Apikorus

The Swenson paper posted by Joe was one of four I had originally cited in this post. I provided a summary of each of those papers therein. I find Swenson's paper the weakest of the four.

Incidentally, the solution Swenson proffers involves dispensing with the masoretic atnakh which follows HQYPWNY in Ps 22:17. It would be interesting to hear Joe's reaction to this, since he evidently relies much on rabbinic traditions and exegesis.

Toto

Joe W - check your PM's

JoeWallack

JW:
Ironically I found Swenson's argument speculative so I don't have much interest in it. I do think her article had a fair amount of background material that's relevant to this Thread so I'll comment on that:


"If yrak is treated as a noun, most translations
yield “like a lion.”

JW:
I Am curious as to what other noun has been used. The Variation in Verbs of course is evidence that what was seen was not being Translated which favors “like a lion”.


"Probably in an attempt to avoid the association with Jesus, Greek-speaking
Jews eschewed the LXX in favor of Aquila’s and Symmachus’s readings of the
verse.3"

JW:
This needs clarification. Aquila and Symmachus were just trying to accurately translate the Hebrew because of Christian Greek mistranslations that were avoiding the lack of association with Jesus in the Hebrew.


"However, not only did these readings disagree, but Aquila himself produced
two different readings. The first edition rendered the problematic word
h[/scunan, “they have disfigured,” but in the second, he changed it to ejpevdhsan, “they have bound” (similar to Symmachus’s wJ" zhtou'nte" dh'sai, “like those who seek to bind”).

JW:
You have to keep in mind that the Hexapla was preserved by Christianity. Even though the consensus is that it has been reasonably preserved there would still be uncertainty for specific words. There is no direct evidence that Aquila made two different translations. The indirect evidence is that the Christians have preserved two different words here. This is prima facie evidence that the Christians made a change and not that Aquila did.


"3 Vall, “Psalm 22:17B,” 46. Aquila’s version dates to the first quarter of the second century C.E.; Symmachus’s is later, though scholars disagree about how much later it is. That Origen uses Symmachus’s work in his Hexapla means that Symmachus’s version cannot be later than the midthird
century C.E."

JW:
It should always be pointed out that Origen’s Hexapla had a Hebrew column, implying that as far as Origen was concerned there was a uniform Hebrew text. The whole point of the Hexapla was to try and create a needed accurate Greek translation. Subsequent Christianity wouldn’t/couldn’t preserve the Hebrew column. Translations are always relatively poor evidence compared to original language textual evidence and Christianity’s unwillingness/inability to be familiar with the original Hebrew makes Christian Greek translations very poor evidence.


"Theodore of Mopsuestia was unique among the early Christian writers in giving priority to reading the text in the light of Absalom’s revolt against David rather than Jesus’ crucifixion, and he paid a price for it, eliciting a formal condemnation at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.6"

JW:
To make matters worse Christianity had institutional pressure to prefer translations favorable to Christianity.


"4 By Vall’s admission, Aquila’s Vorlage may well have been very close to the MT; the instances in which it differed commonly involved “the confusion of similarly shaped letters” such as w and y (Vall, “Psalm 22:17B,” 56). This supports retaining the MT and undermines Vall’s argument
for an emendation that involves not only changing a consonant but also metathesis. I do agree with Vall, though, that “the text could easily have been corrupted long before any of the ancient versions were made” (ibid.)."


JW:
"Evidence that Aquila in general was not Scribe level and specifically that he sometimes confused yod and waw. We know that the Herodian script had a yod and waw that were generally the same and that the subsequent script created a slight distinction. This was probably the source of Aquila’s confusion in general and maybe specifically here.


"Many scholars have recognized how easily y and w might be misread and/or
mistranscribed. Indeed, wrak may be the reading of a fragment from the Dead
Sea Scrolls that corresponds to Ps 22:17. The editors of BHS note that a few
(three to ten) Hebrew manuscripts read wrak, and this reading may be the basis of other of the ancient versions.12 Leslie C. Allen, who briefly addressed the"


JW:
The Mesorah generally shows that K ) R W was a variant. It seems strange to me that if “like a lion” was a cover-up to an original that was favorable to the Christians that the proto-Masoretes would have left evidence of a different original. Columbo?

Columbo: Yes, sir. That would be very strange. Like a killing someone and moving the body to try and hide it but leaving all the blood. It would be the strangest thing I’ve seen sir since JoeWallack started using me in this fuhcockta Columpho bit.


"12 The only text from the Dead Sea Scrolls that corresponds to Ps 22:17 is XH|ev/Se 4 frag. 11 line 4, dating from sometime in the second half of the first century to the second century C.E.).
Peter Flint records it as wrak (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Psalms [STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 83, 87). However, the facsimile (PAM 42.190) reveals a badly faded text that is nearly impossible to read (see Robert H. Eisenman and James M. Robinson, A Facsimile Edition of the Dead
Sea Scrolls [2 vols.; Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991]). Furthermore, Strawn notes that other instances in the fragment indicate little difference between y and w (“Psalm 22:17b,” 448 n. 41)."

JW:
The combination of general confusion at the time between yod and waw, a barely legible text and a claimant from Trinity does not inspire confidence. Add to this that the other relevant fragment here just happens to be missing this word (surprise).


"While I think that the verse sustains a two-part division and so should be read as a bicolon, the Masoretes’ placement of the athnach contributes to the confusion. 20 Imagining a mid-break with !y[rm rather than in its present placement at ynwpyqh allows the translation:
Dogs surround me, a pack of wicked ones.21
Like a lion, they circumscribe my hands and feet."


JW:
Her whole argument is Speculation which therefore isn’t very interesting to me. I think the default position is going with the Masorete tradition of a divison with:

“Like a lion my hands and feet.”

And the resultant lack of a verb problem. I see this as the only serious problem to “like a lion” but only basis to Doubt, not Deny.


"Ibn Ezra (1092–1167), reading “the congregation of
the malignant surround for me, as a lion my hands and my feet,” proposed an
interpretation close to mine, but he did not associate the verb #qn with yrak.27 Following Ibn Ezra, David K\imh\i translated, “The assembly of evil-doers have encircled me like a lion—my hands and feet,” likewise failing to read yrak as describing the subject of #qn. He did understand a figurative reference to prohibiting a fight or flight response, but only after explaining in a more literal reading that a lion preparing to attack makes a circle with its tail around its prey, which reacts by tucking its hands and feet in close to its body.28"


JW:
And so, more Rabbinic commentary, Ibn Ezra, Kimhi, for “like a lion”. Is there any Hebrew commentary that’s Not “like a lion”?


"Some commentators have argued that the word translated lion, yra, never
appears with this spelling in Psalms and so should be emended or translated
differently here.40 However, its regular occurrence in other texts of the Hebrew Bible weakens this argument, as does the fact that the difference in spelling is minor from the more common hyra, which appears in vv. 14 and 22 of Ps 22. Furthermore, the two spellings alternate in Judg 14, the more frequent spelling being hyra.41 Likewise, Gen 49:9b and Num 24:9a are identical except for their spelling of the word translated “lion” (hyra in Gen 49:9b and yra in Num 24:9a). yra appears also in 4QpNah 3–4 i, 1 (Nah 2:12b) as an alternate spelling of hyra, in striking contrast to the MT and the scroll of the minor prophets.42 These examples strongly support reading such alternation also in Ps 22."


JW:
As opposed to support for the supposed variant spelling K ) R W, this is some real support for the ) R Y vs. ) R Y H variation. On the other hand, the lack of use in just Psalms is some weight against it.



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
To summarize the Hebrew Textual Evidence:

1) The Official Masoretic Text reading = "Like a lion"

Notes -

A) There is Professional agreement that "Like a lion" is the Official
Masoretic Text reading.

B) There is Professional consensus that what became known as the
Masoretic text was standardized no later than early second century.

C) The most popular Critical apparatus, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,
confirms "like a lion" as Official.

D) Professional Hebrew (Jewish) opinion is that at the time the Hebrew
text was Standardized the Proto-Masoretes Inventoried Textual
Variation. It was standard practice for subsequent Manuscripts to
note this textual variation in the margins.

E) Codex Leningrad, 11th century, the earliest extant complete
manuscript, forms the basis of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and has
"like a lion".

F) Other important Hebrew witness is:
Codex Aleppo, tenth century, "like a lion".
Cairo Codex, ninth century, "like a lion".

2) The Masoretic Text Mesorah (Tradition) Textual Variation = K ) R W

Notes -

A) The meaning is uncertain.

B) This variation is noted by Codex Leningrad and Masoretic manuscripts
in general. Presumably it existed at the time the text was
Standardized.

C) Kennicott Manuscript 39 has this reading. Dr. Kennicott was 18th
century English Christian Hebrew Bible scholar who studied hundreds
of Hebrew manuscripts. Presumably this was the only one he found
with K ) R W. Probably an interesting story.

3) Nahal Hever = Possible Reading = K ) R W

A) Professional dispute as to Reading. Yod and Waw were
written similarly at the time and the legibility of this fragment is in
question.

4) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia identifies 2 Manuscripts as reading = K R W =
"they dig".

5) Jewish demand may have also reduced Manuscripts with the Variations above. Swenson writes:

"When the famous editor/publisher Daniel Bomberg was preparing a rabbinic
Bible for publication, he noted that the word in question appeared with a w
rather than a y. It was changed to y because otherwise, Bomberg complained,“no Jew would buy copies of his Hebrew Bible.”7"

Bomberg was a 16th century Christian publisher of Hebrew books.



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's take a look at Codex Aleppo, Tenth Century, and see if we can find out Who's Lion. Codex Aleppo is online!:

Codex Aleppo Online

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:

http://www.aleppocodex.org/images/x4/472.jpg

and

http://www.aleppocodex.org/images/x4/473.jpg

showing that Psalm 22 is missing from the Aleppo Codex. (I've corrected the mistake in my previous post claiming that Aleppo had "like a lion"). My understanding is that it was partially destroyed in a fire in 1947. Columpho, see what you can find out about "The Fire" including Where the Aleppo was at the time and Who was in charge of its safekeeping.

Columpho: I'm on it sir, like a Lechner on Miggs.



Joseph

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.


JP Holding Link To Anti-Semitic Site

Phlox Pyros

Pretty cool, but way too long after early apologetic efforts already found in certain versions of the Septuagint anyway.

Apikorus

Phlox is right; the Aleppo codex is much too late to be probative. Everyone stipulates that K)RY is overwhelmingly dominant in the MT family. Still, and pace spin, the collocation k'ari yadai v'raglai is difficult to make sense of, as the exegetical efforts of generations of scholars (Jewish and gentile) amply demonstrate. If the MT were less obscure, it would be easier to dismiss K)RW as a simple scribal error.

This seems like one of these issues which will likely never be adequately resolved.

Loomis

It looks like Rashi’s copy of Genesis 14:22 didn’t include YHWH.

”Standardized no later than early second century.”

Sure.

Whatever you say.

Loomis

Compare …
YHWH was not part the original story at Genesis 14:22.

He’s not in the Septuagint, the Peshita, the Genesis Apocraphon, or Rashi’s copy of the MT.

Genesis 14:22 was not written by a Yahwist. The Melchizedek character was a priest of El. And the Abram character was vowing to the Most High god of the Canaanite pantheon.

But that's okay. You can read Greek.

JoeWallack

Plain vanilla.