The Masoretic Text: What It Is—And What It’s Not

The Masoretic Text: What It Is—And What It’s Not

For many Christians, the term Masoretic Text sounds like an obscure academic footnote. But this lesser-known manuscript tradition holds enormous influence over most modern Bibles—and shapes how we understand critical prophecies, timelines, and theological truths.

If you’ve ever read a Bible that didn’t include the so-called “Apocrypha,” or noticed differences in Old Testament quotations between your Bible and the New Testament authors, you’ve likely encountered the effects of the Masoretic Text (MT). But what is it, really? Where did it come from? And why does it matter?

Before we dive deeper, it’s important to understand: not all Bible manuscripts say exactly the same thing. While the Masoretic Text is the basis for most modern Old Testaments, it sometimes differs from older sources like the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. These differences matter—especially when they change details, disrupt timelines, or hide prophecies.

Let’s pull back the curtain.

What Is the Masoretic Text?

The Masoretic Text is a medieval Hebrew manuscript tradition standardized by a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes between AD 600–1000. Their goal was to preserve the Hebrew Scriptures by copying them with extreme precision, adding vowel markings (called nikkud), marginal notes, and accentuation marks.

The Masoretes were incredibly meticulous. They counted letters and words, tracked textual variants, and standardized pronunciations. However, what many Christians don’t realize is this:

The Masoretic Text was created over 1,000 years after the Old Testament was written—and several centuries after the birth of the Church.

In short, the Masoretic Text is not the Bible Jesus or the apostles used. Nor is it the earliest form of the Old Testament.

How It Differs from the Septuagint (LXX)

The Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Old Testament completed by Jewish scholars around 250–150 BC, under the reign of Ptolemy II in Alexandria. It was widely used in the first century—by Jews in the Diaspora, by the early Church, and by New Testament authors themselves.

The key difference?

• The Septuagint predates Jesus.

• The Masoretic Text postdates Christianity.

While the Masoretic Text is in Hebrew, the Septuagint is in Greek. And where they differ, the theological implications can be massive.

For example:

Psalm 22:16

• Septuagint (LXX): “They pierced my hands and my feet.”

• Masoretic Text: “Like a lion are my hands and my feet.”

Isaiah 7:14

• Septuagint (LXX): “Behold, the virgin (παρθένος) shall conceive…”

• Masoretic Text: “Behold, the young woman (עַלְמָה) shall conceive…”

The Septuagint supports key messianic prophecies—which is precisely why many early Christians defended it, and why some post-Christian Jewish scribes sought to suppress or revise the Greek.

From Jerome to Preference: How the Masoretic Tradition Took Over

To understand how the Masoretic Text became the preferred Old Testament source in most modern Bibles, we have to go back to the late 4th century—to a controversial translator named Jerome.

Jerome was tasked by Pope Damasus I with creating a new Latin translation of the Bible. At the time, the Church widely used the Old Latin, which was largely based on the Septuagint (LXX). The early Church Fathers—including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen—quoted the Septuagint freely and treated it as authoritative Scripture.

But Jerome did something revolutionary—and divisive.

He chose to translate the Old Testament directly from Hebrew manuscripts that were circulating in his day, rather than from the Greek Septuagint the Church had always used.

This was not a neutral decision. It was hotly debated and deeply criticized. Jerome admitted that the Jews he consulted during his translation had different readings than what Christians had long accepted. His Latin Vulgate introduced a shift in textual authority—from the Bible of the early Church to the manuscripts of post-Christian Judaism.

Augustine strongly objected, warning that replacing the Septuagint with the newer Hebrew texts would confuse the Church and damage Christian theology.

“For if your translation from the Hebrew is different from that of the Septuagint, how shall I answer the Jews when they ask which is the Word of God?”— Augustine, Letter 71 to Jerome

Despite these warnings, Jerome pushed forward. Over time, the Latin Vulgate, with its Hebrew-based Old Testament, became the dominant Bible of the Western Church.

