Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ruthy & Baruch" <alster AT comandcom.com>]

----------
> From: Jim West <jwest AT Highland.Net>
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Cc: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
> Subject: Re: Translation: Ps 118:26a (MT)
> Date: ùáú 17 éåìé 1999 23:27
> 

Jim 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.

You may be right.  There's really no way of knowing.


  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.

Since we all agree that the major break in the verse is where it should be,
and we are only discussing half of the verse, all we would have here is a
minor break.  Had the break been after "Barukh", you would obviously be
correct, but the way it stands could either be interpreted as blessing in
God's name, with the break being used for punctuation, or as coming in
God's name, with the break serving only a musical purpose.
 
> 
> ...  And I do not think that Kimchi supports
> it either.  He merely says that blessing comes from God.  
> 

I think RaDaK's use of the word "name" as in the text, proves that he is
interpreting the first half of our verse.

> 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)

RaDak's commentary here might be based on one of two things:

1.  The common Hebrew phrase "Barukh habba", meaning "Welcome", is used at
circumcision ceremonies (although I don't know when it became customary to
use this phrase), and might bias a commentator, who will see it in the
Bible as a phrase as well.  But as RaDak knew his BH a lot better than most
of us, this is unlikely.

2.  "habba" is a present participle, which of course can also be used as a
noun.  In similar cases, where there is a noun (rather than a present
participle) after the passive participle, the prepositional phrase
following the noun does not necessarily relate to the noun.  See for
example Gen. 14:19, Deut. 28:3, and Ps. 41:14.

L'hitraot

Baruch Alster