Psalm 22:16/17

[kwrandolph]

For that matter, Biblical Hebrew is not a living language for you.

Already we see in Ezra and Nehemiah that Biblical Hebrew was not a living language to them. It had already assumed the same status as medieval Latin in Europe 1500 years later. Yes, people spoke it, and the language changed including a new grammar, but they all spoke it as a learned, second language. It was not the language of the market nor at the hearth.

I think you mean to say that it is not a native language for me. It is certainly a living language, since I can communicate in the language—the best of our abilities to recreate the language today. You apparently don’t distinguish between living language and native language, which is another problem with your position.

I have not seen evidence from you that you can communicate in Biblical Hebrew. Take for example those translations you made from Weingreen from English to Hebrew—those were at best Tiberian Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew.

It’s not the individual words that are the main difference that I notice. But even with the usage in modern Israeli Hebrew that you mention implies a subtle difference in meaning.

There are many words that are the same in both Biblical and modern Israeli Hebrews. I’ve never said differently. But there are also many words that are different.

Every time you mention someone knowing modern Hebrew, it is with the accusation that biblical Hebrew is necessarily different and that the user of modern Hebrew has a polluted approach to the language.

Of course it is. It is a well-known feature of studying close cognate languages, as are modern Israeli Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew.

If you could acknowledge that facility with modern Hebrew can assist one in fluency and proficiency in biblical Hebrew, so long as we are aware of usage differences, then we might make some headway.

You can get short-term expedited learning, but at the expense of deep understanding of the language.

You persist in dismissing people who can actually speak Hebrew in an apparent attempt to level the playing field. This would not be done in any other language.

Don’t make baseless accusations.

Someone who speaks modern Cantonese is certainly at an advantage in reading older forms of their own language, as long as they keep in mind that words can shift in their specific lexical force. Only someone who wants to force the older language to mean the same thing as the modern language is in danger of creating problems. Simply dismissing the modern language as useless is the peril of the witless.

Depends on what you want to do with the language.

Is your purpose getting a PhD which in modern practice includes reading from all eras of Hebrew as well as a few cognate languages, becoming a jack-of-all-trades but a master of none, then you do need to learn modern Israeli Hebrew as well.

Based on my theological position, my sole interest in Hebrew is to read and understand God’s word, what he wants to communicate to us. I want to read that as deeply as possible. To master the understanding. For such as use, studying modern Israeli Hebrew would hinder my understanding.

What you have just described is not what the text of the Psalm says.

Dogs surround him — he’s trapped. Evildoers encircle him — he’s trapped. How is this not what the psalmist wrote?

Nope, the text has nothing about him being trapped.

This is still evading my direct question.

Hebrew songs / psalms are normally written in parallel structure. I don’t see how splitting it into three separate clauses helps us in any way. Why would there be three verbs?

The LXX and the English translations that I have seen split this verse into three clauses with three verbs. I made a proposal that maybe a two clause split would better fit the text.

The text itself shifts from second to third person.

How often does that happen without a corresponding shift in the subject?

We’ve talked about it here on the forum before with regard to Deuteronomy 11 and the שְׁמַע. In the following text, red is used for 2ms and blue is used for 2mp. Is the change in number back-and-forth readily explicable?

וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־שָׁמֹ֤עַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ֙ אֶל־מִצְוֺתַ֔י אֲשֶׁ֧ר אָֽנֹכִ֛י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם הַיּ֑וֹם לְאַֽהֲבָ֞ה אֶת־יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם֙ וּלְעָבְד֔וֹ בְּכָל־לְבַבְכֶ֖ם וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁכֶֽם׃ וְנָֽתַתִּ֧י מְטַֽר־אַרְצְכֶ֛ם בְּעִתּ֖וֹ יוֹרֶ֣ה וּמַלְק֑וֹשׁ וְאָֽסַפְתָּ֣ דְגָנֶ֔ךָ וְתִֽירֹשְׁךָ֖ וְיִצְהָרֶֽךָ׃ וְנָֽתַתִּ֛י עֵ֥שֶׂב בְּשָֽׂדְךָ֖ לִבְהֶמְתֶּ֑ךָ וְאָֽכַלְתָּ֖ וְשָׂבָֽעְתָּ׃ הִשָּֽׁמְר֣וּ לָכֶ֔ם פֶּ֥ן יִפְתֶּ֖ה לְבַבְכֶ֑ם וְסַרְתֶּ֗ם וַֽעֲבַדְתֶּם֙ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים וְהִשְׁתַּֽחֲוִיתֶ֖ם לָהֶֽם׃ וְחָרָ֨ה אַף־יְהוָ֜ה בָּכֶ֗ם וְעָצַ֤ר אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֨יִם֙ וְלֹֽא־יִהְיֶ֣ה מָטָ֔ר וְהָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה לֹ֥א תִתֵּ֖ן אֶת־יְבוּלָ֑הּ וַֽאֲבַדְתֶּ֣ם מְהֵרָ֗ה מֵעַל֙ הָאָ֣רֶץ הַטֹּבָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה נֹתֵ֥ן לָכֶֽם׃ וְשַׂמְתֶּם֙ אֶת־דְּבָרַ֣י אֵ֔לֶּה עַל־לְבַבְכֶ֖ם וְעַֽל־נַפְשְׁכֶ֑ם וּקְשַׁרְתֶּ֨ם אֹתָ֤ם לְאוֹת֙ עַל־יֶדְכֶ֔ם וְהָי֥וּ לְטֽוֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵֽינֵיכֶֽם׃ וְלִמַּדְתֶּ֥ם אֹתָ֛ם אֶת־בְּנֵיכֶ֖ם לְדַבֵּ֣ר בָּ֑ם בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ֤ בְּבֵיתֶ֨ךָ֙ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ֣ בַדֶּ֔רֶךְ וּֽבְשָׁכְבְּךָ֖ וּבְקוּמֶֽךָ׃ וּכְתַבְתָּ֛ם עַל־מְזוּז֥וֹת בֵּיתֶ֖ךָ וּבִשְׁעָרֶֽיךָ׃ לְמַ֨עַן יִרְבּ֤וּ יְמֵיכֶם֙ וִימֵ֣י בְנֵיכֶ֔ם עַ֚ל הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר נִשְׁבַּ֧ע יְהוָ֛ה לַאֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֖ם לָתֵ֣ת לָהֶ֑ם כִּימֵ֥י הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

First of all, strip the dots from that passage, then read it as it was originally written.

The text randomly goes from plural to singular, from singular back to plural, and back and forth again.

It is not random. What you see here is a shift in emphasis that what effects the whole also effects individuals.

Take, for example, if the Soviet Union (yes, it still exists under Putin) and CCP China nuke and invade the U.S. according to plans that they laid out years ago, society as we know it will cease to exist. Freeways will grow weeds for lack of traffic. Bridges will collapse for lack of maintenance. You can forget air traffic as both airports and jets won’t have enough traffic to keep both running. DC-3s may still fly, because they can fly off of grass runways and be serviced by local manufacture. And you don’t think that the lives of individuals won’t be effected?

What a laugh! This is my opinion of you. Well, at least we agree on one thing, that the other person is ignorant. LOL!

Ignorance (lack of knowledge or facility) can be placed on a metric and be demonstrated in an objective manner. It isn’t a subjective matter.

According to the metric of the Hebrew as used in Tanakh, you are ignorant.

Has it ever crossed you mind that I might just know Biblical Hebrew better than anyone else? Nah, of course not.

Is this question rhetorical?

Of course!

Why would I ever consider the possibility that you know biblical Hebrew better than anyone else?

You wouldn’t consider it because you are ignorant.

Do you count reading Tanakh for understanding as the best way to learn Biblical Hebrew, a type of immersion learning?

It’s actually a fantastic way to get into the language, assuming that you don’t start with the position that you already know better than everyone else even before you begin to learn the language.

LOL! As I have described more than once, I had to unlearn some of the things that I learned in class in order to understand Biblical Hebrew. THAT was difficult. It took years and several times reading Tanakh cover to cover.

When I first joined bhebrew, I expected to be blown away like a country bumpkin on his first visit to a big city. Imagine my surprise to find that that wasn’t the case.

Also, it is advisable to learn the basics of the grammatical features of the language before just reading without any assistance.

I did that, only to find out later that some of that was wrong.

It could be the case that you’re repeating mistakes every time you read and that you’re completely wrong in how you understand what is happening in the text — because your methodology is flawed and you have never done anything to correct how you read.

By your own admission on this forum, you haven’t done that.

I’ve read directly through the Torah many times, from Genesis directly through Deuteronomy, chapter-by-chapter. Is there a specific set of books that I have to read to fulfill your requirement? The fact that I haven’t read through the entire Tanach in a year — what does this mean to you?

It means and is evidence for that you have only partial knowledge. You need to read the prophets and writings as well.

Do I know Biblical Hebrew perfectly? I don’t make that claim. I don’t expect that anyone does. You certainly don’t know Biblical Hebrew perfectly. The Masoretes didn’t know Biblical Hebrew perfectly. That’s one reason I don’t trust their points. Not counting the many times their points don’t correspond to the consonantal text.

I don’t imagine that the points as written are perfect. However, I think that the best way to suggest emendations is to use the nikkud system to demonstrate how you think it would be better read.

There were a couple of times that I tried to read Tanakh completely through following the nikkud exactly as written. But in that effort I noticed that the consonantal text at times indicate one reading, while the nikkud a different reading. That led me to the conclusion that the nikkud were wrong more often than I had been led to believe (I had been taught that the nikkud were equal to canon). I finally stopped following the nikkud because I found that where they are correct as far as meaning is concerned, they are unnecessary clutter on the page. Where they are incorrect as far as meaning is indicated, they are a distraction. I read Tanakh for years without nikkud before I joined bhebrew.

You achieve little by simply deleting the vowels completely. I wouldn’t claim to know English perfectly. What does that even mean? The problem is that you even accuse biblical writers of not knowing the language because they don’t measure up to your standards.

Who says? Where have I ever made such an accusation? Is this something that you made up because of your understanding of the nikkud?

It’s really weird to have such a puritanical approach to language.

Weird! Your response is weird.

Getting back to Psalm 22:17, I threw out the idea that the verse since the LXX has been misunderstood, that it consists of two parts, not three. This idea seems to clear up some problems that the verse presents.

Karl W. Randolph

[Jason Hare]

I have not seen evidence from you that you can communicate in Biblical Hebrew. Take for example those translations you made from Weingreen from English to Hebrew—those were at best Tiberian Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew.

“Tiberian” refers to the pointing of the text and how those in Tiberias marked texts for pronunciation. There is no such thing as “Tiberian Hebrew.” You’ve made this up on your own. There are no set of texts that come from Tiberias and represent a different dialect or offshoot of the Hebrew language.

Of course it is. It is a well-known feature of studying close cognate languages, as are modern Israeli Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew.

As someone who speaks neither language, you are not in a position to make judgements.

You can get short-term expedited learning, but at the expense of deep understanding of the language.

How can you prove this?

Depends on what you want to do with the language.

Is your purpose getting a PhD which in modern practice includes reading from all eras of Hebrew as well as a few cognate languages, becoming a jack-of-all-trades but a master of none, then you do need to learn modern Israeli Hebrew as well.

Based on my theological position, my sole interest in Hebrew is to read and understand God’s word, what he wants to communicate to us. I want to read that as deeply as possible. To master the understanding. For such as use, studying modern Israeli Hebrew would hinder my understanding.

Prove that you know better.

Nope, the text has nothing about him being trapped.

When you’re surrounded by your enemies, you aren’t trapped?

The LXX and the English translations that I have seen split this verse into three clauses with three verbs. I made a proposal that maybe a two clause split would better fit the text.

Your suggestion before was to read כארו as a verb coming from כָּאַר. I realize that the LXX divides it as if it were three clauses. It isn’t good for the Hebrew text, though. Your suggestion would have two subjects of סבבוני—both כלבים and עדת מרעים. I hardly even understand your suggestion, since you say that it is “referring back to כלבים.” I don’t understand if you mean that it refers back as the subject or as the object of the verb. Your approach to grammar is generally ambiguous. In the division into two phrases, you’ve placed what you claim to be a verb (כארי\כארו) in the same phrase as another verb (הקפוני) without any subordination. I simply don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish by dividing it up differently, since you don’t offer a translation or say what you think it means except that one part “refers back to” another. It’s a mess.

First of all, strip the dots from that passage, then read it as it was originally written.

Ugh.

It is not random. What you see here is a shift in emphasis that what effects the whole also effects individuals.

Take, for example, if the Soviet Union (yes, it still exists under Putin) and CCP China nuke and invade the U.S. according to plans that they laid out years ago, society as we know it will cease to exist. Freeways will grow weeds for lack of traffic. Bridges will collapse for lack of maintenance. You can forget air traffic as both airports and jets won’t have enough traffic to keep both running. DC-3s may still fly, because they can fly off of grass runways and be serviced by local manufacture. And you don’t think that the lives of individuals won’t be effected?

This is ad hoc and doesn’t have any relevance to the passage I just quoted. If you’d like it without vowels (as if that really helps you to read anything), how does it make sense to change from the plural to the singular within the same sentence:

ולמדתם אתם את בניכם לדבר בם בשבתך בביתך ובלכתך בדרך ובשכבך ובקומך

Explain to me why it wouldn’t use the plural of the same listener throughout the sentence. I have my own opinion (textual composition from different sources), but I’m interested in how you think Soviet texts have any relevance to this phenomenon from the Hebrew Bible.

One would naturally expect to see the plural pulled throughout the sentence:

ולמדתם אתם את בניכם לדבר בם בשבתם בביתם ובלכתם בדרך ובשכבם ובקומם׃

This assumes that the speaker is talking about what the children should do in their own homes. We could change it so that the speaker is saying what the listener should do in their homes, too:

ולמדתם אתם את בניכם לדבר בם בשבתכם בבתיכם ובלכתכם בדרך ובשכבכם ובקומכם׃

You must admit that it’s odd for the text to jump between singular and plural without notice, within the same sentence.

According to the metric of the Hebrew as used in Tanakh, you are ignorant.

Prove it.

You wouldn’t consider it because you are ignorant.

Prove it. Prove that you know better.

LOL! As I have described more than once, I had to unlearn some of the things that I learned in class in order to understand Biblical Hebrew. THAT was difficult. It took years and several times reading Tanakh cover to cover.

There is a certain amount of unlearning that must be done between basic language instruction and real expressions within the language. When you learn Spanish, you learn rules that bring you into the language that must be unlearned later in your learning. It’s a tool for bringing people into the basics and giving them a framework from which to approach the language, and it’s necessary. Every language teacher knows this—that you give rules in the beginning to give a view of the language, but that you must encounter the counterexamples of those rules as you go into a better understanding of the language.

When I first joined bhebrew, I expected to be blown away like a country bumpkin on his first visit to a big city. Imagine my surprise to find that that wasn’t the case.

It makes one wonder why you have stuck around all these years. You oppose the entire academic field of Hebrew instruction. You don’t further the goals of getting people to learn biblical Hebrew. You don’t participate in propagating Hebrew instruction in a better way. You just stand on the side and criticize and say that no one knows anything. I don’t see why you’re still here. If everyone in the field is a big disappointment and you know better, why don’t you start teaching and show us how it should be done? Make students of the next generation. Show them how the text should be read. Make instructional materials. Record yourself and put yourself out there to benefit the world of your greatness. There aren’t enough geniuses out there helping others understand better. Why don’t you do it?

It means and is evidence for that you have only partial knowledge. You need to read the prophets and writings as well.

Saying that I’ve read through the Torah many times does not mean that I have not read the rest of the Bible. I just haven’t read it straight through. I’m sure that I’ve read the entire Hebrew Bible, but I didn’t do it systematically.

There were a couple of times that I tried to read Tanakh completely through following the nikkud exactly as written. But in that effort I noticed that the consonantal text at times indicate one reading, while the nikkud a different reading. That led me to the conclusion that the nikkud were wrong more often than I had been led to believe (I had been taught that the nikkud were equal to canon). I finally stopped following the nikkud because I found that where they are correct as far as meaning is concerned, they are unnecessary clutter on the page. Where they are incorrect as far as meaning is indicated, they are a distraction. I read Tanakh for years without nikkud before I joined bhebrew.

Demonstrate how much it has made your reading better than ours. Become our teacher.

Weird! Your response is weird.

You approach language with a fundamentalist-type thinking. Everyone needs to do the same thing (rid themselves of the nikkud, be willing to change the text at every moment, rewording, resplitting, rephrasing). You’re the only one who really knows the Truth. You’re certainly a puritan in your approach. That isn’t a weird thing to say.

Getting back to Psalm 22:17, I threw out the idea that the verse since the LXX has been misunderstood, that it consists of two parts, not three. This idea seems to clear up some problems that the verse presents.

Translate it to show us how you understand it. I don’t see how you’ve solved any problems.

[talmid56]

I may have more to say on this thread later, but I would note that Biblical Hebrew and modern Israeli are NOT "cognate languages", just as Old English (Anglo-Saxon), Middle English (e.g, Chaucer), and modern English are not. They are different periods of the SAME language, showing historical development and influences from other languages. Now, Spanish and Portuguese, Spanish and Italian, Spanish and French ARE cognate languages, all descended from Latin, with influences from other languages. While one must use appropriate caution, I disagree that use of Israeli Hebrew is a hinderance to understanding Biblical. I only know a few phrases in Modern Hebrew (but plan to learn more fully). Nevertheless, I can read with understanding ( and listen with understanding) Hebrew translations of the New Testament, which are Modern Hebrew. This is possible because I do have a good basic understanding of Biblical Hebrew, and because there is some overlap between BH and Modern, both lexically, morphologically, and semantically. Clearly there are differences, as well.

[kwrandolph]

I have not seen evidence from you that you can communicate in Biblical Hebrew. Take for example those translations you made from Weingreen from English to Hebrew—those were at best Tiberian Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew.

“Tiberian” refers to the pointing of the text and how those in Tiberias marked texts for pronunciation. There is no such thing as “Tiberian Hebrew.” You’ve made this up on your own. There are no set of texts that come from Tiberias and represent a different dialect or offshoot of the Hebrew language.

This shows your ignorance. The nikkud show not only the pronunciation of that time, but the pronunciation is based on not only how the Masoretes understood the vocabulary, but also how they understood the grammar of their time.

According to Waltke and O’Connor, DSS non-Biblical grammar already differed from Biblical Hebrew grammar, especially concerning verbal usages. Mishnaic Hebrew continued that development so that by the time of the Masoretes, Tiberian Hebrew was mainstream, not an offshoot.

Of course it is. It is a well-known feature of studying close cognate languages, as are modern Israeli Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew.

As someone who speaks neither language, you are not in a position to make judgements.

Seeing as you speak only one of those language, neither are you qualified to make a judgment.

You can get short-term expedited learning, but at the expense of deep understanding of the language.

How can you prove this?

Knowing a cognate language can start one on understanding an unknown and unstudied language. An example is that because I know German, I can understand a lot Dutch which I have never studied. But my use of Dutch will always be influenced by my previous knowledge of German. So likewise those who study modern Israeli Hebrew can understand a lot of Biblical Hebrew because they are close cognates, but their understanding of Biblical Hebrew will always be colored by their knowledge of modern, Israeli Hebrew.

Depends on what you want to do with the language.

Is your purpose getting a PhD which in modern practice includes reading from all eras of Hebrew as well as a few cognate languages, becoming a jack-of-all-trades but a master of none, then you do need to learn modern Israeli Hebrew as well.

Based on my theological position, my sole interest in Hebrew is to read and understand God’s word, what he wants to communicate to us. I want to read that as deeply as possible. To master the understanding. For such as use, studying modern Israeli Hebrew would hinder my understanding.

Prove that you know better.

Why should I have to prove anything to you? Would you even recognize a proof?

Nope, the text has nothing about him being trapped.

When you’re surrounded by your enemies, you aren’t trapped?

That’s not what the text says. You add your understanding to the text.

The LXX and the English translations that I have seen split this verse into three clauses with three verbs. I made a proposal that maybe a two clause split would better fit the text.

Your suggestion before was to read כארו as a verb coming from כָּאַר. I realize that the LXX divides it as if it were three clauses. It isn’t good for the Hebrew text, though. Your suggestion would have two subjects of סבבוני—both כלבים and עדת מרעים. I hardly even understand your suggestion, since you say that it is “referring back to כלבים.”

First of all, this is not my suggestion, rather the suggestion of the translators of the LXX and the English translators who follow the LXX. Secondly I say that their suggestion has difficulties. I won’t defend it here.

If you misunderstand what I said about their suggestion, and that was written in your native tongue of English, how much do you understand a language which nobody speaks, namely Biblical Hebrew? That’s a language whose pronunciation nobody knows, except that it was not the same as Tiberian Hebrew.

It is not random. What you see here is a shift in emphasis that what effects the whole also effects individuals.

Take, for example, if the Soviet Union (yes, it still exists under Putin) and CCP China nuke and invade the U.S. according to plans that they laid out years ago, society as we know it will cease to exist. Freeways will grow weeds for lack of traffic. Bridges will collapse for lack of maintenance. You can forget air traffic as both airports and jets won’t have enough traffic to keep both running. DC-3s may still fly, because they can fly off of grass runways and be serviced by local manufacture. And you don’t think that the lives of individuals won’t be effected?

This is ad hoc and doesn’t have any relevance to the passage I just quoted. If you’d like it without vowels (as if that really helps you to read anything), how does it make sense to change from the plural to the singular within the same sentence:

Also look at the context of that passage. It is a speech given before an audience. In that speech, the speaker not only speaks to the aggregate, but also points to individuals within that aggregate. Modern speakers in English do the same. Even in that, I don’t see a random distribution.

According to the metric of the Hebrew as used in Tanakh, you are ignorant.

Prove it.

Your “translations” into “Biblical Hebrew” from those Weingreen exercises.

LOL! As I have described more than once, I had to unlearn some of the things that I learned in class in order to understand Biblical Hebrew. THAT was difficult. It took years and several times reading Tanakh cover to cover.

There is a certain amount of unlearning that must be done between basic language instruction and real expressions within the language.

Not true. What needs to be unlearned are the expectations that the student brings with him as he learns a new language. Those expectations come from languages that the student already knows.

What I describe above is far more and different than what you describe.

When I first joined bhebrew, I expected to be blown away like a country bumpkin on his first visit to a big city. Imagine my surprise to find that that wasn’t the case.

It makes one wonder why you have stuck around all these years.

Even though I was not blown away and spent my time here merely as a lurker soaking up what the “experts” say, I still have been challenged and have learned from those challenges.

You oppose the entire academic field of Hebrew instruction. You don’t further the goals of getting people to learn biblical Hebrew. You don’t participate in propagating Hebrew instruction in a better way.

As I understand what you wrote, you yourself said that immersion is the best way to learn a language. And what I advocate for is that the student immerse himself into Tanakh as soon as possible. I have said that repeatedly. If I were to design a curriculum, I would aim for that immersion to start within the first month of instruction. Delaying immersion until after two years of study is ridiculous.

Anyways, my main effort so far has been to evaluate vocabulary and structure of Biblical Hebrew language.

Make instructional materials.

My dictionary is already an instructional material.

Record yourself and put yourself out there to benefit the world of your greatness. There aren’t enough geniuses out there helping others understand better. Why don’t you do it?

It means and is evidence for that you have only partial knowledge. You need to read the prophets and writings as well.

Saying that I’ve read through the Torah many times does not mean that I have not read the rest of the Bible. I just haven’t read it straight through. I’m sure that I’ve read the entire Hebrew Bible, but I didn’t do it systematically.

Torah is only the first third. That you didn’t read the rest systematically leaves open the possibility that there are large portions that you missed.

You approach language with a fundamentalist-type thinking. Everyone needs to do the same thing (rid themselves of the nikkud, be willing to change the text at every moment, rewording, resplitting, rephrasing). You’re the only one who really knows the Truth. You’re certainly a puritan in your approach. That isn’t a weird thing to say.

What is weird in what you say is that you turn what I say on its head, the opposite of what I say. It is because I oppose the changes made by the Masoretes through their choice of nikkud and ketib/qere pairs is why I say the nikkud can be disregarded and almost always the qere can be ignored. Then my challenge is for others simply to read the text as it is written.

Getting back to Psalm 22:17, I threw out the idea that the verse since the LXX has been misunderstood, that it consists of two parts, not three. This idea seems to clear up some problems that the verse presents.

Translate it to show us how you understand it. I don’t see how you’ve solved any problems.

I’ve already described how I would translate it, but for the simple-minded, here goes:

For dogs, an assembly of evil doers, surround me, they cause distorters of my hands and feet to encircle me.

No need for changes in grammar nor mixing of singular and plural.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

I may have more to say on this thread later, but I would note that Biblical Hebrew and modern Israeli are NOT "cognate languages", just as Old English (Anglo-Saxon), Middle English (e.g, Chaucer), and modern English are not. They are different periods of the SAME language, showing historical development and influences from other languages. Now, Spanish and Portuguese, Spanish and Italian, Spanish and French ARE cognate languages, all descended from Latin, with influences from other languages. While one must use appropriate caution, I disagree that use of Israeli Hebrew is a hinderance to understanding Biblical. I only know a few phrases in Modern Hebrew (but plan to learn more fully). Nevertheless, I can read with understanding ( and listen with understanding) Hebrew translations of the New Testament, which are Modern Hebrew. This is possible because I do have a good basic understanding of Biblical Hebrew, and because there is some overlap between BH and Modern, both lexically, morphologically, and semantically. Clearly there are differences, as well.

Talmid: you have tread into troubled waters—when does organic language change result or not result in a separate language. By your argument concerning English, it can be claimed that French is merely modern Latin. The same is true of Spanish, Italian, Romansch, etc. Where and when did French start and Latin end? The same with the other cognate languages?

True, English has been under constant change, but there are certain plateaus to which we can point, among which are Old English, Chaucerian English, Elizabethan (Shakespare, KJV) English, each plateau can be treated as a separate language in how they differ from modern English. In fact, their differences can differ more than the differences between the cognate languages of Spanish and Italian.

In Hebrew, we also have plateaus—Biblical Hebrew, DSS Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, Tiberian Hebrew, modern Israeli Hebrew, with enough differences between them that we can treat them as separate languages. That’s why I call them cognates.

I tried reading modern Israeli newspapers and documents, but found the strange vocabulary, odd spellings and weird grammar so different that I could not understand them.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

This shows your ignorance. The nikkud show not only the pronunciation of that time, but the pronunciation is based on not only how the Masoretes understood the vocabulary, but also how they understood the grammar of their time.

According to Waltke and O’Connor, DSS non-Biblical grammar already differed from Biblical Hebrew grammar, especially concerning verbal usages. Mishnaic Hebrew continued that development so that by the time of the Masoretes, Tiberian Hebrew was mainstream, not an offshoot.

The grammar of the DSS is clearly different from that of the biblical texts. I agree that this is true. Why? Because we have Hebrew documents among the DSS, and these documents demonstrate grammatical and synactic distinctions to what we find in the texts of the biblical corpus. What Tiberian documents do you suggest we read to compare Tiberian grammar to biblical grammar? All of the documents we have received from those at Tiberias are biblical documents, and they did not change the words of the Bible to match a later grammar.

Seeing as you speak only one of those language, neither are you qualified to make a judgment.

Speaking none is better than speaking one suddenly? After all, I speak one fluently and am formally trained in the grammar, syntax, morphology, and lexis of the other. I’m confused how you think that you’re a more qualified arbiter than myself.

Knowing a cognate language can start one on understanding an unknown and unstudied language. An example is that because I know German, I can understand a lot Dutch which I have never studied. But my use of Dutch will always be influenced by my previous knowledge of German. So likewise those who study modern Israeli Hebrew can understand a lot of Biblical Hebrew because they are close cognates, but their understanding of Biblical Hebrew will always be colored by their knowledge of modern, Israeli Hebrew.

Dewayne (@talmid56) made a good point above. Modern English is not a cognate of early English. It is a daughter of it. Modern Hebrew is closer grammatically to biblical Hebrew than it is to rabbinic Hebrew. It was revived after the pattern of biblical Hebrew and skipped over the rabbinic form of the language. It is a daughter of biblical Hebrew, not a cognate of it. A cognate language was born out of the same previous language, like ancient Hebrew and ancient Aramaic.

Why should I have to prove anything to you? Would you even recognize a proof?

Try me.

That’s not what the text says. You add your understanding to the text.

You don’t interpret texts, I guess. You only read them but don’t derive meaning from them. Is that right?

First of all, this is not my suggestion, rather the suggestion of the translators of the LXX and the English translators who follow the LXX. Secondly I say that their suggestion has difficulties. I won’t defend it here.

If that is the case, why were you asking me my opinion on your redivision of the verse?

If you misunderstand what I said about their suggestion, and that was written in your native tongue of English, how much do you understand a language which nobody speaks, namely Biblical Hebrew? That’s a language whose pronunciation nobody knows, except that it was not the same as Tiberian Hebrew.

I don’t argue that the Tiberian pronunciation is the same as that of ancient Israelites. No one made that argument. You keep talking about “Tiberian Hebrew” as if it had a different grammar and represented a different form of Hebrew than the biblical language. There is no such thing as “Tiberian Hebrew” except in the sense that it represented how Hebrew was pronounced among Jews in Tiberias just before the turn of the first millennium of the Common Era. Trying to keep track of what you write over a series of various posts indicates that I’m perhaps too tired to pore over all of your posts to find where you divided up a verse in one post and didn’t even translate it. My bad. I have a personal life and don’t track down every one of your posts on this forum. Whoops!

Also look at the context of that passage. It is a speech given before an audience. In that speech, the speaker not only speaks to the aggregate, but also points to individuals within that aggregate. Modern speakers in English do the same. Even in that, I don’t see a random distribution.

Speakers of modern English do not have a distinction between singular and plural in the second person. “You” refers to individuals and groups. I don’t see how you’re going to demonstrate the claim you just made.

According to the metric of the Hebrew as used in Tanakh, you are ignorant.

Prove it.

Your “translations” into “Biblical Hebrew” from those Weingreen exercises.

I corrected you in dozens of places. My answers, by contrast, could nearly be used as an answer key for the book.

Not true. What needs to be unlearned are the expectations that the student brings with him as he learns a new language. Those expectations come from languages that the student already knows.

I studied Spanish for six years. When learning literature and syntax at the advanced level, I had to unlearn several of the things that were taught in the first couple of years of learning. Our professors specifically pointed things out that went contrary to the “rules” as we advanced in our facility with the language (“we” meaning the students who moved up through the courses with me).

Even though I was not blown away and spent my time here merely as a lurker soaking up what the “experts” say, I still have been challenged and have learned from those challenges.

It was nice of them to help you improve. Pay it forward.

As I understand what you wrote, you yourself said that immersion is the best way to learn a language.

Immersion is ALWAYS the best way to learn (rather, acquire) a language. You cannot immerse yourself in a language that is not spoken. Free, voluntary reading is essential to add to immersion, but it does not replace it in the process of language acquisition. By removing vowels, you remove the student’s ability to pronounce the language. It is a guessing game and leads to inconsistency in reading and pronunciation.

And what I advocate for is that the student immerse himself into Tanakh as soon as possible. I have said that repeatedly. If I were to design a curriculum, I would aim for that immersion to start within the first month of instruction. Delaying immersion until after two years of study is ridiculous.

Not only would you need to design a curriculum. You would also need to teach through the curriculum and evaluate it, determine where it was strong and where it was weak, decide what needs to be improved, objectively lay out in what ways it brought students to its stated goals and where it fell short. You seem to just think that reading a text without vowels and without any indication as to how to pronounce the words will just take seed in people’s minds. People will not learn to read without learning to read aloud, and for that vowels are essential.

Anyways, my main effort so far has been to evaluate vocabulary and structure of Biblical Hebrew language.

Have you made any headway of convincing anyone in the world that they were approaching Hebrew incorrectly? Why are you alone out on your branch?

My dictionary is already an instructional material.

How instructional is it if a student cannot pronounce a single word based on it?

Torah is only the first third. That you didn’t read the rest systematically leaves open the possibility that there are large portions that you missed.

Nonsense. As I said, I’ve read the rest of the Bible, just not directly from front to back.

What is weird in what you say is that you turn what I say on its head, the opposite of what I say. It is because I oppose the changes made by the Masoretes through their choice of nikkud and ketib/qere pairs is why I say the nikkud can be disregarded and almost always the qere can be ignored. Then my challenge is for others simply to read the text as it is written.

So, like Albeck did for the Mishnah, why don’t you go through and re-point the text of the Bible to indicate how you would think it should be pronounced? Why not use footnotes to offer alternative pointings? Why not do something to show how you think people should read the text? As far as I know, you don’t even know how to pronounce anything in Hebrew and the letters are just symbols in your mind. Or, do you do like those cultists who simply put -a- under every consonant and pronounce ever yod as -i- and every vav as -u-? What is your pronunciation system? Why not mark it on the words?

I’ve already described how I would translate it, but for the simple-minded, here goes:

For dogs, an assembly of evil doers, surround me, they cause distorters of my hands and feet to encircle me.

No need for changes in grammar nor mixing of singular and plural.

“They cause distorters of my hands and feet to encircle me”?

Do you mean to re-point it as הִקִּפ֫וּנִי כֹּאֲרֵי יָדַי וְרַגְלַי ?

Why didn’t you spell that out before?

[ducky]

Hi,

I have to say some things about the "Tiberian Hebrew".

1. Tiberian was the Dialect of the people of Tiberia and its area.
2. Next to Tiberian, there were also the Babylonian dialect and The Israeli dialect (other than in Tiberia). They had different vowel signs and different grammar.
3. Also, inside the Tiberian way, there were two schools with differences in grammar (in a few cases).
4. Tiberian was Never the common or the mainstream way of speech.
5. It is the Israeli one that was the most common.
4. The Tiberian way was considered the most dignified one.
5. And so, eventually, everyone started using its way in writing, but not in speech.
6. Therefore, you see in your Bible seven vowels, while speaking only five vowels.
7. Tiberian (and the other) never meant to emulate the pronunciation in the Biblical time. (Even though, the evolved vowels are based on the old form).
8. By the way, even inside the Biblical period, the pronunciation had changed through time.
9. And not only through time (in one specific place)... But there was the pronunciation of the north and of the pronunciation of the south (two areas with different pronunciations).
9. DSS also has grammatical changes. For example, it probably didn't have the Mobile Sheva (it is seen in their full spelling way in verbs).
10. Also Mishnaic Hebrew had more than one "type". Therefore, in different Mishna's hand-writings, you can see for the same word/form, two different ways of pointing. (each hand-write followed another way).
11. Not only that, but words themselves are changes in form. And the different forms have evidence of following different old forms that existed.

The point that I try to make is that, languages, in every period of time has different dialects
The words are still the same words, no matter if you say "kosher" or "kashEr". Or say "joseph" or "yoseph". Or say שמש as "shemesh" or "shamsh". or say "yoshavti" or "yoshavt" or "yoshevet". They still have the same meaning.


If you don't want to read the words with vowels because you think that there are words that are voweled wrong and can get another and better meaning with another pointing option...
Well, in that case, just do what everyone else does. And cast doubt in the specific suspected words, and suggest another reading option.
It happens all the time in Bible Criticism research.

If you have a completely another reading way, as a new pattern of grammar, that would be great and it would be very interesting to see it.

*******
*******


And by the way,
Without addressing the verse itself...
I saw that you translated the part of the verse as: "They cause distorters of my hands and feet to encircle me".

I'm just interested in your way of studying and learning...

On what base exactly did you translate root כאר with the meaning of distorters?
Let's see if I can remember...
Some guy that you don't remember who, told you that this meaning is found in a cognate language that you don't remember which.

And since you have that information, that you couldn't verify, you decided to determine that Hebrew has a verbal root כאר with the meaning of "distort".
Please tell me that I'm wrong.

[kwrandolph]

The grammar of the DSS is clearly different from that of the biblical texts. I agree that this is true. Why? Because we have Hebrew documents among the DSS, and these documents demonstrate grammatical and synactic distinctions to what we find in the texts of the biblical corpus. What Tiberian documents do you suggest we read to compare Tiberian grammar to biblical grammar? All of the documents we have received from those at Tiberias are biblical documents, and they did not change the words of the Bible to match a later grammar.

The points that they added to the text, as well as the Ketib/Qere pairs, are evidence that they changed the words of the Bible to match a later grammar.

Modern Israeli Hebrew is based on Tiberian Hebrew, and seeing as modern Israeli Hebrew has the same changes as found in DSS Hebrew indicates that the Hebrew that the Masoretes knew was not Biblical Hebrew.

Other than that, I didn’t study the Tiberian writings, as I studied Biblical Hebrew and pretty much ignored later Hebrews.

Seeing as you speak only one of those language, neither are you qualified to make a judgment.

Speaking none is better than speaking one suddenly?

If you want to make a comparison between two, only one is just as much a disqualifier as none.

After all, I speak one fluently and am formally trained in the grammar, syntax, morphology, and lexis of the other. I’m confused how you think that you’re a more qualified arbiter than myself.

Because your formal training was not of Biblical Hebrew. I had the same formal training.

Dewayne (@talmid56) made a good point above. Modern English is not a cognate of early English. It is a daughter of it.

Using Dewayne’s own argument, then French, Spanish, Italian, et al. are not separate languages, rather they are merely daughters of Latin. That English was changed from a language that could be understood across the Germanic world to a creole mixing of German and French is enough to count it as a new language.

It is a daughter of biblical Hebrew, not a cognate of it. A cognate language was born out of the same previous language, like ancient Hebrew and ancient Aramaic.

What I have seen of DSS Hebrew and modern Israeli Hebrew is that modern Israeli Hebrew has incorporated the changes that distinguished DSS Hebrew from Biblical Hebrew—grammar, spelling, etc.

That’s not what the text says. You add your understanding to the text.

You don’t interpret texts, I guess. You only read them but don’t derive meaning from them. Is that right?

I read the texts for meaning and understanding exactly what is said. I refuse to read into the texts what is not there.

First of all, this is not my suggestion, rather the suggestion of the translators of the LXX and the English translators who follow the LXX. Secondly I say that their suggestion has difficulties. I won’t defend it here.

If that is the case, why were you asking me my opinion on your redivision of the verse?

Because my division didn’t follow theirs.

Also look at the context of that passage. It is a speech given before an audience. In that speech, the speaker not only speaks to the aggregate, but also points to individuals within that aggregate. Modern speakers in English do the same. Even in that, I don’t see a random distribution.

Speakers of modern English do not have a distinction between singular and plural in the second person. “You” refers to individuals and groups. I don’t see how you’re going to demonstrate the claim you just made.

Modern English speakers can’t indicate it in their writing, but they can before an audience through their body language. And they do at times.

Prove it.

Your “translations” into “Biblical Hebrew” from those Weingreen exercises.

I corrected you in dozens of places. My answers, by contrast, could nearly be used as an answer key for the book.

Dozens of places? While I made a couple of mistakes because I was not used to translating from English to Hebrew, the biggest complaint I heard from you is that I used Biblical Hebrew and vocabulary, not Weingreen Hebrew and vocabulary. As a result, I used vocabulary and syntax that were not in Weingreen, nor was it expected that students would know them.

Not true. What needs to be unlearned are the expectations that the student brings with him as he learns a new language. Those expectations come from languages that the student already knows.

I studied Spanish for six years. When learning literature and syntax at the advanced level, I had to unlearn several of the things that were taught in the first couple of years of learning. Our professors specifically pointed things out that went contrary to the “rules” as we advanced in our facility with the language (“we” meaning the students who moved up through the courses with me).

To me is sounds like you had bad professors. Or you misunderstood them.

As I understand what you wrote, you yourself said that immersion is the best way to learn a language.

Immersion is ALWAYS the best way to learn (rather, acquire) a language. You cannot immerse yourself in a language that is not spoken.

Who says?

And what I advocate for is that the student immerse himself into Tanakh as soon as possible. I have said that repeatedly. If I were to design a curriculum, I would aim for that immersion to start within the first month of instruction. Delaying immersion until after two years of study is ridiculous.

Not only would you need to design a curriculum. You would also need to teach through the curriculum and evaluate it, determine where it was strong and where it was weak, decide what needs to be improved, objectively lay out in what ways it brought students to its stated goals and where it fell short.

That’s all part of designing a curriculum.

You seem to just think that reading a text without vowels and without any indication as to how to pronounce the words will just take seed in people’s minds. People will not learn to read without learning to read aloud, and for that vowels are essential.

Which vowels would you recommend? We find a very early transliteration of a Hebrew name “Yapheth” יפת as “Yapete” by one group, “Yupeter” by another. The word לבי was found transliterated as “labaya”. Even as late as the first century in backwards Galilee, ירושלם was transliterated a “Yerosoluma”. The girl’s name רבקה as “rebekka”. Would you use those as a guide? If so, how?

Anyways, my main effort so far has been to evaluate vocabulary and structure of Biblical Hebrew language.

Have you made any headway of convincing anyone in the world that they were approaching Hebrew incorrectly? Why are you alone out on your branch?

Yes I have.

My dictionary is already an instructional material.

How instructional is it if a student cannot pronounce a single word based on it?

What about meaning? What about understanding? Do you absolutely need pronunciation for those?

A deaf person who has never heard a word can read and understand written language without pronunciation. Do you say that a person who can hear is too mentally challenged to do the same?

Torah is only the first third. That you didn’t read the rest systematically leaves open the possibility that there are large portions that you missed.

Nonsense. As I said, I’ve read the rest of the Bible, just not directly from front to back.

That you have not done so systematically leaves your claim hollow.

I’ve already described how I would translate it, but for the simple-minded, here goes:

For dogs, an assembly of evil doers, surround me, they cause distorters of my hands and feet to encircle me.

No need for changes in grammar nor mixing of singular and plural.

“They cause distorters of my hands and feet to encircle me”?

Do you mean to re-point it as הִקִּפ֫וּנִי כֹּאֲרֵי יָדַי וְרַגְלַי ?

Why didn’t you spell that out before?

I did, as a verbal description as to why it should be pointed that way.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

David:

Thanks for your response.

If you don't want to read the words with vowels because you think that there are words that are voweled wrong and can get another and better meaning with another pointing option...
Well, in that case, just do what everyone else does. And cast doubt in the specific suspected words, and suggest another reading option.
It happens all the time in Bible Criticism research.

That’s what I did in this case, and the specific words centered around כאר. I mentioned two reading options, one supported by the LXX and Nahel Heber scrap and the other based on changing the points. The more I think about it, the more I prefer the second option.

If you have a completely another reading way, as a new pattern of grammar, that would be great and it would be very interesting to see it.

No new pattern of grammar in this particular example.

*******
*******


And by the way,
Without addressing the verse itself...
I saw that you translated the part of the verse as: "They cause distorters of my hands and feet to encircle me".

I'm just interested in your way of studying and learning...

On what base exactly did you translate root כאר with the meaning of distorters?
Let's see if I can remember...
Some guy that you don't remember who, told you that this meaning is found in a cognate language that you don't remember which.

And since you have that information, that you couldn't verify, you decided to determine that Hebrew has a verbal root כאר with the meaning of "distort".
Please tell me that I'm wrong.

That there was a root כאר was implied by the LXX and every translation afterwards. After the discovery of the Nahel Heber scrap with the root spelled as a plural verb, I too accepted that this is a verb.

This was discussed years ago when bhebrew was still hosted by ibiblio (bgreek is still there). At that time, one of the professors, I don’t remember who, mentioned that the root existed in a cognate language, referring to a disease that causes distortion. Seeing that here we dealt with what I thought was a verb, meant that here we had a verb dealing with distorting. That fit the contexts not only here, but in a couple of other verses as well. The litmus test is whether or not the meaning fits the context.

Ibiblio deleted much from the bhebrew archives (including my very first post to bhebrew) so I would be surprised if that discussion is still in the archives. כאר is one of many happax legomenoi in the Tanakh, so that’s not anything special. The main reason I hang on to that understanding is because it fits the context. (There are some happax legomenoi listed in dictionaries where the glosses I found don’t fit the contexts.)

Karl W. Randolph.