The Septuagint Fallacy Exposed

Nearly Two Thousand Years of Testimony That the LXX
Has Never Been a Fixed Text, But Only a Name Applied
to Diverse, Corrupt, and Ever-Changing Greek Texts

by Stuart DiNenno

Introduction and Summary

The “Septuagint,” commonly abbreviated LXX, is the traditional name applied to the ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. The name derives from the Latin word for “seventy” and reflects an ancient tradition according to which seventy-two Jewish translators were brought to Alexandria, Egypt in the third century before Christ to translate the five books of the Law of Moses into Greek. It is believed that many Jews in the ancient Mediterranean world who lived outside the land of Israel had adopted Greek as their everyday language and were no longer fluent in Hebrew, creating a need for Greek translations of the Scriptures. Although the traditional account of the Septuagint’s origin in Alexandria is fanciful and unlikely to have any factual basis, historians are reasonably certain that a Greek translation of the Law of Moses was made before the Christian era. It is also believed that other portions of the Hebrew Old Testament were translated into Greek before the first century by different hands. As these translations accumulated, they came to form what is commonly called the Greek Old Testament, and the name “Septuagint,” originally associated with the story of the translation of the Law of Moses by the Seventy, came to be applied much more broadly to the entire collection of Old Testament Greek texts.

Using one name for this collection can create a false impression of its history. “The Septuagint” is commonly spoken of as though it were one ancient Greek Old Testament, existing as one identifiable Greek text that was preserved in substantially the same form through the centuries. This is far from the truth. Henry Barclay Swete (1835–1917), the Anglican Septuagint specialist, stated the historical reality more accurately: “Strictly speaking … [it] is not a single version, but a series of versions produced at various times and by translators whose ideals were not altogether alike.” The evidence gathered in this article shows that the so-called Septuagint originated as a collection of differing Greek translations that were subsequently corrupted and altered extensively as they were copied through the centuries. What was transmitted under the name “Septuagint” was never one pure, fixed, and stable text at any point in its history, and it became progressively more corrupted through successive ages.

This article was not written to establish or defend the purity or preservation of the Hebrew text, but to demonstrate that the Greek texts circulated under the name “Septuagint” have undergone extensive alteration and corruption. Nevertheless, given God’s promise to preserve His Word (Psalm 12:6–7; Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 5:18; 1 Peter 1:23–25), and the compelling evidence that the Greek translations have not escaped serious deterioration, the necessary conclusion is that, despite the apostasy of the Jews, He has preserved the Old Testament Scriptures in their original language through the continuing transmission of the Hebrew text. The many witnesses assembled here support this conclusion by consistently recognizing the primacy of the Hebrew Scriptures in their respective eras, while differing in their judgments concerning the extent to which the Greek texts had been corrupted and the value those texts still possessed.

This article brings together seventy-two witnesses spanning nearly two thousand years. They include Christian writers and biblical scholars from the early church through the modern era who examined how the Greek Old Testament originated, how it was copied and revised through the centuries, and how its wording changed over time. They represent widely differing periods, churches, and scholarly traditions. Some devoted substantial portions of their careers to studying and editing the Greek texts.

The seventy-two witnesses included here are not exhaustive. Additional names could readily have been added, including George Horn, Johannes Hulsius, John Milner, Samuel Bochart, Edmund Castell, Thomas Hyde, Patrick Young, and other scholars who defended the authority of the Hebrew text, documented corruption within the Greek tradition, or otherwise addressed problems concerning the Septuagint and its transmission. The collection was limited for practical reasons, not because the historical testimony ends with the seventy-two witnesses selected here.

One practical limitation is that both medieval writers and scholars of the past hundred years are underrepresented in this collection, though for different reasons. Much medieval writing has been lost, and many surviving works remain unpublished, untranslated, or difficult to access. More recent scholarship presents another obstacle: much of it remains under copyright and is less readily available for extensive examination and quotation. Earlier printed works, many of which are in the public domain, are generally more accessible for this purpose. The chronological distribution of these witnesses therefore reflects, in part, the survival and accessibility of their writings rather than the relative strength or prevalence of their views.

Contrary witnesses could, of course, be brought forth in opposition to the thesis of this article. Such men, however, constitute only a tiny minority in the nearly two-thousand-year history surveyed here. Very few writers have argued that Christians should prefer the Septuagint to the Hebrew text as the authoritative form of the Old Testament. Advocates who substantially elevated the Greek text above the received Hebrew were historically exceptional, even among prominent theologians who held the Septuagint in high regard. The far more common position was to recognize the Hebrew as the original-language text and to regard the Greek as a secondary translation suffering corruption and alteration in transmission, and surviving in different forms that required careful examination rather than unquestioning acceptance as an authoritative Old Testament independent of the Hebrew.

The witnesses below were not selected because they all held the same theological position or were uniformly hostile to the LXX. Some valued the ancient Greek translation highly, while others judged it severely. They also differed over how much of its earliest form could still be recovered. Their disagreements are included. What gives their testimony weight is that men separated by centuries, nations, churches, and methods nevertheless agree on the same broad historical facts.

The selection of witnesses was also made with deliberate care to exclude theological liberals and rationalists. Writers known for rejecting the traditional Christian understanding of Scripture or attempting to undermine its divine authority were excluded from this collection. The testimony presented here therefore cannot be dismissed as the product of liberal biblical criticism or hostility toward the Bible. Many of these witnesses firmly defended the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture, yet openly acknowledged the defects of the Septuagint.

The books grouped under the name “Septuagint” did not constitute one uniform Greek translation produced at one time. The Greek texts suffered corruption and alteration in transmission, differing forms became mixed together, and later scholars repeatedly sought to recover earlier forms of texts that had not been preserved in a pure and fixed condition.

The case does not rest upon isolated textual mistakes or upon the opinion of one school of scholarship. Individual examples of textual errors appear in the entries that follow, but the principal argument rests upon broad historical judgments made by a large body of witnesses. Their testimony concerns both the uncertain identity of what was called the Septuagint and the alterations introduced into the individual Greek texts as they were copied through the centuries.

Evidence of textual alteration appears almost immediately in the surviving Christian record. In the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr (100–165) charged that “many passages of Scripture” had been removed by the Jews from the Greek translation associated with the elders under Ptolemy. He further stated concerning one disputed passage that “it was only a short time ago that they cut these things out.” Whatever judgment is made concerning Justin’s particular examples, by the second century a prominent Christian writer already believed that the Greek text associated with the Seventy had suffered deliberate alteration.

In the following century, Origen (185–253), one of the most important figures in the textual history of the Greek Old Testament, spoke explicitly of “the disagreement among the copies.” The differences were serious enough that he regarded some passages in the Septuagint as doubtful and attempted to deal with the problem by comparison with other Greek versions and by using special marks to identify passages that had been added or omitted.

Jerome (347–420) described the commonly circulating Septuagint as “an old corrupted edition.” Elsewhere he said that the “genuine and ancient translation” had been “corrupted and violated,” complained of material “corrupted through the fault of copyists,” and described substantially different Greek forms circulating in different regions. His testimony is among the earliest and clearest evidence that the Greek Old Testament known to the church had already undergone extensive alteration and existed in substantially different forms.

The same recognition continued through the Middle Ages. The Dominican cardinal Hugh of Saint-Cher (1190–1263), while discussing the Greek-derived biblical tradition, referred directly to “many corruptions,” attributing them to defective copies as well as deficiencies in translation. The medieval works known as the Correctoria (which were intended to correct biblical manuscripts), Roger Bacon, and other witnesses from the Middle Ages likewise reflect concern with faulty translation, corruption, correction, and the difficulty of recovering a sound Greek form. Some medieval witnesses depended substantially upon Jerome, while others reached similar conclusions through their own textual work; where that dependence is significant, it is acknowledged. However, the collection extends across nearly two millennia and reveals, through the work of a great multitude of scholars, Greek Old Testament texts that had undergone extensive changes and been mixed with other versions, making their earlier history and wording difficult to determine. Even without Jerome’s testimony, the historical case would remain extensive and compelling.

By the Reformation period, some scholars expressed even stronger doubts about whether the Greek texts circulating under the name “Septuagint” were actually the ancient translation attributed to the Seventy. William Whitaker (1548–1595), the English Reformed controversialist, said that the sounder judgment was that “the true Septuagint is wholly lost” and that the Greek version then extant was “a mixed and miserably corrupted document.” He later concluded that it was either no longer the work originally produced by the Seventy or had been “so infinitely and shamefully corrupted that it is now of exceedingly slight authority.”

The Flemish Reformed scholar Johannes Drusius (1550–1616), who devoted extensive attention to the ancient Greek translations, was equally direct. He wrote that he believed no knowledgeable person in his day doubted that “the translation commonly found among the Greeks is not that of the Seventy interpreters.” He spoke of “innumerable passages” displaying serious deficiencies and concluded emphatically: “He who does not see this in that edition sees nothing.” Amandus Polanus, Andrew Willet, and other Reformed writers of the period reached similar conclusions concerning the difference between the ancient translation associated with the Seventy and the Greek texts then in circulation.

James Ussher (1581–1656), Church of Ireland archbishop and one of the most learned Protestant scholars of the seventeenth century, likewise maintained that “the primitive interpretation of the Seventy Elders has completely perished” and that the Greek received under their name was “plainly different from it.” Brian Walton (1600–1661), the English biblical scholar and editor of the London Polyglot Bible, recognized that the Greek Old Testament had undergone extensive alteration and that different Greek translations and revisions had become mixed together. John Gregory and John Lightfoot likewise regarded what was being called the Septuagint in their time as a collection of Greek texts that had become so corrupted, altered, and mixed together that their relationship to the earliest Greek translations was deeply uncertain.

Not every witness concluded that the original Septuagint had disappeared altogether. Some believed that substantial portions of the ancient translation remained recoverable. But even writers who rejected the strongest claims of complete loss repeatedly acknowledged extensive corruption and alteration, as well as the mixing of different Greek translations and revised versions. The disagreement was over how much of the ancient text could still be recovered, not over whether the Greek text had undergone serious alteration.

The repeated attempts to correct the Greek texts were themselves recognized as evidence that those texts already contained numerous errors. The Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard (1582–1637), after noting the corrections associated with Origen, Lucian, Hesychius, and Jerome during the first ages of the New Testament church, asked: “And who would believe that, when during the first three hundred years it had contracted corruptions, it remained uncorrupted during the remaining thirteen hundred years?”

The Roman Catholic cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), despite maintaining a high view of the original LXX translators, reasoned in essentially the same way. After observing that the Greek text had repeatedly been corrected, he stated the obvious principle that “nothing is corrected unless it had previously been corrupted.” He then questioned how a text which had already accumulated so many defects in its early centuries could reasonably be supposed to have remained intact thereafter. Sixtus of Siena and other Roman Catholic writers also acknowledged serious defects in the Greek tradition without abandoning a high regard for the ancient translation itself.

The Lutheran theologians Johann Andreas Quenstedt (1617–1688) and Abraham Calov (1612–1686) were still more severe. Quenstedt said that the Greek version “abounds with many errors and corruptions” and spoke of “the innumerable errors with which the present Greek version of the Seventy is filled.” Calov likewise said that it “abounds in errors” and, describing its transmitted condition, declared that “everything is confused in the edition of the Septuagint.” Lutheran August Pfeiffer and Johann Gottlob Carpzov also wrote of extensive deterioration and the need to distinguish the received Greek texts from their earlier forms.

The English Puritan theologian John Owen (1616–1683) wrote that “nothing almost is manifest concerning it but that it is wofully corrupt.” He distinguished defects attributable to the early Greek translators from the “innumerable corruptions and interpolations” subsequently introduced into the text. Elsewhere he said that the Greek had been “corrupted and gone off from the original in a thousand places twice told,” calling it a “corrupt stream.” Henry Owen in the next century, along with other English writers, likewise treated pollution and alteration of the Greek texts as established facts.

Francis Turretin (1623–1687), the Genevan Reformed theologian, supplied one of the strongest descriptions in the collection. He wrote that the Septuagint was “not possessed today in a pure form, but has been wonderfully corrupted and interpolated,” and continued: “we have only its ruins and remnants, so that it can now scarcely be called the version of the Septuagint.” Johann Heinrich Hottinger, Gisbertus Voetius, and Bernardinus De Moor made closely related judgments concerning the defective condition of the transmitted Greek texts.

These statements did not arise from one theological party. Writers from sharply differing churches and scholarly traditions repeatedly acknowledged the same underlying historical problem, even when they differed over its extent or consequences. Nor can this testimony reasonably be dismissed as merely Protestant, or more narrowly as predominantly Reformed. Six Roman Catholic witnesses writing during or after the Reformation are represented in this collection—Agostino Steuco, Sixtus of Siena, Robert Bellarmine, Richard Simon, Sebastian Seemiller, and Joseph Ziegler. Nine Lutheran witnesses are also included—Johann Gerhard, Abraham Calov, Johann Andreas Quenstedt, August Pfeiffer, Johann Gottlob Carpzov, Johann David Michaelis, Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Carl Friedrich Keil, and Franz Delitzsch. The conclusions documented here therefore cross the principal confessional divisions of post-Reformation Christianity.

Another major difficulty was mixture. Sometimes a copyist introduced words from one Greek translation into a manuscript of another, so that the resulting copy contained material from both translations. Over time, such alterations caused different Greek translations and revised versions to become so thoroughly mixed together that it became increasingly difficult to distinguish one from another.

Humphrey Hody (1659–1707), an Anglican scholar who defended substantial continuity between the surviving Greek and the ancient Septuagint, nevertheless stated that the principal Greek forms had become “so thoroughly confused and intermixed with one another by copyists that the distinction between them almost entirely disappeared.” His testimony is especially significant because he was not attempting to discredit the LXX. Even a scholar who believed that much of the original Septuagint had survived acknowledged that its text had become extensively mixed with wording from other Greek versions. John Ernest Grabe, Lambert Bos, and other scholars of the same period devoted substantial effort to determining which words and passages belonged to the different Greek translations and revisions.

John Pearson (1613–1686), Anglican bishop and theologian, acknowledged that the Septuagint had been “corrupted and violated” and that its “former purity” had to be “restored and recovered.” He also observed that major Greek editions “differ greatly from one another.” Pearson regarded the received Greek texts as substantially altered and believed that their earlier wording needed to be recovered rather than simply accepting the texts as they stood.

By the eighteenth century, scholars had begun extensive efforts to compare Greek manuscripts and reconstruct earlier forms of the text. Robert Holmes (1748–1805), an Anglican clergyman who spent years collecting and comparing differences among Septuagint manuscripts, described the genuine text as dispersed among differing copies, with “more or less of omission or interpolation in every one.” His work illustrates how extensively the Greek texts had changed and how difficult it had become to recover their earlier wording. Sebastian Seemiller, Johann David Michaelis, Adam Clarke, and others likewise examined the history of corruption and revision within the Greek tradition.

William Henry Green (1825–1900), the American Presbyterian theologian and Old Testament scholar, distinguished the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures from the imperfections of the ancient Greek translation. He rejected the notion that the apostles’ use of the Septuagint established the authority of its errors, stating that such use “by no means sanction[s] its inaccuracies.” His testimony reinforces the distinction between the usefulness of the Septuagint as an ancient translation and its reliability as a representation of the original Hebrew text. Other Protestant scholars, such as Henry Barclay Swete, Richard Rusden Ottley, and Henry St. John Thackeray, also described the Greek Old Testament as a collection of differing texts that had been repeatedly altered rather than one uniform translation preserved unchanged.

Joseph Ziegler (1902–1988), a German Roman Catholic priest and one of the principal twentieth-century Septuagint editors, acknowledged that “Some corruptions have obscured the entire manuscript tradition and can be restored only by conjecture.” He further admitted that in difficult cases “Complete certainty can never be attained.”

John William Wevers (1919–2010), the Presbyterian Septuagint scholar and one of the foremost modern editors of the Greek books of Moses, likewise warned that even a Greek text carefully prepared by scholars through comparison of ancient manuscripts could not be regarded as the original text. He described the complete restoration of a text free from later alterations as “an impossible but laudable goal.” Anglican Sidney Jellicoe (1906–1973) and other modern Septuagint specialists likewise recognized the corruption and unstable transmission of the Greek tradition.

These modern statements are especially significant because they come from scholars who devoted much of their professional lives to editing and studying the Septuagint. Their work involved comparing manuscripts that disagreed, identifying alterations introduced by later copyists, and distinguishing between different revisions.

The cumulative force of nearly two thousand years of testimony is difficult to evade. Justin Martyr charged that passages had been removed by the Jews from the Greek translation associated with the Seventy. Origen encountered disagreement among the copies. Jerome described a corrupted Greek edition commonly used in the churches and substantially different forms of the Greek text circulating in different regions. Medieval scholars recognized copying errors and deficiencies in translation. Reformation and post-Reformation theologians described the transmitted Greek as mixed, altered, corrupted, interpolated, or no longer identifiable with what they believed to be the original Septuagint. Later editors and scholars continued trying to recover the earlier Greek wording, recognizing that the surviving texts had been repeatedly altered and mixed with other versions.

The witnesses do not all make precisely the same claims. They differed over the faults of the early translators and over how much of the earliest Greek text could still be recovered. Some nevertheless continued to value the LXX.

That continued regard for the Septuagint does not remove the textual problems they acknowledged. An ancient text may be valuable for historical study while still containing mistranslations, having been altered through copying, having been mixed with other versions, and leaving serious uncertainty about what the original Greek translators wrote. The question addressed by this collection is not whether ancient Greek translations of the Old Testament existed or whether they may be studied profitably. They certainly did, and they certainly may.

The question is whether the Greek Old Testament transmitted under the name “Septuagint” can truthfully be represented as one ancient, uniform, trustworthy, and continuously preserved text. The historical testimony assembled here shows that it cannot.

The name “Septuagint” remained fixed. The Greek texts represented by that name did not. Their history was marked by repeated alteration and mixture, producing substantially different versions that scholars had to compare in their attempts to determine what the original Greek translators had written.

Readers who do not wish to examine all seventy-two entries may obtain a strong and representative sampling of the evidence by reading 1. Justin Martyr, 2. Origen, 3. Jerome, 9. Hugh of Saint-Cher, 12. Giannozzo Manetti, 21. William Whitaker, 27. Johann Gerhard, 35. John Owen, 38. Francis Turretin, 41. Humphrey Hody, 46. Bernardinus De Moor, 49. Robert Holmes, 55. Frederick Field, 65. Henry Barclay Swete, 68. Richard Rusden Ottley, and 72. John William Wevers. Together these sixteen witnesses provide a broad cross section of the nearly two thousand years of evidence summarized above.

Although the commentary accompanying the entries below has been written in language intended to be easily understood, some quotations from the historical witnesses and some explanatory comments contain technical terms that may be unfamiliar to ordinary readers. A “reading” means the particular words found in a copy of a text. Different manuscripts or printed editions may have the same biblical passage expressed in different words. Each form of the wording is called a “reading.” A “manuscript” is a handwritten copy of a text, while a “codex” is a handwritten book with pages rather than a scroll. A “recension” is a revised form of a text produced through correction or editing. An “interpolation” is a word or passage added after the original text was written or translated. A “critical edition” is an edition prepared by scholars who compare surviving manuscripts in an attempt to determine the earliest wording that can be recovered. A “variant” is a reading that differs from another reading of the same passage.

Important Distinctions

Errors in Translation and Errors in Copying

Errors in the Greek texts have arisen principally in two ways. Some errors have been introduced by the men who originally translated the Hebrew into Greek through misunderstanding, mistranslation, omission, or addition. Other errors arose later, as scribes made copies of the Greek texts. A translation could therefore have been inaccurate when first produced, or it could have been accurate originally but subsequently corrupted through copying. The testimony of the historical witnesses below concerns both kinds of errors, and often distinguishes one from the other.

Correcting Variants of the Same Translation vs. Altering a Translation by Mixture

A distinction must be made between correcting differences among copies of the same translation and altering the translation itself.

Copies of the same translation may differ because of copying mistakes, accidental omissions, changes in spelling, or deliberate alterations. These differences are called variants. By comparing copies, scholars attempt to determine which wording most faithfully represents the original translation.

This differs fundamentally from deliberately changing a translation by removing portions of it or incorporating material from other translations. Even when intended as corrections, such changes produce a modified version rather than simply restoring the earlier translation.

This distinction is fundamental to understanding the history of the Septuagint. Over the centuries, Greek translations underwent repeated alterations as words and entire passages were added, removed, replaced, or borrowed from other translations. These changes accumulated through successive generations, sometimes leaving Greek texts that differed substantially from the earlier translations they supposedly represented. Yet these altered texts continued to circulate under the name “Septuagint,” concealing the extent to which their contents had changed.

Revision and Corruption

A revision is a deliberate attempt to change or correct an existing text, often to bring it into closer agreement with the Hebrew. Revision does not necessarily mean corruption. Nevertheless, revisions sometimes introduced new errors or obscured the wording of the earlier translation. Consequently, even changes intended to improve accuracy could make it more difficult to determine what the original Greek translators actually wrote.

The Earliest Recoverable Text and the Original Translation

Scholars who study ancient manuscripts often compare surviving copies in an attempt to determine what the Greek text actually said at an earlier stage of its history. However, the oldest wording they can recover is not necessarily the wording of the original translation. Errors and alterations may already have entered the text before the earliest manuscripts still in existence today were copied by ancient scribes. If such changes occurred early enough, they might appear throughout the surviving manuscripts, leaving no existing copy that preserves the original wording. Thus, even a Greek text reconstructed by the most diligent scholars will not necessarily reproduce the translation as it was first written.

The Witnesses

Dates of birth and death are approximate where the historical evidence does not permit exact dating.

1. Justin Martyr (100–165)

Justin Martyr provides exceptionally early Christian testimony that the Greek translations of the Scriptures associated with the Seventy had allegedly been deliberately altered. He defended the original translators while accusing later Jewish teachers of rejecting their work and removing passages from it. His accusations appear most explicitly in Dialogue with Trypho 71–73 and recur in chapter 120.

“They Completely Removed Many Passages of Scripture”

In Dialogue with Trypho 71, Justin writes:

Ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ τοῖς διδασκάλοις ὑμῶν πείθομαι, μὴ συντιθεμένοις καλῶς ἐξηγῆσθαι τοῖς παρὰ Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ Αἰγυπτίων γενομένῳ βασιλεῖ ἑβδομήκοντα πρεσβυτέροις, ἀλλ’ αὐτοὶ ἐξηγεῖσθαι πειρῶνται. Καὶ ὅτι πολλὰς γραφὰς τέλεον περιεῖλον ἀπὸ τῶν ἐξηγήσεων τῶν γεγενημένων ὑπὸ τῶν παρὰ Πτολεμαίῳ γεγενημένων πρεσβυτέρων, ἐξ ὧν διαρρήδην οὗτος αὐτὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς ὅτι θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος καὶ σταυρούμενος καὶ ἀποθνήσκων κεκήρυκται ἀποδεικνύεται, εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς βούλομαι.

Translation: “But I do not believe your teachers, who do not agree that the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, the king of the Egyptians, translated correctly, but instead attempt to translate for themselves. And I wish you to know that they completely removed many passages of Scripture from the translations made by the elders who were with Ptolemy, from which this very man who was crucified is expressly demonstrated to have been proclaimed as God and man, and as being crucified and dying.”

Justin distinguished the original translators from those whom he believed had subsequently removed passages from their work.

“It Is Still Written in Some Copies”

In Dialogue 72, Justin supplied examples from Ezra and Jeremiah. He first cited a passage attributed to Ezra that connected the Passover with the Saviour and spoke of his humiliation and the hope placed in him.

Justin then quoted Jeremiah 11:19, interpreting its description of a lamb brought to slaughter as a prophecy of Christ’s crucifixion. He claimed that the passage had recently been removed, although some copies still preserved it:

ἔτι ἐστὶν ἐγγεγραμμένη ἔν τισιν ἀντιγράφοις τῶν ἐν συναγωγαῖς Ἰουδαίων (πρὸ γὰρ ὀλίγου χρόνου ταῦτα ἐξέκοψαν)

Translation: “It is still written in some copies in the synagogues of the Jews (for it was only a short time ago that they cut these things out).”

He also identified a second passage that he believed had been removed from Jeremiah:

Ἐμνήσθη δὲ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἀπὸ Ἰσραὴλ τῶν νεκρῶν αὐτοῦ, τῶν κεκοιμημένων εἰς γῆν χώματος, καὶ κατέβη πρὸς αὐτοὺς εὐαγγελίσασθαι αὐτοῖς τὸ σωτήριον αὐτοῦ.

Translation: “And the Lord God remembered his dead people of Israel, who were lying asleep in the earth of the grave, and descended to them to proclaim to them his salvation.”

“They Removed These Short Words: ‘From the Tree’”

In Dialogue 73, Justin accused Jewish teachers of removing two Greek words from Psalm 95:10, corresponding to Psalm 96:10 in the Hebrew numbering:

Καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐνενηκοστοῦ πέμπτου ψαλμοῦ τῶν διὰ Δαυῒδ λεχθέντων λόγων λέξεις βραχείας ἀφείλοντο ταύτας· ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου.

Translation: “And from the ninety-fifth Psalm, from the words spoken through David, they removed these short words: ‘from the tree.’”

He explained the alleged alteration:

Εἰρημένου γὰρ τοῦ λόγου· Εἴπατε ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν· Ὁ κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου, ἀφῆκαν· Εἴπατε ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν· Ὁ κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν.

Translation: “For when the passage said, ‘Say among the nations: The Lord has reigned from the tree,’ they left, ‘Say among the nations: The Lord has reigned.’”

Justin understood “from the tree” as a reference to Christ’s crucifixion. He had already used this wording in First Apology 41:

ὁ κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου.

Translation: “The Lord has reigned from the tree.”

In Dialogue 120, Justin again distinguished “the passages of Scripture which are not admitted by you” from those “which are even now admitted by you,” preferring to argue from the latter. He maintained that his opponents would have removed further passages if their teachers had understood their significance, and also accused them of deleting material concerning Isaiah’s death.

Assessment

By the middle of the second century, Justin expressly accused Jewish teachers of deliberately removing passages from the Greek translations associated with the Seventy. His testimony establishes the early existence of that accusation, but its historical accuracy must be judged separately. Jeremiah 11:19 survives in both Hebrew and Greek, while “from the tree” is generally regarded as an early Christian addition. Justin therefore witnesses an early dispute over the wording and preservation of the Greek Scriptures, without proving that every passage he defended belonged to the original translation.

Citation: Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone, chapters 71–73 and 120, ed. Miroslav Marcovich, Iustini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone, Patristische Texte und Studien 47 (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997); First Apology, chapter 41, in Justin Martyr, Apologies, ed. Denis Minns and Paul Parvis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

2. Origen (185–253)

Origen was an early Christian theologian and biblical scholar whose work provides important third-century evidence that the Greek Old Testament was neither uniform nor preserved in one unaltered form. His Hexapla was an extensive scholarly work that arranged the Hebrew Scriptures alongside several competing Greek translations in parallel columns, including those associated with Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. By comparing these texts, Origen identified differences among them and attempted to correct the Septuagint. He acknowledged that copies of the Septuagint disagreed and that some widely circulated wording was inferior.

His testimony is particularly important because he distinguished material already present in the Septuagint from passages he introduced from other Greek translations during his corrections. Later witnesses confirm that these additions became incorporated into the Septuagint text itself and were transmitted in copies circulating among Christians.

Origen Added Material to the LXX Taken from Other Greek Translations

In his Commentary on Matthew, Origen explains why he undertook to correct the Septuagint:

τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης διαφωνίαν, θεοῦ διδόντος, εὕρομεν ἰάσασθαι, κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσιν· τῶν γὰρ ἀμφιβαλλομένων παρὰ τοῖς οʹ διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφωνίαν, τὴν κρίσιν ποιησάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων, τὸ συνᾷδον ἐκείναις ἐφυλάξαμεν.

Translation: “As for the disagreement among the copies of the Old Testament, with God’s help we found a way to remedy it, using the other editions as a criterion. For in those passages of the Septuagint which were doubtful because of the disagreement among the copies, we made a judgment from the other editions and retained what agreed with them.”

He then describes how he added material from other Greek translations:

τινὰ δὲ μετ’ ἀστερίσκων προσεθήκαμεν· ἵνα δῆλον ᾖ ὅτι μὴ κείμενα παρὰ τοῖς οʹ ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων συμφώνως τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ προσεθήκαμεν.

Translation: “Others we added with asterisks, so that it might be clear that they were not found in the Septuagint, but that we had added them from the other editions in agreement with the Hebrew.”

Origen thus went beyond correcting differences among copies of the same translation. He deliberately incorporated passages from different Greek translations into the Septuagint, marking the additions with an asterisk (*) so that readers could distinguish them from the earlier text.

He also used an obelus (÷) to identify material present in the Septuagint but absent from Hebrew:

καὶ τινα μὲν ὠβελίσαμεν ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ μὴ κείμενα, οὐ τολμῶντες αὐτὰ πάντη περιελεῖν.

Translation: “And some passages we marked with an obelus because they were not found in the Hebrew, not daring to remove them altogether.”

Jerome, writing more than a century later, testified that Origen’s additions had become widespread in the copies circulating among Christians:

Quod si feceris, omnes Ecclesiarum Bibliothecas damnare cogeris. Vix enim unus aut alter invenietur liber, qui ista non habeat.

Translation: “But if you do this, you will be compelled to condemn all the libraries of the churches. For scarcely one or two copies will be found that do not contain these additions.”

Although Origen had marked his alterations with asterisks and obeli, later copyists frequently omitted these marks while retaining the changes themselves. Consequently, passages borrowed from other Greek translations became indistinguishable from the earlier Septuagint text in copies circulating under that name.

Up to Nineteen Verses Were Missing from the Greek Translation of Job

In his Letter to Africanus, Origen describes substantial differences between the Greek translations used by Christians and the Hebrew Scriptures:

Καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ πολλοῖς ἀγίοις βιβλίοις εὕρομεν, πῇ μὲν πλείονα παρ’ ἡμῖν κείμενα ἢ παρ’ Ἑβραίοις, πῇ δὲ λείποντα.

Translation: “And in many other sacred books I found sometimes more in our copies than in the Hebrew, sometimes less.”

Discussing Job, Origen writes:

Πάλιν τε αὖ πλεῖστά τε ὅσα διὰ μέσου ὅλου τοῦ Τὼβ παρʼ Ἑβραίοις μὲν κεῖται, παρʼ ἡμῖν δὲ οὐχί· καὶ πολλάκις μὲν ἔπη τέσσαρα ἢ τρία, ἔσθʼ ὅτε δὲ καὶ δεκατέσσαρα καὶ δεκαεννέα καὶ δεκαέξ.

Translation: “Again, throughout the whole of Job, very many passages are found among the Hebrews but not among us, sometimes three or four verses, and at other times fourteen, nineteen, or sixteen.”

Origen found passages amounting to as many as nineteen verses at a time that were present in the Hebrew Job but absent from the Greek translation available to him.

He also identifies additions in the opposite direction. Referring to the words of Job’s wife, he writes:

Πλείονα δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἡμετέροις παρὰ τὰ Ἑβραϊκά, ὅτε εἶπε τῷ Ἰὼβ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ.

Translation: “But there is more in our copies than in the Hebrew when Job’s wife spoke to him.”

Some of the differences Origen found may have originated in the original Septuagint translation, while others may have resulted from subsequent alteration. They help explain the scale of his corrective undertaking and his use of other Greek translations.

Origen Found Missing Words and Prophecies in Jeremiah

Origen recognized that the absence of a word from the Septuagint might be the result of its removal after the translation was produced.

In Homilies on Jeremiah 16.5, discussing Jeremiah 16:18 and the word “first,” he writes:

τὸ «πρῶτον» εἴτε μὴ νοήσαντες ἐξεῖλάν τινες τῶν γεγραμμένων εἴτε καὶ οἰκονομήσαντες ἐξελεῖν οἱ Ἑβδομήκοντα, θεὸς ἂν εἰδείη.

Translation: “As for the word ‘first,’ whether some people removed it from what was written because they did not understand it, or whether the Seventy deliberately omitted it, God would know.”

Origen did not know whether the word had been omitted by the original translators or removed by later hands.

In Homilies on Jeremiah 16.10, he identifies an entire prophecy missing from the Septuagint:

Εἶτα ἄλλη ἐστὶ προφήτεία, ἣν οὐκ οἶδʼ ὅπως παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα οὐχ εὕρομεν, εὕρομεν δὲ ἐν ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσι, δῆλον ὅτι κειμένην ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ.

Translation: “Then there is another prophecy which, I do not know how, we did not find among the Seventy, but found in the other editions, evidently because it was present in the Hebrew.”

The passage is Jeremiah 17:1, describing Judah’s sin as engraved with an iron pen.

Origen did not know how this prophecy came to be missing from the Septuagint. Its presence in Hebrew and in other Greek translations, however, demonstrated the value of those translations for identifying material absent from the Septuagint manuscripts available to him.

The Older Greek Translation of Daniel Was Replaced by Another

In his Letter to Africanus, Origen refers to copies of Daniel representing two distinct Greek translations:

Τὰ δὲ παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀντίγραφα, ὧν καὶ τὰς λέξεις ἐξεθέμην, τὸ μὲν ἦν κατὰ τοὺς Ο΄· τὸ δὲ ἕτερον κατὰ Θεοδοτίωνα.

Translation: “Of the copies in my possession, whose wording I have set out, one was according to the Seventy, and the other according to Theodotion.”

These were two different Greek translations of Daniel, not merely copies of the same translation containing minor variations.

The version associated with Theodotion followed the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures more closely than the older Greek translation. It became the version commonly used by Christian churches, displacing the older Septuagint translation.

Daniel thus continued to circulate as part of the Greek Old Testament commonly called the Septuagint, although the Greek translation used by the churches had changed.

Assessment

Origen acknowledged disagreements among copies of the Septuagint, identified substantial passages missing from the Greek but present in Hebrew, and deliberately incorporated material from competing Greek translations into his corrected text.

His testimony demonstrates the difficulty of treating the Septuagint as one translation faithfully preserved in an unchanged form. His corrections contributed to changes in the transmitted Greek text, even though his purpose was to correct it. The widespread incorporation of borrowed material and the replacement of the older Greek translation of Daniel further demonstrate that the Greek texts circulating under the Septuagint name had undergone significant changes.

Citation: Origen, Commentarium in Matthaeum 15.14, ed. Erich Klostermann and Ernst Benz, Origenes Werke, vol. 10, GCS 40 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1935); Epistula ad Africanum, §§2–5, in Patrologia Graeca 11; Homiliae in Ieremiam 16.5, 16.10, ed. Erich Klostermann, Origenes Werke, vol. 3, GCS 6 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1901); Jerome, Epistula 112.19, to Augustine; Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875), pp. 612, 615–616; H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), discussion of Origen’s corrections and the Greek translations of Daniel.

3. Jerome (347–420)

Jerome was a fourth- and fifth-century Christian theologian, biblical commentator, and translator. Through his examination of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin biblical texts, he documented extensive alterations to the Greek Old Testament, including additions, omissions, copying errors, and the incorporation of material from other Greek translations.

The Common Greek Text Was an “Old Corrupted Edition”

In Letter 106 to Sunnia and Fretela, Jerome distinguishes the commonly circulating Greek text from the text he preferred:

Κοινὴ autem ista, hoc est communis, editio ipsa est, quae et Septuaginta. Sed hoc interest inter utramque, quod κοινὴ pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est.

Translation: “Now this κοινή, that is, the common edition, is itself the Septuagint. But this is the difference between the two: the κοινή, according to places and times and at the discretion of the copyists, is an old corrupted edition.”

He contrasts it with the Septuagint text in Origen’s Hexapla, which placed Hebrew and several Greek versions side by side for comparison:

Ea autem, quae habetur in Ἑξαπλοῖς et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est, quae in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata Septuaginta interpretum translatio reservatur.

Translation: “But that which is contained in the Hexapla, and which we translated, is the very translation of the Septuagint which is preserved in the books of learned men uncorrupted and undefiled.”

Jerome attributed the corruption of the common Greek edition to changes arising over time, between locations, and through the actions of copyists.

Different Regions Used Different Greek Texts

In his preface to Chronicles, Jerome explains why he undertook a fresh translation from Hebrew:

Si Septuaginta interpretum pura et ut ab eis in graecum versa est editio permaneret, superflue me, mi Cromati, episcoporum sanctissime atque doctissime, inpelleres, ut hebraea volumina latino sermone transferrem.

Translation: “If the edition of the Seventy translators had remained pure and as they rendered it into Greek, you would be urging me unnecessarily, my Chromatius, most holy and learned of bishops, to translate the Hebrew books into Latin.”

He then describes what had happened:

Nunc vero cum pro varietate regionum diversa ferantur exemplaria et germana illa antiquaque translatio corrupta sit atque violata, nostri arbitrii putas, aut e pluribus iudicare quid verum sit, aut novum opus in veteri opere condere, inludentibusque Iudaeis “cornicum”, ut dicitur, “oculos configere”.

Translation: “But now, since different copies circulate according to the different regions, and that genuine and ancient translation has been corrupted and violated, you think it falls to our judgment either to determine from several copies what is true, or to construct a new work within the old work and, as the saying goes, ‘peck out the crows’ eyes’ when the Jews mock us.”

Jerome identifies three regional forms:

Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem, Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat, mediae inter has provinciae palestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilius vulgaverunt, totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate conpugnat.

Translation: “Alexandria and Egypt praise Hesychius as the authority for their Septuagint; Constantinople as far as Antioch approves the copies of Lucian the martyr; the provinces between them read the Palestinian copies, which Eusebius and Pamphilus circulated after Origen had worked on them; and the whole world is at variance through this threefold diversity.”

These were different forms of the Greek text associated with later revisions. His account need not place every copy neatly into three groups to establish that the churches did not all use the same Greek text.

Another Greek Translation Was Mixed into the Septuagint

In the same preface, Jerome says that Origen:

in editione Septuaginta Theodotionis editionem miscuit

Translation: “Mixed Theodotion’s edition into the edition of the Septuagint.”

Origen supplied words and passages missing from the Septuagint when compared with Hebrew by borrowing from Theodotion’s Greek version. He marked these additions so that readers could distinguish them. Jerome states the result:

hocque in ecclesiis legitur quod Septuaginta nescierunt.

Translation: “And what the Seventy did not know is read in the churches.”

Writing to Augustine in Letter 112, Jerome describes the books Augustine read with the words:

non puros ut ab eis editi sunt, sed ab Origene emendatos, sive corruptos per obelos et asteriscos

Translation: “Not pure as they were issued by them, but corrected by Origen, or corrupted, through obeli and asterisks.”

An obelus identified Greek words without corresponding Hebrew words; an asterisk identified words supplied to fill a gap. “Corrected, or corrupted” challenges Augustine’s acceptance of Origen’s changes while resisting Jerome’s translation from Hebrew. It must be read alongside his praise of Origen’s text in Letter 106.

He challenges Augustine:

Vis amator esse verus Septuaginta Interpretum? Non legas ea quae sub asteriscis sunt, imo rade de voluminibus, ut veterum te fautorem probes.

Translation: “Do you wish to be a true lover of the Seventy translators? Do not read what is under the asterisks; indeed, erase it from the books, to prove yourself a supporter of the ancients.”

He then explains how widespread the additions were:

Quod si feceris, omnes Ecclesiarum Bibliothecas damnare cogeris. Vix enim unus aut alter invenietur liber, qui ista non habeat.

Translation: “If you do this, you will be forced to condemn all the libraries of the churches. For scarcely one or two books will be found that do not contain these things.”

Copyists Lost the Marks That Identified Additions

Jerome describes what happened when those marks disappeared:

Et hinc apud vos, et apud plerosque error exoritur, quod scriptorum negligentia, virgulis et asteriscis subtractis, distinctio universa confunditur.

Translation: “And from this error arises among you and among very many others: through the negligence of copyists, when the lines and asterisks have been removed, the entire distinction is confused.”

Thus, additions borrowed from other Greek translations could become indistinguishable from the earlier Septuagint text.

Words in Circulating Copies Were Missing from Older Texts

Jerome gave specific examples of wording found in circulating copies that he did not find in older Greek evidence.

Commenting on Hosea 13:4, he discusses a longer Greek passage describing God as establishing heaven and creating the earth:

Quae quoniam et in Hebraico non habentur, et a nullo vertuntur interpretum, in antiqua quoque editione LXX non leguntur, obelo praenotanda sunt: praesertim cum sensus eorum perspicuus sit.

Translation: “Since these words are not found in the Hebrew, are translated by none of the other translators, and are not read in the ancient edition of the Seventy either, they must be marked with an obelus, especially since their meaning is clear.”

His objection rests partly on a difference between Greek texts: the words were absent from an older Septuagint edition as well as from Hebrew and other Greek translations.

In his short commentary on Psalm 4:8, he discusses “and their oil”:

Id quod in plurimis codicibus invenitur, ‘et olei eorum’, cum vetustum Origenis hexaplum psalterium revolverem, quod ipsius manu fuerat emendatum, nec in hebraeo, nec in ceteris editionibus, nec apud ipsos quoque Septuaginta interpretes repperi.

Translation: “What is found in very many copies, ‘and their oil,’ I did not find in the Hebrew, in the other editions, or even in the Seventy translators themselves, when I examined Origen’s old six-column Psalter, which had been corrected by his own hand.”

Jerome checked words found in many copies against an old scholarly Psalter, which he believed Origen himself had corrected. Both examples distinguish commonly encountered wording from older Greek evidence.

The Churches Replaced the Older Greek Translation of Daniel

In his preface to Daniel, Jerome describes the churches’ use of another Greek version:

Danihelem prophetam iuxta Septuaginta interpretes Domini Salvatoris ecclesiae non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione, et hoc cur acciderit nescio.

Translation: “The churches of the Lord and Saviour do not read the prophet Daniel according to the Seventy translators, but use Theodotion’s edition; and why this happened I do not know.”

He considers possible explanations, including difficulty with the language and the possibility that the version circulating under the Seventy’s name came from someone else. Although he does not know precisely why the churches abandoned that version, he expresses a definite judgment about its accuracy:

hoc unum adfirmare possum, quod multum a veritate discordet et recto iudicio repudiatus sit.

Translation: “I can affirm this one thing: that it differs greatly from the Hebrew text and was rightly rejected.”

Jerome judged that the older Greek translation differed substantially from the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures and that its rejection was justified. The churches had replaced an entire Greek translation, not merely corrected copying errors within it.

Additions and Omissions Would Require “Innumerable Books”

In Letter 57 to Pammachius, Jerome makes a broad judgment:

Longum est nunc evolvere, quanta Septuaginta de suo addiderint, quanta dimiserint, quae in exemplaribus ecclesiae obelis asteriscisque distincta sunt.

Translation: “It would take too long now to recount how much the Septuagint added of its own and how much it omitted, things distinguished in the copies of the church by obeli and asterisks.”

After examples, he adds:

quae si proferre nitamur, infinitis libris opus est.

Translation: “If we attempted to set them forth, innumerable books would be required.”

Jerome emphasizes the extensive differences between the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. Although he attributes additions and omissions to the Septuagint, such differences do not necessarily establish whether the translators altered their source or followed different Hebrew wording.

He also acknowledges the Septuagint’s rightful place in the churches because of its antiquity and apostolic use, qualifying the latter by agreement with Hebrew.

The Greek Translation of Job Had Been Expanded with Added Passages

In his preface to his translation of Job from Hebrew, Jerome describes defects that his new translation was intended to clarify:

aut obscura sunt, aut omissa, aut certe scriptorum vitio depravata

Translation: “Either obscure, or omitted, or certainly corrupted through the fault of copyists.”

Jerome distinguishes omissions from copyists’ errors, without attributing every defect to errors in Greek copying.

He then describes the extent of additions to the Greek translation of Job:

praecipue in Iob, cui si ea quae sub asteriscis addita sunt subtraxeris, pars maxima detruncabitur. Et hoc dumtaxat apud Graecos.

Translation: “Especially in Job: if you remove from it what has been added under asterisks, a very large part will be cut away. And this concerns only the Greeks.”

Jerome thus identified Job as a particularly extensive example of a Greek translation expanded through marked additions, while distinguishing the further problems of the older Latin text.

Copyists’ Errors Should Not Be Blamed on the Translators

Jerome defended the Seventy when he believed later copies were at fault. In Letter 65, discussing Psalm 44:3, he writes:

In Editione Vulgata pro benedixit, unxit legimus. Sed sciendum quod error scriptorum Septuaginta Translatoribus non debeat imputari, qui hoc loco cum Hebraica Veritate concordant.

Translation: “In the common edition we read ‘anointed’ instead of ‘blessed.’ But it must be understood that the error of copyists should not be attributed to the Seventy translators, who agree here with the Hebrew text.”

“The common edition” here does not mean the later Latin Bible conventionally called the Vulgate. Jerome distinguishes its erroneous wording from the translation he attributes to the Seventy, expressly rejecting the practice of blaming the original translators for later copying errors.

Assessment

Jerome is a strong witness against the claim that one uniform, unchanged Greek Old Testament circulated throughout the churches of his time. He describes a corrupted common edition, regional differences, additions from another Greek translation, lost marks identifying those additions, disagreements between older and circulating copies, and the replacement of the older Greek translation of Daniel.

He also distinguishes copying errors from the original translators’ work and continues to value the Septuagint. His testimony establishes that the Greek texts circulated in substantially different forms, underwent correction and alteration, and sometimes incorporated material from entirely different translations.

Citation: Jerome, Epistulae 57.11, 65.9, 106.2 and 106.22, 112.19, in J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina 22 (Paris, 1845); for Letter 57.11, Isidor Hilberg, ed., Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae, part 1, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 54 (Vienna and Leipzig: F. Tempsky and G. Freytag, 1910), pp. 522–523. Jerome, Prologus in Paralipomena (preface to the translation from Hebrew); Prologus in Danihele; and Prologus in Iob, Latin texts in Prologi Sancti Hieronymi in Biblia Sacra, The Latin Library (undated electronic transcription, consulted 23 October 2026), respective prefatory texts; parallel prefatory material in PL 28–29. Jerome, Commentarii in Osee, book 3, on Hosea 13:4, PL 25 (Paris, 1845), cols. 933–934. Jerome, Commentarioli in Psalmos, on Psalm 4:8, ed. Germain Morin, Anecdota Maredsolana 3.1 (Maredsous, 1895), p. 12.

4. Theodore of Mopsuestia (350–428)

Theodore of Mopsuestia was a fourth- and fifth-century Christian theologian and biblical commentator. He generally valued the Septuagint highly and often preferred it to other ancient Greek translations. Yet he acknowledged that its translators sometimes expressed the meaning less clearly than others. More importantly, he identified differences among Greek manuscripts and accused later Christians and copyists of altering the text of the Psalms.

The LXX Sometimes Gave “the Weaker Interpretation”

In his commentary on Psalm 56, Theodore praises the Septuagint while acknowledging its shortcomings:

“Not that everything is translated better by them: there are places, in fact, where they offer the weaker interpretation, and sometimes they fall short of the others, who said things more clearly and logically. But in general by comparison with the others they are found far superior, even if saying a good many things in a rather unfamiliar way.”

Theodore gives two examples from Psalm 68. He compares the Septuagint’s wording, “The assembly of the bulls in the calves,” with Symmachus’ rendering, “In a gathering of immense things.” He considers Symmachus’ wording a clearer expression of the Hebrew meaning.

In another passage, the Septuagint describes God as riding “on the heaven of heavens like dawn,” while Symmachus renders the final expression “at first light.” Again, Theodore considers Symmachus clearer.

In his discussion of Psalm 74:4–5, Theodore acknowledges another difficulty arising from the Greek translation itself:

“The passage, then, presents a difficulty because of the translation.”

He turns to Symmachus’ rendering for clarification.

Theodore also recognized that differences in wording could arise during translation. Discussing Psalm 35:8, he explains a difference in verb tense:

“Likewise, when in Psalm 32 he says, ‘For this every holy one will pray at the right time,’ he is speaking not of this very sin but of the very kind of sin, as if to say ‘of such a sin.’ He will fall—that is, Let them fall: in his agitated condition he speaks in keeping with the aforementioned; while it is thus in keeping, there is a change in tense, as often happens from the translation.”

These examples concern shortcomings or differences in translation, not alterations introduced by later copyists.

Christians Changed “Ears” to “Body” in Psalm 40

Theodore’s discussion of Psalm 40 is especially important. He believed the Psalm originally read “ears you have prepared for me” and that the apostle, in Hebrews 10:5, deliberately adapted “ears” to “body” for his argument.

He accused later Christians of misunderstanding the apostle and changing the Psalm itself:

“But those who had not understood the apostle’s purpose and intention wished to attach the psalm to Christ, and changed ‘ears you have prepared for me’—for so the Hebrew reads—and put ‘a body you have prepared for me,’ without attending to the reason for the apostle’s alteration.”

Theodore expressly accused later Christians, rather than the original translators, of changing the Greek Old Testament to agree with Hebrews.

Whether the alteration occurred as Theodore believed is a separate historical question. His testimony establishes that he regarded this wording as a later change introduced for religious reasons.

Scribes Removed Words They Considered “Superfluous”

In his commentary on Psalm 56:1–2, Theodore identifies another possible alteration. Some manuscripts lacked a repeated phrase concerning the Psalmist’s enemies.

He suggests that the difference arose from:

“some scribes perhaps thinking the repetition superfluous and hence removing the phrase”

Theodore argues that the repeated wording was necessary because each expression contributed to the Psalm’s meaning.

Unlike his accusation concerning Psalm 40, Theodore offers this explanation tentatively. Nevertheless, he recognized that the manuscripts differed and considered deliberate removal a possible cause.

Different Greek Manuscripts Contained Different Words

In his discussion of Psalm 50:9, Theodore identifies a disagreement among Greek copies. Some manuscripts contained a word meaning “he-goats,” while others used a different term that he understood to refer to younger goats.

Another difference appears in Hosea 10:13. One Greek form refers to trusting in “chariots,” while another refers to trusting in “sins.” Theodore’s explanation follows the interpretation concerning military strength.

Modern comparison of the Greek text preserved in Theodore’s commentary with other surviving Greek texts reveals this difference. Theodore does not expressly accuse anyone of altering Hosea 10:13.

Robert C. Hill’s examination of Theodore’s biblical text provides additional evidence of differences in the Greek wording preserved in his commentary on the Twelve Prophets. These findings establish that differing Greek forms existed, but do not determine when or why the differences arose.

Assessment

Theodore’s testimony is valuable because he generally favored the Septuagint while acknowledging shortcomings in its translation and differences among Greek manuscripts.

More importantly, he accused later Christians of changing Psalm 40 from “ears” to “body” to agree with Hebrews 10:5, and suspected copyists of removing repeated wording from Psalm 56. Although his accusations do not independently establish that these alterations occurred, they demonstrate that he believed the Greek Old Testament had undergone changes after its original translation. His testimony distinguishes defects in translation from alterations introduced during later copying.

Citation: Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Psalms, Psalms 35, 40, 50, 56, 68, and 74; Robert Devreesse, ed., Le commentaire de Théodore de Mopsueste sur les Psaumes (I–LXXX), Studi e Testi 93 (Vatican City, 1939); Robert C. Hill, trans., Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on Psalms 1–81 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006); Theodore, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, ed. August Friedrich von Wegnern, Theodori Antiocheni quae supersunt omnia, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1834), and Hans Norbert Sprenger, ed., Theodori Mopsuesteni commentarius in XII prophetas (Wiesbaden, 1977); Robert C. Hill, trans., Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, Fathers of the Church 108 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2004).

5. Theodoret of Cyrus (393–458)

Theodoret of Cyrus was a fifth-century Christian bishop, theologian, and biblical commentator who held the Septuagint in high regard. Nevertheless, he recognized differences among Greek manuscripts, acknowledged shortcomings in translation, and sometimes preferred other ancient Greek translators. Most importantly, he believed that an early copying mistake had changed Jonah 3:4 and subsequently spread throughout the Greek copies known to him. His testimony distinguishes errors introduced by copyists from the work of the original translators.

An Early Error Spread “Throughout the Copies”

The Greek text known to Theodoret said that Nineveh would be overthrown after “three days.” The Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion instead said “forty days,” agreeing with the Hebrew Old Testament and an ancient translation into Syriac, a language closely related to Aramaic. After comparing these texts, Theodoret writes:

Ταύτας δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἀκύλας, καὶ ὁ Σύμμαχος, καὶ ὁ Θεοδοτίων, τεσσαράκοντα ἔφασαν, συμφωνοῦσι δὲ τούτοις καὶ ὁ Σύρος, καὶ ὁ Ἑβραῖος· ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὸ εἰκὸς οὗτος ὁ ἀριθμός. Καὶ γὰρ τρισὶν ἡμέραις ποτὲ μὲν ἅπασαν ἐνόστησε τὴν πόλιν ὁ Ἰωνᾶς, ποτὲ δὲ τὴν μετάνοιαν τὴν ἐπίπονον ἐκείνην οἱ Νινευῖται τῷ Θεῷ προσενεγκόντες, τῆς παρ’ αὐτοῦ σωτηρίας ἀπήλαυσαν· ποτὲ δὲ πρὸ τῶν πυλῶν καθήμενος τὸ τῆς προφητείας ἀνέμενε τέλος. Διό μοι δοκεῖ τὸ τῶν τεσσαράκοντα ἡμερῶν ἀληθέστερον εἶναι. Εἰκὸς δὲ καὶ τοὺς Ἑβδομήκοντα σύμφωνον τοῖς ἄλλοις τεθεικέναι τὸν ἀριθμόν· τοὺς δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐγγραψαμένους ἁμαρτεῖν περὶ τοῦτο, εἶτα οὕτω γενέσθαι πᾶσι τῶν ἀντιγράφων τὴν ἔκδοσιν.

Translation: “But Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion said ‘forty,’ and with these agree both the Syriac and the Hebrew; and this number is also probable. For at one time Jonah traversed the whole city in three days; at another time the Ninevites, having offered that laborious repentance to God, obtained salvation from Him; and at another time, sitting before the gates, he awaited the fulfillment of the prophecy. Therefore it seems to me that the forty days is the truer reading. And it is probable that the Seventy also set down the number in agreement with the others, but that those who first copied it erred in this matter, and that in this way the reading came to be established throughout the copies.”

Theodoret believed that the Seventy probably wrote “forty days,” but that an early copying error changed the number to “three days” and subsequently spread throughout the Greek copies known to him. His explanation does not independently establish how the difference arose, but it shows that he believed an early error could become widespread enough to displace the original wording.

Different Greek Manuscripts Contained Different Words

In his commentary on Isaiah 37:38, Theodoret identifies a disagreement among Greek manuscripts concerning the name of the idol associated with Sennacherib’s assassination:

Εἰδέναι μέντοι δεῖ ὡς τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ πάταρχον ἔχει ἀλλὰ πάτεχρον, τουτέστι τὸ εἴδωλον.

Translation: “It should be known, however, that the accurate copies have not ‘patarchon’ but ‘patechron,’ that is, ‘the idol.’”

He appeals to the other three Greek translators to support the wording he considers correct. His reference to “the accurate copies” shows that he distinguished Greek manuscripts he regarded as more reliable from others.

In his commentary on Psalm 30, he discusses a heading describing the Psalm as one of David “of ecstasy.” He observes:

Τοῦτο δὲ οὔτε παρὰ τῷ Ἑβραίῳ, οὔτε παρὰ τοῖς λοιποῖς εὗρον ἑρμηνευταῖς, ἐν ἐνίοις δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων.

Translation: “I found this neither in the Hebrew nor among the other translators, but in some of the copies.”

The heading appeared in some Greek copies but was absent from the Hebrew and other translations he consulted.

In his Questions on Kings and Chronicles, Theodoret reports another difference concerning 4 Kings 9:20 (2 Kings 9:20 in English Bibles):

Ἔνια μέντοι τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἔχει· «Καὶ ὁ ἄγων ἦγε τὸν Ἰηοῦ», τουτέστιν, ὁ Θεός.

Translation: “Some of the copies, however, have: ‘And the one directing was directing Jehu,’ that is, God.”

Neither example involves an accusation of deliberate alteration. Both demonstrate Theodoret’s awareness that Greek manuscripts differed in their wording.

“Jacob” and “Israel” Were Absent from the Hebrew

The Septuagint includes the names Jacob and Israel in Isaiah 42:1. Theodoret observes that neither name appears in the Hebrew or in three other Greek translations:

Εἰδέναι μέντοι χρὴ ὡς ὁ Ἀκύλας καὶ ὁ Σύμμαχος καὶ ὁ Θεοδοτίων οὔτε τὸ Ἰακὼβ οὔτε τὸ Ἰσραὴλ τεθείκασιν, οὔτε γὰρ παρὰ τῷ Ἑβραίῳ κεῖται.

Translation: “It should be known, however, that Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion included neither ‘Jacob’ nor ‘Israel,’ for neither appears in the Hebrew.”

Theodoret thus identified additional wording in the Septuagint that was absent from the other texts he consulted. He did not explain when or why the names entered the Greek text.

Other Greek Translators Expressed the Meaning More Clearly

In the introduction to his Questions on Kings and Chronicles, Theodoret explains one reason certain passages of Scripture were difficult to understand:

Αἴτιον δέ γε τῆς ἀσαφείας, καὶ τὸ σπουδάσαι τοὺς ἑρμηνεύσαντας περὶ πόδα τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ποιήσασθαι.

Translation: “One cause of the obscurity is that the translators endeavored to make their translation word for word.”

He attributed some difficulties to the original translation itself rather than to subsequent copying.

In his commentary on Zephaniah 3:9, he praises three competing Greek translations:

Τοῦτο σαφέστερον Ἀκύλας, καὶ Θεοδοτίων, καὶ Σύμμαχος ἡρμηνεύκασιν.

Translation: “Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus translated this more clearly.”

He records their wording, including:

Τότε στρέψω πρὸς πάντας τοὺς λαοὺς χεῖλος ἐξειλεγμένον.

Translation: “Then I will turn toward all the peoples a chosen speech.”

He also quotes Symmachus:

Τότε μεταστρέψω ἐν τοῖς λαοῖς χεῖλος καθαρόν.

Translation: “Then I will change among the peoples to a pure speech.”

Theodoret believed these translators expressed the passage more clearly than the Seventy. He made a similar judgment concerning Symmachus in his commentary on Habakkuk. These examples concern translation quality rather than later copying errors.

Modern Research Reveals Substantial Differences in Theodoret’s Greek Bible

Natalio Fernández Marcos and José Ramón Busto Saiz, in their 1984 critical edition of Questions on Kings and Chronicles, found that Theodoret’s biblical text closely resembled a particular group of Greek manuscripts that differed from other forms of the Septuagint.

The differences extended beyond individual words. The editors identified changes in the arrangement and contents of Kings, including the omission of 3 Kings 22:41–51 and the rearrangement of passages in 4 Kings 13.

They also found that later copying and printing had introduced changes into Theodoret’s own commentary. Consequently, some unusual wording previously attributed to him did not accurately represent the biblical text he had used.

These are findings of modern scholars, not statements made by Theodoret himself. They establish substantial differences among the surviving Greek forms while also demonstrating the difficulty of recovering the exact wording used by an ancient commentator.

Assessment

Theodoret held the Septuagint in high regard but acknowledged shortcomings in its translation and differences among Greek manuscripts. He distinguished more accurate copies from less reliable ones and sometimes preferred competing translations.

His strongest testimony concerns Jonah 3:4, where he attributed the change from “forty days” to “three days” to an early copying mistake that subsequently spread throughout the copies known to him. Modern research further establishes that the Greek biblical text reflected in his writings differed significantly from other surviving forms.

Citation: Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretatio in XII Prophetas Minores, Jonah 3:4 and Zephaniah 3:9, Patrologia Graeca 81; Interpretatio in Psalmos, Psalm 30, Patrologia Graeca 80; Commentary on Isaiah, Isaiah 37:38 and 42:1, ed. Jean-Noël Guinot, Sources chrétiennes 276, 295, 315 (Paris, 1980–1984); Quaestiones in Reges et Paralipomena, introduction and 4 Kings 9:20, ed. Natalio Fernández Marcos and José Ramón Busto Saiz, Textos y Estudios Cardenal Cisneros 32 (Madrid, 1984), especially p. 215, lines 15–17, and introduction, pp. XLIV–LXIII. Greek passages translated directly above.

6. Cassiodorus (485–585)

Cassiodorus was a Roman statesman, scholar, and founder of the monastery at Vivarium in southern Italy. His Institutiones, written to guide monks in studying and copying books, and his Expositio Psalmorum show his concern for the accuracy of biblical texts. Although he highly esteemed the Septuagint, he recognized differences between translations, identified verses absent from Hebrew manuscripts, and sometimes preferred Jerome’s translation from Hebrew over familiar wording.

Five Verses Were “Not Found in the Hebrew Copies”

In his explanation of Psalm 13 (KJV Psalm 14), Cassiodorus discusses five verses found in the familiar Latin text but absent from Hebrew manuscripts:

Ibi quinque versus usque ad divisionem in Hebraeis exemplaribus non habentur.

Translation: “There, five verses, up to the division, are not found in the Hebrew copies.”

Cassiodorus nevertheless acknowledges that these verses had been received into church use through longstanding custom. He recognized that a substantial passage used in the church was missing from Hebrew copies, although he did not call for its removal.

Jerome Should Be Followed Because of “the Truth of the Hebrew”

In his explanation of Psalm 35 (KJV Psalm 36), Cassiodorus prefers Jerome’s wording over the customary translation:

Multo tamen absolutior est Hieronymi fida translatio, qui Domine magis quam Dei posuit.

Translation: “Nevertheless, Jerome’s faithful translation is much clearer, for he placed ‘Lord’ rather than ‘God.’”

Cassiodorus expresses a similar preference in his explanation of Psalm 67 (KJV Psalm 68):

In hoc versu auctoritas nobis doctissimi Hieronymi absolute sequenda est, quia translatio eius lucida cunctam nobis abrogat quaestionem.

Translation: “In this verse, we must unquestionably follow the authority of the most learned Jerome, because his clear translation removes every difficulty for us.”

Later in the same Psalm, he gives an additional reason for preferring Jerome:

Congruat et hunc versum secundum translationem patris Hieronymi recipere, qui et propter Hebraicam veritatem sequendus est, et nexum nobis ambiguitatis absolvit.

Translation: “It is also fitting to accept this verse according to the translation of Father Jerome, who should be followed both because of the truth of the Hebrew and because he resolves the difficulty for us.”

Cassiodorus thus preferred Jerome not merely because his translation was clearer, but because it rested on the Hebrew. He did not automatically regard the familiar Latin wording as the most accurate representation of Scripture.

The Authority of the Seventy Translators Was Sometimes “Sufficient”

Cassiodorus’ preference for Jerome was not absolute. In his discussion of Psalm 95:10 (KJV Psalm 96:10), he defends the disputed words a ligno (“from the wood”), traditionally associated with Christ’s cross, although other translators lacked them:

Alii quidem non habent translatores; sed nobis sufficit quod septuaginta interpretum auctoritate firmatus est.

Translation: “Other translators, indeed, do not have it; but it is sufficient for us that it is supported by the authority of the seventy translators.”

Here Cassiodorus accepts the disputed words on the authority of the Seventy despite their absence from other translations.

His judgment was therefore selective. He could prefer Jerome’s translation from Hebrew in certain passages while defending wording associated with the Septuagint in others.

Assessment

Cassiodorus provides sixth-century testimony that a scholar who highly esteemed the Septuagint nevertheless recognized differences between Hebrew and Greek-derived biblical texts and sometimes preferred a translation made directly from Hebrew. His comments concern primarily the Latin forms of Scripture available to him, rather than firsthand examination of Greek manuscripts. His testimony therefore supports the distinction between the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures and the variable accuracy of translations without independently establishing later corruption of the Greek Septuagint.

Citation: Cassiodorus, Expositio Psalmorum, Psalms 13, 35, 67, and 95.

7. Bede the Venerable (673–735)

Bede the Venerable was an Anglo-Saxon monk, theologian, historian, and biblical commentator. He distinguished the original work of the seventy translators from errors in later Greek copies. He also described additions to the Psalter and endorsed Jerome’s testimony that the Greek Old Testament circulated in differing and corrupted forms.

The Greek Translation Was Inaccurate or “Afterward Corrupted”

In The Reckoning of Time, Bede presents two explanations for the problems in the Greek chronological figures:

quae vel minus sollicite primo edita est, ut multi adstruunt, vel post a gentilibus corrupta, ut beato Augustino videtur

Translation: “which was either originally produced with insufficient care, as many assert, or was afterward corrupted by Gentiles, as blessed Augustine thinks.”

Bede attributes the second explanation to Augustine. Both acknowledge faults in the Greek text, whether introduced during translation or afterward. He allows readers to calculate chronology from the Hebrew, the Greek, or both, while warning that none reveals when the world will end.

Corruption of the Greek Manuscripts Produced an Impossible Date

In his Letter to Plegwin, Bede attributes the difficulty concerning Methuselah’s lifespan to corruption in the Greek manuscripts:

Per hanc autem corruptionem Graecorum Codicum exoritur illa famosissima quaestio, ubi Mathusalem XIV annis vixisse post diluvium computatur, cum certum sit apud Hebraeos Codices eodem anno diluvii eum fuisse defunctum.

Translation: “Through this corruption of the Greek codices arises that famous question, in which Methuselah is reckoned to have lived fourteen years after the Flood, when it is certain from the Hebrew codices that he died in the same year as the Flood.”

“Corruption of the Greek codices” is Bede’s stated conclusion, although he draws on earlier writers rather than describing a personal examination of the manuscripts.

His Commentary on Genesis also repeats Augustine’s report that Methuselah died six years before the Flood according to readings found:

in Codicibus paucioribus, sed veracioribus

Translation: “in fewer, but more accurate, manuscripts.”

The disagreement therefore existed among Greek copies themselves, rather than simply between a uniform Greek chronology and the Hebrew.

Copying Errors Could Spread; the Hebrew Should Resolve Disagreements

Bede adopts Augustine’s explanation that numerical mistakes could have entered an early Greek copy and spread through further copying. This leaves the original translators free from blame, but remains a possible explanation rather than a proven account of the first mistake.

He also quotes Augustine’s rule for resolving disagreements that cannot both be historically true:

ei linguae potius credatur, unde est in aliam per interpretes facta translatio.

Translation: “Greater trust should be placed in the language from which the translation into another language was made.”

Bede adopts this rule to support preference for the Hebrew over the Greek translation.

Mistaken Corrections Added Words to the Psalms

Commenting on Acts 1:20, Bede explains that Peter combined passages from two psalms. An unskilled corrector assumed that their absence together from his Psalter indicated a defect and inserted the additional words into Psalm 108.

Bede describes a similar addition to Psalm 13:

octo uersus, quod ipse de diuersis psalmis et Esaia propheta contexerat, adiecti sunt

Translation: “Eight verses, which he himself had woven together from various psalms and the prophet Isaiah, were added.”

“He himself” means Paul, whose combined quotation appears in Romans 3. Bede repeats Jerome’s explanation that these words were later inserted into the psalm. Jerome places the expanded passage in the commonly circulating Greek text, distinguishing it from the authentic Septuagint as he understood it. This establishes a Greek setting for the expanded text, but not an independent discovery by Bede. The separate Psalm 108 example does not establish whether the insertion first occurred in Greek or Latin.

Bede appeals to the Hebrew and to:

emendatior septuaginta interpretum editio

Translation: “a more accurately corrected edition of the Seventy translators.”

His argument recognizes that attempted corrections could introduce additions and that some forms of the Psalter were more accurate than others.

The Greek Manuscripts, Not the Hebrew, Had Been Falsified

Rejecting the claim that Jews deliberately altered the Hebrew Scriptures to produce the chronological disagreements, Bede appeals to Jerome:

Audiat beatum Hieronymum, quod non Hebraeos sed Graecos Codices dicat esse falsatos.

Translation: “Let him hear blessed Jerome, who says that it is not the Hebrew but the Greek codices that have been falsified.”

He then quotes Jerome’s preface to Chronicles:

Si Septuaginta interpretum pura, et ut ab eis in Graecum versa est Editio permaneret, superflue … impelleres, ut tibi Hebraea volumina Latino sermone transferrem.

Translation: “If the pure edition of the Seventy, as it was translated by them into Greek, had remained, you would have urged me in vain to translate the Hebrew volumes for you into the Latin language.”

Jerome continues:

Nunc vero cum pro varietate regionum diversa ferantur exemplaria, et germana illa antiquaque translatio corrupta sit atque violata…

Translation: “But now, since different copies are circulated according to the diversity of regions, and that genuine and ancient translation has been corrupted and violated….”

Bede deliberately endorses this broader testimony: differing Greek copies circulated in different regions, and the ancient translation had been “corrupted and violated.”

Bede Did Not Reject Every Difference in the Greek Text

Discussing Cainan’s presence in Luke’s genealogy and the Greek Genesis, Bede leaves the competing explanations unresolved:

Sed quid horum sit verius, aut si utrumque verum esse possit, Deus noverit.

Translation: “But which of these is truer, or whether both can be true, God knows.”

Nor did he assume that every Greek–Latin disagreement proved an error in the Greek. Discussing Acts manuscripts, he writes:

Namque Graecum exemplar fuisse falsatum suspicari non audeo.

Translation: “For I do not dare to suspect that the Greek exemplar had been falsified.”

This concerns the New Testament, without retracting his criticism of Greek Genesis. His judgments were particular, rather than a general condemnation of Greek biblical manuscripts.

Assessment

Bede attributes a chronological error to corruption in Greek manuscripts, recognizes differing Greek readings, and accepts that copying and mistaken correction could alter biblical texts. His broadest statements depend on Augustine and Jerome, whose judgments he endorses and carries into the early Middle Ages. His testimony does not establish a personal survey of Greek Old Testament manuscripts or rejection of every Septuagint reading.

Citation: Bede, De temporum ratione 66–67, PL 90, cols. 523C–525B, 572A–B; Epistola ad Pleguinam de aetatibus saeculi, commonly Epistola III, PL 94, cols. 671B–672D; In Genesim II, on Genesis 5, printed as Hexaemeron, PL 91, cols. 79C–80A; Expositio Actuum apostolorum 1:20, ed. M. L. W. Laistner, CCSL 121, pp. 13–14, lines 218–241; In Lucae evangelium expositio I, on Luke 3:35–36, PL 92, cols. 363C–D. Compare Augustine, De civitate Dei XV.13; Jerome, Prologus in Paralipomena; Commentarii in Esaiam XVI, prologue, ed. Marcus Adriaen, CCSL 73A, pp. 641–643.

8. Nicolaus Maniacoria (12th century)

Nicolaus Maniacoria was a twelfth-century biblical scholar who investigated errors introduced when Scripture was translated, copied, and corrected. In his Libellus de corruptione et correctione Psalmorum et aliarum quarundam scripturarum, he explained how biblical texts could be altered through successive translations and misguided corrections. He also compared different biblical versions and examined disagreements among manuscripts.

Translations Through Greek Were “More Corrupt”

Nicolaus gives his broadest judgment concerning translations made through several languages:

Ab eo enim fonte hauserunt Graeci, quae sunt postea propinata Latinis; quare mendosiores sunt translationes nostrae de Graeco sumptae translationibus de Hebraico editis, quia scilicet tertio deductae gradu, dum ab Hebraeis ad Graecos, a Graecis ad nos devenerunt. Quo magis per diversa ora devolutae sunt, eo a veritate amplius elongarunt.

Translation: “For the Greeks drew from that [Hebrew] fountain what was afterward passed on to the Latins; therefore our translations taken from the Greek are more corrupt than translations made from the Hebrew, because they are derived, as it were, in the third degree, having come from the Hebrews to the Greeks and from the Greeks to us. The more they have passed through different mouths, the farther they have departed from the truth.”

Nicolaus argues that Latin translations made through Greek were more likely to contain errors than those made directly from Hebrew. Each additional translation created another opportunity for mistakes or changes in meaning.

He continues:

Praeterea multos habuisse leguntur expositores, qui translationes varias commiscentes et ad diversos sensus dicta extorquentes prophetica, addunt ad mendacia translatorum multa imponentes prophetis, quae nunquam venerunt in cor eorum.

Translation: “Moreover, they are said to have had many expositors who, mixing various translations and twisting the prophetic words to different meanings, add many things of their own to the falsehoods of the translators, attributing to the prophets things which never entered their minds.”

Nicolaus criticizes interpreters who mixed different translations and attributed meanings to the prophets that he believed they had never intended. His criticism extends beyond the original translators to those who subsequently handled their work, although it does not establish that the mixture occurred within Greek Septuagint manuscripts themselves.

Those Calling Themselves “Correctors” Were Really “Corrupters”

Nicolaus warns that attempts to correct Scripture could introduce further errors:

Accedit ad hoc quorundam praesumptio, qui suo nimium credentes sensui correctores ecclesiasticorum librorum immo corruptores se faciunt.

Translation: “To this is added the presumption of certain men who, trusting too much in their own judgment, make themselves correctors of ecclesiastical books—or rather, corrupters.”

He explains:

Non enim quid veritas habeat, sed quid sibi videatur curantes, errores ostendunt suos, dum emendare se aestimant alienos.

Translation: “For, concerning themselves not with what the true text contains but with what seems right to them, they reveal their own errors while imagining that they are correcting those of others.”

Nicolaus also distinguishes errors made by translators from alterations introduced afterward:

Sic ergo fit, ut multa ponantur interpretibus in quibus essent corruptores culpandi.

Translation: “Thus it happens that many things are attributed to the translators for which the corrupters ought to be blamed.”

He recognized that an error found in a later biblical copy did not necessarily originate with the translator. It might have been introduced by someone who copied or attempted to correct the text. His immediate concern was principally the handling of Latin biblical manuscripts, rather than documented alterations to Greek Septuagint copies.

When Manuscripts Disagreed, “Return to the Language” of the Original

Nicolaus gives a rule for resolving disagreements among biblical copies:

Cum ergo discordantia repereris exemplaria, ad linguam recurre unde translata sunt et de variantibus inter se voluminibus illi crede quod linguae de qua sumptum est invenies concordare.

Translation: “Therefore, when you find manuscripts disagreeing, return to the language from which they were translated, and among the volumes differing from one another, believe the one which you find agrees with the language from which it was taken.”

Nicolaus advised comparing disagreeing copies with the language from which the translation had been made rather than accepting every surviving form as equally reliable.

He also records differences among Greek translations. In Malachi 3:8, he compares the Seventy with Symmachus and Theodotion:

LXX: “Si supplantat.” Simachus et Theodocion: “Si fraudat.”

Translation: “The Seventy: ‘If he supplants.’ Symmachus and Theodotion: ‘If he defrauds.’”

Although this comparison appears to come from earlier sources, it shows that Nicolaus recognized differences among Greek biblical translations rather than treating them as identical. The example concerns differences in translation, not demonstrated corruption during copying.

Longstanding Use Could Not Make “False Readings” Authentic

Nicolaus rejects the idea that a biblical text must be genuine simply because earlier Christians had used it.

He writes:

Quibus respondendum est quod eos sanctos corrupta volumina non fecerunt, immo credendum est quia libenter habuissent veraces codices si certi esse super corruptionibus potuissent.

Translation: “It must be answered that corrupted volumes did not make those men holy; rather, we should believe that they would gladly have possessed accurate copies if they could have known with certainty about the corruptions.”

He then asks:

Vendicabuntne falsitates sibi in codicibus nostris locum pro temporis longitudine…?

Translation: “Will false readings claim a place for themselves in our manuscripts because of the length of time [they have been there]?”

Nicolaus rejected the notion that longstanding use or the authority of respected Christian writers could establish the authenticity of corrupted wording. His argument concerns biblical manuscripts generally and does not independently identify an alteration in a Greek Septuagint copy.

Assessment

Nicolaus criticized translations made through Greek, recognized differences among Greek translations, and distinguished errors introduced by translators from alterations made by later copyists and correctors. He also rejected the assumption that longstanding use guaranteed the accuracy of biblical wording.

His principal limitation is that his direct observations concern chiefly Latin manuscripts rather than corruption independently demonstrated in Greek Septuagint copies. Nevertheless, his testimony shows that a twelfth-century scholar recognized the dangers of successive translation and misguided correction, gave priority to the original language when manuscripts disagreed, and did not regard inherited biblical wording as automatically reliable.

Citation: Nicolaus Maniacoria, Libellus de corruptione et correptione (also styled correctione) Psalmorum et aliarum quarundam scripturarum, Montpellier, Bibliothèque de l’École de Médecine, MS H294, fols. 144r–159v; Vittorio Peri, “Correctores immo corruptores. Un saggio di critica testuale nella Roma del XII secolo,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 20 (1977), pp. 19–125, text edition pp. 88–125; Rossana Guglielmetti, ed., “Nicolò Maniacutia, ‘Corruzione e correzione dei testi,’” Ecdotica 4 (2007), pp. 267–298, especially pp. 274–284; Nicolaus Maniacoria, Suffraganeus bibliothece, ed. Cornelia Linde (Turnhout, 2013), p. 137; J. C. Linde, “Basic Instruction and Hebrew Learning: Nicolaus Maniacoria’s Suffraganeus bibliothece,” Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales 80 (2013), pp. 1–16, especially pp. 6–9.

9. Hugh of Saint-Cher (1190–1263)

Hugh of Saint-Cher (Hugo de Sancto Caro) was a French Dominican cardinal, theologian, and biblical commentator. His Postillae in Bibliam, written principally during the 1220s and 1230s, became one of the most widely copied biblical commentaries of the Middle Ages. In explaining Jerome’s introductions to biblical books, Hugh discussed errors in the Septuagint, differences among Greek manuscripts, omissions, additions, and the mixing of different Greek translations.

Errors in Translation and Corruption by Copyists

In his explanation of Jerome’s introduction to the books of Moses, Hugh describes two causes of errors:

Sed quia multe corruptiones erant, ibi propter falsitatem exemplarium, et imperitiam Translatorum.

Translation: “But because there were many corruptions there, because of the falsity of the copies and the inexperience of the translators.”

He specifically addresses the Septuagint:

Ostendit autem in hac epistola HIERONYMUS septuaginta Interpretes, qui primo transtulerunt de Hebreo in Grecum, multa subticuisse de Hebraica veritate.

Translation: “Jerome shows in this epistle that the Septuagint interpreters, who first translated from Hebrew into Greek, suppressed many things from the Hebrew truth.”

Elsewhere Hugh distinguishes omissions made during translation from corruption introduced afterward:

Omissa] a translatoribus.

Translation: “‘Omitted’—by the translators.”

Depravata a scriptoribus.

Translation: “‘Corrupted’—by the copyists.”

He compares repeated copying and translation to wine transferred between vessels:

Quanto enim vinum recentius, tanto melius; et quanto de vase in vas transfertur, tanto deterius. Sic de exemplaribus.

Translation: “For the fresher the wine, the better; and the more it is transferred from vessel to vessel, the worse it becomes. So it is with copies.”

Hugh therefore distinguished defects in the original translation from subsequent alterations introduced by copyists.

The Greek Translations Had Been Corrupted

In discussing Jerome’s introduction to Chronicles, Hugh refers to the Septuagint and three other Greek translations made by Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion. He explains why Jerome translated directly from Hebrew:

Tamen quia ille corrupte fuerant, ideo iuxta fontem Hebraice veritatis hanc translationem edidit Chromatio.

Translation: “Nevertheless, because those had been corrupted, he therefore produced this translation for Chromatius according to the fountain of the Hebrew truth.”

He gives the same explanation concerning Isaiah:

Sed quia iste translationes corrupte erant, necesse fuit, ut de ipso fonte Hebraice veritatis transferret eum Hieronymus in Latinum.

Translation: “But because these translations were corrupted, it was necessary for Jerome to translate it into Latin from the very fountain of the Hebrew truth.”

Explaining the word “violated” in Jerome’s introduction to Chronicles, Hugh writes:

Violata] vitio scriptorum.

Translation: “‘Violated’—through the fault of copyists.”

He further describes the condition of the Septuagint:

Hoc dicit, quia ita corrupta erat editio Septuaginta quod videbatur esse Barbara, vel Barbaras, et ignotas dictionum significationes habens.

Translation: “He says this because the Septuagint edition was so corrupted that it seemed barbarous, or to contain barbarous and unfamiliar meanings of words.”

Hugh thus attributed some of the Greek text’s difficulties to copying errors, while also recognizing defects in translation.

Septuagint Copies Scarcely Agreed

In his explanation of Jerome’s introduction to Joshua, Hugh describes differences among copies of the Septuagint:

Adeo enim vulgata fuit translatio Septuaginta, quod vix inveniebatur eadem littera, in diversis codicibus, sed una secundum unum translatorem, alia secundum alium.

Translation: “For the translation of the Septuagint had become so widespread that scarcely the same wording was found in different manuscripts, but one reading appeared according to one translator and another according to another.”

He also explains:

Ostendit, quod dixerat, scilicet quod diverse regiones diversa habebant exemplaria.

Translation: “He shows what he had said, namely, that different regions had different copies.”

These statements describe substantial differences among copies, including the presence of material associated with different translators.

Origen Mixed Different Greek Translations

Hugh explains how Origen worked with four ancient Greek translations of the Old Testament:

Quatuor editionum] scilicet Septuaginta Symmachi, Aquile, Theodotionis. quasi dicat Origenes ex illis quatuor editionibus unam composuit.

Translation: “‘Of the four editions’—namely, the Septuagint, Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion; as though he were saying that Origen composed one from those four editions.”

He states more directly:

qui Theodotionem miscuit cum Septuaginta et sic utramque corrupit.

Translation: “Who mixed Theodotion with the Septuagint and thus corrupted both.”

Hugh explains further:

Unde editionem Septuaginta antequam suam faceret, correxit Origenes cum asterisco, et obelo, miscens multa de editione Theodotionis.

Translation: “Thus, before producing his own edition, Origen corrected the Septuagint using an asterisk and an obelus, mixing in much material from Theodotion’s translation.”

Hugh regarded this mixture as corruption rather than the preservation of a single, unchanged Greek translation.

Omissions, Alterations, and Additions

Hugh explains the marks Origen used to distinguish differences between the Septuagint and Hebrew.

Ubi SEPTUAGINTA aliquid omiserant, vel mutaverant de Hebraica veritate, ponebat asteriscum quasi dicat hic est defectus, et indiget lumine.

Translation: “Where the Septuagint had omitted something or had altered something from the Hebrew truth, he placed an asterisk, as though to say: here there is a deficiency and it needs illumination.”

An asterisk (*) identified material supplied where the Septuagint differed from the Hebrew.

Sed ubi SEPTUAGINTA aliquid de suo addiderant, quod non erat in Hebraica veritate, ponebat obelum, quasi dicat hic est aliquid superfluum, et iugulandum.

Translation: “But where the Septuagint had added something of its own which was not in the Hebrew truth, he placed an obelus, as though to say: here there is something superfluous and to be cut away.”

An obelus (÷) identified material present in the Septuagint but absent from the Hebrew.

Hugh also identifies passages where the difference went beyond wording:

sed in SEPTUAGINTA nec sensus, nec verba reperiuntur.

Translation: “But in the Septuagint neither the meaning nor the words are found.”

These observations distinguish omissions and additions associated with the translation from the subsequent mixture of different Greek versions.

“The Septuagint Erred in Some Places”

In explaining Jerome’s introduction to Ezekiel, Hugh states:

Mirum est quod alicubi sequuntur Hebraicam veritatem, alicubi non. Et nota quod Hieronymus hic innuit Septuaginta alicubi errasse.

Translation: “It is remarkable that in some places they follow the Hebrew truth and in others they do not. And note that Jerome here indicates that the Septuagint erred in some places.”

Hugh acknowledged that the Septuagint agreed with the Hebrew in some places but contained errors elsewhere.

Additions to Esther and the Rejection of the Greek Translation of Daniel

In his explanation of Jerome’s introduction to Esther, Hugh writes:

Septuaginta enim, quedam addiderunt de suo, que non erant de substantia libri.

Translation: “For the Seventy added certain things of their own which were not part of the substance of the book.”

He describes the placement of those additions:

Quia vero Septuaginta in medio posuerunt Hebraicam veritatem, et in principio, et in fine suas longas additiones, idcirco dicitur hic. Hinc inde.

Translation: “But because the Septuagint placed the Hebrew text in the middle, and their own long additions at the beginning and at the end, for this reason it is said here, ‘on either side.’”

Hugh thus attributed substantial additions in the Greek form of Esther to the translators.

Concerning the Septuagint translation of Daniel, he writes:

Primo dicit quod iuste Translatio Septuaginta repudiata sit.

Translation: “First, he says that the translation of the Septuagint was rightly rejected.”

This judgment concerns the Greek translation of Daniel specifically, not the entire Greek Old Testament.

Assessment

Hugh distinguished errors made by translators from corruption introduced by copyists, described substantial differences among Greek manuscripts, and criticized the mixing of separate Greek translations. He also identified omissions and additions in the Septuagint and accepted Jerome’s judgment that it contained errors.

Much of his testimony derives from Jerome’s introductions rather than independent examination of Greek manuscripts. Nevertheless, Hugh expressly adopted these criticisms, demonstrating that a prominent thirteenth-century biblical commentator did not regard the Septuagint as uniformly preserved or free from corruption.

Citation: Hugh of Saint-Cher (Hugo de Sancto Caro), Postillae in Bibliam: expositions of Jerome’s prologues Desiderii mei to the books of Moses, Prol. 285b; Quomodo Grecorum historias and Si Septuaginta to 1 Chronicles, Prol. 327b–328b; the prologue to Joshua, Prol. 1b; Nemo cum prophetas to Isaiah, Prol. 482b; the prologue to Ezekiel, Prol. 492; Danielem prophetam to Daniel, Prol. 494; Librum Esther variis to Esther, Prol. 341b, together with commentary on Esther 10:3–4. Latin text in Martin Morard, ed., Hugo de Sancto Caro, Postilla in totam Bibliam, Sacra Pagina: Glossae Scripturae Sacrae-electronicae, IRHT-CNRS; based principally upon Hugonis de Sancto Charo … Opera omnia in universum Vetus & Novum Testamentum, 8 vols. (Venice: Nicolaus Pezzana, 1703).

10. Roger Bacon (1214–1292)

Roger Bacon was an English Franciscan philosopher, theologian, and biblical scholar. Drawing heavily on Jerome, he distinguished defects in the original Greek translation from errors introduced by copyists. He also explained that the name “Septuagint” could refer to different forms of the text, questioned the common authorship of its books, and identified differences between the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures.

Corrupted by Copyists and Defective “from Its Very Beginning”

In the Opus Minus, while explaining why Jerome translated the Old Testament directly from Hebrew, Bacon writes:

Quia autem non solum ex vitio scriptorum translationem Septuaginta corruptam invenit Hieronymus, sed ab ipso initio multas habuit falsitates, et defectus necessariorum, et multas superfluitates….

Translation: “Moreover, Jerome found the translation of the Seventy corrupted not only through the fault of scribes, but from its very beginning it had many falsities, omissions of necessary things, and many superfluities….”

Bacon distinguishes errors introduced by copying from defects he believed existed in the original translation. His judgment depends on Jerome rather than a personal examination of the earliest Greek text.

“Septuagint” Could Mean Different Forms of the Text

Bacon explains that the name “Septuagint” could refer to three different forms:

Quapropter translatio Septuaginta interpretum potest accipi tripliciter … tertio, quae non habuit obelos et asteriscos, sed fuit vulgata et corrupta per additiones et subtractiones varias juxta caput cujuslibet.

Translation: “Therefore the translation of the Seventy interpreters can be understood in three ways … third, that which did not have obeli and asterisks, but was circulated and corrupted through various additions and omissions according to each person’s judgment.”

The three forms he identifies are the original Greek translation, the text included in Origen’s comparison of Hebrew and Greek versions, and the commonly circulating text without Origen’s marks. Those marks distinguished material found in the Greek but absent from Hebrew from material supplied to bring the Greek into agreement with Hebrew.

Bacon describes the circulating form as corrupted by additions and omissions. He then explains the resulting ambiguity:

et ideo aequivocatur vocabulum cum dicitur sic variis modis translatio Septuaginta.

Translation: “And therefore the term is used in different senses when ‘the translation of the Seventy’ is spoken of in these various ways.”

Following Jerome, Bacon recognized that substantially different texts could bear the same name. He nevertheless described the translation’s original purity and repeated Jerome’s favorable judgment of the text preserved in Origen’s work. His criticism of later alterations therefore did not amount to a rejection of every earlier form of the Septuagint.

Books Could Be Added, and Daniel’s Translation Was Replaced

Questioning whether the same translators produced every book, Bacon appeals to Josephus:

Et considerandum quod Josephus dicit eos tantum quinque libros Moysi transtulisse, ut patet in prologo sui libri.

Translation: “And it should be considered that Josephus says they translated only the five books of Moses, as is clear in the prologue of his book.”

He adds concerning the other books:

Sed ab aliis potuit fuisse translatum et additum …

Translation: “But it could have been translated and added by others …”

Bacon thus allowed that books beyond the Law of Moses might have been translated by different men and subsequently included in the collection attributed to the Seventy.

He also recognized that the Greek translation of Daniel used by Christians differed from the one attributed to the Seventy:

quia translatione Septuaginta in Daniele ecclesiae Dei non utuntur, ut dicit Hieronymus in prologo Danielis.

Translation: “Because the churches of God do not use the translation of the Seventy in Daniel, as Jerome says in the prologue to Daniel.”

Bacon had identified the Greek translation associated with Theodotion as the source of the older Latin Daniel. His observations, drawn from Josephus and Jerome, show that books grouped under the name Septuagint did not necessarily share the same translators or subsequent history.

The Raven “Did Not Return”: Greek and Hebrew Disagreed

In the Opus Majus, Bacon examines Genesis 8:7, concerning Noah’s raven:

De superfluitate dictionis horribile est ac nefandum exemplum octavo Genesis, cum dicitur quod corvus non est ad arcam reversus. Nam Hebraeum habet affirmativam, et omnes Judaei de mundo sentiunt hoc: et omnes Bibliae antiquae habent affirmativam, et Hieronymus in originali. Et accepta est negatio a paucis temporibus de alia translatione, scilicet LXX. interpretum, cujus falsitatem Hieronymus ostendit locis infinitis, et quae jam a tempore Isidori et ante evacuata est.

Translation: “Of the superfluity of a word there is a horrible and impious example in Genesis 8, when it is said that the raven did not return to the ark. For the Hebrew has the affirmative, and all the Jews throughout the world understand it thus; and all the ancient Bibles have the affirmative, as does Jerome in his commentary. And the negation was adopted in recent times from another translation, namely that of the Seventy interpreters, whose falsity Jerome demonstrates in innumerable passages, and which by the time of Isidore, and even before, had already fallen out of use.”

The difference is genuine. The Hebrew describes the raven going out and returning, or going to and fro, until the waters dried. The Greek says that it went out and did not return until then. Scholarly editions of the Vulgate agree with the affirmative Hebrew. Jerome had already discussed the difference in his Hebrew Questions on Genesis.

Bacon believed that the negative wording entered copies of Jerome’s Latin translation when copyists mistook a commentator’s discussion of Augustine for a correction to the biblical text.

His proposed explanation for the Latin alteration is not independently established, nor does the disagreement determine whether the Greek wording originated during translation, reflected a different Hebrew source, or arose through copying. The example nevertheless establishes a substantial difference between the Hebrew and Greek texts and demonstrates Bacon’s opposition to introducing wording from another translation into Jerome’s Latin Bible.

Jerome’s Translation Was “More Truthful,” and Hebrew Was “More Reliable”

Bacon reports Isidore of Seville’s judgment concerning the preference for Jerome’s translation:

Nam ipse dicit in libro de Officiis quod generaliter omnes Ecclesiae Latinae utuntur translatione Hieronymi, pro eo quod veracior sit in sententiis et clarior in verbis, excepto quod propter nimium usum psallendi in Ecclesia solius psalterii translatio secundum LXX. interpretes remansit.

Translation: “For he himself says in the book On Offices that generally all the Latin churches use Jerome’s translation, because it is more truthful in its meanings and clearer in its words, except that, because of the very great customary use of singing in the Church, the translation of the Psalter according to the Seventy alone remained.”

Bacon accepted this preference for Jerome while recognizing that the older Greek-based Psalter remained in use through established church practice. His statement about the older translation falling out of use concerns Latin churches, not the abandonment of the Greek Septuagint itself.

In the Compendium Studii Philosophiae, Bacon states:

manifestum est quod certius omnino est Hebraeum quam Graecum, et hoc quam Latinum, in his quae a prioribus linguis in posteriores transferantur.

Translation: “It is clear that Hebrew is altogether more reliable than Greek, and Greek than Latin, in those things translated from the earlier languages into the later.”

Following Jerome, Bacon gave priority to the original language when judging translations. This principle does not establish that every surviving Hebrew manuscript was free from error.

Assessment

Bacon distinguished original defects in the Septuagint from subsequent copying errors and described a commonly circulating form corrupted by additions and omissions. He recognized different histories among books attributed to the Seventy and identified a substantial disagreement between the Greek and Hebrew accounts of Noah’s raven.

His testimony depends considerably on Jerome, and his explanation of how the raven passage entered Latin manuscripts remains uncertain. Nevertheless, Bacon provides significant medieval testimony that the name “Septuagint” did not guarantee a single, unchanged text and that continued ecclesiastical use did not establish a translation’s accuracy.

Citation: Roger Bacon, Opus Minus, in J. S. Brewer, ed., Fr. Rogeri Bacon Opera Quaedam Hactenus Inedita, vol. I (London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1859), pp. 334–342, 347–349; Compendium Studii Philosophiae, ch. VII, ibid., p. 447. Roger Bacon, The “Opus Majus”, ed. John Henry Bridges, supplementary volume, containing the revised text of the first three parts (London: Williams and Norgate, 1900), Part III, ch. V, pp. 95–98. For the underlying comparisons: Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, preface, §3 (I.12); Jerome, Hebrew Questions on Genesis, on Genesis 8:6–7, and preface; Prologue to Daniel; Isidore of Seville, De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, I.12.8; Genesis 8:7 in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Septuaginta, and Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem.

11. The Medieval Correctoria (13th century)

The medieval biblical correctoria were works produced during the thirteenth century to identify and correct errors in biblical manuscripts by comparing different copies and translations. They were not a single work or collection of identical texts. Among them were the Correctorium Vaticanum, preserved in Vatican Library manuscript Vat. lat. 3466, and the separate Correctorium E, preserved principally in Vat. lat. 4240. The latter, associated with Gérard de Huy, provides particularly explicit testimony concerning the Septuagint. Its author distinguished different forms of the Greek text, identified additions and other differences, and consulted Hebrew and Greek manuscripts when correcting Latin Bibles.

The Common Septuagint Was “Greatly Corrupted”

Correctorium E states:

Sciendum autem quod ista editio LXX in exaplois contenta, quia non fuit publicata, mansit incorrupta; sed illa comunis, que asteriscos et obelos non habuit, vitio scriptorum valde corrupta fuit.

Translation: “It should be known, however, that this edition of the Seventy contained in the Hexapla, because it was not published, remained uncorrupted; but that common edition, which did not have the asterisks and obeli, was greatly corrupted through the fault of scribes.”

The writer distinguishes the Septuagint preserved in Origen’s comparison of Hebrew and Greek texts from the commonly circulating version. He regarded the former as uncorrupted but maintained that the latter had become “greatly corrupted” through copying errors. The asterisks and obeli were marks Origen used to identify differences between the Greek and Hebrew texts.

This account draws on Jerome and closely resembles Roger Bacon’s explanation. It therefore reflects earlier authorities rather than an entirely independent discovery. Nor does the writer’s confidence in Origen’s text establish that it was actually free from corruption.

The Septuagint Contained “Addition, Subtraction, Alteration”

The corrector identifies several kinds of differences in the Septuagint:

Hec supradicta, scilicet addictio, subtractio, mutatio, divisio, coniunctio in editione LXX reperiuntur.

Translation: “These things mentioned above—namely addition, subtraction, alteration, division, and conjunction—are found in the edition of the Seventy.”

These differences included additions, omissions, changes in wording, and the division or joining of words. They could have arisen during translation or through subsequent copying.

Discussing Psalm 1, the corrector writes:

In Psalmis, non sic impii, additur a LXX: non sic, — sed tanquam pulvis quem proicit ventus, additur ab eisdem, a facie terre…

Translation: “In the Psalms, to ‘not so the ungodly,’ the Seventy add ‘not so’; and to ‘but like the dust which the wind drives away,’ they likewise add ‘from the face of the earth’….”

Both differences can be confirmed by comparing the Hebrew and Greek texts of Psalm 1:4. The Greek repeats “not so” and includes “from the face of the earth,” words absent from the Hebrew.

The corrector thus identified actual differences between the Hebrew and Greek. Their existence, however, does not establish whether the additional Greek wording originated during translation, reflected a different Hebrew source, or resulted from later alteration.

The Corrector Searched Ancient Manuscripts for the Truth

The author describes his method:

Cum igitur has falsitates et huiusmodi in modernis libris aspicerem, antiquos codices et etiam antiquissimos revolvens contuli cum originalibus et hebreis et grecis, non quia LXX editio, que in grecis continetur, et nostra sit eadem, sed ut ex collatione plurium veritatem elicerem…

Translation: “Therefore, when I observed these errors and others like them in modern books, I examined ancient and even very ancient manuscripts and compared them with the original texts, both Hebrew and Greek, not because the edition of the Seventy contained in Greek manuscripts and our own are the same, but so that through comparison of several texts I might discover the truth….”

The corrector examined older manuscripts and consulted Hebrew and Greek texts to identify errors in Latin Bibles. He recognized that the Greek Septuagint differed from the Latin translation he was correcting.

Heinrich Denifle’s examination of the correctory supports this account. In Proverbs, Denifle identified passages suggesting that the author sometimes consulted Greek directly rather than merely repeating earlier Latin translations.

This distinguishes the corrector’s own investigations from his reliance on Jerome and other earlier authorities. Nevertheless, the principal object of his corrections was the Latin Bible, and consultation of Greek manuscripts does not itself establish that those Greek manuscripts were corrupt.

Assessment

The medieval correctoria preserve explicit thirteenth-century criticism of the commonly circulating Septuagint. Correctorium E describes it as “greatly corrupted,” identifies additions and other differences between Greek and Hebrew, and distinguishes the form associated with Origen from the text in general circulation.

Although its broad criticism draws on Jerome and resembles Roger Bacon’s account, the corrector also examined manuscripts and compared Greek and Hebrew texts. His testimony is therefore valuable both for its explicit judgment concerning corruption of the Septuagint and for documenting how medieval scholars investigated biblical errors through manuscript comparison.

Citation: Heinrich Denifle, “Die Handschriften der Bibel-Correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts,” Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 4 (1888), pp. 263–311, 471–601; Correctorium Vaticanum, Vatican Library, Vat. lat. 3466; Correctorium E, principally Vatican Library, Vat. lat. 4240.

12. Giannozzo Manetti (1396–1459)

Giannozzo Manetti was an Italian Roman Catholic scholar, statesman, and biblical translator of the fifteenth century. In his five-book Apologeticus, written to defend his new translation of the Psalms from Hebrew, he extensively compared two older Latin translations of the Psalms: one based on Greek and the other on Hebrew. He personally counted their differences, classified them as additions, omissions, or incorrect translations, and examined examples throughout the Psalms. He eventually extended his judgment to the Greek Old Testament as a whole.

“About Six Thousand” Differences—An “Enormous Multitude and Immense Forest”

After reviewing the principal translations of the Psalms, Manetti describes the extent of their differences:

Quantum inter se distent he due celeberrime Psalterii iam crebro commemorate interpretationes … vix excogitari, nedum dici explicarique potest. Cunctis quippe predictarum interpretationum differentiis diversitatibusque diligentissime enumeratis accuratissimeque, ut ita dixerim, recensitis, sex circiter milia numero (mirabile et incredibile dictu!) comperiuntur. Quas quidem si omnes in hunc secundum librum singillatim congereremus, quemadmodum seorsum et separatim alibi annotasse meminimus, profecto totum volumen in nimiam quandam longitudinem prolixitatemque extenderetur ac propterea Maiestati tue inter legendum fastidium nauseamque afferret. Quod nos fugere atque evitare vel maxime cupientes, pleraque de industria omisimus. Aliqua vero et quidem maiora et graviora ex maxima turba et ingentissima silva per singulos quinque libros excerpsimus atque diligenter et accurate hoc tertio quod subsequitur volumine annotabimus.

Translation: “How greatly these two celebrated translations of the Psalter, already so often mentioned, differ from one another can scarcely be conceived, much less stated and explained. For when all the differences and variations of the aforesaid translations had been most diligently enumerated and, so to speak, most accurately reviewed, I found about six thousand in number—a marvelous and incredible thing to say! If we were to gather every one of them individually into this second book, just as I remember having recorded them elsewhere separately and apart, the whole volume would certainly be extended to excessive length and prolixity and would therefore cause weariness and disgust to Your Majesty in reading. Since we especially desire to avoid this, we have deliberately omitted most of them. But from the enormous multitude and immense forest we have selected some of the greater and weightier ones throughout the five books, and we shall record them diligently and accurately in this third book which follows.”

Manetti presents the approximate total as the result of a careful count. These were differences between two Latin translations derived from different source languages, not six thousand demonstrated copying errors in Greek manuscripts. His surviving three-column Psalter places the two older Latin versions beside his own translation, providing a setting for this comparison.

Errors Through Additions, Omissions, and Incorrect Translations

At the beginning of Book III, Manetti explains his classification of errors:

Quoniam de multis ac magnis duarum celeberrimarum totius Psalterii interpretationum differentiis ac diversitatibus hoc tertio libro disserere ac tractare constituimus, ut res ipsa planius et apertius cognoscatur, singulari quodam ac precipuo ordine inter disserendum procedemus. In unaquaque enim seria gravique traductione tres duntaxat errores esse reperirique possunt. Nam aut error per aliqua additamenta aut per omissiones aut per alienas interpretationes fieri provenireque potest. A superadditis ergo primo inchoantes, proposito ordine de quibusdam gravioribus breviter prosequemur.

Translation: “Since in this third book we have determined to discuss and treat the many and great differences and variations between the two celebrated translations of the whole Psalter, so that the matter itself may be known more plainly and clearly, we shall proceed in our discussion according to a particular and definite order. For in every serious and important translation only three kinds of errors can be found. An error may arise through additions, through omissions, or through improper renderings. Beginning therefore first with the additions, we shall briefly proceed according to the proposed order through some of the more serious examples.”

After examining additions and omissions, Manetti opens Book IV by turning to incorrect translations:

Si ordo noster … exigere et postulare videtur ut hoc quarto libro de alienis interpretationibus una cum differentibus omnium Psalmorum titulis deinceps agamus, cum de iis que a Septuaginta senioribus partim superaddita, partim vero pretermissa inter interpretandum fuisse cernantur, tertio ad sufficientiam disseruisse meminerimus, a primo Psalmo incipientes, ea que aliene traducta sunt seriatim prosequemur.

Translation: “Since our order seems to require and demand that in this fourth book we now treat the improper renderings together with the differing titles of all the Psalms, having already discussed sufficiently in the third book those things which appear to have been partly added and partly omitted by the Seventy in translating, we shall begin with the first Psalm and proceed in order through those things which were improperly translated.”

His examples include differences affecting the meaning of passages.

At Psalm 2:6, he contrasts the speaker being appointed king with God appointing his king:

‘Ego autem constitutus sum rex ab eo’, At ego constitui regem meum.

Translation: “‘But I was appointed king by him’: ‘But I appointed my king.’”

At Psalm 2:12, he contrasts an instruction concerning discipline with an instruction concerning the Son:

‘Apprendite disciplinam’, Osculamini filium.

Translation: “‘Accept discipline’: ‘Kiss the Son.’”

Manetti thus identified differences affecting both the identity of the speaker and the meaning of a command.

Differences Throughout the Greek Old Testament Were “Almost Incredible and Virtually Infinite”

Manetti extends his judgment beyond the Psalms. After discussing differences involving Old Testament passages and their quotations elsewhere in Scripture, he declares:

Sed quid pluribus exemplis opus est? Totum enim Vetus, ut dicitur, Testamentum a Septuaginta interpretibus in grecum eloquium conversum, partim additamentis, partim omissionibus, partim denique alienis interpretationibus ita referctum reperitur, ut horum omnium cumulus, si simul congereretur ita ut uno aspectu aspici viderique posset, profecto talium discrepantiarum numerus pene incredibilis et quasi infinitus putaretur. Hanc tantam et tam ingentem varietatem antiqui doctores nostri evidentibus signis in codicibus suis per hunc modum notare consueverant. Nam que addita erant, signis quibusdam in stellarum modum factis, ad capita versuum notabant, et huiusmodi signa grece asteriscos vocabant. Ea vero que ommissa fuerant, ad capita eorundem versuum iacentibus virgulis quasi verubus signabant, que illi obelos vel cum diminutione obeliscos appellabant. Atque eandem ac multo maiorem inter alios celebratos Aquilam, Simachum et Theodotionem interpretes discrepantiam Origenis tempestate esse constabat.

Translation: “But what need is there of more examples? For the whole Old Testament, as it is called, translated by the Seventy into the Greek language, is found so filled partly with additions, partly with omissions, and finally with improper renderings that, if the whole mass of them were gathered together so that it could be seen at a single glance, the number of such discrepancies would surely be regarded as almost incredible and virtually infinite. Our ancient teachers were accustomed to mark this so great and enormous variety in their manuscripts with visible signs in this manner. Those things which had been added they marked at the beginnings of the verses with certain signs made in the form of stars, and such signs they called in Greek asterisks. Those things which had been omitted they marked at the beginnings of the same verses with horizontal strokes like little spits, which they called obeli, or, in diminutive form, obelisks. And in Origen’s time an equal and even greater discrepancy was known to exist among the other celebrated translators Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.”

Manetti believed that additions, omissions, and incorrect translations were widespread throughout the Greek Old Testament. He also acknowledged substantial differences among other Greek translations.

His explanation of the marks requires qualification. In Book II, §§40–41, he gives the clearer distinction between star-shaped marks for material supplied from Hebrew and horizontal strokes for material present in Greek but absent from Hebrew. His abbreviated description here should not obscure that distinction.

The Apostles Used It Where It “Did Not Differ from the Hebrew Truth”

Having classified the errors and explained his preference for the Hebrew-based Psalter, Manetti considers why the older Greek-based translation remained highly regarded and continued to be used in churches:

Una occurrebat quia inter omnes sacrarum Scripturarum traductiones, ut est communis omnium christianorum populorum ac universalis cunctorum pene eruditissimorum virorum opinio, prima fuerat, que ante Christi adventum in medium lucemque prodierat. Secunda quia ab Evangelistis et ab Apostolis, in iis tamen in quibus ab hebraica veritate non discrepabat, usurpata cernebatur. Tertia quia, ad communem ac vulgatam omnium christianarum gentium opinionem, singillatim quique ab aliis interpretandi collegis diversis cellulis et habitaculis separati, ita mirabiliter interpretati fuisse creduntur, ut una sola, et non plures, interpretatio videretur. Unde cum hoc humanis viribus fieri et provenire non potuerit, a Spiritu Sancto facta et celebrata fuisse creditur. Ultimo propter carminum sonoritatem versuumque concinnitatem.

Translation: “One reason presented itself because, among all translations of the sacred Scriptures, according to the common opinion of all Christian peoples and the universal judgment of almost all the most learned men, it was the first to have appeared publicly before the coming of Christ. The second was because it was seen to have been used by the Evangelists and apostles, but only in those places in which it did not differ from the Hebrew truth. The third was because, according to the common and widespread opinion of all Christian peoples, each translator, separated individually from his fellow translators in different cells and dwellings, is believed to have translated so wonderfully that one single translation, and not many, appeared. Hence, since this could not have occurred by human powers, it is believed to have been accomplished and celebrated by the Holy Spirit. Finally, because of the musical quality of its language and the harmonious character of its verses.”

Manetti expressly qualifies his appeal to apostolic use. Yet in Book III, discussing Psalm 14, he identifies an extended passage as additional material while acknowledging its use in Romans 3:13–18. In Book V, §§79–80, he also allows the Seventy, apostles, and evangelists special freedom because of their divinely granted authority.

His position therefore combines criticism of the translation with continuing respect for its religious authority. His qualification concerning apostolic use should not be taken to mean that he consistently rejected every apostolic departure from Hebrew wording.

Manetti also questioned the traditional account of seventy-two translators working separately yet producing identical translations:

Quod utrum verum fuerit an non me ignorare fateor, presertim cum Hieronymum, virum eruditissimum ac trium clarissimarum linguarum peritissimum, longe aliter sentire manifestissime videam, ceu paulo post latius et uberius declarabitur. Eam tamen, quecunque fuerit, opinionem ab homericis Iliadis et Odyssee poematibus originem habuisse non iniuria arbitror.

Translation: “Whether this was true or not, I confess that I do not know, especially since I see most clearly that Jerome, a most learned man and thoroughly versed in the three most distinguished languages, thought very differently, as will be explained somewhat more fully shortly. Nevertheless, whatever that opinion may have been, I do not think it unreasonable to suppose that it took its origin from the Homeric poems of the Iliad and Odyssey.”

Manetti thus distinguished the traditional account of the translation’s miraculous production from established historical fact, while acknowledging its influence on Christian esteem for the Septuagint.

Assessment

Manetti is a substantial pre-Reformation witness because he reports an extensive comparison of Greek-based and Hebrew-based Latin Psalters, supplies specific examples, and extends his criticism to the Greek Old Testament generally.

His approximately six thousand differences are not a count of demonstrated Greek copying errors. His testimony principally concerns additions, omissions, and differences in translation, while retaining respect for the Seventy’s religious authority. Within those limits, his detailed examination contributes substantially more than a repetition of Jerome’s judgments.

Citation: Giannozzo Manetti, Apologeticus, ed. Alfonso De Petris, Temi e Testi 29 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1981), bk. II, §§27–30, 40–41, 86–88; bk. III, opening classification and catalogue under Psalm XIV; bk. IV, opening classification and catalogue under Psalm II; bk. V, §§66–70, 79–90. For the surviving three-column comparison, Vatican Library, Pal. lat. 40, fols. 3r–107r.

13. Alfonso de Madrigal (1410–1455)

Alfonso de Madrigal was a fifteenth-century Spanish Catholic theologian, biblical commentator, and bishop of Ávila. Drawing extensively on Jerome and Augustine, he discusses additions and omissions in the Septuagint, copying errors, conflicting Greek texts, and the mixture of different translations.

The Seventy “Departed from the Hebrew Truth”

Explaining Jerome’s discussion of differences in the Septuagint, Madrigal writes:

Vocat hic errorem deviationem a litera hebraica, sive rationabiliter, sive irrationabiliter hoc contigerit, et dicit manifestum est, quia interpretes septuaginta deviaverunt a veritate hebraica; sed quare deviaverunt, ad me non pertinet exponere.

Translation: “He here calls ‘error’ a departure from the Hebrew text, whether this happened for a reasonable or an unreasonable cause; and he says that it is manifest that the seventy translators departed from the Hebrew truth; but why they departed from it is not for me to explain.”

He continues:

Hieronymus autem licet subticeat satis videtur velle, quod septuaginta interpretes erraverint ex ignorantia.

Translation: “Jerome, however, although he does not expressly say so, seems sufficiently to mean that the seventy translators erred through ignorance.”

He also records another explanation:

Sed Iudaei prudenti factum dicunt esse consilio.

Translation: “But the Jews say that it was done by prudent design.”

In his commentary on Chronicles, Madrigal distinguishes errors that change the meaning of the Hebrew from additions and omissions:

Primus modus facit errorem proprie dictum, & tunc dicendum, quod interpretes non erraverunt aliquo modo in translatione; quia non corruperunt aliquas veritates, quæ essent in Hebræo

Translation: “The first manner constitutes error properly so called; and in that sense it must be said that the interpreters did not err in their translation, because they did not corrupt any truths that were in the Hebrew.”

He then explains the broader sense:

Secundo modo accipiendo errorem, est error large dictus, & sic interpretes erraverant. Nam aliquando addiderunt aliquid in translatione sua, quod in Hebræo non erat, & aliquando subticuerunt aliquid, quod in Hebræo erat

Translation: “Taking error in the second sense, it is error broadly so called, and in that sense the interpreters had erred. For sometimes they added something in their translation that was not in the Hebrew, and sometimes they passed over something that was in the Hebrew.”

Madrigal therefore acknowledges additions and omissions by the original translators while denying that they falsified Hebrew truths in the stricter sense.

Additions and Omissions Left the Translation “Disfigured”

Explaining Jerome’s description of a pure and complete translation, Madrigal writes:

vel dicitur pura, & integra, quia duobus modis corrupta fuit translatio septuaginta Interpretum, scilicet, addendo ei aliquid, & diminuendo

Translation: “Or it is called pure and complete because the translation of the seventy interpreters was corrupted in two ways, namely, by adding something to it and by taking something away.”

He compares purity to wine containing no foreign liquid and completeness to something retaining all its parts:

& ita translatio septuaginta Interpretum non erat jam pura, quia multi translatores apposuerunt ei varias particulas.

Translation: “And thus the translation of the seventy interpreters was no longer pure, because many translators had added various portions to it.”

He also describes losses:

Non erat etiam translatio septuaginta Interpretum integra; quia integrum est, cui nihil deest de partibus suis: & tamen multa ablata fuerant a quibusdam de translatione ista; ideo erat deformata.

Translation: “Nor was the translation of the seventy interpreters complete; for a thing is complete when none of its parts is missing. Yet many things had been removed from that translation by some people; therefore it had been disfigured.”

These statements concern later changes. Elsewhere, Madrigal rejects the suggestion that copyists caused every addition and omission. He considers additions potentially useful for clarifying difficult passages, but finds omissions harder to justify:

De subtractione autem non apparet manifeste, quare fecerint, nec apparet aliqua causa ita rationabilis ad subtrahendum aliquid de Sacra Scriptura, sicut ad addendum illud

Translation: “As for taking something away, however, it is not clearly apparent why they did it, nor does there appear any reason as reasonable for taking something away from Holy Scripture as for adding something to it.”

Attempts at Correction “Did Not Agree with One Another”

Madrigal explains Jerome’s account of differing Greek texts associated with three early Christian scholars:

Erat enim translatio illa vitiata ab antiquo, & quilibet istorum conatus est corrigere eam arbitrio suo; sed aliter correxit eam Hesychius, aliter Lucianus, & aliter Origenes, & sic non concordabantur inter se istæ translationes: & tamen quædam provinciæ sequebantur unam translationem, & aliæ aliam.

Translation: “For that translation had been corrupted from ancient times, and each of these men tried to correct it according to his own judgment. But Hesychius corrected it one way, Lucian another, and Origen another; and thus these translations did not agree with one another. Yet some provinces followed one translation, and others another.”

Madrigal explains that Jerome considered none of these Greek texts sufficiently sound, making a fresh translation from Hebrew necessary. This judgment interprets Jerome’s account rather than resting on Madrigal’s own examination of Greek manuscripts.

The Greek Text Was “Mixed” with Another Translation

Madrigal describes Origen’s use of Theodotion’s Greek translation:

nam posuit Origenes bis translationem septuaginta Interpretum, prius enim posuit eam simplicem, sicut jacebat apud antiquos; deinde posuit eam mixtam ex translatione septuaginta Interpretum, & ex editione Theodotionis.

Translation: “For Origen set out the translation of the seventy interpreters twice: first he set it out by itself, as it stood among the ancients; then he set it out mixed from the translation of the seventy interpreters and the edition of Theodotion.”

Origen marked supplied material with star-shaped signs and material judged unnecessary with other signs. Madrigal thus distinguishes the earlier Greek text from the altered version containing material from Theodotion.

He also explains how copying perpetuated errors:

Sed si corruptum inveniunt, corruptum scribunt

Translation: “But if they find it corrupt, they copy it corrupt.”

Madrigal distinguishes the first copyist who damages a sound text from those who reproduce the error, applying this problem to Greek copies of Chronicles and Latin translations made from them.

The Translators Did Not Write as Inspired Prophets

Madrigal considers whether the translators wrote under the same inspiration as the biblical prophets:

Accipiendo Spiritum Sanctum pro spiritu prophetico, dicendum, quod non habuerunt Spiritum Sanctum, quando scribebant: nam non est concedendum eos prophetas fuisse, nec prophetice scripsisse.

Translation: “Taking the Holy Spirit to mean the prophetic spirit, it must be said that they did not have the Holy Spirit when they wrote; for it must not be conceded that they were prophets or wrote prophetically.”

He nevertheless affirms that their wisdom came from God:

Accipiendus ergo est Spiritus Sanctus secundo modo pro dono sapientiæ.

Translation: “The Holy Spirit must therefore be understood in the second sense, as the gift of wisdom.”

Madrigal argues that if the translators’ additions were inspired Scripture, they would possess the authority of Scripture and could not be treated as doubtful or unnecessary. He therefore regards their explanations as potentially useful without granting them the authority of inspired Scripture.

Chronological Figures Were Changed “Deliberately”

Discussing differences between the Hebrew and Greek ages in Genesis 5, Madrigal acknowledges uncertainty:

Sed quomodo hic factum sit, certum non est.

Translation: “But how this happened is not certain.”

Following Augustine, he examines the repeated addition of one hundred years to a patriarch’s age before the birth of his son, with the same amount subtracted from his remaining years. The total lifespan remained unchanged. He concludes:

Dicendum ergo magis hoc ex industria factum

Translation: “It should therefore rather be said that this was done deliberately.”

He describes the proposed purpose:

vt veritas sacræ scripturæ euidentior esset.

Translation: “So that the truth of Holy Scripture might be more evident.”

This explanation concerned a theory that the patriarchs’ years were much shorter than ordinary years. Under that theory, some Hebrew figures implied fatherhood at seven or similarly implausible ages. Increasing the ages before fatherhood would remove the difficulty.

Madrigal follows Augustine in accepting deliberate changes to the Greek figures without necessarily attributing them to the original Seventy. He also reports Augustine’s rejection of a Greek calculation that left Methuselah alive fourteen years after the Flood, favoring the Hebrew figures.

His discussion extends to the generations following the Flood:

Septuaginta autem interpretes computant aliter ponentes cuilibet supradictorum plures annos ante generationem

Translation: “But the seventy interpreters calculate differently, assigning each of the foregoing men more years before the birth of his son.”

The chronological differences therefore extend across numerous generations.

Assessment

Madrigal acknowledged additions and omissions by the original Greek translators, later corruption through copying, conflicting attempts at correction, and the mixing of different Greek translations. He denied that the Seventy wrote as inspired prophets while defending them against the charge of falsifying Hebrew truths in the strict sense. Although much of his discussion draws upon Jerome and Augustine, he accepted and developed these distinctions in his own biblical commentaries.

Citation: Alfonso de Madrigal, Commentaria in Genesim, in Opera (Venice: Giovanni Battista and Giovanni Bernardo Sessa, 1596), commentary on Jerome’s preface to the Law of Moses, fol. 36r; separately numbered Genesis commentary, chapter 5, fols. 30v–32v, and chapter 11, fol. 57v; Commentaria in lib. primum Paralipomenon, Opera, XVI (Venice: Ex Typographia Balleoniana, 1728), commentaries on Jerome’s first and second prefaces, pp. 2, 4, 7, 23–24, 32–33, especially second-preface questions V, XII, and XIII.

14. Martin Bucer (1491–1551)

Martin Bucer was a leading Reformer of Strasbourg and a biblical commentator. He questioned whether the Greek Old Testament printed under the Septuagint name was the original work of the Seventy and contrasted its disagreements with the care used to preserve the Hebrew Scriptures.

“By No Means the Work of Those Seventy Interpreters”

In his Psalms preface, Bucer explained why he frequently passed over the Greek edition:

Eadem causa & Graecorum editionem, ita ut ad nos pervenit, adducere saepius praetermisi. Nam variat haec ab Ebraeis plus nimio: & indubitatum habeo, eam quae ab Aldo quidem primum edita est, haudquaquam septuaginta illorum interpretum esse, sed ex illorum forsan, ac aliorum interpretationibus conflatam.

Translation: “For the same reason I also frequently refrained from citing the Greek edition as it has come down to us. For it differs far too much from the Hebrew; and I hold it beyond doubt that the one first published by Aldus is by no means the work of those seventy interpreters, but was perhaps compiled from their translation and those of others.”

Bucer rejected the claim that this printed Greek was the original Seventy’s work. He suggested that it might combine their translation with others, but marked that explanation with “perhaps.”

Texts Bearing the Septuagint Name Differed “in Very Many Places”

Bucer compared quotations in ancient Christian writers with the printed Greek:

Quae enim D. Hieron. quae Hilarius quae alii nomine septuaginta adducunt, cum iis quae illa vulgata Graecorum editio habet, plurimis in locis, δὶς διὰ πασῶν dissonant.

Translation: “For what Jerome, Hilary, and others cite under the name of the Seventy differs in very many places, by two whole octaves, from what that commonly available Greek edition contains.”

After examples from Zechariah 12:10 and Isaiah 64:4, he compared another publication:

Multo magis dissidentia invenies, si cum hac Graeca versione conferas eam, quae sub nomine septuaginta, cum D. Hieronymi versione ante paucos annos excusa est Basileae. Sed haec, ab his quoque dissonat, quae D. Hieronymus ex septuaginta adducit in Epistola de optimo genere interpretandi.

Translation: “You will find much greater disagreements if you compare with this Greek version the one printed at Basel a few years ago under the name of the Seventy, together with Jerome’s version. But this too differs from what Jerome cites from the Seventy in his Letter on the Best Method of Translating.”

In his Gospel commentary, Bucer compared Matthew 2:6 with Micah’s prophecy and a Latin rendering printed in Jerome’s commentary at Basel. He again questioned the Greek Old Testament printed in Venice in 1518:

Ac simul coniectura hinc sumitur, eam Graecam versionem quae sub Lxx. nomine, ab Aldo extat excusa, non esse quod dicitur. Sed de his Christianus non contendet, qui videt ubique Apostolis unum hoc curae fuisse, ut Christi gloriam praedicarent, & in ipso impleta, quae in scripturis praedicta sunt, ostenderent. Ideo de verbis nunquam soliciti fuerunt, ubi de sententia, quantum ad ipsorum institutum faciebat constaret.

Translation: “At the same time, a conjecture arises from this that the Greek version printed by Aldus under the name of the Seventy is not what it is said to be. But a Christian will not contend over these matters, seeing that everywhere the apostles had this one concern: to proclaim Christ’s glory and show that the things foretold in the Scriptures were fulfilled in him. Therefore they were never anxious about the words where the meaning was clear, so far as it served their purpose.”

Words Were “Inserted from Elsewhere” into the Greek

At Psalm 4:8, after citing the Greek reference to grain, wine, and oil, Bucer wrote:

Oleum nescio qua occasione adiectum sit, nihil enim vel affine huic Ebraica habent.

Translation: “I do not know on what occasion oil was added, for the Hebrew contains nothing even corresponding to it.”

At Psalm 7:12, he expressly identified an insertion:

His Graeca versio et Chaldaea Paraphrasis consentiunt, nisi quod Graecae lectioni aliunde quaedam voces versui 12. insertae sunt; ἰσχυρὸς καὶ μακρόθυμος, id est fortis & longanimis.

Translation: “The Greek version and the Chaldean paraphrase agree with these things, except that certain words have been inserted from elsewhere into the Greek reading in verse 12: ‘strong and longsuffering.’”

He did not identify who introduced these additions or when.

The Hebrew Was Preserved with “Incredible Scrupulousness”

Bucer praised the care Jewish scholars took to record even the smallest details of the Hebrew text:

Incredibili siquidem religione singulos etiam apiculos observarunt: et si vetera exemplaria in unico elemento, in punctulo, variare deprehenderunt, id in libro suo quem מסרה id est Mesarah, quod in eo dictiones inter se concilientur vocant, quam diligentissime annotarunt.

Translation: “For with incredible scrupulousness they observed even the smallest marks; and if they found old copies differing in a single letter or a small point, they recorded it most diligently in their book which they call מסרה, that is, Mesarah, because in it words are reconciled with one another.”

Although he opposed many Jewish interpretations, he distinguished them from the preservation of the text:

Tot modis cum veritati insidias struant, fatendum tamen est omnibus, qui in his iudicare possunt, nihil unquam esse sanctius, quam isti servarunt lectionem Sacrorum Bibliorum.

Translation: “Although they lay snares for the truth in so many ways, nevertheless all who can judge these matters must acknowledge that nothing has ever been treated more scrupulously than the text of the Sacred Scriptures has been preserved by these men.”

The Hebrew Copies Must Not Be “Rashly Subordinated” to Greek

Bucer did not want readers to place Greek above Hebrew without careful judgment:

Haec vero non scribo, quod quenquam a lectione editionis Graecae velim absterrere, cum aeque nulla versio sit tam mala, atque nullus liber, quemadmodum Plinius scripsit (ut non aliqua ex parte prosit) sed quod cupiam legendam cum iudicio, nec temere illi fidem exemplarium Ebraeorum posthabendam.

Translation: “I do not write these things because I wish to deter anyone from reading the Greek edition, since no translation is so bad, nor any book, as Pliny wrote, that it is not useful in some respect. Rather, I wish it to be read with judgment, and the trustworthiness of the Hebrew copies not rashly subordinated to it.”

He sometimes accepted the Greek wording. At Psalm 105:22, he preferred “instruct” to “bind” because it suited the following statement about teaching wisdom:

sed cum ר & ד inter se transmutari soleant, & sequenti particulae, Et seniores eius sapientiam doceret, magis quadret legere, ut erudiret, quam, ut vinciret: visum est Graecorum hic versionem sequi.

Translation: “But since resh and daleth are commonly interchanged, and since reading ‘that he might instruct’ fits the following clause, ‘and teach his elders wisdom,’ better than ‘that he might bind,’ it seemed right to follow the Greek version here.”

The Apostles Used Familiar Greek “Where Nothing Is Taken Away from the Meaning”

At Psalm 41:10, quoted in John 13:18, Bucer explained why the apostles used familiar Greek wording:

Nec mirandum, si Evangelista vulgata maluerit editione uti. Ubique enim id Apostoli in gratiam Gentium, qui versioni Septuaginta iam adsueti erant, soliti fuere, praesertim ubi sententiae nihil detrahitur.

Translation: “It is no wonder if the Evangelist preferred to use the commonly available edition. For the apostles were accustomed to do this throughout, for the sake of the Gentiles, who were already familiar with the version of the Seventy, especially where nothing is taken away from the meaning.”

Bucer also accepted that a Greek translation was made before Christ at the request of Philadelphus and credited it with spreading knowledge of God. He questioned whether the later text bearing its name faithfully preserved that translation.

Assessment

Bucer rejected the identification of the printed Greek Old Testament with the original work of the Seventy, citing disagreements with ancient quotations, conflicting publications, and additions in individual Psalms. He contrasted these defects with the care used to preserve the Hebrew Scriptures, while acknowledging the usefulness of Greek wording and explaining the apostles’ use of it where the meaning remained faithful.

Citation: Martin Bucer [Aretius Felinus], Sacrorum Psalmorum libri quinque, ad Ebraicam veritatem genuina versione in Latinum traducti (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1547), “Praefatio ad pium lectorem,” sigs. α5v–α6r; commentary on Psalm 4:8, p. 53; Psalm 7:12, p. 80; Psalm 41:10, p. 292; Psalm 105:22, p. 493. Verse numbers follow Bucer’s numbering, which sometimes counts the superscription. Martin Bucer, In sacra quatuor evangelia enarrationes perpetuae, secundum recognitae (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1536), Matthew 2:6, p. 21. Martin Bucer, Psalmorum libri quinque … Eiusdem commentarii in librum Iudicum, in Sophoniam prophetam (Geneva: Robert Estienne, 1554), Zephaniah 3:8, p. 565.

15. Agostino Steuco (1497–1548)

Agostino Steuco, an Augustinian canon, Vatican librarian, and Roman Catholic biblical scholar, repeatedly compared the Septuagint with the Hebrew text. He identified defects in the original translation and corruption subsequently introduced into Greek copies.

“Very Great Ignorance” of Hebrew—“Scarcely Intelligible” Wording

In the preface to his Recognitio Veteris Testamenti ad Hebraicam veritatem (1529), Steuco writes:

Hæc igitur, siue Græcarum litterarum cognitionem absolutam non tenerent Septuaginta illi seniores, siue alijs exemplaribus vterentur, quàm nunc, aut Hieronymi tempestate haberentur, siue studio quodam, deditaque opera vellent ita transferre, plurimum ab Hebraica veritate inuenitur dissentire. Quædam etiam apertissimam præ se ferunt Græci sermonis imperitiam: in alijs maxima Hebraicæ linguæ ignoratio deprehenditur: dura alia, & vix intelligibilia.

Translation: “This edition, therefore—whether those elders of the Septuagint lacked a complete knowledge of Greek, used different copies from those available now or in Jerome’s time, or deliberately chose to translate in this manner—is found to differ very greatly from the Hebrew truth. Some passages even display the clearest lack of skill in Greek expression; in others, very great ignorance of the Hebrew language is detected; others are harsh and scarcely intelligible.”

Steuco allows several explanations, including differences in the copies used by the translators, while expressly criticizing the quality of the translation.

Following the Septuagint Led Writers “Very Far from the Hebrew Truth”

Discussing Genesis 5, Steuco writes:

Septuaginta aeditio, cum multis in locis mendosa deprehenditur, tum vero in recensendis his annis.

Translation: “The Septuagint edition, although it is found erroneous in many places, is especially so in the reckoning of these years.”

He attributes the erroneous chronology to later corruption rather than the original translators:

Is autem malus computus, non ab ipsis interpretibus, ut ipse arbitror, emanavit, sed librariis, ipsaque vetustate. Facileque fuit in his numeris addere vel subtrahere aliquid.

Translation: “But this erroneous computation, as I myself judge, did not originate from the translators themselves, but from scribes and from antiquity itself. And it was easy in these numbers to add or subtract something.”

He continues:

cum itaque maiores nostri tam Graeci quam Latini, editionem Septuaginta sequerentur, in describendis quoque temporibus eos secuti, a veritate Hebraica plurimum recesserunt. Verissima vero temporum supputatio, et sacris literis consentanea, ea est, quae apud Hebraeos extat.

Translation: “Since therefore our predecessors, both Greek and Latin, followed the Septuagint edition, in reckoning the times they likewise followed them and departed very far from the Hebrew truth. But the truest computation of the times, and that which agrees with Holy Scripture, is the one which exists among the Hebrews.”

Greek Copies Were Corrupted “Not Long After” Translation

At Genesis 31:7, the Septuagint speaks of “ten female lambs” where the Hebrew concerns Jacob’s wages being changed ten times. Steuco considers this too serious a mistake to attribute to the original translators:

Neque possumus existimare, adeo linguæ Hebraicæ eos seniores imperitos fuisse, vt tam turpiter laberentur: atque hoc vnum mihi indicio est, non multo post factam editionem, multis in locis corruptos fuisse libros Græcos, siue à scriptoribus, siue alijs causis.

Translation: “Nor can we suppose that those elders were so ignorant of the Hebrew language that they would make so disgraceful a mistake; and this alone indicates to me that, not long after the translation was made, the Greek books were corrupted in many places, whether by copyists or by other causes.”

He places this corruption before Origen, observing that Greek commentators were already consulting other translations.

An Error in “Almost Every Chapter”

At Genesis 32:29, Steuco identifies wording transferred from Judges 13:18 and describes such errors as widespread:

In editione vero Septuaginta, id genus errati tam frequens est, vt in omni penè capitulo, aliquid huiusmodi reperiatur.

Translation: “In the Septuagint edition, however, this kind of error is so frequent that something of this kind is found in almost every chapter.”

At Genesis 4:16, he writes:

Corruptus est is locus apud Septuaginta….

Translation: “This passage is corrupt in the Septuagint….”

At Deuteronomy 34:6, he states:

Quare mendosa est editio Septuaginta hoc loco….

Translation: “Therefore the Septuagint edition is erroneous in this place….”

He attributes the difference between “he buried” and “they buried” to copyists. Concerning the numbers in Genesis 46:27, he writes:

Cum ea in numeris sit mendosissima.

Translation: “Since it is exceedingly erroneous in numerical matters.”

Steuco also identifies an addition at Psalm 67:5 in the Greek numbering (Psalm 68:4 in Hebrew). He rejects the words “they shall be troubled before his face”:

Hoc enim in Hebraico nusquam est, nec vllam habet hoc loco rationem, nec credo Septuag. apposuisse, sed potius aliquo casu irrepsisse. In tralatione quoque Hieronymi ex Hebraico non habetur neque apud Chaldæum. Igitur veluti adiectum, prorsum obliterandum est.

Translation: “For this is nowhere in the Hebrew, nor does it make any sense in this place; nor do I believe that the Septuagint translators inserted it, but rather that it crept in through some accident. It is also absent from Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew and from the Chaldean translation. Therefore, as an addition, it should be entirely erased.”

Here Steuco expressly distinguishes a later addition from the work of the original translators.

Ancient Church Acceptance Could Not Make Additions Scripture

In his preface to Job, Steuco considers Olympiodorus’ defense of the Septuagint based on apostolic use and acceptance by earlier church writers. He replies:

Ego quidem, vt pro re pauca loquar, optarim maxime, quæ dicit esse vera: sed cùm sint exempla in contrarium, cùm ad rem ventum est, eos melius edere potuisse, in aliam sententiam vocamur.

Translation: “For my part, to speak briefly on the matter, I would very much wish what he says to be true; but since there are examples to the contrary, when we come to the actual matter, we are led to a different conclusion: that they could have produced a better translation.”

Concerning Job, he writes:

In primis liber is, apud eos discrepat à fonte, vt nulla sit (si veritatem, & perspicuitatem spectes) cum nostro, quem ex Hebraico vertit Hieronymus, digna collatio.

Translation: “In particular, this book among them differs from the source so much that, if you consider truth and clarity, it bears no worthy comparison with ours, which Jerome translated from the Hebrew.”

At Job 2:9, he identifies an expanded speech of Job’s wife:

Addita est autem hoc loco apud Sept. maxima periodus, quam ne à recentioribus additam suspiceris, inuenies in commentarijs Origenis, in explanationibus Chrysostomi super epistolas Pauli.

Translation: “A very long passage has been added here in the Septuagint; lest you suppose that it was added by more recent writers, you will find it in Origen’s commentaries and in Chrysostom’s explanations of Paul’s epistles.”

After quoting the addition, he states:

Hæc palam superuacanea sunt, licet à Græcis recipiantur, & exponantur. Sunt autem ex his, quæ in libro Iob erant addita vbique, eoque liber is, totus obeliscis fuerat confossus: In nostro non habentur, quoniam ex Hebraico est.

Translation: “These things are plainly superfluous, although they are accepted and explained by the Greeks. They belong among the things added throughout the book of Job, and for that reason the whole book had been pierced with deletion marks. They are absent from ours because it is translated from the Hebrew.”

Steuco rejected the authority of these additions despite their antiquity and acceptance by Greek Christian writers.

Assessment

Steuco identified defective translation, early corruption of Greek copies, additions, and errors in chronology. He preferred the Hebrew chronology and rejected Greek additions even when accepted by ancient church writers. Nevertheless, he allowed several explanations for differences, often defended the original translators against charges of error, and elsewhere accepted Greek wording that better represented the Hebrew than the Latin. His testimony distinguishes defects in the original translation from subsequent changes without condemning every Greek rendering.

Citation: Agostino Steuco, Recognitio Veteris Testamenti ad Hebraicam veritatem (Venice: Aldus Manutius’s heirs and Andrea Torresano, 1529), preface and commentary on Genesis 4:16, Genesis 5, Genesis 31:7, Genesis 32:29, Genesis 46:27, and Deuteronomy 34:6; reprinted in Opera omnia, ed. Ambrogio Morando (Venice: Domenico Nicolini, 1591), vol. I, fols. 85r, 100v, 101r–v, 119r–v, 120r, 125v, and 180r; Enarrationes in librum Iob, preface and commentary on Job 2:9, in the same volume, fols. 183r–v and 187v; Enarrationum in Psalmos, in Opera omnia, vol. II, fol. 138v.

16. Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562)

Peter Martyr Vermigli was an Italian Reformer and a leading theologian of the Reformed churches. His biblical commentaries compare the Septuagint with the Hebrew text, distinguishing useful explanations from additions, numerical errors, and corruption introduced through copying.

“Not the Septuagint, or Corrupted in Many Places”

Discussing Paul’s quotation of Isaiah at Romans 11:26, Vermigli compares the Hebrew, Paul’s wording, and the Greek edition available in his day:

Quod hebraicè dicitur, Sioni venturus redemptor: Septuaginta dixerunt, vt refert Hieronymus, de Sion, quod & Paulus est sequutus.

Translation: “Where the Hebrew says that a redeemer will come to Zion, the Septuagint said, as Jerome reports, ‘out of Zion,’ which Paul also followed.”

But the Greek text Vermigli possessed read “for Zion’s sake.” He concludes:

quamuis græca editio, qua nos vtimur, habeat ἕνεκα σιών, propterea liquet eam non esse Septuaginta, aut in multis locis vitiatam.

Translation: “Although the Greek edition which we use has ‘for Zion’s sake,’ it is therefore clear that it is not the Septuagint, or has been corrupted in many places.”

His judgment concerns the Greek edition available to him, which differed from the Septuagint wording reported by Jerome and followed by Paul.

Numerical Errors Came from Copyists—The Hebrew Reckoning Must Be Followed

Commenting on Genesis 11, Vermigli states:

In Septuaginta interpretibus inuenies errorem in numeris subducendis istorum annorum, librariorum vitio: hinc diuersa summa nobis & Hebræis surgit, at vti diximus, Hebræorum calculo non est refragandum.

Translation: “In the Septuagint translators you will find an error in calculating the numbers of these years, through the fault of copyists. Hence a different total arises for us and for the Hebrews; but, as we have said, the reckoning of the Hebrews must not be opposed.”

He identifies an additional generation in the Greek:

Habent & Septuaginta vnam generationem, quæ hîc non continetur. Siquidem Arphachsadum genuisse faciunt Cainam, cùm tamen hîc ab Hebraica historia Sela illi subiiciatur.

Translation: “The Septuagint also has one generation which is not contained here. For they make Arphaxad the father of Cainan, whereas here in the Hebrew history Shelah follows him.”

Vermigli recognizes that Luke includes Cainan but explains why this did not require Luke to correct the Greek translation:

Cùmque Lucas cap. 3. Christi genealogiam retexens per has generationes in Adamum & Deum ascendat, Septuaginta versionem sequutus illum interserit Cainam, quod illi vitio non est vertendum, cùm gentibus scriberet & versio illa Septuaginta vulgata esset & in manibus passim haberetur. Præterea in genealogijs non est res tanti momenti, vt Lucas in hoc facto admodum solicitus esse debuerit, satis illi erat fideliter ea tradere, quæ ad nostram salutem per Christum faciunt, neque illi tunc vacabat, vel in eo opere decebat Aristarchum agere in versionem Septuaginta interpretum.

Translation: “And since Luke, in chapter 3, traces Christ’s genealogy through these generations back to Adam and God, he follows the Septuagint version and inserts this Cainan. This must not be counted a fault in him, since he was writing to the Gentiles and that Septuagint version was widely circulated and commonly in people’s hands. Furthermore, the matter in the genealogies was not of such importance that Luke needed to be greatly concerned about it in this account. It was enough for him faithfully to relate the things concerning our salvation through Christ; nor did he then have leisure, nor was it appropriate in that work, to act as a severe critic of the Septuagint translation.”

At Genesis 41:1, Vermigli identifies another apparent copying error. The passage concerns two completed years before Pharaoh’s dream, but the Greek text before him gave two days:

Septuaginta malè habet, Post duos dies: nisi vitio scriptorum omissa sit vox ἔτη, & solummodo relictum quod legimus δύο ἡμερῶν.

Translation: “The Septuagint incorrectly has ‘after two days,’ unless through the fault of copyists the word ‘years’ has been omitted, leaving only what we read, ‘two days.’”

Paul Used Familiar Greek Wording Without Endorsing Every Difference

At Romans 2:24, Vermigli explains Paul’s use of the Greek wording of Isaiah 52:5:

Paulus autem vsus est Græca editione, partim quòd in manibus esset eorum, ad quos scribebat, partim quòd instituto erat accommoda. Nam habet, in Gentib. quod Hebraica non habet.

Translation: “Paul used the Greek edition partly because it was in the hands of those to whom he was writing, and partly because it suited his purpose. For it has ‘among the Gentiles,’ which the Hebrew does not have.”

At Romans 15:12, where Paul quotes Isaiah 11:10, Vermigli again distinguishes the Greek wording from the Hebrew:

Paulus hic videtur nonnihil ab hebraica veritate deflectere. Nam quod ille reddidit, Exurget, sequutus Septuaginta, qui transtulerunt, ἀνιστάμενος, est in Hebræo, stat. Sed Paulus videtur explicationem addidisse.

Translation: “Paul here seems to depart somewhat from the Hebrew truth. For what he rendered ‘shall arise,’ following the Septuagint, which translated ‘arising,’ is ‘stands’ in the Hebrew. But Paul seems to have added an explanation.”

He adds:

Sed hoc discrimen non est magnum.

Translation: “But this difference is not great.”

At Romans 10:8, quoting Deuteronomy 30:14, Vermigli identifies words present in the Greek but omitted by Paul:

Septuaginta interpretes non solùm verterunt, in corde, & in ore, sed adiecerunt, ἐν χερσί. Sed illud in Hebræo non habetur, & Paulus omisit.

Translation: “The Septuagint translators not only rendered ‘in the heart’ and ‘in the mouth,’ but added ‘in the hands.’ But that is not found in the Hebrew, and Paul omitted it.”

He nevertheless qualifies his criticism:

Verùm si addatur, nihil officit, imò potius adiuuat apostolicam interpretationem, quòd ostenditur agi de præcepto Dei, vt insitum est cordi, vt confirmatur ore, ac exprimitur opere.

Translation: “Yet if it is added, it does no harm; rather, it helps the apostolic interpretation, because it shows that the passage concerns God’s commandment as it is implanted in the heart, confirmed by the mouth, and expressed in action.”

Vermigli thus regarded Greek wording as potentially useful even when it differed from the Hebrew or was omitted by an apostle.

Assessment

Vermigli questioned whether the Greek edition circulating in his day was the original Septuagint or a text extensively corrupted through copying. He identified numerical errors, upheld the Hebrew chronology, and distinguished the apostles’ use of familiar Greek wording from approval of every difference in the translation. He nevertheless recognized that Greek renderings and additions could be useful without reproducing the Hebrew exactly.

Citation: Peter Martyr Vermigli, In epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos commentarii doctissimi (Basel: Peter Perna, 1558), comments on Romans 2:24, p. 62; Romans 10:8, p. 451; Romans 11:26, p. 508; and Romans 15:12, p. 629; In primum librum Mosis, qui vulgo Genesis dicitur, commentarii doctissimi (Zürich: Christoph Froschauer, 1579), commentary on Genesis 11, fol. 47r, and Genesis 41:1, fol. 163v.

17. John Calvin (1509–1564)

John Calvin was a French Reformer, theologian, and leading figure in the establishment of the Reformed churches. His biblical commentaries frequently compare the Hebrew Old Testament with the Septuagint. He did not reject the Greek translation as a whole and even preferred its wording at Psalm 22:16 over that found in the Hebrew copies available to him. Nevertheless, he identified serious errors in the Greek and distinguished mistakes made by the original translators from corruption introduced by later copyists.

The Greek Translators Changed the Meaning of Scripture

At Genesis 4:7, Calvin rejects the Septuagint’s rendering of God’s warning to Cain. He explains that the absence of vowel marks in early Hebrew manuscripts made it easier to confuse similar words:

“The Greek interpreters recede, in this place, far from the genuine meaning of Moses.”

He concludes:

“the Greeks change the whole sentence.”

Calvin regarded the error as a misunderstanding of the Hebrew that altered the meaning of God’s warning, rather than merely expressing it differently.

At Genesis 6:3, Calvin attributes another mistranslation to confusion between Hebrew letters:

“The Greek interpreters, deceived by the similitude of one letter to another, have improperly read, ‘shall not remain.’”

At Psalm 29:1, he similarly explains that the translators:

“were led into a mistake by the affinity of the Hebrew words.”

In both cases, Calvin believed that similarities in Hebrew spelling had led the translators to misunderstand the original words.

At Psalm 24:7–10, where the gates are commanded to lift up their heads, Calvin condemns the Greek rendering:

“The Septuagint has from ignorance corrupted this passage.”

He explains that although the Hebrew word for “heads” can sometimes mean princes, that interpretation is inappropriate here. He therefore attributes the Greek rendering to a misunderstanding of the passage.

At Psalm 71:15, he criticizes another mistranslation:

“It is surprising that the authors of the Greek version ever thought of translating this clause, I have not known learning, an error unworthy of being noticed, were it not that some fanatics in former times, to flatter themselves in their ignorance, boasted that, after the example of David, all learning and liberal sciences should be despised.”

Calvin considered this error particularly objectionable because it had been used to justify contempt for learning.

At Jeremiah 23:23, Calvin likewise condemns the Greek rendering:

“It is a wonder that the Greek translators made so great a mistake”

He charges that:

“they wholly changed the sense.”

Calvin believed the translators had misunderstood God’s declaration that he was not merely a God near at hand but also a God afar off. His criticism concerned a substantial change in meaning.

These examples concern errors Calvin attributed to the original translators, not alterations necessarily introduced by later copyists.

The Apostles Used Greek Wording Without Endorsing Every Difference

At Romans 3:4, Calvin discusses Paul’s quotation of Psalm 51:4. He acknowledges that the apostles sometimes quoted Scripture according to its meaning rather than reproducing its exact wording. Nevertheless, he states:

“the Greek translators, I have no doubt, rendered it passively, contrary to the meaning of the Prophet.”

Calvin believed the Greek translators had misunderstood the grammatical meaning of the Hebrew. His objection represents his interpretation of the passage, rather than independent proof that the Greek translation was erroneous.

At Hebrews 10:5, Calvin examines the difference between Psalm 40:6 in Hebrew, which speaks of ears, and the Greek rendering quoted in Hebrews, which speaks of a body:

“But the Apostle followed the Greek translators when he said, ‘A body hast thou prepared;’ for in quoting these words the Apostles were not so scrupulous, provided they perverted not Scripture to their own purpose.”

He explains:

“We must always have a regard to the end for which they quote passages, for they are very careful as to the main object, so as not to turn Scripture to another meaning; but as to words and other things, which bear not on the subject in hand, they use great freedom.”

Calvin distinguished the accuracy of a translation from the legitimacy of an apostle’s use of its wording. An apostle could employ familiar Greek words when they served his argument without thereby establishing that those words exactly reproduced the Hebrew.

At Hebrews 11:21, where the Greek has “staff” instead of the Hebrew “bed,” Calvin attributes the difference to the absence of vowel marks in earlier Hebrew writing:

“This is one of those places from which we may conclude that the points were not formerly used by the Hebrews; for the Greek translators could not have made such a mistake as to put staff here for a bed, if the mode of writing was then the same as now.”

By “points,” Calvin means the vowel marks indicating how Hebrew words should be pronounced. He believed that their absence explained the translators’ confusion.

He then explains why the apostle could nevertheless use the familiar Greek wording:

“And we know that the Apostles were not so scrupulous in this respect, as not to accommodate themselves to the unlearned, who had as yet need of milk; and in this there is no danger, provided readers are ever brought back to the pure and original text of Scripture.”

Calvin thus maintained that apostolic use of the Greek did not require readers to prefer its wording over the Hebrew.

“The Error Is to Be Imputed to the Transcribers”

Calvin’s discussions of Genesis 46:27 and Acts 7:14 provide important testimony concerning alterations introduced during copying.

The Hebrew text records seventy members of Jacob’s family, while the Greek gives seventy-five, agreeing with Acts 7:14. Calvin considered it probable that the original Greek translators had reproduced the Hebrew number correctly and that the difference arose afterward.

In his commentary on Genesis 46:27, he writes:

“But that the error is to be imputed to the transcribers, is hence apparent, that with the Greek interpreters, it has crept only into one passage”

Calvin reasons that the Greek translators agreed with the Hebrew count elsewhere. He explains that numbers represented by letters could easily be confused during copying, producing an incorrect figure without any deliberate intention to change the text.

He also suggests that someone unfamiliar with Hebrew might deliberately change a correct number in an attempt to reconcile passages:

“I suspect also that this happened from the following cause, that those who had to deal with the Scripture were generally ignorant of the Hebrew language; so that, conceiving the passage in the Acts to be vitiated, they rashly changed the true number.”

This explanation goes beyond accidental copying mistakes. Calvin recognized that a copyist attempting to correct a supposed error could introduce an error instead.

He nevertheless allows another possibility: Luke may have used the number familiar to readers accustomed to the Greek translation.

In his commentary on Acts 7:14, Calvin returns to the discrepancy and acknowledges uncertainty about whether seventy-five originated with the Greek translators or entered through subsequent copying. He favors the latter explanation:

“This seemeth to me a thing like to be true, that the Seventy Interpreters did translate that truly which was in Moses.”

He appeals to Deuteronomy 10:22, where Moses again records seventy persons. According to Calvin, Greek copies known in Jerome’s lifetime agreed with the Hebrew there, although the printed Greek copies available in Calvin’s day differed. He concludes:

“Therefore, I think that this difference came through the error of the writers which wrote out the books.”

Calvin regarded this difference between earlier and later Greek copies as evidence that the transmitted text had changed. He believed the original translators probably followed the Hebrew correctly, while later scribes introduced the discrepancy.

He also considers the possibility that Luke originally wrote the correct number and that a later copyist altered Acts to agree with the Greek Old Testament. He therefore does not claim certainty about which text was changed.

His discussions of Genesis and Acts present related explanations rather than two independent demonstrations that Greek Genesis was altered. Their significance lies in his recognition that accidental copying mistakes and misguided attempts at correction could produce differences between biblical manuscripts.

Assessment

Calvin identified mistranslations that he believed substantially changed the meaning of Scripture, while accepting that the apostles could use familiar Greek wording without endorsing every difference from the Hebrew. His discussions of Genesis 46 and Acts 7 are particularly relevant to the transmission of the Septuagint because he attributed the numerical discrepancy probably to later copying or attempted correction, while acknowledging uncertainty about which text had been altered. He thus distinguished faults in the original translation from subsequent changes without rejecting the Septuagint altogether.

Citation: John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, on Genesis 4:7, 6:3, and 46:27; Commentary on the Book of Psalms, on Psalms 22:16, 24:7–10, 29:1, and 71:15; Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, on Jeremiah 23:23–24; Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, on Romans 3:4; Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, on Acts 7:14; Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, on Hebrews 10:5 and 11:21. English translations published by the Calvin Translation Society.

18. Theodore Beza (1519–1605)

Theodore Beza was a French Reformed theologian, biblical editor, and Calvin’s successor at Geneva. Although best known for his work on the Greek New Testament, he also translated and explained several books of the Old Testament. In his commentary on Job, he criticized both errors in the original Greek translation and corruption introduced by later copyists. He also questioned whether scholars had succeeded in restoring the damaged texts.

The Greek Had Been “Corrupted in Astonishing Ways”

In the dedicatory letter to Queen Elizabeth accompanying his Jobus, Beza argued that biblical truth should be drawn from the original Hebrew rather than from the surviving Greek and commonly used Latin translations:

…ex ipsis potius fontibus, quam ex lacunis, id est, ex Græca, qualis extat, & Latina illa pervulgata, utraque certe ut initio non satis pura, sic miris postea modis depravata, haurire…

Translation: “…to draw from the very fountains rather than from pools, that is, from the Greek as it now exists and from that commonly received Latin, both of which, certainly, as they were not sufficiently pure at the beginning, were afterward corrupted in astonishing ways…”

He identified the causes:

Hoc enim certe dissimulari nec potest, nec debet, sacrarum literarum versiones illas plerasque partim matricum illarum linguarum imperitia, partim librariorum negligentia sic extare depravatas, atque adeo tam multis modis inquinatas…

Translation: “For this certainly neither can nor ought to be concealed: that most of those versions of Holy Scripture, partly through ignorance of the original languages and partly through the negligence of copyists, survive in such a corrupted state, and indeed polluted in so many ways…”

The contemporary English translation of his work, published in 1589, adds that scholars had not succeeded in restoring these corrupted versions despite their learning and labor.

Beza nevertheless advised readers not to reject the ancient translations altogether:

veteres versiones … nullus aspernetur, omnes autem cum iudicio legant … ad fontes ipsos recurrant.

Translation: “Let no one despise the ancient versions; but let everyone read them with judgment … and return to the sources themselves.”

Different Translations Had “Crept into the Text” Through Copyists

At Job 1:1, Beza found three expressions in the Greek where he believed only one belonged:

Ex his enim tribus quæ in Græco contextu leguntur, duo necesse est redundare & ex diversis interpretationibus per descriptorum incuriam in contextum irrepsisse, quod sæpe in illis libris accidit.

Translation: “For of these three expressions which are read in the Greek text, two must necessarily be superfluous and have crept into the text from different interpretations through the carelessness of copyists, which often happens in those books.”

The contemporary English translation explains:

“Of these three which are read in the Greek context, two must needs be superfluous, and it is not unlikely that they have been brought in by reason of diverse interpretations, through their negligence who wrote out the Greek copies, which is a common fault in those books.”

Beza thus regarded the incorporation of alternative translations into the Greek text as a common copying error.

At Job 1:22, he identified another addition, apparently borrowed from a nearby passage:

Quod autem Græcus interpres & vulgata editio Latina priori huius versiculi membro adiiciunt, In labris suis, desumptum meritò videtur ex 10. sequentis capitis versiculo…

Translation: “But what the Greek interpreter and the common Latin edition add to the first part of this verse, ‘in his lips,’ appears rightly to have been taken from verse 10 of the following chapter…”

He did not establish when this addition occurred.

The Greek Translations Were “Faulty in Very Many Other Places”

At Job 1:5, Beza identified inaccurate translation, omission, and addition:

Holocausta non satis rectè vertit Græcus interpres … quædam etiam tollit … addit multa de suo…

Translation: “The Greek interpreter does not translate ‘burnt offerings’ accurately … he also leaves some things out … he adds many things of his own…”

He extended this criticism beyond Job 1:5:

Et quum plurimis etiam aliis locis mendosa sint Græca…

Translation: “And since the Greek texts are faulty in very many other places…”

His English commentary gives the fuller explanation:

“The Greek interpreter hath translated this place more unfitly, using for burnt offerings, the general word Sacrifice: somewhat also he leaves out, as namely that particle (all) and he adds many things of his own; all which Jerome hath rightly amended according to the truth of the Hebrew text. Now seeing the Greek translations are in diverse places faulty, and seeing that in all things we must follow the Hebrew, hereafter we will not much trouble ourselves about the Greek, unless peradventure we shall find anything worthy the observation. God be thanked that in these days he hath restored the knowledge of the Hebrew tongue, through ignorance whereof those that are unskillful will hardly believe how often and how greatly the most learned Greek interpreters have erred in the true exposition of all the sacred books of the old Testament, and especially of this.”

Beza therefore attributed serious errors not only to subsequent copying but also to the original Greek translators.

Greek Additions Rested on “No Authority at All”

At Job 2:9, Beza examined substantial material present in the Greek but absent from the Hebrew. He rejected the suggestion that these words had originally belonged to the Hebrew and subsequently disappeared:

Plurima autem illa quæ hoc loco in Græca interpretatione leguntur, nulla prorsus auctoritate nituntur, quum neque in Hebræo contextu extent, neque probabile sit Hebræa exemplaria, salvo reliquo libro, fuisse tam multis præsertim verbis mutilata. Immo etiam falsa hæc videri possunt…

Translation: “But those many things which are read here in the Greek interpretation rest on no authority at all, since they neither occur in the Hebrew text, nor is it probable that the Hebrew copies, with the rest of the book intact, had been mutilated by so many words. Indeed, these things may even appear false…”

His English commentary explains:

“And whereas the Greek translation hath many other things, which here are not mentioned, I see not upon what authority they are grounded, in so much as they are not found in the Hebrew text. For it standeth with no probability, that the Hebrew copies should in this place be thus unperfect, especially wanting so many words, seeing the rest of the book is perfect and uncorrupt.”

He also identified statements in the additional Greek material that he considered contrary to the biblical account:

“And moreover the things themselves may seem to be false, because we do not read that Job sat upon the dunghill, or abroad in the open air, nor yet that Job’s own house wherein he dwelt, was overthrown, or that his wife was cast out of her house: yea, the quite contrary appeareth by Job’s own words in the 7. chap. vers. 4.”

Beza’s rejection of these additions therefore rested both on their absence from the Hebrew and on what he considered contradictions within the Greek account.

Assessment

Beza described the surviving Greek translation as defective from the beginning and subsequently corrupted through negligent copying. In Job, he identified alternative translations incorporated into the text, omissions, additions, and wording apparently borrowed from another passage. He also maintained that some Greek additions could not reasonably be explained as losses from the Hebrew. Although he questioned the success of efforts to restore the damaged versions, he continued to regard ancient translations as useful when examined against the original Hebrew.

Citation: Theodore Beza, Iobus Theodori Bezae, partim commentariis partim paraphrasi illustratus (Geneva: Ioannes Le Preux, 1589), dedicatory epistle to Queen Elizabeth, pp. 6–7; comments on Job 1:1, p. 11; 1:5, p. 18; 1:22; 2:9. English passages from Iob Expounded by Theodore Beza, Partly in Manner of a Commentary, Partly in Manner of a Paraphrase, faithfully translated out of Latin into English (Cambridge: John Legat, 1589).

19. Sixtus of Siena (1520–1569)

Sixtus of Siena (Sixtus Senensis) was a Dominican theologian whose Bibliotheca Sancta, first published in 1566, became an influential Roman Catholic work on the Bible. Although he strongly defended the original Septuagint translators, he identified numerous errors in the Greek text, acknowledged corruption introduced by later copyists, and recognized substantial differences among Greek copies.

The Septuagint “Departed Greatly from the Truth of the Hebrew Text”

In Book V, Annotation LXV, Sixtus criticizes the Greek rendering of Genesis 4:7:

Septuaginta Interpretes … omnia perturbarunt deviaruntque vehementer a veritate contextus Hebraici…. Quorum verborum nihil est in Hebraico….

Translation: “The Septuagint translators … threw everything into confusion and departed greatly from the truth of the Hebrew text…. None of these words is in the Hebrew….”

After explaining how the Hebrew words could have been misunderstood, he declares:

estque maxima hallucinatio.

Translation: “And it is a very great error.”

He adds:

facileque in hunc errorem inciderunt….

Translation: “And they easily fell into this error….”

Sixtus attributed this mistake to the translators, although he elsewhere argued that some apparent translation errors probably originated with copyists.

He identifies further differences in the account of the Flood. At Genesis 8:4, the Greek adds ten days to the date when the ark came to rest:

Septuaginta Interpretes … verterunt … Vigesima & septima die mensis, facta additione dierum decem. Hunc errorem noster quoque interpres in vulgata editione secutus est: neque credere par est, Hebraeos codices esse corruptos….

Translation: “The Septuagint translators … rendered [it] ‘on the twenty-seventh day of the month,’ making an addition of ten days. Our translator in the Vulgate also followed this error; nor is it reasonable to believe that the Hebrew copies are corrupt….”

Sixtus supports the Hebrew date by comparing it with the duration of the Flood and the ancient Aramaic translation.

At Genesis 8:7, he identifies another discrepancy. The Hebrew describes the raven going out and returning, while the Greek says it did not return:

Septuaginta, vertentes id, quod … hoceſt, Et egrediens egrediebatur, & revertebatur, negativè expresserunt … id est, Et egrediens non revertebatur.

Translation: “The Septuagint, translating what means ‘And going out, it went out and returned,’ expressed it negatively … that is, ‘And going out, it did not return.’”

Sixtus cites an earlier bishop who complained that this error had led commentators to invent explanations about where the raven remained while the earth was covered with water. He also records an interpretation defending the Greek wording, acknowledging that the passage was disputed.

The Septuagint Was “Corrupt in Many Places”

In Annotation LXVIII, Sixtus examines the ages recorded in Genesis 5:

Septuaginta Interpretes cùm multis in locis corrupti deprehendantur, in hoc potissimum 5. capite mendosi sunt, & maxime depravati circa supputationem annorum, quos vixerunt viri illustres ab Adam usque ad diluvium: in quibus omnino recedunt à verissima supputatione contextus Hebraici….

Translation: “Since the text of the Septuagint translators is found corrupt in many places, it is especially faulty in this fifth chapter, and particularly corrupted in its reckoning of the years lived by the illustrious men from Adam to the Flood; in these it departs entirely from the most accurate reckoning of the Hebrew text….”

Sixtus compares the Hebrew and Greek numbers in a table, noting difficulties such as Methuselah apparently surviving the Flood. He also examines how these differences affected calculations of the years from Creation to later biblical events. His criticism therefore concerns not merely individual figures but substantially different chronologies produced by the Hebrew and Greek texts. He reports Augustine’s explanation that early copyists corrupted the Greek figures.

The Septuagint “Did Not Remain in Its Purity”

In Book VIII, Sixtus defends the original translators against accusations that they misunderstood ordinary Hebrew words. He considers copying errors a more likely explanation:

igitur potius errores eiusmodi vitio librariorum, quam inscitia doctissimorum interpretum contigisse credendum est.

Translation: “Therefore, it should rather be believed that errors of this kind occurred through the fault of copyists than through the ignorance of the most learned translators.”

He then declares:

Sed hoc tantum reperiatur, Septuaginta editionem, vitio scriptorum corruptam, in sua puritate non permansisse.

Translation: “But this much is found: that the Septuagint edition, corrupted through the fault of copyists, did not remain in its purity.”

Sixtus thus defended the original translators without claiming that their work had escaped subsequent corruption. His broader defense of them must be distinguished from the particular translation errors he attributed to them elsewhere.

Greek Copies Known to Jerome Differed from Those of Sixtus’ Day

Sixtus compares Greek copies known to Jerome with those available in his own time. Jerome had criticized a Greek rendering of Genesis 35:16 that referred to a place for horse racing. Sixtus found different wording in the Greek copies of his day, which he considered consistent with the Hebrew.

He concludes:

Unde liquidò apparet Græcum Hieronymi codicem in multis fuisse corruptum.

Translation: “From this it clearly appears that Jerome’s Greek copy had been corrupted in many places.”

Sixtus reasoned that Jerome had judged the translation according to the particular Greek copy available to him. The fact that later copies contained different wording suggested that an error criticized by Jerome did not necessarily belong to the original translation. This comparison is especially significant because Sixtus was identifying a difference between Greek wording reported by an earlier scholar and the copies available in his own day, rather than merely repeating Jerome’s accusation of corruption.

Greek Churches Had “Entirely Different and Conflicting” Copies

Drawing upon Jerome’s testimony, Sixtus explains that ancient churches used differing forms of what they regarded as the same Septuagint translation:

non tamen … eadem eiusdem editionis habebant exemplaria, sed planè diversa, & inter se pugnantia.

Translation: “Nevertheless, they did not possess the same copies of that same edition, but copies that were entirely different and conflicting with one another.”

He identifies three principal forms associated with Hesychius in Egypt, Lucian around Antioch, and Origen in Palestine. These revisions differed substantially, although they circulated under the same Septuagint name.

Sixtus Believed the Correct Wording Survived Among Different Copies

Despite acknowledging corruption, Sixtus did not believe that the original wording had disappeared from every surviving Greek manuscript. He argues:

Et esto, etiam omnes in aliquibus fuerint corrupti, non tamen fieri potest, ut omnes simul iisdem in locis fuerint depravati.

Translation: “And even granting that all were corrupted in some passages, it nevertheless cannot be that all were corrupted together in the same places.”

He maintained that comparison of different copies could recover the correct wording because a passage corrupted in one might remain intact in another. His position therefore distinguished corruption in individual copies from preservation of the text across surviving manuscripts collectively.

Assessment

Sixtus defended the original Septuagint translators while acknowledging translation errors, subsequent corruption, and conflicting Greek copies. His comparison of texts available in his day with wording reported by Jerome provided evidence of differences in transmission. Nevertheless, he believed that correct wording remained recoverable through comparison of manuscripts. His testimony therefore supports substantial corruption and variation without asserting that the original Greek translation had been wholly lost.

Citation: Sixtus Senensis, Bibliotheca Sancta (Cologne: Maternus Cholinus, 1576), Book V, Annotations LXV, LXVIII, LXXXII, and LXXXIII, pp. 380–387; Book VIII, Obiectiones Haereticorum and Dissolutio Obiectorum, especially pp. 724–730.

20. Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621)

Robert Bellarmine was an Italian Jesuit theologian, cardinal, and leading Roman Catholic defender of his church’s teachings during the Reformation. In De Verbo Dei, he examined the authority and condition of the Septuagint. Although he strongly defended the original translators and believed they had received special assistance from the Holy Spirit, he acknowledged extensive corruption in the Greek text transmitted to his own time.

The Septuagint Was So Corrupt That It Seemed “Entirely Different”

Bellarmine considered whether the original Septuagint had completely disappeared. He rejected that conclusion but described the surviving translation in striking terms:

De postrema quaestione, licet non ignorem nonnullos in ea sententia esse, ut existiment interpretationem LXX Seniorum penitus interiisse; multo probabilius censeo, illam adhuc superesse, sed adeo corruptam et vitiatam, ut omnino alia esse videatur.

Translation: “Concerning the last question, although I am not unaware that some are of the opinion that the translation of the Seventy has completely perished, I judge it much more probable that it still survives, but so corrupted and vitiated that it seems to be an entirely different work.”

He explains why the surviving Greek could not safely be used to correct the Hebrew or Latin:

Non esse autem incorruptam, sed valde vitiatam in pluribus locis, ut jam tutum non sit, Hebraicos vel Latinos textus ex Graecis codicibus emendare, probari potest multis argumentis.

Translation: “That it is not uncorrupted, but greatly corrupted in many places, so that it is now not safe to correct the Hebrew or Latin texts from the Greek manuscripts, can be proved by many arguments.”

Bellarmine describes the differences:

At ista Graeca versio quam nunc habemus, in pluribus locis dissentit ab Hebraeo, multa non habet quae sunt in Hebraeo, multa habet quae non sunt in Hebraeo, ut omnes noverunt, qui in ea versati sunt.

Translation: “But this Greek version which we now have differs from the Hebrew in many places; it lacks many things that are in the Hebrew, and it contains many things that are not in the Hebrew, as all who are acquainted with it know.”

He contrasts these differences with ancient testimony concerning the original translation’s accuracy. Although some earlier Christian writers attributed additions and omissions to the translators’ divine guidance, Bellarmine questioned whether such extensive departures could be reconciled with that testimony.

He also rejects the argument that every disagreement establishes corruption of the Hebrew:

Neque videtur satis apte hoc argumentum solvi ab iis qui respondent, textum Hebraeum esse corruptum ubicumque a Graeco discrepat.

Translation: “Nor does this argument seem to be adequately answered by those who reply that the Hebrew text is corrupt wherever it differs from the Greek.”

He adds:

Nam excepto Psalterio, Latina editio cum Hebraeis codicibus magis convenit, quam cum Graecis.

Translation: “For, excepting the Psalter, the Latin edition agrees more with the Hebrew manuscripts than with the Greek.”

Bellarmine acknowledged occasional copying errors in the Hebrew and sometimes preferred particular Greek readings. His objection was to treating the Greek as automatically authoritative wherever the two differed.

Greek Wording That Contradicted the Biblical Account

Bellarmine identifies three examples that he considered erroneous.

In Genesis 5, the Greek chronology made Methuselah survive the Flood by fourteen years, although Scripture identifies only eight people as surviving in the ark. Bellarmine notes that earlier Christian writers attributed this discrepancy to errors made by early copyists.

In Genesis 26:32, the Greek reports Isaac’s servants saying they found no water, whereas the Hebrew and Latin say they found water. Bellarmine preferred the Hebrew and Latin because they agreed better with the account.

In Jonah 3:4, the Greek threatens Nineveh with destruction after three days, whereas the Hebrew and Latin give forty days.

These examples illustrate why Bellarmine distinguished the original translators, whom he defended, from errors in the transmitted Greek text.

The Septuagint Had Been Corrupted “in Many and Various Ways”

Bellarmine appeals to Jerome’s testimony:

Primum testimonio B. Hieronymi, qui praefat. in Paralip., et in Esdram, et alibi frequenter monet, versionem LXX. esse vitiatam multis et variis modis.

Translation: “First, by the testimony of blessed Jerome, who in the preface to Chronicles, in Ezra, and frequently elsewhere, warns that the version of the Seventy has been corrupted in many and various ways.”

He also appeals to Justin Martyr’s accusation that Jews had altered the Greek and to repeated attempts to correct it:

Probatur ultimo, quia satis constat editionem LXX interpretum a Judaeis multis in locis fuisse corruptam, ut Justinus affirmat in Dialogo cum Tryphone. Constat item eandem editionem saepe saepius emendatam ab Origene, Luciano, Hesychio, Hieronymo: nihil autem emendatur, nisi quod ante vitiatum est.

Translation: “Finally, it is proved because it is sufficiently established that the edition of the Seventy was corrupted by the Jews in many places, as Justin affirms in the Dialogue with Trypho. It is likewise established that the same edition was repeatedly corrected by Origen, Lucian, Hesychius, and Jerome; but nothing is corrected unless it had previously been corrupted.”

Bellarmine regarded these successive corrections as evidence that the Greek had already suffered corruption. He reasons:

Neque credibile est, eam editionem, quae primis trecentis annis tot maculas contraxerat, reliquis annis mille ducentis inviolatam atque integram servatam.

Translation: “Nor is it credible that an edition which had contracted so many blemishes during the first three hundred years was preserved inviolate and entire during the remaining twelve hundred years.”

His argument was that a text already corrupted in its early centuries could not reasonably be presumed to have remained intact throughout the following centuries.

Origen’s Corrections Mixed Different Greek Translations

In Book II, Chapter 5, Bellarmine describes Origen’s extensive revision:

SEPTIMA Origenis editio est, qui Scripturas quidem ex Hebræo non transtulit, sed interpretationem septuaginta seniorum ita emendavit, multis ex Theodotione admixtis, & notatis signo stellæ radiantis, multis etiam obelo, id est, veru jugulatis, ut novam editionem fecisse videatur.

Translation: “The seventh edition is that of Origen, who did not translate the Scriptures from Hebrew, but corrected the translation of the Seventy so extensively, mixing in many things from Theodotion and marking them with an asterisk, and marking many others with an obelus, that he seemed to have produced a new edition.”

The asterisk identified material supplied from another Greek translation, while the obelus marked Greek wording absent from the Hebrew. Bellarmine also discusses revisions associated with Lucian and Hesychius.

When the distinguishing marks disappeared from copies of Origen’s revised text, material borrowed from Theodotion could no longer be reliably separated from the earlier Septuagint. Bellarmine concludes:

Inde autem necessario orta est confusio, ut jam nemo judicare possit, quid in iis libris sit LXX., quid vero Theodotionis.

Translation: “From this necessarily arose such confusion that now no one can judge what in those books belongs to the Seventy and what belongs to Theodotion.”

Bellarmine thus identified not merely copying errors but the mixing of different translations, making their original wording difficult to distinguish.

The Church Used a Different Greek Translation of Daniel

Bellarmine also observes that the Greek book of Daniel used by the church came from Theodotion rather than the original Septuagint:

Quocirca semper Ecclesia Danielem ex interpretatione Theodotionis legit, ut Hieronymus testatur praefatione in Danielem.

Translation: “For this reason the Church has always read Daniel from the translation of Theodotion, as Jerome testifies in his preface to Daniel.”

His statement, based on Jerome’s testimony, identifies the replacement of an entire Greek translation rather than merely differences among copies of the same translation.

Assessment

Bellarmine strongly defended the original Septuagint translators while describing the surviving Greek as so corrupted that it appeared “entirely different.” He considered it unsafe for correcting the Hebrew, identified additions and omissions, and described extensive revisions and mixture with Theodotion’s translation. Nevertheless, he believed that the original Septuagint still survived in a severely corrupted form rather than having disappeared altogether. His testimony distinguishes the survival of an ancient translation from the preservation of its text in an unchanged and trustworthy form.

Citation: Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei, First General Controversy, De Verbo Dei, Book II, Chapters 5–6, De variis Graecis editionibus and De interpretatione LXX Seniorum.

21. William Whitaker (1548–1595)

William Whitaker was Professor of Divinity at Cambridge and a leading English Reformed theologian of the sixteenth century. In his Disputatio de Sacra Scriptura (Disputation on Holy Scripture), he devoted an entire chapter to the Greek translation associated with the Seventy, examining its identity, accuracy, authority, and corrupted condition.

“Faulty in Itself” and “Depraved by the Scribes”

Whitaker distinguishes errors in the original translation from corruption introduced by later copyists:

in commentariis saepe improbat Graecam versionem septuaginta interpretum, non modo ut corruptam a librariis, sed etiam in se vitiosam.

Translation: “In his Commentaries also he frequently blames the Greek version of the seventy translators, not only as depraved by the scribes, but even as faulty in itself.”

“The True Septuagint Is Wholly Lost”

Whitaker questions whether the Greek Old Testament surviving in his day was the translation originally produced by the Seventy:

Quae vero nunc in manibus habetur Graeca versio Scripturarum, ea sitne septuaginta seniorum, an alia, inter doctos dubitatur. Verior illorum sententia videtur, qui versionem illam omnino periisse existimant, & Graecam hanc, quam nunc habemus, mixtam esse quandam, misereque corruptam statuunt. Aristaeus illam septuaginta translationem fuisse ait Hebraeis fontibus convenientissimam, ut cum a peritis lecta esset & diligenter examinata, omnium iudiciis egregie probaretur. At haec nostra ab Hebraeis codicibus mirifice discrepat, cum in aliis locis atque libris, tum praecipue in Psalmis Davidicis. Nec est quod quisquam Hebraea esse corrupta respondeat. Nam nec Papistae audent affirmare Graeca esse Hebraeis incorruptiora. Tum enim suam Latinam versionem damnarent, quae Hebraeis quam Graecis multo congruentior est. Et sunt manifesta Graecae translationis vitia, quae nullo modo excusari possunt.

Translation: “Learned men question, whether the Greek version of the scriptures now extant be or be not the version of the seventy elders. The sounder opinion seems to be that of those who determine that the true Septuagint is wholly lost, and that the Greek text, as we have it, is a mixed and miserably corrupted document. Aristæus says that the Septuagint version was exactly conformable to the Hebrew originals, so that, when read and diligently examined by skilful judges, it was highly approved by the general suffrage of them all. But this of ours differs amazingly from the Hebrew copies, as well in other places and books, as specially in the Psalms of David. Nor is there room for any one to reply that the Hebrew is corrupt. For even the papists will not venture to maintain that the Greek is purer than the Hebrew. If they did, they would be obliged to condemn their own Latin version, which agrees much more closely with the Hebrew than with the Greek. Nay, the faults of the Greek translation are so manifest, that it is impossible to find any way of excusing them.”

Whitaker favors the view that the original translation had been lost and that the surviving Greek was a mixture of different translations. He rejects the suggestion that corruption of the Hebrew explains its disagreements with the Greek.

The Greek and Hebrew Chronologies Differ by Hundreds of Years

Whitaker compares the chronological figures in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures:

Est inter Hebraeos Graecosque libros in temporum & annorum ratione maximum discrimen. Libri enim Graeci annos ab Adamo mundique principio ad diluvium 2242. numerant, ut apud Augustinum & Eusebium, & Nicephorum in Chronologia legimus: in libris autem Hebraicis non plures fuisse quam 1656. intelligimus. Ita numerum Hebraicum Graecus superat annis 586. Sic a diluvio ad Abrahamum iuxta septuaginta interpretes anni sunt 1082. Sin veritatem Hebraicam consulas, plures quam 292. non invenias. Ita sunt in libris Graecis 790. anni plures quam in Hebraicis. Et numeros Hebraicos multo Graecis veriores esse omnes concedunt. Genes. 5. in libris Graecis Adamus vixisse dicitur annos 230. aut ut est in quibusdam exemplaribus, 330. cum Sethum genuisset. Hebraeus vero codex testatur Sethum esse genitum, cum iam Adamus annos 130. haberet. Et est in reliquis eiusmodi dissimilitudo temporum, ut verum sit quod scripsit Hieronymus, a septuaginta erratum esse in numeris.

Translation: “There is the greatest difference between the Hebrew and Greek books in the account of times and years. The Greek books reckon 2242 years from Adam and the beginning of the world to the flood, as we read in Augustine, Eusebius, and Nicephorus’ Chronology. But in the Hebrew books we see that there were no more than 1656. Thus the Greek calculation exceeds the Hebrew by 586 years. Again, from the deluge to Abraham there is, according to the LXX., an interval of 1082 years. But if you consult the Hebrew verity, you will not find more than 292. Thus the Greek books exhibit 790 years more than the Hebrew: and all concede the Hebrew numbers to be much truer than the Greek. Gen. v., in the Greek books, Adam is said to have lived 230 years, or, according to some copies, 330, when he begat Seth. But the Hebrew text shews that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old. In the rest there is a similar discordance of reckoning times, so as to prove that it was not without reason that Jerome wrote that the LXX. sometimes erred in their numbers.”

Whitaker’s reference to “some copies” giving different numbers also identifies disagreement among Greek manuscripts.

He supplies two further examples:

Illud vero ridiculum est, quod Methusaleni secundum Graecam translationem annos 14. post diluvium superstes fuerit. Ubi enim in diluvio permansit? Aut quomodo servatus est? In arca quidem non fuit: in qua non plures omnino quam octo homines fuisse Scriptura testatur. Itaque hoc palam quidem falsum est in editione Graeca. Hebraeus autem liber longe verius de Methusalemi annis aetateque scripsit: unde illum esse eodem anno, quo tota terra diluvio oppressa est, mortuum colligimus. Hac de re Augustinus disserit, lib. 15. cap. 11. de Civit. Dei. Eiusmodi est, quod Ionae 3. in Hebraico libro exitium Ninivitis post quadragesimum diem denunciatur a Iona. At in Graeca aliter legimus: Adhuc tres dies, & Ninive destruetur: quam esse falsam lectionem, manifestum est. Vix enim peragrare Civitatem tribus diebus potuit. Augustinus Lib. 18. c. 44. de Civit. Dei, in hac numeri mutatione nescio quid mysterii confinxit, ut septuaginta interpretum authoritatem tueretur, quam tamen in superiore loco de Methusalem defendere non potuit.

Translation: “It is even a laughable mistake in the Greek by which Methusalem is made to survive the flood fourteen years. Where did he remain during the deluge? or how was he preserved? Certainly he was not in the ark; in which the scripture testifies that there were no more than eight persons. This, therefore, is a manifest falsity in the Greek edition. But the Hebrew text speaks much more truly of the years and age of Methusalem; and we collect from it that he died in that same year in which the world was overwhelmed by the deluge. Augustine treats of this matter in his City of God, Lib. XV. c. 11. So Jonah iii., according to the Hebrew reading, destruction is denounced against the Ninevites after 40 days. But in the Greek we read otherwise, ‘Yet three days, and Nineve shall be destroyed:’ which is manifestly a false reading; for he could scarcely have traversed the whole city in three days. Augustine (Civit. Dei. Lib. XVIII. c. 44) invents I know not what mystery in this change of numbers to preserve the authority of the Septuagint, which, nevertheless, in the former place about Methusalem he is unable to defend.”

Whitaker regarded both the account of Methuselah surviving the Flood and the three-day warning to Nineveh as erroneous Greek wording.

“Infinite and Shameful Corruptions”

Whitaker concludes that these examples raise a fundamental question about the identity and authority of the surviving Greek text:

Ex his aliisque hujusmodi innumeris concludi potest, aut hanc Graecam versionem, quae ad nostra tempora pervenit, non illam esse quam septuaginta Iudaici seniores ediderunt: aut esse tam infinite foedeque depravatam, ut authoritatis perexiguae nunc sit. Nam ne ipse Hieronymus puram habuit translationem Graecam septuaginta interpretum. Illam enim, quam habuit, corruptam vitiosamque esse, saepe in commentariis conqueritur.

Translation: “From these and innumerable examples of the like sort we may conclude, either that this Greek version which hath come down to our times is not the same as that published by the seventy Jewish elders, or that it hath suffered such infinite and shameful corruptions as to be now of very slight authority. Even Jerome had not the Greek translation of the seventy interpreters in its purity; since he often complains in his commentaries that what he had was faulty and corrupt.”

Assessment

Whitaker distinguished original translation errors from later copying corruption and identified substantial differences between the Hebrew and Greek, including disagreement among Greek copies. He considered the loss of the original Septuagint the sounder opinion, while allowing the alternative that the surviving text was the original translation so extensively corrupted that it possessed very little authority.

Citation: William Whitaker, Disputatio de Sacra Scriptura contra huius temporis Papistas (Cambridge: Thomas Thomas, 1588), Controversy I, Question II, chapter 3, pp. 85–86; English translation in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Parker Society, 1849), pp. 120–122.

22. Johannes Drusius (1550–1616)

Johannes Drusius (Johannes van den Driesche) was a Flemish Reformed biblical scholar and professor at Oxford, Leiden, and Franeker. He studied the ancient Greek translations of the Old Testament extensively, publishing works on the Greek texts and collecting surviving passages from Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and other ancient translators. His studies led him to question whether the Greek text commonly called the Septuagint was actually the translation originally produced by the Seventy.

“The Common Greek Translation Is Not That of the Seventy”

In Observationum sacrarum, Drusius devoted an entire chapter to the proposition:

Vulgatam translationem Graecam non esse LXX. interpretum, contra quam olim existimatum fuit.

Translation: “That the common Greek translation is not that of the Seventy interpreters, contrary to what was formerly believed.”

He states:

Translatio ea quae vulgo apud Graecos habetur, quin LXX. interpretum non sit, nemini hodie dubium esse arbitror. Nam si nihil aliud, innumeri in ea loci sunt, qui arguunt magnam imperitiam sermonis Ebraici; sed et negligentiam singularem in legendo, et oscitantiam tantis viris indignam. Qui in ea editione non videt, nihil videt.

Translation: “I think no one today doubts that the translation commonly found among the Greeks is not that of the Seventy interpreters. For, if there were nothing else, there are innumerable passages in it which show great ignorance of the Hebrew language, as well as remarkable negligence in reading and carelessness unworthy of such men. He who does not see this in that edition sees nothing.”

Drusius considered these defects incompatible with attributing the common Greek text to the original translators. His argument concerned the identity of the translation itself, not merely the presence of occasional copying mistakes.

“A Name That Is Customary Rather Than True”

Drusius explains why he continued to use the traditional name “Septuagint”:

Nos quoque cum aliquid inde proferimus usitato magis quam vero nomine utimur, exemplo videlicet Hieronymi, quem suspicamur, licet crederet interpretationem eam a viris illis elaboratam minime fuisse, ne offenderet Graecos, voluisse tamen recepto nomine semper appellare.

Translation: “We too, when we quote something from it, use a name that is customary rather than true, following the example of Jerome, whom we suppose, although he believed that this translation had by no means been produced by those men, nevertheless wished, so as not to offend the Greeks, always to call it by the received name.”

Thus, Drusius distinguished between the customary designation of the Greek text and its actual origin. He also presented Jerome’s supposed reason for retaining that designation as his own interpretation of Jerome’s intentions.

Words, Half Verses, and Entire Sentences from Other Greek Versions Entered the Common Text

Drusius studied Origen’s Hexapla, which placed the Hebrew Old Testament and several ancient Greek translations in separate columns for comparison. He observed:

Ex iis modo singulares voces, modo dimidiati versus, modo etiam integrae periodi in editione vulgata, qua hodie utimur, remanserunt.

Translation: “From these, sometimes individual words, sometimes half verses, and sometimes even entire sentences remained in the common edition which we use today.”

This was a distinct criticism of the Greek text’s transmission. Drusius maintained that material from other translations had entered the common edition, so that the surviving text was not an unmixed copy of one ancient translation.

The Greek Edition Had “Wounds” That Needed Healing

Drusius compared the received Greek text with the Hebrew and other ancient Greek translations to identify faulty wording. He writes:

Atque haec notare debent, quicumque operam suam conferent ad sananda vulnera editionis illius.

Translation: “And these things ought to be noted by whoever devotes his labor to healing the wounds of that edition.”

Drusius regarded comparison with other ancient sources as a means of identifying and correcting defects in the Greek. In his separate Coniectanea in Graecam editionem, concerning the twelve Minor Prophets, he likewise examined Greek passages by comparing them with the Hebrew and other ancient translations.

Assessment

Drusius rejected the identification of the common Greek Old Testament with the original work of the Seventy. His testimony is particularly significant for distinguishing errors in Greek wording from the incorporation of material belonging to other translations. He therefore challenged both the identity and the unchanged transmission of the text commonly called the Septuagint.

Citation: Johannes Drusius, Observationum sacrarum libri XVI (Franeker: Aegidius Radaeus, 1594), book VI, chs. 9, 11, and 20, pp. 130–145.

23. Amandus Polanus (1561–1610)

Amandus Polanus was a prominent Reformed Protestant theologian and professor of theology at Basel. In Book I of his Syntagma theologiae christianae (1609), he defended the authority and preservation of the Hebrew Old Testament and examined the Greek translation attributed to the Seventy.

“The Greek Version … Now Extant Is Not” That of the Seventy

Polanus asks whether the Greek Old Testament surviving in his day was the translation originally produced by the seventy-two interpreters. His answer is explicit:

Græca versio Veteris Testamenti, quæ nunc habetur, non est septuaginta duorum illorum interpretum….

Translation: “The Greek version of the Old Testament which is now extant is not [the version] of those seventy-two interpreters….”

Polanus does not merely criticize individual Septuagint readings. He distinguishes the original translation attributed to the Seventy from the Greek Old Testament circulating under their name in his own time.

The Greek Contains Additions, Omissions, and Wording Contrary to the Hebrew

Polanus explains why he considers the surviving Greek different from the original:

At versio quæ jam habetur, in plurimis locis dissentit ab Hebræo textu, multa habet quæ non sunt in Hebræo, & rursus multa non habet quæ sunt in Hebræo: multa etiam habet pugnantia cum Hebræo….

Translation: “But the version which is now extant disagrees with the Hebrew text in very many places; it contains many things which are not in the Hebrew, and conversely lacks many things which are in the Hebrew; it also contains many things conflicting with the Hebrew….”

Polanus identifies three problems: additions not found in the Hebrew, omissions of material found in the Hebrew, and readings that conflict with the Hebrew.

His criticism concerns the Greek text surviving in his day. He does not attribute every difference to the original translators.

Polanus also points to the work of Franciscus Junius, who had documented many such differences throughout the Old Testament:

plura verò observata sunt à Francisco Junio per totum Vetus Testamentum in Græca editione Francofortensi excusa in folio apud Andreæ Wecheli hæredes Claudium Marnium & Johan. Aubium Anno M.D.XCVII.

Translation: “But more have been observed by Franciscus Junius throughout the whole Old Testament in the Greek edition printed at Frankfurt in folio by the heirs of Andreas Wechel, Claudius Marnius, and John Aubius, in the year 1597.”

This identifies the particular Greek Bible edition to which Polanus appeals. Junius’s observations provided further evidence of differences between the Greek and Hebrew texts. The statement is Polanus’s report of Junius’s work, rather than a direct quotation from Junius.

“Corrupted and Spoiled in Many and Various Ways”

Polanus also discusses the earlier corruption of the Greek text:

Et Hieronymus ipse in Præfatione in Paralipomena & in Esdram, & alibi frequenter monet, versionem illam LXX. multis & variis modis esse vitiatam & corruptam.

Translation: “And Jerome himself, in the Preface to Chronicles and to Ezra, and frequently elsewhere, warns that that version of the Seventy has been corrupted and spoiled in many and various ways.”

Polanus here appeals to Jerome’s testimony about the earlier corruption of the Greek text. He does not present this observation as his own discovery.

“The Errors of the Present-Day Greek Translation Are Manifest”

Polanus declares:

Manifesta sunt Græcæ hodiernæ translationis vitia, quæ nullo modo excusari possunt.

Translation: “The errors of the present-day Greek translation are manifest and can in no way be excused.”

Polanus expressly refers to the Greek translation existing in his own day. He supports his judgment with several examples. The Greek chronology gives 2,242 years from creation to the Flood, whereas the Hebrew gives 1,656. From the Flood to Abraham, the Greek gives 1,082 years, whereas the Hebrew gives no more than 312. The Greek makes Adam 230 years old, or 330 in some copies, when Seth was born, whereas the Hebrew gives 130. According to the Greek chronology, Methuselah survived the Flood by fourteen years. In Jonah 3, the Greek announces Nineveh’s destruction after three days, whereas the Hebrew gives forty.

These differences concern both disagreement between the Greek and Hebrew and variation among the Greek copies themselves.

“Therefore the Translations Are Corrupt”

Earlier in his defense of the Hebrew text, Polanus considers the argument that the Hebrew must have lost passages because translations contain material absent from it:

Ac primò quidem Hebraicum textum corruptum esse hinc facilè colligi posse ajunt, quòd translationes multa habeant, quæ textui Hebraico desunt.

Translation: “And first, they say that it can easily be concluded that the Hebrew text is corrupt from the fact that the translations contain many things which are lacking in the Hebrew text.”

Polanus reverses the argument:

RESP. Primò contrarium potius inferri debet: Translationes multa habent, quæ textui Hebraico desunt: Ergo translationes sunt corruptæ. Deinde probandum est, multa Hebraico textui deesse.

Translation: “RESPONSE. Rather, the contrary conclusion ought first to be drawn: The translations contain many things which are lacking in the Hebrew text; therefore the translations are corrupt. Next, it must be proved that many things are lacking in the Hebrew text.”

Polanus rejects the assumption that material appearing in a translation but absent from the Hebrew proves that the Hebrew is defective. He insists that those alleging omissions from the Hebrew must first prove their claim.

“Is the Greek Version … Authentic?” — “It Is Not”

Polanus asks directly:

SECUNDO quæritur, An Græca illa versio Veteris Testamenti, quæ septuaginta duorum interpretum esse dicitur, sit authentica?

Translation: “Second, it is asked whether that Greek version of the Old Testament which is said to be of the seventy-two interpreters is authentic?”

He answers:

RESP. Non est. 1. quia non est immediatè à Spiritu Sancto inspirata. 2. quia est multis modis vitiosa, ut sæpe queritur Hieronymus, & Franciscus Junius in editione Bibliorum Græcorum ostendit. 3. quia Augustinus, qui versioni septuaginta plurimum detulit, illam tamen esse ex fontibus emendandam censuit.

Translation: “RESPONSE. It is not [authentic]. 1. Because it is not immediately inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2. Because it is faulty in many ways, as Jerome often complains, and as Franciscus Junius shows in the edition of the Greek Bible. 3. Because Augustine, who attributed very much to the version of the Seventy, nevertheless judged that it ought to be corrected from the sources.”

Polanus gives three reasons for rejecting the Greek translation as authentic Scripture: it was not directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, it contained many faults, and even Augustine, despite his great respect for the Septuagint, believed it should be corrected from the original sources.

His appeal to Junius is particularly important. Polanus invokes Junius’s examination of the Greek Bible as evidence of its faults, not merely his general agreement with the authority of the Hebrew.

The Hebrew Text Was Preserved and the Greek Must Be Judged by It

Polanus’s criticism of the Septuagint belongs to his larger defense of the Hebrew Old Testament. He refuses to assume that differences between the Greek and Hebrew prove corruption of the Hebrew.

His position is expressed in his earlier reply: Ergo translationes sunt corruptæ—“therefore the translations are corrupt.” He also appeals to divine providence in defending the preservation of the original-language Scriptures.

For Polanus, the Hebrew text possesses an authority that a translation does not. The Greek must therefore be tested against the Hebrew rather than used, without further proof, to accuse the Hebrew of corruption.

Assessment

Polanus is one of the strongest Reformed Protestant witnesses in this collection. He denies that the Greek Old Testament surviving in his day was the original translation of the Seventy. He identifies extensive disagreements with the Hebrew, including additions, omissions, and conflicting readings, and appeals to both Jerome and Junius as witnesses to the defects of the Greek tradition.

He also gives specific examples of erroneous Greek readings and variation among Greek copies. His judgment concerning the surviving translation is explicit:

Manifesta sunt Græcæ hodiernæ translationis vitia, quæ nullo modo excusari possunt.

Translation: “The errors of the present-day Greek translation are manifest and can in no way be excused.”

Polanus rejects the argument that additions found in translations prove omissions from the Hebrew, insisting instead: Ergo translationes sunt corruptæ—“therefore the translations are corrupt.”

His argument extends beyond the fact that a translation lacks the direct inspiration of the original Scriptures. He expressly maintains that the Greek Old Testament transmitted under the name “Septuagint” was not the original translation of the Seventy, contained extensive textual defects, and required correction from the original sources.

Citation: Amandus Polanus, Syntagma theologiae christianae (Hanau, 1609), Book I, discussion of the integrity and preservation of the Hebrew text, p. 493; Book I, discussion De versione Græca LXX. interpretum, pp. 536–538.

24. Andrew Willet (1562–1621)

Andrew Willet was an English Protestant theologian, biblical commentator, and controversialist. In his Synopsis Papismi and Hexapla commentaries, he repeatedly compared the Greek Old Testament with the Hebrew. He distinguished the ancient translation attributed to the Seventy from the Greek texts surviving in his own day, which he described as corrupted, mixed, and uncertain. He consistently regarded the Hebrew as the “authentic original.”

The Surviving Greek Is “Full of Corruptions” and “A Mixed and Confused Translation of Many”

In Synopsis Papismi, Willet distinguishes the ancient translation attributed to the Seventy from the Greek text surviving in his day:

“That ancient and true translation of the Septuagint, is corrupted and violated, which, as Jerome saith, was agreeable to the Hebrew: but so is not the Greek copy now extant, which is full of corruptions, and seemeth to be a mixed and confused translation of many.”

Willet did not regard the surviving Greek as an unchanged copy of the original translation. He described it as “full of corruptions” and apparently containing material from several translations. His statement draws partly upon Jerome but includes Willet’s own judgment concerning the Greek text of his day.

“In Many Places … Very Corrupt”

In Hexapla in Danielem, Willet writes:

“It is evident that the translation which goeth under the name of the 70. in many places is very corrupt, and varieth from the original….”

He points particularly to differences in the chronology of Genesis and other disagreements involving numbers. Such errors, in his judgment, showed that the Greek text circulating under the name of the Seventy could not simply be accepted as accurate.

The Greek Daniel “Was Upon Right Judgment Rejected by the Church”

In the same commentary, Willet discusses Jerome’s account of the Greek translation of Daniel attributed to the Seventy:

“But Jerome sheweth that the translation of the Septuagint, whatsoever was the cause thereof, whether they did not express the Chaldee phrase, or some one ignorant of the Chalde tongue did set it forth under their name, multum discordat a veritate, doth differ much from the truth and recto judicio repudiatus est, etc. and therefore was upon right judgment rejected by the church.”

Chaldee was the language used in part of Daniel, closely related to Hebrew. Willet reports Jerome’s uncertainty about why the Greek Daniel differed so greatly from the original. One possibility was that someone unfamiliar with the language had published the translation under the Seventy’s name.

The Greek Daniel attributed to the Seventy was not the version ordinarily read in the churches. They used another Greek translation associated with Theodotion instead.

This is primarily Jerome’s testimony, as reported by Willet. Nevertheless, Willet presents it approvingly in his own discussion of the Greek text. It illustrates a more serious problem than an occasional mistranslation: an entire Greek version attributed to the Seventy had been rejected and replaced in church use.

“Great Variety and Uncertainty of Copies”

Willet discusses the different Greek editions associated with Hesychius, Lucian, and Origen, concluding:

“But there is great uncertainty beside….”

After describing these different editions and mentioning the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, he writes:

“And beside the translation of the Septuagint, whereof there were so many editions, there were other translations of the Scriptures into the Greek tongue, as by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion: wherefore in so great variety and uncertainty of copies, the most sure way is, to have recourse unto the original, as Jerome and Augustine do well advise….”

Willet recognizes that the Septuagint itself existed in different edited forms, alongside other ancient Greek translations. Because of this “variety and uncertainty of copies,” he considers the Hebrew original the surest means of determining the correct reading.

Genesis 8:7 — “We Hold the Septuagint and Latin to Be Corrupt”

Discussing Noah’s raven, Willet rejects attempts to defend Greek and Latin readings that disagree with the Hebrew:

“We also refuse their conjectures, who to justify this erroneous reading, would have the Septuagint and Latin to keep the sense, though not the words….”

He concludes:

“Wherefore, we hold the Septuagint and Latin to be corrupt: and that according to the Hebrew text, the raven went and came to the ark….”

Rather than altering the Hebrew to agree with the Greek and Latin, Willet declares the translations corrupt at this passage.

The Apostles Did Not “Approve Their Errors”

Willet rejects the argument that the apostles’ use of Septuagint wording establishes the Greek translation as equally authoritative with the Hebrew. Commenting on Genesis 47:31, he writes:

“The Apostles indeed do sometime follow the Septuagint, because it was a common translation, and of authority: but they therein neither approve their errors, nor yet make it of equal authority to the original….”

He explains that the apostles sometimes used familiar Greek wording because it conveyed the meaning of the Hebrew:

“This then is no argument the Apostles follow the Septuagint, where they keep the Hebrew sense, though not the words….”

Willet therefore did not reject every Septuagint reading. He accepted Greek renderings when he considered them accurate, but denied that apostolic use of the translation approved its errors or gave it the authority of the Hebrew original.

“Too Great Boldness” to Add to the “Authentic Original”

At Exodus 23:23, Willet objects to the Septuagint’s insertion of the Girgashites into the list of peoples:

“The Septuagint, whose manner is to supply out of one place, that which is wanting in another; do here also insert the Girgashite. But this is too great boldness to add any thing to the authentic original.”

Willet identifies a practice of supplying material from other biblical passages and condemns additions not found in the Hebrew original.

Assessment

Willet distinguishes the original Septuagint from the Greek text surviving in his day, describing the latter as “full of corruptions” and “a mixed and confused translation of many.” He identifies differing Greek editions, uncertainty among copies, faulty readings, and additions to the Hebrew. He also reports Jerome’s judgment that the Greek Daniel attributed to the Seventy was rightly rejected by the church.

Although Willet accepted accurate Septuagint readings, he denied that apostolic use of the translation approved its errors or gave it equal authority with the Hebrew. He therefore regarded the Hebrew original as the surest standard for judging the Greek texts.

Citation: Andrew Willet, Synopsis Papismi, that is, A Generall Viewe of Papistrie, 4th ed. (London, 1614), discussion of the authority of the Hebrew and Greek texts; also the 1634 edition, pp. 20–21; Andrew Willet, Hexapla in Genesin (Cambridge: John Legat, 1605), discussions of Genesis 8:7 and 47:31; Andrew Willet, Hexapla in Exodum (London: Felix Kyngston for Thomas Man and John Norton, 1608), discussion of Exodus 23:23; Andrew Willet, Hexapla in Danielem (Cambridge: Cantrell Legge, 1610), p. 2 and discussion of the Septuagint and the Greek textual tradition of Daniel.

25. Johann Buxtorf the Elder (1564–1629) and Johann Buxtorf the Younger (1599–1664)

Johann Buxtorf the Elder and his son, Johann Buxtorf the Younger, were Swiss Reformed scholars who taught at the University of Basel. Both defended the authority of the Hebrew Old Testament and examined the problems of the Septuagint. The father attributed numerous differences in the Greek text to later copyists. His son described how the Greek translations had been corrupted, altered, and mixed together, making it difficult to identify their original wording.

The Elder Buxtorf: “Innumerable Other Passages” Were Altered by Copyists

In Tiberias (1620), Buxtorf the Elder discussed differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures, including differences in the division of verses. He attributed these and numerous other disagreements to later copyists rather than the original Greek translators:

Versuum illam differentiam, ut & innumerorum aliorum locorum discrepantiam in versione ista, non esse à primis illis interpretibus, sed à librariis & Scriptoribus …

Translation: “That difference in the division of verses, as well as the disagreement in innumerable other passages of that translation, arose not from those original translators, but from copyists and scribes …”

He questioned whether the Greek version circulating in his day was still identical to the original translation:

Et quotusquisque affirmare possit certo, aut credere, hodiernam Versionem Graecam esse omnibus suis numeris eandem, quam primi isti interpretes tanto conatu elaborarunt?

Translation: “And who can confidently affirm, or believe, that the present Greek version is in every respect the same as that which those original translators produced with such great effort?”

Buxtorf therefore distinguished the original Greek translation from the altered copies transmitted through later centuries.

The Younger Buxtorf: Greek Translations Were “Corrupted and Damaged”

In Anticritica (1653), Buxtorf the Younger declared that some ancient translations were no longer what their original translators had produced:

Quinto etiam quaedam sunt versiones, de quibus constat, illas non amplius esse tales, quales a primis illarum authoribus fuerunt conditae, sed varie ab aliis interpolatas, correctas, corruptas, depravatas. Id imprimis certum est de Graecis, ut eruditissimi viri multi attestantur & reipsa demonstrarunt, neque id ipse noster Criticus diffitetur.

Translation: “Fifth, there are also certain translations which are known no longer to be as their original authors produced them, but to have been variously interpolated, corrected, corrupted, and spoiled by others. This is especially certain of the Greek translations, as many very learned men testify and have demonstrated by the evidence itself; nor does our critic himself deny it.”

He then appealed to Augustine’s judgment that the corruption began early and increased over time:

Imo D. Augustini sententia est, statim a primis descriptoribus versionis Graecae LXX. istos errores incepisse, unde deinde latius emanarint, & progressu temporis magis magisque invaluerint.

Translation: “Indeed, Augustine’s opinion is that these errors began immediately with the earliest copyists of the Greek translation of the Seventy, from which they afterward spread more widely and increased more and more with the passage of time.”

Buxtorf thus regarded later corruption as an established problem, distinct from mistakes made by the original translators.

Copyists Introduced New Wording and “Erased and Removed” the Old

Buxtorf described how explanatory notes and other additions could enter the Greek text, sometimes replacing its earlier wording:

Sexto; hinc etiam attendendum ad Scribarum seu descriptorum audaciam, licentiam, imperitiam, qui factum, ut multa textui, vel marginibus ejus ab aliis adspersa, postmodum vel versioni fuerint addita & adjecta, vel in ejus locum substituta, priore lectione expuncta, & sublata. Hujus rei multa extant tum in LXX. tum in Paraphrasibus Chaldaeis vestigia manifesta.

Translation: “Sixth, attention must also be given to the audacity, license, and ignorance of scribes and copyists, through whom many things added by others to the text or its margins were afterward introduced into the translation, or substituted in place of its wording, the earlier reading having been erased and removed. Many clear traces of this exist both in the Septuagint and in the Aramaic paraphrases.”

His concern was not merely that extra words had accumulated. He believed that copyists had sometimes removed earlier readings and substituted others in their place.

The Surviving Septuagint Was Not “Complete and Pure,” but a “Patchwork”

Buxtorf summarized what he regarded as the common judgment of learned men concerning the surviving Septuagint:

Communis est doctorum sententia, Veterem LXX. interpretationem non integram & synceram ad nos usque pervenisse, sed variis modis, & a variis adeo corruptam & depravatam esse, ut indigna prorsus sit, quae hodie specioso isto titulo decoretur.

Translation: “It is the common opinion of learned men that the ancient translation of the Seventy has not come down to us complete and pure, but has been so corrupted and damaged in various ways and by various persons that it is altogether unworthy of being adorned today with that distinguished title.”

He identified several causes of corruption:

Apographa corrupta multis modis & depravata, 1. partim a Judaeis … partim ab Haereticis: 2. a Scribis partim imperitis, partim audacibus & temerariis, qui vel quaedam emendare volentes, mendis conspurcarint, vel glossemata adjecta ab aliis, in textum retulerint, aut pro iis quae in textu erant substituerint: 3. ex Versionum Graecarum crescentium copia & varietate, unde ex aliis atque aliis multa passim assumpta & substituta fuerint, adeo ut hodierna versio Graeca sit instar centonis ex pluribus heterogeneis pannis consuti & interpolati.

Translation: “The copies have been corrupted and damaged in many ways: first, partly by Jews … and partly by heretics; second, by scribes, some unskilled and others audacious and rash, who, either wishing to correct certain things, defiled them with errors, or introduced into the text explanatory notes added by others, or substituted them for what had been in the text; third, through the growing number and variety of Greek translations, from which much material was taken and substituted here and there, so that the present Greek version is like a patchwork sewn together and pieced together from several different kinds of cloth.”

He also discussed the effects of Origen’s work, in which different Greek translations were arranged side by side for comparison:

Ex confusione Hexaplorum Origenis, qui factum, ut quod vel Theodotionis fuit, vel Symmachi, vel alterius Interpretis Graeci, LXX. adscriberetur, & fortasse hinc genuina quaedam tollerentur, adulterina supponerentur, vel in alienum locum reponerentur.

Translation: “Through the confusion arising from Origen’s work, it happened that what belonged to Theodotion, Symmachus, or another Greek translator was attributed to the Seventy; and perhaps as a result some genuine readings were removed, spurious readings were substituted, or readings were placed where they did not belong.”

Buxtorf believed that the Greek text had become mixed with material from other translations. He regarded the removal or displacement of particular readings through this process as possible rather than certain in every case.

Who Could Separate “the Genuine From the Spurious”?

In his earlier Tractatus de Punctorum Vocalium (1648), Buxtorf questioned whether the surviving Septuagint was still the original translation or a corrupted mixture:

Cum itaque ex his & aliis, quae in hanc rem afferre possent, pateat, hanc, quae LXX. Interpretum nomine circumfertur & venditatur, Interpretationem, & ex qua Argumentum hoc contra Punctorum Antiquitatem construitur, vel non esse veram illam, quae olim extitit, vel esse corruptam, depravatam, & veluti centonem ex pluribus Interpretationibus consutum.

Translation: “Since, therefore, it is evident from these and other considerations that the translation circulated and presented under the name of the Seventy, from which this argument against the antiquity of the vowel points is constructed, either is not the genuine translation that once existed, or has been corrupted and altered, and is like a patchwork sewn together from several translations.”

Buxtorf was answering an argument against the antiquity of the marks used to indicate vowels in the Hebrew Bible. He questioned whether differences between the Greek and Hebrew could reliably reveal what the original Greek translators had written:

Quis enim novit, aut quis fidem faciet, illas discrepantias, quae, Punctorum ratione, inter hunc Graecum codicem & Hebraeum occurrunt, ab ipsis LXX. Interpretibus provenire & oriri, & non potius ab aliis recentioribus, imperitis, nasutis Interpretibus vel Scribis?

Translation: “For who knows, or who can establish, that those differences concerning the vowel points which occur between this Greek text and the Hebrew originated with the Seventy translators themselves, rather than with other later, unskilled, meddlesome translators or scribes?”

He did not deny that portions of the original Septuagint survived. Instead, he questioned whether anyone could reliably distinguish them from later alterations:

Non negamus aliqua ex parte superesse, sed quis nobis scorias ab argento, aquam a vino, genuinum ab adulterino hic discernet?

Translation: “We do not deny that it survives in part, but who will distinguish for us the dross from the silver, the water from the wine, the genuine from the spurious?”

Assessment

Both Buxtorfs rejected the assumption that the surviving Septuagint faithfully preserved the original translation. The elder attributed disagreements in innumerable passages to copyists and questioned whether the Greek text of his day was identical to the original. His son described extensive corruption, the replacement of earlier readings, and the mixing of different Greek translations. He declared that the Septuagint had not survived “complete and pure” and, while acknowledging that genuine material remained, questioned who could distinguish “the genuine from the spurious.”

Citations: Johann Buxtorf the Elder, Tiberias, sive Commentarius Masorethicus (Basel, 1620), pp. 114–115; Johann Buxtorf the Younger, Tractatus de Punctorum Vocalium et Accentuum in Libris Veteris Testamenti Hebraicis Origine, Antiquitate, et Authoritate (Basel, 1648), Book I, chap. IX, pp. 123–125; Anticritica, seu Vindiciae Veritatis Hebraicae (Basel, 1653), Part I, chap. IV, pp. 69–70; Part II, chap. VIII, pp. 551–553.

26. James Ussher (1581–1656)

James Ussher was an Irish Protestant theologian, biblical scholar, and Archbishop of Armagh in the Church of Ireland. He devoted a separate treatise, De Græca Septuaginta Interpretum Versione Syntagma, to the history and condition of the Greek Old Testament. He distinguished the original translation attributed to the Seventy from the Greek texts later transmitted under its name and concluded that the original translation had been lost.

“The Primitive Interpretation of the Seventy Elders Has Completely Perished”

After considering earlier opinions about the surviving Greek text, Ussher states:

Inde enim veriorem omnino eorum esse sententiam apparebit, qui primitivam illam Septuaginta seniorum interpretationem penitus interiisse censuerunt; diversamque plane ab ea fuisse, quæ et nostris, et veterum patrum temporibus illorum nomine est recepta.

Translation: “From these considerations it will plainly appear that the opinion of those is altogether more true who have judged that the primitive interpretation of the Seventy Elders has completely perished, and that the one received under their name both in our own times and in the times of the ancient Fathers was plainly different from it.”

Ussher maintains that the original translation had disappeared as an identifiable text and that even the Greek text known to the early church differed from it. He does not mean that all Greek Old Testament manuscripts had disappeared, but that the original translation was no longer preserved in its original form.

“Additions, Omissions, and Alterations” Corrupted the Greek

Ussher proposes that a later Jewish translator or reviser produced another Greek form of the Old Testament:

Post quartum igitur illum Philometoris Ptolemæi annum, ut gentium curiositati, Judaica sacra penitius intelligere desiderantium, aliquo modo satisfieret, a Judæo aliquo opus hoc peractum fuisse videtur; eandem sibi licentiam in tota vetere Scriptura additionibus, detractionibus et mutationibus suis vitianda permittente, quam ejus æmulatus exemplum Dositheus Samaritanus in ipso originali Pentateuchi Mosaici textu interpolando apostolorum postea temporibus usurpavit.

Translation: “After that fourth year of Ptolemy Philometor, therefore, it appears that this work was carried out by some Jew, in order to satisfy to some extent the curiosity of the Gentiles who desired to understand the Jewish sacred writings more thoroughly. He allowed himself the same liberty in corrupting the whole Old Testament by his additions, omissions, and alterations that Dositheus the Samaritan, following his example, afterwards exercised in the apostles’ time in inserting additional material into the original text of the Law of Moses.”

Ussher’s reconstruction of these events is his own historical judgment, not an established account of how the Greek text developed. Nevertheless, he expressly describes additions, omissions, and alterations affecting the Greek Old Testament.

The Common Greek Was “A Corrupted Edition”

Discussing Origen’s work on the Greek text, Ussher cites a distinction between a supposedly uncorrupted Septuagint and the commonly circulating Greek edition:

Sed hoc interest inter utramque: quod κοινῆς pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum veterum corrupta editio est; ea autem quæ habetur in ἑξαπλοῖς; et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quæ in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata Septuaginta interpretum translatio reservatur.

Translation: “But this is the difference between the two: the common edition is a corrupted edition according to places and times and the will of the ancient copyists; but that which is contained in the Hexapla, and which we translate, is that which is preserved in the books of the learned as the uncorrupted and unblemished translation of the Seventy interpreters.”

He later describes the common edition as:

tot corruptelis et veterum scriptorum varietatibus laborante

Translation: “Suffering from so many corruptions and differences introduced by ancient copyists.”

The first passage preserves Jerome’s distinction between the common Greek edition and the text contained in Origen’s Hexapla. Ussher incorporates that distinction into his examination of the Greek tradition. He also describes the common edition as suffering from numerous corruptions and differences among copies.

Even the Common Greek Edition Had a “Multiple Form”

Ussher emphasizes that the common Greek edition itself existed in different forms:

Ceterum textus utriusque dissimilitudinem nemo hic mirabitur, qui non solum editionis illius quæ pro genuina habebatur a κοινῇ sive communi discrepantiam, sed etiam ipsius communis multiplicem faciem consideraverit.

Translation: “But no one will be surprised here at the difference between the two texts who considers not only the difference between that edition which was regarded as genuine and the κοινή, or common edition, but also the multiple forms of the common edition itself.”

Ussher thus identifies differences not only between the supposedly genuine Septuagint and the common Greek edition, but also among the different forms of the common edition itself.

The Greek Daniel Used by the Church Was a Different Translation

Ussher observes that the Greek text of Daniel ordinarily used in his day was associated with Theodotion rather than the Seventy:

Ea vero qua nos utimur Græca Danielis editio, in vetustissimo Renati Marchali prophetarum exemplari titulum præfixum habet, “Δανιὴλ κατὰ Θεοδοτίωνα, Daniel secundum Theodotionem.”

Translation: “But the Greek edition of Daniel which we use has prefixed to it, in the very ancient copy of the Prophets belonging to Renatus Marchalus, the title, ‘Daniel according to Theodotion.’”

He also cites Jerome’s judgment concerning the older Greek Daniel attributed to the Seventy:

multum a veritate discrepet, et recto judicio liber repudiatus sit

Translation: “It differs greatly from the truth, and the book was rightly rejected.”

Ussher uses this evidence to show that one Greek translation of a biblical book could be replaced in common use by another. The Greek Daniel ordinarily transmitted was not the translation attributed to the original Seventy.

Origen Marked Additions and Omissions in the Greek

Discussing the special marks Origen used when comparing Greek translations with the Hebrew, Ussher explains that asterisks identified:

ea quæ in Hebræo reperta a Septuaginta omissa fuerant

Translation: “Things found in the Hebrew but omitted by the Seventy.”

The other marks, called obeli, identified:

ea quæ Hebraicæ veritati sunt adjecta

Translation: “Things added to the Hebrew text.”

These marks distinguished material present in the Hebrew but absent from the Greek from material present in the Greek but absent from the Hebrew. Their use shows that differences between the texts were substantial enough to require systematic identification.

Assessment

Ussher concludes that the original Septuagint had “completely perished” as an identifiable text and that the Greek received under its name, even in the early church, was “plainly different” from it. He describes corruption, additions, omissions, alterations, and differing forms of the common Greek edition. He also documents the replacement of the Greek Daniel attributed to the Seventy with Theodotion’s version.

His testimony directly challenges the identification of the surviving Greek Old Testament with one original, unchanged, and continuously preserved translation of the Seventy.

Citation: James Ussher, De Græca Septuaginta Interpretum Versione Syntagma (London: John Crook, 1655), especially pp. 4, 22–23, 52–53; James Ussher, The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, ed. Charles Richard Elrington, vol. 7 (Dublin: Hodges, Smith, 1864), De Græca Septuaginta Interpretum Versione Syntagma, especially pp. 441, 470–471, 482–493, 536.

27. Johann Gerhard (1582–1637)

Johann Gerhard was one of the leading Lutheran theologians of the seventeenth century. In his Loci Theologici and its expanded Exegesis, he examined the authority, accuracy, and preservation of the Greek Old Testament. His Aphorismi Theologici and biblical commentaries provide further evidence of his position. He distinguished errors made by the original translators from corruption introduced afterward and questioned whether the Greek text surviving in his day was the original translation attributed to the Seventy.

“We Cannot … Place It on an Equality with the Hebrew Text”

Gerhard states:

Sed non possumus Graecae isti versioni auctoritatem authenticam tribuere vel Hebraeo textui eam aequiparare.

Translation: “But we cannot attribute authentic authority to this Greek version or place it on an equality with the Hebrew text.”

Gerhard considered the Septuagint a translation that must be judged by the Hebrew, not an independently authoritative text equal to it.

The Surviving Septuagint “No Longer Exists Uncorrupted”

In his defense of the Hebrew Old Testament, Gerhard expressly denies that disagreements between the Hebrew and Septuagint establish that the Hebrew has been altered:

Ex LXX. Interpretum versione, quae hodie non amplius incorrupta extat, non potest probari, mutationem aliquam in Hebraeo textu fuisse factam, hoc enim esset ex rivulis de fonte, ex normato de norma & regula velle judicium ferre, cum contrario potius ordine sit progrediendum.

Translation: “From the translation of the Seventy, which no longer survives uncorrupted today, it cannot be proved that any alteration has been made to the Hebrew text. For this would be to judge the source by the streams flowing from it, and the standard by what is measured against it, when the opposite order should be followed.”

Gerhard directly states that the surviving Septuagint is corrupted. He also rejects the argument that differences between the Greek and Hebrew prove corruption of the Hebrew. The Hebrew, as the original text, must be the standard by which the translation is judged.

The Translators “Added Many Things of Their Own” and “Deliberately Omitted Many Things”

Gerhard describes extensive differences between the Greek and Hebrew:

in multis discrepat a fonte Hebraeo, praesertim in Psalmis. Quaedam habet, quae non sunt in textu Hebraeo; quaedam omittit, quae in Hebraeo habentur….

Translation: “In many places it differs from the Hebrew original, especially in the Psalms. It contains some things which are not in the Hebrew text; it omits some things which are contained in the Hebrew.”

He attributes some differences to the translators themselves:

Nam quia illi interpretes passim multa de suo addiderunt explicandarum rerum quae tractantur gratia, multa etiam tanquam supervacanea consulto omiserunt….

Translation: “For those translators frequently added many things of their own to explain the matters being discussed, and they also deliberately omitted many things as though they were unnecessary.”

Gerhard therefore did not assume that differences between the Greek and Hebrew always resulted from different Hebrew manuscripts. He believed the translators themselves sometimes added or omitted material.

Origen Had to Mark Additions and Restore Omissions

Gerhard explains that Origen compared the Septuagint with the Hebrew and used special marks to identify differences. When he found material added beyond what appeared in the Hebrew, he marked it with an obelus. When he found omissions, he supplied wording from Theodotion’s Greek translation and marked it with an asterisk.

Gerhard states:

quae detracta erant, ex Theodotionis interpretatione substituit, & asteriscis notavit.

Translation: “What had been omitted, he supplied from Theodotion’s translation and marked with asterisks.”

Origen’s work therefore involved more than copying the Greek text as he received it. He identified differences from the Hebrew and introduced material from another Greek translation. Gerhard presents these corrections as evidence that the Septuagint text required examination rather than unquestioning acceptance.

The Greek Chronology Contained “Numerous Errors”

Gerhard identifies extensive differences in the chronological numbers:

mendas in chronologicis numeris habet complures. Ab Adamo ad diluvium numerat annos 2242, cum in Hebraeo textu tantum habeantur 1656 anni. A diluvio ad Abrahamum numerat annos 1082, cum in Hebraeo sint 292.

Translation: “It has numerous errors in the chronological numbers. From Adam to the Flood it reckons 2,242 years, whereas the Hebrew text has only 1,656 years. From the Flood to Abraham it reckons 1,082 years, whereas the Hebrew has 292.”

He gives Methuselah as another example:

Mathusalem secundum Graecam translationem 14 annis post diluvium superstes mansit, unde magna oritur quaestio, ubi in diluvio servatus fuerit? in quo nodo solvendo August. lib. 15. de civ. Dei c. 11. plurimum sese torquet; sed ex textu Hebraico colligitur ipsum eodem anno fuisse mortuum, quo terra diluvio fuit obruta.

Translation: “According to the Greek translation, Methuselah remained alive fourteen years after the Flood, which raises the great question of where he was preserved during the Flood. Augustine, in City of God, book 15, chapter 11, struggles greatly to resolve this difficulty; but from the Hebrew text it is concluded that Methuselah died in the same year that the earth was overwhelmed by the Flood.”

Gerhard regards these differences as Greek errors rather than reasons to change the Hebrew chronology. In the expanded discussion he also notes that some Greek editions give Adam’s age at Seth’s birth as 230 years and others as 330, whereas the Hebrew gives 130.

His Aphorismi Theologici supplies another example at Genesis 8:4:

Error in calculo est apud LXX. Interpp. & vulgatam, pro die enim mensis decimo septimo legunt septimum & vigesimum.

Translation: “There is an error in the calculation of the Seventy interpreters and the Latin Vulgate, for instead of the seventeenth day of the month they read the twenty-seventh.”

Gerhard thus identifies errors in biblical chronology and differences among Greek copies, consistently treating the Hebrew as the standard.

Jonah 3:4 — The Hebrew Gives the “More Correct” Wording, but Some Greek Copies Agree

Gerhard writes:

Jonae 3. in Graeco est: Adhuc tres dies, et destruetur Ninive. Sed rectius in textu Hebraico authentico post 40 dies exitium ei denuntiatur, vix enim tribus diebus Jonas civitatem peragrare potuit.

Translation: “In Jonah 3 the Greek has: ‘Yet three days, and Nineveh shall be destroyed.’ But more correctly, in the authentic Hebrew text its destruction is announced after forty days, for Jonah could scarcely have traversed the city in three days.”

Gerhard expressly calls the Hebrew text authentic and judges its reading of forty days more accurate than the Greek reading of three days.

In his posthumously published commentary on Jonah, however, he identifies a further difference among Greek manuscripts:

In Hebraeo sunt 40. dies, & quidam Codd. Graeci habent τεσσαράκοντα.

Translation: “In the Hebrew there are forty days, and certain Greek manuscripts also have ‘forty.’”

Gerhard thus records variation within the Greek tradition itself. Although the familiar Greek reading gave three days, some Greek manuscripts agreed with the Hebrew reading of forty days. He also discusses Augustine’s attempt to explain the disagreement.

“Many Doubt” Whether the Surviving Greek Is the Ancient Septuagint

Gerhard raises the question whether the Greek text surviving in his own time was the translation originally produced by the Seventy:

Multi dubitant, an Graeca versio, quae hodie exstat, sit illa a veteribus tantopere celebrata LXX interpretum versio.

Translation: “Many doubt whether the Greek version which exists today is that version of the Seventy interpreters so highly celebrated by the ancients.”

He contrasts the surviving Greek with ancient accounts that the Seventy had translated with exceptional accuracy and had their work carefully examined before its acceptance.

Gerhard objects:

Sed Graeca versio, quam nunc habemus, multis in locis a textu Hebraeo dissentit.

Translation: “But the Greek version which we now have differs from the Hebrew text in many places.”

He continues:

Adde quod Graeca versio, quae hodie extat, in locis aliquammultis non possit ulla ratione cum textu Hebraeo conciliari, nisi removeantur puncta, atque aliter legantur, quam puncta subjecta requirunt, quod argumento est, autorem illius versionis usum fuisse Bibliis non punctatis, quod de LXX. Interpp. non est verisimile.

Translation: “Furthermore, the Greek version which exists today cannot in quite a number of places be reconciled with the Hebrew text by any means unless the vowel markings are removed and the words are read differently from what those markings require. This is evidence that the author of that version used Hebrew Scriptures without vowel markings, which is not likely to have been the case with the Seventy interpreters.”

Gerhard argues that certain Greek readings appear to have been made from Hebrew words read without their traditional vowel markings, which indicate how those words should be pronounced and understood. He considered this unlikely to have been the practice of the original Seventy.

He therefore does not merely report that others doubted the identity of the surviving Greek. He supplies his own reason for questioning whether it was the same translation praised by ancient writers. He also cites Johannes Drusius and William Whitaker in support of this judgment.

The Common Greek Old Testament Was “Corrupted in Many Places”

In his Aphorismi Theologici (1622), Gerhard makes an even more definite statement concerning the Greek Old Testament surviving in his day:

Communem illam Graecam, quam nos habemus, LXX. versionem ex Codicis Hebraei exemplari non punctato translatam, ac in multis locis corruptam esse dubitari non debet.

Translation: “There should be no doubt that the common Greek version of the Seventy which we possess was translated from a Hebrew manuscript without vowel markings and has been corrupted in many places.”

This statement confirms that Gerhard’s doubts about the surviving Greek were not limited to reporting the opinions of other scholars. He expressly declared the commonly received Septuagint corrupted in many places and maintained that it had been produced from a Hebrew text lacking vowel markings.

The statement reinforces his distinction between the celebrated ancient translation and the Greek edition actually available in his own time.

The Septuagint Had Already “Contracted Corruptions”

Gerhard appeals directly to the early history of the Greek text:

Versio LXX interpretum jam olim ab Origene, Luciano, Hesychio, Hieronymo emendari coepit, quomodo igitur ab erroribus immunis fuit? et quis credat, cum primis trecentis annis corruptelas contraxerit, quod reliquis annis mille trecentis incorrupta manserit?

Translation: “The version of the Seventy had already begun to be corrected long ago by Origen, Lucian, Hesychius, and Jerome; how, then, could it have been free from errors? And who would believe that, when during the first three hundred years it had acquired corruptions, it remained uncorrupted during the remaining thirteen hundred years?”

Gerhard regards the early attempts to correct the Septuagint as evidence that it already contained errors. His question is pointed: if the Greek text had become corrupted during its first three centuries, why should anyone believe it remained unchanged during the following thirteen centuries?

His statement concerns corruption acquired over time, not merely faults belonging to the original translation.

Gerhard also discusses Justin Martyr’s accusation that Jewish teachers had removed passages from the Greek translation associated with the Seventy. However, he questions Justin’s evidence, judging that Justin spoke more from suspicion than from knowledge. Gerhard therefore distinguished the corruption of the Greek text from disputed accusations about who caused particular alterations.

Apostolic Use Did Not Establish the Septuagint’s Equal Authority

Gerhard addresses the argument that the evangelists and apostles sometimes quoted the Septuagint rather than translating directly from the Hebrew. He explains that they used its wording because the Greek translation was already widely circulated.

He appeals to Jerome’s observation that the apostles did not necessarily reproduce the exact words of the Greek translation when those words differed from the Hebrew. Instead, they conveyed the meaning of the Hebrew.

Gerhard therefore distinguishes the apostles’ use of a familiar translation from approval of all its readings. Their quotations did not establish that the Septuagint was free from error or possessed authority equal to the Hebrew original.

Assessment

Gerhard distinguishes errors attributable to the Greek translators from corruption introduced during later transmission. He declares that the surviving Septuagint “no longer exists uncorrupted,” that the common Greek version was “corrupted in many places,” and that some Greek manuscripts contained different readings. He also questions whether the surviving version was actually the original translation of the Seventy.

His strongest historical judgment is that the Septuagint had already “acquired corruptions” during its first three centuries and could hardly be presumed to have remained uncorrupted for another thirteen hundred years. He therefore rejects its equality with the Hebrew and denies that disagreements with the Greek, by themselves, prove that the Hebrew text was altered.

Citation: Johann Gerhard, Loci Theologici, Locus Primus: De Scriptura Sacra, §§316, 327, 507; ed. Eduard Preuss, vol. I (Berlin: Gustav Schlawitz, 1863), especially pp. 225–226; Johann Gerhard, Exegesis sive uberior explicatio articulorum de Scriptura Sacra, in Loci Theologici, vol. I (Frankfurt and Hamburg: Zacharias Hertel, 1657), De Scriptura Sacra, §§316, 327, 506–507, including printed pp. 115 and 203; Johann Gerhard, Aphorismi Theologici, quibus controversiae tum textuales tum doctrinales in Genesi Mosaica occurrentes summatim continentur (Jena: Tobias Steinmann, 1622), discussions of Genesis 8:4 and 14:5–7, pp. 18, 32; Johann Gerhard, Annotationes posthumae in Psalmos priores, item in prophetam Amos ac Jonam (Leipzig and Jena: Johann Theodor and David Fleischer, 1676), commentary on Jonah 3:4, p. 9.

28. Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676)

Gisbertus Voetius was a Dutch Reformed theologian, professor at Utrecht, and a leading figure in seventeenth-century Reformed theology. In his Selectarum disputationum theologicarum, he examined the condition of the Greek Old Testament, its relationship to the Hebrew, and its use by the writers of the New Testament.

The Greek Translation Was “Mixed from Many” and “Corrupt” in Very Many Places

Discussing Psalm 22 and the authority of the Greek translation, Voetius summarizes the position of Reformed writers:

Quanta autoritatis sit translatio graeca, & quod non sit 70. Interpr. sed mixta ex multis, atque adeo in plurimis deficiat aut corrupta sit, docent nostri c. Pontificios….

Translation: “Of how great authority the Greek translation is, and that it is not [the work] of the Seventy interpreters, but is mixed from many, and therefore in very many places is deficient or corrupt, our writers teach against the Roman Catholics….”

The Greek Old Testament available in Voetius’s day is here distinguished from the original translation attributed to the Seventy. Reformed writers maintained that it had been mixed with material from other translations and was deficient or corrupt in very many places. Voetius goes on to suggest how some of these alterations might have occurred.

The Greek Text May Have Been Altered “After the Times of the Apostles”

Voetius raises the possibility that later Christians altered the Greek Old Testament to make it agree more closely with New Testament quotations:

Immo quid ni insuper dubitare liceat, An non miscella illa translatio graeca in hoc aliisque locis post tempora Apostolorum ab imperitis zelotis interpolata & efformata sit ad textum gr. N. T. ubi loca illa ex V. T. citantur non semper ad literam, sed paraphrasticè & cum expositione….

Translation: “Indeed, why may we not further doubt whether that mixed Greek translation, in this and other places, was interpolated and reshaped after the times of the Apostles by unskilled zealots to conform to the Greek text of the New Testament, where those passages from the Old Testament are cited not always literally, but paraphrastically and with exposition….”

Voetius suggests that some Christians may have changed the Greek Old Testament to match the wording of New Testament quotations, even where the apostles had quoted the Old Testament in different words or had explained its meaning rather than reproduced it exactly.

He presents this as a possibility, not an established historical fact. Nevertheless, his suggestion directly concerns changes made to the Greek text after the apostolic age.

New Testament Quotations “Do Not Prejudice the Hebrew Text”

Voetius rejects the argument that an Old Testament quotation in the New Testament automatically establishes the accuracy of the corresponding Greek reading:

citationes locorum ex V. T. in N. T. nihil praejudicare textui Hebraeo, nec facere ut ab Hebraeo fonte discordans translatio graeca … cum Hebraeo conveniat.

Translation: “The citations of passages from the Old Testament in the New Testament do not prejudice the Hebrew text, nor do they make a Greek translation that disagrees with the Hebrew source agree with the Hebrew.”

The apostles’ use of Greek wording did not, in Voetius’s judgment, establish that every reading in the Greek Old Testament was correct or that the Hebrew must be changed to agree with it.

Luke Did Not Make “the Error of the Seventy Interpreters” His Own

Voetius applies this principle to Cainan’s appearance in Luke 3:36 and the corresponding Greek Old Testament genealogy. He anticipates an objection:

Sed dices cur errorem 70. Interpr. suum fecit Lucas? Siquidem error sit, saltem suum non fecit … citando enim nec improbat nec approbat versionis ἀπροσεξίας….

Translation: “But you will say, why did Luke make the error of the Seventy interpreters his own? If indeed it is an error, at least he did not make it his own … for by citing it he neither disapproves nor approves the inaccuracies of the version….”

Voetius does not simply declare the reading erroneous. He considers the possibility of an error and argues that Luke’s use of the familiar Greek wording would not make such an error his own.

He further observes that the New Testament writers used the Greek version:

quamvis saepe tam doctè aut accuratè Hebraicam veritatem non exprimeret

Translation: “although it often did not express the Hebrew truth so learnedly or accurately.”

Voetius therefore distinguishes using a familiar translation from approving every reading it contains. In his judgment, apostolic use did not guarantee the accuracy of the Greek text.

Assessment

Voetius reports the judgment of Reformed writers that the surviving Greek Old Testament was not simply the original translation of the Seventy but was “mixed from many” and deficient or corrupt in very many places. He further suggests that some readings may have been altered after the apostles to conform to New Testament quotations, while carefully presenting this as a possibility rather than an established fact.

His discussion of Cainan illustrates his broader position: the apostles’ use of Greek wording did not necessarily establish the correctness of the underlying translation. His testimony therefore challenges both the idea of a single, unchanged Septuagint and the claim that New Testament quotations guarantee the accuracy of its transmitted text.

Citation: Gisbertus Voetius, Selectarum disputationum theologicarum, pars prima (Utrecht: Johannes à Waesberge, 1648), De insolubilibus (ut vocant) Scripturae, pp. 53–61, especially pp. 54, 59–60.

29. Brian Walton (1600–1661)

Brian Walton was an English Anglican bishop and biblical scholar who directed the publication of the London Polyglot Bible (1655–1657), which brought together the Hebrew Scriptures, ancient translations, and differing manuscript readings for comparison. In his extensive Latin introduction, known as the Prolegomena, Walton examined the history and condition of the Septuagint. Although he defended the substantial preservation of the ancient Greek translation, he acknowledged corruption introduced by copyists and editors, differences among manuscripts, and the mixture of readings from other Greek translations.

An Early Printed Septuagint Was “the Most Mixed and Interpolated”

Walton compared the principal printed editions of the Greek Old Testament. He observed that the Complutensian edition, published in the early sixteenth century, agreed more closely with the Hebrew than other Greek editions. Nevertheless, he considered it particularly defective as a representation of the original Septuagint:

omnium tamen quæ impressæ sunt maximè mixta sit et interpolata, et a genuina LXX Versione maximè distet.

Translation: “Nevertheless, of all those that have been printed, it is the most mixed and interpolated, and differs most from the genuine Septuagint translation.”

Walton explained how material from different sources had entered this edition:

Nova enim et mixta est hæc Versio, partim ex LXX, partim ex Origenis additamentis ex Theodotione, partim ex Aquilæ, Symmachi, aliorumque interpretum, immò et commentatorum Græcorum verbis confarcinata.

Translation: “For this version is new and mixed, pieced together partly from the Seventy, partly from Origen’s additions taken from Theodotion, partly from Aquila, Symmachus, and other translators, and even from the words of Greek commentators.”

Walton thus described a Greek Old Testament assembled from several sources, including later translations and explanatory writings. Its closer agreement with the Hebrew did not make it a more faithful reproduction of the original Septuagint.

Editors Had Produced “a New and Mixed Edition”

Walton also criticized a Greek Old Testament printed in London in 1653. Its editors had altered and added readings to make the Greek agree more closely with the Hebrew and newer translations.

He concluded:

At hoc non est editionem Romanam, vel antiquam LXX Versionem excudere … sed novam et mixtam editionem conficere.

Translation: “But this is not to print the Roman edition or the ancient Septuagint translation … but to produce a new and mixed edition.”

Walton distinguished the reproduction of an ancient Greek text from the creation of a revised text containing readings drawn from several sources.

Even the Best Septuagint Edition Was Not Entirely Free from Errors

Walton preferred the Roman Septuagint edition of 1587 because he considered it the closest available printed representation of the ancient translation. Nevertheless, he refused to declare it perfect:

Etsi autem editionem hanc omnium quæ exstat maximè sinceram judicemus, et proximè ad puram LXX editionem accedere, tamen ex omni parte perfectam esse non audemus asserere.

Translation: “Although we judge this edition the most faithful of all those that exist, and the one approaching most closely to the pure Septuagint edition, nevertheless we do not dare assert that it is perfect in every respect.”

Even Walton’s preferred Greek edition, therefore, could not be regarded as an entirely accurate reproduction of the original.

Ignorant Correctors “Corrupted the Text”

Walton identified several causes of disagreement between the surviving Greek Old Testament and the Hebrew. Among them were alterations made by persons who believed they were improving the text:

alias etiam ex audaciâ et temeritate sciolorum, qui sub specie corrigendi textum corruperunt.

Translation: “Others [arose] from the audacity and recklessness of ignorant persons who corrupted the text under the appearance of correcting it.”

He also described how explanatory notes copied from other manuscripts entered the biblical text:

aliae ex glossematis in margine ex aliis exemplaribus annotatis, quae in textum postea migrârunt.

Translation: “Others [arose] from explanatory notes recorded in the margins from other copies, which afterward passed into the text.”

Walton recognized both unauthorized corrections and the accidental incorporation of explanatory material as causes of changes in the Greek text.

Even the Original Translators Made Mistakes

Walton did not attribute every difference between Hebrew and Greek to later corruption. He also acknowledged errors in the original translation:

alias ex Interpretum lapsu: nam in quibusdam eos errâsse, ut homines, nullatenùs dubitandum.

Translation: “Others [arose] from mistakes by the translators; for that they erred in certain matters, being human, must by no means be doubted.”

This distinction is important. Walton recognized defects that could have existed in the original translation as well as alterations introduced during its transmission.

He also allowed that some differences between Greek and Hebrew might reflect variations among ancient Hebrew manuscripts. He therefore did not assume that every disagreement proved corruption of the Greek.

Assessment

Walton is a particularly valuable witness because he acknowledged corruption and alteration while defending the substantial preservation of the Septuagint. He described the Complutensian edition as “the most mixed and interpolated,” condemned another as “new and mixed,” and refused to declare even his preferred Roman edition perfect. He also identified corruption introduced by careless corrections and explanatory notes, while recognizing errors made by the original translators. His firsthand examination demonstrates that Greek texts circulated under the name Septuagint in differing and sometimes extensively altered forms.

Citation: Brian Walton, Biblia Sacra Polyglotta (London, 1655–1657), Prolegomena, IX, De versionibus Græcis, præcipuè LXXII Seniorum, especially §§28–34 and 42–49; Briani Waltoni Prolegomena Specialia, edited by Francis Wrangham (Cambridge, 30.

30. John Lightfoot (1602–1675)

John Lightfoot was an English Puritan theologian, biblical scholar, member of the Westminster Assembly, and later Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. Although he valued the Septuagint for understanding the New Testament, he opposed giving it authority above the Hebrew. He recognized differences among Greek editions and attributed some Greek-Hebrew disagreements to the translators themselves rather than to a different Hebrew text.

The Greek Version Was Composed by “Different Hands”

Discussing Cainan in Luke 3:36, Lightfoot observes:

“It is plain enough to any one that diligently considers the Greek version throughout, that it was composed by different hands, who greatly varied from one another, both in style and wit. So that this book was more learnedly rendered than that, the Greek reading more elegant in this book than in that, and the version in this book comes nearer the Hebrew than in that….”

Lightfoot regarded the Greek Old Testament as the work of different translators whose methods and accuracy varied from book to book.

The Septuagint Was “Over Authorized by Some”

In Erubhin, or Miscellanies Christian and Judaical, Lightfoot praises the Greek translation’s importance in the New Testament:

“And admirable it is to see, with what sweetness and harmony the New Testament doth follow this translation, sometime even besides the letter of the Old….”

Yet the following chapter is entitled:

“The Septuagint over authorized by some.”

Lightfoot begins:

“Some there were in the primitive church, like the Romanists now, that preferred this translation of the Greek … before the Hebrew fountain.”

Lightfoot could therefore value the Septuagint highly while rejecting the authority some Christians attributed to it.

No Hebrew Copy Was Known to Agree with the Greek Version

Lightfoot questions whether the differences between the Greek and Hebrew could be explained by supposing that the translators possessed a substantially different Hebrew text:

“To conclude: Before the Bible had been translated for Ptolemy (as it is supposed) into the Greek tongue, there were an infinite number of copies in the Hebrew in Palestine, Babylon, Egypt, even everywhere, in every synagogue: and it is a marvellous thing, that in all antiquity there should not be the least hint or mention of so much as one Hebrew copy amongst all these that agrees with the Greek version.”

Lightfoot argues that no corresponding Hebrew manuscript was known to support the Greek version as a whole. He therefore resisted explaining Greek-Hebrew differences simply by assuming that the Greek translators had used a different Hebrew text.

The Various Septuagint Editions Were “Pretty Much Disagreeing Among Themselves”

Lightfoot continues:

“We have various editions of that version which they call the Septuagint, and those pretty much disagreeing among themselves: but who hath ever heard or seen one Hebrew copy that hath in every thing agreed with any one of them?”

His testimony directly concerns disagreement among Greek editions transmitted under the name “Septuagint.” He recognized that these editions did not preserve one uniform Greek text.

The Translators “Abounded in Their Own Sense”

Lightfoot immediately offers another explanation for Greek-Hebrew differences:

“The interpreters have still abounded in their own sense, not very strictly obliging themselves to the Hebrew text.”

He therefore attributed some differences to the translators’ freedom in rendering the Hebrew rather than to a different Hebrew manuscript. This agrees with his earlier observation that different books were translated by different hands, with varying degrees of accuracy.

Cainan Was “Certainly Added by the Interpreters Themselves”

Discussing the appearance of Cainan in Luke 3:36 and the corresponding Greek genealogy in Genesis 11, Lightfoot states:

“I cannot be persuaded by any arguments that this passage concerning Cainan was in Moses’ text, or indeed in any Hebrew copies which the Seventy used; but that it was certainly added by the interpreters themselves, partly because no reason can be given how it should ever come to be left out of the Hebrew text, and partly because there may be a probable reason given why it should be added in the Greek; especially when nothing was more usual with them than to add of their own, according to their own will and pleasure.”

Lightfoot expressly attributes the addition of Cainan to the Greek translators. He does not believe that they obtained this reading from a Hebrew manuscript containing material subsequently lost from the Hebrew tradition.

Luke’s Use of the Greek Did Not Make Him Responsible for Its Errors

Lightfoot explains why Luke could reproduce the familiar Greek genealogy without being responsible for the addition of Cainan. The New Testament was written in Greek for readers familiar with Greek copies of the Scriptures, and Luke’s use of their familiar wording enabled them to recognize the genealogy.

Lightfoot writes:

“And that particularly as to this name of ‘Cainan’ being inserted, as also the five souls being added to the retinue of Jacob; the learned amongst them knew from whence he had it; for what reason this addition had been made in the Greek version, and that St. Luke had faithfully transcribed it thence: so that if there were any fault, let them lay the blame upon the first authors, and not upon the transcriber.”

He distinguishes Luke’s use of the familiar Greek text from the origin of the additional material. In Lightfoot’s judgment, responsibility for any error belonged to the authors of the Greek version, not to Luke.

Assessment

Lightfoot combined considerable respect for the Septuagint with explicit recognition of its textual differences and shortcomings. He described it as the work of “different hands,” observed that its various editions were “pretty much disagreeing among themselves,” and stated that its translators “abounded in their own sense, not very strictly obliging themselves to the Hebrew text.”

His discussion of Cainan is particularly important because he expressly maintains that the reading was added by the Greek translators themselves, not taken from a different Hebrew manuscript. He also argues that Luke’s use of the familiar Greek wording did not make Luke responsible for any error introduced by those translators.

Lightfoot’s testimony therefore addresses both disagreement among Greek editions and differences introduced during the original translations, while rejecting the assumption that every Greek-Hebrew disagreement reflects a lost Hebrew reading.

Citation: John Lightfoot, Erubhin, or Miscellanies Christian and Judaical (London, 1629), chapters XXII–XXIII, in The Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot, D.D., ed. John Rogers Pitman, vol. 4 (London: J. F. Dove, 1822), pp. 30–33; John Lightfoot, “Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations upon the Gospel of St. Luke,” commentary on Luke 3:36, in The Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot, D.D., ed. John Rogers Pitman, vol. 12 (London: J. F. Dove, 1823), pp. 56–58.

31. Edward Pococke (1604–1691)

Edward Pococke was an Anglican clergyman and Oxford scholar whose biblical commentaries compared the Hebrew Scriptures with Greek, Syriac, Arabic, and Latin translations. His knowledge of these languages helped him distinguish differences of translation from mistakes introduced by copyists. He judged translations by the Hebrew while identifying additions, conflicting readings, and displaced verses in Greek copies.

The Hebrew Is “the Standing Rule”

In the preface to his commentary on Micah, Pococke explained how he judged competing interpretations:

“I have laboured, as far as I could, to find out the truth among them, by examining such as I have occasion to take notice of, by the Original Hebrew, which is the standing rule which was at first by the goodness of God for such delivered to us by the prophets and holy men divinely inspired, and hath ever since, by his wonderful providence, been preserved uncorrupt and sincere.”

He directly addressed the argument that differences in the ancient Greek translation proved corruption in the surviving Hebrew:

“Of any that shall question it, we may ask when it was corrupted, whether before Christ’s time or since? If it be said before, and as an argument alleged for it, that there is a translation of greater antiquity than his time, viz. in Greek, which so much differs from the Hebrew copies which we now have, as to shew that in the copy which the authors thereof had, many things were read otherwise than in these, we are not to be moved by it, except three things be first made evident.”

The required proofs concerned the translators’ Hebrew copy, their manner of translating, and the preservation of their translation:

“1. That the copy which they had was a truer copy than any reserved among the Jews which might be derived to us from them. 2. That those Interpreters strictly and precisely followed the letter of their copy, and did not give themselves liberty of expressing what they conceived to be the sense and meaning, either more largely or in different words, or had not some notions of the words which are not now so usually known. 3. That the copies which we have of their version be genuine and uncorrupted, as they proceeded from them, without mixture or alteration. Which things have not yet been sufficiently proved, and I suppose cannot be.”

The age of a translation did not establish either its superiority to the Hebrew or the purity of its surviving copies.

Different Translations Could Follow “the Same Original”

Pococke warned against assuming that differing translations must have come from differing Hebrew readings. Sometimes translators understood the same Hebrew word in different ways:

“Looking thereinto it will be made apparent that the variety proceeded not from any variety in their reading, but from the variety of significations of one word: among which some have, according to their different judgment, preferred one, some another, yet so as that all have thought themselves to follow the same original, and ought not presently to be condemned, as disagreeable to it.”

His rule required careful comparison:

“One translation therefore is not presently to be condemned, because it differs from another, but both are to be tried by the original; and when they may both be found to agree to that, neither is rashly to be condemned, but with due deliberation and discretion, that to be followed which may give the most convenient meaning to the place.”

This distinction also guided his treatment of Old Testament passages quoted in the New Testament.

“Not Translated by the Same Persons”

Commenting on Joel 1:15, Pococke compared its Greek translation with Isaiah 13:6, where the same Hebrew expression occurs. The Greek translators rendered the expression differently:

“Which seems an argument that these two books, or prophecies were not translated by the same persons. Whatever the occasion was that moved them to do as they did, we need not be solicitous, having the true reading by all others agreed on.”

He retained the qualification “seems.” The common name “Septuagint” did not require him to treat its books as the work of the same translators.

“A Confusion Made in the Greek Copies”

At Hosea 10:10, Pococke examined differing Greek readings and concluded:

“It is manifest that through difference, or mistake among the Scribes or copiers, there is a confusion made in the Greek copies. It will not be to our purpose further to examine them, or to judge between them. Our way will be to follow that meaning which the Hebrew (the word being in that signification as we said) and others following it, give.”

At Hosea 13:12, conflicting Greek readings again obscured the meaning:

“This variety of reading in the Greek makes a confusion, and leaves it doubtful what they meant; but we need not be solicitous about it, having from the versions which more exactly follow the Hebrew, a much more perspicuous meaning, especially from the first way which we have seen, according to which we have a plain passage from this verse to the next, and an evident connexion between them.”

At Hosea 14:4 he likewise observed:

“In the LXX by some mistake of the Scribes, or some other reasons, are here found several readings.”

The surviving Greek copies did not always agree sufficiently to make their meaning clear. Pococke therefore returned to the Hebrew rather than using an uncertain Greek reading to change it.

Words Added “by the Error or Inadvertency of Some Scribe”

At Hosea 8:13, some Greek copies contained words belonging to the following chapter:

“Here in some copies of the Greek and the printed Arabic is read, they have returned into Egypt, and then added, and they shall eat unclean things in Assyria. Those words do indeed occur in the third v. of the next chapter, both in the Hebrew, and the Greek; but how they come here to be added in the Greek, being not in the Hebrew, I know not, except we shall think it was by the error or inadvertency of some Scribe anciently: which is confirmed, by that it is in other copies not found; and St. Jerome saith, it ought to be noted as superfluous.”

His explanation remained qualified, but the difference between the copies was clear: some contained the addition, and others did not.

“A Whole Clause” Absent from the Hebrew

At Hosea 13:4, Pococke identified a larger addition:

“But it is withal observable, that the LXX between these and the former words, and I the Lord thy God, do add a whole clause, that is neither in the Hebrew, nor other ancient translations found, viz. who established the heaven, and created the earth, whose hands created all the hosts of heaven: and I did not shew them to thee, that thou shouldest walk after them, and I brought thee out, &c.”

After reporting Jerome’s rejection of the words and Grotius’s explanation of such additions, Pococke offered his own judgment:

“This seems to have been a gloss added for explication of that great comprehensive name.”

The “gloss” was an explanatory note about God’s name. Pococke thus considered it possible that words written to explain Scripture had entered the Greek text itself.

An Addition Became “Part of the Genuine Text”

In his Micah preface, Pococke discussed the account of Job’s life attached to the end of Greek Job. He proposed that this account had first been added to a Syriac copy and subsequently translated into Greek by copyists:

“This, those that copied out anciently, those versions of the Septuagint and Theodotion, (for it will be too much to say the authors of them themselves, especially of the first, if they were truly the Seventy, who commonly bear that name) finding in some such old Syriack copy, thought worth while to translate into Greek, and add in their own at the end.”

He then described how continued copying could erase the distinction between an addition and Scripture:

“Which other transcribers after continued, till what was so added was in time taken in as part of the genuine text.”

This was his proposed explanation of how the addition arose. He did not claim to have proved every step. Nevertheless, he expressly described explanatory material becoming accepted as biblical text through successive copying.

Verses “Taken out of” Their Place

At the conclusion of Malachi, Pococke observed that Greek copies could differ from the Hebrew in the order of entire verses:

“Thus here ends this prophecy, in the Hebrew Bibles and all that follow them; but in many copies of the Greek, the verses are so transplaced as that the fourth verse being taken out of its place is put after this, viz. Remember the law of Moses, &c. and so made to conclude the prophecy; on what occasion, or for what reason I know not.”

He subsequently reported an explanation connecting the rearrangement with a desire to end on favourable words. His own observation was that many Greek copies moved the verse; he did not know why.

The Apostles Did Not “Tie” Themselves to the Greek

At Hosea 11:1, Pococke defended Matthew’s quotation, “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” against the differing Greek rendering:

“But it is sufficient to us at present to say, that this translation of theirs doth not prejudice or disprove that rendering, which we take, of the words in the original, according to which St. Matthew’s citation exactly agrees with them.”

At Joel 2:28, however, he rejected the charge that the Greek wording necessarily weakened God’s promise. Peter used that wording, but did so as an inspired apostle:

“It is manifest by his different rendering the words going before, that he did not tie himself up to them, but give the true meaning of the Prophet’s words, himself being inspired and taught by the same spirit that the Prophet was: nor indeed doth this expression in the Greek seem any way to differ from the Prophets in the Hebrew, nor denote any thing less than that doth.”

He concluded that the Greek expression clearly explained the Hebrew:

“So that that reading in the Greek in both Testaments is not a diminution of what is said in the Hebrew, but a perspicuous explication of it.”

Pococke did not assume that the apostles always followed the Greek. Nor did he condemn Greek translations merely because their wording differed from the Hebrew.

“Violence to the Text” to Accommodate a Translation

At Joel 2:31, Pococke opposed changing the Hebrew to explain the Greek translation:

“This certainly is a safer way, than to offer violence to the text, by a never before observed different reading; for that which we now follow is confirmed by the joint consent, not only of modern, but also of more ancient Translators, such as lived before the invention of printing, at several places and several ages, so that they cannot be said to have all followed one copy, who rendered all in the same sense that we now take from the present ordinary reading of the Hebrew.”

His wider objection to freely changing the biblical text appears in his Latin notes:

Nam si ita literas ac verba mutare & transferre liceat, ubi tandem pedem figemus? tot erunt textus sacri, quot Critici vel Interpretes, sive in conjectando feliciores, sive paullum æquo doctiores.

Translation: “For if letters and words may thus be changed and transposed, where shall we finally take our stand? There will be as many sacred texts as critics or interpreters, whether more successful in conjecture or a little more learned than is proper.”

A differing translation required investigation. It did not give scholars permission to change the Hebrew according to their guesses.

Assessment

Pococke documented conflicting Greek copies, scribal additions, explanatory notes entering the text, and altered verse order. He valued the Greek translation while denying that its age, surviving condition, or use by the apostles established its superiority to the Hebrew.

Sources: Edward Pococke, The Theological Works of the Learned Dr. Pocock, 2 vols. (London, 1740), vol. I, preface to Micah, opening paragraphs and discussion of the appendix to Job; commentary on Malachi 4:6, p. 201; Joel 1:15, p. 242; Joel 2:28, p. 302; Joel 2:31, p. 312; vol. II, Hosea 8:13, p. 374; Hosea 10:10, p. 467; Hosea 11:1, pp. 502–503; Hosea 13:4, p. 645; Hosea 13:12, p. 664; Hosea 14:4, p. 694. Pococke, Notae miscellaneae in Portam Mosis (Oxford, 1705), pp. 15–16. English spelling modernized; wording and grammar retained.

32. John Gregory (1607–1646)

John Gregory was an English scholar and chaplain of Christ Church, Oxford. In A Discourse of the LXX Interpreters and A Disproof of the Second Cainan, he examined the history of the Septuagint at considerable length. Gregory attributed serious corruption to the surviving Greek text and argued that some changes to its chronological numbers were deliberate rather than accidental.

“Divers and Dangerous Corruptions”

Discussing efforts to correct the Greek translation, Gregory writes:

“This though in itself a very laudable and pious Enterprise, and pretended also to be most necessarily done, because of divers and dangerous Corruptions wherewith the Greek Translation was found to be encumbered….”

Gregory therefore describes corruption of the Greek text as serious enough to make correction necessary.

The Translation Was “Supernumerary and Corrupt”

Discussing differences between the Greek and Hebrew chronological numbers, Gregory concludes:

“The ways of Reconciliation and Defence being thus shut against us, the Translation itself must be called in question, and written upon as Supernumerary and Corrupt.

“For the Anni [years], ’tis evident from the method and demeanour of the undertaking, it is not of that kind as could fall out in Time, or by Transcription, but of deliberation and purpose, the number for the most part increasing by a Centenary accession.”

By “Supernumerary,” Gregory means that the Greek contained numbers added beyond the original. A “Centenary accession” is an addition of one hundred years. He argues that these changes could not plausibly have resulted merely from copying mistakes but showed deliberate alteration.

The Additional Cainan Was Absent from the “Better Copies”

Gregory connects the additional Cainan with the same deliberate changes to the chronology:

“But neither is the forgery constant to itself; for though we meet still with it in the Book of Genesis, yet in the better Copies of the Chronicles it is not found; the Projector so much forgot himself.

“Manifestly therefore both Cainan and the Numbers came in the wrong way; the design whereof, what it was, and managed by whom, I go about to show.”

He then explains how he believed the alteration occurred:

“By the Period of Theophilus the Interval from Adam to Phalec was 2891 years; to this 110 years were to be added. First therefore, and to make it look the more unlike a cheat, they cut off 20 years from Methusala’s sum; and whereas Theophilus had reckoned him at 187, they set him down 167, as in some Copies it still standeth. Then it was from Adam to Phalec 2871 years. This done, they insert a new Cainan, assigning him 130 years, which added to the former sum, precisely maketh up 3001 years from Adam to the 130 year of Phalec. And therefore Cainan was not taken into the Seventy out of St. Luke, as the Learned Grotius prejudged, but contrarily.”

Gregory believed that the extra Cainan and the altered numbers were later additions to the Greek text. He supported this argument by pointing to differences among Greek copies, particularly the absence of Cainan from what he considered the better copies of Chronicles.

His explanation of how these changes occurred remains his own historical theory, not an independently established account.

Assessment

Gregory distinguishes accidental copying errors from what he believed to be deliberate changes. He speaks of “divers and dangerous Corruptions” in the Greek translation and describes its chronology as “Supernumerary and Corrupt,” meaning that it contained additional numbers and errors. He argues that the changes were not merely the result of copying but were made “of deliberation and purpose.”

His discussion of Cainan adds evidence of differences among Greek copies. He states that the name appeared in Genesis but was absent from the “better Copies” of Chronicles. Gregory therefore regarded both Cainan and the altered chronological numbers as later additions to the Greek text, not grounds for changing the Hebrew.

Citation: John Gregory, The Works of the Learned Mr. John Gregory, 4th ed. (London: M. Clark for Richard Royston, Benjamin Tooke, and Thomas Sawbridge, 1684), A Discourse of the LXX Interpreters and A Disproof of the Second Cainan, especially pp. 86–90.

33. Abraham Calov (1612–1686)

Abraham Calov was a leading Lutheran theologian and biblical scholar who served as professor of theology at Wittenberg. In his Criticus Sacer Biblicus, he examined the authority, original languages, purity of the biblical text, and ancient translations of Scripture. His extensive discussion of the Septuagint challenged claims that the Greek translation was divinely inspired, preserved without corruption, or faithfully represented by the surviving Greek editions.

A Translation That “Abounds in Errors”

While discussing claims for the inspiration of the Septuagint, Calov writes:

Cæterum sunt hæc prorsus ἀσύστατα; versionem θεόπνευστον dicere, quæ erroribus scateat, in multis redundet, & deficiat in multis: ut & versionem saltem non contemnere, sed tolerare, & credere versionem divinam & authenticam.

Translation: “Moreover, these things are altogether inconsistent: to call a translation divinely inspired which abounds in errors, is redundant in many places, and is deficient in many places; likewise, merely not to despise but to tolerate a translation, and [at the same time] to believe it to be a divine and authentic translation.”

Calov rejects the inspiration of a translation containing errors, additions, and omissions.

Apostolic Use Does Not Establish Divine Authority

Calov addresses the argument that Christ and the apostles gave divine authority to the Septuagint by quoting it. He writes:

Usus translationis LXX. Interpp. in Nov. Test. à Christo & Apostolis adductæ non arguit, θεόπνευστον inspiratione factam eam translationem, sed docet tantùm eam celebrem & receptam fuisse cùm temporis, & præ cæteris translationibus notam atque illustrem.

Translation: “The use of the translation of the Seventy interpreters in the New Testament by Christ and the apostles does not prove that this translation was made by divine inspiration, but shows only that it was then celebrated and received, and was known and distinguished above other translations.”

Calov observes that the apostles did not always follow the Septuagint’s wording and sometimes expressed the Hebrew meaning in different words. He nevertheless acknowledges that they sometimes followed the Greek translation even where it added, omitted, or substituted words, provided these differences did not alter the meaning of Scripture. Their use of it therefore did not establish that the translation itself was divinely inspired or free from error.

Some Errors Originated with the Translators

Calov distinguishes mistakes made by the Greek translators from errors introduced afterward by copyists. Concerning the confusion of Hebrew letters and separate words, he writes:

Quibus porro Septimo accedit confusio non tantum literarum, sed & vocum distinctarum in textu originali, quæ à LXX. Interpp. facta deprehenditur in locis plurimis.

Translation: “To these, moreover, a seventh [argument] is added: the confusion not only of letters but also of distinct words in the original text, which is found to have been committed by the Seventy interpreters in many places.”

He identifies such mistakes as evidence that the translators were not prophets protected from error. He also discusses places where they misunderstood Hebrew words that could have more than one meaning.

Calov recognizes that some mistakes could have come from errors already present in the Hebrew copies used by the translators. Even then, the Greek translation would not be free from error merely because the translators followed a faulty reading.

“Everything Is Confused” in the Septuagint Edition

Discussing the Septuagint text and its chronological difficulties, Calov writes:

Ita omnia sunt perturbata in editione Septuaginta, inde ab Hieronymi ætate, quæ perturbatio sive ipsis LXX. Senioribus adscribenda sit, sive aliorum imperitiæ tribuenda, multas certe difficultates peperit….

Translation: “Thus everything is confused in the edition of the Septuagint, [as it has been] from the age of Jerome; and whether this confusion is to be attributed to the Seventy elders themselves or to the ignorance of others, it has certainly produced many difficulties….”

Calov leaves open whether these particular defects originated with the translators or arose afterward through the mistakes of others. His judgment about the resulting text, however, is unmistakable.

The Septuagint’s “Manifold Corruption and Disappearance”

Calov introduces another argument against the Septuagint’s divine authority:

Duodecimum à versionis istius multiplici corruptione & interitu.

Translation: “The twelfth [argument is drawn] from the manifold corruption and disappearance of this translation.”

He continues:

Si enim authentica & divina fuisset LXX. Interpp. versio, nunquam sane passus esset DEUS eam interire, vel ita corrumpi, ut pene interiisse videri possit.

Translation: “For if the translation of the Seventy interpreters had been authentic and divine, God certainly would never have permitted it to perish, or to become so corrupted that it might seem almost to have perished.”

Calov argues that such extensive corruption is incompatible with treating the translation as divinely inspired Scripture. His argument concerns both the original translation and the subsequent preservation of its text.

Was the Original Septuagint Still Preserved?

Calov examines whether the surviving Greek text remained as the translators originally wrote it. He reports that some scholars believed the original translation had disappeared, or that the Greek text circulating under the name of the Seventy was no longer their original work.

He cites Sanctes Pagninus, who had compared the Septuagint with the Hebrew and found so many additions, omissions, corruptions, and alterations that he doubted whether the surviving text was the original translation.

Calov does not simply adopt the view that the original translation had entirely disappeared. He considers evidence that it had survived, including quotations preserved by ancient writers. Nevertheless, he acknowledges defects in the surviving Greek editions and questions whether they reliably preserve the original wording.

Origen’s Manuscripts Could Not Establish the Original Text

Calov challenges the claim that the Greek manuscripts examined and revised by Origen faithfully preserved the original Septuagint. He asks:

Unde enim infallibiliter constat, exemplaria ab Origene recensita, & in Tetraplis, Hexaplis, & Octaplis disposita sub titulo LXX. esse ipsissimo archetypo & primigenio textui LXX. simillima, nec ullatenus discedere à primo exemplari?

Translation: “For how is it infallibly established that the copies examined by Origen and arranged in the Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla under the name of the Seventy were most closely like the very original and earliest text of the Seventy, and did not depart from the first copy at all?”

He further asks:

Quis enim vadimonium præstabit, in opere, quod emendandum susceperat Origenes, nihil uspiam irrepsisse adscititium, nihil penitus excidisse genuinum?

Translation: “For who will guarantee that, in the work which Origen undertook to correct, nothing added from elsewhere had crept in anywhere, and nothing genuine had entirely fallen out?”

Calov argues that errors could already have entered the Greek manuscripts before Origen examined them. Therefore, Origen’s corrections could not establish with certainty which readings belonged to the original translators.

He also questions whether the order of passages and words in the surviving Greek editions agrees with the original translation:

Quis ergo certos nos faciet, eam seriem rerum & verborum, quæ conspicitur in Romanâ editione conformem fuisse LXX. Interpp. editioni primigeniæ, si ne quidem Hexapla ipsa Origenis eam conformitatem observarunt?

Translation: “Who, then, will assure us that the arrangement of passages and words found in the Roman edition agreed with the original edition of the Seventy interpreters, if even Origen’s own Hexapla did not preserve that agreement?”

Calov thus identifies further difficulties in determining the original Septuagint text: additions, omissions, changed readings, and differences in the order of passages.

Furthermore, Origen used special marks to distinguish additions and other differences in the Greek text. Later copyists could omit, erase, misplace, or confuse these marks. Consequently, readers could mistake later corrections for part of the original Septuagint, or regard original material as an addition.

The Roman Edition Was Not a Pure Septuagint

Calov examines the Roman edition of the Septuagint, based principally on the Vatican manuscript. He challenges claims that this edition preserved the original translation without corruption.

He writes:

Addimus his documenta, quæ ex ipsa editione Romana colligi possunt, quod ea non omnino puram & incorruptam LXX. Interpp. versionem exhibeat.

Translation: “To these we add proofs which may be gathered from the Roman edition itself, showing that it does not present an entirely pure and uncorrupted version of the Seventy interpreters.”

Among the difficulties he identifies are differences between the Roman edition and quotations preserved by earlier Christian writers, copying errors acknowledged in the Vatican manuscript, and damaged or missing portions of that manuscript.

He also observes that the edition’s own preface acknowledged the mixture of readings from Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion with the Septuagint text. He further discusses differences between the Roman edition and other Greek manuscripts, including instances where another manuscript agreed more closely with passages quoted by ancient writers.

Calov therefore argues that neither an ancient manuscript nor a printed edition can be assumed to reproduce the original Septuagint faithfully.

No Divine or Authentic Authority

Near the conclusion of his treatment, Calov writes:

Quanquam vero ex his luculentum sit, non convenire versioni LXX. autoritatem divinam, vel authenticam….

Translation: “Although from these things it is manifest that divine or authentic authority does not belong to the Septuagint translation….”

This conclusion follows his examination of the Greek translation’s errors, later corrections, and uncertain original wording.

The Greek Must Be Subjected to the Hebrew

Calov states how the Greek translation should be judged against the Hebrew original:

Sed quia humano spiritu facta, ut cæteræ versiones omnes, conferri nullatenus potest cum originali Scriptura Prophetica, vere divina, & divinitus inspirata, verum subjici debet eidem; ita ut inserviat Ebraicæ veritati explicandæ, qua illi congruit, non præjudicet ei, nec autoritatem ullam obtineat, qua dissonat, & repugnat, sed ad eandem exigi, & castigari debeat.

Translation: “But because it was made by human agency, like all other translations, it can in no way be placed on a level with the original prophetic Scripture, which is truly divine and divinely inspired; rather, it must be subjected to it, so that it may serve in explaining the Hebrew truth where it agrees with it, but may not prejudice it nor possess any authority where it differs from and contradicts it; rather, it must be tested and corrected according to it.”

Calov allows the Septuagint to help explain the Hebrew where the two agree. Where the Greek differs from or contradicts the Hebrew, however, it has no authority against it and must itself be corrected according to the original.

Assessment

Calov provides substantial evidence against treating the Septuagint as a divinely inspired, uncorrupted, and continuously preserved Greek Old Testament. He identifies errors made by the original translators, corruption introduced during copying, and difficulties caused by later corrections. He also questions whether surviving Greek manuscripts and editions faithfully preserve the original wording.

He does not insist that the original translation entirely disappeared, but challenges claims that its exact text can be established with certainty from surviving copies. He likewise rejects the argument that apostolic use establishes the Septuagint’s inspiration.

For Calov, the Greek translation remains useful, but its authority is subordinate to the Hebrew original.

Citation: Abraham Calov, Criticus Sacer Biblicus, 2nd separate ed. (Wittenberg: Johann Borckard, 1677), “De Versione Græca LXX. Interpretum,” especially pp. 495–503, 513, 595–617.

34. John Pearson (1613–1686)

John Pearson was an English Anglican theologian and biblical scholar who became Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, and later Bishop of Chester. He strongly valued the Septuagint and wrote his Praefatio Paraenetica to encourage its study. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the Greek translation had suffered corruption and that its surviving editions and manuscripts differed considerably.

The Septuagint Had Been “Corrupted and Violated”

Near the conclusion of his preface, Pearson writes:

Quoniam autem haec Seniorum Versio, etiam S. Hieronymi tempore, corrupta fuit atque violata, danda est opera, ut ei pristina puritas restitui & redintegrari possit.

Translation: “But since this Version of the Seventy, even in the time of St. Jerome, had been corrupted and violated, care must be taken that its former purity may be restored and recovered.”

Pearson thus acknowledges that the translation had suffered corruption by Jerome’s time and required restoration to its former purity.

The Principal Greek Editions “Differ Greatly”

Pearson immediately identifies substantial differences among the surviving Greek texts:

Certum est, exemplaria quae habemus, Complutense, Aldinum, Romanum, plurimum inter se & ab Alexandrino discrepare; alios etiam Codices aliquarum S. Scripturae partium satis antiquos, nunc cum nullo convenire.

Translation: “It is certain that the copies which we possess—the Complutensian, Aldine, and Roman—differ greatly from one another and from the Alexandrian; and that other sufficiently ancient manuscripts of certain parts of Holy Scripture now agree with none of them.”

The principal printed Greek editions differed greatly from one another and from the Alexandrian manuscript. Pearson also knew of ancient manuscripts that agreed with none of them. The surviving Greek texts therefore did not present a single uniform Septuagint.

The Earlier Greek Text Had to Be Recovered

Pearson explains the work he believed necessary to restore the Septuagint:

Optime igitur fecerit, qui Codices omnes MSS. cum editis diligenter contulerit; qui varias Lectiones non tantum ad Hebraicam Veritatem examinaverit, sed cum antiquissimorum Judaeorum, Philonis & Josephi, & vetustissimorum Patrum Scriptis comparaverit, ac denique Expositiones eas, quae apud Lexicographos Scripturarios etiamnum extant, vel potius delitescunt, inspexerit, atque ita nobis Editionem LXX. maxime puram adornaverit.

Translation: “He therefore will have done exceedingly well who carefully compares all the manuscripts with the printed editions; who examines the various readings not only according to the Hebrew truth, but also compares them with the writings of the most ancient Jews, of Philo and Josephus, and of the earliest Fathers; and finally examines those explanations which still exist, or rather lie concealed, among the writers of biblical dictionaries, and thus prepares for us an edition of the Seventy as pure as possible.”

Pearson did not assume that any surviving edition faithfully preserved the original translation. He called for careful comparison of Greek manuscripts and printed editions, using the Hebrew and ancient writings to investigate their differences.

He then expressed the hope that a capable scholar would undertake this work:

Quale opus utinam aliquando vir doctissimus Isaacus Vossius, qui optime potest, perficeret ederetque.

Translation: “Would that the most learned Isaac Vossius, who is exceedingly capable of it, might someday complete and publish such a work.”

The Septuagint Remained Valuable for Understanding Scripture

Pearson’s acknowledgment of corruption did not diminish his favorable view of the Septuagint. He commended its usefulness for understanding the Hebrew Old Testament, the New Testament, and the writings of early Christians:

Cum igitur LXX. viralis Versio ad Hebraicam Veritatem probe percipiendam, ad Authoritatem testimoniorum Apostolicorum confirmandam, ad nativum Novi Foederis stylum recte intelligendum, ad Graecos Latinosque Patres rite tractandos, ad scientiam denique linguae Graecae ipsamque Criticen adornandam tam sit utilis atque necessaria, quis eam doctis omnibus, praesertim Theologis, non videt debere esse commendatissimam?

Translation: “Since, therefore, the Version of the Seventy is so useful and necessary for thoroughly understanding the Hebrew truth, confirming the authority of the apostles’ testimonies, rightly understanding the natural style of the New Testament, properly studying the Greek and Latin Fathers, and advancing knowledge of the Greek language and textual criticism itself, who does not see that it ought to be most highly commended to all learned men, especially theologians?”

Pearson therefore highly valued the Septuagint while recognizing that its Greek text had suffered corruption through copying and survived in substantially different forms.

Assessment

Pearson is particularly valuable because he was a strong defender of the Septuagint. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that its text had been “corrupted and violated” and that the principal Greek editions and ancient manuscripts differed considerably.

He did not dismiss these differences. Instead, he called for careful comparison of surviving manuscripts and editions, using the Hebrew and ancient writings, to produce a Greek text as close as possible to the original translation.

His testimony distinguishes the value of the ancient translation from the condition of its later copies. For Pearson, the Septuagint remained highly useful, but its former purity had to be recovered through investigation rather than assumed to survive unchanged in any particular edition.

Citation: John Pearson, Praefatio Paraenetica ad Vetus Testamentum Graecum ex Versione Septuaginta Interpretum, prefixed to Vetus Testamentum Graecum ex Versione Septuaginta Interpretum: juxta exemplar Vaticanum Romae editum (Cambridge: John Field, 1665); reprinted in John Ernest Grabe, Hē Palaia Diathēkē kata tous Hebdomēkonta (Zurich, 1730–1732), “Joannis Pearsoni Praefatio Paraenetica,” concluding page; see also The Minor Theological Works of John Pearson, ed. Edward Churton, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1844), pp. 274–275.

35. John Owen (1616–1683)

John Owen was an English Reformed theologian, Puritan divine, and leading Congregationalist. His extensive writings on Scripture include sustained defenses of the authority and preservation of the Hebrew Old Testament and repeated discussions of the origin, textual condition, and authority of the Greek Old Testament. Owen did not merely identify occasional errors in the Septuagint. He questioned the traditional account of its origin, distinguished errors of the original translators from later corruptions and interpolations, rejected attempts to correct the Hebrew text by means of the Greek, and argued that apparent agreements between New Testament citations and the extant Greek Old Testament could sometimes have arisen because Christian copyists altered Greek copies to conform them to apostolic wording.

“It Now Differs from the Hebrew Truth in Six Hundred Places”

In his Latin Theologoumena Pantodapa, later translated as Biblical Theology, Owen devoted an extended digression to the Septuagint. He maintained that the surviving Greek text differed extensively from the Hebrew and rejected the argument that Christ’s or the apostles’ use of particular wording established the authority of the Greek version:

Unde illud factum sit, negari non potest, eam jam sexcentis in locis abs Hebraica veritate dissentire, atque saepe verba dare, quibus subest nullus lenius tolerabilis, in quibus exponendis, quam frustra sint interpretes, non opus est dicere; res ipsa patet. Sunt tamen, qui, Servatorem nostrum ea versione usum fuisse, atque ita Ecclesiae commendasse, affirmant; porro uti sacrificulus quidam scribit, eum Missas cantare solitum. De novi Testamenti scriptoribus majori cum probabilitatis specie id affirmari posse videtur. Multi enim loca veteris Testamenti in eorum scriptis recitantur iisdem verbis, quae etiamnum extant in Versione Graeca; quamvis saepissime ab Hebraicis in nonnullis discrepare videantur. Discrepantiam istam verborum tantum esse, non etiam sensus ostendunt plurimi; nonnulli etiam Apostolos textum Hebraicum revera secutos esse, ubi vulgo versioni Graecae adhaesisse videntur. Maxime arridet illorum sententia, qui Spiritum Sanctum totius Scripturae Auctorem pro arbitrio suo mentem propriam exponentem, testimonia ex veteri in novum Testamentum, quae ipsi placerent verbis utens, traduxisse affirmant; Graecae autem versionis excriptores Christianos, sensim ea ipsa verba, ei inseruisse.

Translation: “Whatever may have caused this, it cannot be denied that it now differs from the Hebrew truth in six hundred places, and often gives words beneath which there lies no tolerable sense; how vainly interpreters labor in explaining these it is unnecessary to say, for the matter itself is evident. There are nevertheless those who affirm that our Savior used this version and thereby commended it to the Church; much as a certain priest writes that he was accustomed to sing Mass. With respect to the writers of the New Testament, this may seem capable of being affirmed with a greater appearance of probability. For many passages of the Old Testament are recited in their writings in the same words that still occur in the Greek Version, although they very frequently appear in some respects to differ from the Hebrew. Many show that this discrepancy is one of words only and not of sense; some also maintain that the apostles actually followed the Hebrew text where they are commonly thought to have adhered to the Greek version. Very pleasing is the opinion of those who maintain that the Holy Spirit, the Author of the whole Scripture, in expressing His own mind according to His pleasure, conveyed testimonies from the Old Testament into the New using whatever words He pleased; and that Christian copyists of the Greek version gradually inserted those very words into it.”

Owen immediately adds:

Haud desunt argumenta validissima, quibus nituntur sententiae hujus auctores.

Translation: “There are very strong arguments on which the advocates of this opinion rely.”

Thus Owen did not regard verbal correspondence between the New Testament and surviving Greek Old Testament copies as proof that the apostles had simply quoted a fixed Septuagint text. He expressly entertained—and favored—the reverse direction of textual dependence: apostolic wording could subsequently have entered Greek Old Testament manuscripts.

“Innumerable Corruptions and Interpolations”

Owen rejected the conjecture that disagreements between the Septuagint and the Hebrew should ordinarily be explained by supposing that the translators possessed superior Hebrew manuscripts now lost. In Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture, he wrote:

“But will this indeed be pleaded? May it not be extended to all places as well as to any? and may not men plead so for every variation made by the LXX. from the original, that they had other copies than any that now are extant? Better all old translations should be consumed out of the earth than that such a figment should be admitted. That there are innumerable other reasons to be assigned of the variations from the original,—as the translators’ own inadvertency, negligence, ignorance (for the wisest see not all), desire to expound and clear the sense, and, as it was likely, of altering and varying many things from the original, with the innumerable corruptions and interpolations that have befallen that translation, indifferently well witnessed unto by the various lections exhibited in the Appendix,—it were easy to manifest.”

This passage is important because Owen distinguishes two separate sources of disagreement with the Hebrew. Some arose from the translators themselves—their “inadvertency, negligence, ignorance,” attempts to explain the meaning, or deliberate alterations—while others resulted from the “innumerable corruptions and interpolations” introduced into the Greek afterward. He therefore rejected the assumption that differences between the Greek and Hebrew proved that the translators had used older Hebrew manuscripts containing readings no longer preserved in the Hebrew text.

When Owen finally turns specifically to the Septuagint in the same treatise, his judgment is sweeping:

“The Septuagint is that which must bear the weight of the whole. And good reason there is, indeed, that it should answer for the most of the rest, they being evidently taken out of it, and so they are oftentimes worse; yet they are now better than that is. But here again all things are exceedingly uncertain; nothing almost is manifest concerning it but that it is wofully corrupt. Its rise is uncertain. Some call the whole story of that translation into question as though there had never been any such persons in rerum natura. The circumstances that are reported about them and their works are certainly fabulous.”

Owen thus denied that the Septuagint provided a stable textual authority by which the Hebrew could be reconstructed or corrected. Its origin was uncertain, its traditional history was entangled with what he regarded as fable, and its transmitted text was “wofully corrupt.”

Christian Transcribers Inserted The Apostle’s Expressions into the LXX Text

Owen developed the same argument at much greater length in his Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews. After examining the Old Testament citations in Hebrews, he explicitly rejected the assertion that the apostle regularly quoted from the Septuagint:

“It is evident that they are exceedingly mistaken who affirm that the apostle cites all his testimonies out of the translation of the LXX., as we intimated is by some pleaded. . . . Should he have had any respect unto that translation, it were impossible to give any tolerable account whence he should so much differ from it almost in every quotation, as is plain that he doth.”

When dealing with those places in which the New Testament and the extant Greek Old Testament do agree against the Hebrew, Owen again proposes later assimilation of the Greek copies:

“Concerning these and some other places, many confidently affirm that the apostle waived the original, and reported the words from the translation of the LXX. Cappellus with some others proceed further, and assign the rise of this difference unto some other copies of the Hebrew text, used by the LXX., varying from those which now remain. . . . But as [the Hebrew] may well signify as the apostle expounds it, and in other places doth so, as we shall see afterwards, so this boldness in correcting the text, and fancying, without proof, testimony, or probability, of other ancient copies of the scripture of the Old Testament, differing in many things from them which alone remain, and which indeed were ever in the world, may quickly prove pernicious to the church of God. We must therefore look after another expedient for the removal of this difficulty.

“I say, then, it is highly probable that the apostle, according to his wonted manner, which appears in almost all the citations used by him in this Epistle, reporting the sense and importance of the places in words of his own, the Christian transcribers of the Greek Bible inserted his expressions into the text; either as judging them a more proper version of the original, whereof they were ignorant, than that of the LXX., or out of a preposterous zeal to take away the appearance of a diversity between the text and the apostle’s citation of it. And thus, in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, the apostle took not his words from the translation of the LXX., but his words were afterwards inserted into that translation.”

Owen therefore did not merely suggest that Christian copyists had altered the Greek Old Testament to agree with the apostles’ wording. He called it “highly probable” and used it to explain specific passages in which the surviving Greek wording corresponded more closely to the apostle than to the Hebrew.

“Some Copies of the LXX Have Been Tampered Withal”

Owen’s examination of Hebrews led him to emphasize that apostolic citations could agree with the Hebrew, agree in wording with a Greek rendering, or express the sense in language differing from both. His governing principle was that the inspired New Testament writer was not bound to reproduce the words of any translation.

In Biblical Theology he states:

“Very pleasing is the opinion of those who maintain that the Holy Spirit, in citing the testimonies of the Old Testament, did not always adhere to the precise words either of the Hebrew text or of any of the Greek versions, but, as the author of the whole Scripture, used words of his own, most suitable to his present purpose; hence it is that the apostles sometimes agree with the Hebrew text, sometimes with the Greek, and sometimes differ from both.”

His exposition of Hebrews supplies concrete evidence for what he believed had subsequently happened to Greek copies. On Hebrews 3:7–11, where the apostolic wording and the Greek Psalter show signs of convergence, Owen writes:

“The LXX. and Vulgar Latin in the psalm follow the original; though some copies of the LXX. have been tampered withal, to bring them to conformity with the apostle here, as usually it hath fallen out. And there is no doubt but that the order of the words in the Syriac version on the psalm came from this place.”

He continues only a few lines later:

“The LXX. in the psalm have taken in these words of the apostle, and left out those of the original.”

This is especially significant because Owen describes such conformity to apostolic wording not as an isolated accident but as something that had happened “usually.” His general theory in Biblical Theology and the Exercitations is therefore accompanied by concrete textual judgments in his verse-by-verse exposition.

“Strange That So Corrupt a Stream Should Be Judged a Fit Means to Cleanse the Fountain”

Owen’s strongest statements occur when he addresses attempts to use the Septuagint as an authority over the Hebrew. In Of the Divine Original, Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures, he writes:

“It was an unhappy attempt, (which must afterward be spoken unto,) that a learned man hath of late put himself upon, viz., to prove variations in all the present Ἀπόγραφα of the Old Testament in the Hebrew tongue from the copies used of old, merely upon uncertain conjectures and the credit of corrupt translations. Whether that plea of his be more unreasonable in itself and devoid of any real ground of truth, or injurious to the love and care of God over his Word and church, I know not; sure I am, it is both in a high degree. The translation especially insisted on by him is that of the LXX. That this translation either from the mistakes of its first authors, (if it be theirs whose name and number it bears,) or the carelessness, or ignorance, or worse, of its transcribers,—is corrupted and gone off from the original in a thousand places twice told, is acknowledged by all who know aught of these things. Strange that so corrupt a stream should be judged a fit means to cleanse the fountain; that such a Lesbian rule should be thought a fit measure to correct the original by.”

Owen returned to substantially the same controversy in Pneumatologia, this time attacking directly the preference of the Septuagint over the Hebrew:

“And I cannot but wonder how some seem to take shelter unto their opinions, especially that of preferring the translation of the LXX. unto the original Hebrew text, or, as they fondly speak, ‘the present copy of it,’ in the church of England, whose publicly authorized and excellent translation takes no more notice of, nor hath any more regard unto that translation, when it differs from the Hebrew, as it doth in a thousand places, than if it had never been in the world. And as no translations are in common use in the whole world but what were immediately traduced out of the Hebrew original, excepting only some part of the vulgar Latin, so I verily believe that those very Christians who contend for a preference to be given unto that of the LXX. . . . would not dare to advise a translation out of that to be made and composed for the use of that church which they adhere unto . . . to the rejection and exclusion of that taken out of the original: and to have two recommended unto common use, so discrepant as they would be found to be, would certainly be of more disadvantage to the church. . . .”

Owen’s objection was not that the Greek Old Testament lacked historical value or usefulness in explaining Scripture. He objected to treating a translation containing errors, corruption, and later additions as an authority for replacing or correcting the Hebrew original.

Assessment

Owen is one of the strongest witnesses in this collection. His testimony reaches far beyond isolated complaints about mistranslation. He denies that the surviving Greek Old Testament can be treated as a single securely transmitted standard, distinguishes errors of translation from later textual corruption, describes its corruptions and interpolations as “innumerable,” says it had departed from the Hebrew in “a thousand places twice told,” rejects conjectural correction of the Hebrew from Septuagint variations, and repeatedly argues that apostolic wording was sometimes inserted afterward into Greek Old Testament copies. His conclusion is expressed with exceptional clarity: a “corrupt stream” cannot be used “to cleanse the fountain.”

Citation: John Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, sive De Natura, Ortu, Progressu, et Studio Veræ Theologiæ Libri Sex (Oxford, 1661), lib. V, digressio II; English translation in Biblical Theology: The History of Theology from Adam to Christ, or The Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of Theological Truth, in Six Books, trans. Stephen P. Westcott (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994), pp. 540–546, 553; John Owen, Of the Divine Original, Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures and Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 16 (Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1853), pp. 301, 409–410; John Owen, Pneumatologia, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1852), pp. 232–234; John Owen, Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Exercitation V, §§14, 18–20, and An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, on Hebrews 3:7–11.

36. Johann Andreas Quenstedt (1617–1688)

Johann Andreas Quenstedt was a prominent Lutheran theologian and professor at Wittenberg, associated with the later period of Lutheran orthodoxy. In his Theologia Didactico-Polemica, he examined the authority and preservation of Scripture and discussed at length the Greek translation associated with the Seventy. His statements concerning its errors, corruption, additions, alterations, omissions, and surviving condition make him one of the stronger Lutheran witnesses in the collection.

The Septuagint “Abounds with Many Errors and Corruptions”

Quenstedt denies that the Greek translation possesses the authority of the Hebrew original and gives several reasons for his judgment:

Nec LXX. Interpp. Translationi Graecae V. Test. αὐθεντίας laudem tribuere possumus…. 2. quia multis scatet erroribus & corruptelis. Saepius ab Hebraeo Archetypo discrepat, multa ad eum addit, multa mutat, nonnulla quoque praetermittit.

Translation: “Nor can we attribute authentic authority to the Greek translation of the Old Testament by the Seventy interpreters…. Second, because it abounds with many errors and corruptions. It frequently differs from the Hebrew archetype, adds many things to it, changes many things, and also omits some things.”

His criticism extends beyond occasional mistranslations. He speaks generally of “many errors and corruptions” and expressly identifies additions, changes, and omissions. His objection therefore concerns both the accuracy of the Greek translation and the reliability of the text preserved in later copies.

“So Corrupted and Vitiated That It Seems to Be Altogether Another”

Quenstedt directly considers whether the ancient translation of the Seventy still survives. After examining different opinions, he adopts what he calls the “third and truer opinion,” which he also attributes to the Roman Catholic theologian Robert Bellarmine:

Restat tertia sententia & verior, eorum, qui asseverant, superesse quidem adhuc LXX. Interp. translationem, sed adeo corruptam & vitiatam, ut omnino alia esse videatur….

Translation: “There remains the third and truer opinion, that of those who assert that the translation of the Seventy interpreters does indeed still survive, but so corrupted and vitiated that it seems to be altogether another [translation]….”

Quenstedt does not maintain that the ancient Septuagint has wholly disappeared. Instead, he accepts that the translation survives, but in a condition so altered by corruption that it appears to be an altogether different version. This distinction is important: a translation may continue to exist under its ancient name without faithfully preserving its original wording.

He reinforces this judgment when speaking expressly of the Greek text existing in his own day:

Ex infinitis erroribus, quibus hodierna LXX. Versio Graeca repleta est….

Translation: “From the innumerable errors with which the present Greek version of the Seventy is filled….”

The word hodierna—“present”—makes the distinction clear. Quenstedt is describing the Greek version available in his own age as filled with “innumerable errors.” His criticism therefore extends beyond mistakes that may have been made by the original translators to the condition of the Greek text after centuries of copying and alteration.

The Greek, Not the Hebrew, Is “Vitiated and Corrupted”

Quenstedt rejects the argument that disagreement between the Hebrew and Greek necessarily proves corruption of the Hebrew:

Inepta ergo est illa Pontificiorum quorundam assertio: Hebraeus textus & LXX. Interpp. Translatio discrepant, Ergo Hebraeus textus est corruptus: Invertendum potius est argumentum, Ergo LXX. Interpp. Translatio est vitiata & depravata.

Translation: “Therefore that assertion of certain Papists is inept: ‘The Hebrew text and the translation of the Seventy interpreters disagree; therefore the Hebrew text is corrupt.’ Rather the argument must be inverted: therefore the translation of the Seventy interpreters is vitiated and corrupted.”

Quenstedt rejects the assumption that a difference between the Greek and Hebrew establishes that the Greek preserves the correct reading and the Hebrew has been corrupted. He instead regards the Greek translation as the defective text. Differences between the two therefore cannot simply be used as evidence that the Septuagint preserves an older and more trustworthy Hebrew reading.

“Superfluous Addition” in the Greek Version

Quenstedt applies the same judgment to longer readings found in the Greek:

Versio LXX. Interp. uti multis mendis scatet, ita hoc quoque est mendosum & adscititium…. non ergo in Hebraeo textu detractionem, sed in Graeca versione superfluam additionem agnoscimus. Tales additiones Graecae occurrunt Gen. XI.12. Gen. XLVI.20. &c.

Translation: “Just as the version of the Seventy interpreters abounds with many errors, so this also is erroneous and adventitious…. Therefore we recognize not an omission in the Hebrew text, but a superfluous addition in the Greek version. Such Greek additions occur in Genesis 11:12, Genesis 46:20, etc.”

Quenstedt distinguishes between material belonging to the Hebrew text and material which, in his judgment, was added in the Greek. A longer Greek reading does not necessarily prove that words have been omitted from the Hebrew. In the examples he identifies, he regards the additional Greek material as an error rather than evidence of a missing Hebrew passage.

These examples give specific support to his broader criticism that the Greek translation contains additions, alterations, and omissions. They also explain why he rejects using differences in the Septuagint as grounds for correcting the Hebrew.

Assessment

Quenstedt is one of the stronger Lutheran witnesses in this collection. He states that the Septuagint “abounds with many errors and corruptions,” adds material, changes material, and omits material. He also describes the Greek version available in his own day as filled with “innumerable errors” and rejects the argument that differences between the Greek and Hebrew prove corruption of the Hebrew.

His most important judgment concerns the survival of the ancient translation. Adopting an opinion he also attributes to Bellarmine, Quenstedt maintains that the Septuagint still exists, but has become “so corrupted and vitiated that it seems to be altogether another” version.

His testimony therefore distinguishes the continued existence of the Septuagint from the faithful preservation of its original text. In Quenstedt’s judgment, the survival of Greek manuscripts and editions under the name of the Seventy does not establish that the ancient translation has been preserved unchanged or in a pure form.

Citation: Johann Andreas Quenstedt, Theologia Didactico-Polemica, sive Systema Theologicum (Wittenberg, 1691), Pars I, Cap. IV, Sect. II, pp. 201, 203, 212.

37. Johann Heinrich Hottinger (1620–1667)

Johann Heinrich Hottinger was a Swiss Reformed theologian, biblical scholar, and professor at Zürich. His writings examined the origin, differences, and preservation of the Greek Old Testament. He distinguished the ancient Septuagint from the damaged, altered, and mixed Greek texts that had survived to his own day.

Different Greek Translations Could “Coalesce into One”

In his 1646 study of the Greek Old Testament, Hottinger discussed agreements between the Greek and Samaritan forms of the Law of Moses. One explanation he considered was that two Greek translations had subsequently been combined:

duplex Versio Graeca … altera ex Hebraeo, altera ex Samaritano contextu, coaluit in unam.

Translation: “Two Greek versions … one from the Hebrew, the other from the Samaritan text, coalesced into one.”

Hottinger did not establish that this had occurred, but considered it a possible explanation for agreements between different forms of the biblical text. His discussion raises the possibility that a Greek text transmitted as one version might contain material from previously separate translations.

Differences Caused by Translators, Copyists, and Later Changes

Hottinger’s 1647 study examined disagreements between the Hebrew text and the Greek Old Testament attributed to the Seventy. He identified several causes, including mistakes made by the translators and later changes to Greek copies.

In a discussion of Nehemiah 8, he says that the Greek interpreters translated part of the passage:

paulo confusius

Translation: “somewhat confusedly.”

He then observes:

Praedicatum de suo addiderunt.

Translation: “They added the predicate of their own.”

Concerning their understanding of the Hebrew wording, he writes:

Grammaticum certe sensum … non satis accurate sunt assequuti.

Translation: “They certainly did not attain the grammatical sense with sufficient accuracy.”

Hottinger therefore recognized that differences between Hebrew and Greek could result from confused renderings, additional words, or misunderstandings by the translators themselves, rather than from a different or more accurate Hebrew manuscript.

The Greek Copies Were “Considerably Disturbed”

In his 1647 study, Hottinger identified a tenth cause of disagreement:

Accedit Decimò Judaeorum & Haereticorum perfidia, quâ codices Graeci non parùm fuere turbati. Quod enim Patres nonnulli acrius in Judaeos tanquam Scripturae corruptores invehiuntur, non intelligi debet de fontibus Hebraeis, ac si illos profanè tractâssent, sed tantùm de versione Graeca….

Translation: “There is added, tenthly, the perfidy of Jews and heretics, by which the Greek copies were considerably disturbed. For when some of the Fathers inveigh rather sharply against the Jews as corrupters of Scripture, this ought not to be understood of the Hebrew sources, as though they had treated them profanely, but only of the Greek version….”

Hottinger attributed some alterations of Greek manuscripts to Jews and heretics. This was his historical judgment, not independent proof that particular groups made those changes.

His distinction is important: he argued that certain early Christian accusations against Jews for corrupting Scripture concerned the Greek translation, not the Hebrew original. Those accusations therefore could not simply be used to establish deliberate corruption of the Hebrew Old Testament.

The Present Greek Version Was “Corrupted, Altered, and Mutilated”

After examining the causes of disagreement, Hottinger states his conclusions:

Ex his autem quae hactenus dicta sunt sequentia emergunt πορίσματα.

1. Ex versione Graeca Contextum Hebr. non esse emendandum.

2. Versionem Graecam hodiernam ita esse corruptam, mutatam, mutilatam, ut illius integritatis & genuinitatis lineamenta magnam partem perierint.

Translation: “From what has been said thus far, the following conclusions emerge:

“1. The Hebrew text is not to be emended from the Greek version.

“2. The present Greek version has been so corrupted, altered, and mutilated that the features of its integrity and genuineness have for the most part disappeared.”

Hottinger describes the Greek text existing in his own day as “corrupted, altered, and mutilated,” with much of its original character lost. He consequently rejects correcting the Hebrew on the authority of this damaged Greek text.

The Ancient Greek Translation Required Restoration

Hottinger’s third conclusion explains the work he believed necessary:

Magnum operae pretium facturum illum, qui vel ipsam versionem antiquam castigaret, omnes differentiarum fontes ostenderet, loca transposita restitueret, luxata redintegraret; vel novam, eamque ad veritatem Hebraeam exactam translationem adornaret.

Translation: “He would perform a work of great value who would either correct the ancient version itself, show all the sources of its differences, restore transposed passages, repair damaged ones; or prepare a new translation, one conformed to the Hebrew original.”

Hottinger called for investigating the differences, restoring passages appearing in the wrong places, and repairing damaged passages. Alternatively, he proposed a new translation following the Hebrew original. Neither proposal assumes that the ancient Greek translation had survived unchanged.

Only “Ruins and Remnants” of the Old Version

In further studies published in 1648, Hottinger writes:

Quia vero rudera tantum & λείψανα Veteris versionis habemus….

Translation: “Since, however, we have only ruins and remnants of the old version….”

He also describes the Greek text as:

corruptam depravatamque locis infinitis

Translation: “corrupted and depraved in innumerable places.”

Hottinger thus describes what survived of the ancient translation as its “ruins and remnants,” with corruption extending far beyond a few isolated manuscript differences.

Even Corrected Greek Texts Retained “Notorious and Intolerable Errors”

Hottinger examined attempts to correct the Greek version and wrote that it had:

non sic correctam esse, quin notorii & intolerabiles in ea deprehendantur errores.

Translation: “not been so corrected that notorious and intolerable errors are not found in it.”

For Hottinger, attempts to correct the Greek had not eliminated its serious errors or assured the recovery of its original wording.

The Septuagint Underwent Repeated Correction and Restoration

In his Bibliothecarius quadripartitus, Hottinger distinguished several Greek translations and named men associated with correcting or restoring the Septuagint:

Graecorum versiones sunt variae, Veteres & Novae. Ex illis praecedit a. Judaeorum Aegyptiorum LXX. Viralis, ut appellari solet, cujus correctores & restitutores sunt Origenes, Lucianus, Hesychius, Eusebius & Pamphilus, Basilius, Patrophilus, Iohannes Iosephus, Apollinarius. b. Samaritanorum Symmachi. c. Aquilae, Theodotionis.

Translation: “The Greek translations are various, ancient and modern. Among the ancient ones, first comes that of the Egyptian Jews, commonly called the Version of the Seventy, whose correctors and restorers include Origen, Lucian, Hesychius, Eusebius and Pamphilus, Basil, Patrophilus, John Josephus, and Apollinarius. Then comes that of Symmachus, associated with the Samaritans, and those of Aquila and Theodotion.”

Hottinger distinguished the Septuagint from other Greek translations and identified successive scholars involved in its correction and restoration. His list includes Origen, Lucian, Hesychius, Eusebius, and Pamphilus.

These corrections matter because later scholars did not merely preserve existing copies. They examined and revised Greek texts. Consequently, the fact that a later manuscript bore the name “Septuagint” did not establish that its wording was identical to what the original translators had written.

Origen’s Work and the Mixing of Greek Translations

Hottinger’s discussions of Origen’s Hexapla concern the relationships among the Greek translations and later changes to the Septuagint. Origen arranged the Hebrew text alongside Greek translations associated with the Seventy, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.

Hottinger expressly states:

Graecorum versiones sunt variae, Veteres & Novae.

Translation: “The Greek translations are various, ancient and modern.”

He identifies Origen among the Septuagint’s:

correctores & restitutores

Translation: “correctors and restorers.”

Origen compared these translations and used readings from other Greek versions when correcting the Septuagint. He placed special marks beside certain words to distinguish additions and other differences.

During later copying, those marks could be lost, omitted, misplaced, or misunderstood. As a result, words taken from another Greek translation could be copied as though they belonged to the original Septuagint.

Hottinger’s broader discussions concern the mixing of readings from other Greek versions, particularly Theodotion, with the text attributed to the Seventy. Separate Greek translations could become combined, and explanatory notes originally written beside the biblical text could eventually be copied into the text itself.

These were different ways in which the Greek Old Testament could change while continuing to be called the “Septuagint.” The short quotations reproduced here establish that Hottinger distinguished the Greek translations and identified Origen as a corrector. They do not, by themselves, establish every detail concerning later copying.

The Apostles and Early Christians Did Not Always Follow the Septuagint

In his 1648 disputation, Hottinger argued that early Christians who highly esteemed the Septuagint did not necessarily consider it the only authoritative Greek version:

Alij non pauci, etsi de editione LXX. virali magnificè senserint; authenticam tamen, id est, talem cujus vestigia, tum in citationibus, tum in commentationibus, religiosè ubique premenda; ad quam versiones aliae examinandae & corrigendae; & à qua ne latum quidem unguem discedendum; non agnoverunt, id quod ex sequentibus constat rationibus.

I. Quia Apostoli versione LXX. virali ita sunt liberè usi, ut, vel ejus verba exprimerent: vel ad contextum Hebraeum recurrerent: vel, ut Gabriel Sionita praef. Psalterij Syriaci monet, translationem Syriacam sequerentur: vel etiam verba Paraphrastarum Chaldaeorum retinerent.

Atque hanc ipsam quoque libertatem Patribus perquam familiarem fuisse, patet ex eo, quia

A. Modò alijs prorsus verbis Graecis, Patres antiquissimi in scriptis suis utuntur, quàm quae in editione Graeca extant.

B. Modò multarum vocum, phrasium, & periocharum explicatio melior censetur & exactior ab ijsdem, apud Aquilam, Symmachum, aut Theodotionem, quam LXX. Interpretes.

Translation: “Not a few others, although they thought highly of the Version of the Seventy, nevertheless did not acknowledge it as authentic—that is, as a version whose wording must everywhere be religiously followed in quotations and explanations, according to which other translations must be examined and corrected, and from which one must not depart even by the slightest amount. This is evident from the following reasons.

“First, because the apostles used the Version of the Seventy so freely that they sometimes reproduced its words, sometimes returned to the Hebrew text, sometimes, as Gabriel Sionita observes in the preface to the Syriac Psalter, followed the Syriac translation, and sometimes even retained the words of the Chaldean paraphrasers.

“And that this same freedom was also very familiar to the Fathers is evident because:

“A. At times the most ancient Fathers, in their writings, use Greek words altogether different from those found in the Greek edition.

“B. At times those same Fathers judge the explanation of many words, phrases, and passages to be better and more accurate in Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion than in the Seventy interpreters.”

Hottinger argued that the apostles and early Christian writers did not always follow the Septuagint or treat it as the standard for correcting other translations. Even those who highly valued it sometimes preferred the Hebrew or other Greek versions.

This establishes the use of competing translations, not the separate question of whether readings from those translations subsequently entered Septuagint manuscripts.

The Hebrew Was Not to Be Corrected from This Greek Tradition

Hottinger gives his rule plainly:

Ex versione Graeca Contextum Hebr. non esse emendandum.

Translation: “The Hebrew text is not to be emended from the Greek version.”

He did not deny the Greek translation’s usefulness for studying Scripture, ancient translations, or differences among manuscripts. Rather, he rejected making the surviving Greek text an unquestionable authority for correcting the Hebrew.

His reasons included errors by the original translators, corruption during copying, displaced and damaged passages, mixture with other Greek readings, and serious errors remaining after correction. His account of apostolic and early Christian practice also challenged the assumption that the Septuagint had always been treated as the sole authoritative Greek version.

Assessment

Hottinger describes the surviving Greek Old Testament as “corrupted, altered, and mutilated,” with much of its original character lost. He calls what remained of the ancient translation its “ruins and remnants,” identifies corruption in “innumerable places,” and acknowledges serious errors even in corrected texts.

He identifies mistakes made by translators, later corruption, additions, damaged and displaced passages, repeated correction, and the mixing of different Greek translations. He also argues that the apostles and early Christian writers did not always follow the Septuagint and sometimes preferred other translations.

Hottinger therefore rejects correcting the Hebrew from the surviving Greek. Instead, he recommends restoring the damaged ancient translation or preparing a new translation following the Hebrew original. His testimony distinguishes the survival of a Greek text called the Septuagint from the faithful preservation of its original wording.

Citation: Johann Heinrich Hottinger, praeses, and Johannes Hegner, respondent, Quaestionum historicarum de editione V.T. Graeca, LXXII. interpretibus Hierosolymitanis vulgò tributa tetras prima (Zürich: Johann Jakob Bodmer, 1646); Johann Heinrich Hottinger, praeses, and Heinrich Erni, respondent, Quaestio de causis varietatis & discrepantiae a textu Hebraeo editionis V. T. Graecae LXXII. interpretibus Hierosolymitanis vulgo tributae (Zürich: Johann Jakob Bodmer, 1647), unpaginated, final two leaves; Hottinger, Quaestionum historicarum de editione V.T. Graeca, LXX. interpretibus Hierosolymitanis vulgò tributa, duas (Zürich: Johann Jakob Bodmer, 1648), Question I, signatures C1v–C2r; Hottinger, Quaestiones historicae de editione V. T. Graeca LXX interpretibus Hierosolymitanis vulgò tributa (Zürich, 1647–1648); Hottinger, Bibliothecarius quadripartitus (Zürich, 1664), lib. I, cap. III, §XIV, p. 144; Hottinger, De Heptaplis Parisiensibus; Hottinger, Thesaurus philologicus; Hottinger, Anti-Morinianae; Hottinger, Disputatio exegetica de S. Scripturae lectione, translatione et explicatione (Zürich, 1662), discussion of Nehemiah 8.

38. Francis Turretin (1623–1687)

Francis Turretin was a Genevan Reformed theologian and professor at the Geneva Academy, best known for his Institutio Theologiæ Elencticæ. In his treatment of Scripture, he repeatedly examined the Septuagint, distinguishing mistakes made by the original translators from corruption introduced during later copying. Although he acknowledged the Septuagint’s great antiquity, extensive use in the Church, and importance among ancient Greek translations, he denied that the surviving Greek text possessed the authority of the Hebrew original or remained in its original condition.

Is Today’s Greek Text Even the Same One the Seventy Wrote?

Turretin rejects the assumption that differences between the Hebrew and Greek must have arisen because the translators possessed different Hebrew manuscripts. He questions both the accuracy of the translators and the condition of the surviving Greek text:

Deinde quis fidem facere poterit, LXX. fidelissime secutos fuisse suum Textum Hebræum, & Textum Græcum, qui hodie legitur ipsissimum esse cum eo quem LXX. exararunt? Nam quis nescit eos sæpius ad sensum potius quam ad verba attendere potuisse, ut Hieron. non semel ait de LXX. Interpretibus? Deinde aliquando discrepantia potuit oriri ab eorum imperitia vel negligentia, quia non satis attenderunt ad verba, unde sæpius aberrare potuerunt in literis & vocibus similibus, etiam sine vario codice; ut Hiero. hoc non semel in illis carpit. Nimiam licentiam potuerunt etiam sumere, ut licet aliter legerent in suo codice, aliter tamen nimis audacter redderent, quod non satis sensum & cohærentiam Textus Hebraici assequerentur, & cum levi mutatione sensum quem existimabant commodius fluere sequi mallent.

Translation: “Then who can assure us that the Seventy followed their Hebrew text most faithfully, and that the Greek text which is read today is the very same as that which the Seventy wrote? For who does not know that they could often have attended to the sense rather than to the words, as Jerome says more than once concerning the Seventy interpreters? Then, at times, a discrepancy could have arisen from their ignorance or negligence, because they did not pay sufficient attention to the words, whence they could often have erred in similar letters and words, even without a different manuscript, as Jerome more than once censures this in them. They could also have taken excessive liberty, so that although they read one thing in their manuscript, they nevertheless rendered it otherwise too boldly, because they did not sufficiently grasp the sense and connection of the Hebrew text, and preferred, with a slight alteration, to follow the sense which they thought flowed more suitably.”

Turretin therefore did not consider every disagreement evidence that the translators had used a different Hebrew manuscript. Some differences could have resulted from their misunderstanding, carelessness, or deliberate changes to the wording. He also questioned whether the Greek text surviving in his own day was identical to what the original translators had written.

The Ancient Versions Were “No Longer Such as They Were When Originally Produced”

Turretin distinguishes mistakes made during translation from corruption introduced afterward:

Constat Versiones varias veteres non amplius tales esse quales primitus adornatæ fuerant, sed mirum in modum corruptas & immutatas, ut certum est præsertim de LXX. & Vulgata. Ex scriptorum oscitantia, vel imperitia fieri potuit, ut multæ corruptelæ in Versiones irreperent, quæ non ideo a varietate Codicum ortæ sunt.

Translation: “It is evident that the various ancient versions are no longer such as they were when originally produced, but have been wonderfully corrupted and altered, as is certain especially concerning the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Through the carelessness or ignorance of copyists, many corruptions could have crept into the versions; it does not follow on that account that they arose from differences among manuscripts.”

Turretin identifies two distinct problems: errors belonging to the original translations and corruption introduced by later copyists. He expressly states that the ancient versions, especially the Septuagint and Vulgate, were no longer in their original condition.

The Septuagint Was So Corrupted That Only Its “Ruins and Remnants” Remained

Turretin devotes Question XIV to whether the Septuagint possesses authentic authority. Although he acknowledges its antiquity and extensive historical use, he denies that it has such authority:

Quia nec rebus nec verbis convenit in multis cum fontibus, sed varias habet παρερμηνείας, & discrepantias, ut ostensum est ab illis qui hoc argumentum tractarunt. Quia non habetur hodie pura, sed mirum in modum corrupta & interpolata; Ejus rudera tantum & λείψανα habemus, ut vix possit jam vocari Versio LXX. similis navi Argo, quæ sæpius refecta, nec eadem nec alia amplius erat.

Translation: “Because in many things it agrees with the sources neither in substance nor in words, but has various false interpretations and discrepancies, as has been shown by those who have treated this subject. Because it is not possessed today in a pure form, but has been wonderfully corrupted and interpolated; we have only its ruins and remnants, so that it can now scarcely be called the version of the Septuagint, like the ship Argo, which, having been repaired so often, was no longer either the same ship or another.”

Turretin compares the surviving Septuagint to the ship Argo, which had undergone so many repairs that its original identity had become doubtful. His point is that repeated changes to the Greek text made it difficult to regard the surviving version as the same translation originally produced by the Seventy.

He also distinguishes the commonly transmitted Greek text from the original translation rather than assuming that the two are identical.

The Miraculous Story of the Seventy Was “Worthy of Little Credit”

Turretin questions the traditional account of the Septuagint’s miraculous origin. According to that account, seventy-two translators worked separately under King Ptolemy, completed their translations in seventy-two days, and produced exactly the same wording.

After discussing these claims, Turretin writes:

“If we were called upon to express an opinion, we would give our cordial assent to that of those learned men who consider all these things as worthy of little credit.”

Turretin therefore distinguished the existence of the ancient Greek translation from the miraculous claims surrounding its origin. He did not believe those claims established that the translation possessed divine authority.

No Reason to Believe the Apostles Regarded the Septuagint as “Authentic and Divine”

Turretin addresses the argument that the apostles gave the Septuagint divine authority by using its wording:

Si Apostoli sæpius usi sunt ista Versione, non ideo fecerunt, quod eam authenticam crederent & divinam, sed quia tunc temporis usitatissima erat & recepta inter omnes.

Translation: “If the apostles frequently used this version, they did not do so because they believed it to be authentic and divine, but because at that time it was very commonly used and received among all.”

He further distinguishes the authority of an inspired New Testament quotation from that of the translation from which its wording may have been taken:

Testimonia quæ ex LXX. versione allegantur in N. T. authentica sunt non per se, sive quatenus a LXX. ex Hebræo in Græcum sunt traducta, sed per accidens, quatenus approbata & sanctificata sunt a Spiritu S. & ejus afflatu ab Evangelistis in contextum sacrum relata.

Translation: “The testimonies which are cited from the Septuagint version in the New Testament are authentic not in themselves—that is, insofar as they were translated by the Seventy from Hebrew into Greek—but incidentally, insofar as they were approved and sanctified by the Holy Spirit and, under his inspiration, brought by the evangelists into the sacred text.”

Turretin therefore maintained that a quotation became authoritative through its inspired use in the New Testament, not because the entire Greek translation was divinely inspired. Apostolic use of particular wording did not establish the authority of the Septuagint as a whole.

The Great Chronological Discrepancy “Argues for Its Corruption”

Turretin points to the different chronological figures in Genesis as an example of substantial disagreement between the Hebrew and Greek texts:

Discrepantia maxima quæ occurrit inter Textum Hebraicum & Versionem LXX. in Chronologia, dum ab Orbe condito usque ad cataclysmum Hebræi Codices numerant tantum annos 1656. LXX. vero recensent 2242. non evincit Versionem istam esse authenticam, sed potius ejus corruptionem arguit. Nec si quædam exemplaria græca hic sequuntur Hebræum, ut ait Vossius de Africano & Alexandrino Codice, pauca illa quæ ex Hebræo procul dubio sunt correcta, opponi debent tot millibus quæ Ecclesiæ & Patres sequuntur, in quibus talis computus habetur.

Translation: “The very great discrepancy which occurs between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint version in chronology, when from the creation of the world to the Flood the Hebrew manuscripts number only 1,656 years, while the Septuagint reckons 2,242, does not prove that this version is authentic, but rather argues for its corruption. Nor, if certain Greek copies here follow the Hebrew, as Vossius says concerning Africanus and the Alexandrian Codex, ought those few—which without doubt were corrected from the Hebrew—to be opposed to the many thousands which the churches and Fathers follow, in which such a computation is found.”

Turretin recognized that Greek copies themselves differed. He believed that certain Greek readings agreeing with the Hebrew resulted from later correction of the Greek text. He also rejected the assumption that the larger Greek chronological figures proved the superiority of the Septuagint.

He did not insist that the differences resulted from deliberate falsification:

Licet vero dedita opera hæc corruptio facta non esset, cur non potuit fieri ex scriptorum incuria, vel ἀβλεψίᾳ?

Translation: “But even if this corruption was not made deliberately, why could it not have arisen from the carelessness or oversight of copyists?”

Turretin therefore distinguished the existence of corruption from its cause. He allowed that errors could arise accidentally during copying rather than through deliberate alteration.

Assessment

Turretin provides substantial testimony against treating the surviving Septuagint as an unchanged and authoritative Greek Old Testament. He distinguishes errors made by the original translators from corruption introduced during later copying and states that the ancient versions were no longer in their original condition.

His strongest judgment is that the Septuagint had become so “corrupted and interpolated” that only its “ruins and remnants” remained, making it difficult even to call the surviving text the version of the Seventy.

He also identifies differences among Greek copies, recognizes later correction of Greek readings, rejects the traditional miraculous account of the translators, and denies that apostolic use made the entire Septuagint divinely authoritative. His discussion of Genesis shows that he regarded substantial differences between the Hebrew and Greek as evidence of corruption in the Greek, without insisting that the changes were deliberate.

Citation: Francis Turretin, Institutio Theologiæ Elencticæ, Pars Prima, revised and enlarged edition (Geneva: Samuel de Tournes, 1688), Locus II, Quaestio XII, §§VII–VIII, pp. 131–132; Quaestio XIV, §§II–VIII, XI–XIII, pp. 140–144; English translations compared with Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., vol. 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), Topic II, Questions 12 and 14.

39. Richard Simon (1638–1712)

Richard Simon was a French Roman Catholic priest and biblical critic who studied the history of the biblical texts and how they were copied and preserved. Although he often defended the ancient Greek translators against criticisms he considered excessive, he distinguished their original work from the Septuagint texts that survived under their name. He described extensive corruption, differences among copies, mixture with other Greek translations, and changes introduced by later editors.

Every Principal Septuagint Edition Contained “Very Gross Errors”

Simon rejected the assumption that any of the principal printed editions of the Septuagint accurately represented the original translation:

“But it must be admitted that not one of them is exact, and that there are very gross errors in them all. To have a true and faithful one, it would be necessary to examine them all individually according to the rules of criticism, and approximately in the same manner in which the edition of the Latin Vulgate was corrected from good and ancient Latin copies…. It is not enough to consult the Fathers in order to restore the ancient Greek version…. To which it may be added that this version was already corrupted before the most ancient Fathers.”

Simon believed that corruption had entered the Greek text even before the earliest Christian writers whose quotations might otherwise help recover its original wording. He therefore considered it necessary to examine and compare the surviving copies rather than accept any printed edition as authentic.

Before Origen, the Greek Copies Already “Differed Greatly among Themselves”

Simon traced extensive differences among Greek copies to a period long before Origen:

“Since those who used it were not capable of recurring to the Hebrew original when some difficulty occurred, and since, moreover, the Greek of the translation of the Septuagint is quite different from ordinary Greek, a great many words were changed in it in order to form other senses which appeared more suitable.”

He then appealed to Origen’s own testimony concerning the condition of the Greek manuscripts:

“It cannot be doubted that there was a great number of variations in the Greek version of the Septuagint before Origen put his hand to it, since he himself affirms that the Greek copies differed greatly among themselves, whether through the negligence of copyists, or through the temerity of some who had added and subtracted with great liberty.”

According to Simon, the Septuagint had already undergone substantial changes before Origen attempted to correct it. Some arose through careless copying, while others resulted from people freely adding or removing words.

Origen Found the Common Septuagint Copies “Filled with Errors”

Simon describes Origen as finding the commonly used Greek copies already seriously corrupted:

“Origen, having seen that the common copies of the version of the Septuagint were filled with errors, corrected them from ancient Greek copies…. He removed from the Septuagint a great number of errors, as he himself testifies; and furthermore he corrected from the Hebrew original several transpositions which were in the Septuagint.”

Origen’s corrections were necessary, in Simon’s judgment, because the Greek copies then in circulation contained numerous errors. Some passages had even been moved from their proper places. The need for such corrections showed that the surviving copies could not simply be assumed to preserve the original translation accurately.

Other Greek Translations Became Mixed into the Septuagint

Simon explains how material belonging to other Greek translations entered copies of the Septuagint:

“But since the copyists were not altogether exact in observing these minute marks, great confusion arose in the version of the Septuagint; and what increased this confusion still further was that scholia, or notes, were placed in the margins of some editions, in which the different translations of the same thing were marked, which the copyists afterward inserted into the body of the version of the Septuagint. Even today examples may be seen of this mixture of translations, for which there is no remedy except by consulting the Hebrew text, or Greek copies which have not been altered.”

Origen had used special marks to distinguish certain readings and additions. Later copyists did not always preserve those marks correctly. Furthermore, notes written beside the biblical text sometimes contained wording from other Greek translations. Copyists subsequently inserted some of these notes into the text itself.

Consequently, material that did not originally belong to the Septuagint became part of copies transmitted under its name. Simon called the result “great confusion” and a “mixture of translations.”

The Greeks Were “Less Exact than the Jews in Preserving Their Copies”

After examining this history, Simon compared the preservation of the Greek and Hebrew texts:

“Everything that we have just related concerning the version of the Septuagint proves evidently that the Greeks were less exact than the Jews in preserving their copies, and that it would be difficult to restore this ancient version in the form in which it was at the beginning.”

This judgment is especially significant because Simon was also willing to criticize the Hebrew tradition. Nevertheless, he expressly concluded that the Greeks had been less careful in preserving their manuscripts and that recovering the original Septuagint would be difficult.

Attempts to Correct the Septuagint Produced Still More “Great Confusion”

Simon believed that attempts to restore the Greek text sometimes introduced further changes:

“To which it may be added that, according to the testimony of Origen and St. Jerome, the Greek copies had been altered in several places; and there is even reason to fear that Origen also corrupted them under the pretext of correcting them, since the method which he followed was liable to error, and since the liberty which he took of joining supplements to the version of the Septuagint in his Hexapla afterward produced great confusion. It is certain, moreover, that the Greek copyists took great liberties…. These latter themselves did not take sufficient precautions to preserve the Greek version in its purity.”

Concerning the original translation, he further states:

“The true and original version of the Septuagint … was greatly altered by these two Fathers under the pretext of making it more conformable to the Hebrew.”

Simon therefore distinguished several stages of alteration. The Greek text had already been corrupted before Origen; subsequent efforts to correct it introduced further changes; and later copyists sometimes incorporated additional wording into the text. Even corrections intended to improve the Septuagint could make it more difficult to recover the original translation.

“There Is Therefore No Greek Copy of the Septuagint Which Does Not Have Its Defects”

Simon reaches a broad conclusion concerning the surviving manuscripts:

“There is therefore no Greek copy of the Septuagint which does not have its defects, and which did not even have considerable ones before the time of Origen and St. Jerome; and perhaps it would have been desirable if these two Fathers had not reformed the ancient copies of the Septuagint with so much liberty, or at least if they had not inserted into them so many additions, which it would have been much more appropriate to mark in the margins of the copies.”

Simon maintained that substantial defects existed before Origen and Jerome, while their later corrections introduced additional difficulties. He therefore refused to regard any surviving Greek copy as an unchanged reproduction of the original Septuagint.

Ancient Versions Were Not “Infallible in All Their Parts”

Simon also denied that the Church’s approval of an ancient translation made every part of it free from error:

Et bien que nous puissions établir une règle certaine de notre créance sur les anciennes versions que l’Eglise a approuvées, la même Eglise n’a pas prétendu que ces versions fussent infaillibles dans toutes leurs parties, et qu’on ne peut rien faire de plus exact.

