spin

If it is the case that we have looked at the Hebrew enough for you to say the above, then why don't you forget about this "pierced" stuff which has been seen to have no justification in Hebrew, Greek or even Latin, instead of just complaining about the difficulties with a linguistically viable K)RY?

You start with the text, not the commentator. If you can't start with the text, then you have nothing to say.


spin

Steven Avery

Api, can I take take that as an implied agreement that you do not really protest my explanation that the word in Zechariah, daqar, has quite a different sense than Psalm 22. That is quite clear simply by looking at its usages.

So you have switched to an argument of a supposed closer analogy, indicating that you don't see any verb as being a good fit. Or how would you frame your viewpoint ?

Remember the Tanach examples I gave are much more than simply a sword's piercing of flesh. (Which can be a nick or a gash .. while the word daqar is used for strickening thrust-through-wounds). Perhaps you have some thoughts on the etymology, or usages outside Tanach?

My understanding is straightforward (and came simply from looking as above) .. daqar would be a difficult verbal word in Psalm 22 in any interpretation.

And the Judaica Press translation of Zechariah 12:10 is a confirmation thereof. The ironic reason why this is made an issue is because of the translation "pierced" there in the KJB and many Bibles. Incidentally, the JPS-1917 also has "because they have thrust him through", clearly a fine alternative translation. The later JPS tampers as is their wont.

Clearly it is accurate to say that one who is thrust-through is pierced. Basically by necessity. However the inverse is not so true

One importance of this part of the discussion is that it blunts the "why karu, it would be another verb" argument. That the word is not a verb because it is not the appropriate verb. Which could be daqar.

Since it seems that all this is not your basic position (basic of early verbal evidences, chiastic structure and noun difficulty) I am not sure what position you are taking that you are trying to fit in daqar as superior.

Perhaps you are comparing verbal emendation theories ?

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

spin

Oblivious to reality, praxeus insists on avoiding justifying his own chosen ridiculous translation of K)RY ("pierced") and snipes at the heals of the current longstanding understanding. He weasles around the fact that the majority of Hebrew exemplars have K)RY which means "like as lion". (This is because there is one example of a form K)RW which is in itself unexplainable -- but going on the normal understanding of the Greek is taken to indicate "to dig".)

He then goes on to talk about anything other than K)RY: in this latest effort he is dealing with a completely different verb DQR in a different context, which appeals because it has his desired meaning. Naturally, but what it has to do with K)RY he cannot show other than his desire for Ps 22:16 not to read "like a lion".

His dishonest approach is to hide the fact that he can't support his desired reading. Then he tries to undermine the normal reading without showing why it cannot be. To do so he supports the verbal reading of the singular instance in Hebrew K)RW yet is incapable of explaining the unusual form of the supposed derivation from KRH ("to dig"). In my first post in this thread I asked: "If a Greek "to dig" reflected a Hebrew "to dig", how on earth would one get "to pierce"?". The question has never been answered.

One should be able to see praxeus's conclusion driven efforts. He knows what it must mean. He doesn't care about the philology: it's wrong.

Look at this praxean sophistry from his stuff regarding the significance of DQR ("to thrust through"):

So you don't see a semantic range there ?
That is different from a general verb for dig/bore/pierce ?

Note this: "dig/bore/pierce", as a reference to the significance of KRH. What a dishonest conflation of ideas! We know where he got "pierce" from: the KJV. But note the difference in idea between "dig", a durative action, ie it continues over time as in "digging a pit", and "pierce", a punctiliar action, which stops immediately once the weapon has gone through. The notions are unrelated. The distinction of course won't mean anything to praxeus who knows that "pierce" is right, just lacks a means to get there. Until he can find the means he can only insinuate the connection. Yeah, right.

Prasxeus was complaining about the Hebrew option that Apikorus provided for "pierce", DQR, when he said:

So you don't see a semantic range there?

Perhaps praxeus could have had a look at Jastrow's dictionary before coming to his conclusion that DQR wasn't suitable for his understanding of "pierce". Jastrow provides DQWR "chisel" (from the verb DQR), DQR as a noun for an object ("mattock") which could be "stuck into the ground", and the verb DQR, which amongst other definitions has "pierce" and gives the illustration BLBW WDWQRH ("pierced his heart"). Praxeus needs to work harder to nullify Apikorus's point, ie there was an easy verb available for "pierce", so no weird contortion from "dig" need be conjectured.

We've seen praxeus's procedure in this thread: avoid responsibility, misrepresent, and change the subject. I guess he won't change his modus operandi to be more in line with reasonable practice.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Ahh, good ol Spin. Simply because I made some very good points in a real discussion with Api, and prefer a discussion that focuses on one or two points at a time, spin goes a tad haywire.

The following type of rant does remind me quite a bit of an attitude expressed within Psalm 22, so it is especially apropos.



Now looking for substance: the Jastrow reference is interesting.
(Remember I specifically asked Api if he had a view of the etymology.)

Clearly spin is struggling to try to find a way to justify daqar as a supposed smooth alternative (a la the anti-mish) in Psalm 22 even though the semantic range of its usage in the Tanach is quite distinct and a poor fit. This is quite clear, one simply reviews all the usages in Tanach, as we have done. So notice that they don't comment on that and go elsewhere. Hmmm. The actual usage of a word is primary, cognate relationships are secondary.

Now if spin has some daqar chisel noun usages in Tanach to consider, he can share away and folks can weigh their significance.

One point of interest:
Is Jastrow saying that "pierced his heart" in an emotional sense is an equivalent definition? Dunno. And perhaps. Such would be a metaphorical or analogy usage with some similarity to the usage in Lamentations 4:9.

Oh, one other big smile:

"and snipes at the heals (sic) of the current longstanding understanding"

Noting and putting aside the irony of more Psalm 22 symbolism:

This must be the "longstanding understanding" of JW and spin following the anti-mish. A rather dubious alliance of convenience.

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

spin

When unable to say anything useful, and in the case of praxeus that's seems to be all the time, obfuscate.

Obviously, praxeus is unaware that the amount of language the HB is not very big. There are simple missing forms and usages because they just weren't used in the HB. He is assuming that his sample is sufficient, yet when we look outside his sample space, we see that he is once again short of evidence. He doesn't consider that the term actually means what he doesn't want it to mean.

Jastrow supplies examples outside the HB and your approach is to turn your back. But we've seen you do so so many times we are used to it.

The reader can see where praxeus is going wrong. It's like taking any text from any period and hoping to find all the word uses in the language at the time. Obviously you won't. We have a simple argument from silence in the Tanach on praxeus's part when other texts are available to fill the silence -- but let's not look at them.

To understand the idea you have to understand the significance of the verb. It's relatively transparent.

The poor reader is probably wondering when praxeus is going to admit he cannot justify "pierced" in Ps 22:16 and that he is just crapping on to save face, knowing of course that he doesn't need to justify it.


spin

jgibson000

Would you care to tell us what these "very good points" were and how they are relevant to and/or support your claims about the originality of "like a lion"?

Interesting snipe: the snide and question begging implicaltion of it being that apart from the Jastrow reference, there's nothing of substance in "Spin's" post.

But more to the point, the question isn't whether the "Jastrow reference" is interesting, but what that reference does to your case.

I wonder if you'd do us the kindness of answering plainly and simply -- with a yes or no -- whether you have actually consulted and read Jastrow.

You haven't, have you?

JG

Steven Avery

Hi Spin,
I would consider those of far less significance than words in the Tanach.

Especially as daqar is used a good number of times directly within Tanach over various books with the same meaning .. and also you are only claiming only a root-word relationship, not even a different definition for the same verb.

And apparently you are acknowledging in a roundabout way
that you have no examples in Tanach of a noun usage.

Fine.

Then give the best exact examples outside Tanach to consider.
Dates of writing, dialect, usage, whatever you consider significant.

For Jeffrey, no, I do not consult Jastrow.
So you are welcome to supply the best evidences as well.
Share away. Specifics.

Also please share what you found, or didn't find,
when you post-facto researched the reference
you had given for Origen on 1 Timothy 3:16.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

This is what you should be doing to back up your case.

And this is because you do not read Hebrew, isn't it, and because you wouldn't understand what Jastrow said in any case.

Again, this is your job, not mine. And given how you want us to take your claims seriously, one would have thought that it would be you who would show how well your claim is researched by producing the evidence from Jastrow and showing how it does or does not apply..

But alas, given how a defining element of your <posting style> is always to shift the burden of proof to someone else whenever it is the case that you cannot back up your own claims, it is a fools hope that you would actually do so.

JG

spin

On what linguistic grounds? (We are after all dealing with a linguistic issue.)


spin

Apikorus

Indeed, as there is no mention of piercing anywhere in Psalm 22, I agree that there is no word therein which corresponds to DQR.

Even if one assumes the majority text of the MT is corrupt and corrects Psa 22:17c from K)RY to KRW, there is still no parallel because KRH means "to dig." As spin pointed out, this meaning was supplied by the LXX (wruxan).