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.
Interesting, I have been curious about how Jews deal with these type of verses, which seem to paint a very clear prophetic picture of Christ.
ReplyDeleteI think by and large people simply avoid that which threatens their belief systems, and therefore do not even come to a point of grappling with the issues.
Thanks, Chucky.
ReplyDeleteMy theology blogs provide a forum for open, friendly, discussion.
This article was a pain to produce with the HTML codes from different sites!
Good work, Russ.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, from the day you suggested I check it out, I had forgotten. Is this Rabbi Mordechi Becher?
He is the one I borrowed from for my writing on the Jewish Wedding Ceremony. There was not a lot he could do to erase the prophecy of Christ comming for His Bride in the telling of the Jewish Wedding Ceremony. I was able to pick up on that easily. However, I always have a problem with the imagery in Hebrew.
Hello, Jim.
ReplyDeleteIt is from the same site and Ohr Somayach International.
Russ:)
I really enjoyed this post. Thanks for sharing. You write about some very interesting topics. I didn't realize that there are jews and or hebrew writings that interpret the O.T. so differently.
ReplyDeleteI am really glad that Jim introduced you and Jeff to me. I thank you for your comments on my blog and I also thankyou for the good studies that you share with us all on your blog. God Bless you!
As far as the Psalm 22 verses, I don't even see this as an issue. Even if the Psalmist did say that 'my hands and feet were mauled by a lion,' or something similar, Jesus said that Satan prowls around like a roaring lion, and His hands and feet being pierced on the cross could, I think, be compared to being mauled by Satan, the 'lion.' In Genesis, it says that the serpent (Satan) will strike the heel, so why not also compare Satan to a lion that will 'maul' Jesus' hands and feet? I'm not saying that the Rabbi is correct (likely he is not); I'm only saying that, either way, I don't see any real problem.
ReplyDeleteRuss,
ReplyDeleteThis article was a pain to produce with the HTML codes from different sites!
What about copying and pasting into NotePad, which erases any formatting, and then copying and pasting from NotePad to here?
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.
ReplyDeleteDeuteronomy 6:4 states, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (NIV) The word "one" here is 'achad,' a plural unity (Gen. 2:24, 11:6), in which two or more things are combined into one. another word, 'yachid,' is used to mean ONLY one (Gen. 22:2). This is just one example of how the Trinity is represented in the Old Testament.
"You will not be able to see My face, for no human can see my face and live" (Exodus 33:18-20)
ReplyDeleteTrue, to see God's face was believed to bring death. However, Genesis 16:13 states, "She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: "You are the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me."
John 1:18 says, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."
NIV footnote: This is an explicit declaration of Christ's deity. Sometimes in the Old Testament people are said to have seen God (i.e., Exodus 24:9-11). But we are also told that no one can see God and live. Therefore, since no human being can see God as He really is, those who saw God saw Him in a form He took on Himself temporarily for the occasion. Now, however, Christ has made Him known.
I really enjoyed this post. Thanks for sharing. You write about some very interesting topics.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Tammy.
I didn't realize that there are jews and or hebrew writings that interpret the O.T. so differently.
Yes, there are some major objections that Jewish scholars have with Christianity. I think I should deal with these at times, and like to share some of my findings.
I am really glad that Jim introduced you and Jeff to me. I thank you for your comments on my blog and I also thankyou for the good studies that you share with us all on your blog. God Bless you!
Thanks, Tammy. I enjoy the networking.
Russ:)
As far as the Psalm 22 verses, I don't even see this as an issue. Even if the Psalmist did say that 'my hands and feet were mauled by a lion,'
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree, as even if one goes with the 'lion' interpretation, as some scholars have mentioned the Psalmist is suffering greatly and this could be understood as figuratively discussing the suffering of Christ in his atoning work.
Yes, and Jesus agreed with the Deuteronomy 6:4 concept in:
Deut
Mark 12:29 Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
Thanks, Jeff.
Russ:)
I have not tried the NotePad idea, thanks Jeff.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, since no human being can see God as He really is, those who saw God saw Him in a form He took on Himself temporarily for the occasion. Now, however, Christ has made Him known.
Good reasoning, Jeff.
Cheers,
Russ
Thanks Mr. Scholar for your interesting article on the Jewish perspective and interpretation of the Holy Bible and Jesus Christ. A very informative and interesting read!
ReplyDelete-Super Student-
Thanks, I am a student too.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)
Can I have some of your spray? ;-)
ReplyDeleteYou're post was a little beyond me, but I checked it out at your askance! ;-)
I wrote this article as a student, as much as a teacher.
ReplyDeleteCheer, Deejay.
Russ:)
Wonderful post.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading.
Keep up the great work.
Hope you have a great week! :-)
It's interesting to see how scholars from completely different "camps" are able to sufficiently interpret the evidence to support their own point of view. We see this in Theology and Apologetics all the time. There is always a way to view the "evidence" to support what "I" already believe. I don't know how to get around this reality. Unless a person is able to adequately separate himself from his foundational presuppositions, he simply will not allow any evidence to speak to a different conclusion. Ultimately, of course, we can't entirely separate ouselves from our presuppositions; but if that would be our goal, then I believe we would be able to honestly entertain different opinions and view evidences from another perspective.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I think the issues concerning specific prophetical content in the Scripture could be dealt with better if we understood that all the OT was "prophecy" and spoke ultimately of the One who is the Subject of the Scripture. To be forced to examine every nuance of language and sentence structure to determine whether or not what Jesus or anyone said in the NT actually is a fulfillment of a passage in the OT fails, in my opinion, to understand the purpose of the OT. God has a plan in redemptive history and is implementing that plan according to His eternal will. We should expect that everything He does in redemptive history will, in some way, speak to the purpose that He has in mind. It's my contention that Person and Work of Jesus Christ is the purpose of God. If this is true, then all the Scripture speaks of Him--OT in promise and the NT in fulfillment.
If we view the Bible in that way, which is how I believe the NT writers viewd it, then it shouldn't concern us whether or not the exact phrasing of supposedly OT "prophetical content" matches it's "fulfillment" counterpart in the NT. The writers of the NT, guided by the Holy Spirit, took the whole OT counsel of God into consideration when explaining Jesus and His ministry to us. This is why much of NT "fulfillment" passages, e.g. Matt. 2:15, 2:18; Rom. 9:25-26: etc, (just to name a few off the top of my head) don't always make a lot of sense to us--because the OT passages that they use don't always speak directly to the issue that the NT writers are applying them to.
For instance, in the Matthew 2:15 verse, the reference to Hosea 11 isn't necessarily "prophetical" at all--it's talking about Israel! But if we understand that all the Scripture is "prophecy", including "Israel" itself, then we can understand Matthew's use of this passage to explain that Jesus is the true Israel and that it's in Him that the Abrahamic covenant will be fulfilled and salvation will come to all nations of the earth. This same dynamic of OT "promise" (prophecy) and NT "fulfillment" is scattered throughout the NT writings; and that's because, I believe, they understood that Jesus is the fulfillment of the entirety of God's Word (for them, the OT). For an in-depth analysis of this issue, I recommend reading "Right Doctrine From the Wrong Texts?: Essays on the use of the Old Testament in the New", by G.K. Beale and also, "Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament", by Beale and Carson, et.al.
Another interesting post to get our minds thinking--thanks Russ.
Thanks, Preacherman.
ReplyDeleteI hope you have a very good week.
I appreciate you supporting my blogs.
Russ:)
Unless a person is able to adequately separate himself from his foundational presuppositions, he simply will not allow any evidence to speak to a different conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Objectivity, as much as possible, is vitally important in academics.
If we view the Bible in that way, which is how I believe the NT writers viewd it, then it shouldn't concern us whether or not the exact phrasing of supposedly OT "prophetical content" matches it's "fulfilment" counterpart in the NT. The writers of the NT, guided by the Holy Spirit, took the whole OT counsel of God into consideration when explaining Jesus and His ministry to us.
It is vital to understand the original context in the Hebrew Bible and any relevant New Testament fulfilment.
This would make Christian theology more effective when dealing with Jewish persons, as they would know that the Christian is taking the entire Bible contextually.
Thanks, GGM.
Russ:)
Russ- 2 comments:
ReplyDeleteOn the causation question, I spoke with Ian Paisley's doctrinal advisor (or something like that) who said he believed in an "election" in which God had elected that all hear the Gospel, and to give to each the ability to respond. Interesting way, to me, of painting proper Armininianism (not the straw dummy we read about from professional Calvinists) with a Calvinist brush.
The rabbi's reading of Ps. 22: Bear in mind that modern Judaism traces back only as far as the Pharisees' meeting at Jamnia where the two items on the agenda were the protection of their traditions from Rome and especially from those Christian heretics. If the Christians said a Psalm said one thing, then circle the wagons real quick and give any interpretation but! They even say that if anyone tries to figure the numbers in Daniel they'll go crazy! In short, Hebrew messianic theology was re-invented at Jamnia with the express purpose of denying any possibility for this Y'shua character to be anything but a deceiver.
On the causation question, I spoke with Ian Paisley's doctrinal advisor (or something like that) who said he believed in an "election" in which God had elected that all hear the Gospel, and to give to each the ability to respond. Interesting way, to me, of painting proper Armininianism (not the straw dummy we read about from professional Calvinists) with a Calvinist brush.
ReplyDeleteYes, that is standard Arminian doctrine from what I was taught at Columbia Bible College. But, I do not buy it based on the Greek I posted for you in Causation article, and based on the other articles I have had you read from this blog; The Edwards/Will and Arminian articles. I have commentaries that are both Arminian (Foulkes) and Reformed.
Thanks for the comment on Hebrew scholars.