Translation of Job 19:25-26

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Translation of Job 19:25-26

Post by kwrandolph »

David, good to see you back.
ducky wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 8:25 pm Hi Karl,

So Just a few quick words:
You wondered in your last post: "Does not the use of a different verb indicate a different action?"

And my answer is Sometimes Yes and sometimes No. Language is fluid. It is not a mathematical thing. And sometimes One Word can have a wide range of definitions. And with that, some definitions can get a few different words.
And even you, in your own explanation of these verses, explained the word נקף with a few meanings (of rounding, and covering or wrapping). But how could you do that when there are other words that define the same meanings...?
They don’t have the same meanings. But they can be used in the same contexts.

An example is the word “swing” in English: in the hands of a conductor before an orchestra, it is conducting the orchestra. In the hands of an athlete, it is trying to hit a ball with a stick. In a dance, it is a dance movement. But the action is the same in each case, a semicircular motion around a fixed point. Therefore “swing” is not a synonym for “conduct” nor “athletic endeavor”, it is just used in these contexts.

So likewise, נקף is the action sometimes used in the context of wrapping, but it doesn’t mean wrapping itself.
ducky wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 8:25 pm **************************************************************************************************************
As for the rest of your post...
I have to say that I still couldn't understand your translation of these verses.
I really really don't come to go against your way of translating. Because I truly didn't understand it.
And your last post, which tried to explain it, was more riddle-ish to me than before.

As for נקפו (the plural form)... Since it is plural, my understanding of it is as an active form. a verb with an impersonal subject.
Do you have any clues as to the subject of the verb?
ducky wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 8:25 pm Another thing, just to be clear. I didn't though about it before that "under my skin" in English can be understood in a metaphoric way.
So I just want to be clear about the understanding of אחר עורי as "under my skin".
I mean it in a physical way: Under my skin = Beneath my skin.
Or in other words: he is talking about his bones (as he repeats again on what was written a few verses before).
The English word “under” doesn’t have the same meaning as the Hebrew אחר, not even close. Seeing as your native tongue is not English (you still write quite well in English), you may miss the nuances there.

Karl W. Randolph.
ducky
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Translation of Job 19:25-26

Post by ducky »

Hi Karl, and thanks.
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:00 pm They don’t have the same meanings. But they can be used in the same contexts.

An example is the word “swing” in English: in the hands of a conductor before an orchestra, it is conducting the orchestra. In the hands of an athlete, it is trying to hit a ball with a stick. In dance, it is a dance movement. But the action is the same in each case, a semicircular motion around a fixed point. Therefore “swing” is not a synonym for “conduct” or “athletic endeavor”, it is just used in these contexts.

So likewise, נקף is the action sometimes used in the context of wrapping, but it doesn’t mean wrapping itself.
I hope you realized that my question in my last post ("how could you do that...?") came with a little bit of cynicism, pointing to the fact that you're doing what you claim to be doubtful.
So now, you're actually answering yourself.

So we started this by you raising the wonder in your last post: "Does not the use of a different verb indicates a different action?"
And I said: "could be" (Sometimes Yes, and sometimes No).
And now you are also answering yourself with a "could be".
So I'm feeling that we're in a loop.
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:00 pm So likewise, נקף is the action sometimes used in the context of wrapping, but it doesn’t mean wrapping itself.
According to who?

Even in the same book of Job, when he talks about the skin and flesh that is "wrapping" him, he said:
Job 10:11 עוֹר וּבָשָׂר תַּלְבִּישֵׁנִי

No use of נקף in this context of putting skin and flesh over the body.

And in Ezekiel 37:6 it is said:
וְהַעֲלֵתִי עֲלֵיכֶם בָּשָׂר וְקָרַמְתִּי עֲלֵיכֶם עוֹר

Also here - talks about putting skin and flesh over the body - but no נקף.

So where do you see that "נקף is the action (that is) sometimes used in the context of wrapping"?


By the way, just for the "sport", I went to search the word "wrap" in the English bible translations, to see if anyone connects "wrap" to this root.
And I saw many roots that they connect to "wrapping" - but no נקף (at least from what I saw).

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:00 pm Do you have any clues as to the subject of the verb?
The case of an impersonal subject is not just when the known subject is not written.
Sometimes is just about a mirror case for the passive. it is just like passive - when there is no need to ask who.
who? - whoever may be.

Think about Job 7:3
כֵּן הׇנְחַלְתִּי לִי יַרְחֵי שָׁוְא וְלֵילוֹת עָמָל מִנּוּ לִי
who appointed him with these nights? whoever did.
Therefore, (I saw) in the English translations - they all translate that verb as passive (even though, in Hebrew, it comes as active).
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:00 pm The English word “under” doesn’t have the same meaning as the Hebrew אחר, not even close. Seeing as your native tongue is not English (you still write quite well in English), you may miss the nuances there.
First, thank you very much.

Second, didn't we go over this before?
I don't think I have anything to add about this, because I already explained my view in this thread as much as I can.

And by the way, my native tongue cannot mislead me, because also in Hebrew the pure meaning of אחר is not "under". I was just using the common English way of speaking.
But we already talked about it.
אחר עורי as "behind my skin" (and [Under][Beneath] in this context).
Just check again above my words about it.


I wrote what I wrote above. Trying to explain the vocabulary, the syntax, and the context, and to show the relevancy and parallelism of ideas to the verses that were written before.

If some found that convincing - fine.
If some didn't find that convincing - also fine.

So now it is your turn to write clearly the way you understand the verses.
Just explain the context and translate these verses very clearly, like you are explaining to a kid.
Or just as you would explain it to someone that came to you to study Hebrew.
David Hunter
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Translation of Job 19:25-26

Post by kwrandolph »

ducky wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 5:21 am Hi Karl, and thanks.
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:00 pm They don’t have the same meanings. But they can be used in the same contexts.

An example is the word “swing” in English: in the hands of a conductor before an orchestra, it is conducting the orchestra. In the hands of an athlete, it is trying to hit a ball with a stick. In dance, it is a dance movement. But the action is the same in each case, a semicircular motion around a fixed point. Therefore “swing” is not a synonym for “conduct” or “athletic endeavor”, it is just used in these contexts.

So likewise, נקף is the action sometimes used in the context of wrapping, but it doesn’t mean wrapping itself.
I hope you realized that my question in my last post ("how could you do that...?") came with a little bit of cynicism, pointing to the fact that you're doing what you claim to be doubtful.
So now, you're actually answering yourself.

So we started this by you raising the wonder in your last post: "Does not the use of a different verb indicates a different action?"
And I said: "could be" (Sometimes Yes, and sometimes No).
And now you are also answering yourself with a "could be".
No, I did not say “could be”.
ducky wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 5:21 am
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:00 pm So likewise, נקף is the action sometimes used in the context of wrapping, but it doesn’t mean wrapping itself.
According to who?
According to standard lexicography of the text.
ducky wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 5:21 am Even in the same book of Job, when he talks about the skin and flesh that is "wrapping" him, he said:
Job 10:11 עוֹר וּבָשָׂר תַּלְבִּישֵׁנִי

No use of נקף in this context of putting skin and flesh over the body.
This is a different verse with a different verb.
ducky wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 5:21 am And in Ezekiel 37:6 it is said:
וְהַעֲלֵתִי עֲלֵיכֶם בָּשָׂר וְקָרַמְתִּי עֲלֵיכֶם עוֹר

Also here - talks about putting skin and flesh over the body - but no נקף.
Again this is a different verse with a different verb.
ducky wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 5:21 am So where do you see that "נקף is the action (that is) sometimes used in the context of wrapping"?
Only in this verse in Job. And no, it does not mean “wrap” even in this verse.
ducky wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 5:21 am
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:00 pm Do you have any clues as to the subject of the verb?
The case of an impersonal subject is not just when the known subject is not written.
Sometimes is just about a mirror case for the passive. it is just like passive - when there is no need to ask who.
who? - whoever may be.

Think about Job 7:3
כֵּן הׇנְחַלְתִּי לִי יַרְחֵי שָׁוְא וְלֵילוֹת עָמָל מִנּוּ לִי
who appointed him with these nights? whoever did.
Therefore, (I saw) in the English translations - they all translate that verb as passive (even though, in Hebrew, it comes as active).
This is a case where the Masoretes put in the wrong points. The consonantal text the verb is a Hophal, which is passive.
ducky wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 5:21 am
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:00 pm The English word “under” doesn’t have the same meaning as the Hebrew אחר, not even close. Seeing as your native tongue is not English (you still write quite well in English), you may miss the nuances there.
First, thank you very much.

Second, didn't we go over this before?
I don't think I have anything to add about this, because I already explained my view in this thread as much as I can.

And by the way, my native tongue cannot mislead me, because also in Hebrew the pure meaning of אחר is not "under". I was just using the common English way of speaking.
That is not a common English expression for that meaning. That’s an idiomatic phrase in English for a completely different meaning.
ducky wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 5:21 am But we already talked about it.
אחר עורי as "behind my skin" (and [Under][Beneath] in this context).
Just check again above my words about it.


I wrote what I wrote above. Trying to explain the vocabulary, the syntax, and the context, and to show the relevancy and parallelism of ideas to the verses that were written before.

If some found that convincing - fine.
If some didn't find that convincing - also fine.

So now it is your turn to write clearly the way you understand the verses.
Just explain the context and translate these verses very clearly, like you are explaining to a kid.
Or just as you would explain it to someone that came to you to study Hebrew.
Let’s go back to my example of “swing”. When a conductor swings his hands and baton, he leads the orchestra. But “swing” does not mean “lead an orchestra”. “Swing” merely refers to the action that the conductor uses to lead the orchestra. Likewise “swing” for an athlete does not mean to try to hit a ball with a club or stick, it is merely the action used by the athlete in his attempt to hit the ball. I can go on with example after example of uses of “swing” in different contexts, but they all refer to the same action even though the appearances and results may look very different.

Now we look at נקף in Biblical Hebrew (modern Israeli Hebrew may have a different meaning) where the action indicated is “to encircle”. Like “swing” above, it is used in different contexts, but just because it’s used in these different contexts doesn’t change its meaning. Just because it’s used in different contexts doesn’t make it a synonym of those other actions.

Another thing to consider is that Job is poetry. ִFor example, can you express in simple English the idea contained in Job 30:1?

ועתה שחקו עלי— צעירים ממני לימים
אשר-מאסתי אבותם— לשית עם-כלבי צאני

So likewise the poetic use of the verb “to encircle” does not change its meaning to “to wrap”.

Karl W. Randolph.
ducky
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Translation of Job 19:25-26

Post by ducky »

Hi Karl,

Once again, sorry for going away too long.

I think we should close this subject.

I said my piece, and you said yours.

I was hoping to find your way of translation to try to understand your view, But it's okay.

Anyway, I see that you "opened" other "potential subjects" to discuss.

If you want, maybe open them on a new thread so it will be more organized.

Sorry again.
David Hunter
Post Reply