Psalm 22:16: A Prophecy of the Crucifixion?Take a look at the King James Version Bible, or modern fundamentalist versions such as the New International Version and the New King James Version, under Psalm 22:16 [a] and you will find the following:
Surely, the believer will assert, this is one certain example of a prophecy fulfilled: "they pierced" can only refer to the puncturing of Jesus' flesh by the nails used in the crucifixion. It is then added that this translation is supported by the various ancient versions of the Bible. The Latin translation, the Vulgate, for instance, uses the word foderunt, which is the third person plural perfect verb for fodio which means "to prick", "to sting", "to jab", "to dig" or "to prod". Thus foderunt could be reasonably translated as "they pierced" or "they have pierced". Similarly the ancient Greek version, the Septuagint, the word used is oruxan (ωρυξαν) which supposedly means "to bore through". 
The Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) however, has a different word here. In order to see the picture clearly, I will provide the Hebrew as well the transliteration and meaning below.
Remember that Hebrew is read from right to left and in its original Biblical form is purely consonantal-the vowel points were added by later scribes (probably around 700 CE).  Thus for subsequent discussion we will concentrate only on the consonantal text. The word shown above actually consists of two words, the first letter (on the right) kaf, is a preposition (called an inseparable preposition because it is always attached to a noun) which means, in this case, "like" (as in similar to). The next three letters, aleph-resh-yod, form the noun ari which means "lion". The word is pronounced as kaari and is translated as "like (a) lion". Thus the words "they pierced" are not found in the MT. In the Jewish translation of the Tanakh this is what we find:
However fundamentalists argue that this is a nonsensical reading because it lacks a verb. In the JPS translation above, the words "they are" have been added by the translators; in the MT the phrase actually reads "Like a lion my hands and my feet".
Furthermore, they claim, the words "like a lion" makes no sense within the context of the passage for "lions do no surround the feet of their victims". Thus they assert that kaari is a corruption of the original Hebrew reading which should be karu. Karu is the third person plural from of the word karah which means "to dig". This, supposedly, means "to pierce" and should be the correct rendering here.  Below is how both karah (he digs, to dig) and karu (they dig) are written in Hebrew: [b]
Note that the change from "he digs" to "they dig" involves only the last letter, from a he of karah to the vav of karu.
More recently it has been claimed that one of the fragments found in the Dead Sea, at Nahal Hever, has this passage from Psalms and actually reads "They pierced" here instead of "like a lion". This claim was made by the directors of Dead Sea Scrolls Institute in their book The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible . Of course since it supports their presuppositions, we find many evangelical / fundamentalist websites and books touting this as proof that their original emendation of the passage is correct.
Thus to summarize, these are the fundamentalist claims with respect to Psalm 22:16b:
Back to the top
The Hebrew exemplars available to the translators had kaari, i.e. like a lion. Evidence that the translators knew this meant like a lion can be found from these examples where the Hebrew word is found in other places in the Bible:
The same word, kaari, was present in Psalm 22:16b. Anyone with a copy of Strong's Concordance can verify this. Under the entry no. 738 ari, aryeh in its Dictionary of Hebrew Words in the Bible, the meaning is given as "lion" with the additional note that it could also mean "pierce" as a "marginal reading"! That ari could mean pierce is, of course, nonsense. This reveals that the source of the translation for the passage in Psalm 22:16b was not the Hebrew originals but the other versions (in particular the Latin translations) available to them.
It must be pointed out that despite the claim in the cover page that the 1611 King James Version was "translated out of the original tongues" it was actually more of a revision of earlier an earlier English Bible, the 1602 edition of the Bishops Bible.  Furthermore it also made use of older versions of the Bible such as the various, old and new, Latin translations, as even the conservative F.F. Bruce admits:
Thus the translators of the King James ignored the evidence of the Hebrew originals and the Targums and opted instead for the Latin translations which used the word foderunt meaning pierce.  Why did they do this? For the same reason why modern fundamentalist translators like the NIV and NKJV continue to do so, because it supports their presuppositions, not because it was based on the best available evidence!
Back to the top
[c] There is another manuscript, this one from Qumran, designated 4QPsf that has the verses from Psalm 22:14-17. However this document is not legible precisely at this point. Thus we are left with the manuscript from Nahal Hever. 
There are three important items to keep in mind. Firstly, Nahal Hever manuscripts were not from the same time as the Qumran scrolls. While the Qumran manuscripts did predate the first Jewish War (70 CE), the manuscripts from Nahal Hever came from a later period; between the two Jewish Wars (between 70 CE and 135 CE). Thus it does not predate the Masoretic text since evidence from Biblical scrolls found in the surrounding location (at Masada-dated no later 73 CE and Wadi Murabba- dated to before 135 CE) shows that the consonantal text that eventually became the Masoretic text was already established by then. Secondly, the reading found in the at Nahal Hever was not new. There were a few Hebrew manuscripts that were already known to have that reading prior to its discovery.  Thirdly, despite the claims by Abegg, Flint and Ulrich in the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, the passage in 5/6HevPs does not unambiguously read "pierce".
First let us look at what is actually found in 5/6HevPs:
The word found in 5/6HevPs is given in the middle row of the table above. Note a few things, it is not spelt in the same way as karu (they dig) given in the top row. The former has an additional aleph between the kaf (K) and the resh (R). While fundamentalists are quick to speculate that this is merely an alternate, "Aramaizing" [d], spelling for the word, it is still the case that there is no other known example in the available Hebrew literature that spells "karu" this way! 
The fundamentalists claim as support other Hebrew words that have alternate spellings. The logic is similar to someone who would claim that since colour/color are variant spellings in worldwide English, it therefore follows that "donour" is an acceptable variant for "donor" [e]! This is absurd of course. It must be emphasized that just because some words have variant spellings, it does not mean that all words have variant spellings.
As it stands, the word found in 5/6HevPs has no known meaning. Some Jewish writers have labeled this word "Semitic rubbish".  It is merely speculation that the word kaaru is a variant spelling of karu.
As we noted above, even before the discovery of 5/6HevPs, the word kaaru, is already found in a very few Hebrew manuscripts. For a long time scholars have tried to suggest the most probable meaning for the word. Apart from suggesting that it could be an alternate spelling of a known Hebrew word, these scholars turn to languages that are closely related to Hebrew for similar sounding words. Given below is a list of some of the suggestions made over the past eighty or so years: 
Using meanings from related languages is a procedure that is fraught with uncertainties. Take a modern example between two rather closely related languages: German and English. It is all nice to know that Haus in German means "house" in English and that gut means "good". But it does not necessarily follow that all words that sound alike mean the same thing in both languages. A couple of examples should do: Kind in German does not have the same meaning as the word in English (it means "child") and also in German means "therefore". Thus finding meanings through related languages can, at best, be no more than guesses. This is why, despite speculating for close to a century, there has been no consensus reached as to what the meaning of kaaru could be.
Now let us go back to the suggestion that kaaru is a variant spelling of karu. Even if we are to accept, for the sake of argument, that this is probable (which it is not!), it still does not do what the fundamentalists want it to do. For karu, and its root karah, do not mean "pierce". Indeed the word is best translated as "to excavate" or "to dig". Given below are the instances of the use of the word karah in its various verbal forms in the Hebrew Bible: 
All the instances above show the meaning of karah; which is "to dig" or "to excavate". They do not have the connotation of "piercing" - as in puncturing through something. The last example is especially revealing. The KJV renders this passage metaphorically as "mine ears hast thou opened". The actual Hebrew is literally "ears you have dug for me". Within the context of Psalm 40:7, the meaning is clear, by digging his ear, the Psalmist is able to hear and understand what God wanted and did not want. If karah could be translated as "I pierce", this would mean that the Psalmist is piercing his ears to hear God more clearly!
Furthermore had the Psalmist wanted the passage to mean "they pierce my hands and my feet", he had quite a few good Hebrew words that do have the precise meaning of "to pierce" to choose from:
Thus karah is an extremely poor choice of words if his intention was to prophesy the crucifixion.
So let us summarize the "evidence" from the Dead Sea Scroll.
Why then did the authors/editors of The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible claimed that the true reading is "they pierce" when, as we have seen, scholars have been trying to guess at the meaning of the word for close to a century? Two of the three authors of that book Peter W. Flint and Martin G. Abegg are directors of the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute. If one visits the website for this institution the reasons become quite clear. We are told that the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute is an evangelical institute. [The term evangelical is used in Biblical scholarship to mean those scholars -who are mainly based in theological seminaries rather than major universities- who hold extremely conservative or fundamentalist views and presuppositions.] In an earlier posting (which was on line in April 2004) under the section, "We Believe", of that website, we are told the raison d'être of the institute. It said that evangelicals should not "sit back and surrender" the field of Dead Sea Scrolls research to what they termed "non-evangelicals". Within this context, "non-evangelicals" can only mean those scholars who do not share the a priori assumptions of fundamentalists, in other words, scholars who follow scientific critical historical methods!  Thus part of this strategy of "not surrendering" the field to non-evangelicals has to be to provide evangelical slants to the interpretation of the scrolls. Within this context, the reason the linguistically unlikely interpretation of kaaru as "they pierce", becomes clear. I suspect we should expect more "evangelical friendly" results to come out from this institute in the future!
Back to the top
There are two preliminary considerations that must be remembered before examining the readings of the ancient versions. Firstly, it should be remembered that the Hebrew Bible remains the most direct source for the original text. All translations are, in effect, interpretations. In translating, one to one correspondences of words between the languages are rare. More often there are always a few or even many choices of words that can be used in the translation. The choice of which word to use depends in many cases on how the translators actually understand the passage before them. How they understand the passage depends not only on the text that lies in front of them but also on the presuppositions of the translators. Therefore knowing the external influence that may affect the translation is important.
Secondly, we must know what exactly was the vorlage, or the copy of the text, that the translation was made from. Was it the Hebrew text or was it already a version of the text? Some of the versions were not translated from the original Hebrew but from other versions. If this is the case, it must be remembered that this particular version does not form an independent witness to the original Hebrew text, especially if it supports the peculiar reading of the vorlage.
Thus it is important to get a working knowledge of these various renditions of the Bible. Perhaps the most well known of the versions is the Septuagint. We have already described this version in detail elsewhere in this website. Here we will just note that the Septuagint was the Greek translation which was started around the third century BCE and probably completed around the first century BCE. The book of Psalms was probably translated into Greek around the second or third century BCE.  Although initially translated by Jews for the use of other Jews who no longer understood Hebrew, the early Christians co-opted the Septuagint and it became the Holy Scripture for them. In their disputes with Jews, the Christians quoted exclusively from the Septuagint. The Jews would retort back by comparing the Septuagint with their Hebrew original and noting that the former either had faulty translations or contained interpolations made by Christians. As a result of these disputes and the generally deteriorating textual situation, the Jews ceased using the Septuagint towards the end of the first century CE. 
In the second century CE, Jews dissatisfied with the Septuagint began new Greek translations of their Bible. Around 130 CE, a Jewish proselyte named Aquila, produced a version that followed the Hebrew very closely. About four decades later, Symmachus, who according to which church father you choose to believe, was either a Jewish Christian (Eusebius) or a Samaritan convert to Judaism (Epiphanius), published another Greek translation which, although generally faithful to the Hebrew original, is generally considered to be in more elegant Greek than Aquila's. Around the end of the second century another Greek translation, by another Jewish proselyte, Theodotian, was produced. Unlike the Septuagint, which is still available to us in its entirety, these three second century translations are today extant only in scroll fragments, palimpsests and in quotations by the church fathers. Indeed for Psalm 22:16, we have only the translations of Aquila and Symmachus; there is no extant fragment from Theodotion's version with this passage. 
The Targums refer to Aramaic translations of the Hebrew scriptures. Like the Septuagint originally, it was translated for Jews who could no longer understand the Hebrew - Aramaic having taken over as the lingua franca of post-exilic Palestine. Rather than a strict translation, the Targums are more accurately described as a paraphrased interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. Written Targums were in use by the third century CE, but the oral tradition dates back to pre-Christian times. 
Like Aramaic, Syriac is a language closely related to Hebrew. Syriac versions of the Bible are called Peshitta. The Peshitta was probably produced around 200CE. The origins of the Old Testament Peshitta is unclear and still debated among scholars. It is unclear if the translations were done by Jews or (Jewish?) Christians. As Bruce Metzger suggested, it is likely that some books of the Peshitta were translated by Jews while others by Christians. There is also uncertainty regarding the vorlage used for the various sections of the Old Testament. For instance, it is likely that the Pentateuch was translated directly from a Hebrew text while Isaiah was translated by someone who had obvious familiarity with the Septuagint. For our purposes it is important to note that the Peshitta translation of Psalms are rather free, as opposed to a strict-literal, translations. Furthermore it is quite obvious that the book of Psalms was translated by a Christian who already looked upon it as valuable proof text for the death and resurrection of Jesus. One clear example of this is in the introduction to Psalm 71. The Masoretic Text does not give a title for this, while the Septuagint attributes it only to David. The Peshitta however has this for an introduction: 
Thus as far as establishing the original text of Psalm 22:16b is concerned, the value the Peshitta is very limited.
