[b-hebrew] Zech 6:8

Herman Meester crazymulgogi at gmail.com
Tue Dec 13 10:18:22 EST 2005


Dear Karl,

If I'm correct you said Proverbs 1,19 has been discussed a few months ago?
I'll shortly put my "analysis" here, because I disagree with your
explanation (that involves correcting the masoretes, which may
sometimes be needed, but not here I think). You don't have to go into
that, after all the discussion has expired ;)
Imho. what we have there is:

כן ארחות כל בצע בצע
"Such are the ways of all who are eager for gain"
את נפש בעליו יקח
"It takes the life of those who have it [its possessors]"

The way I see it, the second בצע BC( is the object of the first. A
"botzéa bètza` [=bátza` in pausal position] is, then, some kind of
expression for a "greedy opportunist", "someone who's 'longing for
loot'". This way the second בצע is correctly pointed as pausal, so we
don't need a change in the accents.

שלום
Herman

2005/12/13, Karl Randolph <kwrandolph at email.com>:
> Herman:
>
> It is a good thing that at times we can agree to disagree,
> as there is not enough known, and the disagreement may
> eventually point to a resolution.
>
> As for Proverbs 1:19, I had read it as a compound verb,
> and when I asked others, they had independently of me
> come to the same conclusion. But even if you are right,
> it is still improperly pointed, as the second BC( should
> not be pointed in the pausal vocalization, as context,
> grammar, poetic construct, meaning and sentence
> structure together indicate that it is the subject of the
> second half of the verse, not the end of the first.
>
> I don't think my distinction is actually between written and
> spoken language, rather between the written consonants,
> and the written vowels. Whereas I recognize the written
> consonants as authoritative, the written vowels I relegate
> to the level of ancient commentary on the text: a product of
> tradition and for the most part an accurate explanation of
> meaning, but occasionally wrong.
>
> And as one who has memorized whole chapters of
> Tanakh, I agree with the Chinese.  ;-)
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi at gmail.com>
>
> > Obviously, "lectio difficilior potior" is used only when it does not
> > lead to bizarre readings. However, imho. Zech 6,8 is an excellent
> > example where it is indeed a good criterion.
> > As for Prov 1,19 you refer to, there is no need to change anything
> > there, because the second בצע there already is a segholate noun, be it
> > in pausal vocalisation; it's not a verb. Note also the place of the
> > accent. (^ under the first syll.) Just as we have ארץ aretz (in pausa)
> > and ארץ eretz.
> >
> > BTW I think your distinction between written and spoken language is a
> > little artificial. Imagine Hebrew happened to have used a totally
> > different writing system (hieroglyphs, cuneiform, or an alefbet with a
> > lot more matres lectionis), and we would see all the vowel in writings
> > in every type of text, I guess then suddenly the vowel signs are part
> > of the inspired text?
> > I know you consider the Hebrew alefbet to be exclusively designed for
> > Hebrew; I guess our basic suppositions diverge so much that we won't
> > convince each other. Which is good, it would be dull if everyone was
> > of the same opinion all the time. I hope you agree with me on the
> > Proverbs verse, though.
> >
> > And I disagree with the Chinese ;)
> >
> > שלום
> > Herman
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________
> Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list