Jump to content

An interesting question


Λύχνις Δαν
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi ya,

 

“ἵνα τί καθεῖλες τὸν φραγμὸν αὐτῆς καὶ τρυγῶσιν αὐτὴν πάντες οἱ παραπορευόμενοι τὴν ὁδόν;”
(Psalms 79:12–13 LXX1)

 

  This is translated in NETS as :

 

“(12) Why did you bring down its fence, and all who pass along the way pluck its fruit?”
(Psalms 79:13 NETS)

 

  and in in Brenton as :

 

“Wherefore hast thou broken down its hedge, while all that pass by the way pluck it?”
(Psalms 79:12 LXX-B)

 

  Neither seems to quite capture an implied cause and effect. Brenton is closer than NETS.

 

  Interestingly in ESVS and NASB and so on we see a causal connection being established. :

 

“Why then have you broken down its walls, so that all who pass along the way pluck its fruit?”
(Psalms 80:12 ESV)

“Why have You broken down its hedges, So that all who pass that way pick its fruit?”
(Psalms 80:12 NAS95)

 

  KJV is similar.

 

  I had a quick look at the Hebrew and there is a conjunction present but I have so little Hebrew yet that I cannot really produce a translation from that. Nonetheless it didn't seem to me that the issue arises there.

 

  So that rather leaves one with a translational question based on context.

 

  Thoughts ?

 

Thx
D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Why did You breach its wall so that every passerby plucks its fruit,”

(Psalms 80:13 JPS)

 

JPSS reads it as a causal.

 


 

Ps 80:13 לָ֭מָּה פָּרַ֣צְתָּ גְדֵרֶ֑יהָ וְ֝אָר֗וּהָ כָּל־עֹ֥בְרֵי דָֽרֶךְ׃


 

The vav of   וְ֝אָר֗וּהָ  can have many nuances besides AND.   

 


"The traditional translations of the Bible might well be

designated “And” Bibles; hardly a sentence goes by without

an “and” or two, sometimes more. The fact that English,

unlike biblical Hebrew, is not coordinate in its sentence

structure has been generally ignored by previous translators.

So that rather than an automatic “And” for Hebrew waw,

the context and the idiom ought to have led translators to

employ “When,” or “So,” or “Then,” or “Thus,” or “Thereupon,”

or “Although,” or “But,” or “Yet,” or “However,” or

the like. Traditional “And,” precisely because it was

mechanical, only succeeded in suppressing the full range

of meaning of Hebrew waw and in preventing the translator

from making clear to the reader the true meaning of the

Hebrew verse. In addition, there are hundreds of instances

when the waw ought not be translated at all, serving in the

Hebrew only the function of introducing the verb."

 

Notes on the New Translation of the Torah, Harry Orlinsky, pages 20-21

 

BTW, this would be a great book to have on Accordance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Gordon.

και in the Greek has similar range so that's very interesting. And yes Orlinsky looks interesting.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hebrew syntax module in Accordance (provided I'm reading it right) treats the second part of the verse as an independent clause, FWIW. Though I am admittedly only afforded time to look at this briefly now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've begun the three R's of Hebrew (reading, 'riting, speaking) - ok the last two are not quite R's.

Not really ready for the syntax charts yet. Perhaps by years end I'll be better placed.

 

But thanx for this. Interesting. Could I prevail on you for a screenshot of the relevant section when you have a minute (no rush) ?

 

Thx

D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course! Here it is (Dropbox screenshot)--though it may require the manual to understand the abbreviations (you can hover over to see what they stand for in the module). I'll see if I can hunt that down, or maybe someone else will post it first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanx.

 

Interesting. Yes I think had it been classified as a subordinate clause it would have been an L. My guess is that Dr. Holmstedt felt that the syntax alone was insufficient to make the determination in this case. Or perhaps that this case was for context rather than syntax to determine. But that's a guess. Strictly both parts can stand on their own. The causal connection is established (at least for me in the Greek) by the content of each clause - it simply doesn't seem to make sense that they are completely independent. Does that make it a discourse issue ?

 

Hmmmm.....

 

Thx

D

Edited by Daniel Semler
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that make it a discourse issue ?

 

I think so, yes--I would guess that things like the larger passage's context, flow, rhetorical effect, etc. all lie outside the scope of what those sytnax modules aim to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

 

Even in the English translations (of the Hebrew) that you cite, couldn't their "so that" be taken to mean "such that," in a way that isn't necessarily causal? I.e., "such that it is also the case that...."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's possible. That's pretty much where I landed. I think my translation initially took the και as "now".

 

"why did you tear down her fence ?

now all those passing by on the road harvest her [fruit]"

 

Of course this rather argues for a slight change in punctuation.

So I think I like Brenton's handling here the more I think on it.  Though it has the possible implication that passers-by were already picking the odd piece of fruit before the wall came down. One might even consider "if", though that is perhaps a stretch.

 

Oh well, thanks for the thoughts on this one.

 

Thx

D

Edited by Daniel Semler
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I've begun the three R's of Hebrew (reading, 'riting, speaking) - ok the last two are not quite R's.

 

What about "reading,'writing, reciting"?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Tony, I actually thought of that much later too. It's in some book - I think Sister Miriam Joseph's Trivium.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I much prefer "reading, writing, reflecting." ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, waw is strictly a coordinating conjunction in BH, so the two clauses are independent from a syntactic perspective in the Hebrew. It is the switch from a perfect/suffix verb פָּרַצְתָּ in clause A (past tense/interrogative mood) to the weqatal construction וְאָרוּ (waw + perfect/suffix form) in clause B that indicates a temporal/logical relation between the two clauses—A then B. The weqatal form indicates sequence within a future or modal frame. LXX is simply erring toward word-for-word by translating weqatal as kai + future, while English translations are attempting to bring out the logical relationship by subordinating clause B.

Edited by Peter Bekins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanx for this Peter. I don't have enough Hebrew yet to make much of that but will bear it in mind for the time when I do.

 

thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...