A couple of words, does this make sense?

[Isaac Fried]

Talking about רטט it is worth taking into consideration also the רתת of Hosea 13:1.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

I think what I've not made clear is how I'm reading the verse.

I read as follows:

She has turned away to flee and panic - הפנתה לנוס ורטט …

That I'm taking רטט with הפנתה לנוס is why I believe רטט is referring to panic/terror. I'm combining it with Damascus fleeing.

The verb לנוס is an infinitive, which indicates the purpose of the turning, but not that the flight was actually accomplished. רטט is a masculine noun in this context. If the flight was to be in panic, I understand the Hebrew to read הפמתה ברטט לנוס or הפנתה לנוס ברטט. Are you suggesting that this verse may have been corrupted by a copyist error?

As you're taking רטט with החזיקה, I can see why רטט could certainly mean immobilisation.

Mixing a verbal infinitive and noun, both as objects of a single verb, is a pattern of which I’m unfamiliar for Biblical Hebrew. I could have missed something, but as I presently understand Hebrew language, that’s not practiced. Therefore, I take רטט as the subject for החזיקה.

What then has to be decided, I think, is how the words in the verse are to be read.

Quite true.

Karl W. Randolph.

[S_Walch]

Mixing a verbal infinitive and noun, both as objects of a single verb, is a pattern of which I’m unfamiliar for Biblical Hebrew. I could have missed something, but as I presently understand Hebrew language, that’s not practiced. Therefore, I take רטט as the subject for החזיקה.

I'm being more influenced by the parallel passages of Jer 6:24 and 8:21, especially 6:24 where we have pretty much the same sort of thing being said. In 6:24, חזק goes with צרה.

However, checking some other places where חזק occures (6:23, 50:33), I do see that חזק follows rather than precedes its subject, giving more credence to רטט being the subject of החזיקה in Jer 49:24.

Are you suggesting that this verse may have been corrupted by a copyist error?

I didn't want to turn this into yet another thread where I bring the LXX into it, but since you asked this...

Jeremiah LXX and Jeremiah Heb are known to have quite a few differences between them (the main one being chapter order), and this verse is no exception.

LXX has it as Jer 30:13, and reads:
ἐξελύθη Δαμασκός,
Damascus has failed,

ἀπεστράφη εἰς φυγήν,
she has turned away to flee,

τρόμος ἐπελάβετο αὐτῆς.
terror has seized her

The LXX seems to completely omit צרה וחבלים אחזתה כיולדה, but also appears to have a different Hebrew that probably looks like רפתה דמשק הפנתה לנוס רטט החזיקה.

So yes, I personally would say we have a copyist error, somewhere in Jeremiah 49:24. The LXX does therefore provide evidence for רטט החזיקה, but then evidence that רטט means "terror, trembling".

(PS: Karl - Check your PM's )

[kwrandolph]

(PS: Karl - Check your PM's )

??? eh, what’s a “PM”?

The first thought that came to mind is “postmortem”.

Karl W. Randolph.

[S_Walch]

...personal messages

(These things - ucp.php?i=pm&folder=inbox )

[kwrandolph]

...personal messages

(These things - ucp.php?i=pm&folder=inbox )

Oh wow, thanks, I didn’t know these things existed.

Karl W. Randolph.