Ulan wrote:... I was looking at the most common German Bible translations how they handle this verse. The last Two "Luther" translations (Protestant) have "they have dug through my hands and feet", without footnote. That's a literal translation of the LXX and not exactly meaningful German.....
I was talking about the most commonly used German Bible translations, and the last two "Luther" editions are "Luther 1984", the current mainstay of the Protestants, and "Luther 2017", which has started replacing the former this year.
Bible translations always want to strike some kind of balance between correct translations and tradition. Tradition commands that "Luther" translations will preserve key phrases used by Luther, and they will also make sure that certain key words of Protestant doctrine will be used in word translations whenever it's remotely possible. One key sign of a "Luther" translation is that you will find a verbatim rendition of the "sola fide" doctrine in Rom3:28, something that has been written into the Protestant Bible by Luther and is absent from the Greek text or Catholic Bibles. "Luther 2017" has further shifts toward traditional wordings compared to "Luther 1984", because many believers didn't like the former corrections. However, both translations use "dug through hands and feet" in the specific place this thread is about, as I mentioned in my original post.
The official translation of the Catholics, the "Einheitsuebersetzung" ("unity translation"), had similar storms to weather. Complaints by clergy about the Psalms translations were so widespread that the Catholic Church recommended against using their own official translation for Psalms during service. The translation of Psalms has now been reverted to more traditional forms in the 2016 edition. Here we find "pierced" in Psalm 22, but with a footnote pointing out that the translation is unclear and giving the alternative "like a lion".
I hope I am clear now.
Last edited by Ulan on Sat Dec 24, 2016 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ulan wrote:This may be a stupid question, but did anyone ever suggest that the hands and feet actually belong to the next verse, at least contentwise? If I look at the NRSV, which has "My hands and feet have shriveled" (yet another suggestion...), that rather fits with "I can count all my bones". Like "On my hands and feet, I can count all my bones". The "lion" would then fit the circling.
I guess that would break the verse rhythm though. There's probably also a grammar problem I'm unaware of.
Hebrew poetry usually works on parallels and contrasts. You'd link the dogs' aggression with those of the bad people in v.16, leaving what happens to the hands and feet to contrast with no bones broken. That's how I analysed the verse, so I agree.
Ulan wrote:... I was looking at the most common German Bible translations how they handle this verse. The last Two "Luther" translations (Protestant) have "they have dug through my hands and feet", without footnote. That's a literal translation of the LXX and not exactly meaningful German.....
I was talking about the most commonly used German Bible translations, and the last two "Luther" editions are "Luther 1984", the current mainstay of the Protestants, and "Luther 2017", which has started replacing the former this year.
Bible translations always want to strike some kind of balance between correct translations and tradition. Tradition commands that "Luther" translations will preserve key phrases used by Luther, and they will also make sure that certain key words of Protestant doctrine will be used in word translations whenever it's remotely possible. One key sign of a "Luther" translation is that you will find a verbatim rendition of the "sola fide" doctrine in Rom3:28, something that has been written into the Protestant Bible by Luther and is absent from the Greek text or Catholic Bibles. "Luther 2017" has further shifts toward traditional wordings compared to "Luther 1984", because many believers didn't like the former corrections. However, both translations use "dug through hands and feet" in the specific place this thread is about, as I mentioned in my original post.
The official translation of the Catholics, the "Einheitsuebersetzung" ("unity translation"), had similar storms to weather. Complaints by clergy about the Psalms translations were so widespread that the Catholic Church recommended against using their own official translation for Psalms during service. The translation of Psalms has now been reverted to more traditional forms in the 2016 edition. Here we find "pierced" in Psalm 22, but with a footnote pointing to "like a lion".
I hope I am clear now.
Yes you are .Thank you , Every religion is like that : endless arguments about the meaning of written texts.
Do we want to replicate the senseless arguments of the past?
Translations without footnotes are only good for prayers .
To answer your question, the Torah, especially eg in Deuteronomy 28, had the idea that Israel's status could change in guilt and sinfulness. So in David's time, 1000 bc, the Psalm in the place you checked in bold spoke highly of the Israelites, as they were about to build the temple.
but the "changed status" does not put an effect in the people who said they were true to their gods word. isaiah does not need "sinless" jesus in mind.
spin wrote:... the waw/yod confusion noted in the DSS era.
It might be worth mentioning some pertinent comments from Peter Flint, from his treatment of the Psalms scroll in the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series:
As is characteristic of the late Herodian period, waw and yod [in the fragments] are usually distinguished, with waw generally longer than yod.
The magic word is "generally", but there is a large array of examples where it is not the case.
I should clarify that Flint's comments pertain to the Psalms scroll in particular -- i.e., waw and yod in the fourteen fragments of the Psalms scroll are usually distinguished.
Does your "large array of examples" also relate to the Psalms scroll -- the whole of it, as well? Or were you speaking of the DSS in general?
spin wrote:So quote picking isn't of much help.
spin, if memory serves, you've recommended at least one publication in this thread which only speaks in a very general way of the of waw/yod ambiguity in the DSS. I agree that that sort of information is helpful; but what I fail to see is why comments on the Psalms scroll itself -- from the scroll's editor no less -- should be deemed "not of much help". That seems like a very selective (not to mention biased) reading of the scholarship.
spin wrote:
Nathan wrote:On the reading in question he writes:
With waw and yod clearly distinguishable in this hand...this important variant reading is assured.
Flint is clearly mistaken looking at the full array of waws and yods in this small fragment. When yods can span the height of daleths, the situation is more complex than this Flint quote indicates.
Again, Flint's "distinguishable in this hand" has to do with the entirety of the remaining scroll, and not just this one small fragment of Psalm 22.
The emphasis in this thread on only one psalm fragment fails to do justice to Flint's opinion.
JW:
Here is the fragment with the final yod highlighted for the word after the offending word. Note that this yod is about the same length as the final letter of the offending word and actually seems somewhat longer than the Daled preceding it.
JoeWallack wrote:Note that this yod is about the same length as the final letter of the offending word and actually seems somewhat longer than the Daled preceding it.
Then the first question is: is the second yod in ydyh actually a waw? Since that would render the Hebrew unintelligible, evidently it is in fact a long yod (next to a short dalet). But that doesn't necessarily bear on the previous "word". After all, the apparent waw in k'rw is noticeably longer than the adjacent yod --the initial yod-- of ydyh.
Here's my transcription of the fragment, using a number of photos around the net. It matches the letters of the Massoretic text to the letters visible.
This is supplied as a reference to make it a little easier to deal with discussion of letters if still needed. (The margin should be on the right, as Hebrew is read right to left. I can see only the letters not in brackets. The right side of the text is missing.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
JoeWallack wrote:Note that this yod is about the same length as the final letter of the offending word and actually seems somewhat longer than the Daled preceding it.
Then the first question is: is the second yod in ydyh actually a waw? Since that would render the Hebrew unintelligible, evidently it is in fact a long yod (next to a short dalet). But that doesn't necessarily bear on the previous "word". After all, the apparent waw in k'rw is noticeably longer than the adjacent yod --the initial yod-- of ydyh.
You are late to the discussion and haven't read it. All letters from the first yod in ידי to the end of the line have been foreshortened. There is a blotch under the yod-dalet. Both yods are relatively long compared to the dalet. The good thing for us is that there is a Hebrew text available to help us understand what the likely letters are. That's why we can be fairly sure—given the fact that there is a well-known confusion of waws and yods in the DSS era—that the word we are dealing with is that preserved in the Hebrew bible, ie כארי. It isn't כרו, as one would expect if it really was "dug". What seems obvious is that a reader confronted with the long yod read the word to the translator/scribe who made the best of it, thing that the reader produced a garbled כרו and translated it thus, as "dug".
At the beginning of the fourth line you can see ותי[.. Look at it and tell me if the waw is any longer than the yod. (Although the waw and the right leg of the taw are faint, they are still quite clear.) So is the waw longer than the yod?
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
