Lexham English Bible - Heb 2 Misquotation of Isa 8

Hebrews 2:13 (LEB)
13 And again, “I will trust in him.” f And again, “Behold, I and the children God has given me.” g

foot note f links to "A Quotation from Isa 8.17"
foot note g links to "A Quotation from Isa 8.18"

Great, however These quotations do not match text., f majorly, g minor (understandable)

Isaiah 8:17–18 (LEB)
17 And I will wait for Yahweh, who hides his face from the house of Jacob, and I will await him.
18 Look! I and the children whom Yahweh has given to me are like signs and portents in Israel from Yahweh of hosts, the one who dwells on the mountain of Zion.

Its not really a typo, but am now concered as to the other OT Quotes as to their accuracy..

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JimTowler

I've not yet looked into your example above, but I can remember that some cases can be explained when the NT is quoting the LXX rather than the Heb. OT.

Hopefully someone with the right skills can provide some good feedback here. Sorry if my post adds little; mostly its so I can find this again when I'm ready to look into this myself :-)

Regards and Happy New Year from New Zealand. 2013 in only 3 1/2 hrs ...

David Paul

Its not really a typo, but am now concered as to the other OT Quotes as to their accuracy..

It will help if you are clearer about just what is concerning you. Is it the LEB only--or the NT quotes of the OT in general? Many NT quotes of the OT are not "word for word", and some can only be called "loose translations". In some cases this is because the LXX is the version being quoted (as was said above) rather than the Hebrew version in our English Bibles...but sometimes the NT quotes don't match the LXX exactly either. This condition has a variety of explanations, but it is a real textual issue that everyone has to confront at some point if they decide to grapple with the Scriptures.

Point being, this issue is bigger than the LEB.

MJ. Smith

but am now concered as to the other OT Quotes as to their accuracy..

Your expectation is flawed for the following reasons:

the OT is translated from Hebrew into English - a Semetic language into an Indo-European language i.e. unrelated languages with different underlying structures
the NT is translated from Greek into English - an Indo-European language into an Indo-European language i.e. related languages with similar underlying structures and therefore often easier to translate in some aspects
we do not know what manuscript tradition the Greek uses - in some cases it is the LXX rather than the MT, in other cases the underlying manuscript is unknown
OT quotations in the NT are translated multiple times - Hebrew to Greek to English or, perhaps, Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to English with perhaps oral as well as written elements. Like playing the children's game gossip, each transformation has the possibility of adding modifications.

I would be more concerned if the texts did match - it would indicate that the translation reflected beliefs about the text rather than reflecting the text itself.

NB.Mick

Hebrews 2:13 (LEB)
13 And again, “I will trust in him.” f And again, “Behold, I and the children God has given me.” g

foot note f links to "A Quotation from Isa 8.17"
foot note g links to "A Quotation from Isa 8.18"

Great, however These quotations do not match text., f majorly, g minor (understandable)

Isaiah 8:17–18 (LEB)
17 And I will wait for Yahweh, who hides his face from the house of Jacob, and I will await him.
18 Look! I and the children whom Yahweh has given to me are like signs and portents in Israel from Yahweh of hosts, the one who dwells on the mountain of Zion.

Its not really a typo, but am now concered as to the other OT Quotes as to their accuracy..

At first: these are no iussues of the LEB, this quotations are recognized in many translations - they are even in the text (not only the lettered references) of my printed German Luther translation.

The quotation from Isa 8:18 can't be more precise, if I look into my Logos resources (comparing Greek with Greek here):

Hebrews says: ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ παιδία ἅ μοι ἔδωκεν ὁ θεός

and Isaiah said ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ παιδία, ἅ μοι ἔδωκεν ὁ θεός

The quotation from Isa 8:17 just has two words ἔσομαι and πεποιθὼς reversed and the ἐγὼ = I is implied in the Greek verb ἔσομαι:

Hebrews ἐγὼ ἔσομαι πεποιθὼς ἐπʼ αὐτῷ

and Isaiah: πεποιθὼς ἔσομαι ἐπʼ αὐτῷ

Milford Charles Murray

Its not really a typo, but am now concered as to the other OT Quotes as to their accuracy..

Peace! and a Blessed New Year, Dominic! *smile*

That's why we keep on studying, eh, each one! One of my favourite commentaries is Lenski; and I find him helpful in this situation! Thanks for bringing it to our attention!

From Lenski: 13) A second Old Testament word testifies: "I myself will be trusting him" (Isa. 8:17). The Hebrew: "I will look for (or to) him," means in trust and hence is the same as: "I will trust him" (Yahweh). The LXX does not have ἐγώ, but it appears in the next verse. Hebrews adds it to the quotation from Isa. 8:17 in order to bring out the fact that the Messiah is referred to. Because it is added ἔσομαι is placed before its participle. The writer of Hebrews makes the prophet Isaiah a type of the Messiah in this utterance or conceives the Messiah as speaking these words. Although he was himself God and omnipotent, in his humiliation and in his human nature here on earth Jesus depended on God in complete trust. Remember all his prayers. On the cross he commended his human spirit into his Father’s hands. In all this he was like all God’s sons, living and then also dying in trust in God. The second perfect πεποιθώς is always used as a present so that it forms a periphrastic future form with ἔσομαι and not, as R. 375
says, a periphrastic future perfect.

Isa. 8:18, and although it follows v. 17 it is introduced here as an independent witness by the preamble: "And again." "Behold, I myself and the dear children whom God gave me" is quoted because of the combination "I and the children." Both have the same human nature. That is why the quoted words include no more. Some would extend the meaning: "Behold, I myself"—ready for thy service, "and the dear children"—ready to aid me. But that is not the meaning in the original Hebrew or in Hebrews. "Behold" means: wir stellen uns dir anheim (Delitzsch): in the midst of Yahweh’s judgments the prophet and his children place themselves into God’s hands. Delitzsch adds that in Heb. 2:13
the words of Isaiah are made words of Jesus because the spirit of Jesus was in Isaiah; the family of Isaiah was a shadow of the reality, of Jesus and of the sanctified sons of God who are saved from the massa perdita.τέκνα but παιδία, the diminutive has the sense of "dear children," the word refers, not to birth, but to age, namely to littleness and dependence. The two points are these: 1) I and these children—human; 2) they are dependent on me as having been given to me by God. We have the same relation as that of sanctifier and sanctified in v.

11. "The dear children" means neither children of God nor children of the Messiah Jesus but children "from one" (Adam), v. 11. "Whom God gave to me" = John 10:29; 17:6, 9, 11, 12
.

Lenski, R. C. H. (1938). The interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James (pp 86–88). Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern.

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/446745#Comment_446745

the english translated text of OT verse should be faithfully reproduced in english NT quote ie same text in both.. love the theology but not helpful when you use NT Quote and OT says something completely different

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/446762#Comment_446762

NABRE | ‎Heb 2:13 and again: “I will put my trust in him”; and again: “Behold, I and the children God has given me.”

NABRE | ‎Is 8:17 I will trust in the LORD

NABRE | ‎Is 8:18 Here am I and the children whom the LORD has given me:

[did not check ALL English Bibles - i.e. I quit when I found one that had all three match]

You can switch Bibles or you can ponder the words of wisdom from MJ. Smith

“”I would be more concerned if the texts did match - it would indicate that the translation reflected beliefs about the text rather than reflecting the text itself.””

Which, in translation [IMHO], says that if the OT text and the NT text match word for word then one or the other does not match the true readings of the Scriptures.

But what does “I will wait for Yahweh” mean if not “I will trust in him”??

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/446762#Comment_446762

Hi DominicM

the english translated text of OT verse should be faithfully reproduced in english NT quote ie same text in both

I would see it rather that the Greek text of the New Testament should be translated correctly into English (within the approach of the translators) otherwise - as per MJ's post above - we are putting words into the mouths of the authors.

