NT Quote in Hebrews

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Deacon, Apr 10, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,925
    Likes Received:
    111
    An interesting quote from Genesis 47:31 is found in Hebrews (11:21).

    By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff. (KJV – bolding added)

    Both the Byzantine Greek text and the Nestle-Aland Greek text agree here and all versions provide translation similar to the KJV.

    Genesis 47:31 is the text that the author of Hebrews quotes:

    31 And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed himself upon the bed’s head.(KJV)

    Again, the various Hebrew texts are similar.

    Why would the author of Hebrews misquote the verse? Was there new revelation?


    One explanation is found by examining the Septuagint.

    The Greek Septuagint reads: “And he said, Swear to me; and he swore to him. And Israel did reverence, leaning on the top of his staff.

    εἶπεν δέ Ὄμοσόν μοι. καὶ ὤμοσεν αὐτῷ. καὶ προσεκύνησεν Ισραηλ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ. (Septuagint)


    Why the discrepancy?

    The Hebrew word for bed is מִטָּה (mitah)
    The Hebrew word for staff is מַטֶּה (mateh)

    Originally the Hebrew was written without vowels; the three letters in both words were the same, Mem-Tet-He (the vowel pointings were added later).

    The translator of the Septuagint thought the word was "staff" not "bed".

    Is the accepted Hebrew text in err?

    Interestingly enough the only version (that I am aware of) that addresses this issue is the Newly Inspired Version (NIV) where Genesis 47:31 reads:
    The footnote adding: “Or Israel bowed down at the head of his bed

    What do you think about their decision?
    Was it the right one?

    Rob

    [ April 10, 2006, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]
     
  2. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,925
    Likes Received:
    111
    In Psalm 8:5 there is another interesting phrase that seems to be twisted about a bit in various translations.
    Here both the KJV and NIV have translated the bolded phrase ( מֵאֱלֹהִ֑ים – Me’ eloheim) as “angels”.
    But same word is also used in Job 20:29 and 2 Chronicles 35:21 and translated as “with” or “from God” in both the KJV and NIV.
    Why did they do that???

    In the NT in Hebrew 2:7 the author provides the reason:
    Which is an exact translation of the Septuagint text of Psalm 8:5 (=Ps 8:6 LXX).

    Both the KJV and NIV adopted the translation of the Greek (and Aramaic) versions of Psalm 8:5 while the NAS choose to translate the phrase as it may have been understood originally by the readers.

    Rob
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,925
    Likes Received:
    111
    And of the angels He says,
    “WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS,
    AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.”
    Hebrews 1:7 NAS

    This is a quote from Psalm 104:4.

    Young’s Literal Translation renders this verse in Psalms:
    “Making His messengers—the winds, His ministers—the flaming fire.”

    But the KJV changes the meaning of the original Hebrews.
    The New American Standard Version (and the NIV among others) follow the original texts meaning:
    The Septuagint translation reads:
    Clearly the KJV translators relied upon the Septuagint sometimes over the “received” Hebrew text in their translation process.

    Rob
     
  4. Joseph M. Smith

    Joseph M. Smith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know about the textual issues, but anybody who has ever served on a church "staff" under a .. well, vigorous senior pastor .. knows what the meaning of "leaning on his staff" is!
     
  5. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    :rolleyes: :eek: [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Ed
     
  6. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Before I explain my view on this issue, I may have to admit that my assertion might be wrong in this case, because I have maintained that NT doesn't reflect LXX even though in many spots they are similar, and now LXX is exactly the same as Heb 11:21.

    Actually I believe that both cases should be reviewed as a whole, including NT language and Aramaic Primacy issue.
    It is quite well known that Gospel Mt was written in Hebrew first, witnessed by many ancient people. Then Heb might be written by Paul and then translated by Luke, into Greek.
    It is ridiculous if we imagine that a Hebrew wrote a letter addressed to Hebrews in Greek which was spoken and written by Greeks who ate Pork meat, worshipping idols, using the words full of myths, which were hated by Jews.
    Nevertheless a problem remains if it was translated by Luke who was a writer for another Gospel. Some of the fundamental problems can be resolved only when we have to admit Hebrew Primacy or Aramaic Primacy. Mt 26:6 talks about Simon the Leper in Bethany whose healing is not mentioned. Jews never accept that story because Lepers were not allowed to live in towns (Lev 13:45-6). If we accept the Aramaic Primacy, we can understand the original word had a split meaning ( Garobo-Leper and Garibo-Potter) as we can see Elohim for God and Angels in Heb 2.

