Scholars, theologians, and lay readers have long debated the intriguing question of whether the New Testament authors relied primarily on the Greek Septuagint or whether they also quoted directly from Hebrew texts. This matter becomes especially significant when one considers the extraordinary influence that the Septuagint held in the ancient world. For believers who view Scripture as inspired by God, an accurate understanding of the Old Testament background behind New Testament quotations is crucial for strengthening confidence in the divine message. Such an investigation also bears directly on how we interpret the unity between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures, as well as on how we view the reliability of the textual tradition that has been handed down for well over two millennia.

Many modern academicians approach the Bible as though it were merely another collection of ancient texts, shaped by human minds rather than moved by God’s spirit. Yet one must reflect on the historical roots of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek translations that arose well before the New Testament era. With that in mind, focusing attention on the Greek Septuagint and its relationship to early Christian writings allows us to explore how the earliest believers, especially the apostles, turned to Scripture in defense of essential doctrines, including the identity of Jesus as the promised Messiah (John 1:41). How, though, did this Greek translation gain widespread acceptance? Were New Testament authors truly quoting from what some might label a “corrupt” version, or were they referencing a legitimate Hebrew text that simply varied from the later standardized Masoretic Text?

The pages that follow examine the historical background of the Greek Septuagint, delve into the evidence offered by the Dead Sea Scrolls, and highlight scriptural citations found in the Christian writings. These discussions aim to reveal that while the Septuagint was highly influential, the possibility remains that Hebrew manuscripts exhibiting slightly different readings were still available and were faithfully preserved in the first century C.E. Additionally, reflections on the nature of divine inspiration and the reliability of the Scriptures will be interspersed throughout. The quest for accuracy is made all the more vital by the skepticism so prevalent in secular academia, some of whose representatives assert that the biblical text has undergone so many changes that no one can be certain of its authenticity. That view, however, is not based on the historical record of the highly disciplined manner in which the text was transmitted and preserved.

This theme extends beyond mere text-critical concerns, touching upon fundamental questions of faith. If one concludes that the New Testament writers quoted from “faulty sources,” it might seem to undermine confidence in the unity and inspiration of Scripture. Conversely, a faith-based yet academically responsible examination of the evidence points to a robust textual tradition in both Hebrew and Greek. The Greek Septuagint is indeed deeply woven into the history of Judaism and early Christianity, and its presence in New Testament quotations does not necessitate an abandonment of the idea that Scripture is the revealed Word of Jehovah.

The Historical Roots of the Greek Septuagint

The Greek Septuagint, commonly abbreviated LXX, stands as the first known translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Historically, the project is said to have begun around 280 B.C.E. in Alexandria, Egypt, during a period of heightened Hellenistic influence across the eastern Mediterranean world. According to tradition, which has grown over time, some seventy-two Jewish scholars contributed to this translation process. The name Septuagint, meaning “Seventy,” arose once that traditional number was rounded off. It would eventually be completed by about 150 B.C.E., making it a monumental achievement of antiquity.

The early spread of the Septuagint is somewhat easier to appreciate when one recalls that Greek was the lingua franca from the days of Alexander the Great (d. 323 B.C.E.) until well into the Roman Empire, particularly in the eastern Mediterranean region. Jewish communities living outside their ancestral homeland, especially those in major urban centers like Alexandria, needed a version of the sacred Hebrew texts accessible in the language used for daily communication. The Septuagint thus became integral to the devotional life of many Hellenistic Jews, who felt comfortable reading their Scripture in Greek. Its popularity persisted into the time of Jesus and the apostles, with evidence showing that most Old Testament quotations in the New Testament match readings found in the Septuagint.

Was the Hebrew Text Truly Replaced by the Septuagint for Early Believers?

Many first-century Jews resided in a world saturated with Hellenistic culture, so it is understandable that the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures would be read in Jewish synagogues and eventually by Christian congregations. That does not necessarily imply that Hebrew texts of the Old Testament were abandoned. By the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, Aramaic remained a common language in Judea, though Greek was widely spoken as well. Hebrew still held a reverential position, especially among devout Jews, many of whom were well-versed in the Hebrew writings. Furthermore, the synagogues in Judea likely possessed scrolls of the Scriptures in Hebrew, a tradition that would have carried significant historical and theological weight.

Early Jewish Christians would have used whichever copies of the Scriptures were most accessible and understandable for their audiences. That included not just the Greek Septuagint but likely Hebrew scrolls that existed in various forms, including versions that predated the standardized text that would emerge under the diligent oversight of the Masoretes centuries later. Acts 17:2–3 describes the apostle Paul reasoning from the Scriptures in the synagogues, which in Greek-speaking areas would presumably make use of the Septuagint, while in predominantly Hebrew-speaking locales, a Hebrew or Aramaic text might be referenced. Therefore, one can see how the distinctions between “Septuagint quotations” and “Hebrew quotations” are not as stark as some might suspect. The question is whether the variation that occasionally appears between quotations in the New Testament and the later Masoretic Text is truly due to the New Testament authors relying on “wrong” versions, or whether the Hebrew texts available in that era already contained such variants.

Insights from the Dead Sea Scrolls

For a lengthy period prior to 1947, scholars who observed differences between the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) sometimes ascribed them to translator errors or intentional modifications introduced during the copying process. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the mid-twentieth century, the academic world gained access to Hebrew manuscripts dating back to about the second century B.C.E. These contained variations in readings that had previously been known only from the Septuagint or other ancient translations like the Samaritan Pentateuch. This caused a reevaluation of earlier assumptions.

The Qumran community’s biblical manuscripts included fragments that closely resemble the later Masoretic Text, while others correspond more closely to the Septuagint or exhibit unique readings. It became evident that during the intertestamental period, the Hebrew text tradition was not absolutely uniform. Some scrolls aligned with what would eventually become the traditional Hebrew text (the Proto-Masoretic text), whereas others did not. These findings cast fresh light on why the New Testament might employ certain Old Testament quotations that diverge from the text that modern readers identify as the Masoretic Text. They could very well reflect a Hebrew tradition that was still recognized in the first century C.E., and not simply the Greek translation.

Consider an example cited frequently: Exodus 1:5, as quoted in Acts 7:14. Stephen’s defense speech in Acts mentions the number of Jacob’s household who migrated to Egypt. The number there is seventy-five, aligning with the Septuagint reading. The Masoretic Text puts the figure at seventy. Some propose that Stephen, or Luke as the writer of Acts, simply employed a popular Greek translation. However, it is also plausible that the Hebrew source at Stephen’s disposal read seventy-five, which was then preserved in the Greek Septuagint. The discovery that the Hebrew tradition was more varied than previously believed underscores the possibility that both readings might have circulated widely.

Textual Variation, Inspiration, and the Christian Apologist

A foundational teaching for many believers is that “all Scripture is inspired of God” (2 Timothy 3:16–17) and that the authors of the Bible were “moved along by holy spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). These verses affirm that the original text, penned by individuals such as Moses, David, Isaiah, and the apostles, was safeguarded from error in its composition. The question is whether scribal copying, translation, and revision introduced imperfections that undermine the inspired message. Some who do not hold to the inspiration of the Bible propose that the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text are evidence that the Bible is riddled with irreconcilable discrepancies. Yet the existence of textual variations, many of which are trivial or simply differences in spelling, need not bring about a crisis of faith.

Skeptics sometimes argue that the New Testament authors were unsophisticated and simply cited whichever version of the Old Testament they happened to have on hand, not taking great care to ensure the alignment of every passage. Others go so far as to claim that the apostles quoted from memory and, in doing so, might have conflated ideas or misquoted texts. They point to places like Matthew 2:23, where the author references “what was spoken through the prophets” and draws a connection to Jesus being called a Nazarene. Critics say that there is no explicit text in the Hebrew or the Septuagint that matches this phrase exactly. From their perspective, this might imply that Matthew loosely stitched passages together, supposedly a method that weakens the claim of biblical inspiration. However, a closer look at the historical context reveals how a statement might derive from a combination of established Old Testament motifs, especially those pointing to the Messiah’s modest background (compare Isaiah 53:2–3).

The Christian apologist takes a different approach, anchored in trust that the same God who inspired the writing also safeguarded the biblical text in such a way that its essential message remains reliably transmitted through the centuries. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed the existence of multiple Hebrew text traditions, it is not surprising that quotations in the New Testament at times resemble a textual tradition now better preserved in the Septuagint. If anything, the recognition of an older Hebrew text tradition that matches the so-called “Septuagint reading” gives credence to the idea that the New Testament authors were not simply quoting a “flawed Greek translation.” Instead, they might have been referencing a valid Hebrew reading that later became less common.

The Role of the Masoretic Scribes

From about 500 C.E. onward, a dedicated school of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes took on the sacred task of standardizing, preserving, and meticulously copying the Hebrew Scriptures. Their system included adding vowel points to an originally consonantal Hebrew text, introducing pronunciation guides, and establishing a margin apparatus to guard against scribal slips. Their efforts yielded the Masoretic Text, exemplified by the Codex Aleppo (ca. 930 C.E.) and the Codex Leningrad B 19A (ca. 1008 C.E.). Through the centuries, this text became the base for many published Hebrew Bibles, valued for its remarkable consistency and obvious scribal discipline. Some Christian traditions came to regard the Masoretic Text as the authoritative Hebrew text, a view that continues in many circles.

Yet as carefully preserved as the Masoretic Text has been, one must recall that it represents a standardized form that gradually gained primacy. Before the Masoretic tradition took on this role, there existed slightly different Hebrew manuscripts, some of which more closely parallel the readings in the Septuagint. By the time the Masoretes began their work, multiple Hebrew text forms had largely fallen out of circulation, especially among Jewish communities who increasingly came to favor a uniform standard. This does not diminish the significance of the Masoretic tradition, but it does explain why sometimes a given verse in the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew text that is most widely circulated today.

Did the New Testament Authors Use a “Corrupt” Reading?

Occasionally, critics highlight seeming contradictions in the process of textual transmission. Some note that, for instance, the Hebrew text in a given verse is accepted by scholars and translators as correct, whereas the Septuagint reading is viewed as corrupt. Then, in the New Testament, a writer might appear to quote the so-called corrupt reading. This phenomenon raises the question: If the Greek version is believed to hold a spurious phrase, did the New Testament author mistakenly cite an inaccurate version, and if so, how is that consistent with inspiration?

Sincere students of Scripture should recognize that what might be called “corrupt” in one context may be so labeled only because the modern textual critic has not yet seen adequate manuscript evidence supporting it. It might also be the case that the New Testament author was citing a legitimate Hebrew variant that aligns with the LXX, though that variant no longer appears in the limited sampling of surviving Hebrew manuscripts. The existence of textual variety discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls underscores how real these variations were, even during or prior to the time of Christ (Luke 2:11). Consequently, it does not follow that the apostolic writers appealed to an erroneous text. Instead, it is probable that they had access to legitimate readings, or they were guided (2 Peter 1:21) to deliver truths in a way that matched the divine intention for the new Christian congregation.

The Argument of Quotation Methods

Some have attempted to categorize every Old Testament quotation in the New Testament into neat methodological boxes, claiming that the apostolic writers might quote with an “expanded meaning” or reorder phrases for their particular application. Others suggest that if the Old Testament verse is being employed in a way that departs from its “original” setting, the New Testament writer is using it out of context. However, a literal approach consistent with the historical-grammatical method, combined with a recognition of the progressive nature of revelation, indicates that the authors under divine influence had every right to interpret and apply Scripture in ways approved by Jehovah (compare Luke 4:17–19 with Isaiah 61:1–2). The fundamental question is not whether the authors took “liberties,” but whether the meaning they conveyed is truthful and consistent with the broader biblical message.

An example involves the gospel writers who quote passages regarding the Messiah’s life that, in their original Old Testament context, point to certain conditions or events that God’s people experienced historically. Some might see that as a reinterpretation, yet from the standpoint of faith, these references highlight patterns or parallels that find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ (John 2:17 referencing Psalm 69:9). This is not typology in the sense of a hidden allegory, but the recognition that specific prophecies and patterns in the Old Testament do indeed have an application that the Messiah’s arrival brought to full expression (Zechariah 9:9 applied in Matthew 21:5). Such usage is distinct from the post-biblical notion of reading layers of symbolic or mystical meaning into every Old Testament passage.

