Paul's misquotes of the Old Testament

[Pegg]

What made me suspicious of the Gen 15:6 translation which Paul quotes in Romans 4:3 is that Paul so often misquotes paassages from the Old Testament (Tanakh).

what makes you think its a misquote? Can you explain your reasoning.


According to James, Abraham had righteousness counted to him due to his faith...see James 2:23 "and the scripture was fulfilled which says: “Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness,” and he came to be called “Jehovah’s friend.”

Which is exactly what Genesis 15:6 says: "And he put faith in Jehovah; and he proceeded to count it to him as righteousness"

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

what makes you think its a misquote? Can you explain your reasoning.


According to James, Abraham had righteousness counted to him due to his faith...see James 2:23 "and the scripture was fulfilled which says: “Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness,” and he came to be called “Jehovah’s friend.”

Which is exactly what Genesis 15:6 says: "And he put faith in Jehovah; and he proceeded to count it to him as righteousness"

For one thing, the famous Jewish sage, Nachmonides thought it was mistranslated. He thought Abram was imputing righteousness to God for making the promises in Gen 15:1-5 rather than God imputing righteousness to Abram for merely believing what a very reliable God was promising.

Here's a long article that gives the details: Abraham and the Righteousness of God

 

[Pegg]

For one thing, the famous Jewish sage, Nachmonides thought it was mistranslated. He thought Abram was imputing righteousness to God for making the promises in Gen 15:1-5 rather than God imputing righteousness to Abram for merely believing what a very reliable God was promising.

Here's a long article that gives the details: Abraham and the Righteousness of God

James and Paul both thought otherwise....so it depends on who you follow. The christian view is obviously going to be different to the jewish view. But I dont think there is any ground for stating that it was a misquote by Paul.

 

[Desert Snake]

James and Paul both thought otherwise....so it depends on who you follow. The christian view is obviously going to be different to the jewish view. But I dont think there is any ground for stating that it was a misquote by Paul.

More like personal view in this case, I suspect it can go either way, ...

 

[Desert Snake]

So no, the OT/NT was not "Always the same", unless you mean "always" several centuries after the events in question.

The Books used by all the major Church Denominations are almost exactly the same.
Those differences you noted were mainly about the inclusion of other Books, not a different set of Scripture.

 

[Desert Snake]

The christian view is obviously going to be different to the jewish view.

Why? Actually it doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference.

 

[Pegg]

Why? Actually it doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference.

my guess is because Jews follow the law of Moses which was, for a long time, the way to approach God and to be approved by him....

but Christs teachings about faith challenged that long held view. Jesus disciples were willing to put the law aside because they truly believed that 'faith' is what brings a person into a righteous approved standing before God. This view is also dependent on the belief that Christs sacrifice can atone for the sins of a person in the way the sacrifices under the priestly system could.

so its really a difference of opinion on how one gains Gods favor. christians say it is through faith, Jews say it is through law.

 

[Desert Snake]

my guess is because Jews follow the law of Moses which was, for a long time, the way to approach God and to be approved by him....

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that statement, this would probably depend on the individual.

so its really a difference of opinion on how one gains Gods favor. christians say it is through faith, Jews say it is through law.

Actually, that's not my understanding, some people practicing Judaism might subscribe to this idea, but it is in opposition to Scripture IMO.

 

[Pegg]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that statement, this would probably depend on the individual.

i mean that from the time the Mosaic law was instituted, it became the way to acceptable worship. The Isrealites had to keep the covenant to remain in Gods favor:
Exodus 19:5 And now if YOU will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then YOU will certainly become my special property out of all [other] peoples

from that time onward, the only way to approach God was by means of the Mosaic covenant

Actually, that's not my understanding, some people practicing Judaism might subscribe to this idea, but it is in opposition to Scripture IMO.

what happened to Isreal when they stopped adhering to the mosaic covenant? God left them and punished them by allowing other nations to come and ransack them and remove their kings and destroy their temple and the city of jerusalem

when they returned to the covenant, God returned to them and blessed them and protected them.

scripturally, it is 100% true that the Isrealites could only worship God acceptably by adhering very closely to the mosaic law.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For one thing, the famous Jewish sage, Nachmonides thought it was mistranslated. ... Here's a long article that gives the details: Abraham and the Righteousness of God

You mean the one that introduces Ramban's interpretation by noting: "Although it is not the majority interpretation in the Jewish tradition, it is nonetheless a significant voice,..." You may wish to give some thought to the honesty and integrity demonstrated by this approach.

Speaking of honesty and integrity, do you see any difference between (a) referencing a possibly misunderstood (and, thereby, mistranslated) verse and purposely misquoting a verse?

It would also be instructive to hear your view of the translation rendered by the LXX and the targumim, as well as what you've read representing "the majority interpretation in the Jewish tradition." Just what research and what skill set did you bring to bear to justify rejecting this majority tradition with such certitude? Or did you just pick and choose those things that reinforced your presupposition? And, of course, this ...

But tell me, (a) on what grounds do you claim the Romans 3:10 is intended as a direct quote from Psalm 14 rather than a reference to Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) 7:20. and (b) why would Paul intentionally 'misquote' readily available texts, thereby setting himself up for ridicule and exposure?

... continues to be avoided.

As I've mentioned more than once in the past, Sarna has noted that the new JPS translation and commentary is laced with the note: "Heb. meaning uncertain." Many, many verses find themselves the subject of widely diverse interpretation. It is one of the things that enriches Torah study ... if engaged in honestly.

 

[Latuwr]

Hi Everyone,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
I believe that JayhawkerSoule has just given us all some very good advice. I just took the time to check out the LXX in relation to Hebrews 10:5 and Psalms 39:6 in the Septuagint. The Greek of the LXX has the phrase "but a body you have prepared me" instead of the phrase "mine ears hast thou opened" which is found in the Tanakh. Of course, this leads me to ask JayhawkerSoule how it is that the Rabbis of the Septuagint did such a terrible job of translating the Hebrew of the Tanakh?
When we look at Psalms 13:1-3 of the LXX, we discover that the phrase "there is none that does goodness, no not even one" is found twice in the first 3 verses of the Greek text. I say this for the benefit of Jonathan Hoffman who accuses Paul of embellishment concerning that phrase.
Paul in writing to his Jewish Brethren in the Diaspora and to Gentiles in a Roman world, how many here believe that Paul would quote from the Hebrew Tanakh instead of the Greek LXX which both Jews and Gentiles could work with and understand?
Thanking in advance any that should be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of course, this leads me to ask JayhawkerSoule how it is that the Rabbis of the Septuagint did such a terrible job of translating the Hebrew of the Tanakh?

I guess they just weren't as smart as you.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Many, many verses find themselves the subject of widely diverse interpretation. It is one of the things that enriches Torah study ... if engaged in honestly.

Of course, this leads me to ask JayhawkerSoule how it is that the Rabbis of the Septuagint did such a terrible job of translating the Hebrew of the Tanakh?

Jerome's paraphrase is more relevant to Christians and the literal translation is more relevant to Jews. It is believed with good reason that the Septuagint was translated originally by Rabbis, but for over a thousand years the only copies available have been copies of Jerome's volume.

Here is why it is not a mistranslation but a paraphrase:

The Septuagint says "A body you have prepared," because that meaning is relevant to Jerome. It is possibly an acceptable interpretation, just as valid as 'My ears you have opened' albeit a dynamic versus a literal one. Probably 'My ears you have opened' is clearer but for Christians it may have meant the same thing, because Christianity is about a body of believers. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is an old Christian (but non canonical work) which says that Jesus opened the Vine of David for Christians, in other words he opened the ears of that body of people. For that reason, Jerome's paraphrase seems to me consistent with the Jewish translation but from a Christian perspective. From his perspective Jesus body, the church, is a body being prepared for God by having its ears opened.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For the rest of you:

The charge of "terrible translation" may be little more than a case of terrible ignorance in the service of polemic. Translation is extremely difficult, and there is always a tension between translating the text and conveying the meaning. In the above case, for example (which is, parenthetically, from Psalms 40, not 39), it is perfectly reasonable to view the text as a reference to Deuteronomy 16-17, where the loving servant's body is is to bare an indication of willing servitude.​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Septuagint says "A body you have prepared," because that meaning is relevant to Jerome.

You are, by implication, making a claim about the identity of the translator and the vorlage which simply has no basis.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I did find this which claims ...

I think this is a significant piece of information even if Carson thinks there is reason to believe soma was in the original. If soma was not in the LXX (which seems to be the consensus opinion) then one has to deal with why Hebrews makes the changes it does. This is where Karen Jobes’ article comes in which is also used by Guthrie who believes it may explain the variations.

... but if it's true that soma is not in the original, then we are dealing, not with Latuwr's terrible Rabbis, but with a Christian effort at harmonization.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You are, by implication, making a claim about the identity of the translator and the vorlage which simply has no basis.

I also forgot the subject of the thread, so I will remedy both errors as best I can. What I said about Jerome needs a tweak. Jerome was a fiery fellow who chose to translate from Hebrew manuscripts (and possibly borrowed from Origen's Greek Hexapla) instead of from the Septuagint. He did not approve of the Septuagint. The name 'Septuagint' or 'Translation of the 70' or 'LXX' suggests a hope that this would be a universally used text, one size fits all. Its name makes it sound very Jewish but it is not quite the same as the Hebrew texts, which is probably one reason why later Jews made a point of declaring it was not scriptural and promoted heretical ideas.

No, I don't think the LXX is an attempt by Rabbi's to duplicate the Tanach in a different language. There is no reason I know of to assume the translators were "Rabbi's" which was a misnomer on my part. It is an attempt by someone to make a useful text for Greek speaking Jews, and its name implies a hope that it would become a universally used copy. 'Rabbis' might be newer than parts of the Septuagint, I think. They probably weren't involved. Some minimal background about the original LXX translators can be gotten from Halley's Bible Handbook and also the Zondervan NIV Bible Handbook . There were translators of some sort, and it was in use by Hellenized Jews. These were Jews and decendants who had been internationally distributed by Alexander to keep them from being too concentrated in one place. Hellenized Jews did not need to know Hebrew or Aramaic to survive. They needed to know Greek. Jewish scholars starting about 200 CE or earlier started denouncing the Septuagint as being very badly translated.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Septuagint was transmitted through the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, each bundled with the NT in Greek. In other words, we got it from Jerome.

That is not the issue. At issue is the source for the Septuagint used by Jerome.

Until recently no other source of the Septuagint was available, as far I as I have heard.

And recently? The DSS contain a number of manustrupts which could have served as Septuagint vorlage.

Jerome, if he did not create the paraphrase, certainly approved of and employed it readily.

Whether or not he approved of it is also irrelevant. I know of no reason to believe that he created the paraphrase. Do you?

 

[Brickjectivity]

JayH, I just posted a correction.

 

[Latuwr]

Hi JayhawkerSoule,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
Shabbat Shalom!
I first became aware that variations of the LXX do exist through seeking to understand Ezekiel 20:26. Of course, the issue there is not whether or not the Rabbis were terrible translators; rather, the issue there is whether or not dogma or doma is found in the original text. I lean on the side of dogma because mere vision alone indicates that it is easier to drop the "g" in dogma than to add a "g" to doma. I agree that it is not always easy to translate especially if the translation seems to make no sense to the translator, and I agree that changes can be made in the text to better convey the bias in the thinking of the translator.
All of this could have occurred with Ezekiel 20:26, but it seems rather far fetched to me to attempt to apply this process or exact reasoning to Psalms 39:6 of the LXX. There is a huge visual difference between "nebelah" and "ozen" in the Hebrew, is there not? I ask this of you because I have no capacity to read Hebrew.
For anyone to automatically accept that "ozen" occurred in the Tanakh in the place of "nebelah" denies the idea that changes can be made to the text to promote some hidden agenda on the part of the scribe transmitting the original. What if it is the other way around? What if the phrase containing "ozen" was substituted in the place of the phrase containing "nebelah"?
I believe that "nebelah" was found in the original Hebrew text, and I believe that the Jewish Rabbis originally translated "nebelah" as "soma". So I really do not believe that the 70 Rabbis were terrible translators. I base this belief upon the existence of the Epistle to the Hebrews which quotes the LXX. The quote is a witness that the author of the Epistle believed that "soma" is the correct translation of the original Hebrew, and it is a witness to which version of the LXX was creditable in his mind if indeed that was even an issue for him.
Anyone, be that person a scribe or a translator, a Christian or a Jew, could have had the ability and perhaps even the occasion to make changes to the original texts under their authority to foster hidden agendas. Accordingly, we all should do our best to follow your example and become quote miners!
Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr