tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701676398897115116.post7876936215643142239..comments2024-02-21T17:07:33.447+11:00Comments on Psallam Domino: Psalm 94 v10-11Kate Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01000040465724868745noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701676398897115116.post-40031934811648289682014-08-29T15:51:03.067+10:002014-08-29T15:51:03.067+10:00Interesting - my comments drew on Boylan and Bird&...Interesting - my comments drew on Boylan and Bird's turn of the 20th century commentaries from memory, and seemed very plausible given the other uses of the formula in Scripture, but...Kate Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01000040465724868745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701676398897115116.post-63254229769899765042014-08-29T14:58:31.324+10:002014-08-29T14:58:31.324+10:00Thanks for that explanation. I was browsing on Wik...Thanks for that explanation. I was browsing on Wikipedia the other day and came across an alternate speculation on the explanation of the grammar at work here: the 'si' construction in this passage is a literal transliteration of the Hebrew (via a transliteration of the Hebrew preserved in the LXX) which preserves a Hebrew construction for expressing negation (using the Hebrew equivalent of 'si'). Not sure how reliable our Wikipedia author is, but it's interesting nevertheless!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701676398897115116.post-33005377491595202272014-08-18T18:03:30.128+10:002014-08-18T18:03:30.128+10:00It is a matter of English word order vs Latin here...It is a matter of English word order vs Latin here I think - the 'second verb' is the previous verse and the first half of verse 11: eg literally, it means I swore they would not enter because they had not followed my ways and continued to be obdurate for 40 years. But positively, if they had followed my ways/stopped erring in heart, then they would be able to enter my rest. <br /><br />Hope that helps!Kate Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01000040465724868745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701676398897115116.post-88924224227820937912014-08-18T15:43:00.485+10:002014-08-18T15:43:00.485+10:00First of all thankyou for your many helpful posts ...First of all thankyou for your many helpful posts on the psalms! Having recently started exploring the vetus latina psalter (and finding many passages puzzling) I’ve found your analyses particularly helpful. I have a question about your comment that ‘si’ is used to indicate an oath, of the form ‘if so and so, then…’ While that makes sense to me (because ‘si’ is used for conditional clauses) I still don’t understand how to identify this in the last verse, because it seems to me that in order for there to be such an oath, *two* verbs ought to follow ‘si’ (one for the ‘if’ part and one for the ‘then’ part: e.g. ‘si obdurant, non introibunt in requiem meam’ or something like that). But in the last verse there’s only one verb, ‘introibunt’. So, I still don’t understand how to read the verse. Perhaps I am missing something? Could you shed any light? God bless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com