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

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.
ralph
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

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

Postby ralph » Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:36 am

There was a recent thread in the DSS section, where I was asking about where on a DSS fragment a word was written.. it wasn't really about how to translate a word.

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.


ducky wrote:Therefore no one can "dig" a hand (like he cannot dig a paper)


one can bore through a hand.. or paper, especially if talking more poetically. Or using good English.

So I think karu can make sense there.

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.


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..

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

ducky
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

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

Postby ducky » Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:35 am

Hello Ralph

the כרו/כארו also doesn't mean "bore". it just doesn't.
And in Hebrew, you cannot bore a paper, as you suggested.
(It doesn't matter how the English way goes, Hebrew uses other roots for each act).

You also tried to explain why the ear and hand can be the same.
But it is not. The internal hole of the ear which goes inside the head itself is like a big well.
and so you see in the Bible כרה בור and חפר באר (dig a hole in the ground & dig a well).
And it the same form of כרית אזנים (dig ear).
As if the ear "took the place" of the well or ground-hole.

And I say it again. Notice that in Hebrew you don't "dig the earth" but you dig a hole in the earth".
when there is a direct object that is dug, the direct object becomes the description of the hole itself.
Exactly as "dig a well" - the well is the description of the hole.
but "dig the earth" - the earth is not the description of the hole.
So Hebrew style is the first one.

and so כרית אזנים turns the direct object (אזנים) to the "well" itself.

When you say: dig the hand.
How can you imagine the hand like a well (or as a ground-hole)?
it just doesn't fit. and you are so regular to the use of English "dig the earth" that it sounds right to you.

As for the translation...
If you would check, you would see that each translation translated that differently (Greek, Syrian, and so on...) because they couldn't really read it as a verb.
If it was so clear, then we would expect from everyone giving the same translation, or at least close to each other - but each one takes it to another place.

And before you walk blindly after translation, first you must see that in Hebrew, it cannot mean Pierce. That's it.
Ao not only that this root doesn't mean pierce, but also the "image" doesn't fit, and also the syntax doesn't fit (because it should have been כרו בידי (as with a prefix B before ידי).

I wrote here in general because in your post you gave a lot of "reasons" of why it should be pierced.
If you would shrink your posts to one subject at a time (root meaning, syntax, translations, and so on...) I could write more clearly about each subject.

And I say again,
the only reason that people argue about it is that it touches a religious story.
If there was no religious story in the background, no one would say it means to pierce.
David Hunter

ralph
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

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

Postby ralph » Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:12 pm

I am not saying one way or the other whether it's "as a lion" (kaari), or they dug(karu) (or pierced or bored)

I don't understand whether you think there is any hebrew text anywhere that says Karu. And if so then what you make of it.

ducky wrote: in Hebrew you don't "dig the earth" but you dig a hole in the earth".


If we look at examples of kara

WTT Genesis 26:25 וַיִּ֧בֶן שָׁ֣ם מִזְבֵּ֗חַ וַיִּקְרָא֙ בְּשֵׁ֣ם יְהוָ֔ה וַיֶּט־שָׁ֖ם אָהֳל֑וֹ וַיִּכְרוּ־שָׁ֥ם עַבְדֵי־יִצְחָ֖ק בְּאֵֽר׃
(Gen. 26:25 WTT)

The word "earth" is not there.

The word BuhAyr is there , meaning well or pit.

So they dug a hole or a well.

So I suppose you might mean that it says they dig XYZ and XYZ is the thing they create. The hole or well. Not the thing they dig into.

So that example might support you.

But Psalms 40:7 has Kara with the thing that is dug into / bored through.

WTT Psalm 40:7 זֶ֤בַח וּמִנְחָ֙ה׀ לֹֽא־חָפַ֗צְתָּ אָ֭זְנַיִם כָּרִ֣יתָ לִּ֑י עוֹלָ֥ה וַ֜חֲטָאָ֗ה לֹ֣א שָׁאָֽלְתָּ׃

you bored/dug/opened my ears

That's the same root Kara, and and Kara is adjacent to the thing that is being dug into. The hole with the wax or 'blockage' in it.

So if it had hands there it'd be similar.

So I am understanding those two examples as two different usages (the well and the ears), as two different usages of Kara..

One is digging associated with the well, the thing that is created.. or the hole that is made.

The other is digging associated with the thing being dug into, the ears. Specifically the hole within the ear will be dug into. Clearing out the ear canal.

So in those examples, the bible doesn't have digging into earth(i.e. it doesn't specify earth),, it has digging into ears, and digging a well

So digging a well shows that kara can be associated with the thing that is created , or the hole.

And digging ears shows that kara can be associated with the thing being dug into.

So if you look at Psalms 22:17, digging the hands, it's like the case of the ears.

I am not aware of other ways that Psalms 40:7(about opening ears), is parsed, as the only parsing guide I have available to me is from bibleworks, Groves Wheeler, which parses kareeta as the root Kara as verb in paal perfect second person masculine singular.

If you are aware of some other way of parsing it, can you tell me what parsing and what translation uses that? Bibleworks offers a lot of translations but the only parsing I see from bibleworks is Groves Wheeler.





ducky wrote:If there was no religious story in the background, no one would say it means to pierce.


they could say it means to bore as in to bore through, or dug, which is similar to pierce.

I don't understand how you think they're going to translate Karu/Kaaru in that Psalm. Do you think they'll ignore it and pretend it says Kaari like the manuscripts that says Kaari?

So why do you think that some manuscripts have karu and kaaru and not kaari?

Do you think Karu only occurs after the religious story?

Do you think the Nahal Hever manuscript is a change from kaari, and is dated after the religious story?

Do you think the Septuagint mistranslated Kaari(as a lion), as "to dig"(in greek) and that it's just a coincidence that the hebrew word Karu is related to boring a hole and is similar to Kaari? So is your view that the Hebrew the septuagint was translating from said Kaari not Karu?

wikipedia mentions "The Septuagint, ..made before the Common Era, has ωρυξαν χειράς μου και πόδας ("they have dug my hands and feet")"

Some masoretic manuscripts have Karu or Kaaru. Why do you think that is, given that the masoretes had no interest in or bias towards the religious story to which you refer.

From what I understand, 4Q88 is from Hasmonean times(so, pre christian), and there's a kaf, a reish, and an unclear vav . So while a vav is unclear, it has no aleph. So kaari wouldn't fit..

(like him or not, these pictures were provided by dr brown, a PhD in semitic languages, in a video he did on psalms 22 and daniel 9). I'm not relying on his interpretation, just showing some evidence he provided.

Image

From what I understand, nahal hever manuscripts may be some after jesus, some before jesus, but they are not thought/understood to be the texts of a christian group. And that has kaaru.

And then you have some minority masoretic texts, masoretes aren't christian.

Kennicott collated them, and from what I understand, DeRossi did a later work supplementing it with vowel variations.

Image

Thanks.

Ralph Zak

ducky
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

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

Postby ducky » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:24 pm

Hello Ralph,

ralph wrote:I don't understand whether you think there is any Hebrew text anywhere that says Karu. And if so then what you make of it.

My view is this:
The original source wrote "lion".
Through the time of the copying of the text, some of the copiers had a problem to understand the verse because of its problematic syntax, and so the copier thought he saw an error that was made by the previous copier who wrote the script that stands in front of him. And so, he changed it to כארו.

In the hand-scripts, there were a lot of Ys that were written as Ws, and vice verse. and so, it wasn't a "big deal" to think it was an error.

But while changing the כארי to כארו, a new problem was made, which is the verb itself, that
First, it is not a usual Hebrew form of the root.
Second, even if we accept the form, this root doesn't act as a verb in Hebrew.
Third, and most importantly, a nice meaning doesn't fit.

I guess that when they pushed to see it as a verb, they saw it in the meaning of "round".
If we see it as a verb in the matter of "roundness", it fits the other two verbs in the verse:
הקיפוני - סבבוני - they surround me - they circled me.
and so, and since the root כור in Hebrew is based on the meaning of "round", they understood it as something like: "they surrounded my hands and feet", which would be parallel to the other two descriptions in this verse.
(or maybe by that, "they tied my hands and feet").
But still, this interpretation is kinda weak for me to accept, but I guess that this is the best way they thought it was - since the "lion" word also gave them a problem.

And the script writes כארו with an Aleph. And that is interesting because that is what they saw. And not כרו.
I don't even refer to the Qumran script - from two reasons:
1. I still didn't see it on the script itself, and not did you.
2. Even if we do see it as כרו, the fact that the other script writes כארו tells me/us that the word was written with the Aleph.
Because it is not logical to think that a usual form like כרו would be changed to an unusual form like כארו.
But it is logical to say that those who saw an unusual form כארו and saw it as a verb, changed it to the usual form כרו.

Therefore, we should look at the script that writes כארו as the one who gives strong support for the view that this word was written with Aleph.
And we need to see it with a heavy mind and thinking, that the fact that the word was written with Aleph gives support for the כארי form.
Because a verb like כארו is not a usual form and verb, and we need to flip-flop to see it like that.

Also, I said before that in hand-scripts, there are a lot of Y/W switches.
And I wonder if you can give me a link to the script of Nahal-Hever, so we can see if in that script there are cases for this switch.
If we found that they used to switch the Y/W also in other places, then the case is closed, and we can say that the כארי was written as כארו just because of the writing skills.
And if there are no other cases, then we go back to my above explanation of how I see what happened.

ּSo basically, this is what I think happened. And while trying to correct a so-called error, they created error by themselves.
And I can be sure that a lot of the readers read it as a verb because it is easier to read it syntactically as a verb (but not to understand it).
But the MT had its tradition of reading it as a noun כארי - and that is the right reading.

In this post, I only referred to one subject because you wrote a lot.
Let's finish that one alone, and then I will refer to the other subject in your posts.
This comment is very general, and If you have something to comment or add, please do. And if not, I will comment about the other cases in your comment.
David Hunter

ralph
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

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

Postby ralph » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:44 pm

ducky wrote:Hello Ralph,

ralph wrote:I don't understand whether you think there is any Hebrew text anywhere that says Karu. And if so then what you make of it.

My view is this:
The original source wrote "lion".
Through the time of the copying of the text, some of the copiers had a problem to understand the verse because of its problematic syntax, and so the copier thought he saw an error that was made by the previous copier who wrote the script that stands in front of him. And so, he changed it to כארו.
.....


okay.. I don't have the knowledge to comment much on the speculations..

but note that one of the images I included showed that among the minority of masoretic manuscripts, besides kaari(lion), and kaaru(karu with aleph), there is also כרו i.e. karu without the aleph.

ducky wrote:I said before that in hand-scripts, there are a lot of Y/W switches.
And I wonder if you can give me a link to the script of Nahal-Hever, so we can see if in that script there are cases for this switch.


I don't have the full thing only that verse Image

Did Y/W switch only in the case of roots with a yud or waw in the middle, or are you suggesting they switched even in other cases?

ducky wrote:But the MT had its tradition of reading it as a noun כארי - and that is the right reading.


Most MT, not all. See image from Kennicott / DeRossi. From what I understand, that's a collection of masoretic manuscripts

They also have karu(no aleph) and kaaru(with aleph), as that image from Kennicott / DeRossi with the numbers in it shows.

ducky
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

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

Postby ducky » Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:25 pm

Hi Ralph,

Y and W can be switched anywhere. The reason is their similar form. י/ו.
Sometimes the writers didn't give attention to the length and we can see י as ו, and the opposite.

So I saw the link of these fragments and it seems that they were quite accurate with the w/Y. and so, the form that they wrote is with an intentional W.
So my view stays the same - that it was an original כארי and they change it to כארו as I said before.

As for Masora. There are a lot of scripts. and not all of them are considered "loyal" to rely on. The best one that fits the Masora of Ben-Asher (which is the Masoretic man/school tradition that is followed) is the Aleppo codex. Also, Leningrad and others are important of course.
The case of finding a script that writes it like that doesn't make it the MT tradition.

ְAnd also, the fact that in some scripts you see כארו and in others כרו - just tells you that it was a confusing word that its verb-reading was not understood and therefore was "played".

But as I said, there is no logic to take the כרו and change it to כארו - this is not logical.
the logic way is to turn the unusual form to the usual form - and not the opposite.

And also. as I said before, not כרו and not כארו can mean pierce. It just doesn't.

I will continue to write here tomorrow, and also comment about the other stuff in your post to clear the fact that this root cannot be seen as piercing.
David Hunter

ralph
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

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

Postby ralph » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:27 pm

ducky wrote:Y and W can be switched anywhere. The reason is their similar form. י/ו.
Sometimes the writers didn't give attention to the length and we can see י as ו, and the opposite.


Of course, but I didn't know what you were talking about saying sometimes they can be switched. Now I see you are talking about a writing error then yeah, they can.

And some do think maybe the scribe of the nahal hever manuscript with Psalm 22:17 miswrote the yud as a waw.

Though that wouldn't explain any manuscripts that have karu with no aleph.

ducky wrote:As for Masora. There are a lot of scripts.


You mean manuscripts.

scripts would be e.g. ktav ashuri and ktav ivri, which you don't mean.

ducky wrote:and not all of them[manuscripts] are considered "loyal" to rely on. The best one that fits the Masora of Ben-Asher (which is the Masoretic man/school tradition that is followed) is the Aleppo codex. Also, Leningrad and others are important of course.
The case of finding a script that writes it like that doesn't make it the MT tradition.


Of course a minority reading among masoretic manuscripts don't tend to become what people use..

I am not claiming that karu is a preferred reading among masoretic manuscripts. My point was that karu/kaaru is not just a DSS phenomenon.

And i'm not taking a side on whether it is karu or kaaru or kaari. There is manuscript evidence for any of them.


ducky wrote:ְAnd also, the fact that in some scripts you see כארו and in others כרו - just tells you that it was a confusing word that its verb-reading was not understood and therefore was "played".


No it doesn't. There are different possible explanations.

It tells you that MAYBE the word is meant to be there and there are two ways of spelling the word.

or Maybe, it got confused with Kaari.

And BTW Kaari in that the verse would read "as a lion my hands and feet". So it could fit but it doesn't fit like a glove, you have to add words like "they are at".

ducky wrote:But as I said, there is no logic to take the כרו and change it to כארו - this is not logical.
the logic way is to turn the unusual form to the usual form - and not the opposite.


I don't know why you think everything has to be changed(whatever you mean by that).. And in a verbal tradition, Karu with an aleph sounds the same as Karu without an aleph. So it is possible it is a spelling variation. We can't know.

ducky wrote:And also. as I said before, not כרו and not כארו can mean pierce. It just doesn't.
I will continue to write here tomorrow, and also comment about the other stuff in your post to clear the fact that this root cannot be seen as piercing.


OK, and if you say it means dig and not pierce.. You can take an object and dig it into somebody's hand, or take an object and with it, dig into somebody's hand. or dig at somebody's hand with a knife or an instrument that might be like pin sharp on the bottom but thicker higher up. You can even take a pin and dig it into this/that.. Really these words are not so different.

And just because usually the word dig is associated with the ground, and the word pierce is associated with very sharp thin objects going into things other than the ground, that doesn't mean that you can't use the terms more creatively.. Like one can speak of the inertia of ideas rather than just inertia as a physics term. In hebrew you even have Moses as an Elohim for Aharon (Exodus 4:16). Or Samuel, 1 Samuel 28:13. If neither of those references re elohim existed, you'd says elohim can never be used in those contexts. If only one of those existed, and elohim was a smaller word with a plausible alternative, maybe you'd say and be adamant that it must have been a scribal error and "got changed".

And this could be the case with karu.. I gave the example of the digging associated with 'ears' with my explanation, which I understand you'll be responding to.

ducky
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

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

Postby ducky » Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:24 am

Hi Ralph and thanks for the explanation of scripts vs. manuscript

Let's start from the beginning, and do it one by one because there are too many subjects here and it becomes a mess.
So first let's talk only about the meaning of root כרה or כור and let's leave the spelling and other stuff, and we will talk about them later.
Because the most important thing to me right now is to show that כרו/כארו cannot be "pierce" (even if this is the right spelling).
After we finish that, and you still insist that the spelling is right, we can "argue" about what it can mean.

For now, let's talk only about the meaning of the root.

So Hebrew differ the meaning of digging and piercing.
Digging in Hebrew (כרה and חפר) is to create a wide and deep hole (relatively).
The act is to take Y out from X, and therefore, the specific place of the X becomes a hole. Like you take out dirt from the ground, and therefore, the specific place of the ground becomes a hole.

When you "dig" a nail inside the wall - you just stick it - and even though you made a hole in the wall. You didn't "dig" a hole. but you just pierced it.
And if you make a hole in the bucket - you don't "dig" the hole but you pierce it.

And this is the usage of the word anywhere. Not only in Hebrew, but also in the other Semitic languages.

You cannot "dig" a hand. But you can pierce it.

Now let's look at some of the examples of when the Bible uses the roots רצע and נקב which mean "piercing", and see the similarity between the objects that were holed.

Pircing the ear (רצע)
Ex. 21:6 וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת אׇזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם

Making a hole in a door (נקב)
2Kings 12:10 וַיִּקֹּב חֹר בְּדַלְתּוֹ

Piercing the hand (palm)
2Kings 18:21 וּבָא בְכַפּוֹ וּנְקָבָהּ
Isaiah 36:6 וּבָא בְכַפּוֹ וּנְקָבָהּ

A hole in the body with a spear or an arrow
Habakkuk 3:14 נָקַבְתָּ בְמַטָּיו רֹאשׁ פְּרָזָו

A Hole in the pocket
Haggai 1:6 וְהַמִּשְׂתַּכֵּר מִשְׂתַּכֵּר אֶל צְרוֹר נָקוּב

Piercing the nose
Job 40:24 בְּמוֹקְשִׁים יִנְקׇב אָף

Piercing the cheek
Job 40:26 וּבְחוֹחַ תִּקֹּב לֶחֱיוֹ

all of the usages here are with נקב and רצע which are piercing. and you can understand the similarity of the acts. These are not digging.
You cannot dig a cheek, or a palm, or a pocket (as creating a hole).
And you cannot dig with an arrow or spear, or with a nail.

When there is a case like that, the Bible uses נקב mostly, and it doesn't use חפר or כרה because they just don't fit.

And I guess you already checked all of the occurrences of כרה in the bible and saw to what action it refers. and the difference is very clear.
And don't let yourself confused because of the English semantic link between the two.

As for כרית אזנים
So we saw that it is not pierced my ears.
First, the connotation of saying pierce my ear is not a good connotation that would fit the context.
Second, the internal hole of the ear is not as someone pierced it, but it is like someone dug it.
as if I say "dig a well", so is "dig an ear".
And the image of the ear would be like the image of a well.
it has the same form, and the word כרית wasn't used just as a coincidence, as if it could have been נקבת. It is an intentional verb to bring a sense of creating a well.

כרה/כור in all of its forms (verb, noun) appears a lot of times in the Bible, and not once you can see it act as pierce. (and also in other Semitic languages).
Because piercing has another verb.

And we also saw in the examples that when it said (twice) that the hand is pierced, it used נקב.
And we also saw in the examples that when the bible uses "pierce the ear", it refers to the thin part of the ear. because that is the only part that can be really pierced.

So review the examples. And also check your lexicon for root כרה/כור and see what is the difference in the usages.
And the case that "one can speak of the inertia of ideas" is not relevant here because:
1. the fact that it "could be" doesn't mean it is. And to really accept any inertia of ideas, the case should be very clear.
2. The fact that this kind of inertia of ideas doesn't happen in Hebrew and also not in other Semitic languages, shows that there was not dig=pierce in the languages.
3. The only reason you want to see it as an inertia of ideas is not because of the text that says that, but it is because you want to refer it to another story. So you are actually shooting the arrow and then go and circle the target.

If you can, please comment only about the meaning of the verb כרו/כארו so we would finish that one and then move to another subject.
David Hunter

ralph
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

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

Postby ralph » Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:27 am

Thanks for your response.

First of all, you are too presumptuous in trying to mind read, in saying that I "want to refer it to another story". I have not written of my beliefs or lack thereof, and I don't intend to, and you are the only person that keeps mentioning another story. My position is that it's possible that it s karu/kaaru - that there's a reasonable possibility that the manuscripts that say Karu/Kaaru , MEAN Karu/Kaaru. And that if those manuscripts mean what they say, then Karu/Kaaru can be used in that context. And it seems that besides the manuscripts, there have been people that thought this long before the Jesus story. And you really think it's a coincidence that exactly the same thing occurs in some minority of masoretic manuscripts, the same alleged scribal error on the same letter. And these are by Judaism believing Jews. Besiides that the (pre Jesus) translators of the septuagint had Karu/Kaaru. And besides that we have karu with aleph and karu without aleph, so if you were right that it were scribal errors, that'd mean different scribal errors on kaari, leading to the same word karu/kaaru in two different spellings.

You say " the fact that it "could be" doesn't mean it is." Indeed. But I am not claiming that it is or is not. It is you that is making the dogmatic claim that it is not. And it is you that claims that kara and kaara absolutely has to be a scribal error in any manuscript that it occurs in.

I could easily accuse you of seeing the Jesus story and because of your steadfast rejection of it, you are doing anything you can to deny it even saying that for sure absolutely every manuscript with karu/kaaru is a scribal error.

I personally do not accept or reject the Jesus story. And I don't think it would be proven if the text said Karu anyway. And I am not threatened by the possibility that the text says Karu. I could say you are threatened by the idea that the text says Karu/Kaaru, and by the idea that it isn't scribal errors in the manuscripts. But I am not playing the game of being a mind reader on you as you are on me. So i'd appreciate it if you stopped making that accusation.

I see both versions seen in manuscripts as legitimate readings.

You say " The only reason you want to see it as an inertia of ideas is not because of the text that says that, " <-- How do you know. And the fact is that the text of some manuscripts REALLY DOES say Karu/Kaaru. Personally i'd translate more as 'bore' or 'dig' And I agree that those words do suggest something coming out.. And something may well have come out. That may well be why that word was chosen by the author. (if we assume those manuscripts were not making a scribal error on that word)

So if somebody did an ear piercing and it was described as that they dug through the ear, it might suggest that they were like a butcher and so heavy handed and brutal, even part of the ear may have come out. To dig tends also to be not a process that is done in one go, which could be like if somebody drove something in and then kept driving it in further. And if it were a thick nail then pieces of hand may well come out, pieces of hand may come out around the nail hole as a result of the thick nail compressing that area of the hand. If you drive something sharp and one end and thick for the rest, into something, then other stuff can get forced out where it won't stay compressed.

Sometimes two words could be used, each conveys a different sense e.g. of making a hole, but one is chosen. Even in English, the word "dig" can suggest something being taken out. And so digging in the context of a person does sound more gory. A non-native speaker of English(like you perhaps) may say oh you can't dig through a hand, or dig something through a hand, because you've never seen the word 'dig' used that way. But an eloquent master of the English language with a verbal IQ of 120 or 125 or more, might be very aware of the connotations of the word 'dig' and use it very intentionally. And that's when you get very good and clever use of English. I don't think you have the native-level knowledge and immersion into "other semitic languages" to know that no author would ever use 'dig' in the context of a hand. The basic concept of picking a word less commonly associated with something, but in order to give the sense of a particular meaning, is probably a reality in any well developed language, in the hands of any thoughtful, skilled, eloquent author. It's entirely possible that there's only one case of it with the word karu/kaaru, but you look over it because you think it's a scribal error.

And how do you explain different manuscripts have the same "scribal error". Did some copy it wrongly originally and then others think it legitimate? And if you think t's just impossible to be legitimate then why did they keep it when they, according to your thinking, knew it was kaari? (and this is post dead sea scrolls, in some masoretic ones so mainstream-judaism believing jews). Besides the 4QPs one which I understand is also pre jesus, and which we haven't seen but which some have said has no aleph so can't be kaari.

Ralph Zak

ducky
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

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

Postby ducky » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:46 am

Hello Ralph,

1. I'm sorry that I upset you. I hope you know that this wasn't my intention.
I wrote what I wrote because I really thought, in a very objective way, that this is the reason you push it to be read as "pierce".
So I'm really sorry about that.

2. As for now, I want to talk only about the meaning of the root. So let's say for now that I also see the word as כארו/כרו as the right spelling, and we are trying to find the right meaning in that context.

3. You gave an example of the Semantic link that is made in English. But that is exactly my case.
This is what I say about why an English speaker doesn't see a problem when he read this verse with the meaning of "pierce". Because in his tongue, he is used to it.
And the English mind sees it as something like this:
Hebrew's כרה = English's Dig (the ground)
English's Dig = English's Pierce
therefore...
English's Pierce = Hebrew's כרה

But this thing does not occur in Hebrew and in the Semitic languages. And it is like I would talk to a Chinese guy and try to explain some Chinese word with a link that can be made in Hebrew. And then, when he tells me that it doesn't happen in Chinese, I would tell him that It Could Be, and maybe this is a "one-time case". After all, Hebrew does this link, so why not Chinese?

Each language makes its own links. A lot of times the links are similar in a few languages, but sometimes they aren't.

4. As for the Semitic languages.
I checked this root (in all of its forms) in the academic dictionaries of Akkadian, Ugarit, Arabic, Aramaic/Syrian. And couldn' find any meaning of "piercing".
You can check it yourself if you want. The dictionaries can be found online.
Also, I checked this root (in all of its forms) in every stage of Hebrew - Biblical, Mishnaic, Qumranic, close-post-biblical-era, medieval, and up to the modern Hebrew. And couldn't find any meaning of "Pierce" for that root.

So the link you made from English may be nice. But it just doesn't happen in Hebrew.


5. As for your explanation of Digging...
As I said, it doesn't happen in Hebrew. Not even for a "brutal-piercing" as you described.
The only usage in Hebrew that can use "dig" (but with root חפר) by a nail or something like that, it would be if I have something in my body (like a thorn) and I want to take it out from my body. and then I use a pin or a needle and move it like I move a shovel, to try to take the thorn out.
Or if I go to the doctor and he can't find my vein, and he plays around with the needle from side to side, then I would say that he "dug" *IN* my arm" (not "dug my arm", by the way).
(but I think that this usage is only in Modern Hebrew and I think it is influenced by English, I'm not sure about it).
But anyway, the other usage of "digging" is used also according to the movement of the sharp object being used as a shovel. And not about any piercing in the attempt of making a hole. And surely not about any brutal-act.

6. So even if I accept the form of כארו/כרו, there is no way that it can be understood as "piercing" - There is just no way.

7. I have a book in my home that changes almost every verse n the Bible. this book actually sees an error in the Bible more than any other book that there is. He has an opinion about almost everything.
So I checked to see what this book writes about this verse and about the word.
And he did have comments about an error there. But not about the word כארי.
It actually criticizes the corrections of כאר/כרו/כאבו/כרתו.
The thing is that even the most criticizing book that there is cannot accept this kind of meaning for כארו/כרו because as much as we want - it just couldn't be as "Pierce".

8. By the way, just a note. this book read the word כלבים as כ+לבים which the לבים is like לבאים - which is "lions".
And then he creates a parallelism between the two first parts.
כי כלבים הקיפוני = they surrounded me like lions.
עדת מרעים הקיפוני כארי = harming people circled me like a lion.
(while the third part is linked to the next verse).
I don't agree with it, but it surely creative.

9. So anyway, my point is only about the given meaning "pierce" for כארו/כרו even if this spelling is the right one. There is just no usage like that. And when someone explains it as he explains the English, I think he is just deceiving himself (unintentionally).
And in my last comment, I gave an example of how a spear or an arrow "pierce" the body - and it is used the root נקב.
and also pierce a hole in the door and it is called נקב.
or cheek and so on.
Also, these examples are brutal and the pieces of the body are also brutally taken out from the other side, or from the arrow when it is taken out.
and when you create a hole in a wooden door - you also knock it a few times. and still, it is called נקב.

ּSo why should we flip-flop in the air and doing all that we can to read it as "piercing", when all of the other evidence never see this root comes as "pierce".
I mean - put it on a scale. You put almost everything that we know on one side, and then, on the other side we can only put the "It Could Be because English has it too".

If for some reason I wrote something that may offend you, I'm sorry and it is very unintentional. So don't take anything personally. I'm talking against this view. Not against you.
David Hunter


Return to “Hebrew Bible”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests