Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

A challenge for who denies the authenticity of the psalm 22:16 (or for who denies that in it the crucifixion could be "read" and accordingly assigned to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah):


(psalm 22:16)

Is also this passage in Plautus a late Christian interpolation?


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... %3Aact%3D2

Or, in alternative, can't a crucifixion be read there too?

What's the context for mentioning "who denies the authenticity of the psalm 22:16"? Who denies it, and why?

"(or for who denies that in it the crucifixion could be "read" and accordingly assigned to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah)"

Maybe that was added?

The question is whether this is a picture of the crucifixion, a Messianic prophecy. We actually had a lot of good discussion of this in the old IIDB days, is the search working?

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:24 pm Who denies it, and why?

Our Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:06 am

I should add the Psalm 22:16, also.

That verse is a minefield, with arguments being made that the "pierced" interpretation postdates early Christianity's fixation on the cross. I would want to investigate thoroughly before placing much weight upon it.

Note that the great mythicists of the past (Couchoud in primis) have claimed that it was in that psalm that the crucifixion was read as being happened to the mythical Christ.

The mythicist Max Rieser (in the past) and the mythicist Nanine Charbonnel (today) have introduced, independently between them, a similar explanation.

NOTA BENE:
I don't want to discuss a priori with Christian apologists who deny that a crucifixion could be read in that Psalm. It would be equivalent to a discussion with Creationists.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:17 amI don't want to discuss a priori with Christian apologists who deny that a crucifixion could be read in that Psalm.

Does that mean you do want to discuss with Christian apologists who accept that a crucifixion is foreshadowed in the Psalm.

Or did you mix up one of the negatives?

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:21 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:17 amI don't want to discuss a priori with Christian apologists who deny that a crucifixion could be read in that Psalm.

Does that mean you do want to discuss with Christian apologists who accept that a crucifixion is foreshadowed in the Psalm.

precisely.

Further evidence that the Psalm 22:16 was used by the early Christians:

Revelation 1:7

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:17 am

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:24 pm Who denies it, and why?

Our Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:06 am

I should add the Psalm 22:16, also.

That verse is a minefield, with arguments being made that the "pierced" interpretation postdates early Christianity's fixation on the cross. I would want to investigate thoroughly before placing much weight upon it.

You list me as denying the authenticity of Psalm 22.16, and then you quote me doing no such thing.

Also, to deny the authenticity of Psalm 22.16 is to suggest that it is an interpolation into the text. What you mean to say is that many people deny that there is a crucifixion going on in that verse (on the grounds that the extant Hebrew has "like a lion" and the extant Greek has "they dug"). That is not the same as denying the verse's authenticity.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:50 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:17 am

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:24 pm Who denies it, and why?

Our Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:06 am

I should add the Psalm 22:16, also.

That verse is a minefield, with arguments being made that the "pierced" interpretation postdates early Christianity's fixation on the cross. I would want to investigate thoroughly before placing much weight upon it.

You list me as denying the authenticity of Psalm 22.16, and then you quote me doing no such thing.

the implicit inference is that even a blind can realize that I am going rapidly here and I can be easily forgiven.

Also, to deny the authenticity of Psalm 22.16 is to suggest that it is an interpolation into the text. What you mean to say is that many people deny that there is a crucifixion going on in that verse (on the grounds that the extant Hebrew has "like a lion" and the extant Greek has "they dug"). That is not the same as denying the verse's authenticity.

frankly, I know well that the Tanak talks about lions and not about cross, but the Septuaginta is what matters here. And the Greek is explicit about a crucifixion. Hence I am polemizing here against who claims that the Greek formula is an interpolation.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:16 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:50 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:17 am

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:24 pm Who denies it, and why?

Our Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:06 am

I should add the Psalm 22:16, also.

That verse is a minefield, with arguments being made that the "pierced" interpretation postdates early Christianity's fixation on the cross. I would want to investigate thoroughly before placing much weight upon it.

You list me as denying the authenticity of Psalm 22.16, and then you quote me doing no such thing.

the implicit inference is that even a blind can realize that I am going rapidly here and I can be easily forgiven.

Also, to deny the authenticity of Psalm 22.16 is to suggest that it is an interpolation into the text. What you mean to say is that many people deny that there is a crucifixion going on in that verse (on the grounds that the extant Hebrew has "like a lion" and the extant Greek has "they dug"). That is not the same as denying the verse's authenticity.

frankly, I know well that the Tanak talks about lions and not about cross, but the Septuaginta is what matters here. And the Greek is explicit about a crucifixion. Hence I am polemizing here against who claims that the Greek formula is an interpolation.

I am not sure what you mean here, but it matters little. Carry on.