Some argue that the translation of [Psalm 22:16](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/PSA.22.16) should replace the word "pierced" with "lion," resulting in the verse reading "like a lion my hands and my feet." Critics claim that Christians are reading their theology into the text or that it was altered to fit the Crucifixion narrative. However, even centuries before the Romans invented crucifixions, [Psalm 22:16](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/PSA.22.16) contains clear symbolism of Jesus' wounds, mentioning the piercing of hands and feet. The confusion regarding the translation arises because the Hebrew word for "pierced" is "**כְּאֲרִי**" (*k’ari*), while the word for "lion" is "**כָּאֲרוּ**" (*ka’aru*). The words differ only by the length of the vowel stroke. Although the majority of Masoretic texts contain the word "**כָּאֲרוּ**" *ka’aru*" (lion), the earliest records, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, and the oldest Syriac, Vulgate, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions, indicate that the original manuscript is correctly translated as ""**כְּאֲרִי**", *k’ari*" (pierced) ([[Charlesworth2000-so]]). Most scholars and researchers concur with this translation, and arguments for tampering lack substantiation ([[Abegg2012-fb]] [[Grappe2011-nr]], [[VanderKam2005-sa]], [[Hegg2008-pa]], [[Burton2020-um]] ,[[Hopkin2022-wu]]. Further evidence for the use of "pierced" is found in [Isaiah 53:5](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/ISA.53.5) and [Zechariah 12:10](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/ZEC.12.10), where the servants are described as "pierced through" and "pierced" respectively. The debate over the correct translation of [Psalm 22:16](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/PSA.22.16), whether it should be "like a lion [are] my hands and my feet" or "they have pierced my hands and my feet," highlights a significant point of contention in biblical scholarship and interpretation. Despite the claims of alteration to fit the Christian narrative of the Crucifixion, extensive evidence from ancient manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls and translations like the Septuagint, supports the translation "pierced." This consistency across various early sources, along with scholarly consensus, strengthens the argument that the original text indeed referred to piercing, aligning with the symbolism of Jesus' wounds as prophesied in the Old Testament. The minor discrepancy between Hebrew words due to vowel strokes does not justify a complete reinterpretation of the text, especially when the context of related scriptures in Isaiah and Zechariah is considered. Therefore, the preponderance of historical, linguistic, and textual evidence upholds the "pierced" translation.