Incorrect. This question (not suspicion) stems from my desire to know the history of the Greek translations. I feel secure about the "real" LXX (the Pentateuch), but not so much about the other books.
Partially correct. The word ὀρύσσω is, on its face, the translation of the Hebrew word for "like a lion" with the change of a single letter. This could be accidental, or it could be "accidentally on purpose" so as to get closer to a crucifixion without simply introducing a novelty into the text.This suspicion assumes that the verse as it stands supports the reading of a crucifixion in it. Hence your doubt about a new translation being happened after Christ.Second, I do wonder, even if the initial translation was earlier than Christianity, whether later Christian scribes might not have retranslated (note: not interpolated) the key word in favor of Christianity.
If so, then what is your point? It would be unlikely, in that case, for anyone to derive the idea of a crucified deity/Messiah from Psalm 22.16.this remark points out a suspicion that the verse as it stands doesn't support really the reading of a crucifixion in it.Third, nobody inserted a verb for "pierced" into the text; there really is no verb for "pierced" in the text. The Greek verb means "dug," and Psalm 22.16 is the only place in which ὀρύσσω is translated as "pierce" in the entire RSV, for example.
Is not the latter suspicion in strong contrast against the first two objections, hence sufficient alone to confute them?
But, for me, the entire matter is unclear. This is my actual point. I have no firm conclusions.