Phlox Pyros

Good to know... :huh:

Anyways, I take it that the articles do not provide confirmation of Joe's assertion?

Have you ever read this anywhere before? I'd like to know for sure, because I know of at least one other person who has mentioned such a thing (but similarly never gave a source).

Thanks.

Apikorus

The articles I quoted don't focus on Qumran orthography, Phlox. Strawn and Swenson specifically mention waw/yod confusion and the poor condition of the Nahal Hever fragment. Vall believes that the MT reading K)RY developed from )SRW --> S)RW --> K)RW --> K)RY.

If Joe isn't blowing smoke, this detail should be mentioned in Cross's big article in the 1961 Albright festschrift -- perhaps I'll stroll across campus to the library tomorrow. I've checked a couple of articles by Cross I have in various volumes here at home. In his article in DSS50, he does mention the fact that scribes did often modify the last letters of words (usually in the direction of the script, i.e. toward the left). This would be a natural place for him to mention if there were end-of-word differences between waw and yod but he doesn't do so. (He refers to his long article in the Albright festschrift for the full story, though.)

I've never run across this claim before, that waw/yod confusion is noticeably more prevalent at the ends of words. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true, since it has a certain truthiness to it.

gregor

truthiness - nice to see it entering the lexicon

Phlox Pyros

No, but you said about the articles: "in which the orthography of the Nahal Hever fragment was at times discussed". So I was curious. This is why I asked, and because you didn't initially seem to understand the actual focus of my request of Joe.

I thought I had a photo copy of the thing. I am going to have to go to the library and look at the image again to satisfy myself.

This development is interesting because of the similar reading in Greek to the supposed Hebrew Urtext reading.

How did a samekh get confused with, or morph into, a kaph though? I may have to see if I can find this work and his explanation.

Ah...I think I have this article..."The Development of the Jewish Scripts" in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, correct?

I just searched the sections on waws and yods, but I did not see anything about them being especially elongated at the ends of words. Perhaps it is elsewhere in the text. If you happen to find something in the text, please point me to the page number. Thanks.

The reason I do not find the ring of truth in it is because the DSS are known for their lack of final letter forms (of which the yod and waw have none anyways)....

Phlox Pyros

Hmm, I take this a little differently. To me, though I may be incorrect (I'd have to read it more in context), he seems to say that is manuscript is almost unreadable but that comparisons with other related texts show that yod and waw are "quite similar, though generally distinguishable in this manuscript." The reference to "this manuscript" is confusing to me. I can't tell if he is referring to the fragments of XHev/Se4 as "this manuscript" or if he is referring back to 5/6 Hev....

Either way, I'd like Joe and Spin to notice that the yod and waw in a similar manuscript is seen as "quite similar, though generally distinguishable", just as I had mentioned. I find it unreasonable to act as if every yod and waw are indistinguishable....this is overstating the case.

No. It is a translational choice, though it does not seem to reflect the underlying Hebrew very well. In Psalm 40:7, I can see God "piercing" a hole in the lump of flesh on the side of someone's head to create that hole in their ear for hearing just as easily as I can see him "digging it". However, using "pierce" in this context likely makes most people think of pierced ears, so perhaps not such a great translation (and most do not use it here).

Within the OT text, but what about outside of it? I do not know but am simply asking... What about the Aramaic Targumim, etc.?

Apikorus

The MT is supported by the Targum ("like a lion they bite my hands and my feet").

The full quote from Strawn (footnote 41 starting at the bottom of p. 447) in context indicates he is referring to XHev/Se4.

JoeWallack

JW:
As I push PP away with the Left hand I pull you closer with the Right hand:

A Prayer Of Joseph (Emphasis Mine, so to speak):

ז הַפְלֵה חֲסָדֶיךָ, מוֹשִׁיעַ חוֹסִים-- מִמִּתְקוֹמְמִים, בִּימִי�*ֶךָ. 7 Make passing great Thy mercies, O Thou that savest by Thy right hand from assailants them that take refuge in Thee.
ח שָׁמְרֵ�*ִי, כְּאִישׁוֹן בַּת-עָיִן; בְּצֵל כְּ�*ָפֶיךָ, תַּסְתִּירֵ�*ִי. 8 Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me in the shadow of Thy wings,
ט מִפְּ�*ֵי רְשָׁעִים, זוּ שַׁדּוּ�*ִי; אֹיְבַי בְּ�*ֶפֶשׁ, יַקִּיפוּ עָלָי. 9 From the wicked that oppress, my deadly enemies, that compass me about.
י חֶלְבָּמוֹ סָּגְרוּ; פִּימוֹ, דִּבְּרוּ בְגֵאוּת. 10 Their gross heart they have shut tight, with their mouth they speak proudly.
יא אַשֻּׁרֵי�*וּ, עַתָּה סבבו�*י (סְבָבוּ�*וּ); עֵי�*ֵיהֶם יָשִׁיתוּ, לִ�*ְטוֹת בָּאָרֶץ. 11 At our every step they have now encompassed us; they set their eyes to cast us down to the earth.
יב דִּמְיֹ�*וֹ--כְּאַרְיֵה, יִכְסוֹף לִטְרֹף; וְכִכְפִיר, יֹשֵׁב בְּמִסְתָּרִים. 12 He is like a lion that is eager to tear in pieces, and like a young lion lurking in secret places.


JW:
Presumably this is the same author, no? "Like a lion" mouthing off. Quite a coincidence, yes?



Joseph

"Judah, who was betrayed by his brother Jesus." - The Gospel of Joseph

JP Holding Link To Anti-Semitic Site

Phlox Pyros

Thanks. Have fun being "pulled closer" by Joe.

Apikorus

The parallels between Pss 17 and 22 are quite strong, I would agree. But I don't see how they are probative vis-a-vis Ps 22:17c. The imagery of lions' mouths is already present in Ps 22 in 22:14 and 22:22. What demands a third mention of lions in 22:17?

Vall's proposal is that the Urtext read )SRW = "they bound". An inadvertent scribal error switched the first two letters, resulting in the nonsensical S)RW. A later scribe read this and said, "this is crap -- gotta fix it" and deliberately changed the samekh to a kaf, resulting in K)RW. Here's where I get off the bus. I can buy that a later scribe would have found cause to correct the notional intermediate S)RW, but why to K)RW instead of back to )SRW? The imagery of binding works nicely with the rest of the psalm, so )SRW --> S)RW --> )SRW seems more likely than )SRW --> S)RW --> K)RW.

That's the one.

I think the support for K)RW = "they have pierced" is a will-o-the-wisp. Aside from Ps 40:7 there are about 15 other examples of KRH in the Hebrew Bible, all of which mean "to dig" (in the ground -- even when used metaphorically as in Prov 16:27). Ps 40:7 might suggest an expanded lexical range of KRH, or it might be a strange digging metaphor we cannot appreciate. But if one were to assign another meaning to KRH based on Ps 40:7, it would hardly be "to pierce" -- more likely "to open." The LXX has wruxan = "they dug," as spin emphasized. The rabbinic recensions of Aquila and Symmachus say "they have bound" and "like those who seek to bind." "They have pierced" seems to be a tendentious Christian invention.

Oooh -- I'm all tingly.

spin

Thrill us with your observations of the way the verb KRH is used in the Hebrew bible to support your claim that it is a mater lectionis. Uh? Oh, yeah. That's right. You can't, because there is nothing to make you think that it is.

You have to say that the actual text is in error because you don't like it the way it is, then justify the presence of the alef as an otherwise neverseen mater lectionis with the verb. In fact the use of alef as a mater lectionis is not even frequent in general use in Qumran, so why pull this rabbit out of the hat now, other than out of desperation?

Your remarkable observation powers fail you, yet you can distinguish YODs and WAWs (at least when they alongside each other), despite the fact that lengths of each vary enough for them to be confused by modern scholars in the field -- though apparently not by you -- who have to use other means to distinguish the letters.

I'd be confused if I were you, but fortunately I noted that every character after that letter you want as a WAW was reduced to half-line height by the scribe. Then, you refused to note the other long YODs at ends of words, claiming that one mysteriously had a dark splodge under it, rather than that "dark splodge" actually being part of a long YOD. Too bad you didn't look at the last TAW YOD combination on the fragment. Your "clear as day" means only that you weren't looking closely to me.

Interesting use to etymology of MR)$TY (bolster, pillow), a word eventually derived from R)$ (head). The MEM is part of the noun. I guess you'd expect any noun formed that way could just as conveniently not have a preposition, you know, midrash, midbar, miqdash, etc. The word is MR)$TY, not ?R)$TY? or whatever.

You seem to like creating precedents, rather than doing linguistics.

Certainly not hot-headed and probably not ad hominem. I am only working from what you say. By your own words do you condemn yourself.

Post hoc explanations like both of these don't cut it. You are merely trying to explain away what you don't like. I supplied two cases in which no preposition was given in Hebrew, where they are inserted in English.

Perhaps there's an erstwhile unknown preposition at the beginning of PTX, as we find no preposition in Gen 43:19, though we do in Ex 12:22. What about with "heel" in Gen 49:19? Can you see the "at" before "sea" in Num 34:5? How do you relate B) $NH to the rest of 2 K 13:20 without inserting an "at"? How many more does one need find to show that the sentence, as it is, is no real problem? You find sentences without prepositions where you expect them in English. There is clearly a precedent for missing prepositions, but nothing to suggest your "matres lectionis" in KRH, or the absurd "pierced" interpretation of the hypothetical KRW, suggested by the LXX, apparently confused about a form of wrugh and using a form of orussw instead, a very which doesn't make sense in the LXX context.

You don't seem the slightest bit willing to understand what the text conveys. This is why I continue to suspect an a priori commitment. Part A of the verse gives the wild animals around him, part B specified in parallel the wicked enclose him, and part C compares the wicked to a lion, specifically mention the victim's hands and feet (with the same parallel between dog and lion in vv.20-21).

I understand that.

I simply think you are wrong and that you make no effort to understand the dynamics of the text. Rather you display the "let's forget what the text actually says" syndrome.

That's just your poor belief. Just because I have my feet on the ground, you can't assume that I needed to journey out on a limb with you.

You continue to play this very christian "we can't really say" stuff, when the text would be relatively simple if there weren't christian dogma riding on it.

The sorry fact is that this christianizing interpretation was not available to the gospels, yet the Zechariah quote about piercing, 12:10, was known and used by John -- the other gospels knew nothing about nails, so it's not surprising that the others had nothing. We have to wait until Justin gives us notice of a christianization of Ps 22:17. Despite your unflinching championship a WAW in the NH fragment against the MT, along with a necessary though unjustified mater lectionis, in an attempt to support the KRH reading and thus the contorted "piercing" notion ("pierced" is unjustifiable, even if you could make a reasonable case for KRH), we are left to contend with what the text says, ie "like a lion my hand and foot", and the only problem is an equivalent for the English "at", though there are enough examples of missing correlative prepositions in Hebrew and other unsmoothnesses, for one not to have trouble inserting a preposition in English here, especially as the context is conducive to such a translation.


spin

[Greetings, Apikorus]