[b-hebrew] Psalm 8:6(5) and vav-consecutive

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Wed Jul 30 16:24:02 EDT 2008


Steve:

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Steve Miller <smille10 at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

>
> > From: K Randolph
> >
> > Steve:
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Steve Miller
> > <smille10 at sbcglobal.net>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Steve Miller] Karl, thanks for answering.
> > > I think your translation is good except for "little" instead of "a
> > little",
> > > and translating the vav-consecutive as "that". Is there any other place
> > > where a vav-consecutive should be translated as "that" or "for"?
> > >
> > KR: One example that I can think of off hand is Isaiah 53:2, the last
> word
> > starts with a waw which is best translated as "that". It is found often
> > enough that I have not made a list of occurrences.
>
> [Steve Miller] Yes, waw often is a subordinating conjunction like "that",
> but as far as I know, a vav-consecutive never is - and there are many
> thousands of instances of them. Vav-consecutive is also called
> vav-conversive or wayyiqtol. The sentence starts with an imperfect verb
> prefixed with a waw, usually with a patach vowel under it, similar to the
> way a definite article is indicated when a noun has a prefix. It means that
> the action takes place after the previous action. It is extremely common in
> narrative. It's meaning is "and (then)" or "and (so)". Isa 53:2 is not a
> vav-consecutive. Neither is Gen 1:2 which you ref later, but all the
> following sentence-starting waw's are vav-consecutives except for 1:6b
> until
> you get to 2:5.
>
> You are putting too much emphasis on the Masoretic points. On the whole,
they did a good job of matching their points with meaning, but theirs was a
work of man, not God, as a result they were sometimes wrong. This could very
well be one of those cases.

Because I read the text without points, I read for meaning, not points. The
context indicates "that" as the correct meaning.

> >
> > > >
> > >
> > KR: I do, and on my mail server it is formed correctly. But when it comes
> back
> > from you, it is wrong. I don't know why.
> [Steve Miller] This one came out ok. Are you using Linux?
> >
>
Safari on Macintosh.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > b. Arguments in favor of Ps 8:6 referring to Gen 3:19
> > > > >
> > > > > i. The Piel form of the Hebrew verb CHACER means "caused to lack".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hiphil is the causative, not piel. Piel refers to the stative, state
> > of
> > > > being. Thus this would refer to the state of being that was man's
> > > > condition
> > > > at creation.
> > > >
> > > > (The translation into English may best be done in the causative, but
> > that
> > > > is
> > > > not the Hebrew.)
> > >
> > > [Steve Miller] Thank you. This is a good definition. But it could just
> > as
> > > well refer to the state of man's being after the fall.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > KR: I found this interesting, even as I reread the Psalm with your
> questions
> > in
> > mind. First David references man after the fall, as "mortals" showing how
> > insignificant man is, then in the following verse makes reference to the
> > glory that man had before the fall, possibly considering also the glory
> > that
> > will be given to man in the resurrection at the end of days.
>
> [Steve Miller] I agree. David refs man after the fall in v5(4). And he
> references the status man had b4 the fall in vv6b-7. Now v6a "And then You
> caused him to lack ..." connects the 2. Considering David's choice of verb,
> "You caused him to lack" rather than "You made him" or "You created him",
> is
> it not possible that v6a refers to God's sentence on man after the fall
> rather than His creation of man?
> >
>
Again, the piel is not causative. As far as I understand, it is stative.
Hiphil is causative.

Even in man's fallen state, he lacks little from being a god, the present
lack of physical immortality being one of the lacks.

Man was created to be in charge of God's physical creation, and was given
many of the attributes of God in order to carry out his mandate, but he was
not equal to God. Personally, I think you are making a mountain out of a
molehill, because both how man was originally created, and even in his
fallen nature he still shows some of the created grandeur and majesty he
originally had. In fact, this is referenced in Genesis 9:6 as the reason for
capital punishment, because it cheapens God when the one who violates God's
image in the form of his fellow man does not pay the same price as he
inflicted on his fellow man. So even in his fallen state, man still reflects
God's image, albeit imperfectly.

> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
>
> [Steve Miller] covered above
>
> Thanks again.
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit
>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list