Genesis 6:1 "born"

[Isaac Fried]

Jason writes

הֵם חִנְּכוּ אֶת הַיְּלָדִים שֶׁלָּהֶם בְּבַ֫יִת מָסָרְתִּי
הַיְּלָדִים שֶׁלָּהֶם חֻנְּכוּ בְּבַ֫יִת מָסָרְתִּי
One is not the passive of the other? How can you even say that?

No, they are not.
חִנְּכוּ declares that הֵם, 'they', the actors (the parents, the subject of the act), directly performed the act חנך, 'educate', with the children being pointed out to be the direct beneficiaries (the target, the object) of said act חנך. It all happened in a traditional home.
חֻנְּכוּ, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the parents, only with the children. It merely states that the children assumed the state חנך, 'educated', in a traditional home.
We need to carefully distinguish between what the language states and what the imagination insinuates.

Isaac Fried Boston University

[Jason Hare]

I don’t remember a single correction.

You wrote in the thread called עדן הקורונה the following:

שלום חברי טובים תלמידי יהודית: גם בשבתי בביתי כבר חדש אחד וחפצתי לדעת מה שלומכם ומה אתם עשיתם בעת הצר הזה:

The expression חברי טובים was shown by myself and by David (ducky) to be incorrect, that the presence of the possessive prononimal suffix on חבר is definite-making and would require טובים to carry the article (חברי הטובים).

Can you point to passages in Tanakh that unquestionably demonstrate your claim here?

I cannot believe that I'm being tasked with doing your homework for you. This is a question of first-year grammar.

Genesis 39:2
וַיְהִ֤י יְהוָה֙ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֔ף וַיְהִ֖י אִ֣ישׁ מַצְלִ֑יחַ וַיְהִ֕י בְּבֵ֖ית אֲדֹנָ֥יו הַמִּצְרִֽי׃

"His Egyptian master" - אדניו המצרי "his-master the-Egyptian-one" - not אדניו מצרי. The phrase is definite, and the adjective must carry the article.

1 Kings 21:11
וַיַּֽעֲשׂוּ֩ אַנְשֵׁ֨י עִיר֜וֹ הַזְּקֵנִ֣ים וְהַֽחֹרִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֤ר הַיֹּֽשְׁבִים֙ בְּעִיר֔וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר שָֽׁלְחָ֥ה אֲלֵיהֶ֖ם אִיזָ֑בֶל כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֤ר כָּתוּב֙ בַּסְּפָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר שָֽׁלְחָ֖ה אֲלֵיהֶֽם׃

"The elder men of his city" - אנשי עירו הזקנים "people-of his-city the-elder-ones" - not אנשי עירו זקנים. The phrase is definite, and the adjective must carry the article.

So, show me an example in which a noun phrase with a possessive pronominal suffix is directly modified by an adjective that doesn't have the article. I'll wait while you search.

Yet your sentence that I corrected had a few mistakes. Most glaring the Aramaic you included. Also a word not found in Tanakh. And a few more.

You and I operate on different assumptions. It is not a mistake when I include a word from a later period in Hebrew - or a word that simply wasn't used in the time of the Bible. There are enough loanwords in the text of the Bible to justify doing so. It wasn't a pure, unadulterated language of perfection. It was a real, living language that included words from the various cultures that surrounded Israel.

My approach to Hebrew allows me to use words that do not appear in the Bible. This is not the same as making grammatical mistakes (and not even recognizing them as mistakes when it is brought up) because your approach to Hebrew doesn't lead you to real understanding of the syntax and grammar.

[Mitchell Powell]

Whereas in the New Testament, there’s only one word where I disagree with tradition—μυστεριον—which in ancient Greece had a meaning similar to “doctrine”, when I came to Tanakh I found readings that didn’t follow the patterns I had learned in all the other languages I had studied.

Could it be that all the other languages you studied were Indo-European languages?

[kwrandolph]

Can you point to passages in Tanakh that unquestionably demonstrate your claim here?

I cannot believe that I'm being tasked with doing your homework for you.

You made the claim, therefore it’s your duty to back it up. It’s not my duty to prove your point.

Genesis 39:2
וַיְהִ֤י יְהוָה֙ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֔ף וַיְהִ֖י אִ֣ישׁ מַצְלִ֑יחַ וַיְהִ֕י בְּבֵ֖ית אֲדֹנָ֥יו הַמִּצְרִֽי׃

"His Egyptian master" - אדניו המצרי "his-master the-Egyptian-one" - not אדניו מצרי. The phrase is definite, and the adjective must carry the article.

I don’t see this as an unquestionable example. “The Egyptian” is a noun, not an adjective that backs up your claim.

