Rejecting Hebrews?

debi b said:

I like the book of Romans too OK shoot me for being off topic I was reading Parashat Nitzavim this morning (oh I'm off there too! tee-hee) and that always leads me to Romans because Paul quotes from that parashah

Click to expand...

Hmm..I think Psalms are my favorite.

It's interesting that many of the NT quotes were taken from the greek Septuagint version.


RJ

RomanJudah said:

It's interesting that many of the NT quotes were taken from the greek Septuagint version.


RJ

Click to expand...

Or was the Septuagint corrected over time to more closely resemble the Greek NT. This is the question that scholars have debated for years.

Higher Truth said:

Or was the Septuagint redacted over time to more closely resemble the Greek NT. This is the question that scholars have debated for years.

Click to expand...

I doubt it - that would be backwards.

RJ

RomanJudah said:

I doubt it - that would be backwards.

RJ

Click to expand...

Early fragments of the Septuagint have the Name YHWH written in paleo Hebrew while the surounding text is in Greek. The latter versions have the Greek Kurios in place of YHWH. The Septuagint has gone through some changes.

Does the fact that the Septuagint contains the Apocrypha bother you? Or do you accept those books on some level of inspiration?

Just curious,
Yafet

RJ wrote:Anyway, that aside, I just wanted to say that I am a student of the "rood awakening."
What is it exactly that you have a problem with (with rood, that is)
baraqemet:

Just read this. Wow. ...
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/spl_RoodAwakEvalua.htm

Hey Justin!

I agree Monte Judah has been out of his chair...perhaps more than once. A flair for predictions, I hear. But he is right to raise questions about Hebrews. I see the book as reflecting a Hellenistic Jewish perspective, following strongly on the tradition of Philo of Alexandria. I think Apollos wrote it or another Jew of his stripe. Yes, the book would have probably caused problems with the Jerusalem brethren. And Yes there is no reason to believe the author could not have been Jewish. Just read Philo...you can see a very strikingly similar allegorical bent of mind, a product of neoplatonic Alexandrian Jewish exegesis...And I see nothing wrong with that. Like you, I embrace the book, theological kinks and all, as a valid voice of Jewish-Christian thinking, and one which speaks Oral Torah, worthy of our concentrated and respectful attention....and that involves asking lots of questions...always.

Cheers,

Eric

p.s. Thanks for your kind birthday wishes...I caught that!

I pretty much favor Monte's opinion on hebrews.


It really is a book you have no real idea who wrote.

Paul didn't. It's no where near his writing style. So who did?


As far as having to accept all or none of the the NT as the word of G-d, I totally disagree.

Just because of books like hebrews.

insaneinthebrain said:

I don't normally mention false teachers, mostly because I feel this forum should be a place to discuss MJ and grow; not a place to dwell on what's wrong with this movement. This doesn't change the fact that I disagree with the Two House movement, find Kabbalah to be a distraction at best, think Avi and Rood should be prayed for rather than followed, and think Nehemia Gordon's book is shoddy scholarship. I simply don't find any benefit to dwelling on these issues.

However, I do want to warn anyone who gives merit to the teaching of Monte Judah. In addition to some false prophesies a few years back, Monte has decided that the book of Hebrews should not be considered scripture. If we go around discounting certain books, we may as well stop claiming to follow Messiah, as we open the door to only accept writings that don't offend us. I would also challenge each of you to learn Hebrew and Greek. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to know the Biblical languages to study and grow, but it helps to remove any translator "commentary," either intentional or unintentional, from scripture.

This whole thing just bugs me...

Click to expand...

Justin, I have been following along and I just wanted you to know that it bugs me too.

I am one of those that thinks that Paul probably did write the book of Hebrews. When I consider those passages, I remember that this is VERY advanced material that he wrote in letter form to answer specific questions and doctrinal issues. The material was addressed to people that he had personally taught for protracted periods. Certain aspects of these issues were already understood by both parties and were therefore not specifically addressed. One of the unspoken aspects was whether circumcision and conversion were salvation issues (as the Rabbis claimed). It is these unspoken (or unwritten) points that brought about so much controversy. This would also affect the interpretive bias of the translator. None of Paul's epistles can be read in the same light as the four gospels, yet so many people try to do just that!

I read the four gospels in the context of Torah and Tanakh. I read the Pauline Epistles in the context of the gospels and the historical, political and cultural environment in which Paul had to operate. I also try to remember that he was the brightest student of two of the most advanced teachers of the age. His letters are not introductory material. Any perceived contradictions in doctrine, I chalk up to the misunderstanding of the student, not the teacher. Well, that is my take on this issue anyway.

Any merit that Timothy wrote Hebrews?

I found this floating around on the net:

Recently, some of the teachers in the Messianic movement have stated that the Book of Hebrews is errant, and therefore, should be disregarded. One of the errors pointed to as being reason to disregard the Book as Scripture, is based on the fact that in most modern translations, there is a discrepancy in relation to the placement of the Altar of Incense.

Here are a few Modern versions, showing how they render this:

Hebrews 9:4 :

NASB
having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant;

NIV
which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.



ESV

having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.

Message
In it were placed the gold incense altar and the gold-covered ark of the covenant containing the gold urn of manna, Aaron's rod that budded, the covenant tablets,

Complete Jewish Bible
which had the golden altar for burning incense and the Ark of the Covenant, entirely covered with gold. In the Ark were the gold jar containing the man, Aharon's rod that sprouted and the stone Tablets of the Covenant;

The translations quoted above, only represent a cross section of the Modern Versions that render the passage as altar of incense.

Here is what one of the teachers stated in his article:

The writer states that the golden altar of incense was stationed with the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. This is incorrect. The Altar of Incense was in the Holy Place with the Menorah and Table of Shewbread. A teacher making that mistake today would be considered incompetent to the task of teaching the Bible. Why do I bring these particular mistakes up? Because these obvious errors are immediately following the statement that the New has made the Old obsolete. Hebrews 8:13 is immediately followed by Hebrews 9:1-5. When the Biblical text was originally written, chapters and verses were put in the Scripture later for referencing purposes by Bible scholars. The separation of these verses are artificial.


First of all, it is important to note that the KJV renders the passage as this:

Hebrews 9:4Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein [was] the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;



The NKJV translates this as golden censer also.

This is in agreement with

Leviticus 16:12
And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring [it] within the vail:

When I pointed this out to another one of the teachers, this was his response:

BUT, if you must justify your argument by English translations - NASB,
ASV, RSV, NET, NIV, NLT, all agree it is the ALTAR being spoken about...

He was correct in his assertion that most of the modern translations, did in fact, render it as altar of incense. There were, however, a few other points that he had overlooked, that needed to be examined and addressed, because Young's Literal Translation also rendered the phrase in question as golden censer:

4 having a golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid all round about with gold, in which [is] the golden pot having the manna, and the rod of Aaron that budded, and the tables of the covenant,

Additionally, it is important to note, that not only does the KJV, NKJV, and the YLT render it as golden censer, but all of the Reformation translations render the phrase in question as golden censer, instead of the incorrect (according to Leviticus 16) altar of incense:

Hebrews 9:4

Bishops Bible translated 1568 c.e.(43 years before KJV)
Which had the golden senser, and the arke of the couenaunt ouerlaide rounde about with golde, wherin was the golden pot hauyng Manna, and Aarons rodde that had budded, and the tables of the couenaunt:

Geneva Bible printed 1560 c.e. (51 years before the KJV)
Which had the golden censer, and the Ark of the Testament overlaid round about with gold, wherein the golden pot, which had Manna, was, and Aaron's rod that had budded, and the tables of the Testament.

Miles Coverdale Bible 1535 c.e.(76 years before KJV)
which had the golden censor, and the Arke of the Testament ouerlayed rounde aboute with golde, wherin was the golden pot with Manna, and Aarons rodd that florished, and the tables of the Testament:

Tyndale New Testamant 1525 (86 years before KJV)
which had the golden senser and the arcke of the testamet overlayde round about with golde wherin was the golden pot with manna and Aarons rodde that spronge and the tables of the testament.

Wycliffe Bible translated 1384 c.e.(216 years before KJV)
hauynge a goldun cenrer, and the arke of the testament, keuered aboute on ech side with gold, in which was a pot of gold hauynge manna, and the yerde of Aaron that florischide, and the tablis of the testament;

If we review the Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome 385 c.e. from the ancient Greek and Old Latin manuscripts (translated 1200 years before the KJV) we also find the same rendering:

aureum habens turibulum et arcam testamenti circumtectam ex omni parte auro in qua urna aurea habens manna et virga Aaron quae fronduerat et tabulae testamenti

aurarius -a -um [golden , of gold] aurum : gold.
turibulum -i n. [a censer for burning incense]

Here is the Douay RheimsCatholic English translation of the Vulgate:

Having a golden censer and the ark of the testament covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna and the rod of Aaron that had blossomed and the tables of the testament.

The reason that I am demonstrating this in such a exhaustive manner, is because when I brought up the KJV as being rendered correctly, one teacher accused the translators of intentionally changing it from Altar of incense to golden censer, which he said was not the correct translation according to the Greek. With the above plethora of translations that were done before the KJV translators were even born, this clearly demonstrates otherwise in reference to his allegation of intentional tampering. (see Greek explanation at bottom)

Since some of the people who are teaching that the book of Hebrews is not valid, claim to be Aramaic Primacists, let's review how some translations of the Aramaic Peshitta render this verse:

Hebrews 9:4

Aramaic Peshitta (Murdock) published 1851
And there were in it the golden censer and the ark of the covenant, which was all over laid with gold; and in it were the golden urn which contained the manna and the rod of Aaron which sprouted, and the tables of the covenant;

Aramaic Peshitta (Etheridge) published late 1840's
But the interior tabernacle, that was within the second veil, was called the Holy of Holies: in it were the incense-vessel of gold, and the ark of the covenant, which was altogether covered with gold; and within it were the golden urn, in which was the manna, and the rod of Aharun that budded, and the tablets of the covenant:

Aramaic Peshitta (Lamsa) published 1933
03 But the inner tabernacle, which is within the veil of the second door, was called the Holy of Holies.
04 And there was in it the golden censer and the ark of the covenant all over laid with gold, and in it were the golden pot containing the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tablets of the covenant;

The fact that they would say that the KJV was intentionally altered, in light of the fact that the Aramaic Peshitta translations render it as golden censer also, then creates a little problem for their theory of the Aramaic Peshitta being the “original” Bible if their own statement of alteration holds true.

Another argument presented by these teachers, was that Hebrews 8:8-9 does not follow Jeremiah 31:31-34 accurately, therefore, that is another flaw that proves Hebrews is an errant book that should be “cast out” of the cannon. Here is an excerpt from what was stated:

No, the quotation here is changed to serve the theological purposes of the writer, and directly CONTRARY to what the original text says - YHWH did NOT disregard them, He REMAINED a faithful Husband!!!

Since the person who issued the above quote is an Aramaic Primacist, I thought that it would be important once again, to see how the Aramaic Peshitta rendered this passage:

Hebrews 8:8-9

Aramaic Peshitta (Etheridge) published late 1840's
Behold, the days are coming, saith the Lord, and I will complete with 3 the family of the house of Israel, and with the family of the house of Jihuda, THE NEW COVENANT: not as was that covenant which I gave to their fathers in the day that I took them by their hand, and led them from the land of Metsreen; because they did not persevere in my covenant, therefore I have neglected them, saith the Lord.

Aramaic Peshitta (Murdock) published 1851
08 For he chideth them and saith: Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will complete with the family of the house of Israel, and with the family of the house of Judah, a new covenant;
09 not like the covenant which I gave to their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand, and brought them out of the land of Egypt; [and] because they continued not in my covenant, I also rejected them, saith the Lord.

Aramaic Peshitta (Lamsa) published 1933
08 For he found fault with them and said, Behold, the day is coming, says the Lord, when I will perfect a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah;
09 Not according the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand and led them out of the land of Egypt; and because they abode not in my covenant, I rejected them; says the Lord.



And now the KJV:

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

As we can clearly see, both the Greek and Aramaic translations into English render the passage the same. I guess that this could be viewed as another blow to Aramaic Primacy if his initial statements were in fact correct.

I also did some other research about the accuracy of other TeNaKh (OT) Scriptures that are quoted in the NT. Here is a sample of what I found.

Matthew 4:10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Deuteronomy 6:13, 10:20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

Matthew 9:13 I will have mercy, and not sacrifice
Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice

Matthew 13:35 I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
Psalms 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old

Matthew 15:8,9 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Isaiah 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Matthew 21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Matthew 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
Psalms 8:2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Matthew 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Zechariah 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

Matthew 12:18-21 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
Isaiah 42:1-4 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

Based on the accusations in reference to Hebrews being errant in it's quote of Jeremiah 31, should we then toss out the whole cannon, including the TeNaKh (OT) since the Greek Septuagint (LXX) also varies from the Hebrew in some places, and because some Hebrew texts are not in full agreement with each other? I don't think so.

===============================================================

Greek explanation (referenced above):
One person told me that the KJV translators knew that the word was altar, but intentionally changed it to censer to make it conform with the English translation of Leviticus. Let's take a look at this false assumption, because there is a more specific Greek word that can be used for altar, which is translated as altar all twenty three times that it appears in the New Testament text.

Greek for 2379 thusiasterion {thoo-see-as-tay'-ree-on}
TDNT ReferenceRoot Word TDNT - 3:180,342 from a derivative of 2378 Part of Speech n n
1) the altar for slaying and burning of victims used of
a) the altar of whole burnt offerings which stood in the court of the priests in the temple at Jerusalem
b) the altar of incense which stood in the sanctuary or the Holy Place
c)any other altar

Here is the Greek word that is found in Hebrews 9:4. It is translated as golden censer the one time that it appears in the New testament text:

Greek for 2369 thumiasterion {thoo-mee-as-tay'-ree-on}
from a derivative of 2370 Part of Speech n n
1) a utensil for fumigating or burning incense
2)an altar of incense

Let's take a look at some of the words related to the above word used in Hebrews:

Greek for 2368 thumiama {thoo-mee'-am-ah}
from 2370 Part of Speech n n Outline of Biblical Usage
1)an aromatic substance burnt, incense
The above word is translated as incense four times, and as odor twice,


Greek for 2370 thumiao {thoo-mee-ah'-o}
from a derivative of 2380 (in the sense of smoking) Part of Speech v
1)to burn incense
The above word is translated as burn incense the one time that it appears in the Greek text.



Additional translations with censer

Mace New Testament (published in 1729)

there was the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant gilded all over with gold, wherein was the golden urn containing the manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the alliance.

Wesley's New Testament (published in 1755)

Having the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant, overlaid round about with gold, wherein was a golden pot having the manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant:

Noah Webster Bible (published in 1833)

Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid around with gold, in which was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Weymouth New Testament (published in 1886)
This had a censer of gold, and the ark of the Covenant lined with gold and completely covered with gold, and in it were a gold vase which held the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded and the tables of the Covenant.

Darby's English Translation (published in 1890)
having a golden censer, and the ark of the covenant, covered round in every part with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, and the rod of Aaron that had sprouted, and the tables of the covenant;

Bible in Basic English (published in 1949)
Having a vessel of gold in it for burning perfumes, and the ark of the agreement, which was covered with gold and which had in it a pot made of gold for the manna, and Aaron's rod which put out buds, and the stones with the writing of the agreement;

Weymouth New Testament

This had a censer of gold, and the ark of the Covenant lined with gold and completely covered with gold, and in it were a gold vase which held the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded and the table

It actually wasn't that hard for me to lose interest/faith/belief in the inspiration of the "Letter to the Hebrews".

insaneinthebrain said:

I don't actually see any problem with questioning it per se, as I really don't think it very smart to blindly accept anything. However, I think it's dangerous to pick and choose a canon based on theological preference.

Click to expand...

I would put Hebrews in our canon just to make it more rounded and diverse. The more challenging the book the better. Quirky books make me happy...just me. There is tremendous value in all of it. Our canon is not monotone. I love the fact that we have four different versions of the same events in our Gospels. If you ask me, throw in the Testament of Abraham, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs...heck, throw the entire Pseudapigrapha and DSS corpus in there. We would benefit!
...Even if we disagreed with most of it. (I think thats what Yafet is getting at).

Sometimes I wish Protestants had kept Tobit...which presents the cultural values of keeping Gemilut Hasadim.

So, do you think Hebrews was written before or after the fall of the Temple?

Click to expand...

Don't know enough to say actually. Any ideas?

insaneinthebrain said:

I believe it was Yafet that once explained that Judaism has "levels of inspiration" as far as writings go; just because something isn't declared scripture doesn't mean it lacks inspiration. Once I get done reading the books actually contained in the Bible (years of being a "Sunday Morning Christian" have prevented me from having read most scripture), I'll probably check out the Apocrypha, as I do here interesting things about those books from time to time.

Click to expand...

I imagine that the statement by S_T was something like this:

Torah > Nevi'im > Ketuvim > Other Writings

insaneinthebrain said:

Sure, if you want to simplify it to the point that anyone can understand it.

Click to expand...

insaneinthebrain said:

Well, I recently watched an FFOZ DVD where Tim Hegg takes the minority view and places it after the destruction of the Temple. I've loaned that DVD out, so I can't give you an exact reason for that stance, but I think it had something to do with the author trying to explain how to get along in a post -Temple world.

Click to expand...

Well, his view makes much sense. Although, many Jews had already become disillusioned with the temple cult. The focus had long been shifting away from the temple towards the Torah. We hear things like the view that the Eben ShetiaH was the foundation that G-d built creation upon...but the Rabbis say instead it was Abraham, for Abe was to offer up Isaac there. So Abraham was the real "rock" ("petra"...David Bivin found this Greek loan-word used in Yalkut Shim'oni to refer to Abraham) G-d rested the foundations of the world upon. Those kinds of thoughts were being expressed. A life of piety mattered more than the worldly dignity of a temple. This view, of course, was held before the temple destruction, because Yeshua makes use of it in calling Shim'on "Petros".