Psalm 22:17, Hebrew Text, "Like A Lion". Who's Lion?

[iskander]

It means Christians have one religion and others have another religion,

[spin]

It means Christians have one religion and others have another religion,

It seems to me that you are unable to respond to questions reasoningly.

[iskander]

It has been a long thread. Everything has been said already.

[rakovsky]

Dear Joe,

The fact that you pointed out how the yods have a wider top usually than the waws, and the fact that you watched the whole Dr. Michael Brown video even though it turned out you knew the info anyway suggests to me you have a sincere interest in this topic. I like that.

I am fascinated in it too, and ultimately the main thing for me is understanding the passage, rather than one of the readings being right.

My own best guess is that David is actually implying both things in the passage - that the narrator's hands were gouged by the enemies like a lion. One of the reasons for this is because of the rabbinical commentaries. Over the last 2000 years, they generally have said that the enemies were, like a lion, attacking, biting, or otherwise harming the hands. In fact, even if David were to use one word (eg. "gouge" and not "like a lion"), I still think he is implying the other concept (eg. both attacking / biting / gouging and "like a lion"), as both can be found in the rabbinic commentaries and text variants.

Regards.

[spin]

Here is what the narrator's enemies are described as doing:

7 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; 12 Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; 13 they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. 16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me like a lion 18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots

There is not a single act of physical violence recorded in the psalm against the narrator. Insinuating violence into verse 16 is unprecedented and unjustified.

Here is the narrator's petition to God:

19 But you, O Lord, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! 20 Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! 21 Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen!

He has not been delivered to the sword, nor have the dogs taken his precious life. The mouth of the lion hasn't been employed, nor have the horns of the wild oxen.

Things might be a little different had he lost a hand or the lion had gnawed his leg, but it didn't happen. One could say, look they did this or that, but nothing is there. They open their mouths. They encircle him. The lion roars. But there is no bloodbath.

All this stuff that assumes the lion did something harmful to the narrator has not one iota of support in the text.

He feels like a worm because he is scorned and despised and mocked.

I cannot help the fact that, because the verse is problematical, people have had read all sorts of things into it. It is all eisegesis.

Rakovsky, bound to this tradition and overburdened with the task of forcing "pierced" into the text, has tried by hook and by crook to get it there. He has given up on the Nahal Hever fragment because he realizes he can no longer make any headway with it, given that he cannot distinguish the YODs and the WAWs found in the fragment. He has assiduously avoided the fact that there is no precedent for turning כארי into כארו when כארו means nothing in Hebrew. All the talk about gouging as a means to leap from the LXX "dug" to his desired "pierced" has no linguistic basis. The LXX translation simply reflects no Hebrew. Rakovsky is merely beholden to a bad old christian tradition that has no biblical foundation. This "pierced" stuff is all extra-biblical. It doesn't matter though how much you bring up against his attempt to pervert the text, he will cling to his commitment, restating it, and not respond to the problems with it. So no-one has physically done anything to the narrator, it must have happened while we weren't looking: we'll turn his inner state of unease into the result of some unstated physical aggression and rewrite the bit we can't understand. You can't really argue with that. It cannot be falsified. But it doesn't derive from the text, so it has no philological value.

All that won't cause any pause to reflect. This is a case where ontology trumps epistemology. He knows what's what, so how you get there doesn't matter. How often have you seen that?

[rakovsky]

Here is what the narrator's enemies are described as doing:

7 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; 12 Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; 13 they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. 16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me like a lion

1. Where did "my hands and my feet" go in v. 16? It looks like a faulty translation without it.

2. When you put the hands and feet in v. 16, it looks like this:
For a company of evildoers encircles/encloses/"goes about" me, like a lion [encloses] my hands and my feet.
Here 's Strong's for naqaph, the word in Blue. Depending on the case, naqaph can even mean wound or strike.
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5362.htm

Question: How does a lion enclose someone's hands and feet other than by biting or clawing them?

