Re: Exodus 10:3 until when
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2021 6:08 am
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.
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.