Stephen was probably not a Samaritan

There is a claim out there that some of the odd things Stephen says in Acts 7 can be explained by him perhaps being a Samaritan or influenced by their traditions. While I found this idea interesting at first, I quickly came to realize that the specific pillars of the claim are faulty, and it has some major counter-evidence.

Stephen is Pro-David while the Samaritan Tradition is Anti-David. The way Stephen uses Psalm 132 even implies the location of David's Tabernacle not Solomon’s Temple is the true intended location of the Mishkan, not very compatible with the Samaritan Gerizim tradition. Stephen also quotes Prophets the Samaritans don’t recognize like Isaiah and Amos. 

The Samaritan Pentateuch reflects the Samaritan Custom of saying Shehmaa (The Name) instead of Adonai (The Lord) as their stand-in for the Tetragrammaton. Stephen in Acts 7 is definitely following the Jewish custom here, in verses 30-37, 49 and 59-60. 

Some of the things alleged to be explained by textual differences between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic Text, like saying 75 rather than 70 people went to Egypt, are just as easily explained by following the Septuagint which is what you’d expect from him being a leader in a Greek Speaking Jewish Community, but more than that so were his accusers which included Jews of Alexandria and Cyrene the specific communities most likely to be attached to the LXX. Stephen’s quote of Amos is another case of him using the LXX. 

As an enemy of LXX primacy and the popular claim that the NT consistently uses it I consider Stephen in Acts 7 the one case where the Septuagint likely is the source material being used.  I believe the overall message of Stephen’s sermon is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but since he’s not an Apostle I wouldn't treat as infallible specific details unique to him or his choice of text. 

Saying Terah died right before Abraham leaves Harran at 75 is not a conclusion you need the Samaritan Pentateuch to come to.  In fact if you aren’t stopping to do the math then it is in all versions the natural conclusion since Genesis describes Terah dying and then Abraham being called out of Harran. Now sometimes Genesis does describe things like this out of order, especially when changing which generation is now the Main Character, so this alone isn’t proof Stephen was right on this matter but it does show you can jump to this assumption no matter which text you’re using. 

The apparent contradiction caused by the math that only the SP lacks is easily resolved by remembering that Genesis 5:32 and 6:10 and 7:13 and 9:18 and 10:1 all list Noah’s sons as Shem, Ham and Japheth while the rest of Genesis 10 clearly treats Japheth as the oldest and explicitly says he is in verse 21. Sometimes the sons are named not in birth order but in an order that lists the one the overall Biblical Genealogy goes through first. So Abraham being listed first in Genesis 11:26-27 repeats that pattern, Nachor seems to be Terah’s first born since he and his descendants inherited Terah’s land in Harran. 

It’s Acts 7:16 that really seems to a casual observer very Samaritan.  Except that the Samaritan Pentateuch doesn’t actually disagree with the Masoretic text on either issue Stephen is alleged to be contradicting the Masoretic Text on. In the SP the first three Patriarchs are buried at Mamre in Kirjath-Arba aka Hebron and Jacob not Abraham bought a field near Shechem from Hamor/Emmor the father of Shechem/Sychem. We also saw in verses 8-9 that Stephen used the term Patriarch primarily of Jacob’s sons, not Jacob and his ancestors. And verse 15 explicitly distinguished the fathers who died in Egypt he’s talking about from Jacob.

Stephen is not directly saying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were buried in Shechem, the intent to me is clearly to refer to people who died in Egypt and were at first laid to rest there until the Exodus. The actual Hebrew Bible Texts only directly refers to Joseph having his body moved and buried at Shechem on the land bought from Hamor in Joshua 24:32, but it's reasonable to infer others were with him. 

Saying Abrahm bought the field from Emmor is not quite as easy to explain. It could be it was land Abraham intended to buy but it wasn’t carried out till Jacob.  Like how Elisha fulfilled some missions first given to Elijah like anointing Jehu and Hazael. We do know that Abraham had spent time in the area of Shechem in Genesis 12:6 where he did build an Altar.

People just assumed off vibes that saying something unusual about Shechem sounds Samaritan.  I do see some people word this as about Samaritan Traditions not the SP text itself, but whether or not such a tradition exists, it’s not the only way to come to Stephen’s conclusion. The Samaritan tradition is that all of Jacob’s sons were buried at Shechem, not just Joseph, no contradiction on where Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were buried. Stephen could be referring to that, or he could be referring to sons and grandsons of Joseph.  The only Shechem based Samaritan disagreement about events involving Abraham is wanting the location of Isaac’s offering in Genesis 22 to be Moreh rather than Moriah, that too involved no textual difference it seems just interpreting them to be the same name, and is irrelevant to anything in Acts 7.

Stephen also doesn't have to be a Samaritan to see himself as a descendent of specifically the Joseph Tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh. I do believe the Samaritans descend from Ephraim and Manasseh not the gentiles settled in the region by the Assyrians as I talked about in a prior post. But they aren’t the only descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, those who in 2 Chronicles 30 took part in Hezekiah’s Passover I believe became citizens of Judah and thus Jews. 

Another appeal to Samaritan tradition is the idea that God first called Abraham when he was still in Ur Kassidim.  Nothing in the actual Text of Genesis contradicts such a thing, I'm sure you can find plenty of purely Jewish fan fiction depicting God already calling Abraham at Ur Kassidim.  In fact the KJV reading of Genesis 12:1 says " now YHWH had said unto" implying now isn't when this was first said.

Hebrew Textual Variations

I have been a strong supporter of staying strictly Masoretic for the Hebrew text.  And I'm still against any changes that are supported only by the Septuagint.  But I've rethought a few things.

Number one would be differences that do not actually change a single letter, but just the vowel indicators that didn't come into existence till well after New Testament times (and thus can't be included in the Jot and Tittle reference).

This can explain why Acts 15:16 says Man/Mankind(Anthropos) where Amos 9:12 says Edom.  Edom and Adam are spelled the same in Hebrew but pronounced differently.  From that I've wondered if other apparent references to Edom could be the same, like Isaiah 34 which lacks any references to specific Edomite tribal or place names like Teman or Mt Sier.  (Ezekiel 35-36 however does refer to Mt Sier.)

And it seemingly was also merely a difference in vowel indicators that lead one now gone Interlinear Torah website I used to visit to say that Nimrod's name means Rebel in the Masoretic Text but Leopard in the Samaritan Pentateuch.  The spelling is the same, the difference is if it's Marad with an N prefix or Namer with a D suffix.  The Samaritan meaning makes sense in the immediate context of Nimrod being a hunter since Leopards are animals who hunt.  And contrary to what people who want to vilify Nimrod will tell you "Before The LORD" here is not an expression of hostility in the Hebrew, it's the same phrase used of many things done in worship of Yahuah elsewhere.  So no Nimrod isn't rebelling against anything here.  So it's interesting then that Jeremiah 13:23 poetically compares Cushites to Leopards.

But that leads me to the subject of variations that would require changing at least one letter, or more, since the Samaritan Pentateuch has plenty of those.  But it is a received text as well, not some random text found rotting somewhere like the Alexandrian Bibles.

Any Samaritan variation about Mt Gerizim I inherently don't trust, those were motivated by their peculiar reverence for that mountain. And in the case of Deuteronomy 27:4 there are reasons why even non Samaritans might be uncomfortable with placing the Law on Mount Ebal, the Mountain of the Curse, so no, one non Samaritan text agreeing with the Samaritan here doesn't impress me.  But for Christians Paulian Theology explains exactly why that was, meanwhile both Joshua 8:30-33 and Archaeology agree that Mount Ebal is where the Altar was constructed.

Some have suggested the Vulgate supports saying Moreh instead of Moriah in Genesis 22, but that's based on it translating the meaning rather then transliterating the name which really fits both names equally, in meaning Moriah is just Moreh made into a Yah theophoric name by the adding of one additional Yot. And in Genesis 12 Moreh is a plain not a mountain.

But for differences that aren't in any way connected to that issue, the possibility that the Samaritan could be closer to the original is worth considering.  But one thing I'll always be looking for is another witness to that alternate reading.

First off is the Chrono-Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11.  The Book of Jubilees agrees with the Samaritan on the Genesis 5 ages but not 11.  The Samaritan matches the Septuagint for Genesis 11 except that it doesn't have an additional Cainan/Kenen between Arphaxad and Selah (something I think Christian copyists added to the Septuagint) and has different dates for Terah having him die when Abraham is called at 75 therefore lacking a timeline confusion other versions have.  Someday I could make a whole post on just this issue.

