Question on Psalms. Does anyone here know their Hebrew?...

Post Reply New Topic

...I mean, Biblical Hebrew, and can give me the answer to a question about one of the Psalms?

There's a discussion going on elsewhere about the meaning of a particular word, and I'd be intrigued to know what the original says. Please let me know if you might be able to help...anyone?

I've studied Biblical Hebrew, and may be able to help.

What is your question?

ruveyn

You'd probably be best off asking the question first. Even if a person does not know Hebrew, it is possible that they could have randomly picked up an answer somewhere, or knows where to look.

I am getting a weird feeling about it being Psalm 22:16 (Psalm 22:17 in the JPS) because that one has a radically different word between interpretations and I don't know other big translation differences off the top of my head(partially because 22:16 is often important to Christians). I'll give this, even though I would bet that the question is really quite different.

Psa 22:16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet-- (ESV)

Psa 22:17 For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet. (JPS)

As can be noted, the term there is interpreted radically different and this is partially because there is a question about the word.

Skeptic Paul Tobin talks about this issue at length at his website. http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pierce.html I would imagine that Christians also are willing to talk about the matter, but I don't now a website that talks about it and goes through all of the issues to give a counter-defense to Tobin, so if a person wants to provide a counter-defense, then that is fine.

The basic matter is that there is a nonsense word in the Dead Sea Scrolls that is similar to both lion and the word for dig(which is often interpreted for piercing by Christians). And deciding between the two terms is somewhat of a matter of guesswork and not Hebrew.


However, yes, I would guess that you are dealing with another Psalm, and am still curious about the question.

Sorry, Awesomelyglorious, it's not that one. This one may not actually be controversial at all, but like I said, I don't know enough Hebrew (much at all!) to tell. It's Psalm 137, and the line which in most instances is translated something like 'Happy shall he be that dashes thy little ones against the stones.'

Does the word here given as 'little ones' actually specifically mean small children, infants or babies - as it appears to according to most commentators I can find online - or can it be interpreted as just generally 'children' as in 'children of the Babylonians' as in 'the ungodly'?

The former would make it a wish for infanticide, presumably in revenge for similar atrocities, given that it's a song by the Jews in captivity. But someone was interpreting it as a universal, therefore contemporary, prayer to God to horribly destroy the ungodly (basically, in his case, anyone outside the remit of the Catholic church), and was being way too enthusiastic about the idea - in fact, at one point he did appear to be talking about actual spattering of brains on pavements - and his interpretation hinged on the word being 'children' and not 'babies'. I was just curious because while I've heard some nasty stuff justified by various bits of the Bible, I'd never heard this one used that way. I figured it was one of those 'well, those were brutal times and we don't think that way now' kind of instances.

Anyone?

Well, the person who was interpreting it as taking in everyone outside the remit of the Catholic church is doing that oh so typical thing of imposing his cultural imperative on an ancient document, without thinking what that document actually meant to the original audience.

The Hebrews who were taken captive into Babylon were not Catholics ... and given the Catholic treatment of the Jews through history I'm rather disgusted to see this "backward compatible" cultural superiority rearing it's ugly head again. I think it's called "replacement theology", the myth that some Christians have that they have somehow replaced Israel as God's Chosen People. Sorry, this is a personal bug bear of mine... quite frankly, it's not only poor history and theology, it's actually a major cause of anti semitism.

Anyhow, to the text.

The last verse which you're looking at is אשׁרי שׁיאחז ונפץ את־עלליך אל־הסלע

I would translate this as,
"how blessed/happy is he that takes and breaks your babies against the rocks."

It's a really ugly verse, and can only be understood in its historical context... the Jews (not for the first or last time, sadly, in their history) had been horrendously abused, witnessed rape, the murder of their little ones... this final verse refers to the "lex talionis"... that is "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," or in other words, "nature red in tooth and claw." Without condoning that level of bitterness and anger, I can really see why they felt that way.

You cannot extrapolate from this verse to anything about the Catholic church.

Also, I would argue that the key word that our interpretation hinges on here is not עולל (olel/"suckling, infant") but אשׁר (asher, "happy, blessed.") Is the text saying that the man who butchers baby is "blessed," or is it saying that the man is "happy." He could well be a happy psychopath, bent on revenge... but is he what we understand by "blessed"? We take blessed to mean approved by God, but this is not always how the word is understood in other languages. (Compare French or German for example, where the word "happy" can mean "blessed," "happy" or "lucky.")

This final sentence is not a mandate to destroy anyone. It's an observation of the lex talionis, and the bloodthirsty satisfaction of revenge. It doesn't say much about God, but it does observe human nature very well.

That is my interpretation... it may not be perfect, but seems a sight more coherent than some Catholic saying that anyone outside of "the church" is under God's curse and can be killed with impunity. The psalm was written as part of Jewish history, not for Catholics to damn the rest of the world by.

(Edited to add: I'm trying not to be too "aspie" and nit picking when I come to history... I do know that technically before the Babylonian captivity the people of Israel weren't "Jewish", they were Hebrew, and that the first time the word "Jew" is used is after this psalm was written... I'm just trying not to write a novel with realms of footnotes etc. Sorry guys...)

Oh dear... now my brain is going to keep me awake, trying to work out whether this psalm was pre the ascent of Esther, in which case I should have used the word Hebrew, or post, in which case I could argue that I'm correct to say Jewish.

Anyway...

The point is, it's certainly not Catholic.

Good night folks.

Thank you, mgran. You've confirmed what I suspected was the case anyway.

I always think that when considering what any scripture means, you need to go back to the original language (difficult for me, I'm generally reliant on other people's scholarship because I don't speak the languages involved) and if you can, the original context. But, there are some people out there who will always consider that their meaning supersedes any other...and sometimes it gets very ugly.

I can say about Catholicism what I'd say for many religions - there's good and bad (and the better the more they stray from 'orthodoxy' - in this particular case, the more they've fallen out with the Pope, as a good friend of mine puts it!) I've unfortunately also met a few Catholics, more so than Protestants, in whom there was a very nasty strand of antisemitism. It would surprise me rather if this kind of person would even consider the way in which a Jew understood the Tanakh...and I think I'm just at the place in my life where I've begun to understand how pointless it is arguing with this kind of person anyway. But like I said, thanks.