3. You need to quote vv. 14-15 in your translation and answer what made the narrator pour out, get his bones out of joint, and what the "dust of death" refers to.

4. Look at the order. In v. 13 The lion is hungry and has his mouth open. vv.14 - 15 The narrator pours out "for" the enemies surround him, ________ his hands and his feet.

A man was surrounded by enemies with swords; they were like a hungry lion's mouth; he poured out, his bones were all out of joint, and he laid in the dust of death because the enemies surrounded him and ________ his hands and his feet. Afterwards they stare at him and divy up his clothes.

Pretty easy guess what the answer is to Question #3.

5. Back in v. 12-13 there is an obvious parallel to v. 16. Enemies are repeated twice as surrounding the narrator, and the mouths (plural) are "open", "like" hungry and roaring "lion.
In v. 16 The parallel is showing up with the enemies surrounding twice, and in your preferred text variant, it mentions a lion. But... where is the parallel to open hungry loud mouths? The hands and feet could be "open" if the lion bit them. But where is the ravening and roaring? It's not mentioned because the lion is biting with a closed mouth, and it's feeding, so its not hungry. Based on the poetic structure of the chiasm, a reasonable interpreter can see the indications of the poetic eating by the lion.

Base don the parallel construction with vv. 13 and 16, just as the enemies armed with swords open their mouths like a lion who wants to eat would, they enclose the hands and feet like a lion would, and that in turn refers to the jaws and teeth.

I can see how the nonChristian Aquila used bind and disfigure in this verse. A lion's enclosing a limb with his mouth both catches and pierces it. If enemies were going to do that, they could use ropes and also stab it. Interesting connection to the binding and nailing of the limbs at the crucifixion, BTW. I found elsewhere in Psalms the narrator talking about enemies catching his feet with a net.(Psalm 25:15) In that verse, the narrator's feet were trapped in the net and then God freed him from it. That's like the binding of the feet that Aquila saw in verse 16 of Psalm 22.

Insinuating violence into verse 16 is unprecedented and unjustified.

I would be interested to see how you consider the Targum (2nd c. AD?), Rashi, the JPT, and Artscroll Tanakh as not counting as precedents in interpreting violence to the limbs.

All that won't cause any pause to reflect.

Selah.

What I like about Joe is that he is pretty into this stuff and looks genuinely interested into getting at the real meaning even if it doesn't match his preferences.

Regards.

[rakovsky]

Rakovsky has given up on the Nahal Hever fragment because he realizes he can no longer make any headway with it, given that he cannot distinguish the YODs and the WAWs found in the fragment.

Actually, as I understand it, Joe and I are in agreement that the waws, like the letter at the end of kari/karu here, tend to be a bit longer, go down farther, and have shorter - caps at the top than the yods. I don't feel a need to debate him on that point, and am actually open to either word being there in the very original composition.

I do think that based on the poetic structure of noun + harmful action being repeated all over that passage for about 10 verses, the text implies that a verb should be there, not "like a lion". But "like a lion" does structurally fit with v. 13 too. Maybe the author meant both.

I understand you want to give me a challenge game of guessing yods and waws with the rest of the word being hidden, with your own implicit conclusion being that there is no predictable difference. And I do love your ingenuity and creativity with pictures, like your idea to underline the text fragment in color weeks ago. But since you yourself said that the words are sometimes scrunched, it doesn't work to just measure and guess a letter without seeing if it's part of a scrunched word or not.

That's a bit of like guessing the difference between handwritten ' and l , or _ and - , if you can't see the size of the words next to them in a manuscript and you know the handwriting size changes.

[spin]

Here is what the narrator's enemies are described as doing:

7 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; 12 Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; 13 they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. 16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me like a lion

1. Where did "my hands and my feet" go in v. 16? It looks like a faulty translation without it.

If you'd read the thread properly I told you about it, then asked later for a response on the issue. You did not respond.

