Psalm 22:16/17

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
stargirl
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2022 2:57 pm

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by stargirl »

kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm
That brings up the question, what does כאר mean? It is used only once in Tanakh as a verb, in this verse. This question came up years ago on this forum and one of the professors then said that in a cognate language it referred to something that was distorted, twisted out of shape. That was so long ago that I don’t remember who was that professor nor his source of his information. That meaning fits the context here.
I really appreciate your input, Karl. I’ve read many articles/discussions on what the word in question could be and some offer up the idea of cognates. I am not opposed to the possibility, I was personally interested in one author’s point of bringing in other verbs that changed the ו to א, and this was the main point of my query. If a verb, I could see the word in question having the same or similar meaning to a similar-looking one, or a different meaning altogether.

Carolyn Burns
ducky
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by ducky »

Hi Karl,
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm Actually, you have the LXX giving that reading. But seeing as the translators of the LXX had lost some of the meanings of seldom used words and roots, it can be understood that the LXX translators merely guessed. I don’t remember any words right off the top of my head, but I looked up some of their other translations in the past and saw how they messed up because they didn’t know Hebrew.
I agree with you that a study through a translation has its faults, especially when it comes to cases like this.
In this case, however, there are other archeologic sources that also write כארו.
Therefore, my position is that indeed there was a common old version that writes כארו - I don't deny it.
What I do say is that this version, popular as it is, is not loyal to the original psalm, and it was made in a way of "correcting" the hard-to-understand word כארי in that verse. Reading that verse with כארי makes a syntax problem, and so the word was "corrected" to a 'plural form verb' in order to "correct" the syntax. And by correcting the 'syntax problem', they created a 'grammar problem'. And here we are.
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm That brings up the question, what does כאר mean? It is used only once in Tanakh as a verb, in this verse. This question came up years ago on this forum and one of the professors then said that in a cognate language it referred to something that was distorted, twisted out of shape. That was so long ago that I don’t remember who was that professor or the source of his information. That meaning fits the context here.
Could it be that he was referring to the Mishnaic root כאר (which is basically an alternative to the common Mishnaic/Aramaic כער)?
Its meaning is "ugly".

By the way, as far as I can remember (and maybe I am wrong here), you were against using cognates languages as a source for understanding Hebrew.
If so, I'm glad to see you've changed your mind about it.
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm In late Hebrew, such as Tiberian or modern Hebrews. But not in Biblical Hebrew.
Tiberian Hebrew is just a matter of dialect. It has nothing to do with understanding the words.
Anyway, the word is understood like that in every "Hebrew era".
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm There is confusion based on verses such as Genesis 26:25 where the assumption is made that in providing a well that the word itself meant “to dig”
If the כרה means "to provide" and not "to dig", how come it comes only in the matter of "ground holes" and wells?
Why can't we find the כרה when the king provides horses or slaves or wheat, or anything else?
It is just related to "ground holes" for good reasons or not.
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm But in verses such as Genesis 50:5 (no digging because the grave was a cave that already existed),
1. A cave, even if already exist, when turned into a grave site, does get dug.
3. A dead person is buried inside the cave in a dug grave or a prepared place. the body is not thrown inside the "existing cave".
4. In this case, it could be that Jacob already prepared his grave next to Lea in the cave. And so, when he says that בקברי אשר כריתי לי sounds very reasonable.

5. Still, If the meaning of "digging", in this verse, doesn't feel comfortable to you, you can understand it with the meaning of "buy".
Because Hebrew, just like Arabic (another cognate language) has כרה with both meanings (1. dig 2. buy, rent, hire, and so on...).
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm Proverbs 16:27 and 26:27 where what’s being provided has nothing to do with digging and in other verses we can see that the root meaning of כרה basically means to furnish, to provide. And yes, that sometimes means that the providing is done through the instrumentality of digging, as in providing a well, but that doesn’t change the definition of “to provide” to ”to dig”.
I don't see the problem with Proverbs 26:27 - the כרה as "dig" fits.

As for 16:27 - It seems that the כרה רעה is a short way to give the idea of the evil who digs a pit (as a trap) for the cause of bad.
It combined the known idea that is represented in 26:27, or in Jer. 18:22 כי כרו שוחה ללכדני, or in Ps. 7:16 בור כרה ויחפרהו ויפל בשחת יפעל and other more.
We can agree that Proverbs is not prose, and it uses ideas.
In this case, this idiom was very well known to the common people, so the writing of "digging a 'bad thing'" can be understood in a visual way of a person digging a trap.
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm I don’t know where you get that idea concerning the English meanings. I, a native speaker of English, have never heard of them before.
I saw that in a few English dictionaries on the internet.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dig.
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm “Boring” is a type of digging.
Let us not be confused about how we see acts, and how languages "chose" to define these acts.

