Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jane Peters <janepeters13041939 AT yahoo.co.nz>]

> >  Uri Hurwitz:
> >  tov hayah b'eynei elohim

> Jane:
>   Some of the humour of the saying in 'The Life of Brian' is in the
image of YHWH eating
> fish (for which the person gets stoned). I think b'eynei elohim loses
some of that direct
> meaning.
  > Yitzhak Sapir:
  > But the "in the eyes of God" is also an idiomatic expression, and if
one were to say "this
> fish will be good enough for the eyes of Yahweh" I don't think one
loses anything at all.
> The emphasis on the joke is not on the fact that poor Matthias views
Yahweh as human,
> but rather that a quite harmless comment meant to compliment the
cooking of his wife
> is an offense punishable by stoning by overly eager women.  
   
  Jane:
  It's interesting the various issues for translation this short sentence 
raises. Nothing is very straightforward when it comes to translation.
   
  The way I hear the expression "good enough for Jehovah" in 'Life of Brian' 
is that it means "good enough for Jehovah [to eat]". The 'blasphemer' has 
just "had a lovely supper", so the clear implication is that the supper was 
good enough for Jehovah *to eat*. As I understand it, b'eynei elohim is 
idiomatic for divine favour. But I don't want to convey that the fish is 
considered good by Yhwh, but that the halibut is good enough for *his 
eating*. I think b'eynei elohim is too general to convey that emphasis.
   
   
  > Yitzhak Sapir:
  > This is also the reason why
> in the first mention of Yahweh, Yahweh ought to be at the end of the
sentence.  The
> listener is held in suspense before he hears the word that is so wrong
to say.
  Jane:
Good point. You've convinced me. The secret of good comedy is in the ... 
timing. ;-)
   
  
>   On: the language:

> >  Yitzhak Sapir:
> >  why Biblical Hebrew?  During the time of Jesus, a form of Mishnaic
Hebrew as
> > well as Aramaic and Greek were spoken.

> Jane:
>
> It was just for the fun of turning it into Biblical Hebrew. I was
going to say something
> about this, and I guess I should have.
  >   Yitzhak Sapir:
> The point is that it is quite anachronistic.  For example, how would
the Emancipation
> Proclamation sound in Chaucer's English?  We can try to reconstruct
it, but it doesn't
> really provide us with anything that anyone ever said.  Also, you seem
to want to
> concentrate on spelling rather than pronunciation, even though in this
case -- the
> sentence in question is one that probably wouldn't have been written
down anyway.
> My purpose was to reconstruct the Hebrew equivalent of the sentence as
it would have
> been spoken in the time in question.
   
  Jane:
I agree, what I'm doing is anachronistic. Although, unlike Mel Gibson, I'm 
being anachronistic on purpose. I think it's funny.
  

> Yitzhak Sapir:
> I will not criticize other translations provided on here.  
   
  Jane:
I was actually hoping you would, though.
   
  > Yitzhak Sapir:
  > However, your chosen translation
RQ )MRTY KY +WB L)KLH LYHWH HPW+YT  HHY'
where the aleph is transliterated by ) and ', is not only clumsy, it
is wrong.  +WB is an
adjective that should match the object (PW+YT) in gender and number.
Furthermore,
you are already here getting very close to Mishnaic Hebrew because in
earlier Hebrew,
instead of an adjectival construction, you'd have had a verbal
construction:
.... yy+b hdg hzh l?klh gm lyhwh

> As for the translation of "pw+yt," in Modern Hebrew most speakers
prefer a direct
transliteration "hlybwt."  The fish is apparently not native to the
Mediterranean
Sea, and other water sources near Israel, so some places I looked at
recommended
in replacing it with other fish in recipes.  I really don't think that
this is part of the
joke.  Again, the point is a harmless sentence about a fish course at
dinner, and
while for British viewers halibut may have sounded perfectly normal,
it is not that big
a deal that we must keep it.
   
  Jane:
  Oops - 'good' did not agree in gender. I quite like the fact that the 
transliteration HLYBWT is more commonly used than PW+YT, so would personally 
still favour this over the generic DG.  And adding gam makes it sound better. 
So, taking on your points, the adjectival construction would be this(?):
   
  RQ  'MRTY  KY  +WBH  HHLYBWT  HHY'  L'KLH  GM  LYHWH 
   
  And the verbal construction would be:
   
  RQ  'MRTY KY  YY+B  HHLYBWT  HHY'  L'KLH  GM  LYHWH 
   
  I wonder if it is possible to make 'KL infinitive: L'KL ? My concern is 
that L'KLH may be too wooden.
   
   

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
>From greifer AT hotmail.com  Sat Jan 26 19:13:21 2008
Return-Path: <greifer AT hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 264564C017; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:13:21 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
        autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from bay0-omc2-s37.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc2-s37.bay0.hotmail.com
        [65.54.246.173])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36BA04C016
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:13:17 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from BAY125-W31 ([65.55.130.66]) by bay0-omc2-s37.bay0.hotmail.com
        with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); 
        Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:13:16 -0800
Message-ID: <BAY125-W313563C2B0FC8DA6DDB883A73B0 AT phx.gbl>
X-Originating-IP: [66.217.37.153]
From: kenneth greifer <greifer AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:13:16 +0000
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2008 00:13:16.0912 (UTC)
        FILETIME=[6A335F00:01C86079]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: [b-hebrew] Genesis 21:14 "her shoulder yoke"
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <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: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:13:21 -0000


I know that no one will agree with this next idea, but just for fun I think=
 it is interesting that the words "Hagar" and"there" could be combined into=
 "their being driven out" (niphal infinitive?) in Genesis 21:14.=20
=20
It could say "and he (Abraham) gave to their being driven out her shoulder =
yoke and the boy's spade (alef tav)." So he could have given her food, wate=
r, a shoulder yoke, and her son's spade. I know people don't like to regrou=
p the letters, but in this case it is interesting that the recombined lette=
rs fit the situation a little bit.
=20
Kenneth Greifer
_________________________________________________________________
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail=AE-get yo=
ur "fix".
http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx=