Hebrews 10:5-7 and Its Quotation of Psalm 40:6-8 (LXX 39:6-8): Another Very Tough Road to Hoe for the Traditional Inspiration View
Posted By MSH on February 11, 2009
Someone asked me about this passage this morning, and I thought it was another great illustration of why we need to affirm freedom on the part of the biblical writers, as opposed to God dictating the words to them (audibly or through some sort of mysterious mind-meld). In this case, LXX and MT both have “EARS” instead of “body” in the Hebrew 10:5 QUOTATION of the OT, “a BODY you have prepared for me.” How in the world (or where in the world) did the writer of Hebrews get “body” when both MT and LXX have “ears”? I can tell you one thing, the Spirit didn’t whisper it to him (or her, for those who like Priscilla as the author of Hebrews). This is about as far “off track” you can get in terms of a NT author quoting the OT. The wording is a clear alteration of the OT readings of both MT and LXX. But there is an answer. In this PDF, Karen Jobes does a wonderful job of explaining the rhetorical technique used by the NT writer, making clear that the writer wasn’t intending to correct the OT by the word change.
Comments
6 Responses to “Hebrews 10:5-7 and Its Quotation of Psalm 40:6-8 (LXX 39:6-8): Another Very Tough Road to Hoe for the Traditional Inspiration View”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
Hos 12:9 I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; I will again make you dwell in tents, as in the days of the appointed feast. I spoke to the prophets; it was I who multiplied visions, and through the prophets gave parables.
I have read The Function of Paronomasia in Hebrews 10:5–7 and I find that Karen has done a nice job in his analysis of the apparent “misquotation” in Psalms 40.
However, I wonder if the same kind of rhetorical skills would apply to other more direct models or types in the OT. What about Psalms 22? What about the binding of Isaac in Genesis 22:6-19:
Gen 21:1-5: Isaac is miraculously born in Abraham and Sarah’s old age (The miraculous birth of Jesus).
Gen 22:2&16: Isaac is the only son of Abraham [that is, unique or one-of-a-kind] (Jesus is the Monogenes of the Father).
Gen 22:2: Was to be sacrified on Mount Moriah (supposedly the same area around Calvary / Jerusalem)
Gen 22:6: Abraham takes the wood and puts it on Isaac (Cross)
Gen 22:7-8: Isaac is the Lamb (Jesus)
Gen 22:9: Abraham binds Isaac ready for sacrifice
and the final pebble would be the similitude or parabolic allusion in Hebrews 11:17-19:
11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,
11:18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”
11:19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.
So in a sense, or in a similitude, Abraham did get Isaac back, although Isaac appears not to come down with Abraham in Gen 22:19 (he obviously did, but the text does not say so) and this typifies the resurrection of Christ to the author of Hebrews. Isaac only reappears later on in Gen 24:
Gen 22:5 Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you.” Indeed, they come back again.
Clarification from comment above:
When I said “if the same kind of rhetorical skills would apply to other more direct models or types in the OT” I did not mean to imply that Karen discussed types in the OT. He discusses quotations from NT authors in the OT that are phonetically re-arranged to put emphasize on the quotation and apply it to Christ. However, What about the quotations in Psalms 22 in the NT Gospel?
And by the way, Wasn’t the epistle to the Hebrews written in Aramaic or Hebrew initially and then translated in Greek by…an apostle? If so, this would also have to be taken into consideration.
@blop2008: Very interesting. My bet is that a search of something like the ATLA Religion Database for “paronamasia” would produce some articles that weren’t only about TC and OT in NT issues.
@blop2008: I’m not a Hebrews specialist, but I’ve never come across anything that proposes an Aramaic or Hebrew original.
A very, very cool blog, and clealy far above my ignernt redneck abilities. So how can I dare suggest a correction? Nonetheless… I think you mean “row” to hoe. Y’ever do much gard’nin’?
I’ll bet you’re right — I’ve always heard it the other way, but your wording makes much more sense! Thanks!