Translation: “And although we may establish a certain rule of our belief upon the ancient versions which the Church has approved, the same Church has not claimed that these versions were infallible in all their parts, or that nothing more exact could be produced.”

Simon also criticized Father Morin for attempting to undermine the authority of the Hebrew text in defense of ancient translations:

C’est pourquoi il faut modérer en cela le sentiment du Père Morin qui, sous prétexte de défendre l’autorité des anciennes traductions, reçues par un long usage dans l’Eglise, a fait tout son possible pour détruire l’autorité du texte hébreu, de la manière que les Juifs nous l’ont donné.

Translation: “For this reason the opinion of Father Morin must be moderated in this matter; under the pretext of defending the authority of the ancient translations, received by long use in the Church, he did everything possible to destroy the authority of the Hebrew text as the Jews have delivered it to us.”

Simon did not simply adopt the opposing Protestant position. He called for moderation between Morin’s position and that of the Protestants whom Morin opposed. Nevertheless, he rejected the notion that defending ancient translations justified undermining the Hebrew text.

His position was that long use and approval by the Church did not make an ancient translation infallible or prevent a more accurate translation from being produced.

Assessment

Simon distinguished the original Septuagint from the corrupted Greek copies transmitted under its name. He reported that the copies already “differed greatly among themselves” before Origen, that commonly used copies were “filled with errors,” and that readings from other Greek translations became mixed into the Septuagint.

Later attempts at correction introduced further confusion. He concluded that “there is therefore no Greek copy of the Septuagint which does not have its defects,” judged that the Greeks had been less careful than the Jews in preserving their manuscripts, and considered restoration of the original translation difficult. His testimony directly challenges the claim that the Septuagint survived as one fixed and faithfully preserved Greek text.

Citation: Richard Simon, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (Amsterdam: Daniel Elzevier, 1680), Book II, chs. II–VIII; enlarged ed. (Rotterdam: Reinier Leers, 1685), author’s preface and Book II, especially pp. 186–260; p. 465.

40. August Pfeiffer (1640–1698)

August Pfeiffer was a German Lutheran theologian and scholar of biblical languages. His Critica Sacra (1680) examines biblical texts, languages, and translations. In discussing the Greek Old Testament, he sharply distinguishes the ancient translation attributed to the Seventy from the Greek text circulating under their name in his own day.

The Faults of the Septuagint “Overwhelm Its Virtues”

After acknowledging what he regarded as virtues of the Septuagint, Pfeiffer writes:

Vitia tamen versionis hujus absorbent virtutes. Nam infinita occurrunt παρερμήματα, orta tum e confusione & neglectu elementorum, tum integrarum vocum & phrasium distractione, diversarum conjunctione. Imo & loca quaedam studio mutâsse dicuntur….

Translation: “Nevertheless, the faults of this version overwhelm its virtues. For innumerable misrenderings occur, arising partly from the confusion and neglect of letters, partly from the separation of entire words and phrases and the joining together of different ones. Indeed, certain passages are even said to have been deliberately altered….”

Pfeiffer identifies “innumerable” errors, including confusion of letters and the incorrect separation or joining of words and phrases. He also reports allegations that certain passages were deliberately changed, although he does not present those allegations as established facts.

Its Authority Is “Human and in Fact Slight”

Pfeiffer draws a conclusion concerning the authority of the translation:

Unde sequitur, quod Autoritas versionis LXX. interpretum non sit divina, neque verum, inspiratam esse à Sp. S., uti incautius Patres quidam & Pontificii asseruere; sed humanam & revera exiguam.

Translation: “From this it follows that the authority of the translation of the Seventy interpreters is not divine, nor is it true that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, as certain Fathers and Roman Catholics have rather incautiously asserted; but its authority is human and in fact slight.”

Whatever value Pfeiffer attributed to the ancient translation, he denied that it was divinely inspired or possessed divine authority.

The Present Greek Text Cannot Establish What the Seventy Originally Wrote

Pfeiffer makes an important distinction when discussing the Hebrew text used by the ancient translators:

Nos nullam videmus causam, cur statuendum sit LXX. Interpp. aliô quàm Ebræô Codice usos esse, neque verò ex hodiernâ versione, quæ sub nomine isto venditatur, de verâ LXX. Interpp. translatione est judicandum.

Translation: “We see no reason why it should be maintained that the Seventy interpreters used any codex other than a Hebrew one; nor indeed is the true translation of the Seventy interpreters to be judged from the present version which is put forward under that name.”

Pfeiffer distinguishes the “true translation of the Seventy interpreters” from the Greek version circulating under that name in his own day. He therefore rejects using the surviving Greek text as a reliable measure of what the original translators wrote or what their Hebrew manuscripts contained.

The New Testament Used the Septuagint Only “Where It Contained Nothing False”

Pfeiffer also rejects the argument that the Holy Spirit always followed the Septuagint when quoting the Old Testament. He explains that New Testament quotations sometimes follow the Septuagint, sometimes express the Hebrew differently, and sometimes differ in wording from both.

He states:

jam LXX. translationem, ubi nil falsi habuit, ob promulgatum ejus usum retinuit; jam quaedam pro diverso scopi & auditorii respectu variavit.

Translation: “At times He retained the translation of the Seventy, where it contained nothing false, because of its widespread use; at times He varied certain things according to the different purpose and audience.”

Pfeiffer’s qualification, “where it contained nothing false,” is important. He believed that the Holy Spirit could use accurate Septuagint wording without thereby approving the translation as a whole. Its use in the New Testament did not establish that every part of the Septuagint was correct.

The Extant Septuagint Was “Patched Together from Various Greek Versions” and Contained Later Additions

Pfeiffer directly asks:

An versio LXX. Interpretum hodie supersit?

Translation: “Does the version of the Seventy interpreters survive today?”

After considering different opinions, he gives his judgment:

Si dicendum, quod res est, versio Græca, quæ hodiè sub nomine LXX. Interpp. circumfertur, è variis versionibus Græcis confarcinata est atque interpolata: (1. Ob infinitas à Textu discrepantias, LXX. Viris Ebræis vix adscribendas. (2. Quia loca illa à Talmudistis in Megilla c. 1. f. 9. adducta in hodierna versione Græca ita non habentur. Interim tamen rudera quædam superesse ejusdem è citationibus N. T. & veterum non abnuimus.

Translation: “If the matter is to be stated as it really is, the Greek version which today circulates under the name of the Seventy interpreters has been patched together from various Greek versions and interpolated: (1) because of the innumerable discrepancies from the [Hebrew] text, which can scarcely be attributed to the Seventy Hebrew men; (2) because those passages cited by the Talmudists in Megillah are not found in that manner in the present Greek version. Nevertheless, we do not deny that certain ruins of it survive, as is evident from the citations of the New Testament and the ancients.”

This is Pfeiffer’s strongest statement. He maintains that the Greek version circulating under the name of the Seventy had been assembled from different Greek translations and contained material added afterward.

He gives two reasons. First, the surviving text differs from the Hebrew in so many places that he considers it unreasonable to attribute all those differences to the original translators. Second, certain passages that Jewish writings associate with the ancient Greek translation do not appear in that form in the surviving Greek text.

Pfeiffer therefore regarded the received Septuagint as a text that had undergone substantial changes, rather than an unchanged copy of the original translation.

Only “Certain Ruins” of the Ancient Translation Survived

Pfeiffer qualifies his conclusion:

Interim tamen rudera quædam superesse ejusdem è citationibus N. T. & veterum non abnuimus.

Translation: “Nevertheless, we do not deny that certain ruins of it survive, as is evident from the citations of the New Testament and the ancients.”

Pfeiffer did not claim that every trace of the original Septuagint had disappeared. He acknowledged that “certain ruins” remained, as shown by quotations in the New Testament and ancient Christian writings. His objection was that these surviving portions did not establish that the complete original translation had been faithfully preserved.

Assessment

Pfeiffer expressly distinguishes the original Septuagint from the Greek text subsequently transmitted under its name. He identifies “innumerable” errors, denies the translation’s divine authority, and warns that the surviving Greek cannot reliably establish what the Seventy originally wrote. Most importantly, he declares that the version circulating in his own day had been “patched together from various Greek versions and interpolated.” Although he acknowledges that “certain ruins” of the ancient translation survived, his testimony rejects the claim that the received Septuagint was one intact and faithfully preserved Greek text.

Citation: August Pfeiffer, Critica Sacra (Dresden: Martin Gabriel Hübner, 1680), chap. XI, “De Versionibus Græcis,” §§8–15, pp. 450–452; Section II, Questions I, IV–V, pp. 453–456.

41. Humphrey Hody (1659–1707)

Humphrey Hody was an English Anglican scholar and theologian, Professor of Greek at Oxford from 1698 and later Archdeacon of Oxford. His De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus, Versionibus Graecis, & Latina Vulgata (1705) examines the history and preservation of the biblical texts, including the Greek Old Testament.

Greek Copies Were Altered to Agree with the New Testament

Discussing Zechariah, Hody argues that certain Greek copies had been changed to agree with the Gospel:

Mihi vero credibilius videtur, ex Evangelio emendatam fuisse in istis exemplaribus Versionem Graecam, quam reliqua omnia tam vetusta quam recentiora fuisse depravata….

Translation: “It seems to me more credible that in those copies the Greek version had been corrected from the Gospel than that all the other copies, both ancient and more recent, had been corrupted….”

He explains why he believes the Gospel reading was introduced:

Hanc enim procul dubio posuerunt, non quia repererunt in suis Zachariae exemplaribus, sed quia Versionem apud Evangelistam repertam, & omnibus notam, LXXVirali praetulerunt.

Translation: “For they undoubtedly inserted this reading, not because they found it in their copies of Zechariah, but because they preferred the rendering found in the Evangelist, and known to everyone, to that of the Septuagint.”

Hody believed that some copyists changed the Greek Old Testament to agree with familiar New Testament wording. Such agreement therefore did not necessarily establish what the original Septuagint contained.

No Surviving Manuscript Preserves an Unmixed Greek Text

Hody describes the surviving Greek manuscripts:

Ex Editionibus antedictis Origeniana, Lucianea, & Hesychiana promanarunt, quotquot exstant, Versionis Graecae exemplaria integra hodierna. Nullum tamen reperitur quod unam aliquam Editionem puram atque sinceram exhibeat, sed omnia mixta sunt partim ex illis, partim ex Κοινῇ Editione; nonnullis etiam ex aliis illis Versionibus Aquilae, Theodotionis, Symmachi, &c. subinde admixtis.

Translation: “From the editions mentioned above—the Origenian, Lucianic, and Hesychian—have descended all the complete manuscripts of the Greek version that survive today. Yet no manuscript is found which exhibits any one edition pure and unmixed; rather, they are all mixed, partly from those editions, partly from the Common Edition, with material from those other versions—Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and so forth—also occasionally intermixed.”

He further writes:

Editiones sane variae, Origenis, Luciani & Hesychii, intra unius circiter seculi, aut alterius curriculum videntur inter se usque adeo a librariis fuisse confusae ac commixtae, ut earum distinctio ferme penitus evanuerit.

Translation: “The various editions—those of Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius—within the course of about one or two centuries appear to have been so thoroughly confused and intermixed with one another by copyists that the distinction between them almost entirely disappeared.”

Hody states that copyists mixed the ancient Greek editions so thoroughly that their differences almost disappeared. Readings from other Greek translations also entered the manuscripts. Consequently, no surviving complete manuscript preserved any one edition without mixture.

Printed Septuagint Editions Were Deliberately Altered

Hody describes how the editors of an early printed edition of the Septuagint, known as the Complutensian edition, changed their Greek text to agree more closely with the Hebrew. Quoting Flaminius Nobilius, he reports:

Origenis Editionem hac ex parte imitandam sibi statuerunt, ut quae in Hebraico erant, & in LXX. deessent, ex alia interpretatione explerent: in eo autem ab Origenis instituto discesserunt; quod quae apud LXX. supererant, quaeque Origenes satis habuerat obelo notare, ipsi saepenumero rejecerunt…. ubi varia se offerebat lectio (quod frequentissime evenit) eam probarunt ac retinuerunt, quae ad Hebraicam propius accederet….

Translation: “They determined to imitate Origen’s edition in this respect: that what was present in the Hebrew but absent from the Septuagint they would supply from another translation. But in this they departed from Origen’s procedure: what was superfluous in the Septuagint, and what Origen had considered it sufficient merely to mark with an obelus, they very often rejected…. Where a variant reading presented itself—which happened very frequently—they approved and retained the one which approached the Hebrew more closely….”

The editors supplied missing material from other Greek translations, removed certain passages, and preferred readings closer to the Hebrew. An obelus was a mark Origen used to identify certain Greek passages rather than remove them.

Hody concludes:

Ob hanc cum Codicibus Heb. consonantiam, in maximo pretio a nonnullis habebatur Editio Complutensis, verum eo longius ab antiqua Versione Graeca, qua usi sunt Patres, & a germanis ejus Exemplaribus recedit.

Translation: “Because of this agreement with the Hebrew manuscripts, the Complutensian edition was held in the highest esteem by some; but for that very reason it departs all the farther from the ancient Greek version used by the Fathers and from its genuine manuscripts.”

Thus, corrections intended to improve agreement with the Hebrew could move a printed edition farther from the ancient Septuagint.

Concerning the Aldine edition, Hody records Ussher’s observation:

Observat Usserius, eam sequi interdum non LXX. sed Aquilae lectiones, & varia in eam glossemata irrepsisse.

Translation: “Ussher observes that it sometimes follows readings not of the Septuagint but of Aquila, and that various glosses had crept into it.”

The Aldine edition therefore contained readings from another Greek translation and explanatory additions that had entered the text.

The Sixtine Edition Contained Almost Innumerable Errors

Hody rejects the claim that the Sixtine edition preserved the original Septuagint without corruption:

Perperam ergo & frustra contendunt nonnulli, Sixtinam τῶν LXX. editionem esse puram putam atque incorruptam, ipsissimamque τῶν LXX. Translationem, cum in ea (vix minus quam in caeteris Editionibus) innumeræ pene occurrant glossemata insulsa, & σφάλματα librariorum incuria, ἀγνοίᾳ, incogitantia illapsa, aut etiam eorundem temeritate & audacia introducta.

Translation: “Therefore some contend altogether wrongly and in vain that the Sixtine edition of the Septuagint is pure, genuine, and uncorrupted, and the very translation of the Seventy itself, since in it (scarcely less than in the other editions) there occur almost innumerable absurd glosses and errors which slipped in through the carelessness, ignorance, and thoughtlessness of copyists, or were even introduced by their rashness and audacity.”

Hody rejects identifying this printed edition with the original Septuagint because it contains numerous copying errors and additions.

He also challenges the claim that all ancient writers regarded Origen’s edition as pure:

Ex dictis autem patet errare Waltonum, cum affirmat omnes scriptores veteres puram & sinceram judicasse editionem illam quae in Hexaplis exstabat.

Translation: “From what has been said, however, it is evident that Walton errs when he affirms that all the ancient writers judged that edition which stood in the Hexapla to be pure and uncorrupted.”

Most of the Surviving Greek Text Still Agreed with the Ancient Septuagint

Despite identifying extensive corruption and mixture, Hody acknowledges substantial continuity with the Septuagint known to early Christians:

Libens tamen agnosco Editionem, quae hodie superest, Graecam quoad partem longe majorem, eandem esse cum illa, quae Patrum antiquorum temporibus pro LXXvirali habebatur. Non enim accedo eorum Protestantium sententiae, qui ut Graecae Versionis auctoritatem deprimant, negant eam, quae hodie exstat, eandem esse cum illa quae Patrum temporibus, sub nomine τῶν LXX. ferebatur.

Translation: “Nevertheless, I readily acknowledge that the Greek edition which survives today is, as regards by far the greater part, the same as that which in the time of the ancient Fathers was regarded as the Septuagint. For I do not agree with the opinion of those Protestants who, in order to diminish the authority of the Greek version, deny that the one which exists today is the same as that which in the time of the Fathers circulated under the name of the Septuagint.”

Hody maintained that most of the surviving Greek text remained substantially the same as that known to the ancient Fathers. His criticism concerned the extensive errors and mixture within that tradition, not the complete disappearance of the ancient version.

Assessment

Hody states that no surviving complete Greek manuscript preserves a single ancient edition of the Septuagint without mixture. He identifies alterations made to agree with the New Testament, readings incorporated from other Greek translations, and numerous errors in major printed editions. He nevertheless maintains that most of the surviving Greek text agrees substantially with that known to the ancient Fathers. His testimony demonstrates extensive corruption and mixture without denying substantial continuity with the ancient Septuagint.

Citation: Humphrey Hody, De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus, Versionibus Graecis, & Latina Vulgata (Oxford: Sheldonian Theatre, 1705), Book III, pp. 250–251, 561; Book IV, §19, p. 634; chap. 2, §§22–24; chap. 3, §§15–17.

42. John Ernest Grabe (1666–1711)

John Ernest Grabe was a German-born Anglican biblical scholar who settled in England and worked at Oxford. He produced an important edition of the Septuagint based chiefly on Codex Alexandrinus, an ancient Greek biblical manuscript. His Dissertatio de variis vitiis LXX. interpretum versioni ante B. Origenis ævum illatis examined corruption introduced into the Septuagint before Origen, Origen’s efforts to correct it, and the surviving remains of his revised Greek text.

Corruptions Introduced Before Origen

The title of Grabe’s dissertation states its subject:

Dissertatio de variis vitiis LXX. interpretum versioni ante B. Origenis ævum illatis, et remediis ab ipso in Hexaplari ejusdem versionis editione adhibitis, deque hujus editionis reliquiis tam manu scriptis quam prælo excusis.

Translation: “A dissertation on the various corruptions introduced into the version of the Seventy interpreters before the age of blessed Origen, and on the remedies applied by him in the Hexaplaric edition of that version, and on the surviving remains of that edition, both manuscript and printed.”

Grabe devoted an entire dissertation to corruption that had entered the Greek translation before Origen and to the corrections Origen attempted. He therefore regarded early corruption as a substantial problem requiring investigation.

Jeremiah “Miserably Mutilated”

Grabe believed that serious damage to the Greek version of Jeremiah had occurred very early:

Ego equidem in eam propendeo sententiam, quod aliquanto ante Servatorem nostrum, nec ita diu post ipsorum Interpretum ætatem, Jeremiæ versio tam misere mutilata, & quibusdam in locis abbreviata fuerit….

Translation: “I confess myself inclined to the opinion that, some time before our Saviour, and not very long after the age of the interpreters themselves, the version of Jeremiah had been so miserably mutilated and in some places abbreviated….”

Grabe thus believed that portions of Greek Jeremiah had been lost or shortened before Christ, not long after the original translation.

He also discussed omitted material, errors affecting individual words, and passages appearing in different places. Although he did not claim to know exactly when every alteration occurred, he believed that substantial corruption had entered the Greek text at an early date.

Some Ancient Corruptions Survived Origen’s Correction

Grabe acknowledged that Origen had not corrected every existing error:

aliqua tamen interpretationi τῶν οʹ. pridem illata vitia ab ipso Adamantio intacta relicta fuisse….

Translation: “Nevertheless, some corruptions long before introduced into the version of the Seventy were left untouched by Origen himself….”

Thus, even Origen’s extensive work did not completely restore the ancient translation. Some earlier corruptions remained in the Greek text.

“Two or Three Versions” Coalesced into One

Grabe identified another cause of corruption: readings from different Greek translations became combined:

Sed à quocunque demum hoc factum fuerit, id factum omnino nollem; siquidem eo ipso LXX. Interpretes, præsertim in Prophetarum Scriptis, hinc inde sunt corrupti, ac duæ tresve identidem versiones ibi coaluerunt.

Translation: “But by whomsoever this was ultimately done, I could wish that it had not been done at all; for by this very means the text of the Seventy, especially in the writings of the Prophets, has here and there been corrupted, and two or three versions have repeatedly coalesced there into one.”

Grabe was describing more than copying mistakes. He believed that wording from two or three separate Greek translations had repeatedly been combined in the text attributed to the Seventy, especially in the Prophets. Such mixture made it more difficult to determine what the original Septuagint contained.

Fundamentally Different Greek Forms of Judges

Grabe also examined differing Greek texts of Judges in his 1705 letter to John Mill. Its title states his conclusion:

quâ ostenditur, libri Judicum genuinam LXX. interpretum versionem eam esse, quam MS. Codex Alexandrinus exhibet; Romanam autem Editionem, quod ad dictum Librum, ab illa prorsus diversam, atque eandem cum Hesychiana esse.

Translation: “In which it is shown that the genuine version of the Seventy interpreters of the book of Judges is that which the Alexandrian manuscript exhibits; but that the Roman edition, as regards that book, is entirely different from it and is the same as the Hesychian edition.”

Grabe regarded the Greek text of Judges in the Roman edition as “entirely different” from that found in Codex Alexandrinus. He identified the Roman form with a Greek edition associated with Hesychius.

Whether or not his identification was correct, his evidence shows that important Greek manuscripts and editions contained substantially different forms of the same biblical book, not merely a few differing words.

Grabe’s Own Septuagint Required Correction and Supplementation

The title of Grabe’s Septuagint edition describes how he prepared its text from Codex Alexandrinus:

ex antiquissimo MS. Codice Alexandrino accurate descriptum, et ope aliorum Exemplarium, ac priscorum Scriptorum, præsertim vero Hexaplaris Editionis Origenianæ, emendatum atque suppletum, additis sæpe Asteriscorum & Obelorum signis….

Translation: “Accurately transcribed from the very ancient manuscript Codex Alexandrinus, and corrected and supplemented by means of other copies and ancient writers, especially Origen’s Hexaplaric edition, with asterisks and obeli frequently added….”

Grabe did not simply reproduce Codex Alexandrinus as a complete and unchanged Septuagint. He corrected and supplemented it using other manuscripts and ancient writings, especially evidence preserved from Origen’s work. He also used special marks to distinguish certain readings and additions.

His editorial method reflected the difficulties he had identified: recovering the earlier Greek text required comparing manuscripts, correcting errors, and supplying missing material.

Assessment

Grabe devoted an entire dissertation to corruption introduced into the Septuagint before Origen. He believed that Greek Jeremiah had been “miserably mutilated” before Christ, that some early corruptions survived Origen’s corrections, and that readings from “two or three versions” had repeatedly “coalesced into one.” He also identified substantially different Greek forms of Judges and corrected and supplemented Codex Alexandrinus in preparing his own Septuagint edition. His testimony demonstrates early corruption, mixture, and competing Greek texts rather than the unchanged preservation of one uniform Septuagint.

Citation: John Ernest Grabe, Joannis Ernesti Grabii epistola ad clarissimum virum, Dn. Joannem Millium (Oxford: Sheldonian Theatre, 1705), title page; Septuaginta interpretum tomus I, continens Octateuchum (Oxford: Sheldonian Theatre, 1707), title page; Dissertatio de variis vitiis LXX. interpretum versioni ante B. Origenis ævum illatis, et remediis ab ipso in Hexaplari ejusdem versionis editione adhibitis, deque hujus editionis reliquiis tam manu scriptis quam prælo excusis (Oxford: Sheldonian Theatre, 1710), pp. 49, 96.

43. Lambert Bos (1670–1717)

Lambert Bos (1670–1717) was a Dutch professor of Greek at the University of Franeker and editor of the 1709 Septuagint edition, Vetus Testamentum ex versione Septuaginta interpretum. In its introduction, he examined the authority of the Greek translation, mistakes made by its translators, corruption introduced by copyists, and errors in printed editions.

The Septuagint Must Be Compared with the Hebrew, Not Preferred to It

Bos warned against giving the Septuagint equal authority with the Hebrew text:

At vero cavendum etiam, ne nimium hanc Versionem extollamus, & plusquam par est, ei fidamus: ne aequiparemus eam Veritati Hebraicae, nedum praeponamus. Conferre eam oportet Codici Hebræo, non præferre.

Translation: “But we must also beware lest we exalt this Version too highly, and trust it more than is proper; lest we equate it with the Hebrew Truth, much less prefer it. It ought to be compared with the Hebrew Codex, not preferred to it.”

Nevertheless, he acknowledged that certain Greek readings could be preferable:

Occurrunt enim loca, in quibus Graecorum Interpretum lectio & distinctio praeferenda est hodiernae lectioni & distinctioni codicis Hebraei.

Translation: “For there are passages in which the reading and division of the Greek translators is to be preferred to the present reading and division of the Hebrew codex.”

Bos thus placed the Hebrew above the Septuagint in authority while allowing that individual Greek readings might sometimes be more accurate.

The Original Translators Made Errors

Bos rejected the belief that the Greek translators were divinely inspired:

Neque fuerunt illi homines divino Numine afflati & Spiritu Sancto ducti, quum verterent libros sacros… Hoc enim si ita sese habuisset, nunquam illi in vertendo errassent, nec illa Graecum inter & Hebræum codicem reperiretur discrepantia, quæ non exigua nunc aliquando est.

Translation: “They were not men inspired by the divine power and guided by the Holy Spirit when they translated the sacred books. For if this had been the case, they would never have erred in translating, nor would there sometimes be the considerable discrepancy which now exists between the Greek and Hebrew codices.”

Concerning certain prophetic books, he observed:

Observavi equidem aliquoties, minus exercitatos fuisse homines, parumque judicio valentes, qui Propheticos quosdam libros transtulere.

Translation: “I have indeed observed on several occasions that the men who translated certain prophetic books were less practiced and deficient in judgment.”

Bos therefore attributed some differences between Hebrew and Greek to mistakes by the original translators, not solely to later corruption.

Bos Rejected the Claim That the Jews Corrupted Psalm 40:6

Bos examined the difference between Psalm 40:6, where the Hebrew refers to ears, and the Greek wording “a body hast thou prepared me,” quoted in Hebrews 10:5.

He considered two explanations offered by Isaac Vossius: that the Hebrew word could mean “body,” or that the Jews had corrupted the Hebrew passage. Bos rejected both:

Quæritur quo pacto LXX reddere potuerint σῶμα &c. corpus aptasti mihi, quum Hebr. habeat, aures perforasti mihi. V. doct. Is. Vossius existimavit, vel vocabulum Hebr. non aures tantum, sed & corpus significare, uti verterunt LXX, vel corrupisse Judæos locum. Prius tamen se malle addit. Equidem neutram amplecti possum sententiam. Nam vocem illam Hebr. etiam corpus denotare, probari neutiquam potest: & Judæos locum corrupisse, minus probabile est. Quare meam de hoc loco sententiam paucis dicam. Existimem, lectionem à librariis esse corruptam: veram autem lectionem esse ὠτία.

Translation: “The question arises how the Seventy could have translated ‘a body hast thou prepared for me,’ when the Hebrew has ‘ears hast thou opened for me.’ The learned Isaac Vossius supposed either that the Hebrew word signified not only ears but also body, as the Seventy translated it, or that the Jews had corrupted the passage. He adds, however, that he prefers the former opinion. For my part, I can accept neither opinion. For it cannot at all be proved that the Hebrew word also denotes a body; and that the Jews corrupted the passage is less probable. Therefore I shall briefly state my opinion concerning this passage. I would suppose that the reading was corrupted by copyists, but that the true reading is ὠτία [ears].”

Bos proposed that the original Greek referred to ears and that copying mistakes produced the reading “body.” He explained how Greek letters could have been repeated or confused, compared similar errors in Ecclesiastes 10:15 and Isaiah 40:3, and cited ancient evidence supporting his proposed reading.

Rather than treating the New Testament quotation as proof that the Hebrew had been corrupted, Bos considered a Greek copying error more probable. His explanation remained a proposed reconstruction, not an established fact about the original Greek wording.

Many Errors Were Introduced by Copyists

Bos warned that many defects blamed on the translators had actually arisen during copying:

Ceterum monendum hic etiam, magnam nævorum qui Interpretibus illis imputantur partem, immerito illis imputari: plurimi enim ex illis tribui debent scribis atque librariis. Certum enim est, librarios multis in locis ex oscitantia & negligentia, aut inscitia voces male scripsisse, depravasse aut omisisse.

Translation: “Moreover, it should also be noted that a large part of the defects which are attributed to those Translators are unjustly attributed to them; for many of them ought to be attributed to scribes and copyists. For it is certain that the copyists, in many places, through carelessness and negligence, or ignorance, wrote words incorrectly, corrupted them, or omitted them.”

Bos considered it unjust to blame the original translators for words that later copyists had written incorrectly, altered, or omitted.

Printed Septuagint Editions Contained Numerous Serious Errors

Concerning the London edition, Bos referred to:

sphalmatis ac mendis, quæ perquam multa heic occurrunt, neque ea levia

Translation: “errors and faults, which occur here in very great numbers, and are not slight.”

He reported omissions of entire sentences, counted nearly a hundred omitted words, and observed that mistakes were repeated in later editions. He also described how the Complutensian editors changed readings to agree more closely with the Hebrew, while the Aldine edition incorporated material from other Greek editions and translations.

Thus, printed Septuagint editions could contain serious omissions, copying errors, and readings introduced from other sources.

Bos Sought to Correct the Text of the Vatican Manuscript

Bos described the purpose of his own edition:

Textum igitur B. L. heic tibi exhibeo purum Codicis Vaticani secundum editionem Romanam, accuratum & a mendis repurgatum.

Translation: “Therefore, dear reader, I here present to you the pure text of the Vatican Codex according to the Roman edition, carefully prepared and purged of errors.”

He also included explanatory notes and alternative readings:

Caeterum ne quid in hac nova nostra editione desideraretur, visum fuit singulis paginis subjicere Scholia Romanae Editionis, et praeter illa omnes variantes Lectiones quotquot conquirere potuerimus.

Translation: “Moreover, so that nothing might be lacking in this new edition of ours, it seemed appropriate to place beneath each page the scholia of the Roman edition, and in addition to these all the variant readings that we were able to collect.”

Bos sought to provide a corrected text based on the Vatican manuscript, accompanied by notes and differing Greek readings gathered from other sources.

Assessment

As a Septuagint editor, Bos distinguished errors made by the original translators from corruption introduced by later copyists. He identified serious defects in printed editions and warned against placing the Septuagint on equal footing with the Hebrew, while acknowledging that some Greek readings could be preferable. His treatment of Psalm 40:6 is especially significant: he rejected the allegation that the Jews had corrupted the Hebrew and proposed that the Greek reading had instead been altered by copyists. His testimony establishes substantial errors and variation in the surviving Greek tradition without attributing every defect to the original translators.

Citation: Lambert Bos, Vetus Testamentum ex versione Septuaginta interpretum (Franeker: Franciscus Halma, 1709), Prolegomena, especially Part III, discussion of Psalm XXXIX.6 (Psalm 40:6 in Hebrew numbering).

44. Johann Gottlob Carpzov (1679–1767)

Johann Gottlob Carpzov was a German Lutheran theologian and biblical scholar. In his Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti (1728), he defended the integrity of the Hebrew Old Testament while examining the ancient translations. Part III appeared in English as A Defence of the Hebrew Bible, in Answer to the Charge of Corruption Brought Against It by Mr. Whiston (London, 1729), translated by Moses Marcus.

The Septuagint Had Been Corrupted Before and After Christ

In answering William Whiston, Carpzov acknowledged corruption introduced after Origen:

“Corruptions have crept into the Greek Version since the Days of Origen. No knowing Man ever denied that, and we have not only granted and demonstrated it, but we have endeavoured also to search into and discover the Causes of those Corruptions.”

He also accepted John Ernest Grabe’s findings that corruption had entered the Greek translation before Christ:

“The very learned Dr. Grabe, in his Dissertation upon the many Corruptions crept into the Translation of the LXX Interpreters, before the Days of Origen, hath proved to a Demonstration, that Interpolations, Omissions, Transpositions, and finally Corruptions of very many Texts in this Translation, had been brought in before the Age of our Saviour himself; and he hath also discovered and declared the Sources and Causes of them.”

Carpzov rejected Whiston’s claim that the Septuagint remained uncorrupted in the second century:

“What Mr. Whiston with great Confidence takes for granted, we can by no means admit of, that the Septuagint Translation in the second Century … remained yet uncorrupted, and without any Blemish.”

He appealed to differences among Old Testament quotations by early Christian writers:

“This we not only denied before at the Proposition, but the same is refuted from the Diversity of the Citations, by different Authors of that Age.”

These differences challenged Whiston’s claim, although differing quotations do not necessarily establish differing manuscripts.

Later Greek Copies Had Acquired “a Quite Different Face”

Carpzov considered the Greek copies available in the time of Christ and the apostles more accurate than those transmitted later:

“I cannot altogether deny, that in the Time of Christ and the Apostles, the Copies of the Greek Translation were more correct, and for that Reason it came nearer to the Hebrew Original in that Age, than either in the next Age, when the Pale of the Church being enlarged all over the World, it came to be so often transcribed; or than it is at present, after a Course of so many Ages, and so many Casualties upon Literature and ancient Books, having undergone considerable Changes, and having put on a quite different Face, especially by means of the Works of Origen; so that in our Copies we cannot easily tell in many Places, what Part of the ancient Translation hath remained whole, nor what Patches out of Symmachus and Theodotion, have thrust out the primitive Text from its Place.”

He thus distinguished the earlier Greek translation from surviving copies containing material taken from Symmachus and Theodotion.

The Septuagint “Differs Also So Much from Itself”

Carpzov described the extensive differences among surviving Greek editions:

“Let us admit that the Greek, which is called the Septuagint, differs very widely from the Hebrew Copy, yet it differs also so much from itself, that as many Editions of it as are to be seen this Day, so many various Readings may be observed; and no Man is so clear-sighted, as to be able to declare or inform us, which of them exactly agrees with the original Greek Text, or which of them is interpolated; what Changes, Transpositions, Additions and Mutilations, many of these Editions have suffered, partly from the Boldness of Critics and ignorant Pretenders, partly from the Injuries of Time: And how many Things have been foisted into it, which change and confound the ancient and genuine Text of this Translation, is the Versions of Aquila and Theodotion, and other Greek Translators, out of the Octapla of Origen.”

He expressed the resulting uncertainty more strongly:

“the Greek Version, which now passes under that Name, is either altogether different from the old one of the LXX Elders, or that it is strangely interpolated and vitiated.”

Greek Wording Must Be Proven Genuine Before It Can Be Preferred to the Hebrew

Carpzov challenged Whiston to establish which particular Greek text was authentic before using its readings against the Hebrew:

“Let our Disputant then first acquaint us, what Edition, what reading of this Version, he acknowledges for authentic and genuine; and then let him prove both its Genuineness and its Agreement and Harmony with the Hebrew Reading of the original Copy, from whence it was taken.”

He then distinguished mistakes by Greek translators from the supposed corruption of every Hebrew copy:

“Supposing now that this differs from the present Hebrew Reading, either by the Change of similar Letters, or by a different Punctuation; whether is it to be ascribed to the Supineness and Inadvertency of the Translators, or to the universal Corruption of all the Hebrew Copies? And since Mr. Whiston takes upon him the Defence of this last Supposition, he must prove the same by solid Reasons, before he impose the Belief of it upon the World.”

Carpzov illustrated the point with Psalm 19:5, where the Greek speaks of their “sound” going throughout the earth, while the Hebrew speaks of their “line.” He required proof that the translators possessed a different Hebrew reading, that it was found in all Hebrew copies of their time, and that it was original. He also appealed to the ancient Chaldee translation, which agreed with the surviving Hebrew against the Greek reading.

Carpzov stated his principle:

“Such always hath been the Dignity and Prerogative of authentic Writings, that when they differ from a Translation, the Error should be rather attributed to it, than to them; neither must their reading be put out of Possession, unless it be proved by most weighty Arguments, that it can no longer maintain its Place.”

The Original Translators Took Liberties with the Hebrew

Carpzov did not attribute every difference to later corruption:

“For the Interpreters, in preparing their Version, indulged themselves the Liberty of varying often considerably from the Original, contenting themselves with giving the Sense; which whether in every Place they rightly apprehended, being Alexandrian Jews, still remains under Debate, neither can it at this Day be determined: But they certainly used great Liberty in Words and Phraseology.”

He distinguished these original translation practices from later failures to preserve the Greek text:

“neither did all the Copists, nor Critics, nor even Interpreters, treat this Translation with such religious Fidelity and Care, as to make all the Copies exactly answer to its Original and its primitive Reading.”

Origen’s Septuagint Needed Extensive Correction

Carpzov described the condition of the Greek text available to Origen:

“So much did Origen’s Septuagint Version depart from the Hebrew Text, that it wanted to have Deficiencies supplied, and Redundancies pared off, and the ill-rendered or corrupt Places amended, together with great Variety of critical Helps, to bring it back again somewhat nearer to the Hebrew Text.”

Origen compared Greek translations with the Hebrew, marking passages that were missing or additional. Carpzov’s discussion of differing Greek copies, including forms of Esdras, illustrated the resulting textual difficulties. Later copyists could confuse Origen’s corrections with original Septuagint readings or incorporate material from other Greek translations.

Carpzov also judged Aquila’s translation more faithful to the Hebrew in its wording:

“Whence I think it evident, that the Version of Aquila is by far preferable, to the Septuagint, as to its Agreement with the Original.”

The Greek Psalter Was Not Reliable Enough to Supersede the Hebrew

Carpzov rejected the claim that the Greek Psalter possessed sufficient integrity to be preferred to the Hebrew:

“Nor Secondly, Is the Greek Psalter of such known Integrity, as to deserve the Preference above the Hebrew.”

He added:

“the Credit of it is exceeding lame, and very frequently falters.”

Assessment

Carpzov acknowledged corruption of the Septuagint before Christ and after Origen, extensive differences among surviving Greek texts, and the intrusion of material from other translations. He distinguished defects in the original translation from subsequent corruption and considered earlier Greek copies more accurate than later ones. He also insisted that a Greek reading must be proven genuine before being used to challenge the Hebrew. His testimony opposes identifying the surviving Septuagint with one unchanged and faithfully preserved ancient Greek text.

Citation: Johann Gottlob Carpzov, Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti (Leipzig, 1728), part III; A Defence of the Hebrew Bible, in Answer to the Charge of Corruption Brought Against It by Mr. Whiston, translated from the Latin, with additional notes, by Moses Marcus (London, 1729), especially pp. 22–24 and the discussions of the Greek copies, Origen, and the Greek Psalter.

45. John Gill (1697–1771)

John Gill was an English Particular Baptist pastor, theologian, and biblical commentator. He served a London congregation for more than fifty years and wrote an extensive Exposition of the Old and New Testaments and A Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel-Points, and Accents (1767). Although Gill frequently consulted the Septuagint and sometimes approved its readings, he maintained that its surviving text had undergone alteration and identified numerous differences among Greek copies.

The Septuagint “Is Not in the Same State Now It Formerly Was”

In his 1767 dissertation, Gill criticized Greek translations that he believed had misunderstood the Hebrew:

“The authors of the several Greek versions of the Bible, the Septuagint interpreters, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, were all Jews, excepting the last, and he was a Samaritan, and may be allowed to have a considerable share of knowledge of the Hebrew language; yet these, especially the seventy interpreters, neglecting the points, and translating without them, what gross senses have they put upon the text? sometimes directly contrary to what is intended, sometimes what is very absurd, and even wicked and blasphemous, or nearly so.”

At Psalm 7:11, Gill observed that where the Hebrew declares, “God is angry every day,” the Greek gives the opposite sense.

At Isaiah 24:23, he described the Hebrew prophecy as:

“most miserably obscured in the Greek version of it, and a sense given extremely low, mean, and absurd.”

At Lamentations 3:33, he accused the Greek translators of:

“charging God with insincerity and dissimulation.”

He also criticized the Greek rendering of 1 Kings 5:18, arguing that the translators mistook the Hebrew word for “builders” as “sons.” These were examples of what he considered mistaken translations, not necessarily subsequent textual corruption.

More importantly, Gill observed that Clement of Alexandria had quoted Isaiah 9:6 differently from the Septuagint available in Gill’s day:

“and how have the same interpreters, by changing points and letters, spoiled the famous prophecy of the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6, where, instead of everlasting Father, the Prince of peace, they translate I will bring upon the princes peace? though the passage is otherwise produced by Clemens of Alexandria, more agreeable to the Hebrew text; which shows that the Septuagint version is not in the same state now it formerly was.”

Gill thus explicitly distinguished the Greek text known to an earlier Christian writer from the form subsequently transmitted.

A Name Entered the Septuagint That “Was Not Originally There”

Commenting on the additional Cainan in Luke 3:36, Gill argued that the name had been inserted into the Greek Old Testament after entering the New Testament textual tradition:

“This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in Gen. 11:12 nor has he ever appeared in any Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, nor in the Samaritan version, nor in the Targum; nor is he mentioned by Josephus, nor in 1 Chron. 1:24 where the genealogy is repeated; nor is it in Beza’s most ancient Greek copy of Luke: it indeed stands in the present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there; and therefore could not be taken by Luke from thence, but seems to be owing to some early negligent transcriber of Luke’s Gospel, and since put into the Septuagint to give it authority: I say ‘early,’ because it is in many Greek copies, and in the Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions, even in the Syriac, the oldest of them; but ought not to stand neither in the text, nor in any version.”

Gill regarded the additional Cainan as an ancient insertion, not part of the original Greek translation.

Marginal Notes Were Incorporated into the Greek Text

At Proverbs 6:8, Gill suggested that the Septuagint’s additional passage concerning the bee originated as a marginal note:

“But this is not in the Hebrew text; but perhaps being written in the margin of some copy of the Septuagint as a parallel instance, was by some unskilful copier put into the text of the Greek version, from whence the Arabic version has taken it; it crept in very early, for Clemens of Alexandria makes mention of it.”

He proposed a similar explanation for additional wording at Isaiah 23:15:

“and so it is added in the Septuagint version, ‘as the time of a man’; which perhaps was a marginal note, way of explanation, and crept into the text.”

In both cases, Gill presented the marginal-note explanation as a possibility rather than a demonstrated fact.

Greek Copies Contained Different Psalm Headings

Gill identified several cases in which surviving Septuagint copies disagreed about the headings of individual psalms.

Introducing Psalm 65, he wrote:

“Some copies of the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions read ‘a song of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, “sung” by the people of the captivity, when they were about to come out;’ and some copies have ‘Haggai’.”

He rejected these attributions and accepted the Hebrew heading identifying David.

At Psalm 144, Gill observed:

“Some copies of the Septuagint, and also the Vulgate Latin, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions, have in their titles these words, ‘against Goliath’.”

He then noted that the additional words were absent from the Hebrew and that Theodoret could not find them in the Septuagint preserved in Origen’s Hexapla, his comparison of Greek Old Testament translations.

Gill recorded similar evidence concerning Psalm 146:

“Theodoret says this title was in some Greek copies in his time; but was not in the Septuagint, in the Hexapla: nor is it in any other Greek interpreters, nor in the Hebrew text, nor in the Targum.”

The disputed heading attributed the psalm to Haggai and Zechariah. These observations are especially important because Gill was not merely comparing Greek with Hebrew. He was identifying differences among Greek copies, including readings reported to be absent from an earlier collection of Greek texts.

Eight Additional Verses in Some Greek Copies of Psalm 14

At Psalm 14:3, Gill described a substantial addition found in the Vatican copy of the Septuagint:

“Here follows in the Septuagint version, according to the Vatican copy, all those passages quoted by the apostle, Romans 3:13; which have been generally supposed to have been taken from different parts of Scripture; so the Syriac scholiast says, in some ancient Greek copies are found eight more verses.”

The additional material corresponds to passages used in Romans 3:13–18. Gill’s observation establishes that these verses appeared in some Greek copies of Psalm 14, although he did not establish when they entered the Greek tradition.

An Additional Psalm Was “Not to Be Found in All Copies”

After Psalm 150, Gill described an entire additional psalm, commonly numbered Psalm 151:

“There is another psalm added in the Septuagint, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, and in the metaphrase of Apollinarius; but is owned to be a supernumerary one, and not to be found in all copies.”

Gill then reproduced the additional psalm, which concerns David’s youth and victory over Goliath.

This was not merely a variation in wording or a disputed heading. Gill acknowledged that an entire additional psalm appeared in some copies but not others.

Substantial Differences Between Greek Copies of Samuel

Commenting on 1 Samuel 17:31, Gill discussed extensive omissions in the Vatican Greek text, including portions of chapters 17 and 18 concerning David and Goliath and the events following David’s victory.

He also considered Benjamin Kennicott’s arguments about whether certain passages had been added to the Hebrew account. The evidence therefore involved more than a difference in individual words: a substantial portion of the narrative appeared in one textual tradition but was absent from another.

Gill did not establish whether these differences arose through omissions in the Greek or additions to the Hebrew. His discussion nevertheless demonstrates the considerable variation between the surviving textual forms.

Other Additions and Differences Among Greek Copies

Gill recorded further examples throughout his commentary.

At 2 Samuel 14:27, he noted that some Greek copies included additional information about Tamar marrying Rehoboam and bearing Abijah. At Deuteronomy 33:6, he reported additional wording concerning Simeon in certain Greek copies, including the edition printed in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible.

He also recorded variations among Greek copies at Joshua 9:1, where some include the Gergashites, and Zechariah 13:7, where some read “upon the shepherds.”

Other examples concerned material present in the Septuagint but absent from the Hebrew. At Proverbs 4:27, Gill observed that two additional verses appeared in the Greek, Arabic, and Latin translations. At Song of Solomon 6:7, he identified wording repeated from 4:3 that was absent from the Hebrew and ancient Aramaic translation.

At Daniel 3:23, Gill noted that the Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Arabic translations contained sixty-seven additional verses concerning Azariah and his companions, absent from the Hebrew text.

These examples differ in importance. Some establish disagreements among Greek copies; others demonstrate differences between the Greek translation and the Hebrew. Gill did not claim that every such difference resulted from later copying.

The Greek Genesis Was Altered to Agree with Acts

Discussing the seventy persons mentioned in Genesis 46 and the seventy-five mentioned in Acts 7:14, Gill rejected the necessity of altering the Greek Old Testament to harmonize the accounts:

“nor was there any need to alter and corrupt the Septuagint version … to make it agree with Stephen’s account; or to add five names in it … to make up the number seventy five: and it may be observed, that the number is not altered in the version of Deuteronomy 10:22 which agrees with the Hebrew for seventy persons.”

Gill thus regarded the expanded Greek enumeration as an alteration intended to harmonize Genesis with Stephen’s statement in Acts.

Assessment

Gill made frequent use of the Septuagint but expressly declared that it was “not in the same state now it formerly was.” He identified what he considered later interpolations, proposed that marginal notes had entered the Greek text, and recorded substantial differences among surviving copies, including additional passages, differing psalm headings, and an entire additional psalm. He also acknowledged that some differences arose from the original translators and that not every proposed explanation of later alteration could be established. His testimony therefore distinguishes the ancient Greek translation from its surviving and varying textual forms.

Citation: John Gill, A Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel-Points, and Accents (London, 1767), especially pp. 265–268; Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, on Genesis 46; Deuteronomy 33:6; Joshua 9:1; 1 Samuel 17–18; 2 Samuel 14:27; Proverbs 4:27; Proverbs 6:8; Song of Solomon 6:7; Isaiah 23:15; Daniel 3:23; Zechariah 13:7; Psalm 14:3; Psalm 65; Psalm 144; Psalm 146; Psalm 150; Luke 3:36; and Acts 7:14.

46. Bernardinus De Moor (1709–1780)

Bernardinus De Moor was a Dutch Reformed theologian best known for his extensive Commentarius Perpetuus, a commentary on the theology of Johannes à Marck. He examined the origin, authority, and preservation of the Greek Old Testament, distinguishing mistakes made by its original translators from corruption introduced afterward. He also investigated differences among Greek texts and printed editions, and whether the apostles’ use of Greek quotations established the authority of the surviving Septuagint.

The Ancient and Genuine Septuagint “Is Not Available to Us in Its Entirety”

De Moor questioned whether the surviving Greek text represented the original Septuagint:

“With respect to the Greek version of the Septuagint, learned men think that that ancient and genuine version is not available to us in its entirety: indeed, a collation of the diverse editions, for example, of the Roman and Anglican, shows that almost innumerable discrepancies of the Greek text are given by them; so that from an adulterated, corrupt, and uncertain version nothing is able to be concluded firmly against the Hebrew sources, and the possession of the points in good faith.”

His argument rested partly on substantial differences between surviving Greek editions. Their disagreement made it unsafe, in his judgment, to use disputed Greek readings to correct the Hebrew original.

The Original Septuagint Probably Did Not Include the Entire Old Testament

De Moor examined conflicting ancient accounts concerning the seventy-two translators, the circumstances of their work, and the Egyptian king under whom the translation was supposedly made.

He favored the view that the Law of Moses was translated first and the remaining Old Testament books afterward. He supported this conclusion partly by the considerable differences in translation style between the Law of Moses and the other books.

He also challenged the tradition that the translators worked independently and miraculously produced identical translations. The ancient account attributed to Aristeas instead described the translators consulting one another, comparing their work, and reaching agreement.

Although De Moor accepted that the Greek translation was very ancient, he did not regard the traditional account of its origin as reliable evidence that the whole Old Testament had been translated at once or under miraculous inspiration.

The Common Septuagint Was Already “Vitiated to a Significant Degree” in Origen’s Time

De Moor described the Greek text in general circulation before Origen attempted to correct it:

“Formerly there existed the Septuagint Version, which they were calling κοινὴν/koine/common or Vulgate, vitiated to a significant degree, which ORIGEN accordingly purposed to emend and to publish a more accurate edition.”

He also cited Jerome’s description of the common Greek text as corrupted through differences of time, place, and copying practices. Origen was therefore attempting to correct a Greek text that had already undergone substantial alteration.

De Moor likewise described Lucian’s efforts:

“Moreover, the Version of the Septuagint, called κοινῆν/Koine, was reviewed, and both with the help of copies more ancient and of approved fidelity, and unto the norm of the Hebrew text, was purged from numerous errors, which had crept in over a long stretch of time, by LUCIAN…”

In De Moor’s account, Origen and Lucian were not preserving identical copies of an unchanged translation. They were correcting a Greek text that had accumulated errors. Hesychius was associated with another such correction.

Three Competing Greek Texts Left the Christian World “Agitated Within Itself”

De Moor quoted Jerome’s description of the principal corrected forms of the Septuagint:

“Alexandria and Egypt, in the matter of the Septuagint, commend the author Hesychius. Constantinople, all the way to Antioch, approves the exemplars of Lucian the martyr. The middle provinces between these read the Palestinian Codices, which, having received the labors of Origen, Eusebius and Pamphilus published. And the whole world by this threefold difference is agitated within itself.”

These three corrected forms of the Greek text were associated with Egypt, the region from Constantinople to Antioch, and Palestine.

The corrected Greek text used in Palestine had been prepared by Eusebius and Pamphilus using Origen’s earlier comparisons and corrections. It was therefore another edited form of the Greek text rather than a separately preserved copy of the original translation.

Jerome’s testimony, as presented by De Moor, described a Christian world divided among different Greek texts rather than united in the use of one identical Septuagint.

Origen’s Lost Work Made the Original Greek Wording Harder to Recover

De Moor described Origen’s Hexapla, a work that arranged the Hebrew Scriptures alongside several Greek translations so their wording could be compared.

He also observed that Origen had mixed material from different Greek translations:

“ORIGEN has almost conflated the two into one in his Hexaplis”

Here De Moor referred to the Septuagint and Theodotion, another ancient Greek translator.

Origen used special marks to distinguish words added to the Greek because they appeared in the Hebrew, words present in the Greek but absent from the Hebrew, and certain differences among copies.

De Moor explained that Origen’s great collection was recovered after an earlier period of disappearance but eventually perished apart from surviving fragments. Its loss was especially regrettable because it had preserved evidence useful for distinguishing earlier Greek readings from later changes.

Consequently, those examining the surviving Greek text could no longer consult Origen’s complete comparisons and markings to help identify its earlier wording.

The Printed Greek Editions Did Not Preserve One Uniform Text

De Moor identified four principal printed editions of the Septuagint: the Complutensian, Aldine, Roman, and Anglican.

He described how the editors of the Complutensian edition altered the Greek text:

“The Editors supplied what things were in the Hebrew text, if they were wanting in the Septuagint, from another translation; but what things were superfluous in the Greek, they often trimmed off.”

When different Greek readings were available, the editors also preferred those more closely corresponding to the Hebrew. De Moor consequently concluded:

“Whence this Edition recedes some distance from the ancient Greek Version.”

The Aldine edition was prepared by comparing older Greek copies whose precise identities were not reported. The Roman edition relied chiefly on the Vatican manuscript, while John Ernest Grabe’s Anglican edition relied chiefly on the Alexandrian manuscript.

The different manuscripts and methods used by the editors therefore contributed to substantial disagreement among the printed Greek texts.

The Septuagint Is “Corrupted in a Variety of Ways” and “No Longer Extant in Its Integrity”

De Moor expressly denied that the Septuagint possessed authority equal to the original Scriptures. Referring to Johannes à Marck, he declared:

“On the contrary, we, with our AUTHOR, deny Authenticity to this Version.”

He then described the defects of the Greek translation:

“The super-abounding errors of this Version [LXX] are evident, in its less suitable expression of the sense, addition, subtraction, mutation, through an incorrect reading of the letters, through incorrect punctuation, signification of the words, inverted construction of the words, etc., just as Bellarmine himself . . . acknowledges, and demonstrates that this Version is now corrupted in a variety of ways, and that it is no longer extant in its integrity; so that it is not now safe to emend the Hebrew or Latin texts out of the Greek codices. But a consideration of those errors, which defile this Version, teaches that a great part of those is to be ascribed to the Interpreters themselves; to which, nevertheless, far more were able to be added thereafter by injury of time, blindness and sleepiness of scribes, etc.”

De Moor distinguished mistakes made by the original translators, such as misreading Hebrew letters or misunderstanding words, from further errors introduced afterward through copying and correction.

He also cited the Roman Catholic theologian Robert Bellarmine, who acknowledged that the Septuagint had become corrupted in various ways and no longer survived in its original form.

De Moor’s position was therefore not merely that Greek manuscripts contained copying mistakes. He maintained that some errors were present in the translation from the beginning, while others accumulated over time.

Greek Additions Do Not Prove That Passages Were Lost from the Hebrew

De Moor discussed several cases in which material appeared in Greek copies but was absent from the Hebrew.

In Exodus 2, some Greek manuscripts and editions contained an additional verse after verse 22 mentioning the birth of Moses’ son Eliezer. De Moor reported Johannes Buxtorf the Younger’s explanation that the material had been transferred from Exodus 18:4. Its appearance in the Greek and Latin Vulgate did not establish that the Hebrew had lost the passage.

A more substantial example concerned Psalm 14. Some Greek copies contained additional material after verse 3 corresponding to passages quoted by Paul in Romans 3:10–18.

De Moor explained that Paul had brought together quotations from several Old Testament passages, including different psalms and Isaiah. He argued that the additional Greek material resulted from someone inserting Paul’s collected quotations into Psalm 14, rather than from an omission in the Hebrew.

He also discussed Exodus 12:40, where the Greek and Samaritan texts include an additional reference to the land of Canaan. De Moor considered the possibility that the Samaritan reading had been influenced by the Greek.

His point was that agreement between two texts did not necessarily prove that their shared wording belonged to the original Hebrew. One text might have been changed to agree with another.

Apostolic Quotations Do Not Establish the Authority of the Surviving Septuagint

De Moor acknowledged that New Testament writers frequently agreed with the Septuagint, including passages where the Greek differed from the Hebrew.

Nevertheless, he also identified passages where the apostles followed the Hebrew more closely and others where their wording agreed exactly with neither the Hebrew nor the surviving Greek.

He discussed Matthew 8:17 and Isaiah 53:4 as an example where Matthew followed the Hebrew more closely than the familiar Septuagint wording.

He also examined Acts 15:17 and Amos 9:12, where the Greek differs from the Hebrew, considering whether the translators had misunderstood the Hebrew word referring to Edom. Another example was Acts 13:41 and Habakkuk 1:5.

De Moor did not deny the agreements between the New Testament and the Septuagint. Rather, he denied that agreement with particular Greek expressions established that the entire translation was inspired or completely accurate.

He further considered whether Christian copyists might have changed some Greek readings afterward to agree with the New Testament. His concern was whether wording found in later Greek manuscripts could confidently be identified as the wording available to the apostles.

De Moor reported arguments supporting this explanation, including those associated with John Owen and other theologians. However, he also presented Brian Walton’s substantial objections and left the matter to the reader’s judgment.

He therefore examined the possibility of later Christian alterations without claiming that such alterations had been proved in every disputed passage.

Early Christian Use Did Not Establish the Septuagint’s Independent Authority

De Moor acknowledged the high esteem in which ancient Christians held the Septuagint. Nevertheless, he observed that early Christian writers sometimes departed from its wording and used other Greek translations, occasionally preferring them as “better and more accurate.”

One important example concerned Daniel. The Greek translation of Daniel commonly used in the churches was associated with Theodotion rather than the earlier Septuagint translation of that book.

De Moor also cited Augustine’s willingness to prefer the Hebrew when different readings concerning dates or lengths of time could not both be correct. The Hebrew original supplied a standard for deciding between conflicting translations.

He further observed that Christians sometimes resisted new translations because congregations were accustomed to familiar Greek wording. Such resistance did not necessarily mean that the familiar wording was more accurate.

The Septuagint’s widespread use therefore showed its historical importance without establishing that every reading was correct or possessed the authority of the original Scriptures.

De Moor Questioned the Name “Septuagint” but Acknowledged the Translation’s Usefulness

De Moor’s concluding judgment was unusually severe. Having examined the uncertainty surrounding the translation’s origin and the condition of its surviving text, he recommended avoiding the traditional name and referring instead to the Greek version of the Old Testament or the Old Greek version.

He nevertheless acknowledged that the translation remained useful, despite its errors, and had helped prepare Greek-speaking readers to understand the preaching of the apostles.

His criticism therefore did not mean that Greek translations were worthless. He distinguished their practical and historical usefulness from claims that they were inspired, possessed authority equal to the Hebrew original, or had been preserved without substantial alteration.

Assessment

De Moor maintains that the ancient and genuine Septuagint no longer survives in its entirety, identifies “almost innumerable discrepancies” among Greek editions, and describes the common Greek text as already substantially corrupted before Origen attempted to correct it. He distinguishes errors made by the original translators from later corruption and documents the competing corrected forms of the Greek text, editorial alterations, and specific additions found in Greek copies.

His examination of apostolic quotations is especially valuable because he acknowledges genuine agreements with the Septuagint while denying that these establish the authority of the entire translation. Although recognizing its antiquity and usefulness, he rejects the claim that the surviving Septuagint possesses independent authority or preserves one complete, uniform, and unchanged Greek Old Testament.

Citation: Bernardinus De Moor, Commentarius Perpetuus in Johannis Marckii Compendium Theologiae Christianae, vol. 1 (Leiden, 1761), pars I, cap. II, §§8–11, 33; Steven Dilday, trans., Didactico-Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, particularly the sections concerning the authenticity of the Hebrew and Greek originals, the authenticity of the Samaritan and Septuagint versions, and the translation of Scripture. De Moor’s quotation concerning the three competing forms of the Greek text derives from Jerome, Preface to Chronicles. His discussions also incorporate arguments from Johannes à Marck, Brian Walton, Johannes Buxtorf the Younger, and other earlier authorities.

47. Henry Owen (1716–1795)

Henry Owen was a Welsh Anglican clergyman, physician, Fellow of the Royal Society, and biblical scholar. He examined the Greek Old Testament in An Enquiry into the Present State of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (1769), Critical Disquisitions (1784), and A Brief Account, Historical and Critical, of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (1787). Although he valued the original Septuagint, he maintained that its surviving text had suffered extensive alteration and was no longer preserved intact in any single manuscript or printed edition.

Jewish and Christian Alterations Did “No Small Damage” to the Septuagint

In his 1769 Enquiry, Owen attributed some alterations of the Greek text to religious controversy rather than ordinary copying mistakes:

“A clear proof, among several others, that, if the violent malice of the Jews did much harm to the Septuagint version, the indiscreet zeal of Christians did it likewise no small damage.”

He also stated:

“Upon these grounds, and by these artifices, the Jews made many and signal alterations in the Septuagint Version; and not a few in their own Books.”

Owen distinguished these alleged deliberate alterations from ordinary scribal errors:

“These differences arose from various causes: but chiefly, 1. from the negligence or inadvertency, 2. from the ignorance, and, 3. from the boldness and conceit, of transcribers. For I meddle not here with the alterations made by contending parties which are not a few both in the Greek and Hebrew copies.”

He thus distinguished accidental copying errors, careless or unauthorized changes, and alterations attributed to religious controversy. His allegations of deliberate alteration were historical judgments, not facts established merely by differences among manuscripts.

All the Printed Septuagint Editions Were in a “Corrupt State”

Owen stated the purpose of his Enquiry:

“The purport of my design is, to convince the world of the corrupt state of the Septuagint version, as it stands in all the printed editions: — and consequently, to convince the world of the necessity of collating all the MS copies of it, that are now to be found; and of bringing their variations under one view.”

He continued:

“We should then proceed on surer grounds: and, being more able to ascertain the true text, might comment upon it with greater certainty, precision, and judgement: whereas, in the situation we are now in, we unwarily undertake to write comments on we know not what; and, while we mean to illustrate the truths of Scripture, are often defending the errours of transcribers.”

Owen therefore did not identify the original Septuagint with any printed edition. He believed manuscripts had to be compared before scholars could confidently determine the earlier Greek wording.

The Original Septuagint “Is Now Included in No Single Manuscript”

In Critical Disquisitions (1784), Owen rejected the assumption that the Vatican manuscript preserved the original Septuagint:

“The Vatican MS, though ancient, venerable, and of high value, can yet on no reasonable grounds be supposed to contain the simple version of the Seventy. It has its additions and omissions, as well as other copies; though not perhaps in equal degrees.”

He then stated:

“The simple version of the Seventy is now included in no single MS; it lies dispersed among the various copies. And it is by collating these various copies, and comparing them with the collated Hebrew, that we can ever hope to come at the truth.”

For Owen, the original translation could not be identified with one celebrated manuscript. Its readings were scattered among different Greek copies.

The Greek Manuscripts of Judges Contained “Amazing Differences”

Owen supplied a striking example:

“Let us inspect only the book of Judges: and what amazing differences do we find therein between the Alexandrian and Vatican copies!”

He considered these differences evidence of separate corrected forms of the Greek text. Following John Ernest Grabe, he associated the Alexandrian copy of Judges with Origen’s work and the Vatican copy with the edition attributed to Hesychius.

The disagreements affected the Greek text of an entire biblical book, not merely isolated words. Owen did not regard the two manuscripts as equally faithful copies of one unchanged text.

Editorial Marks Could Misrepresent the Original Greek Wording

In Critical Disquisitions, Owen examined Andreas Masius’s edition of Joshua.

Masius used special marks to identify words supposedly added to or omitted from the Greek. Owen objected that he relied too heavily on the Vatican manuscript despite differing readings in other ancient Greek copies.

Some passages marked as absent from the Greek were preserved in the Oxford manuscript and other editions. Owen particularly valued the Oxford manuscript because it contained the first eight Old Testament books and preserved readings differing from the Vatican copy.

Later editors, including John Ernest Grabe, adopted many of Masius’s markings.

Thus, editorial decisions about which readings were genuine could pass into later editions despite contrary manuscript evidence.

Origen Introduced an “Unhappy Mixture” of Greek Translations

Owen argued that Origen’s attempt to correct the Septuagint introduced further difficulties:

“He often subjoined to the old Greek version another, and, as he judged, a better version of the same passage, taken from some of the later interpreters, and thereby introduced an unhappy mixture.”

Owen illustrated this practice with Psalm 17:36, Isaiah 15:3, Daniel 9:27, and Habakkuk 3:2, where readings from different Greek translations could appear together.

He also discussed unusually literal Greek expressions associated with Aquila, another ancient translator, entering surviving Septuagint manuscripts. Examples in Ecclesiastes showed how wording from a different translation could become part of the Greek text.

Owen summarized the damage:

“From these three sources arose many corruptions, which defaced the integrity of the Septuagint Version.”

He then described the Septuagint text in Origen’s Hexapla, a work comparing the Hebrew Scriptures with several Greek translations:

“By these means the Hexaplar column of the Septuagint soon became, especially when the signatures were omitted, a strange, heterogeneous mixture; dissimilar in style, and irregular in construction; of which the attentive reader has, at this time, frequent occasion to complain.”

Origen used special marks to identify additions and other differences between the texts. When later copyists omitted them, material from other Greek translations could appear to belong to the original Septuagint.

Later Copyists Introduced Further “Adulterations”

Owen maintained that corruption continued after Origen:

“But, besides this injury, which it suffered more immediately from the perverse diligence of Origen; the Septuagint version still underwent further adulterations, most of them founded on the Hexapla, from the critical audacity of transcribers.”

Copyists sometimes placed readings from other Greek translations in the margins or between the lines. Later copyists could incorporate these alternative readings into the main text, obscuring their origins.

Owen concluded:

“The forementioned points being duly considered, we cannot, I think, but conclude, that the author of the Hexapla, eventually indeed, though not intentionally, contributed a great deal to the depravity and corruption of the Septuagint version; which we can by no means rectify again.”

He immediately qualified this judgment:

“All the blame, however, must not be laid on Origen’s Hexapla: the other two editions, those I mean of Lucian and Hesychius, bore most probably a share in the mischief.”

Owen thus attributed unintended corruption to Origen’s work while assigning probable responsibility to the corrected editions associated with Lucian and Hesychius.

The Ancient Editions “Destroyed and Ruined” Its Integrity

Owen stated his principal conclusion:

“For the chief purport of this disquisition is, to shew, what effect the several editions, and particularly the Hexaplar edition had on the original Septuagint text. And the effect, as it now appears, was, that, instead of improving it, they manifestly destroyed and ruined its integrity.”

He explained:

“Ruined, I say, its integrity: because we have now no means in our hands, by which it can be thoroughly restored.”

Owen did not mean that all evidence of the original translation had disappeared, but that its complete recovery had become impossible.

In his Brief Account (1787), he reaffirmed:

“By these means, and the consequent omission of the signatures in future transcripts, the original Septuagint soon became a confused, heterogeneous mass—debased and adulterated by this foreign alloy to such a degree, that it is now difficult to restore it to its genuine purity.”

He characterized the result as:

“eventually, though not intentionally, a lasting and irreparable injury.”

These statements distinguish his high regard for the original translation from his judgment concerning its surviving text.

Even Celebrated Greek Manuscripts Contained Corruptions

Owen rejected the claim that the Chisian manuscript, a Greek manuscript of Daniel, preserved the pure Septuagint:

“Let it, finally, be farther observed, that the Chisian MS. of Daniel, which pretends to be the pure version of the Seventy, will be found on examination to belie its title in the most shameful degree.”

He likewise identified corruption in the Alexandrian manuscript. Discussing Deuteronomy 32:43, he remarked:

“See how the verse is interpolated and corrupted in the Alexandrian manuscript.”

Together with his criticism of the Vatican manuscript, these judgments demonstrate his refusal to identify the original Septuagint with any one celebrated Greek manuscript.

Comparing Manuscripts Was “the Principal Remedy”

Despite his criticism, Owen believed considerable recovery of the earlier Greek text remained possible:

“If it can be restored at all, it is chiefly to be done by collating the Greek manuscripts, and comparing those collations with the collated Hebrew. This I look upon as the principal remedy; and sorry I am it has remained so long untried.”

He also recommended consulting ancient translations made from the Greek and quotations preserved by early Christian writers.

Thus, although no surviving manuscript or edition could be assumed to preserve the original throughout, Owen believed comparing the available evidence offered the best means of recovering earlier readings.

Assessment

Owen declares that all printed Septuagint editions were in a “corrupt state” and that the original translation survives in no single manuscript. He documents substantial differences among Greek copies and explains how the mixing of translations, the loss of Origen’s distinguishing marks, later copying errors, and editorial alterations damaged the transmitted text.

His strongest conclusion is that the ancient editions “destroyed and ruined” the Septuagint’s integrity, making its complete restoration impossible. Nevertheless, he valued the original translation and believed much of its earlier wording could still be recovered through comparison of surviving evidence. His testimony directly challenges the claim that the Septuagint has been continuously preserved as one uniform and trustworthy Greek text.

Citation: Henry Owen, An Enquiry into the Present State of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (London: B. White, J. Fletcher, and T. Payne, 1769), Preface, especially pp. vii–viii; Critical Disquisitions, Containing Some Remarks, I. On Masius’s Edition of the Book of Joshua. And II. On Origen’s Celebrated Hexapla (London: J. Nichols, 1784), first disquisition, especially pp. 8–16, and second disquisition, especially pp. 41–50; A Brief Account, Historical and Critical, of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (London: J. Nichols, 1787).

48. Johann David Michaelis (1717–1791)

Johann David Michaelis was a German Lutheran theologian, biblical scholar, and one of the leading eighteenth-century scholars engaged in comparing biblical manuscripts and translations. His work with the Greek Old Testament was extensive and practical. He repeatedly compared the Hebrew text with ancient translations, discussed differences among Septuagint readings, and in 1773 republished at Göttingen the recently recovered Greek text of Daniel from the Chisian manuscript. His judgment of the Septuagint was therefore formed through sustained examination of the texts. Although he used Greek evidence where he believed it preserved a superior reading, he warned that differences between the Septuagint and Hebrew could arise from translation, attempts to correct apparent difficulties, efforts to make parallel passages agree, or later corruption of the Greek text.

Different Greek Wording Does Not Prove a Different Hebrew Original

In reviewing Benjamin Kennicott’s work on the Hebrew text in 1753, Michaelis objected to the assumption that a grammatical difference in the Greek necessarily demonstrated a different Hebrew reading. Kennicott had argued from a Greek plural that the corresponding Hebrew word must originally have been plural. Michaelis replied that Hebrew could employ a singular collectively where Greek could not:

“But it is well known that Hebrew, just like the languages related to it, can use the singular for the plural in certain cases. Since that cannot be done in Greek, the Septuagint had to translate with a plural, no matter what it read in Hebrew.”

A difference between Greek and Hebrew does not therefore prove that the translators possessed a different Hebrew text. It may simply reflect the requirements of translation.

Greek Copyists Changed Parallel Accounts to Make Them Agree

Michaelis then warned against using the Septuagint too readily to reconstruct an earlier Hebrew text. He feared that Kennicott was making Samuel and Chronicles agree more closely than their different authors had intended:

“We fear also that he wants to make the books of Samuel and Chronicles too much alike, even though they come from different authors who were not necessarily in agreement on the choice of words. He does this with particular audacity on pages 26, 46, etc., where he draws support from the Greek translation, without considering that what happened in the Greek could have been the same thing that happened in the old pre-Jerome translation of the Gospels, where the copyists transferred expressions and things recounted in one Gospel to another in order to make them more like one another, as is well-known.”

Michaelis thus recognized that Greek copyists could alter parallel accounts to make them agree. A Septuagint reading that brings Samuel and Chronicles into closer agreement might therefore reflect later copying rather than an earlier Hebrew text.

Greek Translators Made “Improvements” to Remove Apparent Contradictions

Michaelis identified the same tendency in the work of the translators themselves. Discussing Greek readings unsupported by other independent evidence, he wrote:

Allein diese, durch keinen zweiten unabhängigen Zeugen bestätigten Varianten sehen mir wie Verbesserungen des Uebersetzers aus, der den Scheinwiderspruch des Grundtextes wegschaffen wollte.

Translation: “But these variants, confirmed by no second independent witness, look to me like improvements by the translator, who wanted to remove the apparent contradiction of the original text.”

Michaelis therefore distinguished changes made by translators from those introduced by later copyists. Both might attempt to remove apparent contradictions, producing Greek readings that seemed more consistent but did not preserve the original wording.

The Genesis Chronology Was Altered “Rather Late” in Greek

Michaelis was especially explicit about the chronological figures in Genesis 5 and 11. He rejected the contention that the Hebrew chronology had been deliberately altered and instead located the alteration in the Greek:

Ich glaube nun zwar, der Folgesak sey wahr, und die Zahlen dieser Capitel, nicht im Hebräischen, sondern, noch dazu ziemlich spät, im Griechischen geändert.

Translation: “I do indeed believe that the conclusion is true, and that the numbers of these chapters were altered, not in the Hebrew, but in the Greek—and, moreover, rather late.”

“The Present Reading of the LXX” Was Not as Old as Josephus

Michaelis went further:

wiewohl ich wirklich nicht glaube, daß die jekige Leseart der LXX so alt sey als Josephus.

Translation: “Although I really do not believe that the present reading of the LXX is as old as Josephus.”

Michaelis distinguished the surviving Greek reading from an earlier form of the text. He did not merely accuse the original translators of mistakes; he judged that some surviving Greek readings were introduced long afterward.

His discussions of individual passages likewise show that he did not regard every Septuagint reading as a trustworthy ancient witness. He recognized unsupported changes made to remove difficulties, misunderstandings by translators, and alterations introduced through later copying.

Nevertheless, Michaelis did not reject Greek evidence indiscriminately. In his studies of Jeremiah, he sometimes preferred ancient translations to the standard Hebrew reading when he considered their evidence sufficiently strong. He also sometimes gave considerable weight to the Alexandrian translators’ knowledge of Egyptian matters.

His criticism of particular Greek readings therefore arose from examination of the evidence, not from a determination to reject the Septuagint in every case.

The Greek and Hebrew Texts of Jeremiah Differed Substantially

Michaelis also recognized substantial differences between the Hebrew and Greek forms of Jeremiah. Where the Septuagint and the Arabic translation following it omit words found in Hebrew, he observed:

Die LXX und der ihnen folgende Araber sind es, die diese Worte auslassen. Die doppelte Ausgabe der Weissagungen Jeremia ist hier sehr augenscheinlich….

Translation: “It is the LXX and the Arabic [version] following them that omit these words. The double edition of the prophecies of Jeremiah is here very evident….”

Michaelis was referring to two differing forms of Jeremiah, not necessarily proving that the Greek had been corrupted. His observation illustrates why differences between Hebrew and Greek cannot automatically be explained as evidence that the Greek preserves an earlier Hebrew reading.

Michaelis Examined the Greek Text of Daniel Directly

Michaelis’s direct involvement with the Greek manuscripts is demonstrated by his 1773 Göttingen edition of Daniel secundum Septuaginta. This reproduced the Greek version of Daniel preserved in the Chisian manuscript, following its first publication at Rome in 1772.

His examination of the Septuagint was therefore not confined to discussions by other scholars. He worked directly with published Greek manuscript evidence and the problems of identifying earlier readings.

Assessment

Michaelis demonstrates that differences between the Septuagint and Hebrew do not necessarily prove the existence of different Hebrew originals. He distinguishes changes made by translators, including attempts to remove apparent contradictions, from alterations introduced by later Greek copyists to make parallel passages agree.

His strongest testimony concerns the Genesis chronology, which he maintained had been altered “rather late” in Greek, adding that “the present reading of the LXX” was not as old as Josephus. Although willing to accept Greek evidence when he considered it sufficiently supported, Michaelis rejected the assumption that surviving Septuagint readings necessarily preserve an older Hebrew text. His testimony demonstrates the importance of examining the Greek tradition itself rather than automatically treating its readings as ancient or superior.

Citation: Johann David Michaelis, review of Benjamin Kennicott, Göttingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen (1753), no. 128, pp. 1147–1152, especially 1148–1149; Michaelis, Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek, discussions of Septuagint readings, Old Testament chronology, and Jeremiah, including the discussion of Jeremiah 47:1 in the section concerning preferred readings in Jeremiah; Michaelis, Observationes philologicae et criticae in Jeremiae vaticinia et Threnos, ed. Johann Friedrich Schleusner (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1793); Michaelis, ed., Daniel secundum Septuaginta, ex Tetraplis Origenis, Romae anno 1772 ex Chisiano codice primum editus (Göttingen, 1773).

49. Robert Holmes (1748–1805)

Robert Holmes was an English clergyman and biblical scholar who became Canon of Christ Church and Dean of Winchester. In 1788 he began an extensive project to compare the manuscripts and other surviving evidence of the Septuagint. His work eventually resulted in Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectionibus, of which he completed the first volume before his death. His preface to that volume contains unusually explicit testimony concerning the condition of the surviving Septuagint.

The Septuagint Suffered “Many Faults,” Especially Additions and Alterations

Holmes stated that the Septuagint had suffered substantial textual damage:

Et credibile est profecto, multis eam vitiis, additamentis praecipue et permutationibus, laborasse.

Translation: “And it is certainly credible that it suffered from many faults, especially additions and alterations.”

He explained that words and passages had been written in the margins of Greek manuscripts, either to explain difficult expressions or to bring passages into closer agreement with the Hebrew. Such material could subsequently enter the text:

Et multae forsan de hoc genere lectiones in quosdam Codices irrepserant…

Translation: “And many readings of this kind had perhaps crept into certain manuscripts….”

When such material entered without replacing the older reading, unnecessary repetitions could result. When it replaced the older reading, the new wording could acquire the authority previously belonging to the ancient reading.

Holmes Found Later Additions in Isaiah and Zechariah

In his Third Annual Account, Holmes supplied concrete examples of how the Greek text could acquire additional material.

At Isaiah 15:2, he compared differing Greek readings and observed:

“It seems then that two interpretations stand together in the Vatican.”

He thus identified a passage where two alternative renderings appeared together in a single Greek manuscript.

At Zechariah 1:8, Holmes compared the wording and arrangement of several Greek copies. Observing that a disputed expression was absent from one manuscript and differently placed in another, he concluded:

“there seems to be the greater probability that it was a gloss brought from the margin into the text.”

A gloss is an explanatory note. Holmes therefore considered it probable that wording originally written in a manuscript’s margin had subsequently been incorporated into the biblical text.

These examples illustrate two different ways the surviving Septuagint could acquire additional material: by combining alternative renderings and by absorbing explanations originally written outside the text.

Two Greek Texts of Esther and Questionable Editorial Corrections

In his Fourth Annual Account, Holmes described an important manuscript at the British Museum, formerly called the Arundelian manuscript, which contained two different Greek texts of Esther. He wrote:

“the two different copies of the book of Esther, which it contains, one is according to the Hexaplar Text of Origen, the other, according to the Text of the Κοινή.”

The first followed the Greek text associated with Origen’s work of comparing and correcting biblical translations; the second followed the common Greek text. Both forms had been published by Archbishop James Ussher in 1655.

Holmes compared Ussher’s printed editions with the manuscript itself and found numerous differences. Concerning the manuscript’s contents, he observed:

“the variations of the MS. from any printed Text are extremely numerous, and many of them appear of great consequence.”

He then identified places where the manuscript copyist had left gaps because the wording in an earlier copy was apparently unreadable:

“There were left in the MS. vacant spaces; some capable of containing three or four lines: and thence it should seem that there were, at those several places in the copy from which the Arundelian was taken, parts of the Text which the writer could not make out, and for which the blanks were left, in case it should be possible to fill up the defects by the help of other legible copies.”

Ussher had attempted to restore much of the missing material, but some gaps remained. Holmes continued:

“Most of these deficiencies the Primate had then the means of supplying; and he accordingly inserted in the Arundelian MS. portions of the Text, which the writer of it had omitted. There however still remains in the MS. a vacant space of three lines at least, where the Primate has made no supplement. The Greek, there omitted, may possibly be preserved in other MSS. though it appeared in none that had then been examined.”

Holmes also found that Ussher’s printed edition did not always represent the manuscript accurately. Certain marks identifying textual differences had been omitted, misplaced, or introduced where they did not appear in the manuscript. Holmes further questioned some of Ussher’s corrections:

“What appeared to the Primate the mere error of the transcriber, that he corrected sometimes in the MS. itself, and always in his Edition. Corrections however are made in some instances, where it may be questioned whether a mistake had been made by the writer; and in each of the MS. copies, there are some few portions of Greek, which do not appear in the respective impression.”

This evidence establishes that different Greek forms of Esther circulated, that some manuscript readings had become unreadable, and that later editors sometimes supplied missing material or made corrections whose accuracy was uncertain. Moreover, printed editions could differ from the very manuscripts upon which they were based.

Wording Altered in Some Manuscripts Remained “Inviolate in Others”

Holmes rejected the assumption that all Septuagint manuscripts had suffered the same omissions, additions, and alterations:

Credendum erat potius, non eandem omnium ubique Codicum fuisse conditionem, sed alios aliis fuisse sinceros magis et accuratos; nonnulla in aliquibus fuisse servata, quae a reliquis defecerant; et abfuisse a nonnullis aliqua, quae in caeteris redundabant; et ista, quae fuerant permutata in quibusdam, apud alios inviolata permansisse.

Translation: “It was rather to be believed that the condition of all the manuscripts was not everywhere the same, but that some were more sound and accurate than others; that some things had been preserved in certain manuscripts which were missing from the rest; that some things were absent from certain manuscripts which were redundant in others; and that things which had been altered in some remained inviolate in others.”

He immediately added:

Atque ita rem sese revera habuisse, testari videntur Codices τῶν οʹ hodierni…

Translation: “And that the matter really was so, the present manuscripts of the Seventy appear to testify….”

Holmes therefore regarded the surviving manuscripts as preserving different forms of the text. Material lost in some survived in others, while readings altered in certain copies remained unchanged elsewhere.

Additions and Omissions Obscured “What the Seventy Had Actually Written”

In discussing attempts to correct the Greek text, Holmes raised the difficulty of identifying its original wording. Concerning Lucian, he wrote that he would often have been unable to know:

quidnam οἱ οʹ revera scripsissent, et quidnam sive interpolationi sive praetermissioni alienae esset tribuendum.

Translation: “what the Seventy had actually written, and what should be attributed either to interpolation or to omission by others.”

Holmes also maintained that material which should have remained in the Septuagint could subsequently be removed:

nonnulla, quae sane … debuerant in textu Septuagintavirali religiose conservari, ex eo tamen fuerunt eliminata.

Translation: “Some things which certainly … ought carefully to have been preserved in the Septuagint text were nevertheless eliminated from it.”

Additions and omissions could therefore make it difficult to determine what the original Greek translators had written.

“The Genuine Text” Survived in No Single Manuscript or Edition

In 1800 Holmes summarized the problem directly:

“Its genuine Text is not, as the Learned well know, contained at present in any one Manuscript, or Edition: but lies dispersed in all the Copies, with more or less of Omission or Interpolation in every one.”

He continued:

“What has been omitted, and what interpolated, is likely to become more fully known, when those Readings, in which the several Copies differ, shall have been placed in one collected view.”

Immediately before this, Holmes referred to:

“The ALTERATIONS made in this Version by Editors”

and explained that because of such alterations:

“what was at first its Own Genuine Text is become a question the more pressing and necessary.”

Holmes thus stated that no single manuscript or edition contained the complete genuine Septuagint text. Its earlier readings had to be sought among differing copies, each containing some degree of omission or added material.

The Original Septuagint Had to Be Recovered from Differing Copies

Holmes explained the purpose of his work:

ut textus eorum verus pervestigaretur in monimentis ipsorum universis.

Translation: “That their true text might be investigated through all their surviving witnesses.”

He regarded differences among manuscripts as essential evidence because:

propriam diversorum exemplarium indolem a Variantibus passim commonstrari.

Translation: “The distinctive character of the different copies is everywhere shown by their variant readings.”

He therefore concluded:

Varias lectiones in eruditorum manus trado…

Translation: “I place the variant readings into the hands of learned men….”

For Holmes, the original Septuagint could not simply be identified with one manuscript, printed edition, or corrected form of the Greek text. Its wording had to be investigated by comparing all the surviving evidence.

Assessment

Holmes’ testimony is especially valuable because he spent years personally examining Greek manuscripts and identifying additions, omissions, alternative renderings, and editorial corrections. His investigation of Esther revealed two forms of the Greek text, missing material, and questionable corrections, while his comparisons of Isaiah and Zechariah illustrated how additional wording could enter surviving manuscripts.

Most importantly, Holmes declared that the “genuine Text” was not preserved in any single manuscript or edition but lay “dispersed in all the Copies,” each containing some degree of “Omission or Interpolation.” His testimony contradicts the idea that the Septuagint survived as one uniform, continuously preserved Greek Old Testament. Nevertheless, Holmes valued the ancient translation and sought to recover its genuine wording; his criticism concerned the condition of its surviving copies and editions, not the translation itself.

Citation: Robert Holmes, Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectionibus, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1798), Praefatio ad Tomum I; Holmes, The Third Annual Account of the Collation of the MSS. of the Septuagint-Version (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 15, 18; Holmes, The Fourth Annual Account of the Collation of the MSS. of the Septuagint-Version (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 3–5; Holmes, The Septuagint-Version, printed at Rome in the year 1587, has been during eleven years past under collation with its Manuscripts… ([Oxford], 1800), prospectus.

50. Sebastian Seemiller (1752–1798)

Sebastian Seemiller (1752–1798) was a Roman Catholic theologian, professor at the University of Ingolstadt, and university librarian. In two works published in 1787 and 1788, he examined the origins, corruption, revision, and transmission of the ancient Greek translations of the Old Testament. His investigations document alterations by copyists and editors, the incorporation of other Greek translations, and the replacement of an entire biblical book.

The Septuagint Was Produced by Different Translators at Different Times

Seemiller argued:

Cum ex hactenus dictis satis constet, graecam V. T. versionem septuaginta-viralem diversis temporibus, & diversorum quidem interpretum studio confectam esse, quis per se facile intelligit, eam in diversis libris diversam, accuratiorem in his, in illis minus accuratam esse.

Translation: “Since it is sufficiently established from what has been said thus far that the Greek version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint was produced at different times, and indeed through the work of different translators, anyone can easily understand that it is different in the different books, being more accurate in some and less accurate in others.”

Seemiller therefore rejected the idea that the entire Greek Old Testament originated in one uniform act of translation.

Corruption Had Entered the Septuagint by the Apostolic Age

Under the heading De versionis Septuaginta-viralis corruptione, ejusdemque emendatione ab Origene facta (“On the corruption of the Septuagint Version and its correction by Origen”), Seemiller wrote:

Nemo igitur mirari debet, jam Christi & Apostolorum aetate scribarum partim negligentia, partim imperitia quosdam in versionem illam irrepsisse naevos; quamvis de corruptione illius studio, jam tum quidem facta nihil veteres memoriae prodiderint.

Translation: “No one therefore ought to wonder that, already in the age of Christ and the Apostles, certain blemishes had crept into that version, partly through the negligence and partly through the ignorance of scribes; although the ancient writers have handed down no account of its deliberate corruption at that early date.”

He distinguished evidence of corruption from additions in ancient writers that might have originated elsewhere:

Si quando Josephus, hac versione constanter fere usus, quaedam habet additamenta: non ea statim ex aliquo versionis illius exemplari hausisse censendus est. Nam ex traditione etiam judaica haurire potuit. Attamen quaedam loca jam Philonis aetate amanuensium negligentia vel imperitia fuisse corrupta, ex locis quibusdam a Philone citatis luculenter patet.

Translation: “If Josephus, who generally used this version consistently, sometimes has additions, he should not immediately be thought to have drawn them from some copy of that version. For he could also have drawn them from Jewish tradition. Nevertheless, it is clearly evident from certain passages cited by Philo that some places had already been corrupted in Philo’s time through the negligence or ignorance of copyists.”

Justin Martyr Revealed Passages “Enlarged, Diminished, or Otherwise Corrupted”

Seemiller appealed to Justin Martyr as evidence that textual alteration preceded Origen:

Seculo secundo textum hujus versionis non paucis in locis adulteratum fuisse, ex Justino M. probari potest. Is enim, saltem in Prophetis minoribus, loca complura vel aucta, vel diminuta, vel aliunde adulterata citavit.

Translation: “It can be proved from Justin Martyr that in the second century the text of this version had been corrupted in not a few places. For he cited, at least in the Minor Prophets, several passages which had either been enlarged, diminished, or otherwise corrupted.”

Origen Found the Septuagint Corrupted “to an Astonishing Degree”

Seemiller described the condition of the Greek text encountered by Origen:

Origenes vero Saeculo tertio textum versionis septuaginta-viralis mirum in modum adulteratum esse observavit, sive propter scribarum quorundam incuriam, sive propter nefariam aliquorum Scripturas emendantium audaciam, sive propter eos, qui, dum Scripturas emendant, pro arbitrio addunt vel detrahunt.

Translation: “Origen, however, in the third century observed that the text of the Septuagint version had been corrupted to an astonishing degree, whether through the carelessness of certain scribes, or through the wicked audacity of some who undertook to correct the Scriptures, or through those who, while correcting the Scriptures, added or subtracted according to their own judgment.”

Seemiller identified both copying errors and deliberate attempts to correct the text as causes of corruption.

Origen’s Work Produced Two Different Forms of the Septuagint

Seemiller explained that Origen’s comparisons produced another form of the Septuagint alongside the common Greek text:

Ab eo tempore, quo Origenes Hexapla adornaverat, duae exstiterunt versionis septuaginta-viralis editiones, nimirum 1) editio κοινὴ seu vulgata, qualem nimirum exemplaria pleraque ante Origenis emendationem exhibebant, corruptam illam admodum, qualem & Tetraplae idem exhibebat; & 2) editio Hexaplaris, ad fidem hebraici textus ex aliis graecis versionibus ab Origene emendata.

Translation: “From the time when Origen had prepared the Hexapla, two editions of the Septuagint version existed: namely, 1) the koine or common edition, such as most copies exhibited before Origen’s correction—that very greatly corrupted text which the Tetrapla also exhibited; and 2) the Hexaplaric edition, corrected by Origen according to the Hebrew text from the other Greek versions.”

Thus, the already corrupted common text and Origen’s revised text circulated as different forms of the Septuagint.

The Greek Text “Departed More and More” from Its Original Purity After Origen

Seemiller described the consequences of repeated copying:

Cum post Eusebii & Pamphili aetatem versio septuaginta-viralis cum asteriscis & obelis origenianis, nec non selectioribus origenis notis marginalibus; quin & versionum aliarum fragmentis, innumeris pene vicibus, & saepe quidem ab indoctis & negligentibus describeretur: sensim illa novis erroribus deturpari, magisque indies a primaeva puritate coepit recedere.

Translation: “Since after the age of Eusebius and Pamphilus the Septuagint version, together with Origen’s asterisks and obeli, as well as selected marginal notes of Origen and even fragments of other versions, was copied almost innumerable times, and often indeed by ignorant and negligent men, it gradually became disfigured by new errors and departed more and more every day from its original purity.”

He explained how signs distinguishing different readings were confused or lost:

Saepe enim imperiti, aut negligentes codicum scriptores Obelorum loco asteriscos, aut asteriscorum loco obelos posuerunt. Saepe cum hos, tum illos omiserunt penitus. Interdum fragmenta Aquilae, Symmachi, & Theodotionis, aliorumque in margine posita textui ipsi τῶν septuaginta inseruerunt.

Translation: “For ignorant or negligent copyists often put asterisks in place of obeli, or obeli in place of asterisks. Frequently they omitted both entirely. Sometimes they inserted into the text of the Septuagint itself fragments of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and others which had been placed in the margin.”

The signs were intended to distinguish differences between the Greek and Hebrew texts. Their confusion or disappearance could make additions from other translations appear to belong to the Septuagint itself.

Other Greek Translations Were Used to Supply Wording Missing from the Septuagint

In his second dissertation (1788), Seemiller described how Theodotion’s translation became mixed with the Septuagint:

Ob magnam versionis Theodotionae cum versione septuaginta-virali convenientiam ea, quae in versione τῶν septuaginta deerant, ex Theodotione suppleta sunt; id quod saepe accidit, praesertim in libris Josuae, Judicum, Regum, Job, Jeremiae, Ezechielis.

Translation: “Because of the great agreement between Theodotion’s translation and the Septuagint version, things missing from the version of the Seventy were supplied from Theodotion; this happened frequently, especially in Joshua, Judges, Kings, Job, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.”

This identifies specific biblical books in which Seemiller reported that another Greek translation supplied material to the Septuagint.

The Original Greek Daniel Had “Almost Entirely Perished”

Seemiller described how Theodotion’s translation of Daniel displaced the older Septuagint version:

Inde factum est, ut translatio Danielis graeca secundum septuaginta interpretes paulatim fere penitus interierit. Nec hodie quidem, nisi unicum, ejus exemplar manuscriptum aut exsistit, aut certe detegi hactenus potuit, illud ipsum nempe, quod Romae anno 1772 primo omnium ex Chisiano codice descriptum, & jam iteratis vicibus typis excusum esse supra §. X. jam animadverti.

Translation: “Hence it came about that the Greek translation of Daniel according to the Seventy gradually almost entirely perished. Nor does even today more than a single manuscript copy of it exist, or at least more than one has thus far been discovered—namely, the very one which, as I have already noted above in § X, was first published at Rome in 1772 from the Chisian manuscript and has since been printed several times.”

His statement reflects the manuscript evidence known in 1788. The older Greek Daniel had been so extensively displaced that he knew of only one surviving manuscript copy.

In his first dissertation, Seemiller had already observed:

Atque hae omnes quidem versionis septuaginta-viralis editiones Danielem graecum exhibent, qualem Theodotio vertit.

Translation: “And all these editions of the Septuagint version present Greek Daniel as Theodotion translated it.”

Thus, the principal printed Septuagint editions contained Theodotion’s Daniel rather than the older Greek translation.

Competing Revisions Supplied Wording That Corrupted the Greek Text

Seemiller discussed revisions associated with Lucian, Hesychius, and Basil. Concerning Lucian, he wrote:

Hic quoque ex Hebraico textu, tanquam fonte, versionem illam studuit emendare.

Translation: “He too endeavored to emend that version from the Hebrew text as his source.”

He described the effect of these revisions:

Atque hae quoque diversae recensiones textus septuaginta-viralis amplam criticis antiquioribus subministrarunt, necesse est, variantium lectionum segetem, quibus non nulli ad emendandum, alii ad corrumpendum eundem textum usi sunt.

Translation: “And these various recensions of the Septuagint text must also have furnished earlier critics with a plentiful crop of variant readings, which some used to correct that same text, and others to corrupt it.”

The competing revisions therefore supplied additional readings that could be used either to correct or further alter the Greek text.

The Pure Septuagint before Origen Is “Sought in Vain Today”

Seemiller reported Bernard de Montfaucon’s judgment:

Montefalconio judice editio septuaginta interpretum pura, & qualis erat ante Origenem frustra quaeratur hodie.

Translation: “In Montfaucon’s judgment, the pure edition of the Septuagint interpreters, such as it was before Origen, is sought in vain today.”

This is Montfaucon’s judgment as reported by Seemiller, not Seemiller’s own declaration in those words.

Even Quotations of the LXX in Ancient Writers Were Corrupted

Seemiller reported Johann Gottfried Eichhorn’s observation:

Eichhornius illud quoque animadvertit, sequentibus saeculis ex corruptis codicibus τῶν LXX. Manuscriptis citationes quoque versionis illius in scriptoribus Origene anterioribus, Philone & Justino, correctas aut, verius, corruptas fuisse, adeo, ut Philo & Justinus in hodiernis editionibus citent graecas Aquilae, Symmachi aliorumque versiones, sua aetate aut nondum existentes, aut ipsis certe incognitas.

Translation: “Eichhorn also observed that in subsequent centuries the citations of this version in writers earlier than Origen, Philo and Justin, were corrected—or, more truly, corrupted—from corrupted manuscripts of the Septuagint, so that Philo and Justin in present-day editions cite the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and others which either did not yet exist in their own age or were certainly unknown to them.”

According to Eichhorn’s argument, later copying could alter even the quotations preserved in ancient writers, making those quotations uncertain evidence for the earlier Septuagint.

A Printed Septuagint Contained Material from Other Greek Translations

Concerning the Aldine edition, Seemiller wrote:

Textus ex codicibus Msscriptis, quos tamen editores non nominarunt, expressus est, idem vero ex aliis graecis versionibus, maxime Theodotionis, interpolatus.

Translation: “The text was taken from manuscript codices, which, however, the editors did not identify; but it was also interpolated from other Greek versions, especially that of Theodotion.”

Thus, the printed edition incorporated readings from other translations rather than reproducing an uncontaminated Septuagint text.

Editors Altered the Wording of Manuscripts “According to Their Own Judgment”

Seemiller criticized the Roman edition’s editors:

Non recte factum est ab editoribus, quod non modo orthographiam ejusdem in editione mutarint, sed & lectiones, quae menda scribarum ipsis videbantur, hinc inde pro arbitrio correxerint.

Translation: “The editors acted improperly in that they not only altered its orthography in the edition, but also corrected here and there, according to their own judgment, readings which appeared to them to be scribal errors.”

The printed edition therefore did not consistently reproduce its manuscript source.

Printed Editions Claimed to Follow One Text but Included Wording from Others

Seemiller observed:

Aliae fere omnes editiones, licet in titulo legatur, esse eas ad Romanam editionem exactas, textum exhibent in locis plurimis, ex Aldina potissimum, & Complutensi editionibus, interpolatum.

Translation: “Almost all the other editions, although their title pages state that they were made according to the Roman edition, present a text that has been interpolated in many places, chiefly from the Aldine and Complutensian editions.”

Thus, even editions claiming to reproduce a particular Greek text could contain readings from other editions.

Editors Sometimes Failed to Record the Manuscript Wording They Rejected

Seemiller gave revealing details about the edition based on the Alexandrian manuscript, begun by Johann Ernst Grabe and completed after his death.

First, he described how missing passages were supplied:

Quae deerant in MScpto Alexandrino, ex Romana editione, aliisque Codicibus manuscriptis, quin interdum ex sola conjectura critica suppleverunt, & minoribus typis excudenda curarunt editores.

Translation: “What was missing from the Alexandrian manuscript the editors supplied from the Roman edition and other manuscripts, and sometimes even from critical conjecture alone, and arranged to have it printed in smaller type.”

He then explained how readings preferred by the editors could replace the manuscript’s actual wording:

Ubi ipsa Codicis Alexandrini lectio editoribus mendosa est visa, eam, litteris in textu usurpatis impressam collocarunt in margine, recipientes in textum eam lectionem, quae ipsis melior videbatur. Attamen saepe rejecta Codicis Alexandrini lectio in margine non reperitur annotata: ubivis vero editores orthographiam huic codici plane propriam mutarunt.

Translation: “Where the reading of the Alexandrian manuscript itself appeared erroneous to the editors, they placed it in the margin, printed in the type used for the text, while admitting into the text the reading that seemed better to them. Nevertheless, the rejected reading of the Alexandrian manuscript is often not recorded in the margin; moreover, the editors everywhere altered the spelling peculiar to that manuscript.”

These practices introduced proposed corrections without manuscript support, substituted wording, and changes not always fully documented in the printed edition.

Unusual Greek Wording May Have Originated as Explanatory Notes

Seemiller cautioned against drawing unwarranted conclusions from isolated Greek differences:

Verum, & illud est animadvertendum, ex uno aliove loco aliter verso, quam quidem reliqui verterunt interpretes graeci nobis hactenus cogniti, non statim colligi posse, extitisse olim aliam quoque versionem. Nam loca ejusmodi varia etiam scholia esse possunt veterum scripturae interpretum.

Translation: “But this also must be observed: from one passage or another translated differently from the way the other Greek translators known to us have translated it, one cannot immediately conclude that another translation once existed. For various passages of this kind may also be explanatory notes by ancient interpreters of Scripture.”

Seemiller thus distinguished readings belonging to another translation from explanatory notes that might have entered the Greek text.

Assessment

Seemiller traces successive alterations of the Septuagint from its early circulation through manuscript copying, Origen’s revisions, the incorporation of other Greek translations, and the production of printed editions. He describes corruption already in the apostolic age, a text corrupted “to an astonishing degree” by Origen’s time, and the subsequent loss or confusion of readings. His account of Daniel is particularly significant: Theodotion’s translation displaced the older Greek version so extensively that only one manuscript copy of the latter was known to Seemiller.

His examination of printed editions is equally forceful. Editors combined different sources, supplied missing passages by conjecture, substituted preferred readings, and sometimes failed to record those they rejected. His testimony therefore presents the Septuagint not as one fixed and continuously preserved Greek text, but as a collection of translations transmitted through repeated alteration, revision, and editorial mixture.

Citation: Sebastian Seemiller, De Graecis Bibliorum V. T. Versionibus Dissertatio Historico-Critica, Programma I, De Versione Septuaginta Interpretum (Ingolstadt: Sebastian Valentin Haberberger, 1787), §§ II, IV, VI, VII, IX–XI, especially pp. 12–28; Programma II, De Versionibus Aquilae, Symmachi, Theodotionis, aliorumque, quas Hexaplis suis Origenes inseruit (Ingolstadt: Sebastian Valentin Haberberger, 1788), §§ XIV, XVII, pp. 38–39, 49.

51. Adam Clarke (1762–1832)

Adam Clarke was a British Methodist minister, theologian, and biblical commentator whose extensive Commentary and Critical Notes became one of the most influential English-language biblical commentaries of the nineteenth century. Comparing the Hebrew Scriptures with their ancient translations, he identified substantial additions, omissions, rearrangements, translation errors, and changes introduced during the transmission of the Septuagint. Although he held the Greek translation in exceptionally high regard, he documented significant differences between its manuscripts, printed editions, and the Hebrew text.

The Septuagint “Often Transposes, Changes, and Adds”

In his Introduction to Proverbs, Clarke makes one of his strongest general statements concerning the Greek translation:

“But the Septuagint takes greater liberty with the sacred text than any of the rest: it often transposes, changes, and adds; and all these to a very considerable extent.”

He continues:

“This is the version which is quoted in the New Testament. Several of these additions, as well as the most important changes, the reader will find noticed in the following notes; but to mark them all would require a translation of almost the whole Greek text.”

Explanatory Notes “Entered Accordingly by Succeeding Copyists”

In the General Preface to his commentary, Clarke explains how notes written between lines or in margins of handwritten copies could become part of the biblical text:

“Comments written in this way, have given birth to multitudes of the various readings afforded by ancient manuscripts: for, the notes of distinction being omitted or neglected, the gloss was considered as an integral part of the text, and entered accordingly by succeeding copyists.”

He expressly applies this explanation to the Septuagint:

“In the Septuagint also, traces of this custom are easily discernible, and to this circumstance many of its various readings may be attributed.”

Verses “Wanting in the Septuagint” and Others Rearranged

Clarke’s notes on Proverbs illustrate the alterations described in his introduction.

At Proverbs 9:11 and 9:18, he identifies substantial additional Greek material. At Proverbs 18:22, he objects to expansions of the Hebrew statement about finding a wife:

“None of the versions, except the Chaldee, are pleased with the naked simplicity of the Hebrew text, hence they all add good.”

He continues:

“The Septuagint is not satisfied without an addition:”

Clarke then reproduces additional wording concerning a man who dismisses a good wife or retains an adulteress, although he considers the Hebrew sufficient without these qualifications.

At Proverbs 20, he identifies a much larger rearrangement:

“In this chapter, verses fourteen to nineteen, inclusive, are wanting in the Septuagint and Arabic; and the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth, come in after the twenty-second.”

He suggests a possible explanation:

“It is difficult to account for these variations, unless they were occasioned by the change of leaves in MSS.”

The differences involve entire verses being omitted or moved. Elsewhere in Proverbs, Clarke records disagreements among Greek manuscripts and printed editions.

“This Ancient Version Is All Confusion”

Clarke also identified passages in which he believed the Greek translators misunderstood the Hebrew.

At Job 39:13, he writes:

“The Septuagint, not knowing what to make of these different terms, have left them all untranslated, so as to make a sentence without sense.”

In his sermon on Proverbs 30:4, he similarly observes:

“But in the commencement of this chapter, this ancient Version is all confusion.”

These criticisms concern translation errors rather than changes introduced by later copyists.

“That Large Omission in the Septuagint”

Clarke examines the differences between the Hebrew and Greek accounts of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17–18.

At 1 Samuel 17:12, he identifies the missing passages:

“The 12th verse, to the 31st inclusive, are wanting in the Septuagint; as also the 41st verse; and from the 54th to the end; with the first five verses of 1 Samuel 18, and the 9th, 10th, 11th, 17th, 18th, and 19th of the same.”

He observes that the disputed passages appear in an ancient Greek manuscript called Codex Alexandrinus, but believes the manuscript from which it was copied did not originally contain them. He then judges:

“Dr. Kennicott has rendered it very probable that these portions are not a genuine part of the text.”

Clarke also considers the shorter account more consistent:

“Notwithstanding what Bishop Warburton and others have done to clear the chronology of the present printed Hebrew, it is impossible to make a clear consistent sense of the history, unless these verses are omitted.”

At 1 Samuel 17:58, he discusses the difficulty of Saul apparently failing to recognize David, although David had previously served him. Rejecting the proposed explanations, he writes:

“I must honestly confess they do not satisfy me; and I must refer the reader to what immediately follows on the authenticity of the verses which concern this subject.”

Introducing an extended discussion by Pilkington and Kennicott, Clarke writes:

“On the subject of that large omission in the Septuagint of which I have spoken on 1 Samuel 17:12, I here subjoin the reasons of Mr. Pilkington and Dr. Kennicott for supposing it to be an interpolation of some rabbinical writer, added at a very early period to the Hebrew text.”

The argument that follows belongs principally to those scholars, whom Clarke quotes and evaluates.

Clarke thus considers whether the shorter Greek narrative preserves an earlier account and the longer Hebrew contains an ancient addition. He also documents disagreements among Greek manuscripts, including passages omitted by some copies but retained or marked as doubtful by others.

The Greek Text Contained “Remarkable Additions”

Clarke identifies additional Greek material in several historical and prophetic books.

At Judges 4:9, he writes:

“The Septuagint made a remarkable addition to the speech of Barak:”

He reproduces the expanded speech, including Barak’s explanation that he does not know when the Lord will send his angel to grant success. Clarke considers whether Barak wanted Deborah present to identify the proper moment to attack. He adds:

“St. Ambrose and St. Augustine have the same reading; but it is found in no MS. nor in any other of the versions.”

At Joshua 24:1, Clarke identifies a difference among printed Greek editions:

“The Septuagint appear to have been struck with this difficulty, and therefore read Σηλω. Shiloh, both here and in Joshua 24:25, though the Aldine and Complutensian editions have Συχεμ, Shechem, in both places.”

He considers whether the change arose from an attempt to resolve an apparent historical difficulty, although he regards the difficulty as possibly more apparent than real.

At Joshua 24:30–33, he records additional Greek material absent from the corresponding Hebrew narrative, including a reference to the stone knives associated with the circumcision at Gilgal.

At the end of Joshua 24:33, Clarke introduces a longer addition:

“At the end of this verse the Septuagint add:”

The additional narrative describes the Israelites carrying the ark, Phinehas succeeding his father, the people returning to their cities, and Israel subsequently worshipping foreign gods and falling under Eglon’s oppression.

At Genesis 32:29, Clarke identifies wording present in some Greek manuscripts but absent from others:

“After this clause the Aldine edition of the Septuagint, and several MSS., add”

He supplies the Greek wording, meaning “which is wonderful,” and observes:

“but this addition seems to have been taken from Judges 13:18.”

Among the prophets, Clarke discusses additional Greek wording at Isaiah 5:30 and its possible relationship to Isaiah 8:22.

At Hosea 13:4, he writes:

“There is a remarkable addition in the Septuagint here:”

He reproduces words in which God identifies himself as the creator of heaven and earth and speaks of bringing Israel out of Egypt. Clarke nevertheless allows:

“This might have been once in the Hebrew text.”

He therefore does not assume that every additional Greek passage originated with the translators or later copyists; some might preserve wording lost from surviving Hebrew manuscripts.

Six Additional Verses Absent from Other Greek Copies

At Psalm 14:3, Clarke discusses six additional verses corresponding to material quoted in Romans 3:13–18. He describes them as:

“that remarkable addition of no less than six verses”

He considers Jerome’s explanation that Paul gathered quotations from several Old Testament passages and later copyists inserted them into the Greek Psalm. Clarke questions this explanation:

“When the reader has collated all these passages in the original, he will probably feel little satisfaction relative to the probability of the hypothesis they are summoned to support.”

He also identifies differences among surviving Greek texts:

“They are not in the Codex Alexandrinus of the Septuagint; nor are they in either the Greek or Latin text of the Complutensian Polyglot.”

Clarke records their absence from several other editions and ancient translations, while acknowledging their presence elsewhere. He thus documents substantial variation without accepting Jerome’s explanation as established.

At Psalm 40:6, Clarke examines another disagreement. The Hebrew speaks of opened ears, while the Septuagint reads “a body hast thou prepared me,” as quoted in Hebrews 10:5.

Following Kennicott, he considers whether the Greek translators possessed a Hebrew manuscript with different wording and whether the surviving Hebrew suffered a copying error. He acknowledges, however, that the Syriac, Chaldee, and Vulgate agree with the existing Hebrew and that the manuscripts examined by Kennicott and De Rossi provide no alternative Hebrew reading.

The Hebrew Originals Were the “Touchstones” of All Translations

Clarke’s criticisms must be understood alongside his exceptionally favorable assessment of the Septuagint.

In Sermon XXXI, “Divine Revelation,” he writes:

“The Greek version of the Septuagint has been, both to Jews and Christians, of the utmost importance, as a faithful testimony of the antiquity of the Jewish Scriptures, and their uncorrupted transmission to posterity.”

Although he praises its general faithfulness and its use by Christ and the apostles, he identifies the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as the standards for judging translations:

“The Hebrew of the Old, and the Greek of the New, being still preserved, are the touchstones to which these and all other versions and translations must be brought, to ascertain their correctness, and prevent additions, defalcations, and corruptions of every kind.”

He emphasizes the Septuagint’s importance for understanding biblical language:

“And I can safely add, that the best Greek scholar in the universe must labour in vain, in a great variety of cases, to make out the phraseology of the New Testament, without the assistance of the Septuagint version; and we have already noticed what light this version throws on many words and forms of speech in the Hebrew originals.”

His praise becomes still more emphatic:

“To this version Christianity, under God, owes much. To it we are indebted for such a knowledge of the Hebrew originals of the Old Testament, as we never could have had without it, the pure Hebrew having ceased to be vernacular after the Babylonish captivity; and Jesus Christ and his apostles have stamped an infinite value on this version, by the general use they have made of it in the New Testament; perhaps never once quoting directly the Hebrew text, or using any other version than some copy of the Septuagint.”

Clarke therefore considered the Septuagint generally faithful and indispensable to biblical scholarship, notwithstanding the alterations and mistakes he identified in particular passages.

Assessment

Clarke combines a sweeping judgment concerning extensive changes in Greek Proverbs with evidence of additions, omissions, rearrangements, translation errors, and disagreements among Greek manuscripts and printed editions. He also explains how copyists incorporated explanatory notes into the text.

Although he strongly defended the Septuagint’s general faithfulness, he recognized significant textual differences and sometimes preferred Greek readings to the surviving Hebrew. His testimony establishes that the Septuagint known to him was neither the same in all surviving copies nor free from substantial alteration.

Citation: Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, with a Commentary and Critical Notes (New York: G. Lane and C. B. Tippett, 1843–1846), General Preface; notes on Genesis 32:29; Joshua 24:1, 24:30–33; Judges 4:9; 1 Samuel 17–18; Job 39:13; Psalms 14:3 and 40:6; Introduction to Proverbs and notes on Proverbs 9:11, 9:18, 18:22, and 20:10–30; Isaiah 5:30; Hosea 13:4; and Acts 15:17; Clarke, Discourses on Various Subjects, vol. III, 3rd ed. (New York: M’Elrath & Bangs, 1831), Sermon XXXI, “Divine Revelation,” pp. 42–47; Miscellaneous Works, vol. VI, Sermon XXVII, “The Prayer of Agur,” p. 267.

52. Archibald Alexander (1772–1851)

Archibald Alexander (1772–1851) was an American Presbyterian theologian, defender of the divine inspiration of Scripture, and founding professor of Princeton Theological Seminary. In his writings on biblical history and the authority of Scripture, he maintained that the Septuagint consisted of translations made by different men, that some books were translated inaccurately, that other Greek translations became mixed with it, and that its manuscripts suffered extensive corruption.

The Septuagint Was “Not the Work of One Man, Nor of One Set of Translators”

In Annals of the Jewish Nation (1832), Alexander rejected the belief that the entire Greek Old Testament had been translated by the same men:

“Arisæas, Josephus, &c., speak only of the Law of Moses; and there is internal evidence sufficiently strong to convince us, that all the books were not translated by the same interpreters; for there is a marked difference in the style as well as in the words used to express particular things. The faithfulness and skill too, with which the version of the several parts is executed, proves conclusively that the whole is not the work of one man, nor of one set of translators.”

He continued:

“The probability is, that the five books of Moses were first turned into Greek, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 277 B. C., and that the other books were added after no long interval, by different interpreters, until all the books of the Old Testament were finished.”

Alexander thus regarded the Greek Old Testament as a collection of translations made by different men, rather than one work produced by a single group of translators.

Some Books Were Translated “With Little Care”

In The Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, Alexander described the unequal accuracy of the Greek translations:

“But it is manifest from internal evidence, that it was not the work of one hand, nor probably of one set of translators: for, while some books are rendered with great accuracy, and in a very literal manner, others are translated with little care, and the meaning of the original is very imperfectly given.”

Alexander therefore distinguished the more accurate books from those that seriously misrepresented the Hebrew. The fact that these translations circulated under one name did not mean that they were equally trustworthy.

The Original Greek Translation of Daniel Was Replaced by a Later Version

Alexander also described how later Greek translations became mixed with the Septuagint. In The Canon, he wrote:

“The truth, however, is, that these books were not originally connected with the Septuagint; they were probably introduced into some of the later Greek versions, which were made by heretics. These versions, particularly that of Theodotion, came to be used promiscuously with that of the LXX; and to this day, the common copies contain the version of the book of Daniel by Theodotion, instead of that by the LXX.”

Alexander was discussing both additional books and the use of other Greek translations. His example of Daniel shows that the Greek Old Testament commonly circulated under the Septuagint name did not always contain the earlier Greek translation. Another translator’s work had taken its place.

The Greek Copies Suffered “Much Greater Injuries” and Had Become “Very Much Corrupted”

Alexander’s strongest statement appears in Annals of the Jewish Nation. He rejected the argument that the Septuagint should be preferred to the surviving Hebrew because it had been translated from an ancient Hebrew copy:

“The pretence, however, that the Septuagint must be more correct than the present Hebrew copies, because taken from a copy made probably when the autograph of Ezra was extant, has no weight; because, waiving all doubts which might be started respecting the accuracy of the copy from which the seventy translated, the copies of this version have been subject to as great, and indeed much greater, injuries from the carelessness of transcribers, than the Hebrew copies.

“We know that as early as the time of Origen, it had became very much corrupted.”

Alexander was not merely identifying mistakes made by the original translators. He expressly attributed additional corruption to the men who copied the Greek text through the centuries. He considered that corruption sufficiently extensive to defeat the claim that the Septuagint was more reliable than the Hebrew simply because of its antiquity.

Apostolic Quotations Did Not Sanction “the Whole of It”

Alexander acknowledged that the New Testament writers commonly quoted the Septuagint and regarded it as sufficiently accurate for their purposes. Nevertheless, he rejected the conclusion that their use of it established the correctness of the entire Greek translation:

“It cannot, however, be hence inferred, that the whole of it is sanctioned by these quotations, for sometimes the inspired penmen give a more correct version of what they quote, and in many instances do not exactly follow the Septuagint.”

He therefore distinguished the apostles’ use of particular Greek passages from an endorsement of every reading in the Septuagint.

Other Books Became Mixed with the Books of Scripture in Greek Manuscripts

In Evidences of the Authenticity, Inspiration and Canonical Authority of the Holy Scriptures, Alexander described how books outside the Hebrew canon came to be included in Greek biblical manuscripts:

“The Greek fathers were accustomed to use the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and several of these books, now in question, being also in Greek became mixed with the canonical books, in the copies of this version. The oldest Greek MSS. of the LXX. contain them intermingled with the other books, so that they must have become so at an early period.”

Alexander was describing additions to the collection of biblical books, not changes to the wording of individual translations. His testimony nevertheless shows that Greek biblical manuscripts came to contain writings beyond those recognized in the Hebrew canon.

Assessment

Alexander maintained that the Septuagint was produced by different translators of unequal ability, that other Greek translations became mixed with it, and that its copies suffered greater corruption than the Hebrew manuscripts. He declared that the Greek text had already become “very much corrupted” by Origen’s time and denied that apostolic quotations established the accuracy of the entire translation. His testimony is particularly significant because he firmly defended the inspiration of Scripture while recognizing that the Septuagint was a fallible human translation whose transmitted text had undergone extensive corruption.

Citations: Archibald Alexander, Annals of the Jewish Nation During the Period of the Second Temple (New York: Jonathan Leavitt, 1832), chap. VIII, §§209–214; The Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained; or, The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1851), Part I, §§II–III, pp. 33–34, 80–81; Evidences of the Authenticity, Inspiration and Canonical Authority of the Holy Scriptures (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, later expanded edition), chap. XVIII.

53. Thomas Hartwell Horne (1780–1862)

Thomas Hartwell Horne was an English Anglican biblical scholar and author of the widely used An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, which passed through numerous editions during his lifetime. He examined the origins of the Septuagint, differences among its translators, alterations made to its text, disagreements among its manuscripts, and changes introduced into printed editions. Although he valued the Septuagint as an important witness to the Old Testament, he did not regard its surviving copies as preserving one unchanged Greek text.

“Several Translators” Working “at Different Times”

Horne regarded the traditional account of the Septuagint’s origin as uncertain. He found evidence within the translation itself that its books had been translated separately:

“The difference of style also indicates the version to have been the work not of one but of several translators, and to have been executed at different times.”

He also considered the translator of the Law of Moses more capable than those responsible for some of the other books. Thus, even before the Greek text underwent later changes, the Septuagint was not one uniform translation produced by a single group at one time.

“Many Thousands” of Differences Required Scholars to “Restore the Genuine Text”

Horne recognized that copying errors had affected biblical manuscripts and that comparing surviving copies was necessary:

“to restore the genuine text of Scripture.”

He discussed the extensive work of Robert Holmes and James Parsons, whose Septuagint edition brought together evidence from hundreds of Greek manuscripts and other sources. The differences collected amounted to:

“many thousands.”

Horne observed that comparatively few of these differences substantially affected important passages. Nevertheless, the great number of differing readings demonstrated why scholars could not simply assume that any surviving Greek manuscript preserved the original wording throughout.

Two Ancient Greek Manuscripts Preserved Different Forms of the Septuagint

Horne distinguished two of the most important Greek biblical manuscripts according to their relationship to Origen’s work:

“If, however, that manuscript be most respectable which comes the nearest to Origen’s Hexaplar copy of the Septuagint Old Testament, the Alexandrian manuscript seems to claim that merit in preference to its rival: but if it be thought a matter of superior honour to approach nearer the old Greek version, uncorrected by Origen, that merit seems to be due to the Vatican.”

Horne therefore considered Codex Alexandrinus closer to Origen’s corrected Greek text, while Codex Vaticanus appeared closer to the earlier translation before Origen’s corrections. The two manuscripts represented different stages in the history of the Greek text, not simply identical copies of one unchanged version.

Origen Added Material from Other Greek Versions “for the Sake of Uniformity”

Horne explained that Origen supplied passages missing from the Septuagint, principally using another Greek translation made by Theodotion. This was done, apparently:

“for the sake of uniformity.”

Origen used special marks to distinguish material he had supplied from the older Septuagint wording. Thus, the corrected Greek text contained material taken from another translator.

This also explains Horne’s distinction between Vaticanus and Alexandrinus: a manuscript closer to Origen’s corrected text was not necessarily closer to the earlier Greek translation.

The “Incorrect” Greek Daniel Was Replaced by Another Translation

Horne described the original Septuagint translation of Daniel as:

“incorrect”

Theodotion’s Greek translation eventually replaced it in ordinary church use. Consequently, the Greek Daniel commonly transmitted in Christian Bibles was not the original Septuagint translation of that book.

Horne also discussed the older Greek Daniel and additional material associated with the Greek tradition, including Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and Bel and the Dragon. The history of Greek Daniel therefore involved both the replacement of a translation and the transmission of additional material.

Psalm Titles Added Without Supporting Manuscript Evidence

Horne observed that more than thirty psalms anonymous in the Hebrew text received names in the Septuagint. He judged these names to have been supplied:

“chiefly, it should seem, upon conjecture, for which there is little or no foundation.”

He considered several of these attributions plainly inappropriate. The Greek Psalms thus contained information that Horne regarded as unsupported additions rather than part of the original Hebrew text.

Psalm 151 Was “Evidently Spurious”

Horne identified an entire additional psalm transmitted in the Greek tradition:

“The number of the canonical psalms is one hundred and fifty: but in the Septuagint version, as well as in the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic translations, there is extant another, which is numbered CLI.”

He judged this additional psalm:

“evidently spurious.”

The Greek Psalter therefore contained an entire composition beyond the 150 psalms recognized in the Hebrew canon.

The Greek Job Contained Material “Both Erroneous and Spurious”

Horne also examined material appended to the Greek book of Job, including a statement concerning Job’s resurrection and a genealogy identifying him with Jobab.

He described the genealogical notice as:

“manifestly spurious”

and elsewhere characterized the additional material as:

“both erroneous and spurious.”

Horne thus identified substantial material in the Greek tradition that he did not consider part of the original canonical text.

A Christian Addition That “Crept into the Greek Bibles”

Horne discussed a passage quoted by Justin Martyr that was absent from surviving Hebrew manuscripts and extant copies of the Septuagint. Rather than accepting the accusation that Jews had removed it, he reported the judgment of most critics:

“As this passage never existed in the Hebrew copies, and is not now to be found either in them or in any copies of the Septuagint version, it is the opinion of most critics that it originally crept into the Greek Bibles from a marginal addition by some early Christian, rather than that it was expunged from the later copies by the Jews.”

Horne thus identified a possible means by which material could enter Greek biblical manuscripts: a Christian reader’s marginal note might later be incorporated into the biblical text.

An Early Printed Edition Was Accused of Having “Altered the Greek Text”

Horne distinguished the principal printed editions of the Septuagint rather than treating them as interchangeable copies of one text.

Concerning the Complutensian edition, he wrote:

“The text of this edition was composed after several manuscripts which the editors neglected to describe; they have frequently been charged with having altered the Greek text, to make it harmonise with the Hebrew, or rather with the Vulgate version, and with having filled up the chasms in the Alexandrian or Septuagint version from other Greek [sources].”

Horne reported these accusations without presenting them as independently established conclusions. Nevertheless, they illustrate the disputed character of some editorial decisions behind the printed Septuagint.

The Roman Edition of the LXX Changed Both the Spelling and Wording

Horne explained that the Roman or Sixtine edition, although based chiefly on Codex Vaticanus, did not reproduce that manuscript exactly. Its editors:

“did not exclusively adhere to that MS., having changed both the orthography and readings whenever these appeared to them to be faulty.”

They also supplied passages missing from Vaticanus by consulting other manuscripts. Consequently, the printed Roman Septuagint contained editorial changes rather than simply reproducing its principal Greek manuscript.

The London Edition of the Septuagint Was Altered and Contained Later Additions

Horne was particularly explicit concerning the London edition of 1653:

“It professes to follow the Sixtine edition: but this is not the fact; the editors having altered and interpolated the text in several places, in order to bring it nearer to the Hebrew text and the modern versions. The errors of this edition have been retained.”

A printed Septuagint that claimed to follow an earlier edition had therefore been deliberately changed to agree more closely with other biblical texts.

Grabe Replaced Wording Judged “Defective and Incorrect”

Horne described how John Ernest Grabe prepared an edition based on Codex Alexandrinus. Where that manuscript was considered:

“defective and incorrect”

Grabe supplied material or corrected readings using the Vatican and Complutensian editions. Readings he judged erroneous were moved to the margin.

The resulting printed Septuagint was therefore an edited text assembled with the assistance of several Greek sources, not an exact reproduction of Alexandrinus.

“We Ought Not to Rely Implicitly on Any One Translation”

Horne’s general rules for evaluating ancient translations explain his approach:

“As, however, some of the ancient versions have been altered or interpolated in many places, great care must be taken to distinguish the modern amendments from the genuine text of the original ancient translator.”

He further warned:

“As no version can be absolutely free from error, we ought not to rely implicitly on any one translation.”

These warnings concerned ancient translations generally, not the Septuagint alone. Nevertheless, they applied directly to the Greek Old Testament, whose earlier wording had to be distinguished from later corrections and additions.

New Testament Quotations Did Not Always Follow the Septuagint

Horne also distinguished different kinds of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament. Some closely followed the Hebrew, others agreed more closely with the Septuagint, some agreed in meaning without matching the exact words, and others differed from both.

He therefore did not assume that every New Testament quotation resembling the Greek Old Testament had been copied word for word from one uniform Septuagint text. Each quotation had to be examined individually.

Assessment

Horne regarded the Septuagint as a collection of translations made by different men at different times, whose surviving manuscripts contained “many thousands” of differing readings. He distinguished earlier Greek readings from Origen’s corrections, identified additional and spurious material in individual books, and described printed editions that had been supplemented, corrected, altered, or interpolated. His governing principle was that scholars must distinguish later changes from “the genuine text of the original ancient translator” and must not “rely implicitly on any one translation.” His testimony demonstrates that the Septuagint could not be identified with one unchanged Greek text preserved uniformly through its manuscripts and editions.

Citation: Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, various editions through the 9th ed. (London, 1846), sections on the origin and execution of the Septuagint, ancient Greek versions, Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, the Hexapla, various readings, the Psalms, Job, Daniel, Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, and “On the Use and Application of Ancient Versions”; Thomas Hartwell Horne, A Manual of Biblical Bibliography (London, 1839), sections on the Complutensian, Roman or Sixtine, Alexandrian, and London editions of the Septuagint and the critical edition of Holmes and Parsons.

54. Edward Bouverie Pusey (1800–1882)

Edward Bouverie Pusey was an Anglican theologian and biblical scholar at the University of Oxford. In Daniel the Prophet (1864), he closely examined the Old Greek translation of Daniel and accused its translator of deliberately adding, omitting, rearranging, and altering material in both historical narratives and prophecies. He believed that some of these changes intentionally distorted Daniel’s message.

The Translator Departed from the Text “of Set Purpose”

Pusey compared the Old Greek translation with the original text of Daniel and observed:

“The variation of the degrees of free translation or almost re-writing in different chapters is in itself remarkable.”

He explained why he believed many departures were intentional:

“But the adherence to the text in some parts makes it the more evident, that it was of set purpose, that the translator departed from his text, in other parts.”

Pusey reasoned that the translator’s accuracy in some passages demonstrated his ability to follow the original, making his substantial departures elsewhere appear deliberate rather than accidental.

The Translator “Made Large Additions, Condensed, Transposed, Repeated”

Pusey described extensive alterations throughout Daniel’s historical chapters:

“In the historical portion, he inserted statements, more or less full, which he thought would make the narrative easier, or would explain it, or would increase its effect, or meet some lesser difficulties.”

He continued:

“On the other hand, he omitted or changed statements, which he thought would be unacceptable to his reader, and modified some doctrines.”

He summarized the translator’s methods:

“The translator made large additions, condensed, transposed, repeated, as he thought would be acceptable.”

Pusey thus accused the translator of deliberately reshaping the narrative and even changing some of its religious teachings.

Nebuchadnezzar and Darius Were Made “More Religious and More Thoroughly Converted”

Pusey identified changes to the portrayal of two kings:

“He made both Nebuchadnezzar and Darius more religious and more thoroughly converted, than Daniel states them to have been.”

He also accused the translator of changing the reason for Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment:

“he made the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar the punishment for his sacrilege against the house of God”

The Greek account also placed the king’s dream in his eighteenth year, associated with Jerusalem’s destruction.

Pusey documented additional material concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s religious profession, commands, and restoration, along with changes to Darius’s conduct in the account of Daniel in the lions’ den. These alterations affected the meaning of entire narratives, not merely isolated words.

Daniel 5: The Translator “Omits” Important Passages

Pusey identified substantial omissions from the account of Belshazzar’s feast:

“Then he omits ‘Let thy gifts to another,’ v. 17; and the account of God’s dealings with Nebuchadnezzar, v. 18-22.”

He also recorded additional and rearranged material in Daniel 6, including changes concerning Daniel’s enemies, the royal decree, and Darius’s response to Daniel’s deliverance.

His comparison demonstrated that the Greek translator both removed material from the original and introduced material not found there.

Prophecy Was Altered to Fit Later History

Pusey believed that the translator sometimes changed prophetic language to match subsequent events. In Daniel 2:41, he identified a rendering concerning a kingdom divided into two parts, describing it as:

“adapting the prophecy to the Seleucidæ and Ptolemies.”

Examining Daniel 11, he accused the translator of repeatedly misunderstanding the historical events described:

“In the whole previous prophecy, from the successors of Cyrus to Antiochus Epiphanes, at every stage, in every step of every stage, he shews himself to be ignorant of the history.”

Pusey maintained that following the original wording would often have prevented these mistakes:

“A literal translation would, of course, have guided him aright, wherever there was no uncertainty of construction; but, on whatever ground, down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, he almost always distorts the facts, because he would not trust himself with a literal translation.”

He further accused the translator of inserting historical information and changing what Daniel had written:

“In this case, he added real facts to those foretold by Daniel, as, in other cases, he perverted the facts which lay before his eyes in the prophet.”

Even “a Little Horn” Became “One Strong Horn”

Pusey documented alterations extending beyond Daniel 9 and 11. In Daniel 8:9, he recorded that the translator changed the original reference to a little horn into:

“one strong horn”

He also identified the replacement of the reference to the pleasant land with a northern direction.

In Daniel 10:1, the Greek version changed the third year of Cyrus to the first year. Other changes affected names, titles, and descriptions within the prophecies.

Pusey also recorded differences in Daniel 12, including altered statements concerning righteousness and the closing prophecy. His examination therefore identified substantial departures from the original throughout Daniel, not merely in one disputed passage.

The Seventy Weeks Were “Repeatedly Falsified”

Pusey’s strongest criticism concerned Daniel 9. He accused the translator of deliberately changing the chronology of the Seventy Weeks to make the prophecy apply to Antiochus Epiphanes:

“In the prophecy of the 70 weeks, the translator again repeatedly falsifies the time, in order to make it fit in with that of Epiphanes.”

He explained how the translator manipulated the terms used for weeks and years:

“Apparently, he meant the first date of ‘seventy weeks’ to be literal weeks, since he renders, as if Daniel himself were to see them; in his next numbers he supplied ‘years,’ capriciously effacing the word ‘weeks;’ and then, at the end, under the ‘week,’ ‘weeks,’ means again literal ‘weeks of days.’”

These alterations changed the meaning of the prophecy:

“Thus he makes the later part of the prophecy a prophecy of the chequered but successful resistance to Antiochus, ending not in the destruction of the city and of the sanctuary, but in a second rebuilding of the city.”

Pusey explicitly accused the translator of rearranging the original wording to serve his purpose:

“And this he does, altering and transposing the words of the text as suited his purpose, repeating of the later time what belonged to the earlier, so that it has even been thought that we had a confusion of different translations.”

He described the resulting translation as a deliberate encouragement to resistance against Antiochus:

“He did, in effect, make his translation, what a modern school has accused the writer of making the book, a direct but fraudulent encouragement in the Maccabee struggle.”

He then connected the falsification of Daniel with the Church’s rejection of this Greek translation:

“But he effected it by falsifying the text of the Prophet; whence the Church rejected his translation alone out of the LXX.”

Pusey cited Jerome’s explanation that the churches used Theodotion’s translation instead of the older Greek Daniel. Jerome acknowledged uncertainty concerning the precise cause of the defects but maintained that the rejected version differed greatly from the original. Pusey went further by attributing the alterations to deliberate falsification.

He contrasted Daniel’s original purpose with the message conveyed by the altered Greek translation:

“The book of Daniel, as written, was an encouragement to persevere under trial; as falsified, it became a stimulus to religious, which ended in becoming a political, resistance.”

Finally, Pusey accused the translator of removing the prophecy’s Messianic significance:

“It is remarkable that, in the prophecy of the 70 weeks, it effaces the doctrine of the Messiah, teaching people, as far as its influence went, to look for nothing beyond the present.”

Assessment

Pusey’s criticism concerned the Old Greek translation of Daniel, not the Septuagint as a whole. Nevertheless, his testimony is exceptionally strong. He documented additions, omissions, rearrangements, changes to historical narratives and religious teachings, and extensive alterations to prophecies throughout Daniel. He maintained that the translator departed from the original “of set purpose” and ultimately falsified the prophetic text. He also connected these alterations with the Church’s replacement of the Old Greek Daniel by Theodotion’s translation. His testimony provides unusually explicit evidence of extensive and, in his judgment, deliberate alteration within an important portion of the Greek Old Testament.

Citation: Edward Bouverie Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes (Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1864), pp. 376–381; Note E, pp. 606–619.

55. Frederick Field (1801–1885)

Frederick Field was an English Anglican clergyman and biblical scholar whose major work, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (1875), sought to recover the surviving portions of Origen’s comparison of the Hebrew Old Testament with several Greek translations. Field had also revised Grabe’s Septuagint in 1859 and examined the surviving portions of the Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion in 1864. His work involved extensive comparison of manuscripts, ancient translations, and quotations preserved by early Christian writers.

The Septuagint “Departed Very Far” Through Additions, Omissions, and Wrong Interpretations

Field identified two reasons why the Septuagint had become unsatisfactory: defects in the original translation and alterations introduced by later copyists.

Cur autem LXX Seniorum compositio, prout tunc temporis ferebatur, votis doctorum et piorum hominum parum satisfecerit, duplex causa exstitisse videtur: primum, quia ipsa versio Alexandrina, opus diversorum interpretum, diversis, ut credibile est, temporibus pro sua cujusque indole et consilio partes sibi assignatas peragentium, a vero oraculorum divinorum sensu, tum addendo, tum detrahendo, tum prava interpretatione obscurando, quam longissime aberravit; deinde, quia in quingentorum fere annorum decursu per tot scribarum sive oscitantiam sive audaciam parem cum omnibus libris fortunam experta fuerat.

Translation: “Why the work of the Seventy, as it was current at that time, gave little satisfaction to learned and pious men appears to have arisen from a twofold cause: first, because the Alexandrian version itself, the work of different translators who, as is probable, performed the portions assigned to them at different times according to each man’s character and judgment, departed very far from the true sense of the divine oracles, now by adding, now by subtracting, now by obscuring it through wrong interpretation; secondly, because during the course of nearly five hundred years it had suffered the same fortune as other books through the carelessness or audacity of so many scribes.”

Field distinguished mistakes made by the original translators from alterations introduced during centuries of copying.

The Septuagint Must Be Set Aside “in Innumerable Passages”

Defending Symmachus for departing from the Septuagint, Field wrote:

Praeterea nostro interpreti a nonnemine objicitur, tanti ei fuisse a LXX discedere, ut etiam a S. Scripturae consuetudine desciscere non dubitarit, ut illos imperitiae nomine insimularet. Cui respondemus, neminem Hebraei archetypi sensum fideliter exprimere posse, nisi versioni LXX Seniorum, vetustate quantumvis venerabili, innumeris locis valere jubeat; id quod Hieronymi exemplo demonstratur, qui tum in Commentariis suis interpretationem LXXviralem acerrimis criminationibus insectatur, tum in versione Latina a se elaborata … prae ceteris omnibus interpretibus Symmachum ducem ac magistrum sibi proposuit.

Translation: “Moreover, someone objects against our translator that he was so intent upon departing from the Seventy that he did not hesitate even to depart from the customary language of Holy Scripture, as though he wished to accuse them of ignorance. To this we reply that no one can faithfully express the sense of the Hebrew archetype unless he sets aside the version of the Seventy, however venerable for its antiquity, in innumerable passages. This is demonstrated by the example of Jerome, who both in his Commentaries attacks the Septuagint interpretation with very severe criticisms and in the Latin version prepared by himself set Symmachus before himself as guide and teacher above all the other translators.”

“Innumerable” Errors in Isaiah, a Sixth of Job Missing, and Jeremiah “Disfigured”

Field surveyed serious defects in several books:

Sed hic praetextus, etiam si probabilis sit, non nisi ad perpaucas Seniorum mutationes et omissiones excusandas valere possit. Restant in hoc uno Propheta loca innumera, in quibus, etiam absentibus rationibus dogmaticis, versionem eorum, quasi plane absonam, et ab Hebraeo toto caelo discrepantem, in Hexaplis nostris siluimus. Quid dicemus de libro Jobi, cujus sextam fere partem, quasi obscuritate inexplicabili laborantem, LXX in vertendo prorsus praeterierunt? Quid de trajectionibus et lacunis, quae Jeremiae vaticiniorum textum LXXviralem deturpant? Quid de integro Danielis libro, quem inde ab antiquissimis temporibus, repudiata venerabili Seniorum editione, juxta Theodotionis versionem Ecclesia legit? His igitur tot et tantis ulceribus Origenes medicam manum admovere in se suscepit.

Translation: “But this pretext, even if it be probable, can serve to excuse only a very few of the alterations and omissions of the Seventy. There remain in this one Prophet innumerable passages in which, even where doctrinal considerations are absent, we have passed over their version in our Hexapla as plainly discordant and differing from the Hebrew as widely as heaven from earth. What shall we say of the book of Job, nearly a sixth part of which the Seventy completely passed over in translating, as though it suffered from inexplicable obscurity? What of the transpositions and gaps which disfigure the Septuagint text of Jeremiah? What of the whole book of Daniel, which from the most ancient times the Church has read according to Theodotion’s version, the venerable edition of the Seventy having been rejected? Origen therefore undertook to apply a healing hand to so many and such great wounds.”

Field identified extensive mistranslation in Isaiah, omissions in Job, rearranged and missing passages in Jeremiah, and the replacement of the earlier Greek Daniel by another translation.

The Translator Became “an Annotator” or “the Principal Author”

Field distinguished ordinary additions from more serious passages inserted into the Greek translation:

Transeamus ad majoris offensionis interpolationes, eas scilicet in quibus interpres male sedulus in annotatoris, est ubi in auctoris principalis partes delapsus est.

Translation: “Let us pass to interpolations of greater offensiveness, namely those in which the overzealous translator slipped into the role of an annotator, and sometimes into that of the principal author.”

At Joshua 6:26, he wrote:

LXX de suo interseruerunt.

Translation: “The Seventy inserted [this] on their own.”

Concerning Job 2:9, he was especially severe:

Aeque, immo magis culpandus est insulsus Jobi ii. 9 interpolator, qui pro amaro uxoris ejus dicterio: Adhuc tu retines integritatem tuam? Exsecrare Deum et morere, prolixam querimoniam, et Graeculum otiosum magis quam scriptorem θεόπνευστον referentem, ori ejus immiserit.

Translation: “Equally, indeed more blameworthy, is the foolish interpolator of Job 2:9, who in place of the bitter saying of Job’s wife, ‘Do you still retain your integrity? Curse God and die,’ put into her mouth a lengthy complaint more suggestive of an idle Greek writer than of an inspired author.”

He similarly condemned additional material concerning the bee after Proverbs 6:6–8:

Ejusdem farraginis, et fortasse non alius auctoris est pannus de ape, quem post Prov. vi. 6–8 … interpres ejus Graecus oraculis divinis assuere non dubitavit.

Translation: “Of the same medley, and perhaps by no different author, is the patch concerning the bee which, after Proverbs 6:6–8 … its Greek translator did not hesitate to stitch onto the divine oracles.”

“Wrong Interpretations” Were Even Harder to Correct

Field considered mistakes in translation potentially more difficult to correct than additions or omissions:

Sed praeter excessus et defectus, qui promptiorem sanationem admittunt, supersunt pravae interpretationes, quae non minorem, immo fortasse majorem moram et impedimentum legentibus afferunt. Etiam huic incommodo per obeli et asterisci conjunctum usum Origenes aliquatenus remedium adhibere conatus est.

Translation: “But besides additions and omissions, which admit of a readier remedy, there remain wrong interpretations, which cause no less, and perhaps even greater, difficulty and obstruction to readers. Origen attempted to provide some remedy even for this problem by the combined use of the obelus and asterisk.”

Field acknowledged that Origen’s corrections addressed only a small portion of the problems:

Non tamen dissimulandum est, hanc restitutionis methodum tum per se impeditam esse, tum paucis tantum ex innumeris locis ab Auctore adhibitam fuisse.

Translation: “It must not, however, be concealed that this method of restoration was both difficult in itself and was employed by its author in only a few of innumerable passages.”

He illustrated the problem from Isaiah 9:6:

Sic in illustri Jesaiae vaticinio, ubi pro Hebraeis, Admirabilis, consiliarius etc. LXX prorsus absona dederunt … Origenes nihil tentasse videtur, nisi ut vocem ἄγγελος, cujus in Hebraeo nec vola nec vestigium, obelo reprobaret. Et sic centies in hoc libro, quo nullus in Bibliis Graecis interpretem minus habilem nactus est.

Translation: “Thus in the famous prophecy of Isaiah, where in place of the Hebrew ‘Wonderful, Counsellor,’ and so forth, the Seventy gave words utterly discordant … Origen appears to have attempted nothing except to reject with an obelus the word ‘angel,’ of which there is neither trace nor vestige in the Hebrew. And so a hundred times in this book, no book in the Greek Bible having received a less competent translator.”

Greek Passages “Which Are Not Read in the Hebrew”

Field’s 1859 Septuagint edition included a separate list entitled:

Loca Pentateuchi majoris momenti quae in Hebraeo non leguntur.

Translation: “More important passages of the Law of Moses which are not read in the Hebrew.”

He listed additional Greek words, clauses, and passages throughout Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. His catalogue provided specific examples of material present in the Greek but absent from the Hebrew text.

The Septuagint Itself Was “Far More Frequently” Deficient

Field explained how missing passages were treated in Grabe’s printed Septuagint:

Omissiones in textu Grabiano notatas etiam in archetypo exstare intelligendum est, nisi invito Codice hoc factum esse simul notetur. Postremo ubi dicitur quaedam deesse in Codice, aut lacunam esse in Codice, hoc significat defectum aut lacunam interdum in Codice Alexandrino exstare, ope Vaticani aliorumque a Grabio resartum; sed longe frequentius, ipsam Versionem LXXviralem hic deficere, et ex alio Interprete secundum Codices Hexaplares (quos vocant) expletam esse.

Translation: “Omissions noted in the Grabian text are to be understood as existing also in its exemplar, unless it is stated at the same time that this was done against the evidence of the codex. Finally, where something is said to be lacking in the codex, or that there is a lacuna in the codex, this sometimes means that a defect or lacuna exists in Codex Alexandrinus and was repaired by Grabe with the help of the Vatican manuscript and others; but far more frequently it means that the Septuagint version itself is deficient here and has been filled out from another translator according to the so-called Hexaplaric codices.”

Field also identified changes made by editors preparing printed Greek texts. At Genesis 24:53, he wrote:

Vocabulum σκεύη a nobis expunctum, non est in Codice, sed a Grabio sine idoneis causis, nostro quidem judicio, invectum.

Translation: “The word σκεύη, deleted by us, is not in the codex, but was introduced by Grabe without adequate reasons, in our judgment.”

Elsewhere, he described a manuscript reading altered by Grabe:

sive per incuriam, sive de industria

Translation: “either through carelessness or intentionally.”

Field distinguished omissions in the earlier Greek translation from passages supplied by other Greek translators and changes introduced by later editors.

Greek Manuscripts Contained Additions from Other Greek Translations

Field identified passages supplied from other Greek translations:

Haec quae desunt in Cod. Alex. et Ed. Rom. supplevit Grabius ex Ed. Compl. huc derivata, ut videtur, ex loco simili … Aliud supplementum, quod Aquilae aut Symmacho tribuendum est, legitur in libris plurimis apud Holmes.

Translation: “These things which are lacking in Codex Alexandrinus and the Roman edition were supplied by Grabe from the Complutensian edition, apparently derived here from a similar passage…. Another supplement, which must be attributed to Aquila or Symmachus, is read in very many manuscripts cited by Holmes.”

Thus, material taken from another Greek translator could appear in manuscripts or printed editions bearing the Septuagint name.

A Later Greek Revision “Crept into the Roman Edition”

Field found that a correction associated with Lucian, who had revised the Greek biblical text, appeared in the Roman Septuagint edition. At 4 Kings 11:1, he wrote:

Hic quoque Luciani correctio in Ed. Rom. irrepsit, repugnantibus Ald., Cod. III, et septemdecim aliis, qui cum Syro-hex. faciunt.

Translation: “Here too Lucian’s correction crept into the Roman edition, although the Aldine edition, Codex III, and seventeen other manuscripts which agree with the Syro-Hexaplaric text oppose it.”

Field also identified four manuscripts whose readings closely resembled Lucian’s revised Greek text:

Ex hac omnium locorum, in quibus Lucianus nominatim appellatur, recensione certissime concluditur arcta propinquitas, ne dicamus identitas, inter Luciani editionem et Codd. 19, 82, 93, 108.

Translation: “From an examination of all the passages in which Lucian is expressly named, it is most certainly concluded that there is a close relationship, not to say identity, between Lucian’s edition and manuscripts 19, 82, 93, and 108.”

He further described how these four manuscripts, together with certain printed editions and other Greek evidence, shared readings that differed markedly from the commonly received Septuagint:

Hi autem quatuor codices cum Complutensi et per occasionem uno et altero alio, necnon lectionibus quibusdam, quae in margine versionis Syro-hexaplaris, tacito Luciani nomine, hic illic afferuntur, per libros Regum, Paralipomenon, Esdrae et Nehemiae … tam mirum in modum in certis lectionibus ab editione vulgata quasi conjuratione facta desciscunt, ut eos ad specialem quandam versionis LXXviralis recensionem pertinere negari non possit. Hanc autem nullam aliam esse quam Lucianeam … alio firmissimo argumento demonstrari potest.

Translation: “These four manuscripts, together with the Complutensian edition and occasionally one or another manuscript, as well as certain readings which are here and there given in the margin of the Syro-Hexaplaric version without Lucian’s name, throughout Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah … depart in certain readings from the commonly received edition in so remarkable a manner, as though by agreement, that it cannot be denied that they belong to a certain special recension of the Septuagint version. That this recension is none other than the Lucianic can be demonstrated by another very strong argument.”

Field thus identified a recognizable group of manuscripts preserving Lucian’s revised form of the Greek text across several biblical books. Their shared differences from other manuscripts showed that the Septuagint had been preserved in substantially different forms, rather than as one unchanged text.

The Translator of Job Was Better Acquainted with Greek Than Hebrew

In his later Notes on the Translation of the New Testament, Field criticized additional Septuagint readings.

He referred to:

“the incorrect στενῶν καὶ τρέμων of the LXX.”

At Job 18:19, he observed that:

“the translator adds de suo”

—that is, “of his own.”

Discussing Job 39:2, he described:

“the translator of Job, who was much ‘better seen’ in Greek than in Hebrew.”

These remarks illustrate Field’s judgment that some differences resulted from additions made by translators or from their imperfect understanding of the original language.

Assessment

Field is among the strongest nineteenth-century witnesses concerning the Septuagint. He declared that it “departed very far” from the true sense through additions, omissions, and wrong interpretations, and that it must be set aside “in innumerable passages” to preserve the meaning of the Hebrew. He documented missing passages, additions inserted into the text, faulty translations, alterations made by copyists, and changes introduced by later editors. He also showed that material from other Greek translators and different revised forms of the Greek text had entered Septuagint manuscripts and printed editions. His testimony establishes both serious defects in the original translations and extensive alterations during the subsequent copying and editing of the Greek text.

Citation: Frederick Field, Vetus Testamentum Graece juxta LXX Interpretes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1859), Collatio recensionis nostrae cum textu Grabiano, pp. 149–155, especially p. 150, and Loca Pentateuchi majoris momenti quae in Hebraeo non leguntur, pp. 206–207; Frederick Field, Otium Norvicense, sive Tentamen de Reliquiis Aquilae, Symmachi et Theodotionis (Oxford: J. H. and J. Parker, 1864); Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt; sive Veterum Interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875), vol. I, Prolegomena, especially pp. xxx–xxxi, xlvii–xlviii, lxii–lxiii, lxxxvi–lxxxviii; Frederick Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament: Being the Otium Norvicense (Pars Tertia), reprinted with additions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899), pp. 54, 112, 170.

56. Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802–1869)

Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg was a German Lutheran theologian and professor at the University of Berlin. A prominent defender of the authority and integrity of the Old Testament, he made extensive use of the Septuagint but strongly criticized the negligence, ignorance, and arbitrary alterations that he believed characterized the work of its translators.

“Negligence, Ignorance, Arbitrariness” Among the Septuagint Translators

In his Christology of the Old Testament, Hengstenberg discusses Jeremiah 33:14–26, a substantial passage absent from the Septuagint. Some critics maintained that this omission indicated that the passage had not existed in the Hebrew text used by the Greek translators. Hengstenberg rejects that conclusion:

“Proceeding upon the altogether gratuitous assumption of a double recension of the prophecies of Jeremiah, people imagine that, by the omission in the Alexandrian version, they are entitled to suppose that, in that recension which the LXX. followed, this section was not contained. But the arguments are most unsatisfactory, by which the attempt is made to establish that many portions, not translated by the LXX., were not found by them in their manuscripts.”

He then gives his general assessment of the translators:

“Where there notoriously prevail negligence, ignorance, arbitrariness, entire want of a clear conception of the task of a translator, those inferences are out of place which suppose just the opposite of all these.”

Hengstenberg argues that inability to identify the reason for a particular omission does not establish that the omitted material was absent from the Hebrew:

“Although we cannot sometimes discover and state the reason which induced the LXX. to make any omission, in case that that which was omitted was really in the text, what is it that is thereby proved? Could we, a priori, expect anything else, since we are on the territory of accident and whim?”

He further emphasizes that such omissions and alterations were not isolated:

“It is quite sufficient that in a multitude of passages we can point out the most insufficient reasons which induced them to make omissions, alterations, transpositions; for it is just these which show that we are in the territory of accident and whim, where it is unreasonable every where to expect reasons.”

The Translators “Transferred Their Own Ignorance to the Prophet”

Hengstenberg proposes that the omission of Jeremiah 33:14–26 arose partly from the translators’ failure to appreciate the significance of material repeated elsewhere in Jeremiah:

“It is certain that the LXX. often omitted that which had occurred previously, because they were unable to perceive the deeper meaning of the repetition, and transferred their own ignorance to the Prophet.”

He also argues that the distinctive promise contained in the passage would have been objectionable to translators unable to understand its prophetic significance:

“In that which was peculiar to the passage before us, it was just the principal thought … which must have been most objectionable to the LXX., who were incapable of perceiving the deeper meaning.”

He concludes:

“The omission in the Alexandrian version, therefore, does not prove any thing, except that even 2000 years before J. D. Michaelis, Jahn, Hitzig, and Movers, there were men who were as little able to understand the text as these expositors.”

An Addition to Psalm 14 That “Manifestly Owes Its Origin to Rom. iii. 13–18”

In his Commentary on the Psalms, Hengstenberg identifies a lengthy addition to Psalm 14:3 found in certain ancient biblical copies:

“At the end of this verse, some critical helps—in particular, the Cod. Vat., the LXX., and Vulgate—introduce a longer addition, which manifestly owes its origin to Rom. iii. 13-18.”

He explains how the additional material apparently entered the Psalm:

“There other declarations from the Old Testament, bearing on the same subject, are added to the citation made from our Psalm. And while it has been overlooked, that the Apostle does not confine his citations to our Psalm, but professes to give passages of Scripture in general, it has been thought that an addition should be made to the Psalm on his authority.”

Hengstenberg believed that readers had mistakenly treated several Old Testament passages quoted together by Paul as though they all belonged to Psalm 14. The additional words consequently entered some biblical copies. His example concerns a later addition to the text rather than a mistake made by the original Greek translator.

The Greek Rendering of Psalm 8 “Sprung from Doctrinal Considerations”

Discussing Psalm 8:5, Hengstenberg rejects the interpretation that the Hebrew word referring to God should be translated as “angels.” He writes:

“Various expositors follow the Chaldee and the LXX. in rendering אלהים by angels. But this exposition has manifestly sprung from doctrinal considerations.”

He continues:

“In support of this meaning, one can only appeal to certain passages in which it has been falsely so rendered either for doctrinal reasons, or others beside the mark; and in connection with those passages, appeal is made again to the one before us.”

Hengstenberg maintained that the Psalm celebrated the dignity God had bestowed upon man, particularly his dominion over the earth. He considered the comparison with angels inappropriate because angels possessed no such dominion.

He therefore regarded the Greek rendering as influenced by religious considerations rather than the proper meaning of the Hebrew.

The Septuagint Added “Jacob” and “Israel” to Isaiah 42:1

In his examination of Isaiah 42, Hengstenberg rejects the interpretation that the Servant of the Lord represents Israel collectively. He observes:

“The LXX. already understood Israel by the Servant of the Lord.”

He then reproduces the Greek translation of Isaiah 42:1, which explicitly identifies the Servant as Jacob and Israel. These names are absent from the corresponding Hebrew wording.

The difference is significant because Hengstenberg understood the prophecy as referring to the Messiah, whereas the additional Greek words directed readers toward Israel.

His testimony therefore identifies words added in the Greek translation that affected the interpretation of a Messianic prophecy. He does not, however, accuse the translator here of knowingly falsifying the passage.

The Septuagint Led Critics to Reject Hebrew Words as “Spurious”

Hengstenberg also defended the Hebrew wording of Psalm 18:13 against critics who followed the Septuagint.

After comparing the passage with Exodus 9:23, he argued that the comparison:

“confutes those who, following the LXX., would set aside ‘the hailstones and coals of fire’ as spurious, and as interpolated from the preceding verse.”

He maintained that the repeated words belonged in the passage and contributed to its description of divine judgment.

This provides another example of Hengstenberg rejecting the assumption that Hebrew words should be removed merely because they were absent from the Septuagint.

Assessment

Hengstenberg did not reject the Septuagint indiscriminately and elsewhere sometimes defended its renderings. Nevertheless, he explicitly characterized its translators as displaying “negligence, ignorance, arbitrariness” and maintained that “a multitude of passages” exhibited omissions, alterations, and transpositions made for inadequate reasons.

His criticism extended beyond Jeremiah. He identified an addition to Psalm 14 apparently derived from Romans, rejected a Greek rendering of Psalm 8 as influenced by doctrinal considerations, noted additional words affecting the interpretation of Isaiah 42, and defended Hebrew words that critics had rejected on the authority of the Septuagint.

He therefore rejected the assumption that omissions in the Septuagint necessarily reflected a different Hebrew text. In his judgment, the translators’ demonstrated freedom in handling their source, together with changes introduced into later copies, made such conclusions unreliable without further evidence. His testimony distinguishes errors and alterations in the original Greek translation from additions introduced during its subsequent copying.

Citation: Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, 2nd ed., trans. Theodore Meyer, vol. II (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1861), pp. 201, 460–462; Commentary on the Psalms, 4th ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1869), vol. I, pp. 133, 212, 300.

57. Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton (1807–1862)

Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton was an English biblical translator associated with the Plymouth Brethren after leaving the Church of England’s ministry. His English translation of the Septuagint appeared in 1844. Its preface and notes distinguish the translation’s usefulness from inspiration and identify omissions, repeated renderings, and added material. The historical introduction accompanying the 1851 edition, published during Brenton’s lifetime but of unidentified authorship, supplies further testimony concerning the mixture of Greek versions and alterations in printed texts.

LXX Translated at Different Times “By Different Hands”

Brenton rejected the traditional account of the seventy-two translators:

“The popular story of the seventy-two Interpreters, attributed to Aristæas, may be dismissed as a fabulous legend; though we have internal evidence from the very words of the version that the writers belonged to Alexandria or at least to Egypt.”

He distinguished the initial translation from the later books:

“The remaining part of the Translation was executed at different periods, and, as the wide diversity of style would lead us to suppose, by different hands.”

The Greek Old Testament therefore did not originate as one translation produced throughout by the same body of translators.

Apostolic Quotation Is “No Warrant at All” for the Whole’s Inspiration

Brenton directly addressed the argument that the apostles’ use of the Septuagint established its inspiration:

“In reply then to the question, how far does the apostolic quotation of a part of the Septuagint warrant the inspiration of the whole? we venture to state that it is no warrant at all. What the Holy Ghost touches it hallows—beyond this the translation, whatever its excellence, comes into our hands as the work of fallible man.”

He defended the inspiration of the apostolic writings while refusing to extend their authority to every passage of a translation they quoted.

Nor did he regard the Septuagint as worthless. He opposed excessive claims to establish its proper usefulness:

“The effect may be indeed to lower the extravagant pretensions of those of its admirers who would exalt it to the disparagement of the Hebrew, or claim for it the rank of an inspired composition; but this will only reduce it to its just level, that of an extremely useful translation.”

“Many Omissions Supplied” by Another Greek Text

Brenton based his translation on a printed Greek text representing the Vatican manuscript. His notes also included selected readings from the Alexandrian manuscript, another ancient Greek Bible. He warned against judging that entire manuscript from selected favourable readings:

“The translation has been made from the Vatican text (Valpy’s edition) with occasional insertions of Alexandrine readings in the notes. As these have seldom been added, except where they seemed to elucidate or otherwise improve upon the Vatican text, they would of course convey far too favourable an opinion of that copy to any one who should form a judgment of it from a review of those passages alone. The comparative merits of the two copies have been the subject of much controversy, but the question is yet undecided. The general opinion appears to be in favour of the Vatican, while at the same time many obscure passages are rendered clear, and many omissions supplied by the Alexandrine text.”

His appendix makes the differences concrete:

“Exodus 28. 23–28, are found neither in the Vatican or Alexandrine copies, but appear in the Complutensian text as follows:—”

He then supplies the passage from that printed Greek edition, published in Spain. Other passages appear under the heading:

“THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES ARE SUPPLIED FROM THE ALEXANDRINE TEXT.”

These include substantial portions of the account of David and Goliath. Brenton’s translation thus distinguishes Greek witnesses containing materially different passages.

A Later Addition and a Defective Text

At 1 Chronicles 28:20, Brenton’s Greek-based translation continues beyond the corresponding Hebrew wording:

“And behold the pattern of the temple, even his house, and its treasury, and the upper chambers, and the inner store-rooms, and the place of propitiation, and the plan of the house of the Lord.”

His accompanying note identifies a probable addition:

“The last words of this verse seem to be an interpolation.”

Elsewhere, at Nehemiah 12:39, his judgment is equally direct:

“The text defective here.”

These are specific judgments about added and missing material, rather than merely differences in English expression.

“Almost Hopelessly Mixed Up with That of Other Versions”

The unsigned historical introduction accompanying the later editions explains that Origen’s purpose was not simply to recover the original Greek translation. He used signs to distinguish material without a Hebrew equivalent from passages supplied through other Greek translations. The signs were called an obelus and an asterisk:

“The object which he proposed to himself was not to restore the Septuagint to its original condition, nor yet to correct mere errors of translation simply as such, but to cause that the Church should possess a text of the Septuagint in which all additions to the Hebrew should be marked with an obelus, and in which all that the Septuagint omitted should be added from one of the other versions marked with an asterisk.”

The subsequent confusion of these signs produced a further problem:

“The Hexaplar text of the Septuagint was copied about half a century after Origen’s death by Pamphilus and Eusebius; it thus obtained a circulation; but the errors of copyists soon confounded the marks of addition and omission which Origen placed, and hence the text of the Septuagint became almost hopelessly mixed up with that of other versions.”

The introduction nevertheless recognized evidence that could help separate the layers. A Syriac translation preserved the signs and references:

“It may yet be made of great use in separating the readings which were introduced by Origen from those of an older date.”

