Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

[Jason Hare]

Karl,
A way to check your theory is to compare some MT texts which have the defective feminine plurals with the DSS text. The DSS does not omit the vav as often as the MT. If you give me 5 defective feminine plurals in Isaiah or Habakuk, I can look them up in Logos, and tell you if the vav is there in DSS or not. If the vav is there in DSS, but not MT, that would mean that the MT is a case of the so-called defective cholem.

Steve,

I love your scientific approach. An excellent offer!

Jason

[Jason Hare]

Written Arabic long post-dates Hebrew, are you sure that the shift was not the other way around?

The Canaanite Vowel Shift is necessary background knowledge for the study of Aramaic, which is not as young as Arabic. I think it would better for you to see what happens between these languages, as they represent cognate forms. For example, Aramaic שְׁלָם šᵊlām contrasts with Hebrew שָׁלוֹם šālôm, in which the first syllable is reduced in Aramaic and lengthened in Hebrew, and the long ā in Aramaic corresponds to the long ō (cholam) / ô (cholam-vav) in Hebrew. It is a consistent feature of Hebrew as we have it that the Aramaic long ā is carried over as long ō. This is one of the pieces of the Canaanite Vowel Shift.

[Jason Hare]

Comparing with the Septuagint, it also occurs with πατήρ.

To what extent do you deal with Hebrew on its own terms? Do you only attempt to understand Hebrew by virtue of the Septuagint? Have you set yourself to study through a Hebrew grammar or deal with the text on its own, not on a word-by-word basis but as a real language, divided into paragraphs and sentences that have their own syntax and semantic force? Do you read Hebrew as a code for Greek words, or do you actually read the Hebrew text?

[kwrandolph]

I gave examples from Arabic because it is a known language.
but the example can be given using Akkadian and Aramaic as well.

We know from historic sources that Hebrew and Aramaic were mutually unintelligible in Biblical times. Have the pronunciations of the two languages drawn closer during the millennium of Aramaic speaking Jews reading Tanakh with Aramaic-based pronunciations?

(And notice, by the way, that Aramaic, unlike Hebrew, doesn't have this Cannaanic Shift, And the long "a" in Aramaic is pronounced as "a". So what's that tells you about its influence over Hebrew?)

Did the Canaanite shift actually go from O to A? Where’s the evidence from Biblical times to deny that question?

And as for אבות/אבת - you saw that it came in both form in two similar sentences
So ho would you explain that?

The same way that “fathers” and “ancestors” can be used in similar sentences in English.

I see that you use a lot of the method of "copyist errors"

More recent discoveries in another field are causing me now to revisit the question of copyist errors, and to revise their number down. Yes, there are a few that are documented, Psalm 22:17–18 is an example, but apparently there are fewer than I previously had been led to believe.

And I can't understand your method.

What I am doing is saying that it appears that I see a pattern in Biblical Hebrew, a pattern that hasn’t been taught me, rather what appears as I read Tanakh over and over again. The Masoretes considered it merely a defectively written feminine plural, missing the internal waw. But the more I read, the more I noticed examples of nouns ending with a tau suffix that were neither feminine plural, nor feminine singular in the construct state. So I decided to raise the question here on this forum as well.

You started this thread by saying that there is a change of meaning because of different spelling,
but on the other cases, you see the different spelling as an error?
So what is it?
Why didn't you call the אבת /אבות case as an error too?

The Masoretes considered it an error. As long as I read Tanakh following the Masoretic points, I took their conclusion. But now I don’t think so, I think that there’s a difference in meaning in the אבת אבות pair. There are just too many examples of אבת for it to be an error.

But never mind that. If you can prove what you say, I'll go with you.

On the other hand, you might convince me that I’m mistaken. I don’t expect that. I didn’t raise the question here until after I had seen many examples, so it will take some convincing to make me think that I’m mistaken.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hello Karl,

Aramaic and Hebrew are not very very close as one may think.
A Hebrew man that read Biblical Hebrew fluently, cannot read Aramaic (Biblical or not) unless he studies it.
the Grammar is different, conjugations are differents, vocabulary is different and so on...
If there was an influence, it would be seen.
For example, if you would see the word התוסף (hitosef), you clearly see that it is not a Hebrew form, even though the root יסף/וסף is well seen, and it is also a Hebrew root. But the form is different because it is based on an Aramaic form.

As for denying the shift from o-->a...
if you can show me a case of that thing happened, then do it.
If you can't, so you denied your question by yourself.

As for אבות/אבת and as for your claim...
I have to say that once again.
If you can prove your claim by showing me a set of clear examples that shows that the suffix changes the meaning, I'll go with you on that and be happy to learn that.
But I don't think we can find a set of clear examples.

As for Psalms 22
I actually had a discussion about it in the past and proved that the MT text, in this case, is the right one.
Also, any reading of this word as a verb with the meaning of "piercing" just comes from a misknowledge of the root meaning. (because of the English language that has a semantic link between two meaning for one word). and that alone, already make the known claim invalid.
But Allow me not to get into that right now. Maybe in the future.

Anyway, as for this subject, It is not on me to prove you wrong. because I follow the simple mainstream view that was known for ages. I think you are the first one who has this claim that differs the suffix ות from the ת.
ּSo I think that it is on you to prove your claim.
All you got to do is just show a set of clear examples.

[SteveMiller]

As for Psalms 22
I actually had a discussion about it in the past and proved that the MT text, in this case, is the right one.
Also, any reading of this word as a verb with the meaning of "piercing" just comes from a misknowledge of the root meaning. (because of the English language that has a semantic link between two meaning for one word). and that alone, already make the known claim invalid.
But Allow me not to get into that right now. Maybe in the future.

There are 2 independent DSS texts that support "they digged", plus LXX, plus 2 MT manuscripts.
Also Aquila and Symmachus both translated it as a 3mp verb, indicating that they saw a waw at the end.

[ducky]

Hello Steve,

I know what is written, and I still say what I say for very good reasons.

And the fact you write "they digged" without seeing it as a problem proves my point about this claim that can be raised only by English speakers.
But never mind, I said before that I may talk about it in the future.

[Jason Hare]

I agree that "they digged my hands and feet" is terrible English.

[ducky]

It's not really that.
I don't stand in the place to criticize English.
I can only speak about Hebrew.

Those who want to read it as a verb כארו/כרו also translate it to "dig" but with the meaning of "piercing" because that is the possible way in English.

In English, you can "dig" a hole in the ground.
And you can "dig" a knife into the body (or a bullet or whatever) (creating a small hole with a sharp object)

The Biblical Hebrew dictionaries (I saw BDB and Halot) write the definition of כרה as "Dig" (just "Dig").
And I'm not saying it is not right, but I'm saying it is not accurate.
And sometimes, half a truth is worse than a full lie.

Because when the English reader sees this, his mind goes something like this:
If Hebrew's כרה = English's "Dig"
And...
English's "Dig" = English's "Pierce"
Therefore...
Hebrew's כרה = English's "Pierce".

And so, he has no problem to read כרו ידי ורגלי as "pierced my hands and feet" (as if Dig = Pierce)

But...
Hebrew's כרה as Dig is only about digging a hole in the ground or digging a tunnel or digging the earth.
Exactly like another root in Hebrew חפר - which is only about the same type of Digging.
Because Hebrew has only one type of "Digging".

There is no definition of "Pierce" for that root (and for root חפר).
This can only be made in English.

Therefore, there is no sense to a sentence like כרו ידי ורגלי in that meaning because no one can לכרות = dig hands nor feet.
There is no such thing.

But the Biblical dictionaries only write "Dig" and that deceives the English reader.
By the way, the same root also occurs in Arabic, and in the Arabic dictionaries, they write "dig the ground, dig the earth, dig a tunnel" and so on. And that is accurate and doesn't let the reader be confused.

Since I once had a big discussion about it, I checked this root not only in the Bible but also in the DSS, Ben Sirah, Mishna, Medieval and Modern, just to make sure that there is no use like that ever.
And also, I checked this root in the other Semitic languages just to make sure it has no sense of "piercing" also in them.

And, of course, no such definition can be found.

This link from "digging" and "piercing" can be found in English, but not in Hebrew (nor other Semitic languages).

And this comment of mine is not about religion or a specific verse or anything else.
It is just a comment about the pure definition of כרה and חפר, which both of them means "Dig".
But Hebrew's "Dig" is only about one type of digging. and it is never about creating a piercing with something sharp.

And so, when someone translates the root כרה with the meaning of creating a small hole with a sharp object, it is just funny, and it is based on not understanding the root's meaning.
And maybe it is not his fault, because the dictionaries don't define that accurately (intentionally?)

[kwrandolph]

Aramaic and Hebrew are not very very close as one may think.
A Hebrew man that read Biblical Hebrew fluently, cannot read Aramaic (Biblical or not) unless he studies it.the Grammar is different, conjugations are differents, vocabulary is different and so on...

The biggest problem I had when reading Aramaic without studying it was the vocabulary.

If there was an influence, it would be seen.

Not in the post-exile Biblical writings, as those writers deliberately archaized their use of Hebrew.

As for denying the shift from o-->a...
if you can show me a case of that thing happened, then do it.
If you can't, so you denied your question by yourself.

Didn’t you mean A —> O?

Was there a shift? If so, which way did it go? Or was that a differentiation that God placed in the languages already at the Tower of Babel? All I’m saying is that the evidence is inconclusive. Anyone who claims that that shift was certain and that it went a certain way are speculating in the absence of solid evidence.

As for אבות/אבת and as for your claim...
I have to say that once again.
If you can prove your claim by showing me a set of clear examples that shows that the suffix changes the meaning, I'll go with you on that and be happy to learn that.
But I don't think we can find a set of clear examples.

Go ahead and look them up. There are more than 200 verses that have אבות and a larger number of verses that have אבת, too many to be a spelling/copyist error. Then add to these the other nouns that end with a tau suffix, that certainly shows that the pattern exists. That the pattern exists then brings up the next question—what meaning does the addition of the tau suffix impart to the noun?

As for Psalms 22
I actually had a discussion about it in the past and proved that the MT text, in this case, is the right one.
Also, any reading of this word as a verb with the meaning of "piercing" just comes from a misknowledge of the root meaning. (because of the English language that has a semantic link between two meaning for one word). and that alone, already make the known claim invalid.
But Allow me not to get into that right now. Maybe in the future.

The English comes from the LXX because the MT is obviously wrong—grammar and syntax demand that כאר be a verb. But the LXX has two mistakes: 1) they thought it was a misspelling for כרה instead of the verb כאר, and 2) they thought that כרה meant “to dig”. The Nahal Hebre scrap, as well as a few other manuscripts, have it right.

Anyway, as for this subject, It is not on me to prove you wrong. because I follow the simple mainstream view that was known for ages. I think you are the first one who has this claim that differs the suffix ות from the ת.
ּSo I think that it is on you to prove your claim.
All you got to do is just show a set of clear examples.

What makes you think that the mainstream view is correct?

The native tongue of the Masoretes was Aramaic, that is of those who were native to that area. The Hebrew that the Masoretes knew was medieval Hebrew, which they mistakenly assumed to be the same as Biblical Hebrew. That mistaken view of Biblical Hebrew was taught as late as when I studied in college.

What I’ve learned is that very few professors have read Tanakh through even once, a few maybe twice. But it isn’t until one reads Tanakh at least five times or more that he starts getting a feel for the language. After ten times he starts getting fluent in Biblical Hebrew, on the easier to read books. After about 15 times reading Tanakh cover to cover, all the way through, he starts catching on to figures of speech such as euphemisms. After 20 times poetry such as the book of Job become fairly easy to read. Do you know of any professors who have done the study needed to back up their mainstream view?

How many times have you read Tanakh, cover to cover, all the way through?

Karl W. Randolph.