Is the Masoretic Text less accurate than the Septuagint?

By Ashraff Hathibelagal

Yes, there is a coherent scholarly (and sometimes theological) argument that the Hebrew Bible — specifically the Masoretic Text (MT), the standardized Hebrew version most modern Jewish and Protestant Bibles rely on — can be less accurate (or at least less representative of the earliest recoverable readings) than the Septuagint (LXX), the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

This claim doesn't mean the MT is "wrong" overall — both traditions are remarkably well-preserved and agree on the vast majority of the text — but in specific places, evidence suggests the LXX sometimes preserves older or more original Hebrew readings that were later altered, shortened, expanded, or lost in the MT tradition.

Key Arguments Supporting the Idea That the Septuagint Can Be "More Accurate"

1. Age and Proximity to Original Hebrew Sources
   The Septuagint was translated into Greek beginning around the 3rd century BCE (starting with the Torah/Pentateuch ~250 BCE). It therefore reflects Hebrew manuscripts that existed roughly 1,000–1,200 years before the oldest complete Masoretic manuscripts (which date to the 9th–10th centuries CE). This gap alone gives the LXX witness to an earlier stage of the text.

2. Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) Alignment
   The DSS (dated ~250 BCE–70 CE) frequently agree with the LXX against the MT in places where the two differ. Examples include:

   • Jeremiah: The DSS versions are often much closer to the shorter LXX form (about 15% shorter than the MT). Many scholars now consider the shorter text reflected in the LXX/DSS to be earlier, with the longer MT version representing a later expansion.
   • Samuel: Certain DSS manuscripts align more closely with the LXX in wording and content.
   • Other books (e.g., parts of Exodus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah) show DSS readings that match LXX variants rather than the MT.
     The scrolls prove multiple Hebrew textual traditions existed in antiquity — not a single uniform one — and the LXX often attests to a form that predates or coexisted with what became the MT proto-tradition.

3. New Testament Quotations
   When the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it very frequently follows the wording of the Septuagint rather than the later MT. This suggests that the LXX reflected the Hebrew text(s) circulating in the 1st century CE (the time of Jesus and the apostles) more closely in many cases.

4. Allegations of Later Jewish Editorial Changes
   Some scholars (especially in Eastern Orthodox circles and certain critical studies) argue that post-70 CE Jewish scribes made intentional adjustments to certain messianic or christological passages in the proto-MT tradition to counter Christian interpretations (e.g., changes in Psalm 22:16, Isaiah 7:14, or Zechariah 12:10). The LXX, translated centuries earlier, would preserve the pre-adjustment readings.

Counter-Arguments (Why Many Scholars Still Prefer the MT Overall)

• The MT represents a very careful, standardized transmission tradition with sophisticated scribal techniques (vowel points, accents, marginal notes) designed to prevent errors.
• In many books (notably Isaiah), the DSS are extremely close to the MT, showing faithful copying over a millennium.
• The LXX is a translation, so it inevitably introduces interpretive choices, paraphrasing, and occasional misunderstandings of Hebrew idioms or rare words.
• Differences are often minor (wording, small additions/omissions), and core theology/doctrine is rarely affected.
• Modern critical editions (e.g., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, used in most scholarly work) incorporate DSS and LXX evidence precisely to improve on the MT where needed.

The Samaritan Pentateuch textual tradition

The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), also known as the Samaritan Torah, is the sacred scripture of the Samaritan community, consisting exclusively of the first five books of the Bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy). It represents one of the major ancient textual traditions of the Pentateuch (Torah), alongside the Masoretic Text (MT, the basis for most modern Jewish and Protestant Bibles) and the Septuagint (LXX, the ancient Greek translation).

Origins and Textual Tradition

The SP is written in the distinctive Samaritan script (a paleo-Hebrew-derived script) and preserves a version of the Torah that dates back to the Second Temple period (roughly 516 BCE–70 CE). Modern scholarly consensus holds that it is not an entirely independent invention but rather a sectarian edition of an earlier, widely circulating Hebrew text-type known as the "Pre-Samaritan" tradition.

• This Pre-Samaritan text-type is attested in some Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS, 3rd–1st centuries BCE), such as certain manuscripts from Qumran that show similar editorial features (e.g., harmonizations, expansions for clarity, emphasis on Moses' role).
• The SP likely underwent final sectarian editing in the 1st century BCE to 1st century CE to align with Samaritan theology, particularly emphasizing Mount Gerizim as the sole chosen place of worship rather than Jerusalem.
• The oldest complete or near-complete SP manuscripts date to the medieval period (9th–13th centuries CE, e.g., MS Nablus 6 from 1204 CE), but its readings reflect much earlier traditions confirmed by the DSS.

The SP is thus a valuable witness to the pluriform (multi-version) state of the Hebrew Pentateuch before a single standardized text (proto-MT) became dominant in rabbinic Judaism after ~70–135 CE.

Key Characteristics and Differences

The SP agrees with the MT in the vast majority of its content, showing remarkable overall stability across independent traditions. However, it contains around 6,000 differences from the MT:

• Most are minor: Orthographic/spelling variations (e.g., more use of matres lectionis for vowels), grammatical adjustments, preposition swaps (e.g., al vs. el), or small word placements that improve readability or harmonize parallel passages.
• Significant ones (fewer but important): Include expansions, interpolations, or sectarian changes. Examples:
  • In the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5), the SP adds a lengthy insertion after the tenth commandment (against coveting), commanding the building of an altar on Mount Gerizim (drawing from Deuteronomy 11:29–30 and 27:2–8). This replaces or supplements the MT's Mount Ebal reference in Deuteronomy 27:4.
  • Harmonistic additions: Filling in dialogues or commands that seem "missing" for consistency (e.g., expanded exchanges between Moses/Aaron and Pharaoh in Exodus 7–11, or adding Cain's words to Abel in Genesis 4:8: "Let's go out to the field").
  • Theological tweaks: Avoiding anthropomorphisms of God, stronger emphasis on Moses, or adjustments to support Samaritan practices.

Many of these non-sectarian features (harmonizations, expansions) appear in Pre-Samaritan DSS manuscripts, indicating they were part of a broader Palestinian textual tradition, not unique inventions by Samaritans.

Comparisons with Other Traditions

• Vs. Masoretic Text (MT): The MT is generally more concise and standardized. The SP often aligns with an earlier, more fluid stage of the text.
• Vs. Septuagint (LXX): The SP frequently agrees with the LXX against the MT (in ~1,900–2,000 places, per some estimates), especially in expansions/harmonizations. This suggests both drew from similar pre-standardized Hebrew Vorlagen (source texts). However, the LXX has its own translation choices and variants.
• Vs. Dead Sea Scrolls: The DSS are crucial—they include "proto-MT," "pre-Samaritan," and "Septuagint-like" texts side-by-side, proving textual diversity in antiquity. Many SP-unique (non-sectarian) readings are supported by DSS, strengthening the case that the SP preserves ancient variants rather than wholesale corruption.

Significance in Modern Scholarship

The SP is not "less accurate" than the MT overall but provides an independent witness to the Pentateuch's textual history. Critical editions of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., in the Biblia Hebraica Quinta or scholarly commentaries) regularly consult the SP (along with DSS and LXX) to reconstruct earlier readings or resolve difficulties. It demonstrates that the biblical text evolved with editorial activity (e.g., harmonizing laws/narratives) common in the Second Temple era, before fixation.

Is Aramaic Relevant

Yes, there is Aramaic in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh/Old Testament), though it's a small portion compared to the dominant Biblical Hebrew.

The Hebrew Bible is primarily written in Biblical Hebrew, but sections composed in Biblical Aramaic (a closely related Northwest Semitic language) appear in a few places. This reflects the historical context: Aramaic became the lingua franca of the Near East during the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires (from roughly the 8th–4th centuries BCE), especially after the Babylonian exile when many Jews adopted it as a spoken language.

Main Aramaic Sections in the Masoretic Text (Standard Hebrew Bible)

• Daniel 2:4b–7:28 — The longest continuous Aramaic portion (about 200 verses). It starts mid-verse in Daniel 2:4 when the Chaldeans address King Nebuchadnezzar "in Aramaic," and the narrative switches to Aramaic through the end of chapter 7. This includes visions, stories like the fiery furnace, and prophetic material.
• Jeremiah 10:11 — A single verse (a short polemic against idols, written in Aramaic: "Thus shall you say to them: The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens.").
• Genesis 31:47 — Just two Aramaic words: "Jegar Sahadutha" (the Aramaic name Laban gives to the heap of stones witness, while Jacob calls it "Galeed" in Hebrew).