Sometime around 235 CE, the Alexandrian church father, Origen (185-254) attempted to resolve the textual difficulties surrounding the various Bible version and the Hebrew text by publishing the Hexapla. It contained six columns consisting of the Hebrew text, the Hebrew text transliterated in Greek, Aquila's version, Symmachus' version, the Septuagint and Theodotian's version. There is very little that has been preserved of the Hexapla. However in the nineteenth century some fragments of the Hexapla were discovered in a Cairo synagogue Geniza [g]. In this Geniza, the Hexapla fragments dating from the sixth century CE, actually a palimpsest [h], contain portions from Psalm 22:15-28! 
There is a Syriac translation of Origen's Hexapla, called the Syro-Hexapla, made around 616-617 CE. For our purposes the Syro-Hexapla contains translations in Psalms for the Septuagint, Aquila and Symmachus. Thus while these versions do not allow us direct access to the Hebrew text, they allows us to check the texts of the Septuagint and in some cases to reconstruct the lost Greek texts of Aquila and Symmachus. 
Finally we look at the Latin Versions. Most people think of the Vulgate and Jerome (342-420) when we speak today of the Latin Bible . However there are a few facts to keep in mind. While the Vulgate, in general, was a translation from the Hebrew by Jerome, the section of Psalms in this version was not translated from the Jewish Bible. The book of Psalms in the Vulgate is a translation by Jerome from the Septuagint-in other words it is a translation of a translation! Jerome did make another translation of Psalm, this time from the original Hebrew. However even in this case it must be kept in mind that he consulted other versions, Greek and Latin, in this translation as well.
There is an older Latin version of the Bible, known appropriately as Old Latin. Unlike (most) of Jerome's Vulgate, the Old Latin is a translation of the Septuagint-it thus gives no direct evidence of the Hebrew text. We find evidence of the existence of Old Latin versions in the quotations of its text by second century Church fathers such as Tertullian (c150 CE-c220 CE) and Cyprian (c200-258). Indeed Latin Biblical texts can be found in areas where Latin was the predominant language, such as southern Gaul and North Africa, from as early as 150 CE.
The chart below the ancient versions mentioned above. The dotted lines show the original vorlage used by each of the versions. The abbreviations next to the names of the versions will be used in the tabular comparison of the readings in the next section.
Back to the top
We note that the Targum of Psalms and Symmachus' Greek translation gives "like a lion", supporting the masoretic reading. The Targum adds the verb biting to make the sentence clearer.
For Symmachus, it is important to note that ως λεων (like a lion) is very likely the original reading. Some commentators, including the critical apparatus in the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia (the critical edition of the Leningrad codex of the Hebrew bible), made the erroneous assumption that the reading here should be ως ζητουντες δησαι (like seeking to bind). It must be noted that this reading ("like seeking to bind") is the result of a reverse translation from the Syriac of the Syro-Hexapla back into Greek. Yet it clearly arose from a mistake made by the translators of the Syro-Hexapla in reading the original Greek in Origen's Hexapla. How this arose we will explain below.
The ancient Greek manuscripts were written in uncials (i.e. all caps) and there was no space between the words. The mistake arose when the translators of the Syro-Hexapla misread three of the Greek letters and then rephrased the incorrect reading. The table below shows this process, the reading on top is from Symmachus and the one below is what the translator of the Syro-Hexapla read by mistake:
Thus the Syro-Hexapla translator misread a delta (Δ) for a lambda (Λ) , an omicron (O) for an omega (Ω) and an epsilon (E) for an alpha (A). These misreadings led him to separate the words out differently than what would have been the case; and instead of ως λεων τας χειρας μου... ("Like a lion my hands..."), the translation became ως δεοντες χειρας μου... ("Like binding my hands..."). This was then paraphrased to ως ζητουντες δησαι χειρας μου... ("Like seeking to bind my hands...")-which was the reading of the Syriac in the Syro-Hexapla. 
