Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It should be remarked that the statement, "a body hast thou prepared for me," corresponds in meaning with the Greek of the Septuagint, which it is our author's custom to follow when quoting from the Old Testament, but not with the Hebrew of Ps. 40:7, the literal sense of which is, "ears thou hast dug for me" (RSV mg.). It is possible that the translators of the Septuagint version had before them a Hebrew text which read "body" instead of "ears" (though external evidence for any such variant is lacking), or that the ddiscrepancy is due to a copyist's error which became entrenched in the Greek of the Septuagint. Conjectures aside, however, the difference between the Septuagint and the Hebrew is not so great as it might at first appear to be. The former is in fact described by Delitzsch as "a free, generalizing rendering" of the latter. Calvin reminds us that the apostolic authors "were not over-scrupulous in quoting words provided that they did not misuse Scripture for their convenience" and that "we must always look at the purpose for which quotations are made." And Owen contends that we have here an example of synecdoche, that is, the use of a part for the whole, in this instance the ears for the body, "because as it is impossible that anyone should have ears of any use but by virtue of his having a body, so the ears are that part fo the body by which alone instruction unto obedience, the thing aimed at, is received."
Thus we have the Hebrew original (perfectly preserved) and the inspired apostolic translation and explanation in Greek (perfectly preserved).The words, therefore, in this place are the words whereby the apostle expressed the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost in those used in the
psalmist, or that which was intended in them. He did not take them from the translation of the LXX., but used them himself, to express the sense of the Hebrew text.
If they, in fact, did render it using the same words as the Apostle (which Owen finds unlikely -- scribes later changing the text to "correct it" to match the NT, as he thinks the many variants of the passage confirm), it was purely by accident, as they could not have understood the Christological significance of the passage.
If they, in fact, did render it using the same words as the Apostle (which Owen finds unlikely -- scribes later changing the text to "correct it" to match the NT, as he thinks the many variants of the passage confirm), it was purely by accident, as they could not have understood the Christological significance of the passage.
Yes, I understand that Owen represents a minority view on the subject. But even he admits to the possibility (notice his word "probable") of the pre-Christian Septuagint being the same as NT.
So, if the Septuagint reading is the same as the New Testament reading, is the Septuagint a valid reading? Or is it a sinful reading? In other words, are Orthodox churches wrong in their Bibles because the quote in Hebrews 10 is the same as in their Old Testament? Are they morally obligated to change their Bible?
Confessionally, the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is considered the divine original, so I'm not sure why we need to bring in the Eastern Orthodox practice of using the LXX as their Old Testament. I thought we would all agree that such was incorrect. We should let both the Hebrew original and its inspired, NT Greek rendition and opening speak for themselves, and rejoice that we have such divine illumination provided for our understanding of this Psalm.
"When the fullness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world...it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of...Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek....This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching...."
"It is certain that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostle-like men? Yet it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient), rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church...."
And I'm pretty sure all are agreed that the Greek Old Testament existed pre-Christ; I'm not sure who denies that, either.
In the book by Floyd Nolen Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis.pdf, the historical background and quality of the LXX is thoroughly examined. These are among the points concluded (see page 22):
(1) The letter of Aristeas [which purports to give a history of the LXX –SMR] is mere fabrication (Kahle called it propaganda), and there is no hard historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the O.T. into Greek between 285-150 B.C.
(2) The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no pre-Christian LXX.
(3) No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 150 A.D.
(4) Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and Origen produced the first "Septuagints" – that none
existed before their works.
(5) The Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of
N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New
Testament Text which they had before them as they forged their product.
(6) After 1900 years of searching, archaeology has failed to produce a single piece of papyrus
written in Greek before c.150 A.D. that any writer of the New Testament used for a "quotation".
They further point out that the nearest thing to an Old Testament Greek Bible found by anyone is the Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which has a few portions of Deuteronomy 23-28 on it. This piece of papyrus is dated 150 B.C. (questionable date) which is fifty to one hundred years later than the writing of the so-called original Septuagint (see footnote 1, p. 36).”
If there is no evidence that a pre-Christ LXX – a complete and standard version – existed, how else say it? I think it clear from all of the above that I am not denying at least a copy of the Pentateuch, and some other portions of the prophets did exist (we have reports of this), but the actual documents, or copies thereof, are no longer extant, and the Septuagint which does exist today is certainly not the same as whatever may have existed in the past. The fact is, we do not know what existed – we do not have any of the words written, save in the “Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which has a few portions of Deuteronomy 23-28 on it. This piece of papyrus is dated 150 B.C. [with some uncertainty –SMR].” Otherwise there are no extant pre-Christ manuscripts. (Found here. Emphasis mine)
as every translation I know of follows the Hebrew of the Old Testament when translating Psalm 40.
the words are rendered as by the Septuagint, "but a body hast thou prepared me"; and with it the Arabic and Ethiopic versions agree;
do you think that Psalm 40 should be translated "a body have you prepared me"?
Karen Jobes has discussed this text in the Trinity Journal (I don't have time to locate year and issue). Utilising the Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian it is shown that the text uses a rhetorical function known as paronomasia, which includes forms of phonetic assonance. As Hebrews is a "word of exhortation," a common feature of the Hebrew synagogue, it is natural to conclude that the reference to Psalm 40 is not designed to be a quotation in the technical sense, but an appropriation to the specific subject at hand which makes use of accepted rhetorical devices of the day.