to a Greek translation that was made later. By this it can be seen that the advocates for these versions only attempt to find an approximation to the original. They do not claim to have an accurate copy of the original text of the Bible, or to be making a translation of it, when they translate the Septuagint into languages like English.

Most importantly, the position taken by advocates of a less-than-completely-accurate source for Scripture seem to contradict passages of Scripture. Consider what it says in Isaiah 59:21.² This passage of Scripture teaches that the original word will never be lost. Also see Psalm 119:160, which says “Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.” And Proverbs 30:5 which also says, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” Likewise also with Isaiah 40:8³, Isaiah 55:11⁴, and many other prophecies of Scripture.

Now that we have established central points of the discussion, let us take a look now at the claim that the Septuagint must have been used by the New Testament authors. As mentioned before, it is important to start by making an important distinction. The original Greek translation, from around the 3rd century B.C. timeframe, is not exactly the same as the version of the LXX that we have today. The only surviving complete version of the LXX comes from one source: Origen of Alexandria. As we have pointed out, his work was in the third century AD.

Produced around A.D. 240, Origen’s project was known as the “Hexapla.” The Hexapla was an interlinear Bible. Of interest within this interlinear work is the fifth column out of the six-column parallel, which contained the recension of the “Septuagint” provided by Origen. Later manuscripts of the LXX, as well as modern editions, are reliant on the Hexapla for the completion of the Old Testament.

So, the text that we have today is referred to as the Hexaplar Septuagint. This is not to be confused with the translation⁵ which was originally mentioned in historical sources as the “Septuagint.” It might be anachronistic therefore to ascribe the name “Septuagint” to a work that may not have been fully completed until about five centuries later, and that by other people than the original 70 or 72 translators. The modern version of the LXX is known primarily and substantially from Origen’s version. And Origen’s version of the Septuagint is known to contain interpolations, that is, additions by the editor of the Hexapla. To be blunt, the Scripture text itself, in at least some places, was changed during the production of the Hexapla. The same therefore can be said for the version of the LXX that has been in use, since at least the 3rd century AD.

One problem therefore with the claim that the New Testament must provide authority to the Hexaplar Septuagint, is the fact that the Hexaplar Septuagint was authored and written after the New Testament. So it is possible for its writers to have substituted any Scripture quotation directly from the New Testament into their translation of the Old Testament. This is effectively a form of back-translation.

This method, if used, would represent a huge loss to translational accuracy of many places of the Old Testament. This is because there are many cases in the New Testament where a quotation of the Old Testament Scripture is not completely exact, as it is sometimes more of a paraphrase or a loose quote of the Old Testament. This, in and of itself, is not typically seen as a problem. No matter what text of the Old Testament is being used, the New Testament does not always quote it exactly the same in every instance. In some places, the New Testament writers were inspired to quote as exactly from the Old Testament as is possible in Greek, while other times their quotes are not exact and they only reflect the Old Testament text approximately rather than exactly. This is still true regardless of whether one compares the New Testament with the Hebrew Old Testament or with the Hexaplar LXX version of the Old Testament.

The above fact becomes relevant for us, because those who back-translate an inexact quote are effectively copying from the New Testament, rather than performing the most accurate translation of the underlying Hebrew, in many cases. If the writers of the New Testament had given a more paraphrased quote of the Old Testament in a place, but then the editors of the Hexaplar LXX placed that New Testament Greek text directly into their translation of the Old Testament, this would give an appearance of being the source from which the New Testament had drawn from. However, this would not be the case – and furthermore, the Old Testament translation in these places would not be as exact as if they had directly translated into Greek from the Hebrew, instead of back-translating the New Testament.

It becomes more obvious from this situation that we cannot conclude that a version of the Old Testament is authoritative simply because it has certain similarities to the New Testament. This is especially true if the text was written and produced after the New Testament itself was written. As an extreme example to demonstrate this point, if my own book quotes the New Testament in some places, that does not make everything written in that same book as authoritative as the New Testament.

A similar argument to that used in favor of the Septuagint has also been used by others in an attempt to promote writings, such as the book(s) of Enoch, as inspired Scripture. The argument has been made on the basis that one line of script in the book of Enoch matches a quotation from a place in the New Testament.⁶

But in this case, is it not just as likely that the book (or books) of Enoch, and possibly other books, were composed by simply copying from parts of scripture, or from some third source, and that this process of copying a portion of scripture into another book was entirely separate from the divine inspiration of scripture itself?

As we begin to look at some specific evidence in the Hexaplar Septuagint, there are quite clear indications that an attempt was indeed made to synchronize this version of the Septuagint with the New Testament, and that in a very unmistakeable way. If there was a desire to have an Old Testament that more closely matches the New Testament, that would provide a motive to explain at least some of the changes or modifications in the LXX that we observe to exist relative to the original Hebrew Old Testament. Consider firstly what the book of Genesis says in chapter 46—

And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.
— Genesis 46:27 (Authorized Version – A.V./KJV)

In the Septuagint, the number given at this place is not seventy,⁷ but seventy-five. In other words, the LXX changes the number in this verse of Genesis: up from seventy, to seventy-five. However, in the New Testament in Acts the reader actually does see seventy-five:

Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls. — Acts 7:14 (A.V.)

So what is the difference here? Well, reading the whole chapter of Genesis 46 provides a long list of the “souls of the house of Jacob.” In fact in Genesis 46, the Bible lists all seventy persons by name. Included in this list are Jacob, Joseph, and the two sons of Joseph. In verse 26,⁸ as underlined in footnote, observe that the wives of the patriarchs are not supposed to be included in this count, according to the text of Genesis 46:26.

On the other hand, the words spoken by Stephen in Acts 7:14⁹ give the number as seventy-five. Observe something about this: this number cannot be including Joseph! Stephen, in Acts, mentions that Joseph called seventy-five people, but this group excludes exactly six: the person himself (Joseph didn’t call himself into Egypt), it excludes his sons Ephraim and Manasseh (they were born there), Jacob himself (is mentioned separately), and lastly, Hezron and Hamul (were unborn, see Genesis 38:29, 46:12). On the other hand, the seventy-five mentioned here includes the wives of the other patriarchs, besides Joseph. By starting with 70, removing six and adding eleven, we bring the total number of Acts 7:14 to 75. (70 → 64 → 75).

We can look at this another way. There are 64 persons found in both groups. But the Genesis 46 group also absolutely includes Joseph, Jacob, his two sons, and the two (unborn) sons of Phares. 64 increases to 70. The Acts 7:14 group, instead, has the wives of the 11 patriarchs, thereby increasing the number from 64 to 75. This is the explanation of this discrepancy. The two groups cannot be exactly the same, as it makes no sense for Joseph to have invited himself (somehow) or his two sons into Egypt, if they were already there when Joseph sent the invitation.

At the same time, Joseph is clearly counted among the 70 in Genesis 46:27, even though he is not in the 75 of Acts 7:14.

However, the Hexaplar Septuagint does not seem to recognize this difference. The LXX in the passage in Genesis 46 has increased the number from 70 to 75, as mentioned earlier. The tally of individuals in the chapter is deliberately modified in such a way that Genesis 46:27 comes out with a different total. In the LXX, it says seventy-five.¹⁰ This in fact appears to be a clumsy attempt to make the passage agree with Acts 7:14.

In the process however, this change to the chapter of Genesis 46 creates a contradiction. The seventy-five individuals which Joseph invited into Egypt (Acts 7:14¹¹) could not have included himself. So the two groups cannot be exactly the same. Yet, Joseph is still listed as one of the 70 (or 75) persons counted in Genesis 46. No matter what, the groups of Genesis 46 and Acts 7 have to be slightly different groups (one contains Joseph and the other does not, as Joseph did not invite himself into Egypt). With the changes made in the Septuagint, the numbers no longer add up correctly in this version. But the numbers do add up correctly when Acts 7:14 in the New Testament is combined with the Hebrew Old Testament which has “70” in Genesis 46:27.

In addition to what was mentioned above, the LXX version also changes a nearby passage in Exodus 1:5¹² in the same way again: The Septuagint also says seventy-five instead of seventy in Exodus 1:5, which is the same change that occurred over in Genesis 46:27.

However the most interesting fact remains. There is still a third mention of the seventy souls that was not changed in the Septuagint. For that, see Deuteronomy 10:22.¹³ In the book of Deuteronomy, both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Hexaplar Septuagint write seventy (and neither one says seventy-five). So in conclusion, we see that in two out of three places, the LXX differs from the Hebrew Old Testament by writing the number 75 instead of 70. But in Deuteronomy 10:22, both versions still contain the number 70. Whoever seems to have originally changed the first two numbers (Gen. 46:27, Exod. 1:5 – two nearby passages), from 70 to 75 in the LXX – is it possible that this person forgot or overlooked this third reference to the 70 persons in Deuteronomy 10:22?

In any case, the Hebrew Old Testament says seventy in all three places. The Septuagint however, gives the number as seventy-five in Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, but in a strange twist, it– still – gives the number as seventy in Deuteronomy 10:22.

This would seem to create another contradiction inside of the LXX. This discrepancy seems to be an inconsistency by comparison. The LXX does not give the same number in all three places. The LXX says 75 in both Genesis and Exodus, but it says 70 in Deuteronomy 10:22. The Hebrew Old Testament says 70 in all three passages, so it is more consistent. In addition to this, the LXX also has the problem we mentioned previously, of contradicting Acts 7:14 when it gives the total count as being 75 in Genesis and Exodus. The question is, did someone copy the number 75, directly from Acts 7:14, into the Hexaplar LXX at Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, and was this a clumsy attempt to make the two passages match in number, during the composition of the Hexaplar Septuagint?

And, why was the number 70 seemingly missed or not changed in Deuteronomy 10:22 of the LXX to reflect these changes? What other way is there to explain these things?

In conclusion, then, here is one significant difference that exists between the Hebrew “received” Old Testament and the Greek LXX, or Septuagint, version of the Old Testament.

Investigation of more Scripture passages reveals more evidence of a tendency for LXX writers to synchronize the LXX Old Testament with the New Testament:

Let us take a look at an addition of words that was made, relative to the Hebrew Old Testament, in the LXX passage Genesis 11:12-13. The name Cainan was added to the LXX genealogy in this passage.

The name Cainan is in fact to be found in the New Testament, and exists as a name at this same place in the genealogy of Luke 3:36.¹⁴ Since this extra Cainan (not to be confused with Cainan, son of Enos¹⁵) is not found except in Luke 3:36, we know that the writers of the Hexaplar Septuagint could have, and were most likely to have, obtained it from that source.

It is easy to understand that this name would have been added into the LXX in Genesis 11, according to the same rationale also used in Genesis 46 and Exodus 1, to change the numerical values in order to make them match the New Testament.

This change in Genesis 11 is further grounds to explain the reason behind certain differences that can be found in the LXX version of Genesis. That is, someone involved in the production of the Hexaplar LXX may have copied the extra name found in Luke 3:36 directly into Genesis 11 in the LXX, in order to “synchronize” (make their version match with), Luke 3:36 in the New Testament.

This difference with Luke 3:36 can be explained without the use of synchronization however, because the geneaology of Luke 3 is actually given differently than the others. A careful reader will notice that the list in Luke chapter 3 proceeds in reverse chronological order, and Luke calls each person the son of the next person mentioned. This unusual reverse chronological ordering, and using the term “son of,” instead of “begat,” should be a potential clue that this list in Luke 3 may be different than other genealogies.

In fact, we know the above is true. At the beginning of the list, Luke places Joseph as the son of Heli,¹⁶ who was the biological father of Mary. Recall from Matthew 1 that Joseph’s biological father was Jacob.¹⁷ This need not contradict Luke in chapter 3 of the Gospel of Luke, because Joseph could also be the son-in-law of Heli. This is further supported by the fact that Jesus is listed as “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” in this same list, supporting this inference.

If Luke includes son-in-laws, then Joseph would appear in Luke’s list as being the son-in-law of Heli. For this same reason, it is also possible that Cainan was the son-in-law of Arphaxad.

One of many possible explanations could be that the patriarch Arphaxad may have only had daughters by the time he was 35, and he might have allowed Cainan to be his heir as son-in-law. Thus, Cainan would not appear in the list in Genesis 11, as he was not begotten by Arphaxad. But in this scenario, Cainan’s son, Selah, would be the descendant of Arphaxad. If this is true, Cainan would not appear in any other geneology but Luke 3, since he is a son-in-law of Arphaxad, while Selah is the next begotten. If the genealogy of Genesis 11 had a gap from grandfather to grandchild (Arphaxad to Selah), this would not be the only example of such a gap within the Old Testament¹⁸ or the New Testament¹⁹. And this is only one possible way to explain how Cainan might be considered a son-in-law of Arphaxad, being both the son of Arphaxad as well as having Selah be a son to him.

But, as the example with the numerical change in Genesis 46 and Exodus 1, a hasty editor might still be motivated to change Genesis 11 against its original form in order to match Luke, regardless of these considerations. This is what has apparently happened in the LXX version of Genesis 11. As with the initial example shown from the LXX with Acts 7:14 influencing a change to Genesis and Exodus, this editor may have had Luke 3:36 in mind when they added the name Cainan (and made the necessary adjustments) to Genesis chapter 11 in the Hexaplar Septuagint. Therefore, we see some additional reason to believe that the Hexaplar LXX was “synchronized” with the New Testament in certain places.

There are more significant differences with the Septuagint than what has been discussed so far. As a third example, an extra line can be found in Psalm 145 of the LXX— specifically there is an extra line added between the thirteenth and fourteenth verses here. Typically, one will find that verse 13 of Psalm 145 (note that Psalm 145 is numbered 144 according to LXX numbering²⁰) is twice the length of the other verses, due to the added words in the LXX version of Psalm 145:13. The reason why this particular line seems to be added is because Psalm 145 has the form of an acrostic.

Psalm 145 is an acrostic, where each verse in the original language actually begins with a very specific letter of the Hebrew alphabet: The first word of verse 1 starts with aleph, which is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Then the first word of verse 2 starts with beth, the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and so on through the entire 22-letter Hebrew alphabet.

However, there is an exception in this Psalm in the Hebrew Old Testament. The 14th letter is skipped over in the 145th Psalm. While verse 13 starts with the 13th letter, verse 14 instead starts with the 15th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, then verse 15 with the 16th letter, and so on. In other words, the 14th letter is skipped in the Hebrew form of Psalm 145. In this exact place, between the 13th and 14th verses, the Hexaplar Septuagint adds an extra line. This extra phrase reads as follows: “The Lord is faithful in his words, and holy in all his works.”

However, an attentive reader will notice that this “missing” verse, at the end of Psalm 145:13, is simply the text of Psalm 145:17 with one word changed, where it says “faithful” instead of “righteous”!²¹

Upon examination, the insertion of the (Greek) word for “faithful” in this place was likely intended to imply that there stood in this place the Hebrew word for “faithful,” which is written: נֶאֱמָ֥ן = “nman.” This word for “faithful” starts with ‘nun,’ the 14th letter, thereby creating a 14th verse wherein the acrostic is supplied with its apparently “missing” 14th line.

The motivation for why someone would want to modify this Psalm from the form that it is found in the Hebrew Old Testament, which is normally 21 verses long, reflecting 21 out of the 22 Hebrew letters of the alphabet, is clear. Someone might want to add an extra verse between verses 13 and 14 in order to have Psalm 145 become 22 verses for 22 letters. This is exactly the change that we observe here. However, it is accomplished by taking the text of verse 17 and changing one word, so that the added text has a word that (if it were written in Hebrew) starts with the 14th letter instead of the 17th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This was then handed down to us via the LXX.²²

However, there is no reason to see a problem with Psalm 145 in its Hebrew form, with 21 verses. For instance, in Psalm 37, which is another acrostic Psalm just as Psalm 145 is, the 16th letter is also not included, although the other 21 letters are present in the acrostic of Psalm 37.

Psalm 25, yet another Psalm with an acrostic, has two letters (the 6th and 19th letters) excluded.²³ It’s not seen as a problem that the acrostics in either of these two Psalms cover fewer than 22 letters. Similarly, the fact that Psalm 145 has a small gap in its acrostic pattern is not considered to be a problem. One explanation for such a thing is that the omission of a letter is intentional. For example, the omission of a letter could indicate (or bring to mind) a certain word that starts with the said letter, which might be implied by the surrounding letters. These are things to think about. One therefore should not be so anxious to correct these things, as if there is an error in them.

We should always prefer the original version of the 145th Psalm. There is no reason to prefer anything which has any extra lines added in the main text, even if that extra line is almost identical to a nearby verse. In fact, one possible explanation for why the Septuagint contains this extra line may be that it has originally been added to the LXX as a way to make LXX seem, to the untrained, to be the more authentic version. The version of this Psalm (with the extra line added) could become a convenient example of a seemingly “complete” 22 lines with 22 letters. This could be used to make the Hebrew version seem like a corruption, by comparison.

It is a fact that the Septuagint version Psalm 145 has 22 lines for 22 letters, while the Hebrew Psalm 145 as we know it, with 21 lines, has a gap in the acrostic pattern by comparison. But, as we have said, Psalm 37 and Psalm 25 have a similar situation as the Hebrew Psalm 145: One or more letters from the acrostic is not present in each of these Psalms. But if a person is not aware of these facts, the difference between the two versions of Psalm 145 might then be used in order to make the LXX look authentic. This addition to Psalm 145 could have originated with a similar motivation as the changes in Genesis 46 and Exodus 1, and the change in Genesis 11 with Cainan as well.

We have seen three examples now, where the text of the Septuagint may have been altered to make it seem to be the authentic version.

Moving to more examples, there are other major issues with the Septuagint as compared to the Hebrew Bible which we can get into. One of the first cases I want to mention involves the timeline of the patriarchs leading to Noah, and their ages given in the 5th chapter of Genesis.

By comparison to the Hebrew version of Genesis ch. 5, the LXX has some changes in the ages of the patriarchs which creates a timeline where Methuselah, the ancestor of Noah, outlives the flood of Noah by a full 14 years!²⁴²⁵ Of all the contradictions to be found in the Septuagint, this is one of the earliest as well as the most blatant that could be found. We should note that the apostle Peter states²⁶ that there were eight souls who were saved from the flood: Noah, his three sons, and their wives. If Methuselah, the ancestor of Noah, lived fourteen years after the flood, then he would be a ninth person to outlive the flood, which would make Peter’s statement not entirely accurate in 1 Peter 3:20, which says that eight souls were saved from the flood.

This alone shows that somewhere in the LXX version of Genesis 5, one of these numbers must be inaccurate. Otherwise, it contradicts 1 Peter 3:20 and the clear meaning of what was said in Genesis chapters 7 and 8.

Apart from all these examples, one book of the Old Testament that is altered very substantially in the Septuagint is the book of Jeremiah. Overall, about 1/8 of the entire book of Jeremiah is missing from the Septuagint. Whole sections of chapters – such as the entire second half of Jeremiah 33 – are completely missing in the LXX.

The second half of Jeremiah 33 happens to contain a prophecy about the Davidic kingdom. Jeremiah 33:15 says, “In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.” This is an example of a Bible prophecy that is completely removed from the LXX version of this book. The next eleven verses of Jeremiah chapter 33 are also skipped over in the LXX. And this is just a small part of the total amount of omitted or removed passages and verses in the LXX version of Jeremiah. I have provided, in full, below, a table of the omissions within the LXX which omit an entire verse (or more).

If one counts all of the missing words from Jeremiah in the LXX, it has been calculated that about 2700 words, or 1/8 of the book, is missing. This 12.5% of Jeremiah is an even greater proportion than the 7% of the New Testament that is missing (or substantially changed) in the Alexandrian text or critical text used by modern Bible versions, in their representations of the New Testament. If one holds these versions to be inaccurate, one might also consider holding the LXX version of Jeremiah to be inaccurate.

For the book of Jeremiah in the LXX, there are other changes still beside everything that has been mentioned which produce various inaccuracies in meaning of the text itself, even where it hasn’t been removed. These constitute additional errors or contradictions in the Septuagint.

Let us take a quick look at Jeremiah 37:1. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the name “Coniah the son of Jehoiakim” is mentioned in this verse. However, in the LXX this name replaced with “Jehoiakim”. So, in the LXX, one person’s name is changed out for another. Where the Hebrew Old Testament mentions Coniah (i.e. Jehoiachin or Jeconiah), the Greek LXX version says Jehoiakim. It is important to distinguish these two people, because Coniah is the son of Jehoiakim, and is therefore not Jehoiakim himself.

Let us consider the full context of Jeremiah 37:1— “And king Zedekiah the son of Josiah reigned instead of Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, whom Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made king in the land of Judah.”

Now, if the name “Coniah the son of Jehoiakim” is replaced simply with ‘Jehoiakim,’ then that changes the meaning of this verse in Jeremiah. The meaning of Jeremiah’s prophecy is changed here to imply that Zedekiah succeeded Jehoiakim, rather than that Zedekiah succeeded Jehoiakim’s son Coniah. Coniah reigned for three months and ten days²⁷ between the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah. We know the fact of who succeeded Jehoiakim. According to other passages of Scripture, outside of Jeremiah 37:1, the successor of Jehoiakim was his immediate son Coniah. After three months and ten days under Coniah, then Zedekiah reigned. Jeremiah in the Hebrew version of Jeremiah 37:1 confirms that. But the LXX instead changes the name here, replacing the name of Coniah with that of Jehoiakim. But in fact Zedekiah did not reign after Jehoiakim – he reigned after Coniah, who was the son of Jehoiakim.

Here is one example of a change from the Septuagint in the book of Jeremiah. In the case of Jeremiah 37:1, the change is not even to the extent of an entire verse being omitted, it is only a single name being changed. As it says in Ecclesiastes, “Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.”

Consider another small but subtle change to the wording in Jeremiah 30:9 between the Hebrew and LXX versions. Below are the KJV and Septuagint versions of this verse placed side by side. You are invited to consider the differences that exist between the two following verses:

“But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them.”
– Jeremiah 30:9 (KJV)

“but they shall serve the Lord their God; and I will raise up to them David their king.”
– Jeremiah 30:9 (LXX)

Although the word change is subtle, the difference is enormous. The Hebrew Old Testament says that they shall serve both the Lord their God as well as David their king (whom he will raise up to them) in the same capacity.

The Greek LXX version of Jeremiah 30:9 omits the mention of serving the king, whom the prophecy says God shall raise up. It does say that God shall raise up this king, but it does not say that the people shall serve him. In the Hebrew Old Testament, this is significant. This prophecy places this future king on the same level as God; both God and the king who is to be raised up are being served in the same capacity. However, the LXX does not include this extra detail. This is one of many examples of changes in the book of Jeremiah within the LXX.

Below is the table of removals—

Omitted verses from the LXX version of Jeremiah (chapter and verse):
7:1
8:10b-13a
10:6-9a, 9c-10
11:7-8
17:1-5a
25:13b-14
27:1, 7, 12b-13, 20b-21
29:16-20
30:10-11, 22
33:14-26
39:4-13
46:26
48:44b-47
49:6
51:44b-49a
52:2-3, 15, 27b-30

Verses omitted and replaced with different reading:
27:17
46:1

Verses omitted in the 1935 edition LXX, but present in the Brenton 1844 LXX translation:
2:1
27:17
30:15
46:1

In addition to the above removals, the “nine judgments” against the nations, which are usually referred to as Jeremiah chapters 46-51, are removed from their usual place in the LXX. These chapters are reinserted (in a different order) immediately after Jeremiah 25:13 in the LXX. If the usual ordering of the nine judgements is ordered 1 through 9, then in the LXX they are given in the ordering 8, 1, 9, 2, 5, 4, 6, 7, 3.²⁸ In the LXX, these passages are given chapter and verse numbers from Jeremiah 25:15 up to chapter 31.

At the same time, the Hebrew Jeremiah 25:14 is omitted in the LXX. Finally, Jeremiah 25:15 onward is moved to chapter 32, and Jeremiah chapters 26-44 are renumbered to chapters 33-51 in the LXX. So, major sections of the book are presented in a different order in addition to all of the removals and omissions in the LXX. The missing verses, as mentioned before, are skipped over in their respective locations. Jeremiah chapter 45, which is five verses long, is attached to chapter 51 in the LXX as the last five verses of this chapter. Chapter 52 of Jeremiah, which is the last chapter, covers the same passage in both versions, but the Septuagint also has six entire verses omitted compared to the Hebrew Jeremiah 52, not including other changes.

Looking at a few other books in the Septuagint, there are significant additions to the books of Job and Daniel. But let us consider the LXX version of another major prophecy which is different from the Hebrew version. Compare the famous prophecy in Isaiah 9:6 below:

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
– Isaiah 9:6

“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.”
– Isaiah 9:6 (from 1844 Brenton Septuagint)

Taking a step back and looking at the overall differences in the Septuagint, there are a vast number of changes to mention. In an independent count, I was able to locate entire verses that were omitted from the following books: Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, 1 Samuel, 1 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, Lamentations, and Ezekiel. It was also noticed, beyond this, that many other verses²⁹ were almost entirely omitted and/or substituted with different text. Particularly, the LXX in Exodus downright omitted 58 verses, while in 1 Kings omitted 49 verses, 1 Samuel omitted 39 verses, Proverbs omitted 33-34 verses (depending on LXX edition used), Joshua omitted 17 verses, and Nehemiah was missing 13-17 verses, depending on LXX edition (the 1844 Brenton Septuagint edition omits Nehemiah 7:68 and Nehemiah 12:38,40,41 ; but the 1935 and later editions include text for these verses).

A few examples of LXX-omitted verses (outside of Jeremiah) include:
–Exodus 28:23-28
–Exodus 36:10-33
–Exodus 37:4, 11-12, 14, 20, 22, 24-28
–Exodus 40:7-8, 11, 28, 31-32
–Joshua 8:30-35
–1 Samuel 17:12-31, 41, 50, 55-58
–1 Samuel 18:1-5, 10-11, 17-19, 29b-30 (verse 9 also omitted in 1844 ed.)
–1 Kings 6:11-14, 18, 37-38
–1 Kings 14:1-20
–1 Chron. 1:11-16, 17b-23
–Nehemiah 11:15b-16, 20-21, 28-29, 32-35
–Proverbs 16:1, 3-4, 6-9
–Proverbs 20:13a, 14-19 (20-22 also omitted in 1935 ed.)
–Proverbs 24:7-11 (all replaced with apocryphal verses)

In addition to the partial list of omissions listed above, further significant changes to the Septuagint were found, as follows:

Exodus 20:13 was relocated to Exodus 20:15 (the prohibition of killing in the 10 commandments was relocated after adultery and stealing)³⁰
–Exodus 21:16 and 17 were placed in reverse order
–Exodus 35:15,17 were relocated to before verse 13 and in reverse order
–Exodus 39:1-31 relocated to Exodus 36:8-40
–Exodus 38:9-19 relocated to Exodus 37:7-17
–Exodus 37:1-23 relocated to Exodus 38:1-17 (and six verses removed)
–Exodus 38:24-31 relocated to Exodus 39:1-10
–Exodus 39:36,37,38 relocated and in reverse order at Exodus 39:18,17,16
–Twenty-five additional verses from Exodus 36-40 were rearranged in their order of occurrence, with two of these verses being omitted altogether

–Several verses in Numbers chapter 1 and Numbers chapter 26 are found in a rearranged order
–Joshua 6:6b moved to the end of verse 7

–1 Kings 3:1 relocated to the end of chapter 4
–1 Kings 4:20-26 relocated to the end of 1 Kings chapter 2³¹
–1 Kings 6:1 the number “480th year” is changed to “440th year”
–1 Kings 8:1 the words “twenty years later” are added to the text³²
–1 Kings 9:20-22 relocated to 1 Kings 10:22 (and verse 21 omitted)
–1 Kings 9:24 relocated to 1 Kings 9:9a
–1 Kings chapter 20 and 1 Kings chapter 21 are in reverse order
–1 Kings 22:41-50 relocated to chapter 16, between verses 28 and 29³³

–A few parts of 2 Kings chapter 23 are copied into 1 Chronicles chapters 35 and 36 in the LXX, where they do not occur in the Hebrew

–An extra speech is placed in the mouth of Job’s wife in Job 2:9 of the LXX
–The following words: “in having spoken words which it was not right to speak; and my words err, and are unreasonable.” are placed in Job’s mouth at Job 19:4 of the LXX
–Several extraneous phrases are inserted in Elihu’s speech at Job 36:28
–A large amount of extra information is added to the last verse of Job in the LXX

–One apocryphal Psalm, called “Psalm 151,” was added after Psalm 150

–Two verses were added to the end of Proverbs 4³⁴, which say the following: “for God knows the ways on the right hand, but those on the left are crooked: and he will make thy ways straight, and will guide thy steps in peace.”
–in Proverbs 6:6, “be wise” was changed to “become wiser than he”
–Three apocryphal verses were added after Proverbs 6:8
–in Proverbs 8:35 “whoso findeth me findeth life” was changed to “my issues are the issues of life”
–Three apocryphal verses were added after Proverbs 9:12
–Four apocryphal verses were added after Proverbs 9:18
–Proverbs 12:26 is interrupted by two apocryphal insertions within the verse
–Three verses added in place of Proverbs 16:6-9 (four verses removed)
–An apocryphal verse was added after Proverbs 18:22, which says: “He that puts away a good wife, puts away a good thing, and he that keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly.”³⁵
–Proverbs 19:7 is removed, and about three verses’ worth of apocryphal material is added instead, which has a vague resemblance to what is removed
–Three apocryphal verses were added after Proverbs 20:9
–First half of Proverbs 20:13 replaced with an apocryphal verse, remaining part of verse removed from its original context
–Three apocryphal verses added in place of Proverbs 24:7-11 (five verses removed)
–Five apocryphal verses were added after Proverbs 24:22
–Two apocryphal verses were added in place of Proverbs 28:17 (one verse removed)
–The meaning of Proverbs 29:21 was reversed
–In some editions of the Septuagint, Proverbs 30:1-14 is relocated to immediately before Proverbs 24:23
–In same editions as previous list item, Proverbs 30:15—31:9 is relocated to immediately before Proverbs 25:1
–Twenty-five additional apocryphal verses, not already listed, are added in the LXX between chapter 6 and chapter 29 of Proverbs³⁶³⁷

Here are two examples of other changes in the Proverbs of the Septuagint or LXX:

“A wise man is strong; yea, a man of knowledge increaseth strength.
For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellers there is safety.”
– Proverbs 24:5-6 (KJV)

“A wise man is better than a strong man; and a man who has prudence than a large estate.
War is carried on with generalship, and aid is supplied to the heart of a counsellor.”
– Proverbs 24:5-6 LXX

“The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men.”
– Proverbs 24:9 (KJV)

“The fool also dies in sins; and uncleanness attaches to a pestilent man.”
– Proverbs 24:9 LXX

Let us consider another prophecy in the Psalms. If we compare to the original language version of Psalm 2, the Hexaplar Septuagint is missing an important prophecy again in the last verse of this Psalm. See below:

“Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.”
– Psalm 2:12 (KJV)

In the Hexaplar Septuagint, the above is not what is said. The first clause of this verse is changed to the words “δράξασθε παιδείας” which means, “embrace discipline,” instead of, “kiss the Son.”

To go along with the above change, the LXX also inserts another word later on in the sentence: “lest the Lord be angry” rather than “lest he be angry.” This seems to be a necessary change to the structure of Psalm 2:12, as “discipline” would not seem to refer to an entity capable of anger.

So in Psalm 2:12, the LXX says, “Embrace discipline, lest the Lord be angry”.

Psalm 2:12³⁸ in the original languages says, “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry”.

In Psalm 2, there is a prophecy specific to “the Son,” who you will find earlier in Psalm 2 as well, which is changed or removed in the LXX. In the LXX version, Psalm 2:12 is no longer specific to “the Son” and does not mention Him.

Instead of mentioning the Son, the LXX closes Psalm 2 by saying “embrace discipline” or “embrace correction.”

This difference seem to arise from the fact that the word for “son” in this verse is given in Syriac-Aramaic rather than Hebrew. Hence, the word in Psalm 2:12 is written as “bar” rather than “ben”.

Besides Psalm 2:12, there are other examples of the Old Testament changing between languages in mid-sentence. Consider Jeremiah 10:11 for example. In this verse, Jeremiah says, “Thus shall ye say unto them,” while the sentence that follows here switches from Hebrew to Syriac language.³⁹ The transition from Daniel 2:4a to Daniel 2:4b, which is a switch from Hebrew to Syriac, also occurs in mid-sentence.⁴⁰

We can defend this usage of the word “bar” for “Son” in Psalm 2:12 further. The same word that is used in Psalm 2:12 is also used thrice for the word “son” in Proverbs 31:2.⁴¹ Considering these examples, there is no reason why Psalm 2:12 cannot have the Syriac-Aramaic word for “son,” as we see it translated in the Authorized and other accurate Bible translations.

In Psalm 2:12 the Greek LXX version seems to have lost this nuance. In this way, the messianic prophecy is omitted in Psalm 2:12 in the LXX, as it does not include the word “Son.” This is another prophecy we could mention related to the coming King which is not found in the Septuagint.

I could stress further the importance of this verse. Psalm 2:12 and its prophecy serves to link the only begotten Son, from Psalm 2:7,⁴² with the word of God in Proverbs 30:5.⁴³ Furthermore, Psalm 2:12 is one place in the Old Testament where a prophecy specifically says to “trust” in “the Son,” while the Bible commands repeatedly that one should trust in the Lord and God in 39 other Psalms⁴⁴ and elsewhere!

Because of this, it seems to be consequential that the unique reference in Psalm 2:12 which tells us to trust in “the Son” (Psalm 2:12) is removed or missing in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

Some modern translations, such as the “JPS Tanakh 1917” and the “NET Bible,” follow the LXX version of Psalm 2:12.

This is interesting, because those same two translations (JPS 1917 and NET) also include a noteworthy change to Isaiah 7:14⁴⁵⁴⁶ which changes the term “virgin” to “young woman.”

So far, we have shown some important differences between the Hexaplar LXX and the Hebrew Old Testament. The reader may wish to consider and be aware of the significance of these changes between these two versions of the Old Testament.

This is far from an exhaustive list of changes. I plan to return to this study and to list out some of the specific changes in the Septuagint Psalms, the Septuagint Isaiah, and some other passages of interest, but I will need to dedicate more time to a closer study in this regard. Before ending this analysis of the differences in the Septuagint, I feel like it would be appropriate to investigate the ending of the Septuagint directly, especially the later prophets such as Daniel and the minor prophets.

I made a personal examination of parts of Ezekiel, the entire book of Daniel, and most of the text of the minor prophets, by comparing the 1844 Brenton Septuagint translation, the 2008 Orthodox Study Bible (another Septuagint translation) and the 1935 Rahlf’s Septuagint (a Greek edition), each as compared with the Hebrew Old Testament and the Authorized KJV. I documented 268 significant changes in these passages, and 273 in the OSB, and I have listed some examples of the changes that I found here:

–Ezekiel 28:13, the word “silver” is added in the LXX, and twelve gemstones were listed instead of nine (these 12 gemstones are similar to the list of gems in Exodus 39:10-13), and also the mentions of “tabrets and pipes” in this verse were removed or omitted in the LXX
–Ezekiel 32:29 “Edom” changed to “Assyria”
–Ezekiel 32:30 “Zidonians” changed to “Assyrians”

–Daniel 3:16 “we are not careful to answer thee” changed to “we have no need to answer thee”
–Daniel 3:22 LXX omitted the words “the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego”
–Daniel 5:5,24 “part of the hand” changed to “knuckles of the hand”
–Daniel 5:16 LXX omitted the words “and dissolve doubts”
–Daniel 5:25 “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN” changed to “Mane, Thekel, Phares”
–Daniel 6:2 LXX omitted the words “above the presidents and princes”
–Daniel 6:13 LXX omitted the words “regardeth not thee, O king,”
–Daniel 6:18 LXX omitted the words “neither were instruments of musick brought before him”
–Daniel 6:18 LXX added the words “and they brought him no food”
–Daniel 6:18 LXX added the words “But God shut the mouths of the lions, and they did not molest Daniel”
–Daniel 6:20 “lamentable voice” changed to “loud voice”
–Daniel 7:1 LXX omitted the words “and told the sum of the matters”
–Daniel 7:4 “lion” changed to “lioness”
–Daniel 7:4 “and made stand upon the feet as a man” changed to “and she stood on human feet”
–Daniel 7:7 LXX omitted the words “in the night visions”
–Daniel 7:23 “shall be diverse from” changed to “shall excel”
–Daniel 7:24 LXX omitted the words “out of this kingdom”
–Daniel 7:24 “shall be diverse from the first” changed to “shall exceed all the former ones in wickedness”
–Daniel 8:2 LXX omitted the words “And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw,”
–Daniel 8:5 “west” changed to “southwest”
–Daniel 8:9 “little horn” changed to “strong horn”
–Daniel 8:9 “and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land” changed to “and toward the host” (in 1844 Brenton ed.)
–Daniel 8:9 “and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land” changed to “and toward the east, and toward the north” (in 1935 Rahlf Septuagint)
–Daniel 8:10 “it cast down some of the host and of the stars” changed to “there fell to the earth some of the host of heaven and of the stars”
–Daniel 8:12 “truth” changed to “righteousness”
–Daniel 8:14 “three hundred” changed to “four hundred” (in Brenton 1844 ed.)
–Daniel 8:24 LXX omitted the words “but not by his own power”
–Daniel 8:25 “he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.” changed to “and he shall stand up for the destruction of many, and shall crush them as eggs in his hand.”
–Daniel 9:1 “was made king over” changed to “reigned over”
–Daniel 9:17 “cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake.” changed to “cause thy face to shine on thy desolate sanctuary, for thine own sake, O Lord.”
–Daniel 9:24 “and to make reconciliation for iniquity” changed to “and to blot out the iniquities”

–Daniel 9:26 “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;” changed to “And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming:”

–Daniel 9:27 “the sacrifice and the oblation” changed to “my sacrifice and drink-offering”
–Daniel 10:1 LXX omitted the words “but the time appointed was long”
–Daniel 10:3 LXX added the words “with oil”
–Daniel 10:10 LXX omitted the words “and upon the palms of my hands”
–Daniel 10:13 “I remained there” changed to “I left him there”
–Daniel 11:1 “Darius the Mede” changed to “Cyrus”
–Daniel 11:9 “So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land.” changed to “And he shall enter into the kingdom of the king of the south, and shall return to his own land.” (opposite person)
–Daniel 11:20 “a raiser of taxes” changed to “one that shall cause a plant of the kingdom to pass over his place”
–Daniel 11:21 “And in his estate shall stand up a vile person,” changed to “One shall stand on his place, who has been set a nought,”
–Daniel 11:24 “the strong holds” changed to “Egypt”
–Daniel 11:26 “Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him,” changed to “and they shall eat his provisions, and shall crush him,”
–Daniel 11:29 LXX omitted the words “or as the latter”
–Daniel 11:30 “them that forsake” changed to “them that have forsaken”
–Daniel 11:31 “And arms shall stand on his part,” changed to “And seeds shall spring up out of him,”
–Daniel 11:32 “And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries:” changed to “And the transgressors shall bring about a covenant by deceitful ways:”
–Daniel 11:33 “shall instruct many” changed to “shall understand much”
–Daniel 11:35 LXX omitted the words “and to make them white”
–Daniel 11:36 LXX omitted the words “against the God of gods”
–Daniel 11:37 “the God of his fathers” changed to “any gods of his fathers”
–Daniel 11:39 LXX omitted the words “shall acknowledge”
–Daniel 11:40 LXX omitted the words “like a whirlwind”
–Daniel 12:3 “they that turn many to righteousness” changed to “some of the many righteous”
–Daniel 12:4 “many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” changed to “until many are taught, and knowledge is increased.”
–Daniel 12:7 “when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people,” changed to “when the dispersion is ended”
–Daniel 12:10 “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried;” changed to “Many must be tested, and thoroughly whitened, and tried with fire, and sanctified;”
–Daniel 12:13 “But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot” changed to “But go thou, and rest; for there are yet days and seasons to the fulfillment of the end; and thou shalt stand in thy lot”

–Hosea 2:23 “will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy”⁴⁷ changed to “will love her that was not loved”
–Hosea 3:2 “half homer of barley” changed to “flagon of wine”
–Hosea 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:” changed to “My people are like as if they had no knowledge:”
–Hosea 7:1 “When I would have healed Israel” changed to “When I have healed Israel”
–Hosea 8:7 “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind:” changed to “for they sowed blighted seed, and their destruction shall await them,”

–Hosea 11:1 “called my son out of Egypt” changed to “out of Egypt have I called his children”⁴⁸

–Hosea 11:12 “and the house of Israel with deceit: but Judah yet ruleth with God” changed to “and the house of Israel and Juda with ungodliness”

–Amos 3:2 “only” changed to “especially”
–Amos 5:8 “seven stars and Orion” changed to “all things”
–Amos 5:15 “Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate” etc. changed to “We have hated evil, and loved good: and restore ye judgment in the gates” etc.
–Amos 7:1 “it was the latter growth after the king’s mowings” changed to “and, behold, one caterpillar, king Gog”
–Amos 8:3 “songs” changed to “ceilings”
–Amos 8:10 “only son” changed to “beloved friend”

–Jonah 1:8 LXX omitted the words “Tell us, we pray thee, for whose cause this evil is upon us;”
–Jonah 1:9 LXX omitted the words “I am an Hebrew;”
–Jonah 2:4 “yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.” changed to “shall I indeed look again toward thy holy temple?”
–Jonah 2:5 “weeds” changed to “clefts of the mountains”
–Jonah 2:6 “yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.” changed to “yet, O Lord my God, let my ruined life be restored.”
–Jonah 2:7 “and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.” changed to “and may my prayer come to thee into thy holy temple.”
–Jonah 2:9 “Salvation is of the LORD.” changed to “the Lord of my salvation.”
–Jonah 3:3 “great city” changed to “great city to God” (in 1935 Rahlf Septuagint)
–Jonah 3:4 “Yet forty days” changed to “Yet three days”
–Jonah 3:8 “But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth,” etc. changed to “So men and cattle were clothed with sackcloths,” etc.
–Jonah 3:8 “violence” changed to “iniquity”
–Jonah 3:8 LXX added the word “saying,”
–Jonah 4:1 “displeased” changed to “grieved”
–Jonah 4:1 “angry” changed to “confounded”
–Jonah 4:2 LXX omitted the words “I pray thee,”
–Jonah 4:3 LXX omitted the words “I beseech thee,”
–Jonah 4:4 “angry” changed to “grieved”
–Jonah 4:5 “on the east side of” changed to “over against”
–Jonah 4:9 “angry” changed to “grieved” (2 times)
–Jonah 4:11 “cannot discern between” changed to “do not know”

–Micah 6:6 “come before the LORD” changed to “reach the LORD”
–Micah 6:6 “bow myself before the high God” changed to “lay hold of my God most high”
–Micah 6:8 “to walk humbly with thy God” changed to “be ready to walk with the Lord thy God”
–Micah 6:10 “Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable?” changed to “Is there not fire, and the house of the wicked heaping up wicked treasures, and that with the pride of unrighteousness?”
–Micah 6:11 “Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights?” changed to “Shall the wicked be justified by the balanced, or deceitful weights in the bag,”
–Micah 6:15 LXX added the words “and the ordinances of my people shall be utterly abolished”
–Micah 6:16 “reproach of my people” changed to “reproach of nations”

–Nahum 2:6 “The gates of the rivers shall be opened” changed to “The gates of the cities have been opened”
–Nahum 2:7 “And Huzzab shall be led away captive,” changed to “and the foundation has been exposed;”
–Nahum 3:3 “and there is none end of their corpses; they stumble upon their corpses:” changed to “and there was no end to her nations, but they shall be weak in their bodies”
–Nahum 3:8 “Art thou better than populous No,” changed to “Prepare thee a portion, tune the chord, prepare a portion for Ammon:”

–Habakkuk 2:11 “beam” changed to “beetle”
–Habakkuk 2:19 “Arise, it shall teach!” changed to “Be thou exalted!”
–Habakkuk 3:2 “O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years” changed to “I considered thy works, and was amazed: thou shalt be known between the two living creatures,”
–Habakkuk 3:2 “in wrath remember mercy.” changed to “thou shalt be manifested when the time is come; when my soul is troubled, thou wilt in wrath remember mercy.”
–Habakkuk 3:4 “And his brightness was as the light” changed to “And his brightness shall be as light”
–Habakkuk 3:4 “and there was the hiding of his power” changed to “and he caused a mighty love of his strength”
–Habakkuk 3:5 “Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals went forth at his feet.” changed to “Before his face shall go a report, and it shall go forth into the plains,”
–Habakkuk 3:6 “He stood, and measured the earth:” changed to “the earth stood at his feet and trembled:”
–Habakkuk 3:6 LXX omitted the words “his ways are everlasting.”⁴⁹
–Habakkuk 3:9 “Thy bow was made quite naked, according to the oaths of the tribes, even thy word. Selah.” changed to “Surely thou didst bend thy bow at scepters, saith the Lord. Pause.”
–Habakkuk 3:10 “The mountains saw thee, and they trembled:” changed to “The nations shall see thee and be in pain”
–Habakkuk 3:11 “The sun and moon stood still in their habitation” changed to “The sun was exalted, and the moon stood still in her course”

