THE HEBREW MASORETIC TEXT....OR THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT...WHICH IS FROM GOD?

"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Rom. 3:1-2)

According to the Bible, the Hebrews were given charge of keeping and copying God's word. The word "oracle" means revelation, prophecy, canon, or edict. It was unto the Jew, that the Old Testament revelation and canon were committed. This is why twice in the Old Testament they were instructed not to add to or take from the word of God:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deut. 4:2).

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Prov. 30:6).

MAKING SURE THE COMMANDMENTS WERE OBEYED WHEN COPYING THE MANUSCRIPTS

The faithful Hebrew scribe took this task very seriously. Precise steps were taken by the scribes in preparing both the parchment upon which they wrote, and in preparing themselves in order to copy God's Holy word. According to the Hebrew Talmud, the rules of the scribe consisted of the following:

• 1). The skins of the parchments had to be prepared in a special way and dedicated to God so that they would be clean in order to have God's words written on them.
• 2). The ink which was used was black and made in accordance to a special recipe used only for writing scripture.
• 3). The words written could not be duplicated by memory but must be reproduced from an authentic copy which the scribe had before him. And, the scribe had to say each word aloud when he wrote them.
• 4). Each time the scribe came across the Hebrew word for God, he had to wipe his pen clean. And when he came across the name of God, Jehovah (YHWH), he had to wash his whole body before he could write it.
• 5). If a sheet of parchment had one mistake on it, the sheet was condemned. If there were three mistakes found on any page, the whole manuscript was condemned. Each scroll had to be checked within thirty days of its writing, or it was considered unholy.
• 6). Every word and every letter was counted. If a letter or word were omitted, the manuscript was condemned.
• 7). There were explicit rules for how many letters and words allowed on any given parchment. A column must have at least 48 lines and no more than 60. Letters and words had to be spaced at a certain distance and no word could touch another.

CONFIRMING TESTIMONY TO THE METICULOUSNESS IN THE COPYING OF THE JEWISH BIBLE

Commenting on these rules, Dr. H.S. Miller writes, "Some of these rules may appear extreme and absurd, yet they show how sacred the Holy Word of the Old Testament was to its custodians, the Jews (Rom. 3:2), and they gave us strong encouragement to believe that we have the real Old Testament, the same on which our Lord had and which was originally given by inspiration of God" (General Biblical Introduction, p. 185).

In his book, The Text of the Old Testament, Dr. Ernst Wurthwein writes, "This was the purpose of the scribes' meticulous work. They counted the verses, words, and letters of the Law and other parts of the Scriptures as a procedural aid in preparing manuscripts and in checking their accuracy." (Eerdmans Publishing, 1979, p. 19).

The Jewish historian Josephus (37-95 AD) comments on the preciseness of the Jewish scribes and their faithfulness in copying the Old Testament scriptures. "...for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them." (Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8). Some have taken Josephus' statement to mean the contents of the Old Testament. Other have understood it to mean the canon of the Old Testament. Either way, his statement affirms the sacredness the Hebrews have for Holy Scripture.

WHAT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS TAUGHT US...THAT WE HAD WRONG

For years it had been thought that the Bible which Christ used was the Greek Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The common thought was that the Jews at the time of Christ had all but lost their use of Hebrew. Since the international language of that day was Greek, the hypothesis was that Christ did not use the Hebrew scriptures, but read from the Greek LXX. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls it has been established that the Jews did not lose there use of Hebrew. In fact, most of their writings (both sacred and otherwise) were written in Hebrew.

Alan Millard has written the following about the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and their relation to ancient languages. "Aramaic, Greek, Latin... was Hebrew spoken too? For years scholars believed not, or that it was restricted to religious circles, synagogue readings and prayers, and the Temple. Counting in favor of a wider knowledge is the presence of Hebrew inscriptions on the other side of Hasmonean coins. That might mean no more than Latin legends on coins of recent times--a grand style which the educated could understand. However, recent discoveries have thrown new light on the question. Books in a style of Hebrew imitating the Old Testament yet distinct from it, and some in Hebrew more like that of the Mishnah make up a larger section of the Dead Sea Scrolls" (Discoveries From the Time of Jesus, Lion Pub., Oxford; p. 35. Professor Millard has served with the British Museum in the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities and is Rankin Reader in Hebrew and Ancient Semitic languages at the University of Liverpool).

