Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yaakov Stein" <yaakov_s AT rad.com>]

Karl, 

> No, you didn't miss a reply.

OK, I guess I misunderstood.

> By now you should know me, that I read Tanakh using an unpointed text.


yes, I know. That is why I expressly stated that the masorah reads it
this way.

> The reason being that I have found places where the traditional
pointing is wrong. 

I am sure there are such places (and of course places where the text
itself is in error).
However, I believe that by far most of the vocalization is reasonable,
and even when you don't agree with it, one should realize that it is the
result
of a long standing tradition and has been studied extensively over the
years.

> 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.

But the plural of (RWH is (RWYOT (although I can't think of an
appearance
in the Tanach). However, trying this reading I can't make sense of the
passage.
How can nakedness or "lack" become dry ?

> > ... 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.

Yes, I was using it to demonstrate that the root means to destroy.
I'll take over Isaac Freid's role and conjecture that the two are really
the same.
To destoy is actually to bare of everything standing.

> 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.

I don't see a major problem here.
Had it said L(ROT MN HYSOD (D HCW)R
there wouldn't be any problem
(in fact, that even sounds OK in modern Hebrew).

Dropping the articles is not unusual,
nor is the infinitive without the L.
The dropping the MN is no harder to justify.
The expression LHROS (D HYSOD is often used
without any MN, so perhaps that was the way the expression
was commonly used at the time.

Yaakov (J) Stein