But there was some discussion about the Kaari or Karu or Kaaru, pierced/bored through/dug, or "as a lion".
A post was made there and I wanted to reply to it but i think it makes more sense in a thread about the translation rather than my thread there that was about the simple fact of what hebrew is on a fragment. I didn't want my thread to get diverted. But I think the translation question is an important one.
So i've made a thread here
ducky wrote: As for the meaning of digging vs. piercing...
I guess that in English, the word Dig can be used for different close meanings.
But we're not talking about English, and actually, my comment was about to let us shake the English out of our head and focus on the Hebrew.
So when Hebrew uses "dig" is uses roots such as כרה or חפר.
Both of them is about digging the earth and so on, as I wrote above.
The basic view of the act is to create a deep and wide hole.
For example, if I dig a well, I dig it deep and wide.
If I "dig" a nail into the wall - I cannot say that I כריתי or ִחפרתי the wall because it is just a pierce.
If I take a paper and create a wide hole in it with some round object, I also cannot say that I חפרתי or כריתי because it is not deep. (and it would be just a round-cut).
And while you check in the lexicon these roots of חפר and כרה you will see that they act the same.
if someone pierces something then it would be נקב or רצע and so on. Which is creating a small hole with a sharp object.
Therefore no one can "dig" a hand (like he cannot dig a paper) but he can pierce it.
and the Piercing is not represented by root כרה nor חפר.
The verse that you brought אזנים כרית לי shows me first that you didn't find (and I guess you searched) כרה as piercing, and then you find this "picture" that uses that verse.
But what does this picture mean?
it doesn't mean that the ear was pierced.
But it gives the picture of the ears-internal-holes as a hole in the ground (or a well) which they are wide (enough) and deep.
And it is like he says that God "opened his ears" or made his ears with "good" earing holes that with them he is capable to listen to the laws.
The picture doesn't say that the ears-internal-holes are like pinholes, but rather as a "well-hole" which then the essence is clear - Listening.
The act of good listening is based on wide and deep holes exactly like you dig a hole in the ground, and not as if you create a hole by a piercing.
And anyone who looks at the ear-holes can see that they are like a "hole in the ground", and not as something that was created by piercing.
And also notice that in Hebrew, you don't "dig the ground" but you "dig a hole in the ground".
And so we see כרה בור or חפר באר (dig a well, dig a hole (in the ground)).
The form of כרית אזנים is like saying כרית באר or כרית בור.
As if the ears are the well (or the ground-hole itself).
So the usage itself in this form and style alone clears the "picture".
When the Bible told to pierce the ear, it uses רצע as in Ex.21:6
וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת אׇזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ
but that, of course, doesn't refer to the internal holes. And so you can understand why this verse used רצע and not כרה or חפר - because, in Hebrew, they would not fit.
As for כרה/כור
כרה is used as a verb - in the meaning that I wrote.
כור does not act as a verb - only as a noun (which also, by its meaning you can see the link to the meaning of כרה).
ְAnd so, also כור doesn't fit here.
Once, because it doesn't act a verb (but we can stretch this issue and still accept that).
And second, because also as a noun, it doesn't have the meaning of "pierce" or "pin-hole" or whatever.
The point is that the meaning of piercing just doesn't fit.
This case was formed because of religious issues, and so I see it is very popular, but the fact is that it just doesn't fit.
And if this case didn't remind any connotation to a religious story, no one would even think to see it that way. But because it does, then it is pushed and pushed and stretched and stretched to make it look like it fits this meaning of piercing.
But this Hebrew root is not about that, and anyone can check my words by just looking at the Bible (and also in other Semitic languages) and see it by himself.
ducky wrote: For example, if I dig a well, I dig it deep and wide.
one can bore through a hand.. or paper, especially if talking more poetically. Or using good English.ducky wrote: Therefore no one can "dig" a hand (like he cannot dig a paper)
So I think karu can make sense there.
so since the ear canal is not wide, the ear example counters what you say about it being wide so you interpret it extra metaphorically as open the ears wide and deep..ducky wrote: The verse... אזנים כרית לי ....
( WTT Psalm 40:7 זֶ֤בַח וּמִנְחָ֙ה׀ לֹֽא־חָפַ֗צְתָּ אָ֭זְנַיִם כָּרִ֣יתָ לִּ֑י עוֹלָ֥ה וַ֜חֲטָאָ֗ה לֹ֣א שָׁאָֽלְתָּ׃
(Ps. 40:7 WTT))
it doesn't mean that the ear was pierced.
But it gives the picture of the ears-internal-holes as a hole in the ground (or a well) which they are wide (enough) and deep.
And it is like he says that God "opened his ears" or made his ears with "good" earing holes that with them he is capable to listen to the laws.
Well if the hand is bored through with a big hole it is wide and deep and big - for a hand.
And it's not out of the question to use a term poetically e.g. in English a good speaker of the English language might say "we are on a crusade to ensure everybody has pens and pencils".
And one shouldn't necessarily look at a term like a scientific/anatomical term distinguishing between an internal hole and an external hole.
We're talking about a word Karu that relates to making a hole, that can be used for metaphorically unplugging/opening the ears, or for digging a well, so these are two very different things. So I don't think one can see those two diverse examples, and be dogmatic and say it can't refer to making a hole in the hand. Both have in common 'boring through'. Sure there's a similar root for making a hole, but word usage can change over time, and different people use words differently, and we are not native speakers of hebrew used in biblical times.
Also, and I think this is significant.. The Septuagint has a greek word like pierce, combined with the DSS(or at least one or some DSS) having Karu. And even some masoretic having Kaaru or Karu. So it's legitimate to say Karu.. One could say pierce or bore.
Saying pierced makes sense if talking about a fragment that might have Karu, since the DSSEnglish website suggests that it has Karu. (by translating as 'pierced', or it could've said 'bored' as in 'bored through').
If you are translating somethinig based on a hebrew text that says Karu then absolutely it should be translated as bored or pierced or dig, or holed through, not as 'as a lion'.
If you want to say a DSS text, and some masoretic texts, are wrong because you can't dig through or bore through a hand, well, that's your view.. but a translation of that text should translate what the text says.
And from what I understand, the Septuagint was completed BCE. So theology/case being formed due to religious issues/ i.e. christian influence, wouldn't come into it in the context of translating what the text says when the text says that(like the DSS website translating a DSS scroll as that[karu] when it has that), nor would 'religious issues' be an influence on the minority of masoretic texts with karu, or the DSS/ 1/some DSS with Karu.. So you can have a view that every text with Karu is a writing error rather than a 'religious issue'. The Septuagint , as far as I know, is understood by academics to have been completed BCE and by Jewish writers, so clearly they understood the hebrew to be Karu. So there's a decent argument for Karu. Where 'religious reason' /christian influence could come into it is where apparently the KJV is a bit eclectic in picking that DSS version for religious reasons. But not if we are talking about a BCE Hebrew text with Karu or BCE greek with Karu.. or a masoretic text with Karu.
Thanks
Ralph Zak