Exodus 10:3 until when

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
ducky
Posts: 766
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Exodus 10:3 until when

Post by ducky »

Hi Ste Walch,

I think the opposite, for a couple of reasons.

The first one is the "logic of the editing".
I ask myself the question of what is more reasonable to happen.

It would be easy to accept If the source was just יראה (without an object) and then the אור was added to "complete" it.

But... if the source was יראה אור, what could be the reason for the word אור to be dropped? It doesn't make sense to me.
I don't see any reason that one would intentionally drop it, or even unintentionally drop it.

But I do see it reasonable that the אור was added intentionally or unintentionally.

***
And I think that everything here is based on a misunderstanding of the word ראה.

Because we should ask why in the MT version the יראה stands alone anyway?

I think that the יראה here is like ירוה.
The ירוה is the "parallel" of שבע which comes next to it.
(...מעמל נפשו יראה ישבע)

Examples of רוה-שבע:
Jer. 31:13 ורויתי נפש הכהנים דשן ועמי את טובי ישבעו
Lam. 3:15 השביענו במרורים הרוני לענה

And as I said, sometimes the ראה=רוה - For example:
Psalms 60:5 הראית עמך קשה השקיתנו יין תרעלה

And here more examples of ראה when it comes as parallel to שבע:
Job 10:15 שבע קלון וראה עניי
Psalms 91:17 ארך ימים אשביעהו ואראהו בישועתי

So the ראה here is just like רוה.

So the source did wrote יראה alone. And it wrote it next to ישבע in the understanding of ירוה.

But later, when people saw the יראה, they understood it in the meaning of "seeing", and so, they added the word "light" to it - to give the sense of "seeing light = success" (which this "equation" is another question that can be talked about).

********
Some Rabbinic commentary (which of course just read יראה alone) also gave it an explanation of seeing ~good~ (or any other positive thing or just in a generally positive way), Because when the understanding of this word is as "seeing", there is an "automatic completion" that answers the question of "what was seen".

I think that through times, people missed the meaning of this word in this verse as ראה = רוה (which is also rare in the bible) and read it as "seeing". But while Rabbanic (and Syrian) didn't touch the text - but explained it through what was in front of them, The DSS and the Sept. added the words as part of their commentary to the text.
And it could be that this version was already common by the people, and so it entered the DSS and the Sept. versions.

But I think that the MT kept the source as it is.
And even though the general meaning of the verse can be the same whether it is read as "ראה" (plus completion or not) or as רוה, the word that fits here better is רוה, and that also explains why it came alone with no object.

*
Now this fact, that the MT kept the ראה without an object plus the fact that the ראה was kept ראה (and wasn't switched to רוה) actually makes double support for the MT version to be right.
*

And as for the DSS and the Sept. versions...
As I said at the beginning, it is more reasonable to accept a turn of the יראה to יראה אור than to accept a turn of יראה אור to just יראה.
David Hunter
S_Walch
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Exodus 10:3 until when

Post by S_Walch »

Hi Ducky:

I don't want to derail this thread from the initial question, and you've certainly made some good points. Nevertheless how do we account for how three independent copyists (there's no evidence that any of the DSS Isaiah scrolls are copies of one another) and a translator all chose the same word to add after יראה? As you've pointed out from the Rabbinic commentary, any number of things could've been added after יראה if that's all what was in front of the three copyists and translator. It would be far too coincidental that all four had the same idea of what to have after יראה, if they weren't copying from Hebrew manuscripts which had אור (which in this case indicates at least 8 different manuscripts with יראה אור - the three DSS manuscripts + Septuagint + their exemplars). That the Septuagint reads the same as three DSS manuscripts also demonstrates יראה אור probably had a wider circulation than just confined to the Qumran sect.

Evidently there are only two reasons as to how אור may've dropped out: accidentally or intentionally. I don't think it was intentional, so I would say it was accidental. John Meade of the ETC Blog suggests a possible similarity between אה / אור accounts for the omission.
Last edited by S_Walch on Sat Jul 10, 2021 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ste Walch
S_Walch
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Exodus 10:3 until when

Post by S_Walch »

Jonathan Beck wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:36 pmIf you can find examples of difference in spelling between the two that affect meaning, I’d like to see them.
I have one, and it only makes a slight change of meaning.

Isaiah 53:3
נִבְזֶה֙ וַחֲדַ֣ל אִישִׁ֔ים אִ֥ישׁ מַכְאֹב֖וֹת וִיד֣וּעַ חֹ֑לִי וּכְמַסְתֵּ֤ר פָּנִים֙ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ נִבְזֶ֖ה וְלֹ֥א חֲשַׁבְנֻֽהוּ

The above word is passive meaning, whereas the Great Isaiah Scroll reads ויודע, which is active, and agrees with the LXX: εἰδὼς (active participle). It's a slight change of position of the vav, which does affect the meaning slightly ("knows suffering" as opposed to "known to suffering").
Ste Walch
ducky
Posts: 766
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Exodus 10:3 until when

Post by ducky »

Hi, Ste Walch

I read the link you posted and I don't see anything there that is really significant or convincing.
Maybe I missed its main point.
He starts by counting the sources.
Then he said that ראה+אור is a known idiom, that is even found in Isa. - (Which I think that this can actually support my claim as well.
And then he just gives a thought - that the אר maybe was omitted.

***
S_Walch wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 9:38 amhow do we account for how three independent copyists (there's no evidence that any of the DSS Isaiah scrolls are copies of one another) and a translator all chose the same word to add after יראה?
My thought about it is that the version of יראה אור was not created in the DSS era or the Sept. Era, but before that. And that was a popular version that was spread out.
And I also think that there were circles of scribes that kept the older version as it is, and that what we see in the MT.

I do agree that there were two versions, but I say that one is the original and one is a late one. And I think that my previous comment gives strength to the claim that the MT is the original one.
S_Walch wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 9:38 amAs you've pointed out from the Rabbinic commentary, any number of things could've been added after יראה if that's all that was in front of the three copyists and translator.
The Rabbinic commentaries didn't complete the יראה In a way that that was the word that should be written, but they did it just by an idea (Maybe I didn't explain myself well).

You ask how come they all chose אור for the completion...
As I said before, this was a version that was known before the Sept. and DSS era.
They just wrote what they knew.
But I also say that what they knew is not the original version.

Also, the link you posted said that יראה אור "is a fairly common idiom, even in Isaiah".
So it answered your natural next question of why אור and not another word.
Answer: because " This is a fairly common idiom, even in Isaiah."
S_Walch wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 9:38 amJohn Meade of the ETC Blog suggests a possible similarity between אה / אור accounts for the omission
I didn't understand his point.
Just saying that the אור/אר was dropped? (and thank you very much, I'm gone? - without giving examples of other cases or other supporting claims?)

I don't think that this argument to that side can stand before the argument (that I wrote above) for the other side.
Maybe I missed his point.

***
The only good argument for the DSS is the one that you presented in a simple way: "how do we account for how three independent copyists and a translator all chose the same word to add after יראה?"

And I tried to answer that at the beginning
S_Walch wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 9:38 amI have one, and it only makes a slight change of meaning.

Isaiah 53:3
נִבְזֶה֙ וַחֲדַ֣ל אִישִׁ֔ים אִ֥ישׁ מַכְאֹב֖וֹת וִיד֣וּעַ חֹ֑לִי וּכְמַסְתֵּ֤ר פָּנִים֙ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ נִבְזֶ֖ה וְלֹ֥א חֲשַׁבְנֻֽהוּ

The above word is passive meaning, whereas the Great Isaiah Scroll reads ויודע, which is active, and agrees with the LXX: εἰδὼς (active participle). It's a slight change of position of the vav, which does affect the meaning slightly ("knows suffering" as opposed to "known to suffering").
I tried to avoid cases that don't really change anything and also that it is hard (for me) to give a clear explanation for that change.

The MT writes "qatul" and the DSS write "qotel"
There can be written a lot about the meaning of qatul (and it doesn't matter now).

The point is that this form/style in the Bible, is not common, and it could be that DSS changed it.
And without opening another subject about it, just check yourself and see how you understand forms like:
אחזי חרב
לבש הבדים
מגלחי זקן
and more like that
(To whom the participle is linked in the meaning, and to whom it is linked according to the linguistic side).
David Hunter
Post Reply