Has anyone researched into the Nachal Hever scrolls which has psalm 22:16 ?
As I said in a previous post here: "the Dead Sea Scrolls appears most likely to say "dug" too. They say kaaru, which appears to be a form of the word karu (dug)"If you want to get into this question deeper,
the issue at stake about the Dead Sea scrolls is whether "ka'aru" in the Dead sea Scrolls really is just a different way of writing "karu" (dug).
One article goes into depth explaining how this can be the same word:
The strength of the anti-missionary argument against the Dead Sea Scroll reading of pierced arrives in the point that the word contains an aleph, which according to Sigal, "is not part of the root." Dr. James D. Price, professor of Hebrew and the Old Testament at the Temple Baptist Seminary, however, states:
"Sigal gave the impression that the presence of the Aleph in the word "ka'aru" prevented it from being derived from a Hebrew root which has no Aleph. But the words "ka'aru" and "karu" being variant forms of the same verb (as explained by the lexicographers) is demonstrated by the following Hebrew words that have the same kind of middle Aleph and the same kind of relationship: bo'r, bor (pit, cistern) from the verb bur (dig); da'g, dag (fish) from the verb dug (fish for); la't, lat (secrecy) from the verb lut (be secret); m'um, mum (blemish); n'od, nod (skin); q'am, qam (he arose); ra'sh, rash (poor) from the verb rush (be poor); sh'at (contempt) from the verb shut (treat with contempt); also in Aramaic, da'er (dweller) from the verb dur (dwell); and qa'em (riser) from the verb qum (he arose). These examples are sufficient to demonstrate that a middle Aleph frequently occurs in words and forms derived from middle Waw verbs as in this passage. His argument is convincing only to those who know little or nothing about Hebrew."
My difficulty in understanding this author's explanation (above), however, is that "ka'aru" and "karu" look different to me than things like "bo'r" and "bor". What I don't get about that this author's explanation is that the many examples he gives add in an extra apostrophe ' . But when it comes to the word "karu" the author writes in not just an ' but an a too.
In other words, when you see bor ------> bo'r you might expect to see karu -----> ka'ru.
I don't get why the author here writes his examples this way, and on top of that I don't even know what verses he is pointing to that have these supposed variant spellings. Maybe if I could see in Hebrew the examples he is talking about I would know what he means. Maybe he is actually just making a mispelling when he gives his examples.
I mean, in Hebrew it looks pretty simple. Normally it is written K R U -----> K A R U
The first A is unwritten (K R U , pronounced karu). The author is claiming that an extra A just gets thrown in there to make it K A R U (pronounced ka'aru).So then why doesn't he write bo'r phonetically as bo'or when he throws in the extra sound or letter?
I still think the author is write and it's a variant spelling, I just don't strongly "get" the way he is writing it and what exactly he is giving as his examples.