Jewish Argument: "Christians Distort Jewish Scriptures"

[dronald]

Not only a tough argument, but an old one too! My favourite argument was proposed first by Tertullian; I find it the most convincing.

(Lived 150-240)

An answer for the Jews, Chapter 9:
"Therefore, he says, shall a sign be given you. Behold, a virgin shall conceive in womb, and bear a son. But a sign from God, unless it had consisted in some portentous novelty, would not have appeared a sign. In a word, if, when you are anxious to cast any down from (a belief in) this divine prediction, or to convert whoever are simple, you have the audacity to lie, as if the Scripture contained (the announcement), that not a virgin, but a young female, was to conceive and bring forth; you are refuted even by this fact, that a daily occurrence— the pregnancy and parturition of a young female, namely— cannot possibly seem anything of a sign. And the setting before us, then, of a virgin-mother is deservedly believed to be a sign; but not equally so a warrior-infant. For there would not in this case again be involved the question of a sign; but, the sign of a novel birth having been awarded, the next step after the sign is, that there is enunciated a different ensuing ordering of the infant, who is to eat honey and butter. Nor is this, of course, for a sign. It is natural to infancy. "

 

[lax16]

Three important issues are omitted from this argument. One is that the original Septuagint, constructed over 2200 years ago (before Christianity) was a Greek translation ONLY of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible: that is, the Torah Law. It did NOT include the Prophets. That portion of the Hebrew Bible was not fashioned, that is, translated until about the third century A.D., and not by Jews but by the Church.

Meaning the Church may have translated it in a manner that would provide proof that Jesus was the Messiah?
What was happening between the Jews and the Christians during that time that would motivate them to do this?

Second, the word “parthenos” in Greek does not mean ONLY virgin, but also young woman, dependent on the context in which the word is used. In Genesis, for example, the word is used to mean the latter rather than the former.

So, it’s a 50/50 chance that it could mean virgin?

Finally, the notion that Isaiah refers to the Messiah in his prophecy has always been contested by Hebrew scholars. These proof-texts have been argued ever since Christians used them to confirm that Jesus is the Messiah according to the meaning of Isaiah’s text. The changes in the Hebrew text here, no doubt by the Church in the third century A.D., are the mainstay of dispute. Upon these changes, many misinterpretations follow.

Understandably so. Obviously both have a dog in the fight, however, it seems there must be a definitive answer.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Some Jews spoke Greek. Did the link state that the majority of Jews spoke Greek?

The quote said Jews “everywhere.” I would doubt the average Jew living in Babylon would have even know about the existence of the Septuagint.

 

[lax16]

The quote said Jews “everywhere.” I would doubt the average Jew living in Babylon would have even know about the existence of the Septuagint.

I have no idea about such things.