Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?

[Poisonshady313]

Sorry Junglej25; According to the NRSV Psalm 22:16 reads " For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled" with a footnote on shriveled saying "Meaning of Hebrew uncertain".
As I suggested before, you should obtain the NRSV.

Meanwhile, the NRSV translates verse 21 as this:

Save me from the mouth of the lion! From the horns of the wild oxen you have rescued me.


THE HEBREW WORD IS THE SAME! The word "Ari" means "Lion" Yet for some reason, Christian versions seem incapable of accepting this, and inexplicably insist on translating the same word in two very different ways, when they occur in the same exact context, in the same exact chapter.

 

[Poisonshady313]

While I'm at it, I'm going through the various different versions of Psalms 22:16 on the bible gateway website... most of them are like the NIV, which say "pierced", yet in verse 21, it says "lion" or "lion's mouth" for the same Hebrew word.

I came across this similarity to the NRSV in the Contemporary English Version (CEV)

Brutal enemies attack me like a pack of dogs,
tearing at [b] my hands and my feet.


Psalm 22:16 tearing at: One possible meaning for the difficult Hebrew text.


Honestly. It's not that difficult. Elementary school children who learn their animals know that an אריה is a lion. More than that, many Jewish men have that as their name!

Yet for at least these two versions of the Christian translation of Psalms, the Hebrew is difficult/uncertain!


Amazing. Unfortunate. Well... for the Christian position anyway.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Here's another odd one. Douay Rheims 1899 American Edition lists this as Psalm 21 (makes you wonder which of the first 20 psalms they left out), has as verse 17

For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet.

And again, verse 22 says "Save me from the lion's mouth".

I have already posted a thorough explanation as to why "dug" is wrong in post 79.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Good News translation

An evil gang is around me;
like a pack of dogs they close in on me;
they tear at[c] my hands and feet

Some ancient translations: they tear at; others: they tie; Hebrew: like a lion. (emphasis mine)

This begins verse 21 this way: Rescue me from these lions;


It's interesting that this particular version actually knows and refers to the real Hebrew meaning of the word.

 

[james2ko]

Good News translation

An evil gang is around me;
like a pack of dogs they close in on me;
they tear at[c] my hands and feet

Some ancient translations: they tear at; others: they tie; Hebrew: like a lion. (emphasis mine)

This begins verse 21 this way: Rescue me from these lions;


It's interesting that this particular version actually knows and refers to the real Hebrew meaning of the word.

"Like a lion" in place of "they pierced,"? Doesn't this produce an intrinsically unlikely reading: "like a lion my hands and feet."? Only by inserting additional words can this make any sense. From what I understand, these two readings are based upon changing one similarly shaped final consonant for another in the Hebrew word in contention. If the word was "kaaru," it meant "they have pierced," while if it was "kaari," it was "like a lion." In Hebrew, the word for "pierced" ends with the Hebrew letter vav, while for "lion" it ends with a yod. Since vav and yod are similar in form, would it had been possible for an ancient scribe to easily mistaken one for the other by inscribing a yod and failing to attach a vertical descending line so that it would become a vav? And could this scribal error be the reason why the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, made some time before Jesus was born (c. 250-100 b.c.), does contain the reading "they pierced."?

 

[esmith]

In reference to Psalm 22:20-22(NRSV) Psalm 22:22-22 (NIV, Tanakh)

From the JPS Tanakh Study Bible
Psalm 22
21 "Save my life from the sword, my precious life (Lit: 'only one.') from the clutches of a dog"
22 "Deliver me from a lion's mouth; from the horns of wold oxen rescue (Lit: "answer") me."

In the NRSV (4th edition)
Psalm 22
20 "Deliver my soul from the sword, my life (Hebrew: my only one) from the power of the dog!"
21 "Save me from the mouth of the Lion! From the horns of the wild oxen you have rescued (Hebrew answered) me."

From the NIV Study Bible
Psalm 22
20 "Deliver my life from the sword my precious life from the power of the dogs"
21 "Rescue me from the mouth of the lions, save me from the horns of the wild oxen"


As you can see there are minor wording changes.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Poisonshady: I'll never pretend to be a Hebrew scholar but I found this article and thought it made a decent argument for a translation "they gouged his feet". One thing is certain, your point is well made that there are some bad translations of the Hebrew Bible, something I wasn't aware of due to focusing too much on the NT.

Psalm 22:16 — Are his feet pierced, or like a lion?


Psalm 22:16 — Are his feet pierced or like a lion?
My question is in regard to Psalm 22:16. The Hebrew of this passage seems to be under some scrutiny (in various circles), and since I didn't see it addressed already in the Catacombs, I thought I would ask.
In particular seems to be the stance from the Jewish side that the word (transliterated) kaari- means "like a lion" (perhaps in accordance with a Strong's number H738?). On the other side appears to be the stance that the word (transliterated) karah- means "to bore" or "pierce" (perhaps in accordance with a Strong's number H3738??) which would be more in accordance with the rendering you chose.
In reviewing the Masoretic Hebrew text, the word actually used, כָּאֲרִי, appears to be neither of those words in Strong's. (It seems to me more like a contraction of the two). And so I'm wondering why you were persuaded to render this word as "pierced."

We didn't. We rendered it as "gouged".
​

Does it make sense to render this Hebrew word that way? Perhaps even "the lion is pierced"? Obviously rendering it more according to the "Jewish" interpretation plays down the anticipatory nature of Christ's death. However, I'm less interested in supporting one view or another than I am in correct translation.

Well now, at least your view about being less interested in supporting one view or another than in being correct in the translation is our motivation as well.
Perhaps we should begin our observations about Psalm 22:16 by pointing out that how we've rendered Psalm 22:16 in the ISV is one of the best usages we've been able to apply to the exemplary work of Dr. Peter Flint of the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute at Trinity Western University.
But first some background information on the Hebrew Old Testament is in order.
It usually comes to a surprise for Christian readers of the Bible to discover that even though there are literally thousands of extant manuscripts of the New Testament, there are only two copies of the Hebrew Old Testament in existence from which all modern copies of the Hebrew Scriptures descend. First is the Aleppo Text. Originally discovered in Aleppo, Spain and now stored in Jerusalem's National Hebrew University, this text was written by a scribe named Salomon and edited by Aaron Ben Asher. This text contains vocalization and cantillation marks, as well as annotations from the Masoretes. And then there's Codex Leningrandensis (from Leningrad). Both date 50 years either way of 1,000 AD. Here's the Hebrew reading of the Masoretic Text of Psalm 22:16:

כִּי סְבָבוּנִי כְּלָבִים עֲדַת מְרֵעִים הִקִּיפוּנִי כָּאֲרִי יָדַי וְרַגְלָי​

(By the way, this verse is verse 17 of Psalm 22 in the MT.) And here's how the ISV translates this verse in its current release v1.4.9:

16 For dogs have surrounded me;
a gang of evil-doers has encircled me.
They gouged[1] my hands and my[2] feet.

[1] 22:16 So LXX, Syr, DSS 5/6 HevPS, XHev/Se4; the MT reads Like a lion

[2]22:16 So MT; the LXX lacks my
​

The Septuagint (LXX) renders the first phrase of line three as "they gouged" (ὤρυξαν, a third person aorist active indicative of the verb ὀρύσσω, which means "to dig"). The full text of the final pericope of the Greek LXX of Psalm 22:16 reads as follows:

ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας.
​

It translates as "They gouged my hands and feet." This LXX reading dates from the mid-third to mid-second centuries before the birth of Jesus the Messiah. Despite what you'll hear from certain members of the Jewish community of scholars, the LXX is not a Christian book. Instead, it reflects the understanding of the pre-Christian community of Greek-speaking Jews.
The MT rendering "like a lion" is not supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are contemporary to—or even earlier than—the LXX. The DSS Hebrew supports the LXX reading that we've rendered as "They gouged my hands and my feet".
The MT reading "like a lion" appears in texts that date to about 1,000 AD, and as best as we can tell, this reading reflects the opinion of the Talmud, a collection of Torah commentaries and oral traditions compiled from the time of the Babylonian captivity to the fifth century of the Christian era. In our view, much of the anti-Jesus polemics in the Talmud date to the mid-fourth century, and appear to reflect a defensive and apologetic response to the Nicene Council.
One reason that we adjudge the "like a lion" reading of the MT to be problematic is that the MT uses a single noun "like a lion" instead of the plural noun ("like lions") that the grammar of the MT Hebrew would be requiring if the "like a lion" reading were correct. Single nouns ("lion") do not modify dual nouns ("hands") or plural nouns ("feet"). So the MT reading, if it had any chance of being accurate, should have read "like lions are my hands and my feet". But then again, that's not what the MT says, either!
And the next question that should follow is to ask "What in the world does 'like a lion is my hands and my feet" mean? The statement is non-sensical. In the ISV, we've opted for the LXX and DSS renderings, not just because they reflect the older and non-anti-Jesus bias of the MT, but because they make sense logically.
​

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Poison, I found this source which challenges the "lion translation" based on the Dead Sea scrollss

Answering Jewish Objection to Psalm 2 and Psalm 22

……….According to Rashi, the meaning is “as though they are crushed in a lion’s mouth.” While the commentary of Metsudat David states, “They crush my hands and my feet as the lion which crushes the bones of the prey in its mouth.” Thus, the imagery is clear; These lions are not licking the psalmist’s feet! They are tearing and ripping at them. Given the metaphorical language of the surrounding verses (cf. vv. 12-21 [13-22]), this vivid image of mauling lions graphically conveys the great physical agony of the sufferer…….
…Where did the King James translators come up with this idea of ‘piercing’ the hands and feet? That’s not what the Hebrew says.” …..
…..Actually, the Septuagint, the oldest existing Jewish translation of the Tanakh, was the first to translate the Hebrew as “they pierced my hands and feet” (using the verb oruxan in Greek), followed by the Syriach Pe****ta version two or three centuries later (rendering with baz’u) not only so, but the oldest Hebrew copy of the Psalms we possess (from the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to the century before Yeshua) reads the verb in this verse as ka’aru (not ka’ari, “like a lion”), a reading also found in about a dozen medieval Masoretic manuscripts—recognized as the authoritative texts in traditional Jewish thought—where instead of ka’ari (found in almost all other Masoretic manuscripts) the texts say either ka’aru or karu.​

 

[Poisonshady313]

Here's a site that, in great detail, deals with all the objections raised herein... that of the Septuagint, the dead sea scrolls, etc. It's far too long for me to post what it has... but go ahead and take a look.

Rejection of Pascal's Wager: Psalm 22:16: A Prophecy of the Crucifixion?

Well.. Here's the bit about the dead see scrolls:


The word found in 5/6HevPs is given in the middle row of the table above. Note a few things, it is not spelt in the same way as karu (they dig) given in the top row. The former has an additional aleph between the kaf (K) and the resh (R). While fundamentalists are quick to speculate that this is merely an alternate, "Aramaizing", spelling for the word, it is still the case that there is no other known example in the available Hebrew literature that spells "karu" this way!
The fundamentalists claim as support other Hebrew words that have alternate spellings. The logic is similar to someone who would claim that since colour/color are variant spellings in worldwide English, it therefore follows that "donour" is an acceptable variant for "donor"! This is absurd of course. It must be emphasized that just because some words have variant spellings, it does not mean that all words have variant spellings.
As it stands, the word found in 5/6HevPs has no known meaning. Some Jewish writers have labeled this word "Semitic rubbish". It is merely speculation that the word kaaru is a variant spelling of karu.
As we noted above, even before the discovery of 5/6HevPs, the word kaaru, is already found in a very few Hebrew manuscripts. For a long time scholars have tried to suggest the most probable meaning for the word. Apart from suggesting that it could be an alternate spelling of a known Hebrew word, these scholars turn to languages that are closely related to Hebrew for similar sounding words. Given below is a list of some of the suggestions made over the past eighty or so years:

• G.R. Driver, "Textual and Linguistic Problems in the Book of Psalms" HTR 29.3 [1936]; 503-506
  • To hack off / to shear from the Assyrian karu which has that suggested meaning.
• J.M. Roberts, "A New Root for an Old Crux, Psalm XXII 17c," VT, 23.2 [1973]; 247-252
  • To shrivel from the Akkadian and Syrian karu (meaning "to be short").
• R. Tournay, "Note sur le Psaume XXII 17," VT, 23.1 [1973], 111-112
  • As to hack / slash from the Phoenician, Ethiopic, Babylonian aru (the initial kaf being a comparative) meaning "cut branches".
• John Kaltner, "Psalm 22:17b: Second Guessing the Old Guess" JBL 117 [1998]; 503-506
  • To bind from the Arabic cognate kwr which actually means "to bind"

Using meanings from related languages is a procedure that is fraught with uncertainties. Take a modern example between two rather closely related languages: German and English. It is all nice to know that Haus in German means "house" in English and that gut means "good". But it does not necessarily follow that all words that sound alike mean the same thing in both languages. A couple of examples should do: Kind in German does not have the same meaning as the word in English (it means "child") and also in German means "therefore". Thus finding meanings through related languages can, at best, be no more than guesses. This is why, despite speculating for close to a century, there has been no consensus reached as to what the meaning of kaaru could be.
Now let us go back to the suggestion that kaaru is a variant spelling of karu. Even if we are to accept, for the sake of argument, that this is probable (which it is not!), it still does not do what the fundamentalists want it to do. For karu, and its root karah, do not mean "pierce". Indeed the word is best translated as "to excavate" or "to dig". Given below are the instances of the use of the word karah in its various verbal forms in the Hebrew Bible:

• to dig a pit:
  Exodus 21:33; Psalm 7:15, 57:6, 94:13, 119:85; Proverbs 26:27; Jeremiah 18:20, 18:22
• to dig a grave:
  Genesis 50:5; II Chronicles 16:14
• to dig a well:
  Genesis 26:25; Numbers 21:18
• to dig up evil (metaphorical use):
  Proverbs 16:27
• to dig one's ear
  Psalm 40:7

All the instances above show the meaning of karah; which is "to dig" or "to excavate". They do not have the connotation of "piercing" - as in puncturing through something. The last example is especially revealing. The KJV renders this passage metaphorically as "mine ears hast thou opened".



The actual Hebrew is literally "ears you have dug for me". Within the context of Psalm 40:7, the meaning is clear, by digging his ear, the Psalmist is able to hear and understand what God wanted and did not want. If karah could be translated as "I pierce", this would mean that the Psalmist is piercing his ears to hear God more clearly!


Furthermore had the Psalmist wanted the passage to mean "they pierce my hands and my feet", he had quite a few good Hebrew words that do have the precise meaning of "to pierce" to choose from:

• daqar : to pierce or to stab through http://sh1.webring.com/people/ci/irishskeptic/pierce.html#17
  • Zechariah 12:10 "They look at him whom they have pierced" (This was the verse used by John 19:34 as a prophecy fulfilled.)
  • I Samuel 31:4...""Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it..."
• naqav: to pierce, to puncture or to perforate
  • II Kings 18:21 (=Isaiah 36:6) "Behold, you are relying now on Egypt, that broken reed of a staff, which will pierce the hand of any man who leans on it. "
  • Habakkuk 3:14 "Thou didst pierce with thy shafts the head of his warriors..."
• ratsa: to pierce or to bore http://sh1.webring.com/people/ci/irishskeptic/pierce.html#19
  • Exodus 21:6 "...and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl..."

Thus karah is an extremely poor choice of words if his intention was to prophesy the crucifixion.
So let us summarize the "evidence" from the Dead Sea Scroll.

1. The word kaaru, in the form found in 5/6HevPs has no known meaning.
2. The assertion that it could be an alternate spelling for karu, which means "they dig", is only a guess. There are a few other guesses which includes "to bind" and "to shrivel".
3. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept, the guess above, it still does not do what the fundamentalists want it to do. For karu means "they dig" or "they excavate" and does not carry with it any connotation of piercing through, or puncturing through, the human flesh.
4. If the psalmist had wanted to mean "pierce" in the context of Psalms 22:16, there were other words that would have fitted his requirement better: daqar, naqav and ratsa.

In other words the "evidence" from the Dead Sea Scroll that the crucifixion was prophesied by Psalms 22:16b with the words "They pierced my hands and my feet" is non-existent.

Why then did the authors/editors of The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible claimed that the true reading is "they pierce" when, as we have seen, scholars have been trying to guess at the meaning of the word for close to a century? Two of the three authors of that book Peter W. Flint and Martin G. Abegg are directors of the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute. If one visits the website for this institution the reasons become quite clear. We are told that the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute is an evangelical institute. [The term evangelical is used in Biblical scholarship to mean those scholars -who are mainly based in theological seminaries rather than major universities- who hold extremely conservative or fundamentalist views and presuppositions.] In an earlier posting (which was on line in April 2004) under the section, "We Believe", of that website, we are told the raison d'être of the institute. It said that evangelicals should not "sit back and surrender" the field of Dead Sea Scrolls research to what they termed "non-evangelicals". Within this context, "non-evangelicals" can only mean those scholars who do not share the a priori assumptions of fundamentalists, in other words, scholars who follow scientific critical historical methods! Thus part of this strategy of "not surrendering" the field to non-evangelicals has to be to provide evangelical slants to the interpretation of the scrolls. Within this context, the reason the linguistically unlikely interpretation of kaaru as "they pierce", becomes clear. I suspect we should expect more "evangelical friendly" results to come out from this institute in the future!

 

[Poisonshady313]

In reference to Psalm 22:20-22(NRSV) Psalm 22:22-22 (NIV, Tanakh)

From the JPS Tanakh Study Bible
Psalm 22
21 "Save my life from the sword, my precious life (Lit: 'only one.') from the clutches of a dog"
22 "Deliver me from a lion's mouth; from the horns of wold oxen rescue (Lit: "answer") me."

In the NRSV (4th edition)
Psalm 22
20 "Deliver my soul from the sword, my life (Hebrew: my only one) from the power of the dog!"
21 "Save me from the mouth of the Lion! From the horns of the wild oxen you have rescued (Hebrew answered) me."

From the NIV Study Bible
Psalm 22
20 "Deliver my life from the sword my precious life from the power of the dogs"
21 "Rescue me from the mouth of the lions, save me from the horns of the wild oxen"


As you can see there are minor wording changes.

In all three cases, the word "lion" is not mistranslated as "pierced", which is the problem we find with verse 16/17.

 

[Harmonious]

I am only responding to this because Poisonshady asked me to.

"Like a lion" in place of "they pierced,"? Doesn't this produce an intrinsically unlikely reading: "like a lion my hands and feet."?

Yes.

Only by inserting additional words can this make any sense.

That is only true if you are trying to fit Hebrew words into an English syntax.

If you pay attention to the earlier half of the verse, it references dogs who had surrounded the narrator, and then the narrator complains of the evil people.

The continuation of the narrator being surrounded would be the obvious concept, even without the verb.

From what I understand, these two readings are based upon changing one similarly shaped final consonant for another in the Hebrew word in contention. If the word was "kaaru," it meant "they have pierced,"

No, it doesn't. It is a made-up word.

if it was "kaari," it was "like a lion."

Well, yeah.

In Hebrew, the word for "pierced" ends with the Hebrew letter vav,

No, it doesn't. That vav you like to pretend is there - but isn't - is a common suffix, denoting the third person, plural, past tense.

Unfortunately for you, Kaf, Alef, Resh is not a verb that would require such a verb ending. The reason all of these people are having trouble translating the "word" is that they are using a word that doesn't exist. Therefore, trying to find a verb suffix for the meaningless word won't help.

It's like saying: ajoiupoaihj is an English word, and ajoiupoaihjly is its adverb form. Well and good, but the letters there aren't a word, but random letters I typed. So... The word, and its adverb-like suffix, is absolutely useless.

But you see... Alef, Resh, Yod is the root for the animal "lion."

Put a Kaf in front of the word, and it is "like a lion". If you like, the previous verb, surround, would work. "Like a lion (surrounds) my hands and feet."

It works as a fine syntax in Hebrew poetry. Creating a word and tacking on an ending because of what you wish to see there, to hope that a miswrite of the word you want is the real one...

Someone is working WAY too hard to find what's not there.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

As far as translating the original Hebrew: one guy says this, another says that, still another says something else. All APPEAR to make logical arguments. Who is in touch with the best lexical evidence? Who knows ancient Hebrew the best? All of us are trusting "experts" to interpret for us as faithfully as they can the original scriptures. Which "expert" has enough integrity and courage to intepret faithfully, even if he doesn't like what it says? Some people are conveniently able to trust the translation that supports the side of the argument they stand on. Some people conveniently sees what the want to see. Is it possible that all of us in faith are so convinced in what we believe that all the theological arguments in the world couldn't shake that faith enough to lose it? I'm ready to move on to another passage whenever you guys are.

 

[Poisonshady313]

As far as translating the original Hebrew: one guy says this, another says that, still another says something else. All APPEAR to make logical arguments. Who is in touch with the best lexical evidence? Who knows ancient Hebrew the best? All of us are trusting "experts" to interpret for us as faithfully as they can the original scriptures. Which "expert" has enough integrity and courage to intepret faithfully, even if he doesn't like what it says? Some people are conveniently able to trust the translation that supports the side of the argument they stand on. Some people conveniently sees what the want to see.

I know a guy... on another forum. He actually is an expert in biblical Hebrew, and he has the integrity to translate/interpret properly, especially because he's not terribly religious. He happens to be Jewish, but he really has no dog in this hunt. He remains faithful to the language alone. We've been through the discussion of this passage on that forum, and what he said is basically what Harmonious said.

You may not trust me on this... but when it comes to this verse, the bottom line isn't even a matter of translation or interpretation... but of changing a word in the source language into a word that doesn't exist anywhere in the scripture, or even the language itself.

We should be believing what the text says, and not altering the text to make it fit what we believe.

I'm ready to move on to another passage whenever you guys are.

Yup. I think, just like with Isaiah 53, there might be a number of references back to Psalm 22 on most people's lists of prophecies... so to make things easier on everybody, we'll just lump all the passages from Psalm 22 together.

Let's move on to number 3 out of 48.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

let's stay on psalm 22 but move to the next verses where Christians allege 2 more prophecies. The first of two:

18 They divide My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots. Psalm22:18​

23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece.
24 They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: "They divided My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots." Therefore the soldiers did these things. John 19:23-24

 

[Poisonshady313]

let's stay on psalm 22 but move to the next verses where Christians allege 2 more prophecies.

18 They divide My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots. Psalm22:18
​

23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece.
24 They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: "They divided My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots." Therefore the soldiers did these things. John 19:23-24

The first thing to be said about this is: Psalm 22 is not a messianic prophecy.

Therefore, singling out any word, phrase, verse, or paragraph as messianic prophecy is either a sign of desperation, dishonesty, or plain and simple ignorance.

Do not think that I'm attributing any of these things to you... or even the people who compile these lists.... I'm not participating in this thread either to insult you, mock you, or deceive you. I attribute these traits to the authors of the gospels themselves. They either didn't know better, or they knew better and hoped their readers wouldn't.

You could probably identify several moments throughout your own life and pull out a few random passages from scripture and say "see? that's talking about me!"

Then of course there's the possibility that the gospels are indeed a pure work of fiction, which would make such a task infinitely easier. An author can make his character do or experience any situation tailor made to fit a random assortment of scriptures taken out of context. And when he says "See? This scripture was written as a prophecy regarding this character." He ought not to be taken seriously. And those who take him seriously have been duped.

The problem with these long lists of "prophecies" "fulfilled" by Jesus is that a great many of them aren't prophecies at all. And then you have some that are prophecies that have absolutely nothing to do with the Messiah at all (we'll get to those, I'm sure.).

Attempts by Jews (or non-Jews who care enough to have this discussion) to provide a list of actual messianic prophecies that obviously don't describe/haven't been fulfilled by Jesus are usually met with "Oh, that's going to happen on his second coming", which opens up a whole discussion about whether or not it's written that the Messiah will have to come twice, do half the job now and half later.... then dealing with actual prophecies wherein one half of a paragraph is said to have been fulfilled already and the second half is for the second coming, yet it's obvious that the whole paragraph is describing one time (especially because of the often used phrase "on that day"...).


But while we're focusing on the 48 prophecies you have alleged that Jesus fulfilled, remember that some verses may not be prophecies at all, and some verses are prophecies that have absolutely nothing to do with the messiah... and by default, all of those must be scratched off the list (which is kinda what we're doing, one by one.)

Psalm 22 is less of a prophecy and more of a prayer for God to end the suffering and oppression and aggression towards the people of Israel, especially while they're in a state of exile. A prayer for God to spare them from the nations that seek to destroy the Jews. It is not at all a prophecy describing the life and times of a messiah.

Isaiah 53, the servant is not the Messiah. And as a result of Jesus' arrival, the nations of the world certainly have not done a 180 in regards to their oppressive treatment of the Jews... in fact, you might say they've stepped it up a bit... in some cases BECAUSE of Jesus. (Not directly, but by Church leaders/Christian communities who were often responsible for the murder, torture, forced conversion, or exile of Jews... usually as a way to punish the "Christ killers")

So I think, perhaps, we might be able to move through this list quicker if we could move on after I've pointed out that a particular verse, regardless of how well it seems to portray the life and times of Jesus, is really rather useless in the context of fulfilled prophecy because it's either not a prophecy at all, or it's not a prophecy relating to the Messiah.

Of your list of 48, I don't know how many are actually real messianic prophecies (because I don't have access to your full list at this moment).... which is why we're doing this one by one, and I'll address each one as we get to it.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Which means we could probably knock off at least 12 if we go by Pegg's list, because that's how many times Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 have been dipped into for separate "prophecies".

Which means' we're already a quarter of the way through.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

17 I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. Psalm 22. This was the other one from the passage

31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[c] 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”[d] John 19

I figured I'd at least show it to you as Christians do view this as a prophecy of the Messiah. Your point is made that this is about Israel. I'm ready to move on when you are.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Next up. These two are together because they're connected like Psalm 22.

BETRAYED FOR 30 PIECES OF SILVER

Zechariah 11:12 I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. 500 B.C. Matthew 26:14-15 [14] Then one of the Twelve--the one called Judas Iscariot--went to the chief priests [15] and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins.
SILVER RETURNED
SILVER USED TO BUY POTTER'S FIELD

Zechariah 11:12-13 [12] I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. [13] And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter. 500 B.C. Matthew 27:3-10 [3] When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. [4] "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility." [5] So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. [6] The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." [7] So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. [8] That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. [9] Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, [10] and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."

 

[Poisonshady313]

On a probably less important note... did you notice that Matthew said "Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled" while showing me that the text is supposed to be from Zechariah? Another indication that the gospel writer was inept, or he expected his audience to be.


Let me show you the artscroll version of the passage at hand:

I said to the people "If it is proper in your eyes, give Me My fee, and if not refrain." So they weighed out My fee: thirty silver coins. The Lord said to me, "Throw it to the treasurer of the Precious Stronghold, which I have divested from them." So I threw it into the Temple of the Lord, to the treasurer.


This is one of those that isn't even a prophecy, much less a messianic prophecy.

I request that you give this whole chapter a good read, and come to me with questions you may have about it.

Zechariah - Chapter 11 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

 

[-Peacemaker-]

As always, a compelling apologetic exists to explain all





Apologetics Press - Who was Matthew Quoting?

Who was Matthew Quoting?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
Eric Lyons, M.Min.

After reporting in his gospel account about Judas’ suicide and the purchase of the potter’s field, Matthew quoted from the prophets as he had done many times prior to chapter 27. He wrote: “Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me’ ” (27:9-10). For centuries, these two verses have been contemplated by Christians and criticized by skeptics. The alleged problem with this passage, as one modern-day critic noted, is that “this is not a quote from Jeremiah, but a misquote of Zechariah” (Wells, 2001). Skeptics purport that Matthew misused Zechariah 11:12-13, and then mistakenly attributed the quotation to Jeremiah. Sadly, even some Christians have advocated this idea (see Cukrowski, et al., 2002, p. 40). What can be said of the matter?
As with all alleged contradictions, critics and skeptics should have investigated further (i.e., study with diligence and handle the Scriptures correctly—2 Timothy 2:15) before making such boisterous claims that Matthew mishandled the prophets’ words. Three considerations help clarify the situation. First, notice carefully that Matthew did not say that Jeremiah wrote this particular prophecy; rather, he indicated that this prophecy was spoken by Jeremiah. Similar to how Paul’s quotation of Jesus (recorded in Acts 20:35—“It is more blessed to give than to receive”) was from something Jesus verbally stated that never was recorded by one of the gospel writers, it may be that Jeremiah once spoke the prophecy in question, but never had Baruch, his amanuensis, put it in written form. Truly, one should not automatically expect to find a written account of a prophecy when the New Testament writer mentions it as having been spoken. Also, it should not be surprising to us if the Holy Spirit saw fit to inspire Jeremiah to speak these words, and then a few years later to inspire Zechariah to put a similar sentiment in written form.
Second, in Jesus’ day, rabbinical practice entailed identifying quotations by the name of the first book in a group of books that had been clustered by literary genre. Writing in the journal Bibliotheca Sacra over a half a century ago, Charles Feinberg commented on this point, saying, “The Talmudic tradition [e.g., Baba Bathra 14b—[SIZE=-1]DM/EL[/SIZE]] shows that the prophetic writings in order of their place in the sacred books was Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc. This order is found in many Hebrew [SIZE=-1]MSS[/SIZE]…. Matthew, then quoted the passage as from the roll of the prophets, which roll is cited by the first book” (1945, p. 72). Furthermore, in all of the quotations from Zechariah in the New Testament, no mention is ever made of his name in conjunction with the prophecies (cf. Matthew 21:4; 26:31; John 12:14; 19:37). Thus, it is logical to conclude that Matthew merely referred to this whole division of the Old Testament by naming its first book (Jeremiah), just as Jesus referred to the “writings” section of the Old Testament by the name of its first book, Psalms (Luke 24:44). Jeremiah could have served as the designation for quotations from any of the included books. (Another example is found in Mark 1:2-3 where Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 are blended and attributed to Isaiah.)
Third, and perhaps most important, Old Testament context is critical in sorting out the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. New Testament writers frequently were guided by the Holy Spirit to weave the thought of several Old Testament contexts into a single application. Matthew referred to a series of details in the following order: the thirty pieces of silver (vs. 3); Judas threw the silver down in the temple (vs. 5); the chief priests took the silver and bought the potter’s field (vs. 6-7); and the field is named (vs. 8).
Matthew then quoted from the Old Testament (vss. 9-10). Notice the comparison between Matthew’s wording and the Old Testament references:

Matthew
Zechariah​

“And they took the thirty pieces of silver”
“So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver.”
“the value of him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced”
“And the Lord said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’—that princely price they set on me.”
“And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me”
“So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter.”

Jeremiah​

“Arise and go down to the potter’s house…there he was, making something at the wheel” (18:2-3).
“Go and get a potter’s earthen flask…and go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom” (19:1-2).
“Even so I will break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel” (19:11).
“Please buy my field that is in Anathoth…. So I bought the field…and weighed out to him the money—seventeen shekels of silver” (32:8-9).

Matthew’s use of Zechariah is clearly paraphrastic, drawing from its wording while adjusting locus. In Matthew, the chief priests took the money returned by Judas; in Zechariah, Zechariah requested wages from the people. In Matthew, Judas threw the money on the ground before the chief priests; in Zechariah, Zechariah was told to throw the money “to the potter,” which was achieved by throwing it into the house of the Lord for the potter. Matthew’s greatest emphasis is on the acquisition of a potter’s field. Zechariah says nothing about a field.
It is not until one peruses the pages of Jeremiah that one sees the striking resemblance, first to Zechariah, and then to Matthew’s narrative. Zechariah’s allusion to the potter harks back to the imagery and symbolism of Jeremiah. But Matthew’s allusion to the potter’s field harks back to Jeremiah—not Zechariah. So Matthew was demonstrating the overriding superintendence of the Holy Spirit, Who was combining and summarizing elements of prophetic symbolism both from Zechariah and from Jeremiah.
A superficial assessment of the surface tension between Matthew and Jeremiah fails to grasp the complexity and sophistication of the ultimate Mind behind Matthew’s handling of the sacred text. The one who assumes error on the part of Bible writers inevitably fails to probe the depths of inspired writ to discover the ingenuity and power that reside there.

REFERENCES​