jgibson000

Why? The claim you made -- and to which I was responding -- was about NQB.

JG

JoeWallack

JW:
Steven, by an Act of Providence, the first part of Ginsburg's (a fellow Christian) related Masorah is freely available online:

http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/...massorah_6.pdf

and by an Act Of Providence it includes the offending Word (Page 130):






I have Faith that you will find everything in Order and that this will answer all your related Masorah questions.



Joseph

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

Apikorus

JW, I suspect Steven may be obliquely referring to the masorah to Num 24:9. See Ginsburg:



The ensuing discussion is interesting (Ginsburg, Introduction to the Masoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, pp. 969-972), but it does not help him at all with the reading "pierced".

So the masorah magna on Num 24:9, as well as the ben Chayyim's masorah finalis bears witness to the variant K)RW in Ps 22:17c. But the existence of such variants was never contested.

spin

Whatever praxeus was trying to hide behind, it's academic now, because he's performed his dire non-defence long enough to feel that he has done his apologetic job of non-defending his unsupportable reading of "pierced", which he knows to be correct despite the fact that it is proven unfounded.

The good thing is that he has something else to take up his time (an apologist's 1 Tim 3:6) and can forget about this his non-disgrace over his non-defence of his non-reading.


spin

Jack the Bodiless

It seems pretty much indefensible anyhow. Apologists want to insert "pierced" to somehow make this a "prophecy of the crucifixion". But the psalmist is being attacked by wild animals, including (notably) lions: and lions aren't known for performing crucifixions due to their general lack of opposable thumbs and appropriate carpentry skills.

JoeWallack

JW:
I want to look at Ben-Chayyim's supposed claim of Manuscripts with K)RW because I wonder if that contributed to BHS' Inventory of 3-10 Manuscripts with K)RW. I still find it strange that once the Masoretic Manuscripts went Eclectic anyone would Select K)RW as the Textual reading. A word which presumably would have had an unknown meaning for them and apparently no Received history of Textual reading.

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



1) Ginsburg documents the many disagreements between Ben-Chayyim's (BC) Text and his related Masorah which is Typical for Eclectic works like BC's. Isn't the obvious explanation that these are simply mistakes by BC?



1) BC's Massorah Magna for Numbers 24:9 states that the Textual Reading (what's Written) for Psalm 22:17 is K)RW. The Key is to try and figure out (or at least guess) what was BC's basis for this statement. We know (as opposed to BC who may not have known) that the Tiberian Tradition, generally considered the best, only showed K)RY, with no related Masorah. The Tiberian Manuscripts' Massorah also included an Inventory of differences between the Tiberian and Babylonian (probably the next best Tradition) Traditions with no mention of 22:17. So if K)RW was based on a major Text tradition that only leaves Palestinian/Jerusalem (Steven probably likes this thought).



Joseph

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

Steven Avery

Correction accepted. Todah. Fingerfehler. Mind melt.

If you have a verse in those books where NQR means pierced you can share away. Simply give the verse and your translation and whatever support you think helpful.

Shalom
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Fine by me. There is a lot to digest up and down.
The Tov, the bad and the JW.

Honestly, Api, I sort of enjoy watching how you folks are more concerned about the semantic range of dug/pierced/bore in two languages than the huge differences we have discussed. Such as Tov and Api actually taking a position radically different than spin and JW. (Which contradicts the original essential theme of the thread, which is that 'like a lion' is the truf) Yet the only important thing - "hmmm... why pierced, how could that be in the King James Bible"

To be fair, on that point JW has in the last few posts had a bit more class. He actually is trying to work with real information, even if always filtered through the anti-mish. Not sure who is the handler and who the handee in their alliance of convenience.

Overall I think the argument for pierced is rather simple and clear. It runs in three sequential parts and I am learning about each part myself. When I started this thread I actually took some weak anti-mish arguments, like the DQR alternative, as a real argumentation concern. I also knew little of the Psalm 40 verbal connection. I did know that Emanuel Tov had essentially demolished the "it must be a lion noun" argument that is the basis of the thread.

And you were the only one who responded to an important point, my discussion of why Psalm 22:16 is not a directly-mentioned prophecy in the NT while Zechariah 12 is given with citation of prophecy. Also something I understood faintly at best at the start of the thread.

Clearly I would agree that there is decent good evidence for a couple of translational alternatives here, rarely do you get a verse with so many translational nuances and difficulties.

As for the concern that my conviction of the truth of my Bible makes it easier for me to understand and defend its truth, accusation accepted with a smile. JW's view that the Christians are all wet causes him to continually shade and slant his arguments. Or Jeffrey with his doctrinal view against "God manifest in the flesh.." has been forced to argue somewhat hostilely and incorrectly against evidences. Those with hostility towards the Bible often don't see their slants and spin. So good scholarship acknowledges that there is no such thing as full neutrality, it is both a chimera and a self-deception, and then continues the discussion with baggage properly stowed.

The second part of the argument had to do with my breakdown of the verbal alternatives into four groups. I asked you about that a few times and I have never seen you reply. Basically it is my view that emendation and other-language cognate-word alternatives are inconsequential to the discussion. (Even though they are a big part of a few of the scholarly papers.) One (bound) at least has some other-language manuscript backing but still is basically saying the text is wrong or completely unknown in Hebrew, the others are the various other akkadian or arabic or sioux cognates that should just be given a smile and a wave. My question to you is whether you agree or whether you might actually argue that the last two are important alternatives.

And yes, I have been interested in 1 Timothy 3:16
"God was manifest in the flesh..."
Fascinating thread.

I'll go over the Masorah separately. I may have mistakenly given the impression that the Masorah issues would affect the semantic range of KRW (the last of the three parts of the discussion). I just think the Masorah may be a very important evidence to be properly evaluated and understood in the verb/noun and/or Masoretic minority-reading discussions (remember how the spin was to hand-wave that away as nothing). From your post Api I think you are indicating that the Masorah is such evidence.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Actually the bulls of Bashan beset the psalmist (as a ravening and roaring lion). And dogs have compassed the psalmist. No lions if KRW is a verb.

Tis very true that they have no opposable thumbs, however they can and will tear hands and feet and leave scars ands wounds. As at the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus.

Luke 24:38-40
And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled?
and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Behold my hands and my feet,
that it is I myself: handle me, and see;
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones,
as ye see me have.
And when he had thus spoken,
he shewed them his hands and his feet.

John 20:24-25
But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus,
was not with them when Jesus came.
The other disciples therefore said unto him,
We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them,
Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails,
and put my finger into the print of the nails,
and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

Shalom,
Steven

Apikorus

To answer your question, I certainly would not rule out the possibility that the MT's K)RY is a mangled version of a verb which is a hapax, and that cognates from Arabic and other related Semitic languages might shed new light on the problem.

Clearly "bound" must be taken very seriously since it is the reading of Aquila.

And it is also quite possible that K)RY is correct, for reasons given by spin and in the article of Rendsburg.

I find your arguments against DQR and NQB to be inconsequential. The fact that NQB does not occur in Psalms doesn't mean that the various psalmists did not know the word. Rather, there is no imagery of "piercing" in the psalter, so the word does not arise. There is cursing, though, and the word used therein is QLL.

But your job is to defend the reading "pierced". You continue to avoid doing so. Why?