christians say that lesser part of thier god got pierced
jews say that thier god didn't get pierced.
who is right? can we see an explanation of the hebrew words
thanks
Piercing was not important per se. If there were a mention in Exodus that Moses sprained his ankle then rest assured Jesus would have sprained his ankle and then some kind of importance attached to it.
The Septuagint stories were quite popular as entertaining reading. The peasants took it as seriously as they took the stories of the other gods. The educated certainly didn't take the stories of any of the gods seriously usually considering them blasphemous. As the Christian leaders eschewed education and learning (as did the out of work priests without a temple declaring themselves rabbis) they all began to take the stories seriously instead of as entertainment or, in the case of the unemployed priests, the law for them to enforce and profit from.
Given the popularity and the signs and wonders approach to the superstitious and uneducated prophecy was a sign. The more connections they could create between the Septuagint and their Jesus character the more signs, the more prophecies. The importance of came after creating the connection. So there was a piercing. Work a piercing into a Jesus story. Then invent a reason for it to be important. After the prophecies cease to be signs and wonders people are going to start asking what the connection means. Therefore importance was invented.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
christians say that lesser part of thier god got pierced
jews say that thier god didn't get pierced.
who is right? can we see an explanation of the hebrew words
thanks
Piercing was not important per se. If there were a mention in Exodus that Moses sprained his ankle then rest assured Jesus would have sprained his ankle and then some kind of importance attached to it. .
Moses was initially rejected as a leader by the Israelites and it was not until his second advent that he was accepted as their leader. In the same manner, Jesus will be accepted collectively by the Israelites when they “look upon the one they pierced” according to the gospel writers.
And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come upon Jerusalem. And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son. On that day there shall be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the Valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart: The family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart. The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart. All the remaining families-every family apart, and their wives apart. - Zechariah 12:9-14.
christians say that lesser part of thier god got pierced
jews say that thier god didn't get pierced.
who is right? can we see an explanation of the hebrew words
thanks
The only person who can answer is (of course) Zechariah.
Barring an interview with him, I'll take the interpretation of a Roman Period educated priest over that of anyone in the 21st century Christian or Jewish.
Duvduv wrote:If this metaphor were so important throughout Christianity, one would have to wonder why it only appears in a single gospel story (John 19:34), and is not a banner metaphor.......And why the single gospel reference does not even allude to this passage in Zechariah......possibly it's because the Romans who put the Christian canon together after Constantine did not consider it significant, or did not think it even applied.
Zech 12 is also cited in Revelation. It may also be considered a future prophecy of the second coming.
My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
Note that while dqr does have a primary meaning of pierced most of the examples have the sense of run through.
The Jewish sources are translated a little different -
But I will fill the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a spirit of pity and compassion; and they shall lament to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first-born. (Zec 12:10 TNK)
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. (Zec 12:10 JPS)
It seems that pierced is a Christian code word and that the Jewish sources don't want to throw them a bone. TNK (JPS 1985) looks like the better translation, they don't even want to throw the Xians the only son bone - correctly I think.
Since the translations you quoted mention the only son comparison, haven't they thrown the bone, and isn't it textual?
Not that I have any expertise in Hebrew, but the subject is not easy to discuss without a way to show Hebrew characters on here.
I don't see anything all that amazing here for the Christian side.
The relevance first is that even what you cited refers to the victim (s) as slain and thrust through. Killing someone by thrusting them through means piercing them with something.
My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
With one notable exception, the two translations are reasonably consistent. Even
the portions that are cross-referenced in the New Testament do not contain any
gross mistranslation by the KJV translators. The exception is Zechariah 13:6, where
the KJV, among a small number of other Christian translations, falsely translates as
in the Hebrew word בּיןֵ (BEIN), between, thereby effecting a contextual change in
the question from "… What are these wounds BETWEEN thine hands? …" to "… What are
these wounds IN thine hands? …". The result of this mistranslation is that a rather
obvious Christological significance has been infused into the entire verse. It is
interesting to note that most other Christian translations have retained the more
general concept of someone with contusions on his upper body – chest & back –
which is consistent with the meaning of the Hebrew text.
.
If it is not referring to pierced hands but to wounds inflicted on the back in a house of friends, could it refer to flogging of Jesus in the house of Caiaphas who professed to love God or was beloved by God?
My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
beowulf wrote:Religious books are full of ambiguous passages written in dead languages which were spoken by dead cultures .These passages admit to several interpretations. Zechariah 12:10 is one of those passages: the 12th Chapter in the Book of Zechariah is about a war.
This verse may be interpreted as alluding to the death of some unknown hero . It may also be interpreted as a messianic prophecy perhaps yet to be fulfilled.
If a dissident group should favour one interpretation over the one chosen by the dominant group, then a conflict will follow and ugly words will be said and uglier deeds will be done.
The Christian interpretation is one and the Jewish interpretation is another.
The Hebrew isn't that difficult, Christian translators just tend to look like imbeciles because of their agenda, which requires them to twist things.
The youtube I linked to above, shows that God is not bitching about being pierced. This is not open to debate, the Hebrew is clear.
You cited:
and they shall mourn for him (Zec 12:10 JPS)
This makes an interesting issue beca use one of the rabbinical translations had elsewhere said THOSE WHO ARE SLAIN, plural. If the Hebrew was really fully clear, we wouldn't have the singular/plural confusion, right?
Maybe in fact the Hebrew is using words that leave him / me / them undefined?
At least, my understanding is that there has been unclarity, which explains the variations in translation.
My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
beowulf wrote:Religious books are full of ambiguous passages written in dead languages which were spoken by dead cultures .These passages admit to several interpretations. Zechariah 12:10 is one of those passages: the 12th Chapter in the Book of Zechariah is about a war.
This verse may be interpreted as alluding to the death of some unknown hero . It may also be interpreted as a messianic prophecy perhaps yet to be fulfilled.
If a dissident group should favour one interpretation over the one chosen by the dominant group, then a conflict will follow and ugly words will be said and uglier deeds will be done.
The Christian interpretation is one and the Jewish interpretation is another.
The Hebrew isn't that difficult, Christian translators just tend to look like imbeciles because of their agenda, which requires them to twist things.
The youtube I linked to above, shows that God is not bitching about being pierced. This is not open to debate, the Hebrew is clear.
You cited:
and they shall mourn for him (Zec 12:10 JPS)
This makes an interesting issue beca use one of the rabbinical translations had elsewhere said THOSE WHO ARE SLAIN, plural. If the Hebrew was really fully clear, we wouldn't have the singular/plural confusion, right?
Maybe in fact the Hebrew is using words that leave him / me / them undefined?
At least, my understanding is that there has been unclarity, which explains the variations in translation.
rakovsky, given your apparent interests you may already be aware of this, but it's interesting to note that Jewish interpreters gave Zechariah 12:10f. a messianic interpretation from at least the early Middle Ages onward, perhaps beginning with a passage from the Babylonian Talmud.
Sukkah 52a:
[Regarding] the Messiah son of Joseph who will have been killed...it is written: "They will look toward Me about the one they have pierced; they will mourn over him as one mourns for an only [child]."
In a marginal note of one ms. of the targum to the verse it reads:
...the Messiah son of Ephraim will go out to do battle with Gog, and Gog will slay him in front of Jerusalem. And they shall look to Me and inquire of Me why the nations pierced the Messiah son of Ephraim.
The Secrets of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai:
A wicked king will arise whose name is Armilos...He is the offspring of Satan and a stone (statue), and he will come up to Jerusalem and incite war with the Messiah son of Ephraim at the eastern gate, as scripture states: "and they shall look to Me about the one whom they pierced."...The Messiah son of Ephraim shall die there, and Israel shall mourn for him.
A similar statement can be found in the Midrash Wa-Yosha (the relevant portions of which can be found translated in John C. Reeves' Trajectories in Near Eastern Apocalyptic: A Postrabbinic Jewish Apocalypse Reader).
The basic tradition may very well be older than the Babylonian Talmud, since the Talmud itself attributes it to Rabbi Dosa, a tanna from the 2nd century CE.
