Why use the Masoretic Text over the Vulgate (and Septuagint)?

[patrick457]

A little digression about Septuagint Isaiah. The common charge labelled against the translator of Greek Isaiah points to the numerous passages where the translator had apparently failed to understand the Hebrew text and where the Greek appears to be solecistic and unintelligible, the inference being that the translator is incompetent. This however is an unfair judgment, and does not take into account other passages where the translator shows his skill.

Take for example the first half of chapter 43. Here the translator apparently has no trouble understanding the Hebrew text and producing a moderately literal translation of it into simple, faultless Greek, with some quaintness of style which betrays its Semitic background. Admittedly, the Hebrew of this passage is not too difficult. It is in passages with uncommon words that the translator seems to lose his bearings. To give another example, 28:20, which in the Hebrew version says: “For the bed is [too] short for stretching, and the covering [too] narrow for gathering oneself.” The words for “bed” (maṣṣā‘, a hapax legomenon which appears nowhere else in the Bible) and “stretching” (mēhiśətārē‘a, a rare word, which only appears - as śārû‘a “overgrown” - in two other instances: Leviticus 21:18; 22:13) apparently stumped the translator, who came up with the following: “We are in straits and unable to fight, and we ourselves are too weak to be mobilized.” (We moderns are no better than the translator in this regard, since the meaning of many passages in the Hebrew Isaiah are still unclear.)

All in all, his translation style is very uneven: in some passages he seems to follow a slavishly literal approach, but on the whole, the translator seems to have felt free to vary his vocabulary and restructure the syntax if it served his purposes. That sense of freedom allowed him at times to go off on tangents that have little connection with the Hebrew. Occasionally, in fact, the translation gives out a meaning patently contrary to that of the original. (cf. 8:14 “He will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel,” which is rendered as “If you trust in him, he will become your holy precinct, and you will not encounter him as a stumbling caused by a stone nor as a fall caused by a rock…”) What may have been going on in his mind is an intriguing question, but it would be wrong to assume that he was unconcerned about being faithful to the text. There is no doubt that he struggled to make sense of difficult passages, and that even when he seems to go beyond the text, he is sensitive to the thrust of the book as a whole and seeks to come up with teachings that are up-building (again note 8:14 and the addition of the clause “if you trust in him,” which links this verse with a recurring theme in the book).

All of this means that we cannot easily describe lexical and grammatical patterns in the translator’s handling of the Hebrew. Some can be identified, but the exceptions to those patterns are significant, and they prevent us from making many valid generalizations. The translator follows some of the established lexical equations of the Greek Pentateuch (such as translating bərîṯ “covenant” as diathēkē). For Hebrew Šʾôl he normally uses Haidēs (“Hades”), but in 28:15 the translator uses thanatos, “death.” Another peculiar quirk of the translator is to render the Hebrew perfect tense (which can have various temporal references) with the Greek aorist (a simple past tense). Although the choice is appropriate when the context clearly indicates a past action or a gnomic idea (1:3 “The ox knew =knows] its owner”), his overuse lends a distinct and odd quality to his translation.

 

[Dolezal]

To give another example, 28:20, which in the Hebrew version says: “For the bed is [too] short for stretching, and the covering [too] narrow for gathering oneself.”

What are you referring to by the “original” and the “Hebrew version”? For example, the Qumran Isaiah does not have here the word “narrow”, but the Masoretic does.

For Hebrew Šʾôl he normally uses Haidēs (“Hades”), but in 28:15 the translator uses thanatos, “death.”

Septuagint: Because you have said, “We have made a covenant with Hades and agreements with death.”

Qumran: Because you say we have cut a covenant with death and with Sheol we have made a vision.

So did the translator replace death with Hades and vice versa? The Clementine Vulgate agrees with the Greek translation. But with 28:20, the Clementine text is more or less in between the Masoretic and the Qumran (it says short covering instead of short bed). So what is more likely, that St. Jerome (if that is his translation in the Clementine) used the Septuagint for 28:15 and a Hebrew text for 28:20, or that the Jerome and the Septuagint translator both used a similar Hebrew text for 28:15?

Rather than ‘changed’ I think it would be more accurate to say that ‘they chose a different interpretation of the prophecy.’

How would it be more accurate to say that “they chose a different interpretation”? That would imply that there was a different interpretation to chose from, but that leads to a contradiction with the statement that “[t]here is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin.”

PS: I am just a layman with very limited knowledge of this subject, so my question are really questions and not statements.

 

[chosen_people]

Whether the virgin in the prophecy will remain a virgin is an exegetical question - that, I think, Origen answers. But my question whether we should read virgin does not seem an exegetical question because the Greek translates the Hebrew word universally as virgin. (I may be wrong, but I’ve searched for the Hebrew word here and some other sites and compared it with the Greek translation on New Advent.)

It would be interesting if the Hebrew word was ever translated differently by Jews before Christ, but the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon says that “[t]here is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin.”

So, in light of this, would you not agree that the Jews changed their interpretation the Hebrew word? (In reaction to Christian claims, it seems, from the arguments of Origen, Justin and Irenaeus.) Does it not follow, then, that modern translations are inconsistent?

I don’t think we can know how St. Matthew was informed of the virgin birth, but as Catholics we are convinced that his account is inspired and free from error (at least in its message, with which all manuscripts agree). So the idea of the virgin birth of Christ cannot have originated from St. Matthews’ reading of Isaiah.

On the contrary. The Hebrew word for virgin is בתולה (betualah) and in every single case in the Jewish scriptures where there is a emphasis on the sexual experience of the woman in the passage, the Hebrew word for virgin (betulah) is used. So if we go to Genesis 24:16 we read “Now the maiden was very fair to look upon` a virgin (betulah) whom no man had known” or Leviticus 21:3 “…and to his virgin (betulah) sister who is close to him, who has not been wed to a man” or Leviticus 21:13 "He shall marry a woman in her virginity (betulah). Remarkably, the Christian translators of the Jewish scriptures translate the word betulah in these passages as as “virgin”. On the other hand, there is not a single case in the Jewish scriptures where the word alma (young woman) is used to denote sexual experience of the woman.

So for some reason, for what the Christians believe to be a momentous prophesy concerning a virgin birth, the word betulah is not used. You would think that given the importance of this prophesy and meaning, it would be clear and use the accepted terminology (betualh) rather than use the more obscure “young woman”.

Now of course, one explanation is that Jews (in this case and many others concerning Christian prophecies ) are simply unable to understand and grasp the meaning of their scriptures (even though any Hebrew speakers can read them in the original without the additional problems of translation). Perhaps this may be to an lack of intellectual ability of Jews or perhaps a character flaw. Another suggested possibility is that the Jews, confronted with the overwhelming evidence of Christianity, set up a special conference where they changed and obscured the wording of certain passages. So perhaps the Jews deliberately took out the word betulah and inserted the word almah in its place. However there is still the explanation that I suggested in an earlier post. That explanation suggests not changing the tense or the pronouns or the context of the text or the accepted meaning of the words like almah and to see it for what it is, a prophecy to KIng Ahaz.

 

[Zekariya]

On the contrary. The Hebrew word for virgin is בתולה (betualah) and in every single case in the Jewish scriptures where there is a emphasis on the sexual experience of the woman in the passage, the Hebrew word for virgin (betulah) is used. So if we go to Genesis 24:16 we read “Now the maiden was very fair to look upon` a virgin (betulah) whom no man had known” or Leviticus 21:3 “…and to his virgin (betulah) sister who is close to him, who has not been wed to a man” or Leviticus 21:13 "He shall marry a woman in her virginity (betulah). Remarkably, the Christian translators of the Jewish scriptures translate the word betulah in these passages as as “virgin”. On the other hand, there is not a single case in the Jewish scriptures where the word alma (young woman) is used to denote sexual experience of the woman.

So for some reason, for what the Christians believe to be a momentous prophesy concerning a virgin birth, the word betulah is not used. You would think that given the importance of this prophesy and meaning, it would be clear and use the accepted terminology (betualh) rather than use the more obscure “young woman”.

The Jews translated “alma” in that passage into the Greek as “parthenos” (virgin). The LXX was translated by the Jews before Christ was born. This is not a Christian translation error.

“Septuagint, abbreviation Lxx, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew, presumably made for the use of the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the lingua franca throughout the region. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century bc and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century bc.” - Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Source: britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/535154/Septuagint

 

[Dolezal]

So for some reason, for what the Christians believe to be a momentous prophesy concerning a virgin birth, the word betulah is not used. You would think that given the importance of this prophesy and meaning, it would be clear and use the accepted terminology (betualh) rather than use the more obscure “young woman”.

“Almah” was universally translated as “virgin” by the Jews before Christ. In all cases I have found, it describes a young women who is a virgin.

I am not concerned with the Hebrew word “bathuwlah”. In my own language (Dutch) there are six different words for virgin and two of them describe a young woman who is a virgin.

 

[chosen_people]

“Almah” was universally translated as “virgin” by the Jews before Christ. In all cases I have found, it describes a young women who is a virgin.

I am not concerned with the Hebrew word “bathuwlah”. In my own language (Dutch) there are six different words for virgin and two of them describe a young woman who is a virgin.

I’m not sure to which “translation” you are referring. The Jewish scriptures are written in Hebrew and require no translation. If you are referring to the Septuagint then, once again, the Jewish Rabbinical translation is limited to the Torah.

It makes no difference how many words the Dutch language has for the word virgin. What is relevant is how the Jewish Hebrew speaking reader would have understood and would have been meant to understand these words.

Let me give a simple example. The first word of the Torah is בראשית (bereishit) which in commonly translated in Christian bibles as “In the beginning”. Now let’s presume that Christians in addition to their belief that a god came together with a human woman in an immaculate conception which led to the birth of a god in human form (something widely related to the gods worshiped in the Mediterranean basin in the time of Jesus) that they also believed that their god came into existence with the creation of the world. Now every Jewish reader reading the Jewish scriptures sees the word בראשית bereishit as referring to when God began creating the world and not referring to God coming into existence with the creation of the world. However, a “Christian” in our example could point to the first word of the Torah and use it to show the validity of his belief that God came into existence with the creation of the world. Given the Jewish concept of the Eternal God, the Jew could never be convinced and it is impossible to conceive that the author of the first word of the Torah (whether Divine or human) in writing the Jewish scriptures, could possibly wish or expect the Jewish reader to interpret the first word of the Torah as negating the Eternal God. Similarly, the author of Isaiah could not even begin to perceive in writing to the Jewish reader that they would begin to interpret or that it was intended that they interpret his words as negating basic Jewish beliefs and that his words were meant to conform to beliefs, rejected by Judaism and connected to pagan gods at that time.

 

[patrick457]

I’m not sure to which “translation” you are referring. The Jewish scriptures are written in Hebrew and require no translation. If you are referring to the Septuagint then, once again, the Jewish Rabbinical translation is limited to the Torah.

It makes no difference how many words the Dutch language has for the word virgin. What is relevant is how the Jewish Hebrew speaking reader would have understood and would have been meant to understand these words.

Let me give a simple example. The first word of the Torah is בראשית (bereishit) which in commonly translated in Christian bibles as “In the beginning”. Now let’s presume that Christians in addition to their belief that a god came together with a human woman in an immaculate conception which led to the birth of a god in human form (something widely related to the gods worshiped in the Mediterranean basin in the time of Jesus) that they also believed that their god came into existence with the creation of the world. Now every Jewish reader reading the Jewish scriptures sees the word בראשית bereishit as referring to when God began creating the world and not referring to God coming into existence with the creation of the world. However, a “Christian” in our example could point to the first word of the Torah and use it to show the validity of his belief that God came into existence with the creation of the world. Given the Jewish concept of the Eternal God, the Jew could never be convinced and it is impossible to conceive that the author of the first word of the Torah (whether Divine or human) in writing the Jewish scriptures, could possibly wish or expect the Jewish reader to interpret the first word of the Torah as negating the Eternal God. Similarly, the author of Isaiah could not even begin to perceive in writing to the Jewish reader that they would begin to interpret or that it was intended that they interpret his words as negating basic Jewish beliefs and that his words were meant to conform to beliefs, rejected by Judaism and connected to pagan gods at that time.

What Christian are you referring to?

 

[patrick457]

What are you referring to by the “original” and the “Hebrew version”? For example, the Qumran Isaiah does not have here the word “narrow”, but the Masoretic does.

Correct. The Great Isaiah Scroll does not contain the word ṣārâ (‘narrow’). To be more specific, the differences are thus:

MT: ‏כִּֽי־קָצַ֥ר הַמַּצָּ֖ע מֵֽהִשְׂתָּרֵ֑עַ וְהַמַּסֵּכָ֥ה צָ֖רָה כְּהִתְכַּנֵּֽס׃
(kî-qāṣar hammaṣṣā‘ mēhiśətārē‘a wəhammassēḵâ ṣārâ kəhiṯəkannēs:)
1QIsa[sup]a[/sup]: כי קצר המצע מהשתריים והמסכסכה כהתכנס

These two words in the Isaiah Scroll are rather puzzling, especially מַּסֵּכָ֥ה massēḵâ (‘cover’), which appears as מסכסכה mskskh. It would seem that the scribe of the Isaiah scroll is the one at fault here: the copy he was transcribing was probably illegible at this point, which led him to write מסכסכה and to omit the following word (ṣārâr “narrow”). Part of the confusion may arise from the fact that מסכה with the sense of ‘cover’ appears only here and in Isaiah 25:7 (“And he will destroy on this mountain the face of the covering cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all the nations”); elsewhere the word appears with the connotation of ‘idol’, usually ones cast out of metal (cf. Exodus 34:17; Judges 18:17-18 for a couple of examples), which does not really fit the context here.

This particular verse, I should note, has a penchant for tripping people up. As mentioned the translator of the Septuagint Isaiah seems to have had a hard time understanding this particular verse (in this case, the reading attested in 1QIsa[sup]a[/sup] - mhstryym instead of mēhiśətārē‘a, which could be read as deriving from the root שָׂרָה śārāh ‘to struggle’ - may be the genesis of the LXX μάχεσθαι machestai ‘to fight’). Theodotion translates the latter half as η διασις στενὴ συναχθῆναι hē diasis stenē synachthēnai, Symmachus translates it as η σκηνή ἐγένετο εἰς τὸ μή εἰσελθεῖν hē skēnē egeneto eis to meē eiselthein, omitting στενὴ (this however was probably dropped due to its similarity with σκηνή).

Septuagint: Because you have said, “We have made a covenant with Hades and agreements with death.”

Qumran: Because you say we have cut a covenant with death and with Sheol we have made a vision.

So did the translator replace death with Hades and vice versa?

Yes.

MT: ‏כִּ֣י אֲמַרְתֶּ֗ם כָּרַ֤תְנֽוּ בְרִית֙ אֶת־מָ֔וֶת וְעִם־שְׁא֖וֹל עָשִׂ֣ינוּ חֹזֶ֑ה
(Kî ’ămarətem: Kāraṯənû ḇərîṯ ’eṯ-māweṯ, wə*‘im-Šə’wōl** ‘āśînû ḥōzeh.*)

1QIsa[sup]a[/sup]: ‏כי אמרתם כרתנו ברית את מות ועם שאול עשינו חזה

For you say, “We have cut a covenant with death, and with Sheol we have made a vision.”

LXX: Ὅτι εἴπατε· Ἐποιήσαμεν διαθήκην μετὰ τοῦ ᾍδου, καὶ μετὰ τοῦ θανάτου συνθήκας.

For you said, “We made a covenant with Hades, and with death agreements.”

The Clementine Vulgate agrees with the Greek translation. But with 28:20, the Clementine text is more or less in between the Masoretic and the Qumran (it says short covering instead of short bed). So what is more likely, that St. Jerome (if that is his translation in the Clementine) used the Septuagint for 28:15 and a Hebrew text for 28:20, or that the Jerome and the Septuagint translator both used a similar Hebrew text for 28:15?

Actually, 28:15 (even in the Clementine version) agrees with the Hebrew. Percussimus foedus cum morte, et cum inferno fecimus pactum.

How would it be more accurate to say that “they chose a different interpretation”? That would imply that there was a different interpretation to chose from, but that leads to a contradiction with the statement that “[t]here is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin.”

PS: I am just a layman with very limited knowledge of this subject, so my question are really questions and not statements.

Just taking off my Christian lenses for a moment here. As I said, to me the phrase “a virgin will conceive and bear a son” does not necessarily automatically equate to “a virgin will (miraculously) conceive (without human agency) and bear a son.” I mean, you could certainly read it that way - emphasizing “virgin/maiden” - but IMO there is a possibility that you can read it as “a virgin will (have intercourse,) conceive and bear a son (as a result),” putting the stress upon “conceive and bear.”

For something unrelated, that’s why I suggested touching up a bit on messianic expectations in the Second Temple (especially the pre-Christian) period. There is a huge plethora of ideas about the messiah(s) during that period, but AFAIK all our sources are silent about the idea of a virgin birth. You could say that this - like the idea of a suffering, crucified Messiah - is something that is either original to or popularized by Christianity.

 

[Dolezal]

I’m not sure to which “translation” you are referring.

I’m referring to all the Greek translations by the Jews between the third and first centuries before Christ, which are commonly called by us the Septuagint since at least the time of St. Jerome. I’m not only referring to the translation by the Seventy(-two) of the Pentateuch. So now you know.

It makes no difference how many words the Dutch language has for the word virgin.

I was trying to illustrate that languages usually have different words for the same concept. Hebrew is no exception to this.

What is relevant is how the Jewish Hebrew speaking reader would have understood and would have been meant to understand these words.

Then please explain how the different Jewish translators (separated by some 100 years) made the same mistake (in Genesis and Isaiah) of translating “almah” to virgin.

Let me give a simple example. The first word of the Torah is בראשית (bereishit) which in commonly translated in Christian bibles as “In the beginning”. Now let’s presume that Christians in addition to their belief that a god came together with a human woman in an immaculate conception which led to the birth of a god in human form (something widely related to the gods worshiped in the Mediterranean basin in the time of Jesus) that they also believed that their god came into existence with the creation of the world.

It is a ridiculous proposition. According to our definition, God exists necessarily. No Christian believes that God exists contingently.

(something widely related to the gods worshiped in the Mediterranean basin in the time of Jesus)

There is no causal relation, as you suggested before. It is a logical fallacy to say that, because one event is followed by another, that event is caused by it. Read up on the fallacy of false cause and irrelevant conclusion.

We should judge a thing on its own merits before basing it on parallel origins. To avoid committing more logical fallacies, ask yourself, is the parallel dependent or independent, antecedent or consequent, and how is it accepted by its counterpart?

 

[Dolezal]

As I said, to me the phrase “a virgin will conceive and bear a son” does not necessarily automatically equate to “a virgin will (miraculously) conceive (without human agency) and bear a son.” I mean, you could certainly read it that way - emphasizing “virgin/maiden” - but IMO there is a possibility that you can read it as “a virgin will (have intercourse,) conceive and bear a son (as a result),” putting the stress upon “conceive and bear.”

Yes, I agree, and I think that the argument of Origen, in favor of the Virgin Birth, is convincing.

But, I am not asking about the interpretation of the prophecy, precisely because it is open to interpretation. My point is that, as far as I know, the Hebrew word “almah” was in all instances translated as “virgin”. From this my question, are modern translations consistent? Not until the Jewish response to Christians and Christianity, is there any evidence that this word was interpreted differently. Even if the word can mean either “young woman” or “virgin”, the Jewish claim that it should be read as “young woman” is an obvious contradiction to the Septuagint translation. So, it is not clear to me what justifies a different translation when there is no instance where it can be proved that the word means a young woman who is not a virgin.

For something unrelated, that’s why I suggested touching up a bit on messianic expectations in the Second Temple (especially the pre-Christian) period. There is a huge plethora of ideas about the messiah(s) during that period, but AFAIK all our sources are silent about the idea of a virgin birth.

That is interesting. You are probably correct that there are no surviving sources about Jewish expectations of a virgin birth, since then we would have heard of them. However, Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews, and he used the word virgin. Also, when he quoted this prophecy to them, he referred to Isaiah simply as “the prophet”. So, it seems to me that these Jews knew the prophecy as Matthew wrote it.

You could say that this - like the idea of a suffering, crucified Messiah - is something that is either original to or popularized by Christianity.

It is interesting to note that he idea of a suffering scapegoat (a pharmakoi) is popular in ancient myth (Oedipus for example), but only in the Christian “myth” is he innocent.

crucified Messiah

Which reminds me of Psalm 21:17 (22:16): They pierced* my hands and my feet.

*The Septuagint has “gouged my hands and feet”, and the Clementine Vulgate has “dug” or “stabbed my hands and my feet.”

Here we have again a difference with the Masoretic text which reads: “Like a lion my hands and my feet.” Which does not make any sense, and does not agree with other Hebrew texts, and yet the Jews have claimed since the writing of the Talmud (200-500) that this is the correct reading.

From the translators of the International Standard Version:

ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας.

It translates as “They gouged my hands and feet.” This LXX reading dates from the mid-third to mid-second centuries before the birth of Jesus the Messiah. Despite what you’ll hear from certain members of the Jewish community of scholars, the LXX is not a Christian book. Instead, it reflects the understanding of the pre-Christian community of Greek-speaking Jews.

The MT rendering “like a lion” is not supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are contemporary to—or even earlier than—the LXX. The DSS Hebrew supports the LXX reading that we’ve rendered as “They gouged my hands and my feet”.
The MT reading “like a lion” appears in texts that date to about 1,000 AD, and as best as we can tell, this reading reflects the opinion of the Talmud, a collection of Torah commentaries and oral traditions compiled from the time of the Babylonian captivity to the fifth century of the Christian era. In our view, much of the anti-Jesus polemics in the Talmud date to the mid-fourth century, and appear to reflect a defensive and apologetic response to the Nicene Council.

One reason that we adjudge the “like a lion” reading of the MT to be problematic is that the MT uses a single noun “like a lion” instead of the plural noun (“like lions”) that the grammar of the MT Hebrew would be requiring if the “like a lion” reading were correct. Single nouns (“lion”) do not modify dual nouns (“hands”) or plural nouns (“feet”). So the MT reading, if it had any chance of being accurate, should have read “like lions are my hands and my feet”. But then again, that’s not what the MT says, either!
And the next question that should follow is to ask “What in the world does 'like a lion is my hands and my feet” mean? The statement is non-sensical. In the ISV, we’ve opted for the LXX and DSS renderings, not just because they reflect the older and non-anti-Jesus bias of the MT, but because they make sense logically.

It seems to me that the Jews changed and reinterpreted parts of Scripture in reaction to Christian claims. For example, my commentary on Clementine text of the Vulgate notes that the Jews Aquila and Symmachus, who attacked the Gospel of St. Matthew and the Virgin Birth, translated Psalm 21:17 to Greek as “they have tied” or “bound” my hands and my feet.

 

[sirach2v4]

Zekariya–

Thanks, I did not know that. This seems to support my hypothesis that the Jews changed Scripture. Even if the argument can be made that the Masoretes did not change Scripture, they may still have copied previous changes.

I read the commentary in The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford, 2011 or 2012) about Is 7:14 and there seems to be total confusion about what the “sign” is and when and if it was ever fulfilled. It seems kind of a slushy opinion, to me.

 

[Dolezal]

I read the commentary in The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford, 2011 or 2012) about Is 7:14 and there seems to be total confusion about what the “sign” is and when and if it was ever fulfilled. It seems kind of a slushy opinion, to me.

I kinda moved on from that point (see the last two pages). I am not here concerned with possible interpretations of the prophecy. My focus is on the Hebrew word “almah” and the differing interpretations of it by the Jews before and after the Christian era. And also on some differences between the Masoretic and earlier (Hebrew and translated) texts.

 

[chosen_people]

Which reminds me of Psalm 21:17 (22:16): They pierced* my hands and my feet.

*The Septuagint has “gouged my hands and feet”, and the Clementine Vulgate has “dug” or “stabbed my hands and my feet.”

Here we have again a difference with the Masoretic text which reads: “Like a lion my hands and my feet.” Which does not make any sense, and does not agree with other Hebrew texts, and yet the Jews have claimed since the writing of the Talmud (200-500) that this is the correct reading.

From the translators of the International Standard Version:

ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας.

It translates as “They gouged my hands and feet.” This LXX reading dates from the mid-third to mid-second centuries before the birth of Jesus the Messiah. Despite what you’ll hear from certain members of the Jewish community of scholars, the LXX is not a Christian book. Instead, it reflects the understanding of the pre-Christian community of Greek-speaking Jews.

The MT rendering “like a lion” is not supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are contemporary to—or even earlier than—the LXX. The DSS Hebrew supports the LXX reading that we’ve rendered as “They gouged my hands and my feet”.
The MT reading “like a lion” appears in texts that date to about 1,000 AD, and as best as we can tell, this reading reflects the opinion of the Talmud, a collection of Torah commentaries and oral traditions compiled from the time of the Babylonian captivity to the fifth century of the Christian era. In our view, much of the anti-Jesus polemics in the Talmud date to the mid-fourth century, and appear to reflect a defensive and apologetic response to the Nicene Council.

One reason that we adjudge the “like a lion” reading of the MT to be problematic is that the MT uses a single noun “like a lion” instead of the plural noun (“like lions”) that the grammar of the MT Hebrew would be requiring if the “like a lion” reading were correct. Single nouns (“lion”) do not modify dual nouns (“hands”) or plural nouns (“feet”). So the MT reading, if it had any chance of being accurate, should have read “like lions are my hands and my feet”. But then again, that’s not what the MT says, either!
And the next question that should follow is to ask “What in the world does 'like a lion is my hands and my feet” mean? The statement is non-sensical. In the ISV, we’ve opted for the LXX and DSS renderings, not just because they reflect the older and non-anti-Jesus bias of the MT, but because they make sense logically.

It seems to me that the Jews changed and reinterpreted parts of Scripture in reaction to Christian claims. For example, my commentary on Clementine text of the Vulgate notes that the Jews Aquila and Symmachus, who attacked the Gospel of St. Matthew and the Virgin Birth, translated Psalm 21:17 to Greek as “they have tied” or “bound” my hands and my feet.

Well actually this is an excellent example of how Christians manipulate the Jewish Hebrew scriptures to create prophecies for the Christian leader, which they then claim their leader fulfilled, in a circular argument.

The first thing you might notice is how the Christian translation puts “Me” and “My” in capital letters to change the meaning to being a reference to the Christian god. This use of capitals is used repeatedly in Christian translations from the Hebrew. The thing is that there are no capitals in Hebrew. (For now lets put aside how antithetical the Christian concept of their god is to the Jewish scriptures and Jewish beliefs).

The second thing is how strange the word for piercing is. If the meaning was for pierced, why not use the word dakar- דקר or even ריצץ which would be far more usual.

The third thing is how we got to the word in the Christian translations. Instead of כארי (as a lion) supposedly what was written is כארו, in other words in a hand written manuscript the scribe lengthened the letter yod י and changed it into a vav ו - seemingly a simple scribal error.

The fourth thing is that the reference to a lion (אריה) which appears twice more in the Psalm is correctly translated as lion in the Christian translation - "like a raging and roaring lion - save me from the lion’s mouth.

The proper translation from the Hebrew is clear: “For dogs have surrounded me; a pack of evildoers have enclosed me, like (the prey of) a lion, are my hands and my feet.”

King David’s metaphor of the dog and the lion in the Psalm (menacing beasts) symbolizes David’s bitter foes that continually sought to destroy him. The verse is not in the future tense and is describing an historical event, not a messianic prophesy.

 

[mercytruth]

Well actually this is an excellent example of how Christians manipulate the Jewish Hebrew scriptures to create prophecies for the Christian leader, which they then claim their leader fulfilled, in a circular argument.

The first thing you might notice is how the Christian translation puts “Me” and “My” in capital letters to change the meaning to being a reference to the Christian god. This use of capitals is used repeatedly in Christian translations from the Hebrew. The thing is that there are no capitals in Hebrew. (For now lets put aside how antithetical the Christian concept of their god is to the Jewish scriptures and Jewish beliefs).

The second thing is how strange the word for piercing is. If the meaning was for pierced, why not use the word dakar- דקר or even ריצץ which would be far more usual.

The third thing is how we got to the word in the Christian translations. Instead of כארי (as a lion) supposedly what was written is כארו, in other words in a hand written manuscript the scribe lengthened the letter yod י and changed it into a vav ו - seemingly a simple scribal error.

The fourth thing is that the reference to a lion (אריה) which appears twice more in the Psalm is correctly translated as lion in the Christian translation - "like a raging and roaring lion - save me from the lion’s mouth.

The proper translation from the Hebrew is clear: “For dogs have surrounded me; a pack of evildoers have enclosed me, like (the prey of) a lion, are my hands and my feet.”

King David’s metaphor of the dog and the lion in the Psalm (menacing beasts) symbolizes David’s bitter foes that continually sought to destroy him. The verse is not in the future tense and is describing an historical event, not a messianic prophesy.

Psalm 22:17:
For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet

Psalm 22:17 is not quoted in the gospel narrative of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
So, you are most likely correct in stating that the Hebrew translation of this verse is the correct translation.

However, Zechariah 12:10 is quoted in the gospel of John’s narrative of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, as “They shall look upon him whom they have pierced.” (John 19:37)

The Hebrew translation of the following verse is quoted in the Talmud, Sukkah 52a and and are interpreted as either the slaying of Messiah ben Joseph, or of the evil inclination.

Zechariah 12:10:
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.

This verse is adjoined to the Talmudic intepretation of the slaying of Messiah ben Joseph:

Psalm 21:5:
He asked life of Thee, Thou gavest it him; even length of days for ever and ever.

mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Sukkah.pdf

So we do have an intersection of a Talmudic and aGospel agreement on the Messianic understanding of Zechariah 12:10.

shalom

micah

 

[1AugustSon7]

Thanks for bringing the Great Isaiah Scroll to my attention. It seems that the Jews changed their interpretation of “almah” from “virgin” to “young women.”

Not quite fair.

The translation of almah to virgin was at best a pious tradition and brought out a particular emphasis of what is implicit in almah in the context of the Bible, but would be more explicit in terms of a cultural expectation in what you might call an orthodox and traditional Jewish patriarchal family, culture or society at the time.

The equivalent to almah would be maid or (a) maiden woman in an older English. An almah would be expected to be a virgin. If I recall, St. Jerome’s argument defending virgin as a translation was based on the use of the word in the context of its use and association in other OT references to certain women whom we know to have been virgins. I mean, St. Jerome quite rightly dismissed what a “modern” Jewish understanding of the word or term might mean as scarcely relevant: he argued that in the bible it had a specific association with certain women in a certain state (of life).

In strictly patriarchal societies like the ones we find in the OT, an almah would by default be expected (or possibly hoped, in the sense of an ideal) to be a virgin, especially because these were marriage cultures. The association of almah to i) a virgin and ii) a young woman would have been closely alligned: the idea being that “no good woman” would be unmarried in later years or that no good father would allow it. In the case of an older woman something -by cultural prejudice- would be presumed “wrong” with the woman because she was a virgin but “still” unmarried (if she was older). Hence the “young woman” as a possible and justifiable translation, albeit one that dumbs down the full sense- though to a degree virgin would too, if my argument is correct.

Older (strictly patriarchal) Christian societies had the same basic idea. “Virgin,” however, does not strictly convey the idea of youth and the aura of an attractive potential bride- not necessarily attractive for physical reasons (though that certainly couldn’t hurt), but attractive because she was a virgin (higher bride price) and young (more likely to bear children, and many of them). Conveying all of these ideas and associations with a single equivalent word or term is difficult at best, because our culture is different.

Still, at the end of the day, a translation of “virgin” or “young woman” is justifiable or at least defensible.

 

[Dolezal]

(For now lets put aside how antithetical the Christian concept of their god is to the Jewish scriptures and Jewish beliefs).

Feel free to open a new topic on that subject. Perhaps we can include the antithesis between Rabbinic and pre-Rabbinic Judaism.

seemingly a simple scribal error.

Except you have it the other way around. Remember that the Septuagint reading is attested by the Psalms fragment of Nahal Hever, which is one thousand years older than the Masoretic text.

The proper translation from the Hebrew is clear: “For dogs have surrounded me; a pack of evildoers have enclosed me, like (the prey of) a lion, are my hands and my feet.”

From what did you infer “the prey of”? Are you trying to make sense of a nonsensical statement?

Your translation is from the Masoretic. I know that it reads “like a lion”. That is my point. The 5/6 HevPsalms scroll reads “pierced” or “dug”. This reading is supported by the Septuagint and the Peshitta. What evidence do you have that “like a lion” can be the original reading? Even the Masorah, the textual tradition accompanying the Masoretic text, notes that “like a lion” is not the correct reading (though it does not say what is).

 

[Dolezal]

Not quite fair.

I think it is. The fact is that the Septuagint, the pre-Christian Jewish translation into Greek, takes “almah” to mean “parthenos” and that post-Christian Jewish translators (such as Aquila and Symmachus) substituted “neanis” (young woman) for “parthenos” (virgin). Aquila also avoided the words “Christos” (Christ) and “Iésous” (Jesus) in his translation (even though Iésous was still a common name among Greek Jews). There seems to have be a conscious effort to remove “Christian terms” (actually Jewish terms translated into Greek). This is why, I think, Aquila’s translation replaced the Septuagint in the synagogues, because the Septuagint was adopted by the Christian Church as Sacred Scripture.

Still, at the end of the day, a translation of “virgin” or “young woman” is justifiable or at least defensible.

I agree that it is defensible, but I think that it only is merely defensible. Your argument is based on the premise that the Hebrew word “almah” can mean a young woman who is not a virgin. What is the evidence for this premise (before the controversy between Jews and Christians)? The only possible argument I have found in favor of your premise is in the Greek translation of “naara”, not “almah”, where it is translated “parthenos” in the rape of Dina. In the context however I would argue that she is a virgin because it speaks of her before. This is at least the pre-Christian Jewish interpretation it and it explains why she is only referred to as “yaldah” (young woman) after the rape. So there is an a distinction made between “naarah” and “yaldah”. Where “yaldah” can only mean a young woman, “naarah” can mean a young woman who, depending on the context, is a virgin. This is proven by the Jewish translation into Greek. The evidence I have found so far is that “yaldah” means simply young woman, “naarah” young woman with possible virginal overtones, depending on the context, and “almah” young woman who is a virgin.

Patrick–

What is your take on the words “naarah” and “yaldah”?