JoeWallack

JW:
Psalm 22. Good question. Just a guess on my part. I've put in a Call unto The Master.

JW:
Some. Generally they would have just been mechanically copied from earlier manuscripts. Generally Jewish Transmission is an order of magnitude more reliable than Christian Transmission as the prime Objective is Accurately transmitting. Christian Transmission at times has had a primary Objective of what the Scribe Thought should be original.

Put another way, it probably wouldn't make much/any difference to the average Jewish Scribe whether the word in question was "like a lion" or "they dug". They wouldn't see it as supprt for Jesus either way. On the other hand it would make a huge difference to the average Christian Scribe since they are the ones proof-texting for supposed evidence of that guy from the Christian Bible who's name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "J" or "Y".

So what do you think of Abegg and Flint's claim now?



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
I just happen to have here the original endorsements for "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible" which the Publishers decided not to use:

"Abegg & Flint are Liars for Jesus. This Type of Dishonest DSS "scholarship" is exactly what made me turn Jew. - Geza Vermes

"Giving the obligatory endorsement to my DSS Christian "peers" was more difficult than the translation of Psalm 22." - Emmanuel Tov

"Ranks right up there with the James Ossuary." - Hershel Shanks

"Martin Abegg Jr. is the premier DSS scholar." - Peter Flint

"Peter Flint is the premier DSS scholar." - Martin Abegg Jr.

"Whatever Abegg and Flint say is presumed to be true until proven false." - Glenn Miller

"No one has proven Glenn Miller's endorsement false." - JP Holding



Joseph

ASS, n.
A public singer with a good voice but no ear. In Virginia City, Nevada, he is called the Washoe Canary, in Dakota, the Senator, and everywhere the Donkey. The animal is widely and variously celebrated in the literature, art and religion of every age and country; no other so engages and fires the human imagination as this noble vertebrate. Indeed, it is doubted by some (Ramasilus, lib. II., De Clem., and C. Stantatus, De Temperamente) if it is not a god; and as such we know it was worshiped by the Etruscans, and, if we may believe Macrobious, by the Cupasians also. Of the only two animals admitted into the Mahometan Paradise along with the souls of men, the ass that carried Balaam is one, the dog of the Seven Sleepers the other. This is no small distinction. From what has been written about this beast might be compiled a library of great splendor and magnitude, rivalling that of the Shakespearean cult, and that which clusters about the Bible. It may be said, generally, that all literature is more or less Asinine.
"Hail, holy Ass!" the quiring angels sing;
"Priest of Unreason, and of Discords King!"
Great co-Creator, let Thy glory shine:
God made all else, the Mule, the Mule is thine!"
G.J.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=159132

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's take another look at Never Halach:



and note the following differences between this piece of scrap and the Holy, Authorized, Received and Blessed Masoretic text:

1) The Masoretic text has "kaari", with a "yod" at the end, a known word, while the Never Halach appears to have "kaaru", with a "waw" at the end, which would be an unknown word. We've seen however that specifically with Never Halach and generally with DSS that "yods" were sometimes elongated, especially at the end of words, and could look like "waws".

At a minimum this makes Never Halach equivocal as to support for "like a lion" vs. "they dug" and one could even argue (depending on the desired Conclusion) that Never Halach is actually support for "like a lion" since only having a "yod" at the end would yield a known word! (Exclamation point provided courtesy of Abegg and Flint).

Now look at this! (waving hands and feet around excitedly and stalking sidelines like a "John" Maddun):


2) For the last word the Masoretic text has "בִי", a known word, while Nachal Hever has "בִו", where there is a "waw" instead of a "yod", another unknown word unless the "waw" was intended to be a "yod".

And finally, addressing Anat:

3) The Masoretic text has "יָדַי" after "kaari", a known word, while Nachal Hever has a "ה" at the end of this word, an unknown word (first word on the left of the enhanced line above). "Heh's" at the end of a word normally indicate the feminine. The boychicks at Jews for Judaism have a theory (among others) that Never Halach was a depository for practice scrolls that were defective and the "heh" here is an example.

If you refuse to accept that the two last letters were intended to be "yods" here either because you think it's okay to lie for Jesus or you just don't want to admit that you were wrong about last letter "yods" at DSS often being elongated, that would make 3 unknown words in less than two hard to read lines. That's funny and not ה ה funny (if you don't get this joke you have no business arguing in this thread). Was this Scribe an ancestor of George Bush Jr.?

Speaking of Liars for Jesus check out Lord Moldybutt's endorsement of a new Apologetics site:

http://www.tektonics.org/newstuff.html

"March 13, 2006

* Updated our item on the Rubicon crossing vs. the Resurrection to answer a response.
* Been working out some streamlining in the Classics library and adding some new items.

We also have a link exchange for a startup here.

http://www.geocities.com/shutupmanje...THETHRONE.html

Please note that we do disagree with positions held by certain links there, such as theistic evolution and dispensational eschatology."

And this site's new Article:

http://www.geocities.com/shutupmanje...andtalmud.html

"Packed within these writings are the most racist, hateful, vile, and obscene comments that I would expect only of 1940's Germany. The Talmud likens Gentiles to that of animals (even worse off), calling them "beasts of the earth." It promotes the burning of New Testament texts. It permits children to be sacrificed to the pagan god Moloch. It encourages the use of black magic and mistakes the visitation of Angels and visions of God in the Bible as "mystical revelations." Further, the Talmud suggests that the "sages" are worthy of greater honor than the prophets because they "hold the keys of interpretation, while the prophets simply brought the word of God." There are plenty of examples of hatred and abominable heresies in Talmudic doctrine not fit to mention on this website.

What's worse is that all Rabbis are required to study the Old Testament using the Talmud.

I am ashamed and saddened that I was raised in a cult. Modern Judaism is not authentic Judaism. It is a system solely bent on keeping the Jewish people from becoming Christians. Do not fall for this lunacy."

Apparently the only requirement Holding has for exchanging links right now is that you're a fellow Liar for Jesus. I especially like this site's "shut up man, Jesus Is God" visual. What a wonderful reminder of the god ol MidEvil days.

Thank God I can rely on Truth Checkers such as Pearse and Bede who viligantly scour the Internet looking for just this Type of Polemic Dishonest misinformation and no doubt will hound JP Holding into removing this viciously anti-semitic link momentarily, probably even before this post is read 10 times.



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.

http://www.geocities.com/shutupmanje...andtalmud.html

Phlox Pyros

Let's play a game....

Who can spot the strong and unreasonable rhetoric that any sincere "truth seeker" would not use?

Those who seek the truth do not need to resort to such rhetorical tricks to bolster their case.

But, then again, your name is "spin" as I'm sure many have pointed out before me since you appear to have been around a while. What confuses me is that people take you for some kind of authority...

Because I say this is ridiculous...it must be ridiculous...because I say this is definite...it must be definite....

Oh well, I'm not sure there is anyone worthy of a scholarly level analysis in this thread. I'm glad that the Codex Alexandrinus examination was at a much more scholarly level of discourse. It is too bad that there is no one besides myself who is willing to analyze the Hebrew texts in a sincere way without having to act as if I know everything or to act as if my views are the only ones and all others are ridiculous.

And no, I'm not mad, just frustrated and somewhat sad that there are no Julians, Pearses, Carlsons, or Busters to take part in an unbiased and sincere analysis of the Hebrew texts.

Phlox Pyros

This is a matres lectionis, just as Joe later points out in the following "hands".

No "contortions" are necessary, and I do not even understand this unreasonable rhetoric.

I do not understand it because the "waw" at the end of the word becomes clear as day when taken in context with the much shorter "yod" that follows.

Perhaps you didn't note the mem attached to a form of "rosh". In other words, the preposition is included as part of the definition of the word itself.

I will admit (somewhat begrudgingly, considering your ad hominems and hot-headed rhetoric) that this one is a slightly stronger case. However, "door" follows very closely after a verb (which would be the case if the correct verbal form of "to dig" were used instead of a noun).

I, personally, see little sense in "like a lion, my hands my feet" and certainly no more so than the "Christian reading" as you refer to it.

As anyone who reads this thread can see, I have stated that I see little sense in either reading. I am simply wondering why you and Joe can't tone down the rhetoric and realize that this is the case. Perhaps it is because you are unreasonably attempting to foist a sort of dogmatism on me that does not exist but instead appears to be a reflection of your own biases.

If I'm out on a limb, then I do believe the two of you have already fallen off.

Phlox Pyros

Greatly exaggerated claim, and still no peer-reviewed, scholarly support for this claim (and I imagine there never will be at this point).

It is a known word, or we would have had nothing to talk about.

This seems so disingenuous to me. It is obvious that it cannot be a waw both from context and from the fact that it does not extend to the foot of the bet. More exaggeration, I'm afraid.

Joe, you have been claiming to know Hebrew and more specifically the Hebrew of the DSS, yet you conveniently ignore the fact that the DSS were filled with Matres Lectionis. Well, this is a case. Did you not know, or are you simply being dishonest? I have come to the conclusion through the length of this thread that the former is more likely, but the way things have gone, I certainly cannot fully discount the latter.

Well, if you have any business "arguing" in this thread, then you had better put vowels under those hets or you're just going around forcefully breathing on everyone...

Again, it sure would be nice to actually go through the manuscripts in a less combative way with more friendly people who are actually willing to listen, learn, and understand. Not people who are close-minded, will not listen, and state things as fact when probabilities are the only things we can truly deal in.

Humpfff.... This might just have to be my last post on this topic because I'm tired of feeling like I should defend myself from ridiculous rhetorical tricks, rather than honestly and openly discussing variations in the text...

JoeWallack

JW:
What's ReMarkable here is that none of the Gospels identify 22:17 with the supposed crucifixion. This tells us that none of them saw "pierced" there and with the Type of dishonest nebulous proof-texting they employed my guess is they didn't see "they dug" either.

"Mark" is diffiCult to read because a primary objective of "Mark" is to explain why Jesus was not recognized as the Messiah. "Matthew" and "Luke" dishonestly transition "Mark" to explain why Jesus was recognized as the Messiah.

You're getting way ahead of the Order of the discussion here since I want to completely cover the Hebrew textual issue first. But while we're on the subject, what you wrote above is an exxxcellent example of Christian mistranslated prophecy historicized.

I Am in the process of demonstrating that the Original language Hebrew textual and commentary evidence indicates "like a lion" is "like an original". It's unlikely than that translation evidence could overcome original language evidence. The only related language, Aramaic, will also support "like a lion" anyway.

The Context will clearly confirm "like a lion" as original. Check out Psalm 17 for the same Type of lion usage. The lion's mouth is emphasized again as you not only get the image of a wild beast roaring but the parallel to ferocious enemies bad-mouthing (dissing) you.

I've also provided an explanation for the confusion in Greek translations. Below Scribe level translators were mistaking a "yod" at the end of the word for a "waw" due to the style of the time and because the phrase lacked a verb and were left with an unknown word whose supposed meaning they had to guess at. This accounts for the Greek variation.

The Gospel authors either knew the word was "like a lion" or weren't sure what it was so they didn't refer to it. Most Christian Greek translations used
"they dug". As we'll see later, the later Latin versions used a word to translate the Greek "they dug" whose range of meaning included "pierced". Justin was fluent in Latin and that's why he was the first known Apologist to make the supposed connection, because it didn't exist until Latin translations existed. This is why Translations are such bad evidence compare to Original language - you have motive and opportunity to Move to the meaning you want.

Many people don't realize that the Synoptics don't refer to Jesus' hands and feet being pierced anyway. If he was crucified his hands and feet may have just been tied to a single stake. If he was nailed his hands wouldn't have been nailed either.

Note that Justin doesn't identify the Gospels as the source of his claim that Jesus' hands and feet were pierced. He cites The Acts of Pilate.

"John" written later identifes Jesus' hands being pierced but doesn't refer to Psalm 22. We know that historically Jesus' hands were not pierced. We also know that the claim that Jesus' hands were pierced fulfilled prophecy is based on a mistranslation. Rather than being evidence of fulfilled prophecy this is evidence of mistranslated prophecy historized.


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

Apikorus

What is the basis for this claim, Phlox? In fact, there has been an exchange of papers in JBL on the subject of Ps 22:17b:

• G. Vall, JBL 116 (1997) 45-56
• J. Kaltner, JBL 117 (1998) 503-6
• B. A. Strawn, JBL 119 (2000) 439-51
• K. M. Swenson, JBL 124 (2004) 637-48

in which the orthography of the Nahal Hever fragment was at times discussed.

Regarding the fragment, Swenson writes,

"...Peter Flint records it as K)RW. However, the facsimile (PAM 42.190) reveals a badly faded text that is nearly impossible to read..."

Strawn writes,

"...the picture of it [the fragment]...is so faint as to be unreadable. 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.

I take Strawn to mean that we really can't be sure whether the fragment reads K)RY or K)RW.

F. M. Cross, the leading expert on DSS palaeography, has discussed waw/yod confusion many times. In his article, "Palaeography and the Dead Sea Scrolls" in vol. 1 of Flint and Vanderkam ("The Dead Sea Scrolls after 50 Years"), he discusses how the two characters were virtually indistinguishable during the early Herodian period but in the late Herodian period were increasingly distinguishable. In the back of the book are some nice plates showing the evolution of the script. Plate 10 line 9 shows the biblical hand from the Nahal Hever Psalms scroll. The waw is somewhat longer than yod but clearly shorter than zayin. The nun sofit appears almost the same length as the zayin, by the way.

The waw/yod confusion can go either way, of course. Vall suggests that the Urtext read )SRW ("they have bound") and resuscitates a 19th century hypothesis of )SRW --> S)RW --> K)RW, i.e. two consecutive scribal alterations. The first would be due to metathesis (switching the first two letters), and the second would be a correction of the nonsensical S)RW. While not impossible, this certainly seems contrived, since it involves two changes. No text, so far as I know, supports the notional intermediate S)RW, and correcting this to K)RW seems odd to me, since "they have dug my hands and feet" (which is the literal meaning) is strange. Why wouldn't a scribe correct it back to )SRW, for example?

Kaltner takes Vall to task for dismissing the evidence from the Arabic cognate KWR, which Kaltner claims can mean simply "to bind" rather than the specific "to bind into a ball" (as when winding a turban), as Vall assumes. If Kaltner is correct, one could hypothesize with some support the existence of a Hebrew verb KWR/K)R with the same meaning, which presumably would be a hapax in Ps 22:17. Strawn, further invoking wide iconographic attestation of the motif of binding, concurs with Kaltner. However, Strawn also cites iconographic evidence which would support K)RY, in which case he says the problem lies elsewhere -- most likely in a dropped verb. None of the authors defend the MT as it now stands as being coherent, although some scholars like G. Rendsburg have done so. Rendsburg (Hebrew Studies 43 (2002) 24-30) finds Strawn's lion iconography to be compelling in defending the MT, and he suggests that the lack of a verb is unorthodox syntax, connoting the speed with which the lion attacks. (Seems fishy to me.)

Swenson proffers a novel solution. She rejects the masoretic atnakh following HQYPWNY, and instead suggests a break following MR(YM, with the result,

Dogs surround me, a pack of wicked ones. Like a lion, they circumscribe my hands and feet.

That is, hikifuni now refers to the actions of the lion. (She argues that while )RY is singular, it is also metaphorical, so she isn't bothered by the plural/singular disagreement. I can go along with this excuse.) While Swenson's proposal is clever, I still don't buy it. I read verses 16 and 17 as tricolons.

The Christian reading "pierced" isn't supported by any of these scholars.

My own views on the matter have changed over the past years, after reading these and other articles. I still don't think the MT as it stands is coherent, but I now am far more skeptical regarding the reading "pierced". The lexical range of KRH doesn't seem to include "pierced," Ps 40:7 notwithstanding. If a verb dropped out of verse 17b(c?), then a direct object ()T-) or some other bit of grammar apparently dropped out with it. If I am right and vss. 16 and 17 are tricolons, and if no verb has dropped out, then what is now K)RY must have functioned as a verb. I also think that the chiasmus here -- bulls (22:13) and oxen (22:22), lion+mouth(s) (22:14 and 22:22), dog(s) (22:17a and 22:21) -- mitigates against the re-use of lions again as the central point in the chiasm. (Some might see it exactly the other way around, I realize.) So maybe the idea that KWR is an Arabic cognate is the best option available.

This hardly seems a slam dunk for any interpretation.

Phlox Pyros

For some reason, I feel that I am still not being understood here. I have said previously in this thread that I understand that yod and waw in the DSS are very similar, but distinguishable in most(?) circumstances.

Again, my problem with Joe's statement is this: "'yods' were sometimes elongated, especially at the end of words, and could look like 'waws'".

I have asked him to provide references for this and he has not. I have no problem if this is the case, I just want to know from a reputable source, not just his assertions.

If this "especially at the end of words" is found in these journal articles, please share it with us. I would be interested.

This is a point that I totally agree with and did not get around to expressing. Thanks.

You are correct, and this is also what I have said numerous times. Spin and Joe, however, seem to think it is a slam dunk...

Finally, someone in this thread who's information I can appreciate. Thank you very much for the interesting presentation without the sarcasm and overconfidence in a particular view.

Apikorus

Oh I can be a sonofabitch sometimes...