-6

Can you give me a link to where I can confirm that the Dead Sea Scrolls state 'they pierced' and not 'lion'?

Harel13
  • 25,676
  • 4
  • 58
  • 136
Rodger Dusatko
  • 27
  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic as a combination of Comparative Religion and Question about Hebrew Language. It seeks a proof text for Christianity, which is not on topic here. – Seth J Nov 02 '15 at 20:47
  • 1
    This is an old question but (1) the question is poor, i.e., it lacks much context to even understand what this is about and (2) if the question is about what Christians think of the Dead Sea Scrolls is it really in scope for MY ? – mbloch Dec 30 '17 at 18:19
  • 3
    @SethJ Asking for what different different textual versions of a classical Jewish text say, seems squarely on topic. The motivation may or may not be Chritian, but the question is not about Christianity, but about a Jewish text, and variants of it. – mevaqesh Dec 30 '17 at 23:22
  • related: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/23531/what-ancient-sources-discuss-the-meaning-of-psalm-22/88116#88116 – mbloch Dec 31 '17 at 03:33
  • @mev The OP seeks a visual of an old, apparently confusing looking, text that Christianity says means something very different from what Judaism says. The OP further expressly stated that the motivation was to prove the Christian rendering. I stand by my comment/vote. – Seth J Dec 31 '17 at 04:28
  • 1
    @SethJ As far as I know it is false to assert that "Judaism" has some canonical interpretation of a DSS. A given text of Psalms, or even a given interpretation, is hardly a proof for Christianity. – mevaqesh Dec 31 '17 at 04:34
  • I don't understand your objection to my objection. You don't sound serious. Are you joking? – Seth J Dec 31 '17 at 04:37
  • 1
    I am quite serious. Which point do you think is not serious? (Perhaps you misunderstood my usage of the term 'proof'. I meant it in the rigorous sense, as in mathematics. The fact that some passage mentions (and I am by no mans claiming it does) someone getting his hands pierced =/= Jesus is the Messiah). Of course it is used as "proof", but it isn't actually proof.@SethJ – mevaqesh Dec 31 '17 at 04:59

2 Answers2

15

Tehillim 22:17 (17 is the counting in Jewish editions) in the Masoretic text reads:

יז כִּי סְבָבוּנִי כְּלָבִים עֲדַת מְרֵעִים הִקִּיפוּנִי כָּאֲרִי יָדַי וְרַגְלָי

17 For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet.

Rashi: like a lion, my hands and feet: 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.”

(I cite Rashi above only for completeness and to show how the traditional Jewish interpretation. It is not needed for the answer to the question.)

The answer to your question is No. The assumption that the word "pierced" is in the Dead Sea Scrolls is not true. As we see in the following:

Dead sea scrolls and Psalm 22

Written by Uri Yosef, Psalms 22 - "Nailing" An Alleged Crucifixion Scenario Lesson notes

fragments containing Psalms 22:17[16] were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). In the first fragment, which was found at Qumran (4QPs-f; known as the Qumran MS, the word in question is not preserved.

In the second fragment, found at Nahal Hever (HHev/Se 4 (Ps); known as the Bar Kochba MS, the word is preserved.

The fragment HHev/Se 4 (Ps) shows the Hebrew letters (kaf), (aleph), (resh), and what appears to be a somewhat elongated letter (yod), which some perceive to be the letter (vav).[3] Thus, the reading of this word would be either (ka'ari) or (ka'aru), respectively.

Although the latter of these two renditions of the term has been the focus of much controversy and discussion, it is a fact that no root verb exists which contains the letter (aleph) in it, conjugated in this fashion (3rd-person, plural masculine gender, past tense), with the meaning of they pierced, as rendered in most Christian translations.

Without the letter (aleph), and using, for the moment, the argument that the last letter [the elongated (yod)] is a (vav), the word would be (karu), for which the Hebrew root verb is (karah), [to] dig [in dirt], such as digging a ditch (e.g., Ps 57:7). In other words, (karu) has the meaning [they] dug [in dirt]. This verb is never used in the context of piercing, either literally or metaphorically, in any of its 15 applications in the Hebrew Bible.

What could cause such a variation between the two terms (ka'ari) and (ka'aru), i.e., with an elongated letter (yod) that resembles the letter (vav)? Since the word (ka'aru) does not exist in the Hebrew language, the most plausible explanation is that such discrepancy is simply a case of scribal variation (or error).

