Why the Greek Septuagint?

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

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

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

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

Is the Septuagint More Accurate?

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

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

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

Who is Responsible for the Change to the Hebrew Text?

So, why do most modern Bibles use the Masoretic text rather that the Septuagint? Notice this Wikipedia quotation under the topic, Old Testament: 'Early church teachers and writers reacted with even stronger devotion, citing the Septuagint's antiquity and its use by the Evangelists and Apostles. Being the Old Testament quoted by the Gospels and the Greek Church Fathers, the LXX had an essentially official status in the early Christian world. Following in the steps of Philo and Hellenistic Judaism, they claimed its inspiration was not inferior to that of the original … When Jerome undertook the revision of the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint in about 400 AD, he checked the Septuagint against the Hebrew text that was then available. He came to believe that the Hebrew text better testified to Christ than the Septuagint. He broke with church tradition and translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from Hebrew rather than Greek. His choice was severely criticized by Augustine, his contemporary, and others who regarded Jerome as a forger. But with the passage of time, acceptance of Jerome's version gradually increased in the West until it displaced the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint.'

Were Jerome's reasons for preferring the Masoretic text over the Septuagint based on fact? No, actually the opposite is true; for notice that the same commentary goes on to say, 'The Hebrew text differs in some passages that Christians hold to prophesy Christ, and the Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use the Septuagint as the basis for translating the Old Testament into other languages.'

As you can see; the reason why the Masoretic (Hebrew) text is now used for the OT portion of most Christian Bibles, is due to the mistake of Jerome. And because his early Latin translation then became the basis for the first English and Germanic Bibles, most modern translations (except for in the Eastern Church) use the Masoretic text, not the Septuagint.

Septuagint's Effect on Hebrew-based Bibles

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

More Consistent with the NT

Also consider the content of the three following verses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Better Rendering of Dates

Being more involved with the Septuagint, we were surprised when someone brought the fact to our attention that the Septuagint gives us much longer periods between the creation of Adam and the Downpour (see Genesis 5), as well as much longer periods between the Downpour and Abram's entering the land of CanaAn (see Genesis 11:10-26)… hundreds of years! The reason for this appears to be that ancient copyists or translators of the Masoretic text just didn't believe the long lifespans before the conception of each child, so they simply deleted the word for one-hundred wherever they found it. And this created some really strangely-short periods (yes, stranger than the long lifespans) in the growth and expansion of mankind on the earth.

For example; notice that most Bibles show that there were only 67 years from the time of the Downpour to the birth of Shem's great-great-grandson Heber (Eber). However, in the meantime, Noah's great-grandson Nimrod was already building Babylon and several other cities (see Genesis 10:6-12). So, where did all the people come from in less than 67 years? Obviously, there is something very wrong with the Masoretic text, and the Septuagint is right in adding hundreds of years to this period.

What the Septuagint tells us is that there was actually another generation between Noah and Heber (that of Cainan), and that there was a period of 397 years from the time of the end of the downpour to the birth of Heber, which is much more reasonable and consistent with Secular history.

Was there actually a Cainan in that early genealogy and is the Masoretic text wrong? YES! Notice Luke's listing of the genealogy of Mary's husband Joseph, as found at Luke 3:35, 36: 'of Serug, of Reu, of Peleg, of Eber, of SheLah, of Cainan, of ArPachShad, of Shem, of Noah, of Lamech.'

Then, was the addition of this name simply a scribal error exclusive to the Septuagint that was repeated by Luke (who also used the Septuagint), as some claim? For a fact, there are other Cainans listed in the Bible. One was a great-grandson of Adam, and another was a grandson of Noah through Shem (not to be confused with CanaAn, the son of Ham, who was cursed by Noah); so Cainan appears to have been a common name. However, this Cainan was (according to the Septuagint) a son of Arphaxad, and he was the grandfather of Heber (from whom the Hebrews descended), who in turn was the great-great-grandfather of Abraham. And notice that if this was a scribal error, it was repeated several times in Genesis Chapters Nine and Ten of the Septuagint.

So, which text is wrong? The error appears to have been caused by deletions from the Hebrew texts, which likely resulted because some later copyist thought that another use of the same name was a mistake.

It is also noteworthy that most scholars agree that the Kenites (Moses' first wife was a Kenite) who lived nearby and were relatives of the IsraElites, descended from a man named Cainan, who could well be the same as the Cainan of Genesis 11:12 in the Septuagint. For more information, see the Note Cainan in the book of 1 Chronicles.

How the Corrected Dates Align With Egypt's Historical Records

For example, look at how closely our adjusted date for the year of the Downpour (3242-B.C.E.) aligns with the dates suggested by archeologists for the beginning of the First Egyptian Dynasty, 3050-B.C.E. (see the link, Pharaohs Timeline). So, could that first king (Menes) have actually been the Egyptian name for Noah's grandson Mesrain, the progenitor of their race (see Genesis 10:13, 14)?

And notice how our adjusted date for the creation of Adam (5504-B.C.E.) according to the Septuagint aligns closely with the beginning of the supposed ParaOhs (kings) of the Pre-dynastic Period (5550-B.C.E.).

Yes, Egyptologists list as many as thirteen kings in the Egyptian pre-Dynastic Period; and according to the Septuagint, Mesrain had twelve ancestors (during that same 2,500 years or so) that led back to Adam! Notice the correlation between our Bible dates and those of Egyptologists… they come as close as just FIFTY YEARS out of more than SEVEN THOUSAND, without any gerrymandering!

We will admit that certain assumptions that we made in selecting Kamose as the PharaOh of the Exodus could be wrong, putting our calculations off by forty to eighty years; however, the percentage is minuscule and the correlation is still amazing!

How They Align With Other Recorded Dates

It is also interesting to note that the much argued radiocarbon dating for the destruction of the ancient city of Jericho (which has been used to prove that the Bible's chronology is flawed) works in well with our estimated 1555-B.C.E. date, since the recorded limit for this is exactly forty years later (Jericho fell forty years after IsraEl left Egypt), or in 1535! See the Wikipedia article Jericho under the subheading Ancient Times.

In addition, consider the fact that archaeologists say that the Chinese civilization can be traced back some 5,000 years. And while Bible chronology using the Masoretic text sets the Downpour (global flood) at about 4,350 years ago, the chronology from the Septuagint sets it closer to 5,200 years ago, which works better with the dates according to archaeologists.

Consider too the calendars of the Aztecs and Mayans. Notice that according to their mythology, there have been five ages, the fifth of which will end on December 24th 2011 (December 23rd 2012 on the Mayan calendar). However, according to their calendars, the fourth age ended by water in 3113-B.C.E. Yes, that is off from our calculations of the date of the Downpour, but by only 129 years! So, how many witnesses have to be provided in order to prove the Masoretic text to be in error?

A fairly recent find, 'Otzi,' the ancient almost-complete body of 'the ice man' that was discovered frozen into the glacial ice in the Italian Alps, has been radio-carbon dated to have lived about 5,000 years ago. Yet, every indication is that he died there after the Great Downpour of Noah's day, since his DNA shows a close relationship to the people who still live in that area. And while we don't trust the radio-carbon dating of earlier things, because the waters of the Downpour (which most scientists illogically attribute to a global glacier) and the pre-downpour atmospheric conditions have clearly skewed the pre-Flood results, we do accept that this man probably lived and died shortly after the time of Noah, as calculated from the corrected Bible record, which has to be at least 5,000 years ago, not 4,350 as indicated by the Masoretic text.

Name Discrepancies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Better Pronunciation of Names

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

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

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

Better Poetry

One area where errors in the text become very clear is in the book of Psalms, for Hebrew songs and poetry follow clear orders and rhythms. Yet, some of the Psalms in the Greek text don't handle that well, giving us the impression that much may have been lost in translation. However, when checking the same verses in the Hebrew text, we find the same errors! So, it appears as though the corruption is common to both texts. And that raises the question: Was the Hebrew text corrupted before the translation of the Septuagint, or was the source of the corruption the Greek text, which later influenced the Hebrew text?

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

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

Which is the Better Text Source?

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

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

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

Is the Septuagint Incomplete?

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

The Changes We Have Made

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

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

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

Notice that there are thirty-eight extra verses in the Greek text of Lamentations Chapter Three, which appear to be authentic and inspired, and which seem to include a messianic prophecy! In fact, much of the text following that also appears to include messianic prophecies. So, could this be the reason why those verses were deleted from the Hebrew texts… could there have been anti-messianic bias on the part of Jewish copyists?

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

Home Page