Retellings: The Septuagint of Exodus
Variations in Narrative, Theology, and Tradition
The Greek translations of Exodus, primarily represented by the Septuagint, reveal how the text and its underlying traditions continued to evolve even after initially being written and edited. Produced for Jewish communities living in a world where Greek had become the language of daily life, these translations did much more than translate from one language to another, they demonstrated how later interpreters understood and communicated its narratives. The translators, while generally working faithfully, still managed at key points to insert their own interpretations or emendations, these adjustments showing how they wrestled both grammatically and culturally with the Torah. At times they changed or rearranged details that might have seemed confusing or reshaped events that appeared out of place. The result is a text that reflects both an effort to preserve what was inherited and a willingness to reshape it so it could be understood by a new audience.
In the Greek versions of Exodus, translation and interpretation became part of the same process. Some alterations seem intended to harmonize earlier traditions, others to uphold the honor of ancestors, and still others to resolve narrative tensions that the translators no longer fully grasped. These choices represent a common literary habit at the time in which texts, even what was perceived as scripture, was treated as malleable rather than fixed. This attitude toward the text would later influence Jewish and Christian writings in the Hellenistic period, where these narratives were retold, expanded, and reinterpreted to meet new historical and cultural challenges.
Now Moses was shepherding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to the mountain of God, to Horeb. The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within a bush. He looked, and the bush was ablaze with fire, but it was not being consumed! So Moses thought, “I will turn aside to see this amazing sight. Why does the bush not burn up?” (Exodus 3:1-3)
Now Moses was tending the sheep of Jethro, his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock into the wilderness area and came into the mountainous area of Horeb. And an angel of the Lord appeared to him in flaming fire out of the bush, and he saw that the bush was aflame with fire, but the bush was not being consumed. And Moses said, “When I pass close by, I will observe this great spectacle, that the bush does not burn up.” (LXX Exodus 3:1-3)1
One small but notable example of how the Greek translators adjusted the text appears in the account of Moses and the burning bush. In the Hebrew version, the mountain is immediately referred to as “the mountain of God,” a title that assumes its special status before the divine encounter takes place there. The Greek version removes this description from the voice of the narrator and refers instead to a general mountainous area of Horeb. This small change affects how the narrative unfolds, presenting the place as ordinary until the moment of revelation. The event itself, rather than a prior designation, establishes the site’s significance.
The difference shows an awareness of narrative sequence and coherence. The translator may have wished to avoid implying that Moses already knew the mountain’s divine status or that its holiness preceded the encounter.2 This careful adjustment fits a broader pattern in the Greek translations of Exodus, where certain expressions are modified to maintain internal consistency or to clarify how events are related. Such changes suggest that the translators were attentive to how the story would be understood by readers at a distance from its original setting and tradition.
The Lord said to Moses in Midian, “Go back to Egypt, because all the men who were seeking your life are dead.” Then Moses took his wife and sons and put them on a donkey and headed back to the land of Egypt, and Moses took the staff of God in his hand. The Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the wonders I have put under your control. But I will harden his heart and he will not let the people go. (Exodus 4:19-21)
Now after those many days, the king of Egypt died. And the Lord said to Moses in Midian, “Go, depart into Egypt! For all the men who were seeking your life have died.” And Moses, having taken up his wife and his children, put them upon his beasts of burden and returned to Egypt. And Moses took the staff, the one from God, in his hand. The Lord said to Moses, “As you go and return to Egypt, see all of these wonders that I have placed into your hands; you will perform them in front of Pharaoh. And I myself will harden his heart, and he will certainly not send away my people. (LXX Exodus 4:19-21)3
Another example appears in the account of Moses returning to Egypt. In the Hebrew text, Moses places his wife and sons on a donkey before beginning the journey. The Greek version alters this to use a more generic term, saying that he set them on beasts of burden. While the text does not explicitely indicate the reason for this change, it may reflect discomfort with portraying the family of Moses, and especially his wife, in a way that could be read as undignified or dishonorable.4
This type of change appears elsewhere in Greek and Aramaic translations, where moments that might seem socially awkward or inconsistent with later expectations or depictions of honor are softened. The translators did not erase the story but presented it in a form that suited the sensibilities of their time, and show how interpretation could enter the process of translation, allowing the narrative to remain recognizable while being shaped by the social world of a new audience. These adjustments remind that the Greek versions of Exodus do not only preserve an older text but also record how later communities understood and valued it.
Moses said to Pharaoh, “You may have the honor over me—when shall I pray for you, your servants, and your people, for the frogs to be removed from you and your houses, so that they will be left only in the Nile?” He said, “Tomorrow.” And Moses said, “It will be as you say, so that you may know that there is no one like the Lord our God. The frogs will depart from you, your houses, your servants, and your people; they will be left only in the Nile.” (Exodus 8:9-11)
And Moses said to Pharaoh, “Appoint a time for me when I may pray for you and your attendants and your people to remove the frogs from you and your people and your houses, so that they remain only in the river.” And he said, “Tomorrow!” He said, “Therefore, it will be as you have said, so that you may know that there is no other besides the Lord. And the frogs will be taken from you and your houses and your villages and your attendants and your people, so that they will remain only in the river.” (LXX Exodus 8:9-11)5
The contest between Moses and Pharaoh provides another example of how the Greek translators shaped the tone of Exodus. In the Hebrew version, Moses tells Pharaoh that through the removal of the plague of frogs he will know there is no one like God. The phrase expresses God’s superiority without necessarily denying the existence of other powers or deities. In the Greek translation, however, this becomes a more explicit and exclusive claim, stating that there is no other except God. The change dramatically alters the theology behind the narrative, with the Hebrew version retaining a sense of henotheism often found in the Hebrew Bible, where God is considered the supreme deity of Israel without rejecting the existence of other deities.
This difference shows how translation could reflect such theological development. By the time these Greek versions were produced, Jewish thought had begun to express the uniqueness of God in more absolute, and exclusively monotheistic, terms.6 The translator’s language harmonizes with that trend, not by rewriting the story but by choosing language that better fit the Hellenistic-influenced theology of these communities. Such choices gave the Greek text its distinct theological emphasis, one that would become influential in how both Jewish and Christian readers came to understand the identity of God in the Exodus narrative.
A mixed multitude also went up with them, and flocks and herds—a very large number of cattle. They baked cakes of bread without yeast using the dough they had brought from Egypt, for it was made without yeast. Because they were thrust out of Egypt and were not able to delay, they could not prepare food for themselves either. Now the length of time the Israelites lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, on the very day, all the regiments of the Lord went out of the land of Egypt. It was a night of vigil for the Lord to bring them out from the land of Egypt, and so on this night all Israel is to keep the vigil to the Lord for generations to come. (Exodus 12:38-42)
And a numerous mixed group went up with them, along with very many sheep and oxen and livestock. And they baked the dough that they carried out of Egypt into unleavened cakes, for it was not leavened. For the Egyptians had driven them out, and they could not tarry, nor did they even prepare provisions for themselves for the journey. Now the sojourn of the sons of Israel, during which they lived in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty-five years. And it happened after the four hundred and thirty-five years, all the hosts of the Lord went forth from the land of Egypt by night. It is an advance guard to the Lord, to bring them out of the land of Egypt. That night it is a advance guard to the Lord, for it to be for all the sons of Israel in their generations. (LXX Exodus 12:38-42)7
A final example of variation appears in the account of Israel’s departure from Egypt. In the Hebrew text, the length of Israel’s stay is described as 430 years spent in Egypt. The Greek version expands this to include the narratives of both Egypt and Canaan and increases the number slightly to 435. This revision harmonizes the story more closely with the earlier patriarchal narratives, linking the generations of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to the later exodus. The translator seems to have read the passage not only as history but as a timeline in need of coherence, adjusting the wording so that the larger story would fit together without chronological tension. This emphasis reveals not a careless translation, but rather the opposite, one that was intensely focused on the details and attempted to resolve what it determined to be problems.8
This harmonizing approach once again reflects this interpretive tendency in the Greek versions of Exodus. Where the Hebrew text may preserve layers of tradition that sit side by side and connected by later editing, the Greek translators often worked to present a smoother sequence of events. The change to include Canaan in the period of sojourning shows an effort to integrate the Exodus within a longer national story that began with the ancestors of Israel. In doing so, the translation not only recounts an event but also reshapes how that event is positioned within the history of the people, demonstrating how later interpreters understood the importance of consistency and worked to make sure their final product reflected that.
Meiser, Martin The Septuagint and Its Reception: Collected Essays (p. 36) Mohr Siebeck, 2022
Drazin, Israel, and Stanley M. Wagner Onkelos on the Torah, Exodus: Understanding the Bible Text (pp. 21-22) Gefen, 2006
Meiser, Martin The Septuagint and Its Reception: Collected Essays (p. 13) Mohr Siebeck, 2022
Gurtner, Daniel M. Exodus: A Commentary on the Greek Text of Codex Vaticanus (pp. 230-231) Brill, 2013
Insightful. The Septuagint's version of Exodus 12:38-42, referring to the Israelites sojourn in Egypt and Canaan, definitely makes more sense.
The long vs. short sojourn of 430 years is a central chronological issue, and Genesis 15:13 clearly indicates 400 years in Egypt alone, making the short sojourn counting only ~215 years in Egypt difficult to defend. The oldest source Demetrius the Chronographer counts the short sojourn within the Codex Alexandrinus. The fragments of Eupolemus mix a creation date of ~5307 BC with an exodus in 2580 AM, putting the exodus about 1500 years before the Hebrews. Josephus’ Antiquities shows evidence of both long and short sojourn, possibly redacted to change the original claim. Theophilus of Antioch was the first Christian chronographer, and first to cite the Codex Vaticanus, and the first with an explicit long sojourn, yielding a creation date ~1752 years earlier than the Hebrews. Ultimately the Hebrews align the exodus to 1313 BC, meaning they entered Egypt in 1528 BC, which is actually after the Hyksos expulsion that Josephus and Theophilus claim to be the Exodus. This is part and parcel of the Hebrew compression of the Persian empire by 164-168 years, and an original exodus according to Manetho, several decades after the initial Hyksos expulsion, was apparently under Thutmose III or one of his successors. Hebrew chronology is a thoroughgoing fraud, and at least when it comes to the genealogies of Genesis, it is difficult to defend the idea that the smaller Hebrew begetting ages are original. Not every element of the MT can be regarded as original, and the short/long sojourn is a major issue. The Seder Olam only counts 425 years in Canaan and Egypt combined and this is the number used to define the Hebrew year of creation and all alignments, along with a 21 year snip in the age of Solomon’s temple, the summary of Kings which shortens specific scriptural figures, and the genealogies that are off by more than a millennium. I would be interested in your take on the deliberate alteration of the Genesis genealogies, because I have yet to see a good explanation of why Greek translators would make them longer.