In Psalm 22:16 is they pierced a Christian mistranslation?

Psalm 22:16 is one verse where the standard Jewish translations differ from the translations most Christians use. Here's why. In Hebrew, the phrase they have pierced" is kaaru while "like a lion" is kaari. The words are identical except that "pierced" ends with the Hebrew letter vav and "lion" with yod. Vav and yod are similar in form, and a scribe might easily have changed the text by inscribing a yod and failing to attach a vertical descending line so that it would become a vav. The evidence suggests that this may be what happened, since the Greek version of the Scriptures, known as the Septuagint, rendered in Egypt before the time of Jesus, preserves the reading of "pierced."

Unfortunately we don't have the "original text" to check whether that was a vav or a yod. What we have is the Septuagint translation which translated the Hebrew text as "pierced" and the Masoretic or standard text which has it as "like a lion."

Notice that the translation of the Hebrew is "pierced" in the Greek Septuagint which was completed in the centuries before Jesus was crucified. Therefore the charges made by some counter-missionaries, that fundamentalist Christian interpreters "twist" the meaning of the Hebrew Bible, rings hollow.

Add comment

  • If your comment does not pertain to this specific article/blog please click here to send us a message. Comments not related to this article will not be posted.
  • We reserve the right to delete vulgar, racist, or hateful content, as well as inappropriate and off-topic posts.
  • Comments including links will not be published.
  • Multiple comments posted in a row will not be accepted.
  • Comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.
/index.php?option=com_jcomments&task=captcha&format=raw&ac=67377&Itemid=1727

Comments

+2

Mordechai

Why would "ka'ari" mean "they pierced" here if every other time the word comes up it means "like a lion"? In the psalm, David calls his tormentors "lions", so "like a lion" fits very well in context. If it did, indeed, mean to say "pierce" it would have used an actual root word for pierce, such as dakar (Zech. 12:10), ratza (Ex. 21:6), or nakav (2 Kings 18:21). Further, the root "KRH" actually means "dig" (Gen. 26:25, Ex. 21:33, Num. 21:18, etc.).
+1

Kristin

I don't personally see the purpose of quibbling about whether the word ought to be translated "pierced" or "like a lion", when so many of the other verses in the psalm can clearly be attributed to the experience of Jesus at Golgotha, or can be reasonably applied to the the experience of crucifixion (even in the Jewish bibles).
At any rate, even if you choose the translation "like a lion they are at my hands and feet", what would a lion do with your hands and feet? Play pat-a-cake? No, he would pierce them, either with his teeth or his claws.
+2

Geoff

To follow up Mordechai's comments: Mordech ai seems to misundertand that the question is over a variant in the texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls have "ka'aru" not "ka'ari". The Septuatgint translates this as "they have pierced." The main point is that people haven't purposely mistranslated the Scriptures, contrary to anti-missionary claims. The New Testament doesn't quote the verse in question.
+1

Mordechai

And that's why the Dead Sea Scrolls are not the basis of Judaism. I would not use the Septuagint version of the Torah as a worthy translation. If the word was "pierced", however, how would it point exclusively to Jesus? How many other Jews were crucified that it couldn't speak of them instead? Also, this Psalm is a psalm "by David", so all the events would have to, in one way or another, refer to David's life. Was he pierced, or was he actually surrounded by many "bulls", "dogs", and "lions"?
+3

Geoff

A prophecy does not have to exclusively point to Jesus. There is typology in Scripture. There is a type and antetype. In other words, something it is about and something it prefigures. Since Scripture is written under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit, the author can be writing about himself while the Holy Spirit also can have it prefigure something greater and later. The Masoretic Text is actually a family of texts. And this reading is in some of those texts. Dismissing the Dead Sea Scrolls out of hand seems weird. Why couldn't it give us some insight into textual issues? Same with the Septuagint. If there are variants, there may be reasons to favor the Masoretic family of texts, but there may also be good reasons to favor other readings. How would such reasoning procede? The variant under discussion now is a good example. I would recommend the following article: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ps22cheat.html
+1

Mordechai

Geoff, There may have been another subject in mind when King David wrote the psalm, but that subject would have to have been surrounded by enemies, like what King David wrote, and not "pierced", like what he didn't write. When there is an error in Torah text that cannot be fixed it must be buried, and that may explain the hidden location of the scrolls. Therefore, there should be typos in the Dead Sea Scrolls and it should not be favoured when there is discrepancy. The Septuagint was under Greek control (not the translation, but afterwards). This may seem skeptical, but who's to say they didn't tweak it before publicizing it? They may have been looking for what they wanted to find. I would think that referring me to a website called "christian"thinktank would indicate that belief in Jesus is not Jewish in nature.
+2

Geoff

If it was buried due to an error, you have no way of knowing it was because of this particular variant. Nor do we know it was buried due to an error. Plus, that variant is in the Masoretic family of texts. But, again, the New Testament doesn't quote this verse. Since Y'shua was crucified by Romans and mocked and scorned and lashed prior to his death, either reading would work as typology. I'm not a Septuagint scholar, but I've never heard anyone ever say the Septuagint was under Greek control. Or that they tweaked it before publicizing it. Regarding your last comment: "Christian" means a follower of Christ, and "Christ" is derived from the Greek word for "Messiah." So we would never say "Christian" and "Jewish" are mutually exclusive. The Messiah is for Gentiles as well. But truth is truth no matter the ethnic origin of who is saying it.
+1

Mordechai

Because the translation was under Greek control I would not discount attempts to mistranslate the Torah into what they wanted. If the Scrolls and the Sept. say "ka’aru", why does every Hebrew version of Psalms say "ka’ari"? If it was an issue the commentators would record it. I think that proves the Scrolls were mistakes and the Sept. is not authoritative. "Tha t variant is...Masoretic" Please explain. Jesus was crucified, but so were 1000s of other Jews. Maybe the verse, if it said "ka'aru", speaks of one of them. If it was really "ka’ari", then there were still many situations when King David the Jewish nation were surrounded, so it still wouldn’t point to Jesus conclusively. Accor ding to the flow of your logic with Jews and Christians, non-Jews who follow the seven Noahide Laws would be Jewish since they also believe whole-heartedly in the G-D of the Jews, but the Torah says they are not.
+1

Geoff

Both "ka'aru" and "ka'ari" can be found in the Masoretic text family. And on your last point, I didn't say they were both Jews. But, as Isaiah prophecies, Gentiles come to the Messiah as Gentiles and Jews as Jews. Go read the article I mentioned.
+1

Matt

Links to site where it is proved (see photo) that "pierced" is the correct reading.
+4

Murray

Just been reading the comments posted and a thought occurred to me:

If the LXX was written before Christ, and mentioned "ka'ari" as a Messianic prophecy towards Jesus' crucifixion, then it would make sense to leave it as such - except by all those who did not want it to point to Jesus as God's Suffering Servant and Messiah.

Jews who have rejected the - fulfilled - claims of Jesus to be the Christ could have, in their new versions of the text, rewritten the word as "ka'aru."

That could be why all modern versions of the Hebrew text interpret it this way... to point to their interpretation that Jesus is not the Messiah.

Just a thought.
+4

Heather

I know that I'm a bit late to this thread, but wanted to respond to a post by Mordachi-

Though many were crucified, Christ (Jesus) was "Punctured" by a spear to ensure that he was dead. This was not a normal practice. But to fulfill prophesy.

I'm also confused how "Lion" would even make sense here, could someone explain how Lion could even fit? Thank you & God Bless.

Stephan

How old the original LXX is doesn't matter since all we have of the LXX Psalms is from around a thousand years after Christianity (http://www.theopedia.com/Septuagint). Just read the Psalm. Lions are mentioned twice already, along with bulls and dogs. According to Rashi, this Psalm is David lamenting the first exile. "like a lion, my hands and feet; I tell about all my bones" As though they are crushed in a lion’s mouth, and so did Hezekiah say (in Isa. 38: 13): “like a lion, so it would break all my bones.”
+2

Rich Robinson

@Stephan - it's not the date of the manuscripts but their accuracy in preserving the originals that's important. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, all we had of the Masoretic Text were copies from around 1000 C.E. So your point about manuscript dates is a bit of a red herring. Second, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which give us our earliest Hebrew copies of the biblical text, contain the reading "pierced" in this verse, suggesting that the Masoretic Text may not have the original wording.
+1

Stephan

(2 of 3) As for which text is the most reliable, you have to think of which groups were reproducing these documents. The DSS manuscripts were produced by the Essenes. According to Jesus, whatever the Pharisees had at the time was the only important thing (Matt 23:1-3), so that leaves out the DSS. The MT manuscripts were produced by the Jews, and the LXX manuscripts were produced by the Catholic Church, both from around the same time period. In that case, who do you trust more to keep the text accurately? The Catholic Church, which was slaughtering countless innocent people at the time? Or the Orthodox Jews, who write books about the significance of an individual letter, and establish meaning based on the number of letters and their numerical values?
+2

Rich Robinson

@Stephan, We published your comments in a row but that's not really the use of the comments box. For longer discussions you need to use our forums at www.jewsforjesus.org/forums
No scholar discounts the value of the DSS, you just can't write them off. Also the LXX was hardly produced by the Catholic Church, they were translated ca. 250 BCE for the use of the Greek speaking Jewish community in Alexandria. The Catholic Church is entirely irrelevant for finding out the original text of Tanach.
+1

Stephan

It's true that the original was written by the Jews, but we don't have the originals. I was referring to the manuscripts that we have today, which come from much later. Most importantly, the Psalms weren't even translated by the 72 Rabbis in Alexandria, only the first 5 books (the Torah).
+1

Stephan

This point still stands, which makes the main article here misleading. "Notice that the translation of the Hebrew is "pierced" in the Greek Septuagint which was completed in the centuries before Jesus was crucified." claims that we actually know what those BCE copies said, but in reality, we only have extant copies from the 4th century CE. This obviously isn't proof that the DSS/LXX are in error here, but at least don't mislead your readers.
-1

Mordechai

Rich, the Septuagint was not written for the Jews, but rather for the non-Jews; Ptolmey was not doing it as a favor for his Jewish subjects. The current version is a product of the church because A. the Talmud shows 15 unique translations the Rabbis used, and only 1 is still there, and B. the rabbis only translated the Torah, not the entirety of Tanach.
+1

Rich Robinson

The Ptolemy story in the Letter of Aristeas has a good deal of legend to it; no one knows exactly how it was translated into Greek. However, it's generally accepted that the translation was made FOR Greek speaking Jews who were not conversant with Hebrew. At any event it was translated over the course of several centuries so not a one-off by Ptolemy. However it's universally recognized that the LXX was ACCEPTED as the Bible to use by Greek speaking Jews till some time after Christ, when different Greek versions were made for the Jewish community while the LXX became more commonly used by Christians. The "current" versions vs. the "original" versions(s) can be ascertained through textual criticism, etc.
+1

Mordechai

Rich, thanks for responding.
Aside from the Talmud, there is the Anchor Bible and Josephus, among other sources, that the LXX was only the Five Books. Any later translations was not a Jewish product, but rather one of the church.
Further, to say the Hebrew word "kaaru" means "they pierced" is not a statement based in fact. The word kaf-aleph-reish-vav (kaaru) means absolutely nothing in Hebrew. As I mentioned at the very beginning of these posts, had David wanted to use the word "pierce," he had other viable options.
+1

Rich Robinson

I'm not sure what you are reading in Anchor Bible & Josephus but scholarly consensus including Jewish scholars like Emanuel Tov is that entire LXX was translated B.C.E. The Torah was *first* but not the entire early LXX. Dead Seas Scrolls, also B.C.E. and of course Jewish in origin, often support LXX readings. Finally, כארו some scholars understand would be 3p. pl. form of כרה meaning literally "dig"; the aleph would be an orthographic addition, often found. Be careful when you say something "means absolutely nothing" in Hebrew - there are issues of hapax legomena (words occurring only 1x in the Hebrew Bible), issues of changes in orthography, issues of rare words cognate to other languages, issues dealing with the actual scribal writing of a particular letter/word/text. That "David had other viable options" is IMO a non-starter; poetry exactly often uses the non-standard.

Mordechai

Rich, I meant the Anchor Bible dictionary (vol. V, pg. 1093), and Josephus' Preface to Antiquities (as well as Antiquities XII, ii, 1-4).
Aleph as an orthographic addition to replace a Hey? I'm not familiar with this. Do you have any other examples? Because what the church is setting forth is a kaf-aleph-reish root word which has no meaning in Biblical or current Hebrew. Turning a nothing word into 3rd person plural is still a nothing word.
And it still would not explain why, if David wanted to use the word pierce, he would use a word that deals with digging dirt (כרה) rather than one used in Tanach that actually deals with piercing something (as in Zachariah 12:10, Exodus 21:6, or 2 Kings 18:21). Poetry may use the non-standard, but David's poetry is consistent, and changing his intention from a common animal motif to someone being pierced is too far out of character.
+1

Mordechai

To reply to Heather: The text in Psalm 22 says "like a lion (they are at) my hands and feet." When mistranslating "like a lion" to read instead "pierced," Christians are claiming this was a foreshadowing of the crucifixion, when indeed the victims hands and feet were pierced.
The reason David says "lions" is because throughout Psalms, he refers to his enemies and tormentors as lions, bulls, and dogs.
-1

Rich Robinson

Of course the translation problem isn't about the word "lion" but about the syntax of the entire clause as well as variant readings in the DSS and so on. Please stop claiming that this is a mistranslation concocted by Christians. It's in fact a judgment call based on evidence.
-1

Mordechai

Ok; I don’t know with certainty that it was the church who tampered with the LXX (not having been around at the time). However, as I’ve said earlier, the Talmud records 15 unique translations the rabbis made in the LXX, but only 1 is still there. That implies tampering. Further, it is the Greek Orthodox Church which really puts stock in the LXX, and not the Jews. We tend to stick to the Hebrew text rather than Greek translations done under the rule of foreign kings.
Concerning the DSS: Jewish Law states that if a scroll has unfixable mistakes, it must be buried. Therefore, finding a buried scroll with mistakes is expected, and would be one reason Jews do not consider variants in the DSS as worthy of consideration.
+2

Rich Robinson

I can't reply to the Talmud/LXX remark but I will look into it. And again, of course Jews TODAY don't use the LXX, but we are talking about Jews B.C.E., long before the Greek Orthodox Church existed. Finally, Talmudic law does not necessarily (often, definitely does not) apply to earlier times. Maybe the Jews you hang out with don't think the DSS variants deserve attention, but plenty of Jewish scholars do. You are replying from the world of Orthodox Talmudic Judaism but the reality on the ground with Jewish scholars is quite different.
+1

Mordechai

Hmm...It appears to me that YOU are approaching this issue from the view of Trinitarian Christianity which has no qualms about accepting church traditions, yet argues strongly against the Jews having an oral tradition. The reality on the ground is that the strongest argument for reading the word as "pierced" is buried documents that disagree with both the text used by Torah-true Jews AND the KJV (which correctly renders "like a lion").
The main points here are: context of Psalm 22 shows that David is referring to his enemies as animals, so we would expect another animal word here; if he wanted to say pierce, he would have used a real word for "pierce;" it definitely is not "kaaru," as kaf-alef-reish is not a valid root word; and even if it was "pierce," where is the proof for this Psalm speaking of the Messiah?
As an aside, Jewish secular scholars may consider DSS valid, but not Torah-true Jews. The Jews as a community never accepted the LXX as life-changing doctrine.
+2

Rich Robinson

I didn't appeal to church tradition in my answer. Also I don't believe church tradition came from God whereas torah she-be'al-peh is held to come from God @ Sinai. I've answered your remark about ka'aru elsewhere. I don't know what kind of "Torah-true Jew" you are but it seems you are not part of the Torah U'Madda crowd. Quite frankly, there are Jewish religious scholars who utilize the DSS, textual criticism, etc. I'm not talking about the LXX as a "life-changing doctrine," just as a source of textual variants. I think we will have to agree to disagree.
+5

yohanna

If we say that the word is like a lion (ca'ari) form sentences will be incomplete And incomprehensible, you need a verb or preposition linking like a lion with my hands, The group have likened as lion verse 14 and 22, and this person likened himself as a worm and poured out like water, and his bones are out of joint, and heart is become like wax; it is melted in mine inmost part, and strength is dried up like a potsherd, and tongue cleaveth to throat;. So its impossible that he is is as lion Context is incorrect for this, we must add a link between the word and hands to become the true context… for example, like a lion (they smashed) my hands and my feet ... see Psalm 7, or like a lion (they are at) my hands and my feet...JPS 1917 Jews added which is in brackets not found in the original Hebrew to give a true context of the text, and was originally the old versions Septuagint, Qumran scrolls that They pierced (ca'aru) which gives context to the text.. they pierced my hands and my feet
-3

Stephan

It's not true that you need something to connect "like a llion" and "my hands and feet". You can just put a period. "A band of evildoers has encompassed me like a lion. My hands and my feet, I tell about all my bones." He's either telling about his bones because he's starving (since hands and feet get very bony when you're starving), or because the lion has broken his bones (See Isaiah 38:13). Then he proceeds 3 verses later to ask to be rescued from the mouth of the lion. It looks pretty obvious.

Mordechai

Yohanna, poetry can omit some phrases, but the real meaning is evident. However, if you were to continue to argue that the text should read "they pierced," despite the lack of a kaf-aleph-reish root in the language, it still would not clearly point to anyone in particular, especially since the Psalm is not obviously speaking of a messiah.
Rich, you answered my comments on "kaaru," but not satisfactorily. We clearly disagree, and on that I agree, but I cannot sit idly by while the church misrepresents the Torah to preach a message that is antithetical to the entirety of Torah.
+1

Rich Robinson

So you need to get busy disabusing the entire church of their notions, including all the churches around the world that are made up only of non-Jews. Is that what you're saying? The entire Christian movement worldwide is misrepresenting the Torah? The Anglicans in Africa, the Presbyterians in Korea? Even Rambam wouldn't say that. And then of course, there's the Meiri.
+1

Actually_A_Jew

Actually that is exactly what the Rambam said in the Mishneh Torah: Laws of Kings, Laws 11:10-12 (Capach Edition): “[10] …Can there be a greater stumbling block than this (Christianity)? That all the prophets spoke that the Messiah will redeem Israel and save them, and gather their dispersed and strengthen their Mitzvot, and this (one, i.e., Jesus) caused the Jews to be destroyed by the sword, and scattered their remnants and humbled them, and exchanged the Torah, and caused the majority of the world to err to serve a god other than the Lord." What are you citing for the Meiri? I would love to see it inside.
+1

Rich Robinson

The Me’iri made these points:

The idolators described in the Talmud no longer exist. The word notzrim is not from Nazarene but from Nebuchadnezzar — notzrim are Babylonian sun worshippers, which is what the Talmud originally meant in forbidding interaction between Jews and notzrim.

Therefore, Jews can socialize with Christians.

Christians and Muslims serve the one true God and universal ethics—via reason not revelation. From Shabbat 156a, “Israel is not subject to the stars,” we learn that Israel has received by revelation certain things that others have arrived at through reason

Christians and Muslims are part of “Israel.”

See www.beliefnet.com/columnists/kingdomofpriests/2009/05/why-im-christian-friendly.html
+2

Jonathan

At the risk of sounding like a fool I would like to answer one portion of the arguments laid out. "...it still would not clearly point to anyone in particular...". though it is true that the messiah is not singled out here we can conclude that this was a messianic (believe it was Jesus or not) prophecy. In Jn 19:31-37 we see that the other two (crucified with him) had their legs broken (a common Roman practice) yet his were not (I'm sure the soldiers had no clue of a prophecy or any desire to fulfill it). In Ex 12:46 (speaking of the lamb to be sacrificed prior to the Exodus) it speaks of very specific requirements one of them being that the bones of the lamb were not to be broken. (for Christians) Jesus is the Lamb of God and it is through his blood shed that we have our exodus of satan's grip. He would not have been our Messiah had his legs been broken (as was common practice in Roman crucifixions), or had he not performed all the miracles he did or had he not resurrected.
+1

Texasjo

Jonathan, your comment makes the most sense to me. I find myself smiling at the arguments, just as the Jews did in the olden days. Jesus was a rebel. After he died for us, no need for blood sacrifices, circumcision, not eating certain foods, as this was all in preparation for Our Lord, and kept the lineage quite clean
+1

Mordechai

They may be misrepresenting the Torah, but it's not all their fault; some are raised only understanding the Torah from a Christian perspective. Many churches worldwide are busy bringing monotheism to pagans instead of trying to convince Jews that the Torah preaches anti-Torah doctrines line vicarious atonement and the virgin birth, and for that I would commend them, and THAT is more in line with Rambam.
-1

Rich Robinson

Mordechai, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If "the church misrepresents the Torah" then how can they be busy bringing monotheism to pagans? You can't have it both ways.
+1

Stephan

It seems pretty obvious. From a Jewish perspective, Judaism > Christianity > Paganism. Having an incorrect view of monotheism beats the heck out of sacrificing children, but it's not as good as worshiping G-d without a corrupted view of His nature and will. Same goes for Islam.
+1

Rich Robinson

Then you need to get busy correcting their incorrect view of monotheism. Or do you just want the goyim to live in darkness?
+2

Stephan

That's what I do whenever a good opportunity comes up, for Jews and non-Jews alike. Nobody should have live in darkness. Ideally, non-Jews should become Righteous Gentiles and stick to the 7 laws of Noah http://www.aish.com/w/nj/For_Non-Jews.html, or convert like Ruth, great-grandmother of King David if they so desire http://www.judaismconversion.org/batei.din.html
+1

Rich Robinson

You also need to disabuse all of them about Jesus, the sooner the better. If not now, when?
+1

Stephan

That's part of helping correct a person's view G-d. Unfortunately, one person can only do so much.
+2

yohanna

Mordechai: KARU - (kaf - aleph - reish- vav) is another spilling of KRU - they pierced (kaf - riesh - vav), ancient Jews did not have a problem with letter Aleph, they have read the word as they pierced, like a lion is incomplete sentence does not fit the grammar, when the Jews returned from Babylon the Jewish language was weak, they added Aleph to a lot of words, Hebrew professor James Price gives examples from Hebrew of other word variants with an added “Aleph” (which he writes as ‘ instead of ‘a): "bo'r, bor (pit, cistern) from the verb bur (dig); da'g, dag (fish) from the verb dug (fish for); la't, lat (secrecy) from the verb lut (be secret); m'um, mum (blemish); n'od, nod (skin); q'am, qam (he arose); ra'sh, rash (poor) from the verb rush (be poor);" (James Price, Response to a Skeptic,The scholars Keil and Delitzsch also note that Zechariah 14:10 and Daniel 7:16, and Hebrew was heavily influenced by its sister language Aramaic, which could introduce the letter Aleph.
+1

yohanna

The long-standing consensus has been that ka'aru is the Hasmonean-era spelling of the Hebrew word karu (כרו), which means "they have dug.
+1

yohanna

To clarify:-

Zechariah 14:10 ward Rimmon in the Hebrew is ra’ama Aleph was added, Daniel 7:16 word standing in the Hebrew ka’amaiya Aleph was added also
+1

faith

i'm not sure if anyone is going to respond but i've learned recently that even the old testament is a christian mistranslation of the original. idk if it's true. but how do you find out for yourself or must i know hebrew to understand. i don't like the idea that christians change things around to fit their ideas. like i said idrk if it's true but i gotta be honest so many people say so many different things that i'm confused.

Ruth Rosen

do you mean you've heard the Old Testament is a Christian mistranslation? Because if you don't know whether it's true, you haven't learned it. It's not difficult to find an English translation of a Jewish Bible that was not translated by Christians. You can compare the two yourself. Where there are differences (which are fewer than you may think) you can read both Jewish and Christian commentaries (in English) to see the different interpretations and reasons for them. One of the more contemporary researchers, Dr. Michael Brown, is a Jewish believer in Jesus. His comments would be a good part of that mix because he answers some of what Jewish scholars who do not believe in Jesus say about disputed passages.
+2

faith

i've just heard that we've changed some translations to fit with our belief in Jesus. and it's acutally judaism that confused me. anything from any religion can make sense and fit and i obviously didn't have the knowledge to understand that. but still some things worry me and i want to fully understand that what i've put my faith in is true. and of course every religion thinks that they are right and can find all the evidence to support their belief. i don't want to be like so many other people who are being decieved and have some sort of false sense of security and it turns out they are completly wrong. oh and then i've read in the old testament that God doesnt want anymore sacrifaces and that He just wants repentence. i think in hosea and other places. i don't have any body to talk to....

Guest

This comment has been deleted by Administrator
+1

Mark

There are two things to point out they lead to "pierced" being the more accurate translation.

1) There is a chiastic structure that is very typical of David's poetry and Hebrew poetry in general. It is as follows:

V. 12 - Bulls
V. 13 - Lion
V. 16 - Dogs
V. 20 - Dogs
V. 21 - Lion
V. 21 - Oxen/Bull

The chiastic structure is ruined if the translation is indeed "lion".

2) Also, David was a skilled shepherd and had fought lion's before (1 Samuel 17:34) and would have been well acquainted with how they attack. Lions go for the throat, always, not the hands.
-1

tariq

The word that came in the old copies came in it letter(vav) not (yod), So the ancient Jews red it (karu) they pierced not (kari) like a lion, Word (kari) did not come just only in Masoretic text, These texts are between the 6th century - 10 AD, So the origin of the word is (karu) which means they pierced, On the other hand Compare the following descriptions with the Bible, in Psalm 22: 6, Scornful from people (the Jewish people) Psalm 22: 7 occurred with Christ during his crucifixion, in Psalm 22: 15 he was dead, in Psalm 22: 18 occurred with Christ during his crucifixion, Psalm 22: 16 there is something happened to his hands and feet then they cast lots for his vesture this occurred with Christ during his crucifixion, These descriptions have not occurred with David, So he sees in the spirit of prophecy what happened with Christ his son the Messiah.
+1

Actually_A_Jew

what is your evidence that anyone read it as "they pierced" before Jesus lived? additionally, if you reject the oral teachings of the Jews, then how do you even know what the vowels are in the text? That was only preserved by oral tradition until the mesoritic rabbis wrote it down. How can king david be messiah when ruth was from moab - the bible says someone from moab can't convert to judaism! without my oral tradition you don't even have a messiah at all!
+2

yohanna

Stephan the word ari ארי not used in the Psalms, The word that always used ariha אריה, You said:-
Quoting Stephan:
It's not true that you need something to connect "like a llion" and "my hands and feet". You can just put a period. "A band of evildoers has encompassed me like a lion. My hands and my feet.

Text does not tell us my hands and my feet, I count their bones but all my bones which includes Head, neck, chest and back bones also, This is evidence that the two sentences are separated, So whats the meaning of My hands and my feet, Did I fight through them, Did I try to run away by them, did they tie them up, did they hit them, So whats the meaning, My hands and my feet alone does not give meaning It needs a verb, logic says They pierced... like a lion needs a verb as I said, look about Psalm 22: 18, This was usually known when the soldiers implement of the death penalty in the cross to someone, So David predicts about an event were not known in his time.
+1

Todd

Blessed is Christ who is God. You Jewish non believers Of Christ really think that Karu just so happens to be similar to Kari??? Come on... It's not just by accident. Things just don't happen. Of all the words out there in the universe.. Pierced just so happends to be it by accident ? No. Also like a lion is what satan is doing when Paul speaks of how satan prowls like a lion devouring whom who wants. Add the parallel to that. All spiritual. Christ is lord.
+1

Actually_A_Jew

The word "karu" isn' a word - it's four letters put together that don't have a meaning in the Hebrew language. See Zechariah 12:10 for the Hebrew word "dakaru" which means pierced. See above posts as well.

Rich Robinson

Actually scholars of all persuasions have run the gamut of trying to figure out a difficult verse — karu, spelled variously, could in fact be one biblical term among many that only appears once ("hapax legomena"). And that is one option among many.
+2

Mitch4Jesus

Pierced is forund in the Dead Sea scrolls and clearly written by Isaiah as early as 50 years before the crucifiction.It is laid out in detail in Jerusalem at the pottery shaped buildi ng which houses it.It was written a long time before even a hint of the present day rabbinic tradition existed which largely only accepts their own written tradition.This is the same thing Yeshua got angry about them about repeatedly..that is putting weight in their own sayings rather than the WORD of GOD!! This is outrageous.
+1

Actually_A_Jew

Psalm 22 ISN'T IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS. It is in the Nachal Chever collection, which dates from the Jewish Wars (70-135 CE). It is also very sloppy, and not useful for this purpose. Kaaru also isn't a Hebrew word; the Hebrew word for "pierced" is "dakaru" as is seen in Zechariah 12:10.
-1

Rich Robinson

Psalm 22:15-17 is in the DSS in vv. in 11QPs(f), the verses in question. As to reading the text of Nahal Hever, careful examination (magnification, other techniques) can help properly decipher it. Some scholars have found it quite useful. As to kaaru etc., a good discussion is at www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Ps22.16.pdf. Not necessarily the last word on the subject, but the discussion over the Hebrew of the verse can't be simply dismissed.
+1

Actually_A_Jew

Interesting article, but the idea of diphthongs that you sited only actually applies to ARAMAIC contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Two other others on this topic have said this very clearly, and here is a link to one such discussion: http://books.google.com/books?id=jAsaAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA625&dq=diphthong+dead+sea+scrolls&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5J8AVIiMC9CmggTJuILQDQ&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=diphthong%20dead%20sea%20scrolls&f=false
+1

Rich Robinson

You might want to write the author of that article (I didn't write it) and see what he has to say.
+1

Actually_A_Jew

Addtionally, even if this diphthong WERE to exist in Qumran Hebrew, it would still be a misspelling. In Qumran Hebrew, yod followed by hey would indicate that the word is "yadi" not "yadai". If the author was trying to spell "yadai" with a final diphthong, it would be written yod aleph. See the above link I posted for a complete explaination.
-1

Actually_A_Jew

Also, here is what is in DDS 11QPs(f) (not Psalm 22):
Psalm 101 > 102 > 103; 109 > [110]; 118 > 104 > 147 > 105 > 146 > 148 [+120] > 121 > 122 > 123 > 124 > 125 > 126 > 127 > 128 > 129 > 130 > 131 > 132 > 119 > 135 > 136 > Catena > 145 [+ Another Psalm?] > 154 + Plea for Deliverance > 139 > 137 > 138 > Sirach 51 > Apostrophe to Zion > 93 > 141 > 133 > 144 > 155 > 142 > 143 > 149 > 150 > Hymn to the Creator > David’s Last Words > David’s Composition > 140 > 134 > 151A > 151B > blank column [end of scroll] - This is freely available online from the Israel Museum, Shrine of the Book (which houses the DSS).
+1

Rich Robinson

My error, that should have been 4QPs(f) rather than 11QPs(f).
+1

Actually_A_Jew

Again, Nachal Chever is from a much later time (between 66-140 AD). The Dead Sea Scrolls version does not have the word "karu": "The MT of PS 22:17 (16 ET) reads "like a lion" (k'ari) "are my hands and feet," which hardly makes good sense. The Septuagint-supported by a few Midieval Hebrew manuscripts, has a very different reading: "They have pieced my hands and feet"...Although 4QPs(f) contains much of PS 22:15-17, THE KEY LETTERS ARE UNFORTUNETLY NOT PRESERVED." - James Charlesworth, The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 237.
+1

Rich Robinson

Not sure which points you are making with all these different statements, but the 4Q reference was simply because you said Ps 22 was not in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is, in part, preserved well or otherwise.
+1

Actually_A_Jew

My point is it's misleading to tell people that ALL of Psalm 22 is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It isn't. It's an excerpt, AND it is irrelevant to the conversation happening on this page. So why bring it up at all?
+2

Actually_A_Jew

This is ridiculous. The Masoretic text, written after Jesus's time, ONLY GIVES THE VOWELS. There are very few changes between the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predates what you are calling the "septuagent", and the Masoretic texts. Psalm 22 is not in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it is in the Nachal Chever scrolls, which are from the same time as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Have you read the Nachal Chever Scrolls?