As I study the texts I find these variances of huge value as it gives a deeper insight into the way in which the NT author used the OT text and the message he wanted to portray from it.

Graham

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/446762#Comment_446762

Suspect LEB could have improved their note to indicate use of the LXX, as do other translations.

But it is interesting that Fiztmyer in Semitic Background of the NT, alludes to this same passage in his discussion of Qumran vs NT use of OT passages:

logosres:semeticbkgrnd01;ref=Page.p_53;off=-410

Just coincidental I was reading here this morning.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/446762#Comment_446762

the english translated text of OT verse should be faithfully reproduced in english NT quote ie same text in both.. love the theology but not helpful when you use NT Quote and OT says something completely different

Have you considered the possiblity that you are requiring that which YHWH does not? It has been observed many times that the "freedom" employed by Yeishuu`a in "quoting" Tanakh is such that most anal-retentive exegetes and hermeneuticists would call Him a flaming eisegete. In other words, Jesus would be called out for playing fast and loose with the Scriptures.

It is slightly reminiscint of the "George Lucas is messing up the Star Wars saga" hullabaloo...except for the Sovereign God of Creation ingredient. Yeishuu`a has the sovereignty to say what He wants how He wants, regardless of onlooker expectations, and still have it all mean exactly what He requires.

Your comment above, especially the "love the theology but..." part, actually calls into question your legitimacy as an honest student of Scripture. A variety of posters above have explained why the Xerox identity you seem to require is not forthcoming--because it isn't Biblical. Imposing your imagined requirements upon the texts that are in existence is tom-foolery.

You do realize that it's quite unlikely that any of the writers of the NT had Tanakh scrolls laying in their laps when they were writing and "quoting", don't you?

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/446835#Comment_446835

Your comment above, especially the "love the theology but..." part, actually calls into question your legitimacy as an honest student of Scripture. A variety of posters above have explained why the Xerox identity you seem to require is not forthcoming--because it isn't Biblical. Imposing your imagined requirements upon the texts that are in existence is tom-foolery.

David, I wont fight with you.. but please remember not all users in here have Theological Degrees or have been to Bible College, me included, all I have learned is from 18 years of using the software, study and prayer, I would love to know Hebrew and Greek to the same levels of most of you but sadly doubt I ever will, I can and do read the commentaries and other resources for pasages I preach/teach on, but English is my main (albeit second language) of study..

Seriously I like the expainations, as I learn from reading the answers, as per "your legitimacy as an honest student of Scripture.", I trust that the study of Scripture I do, the prayer I put in to preparing the message and the Holy Spirit leading me into all truth is all the legitimacy I require to be a faithful steward of what has been entrusted to me, and the people to whom I am ministering to.

Happy New Year to you, may God bless your respective ministries

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/446879#Comment_446879

I trust that the study of Scripture I do, the prayer I put in to preparing the message and the Holy Spirit leading me into all truth is all the legitimacy I require to be a faithful steward of what has been entrusted to me, and the people to whom I am ministering to.

Well said.

My perspective, primarily for non-academic laity, is that is most important is that we prayerfully grapple with God's Word - not that we grapple with books about the Word. One need not even to be literate as God reaches/speaks out to us where we are not where humans think we should be.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/446879#Comment_446879

Your comment above, especially the "love the theology but..." part, actually calls into question your legitimacy as an honest student of Scripture. A variety of posters above have explained why the Xerox identity you seem to require is not forthcoming--because it isn't Biblical. Imposing your imagined requirements upon the texts that are in existence is tom-foolery.

David, I wont fight with you.. but please remember not all users in here have Theological Degrees or have been to Bible College, me included, all I have learned is from 18 years of using the software, study and prayer, I would love to know Hebrew and Greek to the same levels of most of you but sadly doubt I ever will, I can and do read the commentaries and other resources for pasages I preach/teach on, but English is my main (albeit second language) of study..

Seriously I like the expainations, as I learn from reading the answers, as per "your legitimacy as an honest student of Scripture.", I trust that the study of Scripture I do, the prayer I put in to preparing the message and the Holy Spirit leading me into all truth is all the legitimacy I require to be a faithful steward of what has been entrusted to me, and the people to whom I am ministering to.

Happy New Year to you, may God bless your respective ministries

Peace and Blessing, Dominic! Over many years I have gained much respect for you and your Love for Our Lord Jesus Who has Loved us unto death!

I believe you are truly a faithful steward of what has been entrusted to you and that you honour our Lord as you minister to His People!

Carry on, Dear Brother! Into the New Year! Remember, Emmanuel! God with us! *smile*

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/446879#Comment_446879

Dominic,

I can see that my straightforward assessment of the comment you made may have been too strong in the sense that it may seem to be a personal remark. I apologize. My habit is to address what people say rather than the individual himself or herself. I obviously don't know you well enough (hardly at all) to make any judgment about you or your relationship with YHWH and His Word. As such, I certainly had no intention of questioning you as a person.

Still, the comment you made, whether intentional or not, carried a sense of predisposition that seemed to me to override the legitimate and germane explanations that were being put forth. I am aware that written forums are not the best for conveying the fullness of a writer's intention, especially in terms of voice, inflection, mood, etc. If you (and the others on the forum) had heard me verbalize my comment, I think you would have understood my focus was on the comment itself and the idea behind it, rather than on you personally. You likewise may have been able to convey a different sense of what you meant other than the sense I gathered from just the typed comment.

The "legitimacy as an honest student of Scripture" comment I made was an assessment of the likely perception an onlooker might have to your response, which insisted that things be presented in the predetermined way you expect them to be presented. The most important thing we can do when encountering Scripture is take it unvarnished. It must be allowed to speak for itself, although in practice it is extremely difficult for virtually anyone to not bring their own baggage to the table. My comment to you was intended not as a put-down but as a matter of creating awareness. I may not have conveyed that as well as I intended.

Fwiw, I do not have any Theology degrees nor have I attended Bible college. I did take a two-semester course in Hebrew at a state college a few years back.

Again, sorry not being more finessed and clear in my response.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/446970#Comment_446970

If you (and the others on the forum) had heard me verbalize my comment, I think you would have understood my focus was on the comment itself and the idea behind it, rather than on you personally. You likewise may have been able to convey a different sense of what you meant other than the sense I gathered from just the typed comment.

Peace, David! *smile*

Well-written! I - for one! - truly appreciate this 'from the heart' ... 'to the heart' sharing! To me you have grown in stature! Thank you very much for your very wise words!

and ... interesting enough! Your original point comes through more clearly than ever! *smile*

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/446970#Comment_446970

Taken from my previous post...

The most important thing we can do when encountering Scripture is take it unvarnished. It must be allowed to speak for itself, although in practice it is extremely difficult for virtually anyone to not bring their own baggage to the table.

With that in mind, I just encountered this gem...

Sorry, this is precisely NOT what a person needs. If we ought to encounter the Scriptures unvarnished, this is the equivalent of first slathering them with a dozen coats of shellac. A pastor I heard years ago (and I stilll have the message in cassette and digital form) said "we see what we want to see, we see what we expect to see, we see what we've been trained to see". That is one of the profoundest strings of words one can understand. Key's intentions may be good, but the advice is horrible. Might someone bring too much of their own experience to the Book? Yes, but that is essentially inevitable and can be dealt with over time. Far worse is to imbibe someone else's carefully crafted "explanation" or "introduction" to what the Book means. Once you do that, you will only see what you've been trained to want to expect. Let YHWH speak for Himself...BEFORE you let some degreed professional "enlighten" you with darkness.

Of course, for most people who read this it is too late.