The Nature of Textual Preservation

In discussing whether the New Testament authors relied on the Septuagint, some assume that God would have provided a single unaltered manuscript lineage without any variants. Yet the historical and archaeological record suggests that, rather than a single uniform textual line, there existed parallel streams of Hebrew manuscripts, as well as a Greek translation. It took centuries for those streams to coalesce into something close to the recognized standard forms. In that intervening period, the scribes, especially those who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, preserved overlapping but sometimes distinct traditions.

Nevertheless, despite having multiple textual lines, the Bible has survived with remarkable consistency. When scholars today compile critical editions of the Hebrew Old Testament, they analyze the Codex Aleppo, Codex Leningrad B 19A, various Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts, and ancient translations. Only then do they propose an eclectic text that attempts to best represent the words originally penned in Hebrew. A similar process occurs with the Greek New Testament, where thousands of manuscripts, in addition to early versions and quotations in the church writers, are weighed in order to determine which words the original authors used. The resulting text that emerges is extraordinarily stable, with the overwhelming majority of variants involving spelling differences or transposition of words that have no effect on meaning.

Recognizing the Limitations of Our Present Evidence

The biblical record spans well over a millennium of composition, from Moses’ writings, which are typically dated to the 15th century B.C.E., down through the close of the Hebrew canon in the 5th century B.C.E. and onward into the Christian Greek Scriptures of the first century C.E. Over those many centuries, papyrus and parchment served as the primary media for written transmission. While parchment endures longer than papyrus, the ravages of time, climate, and occasional persecution often led to the destruction of manuscripts. Many ancient copies have disintegrated, leaving scholars with only fragments that require painstaking reconstruction efforts.

Consequently, the absence of a direct, continuous, unbroken chain of manuscripts from biblical times to our present day does not invalidate the plausibility that a New Testament author had access to a Hebrew reading matching a known Septuagint variant. We might not currently possess that exact Hebrew manuscript, but neither can one exclude its existence. To presume that the only legitimate reading is the one found in modern printed Hebrew Bibles is to ignore both the evidence from Qumran and the complexity of textual transmission. At times, it takes years, even centuries, before new manuscript discoveries illuminate the historical transmission of the text. In the meantime, a balanced approach is to maintain confidence that Jehovah’s hand was at work in preserving the essential integrity of His Word.

Handling Seeming Contradictions with Faith and Reason

The presence of a textual conundrum does not necessarily undermine one’s trust in Scripture as the inspired Word. Where a reading in the Masoretic Text contradicts the Septuagint, each situation calls for examining whether the reading might be a variant from an ancient Hebrew text. One must consider whether scribal habits or theological motivations contributed to changes in either the Greek translation or the Hebrew manuscripts. If the best evidence suggests that the Septuagint’s wording stems from an older Hebrew tradition, it becomes clear that the New Testament’s reliance on that reading is justified.

Believers need not allow textual uncertainties to erode their confidence. Christian faith does not rest upon a single verse or a single variant but on the broader testimony of God’s Word and the historical reality of Jesus Christ’s ministry, death, and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3–8). The occasional textual difficulties do not constitute insuperable barricades to faith. While skeptics point to these variants as indicators of unreliability, the multiplicity of manuscripts and the rigorous discipline of textual analysis serve as a counterbalance, demonstrating that the essential message remains intact and fully understandable.

How the Early Church Employed the Septuagint

Records from the second and third centuries C.E. show that the Septuagint had become a central text for many Greek-speaking Christian congregations. Early Christian writers, such as those sometimes called the “Apostolic Fathers,” quoted profusely from it. As Christianity spread into regions of the Roman Empire where Hebrew was hardly known, Greek remained the universal language of commerce and learning. Naturally, Christians turned to the Greek translation of the Old Testament to support doctrinal arguments and to teach new converts.

However, the adoption of the Septuagint by Christians fueled a Jewish reaction. By the second century C.E., some Jewish teachers ceased promoting the Septuagint in synagogues, instead relying more heavily on the Hebrew text that would later become standard. Jewish translators like Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion produced alternative Greek versions that aligned more closely with the Hebrew as preserved by the Proto-Masoretic tradition. The reason was partly theological: The Christian community’s heavy reliance on the Septuagint to prove that Jesus was the Messiah likely contributed to suspicion among Jewish leaders, who feared that any reading supportive of Christian claims might have been introduced or altered by Christians themselves.

