Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George F Somsel <gfsomsel AT juno.com>]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:24:25 -0500 "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
writes:
> George:
> 
> I don’t have your translation before me, but I noticed that you 
> translated NBR)W as an active verb, while the form is clearly 
> Niphal.
> 
> Starting from the second half of verse 6, “I cause you to hear new 
> (things) that were not before, (things that were) guarded up that 
> you should not 
> know them. And now they are created and not from before and before 
> (this) day, that you should hear of them, lest you should say 
> ‘Behold I know 
> them.’” (as taken from the text for MacSword project, Aleppo text 
> for Linux and Mac).
> 
> Karl W. Randolph.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----

I really did translate that as a niphal.  If you will check you will see
that the translation was

(aT.fH NiB:R)W. W:Lo) M")fZ 
Now you are created and not of old

I did not say "you created" but "you are created" which is clearly a
passive.    I should, however, have said "they are . . ." since it is a 3
pl.  But I note that you do not give your own translation in any case.

george
gfsomsel
___________
>From brocine AT twcny.rr.com  Mon Apr 11 10:01:08 2005
Return-Path: <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com (ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com [24.24.2.56])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0FCE4C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:01:07 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from brocine (rrcs-24-213-198-39.nys.biz.rr.com [24.213.198.39])
        by ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id
        j3BE14Jj018508
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:01:05 -0400 
(EDT)
Message-ID: <002801c53e9e$e33874d0$0302a8c0@brocine>
From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <20050411045903.CB70E6F0A3 AT ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ex 34:7  GUILT??
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:00:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
        reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/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/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:01:08 -0000

Hi Karl,

I don't think I have read the text the same as you have.  You read the two 
nqh words as Qals meaning "be innocent," which is stative.  I have read the 
text as it is pointed in the MT, that is, venaqqeh and yenaqqeh as Piels 
(see the doubled middle root letter in my transcriptions?), which is active. 
I think an examination of Jer 30:11 and 46:28 would lead us to prefer the 
Piel reading because these parallel expressions require an active meaning 
for the nqh-verbs.

I claimed to do a tranlsation of the verse in the below-quoted letter.  To 
be true, it is a paraphrase or explanation rather than a translation because 
I add the word *unrepentant* in an effort to help Chris.  I don't blame 
translators for not using such a word, because such a word is the stuff of 
commentary.  Is adding the word *guilty* also paraphrasing or explaining? 
Not in the same degree as adding *unrepentant*, in my opinion.  Even though 
reading the is fairly straightforward, the meaning of the verse is not 
transparent; it needs a bit of explanation.

Shalom,
Bryan

You wrote:
>Bryan:
>
>I see you have taken basically the same tack as I have, except that I 
>consider the reason that the person is unrepentant, >namely because he 
>thinks he is
>not guilty in the first place.
>
>But the question comes up, how do you square that reading with the points? 
>Or do you consider the points as reflecting a >tradition that may or may 
>not
>be consistant with the author's original intent?
>
>Karl W. Randolph.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
>>
>> Hi Chris, you asked about the expression
>>
>> venaqqeh lo' yenaqqeh
>>
>>...
>>
>> "maintaining grace for thousands and forgiving rebellion,
>> transgression and sin, or not at all acquitting the unrepentant,
>> visiting the rebellion of fathers upon sons and sons of sons until
>> the third and fourth generations."
>>
>> First notice what a difference the *or* makes.  Second, repentance
>> is one thing I can think of that would divide the forgiven guilty
>> from the unforgiven guilty.  I am sure there can be other ways to
>> divide the guilty from the guilty.
>>
>> Hoping to help.
>>
>> Shalom,
>> Bryan
>>
>
> B. M. Rocine
> Living Word Church
> 6101 Court St. Rd.
> Syracuse, NY 13206