Jump to content

hebrews 10:5 and LXX and Psalm 40:6

Jonna Schmidt

Recommended Posts



I apologize in advance if this does NOT belong in "original languages" -- so, I posted in tech support. I am going to be taking Basics of Biblical Greek soon (have Dr. Mounce's 4th edition book and workbook), and I was investigating an issue that I have never really had time to study: the "mis-match" between Hebrews 10:5 and Psalm 40:6

Psa. 40:6 Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; 
My ears You have opened; 
Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.
Heb. 10:5  Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, 
SO, over the years, I was “given to understand” that the Septuagint uses ‘σομα΄ and the writer of Hebrews was quoting from the Septuagint. NET Translator notes states:
 Psa 40:6
17 tn Heb “sacrifice and offering you do not desire.” The statement is exaggerated for the sake of emphasis (see Ps 51:16 as well). God is pleased with sacrifices, but his first priority is obedience and loyalty (see 1 Sam 15:22). Sacrifices and offerings apart from genuine allegiance are meaningless (see Isa 1:11-20).
18 tn Heb “ears you hollowed out for me.” The meaning of this odd expression is debated (this is the only collocation of “hollowed out” and “ears” in the OT). It may have been an idiomatic expression referring to making a point clear to a listener. The LXX has “but a body you have prepared for me,” a reading which is followed in Heb 10:5
W. Hall Harris, eds. The NET Bible Notes. 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019), paragraph 36709.
HOWEVER… my Accordance has 2 different translations of the Septuagint, called Rahlf's and Gottingen, and both follow the Hebrew — and use EARS, not “soma”/body
θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας, ὠτία δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι· ὁλοκαύτωμα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ᾔτησας. (Psalm 39:7 LXX1)  (RAHLFS)
θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας, ὠτία δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι· ὁλοκαύτωμα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ᾔτησας (Psalm 39:7 LXXG-PS-ODES)
My question: what am I doing wrong? Is there some other textual variant — OR has the NET just assumed something to be true — and it is not true? THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Rahlfs and Göttingen mention a textual variant for σωμα In their apparatuses. Swete’s LXX has σωμα in the text. The writer of Hebrews probably had access to a Greek text of Psalms that used σωμα.


I first answered this in the duplicate post. I’m going to delete that one for you so that we don’t have two discussions of the same topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...