Appendix B

Messianic Passages Altered in the Masoretic Text — A Comparative Reference

This appendix presents a comprehensive reference table of approximately forty key Old Testament passages where the Septuagint (LXX) and the Masoretic Text (MT) diverge in Messianic, Christological, or soteriologically significant ways. For each passage, we present three columns of comparison: (1) the LXX reading in English translation, (2) the MT reading in English translation, and (3) any New Testament citation that follows the LXX reading. Brief notes on the significance of the divergence and any Dead Sea Scroll (DSS) support are included after each entry.

As argued throughout this book — especially in Chapters 12–15 and Chapter 34 — these divergences are not random. They follow a consistent, unidirectional pattern: the MT weakens, obscures, or eliminates Messianic and Christological readings that the LXX preserves. The cumulative weight of this evidence is formidable. Whether or not every single alteration was deliberate, the overall pattern strongly suggests intentional revision by second-century rabbinic authorities who sought to distance the Hebrew text from Christian interpretation.¹

The passages below are organized in canonical order — following the sequence of books in the Old Testament — beginning with Genesis and proceeding through the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Writings. This arrangement allows the reader to see how the pattern of alteration spans the entire Old Testament, touching every major division of the Hebrew Bible.

Before we look at the individual passages, I want to say a word about what I mean by "altered." I do not mean that some rabbi sat down one afternoon and rewrote the entire Hebrew Bible from scratch. What I do believe — based on the evidence presented throughout this book — is that over the course of the late first and second centuries AD, as Rabbinic Judaism was consolidating its authority after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, certain key passages in the Hebrew text were deliberately modified. These modifications were made for theological and polemical reasons: to undermine Christian claims that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament Messianic prophecy, to delegitimize the Septuagint (which had become identified as the Christian Old Testament), and to reshape the biblical text in ways that supported the new rabbinic worldview. The modifications were not wholesale — the vast majority of the Hebrew text was transmitted faithfully. But in strategically significant passages — the very passages where Christians were making their strongest apologetic case — changes were introduced. And those changes follow a pattern that is difficult to explain as mere coincidence.

I also want to be clear about something else: presenting this evidence is not an act of hostility toward Judaism. I have deep respect for the Jewish people and for the scholarly traditions of Judaism. But intellectual honesty requires us to follow the evidence wherever it leads. And in this case, the evidence points to a second-century campaign to alter the text — a campaign that affected the Bible that most Protestants read today. We owe it to ourselves, and to the truth, to know what the evidence says.

A word about translations used: For the LXX column, we draw primarily from Brenton's English translation of the Septuagint, supplemented by the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) where appropriate. For the MT column, we use the King James Version (KJV) as our primary representative of the Masoretic tradition, supplemented by the English Standard Version (ESV) and the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh where the KJV rendering is unclear. For the New Testament column, we use the ESV unless otherwise noted. We chose the KJV as our primary MT representative for two reasons: first, it is the most widely recognized English translation based on the Masoretic Text, and second, S. Douglas Woodward uses the KJV as his MT representative in his seminal work Rebooting the Bible, from which many of the passages in this appendix are drawn. Where relevant, we also note how modern translations like the ESV, NASB, or NIV handle the text.²

One more preliminary point deserves mention. When we say that the NT "follows the LXX," we do not mean that the NT authors were slavishly copying from a Greek scroll in front of them. Some quotations are exact; others are free paraphrases; still others appear to combine elements from the LXX, the MT, and perhaps other textual traditions no longer extant. What we mean is that in the passages catalogued below, the NT's wording, vocabulary, and theology align significantly more closely with the LXX than with the MT. In many cases, the NT's argument depends on a reading found only in the LXX — a reading that the MT does not support. These are the passages that matter most, because they reveal which text the apostles and the early church regarded as their authoritative Scripture. And the answer, overwhelmingly, is the Septuagint.

I. The Torah (Genesis–Deuteronomy)

We begin with the five books of Moses. Several key Messianic and theological passages in the Torah show significant divergences between the LXX and the MT. These include the foundational Messianic promise of Genesis 3:15, the crucial Messianic prophecy of Genesis 49:10, the divine council theology of Deuteronomy 32:8, and the great Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32:43 — all of which bear directly on questions about the nature and mission of the coming Messiah.

Assessing the Pattern

We have been careful throughout this appendix to note the exceptions — passages like Isaiah 9:6, Zechariah 12:10, and Proverbs 8:22 where the MT preserves a reading that is as strong or stronger than the LXX from a Christological perspective. Intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge these cases. But the exceptions prove the rule: they are a small minority. In the overwhelming majority of passages, the pattern holds.

This unidirectional pattern is the strongest evidence for intentional alteration. If the LXX-MT differences were the result of random scribal errors or innocent textual variation, we would expect the differences to be random in their theological direction — sometimes favoring Christian interpretation, sometimes opposing it, with no consistent pattern. What we actually observe is the opposite: a striking consistency. The changes move in one direction — away from Christological readings — with only a handful of exceptions.

As we argued in Chapters 12–15, this pattern is best explained by the hypothesis that second-century rabbinic authorities — particularly Rabbi Akiba and his circle — deliberately altered the Hebrew text in passages where the LXX's Messianic readings were being used by Christians to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah. The motivation was clear: the LXX had become identified as the Christian Bible, and its Messianic readings were a powerful apologetic tool for the early church. By altering the Hebrew text — and then producing new Greek translations (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) based on the altered Hebrew — the rabbinic establishment sought to undercut the Christian case at its foundation.³

The evidence presented in this appendix does not require that every difference between the LXX and the MT was the result of deliberate alteration. Some differences are certainly the result of normal textual variation, translation technique, or the LXX translators' own theological and literary choices. But the consistent, unidirectional nature of the Messianic alterations — combined with the historical evidence for rabbinic motivation (documented in Chapters 11–12), the testimony of early Christian writers like Justin Martyr (who explicitly accused the rabbis of altering their Scriptures), and the confirmation of the Dead Sea Scrolls — makes the case for intentional alteration compelling.⁴

We should also acknowledge the alternative scholarly perspective with fairness. Some scholars — notably Emanuel Tov — attribute the LXX-MT differences primarily to the normal processes of textual transmission rather than deliberate alteration. In this view, the LXX was translated from a different Hebrew Vorlage (a Hebrew source text that differed from the text that eventually became the MT), and the differences reflect textual plurality rather than intentional tampering. This is a serious scholarly position that deserves respect. However, it does not fully account for the consistent, unidirectional, and theologically motivated nature of the Messianic divergences documented above. Textual plurality explains why different texts exist; it does not explain why the differences between them consistently point in the same theological direction.⁵

Consider an analogy. Imagine you are a detective investigating a series of burglaries. In each case, only certain items were stolen — items that were valuable to a specific collector. The burglaries occurred in different neighborhoods, at different times, and by different methods. But the items stolen all point in the same direction — toward the same collector. You might attribute each individual burglary to random crime. But when you see the pattern, you suspect a single mastermind. The pattern is the evidence. And the pattern of Messianic alterations in the MT points toward a deliberate, coordinated campaign.

Justin Martyr, writing around 160 AD — only a few decades after the rabbinic consolidation at Yavneh (Jamnia) — explicitly accused the Jewish establishment of altering their Scriptures. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin says: "They have taken away many Scriptures from the translations made by those Seventy elders who were with Ptolemy" (Dialogue 71). He further charges: "They have cut out the passage, 'And we beheld Him, and He had no form or comeliness'" (Dialogue 72). While some of Justin's specific claims are debatable, his general accusation — that the Jewish establishment altered their Scriptures to combat Christian claims — is consistent with the pattern documented in this appendix. Justin was not inventing a conspiracy theory. He was observing, in real time, the effects of a textual campaign that had been underway for several decades.³

The replacement translations of the second century — the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion — provide additional corroborating evidence. Within a single generation, three competing Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible were produced, each of which consistently moved away from the LXX's Messianic readings and toward the altered Hebrew text. Aquila's translation was so hyper-literal that it was barely readable Greek, but it served its purpose: it provided the Jewish community with a Greek translation that reflected the altered Hebrew rather than the original readings preserved in the LXX. As Timothy Michael Law has noted, these replacement translations represent a coordinated effort to displace the Septuagint — the Bible of the church.⁵

For those who wish to study these passages in greater depth, Chapters 14 and 15 provide detailed exegetical treatment of the most significant variants. The present appendix is designed as a quick reference — a tool for studying, teaching, and preaching. We encourage every reader to look up these passages in their own Bible — and then to compare the readings presented here. The evidence speaks for itself.

Implications for the Modern Reader

What does this mean for the Christian who picks up a modern Protestant Bible — whether an ESV, NIV, NASB, or KJV? It means that in the Old Testament, you are reading a text based primarily on the Masoretic Text — a text that, in the passages catalogued above, has been altered in ways that weaken its witness to Christ. This does not mean your Bible is unreliable. The great truths of the faith are preserved in the MT. The Gospel is there. The cross is there. The resurrection is there. But it does mean that when you read your Old Testament, you are not always reading the oldest and most reliable form of the text. In many of these passages, the Septuagint preserves the original reading — the reading that the apostles quoted, the reading that the early church received as Scripture, the reading that was altered by those who rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

Let me give you a practical example of what this means. When you read Psalm 40:6 in your ESV or KJV, you will find the words "my ears you have opened" (ESV) or "mine ears hast thou opened" (KJV). That is the Masoretic Text. But when the writer of Hebrews quotes this same passage, he writes "a body you have prepared for me" (Hebrews 10:5) — following the Septuagint. Which reading did the inspired NT author regard as Scripture? The LXX reading. And which reading speaks more powerfully to the mystery of the incarnation — God taking on human flesh to accomplish what animal sacrifices never could? The LXX reading. This is not a trivial difference. It goes to the very heart of the Gospel: God prepared a body for his Son, and through that body, he accomplished the once-for-all sacrifice for sin.

Or consider Deuteronomy 32:43. In your KJV, this verse is a single, brief sentence: "Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people." But in the Septuagint — and in the Dead Sea Scrolls fragment 4QDeut^q — the verse is much longer, including the stunning command: "Let all the angels of God worship him." The writer of Hebrews quotes this longer text in Hebrews 1:6 to prove that Christ is superior to the angels. If you read only the MT, you would never find this verse. You would never know it existed. And you would miss one of the most powerful proof-texts for the deity of Christ in the entire Old Testament.

These are not isolated curiosities. They are part of a pattern. And that pattern has implications for how we read and teach the Old Testament. Here are some practical suggestions for the thoughtful Christian reader who wants to take this evidence seriously:

First, consider acquiring a copy of the Septuagint in English translation. Brenton's translation is freely available online and in inexpensive print editions. The Orthodox Study Bible includes an English translation based on the Septuagint for the Old Testament. Having a Septuagint alongside your standard Bible allows you to compare readings in the key passages identified in this appendix.

Second, use study Bibles and commentaries that include LXX readings alongside the MT. Several modern study Bibles note significant LXX variants in their footnotes or marginal notes. The ESV, for instance, occasionally notes LXX readings — though not consistently enough. When you encounter a footnote that says "LXX reads..." or "Gk reads...," pay attention. That note is pointing you to the older text.

Third, be aware of the LXX-MT differences when reading the Old Testament and when hearing sermons. When a preacher quotes an Old Testament passage and then cites the New Testament's quotation of that same passage, notice whether the wording differs. In many cases, the difference reflects the fact that the NT is quoting from the LXX while the preacher's OT reading comes from the MT. Knowing this will deepen your understanding of both the Old and New Testaments.

Fourth, approach the question of textual authority with humility. For too long, Protestants have assumed that the Hebrew Masoretic Text is simply "the original" — the gold standard against which all other texts should be measured. The evidence presented in this book challenges that assumption. The MT is one important witness to the Old Testament text — but it is not the only witness, and in many passages, it is not the most reliable witness. The LXX, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and other ancient witnesses all have a role to play in helping us recover the original text of Scripture.

We are not asking anyone to throw away their Bible. We are asking you to pick up the Bible that built the church — the Septuagint — and read it alongside your MT-based translation. When you do, you will discover a richer, fuller, more explicitly Messianic Old Testament. You will find the Old Testament that the apostles knew. You will find the Old Testament that pointed them to Jesus. And you will find that the Bible that built the church still has the power to build your faith today.

