spin

So far, you've dealt with the topic less than superficially, praxeus. Your opinions and aspersions are not quite as useful as your use of evidence. You might like to try using some evidence to make a case, but you probably know that your desired form of the verse is unobtainable.


spin

Apikorus

I don't see it as any more important than hundreds of other cases of textual corruption. I agree with spin -- if you have evidence for the Christian reading "they pierced," please present it. Enough beating around the bush, Steven.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus I don't see it as any more important than hundreds of other cases of textual corruption. I agree with spin -- if you have evidence for the Christian reading "they pierced," please present it. Enough beating around the bush, Steven.

Well it seems my compliment to your attitude on this discussion is already historical, non-functional. As you, Api, to your discredit, jump in kneejerk to spin-junque. *

Hmmm.. . Api, what have I said on this issue here. Not much. No big claims, no overarching challenges. I may put below a smidgen or two I was working on yesterday. And as indicated I just reviewed the thread yesterday. Overall a decent thread, especially your posts and some of the interplay with Phlox (now banned for some reason) and others.

However did not my post reference encourage you to find the Emanuel Tov view of Psalm 22, of which you are unawares, and consider same? Granted we saw the letter a bit differently but was it not a valuable addition to the discussion ?

And the Tov letter does fully contradict a bunch of the tude earlier in the thread, from spin and perhaps JW, that tried to paint the verbal reading as unknowledgeable and only Christian ignorance or tampering. That can now be considered fully and completely refuted. Yes, you were on top of the game on that one anyway.

And am I not now simply asking for a review of Talmudic and Midrashic literature? Do you know of any ? Do you consider it germane ? Shouldn't we look at all the evidence before jumping to contusions and belligerence ? Why was it omitted before ?

Less important but still interesting, in nine pages here, dozens of posts, I don't think the Peshitta was even mentioned. The Tanach Peshitta is a bit different because the issue of Christian and Jewish provenance is unsettled, unlike e.g the Vulgate. Also the translation is considered as quite early and it did not have the textual wars of the Greek OT. I believe it is a full witness to the verbal reading, although I dunno if there is a majority/minority manuscript issue or the precise verb-form. Anybody have that info ?

I also wonder if Jerome ever discussed the verse. Since his translation was in Israel, living in Bethlehem, studying with the Jews for the Hebrew, any comments he makes are interesting. Perhaps that is on the thread, or perhaps he is silent.

Incidentally there was one post, I think JW, which said that the KJB used the Vulgate reading. That does not make a lot of sense if the Vulgate reading is 'dug' as in the Douay-Rheims. Anybody know ?

Overall, though, Phlox was right.
There is a lot more posturing and politicking here than search for truth.
I knew that was the case from Spin and JW.
You had resisted that Api, until now.
Anyway, one can try to work around that.

So I think first it would be good to have a more in-depth review and study of the evidences. Apparently a bunch has been omitted here, such as searching for pre-rabbinic Hebraic references (I dunno if the omissions are in the articles you referenced, it seems only one of those articles is on the Net).

Oh, I did find the discussion of Psalm 40:6 (7 in HB) fascinating.
Do you see that verse as connected with Exodus 21:6 ?

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

*
Note how Spin writes the typical arrogant spin junque. most every phrase some kind of general attack .. Looking at recent threads I don't see any conceptual or even overall evidentiary-review dialog with spin as productive.
So my plan is for any responses to his posts to only be on factual questions/statements/claims. Not a back-and-forth on proving this or arguing that. Even where his questions are actually substantive and interesting - the agenda deep-sixes the time and effort to respond to the question.

However I do have a response to the last spin post on this Psalm 22 topic in the can ready that I will trim and put in, since it has a couple of important additional considerations to add to the above.

Consider this as my spin announcement for the forum - similar to my earlier Johny Onenote (skeptic) announcement - that one was only based on the limited focus and direction of the discussions, no problem with tone. Also I do not dialog with JW because of his frequent and tawdry accusations of lying against people unable to respond - as well as craftily implied against people on forum, however that is just my policy, first explained here. The fact that his posts are largely unreadable, grade-school creative writing, is a minor factor. I do appreciate that his attempt to parrot the anti-mish view on Psalm 22 worked to open the door to the scholarship on this thread.

JoeWallack

JW:
Hmmm, must be losing my edge. Normally they stop talking to me first. Spin wasn't this good before I got here. Okay Steven, I have to know. Please tell me who's worse, me or Spin? (with fingers crossed or verse-vice)



Joseph

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

spin

Sad, isn't it?


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

One question that is conneceted to the Psalm 22 discussion.

Signficant minority readings within the Masoretic Text are relatively
rare. Clearly Psalm 22 is one. My understanding is that there are a
number of words or phrases that are different between the Ben Hayim
text (Kittel's #1 and #2) and the current BHS text (Kittels #3). However
the 8 or 9 that are normally pointed out are not usually subject to discussion
doctrinally. There is also vowel point differences, especially in the
Tetragram, but that is a horse of another color.

So looking at the actual letter-text, what would be other significant
variant minority readings within the Masoretic Text ? I have a remembrance
of a question in Isaiah as to the Tetragram vs. Adonay. Are there
significant minority text divergences in the Masoretic Text. Are there
many, significant or relatively minor ? (All this is mostly outside of Penteteuch, where the standardization is stronger).

Now I am not asking about the Masorah, qere-ketive, vowel points, emendations of the Sopherim. simply within the Masoretic Text tradition.

I found one article that seemed to talk about some of these types of
issues, but it is hard to see if any of it applies to the Masoretic Text

http://www.biu.ac.il/js/JSIJ/2-2003/Steiner.doc.
http://tinyurl.com/g9z84 (google cache version)
Jewish Theory of Biblical Redaction from Byzantium: Its Rabbinic Roots, Its Diffusion and Its Encounter with the Muslim Doctrine of Falsification*

So what are the more significant minority readings within the Masoretic Text, in addition to Psalm 22 ?

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

Apikorus

Steven, the medieval rabbis (Qimhi, for example) were aware of the Christian reading of Ps 22:17. I don't know of any rabbinic reading which would allow for "pierced" in that verse.

The earliest Jewish interpretations are to be found in the ancient versions. All ancient versions except for the Targum have a verb where the MT has K)RY. The Targum adds a verb but retains "like a lion" from the MT. The LXX has wruxan = "they have dug". Aquila had "they have disfigured" and "they have bound" in his first and second editions. Symmachus had "those who seek to bind." The Vulgate has "they have dug" (foderunt), but Jerome follows Aquila in his later Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos, rendering the word as vinxerunt ("they have bound"). So some of the earliest scholarly Christian work (Jerome) agreed with the earliest Jewish interpretation (Aquila, Symmachus).

While the New Testament authors did invoke Ps 22 as prophetic of the Passion, they did not cite Ps 22:17. This verse was nevertheless cited rather early on (e.g. by Justin Martyr) as referring to Jesus' crucifixion. One of the Patristic authors, Theodore of Mopsuestia, interpreted the entire psalm as referring to David's battle against Absalom. His interpretation was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople, in 553 CE. Death by committee!

These details are discussed in the scholarly articles by Vall and Swenson I cited earlier in this thread.

If you have any evidence supporing the reading "they have pierced" why don't you present it? The inescapable conclusion is that your evidence is either nonexistent or incomparably weak.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Greetings Api, thanks for responding in a more communicative manner.
I do think you are bypassing a bunch but we are in the ballpark of discussion.

As an aside, Radaq is especially interesting in his discussion of Psalm 110. Anyway, I wonder if there are any other commentaries to review other than Radaq, Rashi and Ibn Ezra. Anything from Abarbanel, Maimonides, Nachmanides, Sforno etc ? Would be a worthwhile check. As you likely are well awares sometimes they give lots of special additional insight.

Api that sounds like a bit of word-parsing. From one perspective (yours?) it is possible for a commentary to "allow for" a verbal reading yet you might say that does not "allow for" "pierced". This would skewer the conversation and could misrepresent the Hebraic analysis, especially the rabbinics.

Let me ask you this .. can you relate any other commentaries or midrash other than Ibn Ezra, Radaq and Rashi ? And do those three give any indication of the validity of a verbal reading ?

Also Apikorus, I really asked above about what you might call pre-rabbinic references. Talmud and midrash. Are you indicating that you simply do not check that or do not have it available or do not consider it germane ? Never mentioned in the four articles you referenced ? If there is any why not bring those to the table ?

Most Masoretic Text MSS, not "the MT". The attempt by spin to handwave away the minority reading was quite a chuckle. All of a sudden all that counts is the Leningrad codex Ahh who cares about the Masorah or variant manuscripts or marginal notes and variants and such. Anyway the minority reading has very strong early other-language support (as you indicate) the Peshitta and Vulgate and Aquila and more (see Gill below). So the MT minority reading must be given real note if the discussion is to be full and fair. We also have the unusual history, the comments by Ben Hayim, the Bomberg reference given earlier. We know that there was a question of politicalization of the decision of which variant to use on this verse. Likely more than any other Tanach verse.

A very nice review.

I think your sharing on the Targum (also mentioned by John Gill below and he adds some extras) was missed on the earlier part of the thread, the fact that the Targum (at least one version thereof, see Gill below) includes a verbal reading as well as the lion noun. In a sense you might say that the Targum, with its loose interpretative sense, was covering all bases. It is especially interesting if it is a pre-1st-century translation/commentary. Were they already aware of the verse difficulty or translation tension even outside the Messiah question ?

And your final words are in synch with what Emanuel Tov expressed, that the issue is difficult and really should not be put in a Christian/Jewish (adversarial) perspective.

On Jerome I wonder if he has any commentary as well... or simply his two translations. Was the first translation from the Greek OT and the second from the Hebrew, as he very properly moved away from the Greek OT ? The actual translations as you reference them look in the other direction. I can check this with a friend who is quite Jerome-savvy, translating a bunch of his material.

Keep in mind that any support for a verbal reading is support for "they have pierced" over "like a lion", which is the anti-mish argument that JW and spin have been pushing.

One of the tricks of the discussion (in general and in this thread) is to mix two different issues, to jump back and forth.

1) Do we have a verb or a noun.

2a) If a noun, what is the emendation to try to make it sensible.
2b) If a verb, what verb ?

Now clearly the initial question is verb or noun.
And if a person does not see or acknowledge that there is a
good case for the verbal reading there is no point in going into (2).

And the "like a lion only" approach is the anti-mish "deny everything" mishegas that was originally behind this thread. Quite properly that has fallen by the wayside, presented as an argument percolating within the confusing bias and ultra-selective parsing of JW.

So (1) above comes first. However, there is a bit of a reverse factor. If there is no coherent (2a) that can be a supporting argument for (1) being a verb (and it definitely is a valid argument for the verbal reading, the question is how strong).

While all that is going on, the issue of the proper verbal reading is simply a separate discussion. In that regard the thread discussion of Psalm 40:6 (7 in HB) was really helpful. There really is a lot to consider.

=======

Earlier in on this thread we had a long quote from John Calvin, from typical JW selectivity-for-an-agenda. It was strange. Afaik nobody uses Calvin as an authority on the topic of Psalm 22 so he (like the alexandrian text blunders) offers a nice duckshoot target.

A far better example of Reformation Christian analysis is John Gill. I am going to include his whole commentary on the phrase, adding one scripture reference, as it touches on the Talmud and Midrash question as well.

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/...ll/psalm22.htm

John Gill
they pierced my hands and my feet; by nailing them to the cross, which,
though not related by the evangelists, is plainly suggested in John 20:25;

John 20:25
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.

Psalms 22:16
For dogs have compassed me:
the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me:
they pierced my hands and my feet.

and is referred to in other passages of Scripture, Zechariah 12:10; and clearly points at the kind of death Christ should die; the death, of the cross, a shameful and painful one. In this clause there is a various reading; in some copies in the margin it is, "as a lion my hands and my feet," but in the text, "they have dug" or "pierced my hands and my feet"; both are joined together in the Targum, "biting as a lion my hands and my feet"; as it is by other interpreters {c}; and Schultens {d} retains the latter, rendering the preceding clause in connection with it thus, "the assembly of the wicked have broken me to pieces, as a lion, my hands and my feet."

In the Targum, in the king of Spain's Bible, the phrase, "as a lion," is left out. The modern Jews are for retaining the marginal reading, though without any good sense, and are therefore sometimes charged with a wilful and malicious corruption of the text; but without sufficient proof, since the different reading in some copies might be originally occasioned by the similarity of the letters y and w; and therefore finding it in their copies, or margin, sometimes wrak, and sometimes yrak, have chose that which best suits their purpose, and is not to be wondered at; however, their "masoretic" notes, continued by them, sufficiently clear them from such an imputation, and direct to the true reading of the words; in the small Masorah on the text it is observed that the word is twice used as here pointed, but in two different senses; this is one of the places; the other is Isaiah 38:13; where the sense requires it should be read "as a lion": wherefore, according to the authors of that note, it must have a different sense here, and not to be understood of a lion; the larger Masorah, in Numbers 24:9; observes the word is to be found in two places, in that place and in Psalm 22:16; and adds to that, it is written wrak, "they pierced"; and Ben Chayim confirms {e} this reading, and says he found it so written it, some correct copies, and in the margin yrak; and so it is written in several manuscripts; and which is confirmed by the Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Greek, and Vulgate Latin versions; in which it is rendered, "they dug my hands and my feet"; and so took it to be a verb and not a noun: so Apollinarius in his metaphrase; and which is also confirmed by the points; though taking yrak for a participle, as the Targum, that reading may be admitted, as it is by some learned men {f}, who render it "digging" or "piercing," and so has the same sense, deriving the word either from rak or rwk, which signify to dig, pierce, or make hollow; and there are many instances of plural words which end in y, the m omitted, being cut off by an apocope; see 2 Samuel 23:8; and either way the words are expressive of the same thing, and manifestly point to the sufferings of Christ, and that kind of death he should die, the death of the cross, and the nailing of his hands and feet to it, whereby they were pierced. This passage is sometimes applied by the Jews {g} themselves to their Messiah.

{c} Amamae Antibarb. Bibl. p. 743. {d} Origin. Heb. l. 1. c. 12. s. 8. Vid. Jacob. Alting. Dissert. Philolog. 5. s. 27-34. {e} In Maarcath a, fol. 10. 2. ad Calc. Buxtorf. Bibl. {f} Pocock. Miscell. c. 4. p. 59, 60. Pfeiffer. Exercitat. 8. s. 37. Carpzov. Critic. Sacr. p. 838, 839. Alting. ut supra. (Dissert. Philolog. 5.) s. 48, 49. {g} Pesikta in Yalkut, par. 2. fol. 56. 4.

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

spin

This expression "word-parsing" is highly strange. You may have trouble parsing the words that Apikorus wrote -- ie you are doing the parsing --, but they are clear in their content. You shouldn't have trouble parsing them.

You continue to show that you have nothing at all up your sleave to defend your a priori reading of the text. Elsewhere you deliberately confuse the fact that a reading of the expression under consideration is verbal rather than the more common nominal reading. This verbal reading in Hebrew points to the verb "to dig". This gives you no comfort in your efforts to defend the reading which is not in the text, ie "pierce". You are giving a broken record approach to the problem: the disk whines "I have no reason to support what I want the text to say, but I'll do my darndest to undercut everything else, as that will indirectly support my untenable reading."

I can understand you trying to laugh it off. You have nothing much better to do. There are variant readings. They don't support your error, but use can use the fact to make you feel better that you can quibble about the majority reading.

Disturbed verses attract more attention. It's difficult to go to a native speaker of the language and ask them what it meant, when there were no native speakers of the particular form of the language available, so there is speculation. This doesn't help you in your erroneous reading.

:boohoo:

You simply can't argue for your erroneous reading, can you? You know it is untenable, so you avoid your responsibilities. This is sad apologetics, isn't it there praxeus?

The version that supplies vinxerunt is quite anomalous:

circumdederunt me venatores concilium pessimorum vallavit me vinxerunt manus meas et pedes meos

Hunters have surrounded me, an wicked council has closed around me, they have bound my hands and my feet.

BDB gives a "dubious" source for K)RY as coming from a form KWR, apparently related to Arabic, where it means "to wind", as in a turban (and therefore perhaps "to bind").

This is just silly, of course. "They dug" is no support for "they pierced" whatsoever. That is simply your fantastication.

Yes, and I wish you would stop doing it. Either you support your wayward reading directly, or you be honest and admit that you can't. You can't jump from the claim that the majority reading is wrong to your a priori reading being supported by the claim.

No, we start with this question: do we have a philological reason for doubting the majority text, ie reason based on the text itself. One must explain why the majority reading has come down to us, if one wants to advocate another reading.

You start with the philology of the text as it is. You try to make the text work in order to explain the form, then, if you can't, you look for alternatives. If you can't follow such an approach, you can't do the job. You start from a Jacobean translation and work backwards. Not the least bit helpful.

The text has the expression K)RY, which literally means like a lion. To derive "they dug" you have to start with the verb KRH (to dig), then form a 3rd person plural KRW, claiming that the YOD was an error, and finally insert an ALEF, claiming that in this unique case, there must have been a mater lectionis in order to explain the ALEF -- and that's only to get to the verb "to dig".

ETA: regarding the uniqueness of the ALEF in this case, why do no other cases of the verb KRH have the ALEF?? Why should one make the unsupported claim that it was here?

We then have a lot of butterfly logic to get from "dig" to "pierce". This is where we run to the Nachal Hever fragment which shows the difficulty for a modern reader to distinguish between YOD and WAW in works copied at that period -- a difficulty not even admitted by the Tov letter you refer to.

Cutting through the basic tendentious rubbish from Gill which you cite in its cloying length, we get to some people who render the word in question as "digging" or "piercing," and so has the same sense, without any explanation as to how one can get from "dig" to "pierce". This is deliberate mystification of two distinct terms. Why quote an obvious a priori analysis of the text, when we are trying to deal with it firstly for what it actually says?

It immediately continues deriving the word either from rak or rwk, which signify to dig, pierce, or make hollow, but where is this verb KWR with the meaning given here? Could we have an example from an ancient text? No, of course not. In fact KWR generally means "furnace" or "pot". And where can one find this verb K)R??

And further Gill genius: and there are many instances of plural words which end in y, the m omitted, being cut off by an apocope. Doh, yeah, it's rather common in fact, but what's the relevance here? Umm, sadly, none.

But this is sufficient for him to burst into his tendentious conclusion: and either way the words are expressive of the same thing, and manifestly point to the sufferings of Christ... and the nailing of his hands and feet to it, whereby they were pierced. Follows, doesn't it? Like following a skunk.

And I loved the reference to the King of Spain's Bible. While we should be dealing with the Hebrew tradition of the Leningrad and Aleppo codices and similar, Gill is way off out on a limb.

I've called you before on using archaic analyses, but I guess you have nothing else.

Your job is, and always has been, to demonstrate that "pierce" is the correct reading of the text, ie you make arguments based on the language of the text in its various forms to support your reading -- not pussyfooting around with other people's opinions, mostly tendentious, as to why "like a lion" is not the right reading. We have consistently seen that you will not confront the task at all. This points to your inability to do your job. If you were employed as an apologist, I'd recommend to the employer that they fire you.


spin

Apikorus

If you want to start a thread on Ps 110, go right ahead and I will join in. You seem to be interested only in items of interest to Christianity. There's more interesting stuff from RaDaQ.

What is so difficult to understand? There's no rabbinic reading I know of which translates K)RY in Ps 22:17 as "they pierced". Isn't that clear enough?

And I told you -- the LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, and the Targum are all pre-rabbinic or at best proto-rabbinic. These provide the earliest information on Jewish interpretation of Ps 22:17. Aside from the Targum, the versions all contain a verb where the MT has K)RY -- either "they dug" or "they bound". No piercing.

Overwhelmingly the MT is represented by K)RY in Ps 22:17. A very few mss have K)RW, the meaning of which is unclear. According to JW, there are two mss which read KRW = "they dug". Again, there is nothing to support "they pierced".

The Targumim are often expansive and paraphrastic. Nevertheless, the Targum supports the MT's K)RY = "like a lion".

This is patently false, as the previous discussion shows.

As spin cautions, we should first grapple with the majority text from the MT family. If it is untenable, then we can start looking elsewhere. I happen to think that the text is very likely defective and that either a locative has been dropped or K)RY is a corruption of an unknown verb. But some scholars, like Gary Rendsburg, defend the MT as it stands, adducing evidence that a missing locative is not problematic, and indeed connotes the speed with which the lion attacks its prey.

The "analysis" by Gill is so weak and tendentious that is isn't worth discussing. It is eisegesis.