The Jewish Testimonies

There are Jews in Pakistan?!?" is the common reaction I get when I tell people I was born in Karachi, Pakistan. My father, a Catholic, was of Goan origin (Goa is a western province of India), and my mother comes from the Bene-Israel Jewish community in India/Pakistan. We moved to Quebec, Canada when I was about four years old.

Mom considered herself Jewish and never "converted" to Catholicism, though she held Jesus in high esteem. One Sunday, Dad enrolled my brother and me in Sunday School at a Protestant church so we would learn more about the Bible. Though I wasn't raised typically Jewish, I knew I had Jewish roots, especially when our family visited our relatives in Israel. At age 16, I stopped going to church in order to find the "true religion."

During my last year in university, I came across a TV program that focused on prophecy and Jesus' return, and urged listeners to receive Jesus as their Saviour. My friends and I discussed these shows and as a result, one friend invited me to church. I went with some hesitation. Then I heard the music! It spoke of hope and assurance from God -- things I didn't have. Moreover, the way the congregation sang surprised me -- they sang as though they had this hope and assurance.

Then the pastor spoke about Abraham and the binding of Isaac from Genesis 22. He compared this to God who gave His one and only son as a sacrifice for us. It was as if my mind was opened and I understood. My burdens were released and I had peace because I knew everything said about Jesus during that service was true. My family didn't understand what happened to me but they recognized that I was different.

The more I heard preaching from the Bible, the more it all made sense. I heard a message on Isaiah 53, and again it was like my mind was opened and I understood.

Knowing Jesus made me more excited about my own Jewish heritage. I enrolled in seminary in preparation to serve God with my life. But just before my first semester at seminary, my faith in Jesus took a blow from an "anti-missionary" rabbi who was teaching me Hebrew. Nevertheless, I prayed to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to show me the truth about Jesus and show me if the New Testament is truly from Him. God answered my prayers and questions, healed my faith, and squashed my doubts by confirming that Jesus is His Messiah, the Jewish Messiah, and that the New Testament is true.

I graduated from Concordia University in Montreal, with a bachelor's degree in Theoretical Physics, and later received a Masters of Divinity from Heritage Theological Seminary in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada. My whole family has received Messiah. God has also blessed me with a beautiful wife, Kristen, a daughter, Elizabeth, and a son, Nathanael. I want to tell my Jewish people and the whole world about Messiah Jesus and His love. He's forever changed me. I know I'm forgiven and have a sure hope because of what Jesus did. He's somebody worth sharing.
________________________
Meet Rich Robinson! Another Jewish Believer! This is his story.......



life-story-rich%20robinson.jpg


Like many Jewish people, I was raised in a home where Jewishness was more cultural than religious. Our family celebrated Passover and Hanukkah at our home in Brooklyn, we went to the Temple on the High Holy Days, and several afternoons each week I would attend Hebrew school. This upbringing ensured that I would always know something about what it meant to be Jewish. But cultural awareness and religious faith are two different things, and God was basically peripheral to my life.

Jewish identity and culture also played a part at the Zionist youth camp which I attended for two summers in upstate New York, sponsored by Hashomer Hatzair. At camp I participated in kibbutz-style work projects and intensive morning study sessions of Israeli Hebrew. Somewhat ironically, my appreciation of what Jewishness meant was broadened when I saw a camp production of the avant-garde play, The Persecution and Assassination of Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade. Obviously being Jewish could mean going beyond the bounds of what was considered traditional! In this way I discovered new facets to my Jewish identity.

Around that same time, I entered Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan, one of the better-known "radical" high schools, which for a lot of us meant staging student moratoriums and going on peace marches. (Since then, Stuyvesant has relocated to lower Manhattan, where it served as a triage area following the September 11 attacks.) We were idealists, and we saw Earth Day rallies and anti-Vietnam-war marches as a way to fulfil our idealism. Probably like a lot of others, I was tagging along not so much as a person of deeply held convictions as much as I was along for the ride, enjoying the electricity and the energy of the times. I wasn't really connected to the causes, though at a more or less unconscious level I felt that I needed to make some kind of connection.

Beginning college, the sense of being unconnected continued. Some of it was simply a case of freshman-year blues. But it was more than that. I listened to music by popular mystics and advocates of eastern religions, and for maybe the first time in my life I found myself thinking about spiritual things. Some college students lose their innocence; I lost my agnosticism. In the campus chapel, I would take time out to think about religion and God.

Then summer came, and I became a student of Edgar Cayce. By now he's a largely forgotten clairvoyant, but in his heyday several decades ago he was well-known and there's still an organization that promotes his ideas. I had discovered a book which explained that ill people, unable to be helped by their own doctors, came to see Cayce. In a trance-like state he gave the diagnosis and prescribed the cure, which was sometimes quite strange but which worked. Not unreasonably, I concluded that if Cayce was right about the physical, he must also be right about the spiritual. His "readings" about reincarnation, health foods and Atlantis fascinated me. As it turned out, I found myself listening to what Cayce said about Jesus, which was actually quite a bit.

Sometimes I am asked what Jewish people think about Jesus, and one answer is that Jews don't generally spend much time thinking about him at all beyond learning (usually when we're still children) that Jesus is not for us. Now, however, I was doing a lot of thinking about him. Edgar Cayce's depiction of Jesus was as different from the pictures seen on the walls of many Sunday School classrooms as Brooklyn is from the Bahamas. Cayce's Jesus was a cosmic Christ, a reincarnated person, mystical and Eastern. Ironically, this kind of Jesus was one that was acceptable to me within the parameters of my secular Jewish upbringing. (In today's Jewish community, almost anything goes except for Jesus, including Buddhism and New Age philosophies.) I took in all that Cayce had to say about Jesus, convinced that somehow, this cosmic Christ was the way to knowing God. But I didn't know where to go from there.

That fall, I began life as a transfer student, on a new campus with a new major. I was spiritually restless, and in a bookstore one day I came upon a paperback called A Catalog of Five Hundred Ways People Can Grow. Sitting on the grass, I began to systematically peruse the five hundred ways, starting with Aikido and ending in Zoroastrianism. By the time I reached the letter "Y," I was thinking of paying a visit to a Yoga ashram when somebody walked up to me. I found myself meeting a young man who introduced himself and asked if I'd be interested in taking a religious survey. It turned out that Dan worked with one of the campus Christian organizations. Since by this time I was open to talking about anything religious, I took his survey and then we spoke for some time about the gospel. I already more or less "believed" in a Hindu Christ, which for me meant believing and accepting a non-biblical Jesus without a sense of sin and without an understanding of who Jesus really was. In our conversation, I came to understand the centrality to the gospel of sin and forgiveness.

Though I remember praying to receive Jesus at that time, it was still without much understanding. I was still involved with Edgar Cayce, and spent many hours with Dan, the guy who had approached me, in arguing over whether Cayce was more of an authority than the Bible. Though Cayce's batting record left something to be desired, that didn't faze me. He had predicted that Atlantis would rise in a certain year, and though the newspapers hadn't yet reported this remarkable occurrence, I decided that Atlantis really had risen, only no one had noticed it yet. But neither Cayce nor his reincarnated Christ were bringing me the connectedness that I was seeking. Cayce's best advice seemed to be that eating almonds would prevent cancer. So my quest continued. I invested in a do-it-yourself yoga manual. I visited Hare Krishna meetings and listened, dubiously, to Guru Maharaj Ji, the "14 Year Old Perfect Master" of the universe.

One night at the close of the school year, I was still debating with Dan. I had the sense that I was fighting against God and decided the time had come to stop fighting. That evening in 1973, it must have been late spring, I placed my faith in Jesus as the "Word become flesh" and in his written word, the Bible. The Bible calls it the new birth. For me it was also a new connection. I felt connected with life and in a new way with my Jewishness.

Sometimes when I tell this story I say that it's like coming in through the back door. If someone had just walked up to me out of a church and said that I needed to believe in Jesus, I would have probably said no. Contemporary Jews are open to many things, but Jesus as we understand "the Christians" believe in him is not an option. Buddhism? Secularism? Those are OK. But Jesus? He's the god of the GentilesÑso we are taught. Yet through the convoluted route of Edgar Cayce and Eastern religions, God brought me to an interest in thinking about the real Jesus of the Bible.

Once I reached that place, the question wasn't, "Is believing in Jesus a Jewish thing to do?" That's a question we Jews have mostly answered ahead of time in the negative, as though we were leaving a voice mail for an interviewer who will be calling while we're out. The question for me became, "Is the gospel true?" If it was, then of course it was also Jewish to believe it, because shouldn't Jewish people believe in what's true? I concluded that it is true, and that by believing in Jesus, both Jews and Gentiles can come to know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Jews for Jesus - 8 items tagged with testimony created 2012-08-02 16 43 47 Hits 745 Jews for Jesus
 
Jews for Jesus - Jews for Jesus


Jesus
yshua3.jpg


  • "He was a good rabbi. He taught everyone to be nice to one another."
  • "He was a good Jew, but Paul made him into a god for the Gentiles."
  • "He got in trouble with the authorities and became a political martyr."
One thing is certain; after two thousand years, Jesus of Nazareth is still as controversial in the Jewish community as he was in the first century. Still, most hold to the traditional bottom line that whatever he was, he wasn't the expected Messiah.

Jews for Jesus begs to differ. We believe that Jesus was, and still is, who he claimed to be-the Messiah of Israel and of all nations. In this section, we present you with arguments for his Messiahship and respond to objections that you may have heard or raised. In this way, we join with those first-century Jews and Gentiles who found Jesus-in Hebrew, Y'shua-to be "the way, the truth, and the life."

Popular Topics


Read More »
 
Does the New Testament mistranslate and misuse the Hebrew Bible when it quotes the prophecies - Jews for Jesus

Good question...
...did the Messianic Jewish Believers use the OT deceitfully or ignorantly in the New Testament?
[created April 25/98]I received this sweet and honest-spirited email, with a number of excellent questions...I will try to address these as they come up, so I will intersperse my responses (normal font) from the questioner's (boldface)
Let's dig in...


  • Glenn,
    I hope you can help me out here. I downloaded a discussion dated 26 Jan 1995 regarding the use of the LXX versus the MT. It was very helpful to me in my struggle over an issue I will now detail.


    I come from a Jewish background and have my spiritual inspiration from Jesus and his followers. I am not one to put my head in the ground, nor take things at face value what the church tells me. I see challenges from my Jewish roots as really opportunities to understand better the world of the Jesus, yet they are always filled with the tension of wanting to stay honest and be willing to lose a formerly cherished belief if presented with a more mature view.
First, let me applaud your attitude of honesty and commitment!

  • An Orthodox Jewish friend pointed out a discrepancy in Acts regarding the number of Jacobs clan as differing from the Hebrew. He also mentioned that the gravesite also wrong for Jacob. Coming from the point of view that as Jews the original meaning of the texts are paramount, any use of it for Proof-texts or prophesies must be accurate or we must be dubious about the claims that these texts are purporting to support (i.e. Jesus is the Messiah). Basically I am being challenged that the NT writers were either negligent, sloppy, reckless, deceptive, or just plain creative, and that they really have no fidelity or loyalty to the Torah/words of God; and how then can they be regarded with seriousness? If it is true that the NT use of scripture is without integrity and honor then I would have to agree.
    Now I know that this issue is not that simplistic, so I have been trying to get at the truth of it. In all that I have read, I have not yet heard any attention placed on this question-- did the writers use of OT in the NT reflect a real creation and therefore NOVEL faith that DEPARTS from Jewish continuity, or does it just take some sensitive work at getting into the world of the first century to understand the relationship of the Torah, the people, translations, language, cult, etc.?


    Please help me here!!
The short answer here is that the early Jewish Christians were altogether unoriginal and "uncreative" (almost boring) in their exegesis and use of scripture! Other groups within pre-Christian and even early post-NT Judaism were MUCH more creative with the OT: the Rabbis with their midrash, the Qumran-ites with their 'near' eschatology, the Hellenistic Jews (e.g. Philo) with their allegorizing, and the various authors of the Pseudepigraphical works with their pseudonymity.
There are several ways to demonstrate this, but first we must distinguish two separate questions in your above section:


  • 1. What about the 'mistakes' in Stephen's speech in Acts 7?
    2. Did the early Jewish believers radically depart from 'acceptable' practices of OT exegesis, argument, and usage?
Interestingly, the first question provides a fruitful window into the second.
Indeed, Stephen's speech in Acts 7 contains several problems, with four of these in verses 2-8 (including the two you mention). But his usage is well within the parameters of acceptableness in the day. So, Longenecker (EBC, in.loc., emphasis mine):

"There are a number of difficulties as to chronological sequence, historical numbers, and the use of biblical quotations in Stephen's address that have led to the most strenuous exercise of ingenuity on the part of commentators in their attempts to reconcile them. Four of these difficulties appear in vv. 2-8. Verse 3 quotes the words of God to Abraham given in Genesis 12:1 and implies by its juxtaposition with v. 2 that this message came to Abraham "while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran," whereas the context of Genesis 12:1 suggests that it came to him in Haran. Verse 4 says that he left Haran after the death of his father, whereas the chronological data of Genesis 11:26-12:4 suggests that Terah's death took place after Abraham's departure from Haran. Verse 5 uses the words of Deuteronomy 2:5 as a suitable description of Abraham's situation in Palestine, whereas their OT context relates to God's prohibition to Israel not to dwell in Mount Seir because it had been given to Esau. And v. 6 speaks of 400 years of slavery in Egypt, whereas Exodus 12:40 says 430.
"We need not, however, get so disturbed over such things as, on the one hand, to pounce on them to disprove a "high view" of biblical inspiration or, on the other hand, to attempt to harmonize them so as to support such a view. These matters relate to the conflations and inexactitude of popular Judaism, not necessarily to some then-existing scholastic tradition or to variant textual traditions. In large measure they can be paralleled in other popular writings of the day, whether overtly Hellenistic or simply more nonconformist in the broadest sense of that term. Philo, for example, also explained Abraham's departure from Ur of the Chaldees by reference to Genesis 12:1 (De Abrahamo 62-67), even though he knew that Genesis 12:1-5 is in the context of leaving Haran (cf. De Migratione Abrahami 176). Josephusspoke of Abraham's being seventy-five years old when he left Chaldea (contra Gen 12:4, which says he was seventy-five when he left Haran) and of leaving Chaldea because God bade him go to Canaan, with evident allusion to Genesis 12:1 (cf. Antiq. I, 154 [vii.1]). Likewise, Philoalso placed the departure of Abraham from Haran after his father's death (De Migratione Abrahami 177). And undoubtedly the round figure of four hundred years for Israel's slavery in Egypt--a figure that stems from the statement credited to God in Genesis 15:13--was often used in popular expressions of religious piety in Late Judaism, as were also the transpositions of meaningful and usable phrases from one context to another.

And, relative to the burial location, the same phenomena can be seen in the LXX and in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Longenecker again):"...the confusion in v. 16 between Abraham's tomb at Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah, which Abraham bought from Ephron the Hittite (cf. Gen 23:3-20) and wherein Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were buried (cf. Gen 49:29-33; 50:13), and the burial plot purchased by Jacob at Shechem from the sons of Hamor, wherein Joseph and his descendants were buried (cf. Josh 24:32). Again, these are but further examples of the conflations and inexactitudes of Jewish popular religion, which, it seems, Luke simply recorded from his sources in his attempt to be faithful to what Stephen actually said in his portrayal. And again, they can in large measure be paralleled elsewhere. Genesis 46:27 in the LXX, for example, does not include Jacob and Joseph but does include nine sons of Joseph in the reckoning, thereby arriving at "seventy-five souls" all together who went down to Egypt. And with this number both Exodus 1:5 (LXX) and 4QExoda at 1:5 agree.So, Stephen's inexactitude seems to fall in line with at least some of the more obvious contemporary Jewish practices, as evidenced by the LXX, Qumran, Josephus and Philo. [Note also: (1) that the Hebrew MS at Qumran called 4QExod(a) gives 75 as the correct number--in agreement with the LXX, over against the Hebrew MT!; and (2) Stephen was a Hellenist and spoke Greek anyway--the LXX would be his choice NOT because he was a "Christian" but because he was a Hellenistic Jew]
But let' use this as a springboard into the second, more general question:

Did the early Jewish believers radically depart from 'acceptable' practices of OT exegesis, argument, and usage?In other words, do their practices as evidenced in the NT documents find material parallels in the various writings of the time? To what extent are their arguments, texts, exegetical practices mirrored in the literature of the day?
Let's ask first the methodological question: how would we determine 'parallel usage'?

Let's suggest a few first:

1. Textual: Do they use similar texts to the 'very Jewish' writers of the day? In other words, do the other Jews of the period (i.e., Qumran, Philo, Josephus, writers of the Pseudepigraphical/Apocryphal/Diaspora works, any very early writings in the Rabbinics) use the LXX and other text types?
2. Exegetical: Do they use similar interpretive approaches to the text? In other words, do the other Jews of the period use the same kinds of exegetical rules (e.g., pesher midrash, typological)?

3. Theological: Do they use similar theological understandings of the text? In other words, do the other Jews of the period (list above) understand messianic texts and overall theological themes in the same ways?

It is absolutely essential to recognize that pre-70 AD Judaism was NOT the talmudic Judaism that came later. ALL of the groups we will look at (e.g., Qumran, Pharisees, Diaspora/Hellenistic) were "good Jews" of the day. Early Christianity was "merely" a sect of Judaism for the first century. So, Charlesworth (ABD, s.v. "Pseudepigrapha, OT"):"The study of Christian origins has also been revolutionized thanks to the study and appreciation of the Pseudepigrapha and of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not only synagogal, or rabbinic, Judaism, but also earliest Christianity (from 30 to at least 70 c.e.) was part of and eventually developed out of the complex "Judaisms" which made up early Judaism. What was seen as only the "background" of Christianity is now acknowledged to be part of the "foreground" of Christianity.Now, although we will get into the LXX issue in more detail below, we can at least compile the data for our first area (TEXTUAL) here.
OT:TCHB]. Only 60% of the texts found there agree with the MT (OT:TCHB:115). That's leaves 40% that vary. Let me show this from some of his material.

"Before the Qumran discoveries S [symbol for Samaritan text] was thought to be an ancient text, whose nature could not be determined more precisely beyond its popular character. However, since the discovery in Qumran of texts which are exceedingly close to S, this situation has changed...The best preserved pre-Samaritan text is 4QpaleoExod(m) of which large sections of 44 columns from Exodus 6 to 37 have been preserved...The main feature characterizing these texts is the appearance of harmonizing additions within Exodus and Numbers taken from Deuteronomy...This feature links these texts exclusively with S." [OT:TCHB:97-99. He also lists 4Q158 and 4Qtest (=4Q175) as following S.]The LXX is a Greek translation, of course, so we would not expect to see it among the DSS. However, it DOES show up in fragments there(!), and since it was translated from a Palestinian Hebrew original, we also find some documents that are related to that original.
Also, it must be remembered that the LXX and MT are not as widely divergent as is commonly supposed:

"The Hebrew text presupposed by the LXX basically represents a tradition which is either close to that of MT or can easily be explained as a descendant or a source of it. In several individual instances, however, the LXX represents a text that comes close to other sources, viz., certain Hebrew scrolls from Qumran and the Sam. Pent." [Tov, in HI:TCULXX:188]He points out that "Several scrolls often coincide with details in the LXX, either with the central manuscript group or with a specific group of its manuscripts" [HI:TCULLXX:188] and he gives examples of 4QJer(b), 4QJer(d,17), 4Qdeut(q), 4Qsam(a), 4QLev(d), 4Qexod(b) [pp.191-195].
Let me be clear about one thing, though. I am NOT suggesting that the Hebrew Text underlying the LXX was itself a major substrate in the DSS; merely, that the various textual traditions at Qumran had knowledge of this strain of text. It is at best a minor aspect of the DSS, as it is a minority piece of the NT quotations (as seen in the previous discussion).


2. Philo. As an Alexandrian Jew, he even ascribed the highest level of divine inspiration to the LXX (the Pentateuch only), and called the translators prophets! (Life of Moses, II.38-40):

"But this, they say, did not happen at all in the case of this translation of the law, but that, in every case, exactly corresponding Greek words were employed to translate literally the appropriate Chaldaic words, being adapted with exceeding propriety to the matters which were to be explained; (39) for just as I suppose the things which are proved in geometry and logic do not admit any variety of explanation, but the proposition which was set forth from the beginning remains unaltered, in like manner I conceive did these men find words precisely and literally corresponding to the things, which words were alone, or in the greatest possible degree, destined to explain with clearness and force the matters which it was desired to reveal. (40) And there is a very evident proof of this; for if Chaldaeans were to learn the Greek language, and if Greeks were to learn Chaldaean, and if each were to meet with those scriptures in both languages, namely, the Chaldaic and the translated version, they would admire and reverence them both as sisters, or rather as one and the same both in their facts and in their language; considering these translators not mere interpreters but hierophants and prophets to whom it had been granted it their honest and guileless minds to go along with the most pure spirit of Moses.
"Philo (ca. 25 bc-ad 40) makes the translation an act of divine inspiration, and the translators prophets: although they worked separately they produced a single text that was literally identical throughout." [WTOT:51]

3. Josephus. Josephus, like Philo, writes in Greek, but is a Palestinian Jew and not Alexandrian. He uses the LXX at places as well."Josephus claims to have based his account on the Hebrew text of the sacred writings (Ant. I, 5). This claim appears to hold good for the Hexateuch. In the later books of the bible, however, he has clearly consulted the Septuagint." [HI:IIW:112-113].Josephus also used other Greek translations than the LXX, most notably the proto-Lucian texts [WTOT:60,n.38].
He also praises the pagan king, who received the Greek translation of the Pentateuch (Ant 1.10-13):

"I found, therefore, that the second of the Ptolemies was a king who was extraordinarily diligent in what concerned learning and the collection of books; that he was also peculiarly ambitious to procure a translation of our law, and of the constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek tongue. (11) Now Eleazar, the high priest, one not inferior to any other of that dignity among us, did not envy the forenamed king the participation of that advantage, which otherwise he would for certain have denied him, but that he knew the custom of our nation was, to hinder nothing of what we esteemed ourselves from being communicated to others. (12) Accordingly, I thought it became me both to imitate the generosity of our high priest, and to suppose there might even now be many lovers of learning like the king; for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, (13) while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books.This mixture of textual elements in Josephus is noted in the ABD (s.v. "Josephus"):"An important question centers around the issue of the biblical text that Josephus had at his disposal. It is important because the answer would help shed significant light on the state of the text in 1st-century Palestine, almost a millennium before our first extant complete Hebrew manuscript. Josephus seems to have had in his possession texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek; and he varied in his use of them from biblical book to book. In view of the fact that in Josephus' time there were a number of divergent Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible, we cannot be sure which version he used at any given time, especially since he usually paraphrased and elaborated rather than translated. Nor must we discount the possibility that Josephus followed a tradition independent of both the MT and the LXX, as may be seen from the fact that he agrees with Pseudo-Philo in some places that diverge from both the MT and the LXX.
"The fact that Josephus was himself writing in Greek would make it seem likely that his chief textual source was the LXX, especially since he cited it as a precedent for presenting the history of the Jews to a non-Jewish audience (Ant 1. Proem 3 §10-12) and since he devoted so much space paraphrasing the account of the translation given in Let. Aris. (Ant 12.2.1-15 §11-118), hardly what one would expect in a work which is essentially a political and military rather than a cultural and religious history of the Jews. And yet, the very fact that he paraphrased the Bible in Greek would seem to indicate that he hoped to improve on that rendering, since there would hardly be much point otherwise in a new version. Hence it is not surprising that where the style of the LXX is more polished, as in the Additions to Esther or in 1 Esdras, he adheres more closely to its text. And yet, to have ignored the LXX, in view of the tremendous regard in which that version was held, would have been looked upon as an attempt to hide something. Nevertheless, even when Josephus agrees with the LXX, this is not necessarily an indication that he had the LXX text before him, since he may have incorporated an exegetical tradition which had been known earlier to the translators of the LXX. Finally, the biblical texts found at Qumran indicate that the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek texts were not so great as had been previously thought.


NT:JMD:128]
2. Egyptian Ezekiel (2nd century BC). "Reading the narrative of the Exodus in the LXX, Ezekiel saw the potential to present its dramatic storyline in the form of a Greek tragedy...In most of the fragments the influence of the LXX is easily observed...Ezekiel's was a Judaism fully committed to the Jews' communal text (the Septuagint), their communal story, their national hero and their ancestral customs." [NT:JMD:133-134, 138]

3. The Letter of Aristeas (of course) is the source of the story of the miraculous translation of the LXX to begin with!

4. Aristobulus, arguing that the famous philosophers were actually dependent on Moses(!), advances a rather strange story: "how were Homer and Plato able to gain enlightenment from Moses' Hebrew text? He counters (12.1) with the thesis of an early Greek translation--before the version sponsored by Demetrius of Phalerum, before even 'the Persian conquest' (341 or 525 bce)" [NT:JMD:151] Aristobulus (c. 170bc) actually refers to Prov 8.22f, probably in translation [so Hengel, NT:JH01:163].

5. Pseudo-Phocylides, writes around 1st century bc., and attributes his work to the 6th century Greek poet. He writes a poem, in which "Some verses in the poem are derived directly from the LXX, either in concept or in vocabulary" [NT:JMD:338].

6. There are two writers in Palestine in our period, who write in Greek: The Anonymous Samaritan, often called pseudo-Eupolemus (ca 200-100 bc), and the Jewish historian Eupolemus (1st century bc). Hengel discusses their usage of the LXX [NT:JH01:88-95], and summaries on p.102: "The use of the LXX in the anonymous Samaritan and in Eupolemus, together with the discovery of LXX fragments in Qumran and in the caves used in the Bar Kochba revolt, shows that the Greek translation of the Old Testament also came to be highly prized in Palestinefrom the second century BC to the second century AD--in contrast to the sharp criticism of later Rabbis."


EBC, vol 1, "Textual Criticism of the Old Testament", pp. 214-215):

"On the other hand, the Sopherim, called by Ginsburg "the authorized revisers of the text," some time after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity altered the script from its angular paleo-Hebrew form to the square Aramaic form, aided the division of words--a practice carefully observed in the Hebrew inscriptions from the first half of the first millennium--by distinguishing five final letter forms and aided the reading of a text by continually inserting consonantal vowels called mattes lectionis.
"More significantly, some liberal-minded scribes altered the text for both philological and theological reasons. Thus, they modernized the text by replacing archaic Hebrew forms and constructions with forms and constructions of a later Hebrew linguistic tradition. They also smoothed out the text by replacing rare constructions with more frequently occurring constructions and they supplemented and clarified the text by the insertion of additions and the interpolation of glosses from parallel passages. In addition, they substituted euphemisms for vulgarities, altered the names of false gods, removed the harsh phrase "curse God," and safe-guarded the sacred divine name by failing to pronounce the tetragrammaton (YHWH [Yahweh]) and occasionally by substituting other forms in the consonantal text.

"As a result of this liberal tendency, three distinct recensions and one mixed text type emerged during this period (c. 400 B.C. to c. A.D. 70). The three text types already known from the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the text preserved by the Masoretes--the textus receptus--were corroborated by the finds at Qumran. Here the Hebrew text lying behind the Greek translation, the Jewish text type adopted and adapted by the Samaritans for their sectarian purposes, and the textus receptus are all represented.

"The confusion of text types in Palestine at this time is reflected in the citations from the OT in the NT, the Apocrypha, and the rabbinic traditions. The NT shares readings with the received text, Samar., LXX, Targ. Onkelos, Sirach, Testimonia, Florilegium, and Theod.

"In addition to rabbinic traditions about the textual emendations of the scribes cited above, other rabbinic tradition tells of the need for "book correctors" in Jerusalem attached to the temple and even of divergent readings in Pentateuchal scrolls kept in the temple archives. Moreover, collations made from the Codex Severus and preserved by medieval rabbis show variants from the textus receptus in the scroll taken to Rome by Titus in A.D. 70.

As mentioned above, the rabbinical literature is after our period, and should therefore show the greatest resistance to variance. Therefore, if we findrabbinical citations of the OT that depart from MT, they are therefore that much weightier. We indeed find this in both the primary rabbinics (e.g. Talmud) as well as the 'popular' rabbinics (i.e., the Targums).
As regards the primary rabbinics, Tov notes [OT:TCHB:34, p.10]:

"At the same time, the biblical quotations in the rabbinic literature also differ from time to time from MT, both in direct quotations and in variants underlying the derashah, 'sermon.'"Although the number of these variants are small (less than a hundred), Tov gives a couple of particularly odd examples (p.34-35) where the MT differs from the rabbinic citation:
  • Is 1.1 with Gen. Rab 13.1
  • Is 1.3 with Sifre Deut 309 MS daleth
  • Is 1.18 with Sifre Deut 6 MS Daleth
  • Jer 30.4 with Sifre Deut 1 MSS Daleth, Lamedh, and Tov
  • Hab 1.13 with Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4.10; 25.1
The Aramaic Targumim (e.g., "interpretive translations") manifest an even greater range of variance.
Some are very close to the MT (e.g., Targum Onkelos), but others are quite different, and may reflect an earlier cycle of their development, prior to the suppression of variants by the Rabbis. So Waltke (EBC, vol 1, p.224):

"Both it [Targum of Job] and the Psalms aim at giving a fairly faithful rendering of the Hebrew text and their brief aggadic additions can easily be separated. Moreover, each contains an unusually high number of variants in vowels and consonants from MT, and numbers of these also occur in the Pesh. and LXX.And Tov notes [OT:TCHB:151]:"According to the story in t. Shabb. 13.2; b. Shabb. 115b; y. Shabb. 16.15c, the Job Targum already existed at the time of Gameliel the Elder (first half of the first century CE), and an early source of this targum has indeed been found in Qumran. The Job Targum from Qumran contains a literal translation, sometimes reflecting a Vorlage different from MT."It is also interesting to note that Jesus, when quoting from the OT, also varies His textual-type. We noted earlier that the vast majority of His quotes agreed with BOTH the LXX and the MT, but there are cases where He uses something different than EITHER. And, in several of these twelve cases, His word choice seems to reflect the same underlying text as the targums. For example, His word choices are more in line with the Targum than with the MT or LXX in Mark 4.12; 4.24; Matt 7.2 [Chilton, JSOTGP1:25-26; he notes that he has identified elsewhere 15 such passages], and Matt 4.10 [France,JOT:240ff].
The same is true for Rabbi/Apostle Paul and other speakers in the NT. So Wilcox [HI:IIW:198]:

"It has long been known that Eph. 4:8 cites Ps. 67(68):19 in a form which diverges from both the MT and the LXX but in that deviation agrees with the targum."In fact, the NT overall makes the same types of textual 'decisions' as do the Targums. So Wilcox [HI:IIW:194-195]:"In investigating the text form of the OT in the NT we need to keep several principles of method in mind. (1) We have no right to assume that the one NT writer will have always used the same OT textual tradition in his work(s). In the case of Matthew and Luke this is clearly not so...(2) Apparently minor deviations, such as the 'replacement' of one word or phrase by another in a text which otherwise looks verbally identical with a known OT textual tradition (e.g., the LXX), also occur (a) between extant Greek OT versions, and (b) between the targumim, and in fact from one targum MS to another...it is characteristic of targum to replace a word or phrase which more or less literally renders the Hebrew by another (or even a longer passage) which gives the traditional interpretation of it...(3) The present 'deviant' form of an OT quotation may be a result of an earlier piece of exegesis..."So, what do we have so far?
SUMMARY: On the textual issue, relative to NT times, ALL major groups within the Judaism of the day could, and did, use various text types. The early Christians were accordingly NO DIFFERENT than their non-Christian counterparts; they reflected the prevailing 'methods' and understandings of 1st century "good Jewry."


BEALE:380ff] will set the stage, as well as summarize some of the data of the period:

"Jewish exegesis of the first century can generally be classified under four headings: literalist, midrashic, pesher, and allegorical. Admittedly, such a fourfold classification highlights distinctions of which the early Jewish exegetes themselves may not have always been conscious. In dealing with a system of thought that thinks more holistically, functionally, and practically than analytically--one that stresses precedent over logic in defense of its ways--any attempt at classification must necessarily go beyond that system's explicit statements as to its own principles. Nevertheless, we still maintain, Jewish interpretations of Scripture fall quite naturally into one or other of these four categories.
"A literalist (peshat) type of exegesis is to be found in all stands of early Jewish interpretation. While midrashic exegesis may characterize the Talmud, rabbinic literature also contains many examples of Scripture being understood in a quite straightforward manner, with the result that the natural meaning of the text is applied to the lives of the people--particularly in applying Deuteronomic legislation. The situation is somewhat similar in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where preoccupation with pesher interpretation so overshadows all other types of exegesis that one could easily get the impression that the men of Qumran never understood Scripture literally. Yet the opening lines of the Manual of Discipline commit the members of the community to a literal observance of both "the rule [order, serek] of the community" and what God "commanded through Moses and through all his servants the prophets" ( 1 QS 1.1-3). Deuteronomic legislation, in fact, while adapted somewhat to their unique situation, was taken by the Qumran covenanters, for the most part, quite literally--even hyperliterally. Likewise Philo, while known most for his allegorical interpretations, understood certain biblical passages in a literalist fashion. Most familiar in this regard is his insistence that though allegorical exegesis is proper, it must not set aside the literal practice of the Law (De Migrat Abr 89-94). Philo believed, for example, that circumcision should be allegorically understood, yet practiced literally (De Migrat Abr 92); he insisted on the eternality of the Law (De Vita Mos 44) and rebuked those who did not keep it (De Exsecrat 138-39).

"The central concept in rabbinic exegesis, and presumably that of earlier Pharisees as well, was "midrash." The word comes from the verbdarash (to resort to, seek; figuratively, to read repeatedly, study, interpret), and strictly denotes an interpretive exposition however derived and irrespective of the type of material under consideration. In the Mishnah, the Palestinian Gemaras, and the earlier Midrashim the verbpeshat and derash are used in roughly synonymous fashion, for the earlier rabbis (the Tannaim) did not see any difference between their literal interpretations and their more elaborate exegetical treatment. Only among the Amoraite rabbis, sometime in the fourth century C.E were literalist exegesis and midrash exegesis consciously differentiated. But while not recognized as such until later, midrashic exegesis can be seen in retrospect to have differed from literalist exegesis among the Pharisaic teachers of the New Testament period.

"Midrashic exegesis ostensibly takes its point of departure from the biblical text itself (though psychologically it may have been motivated by other factors) and seeks to explicate the hidden meanings contained therein by means of agreed-upon hermeneutical rules (e.g., Rabbi Hillel's seven Middoth; Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha's later set of thirteen; Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose ha-Galili's thirty-two). The purpose of midrash exegesis is to contemporize the revelation of God given earlier for the people of God living later in a different situation. What results may be characterized by the maxim: "That has relevance for This"--that is, what is written in Scripture has relevance for our present situation. In so doing, early Judaism developed what George Foote Moore once aptly defined as "an atomistic exegesis, which interprets sentences, clauses, phrases, and even single words, independently of the context or the historical occasion, as divine oracles; combines them with other similar detached utterances; and makes large use of analogy of expression often by purely verbal association" (Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 1.248).

"The expositions in the texts from Qumran are usually introduced by the term "pesher," which stems from the Aramaic word pisharmeaning "solution" or "interpretation." There are also instances where "midrash" appears in the texts (e.g., lQS 6.24; 8.15, 26; CD 20.6; 4QFlor 1, 14), though in these cases the word is used in a non-technical sense to mean only "interpretation" generally. The Dead Sea sectarians considered themselves to be the elect community of the final generation of the present age, living in the last days of "messianic travail" before the eschatological consummation. Theirs was the task of preparing for the coming of the messianic age. And so to them applied certain prophecies in Scripture that were considered to speak of their present situation.

"While the rabbis sought to contemporize Holy Writ so as to make God's Torah relevant to their circumstances, the Dead Sea covenanterslooked upon Scripture from what they accepted was a revelatory perspective (based on the interpretations of the Teacher of Righteousness) and emphasized imminent, catastrophic fulfillment. Their maxim seems to have been: "This is That"--that is, our present situation is depicted in what is written in Scripture. Qumran's pesher interpretation of the Old Testament, therefore, is neither principally "commentary" nor "midrashic exegesis," though it uses the forms of both. As Cecil Roth pointed out: "It does not attempt to elucidate the Biblical text, but to determine the application of Biblical prophecy or, rather, of certain Biblical prophecies; and the application of these Biblical prophecies in precise terms to current and even contemporary events" ("The Subject Matter of Qumran Exegesis," Vetus Testamentum 10 [1960]: 51-52).

"The most prominent Jewish allegorist of the first century was Philo of Alexandria, whose expositions of Scripture were produced during the life of Jesus and the earliest days of the church. Though a Jew, Philo was the inheritor of Stoic and Platonic ideas. And though a critic of the content of these philosophies, he used their basic categories of thought and methods in presenting to his Grecian audience what he believed to be the truth of the Jewish Torah. So he usually treated the Old Testament as a body of symbols given by God for man's spiritual and moral benefit, which must be understood other than in a literal or historical fashion. The prima facie meaning must normally be pushed aside--even counted as offensive--to make room for the intended spiritual meaning underlying the obvious; though, as noted above, at times he seems willing to consider literalist and allegorical exegesis as having a parallel legitimacy. In the main, however, exegesis of Holy Writ was for Philo an esoteric enterprise which, while not without its governing principles, was to be disassociated from literalist interpretation.

"But though Philo was the most prominent Jewish allegorist of the first Christian century, he was not alone. The Letter of Aristeas includes one instance of a mild allegorical treatment in its portrayal of the High Priest Eleazer's defence of the Jewish dietary laws (see 150-70; esp.150: "For the division of the hoof and the separation of the claws are intended to teach us that we must discriminate between our individual actions with a view to the practice of virtue"). Jacob Lauterbach has identified two groups of Palestinian Pharisees active prior to the time of Rabbi Judah "the Prince" (the compiler of the Mishnah in the latter part of the second century C.E.), the Dorshe Reshumot and theDorshe Hamurot, who used a type of allegorical exegesis in their interpretations of Scripture ("Ancient Jewish Allegorists," Jewish Quarterly Review 1 [1911]: 291-333, 503-31). And Joseph Bonsirven and David Daube have presented significant data in support of the thesis of an early Pharisaic allegorical exegesis within Palestine itself (Bonsirven, "Exegese allegorique chez les rabbins tannaites,"Recherches de Science Religieuse 23 [1933]: 522-24; Daube, "Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric," Hebrew Union College Annual 22 [1949]: 239-64). In addition, the Dead Sea Scrolls include a number of examples of allegorical interpretation, representative of which is the treatment of Habakkuk 2:17 in lQpHab 12:3-4: "'Lebanon' stands here for the Communal Council; 'wild beasts' for the simple-minded Jews who carry out the Law" (see also lQpMic. 8-10; CD 6.2-11; 7.9-20). But though allegorical exegesis was widespread amongst Jews of the first century, it was not dominant in Palestine.

"The Jewish roots of Christianity make it a priori likely that the exegetical procedures of the New Testament would resemble to some extent those of then contemporary Judaism. This has long been established with regard to the hermeneutics of Paul vis-a-vis the Talmud, and it is becoming increasingly clear with respect to the Qumran texts as well. Indeed, there is little indication in the New Testament itself that the canonical writers were conscious of varieties of exegetical genre or of following particular modes of interpretation. At least they seem to make no sharp distinctions between what we would call historico-grammatical exegesis, midrash, pesher, allegory, or interpretations based on "corporate solidarity" or "typological correspondences in history." All of these are used in their writings in something of a blended and interwoven fashion. Yet there are discernible patterns and individual emphases among the various New Testament authors.

"In almost all of the New Testament authors one can find some literalist, straightforward exegesis of biblical texts. Occasionally some allegorical interpretation is also present. The pesher method, however dominates a certain class of material, namely that representative of Jesus' early disciples: principally Peter's preaching recorded in the early chapters of Acts, the Gospels of Matthew and John, and 1 Peter. Here these authors seem to be taking Jesus' own method of using Scripture as their pattern. By revelation they had come to know that "this" manifest in the work and person of Jesus "is that" of which the Old Testament speaks. Yet other New Testament writers, notably Paul and the author of Hebrews, can be characterized by a midrashic type of biblical interpretation (except where Paul uses a pesher approach in describing his own apostolic calling). Midrashic interpretation in the hands of these authors starts with Scripture and seeks to demonstrate christological relevance by means of a controlled atomistic exegesis.

This extended quote should demonstrate that the NT disciples were in fact not innovative or unusual in their approaches to exegesis.

Second, let's look at the accepted rabbinical exegetical rules of the day (e.g. Hillel) and see if they were used.

There were a number of rabbinical exegetical rules practiced around the time of Jesus, most notably those of Hillel.

"Seven exegetical rules were, according to later rabbinic tradition, expounded by the great teacher Hillel (c. A.D. 10). They represent general hermeneutical principles of inference, analogy and context that were probably in use before that time. They may be derived, as D. Daube argues, from rules of Hellenistic rhetoric current in Alexandria in the first century B.C." [Ellis, in OTEC:87].Longenecker describes the rules for us [BEAP:34-35]:1. Qal wahomer: what applies in a less important case will certainly apply in a more important case.
2. Gezerah shawah: verbal analogy from one verse to another; where the same words are applied to two separate cases it follows that the same considerations apply to both.

3. Binyan ab mikathub 'ehad: building up a family from a single text; when the same phrase is found in a number of passages, then a consideration found in one of them applies to all of them.

4. Binyan ab mishene kethubim: building up a family from two texts; a principle is established by relating two texts together; the principle can then be applied to other passages.

5. Kelal upherat: the general and the particular, a general principle may be restricted by a particularisation of it in another verse; or conversely, a particular rule may be extended into a general principle.

6. Kayoze bo bemaqom 'aher: as is found in another place; a difficulty in one text may be solved by comparing it with another which has points of general (though not necessarily verbal) similarity.

7. Dabar halamed me'inyano: a meaning established by its context.

Now, did Jesus and/or the NT authors argue using these rules? Most definitely.
Just to cite some of the passages where these principles are used (for discussion, see BEAP, NWNTI:117-118, and OTEC:87ff):

Rule 1 (Inference a fortiori): Matt 12.11ff, Luke 12.24,28; 2 Cor 3.7-11; Heb 9.13ff; Luke 6.3-5; Rom 5.15,17; Rom 11.24; I Cor 6.2f; I Cor 9.9; Heb 2.2ff; Heb 10.28f; Heb 12.24ff; John 10.31-38.
Rule 2 (Inference from similar words): Mark 2.23-28; Luke 6.1-5; Rom 4.3,7; Heb 7.1-28; Jas 2.21ff.

Rule 3 (General principle from one verse): Mark 12.26; Jas 5.16ff.

Rule 4 (General principle from two verses): Rom 4.1-25 (Abe and David); I Cor 9.9, 13 (from Deut 25.4 and 18.1-8); Jas 2.22-26 (Abe and Rahab).

Rule 5 (Inference from a general principle): Mark 12.28-34; Rom 13.9ff (from Lev 19.18).

Rule 6 (Inference from an analogous passage): Mark 14.62 (anlgy of Dan 7.9 with Ps 110.1); Gal 3.8-16 (anlgy of Gen 12.3 and 22.18); Heb 4.7-9 (anlgy of Josh 1.13-15 with Ps 95.7-11); Heb 8.7-13 (anlgy of Exod 19.5ff with Jer 31.31-34).

Rule 7 (Interpretation from the context): Matt 19.4-8; Rom 4.10f; Gal 3.17; Heb 4.9f.; heb 11.1-13; Heb 11.35-40.

Ellis sums up some of these NT practices [OTEC:91]:"As a whole the examples show that the principles attributed to Hillel were also used by the messianic Judaism represented by Jesus and the New Testament writers. Certain of the principles, especially the association of biblical texts containing similar ideas (rule 6) or common words and phrases (rule 2) are important for the formation of large commentary patterns in the New Testament. They are also evident in other techniques such as a string of quotations (Rom 11.8-10; 15.9-12; 1 Cor 3.19f; Heb 1.5-13; I Pet 2.7f) and merged or composite quotations (Rom 3.10-18; II Cor 6.16ff; I Cor 2.9) that often have appended to one text a snippet from another.That these latter techniques (i.e., composite, conflated citations) are not unique to early Jewish Christians, can be seem from a simple example or two of usage in non-Christian Jewish lit. Strings of quotations abound in rabbinic and Qumanic sources:RABBINIC: b. Berakot 6a: "R. Aha b. Raba said to R. Ashi: This accounts for one case, what about the other cases? - He replied to him: [They contain the following verses]: For what great nation is there, etc.; And what great nation is there, etc.; Happy art thou, O Israel, etc.; Or hath God assayed, etc.; and To make thee high above all nations."
RABBINIC: b. Pesahim 7b-8a: "The School of R. Ishmael taught: In the evening of the fourteenth leaven is searched for by the light of a lamp. Though there is no proof of this, there is an allusion to it, because it is said, 'seven days shall there be no leaven [in your houses]'; and it is said, 'and he searched, and began at the eldest, and left at the youngest: and the cup was found [in Benjamin's sack]'; and it is said, 'And it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with lamps'. and it is said, 'The soul of man is the lamp of the Lord, searching [all the innermost parts of the belly]'"

QUMRAN: 4QTest strings together Deut 5.28f, Deut 18.18f, Num 24.15-17, Deut 33.8-11, and Josh 6.26.

QUMRAN: 4QFlor strings together 2 Sam 7.10-14, Ps 1.1, and Ps 2.1f

Composite quotations can also be seen in Mekilta, Pisha I on Exod 12.1, and its liturgical use in the period. In fact, the Shema itself is a conflation of Dt 6.4-9; 11.13-21; Num 15.37-41. And the pesher on Isaiah at Qumran has composite quotations from Zech 11.11 [4QpIsa(c), frag 21, ll. 7-8] and Hosea 6.9 [4QpIsa(c), frag 23, col ii, 1. 14].
So, we have to say that the NT authors were certainly in line with standard Jewish hermeneutical principles.


Finally, we might try to 'reality-check' the NT exegesis for 'conservativeness' over against the rabbinics, Qumran, etc.

The point here is simply to get some feel for the 'weirdness index' of the various strands of 1st century Judaism, with which to compare the NT authors. This will admittedly be subjective in the extreme, but perhaps it will help level-set our understanding of 1st-century 'acceptable' exegetical praxis. The method is simply to pick a sample or two of what might be considered 'creative' use of the OT from each of our sectors of Jewry.

RABBINIC: The Babylonian Talmud has this passage:

"Six things are a good sign for a sick person, namely, sneezing, perspiration, open bowels, seminal emission, sleep and a dream. Sneezing, as it is written: 'His sneezings flash forth light'. (Job 41.10) Perspiration, as it is written,'In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread'.(Gen 3.19) Open bowels, as it is written: 'If lie that is bent down hasteneth to be loosed, he shall not go down dying to the pit'.(Is 51.14) Seminal emission, as it is written: 'Seeing seed, he will prolong his days'.(Is 53.10) Sleep, as it is written:' I should have slept, then should I have been at rest'.(Job 3.13) A dream, as it is written: 'Thou didst cause me to dream and make me to live'.(Is 38.16) [b. Berakoth 57b, Soncino]RABBINIC: Goppelt [TYPOS:29,30] relates a story from Mek. Exod 17.11: "Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (ca. A.D. 100) interprets the holding high of Moses' hands in Exod 17:11 as symbolic of holding fast in the future to the teaching given through Moses." And in the same document, at Exod 15.27, Eleazer continues: "'And they encamped there by the water.' This teaches that the Israelites busied themselves with the words of the Torah, which were given to them at Marah."
RABBINIC: One midrash passage from Mid. Teh. Buber [cited in MTJL:62]:

"R. Sh'muel taught in the name of R. Y'huda: 'If somebody tells you when the end, the Redemption, will come, believe him not, for it is written: For the day of vengeance was in My heart (IS 63.4). The heart did not reveal it to the mouth; how could the mouth reveal it?"RABBINIC: A 'messianic' passage from b. Shabbath 113b:"And at meal-time Boaz said unto her [Ruth], Come hither: Said R. Eleazar, He intimated to her, The royal house of David is destined to come forth from thee, [the house] whereof 'hither' is written, as it is said, Then David the king went in, and sat before the Lord, - and he said, Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house, that thou hast brought me hither?QUMRAN: E.P. Sanders gives us an interesting example of 'creative' exegesis at Qumran [JPB:334-335]:"Lev 23.37f states that at the 'appointed feasts' the priests are to offer sacrifices 'apart from sabbath offerings', 'apart from votive offerings', and 'apart from freewill offerings'. That is, on these occasions the special offerings are in addition to any other offerings, such as sabbath offerings and freewill offerings. The Covenant of Damascus reverses the evident meaning of the text: 'Let no one offer on the altar of the Sabbath [any offering] except the burnt-offering of the Sabbath; for thus it is written, 'apart from your Sabbath-offerings'" (CD 11.17f). By simply prefacing 'apart from sabbath offerings' with 'let no one offer...except', CD rules that when sabbath and festival overlapped, only the sabbath offerings were to be made. This opens up endless possibilities."PHILO: From Questions on Genesis (92):"Why it is said that the days of man shall be a hundred and twenty years? (Genesis 6:4).
"God appears here to fix the limit of human life by this number, indicating by it the manifold prerogative of honour; for in the first place this number proceeds from the units, according to combination, from the number fifteen; but the principle of the number fifteen is that of a more transparent appearance, since it is on the fifteenth day that the moon is rendered full of light, borrowing its light of the sun at the approach of evening, and restoring it to him again in the morning; so that during the night of the full moon the darkness is scarcely visible, but it is all light.

"In the second place, the number a hundred and twenty is a triangular number, and is the fifteenth number consisting of triangles.

"Thirdly, it is so because it consists of a combination of odd and even numbers, being contained by the power of the faculty of the concurring numbers, sixty-four and fifty-six; for the equal number of sixty-four is compounded of the uniting of these eight odd numbers, one, three, five, seven, nine, eleven, thirteen, fifteen; the reduction of which, by their parts into squares, makes a sum total of sixty-four, and that is a cube, and at the same time a square number...But again from the seven double units there arises the unequal number of fifty-six, being compounded of seven double pairs, which generate other productions of them, two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve, fourteen; the sum total of which is fifty-six.

"In the fourth place, it is compounded of four numbers, of one triangle, namely fifteen; and of another square, namely twenty-five; and of a third quinquangular figure, thirty-five; and of a fourth a sexangular figure forty-five, by the same analogy: for the fifth is always received according to each appearance; for from the unity of the triangles the fifth number becomes fifteen; again the fifth of the quadrangular number from the unit makes twenty-five; and the fifth of the quinquangular number from the unit makes thirty-five; and the fifth of the sexangular number from the unit makes forty-five...But every one of these numbers is a divine and sacred number, consisting of fifteens as has been already shown; and the number twenty-five belongs to the tribe of Levi. And the number thirty-five comes from the double diagram of arithmetic, geometry, and harmony; but sixteen, and eighteen, and nineteen, and twenty-one, the combination of which numbers amounts to seventy-four, is that according to which seven months' children are born. And forty-five consists of a triple diagram; but to this number, sixteen, nineteen, twenty-two, and twenty-eight, belong: the combination of which makes eighty-five, according to which nine months' children are produced.

"Fifthly, this diagram has fifteen parts, and a twofold composition, peculiarly belonging to itself; forsooth when divided by two it gives sixty, the measure of the age of all mankind; when divided by three it gives forty, the idea of prophecy; when divided by four it gives thirty, a nation; when divided by five, it makes twenty-four, the measure of day and night; when divided by six, it gives twenty, a beginning; when divided by eight, we have fifteen, the moon in the fulness of brilliancy; when divided by ten, it makes twelve, the zodiac embellished with living animals; when divided by twelve, it makes ten, holy; when divided by fifteen, it gives eight, the first ark; when divided by twenty, it leaves six, the number of creation; when divided by twenty-four, it makes five, the emblem of the outward sense; when divided by thirty it makes four, the beginning of solid measure; when divided by forty, it gives three, the symbol of fulness, the beginning, the middle, and the end; when divided by sixty, it makes two, which is woman; and when divided by the whole number of a hundred and twenty, the product is one, or man...And every one of all these numbers is more natural, as is proved in each of them, but the composition of them is twofold, for the product is two hundred and forty, which is a sign that it is worthy of a twofold life; for as the number of years is doubled, so also we may imagine that the life is doubled too; one being in connection with the body, the other being detached from the body, according to which every holy and perfect man may receive the gift of prophecy.

"Sixthly, because the fifth and sixth figures arise, the three numbers being multiplied together, three times four times five, since three times four times five make sixty; so in like manner the next following numbers four times five times six make a hundred and twenty, for four times five times six make a hundred and twenty.

Seventhly, when the number twenty has been taken in, which is the beginning of the reduction of mankind, I mean twenty, and being added to itself two or three times, so as to make twenty, forty, and sixty, these added together make a hundred and twenty. But perhaps the number a hundred and twenty is not the general term of human life, but only of the life of those men who existed at that time, and who were to perish by the deluge after an interval of so many years, which their kind Benefactor prolonged, giving them space for repentance; when, after the aforesaid term, they lived a longer time in the subsequent ages.

APOCRYPHA: In the very sober book I Maccabees, at 7.16, the author quotes Ps 79.2-3 [HI:IIW:150-151]:"So they trusted him [Alcimus]; but he sized sixty of them and killed them in one day, in accordance with the word that was written, "The flesh of your faithful ones and their blood they poured out all around Jerusalem, and there was no one to bury them"This psalm is about the dead Jerusalemites at the Babylonian captivity(!) was not taken to be eschatological by ANY segment of Judaism!
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA: These works are noted for their expansions and embellishments to the biblical text and for ascribing 'new experiences' to most of the main biblical characters. They are NOT known for their 'fidelity' to the intent of the biblical authors!

JOSEPHUS: Alexander describes J's usage of the text in his Contra Apion thus [HI:IIW:113, 115]:

"There he stresses the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, the care with which they have been transmitted, the veneration in which they are held by Jews ('Although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable'; cf. Deut. 4:2). Josephus' claims, however, do not entirely square with his actual practice: he does regularly add and omit, and as an interpreter frequently exercises a heavy hand. This discrepancy between theory and practice has troubled many scholars."
"(on Gen 22.1-19) He also reports at some length on Isaac's reactions to Abraham's speech (Ant i, 232), and has God clarify his motives for imposing the test (Ant 1,233). Such changes come about quite naturally when a narrator attempts to recast a story in his own words. The vivid little detail that Abraham and Isaac embraced each other after Isaac's deliverance (Ant i, 236) is another example of a natural aggadic addition."

I have not picked the 'worse' examples by any stretch of the imagination(!), but these should be adequate to generate the impression that the "wildest" pieces of exegesis on the part of the NT authors are bland and extremely modest when compared to the likes of the above!
SUMMARY: Overall then, I am forced to conclude that the NT authors were not in any way departing in radical fashion from their non-Christian counterparts in 1st century Judaism, in the areas of (1) textual usage or (2) exegetical practice. Instead, they were squarely withinacceptable praxis, and indeed, may have constituted the most exegetically conservative of the groups at the time.


......................................................................................................
elsewhere.

But let me make a couple of additional comments:

First, the Rabbinical material refers to three times as many messianic passages as does the NT! The NT writers could have tapped into a massive 'gold mine' of messianic traditions, but only used a small subset of these (perhaps controlled by the teaching of Jesus, cf. Luke 24.25-27). The rabbis sawMANY more 'messianic' interpretations than did the NT Christians (even though some of the passages indeed differ).

Second, the Psalms were routinely seen as messianic by ALL 1st century "Judaism." The rabbinical citations alone show this for rabbinical Judaism. For Qumran, this is obvious from their use of the pesher method on them:

"Like the New Testament, some Qumran documents view the Psalms, as well as the Prophets, as prophetic in content. This perspective is attested, for example, in the reference to David as having uttered his psalms as 'prophecy' (see 11QPs(a) 27.11) as well as in the composition of pesharim devoted to some of the Psalms and Prophets." [HI:EMDSS:23]
"As for the Psalms, their use [in the NT] is primarily in line with the Scrolls' view of them as prophetic texts in need of fulfillment." [[HI:SASQ50:262].

In other words, the common objection that Christians twisted purely historical references in the Psalms into messianic prophecies is simply misguided. The rabbis, the Covenanters, and the Messianic believers ALL shared these common understandings of messianic traditions in the Old Testament.

2. Did non-Christian Jewry identify specific humans with some messianic figure? Absolutely!

As I documented earlier, the range of messianic expectation was very, very wide--from a strictly human nationalist hero to a veritable "God-man" (Neusner's phrase). But most of them had a conception in mind, as they identified specific human individuals as 'candidates'.

This is very obvious from the string of messianic figures that arose (and were accepted by large segments of the population!) for two centuries on either side of Jesus of Nazareth. Messianic and semi-messianic Prophetic figures abounded in this period, and can be documented from the sources of the day.

Josephus (see [HI:pFLST] for full details) describes the following prophetic figures:

Essene Prophets:
  • Judas (War 1.78-80; Anti 13.311-13)
  • Menahem (Ant 15.373-79)
  • Simon (War 2.112-13; Ant 17.345-48)
Sign Prophets:
  • Theudas (Ant 20.97ff)
  • The Egyptian (War 2.261-63; Ant 20.169ff)
  • Unnamed figures under Felix (War 2.258-60; Ant 20.167-68)
  • Unnamed Prophet of 70 CE (War 6.283-87)
  • Jonathan the Sicarius (War 7.437-50; Life 424-25)
  • Unnamed Figure under Festus (Ant 20.188)
Other Figures:
  • Onias (Ant 14.22-24)
  • Jesus Son of Ananias (war 6.300-309)
  • Pharisees Pollion and Samaias (Ant 14.172-76)
There were also messianic "kings" that show up, and that attracted followers from the Jewish populace. [This material is available in detail inNWNTI:242-252, and BPM:chapter 3]:

  • 1. Judas (of Sepphoris, Galilee), son of Hezekiah the "brigand chief".
    2. Simon of Perea, a former royal servant.
    3. Athronges the shepherd of Judea.
    4. Judas (of Gamala) the Galilean (mentioned in Acts 5.37).
    5. Menahem (grand)son of Judas the Galilean.
    6. John of Gischala son of Levi.
    7. Simon bar Giora of Gerasa.
And to show that the rabbis were not exempt from this (apart from their involvement in prophecy as noted in Josephus above), let me cite the famous rabbinic passages in which the tradition of R. Aqiba ascribes messiah-hood to Bar Kovia:"R. Simeon b. Yohai taught, 'My teacher Aqiba used to expound, 'There shall step forth a star out of Jacob [Num 24.17]--thus Koziva steps forth out of Jacob! When R. Aqiba beheld Bar Koziva, he exclaimed, 'This is the king Messiah'" [y.Taan. 4.8]
"R. Yohanan said, 'My teacher used to expound, 'There shall step forth a star out of Jacob [Num 24.17]--thus, read not kokab [star], but kozeb[liar]'". 'When R. Aqiva beheld Bar Koziva, he exclaimed, 'This is the king Messiah'" (Lam. R. 2.4)

In both passages, Aqiba is disagreed with by R. Torta, but the point is still obvious: one of the most famous rabbi's in early Jewish history called a human being (not the nation Israel or the 'elect remnant') the "messiah".
Early Jewish Christians were simply NOT the only ones that identified a human individual with the messianic promises--the rabbis did, Qumran did, the general Jewish populace did.

"plurality tensions" within the Tanakh/OT, within the Pseudepigrapha, and within Rabbinic Judaism.

What I would like to do here is simply to offer a few summary statements by scholars on two points: (1) the supra-human expectation of SOME strands of messianic hope; and (2) the continuity between pre-Nicene Christian "plural-tarianism" and the Jewish milieu of the 1st century.

First, let me offer two quotes on the 'deity' of the messianic figure (emphases mine):

The first is from Jacob Neusner, famed scholar of rabbinics ["Mishnah and Messiah", JTM:275]:

"We focus upon how the system laid out in the Mishnah takes up and disposes of those critical issues of teleology worked out through messianic eschatology in other, earlier versions of Judaism. These earlier systems resorted to the myth of the Messiah as savior and redeemer of Israel, a supernatural figure engaged in political-historical tasks as king of the Jews, even a God-man facing the crucial historical questions of Israel's life and resolving them: the Christ as king of the world, of the ages, of death itself."And the second is from Qumran scholar John Collins [SS:168-169]:"The notion of a messiah who was in some sense divine had its roots in Judaism, in the interpretation of such passages as Psalm 2 and Daniel 7 in an apocalyptic context. This is not to deny the great difference between a text like 4Q246 and the later Christian understanding of the divinity of Christ. But the notion that the messiah was Son of God in a special sense was rooted in Judaism, and so there wascontinuity between Judaism and Christianity in this respect, even though Christian belief eventually diverged quite radically from its Jewish sources."Secondly, I want to offer this extended quote from Ellis, who gives more detail on this 'continuity' [OTEC:112-116]:"The New Testament writers' conception of corporate personality [for example, King:Nation, Tribe:person, Messiah:Remnant] extends to an understanding of God himself as a corporate being, a viewpoint which underlies their conviction that Jesus the Messiah has a unique unity with God and which later comes into definitive formulation in the doctrine of the Trinity. The origin of this conviction, which in some measure goes back to the earthly ministry of Jesus, is complex, disputed and not easy to assess. One can here only briefly survey the way in which the early Christian understanding and use of their Bible may have reflected or contributed to this perspective on the relationship of the being of God to the person of the Messiah.
"Already in the Old Testament and in pre-Christian Judaism the one God was understood to have 'plural' manifestations. In ancient Israel he was (in some sense) identified with and (in some sense) distinct from his Spirit or his Angel. Apparently, Yahweh was believed to have 'an indefinable extension of the personality,' by which he was present 'in person' in his agents. Even the king as the Lord's anointed (= 'messiah') represented 'a potent extension of the divine personality.'

"In later strata of the Old Testament and in intertestamental Judaism certain attributes of God - such as his Word or his Wisdom- were viewed and used in a similar manner. In some instances the usage is only a poetic personification, a description of God's action under the name of the particular divine attribute that he employs. In others, however, it appears to represent a divine hypostasis, the essence of God's own being that is at the same time distinguishable from God.

"From this background, together with a messianic hope that included the expectation that Yahweh himself would come to deliver Israel, the followers of Jesus would have been prepared, wholly within a Jewish monotheistic and 'salvation history' perspective, to see in the Messiah a manifestation of God. In the event, they were brought to this conclusion by their experience of Jesus' works and teachings, particularly as it came to a culmination in his resurrection appearances and commands. Although during his earthly ministry they had, according to the Gospel accounts, occasionally been made aware of a strange otherness about Jesus, only after his resurrection do they identify him as God. Paul, the first literary witness to do this, probably expresses a conviction initially formed at his Damascus Christophany. John the Evangelist, who wrote later but who saw the risen Lord (and was a bearer of early traditions about that event), also describes the confession of Jesus as God as a reaction to the resurrection appearances. Yet, such direct assertions of Jesus' deity are exceptional in the New Testament and could hardly have been sustained among Jewish believers apart from a perspective on the Old Testament that affirmed and/or confirmed a manifestation of Yahweh in and as Messiah.

"The New Testament writers usually set forth Messiah's unity with God by identifying him with God's Son or Spirit or image or wisdom or by applying to him biblical passages that in their original context referred to Yahweh. They often do this within an implicit or explicit commentary (midrash) on Scripture and thereby reveal their conviction that the 'supernatural' dimension of Jesus' person is not merely that of an angelic messenger but is the being of God himself.

"The use of Scripture in first and second century Judaism, then, marked a watershed in the biblical doctrine of God. At that time itchanneled the imprecise monotheism of the Old Testament and early Judaism in two irreversible directions. On the one hand Jewish-Christian apostles and prophets, via 'corporate personality' conceptions and Christological exposition, set a course that led to the trinitarian monotheism of late Christianity. On the other hand the rabbinic writers, with their exegetical emphasis on God's unity, brought into final definition the unitarian monotheism of talmudic Judaism."

To these let me add:
First, from Daube's excellent work, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, p. 325ff:
"Before quoting the paragraph in question, let us recall that as early as in the Pentateuch we come across two conceptions of the exodus, one according to which God himself rescued the nation and another represented by statements such as that 'he sent an angel and hath brought us forth out of Egypt'. (Num 20.16). The opposition between these different schools of thought continues throughout Biblical and Rabbinic times. Isaiah says 'the angel of his face saved them', but the LXX translates 'neither a messenger nor an angel but he himself saved them' (Is 63.9); and Exodus Rabba (on 12.23) observes that 'some say he smote the Egyptians through an angel, and some say the Holy one did it himself'. Considering the whole atmosphere of the Jewish Passover-eve service, it is only natural that the prevalent doctrine should here be that of God's direct intervention.
"The Credo from Deuteronomy contains the declaration: 'And the Lord heard our voice, and the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with great terribleness and with signs and with wonders.' The authors of the Passover Haggadah see in the repetition of 'the Lord'-'the Lord heard our voice and the Lord brought us forth' instead of simply 'and he brought us forth' -an indication of God's personal activity; and, as usual, they support their contention by other texts from Scripture. This is what they say by way of comment: 'Not through an angel, and not through a seraph, and not through a messenger, but the Holy one in his glory and himself; as it is written (in Exodus'--12.12), For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and I will smite all the firstborn, and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment, I the Lord.' Then they go on to explain that each of the four clauses of the supporting text is intended to announce the carrying out of these deeds by God himself. I 'For I will pass through Egypt-this means, I and not an angel; and I will smite all the firstborn-this means, I and not a seraph; and I will execute judgment-this means, I and not the messenger; I the Lord-this means, I am and no other.'

"It will be noted that, whereas the first part of the Midrash has 'not through an angel, and not through a seraph, and riot through a messenger', the second speaks of 'the messenger', not 'a messenger': 'I and not the messenger'. This way of putting the matter may well have arisen when Christianity had to be combated: 'the messenger' probably is Jesus. There are versions of the Midrash with more anti-Christian or anti-gnostic interpolations, such as the addition 'and not through the Word'."


And then from volume two in Michael Brown's excellent trilogy, Answering Jesus Objections to Jesus, p7f:

"Maybe the problem lies with an overemphasis on the often misunderstood--and frequently poorly explained--term Trinity. Perhaps it would help if, for just one moment, we stopped thinking about what Christians believe--since not everything labeled "Christian" is truly Christian or biblical--and pictured instead an old Jewish rabbi unfolding the mysteries of God. Listen to him as he strokes his long, gray beard and says, "I don't talk to everyone about this. These things are really quite deep. But you seem sincere, so I'll open up some mystical concepts to you."
"And so he begins to tell you about the ten Sefirot, the so-called divine emanations that act as "intermediaries or graded links between the completely spiritual and unknowable Creator and the material sub-lunar world." When you say, "But doesn't that contradict our belief in the unity of God?" he replies, "God is an organic whole but with different manifestations of power-just as the life of the soul is one, though manifested variously in the eyes, hands, and other limbs. God and his Sefirot are just like a man and his body: His limbs are many but He is one. Or, to put it another way, think of a tree which has a central trunk and yet many branches. There is unity and there is multiplicity in the tree, in the human body, and in God too. Do you understand?"

"Now think of this same rabbi saying to you, "Consider that in our Scriptures, God was pictured as enthroned in heaven, yet at the same time he manifested himself in the cloud and the fire over the Tabernacle while also putting his Spirit on his prophets. And all the while the Bible tells us that his glory was filling the universe! Do you see that God's unity is complex?"

"And what if this rabbi began to touch on other mystical concepts of God such as "the mystery of the three" (Aramaic, raza'di-telatha), explaining that in the Zohar there are five different expressions relating to various aspects of the threefold nature of the Lord? What would you make of the references to "three heads, three spirits, three forms of revelation, three names, and three shades of interpretation" that relate to the divine nature? The Zohar even asks, "How can these three be one? Are they one only because we call them one? How they are one we can know only by the urging of the Holy Spirit and then even with closed eyes."" These issues of "the Godhead" are deep!

My point should be obvious: Even in the major controversial issues such as the deity of the messiah and the plurality within God, the Christians were stillnot radically out of synch with the Judaism of the day! (We will see later where the uniqueness came from, but it was NOT from the theological backdrop, to be sure).

4. Did non-Christian Jewry use 'typological' exegesis in the same ways NT Christian Jews did?

Absolutely!
And I have documented this elsewhere as being present throughout the Tanaakh and other Judaica of the times.

We were (again) not unique in this at all.

5. Did any Non-Christian Jewry find NT arguments persuasive and exegesis 'acceptable'? ("As measured by" accepting Jesus as Messiah?!)

  • Obviously so! [Or we would not be having this conversation, now would we? (smile)]
    If the New Testament can be trusted at all, we know:

    • 1. Every author in the NT (with the POSSIBLE exception of Luke) was a Palestinian Jew.
      2. Large numbers of Palestinian and Diaspora Jewry accepted Jesus as Messiah within the first 10 years of the resurrection.
      3. Many Priests became believers (Acts 6.7).
      4. There were Pharisees among the believers, including Rabbi Saul of Tarsus, (Act 15).
      5. The Jerusalem church (and its geographical successor) continued as a vital community for centuries.
      6. The NT church continued its practice and belief WITHIN Judaism for decades and decades (e.g., temple worship, circumcision of Jews, vows), until they were "liturgically expelled" from the synagogue.
    In fact, every social strata of Jewry around is represented in the early Jewish church!

    Fiensy [BAFCSP:226ff] lists some of the various classes of folk known to be in that group:

    1. The Wealthy or Semi-wealthy (Simon of Cyrene, Barnabas, Ananias & Sapphira, Mary mother of John Mark, Manaen,
    Levi/Matthew)

    2. The lower class (some of the disciples, James)

    3. Ordinary temple priests (but not from High Priestly family)

    4. One Levite (Joseph Barnabas, Acts 4.36)

    5. Submerged classes (e.g. beggars, impoverished widows, and healed people)

    6. Women of various classes

    7. Hebraists (Jews who spoke both Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek) and Hellenists (Jews who only spoke Greek).

    8. Pharisees (Acts 15.5)

    So, we can safely say that at least some Jews found the NT-type arguments persuasive and the methods 'acceptable', and this phrase 'some Jews' would have included those from all of the other "Judaisms" of the day.
..................................................................................................................................................................
Let me quickly summarize the above pieces, before moving on to the next of your questions. What we have seen so far:

1. The Jewish believers reflected an awareness of a mixture of text types--just as ALL of their contemporaries did.
2. The Jewish believers reflected a usage of a mixture of text types--just as ALL of their contemporaries did.

3. The Jewish believers used the same interpretive approaches that ALL of their contemporaries did.

4. The Jewish believers used the same exegetical rules as the Rabbis.

5. The Jewish believers were probably more 'conservative' and 'uncreative' in their Tanakh/OT exegesis than their contemporaries, including the rabbis.

6. The Jewish Christians believed in the prophetic significance of the Psalms--shared with the major contemporary groups of the day.

7. The Jewish believers had views on the main messianic passages that were shared by some or all of their contemporaries.

8. The Jewish believers saw the messianic prophecies fulfilled in a specific human being--and their contemporaries were willing to make similar identifications.

9. The Jewish believers had a 'plurality problem'--that was inherited from Judaism and indeed, shared with the other 'Judaisms' of the day (and actually, later as well).

10. The Jewish believers used typological exegesis on occasion--just like their contemporaries.

11. The NT authors saw in Jesus of Nazareth the promised Messiah, as did many of their fellow Jews from all walks of life.

To be sure, Jewish believers in Jesus in the first century WERE DIFFERENT from their counterparts--but the difference was NOT due to radical discontinuities in reverence for the bible or in exegetical methods. [We shall note at the end of this article where the difference lay, and we will see that it was similar to the differences between the Pharisees and the Qumran covenanters.]
But at this point, we can simply conclude that the early Jewish Christians were as faithful to their heritage and as honest with their religious background as ANY of the other Jewish groups of the day.

Before I summarize all of this, let me know go through some more of your eMail and address one other question.

WTOT:53]. Compare Schiffman [FTT:89]:

"We cannot be certain of the language of prayer in Hellenistic synagogues. In all probability, at least the greatest part of the worship service was conducted in koine Greek, the dialect of the Hellenistic world. Evidence points to the use of psalms as part of the service, clearly in imitation of the Temple ritual. As for the reading of the Torah, it is virtually certain that Greek Bible texts, of which the Septuagint is an example, were in use. It is not known for sure, though, whether the formal Torah reading was conducted in Greek or took place from the Hebrew text with the Greek, much like the later Aramaic targums, serving as a translation. "2. The non-coordinated nature of Diaspora worship would have given rise to multiple Greek versions--BEFORE the LXX was created. So, in the Letter of Aristeas (314), the author complains about the quality of "earlier inadequate versions of the Law".

3. Something must have prompted an action-point. Either the Alexandrian ruler wanted an 'authorized version' of the Torah, local communities wanted a 'Jerusalem-sanctioned' version, someone needed to deal with intra-Judaism quibbles, or Jerusalem wanted to exercise some religious control or guidance over Diaspora Jewry. For any (or all) of the reasons, the LXX version of the Pentateuch was created from a Palestinian Hebrew text in the middle of the 3rd century b.c.

4. The first LXX was ONLY for the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the bible), but quickly more of the Tanakh/OT was translated. We have several early witnesses to this:

a. Textual witnesses [Tov, OT:TCHB:136]:"[T]he translation of the Torah was carried out in Egypt in the third century BCE. This assumption is compatible with the early date of several papyrus and leather fragments of the Torah from Qumran and Egypt, some of which have been ascribed to the middle or end of the second century BCE (4QLXXLev(a), 4QLXXNum, Pap. Fouad 266, Pap. Rylands Gk. 458).b. Literary witnesses:"The translations of the books of the Prophets, Hagiographa, and the apocryphal books came after that of the Torah, for most of these translations use its vocabulary, and quotations from the translation of the Torah appear in the Greek translations of the Latter Prophets, Psalms, Ben Sira, etc. Since the Prophets and several of the books of the Hagiographa were known in their Greek version to the grandson of Ben Sira at the end of the second century BCE, we may infer that most of the books of the Prophets and Hagiographa were translated in the beginning of that century or somewhat earlier. There is only limited explicit evidence concerning individual books: Chronicles is quoted by Eupolemos in the middle of the second century BCE, and Job is quoted by Pseudo-Aristeas in the beginning of the first century BCE. The translation of Isaiah contains allusions to historical situations and events which point to the years 170-150 BCE [Tov, OT:TCHB:137]
"Originally the LXX was a Jewish translation, and hence was quoted by Jewish historians (Demetrius, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Josephus), poets (Ezekiel) and philosophers (Philo)." [HI:MIKRA:163; the details of the less known of these are given in HI:MIKRA, Chapter 14 (van der Horst): "The Interpretation of the Bible by the Minor Hellenistic Jewish Authors".]

5. Somewhere around the middle of the second century BC, complaints apparently arose about the "quality" of even this 'official' translation. Concerns were being voiced about disagreements between the various texts and translations (long before the NT controversies erupted). Part of this was predictable, since the Hebrew text itself was undergoing development.
We know, for example, that the Hebrew master-copy that would have been used for the LXX version of the Torah would NOT have been the same even a century later. So Bickerman [HI:JGA:105]:

"It is obvious, however, that none of the Hebrew manuscripts available around 260 BCE could have offered a text identical to that found in our printed Bibles, since the latter essentially follows the edition made in Jerusalem three centuries after the publication of the Septuagint. Toward the end of the second century BCE we find pseudo-Aristeas complaining that copies of the Torah were being penned carelessly and "not as ought to be."...It should come as no surprise consequently that the Septuagint often agrees with the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Book of Jubilees, the Qumran manuscripts, and similar variants of the Vulgate text, as against the Torah text later fixed by Jewish bookmen..."We have noted above that there were different Hebrew text types floating around at the time, that would themselves have given risen to variants in the LXX. This is widely recognized."At times, they [the LXX translators] translated from Hebrew texts which differed from those current in Palestine, a matter much clearer thanks to the evidence provided by the Dead Sea Scrolls. At other points, the Septuagint reflects knowledge of Palestinian exegetical traditions which are enshrined in rabbinic literature." [Schiffman, FTT:93-94]
"The diversity of the first-century Greek OT text has been documented by the discovery and publication of 8HevXIIgr, a fragmentary Greek scroll of the Minor Prophets. This text differs from the LXX at several points, and agrees with at least three of the recensions (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) at several points" [Evans, NWNTI:74]

"It is true that in the past scholars have attributed to the translators of the LXX various major alterations of an editorial nature in order to explain the differences between LXX and MT, but a greater awareness of the translators' aims and methods, and the new evidence from Qumran for the existence of a plurality of Hebrew text types prior to the standardisation of the consonantal text in the later first century AD, suggest that it is most unlikely that any of the LXX translators acted in a high-handed way with the texts they were rendering into Greek" [Brock, HI:IIW:90]

6. Somehow, by the end of the second century BC, the leaders in Palestinian Jewry become aware of, and concerned about, the differences between the Greek and the Hebrew 'originals'."y the end of the second century BC there had emerged an awareness that the original Greek translations of 'the law, prophets and other writings' did not represent the Hebrew originals sufficiently accurately. It was this dissatisfaction which gave rise to the series of 'corrections' of the LXX, bringing it into closer line with Hebrew..." [HI:IIW:90]Ben Sira voiced this in the 1st century BCE (Prologue to Ecc., 15 NRSV):"You are invited therefore to read it with goodwill and attentions, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite our diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. No only this book, but even the Law itself, the Prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little when read in the original."
 
Last edited:
Established 32AD give or take a year - Jews for Jesus

How not to love your neighbor -
carolyne-signoff.jpg

hownottolove_blog.jpg


Not loving our neighbor is as natural as the air we breathe.

We’re born with a bent toward ourselves first and then maybe we’ll consider others.

Just observe two brothers at play with a toy. Within minutes one will strike the other to yank it out of his grasp.

Where did that idea come from? Certainly not from their parents.

Let’s be honest, to one degree or another, we’re all like that. I am. You are. It’s part of the human condition.

“But the wicked are like the tossing sea; for it cannot be quiet, and its waters toss up mire and dirt.” – Isaiah 57:20

Hating others is built into our DNA so it shouldn’t surprise us.

That’s why there are bombings in Paris, anti-Semitic rallies in London, and murders like the recent tragedy at a South Carolina church.

The problem starts in the heart. We are born not loving God, the very God who gave us life and breath.

Is there a solution?

Like the son who squandered his father’s inheritance and came to his senses and returned to him, we, too, need to wake up and return to God who waits eagerly for us.

Only he can change our hearts of stone into hearts of flesh, thereby making us willing to confess our folly and acknowledge his love for us.

It was Yeshua (Jesus) who made returning home possible. He left his home in heaven and became the obedient son in our place so we could make our way back to the Father’s embrace. Yeshua loved his neighbor – you and me – to the point of death on a cross for our sins.

“And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach in him…” – Colossians 1: 21-22

Instead of following your heart of stone, turn yourself in to the Father so he can lift you up and declare you his loving child.

Talk to me.
 
Shavuot – What’s Your Connection?
shavuot-connection.jpg

Shavuot, the Feast of Weeks, comes with many traditions. For example, tradition tells us:
  • that on this holiday, God gave the Torah to Israel, amid thunder and lightning
  • that God first offered the Torah to all the other nations of the world in their own language—but only Israel was willing to accept it
  • that King David was born and died on this day
Some two thousand years ago, large crowds of Jewish people gathered in Jerusalem on Shavuot, as they did every year.

One year, things were different.

One year, a group of Jewish followers of Yeshua (Jesus) were in Jerusalem with their fellow Jews.

shavuot-lightning.jpg


That year, a sound like a violent, rushing wind filled their house and flames appeared over them.

That year, these followers of Yeshua began speaking in public. That year, the Jewish crowds from different countries heard them speaking, each in their own language.

That year, there was a noise like the thunder at Sinai. And flames like Sinai’s lightning. And a message heard in many different languages.

That year, some may have thought — another Sinai!?

That year, Jesus’ follower Peter told the crowd that King David was dead and buried — but his descendant Jesus had risen from the dead.

That year, some may have thought — today is the birthday of David, and also the day that he died. Maybe we should hear more about David’s descendant, Jesus.

For some that year, there was a connection made. A thought triggered. A question raised.
Could God be speaking to our people again as he spoke when Moses ascended Sinai? Could one person’s speech be heard in a multitude of languages? Could there really be someone descended from King David who not only died, but rose from the dead?

Our question to you, especially if you are not a believer in Jesus:

This Shavuot, what would help you to connect your Jewishness with Jesus?
 
Lag B’Omer – A great day for a Messianic wedding
lag-b-omer-wedding.jpg

Growing up in a Messianic Jewish family, I knew all about Passover, Hanukkah, Purim and Sukkot. But I didn’t hear about Lag B’Omer until I moved to New York City and took a Hebrew class. There I learned that for many religious Jews this holiday holds deep significance. For Jewish mystics, known as Kabbalists, Lag B’Omer is the day Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai revealed the deep secrets of the Torah before he died. These secrets were considered a “hidden light” which caused that day to be prolonged so that he could complete his mystical teachings.

“Omer” is the Hebrew word for “sheaves of a harvested crop.” In Leviticus 23:15-16, we read “From the day after the Sabbath, the day you brought the sheaves of the wave offering, count off seven full weeks. Count off fifty days up to the day after the seventh Sabbath, and then present an offering of new grain to the Lord.”

Hebrew assigns to each letter of the alphabet a numeric value. The word “Lag” is written with the two Hebrew letters “lamed” and “gimel.” The numerical value of lamed is thirty and that of gimel is three, so Lag B’Omer refers to the 33rd day during the counting of the omer, the period of time between Passover and Shavuot referred to in Leviticus 23:15-16.

The first mention of Lag B’Omer itself comes from the Talmud. It states that on the 33rd day of the Omer a plague was lifted which had killed 24,000 of Rabbi Akivah’s disciples. Some scholars have interpreted this “plague” to be a reference to the Roman legions who occupied Israel, and its cessation as a temporary victory by Bar Kochba against them. Whether the plague was literal or not, since that time the counting of the omer has become a time of semi-mourning. During this period, haircuts, parties and weddings are prohibited. However, on Lag B’Omer, there is a one-day reprieve. Many Orthodox Jewish couples choose this date to marry. People also light great bonfires, march in parades, and give their three year old children their first haircuts. After Lag B’Omer ends, the semi-mourning resumes until the counting of the omer ends at Shavuot.

Lag B’Omer has become significant for my wife Rebekah and me because that is the date we were married. We didn’t do this for mystical or historical reasons—it was just the best day for us. And we really enjoyed how perfectly timed our wedding turned out to be—it was a beautiful day in New Hampshire on a date when the weather could have been terrible.

The practice of breaking an extended period of mourning reminds me of Ecclesiastes 3:1-8:

There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:

a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,

a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

It’s important to take time to remember and mourn the sad things in life. However, it’s also important for us to pause and remember God’s goodness in the midst of sadness. God brings seasons of joy into our lives, and if we’re not paying attention we can miss them.

Lag B’Omer reminds me that while we live in a fallen world that causes us grief, we who are believers in Yeshua (Jesus) are on our way to a New Earth where, as Revelation 21:3-4 puts it, “God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death, or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” Even though we live in a pain-filled world and have much to grieve, there will be a time when our grief will end, marked by a great wedding called “The Marriage of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:7). Until then, why not take a respite from grief now and again to celebrate, as Lag B’Omer suggests? And I can tell you from experience, it’s a great day for a wedding.
 
There was a woman
Who was so feeling inadequate in her choice of faiths that she resorted to lying aboutcthat faith to save face. One day it got so bad that she resorted to posting under a second namecto hide herself.
She got so enraged by her failed relugion that she decided to take it out on others. So she sunk to an all time low by posting rehashed already refuted proselytizing material in of all threads the onecexpising it's ignorance called:
"Why Christianity's drive for conversion
is idiotic"
This proved my point it's idiotic to come into a post about the very same thing they did and worse trying to deceptively disguise it as info, insulting
our intelligence.
Even further problematic doing it under a covert
name, second profile as to sink so low and embarass oneself.
Hence her tirade here.
But like all kids tantrums they eventually subside when Sesame Street or Tele-tubies is on.
Blankie dear?
 
Why settle for worse?
carolyne-signoff.jpg
whysettle_march2015.jpg

Did you know you can become addicted to your own brain chemicals?

Some researchers believe that physical addiction to things such as gambling, romance, and shopping can produce the same euphoria as alcohol or heroin. Apparently these addictive behaviors produce beta-endorphins in the brain which give a person a high that turns a hum-drum life into a blissful affair. What are addictive behaviors

That might explain my fascination with Exotic Banana macarons. I am obsessed with them. I compulsively buy enough for the week, devour one every day like a hungry urchin, and then bask in feelings of bliss. And when the patisserie switches flavors, I get depressed.

I read the list of addictive behaviors: they include obsession, compulsively engaging in --- (fill in the blank), denial problems, withdrawal symptoms, and depression.

I’m hooked by my Exotic Banana macaron experience!

While I admit this is a silly example, and there are certainly serious addictions that take over one’s life, it does reveal how easy it is to become addicted.

That’s because we were created to worship something or someone bigger than ourselves. It’s comical and pitiful that I would settle for a cookie! As C.S. Lewis said, “We are too easily pleased.”

According to the Scriptures, it is God who made us and in worshipping Him we find our satisfaction. But sin has distorted that inclination so now we succumb to bowing down to created things like chocolate or cocaine.

“…they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!” – Romans 1:25

And because we are powerless to straighten ourselves out, God has given us the solution in His Son, Yeshua (Jesus). He lived a perfect life of worship in our place. He also died on the cross to pay the penalty for our idolatry to everything but Him.

God knows what our hearts crave to make us happy. He knows the ultimate pleasure we seek is in knowing Him—even if we haven’t figured that out yet…

“You make known to me the path of life; In your presence there is fullness of joy; At your right hand are pleasures forevermore.” – Psalm 16:11

Are you ready to exchange the shards of this world for true intoxication?

Talk to me.
 
It’s Been Paid For
carolyne-signoff.jpg
itsbeenpaidfor.jpg

Years ago I remember approaching a toll booth at a bridge with cash in hand. “It’s been paid for,” the agent said. “Huh? Who?” I said. He motioned to the car ahead of me, which by that time had zoomed away.

I was stunned. “Why me?” I thought. I tore off trying to catch up with the driver and when I did, I honked, waved and mouthed the words, “Thank you!” He smiled in return.

As wonderful as that experience was, it reminds me of how difficult it was to receive that gift and enjoy it. I felt compelled to track down that driver and show him my appreciation. But what if I hadn’t? I probably would have felt guilty instead of grateful. I absolutely had to add something to that act of kindness in order to feel good about it.

It’s not only me that feels that way. We are a nation of can-do people. The innovations in technology, medicine, and the sciences in our generation alone are testament to our skills and ingenuity.

It seems nothing is too difficult to accomplish if we believe it and want it badly enough.

This mindset also permeates our spiritual lives. We are more committed, more involved and more desirous of making an impact on our world than ever before.

But there’s a problem with that. God is not impressed by our overachievement when it comes to knowing him.

Just like I couldn’t believe that driver paid my bridge toll, we don’t want a simple gospel that requires believing that someone else has done the work for us. We want to be involved with hard work and activity so we can take some of the credit.

However that can be dangerous because we can end up designing a god of our own making.

For example, would we ever come up with the idea of sin or that we’re alienated from God because of sin?

I doubt it. It would wound our pride.

Would we admit to needing outside help in order to be made right with God?

Oh no! We believe we have what it takes to handle things our own way.

Would we ever acknowledge the truth that we were created for God and to find our identity and purpose in him?

Are you kidding? We’re usually too busy designing our own lives at work, within the family, and our online social media image.

The reality is we don’t want the real God or to know what he requires of us.

Because if we did, we’d realize to our horror that God will have none of our participation no matter how sincere we are.

“Why?” you ask.

It’s because sin has corrupted every part of our being, including our minds, wills, and emotions. No matter how brilliantly our minds work, or how much we invest our time and energy into searching out the truth, our sin is still in the mix.

And that makes it unacceptable to God because he is perfect and he only accepts perfection.

That certainly puts us in a terrible pickle.

“Our Redeemer – the Lord of hosts is his name – is the Holy One of Israel.”Isaiah 47:4 ESV

Not only are our deeds tainted by sin, but so are we.

“Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.”Psalm 51:7 ESV

Nobody can clean himself up to be acceptable to God. That’s why he must do the job.

So what does that mean?

It’s simple.

It’s believing the truth of what God has done for us by sending his Son Yeshua (Jesus) to live as a man, keeping all of God’s laws perfectly for us, and then dying on the cross in payment for our sins. Jesus did this on our behalf, as our substitute. Being perfect and without sin made him the perfect Lamb of God in our stead.

“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”John 3:17 ESV

So don’t settle for your own ingenuity. Instead embrace the God who fixed your biggest problem already!

Talk to me.
 

Forum List

Back
Top