Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> > R(( seems to be one of those roots, and that understanding
> > allows it to be recognized as a possible root for R(YWN in
> > Qohelet.
>
> but still morphologically wrong and unjustified,
>

You are thinking here like a mathematician. But does human language always
act cleanly like mathematics? Should not context be the first rule that
trumps formal considerations?

>
> A person FIRST needs to recognize that the root of רעיון,
> is resh-`ayin-yod and could have meanings and words that are
> a metaphorical extension beyond 'feed'   (wow, a novel idea!)
> (like 'ruminate your thoughts', 'joining your ideas together'),
>

That’s a real stretch. I can understand a metaphorical feeding on faith, but
feeding changing into joining?

To me, this sounds like a good example of the etymological fallacy, where it
is believed that a word must have a certain meaning because it has a certain
etymology. This is a fallacy I have repeatedly warned against, 1) even if a
word has a certain etymology, it can change meanings over time so that its
etymologically attested meaning may no longer be accurate, and 2) though a
word may have a form that could be derived from a certain root, it is
possible that it is not derived from that root for one or more reasons.

But my biggest objection remains context, how the word is used in relation
to the words around it. I notice I use it more than all the other people on
this list put together. Here it is context and the meaning derived from
context that make me question this etymology.

>
> Consider Jeremiah 3.15 "... shepherds after my own heart,
> who will "pasture" you with knowledge and understanding.
> Hey, not bad.
>

Oh, I see what the problem is: I don’t believe that a verb רעה exists, even
though I list it in my dictionary as follows:

רעה to feed (on) → מרע friend, apparently a close friend, almost like a
brother (those who feed together with you), מרעה feed(ing) ⇒ pasture,
מרעיתfeeding, pasturing,
רע, רעה neighbor, one who lives close by, with whom one has frequent contact
(one who one feeds, as was done in public feasts), רעה shepherd, one who
feeds the sheep, רעות female companion σ אכל

The proof that I don’t believe it exists is that I don’t think it is the
root to the word רעיון as used in Qohelet. I list it only as a nod to
tradition.

>
> There are two non-qal examples in the Bible where this root is
> linked with 'joining or befriending' (far from physical 'feeding'):
> one should check out Prov 22:24, assuming you are aware that
> lamed yod verbs drop their "final-y/h" with volitionals (like 'al').
> (the hitpael from r.`.y. here means "don't befriend an angry person",
> or "don't associate with a short-fused person".)
> [See the verb רעה at Jud 14.20 (pi`el is best, as a better
> fit with the hitpa`el just mentioned)  with the probable meaning
> 'who "befriended" for him, who had acted as 'best man'."]
> One also finds properly formed words from r.`.y. like
> Hos 12.2 ro`eh ru`aH parallel to 'chasing the the
> east-wind', not too far from Qohelet ra`yon ruaH,
> and the etymology fits.
>
> As mentioned, when an item is rare in the Heb Bible, and
> ra`yon only occurs 3xx and only in Qohelet, and when it's
> etymology might seem not to fit clearly, then it is time
> to raise ones eyes and get a wider perspective.
> "[KR] I have nothing against consulting cognate languages.
> In fact, for some of the lesser known terms in Biblical Hebrew,
> such consultation may be the only way we can get enough
> context to understand a word."
>
> ra`yon occurs 6xx in Aramaic Daniel, in the Bible.
> And once it even occurs with the exact collocation as Qohelet,
> "the ra`yon of the heart". Wow!
> It's hard to ask for more than that in the world of limited data.
>

Oh, so every time I read שכח $KX in Hebrew, I should read it as “to find”
because that’s what it means in Daniel’s Aramaic? Didn’t you read that I had
already referenced Daniel’s use of רעיון R(YWN in Aramaic, and found it
lacking? That it didn’t fit the contexts where it is used in Hebrew?

By the way, for context, one should read at least a whole verse, if not a
few verses around a word (I have read up to a whole chapter to get context
for a single question on this list), a single word next to a word in
question almost never suffices.

>
> Now morphology is not guesswork. But tracing the semantic
> etymology is guess work, and is different from
> meaning. Perhaps '"feeding" of the heart' became
> 'meditation, thought'. Knowing all the steps of an etymology
> is not really important, it is the attested meaning that the word
> develops that counts.
>

Context! The attested meaning of a word as it is used in its context.

>
> (Of course, there are the LXX, and Mishnaic Hebrew,
> and other Aramaic dialects, which just may be preserving
> the meaning. At least check them out and see if they fit--
> before making personal guesses and before jumping to roots
> that are NOT the root.
>

The LXX was written by people who did not know Biblical Hebrew that well,
being more versed in Aramaic and Greek. After all, it had been generations
since Hebrew had ceased being a first language among Jews when the LXX was
written.

The same is true for Mishnaic Hebrew. Those whose first language is Aramaic,
as was theirs, tended to read Aramaic meanings into Hebrew words, even when
the contexts argued against those readings.

So take a person who is cut off from that later tradition influenced by
Aramaic, who doesn’t even have a good translation in his own language to
fall back on, who then looks at the context and sees parallel to trouble,
contrast to joy, all three uses indicating a negative situation, do you
think he will agree with a later tradition (which he does not know) that has
a positive meaning? Forget etymology. Look at context.


> And even there, checking other words one finds rea` 'intention,
> thought', from an unclear root, and homonym with
> rea` 'friend' and rea` 'shout, noise' root r.w.`.),
> Ps 139:2:
> > [KR]  אתה ידעת שבתי וקומי    בנתה לרעי מרחוק
> > you know my settling down and my rising up,
> > it is built up for my feeding from a distance.
> [sic]
>
> Once again, a poor reading, chosing the wrong verb. The context
> is on God's knowing our thoughts, deeds, words. God knows all.
> There is no feminine subject, but -tah is a good BH form for
> 'you understood/understand' AND it fits the context perfectly.
> And the end of verse three has another -tah form for 'you'.
> The reading, and a very tight parallel with the first half of
> the poetic line is:
> 'you know my sitting and my standing up,
>     you understand my intentions from afar
>  ...    there is no word on my tongue
>             but you, O Lord, know them [it/word] all.
>

If I agree with the concept that the verb means בין BYN to have insight,
there is another problem, namely that where בין BYN is followed by a lamed
prefix, it is used in a sense of telling, teaching, to another person. Then
it comes out “you tell it to my neighbor from afar.” That is when it is not
followed by an infinitive. Or do you know of examples where that doesn’t
hold true?

>
> > I can see where you get your understanding, but I question it,
> > yet at the same time I am not happy with how I understand it.
>
> Progress.
>
> > Neither are smooth from the Hebrew. For your [David] reading,
> > this is not the normal second person singular in a context full of normal
> > second person singular verbs.
>
> Not true. See verse three hiskantah (verb) and verse 5 kappekah (noun).
>
> So we can 'justify' the Danielic and Aramaic understanding of
> ra`yon with a cousin or two in the Hebrew Bible.
> [there is another 'thought' word in Ps 139:23   sar`apay, for those
> interested in expanding their vocab.]
>
> If you are right that this is from Aramaic, then this is evidence that at
least some Aramaicisms came in earlier than Solomon.

>
> There's probably not much more to say on this thread.
> Sufficient data is now pretty much there for all to see, to weigh,
> to learn how to learn, and to conclude.
>
> There is certainly no reason to reject the Hebrew pedigree of
> ra`yon (r.`.y.) "meditation of the heart" and to jump to an
> incorrect morphology and an unjustified r.`.`. 'bad, displeasure'.
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
>

The whole reason you are arguing this, as far as I can tell, is so you can
prove the Bible wrong that Solomon wrote Qohelet as an old and disillusioned
man, his wisdom having failed him when he turned away from God. The
authorship formula at the beginning of the book makes is clear that a king
in Jerusalem and descendent of David wrote the book, and further details
within the book point to Solomon. Somehow, those historical statements have
got to be proven false.

To me it looks as if your arguments have devolved to one word, and I
challenge your interpretation of that one word in such a way that would
invalidate your proof. Your fictive “northern dialect” use of ש prefix has
no evidence outside of your presuppositions. Your ‘Persian loan words’ have
been found in Akkadian. But instead of sitting down and considering what
these historical references can tell us about the development of the Hebrew
language, you still try to shoehorn the book to fit your model. To me, that
is backwards.

Karl W. Randolph.