The Greek NT & the LXX - Heb 1:10?

One of the objections that I have received to the LXX article was that Hebrews 1:10 is problematic unless the LXX version of Ps 102:25 is used (where Hebrews quotes from Ps 102). 

Ps 110:3 was also raised as another example of a verse that was considered more appropriate in the LXX when it’s Messianic nature was considered.

To best appreciate the argument regarding the LXX version of Ps 102 within the context of Hebrews 1, I would recommend reading Appendix 3 of Sir Anthony Buzzard’s excellent book ‘Jesus was Not a Trinitarian’.

Hebrews 1:8-14 reads as below:
“But of the Son he says,
 "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." (quoting Ps 45:6-7)

10 And,

   "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
   and the heavens are the work of your hands;
they will perish, but you remain;
   they will all wear out like a garment,
like a robe you will roll them up,
 like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end." (Quoting Ps 102:25-27)

And to which of the angels has he ever said,

 "Sit at my right hand
  until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"? (quoting Ps 110:1)
Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?”

In this segment of Hebrews 1 we see three significant Messianic references. The phrase  ‘But of the Son he says’ clearly indicates that the author of Hebrews is referring to the Tanakh (to Scripture) and when we look for these three references we see the author is referring to verses from Psalms 45, 102 & 110, which he argues declare the role of Yeshua as the Son of God and Messianic King.

In quoting these verses, it is important to appreciate that the writer in typical Hebraic style is not just alluding to the verses quoted, though they carry the most significant information but to the immediate context of those verses (and in the case of Psalm 110 especially, most likely the whole Psalm). When the originals readers and listeners heard these quotes from a Psalm, they would have been drawn to reflect on the whole Psalm (For example, you can see Yeshua expects his listeners to know the whole of Psalm 8 when he quotes only half of Ps 8:2 – see Matt 21:16.).

It is also important to appreciate that in the first instance, none of these Psalms were necessarily seen as Messianic but were written for a specific occasion.

For example, Psalm 45 was written in the first instance for the marriage of a King of Israel (most likely Jehu). It was only later added to and seen as a Messianic prophecy.

Below are some excerpts from commentary on Ps 45 and Ps 102 from ‘A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Book Of Psalms’ By Charles Augustus Briggs, D.D., D.Litt. Professor Of Theological Encyclopædia And Symbolics Union Theological Seminary, New York And Emilie Grace Briggs, B.D. (1906):

“Ps. 45 is a song celebrating the marriage of Jehu. The king is the fairest of men (v.3a. b). He is a warrior who rides forth in his chariot and pierces the heart of his enemies with his arrows (v.4–6). He embodies all precious ointments in himself. He and his queen at his right hand are royally arrayed (v.8c–10). She is urged to forget her people, and in her beauty be satisfied with her godlike lord and the homage of the people (v.11–13)… Glosses set forth the perpetuity of the throne of God and His sceptre of righteousness (v.7–8a), and wish the king a goodly posterity of kings (v.17–18a). …

Messianic significance was given to the Ps. because of v.7–8a, which, when applied to the king, ascribes to him godlike qualities, such as the Messiah alone was supposed to possess. But this gloss was later than the Ps., and its Messianic interpretation later still.”

Similarly for Psalm 102. Quoting Briggs:

“Ps. 102 is composite: (A) A prayer of afflicted Israel, beseeching Yahweh to answer in a day of distress (v.2–3); the peril is so great that he is about to perish (v.4–6); he is desolate and reproached by enemies (v.7–9). It is his greatest grief that he has been cast off by his God (v.10–12). (B) expresses confidence that the time has come when the everlasting King will have compassion on Zion and build her up from her ruins, and that all nations will see His glory and revere Him (v.13–18). The story will be told to all generations of His interposition for the salvation of His people, that His praise may be forever celebrated in Jerusalem, where all nations will eventually gather to serve Him (v.19–23. 29). Glosses reassert the seriousness of the situation (v.24–25a), and contrast the everlasting creator with the perishable creature (25b–28)… Zion has been destroyed by the enemy; her buildings are in ruins, mere stones and dust; and yet these are precious to the servants of Yahweh, because they are the remains of the holy city of the divine presence and worship. (In verse 16 - the nations the kings of earth – we see) the restoration of Zion will have universal significance to the nations and especially to their kings; and the result of it will be that they will revere Thy name Thy glory], (and) take part in the worship of the God of Israel… Two different glossators made insertions; the former v.24–25a from Is. 38:10, the so-called song of Hezekiah: He hath brought down my strength in the way; He hath shortened my days. I say: O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days]. These two pentameter lines are more in accord with the plaintive tone of the original Ps. than with the calm assurance of the later Maccabean Ps. in which it inserted. It was probably designed to assimilate them. The later glossator inserted the octastich v.25b–28, doubtless a fragment of a choice Ps. which has been lost.”

When we then consider the actual text quoted, which perhaps to the casual reader may appear to attribute God-like qualities to the Son, we can be in no doubt that the verses in Hebrews are describing both the attributes of the Messiah and some aspects of the coming Messianic Age.

Thus, the reference to the ‘foundation of the earth’ is not informing us that the Messiah somehow ‘pre-existed’ his birth and took the job of creation off the Almighty, but that he is in a sense responsible for the new creation, the new Universe where he is the ‘first fruits’; the new ‘Adam’.

Thus the insertion of the word Lord (‘kurie’ in the LXX) in Ps 102:25 is an unnecessary addition and does not confer any preference or priority to the LXX.

As for Psalm 110:3, to argue here for the LXX over the Hebrew is clearly unwise for two main reasons. 

Firstly, as explained above, the Messianic context means that the distinction between the two versions (as underlined below) is really insignificant.

Ps 110:3 (LXX): “With thee is dominion in the day of thy power, in the splendours of thy saints: I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning.”

Tanakh (JPS): “Thy people offer themselves willingly in the day of thy warfare; In adornments of holiness, from the womb of the dawn, Thine is the dew of thy youth.”

While the LXX version above may seem to give more Messianic detail, the whole Psalm, in either reading is strongly Messianic regardless. So again, any preference for the LXX here is really superficial.

The second reason is much more significant and that is the problem of the two Lords in Ps 110:1. The Hebrew here, as you have pointed out on many occasions, clearly distinguishes between the Almighty and His Lord, whereas the Greek does not (for example, Brenton’s translation of the LXX has ‘The Lord said to my Lord, …’).

Thus, these two examples really do not confer any priority to the LXX over the Hebrew.