In my last blog entry I reviewed Dr. Seth Postell's excellent theory that explains the difference between the Masoretic Text reading "like a lion" and the older Septuagint reading "they dug," or "they gouged" in Psalms 22.16 (22.17 in Hebrew). I agreed with Dr. Postell's theory, but said it didn't go far enough. I presented evidence for an actual original reading of "they bound my hands and my feet," which makes more sense and is supported by "vinxerunt" in Jerome's second translation of the Psalms, which he based on the Hebrew text of his time. Others may have presented this latter theory, but since I haven't read them, I'll simply refer to it as mine, at least for now. I am, after all, a naked poet, not an academic.
There will be those who will be quick (and rightly so) to point out the weaknesses in my theory. I'll head them off by doing it myself.
1) The verb כרך is now only used in the sense of "to bind a book." It does not appear elsewhere in the Bible, but a possibly related Aramaic verb does, in Daniel 3.20-1, referring to the binding of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
2) In my comparisons of the verbs כרה and כרכ, I have shown the former as a plural, but not the latter. This makes them appear more similar. This is true, but the only Hebrew text I have, the Masoretic Text, does not have a verb at all in that part of the verse, and I didn't want to take it upon myself to decide whether it should be singular or plural. The plural form is כרכו. (See the illustration below for the Paleo.) Since this verb does not appear anywhere else in the Bible, the copyist may not have known how to interpret it, and may have opted for כרו instead (from כרה), which does occur about a dozen times in the Bible, always with the meaning "to dig." It NEVER means "to pierce."
Dr. Postell ends his video by giving kudos to modern Bible translators and making the statement that "you can trust your Bible." I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with this statement. For an example, I'll list the ways in which English-language Bibles in use today have handled the verse we have been discussing. Please bear in mind that there is no support in ANY ancient text for the reading "pierced."
KJV "pierced"
NASB "pierced"
NIV "pierced"
Confraternity "pierced"
NAB "So wasted"
NWT "they are at"
RSV "pierced"
The reader may remember that the title of this piece is "The Secrets (plural) of Psalm 22." So let's look at another example.
The last line of this Psalm says (KJV): They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this." This is quite a good translation, and it agrees with the Hebrew (the word צִדְקָתוֹ literally means "his justice," or "his righteousness"). But in many Christian Bibles the meaning has been changed to "his deliverance," which in Hebrew would be a completely different word. Let's take a look at the ways in which several English-language Bibles in common use have translated this word:
KJV "righteousness"
NASB "righteousness"
NIV "righteousness"
Confraternity "justice"
NAB "deliverance"
NWT "righteousness"
RSV "deliverance"
Now, I was raised a Catholic, though I no longer practice that religion, and it really galls me that the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine changed their translation (in 1991) from "justice" in the Confraternity version to "deliverance" in the NAB, thus falling in line with the RSV and its descendants. After all, they had the correct translation for at least 1,600 years (and reconfirmed it in the Liber Psalmorum of 1945), and there is NO support for "deliverance" in any ancient text. The Confraternity would no doubt say that they did it for "ecumenical reasons," but it is obviously a change made for theological, not linguistic reasons. All who know Hebrew will grimace when they see that obviously tendentious translation.
So, if I know so much about it, why haven't I done a new translation of the Psalms? Well, I considered it, and in fact I did translate about thirty of them. But one of my Jewish friends said that she knew people who would not accept my translation because it was not based on the Masoretic Text. Well, if those unnamed people prefer "like a lion my hands and my feet" to "they bound my hands and my feet," they can have it. I believe God gave us intelligence, expecting us to use it.
Nu, have I covered all the secrets of Psalm 22? Not really, but its greatest secret is that it is three-thousand-year-old Hebrew religious poetry that has absolutely NOTHING to do with events of a thousand years later, including the Passion Narrative of the Christian Gospels. It is clear that Christian writers forced their narrative onto Psalm 22. I do not deny the possibility that the Psalmist may have foreseen events of a thousand years later, but I am a strong believer in Occam's Razor.
Copyright © 2022 by Donald C. Traxler aka Donald Jacobson Traxler.
