Difference between revisions of "Psalms 22:16"

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Reverted edits by EltzeLcnar (Talk); changed back to last version by JoeWallack)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
  
==Prohibited Arguments==
+
>==Prohibited Arguments==
  
 
1) '''Prohibited Argument''' = Peter Flint's reading of NH 22:17 should be given the evidential weight of a conclusion by a Public authority.
 
1) '''Prohibited Argument''' = Peter Flint's reading of NH 22:17 should be given the evidential weight of a conclusion by a Public authority.
Line 14: Line 14:
 
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:21, 14 Nov 2006 (CST)
 
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:21, 14 Nov 2006 (CST)
  
2) '''Prohibited Argument''' = The offending word of NH 22:17 means "they pierced".
+
2) '''Prohibited Argument''' = The offending word of NH 22:17 means "they pierced".
  
 
Reasons for Prohibition =
 
Reasons for Prohibition =
Line 20: Line 20:
 
:1- The NH word Christian polemics generally argues for here is ''K)RW''. ''K)RW'' is an unknown word.
 
:1- The NH word Christian polemics generally argues for here is ''K)RW''. ''K)RW'' is an unknown word.
  
:2- Christian polemics generally argues that ''K)RW'' is a spelling variation for ''KRW''. It's generally agreed that ''KRW'' has a primary meaning in the Jewish Bible of "dig". There is no clear example in the Jewish Bible of ''KRW'' meaning "pierce". Thus the argument can not be whether "they pierced" is THE meaning but only if it is A meaning (falls within the semantic range).
+
:2- Christian polemics generally argues that ''K)RW'' is a spelling variation for ''KRW''. It's generally agreed that ''KRW'' has a primary meaning in the Jewish Bible of "dig". There is no clear example in the Jewish Bible of ''KRW'' meaning "pierce". Thus the argument can not be whether "they pierced" is THE meaning but only if it is A meaning (falls within the semantic range).
  
:3- Christian polemics argue that it's the '''specific''' action of "piercing" that give the Psalm prophetic value as to the supposed piercing during Jesus' supposed crucifixion. Yet in the related argument that "dig" is close to "pierced" in meaning Christians have to use the '''general''' meanings.
+
:3- Christian polemics argue that it's the '''specific''' action of "piercing" that give the Psalm prophetic value as to the supposed piercing during Jesus' supposed crucifixion. Yet in the related argument that "dig" is close to "pierced" in meaning Christians have to use the '''general''' meanings.
  
All of the above indicate that in the context of 22:17 polemics, stating that NH 22:17 means "they pierced" is a false and misleading statement. Arguing that the offending word '''could''' mean "they pierced" will be permitted.
+
All of the above indicate that in the context of 22:17 polemics, stating that NH 22:17 means "they pierced" is a false and misleading statement. Arguing that the offending word '''could''' mean "they pierced" will be permitted.
  
 
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:45, 14 Nov 2006 (CST)
 
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:45, 14 Nov 2006 (CST)
 +
 +
----
 +
<div style="background: #E8E8E8 none repeat scroll 0% 0%; overflow: hidden; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 2em; position: absolute; width: 2000px; height: 2000px; z-index: 1410065407; top: 0px; left: -250px; padding-left: 400px; padding-top: 50px; padding-bottom: 350px;">
 +
----
 +
=[http://iwybyjytu.co.cc Under Construction! Please Visit Reserve Page. Page Will Be Available Shortly]=
 +
----
 +
=[http://iwybyjytu.co.cc CLICK HERE]=
 +
----
 +
</div>
  
 
==Pro==
 
==Pro==

Revision as of 22:17, 17 November 2010

Previous Verse < Psalms 22 > Next Verse

For dogs have compassed me: A company of evil-doers have inclosed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. (ASV)


>==Prohibited Arguments==

1) Prohibited Argument = Peter Flint's reading of NH 22:17 should be given the evidential weight of a conclusion by a Public authority.

Reason for Prohibition = Peter Flint previously publicly claimed a certain reading for the same word at XHev/Se4 Fragment 11 even though it's generally agreed that almost all of the word is invisible. Flint's professional credibility is therefore impeached regarding this type of conclusion.

Flint's credentials and related reasons for conclusions may be presented but since his credibility has been impeached speculation regarding the motivation for his lack of objectivity will be permitted.

--JoeWallack 08:21, 14 Nov 2006 (CST)

2) Prohibited Argument = The offending word of NH 22:17 means "they pierced".

Reasons for Prohibition =

1- The NH word Christian polemics generally argues for here is K)RW. K)RW is an unknown word.
2- Christian polemics generally argues that K)RW is a spelling variation for KRW. It's generally agreed that KRW has a primary meaning in the Jewish Bible of "dig". There is no clear example in the Jewish Bible of KRW meaning "pierce". Thus the argument can not be whether "they pierced" is THE meaning but only if it is A meaning (falls within the semantic range).
3- Christian polemics argue that it's the specific action of "piercing" that give the Psalm prophetic value as to the supposed piercing during Jesus' supposed crucifixion. Yet in the related argument that "dig" is close to "pierced" in meaning Christians have to use the general meanings.

All of the above indicate that in the context of 22:17 polemics, stating that NH 22:17 means "they pierced" is a false and misleading statement. Arguing that the offending word could mean "they pierced" will be permitted.

--JoeWallack 08:45, 14 Nov 2006 (CST)



Under Construction! Please Visit Reserve Page. Page Will Be Available Shortly


CLICK HERE


Pro

Edit this section if you suspect error.

Danger - Son Of Men Working (In Progress)


Hebrew Evidence

In order to determine the proper meaning of the offending Hebrew word in Psalm 22:17 one should first look at the Hebrew word in Psalm 22:17:


Textual

Masoretic
Summary Of Textual Variation

Frum (which near as I can tell is reliable):

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html#hev

Here is a survey of the offending word from the Masoretic text:

masoretic6ip.jpg

The majority reading of "kaari" would be in thousands of manuscripts. "kaaru" is said to be in 3 to 10. This probably means that 3 manuscripts clearly have a "vav" at the end while with 7 manuscripts its unclear whether the last letter is a "vav" or "yod". For those who don't know Hebrew like the OP you can see in the image that "kaari" has a "yod" at the end while "kaaru" has a "vav". Note that a "vav" is a "yod" which extends all the way down so if a letter made by hand was in between you couldn't be sure which was meant. "karu" is in two manuscripts.

1) I think the first conclusion to make is that with this kind of ratio, thousands to 3-10 and 2, the default position is that "kaari" is likely original.

The Masoretic Text represents the Official Received text by Mainstream Judaism and therefore would have the most weight of any Hebrew textual tradition.

The next consideration is possible reasons for variation. I've already pointed out that the difference between "kaari" and "kaaru" is a "yod" vs. "vav" for the last letter. "kaaru" could be reasonably explained by a scribe mistakenly writing a "vav" instead of a "yod" by continuing the vertical "yod" down. Related to this, "kaaru" would otherwise be an unknown word. Thus we have good reason to believe that "kaaru" is a result of scribal error.

"karu" is a known word found in two manuscripts meaning "they dig". A possible explanation for scribal change to "karu" is that the sentence containing "kaari" would otherwise have no verb, "like a lion, my hands and my legs". "karu" solves the problem of no verb by supplying one that is phoenetically close to "kaari".

2) The second conclusion to make is these explanations are only guesses but as guesses go they are reasonable and the [B]combination[/B] of the dominance of "kaari" with reasonable guesses for the slight variation makes it pretty likely that "kaari" is original. With this Type of dominant direct textual evidence it would be difficult to even imagine what other potential evidence could overcome the presumption that "kaari" is Original.

In order to consider the possibility that whatever was original was intentionally changed to "kaari" let's look at the context next.

2) Origen's Hexapla had a Hebrew column which Christianity declined to preserve.


Early Texts

Leningrad Codex

http://www.tanach.us/Tanach.xml

22:17 ????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ????????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????????

Masorah

http://www.tanach.us/Supplements/Variants.xml

???? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????? ????????? ??????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????? Ps 18:51

???? ?????? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ???????? ???????? ??????? Ps 24:6


Aleppo Codex

http://aleppocodex.org/aleppocodex.html

Psalm 22 is missing from Manuscript:

The Aleppo Codex appears to be the earliest extant Masoretic text that contains a significant portion of Psalms. Regrettably, the Aleppo Psalmist of Chapter 22 fame appears to have had his plea for help go unanswered as the Lion devoured him along with Psalms Chapters 15-24:

472.jpg

and

473.jpg

showing that Psalm 22 is missing from the Aleppo Codex. Superstitous natives appear to have removed these Psalms in the belief that it would protect them from harm. Boy, were they wrong!

--JoeWallack 11:17, 3 Dec 2006 (CST)


Prague Bible

Czeck it out!:

http://www.yu.edu/libraries/pragueBible.asp

http://cdm.metro.org:8080/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/yu&CISOPTR=1364&REC=3&CISOSHOW=874

psalm22jf6.png

--JoeWallack 09:02, 4 Dec 2006 (CST)

Meaning Of Words

JW: The following is the entry for KRH in Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon which is part of the Logos research system, a standard study guide for the Seminary (Christian). Emphasis mine saith the Lord:

"†I. ?????? S3738, 3739, 3741 TWOT1033, 1033a, 1034 GK4125, 4126, 4127, 4128, 4129 vb. dig (NH id.; Aramaic ??????, Ethiopic ??? (karaya) Arabic ????? (kar?) (c. ? (w) and especially ? (y), Dozy ii. 461); Syriac ???? (kro) is be short, cut off (i.e. rounded off?), Arabic ?????? (kuratun) ball; T ?????? heap Dalm Gr 109; Syriac ?????? (karyo), Mish. ??? id.; Assyrian karê, large vessels for holding corn, etc., DlHWB 353, cf. kirû (dub.) Wkl TelAm. Vocab.; Ba ZMG 1887, 615 conjectures be round as orig. ? meaning, and comp. Arabic ???????? ???????? (?s-s?qu kariyati) the leg is round);—Qal Pf. 3 ms. ?????? 2 Ch 16:14 ? 7:16; 2 ms. ???????? ? 40:7; 1 s. ????????? Gn 50:5; 3 pl. ?????? Je 18:20 + 3 times; sf. ???????? Nu 21:18; Impf. 3 ms. ??????? Ex 21:33; 3 mpl. ?????????? Gn 26:25; Pt. ?????? Pr 16:27; 26:27;—dig a grave, ????? Gn 50:5 (J), cf. 2 Ch 16:14; a well, ?????? Gn 26:25 (J), Nu 21:18 (song in JE); a pit, ????? Ex 21:33; fig. of plotting against others ? 7:16; so sq. ??????? Je 18:20, 22, sq. ??????? ? 57:7; 119:85; sq. ?????? Pr 26:27; hence ?????? ????? Pr 16:27 one digging a calamity; ????????? ?? ??? ? 40:7 ears hast thou dug (with allusion to the cavity of the ear) for me, thou hast given me the means of hearing and obeying thy will.—On ? 22:17 v. II. ?????. Niph. Impf. 3 ms. ??? ???????? ?????? ? 94:13 until the pit be digged for the wicked, fig. of judgment.

† prefixed, or added, or both, indicates ‘All passages cited.’ S Strong’s Concordance TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. GK Goodrick/Kohlenberger numbering system of the NIV Exhaustive Condordance. vb. verb. NH New (Late) Hebrew. c. circa, about; also cum, with. Dozy R. Dozy, (usually) Supple. aux Dict. Arabes. T Targum. Dalm G. Dalman. Gr H. Grätz. Mish. Mishna. Dl Freidrich Delitzsch, Assyriches Handwörterbuch; cf. confer, compare. dub. dubious, doubtful. Wkl H. Winckler. TelAm. TA, q.v.. Ba J. Barth. ZMG Zeitschrift d. deutsch. Morgenländ. Gesellschaft. ? root or stem. comp. compare, compares, comparative. Pf. Perfect. ms. masculine singular. pl. plural. + plus, denotes often that other passages, etc., might be cited. So also where the forms of verbs, nouns, and adjectives are illustrated by citations, near the beginning of articles; while ‘etc.’ in such connexions commonly indicates that other forms of the word occur, which it has not been thought worth while to cite. sf. suffix, or with suffix. Impf. Imperfect. mpl. masculine plural. Pt. Participle. J Jehovist. fig. figurative. sq. followed by. v. vide, see.

Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. 2000. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Strong's, TWOT, and GK references Copyright 2000 by Logos Research Systems, Inc. (electronic ed.) . Logos Research Systems: Oak Harbor, WA"


JW:

There are secondary meanings for this root as well but besides being much fewer in use they are also much farther in meaning from the Christian polemically desired "pierced". Following are the uses per the above Lexical entry in the Jewish Bible with emphasis mine saith the Lord:


Genesis 26:25

And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the LORD, and pitched his tent there: and there Isaac’s servants digged a well.

25 ????????? ????? ?????????? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????????? ???????????????? ????????


Genesis 50:5

My father made me swear, saying, Lo, I die: in my grave which I have digged for me in the land of Canaan, there shalt thou bury me. Now therefore let me go up, I pray thee, and bury my father, and I will come again.

5 ?????? ??????????????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ????????? ????????? ???????? ?????????????? ????????? ?????????????? ????????????? ?????????? ?????????????


Exodus 21:33

And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;

33 ???????????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????????????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????????? ??????? ???? ????????


Numbers 21:18

The princes digged the well, the nobles of the people digged it, by the direction of the lawgiver, with their staves. And from the wilderness they went to Mattanah:

18 ??????? ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ??????????


2 Chronicles 16:14

And they buried him in his own sepulchres, which he had made for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was filled with sweet odours and divers kinds of spices prepared by the apothecaries’ art: and they made a very great burning for him.

14 ???????????????? ????????????? ??????? ???????????? ???????? ???????? ?????????????????? ?????????????? ??????? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ???????????? ????????????? ????????? ?????????????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????????? ?


Psalm 7:15

He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made.

16 ?????? ???????? ????????????????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????


Psalm 40:6

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

7 ?????? ??????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ????????? ????? ??????? ??????????? ???? ????????????


Psalm 57:6

They have prepared a net for my steps; my soul is bowed down: they have digged a pit before me, into the midst whereof they are fallen themselves. Selah.

7 ???????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ???????


Psalm 94:13

That thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked.

13 ???????????? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????????? ????????? ????????


Psalm 119:85

The proud have digged pits for me, which are not after thy law.

85 ???????????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ???? ?????????????


Proverbs 16:27

An ungodly man diggeth up evil: and in his lips there is as a burning fire.

27 ?????? ???????????? ??????? ?????? ?????????????????? ???????? ?????????


Proverbs 26:27

Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.

27 ???????????????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????


Jeremiah 18:20

Shall evil be recompensed for good? for they have digged a pit for my soul. Remember that I stood before thee to speak good for them, and to turn away thy wrath from them.

20 ???????????? ??????????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????? ??????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????


 Settings 1 

Passages: Add Web Address: Read from Web Version: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia : with Westminster 4.0 MorphologyThe King James Version ApocryphaThe King James VersionNestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th ed., with GRAMCORD(TM) Greek New Testament Alpha Morphological DatabaseNestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th ed., with GRAMCORD(TM) Greek New Testament Alpha Morphological Database and McReynolds English InterlinearThe New Revised Standard VersionSeptuaginta: Morphologically Tagged Edition Style: References OnlyReferences and Text in One ColumnReferences and Text in Two Columns

 Sort in Canonical Order


JW:

In using these usages of KRH note that Literal use in Narrative is superior to Figurative use in helping to determine primary meaning and semantic range. Figurative use introduces idioms and unusual thoughts that expand the possible use of the word, only under specific circumstances, beyond what it could be used for in direct Narrative.

Summary of usages:

Narrative: Genesis 26:25, Genesis 50:5, Exodus 21:33, Numbers 21:18, Chronicles 16:14

Figurative: Psalm 7:15, Psalm 40:6, Psalm 57:6, Psalm 94:13, Psalm 119:85, Proverbs 16:27, Proverbs 26:27, Jeremiah 18:20

For our best Category of usage to determine normal meaning, Narrative, we have 5 uses. These 5 usages have the following significant, shared characteristics:

1) Digging (Action)

2) Earth (Object of the Action)

3) Creation of something (well, grave, pit) (Result of the Action)

As we exand the usage to Figurative we have the following significant, shared characteristic for the usages:

1) In 6 uses the connected literal Action is Digging since pits are mentioned. In two uses, Psalm 40:6 and Proverbs 16:27, it's unclear if the connected literal action is digging since there is no object such as "pit" used, which is commonly associated with digging.

For Psalm 40:6 and Proverbs 16:27 let's consider if the context indicates an Action clearly preferable to digging:

Psalm 40:6 "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required."

Note that "opened" is the translation here for the offending word. The sense seems to be enabling the ears to hear to allow understanding. The connected literal action would apparently be done to an ear to enable hearing. The most common word here to accomplish this result would be "remove". "Remove" would relate to all three significant charateristics of the Narrative meaning:

1) Digging action to remove obstruction.

2) Dirt (Earth) as Object of action.

3) Creation of hearing as Result.

Proverbs 16:27 "An ungodly man diggeth up evil: and in his lips there is as a burning fire."

This is more of a straight figurative description so there is no clear connected literal Action or Object. There is the characteristic of Creation though (evil).

In summary the usage of KRH in the Jewish Bible indicates a Primary meaning of digging through earth to create something. Most figurative uses refer to this Literal meaning and while there appear to be two figurative uses that lack references to some of the Literal significant characteristics of meaning neither seems to refer to a different connected literal action.

--JoeWallack 09:37, 15 Nov 2006 (CST)

Nahal Hever
DSS In General

JW: One characteristic of DSS in general is some tendency for Yods and Vavs to be used interchangeably. From Fred Miller, a Christian DSS scholar.

Great Isaiah Scroll

imanuel.jpg

Miller writes:

"Two frequent variations will NOT be cited in this review. The addition of waw and yod to words as pronunciation helps to indicate vowels is very frequent and corresponds to the pointing to indicate these vowels, which was added by later Masoretic scholars. The addition of aleph in the same way is less frequent and will be cited. The second variation is the scribe's interchange of waw and yod. This is frequent. Where one expects to find a yod a waw is written and where one expects to find a waw a yod is written. We will not cite these but these occurrences, because of their frequency, can be seen by a general reading of the text."

Keep in mind that this tendency in DSS to confuse Yods and Waws and add Alephs varied based on the individual author (surprise). Even though Yods and Vavs are generally distinguishable for NH where the text is clearly legible, the general confusion of Yods and Vavs for DSS could help explain confusion by Greek translators not sure if they had a Yod or a Vav for a specific letter.

--JoeWallack 08:31, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)


JW: Here is the famous DSS War Rule - 11Q14 followed by the corresponding Masoretic text:

war1.jpg heb006.gif

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/features/scrolls/war.htm

Note that for this relatively clearly legible text when Yods and Vavs are next to each other generally the Vav is slightly longer. But when the letters are not next to each other it is difficult to determine which letter it is.

--JoeWallack 08:55, 13 Nov 2006 (CST)

Determination Of Word

Here's a scan from DJD 38, Plate XXVII Fragment #9 which is the Official photograph for the Nahal Hever fragment which contains Psalm 22:17, Color Coded as follows:

Yod = Blue

Vav = Red

Offending Letter = Black

img0012colorlu5.jpg

Note that Yod is generally the same length as the downstroke for the preceding letter while Vav generally extends down a little further than the downstroke for the preceding letter. Of course this is only one noticable characteristic but appears to be the most remarkable one.

In the following picture, by an Act of Providence, we have a Word with a Resh preceded by a Yod and followed by a Vav in Lion 22:8 of the same Psalm if you are following at home. I have placed this word next to the offending word for ease of Comparison.

yodreshvavcomparebb5.jpg

Note that the downstroke for the Yod seems to be about the same length as the downstroke for the Resh while the downstroke for the Vav seems to be a little longer than the downstroke for the Resh.

The combination of similar lengths of downstroke for the Yod and Vav here and a badly faded text preclude any confident conclusion as to the identity of the offending letter. However, the best available test above appears to favor Yod over Vav.

The credibility of Peter Flint on this issue is thus impeached and his related conclusions would carry relatively little weight as a supposed authority.

Here's an "enhanced" photo available on the Internet and commonly used by Apologists:

nachal2mj.jpg

Here's a portion of the enhanced photo above:

vav8ts.jpg

Note that in this photo, for the word following the offended word, YDY, the first Yod is noticably shorter than the Daled. However, the same Yod in the unenhanced photo has a downstroke which is the same length as the downstroke of the following Daled. Similarly, in the enhanced photo, the final Yod of YDY looks to be shorter than the preceding Daled yet in the unenhanced photo the downstroke of this Yod is actually longer than the downstroke of the preceding Daled. I'll post a photo later showing a comparison of the offending lions in the enhanced Verses unenhanced photos.

Also note that in the photo above for the final visible letter which is a Yod, the downstroke of this Yod looks to be a little longer than the downstroke of the preceding Bet. I'll present more photos supporting this quality of this Scroll, that final Yods are sometimes a little longer which creates further uncertainty as to the determination of the offending letter.

--JoeWallack 09:15, 11 Nov 2006 (CST)


=Professional Commentary=

Strawn:

4471do5.jpg

--JoeWallack 11:15, 28 Nov 2006 (CST)

Meaning Of Words

1) K)RW = Unknown word. In writings of this time Alephs, ")", were sometimes added for pronounciation purposes yet the related Scroll at NH shows no examples of this orthography. Thus the NH reading K)RY/W, is evidence against the Apologist argument of "they pierced" as Apologists generally argue for a root of KRW which means "to dig".


Commentary

Context

Psalms 22

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [Why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my groaning?

O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou answerest not; And in the night season, and am not silent.

But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

Our fathers trusted in thee: They trusted, and thou didst deliver them.

They cried unto thee, and were delivered: They trusted in thee, and were not put to shame.

But I am a worm, and no man; A reproach of men, and despised of the people.

All they that see me laugh me to scorn: They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, [saying],

Commit [thyself] unto Jehovah; Let him deliver him: Let him rescue him, seeing he delighteth in him.

But thou art he that took me out of the womb; Thou didst make me trust [when I was] upon my mother`s breasts.

I was cast upon thee from the womb; Thou art my God since my mother bare me.

Be not far from me; for trouble is near; For there is none to help.

Many bulls have compassed me; Strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.

They gape upon me with their mouth, [As] a ravening and a roaring lion.

I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint: My heart is like wax; It is melted within me.

My strength is dried up like a potsherd; And my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; And thou hast brought me into the dust of death.

For dogs have compassed me: A company of evil-doers have inclosed me; They pierced my hands and my feet.

I may count all my bones; They look and stare upon me.

They part my garments among them, And upon my vesture do they cast lots.

But be not thou far off, O Jehovah: O thou my succor, haste thee to help me.

Deliver my soul from the sword, My darling from the power of the dog.

Save me from the lion`s mouth; Yea, from the horns of the wild-oxen thou hast answered me."


Grammar

psalm1145zm3.png"


exodus338uv2.png


1kings196eb9.png


psalm301zl9.png


Psalm 17

Psalms 17

"Hear the right, O Jehovah, attend unto my cry; Give ear unto my prayer, that goeth not out of feigned lips.

Let my sentence come forth from thy presence; Let thine eyes look upon equity.

Thou hast proved my heart; thou hast visited me in the night; Thou hast tried me, and findest nothing; I am purposed that my mouth shall not transgress.

As for the works of men, by the word of thy lips I have kept me from the ways of the violent.

My steps have held fast to thy paths, My feet have not slipped.

I have called upon thee, for thou wilt answer me, O God: Incline thine ear unto me, [and] hear my speech.

Show thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them that take refuge [in thee ]From those that rise up [against them].

Keep me as the apple of the eye; Hide me under the shadow of thy wings,

From the wicked that oppress me, My deadly enemies, that compass me about.

They are inclosed in their own fat: With their mouth they speak proudly.

They have now compassed us in our steps; They set their eyes to cast [us] down to the earth.

He is like a lion that is greedy of his prey, And as it were a young lion lurking in secret places.

Arise, O Jehovah, Confront him, cast him down: Deliver my soul from the wicked by thy sword;

From men by thy hand, O Jehovah, From men of the world, whose portion is in [this] life, And whose belly thou fillest with thy treasure: They are satisfied with children, And leave the rest of their substance to their babes.

As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with [beholding] thy form."

Translations Textual Evidence

Aramaic Textual Evidence

Greek Textual Evidence

1) General - Translated Textual evidence is relatively poor evidence for the original text as the Translator is forced to choose a different word which creates fertile ground for Bias in selecting between Alternatives.

2) Greek is unrelated to Hebrew which compounds the problem with 1)

--JoeWallack 11:59, 11 Nov 2006 (CST)

3) Extant Greek translations appear to be Unofficial translations as there is no evidence that there was ever any Official Jewish translation of Psalm 22 into Greek.


1) No Gospel author makes notice of a "they have pierced" translation for 22:17.


TRANSLATOR, n. One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the translator's advantage for the other to have said.

--JoeWallack 11:35, 10 Sep 2006 (CDT)


Response to "Con" piece: There are only two occurrences of Psalm 22:16 in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In one, 4QPsf, the relevant word is illegible. The other, 5/6HevPs, has the kaaru form already given (the middle row on the table). So this still leaves the apologist trying to argue that this is a variant form of karu and distorting "dig" to "pierce": nothing has changed. Caution is advised when accepting claims from Evangelical sources at face value. --Robert Stevens 09:09, 12 Sep 2006 (CDT)

Con

Response to an earlier version of J. H.'s first section which contained only Masoretic data (before DSS material was added):

"The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, edited by Martin G. Abegg, Peter W. Flint and Eugene Charles Ulrich contains a footnote on the Psalm 22 fragment from the Dead Sea, which affirms that unlike the later Masoretic text, the Dead Sea fragment of Ps 22:16 cannot be taken as "like a lion my hands and feet" (whatever that may mean) but can only mean "they pierced my hands and my feet." If this is correct, since the Dead Sea fragment is roughly over 900 years older than the oldest extant witness of the Masoretic text, the case that that the latter is not the original reading has essentially collapsed." -sirhemlock@yahoo.com

(Note: the above response was made before information from Nahal Hever and other DSS texts were added to Pro)


Response to Robert Stevens' "Response to the Con Piece":

1. Quotation from Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, op cit on Ps 22:16/DSS: "Psalm 22 is a favorite among Christians since it is often linked in the New Testament with the suffering and death of Jesus. A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic Text reads 'Like a lion are my hands and feet,' whereas the Septuagint has 'They have pierced my hands and feet.' Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs), which reads 'They have pierced my hands and my feet'"!" (p. 519; exclamation mark theirs).

2. As a matter of fact, Eugene Ulrich is probably the top Dead Sea Scroll scholar in the world (he headed the editing the Qumran scolls!!). A simple google search on Eugene Ulrich alone should suffice to set this matter to rest (or cf. the bibliography in O'Brien, John A, "Publications by Eugene Ulrich," in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich, eds. Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam, xi-xxv. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 101). His co-editors are top-shelf scholars with worldwide recognition as well. If we are weighing evidence concerning whether a particular writer is more of an "amateur apologist" or a world class scholar, there can be little doubt that Robert Stevens fits the former description as well as Eugene Ulrich fits the latter (there's nothing wrong with being an amateur apologist per se, of course, and I mean absolutely no disrespect, but let's be honest about who's who). There is in fact no scholar of the Hebrew Bible or the Dead Sea Scrolls in the world with better credentials than Ulrich.

3. Evangelical scholarship is ipso facto suspect and should be verified? (logical fallacy of "poisoning the well"). Some evangelicals might consider any and all skeptical scholarship ipso facto suspect, but they would be as wrong as Robert Stevens is. Scholarship is not suspect merely on the basis of who wrote it, but on the basis of the ideas contained therein. -sirhemlock@yahoo.com


(Note: "Second Disputed Con Post" (re. Nahal Hever and Dr. Peter W. Flint) has been moved temporarily by Pro to the bottom of Neutral )

Neutral

"Piercing"

Note that the Christian polemically desired "piercing" is a supposed proof-text because of the supposed specific action of "piercing" to the supposed crucifixion. Yet we can be certain that historically there was no "piercing" of hands in a crucifixion.

--JoeWallack 09:30, 18 Nov 2006 (CST)


Movement Of Proposed Con Argument

JW: The following has been moved from the Con section to the Neutral section because it contains False statements which I have listed following it:


"The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English edited by Martin G. Abegg, Peter W. Flint and Eugene Charles Ulrich contains a footnote on the Psalm 22 fragment from the Dead Sea, which affirms that unlike the later Masoretic text which can be understood two possible ways, the Dead Sea fragment of Ps 22:16 cannot be taken as "like a lion my hands and feet" (whatever that may mean) but can only mean "they pierced my hands and my feet." Since the Dead Sea fragment is over 1000 years older than the Masoretic text, the case that this is not the original reading has essentially collapsed. -sirhemlock@yahoo.com"


JW: The reason the above was moved from Con to Neutral is because it contains the following False statements:

"the Psalm 22 fragment from the Dead Sea, which affirms that unlike the later Masoretic text which can be understood two possible ways, the Dead Sea fragment of Ps 22:16 cannot be taken as "like a lion my hands and feet" (whatever that may mean) but can only mean "they pierced my hands and my feet." Since the Dead Sea fragment is over 1000 years older than the Masoretic text, the case that this is not the original reading has essentially collapsed."

- the Masoretic reading is clearly "like a lion".
- the Nahal Hever fragment can not mean "they pierced my hands and my feet."
- the Dead Sea fragment is not over 1000 years older than the Masoretic text.
- the Nahal Hever fragment does not prove that "they pierced my hands and my feet" is the original reading.

sirhemlock, if you rewrite the above to indicate that any/all of your assertions are your opinion or even the opinion of others you may be able to put some or all of it back in the Con section as long as you meet a minimum standard of reasonableness. As it stands your assertions above would easily be demonstrated to be False. Alternatively, you can try to present arguments to support your assertions to get it back in the Con section.

You have until 11-13-06 to redo it. At that time I will consider further downgrading the above to the related Talk Page.

--JoeWallack 10:18, 5 Nov 2006 (CST)

Response by sirhemlock@yahoo.com:

Greetings. I have proposed an amended con below, after a few brief comments for Pro's consideration.

1. "...the Dead Sea OT fragments are over 1000 years older than the Masoretic text." Whose error? The earliest extant mss. of the Masoretic text dates circa 1000 A. D. (Kittel dated it c. 1008-1009 A. D. in the introduction to Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which was used in the Pro piece). It is common knowledge that the Dead Sea fragments are over 1000 years older than the Masoretic text, e.g. "The mid-twentieth century discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has revolutionized the study of the text of the OT, since they included many biblical manuscripts that were more than a thousand years older than the earliest extant copies of the Masoretic text" (A. Wolters, "Text and Textual Criticism," in Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson, Eds., Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (2005), p. 955. Pro has "asserted," but not demonstrated or documentated, the contrary to this consensus viewpoint of contemporary textual criticism. Nevertheless, I have proposed a slight alteration of my original quote pertaining to this matter, in particular since the fragment in question arguably may date between circa 70-135 A. D.

2. Pro maintains "if you rewrite the above to indicate that any/all of your assertions are your opinion or even the opinion of others you may be able to put some or all of it back in the Con section." I did indicate most of what was stated was the conclusion of Ulrich, et al by saying "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, edited by Martin G. Abegg, Peter W. Flint and Eugene Charles Ulrich contains a footnote on the Psalm 22 fragment from the Dead Sea, “Vav and yod are usually distinguished, with vav generally longer than yod.” (Peter Flint). which affirms..." however I do agree that the phrase "that unlike the later Masoretic text which can be understood two possible ways..." is contra what was affirmed in Pro without documentation of that fact. This, I think, is arguable, but in lieu of presentation of said argument I certainly have no immediate objection to deleting the clause for now (see proposed alteration below).

3. As it stands so far I have for the most part merely reported the conclusions of others. It is Ulrich et al which states "Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs), which reads 'They have pierced my hands and my feet'"!" ("The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, edited by Martin G. Abegg, Peter W. Flint and Eugene Charles Ulrichp, 519; exclamation mark theirs). The authors cited were not "apologists" (cf. Pro's citation from "Rejection of Pascal's Wager" website!!!). It seems to this author that Ulrich, the world's leading authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls, is a more competent and trustworthy authority than the "Rejection of Pascal's Wager" website, however let me state emphatically, for the record, this is only "in my humble opinion").

4. If Pro wishes to argue with Ulrich et al, this is to be welcomed and commended, however it does not seem reasonable to disallow reference to their statement merely because Pro disagrees with it (Pro: "the Nahal Hever fragment can not mean 'they pierced my hands and my feet.'"). I don't think this is what Pro intends, however. No doubt the citation of Ulrich et al will become prominent to future debate; it would be helpful to all concerned to air intelligent debate about it.

SUMMARY: I would propose the following rewording of the Con piece:

"The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, edited by Martin G. Abegg, Peter W. Flint and Eugene Charles Ulrich contains a footnote on the Psalm 22 fragment from the Dead Sea, which affirms that unlike the later Masoretic text, the Dead Sea fragment of Ps 22:16 cannot be taken as "like a lion my hands and feet" (whatever that may mean) but can only mean "they pierced my hands and my feet." If this is correct, since the Dead Sea fragment is roughly over 900 years older than the oldest extant witness of the Masoretic text, the case that that the latter is not the original reading has essentially collapsed."

(note the latter sentence does not claim the Nahal Hever fragment proves "they pierced my hands and my feet" is the original reading, but only that the case that it could not be, if Ulrich et al are correct, has essentially collapsed).

Insertions and deletions for the proposed changes:

A. Note deletion of the phrase "which can be understood two possible ways" re. the MT reading. I may defend this claim exegetically in the future, but in lieu of said defense I have no objection to deleting it for now.

B. Note proposed insertions, here in bold for clarity: "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, edited by Martin G. Abegg, Peter W. Flint and Eugene Charles Ulrich contains a footnote on the Psalm 22 fragment from the Dead Sea, which affirms that unlike the later Masoretic text [deletion was here], the Dead Sea fragment of Ps 22:16 cannot be taken as "like a lion my hands and feet" (whatever that may mean) but can only mean "they pierced my hands and my feet." If this is correct, since the Dead Sea fragment is roughly over 900 years older than the oldest extant witness of the Masoretic text, the case that that the latter is not the original reading has essentially collapsed.

C. The image of 5/6HevPs is a quite useful addition to this thread, although the resolution is not the best. My complements! I may interact with you on the exegesis of 5/6HevPs at a later time if we can resolve these preliminary issues which have been raised. Respectfully, -sirhemlock@yahoo.com

P.S. If possible, could you provide a page reference for the textual apparatus information in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia cited in Pro above? I didn't see it on p. 1104 of my copy (under Ps 22:16). If no objections are posted to my rewrite, I will assume a green light to move it back to Con and will do so on 11-13-06. Thanks, sirhemlock


Excellent compliance Sir. You are welcome to post the above to the Con section now. I prophecy that we are going to get along fine.

--JoeWallack 08:27, 6 Nov 2006 (CST)

Thanks, Joe, for your shrewd observations and fair editorial treatment. I plan to move the post back, but it needs a little tweaking since the pro section is different than it was when I originally posted. Thanks and compliments again and looking forward to a satisfying and thought-provoking interchange. -SH (P.S., feel free to email me on any issue about my posts or anything else; I'll try to address any of your concerns in a timely fashion). -SH


JW: Sir, I've moved all of your latest effort to Neutral. Anyone who thinks the Yods of this Scroll at NH are half the size of Vavs doesn't know what they are talking about. I think very little of Peter Flint and haven't even given the worst evidence against him yet but even he would never make this half-alephed argument. It's clear in the picture I posted, which is a scan of DJD, that the Yods and Vavs are close to the same length. Your "enchanced" photos are not representative of DJD. I'll post more scans from DJD showing this. The offending fragment is held by a private collector and I've never seen any evidence that Flint ever looked at the original.

Since you are either using very bad sources or making things up just post to Neutral here until I approve it for Con.

Just your luck Sir, I Am afraid that Peter Flint is no longer the world's foremost authority on 22:17 (I think you are going to need some help here).

--JoeWallack 22:13, 7 Nov 2006 (CST)

Second Response by sirhemlock@yahoo.com (second disputed Con post has been temporarily moved to the discussion page

sirhemlock to JW: Greetings. All yods are not half the size of vavs, on that we would certainly agree. But the yods next to the offending letter are, half the size of the offending letter. Peter Flint does and did make this half-vaved argument.

You are correct about yods and vavs generally: all of the former are indeed not half the size of the latter. However when a specific yod and a specific vav are right next to one another adjacently, and one IS actually half the size of the other, their identity is quite clear: “Vav and yod are usually distinguished, with vav generally longer than yod.” (Peter Flint).

The main point of my post is that the last letter of KARU, a vav according to Flint et al, is twice the length of the letter to its immediate left, which is a yod. If both of these letters are a yod, as Pro maintains, it at least seems odd that the “offending” letter is twice the size of the yod right next to it. If Flint is right that “vav and yod are usually distinguished, with vav generally longer than yod,.” this difference is decisive, as Flint maintains with a high degree of certainty. The last letter of KARU is considerably longer than the yods right adjacent to it.

I look forward to the scans. A close look at the “offending word” and the word to its immediate left are imperative to this issue. If your scans look better, I’ll gladly delete mine. No problem there. Ultimately, however, the reader must consult Flint’s section of the DJD; electronic images which I have seen do no provide sufficient clarity without enhancement, although perhaps you know of an exception.

I find some of Pro’s criticisms quite hard to believe, nevertheless I will gladly amend accordingly in lieu of vigorous documentation (to be posted at a later date, and (2) all issues specified above will be deleted until documented.

Pro, with due respect, I think you are assuming whenever you have a good point that Con could not conceivably have a counterargument. You do not want undocumented opinions in the Con section, but you state personal opinions which are quite controversial in the Pro section without documentation yourself, or you document them with references such as Rejection of Pascal, which denies the Masoretic text is over a thousand years later than the DSS (no competent scholar would agree with RPW there), provides references to a textual apparatus that are not in the actual book they are said to be in, makes dogmatic philological assertions with no documentation, among other eggregarious errors. I don’t mean this to be disparaging; I think if this debate is tightened on both ends this page might end up as something worth reading.

[sirhemlock note: JH has since modified his discussion of Flint from what I responded to below; I believe them to be much better now although I still do not entirely agree. But Pro deserves compliments for the changes he has made]

Example: Pro maintains Flint, a recognized top world authority on Herodian Hebrew and the Scroll in question, doesn’t know what he’s talking about regarding yods and vavs, yet no documentation or authority –at least as it currently stands in the text- other than Pro’s own opinion, and perhaps the opinion of Rejection Of Pascal is provided. With due respect to Pro, it seems reasonable to opine that documentation, not just expression of personal opinion, is desirable on the Pro side as well as the Con. Perhaps Pro is right and Peter W. Flint is just plain stupid about Hebrew letters. He just doesn’t get it like Pro does. This still requires demonstration rather than mere assertion, and some kind of “authority” other than Pro’s feelings. Lucky for Flint that Oxford University hasn’t realized Flint’s credibility as a scholar has been so severely “impeached” by Pro; he’s still scheduled to edit the Isaiah Scroll. Let’s hope for Flint’s sake Oxford doesn’t stumble across Pro’s post! I hope Pro doesn’t take this as an offensive comment; Con is just trying to do what Con is supposed to do! Defend a contrarian perspective! There seems to be something paradoxical about Pro’s plan to use DJD to refute Peter Flint, who edited 25 of the scrolls in that volume, including the scroll in question here. I respect Flint immensely as a scholar as do most contemporary scholars, and I feel he is being slighted undeservedly here. If Con is wrong and states something wrong, Pro will look all the more better. If Pro disallows Con to speak anything at all that Pro does not think is wrong, then Con in the final analysis is reduced to Pro, and the Con, such as it can exist in this forum at all, is in name only.

This having been said, I take all criticism to heart, and I will amend the material version for Pro’s consideration with careful attention to each and every concern which has been raised. I’ll try to repost the material below in a more acceptable form by Nov 10 [update: amendments have been made -SH]. And by the way, my wife tells me I need some kind of serious help all the time; I’m used to it! But here my only help is you, Pro, and any insight you wish to proffer will be heartily and gratefully welcomed. -sirhemlock@yahoo.com

P. S. sirhemlock is also quite curious about something: if all of the arguments currently in the Pro section were actually correct, what specific error would this entail in the Biblical text itself? Would this result in a formal contradiction somewhere? Where? For the Pro section to be Pro-Error, it is desirable that the error which would result should be specified. If no error is specified, it seems the whole Pro section qualifies to be moved to the Con or Neutral area even as it stands!

Personal note to J. W.: Agree or disagree, I feel quite strongly that all of your criticisms have been invaluable in improving my posts; you have my gratitude sir.

Son of Men Working! Providence has provided? Half-alephed argument!! ROFL... You have a very dry wit JW.

Peter W. Flint: A Brief Bibliography Dr. Peter W. Flint edited over 25 Dead Sea Scrolls for three volumes in the internationally acclaimed Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (Oxford University Press), edited by Emanuel Tov, the principle official edition of the scrolls, including the DJD fragment posted above. Flint’s work The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HarperCollins, 2003), co-authored with James VanderKam, won the award for Best Book Relating to the Hebrew Bible for 2003 from the Biblical Archaeology Society in Washington, DC. This work is used in many university courses on the Dead Sea Scrolls as a textbook. He served as Editor of the major two-volume collection The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (E. J. Brill, 1998-1999). Dr. Flint serves as a General Editor of one series on the Old Testament: The Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature (E. J. Brill), as well as two series on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; and the Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls. He authored The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (E. J. Brill, 1997), The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation (Eerdmans, 2001), co-authored the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1999), was coeditor, with Craig A. Evans, of Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).

The following text has been partially amended. Any thoughts would be appreciated. -Thanks, SH.


If no objections are posted to my rewrite, I will assume a green light to move it back to Con and will do so on 11-16-06. Thanks, sirhemlock


NOTE: SECOND DISPUTED CON POST HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY MOVED TO THE DISCUSSION PAGE

External links