The Greek Old Testament was important to early Orthodox worship and theology—yet the same fathers who loved it also compared, corrected, and occasionally preferred other versions
What you didn’t mention is this: the Septuagint is the oldest complete version of the Old Testament that survives today. We don’t have a complete original Hebrew anymore. The closest we have is the Dead Sea scrolls. The Masoretic text is NOT the original Hebrew. Many people don’t understand that, including Martin Luther. Also, the reason we use the Septuagint is because it clearly points to Christ in the prophecies. It’s the version Christ used in the gospels to talk about Himself. The Masoretic (Hebrew) was created in about the 900s to standardize the reading of the text, adding dots and dashes to serve as vowels where there weren’t any because Hebrew alphabet has no vowels - to make sure the prophecies wouldn’t point to Christ as they clearly do in the Septuagint.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful and engaged comment! Your points highlight many important truths, and also some commonly held perceptions that, as my original article began to explore, sometimes oversimplify a very complex textual history.
You've rightly affirmed the LXX's ancient completeness and its clear witness to Christ, which is indeed important to our faith. However, the reason I didn't include certain points in my initial piece is precisely because the full picture, including the nature of "the Septuagint" itself as a dynamic stream, the reasons for MT's standardization, and the Fathers' nuanced approach to textual differences, is more complex than often presented. My aim has always been to bring careful nuance and clarification to these vital discussions. Pentiuc is a great voice for me to tap into, because he’s an Orthodox scholar specializing in the Hebrew Old Testament.
I’m currently expanding on these very points in a follow-up article, diving into these historical and theological matters for all readers. I'm truly grateful for your engagement and for sparking this further exploration.
What you didn’t mention is this: the Septuagint is the oldest complete version of the Old Testament that survives today. We don’t have a complete original Hebrew anymore. The closest we have is the Dead Sea scrolls. The Masoretic text is NOT the original Hebrew. Many people don’t understand that, including Martin Luther. Also, the reason we use the Septuagint is because it clearly points to Christ in the prophecies. It’s the version Christ used in the gospels to talk about Himself. The Masoretic (Hebrew) was created in about the 900s to standardize the reading of the text, adding dots and dashes to serve as vowels where there weren’t any because Hebrew alphabet has no vowels - to make sure the prophecies wouldn’t point to Christ as they clearly do in the Septuagint.
Hi Sophia,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful and engaged comment! Your points highlight many important truths, and also some commonly held perceptions that, as my original article began to explore, sometimes oversimplify a very complex textual history.
You've rightly affirmed the LXX's ancient completeness and its clear witness to Christ, which is indeed important to our faith. However, the reason I didn't include certain points in my initial piece is precisely because the full picture, including the nature of "the Septuagint" itself as a dynamic stream, the reasons for MT's standardization, and the Fathers' nuanced approach to textual differences, is more complex than often presented. My aim has always been to bring careful nuance and clarification to these vital discussions. Pentiuc is a great voice for me to tap into, because he’s an Orthodox scholar specializing in the Hebrew Old Testament.
I’m currently expanding on these very points in a follow-up article, diving into these historical and theological matters for all readers. I'm truly grateful for your engagement and for sparking this further exploration.
Keep an eye out for a follow-up!