The Neverending Story

Free Republic | 3/24/01 | The NES Crew

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

After a nine month hiatus, The Neverending Story, the granddaddy of daily threads, has returned to Free Republic. Originally begun on March 24, 2001, as a religious discussion thread, the NES evolved over time into a daily thread spanning a wide variety of topics. The new and improved Neverending Story will feature conversation on religion, politics, culture, current events, business, sports, family, hobbies, general fellowship and more. We welcome you to hang your hat in our little corner of FR. We ask you to abide by the FR posting rules and, even in the midst of serious debate, to keep the discussion friendly and respectful. Those who wish to "duke it out" are asked to take it over to the Smoky Backroom. I placed this thread in "General/Chat" for a reason, so play nice and have fun! :o)

[IMRight]

The context clearly indicates that "lion" is the proper translation.

There ISN'T any "context" here. It doesn't break down to a single hebrew word that is either "lion" or "pierced".

The question is whether the CURRENT Hebrew word is correctly put there. The manuscript evidence doesn't support that.

It's easy enough to answer "why would Christians change it", because the desire would be obvious. But you can't answer "why would the pre-christian JEWS change it?" - answer, they wouldn't. But the POST-Christ Jews have the same motivation to change the text that Christians would have (to support their argument). And this seems clearly to be what happened.

[malakhi]

What you're missing here is that the Greek from which these modern translations comes (the Septuagint) PREDATES Christianity.

And you, obviously, favor a translation over the original.

Unfortunately for you... the DSS renders the verse WITH the word "pierced".

Not true. I've seen an image of the fragment in question. At best, one could say that the text of the fragment is ambiguous. It certainly doesn't give you the slam dunk you suppose.

The Hebrew word your translation would assume here for "pierce" doesn't really mean "pierce" in any case, but "dig" (in the sense of digging soil). The Hebrew word which says what you want this word to say is nkr:

Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it (2 Kings 18:21)

[malakhi]

Whether this was around the time they took out the "Apocrypha" or not

The "Apocrypha" was never "in".

[malakhi]

There ISN'T any "context" here.

That you refuse to see it, despite ET and I showing it to you, doesn't make it disappear.

The manuscript evidence doesn't support that.

You'll cite "manuscript evidence" when it suits you, and reject it when it suits you.

[CindyDawg]

Lions and tigers and bears .Oh my! LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS. OH MY!! lIO..............

[malakhi]

Interestingly, the word "tiger" appears nowhere in scripture. :o)

[IMRight]

And you, obviously, favor a translation over the original.

A translation that PREDATES the "original"? I doubt it.

Why oh why would they add a word that didn't exist? Did the Jews who made the translation not read Hebrew? Or did they not understand Greek? Obviously men working PRIOR to the time of any possible theological disagreement understood the verse to mean "pierced".

And there are at least seven MT manuscripts that use k'rw and a couple without the aleph. We can discuss that part once you give up on the other point. It doesn't help your argument to spin both sides of the coin at the same time. :) Suffice to say that there are something like 15 Hebrew words that get translated as "pierced". They all have additional meanings.

Not true. I've seen an image of the fragment in question. At best, one could say that the text of the fragment is ambiguous.

The chief editor of the DSS at Qumran (and head Hebrew scholar at Notre Dame) seems to disagree with you. "Psalm 22 is a favorite among Christians since it is often linked in the New Testament with the suffering and death of Jesus. A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic Text reads 'Like a lion are my hands and feet,' whereas the Septuagint has 'They have pierced my hands and feet.' Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs), which reads 'They have pierced my hands and my feet'"!" [p.519]

Again I point out that this is not a single word. You must reconcile "like a lion" instead of "they" and at least SOME verb.

[IMRight]

The "Apocrypha" was never "in".

Gee... the Jews who didn't attend the meeting where it was removed seem to still use it. Maybe the Christians bribed them?

[IMRight]

You'll cite "manuscript evidence" when it suits you, and reject it when it suits you.

Feel free to cite ANY that fits. "Fits" in this case would be SOME manuscript that predates the argument. "The argument" in this case is whether the verse in question can refer to Christ. Anything created by either "side" COULD be presumed to be biased.

A manuscript created BY Jews FOR Jews that uses "they pierced" cannot be spun to be a Christian fabrication. Instead, we see Jews of the first couple centuries using variant forms of a changed manuscript. Their motivation is plain (and understandable)... but they hadn't gotten their story straight yet. Aquila (in the early second century) had it as "ashamed" or "disgraced" before changing it to "like a lion" in his second edition.

[CindyDawg]

What? I never said yall were entirely wrong and with some modifications...:') I was doing an Advent (kind of) before I even knew I was. I never count Sundays but I start preparing for Christmas the day after Thanksgiving. It's not a solemn time , but a time for rejoicing and celebration for me.

I was looking at Lent. Starts 40 days before Easter. Fasts varied from 3-7 weeks. Originally rigorous and only 1 meal a day permitted, without white meat,eggs, milk products and all type of flesh. It was gradually relaxed to only Good Friday and Ash Wed and the rest a time of penance and devotion. Tsk! Tsk!:')

Then a lot about Catholic ritualsp and service restictions. That about it?

I wouldn't have a problem with 40 days of "in the spirit" but I would have to back out of the organized fasting. I believe no one should know you are fasting and it may be something you feel led to do at anytime during the year. An interesing concept though and something to think about.

[malakhi]

A translation that PREDATES the "original"? I doubt it.

It should be obvious that the Greek translation doesn't predate the Hebrew scriptures. It is further obvious to anyone who has studied the history of the "septuagints" that there is nothing especially authoritative about them.

Why oh why would they add a word that didn't exist?

For the same reason that parthenos turned up in Isaiah 7:14. It is a translation.

Did the Jews who made the translation not read Hebrew?

Only the first five books were translated under anything resembling rabbinical direction. The whole was translated in Alexandria, a center of Greek study, not of Hebrew. So yes, I would say that the translators were not intimately familiar with Hebrew.

Suffice to say that there are something like 15 Hebrew words that get translated as "pierced".

The verse in question, in Psalm 22, is the only time in the entire translated Hebrew scriptures that this particular Hebrew word -- krh -- is translated as "pierced". Every other usage is translated as "digged" in the sense of digging a pit -- or of "making" a pit, (plus one single reference to "opening" one's ears).

The chief editor of the DSS at Qumran (and head Hebrew scholar at Notre Dame) seems to disagree with you.

And plenty of other scholars disagree with him. I've seen an image of the fragment in question. It is ambiguous.

[CindyDawg]

You have never heard of the Tiger River? :')

[malakhi]

Gee... the Jews who didn't attend the meeting where it was removed seem to still use it.

???

Maybe the Christians bribed them?

Snide comments don't change the fact that, in two different ways, you are wrong on this.

[CindyDawg]

We all must have played this game before. I keep getting deja vu. Spooky:')

[CindyDawg]

+

[malakhi]

You'll cite "manuscript evidence" when it suits you, and reject it when it suits you.

Feel free to cite ANY that fits.

You want to cite "Apocrypha" and "manuscript evidence" when it favors your interpretation of Jewish scripture. Are you willing in turn to use Christian apocrypha and manuscript evidence in the same way? Can I cite, say, the "Gospel of Mary", the Pseudoclementines, and the "Epistle of Barnabas" as authoritative sources?

A manuscript created BY Jews FOR Jews

The Essenes did not represent "mainstream" Judaism. Their writings are filled with gnostic influences. I'd be very careful about trying to draw any conclusions about Judaism from the DSS.

[ET(end tyranny)]

You - Suffice to say that there are something like 15 Hebrew words that get translated as "pierced". They all have additional meanings.

---

A quick search shows only 4 FOUR verses from the Tanach used the word pierced. And each one uses a different word. Not quite 15!

pierced from the Hebrew --- Jdg 5:26
4272 machats {maw-khats'}
1) to smite through, shatter, wound severely
a) (Qal)
1) to shatter
2) shattering (participle)

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 14 AV - wound 7, smite through 2, pierce 2, strike through 1, pierce through 1, dipped 1; 14


pierced from the Hebrew --- Job 30:17
5365 naqar {naw-kar'}
1) to bore, pick, dig, pick out
a) (Qal) to bore, pick, dig
b) (Piel) to bore out
c) (Pual) to be dug out

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 6 AV - put out 2, thrust out 1, pick it out 1, pierced 1, digged 1; 6


pierced from the Hebrew --- Psa 22:16 -- This verse gets two numbers! lol
3738 karah {kaw-raw'}
1) to dig, excavate, dig through
a) (Qal) to dig
b) (Niphal) to be dug
2) (Qal) to give a banquet or feast
3) (Qal) to get by trade, trade, buy

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 16 AV - dig 12, make 2, pierce 1, open 1; 16

Here's the other one
pierced from the Hebrew --- Psa 22:16
0738 'ariy {ar-ee'} or (prolonged) `aryeh {ar-yay'}
1) lion
a) pictures or images of lions

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 80 AV - lion 79, untranslated variant 1; 80


pierced from the Hebrew --- Zec 12:10
1856 daqar {daw-kar'}
1) to pierce, thrust through, pierce through
a) (Qal) to pierce, run through
b) (Niphal) to be pierced through
c) (Pual) pierced, riddled (participle)

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 11 AV - thrust through 8, pierced 1, wounded 1, stricken through 1; 11

[ET(end tyranny)]

You left out the Gospel of Thomas! ;)

[malakhi]

There are hundreds.

[ET(end tyranny)]

But that one stands out. :)

I'm pretty sure that you have mentioned this before but I can't recall who it would be.

Is there someone other than Maimonides that you would turn to for commentary?