Does Jesus misquote OT Scripture?

Ssuter makes some good points.

This could be a midrash or combination of texts. Another possibility, however, is that the Hebrew manuscript read at the synagogue was from a different family than our Masoretic texts. It could be that the LXX was not only translated poorly, but from another family of manuscripts.

So the best answer is that Jesus was reading a Hebrew text that follows the text of the Jewish scholars who translated the LXX, which, at this point, slightly departs from the Masoretic.

Alternatively, one could suggest that the wording of this passage suggests Jesus read from Isaiah at this point, but then he quotes not what Jesus read, but what that "point" was, namely Isaiah 61:1-2a. But rather than translate Jesus' words from Hebrew into Greek, Luke uses the translation that was done by the translators of the LXX.

Ssuter is completely right about the nature of quotations in ANE cultures.

John Gill adds:
and recovering of sight to the blind;
which in the prophet is, "and the opening of the prison to them that are bound"; and which the Septuagint render, as here in Luke, and the Chaldee paraphrase in part agrees with it, interpreting it thus, "to the prisoners", (rwhnl) (wlgta) , "be ye revealed to the light" now because persons in prison are in darkness, and see no light, therefore they are represented as blind; and both are the case of sinners, they are in the prison of sin and of the law, and are blind, ignorant, and insensible of their state; until Christ both opens the prison, and sets them free, and opens their eyes, and gives them spiritual sight; when he says to the prisoners go forth, to them that are in darkness show yourselves,

It means that God's view of "versions" is more relaxed than ours! It is not so much about whether the originals were inspired inerrantly (they were), but rather how strictly they are translated! We fail to interpret properly when we fail to ask "what was originally intended" and "how would a text be understood by the original audience?" It is very difficult to get people to understand that Jesus spoke in either Aramaic or Hebrew (my view is that He spoke in Mishnaic Hebrew) and that it would be helpful to the interpreter to examine the likely words Jesus spoke in the language He spoke.

It also affects our perspective on transmission of the text. Many scholars, for example, believe that, on rare occasion, the LXX might preserve the original more accurately (although almost all prefer the Masoretic text as the best by far).

Great points! Are you two Howards related?

Also, an interesting sideline: when Jesus spoke, He spoke in either a form of Hebrew or Aramaic. His words were the Word of God. When Luke wrote his Gospel, he translates Jesus' words into Greek, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes the Greek translation can further nuance what Jesus was saying, and sometimes the (Mishnaic) Hebrew better captures the thought.

This possibility would not exist under a dictation theory of inspiration. But it does under verbal, plenary. Yet many who believe in verbal inspiration interpret as though they believed in dictation. Since the goal of a good interpreter is to look at all the clues that help us understand what was in the mind of the speaker/writer, we need to learn to consider this.

Most OT Intros use Origin's Hexapla as kind of a "vanilla" LXX, but don't hesitate to admit that it is just one testimony to the Septuagint family. The actual edition that you would buy is not Origen's, but the critical edition by A. Rahlfs.

Archer, for example, lists these manuscripts as belonging to the LXX tradition -

Rylands Papyrus 458 - 150 BC

Qumran Cave 4 - various fragments very close to the critical LXX, all 1st cent. BC.

Chester Beatty Papyri - a collection of papyri that seem to be related found at Oxcyrynchus, Egypt; dates extend from AD 150-350

Papyrus 911 - 3rd cent. AD, considered to be a pre-Hexaplaric text

Freer Greek Manuscript V - 3rd cent. AD, considered to be pre-Hexaplaric

Now, as to the assertion that Origen "made up" the LXX, that's preposterous. His Hexapla includes 4 Greek translations of the OT. The other three come from prior known sources. Now, Origen may have been attempting his own critical edition of the LXX, but no ancient source disputes the reality of the LXX. Hellenistic Jews outside Palestine were conducting synagogue services in Greek, so they must have been reading from something, even if it wasn't the LXX as we know it.

Of course, no one can prove Jesus quoted from the LXX (or the Hebrew) without manuscript evidence that is simply not available (such as the scroll in the synagogue at Nazareth). We make our hypotheses based on what Jesus said compared to what manuscripts we possess. My personal opinion is that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic or Mishnaic Hebrew for most of his ministry. The Gospels accurately record the sense of Jesus' words, putting them into the standard Greek text when they could responsibly do so.

