Does Hebrews 10:5 Misquote Psalm 40:6?


I learned a long time ago that the cross-reference in the margins of the average Bible was a helpful guide to understanding how the New Testament (NT) and the Old Testament (OT) relate to one another. Somewhere around 2009 I also made the realization that some of the OT references listed in the NT were not quoted well or that some seem to be practicing some very poor exegesis. A friend that I met through church, who had already graduated from Bible college, mentioned that she was rather disappointed with the way that the NT authors used the OT passages completely out of context. At that time in my life I was not familiar with this particular issue so I poured myself into checking as many references as I could. For months I read and searched all the ways that the NT used the OT passages.

What I discovered was that quite often the NT either paraphrased the OT passage or that the NT simply misquoted the OT passage. Many of the misquotes that I found to seemed benign because they are not as much of a misquote as a re-working of the text. The misquote being discussed in this article is the rework type. The OT text quoted in Hebrews 10 clearly does not match what is in Psalm 40, but is it a serious problem? Also, what does this mean about the doctrine of inerrancy? Those questions will be answered in this article.

Below is an explanation of this type of error, found in the NT, as well as the reason why so many of these errors exist.


Text of Hebrews 10 against Psalm 40


Hebrews 10:5-7 King James Version (KJV)

……. Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Psalm 40:6-8 King James Version (KJV)

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

 


The “Misquote”


The disagreement between Hebrews 10:5 and Psalm 40:6 is mostly concerning the proposed action that God had performed.

but a body hast thou prepared me (Hebrews)

mine ears hast thou opened (Psalm 40)

Did God prepare a body or did He open ears? Which one is correct?

Technically, they are both correct, but Psalm 40 in the original Hebrew is more correct. The passage is different in the book of Hebrews because the author of Hebrews quoted from the Septuagint (LXX), which was the Greek version of the OT, widely used in the first century. He did not quote from the Masoretic Hebrew text which is the basis for most modern OT texts. The LXX was the standard for first century Jews because the Greek language was the main language of the people at that time. Additionally, many of the converts of Paul spoke only Greek, so quoting the OT in Aramaic or Hebrew would have been a problem since his audience could not read it. Of course some early Christians could still speak and read Aramaic, but everyday life and interactions with others were done in Greek. It’s been suggested by others that the poorest Jews in Judea may have lacked the ability to really speak Greek. The barrier between Gentiles primarily speaking Greek and poor/rural Jews only speaking Aramaic presented real problems in the early Church. Perhaps, Paul’s calling to the Gentiles would best explain why he chose to reference the OT in Greek, rather than Aramaic or Hebrew.

The dependency of some people on the Greek OT raises an issue for the modern reader, which is that the LXX mistranslated or purposefully changed  some of the Hebrew texts. It’s pretty fair to say that the LXX was carefree in it’s translation of the Hebrew. Moreover, there was no official single copy of the LXX. Many Greek manuscripts existed in the first century and they were not in universal agreement with each other or the Hebrew texts. So one cannot know for sure if some passages in the LXX were translated correctly, just from an unknown Hebrew manuscript. Just a few examples of the changes in the LXX are that the book of Job was dramatically re-ordered in the LXX and the book of Ester is quite a bit longer in the Greek than in the Hebrew manuscripts. These changes in the text are easily located because in modern times there exists a wide access to the texts, where as ancient texts were often transmitted orally.

The problems with the LXX would be irrelevant had the NT authors not used it as an authoritative copy of the OT. Paul almost always quotes from the LXX over the Hebrew. Clearly it was good enough for Paul. But did Paul know that it differed from the Hebrew? My guess is that he did know, but the idea of inerrancy concerning the OT scriptures was not as defined as our modern theology of inerrancy. The Jewish people very much had a canon that was “living” and changing. One community considered books like Esdras and Maccabees to be inspired and canonical, where as others would not. What the Essenes thought of as inspired and what the Pharisees thought of as inspired were often two different things. The idea of inerrancy was typically only given to the law and then later in the 3rd century to the prophets. It was not immediately important to declare the historical or wisdom literature to without error. Moreover, the Jewish faith was not closed to new revelation. God’s revelation to His people did not die with the prophets of our current version of the OT.