Additionally, the actual Septuagent, written by 72 Rabbis, was ONLY a translation of the 5 Books of Moses. What you call the Septuagent was created by the Church. Stop lying!
+3

Rich Robinson

The MT of course gives consonants and vowels, not vowels only - otherwise the text would be unreadable. Psalm 22 is in fact in the DSS, vv. 15-17 in 11QPs(f). Nahal Hever is generally included in discussions of the DSS. There are indeed few significant differences between the DSS and the MT but when there are, this can indicate a varying earlier text. Finally the story of the 72 rabbis is a later legend from the Book of Aristeas — historically, the Torah was translated first, but still in the BCE years the Prophets and Writings were as well — becoming the translation of choice for Greek speaking Jews. The church used the LXX and there were varying edition or recensions, but it was most certainly not "created by the Church." Lastly, if you want to discuss facts stop accusing people of lying, which is lashon ha-ra.
+1

Actually_A_Jew

It's only lashon ha'rah if it's true - are you admitting that you are being deceitful?

The Hebrew word for pierced is "dakaru" as in Zechariah 12:10. The letters cof, aleph, reish, vav NEVER appear in the Bible, and actually don't mean anything at all. The reason I asked about the Nachal Chever text and if you've read it is that it is very very sloppy. The letters are very close together, it is not sharp and clear like the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the next work has a glaring error, which suggests that the text was sloppy. I will post a link to the digitally enhanced photo of this text, from the Israel Museum, if you don't believe me. To say that "kaaru" means "pierced" is nonsense.
+1

Rich Robinson

See my response elsewhere in this thread re: Nahal Hever and kaaru.
-1

Actually_A_Jew

"The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles." - F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, p.150. "For example, in his preface to the Book of Chronicles, the Church father Jerome, who was the primary translator of the Vulgate, concedes that in his day there were at least three variant Greek translations of the Bible: the edition of the third century Christian theologian Origen, as well as the Egyptian recension of Hesychius and the Syrian recension of Lucian." - original in Apology Against Rufinus ii, 27 (Migne, P.L. 23, 471)
+1

Rich Robinson

If Bruce is correct, this still doesn't negate the fact that the entire Tanach had been rendered into Greek in BCE years. Later on, various Jewish recensions of the (a) Greek text were used in the Jewish community. Their relationship to what we call the LXX is complicated, and textual scholars are still working out relationships. Nevertheless, the LXX, or whatever you want to call the BCE Greek translation(s), were made for the benefit of Greek-speaking Jews.
-1

Actually_A_Jew

But every copy we have now were preserved by the Church, so how do I know that any of the copies today are the same as the ones translated by ancient Jewish sources? There is no evidence of this. There is overwhelming evidence that these Greek translations today were compiled, edited, and preserved by Christian sources. So why use it as a support for a "Jewish" message?
+2

yohanna

If we say that the word is like a lion (Ka'ari) form sentences will be incomplete and incomprehensible, We need a verb or preposition linking like a lion with my hands, The group were likened as lion verse 13 and 21, and this person likened himself as a worm and poured out like water, and his bones were out of joint, and heart was become like wax; it was melted in mine inmost part, and strength was dried up like a potsherd, and tongue cleaveth to throat;. So its impossible that he is as lion context is incorrect for this, we must add a link between the word and hands to become the true context… for example, like a lion (they smashed) my hands and my feet ... see Psalm 7, or like a lion (they are at) my hands and my feet...JPS 1917 Jews added which is in brackets not found in the original Hebrew to give a true context of the text, and was originally the old versions Septuagint, Qumran scrolls that They pierced (Ka'aru) which gives context to the text.. they pierced my hands and my feet
-1

yohanna

[quote name="Additionally, the actual Septuagent, written by 72 Rabbis, was ONLY a translation of the 5 Books of Moses. What you call the Septuagent was created by the Church. Stop lying!

You can see the informations about Septuagint and also read the English translation of Psalm 22: 16

http://www.septuagint.net

http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Psalms/index.htm
+1

yohanna

Actually_A_Jew

Pierced in Dead sea scrolls

See

messianicpublications.com/tim-hegg/they-pierced-my-hands-and-my-feet/
+1

yohanna

Zechariah 12:10
אֵת אֲשֶׁר-דָּקָרוּ;
The word is
דָּקָרוּ;ּ
But the word tgat we meant
כָרוּ
Look in Jeremiah 18: 20

הַיְשֻׁלַּם תַּחַת-טוֹבָה רָעָה, כִּי-כָרוּ שׁוּחָה לְנַפְשִׁי;

Shall evil be recompensed for good? for they have digged a pit for my soul.

Karu and ka'aru

ancient Jews did not have a problem with letter Aleph, they have read the word as they pierced
James Price gives examples from Hebrew of other word variants with an added “Aleph” (which he writes as ‘ instead of ‘a): "bo'r, bor (pit, cistern) from the verb bur (dig); da'g, dag (fish) from the verb dug (fish for); la't, lat (secrecy) from the verb lut (be secret); m'um, mum (blemish); n'od, nod (skin); q'am, qam (he arose); ra'sh, rash (poor) from the verb rush (be poor), look at Zechariah 14:10 and Daniel 7:16.
+1

Actually_A_Jew

kaf and koof are completely different letters and are not related at all.
+1

yohanna

To clarify:-

Zechariah 14:10 ward Rimmon in the Hebrew is ra’ama Aleph was added, Daniel 7:16 word standing in the Hebrew ka’amaiya Aleph w
+2

yohanna

The word ari ארי not used in the Psalms, The word that always used arieh אריה, the term that was used by David is arieh in Psalms, This is the style and accent of him to express the word lion, which was used in the Psalms by David, Note that he used the word arieh אריה twice in Psalm 22, So why we assume that he changed his accent unexpectedly.
Especially if we say that the word is like lion it will become incomplete and we should add a verb or preposition to become understandable.
So the word in this case should be verb ka'aru which means they dug.
+1

Actually_A_Jew

The word "kaari" is in Isaiah 38:13 - "I reckoned till morning, that, as a lion, so will he break all my bones: from day even to night wilt thou make an end of me." (KJV) The exact same word is translated there as "as a lion". Isn't odd that they would translate that word kaari to "as a lion" EVERY OTHER PLACE IN THE BIBLE, but here, in Psalm 22, they translated as "they pierced"? If you don't believe me, get a KJV study Bible or a concordance and look it up for yourself!

Guest

This comment has been deleted by Administrator

paul renan zelezniak

Jews accuse Paul of misquoting Isaiah 59:20-21 in Romans 11;26
So far, this looks correct. Any answers?

Paul

ARIN

ONLY THE FIRST 5 BOOKS WERE TRANSLATED INTO THE SEPTUAGINT... NOT THE BOOK OF PSALMS... THAT WAS LATER. THE ONLY COPIES OF COPIES WE HAVE WERE TRANSMITTED THROUGH CHRISTIANS... CHRISTIANS ARE KNOWN TO FORGE AND CHANGE DOCUMENTS TO FIT WITH THEIR BELIEFS... SO WE CAN'T TRUST THEIR VERSION OF HISTORIC VERIFICATION. THE SEPTUAGINT CAN'T BE TRUSTED! EVEN THE ORIGINAL FIRST 5 BOOKS WERE PURPOSELY MISTRANSLATED INTO GREEK BY THE JEWS... NEITHER DO THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS SAY WHAT CHRISTIANS CLAIM!

Matt Sieger

"CHRISTIANS ARE KNOWN TO FORGE AND CHANGE DOCUMENTS TO FIT WITH THEIR BELIEFS." That's quite an accusation. You are basically saying that Christians are liars, which is antithetical to everything taught in the New Testament and anything that Jesus ever said. On what basis do you make this statement? What is your evidence? Where is your proof?

ARIN

Can you prove from an earlier manuscript of the septuagint that the copy Origin made is unchanged? No, because there are not any older manuscripts around to check and verify. Even if the septuagint agreed with the greek testament rendering, it makes no difference, it still is not the authoritative text, which Israel were,are,will be the custodians of.

Fish Mooney

Can you prove from an earlier manuscript that the Masoretic text is unchanged? No, because there are not any original manuscripts around to check and verify. So you have the same problem.

bill lynch

in isiaih 11-11 in the dead sea scrolls it is talking about the messiah and it says in those days i shall gather my people a second time well the second time god says he gsathered his people is during the second temple the time of jesus we are now in the third ingathering of the jews so the rabbis cant possibly be waiting for their messiah.

Rabbi Samuel Steinbe

Hebrew Transliteration. Meaning







כאר'. Kaari. "Like a lion"



This common word appears in all the Masoretic texts in the world.

כארו Kaaru. Does not exist in the Hebrew language



Christians claim that this non- existent word means “pierced,” and appears in the Nahal Hever Cave.

כרו Karu. "Dig". or. "excavate"

Karu



The root of this word appears many times in Tanach. It does not mean to “pierce” through flesh.


The Rabbis who translated the Septuaging bible did not translate Psalms. That was done after Jesus died.

Rich Robinson

"Christians claim that this non- existent word means “pierced,” and appears in the Nahal Hever Cave." Well, you don't have to be a Christian to know what's in the Dead Sea Scrolls. "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’!" - Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, eds. and trans., The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1999), page 519. Moreover, "a reading also found in about a dozen medieval Masoretic manuscripts—recogniz ed as the authoritative texts in traditional Jewish thought—where instead of ka’ari (found in almost all other Masoretic manuscripts) the texts say either ka’aru or karu." - Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 3 (Baker Books), who in a footnote says, "The exact evidence as documented in the standard edition of Kennicot and de Rossi lists seven Masoretic manuscripts reading k’rw, while three other manuscripts have the reading krw in the margins. It has also been pointed out by some scholars that the Hebrew word used for 'lion' in Psalm 22:13[14] is the more common ’aryeh, making it more doubtful that a different form of the word, namely, ’ari, would be used just two verses later. "

Rabbi Samuel Steinbe

Psalms does not contain prophecies so none of them refer to Jesus

Rich Robinson

Rabbinic commentators widely regard many of the psalms to be speaking of the (future) Messiah, so yes they can be prophetic even as they are at the same time prayers. For example, re: Psalm 2 see http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/is-psalm-2-considered-messianic-by-the-rabbis-and-jewish-sages

Arin

In nature, lions don't "peirce", lions tear their prey. The torah says in Deut 17, to listen to the judges, and priests, and elders of Israel, in your day... that means the Orthodox Rabbis in our time. If you would trust to listen to a christian answer, than you are not following God's instructions given in His Torah, and you prefer to follow another interpretation, that of Esau and rome.

Rich Robinson

If you go with the reading of "pierced" then lions don't enter into it, the whole discussion is about ka'ari vs. ka'aru or a similar reading. No, Deuteronomy 17 doesn't refer to Orthodox rabbis of today. Deut. 17 concerns homicides and assaults that are too difficult to decide at the local level, so you go to the priest or judge.