Appendix C

New Testament Citations of the LXX — A Reference Table

This appendix provides a comprehensive reference table of major Old Testament citations in the New Testament, organized by NT book. For each citation, the table indicates: (1) the NT reference, (2) the OT passage being cited, (3) whether the citation follows the Septuagint (LXX), the Masoretic Text (MT), both equally, or is mixed/independent, and (4) brief notes on significant differences where they exist. This table is designed to be a practical tool for the reader who wants to see at a glance just how thoroughly the New Testament authors depended on the Greek Old Testament.

A few preliminary observations will help the reader appreciate what this table reveals. Scholars have identified somewhere between 300 and 350 direct citations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, depending on how strictly one defines a "citation" versus an "allusion."¹ Steve Moyise estimates 316 quotations, while Gleason Archer and Gregory Chirichigno catalogue 340 in their classic study.² Of these, the vast majority either align with the LXX or are neutral — that is, the LXX and the Hebrew agree in the relevant wording, making it impossible to tell which source the NT author was using. When we focus on the citations where the LXX and the MT actually differ from each other — the passages that truly tell us which text the apostles preferred — the result is decisive. The LXX wins overwhelmingly. As Douglas Stuart Woodward summarizes the data, NT authors prefer the LXX in roughly 80 percent of their Old Testament quotations.³

Moyise estimates that over half of the 316 quotations fall into cases where the Old Greek (OG) is in substantial agreement with the MT, making them neutral for our purposes.⁴ Among the remaining citations — where the LXX and MT diverge in significant ways — the tally decisively favors the LXX. The author of Hebrews, for example, never cites a text-form that must derive from the proto-MT against the LXX.⁵ Paul overwhelmingly uses the LXX. Even Jesus's own quotations, as recorded by the Evangelists, are majority Septuagintal.⁶

The table below does not pretend to be exhaustive. It includes the major direct quotations — the passages most commonly identified by scholars as formal citations — plus a selection of important allusions where the textual alignment is especially significant. I have drawn on the catalogues compiled by Archer and Chirichigno, Jobes and Silva, Lanier and Ross, Moyise, and others, cross-checked against the project file sources.⁷ Where scholars disagree about the classification of a particular citation, I have noted the disagreement. My goal is to give the reader a reliable, usable reference tool — not the final word on every debatable passage.

The Gospels

Matthew

Matthew's citation practice is the most complex of any NT author. As a Jewish Christian writing for a largely Jewish audience, Matthew shows familiarity with both the Greek and Hebrew traditions. His own editorial quotations sometimes follow the Hebrew, but the citations on Jesus's lips are predominantly Septuagintal.⁸ Matthew also produces several citations that do not precisely match any known textual tradition, suggesting he may have been working from memory, from oral tradition, or from a Greek text slightly different from the LXX manuscripts we now possess.⁹

Observations by NT Author

Several patterns emerge when we examine the data organized by NT author, and I think these patterns are worth highlighting briefly.

Matthew is the most eclectic of the NT authors. He shows clear awareness of the Hebrew text — his citation of Hosea 11:1 (Matt 2:15) follows the MT, and his rendering of Isaiah 53:4 (Matt 8:17) also appears to reflect independent translation from the Hebrew. Yet the citations attributed to Jesus on Matthew's pages are predominantly Septuagintal (Matt 15:8–9; 21:16). Matthew's own editorial quotations split between the LXX and the MT, with a slight preference for the Hebrew when introducing his "fulfillment formula" citations. But the overall picture is clear: Matthew uses both traditions, with neither being exclusively authoritative for him. His pragmatic approach reinforces rather than undermines the centrality of the LXX, since even an author comfortable with the Hebrew returns to the Greek OT again and again.¹⁰

Mark follows the LXX in his citations, though he has fewer direct quotations than Matthew. His abbreviated citation of Isaiah 6:9–10 (Mark 4:12) is more paraphrastic than Matthew's longer LXX quotation. His composite citation in Mark 1:2–3 follows the LXX of both Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3.

Luke is the most consistently Septuagintal of the Gospel writers. He extends the Isaiah 40 quotation to include the universalist conclusion "all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Luke 3:6), which is present in the LXX but absent from the MT. Jesus's reading of the Isaiah scroll in the Nazareth synagogue (Luke 4:18–19) follows the LXX closely. Stephen's speech in Acts 7 uses LXX numbers (75 souls rather than 70), LXX place names ("beyond Babylon" rather than "beyond Damascus"), and LXX wording throughout. James's argument at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:16–18) depends entirely on the LXX of Amos 9:11–12.

John presents an interesting case. His citations are generally neutral — many of them agree with both the LXX and the MT. However, in at least one significant case (John 19:37, quoting Zech 12:10), he clearly follows the Hebrew against the Greek. John's Gospel may reflect a dual-language environment where both Hebrew and Greek traditions were accessible.¹¹

Paul overwhelmingly uses the LXX. His major theological arguments — justification by faith (Rom 1:17, citing Hab 2:4 LXX), the universality of sin (Rom 3:10–18, using the LXX "plus" in Psalm 14), the triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54–55, citing Isa 25:8 and Hos 13:14 LXX), the inclusion of the Gentiles (Rom 15:9–12, citing multiple LXX passages) — all depend on LXX readings. Richard Longenecker notes that Paul has at least four citations that agree with the proto-MT against the LXX, but these are a small minority compared to his dozens of LXX-aligned citations.¹²

