Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Yaakov:

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s AT rad.com> wrote:

> Karl
>
> For some reason I missed a reply here ...
>
> No, you didn't miss a reply.


> > On the other hand, Isaiah 19:7 has the same spelling not in the
> possessive use
>
> According to the traditional vocalization, this is not ervat but arot,
> i.e. the plural of some unknown word, probably meaning moss.
>
> By now you should know me, that I read Tanakh using an unpointed text. The
reason being that I have found places where the traditional pointing is
wrong. Demonstrably so. As a result, I found the pointing a clutter on the
page where correct, and misleading where wrong. Therefore, I read without
points.

In this Isaiah passage, it is possible that this is a plural of (RWH where,
as is not uncommon, the waw indicating plural was omitted.


> > ... Habakkuk 3:13 is more problematic.
>
> Once again here it is vocalized arot, but the meaning is clearly
> the infinitive of "to destroy" as in (RU of Psalms 137.
>
> Psalm 137:7 is a command, plural.

In Habakkuk, the infinitive does not fit the grammar, syntax nor context. It
is possible that here we have a copyist error. Or again this could be a
plural of (RWH.

>
> > In other words, you are suggesting that this is more of an idiomatic
> > use instead of according to strict dictionary meaning. That makes
> sense.
>
> I think it is a natural extension of the meaning (what is called in
> Hebrew "behashala").
>
> Sort of like, "The young man 'struck out' in his amorous advances in the
bar" where if one knows baseball, he understands this use of the verb? I
understand this as being more of an idiomatic use.

>
> Yaakov (J) Stein
> ________________
>
Karl W. Randolph.