Tanakh and Old Testament: Why They Might As Well Be Different Documents Even Though They’re Basically the Same Document

 

 If you’re Christian and you’ve tried to engage someone Jewish in a conversation about scripture looking for some common ground, chances are you’ve found the experience frustrating – you’re trying to talk about the Old Testament (which we call Tanakh) and you know that the Old Testament is Jewish scripture as well as Christian, but somehow the conclusions you draw seem to be foreign to the person you’re talking to. This actually isn’t surprising; I’m writing this to explain why. I’m not writing this for Jews because we (I’m Jewish) have less reason to engage Christians in such conversations than the other way around, the reason being that we aren’t evangelical. That’s why there are so few of us. We aren’t evangelical because:

 

1. We don’t believe in original sin so we aren’t worried about salvation.
2. We don’t believe that being Christian will keep you out of heaven, so converting you to Judaism won’t save you from anything other than an extra set of responsibilities. We pay very little attention to the afterlife to begin with; it really doesn’t motivate us. (Also, we don’t believe in Satan, at least not in the form you do.)
3. Having been a minority for a couple of millennia, being evangelical could get us killed by the majority populations so, if the first two reasons weren’t enough, we avoided being evangelical for survival.

 

 If the purposes of your conversation with us are evangelical, be aware that, for historical reasons and due to our relatively tiny population, we view evangelism as extremely threatening. How benign your intentions are (or how benign you view them as being) is beside the point. You may view the addition of Christianity to our beliefs as an augmentation of Judaism; we view it as an attack on our faith and, as such, an example of anti-Semitism, and we will typically react with extreme hostility. Understand also that, in our experience, most (though by no means all) of the people who start such conversations with us have evangelism in mind, so we approach such conversations with suspicion and caution. If evangelism is not your intention, please make that clear at the outset. The conversation will be far easier and quite a bit more pleasant. (Also, never ask someone Jewish a question that starts with “Why don’t you believe.” It’s logically nonsensical and assumes our beliefs are less valid than yours which, even though we understand you think that – it’s inevitable to favor one’s own beliefs – is still really rude.)

 

 So much for the caveats. There are basically four reasons we approach Tanakh/Old Testament very differently. The first is:

 

1. Language. No serious Jewish biblical scholarship is done using anything other than original sources which are all in Hebrew or Aramaic (which is linguistically related to Hebrew and uses the same alphabet). Aside from the obvious difficulties of translating an ancient language into a modern one, there are two other difficulties:

 

 a. Roots. Hebrew words typically have three-letter roots, and those roots have their own translations and connotations. A Hebrew reader will get these, but they aren’t always easy to get into translation.

 

 b. Lack of vowels. Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) is written without vowels. This means that some words can be more than one word, depending on what vowels you plug in. We have to take all possible translations into account, so you not only have to get the subtleties of multiple connotations into translation, you have to get simultaneous alternate meanings into translation, which is basically impossible. The way we do it is when providing an English translation in temple (Reform Judaism) or synagogue (any other branch of Judaism), the translated text literally takes up less space on the page than the footnotes do. (See Gunther Plaut)

 

 If you’re using the King James version, you have a third translation issue:

 

 c. Translation from Jacobean English into Modern English. The King James bible has a reputation as an excellent translation into English,although many words are mistranslated,past,present and future tence is changed in a few places, and the order of the books isn't the same, but it was done into Jacobean English. The meanings of some words in English have shifted in the centuries between that translation and the present, and some readers aren’t aware that they have to worry about English to English translation to get to the original meanings.

 

2. The Oral Law. We believe that Moses was given two sets of laws on Mt. Sinai: one that he wrote down (Torah) and one that he didn’t. The Oral Law was to help with the written law and also to remain more fluid so it could adapt to change over time better. The Oral Law was included in commentary and in legal decisions. Eventually, during the Roman occupation, the Oral Law was in danger of disappearing because the Romans were prohibiting Jewish religious education, so a famous rabbi wrote it down to preserve it. What he wrote is now called the Mishnah and includes the law itself plus commentary by rabbis about it and Torah and Haftorah (Old Testament scripture after the first five books). Because Christianity doesn’t recognize the Oral Law, there’s a big difference in how we approach Tanakh.

 

3. Further commentary. Over the nearly two millennia since the Mishnah was codified, rabbis have continued to write commentaries on the Torah itself, the Haftorah, and the Oral Law. As was true in the Mishnah, commentaries include expert minority opinion, so we can trace arguments and see where consensus was reached and where it wasn’t. Essentially, every detail was questioned to death and still is, right down to arguments over single letters in words. Judaism is heavily based on study and this is how. The combination of Oral Law and commentary is called the Talmud.

 

So, Jews read Tanakh in a different language, influenced by Oral Law, and through a rabbinic lens. Points 2 and 3 have to do with our lens; point 4 has to do with yours.

 

4. Supporting Jesus with the Old Testament. Jesus’ life is the central event in Christianity and many Christians view the Old Testament as a sort of preamble to Jesus, giving him a framework and proving his inevitability. Adam and Eve are important because they give you the source for Original Sin which you need in order for Jesus’ salvation to be necessary. Abraham and the Binding of Isaac story is important to you but you draw the exact opposite conclusion from ours – we view the story as God’s telling us that, unlike the surrounding pagans, human sacrifice is forever off limits; many of you view it as a preview of a later father’s sacrifice of a son. For some of you, the giants of the Old Testament are Daniel and Isaiah because their predictions can be interpreted as predicting Jesus. Daniel and Isaiah are considerably more peripheral to us (Isaiah perhaps less so), but we also view Isaiah differently  - we view him as a flowery writer rich in imagery and metaphor while you view him as a sort of biblical Nostradamus.Isaiah is also one of the books that is mistranslated and tences changed in your bible.

 

In conclusion, don’t be surprised by how different Jewish and Christian conclusions are from what looks like the same source text.

 Jesus' birth name might have been Y'shua ben Yoseph.It may well have been the Greek name of Jesus, since Greek names were popular as well after the time of Alexander the Great.He was the first born in a large family and had brothers and sisters.His mother,therefore was not an "eternal virgin".Yoseph,his father was known as Jesus' father and a carpenter.Four brother's names are given and he had at least two sisters.The word brethren relates to his brother's and sisters,not his disciples.His family was never far from him during his life.

Matt 1:25(Luke 2:7),"...till she had brought forth her firstborn son;and he called his name Jesus.

John 6:42(John 1:45,Luke 4:22),"...Is this not Jesus,the son of Joseph,whose father and mother we know?"
 
Matt 13:55-56(Mark 6:3)Is this not the carpenter's son?is not his mother called Mary?and his brethren,James, Joses, Simon,and Juda? And his sisters,are they all not with us?...."

John 2:12,"....he,and his mother,and his brethren,and his disciples..."

Luke 8:19-20 (Matt 12:46-47,Mark 3:31-32),"Then came to him his mother and brethren,and could not come to him for the press.And it was told to him,'Thy mother and thy brethren stand without,desiring to see thee."'

    This establishes his family and family background.Now let's examine the concept of the revelations that were supposedly given. Shouldn't such a message of heavenly dimension have affected his life and relationship to his family?

    Luke 1:26-35 has an angel appearing to Mary and telling her of having a child though a virgin,and that the child is the awaited Messiah.In Matt 1:20-21,an angel tells Joseph the same thing.

    Obviously they would have understood this amazing occurrence since in Luke 1:48-49,Mary is shown to say,"...for,behold,from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.For He that is mighty (G-d) hath done to me great things."

   Shouldn't her and Joseph's relationship with Jesus been one of awe considering this amazing background?If it was revealed to them that he was the Messiah,wouldn't his whole family have followed him as his first believers?Yet,they were not. Shouldn't there have been a special relationship between Jesus and his mother of total respect and awe,her for him by his origins and he for her as the chosen vessel to bring the Messiah into this world.

Matt 12:46-50  when his mother and family came to see him,he said,Who is my mother?Who are my brethren?And then pointed at his disciples and said this is my mother and brethren. Those that do the will of G-d.

His mother came to see him and he brushed her off.For any son this is disrespectful and for Jesus to do so to the woman that supposed bore him through the direct intervention of G-d is astonishingly disrespectful.He could have made the point that all that follow the will of G-d are his family without being disrespectful and disparaging to his mother.How could he speak in such a manner to her if she was the "holy virgin mother of Christianity"?

Luke 11:27-28,"....a certain woman ...said to him,Blessed is the womb that bore thee and the paps which thou hast suckled.But he said.Yea,rather,blessed are they that hear the word of G-d and keep it."

  He reiterates his belief that those that do G-d's will are blessed in the world,but evidently denies the exclamation by Mary in Luke1:48,where she says all generations will call her blessed. Where is the reverence?

John 2:4,"Jesus said unto her (Mary), Woman,what have I to do with thee?"

This shows total disrespect to Mary.She is his mother and he calls her woman as though she were a stranger and separates himself from her. In fact,there is nowhere in the NT that Jesus uses any endearing term to his mother.Not only is there a lack of reverence but there is a strange lack of the simple affection between a child and parent.

Luke 2:43-50 has to do when Joseph and Mary were looking for Jesus when he was at the Temple after they had left Jerusalem for home and had to return to find him. After they find him they express they're frustration at his staying behind and causing them worry.He replied to them,"How is it that ye sought me?Did you not know that I be at my Father's house about my Father's business?

The next line is "And they understood not the saying that he spoke"

   First we see that Mary and Joseph did not understand Jesus' alleged mission.We see here that they did not understand that Jesus must do G-d's work as he is supposedly the Messiah.If the scene with Gabriel was true about appearing before Mary and telling her about Jesus' upcoming birth and being Messiah they would have fully understood Jesus' mission and special nature, but they didn't.

Mark 3:21,"And when his friends heard of it,they went out to lay hold of him;for they said,He is beside himself."

     From this phrase,it gives the impression that Jesus' friends thought him crazy,not holy. Don't you think that they,as his friends,would have heard of his miraculous birth or that he was the Messiah from his parents,family or Jesus himself?

John 7:3,5,"His brethren said to him. Depart and go into Judea,that thy disciples also may see the works thou do.For neither did his brethren believe in him."

His brethren are his brothers,not his friends,cousins or disciples.His brothers had no belief in him.If the story of the divine revelation of his birth and Messiahship were true,his home would have been filled with wondrous awe.His brothers did not believe in him.It is clear that when James was in contact with Jesus at this point that he knew nothing of Christianity's miraculous event of the virgin birth or Jesus being the supposed Messiah.Why such a lack of knowledge within the family? No secrecy was declared about the happenings. Galations 1:19 does not contradict this because it deals with James at a later date,after the crucifixion,when other factors were involved.

Mark 6:4(Matt 13:57,Luke 4:24,John 4:44),"But Jesus said unto them,a prophet is not without honor,but in his own country,and among his own kin,and in his own house."

  We read here that Jesus says his own family did not give respect They lack understanding about who he is? Even though the message was supposedly given to both Mary and Joseph by an angel? Obviously they knew nothing about any miraculous birth nor revelation that he is the Messiah even though the NT says they did.Why isn't anything mentioned in the other books? Paul's writings predate the others ,yet not a word.

 

The fact is that there is no virgin birth prophesy.When missionaries are confronted with the glaring problem that the context of Isaiah 7:14 does not support Matthew's claim that Isaiah is referring to Jesus' virgin birth, they often argue that Isaiah 7:14 is a dual prophecy. In order to fully understand what missionaries mean by a dual prophecy, let's first explain why the context of Isaiah 7:14 does not support Matthew's use of this verse as a proof-text of his virgin birth story.

It should be said at the outset that the word "virgin" does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha'almah as "a virgin." This Hebrew word ha'almah does not mean "a virgin." It means "the young woman," with no implication of virginity. Most modern Christian Bibles have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as "the young woman." Let's now examine the context of Isaiah 7:14.

The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom Judah. In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the
hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Syrian kingdom. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear.
Chapter seven relates how God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand - the Almighty would protect him, their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their
attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. Let's read Isaiah 7:1-16:

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king
of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of
Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage
war against it. And it was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has
allied itself with Ephraim," and his heart and the heart of his people
trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. And the
Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son
to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's
field. And you shall say to him, "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not
fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of
firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rizin and Aram and the son of
Remaliah. Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah,
saying: `Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and
let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.' So said the Lord
God, `Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass...'" And the Lord
continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord,
your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above." And Ahaz
said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord." And he said, "Listen
now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my
God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; Behold
the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call
his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad
and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and
choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah's declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus' birth, what possible comfort and assurance could Ahaz, who was surrounded
by to overwhelming military enemies, find in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would long be dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.

Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity ("he knows to reject bad and choose good"), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. In II Kings 15-16 we see that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were suddenly assassinated. With an understanding of the context
of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria.

This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in. Missionaries attempt to explain away this stunning problem of Matthew's complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah's words to Ahaz had two different applications. They concede that the first application of Isaiah's prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. This child that was born contemporaneously, the first leg of this dual prophecy, was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago.

Missionaries insist, however, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus' "virgin birth" about 2,000 years ago. With this elaborate explanation, missionaries maintain that Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate. In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled twice: once in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. Problem solved. Or is it?

The troubles created by this explanation are manifold. To begin with, the proposal of dual prophecy is entirely contrived and has no basis in the Bible. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text even hint of
a second fulfillment.2 The notion of a dual prophecy is thoroughly unbiblical. and was fashioned in order to explain away a stunning theological problem.

Moreover, if, as missionaries argue, the word ha'almah means a "virgin," and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive in Ahaz's time? Were there two virgin births? That is to
say, if these Christians claim that the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who then was the first virgin having a baby boy in 732 B.C.E.? Bear in mind that these missionaries insist that the word ha'almah can only mean a virgin in chapter seven even though Isaiah uses the actual word b'thulah in his book a few time. Are they claiming that Mary was not the first and only virgin to conceive and give birth to a child?

Furthermore, if they claim the seventh chapter of Isaiah is a dual prophecy, how does Isaiah 7:15-16 apply to Jesus when these verses continue to speak of this lad? Remember, Isaiah 7:14-16 reads:
(14) Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; "Behold the
young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his
name Immanuel. (15) Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject
bad and choose good. (16) For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad
and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

If Isaiah's words are the substance of a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby-Jesus mature? Who were the two kingdoms during Jesus' lifetime who were abandoned? Who dreaded the Kingdom of Israel (Northern Kingdom) during the first century when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the seventh century B.C.E.? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Does any of this make any sense? It doesn't because this argument of a dual prophecy was born out of the desperation of Christian missionaries and essentially makes a mockery out of the Book of Isaiah.

Missionary claims that the Greek text is in harmony with the Tanakh are, in the least,outrageous in their complete untruths. Statements in the text completely contradict what the Prophets have foretold in their writings, locations of places are changed, and concepts altered.

 

On the subject of Elijah,The Prophet says that Elijah would come to announce the Day of the L-rd
Mal 4:5: Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

The Greek text has Jesus saying that Elijah has come in fulfillment of Malachi's prophesy.

Mt:17:10: And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
Mt:17:11: And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
Mt:17:12: But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Yet the one that Jesus refers to,John the Baptist,denies that he is Elijah.

Jn:1:21: And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
Obviously John the Baptist knew he wasn't Elijah. Since the Tanakh states that Elijah must come BEFORE the messiah,this idea that Elijah has come contradicts the Prophet. Christian Apologists attempt to say it was the spirit of Elijah that was in John yet nothing in the original Hebrew text of the Prophet even remotely infers that it would be anything except the Prophet in the flesh.

On the subject of sacrifice,the book of Hebrews states that Jesus is the final sacrifice.
Heb:10:12: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

This clearly contradicts what it says in the Prophets. Ezekiel's prophesy of the Eternal Temple and the re-establishment of the sacrifices, including sin sacrifice

Ezek:37:26: Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
Ezek:45:17: And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the Sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

Another contradiction is in Revelations in that it says there will be no courtyard of the Eternal Temple

Rv:11:2: But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Yet Ezekiel gives the measurement of the courtyard from the main building to where the wall is erected

Ezek:42:1: Then he brought me forth into the utter court, the way toward the north: and he brought me into the chamber that was over against the separate place, and which was before the building toward the north.
Ezek:42:16: He measured the east side with the measuring reed, five hundred reeds, with the measuring reed round about.
Ezek:42:17: He measured the north side, five hundred reeds, with the measuring reed round about.
Ezek:42:18: He measured the south side, five hundred reeds, with the measuring reed.
Ezek:42:19: He turned about to the west side, and measured five hundred reeds with the measuring reed.
Ezek:42:20: He measured it by the four sides: it had a wall round about, five hundred reeds long, and five hundred broad, to make a separation between the sanctuary and the profane place.
Ezek:46:21: Then he brought me forth into the utter court, and caused me to pass by the four corners of the court; and, behold, in every corner of the court there was a court.

 

The only mention of Gentiles in Ezekiel is in chapter 4 before the Eternal Temple comes: 4:13.  And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
 14.  Then said I, Ah Lord God! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
 15.  Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.
 16.  Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment:
 17.  That they may want bread and water, and be astonied one with another, and consume away for their iniquity.

One would also imagine that the promised Messiah would ,at least, be somewhat familiar with the existing scriptures and his own family history since the story of David is written down.

 

Jesus quote:Mark 2
25. And he said unto them, Did ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him?
26. How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him?

Tanakh quote 1 Sam 21
1. Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?
2. And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know anything of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed the young men to such and such a place.

 

Ahimelech was High Priest, Abiathar was his son and David was alone and didn't have "they that were with him".

 

Matt 27:9 says that Jeremiah prophesied about a potters field and thirty pieces of silver. There is no reference to a potter's field nor thirty pieces of silver in Jeremiah.

 

Matt23:35 says that Zachariah,son of Barachiah was killed. There is no Zachariah mentioned in the Tanakh. There was a Zechariah that was stoned , but his father was Zahoiadah. There is no mention of a Barachiah in the Tanakh at all.

 

John 17:12 mentions a "son of perdition;that the scripture be fulfilled."There is no reference to a son of perdition in the Tanakh.

 

Acts7:15-16 says that Jacob was buried in Shechem when the cave that Abraham bought was Mam're(Gen50;13,Gen25:9).