The Septuagint gives the reading here as ωρυξαν which is simply the third person plural past tense (aorist) of ορυσσω which means "to dig". Like the Hebrew karu, it does not mean "pierce". The word appears 37 times in the Septuagint and in each and every case the meaning is always "to dig" (a tomb, a pit, a trench, a hole or a well). Thus a literal translation of this phrase in the Septuagint is not "They pierced my hands and my feet", but "They dug my hands and my feet"-something not very easily imagined! As Mark Hoffman remarked, "It seems quite unlikely that the LXX translators were trying to describe the crucifixion when translating verse 17c with ορυσσω."  Unlikely indeed! For had the translators understood the word to mean "pierce", there was a perfectly good Greek word to use: εκκεντεω which means "to pierce". This was the word used they translators of the Septuagint used to translate Zechariah 12:10 "They look at him whom they have pierced". Similarly John 19:34 used the exact same words to describe the prophecy fulfillment. So whatever the word in the original Hebrew may mean in Psalm 22:16b, it is extremely unlikely that the seventy understood it in the way the Christians later understood it. 
The two Latin versions that were translated from the Septuagint (Old Latin and the book of Psalms in the Vulgate) remained faithful to the reading of the Septuagint. The word they used here was foderunt-the third person plural perfect tense for fodio. Now fodio, like ωρυξαν in Greek, has the formal meaning of "to dig", but, unlike the Greek, it also has a looser, metaphorical, meaning of "to prick" or "to prod".  [We can see how the "smearing" of the less sharply applied Latin word could result in "to pierce" being eventually read here!] As an aside we see how meaningless it is for fundamentalists such as Gleason Archer (see above) to appeal to the Vulgate as support for their interpretation that the original meaning of the word is to pierce, for the Vulgate (for Psalms) was dependent upon the Septuagint and is not an independent witness to the original text.
When we look at Jerome's translation from the Hebrew we find that the word he used was not foderunt, but vinxerunt, which means "they bound" or "they encircled". This has implications on what was in the Hebrew vorlage available to Jerome. While the Septuagint translation allows the possibility of both karu (to dig) or kaaru (the unclear meaning which could have been assumed by the translators of the Septuagint to mean the same thing-see some scholarly speculations above), Jerome's translation had to come from his interpretation of kaaru, for otherwise he would have simply translated they dig. Jerome probably interpreted kaaru to be based on the root kwr which could mean to be round or to make round. 
As for Aquila's version, we have two different readings. According to Origen's Hexapla found at the Cairo Geniza and the church historian, Eusebius (c260-340), the Greek translation of Aquila gave the passage as "they disfigured /shamed my hands and feet". However according to the Syro-Hexapla's translation, Aquila's version had "they fettered my hands and my feet". Since we know Jerome was familiar with Aquila's version, Jerome's use of "they bound" could be taken to mean that "they fettered" was what was written in his copy of Aquila's Greek Bible. These different readings of Aquila most probably mean, as some scholars have suggested, that Aquila had two recensions, or editions, of his translation. The first one having "they disfigured" in Psalm 22:16b and the second having "they fettered" instead. Again it should be noted here that none of these words could have been derived from karu. This tells us that the word in Aquila's vorlage had to be kaaru. Aquila's first interpretation of kaaru was probably based on the assumption that it was rooted in words such as nakar or hakar which could mean something like "to disfigure" or "to shame". The second interpretation could be derived from an interpretation of kaaru similar to Jerome's guess described in the preceding paragraph. 
Finally we look at the reading in the Peshitta. Here the Syriac word used could mean they "hack off" or "pierce/perforate". However as we have noted in the section above, the translation of the book of Psalms was probably made by a Christian who already looked to it as a source of prophecy for the death and resurrection of Jesus. According to Mark Hoffman, the translators of the Peshitta were probably no more "in the know" about the meaning of the Hebrew (assuming they were translating direct from a Hebrew vorlage) than the translators of the Septuagint and were "simply trying to make sense of the Hebrew in the same way as the LXX". In other words we cannot consider the Peshitta to be an independent source here for the Hebrew original. 
We have reviewed the whole array of textual evidence and can now pause to consider what it tells us.
Some fundamentalist apologists have tried to explain this away by hypothesizing that the evangelists and Paul knew that there were some "textual issues" regarding this phrase and refrained from quoting it although they fully realized its prophetic significance. This explanation meets with a quick end when we remember that Matthew 1:22-23 quoted the Septuagint reading of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy for the virgin birth. However the word "virgin" is found only in the Greek Septuagint and all extant Hebrew bibles (including the ones found in the Dead Sea) have "young woman" instead. Thus the author of Matthew had no problems with the "textual issues" relating to this particular passage! [For those interested in the issue surrounding the "prophecy of the virgin birth-we provide an analysis of this elsewhere in this website.]
