"The tragedy of common sense
it that it is not
very common."
(Albert Einstein)

"Politically correct Christianity
is tolerated but despised.
Full Gospel Christianity is
respected but persecuted."
(Unknown)

"If you marry the Zeitgeist
you will soon become widow."
(Goethe)

"To reach the source of a river
you must swim upstreams."
(Stanislaw Jerzy Lec)

"I note that all those,
who are positive to abortion
already are born."
(Ronald Reagan)

Is Psalms 22:16 (one of the strongest prophesies of Jesus' crucifixion) a deliberate mistranslation?

(Please note: Below, most Hebrew words and characters are written with Latin characters. Verse numbers can differ a little between different Bible translations. The translation used in this text is the "Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge Bible".)

Some time ago I received an e-mail from a Christian person. He had from an atheist got the following argument against the Christian faith:

Psalms 22 presents one of the most hair raising mistranslations ever. Christian interpolation: Psalms: 22:16: "Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet.

But the Hebrew version, i.e. the original text says: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." That's what I call interpolation.

To turn Ki-ari, "like a lion", to "pierce", is a mistranslation only for those who deliberately want to deceive the readers.

Source of the Hebrew text: Rabbi Simmons

Before we go on, let us read the entire Bible context:

Psalms 22:12 Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
Psalms 22:13 Roaring lions that tear their prey open their mouths wide against me.
Psalms 22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted within me.
Psalms 22:15 My mouth is dried up like potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.
Psalms 22:16 Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet.
Psalms 22:17 All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me.
Psalms 22:18 They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.
Psalms 22:19 But you, LORD, do not be far from me. You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
Psalms 22:20 Deliver me from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs.
Psalms 22:21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

Several details in the verses surrounding 22:16 remind us of the crucifixion accounted for in the Gospels. When someone is crucified, the joints are torn apart, as implied by "All my bones are out of joint" (22:14). When a Roman soldier pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water, as it says in John 19:34, it is also a possible interpretation of the first part of verse 22:14. Verse 22:18, "They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment", contains a description that strongly resembles John 19:23, where we read:

When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, divided them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

"Let's not tear it", they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it.".

So it is hardly remarkable that many Christians have perceived the verses of Psalms 22 as a prophetic prediction of Jesus' crucifixion. Many details seem to apply extremely well to the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion. The risk is of course, that in such a context attempts will be made to try to improve reality a bit, and perhaps be tempted to make a questionable translation. But is it true, as stated by the writer, that this is a deliberate mistranslation of verse 22:16, i.e. an intentional attempt to try to deceive the readers? The question is then if the other verses of Psalms 22, that also seem to speak of the crucifixion, are "mistranslated" to "benefit" the Christian perspective.

In the Jewish Publication Society Bible (the Jewish Scripture translated into English) we read (for simplicity I use the same verse numbering as in the English Bible text):

Psalms 22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is become like wax; it is melted in mine inmost parts.

Psalms 22:16 For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

Psalms 22:18 They part my garments among them, and for my vesture do they cast lots.

As we can see the Jewish text also speaks of "I am poured out like water" and the verse on how to share and cast lots for the clothes are identical to the corresponding verses in the Bible. The answer to the question, "are the other verses in the context mistranslated?", thus appears to be "No!". I have also used my Hebrew dictionary to check various variants of the original Hebrew text and the words used for "joints", "separated", "garment", "cast lots" etc, and they contain no ambiguities. We note that in verse 22:16, in Jewish Publication Society Bible, they translate into "like a lion". Just as indicated in the e-mail I received.

The conclusion seems to be, that if the current problem is due to a mistranslation in the Bible (intentional or unintentional), the error is limited to the last part of verse 22:16, or rather to one single word in the last part (see the following paragraphs). In the commentary to this word one of my Bible study programs (called e-Sword, a highly recommendable freeware) says:

ari'
From H717 (signifying violence); a lion: — (young) lion, + pierce [from the margin].

(The expression "[from the margin]" refers to marginal notes that are found in nearly all manuscripts and printed editions of the Bible and the Jewish Scriptures regarding uncertainties in the text. They give various readings, alternate interpretations, critical remarks etc. They usually comment on what was regarded as a questionable reading or spelling in the text, but yet was allowed to remain unmodified in the text itself through respect for its original form.)

Note: There are several ways to transform a text in Hebrew to Latin characters. For this reason the result might differ depending on who does the transformation. In my eSword dictionary "ari'" is alternately written "ar-ee'" or "ar-yay'". And in my Olive Tree dictionary (see below) the word is written "aryeh".

Thus "ari'" is the Hebrew word for "lion". In the Psalms 22:16 the actual word in the text is "ki-ari'" (כּארי — note that in Hewbrew, letters are read "backwards" i.e. from right to left), meaning "like a lion".

