Psalm 22:16/17

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.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jan 04, 2023 12:18 amThis is not a completely blank page, therefore I won’t answer you here. Open a new thread.
In saying “let’s open a completely blank page,” I think David simply meant “let’s try starting over.” He didn’t mean to open a new thread. In Hebrew, לִפְתֹּחַ דַּף חָדָשׁ means to start the conversation or the relationship over. To start a new discussion or topic, you use לִפְתֹּחַ שִׂיחָה חֲדָשָׁה \ שִׁרְשׁוּר חָדָשׁ. David thinks in Hebrew and expresses himself in English as a second language.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:59 am
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:23 pmDon’t confuse Biblical Hebrew with modern Israeli Hebrew. There are so many things that are different between the two languages and what you illustrate here is one of them.
I’m not “confusing” anything except to say that your knowledge of Hebrew is insufficient because it isn’t a living language for you.
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.
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:59 am
Biblical and modern Hebrew use the word the same word לְהַקִּיף “to make a circle around something.”
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.

It’s like Elizabethan or KJV English—it’s not the words that have dropped out of usage that throw me, rather the words that are still used, but their meanings have changed. An example is “prevent”—in KJV times still had the French meaning of “prevenir”. Unless you know those words, and there are hundreds of them, you cannot understand thoroughly Shakespeare nor the KJV.

Your living language is modern, Israeli Hebrew. Because it is a close cognate to Biblical Hebrew, knowing it can actually interfere with your efforts to understand Biblical Hebrew. Because the only Hebrew I know is Biblical Hebrew, I can have a feeling for the language that you can’t match. The pattern that knowing close cognates can interfere with one’s learning of a target language is well known.
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:59 am
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:23 pmThat’s a very strange action for a lion. What’s the probability that the ancients, who still had lions around them, would have had that meaning? How does that fit with hands and feet as written?
A strange action for a lion to move right and left around the prey that it has trapped, not allowing it to move without being in danger of a strike? Now you make me question your experience of the real world. The psalmist is saying that he feels trapped. That if he moves a hand, it will be attacked. If he moves a foot, it will be attacked. What’s odd about this?
What you have just described is not what the text of the Psalm says.
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:59 am
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:23 pmHere you go, changing things to fit your understanding.

If you really want to understand Biblical Hebrew, don’t change it to fit modern expectations. The reason the Masoretic points are so untrustworthy is because they changed the text through their points and Ketib / Qere pairs in order that their understanding would match the Tiberian Hebrew that they knew at that time. What is written is what is written. Analyze deeply what is written before emending the text.

Did you address my proposed division of the verse? If so, I didn’t recognize it.
As I said: “We have to deal with the fact that the Hebrew Bible often changes person or number unexpectedly and not make a big issue out of such things.”
This is still evading my direct question.

I think that happens less often than you think.
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:59 am
The text itself shifts from second to third person.
How often does that happen without a corresponding shift in the subject?
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:59 am
Why do I always forget that you’re a dishonest interlocutor and cannot have a conversation without saying unfounded and ignorant things?
What a laugh! This is my opinion of you. Well, at least we agree on one thing, that the other person is ignorant. LOL!
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:59 am
You don’t know how to recognize an imperative, to determine what a verb is, or even to speak any form of the language that you want to claim expertise in, and yet you act like your approach to the text is better than that of anyone else.
Has it ever crossed you mind that I might just know Biblical Hebrew better than anyone else? Nah, of course not. Do you count reading Tanakh for understanding as the best way to learn Biblical Hebrew, a type of immersion learning? By your own admission on this forum, you haven’t done that. In fact, to my surprise, the majority of university professors who deign to teach “Biblical Hebrew” also have not read all of Tanakh over and over again, immersing themselves in the language. Instead what I find is that they study grammars and lexicons, that are copies of grammars and lexicons, that are copies … One finding that David Clines made in his survey of lexicons is that errors in lexical glosses sometimes could last for centuries because later writers copied earlier ones.

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.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by Jason Hare »

No one tells you that since you know modern English, then you cannot read Victorian texts or Shakespearean texts with comprehension. Anyone who speaks modern English and spends time reading Shakespeare will have an easy time of time. Someone who speaks modern English and has NO FAMILIARITY with Shakespeare will not have an easy time reading his texts. I speak modern Hebrew AND spend loads of time in the biblical text. I came to modern Hebrew already having completed two years of formal biblical Hebrew training in a classroom setting and having read through loads of the biblical text. You act as if I speak modern Hebrew and am completely ignorant of the Bible’s texts. I came to modern Hebrew long after biblical Hebrew. You never even completed studying the grammar of biblical Hebrew before you rammed straight into the text and developed all kinds of idiosyncratic opinions of the text that are not based on good methods of study.

Someone who knows modern English fluently is clearly at an advantage in reading Shakespeare, especially if he exhibits good attention to detail and if he spends lots of time in the text, over someone who cannot speak any form of English at all.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by Jason Hare »

Again, David has asked several times for you to include your translation or your understanding of the text. You fail to provide details of your textual analysis or translation, and I would personally assume that you simply don’t have any comprehension of the text. You apparently read as if it were just a stream of consciousness without comprehension. Do you even pronounce words as you read? If you read poorly, what does it matter how many times you plow through a text?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amFor 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.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amIt’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. 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 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. 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.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amWhat 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?
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amThis 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?
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 am
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:59 amThe 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׃
The text randomly goes from plural to singular, from singular back to plural, and back and forth again. This happens with enough frequency in the text of the Bible that we shouldn’t make a big deal of it, but it’s certainly interesting to find within the text. The same is the case in the verse in Joshua, in which the same verse goes from plural to singular and back to plural while addressing the same audience.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amWhat 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.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amHas it ever crossed you mind that I might just know Biblical Hebrew better than anyone else? Nah, of course not.
Is this question rhetorical? Why would I ever consider the possibility that you know biblical Hebrew better than anyone else?
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amDo 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. Also, it is advisable to learn the basics of the grammatical features of the language before just reading without any assistance. 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.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amBy 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?
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amIn fact, to my surprise, the majority of university professors who deign to teach “Biblical Hebrew” also have not read all of Tanakh over and over again, immersing themselves in the language. Instead what I find is that they study grammars and lexicons, that are copies of grammars and lexicons, that are copies … One finding that David Clines made in his survey of lexicons is that errors in lexical glosses sometimes could last for centuries because later writers copied earlier ones.
This is irrelevant to me. There are certainly people who should not be teaching.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amDo 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. 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. It’s really weird to have such a puritanical approach to language.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by Jason Hare »

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׃
One thing I didn’t mention about this text is the switch from the first person in reference to God (“my commandments which I am commanding you today”) to the third person (“to serve him”), back to the first person (“then I will give”) and again to the third person (“which YHWH is giving you”), back to the first person (“these my words”) and once again back to the third person (“which YHWH swore to your fathers, to give them”). We see it so frequently that it becomes almost unnoticed.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by Jason Hare »

We can make a grammatical exercise out of this to switch everything referring to the listener to 2mp and to switch everything referring to God (the speaker) to 1cs. This is not how the text is as we’ve received it, but it would point out the novelty of how the Hebrew text is actually written. It doesn’t mean that we’re trying to change the Bible. We’re just looking at its structure and commentating through paraphrase.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 10:48 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jan 04, 2023 12:18 amThis is not a completely blank page, therefore I won’t answer you here. Open a new thread.
In saying “let’s open a completely blank page,” I think David simply meant “let’s try starting over.” He didn’t mean to open a new thread. In Hebrew, לִפְתֹּחַ דַּף חָדָשׁ means to start the conversation or the relationship over. To start a new discussion or topic, you use לִפְתֹּחַ שִׂיחָה חֲדָשָׁה \ שִׁרְשׁוּר חָדָשׁ. David thinks in Hebrew and expresses himself in English as a second language.
Yes I know that David speaks English as a second language, and therefore sometimes uses the wrong expressions. My objection here is that what he wanted to discuss is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. If he really wants to discuss that subject, he really ought to open a new thread, preferably in the section of this blog that deals with lexicography and word meanings.

Maybe you can translate this idea to David so that he understands what I wrote.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 10:06 am No one tells you that since you know modern English, then you cannot read Victorian texts or Shakespearean texts with comprehension.
What sort of idea is that? What’s this about someone telling me? What about my own experience of trying to read them?
Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 10:06 am Anyone who speaks modern English and spends time reading Shakespeare will have an easy time of time.
If I read quickly, superficially and skipping the parts I don’t understand, yes I can usually get the gist of the story. But then I miss the richness of expression and sometimes even miss the gist of the story.
Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 10:06 am Someone who speaks modern English and has NO FAMILIARITY with Shakespeare will not have an easy time reading his texts.
True.
Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 10:06 am I speak modern Hebrew AND spend loads of time in the biblical text. I came to modern Hebrew already having completed two years of formal biblical Hebrew training in a classroom setting and having read through loads of the biblical text.
Define “loads”. Does that include reading Tanakh completely through even once?
Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 10:06 am You act as if I speak modern Hebrew and am completely ignorant of the Bible’s texts.
I never said you are completely ignorant of the Bible texts. Rather that your daily use of modern Israeli Hebrew interferes with your understanding of Biblical Hebrew and the Bible texts. That interference is well-known among linguists.
Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 10:06 am I came to modern Hebrew long after biblical Hebrew.
The “Biblical Hebrew” that you have described is textbook Biblical Hebrew, possibly even from the same textbooks used in the class in which I studied. It was after I tried applying the lessons from the textbook to the Tanakh that I came to the conclusion that the textbook was wrong. It took me over a decade and a few times reading Tanakh completely through to come to that conclusion.
Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 10:06 am You never even completed studying the grammar of biblical Hebrew before you rammed straight into the text and developed all kinds of idiosyncratic opinions of the text that are not based on good methods of study.
I use the same methods as I use in learning and studying modern languages.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 22:16/17

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 11:41 am Again, David has asked several times for you to include your translation or your understanding of the text.
I have also repeatedly told him that I would do so if he opens a new thread in the section of the forum specified for the lexical study of Hebrew words. But not here.

This thread is about Psalm 22.

Karl W. Randolph.
Post Reply