Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Yaakov:
Thanks for this discussion. I find such discussions stimulating and they
often clarify problem verses for me. Thanks.

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s AT rad.com> wrote:

> Karl,
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree that most of the vocalization is reasonable, that it is the result
of a long standing tradition and that it has been studied extensively over
the years, but that does not mean that it is always right. A while back I
gave an analysis of Proverbs 1:19 that shows why it is reasonable to assume
that the pointing is wrong. Other verses are not as clear cut.


> > 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 ?
>
> You argued in a previous passage that "nakedness" is not necessarily the
correct meaning, so here bareness is described as dryness where nothing is
growing because it is, as explained later in the verse, dry. Think of the
U.S. dustbowl in the 1930s and the bareness of the land.


> > > ... 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.
>
> Two questions: are we dealing here with the same root in both uses of (RW?
and does it mean "destroy"?

(RW could come from what is listed in the dictionary as (WR meaning "to
arouse, as in get moving" where the medial waw is optional. So we could have
an example of where two different roots are used, but where the derived
forms minus vowels turn out to be identical.

Secondly, I will argue that just because the results of an action are
destructive, does not make the root meaning = "destroy". Or to use an
example in English, the result in American baseball of a ball going over the
fence does not change the meaning of "swing" as the action of the batter.


> > 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).
>
> What you suggest is one meaning if it were prose. But this is poetry. The
meaning could be completely different from what you suggest.


> Dropping the articles is not unusual, nor is the infinitive without the L.


Not in this syntax nor context.


> … 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.
>
> LHRS (D HYSOD doesn't only not need a MN, it doesn't make sense with one.

In this strophe of the poetry, I see it as making more sense that the YSWD
fulfills the function of the verb, as a passive from the root YSD "to found,
lay a foundation" taken poetically.


> Yaakov (J) Stein
>

Karl W. Randolph.