JoeWallack

JW:
I've already displayed the entry for the offending word in this Thread from the Standard Hebrew Lexicon used in the Seminary:

"4125 I. כָּרָה (karah): v.; ≡ Str 3738; TWOT 1033—1. LN 19.55 (qal) dig into the ground (Ge 26:25; Ex 21:33; Nu 21:18; Ps 7:16[EB 15]; Ps 57:7[EB 6]; 119:85; Pr 26:27; Jer 18:20, 22+); (nif) be dug into the ground (Ps 94:13+); 2. LN 19.14-19.26 (qal) hew stone, i.e., to hollow out rock (Ge 50:5; 2Ch 16:14+); 3. LN 19.14-19.26 (qal) pierce, cut, i.e., run through a mass with a sharp object (Ps 22:17; 40:7[EB 6]+), note: for another parsing of the MT text in Ps 22:17, “as the lions,” see 3869 + 2021 + 787; for a cj of the same verse, see 4128; 4. LN 30.56-30.74 (qal) plot, plan, formally, dig a hole, i.e., to purpose and plan for a future situation (Pr 16:27+)"

Swanson, J. 1997. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.) . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor


JW:
Additionally, I have Faith that the only thing easier to find than lion in Psalm 22 is a Christian Hebrew Lexicon that has dug a definition of "Pierced" out of
"כָּרָה". I think we would all agree that this Lexicon was created by Professionals Competent in Biblical Hebrew. What this tells me than is that Professional Competence in the Original language is not necessarily the most important Quality to possess concerning the formation of good Conclusions.

Perhaps Jeffrey Gibson could tell us What is?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Apikorus

Hobbling strikes me as a bizarre reading.

I agree with your observation that the psalmist shows concern for the horn of the oxen, the lion's mouth, the (teeth of the) dog, and his enemies' sword. I think one can carry this point a bit further. The psalm employs chiasm (concentric parallelism) in the mention of bulls/oxen, lion/lion, dog/dog. In vv. 21-22, the psalmist asks for deliverance from the sword (meherev, from the power (literally "hand") of the dog (miyad kelev), from the mouth of the lion (mipi aryeh), and from the oxen's horns (umikarnei reimim). The prefix mi-, as you know, means "from". What I find striking here is that three of these four items (lion, dog, and oxen) are repeated in earlier verses -- hence the chiasm (though reimim in v. 22 is evidently paired with parim in v. 13). Where is the corresponding mention of a sword on the front end of the chiasm? One would expect to see it somewhere between vv. 17 and 21, but apparently it is absent.

If v. 17c is corrupt and/or its meaning is uncertain, one might try to sneak the sword in there. I would expect, though, a noun rather than a verb, whatever verb one posits. But the MT's ka'ari is hard to accept because it involves a third mention of lions, and because the collocation ka'ari yadai veraglai is difficult, but perhaps not impossible, to decipher.

One might also note the two terms used for "my strength" -- kochi (v. 15) and eyaluti (v. 20). They don't quite fit into the chiasm because in both cases they appear before the mention of "dogs" -- the resulting structure would be ABZCZCBA.

I think there is simply no good solution here; the text is quite possibly corrupt in v. 17c.

None of this helps with the purely linguistic question of whether or not KRH can legitimately be translated as "pierced". I maintain there isn't a shred of support for this translation.

Notsri

Well, to an extent I can certainly appreciate these observations. I have to admit, though, I'm skeptical whether we can properly speak of an actual chiasm here—at least the sort you have in mind. Granted, as you've already mentioned, in vv. 13-14, 17, 21-22, we have, concentrically, bulls/oxen, lion/lion, dogs/dog. Clearly that's intentional; undoubtedly we can speak of a type of parallelism here. But, in vv. 21-22, there is, manifestly, a new layer to the psalm's parallelism, one which, I think, renders unnecessary, indeed misguided, any attempt to fit v. 21a's "sword" into this concentric pattern (i.e. your chiasm).

In vv. 21b-22, we of course find the three expressions "power of the dog," "mouth of the lion," "horns of the wild oxen." None of these three, when taken in their full sense, correspond to "strong bulls of Bashan," "ravening and roaring lion," or "dogs." All three, however, do correspond pretty nicely—and, obviously, intentionally so—with "sword." From these observations, then, we can extrapolate, I think, that "sword" does not belong to a wider chiasmic structure; in terms of parallelism, strictly speaking, it belongs within the context of vv. 21-22 alone.

Now, that is not to make the odd assertion that "sword" has no relationship at all with the earlier imagery of the psalm. Clearly, in a thematic sense, it is connected. "Sword," and with it the whole of vv. 21-22, come to intensify and specify certain aspects of what those earlier verses present in somewhat inchoate terms.

Ultimately, in any event, I'm just trying to make sense of the reading "pierced" in the psalm. Hobbling, in the light of all the psalm speaks of, just doesn't seem so implausible to me. I can certainly appreciate, though, the fact that the whole of my argument rests on certain linguistic assumptions that may prove unwarranted (at least as far as the Hebrew text goes; the LXX's Greek seems to me to present far less of a problem, for what it's worth).

JoeWallack

From Ginsburg's, Introduction to the Masoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, Page 968-969:



JW:
Here, according to Ginsburg, BC's Masorah Magna for Numbers 24:9 indicates that the Textual Reading (what's written) for Psalm 22:17 is K)RW per footnote 2. Footnote 2 quotes 22:17 with K)RY and notes that K)RW is written (Khetiv). Ginsburg goes on to note though that every related evidence from BC in some way contradicts BC's comment here that K)RW is written for 22:17.



JW:
The major contradiction to BC's 24:9 comment is that for the Text of 22:17, BC choose K)RY. The next contradiction is that the related Masorah for 22:17 has no mention of spelling variation.



JW:
Per Ginsburg, BC's Masorah Finalis has the details that BC claimed that he observed K)RW in some quality Codices. The implication is that most quality Codices he observed had K)RY. BC adds that in the Codices with K)RW written the related Masorah indicates that K)RY is what should be read (Keri) = the correct word. BC continues that he found no support for spelling variation for 22:17 in any Masorah.

The Implication is that K)RW in some quality Codices is a spelling error and not preservation of Textual Variation.

We have the following evidence that BC considered K)RY the correct word for 22:17:

1) This is the word he choose for his Eclectic Text.

2) His Masorah for 22:17 has no mention of spelling variation.

3) He indicates that he found no evidence of spelling variation in General Masorahs.

4) He indicates that in Codices that had K)RW written, the related Masorah said K)RY should be read.

We have the following evidence that BC considered K)RW the correct word for 22:17:

1) His Masorah for Numbers 24:9 says that K)RW is written for Psalms 22:17. Since everything else indicates that most Codices/Manuscripts BC was familiar with had K)RY written one wonders if all BC meant in his 24:9 comment was that K)RW was a writing for 22:17 and not the Writing.

2) The First Rabbinic Bible from BC's employer, Bomberg, had K)RW and Bomberg subsequently complained that Jews wouldn't buy it because of this word choice. So BC, who was Christian, may have chosen K)RY for Commercial reasons.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Apikorus

Inasmuch as this reading seems to be Patristic in origin, its sense is a christological one. If you can adduce any evidence to the contrary, I'd be quite interested.

Loomis

Gosh, have you ever considered the possibility that it might be the work of more than one author?

Look at all the posts. Everyone seems to agree that Psalm 22 is nonsense.

What if one guy wrote something, and then a bunch of other do-goodders “fleshed it out” and appended shit onto the original story?

What if the guys who tweaked it were clueless and just making stuff up?

That's what it looks like to me.

Sloppy seconds.

Everyone took their turn screwing up the little worm story.


All the best,

Loomis

Loomis

It’s a talking worm. It’s a caterpillar adhered to the side of a tree. All the bad guys want to penetrate the poor little caterpillar’s shell and tickle her hands and feet.

Notsri

I'm not sure I follow. You're suggesting ορυσσω=pierce is, in that sense, a patristic neologism?

Apikorus

The LXX has wruxan = "they have dug". "Pierced" may have come in from the Syriac. At any rate, the first mention of "pierced" in Ps 22 I am aware of is in Justin.

JoeWallack

From Ginsburg's, Introduction to the Masoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, Page 970:



JW:
BC's Masorah Parva for 22:17 states that the exact spelling including vowels is also only found in Isaiah 38:13 and has a different sense.

Hupfeld charges that BC's MP here regarding the different senses is a fraudulent addition. Ginsburg points out that there was no other printed General Masorah in Hupfeld's time to refer to. This means that to evaluate BC's MP for 22:17 one would have to check existing General Masorah Manuscripts (like presumably BC did).

Ginsburg's comment that every important Codex gives a listing of words with different meanings in different places is misleading. The best Manuscripts, to the 12th century, don't have this type of General Masorah and no evidence that the word in 22:17 is any different than its use elsewhere.

The Ochlah Ve-Ochlah is the first known General Masorah Originally written towards the end of the Masoretic era (10th century).



Ginsburg points out that the recensions/copies of Ochlah Ve-Ochlah that he is familiar with support BC's MP of 22:17 that the offending word has different senses. Ginsburg further points out that this work was easily available to Hupfeld to check.

Note especially that for Polemical purposes Missionaries are taking the identification of the offending word in Ochlah Ve-Ochlah as evidence of a different Original where the evidence of Ochlah Ve-Ochlah is actually the Opposite. Evidence that K)RY is Original. This agrees with the earliest and best Masoretic texts and related Masorahs which have no evidence of spelling variation. As I've mentioned before, a possible explanation for the Ochlah Ve-Ochlah entry is that the word in 22:17 has an implied Verb.

Besides Ochlah Ve-Ochlah the best apparent Manuscript evidence for K)RW appears to be BC's claim that in the 16th century he observed some quality Manuscripts that had K)RW. But BC explicitly states that these Manuscripts indicated K)RY was the correct reading.




Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page