LadyFlynt,
I’m not sure who you’re quoting that defends the “like a lion” reading; I surmise it may be a Jew, perhaps what is called an “anti-missionary” – one who seeks to refute the Messianic Jewish/Christian claims of the messiahship of Jesus.
In his commentary on Psalm 22:16, Derek Kidner states,
<blockquote>
They have pierced (16) or simply, ‘piercing’, is the most likely translation of a problematic Hebrew word. A strong argument in its favor is that the LXX, compiled two centuries before the crucifixion, and therefore an unbiased witness, understood it so. (p.107)</blockquote>
Some Jews will say that the LXX was written (or amended) after the crucifixion by Christian scribes (there is some merit to that idea), and therefore the LXX was corrupted. I quote (or link you to) a couple of studies that reference Hebrew MSS that date before the crucifixion, and have the “pierced” reading.
This reading, although not in some Masoretic MSS, is in the primary one (which underlies the KJV), the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, also known as the Daniel Bomberg second edition (1524-25), or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible, which became the standard Masoretic text for the following 400 years.
This link will take you to a brief but excellent study of the issue, including the recent discovery of a Hebrew MS supporting “pierced”:
http://www.torahresource.com/Newsletter/Ps22.16.pdf
In a similar vein to the above, something I pulled off the internet (which is documented and verifiable):
<blockquote>[It] was recently pointed out in the translation of the DSS into English by the scholars Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich [
The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, HarperCollins:1999]. At the beginning of Psalm 22 they say:
<blockquote>Psalm 22 is a favorite among Christians since it is often linked in the New Testament with the suffering and death of Jesus. A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic Text reads ‘
Like a lion are my hands and feet,’ whereas the Septuagint has ‘
They have pierced my hands and feet.’ Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs), which reads ‘
They have pierced my hands and my feet’! [p.519]</blockquote></blockquote>
From John Gill’s commentary (
http://www.freegrace.net/gill/Psalms/Psalms_22.htm):
<blockquote>
they pierced my hands and my feet; by nailing them to the cross, which, though not related by the evangelists, is plainly suggested in?
Joh 20:25; and is referred to in other passages of Scripture,?
Zec 12:10; and clearly points at the kind of death Christ should die; the death, of the cross, a shameful and painful one. In this clause there is a various reading; in some copies in the margin it is, "as a lion my hands and my feet", but in the text, "they have dug" or "pierced my hands and my feet"; both are joined together in the Targum, "biting as a lion my hands and my feet"; as it is by other interpreters {c}; and Schultens {d} retains the latter, rendering the preceding clause in connection with it thus,??"the assembly of the wicked have broken me to pieces, as a lion, my hands and my feet.''??In the Targum, in the king of Spain's Bible, the phrase, "as a lion", is left out. The modern Jews are for retaining the marginal reading, though without any good sense, and are therefore sometimes charged with a wilful and malicious corruption of the text; but without sufficient proof, since the different reading in some copies might be originally occasioned by the similarity of the letters y and w; and therefore finding it in their copies, or margin, sometimes wrak, and sometimes?yrak, have chose that which best suits their purpose, and is not to be wondered at; however, their "masoretic" notes, continued by them, sufficiently clear them from such an imputation, and direct to the true reading of the words; in the small Masorah on the text it is observed that the word is twice used as here pointed, but in two different senses; this is one of the places; the other is
Isa 38:13; where the sense requires it should be read "as a lion": wherefore, according to the authors of that note, it must have a different sense here, and not to be understood of a lion; the larger Masorah, in
Nu 24:9; observes the word is to be found in two places, in that place and in
Ps 22:16; and adds to that, it is written wrak, "they pierced"; and Ben Chayim confirms {e} this reading, and says he found it so written in some correct copies, and in the margin yrak; and so it is written in several manuscripts; and which is confirmed by the Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Greek, and Vulgate Latin versions; in which it is rendered, "they dug my hands and my feet"; and so took it to be a verb and not a noun: so Apollinarius in his metaphrase; and which is also confirmed by the points; though taking yrak for a participle, as the Targum, that reading may be admitted, as it is by some learned men {f}, who render it "digging" or "piercing", and so has the same sense, deriving the word either from rak or rwk, which signify to dig, pierce, or make hollow; and there are many instances of plural words which end in y, the m omitted, being cut off by an apocope; see
2Sa 23:8; and either way the words are expressive of the same thing, and manifestly point to the sufferings of Christ, and that kind of death he should die, the death of the cross, and the nailing of his hands and feet to it, whereby they were pierced. This passage is sometimes applied by the Jews {g} themselves to their Messiah.
{c} Amamae Antibarb. Bibl. p. 743. {d} Origin. Heb. l. 1. c. 12. s. 8. Vid. Jacob. Alting. Dissert. Philolog. 5. s. 27-34. {e} In Maarcath a, fol. 10. 2. ad Calc. Buxtorf. Bibl. {f} Pocock. Miscell. c. 4. p. 59, 60. Pfeiffer. Exercitat. 8. s. 37. Carpzov. Critic. Sacr. p. 838, 839. Alting. ut supra. (Dissert. Philolog. 5.) s. 48, 49. {g} Pesikta in Yalkut, par. 2. fol. 56. 4.</blockquote>
A couple of links with articles containing good information (both Fundamental Baptists, I caution you, in the event you have an aversion to such – though I find them of immense value as regards their scholarship in the area of the Hebrew and Greek MSS):
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/myths-masoretic-text.html http://www.wayoflife.org/ency/ency003e.htm
There are many who say the Hebrew vowel points were added to the Hebrew after the apostolic age by the Masoretic scribes; in the link above (myths-masoretic-text) Dr. Strouse opposes that view. It was the view – that the Hebrew had the vowel points at the time of Christ and way before – of Turrentin, Owen, Buxtorf, and the post-Reformation scholars. I have the book by John Gill,
A Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel-Points, and Accents, in pdf, which I’ll be glad to email you, or anyone interested; Gill also supports this view.
At any rate, “pierced” is the correct reading in the Bible the Lord preserved for us intact – almost all the modern versions have it also, save those Old Testaments published by Jewish publishers, who have a strong vested interest in the other reading.
Hope this helps.
Steve