The Hebrew letters in כּארי are from right to left; Kaf with Dagesh (k), Alef (a), Resh (r) and Yod (y). The small dot inside the Kaf is called Dagesh. Many letters in Hebrew have two sounds; one hard and one soft. Dagesh indicates that the letter shall be pronounced with the hard sound (in this case Kaf is pronounced as "k" in "key".

According to the commentary above, another possible interpretation of כּארי is "pierce". How can that be? Well, let us proceed to the next step by using another source.

In my iPhone I have the excellent Bible study program Olive Tree (which is a payware) with King James' translation (among numerous other translations). It contains Hebrew as well as Greek dictionaries (Strong's). When I select the Hebrew word in 22:16, that's been translated into "pierce", it turns out to be a different word than above (ki-ari'). It's the word "kara'h", which according to Strong's Concordance means "to dig", "to drill" or "to open". Here, then, we have an entirely different word with a signification that matches much better with the "pierce" translation.

How can this be? Are there several different original Hebrew texts? Well, the simple explanation is that the original text can be read in different ways. In all the older Hebrew texts (e.g. in the texts from Qumran — the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls) there are only consonants. The vowels are thus missing. In Hebrew, vowels are indicated (to the extent they are included) as small dots above and below the consonants. Even in modern Hebrew texts the vowels are missing, and you yourself have to keep track on where they should be placed. It means that you do not always know for sure from which so-called root a certain Hebrew word stems, and that's the first thing a text parser must decide (the uncertainty will of course be greater the older the texts are). Therefore, different conclusions can be drawn. For example, as we now shall see, so totally different things as "like a lion" (ki-ari') and "pierce" (kara'h).

The vowels were thus for the reader himself to add. To facilitate this, non-pronounced, so-called matres lectionis (which is Latin for "mothers of reading" and refers to the use of certain "silent consonants" to indicate a vowel), were sometimes used to enlighten the reader about important vowels in the text. The consonant "Alef" (א — the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet) indicates for example, when used in this way, that the first vowel should be "a" (note — Alef is a consonant and not a vowel).

(Things are often more complicated than first thought and so is the case even here. There are other possibilities as well. According to some scholars the last letter yod (י) should instead be a wav (ו). These two letters look quite similar — especially in handwriting — and might easily be mistaken for each other. However, space does not permit us to go further into this.)

There seem to be two possibilities regarding Psalms 22:16:

1. One interpretation is that the disputed word in Psalms 22:16 should be read as "ki-ari'", i.e. "as a lion" ("ari'" stems from "arah").

2. But there is another possible interpretation of that same word. If the "Alef" is a "silent consonant" (matres lectionis), and thus indicates the vowel "a", the problematic word can instead be read as "kara'h", which means "pierce".

Which then is the correct translation? Well, based upon what has emerged so far, it's hard to say. Both translations are equally possible and equally plausible. To obtain additional arguments we can examine what Septuagint has to say. Septuagint, often abbreviated LXX (that is the number 70 in Roman numerals), is a translation into Greek from the Jewish Scripture (i.e. essentially what Christians call the Old Testament — the difference is mainly the order of the Books). It was completed around 250 BC. The name means "the Seventies'", as tradition tells us the translation was made by 70 people.

Turning now to LXX and reading what is written in Psalms 22:16, we find that the corresponding Greek word is "ωρυξαν" [ôruxan — "they pierced"]. The signification in LXX is thus quite obvious. It states "pierce" and nothing else.

LXX is generally considered being a reliable text with relatively minor textual variations. Moreover, those who compiled LXX had access to older manuscripts, something the more recent text aggregators did not have at hand. These manuscripts should reasonably have contained fewer errors than later ones (the closer the source, the less errors). There are plenty of manuals and comments on LXX (huge and much too expensive for a layman to buy), and I asked a good friend of mine, a doctor of Theology, to see if there were any scholarly comments on Psalms 22:16 in LXX. According to him, there are no comments at all on this verse, which means there are no variations in the original texts, and the "pierce" translation can therefore be considered as very reliable.

The other important Jewish text version, in addition to Septuagint, is the so-called Massoretic text. This text was compiled between 700-1100 AD by Jewish rabbis. In the Massoretic text, vowels were introduced. Originally there were, as stated previously, only consonants in the original Hebrew text, but gradually it was forgotten which vowels to use, so the text became more and more difficult to interpret. The "vowelization" process involved a degree of uncertainty, and there are rabbis who for this reason do not accept the Massoretic text. They argue, that it is better to have a hard-to-read version (without vowels), which you know will be without errors, than an easy-to-read version, which although easy-to-read (with vowels), cannot guarantee all the vowels being correct.

To summarize so far. There are two possible translations for the disputed Hebrew word "כּארי", depending on whether you interpret the Alef (א), included in the word, as a silent consonant or not. If the Alef is a silent consonant, the correct interpretation of the word is "kara'h", that is "pierce". If Alef is not a silent consonant, the word should be read "ki-ari'", that is "like a lion". Septuagint, being much older than the Massoretic text (about 1200 years), unambiguously supports, as seen above, the "pierce" translation. This, together with the context of the verses around 22:16 ("all my bones are out of joint" etc), which exhibits a strong similarity to the crucifixion of Jesus as described in the Gospels, implies that "pierce" is a much more reasonable translation than the variant "like a lion" (which seems out of context).

