Does Hebrews misquote Psalms

Does Hebrews misquote Psalms?

A common objection against the New Testament and its authenticity is that it often misquotes the Old Testament,  changing words and or meanings of the original text.

One such case can be found in the book of Hebrews that quotes, or rather as some will assert, misquotes the book of Psalms

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: KJV

This is a quotation of Psalm 40:6

Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

As we can see the quote in Hebrews, while not being word for word, which certainly is not the main issue here, seems to render the last clause in a very different way. (you can see the highlighted portion of the text

Hebrews reads “but a body hast thou prepared me”

The Psalm reads ” mine ears hast thou opened”

It has to be agreed that this a very different reading in Hebrews and that in the Psalm.  

Whoever the author of Hebrews was, whether it be Paul as History has attested to and some today still assert, or it be an unknown author, does not quote the Psalm with the same words. This potentially becomes an ever bigger problem if this is Paul as Paul claimed to be a Pharisee.

So why the difference in the quotation? Why did the author of Hebrews change the Psalm?

A very simple answer to this conundrum, for those that give any authority unto the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, is that the author of Hebrews is quoting the Greek Septaugint and not the Hebrew.

The Septuagint reads as we find in the book of Hebrews

Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.

There really is no other answer necessary, it is this answer that many modern apologists use when answering this attack on the authority of the New Testament.

Many people are aware of the apologist Matt Slick and his website Carm.org. Let’s look at what Matt says about this.

“The reason for the difference

The author of Hebrews is quoting here (as He does elsewhere) from the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures known as the Septuagint (or LXX).  The Septuagint translates the verse as:” “
https://carm.org/about-bible-verses/does-hebrews-105-misquote-psalm-406/

The Septuagint manuscripts are older than the masoretic text. Thus the Septuagint could contain a reading that was found in an ancient form of the Hebrew text that preceded the Masoretic text

Unfortunately, we do not have any Dead sea scrolls that contain this verse in order to compare. What we do know is that there are differences found in the Dead Sea scrolls and the Masoretic text. This could be an example of where the reading found in the Masoretic text is younger than that preserved in the Septuagint or it could show that there were different Hebrew readings found in this verse at the time the Septuagint was produced and the Septuagint retains a reading that was in existence alongside the reading found in the Masorectic text at the time the Septuagint was produced.

In the1980’s G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno produced a book “Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey.”. They compared 340 quotations of the Old Testament found in the New Testament. They found that 307 of those quotations aligned with the Septuagint over Masoretic Hebrew text. Only 33 could be shown to have quoted the Hebrew.

If this is true and for those holding to the Septuagint, I think that this answer is perfectly logical and plausible. 

It really can only be disputed if you reject the authority of the Septuagint and assert that the Masoretic text is the authoritative text and the reading found within the MT in this verse is the correct reading.

Is there any way in which we can resolve this apparent error in quotation using the Masoretic text as the authoritative Old Testament text?

The first thing we should understand is that quotations or citations of scripture does not in any way have to be word for word. We find numerous examples in the New Testament where a writer uses an OldTestament text and reapplies it. We see many examples of New Testament writers quoting or citing different passages of the Old Testament, combining bits from different parts of the Old testament in order to make an argument that they wish to present. This is not unusual in the New Testament but we can even find many examples of this in the Old Testament. Also, we often see the same story being told and details being different within the two different narratives.

Just because the writer of Hebrews is citing the start of the Psalm, does not in any way necessitate that they are quoting the full Psalm or that he is not combining more than one passage together.

However, on this occasion it is unlikely that the full Psalm is not being cited as the one clause is certainly connected to the other in relation to the “he says” it is almost certain that he says both clauses. We must also note that there is no other passage in the Old Testament that reads the way that it reads in Hebrews 10:5, “a body you have prepared for me”.

It is my opinion that the writer of Hebrews is not translating the meaning of the Hebrew idiom correctly into Greek. The Hebrew idom to “open the ears” certainly does not man to prepare a body.

