Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Psalms 9

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mark Spitsbergen <awakesd AT mac.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Psalms 9
  • Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:13:56 -0800

Can anyone shed some light on why "muth labben," in Psalms 9 should be in the words of Mitchell Dahood, "an unknown technical term?" The LXX reads "kruphion to uiou." which seems to imply "the son of a friend" or perhaps refers to "al alamoth" of Psalms 46. As I understand, this phrase could be translated:

1- death makes white (disregarding all pointing)
2- death of Labben (an enemy)
3- a death of a son
4- a corruption of al alamoth of Psalms 46, which I think means "accompaniment at a high pitch?"
5- an unknown technical term.

thanks,

Mark Spitsbergen

On Dec 13, 2008, at 10:20 AM, b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Cast Jim off the Island (John M. Linebarger)
2. Re: Cast Jim off the Island (Bruce Prince)
3. Karl and Jim debate and more (David Kolinsky)
4. A blog is a great suggestion! (Christopher Kimball)
5. Re: Karl and Jim debate and more (dwashbur AT nyx.net)
6. Re: Cast Jim off the Island (dwashbur AT nyx.net)
7. Re: Need Help With Trope Identification (Jason Hare)
8. Re: Need Help With Trope Identification (Anthony Becker)
9. Re: Karl and Jim debate and more (K Randolph)
10. Re: Need Help With Trope Identification (Jason Hare)
11. Re: Need Help With Trope Identification (Yitzhak Sapir)
12. Re: Need Help With Trope Identification (Yitzhak Sapir)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:26:00 +0000
From: jmlineb AT comcast.net (John M. Linebarger)
Subject: [b-hebrew] Cast Jim off the Island
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
<121220081826.13974.4942ACB800060F4E0000369622007507440D0A0207040306@c omcast.net>


OK, you asked ...

Here is my politically incorrect opinion. We should vote to cast Jim Stinehart off of the b-hebrew island. Isaac Freed has odd views, but at least he keeps his opinions short. And Karl doesn't bother me a bit.

My two cents. Enjoy!

John M. Linebarger, PhD (Computer Science)
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, NM, USA


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:40:00 +1100
From: "Bruce Prince" <bruceprince AT bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Cast Jim off the Island
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <027701c95c91$6c8cf440$45a6dcc0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear People

This type of backing and forthing reaches its limit all too soon, and we
have a tendency to forget that the world needs the Jim Stineharts just as
much as the Karl Randolphs. If somebody doesn't like one or the other,
simply press the Delete key; it is sooo easy. It is pointless in getting
upset and expending unnecessary energy on whinging and whining.

Please brothers and sisters - some grace and patience.

It costs nothing.

Bruce Prince
Australia


-----Original Message-----
John M. Linebarger wrote:
Here is my politically incorrect opinion. We should vote to cast Jim
Stinehart off of the b-hebrew island. Isaac Freed has odd views,
but at least he keeps his opinions short. And Karl doesn't bother me a
bit.




------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:16:27 -0800 (PST)
From: David Kolinsky <yishalom AT sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [b-hebrew] Karl and Jim debate and more
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <704292.11316.qm AT web82607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Dear David
?
You Wrote
?
"Karl and I have had our clashes in the past, but I really don't see it this way.? In addressing my somewhat unique views, he has never made me feel he was calling me an idiot or anything else.? Disagreement can be healthy for all concerned, and I am definitely not one who could be called "non-confrontational."? But I have probably come closer to insulting him than he has to insulting me,"
?
First, allow me to clarify that I am not interested in slaming nor insulting Karl.? But it seems that my comments won't be taken at face value and that I need to prove where Karl seems to be insulting and badgering in an attempt to shut people (in this case Karl) down:
?
?
"I just reread an article by David Down, professional archeologist,
describing research done in Egypt. In the article, he describes findings
that connect the Exodus with the 12th and 13th dynasties of Egypt. Seeing as
Abraham lived centuries earlier, that makes it impossible for your theories
to be anything other than the wildest flights of fancy, with absolutely no
relation to reality.

