Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 09-20-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

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.
[/COLOR][COLOR="DarkRed"]
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.

JW:
I suppose this is what "The Jews" who helped Origen and Jerome felt like. At least you're curious. But remember, curiousity killed the Cathechism.

Unlike the KJV Mistranslators who had no access to Jewish Bible scholarship when creating a Jewish Bible, Gill at least had Jews in England when he wrote.

At least Gill Confesses to us that none of the Gospellers noted a connection to any piercing in Psalm 22 or any verbal action for that matter related to 22:16/17. This is indirect evidence that what the Gospellers saw in the Greek was not any verb since their usual willingness to mistranslate combined with a Psalm that was so important to them would make one think that they would have made mention of any verb, certainly "they dug".

Speaking of proof-texting here, in general proof-texting is important to Christianity but not Judaism. Therefore, regarding Motivation to Change or at least select from Alternatives, for any individual phrase such as 22:17, Christianity is always going to have more Motivation to take a favorable translation. Somehow.

"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";"

Presumably Gill is referring to the Greek. It would be nice for him to explicitly identify. Otherwise some idiot might take it as a Hebrew reference or not even realize the language difference issue.

"In the Targum, in the king of Spain's Bible, the phrase, "as a lion," is left out. "

So what. This was probably a printed version, identified as a Targum, which deliberately chose K)RW even though there probably wasn't a single known Hebrew Manuscript at the time with K)RW. What else would a Christian King have? As we continue to look at Maoretic Manuscripts we'll see it's doubtful whether any Jewish Source ever deliberately had a K)RW Manuscript.

"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;"

Gill has Dishonestly presented "like a lion" as "the marginal reading". It's the marginal reading in the Greek, not the Hebrew. Calvin had already confessed to us that in his time there were no Hebrew Manuscripts with K)RW. Gill was probably just unaware of how lopsided the Masoretic K)RY was in his time. Regarding "have chose that which best suits their purpose," he just attributes a Christian quality to Judaism but it was Christianity which treated Textual selection as Eclectic and guided by Holy Something and Judaism which treated Textual selection as Legalistic. The backwards transliteration is interesting too.

"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";"

Gill doesn't even appear to understand what the "Masorah" is here. The Masorah was an inventory of textual variation and related commentary primarily designed to guard the received Text from changes. It was initially specific to a specific Manuscript. The most reliable Manuscripts in general, and the most reliable Manuscript, the Leningrad Codex, show no Textual variation for 22:17 or any related comments. Thus every earlier Manuscript had its own Masorah which all differed from each other. Later, there were Eclectic Masorah works and that is where the two Masorah comments that Gill refers to comes from. Regarding the first Masorah comment referring to Isaiah 38:13, the comment actually confirms that K)RY is the correct writing with no known Textual variation. The comment only says that the meanings are different. This may just mean that 22:17 has an implied verb. If the author of the comment thought it was a different word, why not say what that was? It would have been the place to do that. This just looks to be a standard Masorah comment designed to protect the received text. It's been noted that 22:17 has no verb, K)RY, doesn't just mean "like a lion" here. Don't change it God damnit. In other words. it's probably not a clue to a different original meaning, but a reaction to Christians changing it (refer to the King of Spain's Targum).

In the second Masorah comment referring to Numbers 24:9 the offending word has been placed in the write/read category indicating the traditional understanding of a word is different from how it literally has been preserved.
There is no related Masorah commentary. "and adds to that, it is written wrak, "they pierced" is all either Gill's commentary or a commentary he copied. The Masorah wouldn't say "it is written wrak" anyway even if that was the traditional understanding. The Masorah would say "it is read wrak". Again, this Masorah shows no textual variation and is likely saying the same thing as the previous Masorah reference. K)RY in 22:17 is read with an implied verb.

"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;"

Daniel Blomberg, who printed the first Jewish Bible, was Christian. Most people don't know this, they just assume he was Jewish. In his first Jewish Bible, he used a Christian Editor (most people don't realize this either) who created an Eclectic (surprise) Jewish Bible and chose K)RW even though there may not have been a single Hebrew Manuscript at the time with K)RW. Jews generally refused to buy this Bible because of it. Blomberg replaced the first editor with Ben Chayim, who was supposedly Jewish at the time. But Ben Chayim went Schmad in 1524. Apologists throw Ben Chayim around like he's supposed to be more authoritative here because he was Jewish, but he wasn't. So what were these Manuscripts that Gill says Ben Chayim says had K)RW? No one knows. Was he just referring to Printed Bibles like the King of Spain's and Blomberg's first? The BHS Inventory is based on thousands of Manuscripts and presumably all but maybe around 10 have K)RY and for the ten one wonders how many were actually Christian products. So why would Ben Chayim assume that the correct ones had K)RW? Why would any Christian assume that?

Joseph

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

Steven Avery · 09-20-2006, 11:37 AM

Hi Folks,

Api, I will put in a post on our discussion shortly, however I would like you to try to address three sections that you bypassed in the previous posts.

"are any other commentaries to review other than Radaq, Rashi and Ibn Ezra. Anything from barbanel, Maimonides, Nachmanides, Sforno etc ? ... 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 ?"

"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 ?" (added note: Midrash on Psalms would be an obvious example, which predates the rabbinic commentary by 500 years or so).

"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 ?"

If your answers are that you simply dunno, none of this is familiar to you, that is fine, although surprising. However I do hope that you will give a straight response to the three sections.

Thanks.

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

Apikorus · 09-20-2006, 12:15 PM

Steven, I'd have to check on Abarbanel, Rambam, and Ramban, but I don't recall anything to report. In the midrash there is something about interpreting K)RY as a verb signifying conjuring (?) -- I don't know if that is in midrash tehillim or elsewhere. Of course midrash often strays significantly from the plain sense of the text, and given the difficulty in understanding the MT as it stands, it is hardly surprising that one should find a "verbal reading" somewhere in the rabbinic literature. Indeed, and as I emphasized, the very earliest Jewish interpretations, which were pre-rabbinic and proto-rabbinic, generally read a verb into Ps 22:17c ("they dug" or "they bound"). But there is no support at all for "they pierced" so far as I know.

I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the rabbinic literature, let alone total recall thereof. I don't know if I'll get around to checking on Rambam for you -- I'll be very busy preparing for Rosh Hashanah for the rest of this week. Why don't you check it yourself? You've been asked repeatedly to provide evidence for the Christian reading, "they pierced". So far, not a scintilla of evidence has been presented.

Lugubert · 09-20-2006, 01:08 PM

I don't dare to have an opinion of my own, but after having read at least most of this thread, I took out the fairly recent Swedish "Bibel 2000". This edition was prepared by a multi-faith commission, on a government initiative.

In a note to the verse, they mention that the oldest translations interpret the word as "lion", "lacerate", "bind", and "dig". In brackets they add that the early Christian church understood "pierce", but add that the verse isn't quoted in the NT. They chose "Hands and feet have shrunk", and tell you that this interpretation is linguistically supported from Akkadian and Syrian, and that it gives a good parallel to the description in v. 18.

jakejonesiv · 09-20-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus

...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. ... 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.

Hi Apikorus,

I agree with your point. The earliest explicit application of Psalm 22:16 to the alleged piercing of Jesus' hands and feet in crucifixion is Justin Martyr, First Apology, CHAPTER XXXV.

Quote:

And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, "They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots." And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them.

It has been pointed out by several contributers to this thread that this is an innovation of the Greek text. It appears that the gospel tradition was still very fliud as late as the middle of the second century, and that Justin himself may have been involved in the process of gospel creation.

Jake Jones IV

Steven Avery · 09-20-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus

In the midrash there is something about interpreting K)RY as a verb ... and as I emphasized, the very earliest Jewish interpretations, which were pre-rabbinic and proto-rabbinic, generally read a verb into Ps 22:17c ("they dug" or "they bound")

Thanks..

Which is also one of the points of Emanuel Tov as well. Making any noun reading questionable at best. (Especially with the minority reading remaining in the Masoretic Text). And making the anti-mish argument that "like a lion" is right and the verbal readings wrong extremely dishonest, whether done from anti-mish sites or local proponents.

And all the verb ideas have been given a far widen potential semantic range by the linguists than dug or bound, although that is often doing what you do .. conjecturing various corruptions and/or emendations.

Now here is a repeat question.

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

And do the rabbinics commentators see such a connection ?
(If we know, I'm just asking.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Apikorus · 09-20-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

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

Sorry, Steven, but which discussion are you talking about?

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.

It is amusing to note that Christians traditionally claim that Zech 12:10 is prophetic of Jesus ("...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced..."). In that verse the verb is DQR, not KRH.

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.

And now that I have answered all your questions, can you please get started on justifying the reading "they pierced" in Psa 22:17c? You've been avoiding this too long, Steven, and it is painfully obvious to anyone reading this thread.

spin · 09-20-2006, 05:07 PM

While still waiting for praxeus to attempt to defend his reading of "pierced", let's look at this latest evasion...

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Which is also one of the points of Emanuel Tov as well. Making any noun reading questionable at best.

No, of course not. Just making you a little less embattled in your a priori commitment to an erroneous translation that you can honestly defend.

Tov is free to have his opinion, but he doesn't give any logic behind Aquila's strange "bound" translation (though it does support the second version that Jerome put out, so Jerome there is merely conceding to Aquila on that account). I'd love to see Tov attempt to justify Aquila philologically. You'll note that he doesn't do so, for there doesn't seem to be any reasonable trajectory for one to derive "bound" from the evidence -- I've already suppied the best shot and it is dreadfully flimsy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

And making the anti-mish argument that "like a lion" is right and the verbal readings wrong extremely dishonest...

This is certainly a dishonest statement for you to make. You refuse point blank to live up to your responsibilities and argue a case for your foolish Jacobean translation error and you have the temerity to call accepting the majority reading of the MT version "dishonest". Your fraudulent approach to the issue is transparent to every reader of this thread bar you. But then, as you are not a disinterested party in this issue and cannot see that your persistent avoidance of defending "pierced" is blatant admission that it is indefensible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

And all the verb ideas have been given a far widen potential semantic range by the linguists than dug or bound, although that is often doing what you do ..

Who are the linguists you are referring to? You've so far only mentioned a philologist, an apologist or two and some early commentators. Linguistics is a modern social science, derived from pioneering philological work by people like the Grimm brothers and coming into being in the 20th century. Tov is not per se a linguist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

.. conjecturing various corruptions and/or emendations.

I've already shown that Ex 33:8 doesn't need the preposition in Hebrew in the phrase "every man stood [at] his tent". The preposition is not necessary to perceive the idea as locative. Note a recent comment from Apikorus:

Quote:

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.

So, no actually, no emendation is necessary. It would be easier for us, who have to read it as something we need to translate, to understand, if there were a prepostion, as we insert one in Ex 33:8, but nothing extra is necessary here in Ps 22.

Having looked at your quibbling and hedging in this latest attempt not to deal with the verse as you need to, praxeus, please defend your reading of "pierced" for the reading public who have seen you shirk your responsibilities post after post.

You have specifically been asked at least eight times in the recent part of this thread to defend your reading and eight times you have avoided it.

I thought you were here as an apologist, not as a hedger. WIll you eventually abandon this as you have surreptitiously done the ludicrous attempt to reinstate the Johannine Comma?

This is yet another opportunity: please defend the "pierced" reading.

spin

Apikorus · 09-20-2006, 05:33 PM

One possibility heretofore unexplored is the following. The original text read KR)YQY. The final -QY were dropped due to haplography (skipping a yod), leaving KR)Y. Finally, alef and resh were transposed (metathesis), leaving K)RY.

The colon in Ps 22:17c expresses the victim's surprise and exasperation at the speed with which his hands and feet were attacked by his tormentors. The definitive translation of the entire verse Ps 22:17 is then,

For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; Crikey! -- my hands and my feet!

(With apologies to the memory of Steve Irwin.)

spin · 09-20-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus

One possibility heretofore unexplored is the following. The original text read KR)YQY...

Crikey!

It's a real shame they don't have a groan emoticon. It's desperately needed here. :frown:

09-20-2006, 05:33 PM	#179
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	One possibility heretofore unexplored is the following. The original text read KR)YQY. The final -QY were dropped due to haplography (skipping a yod), leaving KR)Y. Finally, alef and resh were transposed (metathesis), leaving K)RY. The colon in Ps 22:17c expresses the victim's surprise and exasperation at the speed with which his hands and feet were attacked by his tormentors. The definitive translation of the entire verse Ps 22:17 is then, For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; Crikey! -- my hands and my feet! (With apologies to the memory of Steve Irwin.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-20-2006, 11:37 AM	#172
Steven Avery Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 2,293	Hi Folks, Api, I will put in a post on our discussion shortly, however I would like you to try to address three sections that you bypassed in the previous posts. "are any other commentaries to review other than Radaq, Rashi and Ibn Ezra. Anything from barbanel, Maimonides, Nachmanides, Sforno etc ? ... 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 ?" "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 ?" (added note: Midrash on Psalms would be an obvious example, which predates the rabbinic commentary by 500 years or so). "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 ?" If your answers are that you simply dunno, none of this is familiar to you, that is fine, although surprising. However I do hope that you will give a straight response to the three sections. Thanks. Shalom, Steven Avery http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

09-20-2006, 12:15 PM	#173
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Steven, I'd have to check on Abarbanel, Rambam, and Ramban, but I don't recall anything to report. In the midrash there is something about interpreting K)RY as a verb signifying conjuring (?) -- I don't know if that is in midrash tehillim or elsewhere. Of course midrash often strays significantly from the plain sense of the text, and given the difficulty in understanding the MT as it stands, it is hardly surprising that one should find a "verbal reading" somewhere in the rabbinic literature. Indeed, and as I emphasized, the very earliest Jewish interpretations, which were pre-rabbinic and proto-rabbinic, generally read a verb into Ps 22:17c ("they dug" or "they bound"). But there is no support at all for "they pierced" so far as I know. I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the rabbinic literature, let alone total recall thereof. I don't know if I'll get around to checking on Rambam for you -- I'll be very busy preparing for Rosh Hashanah for the rest of this week. Why don't you check it yourself? You've been asked repeatedly to provide evidence for the Christian reading, "they pierced". So far, not a scintilla of evidence has been presented.

09-20-2006, 01:08 PM	#174
Lugubert Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Western Sweden Posts: 3,684	I don't dare to have an opinion of my own, but after having read at least most of this thread, I took out the fairly recent Swedish "Bibel 2000". This edition was prepared by a multi-faith commission, on a government initiative. In a note to the verse, they mention that the oldest translations interpret the word as "lion", "lacerate", "bind", and "dig". In brackets they add that the early Christian church understood "pierce", but add that the verse isn't quoted in the NT. They chose "Hands and feet have shrunk", and tell you that this interpretation is linguistically supported from Akkadian and Syrian, and that it gives a good parallel to the description in v. 18.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.