When examining any religion, movement or organization, it is important to start from the foundation of that religion, therefore from the texts that this religion is based on and in particular, what this religion is claiming to achieve. Since Christianity explicitly claims that its teachings are the continuation, fulfillment, and culmination of the Old Testament rather than viewing the New Testament as a completely new religion, it is important to review Christian Old Testament.
Christian theology teaches that Jesus Christ completed the promises, prophecies, and legal framework established in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament), therefore it should align with the Hebrew Scriptures. However, is it really a continuation of the Old Testament? If the New Testament is not a new religion, can Christians say they follow all the instructions from the Old Testament? Are texts from the New Testament completely aligned with the texts from the Old Testament?
First, we have to examine the claim that Christianity should align with the Hebrew Scriptures. The Hebrew Scriptures, otherwise known as the Tanakh, is the foundational Hebrew scripture in use, consisting of 24 books categorized into Torah (Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). Its authorized text was established by the Masoretic Text. Interestingly, the Tanakh contains 24 books, while the Protestant Old Testament contains 39, and Catholic/Orthodox Old Testaments contain 46+ books. The Tanakh merges several books (such as 1 & 2 Samuel, Kings, and Ezra-Nehemiah) that the Old Testament separates, and some Christian traditions include extra deuterocanonical texts. Therefore, we have some differences in the number of books and Christian Bible, adding books to the Old Testament that have not been used in the Hebrew Bible.
The oldest Hebrew scriptures in the Hebrew language are the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated between roughly 250 B.C.E. and 68 C.E. Found in 1947 near Qumran. These include fragments of almost every book of the Hebrew Bible, providing the oldest known textual evidence as accurate. These translations use the scrolls to confirm the accuracy of the Hebrew Masoretic text, which serves as the basis for most modern Old Testament translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls matched the modern Masoretic text with over 60% accuracy and other texts, specifically the Great Isaiah Scroll, matched with over 99% accuracy. Therefore, we know that all Jewish Bibles and Jewish Tanakh is based on Masoretic texts that are almost match for match with the oldest scriptures found from the Dead Sea Scroll.
How about Christian Bibles? Are they also based on Masoretic texts that match Dead Sea scrolls?
With Christian Bibles it is more complicated. Most Christian Bibles are based on the Septuagint text. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and used by the early Church. Originating in Alexandria, Egypt, between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE, it was created by Hellenistic Jewish scholars to provide a Greek version of their scriptures for the Greek-speaking diaspora. The Septuagint was most widely used between the 3rd century BC and the 4th century AD. The Septuagint Text matches Dead Sea Scrolls with only about 5% to 10% of the original Hebrew text.
There are two important factors we have to highlight with the Septuagint text. First, is that it was influenced by the Hellenistic culture, and second, it was not the translation that Jesus used as it has been developed after Jesus’ death.
Modern Christian Bibles primarily base their Old Testament on the Septuagint Text, particularly in Protestant traditions, while Catholic and Orthodox Bibles rely on a mix of the Masoretic Text and the Greek Septuagint. However, most modern translations (Protestant and Catholic) are ecumenical, referencing the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls to determine the best reading. Therefore, we have a bit of a mixture when it comes to Christian Bibles. Not only that, but we also have different Bible translations like KJV, NIV, ESV, NKJV, NIT and so on. When reading particular verses, those Bibles can have small differences and some might use more modern words or some might use older words, which sometimes can change the meaning of the verse.
The Septuagint often contains earlier textual traditions, whereas the Masoretic Text is considered the official Hebrew standard. Modern translations often feature footnotes pointing out when they have chosen a reading from the Septuagint or Dead Sea Scrolls over the Masoretic for better understanding. Therefore, although Christianity claims it is mainly based on the Hebrew texts, when comparing Old Testament with the Tanakh we can clearly see that it mainly, or should I say only uses Septuagint Text, therefore we have many differences between Jewish Tanakh and Christian Bibles.
Some texts have minimal changes, some quite significant, that change the meaning entirely, particularly when comparing Isaiah 7: 14 that usually causes a lot of misunderstandings between Christianity and Judaism, or the book of Daniel, whose verses differ quite significantly. While those books share the same core narrative, they differ significantly in wording, articles, specific details, and sometimes the structure or length of entire books. The primary difference stems from the fact that the Septuagint was translated from a much older, different Hebrew text tradition into Greek language, which begun in the 3rd century B.C.E., while the Masoretic Text is a standardized Hebrew text. The Septuagint version of Jeremiah is shorter than the Masoretic and the book of Daniel of the Septuagint version is so different to the Masoretic Text, that they are considered two distinct editions of the book.
Moreover, the Septuagint includes the Deuterocanonical books (often called Apocrypha), which are not present in the Masoretic Text. Therefore, the differences can be quite significant, so when you see a Jew and a Christian arguing about different aspects of the Old Testament, you have to take into consideration that both have their knowledge from different texts.
In the Christian culture, there has been a continuous criticism of the Masoretic Texts and general belief that Jews corrupted those texts, therefore Septuagint Text is “safer” to use. I see this as a typical attack on the truth. The same playbook has been applied by the Islam religion, saying that Jews and Christians corrupted their texts and therefore a new, uncorrupted religion needed to be formed with new texts of Quran. Christianity did similar by creating their version of texts with Septuagint, that can match the New Testament better, than the Hebrew Masoretic Text. This must be taken into account when comparing the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. If we continue to assume that earlier texts are corrupted and therefore require newer, supposedly improved and uncorrupted versions, we will only continue creating new religions and denominations.
Christianity also states that when Jesus quoted Old Testament scripture, he used Septuagint version and not Masoretic texts, to justify the use of Septuagint over the Masoretic Text. There is no proof that this was the case and we also have to look at this logically. The creation of Septuagint really developed after Jesus’ death. There could have been some translations during Jesus’ ministry, however the circulation of texts and information hasn’t been as straightforward and quick as it is today. Very often, it would take months or years before texts would reach a particular location. It is not like today, we just need to access the internet, and everything is instant. Therefore, Jesus used an older version of the Hebrew text, upon which the Masoretic Text has been translated.
To add to the complexity of the Christian Bibles, there are also many different Bible translations, which can influence different understanding. If everyone followed the same texts, word for word, perhaps those arguments and differences in interpretations could be diminished. However, even when we look at the same poem, we interpret it differently. Therefore, those differences, interpretations, and understandings will continue, and we have to take into consideration all those textual variations.
The question therefore, is whether the New Testament is a continuation of the Hebrew text based on the Masoretic text or the Septuagint?
The New Testament Canon is a collection of twenty-seven books recognized by the early Church as authoritative Scripture. These include the four Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul and other Apostles, and the book of Revelation. Contrary to some popular assumptions, these books were not selected centuries later by a single council or authority. Instead, the canon emerged over time through many debates and councils.
Interestingly, 65% of those books were written by the Apostle Paul or inspired by Paul. Only one Gospel is considered as an eyewitness account of Jesus’ life on earth, which is the Gospel of John and three other Gospels called synoptic Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew are a collection of Jesus’ teachings and events written by authors who were not actually Jesus’ disciples or his witnesses. The Gospels were written in Greek by different authors, therefore scholars and theologians disputed on many occasions whether they can be taken as a true representation of Jesus’ life and his teachings. Can we really know what Jesus said? Are those writings accurate representations? Apart from that, are they really a continuation of the Hebrew texts as Christianity claims New Testament to be or a new invention?
The New Testament is primarily a continuation of the Hebrew Scriptures based on the Septuagint Text rather than the Masoretic Text. While some quotes align with Hebrew traditions, majority of the New Testament citations of the Old Testament match the phrasing of the Septuagint, especially where it diverges from the Masoretic Text. Therefore, as you can see, some of the verses from the New Testament that match the Old Testament are usually conveniently matching Greek version of the Septuagint text rather than Hebrew texts. Whether they are continuation of Hebrew Bible could be up for debate. Since majority of the texts from the New Testament are based on the writings and teaching of the Apostle Paul, who was against the Law of God and was teaching Gentiles against the Law, based on this we should say no, they are not a continuation.
In the Gospels we see that Jesus was fulfilling his role of the Messiah by calling people back to the Law, teaching all how to uphold it properly and criticizing Pharisees’ interpretations of those commandments. However, in the Apostle Paul’s texts we see a 180-degree change and Paul focusing on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus as his main teachings.
Another problem I find with the claims that New Testament is the continuation, fulfillment, and culmination of the Old Testament and therefore not a new religion, can Christianity say they follow all the instructions from the Old Testament? The narrative throughout the Hebrew Bible is one of continual disobedience of Israel to God’s laws and commandments. Time and again, people fall into idolatry, rebellion, and spiritual stubbornness, believing they know better than God Himself. As a result, they repeatedly receive warnings to repent and return to Him. God sends prophet after prophet as a spiritual alarm bell, calling people back to obedience, repentance, and faithfulness to His covenant. The dominant themes of the Hebrew Bible therefore appear to be the Law, disobedience, idolatry, judgment, and repentance.
However, when we turn to the New Testament, particularly the writings of the Apostle Paul, we encounter a very different emphasis. Jesus himself speaks about repentance and reaffirms the importance of the Law, yet Paul’s message seems to shift the focus elsewhere. The central requirement for salvation becomes faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul emphasizes the idea that grace abounds apart from the Law presented in the Hebrew Bible. Paul also introduces themes such as believers being “caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord” — concepts not explicitly found within the Torah based framework of the Hebrew Bible. To me, this presents not only different theological development, but an entirely different religious framework. From this perspective, it becomes easier to understand why many Jews cannot reconcile with the teachings of Christianity and the teachings of the Hebrew Bible, as those two appear quite distinct from one another.
Knowing those differences, are we supposed to throw the Bible away and call it false?
It is dangerous, upon discovering that there are many differences, changes, editions and possibly forgeries that are found in the Christian Bible, to just throw the Bible away and call everything false. It is important to distinguish those differences, and through discernment, follow after the true version of the text. I have seen many debates between Christians and Muslims on this fact, many Jews arguing with Christians and trying to open their eyes to those facts, and this can turn into some intense arguments. However, it is important to ask yourself this question: Am I arguing and defending religion in order to be right and therefore I am driven by my ego? Am I really the seeker of the truth? Or am I open to correction? When finding a fault with my beliefs, do I update them based on the new information or continue in the same beliefs but finding new arguments to back up my beliefs?
This is of course a deeper problem that I find among many people these days. Although it is obvious that upon discovering some wrong information, uncovering false doctrines or miss match within the religion, people should just update their beliefs, correct it, leave the religion and follow the truth. However, this is not the case. People will perform mental gymnastics and bend the truth to fit into their previously taught and rehearsed beliefs, just because what is familiar sounds true, not what is new and foreign.
There is also an aspect of belonging and wanting to be part of the social group, meeting people who have similar beliefs and therefore anything that threatens identity or culture is automatically rejected. However, it is important to separate religion from faith. Religion is a man-made concept with additional doctrines and traditions that are not found in the Hebrew Bible. The Bible can therefore be criticized as a tool used by religion to manipulate people, but just like any tool, it can have positive and negative aspects. A hammer can be used as a building tool and as a destructive tool. The Bible can be used as a way of connecting with God privately, getting to know God privately and studying the word, however, when in the wrong hands, it can be misinterpreted, misused, and edited to fit the narrative.
We live in times where people are capable of studying the word on their own, meeting in small gatherings, not necessarily big and greedy churches and seeking the truth on their own. The times of pastors, preachers and priests being as a necessary element to the faith have long passed and people can dwell with God on their own. What is more important is to seek the truth and recognize textual corruption when it is presented.
By Dagmara Z.