Zechariah 4:6-7 Masoretic Mistake?

[ducky]

Hello Kenneth,

well, It is hard to assume that what you say is right (in my opinion).
Because as I said before, you need support for your reading than only to say: "It could be, who knows?"

You talk about "spirit".
"Mountain" doesn't fit the idea of "spirit".
It would be more relates to physicality.
A "mountain" may describe a strong man for example.
But it would be sound strange when it comes to represent a "spirit".

You also focus so much on this part, up to the point that you ignore what is written before and after.
When it is said before that it is not about physical strength but about the spirit of God, and then talks about a mountain that is like a plain, Then surely it comes to complete this message.
A mountain, which represents the strength, would be no obstacle to Zerubavel since "It is not about the strength at all (as it said before).
You must read it together.

[Jason Hare]

When it is said before that it is not about physical strength but about the spirit of God, and then talks about a mountain that is like a plain, Then surely it comes to complete this message.
A mountain, which represents the strength, would be no obstacle to Zerubavel since "It is not about the strength at all (as it said before).
You must read it together.

Precisely right.

[Kenneth Greifer]

David and Jason,
Of course, a mountain has nothing to do with a person's spirit or the amount of G-d's spirit in a person. It is a figurative way of speaking just like you are saying it represents "strength."
"Whoever is with the mountain" in G-d's spirit is to a plain (flat land) in G-d's spirit before Zerubbabel. Those are not actually technical ways of measuring G-d's spirit in people. Normally, you don't say he has a mountain of G-d's spirit or a plain of G-d's spirit. They are poetic, figurative, or metaphorical, or whatever ways of saying something about people that is not technically literally true.

I guess poetry is a strange convoluted way of saying simple things. You might not find another quote in the Hebrew Bible or in any other ancient book that says a similar thing because this is a poetic thing that G-d said about Zerubbabel. Why would He say it about many people? That is what poetry and prophecy is like. A lot of strange metaphors and stuff like that. It is not prose. You don't look around the Bible and find the same strange metaphor several times. It can be a one of kind use of a metaphor because that is what G-d wanted to say.

Poetry is not always common like "roses are red, violets are blue..." in English. I understand that you expect every word and word combination to appear somewhere else in the Bible or some ancient book to prove that a poem can say and mean whatever it says. Unfortunately, poetry is strange and can be unique.

I accept that you will disagree because you want to see other examples of every word and metaphor to prove that a word can be used a certain way. I don't think that is how Biblical poetry works.

[Jason Hare]

I accept that you will disagree because you want to see other examples of every word and metaphor to prove that a word can be used a certain way. I don't think that is how Biblical poetry works.

This mischaracterizes why I disagree with you. I simply don't think that you're reading it correctly when you read את as the preposition "with." There's no reason why the author would say "with the mountain" without first establishing "mountain" as a metaphor for a specific person in his prophecy. There is plenty of reason to see "mountain" being used as a metaphor for anything at all powerful that cannot stand before Zerubbabel, however.

[Schubert]

I accept that you will disagree because you want to see other examples of every word and metaphor to prove that a word can be used a certain way. I don't think that is how Biblical poetry works.

This mischaracterizes why I disagree with you. I simply don't think that you're reading it correctly when you read את as the preposition "with." There's no reason why the author would say "with the mountain" without first establishing "mountain" as a metaphor for a specific person in his prophecy. There is plenty of reason to see "mountain" being used as a metaphor for anything at all powerful that cannot stand before Zerubbabel, however.

Hi Kenneth,

I agree with Jason.

As for any need to emend the MT text, I see none. Sense can be made of it as it's written.

[ducky]

Kenneth,

I don't reject this metaphor because I didn't see this exact word, but I reject it because I see the pattern of metaphors.

I have no problem to accept any kind of "new metaphor" - but "Metaphors" have a pattern of usage.
And it doesn't seem likely that the mountain would represent a soul of man, unless there is a pure introduction that says that.

I gave before the example in Jer. When the "mountain" is a metaphor for Babylon.
Why Babylon?
because it was an empire.
Like a mountain who cannot be moved - so is Babylon was considered as the strong nation that would be staying with its strength forever - like a mountain.

Also, "mountains" also used in the bible as a symbol of "eternity" things. Because mountains are stable in nature, and that is the symbol.

And so on...

So you see what I mean by pattern?
There are symbolic objects in the ancient time - and we expect them to be used as they are used commonly.

And once again I have to mention the context of this part.

[Kenneth Greifer]

John,

Have you noticed that every translation adds a few words that are not written there, so it makes sense. If it made sense as it is, why add the words "you will become" before a plain? Also, even if you disagree with moving a letter like I did, do you think that my reading at least makes sense too or is something wrong with it in your opinion?

[Jason Hare]

Adding an assumed word isn't a violation of translation, though. We call it "ellipsis" when a word is basically understood from the text even when it's not there. Yes, a verb is missing, but that doesn't make it untranslatable.

[Schubert]

Adding an assumed word isn't a violation of translation, though. We call it "ellipsis" when a word is basically understood from the text even when it's not there. Yes, a verb is missing, but that doesn't make it untranslatable.

Kenneth, my original background was in Latin and classical Greek. This sort of ellipsis is not uncommon in those languages.

Although uncommon in English, it happens in a number of other languages.

[Jason Hare]

Kenneth, my original background was in Latin and classical Greek. This sort of ellipsis is not uncommon in those languages.

Although uncommon in English, it happens in a number of other languages.

Just as an aside with relation to the discussion on Psalm 22, I also understood the verse that begins with כַּאֲרִי \ כָּארוּ to have an ellipsis of the verb. I don't think it's so uncommon. This verse just has a light set on it. There are plenty of verses in the Psalms that don't make literal word-for-word sense and have to have words provided in order to translate them. I don't know why this specific verse draws such attention.