Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Mark Eddy" <markeddy AT adams.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Maurice A. O'Sullivan [mailto:mauros AT iol.ie] 

At 23:36 23/09/2005, Mark Eddy wrote:
>Why should not the Hebrew text be read without emendation or changing the
>meaning of the verb by reading ZaROTH as the subject, LBaBiY as the object,
>and HiRCHiYBU in the normal hiphil sense "enlarge"?

Maurice: But, Mark, the question is: which "Hebrew Text"?

Mark's answer: The Masoretic text as published in BHS (and in BibleWorks). 

Maurice: Have you not noticed that the crit. app in BHS provides an 
alternative, without the waw?

Mark's answer: The BHS footnote tells us to read the verb as a hiphil
imperative: HaRCheYB in place of the MT hiphil perfect HiRChiYBU. But it
gives no textual evidence for this reading. It appears to me to be no more
than a conjecture. True, there are a "few manuscripts" that read the next
word beginning with a waw. But the BHS apparatus fails to tell us if those
texts contain two waws in a row or whether the waw is dropped from the first
word and attached to the second. A literal reading of the apparatus leads me
to believe that those "few manuscripts" contain two waws, since it fails to
say that any manuscripts actually contain the imperative HaRCheYB.

Maurice: Don't forget that you are dealing with what was originally a 
consonantal text ( see the UBS Handbook note below )

Mark's answer: I have not forgotten. I long for the day when BHS has a
detailed apparatus such as Nestle-Aland for the Greek New Testament. If all
manuscripts contain only the consonants HRChYBWMMZUQOTh, then I grant that
the W could belong to either word. But if there are two Ws in a row in some
manuscripts, then the evidence is that HiRChiYBU was the universal Masoretic
reading, and also most probably the original consonantal reading.

Maurice: The note to v.17 in Dahood [ Psalms. Anchor Bible  3 vols. New
York: 
Doubleday, 1970.] begins:
 >> An uncertain version <<

Mark's answer: What seems more uncertain is the meaning of the BHS footnote.
I haven't consulted the UBS Handbooks much, because they seem to be
basically explanations of why the RSV translated the way it did. But the RSV
followed far more emendations of the text than I believe are necessary. In
fact, I can't think of a single conjectural emendation in the BHS footnotes
that should be preferred over the Masoretic text. If there is manuscript
evidence that the MT might not be original (including, perhaps the LXX or
other ancient translations), I'll take a look at it. Otherwise, these
footnotes are just the guesses of non-native Hebrew speakers who lived over
2000 years after the text was written.

Maurice: Bratcher, R. G., & Reyburn, W. D. (1991). A translator's handbook
on 
the book of Psalms. Helps for translators (Page 252). New York: 
United Bible Societies states:
 >> In verse 17 _Relieve_ translates a verb meaning to enlarge, make 
room for (see 4.1b and comments). The Masoretic text is the perfect 
tense third plural form of the verb, ?they are enlarged? (see rsv 
footnote; spcl and njv translate this form, ?My deep distress 
increases?); tev, rsv, and most others read the Hebrew text as the 
imperative second singular ;Relieve; and join the final letter of the 
word, the waw, to the following verb (where it becomes 'and'), with 
no change in the Hebrew consonantal text.* The Masoretic text makes 
sense, and translators may prefer to follow it.<<

Mark's answer: That's exactly my point! The Masoretic text does make sense.
But the MT does not contain a passive hophal "they are enlarged," but an
active hiphil "they [namely, the "troubles"] enlarge".

Maurice: There is also the matter of your understanding of a Hebrew idiom.
If 
you check Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M., & Stamm, J. 
J. (1999, c1994-1996). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament.
you will see that >> to make wide << did not necessarily have the 
same 21st century U.S and European meaning of "enlarge" (as you 
choose to translate it )
but that as HAL notes:
 >> to make wide (meaning to lighten the needs of) my heart Ps 25 17. <<

Mark's answer: But where does HAL get this "meaning"? All other occurrences
of this word denote increasing the size of something or freeing it from
constriction (similar to what HAL says of the idiom in Psalm 119:32, before
HAL tries to explain what this freedom is: "joy, confidence and insight".
But none of this latter is part of the meaning of the word, only what
exegetes deduce from the context [?] or whatever else they use to come up
with their paraphrases). I am always skeptical when a lexicon claims that a
word is used in a special sense in one passage which it never has elsewhere.
That appears to me to be a cop-out. 

Maurice: This is made clear in the commentary of Malbim [ born 1809; died
1879 
-- thereby taking him outside the realm of "modern translations" ] 
when he notes:

Mark's answer: I would consider anything after the invention of the printing
press as a modern translation.

Maurice:  >> At first, my heart [i.e. my desires and horizons] was
constricted 
by a lust for the pleasures of this world. But now, affliction has 
rid me of these frivolous cares and the interests of my heart have 
spread into greater things <<

Mark's answer: Note his paraphrase "affliction has rid me..." This takes
ZaROTh as the subject of the verb, and takes the verb in an active sense.
The "heart" is the thing that needs to be relieved of constriction, and so
is the object of the verb. This is the way I propose to read this text.
Though I don't know if the MT itself allows us to state exactly that it was
"lust for the pleasure of this world" that caused the heart's constriction.

Maurice: As for the use of the past tense of the verb, the medieval 
commentator, Radak, noted on the same verb in Ps. 4:2:
 >> David's use of the past tense is another demonstration of his 
shakeable faith. Even while he prayed for assistance, he was so 
confident of Hashern's response that he considered it like an already 
accomplished fact.<<

Mark's answer: I can accept that explanation readily. But doesn't it read:
"UNshakeable faith"?

Maurice: [  both rabbinic comments taken from Feur, Avrohom Chaim, trans. 
Tehillim: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from 
Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources. vol. 1 New York: Mesorah 
Publishers, 1987.
This I find to be an invaluable source when reading the Psalms in Hebrew,

Mark's answer: When it goes on sale at The Religious Book Club, I may get
it. My library contains mostly 19th century German commentaries and late
20th century reference works (but not commentaries).

Thanks for your input.
Mark Eddy