In translating and interpreting this passage I have come to a few points
Translating en-nu using L manuscript I conclude the right translation "us"
Using Bhs I have another possiblity
Here I see the traslation him because it is a third person singular masculine. Some translations have translated en-nu into "them"
“Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. ” (Psalm 12:7, KJV)
I am confused on why this was done. I am also not clear on what this pronoun points to. It seems to point to The people in verse 5
“For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. ” (Psalm 12:5, KJV)
(poor- noun common plural) using L but if I use Bhs "poor" is masculine plural instread of singular.)
A bit confused on what us or him refers to. I have head some say it refers to the words. But I see that as highly unlikely.
Blessings
Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Theological Discussion Group
can't help you in your Hebrew, but are you posting in the forum you intended? We have Hebrew interlinears on bible.logos.com?
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
The notes in the NET Bible are helpful here.
RMansfield@mac.comhttp://thislamp.com youtube.com/user/rfmansfieldtwitter/thislampfacebook.com/rmansfield
Dan DeVilder: can't help you in your Hebrew, but are you posting in the forum you intended? We have Hebrew interlinears on bible.logos.com?
I believe this forum was set in place for biblical discussions as was requested. So as far as I can tell,yes.
Blair Laird:I believe this forum was set in place for biblical discussions as was requested. So as far as I can tell,yes.
I assumed that it was set up for the web site Bible.Logos.com. I would assume that if it were set up for Biblical discussions its name would be more generic.
Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
R. Mansfield: The notes in the NET Bible are helpful here.
That was helpful thank you
I thought GKC put down all instances of uses. Net refers to it but notes the text was not cited by the resources. That is confusing.. I see how it made reference to both possible translations (him) or (us) However I still dont understand why some have translated it as them. If you follow the morphology them is not a possiblity. It would have to be a third person plural which neither manuscript is.
Btw when you look at the note on the Net on that are you able to click the link to the GKC ? When I clicked it, it did not go to the reference. There seems to be a problem with the linking.
Blair Laird: Dan DeVilder: can't help you in your Hebrew, but are you posting in the forum you intended? We have Hebrew interlinears on bible.logos.com? I believe this forum was set in place for biblical discussions as was requested. So as far as I can tell,yes.
I assume that it is the tech support forum for the bible.logos.com website. Unless Logos has changed their official forums policy, I don't see any reason to assume otherwise.
Wiki Links: Enabling Logging / Detailed Search Help - MacBook Pro (2014), ThinkPad E570
MJ. Smith: Blair Laird:I believe this forum was set in place for biblical discussions as was requested. So as far as I can tell,yes. I assumed that it was set up for the web site Bible.Logos.com. I would assume that if it were set up for Biblical discussions its name would be more generic.
You are probably right.. I thought they opened it as per the request to have one for bible discussions.
I just looked at the heading, my fault.. Well maybe logos can delete the thread for me
Blair Laird:I just looked at the heading, my fault.. Well maybe logos can delete the thread for me
I think these kinds of threads are valuable if their focus in on how to use Logos resources to find the answers one is searching for. And I think that's the general tenor of this thread. So it could be moved to "General" if that's the direction the thread is going.
Todd Phillips: Blair Laird:I just looked at the heading, my fault.. Well maybe logos can delete the thread for me I think these kinds of threads are valuable if their focus in on how to use Logos resources to find the answers one is searching for. And I think that's the general tenor of this thread. So it could be moved to "General" if that's the direction the thread is going.
I am assuming only Logos can move it to a different section. Or is there some way I can ?
Blair Laird:I am assuming only Logos can move it to a different section. Or is there some way I can ?
Yeah, only Logos has that power. I was just mentioning that I didn't think it deserved a "delete".
No problem guys. I moved it. Carry on!
User Interface Designer - Logos Bible Software
I looked up the paradigms for suffices, and indeed the suffix for both the 1st plural and 3rd mascular singular suffix can look similar (excerpt from Weingreen's Grammar):
The differences in the above paradigm being that:
(1) The resh in the above paradigm is pointed with a segol for the 3ms suffix but with a sere for the 1st plural suffix. So since the vowel under the resh in Ps 12:7 is a segol I think we're talking about a 3ms rather than 1st plural suffix here, if we trust the Masoretic vowel pointings to be correct.
(2) the Dages-Forte which is present in the waw of the 3rd masc sing suffix but absent in the 1st plural suffix. However, this doesn't mean that the DF cannot be there in the 1st plural suffix since there could be an energic nun with nun assimilation, then that would explain for the presence of a DF. Also I think the DF inside the waw for the 3rd masc singular form actually comes from an energic nun + he assimilated into the nun. There is a discussion in the relevant forms (with energic nun and assimilation) in Gesenius' grammar section 58i:
So - if you remove all Masoretic pointings, indeed both translations are grammatically correct so which one is correct has to be decided from the context (doesn't make too much sense with the 1st person plural here, does it ), but taking into consideration of the vowel pointing (segol), which is the direction I'm going, I would go for the suffix to mean 3ms.
So any idea why some would translate it into english as a 3rd person plural common (them) That is what I am confused on. All the english translations I have looked at have either (us) (him) or (them) but I am not to sure where the 3rd plural comes in. I can seet the case for either us or him. The pronoun points to those in the poor that are in the previous verse correct ? If so, my best bet would be stay with the plural ? Which is the (first person plural). I just dont understand the third plural translation.
After some research into the subject I'm changing my mind. The primiary problem in the verse seems to be the difference in object of the two colons (you protect ?them vs. you guard ?him), and I think the various translations that we see tries to harmonize the object of the two colons one way or the other. We can see harmonization in the reading in the early translations (LXX, Peshitta, Vulgate):
1. According to the critical apparatus of BHS, some LXX manuscripts are translating the object in both instances to "us" (see critical apparatus of BHS); so does the Clementine Vulgate. This is probably taking the pronominal suffix of tizerenu as 1st person plural as well as double duty suffix, and the mem ending being an enclitic mem for poetic balance (so: you protect us, you guard us) (see Dahood AYBC on Ps 12:7)
2. The Syriac text, however, translates the two verbs as 1st person singular (liberate me, rescue me) (see critical apparatus of BHS)
I think the enclitic mem and double duty suffix explanation makes sense here (there's a discussion of Enclitic mem in IBHS section 9.8), so I'm changing my mind that it means "us" instead of "them" or "him". My guess is that those translations translating both objects as "them" are harmonizing the other way round, emending the suffix of tizerenu to 3rd masculine plural to agree with tishmerem.
Amy Leung:My guess is that those translations translating both objects as "them" are harmonizing the other way round, emending the suffix of tizerenu to 3rd masculine plural to agree with tishmerem.
If it is a energetic nun can it be a third person plural ? From the research I have found, no. But you seemed to be more versed on this then I am. I am going with the "us" also it seems to make sense.
No, I don't think so. I think they have emended the text to harmonize the object in two otherwise parallel colons, and that's where the 3mp translation came about. I'm more comfortable with 1st person plural translation, it makes sense in context, is legal grammatically, plus there is no emendation of text involved (only repointing of vowels from segol to sere).
Thanks, you were very helpful.
I should thank you! You made me look closely and I learned something from it.