Masoretic Misrepresentation

By Fr. Andrew Gerike

 

I listened with great interest to last week’s episode on the Septuagint (hereafter LXX). The authority and reliability of Holy Scripture are of great importance, and the matter of the biblical texts themselves plays a significant role in this. Unfortunately, the arguments offered for “Septuagintal Superiority” by Fr. Tyson Mastin based much weight upon faulty assumptions, were in several cases outright incorrect, went far beyond the evidence, and downplayed support for the Masoretic Text (hereafter MT).

The Letter of Aristeas

Mastin opens the discussion with the letter attributed to Aristeas in which the account of the origins of the LXX is given. While faith leads us to accept the inspired books of Sacred Writ at face value when they report history, the same cannot be said for extra-canonical writings. There are significant questions concerning the genuineness, accuracy, and dating of the Letter of Aristeas. The majority consensus today is that Aristeas dates from the second half of the second century BC, 100 years after the events reported.

 Worthy of consideration is the simple fact that Aristeas is the first text included in the second volume of the collection The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha edited by James Charlesworth (available to read online here: https://archive.org/details/the-old-testament-pseudepigrapha-vol.-2-expansions-of-the-old-testament-and-lege/page/7/mode/2up). The introduction to the Letter in that volume is well worth reading as it demonstrates that the authorship, date, and accuracy of the letter’s account are anything but settled. Shall we base the acceptance of a biblical textual tradition on such a questionable authority?

 Let us, however, for a moment suppose the historical accuracy of the Letter and the truthfulness of an official, temple-sanctioned text. Though here I wonder how the high priest Eleazar managed to procure elders from each of the twelve tribes of Israel when ten of said tribes were lost in the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom half a millennium before? Such temple sanction would apply only to the translation of the Books of Moses. All agree that whatever the exact origins of the LXX, it was the Pentateuch that was first translated into Greek (Aristeas speaks of the Law). In the course of the interview, however, following early Church tradition, Mastin conflates what is reported of the translation and sanction of the Pentateuch with the rest of the Old Testament.

 The Jerusalem temple’s imprimatur which Mastin attributes to the LXX in whole, is, in fact the case for the Hebrew text that is the basis for today’s Hebrew Old Testament. We will take up the discoveries at Qumran below, but for the purposes of this section, it is not only Qumran which has yielded ancient biblical texts. Twenty-five sites in Judea other than Qumran (such as Masada) have yielded biblical manuscripts. The relationship of these extra-Qumranic texts to the Leningrad Codex (the largest source of the MT) is described by the leading figure of contemporary OT textual criticism as “one of almost complete identity.”[1] The significance of these texts (some of which are dated to between 50 BC and AD 30, others to between 20 BC and AD 115), is that unlike the Qumran scrolls, “the people who left the scrolls behind at these sites (the Masada rebels and the freedom fighters of Bar-Kochba) closely followed the guidance of the Jerusalem spiritual center in religious matters. They exclusively used the proto-Masoretic…text embraced by the spiritual leadership of Jerusalem.”[2]

The Whole Text?

Mastin then states that more of the same scholars who translated the Hebrew Torah into the Greek Pentateuch quickly did the same with the rest of the Old Testament books. This is not true, as it is well documented by scholars of the LXX that the rest of the Old Testament was translated by different translators over the following century and-a-half. This is evident in the wide disparity of translation style, with some books in the LXX rendered quite freely, while others are quite literal. Thus, far from the impression given in the interview, the LXX is not a unified translation that was quickly produced in the same generation. Rather it is a collection of separate translations of biblical books done over a much longer period of time, with different translators and therefore different methods, at work in producing the Greek text.

This is also reflected in the fact that there are several textual traditions within what is often purported to be “The Septuagint,” as though it were a single text. The handy Rahlfs edition is deceiving . For a full picture of the text-critical reality of the LXX, see the Göttingen edition (still in production since the 1930s). Two scholars of the LXX point out the need for clarity when speaking of the LXX:

 the name Septuagint has used to refer to several quite different things. In its most general sense, the term refers to any or all ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, just as one might now refer in general to the “English Bible,” with no particular translation in mind….Given…typical uses of the term Septuagint, one might understandably, though mistakenly, infer that the Greek translation found in a given ancient manuscript or modern edition is a homogenous text produced in its entirety at one point in time. In fact, no such homogeneity exists in any collection of the Greek books of the Old Testament. Each edition—whether an ancient, hand-copied manuscript such as Vaticanus or a modern, printed book such as the Rahlfs edition—is an amalgam, with each section of the Bible having a long and separate textual history.[3]

Like with the LXX, the MT also is not a single text. Though based chiefly on the Leningrad Codex (the most complete manuscript of the Hebrew OT), the MT also consists of several other manuscripts that number the tens of thousands. This includes thousands of fragments and several codices. Comparison shows these manuscripts to have varying degrees of completion, different provenances, and yet remarkably consistent consonantal texts (as the critical apparatus of your copy of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia will demonstrate).

 One minor correction to make in Mastin’s discussion of the LXX is that the sign for the LXX is not “Q” (this is the abbreviation for the Hebrew manuscripts discovered at Qumran. “G” is the sign for the LXX. Both of these are presented in an old “blackletter” style font in the textual apparatus.

 The Witness of the Dead Sea Scrolls

It was astounding to hear Mastin’s presentation of what the single most significant biblical archaeological discovery of our time has to offer to the study of the biblical text. He states that “some” of the Dead Sea Scrolls (hereafter DSS) agree with the MT, “some” agree with the LXX, and asserts that the proto-MT texts of the DSS were not seen as “good copies.”

 Of the 222 texts of biblical books found at Qumran, those that align with the MT “constitute the largest group.”[4]What share of biblical DSS manuscripts align with the LXX? “About 5 percent.”[5] To characterize the support of the DSS for the Hebrew textual traditions as “some” is a gross understatement. If 60% is “some,” then 5% ought be represented as “pitifully few.” The single most significant takeaway from the DSS is the remarkable accuracy of the MT when compared with manuscripts 1,000 years earlier than the theretofore oldest Hebrew texts. As for the assertion that the proto-MT DSS manuscripts were not seen as good copies, I know of no basis for making such a statement apart from adherence to the Letter of Aristeas.

 Textual Problems with the MT?

Another major component of Mastin’s argument in favor of the LXX over the MT is the supposed issue of anti-messianic textual tampering. He begins his argument, however, not with two instances of fulfilled rectilinear prophecies expunged from the Hebrew text, but of textual variants related to numeric reports (Acts 7:14 compared with Genesis 46:27 and Galatians 3:17 compared with Exodus 12:40).[6] These differences are quite akin to the minor variances between even NT manuscripts, that are then used by some scholars to call into question the trustworthiness of the Bible. Looking at you, Bart Ehrman.

Mastin then references Isaiah 7:14 as implied evidence of scheming scribes, for the LXX gives us parthenos, “virgin,” and the MT has almah, rendered by translators since the RSV as “young woman.” Did the unbelieving masoretes pave the way of anti-messianic higher critics and make this obscene change? I will simply refer the reader to Dr. Andrew Bartelt’s textual note in his recent Concordia Commentary volume on Isaiah 1 – 12 in which he notes that “virgin” lies well within the semantic range and intent of the Hebrew.[7] If we want to draw attention to textual differences between the MT and LXX as openings for heresy, let us also consider the LXX’s rendition of Proverbs 8:22, which “was at the center of the Arian heresy and can even be characterized as a trigger for it.”[8]

Mastin later quotes Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho and Justin’s citation of passages which he asserts the Jews have expunged from their Bibles (ch. 72). The first supposedly expunged passage given by Justin is attributed Ezra. How is it that Ezra would deliver this sermon to the Judeans at Passover when the account of the Passover celebration in 515 BC is before Ezra is sent to Jerusalem in 458 BC? That there is no textual witness to the passage cited by Justin is not indicative of a far-reaching Jewish editorial hand, a hand that could apparently even reach into the texts possessed by Christians, but rather of the common instance of interpolations into the text, such as the doxology’s appendage to the Lord’s Prayer in the Matthew 6.

 Had the Jews who rejected Jesus as the Christ been intent on censorship of their own Scriptures, there are far more significant texts, such as those cited in the New Testament itself, that would be better targets for the anti-Christian masorete in order to give Jewish apologists occasion to say, “Your New Testament quotes things that aren’t even in the Old Testament!” The second passage cited by Justin (Jeremiah 11:19), as well as the later discussion of Psalm 22:16, are not as problematic for the MT as Mastin make them out to be, especially considering the various approaches to translation and what a simple emendation of the vowel pointing can do.

 The masoretes took the care to note the number of verses in each biblical book, the mid-point of the book, as well as of groups of books (such as the Torah). In reverence for the received text, they made no alterations, but made marginal notations when there should be a pronunciation different from what was written. I find it incredulous that such diligent reverence towards the written Word was overcome by an opposition to Christianity. Well before St. John’s record of the divine curse upon those who altered Sacred Writ (Rev 22:18–19), God said to Israel through Moses: “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you” (Deut 4:2).

 LXX Quotations in the NT

Mention in the discussion is also made of the abundant quotations of the OT in the NT, and these often through using the LXX. Yet this is not exclusively so. LXX scholar Moises Silva notes that “out of more than one hundred citations of the OT in the Pauline corpus, (a) fewer than twenty clearly agree with the LXX against the MT; (b) approximately forty may be said to agree with both the LXX and the MT insofar as they do not show significant divergence from either; and (c) maybe half a dozen actually appear closer to the MT than to the LXX.”[9]

 In the matter of abundant quotations of the OT from the LXX in the New Testament, Silva once again observes: “When Paul preached sermons and wrote letters to Gentile audiences, he had to do so in Greek, and if he needed to cite an OT passage, he had available to him a Greek version that had been in use for several generations.” Silva goes on to note that when necessary, and as shown in the earlier statistical summary, Paul could and did do his own translations to make his exegetical point clearer.[10]

 At this point, I’d heartily recommend readers to consult the entirety of Silva’s review of the book When God Spoke Greek, which was recommended by Mastin and much of its argumentation was taken up in the interview. Silva, a lifelong scholar of the LXX points out a number of issues, with Law’s book, a few of which I cited. In place of Law’s overstated and overpriced book, I heartily recommend the much more balanced (and affordable; used copies for $20) Invitation to the Septuagint by Karen Jobes and Moises Silva, now in its second edition.

Conclusion

The LXX is, to be sure, a valuable textual witness that ought not be excluded from study and consideration. Introductions to the LXX often quote the sentiment of a biblical scholar from past generations: “Gentlemen, have you a Septuagint? If not, sell all you have, and buy one.” Such value, however, does not equate to exchanging the Hebrew text in for a Greek one, nor excuse the setting aside of time and effort in the study of leshon ha-kodesh, “the holy tongue,” and the treasures given us through the Scriptures written therewith.

[1] Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, third edition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 29. Tov’s work, though dense, gives a helpful survey of how each biblical book in the MT compares to the LXX (p. 136 – 38). For a more accessible introduction to OT textual criticism, including a summary of the various textual traditions, and with the boon of a confessional Lutheran perspective, see John F. Brug, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament (Mequon, WI: Chesed VeEmet Publishing, 2014).

[2] Tov, 29–30.

[3] Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 30–31.

[4] Tov, 108. Noted OT scholar Bruce Waltke gives the percentage of proto-MT texts as approximately 60 percent. “How We Got the Hebrew Bible: The Text and Canon of the Old Testament” in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation, ed. Peter W. Flint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 38.

[5] Waltke, 38.

[6] On the problems with following the LXX’s chronology, see Andrew Steinman, From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), 68–70.

[7] Andrew Bartelt, Isaiah 1 – 12 (St. Louis: Concordia, 2024), 481–82.

[8] Andrew Steinmann, Proverbs (St. Louis: Concordia, 2009), 224. The entire excursus, “Proverbs 8, Wisdom, Christology, and the Arian Controversy” is worth reading.

[9] Moises Silva, review of When God Spoke Greek, by Timothy Michael Law, Westminster Theological Journal, 76 no. 1 (Spring 2014): 225.

[10] Silva, 226.