Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Steve:

I find myself asking a few questions:

1) Is there a DSS for this verse, and if so, what is its spelling?
What is the earliest surviving attestation for this verse?

2) While the Great Isaiah Scroll is important because of its
completeness, how good is it for textual criticism?

3) How does the plural verb immediately preceding the XMDT affect
whether or not it is plural or singular? How would you repoint it so
that it is not a plural verb?

4) Is there a corresponding waw in all the DSS for a holem, or only in
some of them?

On 12/23/06, Steve Miller <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > HH: The Masoretic pointing records an oral reading tradition that may go
> > back to the second or first century. However, it is possible that errors
> > crept into the tradition, and the Masoretes themselves were not
> > infallible (though very careful). So there may be errors in the
> > pointing, but they are rare in my view. The word "desire" in Hag 2:7 can
> > be plural if it is repointed.
> >
>
> [Steve Miller] Some are saying that it is OK to add the vowel Holem to
> chemdath in Hag. 2:7 in the MT to change it from singular to plural, and
> that the vowels go back to the 1st or 2nd century AD.
>
> It appears to me that whenever there is a Holem without the waw under it in
> MT, there is a corresponding waw in DSS.
>
> I did a little study on this: The imperfect form of the verb "come" BW) can
> have a waw with a holem above it between the beth and aleph, or it can be
> abbreviated to just a holem with no waw between the beth and aleph. (If we
> ignore the holem, then we can't tell the difference between hiphil and qal
> forms of "come".)

Not true, context gives us a strong clue.

> I searched for all occurances in Isaiah of imperfect BW) that do not have
> the waw between the beth and aleph. (I chose Isa because of the available
> DSS manuscript.) I found 18 such occurrances in Isaiah: 1:12; 13:2; 26:2;
> 36:22; 37:1,5; 39:3; 41:25; 44:7; 47:9,11,13; 48:3; 49:12; 52:1; 60:4-6.
> (Most in Isaiah have the internal waw, while most in the Pentateuch do not.)
> Then I looked up all these in the DSS Great Isaiah Scroll which is available
> online. 100% of these verses have the waw there in place of just the holem
> in MT (excluding Isa 1:12, which was unreadable).
>
> Therefore, I conclude that the holem goes back to at least 100 B.C. (the
> time of the DSS), and is authoritative. Therefore I do not believe that you
> have the freedom to add a holem to chemdath in Hag. 2:7 to change it from
> singular to plural.
>
> Sincerely,
> Steve Miller
> Detroit
> www.voiceInWilderness.info

Another source to check is Chronicles: it is full of waws and yods
that don't appear nearly as often in earlier books, even earlier
post-Exile books. Do all plural feminine nouns have a waw, or are
there some that don't? What about other similar holems? (I have not
made a study, it would be interesting to see the results.)

What affect does the fact that XMDT is feminine have on your considerations?

Karl W. Randolph.