The LXX (Hebrews 10:5) (SteveCR)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

MATT BELL
Helen, this is one response on the Hebrews 10:5 'problem'. No doubt the cry
of specuation will arise from some quarters which is fair enough. So is the
'copying error' theory. Look forward to your comments.

The Septuagint - A Critical Analysis 1996
5th Edition
Revised
(First Edition 1989)
FLOYD NOLEN JONES, Th.D., Ph.D.
FLOYD JONES MINISTRIES, INC.
8222 Glencliffe Lane
Houston, Texas
The second O.T. quotation causing difficulty is Hebrews 10:5:

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering
thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Hebrews 10:5-7 is basically a quote of Psalm 40:6-8.  The above portion is
found in this form in the majority of the LXX manuscripts that contain the
verses.  The Hebrew text, however, reads:

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened:
(Psa. 40:6)

instead of "but a body hast thou prepared me" (compare underlined
segments).  Because of this, the author of the Book of Hebrews has been
charged with using a mistranslation of the Hebrew text as a support for the
Christian doctrine of Christ's atoning death.  However, such is not the
only explanation for the discrepancy.  In Psalm 40 and Hebrews 10, the
emphasis is not so much on the sacrifice of Christ's body as it is on His
willing obedience which made the sacrifice of His body so effectual.
Because of this emphasis, the inspired author of Hebrews was led by the
Holy Spirit to inject at this point a paraphrase/interpretation – His own
commentary.  The words "mine ears" infers that there is a "body" available
that can be sacrificed.  Thus, the force of the verse as recorded in
Hebrews 10 is "I voluntarily submit my body".  "Ears" has been reworded,
without violation, to tailor fit the context.

[snip]
Finally, we submit that the Hebrews 10:5 rendering is the original wording
and God guided interpretation of Psalm 40:6 with regard to its application
to the central message of the Hebrew Epistle.  Additionally, that as in the
first instance involving Heb. 1:6, the writer of the LXX is writing after
the fact.  We submit that he had the Epistle to the Hebrews in front of him
as he translated and that he altered the original Hebrew to force Psalm 40
to match Heb. 1:6 – not understanding the import of that which we have
heretofore proclaimed.

STEVE CR
Aha, I see how the whole problem can be dealt with. The NT writers *appear*
to have quoted from the LXX, but we know they didn't. In fact, they quoted
from the Hebrew MT in each and every case, changing the text in subtle
ways, none of which actually altered the original meaning of the inspired
Hebrew. Then when the LXX was prepared much later, the writers of the LXX
simply referred to the NT for their text.

So the writers of the LXX copied from the NT, and the NT writers quoted
from the inspired Hebrew which they translated in line with the original
meaning.

If I had a lot of time on my hands, I would now prepare a case to show that
the Diatessaron was *the* orginal gospel, and that the four gospels were
generated from that one original. Mere problems such as earlier papyrii and
quotations from church fathers could be dealt with much more simply than
the argument above.

<snip>

MATT BELL
Your response above makes no comment on the validity or otherwise of the
explanation of the Hebrews 10:5 'problem'? Nor have you (or any others)
commented on the removal of the Rylands Fragment #458; the Letter of
Aristeas and the comments of Aristobulus as evidence of a BC LXX. If you
are not careful I might begin thinking I have a case <g>. 

Thanks
Matt Bell

• Previous message: Terry, where's your "Bible etc.
• Next message: Dick's insults (Claire take note)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]