Talk:They have pierced my hands and my feet

Bible Top‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judaism High‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Suggest re-naming as Psalm 22

I think no-one will ever find this article under this title. I suggest re-naming it [[Psalm 22], since several other psalms already have their own articles, expanding it, and creating links where appropriate. Inciden tally, there's internal evidence that the "pierced" translation was introduced into the Greek by Christian scribes some time between the canonical Gospels and the time of Justin Martyr. PiCo (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a lot more that can be said about Psalm 22. We could redirect the page here until more gets written. It's on my list of things to do. StAnselm (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dating...

As I've read about the dating of the MT on wikipedia, I found that MT was EDITED later than LXX was FINISHED...

So I suggest an unbalanced marking for this article.

Attila Varadi (Hungary) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.147.83.108 (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read more than just Wikipedia. PiCo (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context for Septuagint

I added a statement giving context to the LXX, which was reverted here by an anon editor 50.187.216.93 (talk · contribs) who appears to be Monochrome Monitor (talk · contribs) logged out.

The above editor alleges in his (mis-spelled) edit summary that the septaguint wasn't fully compiled until later than the start of the Common Era. However, Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon#Septuagint states that the LXX was translated in stages between the 3rd to 2nd century BCE. Septuagint#Jewish_use states (with two citations) that Pre-Christian Jews, Philo and Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew text. Therefore I propose to reinstate my explanation. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've reverted quite a few of his edits. We do frequent the same pages though. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're confused. Greek Jews did not use the Septaguint. They used Aquila's translation and others. From the article:

"What was perhaps most significant for the LXX, as distinct from other Greek versions, was that the LXX began to lose Jewish sanction after differences between it and contemporary Hebrew scriptures were discovered. Even Greek-speaking Jews tended less to the LXX, preferring other Jewish versions in Greek, such as that of the 2nd-century Aquila translation, which seemed to be more concordant with contemporary Hebrew texts. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused now. Aquila's translation was only done after pre-Christian Jews, Philo and Josephus died. – Fayenatic London 22:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I spend time on the page is because I've written much of the article. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LXX is the original version and the new version it was modified on purpose

The facts are that the oldest Masoetic text is a thousand years older than the LXX. If we only talk about Scythian texts in Hebrew, this psalm is documented in Hebrew as the LXX says, also almost a millennium before the Masoetic version. All this is not clear in the text. On the other hand, it is important to contextualize when rabbinical Judaism was created. Rome had just massacred the Jewish people, destroying the Temple. We know that the people who shaped this new version of Judaism maintained close contacts with the authorities of Rome. (Yohanan ben Zakkai) Flavius Josephus was even a collaborator and friend of Vespasian when he was massacring the Jewish people and destroying the Temple. Yohanan ben Zakkai negotiated with Vespasian his departure from besieged Jerusalem. Flavius Josephus stated that Jewish prophecies said that Vespasian would become emperor. Clearly everyone had in mind that the messianic prophecies had a lot to do with the First Jewish-Roman War. Rome was interested in the most modern version of Psalm 22 (the Masoetic) and the new Judaism was established by people very close to the highest Roman power. And note that we deduce this from the version that Flavius Josephus tells us, he should have heard it from those who remained inside Masada or Jerusalem. 147.161.191.28 (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vision that it could have been a copyist's error when the scribes were very very careful especially the Jews with the sacred texts and anyone could realize the importance of that word in the first century. In case of doubt they had countless copies to consult. In that incipient theological world of the two new versions of Judaism: Rabbinic Judaism Judeo-Christianity The first was very very well connected with the highest instances of the repressive power that was the Rome of Vespasian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.191.28 (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]