The problem was serious mixture, not a claim that every earlier reading had become unrecoverable.

Printed Texts Departed from Their Manuscripts

The same introduction distinguishes the Vatican manuscript from the printed edition based upon it:

“It still remains to be inquired whether the editors faithfully followed the MS. before them. To this it may be said, that there appears no ground for supposing that they departed from their MS. intentionally, unless in points of mere orthography and the like. But that they did at times desert their MS. is certain.”

It explains that readings from an earlier printed edition apparently remained where the editors overlooked differences in their manuscript.

The edition based on the Alexandrian manuscript involved deliberate editorial changes:

“Grabe, however, did not simply follow the MS. before him; wherever he disapproved of its readings, he placed them in the margin, and gave what he considered a corrected reading in the text in a different type.”

An edition’s stated manuscript basis therefore did not guarantee that its printed wording reproduced that manuscript throughout.

The Greek Version of Daniel in Common Use Came from Another Translator

The introduction to the older Greek version of Daniel identifies an especially clear substitution:

“The real Septuagint text of the Book of Daniel was, at a very early period, neglected by the Church, and the version of Theodotion was substituted in its place. Hence the Book of Daniel contained in almost all manuscripts and printed editions of the Septuagint belongs properly to Theodotion, and not to that version.”

It immediately adds:

“Indeed, for many centuries, the real Septuagint of Daniel was supposed to be lost: it was, however, discovered in a manuscript in the palace of Prince Chigi, at Rome.”

The familiar collection called the Septuagint could therefore contain a replacement translation of an entire book.

Assessment

Brenton’s own preface rejects both the inspiration of the whole Septuagint and its elevation above the Hebrew, while his notes document added and missing material. The unsigned historical introductions accompanying his editions provide additional testimony concerning the mixture of versions, editorial alterations, and the substitution of Theodotion’s Daniel.

Citation: Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, According to the Vatican Text, 2 vols. (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1844), vol. I, preface, pp. vii–xi; p. 464, note on 1 Chronicles 28:20; vol. II, p. 531, note on Nehemiah 12:39; appendix, pp. 927–930. The Greek Septuagint Version of the Old Testament According to the Vatican Edition (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, [1851]), unsigned “An Historical Account of the Septuagint Version,” pp. vii, xi–xii; introduction to “The Book of Daniel, According to the True Septuagint Version,” p. 75.

58. Carl Friedrich Keil (1807–1888)

Carl Friedrich Keil was a German Lutheran theologian and biblical commentator, best known for his extensive Old Testament commentaries, many published in association with Franz Delitzsch. Although he frequently consulted the Septuagint, he strongly criticized its departures from the Hebrew text, attributing many to scribal corruption, misunderstanding, and arbitrary alterations introduced by the translators themselves.

Numerous Departures from the Hebrew Text

In his Manual of Historico-Critical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, Keil gives a general assessment of the Septuagint’s differences from the Hebrew:

“The numerous and strongly marked deviations from the Massoretic text have arisen partly at a later time, out of the carelessness and caprice of transcribers. But in so far as they existed originally, almost in a mass they are explained by the uncritical and wanton passion for emendation, which led the translators to alter the original text (by omissions, additions, and transpositions) where they did not understand it, either from their own defective knowledge of the language, or from its having been already corrupted, or where they regarded it as unsuitable or offensive in a historical, chronological, dogmatic, or other respect.”

Keil thus distinguishes later scribal alterations from changes originating with the translators themselves, which he attributes to misunderstanding, arbitrary correction, and deliberate modification.

The Unreliability of the Septuagint of Jeremiah

Keil considers the Septuagint of Jeremiah particularly unreliable as evidence that the Greek translators used a different form of the Hebrew text. He writes:

“Still greater are the discrepancies in detail; and they are of such a sort as to bring plainly out on all hands the translator’s arbitrariness, carelessness, and want of apprehension.”

He continues:

“All but innumerable are the cases in which gender, number, person, and tense are altered, synonymous expressions interchanged, metaphors destroyed, words transposed; we find frequently inexact and false translations, erroneous reading of the unpointed text, and occasionally, when the Hebrew word was not understood, we have it simply transcribed in Greek letters, etc.”

Keil consequently rejects the inference that these differences necessarily establish a distinct Hebrew recension:

“Such being the character of the Alexandrine version, it is clearly out of the question to talk of the special recension on which it has been based.”

His criticism therefore extends beyond differences in length or arrangement to numerous errors and alterations in the translation itself.

Arbitrary Omissions and Additions in First Samuel

The Vatican Septuagint omits substantial portions of 1 Samuel 17–18. Some critics regarded these omissions as evidence that the corresponding Hebrew passages were later interpolations. Keil rejects this argument:

“But the notion, that the sections in question are interpolations that have crept into the text, cannot be sustained on the mere authority of the Septuagint version; since the arbitrary manner in which the translators of this version made omissions or additions at pleasure is obvious to any one.”

His original German statement is equally emphatic:

Die Meinung, daß die fraglichen Abschnitte durch Interpolationen in den Text gekommen seien, hat an dem Fehlen derselben in der Alex. Version keine haltbare Stütze, da die Willkür dieser Uebersetzer in Weglassungen und Zusätzen nach subjectivem Gutdünken offen zu Tage liegt.

Translation: “The opinion that the sections in question entered the text through interpolations has no tenable support in their absence from the Alexandrian version, since the arbitrariness of these translators in omissions and additions according to subjective judgment lies plainly open to view.”

Keil therefore regards the absence of material from the Septuagint as insufficient by itself to establish interpolation in the Hebrew text.

Arbitrary Alterations in First Kings

Discussing the differences between the Hebrew and Septuagint accounts of Hadad and Rezon in 1 Kings 11, Keil concludes:

“Consequently all the alterations of the LXX. in this section are simply the result of an arbitrary treatment of the Hebrew text, which they did not really understand.”

Keil attributes the differences to misunderstanding of the Hebrew narrative, resulting in rearrangements, alterations, and interpolations.

Assessment

Keil attributes Septuagintal departures from the Hebrew both to later “carelessness and caprice” among copyists and to the translators’ own “uncritical and wanton passion for emendation.” His discussion of Jeremiah identifies widespread grammatical alterations, transpositions, destroyed metaphors, and inaccurate translations, while his treatment of Samuel and Kings charges the translators with arbitrary omissions, additions, and alterations.

Although Keil sometimes accepted Septuagint readings when he believed they preserved evidence of an error in the transmitted Hebrew, he rejected the assumption that Greek differences or omissions necessarily reflected an older or superior Hebrew text. His testimony therefore bears upon both the character of the original translation and the subsequent transmission of the Septuagint.

Citation: Carl Friedrich Keil, Manual of Historico-Critical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, trans. George C. M. Douglas, vol. II, p. 306; The Prophecies of Jeremiah, Introduction; Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, commentary on 1 Samuel 17; Biblischer Commentar über die Bücher Samuels, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1875), p. 141 n.; The Books of the Kings, commentary on 1 Kings 11:14–25.

59. Joseph Addison Alexander (1809–1860)

Joseph Addison Alexander was an American Presbyterian theologian, biblical scholar, and professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. He wrote extensively on the interpretation and study of biblical texts. Although he valued the Septuagint as an important ancient translation, he rejected claims that it was inspired or possessed authority equal or superior to the Hebrew Old Testament. He also identified serious defects in its translation and subsequent copying.

No Ancient Version Was “Preserved from All Corruption”

In his 1850 review of Edward Grinfield’s Apology for the Septuagint, Alexander rejected the argument that the Septuagint preserved a purer Old Testament text than the existing Hebrew. He explained what would first have to be established:

“In opposition to this new view of the matter it was afterwards unanswerably argued, that in order to entitle any version to the preference above even a corrupted original, it must be proved to have been made before the alleged corruption, with strict correctness and fidelity, and to have been itself preserved from all corruption; requisitions which can never be complied with by this or any other ancient version. Whatever reasons, therefore, may exist for considering the Hebrew text corrupt, the very same reasons must forbid the substitution of a version for it.”

He further stated:

“we have every reason to believe, that the Hebrew text has undergone less change than that of any ancient version, preserved in the ordinary way, without that extreme and almost superstitious scrupulosity, with which the Jews are known for ages past to have watched over their original scriptures.”

Alexander also described scholars who respected the Septuagint but believed its text had deteriorated over time:

“those who admitted the validity and force of the reasons just recited, but still cherished a traditional respect for the most ancient and most highly honoured of all versions, were obliged to harmonize their views on both points by maintaining that the Septuagint, although at first a perfect or at least a masterly translation, had itself been corrupted by the lapse of time, and was only entitled to consideration so far as it could be shown to have escaped this alterative process.”

Alexander was reporting the position of these earlier scholars, not asserting that the original Septuagint had necessarily been perfect.

The Septuagint Was Elevated to “the Very Word of God”

Alexander described how the Septuagint came to occupy a position of authority in the Greek Church:

“the Septuagint became established in the Greek Church, either in theory or practice, as the very word of God, to the virtual if not the nominal exclusion of the Hebrew text.”

He criticized:

“the error of the Fathers who regarded the Septuagint version as a second revelation, by which the first had been legitimately superseded”

Nevertheless, Alexander also rejected the opposite extreme of treating the Septuagint as an “impious abomination.” His objection was to giving the Greek translation authority over the Hebrew original, not to its legitimate use.

“Irreconcileable Discrepancies” Between Hebrew and Greek

Alexander challenged Grinfield’s claim that the Hebrew and Greek texts possessed equal divine inspiration:

“If, on the other hand, he really believes, that the Hebrew and Greek texts are co-ordinate parts of the inspired canon, how can he account for the irreconcileable discrepancies between them? That such discrepancies exist is as notorious to all who have compared them, as that Greek and Hebrew are written in opposite directions. If their existence is accounted for by assuming a corruption of the text, on which side are we to assume it? Why should the inspired original be suffered to become corrupt any more than the inspired version? Or why should a version be inspired and then abandoned to corruption, so as to defeat its very purpose? And if either is essentially corrupted, what assurance have we that the other is not?”

He concluded that Grinfield’s theory was:

“of all conceivable hypotheses, in reference to the mutual relation of the Greek and Hebrew text of the Old Testament, this is the most improbable a priori, as well as the most destitute of proof a posteriori; the most irrational in theory, as well as the most inconvenient, useless, and unsafe in practice.”

The Translators Differed in “Ability and Skill and Knowledge”

In his Notes on New Testament Literature and Ecclesiastical History, Alexander rejected the idea that the Septuagint was a uniform translation produced by one group of men:

“That the version is the work of different hands, if not of different ages, is now very commonly agreed to be established by a marked diversity, not only of mere style and diction, but of ability and skill and knowledge, both of Greek and Hebrew.”

He regarded the Law of Moses as the best portion of the Greek Old Testament, while recognizing considerable differences among its books.

In his commentary on Isaiah, he similarly observed:

“Against the unity of the translation is the different character of the version in different parts.”

He added:

“The Pentateuch is commonly regarded as the best, and Daniel as the worst. The version of Isaiah is intermediate between these.”

Isaiah Abounded in “Needless Paraphrases and Additions”

In the introduction to The Prophecies of Isaiah, Alexander criticized the Greek translator’s lack of consistency and accuracy:

“The writer shews a special acquaintance with the usages and products of Egypt, but is grammatically very inexact, and governed in translation by no settled principle.”

He continued:

“Hence he abounds in needless paraphrases and additions, euphemistic variations, and allusions to opinions and events of later times, although the number of these has been exaggerated by some critics.”

Alexander also compared the Aramaic translation known as the Targum with the Septuagint, identifying similar defects in both. He described the Targum as:

“although disfigured like the Septuagint by many arbitrary explanations, by additions to the text, and by allusions to the usages and doctrines of the later Jews.”

He then observed:

“Its critical as well as exegetical adherence to the masoretic text is much more close than that of the oldest Greek translator.”

Daniel Was “So Defective or Absurd” That Another Translation Replaced It

Alexander recognized differences in the accuracy of the books comprising the Septuagint. In his lectures on New Testament literature, he singled out Daniel:

“the lowest place is unanimously given to the book of Daniel, which is so defective or absurd, that another version (that of Theodotion) was early substituted for it in the copies of the Septuagint version.”

The defects of the earlier Greek Daniel were thus sufficiently serious that another translation replaced it in commonly used copies of the Septuagint.

The Apostles Used an “Inexact” Greek Rendering

Commenting on Psalm 8:5, Alexander distinguished the apostles’ use of the Septuagint from an endorsement of the accuracy of every Greek reading:

“Hence it is sometimes rendered angels in the Septuagint, which version, although inexact, is retained in the New Testament (Heb. 2:7), because it sufficiently expresses the idea which was essential to the writer’s argument.”

He nevertheless affirmed that:

“the application of the words in Heb. 2:7, is entirely legitimate”

Alexander therefore considered the Greek rendering inaccurate without questioning the legitimacy of its use in Hebrews.

A Christian Copyist “Introduced the Whole into the Septuagint”

At Psalm 14:3, Alexander identified additional material that he believed an early Christian copyist had introduced into the Greek text after misunderstanding Paul’s quotations in Romans 3:

“Under the false impression that he meant to quote a single passage, some early Christian copyist appears to have introduced the whole into the Septuagint version of this psalm, where it is still found in the Codex Vaticanus, as well as in the Vulgate, and even in one or two Hebrew manuscripts of later date. The interpolation is also retained in the Anglican Psalter. It is evident, however, that the apostle’s argument is strengthened by the fact of his proofs being drawn, not from one, but several parts of the Old Testament.”

Alexander thus identified a later addition introduced during copying, rather than an error made by the original Greek translator.

Words from Romans Were “Introduced into the Septuagint”

In his commentary on Isaiah 40:13–14, Alexander identified another apparent addition to the Greek Old Testament influenced by the New Testament. Discussing words corresponding to Romans 11:35, he wrote:

“It is more probable, however, that the words were introduced into the Septuagint from the text in Romans, where they are really no part of the quotation from Isaiah, but the apostle’s own paraphrase of it, or addition to it”

Alexander therefore believed that words originating in Paul’s discussion had been incorporated into the Greek text of Isaiah. This provides another example of an apparent addition made during the copying of the Greek Old Testament, rather than an original translation error.

Psalm 13 Contained Words “Not Found in Any Hebrew Manuscript”

Alexander identified another addition in the Greek Psalter. Discussing Psalm 13:6, he wrote:

“The Septuagint has an additional clause, which is retained in the Prayer Book version and thus rendered: yea I will praise the name of the Lord most Highest. The words are not found in any Hebrew manuscript.”

Here Alexander established that the Greek text contained additional words absent from the Hebrew manuscripts known to him. Unlike the additions in Psalms 14 and Isaiah 40, he did not identify when or why these words entered the Greek tradition.

The Septuagint Was “a Help,” Not a Replacement for the Hebrew

Alexander explained the legitimate usefulness of the Septuagint:

“In the first place, it is an important aid in determining the text of the Old Testament [though often misapplied in this way], by showing how these old translators read it. In the next place, it affords assistance in determining the sense, by showing how these old translators understood it. In other words, it is, when properly employed, a help both in Criticism and Interpretation.”

He also acknowledged its importance in New Testament quotations:

“These quotations, which occupy a larger space than careless readers may imagine, are sometimes made directly from the Hebrew by original translation, but more frequently borrowed from the Septuagint version, as the one in common use, with or without modification.”

Alexander valued the Septuagint as evidence for understanding Scripture without accepting that it possessed authority superior to the Hebrew.

Assessment

Alexander rejected the claim that the Septuagint was independently inspired or superior to the Hebrew, emphasizing that no ancient translation could be assumed to have been perfectly made and preserved without corruption. He identified “irreconcileable discrepancies” between the Hebrew and Greek, differences in the translators’ abilities, and serious defects in Isaiah and Daniel. He also documented inaccurate renderings, additional Greek wording absent from the Hebrew, and apparent additions arising from New Testament passages.

Nevertheless, Alexander valued the Septuagint for studying the biblical text, understanding its meaning, and examining New Testament quotations. His testimony distinguishes the legitimate usefulness of the Greek translation from claims of superior authority, uniform accuracy, or preservation without corruption.

Citation: Joseph Addison Alexander, “An Apology for the Septuagint,” Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 22 (1850), pp. 547–550, 555–556; Notes on New Testament Literature and Ecclesiastical History, ed. H. C. Alexander (New York: Charles Scribner, 1861), §§ 99, 106, 108; The Prophecies of Isaiah Translated and Explained, 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1865), vol. I, pp. 34–35; vol. II, p. 106; The Psalms Translated and Explained, vol. I (New York: Baker and Scribner, 1850), commentary on Psalms 8:5, 13:6, and 14:3.

60. John William Burgon (1813–1888)

John William Burgon was an Anglican clergyman, biblical scholar, and critic of the Greek New Testament text. His writings distinguish errors made in translating the Old Testament from changes introduced during its transmission. Besides criticizing the Septuagint’s treatment of particular Hebrew expressions, he argued that Isaiah 29:13 circulated in different Greek forms. His two works published in 1896, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels and The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, were arranged, completed, and edited after his death by Edward Miller.

“Licentious Handling” of the Septuagint

In The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, Burgon writes:

“The licentious handling so characteristic of the Septuagint Version of the O. T.,—the work of Alexandrian Jews,—points in the same direction, and leads me to suspect that Alexandria was the final source of the text of B-א.”

Burgon thus regarded freedom in handling the text as characteristic of the Septuagint. He used this judgment as part of his argument concerning the origins of the New Testament readings preserved in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

In The Revision Revised, he also challenged confidence in Vaticanus by appealing to its Old Testament text:

“Did it ever occur to those learned men to enquire how the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament has fared at the hands of codex B? They are respectfully invited to address themselves to this very damaging enquiry.”

This is a general challenge rather than a detailed example, but it shows that Burgon considered the manuscript’s Greek Old Testament evidence damaging to claims made for its reliability.

Genesis 1 — The Greek Translators Emphasized Solidity Instead of Expanse

In Inspiration and Interpretation, Burgon questions whether the Greek translators correctly represented the Hebrew word translated “firmament.” Answering an argument that Genesis describes a solid sky, he writes:

“The Hebrew word here used to denote “firmament,” on which Mr. Goodwin’s indictment turns, (“rakia,”) is derived from a verb which means to “beat.” Now, what is beaten, or hammered out, while (if it be a metal) it acquires extension, acquires also solidity. The Septuagint translators seem to have fastened upon the latter notion, and accordingly represented it by στερέωμα; for which, the earliest Latin translators of the Old Testament coined an equivalent,—firmamentum. But that Moses by the word “rakia” intended rather to denote the expanse overhead, than to predicate solidity for the sky, I suspect will be readily admitted by all.”

Burgon’s criticism concerns the translators’ choice of meaning. He believed that they emphasized solidity where Moses intended the expanse overhead. His wording remains qualified—“seem to have” and “I suspect”—but he plainly distinguishes the Greek rendering from his understanding of the Hebrew. This concerns translation, rather than changes made by later copyists.

Kidron Misread as “The Brook of Cedars”

In A Plain Commentary on the Four Holy Gospels, Burgon explains that Greek speakers treated the Hebrew name Kidron as though it were a Greek expression meaning “the brook of Cedars.” He comments:

“Such perversions of words are common in all languages; remarkably, in our own.”

His footnote expressly connects this treatment of the name with the Greek Old Testament:

“So also in the ancient Greek version of 2 Sam. xv. 23.”

This supplies another particular criticism of the Greek treatment of a Hebrew expression. Burgon does not identify a later copyist as responsible or describe a sequence of manuscript alterations. His point is that the Hebrew name had been given a misleading Greek meaning.

Isaiah 29:13 — Words Added to the Earlier Greek Text

In The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, Burgon argues that the Greek text of Isaiah 29:13 known in the Apostolic age was shorter than the fuller form subsequently transmitted:

“The established Septuagintal rendering of Isa. xxix. 13 in the Apostolic age proves to have been this,—Ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσί με: the words ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐν being omitted. This is certain. Justin Martyr and Cyril of Alexandria in two places so quote the passage.”

The shorter reading retains the opening words, “This people draws near to me,” but passes directly to honoring God with their lips. It lacks the intervening phrase about their mouth and the connecting words.

Burgon further appeals to Procopius of Gaza:

“Procopius Gazaeus in his Commentary on Origen’s Hexapla of Isaiah says expressly that the six words in question were introduced into the text of the Septuagint by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Accordingly they are often observed to be absent from MSS. They are not found, for example, in the Codex Alexandrinus.”

The surviving printed evidence supports a narrower statement than Burgon’s wording. The 1580 edition of Procopius presents the shorter passage and gives a four-word mouth phrase in the margin under the designation “the three.” Field’s later collection likewise records that supplementary reading and documents manuscripts lacking either the full six-word phrase or its four-word core. This supports variation among Greek witnesses, but does not independently establish Burgon’s assertion that Procopius expressly attributed the introduction of all six words to the three translators.

Burgon also observes that several ancient Christian writers quoted the passage without its opening words. He distinguishes that further abbreviation from the shorter Isaiah text he reconstructs:

“Two facts have thus emerged, which entirely change the aspect of the problem: the first, (a) That the words ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐν were anciently absent from the Septuagintal rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13: the second, (b) that the place of Isaiah was freely quoted by the ancients without the initial words ἐγγίζει μοι.”

His evidence therefore concerns more than one shortened form. The Greek Isaiah reading he considered earlier retained the opening; some Christian quotations omitted it as well. His assignment of the shorter Isaiah form to the Apostolic age is his historical conclusion from later witnesses.

Matthew 15:8 — Greek Old Testament Wording Influenced Gospel Copies

Burgon rejects the suggestion that the shorter Greek reading merely resulted from abbreviating an originally fuller passage:

“It has been shewn in answer to the learned critic that in the ancient Greek text of the prophet the ‘amplification’ he speaks of did not exist: it was the abbreviated text which was found there.”

He applies this conclusion to the differing readings of Matthew 15:8. In his judgment, the shorter Greek Isaiah text influenced the copying of Matthew and helped produce the Gospel reading he rejected.

Burgon acknowledges that numerous early Christian writers and ancient translations support that New Testament reading:

“But this does but prove at how extremely remote a period the corruption must have begun. It probably dates from the first century.”

He continues:

“Especially does it seem to shew how distrustful we should be of our oldest authorities when, as here, they are plainly at variance with the whole torrent of manuscript authority. This is indeed no ordinary case. There are elements of distrust here, such as are not commonly encountered.”

These statements concern the transmission of Matthew, rather than an additional corruption of the Septuagint. Their relevance is that Burgon believed an ancient Greek Old Testament reading could influence the subsequent copying of a Gospel.

Assessment

Burgon supplies distinct testimony concerning translation and transmission. He questions the Greek rendering of Genesis 1, identifies a misleading Greek treatment of Kidron, and argues from differing forms of Isaiah 29:13. His evidence supports the distinction between an ancient Greek translation and the varying forms subsequently transmitted, while his stronger claim concerning Procopius requires qualification.

Citation: John William Burgon, A Plain Commentary on the Four Holy Gospels, Intended Chiefly for Devotional Reading (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1856), on John 18:1, pp. 877–878 and p. 878 n. (c); Inspiration and Interpretation (Oxford and London: J. H. and Jas. Parker, 1861), “Preliminary Remarks on Essays and Reviews,” p. xcvii; The Revision Revised (London: John Murray, 1883), Article I, p. 29; The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established, arranged, completed, and edited by Edward Miller (London: George Bell and Sons, 1896), chap. XII, p. 234; The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, arranged, completed, and edited by Edward Miller (London: George Bell and Sons, 1896), chap. X, § 5, pp. 137–144, especially pp. 141–144; Procopius of Gaza, Variarum in Esaiam prophetam commentationum epitome, Ioanne Curterio interprete (Paris: Michael Sonnius, 1580), p. 358; Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, vol. II (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875), p. 484, n. 33.

61. Franz Delitzsch (1813–1890)

Franz Delitzsch was a German Lutheran theologian and biblical commentator who taught at the universities of Rostock, Erlangen, and Leipzig. His extensive commentaries frequently compared the Hebrew Old Testament with the Septuagint and other ancient translations. He also investigated the Greek manuscripts used in preparing early printed Bibles. His writings document omissions, additions, successive revisions, and difficulties in recovering the original wording of the Greek translations.

“Far More Numerous, However, Are the Additions”

Discussing the Greek translation of Proverbs, Delitzsch identified substantial changes in the arrangement and contents of the book:

Ungleich zahlreicher aber sind die Zusätze. Häufig ist dem Distich eine Zeile angefügt wie 1,18, oder ein ganz anderes Distich wie 3,15, oder von den zwei Zeilen des hebräischen Verses ist jede zum Distich erwachsen wie 1,7.11.16, oder wir treffen auf weit über dieses Maß hinausgehende längere Einschaltungen wie hinter 4,27.

Translation: “Far more numerous, however, are the additions. Frequently a line is added to a two-line saying, as at 1:18, or an entirely different two-line saying, as at 3:15; or each of the two lines of the Hebrew verse has grown into a two-line saying, as at 1:7, 11, 16; or we encounter much longer insertions extending far beyond this measure, as after 4:27.”

Delitzsch acknowledged that some Greek additions might preserve older Hebrew readings, but he denied that all of them could have originated in the Hebrew text available to the translators.

The Greek Translation “Had Its Own Gradual History of Development”

Delitzsch further explained that the Greek Proverbs had not remained unchanged:

Diese selbst aber hat ihre allmähliche Entstehungsgeschichte gehabt. Dem von Origenes zurechtgestellten hexaplarischen Texte ging der Text der κοινή (communis) voraus, der auch seinerseits mancherlei Recensionen erfahren hat, und in vorchristlicher Zeit, vielleicht (wie Hitz. annimmt) bis in das 2. christliche Jahrh. herab, befand sich die Uebersetzung selbst, ohne als unabänderlich zu gelten, im Flusse des Werdens, denn nicht selten stehen zwei verschiedene Uebersetzungen eines und desselben Spruchs neben einander wie 14,22.29,25 (wo auch die Peschitto doppelt und zwar nach LXX übersetzt), oder auch sie sind durcheinandergerathen wie 22,8.9.

Translation: “But this translation itself had its own gradual history of development. Before the text corrected by Origen in his Hexapla stood the common text, which had itself undergone various revisions; and in pre-Christian times, perhaps (as Hitzig supposes) down to the second Christian century, the translation itself, without being regarded as unchangeable, was still developing. For it is not uncommon to find two different translations of one and the same proverb standing side by side, as at 14:22 and 29:25 (where the Syriac version also translates the proverb twice, following the Septuagint), or even mixed together, as at 22:8–9.”

Delitzsch thus distinguished changes already present in the Greek text before Origen from the alterations associated with Origen’s later work.

Origen’s Corrections Deprived the Septuagint of “Its Original Form”

Discussing Job, Delitzsch declared that the Greek translation suffered particularly severely from defects affecting the Septuagint generally. He identified large omissions, displaced verses, and additional material:

Die griechischen Väter waren an die LXX gewiesen, ohne im Stande zu sein, diese Uebersetzung am Urtext zu prüfen; gerade die griechische Uebersetzung des B. Iob aber leidet doppelt und dreifach an allen den Gebrechen, womit überhaupt die LXX behaftet ist, weshalb Paulus Röm. 11,35. 1 Cor. 3,19 sie ignorirt; sie ließ in ihrer Urgestalt Hunderte von Stichen unübersetzt, entfernte Anstößiges durch willkürliche Quidproquo’s und enthält Lese- und Uebersetzungsfehler in Menge.

Translation: “The Greek Fathers were dependent upon the Septuagint, without being able to test this translation against the original text; but the Greek translation of Job suffers doubly and trebly from all the defects with which the Septuagint generally is afflicted. For this reason Paul ignores it in Romans 11:35 and 1 Corinthians 3:19. In its original form it left hundreds of poetic lines untranslated, removed objectionable expressions by arbitrary substitutions, and contains numerous errors of reading and translation.”

Delitzsch then explained that Origen attempted to correct the Greek Job using other Greek translations, especially Theodotion:

Origenes wußte das wol (ep. ad Afric. § 3 sq.), aber er hatte nicht hebräische Sprachkenntniss genug, um in seiner Tetrapla und Hexapla eine verlässige Collation der LXX mit dem Urtexte darzubieten, und seine Bezeichnung der Zusätze durch Obelen und des von ihm aus den andern griech. Uebersetzungen, bes. Theodotions, Ergänzten durch Asterisken entfremdete den Septuaginta-Text seiner Urgestalt, ohne doch ein treues Abbild des Urtexts zu gewähren.

Translation: “Origen knew this well (Letter to Africanus, § 3 and following), but he did not possess sufficient knowledge of Hebrew to provide a reliable comparison of the Septuagint with the original text in his Tetrapla and Hexapla. His marking of additions with obeli and of material supplied from other Greek translations, especially Theodotion’s, with asterisks deprived the Septuagint text of its original form, without nevertheless providing a faithful representation of the original text.”

Delitzsch therefore distinguished defects belonging to the earlier Greek translation from the additional alterations introduced through attempts to correct it.

The Septuagint Had to Be Rescued from Its “Confusion” and Later Revisions

In his investigation of the Complutensian Polyglot, Delitzsch explained that the early editors lacked the methods necessary to recover the earliest Greek text:

Historische Textkritik, gewissenhafte Schätzung der Handschriften nach ihrem Alter und Werthe, methodische Reconstruirung des Ursprünglichen und Echten, genaue Rechenschaft über die verwertheten Hülfsmittel — das alles waren damals noch unbekannte Forderungen. Und von der hohen Aufgabe, den Septuagintatext, wo möglich, aus seiner hexaplarischen Verwirrung zu lösen und zur Erkenntniss seiner nachorigenischen Bearbeitungen durch Lucian und Hesychius hindurchzudringen, hatte man damals vollends keine Ahnung.

Translation: “Historical textual criticism, conscientious evaluation of manuscripts according to their age and value, methodical reconstruction of the original and authentic text, and an exact accounting of the sources employed—all these were requirements still unknown at that time. And of the great task of disentangling the Septuagint text, if possible, from the confusion arising from Origen’s Hexapla, and of tracing its revisions after Origen by Lucian and Hesychius, they had at that time no conception whatsoever.”

Delitzsch thus regarded the recovery of the earlier Septuagint text as a difficult undertaking, complicated by successive revisions extending beyond Origen himself.

The Printed Greek Old Testament Was “a Mixture” of Manuscripts

Delitzsch’s examination of an early printed Bible containing several languages, known as the Complutensian Polyglot, showed that its editors did not simply reproduce the Greek text of one manuscript. After comparing Genesis 42, he concluded that one manuscript supplied the principal text but wording from numerous other sources had also been incorporated.

His examination of 2 Samuel 23 yielded an equally explicit conclusion:

Auch der Text von 23, 8 an bis zu Ende ist eine Mixtur aus 108 und 68.

Translation: “The text from verse 8 to the end of chapter 23 is also a mixture of manuscripts 108 and 68.”

These numbers identify two Greek manuscripts. Delitzsch’s comparison established that the printed text combined their readings. He did not condemn the editors merely for consulting multiple manuscripts, but recognized that establishing an accurate Greek text required determining the value of differing witnesses.

Assessment

Delitzsch provides unusually substantial testimony concerning the Septuagint’s omissions, additions, changing wording, and successive revisions. Particularly significant is his distinction between defects of the original translations and changes introduced afterward. His research also demonstrates that early printed Greek Old Testaments combined manuscript readings rather than reproducing a single ancient text. Although he valued the Septuagint as an ancient witness and did not regard every difference from the Hebrew as a corruption, he plainly recognized the difficulty of recovering its earlier wording.

Sources: Franz Delitzsch, Das Salomonische Spruchbuch (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1873), 38–40; Commentar über das Buch Hiob, 2nd revised ed. (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1876), 28–29; Fortgesetzte Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Complutensischen Polyglotte (Leipzig: Alexander Edelmann, 1886), 4–7, 56–57.

62. Johannes Wichelhaus (1819–1858)

Johannes Wichelhaus was a conservative German Reformed theologian and professor at Halle who upheld the inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture. His detailed study of Greek Jeremiah distinguished mistakes made by the original translator from changes introduced through later copying. His other writings extended his criticisms to several Old Testament books.

Different Translators, Different Degrees of “Care and Knowledge”

Rejecting the traditional story of the Septuagint’s origin, Wichelhaus wrote:

“Fabulam esse hanc narrationem hodie inter omnes constat, quum probatum sit, a Iudaeis Alexandrinis profectam esse versionem LXX viralem, neque ab iisdem interpretibus omnes libros esse translatos neque eadem cum diligentia et scientia.”

Translation: “That this account is a fable is now universally acknowledged, since it has been established that the Septuagint version originated with Alexandrian Jews, and that all the books were neither translated by the same translators nor with the same care and knowledge.”

The translators also followed different methods:

“In V. T. translatione Graeca ob magnas rerum verborumque difficultates alios alio confugisse videmus (cf. p. 36). Iobi interpres Graecam linguam bene comtam praebere voluit, multa omisit, neque de auctoris sensu religiose et accurate reddendo magnopere sollicitus est; Iesaiae interpreti suffecit, ut loco Hebraeorum verborum scriberet Graeca, etiamsi carerent sensu, ecclesiastae translatio fidem nimiam sequitur.”

Translation: “In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, because of the great difficulties presented by its subject matter and words, we see different translators resorting to different methods (compare p. 36). The translator of Job wished to produce polished Greek; he omitted much and was not greatly concerned to convey the author’s meaning faithfully and accurately. The translator of Isaiah was satisfied to write Greek words in place of Hebrew ones, even when they made no sense; the translation of Ecclesiastes follows an excessively literal approach.”

His criticism extended beyond Jeremiah: different books displayed different faults.

They Added or Cut Material “Almost at Will”

Wichelhaus identified changes made to fit theological opinions:

“Altera discrepantiae causa est, quod libri sacri ad theologica dogmata vel critica praeiudicia conformabantur. In ipso iam Pentateucho exstant eiusmodi exempla: sic annorum ratio, quibus Adami posterorum vita efficitur, est instituta et mutata secundum illud praeiudicium, hac temporis periodo neminem sobolem procreare potuisse ante centesimum et quinquagesimum aetatis annum. Apparent quoque vestigia theologiae Alexandrinae, cuius dogmata in textum sacrum vertendum vim aliquam exercuerunt.”

Translation: “Another cause of disagreement is that the sacred books were adapted to theological doctrines or preconceived critical opinions. Examples of this already occur in the Law of Moses itself: thus the reckoning of the years comprising the lives of Adam’s descendants was arranged and altered according to the preconceived opinion that, during this period, no one could have begotten children before his hundred and fiftieth year. Traces of Alexandrian theology also appear, whose doctrines exerted some influence upon the translation of the sacred text.”

He compared the freedom exercised by Alexandrian translators with the expanded explanations used by Jewish interpreters in Palestine:

“Apud Palaestinenses quoque Iudaeos Targumista, qui populo auscultanti legem explicuit, usus est aliquando licentia exspatiandi in paraphrasin, Alexandrini autem eo progressi sunt licentiae in mutando sermone antiquo, ut nonnullis in libris paene ad arbitrium addiderint seu resecuerint.”

Translation: “Among the Palestinian Jews also, the interpreter who explained the law to the listening people sometimes took the liberty of expanding it into a paraphrase. But the Alexandrians carried their freedom in altering the ancient wording so far that in some books they added or cut material almost at will.”

These were changes made in producing the translations, before any further damage through copying.

Psalm Headings Added Without Supporting Manuscript Evidence

The short headings attached to individual Psalms supplied another example:

“Die Septuaginta haben diese Überschriften vor sich gehabt, ohne sie zu verstehen; der syrische Übersetzer hat sie ausgelassen, irrig übersetzt oder verändert. Was beweist das? Nach dem Exil konnten diese Überschriften gewiss nicht entstehen, da die Tempelmusik damals nicht mehr in gleicher Weise bestand. In späterer Zeit wird überhaupt das Interesse vorwiegend, nach den Verfassern zu fragen, wenn in der Septuaginta und Peschito häufig Namen der Verfasser aus bloßer Mutmaßung beigesetzt sind, die im hebräischen Text fehlen. Dass indes unter den Juden in Palästina noch manche richtige Tradition in Betreff der Psalmen sich erhalten habe, ist wegen dieses Schwankens in den Überschriften nicht zu bezweifeln.”

Translation: “The Septuagint translators had these headings before them without understanding them; the Syriac translator omitted, mistranslated, or altered them. What does that prove? These headings certainly could not have originated after the exile, since the temple music no longer continued in the same form. In later times, interest increasingly centres on asking who the authors were, as names of authors absent from the Hebrew text are frequently added in the Septuagint and the Peshitta from mere conjecture. Nevertheless, this variation in the headings is no reason to doubt that some correct traditions concerning the Psalms had survived among the Jews in Palestine.”

He charged the Greek translators with failing to understand existing headings and identified names of authors that he believed had been added on the basis of guesswork rather than reliable evidence. The omissions and alterations in his opening sentence concern the Syriac translation.

They “Change the Numbers”

Commenting on Genesis 11:12, Wichelhaus treated differences in the recorded ages as deliberate alterations:

“Schon mit 35 Jahren zeugt Arpachschad den Schalach. Die LXX und der Samariter ändern in diesem Fall die Zahlen, indem sie niemanden unter 70 Jahren heiraten lassen und deshalb kleineren Zahlen eine 100 beifügen. Ebenso Kap. 5. Die schnelle Verbreitung der folgenden Geschlechter setzt aber frühe Heiraten voraus.”

Translation: “Arpachshad fathers Shelah at only thirty-five years of age. The Septuagint and the Samaritan text change the numbers in this instance, allowing no one to marry before seventy and therefore adding a hundred to smaller numbers. Likewise in chapter 5. The rapid spread of the following generations, however, presupposes early marriages.”

The Samaritan text is the Samaritan form of the Law of Moses. Wichelhaus regarded the larger numbers as changes made to fit an assumption about marriage age.

Jeremiah’s Translator Changed “Both Its Form and Its Meaning”

Wichelhaus described the extent of the disagreement between Greek and Hebrew Jeremiah:

“Versionem Graecam cum textu Hebraeo conferentes nos illico offendit varietas magna et discrepantia. Animadvertimus, saepenumero tam obscuram esse versionis orationem, ut vix sensus enucleari possit; interdum deesse multa, quae in Hebraeo leguntur, aliis in locis esse quaedam addita; esse porro immutata multa, membra aliter distincta, versus quoque alio ordine dispositos; esse diversitatem non solum verborum, sed etiam sententiarum.”

Translation: “When we compare the Greek version with the Hebrew text, we immediately encounter great variation and disagreement. We observe that the language of the version is very often so obscure that its meaning can scarcely be unravelled; that sometimes much is missing which is read in the Hebrew, while elsewhere things have been added; that much has also been altered, clauses divided differently, and verses arranged in another order; and that there are differences not only in words but also in meaning.”

His concluding judgment was:

“Iam eorum quae dissertatione nostra argumentati sumus, summa efficitur haec, ut textus Hebraeus genuinam et veram vaticiniorum Ieremiae formam exhibeat, ut eum ipsum textum, quem nos habemus, legerit interpres Alexandrinus, eius autem et formam et sensum permultis in locis mutaverit.”

Translation: “The conclusion of what we have argued in our dissertation is this: that the Hebrew text presents the genuine and true form of Jeremiah’s prophecies; that the Alexandrian translator read the very text which we possess; but that he changed both its form and its meaning in very many places.”

He allowed that the translator’s Hebrew manuscript could itself have contained mistakes:

“In codice, quo usus sit Alexandrinus, multa perperam et minus accurate scripta fuisse, non negaverim. Veruntamen summam diversitatum si spectas, ea ab ipso interprete repetenda est.”

Translation: “I would not deny that many things were written incorrectly and less accurately in the manuscript which the Alexandrian used. Nevertheless, if one considers the differences as a whole, they must be traced to the translator himself.”

He Discarded “Entire Sections”

Wichelhaus explained many omissions in Greek Jeremiah by the translator’s preference for shorter wording:

“Ubique igitur brevitati studet interpres Alexandrinus; Ieremiae amplum et sublatum dicendi genus attenuat, premit, coarctat; amputat orationem verbis quasi luxuriantem; piget eum iterare, quae iam dicta sint, exprimere, quae tam facile suppleantur, ut puerilia fere appareant, denique pluribus verbis circumscribere, quae ipsius ex opinione paucis possint absolvi. Quare hic illic reperimus frustula et articulos — unum fortasse verbum, aliquoties plura, integra denique segmenta, quae abiecerit Alexandrinus, ut in angustiorem formam cogeret sermonem, quem exuberare iudicavit.”

Translation: “Throughout, therefore, the Alexandrian translator aims at brevity. He reduces, compresses, and confines Jeremiah’s full and elevated manner of expression; he cuts away language that seems to him excessively wordy. He dislikes repeating what has already been said, expressing what can so easily be supplied that it seems almost childish, and, finally, describing in many words what, in his own opinion, could be expressed in few. Consequently, here and there we find small portions and clauses—perhaps one word, sometimes several, and finally entire sections—which the Alexandrian discarded to force into a narrower form the language he considered excessive.”

On this explanation, shorter Greek wording could reflect a translator’s cuts rather than an older, shorter Hebrew text.

Later Copyists “Altered and Confused” the Wording

Wichelhaus distinguished the original translator’s work from later damage to the Greek:

“Nonnullis in locis quaeri possit, utrum corrupto textui an versionis auctori discrepantia tribuenda sit. Describatur igitur necesse est natura vitiorum, quae temporum iniuria in textum Graecum invehi potuerint. Quorum haec distinguenda sunt genera. 1) Voces Graecis inusitatae et absonae sunt mutatae et confusae.”

Translation: “In some passages it may be asked whether the disagreement should be attributed to a corrupted text or to the author of the version. It is therefore necessary to describe the nature of the faults which could have entered the Greek text through the injuries of time. The following kinds must be distinguished. First, words unfamiliar and strange to Greeks have been altered and confused.”

He added:

“Omnino quis est, qui nesciat, multos calami lapsus librariorumque errores in textibus antiquis reperiri. Neque Graeca Biblia ea sollertia transscribebantur, qua Hebraica antiquitus apud Iudaeos.”

Translation: “Indeed, who does not know that many slips of the pen and errors of copyists are found in ancient texts? Nor were the Greek Scriptures copied with the care with which the Hebrew Scriptures were copied among the Jews in ancient times.”

Explanations and Alternative Translations “Crept into the Text”

Later changes included explanatory notes and wording supplied to replace or correct the translation:

“Denique glossemata in textum irrepserunt, quae vel interpretamentum vel alteram paucorum verborum versionem vel correctionem ex locis parallelis factam contineant.”

Translation: “Finally, explanatory notes have crept into the text, containing either an explanation, another translation of a few words, or a correction made from parallel passages.”

He gave an example from Jeremiah:

“c. 50, 2 κατῃσχύνθη Βῆλος — additum est ἡ ἀπτόητος, ἡ τρυφερά ex Iesaia.”

Translation: “Chapter 50:2: ‘Bel has been put to shame’—‘the fearless one, the pampered one’ has been added from Isaiah.”

The copied Greek text could therefore contain explanations, alternative translations, and words borrowed from another biblical passage.

Correcting the Translation Did Not Recover Its Original Wording

Wichelhaus traced repeated efforts to bring the Greek into closer agreement with the Hebrew:

“Prosequi facile possumus studia conatusque multos, quibus textus Graecus ad exemplar Hebraeum proprius accommodaretur, si varias lectiones illas omnes singulis in locis inspicimus, quas opera diligentiaque summa ut pridem Holmesius, sic postea Parsonus collegit.”

Translation: “We can readily trace the many efforts and attempts to bring the Greek text into closer agreement with the Hebrew text, if we examine, passage by passage, all those differing readings which Holmes collected earlier, and Parsons afterward, with the greatest labour and diligence.”

But a correction could improve the translation while removing what its original translator had written:

“Sed magnopere cavendum est, ne eos secuti, qui textum receptum (τὴν κοινήν) postea emendarunt, textum meliorem restituisse nobis videamur, ut pote qui ad Hebraicam veritatem propius accedat; sic sane corrigitur versio antiqua, minime vero haec via ingredienda est, si ad propriam primamque formam quantum fieri possit, eam revocare suscipiamus.”

Translation: “But great care must be taken lest, by following those who subsequently corrected the received text, we imagine that we have restored a better text because it approaches more closely to the Hebrew truth. Certainly the ancient version is corrected in this way; but this is by no means the course to follow if we undertake to restore it, as far as possible, to its own original form.”

Here “received text” means the commonly used Greek Old Testament text. Recovering its original wording would also recover any mistakes made by the original translator.

Using the Greek Did Not Make It the Final Authority

Wichelhaus disputed the claim that the apostles had everywhere given the churches the Greek Old Testament as their authoritative text:

“Sane si verum esset, quod Eusebius tradit, Apostolos ubique ecclesiis versionem Graecam LXXviralem tanquam authenticam Scripturam tradidisse, mireris, quod ecclesia Syriaca V. T. versionem probaverit, quae vix magnam cum Graeca affinitatem habet, sed Hebraeum textum accurate exprimit. Sed certissimum est, etiamsi Apostoli ea animi libertate fuerint, ut facile versionis Graecae receptae usum condonarint ecclesiis et ipsi eius testimoniis doctrinam suam firmaverint, exortam tamen esse in primo Christianorum coetu desiderium multorum flagrantissimum, ut Mosis et Prophetarum libros non tam ex Alexandrinorum manca peritia et Targumistarum haud raro putrida et insulsa expositione, sed ipsa textus originalis veritate perciperent.”

Translation: “Certainly, if it were true, as Eusebius reports, that the apostles everywhere handed down the Greek Septuagint version to the churches as authoritative Scripture, one would wonder why the Syriac church accepted an Old Testament translation which has comparatively little affinity with the Greek but accurately expresses the Hebrew text. Yet it is most certain that, even if the apostles were sufficiently free in their approach to permit the churches to use the received Greek version, and themselves supported their teaching with its testimonies, nevertheless there arose among many in the earliest Christian community a most ardent desire to understand the books of Moses and the prophets through the truth of the original text itself, rather than through the Alexandrians’ deficient knowledge and the frequently unsound and insipid explanations of the Aramaic interpreters.”

He acknowledged that the apostles used the Greek translation. His account of the earliest Christians’ desire for the original text is his historical explanation.

“Very Cautious” About Following Famous Manuscripts

Wichelhaus later explained how studying Greek Jeremiah had influenced his judgment of biblical manuscripts:

“Nun haben mich früher schon meine Studien an dem Text der LXX im Propheten Jeremias, später meine Arbeit über die alte syrische Uebersetzung des N. T. wiederholt davon überzeugt, dass diesen Handschriften durchaus nicht eine diplomatische Genauigkeit eigen ist, dass die angeblich jüngern Lesarten des textus receptus sehr häufig das Zeugniss des sich sehr constanten syrischen Textes für sich haben und dass eine genauere Prüfung sehr behutsam machen muss sich nach den Varianten des cod. Alexandrinus, Vaticanus oder Regius ohne Weiteres zu richten.”

Translation: “My earlier studies of the Septuagint text in the prophet Jeremiah, and subsequently my work on the ancient Syriac translation of the New Testament, have repeatedly convinced me that these manuscripts certainly do not possess exact accuracy in reproducing the text; that the supposedly later readings of the received text very frequently have the support of the remarkably consistent Syriac text; and that closer examination must make us very cautious about simply following the differing readings of the Alexandrian, Vatican, or Royal manuscript.”

This passage concerns his choice of New Testament wording; “received text” here means the commonly printed Greek New Testament. Its connection with the Septuagint is explicit: his earlier examination of Greek Jeremiah helped teach him caution about following famous manuscripts.

An “Unreliable and Doubtful” Authority Against the Hebrew

Wichelhaus’s broad warning concerned the authority attributed to the Greek Old Testament:

“Satis, ni fallor, hucusque demonstravimus, auctoritatem versionis Graecae Alexandrinae, in ecclesia ex antiquis temporibus nimis elatam ac promotam, tam fallacem et dubiam esse, ut magnopere cavendum sit critico, ne hac innisus auctoritate textum Hebraeum non solum singulis in locis corrigere vel explicare, sed universam eius αὐθεντίαν impugnare et evertere se posse confidat. Huius versionis origo et diversa eiusdem in singulis libris indoles eo potius nos adducit, ut causas rationesque discrepantiae, quae in singulis V. T. scriptis magis minusve intercedit cum textu Hebraeo, primum non in varia textus Hebraei lectione, sed in versionis varia expositione atque in Alexandrinorum curis vitiisque criticis ponamus.”

Translation: “Unless I am mistaken, we have sufficiently demonstrated thus far that the authority of the Alexandrian Greek version, excessively exalted and promoted in the church from ancient times, is so unreliable and doubtful that the critic must take great care not to suppose confidently that, by relying upon this authority, he can not only correct or explain the Hebrew text in individual passages, but also attack and overthrow its authenticity as a whole. The origin of this version and its differing character in the individual books lead us instead to seek the causes and reasons for its disagreement with the Hebrew text, which occurs to a greater or lesser extent in the individual Old Testament writings, first in the version’s differing interpretations and in the Alexandrians’ critical labours and mistakes, rather than in different readings of the Hebrew text.”

Greek disagreement with the Hebrew was therefore a reason to investigate the translation, rather than assume the Hebrew was wrong.

Assessment

Wichelhaus documents faults in the original Greek translations and further changes through copying, explanatory additions, and correction. His most detailed investigation concerns Jeremiah, but his judgments extend to other books. His explanation of the differences in Jeremiah should be weighed as his scholarly conclusion, not treated as established merely by quoting him.

Sources: Johannes Wichelhaus, De Ieremiae versione Alexandrina (Halle: Eduard Anton, 1847), chapter I, § 2, p. 5; chapter II, § 1, p. 19; chapter III, § 1, pp. 36–37; chapter V, § 1, p. 67; chapter VI, § 5, p. 101; chapter XII, § 2, pp. 175, 177, including the note on p. 177; appendix, § 1, note continuing onto p. 181; § 2, pp. 181–184. Wichelhaus, De Novi Testamenti versione Syriaca antiqua quam Peschitho vocant, libri quattuor (Halle: Waisenhaus, 1850), book II, chapter IV, p. 74. Wichelhaus, Versuch eines ausführlichen Kommentars zu der Geschichte des Leidens Jesu Christi nach den vier Evangelien (Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1855), preface, p. VI. Wichelhaus, Mitteilungen aus den Vorlesungen über das Alte Testament, Erstes Heft: Aus den Psalmen, edited by Adolph Zahn (Stuttgart, 1891), § 2, paragraph e, modern transcription by Andreas Gramlich (2017), p. 9; Drittes Heft: Aus der Genesis, edited by Pastor Richter (Stuttgart, 1891), chapter 11, comment on verse 12, modern transcription by Andreas Gramlich (2013), p. 68. Page references to these last two works follow the modern transcriptions.

63. William Henry Green (1825–1900)

William Henry Green was an American Presbyterian theologian and professor of Old Testament literature at Princeton Theological Seminary. He defended the integrity and greater reliability of the Hebrew Old Testament while recognizing the usefulness of ancient translations for studying differences among biblical texts. His writings contain extensive criticisms of the Septuagint’s translation, textual alterations, manuscript corruption, and limitations as evidence of the original biblical text.

The Hebrew “Immeasurably Superior” to the Septuagint

In an 1885 discussion of the different account of Jeroboam in the Septuagint, Green expressed his judgment of the relative reliability of the Hebrew and Greek:

“Conceiving, as I do, that the latter is immeasurably superior to the former in all respects, that the substantial correctness of the Hebrew Scriptures is incapable of being impeached, while the Septuagint shows numerous and evident marks of arbitrary alterations, I have not the slightest hesitation in believing that the true original narrative is that which is found in our ordinary Bibles, and that the account in the Septuagint is a garbled modification of it.”

He added:

“The alterations and transpositions, for the sake of removing imaginary incongruities in the sacred text, find very frequent parallels in the course of that version.”

“Numerous Instances of Mistranslation” and Alteration

In General Introduction to the Old Testament: The Text (1899), Green emphasized that the Septuagint was not a single translation produced with uniform competence or faithfulness:

“The rest of the books of the Old Testament were translated subsequently at different times and by different hands. . . . The different books indicate a great diversity in the character and ability of the translators. The Pentateuch, particularly in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, is the best for general fidelity. The version of Daniel was so incorrect that it was in ecclesiastical usage laid aside, and another version by Theodotion substituted in its place. Ecclesiastes is slavishly literal, to the disregard of the plainest rules of Greek construction. In Jeremiah and Proverbs especially, and sometimes elsewhere, verses, and even whole chapters are transposed from their proper order.”

Green explained the freedom with which the translators sometimes handled the Hebrew:

“The liberties which the translators allowed themselves with the text are best explained by remembering the purpose which they had in view. This was not to make a scholarly version with the rigorous accuracy that would be demanded in modern times, but to make the meaning intelligible to plain and ordinary hearers and readers. Hence they are more concerned to reproduce the sense than the form.”

He also identified errors and deliberate numerical alterations:

“There are also numerous instances of mistranslation due to ignorance or negligence, or perhaps inaccuracies or defacements of the manuscript used by the translator. One very remarkable variation between the LXX. and the Hebrew is the systematic alteration of the ages of the patriarchs in Gen. v. and xi.”

Every Manuscript Had “a Distinct Text”

Green distinguished deficiencies of the original translation from corruption introduced during later copying:

“In the course of repeated transcription the text of the Septuagint suffered greatly, until in the early part of the third century Origen complains that every different manuscript contained a distinct text. To remedy this evil . . . he undertook the labor of removing the discrepancies in the copies of the Septuagint.”

He explained that Origen was not simply attempting to recover the original Greek translation:

“The aim of Origen in this work was not so much critical as exegetical and polemic. His purpose was not to bring the text of the Septuagint back to its pristine state, but to make it adequately represent the original.”

Nor did subsequent revisions establish a uniform text:

“These labors certainly did not result in establishing a uniform text; on the contrary, they seriously increased the divergence already existing. Jerome complains of great diversity in the copies and corruption in the text in his day. And the errors which have since arisen in the course of transcription during so many centuries have immensely aggravated the difficulty.”

Differences “More Naturally Explicable” by the Translators

Green addressed the claim that differences between the Septuagint and the traditional Hebrew text might reflect a different Hebrew text used by the Greek translators:

“It is of course quite possible that there may have been very inaccurate and carelessly written copies of the Old Testament Scriptures, and that these may have gained considerable circulation particularly among Egyptian Jews and others outside of the Holy Land, and may have been used by the Septuagint translators. But if this were so, it would not warrant the inference that there was no settled and authorized Hebrew text at the time, and no standard copies in which it was to be found, and from which it was transmitted. Reverence for the Scriptures and regard for the purity of the sacred text did not first originate after the fall of Jerusalem.”

He argued that many differences were more naturally explained by the translators themselves:

“On the other hand, these divergences are as easily and more naturally explicable if attributed to the translators than to copyists of the original. The same causes which lead to a modification of the text in transcription would be operative in a translation in an aggravated form. A freedom might be used in rendering the Scriptures into another language which would not be thought of in transcribing the original. A measure of discretion must be allowed in a translator for which a copyist has no occasion, and which would not be permissible in him. And in this first attempt at making a work of such magnitude intelligible to those of a different tongue, no such rigorous rendering could be expected as would be demanded from a modern translator. The sacredness and authority of the original would not attach to an uninspired version. Accordingly, accurate precision was not aimed at so much as conveying the general sense, and in this the translators allowed themselves a large measure of liberty. When to this is added an imperfect knowledge of Hebrew, conjectural renderings or paraphrases of words and passages not understood, slips arising from want of care and the like, it is easy to understand how the general correctness of the Septuagint might consist with very considerable deviations from the original text.”

A Supposed Egyptian Hebrew Text Was “a Figment Unsupported by a Particle of Evidence”

Green made a similar argument in his earlier study, “The Text of Jeremiah” (1860). Rejecting the suggestion that the differences in the Greek Jeremiah came from a separate form of the Hebrew text used in Egypt, he called that supposed text:

“a figment unsupported by a particle of evidence.”

Green attributed the differences chiefly to the Greek translator’s alterations. He identified “many errors in translation” and observed that:

“some passages seem to be translated at random.”

The Hebrew “Vastly Superior” to the Septuagint

Green opposed the practice of freely correcting the Hebrew text on the authority of the Septuagint:

“Some critics still inordinately exalt the critical value of the Septuagint, and are disposed to make frequent changes in the Hebrew text on its authority. But there is a general agreement among careful scholars that, while this version is to be highly esteemed for its antiquity, and the general testimony which it renders to the integrity of the existing text, and the aid which it furnishes in the rendering of obscure and doubtful passages, the Massoretic text is on the whole vastly superior to it, and should not be corrected by it, except where there are stringent reasons for so doing; and that in the great majority of cases where a divergence exists, the presumption is strongly in favor of the correctness of the Hebrew and against the Septuagint. Neither the original character of the latter, nor the history of its preservation, nor the present state of its text entitles it to the precedence. Only in cases where there are independent reasons for suspecting the accuracy of the Hebrew, can emendations by the Septuagint be reasonably admitted.”

The “Superior Accuracy of the Hebrew Text”

Green applied his principles to the numerical differences in Genesis 5 and 11. In “Primeval Chronology” (1890), he argued that the systematic character of the differences indicated deliberate alteration in the Septuagint:

“The Septuagint proceeds on the assumption that patriarchs of such enormous longevity should be nearly two centuries old at the birth of their son. Accordingly, when, in the Hebrew, they fall much below this standard, one hundred years are added to the number preceding the birth of the son and the same amount deducted from the number following his birth; the total length of each life is thus preserved without change, the proportion of its different parts alone being altered.”

Green concluded that “the superior accuracy of the Hebrew text in this instance, as well as generally elsewhere” could be “incontrovertibly established.”

The Apostles “By No Means Sanction Its Inaccuracies”

Green denied that New Testament quotations from the Septuagint amounted to apostolic endorsement of its inaccuracies:

“In making use of the Septuagint, as the New Testament writers frequently do, they by no means sanction its inaccuracies of text or of translation, nor the spurious additions made to the canon, even if it be admitted that the apocryphal books were then already incorporated with this version, of which there is no certain proof.”

Rather:

“They employ its familiar words, so far as they are adapted to the purpose which they have in view, without pedantically correcting unessential departures from the Hebrew original which do not affect their argument or their line of remark.”

On the Hebrew: “No Other Work of Antiquity Has Been So Accurately Transmitted”

Green contrasted the history of Hebrew manuscripts with that of the Septuagint:

“The sum of the whole matter is this. The Hebrew manuscripts cannot compare with those of the New Testament either in antiquity or number, but they have been written with greater care and exhibit fewer various readings. In fact the various readings obtained from an extensive collation of the Hebrew manuscripts are of little importance, for they all represent substantially what is known as the Massoretic text.”

He compared the Hebrew with the ancient translations:

“The same is freshly confirmed by the Latin version of Jerome, the Syriac Peshito, the Jewish Targums and the Greek versions of the second century, all which agree substantially with the text as we possess it at present. Their deviations are of minor consequence, though affording material for its correction in some individual cases. The Septuagint in the third century B.C., and the Samaritan Pentateuch diverge from it much more widely; but neither of them offers a text that is now regarded by scholars as comparable in accuracy with the Hebrew. And their divergence, whether laid to the account of inaccurate Hebrew sources or to liberties taken by Greek translators and Samaritan copyists, does not prove that there was not at the same time an authorized and reliable text represented in standard copies. The Septuagint may be of service in correcting the Hebrew text in certain cases.”

Green did not claim that the traditional Hebrew text was entirely free from copying errors. He acknowledged “some manifest errors,” but regarded their preservation as evidence of the care with which the text was copied:

“There are indeed some manifest errors which may in part be corrected by parallel passages; the rest must be left to critical conjecture. The retention of the former class, however, though the remedy was so close at hand, is a fresh evidence of that rigid adherence to the letter, which has so remarkably safeguarded the Old Testament. It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.”

Assessment

Green distinguished errors made by the Septuagint translators from alterations introduced by later copyists. Although he valued the Greek translation as an ancient source, he considered it substantially less reliable than the Hebrew because of mistranslations, deliberate changes, and corruption during copying.

He also rejected the assumption that differences between the Greek and Hebrew necessarily proved the existence of another authoritative Hebrew text. Such differences could arise from translators taking liberties, misunderstanding words, guessing at meanings, or copying errors. Green maintained that the Hebrew should generally be preferred unless independent evidence supported a correction.

Citation: William Henry Green, “The Text of Jeremiah,” Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, vol. 32 (January 1860), pp. 69–89; “The Septuagint and Jeroboam,” The Sunday School Times, vol. 27, no. 25 (June 20, 1885); “Primeval Chronology,” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 47 (April 1890), pp. 285–303, especially pp. 300–303; General Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1898), p. 145; General Introduction to the Old Testament: The Text (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899), pp. 87–88, 92–96, 107–108, 116–120, 166–169.

64. Edwin Cone Bissell (1832–1894)

Edwin Cone Bissell was an American Congregationalist minister, conservative Protestant theologian, and professor at Hartford Theological Seminary. His extensive investigations of the Old Testament, particularly The Historic Origin of the Bible (1873), The Apocrypha of the Old Testament (1880), and his 1886 study of the Old Testament canon, led him to reject the legendary origin of the Septuagint and document differences among its translations, manuscripts, and collections of books. He identified deliberate alterations, competing Greek texts, and the replacement of an earlier Greek translation of Daniel with a later revision.

The Septuagint’s Supposedly Inspired Origin Rested on Untrustworthy Stories

Bissell rejected the traditional account that seventy or seventy-two translators independently produced an identical Greek translation of Scripture:

“There are stories enough concerning the origin of the LXX., but their utter untrustworthiness, in many respects, can easily be proved. They sprang from a natural desire to give to the translation the character of an authoritative, inspired work.”

He continued:

“It is, perhaps, the wisest course to reject them all, in their details, and to fall back on the simple necessity that ruled the hour.”

Regarding the supposed translators, he declared:

“That the translators were exclusively learned men, invited from Palestine to Egypt for this purpose, is incredible, almost as much so as that each one of the Seventy, without collusion with the others, made precisely the same version.”

Bissell attributed the translation’s origin to the needs of Greek-speaking Jews rather than a miraculous undertaking.

The Translation Was Made “by a Number of Persons” of Unequal Ability

In The Historic Origin of the Bible, Bissell described the Septuagint as a work produced over an extended period:

“The work, it is supposed, was not all done at one time, but probably began with the Pentateuch under the first Ptolemies (280 B.C.), and was finished from 200 to 150.”

He added:

“The translation was made by a number of persons who differed greatly with respect to their knowledge of Hebrew and Greek.”

Bissell therefore understood the Septuagint as the work of different translators over time, rather than one uniform translation produced by a single group.

The Original Greek Daniel Was Displaced and Almost Lost

Bissell identified a striking example of one Greek biblical text replacing another:

“Theodotion’s revision of the LXX. version of the Book of Daniel, as is well known, found such favor with the church in early times that it finally displaced the latter entirely in all current copies of the Greek Bible.”

The original translation subsequently disappeared almost completely from circulation:

“In consequence of this circumstance the original version of Daniel in the LXX. passed so completely out of view that it was long supposed to be lost beyond recovery.”

Bissell explained that the earlier Greek Daniel was eventually recovered from a manuscript in Rome and published in 1772.

He described the extent of Theodotion’s alterations:

“Theodotion simply recast the version of the LXX. At one point he gives its very words, while elsewhere he introduces changes, in some instances, to the extent of a verse or more.”

He explained the reviser’s method:

“Where his copy was abrupt and lacking in clearness, he seeks to make the sense smoother and more intelligible.”

Bissell noted that these revisions affected the canonical portions of Daniel as well as its Greek additions. The Greek Daniel commonly transmitted in Christian Bibles was therefore not the earlier Septuagint translation but a revised text that had replaced it.

The Greek Version of Esther Contained Material Skillfully Added Later

Bissell observed that Greek Esther contained substantial additions absent from the Hebrew Scriptures:

“The Book of Esther, as found in the LXX., contains, as is well known, a considerable amount of matter which does not appear in the Hebrew.”

He described how these additions had been incorporated:

“This supplementary matter, however, has been so skillfully interpolated as to make no interruption in the history.”

Bissell identified seven additions, including dreams, prayers, royal decrees, and explanations inserted at various points in the Hebrew narrative.

He also distinguished two Greek forms of Esther, regarding the second as a later alteration of the first:

“Sometimes the original form is contracted; and sometimes, especially for the sake of explanation, enlarged.”

He continued:

“But the changes are always clearly recognizable as such, and, by a careful comparison, the reasons which might have suggested them generally discoverable.”

Bissell thus identified both the insertion of additional material into Esther and subsequent changes to the enlarged Greek text.

The Compiler of Greek Esdras Used Scripture “with the Utmost Freedom”

Bissell compared Greek First Esdras with the corresponding accounts in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. He rejected the assumption that its numerous differences necessarily preserved readings from a superior Hebrew original:

“An overwhelming majority of the diverse readings of our book, however, may undoubtedly be referred to the acknowledged fact, that its author sought, as a matter of primary importance, to make his work smooth in language and clear in thought; and that to attain this object he did not hesitate to use whatever text he may have had before him with the utmost freedom.”

He estimated:

“Ninety-nine one hundredths of all the passages which disagree with the extant Hebrew original may probably be classed under the following heads:”

His examples included shortened passages, omitted names, added explanations, doctrinal changes, and alterations for which no satisfactory explanation was apparent.

Bissell also acknowledged that the compiler might have possessed a Greek translation different from the surviving Septuagint text. He suggested that:

“for the book before us a text of this version was used differing in many points from the one that has come down to us.”

His investigation therefore identified both deliberate alterations and the possibility that different forms of the Greek translation were already circulating.

First Esdras was a separate Greek compilation, not simply another manuscript of canonical Ezra. Nevertheless, Bissell showed how existing biblical material could be rearranged, expanded, shortened, and altered in Greek.

Greek Manuscripts Were “Much Amended” and Printed Editions Contained Mixed Texts

Examining the manuscript history of Judith, Bissell identified different groups of Greek manuscripts whose texts had been deliberately altered:

“Each of these two families of codices has a text which, mainly for subjective reasons, has been much amended; the former, however, more than the latter.”

He observed that early printed Greek editions combined readings from these different groups:

“The Complutensian and Aldine editions of the LXX. present a mixed text, made up from that found in both of the series of MSS.”

Bissell also identified additional Greek forms that he regarded as independent attempts to reshape the ordinary text into a more acceptable form.

Nevertheless, he considered the surviving Greek Judith the best available representation of its lost original. His criticism concerned changes introduced during transmission, not the impossibility of recovering its original wording.

“There Is No One Form” of the Septuagint Manuscripts

In his 1886 study of the Old Testament canon, Bissell rejected the claim that the Greek Scriptures represented a separate, fixed Alexandrian collection. He described a Greek collection that had admitted additional religious writings without possessing settled boundaries.

Turning to the surviving manuscripts, he declared:

“There is no one form in which they appear, either as it respects the order of books, or their number.”

He illustrated this by comparing the Alexandrian and Vatican manuscripts. The former contained books absent from the latter, while books common to both appeared in different arrangements.

Bissell challenged the claim that such a collection could have constituted a settled canon:

“How could they have looked upon a list of books as canonical for which they neither offered, nor, as far we know, attempted to offer, any fixed recension?”

His criticism concerned not merely differences in individual readings but the absence of an agreed collection of books.

The Jews of Alexandria Never Had Their Own Established Collection of Scriptures

Bissell distinguished the Hebrew Scriptures from the larger Greek collection that developed around their translation:

“Such a thing as a distinctively Alexandrian canon of the Holy Scriptures never, in fact, existed.”

He explained:

“The first condition of such a canon is that it be of the nature of a close and strictly guarded collection, which this Greek library, of which the Septuagint translation of the canonical books was the nucleus, never was.”

He emphasized that the presence of additional books in Greek manuscripts did not establish their equal authority.

In his earlier commentary, he had maintained:

“It has been sufficiently proved by Oehler and Frankel that the Jews, even at Alexandria, did not attach the idea of canonical authority to the Septuagint, much less to the additions that were made to it, and that the notion of a separate Alexandrian canon of the Scriptures, as distinguished from a Hebrew canon, never prevailed among them.”

Bissell therefore rejected both the existence of a an established collection of authoritative Scriptures among the Jews of Alexandria and the assumption that the Greek translation possessed independent authority equal to the Hebrew Scriptures.

Assessment

Bissell rejected the legendary origin of the Septuagint, described its production by different translators, documented deliberate alterations and competing Greek texts, and showed that the earlier Greek Daniel had been displaced by a later revision. He also demonstrated that surviving Greek manuscripts differed in their contents and arrangement, and denied that they represented a separate, authoritative Alexandrian canon. His testimony is especially valuable because it distinguishes the usefulness of the ancient Greek translations from claims that they constituted one fixed, uniformly preserved, independently authoritative Old Testament.

Citation: Edwin Cone Bissell, The Historic Origin of the Bible (New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1873), pp. 268–270; The Apocrypha of the Old Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1880), pp. 19, 50, 65–69, 165, 199–200, 442–443; “The Canon of the Old Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra 43 (January 1886): 95–99.

65. Henry Barclay Swete (1835–1917)

Henry Barclay Swete was an Anglican theologian, professor of divinity at Cambridge, and one of the leading Septuagint scholars of his generation. He edited a three-volume edition of the Greek Old Testament and wrote An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, a detailed study of its origins, translation, manuscripts, revisions, and history. Although Swete valued the ancient Greek translations as evidence of the Old Testament text before Christianity, he repeatedly distinguished the original translations from the corrupted, revised, and mixed forms in which their texts were later preserved.

The Septuagint Was “Not a Single Version”

Swete expressly rejected the idea that the Greek Old Testament commonly called the Septuagint originated as one uniform translation:

“Strictly speaking the Alexandrian Bible is not a single version, but a series of versions produced at various times and by translators whose ideals were not altogether alike.”

Their quality also differed considerably. Swete says that “the Psalms and more especially the Book of Isaiah shew obvious signs of incompetence,” that “the translator of Job was perhaps more familiar with Greek pagan literature than with Semitic poetry,” and that “the translator of Daniel indulges at times in a Midrashic paraphrase.”

“A Large Number of Actual Blunders”

Swete’s general judgment concerning the translators is particularly direct:

“Lastly, the reader of the Septuagint must expect to find a large number of actual blunders, due in part perhaps to a faulty archetype, but chiefly to the misreading or misunderstanding of the archetype by the translators. Letters or clauses have often been transposed; omissions occur which may be explained by homoioteleuton; still more frequently the translation has suffered through an insufficient knowledge of Hebrew or a failure to grasp the sense of the context.”

He immediately warns against accepting Septuagint readings too readily:

“It follows that the student must be constantly on his guard against errors which may easily result from too ready an acceptance of the evidence offered by the Alexandrian version.”

Swete nevertheless regarded the Greek Old Testament as historically valuable:

“Taken as a whole, and judged in the light of the circumstances under which it was produced, it is a monument of the piety, the skill, and the knowledge of the Egyptian Jews who lived under the Ptolemies, and it is an invaluable witness to the pre-Christian text of the Old Testament. But whether for textual or for hermeneutical purposes it must be used with caution and reserve, as the experience of the Ancient Church shews.”

“Textual Corruption Began Before the Christian Era”

Swete distinguished mistakes made in translation from later corruption of the Greek text. He dated the latter remarkably early:

“The imprecation … may point to an early deterioration of the text of the Greek [Law of Moses], which the Pseudo-Aristeas desired to check. This inference is insecure … but it is certain that textual corruption began before the Christian era. There are traces of it in the writings of Philo, which cannot be due to blunders in Philo’s own text.”

He gives several examples and notes that double renderings already occur in Philo. Turning to the succeeding centuries, Swete writes:

“Accidental corruptions, however, and variations of reading and rendering grew apace, and in the third century Origen complains of the uncertainty of the Biblical text in both its parts.”

Swete does not accept all of Origen’s judgments as true textual errors, since Origen sometimes treated departures from the Hebrew as corruptions when they could instead have originated with the translators. Nevertheless, Swete concludes:

“Nevertheless there can be little doubt that in the course of four centuries many actual corruptions such as he describes must have accumulated in the MSS. of the LXX.”

Attempts at Correction “Increased the Disease”

The accumulation of corruption led to organized attempts at revision:

“The κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, as the uncorrected MSS. were called, needed revision, and the literary activity of the third century endeavoured to supply it. At Caesarea in Palestine, at Antioch, in Egypt, independent attempts were made to restore the Septuagint to its primitive purity. But the remedies which were adopted unhappily increased the disease.”

Swete explains the result:

“The Hexapla, from its very nature, encouraged the formation of mixed texts; the Hexaplaric recension, divorced from the rest of the work, accentuated this tendency, and the other recensions had a similar effect.”

Attempts to restore the Greek text therefore became another source of alteration and mixture.

A “Mischievous Mixture” of Different Greek Translations

Swete describes in greater detail what happened when Origen’s Septuagint column was copied independently of the rest of his work:

“The separate publication of the Hexaplaric LXX. was undertaken in absolute good faith; Pamphilus and Eusebius believed (as did even Jerome nearly a century afterwards) that Origen had succeeded in restoring the old Greek version to its primitive purity, and they were moved by the desire to communicate this treasure to the whole Church. It was impossible for them to foresee that the actual result of their labours would be to create a recension of the LXX. which was a mischievous mixture of the Alexandrian version with the versions of Aquila and Theodotion.”

The markings intended to distinguish the imported material did not remain secure:

“The Hexaplaric signs, intended for the use of scholars, lost their meaning when copied into a text which was no longer confronted with the Hebrew or the later versions based upon it; and there was a natural tendency on the part of scribes to omit them, when their purpose was no longer manifest.”

Material from other Greek translations consequently became incorporated into Septuagint manuscripts, while the markings intended to distinguish it tended to disappear.

“Much of the Original Text … Had Disappeared”

Swete’s description of the situation by the fourth century is even more sweeping:

“The result of these multiplied labours of Christian scholars upon the text of the LXX. was not altogether satisfactory. Before the time of Jerome much of the original text of the Alexandrian Bible had disappeared. Men read their Old Testament in the recension of Lucian, if they lived in North Syria, Asia Minor, or Greece; in that of Hesychius, if they belonged to the Delta or the valley of the Nile; in Origen’s Hexaplaric edition, if they were residents at Jerusalem or Caesarea.”

Different forms of the Greek Old Testament were therefore used in different regions. Swete then explains how these forms became mixed:

“But the trifaria varietas did not continue to perplex the Church; a fusion of texts arose which affected the greater part of the copies in varying proportions. No one of the rival recensions became dominant and traditional, as in the case of the New Testament; among the later MSS. groups may be discerned which answer more or less certainly to this recension or to that, but the greater number of the cursives present a text which appears to be the result of mixture rather than of any conscious attempt to decide between the contending types.”

Swete thus describes successive stages of alteration: corruption, deliberate revision, competing forms of the Greek text, and eventually widespread mixing among them.

Even Ancient Manuscripts Contained “Widely Spread Corruptions”

Swete did not suppose that the antiquity of a major manuscript guaranteed the purity of its Septuagint text. Concerning Codex Vaticanus, he writes:

“B also contains a certain number of widely spread corruptions that are of purely Greek origin, which are absent from earlier forms of the LXX. such as the Old Latin.”

An ancient Greek manuscript could therefore preserve corrupt readings that were absent from an earlier translation made from the Greek.

A Major Greek Manuscript Was “Not Homogeneous Throughout”

Swete also warned against treating Codex Alexandrinus as an unchanged copy of the original Greek translation:

“Cod. A, the great rival of cod. B, exhibits a text which has been systematically corrected so as to agree more closely with the Hebrew.”

He also cited F. C. Burkitt’s description of the manuscript’s relationship to Origen’s work:

“In all four books of Kings and in some other parts A has been conformed to the Hexaplar text…. In fact A is often little more than a transcript of the fourth column of the Hexapla, but without the critical signs by which Origen’s additions were marked off from the rest.”

The reference to the fourth column is Burkitt’s wording as reproduced in Swete’s discussion. Origen’s Septuagint occupied the fifth column, so the column number should not be accepted without qualification. The relevant point is that the manuscript contains extensive alterations associated with Origen’s work.

Swete also emphasized that Alexandrinus preserved ancient readings unaffected by those revisions:

“It has been extensively hexaplarised, but it possesses a large element of ancient readings which are not Hexaplaric…. It must be observed, however, that the text of this MS. is not homogeneous throughout.”

Even a major Septuagint manuscript could therefore contain readings from different stages of the Greek text’s history.

Wording Had Disappeared from Every Known Greek Manuscript

Swete’s discussion of recovering an earlier Greek text shows how extensively the surviving manuscripts had changed. He explained that the Old Latin, translated from the Greek, sometimes preserved readings older than those found in surviving Greek manuscripts:

“Consequently, the Old Latin, in its purest types, carries us behind all our existing MSS., and is sometimes nearer to the Septuagint, as the Church received that version from the Synagogue, than the oldest of our uncial MSS. Readings which have disappeared from every known Greek MS. are here and there preserved by the daughter-version.”

Thus even the oldest surviving Greek manuscripts could collectively fail to preserve an earlier Greek reading.

Even the Earliest Recoverable Greek Text Might Not Be the Original

Swete warned that recovering the Septuagint text used by early Christians would still not necessarily recover the Greek text that existed before Christianity:

“By such means the critic may often satisfy himself that he has reached the text of the Septuagint as it was found in Christian MSS. of the third, perhaps even of the second century. It is another question how far the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις of the Christian Church was identical with the pre-Christian text or texts of Alexandria and Jerusalem.”

He continued:

“Early citations from the LXX. suggest a diversity of readings and possibly the existence of two or more recensions in the first century, and lead us to believe that many of the variations of our MSS. have come down from sources older than the Christian era.”

Swete then acknowledged the limits of the surviving evidence:

“Here our documentary evidence fails us, and we have to fall back upon the ‘internal evidence of readings.’ The variants which remain after eliminating Hexaplaric matter, and recensional changes later than the Hexapla, resolve themselves into two classes; viz. (1) readings which affect merely the Greek text, such as (a) corruptions obvious or possible, or (b) doublets, whether brought together in a conflate text, or existing in different MSS.; and (2) readings which presuppose a difference in the original.”

Even after identifying later alterations and material taken from other Greek translations, scholars must still distinguish copying errors, combined readings, and differences that existed much earlier.

Assessment

Swete distinguished errors made by the original translators from alterations introduced during centuries of copying and revision. He explicitly described the Septuagint as “not a single version,” acknowledged “a large number of actual blunders,” and dated corruption of the Greek text to before Christianity.

His strongest testimony concerns the failure of later attempts to restore a uniform text. Instead, competing revisions introduced material from other Greek translations, produced mixed manuscripts, and obscured earlier readings. Swete concluded that even recovering the Greek text used by early Christians would not necessarily recover the text that existed before Christianity.

Citation: Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), pp. 77–86, 314–315, 329–330, 478–495; 2nd ed., revised by Richard Rusden Ottley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), corresponding pages; Henry Barclay Swete, ed., The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1887–1894). For the statement concerning the fourth column of Origen’s Hexapla, see Swete’s discussion on p. 489 and his reference to F. C. Burkitt, Aquila, p. 19.

66. William Inchbold Phillips (1853–1934)

William Inchbold Phillips was an English Anglican clergyman and author of The Septuagint Fallacy: An Indictment of Modern Criticism (1918), a work challenging what he regarded as excessive reliance on the Greek Old Testament. Drawing partly on earlier scholars, especially Henry Barclay Swete and A. F. Kirkpatrick, Phillips argued that the Septuagint was not one uniform translation, that its translators differed greatly in ability, that its text had undergone corruption and alteration, and that differences between Greek and Hebrew did not necessarily establish the existence of a different Hebrew text.

“A Series of Different Versions by Different Hands”

Phillips rejected the idea that the Septuagint was one consistently executed translation. Drawing upon earlier scholarship, he wrote:

“It is not, strictly speaking, a complete version, but a series of different versions by different hands, of unequal value in parts, and of varying standards of excellence.”

He then criticized the translators’ handling of the Hebrew:

“They sacrificed the Greek idiom in their rather clumsy attempts to preserve the Hebrew constructions; sometimes setting sense at defiance in giving what they conceived to be the meaning of the Hebrew.”

He added:

“In some books, especially Isaiah and the Psalms, entire sentences are unintelligible from this cause.”

Phillips described further problems:

“They transliterate words and these not merely proper names; and sometimes add translations of their ‘transliterations’ which are called ‘doublets.’”

He continued:

“They often amplify and occasionally omit, and interpret, qualify and refine; and render some Hebrew words by more than one Greek one in the same context, and often employ metaphors.”

He also identified changes in the order of words and passages, concluding:

“it is plain that the LXX translation has suffered much from insufficient knowledge of Hebrew and failure to grasp the sense of the context.”

Phillips quoted Swete’s warning that the Septuagint must be used cautiously. He then argued that differences between the Greek and Hebrew might arise from defective translation rather than from another Hebrew text:

“its differences from the Massoretic Text may only prove the badness of its translation and nothing more”

Phillips argued that differences in Greek wording might reflect the translators’ mistakes rather than another Hebrew text.

Origen Found the Septuagint “Corrupt”

Phillips appealed to Origen’s examination of the Greek Old Testament as evidence that its text presented serious difficulties in antiquity. Describing Origen’s approach, he wrote:

“He found LXX corrupt and tried to restore it to an agreement with the Hebrew text as he knew it”

Phillips explained that Origen compared the Greek with the Hebrew then used by Jewish scholars. He observed:

“He found that the Greek (LXX) contained in every column clauses which were not in the Hebrew and omitted some which were, and that the order of the Greek departed from that of the Hebrew.”

Phillips continued:

“In innumerable places the LXX was seen to yield a version more or less at variance with the current Hebrew through misapprehension of the translators.”

He summarized Origen’s undertaking:

“His work might be fairly described as a thorough correction of the LXX so as to make it conform to the Hebrew original, ruthlessly brushing it aside when it diverged therefrom.”

Phillips regarded Origen’s work as evidence of the Septuagint’s defects, although his account does not always distinguish original translation errors from later alterations.

Claims of a Different Hebrew Text Were “a Pure Assumption”

Phillips disputed the claim that differences between the Septuagint and the traditional Hebrew necessarily demonstrated the existence of another Hebrew original.

He insisted that scholars making this argument bore the burden of proving it:

“For on the critics rests the onus probandi; their first duty is to prove very conclusively why, and how, the LXX was not an attempt at a translation from the M.T. only.”

He then argued:

“until the above onus probandi has been removed, it is, and must be, a pure assumption (however widely and by whomsoever held) that the LXX variations prove, or even presuppose, a different Hebrew text or texts.”

His objection concerned the assumption that differences in Greek wording established the existence of a Hebrew manuscript for which no other evidence existed.

Phillips repeatedly emphasized that mistranslation, misunderstanding, paraphrase, addition, omission, and alteration could explain differences without requiring another Hebrew source. His broader denial of alternative ancient Hebrew texts was more sweeping than the evidence justified, but his narrower point was that Greek differences alone could not establish such texts.

The Septuagint’s “Own True Text Is Not Yet Determined”

Phillips considered uncertainty about the original Greek text a fundamental obstacle to using the Septuagint as evidence for reconstructing supposed earlier Hebrew manuscripts.

He posed two preliminary questions:

“Have we the real original LXX version?”

and:

“What is its value?”

In his conclusion, Phillips argued:

“And the only verdict obtainable seems to be that the LXX cannot by any means bear the weight of the many inferences, deductions, and conclusions which have been unsparingly laid on it by the modern critics.”

He identified the uncertainty surrounding the Greek text itself:

“But it is just with regard to the LXX that real evidence is most lacking.”

He continued:

“Its own true text is not yet determined, and perhaps may never be, and its translations and emendations are often so hopeless as to be almost meaningless time after time.”

Phillips then challenged the practice of using Greek variations to establish supposed earlier Hebrew manuscripts:

“How, then, can any such tremendous assertions as to the entirely unprovable existence of pre-Massoretic Hebrew MSS. be really based on such a flimsy foundation as the perfectly explainable variations of the LXX mistranslations, paraphrases, lacunae, etc.?”

His argument rested on two distinct objections. First, the original wording of the Greek translation had not been securely recovered. Second, even where the Greek wording was known, differences from the Hebrew might result from errors or liberties taken by the translators.

Claims About New Testament Quotations “Merely Beg the Question”

Phillips also questioned the claim that New Testament quotations demonstrated extensive dependence upon the Septuagint.

He argued:

“much talking about ‘Quotations from LXX’ merely begs the question which has to be proved”

He explained that the issue was whether the New Testament writers had taken their quotations from the Greek Old Testament or translated directly from Hebrew. The fact that a quotation appeared in Greek did not, by itself, establish its source.

Phillips considered the claim that the Septuagint was the principal source of New Testament quotations:

“very much ‘nonproven’”

He pointed out:

“there are many quotations which differ from the LXX.”

Phillips favored the view that the New Testament writers frequently translated from Hebrew rather than simply borrowing Septuagint wording. Whether that stronger claim can be established in individual cases is a separate question. His principal objection was that New Testament quotations could not automatically validate every reading of the transmitted Septuagint or establish its authority over the Hebrew.

Assessment

Phillips drew upon earlier Septuagint scholarship to challenge what he regarded as excessive confidence in the Greek Old Testament. He emphasized that it consisted of translations by different hands, contained mistranslations, additions, omissions, and rearrangements, and had undergone alteration during its transmission. He also appealed to Origen’s work as evidence of the difficulties presented by the ancient Greek text.

His distinctive contribution was his challenge to using differences in the Septuagint as automatic proof of otherwise unknown Hebrew texts. He insisted that the original Greek wording must first be established and that translation errors must be considered before drawing conclusions about supposed earlier Hebrew manuscripts. Although some of his claims concerning the Hebrew tradition were too sweeping, his testimony strongly rejects treating the Septuagint as one fixed, uniformly accurate, and securely preserved Greek Old Testament.

Citation: William Inchbold Phillips, The Septuagint Fallacy: An Indictment of Modern Criticism (London: Robert Scott, 1918), pp. 38–43, 48–50, 59–64, 69–70.

67. Robert Dick Wilson (1856–1930)

Robert Dick Wilson was an American Presbyterian Old Testament scholar who taught at Princeton Theological Seminary and later Westminster Theological Seminary. He was known for his extensive study of ancient Near Eastern languages and his defense of the historical reliability and preservation of the Old Testament. Although Wilson valued the Septuagint as an important ancient translation, he warned against assuming that its differences from the Hebrew necessarily reflected a different or superior Hebrew text. He examined translation errors, explanatory additions, differences in interpretation, and variations among Greek manuscripts.

The Hebrew Text Must Be “the Starting-Point”

In “The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament” (1929), Wilson stated his fundamental principle:

“Since the Hebrew was undoubtedly the original (in all but a few chapters of Daniel and Ezra), the Textus Receptus is always to be taken as the starting-point of any investigation of the text of the Old Testament documents. It ought never to be changed when the evidence against it is not conclusive, or merely conjectural.”

He emphasized that differences in ancient translations required careful investigation:

“We should always approach the study of any passage with the resolve to find out, if possible, if the apparent variation of the version is a real variation based on a different original; or if it may be due to the ignorance of the translator, or to his desire to improve, or comment upon, the text he is translating. And, further, we ought to consider whether, or not, the variation arises from a corruption in the text of the version itself.”

Wilson thus distinguished differences caused by another Hebrew text from those arising through translation or later copying.

The Septuagint Was Made by “Different Translators and at Different Times”

Wilson rejected the idea that the Septuagint was one translation of uniform quality:

“The most important of these versions is one in Greek called the Septuagint, made in the second and third centuries, B.C. It was made by different translators and at different times, probably over a period of more than one hundred years, beginning probably at about 280 B.C. Some of the books were translated with a high degree of accuracy, whereas others are rendered more or less paraphrastically; but all give a tolerably fair view of the doctrines and substance of the original.”

Wilson thus recognized both the unequal quality of the translations and their general usefulness.

He also observed in A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament:

“Even at the time when the Septuagint was made, many meanings of Hebrew roots seem to have been unknown to them.”

He explained that the Greek translators sometimes left Hebrew words untranslated because they did not understand them. He also noted that translators differed considerably in their renderings of words describing animals, clothing, medicines, and other objects.

Greek Differences Often Reflected “Different Interpretations” of the Hebrew

Wilson cautioned against treating differences in Greek wording as automatic evidence of a different Hebrew manuscript:

“The differences to be noticed between the Massoretic Hebrew and that from which the Greek Septuagint was translated, in regard to the division of words, clauses, verses, and so forth, are due, not to variations in the original text, but to different interpretations of the same.”

He explained that ancient Hebrew manuscripts did not contain the later system of vowel markings. Consequently, the same written Hebrew letters could sometimes be read in different ways.

For example, Wilson identified instances in which the Hebrew and Greek understood the same letters differently in Genesis 6:5, Psalm 50:23, Psalm 90:5, and Zechariah 9:12.

He concluded concerning this class of differences:

“Many of the so-called variations of the Greek from the Hebrew text, will be found, therefore, to be nothing but a second interpretation of the same original.”

Wilson also recognized differences in the arrangement of substantial passages. He cited Exodus 36–40, Jeremiah 25–51, Proverbs 24–31, and 1 Kings 4–7 as examples where sections, chapters, or verses appeared in different orders. He attributed these differences to:

“a deliberate rearrangement of the groups.”

The Translators Were “Frequently Not Certain” What the Hebrew Meant

Wilson identified another source of inaccurate translation:

“The large number of transliterations in the LXX shows us that the translators were frequently not certain in their own minds as to what the original text meant.”

He continued:

“It makes it probable, also, that in many cases they thought they knew the sense of the original, when they did not.”

He then warned:

“In all such cases this misinterpreting of the sense of the Hebrew text should not lead us to suppose that the translators had before them a different text from that which we have in our present Hebrew Bibles.”

Wilson illustrated the problem with 2 Kings 11:4, where the Greek translators reproduced a Hebrew word in Greek letters rather than translating its meaning. He supplied further examples from Job and Chronicles.

His argument was that misunderstanding a Hebrew word could produce a different Greek reading without any difference in the Hebrew manuscript being translated.

Additional Greek Words Were “Merely an Attempt to Render the Sense”

Wilson documented instances where the Greek translation contained more words than the Hebrew.

In his 1929 article, he explained:

“In many cases, where two words are found in the translation, only one is found in the original, the two being merely an attempt to render the sense of the one.”

He supplied several examples from Proverbs. At Proverbs 1:3, he observed that the Greek added “true” alongside “righteousness”; at Proverbs 1:4, “young” alongside “lad”; and at Proverbs 1:10, “men” alongside “unholy.” He identified similar examples elsewhere in Proverbs.

Wilson also noted the reverse situation, in which one Greek expression represented two Hebrew words.

Wilson therefore cautioned against treating additional Greek words as proof of additional words in the Hebrew original.

In A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, Wilson summarized his treatment of such differences:

“The differences between the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint are often grossly exaggerated.”

Concerning additions, he observed:

“Most of the additions seem to have been for elucidation of the original.”

The Greek Psalter Contained Additional Headings Absent from the Hebrew

In his two-part study “The Headings of the Psalms” (1926), Wilson compared the Hebrew Psalm headings with those preserved in the Septuagint and other ancient translations. He used the Greek numbering of the Psalms, which sometimes differs from the numbering familiar to English Bible readers.

He began his detailed comparison by noting substantial agreement:

“There is agreement in 87 psalms”

He then documented numerous differences in the remaining headings, including additional words, changed names, different attributions, and historical explanations absent from the Hebrew.

For example, Wilson recorded Greek additions corresponding to the following descriptions:

· Psalm 24 in the Greek numbering added “of one of the Sabbaths.”

· Psalm 93 added “for the day before the Sabbath when the earth was first inhabited. Praise of an ode by David.”

· Psalm 94 added “A psalm of David on the fourth of the week.”

· Psalm 95 added “When the house was built after the captivity. An ode by David.”

He also identified additional references to David and headings associating Psalms with Haggai and Zechariah.

These examples illustrate how the Greek Psalter contained headings and explanatory material not present in the corresponding Hebrew text.

Wilson’s evidence concerns the wording of the headings rather than alterations to the biblical verses themselves. He did not establish when each additional heading entered the Greek tradition.

Even Greek Manuscripts Disagreed on the Psalm Headings

Wilson did not stop with differences between Hebrew and Greek. He separately compared the headings in several surviving Greek manuscripts.

Introducing this examination, he wrote:

“The principal variations from the headings of the Codex Vaticanus (B), in the Sinaitic (א), Alexandrinus (A), Zurich (T), Verona (R), London (U), and Ephraem Syrus (C) manuscripts are as follows:”

He then recorded many differences among these manuscripts, including added or omitted words, changed expressions, and alterations in word order.

Some manuscripts included additional references to David where others did not. Elsewhere, words or phrases present in one manuscript were missing from another.

Unlike the preceding examples, these differences occurred among Greek manuscripts themselves, not merely between the Greek and Hebrew.

Wilson also identified material in the Greek Psalter beyond the 150 Psalms of the traditional Hebrew collection. He recorded the presence of Psalm 151 and reproduced its heading:

“This psalm is a genuine one (ἰδιόγραφος) by (εἰς) David, though supernumerary, when he fought in single combat with Goliath.”

The Greek Psalter therefore contained additional material beyond the traditional Hebrew collection, while its surviving manuscripts also differed in their headings.

The Translators Intended to Be Faithful, Despite Their Errors

Wilson described the received Hebrew text as “substantially reliable” and maintained that it should be regarded as “presumptively the original text” unless sufficient evidence demonstrated otherwise.

He did not, however, regard every ancient translation as intentionally inaccurate. In The Lower Criticism of the Old Testament, he rejected the general accusation that ancient translators deliberately distorted their originals:

“The other error is that the ancient translators or the later revisers of their versions were so characterized by prejudices and tendencies that their translations were intentionally inaccurate and biased from the start, so as to render them largely useless in enabling us to re-establish any original Hebrew text.”

Wilson then expressed his own judgment:

“My own conviction is (and this is a conviction based upon a more or less extensive study of all the versions), that all of them, primary and secondary, by whomsoever made, bear undeniable evidence of having been designed to be faithful to their original.”

He nevertheless acknowledged that copying errors and translation difficulties could affect the surviving texts.

Nor did Wilson insist that the Hebrew must always be preferred in individual cases. In his 1929 article, he accepted or favored readings supported by the Greek translation at several passages, including 2 Kings 24:15 and Psalm 91:4.

His position was therefore not that the Greek translation possessed no value, but that its readings required examination rather than automatic preference over the Hebrew.

Assessment

Wilson regarded the Septuagint as an important ancient translation but rejected the assumption that its differences from the Hebrew necessarily reflected superior or alternative Hebrew readings. He emphasized that the books were translated by different hands and that differences could arise from misunderstanding, interpretation, rearrangement, and explanatory additions.

His examination of the Psalms provides particularly concrete evidence. He documented Greek headings absent from the Hebrew, differences among Greek manuscripts, and the inclusion of Psalm 151. Although he generally favored the traditional Hebrew text, he acknowledged the usefulness of the Septuagint and sometimes preferred individual Greek readings. His testimony therefore distinguishes the value of the ancient translation from claims that it was uniform or preserved without variation.

Citation: Robert Dick Wilson, The Lower Criticism of the Old Testament as a Preparation for the Higher Criticism (inaugural address delivered September 21, 1900; published 1901), pp. 10–11; A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Sunday School Times Company, 1926), pp. 65, 68–72, 179–180, 197–200; “The Headings of the Psalms,” The Princeton Theological Review, vol. 24 (January 1926), pp. 1–37, and vol. 24 (July 1926), pp. 353–395, especially pp. 370–383; “The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament,” The Princeton Theological Review, vol. 27 (January 1929), pp. 36–59, especially pp. 49–59.

68. Richard Rusden Ottley (1864–1946)

Richard Rusden Ottley was an English Anglican scholar specializing in the Greek Old Testament. His The Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint compared Greek with Hebrew; A Handbook to the Septuagint examined its history, manuscripts, revisions, and value. He also updated the text and notes of Swete’s An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. His criticisms arose from close study of a translation he valued.

No Surviving Manuscript Preserves an Unmixed Greek Text

After describing the revisions associated with Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius, Ottley wrote:

“No existing MS., so far as we know, contains a pure text, without mixture, of any of the editions described above, or of the text from which Origen began his work”

He then explained:

“Hexaplaric readings, in themselves a mixture, are found, in greater or less quantity, in MSS. whose general text is of a different character: MSS. mainly Hesychian have corrections from Lucianic sources, or a mixture of Lucianic readings, and the converse also happens. From these mixtures the original text, if it is to be reached, has to be disentangled.”

These names identify revisions associated with Origen, Hesychius, and Lucian. Copies following one could contain wording from another; none preserved an unmixed original.

Copying Errors and Revisions Became “Combined and Mixed”

Ottley explained how the mixture developed:

“besides any corruptions in the ordinary course of copying, the text was revised and worked over by many different hands; and both the ordinary corruption and the revisions went on, more or less independently, over long periods of time, and in different countries. The results of these processes find their way into our MSS., and that not separately, but combined and mixed.”

Recovering the earlier wording required separating copying mistakes from revisions made at different times and places.

He nevertheless qualified his judgment about copying errors:

“The amount of mere corruption may be greater in parts of the O.T. than in the N.T.; but it is not large in either.”

He compared these problems with New Testament copying. The Septuagint required a further inquiry: whether the recovered Greek accurately translated Hebrew.

All Surviving Manuscripts Contain Mixed Texts

Summarizing rules proposed by Paul de Lagarde, Ottley wrote:

“Briefly, they are to the effect that, firstly, as all our MSS. contain ‘mixed’ texts, the process of recovering the true text must be ‘eclectic’; that is to say, readings must be gathered from various MSS., and the text cannot be based solely on one authority.”

Ottley considered this the soundest of Lagarde’s three rules; the others required greater caution. No single manuscript supplied the whole answer.

Difficulties could arise from Hebrew or from later Greek copying:

“The critic’s ‘measuring-rule’ must be his knowledge of the particular translator’s style, and his chief expedient for resolving difficulties must be his resourcefulness in recognising when the clue is to be found in the Hebrew underlying the Greek, and when it lies in the corruption of the Greek itself.”

A Greek copying error could explain a difference from Hebrew without requiring different Hebrew wording.

Other Greek Translations Were Mixed into the Septuagint

Concerning Pamphilus and Eusebius’ edition of Origen’s revised Greek, Ottley wrote:

“Their edition, therefore, actually gives a text mixed with later versions; and as copies were made, the signs were occasionally misplaced, as it was hard to check them accurately in the single text; sometimes they were omitted, and soon they tended to vanish altogether.”

Origen’s signs marked material including additions from later translations. Their disappearance concealed the distinction between those additions and the older translation.

Ottley added:

“From this mixture very few MSS. are altogether free.”

Even manuscripts not following Origen could contain later translators’ wording in their margins. The mixture spread beyond copies of his revision.

The Original Greek Had Not Been Fully Recovered

Asked whether the surviving Greek was trustworthy, Ottley answered:

“The text of the LXX. has passed through many vicissitudes, which have left their marks upon it. There are many rival readings, and there are distinct recensions; and the original text has not yet been completely and satisfactorily determined.”

In 1920, he therefore regarded the original Greek as incompletely recovered.

He nevertheless added:

“Nor is the text, even now, of large portions, in a really bad state; while evidence accumulates, if slowly, to show that the MSS. have preserved a great deal of very ancient material.”

Much ancient material survived, and Ottley expected further progress in recovering its wording.

Some Wording Was Lost from Every Surviving Greek Manuscript

Concerning the Old Latin translation, Ottley wrote:

“Thus it is theoretically possible, and in some instances appears to be demonstrably the case, that the O.L. sometimes preserves the right reading, when most or all extant Greek MSS. have lost it.”

The African Old Latin came from Greek older than Origen’s revision. It could preserve evidence of wording subsequently lost from Greek copies.

He repeated the point:

“The Old Latin, as Prof. Burkitt has pointed out (Rules of Tyconius, pp. cvii–cxviii), serves as a guide to the pre-Hexaplar reading in several places, and even preserves a true reading here and there where all the Greek MSS. have lost it.”

Even agreement among all Greek manuscripts might therefore be wrong. Nevertheless, Ottley expected the recovered text to resemble the best manuscripts compared together, corrected through ancient translations and early Christian quotations.

Translation Mistakes Could Leave “Scarcely a Word” Matching the Hebrew

Ottley described how one translation mistake could lead to others:

“When once the translator has been led astray by some such confusion, he may, if not guided back by the context, wander quite off the true track for a verse or two: one mistake leads to another, or to a desperate guess, until scarcely a word tallies with the original.”

He continued:

“In such straits as this, his attempt is like a schoolboy’s exercise; following whatever method promises the easiest way out, he may paraphrase according to what he takes to be the general drift; or, grasping a word here and there, he may preserve the root-meanings, and connect them almost at random in trying to extract some sense; or, it would seem, he may in the last resort guess wildly.”

Confused letters, wrongly divided words, and misunderstood grammar could explain large differences without requiring different Hebrew wording. Ottley examined particular passages to demonstrate this.

Isaiah 17 Was Partly “Changed Beyond Recognition”

After examining Isaiah 17:9 through 11, Ottley concluded:

“Verse 10 emerges in a recognisable form; parts of 9 and 11 have been changed beyond recognition.”

Yet the Greek preserved clues to its mistakes:

“On the other hand the Hebrew order of words has been so faithfully kept—except, oddly enough, in ‘Amorites and Hivites’—that it is easy to see most of the places where they have gone wrong, and to perceive how they came to do so.”

He traced misread letters, wrongly divided words, changed word connections, loose translation, and guesswork. The preserved Hebrew word order exposed these errors.

He nevertheless acknowledged support from the Latin Vulgate for one Greek reading and partial scholarly approval of another; he did not reject every difference.

Errors in Greek Isaiah Extended to “the Wreck of Whole Sentences”

In his Isaiah preface, Ottley judged apparent evidence of different Hebrew wording:

“the translators’ mistakes in reading (however ample their excuse) are so numerous, ranging in their effect from minute points to the wreck of whole sentences, that their view cannot carry weight as to the real Hebrew text of their day.”

He continued:

“The Hebrew text, as we know it, is rather negatively fortified by the disclosure of their mistakes, than impugned on real authority derived from them.”

Explaining the Greek mistakes strengthened the case for the familiar Hebrew.

He limited this conclusion:

“It will not of course be necessarily true in the same measure, or even at all, for other parts of the Bible: and it may not be accepted without deductions.”

This concerned Isaiah, admitted qualifications even there, and retained respect for the early translators’ work and difficulties.

Small Greek Differences Do Not by Themselves Justify Changing Hebrew

Ottley distinguished major differences in content or arrangement from smaller details:

“In any case, it must be remembered that beside the more marked divergences, there are generally numerous small points (of number, person, etc.) in which there is, as a rule, no reason to think that the LXX. are right, or indeed anything but simply mistaken.”

Recalling the translators’ mistakes, he concluded:

“On the smaller points, which after all form the great majority, the LXX.’s evidence is really of no importance; and to appeal to it as ‘authority’ is an absolute misnomer.”

He opposed changing Hebrew merely because Greek differed, especially beside obvious Greek mistakes. A suggested correction did not prove an older Hebrew reading.

Agreement with Hebrew nevertheless remained valuable:

“First, it leaves the confirmatory value of the LXX.’s evidence almost unimpaired.”

Agreement could strongly support Hebrew; differing Greek readings still required judgment on the evidence of each passage.

The Greek Was Sometimes Better, but Hebrew Generally Held Its Ground

Ottley compared Greek and Hebrew:

“On the whole, it is agreed, that here and there the LXX. may represent, or may give help towards recovering, a better text than the M.T.; but in the majority of passages, the M.T. holds its own.”

“M.T.” means the Hebrew text traditionally preserved by Jewish copyists. Major differences of arrangement or content might reveal an older Hebrew form; smaller ones more readily suggested mistranslation or later Greek changes.

Age alone did not make Greek generally preferable, although it could help recover better wording in particular places.

The Greek Could Not Replace Hebrew as the Starting Text

Suppose someone began with Greek when deciding the Old Testament’s wording, consulting Hebrew only when Greek became plainly unsatisfactory. Outside the Law of Moses, Ottley expected:

“Either a text will be produced which must utterly fail to stand criticism; or the corrections from the Hebrew will be so numerous that the resulting text will be, after all, more M.T. than LXX.; more than half of the LXX.’s peculiarities will have disappeared.”

Within the Law of Moses, where Greek and Hebrew were closer, he expected the same problem less severely.

He then stated:

“But the LXX. as it stands is hardly to be regarded as a possible text; even if certain obvious mistakes and misreadings are corrected, it is still impracticable; if we go a step further, and reconstruct a Hebrew text from it, giving its readings the benefit of every doubt, it is still, on the whole, markedly inferior to the M.T.”

This rejected using Greek as the starting text while preserving its value for judging individual passages.

Different Books Contained Different Greek Translations and Editions

Ottley described the replacement of Greek Daniel:

“Theodotion’s version superseded the Septuagint; and the Greek MSS. now extant contain only Theodotion’s Daniel, excepting one cursive, which is supported by a Syriac version.”

Among manuscripts known to him, the later translation had almost entirely displaced the older Septuagint Daniel.

Other books differed substantially:

“The book of Tobit is also found in two editions, differing considerably in Aleph (S) from AB. A third edition of some passages is said to occur in a few cursives. Ecclesiasticus also is found in a shorter version in the great uncials, and a fuller one in some important cursives.”

The letters identify manuscripts. “Uncials” use capital-like letters; “cursives” use smaller letters. These copies contained substantially different wording, including shorter and fuller texts.

Of Aquila’s translation, Ottley wrote:

“Some fragments of his work have been discovered of late years, and some MSS. of the LXX. give extracts in margin or text, and sometimes attribute them to him or to other later translators.”

He also identified Theodotion’s influence in Job and Jeremiah and traces of Aquila elsewhere. A Septuagint volume could contain different translations, revisions, and later imported material.

Worship Notes Could Enter the Biblical Text

Ottley considered another possible source of additions:

“There is no reason why a liturgical note might not, as well as any other marginal note, intrude into the text by a copyist’s mistake”

A direction for public reading or worship could accidentally become part of Scripture.

Familiar worship wording could also influence copying:

“Also, passages adapted to liturgical use might become familiar to copyists in that form, and corruptions in MSS. might thus arise. The titles in the Greek Psalter may be partly due to similar causes, and investigation of texts on these lines may produce further results.”

These possibilities required further study. They supplemented copying errors, deliberate revision, and mixture with other translations.

Assessment

Ottley’s statement that “the text cannot be based solely on one authority” sums up his evidence of mixture, lost readings, and revision. He distinguished translation mistakes from later Greek changes. His respect for the Septuagint did not make any surviving manuscript or edition an unmixed, fully reliable Greek Old Testament.

Citation: Richard Rusden Ottley, A Handbook to the Septuagint (London: Methuen & Co., 1920), ix; 24–25 (later translations and differing Greek forms); 46, 48 (mixture and revisions); 52, 94–95 (Old Latin and lost Greek readings); 87–89, 93–94 (copying, reconstruction, and Lagarde’s rules); 114–116 (translation errors and Isaiah 17); 207 (condition of the surviving Greek); 211, 213–216 (comparison with Hebrew and the limits of Greek authority); 272–273 (worship and marginal notes). Ottley, The Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus), vol. 1, Introduction and Translation with a Parallel Version from the Hebrew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904), viii. Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 2nd ed., revised by Richard Rusden Ottley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), preface to the second edition.

69. Henry St. John Thackeray (1869–1930)

Henry St. John Thackeray was an English Anglican biblical scholar and one of the leading Septuagint specialists of the early twentieth century. He served as Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint at Oxford and devoted much of his scholarly career to studying the language, translators, manuscripts, and history of the Greek Old Testament. His principal works included A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint and The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, together with studies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Samuel–Kings, Josephus, and the early Greek manuscripts. His conclusions are particularly significant because they arose from detailed examination of the Greek Old Testament itself.

The Hebrew Original Was “Often Imperfectly Understood”

At the opening of his Grammar, Thackeray described the Greek Old Testament as “in parts a servile translation” of an original that was “often imperfectly understood.” His subsequent examination showed that this was not merely a general caution. He classified a substantial group of books and portions of books under the heading:

“Literal or unintelligent versions”

Among these he included the latter portion of Jeremiah, a particular Greek form of Judges and Ruth, portions of Kingdoms, the Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel according to Theodotion, 2 Esdras, and Ecclesiastes.

Part of Jeremiah furnished what Thackeray regarded as an extreme example:

“Jeremiah β contains the most glaring instances in the LXX of a translator who was ignorant of the meaning of the Hebrew, having recourse to Greek words of similar sound.”

Here Thackeray was referring to the second portion of the Greek translation of Jeremiah. He believed its translator sometimes chose Greek words because they sounded like Hebrew words, without understanding what the Hebrew actually meant.

Thackeray therefore did not assume that unusual Greek wording necessarily reflected a different Hebrew manuscript. In some cases his examination of the language convinced him that the translator simply did not understand the Hebrew text he was translating.

Free Translation, Omissions, and “Legendary Additions”

Thackeray identified a very different kind of translation in 1 Esdras and the older Greek translation of Daniel. He believed the same translator was responsible for the freely translated material found in both works and that Daniel had been handled with the same freedom shown in Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah. He considered these translations sufficiently defective that, in his words:

“In both cases it was subsequently found necessary to incorporate in the Greek Bible a more accurate version.”

He described this class as “free renderings of extracts with legendary additions” for which “more accurate and complete renderings were required.” More specifically, he called 1 Esdras:

“a free rendering of parts of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah grouped round a fable”

and the older Greek Daniel:

“a similar paraphrase of parts of Daniel, also with legendary additions.”

Job and Proverbs furnished further examples. Thackeray wrote:

“The original version of Job omitted large portions of the original.”

Of Proverbs he observed:

“The Greek Book of Proverbs includes maxims and illustrations derived from extraneous sources, and metrical considerations sometimes outweigh in the translator’s mind faithfulness to his original.”

Thus, Thackeray recognized that differences between Greek and Hebrew could arise through misunderstanding, loose translation, omission, expansion of the original wording, or the addition of material not found in the Hebrew. Such differences therefore did not establish that the translator had used an older or superior Hebrew manuscript.

“Where Is the True ‘Septuagint’ Text to Be Found?”

Thackeray sharply distinguished the original work of the translators from the forms preserved in later manuscripts. At the beginning of his discussion of efforts to recover the original Greek wording, he asked:

“Where is the true ‘Septuagint’ text to be found?”

His answer was that scholars were still far from possessing a Greek text that could confidently be said to represent, even approximately, the original work of the translators. The uncertainty was serious enough that he then asked:

“Is it, then, premature to attempt to write a Grammar, where the text is so doubtful?”

and conceded:

“It is true that no final grammar of the LXX can be written at present.”

Thackeray’s problem was therefore not simply uncertainty over a few individual words or passages. Scholars had not yet recovered the earlier Greek text with enough confidence to establish a definitive basis even for studying its grammar.

The “Source and Origin of the Evil” in the Septuagint Text

Thackeray traced one of the principal causes of later corruption to the copying of Origen’s revised Greek text. Origen had introduced material from other Greek translations into the Septuagint while using special marks to identify what he had added. But later copyists did not consistently preserve those distinctions. Copies retained the additions while losing the marks that identified them as later material, and alternative translations written in the margins could subsequently find their way into the text itself.

Thackeray described the result as:

“the subsequent degeneration of the text”

and characterized this process as the:

fons et origo mali

—meaning the “source and origin of the evil”—as regards the Septuagint text.

His point was not merely theoretical. Material belonging to later Greek translations could be introduced during attempts to correct the text, lose the marks that distinguished it from the older Greek, and thereafter circulate as though it belonged to the Septuagint itself. Alternative translations written in manuscript margins could likewise become part of the biblical text when later copies were made.

Two Major Septuagint Manuscripts Both Contained Later Additions

Thackeray found the effects of this process even in two of the most important ancient Greek manuscripts, known as Vaticanus and Alexandrinus. Vaticanus, although generally preferable to Alexandrinus in this respect, was:

“not entirely free from Hexaplaric interpolations.”

Here he was referring to additions that had entered the Greek through the corrections associated with Origen’s work.

In 3 Kingdoms, Thackeray concluded that Alexandrinus had supplied missing passages from Aquila’s Greek translation. Vaticanus, meanwhile, had remained only:

“comparatively, though probably not wholly, free from Hexaplaric interpolation.”

Joshua supplied another case in which the problem affected both major manuscripts:

“Here again interpolation has affected the text of both B and A.”

The letters B and A refer to Vaticanus and Alexandrinus.

Thackeray considered identifying and removing additions introduced through Origen’s corrections to be the first task in recovering the earlier Greek text. He called this “the first task of the textual criticism of the LXX.” Scholars could not simply accept Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, or another surviving manuscript as an untouched copy of the ancient translation. Material introduced later from other Greek translations first had to be identified and removed.

Even After the Additions Were Removed, the Original Text Was Still Uncertain

Job exposed an even deeper problem. Thackeray stated that:

“the text of B, and of all the uncials, is Hexaplaric.”

By this he meant that Vaticanus and the other principal ancient Greek manuscripts preserved a form of Job affected by corrections associated with Origen, rather than an untouched copy of the original Greek translation.

Yet removing additions introduced through Origen’s corrections did not solve the entire problem. Thackeray explained that an ancient Egyptian translation known as the Sahidic version helped scholars distinguish passages taken from Theodotion’s Greek translation. Nevertheless, he warned:

“But we cannot even then be quite certain that we have got back to the original text.”

He explained that material from Theodotion might have entered the Greek before or independently of Origen’s corrections. Alternatively, the Greek text used to produce the Egyptian translation might already have contained material mixed in from another source.

Thackeray therefore maintained that even after scholars identified and removed additions associated with Origen’s corrections, they still could not be certain of recovering the original Greek translation.

Different Portions of the Same Biblical Books Were Translated by Different People

Thackeray’s examination of the language also convinced him that different portions of the same biblical book could have been translated by different people. He summarized what he found:

“We find also that diversities of style present themselves within a single book.”

These were not merely scattered changes in vocabulary. Thackeray observed:

“The break occurs at a definite point in the centre of a book, on either side of which the language has its own distinct characteristics.”

Jeremiah provided one of his clearest examples. He concluded that:

“the Greek version of the book of Jeremiah falls into two nearly equal portions, which have been rendered by different translators”

and elsewhere described the second translator as:

“lacking in skill and knowledge.”

His study of Ezekiel produced a similar result. The Greek, he said, “as tested by style and vocabulary, falls into three parts,” yet his examination indicated two translators. Comparing Jeremiah and Ezekiel, he concluded:

“each book was divided into two parts, and two translators were set on to the work simultaneously.”

Their abilities were not equal:

“The translator who undertook the earlier part of each book appears to have been the recognized leader and the more competent of the two.”

Thackeray’s examination of Samuel–Kings likewise led him to conclude, from differences in language and style, that different portions had been translated by different people. Later scholars questioned parts of his explanation, arguing that some differences he attributed to separate translators actually resulted from later attempts to bring the Greek into closer agreement with the Hebrew. That later explanation should not be attributed to Thackeray himself. Nevertheless, his studies convinced him that Greek biblical books commonly spoken of as single works were not necessarily translated entirely by one person.

Manuscripts Revised at a Later Date Could Still Preserve Much Older Wording

Thackeray’s extensive study of Josephus also showed why a group of Greek manuscripts should not automatically be assumed to preserve wording introduced by a later revision. He called Josephus:

“a witness of first-rate importance for the text of the Greek Bible.”

The Greek wording Josephus used in the historical books closely resembled wording found in a group of manuscripts later associated with Lucian, although Josephus lived more than two centuries before Lucian. Thackeray therefore recognized that manuscripts associated with a later revision could preserve wording that existed long before that revision.

This made the history of the Septuagint more complicated than simply choosing among manuscripts associated with particular editors or revisions. Manuscripts containing later revisions could preserve much older wording, while even ancient manuscripts could contain additions introduced after the original translation.

Assessment

Thackeray combined extensive criticism of the original translations with direct evidence of later alterations. He described translators who misunderstood the Hebrew, produced “literal or unintelligent versions,” translated freely, omitted material, and introduced additions from outside the Hebrew text.

More importantly, he asked where the “true ‘Septuagint’ text” could be found, described a “subsequent degeneration of the text,” identified additions associated with Origen’s corrections in major manuscripts, and warned that even after known additions had been removed “we cannot even then be quite certain that we have got back to the original text.”

Thackeray therefore described the Septuagint as a collection of translations whose original wording could not simply be taken from surviving manuscripts. Errors in translation, later additions, corrections, and the mixing of different Greek versions had made recovering the earliest Greek texts a difficult and uncertain undertaking.

Citation: Henry St. John Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), vii, 1–16 and the introductory discussion of grammar and textual criticism; Henry St. John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Jeremiah,” Journal of Theological Studies 4 (1903); Henry St. John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Ezekiel,” Journal of Theological Studies 4 (1903); Henry St. John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” Journal of Theological Studies 8 (1907): 262–278; Henry St. John Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (London: Oxford University Press, 1921); Henry St. John Thackeray, Some Aspects of the Greek Old Testament (London, 1927).

70. Joseph Ziegler (1902–1988)

Joseph Ziegler (1902–1988) was a German Roman Catholic biblical scholar and one of the leading twentieth-century editors of the Septuagint. He prepared numerous volumes of the Göttingen edition, which compares Greek manuscripts to recover the earliest wording of the Greek Old Testament. His research documented errors, additions, repeated revisions, and differing Greek texts. Ziegler valued the Septuagint and believed that original translations stood behind the surviving manuscripts. His testimony is particularly significant because his findings arose from efforts to recover those translations.

The Septuagint Was “Repeatedly Altered” and Took on Different Forms

In his 1962 lecture Die Septuaginta: Erbe und Auftrag, Ziegler raised a fundamental question:

Ist unsere heutige Septuaginta im wesentlichen die gleiche wie die damalige Übersetzung?

Translation: “Is our present-day Septuagint essentially the same as the translation of that time?”

After discussing different explanations of the Septuagint’s origins and history, he answered:

Jedoch zeigen die Ergebnisse der Textgeschichte, vor allem auch die neuen Funde von Qumran, daß unsere heutige Septuaginta auf einen einheitlichen Text zurückgeht, der im Lauf der Zeit durch die Rezensionen vielfach verändert worden ist und später eine vielfältige Gestalt angenommen hat.

Translation: “Nevertheless, the results of textual history, especially also the new discoveries from Qumran, show that our present-day Septuagint goes back to a uniform text which in the course of time was repeatedly altered by recensions and later assumed a manifold form.”

Ziegler rejected the theory that the surviving Greek texts developed without an earlier common text from which their differing forms descended. This did not mean that he believed the entire Greek Old Testament had originally been translated as one uniform work. He maintained that the Greek text had undergone repeated revisions and developed into numerous forms.

He also explained the task of the Göttingen editors:

einen kritischen Text der griechischen Bibel herauszugeben und einen Apparat zu bauen, in dem die Zeugen nicht nach der schematischen … Reihenfolge, sondern in der organischen Ordnung der Rezensionen und Gruppen verzeichnet sind.

Translation: “to produce a critical text of the Greek Bible and construct an apparatus in which the witnesses are arranged, not according to a schematic order, but according to the organic order of the recensions and groups.”

The editors had to compare manuscripts containing different readings and later alterations rather than assume that any surviving manuscript preserved the original Greek unchanged.

“The Original Text Is Obscured by Corruption”

In his Göttingen edition of Isaiah, Ziegler distinguished the original translation from errors introduced into later Greek copies:

Im allgemeinen hat die Überlieferung den Text gut bewahrt; aber an verschiedenen Stellen ist der ursprüngliche Text durch innergriechische Verderbnis verdeckt.

Translation: “In general the transmission has preserved the text well; but in various places the original text is obscured by corruption within the Greek tradition.”

Although much of the wording had been preserved well, later errors sometimes concealed the original reading. In difficult cases, that reading might differ from every surviving manuscript. Ziegler therefore warned:

eine volle Sicherheit kann niemals erreicht werden.

Translation: “Complete certainty can never be attained.”

His research on the Twelve Prophets likewise included a study entitled:

Innergriechisch und innerlateinisch verderbte Lesarten im Dodekapropheton.

Translation: “Readings corrupted within the Greek and Latin traditions in the Twelve Prophets.”

Thus, differences between Greek and Hebrew did not necessarily arise from different Hebrew manuscripts. Some resulted from corruption of the Greek itself.

Sirach Circulated in “Different Forms” Rather Than One Uniform Text

Ziegler’s research on Sirach showed that different Greek texts circulated under the same book title.

Discussing a second form of Greek Sirach, known as GrII, he wrote:

Wenn L in den Zusätzen von La abweicht, so kommt es eben daher, daß GrII keinen einheitlichen Text, sondern verschiedene Formen darstellte, die als völlig oder teilweise neue Versionen und Revisionen des hebr. Sirach im Umlauf waren.

Translation: “When L differs from the Old Latin in the additions, this is simply because GrII did not represent a uniform text, but rather different forms which circulated as wholly or partly new versions and revisions of the Hebrew Sirach.”

Ziegler concluded that this second Greek form circulated in several versions, some containing fresh translations or revisions of the Hebrew.

He also identified changes associated with a later Greek tradition named after Lucian, a Christian scholar:

Die sehr zahlreichen Zusätze haben lukianischen Charakter.

Translation: “The very numerous additions have a Lucianic character.”

Die Wortlautänderungen zeigen lukianisches Gepräge.

Translation: “The alterations of wording display a Lucianic character.”

One feature was the combination of two alternative readings:

Besonders kennzeichnend für Lukian sind die Dubletten.

Translation: “The doublets are especially characteristic of Lucian.”

Other changes affected grammar and style:

Äußerst beliebt sind bei Lukian die grammatisch-stilistischen Änderungen.

Translation: “Grammatical and stylistic alterations are extremely common with Lucian.”

Ziegler summarized the tendency toward expansion:

Dies ist kennzeichnend für Lukian, der allzu gern den Text erweitert, aber ebenso ungern ihn kürzt.

Translation: “This is characteristic of Lucian, who is all too ready to expand the text but correspondingly reluctant to shorten it.”

These alterations went well beyond ordinary copying mistakes, including additions, rewritten passages, combined readings, and changes to grammar and style.

“Islands” Was Changed to “Jesus” or “Lord”

Ziegler identified a striking example of later alteration in Sirach 43:23. He introduced the passage as:

ein lehrreiches Beispiel der verschlungenen Textüberlieferung

Translation: “an instructive example of the tangled textual transmission,”

He described its surviving readings as:

ein äußerst buntes Bild, das uns vor allem wegen seiner christlichen Übermalung zur näheren Betrachtung einlädt.

Translation: “an extremely variegated picture which invites closer examination above all because of its Christian overpainting.”

Ziegler identified νήσους, meaning “islands,” as the original Greek reading. Some manuscripts instead read Ἰησοῦς, “Jesus,” while others had κύριος, “Lord.” Still others combined readings. He regarded these alternatives as later changes, some influenced by Christian interpretation.

Ziegler also showed that later editors borrowed material from other Greek translations:

Hier ist deutlich zu sehen, daß Origenes (und auch Lukian) ihre Zusätze und Wortlautänderungen nicht direkt von einer hebr. Handschrift, sondern von den jüngeren griech. Übersetzern, namentlich von Theodotion, bezogen.

Translation: “Here it can clearly be seen that Origen (and Lucian as well) obtained their additions and alterations of wording not directly from a Hebrew manuscript, but from the later Greek translators, especially Theodotion.”

The resulting texts could combine material from several Greek translations rather than preserve only the wording of the original translators.

An Early Revision “Entered All the Manuscripts”

Ziegler’s research on Papyrus 967 revealed how early revisions could spread so widely that they became difficult to recognize.

Concerning Ezekiel, he wrote:

Die größte Bedeutung hat 967 deshalb, weil er zeigt, daß bereits in vorhexaplarischer Zeit die Ez.-LXX nach dem hebr. Text korrigiert wurde.

Translation: “The greatest significance of 967 is that it shows that already in the pre-Hexaplaric period the Ezekiel Septuagint was corrected according to the Hebrew text.”

The Greek translation of Ezekiel had been revised to agree more closely with the Hebrew before Origen compared the Hebrew and Greek texts in the third century.

Ziegler made an even more significant observation:

Der Wortschatz des Pap. 967 zeigt, daß schon frühzeitig der Ez.-Text eine Überarbeitung erfuhr, die in alle Handschriften Eingang fand und so kaum bemerkbar wurde.

Translation: “The vocabulary of Papyrus 967 shows that the Ezekiel text underwent a revision at an early date which entered all the manuscripts and thus became scarcely noticeable.”

Such a revision could become so widespread that later readers mistook its wording for the original translation.

He further observed:

An einigen Stellen hat 967 allein die ursprüngliche Lesart bewahrt.

Translation: “In some passages 967 alone has preserved the original reading.”

Ziegler judged that Papyrus 967 sometimes preserved older wording than other manuscripts. Agreement among those manuscripts therefore did not necessarily establish that their common reading was original.

Ziegler also challenged Henry St. John Thackeray’s theory that Greek Ezekiel had been produced by three translators. In his 1953 study, he argued that differences in wording did not necessarily indicate different translators and that Papyrus 967 undermined Thackeray’s explanation. He instead emphasized the original translator’s methods and later revisions.

The Older Greek Daniel Was Largely Replaced by Another Version

Ziegler’s work on Daniel revealed a broader problem: an entire Greek version could be displaced by another. Daniel circulated in two substantially different Greek forms. The older translation was largely replaced in Christian manuscripts by a version traditionally associated with Theodotion, whose precise origins remain disputed.

In his 1954 Göttingen edition, Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, Ziegler presented the two Greek versions separately. Their differences were too substantial to treat them merely as alternative readings within one otherwise uniform text.

Ziegler also investigated the Greek Daniel used by Hippolytus, an early Christian writer, in his 1952 study Der Bibeltext im Daniel-Kommentar des Hippolyt von Rom. Subsequent scholars discussing his findings report that Hippolytus chiefly followed the version associated with Theodotion while preserving some readings from the older Greek translation.

Thus, the two forms were not always transmitted separately. Readings from both could appear in an early Christian writer’s use of Daniel.

The evidence goes beyond copying errors or added passages. One Greek version could largely replace another while traces of both survived together. The Greek Daniel commonly used by later Christians was not simply the older translation preserved unchanged.

Even the Original Greek Wording Could Only Be Judged “Most Probable”

Ziegler’s editorial work required careful judgment rather than simply copying an existing manuscript.

In his edition of Sirach, he described the goal as establishing:

die wahrscheinlichste Urseptuaginta-Lesung.

Translation: “the most probable original Septuagint reading.”

He acknowledged the exceptional difficulty of Sirach:

Unter allen Büchern der Septuaginta gibt Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) dem Textkritiker die meisten und schwierigsten Rätsel auf.

Translation: “Among all the books of the Septuagint, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) presents the textual critic with the greatest number and the most difficult puzzles.”

Even after preparing his edition, he confessed:

Gerade beim Lesen der Korrekturen steigen manchmal Zweifel auf, ob wirklich der Text richtig gestaltet ist; man gerät in eine beklemmende ἀπορία und möchte am liebsten (bei manchen schwierigen Stellen) noch einmal von vorn anfangen.

Translation: “Precisely while reading the proofs, doubts sometimes arise whether the text has really been established correctly; one falls into an oppressive perplexity and would prefer, at some difficult passages, to begin all over again.”

Similar difficulties appeared in Jeremiah:

Die Textgestaltung begegnet bei Ier. großen Schwierigkeiten. Oftmals ist die Entscheidung, welche Lesart in den Text aufgenommen werden soll, sehr schwer.

Translation: “The establishment of the text of Jeremiah encounters great difficulties. Often the decision as to which reading should be admitted into the text is very difficult.”

He also warned that the Greek translation of Jeremiah itself was not uniform:

Bei der Untersuchung des Übersetzungscharakters ist zu beachten, daß die Ier.-LXX nicht einheitlich ist.

Translation: “In investigating the character of the translation, it must be observed that the Jeremiah Septuagint is not uniform.”

Even after years of examining manuscripts, Ziegler could not always determine which reading represented the original translation.

The Translators “Intentionally and Unintentionally” Omitted Hebrew Words

Ziegler distinguished omissions made by the original Greek translators from alterations introduced afterward.

Discussing Isaiah, he wrote:

Jedoch geht bei dem größten Teil des Minus die Ursache auf den Übers. selbst zurück; er hat oftmals Satzteile und Worte absichtlich und unabsichtlich ausgelassen.

Translation: “Yet in the greater part of the omissions the cause goes back to the translator himself; he often omitted clauses and words intentionally and unintentionally.”

He explained the translator’s approach:

Der Js-Übers. fühlte sich nicht strenge an seine Vorlage gebunden und hatte auch keineswegs die Absicht, wörtlich und genau, Wort für Wort zu übersetzen; deshalb hat er einfach schwierige, seltene Wörter ausgelassen, manche Sätze verkürzt und zusammengezogen.

Translation: “The Isaiah translator did not feel himself strictly bound to his Vorlage and by no means intended to translate literally and exactly, word for word; therefore he simply omitted difficult or rare words, shortened some sentences, and compressed them.”

According to Ziegler, the Greek translator of Isaiah sometimes deliberately omitted difficult expressions, shortened sentences, or combined material.

Differences between Hebrew and Greek could therefore result from the translators’ methods, copying errors, later revisions, or differences in the Hebrew manuscripts used. A Greek reading that differed from the surviving Hebrew did not, by itself, prove that it preserved an older or more reliable Hebrew reading.

Assessment

Ziegler stands among the strongest modern witnesses in this collection because his conclusions arose from extensive firsthand study of the Greek Old Testament. Although he valued the Septuagint and believed that original Greek translations lay behind its surviving manuscripts, he acknowledged that the text was “repeatedly altered by recensions” and eventually assumed “a manifold form.”

He documented corruption, differing versions, additions, combined readings, altered wording, Christian changes, and early revisions that became difficult to recognize. His research on Daniel illustrated how one Greek version could displace another while readings from both survived together. He also distinguished changes made by the original translators from those introduced afterward.

His goal was to establish “the most probable original Septuagint reading,” not simply reproduce an existing manuscript. He acknowledged that “complete certainty can never be attained.” His findings demonstrate why the surviving Greek Old Testament cannot be treated as one pure, fixed text preserved unchanged through the centuries.

Citation: Joseph Ziegler, Die Septuaginta: Erbe und Auftrag, Festvortrag gehalten beim 380. Stiftungsfest der Julius-Maximilians-Universität zu Würzburg am 11. Mai 1962 (Würzburg, 1962), 8–9 (the question concerning the present-day Septuagint, its repeated alteration, and the task of the Göttingen editors); Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, vol. XIV, Isaias (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939), introduction (corruption within the Greek tradition, uncertainty, and the translator’s omissions); vol. XIII, Duodecim Prophetae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1943); vol. XV, Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957), introduction (difficulties in establishing the text and the differing character of its translation); vol. XVI/1, Ezechiel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952; revised edition, 1977); vol. XVI/2, Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954); vol. XII/2, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), introduction, especially 5 (the difficulty of Sirach), 58–69 (the differing Greek forms), and 73 (Sirach 43:23). Ziegler, “Die Bedeutung des Chester Beatty-Scheide Papyrus 967 für die Textüberlieferung der Ezechiel-Septuaginta,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 61 (1945–1948): 76–94; “Zur Textgestaltung der Ezechiel-Septuaginta,” Biblica 34 (1953): 435–455, especially 440; “Der Bibeltext im Daniel-Kommentar des Hippolyt von Rom,” Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse (1952): 164–199; Beiträge zur Ieremias-Septuaginta; “Innergriechisch und innerlateinisch verderbte Lesarten im Dodekapropheton”; and Sylloge: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971).

71. Sidney Jellicoe (1906–1973)

Sidney Jellicoe was a British-Canadian Anglican priest, biblical scholar, and professor of Divinity at Bishop’s University in Quebec. He was a leading twentieth-century specialist in the Septuagint and helped establish the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. His major works included The Septuagint and Modern Study (1968) and the posthumously published Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations (1974), which included an extensive introduction written by Jellicoe.

Uncritical Use of the Septuagint Can Be “Positively Misleading”

In his 1969 survey of Septuagint scholarship, Jellicoe warned that biblical commentators frequently cited the Greek Old Testament without adequately examining the evidence:

“While this is indisputable it must be stated—though there are exceptions—that the adduction of LXX has far too often been of such insufficiently informed and uncritical a nature that the results have been positively misleading. Two observations must suffice. Before citing the version the commentator must first pose to himself Ottley’s question, ‘What is the Septuagint?’ and to answer this his hand must reach much further than the manual edition of a Tischendorf, van Ess, Swete, or Rahlfs. Again, the inference underlying the familiar critical note ‘read with LXX,’ namely, that the version reflects a Hebrew text differing from, and supposedly superior to, MT, has been demonstrated over and over again to be mistaken.”

Jellicoe objected to assuming that differences in Greek wording proved the existence of a better Hebrew original. Scholars first needed to examine whether the Greek itself had been accurately preserved. His warning also raised the more basic question of what scholars actually meant by “the Septuagint.”

Supposed Differences in Hebrew May Actually Be Errors in Greek

Jellicoe acknowledged genuine differences between the Hebrew used by the Greek translators and the Hebrew text preserved in later manuscripts. Nevertheless, he warned that scholars had exaggerated how extensive these differences were:

“That there are differences—and these are not confined to Samuel—between the Hebrew as used by the Greek translators and as known to us today is not in doubt, but the supposed extent of these differences must be considerably modified in the light of a more careful and judicial analysis on the part of those who have made first-hand acquaintance with the actual text their fundamental concern, foremost among whom stand the Göttingen editors and their collaborators, along with the late Dr. Walters (Peter Katz) on the one side of the Atlantic, and on the other Professors Orlinsky and the late Max L. Margolis. Among the supposed variants some have been shown to be inner-Greek corruptions; others are explicable by ‘hibernation,’ that is, equivalents of Hebrew words which were in current usage, and were rendered accordingly by the Greek translators but which later fell into desuetude, have tended to be construed either as mistranslations or as indicative of a different Hebrew term.”

Some differences thought to reflect a different Hebrew original were actually errors that had arisen within the Greek text. Others resulted from misunderstanding words whose meanings had changed or fallen out of use. Neither kind of difference necessarily established that the translators had used a different Hebrew text.

The Hebrew Used by the Greek Translators Often Closely Resembled the Traditional Hebrew Text

Jellicoe described two opposing approaches to differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, the traditional Hebrew text preserved by Jewish scribes:

“There were those who, assuming that where LXX appeared to differ from MT it represented an earlier and superior Hebrew Vorlage, gave preference to ‘LXX’; on the other side were the staunch defenders of MT, who saw LXX renderings as corruptions, misunderstandings, paraphrases, or even as deliberate alterations on the part of the translators arising from theological predilections.”

He then described a position between these two extremes:

“The mean between the extremes was the endeavour—and to this comparative philology, as already noted, has made a noteworthy contribution—to show that the Vorlage was, in fact, identical with, or approximated closely to, MT. Indeed, over the last generation, a growing respect for MT has been evident in Old Testament scholarship, but it is only to a limited extent that this finds support from Qumrân. LXX has been no less clearly vindicated: the faithfulness of the translators to their Hebrew exemplar at every stage has been well attested.”

Jellicoe recognized that the Hebrew texts used by the Greek translators often closely resembled the traditional Hebrew text. He also acknowledged that the translators were generally faithful to their Hebrew originals. Differences found in surviving Greek manuscripts therefore needed careful examination before scholars could conclude that the translators had used substantially different Hebrew texts.

Printed Editions Must Not Be Mistaken for “the Septuagint”

Jellicoe warned against treating a convenient printed edition as though it represented one established Septuagint text:

“Attention should be directed to what is written below in Essays 1, 2, and 12 on the use and misuse of the ‘Septuagint’ in textual criticism and the hazards of reliance upon an unverified critical apparatus. Akin to this, and due largely to the lack of a complete critical edition of the Old Testament in Greek, is the common error of taking the manual edition of Swete or Rahlfs as ‘the Septuagint’, a practice which has been well nigh universal with commentators.”

A printed edition contains wording selected or reconstructed by its editors through comparison of manuscripts. It does not eliminate differences among surviving copies or establish that its wording reproduces exactly what the original translators wrote. Jellicoe therefore insisted that scholars examine the manuscript evidence instead of simply treating a particular printed edition as the Septuagint itself.

The Septuagint “Is Not a Uniform Translation”

In discussing attempts to explain the early history of the Greek and Hebrew texts, Jellicoe emphasized an important fact:

“It demonstrates the fact, widely overlooked, that LXX is not a uniform translation. No manuscript is self-consistent in witnessing throughout to a single text type. Each group of books (e.g. the Octateuch, Minor Prophets, etc.), and even single books in whole or in part, are independent translational units and must be studied as such.”

Different biblical books, and sometimes different portions of the same book, have their own histories of translation and alteration. Moreover, no manuscript consistently preserves one particular form of the Greek text throughout. The character of one translation, or the wording of one manuscript, therefore cannot establish the history of the entire Greek Old Testament.

Origen Worked from a “Chaos of Versions”

Jellicoe’s examination of Origen’s great work comparing Hebrew and Greek biblical texts provides particularly significant evidence of the complicated condition of the Greek Old Testament by the third century.

He proposed that Origen was not simply preserving existing Greek translations as he found them. Rather, Origen was attempting to produce what he believed to be the authentic Septuagint:

“Rather, it would seem, the Hexapla was his ‘workbook’ in which he was concerned to produce in column V, from the chaos of versions in current circulation and on the basis of the Hebrew text of his day, a reconstructed text.”

The Hexapla was Origen’s great comparison of the Hebrew Scriptures and several Greek translations arranged in parallel columns. According to Jellicoe’s interpretation, Origen faced numerous differing Greek texts and attempted to recover the genuine Septuagint by comparing them and selecting material from them.

Jellicoe gave concrete examples:

“For example, he replaced the ‘LXX’ of Daniel with ‘Theodotion’ and embodied the longer recension of Ezra-Nehemiah and the ‘Aquila’ of Ecclesiastes and Cantica.”

These changes involved considerably more than individual words or verses. Jellicoe described the replacement of an older Greek translation of Daniel with another translation and the incorporation of different Greek forms of other biblical books. The earlier Greek Daniel was eventually largely displaced in Christian manuscripts by the alternative version.

Jellicoe also discussed research questioning whether the replacement Greek Daniel had actually been produced by the Theodotion to whom it was traditionally attributed. He observed that names identifying particular translators in manuscripts were not always reliable. Thus, the uncertainty extended beyond individual passages to the origins of entire Greek translations.

Origen May Have “Bequeathed to Posterity a Confusion”

Jellicoe considered the consequences of Origen’s work if his proposed explanation of its methods was correct:

“If, however, his Hexapla be of the nature suggested—a critically reconstructed text flanked by an undefined apparatus criticus—he has bequeathed to posterity a confusion extending beyond the so-called Hexaplaric text of the fifth column, and far exceeding the imagination of the scholars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who have worked on this monument of industry.”

Jellicoe praised Origen’s learning and diligence. His concern was that Origen’s attempt to reconstruct the original Greek text from different translations might have created additional difficulties for later scholars. They would then have to distinguish the original translations not only from earlier alterations but also from the changes introduced through Origen’s own work.

Jellicoe presented this conclusion conditionally, depending on whether his explanation of Origen’s methods was correct. Nevertheless, his discussion illustrates how difficult he believed it had become to distinguish the earliest Greek translations from later corrections and combinations of different texts.

Greek Editors “Had No Hesitation” in Combining Different Wording

Jellicoe examined Greek manuscripts associated with Lucian of Antioch. Scholars disagreed about whether these manuscripts preserved an ancient translation that had undergone corruption or a later revision of earlier Greek material.

Jellicoe explained what he believed the editor had attempted:

“The purpose of the recension was to discover and incorporate, from current Greek manuscripts, the most ancient and best attested readings, for the presentation of which the recensionist had no hesitation in resorting to conflation. Purity of orthography and literary style governed the manner of presentation.”

In other words, the editor selected wording from different Greek manuscripts and sometimes combined material from different copies. He also attempted to make the spelling and writing style consistent. The resulting Greek text was therefore assembled and revised using existing manuscripts, rather than simply copied unchanged from an earlier translation.

An Earlier Greek Revision Was “Subsequently Revised”

Jellicoe also investigated an early revision of the Greek Old Testament associated with Theodotion. In his 1972 study, “Some Comments on the Kaige Recension,” he examined whether a revision traditionally attributed to Theodotion might actually have originated with an earlier translator or editor and then undergone further alteration.

He cautioned:

“At the present juncture any attempt to formulate conclusions on the issue must necessarily be premature.”

Nevertheless, he proposed that the revision was largely the work of an earlier Theodotion, whose text was subsequently revised by the Theodotion known to later Christian writers.

Jellicoe presented this as a possibility requiring further investigation, not an established conclusion. Its significance is that he recognized the possibility of successive revisions of the same Greek text, making it more difficult to determine its original wording and who was responsible for it.

An Ancient Greek Manuscript Contained a Mixture of Different Forms of the Text

Discussing an ancient Greek manuscript written on papyrus and containing portions of Genesis and Deuteronomy, Jellicoe emphasized its importance because it was older than many revisions made during the Christian centuries:

“It has its own stylistic and grammatical peculiarities and distinctive readings and, as might be expected, is referable to no particular text type.”

The manuscript generally agreed with one major group of Greek manuscripts but sometimes agreed with another. Even this early copy contained wording associated with different groups of manuscripts. This supported Jellicoe’s warning that such groups did not necessarily preserve separate, consistent forms of the Greek text.

One Greek Version of Esther Was Shorter “by About a Sixth”

Jellicoe illustrated substantial differences among Greek texts by discussing an alternative Greek form of Esther associated with a version traditionally attributed to Lucian and studied by the scholar Paul de Lagarde.

He explained that this form was shorter than the usual Septuagint text:

“by about a sixth”

He continued that it:

“differs so much from it that both Cambridge and Göttingen print the texts separately.”

He then reported Hanhart’s assessment:

“Hanhart regards it not as Lucianic, nor a recension of the O (i.e. LXX), but as ‘a new edition’ (Neugestaltung) of the traditional Greek version, dependent in large measure on the O-Text.”

The differences amounted to considerably more than occasional variations in wording. One Greek form was approximately one-sixth shorter than the other, and major scholarly editions printed the two forms separately.

Jellicoe also reported scholar Carey Moore’s alternative explanation. Moore suggested that this form of Greek Esther had been translated from a Hebrew text differing at certain points from both the traditional Hebrew text and the Hebrew used by the translators of the usual Septuagint version. These competing explanations illustrate the difficulty of determining how substantially different Greek texts originated.

The Accepted History of the Greek Text “Stood in Need of Modification”

Jellicoe recognized that established explanations of how the Greek Old Testament had been preserved and altered required reconsideration:

“Long before the era of the Scrolls it had become evident that the accepted transmission-history of the Greek Old Testament stood in need of modification. What formerly could have been but speculative, Qumrân has rendered at least more tangible, and has, in fact, evoked an attempted reconstruction of the history of both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint.”

Discoveries among the Dead Sea Scrolls provided new evidence that challenged earlier explanations of how the Hebrew and Greek biblical texts had developed. Yet Jellicoe cautioned against treating proposed explanations of their history as established facts.

Discussing one influential attempt to reconstruct that history, he warned that its presentation could:

“lend themselves to the supposition that the reconstruction is more than hypothetical.”

He also observed that some conclusions depended upon incomplete or unpublished evidence, making it difficult for other scholars to examine the basis for those conclusions.

“Weighty and Intricate Problems Remain”

In his editorial for the 1972 bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jellicoe acknowledged that continued discoveries had not resolved fundamental questions concerning the Greek Old Testament:

“Weighty and intricate problems remain.”

He further observed that:

“new source materials and their investigation intensify, rather than elucidate, the problems attaching to the early history of the version.”

Jellicoe did not regard these difficulties as reasons to abandon further research. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that newly discovered evidence sometimes made the early history of the Greek Old Testament more complicated rather than resolving the outstanding questions.

Scholars Still Lacked Complete Editions Based on Manuscript Comparisons

Jellicoe emphasized that the basic scholarly work of establishing the Greek text remained unfinished:

“We are, in fact, still very much in the process of acquiring the ‘tools for the job’—a term savouring of utility rather than elegance! We are still without complete critical editions of the LXX itself….”

Even after generations of research, scholars in Jellicoe’s day had not finished preparing complete editions based on systematic comparisons of surviving Greek manuscripts. His observation reinforces the distinction between the original translations, the surviving manuscripts, and the printed editions produced by modern scholars. It describes the condition of Septuagint scholarship in his own time, not necessarily the present state of these editions.

Assessment

Jellicoe recognized that the Septuagint was neither a uniform translation nor one consistently preserved Greek text. He identified errors introduced into the Greek, wording mixed together from different manuscripts, successive revisions, and substantially different versions of biblical books. He warned against treating printed editions as though they represented the original Septuagint and described Origen’s attempt to reconstruct its text from a “chaos of versions.”

Although Jellicoe acknowledged the general faithfulness of the original translators and genuine differences among ancient Hebrew texts, he emphasized the difficulty of distinguishing the original Greek wording from later changes. His testimony provides substantial evidence against the notion of one fixed, uniform Greek Old Testament preserved unchanged through the centuries.

Citation: Sidney Jellicoe, “Septuagint Studies in the Current Century,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969), p. 192; “Some Comments on the Kaige Recension,” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 5 (Summer 1972), p. 16; “Editorial,” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 5 (Summer 1972), p. 2; “Prolegomenon,” in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1974), pp. XV–XVII, XXVIII–XXXVIII, XLV–LII.

72. John William Wevers (1919–2010)

John William Wevers was a Canadian Presbyterian scholar and one of the leading authorities on the Septuagint in the twentieth century. He spent decades examining ancient Greek manuscripts of the five books of Moses and preparing scholarly editions intended to recover their original wording. His investigations revealed copying errors, deliberate alterations, conflicting readings, and serious difficulties in determining what the earliest Greek translations actually said.

None of These Manuscripts Preserves a Pure Text

In “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies” (1988), Wevers described his examination of approximately one hundred Greek manuscripts, together with other ancient evidence. He identified numerous groups of manuscripts with related readings, but found that none preserved an unmixed text:

“My own work on the Greek Pentateuch illustrates how much more complex its text history really is. Only one of the three Christian recensions can be clearly identified, namely the hexaplaric, whereas the other two remain uncertain. […] Of course, none of these MSS exhibits a pure text; all MSS are eclectic; in fact, several MSS remain which are so mixed in character as to defy classification. Nor can one say that these eleven text families are independent of each other. […]

“What is clear from all this is that the text history of the Greek Pentateuch is complex and represents such a degree of eclecticism as to make a clear statement of stemmata for any group, let alone for any individual MS, quite impossible, even though it is throughout equally clear that it is all part of the textual development of a single original translation.”

By “eclectic,” Wevers meant that manuscripts contained mixtures of readings from different lines of transmission. Although he recognized that an original Greek translation had existed, he found that its surviving copies had become so thoroughly mixed that their relationships could not be reliably traced.

Famous Greek Manuscripts May Preserve Later Changes Rather Than the Original Wording

Wevers warned against assuming that the most prominent ancient Greek manuscripts necessarily preserved the original Septuagint:

“Simply citing a diplomatic text, such as the text of Codex Vaticanus or of Codex Alexandrinus, is basically misleading, since it gives the impression that the LXX is being cited; it may, however, be merely a fourth or fifth century variant within the LXX tradition.”

Even printed editions reproducing ancient manuscripts contained both original and altered readings:

“The printed text is itself an eclectic text, it is mixed, it contains secondary as well as original elements. The text may well be that of the oldest MS, it may well be the best MS witness, but it is not, nor did the editors ever pretend that it was, the original text.”

Concerning one particularly important ancient manuscript, he cautioned:

“I too value the witness of Cod Vaticanus highly, but often it is not original.”

Thus, even the age and reputation of a Greek manuscript could not guarantee that its wording represented the original translation.

The Original Greek Was “Corrupted by Copyists and Revised by Later Editors”

In “An Apologia for Septuagint Studies” (1985), Wevers distinguished the original Greek translations from the manuscripts subsequently used in Jewish synagogues and Christian churches:

“A third statement I should like to make is that understanding the role of the LXX text in the history of exegesis involves study of the text history of the LXX. I have stressed the importance of the critical text both for textual criticism and for exegesis, but that original was corrupted by copyists and revised by later editors. The synagogues and especially the Christian Church did not have the autographon but rather later MSS of the LXX. The OT scriptures were alive in the MSS, and what the worshipers read in their MSS was their Bible. The readings of all these ‘Bibles’ are collected and arranged by text families in the apparatuses of the critical editions, and one must indeed study these apparatuses if one wishes to know how the LXX was read in the Church.”

By autographon, Wevers meant the original written text. Ancient religious communities used manuscript copies that had already undergone copying errors and deliberate revision. These copies did not necessarily reproduce the original Greek translations.

One Copying Error Survived “For Over a Millennium”

Wevers provided a striking example from Genesis 15:15 of how an early copying error could become so widespread that the original reading disappeared from the surviving Greek evidence.

The passage originally spoke of Abraham being buried in a good old age. An early copyist mistakenly added one Greek letter, changing “buried” into “nourished.” Wevers explained:

“Obviously a very early copyist erred by adding a rho after the tau, an easy thing to do since the result also made good sense. And so for over a millennium, Christians everywhere read this verse: ‘You will go to your fathers in peace, being nourished in a good old age.’ The error is already in Philo and was heavily commented on by the Fathers such as Cyril, Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, as well as by the Latin Fathers, including Ambrose, Augustine, and Quodvultdeus.”

Wevers found the erroneous wording throughout the surviving Greek manuscripts, ancient translations, and early Christian quotations he examined. The altered reading was accepted and interpreted for centuries, while what he identified as the original wording was absent from that evidence.

This example demonstrates that even widespread manuscript agreement does not necessarily establish the original reading.

Recovering the Original Greek Was “an Impossible but Laudable Goal”

In Text History of the Greek Genesis (1974), Wevers explained that scholarly editions of the Septuagint were attempts to reconstruct the earliest Greek text by comparing surviving manuscripts:

“It should be fully clear at the outset what is meant by the printing of a critical text. It is the presentation by an editor after weighing all the textual evidence at his disposal of the earliest reconstruction of the text possible, an approximation to the original insofar as that is reasonable.”

He acknowledged that most surviving evidence was separated from the original translation by centuries:

“For the text of the Greek Genesis this means working with materials which are in the main at least 400 years later than the autographa.”

Indeed:

“the first half millenium is an almost complete blank as far as the textual history of Genesis is concerned.”

Reflecting upon his work in “Apologia pro Vita Mea” (1999), Wevers explained:

“Of course, as I stated quite clearly in the Genesis edition, I was under no illusions that one could fully restore such, but as in the case of the New Testament, one had to try, using all the best resources at one’s disposal, and thereby come as close as humanly possible to that original text.”

He later described the aim of producing a Greek text without later alterations:

“Preparing critical editions is not a case of syncretistic adoption of readings from various mss; it is not a syncretistic text, but is a serious attempt at ridding the text of all such syncretisms, of restoring a text which ideally had no secondary readings left, an impossible but laudable goal.”

Wevers therefore regarded even the scholarly editions he spent decades preparing as reconstructions from incomplete and conflicting evidence. He openly acknowledged that completely recovering the original Greek wording was impossible.

Greek Manuscripts Contained “Indefensible Readings”

Wevers documented mistakes, additions, and other alterations throughout the surviving Greek manuscript tradition.

In Text History of the Greek Leviticus (1986), he warned against automatically following readings shared by two prominent ancient manuscripts:

“one cannot simplistically follow the A B text since their text is at times demonstrably secondary.”

Concerning a later group of Greek manuscripts of Exodus, he reached a particularly unfavorable conclusion:

“In summary it may be stated that the Byzantine text is on the whole expansionist. It has been the object of a great deal of carelessness in the transmission, at times resulting in indefensible readings and even occasionally in readings which make little sense. The text has been considerably influenced by the hex recension.”

By “expansionist,” Wevers meant that these manuscripts tended to contain additions. His reference to the “hex recension” concerned alterations influenced by Origen’s work on the Greek Old Testament.

Yet even older manuscripts could contain serious mistakes. Discussing Papyrus 963, he warned:

“Not that one should exhibit undue reverence for 963 just because of its age. The copyist was not overly careful as the following list of unique readings shows.”

After examining its distinctive readings, he concluded:

“None of these unique readings needs to be taken seriously. Most of them represent careless errors on the part of the copyist, often resulting in an impossible text.”

Wevers found similar problems in Greek biblical fragments discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Concerning an ancient manuscript of Leviticus, he wrote:

“The general impression with which the text of the fragment leaves one is that of carelessness on the part of the scribe. It does not inspire me with a great deal of confidence.”

His investigations showed that serious copying errors affected both early and later Greek manuscripts. Neither age nor widespread agreement could by itself establish the original reading.

The Greek Translator of Numbers Displayed “Apparent Incompetence”

Wevers distinguished errors introduced by later copyists from defects already present in the original Greek translations.

In Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers (1998), he delivered this severe assessment:

“The Greek translation of Numbers (herein designated as Num) is without a doubt by far the weakest volume in the Greek Pentateuch. What makes work on the book so frustrating is that side by side one can find gross failures to follow ordinary rules of grammar, i.e. of apparent incompetence, as well as acute and even subtle distinctions betraying an active mind engaged in the interpretation of sacred scripture, ready not only to clarify obscure passages, but even to correct what might appear to be factual errors or contradictions within the text.”

Wevers identified confused grammar, misunderstood Hebrew expressions, and passages whose meaning was difficult to determine. He acknowledged:

“in a few cases, I have been forced to admit that I was uncertain as to what Num was trying to say.”

Introducing further examples, he wrote:

“A few more instances of Num show inadequacies or incompetence as a translator.”

These observations concerned the original translator’s work, not merely later copying mistakes. Consequently, even recovering the original Greek translation would not necessarily eliminate its errors and deficiencies.

Greek Manuscripts Were Revised Before Origen

Wevers found evidence that Greek biblical manuscripts were being altered among Jewish scribes long before Origen undertook his editorial work in the third century after Christ.

Concerning an ancient Greek manuscript of Numbers discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, he wrote:

“I was persuaded by his argument for this fragment as representing some kind of reworking of LXX, and certainly not original LXX.”

In “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint” (2005), he explained why scribes sometimes added material to the Greek:

“Such scribes probably knew their Hebrew text much better than the LXX, and inadvertently added text to agree with a longer Hebrew text.”

These additions could arise when scribes allowed the Hebrew text familiar to them to influence their Greek copies. Wevers nevertheless recognized that some readings in ancient manuscripts represented the original translation rather than later alterations. Each difference therefore required separate examination.

Origen’s Alterations Were “Remarkably Widespread”

Wevers found that Origen’s editorial work greatly influenced subsequent Greek copies:

“The influence of the Hexapla was remarkably widespread and all later mss. and Versions show some traces of its influence.”

Yet Origen’s attempts to bring the Greek into closer agreement with the Hebrew sometimes introduced further errors:

“If the Hebrew text lacked an equivalent in the Greek he added an equivalent from one of The Three, usually θʹ, whether that made sense or not. At times this created a weird text, which might violate ordinary rules of Greek syntax, and as Greek, made little or no sense.”

“The Three” referred to three other ancient Greek translations that Origen consulted.

Thus, attempts to correct the Greek sometimes produced wording that made little sense, and these alterations subsequently influenced later manuscripts. Wevers’s evidence demonstrates that deliberate revisions occurred both before and after Origen.

Many Proposed Corrections to the Hebrew Needed “Reexamination and Rejection”

Wevers challenged the assumption that differences between the Septuagint and the traditional Hebrew Old Testament necessarily indicated errors in the Hebrew.

In “An Apologia for Septuagint Studies” (1985), he criticized the use of Greek readings to propose unnecessary changes:

“In practice the LXX has been used, or better said, misused, almost exclusively for textual criticism. The four editions of Biblia Hebraica used by Biblical scholars during this century are filled with conjectural emendations which purport to be based on LXX readings. Many if not most of these need careful reexamination and rejection.”

He insisted that the translators’ methods and interpretations must first be considered:

“And before using the text of the LXX as substantiation for a parent text variant to the MT, one must be certain that this is really so, i.e., one must understand the point of view of the translator and judge readings in the light of that point of view.”

The “MT” is the Masoretic Text, the traditional Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

Wevers emphasized that the translators did not always reproduce their Hebrew sources word for word:

“They were not machine translators; they were believers with a mission to communicate what they believed their parent Hebrew text to say to Greek-speaking fellow believers.”

He concluded:

“In other words, it is scientifically appropriate to postulate a different parent text only if other reasonable explanations fail.”

Wevers did not deny that some Greek readings reflected different Hebrew manuscripts. He insisted, however, that translation methods, interpretation, and copying errors must be considered before claiming that the Greek preserved a more reliable Hebrew reading.

Early Christian Writers “Often, If Not Usually, Quoted from Memory”

In “Apologia pro Vita Mea” (1999), Wevers explained the difficulties of using quotations in early Christian writings to reconstruct the Greek Old Testament:

“Probably the least satisfactory evidence which the LXX editor must collect is the Biblical quotations by the early Church Fathers. This is most frustrating! The Fathers did not have the twentieth century scholar in mind, and often, if not usually, quoted from memory. Only a few actually quoted a text accurately, i.e. a written text, as e.g. Eusebius, who witnesses to the hex text, did.”

Even where a writer had originally quoted accurately, later copies of his writings could introduce additional mistakes. Wevers singled out Chrysostom, a prominent fourth-century preacher:

“As an example of notoriously bad texts the 18 volumes of Chrysostom betray not only bad editing, but show Chrysostom at his worst as a quoter of Scripture. For some popular Genesis texts I found as many as six or seven variations of a particular text. Surely, collecting such witnesses is a meaningless exercise.”

Thus, early Christian quotations did not necessarily preserve the Greek Old Testament accurately. Some writers quoted from memory, while subsequent copying introduced further variations into their writings.

Assessment

Wevers’s extensive investigations demonstrated that surviving Greek Old Testament manuscripts contained mixtures of readings, copying errors, deliberate revisions, and substantial differences. He showed that even prominent ancient manuscripts did not necessarily preserve the original Greek, that an early copying error could spread throughout the surviving tradition, and that some original translations themselves contained serious deficiencies. Although he devoted decades to recovering the earliest attainable Greek wording, he acknowledged that complete restoration was impossible. His testimony provides exceptionally strong evidence against treating the Septuagint as one fixed, uniform Greek Old Testament preserved unchanged through the centuries.

Citation: John William Wevers, Text History of the Greek Genesis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974); Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy (Göttingen, 1978); Text History of the Greek Numbers (Göttingen, 1982); Text History of the Greek Leviticus (Göttingen, 1986); “An Apologia for Septuagint Studies,” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 18 (1985), pp. 16–38, especially pp. 26–29; “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies,” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 21 (1988), pp. 23–34, especially pp. 26–27; Text History of the Greek Exodus (Göttingen, 1992); Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), especially pp. ix–xiii; “Apologia pro Vita Mea: Reflections on a Career in Septuagint Studies,” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 32 (1999), pp. 65–96; “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint,” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 38 (2005), pp. 1–24.