That being said, the text found in the LXX for Psalm 40:6 is not necessarily a misquote as much as it is a re-working of the passage. It appears that the translator of the Greek text took liberalities to insert a little play on words or a rhyme of sorts….. some have even call it a pun (myself not included). For those who are confident in their Greek abilities, I highly suggest that they read the article “The Function of Paronomasia in Hebrews 10:5–7“, by Karen H. Jobes. Karen is one of the most premier scholars on the LXX and was the Professor of New Testament Greek and Greek Exegesis, Emerita, at Wheaton College from 2005 to 2015. Most seminary professors reference her works on the Greek OT, no matter which seminary they teach at. She is a renown expert in her field.

Since most English speakers do not read Greek, I will give a gloss of the article below.

Jobes argues that the translator of Psalm 40 in the LXX employed a rhetorical device call a paronomasia. A paronomasia in English is just a play on words, which was heavily used in writings of first century Greek because the texts were often heard by a reader, not read by individuals. Much like the letters of Paul were read aloud to the churches, Greek texts in the form of plays, poems, and even history would create phonetic phrases and passages that were easy to remember. A good example of why this was helpful can be seen in learning a new language. When I was in high school German class it was not uncommon to learn a song or a poem in German. This is because we learn things that rhyme easier than things that do not. A rhyme reduces the number of word options that fit into the given location because whatever the word is, it has to continue on the same rhythmic trend. This is why most languages also have an alphabet song. Even learned adults sometimes recite the ABCs mentally or aloud by using the song they learned in grade school or kindergarten.

For the Greek speakers reading this article, here is the LXX version of Psalm 40 as presented in Hebrews 10, which contains the rhythmic version created by the LXX author.

5b Θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας
Σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι
6 Ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ
ἁμαρτίας Οὐκ εὐδόκησας
7 Τότε εἶπον
Ἰδοὺ ἥκω
Ἐν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου γέγραπται περὶ ἐμοῦ
Τοῦ ποιῆσαι ὁ Θεός τὸ θέλημά σου

5b: θυ- σί- αν- καὶ- πρὸσ- φο- ρὰν- οὐκ- ἠ- θέ- λη- σας
5c: σω̂- μα- δὲ- κα- τηρ- τί- σω- μου
6:  ὁ- λο- καυ- τώ- μα- τα- καὶ- πε- ρίἁ-
μαρ- τί- ασ- οὐκ- εὐ- δό- κη- σας
7a: τότε εἰ̂πον·
7b: ἰδοὺ ἣκω,
7c: ἐν- κε- φα- λί- δι- βιβ- λί- ου- γέ- γραπ- ται- πε- ρὶ- ἐ- μου̂
του̂- ποι- η̂- σαι- ὁ- θε- ὸσ- τὸ- θέ- λη- μά- σου

Oddly enough, when reading the quotation in Greek, it is slightly reminiscent of the song from Cinderella, “Bibbidi-bobbidi-boo”. The Cinderella connections is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but demonstrates the power of a mnemonic device.

Sala-gadoola-menchicka-boo-la bibbidi-bobbidi-boo
Put ’em together and what have you got?
Bibbidi-bobbidi-boo

When transliterated directly into English the Greek text would sound like the following paragraph. However, I did make one adjustment from Jobe’s version which I will highlight and explain afterwards.

Thy-si-an kia pros-pho-ran ouk e-the-le-sas
so-ma de ka-ter-ti-so mou
Ha-lo-kau-to-mat-ta kai pe-ri ha-mar-ti-as
Ouk ey-do-ke-sas
To-te eipon
idou hekou
en ke-pha-li-di bib-li-ou ge-grap-tai pe-ri em-ou
Tou poi-e-sai ho The-os to the-le-ma-sou

The rhyme is made up of endings that sounds like “sas” (σας) or “ou” (ου). I adjusted the part in RED simply because Jobe divided a word in half in order to force her version of the rhyme, however, I believe it works just fine while keeping the word in tact. Jobe also points out that the rhyme also aligns syllables sounding ending in the long “O” sound. This is harder to find than the more obvious σας/ου rhyme.

The power of this rhetorical tool is that it work subconsciously. Without having watched Cinderella in more than a decade, the rhythm immediately brought one its most famous songs right to the top of my mind. I was not looking for an English connection, it just happened. These types of rhetorical tools are used quite a bit in cultures where written works were often spoken aloud.

With all this in mind, one still has to address the fact that the author of this Greek passage still changed the words. Did the meaning change along with the words?

Preparing a body VS opening ears

Before digging into this problem, it should be noted that “preparing a body” is not a great English translation of the Greek words “Σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι”. The verb κατηρτίσω does translate into “prepare” or rather “you have prepared”. However, I believe a fuller translation could be found with the understanding that preparing in English and Greek means to “bring something to it’s proper condition or a state of readiness“. The English word “prepare” is a condensed word so we must not forget the full meaning of our own English words. When one prepares for a test, they are bringing themselves into a state of readiness. This should be differentiated from the way we speak of preparing a meal, in which prepare is really used to indicate a process of many things. Nevertheless, the full meaning of κατηρτίσω is not well captured in most English translations.

The use of Σῶμα “a body” also contains an elusive meaning. The English translation says “a body you have prepared for me” but what is hard to deduce is who’s body it is or it’s relation to the word “me”. Here the Dative case in Greek will solve the mystery. The Dative case signifies a giving of something. A better English phrasing of the ending of verse 5 should be “a body you have prepared for (or given) me”. The meaning in the context of the Psalm is that the Lord was not pleased with just sacrifices or offerings but in learning the doing the will of the Lord.

This meaning is similar to what is seen in the phrase “my ears you have opened”. This is a common phrase denoting that the Lord is allowing one to learn His wisdom. How often did we hear Jesus echo this phraseology?

He who has ears to hear, let him hear. (Matthew 11:15)

Both passages suggest that the Lord was preparing one to learn and do the will of God.

Thus, the two passages are not that far apart in Greek. However, these idioms are not exactly clear in English. When read in the original language, and in right context, the misquote is not as much of misquote. However, should biblical translators wield this much free reign over altering the text? Should the Greek translators be aloud to tamper with the scriptures to blatantly?


Transmission of the Jewish scriptures


Despite mythical stories about how the LXX was initially translated perfectly by 70 different Jewish scholars, as recounted by Josephus and Aristeas, the LXX was not without error. However, first century Judaism was not concerned with exact 1:1 translation. Anyone who speaks 2, 3 or even 4 languages, as people did in the first century Mediterranean region, were well aware that no language has an exact 1 to 1 word equivalence.

Nevertheless, modern students of the Bible must address the issue that elsewhere in the LXX major translation errors or changes do exist. Is it possible to have an inerrant Bible if the authors of the NT quotes passages from the OT that are clearly altered and changed? I would suggest that the modern theory of inerrancy has greatly gone astray. The Bible is not perfect in every single word. It bears the obvious marks of the imperfect beings that God used to transmit His message. Moreover, the gospel message survived just fine for 300 years before there was even an official canon of scripture. If God can build His kingdom during those 300 years then He can manage to continue it’s expansion with a Bible that is, by most accounts, 99% accurate to the originals.

Inerrancy was never needed for God to save mankind.


Did the MT change the LXX?


Due to some action in the comments section, I am updating this article to include an explanation about why this article assumes that the LXX translators took liberties translating from the various Hebrew texts rather than later Masoretic Text (MT) scribes changing the text of the LXX. For those unfamiliar with the matter, the MT sort of gained mainstream dominance in the 7th century AD and has remained the dominant Hebrew source used for the OT since then. It is clear, however, that the MT and the LXX contain many differences. Many people rightly assume that the MT scribes changed a number of messianic texts in order to deter Christian apologists. While there are occasions where it appears that the MT was altered at a late date it is important that we take these claims on a case-by-case basis. This is because we have Hebrew manuscripts that predate the MT and were the source material for the MT.