Meanwhile in Genesis 10 what reads Dodanim in the Masoretic is Rodanim in the Samaritan.  However all texts of 1 Chronicles 1:7 read Rodanim here, and the Septuagint transliteration also begins with an R rather then a D.  Yet the KJV uses Dodanim in 1 Chronicles 1:7 even though there is no Hebrew or Greek textual support for that, and the Strongs just claims Rodanim is a scribal error.  I think it's possible the context of what Javan actually refereed to in antiquity fits this name referring to Rhodes better then any identity a spelling that begins with a D leads to.

I've also seen it claimed that the Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the Septuagint in saying Gog rather then Agag in Numbers 24:7.  Here is a website talking about that issue without firmly taking a side on it.
http://mydigitalseminary.com/gog-or-agag-jesus-or-david/
Now I can add that some have theorized Agag and Gog are basically different forms of the same name.  This is another subject that could become it's own post.  The Samaritans don't revere Ezekiel or any Prophetic books, so there is no reason for them to want to add Gog to a verse he wasn't originally in.  Meanwhile Ezekiel seems to say Gog is a figure already foretold elsewhere.

I may update this post to add more examples in the future.  For now these are the ones that have caught my attention.  None of them change any essential doctrine of Scripture, and are more relevant to my interests as a History Nerd.

Update: DSS(Dead Sea Scrolls) and the Isaiah Scroll.

I guess I should talk about DSS variants.  I talked in my Sethie View post about a DSS variant in the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) where the Samaritan sides with the Masoretic against the DSS variant.

The Samaritan is of course only relevant to the Pentateuch.  That now dead interlinear website I mentioned above compared Masoretic and Samaritan versions and included DSS readings when there were some, however there were not many from what I recall going over.

The Isaiah Scroll is the only complete book among the DSS manuscripts.  When it comes to talking about how much it agrees with the Masoretic text Wikipedia is the most unbiased discussion of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Scroll#Scribal_Profile_and_Textual_Variants

Now at first it may look like the statement that it mostly agrees with the Masoretic might seem contradicted by saying there were 2600 variations.  Isaiah is a big book, you could theoretically fit that many variations into one of the longer chapters.  Most of them are just stuff like different spellings of the same word or the words being in a different order in ways that do not effect the meaning at all.  A lot of them could just be the Isaiah Scroll using less Yots and Vavs then the Masoretic in places where the Masoretic used those letters as vowels.

There are other DSS fragments of Isaiah, and when it comes to these variations other DSS Isaiah texts tend to agree with the Masoretic over the Isaiah Scroll.    So it doesn't make much sense to use the Isaiah Scroll to invalidate the Masoretic text, yet people try to sometimes to fit various agendas.  Maybe the very reason the Isaiah Scroll is unique among DSS manuscripts of Canonical texts in being complete is because it was a variant non standard text?  But again the variations aren't even significant.

In Isaiah 34:14 the Masoretic Text uses the spelling Lilith but the Isaiah Scroll uses Liliyyoth. I don't know if there are any other DSS manuscripts of Isaiah 34:14 but the Lilith spelling is used in Songs of The Sage (4Q510–511).  The Wikipedia page for Lilith says the Masoretic Spelling is singular and the Isaiah Scroll spelling is plural, but elsewhere ending with a th at all is defined as inherently a feminine plural while the feminine singular is ending with a Heh.  The context of Lilith's reference in 4Q510-511 has everything else listed around Lilith being plural.  So I think the meaning is intended to be plural regardless of which spelling is the original.

An author named Margraret Barker has claimed that the Isaiah Scroll reading of Isaiah 7:11 says "Ask a sign from the Mother of the LORD your God".  Most scholars disagree with this reading of the Isaiah Scroll, and I myself am far from convinced of it.  But Barker popularized this claim to support a fringe theory of ancient Hebrew Goddess worship.  The idea that it could instead lend support to the Christian reading of Isaiah 7:14, that Immanuel is YHWH incarnate, and in turn Cyrillian Christianity's insistence on calling Mary Theotokos, isn't talked about much.

The Septuagint should not be trusted

We have lots of normal Christians using the Septuagint to make apologetic points.  We have people using the Septuagint rendering to support their particular interpretations of certain verses.  And we have some Christians (who clearly aren't KJV only) saying Christians should reject the Masoretic Text, that it was altered by "the Jews" after the NT was written to contradict Christianity.  Saying the Septuagint was what the New Testament authors and other early Christians used.

Claims are made that the DSS manuscripts often agree with the Septuagint over the Masoretic text.  This is highly misleading and mostly based on nothing more then that the DSS contains some of the Apocryphal books that were included in the Septuagint.  Which includes stuff written to be added to Daniel and Esther.  The Isaiah Scroll certainly matches the Masoretic text far more then the Septuagint.

I defend Almah meaning Virgin without appealing to the Septuagint at all.  In fact using the Septuagint to prove that is undermined by the fact that the Septuagint also used Parthenos of Dinah after she is raped in Genesis 34.  The Hebrew uses neither Almah or Bethulah in that chapter.

I'm going to quote from a Jewish website incorrectly asserting that Almah doesn't mean Virgin because of some important facts it points out about the Septuagint.

The original Septuagint, translated some 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish scholars, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone, and is no longer in our hands. It therefore did not contain the Books of the Prophets or Writings of the Hebrew Bible such as Isaiah, from which you asserted Matthew quoted. The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the Church, not the Jewish people. In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, which are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint.

Christians such as Origin and Lucian (third and fourth century C.E.) edited and shaped the Septuagint that missionaries use to advance their untenable arguments against Judaism. In essence, the present Septuagint is largely a post-second century Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by the Church throughout its history as an indispensable apologetic instrument to defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish Scriptures.

For example, in his preface to the Book of Chronicles, the Church father Jerome, who was the primary translator of the Vulgate, concedes that in his day there were at least three variant Greek translations of the Bible: the edition of the third century Christian theologian Origen, as well as the Egyptian recension of Hesychius and the Syrian recension of Lucian.1 In essence, there were numerous Greek renditions of the Jewish Scriptures which were revised and edited by Christian hands. All Septuagints in our hands are derived from the revisions of Hesychius, as well as the Christian theologians Origen and Lucian

Accordingly, the Jewish people never use the Septuagint in their worship or religious studies because it is recognized as a corrupt text.

The ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint, confirms that the original Septuagint translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago was of the Pentateuch alone, and not the Books of the Prophets such as Isaiah. The Talmud also states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews.2

Therefore, St. Jerome, a Church father and Bible translator who could hardly be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus’ statement regarding the authorship of theSeptuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions.3 Likewise, the Anchor Bible Dictionary reports precisely this point in the opening sentence of its article on the Septuagint which states, “The word ‘Septuagint,’ (from Lat. septuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 elders translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to those five books.”4

In fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, a preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes,

The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles.5

I btw believe Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic so certainly not quoting The Septuagint.

There are also quotes of the Septuagint version of the Torah in the Talmud that do not match the standard Septuagint texts we have today.

At any-rate it is wrong to claim that the Masoretic Hebrew text was written by the Rabbis, in fact they are Kariate texts, Kariate websites love to point out that the Hebrew Texts the Rabbis use today are based on Kariate preserved manuscripts.  Kariates can at times be just as hostile to Christianity as the Rabbis, but they are the Sola Sciprtura believers of the Jewish world, they revere The Word and would have preserved it accurately.  When it comes to respect for Scripture I certainly trust them more then the Eastern Orthodox Churches, or the Alexandrian Early Church Fathers.

The Holy Spirit sometimes works through unbelieving individuals, like Balaam.  So I have no trouble believing He used the Kariates to preserve the proper Hebrew TNAK.

There is no manuscript evidence of Caiman in Genesis 10 or 11 till after 220 AD and there are old LXX manuscript that explicitly lack this Cainan including Codex Vaticanus and Papyrus 75, and the standard Septuagint doesn't have him in 1 Chronicles.  Cainan's numbers are exactly the same as Selah's, no where else does the LXX version of Genesis 11 repeats the same numbers like that. That's further evidence Cainan was added later. 

Likewise Josephus and many Early Church Fathers who seem to be using the Septuagint as their source for this genealogy don't include the added Cainan either. He's also not in the Samaritan even though it mostly uses the same numbers as the LXX..

This shows me that Cainan was added by Christian copyists who thought it's absence from Genesis 11 was a problem for Luke 3.  But I believe the issue is that Luke's is a genealogy that is willing to sometimes go through Women, but always naming the male of that generation.  I think Cainan was an older brother (or brother in-law) of Selah and that Selah married Cainan's daughter. Uncle-Niece marriages are not prohibited in The Torah which came later anyway. 

