What About Errors in Quotations Within Scripture?
Question 1104
When New Testament writers quote the Old Testament, the wording sometimes differs from what we find in our Old Testament. Does this mean there are errors in Scripture? If the Bible is inerrant, should we not expect quotations to match exactly?
The Nature of the Question
Anyone who reads Scripture carefully notices that New Testament quotations of the Old Testament often differ in wording. Compare Matthew 2:6 with Micah 5:2, or Hebrews 10:5-7 with Psalm 40:6-8. The differences are sometimes minor, sometimes substantial. At first glance, this might seem troubling. If Scripture is without error, should not the quotations be exact?
To answer this, we need to understand several things about how quotation worked in the ancient world and how God used Scripture to interpret Scripture.
Ancient Quotation Practices
Modern readers expect quotations to reproduce sources exactly, word-for-word. We have quotation marks to indicate when we are citing someone precisely. But ancient writers operated differently. They did not have quotation marks, and they commonly summarised, paraphrased, combined, and adapted sources in ways that would be considered improper today but were entirely acceptable then.
This was not dishonesty; it was simply how quotation worked. An ancient writer might compress a passage, highlight certain elements, adjust grammar to fit the new context, or combine multiple passages to make a theological point. Readers understood this and did not expect verbatim reproduction. To judge ancient writers by modern conventions is anachronistic.
The Septuagint Factor
Many New Testament quotations follow the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced several centuries before Christ. The Septuagint was the Bible of the early church and of many Diaspora Jews. When Paul or the writer of Hebrews quotes the Old Testament, they often quote from the Greek translation rather than translating directly from Hebrew.
Sometimes the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew text as we have it. These differences can reflect variant Hebrew texts that the translators used, interpretive renderings, or translation choices. When New Testament authors quote the Septuagint faithfully, they are quoting a text their Greek-speaking readers knew. The quotation is accurate to its source; the source simply differs from the Masoretic Hebrew text we use for our Old Testament translations.
A significant example is Hebrews 10:5-7, quoting Psalm 40:6-8. The Hebrew reads “ears you have dug for me” (אָזְנַיִם כָּרִיתָ לִּי, oznayim karita li), whilst the Septuagint and Hebrews read “a body you have prepared for me.” The Septuagint translators apparently interpreted “ears” as representing the whole body (ears being what receive commands for the body to obey). The Hebrews author follows this rendering because it perfectly fits his argument about Christ’s incarnation.
Inspired Interpretation
Here is a point we must not miss: when New Testament authors modify or adapt Old Testament texts, they do so under divine inspiration. They are not making errors but giving Spirit-guided interpretations. The same God who inspired the original text inspired its quotation and application in the New Testament.
Sometimes the New Testament brings out meaning that was latent in the original. Matthew sees in Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called my son”) a reference not only to Israel but to the Messiah who would recapitulate Israel’s history (Matthew 2:15). The original context referred to the Exodus, but the Spirit who inspired Hosea also inspired Matthew to show a deeper fulfilment in Christ.
This is not error but revelation. The New Testament authors had apostolic authority to show how the Old Testament pointed to and found its completion in Christ. Their use of the Old Testament is part of how God teaches us to read Scripture as a unified whole centred on Jesus.
Types of Quotation Differences
When we examine the differences carefully, we find several categories. Some quotations are essentially verbatim from the Septuagint. Some adapt the Septuagint slightly. Some translate directly from Hebrew. Some paraphrase. Some combine multiple texts. Some give the sense rather than the words. In each case, the quotation accurately conveys the meaning the author intends, even if the wording differs.
For example, when Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:5 in Mark 12:30, He includes “with all your mind” (διανοίας, dianoias), which the Hebrew does not explicitly have. But לֵבָב (levav, heart) in Hebrew already encompasses what we would call mind and will. Jesus brings out explicitly what was implicit in the original. This is not error but faithful interpretation.
Conclusion
Differences in quotations do not represent errors in Scripture. They reflect ancient quotation practices, use of the Septuagint, and inspired interpretation. The New Testament authors, writing under the Spirit’s guidance, used the Old Testament in authoritative ways that reveal deeper meanings and show how all Scripture points to Christ. Inerrancy means Scripture is truthful in all it affirms, not that it conforms to modern citation standards. When we understand how ancient authors quoted and how God used the New Testament to interpret the Old, the “problem” dissolves into a testimony of Scripture’s unity and depth.
“Then beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” Luke 24:27
Bibliography
- Beale, G.K. and D.A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Baker Academic, 2007.
- Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Eerdmans, 1999.
- Kaiser, Walter C. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New. Moody Press, 1985.
- Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Moody Publishers, 1999.
