Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 2/8/2003 5:36:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
furuli AT online.no writes:

> It is true that theology has influenced Bible translators. The NIV 
> has for instance on the basis of a hapax legomenon introduced a brand 
> new theological teaching into the OT. In Is. 19:3 it translates 
> )++YM with "the spirits of the dead". The context would rathr suggest 
> the rendering "the charmers"
> 
> As in the case above, we can criticize a rendering and say it is 
> tendentious, it is not accurate, or it is colored by theology, but it 
> is rather seldom that we can say that a rendering is *wrong*. 
> However, from a *linguistic* ( not theological) point of view we can 
> say that to render YHWH with "the Lord" is wrong, because it is a 
> violation of fundamental rules of translation.
> 
> YHWH is a proper name, and the rule is that a proper name which 
> denotes one particular person or one particular place should not be 
> translated but transcribed. The reason is that the *reference* must 
> be upheld. <snip>


I personally have no objection to the use of the name, and I agree that names 
are generally transliterated rather than, as the one who began this portion 
of the thread stated, "translated".  I actually prefer to insert the name, 
but unless one desires to to a specifically Christian or secular translation, 
it risks excluding the Jewish community.

> There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Jews during the 
> first or second temple pronounced YHWH as Yahweh. But Samaritans had 
> a pronunciation which was not far from Yahweh. When the element YAH 
> occurs in proper names, it is at the end of the name. Looking at 
> proper names in the Tanach, it seems that the first two syllables of 
> YHWH was YAHO or YEHO . It is true that the Masoretic pointing of 
> YHWH is based on the vowels of a substitute, but we must remember 
> that the real pronunciation of YHWH was lost when the Masoretes did 
> their work. Thus they did not necessarily use vowels which were 
> *different* from the original pronunciation (which they did not 
> know), but they used the vowels from the substitute word. Their use 
> of the vowels YE:H, or occasionally YE:HO  at the beginning does not 
> rule out that YE:HO was used in the original pronunciation. In short: 
> The evidence points to a pronunciation during the second temple which 
> is closer to the three syllabic YAHOWA/YEHOWA  than to the 
> two-syllabic YAHWEH.
> 
> <snip>

I know where you're coming from Rolf, and I'm not buying.  This version of 
the name of God is not supported by scholars, but is desired by one 
particular faith group.  Let's just drop any discussion of what that 
vocalization might have been.

gfsomsel
>From Polycarp66 AT aol.com  Sat Feb  8 07:20:37 2003
Return-Path: <Polycarp66 AT aol.com>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com (imo-r03.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.99])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFFC120028
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Sat,  8 Feb 2003 07:20:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from Polycarp66 AT aol.com
        by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id 9.133.1acd6a3a (3890);
        Sat, 8 Feb 2003 07:21:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Polycarp66 AT aol.com
Message-ID: <133.1acd6a3a.2b765049 AT aol.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 07:21:29 EST
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] [b-hebrew nefarious nefesh
To: furuli AT online.no, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 4104
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
 <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 12:20:38 -0000

In a message dated 2/8/2003 5:39:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,=20
furuli AT online.no writes:

> When we interpret a text we should, from the point of view of the=20
> writer, differentiate between two situations:
>=20
> 1. Visions. (Matt 17: 1-9. Moses and Elijah were not present in=20
> person with Jesus, it was a *vision*, v. 9)
>=20
> 2. Spiritistic s=E9ances. The situation with the medium in En-dor.
>=20

And just what might the difference be?  Frankly, I see little difference if=20
you say that it was a "vision" of Moses and Elijah or refer to the 
s=E9ance=20=
of=20
Saul with the Witch of Endor.  The text does not support such an=20
interpretaion of Mt 17.  There is no indication that the disciples were=20
having visions as is spoken of by the prophets such as Zechariah or, in the=20
NT, 'John' in Revelation.  If you remove the implied reality from the viewin=
g=20
of Moses and Elijah with Jesus there is little difference (I've always=20
wondered whether they wore name badges since they were so readily=20
identified).

gfsomsel
>From peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au  Sat Feb  8 07:23:44 2003
Return-Path: <peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from smtp.prepaid.ozemail.com.au (smtp.prepaid.ozemail.com.au
        [203.102.166.32])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id B823B20028
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Sat,  8 Feb 2003 07:23:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 3177 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2003 12:24:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO PeterKirkDell) (210.84.121.200)
  by smtp.prepaid.ozemail.com.au with SMTP; 8 Feb 2003 12:24:42 -0000
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] God/gods, was re: [b-hebrew nefarious nefesh
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 23:21:23 +1100
Message-ID: <002601c2cf6c$992e9660$847954d2@PeterKirkDell>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <00e401c2cf34$e56bee20$eb1c8ad8@default>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
 <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 12:23:45 -0000

Mark, your understanding of Psalm 8 is by no means that of all =
evangelical
Christians. It also doesn't stand up to close examination of the Hebrew
text, or of the LXX as quoted in the letter to the Hebrews. Both have =
the
indefinite phrase "son of man" (BEN-'ADAM, hUIOS ANQRWPOU), not the =
definite
"the son of the man" (hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU) which Jesus regularly used =
to
refer to himself. You really cannot interpret all instances of BEN-'ADAM =
as
references to Jesus, otherwise you would have to say that Ezekiel was =
the
preincarnate Jesus! Also you have ignored the synonymous parallelism =
with
'ENOSH in Psalm 8. Perhaps modern translations don't follow Luther and =
you
because they translate what the Hebrew text says, and understand it =
better
than Luther did.

Now I accept that the author of the letter to the Hebrews may have
understood Psalm 8 somewhat differently. But very likely he or she was
trying some kind of word play here, taking hUOIS ANQRWPOU as an allusion =
to
Jesus rather than a reference to him.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Pastor Mark Eddy
> Sent: 08 February 2003 16:42
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: [b-hebrew] God/gods, was re: [b-hebrew nefarious nefesh
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim West"
> To: "Charles David Isbell"
> > At 12:51 PM 2/7/03 -0600, you wrote:
> > >Either way, it doesn't matter to the next point, which is that =
after
> 28.12
> > >says she saw Samuel, Saul asks her what she sees, and her answer is =
"I
> have
> > >seen elohim coming up from the earth" (28.13).  The old KJV may =
have
> been
> > >the most honest of all in rendering elohim here as "gods."  Modern
> > >translators dance around a bit, as a quick check will show anyone
> > >interested.  But the Hebrew text has the plural form (olim as the =
verb
> of
> > >elohim!
> >
> > see psalm 8-  you are little less than gods-- so that the notion of
> humans
> > as nearly divine (and kings as divine) is not utterly foreign to the
> hebrew
> > bible.  see also the numerous enthronement psalms where the *divine
> sonship*
> > of the king and hence his divinity is clearly announced.  (ps 2 for
> instance).
>=20
> I know that some commentators claim that these Messianic psalms were
> written about contemporary kings. But
> if you believe St. Peter's speeches in Acts, David wrote about the
Messiah,
> not about Himself. I believe
> Peter. Psalm 8 doesn't say that human beings in general are "little =
less
> than gods." I don't understand
> why English translations don't see what Luther saw and wrote in the =
German
> Bible. Luther reads it to say
> that God caused the "Son of Man" (the term Jesus picked up to apply to
> Himself) to be forsaken by God a
> little while. Or more litteral to the Hebrew: "You deprived Him of God =
a
> little while" (the temporal use
> of M'aT is quite common). When God forsook the Messiah (Psalm 22:1), =
the
> Messiah lacked God for a little
> while. But in the resurrection God crowned Him (the Son of Man) with =
glory
> and honor. I know that not even
> the LXX translated it this way. But it was translated before what =
these
> verses said actually happened to
> the Messiah. Besides, the LXX really missed the boat by substituting
> "angels" for "God."
>=20
<snip>