From what I can tell the majority of Protestants use and prefer the Masoretic Text, believing it to be a trustworthy representation of the original Hebrew text of Scripture. I see this based on the Bible translations they tend to use. These translations use the Masoretic Text primarily. - King James Version (KJV) - Revised Version (RV) - 1885 - American Standard Version (ASV) - 1901 - Revised Standard Version (RSV) - 1952 - New American Standard Bible (NASB) - 1971, updated 1995, 2020 - English Standard Version (ESV) - 2001 - New King James Version (NKJV) - 1982 - New International Version (NIV) - 1978, updated 1984, 2011 - Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) - 2004 - Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (JPS) - 1917, updated 1985 - Christian Standard Bible (CSB) - 2017 - Luther Bible (German) - 1534 - ... At the same time, most Protestants reject Orthodox Church Tradition as being untrustworthy. Here are 5 clear examples. 1. Veneration of Icons: The Eastern Orthodox practice of venerating icons—honoring images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and saints through bowing, kissing, or lighting candles—is rooted in an oral tradition emphasizing their role as "windows to heaven." This practice, developed and defended during the Iconoclastic Controversies (8th-9th centuries), holds that icons facilitate a connection to the divine prototype they represent. Mainstream Protestants, particularly those from Reformed and Baptist traditions, reject this as idolatry, citing the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:4-5) against making graven images. They argue it lacks biblical mandate and reflects a later human tradition, not an apostolic one, despite Orthodox claims of its roots in early Christian art and the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787 AD). 2. Theosis (Divinization): The Orthodox doctrine of theosis, the process of becoming partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), is an oral tradition elaborated through the teachings of the Fathers (e.g., Athanasius: "God became man so that man might become god"). It emphasizes sanctification and union with God through participation in the sacraments and ascetic life. Many Protestants reject this as unbiblical or semi-Pelagian, asserting it overemphasizes human effort over divine grace alone. While some Protestant theologians acknowledge sanctification, they distance themselves from the Orthodox framing, seeing it as a development beyond scriptural boundaries. 3. Prayer for the Dead and Intercession of Saints: The Orthodox practice of praying for the departed and seeking the intercession of saints is an oral tradition traced to early Christian commemorations and the belief in a "communion of saints." This is evident in liturgical texts and the writings of figures like John Chrysostom. Mainstream Protestants, especially Evangelicals and Reformed churches, reject this, arguing it lacks explicit biblical support (e.g., Hebrews 9:27) and introduces mediators beyond Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). They view it as a later accretion, despite Orthodox assertions of its apostolic origin. 4. The Role of Tradition as Equal to Scripture: The Orthodox belief that oral tradition, including unwritten apostolic teachings (e.g., on worship practices or sacramental theology), holds equal authority with Scripture—based on 2 Thessalonians 2:15—is a foundational oral tradition. Protestants counter that this contradicts sola scriptura, insisting that only what is written in the Bible is authoritative. They see the Orthodox reliance on tradition as unverifiable and prone to human error, challenging the claim that it preserves an unbroken apostolic witness, especially given historical variations in practice. 5. Liturgical Practices and Sacramental Theology: Specific unwritten traditions, such as the detailed structure of the Divine Liturgy (e.g., the use of incense, specific chants, and the Epiclesis in the Eucharist), are considered apostolic by the Orthodox, passed down orally and refined over centuries. Mainstream Protestants, particularly low-church denominations like Baptists, reject these as non-essential or extra-biblical, favoring simpler worship forms aligned with their interpretation of New Testament gatherings (e.g., Acts 2:42). They question the apostolicity of these practices, suggesting they evolved post-apostolically. To my understanding, and based on other interactions on this website. They believe that the Church’s oral tradition could not possibly preserve Truth over a long period of time. (That is, it was affected by the additions of man, it was corrupted over time) But at the same time we know that the Masoretic text added Vowel points to Hebrew. The original text was all consonants, **the reader of the text had to remember from oral tradition the proper vowels**. This means since the Time of Moses until the 5th century AD when the Masorites added the vowels to every word in the Old Testament the proper understanding of the text was preserved through oral tradition alone. (See my answer here ) So my confusion is based on this apparent contradiction. 1. the Masoretic vowels are trustworthy, the Jews successfully preserved the vowels of Scripture for thousands of years, **through oral tradition alone**, until the Masoretes finally invented the vowel points hundreds of years after Christ. 2. But things like the oral traditions I listed above are untrustworthy, despite the oral tradition claim that these are directly from the Apostles. My question is simply if we cannot trust the early church to maintain oral tradition for a few hundred years, why do we trust the Jews to maintain oral tradition **inerrantly for millennia?** --- I looked at this other question, but it doesn't really answer my question. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/40843/how-are-emendations-to-the-masoretic-text-viewed-within-the-doctrine-of-inerranc *P.S. I do not see how the catholic church would be relevant, I'm referring to the oral traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church.*

## Introduction From early church fathers such as 2nd Century Justin Martyr (*Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 73*) to the 16th Century Reformer John Calvin (*Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 1:373*), accusations that Jewish scribes "tampered" with the Masoretic Text (the authoritative Hebrew Bible text) to obscure messianic prophecies have circulated for centuries. ## Question Is this belief still held by Christians? Do Christians who believe this provide evidence for this belief? What evidence is there for this accusation?

Hans-Joachim Kraus’s monumental work on the Psalms often refers to Hermann Gunkel’s commentary on the Psalms. In his commentary on Psalm 28,2, Kraus writes the following: “H. Gunkel suggests that we supply הביטה: ‘Look up when I lift up my hands. . . . !’” (Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalm 1-59 (Minneapolis, MN: Crossway, 1993), p. 339). This is suggested to ‘force fit’ a certain meter for verse 2 (“two five-pulse meters”). I couldn’t find a reference anywhere regarding the inclusion of the verb ‘נבט’ (look, consider: (Hiphil)), and the Massoretic Text does not indicate any such variant reading: Basically, I’m looking for any reference of Gunkel’s to his suggested modification to this particular verse in Psalm 28. I believe there are also others examples.

In reference to the answer given to [Are there any English Bible translations whose primary text for the OT is the Septuagint?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/34178/are-there-any-english-bible-translations-whose-primary-text-for-the-ot-is-the-se) some further issues arise: There's a rather interesting translation called, "The Apostolic Bible - Polyglot" by Charles Van der Pool, published in 2006 by The Apostolic Press. Does anyone know if it's based strictly on the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint)? Concerning the other possible sources, mentioned elsewhere on this site, "The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Covenant, by Charles Thomson in 1808" is not currently available for purchase ... And, the revised translation of it, "The Septuagint Bible," by C.A. Muses is not what it claims to be; that is, its a heavily edited version that bears more resemblance to the KJV than the LXX! Changing the accurate rendering of the Greek scriptures to agree with the Hebrew has corrupted the validity of the translation, and made it useless for the purpose of studying the Septuagint. As for "The Orthodox Study Bible," it uses the New King James Version text in the places where the translation of the LXX would match that of the Hebrew Masoretic text, so, it's questionable if this is really a strict translation of the LXX? That's more than one question, sorry, but they are directly related.

I'm asking this from a born-again Christian perspective (so I guess this makes me an evangelical Protestant) and seeing how there's controversy over the KJV, NIV, ESV etc., does the type of Bible that you use really matter? Most Bibles used by Protestants tend to be based off from the Masoretic Text but some websites indicate that the Septuagint is the earliest translation, which Jesus and Paul used during their time on Earth. So which is it? Or is it better safer than sorry to read a variety of translations and compare them?

In Matthew 21:15–16, Jesus is praised by children in the temple after healing the blind and the lame. When questioned by the chief priests and scribes, he points out that what was occurring was prophesied in the Old Testament. > **Matthew 21:15–16 [ESV]** > > But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant, and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have **prepared praise**’?" But... in the ESV bible and the Masoretic text, Psalm 8:2 uses the word "strength", not "praise" – a completely different word, and not a contextual fit for Jesus' point. > **Psalm 8:2a [ESV]** > > Out of the mouth of babies and infants, you have **established strength**... However... in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament that pre-dated Jesus' time), Psalm 8:2 uses the word "praise" – exactly as Jesus quoted it. This is one of a number of differences between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint (another would be that the Septuagint included the 'extra' books of the Catholic bible, which Protestants call Apocrypha). Most Protestant Bibles use the Masoretic text as the foundation of their Old Testament, believing it to be 'better' (closer to the original) than the Septuagint. Most Protestants also believe the New Testament is inspired and inerrant, and that Jesus is part of the Triune God. How do Protestants reconcile this? Do they believe Jesus just misquoted this verse?