JoeWallack

JW:
BHS #1 & #2 was based on Ben-Chayyim's Eclectic text. Ben-Chayyim was Christian as was his Publisher, Daniel Bomberg, as was Ben-Chayyim's predecessor, Pratensis (no, I've made no attempt to make this name funny/insulting to Christians).

To the 12th century Jewish Manuscripts were simply Copied and known Textual Variation was inventoried in the related Masorah. Starting in the 12th century Jewish Manuscripts were increasingly Eclectic as were the related Masorah and the result was Masorahs that were contradicted by the Text they accompanied. Ben-Chayyim, 16th century, used an Eclectic style, which Christianity had always used and Judaism starting using in the 12th century. BHS eventually realized that instead of Preserving Textual Variation, the Eclectic style was Creating Textual variation and therefore, starting with BHS #3, went back to the Traditional Jewish style of specific Manuscript based (although the Masorah is still Eclectic). BHS since #3 has a base of the Leningrad Codex.

The related issue for 22:17 is while everyone would agree that the Minority reading KRW, (they dug), is very rare, only being in two Manuscripts out of hundreds/thousands, What is the Vorlage for KRW? The available Manuscripts and related Masorah to the 12th century, while few, represent a period where Manuscripts were simply copied. These show no knowledge of KRW. After the Masoretic Tradition goes Eclectic there is knowledge of KRW. So what exactly was the Basis for the two Manuscripts BHS inventories as KRW or Steven's claim of Gill's claim of Ben-Chayyim's claim of more than two manuscripts with KRW or K)RW? Since these Manuscripts are Likely Eclectic period creations it's possible that the basis for KRW in an individual manuscript was only the knowledge of the history of Greek translations and not knowledge of any Hebrew manuscript with KRW. We have a related issue that some of these Manuscripts with KRW or K)RW could have been Christian creations. If you were a Jewish Bible scholar in the 16th century like Pratensis or Ben-Chayyim it would have been a very good time to go Schmad.

The 8 or 9 consonental differences refers to the difference between the Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali texts. Both were from the Tiberian Tradition (which Leningrad is from) and that's why there are relatively few consonental differences.



Joseph

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

Steven Avery

Howdy Api - tell me .. does a verb used for a deep sword and spear thrust really seem the same as a verb used for boring, digging, piercing in a more general sense ?

Is that not like saying that the same noun should be used for 'cough' and 'pneumonia', after all pneumonia comes with a cough.
''Seems the same to me".

And Api, did you actually look at all the uses of the verbs ? I would suppose you did, which is why I am a bit surprised at your question.

The rest of the posters shall likely wait till post-Yom Kippur. Api has at least tried to keep a reasonable dialog (with its ups and downs) and I think has made an effort to follow the discussion properly, so it can hopefully continue without disrupting the deep and intense and beautiful days of awe.

Api, feel free to wait a week with tinge or concern.

Shalom,
Praxaluh

Apikorus

Hmmm...let's see. X's flesh was pierced with a sword. X's hand was pierced by a nail. No problem using the same word in English. Nor in Hebrew -- if only you knew Hebrew.

Steven Avery

Right. Sam has a cough. Sam has pneumonia Both are accurate.
The semantic range overlaps so neither one can be more accurate
and they are always interchangeable.

Here are the Tanach usages of the word used in Zechariah 12:10, daqar.

Numbers 25:8
And he went after the man of Israel into the tent,
and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel,
and the woman through her belly.
So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

Judges 9:54
Then he called hastily unto the young man his armourbearer,
and said unto him, Draw thy sword, and slay me,
that men say not of me, A woman slew him.
And his young man thrust him through, and he died

1Samuel 31:4
Then said Saul unto his armourbearer,
Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith;
lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me.
But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid.
Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.

1Chronicles 10:4
Then said Saul to his armourbearer,
Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith;
lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me.
But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid.
So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.

Isaiah 13:15
Every one that is found shall be thrust through;
and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword

Zechariah 13:3
And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy,
then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him,
Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD:
and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust
him through when he prophesieth.

Jeremiah 51:4
Thus the slain shall fall in the land of the Chaldeans,
and they that are thrust through in her streets.

And these have a bit of nuance.

Lamentations 4:9
They that be slain with the sword are better than they
that be slain with hunger: for these pine away,
stricken through for want of the fruits of the field.

Jeremiah 37:10
For though ye had smitten the whole army of the Chaldeans
that fight against you,
and there remained but wounded men among them,
yet should they rise up every man in his tent,
and burn this city with fire.

So you don't see a semantic range there ?
That is different from a general verb for dig/bore/pierce ?

Here, to make it easier.
The Judaica Press Tanach

Zechariah 12:10
And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon
the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications.
And they shall look to me because of those who have been
thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it
as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness,
therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

jgibson000

In other words, ulike Api and unlike your sainted, much belegured, and paragon of logic and totally responsive self, the rest of us participating in this thread are unreasonable, have been trying to shut down the "dialogue" you have been heroically attempting to carry on here, have been too lazy to "properly" follow the discussion or to try to understand what it is all about, and, in what we've been posting here, have been disrespectful toward, and disruptive of, the High Holy Days!

Wow. It must really be hard having to deal with the likes of us and to be the lone light of reason in the world or irrationality that the rest of us foster.

JG

Steven Avery

Jeffrey, I don't see that you have even contributed anything to the thread.

In contrast, my discussion with Api has actually been quite interesting. I learned about the contrasting word usages which coheres with the NT/Tanach parallelism and prophecy issues. Stuff that I didn't know before. Maybe others have as well. Similar to learning about the Psalm 40 issue originally discussed by the banned Phlox and spin.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

Of course you don't. Just like you can't see what the real issues are here or that you yourself are not making any real "contibution" to it.

In any case, when I used the expression "the rest of us", I was not speaking soley of myself. Nor were you limiting you criticism, when you singled out Api as being the only one who has sent something in to this thread as the one who was a rational "dialogue" partner, only to those who did not (in your eyes) "contribute" to this thread.

More importantly, the issue is not what I have or have not done. It's what you did when you noted that off all the people who have posted in this tread, Api was the only one who was making an effort to be rationaly and to follow what was going on.


JG

Apikorus

I don't think "dig" or "bore" connotes the action of a nail being hammered through the skin. The analogy to a sword's piercing seems much closer. KRH, meaning "to dig," is widely off the mark.

Chris Weimer

Steven,

How come you continually ignore the Hebrew?

Steven Avery

Hi Chris, If there is something in the Hebrew that you think has been missed in the thread, you are welcome to share away. Do you want to discuss whether we have a verb or a noun, or what the meaning is, or what ?

Most all of the discussion of the semantic range of the Hebrew words has been by looking at the other usages for context. And that is what I shared with daqar.