Jewish Inspiration
Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more.” Matthew 2:17-18 NASB
Was fulfilled – It should be obvious. Herod’s brutal slaughtering of the infants in Bethlehem has nothing to do with Jeremiah’s prophecy! The passage in Jeremiah is about the children of Israel going into captivity. It is not about death. It is not about babies. And it is certainly not about the Messiah. But that doesn’t prevent Matthew from altering the prophecy so that it fits his agenda. Consider this:
The passage is from Jeremiah 31:15. It is part of the proclamation of the new covenant which Jesus alludes to in the last supper and which is used specifically in Hebrews 8:8-12. But there are several textual problems.
- All ancient versions read “because they are not,” not “because he is not” (BHS).
- The LXX translates this passage literally except it omits the first use of “for her children.”
- Matthew uses the identical wording of the LXX for the first clause.
- BUT he omits the first of the three terms for “crying.”
- He puts the remaining two verbs in the nominative case (the LXX is genitive).
- He adds the adjective polys (“great”).
- He changes the compound middle participle for “weeping” to a simple active form.
- He restores the MT second clause “for her children.”
- And he uses a more literal Greek verb for “comforted.”
The result is this: Matthew’s quotation from Jeremiah is neither a quotation from the MT, the BHS or the LXX. Matthew has altered the text to suit his purposes. What does this tell us about the New Testament idea of inspiration? Even if we suggest that no Hebrew would ever consider the Tanakh uninspired, Matthew (and he is not the only one) shows us that there is a fluidity to the idea of inspiration that is not aligned with contemporary versions of plenary and inerrant manuscripts. In fact, the more we study the exact details of the New Testament authors’ use of the Old Testament, the more we come into contact with a concept of inspiration that does not match our Western standards of inviolable transmission. At the same time, the rabbinic tradition held that even the letters of the Hebrew Bible were inspired. There is a tension here that Western minds find difficult to balance.
And this isn’t the only example.
Matthew 1:23 MT “she will call him.” The LXX reads, “you will call him. ” Matthew changes it to “they will call him.” Textual variant LXX Alpha is in the third person plural, but more likely Matthew alters the text to fit the context of his own use.
Matthew 2:6 MT “And you Bethlehem Ephrathah, little among the thousands of Judah.” The LXX adds “house of Ephrathah,” changes “thousands” to “rulers of thousands,” but Matthew replaces “house of” with “land of Judah” and adds “by no means,”, changes the adjective to “least,” replaces “rulers of thousands” with “governors,” omits “of me” but then follows the LXX with “out of you will go forth.” This is midrash, not quotation.
Matthew 2:23 No text in the Tanakh declares that the Messiah will be called a Nazarene. Where did this come from? It is a play on the Hebrew root word, not a prophecy.
Matthew 4:6 Matthews use of Ps. 91:11 is a fairly literal translation of the LXX. Matthew follows the LXX except he omits “to protect you in all your ways” replacing the phrase with “and”. Luke preserves “to protect you” but omits “in all your ways.”
Matthew 5:33 The words “whoever divorces” are not in the Tanakh. The Tanakh reads “if a man . . . finds something indecent . . .” This is a summary of a quotation rather than a quotation. How does it still have authority? Yeshua employs it as a midrash.
Matthew 10:35 The LXX translates MT with “dishonors” rather than “treats as a fool,” but Matthew replaces “son” with “man,” omits the first verb, inserts “against,” omits the second verb and paraphrases the final clause.
Matthew 12:18b Matthew uses the verb “announces,” not found in the LXX or MT.
Matthew 12:20b The long citation apparently following Isaiah 42 in the LXX It could be that Matthew is translating the text to show its implicit Hebrew concepts, but it also might be that Matthew is combining this passage in Isaiah with material from Habakkuk 1:4.
Matthew 13:35 MT “utter dark sayings from of old.” The LXX turns “parable” into the plural and renders “dark sayings” as problemata. Matthew uses kelrymmena (things having been hidden) and “from the foundation of the world” for “from of old.”
Matthew 18:16 Matthew renders MT by eliminating the second “on the mouth” and “witnesses,” changing the “and” to “or” and altering the future passive “shall be established” to the aorist passive “was established.” Matthew fits the quotation to the context of his narrative.
Matthew 21:5 follows the LXX verbatim for first clause, but omits “righteous and saving.” Then he deviates from the LXX in the use of terms for donkey and “on a colt, the offspring of a donkey.”
Matthew 21:9 Matthew inserts “Son of David,” not found in the Psalm and omits “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David” found in the LXX.
Matthew 22:24 Matthew quotes Deuteronomy 25:5 but his version is more like a paraphrase. “Brother” is changed to “someone” and “not having children” becomes “there is no seed for him.”
Matthew 22:37 translates Deuteronomy 6:5 but Matthew adds “and with all your understanding,” then changes the preposition ex in the LXX to en.
Matthew 26:31 MT reads “you (singular) strike the shepherd.” The LXX changes “you” to plural and “shepherd” to “shepherds.” Matthew changes the command to first person singular future, “I will strike,” and adds “of the flock.”
Matthew 26:64 Matthew inserts Ps 110:1 into a quotation from Daniel 7:13. He changes meta to epi (on the clouds). But here the citation is from Yeshua who alters the text from “sit at my right hand” to fit the context of his remark.
Matthew 27:46 Matthew changes the spelling of the MT for “my God” (compare Mark) and changes the Greek LXX from the nominative used for direct address to the vocative.
Here are eighteen cases where either MT or LXX have not been followed or have been altered to fit Matthew’s objective. What are we to conclude about the doctrine of inspiration here? How are we to reconcile substantial alterations in the text in both LXX and MT, yet still claim that Matthew’s words are the Word of God? And these are only examples from Matthew. Every author of the apostolic writings does the same thing, including the statements of Yeshua.
The evidence seems clear. Our contemporary idea of inerrancy and inspiration do not fit what actually happens in the text. The behavior of the authors indicates that they operated with concepts that are much looser than ours. Who do you suppose is correct?
Topical Index: inerrancy, inspiration, hermeneutics, Matthew 2:17-18
TACOMA CONFERENCE IN FEBRUARY
Several people have notified me that the web page of signing up for the Tacoma conference in February wasn’t working properly. HERE IS THE LINK FOR REGISTRATION
okay Shalom everyone. This is 1 of those posts that is good 4 digesting with a group or congregation of people in a discussion forum at a church meeting for a few weeks in length. I am planning to do this.B.B.
Please share those results with this part of the Body, Brett.
Time is not linear as we know it. I think I can just see that. If that is so, then only the Word spoken on Sinai was truly written in stone (I am not sure where to put the tongue in cheek icon here). In other words, the past can be overwritten. Redemption introduces this concept to us, as in our sins will be be forgiven and cast into the deep. Past sins, mind you.
That is not as simple as it sounds in practice.
Skip says that prophecy is open-ended, too, as in we decide to some extent its fulfillment. Prophecy is also so that when we see it come to pass, our faith will be strengthened. If prophecy can only come true to the extent that it was understood at the time it was given, we would all be in trouble. Prophecy is NEVER understood when it is given; it is only understood fully when it comes to pass! To me, this collapses the argument that, just because prophecy does not exactly match the fulfillment that it was not prophecy, for prophecy is only fully understood in hindsight. Perhaps this also means that it can also only be written correctly in hindsight, too? That is not to say that it was written wrongly, just that the writer did not understand exactly how to present it completely. That makes sense if the future is truly open-ended, as in we get to participate in its creation by our choices. (Hopefully that would be choices based upon those prophecies.) This makes it very important to work hard to understand the prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled, and pray earnestly for enlightenment, for they were given so that we would have a sure framework for the future to lash our present on to. To me, prophecy is an ark built to keep me safe in that future. As it comes to fruition, of course. That safety is ensured by understanding the will of my Father and staying aligned with it. Prophecy reveals that will.
P.S. Prophecy is fun to play with, and it is fun to rewrite prophecy that gets fulfilled in the contemporary present in the present tense. Even if that fulfillment is horrible, it is completely fascinating to see it happen. I think this is why divination has the allure that it does. Everybody wants to know the future! I can imagine Matthew and the other writers were having just a little fun, too.
I just finished watching Rabbi David fohrman from alpha beta through tenach study presents the idea of the Messiah how come it’s not in the Torah ? Lecturing in front of young Jewish students recorded July 24th 2016 published on July 26th 2016 excellent find.!!!!
PS forgot to mention the question for his study is where would the Messianic age fit in the Tanakh?
I’m a member of Aleph Beta is this a new course he did? what is it titled?
Hello Donna it’s good to see that you’re interested but it was not one of his courses he caught it through a lecture Tanakh presents the idea of the Messiah how come it’s not in Torah hope you can find it email me if you can’t
This is Brett again I apologize for voice activation misspelling your name Dana is correct your name is known in heaven as that it’s a new name the name of the redeemed what she’ll say so please contact me through email where do you live? I love to talk about these things my wife is okay with this she is a Believer also
Shalom Dana apologize for the misspelling of your name which is important voice activation was inaccurate please forgive me my email is choosechai@ comcast.net shalom
Shalom Dana I was sending responses through my smartphone but they are not showing up on this site. Contact me to email please
I also watch R. Fohrman’s teachings and have followed him for probably about 10 years… will have to go search out that video if I can find it 🙂 Between him and Skip….I get a good dose of ‘foundation’.
As to differences between the LXX and the MT, evidence seems to indicate that the LXX is based on an older and slightly (in some places, markedly) different Hebrew text than the MT. This was made clear with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, with the DSS aligning more with the LXX than the MT in places. In addition, the quotes in the NT more faithfully follow the LXX than the MT by and large.
As regards your statement on Matthew 26:64: “Matthew inserts Ps 110:1 into a quotation from Daniel 7:13. He changes meta to epi (on the clouds)”, I note the following.
Since I’d recently written about the passages in Revelation which quote from Daniel 7:13, I have some info readily at hand. You assertion in Matthew is incorrect; the LXX of this verse is epi, and Matthew follows this. The difference is slight anyway, as epi means “upon” or “on”, while meta means “with”. Moreover, since a discussion of this verse (and parallels) recently came up on this blog, I’d noted reading in a commentary that the seeming incongruity of “sitting at the right hand” (Ps 110:1) and “coming on the clouds” is easily resolvable with an understanding that Messiah will be seated on God’s chariot throne “coming on the clouds.”
Going back to 7:13, I’ll just copy and paste my own footnotes. “Here [Revelation 14:14] John the Revelator uses the exact same verbiage as the LXX of Daniel 7:13 in the prepositional phrase ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν [epi tōn nephelōn], upon the clouds, as compared to [Revelation] 1:7’s μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν, with the clouds.” In another instance, I noted that sometimes the speaker/writer makes slight changes for style purposes. I’d noted the following on the word “like” (as in “like a son of man”): “The Greek is slightly different in that the Apocalypse uses ὅμοιον (like) as compared to Daniel’s ὡς. This could have been for stylistic reasons, as John may have preferred to use a bit of alliteration and assonance (τῶν λυχνιῶν ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου, tōn luchniōn homoion huion anthrōpou [among the lampstands, like a son of man – 1:7]; καθήμενον ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου, kathēmenon homoion huion anthrōpou [one sitting like a son of man – 14:14]).
Help me understand.
All men, Old and New Testament alike, are sinners prone to error.
Yet, God has used them all by His inspiration to author His Word.
It would seem, therefore, that God being God and using sinful men
for His purpose and will, could see to it that His power and intent
still abundantly comes through even with man’s proneness to error.
Or were the Old Testament writers different in their humanity from the New?
If so, in what way?
Shalom Rich ; you have had good post in the past. I believe it’s the book to the Hebrews chapter one verse 1 he’s an excellent explanation to your question. In various ways in Past Times to the father’s by the prophets. Speaking of two time periods going through verse 4. In times past , Andy’s last days. Good Jewish commentaries 4 Hebrew commentaries are good insights.B.B.
Hi Skip. Let me take a wild guess… Do the Jewish Sages do the same thing in Talmud?
Matthew seems to be a prime example of a phenomenological approach to the scriptures that is the foundation for the entire practice and genre of “Pardes” method of exegesis. If the ancient Hebrews and 2nd temple Jews saw life itself as not strictly following linear time but rather cycles of pattern-and-recapitulation, then it shouldn’t surprise us to see their hermeneutic as not strictly “linear” but rather built on pattern-and-recapitulation as well.
Yes, pattern fulfillment.
Ok Skip this is deep water, a glossary of terms would help us linguistic neophytes. But I with my first reading, I think I’m getting your point. At least a little of it. So the N.T. is commentary on the O.T. or the apostolic writers are inspired but had free will and intention rather than being scribes for a Zeus like supreme being for whom they took dictation. In other words the light of YHVH illuminated the minds of men temporarily trapped in space and time who had received from YHVH free will. These guy’s chose to use that free will to get at the heart and mind of what and who was being illuminated and share it though the lens and patterning of their Hebrew minds, culture, training, and experience; Is that about it?
Not quite. The point is that “inspiration” as a doctrine does not describe the BEHAVIOR of the writers. The authors employed a much more fluid view of the Tanakh because they did not consider altering the text to fit their agendas as a violation of the text. Why? Because the audience knew what the ORIGINAL text said. The community was self-correcting. The authors of the apostolic material could freely alter the text without causing anyone to be confused about the ORIGINAL. Since they did this often, it merely demonstrates that our DOCTRINE of inspiration is a theological construction, not a representation of the way the authors actually wrote.
……and isn’t that ORIGINAL personal self-correcting knowledge of the text precisely what the founding fathers lost when they decided to make doctrinal decisions without reference to Jewish traditions and interpretations and set themselves up as a completely new church? A new religion if you like? A thousand times over.
Ah! And is that also why what the rabbis did is different from what today’s pastors/preachers/teachers (some of them) do in using the text out of context to teach a point? The rabbis could use an out-of-context passage and fit it into their point because people knew that they had altered the text? Whereas today, when pastors use a passage out of its original context it’s problematic, because people don’t know the original and therefore it creates confusion (or sometimes it’s even self-serving and deceptive). Is that the difference, or is there something more?
Precisely, Skip. As in the changing of “ALMAH” being a young woman/maiden, to “VIRGIN” to suit their agenda of an immaculate conception. That is an abuse of Scripture, altering the meaning when that verse in Isaiah points to a sign given to king Ahaz that Yahudah will not be destroyed. That too is NOT about the Messiah, nor a prophecy of Messiah’s birth, as stipulated in NT.
Our Bibles are not inerrant, due to the many succession of translations. The KJV was translated in 1604 finishing in 1611, whereas the inspired Hebrew Tanakh is 3500 years old.
Shalom.