When Apostles Misquote the Bible - Peter Enns

Saint Steven · Jun 7, 2021

I have noticed this in my Bible reading and always wondered about it.

I found this video on the subject and took it as a green light to introduce the topic here.

Is anyone else bothered by this? (biblical misquotes in the NT)

I remember being upset about Jewish people claiming that the Messianic prophecies in the Bible weren't true. Now I realize they were right. With the possible exception of Isaiah 53.

Watch excerpts of Pete Enns speaking at Taylor Seminary at Edmonton, AB.

Peter Enns doesn't give a lot of examples. And the first one in the video is not even an OT quote. Here's an example I am familiar with. Let's discuss others as well.

Ephesians 4:7-10 NIV
7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”
9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions"? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

COMPARE

Psalm 68:18 NIV
18 When you ascended on high,
you took many captives;
you received gifts from people,
even from" the rebellious—
that you," Lord God, might dwell there.

Ceallaigh · Jun 7, 2021

No stone should be left unturned.

Dkh587 · Jun 7, 2021

We have to remember that they (the Apostles) were not quoting from the Masoretic Text, which is what 99% of English bibles use for their OT. The Masoretic Text did not even exist during the time of the Apostles

Some argue that they quoted the Septuagint, but I think whatever they were quoting was similar to what the Septuagint was translated from.

Saint Steven · Jun 7, 2021

Dkh587 said:
We have to remember that they (the Apostles) were not quoting from the Masoretic Text, which is what 99% of English bibles use for their OT. The Masoretic Text did not even exist during the time of the Apostles

Some argue that they quoted the Septuagint, but I think whatever they were quoting was similar to what the Septuagint was translated from.

Thanks. But is there a text that agrees with Paul's quote of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:7-10 ? The comparison I showed from the NIV says the opposite, while Paul writes in verse 8, "This is why it says:" (but it doesn't)

Why did the NIV translators handle it this way if Paul quoted a different text? Not even a footnote to explain.

Pavel Mosko · Jun 7, 2021

I'm actually afraid of listening to it, but probably will later.

I guess the only thing like this I know actually comes from the apostle Paul about the Law where it seems burdensome compared to verses like Deuteronomy 30:14 (being near is an idiom for "easy" or not to difficult). This is a point that traditionalist Jews make a lot against Christian interpretation.

It has been something that I have brought up from time to time, in really old debates with certain Protestants on the Bible, Sola Scriptura etc. In fairness, I think people have to give the Jews some credit on this one. But this doesn't mean that Paul is wrong, in error, being dishonest in interpretation because I have seen that the rabbis do concede that it is impossible to keep the law perfectly etc. So basically Paul is giving more of an experiential interpretation to that affect.

But on the issue this is where the traditional Jews also are taking liberties etc. Basically they have a kind of easy going attitude about things, it's kind of like following "The Spirit of the Law" like a Christian would only without Christ. And they get some of this from the old rabbai Hillel etc. But it is still assuming things because of the "Devil in the Details", of the Law. In reality, as far as sacrifices goes, the Jews were sort of painted into a corner when the temple was destroyed as far as sin offerings etc. goes. They eventually concluded that "it was God's will that this should happen and he wanted those sacrifices replaced with Torah study", but their was very little precedent for that in the text, it was more a position assumed out of Cognitive Dissonance than something that had a strong foundation in prophesy etc.

OK I will be interested if the video covers a different topic than my post.....

Mr. M · Jun 7, 2021

MMXX said:
No stone should be left unturned.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

Francis Drake · Jun 7, 2021

Each time I've checked the NT writers' OT quotes, they've matched the OT Septuagint Greek version.

Pavel Mosko · Jun 7, 2021

@Saint Steven Hey I liked the video a lot more than I thought I would. It kind of points out why 2nd temple Judaism seems to be the hot thing to study e.g. Michael Heiser etc. I picked some new stuff to read as far as the Tosefa Sukka and the Book of Antiquities so thanks for that.

Will read your reaction and that of others later.

GreekOrthodox · Jun 7, 2021

At least in this specific instance, Paul in Eph 4 is talking about the gifts that are given to Christians and taking his quote from Psalms and turning it so that it is about what God, in his grace, gives to us rather than what we give to God. So IMHO, it's not a misquote but a reinterpretation.

Maria Billingsley · Jun 7, 2021

Saint Steven said:
I have noticed this in my Bible reading and always wondered about it.

I found this video on the subject and took it as a green light to introduce the topic here.

Is anyone else bothered by this? (biblical misquotes in the NT)

I remember being upset about Jewish people claiming that the Messianic prophecies in the Bible weren't true. Now I realize they were right. With the possible exception of Isaiah 53.

Watch excerpts of Pete Enns speaking at Taylor Seminary at Edmonton, AB.

Peter Enns doesn't give a lot of examples. And the first one in the video is not even an OT quote. Here's an example I am familiar with. Let's discuss others as well.

Ephesians 4:7-10 NIV
7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”
9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions"? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

COMPARE

Psalm 68:18 NIV
18 When you ascended on high,
you took many captives;
you received gifts from people,
even from" the rebellious—
that you," Lord God, might dwell there.

I listened to his take on the "spiritual rock that followed them",
1 Corinthians 10:4. I am not sure I understand his concern. Lots of cuts in this video. But from what I can gather he digs into antient Jewish lore rather than finding His answers in the fulfillment through Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
The rock is Jesus Christ of Nazareth. He is the foundation stone. He is also living waters. His living waters flow from His rock. Paul was clear that he was speaking " spiritually" and not literally. This man totally missed the point of Paul's analogy.
Blessings

Mr. M · Jun 7, 2021

Saint Steven said:
COMPARE

Here is one where lessons are learned:
Mark 2:
25 But He said to them, Have you never read what David did when he was in need
and hungry, he and those with him.
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest,
and ate the show-bread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also
gave some to those who were with him?
What is Jesus up to here? David did not go into the house of God to eat show-bread.
1 Samuel 21:
1 Now David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech was afraid when
he met David, and said to him, Why are you alone, and no one is with you?

He was outside a village called Nob, and runs into a priest named Ahimelech. Why was the
priest afraid to see David? Could it be because he left the sanctuary that morning with loaves
of holy bread under his robe Is that lawful? No, that is awful!
Leviticus 24:
5 And you shall take fine flour and bake twelve cakes with it. Two-tenths of an ephah
shall be in each cake.
6 You shall set them in two rows, six in a row, on the pure gold table before the Lord.
7 And you shall put pure frankincense on each row, that it may be on the bread for
a memorial, an offering made by fire to the Lord.
8 Every Sabbath he shall set it in order before the Lord continually, being taken from
the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
9 And it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place;
for it is most holy to him from the offerings of the Lord made by fire,
by a perpetual statute.
So rather than sacrificed to the Lord, the priests were to eat it in the holy place.
Here is the intent of the Spirit. When the show-bread was changed out on the Sabbath,
the old bread was consumed by the priests. There would be an off-going and an on-coming
duty as a minimum. All that was expected would be that they would "break bread" together
on the Sabbath. So what was the state of things that this priest Ahimelech, now answering
David deviously, would have several under his robe, rendering them defiled from the status
of holy bread?

2 So David said to Ahimelech the priest, The king has ordered me on some business,
and said to me, Do not let anyone know anything about the business on which I send you,
or what I have commanded you. And I have directed my young men to such and such a place.
David here misrepresents himself, as he is actually fleeing from Saul for his life, thereby,
showing himself to be shrewd.
3 Now therefore, what have you on hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my hand, or
whatever can be found.
Suspicions are confirmed, the priest is carrying bread "underhandedly". So now,
watch the dodge.

4 And the priest answered David and said, There is no common bread on hand; but there is holy bread, if the young men have at least kept themselves from women.

