Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

[Rival]

Aren't these differences due to the NT quoting from the Greek Septuagint?

Likely not; the original LXX was only the Torah. We no longer have the original complete LXX and even had we, whoever wrote it is up in the aer.

 

[Harel13]

Aren't these differences due to the NT quoting from the Greek Septuagint?

a. What @Rival said.
b. Some of the differences are pretty nutty, too extreme to simply be a case of "lost in translation".
c. What @Rival said.
d. I keep forgetting the history of the LXX but currently I seem to recall that the Prophets and Writings sections that we have today are later Christian translations.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Likely not; the original LXX was only the Torah. We no longer have the original complete LXX and even had we, whoever wrote it is up in the aer.

I did not know that.

 

[Samael_Khan]

a. What @Rival said.
b. Some of the differences are pretty nutty, too extreme to simply be a case of "lost in translation".
c. What @Rival said.
d. I keep forgetting the history of the LXX but currently I seem to recall that the Prophets and Writings sections that we have today are later Christian translations.

Well, yes. But I remember someone saying that the whole "born of a virgin" OT scripture comes from the Septuagint. But now that @Rival said that the LXX is only the Torah, I must check that up.

I think that the masoretic text and the Textus Receptus are the preservations of the OT from which the Prophets and Writings are are translated. I might be very wrong on that.

 

[Harel13]

But now that @Rival said that the LXX is only the Torah, I must check that up.

At the very least, that's how Jewish tradition explains the writing of the LXX (which is the same reason it's even called the LXX - because of the Jewish tradition of the tale).

 

[Samael_Khan]

At the very least, that's how Jewish tradition explains the writing of the LXX (which is the same reason it's even called the LXX - because of the Jewish tradition of the tale).

Apparently it was written by 70 Alexandrian Jews in the Alexandrian Library?

 

[Harel13]

Apparently it was written by 70 Alexandrian Jews in the Alexandrian Library?

The Jewish tradition says it was written by 70 Jewish scholars who were all forced to write it by Pharaoh Ptolemy (don't remember which one). Each scholar was shut in a different room and none were aware that others were working on a translation. While translating, they realized that there were some controversial verses, so they all made the same exact changes, without realizing that everyone else made the same changes. I think the Talmud has a full list of changes. It's entirety possible that later, those changes were fixed in the version we have today.

 

[Rival]

I think that the masoretic text and the Textus Receptus are the preservations of the OT from which the Prophets and Writings are are translated. I might be very wrong on that.

As far as I'm aware the TR is a conglomerate manuscript created in the 17th century by all the best manuscripts at the time.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The Jewish tradition says it was written by 70 Jewish scholars who were all forced to write it by Pharaoh Ptolemy (don't remember which one). Each scholar was shut in a different room and none were aware that others were working on a translation. While translating, they realized that there were some controversial verses, so they all made the same exact changes, without realizing that everyone else made the same changes. I think the Talmud has a full list of changes. It's entirety possible that later, those chagges were fixed in the version we have today.

It is interesting that Ptolemy, a greek Egyptian Dynasty, would want a translation. Any idea why?

But I think those changes are why the Jewish scholar community didn't use the LXX later on. Apparently they thought it didn't maintain the originals integrity.

 

[Harel13]

It is interesting that Ptolemy, a greek Egyptian Dynasty, would want a translation. Any idea why?

The tradition, if I recall correctly, states that Ptolemy wanted to use the Torah for his own purposes. It was a form of superssessionism - once non-Jews can read and understand the Torah, they can twist around for their own uses (e.g. Christianity).

 

[Samael_Khan]

As far as I'm aware the TR is a conglomerate manuscript created in the 17th century by all the best manuscripts at the time.

Actually you are right. It was the text the King James Bible used as a base. The KJV only debate is based on the them using the TR manuscripts and as opposed to the new texts (I think Wescott and Hort). But the TR tradition goes back to manuscripts available at the early time i think. (Jeesh I am so not polished up on this stuff these days.)

 

[Samael_Khan]

The tradition, if I recall correctly, states that Ptolemy wanted to use the Torah for his own purposes. It was a form of superssessionism - once non-Jews can read and understand the Torah, they can twist around for their own uses (e.g. Christianity).

That is interesting. Imagine if Christianity was what he intended. Ironically I am investigating the relationship of the concept of God in the Bible to Egyptian myth as at least in the Christian concept of God there are theological links.

 

[Harel13]

@Israel Khan I wanted to note something about what Samantha wrote here earlier: She said basically, so what if some quotes don't match exactly? Etc.

Problem is, as Jews, we have a big problem with that, but not for the exact reason one may think: If you look at the Torah and even more so if you open up the Talmud, you'll find that Jews are all about the little details. The verses don't quite match? Well, sorry, that ain't gonna cut it for us. Judaism is all about the small stuff.

 

[Samael_Khan]

@Israel Khan I wanted to note something about what Samantha wrote here earlier: She said basically, so what if some quotes don't match exactly? Etc.

Problem is, as Jews, we have a big problem with that, but not for the exact reason one may think: If you look at the Torah and even more so if you open up the Talmud, you'll find that Jews are all about the little details. The verses don't quite match? Well, sorry, that ain't gonna cut it for us. Judaism is all about the small stuff.

To me, as a person who reads a lot, context is everything. So when I was a believer I was reading OT scriptures, looking at context and thinking "hey that context doesn't add up". Context is KINGS!!!! Meaning is all about context in the grand scheme of things, that is how language works. If a person says prophecy is fulfilled and it doesn't follow the context of the original text then how can the prophecy be fulfilled. If context is ignored that means that anybody can make claims by quote mining and every possible interpretation made using that method is true, which makes prophecy useless.

I understand why little details not matching might not cut it because one tiny change will mess with meaning even in the slightest way. And the more one deviates from the true wording, the bigger margin there is for misunderstanding the original meaning. One can even see that happening with Bible translations, as the KJV not matching the NIV not matching the NWT will cause one to understand things differently depending on what book they read, which makes them paraphrases, which causes even more problems. But those are only in the finer details such as prophecy in which one must nitpick. Generally I find the same meaning in them all.

 

[Harel13]

RF has some private groups, including a private Jewish group. A couple of weeks ago, after an annoying "discussion" with one of the RFers here who presented a totally quote-mined list of rabbis seemingly claiming that Isaiah 53 is about the messiah and after refuting just about the entire list, I decided to set up a resources thread over there for quick-access to refutations of Jewish misconceptions. As you correctly stated, it's hard collecting all the info over and over again.

What is Yeshayahu 53 about?
There's a list made by missionaries claiming that even rabbinical sources say that chapter 53 is about the messiah (Jesus).
Here's what the sources they bring really say:
Alshech – conveniently, missionaries only bring part of the quote. Full quote: “Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view: for the Messiah is of course David, who, as is well known, was ‘anointed’, and there is a verse in which the prophet, speaking in the name of the Lord, says expressly, ‘My servant David shall be king over them’. The expression my servant, therefore, can be justly referred to David…” (article on the subject by Jews for Judaism)

Abarbanel – states clearly, over and over, that the Christians are mistaken that this chapter would ever refer to Jesus and proceeds to take apart the Christian claim, both of their concept of original sin and of the idea that this refers to Jesus receiving the burden of mankind’s sins.

After that, he states: “However, the way of Yonatan [Targum Yonatan] and our Sages of blessed memory that interpreted this about our Meshiach, I do not know if they meant for this to refer to Meshiach ben Yosef that they accepted would come in the beginning of the redemption, or if they meant Meshiach ben David that would come afterwards, but in either case, the simple understanding of the text cannot stand such an explanation, for if it is Meshiach ben Yosef, with his death at the start of his time and his wars, it cannot be said [about him] “Be exalted and raised to great heights.” For he shall not rise to that level and will not remain there [etc]…and if they were to interpret it to refer to Meshiach ben David it too will be hard, as he says: “So marred was his appearance, unlike that of man, form, beyond human semblance” for Isaiah said “Behold My servant, whom I uphold; Mine elect, in whom My soul delighteth” and in another place he was called a shoot from the roof of Yishai and he said “And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.” Not that he shall be “despised, shunned by men” [etc]…and even our sages of blessed memory with that they interpreted the verse “Behold, My servant shall prosper”, the rest of the verses they interpreted about Israel, and likewise did Yonatan that interpreted the first verses about the Meshiach and the rest of the verses on the righteous people [etc] and the Ramban [Nachmanides], with that he interpreted it about the Meshiach, wrote that in his view this was said about the Nation of Israel. [etc]” (source in Hebrew)

Yafeth ben Ali – Karaite source, irrelevant to most Jews in my opinion (though if someone wishes to tackle it, be my guest).

Avraham Farissol – first brings the Christian view in his book Magen Avraham (a book that argues against Christianity), and then proceeds to write: “And when we begin from the start of the subject in it’s order [previously he stated that a Christian theologian by the name of Geronimo used to conveniently bring only parts of the chapter] from “Behold, My servant shall prosper” and explain first the intention of the prophet and know who this servant is that the prophet attributes this section to, then will it be known the length of the subject in its entirety on its subject and there will not be learnt from it invalid [ideas]…[then he continues and brings other views]…but we shall interpret it as referring to Israel, certainly, for [he] called them, the prophet, and gave them the title servant and in a singular tongue in many of his previous prophecies we find the prophet speaking to Israel by the title of a singular servant.” [and he continues to bring more proofs for this]. (source in Hebrew, it's right on pg. 1-2)

Targum Yonatan – while the Targum does refer to the chapter’s subject matter as the Meshiach, missionaries conveniently only bring that one verse. What about 53:5? “But he was wounded because of our sins, Crushed because of our iniquities. He bore the chastisement that made us whole, And by his bruises we were healed.” On this the Targum writes: “But he will build up the Holy Place [the Temple], which has been polluted for our sins, and delivered to the enemy for our iniquities; and by his instruction peace shall be increased upon us, and by devotion to his words, our sins will be forgiven us.” - and of course, the Abarbanel and others interpreted the Targum of chapter 53 to referring to the righteous men of Israel. (English translation of the Targum)