How can one argue that the Jews had Greek-speaking synagogues prior to Christ's birth, but that Jesus spoke Hebrew?
THis is subjective reasoning. It is subjective to state that Jesus spoke Hebrew or Aramaic.
THe quotes provided by Charlie above do not prove there was a BC era Septuagint. Look again closely at the quotes: "...very close to the LXX...seem to be related...considered to be...." This is the same type of phrasology the Evolutionists use to propagate their false theory. The scholars don't have any sure hard facts, so they invent facts, and hope nobody noticed.

Charlie quotes Archer, but Archer occasionally calls Origen's fifth column the LXX. So do many other scholars. Maybe it is, and they just don't want to admit it outright! (even though they do accidentally...)

It seems preposterous to me that we can have Greek manuscripts that date to the second century AD - within 100 years of the original writings - but we don't have any solid evidence of a BC septuagint until the 3rd Century AD - that is 500 years after the fact.
Then add into the equation the fact that if in fact it WAS written in the BC era, then it was not done in accordance with Scripture anyway, so it is of no value to the true believer anyway.

Steven, you're distorting my words. It is a commonly known fact that from the time of the Babylonian captivity, the ability of Jews to speak in Hebrew was on the decline. There is plenty of information available on that. I said that there were Greek-speaking synagogues outside Palestine. Inside Palestine the most common language was Aramaic, although some scholars believe that a dialect of Hebrew continued to be spoken - Mishnaic, rabbinic, or Tannaitic Hebrew. The classical Hebrew of the Old Testament was definitely not commonly spoken, hence the rise of the Aramaic targums and such.

Also, there is no inconsistency going on regarding the LXX. When I use the term "close to the LXX," I mean close to the critical edition of the LXX, published in 1939 by A. Ralphs. Ancient documents do not come with titles including their textual dependence. If you found in a classroom half sheets of paper with Bible verses hand-written on them, how would you know what version they came from? You would look at which version they best match, ignoring the occasional spelling error or missing word. So, the Septuagint is something of a text family, just like the TR or the Majority Text or the Critical Text. Like the TR, it is witnessed to by a number of very similar though not identical manuscripts. Also like the TR, there is no one manuscript (including Origen's) that is identical to the final product. The textual evidence is actually very similar to the New Testament's. All we possess from the 1st and 2nd century are scraps and fragments, complete codices coming in the third century. Likewise, we possess scraps and fragments from the LXX dating from 1st cent. BC to 2nd century AD. In the 3rd century, several people are actually taking the time to collate materials.

There are other evidences of the Septuagint. For example, the copies we have of the Samaritan Pentateuch match the text of the LXX much better than the Masoretic text. Other ancient versions show dependence on a non-Hebrew text that just so happens to match the wording of the LXX very closely. Also, there is the Letter of Aristaeus. Now, nobody believes that the LXX came into being as the letter suggests, but obviously the letter was written to explain something that actually existed. Since it is referred to by Aristobulus (2nd cent. BC), Philo (1st cent. AD), Josephus (1st cent. AD), Justin Martyr (2nd cent. AD), Irenaeus (2nd cent. AD), and Clement of Alexandria (3rd cent. AD) - all before Origen - there must have been some translation of the Old Testament into Greek around 2nd-3rd cent. BC, the origins of which they were attempting to explain.

Stephen,

How is your view any less subjective than Charlie's? You seem to have some sharp animosity toward the LXX. In your view, how would a believer's use (or valuing) of the LXX be wrong?

---

Back on topic : Does Jesus' humanity come to bare on this discussion? Or is it best to stick with the textual argument here?

John Haley, in the handy volume, "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" (originally penned in 1874) writes on this passage:

In other words, the NT writers do not quote the OT word for word, in many cases, but aim for the idea. So we just need to "get over it." Of course, those SI participants who believe in dictation (or who supposedly believe in verbal inspiration but act like they believe in dictation) will not find this explanation suitable.

Rene Pache, in "The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture," wrote, "The authors of the New Testament felt free to paraphrase a quoted text or to make use of only the one word or thought in it which was suitable to their ends. Sometimes they gave a free rendition of the Hebrew text rather than translating it literally,... They sometimes permitted themselves slight liberties, such as a change of pronoun...etc. ... Someone has said, 'A careful paraphrase that does complete justice to the source is preferable to a long quotation... a passage is sometimes cited quite loosely....."

In the original post, I think Jesus read the manuscript that was before Him. If someone doesn't like it, their argument is with the keeper of the manuscripts, not Jesus

What I like about Haley is that he covers just about everything. Archer covers certain issues in more detail, but only selects the big ones.