For Karl: Perfection of the Consonantal Text and Use of Kri–Ktiv

[Jason Hare]

Karl,

Not wanting to start an argument, but only wanting to get your opinion, I ask the following question(s). I won’t argue back any opinion in this thread, though I might ask for clarification of whatever answer you choose to give.

Essentially, I understand your position to be one of inerrancy with regard to the Hebrew text (probably also the Greek text of the New Testament, though we have never engaged in any discussion relating to the New Testament and its transmission). I’m curious how you relate to the קרי־כתיב kri–ktiv system as it appears in the Masoretic Bible.

Last week, I led a student through the first chapter of Ruth in Hebrew. We read that chapter three times in one sitting—a quick read through, an address of the grammar and translation of each verse one-by-one, and then another quick read through. There is one mistake in the consonantal text in verse 14, where it reads ותשנה instead of ותשאנה (as seen in verse 9). Here are the texts:

Ruth 1:9b: ותשק להן ותשאנה קולן ותבכינה
Ruth 1:14: ותשנה קולן ותבכינה עוד ותשק ערפה לחמותה ורות דבקה בה

The phrase in red is identical, though another word (עוד) is added to the phrase in the second instance to indicate that they cried again or more than they had the first time. The point is that the word in question should be spelled with an alef without a doubt, since it is the verb נשׂא. Without that alef, it should technically be read as a different word (perhaps “she changed,” or “she repeated” from the root שׁנה, either as piel or as qal).

Question 1: Do you read this as a spelling (orthographical) error in the consonantal text?

Question 2: If so, do you think that there are other orthographical errors in the text as we have received it?

Question 3: What do you make generally of the use of the kri–ktiv system to correct what seem to be problems in the text?

Thank you.

[kwrandolph]

Karl,

Not wanting to start an argument, but only wanting to get your opinion, I ask the following question(s). I won’t argue back any opinion in this thread, though I might ask for clarification of whatever answer you choose to give.

Essentially, I understand your position to be one of inerrancy with regard to the Hebrew text (probably also the Greek text of the New Testament, though we have never engaged in any discussion relating to the New Testament and its transmission). I’m curious how you relate to the קרי־כתיב kri–ktiv system as it appears in the Masoretic Bible.

Last week, I led a student through the first chapter of Ruth in Hebrew. We read that chapter three times in one sitting—a quick read through, an address of the grammar and translation of each verse one-by-one, and then another quick read through. There is one mistake in the consonantal text in verse 14, where it reads ותשנה instead of ותשאנה (as seen in verse 9). Here are the texts:

Ruth 1:9b: ותשק להן ותשאנה קולן ותבכינה
Ruth 1:14: ותשנה קולן ותבכינה עוד ותשק ערפה לחמותה ורות דבקה בה

The phrase in red is identical, though another word (עוד) is added to the phrase in the second instance to indicate that they cried again or more than they had the first time. The point is that the word in question should be spelled with an alef without a doubt, since it is the verb נשׂא. Without that alef, it should technically be read as a different word (perhaps “she changed,” or “she repeated” from the root שׁנה, either as piel or as qal).

Question 1: Do you read this as a spelling (orthographical) error in the consonantal text?

Question 2: If so, do you think that there are other orthographical errors in the text as we have received it?

Question 3: What do you make generally of the use of the kri–ktiv system to correct what seem to be problems in the text?

Thank you.

Questions to send back to you:

Are the two readings in red identical?

Does the second one actually read “They repeated their voices and cried again” where the word עוד is used in the sense of “again”?

I don’t claim that Leningradensis is without error in its consonantal text. But that most of the corrections should come from extant MMS and linguistic analysis. An example is Psalm 22:17–18, where the Nahal Hever scrap indicates two corrections in the Leningradensis text, corrections also backed up by linguistic analysis.

When it comes to the Ketiv-Qere, I find that the majority of the Ketiv make better readings than the Qere.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Questions to send back to you:

Are the two readings in red identical?

Does the second one actually read “They repeated their voices and cried again” where the word עוד is used in the sense of “again”?

Yes, the phrases in Hebrew are identical. The addition of עוֹד is like “more.” “They lifted up their voice(s) and cried (more).” I don’t think that “they lifted” becomes “they repeated.” No one says in natural English (or Hebrew) that someone repeats their voice.

I don’t claim that Leningradensis is without error in its consonantal text. But that most of the corrections should come from extant MMS and linguistic analysis. An example is Psalm 22:17–18, where the Nahal Hever scrap indicates two corrections in the Leningradensis text, corrections also backed up by linguistic analysis.

Are you aware of any texts that correct this by adding an alef to the word? As far as text criticism is concerned, doesn’t it seem less likely that corrected texts are more original? I mean, I could go through and correct all kinds of spots, but that wouldn’t make it more original or better.

When it comes to the Ketiv-Qere, I find that the majority of the Ketiv make better readings than the Qere.

What about this specific verse?

Thanks,
Jason

[kwrandolph]

Questions to send back to you:

Are the two readings in red identical?

Does the second one actually read “They repeated their voices and cried again” where the word עוד is used in the sense of “again”?

Yes, the phrases in Hebrew are identical.

Do you have any variant readings from other MMS to back up your claim? Or is this purely a “correction” made by the Masoretes?

The addition of עוֹד is like “more.” “They lifted up their voice(s) and cried (more).” I don’t think that “they lifted” becomes “they repeated.” No one says in natural English (or Hebrew) that someone repeats their voice.

Not in English. Maybe not in modern Israeli Hebrew. But what about in Biblical Hebrew?

I don’t claim that Leningradensis is without error in its consonantal text. But that most of the corrections should come from extant MMS and linguistic analysis. An example is Psalm 22:17–18, where the Nahal Hever scrap indicates two corrections in the Leningradensis text, corrections also backed up by linguistic analysis.

Are you aware of any texts that correct this by adding an alef to the word?

Do you mean the verse in Ruth?

As far as text criticism is concerned, doesn’t it seem less likely that corrected texts are more original? I mean, I could go through and correct all kinds of spots, but that wouldn’t make it more original or better.

I’m not sure what you mean by this.

When it comes to the Ketiv-Qere, I find that the majority of the Ketiv make better readings than the Qere.

What about this specific verse?

Do you mean the verse in Ruth?

Thanks,
Jason

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

The addition of עוֹד is like “more.” “They lifted up their voice(s) and cried (more).” I don’t think that “they lifted” becomes “they repeated.” No one says in natural English (or Hebrew) that someone repeats their voice.

Not in English. Maybe not in modern Israeli Hebrew. But what about in Biblical Hebrew?

“More” is not a Hebrew word. I’m talking about how you rendered it in English.

Are you aware of any texts that correct this by adding an alef to the word?

Do you mean the verse in Ruth?

Yes, I’m asking if there are any manuscripts that correct ותשנה to ותשאנה in this specific verse.

When it comes to the Ketiv-Qere, I find that the majority of the Ketiv make better readings than the Qere.

What about this specific verse?

Do you mean the verse in Ruth?

Is there a reason you keep asking this? I think it’s clear that I’m asking about “this specific verse,” the one that I asked about in the opening of the thread.

[kwrandolph]

The addition of עוֹד is like “more.” “They lifted up their voice(s) and cried (more).” I don’t think that “they lifted” becomes “they repeated.” No one says in natural English (or Hebrew) that someone repeats their voice.

Not in English. Maybe not in modern Israeli Hebrew. But what about in Biblical Hebrew?

“More” is not a Hebrew word. I’m talking about how you rendered it in English.

Translations are not evidence, not even my own. Because of the differences between Biblical Hebrew and English, even I will paraphrase to try to make smooth English, not an exact translation.

Are you aware of any texts that correct this by adding an alef to the word?

Do you mean the verse in Ruth?

Yes, I’m asking if there are any manuscripts that correct ותשנה to ותשאנה in this specific verse.

There is no manuscript of which I know that makes such a “correction”, nor is any needed, as the verse makes perfectly good sense referring to a second time of crying.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

There is no manuscript of which I know that makes such a “correction”, nor is any needed, as the verse makes perfectly good sense referring to a second time of crying.

The root שנה is related to change. The form ותשנה would mean “and she changed” or “and you (ms.) changed” (וַתְּשַׁנֶּה). In the qal, it might mean “and you/she repeated” (וַתִּשְׁנֶה). It is certainly different from the feminine plural form of that root (ותשנינה), whether it is in the qal (וַתִּשְׁנֶ֫ינָה) or the piel (וַתְּשַׁנֶּ֫ינָה). It’s also different from the feminine plural form of the root נשא, which is ותשאנה‎ (וַתִּשֶּׂ֫אנָה). You really don’t recognize this as a spelling mistake? I think everyone will agree that the form is supposed to be וַתִּשֶּׂ֫אנָה, not perhaps וַתִּשֶּׂ֫נָה. The aleph is part of the root and should be there. Its omission creates a form that means something else.

[Jason Hare]

So, we’ve really cut into the book of Genesis (סֵ֫פֶר בְּרֵאשִׁית) already this year in our Greek & Hebrew One-Year Bible Reading Group on Facebook. Doing three chapters per day (except for today, on which we read two), we have reached chapter 25—the halfway point through the book.

In Genesis 20:6, which was in our schedule two days ago, we read the following:

וַיֹּאמֶר֩ אֵלָ֨יו הָֽאֱלֹהִ֜ים בַּחֲלֹ֗ם גַּ֣ם אָנֹכִ֤י יָדַ֙עְתִּי֙ כִּ֤י בְתָם־לְבָבְךָ֙ עָשִׂ֣יתָ זֹּ֔את וָאֶחְשֹׂ֧ךְ גַּם־אָנֹכִ֛י אֽוֹתְךָ֖ מֵחֲטוֹ־לִ֑י עַל־כֵּ֥ן לֹא־נְתַתִּ֖יךָ לִנְגֹּ֥עַ אֵלֶֽיהָ׃

Specifically, notice the use of מֵחֲטוֹ instead of מֵחֲטֹא for “from sinning” (root חט״א). This verb appears in the infinitive construct twelve times in the Bible (BibleGateway). Only in this one instance does it lack the aleph. Do you consider this a spelling mistake? Would anything be considered a spelling mistake in your opinion?

[Jason Hare]

How about Genesis 25:24 as compared with 38:27?

וַיִּמְלְא֥וּ יָמֶ֖יהָ לָלֶ֑דֶת וְהִנֵּ֥ה תוֹמִ֖ם בְּבִטְנָֽהּ׃
וַיְהִ֖י בְּעֵ֣ת לִדְתָּ֑הּ וְהִנֵּ֥ה תְאוֹמִ֖ים בְּבִטְנָֽהּ׃

Is תּוֹמִם just an alternative form of תְּאוֹמִים, “twins”? Or, should we read the first as if it were the same as the second?

[kwrandolph]

There is no manuscript of which I know that makes such a “correction”, nor is any needed, as the verse makes perfectly good sense referring to a second time of crying.

The root שנה is related to change.

Nope. The meaning is related “to do over, both in the sense of doing a second time (repetition), and in the sense changing things the second time around ⇒ to change in the sense of concealment, disguise 1K 14:2” in which the idea of “change” is secondary to repeating an action.

… In the qal, it might mean “and you/she repeated” (וַתִּשְׁנֶה). It is certainly different from the feminine plural form of that root (ותשנינה), whether it is in the qal (וַתִּשְׁנֶ֫ינָה) or the piel (וַתְּשַׁנֶּ֫ינָה). It’s also different from the feminine plural form of the root נשא, which is ותשאנה‎ (וַתִּשֶּׂ֫אנָה). You really don’t recognize this as a spelling mistake? I think everyone will agree that the form is supposed to be וַתִּשֶּׂ֫אנָה, not perhaps וַתִּשֶּׂ֫נָה. The aleph is part of the root and should be there. Its omission creates a form that means something else.

Here I’m being consistent, is there manuscript evidence to back up that “correction”?

(Unfortunately, that verse is not found in the DSS.)

Karl W. Randolph.