The following blogpost responds to a video by rabbi Tovia Singer here: https://youtu.be/QsjWC555geI
Like most of rabbi Tovia Singer's videos, there's nothing really new or shocking about his video. He talks about things which he himself admits [including in this video itself] Christian scholars already know about.
I don't have time to do an exhaustive rebuttal. Also, I'm only an amateur apologist. Nevertheless, here are some hastily written comments on the video.
- Singer is wrong in claiming that Sola Scriptura doesn't get us to the concept that Jesus retroactively atoned for the sins of David. Hebrews 10:1-10 clearly teaches the Old Testament sacrificial system did not ACTUALLY take away sin. Yet, the OT teaches atonement is necessary. The obvious inference is that Jesus' death was the real and final atonement for sins (the anti-type of the types in the OT). Compare Rom. 3:24-26.
- Or maybe by "Sola Scriptura" Singer is referring only to evidence limited to the Tanakh. Well, there are plenty of passages that predict a future New Covenant (Jer. 31-33; Ezek. 11:19ff.; 36:26ff.) that the LORD would one day provide the ultimate sacrifice (Gen. 22:14). That the Messiah would provide such atonement by His death (Isa. 53). That the Messiah would be both divine and human can be seen by the Danielic Son of Man being described in Dan. 7:13ff. as both "one like a son of man" (i.e. human or human-like) and yet rides the clouds like a deity. That the final future sacrifice would be of a divine and human figure can be seen when the Angel of Yahweh (the pre-incarnate Christ in a divine Christophany in human form) went up with the flame of a sacrifice in Judges 13:20ff.
Judg. 13:20 And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the LORD went up in the flame of the altar. Now Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground.
21 The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD.
22 And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God."
23 But his wife said to him, "If the LORD had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering at our hands, or shown us all these things, or now announced to us such things as these."
There are many more evidences Christian can present from the Hebrew of the Tanakh. Of course, there are Jewish objections and Christians have answers and responses. The above was just a sampling and quick survey of the evidences. Back to responding to the video.
- Singer says it's un-Jewish to think that the death of the righteous could atone for sins. Yet, there's a long history of such speculation, even assertion, among Jews. Both past and present. See this article by Tony Costa.
"The Concept of Atoning Death in the New Testament: Pagan or Jewish?" by Tony Costa
https://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/CostaT03.pdf
OR
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rxHgpGWc8ObRJJNVZpv59nyVZQFo1Bkk/view?usp=sharing
Regarding the difference between Ps. 40:6 and Heb. 10:5 see the following freely online commentaries HERE:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/10-5.htm
I'll make a few observations. First off, some of the apparent "abuses" of the NT's use of the OT can be explained through the Jewish hermeneutical approach called Pardes/PaRDeS. Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum explains and applies Pardes in the 3rd lecture (of 21 lectures) of his MASTERFUL series linked below:
The Jewish Life of Christ by Arnold Fruchtenbaum [21 lectures in mp3]
https://www.deanbibleministries.org/bible-class-listing/messages/series/the-jewish-life-of-christ
See also Fruchtenbaum's article here:
How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament by Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum
http://arielb.org/archives/794
Here's an excerpt:
//Literal Prophecy Plus Literal Fulfillment: Pshat
The first category is known as “literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment,” reflecting the rabbinic pshat, which refers to the simple meaning of the text. The example of this first category is found in Matthew 2:5 6.//
//Literal Plus Typical: Remez
The second category of quotations can be labeled “literal plus typical.” In rabbinic theology it was known are remez or “hint.” An example of this category is found in Matthew 2:15.//
//Literal Plus Application: Drash
The third category is “literal plus application,” correlating with the rabbinic drash. The example of this category is Matthew 2:17 18.//
//Summation: Sod
The fourth category is “summation” or “summary.” The meaning of sod is “secret” or “mystery” or “something unknown.” The example of the fourth category is found in Matthew 2:23.//
Pardes (Jewish exegesis) [wikipedia article]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)
- Singer claims Christians changed Ps.40:6 when quoted in Heb. 10:5. Actually, the writer of Hebrews is merely following the Jewish translated Septuagint (also known as the LXX). So, if anyone "changed it" it was Jews who did it first. The Jewish translators were translating the sense of the passage. There's nothing wrong with that. The Aramaic Targums did the same thing too, and they were EVEN MORE PARAPHRASTIC. They paraphrased the Hebrew much more than the LXX does. Yet, the Targums were accepted by Jews both before and after the birth of Jesus. Singer should first charge the translators of the Targumim and the LXX for changing the Bible before he charges Christians.
Notice what some of the commentaries in the BibleHub.com LINK I gave above have to say:
Benson Commentary states:
//...The words, a body hast thou prepared me, are the translation of the LXX.; but in the Hebrew it is, Mine ears hast thou opened, or bored; an expression which signifies, I have devoted myself to thy perpetual service, and thou hast accepted of me as thy servant, and signified so much by the boring of mine ears. So that, though the words of the translation of the LXX., here used by the apostle, are not the same with those signified by the original Hebrew, the sense is the same; for the ears suppose a body to which they belong, and the preparing of a body implies the preparing of the ears, and the obligation of the person for whom a body was prepared, to serve him who prepared it; which the boring of the ear signified... //
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states:
//...a body hast thou prepared me—Greek, "Thou didst fit for Me a body." "In Thy counsels Thou didst determine to make for Me a body, to be given up to death as a sacrificial victim" [Wahl]. In the Hebrew, Ps 40:6, it is "mine ears hast thou opened," or "dug." Perhaps this alludes to the custom of boring the ear of a slave who volunteers to remain under his master when he might be free. Christ's assuming a human body, in obedience to the Father's will, in order to die the death of a slave (Heb 2:14), was virtually the same act of voluntary submission to service as that of a slave suffering his ear to be bored by his master. His willing obedience to the Father's will is what is dwelt on as giving especial virtue to His sacrifice (Heb 10:7, 9, 10). The preparing, or fitting of a body for Him, is not with a view to His mere incarnation, but to His expiatory sacrifice (Heb 10:10), as the contrast to "sacrifice and offering" requires; compare also Ro 7:4; Eph 2:16; Col 1:22. More probably "opened mine ears" means opened mine inward ear, so as to be attentively obedient to what God wills me to do, namely, to assume the body He has prepared for me for my sacrifice, so Job 33:16, Margin; Job 36:10 (doubtless the boring of a slave's "ear" was the symbol of such willing obedience); Isa 50:5, "The Lord God hath opened mine ear," that is, made me obediently attentive as a slave to his master. Others somewhat similarly explain, "Mine ears hast thou digged," or "fashioned," not with allusion to Ex 21:6, but to the true office of the ear—a willing, submissive attention to the voice of God (Isa 50:4, 5). The forming of the ear implies the preparation of the body, that is, the incarnation; this secondary idea, really in the Hebrew, though less prominent, is the one which Paul uses for his argument. In either explanation the idea of Christ taking on Him the form, and becoming obedient as a servant, is implied. As He assumed a body in which to make His self-sacrifice, so ought we present our bodies a living sacrifice (Ro 12:1).//
John Gill Commentary states:
//...But a body hast thou prepared me; or "fitted for me"; a real natural body, which stands for the whole human nature; and is carefully expressed, to show that the human nature is not a person. This was prepared, in the book of God's purposes and decrees, and in the council and covenant of grace; and was curiously formed by the Holy Ghost in time, for the second Person, the Son of God, to clothe himself with, as the Syriac version renders it, "thou hast clothed me with a body"; and that he might dwell in, and in it do the will of God, and perform the work of man's redemption: in Psalm 40:6 it is, "mine ears thou hast opened"; digged or bored, the ear being put for the whole body; for if he had not had a body prepared, he could not have had ears opened: besides; the phrase is expressive of Christ's assuming the form of a servant, which was done by his being found in fashion as a man, Philippians 2:7 and of his being a voluntary servant, and of his cheerful obedience as such, the opening, or boring of the ear, was a sign, Exodus 21:5. And thus by having a true body prepared for him, and a willing mind to offer it up, he became fit for sacrifice. //
- Singer claims it's illegitimate for Christians to appeal to the LXX because we're supposed to prove our doctrines from the Hebrew Bible alone. In actuality there are various degrees or levels of strength in our apologetical arsenal. Some arguments are more and better grounded and therefore stronger than others. But that DOESN'T mean that we may not use the less strong arguments as well. Arguments using the Hebrew Bible will be our strongest arguments. Arguments outside the Hebrew Bible will be less strong. But that doesn't mean we may never use them. Since God has been providentially working in the Jewish community even during the intertestamental period nudging things here and there so that certain speculations or accretions (yes, I dare say it, even errors) now and then hit upon a truth or a type that would be fulfilled in the anti-type of Jesus and in the New Testament.
Also, this charge by Singer doesn't allow for the Christian use of Pardes, when he should allow for Pardes among Christians just as among interestamental Jews and later Jews. Singer is a rabbinic Jew not a Karaite Jew, and rabbinic Judaism often uses Pardes (or at least Pardes-like) exegesis, or commentary or application. Karaite Jews reject the Oral Law and find the Word of God only in the written Scriptures. It might be ironic that Singer, a rabbinic Jew, is requiring Christians to basically take a Karaite approach to Scriptural interpretation.
If the author of Hebrews was debating a Jew who wanted to limit the argumentation to the original Hebrew Bible, I'm sure he could have built a case from the Hebrew Bible alone. But the book of Hebrews is not written to convince only Jews who never believed in Jesus. Admittedly, it's addressed to doubting Jewish converts who were tempted to go back to non-Yeshua-following Judaism, but the book is also addressed to believing Christians. So, the author wasn't required to limit his argumentation to the Hebrew of the Bible.
Moreover, many scholars recognize that the book was probably originally a sermon (or series of sermons) that was transcribed then later improved upon, polished, and then sent out in epistolary form. So, it wasn't the intention of the author to make a precise case for Christianity using the most indisputable airtight evidences and arguments. Because he's trying to encourage faint-hearted Christians he's not trying to be purely logical and evidential. He's using rhetoric to lift up the spirits and strengthen the courage of Christians. Some of the rhetorical flair that accompanies impromptu sermonizing was left in the letter for various purposes including aesthetic reasons. Therefore, the author(s) didn't limited himself to the types of arguments that one might use for Jews who only want evidences from the Hebrew Bible. In which case, he was free to use less than strict evidences. Including the LXX translation of Ps. 40:6. Especially since his audience already accepted the LXX as a generally reliable (though not perfect) translation of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek.
Given the evidence and arguments that scholars provide, one can easily imagine that transcribed sermons originally orally preached to believing Christians were the basis for the book/letter of Hebrews. In which case, that could easily explain why rhetorically impassioned and less than strict arguments used for Christians (who weren't especially doubting) could make it into a book whose target audience were both doubting Jewish converts, and believing (though struggling) Christians.
- Singer seems to claim the Ketuvim and the Nevi'im of the LXX was translated by Christians. I'm not sure if that's what he's claiming. But if he is, WHAT'S the evidence for that? As far as I know, the overwhelming evidence is that they were translated by Jews. Singer is right that some books in the LXX were probably originally written in Greek.
- Singer claims Origen edited the LXX. I grant that some passages in SOME MANUSCRIPTS of the LXX might have Christian influence, even sometimes interpolation due to the copying process in the early Christian centuries. But that doesn't mean all of them did. Or that the influence is widespread. Admittedly, some of the surviving LXX manuscripts may have been copied by only Jews and some [at some time eventually] by Christians. Moreover, it would have been impossible for Origen to edit all the manuscripts of the LXX in a way that doesn't leave any evidence of tampering. It would have taken all the money and all the armies of the world to hunt down every copy of the LXX and alter them exactly the way he wanted. That's a logistical impossibility even if the Emperor were on his side. If that was Origen's plan, he failed miserably because the various LXX manuscripts are different. Sometimes having major discrepancies and differences. Which leads us to the next point.
Also, and more importantly, there is no "ONE" LXX. The evidence shows there were many translations of the Jewish books which were translated by different Jews at different times that we now (for simplicity's sake) collectively call the "Septuagint". That's why Christian apologist Peter J. Williams has an EXCELLENT lecture titled (tongue-in-cheek), "Why I Don't Believe In The Septuagint."
Here's the video:
Why I Don't Believe In The Septuagint
https://youtu.be/RmpnJ1cgh58
No comments:
Post a Comment