Chris Weimer

I never could figure out what Mrs Crivener was trying to sell...

Apikorus

Ouch! Poor Steven is getting "pierced" from all sides.

spin

That's alright, coz if "pierced" is not there he can't feel a thing. :Cheeky:

JoeWallack

JW:
God, what a Pal! Jumps in front of me to take the bullet. Remember A, I had PP banned for continuing to ask this question.

Actually I got nothing. I was just bluffing.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Just kidding. Wouldn't it be nice though if someone really said this here. My mysterious Source for claiming that final letters were especially vulnerable to confusion between Yod and Vav are the best possible source as far as I Am concerned, my own four eyes. And thanks to this Dedicated Thread I can easily find what I already wrote:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...03#post3262103

Apikorus

JW, I would agree that one can't be 100% confident in the identification K)RW in the Nahal Hever fragment, but your response to my question is inadequate. Do you have a scholarly source which explicitly states that W/Y confusion was more prevalent at the ends of words?

I don't have much problem distinguishing W and Y in the Nahal Hever fragment. The top stroke of the W is generally horizontal or even angled slightly downward (from left to right), whereas the Y consists of a short upstroke followed by a short downstroke. The lengths of the downstroke in the W and the Y do vary, and the Y at the end of the last line in your image -- from YR)W-BY -- apparently does have an elongated downstroke. But the left half seems to angle upward. So the scribe made a sharper change of direction in his yods than in his waws, and I find this is generally detectable throughout the fragments (not just in the selection you've shown).

Also it is odd that you should regard Moshe Shulman as an expert in palaeography -- does he have any professional standing in this field? From what I gather, Mr. Shulman, an Orthodox Jew, is vehemently opposed to Christian attempts to appropriate the text of the Hebrew Bible for apologetic purposes. Apparently he has no general interest or expertise in the Dead Sea Scrolls -- he's only interested in cases such as this where he can battle with Christian apologists. On text-critical matters, I must doubt his objectivity.

It goes without saying that Jesus of Nazareth is not "prefigured" in this Psalm, nor anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible. Whether or not the ancient Hebrew text read K)RW is a text-critical issue which should not be conflated with all this religious nonsense. And yes Peter Flint is quite guilty of letting his confessional stance interfere with what should be dispassionate scholarship when he advocates a translation "pierced".

Malachi151

This whole thread has not made any sense to me, because you seem to be arguing over Hebrew meanings of words.

Who cares about that? The question is what was written in the Septuagint at best, and even more, the possibility of other translations and other texts.

I haven't seen anyone (maybe I missed it) explain why the word pierced appears in Christian Bible version of this. Where did it come from?

I am not a textual scholar by any means, I don't know any of these languages, but I fail to see how the Hebrew text has anything to do with anything, we should only be dealing with the Greek texts, since that is what the NT is based on.

Also, to say that Psalm 22 does not prefigure Jesus simply because of the issue of the one word "pierced" is absurd. The paralleles go way beyond that.

jakejonesiv

Hi Malachi,
That hits the nail on the head.

You will notice from the lengthy discussion in this thread that "pierced" cannot be derived from the Hebrew, and that it is even a questionable reading in the Greek of the LXX.

The first explicit mention we have of "piercing" is by Justin Martyr in First Apology, CHAPTER XXXV.

And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, "They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots." And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.

OK, Justin didn't get this from any gospels (they were only "memoirs" at this point, the four gospels were not known by name until Irenaeus). Justin allegedly got it from an unknown version of the "Acts of Pilate." It is not in any extant work we have by that name.

Justin Martyr was engaged in the creation of the gospels.

Jake Jones IV

Malachi151

Ahh, yes, that clears many things up then.... sort of.... I'd like to see more about this. Where did JM get this idea from?

Does this really imply that the crucifixion story was added at this late point to Mark, Matthew, and Luke?

But, Paul already said Jesus was crucified, where did he get that idea from?

How did the mistranslation of Psalm 22 get into the Bible?

jakejonesiv

He says he got it straight from the writings of David (meaning the 22nd Psalm), and from an unknown version of the "Acts of Pilate."

We don't have extant copies of the gospels from the middle of the second century, so it is tough to know what was or was not contained in gospel material. Obviously, Justin had previous gospel material to work with. All I am suggesting here is that Justin added the bit about the piercing that is so troublesome in this thread.


Paul (or those writing in his name) didn't get any ideas about the crucifixtion from the gospels. The Pauline material demonstrated little knoweldge of the gospel material (none in the marcionite recension), incluing the passion narrative. If I had to speculate, I would say it ultimately derives from the mystery cults.

The "Bible" comes latter.

Jake Jones IV