Inspiration and Inerrancy in Hebrew Perspective

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 4:2 NASB

The Three I’s

Add/Take away – There can be no doubt that apostolic writers knew this dictum from Moses. There can be no doubt that they felt the necessity to conform to God’s instructions. But when we actually look at the citations of the apostles, Paul and Yeshua, we encounter something that does not fit our ideas of accurate textual transmission. Instead we find that the apostles typically alter the text of the Tanakh, sometimes quite radically, while all the time claiming that this is the word of God. The usual explanation for the discrepancies between the Hebrew Tanakh and the citations in the Brit Hadasha is that the apostles quoted from the LXX. But careful examination shows this rationalization to be false. Something else is happening. Something that did not violate the authors commitment to the Tanakh but, at the same time, did not require rote recitation. In other words, when we look at the actual behavior of the apostles, we find that our doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility are not in sync with their use of the text.

Let’s take a few examples from Matthew (all of the other authors display the same characteristics). In these examples, “MT” means the Masoretic text (the basis of modern translations of the Tanakh).

Matthew 1:23 MT “she will call him.” The LXX reads, “you will call him. ” Matthew changes it to “they will call him.” Textual variant LXX Alpha is in the third person plural, but more likely Matthew alters the text to fit the context of his own use.

Matthew 2:6 MT “And you Bethlehem Ephrathah, little among the thousands of Judah.” The LXX adds “house of Ephrathah,” changes “thousands” to “rulers of thousands,” but Matthew replaces “house of” with “land of Judah” and adds “by no means,”, changes the adjective to “least,” replaces “rulers of thousands” with “governors,” omits “of me” but then follows the LXX with “out of you will go forth.” This is midrash, not quotation.

Matthew 2:17-18  The passage is from Jeremiah 31:15. It is part of the proclamation of the new covenant which Jesus alludes to in the last supper and which is used specifically in Hebrews 8:8-12. But there are several textual problems.

1. All ancient versions read “because they are not,” not “because he is not” (BHS).
2. The LXX translates this passage literally except it omits the first use of “for her children.”
3. Matthew uses the identical wording of the LXX for the first clause.
4. BUT he omits the first of the three terms for “crying.”
5. He puts the remaining two verbs in the nominative case (the LXX is genitive).
6. He adds the adjective polys (“great”).
7. He changes the compound middle participle for “weeping” to a simple active form.
8. He restores the MT second clause “for her children.”
9. And he uses a more literal Greek verb for “comforted.”

The result is this: Matthew’s quotation from Jeremiah is neither a quotation from the MT, the BHS or the LXX. Matthew has altered the text to suit his purposes. What does this tell us about the New Testament idea of inspiration? Even if we suggest that no Hebrew would ever consider the Tanakh uninspired, Matthew (and he is not the only one) shows us that there is a fluidity to the idea of inspiration that is not aligned with contemporary versions of plenary and inerrant manuscripts. In fact, the more we study the exact details of the New Testament authors’ use of the Old Testament, the more we come into contact with a concept of inspiration that does not match our Western standards of inviolable transmission. At the same time, the rabbinic tradition held that even the letters of the Hebrew Bible were inspired. There is a tension here that Western minds find difficult to balance.

Matthew 2:23 No text in the Tanakh declares that the Messiah will be called a Nazarene. Where did this come from? It is a play on the Hebrew root word, not a prophecy.

Matthew 4:6 Matthews use of Ps. 91:11 is a fairly literal translation of the LXX. Matthew follows the LXX except he omits “to protect you in all your ways” replacing the phrase with “and”. Luke preserves “to protect you” but omits “in all your ways.”

Matthew 5:33 The words “whoever divorces” are not in the Tanakh. The Tanakh reads “if a man . . . finds something indecent . . .” This is a summary of a quotation rather than a quotation. How does it still have authority? Yeshua employs it as a midrash.

Matthew 10:35 The LXX translates MT with “dishonors” rather than “treats as a fool,” but Matthew replaces “son” with “man,” omits the first verb, inserts “against,” omits the second verb and paraphrases the final clause.

Matthew 12:18b Matthew uses the verb “announces,” not found in the LXX or MT.

Matthew 12:20b The long citation apparently following Isaiah 42 in the LXX It could be that Matthew is translating the text to show its implicit Hebrew concepts, but it also might be that Matthew is combining this passage in Isaiah with material from Habakkuk 1:4.

Matthew 13:35 MT “utter dark sayings from of old.” The LXX turns “parable” into the plural and renders “dark sayings” as problemata. Matthew uses kelrymmena (things having been hidden) and “from the foundation of the world” for “from of old.”

Matthew 18:16 Matthew renders MT by eliminating the second “on the mouth” and “witnesses,” changing the “and” to “or” and altering the future passive “shall be established” to the aorist passive “was established.” Matthew fits the quotation to the context of his narrative.

Matthew 21:5 follows the LXX verbatim for first clause, but omits “righteous and saving.” Then he deviates from the LXX in the use of terms for donkey and “on a colt, the offspring of a donkey.”

Matthew 21:9 Matthew inserts “Son of David,” not found in the Psalm and omits “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David” found in the LXX.

Matthew 22:24 Matthew quotes Deuteronomy 25:5 but his version is more like a paraphrase. “Brother” is changed to “someone” and “not having children” becomes “there is no seed for him.”

Matthew 22:37 translates Deuteronomy 6:5 but Matthew adds “and with all your understanding,” then changes the preposition ex in the LXX to en.

Matthew 26:31 MT reads “you (singular) strike the shepherd.” The LXX changes “you” to plural and “shepherd” to “shepherds.” Matthew changes the command to first person singular future, “I will strike,” and adds “of the flock.”

Matthew 26:64 Matthew inserts Ps 110:1 into a quotation from Daniel 7:13. He changes meta to epi (on the clouds). But here the citation is from Yeshua who alters the text from “sit at my right hand” to fit the context of his remark.

Matthew 27:46 Matthew changes the spelling of the MT for “my God” (compare Mark) and changes the Greek LXX from the nominative used for direct address to the vocative.

(All of the above textual notations from Carson and Beale (eds.), A Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament)

Here are 18 cases where either the MT or LXX have not been followed or have been altered to fit Matthew’s objective. What are we to conclude about the doctrine of inspiration here? Are we still able to claim that every word of Scripture is inspired by God?  And what about inerrancy?  Are we still ready to assert that all Scripture, including the apostolic writings, are without error? How are we to reconcile basic alteration in the text in both the LXX and MT, yet still claim that this is the infallible? Doesn’t our conception of inspiration and inerrancy exceed what the authors actually do? Are we claiming more than the authors of the New Testament would have claimed? Do you think they thought of their words as inspired and inerrant? Or were they just writing according to their own objectives?  Perhaps, just perhaps, our Western Christian views of inerrancy and infallibility are more aggressive than the actual practice of the apostolic authors.

Once you notice this characteristic in the gospels, what do you think Paul was doing every time he quoted the Tanakh?

Topical Index: inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, Matthew, Deuteronomy 4:2