Let's look at what Lactantius wrote:
But that He would rise again on the third day, the prophets had long ago foretold. David, in the xvth Psalm: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption"
First, this is verse 10, Psalm xvi, not xv. Unfortunately, the Septuagint (LXX) completely differs from the Hebrew Bible (MT)
because You will not leave my soul in Hades, neither will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. [LXX] * |
The Lord has hearkened to my supplication; the Lord has accepted my prayer. [MT}
|
*Note: in this instance the Protestant Old Testament takes the Septuagint version rather than the Hebrew version.
|
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption |
_______________
Second, "This my Son is wise" is (Hosea 13: 13, LXX). Unfortunately, it is irreconcilable with the Masoretic Text. And it's about unrepentant Ehraim, not Christ.
|
Pains as of a woman in travail shall come upon him; he is your wise son, because he shall not stay in the destruction of your children. [LXX] |
The pains of childbirth come upon him;He is not a wise son, for it is not the time that he should delay at the opening of the womb. [MT] |
You will also notice that the word "son" in Lactantius' modern rendition is capitalized. We know that neither Hebrew nor Greek used lower-case letters and that this is a Christianized rendition of the text to give the impression Hosea was "prophesying" about Christ.
The whole Lactanius' sentence asserting that the "prophets foretold" that Christ would rise on the third day is a collage of different verses which may meet the purpose but not the context of such a claim. In other words, it's a concoction of typical cut-and-paste variety presented as a single "prophesy" (in retrospect to boot).
"After two days He will revive us on the third day.”
This is Hosea 6:2, not Hosea 13, Kolo, as your search engine suggests, and it's also out of context. The very beginning of Hosea 6 makes it clear that this is not about Christ, the Son of God.
1"Come, let us return to the LORD
For He has torn us, but He will heal us;
He has wounded us, but He will bandage us.
2"He will revive us after two days;
He will raise us up on the third day,
That we may live before Him.
Here, Hosea is using Prophet Jeremiah (50:4), predicting that the Israelites will come seeking God (again). Obviously this has no bearing or similitude to Christ. He never had a reason to return to God (i.e. repent)!
Interestingly, +Paul borrows from Hosea's verse 2, associating this verse with Christ
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, [1 Cor 15:4]
Notice the "accoridng to the Scriptures." It's in the scriptures alright, but it's out of context because the whole chapter is about unfaithful Israelites and not even something close to the perfectly obedient Christ. +Paul used it because it suited his purpose, and then he give it the "according to the Scriptures" to make it authoritative, but in reality it is is an out of context construct for effect.
This is one of those humbling moments when one discovers his own "scribal" error. In referring to Psalm xvi (16), I inadvertently quoted from Ps vi (6) when I used the Tanach version. That is obvious even from the heading I gave. As it turns out, the verses in Ps xvi. are much closer, but not close enough:
|
because You will not leave my soul in Hades, neither will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.[LXX] |
For You shall not forsake my soul to the grave; You shall not allow Your pious one to see the pit.[MT] |
The key here is the context. The words used in Greek and Hebrew are sufficiently "loose" to allow either interpretation, but in context—considering this is David writing about himself—it is unlikely that he would call himself the "holy one," or that he was referring to anyone but himself. Anyone who reads the entire Chapter xvi (16) should see that immediately. How did Lactantius connect this to Christ is beyond me.