Where did he come up with that? Search the scriptures and there is only one place where
that would serve as reference. At the foot of Mt. Sinai, Moses instructs all the men to keep
themselves from their wives, for tomorrow the Lord would appear to them. Clever, except
that David has just led his group on an all night hard march to put distance between himself
and Saul, and therefore quickly responds.
5 Then David answered the priest, and said to him, Truly, women have been kept from us
about three days since I came out. And the vessels of the young men are holy, and
the bread is in effect common, even though it was consecrated in the vessel this day.

What a shrewd and diplomatic response! The bread was worse than "in effect common",
it is defiled, having been taken from the holy place, in violation of the Lord's command.
Furthermore, why does Jesus say "in the days of Abiathar the high priest", when in
actuality, David's dealings were with Ahimelech? In the following chapter, Saul calls for
Ahimelech and accuses him of treason upon the report of Doeg the Edomite. All of the
house of Ahimelech are tragically slaughtered, with one exception.
1 Samuel 22:20 Now one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar,
escaped and fled after David.
So we see horrible consequences when dealing treacherously with the things of God.
And here is the spiritual principle involved.
Psalm 18:
25 With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful;
With a blameless man You will show Yourself blameless;
26 With the pure You will show Yourself pure;
And with the devious You will show Yourself shrewd.

So was someone being devious here? And did not Jesus therefore show himself shrewd
time and again when the teachers of the Law tried to trap Him, or bring false allegations.
The lesson is for us, since it does not seem that the Pharisees even got it.

pescador · Jun 7, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Thanks. But is there a text that agrees with Paul's quote of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:7-10 ? The comparison I showed from the NIV says the opposite, while Paul writes in verse 8, "This is why it says:" (but it doesn't)

Why did the NIV translators handle it this way if Paul quoted a different text? Not even a footnote to explain.

Here's a footnote from the NET that explains the situation... A quotation which is perhaps ultimately derived from Ps 68:18. However, the wording here differs from that of Ps 68 in both the Hebrew text and the LXX in a few places, the most significant of which is reading “gave gifts to” in place of “received gifts from” as in HT and LXX. It has sometimes been suggested that the author of Ephesians modified the text he was citing in order to better support what he wanted to say here. Such modifications are sometimes found in rabbinic exegesis from this and later periods, but it is also possible that the author was simply citing a variant of Ps 68 known to him but which has not survived outside its quotation here (W. H. Harris, The Descent of Christ [AGJU 32], 104). Another possibility is that the words here, which strongly resemble Ps 68:19 HT and LXX (68:18 ET), are actually part of an early Christian hymn quoted by the author.

paul1149 · Jun 7, 2021

Here's Ps 68.18 in the NAS:

You have ascended on high, You have led captive Your captives; You have received gifts among men, Even among the rebellious also, that the LORD God may dwell there. -Ps 68:18

"Received" in the Hebrew is laqach, as the Greek lambano, basically meaning to take or to receive. But BDB has this among the meanings for laqach:

a. (Qal)
1. to take, take in the hand
2. to take and carry along
3. to take from, take out of, take, carry away, take away
4. to take to or for a person, procure, get, take possession of, select, choose, take in marriage, receive, accept
...

The fourth meaning has laqach as a procurement for another party, and apparently that is what Paul has in mind. And the HiSB: the Hebrew interpolated Study Bible that I have has:

Thou hast received gifts for man, even the rebellious...

In the Septuagint Greek, the "from" man is the simple en, which is flexible and does not indicate strong direction either way. I think the NAS's "among" is a better choice than the NIV's "from".

So in sum, I think Paul in Ephesians is interpreting Ps 68, but not misquoting.

All emphasis is mine.

Mr. M · Jun 7, 2021

Saint Steven said:
COMPARE

Psalm 68:18 NIV
18 When you ascended on high,
you took many captives;
you received gifts from people,
even from" the rebellious—
that you," Lord God, might dwell there.

Compare to the KJV:
Psalm 68:18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive:
thou hast received gifts FOR men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God
might dwell among them.
So the first deviation is in the translators. Receiving gifts for us not from us, which Paul
identifies as apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors and evangelists.
Ephesians 4:8 Therefore He says:
When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.
The Lord received gifts which He in turn bestows.
Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knows the Son,
but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he
to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

So, Paul's omission from the Psalm is deliberate. "for the rebellious". Is that
not everyone of us when we first come to Christ? A mature Christian should require
little of the ministries if he has been delivered from a rebellious spirit. The attention
of the ministers are toward the newbies. A mature Christian is a cooperative Christian
who works with the ministers, not under them.
1 Corinthians 1:24 Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers
for your joy; for by faith you stand.

Pavel Mosko · Jun 7, 2021

@Saint Steven I like this guy a lot. I watched a second video of his that came up automatically on doubt.

Without using the word "Postmodernism" he raises a lot of the epistemological issues that I recall being raised before on older now defunct "Postmodern Christian websites" especially from the defunct theooze.com That is true especially on the doubt video. I posted the doubt video below in case your interested. Anyway their is a lot to things epistemologically speaking of people's rationales for things in the Bible. And the logic we use doesn't really work or makes sense if we talk about the ancients.

Anyway I like him because he realizes that people often approach the Bible with a very modern mindset that is mostly alien to the writers of the Bible.

PS - as far as Postmodernism goes. It tends to be seen very negatively as things like embracing total Relativism, Social Justice stuff etc. And for me, it is just a fuzzy concept for realizing that the modern world with all its goodies and blessing it has brought us, has also brought us some problems as far as how we think, our culture etc. The author in lecture transcript talks about the cult's of the "Isms" where our society has embraced these various modern values like : reductionism, materialism, consumerism, etc.

Perl, the first postmodern computer language

Saint Steven · Jun 7, 2021

GreekOrthodox said:
At least in this specific instance, Paul in Eph 4 is talking about the gifts that are given to Christians and taking his quote from Psalms and turning it so that it is about what God, in his grace, gives to us rather than what we give to God. So IMHO, it's not a misquote but a reinterpretation.

As I wrote in post #4

"... Paul writes in verse 8, "This is why it says:" (but it doesn't)

Why did the NIV translators handle it this way if Paul quoted a different text? Not even a footnote to explain." ???

I agree that he reinterpreting it. (unless he is quoting some other translation that says the opposite) But he treats it like an exact quote.

Saint Steven · Jun 7, 2021

Minister Monardo said:
Here is one where lessons are learned:
Mark 2:
25 But He said to them, Have you never read what David did when he was in need
and hungry, he and those with him.
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest,
and ate the show-bread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also
gave some to those who were with him?
What is Jesus up to here? David did not go into the house of God to eat show-bread.
1 Samuel 21:
1 Now David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech was afraid when
he met David, and said to him, Why are you alone, and no one is with you?

He was outside a village called Nob, and runs into a priest named Ahimelech. Why was the
priest afraid to see David? Could it be because he left the sanctuary that morning with loaves
of holy bread under his robe Is that lawful? No, that is awful!
Leviticus 24:
5 And you shall take fine flour and bake twelve cakes with it. Two-tenths of an ephah
shall be in each cake.
6 You shall set them in two rows, six in a row, on the pure gold table before the Lord.
7 And you shall put pure frankincense on each row, that it may be on the bread for
a memorial, an offering made by fire to the Lord.
8 Every Sabbath he shall set it in order before the Lord continually, being taken from
the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
9 And it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place;
for it is most holy to him from the offerings of the Lord made by fire,
by a perpetual statute.
So rather than sacrificed to the Lord, the priests were to eat it in the holy place.
Here is the intent of the Spirit. When the show-bread was changed out on the Sabbath,
the old bread was consumed by the priests. There would be an off-going and an on-coming
duty as a minimum. All that was expected would be that they would "break bread" together
on the Sabbath. So what was the state of things that this priest Ahimelech, now answering
David deviously, would have several under his robe, rendering them defiled from the status
of holy bread?

2 So David said to Ahimelech the priest, The king has ordered me on some business,
and said to me, Do not let anyone know anything about the business on which I send you,
or what I have commanded you. And I have directed my young men to such and such a place.
David here misrepresents himself, as he is actually fleeing from Saul for his life, thereby,
showing himself to be shrewd.
3 Now therefore, what have you on hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my hand, or
whatever can be found.
Suspicions are confirmed, the priest is carrying bread "underhandedly". So now,
watch the dodge.

4 And the priest answered David and said, There is no common bread on hand; but there is holy bread, if the young men have at least kept themselves from women.

Where did he come up with that? Search the scriptures and there is only one place where
that would serve as reference. At the foot of Mt. Sinai, Moses instructs all the men to keep
themselves from their wives, for tomorrow the Lord would appear to them. Clever, except
that David has just led his group on an all night hard march to put distance between himself
and Saul, and therefore quickly responds.
5 Then David answered the priest, and said to him, Truly, women have been kept from us
about three days since I came out. And the vessels of the young men are holy, and
the bread is in effect common, even though it was consecrated in the vessel this day.

What a shrewd and diplomatic response! The bread was worse than "in effect common",
it is defiled, having been taken from the holy place, in violation of the Lord's command.
Furthermore, why does Jesus say "in the days of Abiathar the high priest", when in
actuality, David's dealings were with Ahimelech? In the following chapter, Saul calls for
Ahimelech and accuses him of treason upon the report of Doeg the Edomite. All of the
house of Ahimelech are tragically slaughtered, with one exception.
1 Samuel 22:20 Now one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar,
escaped and fled after David.
So we see horrible consequences when dealing treacherously with the things of God.
And here is the spiritual principle involved.
Psalm 18:
25 With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful;
With a blameless man You will show Yourself blameless;
26 With the pure You will show Yourself pure;
And with the devious You will show Yourself shrewd.

So was someone being devious here? And did not Jesus therefore show himself shrewd
time and again when the teachers of the Law tried to trap Him, or bring false allegations.
The lesson is for us, since it does not seem that the Pharisees even got it.

So, was the accusation against the disciples (and Jesus) in Mark 2:24 true or false?

Mark 2:24 NIV
The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

Saint Steven · Jun 7, 2021

Minister Monardo said:
Compare to the KJV:
Psalm 68:18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive:
thou hast received gifts FOR men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God
might dwell among them.
So the first deviation is in the translators. Receiving gifts for us not from us, which Paul
identifies as apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors and evangelists.
Ephesians 4:8 Therefore He says:
When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.
The Lord received gifts which He in turn bestows.
Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knows the Son,
but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he
to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

So, Paul's omission from the Psalm is deliberate. "for the rebellious". Is that
not everyone of us when we first come to Christ? A mature Christian should require
little of the ministries if he has been delivered from a rebellious spirit. The attention
of the ministers are toward the newbies. A mature Christian is a cooperative Christian
who works with the ministers, not under them.
1 Corinthians 1:24 Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers
for your joy; for by faith you stand.

That reverses the misquote but doesn't explain why the OT quote is not a proof for what Paul is claiming. This is the Harrowing of Hell. Which doesn't seem to be what the Psalms passage is about.

Saint Steven · Jun 7, 2021

Pavel Mosko said:
I posted the doubt video below in case your interested.

I have seen that one as well. Thanks for the suggestion. I appreciate it.

Here is his YouTube channel: The Bible for Normal People
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrLeEfeGaJakbVMj8e6NKWQ

Saint Steven · Jun 7, 2021

paul1149 said:
So in sum, I think Paul in Ephesians is interpreting Ps 68, but not misquoting.

Unfortunately the Psalms quote has nothing to do with what he is saying in Ephesians.

When Apostles Misquote the Bible - Peter Enns

You can call me Steve

May God be with you and bless you.

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic

Well-Known Member

Returning adventurer.

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic

Psalti Chrysostom

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wise old man

that your faith might rest in the power of God

Well-Known Member

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Similar threads