To claim that this is a deliberate deception is therefore incorrect. This is simply a Bible verse, where several possible translations are possible. Looking at the context, "pierce" is clearly not an unreasonable translation. Quite the contrary! That it should involve a deliberate deception seems like pure nonsense.

But we have another important aspect that carries great substance. When the Massoretic text was being prepared, the crucifixion etc had already taken place. Because the Jews did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and were rather hostile to this idea, one can suspect that they deliberately chose, when compiling the Massoretic text, text versions that did not confirm the Gospels. Therefore it seems likely, that the Massoretic text is not fully objective, as the chosen original texts for this translation, from a Christian's point of view, are as negative as possible.

Septuagint, however, was compiled several hundred years before the events depicted in the Gospels, took place. And the people making this translation had of course no reason (or possibility) to select text versions that would confirm or contradict the Gospels (which lay almost 300 years in the future). They simply chose the basic texts they perceived as being the most credible. Septuagint, therefore, cannot be suspected of being biased in any direction. And it is in Septuagint we find the strongest evidence for the "pierce" translation. It is thus more likely that "kara'h" (pierced) is the correct basic word, not "ki-ari'" (as a lion).

In general, the rabbis, after the death of Jesus, felt that Septuagint was just too "positive" towards the Christian assertions. It is interesting to note that for this reason, during the first two centuries AD, several translations of the Jewish Scripture into Greek were made (a.o. Aquila and Symmachus), to polemize against Septuagint. This supports my inference in the last paragraph regarding the Massoretic text.

Conclusion: The disputed word in Psalms 22:16 is difficult to translate. Both possibilities, "pierce" and "like a lion" are equally plausible if you only look at the original Hebrew text in Psalms 22:16. If you also take into account the context of the verses surrounding 22:16, "pierce" seems to be a more reasonable option. And if you then include Septuagint in the discussion, "pierce" appears as the most likely, perhaps even the only credible, translation.

The alleged act of deliberate deception regarding Psalms 22:16 can easily be dismissed. It is fairly typical of atheists to contemptuously accuse Christians of being liars and fraudsters. I would instead say, that such an accusation is rather an example of deliberate deception from the atheistic side. Besides, the accusation can be seen as rather ridiculous, given how important the truth is to anyone who is Christian. Why would a Christian lie to "improve" his faith? Why would you want to base your life on a lie? It's not even credible. True Christians do not lie. Over the years millions of Christians have been killed for their faith. Who would die for something you know is not true? For something you invented yourself? Nobody!!! Or perhaps a madman, but to dissmiss all Christians as madmen is madness by its own right, considering how many devoted Christians you find among prominent scientists, philosophers, artists etc.

It appears to me to be a condition of galloping megalomania when an atheist so confidently pronounces his views on the Bible and the Christian faith. After having read some Bible verses taken out of context, or comments from a Christian opponent, they think they know it all and dismiss, almost by definition, the thousands of theologians and Bible translators who have devoted their entire lives to study the basic languages of the Old and the New Testaments. And who lived in and meditated on the Bible texts. And as if that is not enough, the atheist even ventures to call the Christians crooks and liars (of course there are atheists who have closely studied the Bible, but amongst them you often find respect for the Christian faith and its believers). Some (too many) of modern day atheists' notorious underestimation of the Christians and their faith, is in fact grounded in a fanatical belief in their own ideology. Atheism represents, unfortunately all too often, a total intolerance to other interpretations of the total reality and is based rather on un-scientific reasoning than science and logic (many supporters or members of the Atheistic Associations all over the world are good examples of this kind of atheism).

To misuse science and logic in the way many atheists do, is a grave case of anti-scientific thinking. By doing so, you show that you have not understood that the limitations of science are its strength. One of these limitations is the inability (per definition) of science to study and understand the supernatural. But if science cannot study and analyze the supernatural, it cannot dismiss the existence of a supernatural reality. Science is blind regarding the supernatural. The limitations of science increase the certainty and ability of science to prove its theories and conclusions. The more limited an area of science is, the more certain its conclusions are. Physics is much more limited than Geology (geological theories are based on Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry etc, but physical theories are not based on Geology), therefore physical theories have a much stronger ability to predict than geological theories. The price you have to pay for this, is that many issues and phenomena lie outside the competence of science. And if we enlarge the area of science to include also the supernatural, then it would be impossible to prove scientific conclusions. Science would then be in the same category as metaphysics (which mainly is occupied with improvable speculations of "the total all"). The typical atheist seems to be blissfully unaware of this dilemma. Atheists seems to believe that you can both eat your cake and keep it. Which shows that the typical atheist at least has a deep belief in miracles. So there is still hope, even for the atheists!

Back to Problems and contradictions in the Bible