Outblaze

Anyone here familiar with the Psalms 22:16 controversy? The following is what I posted at the Biblical Archeology Society forum. I'm trying to determine if the interpretation by Prof Flint is the only interpretation and if it's valid (Christian apologetic and ministry sites quote him extensively to support their messianic prophecy belief for this verse).

Thanks for any help, corrections, enlightment.

"Does anyone know/understand why Prof. Peter Flint has chosen to translate the disputed word (kaf-aleph-resh-vav) in the controversial Psalms 22:16 fragment discovered at Nahal Hever (XHev/Se4 frg. 11 line4)as "they dug, bore, pierce?" I understand there is some disagrement over the elongated yod in the word, but as far as I know, kaf-aleph-resh-vav is not a Hebrew word. Any speculation, reasoning for his claim that it clearly is a verb and not a noun? After all, Hebrew commonly omits verbs. Is "lectio difficilior" justified? Also, from what I understand, the original has not been formally published (I may be wrong) and all we have is the facsimile edition of the fragment which is so faint as to be illegible (yod vs. vav). Is Flint's interpreation, as published in his "The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms" and propagated in later books (with other contributing scholars), the only take we have on this word? If so, then I'm skeptical. If the original fragment has not been made available to other scholars for their study and scrutiny, it's insufficient for biblical criticism and scholarship.

However, I may be way off with my facts and understanding of the controversy and work done on this word, so please any comments, corrections would be appreciated."

Haran

You should probably look to the Septuagint (LXX) for at least part of your answer.

The greek word ORYSSW is used, which means "to dig through" or a little more loosely, "to pierce".

The Hebrew that Flint is referring to is supposedly a dirivative form of "KARAH", or "to dig through", similar to the greek of the Septuagint.

I've studied this issue in the past, but it seems I always forget to take notes... Perhaps this will give you a little more to look into, anyway.

Outblaze

The word in the LXX is a seperate issue. My concern is how Flint comes to the conclusion that the word in the Nahal Hever fragment, as he published in his 1997 DS Psalms Scrolls book, can be interpretated as meaning, "they dug, pierced or bored"? Unless he's taking the word (bore/pierce) from the LXX and attempting to fit it to this word? The word in the fragment as he published clearly has an "aleph" in it (pg 83 & 88). The verb "KARAH"= to dig, or its cognate 3rd person plural masculine gender "KARU" = they dug, does not posses the "aleph". The word as rendered in his book is KAARU (kaf-aleph-resh-vav) - a nonexistent word.

Further, a year or so later, in his book with Vanderkam, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, he says the disputed word in the fragment is "clearly a verb, not a noun, meaning either "they dug, pierced or bored""(pg 125). How does he draw this conclusion or what's the justification? As currently published (by him), the word is meaningless??

The problem is further compounded that the fragment containing the verse/word has not been formally published (as of at least 2000). In his DS Psalms Scroll book, he includes 10 photocopies of the DSS Psalms (plates I-X). On plate VIII, PAM42.189, he includes two fragments (6&7) from the Nahal Hever site, yet the disuputed word is from PAM 42.190 and a photo of this plate is not included. Why?

So, as far as I can tell, I have only the word of a Dead Sea Scroll scholar who teaches at a Christian University that a meaningless word, he himself published, should somehow be interpreted to mean "they dug, pierced or bored"? Does everyone accept this prima facie? Apparently the Christian apologetic and ministry sites do as they use it to support messianic prophecy. Is there an Occam's Razor to Biblical/textual criticism? If so, could it be invoked here and the supposed "extended "yod" (the last letter of the word) that Flint interprets to be a "vav" is indeed a "yod" and the word becomes "like a lion" - a seemingly much simpler and plausible interpretation?

Am I just being a "conspiracist" or is Flint's interpretation valid and I'm just missing someting? Maybe there's more info out there that could shed better light on his interpretation and I just haven't found it yet? Anyway, thanks for your input and any other thoughts you may have.

Haran

Not if its Hebrew Vorlage read "pierced"...

Interesting questions. I'm not sure. I'll have to look into it deeper (if I can ever find the time).

Have you tried looking for it in the DJD or Eisenman's publication of the DSS? Perhaps (again, if I find the time), I can make a trip to a local library and see if I can find the MS fragment in question unless you've already looked at the sources I mentioned above. To my knowledge, I believe the DJD series has ended, so if it's not there, I'm not sure where it will be.

Personally, "like a lion" doesn't make much sense to me in the context. However, it would be interesting to see what other scholars think on the issue.

Outblaze

Even if the Vorlage used this word, I don't understand how Flint makes the leap that the nonexistent word he published in his book means "they dug, pierced, bored"? Christianity Today even posted an inaccruate article (see here) quoting Flint as saying that "pierced" was the preferred reading. But nowhere in his book does he say this. He simply list the nonexistent word from the Nahal Hever fragment and the variants seen in the LXX (they dug) and MS (like a lion) (pg 83 & 88) (however, he does make this claim in a book published a year or so later). The Christian apologetic and ministry sites then pick this up and futher propagates it. Anyway, I have no indication the Hebrew Vorlage says this... nor I have I been able to find anything in Flint's books indicating this (at least none that I've been able to locate... perhaps more research will prove me wrong).


I did check the DJD and found series XXXVIII "Miscellaneous Texts From the Judaean Desert" with Flint writing only on 5/6Hev Psalms XXV-XXVII. I couldn't locate anything by him or others on 22:17[16]. Also, I'm not concerned with the ?MS fragment? just the 5/6HevPs fragment. And again, from what I've been able to find, the photocopies of the yod/vav of the word is illegible. I haven't checked Eisenman's publication. I'll pursue it next. Thanks.

Quote:

Personally, "like a lion" doesn't make much sense to me in the context. However, it would be interesting to see what other scholars think on the issue.

I think "like a lion" makes very good sense due to the metaphors - animal imagery - used within the verse and the entire Psalm. Also verbs are commonly omitted in Hebrew and this being one more example of paralepsis that is found throughout the OT. But I'm not a Hebrew scholar nor do I even speak the language. I'm just trying to track down his (Flints) reasoning behind his translation. I think he would have given it somewhere, I just can't find it

Haran

The following is are a few good articles which have some detail on the issue:

http://www.ubs-translations.org/tictalk/tt50.html#DSSB
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak/articles/ps22.htm

Interesting Psalm 22 discussion down the page

This are a couple of excellent quotes in an informative article by Glenn Miller (read the whole article linked below):

"Ps. xxii 17c is an old crux which has never been satisfactorily explained. The MT's ka'ari yaday weraglay, 'like a lion my hands and my feet', makes no sense, and most modern scholars agree the text is corrupt. They also agree in locating the problem in the word ka'ari, 'like a lion'. All the ancient versions with the exception of the Targum read a verb here, and following their lead, most modern scholars emend the consonantal text from k'ry to k'rw or krw in order to obtain a verb in the 3mpl suffix conjugation." [J.J.M. Roberts, Vetus Testamentum, Vol 23, pge 247f]

"MT’s ka'ari (“like a lion”) presents numerous problems and can scarcely be correct. One must suppose that incorrect vocalization of the consonantal text occurred" [Craigie, Peter C. Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 19: Psalms 1-50. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1998.]

Psalm 22 - Glenn Miller


I grant you that these only partially explain exactly what you are looking for. However, they do a very good job of explaining why, as I mentioned, "like a lion" does not make much sense in context.