Job 40:19b behemoth

[Isaac Fried]

Saro Fedele writes
that 'hheth' and 'kaph' were (sometimes) swapped each other

We indeed recognize the כ kaph as being but a ח hheth resting on its side.
Otherwise, the root כרב is difficult. Are the כרוּבים קרוֹבים?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Saro Fedele]

@ Isaac Fried

Interesting comment. We cannot slur over the fact that in Akkadian there was a swapping between 'kaph' and 'koph': AKKULLAKU – AQQULAKU (CAD I:1:275)...

[Isaac Fried]

Saro Fedele says
in Akkadian there was a swapping between 'kaph' and 'koph'.

There is no need להרחיק נדוֹד to "Akkadian" for this. There are plenty of examples in Hebrew for ג-ה-ח-כ-ק "interchanges" made to slightly shift the meaning of a new root.
Still, the root, or act, כרב escapes me. Are כּרוּבים groupies?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

You said:

"I’m not sure what you mean by this, especially by your use of 'eclectic mode'."

Perhaps my wobbly English wasn't enough correct to explain well this linguistical term. In any case (I hope I'm using this expression correctly, now!), there are two basic modes of approaching to a TaNaKh translation: 'diplomatic' and 'eclectic'. Instead to let my head to spin to the purpose of explain you these terms I prefer to indicate you a couple of references in good English: (1) A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible, by Paul D. Wegner (2006), sections 4.10-4.11; (2) Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, by Emanuel Tov (2012), see - on the inside of the index - the entries 'editions' > 'Hebrew Scripture' > 'diplomatic' [...] 'eclectic'. For my viewpoint, the eclectic mode is the better way to approaching to a TaNaKh translation (like I'm performing in a Genesis translation).

I know neither how Paul D. Wegner nor Emanuel Tov define “eclectic”, all I know is the common English meaning of the term, which in this context sounds like taking things out of context or making up ad hoc interpretations as one goes along.

You said:

"Where did they get their understandings?"

From the same place you get your understanding about the concept that, like you said, "[the term 'desolation'] most likely had a different pronunciation than 'sword'", that is, Logic. Yes, just like it is only logical to conclude that two terms linked by a common root had different pronunciations (so we can distinguish one or another derivatives),

This assumption is often wrong, because there are homonyms where words have different roots but the same pronunciation. In Hebrew, there are also homographs where, because Biblical Hebrew didn’t indicate vowel pronunciations, the same consonants are used for words from different roots.

in the same manner it is only logical to conclude that two verbs which possess superimposable semantic areas, along with 2 radicals out of 3 in common, can be considered homosemantic terms.

Nope. See above. In the one example you give, it can be shown that they don’t even possess superimposed semantic areas.

You said:

"You haven’t shown by good evidence that they had a common meaning."

Sorry, but now I'm not quite with you. I've yet mentioned the scholarly comments of Davies and Fuerst that assign the same meaning to both roots. Now, if you don't go along with them you have every right to do so, but this doesn't mean that I haven't presented a 'demonstration'. Instead, this indicates that I have presented a 'demonstration' that you are free to agree with or not.
You mentioned also the necessity - for my part - to show a 'pattern'. I have no need to demonstrate any pattern. My purpose was to demonstrate that it was possible - in the past - that 'hheth' and 'kaph' were (sometimes) swapped each other. And for this goal, also one example - like that I cited - is fully enough (moreover, why you ask for 2 or 3 examples? Aren't 4, 5, 10, 350 examples better? Are you established a minimum amount of this kind of examples, to consider they are 'enough'?).
This single example I've cited demonstrates, adequately, that a swapping of this kind was possible and that it occurred, actually.

Citing scholars only cites their opinions. Their opinions may be wrong. When I ask for evidence, I look for examples in Hebrew that show the same pattern. A single example is not enough, especially when that single example can be understood differently. What you need to show are a few examples, in Hebrew, where there’s no question that your pattern is observed. You haven’t done that.

You said:

"At the same time, a perfectly good understanding of the verse can be made without changing a letter. All is needed is to consider all the possibilities available in the consonantal text."

If we may get "a perfectly good understanding of the verse can be made without changing a letter" why readers/scholars (among them our user Steve Miller) think the stich does not 'make sense'? If we are discussing on Job 40:19 is because the B19 (or, another Bible Hebrew net-of-diacritical-points text, also) doesn't offer us enough information to give a number of us a persuasive understanding.

Saro Fedele

The reason the verse doesn’t make sense is because of the traditional translation. What I show is that the traditional translation is not necessary, nor correct, and by presenting other options that are possible in the Hebrew text, we get a meaning that doesn’t require changing a single letter.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Saro Fedele]

@kwrandolph

That’s not my style to repeat again and again the same concepts.
I think the users of this site – at this point - have enough information to draw some correct conclusions on this topic.

I’m glad that Isaac Fried sustains that ‘there are plenty of examples in Hebrew for ק כ ח ה ג interchanges […]’, a further validation of the possibility I’ve presented about the ‘swapping’ between ח and כ.

You say:

‘I know neither how Paul D. Wegner nor Emanuel Tov define “eclectic”, all I know is the common English meaning of the term, which in this context sounds like taking things out of context or making up ad hoc interpretations as one goes along.’

Sorry, but your ‘common’ definition of this term is odd.

In fact, differently, the Cambridge Dictionary (online) explains so the term ‘eclectic’: “Methods, beliefs, ideas, etc. that are eclectic combine whatever seem the best or most useful things from many different areas or systems, rather than following a single system.” [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... h/eclectic]. (You may find a similar definition in The Penguin English Dictionary, second edition)

Feel free, if you want, to deepen your knowledge about the ‘eclectic’ approach to a TaNaKh translation (vs ‘diplomatic’ approach), or not. One thing is certain, you cannot start to translate a single passage of TaNaKh without to choose between these two approaches, irrespective of their technical labels (scholars have fastened on them).

You say:

‘This assumption [to conclude that two terms linked by a common root had different pronunciations] is often wrong.’

Also if this is the case, ‘often’ isn’t ‘always’, as you know.
I rely (and a lot of people along with me) on the truth of the simple following life-‘law’, ‘If a thing is yet happened (even if only once), it can happens again’.


Granted, like you say ‘citing scholars only cites their opinions’. True, but also yours are opinions, and, consequently, also them may be wrong.

Then, I do not intend continuing this post barrage with you on this particular topic.
As regards you, feel free to continue with the same arguments, ad libitum.

Greetings.

[kwrandolph]

You say:

‘I know neither how Paul D. Wegner nor Emanuel Tov define “eclectic”, all I know is the common English meaning of the term, which in this context sounds like taking things out of context or making up ad hoc interpretations as one goes along.’

Sorry, but your ‘common’ definition of this term is odd.

The word “eclectic” was imported into English from Greek and retains its Greek meaning. It means “choosing out”. In practice, that’s choosing a little from here and a little from there, and ignoring some from here and some from there, the end result can be a real mishmash that doesn’t mean much.

You say:

‘This assumption [to conclude that two terms linked by a common root had different pronunciations] is often wrong.’

Also if this is the case, ‘often’ isn’t ‘always’, as you know.
I rely (and a lot of people along with me) on the truth of the simple following life-‘law’, ‘If a thing is yet happened (even if only once), it can happens again’.

What I keep saying over and over again, is that you haven’t demonstrated one clear example of your particular pattern as having happened even once. The one example that you present can be claimed as a misunderstanding of the verse. That’s why I asked for more examples that are unassailable. That you refuse to present any clear examples of your claimed pattern, is evidence that that pattern doesn’t exist.

You claim that in Biblical Hebrew that sometimes ח and כ are swapped. You refuse to provide a single clear example of that happening. Therefore my conclusion is that that pattern doesn’t exist.

As for Job, we should keep it as written.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Saboi]

I have deciphered most of the word in Job 40.

בהמות—βόσκημα 'fatted beasts, cattle, of horses, sheep, hogs and dogs
בהמה—βῆμα ' πρόβατα, cattle.
מתן—νῶτον 'Back, rear, ridge'
בטן—ὕπτιον 'in animals, the under parts, i.e. the belly uppermost
גידי—κλαδί 'branch, of a blood vessel, metaphor 'two arms
זנב—στόλος 'stump of the tail, in animals
פחד—φῦσα 'pair of bellows, bladder, πλατύς 'broad-shouldered
שרירי, שרג—σῦριγξ 'hole in the nave of a wheel, cavity of the spine, passage through the elephant's trunk
עצמ—ὀστέον 'bone, esp. of the cranium,
גרמ—ῥάχις 'the lower part of the back, the chine
ארז—ῥαδινός 'of the limbs or body, taper, ὄρπηξ 'anything made of such shoots or trees ,
מטיל—μέταλλον 'mineral, metal

חרבו is probably ῥάβδος, ῥαβδίον or ῥομφαία

The only clue is the verb יגש which is ἐγγίζω 'approach, come near, bring up to' from γυῖον/יד