Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

Lee R. Martin wrote:

To one and all,

Please translate Joel 3:5.
My specific question: Is the RSV justified in separating the last
relative clause by means of "shall be."
It reads: "and among the survivors shall be those whom the Lord calls."
Therefore, the RSV makes 3:5 say two things: 1) in Jerusalem shall be
escape, 2) in the survivors shall be called ones.

I prefer the following translation: "In Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
there shall be escape and among those whom Yahweh shall be calling."
Another way to write it would be "In Mount Zion, in Jerusalem, in the
God-Called-Survivors there shall be escape."

The last clause uses the participle because the action of calling is
simultaneous with the "escape" earlier in the verse.  The escape becomes
more specific/narrow-focused as the verse comes to a close.  Escape will
be in Mt. Zion, which is Jerusalem, but more specifically, escape will
be among the God-Called-Remnant.

Also notice the repetition of "call,"  and the synonyms for "deliver/
escape."

Any comments?  Ideas?

> Trevor M Peterson wrote:
>
> > I went back and checked to see how I translated it a few months ago,
> > before I knew your question:  "And it will happen that everyone who calls
> > upon the name of Yahweh will be delivered, for there will be those who
> > escape on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, just as Yahweh said, and those
> > whom Yahweh calls among the survivors."  I don't remember exactly why I
> > rendered it that way, but looking back at the text, I'm thinking it was
> > because I took PLY+H and &RYDYM to refer to the same general idea.
 
And Lee responded:
 
> Can you show me other examples where the relative clause ('aSheR) is the
> predicate with the verb "to be" understood?  If your translation (and RSV) is
> correct, I would have expected TiHeYeh to be repeated.

Lee,

Actually, what RSV is saying is implied here is a substantive that is modified by the relative clause, which they translate as "those."  They appear to be keying on a parallel structure between the two parts of the KiY clause, resulting in an elision of the second HaYaH verb.

It is interesting that you, in your suggestion, also supply "those."

Personally, without an expressed substantive, it seems more reasonable that the relative clause is actually modifying &RiYRiYM.  It appears as if the prophet is playing a bit with the breadth of meaning of B-, the first part being a true locative, and the second, more like a locative of sphere.  Of course, for this to be a complete parallel statement to the first part, there again is an elision.  This time it is the entire predicate, TiH:YeH P:L"Y+fH, instead of just the verb.

In my investigation of your question, I came across a question of my own.  According to Holladay, ML+ carries the meaning "to save, to deliver" in the Piel.  But we have Niphal here, for which he gives the meaning of "get oneself to safety."  Yet the translations appear to be using the Piel meaning here.  I don't have a copy of KB with me to determine on what Holladay is basing his limited stem meaning.  Any help?

Paul
--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph