|
HOUSMAIL HM109
9
August 2003 THEY PIERCED MY
HANDS AND FEET - Psalm 22:16 My attention
was recently drawn to claims by Jewish "anti-missionaries", that Psalm 22 was not a Messianic Prophecy.
They base their attack on Psalm 22:16, which in the KJV and RSV reads “They have pierced
my hands and feet?” The
RSV has a marginal note which instead of “they have pierced”, offers the alternative “like a lion”. Some
modern versions translate the passage, using this alternative. The
Jewish Anti-missionary claim is that the original Hebrew text has the word “LION”,
and not “PIERCED”, and that Christian translators have deliberately misled their
readers. If you
can read Hebrew, you will discover that it is certainly true that the Hebrew texts
on which the KJV and RSV are based, do indeed have the word “LION”. So, where
does the word “PIERCED” come from? Is it possible that the English translators
have got it completely wrong? If so how is that possible? As a
layman whose knowledge of Hebrew is VERY limited, I don't normally like to give
Hebrew lessons to prove a point. However, for those like me, who feel a need for
a valid logical reason to reject the claims of the anti-missionaries, this is
one of those occasions where it can't be avoided. The
answer lies in the similarity of the Hebrew words for “pierced” and “lion”. “They
Pierced” is KA'ARU. “Like a Lion” is “KA'ARI”. The only difference is in a couple
of tiny “squiggles” in the Hebrew Alphabet. The
KJV Old Testament English version was based on a “composite” text which was compiled
from many different Hebrew manuscripts, none of them older than the 15th century
AD. With only a very few exceptions, all of these have the word “lion”. However,
there are a very small number of Hebrew Manuscripts which do have “pierced”. These
are so small in number, that they were ignored when compiling the “composite”
text. However it is reported that modern scholars are in large agreement that
the text is corrupted at this point. Is there
any evidence to support the conclusion that later versions of the text are corrupted?
YES! There is VERY strong evidence dating back to at least the third century BC. The
SEPTUAGINT (LXX) version, is a translation of the Old Testament into Greek, made
by Jewish scholars in the 3rd Century BC, for Greek speaking Jews. It is the common
language version which would have been in almost universal use amongst Jews everywhere
in the Roman Empire, including the early centuries of the Church. New Testament
writers often quote from it. The
LXX does use the word “pierced”! And of course this means that the ancient text
from which the LXX was made, most likely does have that word in the Hebrew! There
is also positive evidence in several Old Testament manuscripts from the DEAD SEA
SCROLLS, dating back to a couple of hundred years BC. e.g. The Qumran text 4QPf,
and the Hever text 5/6HevPs. These also have the word “pierced”, and NOT “lion”. It would
of course be easy to speculate that over many hundreds of years, Jews have either
deliberately, or by accumulated scribal error, modified this text to favour their
own rejection of Jesus as their Messiah. However there is no clear positive evidence
to support that speculation, so we won't make it an “accusation”! What
we will do, is take note that the information provided above is very strong evidence
that “PIERCED” is the correct word in Psalm 22:16. It was the word in the texts from which the LXX was translated.
And it IS the word in the oldest Hebrew texts we now have. This
verse and other features of the Psalm are completely consistent with our Christian
understanding that it is indeed a very positive Messianic Prophecy! Allon |