This shift was not based on which text was older or more accurate. It was based on Jerome’s linguistic preference, personal connections to Jewish scribes, and a desire to return to what he called the “Hebraica veritas”—the “Hebrew truth.” But the Hebrew texts Jerome used were already post-Christ—and likely ancestors of the proto-Masoretic tradition, altered to downplay messianic prophecies.

In other words:

The Masoretic preference began not with scholarship, but with a mistrust of the Greek Septuagint and a controversial theological shift that many early Christians rejected.

Over the centuries, Jerome’s Vulgate became canonized in the Roman Catholic Church, and his Hebrew-based Old Testament became normalized—even though it departed from what the apostles had used and quoted.

This paved the road for later scholars—especially during the Reformation—to assume that the Hebrew text was the most authentic simply because it was older in language, not in actual manuscript date. By the time of Luther, this preference was already embedded in the Western mindset.

Why It Became the Standard for Protestant Bibles

During the Reformation, many Protestant leaders wanted to return to “original languages.” This meant emphasizing Hebrew for the Old Testament, under the assumption that the Masoretic Text was more “authentic” because it was in the original language.

Martin Luther, while initially quoting the Septuagint, eventually leaned on the Masoretic tradition for his Old Testament translation. The King James Version followed suit, using the Ben Asher Masoretic family, solidified by the Bomberg edition (1525).

Ironically, these “Hebrew-only” reformers rejected the very Greek Old Testament that the apostles and Jesus used.

To summarize:

• Jesus quoted the Septuagint.

• Paul quoted the Septuagint.

• The early church canon included the Septuagint.

• Most Protestant Bibles today use the Masoretic Text instead.

That’s a shift of enormous consequence.

The Theological Cost of Masoretic-Only Bibles

When churches rely solely on the Masoretic Text, they lose access to dozens of key prophecies and inspired texts that were part of the early Church’s Bible.

Consider:

• Deuteronomy 32:43 – In the Septuagint, this verse calls all the angels of God to worship the Son. The author of Hebrews quotes this (Hebrews 1:6). The MT omits it.

• Amos 9:11–12 – James, at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), quotes the Septuagint version, which includes Gentiles “called by My name.” The MT does not.

• Daniel 9 – The MT’s timeline of the 70 Weeks is vague. The Greek Daniel offers a clearer, more Christ-centered reading.

And it’s not just quotations. The book collections themselves differ:

• The Septuagint includes books like Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, Baruch, 1–2 Maccabees, and additions to Daniel and Esther—books widely read by the early Church and quoted by Church Fathers.

• The Masoretic Text omits all of these, labeling them later as “Apocrypha.”

But the truth is: they were never “added” in the Septuagint—they were “removed” in the Masoretic tradition.

Masoretic Errors and Oddities: When the Text Doesn’t Add Up

For those who believe the Masoretic Text is a flawless standard, a closer look reveals several places where the MT presents historical inconsistencies, awkward redactions, or outright textual errors—all of which are corrected or clarified in the Septuagint or Dead Sea Scrolls.

Here are just a few examples where the Masoretic-only reading causes problems:

Judges 18:30 – The Phantom of Moses

Masoretic Text (MT):“Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh…”

At first glance, this looks like a standard genealogy. But here’s the issue: Gershom was the son of Moses, not Manasseh (see Exodus 2:22; 1 Chronicles 23:15). The Hebrew scribes in the Masoretic tradition altered the name Mosheh (משה) to M'nasheh (מנשה) by inserting a suspended nun (נ)—literally placing it above the line in manuscripts.

Why? Because they didn’t want to publicly connect Moses’ grandson to idolatry.

But the original reading, preserved in many Septuagint manuscripts and confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls, reads:

“Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses.”

This was a theological cover-up, not a scribal error. The Masoretes couldn’t stomach the shame of Moses’ lineage being tied to an idol-worshiping priest, so they doctored the text. That’s not preservation—it’s revision.

1 Samuel 17–18 – Saul’s Amnesia and Goliath’s Height

In the famous story of David and Goliath, the Masoretic Text says:

1 Samuel 17:4 (MT):“He was over nine feet tall.”

Literally, “six cubits and a span” – approximately 9 feet 9 inches.