So we are left with 3 options.

1) The writer of Hebrews somehow got the reading of the Hebrew Psalm wrong

2) The writer of Hebrews deliberately changed the text

3) The writer of Hebrews understood the passage in the Psalm and correctly applied it to Jesus, the Messiah and rendered it in a way that brought out its fuller meaning.

It is my position that the correct answer is point 3.

Its important to note that the writer of Hebrews applies the words found in Hebrews 10:5 as having been spoken by Jesus when he came into the world.

God doesn’t want the sacrifices and offerings but a person to obey, which is what Christ did within his body that was prepared. It means to give someone understanding. This is very clearly its meaning.

The Hebrew found in Psalm 40:6 “mine ears hast thou opened,” would indicate the LORD allowing, making or helping someone to understand something.

We see Jesus use this kind of language in the Gospels.

Matthew 11:15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Luke 8:8 And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

So the Lord was not happy with sacrifices and offerings, he has opened the ears of the referent to be able to underststand this.

The opening of the ear to understand is found in Isaiah 50.

Isiaah 50:4 The Lord GOD hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned. 5 The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back.

The English word prepared, may not give a full understanding of what is being stated. The English gives a sense of something that has been prepared, it is ready, its a finished act, while the Greek, although giving the finished state, would more indicate the process of the preparation that led up to the completion of the act of being prepared. Maybe better put, bringing something into the state of preparedness.

It could be said that the LORD has prepared the referent to be able to understand the statement regarding not wanting sacrifices and offerings.

The Messiah, who has had his ears opened to the understanding that the sacrifices and offereings of the law are not what God desired, through the offering of his own body, brings about an end to those sacrifices and offerings.

The body ofJesus, which has been being prepared throughout time with the promises of his coming, has now been fully prepared and the actuality of his coming has now come to fruition and through that body opens the ears to others for them also to understand that the God does not want sacrifices and offerings.

In 1 Samuel we see a similar statement regarding God having no delight in offerings and sacrifices but rather he desires obeying his voice. 

1 Samuel 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

Jesus obeyed the voice of his father, even to death, offering his own body as a sacrifice.to bring about an end to sacrifice and offerings given under the law.

Philippians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Hebrews 10:10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

We should not overlook that the law involved boring a persons ear when they wished to remain under their master and serve them. Again giving the feel of servitude and obedience. 

Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

The law tell us that sacrifices needed to be prepared, before they were offered, the body of Jesus which he offered through his own will was prepared. and once fully prepared came to reality to offer it which brought about an end to the sacrificial and offerings of the law.

In the very next verse we get a repeat of the offerings of the sacrifices, this time we are told God has no pleasure in them

Hebrews 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

THEN ….The writer of Hebrews has the Messiah telling God he has come to do his will, thus to obey.

Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

And continuing on God has no pleasure in sacrifices and offerings of the law, the Messiah has come to do the will of God and TAKE AWAY the first….to establish the second which he does through his obedience in the body that has been prepared.

Hebrews 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Jesus IS the sacrifice that takes away sins, which the sacrifices of the law could never do. The priests had to sacrifice daily, but Jesus has done it once for all time.

Hebrews 10:11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified

When we look at the preceding verses to verse 5 we see that it is stated that sins are remembered again, year on year and new sacrifices had to be made because sacrifices and offerings in the law could not remove the sins andit is for THAT reason, that weseeverse 5 stated, as it starts WHEREFORE….for the reason of the first 4 verses.

Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

The writer of Hebrews has not changed the scripture but rather he has explained what the passage in the Psalms was indicating regarding the future Messiah and the body that was prepared and how the offering of this body open the ears, brings about the understanding that God does not desire sacrifices and offerings but obedience to his voice. God once spoke through the prophets, but has now spoken through his son. The author is providing a theological application of the text which is not in any way a corruption or misquotation of the text. 

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Join our Patreon membershiphere