Even though some will say Jubilees chapter 8 is included in the DSS manuscripts of Jubilees, I have found no list of every DSS manuscript of Jubilees that includes chapter fragments of chapter 8. Odd details of the Jubilees chronology like Peleg begetting a son at 12 could be a product of trying to add Cainan while keeping the totally passage of time changed due to the whole Jubilees premise.  But it's also possible Cainain was always there but how he related to Salah/Shelah was changed, reading Jubilees 8 carefully the idea that Salah was originally another son of Aprhaxad by a second wife is a plausible reading, it would fit the patter of many parts of 1 Chronicles 2-7. And Salah does marry the daughter of a Son of Arphaxad, it's possibly that was originally Cainan rather then Kesed.

Demetrius the Chronographer is someone whose writing we don't have directly, the claim that he's a witness to Caiman being included is therefor dubious. In fact he is considered one of the sources Josephus uses so the lack of the second Cainan in Josephus is evidence he wasn't originally in Demetrius either. And our quotes of Demetrius don't Cainan by name, just the fact that he appears to give the same total timeframe from the Flood to Abraham as the versions of the LXX that include Cainan. It could be there was some other difference in his version which coincidentally the same total, it could simple matter of one name having an extra 100 years and another an extra 30 years, discrepancies like those are not unpremeditated in the known textual variations. It could be that total simply seen a symbolic number one would want to give that timeframe. 

People will also cite examples of Abraham being called the 10th generation after the Flood as witnesses to Cainan's inclusion. Abraham is the 10th Generation in both the Masoretic and Samaritan versions of the Genesis 11 genealogy because it starts with Shem not Noah or Arphaxad. Shem may have been born before the Flood but he still lived most of his life after it unlike Noah. When a generation is identified with the Flood it's Noah not Shem. Shem counts as a Post-Flood Generation. Genesis 6:9 says "these are the Generations of Noah" as it's chapter heading for the Flood narrative and then in Genesis 10 "these are the generations of the Sons of Noah" when it becomes truly talking about post Flood history. I believe this "generations of" phrase in Genesis are an example of the grammatical plural form being an emphasis not literal plurality like "Adam" being technically plural in Genesis 1, I would translate the phrase "This is the Generation of".  If you compare Shem's lifespan to modern life expectancies, how old he was during the Flood basically makes him an adolescent, as a Millennial who was an Adolescent when 9/11 happened I cna assure you we think of ourself as a Post-9/11 Generation. 

The main reason the New Testament often seems to match the Septuagint is because Christian copyists conformed the Septuagint to match the New Testament references.  

As for why they may seem to not match the Hebrew, I think many NT quotations of the OT were not meant to be exact word for word quotes.  If Deuteronomy can express The Ten Commandments differently then Exodus then I certainly have no problem with Jesus expressing things a bit differently during his ministry.  Jesus own quotes were expressed differently at different times He said them (and thus recorded differently in different Gospels).

And these people making a big deal out of where the Septuagint seems to match the NT ignore places where it doesn't.  

Like the spelling used for Solomon, Solomon is the spelling Luke used, no NT spelling puts an Alpha in there.  But the Septuagint spells it Salomon.  Not only does the NT disagree with the LXX but it explicitly agrees with the Masoretic, the Masoretic vowel indicators tell us Solomon's vowels are all Os, there are other names in The Hebrew Bible that are basically the same consonants but with an A between the S and L, they refer to different people and one is also in the genealogy of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke.

Also the Septuagint never uses the same word for Comforter that the Fourth Gospel and it's corresponding Epistles used.

The Septuagint "translates" Tarshish as Carthage, which is clearly wrong, Carthage didn't exist yet in Solomon's day and was a Canaanite/Sidonian colony in Phut's territory, not Japhethite.

Also I couldn't even find in the Septuagint the Elam Prophecy of Jeremiah 49.

Also the Septuagint numbers for Genesis 5 fail to match the meaning of Methuselah's name (his Death shall Bring) by having him die the same year as The Flood like other versions do.

The standard texts we have of the Septuagint are in the exact same Manuscripts as the Alexandrian Bibles used by modern Scholars to justify all kinds of mutilations to the New Testament.

Update November 2018: And further arguments against the Septuagint are my arguments against the Deutercanonical Books, since the LXX adds those to the Canon.  Particularly the section I just added proving the Earliest Christians didn't view them as Canon.