But earlier manuscripts—including the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QSam) and the Septuagint—say:

“Four cubits and a span” – about 6 feet 9 inches.

While still formidable, this version aligns better with historical realism and the armor weights described in the text. The MT’s 9-foot giant seems inflated—a scribal exaggeration for dramatic effect.

But that’s not the only issue.

Right after David kills Goliath and is brought to Saul, we’re told:

1 Samuel 17:55 (MT):“As Saul watched David go out to fight the Philistine, he asked Abner… ‘Whose son is this young man?’”

This is bizarre. In the previous chapter (1 Samuel 16), Saul already met David, loved him, and made him his armor-bearer.

1 Samuel 16:21–22:“So David went to Saul and began serving him. Saul loved David very much… and David became his armor bearer.”

How does Saul forget who David is within a few verses?

Answer: he doesn’t—unless you’re reading the Masoretic Text, which contains two conflicting narrative traditions awkwardly stitched together.

The Septuagint smooths out this inconsistency by shortening the story and removing duplicated or contradictory details. Many scholars agree: the MT version of 1 Samuel 17–18 is a later expansion, not the original.

These aren’t minor quirks. They expose that the Masoretic Text—despite its reputation—has been shaped by redaction, sensitive edits, and inconsistent compilation.

The Septuagint, in contrast, offers a more internally consistent and theologically honest presentation—closer to the version quoted by Jesus and the apostles.

Even Modern Scholars Admit the Masoretic Text Was Edited

The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947, revealed multiple versions of Old Testament texts—including copies that align more closely with the Septuagint than with the Masoretic Text. In other words, the MT is not the “original”—it’s one version among many.

Textual scholars now admit that:

• The Masoretes may have altered or standardized passages to reduce messianic interpretations.

• Some verses in modern Bibles are missing, altered, or shortened due to reliance on the MT.

• Many footnotes in modern translations say: “Dead Sea Scrolls or Septuagint read…”—a silent confession that the Masoretic Text doesn’t always preserve the oldest reading.

This is especially important for prophecies about Christ. Many of the most explicit Old Testament predictions of Jesus come from the Septuagint.

And yet, most English Bibles today prioritize the later Jewish redactions that obscure them.

The Early Church Knew the Difference

Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, and Augustine all preferred the Septuagint. Justin openly accused post-Christian Jews of corrupting the Hebrew text to remove or obscure prophecies about Jesus.

“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy is correct; and they even attempt to frame another.”— Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 71

Origen compiled the Hexapla, a six-column comparative Old Testament—placing the Septuagint alongside various Hebrew versions. Even Jerome, who later produced the Latin Vulgate, admitted the Septuagint held early authority—even as he controversially aligned more with the Hebrew.

The verdict of history is clear:

The early Church used the Greek Septuagint as their Old Testament. The Masoretic Text came centuries later and often reflects a reactionary Jewish revision against Christian readings.

So What Should We Do Today?

Christians should not blindly elevate the Masoretic Text as the “original Hebrew.” We should:

• Recognize that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint

• Compare the MT with the LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls when studying the Old Testament

• Reclaim the books and verses that the early Church accepted as Scripture

• Be honest about the editorial history of the Bible—and stop pretending the MT is untouched

• Use translations that note or include Septuagint readings, like the Orthodox Study Bible, NETS, or LES

Ultimately, the goal is not to idolize a manuscript tradition—but to preserve the truth God originally inspired.

Conclusion: Recovering the Bible of the Early Church

The Masoretic Text is not evil. It’s a remarkable and meticulous work by faithful Jewish scribes. But it is not the only ancient tradition—and in many places, it is not the most accurate. When it conflicts with the Septuagint or the witness of the New Testament, we should take that seriously.

If we care about biblical prophecy, Christ-centered interpretation, and the historical foundation of the Church, then we must go back to the Bible Jesus used.

Not the one edited after He came—But the one that pointed to Him all along.