Preface
I am not an expert on the Hebrew Bible or a linguist. I do take Jewish scholarship seriously. I realize that both Jewish and Christian scholars need to take verses in the Hebrew Bible in the original context.
This short, non-exhaustive article was originally published on Blogger, 20080801. Serving as a secondary article referenced for a larger entry on academia.edu.
The primary article...
Objections to Christ
Bible Hub: Psalm 22: 17 Hebrew (My add)
Psalms Chapter 22: mechon-mamre.org (My add)
Cited
17 For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.
18 I may count all my bones; they look and gloat over me.
19 They part my garments among them, and for my vesture do they cast lots.
Why Jews don't Believe in Jesus: Ohr Somayach International
Psalm 22: 17
The Rabbi states:
In Psalm 22:17 the Hebrew states "hikifuni ca'ari yaday veraglay" which means "they bound me (hikifuni) like a lion (ca-like ari-lion), my hands (yaday) and my feet (ve-and raglay-my feet). The Christians translate this as "they pierced my hands and feet". Nowhere in the entire Torah, Prophets and Writings do the words ca'ari or hikifuny mean anything remotely resembling "pierce".
A Christian response:
Brown
Reply to Objection: First, the verses regarding the piercing are not quoted by New Testament writers, Secondly, the translation of pierced is backed up the Septugint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. So the translation problem here is not only a Christian problem its also a Jewish problem.
Jewish interpreters claim the Christians have misinterpreted Psalm 22:16 [17] because in the Masoretic text the verse reads ka’ari followed by my hand and my feet. The word ka (like) followed by ari (lion) means like a lion. The imagery here presents the picture of “Like a lion” my hands and my feet are mauled. In the older Dead Sea Scrolls version of Psalms 22 the word is ka’aru meaning, “to dig out” or “to bore through”
So the issue of pierced is not so much a question of the King James translators, as much an issue of Jewish manuscripts. Dr. Michael Brown sums up this argument succinctly,
……….According to Rashi, the meaning is “as though they are crushed in a lion’s mouth.” While the commentary of Metsudat David states, “They crush my hands and my feet as the lion which crushes the bones of the prey in its mouth.” Thus, the imagery is clear; These lions are not licking the psalmist’s feet! They are tearing and ripping at them. Given the metaphorical language of the surrounding verses (cf. vv. 12-21 [13-22]), this vivid image of mauling lions graphically conveys the great physical agony of the sufferer…….
…Where did the King James translators come up with this idea of ‘piercing’ the hands and feet? That’s not what the Hebrew says.” …..
…..Actually, the Septuagint, the oldest existing Jewish translation of the Tanakh, was the first to translate the Hebrew as “they pierced my hands and feet” (using the verb oruxan in Greek), followed by the Syriach Peshitta version two or three centuries later (rendering with baz’u) not only so, but the oldest Hebrew copy of the Psalms we possess (from the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to the century before Yeshua) reads the verb in this verse as ka’aru (not ka’ari, “like a lion”), a reading also found in about a dozen medieval Masoretic manuscripts—recognized as the authoritative texts in traditional Jewish thought—where instead of ka’ari (found in almost all other Masoretic manuscripts) the texts say either ka’aru or karu.
In conclusion, the Dead Sea scrolls agrees with the picture of the pierced Messiah in the 22nd Psalm, verse 16.
The Rabbi also raises concerns with the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 14:7.
In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew states "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben" "behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)". The Christians translate this as "behold a virgin shall give birth." They have made two mistakes (probably deliberate) in the one verse. They mistranslate "ha" as "a" instead of "the". They mistranslate "almah" as "virgin", when in fact the Hebrew word for virgin is "betulah".
John M. Frame suggests that there is a controversy surrounding the Septuagint and Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7: 14. Frame reasons that the virgin birth event influenced Mathew’s understanding of Isaiah 7:14, rather than the other way around. Frame reasons the prophecy may have been culminated in ways that Isaiah did not expect. Frame (1996: 1145).
Psalm 22: 17
The Rabbi states:
In Psalm 22:17 the Hebrew states "hikifuni ca'ari yaday veraglay" which means "they bound me (hikifuni) like a lion (ca-like ari-lion), my hands (yaday) and my feet (ve-and raglay-my feet). The Christians translate this as "they pierced my hands and feet". Nowhere in the entire Torah, Prophets and Writings do the words ca'ari or hikifuny mean anything remotely resembling "pierce".
A Christian response:
Brown
Reply to Objection: First, the verses regarding the piercing are not quoted by New Testament writers, Secondly, the translation of pierced is backed up the Septugint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. So the translation problem here is not only a Christian problem its also a Jewish problem.
Jewish interpreters claim the Christians have misinterpreted Psalm 22:16 [17] because in the Masoretic text the verse reads ka’ari followed by my hand and my feet. The word ka (like) followed by ari (lion) means like a lion. The imagery here presents the picture of “Like a lion” my hands and my feet are mauled. In the older Dead Sea Scrolls version of Psalms 22 the word is ka’aru meaning, “to dig out” or “to bore through”
So the issue of pierced is not so much a question of the King James translators, as much an issue of Jewish manuscripts. Dr. Michael Brown sums up this argument succinctly,
……….According to Rashi, the meaning is “as though they are crushed in a lion’s mouth.” While the commentary of Metsudat David states, “They crush my hands and my feet as the lion which crushes the bones of the prey in its mouth.” Thus, the imagery is clear; These lions are not licking the psalmist’s feet! They are tearing and ripping at them. Given the metaphorical language of the surrounding verses (cf. vv. 12-21 [13-22]), this vivid image of mauling lions graphically conveys the great physical agony of the sufferer…….
…Where did the King James translators come up with this idea of ‘piercing’ the hands and feet? That’s not what the Hebrew says.” …..
…..Actually, the Septuagint, the oldest existing Jewish translation of the Tanakh, was the first to translate the Hebrew as “they pierced my hands and feet” (using the verb oruxan in Greek), followed by the Syriach Peshitta version two or three centuries later (rendering with baz’u) not only so, but the oldest Hebrew copy of the Psalms we possess (from the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to the century before Yeshua) reads the verb in this verse as ka’aru (not ka’ari, “like a lion”), a reading also found in about a dozen medieval Masoretic manuscripts—recognized as the authoritative texts in traditional Jewish thought—where instead of ka’ari (found in almost all other Masoretic manuscripts) the texts say either ka’aru or karu.
In conclusion, the Dead Sea scrolls agrees with the picture of the pierced Messiah in the 22nd Psalm, verse 16.
The Rabbi also raises concerns with the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 14:7.
In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew states "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben" "behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)". The Christians translate this as "behold a virgin shall give birth." They have made two mistakes (probably deliberate) in the one verse. They mistranslate "ha" as "a" instead of "the". They mistranslate "almah" as "virgin", when in fact the Hebrew word for virgin is "betulah".
John M. Frame suggests that there is a controversy surrounding the Septuagint and Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7: 14. Frame reasons that the virgin birth event influenced Mathew’s understanding of Isaiah 7:14, rather than the other way around. Frame reasons the prophecy may have been culminated in ways that Isaiah did not expect. Frame (1996: 1145).
Brown cited sources
Jews for Jesus: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/ps2mesin.htm
Judaica Press Tanach, with Rashi Notes, The Judaica Press, Inc.123 Ditmas AvenueNew York, NY 11218
Jewish Study Bible, Jewish Publication Society, Tanakh Translation, Oxford University Press, 2004, Psalm 2 pgs. 1285-1286
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus Volume 3, Dr. Michael Brown, Pgs. 113-114, Baker Books 2003 Jewish Study Bible, Jewish Publication Society, Tanakh Translation, Oxford University Press, 2004, Psalm 22 pgs. 1305
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Dr. Michael Brown. Pgs. 121-122, quoting from the standard translation of Wiliam G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati: Homiletical Discourses for Festal Days and Special Sabbaths, 2 Volumes (New Haven; Yale, 1968) 680-81, 685-86, 686-87
---
Rev. Dr. Eugen J. Pentiuc: Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, suggests:
Pent (This website is no longer available)
Rev. Dr. Eugen J. Pentiuc: Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, suggests:
Pent (This website is no longer available)
Rev. Dr. Eugen J. Pentiuc: www.goarch.org/-/the-word-almah-in-isaiah-7-14 I found another version.
