Hebrews 1:6

I believe the quote is from Deut 32:43 in the LXX. Psa 97:7 is about false gods, idols - not angels.

 

Aaron,

My NKJV has a note that reads "Deut.32:43, LXX, DSS; Ps.97:7". Then at Deut.32:43a, "Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people", it has a footnote that reads "The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament)and one of the Dead Sea Scrolls contain a longer version of this phrase (text note). This longer version is quoted in Heb.1:6." The text note then reads " Dss fragment adds And let all the gods (angels) worship Him; cf. LXX and Heb.1:6".

This raises an interesting text-critical question: Should we see the author of Hebrews' citation of the LXX (if that is indeed what he is citing) as an Apostolic affirmation of the LXX reading of Deut.32:43a as the correct reading and thus adopt it as such in our modern versions? This should make for a very interesting discussion, and I would be eager to hear others' views.

Pastork

 

As there is no pre/contemporary-Apostolic mss evidence to indicate whether a pre/contemporary-Apostolic Greek translation of the OT had the longer variant of the verse in question the entire discussion is moot. How could anyone claim the NT confirms a LXX reading when we can't confirm either the existance of such a reading in Apostolic times, or that such a reading, if it infact existed, was taken from the LXX?

 

We've discussed this before. It's an "LXX" reading because it's in the LXX as the majority of people define the LXX. Whether or not the pre-NT Greek translation of the OT contained this reading in Deut is sort of beside the point, because the author of Hebrews quoted *something*, and it wasn't the Masoretic ("as we have it today") or the KJV.

 

Found in Cave 4 at Qumran was a copy of Deuteronomy that that contains the longer version, in Hebrew. It doesn't corespond tot he Masoretic text. It is thought that this version is the one underlying the Septuagint translation. The author of Hebrews is here citing the Septuagint version of the Deuteronomy passage.

The reason that there is a reference to Ps. 97:7 isbecause there is a parallel between the verses in the LXX. The Septuagint version of Ps. 97:7 has "all you angels" instead of "all you gods" )as in the Masoretic) which makes its inclusion at this point in the author of Hebrews' argument natural. But it also suggest that the form of the Psalm (angels, not gods) is dependant on the parallel verse in Deuteronomy.

Clear as mud, right?

 

<sigh> I suspect you missed the point.

And my point was it is incorrect to call any Greek translation of the OT The LXX.

Obviously! But to try to assert that the reading comes from the LXX when there is no Apostolic mss evidence to support that assertions is a vacuous argument! How can anyone assert a reading came from a document which we have no evidence that it ever existed, or even assert that it is a quote from one of several Greek translations of the OT when we have absolutely no mss evidence to support the theory! Doing intelligent textual criticism is not an exercise in banal speculation, but in a critical examination of the evidence.

 

I don't either!Excellent point! The Hebrews passage was given by inspiration of God and need not be a quote of anything.

 

No, I got your point. I just don't see how it's really relevant to the topic at hand. And I'll probably continue to use the term "LXX" in this way despite your objections.

 

Interesting. For as long as I can remember, I have always thought of this as an OT quote and never searched it out. But since you raised the question, I did a little cross referencing. I have come to the conclusion that this does not necessarily have to be an OT quote. Could it not be prophetic? See Rev. 19:1-2. Rev. 11:15-17, This is just a possiblility.
About your take on it, I do not believe the LXX existed before the second century, and it may have been invented by Origen. That's a whole different dog however, and he won't hunt.
The phrase, "worship him all ye gods" may in fact be the refeerence the Apostle is quoting. I see nothing amiss with the Holy Spirit interpreting "gods" in Psalm 97:7 as angels in Heb. 1:6.
AV1611Jim

 

"And my point was it is incorrect to call any Greek translation of the OT The LXX."

That is true. It could easliy have been the author of Hebrew's own translation of the non-Masoretic variant of Deuteronomy.

However the change in the LXX at Ps 97:7 suggests that it is a parallel to something rather than standing on its own. The chnage occurred because of familiarity with another verse, namely the Deuteronomy passage.

 

My information gives the following inventory for Cave 4:</font>

• 4Q28 (4QDeuta) 4QDeuteronomya ß
  A fragment with remains of Deut 23-24.</font>
• 4Q29 (4QDeutb) 4QDeuteronomyb ß</font>
• 4QDth, 4QDtj, 4QDtl, Four fragments with remains of Deut 29-32.</font>
• 4Q30 (4QDeutc) 4QDeuteronomyc ß
  Lengthy copy of Deut, of a textual type related to LXX.</font>
• 4Q31 (4QDeutd) 4QDueteronomyd ß
  A fragment with remains of Deut 2-3.</font>
• 4Q32 (4QDeute) 4QDeuteronomye ß</font>
• 4QDth, 4QDtj, 4QDtl, Diss. Three main fragments containing remains of Deut 7-8.</font>
• 4Q33 (4QDeutf) 4QDeuteronomyf ß 'Proto-rabbinic' copy of Deut.</font>
• 4Q34 (4QDeutg) 4QDeuteronomyg ß Copy of Deut of a masoretic type.</font>
• 4Q35 (4QDeuth) 4QDeuteronomyh ß Copy of Deut of a septuagintal type, with remains of Deut 1-2, Deut 31 and Deut 33.</font>
• 4Q36 (4QDeuti) 4QDeuteronomyi ß Another copy of Deut.</font>
• 4Q37 (4QDeutj) 4QDeuteronomyj ß
  The manuscript contains various passages from Deut and Exod 12:43-13:5, which follows Deut 11:21.</font>
• 4Q38 (4QDeutk) 4QDeuteronomyk ß
  Eleven (11) fragments which could belong to two different copies of Deut. The preserved remains come from Deut 5.11.19-20.23.25-26.32.</font>
• 4Q39 (4QDeutl) 4QDeuteronomyl ß
  Eight (8) tiny-sized fragments of another copy of Deut.</font>
• 4Q40 (4QDeutm) 4QDeuteronomym ß
  Three fragments with remains of Deut 3 and Deut 7, written with plene spelling.</font>
• 4Q41 (4QDeutn) 4QDeuteronomyn ß
  The famous 'All Souls Deuteronomy', possibly a text with excerpts from Deut.</font>
• 4Q42 (4QDeuto) 4QDeuteronomyo ß
  Fifteen (15) tiny-sized fragments of another copy of Deut.</font>
• 4Q43 (4QDeutp) 4QDeuteronomyp ß
  Four (4) small fragments of another copy of Deut, with remains of Deut 5 and Deut 14.</font>
• 4Q44 (4QDeutq) 4QDeuteronomyq ß
  Remains of the 'Song of Moses'.</font>
• 4Q45 (4QpalaeoDeutr) 4QpalaeoDeuteronomyr ß
  Abundant fragments of another copy of Deut written in palaeo-Hebrew characters.</font>
• 4Q46 (4QpalaeoDeuts) 4QpalaeoDeuteronomys ß
  P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J. E. Sanderson</font>

As can be seen, only 4QDth, 4Q38, and 4Q41 are even said to contain chapter 32, and all three of them represent Mesoratic readings, as far as I can tell. Can you give me the catalogue number of the Deuteronomy scroll found in Cave 4 which contains chapter 32 and contains the variant? Thanks.

 

Doc,

My resource is secondary. Don Hagner's commentary on Hebrews (NIBC, Hendrickson/Paternoster, 1983,1990). Here is what he says verbatim (p.38):

"That in the first century divergent Hebrew manuscripts of the same book wre occasionally available is demonstrated by the discovery of the present quotation in a Hebrew manuscript of Deuteronomy among the scrolls at Qumran (cave 4). The LXX translator apparantly had this verse in the Hebrew that he translated. (See F.M. Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran, [New York: Doubleday, 1958], pp. 181ff.)"

Sorry, it isn't more specific than that. I scoured the net for more info but came up empty. I had assumed the reference to be accurate. Typo? New findings?

 

I agree with Aaron that Heb.1:6 in context should be seen as an OT citation, and since it happens to coincide with the Septuagint reading and is further supported as such by the DSS, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that it is a citation of the Septuagint reading. However, I also agree with DocCas that not just any Greek translation of the OT should be referred to as the "Septuagint", which can be a very nebulous term, but which technically ought to be reserved for what some textual critics call the OG (Old Greek) translation (see, e.g., Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, p.145). This is why I said "if [the LXX] is indeed what he is citing" when I asked the the text-critical question about Heb.1:6. I would assume, however, that the NKJV translators would be aware of such an issue, and probably felt confident in pronouncing it a Septuagint reading because it fit the technical usage of the term as well as the DSS support for the reading. But this brings me back to the same question: If it is , in fact, a citation of the Septuagint as it was known in the first century, should we see this as Apostolic affirmation of the reading over against the Masoretic text?

Pastork

[ September 05, 2002, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

If it is true as Doc Cassidy suggests,(and I do agree with him), that the LXX is from post apostolic times, is it possible that Duet 32:43 in the LXX is in reality a reading "borrowed" from Hebrews 1:6? Any thoughts?

 

An interesting thought. The answer will only come with the date of the DSS scroll reading being established. The NKJV translators obviously think it predates Hebrews, but I suppose they could be mistaken. I will see if I can't find the actual date, unless someone else here has the information at hand. However, even if the DSS reading is found to postdate the writing of Hebrews, it would not necessitate that it was borrowed from Hebrews, although it would certainly open up the possibility.

As far as the Septuagint dating from post-Apostolic times, I think it is beyond doubt that it originated before the time of Christ. For example, OT textual critics date what they refer to as the Kaige-Theodotion revision to "the middle of the first century BCE" (Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, p.145). It goes without say that if a revision of the Septuagint is dated this early, then the original must be earlier still. But as Emanuel Tov points out, "According to the generally accepted explanation of the testimony of the Epistle of Aristeas, the translation of the Torah was carried out in Egypt in the third century BCE. This assumption is compatible with the early date of several papyrus and leather fragments of the Torah from Qumran and Egypt, some of which have been ascribed to the middle or end of the second century BCE" ( Textual Criticism,p.136).

Pastork

[ September 06, 2002, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

Latreia,

I found out which fragment from Cave 4 has Deut.32:43. It is 4QDeuteronomy q, a picture of which may be seen at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/cgi-bin/ames150?slide=53 . This confirms the secondary source you cited earlier. However, if you click 'next slide' when you go to the link, you will find a literal translation of Deut.32:43 from the MT, 4QDeutq, and the LXX, which demonstrates that the DSS reading is not exactly equivalent to the LXX reading (as the secondary sources we have so far been discussing might lead one to believe).The comparison translation may be found at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/cgi-bin/ames150?slide=54 .

Pastork

[ September 06, 2002, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

Thanks Pastork!