Answers Prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible In Psalm 22:16 is they pierced a Christian mistranslation?

In Psalm 22:16 is they pierced a Christian mistranslation?

Psalm 22:16 is one verse where the standard Jewish translations differ from the translations most Christians use. Here's why. In Hebrew, the phrase they have pierced" is kaaru while "like a lion" is kaari. The words are identical except that "pierced" ends with the Hebrew letter vav and "lion" with yod. Vav and yod are similar in form, and a scribe might easily have changed the text by inscribing a yod and failing to attach a vertical descending line so that it would become a vav. The evidence suggests that this may be what happened, since the Greek version of the Scriptures, known as the Septuagint, rendered in Egypt before the time of Jesus, preserves the reading of "pierced."

Unfortunately we don't have the "original text" to check whether that was a vav or a yod. What we have is the Septuagint translation which translated the Hebrew text as "pierced" and the Masoretic or standard text which has it as "like a lion."

Notice that the translation of the Hebrew is "pierced" in the Greek Septuagint which was completed in the centuries before Jesus was crucified. Therefore the charges made by some counter-missionaries, that fundamentalist Christian interpreters "twist" the meaning of the Hebrew Bible, rings hollow.

Jews for Jesus

Comments  

 
0 #9 Matt 2006-11-28 11:33
Links to site where it is proved (see photo) that "pierced" is the correct reading.
Quote
 
 
0 #8 Geoff 2006-10-27 06:37
Both "ka'aru" and "ka'ari" can be found in the Masoretic text family. And on your last point, I didn't say they were both Jews. But, as Isaiah prophecies, Gentiles come to the Messiah as Gentiles and Jews as Jews. Go read the article I mentioned.
Quote
 
 
0 #7 Mordechai 2006-09-21 09:20
Because the translation was under Greek control I would not discount attempts to mistranslate the Torah into what they wanted. If the Scrolls and the Sept. say "ka’aru", why does every Hebrew version of Psalms say "ka’ari"? If it was an issue the commentators would record it. I think that proves the Scrolls were mistakes and the Sept. is not authoritative. "That variant is...Masoretic" Please explain. Jesus was crucified, but so were 1000s of other Jews. Maybe the verse, if it said "ka'aru", speaks of one of them. If it was really "ka’ari", then there were still many situations when King David the Jewish nation were surrounded, so it still wouldn’t point to Jesus conclusively. According to the flow of your logic with Jews and Christians, non-Jews who follow the seven Noahide Laws would be Jewish since they also believe whole-heartedly in the G-D of the Jews, but the Torah says they are not.
Quote
 
 
0 #6 Geoff 2006-09-10 23:46
If it was buried due to an error, you have no way of knowing it was because of this particular variant. Nor do we know it was buried due to an error. Plus, that variant is in the Masoretic family of texts. But, again, the New Testament doesn't quote this verse. Since Y'shua was crucified by Romans and mocked and scorned and lashed prior to his death, either reading would work as typology. I'm not a Septuagint scholar, but I've never heard anyone ever say the Septuagint was under Greek control. Or that they tweaked it before publicizing it. Regarding your last comment: "Christian" means a follower of Christ, and "Christ" is derived from the Greek word for "Messiah." So we would never say "Christian" and "Jewish" are mutually exclusive. The Messiah is for Gentiles as well. But truth is truth no matter the ethnic origin of who is saying it.
Quote
 
 
0 #5 Mordechai 2006-08-29 03:25
Geoff, There may have been another subject in mind when King David wrote the psalm, but that subject would have to have been surrounded by enemies, like what King David wrote, and not "pierced", like what he didn't write. When there is an error in Torah text that cannot be fixed it must be buried, and that may explain the hidden location of the scrolls. Therefore, there should be typos in the Dead Sea Scrolls and it should not be favoured when there is discrepancy. The Septuagint was under Greek control (not the translation, but afterwards). This may seem skeptical, but who's to say they didn't tweak it before publicizing it? They may have been looking for what they wanted to find. I would think that referring me to a website called "christian"thinktank would indicate that belief in Jesus is not Jewish in nature.
Quote
 
 
0 #4 Geoff 2006-08-23 01:35
A prophecy does not have to exclusively point to Jesus. There is typology in Scripture. There is a type and antetype. In other words, something it is about and something it prefigures. Since Scripture is written under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit, the author can be writing about himself while the Holy Spirit also can have it prefigure something greater and later. The Masoretic Text is actually a family of texts. And this reading is in some of those texts. Dismissing the Dead Sea Scrolls out of hand seems weird. Why couldn't it give us some insight into textual issues? Same with the Septuagint. If there are variants, there may be reasons to favor the Masoretic family of texts, but there may also be good reasons to favor other readings. How would such reasoning procede? The variant under discussion now is a good example. I would recommend the following article: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ps22cheat.html
Quote
 
 
0 #3 Mordechai 2006-08-21 09:48
And that's why the Dead Sea Scrolls are not the basis of Judaism. I would not use the Septuagint version of the Torah as a worthy translation. If the word was "pierced", however, how would it point exclusively to Jesus? How many other Jews were crucified that it couldn't speak of them instead? Also, this Psalm is a psalm "by David", so all the events would have to, in one way or another, refer to David's life. Was he pierced, or was he actually surrounded by many "bulls", "dogs", and "lions"?
Quote
 
 
0 #2 Geoff 2006-08-15 04:56
To follow up Mordechai's comments: Mordechai seems to misundertand that the question is over a variant in the texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls have "ka'aru" not "ka'ari". The Septuatgint translates this as "they have pierced." The main point is that people haven't purposely mistranslated the Scriptures, contrary to anti-missionary claims. The New Testament doesn't quote the verse in question.
Quote
 
 
0 #1 Mordechai 2006-01-01 04:53
Why would "ka'ari" mean "they pierced" here if every other time the word comes up it means "like a lion"? In the psalm, David calls his tormentors "lions", so "like a lion" fits very well in context. If it did, indeed, mean to say "pierce" it would have used an actual root word for pierce, such as dakar (Zech. 12:10), ratza (Ex. 21:6), or nakav (2 Kings 18:21). Further, the root "KRH" actually means "dig" (Gen. 26:25, Ex. 21:33, Num. 21:18, etc.).
Quote
 

Add comment


  • If your comment does not pertain to this specific article/blog please click here to send us a message.

  • We reserve the right to delete vulgar, racist, or hateful content, as well as inappropriate and off-topic posts.

  • For extended discussions, use our forums.

  • Comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.


Security code
Refresh

You are here: Answers Prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible In Psalm 22:16 is they pierced a Christian mistranslation?
Copyright © 2012 Jews for Jesus. All Rights Reserved. Original Template by JoomlArt.com.