This year's TC journal is out. Apart from the nitpicks of a MS-sorting nature, is a standout: Psalm 22:17, or 21:17 wherever MT Psalm 10 be considered the continuation of Psalm 9. Bestial enemies have beset the narrator. Then something happens to his hands and feet.
One difference between standard prose and rhetoric, especially poetic rhetoric, is nuance. Seth Postell reports that earlier translators have failed to reach consensus. That is because they were translators. Suppose, however, the verse had a reception-history? How was this verse read entails, who was reading it - besides Christians. Why did its Jewish reciters read it so?
Some argued that lions dismember their prey, so instinctually the prey draws in its extremities. So either the narrator is protecting his hands and feet, or else the beasts are attacking them. Both work in context. Postell can at least rule out piercing or even binding.
No comments:
Post a Comment