The Hebrew texts recovered from the Dead Sea collection demonstrate roughly a 60% agreement with the MT. [1]Schiffman, L.,  Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (illustrated ed.). Yale University Press, 2007 Nevertheless, there are large number of Hebrew texts that better align with other traditions, such as the LXX, the Syriac, or the Samaritan. Agreement with the LXX is far less than with the MT, at roughly 5% of variants matching. In other words, the MT is represented the vast majority of instances which bolsters the Jewish claim that the MT is indeed rooted from an ancient source. However, of the 40% of the Hebrew texts not lining up with the MT, famous Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmyer sees this as an example of the LXX being less a bad translation of the Hebrew and more of a parallel (variant) text in the pre-Christian era.[2]Fitzmyer, Joseph. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible: After Forty Years. p. 302. To be sure, a number of variant OT texts existed in the pre-Christian era. That is why OT criticism is a laborious field.

On the question of whether or not the LXX has altered a Hebrew passage that is part of the proto-MT tradition, the answer is yes. We have a clear example from the DSS in Deuteronomy Deuteronomy 7:15. We have a very ancient Hebrew text that lines up with the MT and it contains scribal corrections that cause it to line up with the LXX after the corrections are accounted for. [3]Menachem Cohen, “The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text and the Science of Textual Criticism“, 1979 However, Emannual Tov notes that this is the only surviving scribal correction that demonstrates a Hebrew manuscript being edited to match the LXX version. [4]Emmanuel Tov, “The Dead Sea Scrolls: 40 Years of Research”, Brill, 1992, p. 302-308. The reason for such editing in the era leading up to the Christian era is because Judaism was quite fractured. The sect of Judaism that birthed the Christian movement held the LXX, Apocryphal books, and eschatology like Enoch sacred. Others did not. We know from Josephus that the Sadducees did not even hold the prophetic books to be scripture. They only held the law of Moses to that standard. So, it should be no surprise that the early Christians held to a different textual tradition than the Pharisee or even the Samaritans. Although, there are numerous examples of Samaritan Hebrew texts found among the DSS.

So the final question is whether or not Psalm 40 was altered by the LXX scribes or altered by the MT scribes. I would suggest that it was altered by the LXX scribes since this particular passage has a large attestation to the MT. In other words, the MT wording is probably more ancient and widely used. The MT reading is confirmed by the Syriac Peshitta (2nd century CE) and the Latin Manuscripts. It should not be a surprise that the Latin manuscripts align with the MT as Jerome relied heavily on Rabbinic scribes for his work on the Vulgate. Both the Latin and the Syriac were translated from ancient Hebrew manuscripts that would be called proto-Masoric. These proto-MT are the same as the ones found in the DSS. However, among the many Psalms found in the Hebrew DSS manuscripts, Psalm 40 is not among them. This means that we cannot confirm for sure if the MT is closest to the ancient Hebrew or if the LXX is closest to the ancient Hebrew. However, it appears that even in the early Christian church the MT version of Psalm 40 was widely accepted and used alongside the LXX. Since the MT accounts for the vast majority of the Hebrew DSS library it is safe to assume that the version copied by the LXX translators was probably proto-MT.

But none of this is really relevant to the aim of this article. This article is answering a simple question which is whether or not Hebrew misquoted the OT, to which I say he did not. He merely quoted from an alternative version. A version that was widely accepted in the early church.


Featured image of Papyrus 79, one of the older fragments containing Hebrews 10 in Greek, but certainly not the oldest.
Photo citation: K. Treu, Neue neutestamentliche Fragmente der Berliner Papyrussammlung, APF 18 (1966), pp. 37-48.

References

References
1 Schiffman, L.,  Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (illustrated ed.). Yale University Press, 2007
2 Fitzmyer, Joseph. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible: After Forty Years. p. 302.
3 Menachem Cohen, “The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text and the Science of Textual Criticism“, 1979
4 Emmanuel Tov, “The Dead Sea Scrolls: 40 Years of Research”, Brill, 1992, p. 302-308.

7 thoughts on “Does Hebrews 10:5 Misquote Psalm 40:6?”

  1. If we’re going to take the position that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that the originally inspired words were inerrant, the logical conclusion would be that, whatever the original Hebrew was, the Greek translation in the NT is what God intended and inspired to be written. If we aren’t going to take that position, then anything becomes possible.

    Reply
    • I don’t disagree. However, I don’t see a reason to believe that the Bible is inerrant. Not believe it’s convenient but because its demonstrable. Perhaps they were inerrant in the original autographs but we don’t have those to know if that is true.

      Reply
  2. This article is so badly reasoned I can only shake my head. The Masoretic Text did not exist until hundreds of years after the New Testament was written. The LXX was translated hundreds of years before the time of Christ. How can you say the LXX translators were sloppy or “loose” with their interpretation? The LXX is about 1000 years closer to the original Hebrew text. It is bad scholarship to assume that any difference between the LXX and the modern Masoretic texts are due to error in the LXX. A more logical conclusion is the Masorites were loose with their scribal work and didn’t want to include something that would support the idea that Jesus was the Messiah. This is not the only example. Compare Isa 42:4 as well.

    Reply
    • I suppose it all depends on what assumptions you bring to the topic. If you assume that the MT has been significantly altered in the post Christian era which is resulting in the changes seen between the LXX and the MT then sure I can see how you might disagree. However, we know from the Dead Sea scrolls that many Hebrew manuscripts better reflect the MT and others better reflect the LXX. However, from my studies it appears so far that the MT is better represented in the DDS library.

      Nevertheless, my own assumption is that the LXX translators of Psalm 40 were translating from a Hebrew manuscript that was somewhat similar to the MT. This assumption is based on the fact that the MT version in this particular instance is supported by the Latin manuscripts and the Syriac. Therefore, it seems as though the MT of Psalm 40:6 is likely the original or closer than the LXX. If we had a version of psalm 40 in the Great Psalm Scroll from Qumran we could probably make a better decision on which one is older but we do not. Keep in mind that parts of the LXX were rather late. It’s not like a group of scribes sat down and translated the entire OT into Greek all at once. That legend is about the Pentateuch not the entire OT.

      However, none of that is really relevant. The fact of the matter is that the verse has changed forms over time but retained the original concept. Also keep in mind that the goal of this article was to determine if the Book of Hebrew misquoted Hebrew OT. to which I would so no, because they were quoting from the Greek. The author of Hebrews not only quotes the LXX but also mentions things from the Apocrypha. The ancient Ethiopic manuscripts actually combine the MT and LXX versions. As James A Sanders stated about the relationship of the DSS, the LXX, and the MT ……

      “Before the discovery of the Scrolls [Dead Sea] it was difficult to know whether most of these should be seen as translational, Or as reflecting the inner history of the Septuagint text, or all three. Now it is abundantly clear that the second period of text transmission [which is BC], actually that of the earliest texts we have, was one of limited textual pluralism.”

      This topic is not a simple as simply assuming the LXX is always the oldest version and then it was corrupted by Christian-hating Jews who eventually gave us an altered MT. Nothing in OT criticism is ever that easy.

      Reply
  3. Thanks for your explanation of Heb 10:5 Ps 40:6. It helped me out. I see now that Paul wrote the MEANING of the verse, not the text. If your ear is opened, it is expected you obey. I’ve always looked at the verse as “God gave me a body to sacrifice on the cross.” But really, it means, “God gave me a body to obey him with,” which would negate the need for a sin sacrifice. Which in Jesus case, meant the cross. But in our case, it means the living sacrifice of Romans 12.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.