WILLOWTREE

KJV translators, in this passage, use the Septuagint/LXX to quote Jesus who is citing Psalm 8:2

But if you go to Psalm 8:2 in the KJV it reads differently:



Here, a different KJV body of translators used the Masoretic Text/MT to translate Psalm 8:2

The crucial difference is "PRAISE" in the Matthew/LXX quote, and "STRENGTH" in the Psalm 8/MT quote.

The MT translation makes no sense unlike the LXX translation.

The MT deliberately changed the original meaning of the hebrew word as a reaction to the perceived christian takeover of the LXX source.

The LXX was produced hundreds of years before the MT and its manuscripts were of Ezralitish origin.

Now, Jesus enters Jerusalem and the Temple, when immediately children who are in the Temple see Him they spontaneously begin to cry out praises to Him. The Pharisses see this and become angry. Jesus responds to their anger by quoting Psalm 8:2 which identifies the enemy as those who are angered by this outburst of praise !

God, centuries prior, through David speaks a Messianic prophecy that little children will praise the Messiah on sight. Little children are too young to be influened by the hatred of the "enemies"/Pharisees.

When the Pharisees saw the little children cry out praises spontaneously they became angry and said to Jesus, Matthew 21:16, "do you hear what they are saying ?"

Jesus responds by quoting Psalm 8:2 and fulfills the prophecy and identifies the enemy of that verse to be those who became angry with the little childrens praises.

The power of God to forsee the reaction of little children and their ability to recognize the Messiah on sight !

A stunning prophecy fulfillment !

Dean Anderson

I have a more likely theory...

The writer of Psalm 8 (which may or may not have been David, although it was later ascribed to him) wrote it as a praise to Yahweh with no concept that it would be later used as a 'prophecy'.

The writer of Matthew (who was not the apostle Matthew, but we may as well call him 'Matthew' for lack of any other name to use) wrote his gospel as a Midrash of Old Testament verses.

Matthew was a native Greek speaker and did not have access to the Masoretic Text, only the (badly translated) LXX.

Matthew inserted a quote from the LXX into one of his stories about Jesus - but because his text said 'Praise' rather than 'Strength' he made the story one where children praise Jesus - thinking that it would fit the Midrash.

9 hundred(ish) years later, people look at the Midrash as a 'True Historical Account' and therefore assume that history uncannily mirrored 'prophecy', rather than taking the much simpler explanation that the second story was based on the first quote.

I leave it to the audience here to decide whether they prefer your theory or mine...

Javaman

What makes you think Psalm 8 was meant to be prophetic? It certainly isn't written that way. There are prophetic passages within the OT but there are many more non-prophetic ones that have been cribbed by Christianity to bolster thier postition. This appears to be one those cases.

doubtingthomas

Another problem with the OP's interpretation is that the author of Matthew didn't see this as being a prophetic fulfillment. It is apparent throughout the gospels, that whenever a writer believes a prophecy is fulfilled he makes note of it. Since no such notation is found in this passage it seems more likely that Jesus was just quoting a scripture that he thought was poignant in light of the situation.

ichabod crane

The Hebrew (it's verse 3 in the Hebrew, 2 in the English) definitely reads "established strength", ("yissadta `oz"). But the LXX reads "katertiso ainon", which means "prepared praise". Matthew 21:16 reads identically to the LXX. So it seems pretty clear that the writer of Matthew has just used the LXX translation. This indeed raises a question about the historicity of the passage. It seems very implausible to suppose that Jesus himself, if we assume that he is a historical figure, would have quoted from the LXX. But he couldn't have quoted from the Hebrew because his response to the chief priests and the scribes would then make no sense. This indicates that the whole response is fictional. The writer of Matthew may well have been familiar with Hebrew - he may have been a native Aramaic speaker at any rate - but if so, he clearly didn't double-check the Hebrew before including this story.

funinspace

Stunning indeed...of a misrepresented midrash...he he, ha ha :boohoo:

Just about as stunning as the failed prophecy of Tyre...

DK

Vorkosigan

The NIV also adjusts this one to the NT. Every time we have a discussion on the NT, OT, and translation, I find yet another place where the NIV.....lies. I wish I had started to compile these.

Vorkosigan

doubtingthomas

I've heard similar claims made elsewhere to the effect of, "The MT was made by Jews who willfully distorted the original scripture in order to curb the rise of Christianity." Could someone explain the conflict here, or at least link me to some place that can.

ichabod crane

Sorry I missed this absurd claim when I posted previously. Willowevctree, I challenge you to provide evidence to back up this claim. Let's look at the facts. The Hebrew noun for "praise" is tehillah, the verb meaning "to praise" is halal. If the writer of Psalm 8:2 (8:3 in the Hebrew) had wanted to say praise, that is the word he would have used. The word `oz clearly means strength and is never used to mean praise. If the Hebrews "changed the meaning of the original Hebrew word", then how come in all its other occurrences (Ex. 15:13, Lev. 26:19, Jud. 5:21, Jud. 9:51, etc.) it means strength? Even the NIV translates it as strength or similar in these other occurrences. It does not mean "praise" and so not only is this not fulfilled prophecy, it is a proof of error in Matthew.

Willowevctree, the ball is in your court: provide proof that `oz can mean praise.

doubtingthomas

Ok correct me if I'm wrong here, but he does have a point when he says that the MT version doesn't make sense. Praise seems like a far better word choice than strength.