How do Jews disagree with Jesus as the messiah?

[mercytruth]

And I pointed out in response that as per the numerous verses, there is only 1 servant mentioned- Jacob/the nation of Israel. Nowhere does it say, or even imply, that all of a sudden there is another servant. Had there been another, G-d would have said so.

For those of us who are of the Christian faith, this is what we assume because
Isaiah 42:1-4 is quoted (in a somewhat different form) in the middle of the 12th chapter of Matthew’s gospel in reference to Jesus the Messiah.

First, Isaiah 42:1-4:

Behold my servant, I will uphold him: my elect, my soul delighteth in him: I have given my spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor have respect to person, neither shall his voice be heard abroad. The bruised reed he shall not break, and smoking flax he shall not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he set judgment in the earth: and the islands shall wait for his law.

Then in Matthew 12:17-21:

"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaias the prophet, saying:

18 Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul hath been well pleased. I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
He shall not contend, nor cry out, neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
The bruised reed he shall not break: and smoking flax he shall not extinguish: till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name the Gentiles shall hope"

(The version found in Matthew is much like the Septuagint version of Isaiah 42:1-4)

Shalom and thank you for any response

micah

 

[YKohen]

Hey meltzerboy, the prophet Micah and Jewish commentators such as Rabbi David Kimchi believe that the Messiah, born in Bethlehem, will be of eternal origins and therefore is divine; your thoughts:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.” (Mic 5:2)

“It will be said in the Messianic age that his ‘origins are from old, from ancient time;’ ‘from Bethlehem’ means that he will be of the house of David, because there is a long period of time between David and the Messiah-King; and he is El (God), which is how he is ‘from old, from ancient times.’” Rabbi David Kimchi

Whatever site you got that from definitely wasn’t a Jewish site, and didn’t know who Rabbi David Kimche (abbreviated to the “RaDaK” by us) was or what he believed. Had he actually written that as you claim, he would have been a believer in Christianity.

Not only wasn’t he, but he was a leading Jewish rabbi who refuted the Christian interpretations:

oztorah.com/2010/02/david-kimchis-response-to-christianity-in-his-psalm-commentary/

**"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from days of yore." **

See Micha 7:14 at the end: The term used is almost the exact same, and it also means that: מִימֵי עוֹלָם and כִּימֵי עוֹלָם.

Also, as you can see in 5:5, this is supposed to be a military leader; one who fights against Assyria with a sword and defeats them. Jesus didn’t do that.

PS “Bethlehem Ephratah” refers to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4).

 

[YKohen]

Hey YKohen. So, is it safe to say that you believe, without reservation, that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is in fact Israel, as a nation? If so then that’s cool…

I’m just saying that the servant throughout Isaiah hasn’t changed. It’s the same one throughout:

But thou, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend. (41:8)

Thou whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the uttermost parts thereof, and said unto thee: 'Thou art My servant, I have chosen thee and not cast thee away’. (41:9)

Thou art My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified. (49:3)

And so on.

And note in 41:9 that it says: Thou art My servant, I have chosen thee and not cast thee away.

 

[YKohen]

For those of us who are of the Christian faith, this is what we assume because
Isaiah 42:1-4 is quoted (in a somewhat different form) in the middle of the 12th chapter of Matthew’s gospel in reference to Jesus the Messiah.

My answer would of course be that the Christian Fathers (or whoever) had to try and rework it to fit your belief system.

See my previous post to joe370 for my response.

 

[joe370]

YKohen;9726486]Whatever site you got that from definitely wasn’t a Jewish site, and didn’t know who Rabbi David Kimche (abbreviated to the “RaDaK” by us) was or what he believed. Had he actually written that as you claim, he would have been a believer in Christianity.

Well, I didn’t mean to offend you. Sorry.

I got it from “Catholics for Israel.”

Not only wasn’t he, but he was a leading Jewish rabbi who refuted the Christian interpretations:

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from days of yore.”

Not the Davidic Messiah…Ok…

See Micha 7:14 at the end: The term used is almost the exact same, and it also means that: מִימֵי עוֹלָם and כִּימֵי עוֹלָם.

I don’t know what the following means: מִימֵי עוֹלָם and כִּימֵי עוֹלָם.

Also, as you can see in 5:5, this is supposed to be a military leader; one who fights against Assyria with a sword and defeats them. Jesus didn’t do that.

God has always been a military leader for the chosen people:

And he will be our peace
when the Assyrians invade our land
and march through our fortresses.
We will raise against them seven shepherds,
even eight commanders,
6 who will rulec] the land of Assyria with the sword,
the land of Nimrod with drawn sword.d]
He will deliver us from the Assyrians
when they invade our land
and march across our borders.

PS “Bethlehem Ephratah” refers to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4).

Ok… Cool…

 

[mercytruth]

I’m just saying that the servant throughout Isaiah hasn’t changed. It’s the same one throughout:

But thou, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend. (41:8)

Thou whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the uttermost parts thereof, and said unto thee: 'Thou art My servant, I have chosen thee and not cast thee away’. (41:9)

Thou art My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified. (49:3)

And so on.

And note in 41:9 that it says: Thou art My servant, I have chosen thee and not cast thee away.

Yes, when quoting Isaiah 42:1-4 (and Isaiah 41:8 seems to correspond in your Hebrew scriptures to our Isaiah 42:1, which I might add (very unfortunately, can not be found either in our Tanakh or our NT)

It is quoted by Justin Martyr from the Septuagint to a Jewish man named Trypho who most likely was bi-lingual in Hebrew and Greek (unlike Justin Martyr):

*Trypho: What, then? Are you Israel? And speaks He such things of you?

Justin: If, indeed, we had not entered into a lengthy discussion on these topics, I might have doubted whether you ask this question in ignorance; but since we have brought the matter to a conclusion by demonstration and with your assent, I do not believe that you are ignorant of what I have just said, or desire again mere contention, but that you are urging me to exhibit the same proof to these men.

And in compliance with the assent expressed in his eyes, I continued:

Justin: Again in Isaiah, if you have ears to hear it, God, speaking of Christ in parable, calls Him Jacob and Israel. He speaks thus:

**‘Jacob is my servant, I will uphold Him; Israel is my elect, I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry, neither shall any one hear His voice in the street: a bruised reed He shall not break, and smoking flax He shall not quench; but He shall bring forth judgment to truth: He shall shine, and shall not be broken till He have set judgment on the earth. And in His name shall the Gentiles trust.’ Isaiah 42:1-4 ** (This is almost word for word found in the Septuagint)

As therefore from the one man Jacob, who was surnamed Israel, all your nation has been called Jacob and Israel; so we from Christ, who begot us unto God, like Jacob, and Israel, and Judah, and Joseph, and David, are called and are the true sons of God, and keep the commandments of Christ.* Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 123.

newadvent.org/fathers/01288.htm

So you can see that although Justin Martyr acknowledges that this scripture is speaking of Jacob/Israel, he states that it also speaking of Christ ‘in parable’.

It would really be helpful for me, if you could please quote these 4 verses in an English translation of your Hebrew scriptures. (There may be a follow-up question that I have wanted to ask a Jewish scholar for sometime).

shalom and thanks again,.

micah

 

[YKohen]

Well, I didn’t mean to offend you. Sorry.

I got it from “Catholics for Israel.”

I’m not offended at all. I’m just pointing out that it is both incorrect as well as illogical, given who the RaDaK was.

Not the Davidic Messiah…Ok…

Not Jesus.

I don’t know what the following means: מִימֵי עוֹלָם and כִּימֵי עוֹלָם.

While the Vulgate translates Michah 5 as “from the days of eternity” and Michah 7 as “according to the days of old”, which is odd from a linguistic standpoint, because the original Hebrew for both is “from ancient days” and “as in ancient days”. The terms are identical except for the first letter. The Hebrew letter “mem” means “from” and the letter “chaf” is “as in”.

God has always been a military leader for the chosen people:

While it is true that outside the land, G-d said (Exodus 14:14):
The LORD will fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.'
Once we entered the land of Israel, we were the ones to fight- led by a military leader or king.

Michah is clearly aware of this and refers to it.

 

[YKohen]

Yes, when quoting Isaiah 42:1-4 (and Isaiah 41:8 seems to correspond in your Hebrew scriptures to our Isaiah 42:1, which I might add (very unfortunately, can not be found either in our Tanakh or our NT)

I pointed out a similar case last week with Proverbs 30:19 and the Hebrew word “alma”, which Christians translated as “virgin” elsewhere, but here, in Genesis regarding Rebecca, and Exodus regarding Miriam is translated as “a young woman”. The original Hebrew verse is:

דֶּרֶךְ הַנֶּשֶׁר, בַּשָּׁמַיִם-- דֶּרֶךְ נָחָשׁ, עֲלֵי-צוּר דֶּרֶךְ-אֳנִיָּה בְלֶב-יָם-- וְדֶרֶךְ גֶּבֶר בְּעַלְמָה.​

A Jewish translation is “The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a young woman.”

I looked in the Vulgate and saw that it was completely omitted:

viam aquilae in caelo viam colubri super petram viam navis in medio mari et viam viri in adulescentula

***The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man in youth. ***

{QUOTE]It is quoted by Justin Martyr from the Septuagint to a Jewish man named Trypho who most likely was bi-lingual in Hebrew and Greek (unlike Justin Martyr)…

I mentioned early-on that any translation is going to miss linguistic things/nuances- even mistranslate.

So you can see that although Justin Martyr acknowledges that this scripture is speaking of Jacob/Israel, he states that it also speaking of Christ ‘in parable’.

Gotcha.

It would really be helpful for me, if you could please quote these 4 verses in an English translation of your Hebrew scriptures. (There may be a follow-up question that I have wanted to ask a Jewish scholar for sometime).

Here is the Hebrew (which you can also find online):

א הֵן עַבְדִּי אֶתְמָךְ-בּוֹ, בְּחִירִי רָצְתָה נַפְשִׁי; נָתַתִּי רוּחִי עָלָיו, מִשְׁפָּט לַגּוֹיִם יוֹצִיא.
ב לֹא יִצְעַק, וְלֹא יִשָּׂא; וְלֹא-יַשְׁמִיעַ בַּחוּץ, קוֹלוֹ.
ג קָנֶה רָצוּץ לֹא יִשְׁבּוֹר, וּפִשְׁתָּה כֵהָה לֹא יְכַבֶּנָּה; לֶאֱמֶת, יוֹצִיא מִשְׁפָּט.
ד לֹא יִכְהֶה וְלֹא יָרוּץ, עַד-יָשִׂים בָּאָרֶץ מִשְׁפָּט; וּלְתוֹרָתוֹ, אִיִּים יְיַחֵלוּ.​

Again, any translation is missing something and won’t be 100% accurate. That being said, rather than translate it myself, I will use the Judaica Press’ translation (that’s what I happened to open now):

1. Behold My servant, I will support him, My chosen one, whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him, he shall promulgate justice to the nations.
2. He shall neither cry nor shall he raise [his voice]; and he shall not make his voice heard outside.
3. A breaking reed he shall not break; and a flickering flaxen wick he shall not quench; with truth shall he execute justice.
4. Neither shall he weaken nor shall he be broken, until he establishes justice in the land, and for his instruction, islands shall long.

Note that your translation has a lot of commentary inserted into it- including words that aren’t there at all in the original Hebrew text.

 

[mercytruth]

I pointed out a similar case last week with Proverbs 30:19 and the Hebrew word “alma”, which Christians translated as “virgin” elsewhere, but here, in Genesis regarding Rebecca, and Exodus regarding Miriam is translated as “a young woman”. The original Hebrew verse is:

דֶּרֶךְ הַנֶּשֶׁר, בַּשָּׁמַיִם-- דֶּרֶךְ נָחָשׁ, עֲלֵי-צוּר דֶּרֶךְ-אֳנִיָּה בְלֶב-יָם-- וְדֶרֶךְ גֶּבֶר בְּעַלְמָה.​

A Jewish translation is “The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a young woman.”

I looked in the Vulgate and saw that it was completely omitted:

viam aquilae in caelo viam colubri super petram viam navis in medio mari et viam viri in adulescentula

***The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man in youth. ***

{QUOTE]It is quoted by Justin Martyr from the Septuagint to a Jewish man named Trypho who most likely was bi-lingual in Hebrew and Greek (unlike Justin Martyr)…

I mentioned early-on that any translation is going to miss linguistic things/nuances- even mistranslate.

Gotcha.

Here is the Hebrew (which you can also find online):

א הֵן עַבְדִּי אֶתְמָךְ-בּוֹ, בְּחִירִי רָצְתָה נַפְשִׁי; נָתַתִּי רוּחִי עָלָיו, מִשְׁפָּט לַגּוֹיִם יוֹצִיא.
ב לֹא יִצְעַק, וְלֹא יִשָּׂא; וְלֹא-יַשְׁמִיעַ בַּחוּץ, קוֹלוֹ.
ג קָנֶה רָצוּץ לֹא יִשְׁבּוֹר, וּפִשְׁתָּה כֵהָה לֹא יְכַבֶּנָּה; לֶאֱמֶת, יוֹצִיא מִשְׁפָּט.
ד לֹא יִכְהֶה וְלֹא יָרוּץ, עַד-יָשִׂים בָּאָרֶץ מִשְׁפָּט; וּלְתוֹרָתוֹ, אִיִּים יְיַחֵלוּ.​

Again, any translation is missing something and won’t be 100% accurate. That being said, rather than translate it myself, I will use the Judaica Press’ translation (that’s what I happened to open now):

1. Behold My servant, I will support him, My chosen one, whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him, he shall promulgate justice to the nations.
2. He shall neither cry nor shall he raise [his voice]; and he shall not make his voice heard outside.
3. A breaking reed he shall not break; and a flickering flaxen wick he shall not quench; with truth shall he execute justice.
4. Neither shall he weaken nor shall he be broken, until he establishes justice in the land, and for his instruction, islands shall long.

Note that your translation has a lot of commentary inserted into it- including words that aren’t there at all in the original Hebrew text.

Yes, a lot of commentary. This is a dialogue that supposedly took place right after the Bar Kochba revolution and subsequent diaspora. I was not sure if your Hebrew scriptures had this portion of Isaiah 42:1: that is found in the Septuagint, and also quoted by Justin Martyr, but no where else in our own scriptures: 'Jacob is my servant, I will uphold Him; Israel is my elect

But, to my question that I have wanted to ask a Jewish scholar for some time:

My chosen one, whom My soul desires;

Is there an explanation given to this attribute of G-d? Or, is ‘nephesh’ considered anthropomorphic ?

thanks so much, and shalom

micah

 

[InJesusItrust]

I’m just saying that the servant throughout Isaiah hasn’t changed. It’s the same one throughout:

But thou, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend. (41:8)

Thou whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the uttermost parts thereof, and said unto thee: 'Thou art My servant, I have chosen thee and not cast thee away’. (41:9)

Thou art My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified. (49:3)

And so on.

And note in 41:9 that it says: Thou art My servant, I have chosen thee and not cast thee away.

What about Jeremiah 31 starting at 31? God speaks about establishing an everlasting covenant, different from the one at Mt Sinai, so it can’t be the Mosaic covenant. Do Jews interpret the Mosaic covenant to be the same as the everlasting one? If “the covenant” in the OT can refer to two different things, why can’t there be two servants?

 

[YKohen]

But, to my question that I have wanted to ask a Jewish scholar for some time:

My chosen one, whom My soul desires;

Is there an explanation given to this attribute of G-d? Or, is ‘nephesh’ considered anthropomorphic ?

thanks so much, and shalom

micah

Anthropomorphic; just like (for instance):

And He said: ‘Thou canst not see My face, for man shall not see Me and live.’ And the LORD said: 'Behold, there is a place by Me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock. And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with My hand until I have passed by. And I will take away My hand, and thou shalt see My back; but My face shall not be seen. (Exodus 33:20-23)

And the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm… (Deut 26:8)

He will cover thee with His pinions, and under His wings shalt thou take refuge… (Psalms 91:4)

It’s all a figure of speech to make G-d, who is incomprehensible, less so.

And so on.

“Who My soul desires” simply is talking about G-d’s will.

 

[mercytruth]

Anthropomorphic; just like (for instance):

And He said: ‘Thou canst not see My face, for man shall not see Me and live.’ And the LORD said: 'Behold, there is a place by Me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock. And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with My hand until I have passed by. And I will take away My hand, and thou shalt see My back; but My face shall not be seen. (Exodus 33:20-23)

And the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm… (Deut 26:8)

He will cover thee with His pinions, and under His wings shalt thou take refuge… (Psalms 91:4)

It’s all a figure of speech to make G-d, who is incomprehensible, less so.

And so on.

“Who My soul desires” simply is talking about G-d’s will.

Thank you. So eventhough it is anthropromorphic it is speaking of G-d’s will.

I really need to re-visit Proverbs 30:19 with you. It is true that the Douay Rheims omits the portion, but the NAB Catholic edition does not.

More importantly, these citations from the Orthodox scriptures seem to contradict what your saying:

Yeshayah 7:14
Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

14 Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us) [See extensive commentary in The Translator To The Reader, page vii].

Mishle 30:18-20
Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

**18 There are shalosh which are too wonderful for me, indeed, four which I understand not;

19 The derech hanesher (way of the eagle) in the sky; the derech nachash upon a tzur (rock); the derech oniyah (way of a sailing vessel) in the midst of the yam (sea); and the derech gever (way of a man) with an almah (unmarried young virgin; see Gn 24:43,16,63-65.**

Bereshis 24:43
Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

43 Hinei, I stand by the ayin hamayim; and it shall come to pass, that when haAlmah haAlmah used here as synonym for na’arahbetulah, Genesis 24:16; see Isaiah 7:14, p.vii-xii] cometh forth to draw mayim, and I say to her, Give me, now, a little mayim of thy jar to drink;

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2030:18-20&version=OJB

I am misunderstanding something here?

shalom

micah

 

[YKohen]

What about Jeremiah 31 starting at 31? God speaks about establishing an everlasting covenant, different from the one at Mt Sinai, so it can’t be the Mosaic covenant. Do Jews interpret the Mosaic covenant to be the same as the everlasting one? If “the covenant” in the OT can refer to two different things, why can’t there be two servants?

meltzerboy dealt with that one yesterday here.

Not much to add to what he wrote.

I would just note that this covenant, like the ones mentioned elsewhere, is exclusively with “the house of Israel and with the house of Judah”- which you certainly don’t believe that the New Testament is.

Also see Psalm 105:

**8. He remembered His covenant forever, the word He had commanded to the thousandth generation.

1. Which He had made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac
2. And He set it up to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant**

And I Chronicles 16:

***13. The seed of Israel His servant, the children of Jacob, His chosen ones.

1. He is the Lord our God; throughout the earth are His judgments.
2. Remember His covenant forever*, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations.
3. [The covenant] which He had made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac.
4. And He set it up for Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant.**

 

[YKohen]

Thank you. So eventhough it is anthropromorphic it is speaking of G-d’s will.

Unless you want to also claim that G-d really does have wings (as in the Psalms verse that I quoted).

More importantly, these citations from the Orthodox scriptures seem to contradict what your saying…

I am misunderstanding something here?

shalom

micah

You’re not. Those who printed that did (and I’m being generous here). They’re definitely not quoting a Jewish Bible- even if they say they are. They’re quoting a Christian/messianic Bible.

Again, see the bottom of my post here.

 

[mercytruth]

Unless you want to also claim that G-d really does have wings (as in the Psalms verse that I quoted).

You’re not. Those who printed that did (and I’m being generous here). They’re definitely not quoting a Jewish Bible- even if they say they are. They’re quoting a Christian/messianic Bible.

Again, see the bottom of my post here.

What I wanted to know is whether ‘nephesh’ is somehow related to the human will, and by extension, to G-d’s will, in whose image and likeness we are made. Could you comment please, in what manner we are created in the image and likeness of G-d?

I do not blame the website which has a listing of all sorts of translations of the Bible. I do blame this Christian/messianic group who misrepresent their translation by calling it the Orthodox Jewish Bible.

How I dislike subterfuge.

thank you for your extreme patience

shalom

micah

 

[YKohen]

What I wanted to know is whether ‘nephesh’ is somehow related to the human will, and by extension, to G-d’s will, in whose image and likeness we are made. Could you comment please, in what manner we are created in the image and likeness of G-d?

There are many ways to interpret it, although based on my earlier post, it can’t possibly mean that G-d is corporeal. See these, for instance:

jewishideas.org/angel-shabbat/created-image-godthoughts-parashat-bereishith-

torah.org/features/genesis/topic2.html

mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/human.htm

I do not blame the website which has a listing of all sorts of translations of the Bible. I do blame this Christian/messianic group who misrepresent their translation by calling it the Orthodox Jewish Bible.

How I dislike subterfuge.

thank you for your extreme patience

shalom

micah

I looked it up and this is the “Orthodox Jewish Bible” that they use:

Version Information

The Orthodox Jewish Bible, completed by Phillip Goble in 2002, is an English language version that applies Yiddish and Hasidic cultural expressions to the Messianic Bible.

Copyright Information

The Orthodox Jewish Bible fourth edition, OJB. Copyright 2002,2003,2008,2010, 2011 by Artists for Israel International. All rights reserved.

biblegateway.com/versions/Orthodox-Jewish-Bible-OJB/

It is neither Orthodox nor Jewish. It even includes the New Testament!

Before I saw that, I agreed that it had to be a mistake. Now that I look at the site, I am 100% convinced that it was deliberate on their part

 

[mercytruth]

There are many ways to interpret it, although based on my earlier post, it can’t possibly mean that G-d is corporeal. See these, for instance:

jewishideas.org/angel-shabbat/created-image-godthoughts-parashat-bereishith-

torah.org/features/genesis/topic2.html

mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/human.htm

I looked it up and this is the “Orthodox Jewish Bible” that they use:

Version Information

The Orthodox Jewish Bible, completed by Phillip Goble in 2002, is an English language version that applies Yiddish and Hasidic cultural expressions to the Messianic Bible.

Copyright Information

The Orthodox Jewish Bible fourth edition, OJB. Copyright 2002,2003,2008,2010, 2011 by Artists for Israel International. All rights reserved.

biblegateway.com/versions/Orthodox-Jewish-Bible-OJB/

It is neither Orthodox nor Jewish. It even includes the New Testament!

Before I saw that, I agreed that it had to be a mistake. Now that I look at the site, I am 100% convinced that it was deliberate on their part

Thank you for those websites.

As far as that translation, I am 100% sure it is subterfuge, and therefore a dishonest representation of the Orthodox and Jewish Scriptures. I need to be very careful of sources.

You should know however, getting back to the Hebrew word, ‘almah’, there are seven occurrences in the Tanakh, in two of those occurrences it is translated ‘parthenon’ (virgin) in the Greek Septuagint of the Tanakh. (Gen.24:16, and Isaiah 7:14). So it is not as if the early church made up this understanding of the meaning of almah because it is translated as ‘parthenon’ twice in the Jewish Septuagint that way.

shalom

micah

 

[YKohen]

You should know however, getting back to the Hebrew word, ‘almah’, there are seven occurrences in the Tanakh, in two of those occurrences it is translated ‘parthenon’ (virgin) in the Greek Septuagint of the Tanakh. (Gen.24:16, and Isaiah 7:14). So it is not as if the early church made up this understanding of the meaning of almah because it is translated as ‘parthenon’ twice in the Jewish Septuagint that way.

shalom

micah

I’m no expert in the Septuagint: It has no importance to us, but I see in different articles that the text has been altered just as the above translation was today.

 

[mercytruth]

I’m no expert in the Septuagint: It has no importance to us, but I see in different articles that the text has been altered just as the above translation was today.

What I have seen is that the Jewish Greek Septuagint is more accurate than the Masoretic text:

Hershal Shanks[1] notes that ”…many Hebrew texts [are available] that were the base text for Septuagintal translations…”. Further he notes that what ”…texts like 4QSama show is that the Septuagintal translations are really quite reliable” and ”…gives new authority to the Greek translations against the Masoretic text”. Quoting Frank Moore Cross (a co-author of the book under review), Hershal continues ”We could scarcely hope to find closer agreement between the Old Greek [Septuagintal] tradition and 4QSama than actually is found in our fragments”.

Hershal Shanks, 4QSama - The Difficult Life of a Dead Sea Scroll, Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol 33 No 3, May/June 2007, pp66-70.

orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint

So in light of this archeological evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint translation of Genesis 24:16 and Isaiah 7:14 as ‘virgin’ is just as authoritative as the Masoretic text, if not more so.

shalom

micah

 

[YKohen]

What I have seen is that the Jewish Greek Septuagint is more accurate than the Masoretic text:

Hershal Shanks[1] notes that ”…many Hebrew texts [are available] that were the base text for Septuagintal translations…”. Further he notes that what ”…texts like 4QSama show is that the Septuagintal translations are really quite reliable” and ”…gives new authority to the Greek translations against the Masoretic text”. Quoting Frank Moore Cross (a co-author of the book under review), Hershal continues ”We could scarcely hope to find closer agreement between the Old Greek [Septuagintal] tradition and 4QSama than actually is found in our fragments”.

Hershal Shanks, 4QSama - The Difficult Life of a Dead Sea Scroll, Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol 33 No 3, May/June 2007, pp66-70.

orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint

So in light of this archeological evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint translation of Genesis 24:16 and Isaiah 7:14 as ‘virgin’ is just as authoritative as the Masoretic text, if not more so.

shalom

micah

Your own St. Jerome didn’t think the Septuagint was accurate, so he based his translations on the available Hebrew texts.

Isaiah 7:14 uses the same Hebrew word as Genesis does and Exodus does and Proverbs does, etc., and it isn’t “virgin” in any of them. There is linguistic uniformity- unlike with the Septuagint or the Vulgate.

PS Shanks has been described as “the world’s most influential amateur biblical archeologist”.

nytimes.com/1998/04/01/books/books-of-the-times-looking-for-jesus-and-jews-in-the-dead-sea-scrolls.html

Certainly doesn’t mean he’s the best- and not professional.