    In case of Heb 11:21, the context seems to support mitah instead of mateh, then we fall in the contradiction with Inerrancy of the Scriptures which we have, unless Heb was translated into Greek by other person than Luke. I find little reason for the person at death-bed to rise and worship leaning on the top of a staff. Heb 2:7 is also a question. Even Aramaic Primacists do not provide sufficient explanation on it, I find.
    At the moment I keep these in question.
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,925
    Likes Received:
    111
    My study started out to examine why the NT quotes in the book of Hebrews were so different from the OT text.
    I found the Septuagint exerted a strong influence on the author of the book.

    One more example (among many more) is found in Hebrews 10:5


    “SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED,
    BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;
    IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.
    “THEN I SAID, ‘BEHOLD, I HAVE COME
    (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME)
    TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.’ ”
    Hebrews 10:5b-7 KJV (NAS/NIV/HCS, etc. all translated along similarly) [bolding added]

    Sacrifice and offering You did not desire;
    My ears You have opened.
    Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require.
    Then I said, “Behold, I come;
    In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
    I delight to do Your will, O my God,
    And Your law is within my heart.”
    Psalm 40:6–8 NKJV

    Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not;
    But a body thou hast prepared for me:
    Whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.
    Then I said, Behold, I come:
    In the volume of the book it is written concerning me,
    I desired to do thy will, O my God,
    and Thy law in the midst of mine heart.
    (LXX)

    7 θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας, ὠτία δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι, ὁλοκαύτωμα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ᾔτησας. 8 τότε εἶπον Ἰδοὺ ἥκω, ἐν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου γέγραπται περὶ ἐμοῦ, 9 τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημά σου, ὁ θεός μου, ἐβουλήθην καὶ τὸν νόμον σου ἐν μέσῳ τῆς κοιλίας μου.
    Psalm 39:7-9 LXX

    Rob
     
  8. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Psalm 40:6 and Heb 10:5

    Psalm 40:6 - περι αμαρτιασ ουκ εζητησασ
    Heb 10:5 - περι αμαρτιασ οθκ ευδοκησασ

    Psalm : εζητησα&#963 ;
    Heb : εθδοκησα&#963 ;

    Unless there is any variation among LXX and there is different reading in Ezhthsas, this is one of the good proofs that NT didn't quote LXX.

    There must have existed some other Hebrew MT which might be similar to LXX, but different from LXX.
     
  9. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,925
    Likes Received:
    111
    There are many different versions of the Greek OT, generally referred to as the Septuagint.

    The phrase I was looking at specifically was:
    “But a body thou hast prepared for me:”

    σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι· (Heb 10:5)

    As I look more closely, it differs in the version of the Septuagint I have presented in the above post:
    Which reads, “ὠτία δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι,”
    ὠτία (= ear)

    Interestingly enough, I took the quote in Psalms from a Nestle’s Critical edition of the Septuagint which I would expect to agree.

    My older, print version of the Septuagint was editied by Charles Lee Brenton (1851), and the word “σῶμα” was used.
    σῶμα (=body) (refered to in the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus)

    Guess I’ll have to look more deeply into this than I first thought.

    Rob

    [ April 14, 2006, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: Deacon ]
     
  10. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    We should distinguish 2 problems here:

    1) a body thou has prepared for me.
    or
    Mine ear hast thou opened

    Literally, KJV differs between OT and NT.

    2) thou didn't require(seek or pursue), or

    thou didn't desire

    εζητησασ may have the meaning of desire too, but apprarently different word, different spelling, and if NT quoted LXX, why didn't NT have the exact spelling of it?

    If anyone can be generous about item 2), then he or she should tolerate 1) as well, because Jews interpret this way:

    Ears are part of the body organ and the channel for receiving divine instructions and when the Bible said God dug Ears for me, it can be translated as God prepared a body for me too, saying the question " how can we translate dig Ears for me into Greek without causing misunderstanding?"

    So, in this aspect, if we apply the same rule, then KJV has no problem without LXX.

    Otherwise, if we can imagine that there might be another Hebrew OT texts, it might be easier to resolve the discrepancies as we often hear that there were 3 types of Hebrew OT, Babylonian, Egyptian, Palestinian etc.

    Still I take Heb 10:5 as a good example that NT didn't quote LXX as we notice the difference (ευδοκησασ / εζητησασ)
     
  11. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,925
    Likes Received:
    111
    Just a follow-up.
    I recently picked up a book called “Invitation to the Septuagint” co-authored by Karen Jobes and Moisés Silva in order to learn a little more about the Septuagint.
    A subject I found out I was woefully ignorant about.

    I would not recommend the book unless you have at least a basic knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and of basic principles of textual criticism; furthermore the greater the familiarity with the languages, the more you will fully appreciate some of the tougher chapters.

    One misconception (among many that I had) was that the Septuagint was a fixed text by the time of Christ. It was not. There are many versions, dating from centuries before Christ and into the early to mid centuries of the Christian era.

    In chapter 9 (which the authors title “Septuagint and New Testament”) the authors comment on specific passage of concern, including more than 2 pages dealing specifically with the subject of my last post above (Hebrews 10:5-7; Psalm 40:6-8a; LXX 39:7-9a.

    They write:
    “At any rate, note that evidence in the NT for a particular variant can be a double-edged sword. If we have good reason to believe that the variant is an innovation on the part of the NT author; then the evidence is decisively negative in character; that is, such a variant could not have been the original LXX reading. If, on the other hand, the presence of this variant in the NT suggests that it was already in existence, then it would count as strongly positive external evidence, since the NT provides exceptionally early witness. Even then, however, a final decision regarding its originality depends on other text-critical factors.” (p192)

    “The interface between textual and exegetical issues is nowhere more evident than in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” (Jobes, p.195)

    The authors note that the verse in Hebrews differs from the passage in the LXX in numerous places and concludes:

    “In the light of theses considerations, we have a good reason to believe that the author of Hebrews had before him a Greek text of Psalms with the reading wτία (OTIA) and that therefore he is the one responsible for changing this word to σwμα (SOMA), which then spread through nearly the whole [LXX] tradition. (p 197)

    Rob

    [ April 23, 2006, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]
     
  12. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    4
    What is the main point you are trying to make, Deacon?
     
  13. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    4
    I have no problem saying that NT quotations are sometimes dependent on the LXX. The problem with proving the point is that we are not certain of the state of the Hebrew text in the 1st century. Because of this, we cannot simply compare NT quotations with the present-day Hebrew text and the LXX and determine which one is closer. For example, it is fairly agreed upon that Jesus was quoting from a Hebrew scroll in Lk. 4:18, but the phrase "recovering of sight to the blind" can be found in no surviving Hebrew MS, while it can be found in the LXX of Is. 61:1. So we are left assuming either (1) Hebrew MSS used to have this but now they don't, (2) Luke said Jesus read something that he may not have read, (3) Jesus was actually reading from the LXX, or (4) something else that I haven't thought of. Those who use present-day Hebrew MSS to judge how often the quotes of the NT were dependent on the LXX as opposed to the Hebrew do not fully comprehend the nature of the problem.
     
  14. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    My survey shows the differences between NT and LXX, in almost every verses where NT quoted OT.

    1. Matt 1:23 ( Isaiah 7:14)

    NT:
    Behold, a virgin..They shall call his name Emmanuel

    LXX
    His name shall be called

    MT
    You(femnine you=the virgin) shall call his name
    ( KJV translated " she shall call) but the accurate wording is thou ( the virgin) shall call his name. This is quite delicate difference.

    2. Luke 4:19 ( Isaiah 61:2)
    NT
    Κηρυξα&#953 ;To preach the acceptable
    LXX
    Καλεσα&#953 ;(call)
    MT
    KRA ( proclaim)

    In this case, NT and MT used the same wording for both verse 18 preach and verse 19 preach while LXX use different words ( kerusso and kalesai)

    3. Acts 8:32-33Isaiah 53:7-8

    NT
    Και ως αμνος εναντιον του κειραντος αυτον αφωνος ουτως ουκ ανοιγει το στομα….. αυτου
    LXX
    Και ως αμνος εμπρσθεν του κειραντος (- )αυτον αφωνος ουτως ουκ ανοιγει το στομα ( -)

    In this short sentence, 3 spots are different. NT is closer to MT.

    4. Heb 10:5- Psalm 40:6

    I already mentioned above.

    NT
    Ευδοκησας (delight in, pleasure Εζητησας (seek, pursue) )
    LXX
    Εζητησας (seek, pursue)

    MT
    Chaphatsta(pleased to do, delight in)

    5. What you pointed out - Isaiah 61:1-2 Luke 4:18
    It seems so. But again Dead Sea Scroll doesn't have it. DSS agrees with MT

    6. From my survey, whenever I check closely between NT and LXX, almost in every verse they differ each other! It takes quite a lot of time to check, but if you spend some time you can easily confirm this point.

    7. While I am translating OT, often I notice LXX didn't translate Hebrew into Greek on the basis of Word-to-Word, but on the basis of Thought-to-Thought. I am very sure about this.
    Even KJV didn't translate fully Word-to-Word as I showed you above in Matt 1:23. There are some difficulties to apply Word-to-Word principle as I mentioned in Mt 1:23 because the sentence suddenly change the counterpart from ye to imperative to "thou" but feminine " virgin" If we stay with the Word-to-Word principle, there could be another problem with misunderstanding.
     
  15. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,925
    Likes Received:
    111
    Just some observations I made while studying the text of Hebrews (one of my favorite books).

    I'm looking for some additional illumination.

    Rob
     
  16. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Often I notice people saying NT quoted LXX

    1. Psalm 8:5 in Heb 2:7
    Someone claim that MT stated God instead of angels. Hebrew MT states elohim and KJV translated it as angels. There is no discrepancy between NT and MT. In the context, Hebrew MT sound a little more toward to God, but it is not that much.

    2. Jeremiah 31:32

    Yes, in this case.

    But we have to be careful between Hebrew MT and English MT.

    NT-LXX
    for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord"

    MT-
    my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD.

    1) Here we notice the variance among the texts:
    Some text says : ga-al-ti which means desecrated.
    Other text says : Bahalti which means I hated
    Ben Chayyim text says : ba-al-ti which means " lord over, rule over, be husband to, own, possess.
    There is a difference only one spelling between the text.
    2) Enlgish translation of MT expanded the difference more as we can see above.

    3) However, in this sentence again we can clearly confirm that NT didn't quote LXX !!!! See the difference below:

    NT LXX
    εποιησα διεθεμην
    επιλαβομην επελαβομην
    μου omited καγω και εγω λεγει φησι


    καγω και εγω
    This may be tolerated as identical.

    But we can clearly notice, there are at least 4 differences in this short sentence.

    If we check more, we can confirm that None of the OT verses in NT was quoted from LXX.

    There may be some other Hebrew MT different from Ben Chayyim MT, and there could be some variance.
    In this study, the correlation between OT and NT is not so simple.

    If we check more closely we can easily confirm that the quotes in NT are different from LXX in almost every verse.
     
  17. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    4
    Since at least a millennium passed before pointing was added to any Hebrew MS, I would say that the Hebrew text, as you pointed out, is accurate, regardless of the inaccurate nature of the pointing here. And it appears the Massoretes got this one (hamittah instead of hamatteh) wrong.
     
  18. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    4
    Heb. 1:5 in my Nestle-Aland quotes my Rahlfs LXX perfectly at Ps. 2:7 and 2 Sm. 7:14. But here the present-day Hebrew text in those places is also equivalent. Obviously it is not in places like these that one argues for dependence on the LXX.
     
  19. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    4
    Where did the quote in Heb. 1:6 ("And let all the angles of God worship him.") come from? Why is a form of it found in the Dead Sea Scrolls ("And let all the gods [or sons/angels of God] worship him.") absent from all present day MSS at Dt. 32:43? Why doesn't the quotation in Heb. 1:6 exactly match up with either Dt. 32:43 LXX or Ps. 96:7 LXX (Ps. 97:7), such as the two quotations in Heb. 1:5 do?
     
  20. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought Heb 1:5-6 could refer to Psalm 148:2 and 103:20, but the wording in LXX is exactly the same in this case.
    Dead Sea Scroll in Hebrew language support LXX against MT and Samaritan Pentateuch in Dt 32:43.
    I am not sure whether DT 32:43 meant the time of coming into the world for Jesus yet.

    One of the idea is whether there remains any OT texts in the region of Asia such as China, Mongolia, or Central Asia. Why should Bible exist only in Europe while we notice a lot of Christian heritages and remains in Asia and Tang dynasty had a lot of Nestorian believers even including King Tae Jong? If San-Kuo-ji still remains and is read well, why not Bible? Even Yuan dynasty had a lot of Christians including Kubilai Khan's family as we notice many generals' names are Mark, Philip, John, Paul, etc.
    What we have to keep in mind is that Jews used to be much more familiar with Aramaic than Greek and Targums were often used in the service.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...