Isa 9:3(4) DSS

This forum is for discussion of the Hebrew texts of the DSS, both biblical and sectarian texts.
Saboi
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:06 pm

Re: Isa 9:3(4) DSS

Postby Saboi » Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:32 pm

חתת/ἧττα 'defeat, discomfiture'

A verb form that matches contextually is ἡττήθη hence והחתת and Greek endings are converted into prefixes through prefix-suffix metathesis.

ἡττήθη > ήθἡττ > והחתת

Josephus - The Wars of the Jews 2.362
προσοίκων ἐθνῶν ἡττήθη
beaten even by your neighboring nations
Lee Mcgee

User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Isa 9:3(4) DSS

Postby SteveMiller » Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:07 pm

Karl,
Thanks very much.
BibleWorks parses the verb as hiphil 2ms perfect of ‎חתת, which would be החתות. Both MT and DSS have the shorter spelling without the waw, which is unusual for DSS, but not too unusual. In this same verse, both MT and DSS have the shorter spelling of הַנֹּגֵ֣שׂ without the waw.

kwrandolph wrote:Possible verbs found in Tanakh that possibly have this form are:

‎חתה to rake together (fire, to keep it burning hot and from going out Is 30:14) rake away (from being a people Is 7:8)


That is interesting that you are taking Isa 7:8 to be from root ‎חתה rather than חתת. Isa 7:8 seems to me to be the only verse where the meaning of חתת as "terrified" or "dismayed" does not work. If Isa 7:8 is חתה, as you say, then חתת can consistently mean "terrified" or "dismayed".

kwrandolph wrote:חתת to terrify, make paralyzed from fear, though usually in passive Niphal to be paralyzed from fear

This meaning does not work here if "yoke" and "rod" are its direct objects, as seems to be the case.

kwrandolph wrote:‎נחת to be in force, to be forceful 2S 22:25, Jl 4:11, Pr 17:10 as in imposition of force by a conquerer Jr 21:13, Ps 38:3

I think you mean 2S 22:35.
How would this verb conjugate to not have the nun?
When I look at the verb tables for נחת, I don't see anything that looks like החתת. All qal, piel, hiphil and hufal conjugations have a nun in them.
This is probably a shortcoming of using verb tables instead of being able to conjugate them myself.

kwrandolph wrote:Possible but not likely to have this form is:

‎נחה to lead


Same problem as I have with נחת above, but this verb meaning could not work with yoke and rod as direct objects.

kwrandolph wrote:Therefore, if this is a verb, which meaning best fits this context?
The specific form החתת is found once elsewhere, Jeremiah 49:37 where the meaning is “cause to be terrified”.
So what do you’all think?

If the verb needs to take yoke and rod as direct objects then the only ones that could work are חתה, rake away, and ‎נחת, to come down forcefully upon.

If we could take the et's as meaning "with" then maybe חתת would work:
for with the yoke of their burden and with the staff on their shoulder, the rod of their oppressors, you have dismayed as in the day of Midian.

Maybe the DSS text could work if the et's mean "with":
because of the rod of their oppressors, with the yoke of their burden and with the staff on their shoulder. And You will dismay as in the day of Midian.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)

User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Isa 9:3(4) DSS

Postby SteveMiller » Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:12 pm

Saboi wrote:חתת/ἧττα 'defeat, discomfiture'

A verb form that matches contextually is ἡττήθη hence והחתת and Greek endings are converted into prefixes through prefix-suffix metathesis.

ἡττήθη > ήθἡττ > והחתת

Josephus - The Wars of the Jews 2.362
προσοίκων ἐθνῶν ἡττήθη
beaten even by your neighboring nations

Lee,
thanks for responding to my question.
I do not know Greek, so your answer is over my head.
If you write in complete sentences with a little more context, maybe I could understand it.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)

kwrandolph
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Isa 9:3(4) DSS

Postby kwrandolph » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:59 am

SteveMiller wrote:Karl,
Thanks very much.
BibleWorks parses the verb as hiphil 2ms perfect of ‎חתת, which would be החתות.


I suspect that BibleWorks follows the Masoretic points.

SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Possible verbs found in Tanakh that possibly have this form are:


This is looking at the form in the text itself, what are the possible roots that it could come from? I then list a few roots, but that doesn’t mean that those are my final answer.

SteveMiller wrote:This meaning does not work here if "yoke" and "rod" are its direct objects, as seems to be the case.


If when analyzing a verse a certain theory doesn’t make sense, then try again with a different theory. In this case, the theory is that the word in question is a verb. Is that accurate?

SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:‎נחת to be in force, to be forceful 2S 22:25, Jl 4:11, Pr 17:10 as in imposition of force by a conquerer Jr 21:13, Ps 38:3

I think you mean 2S 22:35.


Yes I did, thanks for the correction.

SteveMiller wrote:How would this verb conjugate to not have the nun?


If it’s a Hiphil or Hophal.

SteveMiller wrote:When I look at the verb tables for נחת, I don't see anything that looks like החתת. All qal, piel, hiphil and hufal conjugations have a nun in them.


Which verb tables? The ones that I saw have the nun assimilated into the preceding heh in Hiphil and Hophal verbs.

SteveMiller wrote:This is probably a shortcoming of using verb tables instead of being able to conjugate them myself.


Does it make more sense as a noun? With את having the meaning of “with”?

One question to help with the context: what does סאן mean? The meaning given in BDB doesn’t seem to fit the context. That verb is found only here.

Karl W. Randolph.

User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Isa 9:3(4) DSS

Postby SteveMiller » Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:48 pm

thanks very much, Karl

kwrandolph wrote:If when analyzing a verse a certain theory doesn’t make sense, then try again with a different theory. In this case, the theory is that the word in question is a verb. Is that accurate?

I would think the 2 et's at the beginning of the verse demand a verb for them to be the direct object of, except that would be impossible with the DSS text.
So I end up with 2 unlikely scenarios:
1) The 2 et's mean "with"
or 2) DSS has a gross careless error.

kwrandolph wrote:‎נחת to be in force, to be forceful 2S 22:35, Jl 4:11, Pr 17:10 as in imposition of force by a conquerer Jr 21:13, Ps 38:3
SteveMiller wrote:How would this verb conjugate to not have the nun?


If it’s a Hiphil or Hophal.

SteveMiller wrote:When I look at the verb tables for נחת, I don't see anything that looks like החתת. All qal, piel, hiphil and hufal conjugations have a nun in them.


Which verb tables? The ones that I saw have the nun assimilated into the preceding heh in Hiphil and Hophal verbs.

This is what my verb table program, Saffa, has for the conjugations of נחת:
Hiphil perfect : הנחתי הנחת הנחית הנחיתה הנחתנו הנחתם הנחתן הנחיתו
Hiphil imperfect: אנחית תנחית תנחיתי ינחית תנחית ננחית תנחיתו תנחתנה ינחיתו
Hufal perfect:הנחתי הנחת הנחת הנחתה הנחתנו הנחתם הנחתן הנחתו
Hufal imperfect:אנחת תנחת תנחתי ינחת תנחת ננחת תנחתו תנחתנה ינחתו

kwrandolph wrote:Does it make more sense as a noun? With את having the meaning of “with”?

There is the noun ‎ חֲ֜תַ֗ת, terror in Gen 35:5 and Job 6:21.
Trying that in the MT text:
because of the rod of the oppressor in him with the yoke of his burden and with the staff of his shoulder, the terror as in the day of Midian.
doesn't make sense.

DSS is the same except for "and" in front of "the terror"
because of the rod of the oppressor in him with the yoke of his burden and with the staff of his shoulder and the terror as in the day of Midian.
makes less sense

kwrandolph wrote:One question to help with the context: what does סאן mean? The meaning given in BDB doesn’t seem to fit the context. That verb is found only here.

Thanks for pointing that out.
Both the noun and verb form here are hapaxes.
Klein says the noun ‎ סְאוֹן is "probably a loan word from Akkadian shenu, whence the v. shenu (=to put on sandals), whence probably also Aramaic ֹסינא, Syriac סאן (=sandal, shoe), Ethiopian sha'n (=sandal). " Then he says that the verb סאן is derived from this.
He also gives the post Biblical Hebrew word מסאנא meaning "shoe".
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)


Return to “Dead Sea Scrolls”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest