Jeremiah 25:9

The main place for discussion the Hebrew Bible, its language and message.
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
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Jeremiah 25:9

Postby Kirk Lowery » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:24 pm

Steve,

What is the electronic source of your text? What font do you expect to use? Which writing system do you want to use? Is it primarily for displaying/quoting the Peshitta?

I can set up a BBCode for Syriac like I did for Hebrew, but we need to have an agreement on these things. The text and font must be freely and easily available, and the font needs to be capable of rendering all diacritics, etc.
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Co-moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh
#mb-hga

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Jeremiah 25:9

Postby Jason Hare » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:26 pm

S_Walch wrote:
Kirk Lowery wrote:Writing Hebrew in the forum is pretty easy these days.

How about Syriac? It isn't showing up quite as well during a copy + paste =/


That depends on the support of the individual's display system. The Syriac that you pasted shows up fine for me on both my tablet (Surface 3 [Windows 10]) and on my telephone (Huawei Honor 6x [Android]). Syriac certainly doesn't have the same support today that Hebrew has (the wide range of font options, etc.), but it displays fine, IMO. I mean, the text is UGLY, but it's LEGIBLE. ;)
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

User avatar
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Jeremiah 25:9

Postby Kirk Lowery » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:30 pm

For any modern OS, e.g., Windows 10 or Linux, that is UTF-8 based, then the only question is whether there is a UTF-8 (Opentype, probably) Syriac font. The reason why Jason's system displays it properly is that somewhere among the system fonts installed the Syriac glyphs appear.

With BBCode, like the [heb] tag, we can adjust the font size to display pretty well in most contexts.

Didn't Google recently release fonts that cover the ANE languages? (I'll check...)

...

Okay, found it. Google Noto fonts claim to cover all the Unicode defined Syriac scripts. Now we need a UTF-8 encoded copy of the Peshitta to test the font on our forum. Suggestions?
Last edited by Kirk Lowery on Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added the Google Noto font URL.
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Co-moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh
#mb-hga

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Jeremiah 25:9

Postby Jason Hare » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:34 pm

Kirk Lowery wrote:Steve,

What is the electronic source of your text? What font do you expect to use? Which writing system do you want to use? Is it primarily for displaying/quoting the Peshitta?

I can set up a BBCode for Syriac like I did for Hebrew, but we need to have an agreement on these things. The text and font must be freely and easily available, and the font needs to be capable of rendering all diacritics, etc.


I'm not sure what font is used for Syriac to display by default. I generally think the font of the phpBB system is ugly (at least on Windows - it has a lot of glyph problems), but the display of Syriac is no less attractive by default than it is with the standard font (Estrangelo Edessa). It's an aesthetically challenged writing system, no matter the font.

I wouldn't really bother with a custom BB code, unless you want to use it to tag languages in some way. You can use the lang='syc' attribute (for ancient Syriac as opposed to lang='syr' for modern Syriac), for example, to label the text as specifically Syriac for whatever higher purpose you might have. This wouldn't have any influence on the text display.

I don't really think that setting up a [syriac] tag (for instance) would be very useful.

I do think, though, that a simple [rtl‎] tag would be useful. That is, something like this:

[rtl‎]...[/rtl‎] would substitute for <span style='direction: rtl; unicode-bidi: bidi-override;'>...</span>, so that we can use RTL tagging for whatever language (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic...) without making the text huge. I've found a workaround for this (for the sake of punctuation, especially), but it would be nice not to have to use it. ;)

That's just my opinion.

Jason
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Jeremiah 25:9

Postby Jason Hare » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:36 pm

Kirk Lowery wrote:For any modern OS, e.g., Windows 10 or Linux, that is UTF-8 based, then the only question is whether there is a UTF-8 (Opentype, probably) Syriac font. The reason why Jason's system displays it properly is that somewhere among the system fonts installed the Syriac glyphs appear.

With BBCode, like the [heb] tag, we can adjust the font size to display pretty well in most contexts.


So, I'm not sure why it displays properly on my phone. I haven't installed anything special. The default Android fonts support Syriac.

The [heb‎] tag only works with fonts already on the system, so this wouldn't touch on the Syriac problem. The Hebrew tag stylizes to 'SBL BibLit' for those who have the font on their system (yay!), but it doesn't stylize for those who don't have it. That is, unless we've used the server-side embedding here on the site, which I don't think we have (maybe I'm wrong).

Kirk Lowery wrote:Didn't Google recently release fonts that cover the ANE languages? (I'll check...)


Syriac isn't listed in their language dropdown.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

User avatar
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Jeremiah 25:9

Postby Kirk Lowery » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:38 pm

I'm going to be away from the keyboard for the next few hours. Back this evening. I suggest we start a new topic for this discussion.
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Co-moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh
#mb-hga

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Jeremiah 25:9

Postby Jason Hare » Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:20 pm

Kirk Lowery wrote:I'm going to be away from the keyboard for the next few hours. Back this evening. I suggest we start a new topic for this discussion.


Sounds good. If you don't mind, please, split the posts from this topic and merge them with the topic that I'm going to open now. When you get the chance, of course.

שלום רב,‏
ג'ייסון
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

R.J. Furuli
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Re: Jeremiah 25:9

Postby R.J. Furuli » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:55 am

Dear Jason,

You wrote:

At this point, I have simply transcribed the Estrangelo to the Ashur script and set it opposite Pseudo-Jonathan's Aramaic. Where the Peshitta reads dbḥdryh, Jonathan reads sḥwr sḥwr. I find it interesting that you accused me of "chasing ghosts" and "read[ing] words and ideas into the text that are not found there," when the Peshitta that you're calling as a witness does exactly the same thing that I did, by using a relative particle (Hebrew אשר = Aramaic ד) and adding a personal suffix to the word (Hebrew ה = Aramaic יה [in this case]). You were rude to me on this front, yet the Aramaic text you're using was trying to represent what was going on in the minds of the those who would read the text - by adding a relative clause with a personal ending. Why would you be rude to me when your own text does the same thing?


It was not my intention to be rude and to offend you. In discussions among scholars in Norway, we use to say what we mean and call a spade a spade. But we respect the opinions of each other, and we are careful to avoid ad hominem attacks. Perhaps I used too strong words in my post to you. But I would like to explain the background for my words.

In discussions of Hebrew I and my friends try to stick to what the text says. We use lexicon, grammar and syntax. We use the context and cotext, and we may bring in other versions. But our discussions relate to what is written in the Tanach, and we do not expand the text according to what we believe the author should have written or what was his real meaning. If a text is ambiguous, we must accept that and look at the possibilities.

In your case you added several words to Jeremiah’s words, and claimed that this is the meaning of the text. I cannot find a better expression for such a situation than “chasing ghosts.” If one participant just can add ideas to the text according to his understanding, no meaningful discussion can occur, because this is a deviation from the real text.

As I have tried to show in several posts, the expression כָּל־הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָאֵ֖לֶּה סָבִ֑יב is an ambiguous expression; the references of whom and where are not clear from a linguistic point of view. The Syriac translator had two options, he could make the Syriac text ambiguous as the Hebrew text, or he could express his understanding of the text in translation. The translator could even have had more than one Hebrew manuscript that could make his choice easier. He chose to render גוֹיֵ with עַ֤ם, and he used the preposition בְּ in order to show that "all these nations" were inside the land of Judah. You also chose to express your understanding of the text, which is the very opposite of the Syriac translator.

Then the entire discipline of syntax beyond surface structure is a lost enterprise. I cannot disagree with you more strongly.


Evidently, we have a very different view of a text and how to treat a text, and I respect your right to have your opinion. I have a University degree in applied linguistics (translation), and at the request of a big Norwegian publisher I translated more than 1,500 pages from five different Semitic languages and Sumerian into Norwegian for a series of books. I have also written two books on Bible translation. It is not my intention to be presumtuous in any way. But based on my theoretical and practical experience with translation, I reject your claim that there is a syntax below the words of a text. When extra-textual or intra-textual information are claimed, we have moved the situation to a metaphysical plane.

It was Noam Chomsky with his generative grammar who introduced the idea of “deep structures” (syntactical structures below, or behind the words) in the books “Syntactic Structures” (1957) and “Aspects of the Theory of Syntax” (1965). Eugene Nida, the guru of interpretative and idiomatic translation, took Chonmsky’s theories as a point of departure and introduced what he called “deep structures” (meanings behind or below the text) as a basis for translation. ("Toward a Science of Translating," 1964, and, with C. R. Taber, "The theory and Practice of Translation," 1974) Chomsky has detracted many of his early ideas, and the principle of “kernels” are no longer so popular in Bible translation circles. I can say that because I personally know several of the translators working for the Norwegian Bible Society, and we have met two times a year in a group meeting to discuss translation issues.

I definitely reject the view that there is a deeper meaning behind or below the text. The meaning of a clause can be found by the surface structures (words) seen in the light of lexicon, grammar, syntax, and the context. Yes, the theory of "syntax beyond surface structure" is a lost cause!


Best regards,

Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern, Norway

R.J. Furuli
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Re: Jeremiah 25:9

Postby R.J. Furuli » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:33 am

Dear Steve,

You wrote:

Rolf,
thank you for answering.
I know that Israel is called a goy, nation many times.
But I don't know of any place where Israel is called goyim except when it was split into 2 nations: the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. Then there were 2 nations, goim. That is what Ezekiel 2:3 is referring to. The book of Ezekiel is about the state of both nations. For example in chapter 4 Ezekiel lays on his right side for Judah and on his left side for Israel.
I think the fact that goyim plural cannot refer to Judah decides the case. unless someone can come up with a better example of Judah being called goyim


I understand your reasoning, which is logical. And your conclusion that כָּל־הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָאֵ֖לֶּה cannot refer to the inhabitants of Judah is a legitimate interpretation. I will now make an outline of my interpretation, so the listmembers can compare your interpretation with mine.

It is correct that Ezekiel should literally act as prophet both for Israel and Judah according to Ezekiel, chapter 4. But it seems to me that his words in chapter chapter 2 are directed to another audience. Ezekiel was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar in 617 BCE (I use the Biblical chronology, not the traditional one), and he was taken to Babylon. Ezekiel heard the words from God when he was at the river Kebar (1:3), and to whom did he speak? To the exiles who were at the river Kebar. The ten-tribe kingdom had been destroyed more than one hundred years before Ezekiel got his visions, so he could not speak to the inhabitants of Israel. Ezekiel uses the word “Israel” more than 200 times in his book, and in most cases this word refers to the land of Judah and its inhabitants or to the exiles from the land of Judah. For example, the elders of Israel who sat before Ezekiel (14:1) could not refer to the elders of the ten-tribe kingdom that did not exist. Ezra 6:21 also speaks about “the Israelites who had returned from the exile,” and he uses “Israel” for the returned exiles elsewhere as well. The kingdom of Judah included three tribes, Judah, Benjamin, and the Levites. But persons from all the other tribes lived there as well. When Ezekiel, in 2:3, uses the word “Israel,” it seems to me that he refers to representatives from all the tribes who lived as exiles in Babylon and to the people that still was in Judah; they were גּוֹיִ֥ם הַמּוֹרְדִ֖ים. I think Esra uses the word in the same sense. If this understanding is correct, there is a background for the use of כָּל־הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָאֵ֖לֶּה in Jeremiah 25:9 as referring to the people who lived in Judah.

A Hebrew word used by an author often has a big meaning potential and many possible references, and often the context will help the reader to see which side of the word the author wants to make visible and what its reference is. The meaning of כָּל־הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָאֵ֖לֶּה is clear, but the reference is unclear. Regarding סָבִ֑יב, which side of its meaning potential that the author wants to make visible, is not clear. This means that the reference of כָּל־הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָאֵ֖לֶּה סָבִ֑יב is ambiguous.

I will now give an outline of why I believe כָּל־הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָאֵ֖לֶּה סָבִ֑יב refer to the inhabitants of Judah, so the listmembers can consider my arguments.

1. TWO PARLLEL ACCOUNTS

In Jeremiah 1:15-16 we find an account that is very similar to the account in 25:9: I list the parallels below.

Jer 25:9 Look! I will send for, and I will take all the families of the north, is the utterance of YHWH, also to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babel, my servant.
Jer 1:15 For look! I will call all the families of the kingdoms of the north, is the utterance of YHWH.

Jer 25:9 And I will cause them to come
Jer 1:15 And they will come

Jer 25:9 against this land, and against its inhabitants, and against all these nations round about.
Jer 1:15 and each one will set up his throne in the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, and against all her walls round about, and against all the towns of Judah.

Jer 25:9 And I will destroy them, and devote them to desolation, to a whisling, and and to devastation to time indefinite.
Jer 1:16 And I will declare my judgment against them.

The parallels are listed, and of particular interest is that there are three different objects that the nations will come against in both accounts, and all objects are inside the country in 1:15, 16. The parallel between “against all these nations round about (25:9) is “all the towns of Judah (1:15). This does not prove that “all these nations round about” refers to the inhabitants of Judah, but it is an interesting background of the points that follow. (I translate סָבִ֔יב in כָּל־חוֹמֹתֶ֙יהָ֙ סָבִ֔יבi in as "round about." The suffix of "walls" identifies the walls as those of Jerusalem. But because Jerusalem had other walls than those around the city, I use the ambiguous "round about."

2. TWO INDEPENDENT MESSAGES FROM GOD

The book of Jeremiah contains many independent messages that Jeremiah says he received from God. In the first message (1:4-12) God says to Jeremiah that he should be a prophet for the nations (1:5, 10). After this message has ended, he received a new message (1:13-19), and this message relates to Jerusalem and Judah. It is important to realize that these two messages are independent of one another.

In Jeremiah 25:1-14 there is one independent message that speaks about all the people of Judah. The verses 25:15-38 contain another message directed to “all the nations to whom I send you.” Both messages are independent of each other, and they are given at different times. This means that that the different parts of 25:1-14 are included in one unit and each expression here must be seen in the light of this independent unit (message), and not in the light of the following message.

3. THE DIFFERENT EXPRESSIONS

a) אֵ֖לֶּה. The demonstrative pronoun must have an antecedent, and it is logical to seek this antecedent in the message where it occurs, and not in another message that Jeremiah had not yet received.
b) כָּל־הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָאֵ֖לֶּה. “The people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (25:2) are plural and would be a natural antecedent to “all these nations.” It is the land of Judah that will be destryed (25:11), and people outside Judah are not mentioned in the independent message (25:1-14)
c) סָבִ֑יב. As I have shown, this word can be specific (surrounding) and non-specific (round about). It can refer to something around a country, as well as inside a country. In 25:9 the word is ambiguous, and the exact place where “All these nations are” cannot be known. Therefore, the context must decide.


4. THE 70 YEARS

The message in 25:1-14 speaks about the condition of Judah as a desolate waste. This deserted condition should last for 70 years, when “these nations” should serve the king of Babylon (25:11). In the other instances where the 70 years are mentioned, they exclusively refer to the Jews, and their return to their land (Jeremiah 29:10, Daniel 9:2, 2 Chronicles 36:21). A prophecy saying that “all nations surrounding Judah” should serve Babylon for 70 years would hardly give any meaning as far as the time is concerned.

My conclusion is that linguistically speaking the expression כָּל־הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָאֵ֖לֶּה סָבִ֑יב is ambiguous. But contextually speaking, there are very good reasons to apply the expression to the three tribes and representatives of the other tribes who lived in Judah and who were taken to Babylon.


Best regards,


Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway

R.J. Furuli
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Re: Jeremiah 25:9

Postby R.J. Furuli » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:14 am

Dear Ste Walch,

You wrote:

Couldn't דבחדריה/ܕܒܲܚܕ݂ܵܖܹ̈ܝܗ̇/dbhdryh mean 'which are among her surrounding areas" ?


As you see from http://cal.huc.edu/getlex.php?coord=620132509&word=25, the words hdr' which corresponds to סָבִ֑יב, has the meaning:

surrounding area
region
chambers??
circuit

I have today looked at many different places in the Peshitta in connection with the use of the plural hdr’ + b, and on this basis a realize that your suggestion is possible. In fact, I think that your suggestion is more likely than mine. But both suggestions are possible.


Best regards,

Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests