A mind directed entirely by its own reasoning will never be sure of anything.
As good as the mind is at finding solutions and answers, it is even better at finding questions and doubts.
The path of Torah is to ponder its truths, so that your mind and heart will resonate with those truths, until all your deeds are guided by a voice that has no second thoughts.
-Rabbi Tzvi Freeman
“Certainty”
Chabad.org
How many of us ever take the time to stop and think about our theology, our deeply cherished and hard fought over arguments? Recently a popular blogger I know expressed a concern about even entertaining opposing arguments lest one lose one’s faith as a result of sown doubts – to him it wasn’t a good idea to engage the opposition in a non-polemic way, that is in a way that actually allows that other peoples arguments may, by some odd chance, hold water. And then I came across the following poignant remark that puts all this into better focus.
Gene Shlomovich
Ever thought you may be wrong about your cherished theology?
Daily Minyan blog
Questioning your own faith is a horrible thing. I know. I’ve been there. I spent an entire year, actually two, questioning the assumptions of my faith in virtually every detail. Eventually, I came to a crisis and fortunately passed through it with my faith in God intact. I recall the day I discovered what this person has just mentioned at Christian Forums:
wow, I never considered that 2 Peter was not written by Peter. Some say it was, some say it wasn’t. Hmff. Is there like a guarunteed listing of who wrote what or who didn’t write what?
Actually, most New Testament scholars acknowledge that not all of the Gospels and Epistles were written by the people to whom they are attributed. I discovered this reading Bart D. Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted (a challenging book which I highly recommend). Once I got past this, and the fact that there actually are inconsistencies in the Bible (compare the different Gospel versions of the day Jesus died and then try to figure out which day it was…the accounts conflict), I recovered my balance a bit. Then I realized that I didn’t have to depend on the Bible reading like a history book or a court deposition in order to gain wisdom and understanding from the stories the Bible tells us.
Questioning our assumptions isn’t a disaster and in my case, it resulted not only in a “course correction”, but in a greater zeal in returning to the Bible and seeing God in the writings of the Jewish prophets, apostles, and sages. However, in Judaism, the Torah isn’t simply a document or a way to try to grasp the essence of God through study. It is so much more and to understand this, we must step outside of what we consider a “rational reality”, for God doesn’t manifest in only the material world:
The answer depends on insight into the nature of the Torah. The Torah is one with G-d, an expression of His essential will. Therefore, just as His will is above intellectual comprehension, so too is the Torah. Nevertheless, G-d gave the Torah to mortals, not because He desires their obedience, but because He is concerned for their welfare. He wants man to develop a connection with Him, and for that connection to be internalized within man’s understanding, so that G-dly wisdom becomes part of his makeup. And with that intent, He enclothed the Torah in an intellectual framework.
This intellectual dimension is, however, merely an extension of the Torah. The Torah’s essence remains transcendent G-dliness, and cannot be contained within any limits even the limits of intellect. To relate to this essence, man must approach the Torah with a commitment that transcends wisdom or logic.
-Rabbi Eli Touger
“Beyond the Ken of Knowledge”
Parshas Chukas; Numbers 19:1-25:9
Adapted from
Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XVIII, p. 229ff
Christianity doesn’t even imagine the Bible being more than the Bible; a book written under the Divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit and recorded by many different people across thousands of years. It’s hard for me to imagine that the church misses this, since it’s stated quite plainly here:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. –John 1:1-5
Certainly “the Word” is not just “the word” printed on a page in a book and in fact, this particular Word “became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14). Of the four Gospels, John’s is considered the most “mystic” and it reads more like a chasidic story, which was a large part of what attracted a young Chasidic Jew named Feivel Levertoff at the end of the 19th century, to become a Chasid (a “devoted disciple”) of the “Maggid of Nazeret”, Jesus of Nazareth.
There’s a special depth in how Jews look at the Torah and find not only information about God but actually find God inhabiting the pages that are not just pages. There, they also find devotion and longing for the coming of the Moshiach (Messiah):
Yad HaChazakah is a book of laws, not a history book. What difference does it make from the perspective of Jewish law how many Parah Adumos were offered in previous generations? Moreover, why does the Rambam go on to add a prayer for the coming of Moshiach?
With regard to the obligation to believe in the coming of Moshiach, the Rambam states: “Whoever does not believe in him, or does not await his coming, denies not only [the statements of] the other prophets, but also [those of] the Torah and of Moshe, our teacher.” In other words, mere belief in Moshiach’s coming does not suffice, we are also obligated to hope for and await his arrival.
Moreover, this anticipation is to be in accordance with our thrice-daily recitation of the Amidah prayers: “Speedily cause the scion of David Your servant to flourish. for we hope for Your salvation all day.”
-Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson
A Commentary on Torah Portion Chukas
For those of us who have faith and trust in Jesus as the Moshiach, who came once and will come again, we should take even greater comfort and meaning in the insights the Rambam and Rabbi Schneerson share with us. If we depend on “knowing God” through a Bible that must be completely internally consistent and absolutely a record of historical fact, we will become confused and disappointed or we will be forced to “bend reality” and make the text to fit our needs and preconceptions. As Rabbi Freeman says, the purpose of Torah (and the Bible as a whole) is so that we can “ponder truths” (not facts), not the least of which is the truth of the Messiah in our lives, allowing God’s Word to become intertwined into the fabric of who we are and letting all our deeds become “guided by a voice that has no second thoughts”
Good Shabbos.
Morning Meditations 
Many thanks for writing what you did, as I agree 100%. The way that many seem to think of the scriptures is very limiting…
It does seem that much of the discussion on the “Word” is often supported underneath by the ideology that one needs to have the heart of the Lord revealed in a certain manner/mode in order for it to be legitimate—and yet, not many realize that people have done differently in other times…
Some things that come to mind whenever it comes to the scriptures….
These verses have always fascinated me. The “Word of Christ” probably refers to the teaching about Christ as well as the words of Christ himself, which were apart of the oral traditions passed on to believers in the early years after Christ ascended to Heaven, before the Gospels had been written. Although the early Christians had access to the OT/Torah and freely used it, they did not yet have the New Testament or any other Christian books to study. Their stories and teachings about Christ were memorized and passed on from person to person.
Sometimes the teachings were set to music and so music became an important part of Christian worship and education. Nonetheless, there was still a dynamic involved where the “hymns/psalms” were considered to be just what they were even when there WAS no music. I
t’d be like someone speaking spoken word/poetry—essentially using their words that they have—to encourage me…and never realizing that it was a form of WORSHIP to God. For they through their words “infected” me with something I needed to hear.
The issue of “being filled with the Spirit” is significant since being filled with the spirit should result in joyful praise through singing and making melody. This may refer to differing kinds of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. Found in the OT Psalter. It seems more likely , however, that Paul is referring both to the canonical psalms and to comtemporary compositions of praise.
Corporate wosrship has a teaching function through the lyrics of its songs..and this was paticurlary important in the oral culture of Paul’s day. Nonetheless, there’s still the reality that many times it was not “corporate” in the sense that everyone was looking to one person doing all of the work….especially in times when that was not available.
The apostles could not always be there to teach the people—and as said before, many times they’d teach the members of a church and then leave elsewhere to anothe church that’d take months to get to. There was not NKJV Bible they could refer to, let alone many of the epistles combined that we have available today.
Thus, essentially, there really wasn’t a concept of “well, lets look for the worship leader!!!” when someone was discouraged and you wanted to encourage them. You were the Worship leader. You were the sermon. And you spread what you knew. Seeing that worship is also a matter of how you live your life before others in view of God(Romans 12)—as everything we do is to be done unto the Glory of Christ ( 1 Corinthians 10:30-32 / Colossians 3:16-18 ) , that’s pretty heavy in my view…
The way that information was spread was not merely through reading alone…..and in many ways, its symbolic of how we’re to be when it comes to the Gospels of Christ and His message.
A quote that comes to mind is by Seth Godwin, who is a marketing guru and who coined the phrase “ideaviruses” to try and articulate hyberbolic growth in relation to marketing and ideas in general. In his conception, “an ideavirus is a big idea that runs amok across the target audience.” It’s a fashionable idea that captures the thinking and imagination of a section of the population, teaching and influencing and changing everyone it touches.
As Godwin said best, “Have you ever heard of Hotmail? Ever used it? If so, its not because Hotmail ran a lot of TV Ads (they didn’t). It’s because the manifesto of free email got to you. It turned into an ideavirus. Someone you know and trust probably infected you with it.”
Just like a computer virus can spread through the Internet and jam the world’s computers in one we, so an idea virus is contagious..in precisely the same way that a virus does. The Gospel, which we all claim to believe, travels like a virus…..being “sneezed” and then passed on through further sneezing from one person to the other. All that’s needed is the right conditions and the appropriate relationships onto which we can “sneeze”.
As mentioned before, this is essentially what occurred with Negro Spirituals/slaves when they had very little connection with the Church….as they used what they had. Oral methods were effective enough….
One can also look up the issue of Folk Tales and Folk Music (spread by Word of Mouth) and Storytelling. That’s where most of the “TALE Tales” that you’re probably all aware of came from (i.e. Paul Bunyan, Davy Crocket, etc). Same thing when it comes to many of the assumptions entire cultures held at times for ages—be it claiming the world was flat or that the universe revolved around the Earth. Seeing the ways ideas spread has been on my mind for a good bit, especially when it comes to the old saying of how “attitudes are contagious…and is yours worth catching?”
Seriously, can you imagine being a slave in the middle of the hot sun—with about 300 others. You have lashes on your back and things seem pretty grim. What if the main thing you’re thinking about doing is making things worse by using your lips to complain? Discourage others with words of how “its never gonna change ya’ll” or “life stinks!!!!”.
If slaves did that as a majority, don’t you know they would have never made it out? Moreover, do you realize that many times, all it took was one slave….one…to have a different tune and literally change up the atmosphere? Someone had to be speaking positively in order for others to simply survive…and that led to a movement being sustained. What’s even more funny than that is that many other slaves may have never even been involved with those who were encouraging….yet when they heard of others singing, it infected them.
It gave them an idea of something they could do with the other slaves they were with. Even with escaping slavery, some of the slaves heard music being sung by others—just like it’d be with hearing the commercials on the radio station—and if hearing it often enough and seeing others do the same, one started to catch on.
They were denied so much..and yet They still adapted what little they did know to their own circumstances….passing that down the generations what they could handle. If they were able to do that back then, what does that say of us today we act as if we’re stuck on “mute” -and refuse to speak up?
I’m amazed seeing how those slaves used their words in such a creative fashion…learning how to give encouragement for their current generation and those following so they’d not grow either embittered or discouraged. They couldn’t have chosen to keep quiet or chosen to use their vocals to communciate discouragement—-as that would have been nothing but spreading further death. And to be clear, there were A LOT of reasons for looking for discouragement/reasons not to speak. What needed to happen was using what you had and finding a reason to say something.
They were obediant to the scriptural command to speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs in admonishing one another before the Lord. With the example of Negro Spirituals, again, its amazing to see how the attitude of freedom from physical/spiritual oppression spread so quickly when it came to their circumstances…for they used the little bits /pieces of language they did understand and turned it into something that was QUITE extraordinary—an entire system/way of spreading concepts and ideas that aided them on a host of issues, be it the Underground Railroad/escaping to the North or social protest and the lifting of their spirits for the sake of survival—-and all of it happened just as believers are called/able to do when they may have very little to rely upon at times…except the Spirit of God and the creativity he has given all men.
The example of Paul and Silas come to mind in Acts 16:24-26 /Acts 16 when they were in prision and they began to sing hymns/psalms. They didn’t have a “Bible” with them (though the Word was certainly in their hearts)—and in light of their lack, they decided to begin singing. Admid their suffering Paul and Silas were miraculously freed from their confinement.. and God did an amazing work that led to others being saved.
On the issue of the Law being spread Orally and what many Messianic Jews have said on the issue, one can go online/consider looking up an article under the name of “The Tanakh and the Talmidim of Yeshua « The Rosh Pina Project” ( //roshpinaproject.com/2010/12/05/the-tanakh-and-the-talmidim-of-yeshua/ ).
Additionally, for some good articles on the issue that’ve been a blessing, one may consider going online/investigatig under the following titles:
“Ketuvim (Writings) – My Jewish Learning” ( )
“Hebrew for Christians << The Heart of the Law – And the Law of the Gospel” ( )
“Hebrew for Christians << Interpretation and Tradition: Assumptions that affect our Faith” ( )
“Hebrew for Christians << Torah sheba’al Peh: The Oral Torah and Jewish Tradition” ()
“Biblical Literature and Its Critical Interpretation: Old Testament Literature: THE KETUVIM“ (
For a good review on the issue, one can go here to Ancient Christian Defense: A theology of rap. One can also go here, as seen in one lecture entitled “Rapping the Gospel”.
Seeing what occurred with the subject of Negro Spirituals and Music being utilized to spread the message of the Gospel, it really reminds me of the reality that even the Torah itself could’ve EASILY been spread verbally rather than having to be written down. That’s already how much of Jewish culture was shaped. And this all goes back to issue of how there was not always what we considered to be “The Word” today.
Early church fathers drew up lists of what they considered authentic Scripture. For example Origen accepted The Shephard of Hermas as being worthy of inclusion. The Book of Revelation was very controversial and did not make the official list of many. Marcion was the first to suggest a canon which excluded most of the books of the present Bible. The original Syriac canon did not include the Catholic epistles or Revelation. And centuries later Luther proposed excluding Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. The idea of fundamentalists that there was early agreement as to what constituted the Bible as we know it today is simply a myth and although a concensus was slowly built we still have different canons today among various church bodies.
For more information, if interested, one article I think you’d be blessed by can be found if one goes one can go online/investigate a site under the name of “Is the Bible Inerrant? by Mark M. Mattison”
Glad to see that you know of Bart Erhman—-though I’ve not read the specific work that you’re discussing. One of the books I’ve been reading/really enjoying by him is known as “Lost Christianities”
Granted, of course one needs to keep in mind that they need to also do their own research rather than just accept what one scholar has to say…as it’d be wild to see others talking about not accepting what is said by the standard theologians unquestionably and yet accepting without question what another says if it happens to agree with their viewpoints. I say that simply because as much as I enjoy Erhman, many of his points have been rightfully critiqued as being incomplete at points—with his agnostic mindset sometimes coloring what he says so that there’s not objectivity at times.
On the book that Erhman made, for a solid review on the book that may be helpful:
“Archaic Christianity – Review of Ehrman’s Lost Christianities” ( )
Outside of that, there have been many counterarguments to Bart Ehrman such as “Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s ” Misquoting Jesus” by Timothy Paul Jones. Dr. Darrell Bock has written a book called “The Missing Gospels: Unearthing The Truth Behind Alternative Christianities”..and another one to consider ( who is one of the foremost textual critics in New Testament studies) is Daniel B. Wallace. He has written an online review of Misquoting Jesus called TThe Gospel According to Bart: A Review of Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. It can also be found here
Of course, I don’t agree with all of the answers given in rebuttal to Erhman…but many are valid and have often seemed to be ignored, even if/when it may come from those who are of the mindset that the Cannon we have in many places did not come together necessarily via “divine means.” Michael Heisner, in example, is perhaps one of the most controversial theologians I’ve ever come across (as he was discussed on the boards before as seen here and here )…..but he’s very sound even as he may be “unorthodox” on many points—and he gave a good view on the issue here, at his site entitled “The Naked Bible << Peter Williams (NT Textual Critic) Debates Bart Ehrman – Michael S …F and “The Naked Bible <<Another Bart-Sequitur.”
Moreover, as it concerns the life of Jesus, I do think that on many things he can go beyond his realm of expertise…especially as it concerns trying to make it out as if an agnostic worldview makes anything sensible in place of Christianity, Judaism or any other religious worldview believing in the existence of God. I’m reminded of a solid debate he and Dr. Michael Brown had on the subject of suffering and the scriptures that really brought the point home….and for more one can go here to Michael Brown vs. Bart Ehrman Debate: The Problem of Suffering MP3 . One can also go here for more…as well as here.
As you know, Dr. Brown is the most well-known messianic apologist at the present time….having a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and having debated many rabbis on shows such as Phil Donahue, and Faith Under Fire. As a Jewish believer in Jesus and visiting professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Fuller Theological Seminary, alongside also being the author of the four volume set called Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, I was really glad he challenged Erhman in his worldview when the man was trying to say the Bible doesn’t give a good argument for why men suffer…
I can definitely agree with others that scriptures are to make a significant difference in the lives of believers….but with that comes the issue of how they don’t have to be inerrant in order to be trustworthy or necessary for us to live by, just as it was with the apostles and Christ (who went by the Torah and the Prophets/Psalms when it came to what He viewed as scripture).
For ultimately, its the Spirit of the Lord that makes the difference. It is wild to see the ways that Christ can do when it comes to the scriptures & what He said He’d do when it comes to those seeking Him.
The disciples knew that they could never dominate a religious dispute with the well-educated Jewish leaders. Nevertheless, they would not be left unprepared. Jesus promised them that the Holy Spirit would supply the needed words. The disciples’ testimony might not make them look impressiove, but it would still point out God’s work in the world through Jesus’s life….and in light of that, we need to pray for opportunities to speak for God..and then trust Him to help us with our words. This promise of courage, however, does not compentsate for a lack of preparation. For these disciples had three years of teaching and practical application–as well as a basic knowledge of what the Torah said. Nevertheless, their level of preparation did not mean that there still wouldn’t be situations where all the knowledge in the world would not be able to aid them when they may be in a bind…and thus, they’d have to be ready to rely on the Spirit.
And indeed, that’s exactly what occurred on many occassions for them. As seen in Acts 4:
Because the Sadfucees did not believe in the resurrection, they were disturbed with what the apostles were saying. Peter and John were refuting one of their fundamental beliefs and thus threatening their authority as religious teachers. Even under Roman rule, the Sadducees had almost unlimited power over the Temple grounds. Thus, they were able to arrest Peter and John for no other reason than teaching something that contradicted their beliefs. Later, Peter and John were placed on trial before the Sanhedrin or Jewish Supreme COurt –the same Council that had condemned Jesus to death (Luke 22:66) and which the Sadducees held a majority in this ruling group. The Council then asked Peter and John by whose power they had healed a man (Acts 3:6-7) and by what authority they preached (Acts 3:12-26). As said before, the actions and words of Peter and John threatened these religious leaders who, for the most part, were m ore interested in their reputations and positions than God.
Through the help of the Holy Spirit (Mark 13:11), Peter spoke BODLY before the COuncil….actually putting the COuncil on trial by showing them that the One they had crucified had risen again. Instead of being on the defensive, the apostles were going on the offensive, boldly speaking out for God and presenting the Gospel to these leaders….and Peter made clear that the Jews rejected Jesus, who is now the cornerstone of the church (Psalm 118:22, Mark 12:10, I Peter 2:7, etc). The Council knew that Peter and John were uneducated, and were amazed at what being with Jesus had done for them……& yet because their lives were LIVING Sermons (i.e. changed), they were able to convince others of Jesus’s power. Their testimony and what they were able to share made a significant difference….and seeing how much less was available to them in comparision to what we have available today, its something to consider (IMHO).
Christ and what he said of the scriptures/His Word are truly amazing—and once it gets out, it will have an impact. I’m reminded of Ibn Arabi, a Sufi Muslim who was loved by many and hated by more….and considered one of the greatest of all Muslim thinkers. He believed that Jesus was the Word, the Spirit and the Servant of God. Even God’s mouthpiece. And as he said best, “The person who catched the disease of Christ can never be cured.”
I think that what you spoke on in your original post has much to be considered when it comes to others advocating that the Lord’s Mind is fully contained within a book…as in Jewish culture/thought, it was never that simple. Sadly, I think that even Jewish believers can do the same when it comes to thinking that the languages the Lord used to communicate truth to His people were the ONLY languages that the Lord approved of . This I’ve seen in certain Jewish circles advocating that anything that’s related to “Greek” thinking or languages is corruption….and saying that only the language of Hebrew is God’s Master Tongue…
Some of it is actually interesting to consider when it comes to studying the accounts of Jewish believers in the Bible who spoke Greek..and also used differing versions of the scritptures. For most making it out as if its only “Hebrew” that was in view, I find it interesting that there was debate in the days of Christ/the apostles and the early church as to which translation was the best to use. They used the Hebrew as well as the Septuagint (Greek Translation of the Scriptures) alongside the Targums/ Aramaic Versions of the Old Testament and others. Greek. There was actually a good article I remember coming across, as seen if going online and looking it up under the name of “The Targums: Aramaic Versions of the Old Testament” ( ). Another that may be of benefit would be under the name of “A study in the Aramaic Language of Jesus” ( ). If one cannot deal with that, they’re not willing to deal with what has happened historically.
Concerning what Stephen noted in Acts 7:14 when Stephen cites the number of of Jacob’s kindred at seventy-five, he is indeed following the Septaugint rather than the Hebrew Text for Exodus 1:5, which follows a different calculation and arrives at the number 70. Many Jews used such quite often, in the event one trys to act as if all Jews were ONLY for using the Hebrew Text as the only one. This is important in light of the fact that in the era Stephen lived in, understanding Greek language was very much a big deal…….and the Septaugint was key. The different texts were apparently based on different decisions regarding whether to include Jacob and his wife and the additional descendants born to Ephraim and Manasseh in Egypt.
As it concerns Stephen quoting from the Septaugint, of course its not surprising. For as the text makes clear:
Stephen, as the text makes clear, was a GREEK-Speaker….listed in Acts 6:8-15 as one of the seven Hellenists selected to minister to the widows in Acts 6:5. He preached Christ in the Greek-speaking synagouges of Jerusalem, where he was seized and dragged before the Sanhendrin. One should keep in mind that the people known as the Synagogue of the Freedmen were those Jews who had been enslaved and then granted freedom….and connected with the Diaspora.
The freed slaves were probably Jewish Cyrenians, Alexandrians and people from Cilicia and the province of Asia who had been captured and enslaved by the Romans, or their descendants. General Pompey, who captured Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E., took a number of Jews prisoner and released them in Rome. Some of the Jews, however, may have been Gentile converts to Judaism. …and as it concerns the rise of Greek and the issue of how the Greek-speaking Jews and Hebrew-Speaking Jews (or culturally Greek and Culturally Hebrew), the root of it dates back from the conquest of Eretz-Israel by Alexander the Great in 323 B.C.E. He and his successors introduced the Greek Language and Greek culture into the lands they ruled. While Hellenistic influence produced such fruits as the Septuagint, Philo of Alexandria and Josephus, “Hebraists” considered the “Hellenists” to have developed an adulterated Judaism which had assimilated elements of the pagan cultures around them—–although the Judaism of the Hebrew-speakers had not avoided these influences either. The Maccabean Revolt ( which one can also see celebrated in the form of the Festival of Lights in John 10:22) contains elements of intra-Jewish struggle related to this issue.
Going back to the issue of the Greek Influenced Feedman, they used the Septuagint and Stephen, in his speech, quotes from it. As it concerns the GREEK Speaking Jews who were there, of course he’d use a version that says Seventy Five instead of Seventy since there was ALREADY an audience there that would have been familar with that…and thus, his usage of that would be meeting someone on their own grounds. Thus, saying “Well, the Hebraic TEXT is contrary to what Stephen SAID!!!!!” is a moot point…..for in that culture, different versions were used to discuss history.
As it concerns the translation that Stephen used (the Septaugint), if taking issue with that, one needs to be honest in realizing how Jews (Hellenists) were already unrolling Greek scrolls in their synagogues…and even Jesus and the apostles and the New Testament writers also accepted the Septuagint, using it in conjunction with the Hebrew.
One example of Jesus’ use of the Septuagint is found in His refutation of the Devil in Matthew 4.4. The Hebrew in Deuteronomy 8.3 has “mouth of the LORD”; the Septuagint has “mouth of God”. It is this latter that Jesus quotes. The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly-made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de novo, but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in handThis is not to say that Jesus or the New Testament writers considered the Septuagint to be inspired as the Hebrew was, or that we should. Only what the writers actually quoted in their canonical writings can be considered inspired, and that only because they quoted it. …just as Stephen did in his addressment to the Jews.
Perhaps one of the most important instances of the New Testament writers’ use of the Septuagint is Matthew 1: 23, in which the Gospel writer quotes Isaiah 7.14. The Hebrew word almah, argued by some in our day to indicate a young woman of marriageable age but one not necessarily a virgin, is translated in the Septuagint as parthenos. This Greek word means virgin, indicating that the Jewish translators before the time of Christ understood the prophecy correctly. Other Jews after the advent of the Christian era translated the word into Greek as neanis, ‘young woman’, in order to distance the prophecy from fulfilment in Jesus. Matthew quotes the Septuagint, applying it to Jesus. Other New Testament writers also used the clear translation from the Septuagint in their writings. In Hebrews 1.6 is a quotation from Psalm 97.7. The Old Testament passage speaks of the “graven images”, “idols” and “gods”. The final word in Hebrew is elohim (gods); the Septuagint renders this aggeloi (angels). The book of Hebrews takes the Septuagint rendering and incorporates it, in which is urged that “all the angels of God” worship Jesus.
For other examples of the Septuagint being used, one can see how in In 1 Corinthians 15:58, the Septuagint of Hosea 13:14 is much closer to Paul’s quote than the Masoretic text, though the difference is still significant.
In the first century, a large percentage of the church was Jewish. The apostles who stayed in the Roman Empire—which are the ones who wrote most of the New Testament—would have had need for the LXX, but they also would have been familiar with the original Jewish text from their days in Israel. Thus, the New Testament is a mix of quotes, some of which match the Septuagint, some of which match our Masoretic text, and some of which match neither. The reason it may match neither is because we have no early copies of the Masoretic text, and it may have become corrupted over the centuries. There were also competing Hebrew texts even in the 1st century. The Isaiah scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, matches neither the Septuagint nor the Masoretic text.
For more info, one can go online and look up an article entitled “The Dead Sea Scrolls Version of Isaiah (and Jeremiah)
<< Christian History for Everyman” ( ) and “Should We Use the Septuagint and Accept Its Canonical Books? << Christian History for Everyman” ( )
Again, of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament.
Some articles one can go online/investigate under the following names/titles:
“The Septuagint (LXX)” ( )
“SEPTUAGINT QUOTES: IN THE NEW TESTAMENT”
( )
“What Bible Did Jesus Use? – Online Bible Study Tools” ( //)
“What Bible Did Jesus Use? – Genealogy and Jewish Heritage” ( )
“Church Ekklesia in the Septuagint, the Bible Jesus Used!” ( )
To be clear, for the sake of technicality, there is no Septuagint–a single Greek translation of the whole OT–but in fact what we call the Septuagint is a compilation of different Greek translations of groups of books from the OT from different time periods. Often it’s easy to think that we have this copy of the Septuagint written in the same type of Greek from one period and that’s what the writers of the NT were using but that’s not the case. It’s actually a bit more complicated than that
Some of the Jewish Talmudists claimed inspiration for the Septuagint, stating that God inspired the hearts of each translator…and for more information on the historical backdrop behind the history of the Greek Version, at some time during the second and third centuries B.C., the Hebrew Bible (i.e., the Old Testament) was translated into Greek. No one is precisely sure of the history of the Septuagint, but in the synagogues of Greek-speaking Jews, it attained a wide acceptance long before the birth of Christ. One might suppose that the Jews would have resisted a translation from Hebrew to Greek, either rejecting it as disrespectful, or looking down on it as an inferior shadow of the real Hebrew Bible. But surprisingly the new translation was revered as much as the Hebrew. The Septuagint was thought of as the Bible itself.
For the Church Fathers, the Septuagint was not only the Old Testament they used in their study, writing and preaching, it was the one they used when translating the Old Testament into Latin. In time it came to be considered the inspired Old Testament, even above the Hebrew. Justin Martyr believed that in instances in which the Hebrew and Greek differed, the Septuagint was the correct text and that the Jews had “altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders”. Most Fathers quoted from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew when the two differed. Irenaeus relates the Aristeas story, and states that “The Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine … interpreted [translated] by the inspiration of God”. Clement of Alexandria said that “it was not alien to the inspiration of God, who gave the prophecy, also to produce the translation, and make it as it were Greek prophecy”, and based his claim that Amos the prophet was the father of Isaiah upon the identical spelling of Amos and Amoz in the Greek
It was not until the end of the 4th century AD that the ancient Church finally began to relinquish its attachment to the Septuagint. Other Old Testament translations were made into Greek, primarily those of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. These three men, believed to be Judaizers, produced editions which displayed their heretical tendencies. The growing number of translations moved Origen to compare the editions, producing a polyglot Bible, the Hexapla, comprised of editions of the Hebrew, the Septuagint and several of the other Greek translations, which exhibited the differences between them.
Jerome for many years had translated the Old Testament from the Septuagint into Latin. In the latter part of the century, however, he recognised the differences between the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew, and began making translations of the Hebrew books, primarily for the benefit and use of his friends. “Jerome was often criticised for using the Hebrew text rather than the Septuagint as the basis for his translation, but he rightly argued that the Septuagint was not inspired and that a better translation could be made from the Hebrew, the original language of the Old Testament.” In time his translation, the Vulgate, grew in importance and became the accepted Latin version.
For a thousand years, the Vulgate was the prominent version used by the Western Church. But God moved the Reformers to turn their attention back to the Bible in the original languages. Even at that, the Reformers — as the Jews in exile had done -recognised the need for people to have the Scriptures in a language they could understand. Thus, men such as Luther and Tyndale used the original language texts as the bases for their work
Today the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is available to people around the world. The Hebrew translated into a multitude of languages has made the Old Testament accessible to millions. Greek readers have the Old Testament in their own language, which is more readily understood than the antiquated form of Greek found in the Septuagint. Thus, many question the need for the Septuagint today.
However, the Septuagint continues to fill a place, particularly in Bible translation. The Hebrew of the Old Testament, while beautiful in its phrasing and form, is not always clear. The Septuagint, having been translated without anti-Christian bias and without the warping of modern liberal or neo-orthodox theology, provides an edition of the Old Testament which predates the earliest available Hebrew manuscript. Thus, although inferior to the Hebrew text, on occasion the Septuagint is a helpful aid in translation and Old Testament study.
And as it concerns Acts 7, It is evident that Stephen has followed the account which is given by the Septuagint. In Genesis 46:27, that version reads, “But the sons of Joseph who were with him in Egypt were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob which came with Jacob into Egypt were seventy-five souls.” This number is made out by adding these nine souls to the 66 mentioned in Genesis 46:26. The difference between the Septuagint and Moses is, that the former mentions five descendants of Joseph who are not recorded by the latter. The “names” of the sons of Ephraim and Manasseh are recorded in 1 Chronicles 7:14-21. Their names were Ashriel, Machir, Zelophehad, Peresh, sons of Manasseh; and Shuthelah, son of Ephraim. Why the Septuagint inserted these, it may not be easy to see. But such was evidently the fact; and the fact accords accurately with the historic record, though Moses did not insert their names. The solution of difficulties in regard to chronology is always difficult; and what might be entirely apparent to a Jew in the time of Stephen, may be wholly inexplicable to us.
As said best by “Gills Exposition of the Bible” commentary on Acts 7:
To be clear, there are many who’ve noted that the Mazoretic text came from about 6 different texts. And therefore the choices between these texts can be questioned…even though the Jews were very careful about keeping the results of that chosen text accurate. Some argue that even the local synagogue might not have a compete Tanack. And propably not the targums or the Septuagint. …and that though the Greek Septuagint, may have been the reference used by most in the Diaspora, it was still the Hebrew Torah was considered the official Word of God.
However, it doesn’t seem historically accurate to say that the MT ( Masoretic text ) is the “unofficial” and non-authoritative record in all instances…and it is not the case that acknowledging differing translations means that one language is being pitted against another as the “official” and authoritative record in all instances. This is especially true with regard to Stephen’s economy of speech in Acts. It goes without saying that regardless of how careful the people were in creating new copies and retiring what had become substandard through use older copies the people who created the MT had to make choices. Some of those choices don’t accurately reflect what was accepted among Jewish people six hundred to nine hundred years earlier.
As much as there’s discussion on what is or isn’t the “official” text/cannon, it is apparent that the Holy Spirit doesn’t understand official in the same way as do some people..for the Hebrew was never the “OFFICIAL” and only way to go in translation. NT references which aren’t according to the MT were not perceived as false and/or a threat to those who think of the text of the MT as more authoritative than the Holy Spirit led writers of the NT. Looking at the matter scripturally, logically, and historically it is apparent that the text of the MT is necessarily not always what was “official.”
People didn’t live in a linguistic vacuum.
Beyond the GREEK, its interesting to see the other languages that the Jews chose to utilize. In example, Acts 7:4 is a text that many have had issue with and have said is inaccurate. In Stephen’s speech, it is in reference to Genesis 11:31-32…and in Genesis 11:31-32, by way of completing this short intro to Terah’s family, the narrative records his death at the age of 205. If Abram was born when Terah was 70—as seen in Genesis 11:26–and if Abram was 75 yrs old when he departed for Canaan (as seen in Genesis 12:4), then Terah died 60yrs after Abram’s depature (70+75+60=205), In Acts 7:4, however, Stephen says that after Abram left Haran after the death of Terah. A simple way to resolve the chronological difficulty is to suppose that Stephan was following an alternative text (represented today in the Samaritan Pentateuch), which says that Terah died at the age of 145 rather than 205. The Samaritan text of the Pentateuch does say 145, so we are not dealing with a deus ex machina. Moreover, there are scholars, Avraham Spero and Jakob Jervell among them, who believe that Stephen himself was a Samaritan. This would also help to explain in Acts 7:16, which says that Abraham was buried in Sh’khem, since this too follows SAMARITAN Tradition. It explains a possible anti-Temple tendency in Acts 7:47-50 (Compare to John 4:40-22 with the Samaritan woman/Jesus) and gives logic to placing the story of the spread of the Gospel to Shomoron in the immediately following passage (Acts 8:4-26). At worst, if under pressure Stephen erred, his errors would be what are known in Judaism as ta’uyot b’tom-lev, honest mistakes.
From here comes the issue of what also occurred amongst those who felt that the correct translation of the scriptures was to be found in other books outside of the Seputagint—specifically the Samaritan translation. For places one can go online to find further info, one can research the following under their respective titles:
^ Overview of the Differences Between the Jewish and Samaritan Versions of the Pentateuch
” ( )
“Good question……did the Messianic Jewish Believers use the OT deceitfully or ignorantly in the New Testament? <<Christian ThinkTank” ( )
There was a solid article online discussing the issue you bring up…and I think you’d enjoy it. It can be found, if going online/searching, under the name of “On the Samaritan Pentateuch « Daniel O. McClellan” ( ). The other one to consider looking up can be found under the name/title of “Pentateuch, The Samaritan (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) :: Bible Tools” ( )
It truly is interesting seeing how the Samaritan version is much closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX than to the current Masoretic. The oldest Samaritan physical document is the Nablus Roll, which is probably about 200 BCE, but uses a script the Jews used between around 550 to 700BCE, apparantly because the Samaritans chose to keep the older script and the Judean Jews didn’t. It is evidence other than the script that tends to pin it to a few centuries before the common era. It seems that the Samaritan version spilt with the Jewish version, at approximately 700BCE. That goes in line with matching the genetics, the history of the Assyrian invasion, and the story the Samaritans
One significant difference between the two is that the Samaritan version has Mt. Gerizim as the center of the religion. Another key difference is that the God of the Samaritans is less anthropomorphic, more abstract, and having as hortage of other supernatural beings. As one kat said (from one of the articles referenced earlier entitled “The Samaritan Pentateuch”):
.
Additionally, as said best in one of the sources referenced from “Bible Tools”:
James, since you recently left your former congregation, have you already started attending your wife’s synagogue and if yes, will you share your experiences there?
Not yet and probably not for awhile. This weekend, we’re in Portland for my niece’s wedding.
Gabriel, I approved your comments “sight unseen” but in scanning them, they seem rather long. I don’t have time to go over what you’ve written, but will do so when I have the time (and spam will be summarily removed..just sayin’).
* Actually, most New Testament scholars acknowledge that not all of the Gospels and Epistles were written by the people to whom they are attributed.”
* Yes and this leads to ‘schizophrenic’ cognitive disonnance, when there is also the likelihood of multiple authors of a gospel.
** “Once I got past this, and the fact that there actually are inconsistencies in the Bible (compare the different Gospel versions of the day Jesus died and then try to figure out which day it was…the accounts conflict),”
** No. The basic conflict is more in the purpose of the writer and the poetic license taken to achieve it.
*** “I recovered my balance a bit.”
*** But did you also heal the ‘schizophrenic’ cognitive set that made you unbalanced?
^ “Then I realized that I didn’t have to depend on the Bible reading like a history book or a court deposition in order to gain wisdom and understanding from the stories the Bible tells us.”
^ OK…but why have the bible in the first place. Why not just a storybook?
It seems to me that chasidic stories are purpose-built and effective. Should not the bible also be true to its purpose if it is to be effective?
^^ “Christianity doesn’t even imagine the Bible being more than the Bible; a book written under the Divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit and recorded by many different people across thousands of years.
It’s hard for me to imagine that the church misses this… ”
^^ But surely this is inability “to imagine” is why the scriptures were to be fulfilled in Christ. The Gospel preached was essentially one of recalibration of hearts, so that any repentance of sins would be enduring and not ephemeral.
^^^ “Certainly ‘the Word’ is not just ‘the word’ printed on a page in a book and in fact, this particular Word ‘became flesh and made his dwelling among us’ (John 1:14). Of the four Gospels, John’s is considered the most ‘mystic’ and it reads more like a chasidic story.”
^^^ Yes and without it the so-called ‘verbal synoptics’ and indeed the bible itself cannot be understood. My work in Cognitive Cosmology shows the so-called Prologue of John’s gospel is actually the divinely-inspired prologue to the science of Genesis 1 to 3.
So “in order to gain wisdom and understanding” as you describe it, a scientific recalibration of the Cognitive Cosmology of the bible is required. The 4 gospels are currently being done. The results to date are significant and enlightening.
Hey J.
Don’t know what you meant when saying “sight unseen”—but on the rest of it, let me know what you think when you have the chance.
@G Means that I didn’t actually read your comments before approving them. 😉 No worries. I managed to scan through some of what you’d written late yesterday, but due to the amount of content, I’ll have to have some uninterrupted time to make my way through all of it.
@maikel: I’ll give your comment more attention when I have time (probably early next week) and then respond but, having a Masters degree in Counseling Psychology and 20 years of post-graduate experience (before changing careers), I think the term “schizophrenic” means something differently to me than to how you’re applying it in your comment.