Re: A couple of words, does this make sense?
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 8:26 am
Talking about רטט it is worth taking into consideration also the רתת of Hosea 13:1.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
Isaac Fried, Boston University
bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org
http://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=572
The verb לנוס is an infinitive, which indicates the purpose of the turning, but not that the flight was actually accomplished. רטט is a masculine noun in this context. If the flight was to be in panic, I understand the Hebrew to read הפמתה ברטט לנוס or הפנתה לנוס ברטט. Are you suggesting that this verse may have been corrupted by a copyist error?S_Walch wrote:I think what I've not made clear is how I'm reading the verse.
I read as follows:
She has turned away to flee and panic - הפנתה לנוס ורטט …
That I'm taking רטט with הפנתה לנוס is why I believe רטט is referring to panic/terror. I'm combining it with Damascus fleeing.
Mixing a verbal infinitive and noun, both as objects of a single verb, is a pattern of which I’m unfamiliar for Biblical Hebrew. I could have missed something, but as I presently understand Hebrew language, that’s not practiced. Therefore, I take רטט as the subject for החזיקה.S_Walch wrote:As you're taking רטט with החזיקה, I can see why רטט could certainly mean immobilisation.
Quite true.S_Walch wrote:What then has to be decided, I think, is how the words in the verse are to be read.
I'm being more influenced by the parallel passages of Jer 6:24 and 8:21, especially 6:24 where we have pretty much the same sort of thing being said. In 6:24, חזק goes with צרה.Mixing a verbal infinitive and noun, both as objects of a single verb, is a pattern of which I’m unfamiliar for Biblical Hebrew. I could have missed something, but as I presently understand Hebrew language, that’s not practiced. Therefore, I take רטט as the subject for החזיקה.
I didn't want to turn this into yet another thread where I bring the LXX into it, but since you asked this...kwrandolph wrote:Are you suggesting that this verse may have been corrupted by a copyist error?
??? eh, what’s a “PM”?S_Walch wrote:(PS: Karl - Check your PM's )
Oh wow, thanks, I didn’t know these things existed.