I can say that pushing through the line is also digging.
And also diving through the pool is digging.

Ever happened to you when you spoke with a non-native-English speaker, and you heard him express some act using the wrong verb - even though it is kinda reasonable?
If so, you probably understood that he translated this verb from his own language.
But the verb that his language "chose" to express that act, doesn't feel right in English.
Because each language, through its own history, "decides" to spread its verbs and meanings in its own way, and combines its verbs and meanings in its own way.

And so, Hebrew separates these meanings into different roots. And it doesn't matter if other languages choose otherwise.

But I could be wrong here, and I'd like you to show me that in Hebrew.
If you may, can you show me a verb that comes with the meaning of digging the earth (making a hole in the earth) with also the meaning of making a hole in a door, for example?
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm Looking at the syntax and context of the verse, the expectation is that כארו is a verb. That rules out “as a lion” כארי.
I think exactly the opposite...
When looking at the Psalm and its structure, not only that it doesn't rule out the כארי but it must be the כארי.

And by the way, it is not "as a lion". It is "as the lion".
The difference is important, and it shows that the Masoretic knew exactly the point of this verse.

To be honest, I once wrote about it elsewhere (maybe even some people here, saw it there), and it was quite long (but interesting) and was showing the way how this psalm was literary built, which leaves no doubt about the word was written originally כארי. And more than what the structure gives, this spelling כארי is supported again from other aspects (such as puns relating to the idiom itself that it represents).

But I started my first post in this thread by saying that I don't want to get into the question of if כארי is really כארו, so I would just leave it alone.
(I just wrote this to say that even though I leave this subject alone, but still don't agree with you, it is not because I am empty-handed in that matter, and that my disagreement with you here comes with a background).
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm Add to that that there is written evidence that כארו was the original reading of the verse.
Indeed, as I also wrote at the beginning of this post, there is other evidence for this version.
I never doubted that.
But just like in other cases where there is evidence of other readings that the MT, it doesn't say that the MT is the false one.
I wrote in the beginning what could happen to have that false version common.

In this forum, I remember that I wrote about Isa. 53:11 where there were more than one or two pieces of evidence of another version than the MT.
And I gave an explanation that shows how is it that the MT was following the right original version, while the other followed a "corrected" source, that tried to fix the text, and actually created a false version (that seemed right).

Also here, having written evidence of another reading is fine, but it can show us the common version of its time. It cannot be proof of following the original source. The right reading can be explained by understanding the text.
David Hunter
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by kwrandolph »

stargirl wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 1:37 am I really appreciate your input, Karl. I’ve read many articles/discussions on what the word in question could be and some offer up the idea of cognates. I am not opposed to the possibility, I was personally interested in one author’s point of bringing in other verbs that changed the ו to א, and this was the main point of my query. If a verb, I could see the word in question having the same or similar meaning to a similar-looking one, or a different meaning altogether.

Carolyn Burns
Carolyn:

Who is that author and what is his evidence?

As I understand your statement above, this never was a question about the Hebrew, but rather about someone’s (anonymous someone) opinion. To which I reiterate, I see no evidence for that opinion.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by kwrandolph »

ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am What I do say is that this version, popular as it is, is not loyal to the original psalm, and it was made in a way of "correcting" the hard-to-understand word כארי in that verse. Reading that verse with כארי makes a syntax problem, and so the word was "corrected" to a 'plural form verb' in order to "correct" the syntax. And by correcting the 'syntax problem', they created a 'grammar problem'. And here we are.
The oldest witness we have to this reading is כארו which indicates that this is the original reading. כארי is the late reading.

Incidentally, there’s no grammar problem with כארו, but there is a major one as well as a syntax problem with the כארי reading.
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm That brings up the question, what does כאר mean? It is used only once in Tanakh as a verb, in this verse. This question came up years ago on this forum and one of the professors then said that in a cognate language it referred to something that was distorted, twisted out of shape. That was so long ago that I don’t remember who was that professor or the source of his information. That meaning fits the context here.
Could it be that he was referring to the Mishnaic root כאר (which is basically an alternative to the common Mishnaic/Aramaic כער)?
Its meaning is "ugly".
Nope.
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am By the way, as far as I can remember (and maybe I am wrong here), you were against using cognates languages as a source for understanding Hebrew.
If so, I'm glad to see you've changed your mind about it.
I have not changed my mind. But where a word is used only once or twice, as in this example, where the context is insufficient to give a clear reading to its meaning, then a cognate language may or may not give a clue. Remember, the may not is more likely. This is how I have stated it all along. I turn to cognate languages only as a last resort, because they are not to be trusted.
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm In late Hebrew, such as Tiberian or modern Hebrews. But not in Biblical Hebrew.
Tiberian Hebrew is just a matter of dialect. It has nothing to do with understanding the words.
Anyway, the word is understood like that in every "Hebrew era".
Nope. Tiberian Hebrew is a different language, not just a dialect, from Biblical Hebrew. Not only are there words that have different meanings than what they had in Biblical Hebrew, but the grammar had been changed. Many of the places where the Masoretes proposed emendations (Qere) are where they tried to read Tanakh according to Tiberian word meanings and grammar.
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm There is confusion based on verses such as Genesis 26:25 where the assumption is made that in providing a well that the word itself meant “to dig”
If the כרה means "to provide" and not "to dig", how come it comes only in the matter of "ground holes" and wells?
Why can't we find the כרה when the king provides horses or slaves or wheat, or anything else?
It is just related to "ground holes" for good reasons or not.
Not true. There are several places where what is provided is not a hole in the ground.
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm But in verses such as Genesis 50:5 (no digging because the grave was a cave that already existed),
1. A cave, even if already exist, when turned into a grave site, does get dug.
This was a cave that was already there when Abraham buried his wife.
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am 3. A dead person is buried inside the cave in a dug grave or a prepared place. the body is not thrown inside the "existing cave".
How about carefully laid in a cave?
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am 4. In this case, it could be that Jacob already prepared his grave next to Lea in the cave. And so, when he says that בקברי אשר כריתי לי sounds very reasonable.
So now your answer is very similar to mine, that Jacob had provided that place for himself.
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am 5. Still, If the meaning of "digging", in this verse, doesn't feel comfortable to you, you can understand it with the meaning of "buy".
Because Hebrew, just like Arabic (another cognate language) has כרה with both meanings (1. dig 2. buy, rent, hire, and so on...).
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm Proverbs 16:27 and 26:27 where what’s being provided has nothing to do with digging and in other verses we can see that the root meaning of כרה basically means to furnish, to provide. And yes, that sometimes means that the providing is done through the instrumentality of digging, as in providing a well, but that doesn’t change the definition of “to provide” to ”to dig”.
I don't see the problem with Proverbs 26:27 - the כרה as "dig" fits.

As for 16:27 - It seems that the כרה רעה is a short way to give the idea of the evil who digs a pit (as a trap) for the cause of bad.
You add something that is not in the text.
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm “Boring” is a type of digging.
Let us not be confused about how we see acts, and how languages "chose" to define these acts.
The languages didn’t choose, rather speakers of the languages chose how to use their languages.
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am But I could be wrong here, and I'd like you to show me that in Hebrew.
If you may, can you show me a verb that comes with the meaning of digging the earth (making a hole in the earth) with also the meaning of making a hole in a door, for example?
Would נקר be so recognized?
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm Looking at the syntax and context of the verse, the expectation is that כארו is a verb. That rules out “as a lion” כארי.
I think exactly the opposite...
When looking at the Psalm and its structure, not only that it doesn't rule out the כארי but it must be the כארי.
Show me how that fits? To have objects without a verb as expected from the previous words?
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm Add to that that there is written evidence that כארו was the original reading of the verse.
Indeed, as I also wrote at the beginning of this post, there is other evidence for this version.
I never doubted that.

Also here, having written evidence of another reading is fine, but it can show us the common version of its time. It cannot be proof of following the original source. The right reading can be explained by understanding the text.
Exactly, And understanding the text leads to the understanding that a verb is used in that place in Psalm 22:17.
ducky
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by ducky »

Hi Karl,
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm The oldest witness we have to this reading is כארו which indicates that this is the original reading. כארי is the late reading.
This view of "older=more reliable" is not to be excepted in a decisive way as you propose. It is closing the eyes and avoiding looking at other factors.
I pointed out in my last post another issue that was discussed in this forum where the older physical source was not the loyal one to the original source.
You can easily read it and see what I mean.

Sometimes (or maybe often), the "reasonable" version is the false one, while the "weird" version is the loyal one.

In other words, we can see and understand how a weird version gets corrected and turned into a reasonable one.
But it is hard to assume that a reasonable version will be corrected and turned into a weird one.
Therefore, when there are two versions like the above ones, there is no point to be decisive.

Also, if the MT had the version of כארו, they wouldn't have changed it to כארי, but they would write it as a Qere and keep the spelling as it is.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm Nope. Tiberian Hebrew is a different language, not just a dialect, from Biblical Hebrew. Not only are there words that have different meanings than what they had in Biblical Hebrew, but the grammar had been changed. Many of the places where the Masoretes proposed emendations (Qere) are where they tried to read the Tanakh according to Tiberian word meanings and grammar.
I'm sorry, but you are using a wrong term.
Also, your view on the meaning of the Qere...
But let's not dwell on that.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm There is confusion based on verses such as Genesis 26:25 where the assumption is made that in providing a well that the word itself meant “to dig”
If the כרה means "to provide" and not "to dig", how come it comes only in the matter of "ground holes" and wells?
Why can't we find the כרה when the king provides horses or slaves or wheat, or anything else?
It is just related to "ground holes" for good reasons or not.
Not true. There are several places where what is provided is not a hole in the ground.
First, I hope that you do agree with me that it would be weird if this root כרה, if its meaning is really "providing", would not be found in places like when there is a talk about providing food or workers and so on.
I mean, you say that the כרה is used for "providing a well" - so with that, we would surely expect it to be seen in clearer cases.

For example:
When Hiram sent his workers to David, It uses שלח.
2Sam 5:11 וַיִּשְׁלַח חִירָם מֶלֶךְ צֹר מַלְאָכִים אֶל דָּוִד וַעֲצֵי אֲרָזִים וְחָרָשֵׁי עֵץ וְחָרָשֵׁי אֶבֶן קִיר וַיִּבְנוּ בַיִת לְדָוִד

OR When Solomon gave Hiram cities, It uses נתן
1Kings 9:12 אָז יִתֵּן הַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה לְחִירָם עֶשְׂרִים עִיר בְּאֶרֶץ הַגָּלִיל

Or when God gave the "herb which yields seed that is on the face of the earth", It uses נתן
Gen. 1:29 הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי כׇל הָאָרֶץ

Or when a slave is being released and his owner needs to provide him so and so, It uses the word ענק
Deut. 15:14 הַעֲנֵיק תַּעֲנִיק לוֹ מִצֹּאנְךָ וּמִגׇּרְנְךָ וּמִיִּקְבֶךָ

Or when Joseph provided food for his family, It uses the word כלכל
Gen. 47:12 וַיְכַלְכֵּל יוֹסֵף אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אֶחָיו וְאֵת כׇּל בֵּית אָבִיו לֶחֶם לְפִי הַטָּף

These roots appear more in clear cases where we expect to see "providing".
But כרה doesn't appear with wheat, flock, workers, money, and so on...

************************************
Also, please look at:
Psalms 57:7 רֶשֶׁת הֵכִינוּ לִפְעָמַי כָּפַף נַפְשִׁי כָּרוּ לְפָנַי שִׁיחָה נָפְלוּ בְתוֹכָהּ סֶלָה
Psalms 9:16 טָבְעוּ גוֹיִם בְּשַׁחַת עָשׂוּ בְּרֶשֶׁת זוּ טָמָנוּ נִלְכְּדָה רַגְלָם

Look that רשת is prepared, but a שחת/שוחה is a place to fall inside it and which is referred to by כרו.
Why is the difference between these verbs?

And if you claim that כרה is just "providing" (as providing a trap, in these verses above and others),
Why can't we see it comes next to רשת (net) as well?
We would expect at it least once.
After all, it is just about providing.

כרה with the meaning of "setting" a trap (next to a hole, by the way) is found 7 times (without the כרה רעה)
Jer. 18:20 כִּי כָרוּ שׁוּחָה לְנַפְשִׁי
Jer. 18:22 כִּי כָרוּ שׁוּחָה לְלׇכְדֵנִי
But... it continues with וּפַחִים טָמְנוּ לְרַגְלָי - Why not the opposite?
Psalms 7:17 בּוֹר כָּרָה וַיַּחְפְּרֵהוּ וַיִּפֹּל בְּשַׁחַת יִפְעָל
Psalms 27:7 כָּרוּ לְפָנַי שִׁיחָה
Psalms 94:13 עַד יִכָּרֶה לָרָשָׁע שָׁחַת
Psalms 119:85 כָּרוּ לִי זֵדִים שִׁיחוֹת
Pr. 26:27 כֹּרֶה שַּׁחַת בָּהּ יִפּוֹל

But it is not found next to a רשת or פח or מוקש.
All of these words are also traps - but they never come with כרה - but with other verbs.

And so, I ask you, How could it be that every providing of a trap comes only with "holes" but never with other traps.
Why aren't they "provided" as well?

************************************************************************************************************************************

Now let's look at the other cases:

First, this is where this root is about a "ground hole"/well
Gen. 26:25, 50:5*; Ex. 21:33; Num. 21:18; Jer. 18:20, 18:22; Ps. 7:16, 57:7, 94:13, 119:85; Pr. 26:27; 2Ch. 16:14.

The other cases of digging are:
Ps. 40:7 אׇזְנַיִם כָּרִיתָ לִּי
The ears are like a hole in the head (like a well). And in this case, through a metaphor, it is said that the ears are dug (just like a well is dug).

Pr. 16:27 אִישׁ בְּלִיַּעַל כֹּרֶה רָעָה
It is probably a short way of saying that a trap (a hole) was dug for a bad cause.
As you can see above, in the list of verses, this idiom of evil "creates" a trap-hole is very common.
So even though the verse seems not full, it is reasonable to say that it used the act just to point to the known idiom with no need to complete it.

2 Kings 6:23 - (I put it at the end of the lists).

*********

Other cases with the meaning of a "trade, buy"
Gen. 50:5 הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי מֵת בְּקִבְרִי אֲשֶׁר כָּרִיתִי לִי בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן
Some related this כרה in this verse with the meaning of buying (and some explain it as "dig").

Deut. 2:6 אֹכֶל תִּשְׁבְּרוּ מֵאִתָּם בַּכֶּסֶף וַאֲכַלְתֶּם וְגַם מַיִם תִּכְרוּ מֵאִתָּם בַּכֶּסֶף וּשְׁתִיתֶם

Ho. 3:2 וָאֶכְּרֶהָ לִּי בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר כָּסֶף

Job 6:27 אַף עַל יָתוֹם תַּפִּילוּ וְתִכְרוּ עַל רֵיעֲכֶם

Job 40:30 יִכְרוּ עָלָיו חַבָּרִים יֶחֱצוּהוּ בֵּין כְּנַעֲנִים
(In this case, there are more opinions)

*********
Another verse with that root appears
2Kings 6:23
וַיִּכְרֶה לָהֶם כֵּרָה גְדוֹלָה וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ וַיְשַׁלְּחֵם וַיֵּלְכוּ אֶל אֲדֹנֵיהֶם

It is understood as a meal/feast based on Akkadian.
Some say that the meaning of a feast comes from digging. (And so, it should be on the above list - which is the "digging"-list).

Archeology found holes in the grounds that seem to be made as ovens.
In a book about the Samaritans, this type of cooking is also described.
And another source for that way of cooking is written in the "British museum handbook to the ethnographical collection" which says:
"In the absence of large cooking vessels capable of being placed on the fire, meat was baked on hot stones. The process is somewhat as follows. A pit, three feet or more in diameter, is dug in the ground and filled with wood, which is then set on fire..."
You can download it as a pdf, and continue to read on page 147.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm This was a cave that was already there when Abraham buried his wife.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm How about carefully lying in a cave?
The main point is, that those who see it as "digging" do not create a problem.
I was never buried, so I don't know for sure... But I think that even if there is a cave that is set as a grave site, there would be a prepared place for each person that is about to die and be buried. So Jacob said that he wants to be buried in the grave that he dug.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm So now your answer is very similar to mine, that Jacob had provided that place for himself.
I said from the start that this interpretation is good as well.
I also said that כרה also comes with a meaning relating to trading (also close to providing, but not so much).
The argument between us is that you see every כרה as provide, and don't accept it as "dig".
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am
kwrandolph wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:54 pm “Boring” is a type of digging.
Let us not be confused about how we see acts, and how languages "chose" to define these acts.
The languages didn’t choose, rather speakers of the languages chose how to use their languages.
You're right. Next time I'll write the word [Chose] as ["chose"].
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm Would נקר be so recognized?
Not really.

נקר is about sticking something out. Like an eye, or rocks by punching with a sharp object.
And so it referred to the thing that was put out (the eye), and not to the hole itself (the eye socket).
I can לנקר your eye, but I can't לנקר your eye socket.
Like the difference between 'digging' a hole, and 'digging out' something (--from the hole--).

This act of sticking out stuff through punching and cutting with sharp objects eventually got the idea of picking on hard surfaces - like wood, bones, rocks, and so on.

***

Roots that are about piercing:
נקב
2Kings 12:10 וַיִּקֹּב חֹר בְּדַלְתּוֹ made a hole in its lid.
Job 40:26 וּבְחוֹחַ תִּקֹּב לֶחֱיוֹ bore his jaw through with a hook.

רצע
Ex. 21:6 וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת אׇזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl.

A root that is about digging.
חפר
Gen. 21:30 כִּי חָפַרְתִּי אֶת הַבְּאֵר הַזֹּאת I dug this well

I intentionally brought the context.
The question is if the root that means "dig" can act as the roots that mean "pierce, bore" and vice versa.
I don't think so. But it could be that I'm wrong.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm Show me how that fits? To have objects without a verb as expected from the previous words?
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm Exactly, And understanding the text leads to the understanding that a verb is used in that place in Psalm 22:17.
I have my reasons not to talk about it right now. And Therefore, I am not trying to convince you to change your understanding, or to "fight about it".
As I said in my first post in this thread, I'm here only to "argue" about the meaning of כרה. And I don't want to open a discussion about כארי/כארו because it is too long, and also for other reasons.
David Hunter
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by kwrandolph »

ducky wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:33 am Hi Karl,
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm The oldest witness we have to this reading is כארו which indicates that this is the original reading. כארי is the late reading.
This view of "older=more reliable" is not to be excepted in a decisive way as you propose. It is closing the eyes and avoiding looking at other factors.

Sometimes (or maybe often), the "reasonable" version is the false one, while the "weird" version is the loyal one.

In other words, we can see and understand how a weird version gets corrected and turned into a reasonable one.
But it is hard to assume that a reasonable version will be corrected and turned into a weird one.
Therefore, when there are two versions like the above ones, there is no point to be decisive.

Also, if the MT had the version of כארו, they wouldn't have changed it to כארי, but they would write it as a Qere and keep the spelling as it is.
The MT reading, as it presently exists, violates what I know of Biblical Hebrew grammar and syntax. The older reading gives a smooth reading according to Biblical Hebrew grammar and syntax. Then there’s the LXX, even though it used the incorrect word in Greek, backs up the older reading. So for me, the older reading is 1) older, 2) grammatically and syntactically correct 3) backed up by other ancient translations, all together lead me to the conclusion that the MT has been corrupted at this verse.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:33 am
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm Nope. Tiberian Hebrew is a different language, not just a dialect, from Biblical Hebrew. Not only are there words that have different meanings than what they had in Biblical Hebrew, but the grammar had been changed. Many of the places where the Masoretes proposed emendations (Qere) are where they tried to read the Tanakh according to Tiberian word meanings and grammar.
I'm sorry, but you are using a wrong term.
Also, your view on the meaning of the Qere...
But let's not dwell on that.
Did you understand what I wrote?
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:33 am
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm
ducky wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:59 am
If the כרה means "to provide" and not "to dig", how come it comes only in the matter of "ground holes" and wells?
Why can't we find the כרה when the king provides horses or slaves or wheat, or anything else?
It is just related to "ground holes" for good reasons or not.
Not true. There are several places where what is provided is not a hole in the ground.
First, I hope that you do agree with me that it would be weird if this root כרה, if its meaning is really "providing", would not be found in places like when there is a talk about providing food or workers and so on.
I mean, you say that the כרה is used for "providing a well" - so with that, we would surely expect it to be seen in clearer cases.
I don’t have my concordance before me, but looking through the examples listed in it, there were several where what was provided was clearly other than holes in the ground.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:33 am כרה with the meaning of "setting" a trap (next to a hole, by the way) is found 7 times (without the כרה רעה)
Jer. 18:20 כִּי כָרוּ שׁוּחָה לְנַפְשִׁי
Jer. 18:22 כִּי כָרוּ שׁוּחָה לְלׇכְדֵנִי
But... it continues with וּפַחִים טָמְנוּ לְרַגְלָי - Why not the opposite?
Psalms 7:17 בּוֹר כָּרָה וַיַּחְפְּרֵהוּ וַיִּפֹּל בְּשַׁחַת יִפְעָל
Psalms 27:7 כָּרוּ לְפָנַי שִׁיחָה
Psalms 94:13 עַד יִכָּרֶה לָרָשָׁע שָׁחַת
Psalms 119:85 כָּרוּ לִי זֵדִים שִׁיחוֹת
Pr. 26:27 כֹּרֶה שַּׁחַת בָּהּ יִפּוֹל
The word שחת is not a reference to a hole or a pit, rather to ruination, destruction.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:33 am Now let's look at the other cases:

First, this is where this root is about a "ground hole"/well
Gen. 26:25, 50:5*; Ex. 21:33; Num. 21:18; Jer. 18:20, 18:22; Ps. 7:16, 57:7, 94:13, 119:85; Pr. 26:27; 2Ch. 16:14.

The other cases of digging are:
Ps. 40:7 אׇזְנַיִם כָּרִיתָ לִּי
This is a clear example of provision, that God provided ears for him.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:33 am Pr. 16:27 אִישׁ בְּלִיַּעַל כֹּרֶה רָעָה
It is probably a short way of saying that a trap (a hole) was dug for a bad cause.
You add to what the text says. If you limit yourself to what the MT says, it has nothing about a hole or trap that was dug.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:33 am Other cases with the meaning of a "trade, buy"
Gen. 50:5 הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי מֵת בְּקִבְרִי אֲשֶׁר כָּרִיתִי לִי בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן
Some related this כרה in this verse with the meaning of buying (and some explain it as "dig").
Provision can be done by means of purchase.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:33 am Deut. 2:6 אֹכֶל תִּשְׁבְּרוּ מֵאִתָּם בַּכֶּסֶף וַאֲכַלְתֶּם וְגַם מַיִם תִּכְרוּ מֵאִתָּם בַּכֶּסֶף וּשְׁתִיתֶם
You want an example where כרה is related is related to providing food? Well, here is one.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:33 am Another verse with that root appears
2Kings 6:23
וַיִּכְרֶה לָהֶם כֵּרָה גְדוֹלָה וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ וַיְשַׁלְּחֵם וַיֵּלְכוּ אֶל אֲדֹנֵיהֶם
What a beautiful example of כרה = provision, where the soldiers not only got a meal in Samaria, but enough to see them get home to their master.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:33 am It is understood as a meal/feast based on Akkadian.
Akkadian is irrelevant when one recognizes that כרה = to provide, provision.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:33 am
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm This was a cave that was already there when Abraham buried his wife.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm How about carefully lying in a cave?
The main point is, that those who see it as "digging" do not create a problem.
Using כרה = provide has no problem. But there is a problem with “digging” when there’s no digging involved.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:33 am
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:09 pm So now your answer is very similar to mine, that Jacob had provided that place for himself.
I said from the start that this interpretation is good as well.
I also said that כרה also comes with a meaning relating to trading (also close to providing, but not so much).
The argument between us is that you see every כרה as provide, and don't accept it as "dig".
I see no evidence that it ever specifically refers to digging.

Just as a conductor leads an orchestra by swinging, but “swinging“ does not mean “lead an orchestra”. (Swinging a baton). Likewise a well can be provided by digging a pit, but that does not make “provide” = “dig”.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:33 am As I said in my first post in this thread, I'm here only to "argue" about the meaning of כרה. And I don't want to open a discussion about כארי/כארו because it is too long, and also for other reasons.
OK.

Karl W. Randolph.
ducky
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by ducky »

Hi Karl,
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 12:06 am The MT reading, as it presently exists, violates what I know of Biblical Hebrew grammar and syntax. The older reading gives a smooth reading according to Biblical Hebrew grammar and syntax. Then there’s the LXX, even though it used the incorrect word in Greek, backs up the older reading. So for me, the older reading is 1) older, 2) grammatically and syntactically correct 3) backed up by other ancient translations, all together lead me to the conclusion that the MT has been corrupted at this verse.
I won't be able, through a few words, to change your mind on that principle. So let's keep it that way.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 12:06 am Did you understand what I wrote?
I did. I didn't want to expand on that.
Maybe at another time. It is not part of the issue.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 12:06 am The word שחת is not a reference to a hole or a pit, rather to ruination, destruction.
You are talking about root שחת, and I agree.

But the word שחת that we are talking about is not from that root.
The last letter in that word - letter Tav (ת=T) - is the feminine suffix, and it is not part of the root.
it is based on the root שוח (which in its "family" there are also שחה and שחח).

Just like נחת in Pr. 29:9 וְרָגַז וְשָׂחַק וְאֵין נָחַת
is based on נוח as in Job 3:26 לֹא שָׁלַוְתִּי וְלֹא שָׁקַטְתִּי וְלֹא נָחְתִּי וַיָּבֹא רֹגֶז
Also here, the last letter T is the feminine suffix and not part of the root.

So just like נחת, so is שחת, which its root meaning is about "being low".

****************************************

Your examples for the definition of "providing" is like a Joker card.
Anything is a "provision".

When God spoke words to the prophets, The verb that is used can also be seen as providing words.
Therefore "speaking=providing".
When someone sneezes, he provides spit.
Therefore "sneezing=providing".
When a student asks his teacher about some issue, he provides a question.
Therefore "asking=providing".
And when the teacher answers, she provides an answer.
Therefore "answering=providing".

You see where I'm going with this...

Choosing a verb and trying to prove that it means "to provide" by pointing to the result that this verb/act creates, doesn't mean that this verb/act is "providing". Because every act provides something.