1 Kings 21:11
וַיַּֽעֲשׂוּ֩ אַנְשֵׁ֨י עִיר֜וֹ הַזְּקֵנִ֣ים וְהַֽחֹרִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֤ר הַיֹּֽשְׁבִים֙ בְּעִיר֔וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר שָֽׁלְחָ֥ה אֲלֵיהֶ֖ם אִיזָ֑בֶל כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֤ר כָּתוּב֙ בַּסְּפָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר שָֽׁלְחָ֖ה אֲלֵיהֶֽם׃

"The elder men of his city" - אנשי עירו הזקנים "people-of his-city the-elder-ones" - not אנשי עירו זקנים. The phrase is definite, and the adjective must carry the article.

Even stronger that this is not an unquestionable example. Here the elders are specified, not counting the others. Secondly “elders” is a noun, not an adjective as in the example.

Your claim is that חברי takes a definite article on the adjective connected to it. Do you have an example with an adjective?

You and I operate on different assumptions.

Yes, I assume that if we discuss Biblical Hebrew, that it is Biblical Hebrew, not other dialects.

It is not a mistake when I include a word from a later period in Hebrew - or a word that simply wasn't used in the time of the Bible. There are enough loanwords in the text of the Bible to justify doing so. It wasn't a pure, unadulterated language of perfection. It was a real, living language that included words from the various cultures that surrounded Israel.

I recognize that there are loan words from other languages recorded in Biblical Hebrew. Examples include פרדס mentioned by Solomon, and הפלתי (always starting with a ה) referring to professional soldiers. The latter word was not found recorded in earlier Hebrew until after David’s sojourn among the Philistines. How many more loan words are there? No way to tell.

What you did was to take words never found in Biblical Hebrew, then claim that they are good loan words.

My approach to Hebrew allows me to use words that do not appear in the Bible. This is not the same as making grammatical mistakes (and not even recognizing them as mistakes when it is brought up) because your approach to Hebrew doesn't lead you to real understanding of the syntax and grammar.

You didn’t acknowledge when I mentioned that the default sentence structure for conversational Biblical Hebrew, as recorded in the narrative sections of Tanakh, is subject (usually a pronoun), verb in Qatal, then optional object. Your sentence used participles, which is DSS Hebrew and later.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Mitchell Powell]

Your sentence used participles, which is DSS Hebrew and later.

Aren't there participles all over the place in biblical Hebrew?

[kwrandolph]

Your sentence used participles, which is DSS Hebrew and later.

Aren't there participles all over the place in biblical Hebrew?

Yes there are participles all over the place. But the default use of the participles are:

• nouns referring to the actors who are doing the action. This refers to actions taken in the past, present or future.

• gerunds, which again are nouns that refer to the actions.

Remember, translation ≠ original. Sometimes where a direct translation requires an awkward phrase to get an idea found in the original language expressed in a target language, changing the grammar or even using different words can make a smooth “translation” that expresses the idea of the original. That’s true even when translating between modern languages.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

I cannot believe that I'm being tasked with doing your homework for you.

You made the claim, therefore it’s your duty to back it up. It’s not my duty to prove your point.

No, sir. I wrote a sentence in Hebrew that began with חֲבֵרַי הַטּוֹבִים, which you corrected and offered חברי טובים (which is a clear and obvious mistake). You offered the "correction." You should be the one to give examples to prove that your correction is correct. I should NOT be the one searching for examples to correct your correction of a non-mistake.

I don’t see this as an unquestionable example. “The Egyptian” is a noun, not an adjective that backs up your claim.

I think that מִצְרִי is certainly a gentilic adjective that can be substantivized. If it's functioning as an attributive adjective, there is no reason to read it as a substantive. If that's the case, we might as well think this of all adjectives bound to nouns in Hebrew. הַבַּ֫יִת הַגָּדֹל should be understood as "the-house the-big-thing," as if הַגָּדֹל were a noun that just happens to be bound to another noun. That's the consequence of what you're suggesting here. Either way, I'll go and search and try to find another example that doesn't use a gentilic adjective.

Deuteronomy 3:24: יָֽדְךָ הַֽחֲזָקָה "your strong hand" (not יָֽדְךָ חֲזָקָה, which would be a sentence in its own right ["your hand {is} strong"])

Isaiah 36:9: עַבְדֵי אֲדֹנִי הַקְּטַנִּים "my master's small[est] servants" (not עַבְדֵי אֲדֹנִי קְטַנִּים, which would be a sentence in its own right ["my master's servants {are} small"])

These are equivalent to the phrase חֲבֵרַי הַטּוֹבִים "my good friends" (that is, "the good friends of me" or "the-friends-my the-good-ones"). The entire phrase is definite, and it is NECESSARY to use the article with the adjective. The fact that you claim otherwise indicates how your system doesn't cover even the most elementary of principles of Hebrew syntax. This idea is covered in every basic grammar, and it is consistent in Greek, where the article must proceed an adjective in a definite noun phrase (either by sandwiching [ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος] or by repeating the adjective [ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἀγαθός]). If you leave the adjective off of the attribute adjective when it is part of a definite noun phrase (in Hebrew!), you create a verbless (or nominal) sentence. חֲבֵרַי טוֹבִים means "my friends are good," not "my good friends." I'm surprised that I need to explain this to someone who has read the Tanach so many times and would like to correct someone like Gesenius, who clearly knew what he was talking about.

Your claim is that חברי takes a definite article on the adjective connected to it. Do you have an example with an adjective?

It's not my claim. It's the claim of every grammarian of the Hebrew language, and it is evidenced in the Scriptures. I'll provide examples, and you are tasked with providing counter examples.

You and I operate on different assumptions.

Yes, I assume that if we discuss Biblical Hebrew, that it is Biblical Hebrew, not other dialects.

If we discuss biblical (not "Biblical") Hebrew, that is one thing. If we correspond in Hebrew, it's another thing. We can discuss the language of the Bible, of course. But, if we need to communicate things in our lives, we cannot truly limit ourselves to the structures and vocabulary that are actually used in the Bible. That's unnatural, and it wouldn't produce anything communicative. We live in a different world today.

What you did was to take words never found in Biblical Hebrew, then claim that they are good loan words.

It's perfectly fine to use words that are not in the biblical corpus. There were thousands of words in the active Hebrew language did not find expression in the Bible, and there could have been even more had the hapax legomena not accidentally been used ONE TIME in the Bible.

You didn’t acknowledge when I mentioned that the default sentence structure for conversational Biblical Hebrew, as recorded in the narrative sections of Tanakh, is subject (usually a pronoun), verb in Qatal, then optional object. Your sentence used participles, which is DSS Hebrew and later.

We had a lot of interactions. You'll have to refresh my memory. When I mentioned something you wrote, I provided a link. Can you not be as considerate?

Thanks,
Jason

[Jason Hare]

Your sentence used participles, which is DSS Hebrew and later.

Aren't there participles all over the place in biblical Hebrew?

Yes there are participles all over the place. But the default use of the participles are:

• nouns referring to the actors who are doing the action. This refers to actions taken in the past, present or future.

• gerunds, which again are nouns that refer to the actions.

Remember, translation ≠ original. Sometimes where a direct translation requires an awkward phrase to get an idea found in the original language expressed in a target language, changing the grammar or even using different words can make a smooth “translation” that expresses the idea of the original. That’s true even when translating between modern languages.

Karl W. Randolph.

You're thinking in English. In English, gerunds and participles both end in ING. In Hebrew, what we think of as the gerund would be the infinitive construct. You will never find שֹׁמֵר, for example, being used as the subject or object of another verb and meaning "protecting," as in "protecting the city occupied his thoughts." Infinitive constructs may translate as English gerunds, but the fact that they end in ING in English doesn't mean that they are participles in Hebrew. This is wrong.

[Jason Hare]

Aren't there participles all over the place in biblical Hebrew?

You're correct, Mitchell, and they have various uses. The most common way that the participle is used is as a substantive. It represents the one doing an action more than it does anything else. For instance, שֹׁמֵר יִשְׂרָאֵל means "the guardian/protector of Israel." It isn't really indicating the action of guarding or a time in which he is guarding Israel. It is being used essentially as a noun. Many participles actually became nouns for all intents and purposes, like the words סֹפֵר "scribe" and לֹחֵם "fighter," which don't directly correlate to Qal verbs upon which they should normally be dependent.

There are many instances of participles being used as simple tenseless verbs in the Bible.

Psalm 96:13
לִפְנֵי יהוה כִּי בָא כִּי בָא לִשְׁפֹּט הָאָרֶץ יִשְׁפֹּט תֵּבֵל בְּצֶדֶק וְעַמִּים בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ׃
"[Let all creation rejoice] before YHVW, for he is coming. He is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples in his faithfulness."

Even in the Bible, it was frequently used as a sort of present tense, but we shouldn't assign "tense" to Hebrew verbs in the simplistic way that English has tense directly coded into the forms. Hebrew was more nuanced in how it approached tense, but we can see tense well coded in narrative and instructional materials. Poetry (and prophecy) presents some different issues, of course, in which the various tense forms are less stringent and are often interchanged between stanzas (one may use the imperfect, and the next the perfect, or vice-versa with no apparent distinction in meaning — especially when we are dealing with a gnomic sense).

It is no mistake to use participles as a present tense when composing on our own, but Karl wanted something to object to.

For further reading on a great treatment of Hebrew verbal tense/aspect, I would recommend:

Cook, J. (2006). The finite verbal forms in biblical Hebrew do express aspect. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society, 30, 21–35. Retrieved from https://janes.scholasticahq.com/article/2448.pdf

[Jason Hare]

More relevant to the question of participles, of course, is Cook's other article:

Cook, J. (2008). The Hebrew participle and stative in typological perspective. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, 34(1), 1–19. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/531089/The_Heb ... erspective

And a fantastic summary that he wrote up about modality in biblical Hebrew can be found here:

Cook, J. (2005, November). Mood/modality in biblical Hebrew verb theory [paper presentation]. 2005 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature: SBL'S 125th Anniversary, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dda8/d ... ee147b.pdf