Evidence for God from Science

I am comparing the Hebrew vs. the Greek translation of Psalm 2.

Psalm 2:
1. Why have nations gathered and [why do] kingdoms think vain things?
2. Kings of a land stand up, and nobles take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed?
3. "Let us break their bands and cast off their cords from us."
4. He Who dwells in Heaven laughs; the Lord mocks them.
5. Then He speaks to them in His wrath; and He frightens them with His sore displeasure.
6. "But I have enthroned My king on Zion, My holy mount."
7. I will tell of the decree; The Lord said to me, "You are My son; this day have I begotten you.
8. Request of Me, and I will make nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession.
9. You shall break them with an iron rod; like a potter's vessel you shall shatter them."
10. And now, [you] kings, be wise; be admonished, [you] judges of the earth.
11. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with quaking.
12. Arm yourselves with purity lest He become angry and you perish in the way, for in a moment His wrath will be kindled; the praises of all who take refuge in Him.

Source: http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=16223

NASB

12Do homage to (V)the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For (W)His wrath may [e]soon be kindled
How blessed are all who (X)take refuge in Him!


The NKJV says 12 Kiss the Son, lest He[c] be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.


Notice in the Hebrew the son is not mentioned in verse 12. Why is there such a great difference between the two?

Good to see you again Christian2. You do have a habit of dropping by with some intriguing questions, which are welcome.

I can't answer this one easily, as frankly, I don't have a great deal of study in Biblical Hebrew. Maybe Jac or Puritan Lad or some of our other resident theologians would have some input.

I presume in this instance in Psalm 2 that you're comparing The Masoretic Hebrew Text with the Greek Septuagint?

In general, I can tell you that the Septuagint is a very useful tool, not just for the ability to read it in Greek for those of us NT scholars who don't know Hebrew (of which there are many of us) but as the LXX (symbol for the septuagint) was translated by a council of 70 highly educated Jewish Scholars, there is a fair amount of judgment that went into the translation, and so (as is true with any translation) we have to understand that they made value assessments in making that translation.

These were Jews, before the time of Christ. I think it is fair to say that they saw this as a messianic prophetic text and felt that the clarification in terms of subject/object relationship within the passage was warranted.

Without doing a lot more work, as you're no doubt aware, the NKJV attempts to make the textual corrections needed because the KJV relied upon a different set or arrangement of ancient manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus which has since been surpassed because of new manuscripts being discovered and a change in scholarship as to how those manuscripts are prioritized to better capture what the original must have said. It also attempts to incorporate those changes in the English language since 1611 that have taken place to make it better understandable today. It does all this while also trying to maintain, wherever it can, the original beauty and flow of the KJV which is so great a part of our religious and cultural heritage. (Tall order by the way ....)

That said, there may be some textual variants involved that the KJV handles differently.

Those are very general statements and probably not all that new. I hope they help.

I hope some others with greater gifts in this area might chime in as well.

Blessings,

Bart

Thanks Bart.

The question was posed to me by a Muslim who claims that the Christians have "forged" the text. I tried to point out to him--as you confirmed--that the Septuagint was translated by Jews before Christianity came along.

I had never noticed this difference before and the conversation made me curious as to why verse 12 is so different in the Masoretic text.

I appreciate your input.

I do get mixed up in some tough ones. Nothing is easy, is it?

Hi Christian2,

As always a good question, and going into quite some detail. Others will weigh in too, no doubt, but here is what I can see.

In the Hebrew, both "kiss" and "son" is there in the passage, to answer that.

I am more interested in the meaning of the word kiss here. The root is from "wind" or "blow" while from the same we get very close meanings like "kindle", i.e. use breath or wind to help fires burn.

When we look at the direct translation, it has several closely related meanings.

nâshaq
naw-shak'
A primitive root (through the idea of fastening up; to kiss, literally or figuratively (touch); also (as a mode of attachment), to equip with weapons: - armed (men), rule, kiss, that touched.

When we read the two passages in question, and apply the context, "kiss" seems to be shorthand for "equip yourself through sharing the breath of the Son.", which also ties in with the alternative translation. This can further be extrapolated to the salvidic work that Christ did for us on the cross, we have to equip ourselves with that sacrifice so that we may be saved.

I don't see any conflict between the original languages here, it is the same word, and the translators pick which best serves the context. I also don't see a difference between the two translations that much, once I looked at the roots and original language.

Hope it helps.

August,

Thank you for your response. I posted this same question on a board that has a man who is somewhat a biblical language expert. This is what he said:

******

It's all very complicated.

The Greek of Psalm 2:12a is δραξασθε παιδειας ('accept correction'), wherein παιδειας ('correction') is thought to be a correction for paidos = 'lad', which is a rendering of the Aramaic word בַר ('son'), which is a conundrum to scholars with regard to the Hebrew text, because it is an Aramaic word in the midst of Hebrew text.

Psalm 2:12a in the Hebrew text is נַשְּׁקוּ-בַר (nasheqū-bar = 'kiss the son').

Scholars find the text to be difficult for them because בַר ('son') is Aramaic, and is therefore thought to be unlikely in Hebrew; also, other ancient language versions presuppose different readings of the Aramaic word (by assuming different vowel vocalizations with the Hebrew consonants).

Scholars have proposed a plethora of solutions to the problem they see in the occurrence of the Aramaic word in the Hebrew text.

Other scholars see the text as not that big a problem and argue for accepting the text as it is in Hebrew rather than making too much of the fact that ancient versions (such as the Greek noted in the first paragraph above) do not translate the text with the sense of 'kiss the son'.

With regard to the last line in your post (“Notice in the Hebrew the son is not mentioned in verse 12.”), the English renderings have confused you: In the Hebrew text the son is mentioned. It's the translations of the Hebrew into other ancient versions (such as the Greek) that are problematic, because they seem to presuppose a text other than the Hebrew text we now have = the Massoretic Text in which vowel symbols were added to the original Hebrew consonants. Other ancient versions presuppose Hebrew text with vowel vocalizations that differ from the Massoretic Text.

******

Do you all understand what he said? Agree? Disagree?

Oh rats, the Greek doesn't show up on this site. Is there anyway I can correct this? Thanks.

I get hat he is saying, but I still don't see why this would be a problem from an apologetics point of view.

Is the main bone of contention that we do not know which of the manuscripts is the original, i.e. the Hebrew or Greek? Is it not just a case of bad translation from the original to the next version, which causes confusion, much like the plethora of politically correct English translations we see today?

August wrote:I get hat he is saying, but I still don't see why this would be a problem from an apologetics point of view.

Is the main bone of contention that we do not know which of the manuscripts is the original, i.e. the Hebrew or Greek? Is it not just a case of bad translation from the original to the next version, which causes confusion, much like the plethora of politically correct English translations we see today?

Personally from what I have seen and read I see no difference--or no meaningful difference--between the Greek and the Hebrew.

I did read the following article that seems to support that view.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-he ... 15446.html

I think we could easily say that if anything has been changed it just might be the Hebrew and not the Greek. Who is to say for sure?

I am thinking of the interpretation of Isaiah 53--not that the text has been changed--but the interpretation of the Jews has changed over the years. Back in the first century and well beyond Isaiah 53 was, according to the Rabbis--Messianic--about the King Messiah--but now they say that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel and not the Messiah. There are good reasons why this isn't so.

Thanks August.