Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

On 9 Nov 2007 at 14:51, JimStinehart AT aol.com wrote:

>
> Dave  Washburn:
> You  wrote:  "Here we go again; I  did not say this.  I mentioned that the
> Masoretic pointing was somewhat at  odds with your translation, nothing 
> more.  I
> also pointed out that, with or  without the pointing, the grammar of the
> clause supports the translation "a  certain place" which you reject.  
> Hence, your
> view is at odds with the  actual grammar of the passage.  NOTHING is based 
> on
> "reliance on the  medieval Masoretic pointing system."  It's based on 
> grammar,
> nothing more,  nothing less."
> I feel very bad that I seem to have misrepresented what you said.  My
> apologies again.

Good enough.

> Could you please explain to me the basis for the following key contention  
> of
> yours?
> "[T]he grammar of the clause supports the translation 'a certain  
> place'...."
> I am obviously missing something here.  Are we looking at the same Hebrew
> letters?  Or am I missing the  significance of one Hebrew letter in the 
> text?
> Why "a certain place", instead of "a  place"?

Because this is how biblical Hebrew indicated such a thing.  See under 
Speiser below.

> I note that Young's Literal Translation oddly puts the  word "certain" in
> brackets.
> "and he toucheth at a [certain] place"

Yes, because it's not explicit in the text.  But Hebrew didn't say "a certain 
place" that way.

> Most translations do in fact say "a certain place".  The JPS1917, which is
> often the best  translation, instead says "the place".
> E.A. Speiser says:  "a  certain place.  The attribute is  implicit in the d
> efinite article of Heb."
> What am I missing here?  Is the B considered a definite article  here? Why?
> And if so, why "a  certain place" rather than "the place"?

No, the patach under the B indicates the assimilated definite article.  I 
didn't go there
because you've already said you reject the pointing.  At the same time, you 
must have some
kind of pronunciation pattern, so whether it's the Masoretic or something 
else is pretty much
academic.  Karl reads unpointed text as well, but I suspect he probably reads 
a definite
article here, as well.  He can correct me on that if I'm wrong, because I'm 
essentially
guessing :-)  It's the difference between B'MAQOM and BAMAQOM, whether you 
actually
notate it or not.  Basically, the literary meaning is "THE place [that we're 
going to talk about
in this part of the story].  It's better English idiom, and hence more 
readable for the average
English reader, to say "a certain place."

OTOH, if you eliminate the definite article, you have "a place [which is 
where this story
happens], which again amounts to "a certain place" in good English.  The 
difference is one
of focus: with the article, the place is something prominent, as in this 
case; without the
article, it's just a place for the prominent events to take place.  Does that 
clear it up?

> My guess is that maybe I am not the only one confused about this.  Could you
> please explain the grammatical  rule that suggests, but apparently does not
> mandate, adding the word "certain"  before the word "place" in Genesis 28: 
> 11?

I hope I've answered your question.

> I am sorry that I have not yet understood the precise grammatical point  you
> are making.  I did not mean to  misrepresent what you said.

Accepted and  forgiven.

Dave Washburn
As a French hippie might say, "Je ne creuse pas!"