Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Christoph didn't answer today so let me add a note or two.
>
> >Christoph:
>
> >*> Dear Karl,**
> *>>* if I understand you correctly, you seem to translate Judges 6,29 with
> *>*> something like: "Who is a (typical) doer of this thing ?"
> *>*
> *> Not at all. Genesis 19:13 is another example of a participle used to
> refer
> > to a one time event. The use of a participle does not mean an
> imperfective
> > aspect to the action.
>
> Karl, it would help if you give single examples spelled out. Reference-only
> is
> good when there is an appropriate list that is already clarified through
> cited examples.


I assume that the members of this list can read Hebrew and see for
themselves if the citation I make fits what I have to say. “Clarification”
can easily be used as a synonym for “obfuscation”, so I expect people to
think for themselves.


> However here,
> Gen 19.13 is not a very good example for your claims. It would help if you
> can separate the "presentation of an event" from the event itself. In this
> case
> mashHitim anaHnu et ha-maqom ha-ze
>  משחיתים אנחנו את המקום הזה
> refers to an event that is technically in the future
> but is presented as 'connected' or 'immediately contingent'
> to the present ('we are destroying this place' => 'we are about to destroy
> this place'). That is exactly one of the functions of imperfectivity.
> More importantly, it is not the character of the speakers that is in
> focus, not that 'they are destroyers', rather it is the warning that they
> are about to perform what they do right then and there.
>

This sounds exactly like the theological practice of eisegesis: in theology
the doctrine has already been chosen, then the meaning is read into the text
to try to justify the doctrine; so it looks as if we are dealing with a
pre-chosen grammar, then reading into the text as to why future should not
be considered future.

The participle in Isaiah 7:14 refers to an action centuries in the future,
another one time event.

>
> ...
>
> >>* For that type of expression - within the literary genre of colloquial
> *>>* conversation - the regular form is qatal, not qotel.
> *>*
> *> That’s where I disagree with you. The participle points to the actor,
> place
> > of action or event, with the action being secondary. The people were
> looking
> > for the who, not about the what happened. Hence the participle, not
> Qatal.
> > The Qatal points to the what happened, which was known.
>
> Yes, participles may sometimes refer to a person (actor) in order to
> present the character of the person.
> E.g. Gen 4 wayehi Qayin ro`e tson 'and Qayin was a 'shepherding', which
> focuses on what Qayin typically did and not to what he was doing at a
> particular moment. Participles also refer to what is happening at a
> particular
> moment of time.
> Gen 18.2 ve-hinne shlosha anashim nitsabim `alav
> and look, three people are standing in front of him"
> they are not being described as "standers" but as to what they are doing.
>

You are confusing translation with what the form refers to in Biblical
Hebrew language. English does not have a form that corresponds to the
meaning indicated by the Biblical Hebrew participle, so we translate it in
forms that fit English, but that is not exact to what the Hebrew means.
There is not a one to one correspondence.


> 2Sam 12:19
> ‏וַיַּ֣רְא דָּוִ֗ד כִּ֤י עֲבָדָיו֙ מִֽתְלַחֲשִׁ֔ים
> and David saw that his servants were whispering
> the participle does not point to the character of the people but to
> something that was going on at that very moment. They were not
> "whisperers" but "whispering".
>

See above.

>
> contrary to the above and the many other examples of participles,
> Jud 6:29 does not focus on the character of the person, or on
> what the person was doing at that moment.
>

It focusses on the identity, who was the one who did it? The above paragraph
is a red-herring argument in that it seeks to go off on a different tangent
than why I say it appears to me to be a participle.


> If the writer had written
> מי עושה את הדבר הזה ?
> 'who does such a thing, who is a doer of such a thing?'
> then the focus would have been on the character, just like participles
> regularly do. But you do not read it that way, and rightly so.
> Because the focus was on the identity of 'who did it', as you rightly
> agree, the qatal is naturally used.
>

What I question is your “qatal is naturally used.”


> We have bunches of examples of mi 'who' used to ask the identity of
> someone. Gen 3:11 mi higgid lexa 'who told you' was cited in a
> previous post and is an excellent example. The Lord wanted to find
> out who had been misleading his people so that punishment could be
> inflicted,


Look at the context! The emphasis is not on the who but on the action, that
they should not have known this true situation. This was not misleading to
let them know they were naked.


> quite similar to human situation of Jud 6.29. The focus
> was on "who", and a qatal was used. That is excellent BH.
>

Notice, I disagree.

>
>
> >* I have been reading Tanakh through using an unpointed text for well over
> a
> *decade, probably more than ten times. >
>
> Karl, this gets old to hear, and is not evidence. It actually impedes
> discussion
> because when someone needs to point out the mistakes the issues become
> a personal
> affront to what shouldn't have been an issue in the first place.


It is not personal, unless you make it personal.

The reason I brought up the personal experience is to give background to the
question. That’s all. If you can prove that the way I have unconsciously
come to read the text is wrong, then show it. Of course, I’m playing a bit
of devil’s advocate here as well.

Of course, we cannot trust the Masoretic points always to give the correct
meanings.


> Simply for
> the sake of discussion, what would it mean if someone were mis-read the
> tanax
> ten times? Maybe we can dispense with this kind of 'claim to
> authority'. I don't
> parade a 100-times experience or degrees because they are irrelevant. Just
> go
> back to Jud 6:29 and ask:
>
> How would someone in BH days read
>  mi `asa et ha-davar ha-ze
> and
> mi `ose et ha-davr ha-ze ?


> They could both be used in that very context but would communicate
> different things.
> The qotel would focus on 'character' ('actor' as you say it) and the
> qatal would identify a specific deed in reference,
> something that is regularly done in BH
> and something naturally read in this verse by people who are accustomed
> to reading unpointed Hebrew.
>
> מי הגיד לך כי הכתב כתב עושה
> ?
>

To start out, this sentence feels weird, like what a student would write in
first year Hebrew.

Secondly, the form עושה according to a quick electronic search is found only
three times in Tanakh, but עשה as a participle is found far more often. One
needs to keep context in mind when reading the text.

>
> The natural flow in BH is qatal.
>

Is it? The reason I ask is because the natural flow in BH seems to be
participle in this context. Keep in mind context.


> In fact, in places like Gen 43.22 שם 'placed' the
> Hebrew morphology is ambiguous between qatal and qotel, but I would
> imagine that most experienced persons in the BH language community
> have always read this as qatal. The LXX people did ενεβαλεν, so did
> the targum pael שוי
> etc.


The context here focusses on the action, the who was unimportant. You need
to keep context in mind.


> This is a very long tradition of use and by people who were
> more fluent and more surrounded by the BH text itself than anyone
> today, so their statement has at least some evidentiary weight.
>

Yes, some evidentiary weight, but to be balanced against the fact that the
reason for the LXX and Targums was that Hebrew was being forgotten, even by
the translators. Which brings up the question, since Aramaic was the spoken
language on the street from the time of the return under Cyrus, how much of
Tanakh did these translators read according to Aramaic patterns rather than
Biblical Hebrew?

>
> --
>
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>

I am doing a bit of devil’s advocacy here, but so far see nothing from you
that indicates that there’s a “killer app” to disprove the devil’s
advocacy.

Karl W. Randolph.