Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE:earlier dictionaries? was [b-hebrew] Offend/dealt corruptly - chet bet lamed (nehemiah 1:7)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: RE:earlier dictionaries? was [b-hebrew] Offend/dealt corruptly - chet bet lamed (nehemiah 1:7)
  • Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 08:42:33 -0500

Dear Karl,

When you read Tanakh for pleasure or your devotions, which language do you read it in? Which is the translation that you use? Which is your favorite? Every time you bring this up, you refer to one or more translations. Why not the Hebrew text itself?

HH: I read in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and English. I use NIV, HCSB, NET, and KJV. I don't have a favorite translation. There is nothing wrong with English translations as a way to present the text. I presented the Hebrew in my post when it was relevant. I said:

HH: Your translation is incorrect. N&) has its
meaning of bear guilt or punishment, not "lift
up." God is not the One who is talking but the
One who is spoken to here.

HH: Transliteration is time-consuming, so I try to avoid it unless it is necessary.

For me, I have a NIV or two around the house which I haven’t opened in months. Somewhere there is a NKJV and another translation. I don’t think there is a NASB in the house. The archaicisms in the KJV made Hebrew easier to read than it. Don’t you see, I read Hebrew, not any translation? And in some of the translations below, I disagree with far more than just XBL.

HH: You dealt wrongly with the verses I asked you about, and I gave you specific reasons why.

My technique is derived from my experiences learning modern languages, where I learned that most lexemes have one and only one root meaning. Therefore, when I see in all its uses that a Biblical Hebrew lexeme can be understood from one root, why look for another? In the case of XBL, fewer than 10% of uses are understood by a different root, and they can be understood with the primary meaning as well.

HH: Your technique unquestionably produced poor results in several cases.

For Song of Songs 2:15 “Take hold for us foxes, little foxes MXBLYM vineyards, and our vineyard is in blossom.” Every URL you referenced concerning foxes and vineyards except one say that foxes do NOT damage vineyards, vines nor grape blossoms. They damage only ripe fruit, but they can cause a lot of damage. And the vineyard in Song of Songs was in blossom. But foxes prey on mice which burrow into roots and gnaw branches. They prey on damaging birds. They prey on grasshoppers and other arthropods that eat leaves and blossoms. In other words, foxes are not totally a negative to vineyards. The one exception was the Tasmanian site which claimed that Australian foxes gnaw branches as well as fruit, but it was unclear if the foxes do so to get at the fruit. And why the “take hold for us”? Since foxes don’t damage vineyards in blosssom, how does damage or corrupt fit here?

HH: I gave you so much evidence that foxes are considered a danger to vineyards. I showed you that little grapes would already have been on the vine when they were flowering. I indicated that the time of flowering would have been right to catch the young foxes traveling with their parents. I explained that it would be good to catch the foxes BEFORE they had a chance to get at the ripe fruit.

I agree that some of the verses could be read either way when read in Hebrew, but given the above understanding of languages, leads me to prefer one to the other.

HH: You asked someone to show you where you were wrong. I took the time to respond to your interpretations of numerous verses, giving specific reasons why your view does not work or is inferior.

Nehemiah 1 (6) … (prayer) for your slaves Israel’s sons but admitting … our error to you … (7) we are surely tied (joined) to you but we have not guarded your commands … In both verses we have the pattern God’s people, but who do not do God’s commands.

HH: You have not responded to my comments except to try to justify this weak translation of one verse (Neh 1:7) that probably has no support among existing published translations. I doubt it has any among commentaries either.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page