I think it a very good initiative to answer the objections of our opponents. Progress in Torah may lead for some believers to moments of perplexity and confusion in re-arranging their theological outlook (as was my own experience). Perplexity and confusion are not the effects of Torah-observance however, but they may be the effect (1) of the Torah on our own wrong theology, or (2) of distorted visions of the Torah. Both effects are potentially dangerous when they turn away our attention from Messiah. Although we have much in common with traditional Judaism, we also have huge differences. We should not hide these differences. We should not hide our Messianic foundation, but instead approach all objections by the light of Messiah. We have nothing to fear from the truth.

Geert ter Horst | October 20, 2007 8:41 PM

Toby,

There are more problems with Stevens speech than the 70 verses 75 number. By the way, did you know that in one place the LXX has 70 as the number but in two places it has 75? I forget the verse where it has 70 or I would give it to you.

Steven also gets the burial place wrong for the Patriarchs and some details concerning it. As far as I know, the LXX explanation doesn't cover this one.

I have yet to find a good answer for it. There is something else too..something about Abraham and his journey from Ur and when HaShem spoke to him.

I'm not being very scholarly and I don't have a lot of time now..but I could show you these if I sat down with the text in hand and I am willing to do so. Just know that the text of Steven's speech has numerous problems. Some are easily explained, others not so easy..and like I said..I asked around alot before and never found a good answer for a few of the problems.

Andrew

Andrew | October 22, 2007 7:50 PM

Amen to both post and visitor comment...

T. landry | October 23, 2007 5:29 AM

First, I have a question - how did you post this November 18, 07 when it's only Oct 23, 07 by my calendar. Did you sit in a aluminum foil covered refrigerator box with Jono (http://www.chabad.org/article.htm/AID/253064) for days on end? ;-)

Second, in defense of Steven (and possibly to help Andrew), Steven is recounting what was transmitted to him via oral tradition. As much as we would like to make the history of Israel a hermetically sealed collective historical recollection, it just ain't so. We have many midrashim which disagree with each other regarding the details of various events in the the history of Israel. This is one example of such. I'm sure Steven is just recounting the version which was passed down to him (and surely others in his time as well), and if we can find these variations in other texts it will help defend our martyred brother and allow his blood to be worth the high price of its being splilt.

Darren | October 23, 2007 10:41 AM

I would just like to remind anyone who is going to discredit the Apostolic Scriptures, just as the example of so-called inconsistencies in Stephen's apology, that the Tanach itself could be viewed as having similiar inconsistencies.

In the past few weeks, we have discussed in our weekly parashot how Abraham left "Ur of the Chaldeans." The suffixed "of the Chaldeans" is a Sixth-Fifth Century B.C.E. description that was used by the Neo-Babylonians. Likewise, consider the infamous reference to Abraham pursuing Lot's captors "as far as Dan" (Genesis 14:14), a place name that would not be attributed until after the Conquest.

This is one of many examples in the Pentateuch where an aMosaic clause appears. If we are going to criticize the reliability of the Apostolic Scriptures, it is just as viable that we criticize the reliability of the Tanach. How would Moses known about this? Claiming that he was a prophet and these are prophecies is invalid. These are place names and ethinic identifiers.

Hard Sayings of the Bible by InterVarsity (1996) actually offers some very reasonable solutions to these, and other possible issues (without one having to consult more technial commentaries), from a conservative perspective. The challenge is that we have to look at the Biblical text from the perspective of the ancients, and not subject it to our Twenty-First Century computer expectations of accuracy--which they did not have. This is difficult enough for many Messianics analyzing the Apostolic Scriptures, and is going to prove to be an even bigger challenge with the Tanach.

We often do not realize how many "doors" the anti-missionaries have actually opened.

J.K. McKee | October 23, 2007 10:56 AM

The differences based on the LXX between the number of people who were in Egypt from Jacob's loins is as follows:

Genesis 46:27 says "all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls."

Exodus 1:5 says "All the souls born of Jacob were seventy-five."

Deuteronomy 10:22 says "With seventy souls your fathers went down into Egypt."

The first two examples from the LXX include Joseph's sons with Jacob's sons. The last example from Deut. only includes those who went down to Egypt with Jacob. Both context and the wording of these verses are the key. Also, the Dead Sea text has the number 75 in Exodus 1:5.

Concerning the place of the burial of the Patriarchs see Genesis 23:16; Genesis 33:19; Genesis 50:13; Joshua 24:32. As to the details offered by Stephen in Acts 7:16, first he says "and they were carried back to Shechem," the Midrash Rabbah states "You shall carry up my bones away hence with you (Ex. 13:19), which means, when you go up. And how do we know that the bones of the tribal ancestors too were taken up with him? Because it says, 'with you.'" (Gen. Rab. 100:11). Concerning the mention of the place being Shechem and the remaining details of verse 16, Stephen offers a broad scope of details and states them in a few short words. Jacob was buried in the Machpelah tomb (or as some places in Tanakh have it, in the cave of the field of Machpelah). Also, Hashem appeared to Abraham at Shechem (see Genesis 12:6-7). At this site in the land of Canaan, Hashem promised this land to Abraham's descendants (see also Rashi to this text). This land, although promised to be given to Abraham's descendants, was partially purchased by money and at other times conquered by war. This purchase of plots was to say to those who deny the Torah's promise of inheritance, the Patriarchs could present the deeds to the respective territories. Although the field in Shechem was pruchased by Jacob rather than Abraham, it may be said that Abraham purchased the field for since Jacob is a son of Abraham it is as if Abraham purchased the field. Thus Stephen is able to connect the two events--Abraham's purchase of a burial site as well as Jacob's purchase--into one single sentence. A similar use of language is found in Hebrews 7:4-10 where it is said that Levi and his descendants gave a tenth to Melchizedek through Abraham. If such can be done through future generations who technically did not exist then surely the same can be projected back on to past generations. Thus, Abraham did on an alternative level purchase the field in Shechem since Jacob came from Abraham's loins.

Concerning the discrepancy with the accounts of Hashem sending Abraham away from Ur, I would be interested to know what you are referencing.

Brian R. | October 23, 2007 1:48 PM

The references to Ur Chasdim or "Ur of the Chaldeans" occurs in Genesis 11:28, 31; 15:7. I was pointing out how the subscription "of the Chaldeans" could only be known by the Sixth-Fifth Centuries B.C.E., when the neo-Babylonians entered onto the scene in the Ancient Near East, and not either the Fifteenth or Thirteenth Centuries B.C.E. (depending on when you date the Exodus).

Liberal source critics of the Pentateuch claim that this is an obvious indication that the Torah was written after the Babylonian exile, and attribute it to either the so-called J or P writer. Conservatives who accept principal Mosaic composition of the Torah, such as myself, recognize "of the Chaldeans" as being aMosaic, and probably appended by Ezra the Priest. Yet, the core material this was appended to was Mosaic.

My point is that the so-called anti-missionary discrepancies of the Apostolic Scriptures can be applied equally to the Tanach. And, these are issues that the Messianic community cannot avoid any longer. Are we ready for them? Probably not.

J.K. McKee | October 23, 2007 5:46 PM

J.K. McKee:

There are references earlier than the 6th-5th centuries BCE that reference the Chaldeans. In the Nimrud Slab Inscription dating to ca. 9th century BCE, there is a reference to the "rulers of Kaldu-land." This term is an Assyrian form for "Chaldea."

Also, the Book of Jubiless 11:3 states, "And 'Ur, the son of Kesed, built the city of 'Ara of the Chaldees, and called its name after his own name and the name of his father." The text states that this occurred in the year 1681 from the creation of the world. This text shows the word from which the Hebrew "Kasdim" is derived.

One aspect that liberal scholars don't consider is that of prophecy. It is said that what happened to the Fathers will happen to their children. By mentioning "Chaldeans" the text may be alluding to the children of Israel being called out of Babylon after the exile and being taken to their land. Thus Moses may be offering some clues as to the then future exile.

Brian R. | October 24, 2007 1:19 AM

Respectfully to your remarks, because I take a conservative-critical approach to the Tanach, I do not believe that Moses or his scribes would have known about the "Chaldeans." To claim the reference to the "Chaldeans" as prophecy, as Orthodox Jewish resources often do, is completely unacceptable to me. It is possible that there are earlier references to them before the Sixth-Fifth Centuries B.C.E., and it is certainly something worthy of additional examination on my part.

My primary point is that with the anti-missionaries on the scene, doors have been opened to subjects that we are largely unprepared to deal with. It shows me how desperately the theology of the Messianic movement needs to move toward the Center.

We will have to table the chronology of God's Creation of humankind to the present for another time.

J.K. McKee | October 24, 2007 11:11 AM

Thanks Brian R. and others for posting, and Toby for posting my questions and thoughts. I wasn't very clear because I didn't have time to present all the details that have given me questions..but some was answered here. I am not trying to say anything bad about Stephen. He could have been just passing down an oral tradition of the story that had some of the details wrong or mixed as Darren sugguested, or possibly whoever wrote down what he said learned it from a passed down story and got the facts wrong or mixed up his stories and Patriarchs.

As to the statement about Avraham and when G-d spoke to him:

He said, "Brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Avraham, when he was in Aram-Naharayim, before he lived in Charan, and said to him, 'Get out of your land, and from your relatives, and come into a land which I will show you.' Then he came out of the land of the Kasdim, and lived in Charan. From there, when his father was dead, God moved him into this land, where you are now living.
Acts 7:2-4

THE POINT I WAS MAKING IS THAT HASHEM SPOKE TO AVRAM IN CHARAN, NOT BEFORE THEY CAME TO CHARAN, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE TEXT I READ BELOW:

Terach took Avram his son, Lot the son of Charan, his son's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Avram's wife. They went forth from Ur of the Kasdim, to go into the land of Kena`an. They came to Charan and lived there.
Genesis 11:31

Now the LORD said to Avram, "Get out of your country, and from your relatives, and from your father's house, to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation. I will bless you and make your name great. You will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you. In you will all of the families of the earth be blessed." So Avram went, as the LORD had spoken to him. Lot went with him. Avram was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Charan. Avram took Sarai his wife, Lot his brother's son, all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls whom they had gotten in Charan, and they went forth to go into the land of Kena`an. Into the land of Kena`an they came.
Genesis 12:1-5

IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME THAT THE MASORETIC TEXT HAS AVRAM BEING CALLED BY HASHEM IN CHARAN, NOT BEFORE HE WAS IN CHARAN.

Andrew

Andrew | October 24, 2007 10:59 PM

Rashi settles the differences in his commentary. Rashi to Genesis 12:1 states, "from your land: Now had he not already gone out of there with his father and come as far as Haran? Rather, thus did He say to him, “Distance yourself more from there and leave your father’s house.”"

Also Rashi states to Genesis 11:32, "and Terah died in Haran: [This happened] after Abram had left Haran and had come to the land of Canaan, and had been there for over sixty years, for it is written (below 12:4): “And Abram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran,” and Terah was seventy years old when Abram was born, making Terah one hundred and forty-five years old when Abram left Haran."

The scenario is thus: There is a midrash which states that Terah complained to Nimrod that Abraham smashed Terah's idols which were in his idol-making shop. This caused a large stir which resulted in the family of Terah leaving Ur Kasdim. Hashem spoke to Abraham a first time in Ur which caused Abraham to forsake the idols. After Terah and his family settled in Haran, Hashem spoke further to Abraham telling him to leave his father's house and go to the land of Canaan (as Rashi states). Stephen is incorporating details from this midrash into his telling of the story for his listeners would have been familiar with this legend.

Brian R. | October 25, 2007 4:41 PM

Thanks Brian for the comments and for posting that commentary. I admit I am pretty ignorant when it comes to the story in the midrash concerning Avraham, Terah, and Nimrod. I have only heard it spoken about in some teachings but briefly.

Stephens speech sure makes it sound like it is referring to the second time HaShem spoke to Avraham and not any time before that. Look at what he quotes from HaShem's mouth.

The issue here in my mind is not that he could be putting two stories together or mixing up his details but that the text of Acts claims that Stephen was filled with the spirit when he spoke, which means he wouldn't get any details wrong in my opinion. This is what makes me think the author of Acts is the one who got the details wrong in reporting what Stephen said.

shalom,

Andrew

Andrew | October 25, 2007 6:25 PM

Back to the point, as I think we're forgetting the main point. The anti missionaries do like to point out problems in the Apostolic Writings - and most would probably agree that there are some problems. But there are also many problems in the Tanach that cannot be explained through midrash.

The hare does not chew it's cud (Lev 11:6)

2 Kings 24:8- Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2 Chronicles 36:9- Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign.
2 Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was 42 when he began to reign.
2 Chronicles 22:2

1 Samuel 28:6- And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets
1 Chronicles 10:14- And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

When did Baasha die?
26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8
36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chron 16:1

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
22 in 2 Kings 8:26
42 in 2 Chron 22:2

I could list many more. The point is, if we are encouraged to trash the message of Messiah because of problems in the accounts, what then are we to make of the Tanach? Equal weights and equal measures. I am holding firm to all the writings.

John M | October 27, 2007 8:57 AM

You are correct in that there are many potential problems with the Tanach, and how we are to take its basic facts when one looks at accounts in Kings when compared to Chronicles. This is where having the worldview of the ancients is imperative.

An excellent book that addresses much of this subject (and related issues) is Ancient Orient and Old Testament by K.A. Kitchen. He is an Ancient Near Eastern expert and Egyptologist, also other of the much larger (and also recommended) On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Walter C. Kaiser's work The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant? is also very good.

Thusfar, I have witnessed that the Messianic community has great difficulty giving the classical civilizations of Greece and Rome their proper place in regard to interpreting the broad Mediterranean cultural background of the Apostolic Scriptures. We are going to have even more difficulty when considering the role of the Sumerians, Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians in regard to the Tanach. Ironically, the "safe ground" may be the Apostolic Scriptures in this regard.

Indeed, the anti-missionary movement may be what God has had to use to get us out of our theological complacency...

J.K. McKee | October 27, 2007 11:23 PM