Talk:They have pierced my hands and my feet

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bible Top‑importance 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 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.

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]

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]

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]