Malachi151

But "piercing" isn't in the gospel accounts, only the Psalm, so this would imply that JM is the one that changed the Psalm translation to make it better fit the already existing gospel accounts, and that his changed translation of the Psalm then got incorporated into the Bible.

If this is what you are saying, and this is true, then it still doesn't change the fact that the gospel accounts are based on Pslam 22, because what this would mean is that JM KNEW that the gospel accounts were based on Psalm 22, and he changed Pslam 22 to make it fit the accounts even more closely, or else, why even bother changing the Psalm if its unrelated....

jakejonesiv

You are right Malachi, there is something funny going on here. If the traditional datings of Christianity are accurate, if the gospels were written in the first century and the evangelists had a copy of the Septuagint Psalm 22 that unambigously said "They pierced my hands and my feet", it is amazing that nobody put two and two together before Justin in the middle of the second century. (Well, maybe the unknown writer of the unknown Acts of Pilate did before Justin). As anxious as the evangelists were to find "prophecies" for Jesus to fulfill, you would think that Matthew, Mark, and Luke would be all over it. (John mentions "piercing" but only the side. He implies in ch 20 the pierceing of the hands and side but not the feet).

I don't know that Justin actually changed the Septuagint's reading. What do you think?

:huh:

Jake Jones IV

spin

Umm, the text was originally written in Hebrew and it is there where we must go to understand the original meaning, then we go to the Greek -- which we have done in the thread -- to see how the Hebrew was understood by a Greek translator. Translators however have the tendency to smooth over things that are difficult in the original text, so the Greek doesn't necessarily bear the meaning intended by the original writer.

If we are dealing with the hypothesis of prophecy, we need to deal with the original text, ie the Hebrew. Praxeus's song and dance around the fact that he can't defend his desired reading from the original text means that his translation is simply wrong for its intended prophetic purposes.

Incidentally, you will see in the thread that the LXX doesn't help praxeus get to "pierced", because it uses a different verb, meaning "dug".


spin

Malachi151

That's all beside the point from my perspective. I care nothing about the "origional meaning", or "if its a real prophecy", of course its not, none of them are. What I care about, and what is more important IMO, is determining if one story was based on another existing motif or text.

All that needs to be figured out in order to make this determiniation is: Was there a version of Psalm 22 in Greek at the time the gospel of Mark was written that used the word "pierced".

That's all I care about.

The fact that this would be a mistranslation from Hebrew adds interest only because it makes the use of this motif all the more amusing and shows how a misunderstanding led to the crafting of a new story among the Greek speaking diaspora, or indeed perhaps among actual Greeks/Romans/Egyptians who were writing propaganda directed at the diaspora.

Was there a transalation that said "pierced" prior to 70 CE? That's all I want to know.

Even if not, however, I think that Psalm 22 still served as source material for Mark and Matthew to craft their crucifixion stories, its just a matter of the degree to which they used it origionally.

The question is:

Was "pierced" mistranslated into Psalm 22 after the gospels to make the gospels seem to fit it better by early Christians who viewed Psalm 22 as a prefiguring of Jesus, or was pierced a mistranslation that led the gospel writers to see Psalm 22 as a prefiguring of Jesus?

spin

You have a priori opinions to bring to the literature.

You'll note that the thread title specifically mentions Hebrew. So you are in a sense waylaying the thread.

No. There is no indication of a Greek text indicating it. The LXX has a different verb.

Or else it shows the (conscious or not conscious) manipulation of the significance of a text to coincide with a theological position.

Glad to have helped.

There's nothing in the LXX text to suggest the latter.


spin

Apikorus

Has praxeus run away from yet another thread? Will he ever defend "pierced" on linguistic grounds?

jgibson000

Probably not. He's over on the TC-Alternative List (which turns out to be a haunt of Yuri Kuchinsky and others of his ilk who are attempting to do text criticism of the Greek NT by using English translations of the NT texts!), trying to get support for his views on 1 Tim 3:16, and accusing anyone who doesn't accept a KJV only position of being a "non believer".

Jeffrey

jakejonesiv

Hi Malachi,

There is nothing in either the Hebrew or the Greek of the Septuagint to support the meaning of "pierced."

oti ekuklwsan me kunev polloi sunagwgh ponhreuomenwn periesxon me wrucan xeirav mou kai podav
meaning "they dug into".

It looks like Justin either misread the text somehow or just made up the meaning of pierced. Christians have been following his lead on this ever since.

The implications of this are fairly startling. Justin had no problem with adding details to the alleged life of Christ from a reading (or misreading) of the Jewish scripture, even into the middle of the second century. And very few translators thereafter had the courage to translate the text of Psalm 21:17/22:16 corrercty.

Jake Jones IV

The Bishop

I don't suppose anybody else reading this thread, head filled with lions, waws, yods and the translation of the word "pierced" read the followingand just snorted with involuntary laughter....?

When I started reading the thread I was dismissive of the English translation of the Masoretic text having the lions at the hands and feet, but then I made the mistake of actually reading the whole psalm. Since there are at least two images of the author being beleagured by wild animals, even without the necessary verbs it feels like a reasonable translation, given the habits of Hebrew poetry. Otherwise, Asimov theorised that the image of the hands and feet being "like a lion" might have referred to them being crabbed and claw-like due to the author's tribulations - and this image in turn may have inspired the "pierced" imagery of later translations even in the absence of back-prophecy to Jesus.

I was astonished to realise last night on checking my KJV and my NJB, that the NJB did not even include the reference in Matt 27:35 to Psalm 22 about the casting of the lots (which is there in the KJV, naturally). And indeed it's not to be found in Codex Sinaiticus. I think D is the earliest uncial that it is written into.

JoeWallack

JW:
...What a nightmare!

JW:
No (see how easy that waws). As I've pointed out though, in my Book I have an even better Source, my own ayins. Every example I've posted in this Thread and every example I've seen from the time period shows this tendency.

JW:
I dig your point that yods and vavs are Generally distinguishable at NH. Obviously the best evidence for determination of an individual letter is looking at that individual letter. However, looking at this individual letter isn't that easy (nothing about Judaism is) because based on something you probably value more than my eyes, your words:

"Regarding the fragment, Swenson writes,

"...Peter Flint records it as K)RW. However, the facsimile (PAM 42.190) reveals a badly faded text that is nearly impossible to read..."

Strawn writes,

"...the picture of it [the fragment]...is so faint as to be unreadable. Comparison of other fragments from XHev/Se4 on photographs of PAM 42.190 reveals that Y and W are quite similar, though generally distinguishable in this manuscript.

I take Strawn to mean that we really can't be sure whether the fragment reads K)RY or K)RW."

there appears to be serious doubt as to legibility. The point I Am making is you have to combine the specific legibility problem here with the General observation of similar yods and vavs for this time. And now for another problem. The author of this piece of scrap looks to have very poor writing skills (probably an ancestor of mine who also started the family tradition of avoiding Temple) as there is large variation of individual letters compared to other scribes of this period.

In trying to identify the offending letter people really need to identify their Source. I'm guessing that XJoshua is not a neighbor of yours so what exactly was your Source for determination of the letter A? I tell you the truth A, the "X" does make me a little nervous, not to mention that XJoshua was included on a rather long list by Sean Hannity of other people also responsible for the Mark (always "Mark", isn't it?) Foley scandal.

The best available Source would appear to be buried in the Amazon Jungle:

Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert) (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Your Mission A, should you choose to accept, is to identify the identity of the offending letter as well as identify your Source. Should you identify a vav the Secretary of this Thread will disavow all knowledge of your existence. Good luck Mr. Phlox.

JW:
I have found Rabbi Shulman to be quite objective. I also think he's representative of "The Jews" 1,900 years ago who decided that K)RY was correct and there was no received spelling variation. They're primarily interested in what they think was Original. Proof-texting or anti proof-texting if you will, is a Christian thang, for a religion based on proof-texting.

JW:
I think that every Christian Bible scholar in B-Hebrew where Steven is currently Begging the Question has indicated they think "pierce" is within the Semantic range of KRW. I believe that every related Christian Lexicon says the same thing. Why doesn't Steven just ask the Christian Bible scholars in B-Hebrew to explain why they think "pierce" is within the Semantic range of KRW? Here, I'll even write out the question for Steven:

"Can anyone here please explain why you think "pierce" is within the Semantic range of KRW? Thank you."

The funny thing about this wholy exercise is that even though the X-men have long associated Psalm 22 with the supposed crucifixion of that man the only portion of the Christian translation that is potentially specific to a crucifixion would be piercing of hands and feet. But this Thread demonstrates that "pierce" is probably a mistranslation. Remindful of the classic episode of The Adam Family where they keep giving Cousin It a trim and eventually realize that there's nothing left.



Joseph

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