But you plainly do not read very carefully, generally. For example, I said at the beginning of the post you are trying to respond to, "Here is what the narrator's enemies are described as doing:" You blithely ignored that and blundered on....

2. When you put the hands and feet in v. 16,

When you ignore stuff, you don't really know what you are talking about. You see I have already explained why "hands and feet" are not with "like a lion".

it looks like this:
For a company of evildoers encircles/encloses/"goes about" me, like a lion [encloses] my hands and my feet.
Here 's Strong's for naqaph, the word in Blue. Depending on the case, naqaph can even mean wound or strike.
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5362.htm

Sadly when you have to depend on Strongs you only show the fact that you don't know what you are talking about. But hey, the form of the verb we are dealing with his a hiphil. Can you show us even one example of a hiphil of this verb indicating anything other than the usual meaning of "go round, encompass, etc"? Come on, just one would be sufficient. Or you can read the Brown-Driver_Briggs section here and forget you spoke.

Question: How does a lion enclose someone's hands and feet other than by biting or clawing them?

Case in point. Read the thread and pay attention.

3. You need to quote vv. 14-15 in your translation and answer what made the narrator pour out, get his bones out of joint, and what the "dust of death" refers to.

You need to read what you are responding to. You plainly ignored it. I did not quote the whole psalm, but those parts that showed what the narrator's enemies did. And that was nothing physically harmful against him. Learn to read.

4. Look at the order. In v. 13 The lion is hungry and has his mouth open. vv.14 - 15 The narrator pours out "for" the enemies surround him, ________ his hands and his feet.

Still fishing for what you don't know. And hoping conjecture is good enough.

A man was surrounded by enemies with swords; they were like a hungry lion's mouth; he poured out, his bones were all out of joint, and he laid in the dust of death because the enemies surrounded him and ________ his hands and his feet. Afterwards they stare at him and divy up his clothes.

You are just bullshitting now.

Pretty easy guess what the answer is to Question #3.

You can guess whatever you like. It means little.

You failed to read or understand what you are responding to.

5. Back in v. 12-13 there is an obvious parallel to v. 16. Enemies are repeated twice as surrounding the narrator, and the mouths (plural) are "open", "like" hungry and roaring "lion.
In v. 16 The parallel is showing up with the enemies surrounding twice, and in your preferred text variant, it mentions a lion. But... where is the parallel to open hungry loud mouths? The hands and feet could be "open" if the lion bit them. But where is the ravening and roaring? It's not mentioned because the lion is biting with a closed mouth, and it's feeding, so its not hungry. Based on the poetic structure of the chiasm, a reasonable interpreter can see the indications of the poetic eating by the lion.

Rubbish. You are just making things up. You don't respond to what people say to you. Naturally you can't. So you repeat your flailing stuff.

So I'll just repeat the facts: there is no physical harm expressed in the psalm. Conjecture about a verse you don't understand gets you nowhere. You know you have no trace of physical harm narrated.

Base don the parallel construction with vv. 13 and 16, just as the enemies armed with swords open their mouths like a lion who wants to eat would, they enclose the hands and feet like a lion would, and that in turn refers to the jaws and teeth.

Yet still no physical harm in the text.

I can see how the nonChristian Aquila used bind and disfigure in this verse.

Not a jot of help to your "pierced", but for lack of anything better to say, you try to gain an inch with Aquila. Yes, Aquila used "bound". Where did he get it from? What linguistic trajectory helps you to weasel your way to "pierced"?

A lion's enclosing a limb with his mouth both catches and pierces it.

Yup, not in the text. Just plain psychobabble.

If enemies were going to do that, they could use ropes and also stab it.

Well, could they now? How bout that?

Interesting connection to the binding and nailing of the limbs at the crucifixion, BTW.

Gosh, how ever did you conjure that up? Do you not understand how silly this all is? You are continuing to fail to do your job. You play act with Strongs. You conjecture here and there. This is just one big pile of bullshit.

I found elsewhere in Psalms the narrator talking about enemies catching his feet with a net.(Psalm 25:15) In that verse, the narrator's feet were trapped in the net and then God freed him from it. That's like the binding of the feet that Aquila saw in verse 16 of Psalm 22.

This is called flow of consciousness.

Insinuating violence into verse 16 is unprecedented and unjustified.

I would be interested to see how you consider the Targum (2nd c. AD?), Rashi, the JPT, and Artscroll Tanakh as not counting as precedents in interpreting violence to the limbs.

So you believe it's better to have support in your error than know what you are talking about. Where in the psalm outside the problematical verse 22:16 do any translations demonstrate to you in their text physical harm to the narrator??

Asked to show any actual physical harm in the text we are dealing with and instead of evidence you come out with other people interpret the psalm to be dealing with physical violence. This just points to the fact that you cannot do what you were asked. If you cannot show me the actual physical violence in the psalm (as you have failed to do so far), you should admit that you cannot and move on.

There is no physical violence in Ps 22, let alone any death. No-one understands Ps 22:16, though it clearly featured "like a lion" in antiquity for the LXX to have the mistake it has. The mistake is simple to understand because of the WAW/YOD confusion. But that mistake doesn't help your mangling of the text one bit. The verb "dug" in Hebrew is about making pits and wells. It has nothing to do with "gouged" let alone "pierced". It has no Hebrew Vorlage. It is plainly a mistake.

At this stage, all you are doing is arguing against me, because you cannot argue for your views.

[spin]

Rakovsky has given up on the Nahal Hever fragment because he realizes he can no longer make any headway with it, given that he cannot distinguish the YODs and the WAWs found in the fragment.

Actually, as I understand it, Joe and I are in agreement that the waws,

I'm sure Joe will be pleased. Now let's look for some substance....

...like the letter at the end of kari/karu here, tend to be a bit longer, go down farther, and have shorter - caps at the top than the yods. I don't feel a need to debate him on that point, and am actually open to either word being there in the very original composition.

Hopefully you understand the meaning of "tend to" here. It does not mean "have to" or that "all do". You could not distinguish the YODs and WAWs in the last new image I posted, because they were all of similar lengths. You won't acknowledge that fact. But other people can see. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I do think that based on the poetic structure of noun + harmful action being repeated all over that passage for about 10 verses,

There is no act indicating physical harm in the psalm. You have failed to show any. The only place you find any physical harm is when it is injected into the verse that no-one understands.

the text implies that a verb should be there, not "like a lion".

That's an interesting opinion. The Masoretes certainly don't agree with you. They opted for "like a lion" which is apparently what they found in the text already and you are in no position to say that they are wrong.

But "like a lion" does structurally fit with v. 13 too. Maybe the author meant both.

Hmmm, maybe you could try to get some facts.

I understand you want to give me a challenge game of guessing yods and waws with the rest of the word being hidden, with your own implicit conclusion being that there is no predictable difference.

As I demonstrated, there is no difference in size between those YODs and WAWs I posted. Talk of tendencies is one thing but the evidence of your eyes needs to be followed up.

And I do love your ingenuity and creativity with pictures, like your idea to underline the text fragment in color weeks ago. But since you yourself said that the words are sometimes scrunched, it doesn't work to just measure and guess a letter without seeing if it's part of a scrunched word or not.

The scrunching stuff works for "hands" because it is demonstrably so. You have seen the fragment. Here is the good photo I used. Show me other "scrunching" or stop the overproduction of bovine dust.

That's a bit of like guessing the difference between handwritten ' and l , or _ and - , if you can't see the size of the words next to them in a manuscript and you know the handwriting size changes.

Are you telling me you write as badly as you argue? But knock yourself out: demonstrate signs of scrunching of the WAWs I posted. Thrill us with your incisive analysis of the ancient writing.

[james_C]

A man was surrounded by enemies with swords; they were like a hungry lion's mouth;

maybe they were doing communion eucharist?
maybe they were drinking blood and eating flesh of the victim?