“The Dead Sea Scrolls And Jesus”

Biblegems #204

Question: What are the Dead Sea scrolls, and how does their existence have anything to do with Jesus?

Over the centuries there have always been skeptics who argued that the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Jesus were actually altered by Jesus’ followers to make the Old Testament conform to the historical facts of Jesus’ life and death.  This argument was widely used because everyone admitted that the probability of one human being fulfilling all the Old Testament messianic prophecies — as the New Testament claims regarding Jesus — was statistically impossible. 

Skeptics argued their belief that the biblical text was “fixed” on the grounds that our oldest existing Old Testament manuscripts (the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint, or LXX) dated back only a far as 360 A.D.

While it was known that the LXX was first translated from the Hebrew into Greek between 285-247 B.C., the oldest surviving copies date back over three hundred years after Jesus. And the oldest Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament in existence dated back to only 1000 A.D. — nearly a thousand years after the life of Jesus! This gave the skeptics lots of ammunition (not evidence) for their claim of altered documents.

Everything changed, however, with the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in 1947 by a shepherd boy looking for a stray goat in an area littered with caves near the Dead Sea. These caves were used as a repository of safe keeping by a community of Jews known as the Essenes. They preserved copies of their own writings, and copies of the Hebrew Old Testament, in earthenware jars. These manuscripts have been dated by archeologists as originating between 150 and 100 A.D. — more than one hundred years before Jesus’ birth.

What is most astounding — and most exciting for those who trust the authority of the Bible — is that these ancient Hebrew manuscripts predating Jesus are identical in wording to the Hebrew text we already had available to us, even after 1200 years of separation and 1000 years of Christianity. When comparing the Dead Sea scrolls to the 1000 A.D. texts there is only a discrepancy of 5%, and these differences are obvious spelling errors and minor scribal mistakes. Nothing of substance has changed over the span of 2200 years!

All the prophecies pointing to details of Jesus’ birth, his life, ministry, death and resurrection were original to the Old Testament as the Jewish people had available to them for centuries.

         Ps. 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him.

Was There Really A Virgin Birth?

Biblegems #166

Question: I’ve heard people say that the Hebrew Bible does not use the word for “virgin” in Isaiah’s prophecy quoted in the New Testament in reference to Mary. Is this true?

Isaiah 7:14, written about 740 years before Jesus’ birth, reads: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” When we fast-forward to Jesus’ birth, Matthew recorded in his Gospel how an angel announced to Joseph that his fiancé Mary would bear a child conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20-21). Matthew then tells the reader that this virgin conception was the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us.”

In the English translation both Matthew and Isaiah appear to be in perfect agreement. Some claim, however, that Matthew’s quote, which comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, misrepresents the Hebrew word “almah.” They claim that “almah” means a young woman of marriageable age, not “virgin.” Their argument is that Isaiah never intended to mean that a virgin would get pregnant and bear a son.

The word “almah” in Hebrew, like so many words in any language, can carry a variety of meanings, depending on the context in which it is used. The word “cool” in English for example can refer to the temperature in a room, or it can mean “great!” or “terrific!”—depending on the context. One meaning does not fit all uses.

The dictionary definition of “almah” means a “young woman” who is sexually mature and able to bear children. While the word could technically be used of a married or sexually active woman, the reality is that of the nine times it occurs in the Hebrew Old Testament “almah” is never used that way (see Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; 1Chr. 15:20; Ps. 41:6; 68:26; Prov. 3:19; Song of Sol. 1:3; 6:8).

The context of Isaiah 7:14 itself shows that Isaiah wanted to highlight this “almah” as distinct. She is not a woman that one would expect to be pregnant. It is the very fact that she will conceive a child that makes her special and unique, even as the child she will bear will be special and unique.

It’s important to remember as well that it was Jewish scholars in the area of Alexandria—about 100 years before Christ—who translated the Hebrew Bible into the Greek form that Matthew would later quote from. These scholars understood their own Hebrew word “almah” to mean “virgin,” and translated it accordingly.

Isaiah’s prophecy of the virgin birth demonstrates again God’s great desire to inform mankind of the plan He has put into place to rescue us from the path of destruction brought about by sin. His love, grace and forgiveness are available to all who put their trust in Jesus, the Savior born of the virgin Mary, even as God promised long ago.

         John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Merry Christmas!

"Mercy Seat" or "Atonement Cover"?

Biblegems #117

Question: Why does the NIV use the term “atonement cover” in Exodus 27:17, when the KJV and most other translations use the term “mercy seat”?

Here is the verse in question:

         Ex. 25:17 Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. (NIV)

         Ex. 25:17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof. (KJV)

The answer is a matter of both translation and principles of biblical interpretation.

First, the Translation

The Hebrew term we translate into English as either “mercy seat” or “atonement cover” is the noun “khapporet.” The basic meaning of the Hebrew word is “to make an atonement.” Neither the word “seat” nor “cover” is actually involved in the fundamental meaning of the word “Khapporet.” We’ll look at that under Interpretation.

Behind the noun “khapporet” is the verb “kapar,” which means “I, make an atonement, make reconciliation”. [i] The idea of “cover” or “conceal” stems from a similar Arabic word, but that meaning is not native to the Hebrew. Kapar is the same Hebrew word that is behind the name of the familiar Jewish holiday, Yom Kippur, “Day of Atonement.”

Then, The Interpretation

As was mentioned earlier, the word “seat,” “lid” or “cover” is not present in the Hebrew. Nevertheless, the object we commonly know as the “mercy seat” was the lid on the Ark of the Covenant that is described in verse 17. The English word “seat” can be used in a variety of ways. The sense intended by the translators of the KJV was probably “position” or “place,” not a place to sit down. In other words, the Ark of the Covenant was the place of atonement, the place where God extended mercy toward sinners, and the lid was the focus of that atonement because it is there, above the cover, where God would speak with Moses (Ex. 25:22).

The Greek translation (the LXX) of this passage in Exodus translates khapporet as the hilasterion, meaning the “propitiatory covering” or “place of forgiveness,” and the New Testament follows this Greek translation in Hebrews 9:5. The translators of the KJV followed the LXX and its New Testament counterpart, but worded “propitiatory covering” as “mercy seat.” That is decision of interpretation, not translation.

The translators of the NIV chose to follow the more literal Hebrew in Exodus 25:17, rather than the LXX translation. They also chose to follow the literal Greek in Hebrews 9:5, staying with “propitiatory covering.” Both the KJV and the NIV had to supply the word “cover” or “seat” where it is only implied in Exodus 25:17.

As we have seen before in Bible Gems, translation and interpretation can be a tricky business, and the lines between the two can easily become blurred. But nothing is lost in either translation. The Ark of the Covenant, a foreshadowing of the cross of Christ, is where atonement (propitiation) is made for sin, and where mercy is received by those whose sins are washed clean by the shed blood of the Lamb!

---

[i] Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, #1023.

A Body You Prepared For Me — Heb. 10:5

Bible Gems #96
Question: If Hebrews 10:5 is quoting Psalm 40:6, why does the NT quote sound so much different than the OT original?

Where Psalm 40:6 reads “mine ears thou hast opened” (KJV), or “my ears you have pierced” (NIV), Hebrews 10:5 reads: “a body you prepared for me.”  The New Testament quote appears widely different from the Old Testament source.

Here's why:

The apostles and the early church used the Septuagint, rather than the original Hebrew, as their primary version of the Bible. The Septuagint (commonly known as the LXX) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT made by Greek and Hebrew speaking Jewish translators in Egypt around 285 - 246 BC. Since Greek was the common language of the NT world, it made sense to use the Greek translation of the Scriptures.

In most ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, Psalm 40:6 reads (in English): “ears you have dug for me.”  The LXX translates this into Greek as “a body you prepared for me.” Most likely, the translators of the LXX were attempting to make a vague Hebrew figure of speech (‘digging out ears’) more understandable to a Greek speaking audience by making the ‘digging out of the ears’ a reference to God forming the human body, even as He first molded Adam out of the dust of the earth.

The writer of the book of Hebrews used the LXX as his Bible version. On the surface, the difference in his translation compared to the Hebrew seems significant. But the LXX was simply trying to make the sense of the Hebrew text clear to non-Hebrew speaking people. The Hebrew language is very colorful, much like the American Indian languages are very picturesque. Rather than presenting a word-for-word translation from Hebrew to Greek, the translators sought to accurately convey the meaning of the phrase.

  

So the meaning of the original Hebrew was captured by the LXX, and then carried faithfully over into English by both the KJV and the NIV, both capturing the LXX translation of the Hebrew translation of Psalm 40:6.

Once again, God demonstrates how He preserves His Word across time, cultures and languages.

         Ps. 119:89 Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.

Can I Trust My Translation? Part 2

Biblegems # 60

Luke 24:44 He [Jesus] said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

If Jesus believed the Bible, then it should be trustworthy and accurate, right?

Right!

Did you know that the Bible translation most often quoted by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament? Sometimes they quoted directly from the Hebrew, and sometimes they mixed their quotes with both the Hebrew and Greek! Like most Christians today, Jesus and the apostles understood that God has preserved His Word through time and cultures by using translations into new and changing languages.

Last week’s blog highlighted the importance of manuscript evidence used in Bible translations. Today we will focus on how those manuscripts help provide accuracy and confidence in God’s Word.

There is a common misconception that there is one single Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) manuscript of the Bible. That is not the case. The truth is there are literally thousands of ancient manuscripts, and portions of manuscripts, of biblical texts spanning 2,000 years in composition and copying over countless languages. All agree in content and meaning and prove the reliability and accuracy of Scripture!

Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest OT manuscripts available were from about 900 AD (the OT was completed about 1300 years earlier!) The translators developing the KJV had available to them an edited Greek text from the 5^th century A.D.  They relied upon this and the Latin Vulgate (383 A.D.) to bring to English speaking people a new, dependable translation which the average person could read.

Now, through archeological research, we have discovered OT manuscripts dating from before the time of Christ. We have also discovered manuscripts of the Greek New Testament that are far older than anything previously available. These confirm the accuracy of the texts we already had. Where there are differences, these older manuscripts often help provide greater accuracy in determining a specific word or phrasing. Translations that take full advantage of these ancient manuscripts help bring us closer to the inerrant originals as composed by Moses, Paul, John, Isaiah, etc.

For example, Isaiah 2:22 in the KJV reads:

         “Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?”

The NIV reads:

         “Stop trusting in man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?”

The same passage translated from the “Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a)” discovered in the Qumran caves at the Dead Sea that is nearly a thousand years older than any OT manuscript we had before this discovery reads:

         “Stop focusing on mortals, who have only breath in their nostrils – for what are they really worth?”

What a beautiful reminder to trust God for the preservation of His Word as He uses human hands to bring it to new generations of Bible readers!  

Seven… Sevens… or Seven Pairs? in Genesis 7:2

Biblegems #7

In the account of Noah bringing animals into the ark, Bible translators seem to have some difficulty accurately conveying into English the number of clean animals that were to board the ark. Genesis 7:2 in the KJV reads:

      “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female…”

The English Standard Version (ESV) reads,

      “Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals,* the male and his mate…”

The question is, which translation —“sevens” or “seven pairs” best reflects the Hebrew? To muddy the waters just a little more, lets see how some other translations have handled the question.

The Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX) uses a double adjective, “seven-seven (hepta hepta), male and female…,” while the New English (NET) translates it “seven of every kind of clean animal, the male and its mate…” The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) reads, “seven pairs, a male and its female…” and the New International (NIV) has “seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate…”

Why is there so much variation? The answer to that question brings up a key sticking point of any translation from one language to another: When do you translate exactly, word for word, and when do you sacrifice exact wording to accurately communicate the sense? To show how difficult that can be at times, here is Genesis 7:2 taken from the NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, vol. 1:

      “From-every-of the animal the clean you take with you seven seven male and mate–of-him…”

Translating word for word is not a simple matter, and often not possible at all because of how languages are structured differently from one another. However, the Hebrew clearly indicates that seven males and seven females of each kind of clean animal were to board the ark. Each of the translations listed above seek to reflect that fact, some using the principle of keeping as close to the Hebrew wording as possible, others using the principle of conveying the Hebrew meaning as accurately as possible.

What a motivation to pray for those whom God has called to the important ministry of Bible translation!

NT Near-Quotes From The OT

Bible-gems #6

Have you ever wondered why so many New Testament “quotes” from the Old Testament are different from the Old Testament itself—sometimes vastly different?

A good example is John 12:39-40:

For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: “He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.”

The apostle John cites Isaiah 6:9-10, especially verse 10, as he reflects back on the first Palm Sunday when many in the crowds that day still did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, despite the miracles they had witnessed with their own eyes (Jn. 12:37).

However, the passage in Isaiah 6:10 reads a little differently in the Old Testament:

“ Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”

Why is there this difference? For that matter, this same reference in Isaiah is referred to two other times in the New Testament, once by Jesus (Matthew 13:15) and once by the apostle Paul. Each time the passage is not quoted exactly as it is found in the Old Testament. Again, why not?

John, Jesus and Paul are seeing the prophecy in Isaiah as being fulfilled before their very eyes. In each case, they apply the truth of Isaiah’s prophetic message while changing the wording (not the meaning) enough to fit their particular circumstances. The truth was, the Jewish people had become spiritually blind and deaf, and would remain so even to the coming of the Messiah, the “Holy Seed,” in the midst of a desolate existence (v. 13). Jesus and the apostles were not intending to quote Isaiah word for word, but to paraphrase the passage as an application to their specific circumstances.

We often do the same: “He will never leave you or forsake you,” we say to someone in need of encouragement, applying the truth—but changing the wording—of Hebrews 13:5: “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you”

When the New Testament authors use this “applicational” approach to Scripture, they do so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, God Himself guarantees the Truth is being conveyed accurately, even if the words are altered for the occasion. The New Testament application of Old Testament Truth becomes Scripture itself. God, the author of His Word, has the privilege of rewording to get His point across.

The Isaiah passage highlights just one type of New Testament uses of Old Testament passages. Below are a few more ways the New Testament writers handle the Old Testament under the inspiration of God’s Spirit.

Often, in fact usually, the NT writers quote from the Greek translation of the OT (the LXX), because Greek was the common language of the day. If the apostles needed to clarify the wording of the Greek version they frequently amended the common translation by inserting a more literal wording from the original Hebrew where needed, sometimes translating the Hebrew themselves. A modern preacher uses this same technique, clarifying a portion of Scripture in an English translation by inserting the original Greek and its more literal (or more colloquially useful) translation for his listeners.

Sometimes an OT idea or teaching is being drawn out in the NT by condensing an OT verse or taking a familiar OT phrase and allowing the abbreviated reference to trigger the listeners recall of the larger passage. This use of Scripture was a common teaching device called the remez. Again, we use similar teaching aids when we use Scriptural phrases like “the blood of the Lamb” or “every knee shall bow,” expecting that our hearers will fill in the blanks in their own minds.

The New Testament treats the Old Testament as “living and active,” not wooden and stagnant. It never changes the Truth, but always seeks to apply it in a fresh and meaningful way.