Posts by peacefulpete

81

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

peacefulpete

It's not hard to see a parallel with the first half of Zech 12:10 in Ezekiel 6:9:

And those of you that escape shall remember me among the nations whither they shall be carried captive, how that I have been broken/crushed with their lewd heart, which hath departed from me, ....

There was a theologically motivated discomfort with God displaying weakness, describing himself as crushed by the actions of puny humans.

Not surprisingly we find the Targum renders the phrase as: “I have broken their foolish heart,”....

The LXX: I have sworn an oath against their heart that goes a-whoring ...

Also the Peshitta: “I have broken their whorish heart”

The Vulgate presumably sourced one of those for its rendering as well.

81

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

peacefulpete

The Masoretic consonantal text is beyond dispute: וְהִבִּ֣יטוּ אֵלַ֔י אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָ֖רוּ, “they shall look unto me, ’ēt whom they pierced.”

Yes of course. Yahweh is pierced/stabbed through. That is true whether you prefer 'the one' or 'me' or as some translations both. Yahweh is the referent. This expression however was objectionable to many 2nd temple Jews, hence we see the LXX and Targum revisions.

The second half of the verse has inspired volumes of interpretive conjecture. As traditionally rendered, the people mourn/grieve over a person, "him". There is no other 'him' introduced than Yahweh, so Is the "him" Yahweh? this make the verse rather awkwardly phrased, changing from Yahweh speaking, to a third person mid-thought. The rendering:

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, And they have mourned over it, like/as a mourning over the only one, and they have been in bitterness for/because of it, Like a bitterness over the first-born.

is both accurate and attractive as it resolves any awkwardness. But as you know that is not how many readers took it. By reading the pronoun literally masculine, because of the metaphor that follows, a whole slew of interpretations ensued, as is seen in the Rabbinic, Targums and Christian writings.

81

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

peacefulpete

Any discussion about Zechariah 12:10 has to include Rev 1:7. There the prolog mashes a snippet from Zec 12:10 with a snippet from Dan 7:13 revealing clearly that the author interpreted Zech Messianically rather than contextually or even follow Rabbinic and Targum collective interpretation. He removes the ambiguity of the pronoun by choosing the masculine pronoun and identifies the referent as the same as the Dan 7 one like a Son of Man. (I say choosing because his quote otherwise conforms to the MT form. This suggest he translated it himself or there was a now lost Greek form in circulation that followed the MT. The same is true of Gospel John. In both cases the writer broke with their general pattern of using the LXX.

What is interesting in Revelation is the writer seems to preserve an earlier Christian interpretation. He seems to be interpretating the 'pierced' element meaning suffering/slain. He shows no knowledge of the creative detail of a literal stabbing added by the writer of John. In fact, apart from the 'Jerusalem' reference the writer does not include a single detail or quote drawn from the Gospels. Revelation was likely written before the final form of the Gospel John. This takes me back to the idea that Revelation went through stages of production/redaction, but that is another topic.

I've enjoyed venting my thoughts, I do miss comparing observations with others.

81

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

peacefulpete

Along similar lines the extant OG LXX versions made a change in which Yahweh was no longer stabbed but 'mocked'.

: they shall look upon me, because they have mocked/insulted me, and they shall grieve/mourn for/because of him/it as for a beloved…”

Theodotian corrected the LXX perhaps using a now lost Greek the Hebrew forms. The Qumran 4Q80 reflects the Hebrew as well.

All said the issue arose from poorly worded use of a simile and the late pious belief that Yahweh could not be pained/stabbed by his people. The additional seemingly awkward shift from first person to third confused matters further.

You may have noticed some translators have used "it" rather than 'him" as the referent in the latter half of the passage.

And they have mourned over it, Like a mourning over the only one, And they have been in bitterness for/because of it, Like a bitterness over the first-born.

This is a legitimate translation. Note that Hebrew had no neutral pronoun as English does, so the context must inform if the meaning is intended literally masculine or not. This IMO resolves some of the pronoun issue. If the people grieve 'because of it' rather than 'for him' it reads much better. Many have mistaken the simile of grieving 'as for the grieving over a lost son' as suggesting the pronoun ought to be understood as a personal referent and not to an event or experience. However, the point of the simile was the extent of the morning not the object of it. But as we know history went another way, the latter half of the passage was spun in Messianic ways.

81

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

peacefulpete

As I mentioned, another ancient interpretation was that the 'one who was pierced' was the collective nation of Israel that were killed......Standard Targum Jonathan:

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.

I should correct another error. I described the marginal gloss in the Codex Reuchlinianus as pre-Christian. The Targum is Pre-Christian, the marginal note is a later expansion of unknown age before the manuscript's writing. The roots of the Messiah Ben Joseph concept date to late 2nd Temple period but this gloss is not an example of that. Sorry. Rather the Targum understands the slain of Israel collectively as the one pierced. This shows the discomfort on the part of later pious Jews to suggest God feels pain and can be personally affected by the actions of humans. It probably was influenced by 2nd Isaiah's suffering servant.

81

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

peacefulpete

Zechariah is a bit awkwardly worded but the contextual meaning is clear. Yahweh has been 'pierced/pained/made to suffer deeply' by his people's sins. Yet he will show great compassion and pour upon them his 'spirit of favor/grace'. The people will subsequently look to him and repent and grieve their past actions, 'as a person grieves a firstborn son' aka deeply and heartfeltly. The simile describing the grief of repentance as the grief over a lost son, and the perceived blasphemous idea of Yahweh experiencing pain, led to some unintended interpretations. Interestingly, the pre-Christian Targum Jonathan (as preserved in a marginal note in Codex Reuchlinianus) already has incorporated the legendary Messiah Ben Joseph/Ephraim into this passage.

"And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of prophecy and prayer; and after this the Messiah, son of Ephraim, will go out to fight with Gog, and Gog will slay him before the gate of Jerusalem. And they [Israel] shall look to me and shall inquire of me why the nations pierced the Messiah, son of Ephraim."

Numerous subsequent references followed this idea. It is hardly then surprising that the Christian writers would do the same. The entire Christ/Jesus template was in place within late 2nd Temple Judaism. The Messiah ben Joseph is to be killed. The Messiah ben David however succeeds in vanquishing Israel's enemies and bringing new blessing. The creative part of Christianity was to identify a single character as both. At the same time the writer of John, by the selective quote is clearly interpreting it with a nuance, he sees the verse as also saying Yahweh was Jesus in a second power sense.

7

Place of a Skull...Whose Skull?

by peacefulpete in

i'll just shoot this short comment that i found interesting.

the gospel of mark at 15:22 says: then they brought him to the place golgotha, which is translated, place of a/the skull (singular noun).. it might be surprising to learn there is no ancient record of any topographical location called "place of the skull".

so, is that because of loss of information or is it suggestive that the 'place of the skull' had more christological meaning?

peacefulpete

7

Place of a Skull...Whose Skull?

by peacefulpete in

i'll just shoot this short comment that i found interesting.

the gospel of mark at 15:22 says: then they brought him to the place golgotha, which is translated, place of a/the skull (singular noun).. it might be surprising to learn there is no ancient record of any topographical location called "place of the skull".

so, is that because of loss of information or is it suggestive that the 'place of the skull' had more christological meaning?

peacefulpete

7

Place of a Skull...Whose Skull?

by peacefulpete in

i'll just shoot this short comment that i found interesting.

the gospel of mark at 15:22 says: then they brought him to the place golgotha, which is translated, place of a/the skull (singular noun).. it might be surprising to learn there is no ancient record of any topographical location called "place of the skull".

so, is that because of loss of information or is it suggestive that the 'place of the skull' had more christological meaning?

peacefulpete

I got a negative vote for a blank post again, lol. I posted a painting depicting the crucifixion with a skull below but apparently the formatting did not work. Anyway, feel free to disagree but disagreeing with a blank post is a bit strange.

7

Place of a Skull...Whose Skull?

by peacefulpete in

i'll just shoot this short comment that i found interesting.

the gospel of mark at 15:22 says: then they brought him to the place golgotha, which is translated, place of a/the skull (singular noun).. it might be surprising to learn there is no ancient record of any topographical location called "place of the skull".

so, is that because of loss of information or is it suggestive that the 'place of the skull' had more christological meaning?

peacefulpete

Sorry for the poor writing again and I don't know why but my brain always conflates Justin with Jerome. What I said above about Justin was from Jerome. Geez my brain....

Touchofgrey....yep in some Rabbinic legend Melchizedek aka Shem (yes, they are linked in many legends) was given the skull for burial in the 'navel' of the world Jerusalem. In some legends the rest of the bones were distributed to other parts. And yes, by the time of Jerome the very physical phenomenon of blood reaching to the skull of Adam was popular. He objected , preferring the legend that Adam was buried in Hebron that was then circulating. Anyway, Jerome had issues with the Jerusalem church and pilgrimages to 'sacred' sites. That may explain his preference for the Hebron legend. (PDF) Constructing the Sacred in Late Antiquity: Jerome as a Guide for Christian Identity

There is suggestive evidence that the Hebron legend was actually created to refute the Christian sacred site that connected Adam with Jesus. So that might suggest the Jerusalem burial legend predates the Hebron legend but who knows.

Since the distribution of the Gospels there have been various theories about the meaning. Jerome said it was because of skulls lying about, some thought that a 'round' bump of ground, using an extended etymology might have been involved. Both are unlikely. Interestingly Epiphanius specifically denied the latter theory.: There is nothing to be seen on the place resembling this name; for it is not situated upon a height that it should be called (the place) of a skull, answering to the place of the head in the human body." He felt the 'place of the skull' was a reference to the skull of Adam.

The idea that some stone structure that resembled a skull shape with eyes etc. is a very recent 19th century fantasy. The idea that a modern feature could be the site becomes absurd when we realize the limestone was actively quarried in the first century and the soft limestone erodes rather quickly. I compared pictures of a waterfall we saw on our honeymoon with a recent one and in just a few decades the rocks have eroded/changed significantly. Imagining a limestone formation would be unchanged for 2000 years is just silly.

The site of the Temple of Venus by Hadrian famously was rebuilt as a Christian church now called the Church of the Holy Sepulcher by Constantine. And below it was created/discovered the Chapel of Adam. The religious history of the site is long and complicated, but briefly said, the legends surrounding a 15' bump of rock encased in glass inside the reconstructed church led to its being venerated by billions. In reality the bump was almost certainly a leftover from quarrying due to fissures in it, or as some suggest made (outside originally) when the church was built.

The earliest, and IMO the best, 2nd/3rd century explanation was rather that the site was that of the skull of Adam. Whether there actually was a site connected with that legend by ancient Jews is unknown. If there was, it might explain Hadrian's choice to locate his Temple to Venus there as part of his campaign to eradicate Judean Judaism. If there was only a legend and no sacred site designated by Jews, the Markan writer could simply have been linking his story with the legend literarily and had no specific geographic place in mind. This seems most likely given the writer's distance temporarily and geographically from the story's setting. Interestingly it appears there was no designated place for executions, which would have freed the Markan writer to be creative. Regardless, a century or two later the site of Hadrian's temple was clearly linked with both Adam and Jesus by Christians which is why Constantine built his Christian church there.