@Davïd From a couple days ago, and this feels stupid (like it should be obvious to me at this point in the conversation), but.... so what do they think it means?

Or do you mean they think it is an attribution of authorship but that the superscripts are a post-exilic addition?

Sorry, I really have no background in this and am having a hard time following.

(And if you do have a chance to come back to answering at some point, please consider the Genesis 1 one before this. Here I can read a book or something. The other one I’m not optimistic about getting much help from other quarters.)

Hey @Caleb What a surprise! I did not know that C can handle Unicode: https://ideone.com/LvKmPK

@PaulVargas How well depends on your compiler and include libraries, but yes the language itself handles it. A few idiosyncrasies of course, but I think that could be said of most/all implementations.

@Susan Who really knows! But "belonging to David" (i.e., a royal hymnbook), or "to David" (think dedication) or even "of David" (as in "relating to") are all possible.

@Davïd OK, the same idea as the ones mentioned re. Solomon/Song.

@Susan Hiya - was just going to give you a bit of biblio. :)

@Davïd One more quickie: is this an (equally?) valid parsing?

Joüon-Muraoka § 130b has brief discussion and bibliography but the preview isn't showing me the relevant page - search for "Psalm of David" as phrase to see if it works for you.

@Susan No, not equally valid - it's always analysed as you have it.

@Davïd BDB agrees with him. Presumably something happened in the past 100 years.

@Susan Ah right - interesting. Hadn't noticed. Must have been snoozing. ;)

See if this link works for you - is about Greek psalm titles, but interesting (imo).

Earlier related article by same author on Greek psalm titles might also be interesting.

@Davïd Will look into the links, thanks. (Seems to work.) One more, since I have you. Presumably your fault that I was reading from this page, but the NETS translation manual fascinates me for inexplicable reasons. Anyway, he mentions in there Emmanuel Tov’s suggestions about the Hebrew behind the LXX. Is that published? A brief search didn’t bring anything up.

On hishtaphel from J-M - at para. 59b: "on the old interpretation of hishtachewah to worship, to prostrate oneself as hitpa'lel, see para. 59g."

@Susan Gotta run just now - can you point me to precise page for this: "Emmanuel Tov’s suggestions about the Hebrew behind the LXX" ? not sure what's intended. Catch you later!

@Davïd OK, thanks for your help.

@Susan Had chance to check, and I saw what you saw. It might refer to the CCAT files (see the "README"s there for info). Loads of Tov's publications are online, but not sure that the "suggestions about the Hebrew behind LXX" is among them. I'm 87.4% sure that refers to the CCAT materials.

Re: CCAT - you could try exploring from higher in the directory tree, but not sure what you might find there.

@Susan Right - something did happen in the last hundred years: Ugaritic. See Joüon-Muraoka § 59g = p. 157 n. 6 full explanation.

@Davïd Ah thanks, I figured there was a story. But it says the root has R3= yod? Oh yeah, somebody told me once that 3-hey used to be 3-yod….but the lexical form has a hey, yes? I thought “used to be” meant “in earlier forms of the language” rather than “in older grammars.”

And your link has the supplemental benefit of showing me the peʿalʿal סְ֭חַרְחַר of Ps 38:11, which is wonderful (the LXX loses something there - ἐταράχθη).

@Davïd Will explore.

@Davïd And, congrats!:

@Susan Humm ... I remember he had more. ;-)

@PaulVargas Not sure what you mean?

@Susan He lost some reputation. Probably because some VtD's. :-)

Those costs 1, not those that cost 2! ;-)

@Susan What is the abbreviation for votedown? I think that VtD is Vote To Delete.

@Davïd Neither of those CCAT links are working for me. Are you logged in somewhere? Just seems like if he really did publish the entire LXX “back-translated” into Hebrew that it would have been a big enough task (!) that everyone would know about it.

@PaulVargas DV

@Susan Thanks!

@PaulVargas Just curious, did this show up in your inbox? Not supposed to be able to ping >1 person in a comment AFAIK, but he seems to have managed it.

(Tags don’t define on-topic, blah blah, but I’ll come back to respond later if nobody else feels like it.)

@Susan In my inbox ... Nope!

@PaulVargas OK, weird. Not sure how he forced it to take the comment. In my experience, if you try to ping >1 person it blocks it and won’t record the comment until you get rid of all but one @*. Yup, just tried it.