I want to close with a personal reflection. When I first began studying the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, I was shocked. Like many Protestants, I had assumed that the Hebrew text was always superior — that the MT was "the original" and that any translation, including the LXX, was inherently secondary. But as I dug deeper — as I compared the readings, examined the Dead Sea Scrolls, and traced the pattern of alterations — I realized that the story was far more complex and far more important than I had ever imagined. The LXX is not merely a translation. It is a witness — a witness to an older form of the Hebrew text, a witness to a Messianic faith that predated Christianity, and a witness to the Scripture that Jesus and the apostles themselves used. Recovering that witness is not an academic exercise. It is a recovery of our heritage as the people of God.

Think about what it means that the apostle Paul — a Pharisee trained at the feet of Gamaliel, a man who knew Hebrew and Aramaic intimately — chose to quote the Septuagint when he wrote his letters to the churches. Paul did not quote the LXX because he was lazy or because he could not read Hebrew. He quoted it because he regarded it as the authoritative text of Scripture. In Romans, Galatians, Corinthians, and Hebrews (whether Paul wrote Hebrews or not, the author was steeped in the LXX), the arguments depend — in passage after passage — on the specific wording of the Septuagint. When Paul argued that Christ was the "seed" of Abraham (Galatians 3:16), he was reading the LXX. When the writer of Hebrews argued that God prepared "a body" for Christ (Hebrews 10:5), he was reading the LXX. When Peter preached at Pentecost that Christ's body did not see "corruption" (Acts 2:27), he was reading the LXX. These were not careless readings. They were inspired interpretations of inspired Scripture — and the Scripture they were interpreting was the Septuagint.

The implications of this are profound. If the NT authors regarded the LXX as their authoritative Scripture — and the evidence presented in this appendix and throughout this book demonstrates that they did — then the church today has good reason to take the LXX seriously. This does not mean we must abandon the MT. It does not mean we must become Orthodox Christians. It simply means that we must acknowledge what the evidence tells us: that the Bible of the early church was the Septuagint, that the LXX preserves many readings that are older and more reliable than the MT, and that recovering the LXX tradition is one of the most important tasks facing Protestant biblical scholarship today.

As we said at the very beginning of this book, our goal is not to tear down but to build up. We want to help the thoughtful Christian reader develop a deeper, richer understanding of the Old Testament — one that is informed by the full range of ancient witnesses, not limited to a single textual tradition. The Masoretic Text is a valuable witness. So is the Septuagint. So are the Dead Sea Scrolls. When we read them together — comparing, contrasting, and weighing the evidence — we come closer to the original words that God spoke through his prophets. And that, ultimately, is what every lover of Scripture desires: to hear God's voice as clearly as possible, through the text he has preserved for us by his providence.

May this appendix serve as a useful reference for your own study — and may it point you, as all good scholarship should, back to the Word of God and to the Messiah to whom that Word bears witness.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abegg, Martin, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. New York: HarperOne, 1999.

Brenton, Sir Lancelot Charles Lee. The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, according to the Vatican Text, Translated into English. London: Samuel Bagster, 1844.

Gordon, Cyrus H. "Almah in Isaiah 7:14." The Journal of Bible & Religion, Vol. 21 (April 1953): 106.

Gruber, Daniel. Rabbi Akiba's Messiah: The Origins of Rabbinic Authority. Hanover, NH: Elijah Publishing, 2014.

Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho the Rabbinical Jew. Ca. 160 AD.

Lanier, Gregory R. Corpus Christologicum: Texts and Translations for the Study of Jewish Messianism and Early Christology. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2021.

Lanier, Gregory R., and William A. Ross. The Septuagint: What It Is and Why It Matters. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021.

Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Schaper, Joachim. Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. WUNT, 2nd ser., vol. 76. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995.

Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.

Woodward, S. Douglas. A Biography of the Christian Bible: And How We Defend the Protestant Scriptures in the 21st Century. Oklahoma City: Faith Happens, 2020.

Woodward, S. Douglas. Rebooting the Bible: Exposing the Second Century Conspiracy to Corrupt the Scripture and Alter Biblical Chronology. Oklahoma City: Faith Happens, 2018.

Woodward, S. Douglas. Rebooting the Bible, Part 2: Reconciling Primeval Biblical History with Archaeology and Alternate History. Oklahoma City: Faith Happens, 2019.