Great article. But I believe there is a stronger case for the supremacy of the LXX over the MT than what you make of it (although that is not to say I disagree with the nuance that the MT is still acceptable to refer to and study).
I do highly recommend Mikkel Sotbaek's book "The Seventy Two Servants of the Word of God: Retrieving the Septuagint as Scripture."
Thank you for the kind words and the book recommendation! Adding to the list.
I agree that there is a stronger case for the LXX than I sometimes express, but the purpose of my article(s) was not so much to make the case for the Septuagint as much as it was to make the case for the proper role of other witnesses. Certainly the Septuagint is preferred in Orthodoxy over the MT—that is nowhere in question! But the reason I think Pentiuc's voice is worth listening to is he is an Orthodox Biblical scholar who specializes in the Hebrew.
In "Demystifying the Septuagint," I show the LXX is central to Orthodox worship and theology, yet it is a translation with a complex history, and I argue—following Pentiuc—that the Fathers did not treat it as untouchable. The Daniel illustration demonstrates how Theodotion entered the East's conversation, for example.
In "It’s All Greek and Hebrew to Me," I emphasize a multi‑witness approach: the Fathers quote the LXX but also consult Hebrew, Samaritan, other Greek versions, and of course Origen’s Hexapla. Modern Orthodox translations utilize multiple witnesses as well—including my wife's Russian Orthodox translation that seems to have a heavy MT influence—yet still rely on the LXX, especially for liturgical use.
So the core message really is this simple: the LXX matters, and it matters quite a lot, but we read it alongside other witnesses, not in isolation.
Jamey, thank you for a thought-provoking article. I highly appreciate your willingness to give the Septuagint (LXX) its rightful place as the Bible of the Apostles.
However, I believe the "multi-witness" approach you advocate relies on a historically problematic assumption. It treats the debate as "the original Hebrew vs. a Greek translation." In reality, we should frame it as "1st-Century Hebrew vs. Medieval Hebrew." The LXX is not a replacement for the Hebrew; it is a photograph of a 3rd-Century BC Hebrew Vorlage that no longer exists.
Reading the texts "alongside" each other treats the Masoretic Text (MT) as an innocent, parallel transmission stream. It is absolutely true that the Dead Sea Scrolls show the proto-MT existed before Christianity, so the rabbis did not invent their Hebrew text from scratch. However, the proto-MT was simply one localized, highly conservative textual family (likely originating in Babylon). After 70 AD, the rabbinic establishment artificially elevated this narrow Babylonian text to supreme authority and suppressed the more expansive, messianic Hebrew text that Jesus and the Apostles actually used.
We know the rabbinic scribes actively altered texts because of internal confessions like the Tiqqune Sopherim (the Corrections of the Scribes). They deliberately managed the text to establish theological boundaries. We see the proof of this truncation when we cross-reference the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP). The SP and the LXX agree with each other against the MT in roughly 1,900 instances. Historically, the Samaritans and the Hellenistic Jews despised each other. The only logical reason two mortal enemies share the exact same text is that they are both preserving the true, ancient Hebrew original, proving the MT is the outlier that was altered later.
It is true that in the heated polemics of the early centuries, scribes on both sides occasionally tampered with texts. However, because the Church embraces textual criticism, modern scholars easily identified and removed early Christian interpolations from modern editions of the LXX. Conversely, the rabbinic redactions (like the missing "light" in Isaiah 53:11, or the missing "Nazirite" in 1 Samuel 1) are permanently baked into the base text of the MT.
We see the danger of the "multi-witness" approach when the early Church allowed Theodotion's translation to enter the conversation. They were adopting a text specifically designed by a 2nd-century proselyte to drag the Greek Scriptures back into strict compliance with the newly curated rabbinic Hebrew. It inadvertently allowed a post-70 AD rabbinic redaction to infiltrate the canon.
The "multi-witness" approach may sound like balanced scholarship, but historically, it is a canonical surrender. By treating the Masoretic Text as an innocent parallel stream, we grant equal authority to a text that was actively engineered to dismantle Christian theology. If we willingly read the uncorrupted Bible of the Apostles through the lens of a text curated by their theological opponents, we do not just lose a few messianic proof-texts. We forfeit the very textual foundation of the New Testament.
Thanks for reading and for taking the time for a detailed, thoughtful response. I actually agree with a good deal of your historical assessment—particularly your point about the LXX as a "photograph" of an older Hebrew, and the fascinating agreements between the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch. And of course you are spot on that the post-70 AD rabbinic standardization elevated one specific textual family over others.
However, I do have to push back on a more general characterization of this piece. You mentioned that my approach treats the debate as "the original Hebrew vs. a Greek translation." If you look back at the piece (and the one that preceded it), I actually argued the exact opposite! The thing I had hoped to do was to debunk the myth that the Masoretic Text *is* the "original Hebrew," and to show that the LXX represents a different, often much older, textual stream from the Hebrew.
Where we seem to diverge is on whether a "multi-witness" approach is dangerous. You call it "canonical surrender," but I see it as simply doing what the Fathers did. The early Church wasn't afraid of textual diversity, and as I point out, Origen's Hexapla bears witness to this, not to mention the Peshitta of the Syriac Christians; and even Justin Martyr was willing to argue for Christ using the Hebrew readings preferred by his opponents.
I would also add that in no way does recognizing the MT as a parallel stream grant it supreme authority over the Church. For Orthodox Christians, the LXX undoubtedly remains the liturgical and theological bedrock. In this light, consulting the Hebrew MT is an act of scholarly and spiritual confidence. My faith is not threatened when I read the Old Testament in the ESV translation, for example, because I am rooted in the Orthodox Tradition and don't believe in Sola Scriptura. The Tradition will always filter the translation.
In sum, this is my perspective: We can confidently hold the LXX as our primary text while remaining open to the broader textual tradition, just as Pentiuc and the Fathers suggest.
Thanks again for the great pushback and for giving me a chance to clarify!
Jamey, thank you for the gracious pushback and for clarifying your position. I want to sincerely apologize for mischaracterizing your view. I misunderstood your earlier point and wrongly stated that you treat the MT as the "original Hebrew." I appreciate that you actively debunked that myth, and it is incredibly refreshing to discuss this with someone who already acknowledges the historical realities of the post-70 AD rabbinic standardization.
I also want to admit something upfront: as someone digging into this from the outside, I actually have a deep theological envy for Orthodox Christians on this issue. Having the LXX as the unquestioned liturgical and theological bedrock of the Church is a massive historical and spiritual advantage. Protestantism's heavy reliance on the MT creates so many artificial tensions with the New Testament that Orthodoxy simply does not have to deal with.
Where my concern still lies is in the practical application of the "multi-witness" approach, specifically when it comes to reading MT-based translations like the ESV. I completely respect your point about Holy Tradition filtering the translation. Because you are rooted in Orthodox Tradition, you have a theological safety net. But that raises a vital question: if we know the MT underwent active theological curation that stripped away explicit messianic markers (like the missing resurrection "light" in Isaiah 53:11, or the altered pronoun in Habakkuk 2:4), why should we rely on Tradition to constantly mentally override the text in front of us?
If the text a person reads daily actively suppresses the theology they hold, why navigate with a broken compass just because you have a map in your head to correct it?
Regarding the Church Fathers, I think we have to be careful about the context of their multi-witness approach. When Justin Martyr argued from the Hebrew in his Dialogue with Trypho, he wasn't doing so because he viewed the rabbinic Hebrew as a spiritually edifying parallel stream. He was engaging in a hostile debate and had to use his opponent's text tactically. In that very same dialogue, he explicitly accuses the Jewish leadership of mutilating the scriptures to hide Christ.
Similarly, Origen's Hexapla was not compiled to celebrate textual diversity. Origen mistakenly assumed the proto-MT of his day was the pristine original and used it to "correct" the Greek. This unfortunately led later scribes to accidentally corrupt the LXX manuscript tradition by blending it with those rabbinic revisions.
(As a quick note on the Syriac Peshitta: it actually strengthens the case against the MT. Because the Peshitta was translated directly from Hebrew, the fact that it frequently agrees with the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch against the MT proves the MT is the outlier that suffered later redaction).
Consulting other texts is certainly necessary for academic work. But treating the curated text of Yavneh as a safe parallel stream for daily reading (even through the ESV) feels like an unnecessary concession when the Church already possesses the uncorrupted apostolic text.
Thanks again for the dialogue and for bearing with my initial misunderstanding!
John, thank you for the gracious follow-up and the completely unnecessary apology! I appreciate the charity and nuance you have brought to this entire exchange—this kind of irenic engagement is exactly the kind of engagement I hope to have here on my Substack posts.
Your analogy about navigating with a broken compass is a powerful one, and you bring vital historical context regarding Justin Martyr and Origen. In fact, while you are responding to my argument about Justin Martyr, I must admit that every time I have written an argument along those lines, I get a little nervous about the inevitable objection you just made!
So while I agree with you that their engagement with rabbinic Hebrew was often tactical rather than a celebration of diversity, my practical view on daily devotions remains fairly simple. I often tell converts that the best Bible is the one you will actually read (and then I usually follow that up with, "But you should go ahead and buy the Orthodox Study Bible so you can have a complete Orthodox Scripture collection in one volume").
But I must say: In my entire life as a Christian—and I don't really remember a time I didn't believe in Jesus Christ—I have never had trouble seeing Christ in the Old Testament, and nothing about becoming Orthodox or picking up an Orthodox Study Bible changed that fundamental reality for me. I remain unconvinced that Christ is obscured in the ESV, for example, in any substantial way that would require me to "actively suppress" any theology!
This has been a greatly edifying conversation, and I'm grateful for the depth of historical and theological insight you shared. Thank you again for your time, and I wish you the best in your continued studies!
P.S. Based on your commentary, I am surprised to hear that you are not within the Orthodox fold! Come on over, most of us don't bite. ;)
I really appreciate your posts. Fr Thomas
Thanks Jamey
Here in the Christ Haunted South, I've actually heard preachers declare that the king james is the version given by god. Duck n Cover Amigo!
Takes all kinds I suppose. We're all broke, we all got our stuff....
I try to read lots of various translations and compare the greek hebrew and latin to my limited ability. ☦️⛪📚 LECTIO DIVINA, one day at a time.
Great article. But I believe there is a stronger case for the supremacy of the LXX over the MT than what you make of it (although that is not to say I disagree with the nuance that the MT is still acceptable to refer to and study).
I do highly recommend Mikkel Sotbaek's book "The Seventy Two Servants of the Word of God: Retrieving the Septuagint as Scripture."
https://a.co/d/0iKK6BYE
Thank you for the kind words and the book recommendation! Adding to the list.
I agree that there is a stronger case for the LXX than I sometimes express, but the purpose of my article(s) was not so much to make the case for the Septuagint as much as it was to make the case for the proper role of other witnesses. Certainly the Septuagint is preferred in Orthodoxy over the MT—that is nowhere in question! But the reason I think Pentiuc's voice is worth listening to is he is an Orthodox Biblical scholar who specializes in the Hebrew.
In "Demystifying the Septuagint," I show the LXX is central to Orthodox worship and theology, yet it is a translation with a complex history, and I argue—following Pentiuc—that the Fathers did not treat it as untouchable. The Daniel illustration demonstrates how Theodotion entered the East's conversation, for example.
In "It’s All Greek and Hebrew to Me," I emphasize a multi‑witness approach: the Fathers quote the LXX but also consult Hebrew, Samaritan, other Greek versions, and of course Origen’s Hexapla. Modern Orthodox translations utilize multiple witnesses as well—including my wife's Russian Orthodox translation that seems to have a heavy MT influence—yet still rely on the LXX, especially for liturgical use.
So the core message really is this simple: the LXX matters, and it matters quite a lot, but we read it alongside other witnesses, not in isolation.
Jamey, thank you for a thought-provoking article. I highly appreciate your willingness to give the Septuagint (LXX) its rightful place as the Bible of the Apostles.
However, I believe the "multi-witness" approach you advocate relies on a historically problematic assumption. It treats the debate as "the original Hebrew vs. a Greek translation." In reality, we should frame it as "1st-Century Hebrew vs. Medieval Hebrew." The LXX is not a replacement for the Hebrew; it is a photograph of a 3rd-Century BC Hebrew Vorlage that no longer exists.
Reading the texts "alongside" each other treats the Masoretic Text (MT) as an innocent, parallel transmission stream. It is absolutely true that the Dead Sea Scrolls show the proto-MT existed before Christianity, so the rabbis did not invent their Hebrew text from scratch. However, the proto-MT was simply one localized, highly conservative textual family (likely originating in Babylon). After 70 AD, the rabbinic establishment artificially elevated this narrow Babylonian text to supreme authority and suppressed the more expansive, messianic Hebrew text that Jesus and the Apostles actually used.
We know the rabbinic scribes actively altered texts because of internal confessions like the Tiqqune Sopherim (the Corrections of the Scribes). They deliberately managed the text to establish theological boundaries. We see the proof of this truncation when we cross-reference the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP). The SP and the LXX agree with each other against the MT in roughly 1,900 instances. Historically, the Samaritans and the Hellenistic Jews despised each other. The only logical reason two mortal enemies share the exact same text is that they are both preserving the true, ancient Hebrew original, proving the MT is the outlier that was altered later.
It is true that in the heated polemics of the early centuries, scribes on both sides occasionally tampered with texts. However, because the Church embraces textual criticism, modern scholars easily identified and removed early Christian interpolations from modern editions of the LXX. Conversely, the rabbinic redactions (like the missing "light" in Isaiah 53:11, or the missing "Nazirite" in 1 Samuel 1) are permanently baked into the base text of the MT.
We see the danger of the "multi-witness" approach when the early Church allowed Theodotion's translation to enter the conversation. They were adopting a text specifically designed by a 2nd-century proselyte to drag the Greek Scriptures back into strict compliance with the newly curated rabbinic Hebrew. It inadvertently allowed a post-70 AD rabbinic redaction to infiltrate the canon.
The "multi-witness" approach may sound like balanced scholarship, but historically, it is a canonical surrender. By treating the Masoretic Text as an innocent parallel stream, we grant equal authority to a text that was actively engineered to dismantle Christian theology. If we willingly read the uncorrupted Bible of the Apostles through the lens of a text curated by their theological opponents, we do not just lose a few messianic proof-texts. We forfeit the very textual foundation of the New Testament.
Thanks for reading and for taking the time for a detailed, thoughtful response. I actually agree with a good deal of your historical assessment—particularly your point about the LXX as a "photograph" of an older Hebrew, and the fascinating agreements between the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch. And of course you are spot on that the post-70 AD rabbinic standardization elevated one specific textual family over others.
However, I do have to push back on a more general characterization of this piece. You mentioned that my approach treats the debate as "the original Hebrew vs. a Greek translation." If you look back at the piece (and the one that preceded it), I actually argued the exact opposite! The thing I had hoped to do was to debunk the myth that the Masoretic Text *is* the "original Hebrew," and to show that the LXX represents a different, often much older, textual stream from the Hebrew.
Where we seem to diverge is on whether a "multi-witness" approach is dangerous. You call it "canonical surrender," but I see it as simply doing what the Fathers did. The early Church wasn't afraid of textual diversity, and as I point out, Origen's Hexapla bears witness to this, not to mention the Peshitta of the Syriac Christians; and even Justin Martyr was willing to argue for Christ using the Hebrew readings preferred by his opponents.
I would also add that in no way does recognizing the MT as a parallel stream grant it supreme authority over the Church. For Orthodox Christians, the LXX undoubtedly remains the liturgical and theological bedrock. In this light, consulting the Hebrew MT is an act of scholarly and spiritual confidence. My faith is not threatened when I read the Old Testament in the ESV translation, for example, because I am rooted in the Orthodox Tradition and don't believe in Sola Scriptura. The Tradition will always filter the translation.
In sum, this is my perspective: We can confidently hold the LXX as our primary text while remaining open to the broader textual tradition, just as Pentiuc and the Fathers suggest.
Thanks again for the great pushback and for giving me a chance to clarify!
Jamey, thank you for the gracious pushback and for clarifying your position. I want to sincerely apologize for mischaracterizing your view. I misunderstood your earlier point and wrongly stated that you treat the MT as the "original Hebrew." I appreciate that you actively debunked that myth, and it is incredibly refreshing to discuss this with someone who already acknowledges the historical realities of the post-70 AD rabbinic standardization.
I also want to admit something upfront: as someone digging into this from the outside, I actually have a deep theological envy for Orthodox Christians on this issue. Having the LXX as the unquestioned liturgical and theological bedrock of the Church is a massive historical and spiritual advantage. Protestantism's heavy reliance on the MT creates so many artificial tensions with the New Testament that Orthodoxy simply does not have to deal with.
Where my concern still lies is in the practical application of the "multi-witness" approach, specifically when it comes to reading MT-based translations like the ESV. I completely respect your point about Holy Tradition filtering the translation. Because you are rooted in Orthodox Tradition, you have a theological safety net. But that raises a vital question: if we know the MT underwent active theological curation that stripped away explicit messianic markers (like the missing resurrection "light" in Isaiah 53:11, or the altered pronoun in Habakkuk 2:4), why should we rely on Tradition to constantly mentally override the text in front of us?
If the text a person reads daily actively suppresses the theology they hold, why navigate with a broken compass just because you have a map in your head to correct it?
Regarding the Church Fathers, I think we have to be careful about the context of their multi-witness approach. When Justin Martyr argued from the Hebrew in his Dialogue with Trypho, he wasn't doing so because he viewed the rabbinic Hebrew as a spiritually edifying parallel stream. He was engaging in a hostile debate and had to use his opponent's text tactically. In that very same dialogue, he explicitly accuses the Jewish leadership of mutilating the scriptures to hide Christ.
Similarly, Origen's Hexapla was not compiled to celebrate textual diversity. Origen mistakenly assumed the proto-MT of his day was the pristine original and used it to "correct" the Greek. This unfortunately led later scribes to accidentally corrupt the LXX manuscript tradition by blending it with those rabbinic revisions.
(As a quick note on the Syriac Peshitta: it actually strengthens the case against the MT. Because the Peshitta was translated directly from Hebrew, the fact that it frequently agrees with the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch against the MT proves the MT is the outlier that suffered later redaction).
Consulting other texts is certainly necessary for academic work. But treating the curated text of Yavneh as a safe parallel stream for daily reading (even through the ESV) feels like an unnecessary concession when the Church already possesses the uncorrupted apostolic text.
Thanks again for the dialogue and for bearing with my initial misunderstanding!
John, thank you for the gracious follow-up and the completely unnecessary apology! I appreciate the charity and nuance you have brought to this entire exchange—this kind of irenic engagement is exactly the kind of engagement I hope to have here on my Substack posts.
Your analogy about navigating with a broken compass is a powerful one, and you bring vital historical context regarding Justin Martyr and Origen. In fact, while you are responding to my argument about Justin Martyr, I must admit that every time I have written an argument along those lines, I get a little nervous about the inevitable objection you just made!
So while I agree with you that their engagement with rabbinic Hebrew was often tactical rather than a celebration of diversity, my practical view on daily devotions remains fairly simple. I often tell converts that the best Bible is the one you will actually read (and then I usually follow that up with, "But you should go ahead and buy the Orthodox Study Bible so you can have a complete Orthodox Scripture collection in one volume").
But I must say: In my entire life as a Christian—and I don't really remember a time I didn't believe in Jesus Christ—I have never had trouble seeing Christ in the Old Testament, and nothing about becoming Orthodox or picking up an Orthodox Study Bible changed that fundamental reality for me. I remain unconvinced that Christ is obscured in the ESV, for example, in any substantial way that would require me to "actively suppress" any theology!
This has been a greatly edifying conversation, and I'm grateful for the depth of historical and theological insight you shared. Thank you again for your time, and I wish you the best in your continued studies!
P.S. Based on your commentary, I am surprised to hear that you are not within the Orthodox fold! Come on over, most of us don't bite. ;)
And oh yeah......
.....read your Bible every day!