View Single Post
  #9  
Old 01-08-2009, 01:39 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tmonk
Yes the KJV translators did use it as a word reference given the odd nature of the Hebrew language. Also they used the OT of the Latin as a comparison.
And the Peshitta Syriac was also available, although sometimes that might have the same ambiguity as the Hebrew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tmonk
The pierce or lion argument is somewhat complicated. The entire debate is whether the Hebrew reads k'aru (pierced) or k'ari (like a lion). The difference between the Yud and Vev are small but the DSS has kaaru which seems to agree with the LXX and Syriac and also the Latin.
While that is essentially true, it can be contested a smidgen in various ways.

Note: The Hebrew 'like a lion' reading also suffers from severe grammatical difficulties, often hand-waved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tmonk
So obviously have a Jewish misinterpretation of the verse to deny Christ.
This is a bit quick to judge the motives on a very difficult very minor (in terms of the physical text) squiggle type of variant. There is in fact Midrash and other Jewish support (I'll try to post or link on that tonight) after the 1st century, for the true verbal reading. And there was a minority reading in the Masorestic Text that was in fact the true reading (similar to Joshua 21:36-37 or what we have in the Johannine Comma situations, excellent and powerful auxiliary support, internal and external). And as the Targum appears to be support for the corrupted reading, we have to allow that it may have occurred more accidentally than deliberately, at least originally. While there are some indications that the Jewish view later circled the horses around 'like a lion' (perhaps a bit after 1000 AD and especially in the nouveau anti-mish after 1980 that ignores their own historical writings). btw .. Even the issues around the Ben Hayim Hebrew can be a bit unclear, which is an element I would like to check and if necessary unravel.

Basically everything you wrote is true and well-informed, Tmonk, however the Midrash and minority Masoretic reading and other Hebraic support were not made fully clear (also the grammatical difficulty).

Also we could give a more definitive run-through of the ancient versions, I remember that Emanuel Tov gave good weight to Aquila's Greek OT supporting the verbal reading in his defending the Flint-Abegg DSS translation (in the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible).

btw, I think Tandi's friend actually knows or knew most all of this, but has somehow conveniently forgotten the evidences in trying to 'justify' moving away from Bible faith.

Shalom,
Steven

Last edited by Steven Avery; 01-08-2009 at 01:44 PM.