Most Jewish translations of the Hebrew text have something like : "The nation will turn to me because of those who who are stabbed" - is that a deliberate mistranslation ic.w. the Christian claim that it is about Jesus Christ?
Grok:
https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=2028368128502075813
No, the common Jewish translations of Zechariah 12:10 (such as those in the JPS Tanakh or similar renderings like "they shall look to Me because of those who have been thrust through/slain") are not a deliberate mistranslation designed to counter the Christian claim that the verse points to Jesus Christ.The differences stem from legitimate grammatical and interpretive challenges in the Hebrew text, not intentional distortion. Here's a breakdown:The Hebrew Text and Core IssueThe Masoretic Text (the standard Hebrew Bible used in Judaism) reads approximately:
וְהִבִּיטוּ אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר דָּקָרוּ
(vehibbitu elay et asher daqaru)אֵלַי (elay) = "to Me" or "upon Me" (God speaking).
אֵת אֲשֶׁר (et asher) = a relative clause marker, often "whom" or "the one whom," but sometimes interpreted as "concerning whom" / "because of those whom" / "regarding that which."
דָּקָרוּ (daqaru) = "they have pierced" / "thrust through" / "stabbed" (a straightforward verb meaning to pierce with a weapon; "slain" in some Jewish translations is interpretive but close in sense to violent death by piercing).
A very literal word-for-word rendering is something like: "they will look to Me [the] one whom they have pierced."This creates an abrupt shift: God says "look to Me" (whom they pierced), then "they will mourn for him" (using a third-person pronoun for the object of mourning). This pronoun switch ("Me" → "him") appears in the Hebrew itself and has puzzled interpreters for centuries.Main Translation ApproachesChristian-influenced Bibles (e.g., KJV, NIV, ESV): "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him..."
This keeps "Me" as the pierced one (identifying God/the Messiah as pierced) and treats the shift to "him" as referring to the same figure (or a representative). The New Testament (John 19:37) quotes it as "They will look on him whom they have pierced," aligning it closely with Jesus' crucifixion.
Jewish translations (e.g., JPS 1917/1985, many Orthodox editions, Chabad): "they shall look to Me because of those whom they (or the nations) have pierced/thrust through/slaughtered," with mourning over "him/it" referring to the slain (often Jewish martyrs or victims in battle).
This reads אֵת אֲשֶׁר more as "concerning those whom" rather than a direct "whom" identifying "Me" as the pierced party.
Both are defensible based on Hebrew grammar:אֵת אֲשֶׁר can function as a direct relative ("whom") or as "that which"/"concerning that" in some contexts.
The verb daqaru unambiguously means "pierced" (not just "slain" in a generic sense), though "slain" appears in some Jewish renderings as an interpretive gloss for the violent piercing.
Is It Deliberate Bias?No evidence supports the idea of deliberate mistranslation to "avoid" a Christian reading.The standard Jewish rendering aligns with classical commentators like Rashi (11th century), who explains: the people look to God to complain/mourn over those (Jews) whom the nations pierced/killed in exile. He also notes a rabbinic midrashic view linking the mourning to Messiah ben Joseph (a suffering messianic figure slain in battle).
Ancient sources like the Talmud (Sukkah 52a) discuss the verse messianically (mourning over a slain Messiah figure), while keeping the "look to Me" language.
The differences predate modern polemics and reflect longstanding interpretive traditions, not post-Christian editing to counter Jesus claims.
SummaryThe verse is genuinely difficult and ambiguous in Hebrew—hence the variations. Jewish translations prioritize a reading where God is not the one pierced (mourning is over slain Jews or a messianic figure), which fits traditional Jewish theology (God is incorporeal and not subject to piercing). Christian translations emphasize the direct "Me... pierced" to connect to Jesus. Neither side is fabricating the text; both are interpreting the same consonants with different grammatical decisions and theological lenses.If you're looking at a specific Jewish Bible edition that says "stabbed" or "slain," it's usually an attempt to convey the violent sense of daqaru in natural English, not a cover-up. The core Hebrew text supports neither side as unambiguously "wrong."
