Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Peter:

There are two things that make me discount this translation:

1) as you mention, they follow the mainstream of scholarly opinion on
the linguistics of Biblical Hebrew. The problem with that is that some
of the scholarly consensus is ideologically based, at least since the
days of Gesenius and before, and secondly it is outdated.

2) they follow without question the Masoretic points. Not only have I
noted that the points are at times demonstrably wrong, but Uri Hurvitz
recently linked to an article that made the same claim, among other
claims.

So far the only notes that I checked were concerning the above two
areas, and in those areas it is a big let down, to say the least.

There are a lot of places where we are not sure of the language used
in Tanakh, therefore questions can be raised. There are times where we
are not even sure if the word we are looking at is a noun or a verb,
... or an adjective, yet there is no admission of that uncertainty in
that translation. Yes I am guilty at times of insisting that my
understanding is the only correct one, but when you push my back to
the wall, I have to admit that at times my certainty is, ... well ...
not that certain. (My dictionary has a lot of question marks in it,
where the textual evidence does not allow us to be certain of the
meaning.)

In this verse there are a lot of reasons to question the traditional
understanding of the verse, even where the division of strophes is to
be found. The more I look at it, the more I am uncomfortable with the
interpretations of the verse that most are proposing, including my own
tentative one that I proposed only a few days ago. There is even
reason to question the meaning of another verb, QDR, used in this
verse. The only thing I can definitely say is that here we are dealing
with poetry, where words are often used in unusual ways for effect.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 6/21/07, Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org> wrote:
>  On 21/06/2007 03:13, K Randolph wrote:
> > ...
> > Like all other translations I have seen, I do not see this one as a source
> > of scholarly information on the Hebrew Bible, its social climate nor
> > language.
> >
> >
> The NET Bible notes are in fact a mine of useful short studies of
> difficulties in the Bible, from contemporary conservative Christian
> scholars, available freely online. Thoroughly to be recommended, but at
> places one needs to be aware of their theological presuppositions. Also,
> as I understand it, they follow the scholarly mainstream in their
> interpretation of biblical languages, unlike some people who are very
>  vocal on this list in promoting their personal views as if they were fact.
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
> Blog:    http://www.qaya.org/blog/
> Website: http://www.qaya.org/