Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Yigal:

The parallelism is noted as a good argument against my 
possible reading. But then I remember that outward shows 
of piety are often the refuge of scoundrels so also verses 
like Hosea 6:6 and other verses that contrast public piety 
with following God. The context around Psalm 40:7 allows 
this understanding.

Other options include that this is a copiest error that 
made it to the mainstream, that it really should read X+)T 
(what say other manuscripts?) and/or an old tradition that 
may be wrong.

Peter Kirk mentioned that the Masoretic pointing support 
the reading of "burnt and sin offerings" also the LXX, 
but while I view these sources as those that are to be 
consulted, neither are authoritative, no more than the 
multiple translations that Harold Holmyard quotes. The 
Masoretic pointing reflect a pronunciation tradition 
that existed at the time of the Masoretes, where the 
probability that it preserves the pronunciation from a 
thousand years earlier is almost nil (hence I read the 
text without points), and the translators of the LXX 
either used manuscripts that read X+)T or they possibly 
misunderstood the verse as well.

The above are just some of the thoughts that were going 
through my mind as I considered the verse. I haven't made 
up my mind which reading is best, either is possible.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>

> 
> Hi Karl,
> 
> The first part of the verse reads "Sacrifice and offering You did not
> desire". The parallelism makes it clear that the last part has a similar
> meaning. It's possible that the poet used the unusual form xa+a)h to rhyme
> with (olah.
> 
> Yigal
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> 
> 
> > B-Hebrew chaberim:
> >
> > The usual translation of the final phrase of Psalm 40:7 is
> > "burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not ask for" or
> > something better in English than this. However, there are
> > some linguistic questions that put a little doubt on that
> > translation.
> >
> > First, I noticed that X+)H has a different meaning in all
> > other of its uses. While this could be a typo (copiest
> > error) for X+)T, in which case it would fit, the usual
> > meaning for X+)H is, in theological terms, "sinfulness".
> >
> > Secondly, (WLH is found in Tanakh from two different
> > roots: one from (WL  [hard waw] meaning injustice,
> > often in the judicial sense; the other from (LH as a
> > varient spelling for burnt offering.
> >
> > Hence the phrase could read "you have not asked for
> > injustice and sinfulness".
> >
> > What think ye?
> >
> > This is something that I just noticed, as I was looking
> > at something else.
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm