Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

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.
Jemoh66
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by Jemoh66 »

Jason Hare wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:06 pm Have you read the second chapter of the Exodus? There are a lot of textual issues in that little chapter (of 25 verses).

The first odd thing is the fact that the names of the characters are lacking from 2:1 and don't appear in the text until 6:20.

2:1 — וַיֵּ֥לֶךְ‬ אִ֖ישׁ מִבֵּ֣ית לֵוִ֑י וַיִּקַּ֖ח ‬אֶת‬־בַּת‬־לֵוִֽי׃

6:20 — וַיִּקַּ֨ח עַמְרָ֜ם אֶת־יֹוכֶ֤בֶד דֹּֽדָתֹו֙ לֹ֣ו לְאִשָּׁ֔ה וַתֵּ֣לֶד לֹ֔ו אֶֽת־אַהֲרֹ֖ן וְאֶת־מֹשֶׁ֑ה‬ וּשְׁנֵי֙ חַיֵּ֣י עַמְרָ֔ם שֶׁ֧בַע‬ וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֛ים וּמְאַ֖ת שָׁנָֽה׃

Why wouldn't the names of the characters be introduced as soon as the story begins as part of the background information? What could the motivation be for delaying to inform the reader of the names of the parents of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. (By the way, both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint add Miriam to 6:20, while the Masoretic Text doesn't include her.) Along these lines, it's also odd that Yocheved is called simply בַּת־לֵוִי "the daughter of Levi," as if she were his direct daughter and his only one. Levi was some 350 years before her birth, so we are given to understand this as "a descendent of Levi," but it's written as if it were definite: "the daughter of Levi."

Also, the Septuagint changes דּוֹדָתוֹ "his aunt" to θυγατέρα τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ "his father's brother's daughter" (his cousin).

The whole "she saw him that he was good" in verse 2 brings to mind the creation of the world, where God "saw that it was good" on several occasions.

I'm not sure why we see הַצְּפִינוֹ instead of הַצְפִּינוֹ in verse 3. It's as if the dagesh has simply been placed in the wrong letter!

In verse 4, וַתֵּתַצַּב has apparently been written instead of וַתִּתְיַצַּב.

Verse 5 ends without a sof pasuk in the Leningrad Codex. Odd.

Verse 6 is all kinds of weird. It literally says: "and she opened, and she saw him the boy, and behold a youth crying." Normally, if there is also an explicit object, then אֵת is read as "with." So, "she saw him with the boy." That doesn't make sense, either. And why did the baby suddenly become a youth (נַ֫עַר)?

This is just the beginning of the odd features of Exodus chapter 2. I've never really taken note of its strangeness in the past, just reading through it quickly.

Any comments?
I've often said that when we find these kinds of deviations from the MT, we are seeing an early pre-Targumic interpolation or expansion.
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
kwrandolph
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by kwrandolph »

ducky wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:52 pm Hi Karl,

I saw before that you said that the root is נצב...
Not that it matters, but I wanted to ask you why do you call it נצב and not יצב?
Because of the form it has in the consonantal text. Further, the meaning of the verb fits the action indicated.
ducky wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:52 pmAfter all, when we look at the verbs, in Hitpael, when this first root-letter letter is exposed, there is only התיצב but never התנצב.
Do you have any examples of a I-נ verb in the hitpael binyan, third person singular female Yiqtol conjugation that has that form?
ducky wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:52 pmAnd now that I see your comment about this תתצב is hitpael, then this question comes to me even harder. Because every hitpael in the bible uses יצב as its root.
Jason Hare wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 7:59 pm Hence, my question about which stem is in question. There are no examples of נצב in the hitpael in the Bible. It appears in the niphal (51 times), hiphil (21 times), and hufal (2 times).
This just illustrates what I wrote above, that those who live in Israel and speak and write modern Israeli Hebrew better than Biblical Hebrew, tend to be more formulaic in their understanding of Biblical Hebrew. You start out with the presupposition that נצב is never found in the Hitpael binyan, then come to the conclusion that this example can’t be נצב in Hitpael binyan. Yet the form, meaning and context of the verb in the consonantal text is consistent with the Hitpael understanding.

Karl W. Randolph.
Jemoh66
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by Jemoh66 »

kwrandolph wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:10 pm
Jason Hare wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:06 pm Have you read the second chapter of the Exodus? There are a lot of textual issues in that little chapter (of 25 verses).

The first odd thing is the fact that the names of the characters are lacking from 2:1 and don't appear in the text until 6:20.

2:1 — וַיֵּ֥לֶךְ אִ֖ישׁ מִבֵּ֣ית לֵוִ֑י וַיִּקַּ֖ח אֶת־בַּת־לֵוִֽי׃

Why wouldn't the names of the characters be introduced as soon as the story begins as part of the background information?
Moses apparently thought the names were unimportant in this place in the narrative, especially since he named them later.
To Jason I would say it's not odd at all. Early omissions by the story teller in a narrative are a common text linguistic level method that helps create intrigue and keeps the audience directed towards the narrator's desired emphasis/effect. The audience doesn't have time to stop and consider the omission. Filmmakers do this all the time.

To Karl I would say, whether the author chooses to bring that information in later is irrelevant. Bringing details to light later in the narrative might be a way to surprise the audience. It doesn't seem so in this case.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:10 pm
Jason Hare wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:06 pmAlong these lines, it's also odd that Yocheved is called simply בַּת־לֵוִי "the daughter of Levi," as if she were his direct daughter and his only one. Levi was some 350 years before her birth, so we are given to understand this as "a descendent of Levi," but it's written as if it were definite: "the daughter of Levi."
The word את is a direct object indicator, not a definite article.

Calling her “a daughter of Levi” is consistent with the practice of calling the people of Israel “sons of Israel” many generations after Israel died.
If the accusative marker את is being used here then the object is definite. Indefinite objects do not take the accusative marker, correct if I'm wrong. Moreover, the construct here makes bat definite. So this is definitely saying Levi's daughter, not a daughter to Levi.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:10 pm
Jason Hare wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:06 pmI'm not sure why we see הַצְּפִינוֹ instead of הַצְפִּינוֹ in verse 3. It's as if the dagesh has simply been placed in the wrong letter!
I won’t argue about those crazy dots that are often wrong, even for meaning.
This seems consistent with the Biblical Hebrew aversion for consonant clusters (at minimum the Tiberian aversion). The native speaker geminizes the tsade to avoid the cluster, so we get hats/tse/phi/no (I don't have an IPA keyboard on my iPad).
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:10 pm
Jason Hare wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:06 pmVerse 6 is all kinds of weird. It literally says: "and she opened, and she saw him the boy, and behold a youth crying." Normally, if there is also an explicit object, then אֵת is read as "with." So, "she saw him with the boy." That doesn't make sense, either.
“and she opened and saw him, the boy, and behold a crying boy…”
Jason Hare wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:06 pmAnd why did the baby suddenly become a youth (נַ֫עַר)?
Because a boy, even as an infant, is already a “youth”.
The coupling of yeled and na'ar is a ubiquitous Messianic tell in rabbinic interpretation. Isaiah's prophecy plays on this.
Isaiah 9:6
כִּי־יֶ֣לֶד יֻלַּד־לָ֗נוּ
Isaiah 7:16
כִּ֠י בְּטֶ֨רֶם יֵדַ֥ע הַנַּ֛עַר
If the prophets were looking for a prophet like unto Moses, they would have made the Messiah/Moses connection with the yeled/na'ar hint.
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
Jason Hare
Posts: 917
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by Jason Hare »

Jemoh66 wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:18 am To Jason I would say it's not odd at all.
Sometimes I use the word "odd" (and similar terms) to mean that something strikes my fancy or simply jumps out at me. I realize that there are explanations for such things, but if we are looking only at the context, it is "odd" in that it cries out to be explained, to have a justification brought to bear. That's really what I meant by it.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
kwrandolph
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by kwrandolph »

Jemoh66 wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:18 am
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:10 pm
Jason Hare wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:06 pmAlong these lines, it's also odd that Yocheved is called simply בַּת־לֵוִי "the daughter of Levi," as if she were his direct daughter and his only one. Levi was some 350 years before her birth, so we are given to understand this as "a descendent of Levi," but it's written as if it were definite: "the daughter of Levi."
The word את is a direct object indicator, not a definite article.

Calling her “a daughter of Levi” is consistent with the practice of calling the people of Israel “sons of Israel” many generations after Israel died.
If the accusative marker את is being used here then the object is definite. Indefinite objects do not take the accusative marker, correct if I'm wrong. Moreover, the construct here makes bat definite. So this is definitely saying Levi's daughter, not a daughter to Levi.
I did a quick look-up of the phrase “your brother’s ox” “את שור” where the subject talks about finding a stray that belongs to a brother (fellow Israelite), and there the accusative marker את is used in a way that can be translated as “an ox of a brother of yours” where both “ox” and “brother” are indefinite. Deuteronomy 22:1, 4. Again in 1 Samuel 12:3 Samuel asks “Whose ox…” where both the ox and owner are indefinite.

The form is indefinite, “a daughter of Levi” which could be a great-great-grandaughter, generations separated from her ancestor.

Karl W. Randolph.
Jason Hare
Posts: 917
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:42 am I did a quick look-up of the phrase “your brother’s ox” “את שור” where the subject talks about finding a stray that belongs to a brother (fellow Israelite), and there the accusative marker את is used in a way that can be translated as “an ox of a brother of yours” where both “ox” and “brother” are indefinite. Deuteronomy 22:1, 4. Again in 1 Samuel 12:3 Samuel asks “Whose ox…” where both the ox and owner are indefinite.

The form is indefinite, “a daughter of Levi” which could be a great-great-grandaughter, generations separated from her ancestor.

Karl W. Randolph.
It is not את שור. It's את שור אחיך. Since אחיך is definite by virtue of the possessive suffix (it means "the ox of your brother"), the entire string (שור אחיך) is definite and takes את as a direct object. Definiteness in Hebrew is not dependent on English translation. Definiteness works differently between languages, and this phrase is certainly definite in Hebrew, as is בת לוי — because לוי is a proper name and definite by nature, and בת is in construct with it.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Jason Hare
Posts: 917
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by Jason Hare »

The expression מזמור לדוד means "a song of David." It is indefinite, using the lamed of possession. If it were מזמור דוד, it would be "David's song" or "the song of David." It would be definite. That's one of the ways in which definiteness works in Hebrew.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1677
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by Isaac Fried »

ducky writes
Another thing to add...
When it is said ותראהו את הילד...
One can say that the Suffix letter ו=w of ותראהו doesn't fit and so it should be fixed to ותראה את הילד - As it is seen in DSS.
But that would be wrong too, Because if the verb really came without a pronoun suffix, then the form would not be ותראה...
It would be ותרא (without the last letter H).
So the form of ותראהו actually had two letters more than the ותרא - and so we cannot say that it is some sort of "typo" of one letter.
Because the H supports the W, and the W supports the H - making the ותראהו the right word in this place.
And DSS, IMO, just dropped the suffix W to cancel one of the two object-references - and left it ותראה - a not expected form to use, and by that giving another support that the form that they saw was as MT's one.
I don't know what "Because the H supports the W, and the W supports the H" means, also why "the Suffix letter ו=w of ותראהו doesn't fit", but I know that
וַתִּרְאֵהוּ = and she saw him.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
ducky
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by ducky »

Hi Karl,
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 11:35 pm
ducky wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:52 pm Hi Karl,

I saw before that you said that the root is נצב...
Not that it matters, but I wanted to ask you why do you call it נצב and not יצב?
Because of the form It has in the consonantal text. Further, the meaning of the verb fits the action indicated.
The form does not fit the hitpael form, so I don't know what you mean.

About the meaning... It is not relevant to your "choice" because the meaning of יצב fits as well. So it is not a factor for your decision of נצב over יצב.

In "hitpael" the first letter is seen:
hiTPaEl - hitQaTeL - hitNaTSeV (התנצב)
The N of נצב should be seen.
The N usually "disappears" when it is with a Qquiescent Sheva, but in this form of "hitPael, the first letter of the root is with a vowel.

In this case, the N of נצב is in the position of the P in hitPael (or the Q in hitQatel) and it should be seen.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 11:35 pm
ducky wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:52 pmAfter all, when we look at the verbs, in Hitpael, when this first root-letter is exposed, there is only התיצב but never התנצב.
Do you have any examples of a I-נ verb in the hitpael binyan, third-person singular female Yiqtol conjugation that has that form?
Yes.
תתנשא in Ezekiel 29:15.
תתנקם in Jer. 5:9 (same verse also in 5:29 and in 9:8).

And you don't need to look for the exact "third-person singular female Yiqtol".
The form can be seen in any gender, numbers, person, and so on...

So you can check also the roots with N as their first letter in Hitpael in a lot of forms, and you can see that the letter N is seen in this form.
Here are some other roots.
נבא נגח נגף נדב נהל נוד נוס נחל נחם נכל נכר נסס נער נפל נקש

All of these roots have a Hitpael form and the letter N is seen.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 11:35 pm
ducky wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:52 pmAnd now that I see your comment about this תתצב is hitpael, then this question comes to me even harder. Because every hitpael in the bible uses יצב as its root.
Jason Hare wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 7:59 pm Hence, my question about which stem is in question. There are no examples of נצב in the hitpael in the Bible. It appears in the niphal (51 times), hiphil (21 times), and hufal (2 times).
This just illustrates what I wrote above, that those who live in Israel and speak and write modern Israeli Hebrew better than Biblical Hebrew, tend to be more formulaic in their understanding of Biblical Hebrew. You start out with the presupposition that נצב is never found in the Hitpael binyan, then come to the conclusion that this example can’t be נצב in Hitpael binyan. Yet the form, meaning, and context of the verb in the consonantal text is consistent with the Hitpael understanding.
I don't know why you do that every time, it is like you think that if you say a general comment about Modern Hebrew speakers or some study methods, it would make your argument better. Especially in this case, when it is you that failed to see the Hitapel form as it is. So Let's just focus on the subject itself.

*
So I wrote above about the hitpael form, and I gave you your examples of how a 1N root acts in hitpael form.

It doesn't fit the way you thought hitpael is.

For the N to disappear, it should be with Qquiescent Sheva.
But in Hitpael, the first root-letter (N) is with a vowel.

***********

About the root...
Just a thing to say with no intention to argue about it.

I don't think we should see the root נצב In the verbs at all.
I mean, I tend to see יצב as the root of Niphal Hiphil and so on.

the נצב/יצב is two expansions of the same seed צב and some languages have this and some have that, and some both.

But when I look at the Hebrew, and see the usage of verb התיצב with Y (many times) and not once התנצב, I have to guess that the Hebrew speakers at that time didn't even have the N in their mind when they pronounced this root in a verb.

Some can agree some not, it really doesn't change anything here.
Last edited by ducky on Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
David Hunter
ducky
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by ducky »

Hi Isaac,
Isaac Fried wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:27 pm ducky writes
Another thing to add...
When it is said ותראהו את הילד...
One can say that the Suffix letter ו=w of ותראהו doesn't fit and so it should be fixed to ותראה את הילד - As it is seen in DSS.
But that would be wrong too, Because if the verb really came without a pronoun suffix, then the form would not be ותראה...
It would be ותרא (without the last letter H).
So the form of ותראהו actually had two letters more than the ותרא - and so we cannot say that it is some sort of "typo" of one letter.
Because the H supports the W, and the W supports the H - making the ותראהו the right word in this place.
And DSS, IMO, just dropped the suffix W to cancel one of the two object-references - and left it ותראה - a not expected form to use, and by that giving another support that the form that they saw was as MT's one.
I don't know what "Because the H supports the W, and the W supports the H" means, also why "the Suffix letter ו=w of ותראהו doesn't fit", but I know that
וַתִּרְאֵהוּ = and she saw him.

About the "H supports the W, and the W supports the H"...
Check Jason's reply to this, He repeated my words in a better way than mine.

**

About ותראהו=and she saw him...

You are right.
I don't know if you read all of the posts here, but the case was of a double object.

it is said ותראהו את הילד
and so, if ותראהו already means "and she saw him"
why there is a need to write את הילד?

the expectation is to write ותראהו alone
or: ותרא(ה) את הילד

It is like saying: "and she saw him the child"
David Hunter
Post Reply