In total, Biblical Aramaic accounts for roughly 268–269 verses out of over 23,000 in the Hebrew Bible—less than 2%—but it's significant for understanding late biblical composition and imperial administration.

In the Samaritan Pentateuch

It contains no Aramaic sections in the core text. However, the Samaritan community later produced:

• The Samaritan Targum — an Aramaic translation/interpretation of their Pentateuch, similar to Jewish Targums (e.g., Targum Onkelos). This is in Samaritan Aramaic (a Western Aramaic dialect), used for liturgical, exegetical, and scholarly purposes from roughly the early centuries CE onward.
• Other Samaritan literature (e.g., Memar Marqa, hymns, chronicles) is also in Samaritan Aramaic.

So, while the Samaritan Torah text proper remains Hebrew, Aramaic enters via later translations and commentaries, not the original scripture itself.

The Urtext

The Urtext (German for "original text" or "primordial text") is a key concept in biblical textual criticism, particularly for the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh/Old Testament). It refers to the hypothetical earliest, uniform written form of a biblical book or the entire Hebrew Bible — the presumed "archetype" or common ancestor from which all later surviving manuscript traditions diverged.

In scholarly diagrams (like those in textual criticism handbooks), the Urtext is often depicted at the bottom of a stemma (family tree) as a lost original source text, with branches leading to traditions like the Masoretic Text (MT), Septuagint (LXX), Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and others evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).

Historical Development of the Urtext Idea

• The concept became prominent in the 19th century, especially through the work of German scholar Paul de Lagarde (1827–1891). He advocated for reconstructing this single, pristine original by systematically comparing ancient versions (LXX, Syriac Peshitta, Vulgate, etc.) and eliminating later corruptions or expansions.
• This "eclectic" or "diplomatic" approach aimed to recover the Urtext through rigorous comparison, assuming that textual variants arose from copying errors, intentional theological edits, harmonizations, or regional differences.
• Early textual critics believed that behind the diversity of witnesses lay one authoritative original form.

Modern Scholarly Consensus

Today, the strict Urtext theory is widely disputed or heavily qualified in mainstream biblical scholarship. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947–1956 onward) was pivotal: they revealed a pluriform textual landscape in the late Second Temple period (~3rd century BCE–1st century CE).

• Multiple Hebrew textual traditions coexisted side-by-side at Qumran, including:
  • Proto-Masoretic (close to what became the MT).
  • Pre-Samaritan (with harmonizations and expansions similar to the SP).
  • Septuagint-like (aligning more with the Hebrew Vorlage — underlying text — behind the Greek LXX).
  • Other independent or mixed forms.
• This evidence shows that the biblical text was not fixed into a single uniform version until much later (likely after 70 CE in rabbinic Judaism, leading to the proto-MT dominance).
• Many scholars now prefer terms like "initial text" (Ausgangstext in German scholarship) or "earliest recoverable text" for specific books/passages, rather than a monolithic Urtext for the whole Bible.
• The goal of modern textual criticism (e.g., in projects like the Biblia Hebraica Quinta or editions incorporating DSS/LXX/SP) is eclectic reconstruction case-by-case: weighing all witnesses to approximate the most likely earliest reading, without assuming one perfect original existed everywhere.

In the context of comparing the Masoretic Text (standardized Hebrew, medieval but based on ancient traditions), Septuagint (Greek translation from ~3rd–2nd century BCE Hebrew sources), and Samaritan Pentateuch:

• If an Urtext existed, the LXX and SP often preserve readings closer to it in places where the MT shows later expansions (e.g., in Jeremiah's shorter form in LXX/DSS vs. longer MT; harmonizations in SP/DSS pre-Samaritan texts).
• But the pluriform evidence from DSS suggests there may never have been a single Urtext for every book — rather, evolving compositions with parallel editions circulating.

Conclusion

The Hebrew Bible we read today is the product of a rich, multifaceted transmission history rather than a straight line from one perfect original. The Masoretic Text remains the central, highly reliable foundation for Jewish and most Protestant Bibles, but critical scholarship—thanks above all to the Dead Sea Scrolls—enriches our picture by showing how the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and other traditions sometimes capture earlier stages or alternative editions.

Modern editions (like Biblia Hebraica Quinta) and translations (NRSV, ESV with footnotes, etc.) incorporate this evidence eclectically, giving readers the best approximation of the ancient text(s) while noting major variants.

Note: This discussion highlights not competition between traditions, but their complementary value in recovering a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the scriptures shared by Judaism and Christianity.