Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

I can't comment much on the translation of abba but I 
have felt for a long time that modern translations of many 
scriptures have been overly formalised and not well 
reflected the informal nature with which such words were 
originally penned.
I think this has arose from various sentiments of 
piousness and a feeling for the need to transmit the 
thoughts and feelings of the original composer/s in a
respectful and formal manner.
I have no linguistic evidence in favour of a translation 
of 'dad' for abba other than it just seems to sound good. 
The reason I say this is an emotional one and nothing more. 
Because when I read the words of Jesus it makes me feel that 
his personality was rather informal and that his method of 
teaching was very simplistic and heart-reaching in its nature.
For this reason, I like the translation of 'dad' becomes (to me) 
it seems to better reflect the close and warm relationship he
had with his heavenly father.
In most modern languages I have had contact with, the term 
'Father' would only serve to distance the relationship, whereas 
the term 'Dad' is an endearment that calls to mind a close and 
intimate relationship.

All of this is of course just my opinion and the way I like to 
think things and has little to no scholastic basis to it.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From dwashbur AT nyx.net  Fri Jul 22 10:56:35 2005
Return-Path: <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from S3.cableone.net (s3.cableone.net [24.116.0.229])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C0D4C006
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:56:34 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.105] (unverified [24.119.169.114])
        by S3.cableone.net (CableOne SMTP Service S3) with ESMTP id 26232557
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:13:16 -0700
From: Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:56:31 -0600
User-Agent: KMail/1.7
References: <200507201238.32724.dwashbur AT nyx.net>
        <01ab01c58d61$a3341210$a7eb6850@acernh48myhexr>
In-Reply-To: <01ab01c58d61$a3341210$a7eb6850@acernh48myhexr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200507220856.31273.dwashbur AT nyx.net>
X-IP-stats: Incoming Last 2, First 197, in&4, out=0, spam=0
X-External-IP: 24.119.169.114
X-Abuse-Info: Send abuse complaints to abuse AT cableone.net
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Eccl 4:10 plural
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
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: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:56:35 -0000

On Wednesday 20 July 2005 13:30, Giuseppe Regalzi wrote:
> Dave Washburn wrote:
> > I came across this and the plural verb has me baffled:
> >
> > KIY )IM YIP.OLW. HF)EXAD
> >
> > BHS doesn't show any textual variant here, so I wonder: does anybody have
> > an idea why we have the plural verb YIP.OLW. with "the one", HFEXAD, as
> > its subject?????
>
> As the text stands, the subject of YIP.OLW. is HA$.:NAYIM in the previous
> verse. Note the zaqef over YIP.OLW.

Syntactically, I don't see how this can be.  First, there's a verse (sentence)
break indicated.  I know those are somewhat artificial in places, but it must
be considered.  Second, the whole thing is inside the KIY )IM subordinating
structure, which helps separate it from the previous clause/verse.  The NIV
translates as though HFEXFD is the subject of YIP.OLW. where the RSV goes the
way you suggest.  'Twould appear that others have had the same problem with
it.

> The verse is not without its problems, though: if both fall, how can "the
> one" help the other to get up again?

Agreed.  In practical terms, the contrast in the second half of the verse has
to do with a second companion who, apparently having NOT fallen, can help the
first one up, whereas the one who is walking alone doesn't have that
advantage.  In that context, if they're both down, they're not going to be
much help to each other.

--
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Well, if I'd wanted a safe life, I guess I wouldn't have
married a man who studies rocks." - Betty Armstrong (Fay Masterson)