Do these misquotes ever bother anyone?

[GerTzedek]

Has anyone else here ever bothered to look up in the Hebrew scriptures the verses quoted by the New Testament authors, so as to read them within their context? Does it bother you at all that many of these quotes are used out of context? It bothers me a good deal. I'm curious what others here might say.

For example, in the story of Joseph and Mary's flight to Egypt with the baby and subsequent return, Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 "Out of Egypt I have called my son." However, if we read that verse, we see that Matthew only quotes HALF of it. The whole verse is "When Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt I called my son. " It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this verse is referring to the Exodus, not Jesus. Is there anyone else out there that is bothered by this sort of thing?

[mpossoff]

Has anyone else here ever bothered to look up in the Hebrew scriptures the verses quoted by the New Testament authors, so as to read them within their context? Does it bother you at all that many of these quotes are used out of context? It bothers me a good deal. I'm curious what others here might say.

For example, in the story of Joseph and Mary's flight to Egypt with the baby and subsequent return, Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 "Out of Egypt I have called my son." However, if we read that verse, we see that Matthew only quotes HALF of it. The whole verse is "When Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt I called my son. " It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this verse is referring to the Exodus, not Jesus. Is there anyone else out there that is bothered by this sort of thing?

What bothers me the most is the New Covenant in Hebrews. Jeremiah 31 is the ONLY discussion in ALL of scripture in it’s completeness about the New Covenant other than the quote we read in Hebrews 8. One would think the New Covenant being SO important people would want to know EXACTLY what it means. And yet many have not. They haven’t even bothered to look it up. Is it possible if they did they would be shocked and even a little bit disappointed or very confused? Maybe not disappointed but confused.

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Has anyone else here ever bothered to look up in the Hebrew scriptures the verses quoted by the New Testament authors, so as to read them within their context? Does it bother you at all that many of these quotes are used out of context? It bothers me a good deal. I'm curious what others here might say.

For example, in the story of Joseph and Mary's flight to Egypt with the baby and subsequent return, Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 "Out of Egypt I have called my son." However, if we read that verse, we see that Matthew only quotes HALF of it. The whole verse is "When Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt I called my son. " It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this verse is referring to the Exodus, not Jesus. Is there anyone else out there that is bothered by this sort of thing?
I can empathize Ger. I was at that point once.

[simchat_torah]

Yup, I agree Ger. It is what has led to so much confusion in that Christianity fulfilled (ie: closed and put a cap on) Judaism.

[MyZz]

I'm not bothered by it in the elast its called creative exegesis and certainly in line with common jewish hermeneutical principles of the time.You should read the Talmud and also other jewish works at the time then you would see that the brit chadasha writers were quite conservative compared to their contemporaries.

[cyberlizard]

Yup, I agree Ger. It is what has led to so much confusion in that Christianity fulfilled (ie: closed and put a cap on) Judaism.


ain't that the truth - tit for tat relations between the later 'christians' and followers of the Judaisms, if mended in the early years may have saved a couple of millenia of grief fir everyone involved.

who knows - maybe we can learn from their mistakes.

[Steve Petersen]

I'm not bothered by it in the elast its called creative exegesis and certainly in line with common jewish hermeneutical principles of the time.You should read the Talmud and also other jewish works at the time then you would see that the brit chadasha writers were quite conservative compared to their contemporaries.

It is true. The way the rabbis parse the verses you almost wonder if it wasn't really a game for them. This type of exegesis is really common in Second Temple Judaism. Let's not hold the NT exegetes to a different standard than its surrounding culture.

This got to be so crazy that Rashi decided to take a literalist approach. A lot of anti-missionary angles on verses that Christians point to are based on Rashi's explanations.

[visionary]

Prophecies speak not once but again... So while the application of Israel is to the nation it is also to Yeshua who is the perfect Israel example, whom God called His beloved Son.

[TheRabbi]

Prophecies speak not once but again...

That's not in my Bible.

[GerTzedek]

Prophecies speak not once but again... So while the application of Israel is to the nation it is also to Yeshua who is the perfect Israel example, whom God called His beloved Son.
vis: if that were true, Matthew would have been HONEST and quoted the entire verse from Hosea. But he did not. He deliberately left out the first part, because if he had left it in, it would have been immediately OBVIOUS that it was about Israel and not about Yeshua. His own evasion tactics reveal his guilt.

It really was stinky.

[visionary]

God is a crisendo builder, building on concepts, beuilding on what has already passed, as steps to a larger picture or more fully defined picture. That is why the feasts were known as rehearsals, and memorials.

[GerTzedek]

God is a crisendo builder, building on concepts, beuilding on what has already passed, as steps to a larger picture or more fully defined picture. That is why the feasts were known as rehearsals, and memorials.
vis: that is christian reasoning. the point of this thread is there is a flaw in the reasoning. various flaws. If those presenting the reasoning to the conclusion which you so adequately summarize do things like misquote the authority, or make analogies that don't fit, then the reasoning is fallacious, meaning it does not produce the intended conclusion.

[ContraMundum]

vis: if that were true, Matthew would have been HONEST and quoted the entire verse from Hosea. But he did not. He deliberately left out the first part, because if he had left it in, it would have been immediately OBVIOUS that it was about Israel and not about Yeshua. His own evasion tactics reveal his guilt.

It really was stinky.

Entire verses need not be quoted to make a citation valid.

Example: if I said to you "Mary had a Little Lamb", I'd assume you know the rest of the rhyme. Likewise, if I say to you "that was just like it happened to Elijah", then I'm assuming you know the story from the scriptures, and you can make the connections yourself.

I think it is well accepted that the authors of much of the NT assumed a great deal of scriptural knowledge on the part of their readers.

This is what Matthew clearly assumed. He was not trying to say that the quoted verse was teaching anything other than than what it clearly states- that out of Egypt Isreal (God's "Son") was called. However, clearly, using the midrashic approach of type and anti-type (which is what vis is trying to share with you), he was saying "just like it happened to Isreal, it happened to Yeshua, God's Messianic Son".


(If you care to compare Matthew's hermeneutic to those of modern day Rabbinical Judaism regarding the "future" Messiah, you would notice that they clearly rely very heavily on this approach to make predictions about him, in fact, this is why they have so many diverse opinions about his future advent. However, you can find earlier Jewish sources teaching this interpretive method, such as the Midrash Rabba on Bereishis and the Lamentations Rabba. Midrashic guidelines have been attributed to Hillel's "Seven Midrot" as well. I'm sorry but I have no idea if these are available online or not.)

We should all be very careful to remember that Matthew was Jewish living in the 1stC, and so were his readers. He was not a modern day fundamentalist, who treated scripture as mere literature and thus only understood it as literature.

It is very common in Talmudic and Rabbinic literature to cite a portion of the passage to bring to mind the whole of it.

Matthew is finding parallels between the life of Yeshua and many Old Testament characters, stories and features throughout his Gospel.

He's not mis-quoting. He's drawing a comparison so that the reader can recognise the hand of God in the life of the Messiah. God has used signs, symbols and types found in the living history of the Jewish people to point to His living work in the world through the life and ministry of Yeshua.

Edited to add: Here's a half-decent quote that I tend to agree with from Jacob Prasch, that I only have on paper:

"Matthew says that when Jesus came out of Egypt, after the wicked King Herod died, that fulfilled the prophecy of Hosea. ”When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (Hosea 11:1-2). Very plainly, Hosea chapter 11 is talking about the Exodus, about what happened with Moses. In its grammatical-historical context, it is talking about the Exodus, not about the Messiah. But Matthew appears to take the passage out of all reasonable context and twist it into talking about Jesus. We have to ask, is Matthew wrong? or is there something wrong with our Protestant way of interpreting the Bible?

There is nothing wrong with Matthew, and there is nothing wrong with the New Testament. But there is something wrong with our Protestant mentality. The Jewish idea of prophecy is not prediction, but pattern. Abraham came out of Egypt, when Pharaoh was judged; his descendant’s came out of Egypt when the wicked king was judged; then another wicked king was judged and the Messiah came out of Egypt. There are multiple fulfillment’s of prophecy. Midrashically, “Israel” alludes to Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah. When you see verses like: ”Israel my glory and Israel my first born,” they are midrashic allusions to the Messiah."

I think this explains the point better than I did, but really this approach is taught in many sources.

[Talmidah]

I can empathize Ger. I was at that point once.Same here.
:hug:

[GerTzedek]

Contra:

I am NOT protestant. I don't think any of the Jews here are protestant either. In fact, most protestants disagree with us. The protestant thought slam was just bizarre.

I AM a teacher, and I say hogwash. Matthew is indeed quoting Hosea 11:1 out of context. It is as plain as the nose on your face. If he had been a student in my class and I had given him Hosea 11 to discuss, and he had given this interpretation, I would have given his paragraph an F.

[ContraMundum]

Contra:

I am NOT protestant. I don't think any of the Jews here are protestant either. In fact, most protestants disagree with us. The protestant thought slam was just bizarre.

Ummm....I didn't say you were Protestant, did I?

I know you're not- why would I say that? I was only trying to point out what the Rabbis say and how the Apostle was faithful to the methods of his time- not the paradigm we tend to have (Jew and Christian alike) today.

I AM a teacher, and I say hogwash. Matthew is indeed quoting Hosea 11:1 out of context. It is as plain as the nose on your face. If he had been a student in my class and I had given him Hosea 11 to discuss, and he had given this interpretation, I would have given his paragraph an F.

Please check out my sources for yourself firsthand. Take your time. You can't nut this one out in a hour.

[stone]

closing for staff review

[Bananna]

We apologize for our slow response. This thread skates through very difficult issues and may need further closure and remodeling or possible deletion.

Please speak respectfully of the Authors of the New Testament and their quotes. Please be very careful to consider the large majority of poster reading in this forum and choose not to speak in a manner that may offend.

More reports may result in deleting or removal to another forum of the thread all together... so save your favorite posts now so you don't loose them.

[torahgrandma]

Has anyone else here ever bothered to look up in the Hebrew scriptures the verses quoted by the New Testament authors, so as to read them within their context? Does it bother you at all that many of these quotes are used out of context? It bothers me a good deal. I'm curious what others here might say.

For example, in the story of Joseph and Mary's flight to Egypt with the baby and subsequent return, Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 "Out of Egypt I have called my son." However, if we read that verse, we see that Matthew only quotes HALF of it. The whole verse is "When Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt I called my son. " It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this verse is referring to the Exodus, not Jesus. Is there anyone else out there that is bothered by this sort of thing?

Only Noachides, Rabbinic Jews, and those heading in that general direction. ;)

[simchat_torah]

Only Noachides, Rabbinic Jews, and those heading in that general direction. ;)Or in other words: Those interested in holding up the integrity of the Tenach.

[torahgrandma]

Or in other words: Those interested in holding up the integrity of the Tenach.

Or maybe the "integrity" of the talmud and the writings of the sages. ;)

[Tishri1]

ok we have to close this permanently ...sorry guys I can see this thread will only remain a breeding ground for RVs so its gonna stay closed now

Please do not bring this kind of flaming to other threads