Hebrews 1:6

No problem, Latreia! If you check, you will see that it was actually included in the list that was posted by DocCas. It is listed there as "4Q44 (4QDeutq) 4QDeuteronomyq B Remains of the 'Song of Moses'". The Song of Moses is of course found in Deuteronomy 32, so DocCas must have missed it when he told you it wasn't there.

Pastork

 

And understandably so, since the list Doc gave included notations about masoretic origins. Just not for that one. No problem either way.

Incidentally I agree with you that the LXX predatees Christianity. It is of course not certain, but I would say it is likely.

 

Poor wording on my part. Yes, Q44 contains chapter 32, but I was looking for a Hebrew confirmation of the "LXX" reading. I will give you the longer reading in Q44, and that it conforms to the passage in Hebrews, but I am still in doubt about the even longer reading from the "LXX."

Thanks for the info.

This all brings up an interesting question. Is an "ex post facto" inspiration possible?

 

ummm.... my latin's a litle rusty. after the fact inspiration?

Could you elaborate please?

 

"After the fact."

I was just thinking that if the longer ending of Q44 was not inspired in the Hebrew text, as the Mesors seem to indicate, but it is inspired in the Greek text of Hebrews, which the NT seems to indicate, does the inspiration of those words in Hebrews apply retroactively to the words in Q44?

Just one of those wayward thoughts that pop into my mind occasionally.

 

Hmm....

I wouldn't say so. After all, applying that thought consistently would require us to accept the inspiration of some apocryphal and pseudepigraphal documents would it not?

 

How so?

 

Well, if I am following you correctly, then your hypothesis would be arguing that inspiration as evinced by NT usage would then extend back to the document of origin would it not?

 

In the Septuagint these very words occur in Deut. 32:43, where they are inserted in the Song of Moses. But they are not in the Hebrew; nor are they in all the copies of the Septuagint . The Hebrew is, "Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people; for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries.", The Septuagint is, "Rejoice ye heavens with him and let all the angels of God worship him. Let the nations rejoice with his people, and let all the sons of God be strong in him, for he has avenged the blood of his sons."

Consider these thoughts:
1. The passage is not in the Hebrew; and it seems hardly credible that, in writing to Hebrews, and to those residing in the very country where the Hebrew Scriptures were constantly used, he should make reference to, as a proof-text on an important doctrine, what was not in their Scriptures.

2. It is omitted in all the ancient versions, except the Septuagint, and then, not 100% agreement.

3. The passage in question, in Deuteronomy, does not contain any reference to the Messiah. It does not relate to His "introduction" to the world. It would not occur to any reader that it had any such reference. The context celebrates the victory over the enemies of Israel which God will achieve. After saying that "his arrows would be drunk with blood, and that his sword would devour flesh with the blood of the slain and of captives, from the time when he begins to take vengeance on an enemy," the Septuagint (not the Hebrew) immediately asserts, "let the heavens rejoice at the same time with him, and let all the angels of God worship him." That is: "Let the inhabitants of the heavenly world rejoice in the victory of God over the enemies of his people, and let them pay their adoration to him." But the Messiah does not appear to be alluded to anywhere in the context; much less described as "introduced into the world."

The probability is, that the writer here referred to Ps 97:7 "Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods."

-from Albert Barnes NT Commentary.

 

To the veracity of the words quoted, not necessarily the entire document.

 

DocCas,

Responding to:
"I will give you the longer reading in Q44, and that it conforms to the passage in Hebrews, but I am still in doubt about the even longer reading from the 'LXX'".

Actually, I think I might see the situation the other way around. Assuming the basic correctness of the literal translations of the MT, 4QDeutq, and the LXX of Deut.32:43 in the link I gave above, it looks to me like 4QDeutq doesn't actually support the part of the LXX reading that the NKJV claims it does. Although it does support parts of the longer LXX reading (i.e., 'bow down to Him' and 'all divine beings'), it does not have the phrase 'the angels of God', which is included in the LXX and in Heb.1:6, and which the NKJV translators claim to be cited by Heb.1:6. In other words, although it seems reasonable to me to conclude that Heb.1:6 probably cites some version of the LXX, I think the NKJV claim for 'DSS' support of the reading may be misleading. On the other hand, the NKJV and you may be correct if one assumes that the author of Hebrews was citing a version of the text corresponding to 4QDeutq, but was interpreting the phrase 'all divine beings' as 'all the angels of God'. Such interpretive citations of the OT are pretty common in the NT, aren't they? Is this what you think is actually happening? If so, I think that you may be right, but this would still create a problem with the translators' note in the NKJV, because it would seem that one must say that Heb.1:6 cites either a text like that of 4QDeutq or that of the LXX, but not both as they suggest.

Conclusion: I think a case can be made for either a text like 4QDeutq or a text like LXX being cited in Heb.1:6, but not for both.

Pastork

[ September 06, 2002, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

Pastor Bob,

1. There is a Hebrew text of Deut.32:43 that could well be the one cited by Heb.1:6, and that is the Q4Deutq text we have been discussing. As for the assumption that in writing to Hebrews he would more likely have cited a Hebrew text, I would also note that the author of Hebrews cites the LXX a number of other times, even though he has addressed his letter to the 'Hebrews' ( see e.g.10:5). As a matter of fact, isn't it commonly held in standard NT introductions that Hebrews makes use primarily of the LXX?

2. If the exact wording regarding the 'angels of God' is in the LXX and also in Heb.1:6, I don't think we can so quickly rule it out as a citation of the LXX.

3. As to whether the passage in Deut.32 contains a reference to the Messiah, I would point out that there are a number of examples in the NT where the Apostles interpret an OT text as a reference to the Messiah which in its OT context would not readily have appeared as such. One example would be Matthew's declaration that Jesus' return from Egypt was a fulfilment of Hos. 11:1, which in its OT context is speaking of Israel with no clear "reference to the Messiah".

As far as the there being a stronger probabilty that the author of Hebrews is citing Ps.97:7, I would note that I find it problematic because that text appears to be referring to false gods.

Pastork

[ September 06, 2002, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]