The ABC of Treachery

 

 

I.            Introduction

 

This session will be a review and summary of what we have covered thus far in our counter-missionary education effort.  We have peeked into the "toolbox" of the Christian missionary and selected various so-called "proof texts" and claims concerning Christian doctrines, items that are commonly used by missionaries when attempting to entice Jews into conversion to Christianity.  These were examined and analyzed, and exposed as the "pious fraud" they really are. 

 

These so-called "proof texts" may be grouped into four categories, each of which representing a different method of tampering with the Hebrew Bible.  These four methods are:

 

§         Mistranslating Verses/Phrases

 

§         Lifting/Quoting Verses/Phrases Out of Context

 

§         Altering Verses/Phrases From the Hebrew Bible

 

§         Creating/Inventing Reference to Non-Existing Verses/Phrases

 

There are 23,197 verses in the Hebrew Bible, and Jews who study the Scriptures are required to read, study, and understand ALL of them.  On the other hand, though the Christian Bible includes the "Old Testament", which is, at best, a translated representation of the Jewish Scriptures, Christian apologists and missionaries will generally point to only a relatively small number of verses in the "Old Testament", particularly those that allege to have some Christological appeal, which amount to approximately 1%-2% of the total.  In most of these instances, the treatment of the "Old Testament" verses by the Christian translators is motivated and driven by passages in the New Testament which allegedly "point back" to them in some fashion – by "quoting" or claiming these to be fulfillments of the "Old Testament" prophecies.

 

 

II.            Popular Methods of Treachery

 

The four methods most commonly used in perpetrating the treachery of "pious fraud" will now be described and demonstrated with a specific example from one of the previous tracts.

 

A.     Mistranslating Verses/Phrases

 

This is perhaps the most common method that Church translators have applied in order to make passages from the Hebrew Bible appear to have some relevance to Christian theology.

 

Several of our previous presentations have addressed a number of the so-called "proof texts" in this category:

 

§         Isaiah 7:14 is covered in The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14 - Part I & The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14 - Part II

 

§         Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7 in Christian Bibles] are covered in Isaiah 9:5-6 According to the Hebrew Bible

 

§         Micah 5:1[2 in Christian Bibles] is briefly noted in A Traditional Jew Exposes Matthew 2

 

§         Zechariah 12:10 is covered in Anatomy of A Verse: Who Was Pierced in Zechariah 12:10? 

 

§         Psalm 2:12 is covered in "Kiss the Son"??? Is there A "Son" in Psalm 2? 

 

§         Psalm 110:1 is covered in Psalm 110: Two Lords Chatting and A Gentile Priesthood for Israel?

 

The example that will be used here to illustrate this method of tampering with the Hebrew Bible is Isaiah 7:14. 

 

Here is the Hebrew text of this verse,

 

 

 

The two highlighted words in this verse are, in transliterated form and reading from right to left, "ha'almah" and "harah".  The various translations of these terms will be highlighted in the discussion that follows.  A correct English translation of this verse is,

 

Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the L-rd Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

 

This verse is apparently invoked by the author of the Gospel of Matthew as a prophecy in the "Old Testament" that was allegedly fulfilled with the 'virgin birth' of Jesus,

 

Matthew 1:22-23(KJV) - (22) Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, (23) “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,” which being interpreted is, “God with us.”

 

To help illustrate this method of tampering, here is a side-by-side comparison between the verse in the New Testament, the KJV "Old Testament" translation of the original verse in Isaiah, and a Jewish translation of the original verse in Isaiah.

 

 

Clearly, the two Christian versions don't agree with the Jewish rendition.  Which is the correct one?  For the detailed analysis of the Christian missionary claims and the respective Jewish responses, please refer to the 2-part series on Isaiah 7:14 - The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14 - Part I & The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14 - Part II.  Presented here are but the highlights of that analysis.

 

The Hebrew term "almah" (pronounced "al-MAH") means 'a young woman of marriageable age', and the exclusive Hebrew term for 'a virgin' is "b'tulah" (pronounced "b-too-LAH").  In other words, "almah" refers to a female of a certain age group without regard to her state of 'sexual purity', i.e., one who may or may not have had sexual relations with a male.  On the other hand,  "b'tulah" refers exclusively to a female who has not had sexual relations with a male, regardless of her age.

 

The Hebrew term "harah" is (in a technically precise context) the 2^nd and 3^rd-person, singular, feminine, present tense conjugation of the root verb that means 'to be pregnant'.  Some Jewish sages hold, depending on the context of a specific passage, that "harah" could signify an imminent event, i.e., that someone is either in the process of conceiving, or will conceive in the immediate future.

 

The above is, perhaps, the simplest evidence to demonstrate the mistranslation of this verse in both the KJV New Testament and in the KJV "Old Testament".  However, either or both of these terms are correctly rendered in some Christian Bibles.  But, let us focus on the KJV, since it is the most popular English translation in use by Christians.

 

Simple studies on how the KJV treats all instances in the Hebrew Bible of the terms "almah" and "harah" will help demonstrate the "pious fraud" that has transpired.  These are presented in the following two tables.

 

This is how the LXX and KJV render all instances in the Hebrew Bible of “almah”:

 

 

While missionaries will claim that “parthenos” is used exclusively for 'a virgin', the LXX proves otherwise, when it refers to Dinah as "parthenos" after she was raped by Shechem (Gen 34:3).  In fact, an online Greek Dictionary renders "parthenos" as 'a maid', 'maiden', 'virgin', 'girl'.  The term “neanis” isn’t used in Modern Greek, but the masculine form, “neaniskos”, which means ‘young man’, is used, so that in ancient Greek “neanis” means ‘young woman’, just as does “almah” in Hebrew.

 

This is how the KJV renders all instances in the Hebrew Bible of the conjugated verb “harah”:

 

 

It is evident that the KJV isn't consistent in its renditions of either term, with the specific verse in question, Isaiah 7:14 being one of mistranslated versions.

 

There are additional arguments that prove the "pious fraud" in Matt 1:22-23, one of which is the fact that the Isaiah verse was taken out of context – it was a prophecy that was fulfilled contemporaneously, i.e., in the 8^th century BCE and not some 700 years in the future.

 

 

B.    Lifting/Quoting Verses/Phrases Out of Context

 

This category is not necessarily independent of the previous one, "Mistranslating Verses/Phrases", since often it requires both a mistranslation and an out-of-context quote to achieve the desired effect.  As such, it is probably as common as the previous category.

 

Several of our previous presentations have addressed a number of the so-called "proof texts" in this category:

 

§         Genesis 3:15 is covered in Is Genesis 3:15 A Messianic Prophecy? 

 

§         Deuteronomy 18:15&18 are covered in Is There A Special Prophet In Deuteronomy 18:9-22? 

 

§         Jeremiah 31:14[15 in Christian Bibles] and Hosea 11:1 are covered in A Traditional Jew Exposes Matthew 2 

 

§         Jeremiah 31:30[31 in Christian Bibles] is covered in Will the Real "New Covenant" Please Stand Up? 

 

§         Zechariah 13:6 is covered in The Wayward Shepherd of Zechariah 13:1-6 

 

§         Psalm 110:4 is covered in Psalm 110: Two Lords Chatting and A Gentile Priesthood for Israel?

 

The treatment of Hosea 11:1 will serve as our example here to illustrate this method of tampering with the Hebrew Bible.  In this case, the author of the Gospel of Matthew, the first book in the New Testament, states that the event of baby Jesus being brought out of hiding in Egypt back to the Holy Land is a fulfillment of a prophecy, one that is found in the Book of Hosea,

 

Matthew 2:15(KJV) - And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

 

Here is a side-by-side comparison between the verse in the New Testament, the KJV translation of the original verse in Hosea, and a Jewish translation of the original verse in Hosea will facilitate the analysis of this claim by the author of the Gospel of Matthew.

 

 

The KJV translators render the first 2 verses in the 11^th chapter in the Book of Hosea as follows,

 

Hosea 11:1-2(KJV) – (1) When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.  (2) As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.

 

For the purpose of comparison, here is a Jewish translation of these two verses,

 

Hosea 11:1-2 – (1) For, when Israel was young, I loved him, and from Egypt I called my son. (2) [Yet, as much as] they [the prophets] called to them [Israel], so did they turn away from them; they sacrificed to the Ba’als and burnt incense to the idols.

 

In either rendition, it is clear that this is a historical and not prophetic passage.  This passage describes how the fledgling nation of Israel was brought out of Egypt, and later started engaging in idolatry.  If one were to attribute the highlighted phrase to some entity, then the entire passage would apply to it as well.  So that the application of v. 1 to the child/Messiah Jesus would then describe him and his parents as idol worshippers, i.e., they all were sinners.  But this would, of course, not have fit well into the picture that the author of the Gospel of Matthew was constructing.  So, instead, he attempts to "solve" this problem by lifting out of the 2-verse historical passage just a single phrase that suits his agenda – Out of Egypt have I called my son – when, in fact, the 'son' in this phrase refers to the nation of Israel.

 

 

C.    Altering Verses/Phrases From the Hebrew Bible

 

Though this practice is rather blatant and daring, there are instances to be found where a completely new and unrelated word has replaced the one that should have appeared in a correct translation of the original Hebrew term or phrase.  This method is applied less frequently than the previous two.

 

Among the topics that we have covered thus far, there is one such example - Psalm 22:17.  The complete discussion may be found here:  The Jewish Perspective on Psalm 22.

 

The Hebrew verse with which someone has tampered is the following,

 

 

 

This is Ps 22:17 in the Hebrew Bible.  The King James Version (and many other Christian Bibles) renders this verse, which appears in its "Old Testament" as Ps 22:16, as,

 

Psalm 22:16(KJV) - For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

 

A more accurate translation from the Hebrew of this verse is,

 

Psalm 22:17 - For dogs surround me; the assembly of the wicked encircle me; like a lion [they are at] my hands and my feet.

 

This is, perhaps, one of the most frequently quoted verses from the Hebrew Bible by Christian missionaries claiming that the crucifixion of Jesus was foretold.  Yet, this apparently important verse in the Christian missionary's portfolio is not even referenced in the New Testament.  The key word in this verse is highlighted, and its transliteration is "ka'ari", meaning, 'like a lion'.  Now, when we compare the two translations provided above, the discrepancy occurs at the translation of this term – the Jewish translation has it as 'like a lion', and the KJV renders it as 'they pierced'.  The question here is, which rendition is the correct one? 

 

A simple word study on the Hebrew word "ka'ari", and how the KJV renders its other occurrences in the Hebrew Bible as seen in the "Old Testament", helps answer this question.  For simplicity, we will consider only those instances where the IDENTICAL form appears, i.e., without additional or different prepositions attached to the root word "ari" (the "ka-" in Hebrew means 'like'/'as').  There are three other instances of "ka'ari" in the Hebrew Bible beside the one in Ps 22:17[16], and all instances are shown in the following table along with their respective KJV translations.  There is also a single instance of the term "v'cha'ari", which is the equivalent of "ka'ari" with the preposition "v-" in front of it, meaning, 'and like a lion'.  This term is included in the table below since, in Hebrew, it contains the original term "ka'ari":