How the King James Version Handles Septuagint Quotations in Hebrews

The letter to the Hebrews stands apart from other New Testament writings because of its dense, sustained use of Old Testament scripture. Unlike Paul, who frequently argues from the Hebrew text, the author of Hebrews quotes the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, over and over again. This choice has fuelled centuries of debate, and it remains one of the most technical flashpoints in discussions about Bible translation. When the King James Version translators tackled Hebrews in 1611, they inherited a textual tradition deeply entangled with the Septuagint, and their decisions still shape how English readers encounter these passages today.

For Australians who rely on the King James Version in their churches, study groups, or personal devotions, the Septuagint question is not merely academic. Whether meeting in a suburban Sydney congregation or a small country chapel in regional Queensland, believers often encounter claims that the KJV is superior because it preserves the apostles' own Bible. Examining the evidence shows that the reality is far more layered than the slogans suggest.

The Septuagint and the World of the First Christians

The Septuagint originated in the third and second centuries before Christ, when Jewish communities in Alexandria needed a Greek translation of their scriptures. Over time, it became the Bible of the early church. The New Testament writers, many of whom were Greek-speaking Jews, evidently regarded it as authoritative scripture. Hebrews reflects this world: roughly every major argument is supported by a chain of Old Testament texts, and most of them come from the Greek version rather than a direct translation of the Hebrew.

Because the Septuagint was not a uniform text, different manuscripts sometimes diverged. The form used by the early church fathers, including those who shaped the manuscript tradition behind the Textus Receptus, was not identical to later critical editions such as the Göttingen Septuagint or the work of Swete. This complexity matters when evaluating claims about the KJV. The version that reached the King James translators had already passed through many hands, and it included readings that were not always the oldest recoverable form of the Greek text.

The 1611 Translators and Their Greek Sources

The King James translators worked from a relatively small set of Greek manuscripts, the most influential being the 1550 Stephanus edition and later the 1633 Elzevir text that gave the Textus Receptus its name. When they encountered Old Testament quotations in Hebrews, they almost always followed the Greek wording in their New Testament text, even where that wording differed from the Hebrew Masoretic tradition that the same translators rendered in their Old Testament.

This creates a striking feature of the King James Version: a reader in Melbourne or Perth will sometimes find the Old Testament and the New Testament apparently disagreeing with each other. In the Old Testament, the passage reads one way; in Hebrews, it reads another, because the New Testament citation is translated directly from the Septuagint. For example, the King James Old Testament of Psalm 40:6 reads "mine ears hast thou opened," while Hebrews 10:5 renders the same passage as "a body hast thou prepared me." The two translations are based on different source texts, and the KJV translators preserved both.

Specific Examples from Hebrews

Several passages illustrate the pattern clearly. In Hebrews 1:5–13, the author strings together texts from the Septuagint, including Psalm 45:6–7 and Psalm 102:25–27, to demonstrate the superiority of the Son. The Greek wording in these quotations contains expressions that do not correspond closely to the Hebrew Masoretic text, and the King James Version follows the Greek. So when the author of Hebrews writes "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth," he is citing the Septuagint form of Psalm 102, not the Hebrew.

Another well-known example appears in Hebrews 2:6–8, a quotation from Psalm 8. The Septuagint and the Masoretic text are largely aligned here, but the surrounding context in Hebrews is shaped by how the Greek version was understood. The author reads the psalm as a prophecy of Christ's incarnation and glorification, an interpretation that depends on the Greek wording rather than the Hebrew. Readers in Adelaide or Hobart who consult the KJV will encounter this Septuagint-shaped reading without any indication that the underlying Greek differs in significant ways from the Hebrew.

The Hebrew and Greek Texts Compared

Comparing the Masoretic Text with the Septuagint reveals that the two traditions are related but distinct. In some places, the Septuagint preserves readings that appear to be older than the Masoretic tradition, which was standardised by the Masoretes between the seventh and tenth centuries AD. In other places, the Septuagint reflects inner-Greek developments, theological adjustments, or simply different translation techniques. The King James translators did not have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered only in 1947, which have shown that some Septuagint readings are indeed very ancient.

The scholarly consensus, reflected in organisations such as the Australian and New Zealand Society for Theological Studies, is that no single text, whether Hebrew, Greek, or English, captures the original wording in every verse. Translation is always a matter of weighing evidence, and the KJV translators made principled choices based on the manuscripts available to them. Those choices are not infallible, nor are they uniformly inferior to modern translations; they are simply the product of a particular moment in the history of Bible transmission.

The King James Only Argument

Some advocates within the King James Only movement argue that the KJV is uniquely faithful because it preserves the Septuagint quotations used by the New Testament writers. In their view, the apostles quoted the Septuagint because it was inspired, and any English translation that departs from the Septuagint in Hebrews departs from scripture itself. This argument has been repeated in church halls across Brisbane and in online forums frequented by Australian Bible study groups.

The argument falters on several points:

• The King James Version does not preserve a single, uniform Septuagint text; it follows whatever Greek wording happened to stand in the Textus Receptus at each point.
• The Textus Receptus itself was a printed text shaped by sixteenth-century editorial decisions, not by the apostles.
• Modern translations such as the ESV, NIV, and CSB frequently follow the Septuagint where it is the earliest recoverable text, particularly in the Psalms quotations in Hebrews 1 and 2.
• The choice between following the Septuagint and following the Masoretic Text is a textual judgment, not a confession of faith.

How Modern Translations Approach Hebrews

Contemporary translations adopt a more transparent method. Most of them print the Old Testament quotation in a form that reflects the textual tradition the New Testament writer actually used, and they usually note in the footnotes when the wording differs from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. A reader of the NIV, for instance, will see in Hebrews 10:5 a footnote explaining that the Greek reads "a body you prepared for me," with a cross-reference to the Masoretic reading. This apparatus allows the reader to see both the apostolic citation and its Hebrew background.

The Australian market reflects this diversity. Major Bible translations are sold through Christian bookshops in Sydney and Melbourne, through online retailers, and through denominational publishers. Consumer guarantees administered by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission require that products be accurately described, and Bible publishers generally comply by including textual notes in translations that claim to follow the earliest manuscripts. The result is a marketplace in which readers can compare translations and make informed choices rather than relying on slogans.

Common features of these transparent translations include:

• Footnotes indicating when the Old Testament quotation differs from the Hebrew Masoretic Text
• Cross-references to the underlying Hebrew or Greek passages
• Translation committees that include textual critics alongside biblical language scholars
• Clear statements in the preface about the manuscript basis for the translation

What This Means for Bible Readers

The Septuagint quotations in Hebrews should be read as part of the rich, complex history of how scripture has been transmitted. The King James Version is a landmark of English biblical literature, prized for its literary quality and its influence on Anglican, Baptist, and Pentecostal traditions in Australia and beyond. Its handling of the Septuagint is theologically significant, and it preserves many readings that are likely very old.

At the same time, treating the King James Version as though it were identical to the apostles' Bible misunderstands the nature of textual history. The Septuagint itself existed in multiple forms, the manuscripts behind the KJV were selected by fallible scholars, and the translation choices reflect the textual culture of early seventeenth-century England. Readers who want to study Hebrews seriously will benefit from consulting a translation with footnotes, using a Greek New Testament, and reading broadly about the history of the text. The SharePoint Views analysis offers further resources for those who wish to dig deeper into the textual questions surrounding the King James Version and the Septuagint.

Share this examination with a friend who is wrestling with these questions, or subscribe to receive future articles that probe the claims of the King James Only movement against the historical evidence.