WHICH OLD TESTAMENT DID JESUS READ...THE JEWISH ONE OR THE ONE WE HAVE TODAY AS CHRISTIANS WHICH CAME FROM THE GREEK?

This discovery confirms what we find in the Gospels concerning the Hebrew Old Testament used by Jesus. In Matthew, Jesus proclaims; "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:18). It is interesting that he used the words "jot" and "tittle." In the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Dr. Homer Kent of Grace Theological Seminary writes, "Jot. Smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet (yodh). Tittle. Tiny projection on certain Hebrew letters." (p.937). The smallest part of the letters Jesus used to describe the fact that the law would not pass until all was fulfilled, were Hebrew. This would be odd if Jesus were reading from a Greek Old Testament.

Further, Jesus says in Luke 11:51; "From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.". This statement attests that Jesus used the Hebrew canon of scripture and not the Greek translation which was available in his day. The order of books found in our Old Testament run from Genesis to Malachi. The Greek LXX has the same order but adds additional books (the Apocrypha). The Hebrew canon, while containing the same books as our Old Testament, places the order of the books differently. The Hebrew Bible runs from Genesis to 2 Chronicles with the minor prophets in the middle and not the end as in our Old Testament. We know that Abel was killed by his brother according to Genesis 4:8. Zacharias was killed in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. Thus showing the first and last to die according to the Jewish Bible. Dr. Merrill Tenney agrees by simply stating, "Able was the first martyr of the OT history. Zacharias was the last, according to the order of books in the Hebrew Bible, which, unlike the English Bible, ends with Chronicles." (Ibid. p.1049). With these things in mind, we can safely say the Bible of Jesus was a Hebrew Bible.

THE MASORETIC TEXT:

The Masoretic Text is the traditional Hebrew Old Testament text of both Judaism and Protestantism (The Catholic Church, historically, used the Latin translation of Jerome based on the Greek LXX). Masoretic comes from the word "Masora" which usually refers to the notes printed beside the Hebrew text by Jewish scribes and scholars.

Until recently, the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament dated from the ninth century and onward. These Hebrew manuscripts of the middle ages are in general agreement with each other. The Biblia Hebraica by Kittel is the basic Hebrew Old Testament used by scholars and translators and is based on the Masoretic Text from this time period. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew Scriptures and manuscripts which date from around 168 BC to about 68 AD were discovered which predate the previously known most ancinet extant Hebrew Scriptures known to mankind. Here we now have Hebrew manuscripts which outdate the previous middle age Hebrew manuscripts by about 1,000 years. What is interesting to the student of textual criticism and the believer in Biblical preservation, is the fact that a large number of the DSS agree with the Masoretic Text and against the Septuagint reading! Although there are some manuscripts within the findings of the DSS which agree with the LXX and also reflect a differing Hebrew Text with a number of variants, the fact remains that we now have manuscripts dating from the time of Jesus or before which agree with the Masoretic Text. This give additional credence to the preciseness and integrity of the Hebrew scribes in their accuracy of reproducing the manuscripts throughout the ages. And, most importantly, it shows the preservation of the Old Testament Text in Hebrew is preserved by God in the Jewish faith.

Dr. Emanuel Tov of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the editors of the DSS writes: "Of similar importance are the new data about the context of the biblical scrolls, since different texts are recognizable [this is explained when one understands the evolution of the Essene sect and their evolving religious beliefs from fundamental Judaism in 170 B.C. E. to Pythagorean-Buddhist apocalypticism in pre 70 A.D.]. Some texts reflect precisely the consonantal framework of the medieval MT (Masoretic Text). Others reflect the basic framework of the MT, although their spelling is different. Still others differ in many details from the MT, while agreeing with the Septuagint or Samaritan Pentateuch. Some texts do not agree with any previously known text at all, and should be considered independent textual traditions. Thus, the textual picture presented by the Qumran scrolls represents a textual variety that was probably typical for the period." (The Oxford Companion to the Bible edited by Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, 1993; p.160)