The word in Psalm 22 is ka'ari (lion) not karu (which means "to dig" BTW, as in digging a ditch, not pierce).

The Dead Sea Scroll version of the Psalm has kaari, but some Xians think it is kaaru because the yod is longer than normal and can be mistaken for a vav.

But here lies the problem: kaaru is NOT a word. There is no such word in Hebrew ancient or modern. Karu is a word -- but that isn't what is in the Dead Sea Scrolls or in any other Hebrew copy of the Psalm.

Ka'aru is not a word but karu IS a word. Some Xians try and say that the word in Psalm 22 should be karu. The only problem is that karu doesn't mean "pierced" either. It means to dig". If you use its cognate 3rd person plural masculine gender "KARU" it translates to they dug. But note that kara or karu do not us the letter "aleph".

Kaf-resh-vav is a word. Kaf-ALEPH-resh-vav is not a word. It is as if someone came upon dutg in English and wants to say it is dug.

BTW the KJV translates ka'ari correctly in other places that arent proof texts misquoted by the GT.

Numbers 23:24 (veka'ari), and I as a young lion

Numbers 24:9 (ka'ari), like a lion

Isaiah 38:13 (ka'ari), like a lion

Ezekiel 22:25 (ka'ari), like a lion

So the KJV translators correctly translated it until they got to Psalms 22:17[16] and suddenly the KJV doesn't know what it means and translates it as "they pierced."

One more little bit of Hebrew grammar. If the word really was "pierced," (which we've proven it is not) the sentence would have an "et" to identify the direct object which would be affected by that verb. There is no et.

mevaqesh
  • 35,599
  • 2
  • 98
  • 176
sabbahillel
  • 43,108
  • 7
  • 47
  • 88
  • also apparently the septuagint may have "dug", but post the 5 books, it was completed by 132AD so presumably after christianity. There is a wikipedia page on the phrase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_have_pierced_my_hands_and_my_feet – barlop Apr 05 '17 at 12:11
  • @barlop I would not use the Septuagint as a translation in most circumstances as it is not a Jewish translation. I would also usually not use wikipedia as a source because I do not know who wrote the article. If I had written the article, then I might refer to to it (:-) – sabbahillel Apr 05 '17 at 13:05
  • 3
    @sabbahillel It was actually a Jewish translation written long before Christianity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint – b a Dec 30 '17 at 19:14
  • @ba As pointed out in the wikipedia citation, the original targum shiv'im (septuagint) was only the Torah. The tehillim translation was much later and the particular translation being referenced was christian. – sabbahillel Dec 31 '17 at 02:56
  • also note the detailed refutation here – mbloch Dec 31 '17 at 03:34
  • 2
    @sabbahillel I don't see anywhere in the Wikipedia article that the Septuagint on Psalms was written by Christians, or even after the advent of Christianity. The fact that it was brought as a proof-text by Christians doesn't make it a Christian translation. Differences between the MT and Septuagint in details such as י and ו or ד and ר are very common and were either found in the Hebrew version the Septuagint translated from, or a misreading by the translator, but were not intentional Christian corruptions – b a Dec 31 '17 at 09:07
  • @ba I said that only the torah was translated by the 70. The Greek title Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, lit. "The Translation of the Seventy", and its abbreviation "LXX", derive from the legend of seventy Jewish scholars who translated the Five Books of Moses into Koine Greek as early as the 3rd century BCE The particular phrase referenced as pierced was invented by christians much later as explained in my post and by Rabbi Singer in the link comment shown by mbloch. Nahal Hever came from a later period; between the two Jewish Wars (between 70 CE and 135 CE) and was a discarded bad copy – sabbahillel Dec 31 '17 at 14:45
  • 2
    @ba a misreading by the translator could not have been because the word translated as pierced does not exist in Hebrew and therefore could not have been read that way. See the link pointed to by mbloch if you do not trust the link that I reference. – sabbahillel Dec 31 '17 at 15:01
  • 1
    The Septuagint that we have today are shown to have been written much later. Modern critical editions of the Septuagint are based on the Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus which were actually written centuries after christianity took over. – sabbahillel Dec 31 '17 at 15:03
  • @sabbahillel I think Rabbi Singer is incorrect in calling it a Christian interpolation, or being a discarded bad copy, especially since this text appears in both the LXX and DSS manuscripts. I don't think that anyone familiar with the LXX or the DSS would be surprised that they share a reading against the MT, since this happens hundreds of times across the Bible. This doesn't mean the Christian reading or interpretation is necessarily correct, but any mistake or alternate reading was probably made by Jews. Christians interpret the entire psalm differently even where they share the MT's text. – b a Dec 31 '17 at 16:29
  • 1
    @ba the point is that Rabbi Singer and many others are right that only nonJews would have made that misteak (sic) in the first place. – sabbahillel Dec 31 '17 at 16:32
  • Another point made by Rabbi Singer (that I really wish Uri Yosef would have included) is that the Nachal Chever sroll is chock full of indisputable scribal errors, including I believe in the very next word. – Desert Star Apr 07 '20 at 15:42
  • @sabbahillel: Similar conspiracy theories exist in Christianity as well, with regards to the Masoretic text, inasmuch as its main manuscripts (the Aleppo and Leningrad codices) are much more recent than those of the (Christian) Septuagint, which you've already listed. –  Jul 08 '20 at 01:31
  • @barlop Is 132BCE "The translation process of the Septuagint and from the Septuagint into other versions can be divided into several stages: the Greek text was produced within the social environment of Hellenistic Judaism, and completed by 132 BCE." – barlop Jul 22 '22 at 06:53
  • @DesertStar I doubt that claim is undisputed.. where are the academics saying what tovia singer says about yadeha being a scribal error. I did once hear of a scribal practise of that time to have a final heh infact see watch?v=x9DbWJNMwAc 40:53 a guy mentions about yadeha and mentions "The Hebrew Of The Dead Sea Scrolls by Elisha Qimron" doesn't seem that coherent to me since they mention a kaf. But i've heard things re final heh as a scribal practise, and more significantly, look here https://www.academia.edu/39819667/The_3ms_Suffix_on_Nouns_Written_with_Heh_Mater – barlop Sep 17 '22 at 17:54
  • @DesertStar so that article https://www.academia.edu/39819667/The_3ms_Suffix_on_Nouns_Written_with_Heh_Mater The 3ms Suffix on Nouns Written with Heh Mater " the 3ms suffix with heh mater found in the Wisdom of Ben Sira (Reymond, forthcoming). The present paper presents more evidence concerning the suffix in the Masoretic Text (= MT) and Dead Sea Scrolls (= DSS) " – barlop Sep 17 '22 at 17:55
0

I think you're referring to the Nachal Chever fragment. Here's a link to fragment 6 of 5/6Hev 1b 891. I gather that this is the word in question:

enter image description here

And here's a digitally enhanced version of the image, from an article on the topic by Rabbi Tovia Singer:

enter image description here

There's also this fragment from 4Q88 from Qumran, but the relevant word flaked off.

Harel13
  • 25,676
  • 4
  • 58
  • 136
  • thanks, could you elaborate on what words are on that 4Q88 fragment and what words aren't? – barlop Jul 22 '22 at 06:47
  • 1
    @barlop I don't have time now to find an expert reading, but from what I can make out, the last line that can still be read (above the bottom one which has flaked off), the words ]כלבים עדת מר can be seen. These are from Psalm 22:17, the verse in question, but the word in question, כארו/כארי is not on this fragment; it's later on in the verse. – Harel13 Jul 22 '22 at 14:01
  • thanks, I wonder if there's a bit of that כארו/כארי word in 4Q88 , for example see https://i.stack.imgur.com/8qdZ3.png shows הקיפוני כר and mentions it as being at 4Q88 f1_2:25 do you have any idea where that reference would be on https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/ ? also, while I see the fragment you mentioned, Plate 1149, Frag 1 doesn't have any of the word כארו/כארי, it does have some of the verse. What led you to check, of 4Q88, specifically, Plate 1149, Frag 1 ? – barlop Jul 22 '22 at 15:44
  • @barlop I can try to look up the fragment when I have more time, but that won't be for a few days. Why I checked 4Q88 - I really don't remember. I probably saw a reference to it somewhere. – Harel13 Jul 22 '22 at 16:13
  • hi, just a reminder if you have some time, to look it up? Thanks i.e. what hebrew letters/words of that verse are on 4Q88.. Like how Tovia Singer pointed to the hebrew words on the nahal hever fragment and wrote what the hebrew words they are.. i'd really like to know that for 4Q88 – barlop Sep 18 '22 at 00:21