The Value of the Septuagint in Modern Textual Study

In modern times, textual scholars and translators continue to employ the Septuagint as a witness to an early form of the Hebrew Scriptures. When translators, guided by the historical-grammatical method, encounter textual problems in the Masoretic Text—perhaps a reading that appears nonsensical or lacks ancient Hebrew manuscript support—they may look to the Septuagint for a more coherent rendering. That does not suggest that the Septuagint is superior or infallible. At times, the Greek translators took liberties, embellished the text, or used paraphrastic expressions unsuited for direct translation back into Hebrew. Thus, the Septuagint remains a helpful but not absolute resource.

An informed Christian does well to approach each text on a case-by-case basis, weighing all available evidence, including the broader context, the character of each manuscript tradition, and the historical circumstances in which a text was produced or copied. The question “Did the New Testament authors really quote the Greek Septuagint rather than Hebrew texts?” then becomes less of a binary choice and more of a nuanced consideration of a complex, multifaceted transmission process. The answer could vary from verse to verse, with some quotations paralleling a specific Hebrew reading and others showing greater alignment with the Greek version that matches an ancient Hebrew variant.

Scriptural Illustration of Variation: The Case of Acts 7:14

One of the most cited examples, as mentioned, is Acts 7:14. When Stephen recounts the migration of Jacob’s household into Egypt, he quotes a number that corresponds with the Greek Septuagint (seventy-five persons) rather than the Masoretic reading (seventy persons). Critics question whether Stephen misquoted Scripture. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that Hebrew manuscripts in that era displayed more variety than previously believed. It is plausible that Stephen (and Luke, who recorded the account) preserved an authentic Hebrew figure that happened to match the Septuagint’s reading. From a faith perspective, this is perfectly feasible. If one holds that both Old and New Testament writers were under the guidance of divine influence, it should not be surprising that their documented accounts harmonize with a Hebrew text that is no longer extant but survived indirectly through the Greek translation.

Similar considerations apply to Matthew 21:16, where Jesus quotes Psalm 8:2 in a form that aligns with the Septuagint. The Masoretic Text says “You have established strength,” whereas the Septuagint and Jesus’ quotation read “You have prepared praise.” One might claim that the Greek reading is an interpretative expansion or possibly a corruption, but the Qumran discoveries indicate that textual diversity existed in Hebrew manuscripts, making it quite possible that “You have prepared praise” was a legitimate Hebrew variant during Jesus’ time.

Handling Difficulties Without Losing Confidence

It is beneficial to admit that textual difficulties exist in Scripture, rather than glossing them over or pretending they do not exist. A crisis of confidence might arise for some when a textual question has no immediate solution. Yet the history of textual criticism in both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament confirms that scholars have been able to resolve a vast majority of problematic readings. For instance, the text of the Greek New Testament is approximately 99% secure, with only a handful of variants posing genuine uncertainty about the original reading. None of these variants impact core doctrines or moral teachings.

When confronted with a vexing passage where the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint diverge, a modest posture acknowledges that surviving evidence may not be complete. This does not imply that the unknown variant never existed. Indeed, numerous such textual puzzles have been solved by the discovery of additional manuscripts or by closer study of scribal conventions. Rather than presuming error, the faithful student can patiently wait while further academic research or, conceivably, newly discovered manuscripts shed additional light.

Why the New Testament’s Use of the Septuagint Does Not Negate Inspiration

Those who question the inspiration of Scripture sometimes seize upon the New Testament’s use of the Septuagint to argue that if the apostles used “flawed” or “human” sources, it undermines biblical infallibility. Such a reasoning misrepresents the doctrine of inspiration. Believers who hold to biblical inerrancy assert that the original writings, authored under divine guidance, conveyed God’s will flawlessly. They do not insist that subsequent copies and translations could never contain minor discrepancies. The critical point is that God’s overarching purpose is clearly discernible in the surviving manuscripts and that no essential truth of the faith has been compromised. The occasional citation of a variant reading from a legitimate Hebrew tradition that differs from the standard Masoretic Text is not a contradiction of this principle.

Furthermore, the New Testament authors did not write in a historical or cultural vacuum. They used the languages, resources, and scribal tools common to their day. That includes quoting from a widely accepted Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures—something entirely normal for Jewish religious teachers of the first century C.E., especially those interacting with Greek-speaking audiences. That reality does not detract from the vital truth that “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). In many cases, the Greek Septuagint quotations in the New Testament carry a forceful doctrinal clarity that effectively conveys the meaning of the original Hebrew.

Bridging Scholarly Research and Christian Apologetics

Modern believers who seek to defend the faith need not fear scholarly research into textual traditions. Historical-grammatical analysis, which respects the historical setting, linguistic features, and the broader context of each passage, can reinforce faith in the reliability of Scripture. When critics raise objections based on alleged discrepancies between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, apologists are in a strong position to point to the evidence uncovered by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which shows that multiple Hebrew traditions existed side by side. Instead of demonstrating that the Bible is contradictory, this shows that the inspired authors were employing legitimate textual forms that circulated among God’s people in antiquity.

Apologists can also highlight how the science of textual criticism, when conducted responsibly, continues to confirm the stability of the biblical text. Far from revealing a chaotic or random textual tradition, these efforts have led to a solid reconstruction of what the original authors wrote. A Christian who upholds Scripture’s inspiration has every reason to examine evidence and consult scholarly insights. Indeed, it was the church’s earliest copyists and scholars who were motivated by their convictions to preserve the Scriptures with immense dedication. Over the centuries, countless committed individuals have painstakingly cataloged and studied the minutest details of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in order to pass on the text as accurately as possible.

A Confidence That Survives Uncertainty

Although we lack the original manuscripts penned by Moses, David, Isaiah, Matthew, Paul, and other Bible writers, we need not regret that loss. The physical documents themselves have no inherent salvific value; rather, it is the content that matters. Over many centuries, various scribes, copyists, and translators ensured that the vital message of Scripture remained accessible. Even in eras when textual corruption threatened to obscure certain passages, a combination of Hebrew manuscripts, the Greek Septuagint, and other ancient witnesses helped keep the text’s meaning alive.

When the user of Scripture encounters a perplexity regarding Septuagint versus Hebrew readings, a calm yet diligent approach can be adopted: consult the broader context, investigate parallel passages, and weigh the opinions of those who have spent years studying these questions. Each difficulty presents an opportunity to explore Scripture’s depth and nuance more fully. Not every challenge will yield a definitive resolution immediately. That does not warrant concluding that there is no answer. The vast storehouse of manuscripts and scholarly analyses continues to grow, and every new piece of data has the potential to clarify an obscure passage.

Enduring Lessons from Textual Variations

The existence of different textual streams teaches valuable lessons about divine revelation. It highlights that God allowed the text of Scripture to be copied, transmitted, and translated by imperfect humans rather than dictating its preservation in a supernatural manner that circumvented human agency. Nonetheless, the net result is that the essential message—God’s instructions for moral living, His purpose for humanity, and the good news of salvation—remains clear and understandable. Seen through the lens of faith, this is not a shortcoming but a testament to God’s gracious willingness to use human channels while safeguarding the underlying truth.

The natural question arises: if the New Testament authors occasionally reflected a Hebrew tradition more aligned with the Septuagint, what practical implications does that have for modern believers? It reassures them that the God who “is not partial” (Romans 2:11) made His Word accessible in the language of common people, bridging gaps across cultures. It further reminds them that the final authority does not rest in one narrow textual tradition but in the divine Author who spoke through many prophets and ultimately revealed Himself in His Son (Hebrews 1:1–2). Therefore, a Christian is free to use reliable modern translations that rely primarily on the Masoretic Text while still appreciating the ancient witness of the Septuagint.

Affirmation of Biblical Harmony

Some might wonder whether the variety in Old Testament quotations disrupts the continuity of Scripture’s narrative. In reality, the continuity remains firmly intact. Whether the New Testament quotes a passage according to the Hebrew or its Greek rendering, the message consistently testifies to the central truths regarding humankind’s need for redemption, Jehovah’s righteousness, and the hope of everlasting life through Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23). Believers who hold that the Bible cannot contradict itself point to the alignment of theological themes throughout its sixty-six books. Even textual variations that deal with numerical or minor verbal details do not erode these overarching, unifying truths.

One powerful scriptural example is the way Jesus applies Old Testament passages during His earthly ministry. For instance, Jesus deflects the devil’s temptations by citing Deuteronomy, declaring that “man must not live on bread alone” (Matthew 4:4 referencing Deuteronomy 8:3). Whether Jesus used a Hebrew scroll or the Greek translation, the substance of the message is unchanged: total reliance on Jehovah surpasses immediate physical needs. The main point remains consistent, and the various textual traditions do not alter Jesus’ teaching.

Exploring Specific Quotations with an Apologetic Mindset

When a particular New Testament citation differs from the Masoretic reading, an apologetic approach asks probing questions: Did the Hebrew text at the time differ from what we now have? Does the Septuagint preserve a clearer or older tradition? Is the difference simply a matter of synonyms, spelling, or paraphrase, or does it substantially affect the meaning? Have Dead Sea Scrolls or other ancient witnesses shed light on this passage?

A measured, historically informed method can reveal that, on numerous occasions, the Septuagint offers a reading that might at first seem divergent but which is supported by other pre-Masoretic Hebrew evidence or is readily harmonized once context is considered. When no solution is forthcoming, the believer can faithfully acknowledge that a final explanation might be elusive with our present data, while maintaining that God’s Word remains “living and active” (Hebrews 4:12).

Summation of the Evidence

While the Greek Septuagint gained widespread use among early Christians, it did not altogether supplant the Hebrew text. Instead, it existed alongside Hebrew manuscripts that exhibited slight variations. The findings from Qumran confirm that there was real textual variety in the centuries leading up to and including the time of Jesus. The suggestion that the Septuagint is merely a faulty translation that the New Testament authors unwittingly cited is insufficient. It is far more plausible that the same Spirit who inspired Moses and the prophets guided the apostolic authors to reference the textual forms deemed appropriate for their message. That a verse in the Masoretic Text differs from the reading that appears in a New Testament citation does not prove an error on the part of the New Testament writer.

Anyone who embraces biblical authority and inerrancy does so not because of a naive idealization of the manuscript tradition, but because of the overwhelming evidence that, in the main, the text has been preserved in a form that accurately reflects what was first written. This trust is further justified by the proven reliability of Scripture in moral and historical matters, as well as the unifying message that runs from Genesis to Revelation. Hence, the New Testament authors may well have quoted from the Septuagint or from a Hebrew manuscript tradition that matches the Septuagint reading. Neither scenario contradicts a faithful view of Scripture as inspired by God.

Conclusion

Examining whether the New Testament writers relied primarily on the Greek Septuagint or used Hebrew texts reminds us that the biblical record is rooted in real historical processes. Different text traditions coexisted, and the apostles had legitimate reasons to incorporate readings that aligned with variants now known to us only through the Septuagint or the Qumran discoveries. Rather than undermining confidence, these findings reinforce the conclusion that God’s Word could be transmitted in multiple languages and textual forms without losing its essential truth.

The greatest assurance is that the same God who communicated His will through human instruments continues to watch over His Word, ensuring that sincere readers seeking His guidance can gain what they need for faith and practice (James 1:5). Although we lack the original documents, the abundance of manuscript evidence, the rigorous methods of textual criticism, and the historical testimony of the church demonstrate that the substance of Scripture remains stable and consistent. Faithful believers can rest assured that the quotations in the New Testament—whether they seem to follow the Masoretic Text, the Greek Septuagint, or a Hebrew variant of antiquity—do not betray the message God intended. Ultimately, the unity and power of the Bible stand unshaken, inviting every reader to discover within its pages the “words of everlasting life” (John 6:68).

See THE FACE OF AN APOSTATE ANTICHRIST

You May Also Enjoy

How Can We Reconcile the Law and Grace Without Suggesting That God’s Standards Have Changed?

About the Author

Online Guided Bible Study Courses

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION