Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Interpretation of Biblical Hebrew, or Harold, is this your methodology?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Interpretation of Biblical Hebrew, or Harold, is this your methodology?
  • Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 15:38:34 -0500

Dear Harold:

If you want to convince me of a particular reading, you’ll have to do more
than just throw someone else’s translation at me. I may disagree with
multiple aspects of that translation.

If I misread a passage because I have misinformation of something outside of
the Hebrew language, then correcting the information I have will cause me to
reread the passage. You tried to do that with foxes and vineyards: the only
problem with that is that the information that you referenced, while it
corrected me in that foxes like to eat grapes, did not otherwise support your
claims. That is a correct step to take.

If you want to convince me of a particular reading, or as in the case above
the definition of a word, these are the steps you’ll need to do. Let’s use
the example of Proverbs 1:19.

The first step, strip away the points. The points were not original are
sometimes wrong. Even if they are wrong as few as 1% of the time, that is too
often for me. From a seat of the pants impression, the points are wrong 2–5%
of the time. If one tries to keep to the points when they are wrong, it can
lead to some real mental gymnastics. It’s no problem if the points are
correct, but we can’t assume that. In this example, that gives us:

KN )RXWT KL BC( BC( )T NP$ B(LYW YQX
&#1499;&#1503; &#1488;&#1512;&#1495;&#1493;&#1514; &#1499;&#1500;
&#1489;&#1510;&#1506; &#1489;&#1510;&#1506; &#1488;&#1514;
&#1504;&#1508;&#1513; &#1489;&#1506;&#1500;&#1497;&#1493;
&#1497;&#1511;&#1495;

The next step is to analyze this grammatically. Do we have complete sentences
(possibly it is a continuation of a previous verse, or it continues into the
next verse, so context is part of this step)? From the context, we see that
this is a stand alone verse, so the complete sentence(s) are internal.

Concurrently with this step, look for any words in their contexts that may
take two or more pointings, hence two or more divergent meanings. In the two
partial sentences below, none of the words will give a problem, so I won’t go
very much into this question with this verse.

Do the first three words make up a sentence?

KN )RXWT KL &#1499;&#1503; &#1488;&#1512;&#1495;&#1493;&#1514; &#1499;&#1500;

While the first word KN can have an implied “to be” making another verb
surplus, it can also have another verb: the context asks for more than just
these three words. It does not make sense as a complete sentence in this
context.

Do the final four words make up a complete sentence?

)T NP$ B(LYW YQX &#1488;&#1514; &#1504;&#1508;&#1513;
&#1489;&#1506;&#1500;&#1497;&#1493; &#1497;&#1511;&#1495;

Here we have a verb and an object, but no subject—incomplete sentence.

As pointed, BC( BC( &#1489;&#1510;&#1506; &#1489;&#1510;&#1506; are a
compound verb, but as a compound verb, do they fit either partial sentence?
If attached to the second, that gives two verbs but still no subject. If
attached to the first, it gives us a verb where grammatically we expect to
see a noun. But without points, we have other options. If both are nouns, we
now have two simple, complete sentences, where each is the subject of its
respective sentence. I read the first as a participle acting as a noun, the
second as a shegolate noun. Thus the two sentences are:

KN )RXWT KL BC(
&#1499;&#1503; &#1488;&#1512;&#1495;&#1493;&#1514; &#1499;&#1500;
&#1489;&#1510;&#1506;
Such are the roads of all those taking a cut

and:

BC( )T NP$ B(LYW YQX
&#1489;&#1510;&#1506; &#1488;&#1514; &#1504;&#1508;&#1513;
&#1489;&#1488;&#1500;&#1497;&#1493; &#1497;&#1511;&#1495;
a cut takes the life of its master

A couple of additional notes to clarify matters more: “cut” when it stands
alone as in this context, is used in the same way as in English “a cut of the
profits” or “gain” (e.g. Genesis 37:26) or “a cut of the loot” or “illegal
gain” as in this and most other cases in Tanakh. Secondly, this is poetic,
with KN with its implied “to be” and YQX acting as the parenthesis of the
verse, with the subjects in the center with the added benefit for poetic use
that they are from the same root. (A similar poetic mirroring is found in
verses 26 & 27 of the same chapter.)

A final translation, smoothed out in English with a bit a paraphrasing, could
very well be, “Such are the roads of those who take a cut of the loot; unjust
gain takes over the life of its owner.”

Usually, the reading that makes the simplest sentences has the correct
meaning, but not always.

Reading the context, the verses surrounding the verse in question, gives the
final say. The context of this verse shows that this is the final verse of a
passage talking about people going out and illegally taking from others. The
two verses immediately preceding this verse indicates that such actions end
up giving problems to the actors. Again, it fits.

After doing all these steps, you may find that the points were correct all
along and usually that’s the case, making the first step unnecessary, but we
can’t assume that.

If, OTOH, after doing all these steps we still can’t tease a logical meaning
without severe mental gymnastics, we need to entertain the possibility that a
definition or two may be incorrect in the lexicon. But this is the absolute
last step and often multiplies the work exponentially. I don’t like to do
this step. I prefer to use recognized definitions wherever possible. But I
will question lexica when I see two or more definitions given to one lexeme
and I see no reason for it.

On the question of Job 39:13, these are the steps I took to tease out a
simple sentence that made sense and fit the context. Do you remember? I
didn’t need to do the final step with that verse.

Harold, are these the steps you take when you disagree with me? But if all
you do is to present someone else’s translation, how convincing is that?
Especially when I may disagree with the translator on several points? Or do
you have another methodology that you haven’t explained?

With what aspects of this methodology do you disagree and why?

Is there any way to improve this methodology?

Oh yes, this methodology is combined with my presupposition borne out in
practice that lexemes usually, though not always, have only one root
definition and its definition will be recognizable in other lexemes from the
same root. Whether that root definition is narrow or broad can often be
recognized from the lexeme’s uses, the uses of other lexemes from the same
root and in comparison with synonyms and antonyms. In modern languages where
we have the history of a term, that can help, but that is not true of
Biblical Hebrew. But with how small the surviving corpus is of Biblical
Hebrew with its many hapax legomais, that doesn’t always work.

Karl W. Randolph.
--
_______________________________________________
Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free!
http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143







  • [b-hebrew] Interpretation of Biblical Hebrew, or Harold, is this your methodology?, Karl Randolph, 07/05/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page