thanks, karl. pay back indeed is better than castigate. it is not clear whether Y$LM here LITERALLY derives from "pay" or from "complete" (historically "pay" may anyway be derived from "complete"). my imagery of paying a ransom, as well as your translation, are based on the first option "pay".
nir cohen On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:33:29 -0800, K Randolph wrote > Thanks, Nir: > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <[email protected]> > wrote: > > i allow myself a remark on a former string. i just happened to read > vevyurko 2007. there she says that both sept. and qumran4QDeut-q > diverge from the biblical text in deut 32:43 and are longer. > she reproduces the qumran text as: > > הרנינו שמים עמו והשתחוו לו כל אלהים כי דם בניו > יקום ונקם ישיב לצריו ולמשנאיו ישלם ויכפר אדמת עמו > > > This reading makes good sense, though I disagree with some of the > translations below. > this version is interesting for three reasons thematic to the > original question. the first is that ויכפר is a verb, for what it's worth. > > > Clearly so here. > the second is in terms of double meaning (passive/active): god "pays" and > "redeems" the land; at the same time "castigates" and "recovers" the land. > if in the poet's mind ישלםis a metaphoric "castigate" (a ubiquitous > expression up to these days), יכפר might as well be a metaphoric "recover". > > > In the Hebrew meanings ישלם is “pay back” in the sense of paying back, > returning to those who hate him according to their hatred. “Recover” for יכפר > is a bit of a stretch, but can be recognized as the end result of redemption. > the third is the sensible question of a possible masoretic editing. > assuming (just for the argument) that qumran reflects better the original > version, secondary in importance (...) is the vav added to אדמת > for the obvious argument that the land does not belong to the hebrews > but to god. except that this creates a syntactic "plonter". then also > the Y is removed on וכפר, ending exactly where we started: "and his > people will expiate for his (sic!) land" which (i must agree with karl) > doesnt sound very natural. > > > Before we castigate the Masoretes, it could very well have been that the best > text they had available after the Romans finished their swath of destruction > may have been corrupted in this section, and the Masoretes did the best they > could. > > I believe that this is not the only place where translators found that the > Hebrew was corrupted, so followed the LXX that made sense. > nir cohen > > > Thanks again, that clarifies the verse. > > Karl W. Randolph. -- Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
