Hebrews vs Psalms
Helen Willis hhiwater@BRIGHT.NET
Sat, 30 Aug 1997 17:09:48 -0700 (00873007788, 3408B64C.46ED@bright.net)
yoel wrote:
>
> Curt-
> >During a recent exchange with my brother over the Hebrews 10:5/Psalms 40:6
> >problem (i.e. the fact that Hebrews quotes the Septuagint, which differs
> >from the Hebrew in the crucial phrase),
>
> yoel-
> Well, here it is:
> Hebrew 10:5 NIV)
> Therefore when Christ came into the world, He said:
> "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
> but a body you prepared for me; (reminds me of Anne Rice's "Witching Hour")
> with burnt offerings and sin offerings
> you were not pleased
> Then I said, 'Here I am- it is written about me in the scroll-
> I have come to do your will, O God."
>
> Uhgh! The NIV gives the following footnote: Ps 40: 6-8 (see Septuagint).
> But of course, even the NIV cannot claim to have made an accurate
> translation of the Jewish scriptures and somehow fit that mistranslation
> in. For some reason, however, they have no qualms about doing such a thing
> with Isaiah 7, Isaiah 9, Psalm 22. I guess Psalm 40:6-8 isn't really so
> crucial to their argument like those other verses are, so they can afford a
> little honesty.
>
> Anyway, here is the NIV translation of Psalm 40:6-8:
> "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire
> but my ears you have pierced;
> burnt and sin offerings you did not require (well then, why Jesus?)
>
> Then I said, "Here I am, I have come-
> It is written about me in the scroll.
> I desire to do your will, O my God;
> Your law is within my heart."
>
> Well, as you can see, the bottom is perfectly in line with Judaism (though
> the translation is still faulty). The top line. with "a body you have
> prepared for me" reflects the Zombiesque incarnation of God in a foetus.
>
> Here is from the Hebrew Bible:
>
> zevakh uminHah lo Hafatzta
> sacrifice and offering not you desired
>
> oznayim karita li
> Ears you have opened* for me
>
> 'olah veHata'ah lo sha'alta
> burnt oferings and sin offering not you required
>
> az amarti hineh bati
> thus I said here!/look! I came (have come)
>
> bimgilat sefer katuv alai
> in the scroll (of) a book (is) written upon me (or 'about me')
>
> la'asot retzonkha elohai Hafatzti
> to do your will my God I desired
>
> Vetoratkha betokh me'ai
> and your torah (is) within my intestines
>
> *this root (k-r-h) literally means "to cut out, to dig out, to unstop". The
> term "likhrot ozen" (used here), means 'to open one's ears so that he can
> hear.' Sort of like "to pay attention" or "to notice" through hearing. It
> means "You have opened my ears [so that I can hear]." It does not mean that
> the ears were pierced. Pierce is d-q-r. "My ears you have pierced" would be
> "oznayim daqarta li."
>
> The psalmist is saying that God has opened his ears so that he can
> understand that sacrifice is not the most important thing, but rather
> following the Torah. The Psalmist is having these problems. He has been in
> a slimy pit (Ps 40:1-2) and God has helped and comforted him (Ps 40:2-3).
> He is now afraid of people waiting to kill him (Ps 40:14). He has realised
> that sacrifice is not the most important thing, but rather, that following
> God's Torah is more important. And he takes comfort in God's Torah, which
> he follows and which is inside of him. (remember, 'Torah' means a lot more
> than 'law'. It also means 'instruction', 'direction'.
>
> Curt-
> he came up with the following "solution":
> The Septuagint is actually a legitimate paraphrase of the Hebrew. The
> phrase "opened my ears" is a reference to the ancient slave-owning policies
> of the Jews, wherein the master of the house would bore through the slave's
> ear if the slave elected lifetime service.
>
> yoel-
> No. It means that the Psalmists ears have been opened. "You have opened my
> ears".
>
> Curt-
> Thus, the phrase "a body hast thou prepared me" is a reference to this
> mutiliation, and thus means a lifetime of sacrificial service.
>
> yoel-
> No, I have no idea how they came up with "a body thou hast prepared for
> me". The Hebrew is pretty clear. I have seen other Septuagint
> mistranslations where the reason for the mistake is obvious.
>
> Is it certain that the Septuagint copies being used are not copies that
> have already been altered by Christians? I mean, were the copies that
> existed before Christianity? You see, it would be harder for Christians to
> subvert actual Hebrew masoretics because:
>
> 1. The overwhelming majority of Christians do not know Hebrew
> 2. Jews also have copies of the OT in Hebrew. And they know Hebrew. That
> is, copies of the Old Testament exist, zealously guarded outside the realm
> of Christian control.
>
> To alter the Septuagint would be easier because:
> 1. Christians did know Greek
> 2. Jews had rejected the Septuagint, so it was not zealously guarded.
>
> I know nothing, I just ask, since the Septuagint translation is
> unacceptable and incomprehensible. Unlike other Septuagint errors (like
> Jeremiah's arab/crow), there is no way that one can accidentally get
>
> "a body thou hast prepared for me"
>
> from
>
> oznayim karita li
> Ears you have opened for me
>
> If the septuagint says this, then this is more proof that it was not a good
> translation. The "a body thou hast prepared for me" makes no sense in
> context and does not appear in the Hebrew, while the "you have opened my
> ears" makes sense in context.
>
> Look:
> David (if it is David) tells of the groovy things God has done:
> "He heard my cry" (1)
> "He lifted me out" (2)
> "He set my feet" (2)
> "He gave me a firm place" (2)
> "He put a new song in my mouth" (3)
>
> Then he breaks, saying "blessed is the man" who trusts in the Lord.....
> Then he speaks to God:
>
> "[You have] done many wonders" (5)
> "[You have] planned [many] things." (5)
> "YOU HAVE OPENED MY EARS" (6) not "a body you have prepared for me"
>
> Then, after David's ears have been opened and he has realised that
> sacrifice is not necessary, but rather that following God's Torah is
> necessary, he makes his case, listing the things he has not done (9-10).
>
> Then he closes by makes a plea for God's further asistence in his present
> turmoil (11-17).
>
> Then
> Curt-
> Personally, I find this rather weak, but can anybody confrim my feeling.
> (maybe Yoel?). What is the possibility that we are dealing with a genuine
> paraphrase, and not simply a translation mistake?
>
> yoel-
> No way.
Helen:
Hey, didn't I read somewhere that the Septaugint, or parts of it, was found
in Hebrew among the Dead Sea Scrolls? And the current feeling was that along
with being a rotten translations, it also is a of a different tradition from
source material for the modern the Masoretic texts that was the more
mainstream OT that was used by the Talmud sages and at the Temple.
I wouldn't think two different OTs at the time of Paul would help the
inerrantist make there case.
Helen Willis
hhiwater@bright.net