Why does Hebres 8:9 misquote Jeremiah 31:32?

Question

I am referring to the phrase in 31:32 "I was a husband to them," which is rendered in 8:9 as "but I regarded them not."
Please don't answer by saying that the quotation is based on the Septuigant text of Jeremiah instead of the Masoretic Hebrew text, as it is a clear fact that the 70 scholars/Rabbis only wrote Septuigiant text on the Pentateuch, but not on the rest of scripture. (The rest of the text included in the septuigant was written after the time of Jesus by the church).
Please don't say the Bible is not the word of G0d. Please don't say that there is a mistake here-assume that each is the original text penned by each author respectively.

Answer 1

This is an excerpt from Gill's Exposition of the Bible on crosswalk.com that might be helpful:

and I regarded them not, saith the Lord;
the words in (Jeremiah 31:32) are very differently rendered in our translation, "although I was an husband unto them": and so it becomes an aggravation of their sin of ingratitude, in not continuing in his covenant: in the margin it is rendered interrogatively, "should I have continued an husband unto them?" that is, after they had so treated him, no; as if he should say, I will not behave towards them as such; I will reject them, and disregard them. The Chaldee paraphrase is just the reverse of the apostle's translation, "and I was well pleased with them": some render them, "I ruled over them", as a lord over his servants, in a very severe manner. Others, observing the great difference there is between the Hebrew text, and the apostle's version, have supposed a different Hebrew copy from the present, used by the Septuagint, or the apostle, in which, instead of (ytleb) , it was read either (ytlxb) , or (ytleg) ; but there is no need of such a supposition, since Dr. Pocock F7 has shown, that (leb) , in the Arabic language, signifies to loath and abhor, and so to disregard; and Kimchi F8 relates it as a rule laid down by his father, that wherever this word is used in construction with (b) , it is to be taken in an ill part, and signifies the same as (ytlxb) , "I have loathed"; in which sense that word is used in (Zechariah 11:8) and so here, I have loathed them, I abhorred them, I rejected them, I took no care of them, disregarded them, left their house desolate, and suffered wrath to come upon them to the uttermost.

Answer 2

I have been reading more than 3 times, and find no misqoutation!?!!

The Hebrew is talking about the new agreement, or covernant in Christ. But the Jeremiah is about the old in the Moses' time.

Jeremiah mentioned that Jews broke the Lord's covernant, and Hebrew 8:9 reminds the readers about the incident, and the Lord stopped showing them concern.

Actually, I am using KJV, ASV CEV as well as Chinese version to understand. When reading the Bible, especially not just plain reading but researching, studing, it is always good to have a few version to gave a different flavour.

Remember, translation is always translation, and will not be able to give fully 100% of the meaning.

We must remember that there are some literal translation, some are more paraphase, and some they called it dynamic equalvent.

So, all version have their own advantage and disvantage, and we need to hold them in balance. But for plain reading, anyone will do.

Any issue?

Answer 3

Jeremiah 31 Kjv

Answer 4

Sometimes an old testament scripture that is quoted in the new testament appears not to be written as it originally was. However, I have found that there is usually more than one scripture reference on the same subject written in other parts of the O.T. that accurately match the quoted scripture. If there is no other scripture like that in the bible, you may consider contacting the publisher to find out what the deal is.

If they can't tell you what is up, lay the discrepancy down and put it before the Lord. Sometimes there are explanations we cannot see but the Lord can. Ask Him to put this to rest in your heart.

Answer 5

I don't think it is so much misquoted or saying two different things as some would suggest.
You must also consider the auidience and time. I am not a Bible scholar or profess great wisdom, but to simplify the answer, here is an example.
My daughter is misbehaving and I tell her, you are being disobedient, even though I am oyur mother, you have chosen to disobey.
Then , her father gets home later and I would say to him, she chose to be disobedient and I did not give in to her whims.
I think this is what is happening here. Though I am your husband (the head, authority) you have turned away from my commands- later he says the same thing, not contradicting- he is not saying though I disregard you - He says you disobeyed and I disregarded you-. For this audience it may not need to be reitterated that He is the husband, maybe it is moreimportant to let them know they were not heard, their whims were not given in to because of their rebellion.

Answer 6

The Hebrews author's "kago emelesa auton" (I ignore them) may be quoting a different verse. The prior clause is clearly quoting Jeremiah, but that clause may lie in a different text... but it may just be he was acting like a husband ;-)

Oh, since there are numerous first century B.C. fragments from the minor prophets, your claim that only the Torah in LXX (Septuagint) is authentic lacks validity. - The minor prophets were short books meaning copies would be less expensive and more common in homes of believers.

...More on LXX: A quote from Alfred Edersheim's The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1883. On the dating of the completion of LXX:

The Pentateuch once translated, whether by one, or more likely by several persons, the other books of the Old Testament would naturally soon receive the same treatment. They were evidently rendered by a number of persons, who possessed very different qualifications for their work - the translation of the Book of Daniel having been so defective, that in its place another by Theodotion was afterwards substituted. The version, as a whole, bears the name of the LXX. - as some have supposed from the number of its translators according to Aristeas' account - only that in that case it should have been seventy-two; or from the approval of the Alexandrian Sannedrin - although in that case it should have been seventy-one; or perhaps because, in the popular idea, the number of the Gentile nations, of which the Greek (Japheth) was regarded as typical, was seventy. We have, however, one fixed date by which to compute the completion of this translation. From the prologue to the Apocryphal 'Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach,' we learn that in his days the Canon of Scripture was closed; and that on his arrival, in his thirty-eighth year. In Egypt, which was then under the rule of Euergetes, he found the so-called LXX. version completed, when he set himself to a similar translation of the Hebrew work of his grandfather. But in the 50th chapter of that work we have a description of the High-Priest Simon, which is evidently written by an eye-witness. We have therefore as one term the pontificate of Simon, during which the earlier Jesus lived; and as the other, the reign of Euergetes, in which the grandson was at Alexandria. Now, although there were two High-Priests who bore the name Simon, and two Egyptian kings with the surname Euergetes, yet on purely historical grounds, and apart from critical prejudices, we conclude that the Simon of Ecclus. L. was Simon I., the Just, one of the greatest names in Jewish traditional history; and similarly, that the Euergetes of the younger Jesus was the first of that name, Ptolemy III., who reigned from 247 to 221 b.c. In his reign, therefore, we must regard the LXX. version as, at least substantially, completed.

His work was authoritative and well documented. You can find it online. Clearly the Septuagint was in a complete form long before the time of Christ.

Answer 7

How about I say this?

Misquoting texts and taking them out of context and conflating unrelated texts into one for the purpose of making a point with a patina of "thus sayeth the Lord" or a pretense of future -telling "prophecy" was as much in vogue then as now.

Answer 8

" but i regarded them not" means NOT ABOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT but BY THE NEW TESTAMENT (new covenant) you will clearly read this in

Jeremiah 31:31 (King James Version)


31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Answer 9

wheres the rest of the two versus ... without the rest of the scripture, you cannot say that it is misquoted ... sort of like going why is this different in alice in wonderland, and quoting two or three words from two different chapters and claiming it was a misprint

Answer 10

How can anyone answer your question when you refuse to listen to the most acceptable answers. The scribes that hand copied texts from hand copied texts from hand copied texts often made mistakes, mis-quotes, or inserted their own opinion.

Deal with it.