The difference in meaning is probably trivial (I'm not sure I follow the point you're making about that), but the pointing of נַפְשׁוֹת is that of the construct state, and syntactically the word that follows should be a substantive (similar to the genitive if you're familiar with Latin or Greek) because the relationship is between nouns. Some interlinears might translate נַפְשׁוֹת as "souls-of". An intro grammar would be the best place if you really want to learn about this, e.g. this one starting on page 48. — Susan ♦34 secs ago
I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he’s actually interested. But me explaining Hebrew is really scary and inappropriate. Oh well.
@JamesShewey Sure are close. But he’s supposedly making a point about “souls of the needy” being wrong, which is how I got sucked into this. Maybe I should have just said there’s not enough difference for it to matter.
I really don't quite understand why people think it makes sense to trust word meaning translations but not grammar. I mean if someone has no knowledge that language grammars vary, OK, I understand why someone might make such mistakes via an interlinear. But, that obviously is not the case here - enegue realizes different languages work differently and still thinks he can guess the Hebrew meaning w/o knowing the grammar. Baffling (to me).
@ThaddeusB Just spying on your conversation exported from comments - ψυχὰς πενήτων is a slam dunk not attributive - they are different cases and genders both! (Unfortunately the Hebrew nephesh occasionally acts masculine, so I left out the lack of agreement issue there.)
We’ve somehow managed to avoid in all of this the very reasonable (and I’m sure common) opening question about whether it should be translated life or soul.
Haha, tempting as that is (mostly because I’m more comfortable with Greek than Hebrew grammar), I think it would probably be foolish to get started (er....to perpetuate what I’ve started...).
The word in question is שִׂ֛יג which means pursuing (Strong's 7873). The verse in question is the only place this word is used. Therefore the use and meaning is not common. Moreover, since there are other euphemistic expressions used to describe a “call of nature” the failure to use one of those ...
You beat me to it. I had meant to note that, but hadn't quite gotten around to it yet.
@JamesShewey Since you brought it up, what are you looking for in an answer. My first inclination would be to summarize Rendsburg's argument, but since you linked to his paper I figure you might want something else. (Not that I would necessarily have answered anyway - I have way more questions I want to take a stab at than time to do so. :) )
I tend to think that Elijah was saying "perhaps your god is pooping", but what I really wonder is how vulgar it really was.
I really don't think it is saying "withdrawing" because of the phrase just before it. Saying "withdrawing" would then be repetitive and saying the same thing twice, so I think that the alternate meaning (relieving himself) is more likely. But like I said, I'm not sure how common "withdrawing" was as a way of saying "relieving myself" which would definitely involve lexicons and extra-biblical sources or how "colorful" that term would be.
@JamesShewey Not much available in way of extra-biblical sources of Hebrew contemporary with Kings, I think. I imagine it will have to involve etymology and looking at how the ancient translations took it.
@Susan Yeah, gotta be. Also - see 1 Kings 8:29 and verses following for examples of יתְפַּלֵּל ... אֶל־ַ where the 'el goes to the maqom (i.e., the temple) rather than yhwh. In Hebrew, it is the same construction, though EVV give "toward" rather than "to".
@Davïd Oh yeah, wow... I had ignored all of the מקום stuff in DCH but actually that probably should be part of the answer.
Although... 1 Sam 1:27 also uses אל, with obviously different meaning.
And 2 K 19:20 //Is 37:21 which use the preposition twice in two different ways with the same verb. Kind of like a double accusative except....a double אל–ative. evita-אל. hehe.
@Susan You had me thinking musicals there for a moment! 2 K 19:20 is interesting. The second 'el ('el-sancherib) looks like it "should" be an 'al - but it's not.
@Susan Just checked some Proper Books (like this one). Sanders consistently treats it as a singular. E.g. "...we note that Matt. 12.28//Luke 11.20 is the linchpin of the argument." (p. 133-4)
If we approach the text with the presupposition that the canonical form of Mark is a unified work and we can thus expect the composition as a whole to make sense of the parts, before we look at the incidental remark about the season, we should look at the intended teaching of event.
It should be...
@Davïd Works for me. I suppose it’s really “[the text of] Matt 12.28 and Luke 11.20”? Except here they’re not even identical, so it’s something like “[the saying behind the texts of] Matt 2.28 and Luke 11.20”? Hm.
@ThaddeusB Yes, interesting! The question occurs to me, though, that if seeking food out is out of character for Jesus, whose 40 days in the wilderness demonstrated his forebearance from such a tendency, ... why did he look for figs when it wasn't the season for figs? It seems like it is another way of saying that this was an "enacted parable".
@Susan Sanders (and some others I checked) treat x // y or even x // y // z as a single "passage".
BTW, did you know that DCH refers חוה to שׁחה hitpael for that meaning? ("unless all forms are hishtaphal of חוה II in same sense”) When we discussed this way back when my impression was that the שׁחה idea was outdated, but there it is.
@Davïd I don’t know how to read those notes. I need to figure that out.
@Davïd hehe. But I think Clines has said somewhere (probably the intro) that he doesn’t think comparative philology is the place of the lexicographer, and I believe you explained that that one has something to do with Ugaritic, so maybe that’s part of it.
@Davïd Thanks. I never have quite figured out the point of these “guided reader” things (though not sure I’ve actually looked at one), but I may have to get my hands on the second edition of the Invitation to the Septuagint book.
The Library
The Library