Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
The ktiv reads לוֹ in 1 Samuel 2:16 above (marked in red). The MT indicates that this is ktiv-kri, and the word should be read as לֹא. The priest would tell people that if they didn’t give them the meat uncooked before it had been burnt on the altar, then he would take it by force. The word is a refusal of the supplicant’s offer. “The man said to him, ‘They will burn the fat by day, then take for yourself as your soul desires.’ And he would say, ‘NO! But you will give it now, and if not, then I’ll take it by force!’” How can you not read לֹא rather than לוֹ?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel The Hebrew Café עִ֣יר פְּ֭רוּצָה אֵ֣ין חוֹמָ֑ה אִ֝֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֵ֖ין מַעְצָ֣ר לְרוּחֽוֹ׃
ספר משלי כ״ה, כ״ח
cvkimball wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 6:25 am
A inverted qere (ל֣וֹ) / ketiv (לא) sequence occurs in Isaiah 63:9.
Chris Kimball
West Redding, CT
USA
Interestingly, where my quote was taken from, we have a verse further up in the chapter that has לֹא instead of לוֹ (verse 3), as as if they had been inverted.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel The Hebrew Café עִ֣יר פְּ֭רוּצָה אֵ֣ין חוֹמָ֑ה אִ֝֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֵ֖ין מַעְצָ֣ר לְרוּחֽוֹ׃
ספר משלי כ״ה, כ״ח
In each of these cases (3+) a listener would not know the difference between the qere/ketiv forms on the basis of the word sound alone. That is, a listener needs the entire verse context to understand what is being said.
The phrasing of the verse through accents might provide the listener with a basis for distinction between the two forms. The existing accents are for the qere by Masoretic design. Would the accents be compatible if the word was from the ketiv rather qere, or would the whole verse need to be pointed differently?
The phrase וְאָמַ֥ר ‖ [לֹא֙] (לו) (1S 2:16) also reminds me of four other places where we have an אמר rooted-word separated from לא by a paseq (not a legarmeih), meaning some form of «said "no"»:
Gen 18:15 וַיֹּ֥אמֶֽר ‖ לֹ֖א
Jud 12:5 וַיֹּ֥אמֶֽר ‖ לֹֽא׃
1K 2:30 וַיֹּ֥אמֶֽר ‖ לֹ֖א
1K 11:22 וַיֹּ֣אמֶֽר ‖ לֹ֔א
(BTW, in MAM, we have only recently added that interesting gaʿya on mem in Gen 18:15; all 3 other cases already had it. This gaʿya (or its lack) in various manuscripts is covered in MAM's documentation for this verse.)
The ktiv reads לוֹ in 1 Samuel 2:16 above (marked in red). The MT indicates that this is ktiv-kri, and the word should be read as לֹא. The priest would tell people that if they didn’t give them the meat uncooked before it had been burnt on the altar, then he would take it by force. The word is a refusal of the supplicant’s offer. “The man said to him, ‘They will burn the fat by day, then take for yourself as your soul desires.’ And he would say, ‘NO! But you will give it now, and if not, then I’ll take it by force!’” How can you not read לֹא rather than לוֹ?
Easy. First because it’s written לו. Secondly לו makes perfect sense in the context. Thirdly, לו is perfectly good Hebrew syntax. There’s no need to change the text.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 10:45 pmEasy. First because it’s written לו. Secondly לו makes perfect sense in the context. Thirdly, לו is perfectly good Hebrew syntax. There’s no need to change the text.
Never mind. I forget who I’m dealing with here and the handwaving tactics that he uses rather than actually reading a text, which he isn’t really able to read. Please, forget that I asked. You cannot just say that it is good with לוֹ when the text obviously means לֹא “No!” and not לוֹ “to him.”
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel The Hebrew Café עִ֣יר פְּ֭רוּצָה אֵ֣ין חוֹמָ֑ה אִ֝֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֵ֖ין מַעְצָ֣ר לְרוּחֽוֹ׃
ספר משלי כ״ה, כ״ח
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 10:45 pmEasy. First because it’s written לו. Secondly לו makes perfect sense in the context. Thirdly, לו is perfectly good Hebrew syntax. There’s no need to change the text.
Never mind. I forget who I’m dealing with here and the handwaving tactics that he uses rather than actually reading a text, which he isn’t really able to read. Please, forget that I asked. You cannot just say that it is good with לוֹ when the text obviously means לֹא “No!” and not לוֹ “to him.”
