Jewish Texts

[ContraMundum]

What does the forum think?

I believe that original interpretation of that passage was possibly not conclusive, and thus God Himself cleared it up for us firstly by the commissioning of an authoratative translation of the Tanach known as the LXX, which was done under the direction of the Jewish leadership, and lastly, to further confirm it through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit upon Matthew who defined it in agreement with that earlier witness to mean "virgin".

Furthermore, the incarnation confirms it, so where words fails God's action speaks.

I also believe that elements within Rabbinical Judaism have in recent times sought to change the definition to reject the earlier definition of our forefathers and obviously also reject that same definition handed down to the ekklesia.

[ContraMundum]

Thanks Contra. Remember how we used to battle? ;)

Indeed- just don't start another thread on the Tallis. :)

We both learned something that time.

I am just trying to present information that it can be interpreted both ways, and demonstrate that the counter missionaries accusations of tampering are a little bit dis indigenous.

Well, yes, I would agree with that. I've really grown tired of the "tampering" theory(ies), especially from modern day apologists for whatever who heed only the Masoretic text (or even the Quran) without applying the same method of criticism to it. If another thread ever starts on that topic, it would be interesting.

[TheRabbi]

LXX, which was done under the direction of the Jewish leadership

Wrong again

[visionary]

Wrong againI do not regard the Septuagint as a Jewish book — it has been thoroughly rejected by mainstream Judaism, and enough doubt has been raised about the validity of it as a textual witness to reject reliance of it from a Jewish point of view.

...the presence in many of the clearly Jewish fragments of a special way of representing the four lettered divine name YHWH, in contrast to the use of the Greek substitute term "LORD" (KURIOS) in most LXX/OG manuscripts http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlypap.html

[torahgrandma]

The five books of Moses were originall translated from Hebrew to Greek by Jewish scribes. The translators of the other books are not clear.

[ContentInHim]

What about Yeshua referring to verses in the Septuagint? Or was that just the bias of the translators of the NT?

[visionary]

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. The Jews divided OT in three parts, the Law (thora), with the Pentateuch, the Prophets (nebi’im) with the eight prophet books, and the Scriptures (kethubim) with the remaining 11 books. Yeshua clearly referred to this. Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Yeshua could not possibly have been referring to it!

[torahgrandma]

I do not believe that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the LXX, but I do believe that the five books of Moses were translated originally by Jewish scholars from Hebrew to Greek, and that some diaspora Jews did use those original translations in the Greek as scripture.

[cyberlizard]

actually there is a better text that shows jesus was used to a hebrew tanach ordered scripture, though oft overlook in Matt 24v35 where he speaks about the murder of the first person to the murder of the last.... these being abel the righteous (from genesis) - first book to zechariah son of berechiah, mentioned in chronicles (last book).


Steve

p.s. if anyone can categorically prove the closing date for the hebrew tanach canon i would be well impressed!

[Ivy]

Wrong again

But it was commissioned by the Pharisees, wasn't it?

[TheRabbi]

No, it was commisioned by King Ptolemy. The Jews were forced into doing the translation.

[TheRabbi]

actually there is a better text that shows jesus was used to a hebrew tanach ordered scripture, though oft overlook in Matt 24v35 where he speaks about the murder of the first person to the murder of the last.... these being abel the righteous (from genesis) - first book to zechariah son of berechiah, mentioned in chronicles (last book).

I bet several people wish you had never brought that one up!

[TheRabbi]

2 Chronicles 24:20
Then the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood before the people and said, "This is what God says: 'Why do you disobey the LORD's commands? You will not prosper. Because you have forsaken the LORD, he has forsaken you.' "
21 But they plotted against him, and by order of the king they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the LORD's temple.

Matthew 23:35
And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Zechariah ben Berachiah is the Prophet known by the book that bears his name.
Zechariah 1:1
In the eighth month of the second year of Darius, the word of the LORD came to the prophet Zechariah son of Berekiah, the son of Iddo.

[TheRabbi]

I do not believe that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the LXX, but I do believe that the five books of Moses were translated originally by Jewish scholars from Hebrew to Greek, and that some diaspora Jews did use those original translations in the Greek as scripture.

I would agree with you 100% TG.

[Torah613]

To say that Jesus would have quoted from the LXX is ludicrous from a historical perspective. Greek at the time was not the lingua franca, but rather aramaic. While carpenters at the time were generally what we would refer to as upper middle-class, it is douptful that Jesus would have studied greek--particularly as the greek people were very much not in a positive light from the Jewish POV at the time.

Yochanan

[Torah613]

For the record there were plenty of Aramaic translations about. For Jesus to have quoted from the LXX over these would be the same as me saying that I prefer to quote beowoulfe in the original anglo-saxon (which by the way I do speak) as opposed to its english translations.

Yochanan

[MyZz]

2 Chronicles 24:20
Then the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood before the people and said, "This is what God says: 'Why do you disobey the LORD's commands? You will not prosper. Because you have forsaken the LORD, he has forsaken you.' "
21 But they plotted against him, and by order of the king they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the LORD's temple.

Matthew 23:35
And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Zechariah ben Berachiah is the Prophet known by the book that bears his name.
Zechariah 1:1
In the eighth month of the second year of Darius, the word of the LORD came to the prophet Zechariah son of Berekiah, the son of Iddo.

Therabbi ,
I subscribe to the view that this Zechariah spoken of by Matthew is Zechariah,father of John the Baptist.
In a non canonical book known as the Protevangelion Book of James we can read how he was slaughtered in the Temple.
Although I am not making any claims as to the canonicity of this document it is a very old work and I choose to believe that it could be accurate since nothing in that book runs counter to what we already believe as christians and messianics.It makes sense to me that Yeshua would call to mind Abel and then Zechariah who lived when Yeshua was born and is thus an event still fresh in the minds of the people rather than to a Zachariah that was much further back in time.

I will paste the extract from the book

9 But Herod made search after John, and sent servants to Zachary, when he was at the altar, and said to him, "Where have you hidden your son?" 10 He replied to them, "I am a servant of God, and a servant at the altar; how should I know where my son is?" 11 So the servants went back, and told Herod everything, at which he was incensed, and said, "Is ot this son of his likely to be king in Israel?" 12 Therefore he sent his servants again to Zachary, saying, "Tell us the truth, where is your son? For you know that your life is in my hand." 13 So the servants went and told him all this. 14 But Zachary replied to them, "I am a martyr for God, and if he shed my blood, the Lord will receive my soul. 15 Besides, know that you shed innocent blood." 16 However, Zachary was murdered at the entrance of the temple and altar, and about the partition. 17 But the children of Israel knew not when he was killed.
18 Then at the hour of salutation the priests went into the temple, but Zachary did not, according to custom, meet them and bless them, 19 19 But still they continued waiting for him to salute them. 20 And when they found he did not come in a long time, one of them ventured into the holy place where the altar was, and he saw blood lying upon the ground, congealed. 21 Then, behold, a voice from heaven said, "Zachary is murdered, and his blood shall not be wiped away, until the avenger of his blood comes." 22 And when he heard this, he was afraid, and went forth and told the priests what he had seen and heard. And they all went in, and saw the fact. 23 Then the roofs of the temple howled, and were rent from the top to the bottom, 24 and they could not find the body, but only blood made hard like stone. 25 And they went away, and told the people that Zachary was murdered, and all the tribes of Israel heard of it, and mourned for him, and lamented three days. 26 Then the priests took counsel together concerning a person to succeed him. 27 And Simeon and the other priests cast lots, and the lot fell upon Simeon. 28 For he had been assured by the Holy Spirit, that he should not die, till he had seen Christ come in the flesh.

[TheRabbi]

Ah, so we explain it away with a 2nd century text that also comes to prove Mary's perpertual virginity after the birth of Jesus. This book was clearly written to bolster emerging church dotrine and excuse glaring errors in the Gospels. Unless I miss my guess, a real opponent like TG (while disagreeing with my claim of errors) would never have brought that thing as a proof.

[torahgrandma]

Unless I miss my guess, a real opponent like TG (while disagreeing with my claim of errors) would never have brought that thing as a proof.

You are correct in your assumption.

[MyZz]

Ah, so we explain it away with a 2nd century text that also comes to prove Mary's perpertual virginity after the birth of Jesus. This book was clearly written to bolster emerging church dotrine and excuse glaring errors in the Gospels. Unless I miss my guess, a real opponent like TG (while disagreeing with my claim of errors) would never have brought that thing as a proof.

I do not consider myself an opponent since I am not here to battle as it were but your tone certainly seems to imply that you are.
I dug up the extract of the book last night in order to show you that there is a very old text of which thre were several manuscripts flying around that gave support to a tradition that Zechariah was murdered between the Temple of the Altar.
However the tradition said that he was killed by a mob because he allowed the pregnant Miriam to stand in the virgins place at the temple.
I have come across it in my readings of other apocrypha but I don't have the time to locate it at the moment.I will try to this weekend.
The fact that the early greek fathers such as Epiphanius,Basil and Cyril of Alexander supported this tradition and it was Jerome that rejected it leads me to think that it is very likely that Zechariah did meet his end in such a manner but the exact circumstances and erasons could have been added or changed to.
Therabbi ,no doubt you will now think of another scathing reply to this but I'm not here to provide you with proof of anything,merely to give my humble and unscholarly opinion on the topic being discussed.

[cyberlizard]

I bet several people wish you had never brought that one up!


actually i disagree... the fact that you think there is a mistake in the text is neither here not there after all everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if they are wrong.

for you to be able to count it as a mistake demands firstly that you know that either there was or was not a person of that name killed in the temple, and whether it is an allusion to either of the zechariah's you cite. Now I know you cannot prove the case in totality either way, so you denounce our text. But neither can we prove it the other way... maybe the Torah has a mistake (rather than the chadashah) - but i cannot prove this and it hold less water than your assumption.

so to whom is the text refering - i do not know for sure.... but for messianics and believers in the halachah of yeshua this is no excuse to run away fom important issues (and we do not).

the truth is you disagree with the answers we give - but that is ok - that's your right. But remember that you will not be right forever and when you slip up i expect you will not find christians or messianics to be standing around laughing, saying 'he slipped up there, lets stone him while he's down'.


Steve

p.s. i love theRabbi's posts in general (but at times question his motives) - but that is my right

[ContraMundum]

Wrong again


To quote Judge Dredd- I knew you were gonna say that.

[ContraMundum]

No, it was commisioned by King Ptolemy. The Jews were forced into doing the translation.


"Forced into it"? Love the spin. Party line, eh? Don't worry, I understand. :thumbsup:

Of course, you know that such a version of history is largely questionable, with only one witness actually making such an insinuation (I think Aristeas, IIRC). OTOH Philo tried to give some detail, and you have to admit his story sounds a little embellished. But none of that is important anyway.

OK...back to the matter....Do you think they did a good job of it? Can 70 Jewish scholars translate well or were on a day off/drinking bout that day? What about the Talmud's comments about it?

I realise of course that the modern Rabbis do their best to distance themselves from the LXX, which is OK for them (I guess, but it's kinda dodgy if you ask me), but with the Masoretic attempt far too late to make a case for accuracy to highly ancient texts (esp since the DSS were found), is it really fair to write off the LXX as an accurate witness to an earlier set of Hebrew texts? It is a mere translation, but what family of texts does it come from? How come they differ to the Masoretic text in some places?

No one is saying Yeshua quoted from the LXX. I'm sure He know about it, but almost certainly spoke in His native tongue.

[ContraMundum]

Ah, so we explain it away with a 2nd century text that also comes to prove Mary's perpertual virginity after the birth of Jesus. This book was clearly written to bolster emerging church dotrine and excuse glaring errors in the Gospels.

Proof? Sounds like an assumptive argument from silence to me.

How do you know that? Let me guess.....ummm...Jews for Judaism said so? :)

(The Church has a wealth of traditional, extra-Biblical traditional sources, so if you can bring up Jewish "traditions" to make your doctrine fly why can't we?)

[TheRabbi]

We can talk about it when you admit that you lied about me in another thread and apologize.

[ContraMundum]

It was not uncommon for Jews to have double-names in scripture, or to use the names of grandfathers in writings, as we all know.

Compare: 1 Sam 9:1 with 1 Chron 8:33 (even Matthew has two names, Levi being the other one). Peter was also called Simon, and Lebbeus also called Thaddeus.

However, there are also other possibilities, as we don't know for sure how Zechariah the grandson of Iddo died or when exactly (the same goes for the other Zechariah, actually, regarding the "when").

Then again, this may not be directed to either! Or maybe both died in the same manner. Lots of food for thought.

What I find interesting is the fact that Yeshua's "Bible" would have had 2 Chronicles as the last book, and Genesis as the first, which would make Yeshua's comment really a summary of the whole Tanach, from start to finish, in reference to it's times of ill-treatment towards prophets.

(Interesting aside- I remember reading about the Gospel of the Nazarenes in the works of either Jerome or some other father, where they recorded the words as Jehoiada, not Berachiah)

[ContraMundum]

We can talk about it when you admit that you lied about me in another thread and apologize.

What did I say?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

What did I say? It's difficult to understand the other person when they speak in Hippie riddles.

[ContraMundum]

Just one further point before my week off-

The Targum Lamentations 2:20- "Shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?" (JPS)- says that Zechariah "son of Iddo" was killed in the Temple on Yom Kippur. In other words, this is in agreement with Matthew. So either they are both wrong or they are both right and there is another explanation. This is also found elsewhere (b. Yoma 39b, b. Eruv 21a, Lev. Rabbah 6:6). Of course the matter of Aramaic also confirms this.

Must go- enjoy!