Update May 20th 2019: Here is a more recent Article on the Subject at least in regards to Genesis 5 and 11.
 https://creation.com/lxx-mt-response

I have become more willing to accept alternate reading to the Masroetic then I used to be.  But there has to be an existing Hebrew text for that reading, or at least Semitic. I'll never support a change based on the Septuagint alone.

Update March 2023: Stephen's Speech is the exception, because the groups he disputed included Alexandrians he used The Text they prefer. Stephen is important as The First Martyr but he was not an Apostle so it's be iffy to build doctrine any details unique to Stephen. 

Update October 2023: Further conflict between the New Testament and the Septuagint is the use of the Greek word Baptizos/Baptismos.  Mark 7:4-8, Luke 11:38 and Hebrews 9:10 confirm that these words should also be associated with cleansing rituals involving water in The Torah, that they should be used to translate the Hebrew word Rachats and maybe also Kabac, but in fact the LXX of the Pentateuch doesn't use Baptize or Baptismos at all.  The related Bapto is used to translate Tabal in verses associated with Dipping things in Blood which isn't wrong the NT also used Bapto that way.  But the New Testament authors clearly saw Baptismos in Torah passages like Exodus 29:4, 30:18-21 and Leviticus 15

Update December 10th 2024: I recently watched this Video and learned I gave the pro LXX position more credit then it ever deserved. Now for a disclaimer this speaker expressed early on a couple Conservative Political opinions I disagree with, but that's not the main point of the presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1mi_RcSLQ8&t

The most important revelation is that "as it is written" is an expression never meant to inherently refer to a direct Word for Word quotation.

Update January 16th 2025: Here's another lecture, again with allusions to Politics I disagree with mainly in the adds for other lectures.

https://youtu.be/fB5izBva3Xc

Update April 2026: I have a few more things to add.

I'm sick of the debate about exactly when the 430 years of Exodus 12:40-41 should begin being framed as a Septuagint vs Masoretic issue. Every version of each verse mentioning this timeframe leaves room for interpretation.

The textual different between the Masoretic and LXX versions of those verses is only adding an "and the land of Chanaan".

Nothing in what Paul says in Galatians 3:16-17 is him quoting the Septuagint version, he makes no mention of "the land of Chanaan".

People going off only the Masoretic of KJV reading like Bishop James Ussher started the 430 years with Abraham in Genesis 12 because Abraham also traveled to Egypt then. 

But what everyone thinking Galatians is definitely starting it then are missing is that Galatians 3:16 refers to the multiple times God gave his promises to the Patriarchs. 

The point Paul is making in context is not an exact chronology but the fact that the Law of Moses is much younger then the promises to the Patriarchs. So I feel he is saying at least 430 years from the last time God made any Promise to any Genesis Patriarch (which I could argue is what Joseph says Prophetically right before dying in Genesis 50:24-25) till The Exodus.  So it's really ironic how many people now want to use these verses to shorten the timeframe between Abraham and Moses. 

While I believe this additional part of the verse in the LXX is an addition, perhaps originally marginal note that got confused with the text itself I don't think it was added for the purpose of starting the 430 years with Abraham.  It might have been because they knew about 1 Chronicles 7:24.  

So even if the LXX reading were the original, I would still not see it as starting the 430 years with Abraham. Egypt did no doubt control the land of Canaan at many points during this 430 years no matter when on the Biblical timeline you start it.  I think it's an oversimplification to assume no Israelites ever spent any time in the land of Canaan between the Death of Joseph and The Exodus. The Egyptians had copper Mines in Southern Canaan they no doubt used their slaves in for example.

Genesis 15:13 is the death nail for the shorter interpretation. The 400 years is being referred to as even it's start still well in the future, and as being entirely a time of affliction, in both the Masoretic and LXX versions. Stephen in Acts 7:6 says the same, if anything this might be the one time Stephen is closer to the Masoretic then the LXX in exact language. 

There are reasons I'd like to be able to start the 430 years with Abraham, but someone will have to offer an explanation of Genesis 15:13. 

Returning to the point of much of the LXX being more Targum like in intent and the NT likewise often paraphrasing and not making exact quotes.  Some similarities between what the NT and LXX does here can easily be a coincidence. 

Like James in Acts 12 quoting Amos 9:12 but saying Mankind instead of Edom as a play on how Edom and Adam are spelled the same in Hebrew. It's a natural choice to make if you want to take this originally more local in scope Prophecy but make it grander in application.

