jgibson000

You do know, do you not, that one, if not the, reason that Steve has not done what he has been asked to do is that he is as skilled in Hebrew as he is in Greek -- which is to say, not at all. As he has admitted elsewhere, he does not read or have any competency in either language.

Jeffrey Gibson

Chris Weimer

Um, we all know that Steven has no idea what he is talking about, why are people still indulging him? He knows no Hebrew, he knows no Greek, he knows...what exactly? He is predisposed to believe a certain way about this issue, and nothing one can say will change his mind. Why do any of you continue to indulge this mindlessness? Abite!

spin

Oh, that is sad, isn't it? But it does explain why he's been backward in coming forward regarding "pierce".

Hasn't he been in the apologetic business for long enough to have learnt something about the languages? Then again, I couldn't understand why anyone might knowledgeably defend the errors of the venerable KJV.


spin

Steven Avery

Psalms 40:6
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire;
mine ears hast thou opened:
burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Exodus 21:6
Then his master shall bring him unto the judges;
he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post;
and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul;
and he shall serve him for ever.

Post 63,
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...2&postcount=63
Phlox (now banned)
the scholars behind the NIV translate this as "pierced" in Psalm 40:7. The word there does not mean "open" as you say... The word is "to dig" and comes from the same root that we've been talking about. The reason many translation have "open" is because this particular phrase is an idiom.

Post 70
Spin
supply the logic as to where one could possibly have got "pierced" for Ps 40:7... it is a metaphor. The step from "dig" to "pierce" is an unjustified linguistic passage: why change the idea from "dig" to "pierce" and then read it as a metaphor? a metaphor for what that's different from making a cavity, ie "dig"?? The effort to insinuate "pierce" here is simply vain, as is the case in Ps 22:17 ... (then spin switches to the noun-only argument)

Posts 85
Phlox
In Psalm 40:7, I can see God "piercing" a hole in the lump of flesh on the side of someone's head to create that hole in their ear for hearing just as easily as I can see him "digging it". However, using "pierce" in this context likely makes most people think of pierced ears

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus At any rate, Exod 21:6 has RC( for "pierced". This verb is a hapax in the Hebrew Bible. More commonly used are DQR (Zech 12:10, Num 25:8, Judg 9:54, 1 Sam 31:4, etc.) and NQB (2 Ki 18:21 (= Isa 36:6), Hab 3:14, etc.). Note that NQB is used explicitly for the piercing of a hand in 1 Ki 18:21.

Isaiah 36:6
Lo, thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt;
whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it:
so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him.

2 Kings 18:21
Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed,
even upon Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand,
and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt unto all that trust on him

Zechariah 12:10
And I will pour upon the house of David,
and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the spirit of grace and of supplications:
and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced,
and they shall mourn for him,
as one mourneth for his only son,
and shall be in bitterness for him,
as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

A note or two

The hapax in Exodus 21:6 is always transalted to be bored out, dug through, nobody has specifically 'pierced' afaik.

Rashi relates this to ..

“For the children of Israel are slaves to Me” (Lev. 25:55)
“the cartilage of the right ear of the one who is becoming pure” (Lev. 14:14).

and

“For the children of Israel are slaves to Me; they are My slaves,” but [they are] not slaves to slaves, and [yet] this one went and acquired for himself a master-[his ear] shall be bored before them [for everyone to see]. — [From Kid. 22b]

Thus it would seem natural that this was a reference for Psalm 40:6 that you haven't been able to find the sense (below)

- DQR is used for the idea of being stricken, thrust through with a spear or sword. It would be a difficult usage for Psalm 22 under any interpretation.

The NT prophectic element is strongly shown in -

John 19:34
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side,
and forthwith came there out blood and water.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Psa 40:7 has KRH, which means to dig or excavate (as a grave, in Gen 50:5). It is also used metaphorically, in Prov 16:27 ("an ungodly man digs up evil..."). Its usage in Psa 40:7 is odd, but I can't make any sense of it as "pierced". It might refer to God's creating our ears, which are "dug out" from our heads.

Or it might refer to one serving his master, as in Genesis, being symbolized or manifest by the aul through the ear. I was wondering how you viewed that Psalm-Penteteuch connection. That may supply the sense you hadn't found.

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's go back to an Inventory of the Hebrew Textual evidence:

Frum Paul Tobin's Exxxcellent site (which near as I can tell is reliable):

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html#hev

Here is a survey of the offending word from the Masoretic text:



The meticuolus Tobin footnotes these stats as:

"43. Elliger & Rudolph, Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia: p1104"

Note that this graphic is Tobin's creation.

Manuscripts were simply Copied to about 1100 and therefore in addition to Age are also the best evidence due to Process (Copying as opposed to Selection). Manuscripts to that time, none of which show any Masorah for 22:17, are:

1) Aleppo - 1st half ninth century (Missing Psalm 22)

2) Cairo Codex Prophets - 895

3) Leningrad Codex - 1008

4) Codex Reuchlinianus - start 12th century

The Ben Asher Tradition started in the second half of the eigth century.

After 1100 Manuscripts were sometimes Eclectic introducing opportunity for new textual variation.

Yelvin estimates that there are at least 3,000 known Manuscripts.

Most people don't realize that Kittel, the Creator of BHS, was Christian. The first two BHS editions were from his fellow Christian, Ben-Chayyim's, eclectic 16th century creation. Starting with the third edition BHS has the Leningrad Codex as a base. How many Manuscripts were considered in the current 5th edition, God knows. Presumably, at least in the hundreds.

So it seems to me, with this Type of ratio, hundreds or thousands to about ten, that to bestow a Title of "Minority Reading" to K)RW could only be done out of Christian kindness.

Note that for K)RW, Inventoried with 3-10 Manuscripts, the meaning of the word is unknown. Alephs, ")", were sometimes added in the DSS time to assist pronounciation, but not in Biblical times when the word was first written. Thus, a Manuscript with K)RW is not Direct evidence of a "they dug" original.

So we are really just left with two Manuscripts that are Direct evidence of an original of "they dug", KRW. BHS doesn't identify them. What/Where are they? Is it a reference to the King of Spain's Targum and Steven's reference to Gill's reference to Ben-Chayyim's reference? (In other words, just Christian products?).

We also have one more Hebrew text to consider, a piece of scrap from Never Halach. But first (and craftily) I present the above for Consideration and Comment.



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 interpreter's advantage for the other to have said.

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

Apikorus

Huh? So the prefigured "piercing" of Jesus in Psalm 22 is a different piercing than that in Zech 12, and therefore requires a different verb? Could you explain this?

Steven Avery

When you really have some specific scholarship about how many manuscripts were collated in the Kittel's edition for Psalm 22, share it away. And especially how many before specific dates, such as 1500 AD or 1200 AD. I find that the numbers people throw up without knowing are often way off. You clearly are simply conjecturing here.

Then you should be intelligent enough to stop trying to foist the abject corrupt readings of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in your textual NT discussions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Api,

Well, I thought that was pretty clear in my post. Let's go over it a bit more. There are two related yet distinct references in the NT, one that is about the sword thrust in Jesus, the other about the piercing, the wounds of the hands and feet, the nailprints of the hands.

One event is discussed here..

John 19:34-37
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side,
and forthwith came there out blood and water.
And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true:
and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
For these things were done,
that the scripture should be fulfilled,
A bone of him shall not be broken.
And again another scripture saith,
They shall look on him whom they pierced.

(Pierced here is nusso, an interesting hapax).
And this is specifically given as a fulfillment of --

Psalm 34:20
He keepeth all his bones:
not one of them is broken.

Zechariah 12:10
And I will pour upon the house of David,
and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the spirit of grace and of supplications:
and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced,
and they shall mourn for him,
as one mourneth for his only son,
and shall be in bitterness for him,
as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Gill on Zechariah 12:10
We Christians can have no doubt upon us that this passage belongs to Christ, when it is observed, upon one of the soldiers piercing the side of Jesus with a spear, it is said, "these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled; they shall look on him whom they have pierced"

And some Jewish exegesis has applied Zechariah 12:10 to Messiah ben Joseph.

The other verse, in the midst of a chapter filled with Messianic prophecy, does not have this sword-thrust stricken mortal wound idea built into the verse as does Zechariah 12:10. There should be no surprise at all that it uses a different Hebrew word.

Psalm 22:15-16
My strength is dried up like a potsherd;
and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws;
and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
For dogs have compassed me:
the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me:
they pierced my hands and my feet.

While one can marginally give this as a third verse related to John 19
the verse in Psalms relates directly to ...

Luke 24:39
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.

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.

John 20:27
Then saith he to Thomas,
Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands;
and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side:
and be not faithless, but believing.

If someone is surprised that the Messianic prophecy connection
is understated in the NT I would be surprised at their surprise.
The Psalm is messianic, the verse in question is one part of the
mosaic. Clear enough, and a deep picture of the sufferings of
Messiah. The Hebraic writings applied a number of verses of
Psalm 22 to Messiah.

The reason it becomes a big issue is a diversion attempt by
the anti-mish, rather common. Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Psalm 2.
Try to make a stretch-exaggerated-weak claim of supposed
tampering or mistranslation on one part of the verse and you
can try to hijack the reader, avoid looking at the beautiful
tableau of messianic prophecy.

And I agree that integrity issues are primary, so it is a
crafty but failed attempt of the anti-mish to pull these
diversions. That is why you have the supposed insistence
on the noun reading as the only possible reading despite
the rich and diverse evidence against.

In contrast, a supposed integrity attack based on

'we should have dug or bore, not pierced, of the hands and feet'

would not have a lot of pizazz. Has anybody referred to boring
of hands or ears or feet in English ? Or digging ?

All this explains the rather strange maneuverings of spin and JW
parroting the discredited anti-mish line. Emanuel Tov, responding
to the anti-mish plea, had to draw a strong line of integrity that
this should not be a Jewish/Christian adversarial/integrity attack
issue. Folks could have very reasonable and sincere disagreements
with the diverse evidence.

Api, I do hope that you understand that I am really only giving your posts full attention. You seem to really have a good knowledge of the issues and often show an interest in honest examination even with the political flak flying. The other posts, even when I see claims that really cry for response, I have to bypass 90%. Time limitations on my side as well. Also the knowledge that some folks will simply ignore anything that doesn't match their presups. In contrast, in this discussion your posts have led me to consider and research new aspects of the discussion and I don't have to deal with trying to nail down vague factual conjectures of convenience.

Maybe I can continue a bit tonight. And we can squeeze some thoughts in before shabbat and all. I would like to post that Midrash on Psalms and continue the discussion of pre-rabbinic references. And I am hoping that we can get real scholarship on the Masorah as well. Can you share if that is mentioned in the four articles ?

Question - what do you think of the idea of not blowing the shofar when Rosh Hashanah is on shabbat ?

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

jgibson000

The what thrust?

The word is "presuppositions", not "presups". Your speaking of how people ignore anthing that doesn't match one's "presups" is as much an annoying affectation as it is ironic.

Jeffrey Gibson

Steven Avery

Hi Jeffrey,

'Spear' thrust. Thanks for the correction.

Would you be willing to go over the evidences from 1 Timothy 3:16 you claimed but then left a forum without giving ? We could start a separate thread. I noticed you did make some good efforts to find at least the Origen negative evidence so it would be good for you to share the results. Maybe there is real evidence.

I would start the thread with the last request to you for specific evidences you claimed when we were discussing -

"God was manifest in the flesh..."

Five claims needed corroboration as I recall. That unanswered post from Fundebate could be posted here and we could look at it more after Trumpets. If you prefer we could just do Origen first and then see about continuing. A one-at-a-time approach.

Ok by you ?

Presups is a little shorthand colloquialism. Used a fair amount. There may be a danger of it being confused with being a shorthand for the presuppositionalism Van Til. For your reading pleasure I will avoid it in posts that are directly addressed to you.

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