–Habakkuk 3:13 “Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed”⁵⁰ changed to “Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, to save thine anointed:”⁵¹

–Zephaniah 1:11 “for all the merchant people are cut down” changed to “for all the people has become like Chanaan”
–Zephaniah 1:14 LXX omitted the words “the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.”
–Zephaniah 2:7 “for the LORD their God shall visit them,” changed to “for the Lord their God has visited them,”
–Zephaniah 2:9 “even the breeding of nettles, and saltpits, and a perpetual desolation” changed to “and Damascus shall be left as a heap of the threshing-floor, and desolate for ever”
–Zephaniah 2:10 “against the people of the LORD of hosts” changed to “against the Lord Almighty”
–Zephaniah 3:1 “Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city!” changed to “Alas the glorious and ransomed city.”
–Zephaniah 3:17 “The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save” changed to “The Lord thy God is in thee; the Mighty One shall save thee”

–Haggai 1:1 LXX added the words “saying, Speak”
–Haggai 1:5 LXX added the words “I pray you” (1844 ed. only)
–Haggai 1:10 “is stayed” changed to future tense (two times)
–Haggai 1:11 “And I called for a drought upon […]” changed to “And I will bring a sword upon […]”
–Haggai 1:13 “Then spake Haggai the LORD’S messenger in the LORD’S message unto the people, saying, […]” changed to “And Aggaeus the Lord’s messenger spoke among the messengers of the Lord to the people, saying, […]”
–Haggai 1:14 “governor of Judah” changed to “of the tribe of Juda”
–Haggai 2:1 “governor of Judah” changed to “of the tribe of Juda”
–Haggai 2:4 “be strong, all ye people of the land” changed to “let all the people of the land strengthen themselves”
–Haggai 2:5 LXX omitted the words “According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt,”
–Haggai 2:6 LXX omitted the words “it is a little while,”

–Haggai 2:7 “and the desire of all nations shall come” changed to “and the choice portions⁵² of all the nations shall come”

–Haggai 2:9 LXX added the words “even peace of soul for a possession to every one that builds, to raise up this temple”
–Haggai 2:14 “and that which they offer there is unclean.” changed to “and whosoever shall approach them, shall be defiled because of their early burdens: they shall be pained because of their toils; and ye have hated him that reproved in the gates.”
–Haggai 2:15 LXX added the words “what manner of men ye were”
–Haggai 2:20 LXX added the words “the second time”
–Haggai 2:21 “governor of Judah” changed to “of the tribe of Juda”
–Haggai 2:21 “I will shake the heavens and the earth” changed to “I shake⁵³ the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;”

–Zechariah 1:3 “saith the LORD of hosts” omitted by the LXX (one instance) and changed to “Lord” by the LXX (second instance)⁵⁴
–Zechariah 1:6 “But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not take hold of your fathers?” changed to “But do ye receive my words and mine ordinances, all that I command by my Spirit to my servants the prophets, who lived in the days of your fathers;”
–Zechariah 1:8,10,11 “myrtle trees” changed to “shady mountains”
–Zechariah 1:11 “sitteth still” changed to “is inhabited”
–Zechariah 1:12 “had indignation” changed to “disregarded”
–Zechariah 1:14 “I am jealous” changed to “I have been jealous”
–Zechariah 1:15 “that are at ease” changed to “that combine to attack her”
–Zechariah 1:16 “I am returned to Jerusalem” changed to “I will return to Jerusalem”
–Zechariah 1:17 LXX added the words “And the angel that spoke with me said to me,”
–Zechariah 1:21 LXX added the words “and they broke Israel in pieces”
–Zechariah 2:4 LXX omitted the words “as towns without walls”
–Zechariah 2:6 “I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven” changed to “I will gather you from the four winds of heaven”
–Zechariah 2:11 “shall be my people” changed to “shall be his people”
–Zechariah 2:11 “I will dwell in the midst of thee” changed to “they shall dwell in the midst of thee”
–Zechariah 3:7 “I will give thee places to walk” changed to “I will give thee men to walk”
–Zechariah 3:9 “I will remove the iniquity” changed to “I will search out all the iniquity”
–Zechariah 4:2 “seven lamps” changed to “lamps”
–Zechariah 4:2 LXX omitted the words “which are upon the top thereof:”
–Zechariah 4:3 “two olive trees by it” changed to “two olive trees above it”
–Zechariah 4:7 “Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.” changed to “Who art thou, the great mountain before Zorobabel, that thou shouldest prosper? whereas I will bring out the stone of the inheritance, the grace of it the equal of my grace.”
–Zechariah 4:10 LXX omitted the words “with those seven”
–Zechariah 4:10 “they are the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.” changed to “these are the seven eyes that look upon all the earth.”
–Zechariah 5:1,2 “book” changed to “sickle”
–Zechariah 5:6 “resemblance” changed to “iniquity”
–Zechariah 6:10 “even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon,” changed to “the chief men, and from the useful men of it, and from them that have understood it;”
–Zechariah 6:10 LXX added the words “that came out of Babylon”
–Zechariah 6:12 “Temple of the LORD” changed to “house of the LORD”⁵⁵
–Zechariah 6:13 LXX omitted the words “Even he shall build the temple of the LORD”
–Zechariah 6:13 “he shall bear the glory” changed to “he shall receive power”
–Zechariah 6:13 “and he shall be a priest upon his throne” changed to “and there shall be a priest on his right hand”
–Zechariah 6:14 “the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah,” changed to “the crown shall be to them that wait patiently, and to the useful men of the captivity, and to them that have known it, and for the favour of the son of Sophonias,”
–Zechariah 6:15 “Temple of the LORD” changed to “house of the LORD”⁵⁶
–Zechariah 7:3 “Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?” changed to “The holy offering has come in hither in the fifth month, as it has done already many years.”
–Zechariah 7:6 “when ye did eat, and when ye did drink” changed to “if ye eat or drink”
–Zechariah 7:7 “the south and the plain” changed to “the hill country and the low country”
–Zechariah 7:10 “let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart.” changed to “and let not one of you remember in his heart the injury of his brother.”
–Zechariah 7:12 “they made their hearts as an adamant stone” changed to “they made their heart disobedient”
–Zechariah 7:14 “I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations” changed to “I will cast them out among all the nations”
–Zechariah 8:2 LXX added the words “for Jerusalem”
–Zechariah 8:8 “they shall be my people, and I will be their God” changed to “they shall be to me a people, and I will be to them a God”
–Zechariah 8:12 “the seed shall be prosperous” changed to “I will shew peace”
–Zechariah 8:21 “the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying,” changed to “the inhabitants of five cities shall come together to one city, saying,”
–Zechariah 9:1 “Damascus shall be the rest thereof: when the eyes of man, as of all the tribes of Israel, shall be toward the LORD.” changed to “his sacrifice shall be in Damascus; for the Lord looks upon men, and upon all the tribes of Israel.”
–Zechariah 9:10 “And I will cut off” changed to “And he shall destroy”
–Zechariah 9:10 “and he shall speak peace unto the heathen” changed to “and there shall be abundance and peace out of the nations”
–Zechariah 9:12 “Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope” changed to “Ye shall dwell in strongholds, ye prisoners of the congregation”
–Zechariah 9:14 “shall go with whirlwinds of the south.” changed to “shall proceed with the tumult of his threatening.”
–Zechariah 9:15 “and they shall be filled like bowls, and as the corners of the altar.” changed to “and fill the bowls as the altar.”
–Zechariah 9:16 LXX omitted the words “for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land.”
–Zechariah 9:17 “For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty!” changed to “For if he has anything good, and if he has anything fair,”
–Zechariah 10:1 “shall make” changed to “has given”
–Zechariah 10:2 “shepherd” changed to “healing”
–Zechariah 10:3 “I punished the goats” changed to “I will visit the sheep”
–Zechariah 10:3 “hath visited … hath made” changed to “shall visit … shall make”
–Zechariah 10:4 “Out of him came forth the corner, out of him the nail, out of him the battle bow, out of him every oppressor together.” changed to “And from him he looked, and from him he set the battle in order, and from him came the bow in anger, and from him shall come forth every oppressor together.”
–Zechariah 10:8 “I have redeemed them” changed to “I will redeem them”
–Zechariah 10:12 “walk” changed to “boast”
–Zechariah 11:10,14 “cut it asunder” changed to “cast it away” (twice)
–Zechariah 11:11 “the poor of the flock” changed to “The Canaanites, the sheep”
–Zechariah 11:12 “I said unto them” changed to “I will say to them”
–Zechariah 11:13 “Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them.” changed to “Drop them into the smelting furnace and see if it is proven, as in the same manner I was proven for their sake.”
–Zechariah 11:14 “brotherhood” changed to “possession”
–Zechariah 11:17 “idol shepherd” changed to “vain shepherds”
–Zechariah 12:2 “a cup of trembling” changed to “trembling door-posts”
–Zechariah 12:3 “burdensome stone” changed to “trodden stone”
–Zechariah 12:3 “all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces” changed to “every one that tramples on it shall utterly mock at it”
–Zechariah 12:5 “The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength” changed to “We shall find for ourselves the inhabitants of Jerusalem”

–Zechariah 12:10 “they shall look upon me whom they have pierced,” changed to “they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me,”

–Zechariah 12:10 “for his only son” changed to “for a beloved friend”
–Zechariah 12:11 “as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon”⁵⁷ changed to “as the mourning for the pomegranate grove cut down in the plain”
–Zechariah 12:13 “Shimei” changed to “Symeon”
–Zechariah 13:1 “there shall be a fountain opened” changed to “every place shall be opened”
–Zechariah 13:3 “thrust him through” changed to “bind him”
–Zechariah 13:4 “neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive” changed to “and they shall clothe themselves with a garment of hair, because they have lied”
–Zechariah 14:6 “the light shall not be clear, nor dark” changed to “there shall be no light”
–Zechariah 14:8 “winter” changed to “spring”
–Zechariah 14:11 “utter destruction” changed to “curse”
–Zechariah 14:17 “even upon them shall be no rain.” changed to “even these shall be added to the others.”

–Malachi 1:7 “contemptible” changed to “polluted”
–Malachi 1:13 “ye have snuffed at it” changed to “I have utterly rejected them with scorn”
–Malachi 1:14 “the deceiver” changed to “the man who had the power”
–Malachi 2:3 “I will corrupt your seed” changed to “I will turn my back upon you”
–Malachi 2:4 “Levi” changed to “the sons of Levi”
–Malachi 2:10 “we … us … we … our” changed to “ye … you … ye … your”
–Malachi 2:11 “Judah hath dealt treacherously” changed to “Juda has been forsaken”
–Malachi 2:11 “married the daughter of a strange god” changed to “gone after other gods”
–Malachi 2:12 LXX omitted the words “the master and the scholar”
–Malachi 3:6 LXX omitted the words “therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed”
–Malachi 3:9 “Ye are cursed with a curse” changed to “ye do surely look off from me”
–Malachi 3:10 “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith,” changed to “The year is completed, and ye have brought all the produce into the storehouses; but there shall be the plunder thereof in its house:”
–Malachi 3:11 LXX omitted the words “I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes”
–Malachi 3:15 “And now we call the proud happy” changed to “And now we pronounce strangers blessed”
–Malachi 4:1 “all the proud” changed to “all the aliens”
–Malachi 4:6 “and the heart of the children to their fathers” changed to “and the heart of a man to his neighbour”
–Malachi 4:4 moved to the end of the chapter, after verse 6

I hope that the above list of some changes in the Septuagint or LXX as compared to the received or Hebrew Old Testament shows the extent of how consequential some of these differences are. Some of the Messianic prophecies found in the Old Testament, which we noted were not found in the Hexaplar Septuagint were:

–Psalm 2:12
–Isaiah 9:6
–Jeremiah 30:9
–Jeremiah 33:15
–Daniel 9:26
–Hosea 11:1
–Habakkuk 3:13
–Zephaniah 3:17
–Haggai 2:7

Lastly, I will make a defense of the Hebrew Old Testament against a frequent claim that I see being made that it is missing prophecies:

There is a popular short list that is being circulated online which mentions six quotations of the Old Testament located in the New Testament. The claim made by the advocates of the Septuagint is that the Hebrew Old Testament does not contain these six quotations. These six quotations are compared, as listed, to the LXX, which supposedly differs from the Hebrew Old Testament in that it contains these six quotes.

However, it will be shown that the Old Testament contains all six of these quotations, and that there is no need to resort to the Septuagint/LXX in order to find these New Testament references.

The list presents the six examples, in the following order:
—1. Psalm 40:6 & Hebrews 10:5
—2. Isaiah 7:14 & Matthew 1:23
—3. Deuteronomy 32:43 & Hebrews 1:6
—4. Isaiah 61:1 & Luke 4:18
—5. Psalm 22:16 (as compared to the Gospel account of the crucifixion)
—6. Isaiah 42:4 & Matthew 12:21

The second and fifth items of this list can be cleared first, as they are the simplest to explain. Mistranslations of Isaiah 7:14⁵⁸ and Psalm 22:16,⁵⁹ can be addressed immediately by recognizing the following:

All one must do is disregard the inaccurate translations found in some translations of the Hebrew in modern time. There is a mistranslation of the Hebrew words here in Isaiah 7:14 and Psalm 22:16. If we look at the way that the AV (KJV) renders these verses into English, we can see an example of the Hebrew language accurately translated directly into English in both places. It is only with some modern efforts that have been made to redefine these words that a mistranslation of these words has sometimes occurred within Isaiah 7:14 or Psalm 22:16.

So, the true and accurate translation of Hebrew in the Old Testament says “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14, and “they pierced” in Psalm 22:16. Therefore, these prophecies are not really missing in the original Hebrew, as has been alleged.

The remaining list is as follows:
1. Psalm 40:6 & Hebrews 10:5

3. Deuteronomy 32:43 & Hebrews 1:6
4. Isaiah 61:1 & Luke 4:18

6. Isaiah 42:4 & Matthew 12

Next, let us take a look at the first item in the list.

Psalm 40:6⁶⁰ with Hebrews 10:5⁶¹:

In this place, it can be held that Psalm 40 already lines up with the book of Hebrews, despite having slightly different terminology. The explanation is as follows:

“Opening of the ears” is associated with an event that happens before being born in the Bible, while a person is being formed in the womb. For an example of this, see Isaiah 48:8.⁶² In Isaiah 48:8, “the time that thine ear was not opened” refers to a time before birth. That’s why he is called a transgressor “from the womb.”

The time before a person’s ear is opened refers to a time when the body is still in preparation. Thus, “a body being prepared” and “an ear being opened” are two different ways to refer to the same thing. The body is being prepared during the time that it is in the womb, and one of the things that happens during this time is that the ears are opened. According to the Hebraism in Isaiah 48:8, if someone’s ears have not been opened yet, then that means that they are still in the womb, and consequently, that their body is still being “prepared.”

What this means is that, if someone “opened their ear” according to the same meaning as mentioned in Isaiah 48:8, this act is the same as, or part of, preparing their body before birth. Because of this, Hebrews 10:5 (where the New Testament mentions a body being prepared) can be referring to Psalm 40:6 (where the Old Testament mentions the Psalmist’s ears being opened.)

The explanation I have just given was also mentioned in the commentary for Hebrews 10:5 in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (1902). It is interesting that the word translated as “opened” in Psalm 40:6 has the same root word (כָּרָה) as is found in Psalm 22:16 for the word “pierced,” although it is conjugated differently. Psalm 22:16 is a Bible passage that was just discussed earlier. The word in both of these passages basically means “digged.”

Next is the third quotation. Our reference, as mentioned in the original list, is Deuteronomy 32:43 with Hebrews 1:6.⁶³

The answer to this third quotation is a basic one. There is no reason that Hebrews 1:6 must be referring to Deuteronomy, as the list given previously maintains. The author of Hebrews may be referring to another passage, such as Psalm 148:2.⁶⁴ In the previous verse Hebrews 1:5, the author of Hebrews quoted Psalm 2:7; and in the next verse Hebrews 1:7, the author quoted Psalm 104:4. So, it would meet the context of Hebrews 1:6 to be quoting from another Psalm, for example Psalm 148:2; considering that Hebrews 1:5 and 1:7 are each quoting from Psalms as well. Psalm 103:20⁶⁵ is another possibility for the reference point of this verse in Hebrews 1:6.

There is also no specific reason why the quotation in Hebrews 1:6 has to be or should be from Deuteronomy 32:43 rather than the aforementioned Psalm.

The remaining list is as follows:
4. Isaiah 61:1 & Luke 4:18
6. Isaiah 42:4 & Matthew 12

The last two quotations each involve a specific passage in Isaiah 42.

Consider next Isaiah 61:1⁶⁶ and Luke 4:18.⁶⁷
Also consider the underlined portion in this citation of Isaiah 42:7.⁶⁸

In Luke 4:18, one part of the combined passage which reads “recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,” is derived from Isaiah 42:7. By the combination of Isaiah 61:1-2 and Isaiah 42:7, a reading is obtained that is noticeably closer to Luke 4:18-19 than the LXX version of Isaiah 61:1 alone.

This is because LXX version of Isaiah 61:1 not only added the phrase “recovery of sight to the blind,” but it also deleted/omitted the phrase “the opening of the prison to them that are bound” from Isaiah 61:1 as well.

So, while this second phrase about opening the prison is not found in the LXX version of Isaiah 61:1, it is still found in Luke 4:18, and in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1. Consider again the second part of the underlined phrase in this citation:⁶⁹ and consider that the second part of this underlined section (in bold within the citation) still exists in the Hebrew form of Isaiah 61:1, but not in the Septuagint form of Isaiah.⁷⁰

The Hebrew words in Isaiah 61:1, combined with Isaiah 42:7, as represented by the Authorized Version, matches completely with Luke 4:18. However, the LXX version of Isaiah 61:1 is missing the part of the prophecy about setting at liberty (or opening the prison) to the bound, which comes after recovery of sight to the blind in Luke 4:18. The KJV (also the Hebrew version of Isaiah) still includes this phrase in Isaiah 61:1.

So, to be clear about the differences, the LXX version of Isaiah 61:1 does include the part about proclaiming liberty, but it does not include the part about setting at liberty which comes after it.⁷¹ So because of this, the Septuagint version of Isaiah 61:1 does not contain the full quote of Luke 4:18, despite what is sometimes claimed. It is clear that the Gospel of Luke is justified in quoting Isaiah 42:7 from the Old Testament. The complete quotation in Luke 4:18 is not in the LXX version of Isaiah 61:1. Neither is it in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1, without including Isaiah 42:7. Hence, there is no clear reason why the LXX would be preferable here, because it also is missing part of the quotation from Isaiah that is given in Luke 4:18.

The last reference is Isaiah 42:4⁷² and Matthew 12:17-21.⁷³ c.f.⁷⁴

In comparing these two distinct versions of Isaiah chapter 42, in the first four verses, we see that the LXX version does not completely fit with Matthew 12:18-21. In particular, look at verse 21 of Matthew’s Gospel. Reading carefully, one notices that there are several ‘intervening phrases’ in both versions of Isaiah 42 at this point. These are termed as ‘intervening’ because they do not appear anywhere in Matthew 12:17-21.

Matthew 12:18-20 clearly aligns with Isaiah 42:1-3. This can be said to be true for each version of Isaiah.

However, the next thing Matthew says after this is, “And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.” Picking up from where we left off in Isaiah 42 at the start of verse 4, one does not observe the above phrase to occur next in either the Hebrew version of Isaiah or in the LXX. Rather, we see, at the start of verse 4, these ‘intervening phrases,’ which states –

“He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.”
– Isaiah 42:4 (KJV)

These intervening phrases are found, regardless of which version of Isaiah one looks at, in Isaiah 42:4.⁷⁵ These intervening phrases are not found in Matthew 12:20-21.

If Matthew 12:20-21 were to have included Isaiah 42:4, one would expect these intervening phrases to appear in Matthew here.

This suggests that the first quotation that is found in Matthew 12:17-21 ends at verse 20.⁷⁶ This would mean that Matthew 12:21⁷⁷ is a second quote from another place in Isaiah, that could come from any part of the book. Being a separate quotation, Matthew 12:21 could have come from anywhere in Isaiah. And this means that the quotation in Matthew 12:21 does not need to be found in Isaiah 42:4.

As there is always a gap, comprising the earlier part of Isaiah 42:4, which is not found in Matthew 12:18-21 regardless of what version of Isaiah is being used, that is enough to show that we do not need to take Matthew 12:18-21 as a single unbroken quote from one place in Isaiah. Rather, we can allow Matthew 12:18-20 be a quote of Isaiah 42:1-3, while Matthew 12:21 is taken as a separate quote from any passage in the prophet Isaiah.

This type of rapid quoting from separate passages of the Old Testament being brought together, such as in Matthew 12:18-20 and in Matthew 12:21, would not be without parallel in the New Testament. Romans 15:12 is a good example. In Romans 15:12, Paul uses similar terminology to Matthew (“in him shall the Gentiles trust.”), and furthermore, this is known to be a quotation of Isaiah 11:10. So Matthew 12:18-21 could be a combination of quotations, from Isaiah 42:1-3 followed immediately by Isaiah 11:10.

There are numerous occasions in the New Testament, including some examples already mentioned, where quotations in the New Testament from one or more prophets (or psalms) are quoted in rapid succession. Sometimes these quotations are divided by nothing more than a conjunctive: the Greek word “καὶ” = “and”. The beginning of Matthew 12:21 includes this conjunction, which, in all likelihood, signifies that a new passage of Scripture is being quoted. Many times, distinct quotations of Scripture from the Old Testament are only divided by a single “and,” before moving on to the next quotation. If one wanted to quote from multiple places in Scripture, this would be a good way to do it.

Other times, a conjunctive word is not even included, as the New Testament writers have been known to move at times from one quotation directly to the next without including any kind of a division between the two quotes. For instance, Luke 4:18, as previously mentioned, is a combination of two passages of Isaiah (from chapters 42 and 61). Likewise, the quotation in Mark 1:2-3⁷⁸ is a quotation in Mark’s Gospel that refers to two separate passages, specifically from Malachi and Isaiah.⁷⁹ Notice how Isaiah 40:3 is quoted immediately after Malachi 3:1, without there being any signification of a division by Mark, not even a conjunctive “and,” although we know these are two separate passages of Scripture. Reading the book of Romans, one will find at least ten different places in the Old Testament being quoted over the course of nine verses, mostly without any addition of a conjunction between quotations.⁸⁰ Paul, writing in Romans 3:10-18, quotes from Psalm 14:1-3 or Psalm 53:1-3, and then quotes Psalm 5:9, Psalm 140:3, Psalm 10:7, Psalm 64:3, Proverbs 1:16, Proverbs 10:29, Proverbs 13:15, Isaiah 59:8 (with a conjunctive before this verse), and Psalm 36:1, in what amounts to a single sentence.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.⁸¹
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit;⁸² the poison of asps is under their lips:⁸³
Whose mouth is full of cursing⁸⁴ and bitterness:⁸⁵
Their feet are swift to shed blood:⁸⁶
Destruction⁸⁷ and misery⁸⁸ are in their ways:
And the way of peace have they not known:⁸⁹
There is no fear of God before their eyes.⁹⁰
– Romans 3:10-18

Returning back to the example of Matthew 12:18-21, it is observed that Isaiah 42:4 contains an intervening phrase, which is not found anywhere in Matthew 12:18-21. This fact shows that Isaiah 42:1-4 is not a complete match for Matthew 12:18-21, although the first three verses of both line up.

There is always this intervening phrase in the first half of Isaiah 42:4.

With all of that having been explained, it is true that the exact text of Matthew 12:21 (“and in his name shall the gentiles trust”) appears verbatim at the end of Isaiah 42:4 in the LXX, but it is added after the intervening phrase. It is still left to be explained why the first part of Isaiah 42:4 is not quoted in Matthew 12:18-21, if the Matthew passage is supposed to be an exact quote of Isaiah 42:1-4. The fact that there is a conjunctive word (in the Greek) at the beginning of Matthew 12:21 also serves as an indicator that what follows is meant to be another quotation from Isaiah. Since Paul quoted Isaiah 11:10 while writing in Romans 15:12, and he used the same terms as are found in Matthew 12:21 while doing so, it makes sense either way for Matthew 12:21 to be a quote from this part of Isaiah chapter 11, because Romans 15:12 certainly is.

There is therefore no requirement that Matthew 12:21 be a quotation of Isaiah 42:4 as opposed to Isaiah 11:10.

As an aside, the Hexaplar Septuagint also has a change in the words of the “intervening phrase” we have been discussing at Isaiah 42:4 as well:

In the KJV it reads: “He shall not fail nor be discouraged,”
The LXX however writes, “He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged…”

However, to “shine out” and to “not fail” are two entirely different things.

From this fact, we see that the writers of the Hexaplar Septuagint (LXX) may have attempted to change these specific passages. The existence of this additional change to Isaiah 42:4 provides us with evidence to support the pattern that seems to appear, in some places in the LXX, as previously established in this article. It seems that some changes were made in the Hexaplar Septuagint, in order to synchronize the LXX directly with the New Testament. One possible motivation for changing Isaiah 42:4 would be an intentional attempt to make it look as if Matthew had quoted it. But as we have seen, the reality instead was that the Evangelist had originally been making a combined quote of Isaiah 42:1-3 and Isaiah 11:10.

As we examine this quotation of Isaiah by Matthew, consider again the alterations made by the LXX to Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, where the number 70 was changed to 75. This would seem to be a change to the LXX version of Genesis and Exodus made to match Acts 7:14 (however this change is strangely not present at Deuteronomy 10:22 in the same LXX). Consider also the alteration made to Genesis 11:12-13 in the LXX, wherein the name “Cainan” was added, in order to match Luke 3:36, which is the only other place that this Cainan is mentioned as being directly related to Arphaxad (albeit, in Luke 3:36, Cainan is mentioned as a son, instead of having been begotten by Arphaxad). Similarly to each of these examples, Isaiah 42:4 in the LXX could have been altered in order to make it match Matthew 12:21.

Someone can make their translation of the Old Testament seem authentic by placing words taken directly from the New Testament into it.

Lastly, I bring back the fact from the opening of this article that we already started this article with a good enough reason to be fully persuaded to believe in the received version (the original unchanged Hebrew Old Testament). This is according to the Biblical arguments found in this previous post. What is reviewed and covered in this article is some extra information to judge and consider. We have shown how the original language version of the Old Testament does not really contain any contradictions or inaccuracies. The original version of the Old Testament we still have. It served as the basis of the 1611 Authorized KJV Bible. The same Hebrew and Syriac-Aramaic source can be used to make accurate translations in other languages. With the accurate copies available comprising the originals (as foretold in Isaiah 59:21), it is possible to distinguish where inaccuracies arise in other disagreeing versions. This article would hopefully be an example that process.

I should also note, that while it is not the most accurate translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint is, if used with a degree of caution, still useful as a reference for how ancient writers translated Hebrew into Greek. Similar to other ancient “versions” – or translations – the LXX may help as a preservative for understanding the meaning of some more obscure Hebrew words. This is because the LXX provides an insight as to one way in which these words were translated into another well-known language. The other columns of Origen’s Hexapla – such as the translations of the Old Testament into Greek by Symmachus, Aquila of Sinope, and Theodotion may also be of some limited use for translators of the Hebrew in this regard.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply