Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [textualcriticism] Ps 22 (was:The OT Text: Tampering?)

Expand Messages
  • Jovial
    The text in Ps 22 can be read as either.... 1. K+ARI = Like a Lion 2. or as KAR+I = piercers of The LXX and DSS reads KARU = they pierced The problem
    Message 1 of 1 , May 31, 2006
      The text in Ps 22 can be read as either....
      1. K+ARI = "Like a Lion"
      2. or as KAR+I = "piercers of"
      The LXX and DSS reads KARU = "they pierced"
      The problem here is not the difference between the Masoretic and the LXX, but how to interpret the Masoretic. Interpretation #1 considers K a grammatical changeto the root letters ALEF, RESH and YUD.  #2 considers the YUD at the end a grammatical change to the root letters KAF, ALEF, RESH.  What's different here is that the LXX and DSS can ONLY be interpretted so that the KAF, ALEF and RESH are root letters, whereas the Masoretic is ambiguous.
      So it is not necessary to convince a Jew that the Masoretic is wrong in favor of the LXX or DSS.  Only to show the two interpretations.  This can be done without the LXX or DSS quite well, and I do so at http://mywebpages.comcast.net/yoseph/ppts/s42j/sld001.htm , where it talks about how the names of the encampments of Israel's journey are encoded into Ps 22-24, Revelation 12-16 (as well as Romans 1-12), providing a guide to how to interpret Psalm 22, and leading to the interpretation of KAR+I.
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:33 PM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] The OT Text: Tampering?

      Greetings Hiren ~

      The claim that the Christian church made huge modifications to the
      Hebrew text of the Old Testament books is basically incorrect. 
      However, there are many differences between the Masoretic (also
      spelled Massoretic) Text and the text(s) used as the basis for most
      modern English translations.  Often in modern translations, a
      footnote appears where the Masoretic Text has been rejected in favor
      of a reading from another source (such as the Septuagint, Syriac, or
      Dead Sea Scrolls) but not always.

      Also, the Masoretic vowel-pointing and word-division can sometimes
      make a major interpretive difference.  For instance, in Psalm 22 --
      which the Gospels record as a psalm quoted by Jesus on the cross, I'm
      sure you recall -- we find a phrase in v. 16/17 which says "They
      pierced my hands and my feet."  Or do we? 

      "Look," a Christian evangelist might tell a Jew, "Here David's
      situation serves as a foreshadowing of the Son of David; David's
      inspired hyperbole, which described his own situation non-literally,
      aptly described the suffering of the Son of David literally.  Why
      reject this clear Scriptural sign that Jesus is the Son of David? 
      Who else but Jesus could David, under the inspiration of the Spirit
      of God, be prophetically describing?" 

      To counter such attempts at persuasion, one could reply, "Ah, but the
      true text says no such thing.  Read properly, the verse merely says
      that David's enemies are 'Like a lion at my hands and my feet.'  Many
      a man in jeopardy can claim this verse as his own, and take comfort
      that our God who delivered David shall, if it be best, deliver him
      also.  But the passage does not describe the piercing of David's
      hands and feet; thus it certainly does not allude to the piercing of
      Jesus' hands and feet.  The Christians are simply squinting a
      prophecy into existence!" 

      I leave it to others to settle the question of whether or not Psalm
      22:16b originally was intended by its author to mean "Like a lion at
      my hands and my feet" or "They pierced my hands and my feet."  (I
      think the earliest evidence favors the latter, but I won't get into
      that since I'm just casually recollecting this example, and since
      it's a more specific issue that what you were asking about.)  You can
      see that if the same consonantal text is persistently read two
      different ways, the readers won't be able to recommend the other's
      system of vowel-pointing and word-division, at least not in the
      places where they differ.  Which inevitably leads to mutual charges
      of tampering.

      Regarding the material at www.messiahtruth.com, it seems to me that
      the creator(s) of that site has an agenda which goes way beyond the
      realm of textual criticism; the material there was written to counter-
      act the efforts of Christian evangelists who are attempting to
      convert Jews, using prophecies and typologies in the Hebrew Bible as
      persuasive tools.    
      Instead of critiquing the site, I offer you a few resources which may
      help answer (a form of) your question -- i.e., the question of
      whether or not the Bibles used by Christians nowadays reflect
      tampering done by Christians.

      For a somewhat pessimistic summary of the reliability of the Hebrew
      text-bases on which modern English translations of the Old Testament
      are made:

      A somewhat optimistic summary of the same thing:

      An outdated, but informative essay on the subject, by F.C. Kenyon:

      And, if you really want to dive into the subject of OTTC (Old
      Testament Textual Criticism), see Emanuel Tov's material and resource-

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      Curtisville Christian Church
      Indiana (USA)

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.