Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Peter:

On 1/2/07, Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org> wrote:
> On 02/01/2007 21:01, K Randolph wrote:
> > Chris:
> >
> > I don't have the Masoretic points before me, but the consonantal text
> > could be pointed more than one way. Depending on the pointing, the
> > root could be either XWL or XLL, with the context giving the deciding
> > vote on which root to choose. Obviously the root indicated by the
> > pointing results in nonsense, therefore a different pointing ought be
> > considered.
> >
> > I read this as a passive from the root XLL, a reading that not only
> > fits grammatically, but the context as well. Either we are dealing
> > with a corrupted transmission of the tradition, or an irregular verb
> > with a unique vowel pattern.
> >
> >
> First, when we are discussing a verse can we please include the
> reference in the subject line, or else refer to it each time in the text.
Mea culpa. I responded to a previous message, and took for granted
that the reference was in the subject line.

> We have two parallel lines here in the Hebrew, here with the Masoretic
> vowels transliterated for your reference:
>
> H"N-B.:(FWOWN XOWLFL:T.IY
> W.B:X"+:) YEX:EMAT:NIY )IM.IY
>
> My partial translation:
> Behold, in iniquity I ??-ed
> And in sin my mother ??-s me
>
> Whatever XWLLTY means here, it appears to be in synonymous parallelism
> with something which the psalmist's mother does to him.
>
> Also wouldn't the vav in the unpointed text XWLLTY be out of place in a
> form of XLL? It might appear in a participle of course, but this seems
> to be a finite verb. In such a case I would expect the vav to be an
> indication that the verb here is the hollow one XWL/XYL.
It's unusual, but not out of place. Just as in the noun preceding,
(WWN has the double waw only four times in Tanakh, while over 200
times with a single waw. It can, for example, be a pual of XLL.

> When we look at the attested forms of XWL/XYL and XLL in the Hebrew
> Bible, we seem to find the following, classification based largely on
> Masoretic pointing and ignoring some rare forms:
>
> Qal forms of XWL/XYL: dance; writhe; be in labour pains
> Polel/Polal forms of XWL/XYL (almost all with root consonants XWLL):
> dance; give birth
> Hiphil/Hophal forms of XWL/XYL: give birth
> Various forms of XLL (none with root consonants XWLL, except perhaps for
> Isaiah 51:9, a participle): bore, pierce; play the pipe; profane; begin
Looking at  the consonantal combination XWLL with various prefixes and
suffixes comes to 15 times.

Jeremiah 23:19 refers to the storm swirling itself around. Probably
referring to dancing in Psalm 37:7 and the wicked swirls about all his
days Job 15:20.

Several of the times it could be either from the root of XWL or XLL,
depending on your understanding, e.g. Isaiah 51:2, Psalm 29:9,
Proverbs 25:23 and Job 15:7. But that's assuming that XWL is the same
as XYL to writhe, as in childbirth. Can you make that assumption?
Further, XWLL and TXWLL can be participles from XLL, so the idea of
produce as the one who produced fits context and meaning in Isaiah
51:2.

XLL has two roots, one with the meaning of bore through (also used of
boring with a sword or spear, where in English we would use pierce)
which by extension used for an instrument made by boring wood or bone
(flute) and the playing thereupon. The second root has the meaning of
making common, and one way to make something common is to bring it
into production, to produce it. It is also used as the opposite of set
apart, special (holy). These are the meanings found when looking in a
concordance and looking at the actions being referred to.

Times that XWLL could come from the second root of XLL include not
only Isaiah 51:9, but also Proverbs 8:24-25, 26:10.

Because a majority of times XWLL could be from XLL second root, I look
at Psalm 51:5 and go with the majority reading.

> Thus the form would suggest the sense "give birth", as a passive. This
> understanding is not based only on the Masoretic Text. The LXX here
> (50:7) is IDOU GAR EN ANOMIAS SUNELHMFQHN "for behold in lawlessness I
> was conceived", or perhaps "...I was put together".
"I was put together" fits with the second root above for XLL.

> The psalm makes perfect sense if the verb is understood as a passive of
> "be in labour with". Of course we can't really say this in English, so
> we need to go with
>
> Behold, in iniquity I was born
Giving birth is not mentioned in this verse.

The parallel is a verb whose only other uses in Tanakh is in Genesis,
where it is used of sheep breeding when Jacob was taking care of
Laban's sheep. The direct translation would be "in error my mother
bred me" or in more polite English that in error she conceived.
> It seems to me that we should recognise "be in labour" and "give birth"
> as a real sense (used more than 20 times in the Hebrew Bible) of
> XWL/XYL, distinct from the sense "dance; writhe" even if etymologically
> derived from it - just as "labour" in this sense is distinct from
> "labour" in the sense "work hard" although obviously with a shared origin.
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
> Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
> Website: http://www.qaya.org/
When looking at actions, the idea of production as a type of making
common fits the use of XWLL more often than other definitions. And it
fits Psalm 51:5.

Karl W. Randolph.