Like a lion...

[Aaron]

Ran accross this statement in the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible:

Since the time of Ezra, certain minor scribal corruptions have found their way into the text of Psalms....The only change of real doctrinal moment is a later Jewish attmept to avoid the Messianic prophecy of Psalm 22:16, [Hebrew characters I can't reproduce] "they pierced my hands and my feet," by reading, [Hebrew characters I can't reproduce] "like a lion, my hands and my feet."

Interestingly enough, I found footnotes in the modern translations leading credence to the corruption as a possible reading.

NIV: (Saying of the "pierced" translation) Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Syriac; (of the corruption) most Hebrew manuscripts/like the lion,

CEV: 22.16 "tearing at": One possible meaning for the difficult Hebrew text.

NKJV: 22:16 Masoretic Text reads Like a lion.

The Message simply "translates" the text as:
Now packs of wild dogs come at me;
thugs gang up on me.
They pin me down hand and foot,

Thoughts? If this is a deliberate jewish corruption, why even suggest it as a possible reading?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Look in your on-line Strongs and it will show that "they pierce" is not in the original Hebrew but in a side marginal note.

The word is areyeh or "lion-like". AV translators went with a secondary text.

Not the first, nor the last time they opted for it.

 

[Aaron]

Here's what my online Strong's says.

In the Hebrew Bible, the scribes did not alter any text they felt had been copied incorrectly. Rather they noted in the margin what they thought the written text should be. The written variation is called a kethiv and the marginal note is called the qere.

So, according to Strong's, "like a lion" was considered an incorrect copy by the scribes, and the correct reading was added in the margin.

John Gill also attributes the "like a lion" reading to an error of transmission and the similarity of the letters vau and yod.

Likewise Matthew Henry and John Calvin consider "like a lion" to be a corruption. Calvin offers this reasoning:

If we receive this reading as [like a lion], the sense will be enveloped in marvellous obscurity. In the first place, it will be a defective form of expression, and to complete it, they say it is necessary to supply the verb to surround or to beset. But what do they mean by besetting the hands and the feet? Besetting belongs no more to these parts of the human body than to the whole man.

In any event, no new translation that I have seen renders the passage as "like a lion." Right now I could see adding a footnote about it as an example of an error of transmission that was preserved, but not as a "possible" reading.

My mind is open, though. Any other thoughts?

 

[skanwmatos]

This is an example of a different understanding of the purpose of the ketiv/qere pairs found in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

The earlier understanding was that the marginal reading was a correction of a corruption which had crept into the main body of the text. The earlier translations used the marginal correction. Later it was suggested the marginal readings were simply marginal notes and the reading of the main text was correct. Later translators used the reading of the main body of text.

The best evidence (as well as the meaning of the words "ketiv" and "qere") seems to suggest the earlier understanding was correct. The LXX reads "they pierced my hands and feet" as does the Vorsage Hebrew text found near Khirbet Qumran in the 1940s which pre-dates the Masoretic text.