Psalm 22: an alternative explanation

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2067
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Psalm 22: an alternative explanation

Post by iskander » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:35 am

rakovsky wrote:
kennethgreifer wrote:now like a lion and his bones are not separated anymore.
He says he can count all his bones and they stare at him, so it sounds like they are still damaged in status.
I don't know where it says the limbs rejoined
he felt like a worm which does not have hands, feet, or bones,
Interesting issue.
If his bones are out of joint, it explains why he feels like a worm.
I did not think of this before.

What would his enemies do to him to disjoint his limbs?
Crucifixion can do that to a person.

Image

New important ideas and info for me in this thread.
The music that time forgot
https://www.youtube.com/user/Callixtinus
Chant of Benevento
Title: "Adoramus Crucem Tuam" - Psalm 22 "Deus Deus Meus Respice in Me"
Service: Service of the Adoration of the Cross
This channel has been created for people who appreciate chanting and contemplative music, not as a herald against other religions or atheism. It is impossible to severe liturgical chants from their religious context but that is no excuse for hatred and intolerance.
From, about

Contemplative music is served now with a health warning
Enjoy!

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1001
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22: an alternative explanation

Post by rakovsky » Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:07 pm

kennethgreifer wrote:I have alternative translations for a few more quotes in Psalm 22.

Psalm 22:2-3 says that the psalm writer called on G-d for help, but G-d did not answer.

In the Jewish Publication Society's 1917 "The Holy Scriptures", Psalm 22:21-22 says "Deliver my soul from the sword, Mine only one from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion's mouth. Yea, from the horns of the wild oxen do Thou answer me."

I think it says: "Save my soul from the sword. From a dog's paw (hand) my only one. Save me from a lion's mouth and from horns of oxen. You answered me. I will declare Your name unto my brothers..."

I think G-d answered his cries for help from Psalm 22:2-3.
I agree and do not see the narrator's salvation as in contradiction to Psalm 22's description that the narrator was killed, because the Tanakh teaches resurrection and redemption.

A good example: In the beginning of Isaiah 52 and many other places in the Tanakh, Israel is described as being held captive by its enemies and then "redeemed" or "freed". In other words, Israel was saved from its enemies. However, the teaching that Israel was freed in no way negates that Israel was in fact captured and enslaved successfully. Salvation as a concept does not necessarily negate that the person saved was harmed or defeated temporarily.

So a person can save another person, a slave, from slavery, but the fact of salvation doesn't necessarily mean that the person was not a slave.

So if the resurrection-believing narrator says he was poured out, lost the strength of his life, got his bones disjointed (from what besides crucifixion?) and laid in the dust of death, the declaration later that God saved him does not mean that the narrator was not poured out, laid in the dust of death, etc. Resurrection can be the salvation.
JPS 1917 translates Psalm 22:25 as "For He hath not despised nor abhorred the lowliness of the poor, neither hath He hid his face from him, but when he cried unto HIm, He heard."

I think the first part of the quote could say "because He did not hate nor abhor answering (instead of lowliness of) an afflicted one (a poor one)..."

I think this also shows that G-d answered the psalm writer and saved him from his enemies.
I agree that the Psalm indicates that the narrator whom, it describes as killed, was saved.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1001
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22: an alternative explanation

Post by rakovsky » Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:08 pm

Check out Ezekiel 37.
It describes Israel has a bunch of dead bodies in a valley that God reenlivens and returns to their land. God performs salvation of Israel in that chapter, yet....... Ezekiel 37 described Israel as dead.

How can Israel or the narrator of Psalm 22 be saved if they are dead?

Resurrection.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1001
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22: an alternative explanation

Post by rakovsky » Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:24 pm

kennethgreifer wrote:
rakovsky wrote:He never says he or his hands are like a lion (ari), since his lexicon is always to use the word aryeh for lion.

rakovsky,

You said the author only spells "lion" with the letter hay at the end in Psalm 22, but you think the author is David. In Psalm 7:2, 17:12, and Psalm 22 the word "lion" has the hay at the end, and these psalms mention David at the beginning. Psalm 10:9 also has it, but the psalm does not say David wrote it.

David is quoted in 1 Samuel 17:34, 36, and 37 saying "lion" without the hay at the end. Does that mean these quotes are wrong or that David used the shorter spelling too?
One answer:
It is dealing with a different time period or a different author. Schoalrs recognized that Hebrew changed in the centuries. Hebrew in Job and the Torah, they say, is a bit different from Hebrew, say, in Zechariah's time. 1 Samuel is a narration of past events, like David's fate.

If someone today narrates what happened to George Washington and uses a different spelling or version of a word in paraphrasing or quoting G.Washington, it doesn't mean that the paraphrase or quote is simply wrong. It's a different lexicon.

Bill: "Please make sure you never buy used automobiles, if you can help it".
50 years later:
Bill's son: "My Dad always told me 'Never buy used cars if you can help it'".
Also, Ezekiel 1:10 and 10:14 have the long form. Ezekiel 22:25 has the short form.

Amos 3:4 and 3:8 have the long spelling. Amos 3:12 and 5:19 have the short spelling of "lion."
Thanks for pointing this out. Amos the first two times says Aryeh, and the second two times Ha-ari, "the lion".
Ha-ari is used 7 times starting with 1 Samuel:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/haari_738.htm

Ari is used 4 times starting with Proverbs 22, but not in Psalms.
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/ari_738.htm

Ka-ari is used a total of 3-4 times: in Numbers 24:9, and then once in Psalm 22(in question), then Isaiah 38 and Ezekiel 22.

Me-Ari is used in Judges once.
Wa-kari (Like a lion) is in Numbers 23:24.

One conclusion could be that this is could be a very rare term in David's time of writing or earlier, the two exceptions being in Numbers 23-24. Later the term got more common and the later prophets Amos and Ezekiel used both Ari and Aryeh, like how American poets and writers could use older terms (eg. thy and you, car and automobile) in their work.
rakovsky, did you think of this argument or did you read it somewhere?
Good question. I probably did read it somewhere. Others noticed it too.
the usual word for lion in Hebrew is ‘aryeh’ spelt differently from ‘ari’. The word aryeh with its usual form is found in verse 13 of Psalm 22.
http://messiahfactor.com/page65.html
Gleason Archer, professor of Old Testament and Semitic studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, writes,
" . . . we find in the MT of Psalm 22:17 (16 Eng.) the strange phrase "like the lion my hands and my feet" (kaari yaday we raglay) in a context that reads "dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men have encircled me- like the lion my hands and my feet!" This really makes no sense, for lions do not surround the feet of their victims. Rather, they pounce on them and bite them through with their teeth.

Furthermore, this spelling of the word "lion" (ari) is rendered more doubtful by the fact that in v.13 (14MT) the word "lion" appears in the normal way 'aryeh. it is most unlikely that the author would have used used two different spellings of the same word within three verses of each other.

Far more likely is the reading supported by most of the versions: ka'ru (They [i.e. the dogs or evildoers] have pierced" my hands and my feet). This involves merely reading the final letter yodh as a waw, which would make it the past tense of a third person plural verb. This is apparently what the LXX read, for oryxan ("they have bored through") reflects a a karu from the verb kur ("pierce, dig through"). The Vulgate conforms to this with foderunt ("They have dug through"). The Syriac Peshitta has baz'w, which means "they have pierced/penetrated." Probably the ' (aleph) in ka'ru represents a mere vowel lengthener that occasionally appears in the Hasmonean manuscripts such as 1QIsa and the sectarian literature of the second century B.C."
Dr. Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pg. 37

...
There is an occurrence in Rabbinic literature reading the contested word ka'ari/ka'aru as a verb. However, it would not be conclusive in this instance, because hermeneutic principles exercised in midrashic eisegesis sometimes play with the literal reading of the text
http://netzarifaith.ning.com/forum/topi ... orsaken-me
"it's very unlikely that the Psalm's author would change from the normal Hebrew spelling for the word "lion", aryeh in v. 13 to ari in v. 16."
~Eric Snow, A Zeal for God Not According to Knowledge: A Refutation of Judaism's Arguments Against Christianity
"The use of the word lion “ari” in rest of the Tehillim lacks the definite article and is spelled “ARYEH” not “ARI”."
The Dead Sea Scrolls at Khirbet Qumran (4QPs and 5/6HeVPS) read “they pierced” even though they use different spellings. The Scroll 4QPs uses the Hebrew word KARU (Kaf-Resh-Vav) and the 5/6HeVPs uses KA’ARU (Kaf-Alef-Resh- Vav). Karu is the qal perfect 3 rd person plural form of KARAH or KUR and means “to dig, excavate, bore through, and pierce”. There are four other manuscripts that use this word and one of them is 2,050 years old and was found at Qumran.

http://www.bnaiavraham.net/media/d263d7 ... ffe906.pdf
It would be interesting to know more about this. It sounds like he is claiming that some of the other DSS are readable and say KRU here.

He also brings up a good point:
The 5/6HeVPs manuscript at Qumran shows some Aramaic influence. It dates 100 years later than the other manuscript. This form of the word- KA’ARU- is found in seven versions of the Masoretic text. Many Anti-missionaries will claim that KA’ARU is not even a Hebrew word. I ask them the question, “How then did it show up in seven other versions of the Masoretic texts? Why did the Jewish scribes copy this word into the text?” They fail to realize (or hope you do not understand) that many words in Hebrew, as with English, may have more than one spelling.
http://www.bnaiavraham.net/media/d263d7 ... ffe906.pdf
Why didn't those five Masoretic "correct" Ka'aru into Ka Ari if they would have known there was supposed to be a yod here and made such corrections elsewhere? It looks like they were aware of the issue and considered the text to in fact say Ka'aru with a waw.
kennethgreifer wrote: What does all of this mean?
Other than the verse in question in Psalm 22:
Psalms 7, 10 and 17 say Ka Aryeh when the writer wants to say Like a Lion.
The Psalms never use the word Ari.

David does use the verb Karah in Psalm 40:6 metaphorically about the human body.
Psalm 57 and Psalm 119 use Karu ("they dig")
Psalm 7 and 94 use Karah the verb

So the conclusion is that according to the lexicon or vocabulary in the Psalms, Ari and Ka'Ari would be singular exceptions and aberrations. If David/the Psalmist wanted to say "like a lion", his normal way of speaking would be "Ka Aryeh".

Meanwhile, Karu, Karah, Karu are normal for the Psalmist, including to talk about actions onto body parts.

Based on the writer's lexicon, including in Psalm 22 itself, he would probably say Karu, not Ka'ari.

Another possibility, working on the assumption of use of the hypothetical Ari in Chp 22:
While some lions are mentioned in Psalm 22 in a negative way (along with dogs) the Hebrew for them is the aryeh form rather than ari. Thus the lion here which reminds us moderns of a kind of Aslan figure and may allude to the story in antiquity of Apion’s “Androcles and the Lion” and Aesop’s fable of the “Lion and the Mouse”. Both these stories tell of a Lion with a thorn piercing his paw (foot) and a kind one digging it out of its foot. These common tales may have been appealing to Jews of the Roman period and the rabbis may have used ka’ari as an alternative reading and then later, due to the polemical debates between Jews and Christians, ka’ari (like a lion) became the preferred reading of the Jewish community. It is common in Jewish rabbinic discussions to read certain words in the Hebrew texts differently and give a deeper meaning by the use of these alternative readings. [23]

NOTE 23:[SEE: Melila Hellner-Eshed, A River Flows from Eden: The Language of Mystical Experience in the Zohar, (California; Standford University Press; 2009).]
http://brothergilbertpontificates.blogs ... rtain.html

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1001
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22: an alternative explanation

Post by rakovsky » Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:45 pm

kennethgreifer wrote:It is possible that the psalm writer is comparing his enemy to a lion that is threatening him, and he is also comparing himself to a lion. Lions can confront each other and fight. Maybe that could explain the two different spellings of the word "lion."
I understand, however first of all, the nonChristian rabbinic expositions of the verse say it is the enemies who are like a lion IIRC.

Second, it is always God who saves him in the Psalm, and there is no mention of David attacking the enemies. In real life, David went into hiding from Saul, while Saul was defeated by his enemies.

Third, in what way are the defeated, "poured-out" narrator's "out of joint" limbs (plural) like a lion (singular)?

Fourth, the full call requesting salvation is given only after the narrator describes himself as killed, including after the karu/kari of his disjointed limbs. The normal order should be: narrator is defeated, calls for salvation: limbs and whole body get strong.

Five, in case you want to say that the disjointed limbs got somehow reconnected, note that the narrator says he can still count his bones after he already said he was kari/karah. It sounds like the bones are still out of joint at that point then. When his bones are staring at him and the enemies are dividing his clothes, it sounds like they are not fighting him at that point (lions v. healthy lion) like a strong enemy.

So ultimately what is happening in the Psalm is a description of the narrator getting defeated by enemies, getting his bones disjointed, being poured out, and then saved, which is compatible per the Judaic belief in resurrection, a belief that also seems repeated in the end of the chapter about those in the dust.

Just like the author was in the dust of death and saved, so others in the end of the chapter who are in the dust get saved too and remember what happened to the narrator. It sounds messianic in theme, due to the association between the messiah and future resurrection of others.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

kennethgreifer
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 8:12 am
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22: an alternative explanation

Post by kennethgreifer » Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:51 pm

rakovsky,

You don't have a problem with a rare word kaaru spelled with an alef (in only this one quote), but you can't accept the less common, but not rare word for lion, ari, being in a psalm because it has to be used many times to prove that it existed then. How many times should it have been used in the psalms for you to believe it existed then? Do you have a different standard for kaaru then ari for proof that these words existed at that time?

In my opinion, you shouldn't say that that word for lion is never used in the psalms if it is only used once. Your word kaaru is only used once with an alef, so you are willing to accept the existence of rare words and spellings when it fits your belief.

Like I said in my original posting with my own alternative translation, David is calling himself a lion too, so he might have spelled lion differently to show it was a different lion than the one threatening him.

Kenneth Greifer

kennethgreifer
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 8:12 am
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22: an alternative explanation

Post by kennethgreifer » Sat Dec 31, 2016 4:01 pm

rakovsky,

Your explanations for both spellings of "lion" in Ezekiel and Amos are just guesses. No one knows why they used two different spellings. If the word without the letter hay was less common than the other word, it would make sense to only find it once if the other form was used only a few times.

Kenneth Greifer

kennethgreifer
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 8:12 am
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22: an alternative explanation

Post by kennethgreifer » Sat Dec 31, 2016 5:25 pm

rakovsky,

Also see Judges 14:8 and 9 which have the word lion with the letter hay three times and Judges 14:18 which has it without the letter hay once.

Kenneth Greifer

kennethgreifer
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 8:12 am
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22: an alternative explanation

Post by kennethgreifer » Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:14 pm

rakovsky,

You said that Amos and Ezekiel could have used both spellings of the word "lion" as poetry, so David could have used both spellings of "lion" the same way. The argument about the rareness of the shorter spelling is very weak and is not important to your case. You should just drop this minor argument because you and the other people are just guessing why there are two spellings and when they were used.

Kenneth Greifer

kennethgreifer
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 8:12 am
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22: an alternative explanation

Post by kennethgreifer » Sun Jan 01, 2017 6:33 am

rakovsky,

I forgot to answer what you asked about the some Masoretic manuscripts that have the vav at the end like it was a verb. I think that the quote has been misunderstood for thousands of years, and some people thought it was a verb because they can't understand it as "like a lion." That does not mean they were right. I think the quote can make sense as "like a lion" in my alternative translation and explanation. That is my opinion. For thousands of years, people have had different opinions.

Kenneth Greifer

Post Reply