Posts by peacefulpete

aqwesed....You made a good catch, my remark about the 'second half' having not been quoted/referenced was not specific enough. I was referring to the 'firstborn' aspect in particular. But you are very correct, the author of the prolog of Rev absolutely interprets the looking to and mourning elements as eschatological. It was just a passing observation that use of the Zecheriah 'firstborn' element didn't appear more, this surprised me.

Your Justin Dial. 118 quote is apparently AI creativity. It actually reads:

So that you ought rather to desist from the love of strife, and repent before the great day of judgment come, wherein all those of your tribes who have pierced this Christ shall mourn as I have shown has been declared by the Scriptures.

No mention of the firstborn element, odd isn't it?

Likewise your Irenaeus 4.33.15 reference (actually 4.33.11) basically repeats Rev 1:7 in both linking Dan 7 and applying the snippet form the first part of Zech.12:10 eschatologically, not as John does (as you acknowledged I think) There is no mention of the second half (and specifically the 'firstborn') that I can see.

Also, the Epistle of Barnabus makes no quote or reference to Zechariah 12:10 at all. ..........AI fakery.

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

Yes, the technique of exegesis/eisegesis at Quran has much in common with early Christians. They often lifted phrases perceived to have had eschatological antitype fulfillments. These were laid beside each other into a new context and given fresh meaning. I was not suggesting the early Christians invented typological interpretation.

That Judaism wrestled with such an anthropopathic line is not an argument against the line’s authenticity

I didn't think it was. I am interested in the history of religion. That means an interest in how original ideas arise and become popularized. This verse as a whole has inspired enough to fill a library and as such is very interesting. Both the first half and the second half have stirred deep reactions. Yahweh had become transcendent to the point that the literate keepers of the texts felt justified in making adjustments. The second half of the verse about the people's response to Yahweh's (feelings or punishments) was worded in such a way that it was easily misunderstood. The Hebrew language contributed to that, IMO. You may believe 'The grammatical suffix is masculine singular, and nothing in the clause demands an abstract or collective antecedent;" by which I think you are saying that you prefer the awkward reading produced by the translating it as 'him'. My whole point is that the grammar does demand considering the neuter. If the 2nd Temple readers had not objected to Yahweh experiencing pain they would likely not have felt the need to interpret the second half Messianically. I didn't spend much time on it but there was a connection between the need to distance Yahweh from pain and the injection of a new character as his agent that experiences the piercing. There were a number of ancient ideas, some saw it as a reference to the nation collectively that experiences the pain, others saw it as referring to Josiah (vs 12 seems and allusion to his death), while others with an eschatological bent interpreted as a Messiah figure (such as the Messiah ben Joseph). While the first and second halves of verse 10 each posed unique issues, the solution to the second half was tied to the first, if Yahweh cannot be pierced, then it must be someone else. In some circles, that lent to the reading of the second half as Messianic.

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 Gospel John's paraphrase of Zechariah might be because the writer did equate the 'him' from the second half with the 'me' in the first. If so, he takes some liberty with the passage in saying : "look to him who they pierced". The passage does not read that way. It is also possible he was casually referring to the first part only (assuming his readers identified Jesus with Yahweh) and did not see the second half as Christologically important. Oddly nowhere in any early Christian writings I can find do we see the last part about the 'mourning as for a firstborn' applied to Jesus. The only part that elicits comment is the part about being pierced and that is paraphrased.

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.