Difficult Passages

A Pastoral Reference
All Entries
24 Old Testament / Textual Criticism

Masoretic vs. Septuagint: The Two Jeremiahs

The entire book of Jeremiah; see esp. Jer 10:6–8, 10; Jer 33:14–26; Jer 39:4–13

The Difficulty

The book of Jeremiah exists in two significantly different ancient versions. The Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) — the basis for Jewish Bibles and most Protestant Old Testaments — is approximately one-eighth longer than the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version, with about 2,700 more words. The order of material is also different: in the MT, the oracles against the nations appear at the end (chs. 46–51); in the LXX, they appear in the middle (after 25:13) and in a different sequence. Some entire passages present in the MT are absent from the LXX (e.g., Jer 33:14–26, the famous “righteous Branch” prophecy). Dead Sea Scroll fragments from Qumran (4QJer^b and 4QJer^d) preserve the shorter Hebrew text behind the LXX — proving both versions circulated as Hebrew Scripture centuries before Christ. Which is the “real” Jeremiah? What do we do when our text is unstable at this scale? And why don’t most Christians know this?

Responses

The Shorter Text is Earlier (Scholarly Consensus)

Summary: The LXX represents an earlier edition of Jeremiah; the MT reflects a later, expanded Hebrew edition of the same prophetic book.

The dominant scholarly position (Emanuel Tov, J. Gerald Janzen, Eugene Ulrich, and most modern commentators) is that the LXX faithfully translates a genuinely shorter Hebrew edition of Jeremiah — an edition now partially attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The MT represents a later, expanded recension that added explanatory material, harmonizations with other books, and the Jer 33:14–26 Branch prophecy. Both editions were in circulation at Qumran. This means Jeremiah had an “editorial history” — the book grew over time as later scribes added material under prophetic authority. This is not unique: Proverbs, Ezekiel, and parts of Samuel also show evidence of multiple editions. The theological substance is essentially the same across both versions; what differs is length, order, and the presence of certain individual passages.

Strengths

Supported by the Dead Sea Scroll evidence (Hebrew manuscripts of the shorter edition predate Christianity). Explains the data comprehensively — the LXX’s differences aren’t translator choices but reflect a different Hebrew source. Honest about the complexity of textual transmission.

Weaknesses

Unsettling for those who hold strict views of verbal inspiration applied to a single edition. Raises the question: if both editions are “inspired,” what does inspiration mean? The Jer 33:14–26 Branch prophecy is theologically important for Christians and its absence from the LXX is uncomfortable.

Further Reading

  • Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Fortress, 3rd ed., 2012), ch. 7 — the standard academic reference
  • J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (Harvard, 1973) — the foundational English-language study
  • Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Eerdmans, 1999)
  • Jack Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20 (Anchor Yale, 1999), introduction — excellent overview for preachers

Dual Inspired Editions (Canonical Both)

Summary: Both editions are authentic and inspired; Jeremiah himself or his scribe Baruch may have produced two versions of the material.

Some scholars (Bruce Waltke, Andrew Shead, some Catholic and Orthodox commentators) argue that the two editions are both genuine prophetic texts — perhaps produced by Jeremiah or Baruch at different times and for different audiences. Jeremiah 36 describes the prophet dictating his scroll to Baruch, Jehoiakim burning it, and Jeremiah producing a second, longer version. This editorial activity in Jeremiah’s own lifetime opens the possibility that multiple authorized editions circulated from the beginning. The Qumran discovery of both versions existing side by side (without any marginal note flagging the difference) suggests the ancient community accepted both as authoritative. The Eastern Orthodox tradition has historically treated the LXX as Scripture, which means Orthodox Christians have always used a Jeremiah different from Protestants.

Strengths

Takes Jeremiah 36 seriously as evidence of multiple editions in the prophet’s lifetime. Honors the Eastern Orthodox tradition, which has always used the LXX. Avoids claiming one edition is “right” and the other “wrong.”

Weaknesses

Doesn’t explain why the LXX systematically lacks so much material if both are original. The hypothesis requires Jeremiah or Baruch to have produced two versions that happen to match exactly the pattern of expansion we’d expect from later editorial activity. Strains credibility for some.

Further Reading

  • Andrew Shead, The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its Hebrew and Greek Recensions (Sheffield, 2002)
  • Bruce Waltke, “Aims of OT Textual Criticism,” WTJ 51 (1989): 93–108
  • The Orthodox Study Bible (Thomas Nelson, 2008) — uses the LXX as its Old Testament base
  • Timothy Law, When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (Oxford, 2013) — essential for understanding the LXX’s role in early Christianity

Masoretic Priority (Traditional Protestant)

Summary: The longer Masoretic Text preserves the original fuller form; the LXX translators or their Hebrew source was defective or abbreviated.

The traditional Protestant position (reflected in most English translations) holds that the MT is the primary Hebrew witness and the LXX’s shorter form represents either translator abbreviation or a defective Hebrew manuscript. The MT has been preserved with extraordinary care by the Masoretes for over a thousand years; the LXX is a translation with many interpretive liberties elsewhere (e.g., in Proverbs, Job). Where the two differ, the Hebrew should generally be preferred unless strong contrary evidence exists. The Qumran fragments supporting the LXX are acknowledged but understood as variant Hebrew manuscripts that didn’t become the standard. The canonical text for the church is the one that the Jewish community preserved and the Reformers received.

Strengths

Honors the Masoretes’ extraordinary preservation work. Consistent with most Protestant doctrinal statements about the Hebrew text. Simpler for preaching and teaching. Protects theologically important passages like Jer 33:14–26.

Weaknesses

Doesn’t adequately account for the Qumran Hebrew evidence supporting the LXX form. “The translator abbreviated” is increasingly implausible given 4QJer^b. Can feel like special pleading in light of the manuscript evidence. Ignores how ancient texts actually developed.

Further Reading

  • F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (IVP, 1988) — classic evangelical treatment
  • Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Eerdmans, 1985)
  • Daniel Block, “Text Criticism” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (IVP, 2003)

Pastoral / “So What?” Reading

Summary: The two-Jeremiahs situation teaches us something important about how God works through Scripture — namely, that God’s Word has come to us through human, historical, and editorial processes, and remains God’s Word through all of it.

Many pastoral theologians (John Goldingay, Peter Enns, Timothy Law) argue that the Jeremiah situation is a gift, not a problem. It forces us to abandon wooden theories of inspiration and to embrace a richer, more incarnational understanding: the Bible is fully divine and fully human, with real editorial history, real manuscript variations, and real theological development — and still God’s Word. The church lived for centuries with the LXX as its primary Old Testament (including in the New Testament itself, which quotes the LXX far more than the MT). The differences between LXX and MT Jeremiah are mostly theological emphasis, not contradictory doctrine. Preaching this honestly builds mature faith that can handle the Bible we actually have, not an imaginary one.

Strengths

Pastorally honest. Invites congregations into adult engagement with Scripture. Historically grounded — this is how Scripture actually came to us. Consistent with incarnational theology.

Weaknesses

Can feel destabilizing to congregants raised on simpler accounts of biblical inspiration. Requires careful teaching to avoid “if this is unstable, is anything stable?” anxieties. Not every congregation is ready for this conversation.

Further Reading

  • Timothy Law, When God Spoke Greek (Oxford, 2013) — accessible, essential
  • John Goldingay, Models for Scripture (Eerdmans, 1994)
  • Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation (Baker Academic, 2nd ed., 2015)
  • Kenton Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words (Baker Academic, 2008)