The author of Hebrews is the most thoroughly Septuagintal of all NT writers. Every single one of his OT citations follows the LXX. He never cites a text-form that must derive from the proto-MT against the LXX. His most distinctive citation formula — in which God or the Holy Spirit is said to "speak" the words of the OT — treats the Greek text as the living voice of God. When Hebrews says God declares "a body you have prepared for me" (Heb 10:5), or when the Holy Spirit says "today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts" using the LXX's "rebellion" and "testing" rather than the place-names Meribah and Massah (Heb 3:7–11), the Greek text is presented as the authoritative Word of God. Simply put, in Hebrews, God speaks Greek.¹³

1 Peter is also thoroughly Septuagintal. Karen Jobes has demonstrated that, relative to its brevity, 1 Peter contains more OT citations and allusions than any other NT book, and none of them can be explained by reference to a Hebrew version.¹⁴ Peter's use of LXX Psalm 33 (Psalm 34 in English Bibles) throughout his epistle demonstrates deep familiarity with the Greek Psalter.

James uses the LXX in his citations, including his quotation of Proverbs 3:34 (Jas 4:6), which differs significantly from the MT.

Revelation is a special case. The Apocalypse contains no formally marked citations (introduced with "it is written" or similar formulas), but it is saturated with OT allusions. The few recognizable quotations are very close to the Hebrew text, and some scholars have suggested that John the seer may have been more comfortable with the Hebrew Bible. However, given the widespread use of Greek revisions of the OT in the first century and the absence of positive proof that the author used a Hebrew text, it remains possible that John was using a Greek version close to the Hebrew — such as the kaige revision or a proto-Theodotionic text.¹⁵

A Note on Methodology

Classifying OT citations as "LXX," "MT," "Both," or "Mixed" involves judgment calls, and scholars disagree on many individual passages. The following methodological principles guided the classifications in this table:

First, a citation is classified as LXX when the NT wording aligns closely with the Septuagint and differs meaningfully from the Masoretic Text. "Meaningfully" means the difference is substantive enough that it cannot be explained simply by two independent translators rendering the same Hebrew text differently.¹⁶

Second, a citation is classified as MT when the NT wording aligns with the Hebrew tradition against the LXX. These cases are relatively rare.

Third, a citation is classified as Both when the LXX and the MT agree in the relevant wording, making it impossible to determine which source the NT author was using. These are the "neutral" citations that Moyise estimates comprise over half of the total.¹⁷

Fourth, a citation is classified as Mixed when the NT wording differs from both the LXX and the MT, or when the citation is a composite of multiple OT passages, or when the NT author appears to be paraphrasing freely or working from memory or from a textual tradition we no longer possess.

I should also note that the "LXX" is not a single, uniform text. The Greek OT tradition includes the Old Greek (OG) — the original translations — as well as various revisions (such as the kaige revision, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion). When I say a NT citation follows "the LXX," I mean it follows the Greek OT tradition broadly, which in most cases means the Old Greek as attested in our major uncial manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus).¹⁸

Similarly, the "MT" refers to the Masoretic textual tradition as represented in the Leningrad Codex (1008 AD), which is the basis for most modern critical editions of the Hebrew Bible. In the first century, of course, the Masoretic Text did not yet exist in its final form. We should more properly speak of the "proto-Masoretic text" or the "proto-MT" — the consonantal Hebrew text-type that would eventually become the standardized Masoretic tradition after the rabbinic revisions of the second century AD. When the NT appears to follow the "MT" against the LXX, it is following this proto-Masoretic tradition.

Finally, I have not included every possible allusion or echo in this table — only formal citations and the most significant allusions. A full catalogue of allusions would require a much larger volume. For a more complete treatment, the reader should consult the standard reference works listed in the bibliography below.¹⁹

Bibliography

Archer, Gleason, and Gregory Chirichigno. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.

Caird, G. B. "The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Canadian Journal of Theology 5 (1959): 44–51.

Ciampa, Roy E. "Old Testament in Paul." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 2nd ed., edited by Scot McKnight, 722–39. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2023.

Fernández Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Gundry, R. H. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel. Leiden: Brill, 1967.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1–13. Word Biblical Commentary 33a. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993.

Hengel, Martin. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Old Testament Studies. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002.

Jobes, Karen H. "The Septuagint Textual Tradition in 1 Peter." In Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden, 311–33. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2006.

Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015.

Koester, Craig R. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

Lane, William L. Hebrews 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary 47a. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991.

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

Lanier, Gregory R., and William A. Ross, eds. The Authority of the Septuagint. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, forthcoming.

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

Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.

McLay, R. Timothy. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

Menken, M. J. J. Matthew's Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. Leuven: Peeters, 2004.

Michuta, Gary G. The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments. 2nd ed. Livonia, MI: Nikaria Press, 2017.

Moyise, Steve. The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Moyise, Steve. "The Septuagint in the New Testament." In T&T Clark Handbook of Septuagint Research, edited by William A. Ross and W. Edward Glenny, 243–54. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2021.

Pierce, Madison N. Divine Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Recontextualization of Spoken Quotations of Scripture. SNTSMS 178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

Silva, Moisés. "Old Testament in Paul." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, 630–42. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Woodward, Douglas Stuart. Rebooting the Bible: Exposing the Second Century Conspiracy to Corrupt the Scripture and Alter Biblical Chronology. Oklahoma City, OK: Faith Happens Books, 2019.