Again you connect the names to a Hebrew language which you claim did not
exist at that time. How silly can you get? The names could have been
Indo-European, not Semitic, making your whole analysis whistling in the
wind.

The rest of your analysis is so silly as not to deserve a detailed answer.

Only after your continued posting started driving better people than you
from the list, as well as the moderators not taking action to ban you, only
then I decided to show up your foolishness. But even after I openly mock
you, you don?t seem to take the hint. I repeatedly mention facts from the
text and research, such as archaeology, that contradict your claims, and you
don?t acknowledge them.? Are there any facts that you would acknowledge that
could make you change your mind, or is your whole theory part of that never
never land of clairvoyance beyond God that cannot be bothered by objective
facts?
?
You, who claims alone to have the key to decipher the mythology of Genesis
to bring it into the real world, completely misread this passage. In a
society with interleaving connections, Abraham wants to remain free from any
answerability to the wicked king of wicked Sodom.
?
Concerning your "A"s, your persistence has a certain amount of lunacy about
it: after being shown based on linguistic analysis that your theory was
untenable, to which you admitted, that you try to rebuild it has a tinge of
madness.

Therefore, he refuses the reward so as to remain free of any leverage that the king of Sodom might bring to bear. You in your cultural isolation of modern Illinois, you can?t see this.
?
Sez you! Why should I trust you? What are your credentials? Your postings
indicate great ignorance."

?
Dave

All of this seems to me like bullying.?
?
I personally do see a great connection between
?
XBL (rope, group, twist / writhe in pain)?and?
XBR (bind, join together)
?
(perhaps not exactly as Jim does) as well as
?
XWB (indebted (is bound))
XBB (embrace)
XB? (hide (emrbace oneself))
?
XBSh (bind up, saddle, bind up in layers)
XBS (crush under enormous pressure)
XBTs^ (crowd, push, shove in Syriac) (beat into a pulp, scramble - Hebrew)
XBT^ (beat out, thresh)
?
XBK (Arabic - braid, plate, weave, knit, draw tight, bind, make firm / solid)
XBQ^ (Embrace, fold hands)
?
and I see great value in using cognates in the analysis of Biblical Hebrew.? They are not perfect, but they are tremendously valuable.
?
Does no one on this list see that XB and its expansions means "to join and?bind" and in some forms evolves bind up?> crowd in > push together > beat together > beat apart
?
Sincerely,
?
david kolinsky

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:26:10 -0500
From: Christopher Kimball <transcriber AT tanach.us>
Subject: [b-hebrew] A blog is a great suggestion!
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <4942C8E2.9040008 AT tanach.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed



A blog would be a more effective vehicle for Jim than the b-hebrew
list. They're free and more suitable for lengthy discourses. And it's
easier to refer readers to earlier pieces.

Chris Kimball
Redding, CT


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:24:28 -0800
From: dwashbur AT nyx.net
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Karl and Jim debate and more
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <4942660C.14498.2E6361C AT dwashbur.nyx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1



On 12 Dec 2008 at 12:16, David Kolinsky wrote:

Dear David
?
You Wrote
?
"Karl and I have had our clashes in the past, but I really don't see it this way.? In addressing my somewhat unique views, he has never made me feel he was calling me an idiot or anything else.? Disagreement can be healthy for all concerned, and I am definitely not one who could be called "non-confrontational."? But I have probably come closer to insulting him than he has to insulting me,"
?
First, allow me to clarify that I am not interested in slaming nor insulting Karl.? But it seems that my comments won't be taken at face value and that I need to prove where Karl seems to be insulting and badgering in an attempt to shut people (in this case Karl) down:

[snip]

All of this seems to me like bullying.?

What would you suggest? The consensus among scholars here who are much more
qualified than you or I is that Jim's ideas are precisely what Karl describes them as: silly, off
the wall, whatever. How is pointing that out "bullying"? I once had to review a book for JBL
by a fellow I had had several clashes with, and I couldn't pull any punches. I concluded by
saying the book was not within the realm of what I would call scholarship. Is that bullying? If
you have a better way to state this kind of truth, I would be happy to hear it. I have suggested
to Karl several times that he just start using his Delete key more and ignore Jim, but I can't
make those kinds of decisions for him. He seems to feel that some sort of answer is called
for. That's his prerogative. In addition, not once in the material you quoted did he engage in
any kind of ad hominem; he addressed the ideas, theories, and the unwarranted verbosity
used to express them. There's a big difference.
?
[snip]
and I see great value in using cognates in the analysis of Biblical Hebrew.? They are not perfect, but they are tremendously valuable.

I use cognates myself on occasion, but their value is limited. That's especially true for
shirttail languages like Arabic or Egyptian.
?
Does no one on this list see that XB and its expansions means "to join and?bind" and in some forms evolves bind up?> crowd in > push together > beat together > beat apart

It would appear not. And this gets us back into the etymological fallacy, which has already
been addressed. For more info in it, see Donald Carson's book "Exegetical Fallacies."

Dave Washburn


------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:26:08 -0800
From: dwashbur AT nyx.net
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Cast Jim off the Island
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <49426670.5337.2E7BBFD AT dwashbur.nyx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Agreed. I'm not in favor of kicking someone out because their ideas are off the mainstream;
if that were the practice I would have been gone a long time ago. If he starts getting abusive,
that's grounds for expulsion. But beyond that, I just suggest extensive use of the Delete key.

Dave Washburn

On 13 Dec 2008 at 6:40, Bruce Prince wrote:

Dear People

This type of backing and forthing reaches its limit all too soon, and we
have a tendency to forget that the world needs the Jim Stineharts just as
much as the Karl Randolphs. If somebody doesn't like one or the other,
simply press the Delete key; it is sooo easy. It is pointless in getting
upset and expending unnecessary energy on whinging and whining.

Please brothers and sisters - some grace and patience.

It costs nothing.

Bruce Prince
Australia


-----Original Message-----
John M. Linebarger wrote:
Here is my politically incorrect opinion. We should vote to cast Jim
Stinehart off of the b-hebrew island. Isaac Freed has odd views,
but at least he keeps his opinions short. And Karl doesn't bother me a
bit.


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:44:54 +0200
From: "Jason Hare" <jaihare AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Need Help With Trope Identification
To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID:
<bfe5ca6f0812121344l78372e04p139ddc72d5f48cd4 AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

John,

I definitely agree with Yigal on this. Looks pretty obvious. Some books even
do this today, using the meteg/silluq as a tone indicator rather than as a
trope mark. The addition of etnachta is for phrase division. Definitely
seems to be the correct way to see this. Just wanted to state my agreement.

Regards,
Jason Hare

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:

Dear John,

Is this from a Hebrew translation of Matthew. Because if it is, than these
are not properly "trope marks" at all. Remember, the Masoretes never
cantilized the New Testament, which is not part of the Hebrew Bible. The
writer/copiest/printer/whoever used Etnah marks to show the main stop in
each verse, and the marks that you are circled seem to simply have been
inserted in order to show where the accent is, to insure proper reading.

Yigal Levin


------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:36:15 -0800
From: "Anthony Becker" <ABecker AT nerdshack.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Need Help With Trope Identification
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <000d01c95cba$cf1656f0$6d4304d0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

For those who were curious, Brak?s text is:



Cinquarbres, Jean. ??????? ???????????: ??????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ????????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ???????????? / Sanctvm Domoni Nostri Iesu Christi Hebraicum Euangelium secundum Matth?um. Paris: Marinum Iuuenem, 1551.



Anthony






------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:55:39 -0800
From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Karl and Jim debate and more
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID:
<acd782170812121655s5de67dc2r1c6cf9413755ac2f AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

David:
I originally started writing this letter to you privately in response to a
private message from you to me, but now that you have made a public
statement, I think it is apropos to send it in response to this message
instead.

I got called on by the moderators for writing a bit more strongly than I am
wont to do because I was trying to grab Jim's attention.

I wanted to learn modern Hebrew, but never got the chance. Now I suspect
that that was a blessing in disguise, as when I think in Hebrew, I think in
Biblical Hebrew without any corruption brought about mixing in cognate
languages, like Arabic, Modern Israeli Hebrew or even Mishnaic Hebrew.

One of the things that reading the text in Hebrew did was to change the way
I was thinking. On the web, there is an article that sums it up pretty
well, http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Hebrew_thought . Hebrew though, which
is what the philosophers call it, emphasizes function over form, action over
repose, and it is while looking at the actions referred to by terms that
their relationships becomes clearer, or more clear that some words are
homonyms with no connections other than form.

As far as names are concerned, almost all have meanings. For example, my
first name means very similar to the Yiddish "Mensch", while both my middle
and last names mean "protecter" in different languages, but my parents knew
none of that when they named me. My parents named me after two of my uncles.
Likewise, when one looks in the Bible, though most names have a meaning,
most people were named after a family member, in remembrance to an event
that happened around their birth (Isaac, Samuel) or merely based on how the
parent felt at the time (Leah). Almost none of the names were prescient as
to the person's later role in life. Likewise most place names merely refer
to an event that happened there in the past, a natural feature of the site
or merely a name.

But to draw up a etymology, one needs a historical record of language
change. How much was there for Hebrew? If Hebrew was the language spoken in
the Garden of Eden, as believed by some, then it has no etymology and any
etymological lexicon is ipso facto false. There is no historical evidence to
say that Hebrew was not the original language. At the same time, other than
some hints in the Bible, there is no evidence that Hebrew was the original
language. All we have is the text as preserved in the Hebrew Bible which
shows almost no linguistic development. There is recognizable literary
development, but that is not the same as linguistic development.

But in one way Hebrew acts like other languages, is that people could make
nouns out of verbs, verbs out of adjectives, adjectives out of nouns, and so
forth. Those are grammar rules, not etymology.

In order to work out an etymological system, we need a recorded history.
Especially for something as complex as human language. We have that recorded
history for English, as anyone can see when trying to read Chaucer and the
literature from then to now. We do not have it tying Biblical Hebrew to any
putative ancestral language. Due to the complexity of human language, any
etymological system built without historical records to base it on, is most
likely in error and speculative. It is part of my mental makeup that
I abhor baseless speculation, hence my aversion to any system of etymology
that cannot be demonstrated by the surviving text.

In closing, if you want to make etymological speculations, that is
your prerogative. I am not stopping you. All I insist on is that we are
clear that this is speculation, therefore no one can insist that it is
accurate. By the way, I do not see the XB connection that you claim below,
not all the words you list for Hebrew are found in Hebrew, some of the
glosses you list are not strictly accurate and the actions are so different.

Karl W. Randolph.

Ps: There were certain rules that we developed to prevent bitter wrangling
on this list:
1) Don't insist that your view of history is correct. That includes your
view on how the Hebrew language developed outside of what can be
demonstrated by the surviving text.
2) Don't proselytize for your ideology. While I believe the Bible is
accurate history, hence my understanding of the dating, I have been careful
to limit my statements to "the text as written" which leaves the door open
to those who believe that the Bible was myth written much later with dates
inserted to make it appear much older, not accurate history.

kwr


On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:16 PM, David Kolinsky <yishalom AT sbcglobal.net>wrote:

Dear David

I personally do see a great connection between

XBL (rope, group, twist / writhe in pain) and
XBR (bind, join together)

(perhaps not exactly as Jim does) as well as

XWB (indebted (is bound))
XBB (embrace)
XB? (hide (emrbace oneself))

XBSh (bind up, saddle, bind up in layers)
XBS (crush under enormous pressure)
XBTs^ (crowd, push, shove in Syriac) (beat into a pulp, scramble - Hebrew)
XBT^ (beat out, thresh)

XBK (Arabic - braid, plate, weave, knit, draw tight, bind, make firm /
solid)
XBQ^ (Embrace, fold hands)

and I see great value in using cognates in the analysis of Biblical
Hebrew. They are not perfect, but they are tremendously valuable.

Does no one on this list see that XB and its expansions means "to join
and bind" and in some forms evolves bind up > crowd in > push together >
beat together > beat apart

Sincerely,

david kolinsky


------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:24:43 +0200
From: "Jason Hare" <jaihare AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Need Help With Trope Identification
To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID:
<bfe5ca6f0812130224n783f5c48xdcd07a7224deab73 AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Does it really have ????????????? ? First of all, it's got a suffix, which
would mean that there's no need for the heh-prefix. Secondly, the yod
indicates that it's plural. The better word would be ?????????? for
singular, without any heh-prefix. Are you sure about the name of this
document?

Jason Hare
Rehovot, Israel
2008/12/13 Anthony Becker <ABecker AT nerdshack.com>

For those who were curious, Brak's text is:



Cinquarbres, Jean. ??????? ???????????: ??????? ???????? ???????? ??????
????????? ????????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ?? /
Sanctvm Domoni Nostri Iesu Christi Hebraicum Euangelium secundum Matth?um.
Paris: Marinum Iuuenem, 1551.



Anthony





_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:35:45 +0200
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Need Help With Trope Identification
To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID:
<e6ea6c000812130735v5b1b483fqbfc7075207382bfe AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 12/13/08, Jason Hare wrote:
Does it really have ????????????? ? First of all, it's got a suffix, which
would mean that there's no need for the heh-prefix. Secondly, the yod
indicates that it's plural. The better word would be ?????????? for
singular, without any heh-prefix. Are you sure about the name of this
document?

Dear Jason,

The text tries to be Hebrew, but anyone reading something substantial
will notice that the author who translated the text did not know Hebrew
well. It also has a wider selection of trope marks which is why I did not
feel the tropes were used simply for division.

Yitzhak Sapir

------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:44:56 +0000
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Need Help With Trope Identification
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID:
<e6ea6c000812130944t79cb66d4lda26af3cae8d02aa AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:54 AM, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
Dear John,

I suggest that this text is not in the Tiberian cantillation system, but
rather in the Nazarene cantillation system. In the Tiberian system,
the sign you refer to would be the conjunctive merkha. However, is
not the regular servant of atnax, that is munax. Rather, the author
of this Hebrew text of Matthew copied from the Biblical cantillation
marks in Gen 25, without knowing what he is doing. Thus, in Gen
25:19, the last part of the verse reads avraham (tipxa) holid
(merkha) et-yitzhak (silluq). Merkha is the conjunctive servant of
disjunctive silluq, and disjunctive tipxa can divide the clause before
silluq. However, before atnax, the only conjunctive servant is munax.

I want to explain this a little better: In the Tiberian system, there are
various accent marks/tropes. They are divided into two main groups
-- conjunctive and disjunctive. The verse can be seen as being
divided into segments, each one ending in a disjunctive accent. Each
of this segment has only one disjunctive, in the final word. The other
accent marks in the segment are conjunctive. (It's possible for no
conjunctives to appear in the segment if there is only one word,
however). The conjunctives that may appear in the segment are
systematic and based on the disjunctive that marks that segment.
Thus, if the disjunctive is silluq, you'd see a merkha. If the disjunctive
is atnax, you'd see a munax. Sometimes the rules are more complex.
Thus, in the other thread, I mentioned the rule that if the disjunctive is
tabir, the conjunctive is merkha only if there is one syllable between
the conjunctive and disjunctive. Otherwise, the conjunctive that would
be used would be darga. In any case, the verse shown in the scan
uses merkha in a way that is inconsistent with these rules, probably
indicating that whoever used the trope did not know the system well.

Yitzhak Sapir


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 72, Issue 12
****************************************





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page