Steven Avery

Hi Api,

A reasonable enought point. And a far better try than DQR.

Yet it has its difficulties as a supposed superior alternative to KRW in Psalm 22.

Piercing is an auxiliary meaning, the primary usage is to curse or blaspheme. Notably the word is never used in the Psalms. In Proverbs the meaning of NQB is as 'curse' only. In fact in the Penteteuch and Psalms and Proverbs there is no indication of usage in a piercing fashion. Thus placing NQB as a part of the Psalmist's vocabulary that would fit Psalm 22 is conjectural.

The type of wound is another matter to consider. eg. In Psalms 40 it is a spintered reed. In another place there is a reference to a thorn. Thus Judaica Press translates the Kings/Isaiah references as 'puncture'. So one would have to look closely to see how well it would fit even putting aside the major vocabularly question.

A reasonable try. Should be considered in the discussion. Inconclusive at best.

Arguments along the lines of
"the writer would have used another word"
are often difficult for reasons like the above.

I noticed you linked to another post, unresponded. Missed by me. On the drawing board, especially the first question. Please remember that I am responding to a number of different attempts here. Granted yours look to be the soundest of the gang here on Psalm 22 (except for the banned poster Phlox).

Anyway I really would like you to address the Masorah. I've asked you this a few times.

Using the reference from John Gill was criticized by JW as being a misunderstanding by John Gill of the Masorah. Something about the Masorah only applying to a particular manuscript. Puzzling from JW. Yet on one of the two references apparently Keil & Delitzsch make the same point as Gill. So there seems to be some basic misunderstandings in the presentation on the forum here. I haven't had time to go into it in depth but I wonder if you would share your research and view of the Masorah reference vis a vis the word in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 38.

Here are two quotes that can be discussed -

Glenn Miller has ..

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ps22cheat.html
Keil and Delitzsch bring this data to light in their discussion of this passage:
"Perceiving this [difficulty of the translation 'like a lion' in the context], the Masora on Isa xxxviii. 13 observes, that k'ari in the two passages in which it occurs (Ps. xxii. 17, Isa. xxxviii. 13), occurs in two different meanings, just as the Midrash then also understands k'ri in the Psalm as a verb used of marking with conjuring, magic characters"

While John Gill has ..

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";

Thanks.

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

Apikorus

DQR or NQB could be used for "pierced" -- there is ample support within the Hebrew Bible for both. There is no support for reading KRH as "pierced". KRH means to "dig" or "dig out / excavate". The earliest extant manuscript, 5/6HevPs, apparently reads K)RW, the meaning of which is unclear. We simply don't know what it means. The earliest translations of Ps 22 had a verb here -- either "dug" or "bound" (not "pierced," which is a Christian theological invention).

And with regard to KRH, "dig" or "excavate" is the primary meaning. You presume that "pierce" is a secondary meaning, but this remains an unestablished assertion. Can you work on justifying this assertion?

Ahem...
You were first asked to justify the reading "pierced". When you get around to doing this, I'll be happy to comply with your request.

Steven Avery

And there are ample problems for both, quite clearly demonstrated.
So as an argument against KRH it has to be considered of very limited value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus There is no support for reading KRH as "pierced". KRH means to "dig" or "dig out / excavate".

One big question is Psalm 40 where much exegesis and translation says that 'dug' is not the best understanding. That is why I asked you whether you agreed with those who related it to the awl of the slave in Exodus. Or at least acknowledged that as reasonable for consideration.

So we can continue the discussion of the semantic range of KRH as the thread continues. I am still learning and that is why I asked you to contribute about references like that in the Masorah, which seem relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus And with regard to KRH, "dig" or "excavate" is the primary meaning. You presume that "pierce" is a secondary meaning, but this remains an unestablished assertion. Can you work on justifying this assertion?

Sure I can work on that. That was one reason why we were discussing the meaning in Psalm 40. I don't think you shared anything substantive in response.

At this point in the conversation the semantic range is not my primary concern. I'm more interested in fact-checking like with the Masorah and studying the theories that have been proposed in scholarship and checking references and organizing some thoughts and maybe a table on the primary verbal vs noun issue.

If one accepts the verbal arguments (which are many and strong) as superior or at least worthwhile there really are four possibilities within the verbal milieu.

Dug (strict sense, no sense of piercing)
Pierce (within the semantic range and applicable by context)
Bound (some scholarship and Greek OT idea)
Miscellany emendations

Api, I think we can agree that the first two are the ones to discuss ?
Not to spend much time on the others.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Apikorus

The ear-piercing in Exod 21:6 is described using a different verb, RC(, which is a hapax. So this seems to be barking up the wrong tree.

I think that a metaphorical usage of KRH works fine in Ps 40:7. Yahweh has "dug out" the psalmist's ears, allowing him to "hear" the truth that sin and burnt offerings are not required. A more helpful translation here would be "unblocked". The "piercing" imagery doesn't work at all.

FYI, this Christian bible site lists "pierce" as the primary meaning for NQB.

Well, now I have. So please get to work on justifying "pierced".

Steven Avery

And I agree that an open ear channel somehow "opened" or possibly "dug" all the way through to the innards is probably the major alternative to the awl of the servant, a pierced imagery. Or there could be both involved. Removing earwax is strange, creating the ear is awkward. At least you picked the sensible alternative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus this Christian bible site lists "pierce" as the primary meaning for NQB.

Wowwee zowee. They also show that the usage is far more frequently curse/blaspheme/express. And of course a little more examination shows the complete lack of any piercing usage in Penteteuch, Psalms and Proverbs.

Do you agree that the two verbal alternatives worth discussing are ..

Dug (strict sense, no sense of piercing)
Pierce (within the semantic range and applicable by context)

And that the other two are off our table.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus You were first asked to justify the reading "pierced". When you get around to doing this, I'll be happy to comply with your request.

Api, your're sounding a bit childish here. What happened to the balanced poster mentioned by Phlox?

And since there may be a relationship, the proper order is Masorah first. The possible pierced translation can't affect our understanding of Masorah notes but the Masorah notes may affect the translation.

To start, maybe you could go over the two notes referenced by Glenn Miller and give your views.

And have you seen this discussion in any scholarly journals ?

Shalom,
Steven

jgibson000

But are "they" correct in this assertion?

Here's the TWOT entry:


And from BDBF:

And from HALOT:


And from Holiday

I don't see that any of this supports Steve's claim.

Really?

JG

Apikorus

This is simply more delaying, Steven. Either you are going to defend the "pierced" reading or not. If you want to invoke arguments from the masorah or copy material from Glenn Miller, be my guest. But please present the arguments yourself in a cogent and economical way -- no linking or regurgitating voluminous amounts from other sources, if you please. (It is fine to cite other sources in support of any points you make, but you should define the contours of the argument as well as the main elements thereof.)

My position is that "pierced" lies outside the semantic range of KRH, which means "to dig" or "to excavate".

Steven Avery

You should stop being silly, Api. I have asked you about the Masorah in a number of posts throughout the thread, time and again. I don't say you are delaying but I do ask you to give some sort of sensible response.

And I am still studying and reading about the semantic range question (which has come up a number of times on b-hebrew) and it is linked to a question of what is sensible English. The semantic range question exists in both source and target language.

And on the verbal question, you haven't answered as to whether you agree that really only two of the four verbal alternatives (as I mapped them out) deserve serious consideration.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

There does not seem to be much ambiguity in the translation of context of the 25 or so times. How would you adjust the count from the counts on the blue letter bible page that was the original source given for my consideration ?

And if you think there is something in the four sections that contradicts what I posted, why not take my quotes and show any problems that you see. My posts have to do first with the clear sense of usage in Tanach and I do not see anything that has contradicted what I shared.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus And of course a little more examination shows the complete lack of any piercing usage in Penteteuch, Psalms and Proverbs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 Really?

If you have a verse in those books where DQR means pierced you can share away. Simply give the verse and your translation and whatever support you think helpful.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Apikorus

Steven, what is your point about the masorah? It seems to me like another of your delaying tactics -- it is a fishing expedition. Do you have a specific issue you wish to raise regarding the masorah? If not, why bring it up?

I have nothing essential to discuss regarding the masorah at this point. (JW made some relevant remarks here, to which you apparently never responded.) If you wish to invoke the masorah in support of "pierced" then by all means do so, and I will respond.

The fact that you are "still studying" suggests that you have no ready argument to offer. One wonders on what basis, then, you would insist on the meaning "pierced". You seem to be working backwards from a theologically-derived answer.

Perhaps we should all just stop posting in this thread until you have time to research and present your argument for "pierced." You've been asked to do so for weeks now, and your refusal or inability to respond is severely damaging your credibility.