Does the New Testament misquote the Old Testament?

[@rob2estonia]

Yes, this is the way to approach such a "problem" in the Bible with faith. Well done!

[@Richardcontramundum]

Such a beautiful way to describe the "contradiction" in the text. Unbelief is often the driving force for someone rejects explanation like this

[@torbreww]

When the NT quotes the OT it usually quotes from the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew. In the first century before the year 70 the Greek Septuagint was the primary scriptural text used. The modern English translations of the OT are translated from the Hebrew, not the Septuagint. So the English translation of a quote of an OT passage as found in the NT might be differently worded than the English translation of the OT passage which was translated from the Hebrew.

[@stepbro4978]

The original septuigent was the 5 books of Moses only.

[@NaijaCINE]

I love the lighting in these videos.

[@brianwinters2131]

Functional equivalence vs dynamic equivalence. Many do not give the Bible the benefit of the doubt they give the store clerk about everyday conversation.

[@МыколаНетребко]

If the store clerk was talking about talking donkeys and talking snakes, we'd not give that clerk a time of day. I'd imagine you'd stay clear of that clerk as well. Why believe the Bible?

[@gojohnnygo3209]

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing - 2 Cor 4:3

[@RichardBragg]

The Commentary of New Testament use of the Old Testament is excellent and is "ordered" by NT reference, Matthew -> Revelation. The companion volume, Dictionary of New Testament use of the Old Testament orders the material by subject, Abraham -> Zephaniah. Both volumes are worth having.

[@xlombardo82]

Been wanting to get the commentary on NT use of OT for a while, but dragging my feet. No longer! If Dr. Plummer recommends it, then u know its gold.

[@calbear2014]

This is hard to wrestle with. Matthew's quotation of Hosea, for example, can be considered word-for-word reference (as Dr Plummer mentions in the video), but isn't it a bit analogous? Hosea is probably speaking more about history than it is prophesy. What do you guys think?

[@danielriccio7025]

When we see the NT (especially Matthew) talking about a scripture being "fulfilled" we tend to think in terms of "prediction and fulfillment". One of the translation options for πληρόω (generally translated as "fulfilled") is "fill up". So instead of thinking in terms of prediction and fulfillment, it might be better to think in terms of how Jesus "filled up" a scripture. I would suggest what Matthew is doing is casting Jesus in the role of Israel. He is showing throughout Matthew how Jesus embodies what it means to be "true Israel" or how Jesus "filled up" the words spoken about Israel. In my opinion, understanding what Matthew is doing that way works, where as trying to find prediction/fulfillment is problematic.

[@calbear2014]

@@danielriccio7025 This is very helpful. Thank you Daniel!

[@mapleleaf100]

This is Dr. Beale (mentioned by Dr. Plummer) on Matthew's use of Hosea www.gracechurch.org/sermons/10917 check it out!

[@104littleal6]

Has anybody considered Matthew wasn't quoting Hosea?

[@danielriccio7025]

@@mapleleaf100 Thank you for posting your lecture, very informative. I’d be curious what you think of my short hand expression “Matthew is casting Jesus in the role of Israel” as a way of introducing the typology you describe in much more detail (tracing back through Hosea and the passages in Numbers) My intent is to express something similar to what you say late in the lecture “Matthew portrays Jesus recapitulating the history of Israel, because he sums up Israel in himself. Since Israel disobeyed Jesus has come to do what they were accountable for doing. He must retrace Israel’s steps up to the point they failed and then continue to obey and succeed in the mission…so he must start in Egypt” I maintain that the issue many run into in the Matthew/Hosea passage is what I’m referring to as the model of “prediction and fulfillment” that is expected because of the statement “This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet”. I don’t think what is going on is less than prediction and fulfillment, it’s actually much more (as described at length in your lecture). The challenge with much of the writing devoted to the supposed Matthew/Hosea problem is trying to maintain a predictive framework where it’s not necessary. I would suggest prediction was not the intent of Hosea or Matthew (although it might be appropriate to say that Matthew sees it as a foreshadowing). I would point out what the text is (which I believe you do nicely) without trying to maintain the prediction framework. I’d be curious if you could give any brief points of agreement or what areas you would suggest I need to reconsider. Thanks!

[@МыколаНетребко]

02:22 very sneaky. Matthew takes Hosea's "Out of Egypt I called my son", whcih was talking about Israel being delivered out of Egypt, and interprets it as a future prophecy about Jesus fleeing to Egypt and then returning once the danger to his life has passed. This has nothing to do with Hebrew vs Greek distinctions. This is, probably, Matthew creating a narrative based on the revelation that he received while reading the OT. This is similar to Paul saying that Israelites drank from the spiritual rock in the desert. And that rock was Christ.

[@maehabes4097]

Yes!!!

[@maehabes4097]

I'm starting to wonder why I find so many "preachers" here who don't know this, isn't it basic in the scholarly perspective? And most of the "preachers" I observe have the prefix "Dr." glued to their names.... just an honest observation.

[@Valhalla369]

You are absolutely right! I noticed the same thing.

[@bible1st]

​@@maehabes4097What makes you think its talking about Israel, I don't remember many times israel is called God's son. ( singular)

[@jhrhew]

Thanks a lot for the clear explanation on the matter and the reference you recommended. It is exactly the way I try to find cohesive understanding of OT and NT through the qoutations. One of my moments of enlightment was when I found out the intention behind seemingly misquoting Isa 42:1-4 in Matt 12:18-21 where OT word mishpat (justice of states) is translated to krisis (punishment) along with one of the most misunderstood verses Isa 42:3 and a rather awkward reason for quoting in Matt 12:16.

[@danielr.5148]

What about the difference between Ahimelech in 1 Samuel vs Jesus saying that Abiathar gave David the Bread of the Presence?

[@eurech]

I've heard some foolish answer on a Christian website argue that his son was more popular and for some reason they mentioned his name and not his father's. Another one is that the text says ''in the days of Abiathar'' meaning that it's not necessarily talking about his reign as a high priest, but just his time on his earth. I don't know which argument is dumber, because the first one, why on earth would give a crap whose more popular or not? What does that have to do with quoting correct information? The second argument, when we say ''in the days of'' we mean in the REIGN/RULE of someone. We don't say in the days of someone referring to them when they were a kid for example, that's not what the expression means. Also the Greek says quite clearly ''During the days of Abiathar THE PRIEST'' so that argument is completely invalidated because he wasn't a priest in those days, but his father was.

[@peacelove6455]

@@eurech "why on earth would care whose more popular or not? " Its important to note that most Jews didnt have access to a Hebrew bible due to being illiterate. Most of what was known was taught orally, and Abiathar would've definitely be known more than Ahimelech amongst Jews. Jesus is the greatest of all teachers, and therefore knew how to convey his messages effectively to people. We can also see this with his use of Parables.

[@maehabes4097]

Those are passages from the OT that are beautifully fulfilled in the NT. Goes beyond just "misquoting"... that "first century Jewish author" you were referring to was guided by the Holy Spirit, in case you forgot (even though you verbally mentioned it). "Can you suggest a great resource?" Yes. Ask the early Christians. How they lived out their faith would have been how it would be reflected in the Scriptures later on.

[@theoglossa]

Amen. Another helpful book is Abner Chou's The Hermeutics of the Biblical Writers.

[@josefernandez-leon4024]

Never heard of ‘application’ of the message of the passage? The NT never misquotes anything, but a non-literal quotation happens frequently enough when it intends to use an OT message for a lesson, not saying the very identical thing. Ask Arnold Frucktenbaum who has written on this.

[@AlexanderosD]

Ah yes, receiving gifts or giving gifts? As the atheist says "look! The bible contradicts itself!" That was a good presentation and example. Thank y'all for the video!

[@geraldpolmateer3255]

Quotes may be used in four basic ways 1. A direct quote from a variety of Greek Old Testament texts or direct quotes from a variety of Hebrew texts. The Septuagint (LXX) was translated from 250BC to 50BC and some of the other books were added after that. The Masoretic Text (MT) was compiled from several Hebrew texts from 500 AD to 1000 AD 2. An allusion 3. A summary 4. An application of another text Christians have been accused of taking texts from the Old Testament out of its historical context. The prophets and other Old Testament writers did that all the time. We apply texts all the time. Michael Rydelnik has written some good books on messianic prophecies.

[@chrishouseofdawid]

Can you give an example of a book in tanakh "old testament" where it took another writing in tanakh out of context?

[@geraldpolmateer3255]

All of the prophets who did any of the four things I listed removed it from a former historical context and applied it to another context. There are many of those from the Torah and applied them later in the books of the prophets. The book Old Testament Use of Old Testament by Gary Edward Schnittjer is filled with many. One example would be Amos 2:7 and Leviticus 18:7, 8.

[@chrishouseofdawid]

@geraldpolmateer3255 It's one thing to paraphrase from the tanakh. It's different to take a passage or verse from tanakh and change it into something it never said. The new testament does that. It misquoted isaiah 7: 14 claiming a virgin birth. When in tanakh it says its a young woman.

[@geraldpolmateer3255]

@@chrishouseofdawid in the LXX that is a translation. Every translation requires interpretation. What else would you have called a young woman who never had sex with a man?

[@tongakhan230]

The Hebrew portion of the bible was available in Paul's time in Greek. It was called the Greek Septuagint. The exact wordings would vary depending on the translators. On the whole, it was true to the extent that translations make possible.

[@eurech]

The Septuagint is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew, it mistranslates and even changes entire meanings.

[@tongakhan230]

@@eurech : If it was good for Jesus and the apostles, it certainly should be good enough for us. Else, there won't be any basis to glean any truths. Else, each one will come up with an objection any time a scripture conflicts with what they want to believe. That will get us nowhere.

[@elhilo1972]

@@eurech It also probably had different manuscripts it translater from than the ones we know. It is not a completely trustworthy translation, but it's still useful.

[@SaintFort]

@@eurech The Dead Sea Scrolls are one thousand years older than the Masorectic text; they date back to 100 - 200 BCE, while the Masorectic text dates back to 1000 CE. However, the Greek Septuagint is much closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls than the Masorectic text is to the Dead Sea Scrolls. So, the Greek Septuagint is more reliable.

[@eurech]

@@tongakhan230 What kind of an argument is that?

[@SaudaraLink]

The Ephesians 4 example may be Paul literally reading the Psalm to say he ascended on high and received gifts for men, interpreting 'la' to mean for rather than from. The translation is mildly dynamic equivalence, but not that far from the original, just a different quite literal interpretation of the same word.

[@brianwinters2131]

In everyday English there is variation of proper answers to simple questions. I ask as we are eating a meal together do you want the salt. Yes please or thank you are easily understood answers.

[@percibalfelicesjr4203]

Does the New Testament misquote the Old Testament? My Short Answer: Yes! My Long Answer: By reading and studying carefully the Old Testament books, my answer would be still yes, the new testament authors really misquote the old testament scriptures to confirm what they already believe.

[@ct46518]

Thanks for that share your sentiment......

[@peterdsharris]

Brilliant

[@kentfink9509]

What about when Steven's numbers and accounts don't match up with Abraham, Moses e.t.c?

[@swtor20]

I've done a careful study on this, and the numbers actually do match up. I can give an explanation if you like.

[@kentfink9509]

@@swtor20 [e-mail]

[@kentfink9509]

@@swtor20 thanks for the email

[@104littleal6]

@@kentfink9509 Now you can delete your comment with your email before some idiot uses it for something not good.

[@jblack9604]

@@104littleal6 can you send me the email?

[@JonathanOelkers]

What an excellent answer! Keep it up!

[@CruelSun7319]

Why in Mark chapter one would you assume the later manuscripts are changed rather than the earlier manuscripts? The Ecclesiastical Text doesn't say Isaiah. But the earlier (and corrupted) Alexandrian manuscripts do say "Isaiah."

[@chaplainpaul5326]

The more difficult text is typically the correct text. It makes sense that a scribe would remove Isaiah, but why would a scribe insert Isaiah?

[@eurech]

@@chaplainpaul5326 Because Isaiah speaks about the Messiah and the end days, and the writer of Mark wanted to make that connection to Jesus. They had a bias and it shows.

[@annetteku1]

I suggest that God is teaching us to focus on the meaning of the Big picture, through a sort of teasing us With small discrepancies... so we are forced to understand and not just parrot or go to much into the exact words... but understand how the words are applied in situations.. how he Works in certain patterns.. how we can never know in advance, how a prophesy Will be fullfilled.. so we understand that our job is to learn how to behave and then trust that God has a plan and holds to his promisses... and how bad behavior has bad consequences... so many humans are focused on detail in order to judge other people... but the judgement is to be on our own behavior and God judges all in the end... we should not judge, because we cannot read the heart... contradictions must mean “look deeper into this part or subject”... just my opinion ;-)

[@dilang2624]

God is not the author of confusion

[@Super0352]

Some of the OT quotes, especially some of the Messianic prophecy as used in the NT, can also be attributed to the writers almost as an early form of Midrash. Christian midrash, if you will. These are Jewish men, interpreting a Jewish text, and it is likely they stayed within that style of thinking and writing. When we look at some of the quotes, by themselves, they do not seem prophetic until Yeshua arrived. Then they can look back and say, "Here is what God was telling us" although when it was written, it may not have seemed prophetic.

[@rickkrucher1372]

Excellent.

[@genehisle5097]

Or just read the septuagint ,brentons english translation from the original Greek version that was translated from the Original Hebrew inbetween 250,and 280 B.C. it matches with the new testament quotes in all areas I've checked myself. This guy hasnt mentioned it at all i don't think.

[@genehisle5097]

Dig deep into Gods word. Find out for yourself,don't beleive me,don't beleive your preacher,be like the Bareans in the book of acts. And search the scriptures to find out if what you hear from preachers,and what i have typed out. Check out Mike Desario holding firmly KZbin. God opened the scriptures up to me with this preacher.

[@bible1st]

He may not know it yet.

[@brianwinters2131]

I had to learn Turabian style at Liberty Seminary and it is a chore.

[@Hebrew42Day]

Yes it does because the NT isn't inspired. Romans 10:6-8 and Deut 30:12-14 The issue is the idolatry of inerrancy, but also your idolatry that comes from Roman Catholic faith, of human sacrifice (Jer 19:5) and and that flesh and blood can be the arm of Yah (Jer 17:5) or the son of man can have salvation. (Psalm 146:3) It's sad you ignore the contradictions to stay in idolatry of a man. (Isaiah 2:22)

[@Lpettro]

A lot of this talk sounds like hand waving to me. With that said, regarding the specific quote in Mark 1, the objection is fairly absurd. Exodus 23 is not really similar. "calling in the wilderness" and "make a way" come directly from Isaiah 40:3(LXX). I agree that the first part comes from Malachi but the majority comes from Isaiah 40:3.

[@muttleytruth7824]

The new testament just not changed words but also corrupted the Hebrew scriptures

[@percibalfelicesjr4203]

I agree with you.

[@mnamhie]

Hard to explain away, however, the misappropriation of Isa. 7:14 in the construction of the virgin birth myth. In the Hebrew, Isa. 7:14 says "the young woman" and not "virgin." Additionally she is with child; she is already pregnant. It does not use the future tense. And SHE will call his name Immanuel, not THEY will call his name. There are many places in the NT where the authors, in constructing their new religion, misappropriated and twisted the Jewish bible. That is one of the reasons we know that the NT is complete myth. It is filled with contradictions, errors, misappropriations, anachronisms, etc.

[@RichardSorel-yl8zl]

Jews for Judaism (KZbin Videos) will change everything you thought you knew about scripture... If you care about truth you will take on the challenge of listening, and investigating.

[@isaacnewbauer9983]

Or it's possible the majority text reading of Mark 1 is the original, and the few early manuscripts which read the prophet Isaiah are wrong and the many manuscripts that say the prophets are correct

[@frankservant5754]

It is quite shocking how much a lot of people think that the New Testament is not the word but the Old Testament is! I mean the NT quotes from the OT over and over and over again. Personally I love it when the NT quote is different because it would be obviously paraphrase and it makes more personal and more relatable one good example is Mathew 8 : v "16When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, 17that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: “He Himself took our infirmities And bore our sicknesses.” Where he quotes Isa 53, 4 Surely He has borne our [g]griefs And carried our [h]sorrows; Yet we [i]esteemed Him stricken, [j]Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded[k] for our transgressions, He was [l]bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes[m] we are healed. It is one of my favourites because when I read Isa 53 i know it does apply to healing of infirmities but the revelation I get it in Matthew 8 so awesome!

[@hitten03]

My problem: Maybe this, Maybe that, Feelings etc.. The Holy Spirit picked every word.

[@jmar5785]

hitten03 no the Holy Spirit did not. Not any Bible I have ever read.

[@RPurs76]

I don't hear any denial of the Spirit in "maybe this, maybe that, Feelings etc." I hear a thoughtful scholar, preacher, and pastor trying to express/discern what the Holy Spirit was communicating when he moved the Biblical authors to quote and perhaps even alter certain OT passages. This is fundamental to interpretation of text. It doesn't deny the Holy Spirit's sovereignty at all.

[@RPurs76]

@@ridethelapras Precisely. The Bible says exactly what God wants it to say, but it is communicated through the personality, style, and idiomatic expressions of each Biblical writer.

[@hitten03]

@@ridethelapras The Holy Spirit chose every word. The mathematical structure of the Bible proves it. Ex. Genealogy of Jesus.

[@maehabes4097]

Agreed. Those are passages from the OT that are beautifully fulfilled in the NT. Goes beyond just "misquoting"... that "first century Jewish author" referred to was guided by the Holy Spirit, in case one forgets (even though it was verbally mentioned). He asked "Can you suggest a great resource?" Yes. Ask the early Christians. How they lived out their faith would have been how it would be reflected in the Scriptures later on.

[@richardbluett958]

Hosea 11:1 what does this have to do with Jesus, God is talking about the people of Israel. 1 For, when Israel was young, I loved him, and from Egypt I called My son. אכִּ֛י נַ֥עַר יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וָאֹֽהֲבֵ֑הוּ וּמִמִּצְרַ֖יִם קָרָ֥אתִי לִבְנִֽי:

[@KeepsLearning]

Michael Licona will probably agree with you. Lydia McGrew might not.

[@joshuabogart2341]

Why not? Just curious...

[@KeepsLearning]

@@joshuabogart2341 How else can I rephrase this? Licona believes in literary devices. McGrew does not.

[@davidwilson5179]

Mail I'd to send questions

[@Joqub]

Jesus is not in the Hebrew Bible, but you need people to believe he's there to leverage the prophesies and authority of ancient text. There will come a time, when Christian teachers admit Jesus is not in the Tanak, but still preach Jesus. That time is coming as quickly.

[@wallypaige8496]

No. Why don't you talk about Paul speaking in Greek MYTHOLOGY. What about Mark. He was never with Christ. So who is Mark?

[@registeredmental]

Jesus was Chinese?

[@naturalLin]

You eat yet?

[@hansdemos6510]

I do not dispute that all the mechanisms Dr. Plummer mentions are normal and valid, or in any case understandable. However, they are literary mechanisms that are characteristic of the work of humans. They do not point to their authors being divinely inspired, rather they point to the New Testament being the work of human beings like you and me. These kinds of questions should not arise if the scriptures really formed the word of God.

[@axderka]

Jesus rose from the dead. That alone should make you rethink your approach to the Bible.

[@eurech]

So much deflection jeez. The fact is that the NT misquotes the OT all the time. Even the early Churchfathers like Jerome were accusing the NT of misquoting the OT. Like Jerome said Mark was misquoting Malachi. So you can try all you want, you cannot reconcile obvious errors.

[@ashzole]

Stephan said that the burning bush that appeared before Moses was an ANGEL, which can be found in Acts. This can not be. The old testament in ALL versions of the Bible (King James, New KJ, NIV, etc..) it is written GOD. This is a problem. Angels are not God’s and God’s are not angels. Here are the only conclusions to solve this conundrum: a. OT is false NT is true b. NT is false OT is true c. Both OT and NT false So, which is it?

[@bible1st]

I think both are still true, its well known i think and believed that the " The angel of the Lord" which appears in the OT is just really another name for God himself. You can look it up, this might explain the issue your having

[@stevecochran612]

We need to get all the Christians and set a date and time and we all pray that Jesus heals this world of coronavirus. He will heal us. All we have to do is trust in him. He is waiting for us. Can you imagine millions of people praying at one time to Jesus to heal us. If we are truly Christians and believe Christ’s words then we need to pray to him someone needs to do this that has a stage bigger than what I have. Please let’s all come together in Christ’s name for healing.

[@stepbro4978]

Christians are very creative when making excuses.

[@alexvalle7023]

This guy doesn't have the courage to be truthful

[@Charles.Wright]

Please demonstrate your courage

[@TATERPOO]

What do you think truthful is and what do you mean by courage explain please

[@genehisle5097]

@@TATERPOO The septuagint was a translation of the original Hebrew old testament,into Greek,the common language of the day,in the 3rd century B.C., Brentons septuagint is the English translation of the Greek septuagint,1851. It matches word for word when quoted in the new testament. Don't beleive me tho,check it out,you can google it,and read it online. It's free to put the app on your phone too.

[@theGentlemanCaller73]

Of course it does. It's only a big deal if one worships the Bible rather than God. We have to stop treating the bible as a magical talisman descended from heaven on a golden string. It's imperfect and not inerrant and that's fine.

[@alexvalle7023]

such a biased unprofessional approach. Yes, the new testament does misquote, and at times misapplies and makes things up

[@axderka]

Naw.

[@genehisle5097]

Brentons English translation of the Greek septuagint matches the new testament quotes of the old.

[@genehisle5097]

Word for word. And it was made in the 3rd century B.C.