JoeWallack

JW:
Here's the link to Society Of Biblical Literature Online:

https://www.sbl-site.org/default.aspx

For a $ 60 membership fee you can get online access to current Journal Of Biblical Literature Issues as well Archived Issues. A simple search there will yield professional level articles relevant to this thread. Fer instance:

Here's an article Apikorus referred to:

PSALM 22:17: CIRCLING
AROUND THE PROBLEM AGAIN
KRISTIN M. SWENSON
kswenson@mail1.vcu.edu
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284-2021

In a footnote Swenson writes:

"4 By Vall’s admission, Aquila’s Vorlage may well have been very close to the MT; the instances in which it differed commonly involved “the confusion of similarly shaped letters” such as w and y (Vall, “Psalm 22:17B,” 56). This supports retaining the MT and undermines Vall’s argument
for an emendation that involves not only changing a consonant but also metathesis. I do agree with Vall, though, that “the text could easily have been corrupted long before any of the ancient versions were made” (ibid.)."

An indication that Aquila was not Scribe level and did confuse "yod" and "waw" and could very well have done so for the offending word. Now who here other than me knew this? No one. Mark Hoffman, Christian clergy, who has posted some at II, did his dissertation (Yale) on Psalm 22 and it's probably the best article available on it. He thinks that Symmachus also used "like a lion" for his Greek translation. Now the Greek translations don't seem like such good evidence, huh.

So I recommend that anyone here who wants to participate in a meaningful way subscribe and read the relevant articles rather than continue to make stupid/strawman/irrelevant posts or worst of all try to be funny and not be like Professor PP Poopypants and Fr. Loopis. Read the friggin articles and we won't be able to tell your posts from Spin's posts.

Apikorus, if you didn't get my plain and simple drift before, I was willing to let you piss on me by telling me not to make fun of you in any way but I'm not willing to let you shit on me by making fun of me in the meantime. You decide. I'd rather have you here and I'd even rather have PP and Loopis here because I have found that people who don't like me often ask me the best/toughest questions.



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 translator's advantage for the other to have said.


JP Holding Link To Anti-Semitic Site

Phlox Pyros

It's not that I don't like you...I don't really know you (of course, calling me Professor PP Poopypants doesn't help you much ). I just happen to think that you and spin are overstating your case for "like a lion". I, personally, think Apikorus has made the most balanced posts on the topic to this point.

One day I'll have to put some real good stuff together after studying at the library. I can only work with what I have, and I don't have quick and easy access to scholary journals (except online for money...).

Apikorus

I don't think we can say much based on Aquila, save that he was struggling to make sense of his Hebrew Vorlage. He also may have worked from a different Vorlage in his second edition.

In the footnote cited by JW, Swenson tells only half the story. Vall cites J. Reider's 1916 study and writes

That is not to say, however, that Aquila's Vorlage was identical to the MT in every respect. Reider catalogues several dozen instances where Aquila quite clearly preserves a true consonantal variant. Many of these involve graphic confusion of similarly shaped letters (e.g. K/B, X/H, W/Y), but others involving more striking discrepancies.

In other words, Aquila was meticulous in transmitting the text, to the point where he preserved various discrepancies in his Vorlage.

It was not until roughly the time of bar Kokhba that the consonantal proto-MT had stabilized, as adduced from the Wadi Muraba'at texts. On the basis of this rough timeline, Vall writes that "Aquila's Vorlage was thus very close to the consonantal text of our MT" but this seems speculative to me. Pace Swenson, it seems to me that if Aquila took two cracks at translating Ps 22:17c and didn't come up with "like a lion" = K)RY either time, then his Vorlage probably read differently -- quite possibly K)RW.

Swenson of course would like to retain K)RY because her proposal is based on this reading. But again, it seems unnatural, and it turns 22:17 into a bicolon when 22:16,17 both seem to be tricolons.

I found that another of Swenson's footnotes also half-presented the facts. In citing the earlier work of Strawn, she writes,

...Furthermore, Strawn notes that other instances in the fragment [XHev/Se4 frg. 11] indicate little difference between Y and W.

In fact, Strawn writes,

Comparison of other fragments from XHev/Se4 on photographs of PAM 42.190 reveals that Y and W are quite similar, though generally distinguishable in this manuscript.

(Emphasis mine.) Swenson strengthens her case by omitting Strawn's last observation.

Joe, where have I made fun of you? My question as to whether you are a Jewish fundamentalist was in earnest. Orthodox Jews exhibit a slavish fidelity to Rashi. I think Rashi is at his best when he is commenting on linguistic issues, by the way. His reference to Isa 38:13 can't be because of parallel syntax, however, since a verb is present there (ken y'shaber kol-atzmotai). So Rashi doesn't really help us much in this case. But in general, as I said, Rashi relies heavily on midrash in his exegesis, particularly for the Torah.

Loomis

Are you joking?

It’s free.

Right here:

http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL1234.pdf

Loomis

How come The Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 14:22 doesn’t make mention of YHWH?

Wasn’t it in his copy?

14:22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom: 'I have lifted up my hand unto the Lord, God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth,

Could this be more work of Christian liars?

JoeWallack

JW:
Good work. You finally did something useful. As the Church Fathers said, "Who is wise? He who can learn from any man." Oh wait, The Rabbis said that.

JW:
Actually my preceding comment is more of a Guideline than a Rule.

JW:
We have a whole Pool of Relevant issues here or you could be Pondering Irrelevant issues. The Pondering would be good for you.

I've run aCross a lot of Athiests who don't like Jews criticizing Christianity. Let's try to Turn this back on Topic. My Category of Evidence right now is Original (Hebrew) language Commentary on the offending word of 22:17. How about you set your Search Engine sites on finding related Hebrew Commentary that says "Not like a lion"?

While you're searching, since you also seem to think I Am biased by only presenting The Rashi so far, how about I present related Commentary by a Church Father. Hmmm, who to pick? Each is outstanding in their own Way.
Excuse me, "No David, I'm not going to read Calvin and Hobbes to you right now." That's it (John Calvin, not David Hobbes). John Calvin, possibly the greatest Christian Theologian of all time (the Greatest of all time):

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom08.xxviii.iv.html

"16. They have pierced my hands and my feet. The original word, which we have translated they have pierced, is כארי, caari, which literally rendered is, like a lion. As all the Hebrew Bibles at this day, without exception, have this reading, I would have had great hesitation in departing from a reading which they all support, were it not that the scope of the discourse compels me to do so, and were there not strong grounds for conjecturing that this passage has been fraudulently corrupted by the Jews. With respect to the Septuagint version, there is no doubt that the translators had read in the Hebrew text, כארו, caaru, that is the letter ו, vau, where there is now the letter י, yod. 513 The Jews prate much about the literal sense being purposely and deliberately overthrown, by our rendering the original word by they have pierced: but for this allegation there is no color of truth whatever. What need was there to trifle so presumptuously in a matter where it was altogether unnecessary? Very great suspicion of falsehood, however, attaches to them, seeing it is the uppermost desire of their hearts to despoil the crucified Jesus of his escutcheons, and to divest him of his character as the Messiah and Redeemer. If we receive this reading as they would have us to do, the sense will be enveloped in marvellous obscurity. In the first place, it will be a defective form of expression, and to complete it, they say it is necessary to supply the verb to surround or to beset. But what do they mean by besetting the hands and the feet? Besetting belongs no more to these parts of the human body than to the whole man. The absurdity of this argument being discovered, they have recourse to the most ridiculous old wives’ fables, according to their usual way, saying, that the lion, when he meets any man in his road, makes a circle with his tail before rushing upon his prey: from which it is abundantly evident that they are at a loss for arguments to support their view.

Again, since David, in the preceding verse, has used the similitude of a lion, the repetition of it in this verse would be superfluous. I forbear insisting upon what some of our expositors have observed, namely, that this noun, when it has prefixed to it the letter כ, caph, which signifies as, the word denoting similitude, has commonly other points than those which are employed in this passage. My object, however, is not here to labor to convince the Jews who in controversy are in the highest degree obstinate and opinionative. I only intend briefly to show how wickedly they endeavor to perplex Christians on account of the different reading which occurs in this place. When they object, that by the appointment of the law no man was fastened with nails to a cross, they betray in this their gross ignorance of history, since it is certain that the Romans introduced many of their own customs and manners into the provin ces which they had conquered. If they object that David was never nailed to a cross, the answer is easy, namely, that in bewailing his condition, he has made use of a similitude, declaring that he was not less afflicted by his enemies than the man who is suspended on a cross, having his hands and feet pierced through with nails. We will meet a little after with more of the same kind of metaphors."


JW:
So let's Compare Calvin to Rashi:

1) Rashi commented in the Same language as the Original. Calvin did not.

2) Rashi presumably had the Mesorah in the margin of his Manuscript indicating Textual Variation. Calvin has no knowledge of Textual Variation.

3) Rashi is fluent in the Original language. Calvin is not.

4) Rashi has access to the Commentary of those with his Qualifications, while
Calvin has access to the Commentary of those with his Qualifications.

5) Calvin mistakenly thinks all Hebrew Bibles in his time have "like a lion".

6) Calvin Concludes that "The Jews" Fradulently changed the Original because they are Motivated to deny evidence of that man. Rashi never mentions Christianity.

7) Calvin mistakenly assumes that the common Christian Greek trashlation is "Pierced".

8) Calvin doesn't mention that the Hebrew word he wants would otherwise be an unknown word and still doesn't mean "Pierced".

9) Since you have the Benefit of this Thread, Calvin knew less about the Relevant issues than you.


Happy Googling Loopis and remember, as The Joker said in the Classic Batman, "If you have to go back to Irrelevant Pondering, go with a Smiley!"



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 translator's advantage for the other to have said.


JP Holding Link To Anti-Semitic Site

JoeWallack

JW:
As previously indicated Loomis discovered that current issues of Journal of Biblical Literature are freely available online. The most recent Edition is not. You have to Subscribe to get it at:

https://www.sbl-site.org/default.aspx

for a $ 60 Membership which will also include Archived Issues. The most recent Issue, 124.4, Winter 2005, has another 22:17 article (apparently a hot topic), Psalm 22:17b: A New Guess JAMES R. LINVILLE.

The last freely available issue with a relevant article is here:

http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL1234.pdf

JBL 123/4 (2004) 637–648
PSALM 22:17: CIRCLING
AROUND THE PROBLEM AGAIN
KRISTIN M. SWENSON
kswenson@mail1.vcu.edu
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284-2021


For those who want to participate here in a meaningful away I Am going to post Relevant articles right here so no one has any good excuse for posting stupid/strawman/irrelevant/ and especially unfunny posts.

WARNING - In the next post I Am going to present Swenson's article in it's entirety - so beware of Loading problems.



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 translator's advantage for the other to have said.


JP Holding Link To Anti-Semitic Site

JoeWallack

JW:
Here is Swenson's complete related article which is freely available in proper format at:

http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL1234.pdf

Note that the Transliterations appear to be correct, they are just going right to left like a underlying Hebrew:

"yrak" = K ) R Y

Enjoy!:


JBL 123/4 (2004) 637–648
PSALM 22:17: CIRCLING AROUND THE PROBLEM AGAIN
KRISTIN M. SWENSON

kswenson@mail1.vcu.edu
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284-2021

The problem of how to read Ps 22:17, especially the second part of the verse, has troubled scholars for centuries and has received renewed attention in several recent articles.1 One word in particular is in dispute, appearing as yrak in the MT. The entire verse is as follows:

ylgrw ydy yrak ynwpyqh !y[rm td[ !yblk ynwbbs yk

Interpretations generally fall into one of two categories, treating the problematic word either as a noun or as a verb. If yrak is treated as a noun, most translations yield “like a lion.” If treated as a verb, there are several possibilities. Initial comparison with the ancient versions suggests that the best solution is to read a verb here, since all of the ancient versions except the Targum do so. However, that the ancient versions (and subsequent scholars) do not agree which verb should be read and that the Targum reads both a verb and a noun undermine confidence in such a conclusion. Ancient scholars seem to have been as puzzled as we are about how best to read this text, and recent studies, none of which claims to have determined an entirely satisfactory solution, confirm its difficulty.

An important criterion for any interpretation is that it make sense, a point that David K\imh\i stressed in the twelfth century and that Brent Strawn echoed in the twenty-first. I propose another solution to the problem of Ps 22:17, a reading that accepts the consonantal text of the MT but simply divides the verse differently. The result is a sensible text that fits with the structure of its greater context, is in agreement with the dominant imagery (portrayed in metaphor and simile), and sustains the prevalent tone of this first part of Ps 22. Following a brief review first of earlier proposals that were complicated by the association of Ps 22 with Jesus’ crucifixion, and then of the several recent attempts to solve the problem of Ps 22:17, I proffer my interpretation. I explain both why my reading seems to be a good one and how it addresses the problems of similar interpretations.


<snipped for copyright considerations>

Apikorus

The link alone was sufficient, Joe.

gregor

How about a summary (said the lazy lurker having trouble following all of the chopped sentences)?