Some people, particularly KJV onlyists, do Strawman themselves denouncing the LXX. No the LXX was not created whole cloth by Origen, he just played an important role in how it reached it's final form. 

KJV onlyists are often the strongest critics of the LXX, because they are in willing ignorance of how some of the KJV's mistakes are lingering LXX influence. A good example is Genesis 10:11-12.  That verse reads how it does in the KJV because of bad decisions made in the Septuagint. A good direct English Translation of the Masoretic Text of that verse would be it's YLT version, which is a lot more clear and less confusing. 

Update April 21st 2026: I also recently learned how two of the four words the LXX uses for Kippur and Kaphar are not used in The New Testament including the by far most popular one.  The New Testament prefers to refer to the concept of Atonement with words that mean Reconciliation which is in my view and I'd assume most Jews a much better translation of Kapahr and Kippur. 

Update May 5th 2026: Not every discrepancy between the LXX and how we're used to reading certain Hebrew Bible passages is a completely inconceivable translation of the Masoretic Text. I already talked about the Almah=Virgin issue.

Some other differences could merely by different interpretations of what Vowel(s) a given Hebrew word has in a certain verse.

Ragau as a transliteration of Reu happens because of hard to explain linguistic regarding the pronunciation of the Hebrew letter Ayin.  It's not even that the name was ever spelled different in Hebrew.

Reading "High Oak" instead of "Plain of Moreh" is a valid interpretation of what the Masoretic says. And may even be correct at least on the Oak rather then Plain part, there are Hebrew words for Plain. We know for example that Mamre had until 1996 an Oak Tree that was 5000 years old traditionally identified with the LXX Oak of Mamre where the KJV says Plain. 

My view on this issue has become more nuanced then it was when I first wrote this. I am willing to consider some LXX readings possibly correct IF there is other precedent for it, especially Semitic precedent like the DSS manuscripts, Samaritan Pentateuch or the Peshita (Targums could be worth considering but remember they are paraphrases not claiming to be direct translations). Like reading Rodanim instead of Dodanim for one of the sons of Javan, or Numbers 24:7 saying Gog instead of Agag.

But in some cases those other witnesses side with the Masoretic over the LXX. Like interpreting Rosh in Ezekiel 38 as a word for Chief or Head not a proper Name.  And the "children of Israel' over 'Angels of God" reading of Deuteronomy 32:8.

I'm undecided on the over all numbers for Genesis 5 and 11, but am solid in my belief that Cainan is not originally part of Genesis 11.  The real Genesis 11 dispute to me is Samaritan vs Masoretic, with the LXX merely being a pro Samaritan witness on the over all longer number but pro Masoretic on the matter of how long Terah lived where the Samaritan was clearly seeking to resolve an apparent contradiction.

What I am against are Septuagint Cultists who want to change traditional readings based on no evidence but an LXX reading while spreading Antisemitic Conspiracy theories about the Masoretic Text.

Update May 9th 2026: Hebrew 11:17 tells me that Monogene should be the Greek word used to translate Yachid in Genesis 22.

Update May 13th 2026: Nahor ben Reu

Nahor's numbers are different in all three versions of Genesis 11:24-25. But in the Masoretic and Samaritan he winds up with the same total, 148, which is pretty a big argument against the LXX version being the original for those verses, which ever Hebrew version made the change felt compelled to keep the total the same. The LXX has Nahor begetting Terah at the same age the SP does 79 which suggesting it was using a source resembling the Samaritan but felt Nahor dying so soon was a problem since the LXX agree with the Masoretic lifespan for Terah so they inflated Nahor to 208. 

Genesis 5 observations.

For Genesis 5, or specifically the first 7 generations Adam through Enoch, every difference for the begetting years is a matter of either adding of subtracting exactly 100, (though Adam and Seth remain the same in all version so it's really Cainan-Enoch).  This suggests the Masoretic is the original for those 7 generations preciously because it looks less consistent, some copier felt the ages at which they had their kids should be more consistent.  

Update May 16th 2026: Matthew

When it comes to Matthew, I believe that text was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic so agreements between Greek Matthew and LXX could be the result of the LXX influencing whoever translated Matthew. 

But I already talked about the Almah issue and I likewise do believe what Ketos/Cetos/Cetus meant to the Ancient Greeks was fluid enough to be a valid interpretation of the Masoretic text of Jonah.