NT Quote in Hebrews

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!

 

Ed

 

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.

 

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.

 

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)

 

What is the main point you are trying to make, Deacon?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.