Hebrew Massoretic Text

Dr. Couch, is the Hebrew Massoretic text reliable?



ANSWER: Yes indeed, it certainly is. The ancient Rabbis were very careful to copy and transmit the Old Testament text with great accuracy. If they made copying mistakes they started all over again in order to make sure that no mistakes were allowed to sneak into the new copied work.



The Hebrew scribes of the earliest times take care to be accurate. The work was transferred over to the Talmudic Rabbis from 200-500 AD with continual guarantees that what they copied was not compromised. Jewish scholarship emigrated eastward to Babylon in the second century through the tenth century to make sure that scholarly traditions were maintained in keeping the Old Testament copies accurate. With certainty the Babylonian variants were listed in the R. Kittel edition known as the "Biblia Hebraica" (1929-1937).



In graduate school I cut my teeth on the Kittel edition. There has been almost no question on the Kittel version. Unger writes: "The Massoretes manifested the same spirit of deep loyalty and devotion to the Sacred Scriptures as the inspired and authoritative Word of God, which had been handed down to them, that had been characteristic throughout the centuries of the history of the nation chosen to be the recipients and the custodians of the Bible."



Thanks for asking.



—Dr. Mal Couch (8/11)

Nephilim

Dr. Couch, I still hear Bible teachers saying that the Nephilim in Genesis 6 were a mixture between humans and fallen angels, thus creating a hybrid of strange creatures that were unusual being in early Genesis. What do you think?

ANSWER: For years I have studied these verses from the Hebrew text and am convinced that they are not referring to fallen angels! What is happening is that the two lines, the Godly and the unGodly lines of Seth and Cain, were coming together, by which the line of humans was weakened and degraded, becoming even more sinful.

By good exegesis, and reading carefully chapters 4-6, this view seems to make the most sense. While there are some Bible teachers who hold to the "angel" theory, the outstanding scholars I read hold to the fact that the two lines of Seth and Cain come together, washing down morally and spiritually the Godly line.

I just discovered the great Old Testament respected Jewish Christian scholar, Alfred Edersheim, holds to the coming together of the two lines. He writes:

"The corruption of mankind reached its highest point when even the difference between the Sethites and the Cainites became obliterated by intermarriage between the two parties, and that from sensual motives. We read that 'the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.' At that time the earth must have been in a great measure peopled, and its state is thus described, 'And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.'

This means more than the total corruption of our nature, as we should now describe it, and refers to the universal prevalence of open, daring sin, and rebellion against God, brought about when the separation between the Sethites and the Cainites ceased. With the exception of Noah there was none in that generation 'to call upon the name of Jehovah. … The giants (in Hebrew: Nephilim) were 'men of violence, or tyrants,' as Luther renders it, the root of the word meaning, 'to fall upon.'"

All of the above is what I teach from good, solid exegesis! Almost word for word!

The scholarly Jewish Rabbis in the Soncino commentaries hold to the same view—this is not referring to fallen angels. They write:

"There is no trace in Genesis of 'fallen angels' or rebellious angels; and the idea of inter-marriage of angels and human beings is altogether foreign to Hebrew though. The mythological explanation of this passage was in all ages repelled by a large body of Jewish and non-Jewish commentators, though it has been revived by many modern [and liberal teachers]."

There is one Jewish Christian teacher in Texas who holds to the angel theory. But he does so by following others, holding to mythology and not good exegesis from the Bible. Don't follow him blindly! I work with the best of commentators not those who buy into mythology! In fact, I do more Hebrew exegesis than this dear brother! He often does not do good independent exegesis as he should.

Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (6/11)

Simply Sleeping After Death

Dr. Couch, how do we demonstrate from the OT that when we die we do not simply sleep, as some Rabbis say? I understand that most Jews do not hold to the view that people are simply asleep when they die.

ANSWER: In both the OT and the NT the passages speak of being asleep when one dies. However, remember Luke 16 and the death of the wealthy man who went into torment, and the poor man who when he died resided on Abraham's bosom. You say, but that passage is in the NT. No, not really. The Gospels are still in, and part of, the OT. The NT dispensation of the church does not begin until Acts 2 and Pentecost. So whatever Christ said was still part of the dispensation of the Law, the OT.

Luke 16 makes it clear that both the lost (the unbelieving wealthy man) and the poor man (the believer) were awake and aware of their existence though they had died. The idea of "being asleep" comes from what the body looks like at death. It appears to be asleep—eyes closed and still. But the soul and spirit is very conscious and awake!

Mark 9:48 says with death "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." Everyone admits that this is making a statement of the pain of death for the lost and consciousness. The torment of judgment goes on and on! This actually is quoting Isaiah 66:24. "They shall go forth and look on the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence to all mankind."

Though the passage is in poetic form, the Rabbis say on "their fire": "The fire of Gehenna which will purge their souls." This would be most correct. There is a spiritual judgment going on that transcends the physical, though the passage speaks of the physical because it is difficult for us to fully grasp the spiritual elements in the passage.

I hope this helps.
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (3/11)

Jewish Commentaries on Daniel's Seventy Weeks

Dr. Couch, what do the Jewish commentaries say about Daniel's Seventy-Weeks in Daniel 9:24-on?

ANSWER: As you know I have all of the Jewish Soncino commentaries on the OT. I'm the only guy who has them that I know of. Generally, I appreciate what they say but often they try to get rid of messianic statements, but not always.

How sick do you want to get? On this Daniel 9 passage the Rabbis go nuts in order to rid the passage of leading to the coming of Christ, however, in a weak moment, they say: "On 'everlasting righteousness' in v. 24, they say "Commentators interpret this as an allusion to the Messianic era."

But then they go on and go crazy. On v. 26 they write (after the threescore ...") This brings the period down to the Maccabean age. According to another calculation, its terminus is the destruction of the Second Temple."

And on "an anointed one," they write "Some authorities see a reference to king Agrippa who lived at the time when the Second Temple was destroyed. Others think of Onias III who was High Priest until deposed by Antiochus Epiphanes in 175 BC; he was assassinated four years later."

On "war" in v. 26 they say "The final war against Gog and Magog which will herald the coming of the Messiah (Ezek. 38-on), or the war of Antiochus against the saints."

On "firm covenant" in v. 27 they write "If the prince is Antiochus, the allusion will be to the co-operation he obtained from the apostate hellenizers among the Jews; if to Vespasian, ..."

On "wing of detestable things" in v. 27 they say "This is one of the most baffling passages in the book. The Jewish commentators take wing as a figure of speech signifying an elevated position and render: 'upon an elevated position among detestable things, an image which causes appallment ."

On v. 25 on "to restore and to build Jerusalem" they write "The Hebrew verb is commonly used of bringing back captivities, hence it probably refers here not to the city but its exiled inhabitants." (But the passage just mentioned Jerusalem!!!!)

On "one anointed" they say "Probably Cyrus is intended, but explained by others as Zerubbabel or Jeshua the son of Jozadak, the first High Priest after the return from captivity."

In other words, the Rabbis on Daniel are all over the place. For the most part they try to escape a messianic reading. THEIR INTERPRETATIONS MAKE NO SENSE!

Thanks for asking,
Dr. Mal Couch (3/11)

Cursed for Studying Daniel's Seventy Weeks

Dr. Couch, I heard someone say that the Jewish Rabbis placed a curse on anyone who studied Daniel's Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9. Is this true? ANSWER: I'm not sure about the curse part, but I understand that the Rabbis forbid rabbinical students from studying that chapter because it is so obvious in regard to the dating of the coming of the Messiah. And the dating points to the period of the birth of Christ. Remember, the Jews are in blindness and spiritual darkness. God judicially blinded them (Acts 28) because of their rejection of the Lord. We would expect that from the Jews who are in denial! I am not sure if we can substantiate this as a fact. Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch (Feb., 10)

When Did the Synagogues Begin?

Dr. Couch, in Psalm 74:8 there is a mention of the synagogue. I thought the synagogue did not begin until the period between the Testaments. How do we answer? 

 

    ANSWER:  Many Bible versions translate the word in this verse as “the meeting place.” It is the Hebrew word Mo’av. The Rabbis point out in my Jewish commentaries that this psalm was probably written during the Babylonian captivity when the Temple had been destroyed. They say, “It is preferable to find the setting of the psalm in the onslaught in the sixth century which destroyed the Southern Kingdom and the Temple, and inaugurated the Babylonian captivity.” Thus, more than likely, the Jews in captivity began meeting in small groups that later developed into synagogues in Babylon, and of course in the land, when they returned from the exile. 

    The Holman Dictionary has another take on the passage and writes: “Worship centered around the Temple in Jerusalem. Psalm 74:8, written late in Old Testament times, seems to refer to local places of worship destroyed when the Temple was destroyed.” Unger agrees in his OT Commentary I had re-published. He believes these were “meeting places,” houses of sacred worship where the Law was read even while the Temple was standing. He prefers to call them “houses of sacred meetings.” 

   Thanks for asking,

  Dr. Mal Couch