Psalm 40:8

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
SteveMiller
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Psalm 40:8

Post by SteveMiller »

aavichai wrote:Hi Steve and Everyone

...
What do you think?
Avichai,
I can't make out what you are trying to say.
What country are you in?

Can you say in a paragraph, this is what I think Ps 40 verses are saying?
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 40:8

Post by kwrandolph »

aavichai wrote:I'm looking at the principle of Ideas
sometimes in proverbs (not just the book - but any book of proverbs) and poetry books
there is a use of words that represent an idea - that is already known
and because of that - they allow themselves not to write the whole idea in a clear way - to keep it poetry
Even with ideas, you need to make sure that the language actually communicates what you intend.
aavichai wrote:for example (this example is from a book - not mine)
in proverbs 21:9 it says:
טוב לשבת על פנת גג מאשת מדינים ובית חבר
it's better to sit on a roof's corner than...

Now what is the meaning of a roof's corner - we understand that it is a lonely place - but what kind of metaphor is that
What makes you think that living on a roof’s corner is lonely? Isn’t the picture more like that it’s better to live in a run down shack, than in a mansion with a nagging woman?
aavichai wrote:then you see the almost same verse in the same chapter:19 טוב שבת בארץ מדבר מאשת מדונים וכעס

so here we see that "roof's corner" somehow linked to "a deserted place"
Isn’t the contrast being between a comfortable place with a nagging woman, and an uncomfortable place without the nagging?
aavichai wrote:and then there is a support from psalm 102:7-8
דמיתי לקאת מדבר, הייתי ככוס חרבות
שקדתי ואהיה כצפור בודד על גג
here again there is the idea of "the roof" linked to מדבר and חרבות

So now when we read the first verse of psalm in this reply 21:9 and we see "roof's corner"
we can understand it as "a deserted place - a destructed place"
like the lonely bird that sits on a roof's corner of a destructed house in a deserted place.
I don’t see the connection.
aavichai wrote:so maybe this picture-idea was known at that time
and the writer of proverbs didn't have to explain it - but just to write "to sis on a roof's corner"
and everything would be understood
but for us... if we didn't see this idea on other places... we would just understand it as "a roof's corner" literally
with no understanding the real meaning of what the writer trying to picture us
this is just an example about understanding verses through ideas
In the examples you gave above in Proverbs, the ideas are very clear literally, without having to read into them what you’re trying to do.
aavichai wrote:the verse that is talked here is also have an idea
(in my opinion)
the idea of the preacher that eat the scroll that God gave him
and then he preach to the people

this idea is explained clearly in Ezekiel
(i don't want to write that again - but it is written before)
but i just say the points that in Ezekiel is is written
that the scroll is written both sides
and that God gave it to him
and then told him to preach

and so i see psalm
when it is written
אָ֣ז אָ֭מַרְתִּי הִנֵּה־בָ֑אתִי בִּמְגִלַּת־סֵ֝֗פֶר כָּת֥וּב עָלָֽי
i said, there, i come with a scroll
and now the hard part is כתוב עלי
the כתוב is referring to point that the scroll is written
(maybe in both sides and maybe when it's say written it means to just emphasize that - because no one thought it was blank)

the עלי is referring to the "God give the scroll"
he want to say that he come with the scroll, but how did he get it? God lay it upon him"
like the idea in Ezekiel, just there he say that God "gave him" - but the idea is the same idea.

now the next verse in psalm support that idea
לַֽעֲשֹֽׂות־רְצֹונְךָ֣ אֱלֹהַ֣י חָפָ֑צְתִּי וְ֝תֹ֥ורָתְךָ֗ בְּתֹ֣וךְ מֵעָֽי
your Torah (or just your laws) is inside my inwards
like Ezekiel when it says the same thing
so we can understand that he metaphoric ate it

and the next verse also support - Because now we ask: why did he eat it
בשרתי צדק בקהל רב הנה שפתי לא אכלא
I told the justice to a large crowd
and that is the purpose in Ezekiel - God tell him to eat the scroll so he could preach Israel

So in my opinion, Psalm wrote this idea in a short way, because maybe in his time it was obvious

now if you look at my first reply that addresses this subject in this interpretation (because before that i brought another one)
i think it will be more understandable, because there i brought all the verses and mixed them (just to show the idea)
What you’ve done is called “collapsing contexts”. Along with speculation. There’s nothing here about eating a scroll, that’s found only in Ezekiel and Revelation. It’s speculation to say that it’s obvious—in fact, it wasn’t obvious to me nor to others on this list.

When analyzing the verse on its own, the idea of eating the scroll is not there at all. When adding the context, there’s still nothing about eating the scroll. Putting both together, there’s the idea of responsibility to do God’s desires. The verse is understandable without needing to collapse contexts. Therefore, take it on its own, without bringing in extraneous ideas.

In contrast, Revelation 13 was written by John, a Jew, in a Jewish context, doesn’t explain what was meant by two beasts. The literary style is the same as in Daniel 7–8, which was known to John and those around him. In Daniel 7–8, the idea of beasts is explained, namely political systems, not individual people. Here’s an example of where one can take an explanation from one book and apply to a different book, because the one book was known to the author of the second book, and we’re dealing with the same context.

But that’s not the case with Psalm 40, which was written centuries before Ezekiel. Here we have both the idea and time scale backwards in order for your theory to work. Sorry, it just doesn’t work.

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

Re: Psalm 40:8

Post by kwrandolph »

aavichai wrote:First, the language doesn't contradict it

as for the first part (the corner's roof)
You don't see the connection and the parallel?

טוב לשבת על פנת גג מאשת מדינים ובית חבר
טוב שבת בארץ מדבר מאשת מדונים וכעס

in these proverbs the idea of פנת גג is the idea of מדבר are parallel
clearly they are both other words - but still they was used in the same context

it is true that it means it is better to leave alone and in a "run down shack"
but the writer paint us a picture when he say "roof's corner"
Of course there’s the parallel about that it’s better to live in an uncomfortable place, than in a mansion with a nagging woman. But you add much that’s not included in the text—in an analysis of word definitions and even of contexts.
aavichai wrote:The idea of getting a rest and comfort in the desert is also in psalm 55:7
ואמר מי יתן לי אבר כיונה אעופה ואשכנה
הנה ארחיק נדד אלין במדבר סלה
What does this verse have to do with the verses in Proverbs? Is this another example of collapsing contexts?
aavichai wrote:and why psalm wrote "a bird on a roof" in parallel to a "bird of מדבר" or a "bird of חרבות" in the other psalm verse that I put here before
דמיתי לקאת מדבר היית לכוס חרבות
שקדתי ואהיה כצפור בודד על גג

probably the phrase about a lone roof or a lonely place on the roof - had an idea behind it - not just lyrically
and this idea that i wrote it wasn't mine. it's from a book of Professor Turnitischer (Tur-Sinay)
and the explainations their are more in details
Never heard of this professor before. His ideas, as you have presented them, sound really out of touch with how people actually think and act. In short, they sound weird.
aavichai wrote:the parallel that I did between Psalm and Ezekiel is because I saw similar words between them that can fit the idea
they both talking about מגלת ספר
they both saying that it's in their inwards
The verse in Psalms doesn’t say that the scroll is in their inwards.
aavichai wrote:they both going to talk to the people of Israel

so it seems to me that there is a link between them
the problem was that the verse in psalm wasn't clear
therefore I saw this words on this text as a skeleton of this idea in the thought that it doesn't need full presentation if it was known
and it doesn't matter if Ezekiel was written before this psalm or the other way around
I'm talking about a known idea that they both used - each one in his time
the mix that I did between them is just to mix those two sources of this idea - I don't say he was copy him
(I said that more than once before)
It is pure speculation on your part that the idea of eating a scroll was a cultural understanding at that time. Careful reading of the text means that we are to avoid speculation as much as possible.

It does matter which was written first.

There’s no evidence that both were talking about the same cultural understanding.
aavichai wrote:this interpretation is just an idea of mine that you don't have to accept
this is how I see it
it's no better than anyone interpretation and not worse
anyone can see it on its own way
i just put my idea here -
The whole reason for this web forum is that we don’t believe everything is relative, subject to personal whims where each idea has equal validity, rather we believe that there are absolutes/facts, and through study we may come to recognize some of those absolutes/facts. On this forum, we are looking for facts concerning Biblical Hebrew language so we may better understand Tanakh.

I have learned through sometimes bitter experiences, that speculation is dangerous. I try to avoid it as much as possible.

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

Re: Psalm 40:8

Post by kwrandolph »

aavichai wrote:The parallelism in the
טוב לשבת על פנת גג מאשת מדינים ובית חבר
טוב שבת בארץ מדבר מאשת מדונים וכעס
is not only about the meaning but it is also in the choosing of words
once פנת גג once מדבר
that is what I'm talking about - this parallelism has a reason.
That’s not a natural parallelism, because those verses are chapters apart. The only way you can get that parallelism is by collapsing contexts.
aavichai wrote:I put the verse in psalms
ואמר מי יתן לי אבר כיונה אעופה ואשכנה
הנה ארחיק נדד אלין במדבר סלה
to show that the "going away to the "desert" to find peace is found in another place (and maybe more)
therefore it has some connection to the matter of Proverbs
because the sitting on a roof or living in the desert was also in the context of finding peace
but if you don't see the connection, what can I do.
That’s not the idea conveyed by those verses. The idea is not peace, rather that poverty is preferable to riches connected with a nagging woman. Have you misunderstood those verses?
aavichai wrote:Professor Torczyner (I checked the right spelling) was the president of the Academy of the Hebrew Language since 1934 until his death in 1973.
Back in those days, medieval Hebrew was taught and called “Biblical Hebrew”. I had to unlearn much of what I was taught in class in order to understand Tanakh.
aavichai wrote:You are right, "The verse in Psalms doesn’t say that the scroll is in their inwards"
but verse 9 say ותורתך בתוך מעי
so I say that this תורה refers to the laws in the מגלת ספר in verse 8
and if you want to disconnect תורתך and מגלת ספר
it is still fine - because the idea of the laws in his inwards before speaking to the people is still there.
Even in English we talk about “internalizing” lessons. But it is without the idea of eating a book. Throughout the Bible, a true follower of God is one who is a follower internally, not just in the external show. But only twice is it connected with a physical eating of a scroll, and even in those two times, it is in the connection of a vision.
aavichai wrote:If this is a known cultural idea
then It doesn't matter which was written first.
But there’s absolutely no evidence that it was a known cultural idea.
aavichai wrote:"There’s no evidence that both were talking about the same cultural understanding"
Of course there is no evidence
any interpretation is not a fact, that's why it is interpretation
I agree that there is a range that interpretations need to be in it
but this interpretation is in this range
and if someone doesn't see it - it's fine
but you can't break it with the notes you bring because the Idea is still there
and I really don't know how can't you see at least the similarity between them.
You are taking speculation, acknowledging that it’s speculation, then treating it as fact. At least that’s what it appears to me.

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

Re: Psalm 40:8

Post by kwrandolph »

aavichai wrote:טוב לשבת על פנת גג מאשת מדינים ובית חבר
טוב שבת בארץ מדבר מאשת מדונים וכעס

You wrote:
That’s not a natural parallelism, because those verses are chapters apart. The only way you can get that parallelism is by collapsing contexts
… and the Idea - it is peace…
I’m not going to argue this any more. I have given my reasons why I think you are mistaken, why the verses in Proverbs refer to riches vs. poverty, why your arguments are based on speculation without evidence and why it can be claimed that you collapse contexts. I don’t need to say any more.
aavichai wrote:You wrote:
Back in those days, medieval Hebrew was taught and called “Biblical Hebrew”. I had to unlearn much of what I was taught in class in order to understand Tanakh
No, it's not true.
Look up A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew by Weingreen. That textbook was probably the most influential book for teaching Hebrew at that time. That was the textbook from which I was taught, and I had to unlearn much in order to come to an understanding of Biblical Hebrew. From what I can tell from the author’s name, he was a Jew.
aavichai wrote:Biblical Hebrew was only known to be biblical, especially by Jews.
And you can have the challenge to read one of his book or articles (or anyone's else for that matter in that time)
and find the errors and confusions that he had.
and the fact that you dismiss the things of authority like that by saying a general thing like: in that time they didn't know....
One thing you need to learn about me is that I am not impressed by authorities. I want evidence. People can say whatever they want, even authorities. If they’re wrong, they’re wrong, and it doesn’t matter if they’re authorities or not. If they’re right, they’re right, and it doesn’t matter if they’re authorities or not.

All that I’ve seen from that period and before is that what was called “Biblical Hebrew” was really medieval Hebrew. Some people still do that.

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

Re: Psalm 40:8

Post by kwrandolph »

update:

In my reading I came to this psalm and read it right off with different verse divisions whereupon it read smoothly. But not in the verse divisions that it presently has. Rather I read it with the following divisions:

אז אמרתי הנה-באתי
במגלת-ספר כתוב עלי לעשות-רצונך אלהי
חפצתי    ותורתך בתוך מעי

Unfortunately this verse is not found in the DSS to see if the divisions that I read is supported or not.

When were the verse divisions devised? Were they original? I noticed that the Mesha Stele has divisions between words and sentences, were they found earlier?

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Psalm 40:8

Post by Kirk Lowery »

Karl,

Ugaritic texts (c. 2500 BC) have a word divisor mark, indicated by a period in transliterations.

The idea of a verse is unknown to the ancients. The closest would be the parallelism of poetry, but there weren't any visual indicators.

As for the Masoretic silluq accent and sof pasuq, these are post-DSS. It is thought that the divisions were first transmitted orally, then written down. Certainly the concept of a verse is known to the rabbis as quoted in the Talmud.

The accents, verse and chapter divisions represent exegetical interpretation. The DSS show the poarashiyyot/pisqa'ot, the text divisions represented early with large spaces and later with pe and samek. The later Medieval divisions follow closely the divisions found, for example, at Masada.

For questions like these, I strongly recommend Emanuel Tov, The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd edition, 2012. It is the primary source of information about the ancient Hebrew Bible manuscripts and texts. In fact, anything written by Tov is well worth the money. In this case, the information above can be found on pp. 48-51.
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 40:8

Post by kwrandolph »

Kirk Lowery wrote:Karl,

Ugaritic texts (c. 2500 BC) have a word divisor mark, indicated by a period in transliterations.
Ugarit was dated by finding associations with Raamsis II of Egypt. I have seen three dates for Raamsis II—ca 1300 BC, ca 1000 BC, and ca 600 BC. Of the three dates, the ca 600 BC date seems to have the strongest evidence to back it up, from the data I have seen.

That means that Ugaritic documents date from ca 800 – 600 BC, not earlier.
Kirk Lowery wrote:The idea of a verse is unknown to the ancients. The closest would be the parallelism of poetry, but there weren't any visual indicators.
I saw one stone with a picture of a flute player and dancer, with an inscription curved along the bottom of the stone reading left to right, the characters recognizable from Sinaitic writing, each word separated by a dot. The inscription was too short to have more than one sentence.

I mentioned the Mesha Stele, where the words are separated by dots, sentences ending with vertical lines.

The Siloam Inscription has dots separating words, but I don’t see special signs for separating sentences.

Looking at some DSS written in Aramaic square characters, words are separated by spaces, but I didn’t see any special symbols to indicate verse endings. I didn’t see all the DSS Psalms, but the ones I saw had divisions between Psalms, but not individual verses.
Kirk Lowery wrote:For questions like these, I strongly recommend Emanuel Tov, The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd edition, 2012. It is the primary source of information about the ancient Hebrew Bible manuscripts and texts. In fact, anything written by Tov is well worth the money. In this case, the information above can be found on pp. 48-51.
That looks like a good book, from the description and table of contents. But I don’t have it yet.

Karl W. Randolph.
Post Reply