Re: Ezekiel 36 and the Mountains of Israel Pt II
To keep the conversation going, I post below a short little piece dealing with the Niqqud vowelization and punctuation system used in Hebrew. Many readers will know this system already. I really would appreciate your insights into the question posed about divine inspiration. I will then apply this information to Ezekiel's passage.
A simple humorous example of the dilemma posed to translators regarding implied punctuation would be the following (courtesy of Don the Baptist):
lethimthatstolestealnomorelethimworktheworksofrigh teousness
Providing punctuation we could arrive at two different conclusions:
Let him that stole steal no more! Let him work the works of righteousness! OR…..
Let him that stole, steal! No more let him work the works of righteousness!
Niqqud System in the Tanach
Many people are already aware that the Jewish Tanach originally was written down without vowels, punctuation or capitalization. What appears in the oldest scrolls is simply a long string of Hebrew consonants. Sometime around the 9th century, a group called the Masoretes employed a system called Niqqud. This involved assigning small dots and other marks above, below and among the Hebrew consonants to indicate the “traditionally accepted” vowels and punctuation. In many cases there existed only one word in Hebrew for a particular series of consonants so the word intended by the original author is obvious. In others, the context of the passage was used to assign appropriate vowels. There is some debate regarding the divine inspiration of this system. Did inspiration extend to a unique set of vowels or is there the possibility of alternative scriptural texts, reflecting different vowel choices?
A simple example from the Scriptures of these multiple alternatives based on different vowels occurs in the book of Daniel chapter 5. On the occasion of a drunken feast hosted by Belshazzar, king of Babylon, fingers appear and draw out a message on the wall. When none of the court advisors can decipher the message, Daniel is called. It is interesting how he makes use of different possible vowel combinations in his answer to the king. For example with the word samekh-resh-pey, “p-r-s”. Daniel refers to “peras” meaning divided, then to “Paras” meaning Persia. These words with niqqud notations are shown below. (Note that Hebrew reads from right to left.) A similar approach is used for mene/mina and tekel/tekal.
author note: sorry the actual Hebrew letters with niqqud notations are apparently not supported by the site what is shown below is what the computer does! But you get the "point". Can anyone suggest how to display Hebrew letters?)
sr@P= peres
sr^P= peras
sr^P* paras/Persia
In considering the correct vowels to insert in the original Hebrew writings the modern translator is struck with a difficult task. Is there only one proper context? Perhaps God intended different vowels to apply at different times, or perhaps a range of alternatives are all valid at the same time and together provide additional breadth and depth. What do you think?
To keep the conversation going, I post below a short little piece dealing with the Niqqud vowelization and punctuation system used in Hebrew. Many readers will know this system already. I really would appreciate your insights into the question posed about divine inspiration. I will then apply this information to Ezekiel's passage.
A simple humorous example of the dilemma posed to translators regarding implied punctuation would be the following (courtesy of Don the Baptist):
lethimthatstolestealnomorelethimworktheworksofrigh teousness
Providing punctuation we could arrive at two different conclusions:
Let him that stole steal no more! Let him work the works of righteousness! OR…..
Let him that stole, steal! No more let him work the works of righteousness!
Niqqud System in the Tanach
Many people are already aware that the Jewish Tanach originally was written down without vowels, punctuation or capitalization. What appears in the oldest scrolls is simply a long string of Hebrew consonants. Sometime around the 9th century, a group called the Masoretes employed a system called Niqqud. This involved assigning small dots and other marks above, below and among the Hebrew consonants to indicate the “traditionally accepted” vowels and punctuation. In many cases there existed only one word in Hebrew for a particular series of consonants so the word intended by the original author is obvious. In others, the context of the passage was used to assign appropriate vowels. There is some debate regarding the divine inspiration of this system. Did inspiration extend to a unique set of vowels or is there the possibility of alternative scriptural texts, reflecting different vowel choices?
A simple example from the Scriptures of these multiple alternatives based on different vowels occurs in the book of Daniel chapter 5. On the occasion of a drunken feast hosted by Belshazzar, king of Babylon, fingers appear and draw out a message on the wall. When none of the court advisors can decipher the message, Daniel is called. It is interesting how he makes use of different possible vowel combinations in his answer to the king. For example with the word samekh-resh-pey, “p-r-s”. Daniel refers to “peras” meaning divided, then to “Paras” meaning Persia. These words with niqqud notations are shown below. (Note that Hebrew reads from right to left.) A similar approach is used for mene/mina and tekel/tekal.
author note: sorry the actual Hebrew letters with niqqud notations are apparently not supported by the site what is shown below is what the computer does! But you get the "point". Can anyone suggest how to display Hebrew letters?)
sr@P= peres
sr^P= peras
sr^P* paras/Persia
In considering the correct vowels to insert in the original Hebrew writings the modern translator is struck with a difficult task. Is there only one proper context? Perhaps God intended different vowels to apply at different times, or perhaps a range of alternatives are all valid at the same time and together provide additional breadth and depth. What do you think?
Comment