Questions about Judaism answered by a Jew!

  • Thread starter Thread starter lavikor201
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 2K
  • Views Views 217K
Status
Not open for further replies.
Shalom,

The passage says:

"Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he struck him on the hip socket; and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, "Let me go, for the day is breaking." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go, unless you bless me." So he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob." Then the man said, "You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with humans, and have prevailed." Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved.""- Genesis 32:24-30

Christians like to say here that Jacob wrestled a physical G-d in the flesh. They get this from the last line that says "seen G-d face to face." However, up until this point the person Jacob wrestles with is called simply "a man." Christians reconcile this by saying that this was actually a pre-incarnate Jesus, who is both man and G-d.

However, if this passage seems unclear because of the last passage, all you need to do is look to Hosea. Hosea recounts this event, and uses words that cannot be twisted to support the Christian position.

"Now the Lord has a contention with Judah, and to visit upon Jacob according to his ways; according to his deeds He shall recompense him. In the womb, he seized his brother's heel, and with his strength he strove with an angel." - Hosea 12:3-4

There it is, plain as day. Jacob wrestled with an angel, not a mangod.

What about this passage ?

Exodus 3
Moses and the Burning Bush

1 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up."

4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!"
And Moses said, "Here I am."

5 "Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." 6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

Doesn't this state that "the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush".
Then it says that "God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" "
So it makes it clear that the angel of the LORD and God is the same person. Then to make sure you cannot mistake it "Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob".

So the angel in the Burning Bush and The God of Abraham is the same person ?

How do you interpret it ?

YEh
 
Genesis 16
7 The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. 8 And he said, "Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?"
"I'm running away from my mistress Sarai," she answered.

9 Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her." 10 The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count."

11 The angel of the LORD also said to her:
"You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael, [a]
for the LORD has heard of your misery.

12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."

13 She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: "You are the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen [c] the One who sees me." 14 That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi [d] ; it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered.


How can the Angel of the LORD do this without him having the same power as G-d himself, only God can do this ?
The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count."

This is almost the same thing that G-d says to Abraham about his descendants Ishmael and Isaac.

Again this angel of the LORD seems to be with God and is God.
 
Shalom,

The passage says:

"Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he struck him on the hip socket; and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, "Let me go, for the day is breaking." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go, unless you bless me." So he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob." Then the man said, "You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with humans, and have prevailed." Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved.""- Genesis 32:24-30

Christians like to say here that Jacob wrestled a physical G-d in the flesh. They get this from the last line that says "seen G-d face to face." However, up until this point the person Jacob wrestles with is called simply "a man." Christians reconcile this by saying that this was actually a pre-incarnate Jesus, who is both man and G-d.

Can angels bless people ? Isn't this something only God can do ?

"Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him."

YEh
 
Shalom,

Doesn't this state that "the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush".
Then it says that "God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" "
So it makes it clear that the angel of the LORD and God is the same person. Then to make sure you cannot mistake it "Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob".

So the angel in the Burning Bush and The God of Abraham is the same person ?

How do you interpret it ?

YEh

In Exodus 3 the Torah describes Moses' vision as first seeing the burning bush, then an angel and finally he realizes it is G-d Himself.

Rav Bachya puts it well in the artscroll chumash:

"Like a man in a dark room suddenly exposed to blinding sunlight, Moses had to be exposed to prophecy gradually. First, he was shown a fire that was strange because it did not consume the bush. Then it was revealed to him that an angel was in the fire, and once he had become accustomed to this new phenomenon, he was given the vision of G-d Himself (R' Bachya).​

How can the Angel of the LORD do this without him having the same power as G-d himself, only God can do this ?
The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count."

This is almost the same thing that G-d says to Abraham about his descendants Ishmael and Isaac.

Again this angel of the LORD seems to be with God and is God.

For each statement, another angel was sent to her. Therefore, the word Maleekha, angel, is used with each statement. — [from Gen. Rabbah 45:7]

The proper translation says:

[Another] angel said in G-d's name, 'I will grant you many descendants. They will be so many that they will be uncountable.'​

Since angels are messengers of G-d (the word literally means messenger and is used to speak of humans and angels) then he was given the task of "making it so." Remember that angels have no free will so they simply do what G-d bids them to do.

There are 3 angels in this text and the term for angel is clearly used (îìàê) -- so does you think that G-d became an angel? So what, now instead of a trinity we have a quartet or sextet?

The angel here is speaking for G-d.

Can angels bless people ? Isn't this something only God can do ?

"Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him."

YEh

Excuse me? I bless my son every Friday night. A special blessing a father gives to his son on Shabbat. Anyone can bless anyone… I’ll bless you right now. “May you have a proper understanding of the Torah from this moment, on!”… now you can say “Amen”. :-)

The Torah says:

I will bless those who bless you, and he who curses you, I will curse. All the families of the earth will be blessed through you.'​

Therefore, people beside G-d can certainly bless others. This does not mean the angel was not speaking as a messanger on G-d's behalf as I explained a few answers above.
 
Rav, in the Christian understanding of blessing, even a human can bless God. Is this also true within the Jewish understanding?
 
It seems that my question got missed, so I'll just quote myself:

It reminds me of Laylatul Qadr which is the night in which the Qur'an was revealed so Muslims usually spend the whole night reading the Qur'an and doing other acts of worship.

But it's not a holiday per se, we only have two + the day of Friday. How many holidays do you have?
 
Shalom rav,

it must be extremely hard answering all of these questions by urself!!

anyways, but i do have one question.. sorry! lol

- Do prophets HAVE to be descendents of Isaac? like could a let's say chinese person be a prophet, or?
 
Rav, in the Christian understanding of blessing, even a human can bless God. Is this also true within the Jewish understanding?

Shalom Grace Seeker,

A man could bless G-d, I assume. Do you mean by reciting a prayer "Blessed are you L-rd our G-d who has not made me a slave" baruch attah Hashem, alekoenu melech haolam, shelo asani aved". Which is a blessing said in the morning part of morning prayer service shachrite.

It seems that my question got missed

Shalom Abu Zakariya,

I'm sorry.

A. The Jewish holidays number a total of eight. They divide into two categories: the Torah-mandated, and the ones mandated by The Rabbis. The Torah-mandated holidays are Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Shmini Atzeret/Simchat Torah, Pesach, and Shavuot. The ones mandated by The Rabbis are Chanukah and Purim.

B. The purpose of the holidays is to commemorate particular events in Jewish history, to clear some time in your life to work on various aspects of your life, or both. C. Each holiday is briefly but fully described throughout AskMoses. Click around to learn more about each.When are the holidays celebrated?

1. Tishrei, the Month of Holidays -- No month in the Jewish calendar has more holidays than Tishrei (pronounced TISH-ray), the first month of the Jewish year—it contains five: Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Hoshanah Rabbah and Shmini Atzeret/Simchat Torah.

2. Light up Winter with Joy -- Chanukah is the first of the two non-Torah-mentioned holidays, beginning on the 25th of the Hebrew month of Kislev (pronounced KISS-lehv) and extending for eight days until the third of Teves (pronounced TAY-vess). The other is Purim. Kislev, and hence, Chanukah, usually corresponds to December, while Purim falls on the fourteenth of Adar, which usually corresponds to February.

3. Celebrate Springtime’s Bounty -- Both Pesach and Shavuot double as celebrations of the good earth and its bountiful harvest. Pesach, which usually falls in March or April, is also known as Chag Ha’asif (pronounced Khahg Ha-AH-seef), or Holiday of Gathering, marking the beginning of the harvest season. Likewise, Shavuot, which falls seven weeks after Pesach, usually late May or early June, celebrates the harvest of the first fruits of the orchard in addition to the giving of the Torah.​

I hope this helps. :-)

Do prophets HAVE to be descendents of Isaac? like could a let's say chinese person be a prophet, or?

Shalom thirdwatch512,

A prophet must be a Jew. To be a prophet for our people.
 
Micah 5 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Micah 5

1Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

2But 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 everlasting.

3Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.

4And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

What is Jewish understanding of this passage mean ?

From a Christian perspective it is talking about the Messiah who will come from Bethlehem, and he will be the king of israel. He has existed though for a long time before his coming, even for eternity he has existed.

Then he says he will give up his people (because the Jews rejected the Messiah, as prophecised), and they will travail the earth, then they will return to Israel. And his message shall be known to the entire earth.

Who could be the Messiah (a Jew) who was born in Bethlehem, will become a king of Israel and has existed before his arrival, whose message will reach the entire earth ??

Which person in history has acheived all this besides Jesus ??
 
Isaiah 9

6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.


And this quote too, I would like your opinion on.

From the Christian perspective it talks of the Messiah who will be born and given to the Jewish people who is refered to as a son. He will rule Israel with a government.
And his name will be called, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Which person could he be referring to but God himself because he is the eternal Mighty God.
He will rule forever on the throne of King David.

Who could this be referring to ? Who was born unto Israel (from Bethlehem) who is called a Son, who is going to rule the world by his just and peaceful governement forever, who was both son and mighty God who claimed to be eternal with the father, from the family of King David, (Jesus was born into the family of Joseph, who is related to King David) ??

Only Jesus fulfills the prophecies according to the Jewish Bible.
 
What is Jewish understanding of this passage mean ?

From a Christian perspective it is talking about the Messiah who will come from Bethlehem, and he will be the king of israel. He has existed though for a long time before his coming, even for eternity he has existed.

Then he says he will give up his people (because the Jews rejected the Messiah, as prophecised), and they will travail the earth, then they will return to Israel. And his message shall be known to the entire earth.

Who could be the Messiah (a Jew) who was born in Bethlehem, will become a king of Israel and has existed before his arrival, whose message will reach the entire earth ??

Which person in history has acheived all this besides Jesus ??

Shalom, Here is the complete refutation.

I. Introduction

The Christian apologetic and missionary claim that Bethlehem is the birthplace of the Messiah was briefly considered in another essay[1][1]. A more detailed analysis of the claim will be the focus of the present essay.

In the opening verse of the second chapter in the Gospel of Matthew, the author declares that Bethlehem was the birthplace of Jesus:

Matthew 2:1(KJV) – Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, …

The author then claims this event to be a "fulfillment" of a prophecy found in the Hebrew Bible, which he states as follows:

Matthew 2:5-6(KJV) – (5) And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, (6) And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

According to Christian apologists and missionaries, Matthew 2:6 points to Micah 5:2 in their Old Testament; in the Hebrew Bible this is Micah 5:1. Micah 5:1[2][2][2] has thus become a popular Christian "proof-text" in the apologist and missionary's portfolio.

A careful analysis of the Hebrew text in Micah 5:1 demonstrates that the false application by the Greek rendition of this verse in the New Testament, and its subsequent mistranslation in the King James Version (KJV) Old Testament (and in other Christian Bibles), are inconsistent with the teachings of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, the KJV Old Testament's rendition of a key phrase in the verse is also inconsistent with other instances of the same phrase elsewhere in the King James Version Bible.

II. Comparison of Jewish and Christian Translations, and the New Testament Application

Table II-1 provides a side-by-side comparison between the verse from the KJV New Testament, the KJV Old Testament rendition of the verse, and a Jewish translation of the original verse. For reference, the corresponding verse from the Hebrew Bible is also displayed in the table. As was already pointed out above, note that the KJV Old Testament verse number is different from the verse number as it appears in the Hebrew Bible. The highlighted phrase in both the Jewish and KJV translations corresponds to the highlighted phrase shown in the Hebrew text.

Table II-1 – Comparing Matthew 2:6 with Micah 5:1[2]

table1bm4.png
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/3415/table1bm4.png [/img]

Aside from the fact that Matthew 2:6 leaves out the last phrase of the source verse and is, at best, a paraphrase of the quoted portion, there are a number of problems with the Micah 5:2 rendition in the KJV. These problems, as well as the truncated rendition of the verse in the New Testament, will be explained in the analysis.

III. Analysis of the Passage

To help facilitate the analysis, the correct translation of Micah 5:1 is separated into two segments:

Segment A

Micah 5:1A – And you, Bethlehem Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah – from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel;

Segment B

Micah 5:1B – and his origin is from old, from ancient days.

Segment A and Segment B will now be separately analyzed.

  • Analysis of Segment A
Micah 5:1A – And you, Bethlehem Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah – from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel;

The name Bethlehem, in the original Hebrew is (beit-lehem), which literally means House of Lehem [(lehem) means bread, or (generic) food]. Therefore, the title (beit-lehem) may refer either to the town or to a clan with the name (lehem). In the case of Micah 5:1, the reference is to a clan. How can one determine this?

The first clue is found in the opening phrase of the verse, where the Hebrew is (veatah beit-lehem ephratah). The term (veatah) has the components (ve), the preposition and, and (atah), the pronoun you for the 2nd-person, singular, masculine gender. Thus, (veatah) translates as and you, using the 2nd-person, singular, masculine gender pronoun (the KJV has but you in Micah 5:2; note, however, how the KJV translators correctly render this phrase as And thou in Mt 2:6!). The rest of the phrase in Segment A is also cast in a 2nd-person, singular, masculine gender conjugation. Following this term (veatah) is the phrase (beit-lehem ephratah), where (ephratah) or, alternatively, (ephrat), is an alternate name for the town of Bethlehem in Judah in the Hebrew Bible, as seen from the following example:

Genesis 35:19(KJV) - And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrat (ephrat), which is Bethlehem (beit-lehem).

In the Hebrew Bible, singular pronouns, such as (atah), you, are often used interchangeably in both the singular and plural context. In the case of Micah 5:1, (atah) is a singular compound entity, a specific clan, so that the context is the [plural, masculine] you. Though the singular usage is the most common one, the plural application occurs as well (e.g., Exod 33:3, Deut 9:6). Therefore, the one being addressed here in Micah 5:1 is (beit-lehem), which is the name of a family, or clan, residing in the town of (ephratah), Ephratah, i.e., in the town of Bethlehem. According to this analysis, perhaps a more accurate version of Segment A (and, thus, Micah 5:1) would be:

Micah 5:1A – And you, House of Lehem [from] Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah – from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel;

In the expression (bealphei yehudah), amongst the clans of Judah, contains a plural possessive construct of the Hebrew term (eleph), (alphei), which is used in the context of clans of …. The most common application of (eleph) in the Hebrew Bible is a thousand, which is its general meaning. However, there are instances in the Hebrew Bible where (eleph) is used in reference to a portion of a tribe, i.e., a clan or family. Micah 5:1 is one of these cases, and others are found at Numbers 31:5, Deuteronomy 33:17, Joshua 22:14, Judges 6:15, and 1 Samuel 10:19, 23:23. It is interesting to note that most translators (both Jewish and Christian) are consistent in their (mis)translation of this word in all but one of these instances, the one at Judges 6:15, where the term (alpi) [1st-person, singular conjugation of the noun (eleph)] is correctly translated as my family. Although, in general, it is not a serious contextual discrepancy when using a thousand in place of a clan in the above mentioned places, the correct context in Micah 5:1 is that the reference is to a [particular] clan from the town of Bethlehem. This case is further supported by the fact that members of a clan are frequently referred to by the name of the clan, often derived from the name of its progenitor, as is seen from the following example:

Numbers 3:27 - And of Kohath, the Amramite family, and the Izharite family, and the Hebronite family, and the Uzzielite family; these are the Kohathite families.

Regarding someone from the Bethlehemite clan [(beit-ha'lahmi)], the Hebrew Bible has passages such as the following:

1 Samuel 16:1 - And the L-rd said to Samuel, "Until when will you mourn for Saul, that I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go, I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite [(beit-ha'lahmi)], for I have found among his sons a king for Me.

Another reference in the Hebrew Bible is even more explicit:

1 Samuel 17:12 - And David was the son of this man from Ephrat [(ephrati)] of the House of Lehem [(mi'beit-lehem)] in Judah, whose name was Jesse, and he had eight sons; and the man, who was elderly in Saul's time, was among the [respected] men.

In the Hebrew language, which has no neuter gender, i.e., a separate Hebrew word for it does not exist, cities and towns are assigned the feminine gender. So, if it were the town of Bethlehem being addressed in Micah 5:1, the opening term would have been (veat), such as in Jeremiah 50:24 and elsewhere, the components of which are (ve), the preposition and, and (at), the Biblical form of the pronoun you for the 2nd-person, singular, feminine gender. Consequently, (veat) translates as and you, with the 2nd-person, singular, feminine gender pronoun. Understanding this difference is essential for the correct reading of this verse!

The KJV translators, lacking the required level of proficiency of the Hebrew language, did not recognize that a certain clan, the House of Lehem, is being addressed in Micah 5:1[2]. Rather, from the sources they used, one of which was most likely the Christian LXX (that which Christians mistakenly call the Septuagint), it appeared to them that the town of Bethlehem is being addressed here. Consequently, they characterize Bethlehem as a small and insignificant town from the territory of Judah, in an introductory phrase to the prophecy. Namely, that in spite of its insignificance, the town will be the birthplace of the promised Messiah.

However, since it is the clan, the House of Lehem, and not the town, that is being addressed here by Micah, it does not matter in which town the Messiah will be born; rather, it is the clan, the family, that is significant! The phrase in Segment B, "and his origin is from old", simply means the Messiah will come from a family with a long lineage.

How can one learn more about the particular clan to which this verse refers? The ancestry of the known members of the clan is a good place from which to start the investigation, and it leads to a woman named Ruth, a Moabitess, who is among the ancestors of King David. Ruth was married to one of the two sons Elimelech and Naomi, a family that hailed from Bethlehem.

A famine in Judah forced Elimelech to take his family to a place that had food, and they wound up in the Land of Moab. Originally, Elimelech and Naomi’s plan was to go to Moab just to wait out the famine, but they then decided to remain there, a decision that eventually led to tragic consequences. Elimelech and Naomi's two sons, Killion and Mahlon (Ephrathites from House of Lehem [Ruth 1:2]), married Gentile women, Orpah and Ruth, respectively. Elimelech and his two sons died while the family was in Moab, leaving the three women, Naomi, Orpah, and Ruth, as widows. Naomi made plans to return alone to her home in the Kingdom of Judah, and she instructed her two daughters-in-law to go back to their people, the Moabites. Orpah approached her mother-in-law, kissed her goodbye and left. Ruth came over to Naomi, held on to her and did not let go. Ruth informed Naomi that she was coming with her; and even though Naomi attempted to dissuade her from returning to the famine in Judah, Ruth insisted and said to her:

Ruth 1:16-17 – (16) … Do not entreat me to leave you, or to desist from following you; for wherever you go, I will go; and where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your G-d is my G-d; (17) Wherever you die, will I die, and there will I be buried; the L-rd may do so to me, and so may He continue, for [only] death will separate me from you.

From Ruth's declaration of her intentions to Naomi when she says, “…For where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people are my people, and your G-d is my G-d;…”, it is understood that she converted to Judaism. But Ruth, a person of outstanding character, had a problematic ancestry – she was a Moabite woman. This is what the Torah instructs the Israelites about a Moabite:

Deuteronomy 23:4 - An Ammonite [(ammoni)] and a Moabite [(mo'avi)] shall not enter into the congregation of the L-rd; even the tenth generation shall never enter into the congregation of the L-rd.

In other words, Ammonites and Moabites were prohibited from ever converting to Judaism. Note, however, that in the Hebrew text, the terms (ammoni) and (mo'avi) are used, terms that translate as an Ammonite (male) and a Moabite (male), respectively. The corresponding terms for a female, as used in the Hebrew Bible are, (ammonit) and (mo'avit) [or (mo'avi'yah)].

The reason for the prohibition is stated immediately following it:

Deuteronomy 23:5-6 – (5) Because they did not greet you with bread and water on the way, when you left Egypt, and because he [Moab] hired Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim against you, to curse you. (6) But the L-rd, your G-d, did not want to listen to Balaam. So the L-rd, your G-d, transformed the curse into a blessing for you, because the L-rd, your G-d, loves you.

And this is repeated at a much later time by Nehemiah:

Nehemiah 13:1-2 – (1) On that day the Book of Moses was read to be heard by the people; and it was found written therein that an Ammonite [(ammoni)] and a Moabite [(mo'avi)] may not enter into the congregation of G-d forever; (2) Because they did not come to meet the people of Israel with bread and with water, and [instead] hired Balaam against them, to curse them; and our G-d turned the curse into a blessing.

Considering this prohibition, how was Ruth the Moabitess able to "… enter into the congregation of the L-rd…"? How could she become the ancestor of the greatest king of the Jewish people, King David? The Sages explain in the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Yevamot, 76b; Tractate Ketubot, 7b) that this prohibition applies only to Ammonite and Moabite men, and not to women. This is because only a man was expected to leave his house and bring food and drink to the traveler; a woman was not expected to do that for obvious reasons. Thus, the interpretation of the law (Deut 23:4), which had to be rendered by ten elders, that the prohibition on becoming one of the assembly of the L-rd, i.e., to be admitted into the community of Israel, applied only to Ammonite and Moabite men and not to Ammonite and Moabite women. This clarified the law, and enabled Boaz to marry Ruth the Moabitess. So, the (beit-lehem) clan, with a history marred by Ruth's ancestry of a nation that was excluded from Judaism, is characterized by the phrase, "you SHOULD HAVE BEEN the LOWEST amongst the CLANS of Judah", in Segment A. This phrase reflects the uneasiness people may have had even with King David, whose great-grandmother was a Moabitess. Yet, the fact is that out of this clan rose the greatest king of Israel, and the promise is made that the Messiah will also come from it.

This passage is all about King David's ancestry, with the Messiah being but a "by-product" of it. This fact is even confirmed by the rendition in The New Jerusalem Bible (a Christian translation), whose translators state the following in a footnote to this verse (Micah 5:2; only the relevant portion of the footnote is being quoted here):

Micah is thinking of the ancient origin of the dynasty of David, Rt 4:11,17,18-22; 1 S 17:12. The evangelists later interpreted this passage as a prophecy of Christ’s birthplace.

In other words, while this passage does not rule out the town of Bethlehem as being the Messiah's birthplace, as could be any other place, the notion that it is his birthplace was introduced later, in the New Testament, as an interpretation by the Gospel writers.

B. Segment B


Micah 5:1B – and his origin is from old, from ancient days.

The fact that Segment A of Micah 5:1 voids the positive identification of Bethlehem as the Messiah's birthplace, creates a serious problem for the Church. This problem is compounded by the closing phrase in the Hebrew text in Segment B, (mi'y'mei olam), from ancient days.

Micah, who was a contemporary of the prophets Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah, and of King Hezekiah (around 730 B.C.E.), states something special here, namely, that the origin of the Messiah would be from Bethlehem, from the long ago past, from ancient days. However, this statement conflicts with Christian theology, since Jesus is considered as having been around since the beginning of time, since before the Creation, and the expression from ancient days does not satisfy this condition. To "rectify" this problem, many Christian translators simply replace ancient days with days of eternity, or everlasting, or days of time indefinite (see, e.g., KJV, NAS, NWT). How can one determine who is telling the truth?

The Hebrew expression (yemei olam), ancient days, is used in Micah 5:1 with the preposition (mi-), from, as (mi'y'mei olam), from ancient days. Table III.B-1 shows all six instances in the Hebrew Bible of the expression (yemei olam), ancient days, including its combinations with various prepositions. Also shown in the table are the respective renditions of these expressions in the KJV.

Table III.B-1 – KJV renditions of the expression (yemei olam) in the Hebrew Bible

table2cc0.png


Note that the expression is correctly translated in the KJV in five out of the six cases as days of old, which is synonymous with ancient days, yet at Micah 5:2 it is rendered as from everlasting. What could have motivated the KJV translators to render the same expression correctly in all but one place, the one exception being at Micah 5:2, which speaks of the Messiah? Could it be that replacing from ancient days with from everlasting in this passage would "harmonize" this Old Testament prophecy with Christian theology? Did the KJV translators engage here in an act of "pious fraud"?

For the sake of completeness and fairness, it should be noted that, in contrast to the KJV (and several other Christian Bibles), some Christian translators have correctly rendered this phrase, e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV, RSV, The New Jerusalem Bible, among others.

  • Matthew 2:6
As was demonstrated above, the phrase from ancient days brings the reader back to King David and his ancestors, which created a serious theological problem for Christianity. It was also shown how the KJV translators attempted to "solve" this problem in their rendition of Micah 5:2. The author of the Gospel of Matthew apparently recognized this problem as he was attempting to construct a cohesive scenario, and his creative way of dealing with the true context of Micah 5:1[2] was to simply restates this verse:

Matthew 2:6(KJV) – And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Upon comparing Matthew 2:6 with even the KJV rendition of Micah 5:1[2], the following changes are evident in the part that corresponds to the passage in the KJV equivalent of Segment A:

U The name of the place, Ephratah, is absent from the verse.

U A subtle change in context takes place, from "though thou be little among the thousands of Judah", in the KJV Old Testament, to "thou … art not the least among the princes of Juda", in the KJV New Testament.

U The generic title of ruler in the KJV Old Testament is replaced with the specific position of Governor In the KJV New Testament.

As was already noted earlier, the author of the Gospel of Matthew uses a truncated version of Micah 5:1[2] in Matthew 2:6. Thus, the obvious change is:

U Segment B of the original verse was deleted

Clearly, Segment A, being a rather straight forward passage that could refer to the Messiah hailing from Bethlehem, required just a minor amount of editing to get it to "line up" with the rest of his story.

Regarding Segment B, which is disastrous to Christian theology, the author of the Gospel of Matthew does something interesting, as he also does in other places as well (e.g., Mt 2:13). He deletes the problematic part (Segment B) of Micah 5:1[2] so that it is absent from Matthew 2:6; he only applied an edited version of Segment A to what he wrote in Matthew 2:6. The problematic part would have drawn the reader to the origin of the Messiah, some 200-300 years behind Micah on the historical time scale, to King David himself.

The author of the Gospel of Matthew refused to accept the words of the Prophet Micah, because they describe Bethlehem as the least significant of the clans and communities of Judah. How can that be, if the Messiah is to be born there? The Messiah cannot be born in the insignificant place that is the lowest on the totem pole. This action demonstrates that the author of the Gospel of Matthew knew and understood very little of the Hebrew Bible, and that he did not understand that the reference here was to Ruth. So, in order to tailor this passage to fit his paradigm, he not only applied a portion of the verse out-of-context by dropping the problematic part of it, but he also changed the context of that which is written in the Hebrew Bible by reversing the you are to read you are not.

In contrast to the author of the Gospel of Matthew, the author of the Gospel of Luke was somewhat more careful. While he insists that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he makes the correct connection, that it was the city of David (Lk 2:4,11). There are other instances where the author of the Gospel of Matthew, allegedly a Jew, made a mistake, while the author of the Gospel of Luke, allegedly a Gentile, used much more care in dealing with the same subject. One notable example is the application of Zechariah 9:9-10 in the Gospels. As dealt with in Matthew 21:1-7, the passage has Jesus coming into Jerusalem on two animals, while in Luke 19:29-35, Jesus is said to be coming on one animal.

IV. Summary


Is Micah 5:1[2] a prophecy that the (Jewish) Messiah will be born in Bethlehem? The Christian claim is that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy by being born in Bethlehem. As was demonstrated in the analysis, the town of Bethlehem was the place from which King David's family originated, and this prophecy speaks of Bethlehem as the Messiah's place of origin, though not necessarily his place of birth. The Hebrew text clearly states that the Messiah's ancestors came from Bethlehem.

Since the KJV translation of the Hebrew Bible came many centuries after the Gospel of Matthew was written, the only option available to Christian translators for "harmonizing" Micah 5:2 with Christian theology and Matthew 2:6 was to suitably alter the context of the source verse. Since Christians generally study the New Testament first, their theological ideas are well established by the time they proceed to the Old Testament to look for the "pointers". So that the discrepancies between Matthew 2:6 and Micah 5:2 are not likely to even be noticed.

Using the logic of the Christian claim, and considering the many thousands of people having come from Bethlehem during its history, how is it possible to identify which one of them was the Messiah? It is also worth noting that, relative to the important messianic attributes spelled out by the Jewish prophets in the Hebrew Bible, which Jesus did not fulfill, being born in Bethlehem is inconsequential, even if it were true.

[3][1] Matthew 2: Is it False, or Is it True? Copyright © 2002, Uri Yosef for http://www.MessiahTruth.com.
All rights reserved.
[4][2] The notation Micah 5:1[2] shows the verse number from the Hebrew Bible first, followed by the corresponding verse number from the Christian Old Testament shown in brackets.
 
Last edited:
And this quote too, I would like your opinion on.

From the Christian perspective it talks of the Messiah who will be born and given to the Jewish people who is refered to as a son. He will rule Israel with a government.
And his name will be called, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Which person could he be referring to but God himself because he is the eternal Mighty God.
He will rule forever on the throne of King David.

Who could this be referring to ? Who was born unto Israel (from Bethlehem) who is called a Son, who is going to rule the world by his just and peaceful governement forever, who was both son and mighty God who claimed to be eternal with the father, from the family of King David, (Jesus was born into the family of Joseph, who is related to King David) ??

Only Jesus fulfills the prophecies according to the Jewish Bible.

I. Introduction

The passage Isaiah 9:5-6[1][1] is an important "proof-text" in the portfolio of Christian apologists and missionaries, one that is claimed to foretell the advent of the Christian Messiah, Jesus.

A detailed study and analysis of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 9:5-6 within its proper context, and using other relevant passages found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, demonstrates how this passage describes historic events that occurred during the era in which these words were spoken by Isaiah, and is not messianic prophecy.

II. Review and Comparison of English Translations of Is 9:5-6[6-7]

Table II-1 shows the Hebrew text and side-by-side English renditions of the passage Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7]; the King James Version (KJV) translation in the left column and a Jewish translation in the middle column next to the Hebrew text. The KJV rendition also points to cross-referenced passages in the New Testament, references that were taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

Table II-1 – Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7]

table3zz3.png


(1) Luke 2:11(KJV) – For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is
Christ the Lord.
(2) John 3:16(KJV) - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(3) Matthew 28:18(KJV) – And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given
unto me in heaven and in earth.
1 Corinthians 15:25(KJV) - For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
(4) Luke 1:32-33(KJV) – (32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest:
and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
(33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his
kingdom there shall be no end.

The most significant differences in the two translations are found in the first verse, Isaiah 9:5[6]. One such difference is that the Hebrew text, as reflected in the Jewish translation, uses verbs that are conjugated in the past tense, and which describe a sequence of events that has already occurred, while the KJV translation uses the present and future tenses, thereby describing events that are contemporary and also still to come. The other important difference between the two renditions of the first verse is in the various names/titles ascribed to this child. The Jewish translation lists four, none of which is modified with a definite article the (as in the Hebrew text). The Christian translation lists five, the first two of which are split out of the first Hebrew one and are without a definite article, and each of the last three has a definite article attached, and it is capitalized in all three cases.

With the exception of a subtle difference in the respective renditions of the second verse, Isaiah 9:6[7], other differences are, in general, insignificant with respect to the context of the passage; they are reasonable variations in translation due to the fact that Hebrew and English/Greek belong to different language families. Both the Hebrew text and the Jewish translation of this verse capture the message – the explanation of the series of names/titles from the previous verse – in one sentence. Yet, the KJV translators start a new sentence with Isaiah 9:6[7], which removes the continuity from the previous verse, and then break this verse into two separate sentences, which results in an abstruse redirection of the focus in order to support their translation of the previous verse, as will be demonstrated later.

III. Overview of Christian and Jewish Interpretations of Is 9:5-6[6-7]


A. The Christian Interpretation

Only a summary of the Christian interpretation is provided here. More complete and detailed descriptions by well-known Christian commentators, such as Matthew Henry and Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, are outside the scope of this essay and may be found in other sources.

In the common Christian perspective, this passage is a messianic prophecy that foretells the birth of Jesus, his divinity, and his destined mission as the promised King/Messiah. Though the authors of the New Testament never explicitly cite any portion of these two verses, Christians will often point to the passages shown under Table II-1, which are hindsight references inserted by the translators, not by the authors, as evidence that the prophecy in Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7] was fulfilled.

III. The Jewish Interpretation


This, too, is only a summary of the Jewish interpretation. A detailed analysis and commentary will follow.

According to the Jewish perspective, Isaiah 9:5-6 is not a messianic prophecy. The correct context of this passage is that it describes events that had already taken place in Jewish history, namely, events concerning the birth of this child (believed to be Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz), and a prophecy concerning his future as King of Judah. Hezekiah's role was to lift Judah from the degenerate conditions into which it had sunk, and he would lead the indestructible faithful "Remnant of Israel". This passage speaks of the wonders performed by G-d for Hezekiah as King of Judah, and in it, the Prophet expresses his praise of G-d for sparing Hezekiah and his kingdom from demise at the hands of Sannheriv, who besieged Jerusalem.

IV. Historic Events or Messianic Prophecy?


A comparison of the Christian and Jewish perspectives on Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7] shows that both cannot be valid simultaneously. The question is: “Which of the two interpretations is consistent with the Hebrew Bible (and the historical record)?

A. Hebrew Linguistic Analysis


Significant differences exist between the Hebrew text of the passage and its rendition by the KJV.

1. Tenses

As was noted above, the Hebrew text of the opening phrases of Isaiah 9:5 utilizes verbs which are conjugated in the past tense, while the KJV translation of this verse, which is Isaiah 9:6 in Christian Bibles, utilizes a combination of present and future tenses in the corresponding phrases.

The first verb that appears in the verse is (yulad). This is a conjugation of the root verb (yalad), [to] bear, in the 3rd-person, singular, masculine, past tense, in the pu'al stem, a passive verb construct, that gives it the meaning has been born or was born, depending on the context of the passage in which it appears. The KJV renders (yulad) at Isaiah 9:6 as is born, in the present tense, which conflicts with the Jewish translation. A simple word study, using other applications of this identical term in the Hebrew Bible, helps resolve this issue. Although it is, in general, preferable to study identical terminology as applied within a specific Book of the Hebrew Bible, this is not always possible. There are 15 identical instances (in terms of both spelling and vowel markings) of the term (yulad) in the Hebrew Bible, only one of which appears in the Book of Isaiah - at Isaiah 9:5. Of the remaining 14 instances, on seven occasions (Gen 10:21,25, 35:26, 46:22,27, 51:50; 1 Chron 1:19), the KJV correctly renders the term as were born, where the references are to more than one son (Biblical Hebrew does, at times, interchange singular with plural nouns and conjugated verbs). These cases will be excluded from the analysis since they concern a plurality and not a single subject, which leaves a sample of eight cases to be included in the analysis, which is shown in Table IV.A.1-1.

Table IV.A.1-1 – Analysis of the term (yulad)

table4ff2.png

While the Jewish renditions cast all eight occurrences in some form of the past tense, the KJV renditions are inconsistent – in the past tense on five occasions, and in the present tense on three occasions (including Isaiah 9:6).

The next verb that appears in the verse is (nitan). This is a conjugation of the root verb (natan), [to] give, in the 3rd-person, singular, masculine, past tense, in the niph'al stem, a passive verb construct, that gives it the meaning has been given or was given, depending on the context of the passage in which it appears. The KJV renders (nitan) at Isaiah 9:6 as is given, in the present tense, which conflicts with the Jewish translation. A simple word study, using other applications of this identical term in the Hebrew Bible, will help resolve this issue. As was noted above, it is best to remain within a given Book when doing a word study, though it is not always possible to do so. There are 14 identical instances of the term (nitan) in the Hebrew Bible, two of which appear in the Book of Isaiah - at Isaiah 9:5 and at Isaiah 35:2. Since a sample of two is inadequate, all 14 cases are included in the analysis, which is shown in Table IV.A.1-2.

Table IV.A.1-2 – Analysis of the term (nitan)

table5tt2.png

While the Jewish renditions cast all occurrences in some form of the past tense, the KJV renditions are inconsistent – in the past tense on six occasions, in the present tense on seven occasions (including Isaiah 9:6), and once in the future tense.

The next verb that appears in the verse is (va'tehi). This term is a combination of the conjugated verb, (tehi) and a special form, (va-), of the preposition (ve-) [called (vav-ha'khibur), the conjunctive-vav, which is the preposition and]. The verb (tehi) is a poetic form of the conjugation of the root verb (haya), [to] be, in the 3rd-person, singular, feminine, future tense, in the pa'al/qal stem, an active verb construct, which translates as [it {fem.}] shall be. [Note: Since the Hebrew language has no neuter gender, all nouns are either masculine or feminine, and the neuter gender must be inferred from the context when translating]. Together with the preposition (ve-), and, this would then be and [it {fem.}] shall be. However, as noted above, the preposition appears in a special form called in Hebrew (vav-ha'hipuch), the conversive-vav, which, in addition to functioning as the preposition and, also reverses the tense of the verb it modifies. In other words, if the verb is in the past tense, it is changed to the future tense, and vice versa. Putting all this together, the verb (va'tehi) translates as and [it {fem.}] was [placed], i.e., a verb conjugated in the 3rd-person, singular, feminine, past tense. The KJV renders (va'tehi) in Isaiah 9:6 as [it] shall be [placed], in the future tense, which conflicts with the Jewish translation. There are 85 identical instances of (va'tehi) in the Hebrew Bible, five of which appear in the Book of Isaiah - at Isaiah 5:25, 9:5, 23:3, 29:11,13. This sample of five cases is included in the analysis, which is shown in Table IV.A.1-3.

Table IV.A.1-3 – Analysis of the term (va'tehi)
table6kh9.png


* - The Hebrew is actually in the singular, which would literally translate as and [it] was…
** - The context here is clearly has become, i.e., it is something that has taken place.

While the Jewish renditions cast all of the occurrences in some form of the past tense, the KJV renditions are inconsistent – twice in the past tense, twice in the present tense, and once in the future tense, at Isaiah 9:6.

The last verb that appears in the verse is (va'yiqra). As in the previous case, this term, too, is a combination of the conjugated verb (yiqra) and the special preposition (va-), the conversive-vav [(vav-ha'hipuch)], the net effect of which is the addition of the preposition and to the verb of the same conjugation but with a reversed tense. The verb (yiqra) is the conjugation of the root verb (qara), [to] call, in the 3rd-person, singular, masculine, future tense, in the pa'al/qal stem, an active verb construct, which translates as [he] shall call. Thus, the combination (va'yiqra) translates as and [he] called, where the future tense has been reversed to the past tense. The KJV renders (va'yiqra) in Isaiah 9:6 as shall be called, in the future tense, and in a passive form, which conflicts with the Jewish translation. There are 205 identical instances of (va'yiqra) in the Hebrew Bible, four of which appear in the Book of Isaiah – at Isaiah 9:5, 21:8, 22:12, 36:13. This sample of four cases is included in the analysis, which is shown in Table IV.A.1-4.

Table IV.A.1-4 – Analysis of the term (va'yiqra)

table7is9.png


While the Jewish renditions cast all of the occurrences in some form of the past tense, the KJV renditions are inconsistent – in the past tense on three occasions, and once in the future tense. at Isaiah 9:6.

In summary, the results of the above group of analyses on the tenses in Isaiah 9:5[6] demonstrate the consistency of the Jewish translations and the inconsistency of the KJV renditions. This passage, Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7], appears to have appealed to the Church as a good candidate for imputing Christological significance, since all that was required to accomplish this was some adjustments to the tenses. This action changed the historical context (past tense) into a current and prophetic context (present and future tenses).

Sidebar Note: Some Christian apologists and missionaries attempt to justify the present tense translations commonly found in Christian Bibles by pointing to a respected Jewish translation, the Soncino Press translation of the Hebrew Bible, in which Isaiah 9:5 is translated as:

Isaiah 9:5(Soncino) – For a child is born unto us, A son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;

They use this particular translation as evidence that refutes the consensus about the verbs being conjugated in the past tense. What these Christian apologists and missionaries leave out of their so-called evidence are the notes on this verse by the Soncino translators. Here is the relevant portion of these notes, as quoted from the Soncino Press translation of Isaiah[2][2]:

5. a child. The verse has been given a Christological interpretation by the Church, but modern non-Jewish exegetes agree that a contemporary person is intended. The Talmud and later Jewish commentators understood the allusion to be the son of Ahaz, viz. Hezekiah.

is born . . . is given. Better, in agreement with the Hebrew, 'has been born . . . has been given.'

The Soncino translators, being well aware of what Christian translators have done to this passage, specifically address this in the notes by pointing out that the past tense conjugation, not the present tense conjugation, was in better agreement with the Hebrew. Clearly, this missionary claim is without merit.

2. Names/Titles

The last verb in Isaiah 9:5[6] is followed by a series of names/titles. These names/titles are actually components of an expression which, in its totality, may be viewed as a long name/title that refers to someone. Apparently, this set of names/titles appealed to the KJV translators as an easy target for editing to support the Christological message that was being developed for this passage.

The first name/title is (pele yo'etz), Wondrous Adviser, and it appears in the Hebrew Bible only once, here in Isaiah 9:5, which preempts the ability to do a comparative analysis as was done for the verbs. In the KJV rendition, this name/title is separated into two entities – Wonderful and Counsellor. Although a comparative analysis here is precluded, as explained, the rules of Hebrew grammar still apply. According to the rules of Hebrew grammar, this split may not be done. While the two terms can stand on their own as nouns, they take on different meanings as such. The term (pele) means a wonder or a marvel, as may be seen in its only two occurrences, in singular form, in the Book of Isaiah – at Isaiah 25:1 as (pele), a wonder, and at Isaiah 29:14 as (va'phele), and a wonder. The noun (yo'etz) means an adviser or a counselor, as may be seen from its two occurrences, in singular form, in the Book of Isaiah – at Isaiah 3:3 as (veyo'etz), and an adviser or and a counselor, and at Isaiah 41:28 as (yo'etz), a counselor. This information and the respective renditions in the KJV are shown in Table IV.A.2-1 .

Table IV.A.2-1 – The name/title (pele yo'etz) and its components and

table8pe0.png


* - The Hebrew is actually in the singular, which literally translates as a wonder, but the
plural is clearly implied here – a rather common occurrence in the Hebrew Bible.

Considering the factual evidence from Hebrew grammar, the rendition by the KJV of (pele yo'etz) as two separate names/titles cannot be correct.

The next name/title is (el gibbor). This expression appears three times in the Hebrew Bible. Two of these cases are in the singular form, and are found in the Book of Isaiah – at Isaiah 9:5, 10:21. The third instance is found at Ezekiel 32:21, where it appears in the plural form, (elei gibborim).

The components of this name/title are (el) and (gibbor). The term (el) is common in the Hebrew Bible, and it has three applications. The most frequent use of this term is in reference to G-d (e.g. Exod 34:6). Another application is in reference to other gods, i.e., idols (e.g., Exod 34:14). The third use of this term is to identify someone strong or mighty (e.g., Ezek 17:13; Ps 29:1), or even something powerful (e.g., Ps 90:11). The term (gibbor) is commonly used in the Hebrew Bible to identify someone who is mighty, brave, a hero (e.g., Gen 10:9; Zech 9:13).

The combined expression, (el gibbor), can have different meanings, depending on the context of the surrounding passage. (el gibbor) can mean mighty hero, when the context speaks of a person, or it can mean Mighty G-d, when the context refers to G-d. The KJV renders (el gibbor) as The mighty God at Isaiah 9:6, and as the mighty God at Isaiah 10:21. Most Jewish translations render these as Mighty G-d and the mighty G-d, respectively. The comparison shown in Table IV.A.2-2, which also includes a valid alternate translation.

Table IV.A.2-2 – The name/title (el gibbor)

table9pm6.png


Though the KJV renditions appear to be consistent with the common Jewish translations, they differ in terms of the definite article the, which is capitalized at Isaiah 9:6 and in lower case at Isaiah 10:21. Also, the definite article (ha), the, is not present in the Hebrew name//title (el gibbor) at Isaiah 9:5. The same is true for Isaiah 10:21, except that, in this case, due to the presence of the preposition (el-), to, and the context of the passage, the definite article (ha), the, is implicit; both translations agree on this. The alternate translation has been added to Table IV.A.2-2 because it is both valid within the context of each passage and helpful in identifying of whom Isaiah might be speaking here. This will be further explored later on.

The next name/title is (avi-ad), and it appears in the Hebrew Bible only once, here in Isaiah 9:5. Consequently, no comparisons are possible, though some analysis will shed light on how to correctly understand it. This name/title is a compound term, in the possessive form, which is made up of two components. The first component, (avi), is the possessive form of the noun (av). The Hebrew noun (av) appears in the Hebrew Bible 723 times, and in several different contexts. The predominant application of this term is a father. However, the (singular) noun is also applied as: (a) a grandfather (e.g., Gen 31:42, 32:10); (b) a progenitor of a line of descendants (e.g., Gen 17:4, Is 51:2); (c) one who is the first of a kind or an inventor (e.g., Gen 4:20,21); (d) an advisor, a counselor, a patron (e.g., Gen 45:8, Job 29:16); (e) a founder (e.g., Josh 17:1, 1 Chron 2:50). In addition, the term is used as a form of address to a prophet, a king, etc. (e.g., 1 Sam 24:12, 2 Kgs 5:13), and in the plural it has additional applications in the Hebrew Bible; however, neither of these applications are significant to Isaiah 9:5[6]. Consequently, according to the various applications given above, the first component of this name/title, (avi) can have meanings such as, father of…, or grandfather of…, or progenitor of…, etc.

The second component of this name/title is (ad), and it is used in Hebrew as either a preposition, such as by (a certain time); to, up-to; till, until, and as a noun, eternity, when in combinations with other terms.

What is the correct application in Isaiah 9:5[6]? The Hebrew concordance[3][3] lists (avi-ad) as one of the 22 cases in which the application of the noun (av) falls under category (d) above, an advisor, a counselor, a patron. Therefore, the literal translation of (avi-ad) would be advisor of eternity, or counselor of eternity, or patron of eternity. In terms of the passage and its context, perhaps the most appropriate translation of this name/title (avi-ad) is Eternal Patron. Most Jewish translations render it Everlasting Father, and the KJV renders it The everlasting Father. This is shown in Table IV.A.2-3

Table IV.A.2-3 – The name/title (avi-ad)

table10jk8.png


The definite article, The, and the noun, Father, are capitalized in the KJV in order to enhance the Christological message, yet, the definite article (ha), the, is absent from the Hebrew name//title (avi-ad).

The last name/title is (sar shalom), and it appears in the Hebrew Bible only once, here in Isaiah 9:5. Consequently, as was the case with the previous name/title, no comparisons are possible. Once again, linguistic analysis will help shed light on how to correctly understand it. This name/title is a compound term, in a possessive form, that consists of two components. The first component, (sar), though part of a possessive construct, is identical to the noun that is applied in the Hebrew Bible 421 times, in various conjugations, and which means a government official (e.g., a ruler, or a minister, or a nobleman, etc.). Although (sar) is often rendered a prince even in Jewish translations, it should be noted that there is no application of this term in the Hebrew Bible to describe someone who is a real prince. In the possessive form, then, (sar) would mean commander of…, or ruler of…, or minister of…, etc.

The second component of this name/title is (shalom), which has 237 applications in the Hebrew Bible. The predominant usage of this word is in the meaning of peace, as in serenity, or tranquility, or security (from danger, etc.), and also as in good relations among people and between nations, the opposite of conflict or war (e.g., Is 39:8, Eccl 3:8). Two additional rather infrequent applications are: status, or condition (e.g., Gen 37:14, Is 54:13), and how is…? (a form of inquiry about the welfare of someone; e.g., Gen 29:6, 2 Sam 18:32). Clearly, the application of (shalom) in Isaiah 9:5 is peace. Therefore, the proper translation of the name/title (sar shalom) is Ruler of Peace. The KJV renders it as The Prince of Peace. This is shown in Table IV.A.2-4.

Table IV.A.2-4 – The name/title (sar-shalom)

table11qm7.png


As was the case with the previous two names/titles, the definite article, The, and the expression, Prince of Peace, are capitalized in the KJV in order to enhance the Christological message, yet the definite article (ha), the, is not present in the Hebrew name//title (sar shalom).

In summary, the KJV renditions of these names/titles in Isaiah 9:5[6] appear to contain a bias, one that reinforces the motivation for the editing of the tenses. Namely, it points at a certain personality of particular importance to Christianity, Jesus, who is allegedly foretold to be coming at a future time. There is also an interesting point to ponder about attributing the name/title (avi-ad), which the KJV renders as The everlasting Father, to Jesus. According to the New Testament and, therefore, in Christianity, Jesus is the only begotten Son of G-d, which naturally means that G-d is The Father. How, then, can The everlasting Father also be a reference to The Son?

3. Other

As noted above, there is a somewhat more subtle difference in the respective renditions of Isaiah 9:6[7]. This subtlety goes hand-in-hand with the changes made in the previous verse, aimed at shifting the focus of this verse. Namely, attention is diverted from an individual the Prophet had in mind in Isaiah 9:5[6], the one who will eventually become a righteous and successful King of Judah sitting on the throne of David, to the lord and savior of Christianity, the one who is considered to be a deity.

As a direct continuation from the previous verse, the Hebrew text of Isaiah 9:6 and its Jewish rendition in English start out with the explanation of that rather lengthy and complex name/title given to the child. The text indicates that G-d will help create these conditions for the child being spoken of in Isaiah 9:5[6] – the future king in the line of King David.

If Isaiah 9:5[6] were about G-d, then the statement, "for the increase of the authority and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom", in Isaiah 9:6[7] would be tantamount to placing G-d "in a box", i.e., this would be equivalent to severely restricting G-d. This phrase describes the reign of a successful king, such as King Solomon whose reign was described in similar terms:

1 Kings 2:12 - And Solomon sat on the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was firmly established.

Isaiah's vision of G-d, found just three chapters before the passage Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7], is in sharp contrast to that of a mortal monarch:

Isaiah 6:1 - In the year of the death of King Uzziah, I also saw the L-rd sitting upon a high and exalted throne; and His lower extremities filled the Temple.

If, as is written, that child in Isaiah 9:5[6] eventually became the ruler only of David's kingdom and nothing more, would it not be presumptuous to attribute divinity to someone whose rule did not exceed that of flesh and blood?

Finally, there is the term (ein-qeitz). This expression can function both as an adjective that means without end, or endless, and as a descriptive phrase such as there is no end, or is without end, depending on the context. This same term appears three times in the Hebrew Bible – at Isaiah 9:5, Ecclesiastes 4:16, 12:12, and twice in combined form with the preposition (ve-), and, as (veein qeitz), and without end – at Job 22:5, Ecclesiastes 4:8. These cases are shown in Table IV.A.3-1.

Table IV.A.3-1 – The terms (ein-qetz) and (veein qetz)

tabel12az0.png


It is interesting to note that the KJV renders the expression in Isaiah 9:6[7] as a phrase in the future tense, while in all other instances the phrase is cast in the present tense. This, too, appears to be part of the effort to continue the message being conveyed by the KJV translation of the previous verse.

  • What's In A Name?
When reading the KJV rendition, which typifies most other Christian translations of this passage, it appears that the name is being emphasized and misapplied. The way the accolades in the first of the two verses are rendered, "Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace …", leaves one with the impression that the subject here is G-d, His substance, and who He is. This is quite impossible in the Jewish perspective, since no true prophet of Israel or any true Israelite would ascribe terms such as The mighty God or The Everlasting Father to a person. Moreover, it is documented in the Hebrew Bible that significant names of children of prophets never describe the child. Rather, such names carried with them messages for the people, as is the case with Isaiah's sons, (she'ar Yashuv), a remnant shall return,(immanu'el) is G-d is with us, and (maher-shalal-khash-baz), quicken-booty hasten-plunder, and with Hosea's children, (yizre'el), G-d will sow, (lo-rukhammah), [She Was] Not Pitied, and (lo-ammi), [You Are] Not My People.

The predominant view among Jewish Sages is that (pele yo'etz), Wondrous Adviser, (el gibbor), Mighty G-d/Mighty Hero, (avi-ad), Eternal Patron/Father, all refer to G-d, and that (sar shalom), Ruler of Peace is the symbolic name/title of the child. A notable exception is Abraham Ibn Ezra, the well-known 12th century C.E. Jewish-Spanish exegete, grammarian, and philosopher, who relates these attributes to events and situations that took place during Hezekiah's life (see below). However, there is unanimous agreement among the Jewish Sages that, in the original Hebrew text, Isaiah 9:5[6] is saying that some individual, a certain special person, would embody all these attributes, perhaps as a sign or symbolic reminder to Israel of the message the nation embodies.

This is how the passage can be associated with King Hezekiah, the righteous King of Judah, who was born nine years prior to the ascension of his wicked father, King Ahaz, to the throne of David. Hezekiah indeed assumed the authority or dominion of G-d, and he bent his shoulder to bear the yoke of Torah, the burden of the Holy One of Israel. The attributes listed in this passage as components of the long name this child was given, characterize some of G-d’s actions relating to Hezekiah, King of Judah: Wondrous refers to wonders G-d performed in his day, such as the wonder of the sun going backwards when Hezekiah was miraculously cured of his illness (Is 38:8). in fact, Hezekiah's recovery, in itself, was considered a wonder. The root verb from which the noun (yo'etz), an adviser, derives, (ya'atz), [to] counsel, is used when Hezekiah decided to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem and invite the people of the Northern Kingdom to join in the celebration:

2 Chronicles 30:2 - And the king took counsel [ (va'yiva'etz)] with his officers and the entire congregation in Jerusalem, to celebrate the Passover in the second month.

As the siege of Jerusalem by Sannheriv drew near, the text describes how Hezekiah and his staff came up with a plan of defense:

2 Chronicles 32:3 - And he [Hezekiah] took counsel (va'yiva'etz) with his officers and his mighty men to stop up the waters of the fountains that were outside the city, and they assisted him.

And Hezekiah gave the following counsel of assurance to his people:

2 Chronicles 30:8 – "With him [Sannheriv] is an arm of flesh; and with us is the L-rd our G-d to help us and to fight our wars." And the people relied on the words of Hezekiah, king of Judah.

Does the expression, "… and with us is the L-rd …", used in the above passage sound familiar? The Hebrew text of this expression is (veimmanu YHVH). When the Tetragrammaton YHVH is replaced by another common title of G-d's, (El), the Hebrew expression would read (veimmanu El), an expression similar to that found in Isaiah 7:14, 8:8,10, during the siege of Jerusalem by the armies of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria, from which the Kingdom of Judah was miraculously saved. G-d’s plan for Hezekiah against Sannheriv was successful.

(el gibbor), Mighty Hero, because even though Sannheriv approached Hezekiah with a large army, Hezekiah did not surrender in defeat. Instead, he defied Sannheriv's threats and blasphemy, and he (and Isaiah) prayed for G-d's intervention and help, and G-d’s mighty hand destroyed the threat:

2 Chronicles 32:20-22 – (20) And King Hezekiah and the Prophet, Isaiah the son of Amoz, prayed concerning this, and they cried out to Heaven. (21) And the L-rd sent an angel, and he destroyed every mighty warrior and commander and officer in the camp of the king of Assyria, and he [Sannheriv] returned in shame to his land, and he entered the temple of his god, and some of his own offspring felled him there with the sword. (22) And the L-rd saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sannheriv, the king of Assyria, and from the hand of all others, and guided them on every side.

(avi-ad), Eternal Patron, because of Hezekiah’s merit the Davidic dynasty was prolonged, and has been preserved for the future. King Hezekiah was one of the most extraordinary personalities among the Jewish kings, about whom the Sages said that he was worthy to be the Messiah.

  • A Historical Perspective
The ninth chapter in the Book of Isaiah deals with the crisis that existed in the Kingdom of Judah during a time when the Assyrian king Sannheriv wanted to destroy it. Isaiah responds to the messenger sent by Hezekiah with a message in which he reaffirms the promise that G-d made to David, namely, that the kingdom would be preserved (see 2 Sam 7:12-16). The army of Sannheriv, the king who previously exiled the tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, lays siege to Jerusalem seeking to capture and exile the people of the Kingdom of Judah. The nation turned to G-d and obeyed Hezekiah's order not to respond and, as noted (see 2 Chron 32:21, above), a miracle occurred. An angel came and slaughtered the Assyrian army, and the king, Sannheriv, was assassinated by members of his own family upon his return in defeat. Thus, the Jewish nation that was on the brink of destruction, standing in the shadow of death, suddenly and miraculously was redeemed, and it stood in a great light.

The tenth chapter in the Book of Isaiah provides the epilogue to the events described in Chapter 9. In these two chapters, the Prophet recounts how G-d saved King Hezekiah and his Kingdom of Judah from Sannheriv’s massive military attack. Prior to the siege on Jerusalem, the Assyrian army successfully captured and exiled most of the population of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Now Assyria was poised to exile the people of the Kingdom of Judah, the helpless remnant of the Jewish people who so desperately needed divine intervention. By way of leading into a description of the events that lifted a nation from a state of despair to the ecstasy of a miraculous redemption; Isaiah opens up his ninth chapter with the following declaration:

Isaiah 9:1 - The people who walked in darkness, have seen a great light; those who dwell in the land of the shadow of death, light shone upon them.

When certain passages in Chapter 10 are superimposed on some passages in Chapter 9, it becomes even more evident that the passage Isaiah 9 5-6/[6-7] relates directly to G-d saving Hezekiah and his people from Sannheriv in the eighth century B.C.E. This correlation is illustrated in Table IV.C-1 (adapted from material by Rabbi Tovia Singer).

Table IV.C-1 – "Overlay" of passages from Isaiah 9 with passages from Isaiah 10

table13yj5.png

Several additional explicit connections between Hezekiah and Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7] are found in the Hebrew Bible. The following passage connects Hezekiah with peace:

2 Kings 20:19 - Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah, "Good is the Word of the L-rd which you have spoken." And he said [to himself], "Is it not so, if there will be peace and truth in my days?"

Then, there is the passage, part of which was already used in Table IV.C-1, where Isaiah foretells what will occur sometime in the near future:

Isaiah 10:21-22 – (21) The remnant shall return, the remnant of Jacob [Israel], to the Mighty G-d [or, mighty hero] [(el gibbor)]. (22) For if your people Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, a remnant [of them] shall return; the decreed destruction shall wash away with righteousness.

With Isaiah 10:21-22 in mind, 2nd Chronicles, Chapter 30, describes how a remnant from that which was the Northern Kingdom of Israel had returned to Jerusalem during the reign of King Hezekiah to celebrate the Passover. The Northern Kingdom of Israel, which was devastated by the Assyrians in the days of King Ahaz, fell into the hands of Hezekiah as Assyria weakened. For the first time since the days of King Solomon, the national unity was reestablished, and Hezekiah was the first monarch on the throne of David who ruled over a "united" people, at least for the duration of his kingdom (hence Isaiah's explanation of the long name, "for the increase of the authority").

Finally, as another connection between Hezekiah and Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7], there is the expression, "the zeal of the L-rd of Hosts shall accomplish this.", which occurs in only two other places in the Hebrew Bible – at 2 Kings 19:31 and Isaiah 37:32. These two passages, which are almost identical, describe the downfall of the Assyrian king Sannheriv and the miraculous victory of Hezekiah.

Is the passage Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7] a historic one about King Hezekiah, or is it a messianic passage about Jesus? Even if Christian apologists and missionaries were convinced by the analysis presented above that this passage is consistent with the historic events during Hezekiah's reign, they may still try to play their "trump card" and proclaim that, by virtue of the idea of dual prophetic fulfillment, this passage also describes Jesus, the messiah of Christianity. This claim by Christian apologists and missionaries, even without the evidence of changed tenses, suffers from two major problems:

§ The notion of dual prophetic fulfillment is unbiblical, and it appears to have been fashioned in order to explain away serious theological deficiencies.

§ The historical record, including even the accounts in the New Testament, verify the fact that none of the names/titles listed in Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7] describes any attribute of Jesus during his lifetime, except by definition.

  • Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7] and the New Testament
In addition to all the evidence from the Hebrew Bible presented in the analysis above, there are some additional issues, relevant specifically to the New Testament, which need to be considered by those who insist on interpreting Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7] as describing the messiah of Christianity:

§ The authors of the New Testament do not cite either of these verses, which would indicate that even they did not consider them as references to Jesus. Nowhere do the authors of the New Testament ever refer to Jesus by any of the names/titles listed in Isaiah 9:5[6].

§ These names/titles actually are inconsistent with common references to Jesus. How can The Everlasing Father also be The Son?

§ Regarding Jesus being The Prince of Peace, as in the KJV rendition of Isaiah 9:6, he appears to proclaim just the contrary about himself:

Matthew 10:34(KJV) - Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Surely, this does not portray someone who is called The Prince of Peace.

V. Summary

The analysis presented of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 9:5-6 demonstrates how this passage describes events that had already taken place during the era in which it was spoken by the Prophet, i.e., it is a historic, not messianic, passage. With the help of other relevant passages from the Hebrew Bible, it was further demonstrated that King Hezekiah is most likely the one of whom Isaiah spoke here.

What would motivate the KJV translators to make these changes from the Hebrew text in this passage relative to other instances where the same terms were correctly translated? Apparently, this passage presented an opportunity for Church translators to infuse into the words of the Prophet Isaiah some Christological "spin" that would turn it into a messianic prophecy about Jesus. However, it still is puzzling why this passage would be targeted for revision in view of the fact that even the authors of the New Testament did not believe that it applied to Jesus, as is evident from their silence about it.

[4][1] The passage Isaiah 9:5-6 appears in Christian Bibles as Isaiah 9:6-7, hence the notation Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7] will be used when appropriate.
[5][2] Soncino Books of the Bible - Isaiah, Rev. Dr. A. Cohen (Editor), p. 44; Soncino Press (1950).
[6][3] A New Concordance of the Bible, Abraham Even-Shoshan (Editor), p. 1; Kiryat Sefer Publishing House, Ltd., Jerusalem (1988).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: glo
For the sake of completeness and fairness, it should be noted that, in contrast to the KJV (and several other Christian Bibles), some Christian translators have correctly rendered this phrase, e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV, RSV, The New Jerusalem Bible, among others.


Yes, I was going to make note of how your refutation of the KJV is irrelevant with regard to my Bible which uses the translatation that you say is appropriate. So, now that you don't need to refute anything, how do you, as a Jew, interpret the meaning of the passage under consideration? Please, take in as much additional context as needed to provide a proper interpretation.



the Christian LXX (that which Christians mistakenly call the Septuagint)
I know that you, with reason, prefer the Hebrew Masoretic text over any Greek (or other language) translation of the Tanakh. But I don't know why you say that it is mistakenly called the Septuagint. Was it not called that? What other name do you know it by?
 
Shalom Grace Seeker,

Yes, I was going to make note of how your refutation of the KJV is irrelevant with regard to my Bible which uses the translatation that you say is appropriate. So, now that you don't need to refute anything, how do you, as a Jew, interpret the meaning of the passage under consideration? Please, take in as much additional context as needed to provide a proper interpretation.

For a detailed analysis of this, read these two essays:

http://www.virtualyeshiva.com/counter/micah.swf
http://www.virtualyeshiva.com/counter/galilee.swf

I know that you, with reason, prefer the Hebrew Masoretic text over any Greek (or other language) translation of the Tanakh. But I don't know why you say that it is mistakenly called the Septuagint. Was it not called that? What other name do you know it by?

What is meant by this is that the "Original" Septuagint was the mid-3rd century BCE translation by 72 bi-lingual Rabbis into Koine` Greek of the Torah only, not the entire Hebrew Bible. The Christians have something they like to call the "Septuagint", but it is a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible. It is not in Koine` Greek, it contains errors 72 learned Rabbis would never make, and it does not follow the order of the book in the Hebrew Bible. So calling this work "Septuagint" is mistaken, and it gives the impression that it was translated by Jews, which it wasn't.
 
What is meant by this is that the "Original" Septuagint was the mid-3rd century BCE translation by 72 bi-lingual Rabbis into Koine` Greek of the Torah only, not the entire Hebrew Bible. The Christians have something they like to call the "Septuagint", but it is a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible. It is not in Koine` Greek, it contains errors 72 learned Rabbis would never make, and it does not follow the order of the book in the Hebrew Bible. So calling this work "Septuagint" is mistaken, and it gives the impression that it was translated by Jews, which it wasn't.



Do you believe the story of the translation of the Hebrew Torah into Greek by the 72 bi-lingual Rabbis to be historically true or mere legend?

According to the history I learned, not only is there the story of this miraculous translation, but also the fact that before the Christian era the whole of the Tanakh, not just the Torah, had been translated into Koine Greek and was in use. If that is true, and I think that is pretty easily substantiated, who did it if not the Jews themselves? I can't imagine any other group in the world at that time, except Greek-speaking, disapora Jews, caring one whit about the Tanakh. Though the first and 2nd century Christians eventually appropriated and transformed the LXX into their Old Testament, if the Jews themselves hadn't previousy translated it prior to the Christian era -- I understand that Philo and Josephus would later ascribe divine inspiration to the translation itself (though maybe that is just more of the legend) -- where did the LXX come from?
 
Last edited:
Do you believe the story of the translation of the Hebrew Torah into Greek by the 72 bi-lingual Rabbis to be historically true or mere legend?

According to the history I learned, not only is there the story of this miraculous translation, but also the fact that before the Christian era the whole of the Tanakh, not just the Torah, had been translated into Koine Greek and was in use. If that is true, and I think that is pretty easily substantiated, who did it if not the Jews themselves? I can't imagine any other group in the world at that time, except Greek-speaking, disapora Jews, caring one whit about the Tanakh. Though the first and 2nd century Christians eventually appropriated and transformed the LXX into their Old Testament, if the Jews themselves hadn't previousy translated it prior to the Christian era -- I understand that Philo and Josephus would later ascribe divine inspiration to the translation itself (though maybe that is just more of the legend) -- where did the LXX come from?

Shalom,

Grace, in the 3rd century BCE the Torah (Pentatuch: Five Books of Moses) was translated from Hebrew into Greek. Per Josephus, Philo of Alexandria and the Talmud ONLY the Torah was translated and that it was done by 70-72 learned Jews at the order of King Ptolemy.

The rest of the bible (Prophets and Writings) were NOT translated. This includes Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc.

Over the next 300 years the rest of the bible were translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translators are unknown. How educated they were in Hebrew or Greek is unknown. We assume they were Jews, but if they were (and we do not know for certain). The order of the books translated is unknown. . .in other words nothing IS known except the fact that translations were done prior to the common era.

Over time the Greek translations (now all called “Septuagint” after the 70 original translators of Torah, (even though they only translated the Five Books of Moses) became corrupted. The Jews stopped using it altogether and by the 3rd century CE the Xians themselves became very concerned at the corrupted nature of the Septuagint.

As a result the Xians stopped using the Septuagint by the 5th century, preferring to go back to the Hebrew original and re-translate it into other languages. Here are some statements by church leaders on the fact that the Septuagint as they knew it (and we know it today) is not reliable:

Origen, an early church father (died 232 CE) tried to piece together a decent translation by putting 6 different versions side by side (called the Hexapla). Here is what HE says about how bad the Septuagint had become:

"we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery!” Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4.]"

The point of quoting Origen is to show that whoever the original translators were of the rest of the bible the various Greek versions became very corrupt over time. The Xians themselves realized this -- as Origen states.

There is no doubt that only the Torah was in the original translation -- even the Catholic website "New Advent" acknowledges that only the Torah was translated as the Septuagint: (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm)

As to the other Hebrew books -- the prophetical and historical -- it was natural that the Alexandrian Jews, making use of the translated Pentateuch in their liturgical reunions, should desire to read the remaining books also and hence should gradually have translated all of them into Greek.

The Megillah 9a (Talmud) says:

‘R. Judah said: When our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll of the Torah’. This was on account of the incident related in connection with King Ptolemy, as it has been taught: ‘It is related of King Ptolemy that he brought together seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said to him, Translate for me the Torah of Moses your master.


The Sabbath aproaches. I hope you all have a great weekend.
 
Last edited:
Shalom,

Grace, in the 3rd century BCE the Torah (Pentatuch: Five Books of Moses) was translated from Hebrew into Greek. Per Josephus, Philo of Alexandria and the Talmud ONLY the Torah was translated and that it was done by 70-72 learned Jews at the order of King Ptolemy.

The rest of the bible (Prophets and Writings) were NOT translated. This includes Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc.

Over the next 300 years the rest of the bible were translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translators are unknown. How educated they were in Hebrew or Greek is unknown. We assume they were Jews, but if they were (and we do not know for certain). The order of the books translated is unknown. . .in other words nothing IS known except the fact that translations were done prior to the common era.

Over time the Greek translations (now all called “Septuagint” after the 70 original translators of Torah, (even though they only translated the Five Books of Moses) became corrupted. The Jews stopped using it altogether and by the 3rd century CE the Xians themselves became very concerned at the corrupted nature of the Septuagint.

As a result the Xians stopped using the Septuagint by the 5th century, preferring to go back to the Hebrew original and re-translate it into other languages. Here are some statements by church leaders on the fact that the Septuagint as they knew it (and we know it today) is not reliable:

Origen, an early church father (died 232 CE) tried to piece together a decent translation by putting 6 different versions side by side (called the Hexapla). Here is what HE says about how bad the Septuagint had become:

"we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery!” Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4.]"

The point of quoting Origen is to show that whoever the original translators were of the rest of the bible the various Greek versions became very corrupt over time. The Xians themselves realized this -- as Origen states.

There is no doubt that only the Torah was in the original translation -- even the Catholic website "New Advent" acknowledges that only the Torah was translated as the Septuagint: (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm)

As to the other Hebrew books -- the prophetical and historical -- it was natural that the Alexandrian Jews, making use of the translated Pentateuch in their liturgical reunions, should desire to read the remaining books also and hence should gradually have translated all of them into Greek.

The Megillah 9a (Talmud) says:

‘R. Judah said: When our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll of the Torah’. This was on account of the incident related in connection with King Ptolemy, as it has been taught: ‘It is related of King Ptolemy that he brought together seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said to him, Translate for me the Torah of Moses your master.


The Sabbath aproaches. I hope you all have a great weekend.


OK. Then I think we are agreed. What came to be known as the LXX was not something that was produced whole in one act of translation from Genesis to Malachi. Rather it happened over time, and with greater and lesser degrees of quality. I'm not sure I by the legend of the miraculous translation of the portion that was the Torah, but that is neither here nor there. The name LXX was eventually applied to all of the Greek translations of the Tanakh, not just the original Torah translation. Indeed, there were books included in the LXX that neither Jew nor Christian recognized as canonical. And eventually in time the extant copies of the LXX had doubts cast on them. So, one might question the integrity of the Greek translation versus the Hebrew original. (Though I understand that even in Jewish circles it is beginning to be looked at again, as the LXX is in some places closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls than the Masoretic text is.) But I am still unclear as to why you would say the the Greek version of the the Tanakh that was used in the first century of the Common Era, whether by Jews or Christians the LXX, is "mistakenly called" the LXX? It isn't just us in the 21st century labeling it such, it sounds as the folks who used it in the first century called it that themselves. What am I still missing?
 
Do jews believe there impure, and that they'll be purified after they slaughter 10 cows?

Do jews believe, that messiah will not come until 3 things have happened:

1: Jewish state established
2:jerusalam becomes capital
3: Temple of suleman is built
 
OK. Then I think we are agreed. What came to be known as the LXX was not something that was produced whole in one act of translation from Genesis to Malachi. Rather it happened over time, and with greater and lesser degrees of quality. I'm not sure I by the legend of the miraculous translation of the portion that was the Torah, but that is neither here nor there. The name LXX was eventually applied to all of the Greek translations of the Tanakh, not just the original Torah translation. Indeed, there were books included in the LXX that neither Jew nor Christian recognized as canonical. And eventually in time the extant copies of the LXX had doubts cast on them. So, one might question the integrity of the Greek translation versus the Hebrew original. (Though I understand that even in Jewish circles it is beginning to be looked at again, as the LXX is in some places closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls than the Masoretic text is.) But I am still unclear as to why you would say the the Greek version of the the Tanakh that was used in the first century of the Common Era, whether by Jews or Christians the LXX, is "mistakenly called" the LXX? It isn't just us in the 21st century labeling it such, it sounds as the folks who used it in the first century called it that themselves. What am I still missing?

I think this will be effective; Let me explain it again, but in stages:

Stage 1 - At the request of King Ptolemy II of Alexandrian, the Torah was translated into Koine Greek by 72 learned bi-lingual Rabbis around the middle of the 3rd century BCE - this was originally called the Septuagint.

Stage 2 - For the next 2-3 centuries, various translations of the books of the Tanach, not as one big work, but mostly separately and at different times, followed. These were done in more modern dialects of the Greek language, and not necessarily by Jews.

Stage 3 - "The Church" collected "suitable" Greek translations of all the books of the "Old Testament", bundled them together according to the Christian canon (very different from the Jewish canon of the Tanach), and called it the "Septuagint".

Stage 4 - Somewhere along the way, the name "LXX" got 'attached' to the new "Septuagint", so that they were used interchangeably, i.e., LXX = (new) "Septuagint".

As you can see, when Christians use the term "Septuagint", to them it means the Greek translation of the entire "Old Testament". When Jews use the term "Septuagint", it refers to original translation of the Torah only. This is where the 'mistake' occurs.

I hope this helps you.

Do jews believe there impure, and that they'll be purified after they slaughter 10 cows?

Do jews believe, that messiah will not come until 3 things have happened:

1: Jewish state established
2:jerusalam becomes capital
3: Temple of suleman is built

Shalom,

From your first question, can you reference me to a verse, so I can properly explain exactly what your inquiring. To your second question, there are many things that must occur before the Moshiach (Messiah) comes.

If you have a question on metabolism, you wouldn't ask a carpenter--you'd ask a doctor. If you have a question about a particular law, you'd ask a lawyer; better yet, you might ask the politician who proposed it and signed it into law.

Likewise with "the Messiah": the word "messiah" comes from the Jewish concept of "Moshiach," or "the anointed one." Thus, Judaism has first dibs on telling you what "the Messiah" really means!


Moshiach and the Era of Moshiach are critical cornerstones of Judaism. Jewish philosophy states that G-d's Divine Plan for Creation will be realized with the advent of the Era of Moshiach. The Prophets are filled with references and descriptions of the individual who will be Moshiach, and what the world will be like after the change that he ushers in.

1) He will be a descendant of the great King David.

2) He will be an outstandingly righteous individual and a preeminent Torah scholar.

3) He will inspire everyone (beginning with the Jewish people) to wholeheartedly return to G-d.

4) He will be a very charismatic and powerful leader who will lead by example.

5) He will have what is known as a "collective" or "general" soul. This master soul will enable him to relate to all people on all levels.

6) He will demand and achieve greatness from all humanity.

7) He will bring about what is described as the "ingathering of the Exiles," the return of all Jews to "the Holy Land," of Israel.

8) He will rebuild the Holy Temple.

9) He will be a HUMAN BEING--not a deity.

The Messianic Era is described in the Prophets as being a time of universal peace. There will be no more human suffering as all diseases will be eradicated, as well as hunger and all other problems. The Jewish people will return to the Promised Land en masse, and rebuild the Third and final Holy Temple in Jerusalem. The purpose of all these magical events is to allow mankind to focus without distraction on complete spirituality. For this reason, the Prophet writes regarding the Era of Moshiach that "The world will be filled with the knowledge of G-d as the waters cover the sea bed."

If you think all that's too overwhelming for you to handle, think again: Moshiach comes as a result of our collective good deeds. That means me and you. So, can we actually bring Moshiach? Can we realize world peace? With the Torah and Mitzvot, G-d gave us the tools to do just that.
 
I think this will be effective; Let me explain it again, but in stages:

Stage 1 - At the request of King Ptolemy II of Alexandrian, the Torah was translated into Koine Greek by 72 learned bi-lingual Rabbis around the middle of the 3rd century BCE - this was originally called the Septuagint.

Stage 2 - For the next 2-3 centuries, various translations of the books of the Tanach, not as one big work, but mostly separately and at different times, followed. These were done in more modern dialects of the Greek language, and not necessarily by Jews.

Stage 3 - "The Church" collected "suitable" Greek translations of all the books of the "Old Testament", bundled them together according to the Christian canon (very different from the Jewish canon of the Tanach), and called it the "Septuagint".

Stage 4 - Somewhere along the way, the name "LXX" got 'attached' to the new "Septuagint", so that they were used interchangeably, i.e., LXX = (new) "Septuagint".

As you can see, when Christians use the term "Septuagint", to them it means the Greek translation of the entire "Old Testament". When Jews use the term "Septuagint", it refers to original translation of the Torah only. This is where the 'mistake' occurs.

I hope this helps you.


Yes, it does. I understand your closing statement. I see how it is that you do not consider anything but the original work of translating the Torah into Greek to be considered the Septuagnt.

I would make some corrections to some of your other statements. The Greek New Testament is also written in Koine Greek, so while the language no doubt evolved over time from when the Torah was translated into Greek, through the time of the writing of the rest of the Tanakh, to the time that a Greek translation of the Tanakh was dubbed the "Old Testament" by Christians, all of these translations would have still been in Koine Greek, not "more modern dialects".

And since LXX is Roman numerals for 70 and septuâgintâ is Latin for 70, it seems most likely that the name Septuagint is a title probably given the collection by the Latin Church and LXX was the short-hand abbreviation of the same name. What would the Jewish name have been for the original Torah translation into Greek?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top