I am new to this board so bear with me. I have a question on the last partTechnically, in BHS at least, this is not an issue of ketiv and qere but an issue of emending the Hebrew text on the basis of the other manuscripts and translations.
of the 16th verse of the 22nd Psalm . I you will forgive my crude
transliteration, the ketib reads: "K'ariy Yadiy Regeliy". The qere
substitutes "Kari" (no aleph) for "K'ariy" (with an aleph). ...
... K'ariy wouldThe form in BHS is actually ka'ariy, the first a is a qamets indicating a definite article, so a more literal rendering would be "like the lion". It is not an objection that there is no verb because the verb "to be", in the present tense, is usually omitted in Hebrew. So the meaning of this version would have to be "my hands and my feet are like the lion".
seem to mean "like a lion" although I have read some translations that make
it plural. The ketib then seems to lack a verb. ...
... The qere would seem to beThe suggested emended Hebrew text is karu, a double emendation (alef dropped, yod replaced by vav). This seems to mean "they made a hole". In most cases the object is a pit or cistern, and so the appropriate verb in English is "dig". In Psalm 40:6 (Hebrew v.7) the object is an ear, which can hardly be dug, but can be pierced (cf. Exodus 21:6, where a different verb is used).
from the root "karah" and is universally translated into English as "they
pierced". ...
... However if I am not mistaken, "karah" means "to dig" (qal) notNot in Psalm 40:6.
"pierce". This would be consistent with the Septuagint which translates the
same phrase (which is listed in the LXX in Psalm 21:17) as "orukan xeirav
mou kai podav". Oruko means "to dig". I believe this is the only place in
the Old Testament where a word from the root 'krh" is translated as
"pierce". Everywhere it is usually translated as "dig".
Is "like a lion" a reasonable translation? It looks singular to me but is"They dug my hands and feet" is meaningless. "They made holes in my hands and feet" is meaningful. But it does rely on an emended Hebrew text. The alef could have been added to the Hebrew text originally to indicate the long a sound (qamets) as sometimes in DSS as well as much later Hebrew, although not usually in the Hebrew Bible, and then been misinterpreted by the Masoretes.
there some reason to translate it as a plural? Is "kari" a third person
plural perfect qal of k-r-h? If so, is it more reasonable translated as
"they dug" or "they pierced"? If not, what might it mean? Is this just
hopelessly corrupted?
Thanks in advance for your patience.
Dotsuwah dkimbrough AT clwa.org
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.