When we go outside the New Testament into the writings of the apostolic fathers we get the same result. None, either explicitly or implicitly, tied Psalm 22:16b to the piercing of Jesus' hands and feet. A particularly poignant example is taken from the epistle of Barnabas (c130 CE):
The passage, like the ones in the gospel is intriguing. For it is formed out of a combination of three different passages from Psalms:
This is another revealing text. Barnabas was obviously looking at Psalm 22 for the fulfillment of Jesus' death and crucifixion. Yet exactly at the point where one would expect him to use "They pierced my hands and my feet", he used a passage from Psalm 119:120!  There is really only one explanation for this: the author of the epistle of Barnabas do not read "pierce" into the Septuagint "they dug my hands and my feet".
Let us pause here for a while and consider the evidence from early Christian literature, from the earliest extant evidence of Christian's use of the Old Testament as a source of prophecy of Jesus, there was not a single case, up to around 130 CE, of reference to the passage in Psalm 22:16b as alluding to the actual "piercing" of Jesus' hands and feet during the crucifixion.
The first Christian writer to make a direct connection of Psalm 22:16 to the piercing of the crucifixion was Justin Martyr (c100 CE-c165 CE). These are the two passages from his writings that made this connection: 
Note that unlike the writings of Paul, the evangelists and Barnabas, explicit reference is now made to Psalm 22:16b as referring to the piercing of the nails at the crucifixion of Jesus. However even here it must be noted while he used the Septuagint word ωρυξαν (they dug) in his citation of Psalm 22:16b, in his later explanation he used words that fit the crucifixion more closely -εμπησσοντες and παγεντων. Both these terms are merely active and passive forms of the same root which means "to fix", "to make firm" or "to nail" something. The fact that Justin had to use this explanatory word to clarify Psalm 22:16b means that, regardless of his pretence, the term in Psalm 22:16b does not really make the prophecy clear.
After Justin we find Psalm 22:16 being increasingly used by Christians as "proof text" of the crucifixion of Jesus. We find similar confident citings of Psalm 22:16b as a direct prophecy of the method of crucifixion in the writings of later Christian writers such as Tertullian (c150 CE-c220 CE), Cyprian (c200-258) and Eusebius (c260-c340). 
Tertullian was writing in Latin and used the word found in the Old Latin version of the Bible, foderunt,in his citation of Psalm 22:16. Foderunt, as we have seen above, means "they dug" but have the "width" in meaning to include "they pricked" or "they pierced".
Cyprian was able to devote a whole section (section 20) in his Second Book of Testimonies Against the Jews (248 CE) to proving that the Old Testament prophesied that "The Jews would fasten Jesus to the cross". Eusebius in his Proof of the Gospel (c313 CE) 10:8 cited Psalm 22:16b as the main prophecy that "they fastened his [Jesus] hands and feet to the cross with nails".
So the evidence from early Christian writings show that up to the middle of the second century CE it never occurred to Christian writers that Psalm 22:16b was an explicit reference to the nailing of the crucifixion. It all changed with Justin Martyr sometime after 150 CE. From then onwards the citations of Psalm 22:16b as an exact prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion became more and more common.
This finding is enough for us to conclude that "they pierced" was never part of the original meaning of Psalm 22:16b. It was not present in the Hebrew Bible (regardless of whether the actual reading was kaaru or kaari) and it was not present in the Septuagint. Certainly it was never understood as such by the earliest Christian writers-including the authors of the New Testament!
We can now indulge in a bit of speculation. Justin, as was the custom during his time, was writing in Greek and it was quite obvious from the citations above that the link in the Greek Septuagint between Psalm 22:16b and the crucifixion is linguistically tenuous; Justin had to supplement the scriptural citation with other Greek words to make the meaning clear. So what made him see that connection when no one before did? Why did the paradigm shift happen with Justin?
The most probable explanation is this: Justin had access to the relatively new Latin translation of Psalm 22:16b and that foderunt was used as the translation for the Greek ωρυξαν. [j] Foderunt encompasses within its meaning both "to dig" and "to pierce". Thus the shift from "dig" to "pierce", not possible in the Greek, was made possible by the Latin. We see from the quotation of Tertullian that no such linguistic problem exists when the Latin translation was used!
As we have mentioned above Latin biblical text were already in circulation in Southern Gaul and North Africa by around 150 CE. These were areas where Latin was the dominant language and the need for a Latin translation of the Bible would have been felt most acutely. It is true that the Roman churches did not switch from Greek to Latin until the first half of the third century and Greek was still widely used there during that time. However probably an equal number of Romans used either Greek or Latin for daily communication and the resurgence of Latin was already beginning to make headway there before this time. Furthermore, Justin, although he was not born in Rome, was very probably of Roman descent and he spent the last two to three decades of his life in Rome.  He would certainly had shown an interest in Latin translation of the Bible (either the whole Bible or portions of it-such as some Psalms that may be used in Christian liturgy.) Justin, being one of the pre-eminent Christian apologist, would almost certainly had had access to a copy if the translation had made its way to Rome. Furthermore we noticed that Justin's innovative interpretation of Psalm 22:16b were made in his works that were published within a decade of 150 CE (First Apology c155 CE and Dialogue c160CE). Since the shift in meaning from "dig" to "pierce" allowed by the Latin translation would have been noticed by anyone with familiarity with the language, we would expect the first references of "piercing" to Psalm 22:16b to have happened shortly after the publication of the Latin bible. Justin's timing was exactly what one would expect.
One question naturally arises: If Justin knew of this translation why did he not make any explicit citation of the passage in Latin? The answer is simple, the Latin translation was still new and was in no way authoritative. Anyone familiar with Justin's work will know that he already had his hands full defending the authority of the relatively ancient Septuagint against his Jewish opponents  One example is given below:
Quoting from a recent Latin translation would not had helped his case much against his Jewish opponents! Thus Justin probably read the Latin translation, finally "saw" that Psalm 22:16b refers to the crucifixion and tried to argue the case in his Greek writings without making direct reference to it. [By the time Tertullian was writing, around the end of the second century, the Latin translation was probably old enough to be cited without much embarrassment as to its authority.]
The evidence from early Christian literature tells us this:
The critical apparatus of the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia gives the following summary of the textual evidence of Hebrew manuscripts regarding the reading found in Psalm 22:16b: 
We see that the majority of the available Hebrew manuscripts support the reading of kaari ("like a lion"), while "a few" (defined as between three to ten manuscripts by the BHS) support the reading found in Nahal Hever, kaaru (with unclear meaning-as we have seen above) and two manuscripts supporting karu ("they dig"). From our analysis of the ancient versions above we can see that the first two of these three readings were in existence from around the turn of the common era. Kaari is supported by the Targums and the Greek version of Symmachus. While the proliferations of verbal meanings ("they hack", "they shame", "they disfigured", "they bound", "they dig", "they fettered" etc) can all be traced to the translators (like the modern scholars we see above!) trying to make sense of a word kaaru that was no longer meaningful to them. Had the original vorlage available to them been karu these would all had translated the word the same way; as "they dig". So we can say that both a study of the ancient versions and the Hebrew manuscripts support this conclusion: that in the two centuries before and after the beginning of the common era there were two variant readings in the Hebrew: kaari and kaaru.
A look at the table above also shows the probable cause of the variant: the two words differ only in the final alphabet, the yod of kaari has been changed into the vav of kaaru (or vice versa). Even someone uninitiated with the Hebrew alphabet can see how easy it is to mistake a yod for the slightly longer vav. We know that mistakes of graphical confusion like these did happen and were quite common in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts. 
The questions become, how do we choose between these two readings? External criteria - such as general reliability, numerical preponderance and age of documents - cannot be used for this particular case. Some scholars tend to have a bias in favor of the Masoretic Text primarily due to the fact in many cases it has shown itself to be the best witness to the text. In other words the MT is generally more reliable than other witnesses.  While this is true in general, it cannot be applied to all specific instances. Similarly, like the case of the New Testament manuscripts numerical preponderance doesn't really count for much, for if 100 copies are made from a single defective manuscript, what we have is not 101 witnesses to the original text but merely 101 faulty manuscripts! Manuscripts should be weighed not counted!  Furthermore, as we have seen above, we have evidence that the two variant readings date from very early times.
We are left basically with the internal criteria. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. in his book Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible  listed the following rules used by textual critics:
Since the mistake probably occurred due to the graphical confusion between the yod and the vav as the end of the word, the only rule really applicable here is rule 3. In other words-which of the two readings fit the context of the passage best?
Most discussions surrounding this verse usually start by critiquing the fact that the MT reading is missing a verb and is literally rendered as "like a lion my hands and my feet"-supposedly a meaningless phrase. Since the alternate reading "kaaru" looks like a verb, the vav suffix indicating a third person plural verbal form, the discussion then normally continues in trying to find the meaning of the root kaar. This, as we have seen above, have led to the proliferation of suggestions from modern scholars and to the varied translations in the ancient versions. This leads me to two reasons why I am very skeptical about kaaru being the original reading here:
When we turn back to the MT reading, supported by the Targums and Symmachus, we find that some scholars have been too quick to dismiss the sentence as meaningless. Part of the problem comes in reading "like a lion" as the beginning a line or stich. However the phrase could easily have fallen within the previous line, forming this couplet:
This (suggested) couplet takes the poetic form know as "synonymous parallelism"- in both lines we have the imagery of animals (dogs/lion) and the idea of being surrounded/encircled by them. This parallelism is lost if any of the suggestions for kaaru were to be inserted here. [l]
What to do with "my hands and my feet"? For this we have to absorb the whole imagery of Psalm 22:11-21. [The translation below is taken from the NRSV except that I have changed the punctuation at verse 16 and have replaced the NRSV's "they shriveled" back to "like a lion".]
If we look at the whole passage above we find three basic themes: the Psalmist's call to God for help (Psalm 22:11 & 19), the description of the state of his anxiety (Psalm 22:14-15, 16b-17a) and the description of his enemies, metaphorically represented by three different animals -the bull/oxen, the dog and the lion. (Psalm 22:12-13, 16b-17a, 20-21). Indeed the imagery conveyed here (Psalm 22:14-15, 16b-17a) is someone surrounded by his enemies in a state of extreme despair, suffering physical discomfort and probably dehydrated and emaciated from his trials, calling out to God for deliverance.
We can see that the imagery about body parts conveys an impression of his extreme despair and anxiety (Psalm 22:14-15 & 16b-17a). Thus when the Psalmist tells us he is "being poured out like water" he means that he is being drained of vitality and energy. That his bones are "out of joint" means his limbs are tired. His heart "melting like wax" means he is troubled or fearful. [m]. The next lines about his mouth and tongue probably refers to his thirst. That he is "laid in the dust of death" is understandable, for we have here a tired, fearful, thirsting and emaciated man.  After pausing to describe his enemies, he picked up the imagery of his body again in verse 16b and 17a. Raising his forearm slightly, looking at his weak limbs and emaciated body, he laments, "my hands and my feet...I can count all my bones!". Broken sentences like these convey exactly the impression the Psalmists would have wanted to convey: people in despair don't normally speak in complete sentences! [n]
This is not the only example of such a rhetorical technique in Psalm 22. We can also see this in the very first verse of that Psalm. Modern translations tends to smooth out these grammatically rough sentences; the NRSV gives Psalm 22:1b as "Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?". The Hebrew literally reads, "Far from my salvation the words of my groaning". The word is not completely intelligible in the strictly grammatical sense. [p] However if we read the passage as "Far from my salvation...The words of my groaning", we can see that the Psalmist is saying that he is groaning about his state of being "far from salvation".
The imagery is complete-and there is no difficulty with not requiring a verb after "my hands and my feet", for it is merely a rhetorical device to describe the state of mind the psalmist was in.
Note also that Psalm 22:11-21 provides a coherent overall structure when Psalm 22:16b reads "like a lion". If we follow the description of the (metaphorical) animals that permeates this whole passage this is how the progression looks like: 
Note that the progression exhibits what is normally known as a chiastic structure. This is merely a device use in poetry and some types of prose that crosses the terms and ideas in this manner A - B - C - X - C'- B'- A'. The central "lion" forms the climax to the whole section in which his ordeal or anxiety is at its greatest. After that deliverance follows quickly. Thus a chiastic structure with a central climax fits the context of Psalm 22:11-21 very closely.
These then, are the reasons why kaari, "like a lion", suits the context of Psalm 22 better than kaaru:
Back to the top
We are certain that there is no prophecy of the crucifixion in Psalm 22:16b. There are two alternate readings in the Hebrew text circulating in the time around the turn of the common era; the first, kaari ("like a lion"), obviously has no relation to any crucifixion; the second, kaaru may be meaningless, but even if it is meaningful, none of the meaning guessed at by the ancient independent versions (Septuagint, Jerome's Psalm, Symmachus and Aquila) or by modern scholars compels a reading of "piercing". None of the early Christian writers, right up to 150 CE, interpreted Psalm 22:16b to be a direct reference to the crucifixion.
The reading as it stands in the Masoretic Text, "like a lion" is still the most probable reading, for it fits into the imagery of the whole of Psalm 22 better than the guesses of modern scholars or the ancient translators.
Back to the top
Back to the top
Back to the top