Norman Geisler and William Nix attest to most of the DSS reflecting the Masoretic Text. In their book, A General Introduction to the Bible, they write, "The (Dead Sea) scrolls give an overwhelming confirmation of the fidelity of the Masoretic text." (p. 261). They go on to cite Millar Burrows' work, "The Dead Sea Scrolls," "It is a matter of wonder, " states Burrows, "that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on the scroll, 'Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.'" (Ibid.). Ernst Wurthwein cites R. de Vaux as saying, "The script is more developed, the Biblical text is definitely that of the Masora, and it must be concluded from this that the documents from Qumran (i.e. DSS) are older, earlier than the second century [B.C.E.]" (Wurthwein, p. 31). Concerning the scrolls of Isaiah found in Cave 1 at Qumran, Wurthwein writes, "The scrolls (1QIsa. a.) has a popular type text which supports (the Masoretic Text) essentially, but which also offers a great number of variants. . .A second Isaiah manuscripts (1QIsa. b.) is fragmentary, but stands much closer to the Masoretic text." (Ibid. p. 32).

Additional manuscripts have also been found which support the Masoretic Text. Again Wurthwein informs us of the following: "Also important are the remains of fourteen scrolls with Biblical texts from the period before AD 73, discovered while excavating the rock fortress of Masada in the Judean desert in 1963-1965. These agree extensively with the traditional Biblical texts--only in the text of Ezekiel are there a few insignificant variants." (Ibid. p. 31). To these we can also add the Geniza Fragments which date from the fifth century AD. These manuscripts were discovered in 1890 at Cairo, Egypt. They were located in a type of storage room for worn or faulty manuscripts, which was called the Geniza. The fragments number around 200,000 and reflect Biblical texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. The Biblical texts discovered support the Masoretic Text.

In one sense, the Masoretic Text may be thought of as the Textus Receptus of the Old Testament. In fact, some scholars have referred to it as such. Like the Textus Receptus of the New Testament, the Masoretic Text is based on the majority of manuscripts and reflects the traditional text used. Although there are differences found in some Masoretic Texts, these differences are minor and usually deal with, orthography, vowel points, accents, and divisions of the text. In 1524/25, Daniel Bomberg published an edition of the Masoretic Text based on the tradition of Jacob ben Chayyim. Jacob ben Chayyim was a Jewish refugee who later became a Christian. It was his text which was used by the translators of the King James Bible for their work in the Old Testament, and it was the basis of Kittel's first two editions of his Hebrew text. Wurthwein notes that the text of ben Chayyim, "enjoyed an almost canonical authority up to our own time." (Ibid. p. 37).

For about six generations the Masoretic Text was reproduced by the ben Asher family. Moses ben Asher produced a text in 895 AD known as Codex Cairensis containing the writing of the Prophets. Codex Leningradensis dates to 1008 AD and was based on the work of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher, the son of Moses ben Asher. This Codex is the oldest manuscript containing the complete Bible. Some of the differences found within this family of manuscripts are the basis of Kittel's third edition of his Biblia Hebraica and has been used by scholars in producing modern translations of the Bible, such as the New International Version (1978), the New King James Version (1982), and the New Revised Standard Version (1989).

For the most part, scholarship agrees that the Masoretic Text became the standard authorized Hebrew text around 100 AD in connection with the completion of the New Testament.

Thus we see that the Masoretic Text existed prior to the writings of the New Testament, was used as the official Hebrew Old Testament at the time of the establishing of the Biblical canon, and has been used since as the official representation of the Hebrew originals

THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT:

The most noted Old Testament translated into Greek is the Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The conventional thought is that the LXX was translated from the Hebrew text by Hellenistic Jews during the period from 275 to 100 BC at Alexandria, Egypt. This has been proven legend today! And, as pointed out by scholars such as Ralph W. Klein, the LXX used a differing Hebrew text and not that of the Masoretic Text type, as reflected in some of the finding among the DSS. The LXX was used by Jerome in producing his Old Testament of the Latin Vulgate used by the Roman Catholic Church, and the LXX remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church. This accounts for the additional books found in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches known as the Apocrypha, because they are contained in the text of the LXX.

The association of the Latin numbers LXX (meaning 70) with the Septuagint comes from the legend concerning the origin of this Greek translation. According to the Letter of Aristeas seventy Jewish scholars were chosen to translate the Law of Moses into Greek so that it could be added to the great library of Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria, Egypt. The letter states that the High Priest in Jerusalem sent 72 scholars to the Egyptian king. The High Priest writes, "In the presence of all the people I selected six elders from each tribe, good men and true, and I have sent them to you with a copy of our law. It will be a kindness, O righteous king, if you will give instruction that as soon as the translation of the law is completed, the men shall be restored again to us in safety." (Letter of Aristeas 2:34-35). Thus six scholars from the twelve tribes number seventy-two (it is to be assumed that the 70 is merely a rounding off of the 72).

One wide-spread myth concerning the LXX is an old story which states that the translators worked on their translation alone and compared their work each morning, only to find that each had translated the passage exactly the same. This, of course, has no historical foundation and some have falsely applied this story to the translators of the King James Bible. However, stories such as this one caused some to claim inspiration for the LXX.

Dr. Karlfried Froehlich notes this and writes, "Inspiration was also claimed for the Greek translation of the 'Seventy', which was endorsed by Alexandrian Jewish authorities. In Christian eyes, the legend of the Septuagint's miraculous origin, first told in the Letter of Aristeas, then elaborated by Philo, and further embellished by Christian authors such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, and Augustine, even rendered the Septuagint superior to the Hebrew original." (The Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 310).

Answer for yourself: Since when does "legend" render a fraud as superior a document which, upon comparison with the source document (the Jewish Palestinian text) be shown to contain hundreds of purposeful mistranslations for theological purposes?

Even if the story given in the Letter of Aristeas were true, the Greek translation deals only with the first five books of the Old Testament. Most scholars note that there are differences in style and quality of translation within the LXX and assign a much greater time frame than the seventy-two days allotted in the Letter of Aristeas. In his book, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran, Ralph Klein notes, "the Letter of Aristeas is riddled with many historical improbabilities and errors. . .And yet, however legendary and improbable the details, many still believe that some accurate historical facts about the LXX can be distilled from Aristeas: (1) the translation began in the third century BC; (2) Egypt was the place of origin; and (3) the Pentateuch was done first." (p. 2).

Dr. F. F. Bruce correctly points out that, strictly speaking, the LXX deals only with the Law 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." (The Books and the Parchments, p.150). This is important to note because the manuscripts which consist of our LXX today date to the third century AD. Although there are fragments which pre-date Christianity and some of the Hebrew DSS agree with the LXX, the majority of manuscripts we have of the LXX date well into the Christian era. And, not all of these agree.

The most noted copy of the LXX is that found in the Hexapla by Origen. Origen produced an Old Testament with six translations paralleled together, called the Hexapla which means sixfold. The fifth column was the LXX. (The columns of the Hexapla were as follows: 1. The Hebrew text. 2. The Hebrew transliterated into Greek. 3. The Greek translation of Aquila. 4. The Greek translation of Symmachus. 5. The LXX. 6. The Greek translation of Theodotion.) However, we do not have Origen's Hexapla (with the exception of a few limited fragments). Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote, "A considerable number of MSS. exist which give information as to Origen's Hexaplaric text and particular passages in the other columns, but these do not go far towards enabling us to recover the LXX text as it existed before Origen; and this remains the greatest problem which confronts the textual student of the Septuagint. Until we can do that, we are not in a position fully to utilize the evidence of the Greek for the recovery of the pre-Masoretic Hebrew." (The Text of the Greek Bible, p.35). In other words, we cannot fully reconstruct Origen's fifth column, let alone a pre-Origenian Septuagint.

Origen's LXX was revised and edited by two of his disciples, Pamphilus and Eusebius. There were additional Greek translations of the Old Testament during this time which were also contained in the Hexapla, such as the work by Aquila and Theodotion. Some scholars believe that the translation produced by Theodotion replaced the LXX in the book of Daniel so that the readings there are really that of Theodotion and not of the LXX. However, others have claimed that this is not the case. Therefore, concerning Origen's Hexapla and the LXX the best scholars can say is that cited by Ernst Wurthwein, "Although no authentic manuscript of the Hexaplaric Septuagint has survived, there are manuscripts which represent the text of Origen more or less closely." (The Text of the Old Testament, p.57). Two such manuscripts which represent the text of Origen are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

THE LXX AND THE KJV TRANSLATORS

It is interesting to note in our study of manuscript evidence and the King James Bible, how the translators of the KJV viewed the LXX. This Greek work did not go unnoticed by these men as can be seen in the original preface to the KJV written by Dr. Miles Smith. The following are a few paragraphs from the KJV preface for the student to consider. Afterwards, comments will be made.

1) "Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews. For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known. (Epiphan. de mensur. et ponderibus.) These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen."

2) "Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit (Isa 31:3); so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmed as much) (S. Jerome. de optimo genere interpret.) that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament."

3) "Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like graadventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. . The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would able, it did express. . .The like we are to think of Translations. The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, . . .To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred years, were of another mind: for they were so far from treading under foot, (much more from burning) the Translation of Aquila a Proselyte, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretics, that they joined together with the Hebrew Original, and the Translation of the Seventy (as hath been before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all. But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already."

In the first paragraph we find that the KJV translators attest to Origen's Hexapla and early Greek translations of the Old Testament which post-date the birth of Christianity. These translations, along with the LXX, paralleled in the Hexapla.

The second paragraph shows that the KJV translators saw some of the limitations of the LXX. They recognized that the LXX was produced by Interpreters and not by inspired Prophets. Although the LXX translates many things well, it also failed many times and departed from the original Hebrew (i.e. Masoretic Text). Sometimes the LXX adds to the Hebrew, and at other times it omits. Which, according the KJV translators, made the New Testament writers to, "leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance." This simply means that when a New Testament writer cites the LXX, they freely corrected the LXX when it differed from the Hebrew, or as they were moved by inspiration.

The third paragraph is lengthy to show the context. The KJV translators promoted the use of translations. Not as we have come to understand it with a variety of versions differing from one another, but the importance of having the word of God translated into the language of those who cannot read Hebrew or Greek. Their argument was against the Catholic Church which at that time made it a practice of burning Bibles which were in any language other than Latin. The Catholic Church considered such translations as corrupt and worthy of burning. The KJV translators are arguing that the history of the Church demonstrates that even when a translation is poorly done, God can still use it and it should not be burned, as the Catholic Church had a practice of doing. They illustrate their point with the Greek translations of Aquila and Theodotion, which were translated by non-believers and yet their work was not burned by believers. They claim the same with the LXX.

THE LXX AND THE NEW TESTAMENT.....LET'S COMPARE AGAINST THE JEWISH PALESTINIAN MASORETIC TEXT...AND YOU SEE FOR YOURSELF

There are several places where the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are said to be citations of the LXX. What you need to be concerned about is if this quotation from the LXX as found in your New Testament is faithfully represented as it is worded in the Jewish Scriptures. What you will see if you take the following test is that the New Testament writers are guilty of mishandling and abuse of Jewish Scripture in order to create a new religion and replace the faith of Jesus with one created about him. Without a good background in the Jewish Old Testament one reads the New Testament and notices that it is full of Old Testament quotes all the while believing that these Old Testament quotes refers in some way to Yeshua. But these as well as many other quotes in the New Testament supposedly referring to Yeshua have been lifted out of their original context and used in ways contrary to their original meanings. We end up thinking that the Old Testament was prophesying the coming of Yeshua, when in reality, the passages quoted by the New Testament writers had nothing to do with him at all.

Answer for yourself: How are you to know if what I said is true?

Now you can approach this two different ways. You can look up the New Testament quote and reference it to the more than likely mistranslated and misquoted passage in your Christian Old Testament (as taken from the LXX) and you won't detect any difference. Or you can go out an buy a Stone Edition Tanakh which is as faithful a Jewish translation of the Old Testament as you could get today. Then open all three books at once to the passage in question and compare them according to the following parameters:

Take your New Testament quote then run its source in your Christian OT and then in the Jewish Tanakh. Next compare these three passages according to the following parameters.

Let me give you again the mechanics involved in textual manipulation whereby we end up with something different in meaning that the original author intended.

• 1. Were the Jewish texts and phrases are lifted out of their places and contexts in the Hebrew Scriptures and given meanings which, at best, are forced and alien to what the original writer intended his audience to understand?
• 2. Preceding many of the prophetic verses in the New Testament is the emendation: "What was said through the prophet was thus fulfilled." In this way the writers of the Christian Scriptures endeavored to show that the Tanakh anticipated and predicted the events recorded in the New Testament. If you determined that the above #1 criteria was violated then understand what you are reading in the New Testament is anything but a "fulfillment."
• 3. Understand the techniques employed to establish false proof-texts: the citation of verses out of context, purposeful mistranslation, and purposeful misquotation to serve a theological agenda of the translators.
• 4. Sometimes a figurative or poetic phrase is mistaken for a straightforward statement and vice versa.
• 5. Sometimes sayings of different writers, living in different places, and in different centuries are run together.
• 6. Often two or more of these methods are used in a single quotation.

The following is a list provided by the American Bible Society (ABS) of LXX readings in the NT. The OT passage is given first, followed by the NT citation of it in parentheses. This list may not be complete but presented for your own homework.

Genesis 5:24 (Heb. 11:5) Genesis 46:27 (Acts. 7:14) Genesis 47:31 (Heb. 11:21) Exodus 9:16 (Rom. 9:17) Deuteronomy 17:7 (1 Cor. 5:13) Deuteronomy 18:15 (Acts 3:22) Deuteronomy 27:26 (Gal. 3:10) Deuteronomy 29:18 (Heb. 12:15) Deuteronomy 32:17 (1 Cor. 10:20) Deuteronomy 32:43 (Heb. 1:6) Psalm 2:1-2 (Acts 4:25-26) Psalm 2:9 (Rev. 2:27) Psalm 4:4 (Eph. 4:26) Psalm 5:9 (Rom. 3:13) Psalm 8:2 (Matt. 21:16) Psalm 8:5 (Heb. 2:7) Psalm 10:7 (Rom. 3:14) Psalm 14:3 or 53:3 (Rom. 3:12) Psalm 16:8-11 (Acts 2:25-28) Psalm 19:4 (Rom. 10:18) Psalm 34:12 (1 Pet. 3:10) Psalm 40:6 (Heb. 10:5) Psalm 51:4 (Rom. 3:4) Psalm 69:22-23 (Rom. 11:9-10) Psalm 95:7-8 (Heb. 3:15; 4:7) Psalm 102:25-27 (Heb. 1:10-12) Psalm 104:4 (Heb. 1:7) Psalm 116:10 (2 Cor. 4:13) Psalm 118:6 (Heb. 13:6) Proverbs 3:4 (2 Cor. 8:21) Proverbs 3:34 (James 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5) Proverbs 3:11-12 (Heb. 12:5-6) Proverbs 4:26 (Heb. 12:13) Proverbs 11:31 (1 Pet. 4:18) Proverbs 25: 21-22 (Rom. 12:20) Isaiah 1:9 (Rom. 9:29) Isaiah 6:9-10 (Matt. 13:14-15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28:26-27) Isaiah 7:14 (Matt. 1:23) Isaiah 10:22-23 (Rom. 9:27-28) Isaiah 11:10 (Rom. 15:12) Isaiah 26:11 (Heb. 10:27) Isaiah 28:16 (Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Pet. 2:6) Isaiah 29:13 (Matt. 15:8-9; Mark 7:6-7) Isaiah 29:14 (1 Cor. 1:19) Isaiah 40:3-5 (Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4-6) Isaiah 40:6-7 (James 1:10-11; 1 Pet. 1:24) Isaiah 40:13 (Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16) Isaiah 42:4 (Matt. 12:21) Isaiah 43:20 (1 Pet. 2:9) Isaiah 45:23 (Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:11) Isaiah 52:5 (Rom. 2:24) Isaiah 52:15 (Rom. 15:21) Isaiah 53:1 (John 12:38, 40; Rom. 10:16) Isaiah 59:20-21 (Rom. 11:26-27) Isaiah 61:1 (Luke 4:18) Isaiah 65:1-2 (Rom. 10:20-21) Jeremiah 31:32 (Heb. 8:9) Ezekiel 28:13 (Rev. 2:7) Hosea 13:14 (1 Cor. 15:55) Joel 2:30-31 (Acts 2:19-20) Amos 5:25-27 (Acts 13:34) Amos 9:11-12 (Acts 15:16-18) Habakkuk 1:5 (Acts 13:41) Habakkuk 2:4 (Heb. 10:38) Haggai 2:5 (Heb. 12:26)

As one can see, the list is rather lengthy (and I might add incomplete). It would be rather tedious to compare all the verses in this list. But that is exactly what you have to do if you are to see for yourself where the New Testamant rendering of a passage, as taken from your Christian Old Testament, as taken from the Greek translation is completely and diametrically opposed to the rendering as originally taken from the Jewish Masoretic text.