Thursday, August 11, 2022
The Million-dollar Question
Saturday, August 6, 2022
Friday, August 5, 2022
Thursday, August 4, 2022
The Secrets of Psalm 22 - Part II
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.
Wednesday, August 3, 2022
The Secrets of Psalm 22 - Part I
The other night I watched an interesting video on Youtube. Its title was "The Secret of Psalm 22." If you look closely at this blog entry, you'll see that I've given it the title "The Secrets of Psalm 22," with "Secrets" in the plural. I believe that Psalm 22 holds several secrets, not just one. Here's a link to the Youtube video:
The video is not only very interesting: it's quite pleasant to watch. A young woman ("Anastasia") interacts with Dr. Seth Postell. I enjoyed the dialog between them as he made his exposition concerning Psalms 22.16 (22.17 in the Hebrew text). As it turns out, there is a huge controversy concerning this verse. In the NASB it reads:
For dogs have surrounded me,
A band of evildoers has encompassed me;
They pierced my hands and my feet.
This verse (and others as well) is believed by Christians to refer to the Passion of Christ. But in the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text it says nothing about piercing; instead it says, "Like a lion my hands and my feet." This discrepancy has caused the Christians of trying to hide the Messiah, and the Jews to accuse the Christians of twisting the text to fit their agenda.
Dr. Postell presents a good case for a possible resolution of the problem in which there is no blame for either side. I'll try to reconstruct his case as best I can, since it is one that I can agree with, as far as it goes.
All of the Christian translations are ultimately based on the Septuagint (LXX), a Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, which is almost a thousand years older than our oldest copy of the Masoretic Text, and is based on an earlier form of the Hebrew text. That earlier form is not very different, but there are differences. The Greek of the Septuagint says, "They gouged my hands and my feet.." Nothing about a lion, nor does it say, "pierced." How are we to explain this?
Well, we can explain it with the help of some very old Hebrew manuscripts. The verb in two of them is
כרו (pronounced "karu"), meaning "they dug," causing that part of the verse to read "They dug my hands and my feet." This earlier form of the Hebrew text is no doubt where the Greek "they gouged" came from. But this verb normally means "to dig," as in the dirt. It doesn't mean "to pierce," which would require a different Hebrew verb.
The corresponding word in the other old Hebrew manuscript is כארו. We have to remember that when the psalm was written there were no vowel-pointing systems. Even today (in Yiddish, for example) one puts in an aleph (א) to represent an "a" vowel. But this apparently confused one of the Masoretes, who did not recognize it as another "karu." But looking at another verse in the psalm, he saw mention of lions, and thought it must be כארי (like a lion), differing only in the length of one stroke. This causes the line in the Masoretic Text to read, "like a lion, my hands and my feet." This is awkward, since there is no verb (which can happen in poetry), so most translators add a word or phrase in italics: "mauled," or "seized," or "at my," and so on. But these words are not in the Hebrew.
Dr. Postell's theory is brilliant, and I believe it sufficiently explains the variant reading in the Masoretic Text. But I don't believe it goes far enough. We are still left with "dug," which does not mean "pierced."
If I open my copy of the Vulgate to pp. 792 and 793 of Vol. I, I see, on the left side, Jerome's Latin according to the Septuagint. In that part of the verse it says, "foderunt manus meas et pedes meos" (they dug my hands and my feet." When I look at the righthand page, which has his translation according to the Hebrew text of his time, I see "vinxerunt manus meas et pedes meos" (they bound my hands and my feet). Apparently the Hebrew text of his time, or at least his copy of it, had a much more reasonable reading than "dug." Consulting my Hebrew dictionary, I find that one of the verbs meaning "to bind" looks very similar to "karu," but it is now used only for "binding books." That verb is כָּרַךְ, which without pointing would simply be כרך. Although that Hebrew verb is not, apparently, used in the Bible, a possibly related Aramaic verb is, in Daniel 3:20-1, where it refers to the binding of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. כרך is very similar in appearance to כרו, which could cause a confusion between "bound" and "dug." Further, the similarity is at least as strong in Paleo Hebrew as it is in Square Hebrew writing.
It is well known that the Evangelists used mostly the Septuagint (LXX) for their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures. The meaning "gouged" Greek probably indicates that the LXX translators had before them a Hebrew text containing the misreading "dug" for "bound." St. Jerome, in the Vulgate, was too honest to change "dug" to "pierced." Others though, including the translators of the KJV and many later translators, did so.
(to be continued)
Copyright © 2022 by Donald C. Traxler aka Donald Jacobson Traxler.