Note: The odd form 'tolben' quoted from Caxton (sense 4.(a)), unless a scribal error, remains unexplained. That it could be a legitimate form in High German (from the cognate telben v.) is probably purely coincidental. The quotation is placed in this entry, and the word interpreted as an anomalous past participle of 'delve' (i.e., tolben = dolven), chiefly because it yields a sensible translation of 'confodietur' (literally, 'to be dug up or dug in') -- something like 'he shall be crushed with stones and buried by the hurling of stones upon him.' And because it might plausibly be accounted for as the result of a translator trying to make sense of the passage, faced with 'confodietur', avoiding the extended meaning 'pierced' and rendering it literally as 'delved'; interpreting this as meaning 'buried', then re-analyzing 'jaculis' from arrows (its ordinary meaning) to the casting of stones (as if translating 'iactibus' rather than 'iaculis') in order to conform to the picture thus created. It is worth noting (OED, personal communication) that such an interpretive strategy is attested elsewhere, e.g. in the commentary attributed to Hugh of St. Victor (PL 175.66-67), "Confodietur jaculis. Expressius fortasse dixisset, jactibus, ut intelligatur lapidum ictibus, in eum divinitus volitantibus necandus."