This material is a recommended starting point. It contains essential information that will be frequently referenced.
In the Jewish community, there are four basic methods of interpretation used to understand the Scriptures. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, they are:
This consists of applying to the text of the Bible the normal standards of diction, style, and arrangement in order to understand the plain meaning. P'shat deals with the explanation the plain meaning of the text. Of the four, this is the interpretive method the rabbis prefer.
In the Talmud, in Shabbat 63A, this statement is found:
"A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning,1"
The importance of this statement is revealed by Rabbi Aharon Feldman in his book The Juggler and the King. Rabbi Feldman describes the comment, "a verse cannot depart from its plain meaning" as the "Sages dictum." A dictum is an "authoritative declaration."2 He goes on to say that it is an authoritative declaration of the rabbinic sages that "the simple meaning of the text is always true."3 So, the rabbinic sages understood that this interpretive method was to be preferred.
This method consists of deriving from Scripture the allegorical meaning of the text. An allegory is a symbolic explanation. The rabbis tend to see extensive symbols in the biblical text. However, most of their symbolic interpretations cannot be substantiated by the text. The vast majority of rabbinic Remez is simply clever, intellectual, imaginative speculation.
This method consists of selecting from the teaching of the rabbis' lessons of an edifying or practical nature which the text suggests. D'rash deals with day to day practical application of Scripture.
This method consists of finding hints or allusions in the Bible on the nature of God and the soul, etc.4
This approach to Biblical interpretation is four-fold in method and very fluid in application. By fluid I mean that it is considered valid to apply each of these four methods to the same verse in the Bible in order to determine the meaning. As a result, in the rabbinical mind, any particular verse can have four levels of meaning:
The writers of the New Testament quote the Hebrew Scriptures using the cultural mindset of the day in which they lived. The result is that they used this "four-fold-fluid" approach rather than any single or rigid method. In fact, Matthew uses all four methods, one after the other, in Chapter 2 of his book. This reflects his first-century Jewish mindset and culture. In Matthew 2:5-6, he views Micah 5:2 as a literal fulfillment, a P'shat. In Matthew 2:15, he views Hosea 11:1 philosophically or typically; in other words, he uses Remez. In Matthew 2:17-18, he views Jeremiah 31:15 homiletically, a D'rash; Matthew 2:17-18 is a practical application of Jeremiah 31:15. Finally, in Matthew 2:23, he makes a summary statement covering all that the prophets (note: plural) as a group taught about the Messiah. In Matthew 2:23, he is approaching the text from a mystical point of view, he is using the technique called Sod.
All quotes of the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament will always fit into one of these four categories. The New Testament, because it is a Jewish book and written by Jewish authors, is very consistent in the way it uses the Hebrew Scriptures. The following terminology will be used when referring to these four categories. I will call them:
You would be wise to master this material. A mastery of these ideas will go a long way to aid your understanding of prophecy and your ability to defend the Bible against critics.
1 The Soncino Talmud (©1973 Judaica Press, Inc. and ©1965, 1967, 1977, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, & 1990 Soncino Press, Ltd.) is a product of Judaica Press, Inc. Brooklyn, NY, and, if included, is incorporated herein pursuant to exclusive license.
2 WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
3 Feldman, Rabbi Aharon, The Juggler and the King, (Spring Valley: Philipp Feldheim, Inc.) 1990, pg. xxii
4 Encyclopedia Judaica, CD Rom Edition Version 1.0, s.v. "Literature, Jewish"
5 Fruchtenbaum, Dr. A.G., Manuscript #134 - "How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament," (Tustin:Ariel Ministries, 1991), pp 2-9; see also Cooper, Dr. David L., Messiah: His Historical Appearance (Los Angeles, California: Biblical Research Society, 1958), pp. 174-178
When dealing with messianic prophecy it is very important to understand that there are four categories of messianic prophecy, and these distinctions are essential. In his book Messianic Christology (pgs. 10-11), Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum discusses the fact that messianic prophecies fall into four categories:
Some prophecies are very straightforward and deal exclusively with either the First Coming (category 1) or the Second Coming (category 2).
The third category of prophecies includes verses that blend the First and Second Comings together in such a way as to negate or conceal the period of time in between. It becomes necessary to study other parallel Scriptures in order to see the distinction. Zechariah 9:9-10 is a good example of this: Verse nine deals with the First Coming, and verse 10 deals with the Second. These verses alone do not distinguish between the two, but this is clarified by other passages.
The fourth category refers to passages which cover the entire messianic program and include four elements: First Coming, Interval of Time, Second Coming and the Messianic Kingdom.
When you study messianic prophecy, carefully note which category the prophecy belongs to.
Another factor influencing the use of the Hebrew Scriptures by the New Testament writers is the "Targumim Factor." This refers to the interpretive translation style of the Targumim that was prominent in the first century. The word "targum" means "translation" or "to translate." Targumim is the plural form-"translations." The Targumim are Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible. Aramaic was one of three languages in common use in first century Israel (Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic).
The Targumim are not word-for-word translations; rather, they were paraphrastic in nature. They were interpretive translations; they would be equivalent to the Living Bible we have today. The Living Bible is not a translation, it is a paraphrase. The goal of the Living Bible is the same as that of the Targumim, the aim-the goal-was to communicate understanding. The aim was to communicate what the passage meant in the clearest possible terms. They were not interested in producing a one-for-one, literal translation. For example, Isaiah 52:13 literally says, "My servant will prosper …," in contrast, Targum Jonathan says, "My servant, the Messiah, will prosper …" Isaiah 52:13 does not contain the words "the Messiah" in the Hebrew text. However, Jonathan understood the verse to refer to the Messiah, and accordingly, he paraphrased the text when he translated it into Aramaic.
He added the paraphrastic comment "the Messiah." He did this in order to communicate his understanding of the text to the reader.1 Could we say that the Jewish New Testament writers did the same? Yes, we can. They are Jews writing in the same Jewish, cultural context as the Targumim.
They are communicating their understanding of the Hebrew text to their readers, just like Jonathan. This is a very different approach than what we are used to. We live in 21st century, not the first century. We live in America, not Israel. Our culture is high-tech, high-speed, urbanized, linear, and time-fixated. Accordingly, we tend to view the Hebrew Scriptures from our perspective. We do not consider adjusting our point-of-view to fit the perspective of the writer and his audience. However, we must do our best to make that adjustment. We need to do this out of fairness to the author and to the text. Without making this adjustment we can misunderstand the meaning of the text.
This desire to communicate understanding is explained by biblical archaeologist, James A. Sanders, in his book The Dead Sea Scrolls after Forty Years:
"Early manuscripts were written to be read to the community - Tradents wanted their communities to understand, so they would slightly alter the text to facilitate understanding."
The key sentence is that last one:
Tradents wanted their communities to understand, so they would slightly alter the text to facilitate understanding.
I need to define one word in that key sentence; the word is "tradent." The word "tradent" means: "The person who delivers or hands over any property to another.2" I believe his point is that the Jewish and Christian communities considered the Bible to be the property of God. Those who taught or read the Bible to others considered themselves as stewards passing on God's property; they considered themselves "tradents." In order to fulfill that duty in a responsible manner they would do what they felt necessary to facilitate understanding. That is the basis for the Targumim.
The Aramaic paraphrases would alter the biblical text if the translator felt that the alteration would facilitate a proper understanding of the text. The translator felt that amending the translation was a responsible action to take in order to communicate the intended meaning.
The value of the Targumim lies in the fact that they help us to understand the first-century Jewish understanding of the text. In consequence, the first-century Messianic Jews were not concerned by this factor. They considered this technique of amending the text to gain understanding a valid technique. As a result, a free translation of a verse from the Hebrew Bible did not present in their minds the problems it presents to us. We, in the 21st century are much less tolerant of free translations. However, the quotations we have in the New Testament are not always word for word from the Hebrew Bible. They can be slightly different than the original in order to facilitate proper understanding.
My point: when an anti-missionary accuses the Church of tampering with the text he is using an invalid argument. This is a common charge the anti-missionaries level at the New Testament. However, amending the text to produce understanding was an accepted practice in the first-century Jewish community, and the New Testament is a first-century Jewish document. It simply reflects the Jewish culture in which it was written. Altering the text is not the practice of a devious Gentile whose intention is to deceive unsuspecting and gullible Jews into believing a false religion.
This brings up the question of the inspiration and reliability of the New Testament. The Targumim factor does not compromise the inspiration, reliability and authority of the New Testament. If we believe in divine inspiration, then, since the practice is found in the New Testament, the practice does not bother God.
Remember, the practice is found in the New Testament. Matthew Chapter 2 is a prime example. Since God oversaw the production of the New Testament then we can have confidence in the New Testament text. God saw to it that the proper understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures was communicated through the pages of the New Testament. As a result, slight differences in quotations should not bother us as well. You should understand this attack by an anti-missionary to be invalid.
1 "Life of the Messiah" tape series, Ariel Ministries
2 The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed., 1989)
A similar situation exists in relation to the Septuagint. First of all let me define the word "Septuagint." The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, it is a translation made by the Jewish community somewhere between the third and first centuries BC. As a result, this Greek version of the Old Testament existed at the beginning of the first century AD.
In other words, this Greek version of the Bible was made by the Jewish community long before Jesus or the Church came on the scene. The Septuagint found widespread use in the Greek speaking Jewish community before Jesus or the Church came on the scene. As a result, the writers of the New Testament quoted from the Septuagint frequently. The importance of all this lies in the translation technique that the Jewish scholars utilized when they produced the Septuagint.
Encyclopedia Judaica describes their translation technique as "targumic" in nature.1 Its objective was essentially to teach and explain the Hebrew text. As a result we run into the occurrence of free translation again. The Septuagint does not always quote the Hebrew Bible in a word for word manner. When the New Testament quotes the Hebrew Bible it often is quoting from the Septuagint.
Anti-missionaries claim that the Church and the New Testament tamper with the text of the Hebrew Bible. Again, this is an invalid argument. The first-century Messianic Jews were simply quoting from a version of the Bible that was widespread in their community. They were simply quoting from a version of the Bible that was widely accepted in the Greek speaking Jewish community. There is no tampering with the text going on.
What is going on is Messianic Jews simply quoting a recognized Jewish translation. This brings us to the issue of reliability again. Can we trust the Septuagint? I will say the same thing I said in relation to the Targumim Factor. If we believe in divine inspiration, since the practice is found in the New Testament, the practice does not bother God. Since God oversaw the production of the New Testament then we can have confidence in the New Testament text.
God saw to it that the proper understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures was communicated through the pages of the New Testament. God was quite willing to use the Septuagint in this process. Therefore, slight differences in quotations should not bother us as well.
The anti-missionaries use this as an argument to discredit the New Testament. When they do that they are actually criticizing Jewish translators.
1 EJ, CD Rom Edition, Bible Translations: Greek, The Septuagint
We have to consider these factors when we read the New Testament. These four factors are:
Considering these four factors sufficiently answers the majority of objections raised by anti-missionaries, especially when those objections center on the idea that the Church tampered with the text. We are simply recognizing what was going on in the Jewish community during the first century for the purpose of communicating understanding. Slight differences in quotations did not invalidate the New Testament text. Slight differences in quotations did not invalidate the Targumim in the Jewish community. Slight differences in quotation did not invalidate the Septuagint in the Jewish community either.
Let me emphasize, free renderings of the Old Testament in the New Testament are of no concern. They simply reflect the Jewish literature of the First Century. To criticize the New Testament because of free translations is simply rabbinic quibbling. What does it mean to "quibble"? The meaning of "quibble" is to evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections; to find fault or criticize for petty reasons. Let me close this summary with two statements by A. Lukyn Williams on pg. 111 of Christian Evidences for the Jewish People:
...it is doubtful if a single Jewish writer of ancient times can be found who is punctilious about the exact accuracy of his quotations from Scripture. What does R. Joshua haLevi say (after 1467 A.D.) in his Halikoth 'Olam, II, 2?
"The method of traditional teaching is to shorten the passages of Scripture, and it does not bring them forward as they are."
Also on pg. 79 of Christian Evidences for the Jewish People:
With Jewish writers mere verbal accuracy in a quotation is almost of no importance at all. When a Jew, in arguing with a Gentile, pretends that it is, he is presuming on the Gentile's ignorance of things Jewish.
You would be wise to master this information. With this background information in mind let us move on to our first section of Scripture that anti-missionaries challenge.