Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Lewis Reich" <lewreich AT mail.javanet.com>]

Jim West wrote:
> I wonder if the masoretic accenting here really does support such a
> rendering.  The masoretes were after all far more interested in the sound
of
> a text sung then they were with the absolute meaning of the text.
Further,
> the accent you point out is merely a minor break, and not a major- since
the
> verse continues and the portion we have been discussing is only the first
half.

I'd have to disagree here - it seems to me that one cannot make such an
absolute distinction between "the sound of the text sung" and its meaning.
The massoretes were, I think, well aware of ambiguities in meaning that
might be affected by accents and pauses, and their accents and pauses were
deliberately placed.

It seems to me that the translation

"Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord"

is in one way a pretty good translation of the Hebrew.  Thats is, the
elements of the sentence are rendered in
the same order as the Hebrew.  However, the meaning may not be the same.  In
English, one can say either "blessed in the name of the Lord is he that
comes" or "blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord", so that the
second sentence is read as implying that the one who comes comes in the name
of the Lord.

However, Hebrew does not allow the possiblity to switching the places of the
elements of the sentence in that way.  The meaning of the sentence depends
on where the stop is.  If after barukh, then we have "blessed is, the one
who comes in the name of the Lord";  if after  "ha'ba, we have "blessed is
the one who comes, in the name of the Lord", which is the closest Hebrew can
come to expressing "blessed in the name of the Lord is the one who comes."
I would suggest also that the following phrase - "bayrakhnukhem mi'beis
yhvh" argues in favor of the reading that has the one who comes blessed in
the name of the Lord, rather than coming in the Lord's name.


>
> I dont think that the masoretes, to go even further, would support the
claim
> that was made in the original post.  And I do not think that Kimchi
supports
> it either.  He merely says that blessing comes from God.
>
> Finally, as Dave pointed out, the LXX won't allow this understanding
either.
> So in sum, we have:
> the Hebrew tradition- which orders words in sentences by priority
> the LXX- which literally follows the Heb. text
> and the vast majority of translators and commentators, who have rendered
it
> rather straightforwardly as well.
>
> Against this we have:
> a novel suggestion unsupported by either the Hebrew or Greek texts (or the
> latin for that matter!)
> a rather tendentious suggestion that the masoretes support this novel
reading
> and
> Kimchi, who does not seem to support the reading.
>
> I must conclude that the weight of evidence is on the side of the
> traditional translation and against the novel one (which is based, in any
> event, on a misreading of a secondary translation and not the primary
hebrew
> text itself)
>
> Best,
>
> Jim
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Jim West, ThD
> email- jwest AT highland.net
> web page-  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: lewreich AT javanet.com
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>
>