Zechariah 12:10
"It’s hard to find an accurate printed translation of Zechariah 12:10, both because the verse is so theologically charged and because the Hebrew is complex." Joel M. Hoffman (November 20th, 2012)link
I find myself in largely in agreement with Joel M. Hoffman's statement on Zechariah 12:10. I think textually it is somewhat ambiguous as it could read at least three different ways. And, this ambiguity is reflected in the variety of renderings found in translations like the JPS Tanakh (1985), The Art Scroll Stone Tanach, KJV 1611, NIV, and Catholic New Jerusalem Bible. One, may wonder why? One may also ask which one is correct if any? Here are but a few comments, educated observations, and opinions on the verse:
12:10.a. אלי “unto me” is often emended to אליו “unto him.” S. R. Driver said that about fifty mss support אליו “unto him” (Driver 266). The context supports אליו. The fifth word in MT beyond this one is עליו “upon him.” John 19:37 and Rev 1:7 read “upon him whom they pierced.” However, Yahweh may be the speaker and may be saying that the people had pierced him metaphorically by their rebellion and ingratitude, or they pierced him when they attacked his representative (perhaps some unidentified martyr).
Smith, Ralph L. Micah–Malachi. Vol. 32. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998. Print. Word Biblical Commentary.
12:10 אֵלַ֖י All the vrss. confirm the 1 sg. sfx. of M. T’s modification of the prep. is consequent on its reverential paraphrase of the verb.אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־ _The variety of the variants illustrates the difficulty felt in translating _the passage, but also precludes evidence for any single alternative Vorlage.דָּקָ֑רוּ On T see Gordon, Hebrew Bible, 347–56.
Gelston, Anthony. The twelve prophets Fascicle 5. Biblia Hebraica Quinta commentary. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 2010. Electronic Accordance Bible Software.
Notes for 12:10
14 tn Or “dynasty”; Heb “house.”
15 tc Because of the difficulty of the concept of the mortal piercing of God, the subject of this clause, and the shift of pronoun from “me” to “him” in the next, many MSS read אַלֵי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (’ale ’et ’asher, “to the one whom,” a reading followed by NAB, NRSV) rather than the MT’s אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (’ela ’et ’asher, “to me whom”). The reasons for such alternatives, however, are clear—they are motivated by scribes who found such statements theologically objectionable—and they should be rejected in favor of the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) of the MT.tn Or “on me.”
16 tn The Hebrew term בְּכוֹר (békhor, “firstborn”), translated usually in the LXX by πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos), has unmistakable messianic overtones as the use of the Greek term in the NT to describe Jesus makes clear (cf. Col 1:15, 18). Thus, the idea of God being pierced sets the stage for the fatal wounding of Jesus, the Messiah and the Son of God (cf. John 19:37; Rev 1:7). Note that some English translations supply “son” from the context (e.g., NIV, TEV, NLT).
Biblical Studies Press. The NET Bible First Edition Notes. Biblical Studies Press, 2006. Print.
Comments
-
I appreciate Hoffman's closing statement. "Unfortunately, translations that change Zechariah to match John hide the ingenuity of the text, and make it all but impossible for English readers to understand how the NT quotes the OT."
As a rule I don't settle in on much of the OT unless interpreted for me by the New. And I believe Hoffman's claim magnifies Apostolic authority as being the final word.
-
The United Bible Societies A Handbook on Zechariah gives a brief discussion of some of the issue involved in translating Zechariah 12:10:
The first problem is to decide what Hebrew text to translate. The traditional text says literally “they shall look unto me whom they have pierced …” (RV). Since the speaker is the Lord, and “me” can refer only to him, this raises the question of how people could be said to pierce the Lord.
Some modern translations, including RSV/NRSV, NAB, JB, TEV, and CEV, translate a slightly different Hebrew text that yields they look on him whom … (compare John 19:37 and Rev 1:7, where the references to Zech 12:10 are grammatically adjusted to the New Testament context). This clearly makes easier sense, but it has no support among ancient versions, and such weak support in the Hebrew textual tradition that it is not even discussed in CTAT or HOTTP. Most modern commentators believe the traditional text (“unto me”) should be followed, despite its difficulty.
Some translators who accept the traditional text try to adjust the structure of the sentence to reduce the difficulty. Thus NIV has “They will look on me, the one they have pierced …” (compare TOB). _This rendering gives the sense that the Lord is so closely identified with some human representative that he has sent that an attack on the representative is almost the same as an attack on the Lord himself. _Presumably the rendering in NEB/REB “… on me, on him whom they have pierced …” intends the same interpretation, but the sentence construction is so awkward that the intention is not fully clear.
Another approach to the structure of the sentence is shown in NJB, which modifies the punctuation in the traditional Hebrew text to create two sentences: “they will look to me. They will mourn for the one whom they have pierced.…”
A third possibility is found in FRCL “They will look to me on account of the one they have pierced.…”
A fourth possibility is seen in NJPSV “they shall lament to Me about those who are slain.…” This view takes the injured party to be plural (“those who”), and to refer to Jews killed in the siege of Jerusalem described in verses 2–8. It assumes that the subject of they have pierced is the besieging armies. While this is possible, it seems an unlikely interpretation, especially in the light of the singular mourn for him in the next clause. It also gives an unusual meaning to the verb most translators render as look on or “look to.” Furthermore, it seems to rule out the strong tradition in both Jewish and Christian interpretation of seeing in this verse a reference to the sufferings of the Messiah.
There is no ideal solution, and all the possibilities discussed have drawbacks. Probably translators would do best to follow either NJB or NIV (see above). It may be noted that the verb translated look on suggests confident expectation and hope (compare Psa 34:5; Jonah 2:4).
Clark, David J., and Howard A. Hatton. A Handbook on Zechariah. New York: United Bible Societies, 2002. Print. UBS Handbook Series.
-
While there are textual possibilities to support either translation .... the overall scope and the truth that YHWH Himself cannot be pierced should clarify rather quickly, which possibilities remain and which is obviously contradictory to the rest of Scripture.
-
@Wolfgang said:
the overall scope and the truth that YHWH Himself cannot be pierced [...]To me it seems that this claim would limit YHWH in his omnipotence.
If he so chooses to be pierced, then he can.Doctrine needs to follow scripture, and not the other way around. You can't use doctrine to argue for a particular reading of scripture.
-
@Jan said:
To me it seems that this claim would limit YHWH in his omnipotence.
If he so chooses to be pierced, then he can.what do you think "omnipotence" means? that God, YHWH, could turn Himself into a mouse if He would like to have some cheese? or that He could turn Himself into a man if He chooses to or a polar bear or whale so He can swim in the ocean?
Is the Bible not clear that God, YHWH, is Spirit and not a man of flesh and blood? Was Jesus himself unclear when he told the woman at the well that God IS SPIRIT ? Try and pierce SPIRIT and see if what I stated is true or a limitation of YHWH in His omnipotence ...
@Jan said:
Doctrine needs to follow scripture, and not the other way around. You can't use doctrine to argue for a particular reading of scripture.Exactly ... see above for what using a false idea and doctrine about omnipotence would achieve.
When a translation of a passage of Scripture produces a contradiction, that translation has a problem, and is either influenced by a faulty textual reading in the source text or by a false doctrine and belief held by the translator(s) or maybe even both.
-
"A text without a context is a pretext." Keeping it simple for the average reading (since this site is not limited to scholars only). The point of the text is that the Messiah Would Bear Wound Prints in His Hands and in His Feet.
Jewish sources stress this just as strongly as KJV and RSV Translations. Note:
• The assembly of the wicked has enclosed me (Ps. 22:17, HPC).
• And they will look up toward me . . . whom they have thrust through (Zech. 12:10, Isaac Leeser's Trans.).
• And one shall say unto Him, what are these wounds in Thine hands? Then He shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends (Zech. 13:6, HPC).For the New Testament fulfillment see John 19:34, 37; Revelation 1:7.
• In the Talmud the passage is interpreted with reference to the Messianic era, and the martyr who was thrust through is the Messiah.—A. Cohen, The Twelve Prophets, on Zech. 12:10, pp. 321, 322.
Also referring to Zechariah 12:10 we read:
• It is well according to him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah . . , since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse.—Talmud Sukkah 52', Soncino ed., p. 246.The text deals with the " piercing." It has more than one application. Until next time... CM
-
@Wolfgang said:
what do you think "omnipotence" means? that God, YHWH, could turn Himself into a mouse if He would like to have some cheese? or that He could turn Himself into a man if He chooses to or a polar bear or whale so He can swim in the ocean?As I understand it, omnipotence means that God can do anthing that doesn't impact his status as a necessary being (for example, ha can't cease to be God). Apart from that, I assume anything is possible.
If God can become a burning bush, why shouldn't he be able to become a mouse (although I doubt that he would, for whatever reason, in fact become a mouse...)
Is the Bible not clear that God, YHWH, is Spirit and not a man of flesh and blood? Was Jesus himself unclear when he told the woman at the well that God IS SPIRIT ? Try and pierce SPIRIT and see if what I stated is true or a limitation of YHWH in His omnipotence ...
Can God eat bread and beef? Apparently yes, as evident in Genesis 18:8.
You're right that God is spirit. However, he can become flesh and blood.
@Jan said:
Doctrine needs to follow scripture, and not the other way around. You can't use doctrine to argue for a particular reading of scripture.Exactly ... see above for what using a false idea and doctrine about omnipotence would achieve.
Omnipotence is indeed a doctrine, and as such may and should be questioned in the light of Scripture. What's your definition of omnipotence?
When a translation of a passage of Scripture produces a contradiction, that translation has a problem, and is either influenced by a faulty textual reading in the source text or by a false doctrine and belief held by the translator(s) or maybe even both.
And that's why we're discussing the text.
-
No matter how we struggle trying to figure out the original meaning of an OT passage, the NT interpretation of it solves the riddle.
What is so hard about that?
-
@Jan said:
If God can become a burning bush, why shouldn't he be able to become a mouse (although I doubt that he would, for whatever reason, in fact become a mouse...)God can and did NOT become a burning bush ...
God spoke to Moses from a burning bush that was miraculously not consumed by the fire ... but the burning bush was not God.@Jan said:
Can God eat bread and beef? Apparently yes, as evident in Genesis 18:8.God can and did NOT eat bread and beef ... YHWH's messenger did. The messengers are clearly identified as MEN ... cp Gen 18:2 (" ... three MEN ..."
@Jan said:
You're right that God is spirit. However, he can become flesh and blood.No, God can and did NOT become flesh and blood ... He at all times is SPIRIT, and Scripture declares plainly that He does NOT change.
"Omnipotence" can not include matters which would contradict other clear statements about God ... just as a man does not become God, neither does God become a human being. Any doctrine which states otherwise can not be true.
-
@Dave_L said:
No matter how we struggle trying to figure out the original meaning of an OT passage, the NT interpretation of it solves the riddle.What is so hard about that?
What is hard is the fact that folks are giving interpretations to NT quotations of OT passages based in dogmas and creeds rather than understanding the passages within the overall context and scope of Scripture itself.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
No matter how we struggle trying to figure out the original meaning of an OT passage, the NT interpretation of it solves the riddle.What is so hard about that?
What is hard is the fact that folks are giving interpretations to NT quotations of OT passages based in dogmas and creeds rather than understanding the passages within the overall context and scope of Scripture itself.
I believe the NT interprets the OT in a way that does no allow for twisting when read at face value. A case in point that violates this would be "dual fulfillment". Where some acknowledge the face value reading, but say the original remains unfulfilled literally. Whereas I believe the NT completes the fulfillment given at face value.
-
@Dave_L said:
What is so hard about that?The fact that the NT fails to deal with every passage in the Hebrew Bible let alone ever book, grammatical/syntactical issue, and textual variant in the Hebrew Bible. Could one turn to the NT for help in exegeting stanza's found in the books of Esther, Ezra, Ruth, Judges, Lamentations, Obadiah,or Zephaniah? Or, for that matter every single verse in the book of Genesis?
Can the NT be of help in understanding early interpretations of limited sections found in the Hebrew Bible that are quoted in the NT? Yes, I think so. Does, the NT solve every OT/Hebrew Bible textual riddle and issue? No, of course not.
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
What is so hard about that?The fact that the NT fails to deal with every passage in the Hebrew Bible let alone ever book, grammatical/syntactical issue, and textual variant in the Hebrew Bible. Could one turn to the NT for help in exegeting stanza's found in the books of Esther, Ezra, Ruth, Judges, Lamentations, Obadiah,or Zephaniah? Or, for that matter every single verse in the book of Genesis?
Can the NT be of help in understanding early interpretations of limited sections found in the Hebrew Bible that are quoted in the NT? Yes, I think so. Does, the NT solve every OT/Hebrew Bible textual riddle and issue? No, of course not.
I believe the NT deals with the essentials of the New Covenant understanding of the Old. Especially in the prophetic passages.
Robert Whitelaw writes:
"... we find that the few remaining O. T. prophetic passages not cited in the N. T. (or fulfilled in the Old) are clearly connected with other O. T. passages which are cited in the N. T., so that no O. T. prophecy is left unresolved as to time of fulfillment, even though details remain hidden." From "The Gospel Millennium and Obedience to Scripture"
-
@Dave_L said:
I believe the NT deals with the essentials of the New Covenant understanding of the >Old.Thanks for sharing your beliefs.
In the post above I was addressing the philology, and exegesis of the Hebrew Bible. If the 'essentials' you speak of can help toward those goals I would be more than to see examples of how? So, far it appears that the NT deals with only limited sections of the Hebrew Bible/LXX and even then it does not seem to solve the riddle posed by the text-critical issues.
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
I believe the NT deals with the essentials of the New Covenant understanding of the >Old.Thanks for sharing your beliefs.
In the post above I was addressing the philology, and exegesis of the Hebrew Bible. If the 'essentials' you speak of can help toward those goals I would be more than to see examples of how? So, far it appears that the NT deals with only limited sections of the Hebrew Bible/LXX and even then it does not seem to solve the riddle posed by the text-critical issues.
I believe the New Covenant takes from the Old and defines those passages for us. And regardless of the details of refinement arrived at, the New determines the meaning. Paul gives Timothy a word of advise saying: “Remind people of these things and solemnly charge them before the Lord not to wrangle over words. This is of no benefit; it just brings ruin on those who listen.” (2 Timothy 2:14)
But at the same time, I can appreciate the value of trying to understand passages the NT does not interpret for us. But as I said earlier, I personally do not draw any hard fast conclusions about them.
-
I am not sure how you believe 2 Timothy 2:14 is applicable to this thread on Zechariah 12:10 or our current conversation?
The NT fails to deal with every passage in the Hebrew Bible, every book of the HB, grammatical/syntactical issue, and textual variants in the Hebrew Bible. I do believe that the NT can be of help in understanding early interpretations of the rather limited passages of the Hebrew Bible that it quotes.
-
I see some of the NT interpretations as radically different from the original face value meaning of the OT passage. So this makes me unsure of trusting a face value interpretation in any passage not addressed in the New. But I can speculate that the meaning of the OT passage is subject to the tone of the New Covenant.
-
@Dave_L said:
I see some of the NT interpretations as radically different from the original face value >meaning of the OT passage.I think you have made a point.
And, I think the rest of your post helps to clarify for me that we are talking about two very different disciplines. It seems to me that: your main (but not only) interest is in the New Covenant application/interpretation of a passage from the Hebrew Bible. While my main(but not only) interest is more to uncover what was most likely the original vocalization, cantillation, and or wording of the passage.
-
I agree.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