Maybe even the English word "digging" is actually "providing", and we never really knew that, and it is all because of Webster who didn't really know the real English.
**********************************************************

כרה with the meaning of "setting" a trap (next to a hole, by the way) is found 7 times (without the כרה רעה)
Jer. 18:20 כִּי כָרוּ שׁוּחָה לְנַפְשִׁי
Jer. 18:22 כִּי כָרוּ שׁוּחָה לְלׇכְדֵנִי
But... it continues with וּפַחִים טָמְנוּ לְרַגְלָי - Why not the opposite?
Psalms 7:17 בּוֹר כָּרָה וַיַּחְפְּרֵהוּ וַיִּפֹּל בְּשַׁחַת יִפְעָל
Psalms 27:7 כָּרוּ לְפָנַי שִׁיחָה
Psalms 94:13 עַד יִכָּרֶה לָרָשָׁע שָׁחַת
Psalms 119:85 כָּרוּ לִי זֵדִים שִׁיחוֹת
Pr. 26:27 כֹּרֶה שַּׁחַת בָּהּ יִפּוֹל

**********************************************************

I've listed again the verses with root כרה with the context of setting a trap.
It comes in that context only with בור, שוחה, שיחה, שחת.
You say that the meaning of root כרה is not "digging", but it is "providing".
(As providing a pit).
Okay.

Let's stick to that context for this examination in other words.

There are other words with the context-meaning of "trap".
Such as פח, מוקש, רשת

But they never come with root כרה. Only with other verbs.

Now I ask you, and you must answer this for yourself... (but don't forget about me too).

How is it that the only traps that are provided are בור, שוחה, שיחה, שחת (pits), and all other traps are not provided?
This is the same context.
If traps are provided, then all of them should use this root at least once.

Or maybe... just maybe, root כרה comes only with traps that are pits for the reason that it is "digging".
David Hunter
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by kwrandolph »

Dear David Hunter:

My first question here is: why are you so hot on trying to prove that כרה must mean “to dig” when this thread is about כאר used as a verb in Psalm 22:17? And as a participle in Amos 8:8? Why do’t you open your arguments in a new thread?
ducky wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 3:25 pm Hi Karl,
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 12:06 am The MT reading, as it presently exists, violates what I know of Biblical Hebrew grammar and syntax. The older reading gives a smooth reading according to Biblical Hebrew grammar and syntax. Then there’s the LXX, even though it used the incorrect word in Greek, backs up the older reading. So for me, the older reading is 1) older, 2) grammatically and syntactically correct 3) backed up by other ancient translations, all together lead me to the conclusion that the MT has been corrupted at this verse.
I won't be able, through a few words, to change your mind on that principle. So let's keep it that way.
The principle here is what was the original reading? And what message was intended by the original text?

If you want to continue arguing about כרה, I’ll join you in a new thread.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 11:05 pm My first question here is: why are you so hot on trying to prove that כרה must mean “to dig” when this thread is about כאר used as a verb in Psalm 22:17? And as a participle in Amos 8:8? Why do’t you open your arguments in a new thread?
Oh, wow. Are you proposing a hapax legomenon verb כָּאַר? I’d never read that from anyone.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
ducky
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by ducky »

Hi Karl,
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 11:05 pm My first question here is: why are you so hot on trying to prove that כרה must mean “to dig” when this thread is about כאר used as a verb in Psalm 22:17?
I saw it important to talk about the root כרה because of the fact that I see its English translation being confusing to the English speaker.
And so, once I saw it, I took the opportunity to say my thoughts about this Hebrew root in this Hebrew forum.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 11:05 pm The principle here is what was the original reading? And what message was intended by the original text?
The principle that I was talking about is a general one. And it is not to see the equation of "older=more reliable" as the ultimate truth.
I don't say that is also false. But it is to be seen only as one of the factors of examination (and put on a scale together with the other factors).
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 11:05 pm And as a participle in Amos 8:8?
The verse appears again in Amos 9:5
Can you please explain the difference?

Amos 8:8 וְאָבַל כׇּל יוֹשֵׁב בָּהּ וְעָלְתָה כָאֹר כֻּלָּהּ וְנִגְרְשָׁה [וְנִשְׁקְעָה] (ונשקה) כִּיאוֹר מִצְרָיִם
Amos 9:5 וְאָבְלוּ כׇּל יוֹשְׁבֵי בָהּ וְעָלְתָה כַיְאֹר כֻּלָּהּ וְשָׁקְעָה כִּיאֹר מִצְרָיִם
David Hunter
Post Reply