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.
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?
Are you sure that the root is חטא and not חטט (dictionary spelling)?
Do you assume a more perfect understanding of Biblical Hebrew than do I?
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 1:17 pm
Are you sure that the root is חטא and not חטט (dictionary spelling)?
Do you assume a more perfect understanding of Biblical Hebrew than do I?
Karl W. Randolph.
It isn’t relevant whether or not I think that I know how to read and understand the Hebrew Bible better than you do. If you don’t think that מֵחֲטוֹ here means “from sinning” (that is, מֵחֲטֹא), then what do you think it means? You’re not suggesting any meanings but just giving a response without any content.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel The Hebrew Café יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 12:57 pm
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.
Being consistent with what? Can you please read through the first chapter of Ruth and tell me how you would understand the two phrases?
Being consistent in that I want to see MMS evidence for a particular reading, especially if it differs from the MMS that we have.
I have noticed a pattern, one that is not common, that a verb in singular is connected to a noun in plural. My interpretation of that pattern is that the singular verb refers to each person in the group. Is this an example of that?
We see the expression in 1 Chronicles 20:1 (לְעֵ֣ת ׀ צֵ֣את הַמְּלָכִ֗ים), which is a parallel of the 2 Samuel passage and tells the same story of Yo’av conquering Rabbah.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 1:17 pm
Are you sure that the root is חטא and not חטט (dictionary spelling)?
Do you assume a more perfect understanding of Biblical Hebrew than do I?
Karl W. Randolph.
It isn’t relevant whether or not I think that I know how to read and understand the Hebrew Bible better than you do.
Sorry, I didn’t write as clearly as I meant. This was not meant to be a comparison between you and me. I was thinking more rhetorically that you assume that Biblical Hebrew is better known than I assume to be the case. I am much more ready to ask questions because of all what seem to me to be odd readings, even apart from Kethiv/Qere pairs.
Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 2:12 pmIf you don’t think that מֵחֲטוֹ here means “from sinning” (that is, מֵחֲטֹא), then what do you think it means? You’re not suggesting any meanings but just giving a response without any content.
Does it mean “from sinning”? Or does it have a different meaning? The more I read, the more it seems that the Biblical writers and copyists were careful in their spelling. So what at first blush appears to be a missing Aleph, may actually be the sign of something else. I don’t have all the answers, so am willing to ask the questions. I also throw out questions that show that I’m wrong.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if the verb here is what’s listed in the dictionaries as חטט?
Jeremiah 26:1 has Josiah’s name spelled in the normal way (יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ), whereas the next verse spells it in a way that it isn’t spelled anywhere else in the Bible, with an added vav (יֹאושִׁיָּהוּ). Even this is not a spelling mistake in your thinking, although the name Josiah appears 53 times in the Bible, once without the final vav (יֹאשִׁיָּה) and only once with this vav inserted (יֹאושִׁיָּהוּ)? That’s not a misspelling?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel The Hebrew Café יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:32 pm
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if the verb here is what’s listed in the dictionaries as חטט?
No, it is not from חט״ט. It is from חט״א. For sure. It means that God kept Avimelech from committing sin against him by not allowing him to touch Sarah after Abraham had misled him. That’s the plain meaning of the text.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel The Hebrew Café יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
I see I’m being pushed into a caricature of my actual position.
I don’t deny that there are “typos”, i.e. copyist errors, in Tanakh. However, it is my position that they happen far less often than the Masoretes presumed. Further, I am loathe to change the consonantal text, or even read it other than as written, without variant readings found in other MSS.
Reasons for what appear to be copyist errors, but actually may not be, are:
• Hebrew didn’t have strict spelling rules, unlike English today. People wrote as they heard the words.
• There were certain common variations in spelling, most commonly in names.
• There were patterns in the Hebrew language that were not recognized by the Masoretes. Hebrew had not been spoken natively for over a thousand years, therefore those patterns had been forgotten.
• Words had changed meanings so that the Masoretes, and those who study medieval Hebrew, don’t understand the original text as written.
• There are some places where the Masoretes proposed Qere readings for only what can be understood as theological reasons.
So when I read a text, my first inclination is to read it as written. When I do so, I find that usually it makes sense. Often when I read what appears to be a copyist error, I look to the above to see if any of those apply.
• Does the text refer to something that modern readers don’t consider? For example, the זה in Ruth 2:7 refers to the action, not person, of Ruth.
• Are there theological or linguistic reasons that the text is misunderstood today?
• Are there alternate readings in other MSS? (I wish I had access to more variant readings.)
Only after the above, do I consider that I deal with a typo (copyist error).
As a result, I find that the Ketiv reading usually make better sense than do the Qere readings.