'The Septuagint, in Isaiah 7: 14 as in other instances, proves to be rather an interpretation of the Hebrew text, although the reading proposed by the Greek version, he parthenos "the virgin," does not conflict with the Hebrew text, for the meaning "virgin" is implied in the Hebrew term ha-‘almah "the concealed one" (betrothed)… In summary, while the Hebrew word betulah "virgin" (Greek parthenos) emphasizes the idea of chastity,[16] the term ‘almah [17] hints at the fact that the young woman so labeled was independent,[18] living alone or with her parents, yet separated from her fiancé or future husband, in a state of seclusion, with little or no public appearances.'
The Rabbi suggests in regard to the Trinity: In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry; one of the three cardinal sins for which a person should rather give up his life than transgress. The idea of the trinity is absolutely incompatible with Judaism.
In the New Testament, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of three distinctions in one nature and essence. Erickson states that each member of the Trinity is qualitatively the same, and they are divine in the same way. Erickson (1994: 337). The essence of the each member of the Trinity is the same, even if one distinction submits to the other at times. Erickson (1994: 338).
From Erickson’s point, the triune God is one God in nature and essence, represented in three distinctions and therefore is not a three-part God.
Jesus Christ is human, with a human spirit, and is resurrected as such.
Jesus Christ is fully God and God in spirit.
The natures do not mix.
God's infinite, eternal nature has never been altered, and cannot be altered.
The Rabbi states:
"You will not be able to see My face, for no human can see my face and live" (Exodus 33:18-20)
Persons viewed the incarnated Christ.
God was not viewed in his entirety.
It would be impossible for a finite being to fully experience the infinite. It is both philosophically impossible and would result in death to the finite person.
The Rabbi raised some textual issues which Jewish and Christian scholars debate. The Christian positions appear to be supported by some within Jewish scholarship. The theological objections to Christ such as to the Trinity and God being seen face-to-face can be overcome.
'The Septuagint, in Isaiah 7: 14 as in other instances, proves to be rather an interpretation of the Hebrew text, although the reading proposed by the Greek version, he parthenos "the virgin," does not conflict with the Hebrew text, for the meaning "virgin" is implied in the Hebrew term ha-‘almah "the concealed one" (betrothed)… In summary, while the Hebrew word betulah "virgin" (Greek parthenos) emphasizes the idea of chastity,[16] the term ‘almah [17] hints at the fact that the young woman so labeled was independent,[18] living alone or with her parents, yet separated from her fiancé or future husband, in a state of seclusion, with little or no public appearances.'
The Rabbi suggests in regard to the Trinity: In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry; one of the three cardinal sins for which a person should rather give up his life than transgress. The idea of the trinity is absolutely incompatible with Judaism.
In the New Testament, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of three distinctions in one nature and essence. Erickson states that each member of the Trinity is qualitatively the same, and they are divine in the same way. Erickson (1994: 337). The essence of the each member of the Trinity is the same, even if one distinction submits to the other at times. Erickson (1994: 338).
From Erickson’s point, the triune God is one God in nature and essence, represented in three distinctions and therefore is not a three-part God.
Jesus Christ is human, with a human spirit, and is resurrected as such.
Jesus Christ is fully God and God in spirit.
The natures do not mix.
God's infinite, eternal nature has never been altered, and cannot be altered.
The Rabbi states:
"You will not be able to see My face, for no human can see my face and live" (Exodus 33:18-20)
Persons viewed the incarnated Christ.
God was not viewed in his entirety.
It would be impossible for a finite being to fully experience the infinite. It is both philosophically impossible and would result in death to the finite person.
The Rabbi raised some textual issues which Jewish and Christian scholars debate. The Christian positions appear to be supported by some within Jewish scholarship. The theological objections to Christ such as to the Trinity and God being seen face-to-face can be overcome.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FRAME, JOHN M. (1996) ‘Virgin Birth of Jesus’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
Thanks, Jeff.
Jeff made this for his blog, Thoughts and Theology. Jeff has joined me in a Green Lantern anti-blog troll network.