Gersonides – brings the sages’ Midrash that the verse “Behold, My servant shall prosper” refers to the Meshiach, but doesn’t bring any other part of the text. This is just a hint he uses to show the greatness of the Meshiach in comparison to Moshe in Numbers 24. (source in Hebrew)

Tanchuma – says verse 52:13 is about the Meshiach, but only that verse (see above explanation from the Abarbanel). (source)

Maimonides – refers to the verse, brings the interpretation that it refers to the Meshiach, but not the rest of the chapter. Moreover, the quote comes from a section of the letter that’s dedicated to explaining, among other things, why Jesus cannot be the prophesied messiah. (source, from the famous Iggeret Teiman)

Yalkut Shimoni – again, only interprets verse 52:13. (source in Hebrew)

[Second] Tanchuma – [unable to find the original quote source]

Sanhedrin 98b – misquote: “Messiah ...what is his name? The Rabbis say,'The leprous one'; those of the house of the Rabbi (Jehuda Hanassi, the author of the Mishna, 135-200) say: 'Cholaja' (The sickly), for it says, 'Surely he has borne our sicknesses' etc. (Isa.53,4).”

The real quote says: “And the Rabbis say: The leper of the house of Rabbi [Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi] is his name, as it is stated: “Indeed our illnesses he did bear and our pains he endured; yet we did esteem him injured, stricken by God, and afflicted” (Isaiah 53:4). Also, the Talmud only says that this verse hints to the name of the Meshiach but doesn’t say that the entire chapter is about the Meshiach. (source)

Sifre – [unable to find the original quote source]

Rabbi Elazar Hakalir – “"Our righteous Messiah has departed from us. Horror has seized us and we have no one to justify us. He has borne our transgressions and the yoke of our iniquities, and is wounded because of our transgressions. He bore our sins upon His shoulders that we may find pardon for our iniquity. We shall be healed by His wounds, at the time when the Eternal will recreate Him a new creature. Oh bring Him up from the circle of the earth, raise Him up from Seir, that we may hear Him the second time.”

Conveniently the quote leaves out the parts in which the text refers to the possibility of repentance [of Israel] and the building of the Temple (which is also related to repentance). This is, after all, from a Yom Kippur liturgical hymn. (can be found in Machzor Yom Kippur, one example)

Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan (the preacher) – entirely unclear where the quote comes from. We have no books that we’re 100% certain are those of Rabbi Moshe. There’s one book called Beresheet Rabti which is thought to be a collection of some of his Misrashim, but nowhere there is anything remotely similar to the quote brought. Next, part of a possibly different version of Beresheet Rabti called Beresheet Rabbah was brought by a Christian missionary named Raymond Martini in his book Pugio Fidei, but the Abarbanel who knew of Martini’s book and not the Beresheet Rabbah believed it [the Beresheet Rabbah part] to have been a forgery. (source in Hebrew) (Beresheet Rabti source in Hebrew)

Pesikta – [unable to find the original quote source]
If I'm not mistaken, nowhere in any of these sources is it stated that the chapter in its entirety refers to the messiah. At most, one or two verses.​

Interestingly, or rather, conveniently, the list does not provide any of the original sources. It took me several hours to track down most of them - but I was unable to find all of them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hi there,

As a former Christian, having read the Old Testament and New Testament to completion and numerous books multiple times, it has always occurred to me that a few Old Testament scriptures that the New Testament says was fulfilled by Jesus or in some other way, seem to have been taken out of context.

Sometimes the writers would quote a single verse from a passage to prove a point and then when going back I would find that the context seemed very different.

In some cases I have found that this was a misunderstanding of the context on my part.

Would you guys say that the NT writers definitely take certain quotes out of context from the OT?

@Harel13

Not at all. The context is always there. Sometimes, however, they parse a verse as a hint to go back to read the rest of the passage, for more knowledge.

 

[Harel13]

@Israel Khan I think the next way to tackle this issue, after everything else that's been brought here, is to find all those sites that say that Jesus fulfilled XX prophecies in the OT then tackle 'em one by one.

Which I'll do tomorrow.

 

[dybmh]

If a person says prophecy is fulfilled and it doesn't follow the context of the original text then how can the prophecy be fulfilled. If context is ignored that means that anybody can make claims by quote mining and every possible interpretation made using that method is true, which makes prophecy useless.

In general, it seems that most folks in this situation read the text allegorically. But none that I know of apply that same label ( allegorical ) to the messiah claimant in the conclusion. So it makes for a weak argument.

 

[dybmh]

Not at all. The context is always there. Sometimes, however, they parse a verse as a hint to go back to read the rest of the passage, for more knowledge.

Example(s)?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Not at all. The context is always there. Sometimes, however, they parse a verse as a hint to go back to read the rest of the passage, for more knowledge.

You are a Messianic Jew so you found the loophole!

Please provide solutions to the context of the texts we have already discussed if possible.