Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Dear Pere:

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:

My dear friend,

 

Sure, the meaning "(slaughtering) knife" is not obvious from the context. That is why we have to rely on the form.

This noun type that begins with M with vowel sound A, namely MA, has several meanings.

Basically they have to be taken as Hiphil Participles so that the main resulting meanings of this noun type are:

Actually, from form, it is Piel, Pual or hophal participle. Those are the masculine participles that start with a Mem and lack the interior Yod.
 

1. -result of the basic concept being happening...  --------> result

2. -place where the basic concept happens --------> place

3. -tool that is used to achieve the basic concept -------> tool or means

 

Some examples:

 

1. RESULT.  Look at the 6th word in Dn 10:8  -------- vision, sight; also at M(RB, west, sunset (cf Dn 8:5); MXLH, sickness (2Ch 6:28)

2. PLACE: Look at Is 42:16, MX$K --------- dark `place; MXNH, encampment (Dt 23:10) (where people encamp, cf 1Sm 26:5)

3. TOOL/MEANS: Look at Lv 19:23, M)KL, food

 

Some nouns share two of them. And so, MXNH can be considered as the place but also as the result of encamping. That's why we cannot rely too much on a strict and cutting line between the three.

 

 

What then about our noun?

In our case (Ez 1:9) we have a sample of the last: tool.

MXLP ------> The tool that makes to PASS through something and by this it divides (something) in parts, cuts (something) in pieces... This is just the main intended normal use of a knife.

What is the meaning of XLP? Is there any place where it necessarily means “to pass through”? Or is the meaning more along the line of exchanging position where it refers to location?

The other uses seem to refer to change and exchange, not passing through.

 

But I say it again: the vowel of the initial M is A (and not E, shewa, or others). (I stress this because you do not trust on masoretic points)

The more I read, the more I question the correctness of the Masoretic points.

No, I never have claimed that they invented the tradition preserved in the points, but rather that the tradition became corrupted over centuries of Aramaic native speaking and even a complete changing the understanding of Hebrew grammar centuries before the Masoretes. This would not have been a deliberate changing of the tradition, rather as generations of rabbis read the text, there would be a little bit here and a tad there that were adjusted to fit both the Aramaic milieu and the changed understanding of Hebrew grammar, until many points no longer reflected Biblical pronunciation nor understanding. So by the time the Masoretes invented their points to preserve the tradition, unfortunately that tradition was corrupted.

Fortunately, for our understanding, vocabulary is over 90% of understanding, grammar can be large wrong, but we’ll be forced to a correct understanding in spite of that incorrect grammar because of vocabulary and context.

So back to the word in question, in that I see no example that is has a meaning of passing through, but all the examples I see indicate that it refers to changing or exchanging. That’s why I suspect that the word would be more accurately translated referring to priestly robes than slaughtering knives.

But I could be overlooking something, so is there any example where passing through is a necessary understanding of the word?
 

Is this enough for you?

 

Hearty greetings from Barcelona.

 

Pere Porta

Karl W. Randolph.