[b-hebrew] Re: 22nd Psalm - Verb Object Again
peterkirk at qaya.org
Fri Dec 5 06:15:48 EST 2003
On 05/12/2003 02:48, Moshe Shulman wrote:
> The reading is K)RW, and this has some serious difficulties with it,
> since the aleph makes it a poor conjugation for the verb KRH. I have
> always considered this another example of poor writing skills, and the
> correct reading should be K)RY, the last letter being an elongated
> yod, a very common situation in the DSS. Otherwise we have a verb
> without a root.
More precisely, otherwise we have a hapax. How many hapaxes in the
Hebrew Bible? I can give a simple answer to that: as many as 3220
lexical items (including proper names), as distinguished in the
Westminster morphological database, out of a total of 9521 lexical items
- although many of these do have cognates with the same root. Even of
the smaller number of hapaxes which have no known cognate with the same
root, how many have been confirmed as genuine rather than scribal errors
from cognate languages, ancient versions etc? It is simply bad logic to
argue that a hapax implies a corrupt text.
Actually I would consider that the LXX evidence proves that this word in
question is a genuine hapax. It certainly proves that the Nahal Hever
reading is more than the slip of one scribe's pen in the 1st century CE:
the LXX translator, probably a century or two earlier and several
hundred miles away, did not read K)RY, but read a 3rd person plural verb
which strongly indicates a final vav.
The LXX translator also read this verb as derived from KRH "dig" or
something very similar. This may have been correct; or it may have been
his or her best conjecture at a root whose meaning was already obscure.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew