Regarding the translation of karu/pierced/bored/dug Or Kaari(as a lion), in Psalm 22:17

[ralph]

note- in this post i've used the word vav rather than waw but same letter.

So you haven't provided your source for roundness ..

By the way I just checked an etymological dictionary of biblical hebrew by rabbi shimshon rephael hirsch (which I have in book form), not just a single page online. And I see that for the root kaf reish heh, it has "beginning to dig; exposing"(btw notice he doesn't say dig only ground and says there 'dig;' - which also shows up as even more ludicrous your talk of such a thing indicating or being evidence of a bias ), and it includes another usage, "arranging an already dug pit", and some other usages. And it says that a 'gradational variant' of that root, is kaf reish reis(round) and kaf vav reish (purify). So kaf reish reish seems more relevant to you than kaf vav reish.

Under kaf vav reish, it says purify/repair/correct, and lists as a gradational variant, kaf reish reish (round).

Under kaf reish reish which it has as 'round', it lists dancing in circles (2 Samuel 6:16), and 'rounded loaf(though that's kaf kaf reish)' Ex 29:23 and some other things it believes are derived from that root, some related to roundness, some not.

So that's as far as I get looking for biblical references to support your argument. So you'd be looking more at a root of kaf reish reish.

https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/3769.html
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... ongs=h3769

BDB kaf kaf reish https://biblehub.com/bdb/3603.htm

BDB (checking in the book), does have Kaf reish reish and many usages among that root relate to roundness.

I don't know why you keep mentioning kaf vav reish, when kav reish reish would be more relevant to roundness.. Though anyhow, morphological looks at the word in question, karu, in psalms 22:17 give a root of kaf reish heh (Dig).

[ducky]

Hello Ralph,

I'm trying my best to explain myself and maybe my words weren't understood so much before, so I'll try to write a comment that would be clearer.
Because It seems that you are confused between Etymology, which is about aspects of meanings,
And between Root-Forms which are just the forms that were evolved, at the time of a specific meaning (based on the aspect), was defined more strictly.

About Etymology...
The etymology is understood by comparing the root (in its forms) to other Semitic languages. And when they have the same range of meaning, you understand that all of the definitions that you see in Arabic, Akkadian, Ugarit, Hebrew, Aramaic, and so on, are based on the aspect of roundness.

You don't use a specific definition of a word to find the etymology. Because every language evolved its vocabulary in its own way. And the evolution is made from the basic shared aspect that is shared to all of the root-forms in all of the Semitic languages.

כרה/כור/כרה/כרר/כרכר are all based on the same etymology, so the form doesn't matter.
Each one defined itself to a specific different meaning - but all of the specific meanings are based on the same aspect.

And so, Root כרר is not the root that is relevant for me.
because I'm talking about aspects.
And the root-form is determined only by the form of the Word itself.

Now about the root-form of כארו...
According to the form of the word, the כארו doesn't seem to fit כור, nor כרה.
Why?
because in Hebrew, root כור would be כרו (kAru).
and root כרה would be כרו (karU).

So how come some still linked it to כור?
Because there is a rare case in Hebrew when root קום is written קאם (instead of the common way: קם).
And so, this rare form is used as an excuse to read it as if the כארו is also a rare case that acted like that. (So this is the first "Stretch").

Then we have another problem, Because even if we accept it as from root כור, we know that this root doesn't come as a verb - only as a noun.
But still, those who want to see it as a verb would say that this is a rare case of this root acts as a verb. (So this is the second stretch).

But now we have another problem because the meaning of כור is actually an oven (for metals). And how can we understand this kinda meaning as a verb?
should we say that they burned his hands and feet (and are they made of metals?).

And so, they say, that maybe this root כור took the meaning of root כרה - as Digging. (and this is the third stretch).

And then, since כרה is only about Digging a hole in the ground, comes the impossible fourth stretch of trying to see it similar to "making a hole in a palm".
And I explained here why this is impossible to accept it like that.

So all of this is stretching.
First, playing with the root-forms.
Second, Playing with the meaning.

So also by that, you should doubt the כארו being a verb.
Even though, if we don't have a choice, we can accept some root-forms-switches, but this form of כארו seems weird to play with as a switch over a switch.

And I continue you to remind you that the last part was about the root-forms (and not about etymology).


And you say you have Hirsch dictionary, and what you have is a translation of course (from German).
I don't saw this book, but according to what you wrote, this book connects the roots that are based on the same aspect.
And I remind you, For us to find the etymology meaning, we don't focus on the final Hebrew definitions but only focus on the basic aspect that connects them all.
In this case - Roundness.

And you say that you see some definitions fit the aspect of roundness and some don't.
But they are connected, in a direct way, and an indirect way.
Because a language is evolved by meanings and metaphors and "images" and so on...
And even if some definition seems to be far away from its friend, the link is still there.
(And check English itself, on an etymology site, to see how one word that you know, is linked to an aspect that you didn't even though about it).

And so, you wrote a few definitions form his dictionary to explain each root.
but all of the forms are just a (relatively) late expanding and variety that all came from the meaning of "roundness".
And when we talk about an Etymology, We don't care about the forms of the root.

And so, I don't use כרר as "My root".
because I talk only about aspects of meaning (not forms).
And when you see a strange form of a root as כארו and can't find it a meaning, so you try to solve it by using the shared aspect for this basic roots that uses the כ-ר letters.

And because this root is unknown and never been used - so we can allow ourselves to go back to the "roundness" aspect, and try to fill the blank according to the context.

I hope this is more understood.

[kwrandolph]

Ralph Zak:

One of the things that pertain to your question is the quality of Hebrew knowledge among the translators of the LXX. There’s evidence that by the time of the LXX, some lesser known and lesser used Biblical Hebrew terms had been forgotten. One of those forgotten terms is כאר which is used as a verb only once, here in Psalm 22:17.

When the translators of the LXX came to Psalm 22:17, they made two mistakes: 1) they assumed that כארו was a copyist error for כרה and 2) they assumed that כרה meant “to dig”. Both of those assumptions are wrong. (Modern Israeli Hebrew follows the LXX understanding.) Therefore, we need to look elsewhere for the meaning of כארו.

Biblical Hebrew syntax informs us to expect a verb where כארו is found. “…as a lion…” כארי is a nonsense statement in this place.

Of course, I didn’t read Ducky’s posts in this thread and just skimmed yours. Too many words. I was not surprised to see you reacting to an ad hominem attack against you by Ducky. The question is, what does the Hebrew tell us? Let the answer say what it says.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ralph]

Ralph Zak:

One of the things that pertain to your question is the quality of Hebrew knowledge among the translators of the LXX. There’s evidence that by the time of the LXX, some lesser known and lesser used Biblical Hebrew terms had been forgotten. One of those forgotten terms is כאר which is used as a verb only once, here in Psalm 22:17.

When the translators of the LXX came to Psalm 22:17, they made two mistakes: 1) they assumed that כארו was a copyist error for כרה and 2) they assumed that כרה meant “to dig”. Both of those assumptions are wrong. (Modern Israeli Hebrew follows the LXX understanding.) Therefore, we need to look elsewhere for the meaning of כארו.

Biblical Hebrew syntax informs us to expect a verb where כארו is found. “…as a lion…” כארי is a nonsense statement in this place.

Of course, I didn’t read Ducky’s posts in this thread and just skimmed yours. Too many words. I was not surprised to see you reacting to an ad hominem attack against you by Ducky. The question is, what does the Hebrew tell us? Let the answer say what it says.

Karl W. Randolph.

Thanks, the idea that כארו may be a 3mp verb, with root כאר whose meaning has been forgotten/lost due to it only occurring once, and that it is right that it be verb there, (and thus not כארי), makes sense.

Though apparently among a minority of masoretic manuscripts, some have כרו , so, what do you make of those?

And how would you translate כרה if not as the verb dig?

Ralph Zak

[kwrandolph]

Dear Ralph:

Though apparently among a minority of masoretic manuscripts, some have כרו , so, what do you make of those?

Before reading this thread, I had never heard of these manuscripts. I had heard the claim, given without evidence, that there are some that have the verb כארו. I would like to see images to back up that claim.

As for the DSS scrap mentioned here, I want to see an image of that scrap. Did the transcriber accurately reproduce the scrap? I don’t take his transcription on blind faith.

The Nahal Heber scrap is faint but clear.

And how would you translate כרה if not as the verb dig?

Ralph Zak

‎כרה to furnish as in to provide Gn 50:5, Pr 16:27, 26:27 → כרה provision, that which is provided 2K 6:23, Is 3:9, מכר furnished supplies 2K 12:6 (5), 8 (7), מכרה quartermaster, one who furnishes supplies Zp 2:9 αλ

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

When Karl, the one who "banned" me, but still seems to be obsessive about me, says that the reading of כארי is nonsense, I am not surprised at all.
And I will stop here. and spare you the reasons, so he won't be insulted again.

Ralph,
If someone wants to see the כאר as a rare root that was lost, that is also fine.
(I don't see it right, but this line of thinking is fair).
But as I said in my last comment to you, you should find it a fair meaning that would fit the context and the basic meaning of its root group (as roundness) or maybe a definition that is close to one of the final definitions of כרר/כרה/כור and so on.

That is the same principle that I said before, When you saw it as root כרר or כור or כרה.
Because the root-form (in this case) would no be a thing that matter.
Because if this so-called lost root is not known, then we must rely on one the meanings that are found in this root-group.

So nothing is changed here.
You can still see it as a verb, if you insist.
And you can still see it as root כור or root כאר.
And you can still give it a fair meaning that would fit the context and the etymology.
Personally, I am more than sure that it is a noun.
But if someone insists on seeing it as a verb - so be it.