Back to The PreteristSite Home Page
This is a very, very old piece I wrote before I was a preterist and was very involved in refuting Jewish anti-missionaries in messianic discussion groups. I wanted to preserve it and hope it is of help to someone. I haven't read it in years and a lot of the research may need to be updated.
Dear Group: I have finally found the time and energy to compose a response to the original posts by Joseph and Kochav as well as their follow-ups and miscellaneous related comments by Len and Forum Participant "ME." I have tried to clearly label who is talking and where, and while I know this may cause some annoyance in reading, it was needful for clarity's sake. Also I am anticipating a collective groan as to the extreme length of this response. But Joseph and others raised many serious points which needed to be dealt with in more than one sentence, and believe me, this is an abbreviated defense. For the record, I have relied upon the works of many who are more scholarly, educated, intelligent etc. than I in combination with some of my own reasonings. [EN: 1] [the original posts are quoted exactly but without any spelling errors as my spell-checker was driving me crazy to fix them]
Up front let me say that I do respect Joseph's knowledge and ability to learn multiple languages. That made our last "conversation" all the more surprising which I will deal with first, though only sparingly, since that is not our main topic [which of course is Psalm 22:16(17)]. Now remember this portion of our "conversation" was in reaction to my position that the hermeneutical methods used in the New Testament were normative and acceptable practices in first Century Judaism[s].
JOSEPH: Your position would be that typological interpretation consists in reading the Hebrew Bible ("OT" to Christians) as preparation and, in certain aspects, outline and foreshadowing of the New Testament. Unfortunately for you and Christianity, this doesn't fall within the boundaries described above, especially since the New Testament is not part of the Jewish Scriptures.
MY RESPONSE: The "boundaries described above" that Joseph is referring to is an article by a Jewish professor on the typological ramifications of the rape of Dinah. It is not a totally exhaustive treatise on typology in general, and even if it was, so what? That would be one professor's view. I said in my original post that even within the OT, typology of the same flavor as used in the NT is used, the objection of certain academia notwithstanding. The statement about Joseph's appraisal of the status of the NT is begging the question and irrelevant to the discussion about whether the exegetical methods contained therein were acceptable within the Judaism[s] of the day, which they were indeed and used to typify other historical situations both in and out of the OT. A work does not have to be canonical [which of course I maintain that the NT is] to contain acceptable exegetical methods.
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: Now here is where the conversation gets surprising to me.
JOSEPH: Now, as to your reference to the typological interpretations by the DSS community, I suggest that you pick any scholarly work on the DSS (e.g., Eisenman & Wise, Schiffman, Vermes, a 1994 New York Academy of Sciences Annals of a conference on DSS research) and look through the index for terms such as "foreshadowing", "types", "shadows", "typology", etc., and see what you come up with. Go ahead, do the exercise when you have the time...:)
MY RESPONSE: It is obvious that Joseph intended to imply that I was completely wrong and that foreshadowing/typology is not used by the DSS community and by further implication in the context of our whole discussion that the DSS (and of course my original comment was not limited to the DSS in any case) does not at all have any parallels to Christianity but rather is only similar to modern Judaism. When I wrote back asking if Joseph was really suggesting that there was not foreshadowing/typology in the DSS, he conceded, but stated that it was not of the same "flavor" as Christian typology, whatever that may mean. Now that makes his former comment very misleading. Was he only trying to prove that certain book indexes did not contain certain words? And if so, so what? And if not, was he not trying to lead me to believe that I was completely off base, which he later conceded in part that I was not? Plus, Joseph must know that he was focusing on certain words rather than on concepts for in fact in "Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls" by Lawrence Schiffman [EN: 2] [one of the authors that Joseph suggested that I may want to read] he comments that Christians used the Prophets and Writings in a similar way to the DSS community causing reluctance by later rabbis to use such interpretive methods [notice that the change in Rabbinic hermeneutics was not due to the former methods being invalid but rather reluctance caused by Christianity which did not exist prior to Christ]. Schiffman also talks about the extensive use of "pesher" exegesis by the DSS community which shares some things in common with the typology of which we were speaking except that Pesher is even more "radical" in that it totally ignores the historical context of the verse making Christian typological interpretation seem tame in comparison which has much in common with some Jewish Midrashic exegesis, including Messianic expectations. [EN: 3] Schiffman points out one similarity: "Pesher shares a common element with much of the quotation and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible found in the New Testament. Early Christians regarded the works of the ancient prophets as referring to the events of their own day." Schiffman finds much of the same "flavor." So I am glad that it was suggested that I undertake that project, but frankly, I am surprised at Joseph. Yes, technically he was right, those words do not appear in the indexes I consulted, but the concept and similarities are explicitly noted. Similar comments are made by Eisenman and Wise [EN: 4] [other authors that were suggested that I consult] in "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered." And also the typological use of the "Melchizedek" figure by the DSS community has striking analogies to NT exegesis. [EN: 5] additionally, I am sure that Joseph is aware of PaRDdeS and does not need an explanation of same, as well as the "association" method of ancient Jewish exegesis which is basically another form of a typological view of revelation, history, and Scripture. [EN: 6] And it seems that several people on this list have a problem with Psalm 22 being applied Messianically [as well as other passages] when they believe it only applies to David [or can apply to virtually anyone else except Jesus!] and the complaint that Christians supposedly take passages that are not clearly Messianic on their face and make them Messianic. Well, what about this very surprising Talmudic statement "All the prophets prophesied only for the days of the Messiah" and I could provide a really surprising and "wild" Jewish Messianic association with Perez. [EN: 7] And on the same subject on another thread specifically speaking about Psalm 22 [the main issue at hand here]:
LEN to PJ: Your view of the layers of meaning in the Torah is certainly a Jewish one. The Talmud says, "Turn it and turn it again, for everything is in it. contemplate it, wax grey and old over it, and stir not from it. You can have no better rule than this." (Pirke Abot, 5:25). I could have given you two other meanings of Psalm 22. One is its being about David vs. Saul; another about its prophecy of Esther and Mordecai. However, there are limits. Christological interpretations are beyond the pale, being grossly incompatible with the rest of Tanakh.
MY RESPONSE: This is really surprising for two reasons. One, is that Len agrees that finding "layers" of meaning [which of course is a form of association and typology] is perfectly Jewish and valid which is what Joseph was insinuating was not before. [EN:8] Of course, Len is correct. But he could not leave it at that but had to say that Christological interpretations are beyond the pale etc. If he were correct, I would agree with him. A typology [or any interpretive method by any person or group] cannot blatantly contradict what has already been revealed. I am sure that PJ would agree, as would any orthodox Christian. But it is interesting that Len inserted this comment into a discussion on Psalm 22. There is nothing in the Messianic application of this verse that contradicts the Tanakh. In fact, it was already considered Messianic by at least some Jews in the same way as the Messianic application by Christians [see end of this response for specific examples]. [EN:9] [NOTE: I am just using the terms "Jews" and "Christian" as matters of convenience terms, I understand that some may object, and I am not sure that they are completely accurate either, but everyone knows what I mean if we do not quibble over the terms.]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: And even more interesting, I inquired about scholarly works and comments on the LXX seeing if I could learn more about this "irrefutable fact" of widespread Christian deceitful alterations, especially in key Christological passages. Do you want to know what I found? Nothing. There are no well-respected scholars who hold this position nor has such a position survived strict scholarly review. [EN:10] There are no chapters devoted to this act in scholarly works on the LXX. What I did find is work stating that the presumption that the MT must needfully be closer to the autographa is in error such as by the respected scholar Emmanuel Tov:
"It has become clear from the preceding paragraphs that one of the postulates of biblical research is that the text preserved in the various representatives (manuscripts, editions) of what is commonly called the Masoretic Text, does not reflect the "original text" of the biblical books in many details. Even though the concept of an "original text" necessarily remains vague, it will always be legitimate to recognize the differences between the Masoretic Text and earlier or different stages of the biblical text. Moreover, even were we to surmise that MT reflects the "original" form of the Bible, we would still have to decide which Masoretic Text reflects this "original text," since the Masoretic Text is not a uniform textual unit, but is itself represented by many witnesses... Similar problems arise when one compares MT with the other textual witnesses, such as the Qumran scrolls and the putative Hebrew source of the individual ancient translations. We do not know which of all these texts reflects the biblical text faithfully. Thus, it should not be postulated in advance that MT reflects the original text of the biblical books better than the other texts." [EN:11]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: Interesting, Tov even stated that the decline of the LXX in Judaism had everything to do with the Christian adoption of it but he states nothing about proof of widespread Christian tampering, just the fact that after the Rabbis already obtained a negative attitude toward the LXX that they then began to accuse the Christians of tampering [and in the same area states that the "translation" process was completed in pre-Christian times, so it would be folly to claim that an entire translation was "Christian" even if you are alleging widespread "tampering" of which there is no proof]. Here in fact is another complete quote by Tov with editorial by Miller: "'Conversely, the NT influenced the transmission of the LXX but little. Allegedly several Christian changes were inserted at one time in LXX manuscripts, but few have survived to date' [Tov, Mikra:163, who cites Ps 96/95, but doesn't mention Ps 22...and this specific accusation doesn't show up in the rabbinics]" [EN:12] So while I am NOT saying that there have been absolutely NO Christian interpolations, I am saying that any are not to the extent that Joseph is claiming nor in such Messianic passages so as to force a text to have an application that it did not at all have in the Hebrew and make it "fit" Jesus.
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: Notice the word "allegedly" [Tov isn't convinced at all] and "few" [not the widespread Messianic tampering that Joseph is alleging] and "have survived to date" [notice the verses that we are talking about here are not mentioned, just Ps 96/95]. And [excuse my possible misspelling] another of the world's experts on textual criticism, Ellis Brockman [sp?] in his standard work has stated the LXX is an important textual witness reflecting the more important textual variants and explains the Jewish abandonment of it as their distrust because Christians were using it in debates, not because there was widespread Christian alterations. [EN:13]
Now to another minor thread, Joseph's unwarranted attacks upon the credibility of Glenn Miller.
JOSEPH: Something that I find interesting is that she has made Glenn Miller (no, not the late Big Band Leader ) an icon. I am quite familiar with his apologetics, as I visit the Christian-Think Tank website regularly to look for new tracts. Though Mr. Miller tries to be thorough in his analysis, I must point out the following drawbacks in his articles, especially when they concern the interpretation of passages from the Hebrew Bible:
MY RESPONSE: First, I do not make an icon of Glenn Miller [remember earlier I was accused of making JP Holding my icon] I just recognize that his work on this subject is superior to most other material that I have found. On another subject, there would probably be another work that I would favor. Now on to more comments:
JOSEPH: 1. I, as a native Hebrew-speaker, recognized immediately that Mr. Miller doesn't have even a perfunctory knowledge of the Hebrew language; a "must" for a correct interpretation of the Hebrew Bible (BTW, he also admits to this lack of knowledge).
MY RESPONSE: Unless Joseph mistakenly used the wrong word [perfunctory] which implies that Miller does not have even the slightest clue about Hebrew, he is incorrect. And in fact, nowhere on his web site does Miller admit that he does not even have a perfunctory knowledge of Hebrew, in fact Miller has four years of Graduate level academics in BIBLICAL Hebrew [EN:14] which can count for more than a lifetime of MODERN Hebrew knowledge. In fact, Miller knows more of and about Hebrew than most of the people on this forum. He has a Master's Degree in Theology [which I confirmed with the Dallas Theological Seminary]. [EN:15] Additionally, with the information explosion of today one does not have to be a native Hebrew speaker [which as said above is not as helpful as a working knowledge of ancient Biblical Hebrew] and further Miller relies upon the works of many ultra-competent Hebrew scholars [more on this below in another ad hom. comment against Miller].
JOSEPH: 2. Mr. Miller is neither knowledgeable of nor has he a thorough understanding of the "Jewish way of life", i.e., customs, traditions, folklore, and writings of the sages; a "must" when interpreting the teachings of Hebrew Bible (this is demonstrated in several tracts, especially in the one on Is 7:14).
MY RESPONSE: I would invite anyone to visit his web site [EN:16] and see if they agree with Joseph. Miller has an extensive knowledge of such things, and it is odd that Joseph brings up the Is. 7:14 article which does not deal with that subject at all, or only in a minor way. It seems like Joseph is suggesting that Miller made some gross faux paus in that article which is just not true. [EN:17] Plus it is so easy to just make a blanket general statement like that, after all, most of the people reading this conversation have never read anything by Miller, so who would know? It is really funny that this accusation is lobbed at one of the few apologists who stress the fundamental importance of knowing such things. It is akin to asking if the Pope is Catholic. Another ad hom. argument.
JOSEPH: 3. Mr. Miller prefers to accept the word of people, which suit his perspective, over the evidence that is available within the Hebrew Bible which refutes it this is clearly demonstrated in almost every tract, including the one on Psalm 22).
MY RESPONSE: Saying something does not make it true. Miller examines the textual evidence and with most of scholarship does not presume that the MT is the end all and be all and must be followed at all costs even when the weight of evidence is against it. And funny enough, there is even MT manuscript evidence against the "like a lion" reading, so what MT is correct? As Tov pointed out in the quote above. Also "the word of men" so-called that Miller utilizes are Jewish/Hebrew scholars with specialties in these fields [EN:18] and he tends to trust the judgment of these types more than either Christian fundamentalists or Jewish fundamentalists [and anyone who visits his site can see that he gives space to the opposition in the form of ‘pushbacks' to his position]. This is just another unsubstantiated slur against an honest and godly man.
JOSEPH: 4. Mr. Miller presents quite a bit of "historical evidence", such as the DSS, and will, from time to time, "slip in" unsubstantiated, perhaps even false, "facts" in order to strengthen his argument (e.g., I think there's a reference to Esther when speaking of the evidence found in the DSS, yet this is the only Book of the Hebrew Bible of which no fragments were found among the DSS; another, more specific example will be given below).
MY RESPONSE: I ran a search through his entire web site and cannot find this alleged reference to Esther in the DSS but it is mentioned in reference to the LXX. [EN:19] I think if you are going to impugn someone's integrity by saying that they "slip in unsubstantiated or perhaps even false facts in order to strengthen arguments" you should at least have your ducks in a row first, otherwise it is slanderous. Notice, that Joseph did not deal with the DSS evidence at this point, just attempts to impugn Miller with a "possible" error that he "might" have seen which in fact after further scrutiny is completely non-existent. An apology to Miller is in order.
JOSEPH: Mr. Miller demonstrates in his Psalm 22 tract that he is dodging the real issue, and that nowhere has he addressed the factual data, some of which was already presented by Len (and in Rabbi Singer's article). There's no doubt that there existed many translations into Greek of the various Books of the Hebrew Bible, after all, many Jews (probably the majority) had become Hellenized. Given that Greek translations were all over the place (note how many different translations into English - no two of which are identical - exist today of the Hebrew Bible), Mr. Miller DID NOT PROVE that the LXX contains translations into Greek by Jewish scholars, let alone those 72 Rabbis who translated the Five Books of Moses per King Ptolemy II's request (the Letter of Aristeas).
MY RESPONSE: I cannot see how anyone who has really read Miller's Psalm 22 article could say that he has not addressed the factual data. [EN:20] All the article does is deal with factual data which is supported by Jewish and Christian experts [not Internet forum board personalities]!! All Joseph did was make a summary conclusion, not an argument, just an assertion. Obviously, Miller does not believe or attempt to prove that the other books were translated by the same 72 rabbis considering that over a hundred years would have passed. Is Joseph suggesting that it was non-Jews who translated the rest of the books? Or is he trying to say that they were Jewish non-scholars? And it is inherent in his answer that all of the book were translated before Christ which becomes important later. It seems like he is trying to allude that the translations were not reliable. That is an entirely different issue than the one at hand though. And Emmanuel Tov again states "The Hebrew text presupposed by the LXX basically represents a tradition which is either close to that of the MT or can easily be explained as a descendant or a source of it." The LXX is also used and quoted by Jews of the day. Also in some early Rabbinic writings there is an indication of various non-MT text types being utilized, which is exactly what is found in the NT as well. [EN:21]
JOSEPH: There exists real and sound data (historical, Biblical, and linguistic) as evidence to support the claim that the Original Septuagint was a translation of only the Pentateuch, and that today's LXX is a Church-rendered translation (including all the required "edits" in the proper places of Christological significance). That evidence stands unrefuted.
MY RESPONSE: I have never disagreed that the Pentateuch was translated first. There is also abundant testimony that the rest of the books were translated before Christ as well though later than the Pentateuch. [EN:22] Joseph seems to be implying that the rest of the Septuagint in its entirety was translated by the church which is completely and demonstrably false. It stands unproven. In fact, if there were "edits" then the Christians were not only dishonest, they were stupid, because in Is. 53, arguably the most important Christological passage, the LXX does not give as much support as the MT!! See also Psalm 2. Also, Rabbi Singer does something really interesting with this subject. In the article discussed before with Len, Singer implies that the entire REST of the LXX is totally a Christian translation, that it did not exist at the time of the writing of Matthew, which is sadly false. [EN:23] But in another article, he goes on to argue that parthenos in Is 7:14 does not mean virgin unambiguously!! Well, wouldn't Christian altering at least use an unambiguous word!! And funnier still, most of the passages considered Christological by Christians were also considered Messianic historically in Judaism, LXX or no LXX. And there is abundant historical evidence as to the divergence of the LXX in some places and the differing Greek translations before Christ when Christians were not around to blame. As stated "It is true that in the past scholars have attributed to the translators of the LXX various major alterations of an editorial nature [notice he did not say Christological or blame Christians] in order to explain the differences between the LXX and MT, but a greater awareness of the translator's aims and methods, and the new evidence from Qumran for the existence of a plurality of Hebrew text types prior to the standardization of the consonantal text in the later first century AD suggest that it is most unlikely that any of the LXX translators acted in a high-handed way with the texts they were rendering into Greek." [EN:24] Such divergence is noted as well in Ben Sira. And Aquila is noted as purposely replacing in his Greek translation certain terms which were then considered "Christian" regardless of whether or not they were accurate. [EN:25]
JOSEPH: Let me now return to #4 above with a good example to reflect on Mr. Miller's lack of credibility. Here is what the renowned DSS scholar Geza Vermes writes in his latest book, "An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls", Fortress Press (1999) [ISBN 0-8006-3229-X], p. 29, "The papyri and other texts found at Murabba'at and Nahal Hever, many of them dated to the early second century CE, prompt the paleographer to estimate that the Qumran scripts is older than theirs." The significance of this is that, the reference stated by Mr. Miller to a document by Flint that has a different rendition in a claimed find of Ps 22:17 at Nahal Hever, is irrelevant. Here's the quote [CAPS are mine for emphasis, since I don't know if HTML works on this board], [Miller]: But there is actually a final piece of data that constitutes EXTREMELY STRONG evidence against ka'ari ("like a lion"), and that is from THE SINGLE OCCURRENCE OF THE VERSE IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS (DSS). [From P. W. Flint]: The DSS scrolls pre-date (historically) the Masoretic Text by centuries. Psalm 22.17 occurs in one of these scrolls from Nahal Hever (XHev/Se4, f.11, line 4). The form in this earliest copy of the Psalm in existence is K'RY, with the waw ending Y indicating a 3 personal plural verb form ("they"). This is DECISIVE evidence against "like a lion" (although it will not necessarily help us decide between the competing "they X" variants below). And remember from above, this K'RY variant also showed up in the later MT variants. [Data on the DSS manuscript can be found in The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, Peter W. Flint, Brill:1997, p.83] If this was really found, then it is likely to be from around the Bar Kochba era, some 100+ years after the death of Jesus. Notice how Mr. Miller doesn't mention any specific dating here!
MY RESPONSE: Now, if this is the best that Joseph can do to attack Miller's credibility then Miller has nothing to worry about. Even IF [which I will deal with later] that particular scroll can be dated to the second century AD that would not make it irrelevant!! Unless Joseph is claiming that the Christian editors were working in the DSS community as well, it is still quite relevant and old. And, "notice" Miller does mention dating relevant to the subject he is discussing ... he quotes Flint as saying that the DSS predate the MT by centuries. There is nothing mentioned that at all destroys Miller credibility as he has said nothing incorrect. He may not have said as much as Joseph would have liked him to, but considering that his articles are already quite lengthy, one has to stop somewhere. The dating information is found elsewhere in a more relevant place on his web site. And please "notice" how this makes no difference at all to the point at all, but is rather a red herring.
JOSEPH: None of my DSS resource material, and I have quite a bit as this is one of my special areas of interest, even mentions a Psalm 22 fragment found among the DSS. Even Flint himself never mentions anything about this claimed Psalm 22:17 fragment in his paper entitled, "Methods for Determining Relationships between Manuscripts with Special Reference to the Psalms Scrolls", New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 722, p. 197-209 (1994), yet he mentions just about every Psalm fragment found among the DSS. So, my advice about Miller's tract is, CAVEAT EMPTOR!!!.
MY RESPONSE: Well, there definitely was a Psalm 22 fragment found. I spoke with Flint and confirmed it. He stated that it was not mentioned in earlier works since his studies were not yet complete. The Flint publication of the fragment in question dates to 1997 and Joseph's cite above is three years earlier. Flint also stated that the Nahor scrolls date from 50-68CE, not 100 years after Christ and there is no evidence that they were influenced by Christianity (or Christian editing at all). [EN:26] No credible scholars hold that view.
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: Now before we can move on to Psalm 22:16 specifically, we must deal with Joseph's lengthy post on the deliberate Christian corruption of the Scriptures. I don't want to repeat what I have already said about the history of the LXX so I just refer to my above comments by reference. I am reposting Joseph lengthy preface so that everything can remain in its proper context.
JOSEPH: Since I wasn't present when the original KJV (the 1611 Edition) was written, for that matter, none of us were there, we cannot testify as eyewitnesses about their actions. One way for us to be able to draw conclusions about what may have been in the minds of the KJV translators is to look at the product and either validate or refute the claim.
JOSEPH: Taking just a single example, such as Ps 22:16 [in the KJV], could run the same risk of what in the field of law prima-facie evidence might lead to. Similarly, in the field of statistics, a single piece of data is said to have an indeterminate variance, so that no conclusions of any statistical significance may be drawn from it (though, here there is other data available, such as the other occurrences in the Hebrew Bible of the identical term). So, the two key questions here would be:
JOSEPH: 1. Are there any other examples where the KJV contains mistranslated term(s) in a verse (relative to its Hebrew counterpart in the Hebrew Bible)?
JOSEPH: 2. If there are other such terms present in the KJV, is there a common denominator, or correlation, that connects such terms?
JOSEPH: Let's start with (1). The answer here is clearly "YES", since this is an inescapable fact of ANY translation process, and more so with the KJV since it was prepared from several existing translation (Jerome's Latin Vulgate, Tyndale's/Wycliffe's English versions, and perhaps others). In other words, each of the translations introduces its own errors and ambiguities into the final product.
MY RESPONSE: First, Joseph misunderstand what "prima facie evidence" is and again there is a big assumption here which is going to make communication between Joseph and I difficult, and to sum it up, I cannot say it any better than Emmanuel Tov:
"It has become clear from the preceding paragraphs that one of the postulates of biblical research is that the text preserved in the various representatives (manuscripts, editions) of what is commonly called the Masoretic Text, does not reflect the "original text" of the biblical books in many details. Even though the concept of an "original text" necessarily remains vague, it will always be legitimate to recognize the differences between the Masoretic Text and earlier or different stages of the biblical text. Moreover, even were we to surmise that MT reflects the "original" form of the Bible, we would still have to decide which Masoretic Text reflects this "original text," since the Masoretic Text is not a uniform textual unit, but is itself represented by many witnesses... Similar problems arise when one compares MT with the other textual witnesses, such as the Qumran scrolls and the putative Hebrew source of the individual ancient translations. We do not know which of all these texts reflects the biblical text faithfully. Thus, it should not be postulated in advance that MT reflects the original text of the biblical books better than the other texts." [EN:27]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: I would not be surprised if in some areas the KJV or any other translation differed for any of the following reasons [and this would include Jewish translations as well]: translator's bias; divergent texts; human error; various possible translations; and last of all would I accuse any translator of a widely acknowledged and acclaimed edition of purposeful mistranslation, though I am sure that on rare occasions it does happen. I do not assume that all differences are mistranslations nor do I assume, as does not Tov that the MT is to be preferred over all readings at all times. And Joseph makes an error in his above statement. The KJV was not exclusively prepared from existing translations, only that existing translations were consulted along with the original languages as is done with every translation work, including all versions of the JPS. And then Joseph would have to say that other translations which state to be primarily from the original languages were deceitful, he cannot push it back into the shadowy past, for example the NAS which is a modern literal translation. And the KJV preface explicitly states the Hebrew texts were consulted. [EN:28]
JOSEPH: Now, let's proceed with (2). The answer here is somewhat more complex. At a first ‘blush', the answer would be "NO", i.e., if one takes all the mistranslated terms found in the KJV and tries to find some connection between them, it is likely that no such connection will be found. However, since we are trying to test whether or not a certain claim is true, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at these mistranslated terms.
MY RESPONSE: Again, I have to say that there would be a great Christian conspiracy as the NAS [EN:29] would agree with the KJV on these points. And please notice a glaring presupposition that all differences are mistranslations which is just assuming what needs to be proven.
JOSEPH: The claim we're trying to examine is the possibility, or likelihood, that the mistranslation at Ps 22:16 [in the KJV] was deliberate. In other words, we are trying to establish whether or not there was a motivation for the KJV translators to do so. One way to get at this is to take all the mistranslated terms found in (1) above and separate them into two categories - (a) terms that are neutral with respect to differences in beliefs between Christianity and Judaism, and (b) terms that have a special significance to Christianity (i.e., terms with Christological significance).
MY RESPONSE: Joseph is assuming what he wants to prove, and that is that the difference in Psalm 22 is a mistranslation, the only question for him is whether it was deliberate to the KJV or deliberate to an earlier translation. That is like saying I am starting off with the presumption that you beat your wife, all I am investigating is whether you did it today or yesterday. All we KNOW at this point is that there is a difference, not a mistranslation. He also has to assume that the MT is correct on this point, again assuming what he intends to prove. I am going to actually deal with this later and will reprint his comments as I want to deal with the other off-topic cites listed first so that we can then focus exclusively on Ps. 22. And note well, that Joseph used the term "motivation" for this will be REALLY important later on. At that point, I will also deal with Kochav's comments. Now picking up with Joseph's comments:
JOSEPH: the hypothesis to be tested here would be: THE KJV TRANSLATION AT PS 22:16[17] IS BIASED DUE TO THE CHRISTOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS VERSE (AND PSALM). So, what evidence/data is available in the Hebrew Bible to test this hypothesis? Though I don't have a catalog of all these ‘proof texts' in my possession, I know a few of them and will use some as sample ‘data' for our ‘experiment'. Also, wherever possible, I will give the KJV renditions of the same terms found in the same Book in which the ‘proof text' is found (verses will be indicated as KJV/[Hebrew Bible] where there are different numbers).
JOSEPH: Is 7:14 - "harah" - The correct translation is ‘is with child'; the KJV has ‘shall conceive'. The identical term "harah" occurs (as a verb) only once in Isaiah, and a total number of 8 times in the Hebrew Bible. Here is how the KJV renders it in the remaining 6 occurrences:
Gen 16:11 - ‘[thou] art with child' (Correctly rendered in the present tense)
Gen 38:24 - ‘[she] is with child' (Correctly rendered in the present tense)
Gen 38:25 - ‘am I with child' (Correctly rendered in the present tense)
Jdgs 13:5 - ‘[thou] shalt conceive' (Incorrect [but plausible if taken in context of immediate future])
Jdgs 13:7 - ‘[thou] shalt conceive' (Incorrect [but plausible if taken in context of immediate future])
I Sam 4:19 - ‘[Phineas' wife] was with child' (Correctly rendered in the present tense)
II Sam 11:5 - ‘[the woman] conceived' (i.e., ‘is pregnant'. Correctly rendered in the present tense)
MY RESPONSE: First of all, "harah/hareh" only appears as a verb due to the peculiarities of English translation, it is not actually a verb but rather an adjective in the feminine form [hareh]. There is a form "haretah" which is a verb and is not used here, but rather an adjective form [for a similar form which is actually a grammatical verb, see Job 3:3 and 15:35]. Since there is no verb, contextual clues have to supply the "tense" in order to make sense in the English. [EN:30] A good example of this is Jdgs 13:5 which at first closely resembles Gen 16:11, but is correctly rendered as a "future" action because of the explicit statement in verse 3 clearly making it a future state that is being described by the adjective. In addition to the context, one must also look at the grammatical clues in a given passage. In this case, there is a verb later on in the same verse which is definitely in the imperfect sense (as there are no true "tenses" in Hebrew but rather perfect and imperfect in the sense of complete and incomplete). [EN:31]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: Also the passage is begun by "behold" [hinneh] which when followed by a participle, as it is in this verse, is normally rendered in the imperfect sense. This is recognized by the Jewish Scholar H. Ginsberg in the Encyclopedia Judaica who supports the reading "she will conceive." Additionally, the famous Jewish commentator Rashi held that the phrase means future. [EN:32] In fact Gesenius used this very verse in explaining one use of participle clauses "to announce future actions or events." [EN:33]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: Also, as Joseph pointed out, it is important to look first within the same book, that being Isaiah for a typical literary construction used by that human conduit of God's words. "Behold" when used by Isaiah predominantly refers to a future event. This is held by the majority of translators of many different stripes and in standard linguistical works on the subject. Also, the LXX renders this in the future "tense" as well, as does the JPS. [EN:34] Now Joseph may very well state that these "future" renderings are only plausible if in the immediate future but there is nothing in this nonverb that absolutely and nonequivocally necessitates that but rather the factors enunciated above [contextual, grammatical, etc.] and would then change his problem with this passage from being an outright unwarranted translational change to an interpretive disagreement, which is fine, and is not what we are dealing with right now . And it should also be noted that also in the beginning of this verse is the Qal imperfect "yiten" ["He will give"] which sets the tense for the entire sentence into the future [EN:35] , and even before that, an imperfect verb form occurs in "therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign" which, especially in prophecy, sets up the whole time frame into the future as a future sign can arguably be inconsistent with a present condition. [EN:36]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: All this being said, I am not here for an extended discussion or defense of the points I made above. There are held and made by people much more qualified than I. I have just raised them in response to Joseph who made it seem like Christian translators are just willy-nilly changing passages without rhyme or reason and things are just not that simple, and he seems to mixing up the difference between an interpretive disagreement with a translational absolute "error."
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: And for the record, many future events are cast in the past/present "tense" [perfectum prophecticum], and notably in Isaiah [5:13, 9:1, 10:28, 28:8, 40:10 and interestingly the "dry bones" vision is seen as happening right then in Ezekiel 37 and also see the "burdens" against various nations/cities in Isaiah which are set in many places in the past tense, but had yet to happen, etc.] Many Jewish and other authorities past and present recognize this as a part of Hebrew idiosyncrasies such as David Kimchi [EN:37], Rabbi Isaac ben Yedaiah [EN:38], Gesenius, Nahum Saran [EN:39], and others. And Joseph cannot beg out on the "imminence" factor since the modern Jewish interpretation of Is. 53 holds that it is of the Jewish people and not yet absolutely complete [unless he is going to appeal to typology :)]though it was spoken in the distant past as a completed action. Also, remember that Rashi, though not interpreting this passage [Is 7:14] Messianically, did state that the phrase means future. Was he being dishonest?? Other Jewish and/or scholarly authors holding it to be future "tense": H.L. Ginsberg; Waltke & O'Connor [in a standard syntaxical work], Gesenius, and Watt. [EN:40] Also, the LXX has two different textual witnesses for this word, both rendered as future. [EN:41] So while Joseph may take issue with the Christian interpretation, there is justification for the Christian translation which is the issue under discussion. And there is a Talmudic reference to Isaiah 7:21 as Messianic ["in Ber. R. 48, on Gen 18:7, the words ‘Abraham ran unto the herd" are related with Isa 7:21 which is applied to Messianic times]. [EN:42]
JOSEPH: Is 9:6[5] - "va'yiqra" - The correct translation is ‘was called'; the KJV has ‘shall be called'. The identical term "va'yiqra" occurs 4 times in the Book of Isaiah, and a total number of 205 times in the Hebrew Bible. Here is how the KJV renders it in the remaining 3 occurrences in Isaiah:
JOSEPH: Is 21:8 - ‘and he cried' (Correctly rendered in past tense) Is 22:8 - ‘and ... did ... call' (Correctly rendered in past tense) Is 36:13 - ‘and cried [with a loud voice]' (Correctly rendered in past tense)
MY RESPONSE: Again, I direct the reader to my previous comments on "tenses" and the prophetic use of same with a little more elaboration. There are no tenses in Hebrew, only perfect and imperfect or loosely, complete and incomplete. Yes, these loosely correspond to English past and present/future tenses. Now I have noticed something about the way arguments are done on this board, at least by the anti-missionaries, and that is that it is perfectly acceptable to impugn people who are never going to be participating here [i.e. Glenn Miller] or are long dead [i.e. translators of old]. However, one cannot really get away with just limiting these very serious, serious charges to those shadowy translators of old since some very good modern translations have been produced in our lifetime which translate these verses the same way.
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: Now this point is a classic argument posed by Singer who goes even so far as to argue that "was" should be used, so it is not even a "present" happening but something that has already happened as far as Isaiah was concerned. [EN:43] Even the JPS doesn't do that. Now Joseph would have us believe that any person who knows Hebrew would know that this verse is in the perfect form and thus may not be translated any other way. Well, I have already shown in a previous comment the well-recognized Hebrew idiom of the prophetic perfect, so already Joseph is incorrect. But let's examine this even further [especially in light of Joseph's implicit statement that Christian Messianism is completely foreign in every respect to that of the ancient sages] now certainly [as Trimm has pointed out] if any "idiot" would know how to correctly translate/interpret this passage, then certainly the ancient Jewish sages [who are closer in time to the historical/sociological/linguistic base] would know that... yet Rabbi Jose the Galilean in Perek ha Shalom [in Talmud editions]; Numbers Rabbah XI, 16-20 states: "The name of the Messiah too is ‘peace'; as it is written "God the mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.'" And the Targums also apply the passage Messianically. [EN:44] This futuristic idea is not a novel Christian idea.
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: There are also textual/literary reasons allowing for this translation. Translation does not occur in a vacuum, and as I said before, there are contextual hints from passages surrounding the passage in question as well as the translator's own bias, be it Christian, Jewish, atheist, etc. Even the JPS translates the first part [as does almost all major translations] as a "present" happening "A child is born, a son is given" not a child has been born and a son has been given ala Singer with the implication that the child "shall" be called certain things as he grows. Additionally, the natural referent for this "child" is the same child spoken of in Is. 7:14 as that is the only promised child in the surrounding context [and I have already demonstrated that the KJV was justified in its 7:14 translation]. And in a literary sense, there are compelling reasons to see this as a parallel to Isaiah 11 as follows [and in many passages a failure to see the classic parallelism that permeates the OT leads to translational and interpretive failures]: the prophecy for Judah [7:1-9:7]and Ephraim [9:8-11:16] all follow the format of God's warning of judgment [compare 7:1-17 with 9:8-10:14]; God's judgment using the Assyrians [compare 7:18-8:8 with 10:5-15]; destruction but the salvation of a remnant [compare 8:9-22 with 10:16-34]; and a future Messianic hope [compare 9:1-7 with 11:1-16] [see Miller's work on the subject for much more detail]. [EN:45] Also, please note that the whole unit beginning with 9:1 speaks of a "future" time.
MY RESPONSE: Also, in the other 207 places that the "exact" phrase was used in the OT, none [except for Is. 22:11] are in prophetic passages, but rather in basically straight narrative, so for Joseph to compare a translation in a prophetic passage [to which special grammar rules may apply as shown above] to a straight narrative passage is just not proper. And FYI, in Isaiah 22:11, which very arguably is a future happening [though whether it is short term or long term is hotly debated] has the exact same word in the past tense though referring to the future. See also, Psalm 50:1 which arguably can be a perfect form referring to a completed past act which continues up into the psalmist's present and continuing into the future. And there are historical justifications as well [which is probably why Jewish sages and the Targum Jonathan [EN:46] have interpreted it as futuristically Messianic]. For example:
"The name of the Messiah too is ‘peace'; as it is written "God the mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.'" Says Rabbi Yose the Galilean.
"He said to him: ‘I have yet to raise up the Messiah of whom it is written ‘For a child is born to us (Isa. IX, 5). Until I come unto my Lord unto Seir (Ge. XXXIII, 14), T. Samuel b.' Nahman said: ‘We have searched all the Scriptures and we have nowhere found that Jacob ever came together with Esau at Seir. What then is the meaning of, ‘Unto Seir"? Jacob [meant] to say to him: ‘I have yet to raise up judges and saviours to exact punishment from you.' Whence this? For it is said, ‘and saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau (Obad. I, 21).' Israel asked God: ‘Master of the Universe, how long shall we remain subjected to him?' He replied: "Until the days comes of which it is written, there shall step forth a star out of Jacob and a scepter shall rise out of Israel (Num. XXIV, 17),' when a star shall step forth from Jacob and devour the stubble of Esau.'" [EN:47]
"The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemach, Pele [‘Miracle'], Yo'etc [‘Counselor'], Mashiah [‘Messiah'], El [‘God'], Gibbor [‘Hero'], and Avi ‘Ad Shalom [‘Eternal Father of Peace']." [EN:48]
"The prophet saith to the house of David, A child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it, and his name has been called from of old, Wonderful counselor, Mighty God, he who lives forever, the Anointed One, in whose days peace shall increase upon us." [EN:49]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: And, it is noted that Isaiah 9:1-3 was regarded as Messianic by both Jews and the Qumran community. [EN:50]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: And for the record, there is really no real reason for the KJV or any other Christian translator to use deception in this passage. It is not as if the JPS rendering is fatal to the Messianic application at all. After all, the Jewish sages of old also interpreted it Messianically, and the orthodox Christian view of Christ would hold that these titles have ALWAYS belonged to Him, so yes, He HAS BEEN called them from eternity past. They already belonged to Him at the incarnation. So there is no real MOTIVATION for deceit here. Psalm 22, the real subject of this discussion, is also set in the "past" tense as well as many other passages which we hold are Messianic so this is no real big whup. Now I am not trying to convince Joseph that he should hold the positions outlined above, only to show that there were reasonable reasons for a certain translation and secondarily a certain interpretation, not outright, blatant, and bold-faced blasphemous deceit as he posits.
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: Also there are additional linguistic reasons allowing this translation. Rather than looking at the exact word only and its other places in Scripture, one must also look at the grammatical form and the way it is used, regardless of the specific word. The form in this case is "Verb, qal imperfect waw consec., third person masculine singular." Now the last part is really not at issue, so we can safely disregard the "third person masculine singular" part and focus on the "verb, qal imperfect waw consecutive" portion. Now, the astute reader may well note that this verb is in the imperfect form and wonder what on earth we are even debating about. But, a waw consecutive with an imperfect form, tends to convey the same meaning as a perfect form [loosely corresponding with the English "past tense"]. But that rule is not absolute, nor has it necessarily always existed within the Hebrew language. As I noted before in my comments re: Miller's knowledge of Hebrew that a knowledge of Biblical Hebrew is much more pertinent than a knowledge of Modern Hebrew as it is an inescapable fact of all languages that they evolve, though some more than others. ([his point will again be important later on]. Linguists theorize on these sorts of issues , and in particular with the waw consecutive+ imperfect, I found: "It is possible that at an earlier stage  cop.+perfectwas the usual form of referring to narratives in the past, i.e. before wc.+impf. began to fulfill this function. In the later books wc.+impf. loses this role and  cop.+perfectoccurs in places where one would have expected wc.+impf. (Cf. Joüon-Muraoka §119z.)." [EN:51] The rule of waw consecutive is not absolute, though it is normally the case. And even when it is the case, there are varying uses such as: "Wc.+impf. bears reference to the same temporal spheres and aspects as a perfect form but it is also characterized by ‘progression.'" AND "A speaker can use waµw consecutive + imperfect to control the flow of his/her narrative. The backbone of the narrative thus does not have to correlate with the actual course of events in time." [EN:52] But let's let the text speak for itself. Are there other times in the KJV text where a waw-consecutive imperfect verb in the qal stem is translated as future? Yes, but I will limit my comments to the book of Isaiah in light of the added issue of possible linguistic evolution:
Isaiah 5:15 "shall be humbled" 5:16 "shall be exalted" 9:12 "shall devour" 9:18 "shall kindle" 9:20 "shall eat" 15:4 "shall cry" 40:24 "shall wither" 51:23 "will put"
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: And in this search I found two other possible examples of prophetic perfects in Is. 5:25 and 24:6 [and would include most if not all of the above if we are going to be dogmatic that waw consecutive + imperfect, always, always, must be translated into English as a present or past event]. So, please understand that I am not arguing for the correctness of the above translations, just poking a hole in Joseph's argument that there is a deceitful pattern to the KJV's method and that is to thrust Messianic passages into the future without justification. This sample in Isaiah actually shows that the KJV very often translated the exact same grammatical form in the future in non-Messianic passages, so that they are actually being consistent in Isaiah 9:6. No great Christian plot uncovered here. Another interesting prophetic perfect is Genesis 17:5, "a father of many nations I have made thee" and yet in verse 6 "I will make nations of thee."
JOSEPH: Is 53:8 - "lamo" - The correct translation is ‘them/to them'; the KJV has ‘he'. The identical term "lamo" occurs 11 times in the Book of Isaiah, and a total number of 55 times in the Hebrew Bible. Here is how the KJV renders it in the remaining 10 occurrences in Isaiah:.
JOSEPH: Is 16:4, 23:1, 26:16, 30:5, 44:7, 48:21 - ‘to them', or ‘unto them', or ‘upon them', or ‘[to] them', or ‘for them' (Correctly rendered in the plural) Is 26:14 - ‘their' (Correctly rendered in the plural) Is 35:8 - ‘for those' (Correctly rendered in the plural) Is 43:8 - ‘... [they] ...' (Correctly rendered in the plural) Is 44:15 - ‘thereto' (Incorrectly rendered in the singular; Hebrew could be taken either way)
MY RESPONSE: Again, there are many considerations in translating a word especially when one is alleging outright and deliberate deceit. All of the pronouns throughout this chapter are in the singular, so the question then becomes can "lamo" also be singular or must it always be plural? The weight of the contextual evidence is very heavy in favor of a singular reading. This is one question we must explore. And textually, there is some very strong evidence in favor of the KJV reading and that is that the LXX, the Syriac (Peshitta) and the Ethiopic versions all translate this clause in the singular. [EN:53] These translators are much closer in time to the source, customs, etc then us or the KJV translators for that matter. So, unless this Christian conspiracy infected all three as well, there is no deceit here. And of course, the ancient Jewish sages almost unanimously referred this passage to a singular Messiah. [EN:54]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: Now that we have touched on the historical and contextual issues, let's get to the text. "Lamo" and its related term "'aleimo" do at times have singular referents in Scripture (at least in the KJV and at times agreed with by the JPS) see: Gen 9:26-27 (his [lamo] servant); Job 20:23 (upon him [‘aleimo]); Job 22:2 (unto himself [‘aleimo]); Ps 11:7 [JPS] (his face [phaneimo]); Is 44:15 (down thereto [lamo]). So the KJV did not ONLY in this one place translate this term in the singular in some deceitful manner. Further, it has been noted, that the grammatical sentence structure has an ellipsis at the end requiring contextual clues to decide translational issues i.e. words are left out which are need for precise meaning. [EN:55] Also see Gensenius' Hebrew Grammar for a list of the exceptions for lamo. Further, Kimchi in his Hebrew Grammar stated that the "'mo' suffix represented the third person singular in Job 20:23 and 22:2... 'Mo' [mem-vav] represents the third person singular, as in Job 20:23, 22:2....For 'm' and 'o' ('mo') contains in itself the sign of the plural noun, and indicates the masculine singular also. For 'm' is the sign of the third person masculine plural, and the 'o' of the third person masculine singular. And therefore 'mo' is used both of many and of one." [EN:56] [endnote reference applies to entire paragraph]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: And historically the singular has been preferred even by Jewish translators, specifically: Abraham Farisol commenting on this passage "'Lamo' will then be singular, as in Psalm 55:20 and elsewhere."; Rabbi Judah ben Bala'm states, "By 'lamo' he means 'lo', i..e., that his misfortune came to him from the sins of the people, not what he deserved himself."; Rabbi Tanchum gave both as an option with preference to the singular; Naphthali Altschuler renders it, "For the transgression of 'my people' had this 'stroke' come upon the Messiah."; in the Milchamoth Adonai, it is stated "We certainly find 'lamo' used occasionally as a singular, as Psalm 11:7, but only as an anomaly." And, Gershom (who believed the passage to be about Israel) still renders this term in the singular. And in modern times, this trend continues, Ewald states: "For my people's sin, the plague for them. . . . 'lamo' corresponds to 'amo' ('my people')....It cannot be denied that the very old ending 'mo' is sometimes used by poets in the sense of a singular, in very little words, as 'lamo' for 'lo' ('to him').... exceedingly probably it is singular in Job 20:23, 27:23, where the whole context of ten to twenty verses, in which the singular occurs throughout, speaks for it. But it is certain in Isaiah 53:8, in which the singular alone appears; Isaiah 44:15, where the plural does not at all suit the sense; and the poet himself explains 'lamo' in the same connection (verse 17) by 'lo'; Psalm 11:7, where 'his countenance' can only relate to God. Hab. 3:4 explains 'lamo', Deut. 33:2, by 'lo'." [EN:57] [endnote reference applies to entire paragraph]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: And.... "Several key words in Isaiah 53 speak of a servant in the plural. I'm surprised that you're still using this objection! It is simply not true, as can be seen by checking even leading Jewish translations of the Bible. Those who claim that there are references to a plural servant in Isa 53 either misunderstand Hebrew grammar or mistranslate the Hebrew text. These objections were answered decisively decades ago. Readers of English translations of Isaiah 53 might find this argument very surprising. Isn't the subject of the chapter spoken of throughout in the singular? Well, for hundreds of years now, it has been claimed that there are two words found in two separate verses that hint toward a plural subject: lamô in v. 8 (in the phrase nega' lamo -- "a stroke for them/him") and bemotayw in v. 9 (lit., "in his deaths"). It is claimed that these words provide the clue that the singular servant is actually a nation - hence the plurals. The translation of the important part of these verses would then be: "for the transgression of my people [supposedly spoken by Gentile kings; see objection 000] there is a stroke for them" (i.e., the people of Israel); "and he [i.e., the servant of the Lord, taken to be Israel] was with the rich in his deaths" (as explained by Radak, the Jews have suffered all kinds of deaths at the hands of their enemies -- by the sword, by burning, etc.). What is wrong with these interpretations? Plenty! First, the phrase nega' lamô, as rightly understood by the New Jewish Version, most likely means that the servant receives a stroke for them -- in other words, for those for whom he is suffering! Second, Isaiah elsewhere uses lamô to mean "to it" (not, "to them") in 44:15 ("he makes an idol and bows down to it"). So, even if you wanted to take lamô to refer to the servant (which, as stated, is unlikely), it could still mean "for him" as opposed to "for them." Third, the reason that the word "death" is in the plural in v. 9 is because it is an intensive plural, referring here to a violent death. Such usage of intensive plurals is extremely common in Hebrew, as recognized by even beginning students of the language. Thus the word for compassion is an intensive plural, rahamîm, while the word for God is 'elohîm (see objection 3.1). More specifically, in Ezek 28:8, the prophet declares, "and you [singular] will die the deaths [plural] of one slain [singular] in the depths of the sea." It's impossible to question the meaning here! (See also Ezek 28:10, "the deaths of the uncircumcised [plural] you will die[singular].") Whenever the Hebrew Bible refers to the deaths of an individual, it speaks of a violent death." [EN: 58]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: Now that I have shown that there is really no evidence of dishonesty, let's look at the MOTIVATION issue again. I mean, if someone is going to engage in deceit, they must have something to gain from it. What damage would there be if the plural referent was indeed correct? For example, J. A. Alexander, a respected linguist out of Princeton Seminary in his Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah translated this verse: "For the transgression of My people, (as) a curse for them." [EN:59] If the plural referent is indeed correct, this is a valid construction [as noted by Brown, above]. On another more mystical note, I have made no secret that I hold to the orthodox Trinitarian belief, and as such, mixtures of plural and singular referents do not trouble me in the least. In fact, I expect them. So let's just say that Alexander's rendering is off-base and it is "injury to them" as Joseph proposes. So what? Again the singular is the rule throughout the passage, and yet, when Jesus was crucified, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead, did not the Spirit and the Father suffer injury? Of course. Was it because of the transgressions? Of course. There is no problem here and no motivation for deceit. And most common-sensically, if the plural referent is indeed correct, the natural subject would be referring to the "people" not to the Servant. [EN:60]
JOSEPH: Mic 5:2[1] - "miy'mei olam" - The correct translation is ‘from ancient days' or ‘from days of old'; the KJV has ‘from everlasting'. This identical form (with the preposition "mi" [‘from'] appears only once in the Hebrew Bible. However, the expression ‘y'mei olam" appears once by itself, and 3 times with the preposition "ki" [‘as' or ‘as in'], and here is how the KJV renders these:
JOSEPH: Is 63:11- "y'mei olam" - ‘the days of old' (Correctly rendered) Amos 9:11, Mic 7:14, Mal 3:4 - "ki'ymei olam" - ‘as in the days of old' (Correct rendered)
MY RESPONSE: Joseph knows as well as I do that words have ranges of semantic meanings. Olam can mean everlasting and often does, it is even used to describe God's eternality. Plus there is an obvious parallelism going on this passage with "from old" and "from everlasting" so both phrases must be looked at in unison. The same phrase "from old" is used in Hab. 1:12 to describe the eternality of God. It is other used in other places to speak of things very old but not eternal. There is no unequivocal word for eternal in Biblical Hebrew. The word "olam" is also used of God to describe his eternality. In fact, one of the ranges listed in the Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-Lexicon the Old Testament [EN:61] , is that of divine existence. Rarely does the concept of eternity past occur in the Hebrew Scriptures as saying from the beginning of the earth was normally adequate, but eternity future is expressed very often by this same word, which makes it the likely choice to use for eternity past, as it is of God in Gen 21:33, Ps 10:16, Ps 41:13, Ps 45:6, Ps 90:2, Ps 93:2 [and probably even more as I did not go through each of the 217 occurrences of this word]. Now the conjunction of both of these phrases together, both of which can mean very old or eternal is very strong and has been said to be "the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable." [EN:62] And I would agree that a more literal translation would be "from the days of eternity" which is the NAS rendering. So, as discussed above, this word has a wide range of meanings and in the verses which Joseph cited, the context makes it perfectly clear whether eternity is being referenced or long ago. In this verse, there is contextual justification for the "everlasting" rendering as stated above and in the rest of the KJV rendering of the verse (and the JPS 1917 edition by the way) in that the subject's "goings forth" have been from old, from everlasting, a clear reference to preexistence not necessarily limited to ancient human history.
JOSEPH: Ps 2:12 - "var" - The correct translation is ‘[the] pure/clean' or ‘purity/cleanliness'; the KJV has ‘the Son'. The root of "var" is "bar", which is rendered as "var" for grammatical reasons only (when a "bet" [and some other letters] follows the preposition "v-" [‘and'], the "v-" changes to an "u-" and the "bet" changes to a "vet"). This identical Hebrew (not Aramaic) term appears only once and in the expression in Ps 2:12 - ‘touch/attach [yourselves to] purity'. However, there are other instances where the Hebrew (not Aramaic) noun is used with prepositions or in some conjugation. There are 2 instances of "u'var", where the "u-" is the preposition ‘and', and here is how the KJV renders these:
JOSEPH: Ps 24:4 - "u'var [levav]" - ‘and [a] pure [heart]' (Correctly rendered) Job 11:4 - "u'var [hayitee]" - ‘and [I am] clean" (Correctly rendered)
JOSEPH: There's also a variant on "bar/var", which is "bor/vor" and has the same meaning. There are 2 instances each of "b'vor" and "k'vor", and one instance of "ka'bor". Here is how the KJV renders these:
JOSEPH: Job 9:30 - "b'vor" - ‘so clean' (Correctly rendered [in context]) Job 22:30 - "b'vor" - ‘by the pureness' (Correctly rendered) Ps 18:20[21],24[25] - "k'vor" - ‘according to the cleanliness' (Correctly rendered) Is 1:25 - "ka'bor" - ‘purely [purge away]' (Correctly rendered [in context])
MY RESPONSE: Here is where I am very surprised yet again by Joseph. And I recognize that this point goes beyond Joseph and I, so I am going to interact more with Rabbi Singer's points on this verse which is more likely to be the version that more people with encounter, and he agrees with Joseph that this verse was purposefully mistranslated by Christians, particularly the KJV. [this endnote [EN:63] refers to all of the following material which deals with Rabbi Singer's dealings with this verse] Singers tell us that the word "bar" in the Hebrew does not exactly mean "son." It means son in the Aramaic, but not in the Hebrew which uses the word "ben" to mean "son." He also rightly points out that none of the book of Psalms is written in Aramaic. But then Rabbi Singer does something cagey as follows [emphasis mine]: "What we are going to do is... we look at ALL the other places where the word ‘bar' exists and what I did for you is, I did you a favor... I showed you [in the accompanying study guide] every single place where the word ‘bar' appears IN THE BOOK OF PSALMS and you will notice that... isn't it odd that the King James BIBLE that EVERYWHERE the word appears in ALL ITS DIFFERENT FORMS is ALWAYS translated as cleanliness or purity. Why if that word truly means song or sonship, why isn't it translated that way IN OTHER PLACES?"
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: Well, it is translated as "son" in another place... not in the book of Psalms, but in the book of Proverbs [which incidentally does not have any Aramaic in it either] in Pr. 31:2, it appears THREE times in that one verse. It is recognized even in Hebrew lexicons, such as the one produced by the Hebrew Publishing Company, that "bar" can mean "son" in poetic usage of Hebrew. [EN:64] And Proverbs is obviously a very closely related book to Psalms, and the next best place to find an additional use of "bar" as "son." Notice now, Singer's quote above, where he does a bait and switch towards the end, leading the listener to believe that the word "bar" IN ALL ITS FORMS is not translated as "son" in the KJV, and in fact, in every Jewish version that I am aware. And, of course, if the fact that "bar" only appears as "son" in Ps 2:12 and not as "son" elsewhere in Psalms disproves that rendering, then the same argument applies to Pr 31:2 as that is the only instance in Proverbs where it is rendered as "son." As Trimm points out, "An argument that proves too much proves nothing at all."
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: So, now contextual and grammatical clues will have to determine if "son" is indeed the correct rendering as we have shown that "bar" can and does mean "son" at times, and that "son" is well within the range of its poetic meanings. There is grammatical reason that the poetic "bar" may have been chosen instead of the more common "ben" and that is to "avoid the inharmonious juxtaposition of ‘ben' and ‘pen'.... that is, ‘var's use here rather than ‘ben' is for more harmonious vocalization.... the current reading in Hebrews sound: ‘nash'qu var pen'... with ‘ben' used the sounding would be awkward with ‘nash'qu ben pen'." [EN:65] And contextually, "son" makes better sense. It is the "son" earlier in this Psalm that was given dominion of the kings and rulers and who "will rule them with a rod of iron" and "dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel," so it is perfectly within context to then instruct those same kings and rulers to pay homage to him who has been given dominion over them. And the literal rendering if "purity" were correct would be to worship/pay homage to purity which of course cannot be correct. [EN:66]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: And let's look at some other areas. In the 12th Century, Ibn Ezra, noting our contextual clues above, translated it as "son," though believing that the "son" was an allusion to Israel. [EN:67] Kimchi also recognized that "bar" can mean "son" and was possible in Ps. 2:12. [EN:68] So does the Isaac Lesser translation of the Hebrew Bible. [EN:69] And "In favor of the traditional translation are the context of the psalm (submission to the Lord and to the anointed), the proposal by Delitzsch that the sequence bar pen ("Son, lest") avoids the dissonance of ben pen (KD, 1:98), and the suggestion by Craigie that the usage of the Aramaism may be intentionally directed to the foreign nations." [EN:70] Also, Psalm 2 in general has a history of Messianic interpretation. [EN:71]
JOSEPH:OK, this sample will suffice for our ‘experiment', though there are many more and I could go on and generate more ‘data', except that I have neither the time nor interest in doing more right now. I ask you now to look over the ‘data' and compare the KJV renditions of the key terms in ‘proof texts' with the KJV renditions of the same key terms when they appear elsewhere in passages that have no particular Christological significance. Using only the above evidence, obtained from the KJV and the Hebrew Bible, the pattern that I see emerging is that, in general, the KJV renders a given term DIFFERENTLY when it appears in a passage that has Christological significance from the way the same (or similar) term is rendered in ‘Christian-neutral' passages. The DIFFERENCE in the respective translations also appears to be in a direction that would support Christian doctrines and beliefs. This pattern is consistent with the pattern observed in the analysis of the translations by the KJV of the Hebrew term "ka'ari" in its 5 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible.
MY RESPONSE: Actually the sample will not suffice for the experiment even if they all were true, which I of course have contested as seen above. Again, our underlying assumptions are coming into play because with Joseph one could almost insert "original inspired text" [i.e. the autographa] wherever you see the words "Hebrew Bible" because that is how he treats the MT. And there is not enough data to see any kind of a pattern anyway. Joseph earlier stated that he is sure that the number of differences in "neutral" passages would be the bulk of any differences. Well then to determine if there is actually a pattern of deliberate changes [and of course, all he demonstrated are differences not changes] in the Messianic texts listed above, one would have to statistically analyze all "anomalies" and then determine the total number of Messianic passages and then calculate what percentage of "anomalies" would already be expected to happen as predicted by the neutral passages. So you can see that this sample proves nothing even by statistical philosophy [and I have shown consistent similar differences in non-Messianic passages]. Also, MOST of the Messianic understandings as ably shown by many scholars [and much too voluminous for this specific discussion] are not novel to Christianity but existed in well-documented Jewish understandings. In other words, there was no need for widespread tailoring as contemporary and/or ancient Jewish understandings already fit in most cases. Christians have not as a whole taken passages that were not already considered Messianic both before and continuing until after Christ.
JOSEPH: Based on these observations alone, i.e., comparing the KJV with the Hebrew Bible, could lead one to conclude that the KJV translators deliberately changed the context in the critical places to provide Christological "spin" to the KJV. However, if one considers where the KJV came from, it is also possible that any of these discrepancies already existed in the sources used by the KJV translators. So, I'm not necessarily prepared to place the blame squarely in the corner of the KJV translators, unless I can be convinced that they also used the Hebrew Bible as a source, but neglected to objectively investigate any differences between it and their other sources. For me, the bottom line is that the KJV translation differs from the Hebrew Bible in many if not in all of the places that have Christological significance. Since, with few exceptions, many of the other available English translations are derived from the KJV (this includes even the Jewish Publication Society's 1917 translation of the Hebrew Bible), it is likely that many of them will contain these differences. I believe this is the critical issue here, not necessarily on whom to pin the blame for these mistranslations, since many members of the largest religion in the world are using flawed renditions of the Hebrew Bible.
MY RESPONSE: See my comments above, there was no need to provide "spins" that already existed. And I can assure Joseph that the KJV translators used the original Hebrew as a source as did other independent modern translations such as the NAS. I do not know of any other English translation (true translations) that are derived from the KJV except for the NKJV which would be expected. In fact the foreword the JPS 1917 edition disagrees with Joseph's assertion that it was derived from the KJV as follows:
A translation destined for the people can only follow one text, and that must be the traditional.
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: The preface also says that other English versions (such as the KJV) have been "drawn upon" which is far different from Joseph's contention. Now I will not deny that bias enters into all facets and all sides. And I believe bias certainly took place during the standardization of the Hebrew text that took place which explains some differences and Christian translators have had their own biases as well, meaning if there are two acceptable ways to translate a passage, a Jewish translator may pick one different from the Christian and vice versa without deceit being alleged of either. Now finally on to Psalm 22 more specifically:
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: Remember the whole thing that got me involved in this conversation was Len's reckless and unsupported contention that Christians deceitfully altered this text (Ps. 22:16[17]). If not for that contention, I would not be here. My basic position [and see Glenn Miller's article for a thorough discussion [EN:72] was that "they have pierced" is not a deliberate alteration but in fact a well-attested reading with "like a lion" being the alternate reading. I did not even really try to defend which was most likely the "original" reading, just that there was no Christian alteration here. So, many, many, pages of conversation have preceded this section and we are kind of picking off where we left off, but I will explain again some things which we already said for newcomers and for memory refreshment. First, let me repost something said by a participant known as "Me" [identified as "FORUM PARTICIPANT ‘ME.'"
FORUM PARTICIPANT "ME": In several places on this cite it has been suggested or even stated that traditional Jews tampered or changed the Hebrew Text of the Jewish Bible to mask over Messianic passages that pointed to Yeshu. A specific example discussed is a supposed change of "caaru" (they pierced) to "c'ari" (like a lion) in Psalms 22, a change that would simply require one to lengthen the end of the last letter.
FORUM PARTICIPANT "ME" CONT'D: 1. Although there are many examples of the term c'ari, like a lion, being used in the T'nakh and and in Psalms in particular, can you cite any example of caaru?
FORUM PARTICIPANT "ME" CONT'D: 2. Doesn't David frequent use of animals a symbols, multiple times in this Psalm suggest that this is likely just the second example of "lion"? ( see Bulls vs 13, dogs 17 and 21, and lion vs 14 and 22 and 17 in the Jewish text) (these verse numbers may differ in Christian versions)
FORUM PARTICIPANT "ME" CONT'D: 3. Weingreen writes in his Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, "An interesting feature in the printed Hebrew Bible is that corrections of recognized errors are made in the margin or footnote, while the uncorrected words are retained in the text. The refusal to change the text, even where obvious errors are recognized, is due to the extreme reverence felt for it and acts as a safeguard against tampering with it." page 22. If the traditional Jews who transmitted the Hebrew Text were unwilling to change known errors, how can you suggest they would change the text for any reason?
FORUM PARTICIPANT "ME" CONT'D: 4. Given the above, and the fact the Christian Bible DOES quote this Psalm about Yeshu's crucifixion, doesn't it seem odd that the Christian Bible Never quotes this verse which supposedly is a direct and clear reference to crucifixion?
MY RESPONSE: I can only assume that "ME" is referring to the previous exchanges between Len, Joseph, Kochav and I, and that he did not read them carefully at all because NOWHERE did anyone claim that "traditional Jews tampered or changed the Hebrew Text" with respect to this passage which he then goes on to use as an example and defeat a position which was not even taken, and thus, irrelevant. But I will still address his points. Point (1), "ME" states that there are many examples of the term "c'ari" [like a lion] in the Tanakh and in the Psalms in particular. I guess that hinges on what means by "many." Does one count as many? There is just one other usage in the Psalms (7:2) which is in a different form. There are 16 passages where this phrase appear and four use an entirely different word for lion. Three others are in a similar form to our verse under discussion but with different vocalization. There are 8 passages (which use the dominant form) which is somewhat different from the form we are discussing. There is only ONE exact match... does that qualify as "many"? [Is. 38:13] [EN:73] Now if the point he was trying to make, was that "ari" is a common word for lion I agree, but then we are talking about the root not the exact phrase which is fine. Now the exact phrase "karu" as far as I know does not appear in this exact form anywhere else. But it's root does, and is a widely attested root and used with the sense of "piercing" in Psalm 40:7. [EN:74] And if "ME" is going to go by frequency of usage, his own reading is a relatively rare form and uses a different word for lion than was just used several verses earlier in the same Psalm. [EN:75] The "kar" root is related to the Hebrew "zekar - to pierce" which in Aramaic appears as "Dakar - to pierce" (Zech. 12:10). [EN:76]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: On to "ME"'s Point 2... that the animal imagery elsewhere in the Psalm would lend strength to the "like a lion" reading. Standing alone, it would, but there is weighty evidence in other directions, such as the textual history, the fact that the "like a lion" reading makes no sense in that the sentence would be fragmental having no verb which must be added out of thin air by the translators or the fragment must be emended to the prior verse and not the least, that if the reading is correct, the translation would be "my hands and my feet are like a lion" which of course makes no sense. [EN:77] Also, I can make the same point that vivid crucifixion imagery is also used elsewhere in the Psalm involving the distended ligaments, the horrific thirst, the heart palpitations.
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: On to "ME"'s Point 3... this really does not need a response since I never accused the Jews of deceitfully changing the text. But let me point out to "ME" that this textual variant occurs even within the MT family of texts and in the Dead Sea Scrolls and not as a "marginal" error. And as far as a refusal to change the text, the Masorites documented that they did in fact "change" the text substituting in multiple places the term "Adonai" for YHWH, though this was not sneaky as they documented the fact that they did in fact change the text. [EN:78] And "ME" seems to be operating on the assumption that there are not different textual "families" and as if the MT has always existed and in the form that we find it today.
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: On to "ME"'s Point 4... no, it is not odd, it is referenced although not exactly quoted. Other areas of the Psalm are believed to directly correspond to the crucifixion and surrounding events and are not "quoted" either, such as the dividing of the garments, the looking and staring and mocking.... The incident is just described as happening but not quoted directly as a fulfillment. And Jesus drew everyone's attention to the entire Psalm by quoting the first line from the cross and John's usage of Zech 12:10 with its mention of "piercing" which draw this Psalm to mind as well. But I do find it interesting that since it is never quoted directly, there is even less MOTIVATION for the Christian tampering that has been accused here.
Now on to Kochav's comments:
KOCHAV: About psalm 22, it, it is clear that it is "K'ari" (like a lion) because the psalmist mentions Arieh (lion) , already in pasuk 14.
MY RESPONSE: Already dealt with in my response to "ME" above, plus just because a word is mentioned before (and in a different form I might add) that is absolutely conclusive?? Does Kochav apply the same test to Psalm 2? That is just an unsubstantiated blanket statement.
KOCHAV: "K'Ari" is translated by Protestants as pierced. Strongs ADDED the meaning pierced to his lexicon but it is not so. Hebrew Ki is "like" (we use it in our Hebrew prayers all the time as well as it being very common in Scripture). Heb ARI is also simple. It means LION... King David is merely stating to G-d his position with his enemies surrounding him like a pack of wild animals and King David is praying for help. He is at wits ends basically. Reading any more into it is dangerous conjecture and Adding to Scripture since those inferences are NOT in the text. To add them is a violation of Scripture.
MY RESPONSE: Kochav is again making the same erroneous assumption as Len and that is pretending that there are no viable textual variants and that Christians translate "k'ari" as "they have pierced." No, Christians translate "k'aru" as "they have pierced" [throughout here I know that I am using various different styles of transliterations of Hebrew into English but everyone involved knows what I mean if they don't nitpick]. I don't deny that "k'ari" means "like a lion." What are these people who are surrounding David like wild lions doing to his hands and his feet? Or are his hands and his feet like a lion? Adding a verb into the text to make a nonsense sentence fragment make sense is dangerous conjecture. And as far as practices of reading into the text, I refer back to very beginning of this piece on valid interpretive styles including that very surprising Talmudic statement. And it is interesting that he limits the "they have pierced" translation to Protestants. In fact, Mitchell Dahood, S.J. Professor of Ugaritic Language and Literature at The Pontifical Institute in Rome, translates this passage as "piercing my hands and my feet." [EN:79]
KOCHAV: K'Ari ("Like a lion") is not the same as the word Kara used in Psalm 40:6 which means 'Opened' (not pierced). It is a separate Root word altogether. The root in Psalm 22 is Ari "lion" with the proposition Ki"like". The root in Psalm 40 is Kara and literally to dig (not to pierce); but it is not used in Psalm 22...
MY RESPONSE: Again Kochav is pretending that I am claiming that the root in Ps 40:6 or Ps 22:16 for that matter is ari which I am not and is explained in MY RESPONSE to "ME" above. And yes, literally the root "kar" is literally to dig through. What exactly is the problem with that? I can clearly see how "pierced" is within the semantical range and is part of the etymology of the word used as "pierced" in Zech 12:10.
KOCHAV: Further, the IDENTICAL word, "k'ari" also appears in Isaiah 38:13. Here the KJV translates correctly the identical term, k'ari, just like they translate it in Num 24, and Ezek 22:25. However because these passages have no Christological significance, 'like a lion' in these cases is translated PROPERLY in the KJV, so the translators obviously knew what the word means.
MY RESPONSE: Yes, Kochav that is the only place where the identical term appears, but again you are assuming what you need to prove and that is that "k'ari" is the correct reading in Psalm 22:16 and that the KJV simply pulled "they have pierced" out of the ether, which you have not even tried to do. The exact same phrase form is not used in those other two passages. And interestingly in the Masora, it is noted that the Isa 38:13 phrase is not to be taken with the same meaning as the same phrase in the MT of Psalm 22:16(17) and the Midrash sees the phrase as a verb phrase meaning to mark with magical symbols as follows: "Perceiving this [difficulty of the translation 'like a lion' in the context], the Masora on Isa xxxviii. 13 observes, that k'ari in the two passages in which it occurs (Ps. xxii. 17, Isa. xxxviii. 13), occurs in two different meanings, just as the Midrash then also understands k'ri in the Psalm as a verb used of marking with conjuring, magic characters." [EN:80] The Jewish testimony on this verse is not at all united and in fact the MT stands ALONE in the textual witnesses for the "like a lion" reading, and there are even MT witnesses with the "they have pierced" reading. And, as will be discussed further below, the DSS supports the "they have pierced" reading. What Christian went in and corrupted those all those texts? [EN:81]
KOCHAV: Also, this phrase does not appear in the NT. So at that time it had not YET a Christological meaning.
MY RESPONSE: Please see my response to "ME" above. That is a shallow understanding of the NT and Christian understanding of "fulfillment" in general. Is Kochav really trying to claim that any passage which is not quoted in the NT as Messianic but claimed now as Messianic, was absolutely not Messianic then? What rule necessitates that? Especially considering [and see the beginning of this work] that the Christian understandings are not thoroughly new and novel ideas, but within the Judaism[s] of the day. [EN:82]
KOCHAV: S'vavuni, klavim: adat m'ra'im hikifuni; k'ari, yadai v'raglai. Which translates as, For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have enclosed me; like a lion [k'ari], [they are at] my hands and my feet. There are many occurrences in the Hebrew Bible of "ari" by itself and with other prepositions, all of them correctly translated by Christian translators. Ps 22:17 is the only exception, because it is the only occurrence that has Christological significance.
MY RESPONSE: Kochav is simply repeating the erroneous assumption that the KJV translators only had ONE textual witness, that being "ari" and decided OUT OF THE BLUE to just translate it wrong because it was so important to them that this verse say "they have pierced." The funny thing is that Kochav has just eliminated the over-riding motive for such an act. The verse is not explicitly quoted in the NT so where in the world did they even get the idea to put "they have pierced" there. The honor of the NT is not at stake. And I would love to see Kochav's historical research as to exactly when this verse became to have Christological significance (which is baloney as I said above). The only words pulled out of thin air here are "they are at" as in "like a lion they are at my hand and my feet" ala JPS 1917 edition. And for the record, the Hebrew Publishing Company in their interlinear version translated this verse "they have pierced." [EN:83] And as further evidence of the uncertainty and need to add multiple words to force this fragment make sense is the lack of uniformity in the Jewish translations of this verse: "they have bound" [Aquila] "they have marked" [Midrash] "like a lion they maul' [Rashi] "they seize" [Midrash Rabbah] "my hands and my feet are strong like a lion" [Malbim, not verified with original source] etc. [EN:84]
KOCHAV: King David, who the psalm is actually about and is also the author, consistently uses the animal metaphor to describe his enemies. Note that in Vss 13 and 14 he refers to them as bulls and lions. In Vs 21 he calls the enemy a dog, and in 22, again, a lion. So changing this in the word karu makes no sense at all.
MY RESPONSE: Most of this was dealt with in MY RESPONSE to "ME" above. And again, I will repeat for emphasis, it is the word "k'ari" that makes not sense at all which must be emended to the prior verse or have a whole sentence fragment added to it to make it make sense. And Kochav is just not making sense by saying that just because David uses animal metaphors that would automatically make "they have pierced" nonsensical. Can't people who are personified as acting like animals pierce hands and feet? Certainly, even if it is "like a lion," these animal-like people are still doing pretty much the same thing.... Just the word "pierced" would not be explicitly there. And this is shown in Rashi's rendering "Like a lion they [maul] my hands and feet." [EN:85] And again, this is what is so ironic about this discussion. The word "pierced" there is not even that crucial to Christians!! If the reading were "like a lion" it still describes lion-like injury to the hands and to the feet. It is the "hands and feet" part that are the important part of the verse! All that changing to lions would do is have the people who are cutting into the hands and feet described as doing so with long teeth of lions. There is absolutely no damage to the Christological significance and thus no MOTIVATION to go through all this trouble to change a verse. If Kochav was not so serious, this would be laughable. And to follow Kochav's logic, any other metaphor in this Psalm, such as the sword mentioned in verse 20 are nonsensical, surely David did not mean sword, he is bound to only use animal metaphors, he must have meant snake or something. In fact out of 31 verses, there are seven "animal" words in five verses. I could just as easily say that since there are just as many allusions to the effects of crucifixion that would prove my case.
KOCHAV: Now about the DSS you mention: As far as "karu", the root verb is "karah", "kaf", "resh", "heh". Now, So, even if one were to change the "yod" to a "vav", to make it "k'aroo", there is still the "aleph", which would be part of the alleged root verb of this word that doesn't even exist in the Hebrew language. And even without the aleph, the word karu doesn't mean to pierce, it just means to dig.
MY RESPONSE: First of all, I already spoke about the root meaning "to dig" above in responding to Kochav. And Kochav is making the standard argument that this word would not exist if the aleph were present. Since this really ties in to his next statements, I will deal with it next.
KOCHAV: A friend of mine, who studies the DSS scrolls and is in close contact with other DSS scholars says following about this: 1. The verb there [in the DSS] (in root form) would be KRH, which does not mean to pierce. 2. His association of k'rw as being a verb, ignores simple Hebrew grammar. The aleph as second letter, is not there in any form of Hebrew conjugation. (This is well known to anyone with familiarity with Hebrew).
MY RESPONSE: Kochav's comments are very surprising. The root is used in words meaning "pierce" so he is just incorrect. Plus, again, "pierce" is perfectly within the semantical range of meanings. Kochav in point 2 is referring to Glenn Miller, so I just have to let Glenn respond for himself as follows: "There is an entire root form system called ‘II Aleph,' in which the aleph is the second radical in the verb (sometimes also called ‘II gutterals'). It contains words like ‘to ask' (sh'l) and ‘to redeem' (g'l) and ‘to pine' (d'b)... anyone with ‘familiarity with Hebrew' should know this!" [EN:86] Also, from Dr. James D. Price [Proph-repsonse.txt at www.primenet.com] noted "Sigal [an anti-missionary author] gave the impression that the presence of the Aleph in the word "ka'aru" prevented it from being derived from a Hebrew root which has no Aleph. But the words "ka'aru" and "karu" being variant forms of the same verb (as explained by the lexicographers) is demonstrated by the following Hebrew words that have the same kind of middle Aleph and the same kind of relationship:
These examples are sufficient to demonstrate that a middle Aleph frequently occurs in words and forms derived from middle Waw verbs as in this passage. His argument is convincing only to those who know little or nothing about Hebrew." [EN:87] And from Gleason Archer: "the ["extra"] aleph probably represents a mere vowel lengthener that occasionally appears in the Hasmonean manuscripts such as 1Qisa and the sectarian literature of the second century BC." [EN:88] And Miller notes that "the intrusion of the aleph is common and understood by the ancients." [EN:89] And Mitchell Dahood notes examples of intruding alephs as well, specifically Pr. 24:7 r'mwt for rmwt. [EN:90]
KOCHAV: This, like Eisenman's pierced messiah text (which I spoke to him personally a few years ago and heard him retract and deny the whole thing) will be shot down in the scholarly world in a short time. (This will take longer since it is really not a 'popular' issue, but one dealing with text families and seeing how many confirm readings in the LXX/GB.)
MY RESPONSE: Kochav does not have to wait for that theory to be shot down, it already has. [EN:91] Implicit in that statement is that most scholarly or knowledgeable Christians gobbled up Eisenman's ideas to their shame which is just not true. That is why I was surprised when Joseph earlier was naming him as a completely credible source.
KOCHAV: While on the other hand, anyone who has done any reading of the original scrolls from microfilm (as I have done) is well aware that the quality of the scribes is poor, and there are constant examples of elongated yuds, that look like a vov. It looks like Peter was trying to find a support for an LXX/GB reading, but to do so has had to ignore simple Hebrew grammar (or assume a virtually impossible scribal error) and ignore a simple common scribal error. (BTW I have discussed this issue with one of the top DSS scholars, Larry Schiffman, and have in writing that what I have written above is correct. We have together looked at these texts in the original, and have the same conclusion.)
MY RESPONSE: First, shh... don't tell "ME" about poor scribal quality... he will then be expecting endless marginal notes. I have spoken with Peter Flint about the issues that Kochav is raising here and Peter freely states that in certain scrolls found there is a certain sloppiness between yuds and vovs. However, in the scroll which contained Psalm 22, the handwriting is remarkably clear and the reading is clear "they have pierced." There is no question that this is not a case of a handwriting problem. This yod-waw confusion was extremely prevalent in 11Q which Schiffman and Tov notes as a problem, and from what I understand some other areas/scrolls also had this confusion. [and Joseph has kindly pointed out that this Psalm find in from Nahor and slightly younger.] However, this scroll was not found in 11Q and according to Peter Flint is a clear waw. [EN:92] And Kochav's allusion to a virtually impossible scribal error is referring to the extra "aleph" which has already been explained above. And Kochav mentions a "simple scribal error" which Christians have ignored, but you see, if it were a scribal error [and I do think that it was, but in the other direction.... from "they have pierced" to "like a lion" which I will support more further below in responding more to Joseph] then there is no dramatic accusation to be made of deceitful Christian tampering. And Kochav mentions that Flint was perhaps trying to find support for a LXX reading but does not mention that the "they have pierced" reading is even found within the MT text family both with and without that extra aleph that Kochav is explaining as a nearly impossible scribal error. [EN:93] So nearly impossible that it appears centuries later in multiple MT manuscripts?? [and not "marginally" corrected ala "ME"]
JOSEPH [PICKING UP WHERE HE LEFT OFF BEFORE, BUT NOW ON TO THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT PSALM 22:16]: Based on my knowledge and personal experience with the translation process (I am fluent in 4 languages, and have a "working knowledge" of 3 more), I would posit that category (a) is likely to have the lion's share [my comment: that is pretty good!! the lion's share... how apropos!] of the total, while category (b), if populated, is likely to have the smaller amount. So, let us focus on category (b), and a good place to start looking for ‘candidates' is the collection of the standard Christian ‘proof texts'. Before I do this, however, I'll take a close look at Ps 22:16[17]. The term being disputed here is the Hebrew word "ka'ari", the correct translation of which is ‘like a lion'; the KJV has ‘they pierced'. This identical term occurs 4 times in the Hebrew Bible, and there is one additional occurrence of this term with an additional preposition, "v'cha'ari" (‘and like a lion'). Here is how the KJV renders it in the remaining 4 occurrences.
JOSEPH: Num 24:9, Is 38:13 - "ka'ari" - ‘as a lion' (Correctly rendered as a comparative noun) Ezek 22:25 - "ka'ari" - ‘like a [roaring] lion' (Correctly rendered as a comparative noun) Num 23:24 - "v'cha'ari" - ‘and as a [young] lion' (Correctly rendered as a comparative noun)
JOSEPH: Thus, with the KJV rendering "ka'ari" in Ps 22:16[17] as ‘pierced' - a verb conjugated in the 3rd-person, plural, past tense, yet in the other 4 instances, as noted above, as a noun, the hypothesis to be tested here would be: THE KJV TRANSLATION AT PS 22:16[17] IS BIASED DUE TO THE CHRISTOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS VERSE (AND PSALM).
MY RESPONSE: Again, Joseph is blatantly assuming what he needs to prove and that is that the KJV translators mistranslate Ka'ari, and not following an alternative text which reads Ka'aru.... So all of his other cites of places where "ka'ari" appears is irrelevant. I admit up front that "they have pierced" is not a valid rendering for "ka'ari." But that has never been my contention. The KJV translators followed an alternate reading for which "they have pierced" is that correct translation, so Joseph missed the whole point here and set up a straw man and knocked it down. And now just one more minor side issue thrown out there by Joseph in another thread and I will wrap up this Psalm 22 thing....
JOSEPH: It is unfortunate that some people are offended by the use of this term [Yeshu] , something that is likely due to the use of misrepresentation. I and other Jewish people are offended by the way that Christian translators have tampered with Hebrew text of the Hebrew Bible through their mistranslations. I am also offended by the (baseless) implications of Christians that Judaism is a flawed faith without the belief in Jesus. I don't see anyone desisting from the use of such mistranslated passages nor from claiming that Judaism is defective just because I am offended by them.
MY RESPONSE: I am offended by your totally baseless claim of deliberate and deceitful tampering as I have demonstrated above is without merit. I am not even getting into the "Yeshu" issue as I am totally without knowledge on it, but it is rather childish to say that your justification for using it even though it offends people is because you are behaving in a "tit for tat" manner. In matters of offense, one should weigh the importance of both positions, and see if the offense is worth the point. I could tell someone that "they are ugly and their mother dresses them funny" which may very well be true, but so what? My truth-claim is not worth the potential offense. As far as saying that Jesus is the only means of salvation, yes, that may offend you. But the importance of the truth-claim is certainly worth the offense that it may cause. You may feel the same about your use of a word that others find offensive, but you should weight the cost, not look to "get even."
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: Now to tie up some loose ends on the Psalm 22 issue... what is the summary [in bullet points] of the reasons that I am convinced that there is in fact an alternate reading to the standardized MT and why that alternate reading is the correct one. First what are the criteria to help us determine this issue... well they would include finding out what reading is the oldest, what reading is the most consistent with all of the textual evidence, and what reading helps us account best for the other readings. [EN:94] Also, it should be noted here that none of us have an over-riding theological concern here that would dismiss the above criteria out of hand. For example, if this verse were quoted in the NT, then I would not care what the above criteria said, it would be a settled issue for me just based on that [that is my bias]. And for the others, if this verse was the one verse upon which the Messiahship of Jesus either stood or fell, then that would settle it for them, no matter what the above criteria held. But neither of these situations applies here. If it is "like a lion" the Messianic application still holds, though admittedly, the "they have pierced" reading is "better." And if the "they have pierced" reading is true, Joseph, Len and Kochav can still deny that it has application to Jesus as they have been, though admittedly, the "like a lion" reading is easier to explain. So we should be able to objectively agree to the above criteria [at a minimum] since we can look at this issue without our inherent biases. This is not a "must win" battle for any of us on purely theological grounds. And if Joseph, Len, and Kochav cannot agree that the "they have pierced" reading is correct, I have certainly demonstrated that there was no deceitful Christian tampering here which really was my only goal.
· The "like a lion" reading is nonsensical and one must creatively supply a verb from the context or redivide the verse (ex. the Targum adds the verb "gnaw")· There is MT manuscript evidence against it both with and without the so-called extra aleph (in fact there are more with the extra aleph than without it!) · Aquila in his first edition did not have the "like a lion" reading but rendered the word "ashamed" which is easily understood by a misreading of the "they have pierced" reading (ka'wr versus ka'rw)· Aquila in his second edition follows Symmachus and Jerome finding the verb "they have tied" in that place · The LXX and the Syriac both have the "they have pierced" readings (and both are earlier than the MT) with the Syriac normally agreeing with the MT against the LXX in the places where they differ · The "like a lion" usage would be rare form used nowhere else in the Psalms and least used in the rest of the OT · Rabbinic authority recognizes that the Psalm 22:16(17) "like a lion" passage is "different" than the Isaiah 38 "like a lion" passage · The Midrash sees the passage as a verb meaning "marking hands and feet with symbols" · The one appearance of this verse at Qumran has the "they have pierced" reading · The "they have pierced" reading can most easily explain the alternate readings which also see a verb in this place
***see G. Miller's article for greater elucidation [EN:95] Also, Gesenius noted that all ancient interpreters saw a verb in this spot and that it may be a participle formed in the Aramaic manner and rendered "piercing, my hands and my feet." [EN:96]
MY RESPONSE CONT'D: And in conclusion here also are some interesting tidbits. Christians are not unique in seeing Messianic application in this verse, Jewish commentators have as well, as follows:
". . . the Holy One, blessed be He, contemplated the Messiah and his works before the world was created, and under His throne of glory put away His Messiah until the time of the generation in which he will appear. Satan asked the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the universe, for whom is the light which is put away under Thy throne of glory? God replied: Come and see him. And when he saw him Satan was shaken, and he fell upon his face and said: Surely, this is the Messiah who will cause me and all the counterparts in heaven of the princes of the nations to be swallowed up in Gehenna. . . . In that hour all princely counterparts of the nations . . .will say to him: Master of the universe, who is this through whose power we are to be swallowed up? What is his name? What kind of a being is he? . . . [At the time of the Messiah's creation], the Holy One, blessed be He, will tell him in detail what will befall him: There are souls that have been put away with thee under My throne, and it is their sins which will bend thee down under a yoke of iron and make thee like a calf whose eyes grow dim with suffering, and will choke thy spirit as with a yoke; because of the sins of these souls thy tongue will cleave to the roof of thy mouth. Art thou willing to endure such things? The Messiah will ask the Holy One, blessed be He: Will my suffering last many years? The Holy One, blessed be He, will reply: . . . it is a period of seven years which I have decreed for thee. But if thy soul is sad at the prospect of suffering, I shall at this moment banish these sinful souls. The Messiah will say: Master of the universe, with joy in my soul and gladness in my heart I take this suffering upon myself, provided that not one person in Israel perish . . . At these words the Holy One, blessed be He, will appoint for the Messiah the four creatures who will carry the Messiah's throne of glory. (footnote: The Messiah is thus given an earthly counterpart of God's chariot. See Ezek. 1) During the seven year period preceding the coming of the son of David, iron beams will be brought and loaded upon his neck until the Messiah's body is bent low. Then he will cry and weep, and his voice will rise up to the very height of heaven, and he will say to God: Master of the universe, how much can my strength endure . . .It was because of this ordeal of the son of David that David wept, saying My strength is dried up like a potsherd (Ps. 22:16). During the ordeal of the son of David, the Holy One, blessed be he will say to him: Ephraim, my true Messiah, long ago, ever since the six days of creation, thou didst take this ordeal upon thyself. At this moment, thy pain is My pain . . . At these words, the Messiah will reply: Now I am reconciled. The servant is content to be like his Master. [EN:97]
Also, on Psalm 22:7, a comment in Yalkut on Isa. 60 applies this passage to Messiah ben Ephraim and almost quotes the exact words that the NT uses to describe the mocking that Jesus endured on the Cross. And Ps. 22:15 there is a similar application to the Messiah in the Yakult. [EN:98]
Now, this parting recommendation may not be entirely fair in light of the tremendous volume of information imparted above (but which was necessary to even summarily answer Joseph et al's publicly posted objections) but I suggest that we now deal with one sub-point at a time so that the discussion can continue on the Forum board and so that each issue can either be resolved or not before moving on to the next one. I realize that this really was basically ONE major issue, but if there are additional arguments to be made, let's keep it to one sub-issue at a time in this major issue. Remember all that I set out to prove is that there was no deceitful Christian alteration of the Scriptures in Psalm 22:16[17]. I am not naïve enough to claim totally clean hands for either side throughout two thousand years but I do not think that there is widespread alteration/mistranslation etc. And Joseph has not proven even ONE case.
Hope this helps :)
[EN: 1] Tekton Apologetics Ministry http://www.tektonics.org; Unraveling Wittgenstein's Net: A Christian Think Tank http://www.christian-thinktank.com/; Chazak! http://www.messianicart.com/frame.htm; Jews for Jesus http://www.jewsforjesus.org/; Michael Brown Answering Jewish Objections [Vol. I and II] Baker Books 2000; James Trimm Let's Get Truthful tape series, SANJ 1999; (please note that I will attempt to give credit for persons/sources/web sites from whom inspiration has been drawn; however, I have some printed out information which have no source markings or identification and there are things that I have just assimilated mentally without remembrance of the original source and also citations are not multiplied when just one will do). Go Back
[EN: 2] L. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls p. 222 and chapter on "Pesher" (though I originally viewed the hard-cover version which is now out of print, a paperback version is available from Doubleday 1995). Go Back
[EN: 3] G. Miller Did the Messianic Jewish Believers Use the OT Deceitfully or Ignorantly in the New Testament http://www.webcom.com/ctt/baduseot.html; G. Miller Messianic Expectations in 1rst Century Judaism http://www.webcom.com/ctt/messiah.html Go Back
[EN: 4] M. Eisenman and Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered p. 77 (though I reviewed the hard-cover version, a paperback version is available from Penguin Books 1993) Go Back
[EN: 5] J. Trimm Let's Get Truthful tape series, SANJ 1999 referring to 11Q13 (Wise, Abegg and Cook translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls) Go Back
[EN: 6] J. Trimm Let's Get Truthful tape series, SANJ 1999; R. Santala The Messiah in the Old Testament in the Light of Rabbinical Writings www.kolumbus.fi/hjussila/rsla/OT/OT04.html Go Back
[EN: 7] R. Santala The Messiah in the Old Testament in the Light of Rabbinical Writings www.kolumbus.fi/hjussila/rsla/OT/OT04.html citing Berakoth 34b. Go Back
[EN: 8] G. Miller Typology - - A Legitimate Approach to OT Passagess? http://www.christian-thinktank.com/typol.html; G. Miller Messianic Expectations in 1rst Century Judaism http://www.webcom.com/ctt/messiah.html; R. Santala The Messiah in the Old Testament in Light of Rabbinical Writings: Choosing the Appropriate Method of Study http://www.kolumbus.fi/hjussila/rsla/OT/OT05.html Go Back
[EN: 9] R. Santala The Messiah in the Old Testament in Light of Rabbinical Writings: Psalm 22 as the Interpreter of the Suffering Messiah http://www.kolumbus.fi.hjussila/rsla/OT/OT15.html; and many more could be provided. Go Back
[EN: 10] G. Miller Did the Messianic Jewish Believers Use the OT Deceitfully or Ignorantly in the New Testament http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html#lxx; G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html Go Back
[EN: 11] G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html citing E. Tov Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible Fortress 1992 p.11 Go Back
[EN: 12] G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html citing E. Tov in, Martin Jan Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Fortress 1990 pp. 162-163 Go Back
[EN: 13] J. Trimm Let's Get Truthful tape series, SANJ 1999, referring to pages 72 and 74 of E. Brockman's (sp?) work Go Back
[EN: 14] E-mail with G. Miller 11/14/00 Go Back
[EN: 15] G. Miller personal information http://www.christian-thinktank.com/webbio.html; telephone conversation with Registrar's Office of the Dallas Theological Seminary, October 2000 Go Back
[EN: 16] www.christian-thinktank.com Go Back
[EN: 17] G. Miller Response to... ‘The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah' Part II: The Isaiah 7:14 Passage http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html; G. Miller A Question on My Work on Isaiah 7:14 http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rberry1.html; G. Miller Is the Tense of the Verb in Is. 7:14 Really PRESENT, Instead of FUTURE? http://www.christian-thinktank.com/is714tense.html Go Back
[EN: 18] G. Miller Reference Abbreviations http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html Go Back
[EN: 19] G. Miller Re: The Septuagint http://www.webcom.com/ctt/alxx.html Go Back
[EN: 20] G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html Go Back
[EN: 21] G. Miller Did the Messianic Jewish Believers Use the OT Deceitfully or Ignorantly in the New Testament http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html#lxx citing E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research 2nd Edition p. 188 Go Back
[EN: 22] G. Miller Did the Messianic Jewish Believers Use the OT Deceitfully or Ignorantly in the New Testament http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html#lxx; G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html Go Back
[EN: 23] Outreach Judaism http://www.outreachjudaism.org "Questions and Answers" in answering questions about the Septuagint and the virgin birth Go Back
[EN: 24] G. Miller Did the Messianic Jewish Believers Use the OT Deceitfully or Ignorantly in the New Testament http://www.webcom.com/ctt/baduseot.html; DA Carson and H.G.M. Williamson It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture p. 90 Go Back
[EN: 25] G. Miller Did the Messianic Jewish Believers Use the OT Deceitfully or Ignorantly in the New Testament http://www.webcom.com/ctt/baduseot.html citing E. Tov in, Martin Jan Mulder (ed.), Mikra:Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Fortress 1990 p. 184 Go Back
[EN: 26] Telephone conversation with P. Flint October 2000 Go Back
[EN: 27] G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html citing E. Tov Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible Fortress 1992 p.11 Go Back
[EN: 28] Preface to King James Bible Go Back
[EN: 29] New American Standard Bible Go Back
[EN: 30] G. Miller Is the Tense of the Verb in Is. 7:14 Really PRESENT, Instead of FUTURE? http://www.christian-thinktank.com/is714tense.html; J.D. Price http://answering-islam.org.uk/BibleCom/is7-14.html Go Back
[EN: 31] J. Trimm Let's Get Biblical tape series, SANJ 1999 (numerous other references could be given) Go Back
[EN: 32] G. Miller Is the Tense of the Verb in Is. 7:14 Really PRESENT, Instead of FUTURE? http://www.christian-thinktank.com/is714tense.html; H. Ginsberg Ency. Judacia:"Immanuel" p. 1294 Go Back
[EN: 33] J.D. Price http://answering-islam.org.uk/BibleCom/is7-14.html Go Back
[EN: 34] G. Miller Is the Tense of the Verb in Is. 7:14 Really PRESENT, Instead of FUTURE? http://www.christian-thinktank.com/is714tense.html citing B. Waltke and M. O'Connor An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax Eisenbrauns 1990 (32.2.5a-b); Jewish Publication Society The Holy Scriptures 1917 edition Go Back
[EN: 35] E-mail from R. Young 11/10/00 http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/LibraryLawn/richard_e_young Go Back
[EN: 36] J.D. Price http://answering-islam.org.uk/BibleCom/is7-14.html Go Back
[EN: 37] Messianic Prophecy & the New Testament Use of the Hebrew Scriptures www.jewsforjesus.org (D. Kimchi, Sefer Mikhol as cited in Waltke, Bruce K. and O'Connor An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax p. 464 with further reference to L. Mcall The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Present p. 8) Go Back
[EN: 38] Messianic Prophecy & the New Testament Use of the Hebrew Scriptures www.jewsforjesus.org (M. Saperstein The Works of R. Isaac b. Yediah PhD dissertation Harvard University 1977 pp. 481-482 cited in R. Chazan Daggers of Faith p, 87) Go Back
[EN: 39] Messianic Prophecy & the New Testament Use of the Hebrew Scriptures www.jewsforjesus.org Go Back
[EN: 40] G. Miller Is the Tense of the Verb in Is. 7:14 Really PRESENT, Instead of FUTURE?http://www.webcom.com/ctt/is714tense.html; H. Ginsberg Ency. Judacia:"Immanuel" p. 1294; B. Waltke and M. O'Connor An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax Eisenbrauns 1990 (30.5.1.e, 32.2.5a-b), J.D. Price http://answering-islam.org.uk/BibleCom/is7-14.html Go Back
[EN: 41] G. Miller Is the Tense of the Verb in Is. 7:14 Really PRESENT, Instead of FUTURE? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/is714tense.htmlGo Back
[EN: 42] J. D. Price Response to Jim Lippard's ‘The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah proph-response.txt at www.primenet.comGo Back
[EN: 43] T. Singer Let's Get Biblical tape series, Outreach Judaism Go Back
[EN: 44] J. Trimm Let's Get Truthful tape series, SANJ 1999 Go Back
[EN: 45] G. Miller Response to... ‘The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah' Part II: The Isaiah 7:14 Passagehttp://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html Go Back
[EN: 46] Trimm Prince of Peace http://www.webcom.com/ctt/is714tense.html Go Back
[EN: 47] J. Trimm Prince of Peace http://www.webcom.com/ctt/is714tense.html Midrash Rabbah - Deut. 1:20 cited from http://www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat5b.htm Go Back
[EN: 48] J. Trimm Prince of Peace http://www.webcom.com/ctt/is714tense.html noted as S. Buber's note, Mid. Mishie, p. 87 cited in R. Patai The Messiah Texts p. 22 Go Back
[EN: 49] J. Trimm Prince of Peace http://www.webcom.com/ctt/is714tense.html Targum Isaiah (Stenning, TI, 32) cited in J. McDowell's New Evidence that Demands a Verdict p. 174 Go Back
[EN: 50] Yeshua: King Messiah II www.Messianicart.com/chazak.htm ; www.geocities.com/Megagetics Go Back
[EN: 51]Van der Merwe, Naude, & Kroeze A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar Workgroup for Biblical Hebrew 1997 [on Logos Reference Library Scholar's Edition]Go Back
[EN: 52]Van der Merwe, Naude, & Kroeze;A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar Workgroup for Biblical Hebrew 1997; J. Kroeze A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar Workgroup for Biblical Hebrew 1997 [both on Logos Reference Library Scholar's Edition]Go Back
[EN: 53] E-mail with R. Young 11/10/00 http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/LibraryLawn/richard_e_youngGo Back
[EN: 54] Messianic Interpretations of Isaiah 53 http://www.jewsforjesus.com/believe/mp/isa53rab.htm Go Back
[EN: 55] H. Lugt Questions Skeptics Ask About Messianic Prophecy www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q1208/q1208.htmlGo Back
[EN: 56] E.B. Pusey The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters www.messianicart.com/messiah/fifty.htm; Isaiah 53: Examined Verse by Verse www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/shul53-4.htm Go Back
[EN: 57] E.B. Pusey The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters www.messianicart.com/messiah/fifty.htm; Isaiah 53: Examined Verse by Verse www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/shul53-4.htm Go Back
[EN: 58] upcoming work - M. Brown Answering Jewish Objections: Volume III as yet unpublished Go Back
[EN: 59] H. Lugt Questions Skeptics Ask About Messianic Prophecy www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q1208/q1208.html Go Back
[EN: 60] E.B. Pusey The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters www.messianicart.com/messiah/fifty.htm Go Back
[EN: 61] Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-Lexicon the Old Testament Houghton, Mifflin and Company 1906 Go Back
[EN: 62] R. Rhodes Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses Harvest House 1993 pp. 137-139 citing Jamieson, Fausset and Brown p. 600 Go Back
[EN: 63] J. Trimm Let's Get Truthful tape series SANJ 1999 citing T. Singer's Let's Get Biblical tape series Outreach Judaism Go Back
[EN: 64] J. Trimm Let's Get Truthful tape series SANJ 1999 Go Back
[EN: 65] E-mail with Richard E. Young dated 11/10/00 http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/LibraryLawn/richard_e_young citing Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary on the Bible Go Back
[EN: 66] Conversation with local messianic leader October 2000 who is knowledgeable in Hebrew, referral by Jews for Jesus Go Back
[EN: 67] Jewish Interpretations of ‘Bar' as ‘Son' in Psalm 2:12 www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/ps2brson.htm citing J. Sarachek The Doctrine of the Messiah in Medieval Jewish Literature Hermon Press 1968 p. 121 Go Back
[EN: 68] Jewish Interpretations of ‘Bar' as ‘Son' in Psalm 2:12 www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/ps2brson.htm citing J.J.S. Perowne The Book of Psalms: A New Translation with Introductions and Notes Explanatory and Critical Zondervan 1975 pp. 119-120 Go Back
[EN: 69] Jewish Interpretations of ‘Bar' as ‘Son' in Psalm 2:12 www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/ps2brson.htm citing I. Lesser Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures Carefully Translated After the Best Jewish Authorities Hebrew Publishing Company Go Back
[EN: 70] Jewish Interpretations of ‘Bar' as ‘Son' in Psalm 2:12 www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/ps2brson.htm citing Willem A. VanGermeren, Professor of Old Testament and Chairman of O.T. Studies, Reformed Theological Seminary noted in The Expositor's Bible Commentary ed. F.E. Gaebelein, Zondervan 1991 vol. 5 p. 72 Go Back
[EN: 71] Jewish Interpretations of ‘Bar' as ‘Son' in Psalm 2:12 www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/ps2brson.htmGo Back
[EN: 72] G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html Go Back
[EN: 73] G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html Go Back
[EN: 74] G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html Go Back
[EN: 75] G. Archer Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties Zondervan 1982 p. 37 Go Back
[EN: 76] E-mail from J. Trimm October 2000 Go Back
[EN: 77] G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html; J. Trimm Let's Get Truthful tape series SANJ 1999 Go Back
[EN: 78] J. Trimm Let's Get Truthful tape series SANJ 1999 Go Back
[EN: 79] E-mail with Talmid Ben dated 11/29/00 citing M. Dahood The Anchor Bible Psalms 1-50 Doubleday 1966 pp.137, 141 Go Back
[EN: 80] G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html citing Keil and Delitzch Commentary on the Old Testament Go Back
[EN: 81] G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html; J. Trimm Let's Get Truthful tape series SANJ 1999 Go Back
[EN: 82] G. Miller Did the Messianic Jewish Believers Use the OT Deceitfully or Ignorantly in the New Testament http://www.webcom.com/ctt/baduseot.html; G. Miller Messianic Expectations in 1rst Century Judaism http://www.webcom.com/ctt/messiah.html Go Back
[EN: 83] J. Trimm Let's Get Truthful tape series SANJ 1999 Go Back
[EN: 84] E-mail with Talmid Ben dated 11/29/00 Go Back
[EN: 85] E-mail with Talmid Ben dated 11/29/00 Go Back
[EN: 86] E-mail with G. Miller 11/14/00 Go Back
[EN: 87] J. D. Price Response to Jim Lippard's ‘The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah proph-response.txt at www.primenet.com Go Back
[EN: 88] G. Archer The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties Zondervan 1982 p. 37 Go Back
[EN: 89] G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html Go Back
[EN: 90] E-mail with Talmid Ben dated 11/29/00 citing M. Dahood The Anchor Bible Psalms 1-50 Doubleday 1966 pp.137, 141 Go Back
[EN: 91] G. Miller How Well-Respected are the Theories of Eisenman, Allegro, Thiering, Baigent and Lee Concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls? http://www.christian-thinktank.com/iceman.html; J.P. Holding Book Review: Robert Eisenman's ‘James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secret of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls' http://www.tektonics.org/RE.JBJ_0670869325.htm; F. DeAngelis A Review of ‘The Daughter of Babylon: The True History of the Worldwide Church of God http://www.tektonics.org/FDA_DAB.html Go Back
[EN: 92]Telephone conversation with P. Flint October 2000 Go Back
[EN: 93] J. Trimm Let's Get Truthful tape series SANJ 1999; G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html Go Back
[EN: 94] G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html Go Back
[EN: 95] G. Miller Did the Christians Simply Invent the ‘they pierced my hands and my feet' Passage in Psalm 22? http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ps22cheat.html Go Back
[EN: 96] E-mail from R. Young 11/10/00 http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/LibraryLawn/richard_e_young citing Barnes' Notes Go Back
[EN: 97] Pesikta Rabbati, Piska 36 Yale University Press edition pp 677-681 Go Back
[EN: 98] A. Edersheim The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah Longmans, Green, and Co. 1910 Appendix IX Go Back
Back to The PreteristSite Home Page