ברכו in Job 1:5

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

ברכו in Job 1:5

Post by kwrandolph »

This word is usually connected with ברך “to bless” but is that correct? Could it have something to do with removal or neglecting?

In Ezekiel 3:12 we have ברוך as a noun referring to an action in a context that definitely does not give a meaning of “to bless”. Is this another occurrence of a word from the same root? Here the word has a context indicating removal of some sort. Here the dictionaries list this under רוך but is that correct? Even in this context, the root could be a homograph to ברך.

Are there any references from cognate languages that may shed some light on this question? While I take cognate languages with a grain of salt, sometimes they clarify issues.

What d’y’all think?

Karl W. Randolph.
S_Walch
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: ברכו in Job 1:5

Post by S_Walch »

kwrandolph wrote:Are there any references from cognate languages that may shed some light on this question? While I take cognate languages with a grain of salt, sometimes they clarify issues.
As per HALOT:

ברך: MHb., Ug. brk, Ph. Karat. 1:1; 3:2, Pun. pf. sffx. βαραχω (qal) besides impf. ybarku (pi.) (Friedrich, ZDMG 107:288); Aramaic (→ BArm.) pa., Syriac also pe., DISO 44; Arabic II and III, Old South Arabic (NSem. loan ? ZAW 75:111), Ethiopic bāraka; Egyptian brk (lw.) to pray; Akkadian karābu MAOG 4:294ff (AHw. 445) to bless, to greet; Old South Arabic krb to consecrate, mkrb (*mukarrib or makrūb) priestly ruler; Ethiopic mekwrāb temple; with בֶּרֶךְ to make fertile, Murtonen VT 9:176f; for formulae constructed with ברך → Gerber Verba denominativa 213ff; Fschr. Hempel 68, 177.

Not too helpful, but quite a few languages (Aramaic, Arabic, Ethiopic and Egyptian) use it to mean "to pray" according to the above; others that reverse the letters (KRB vs BRK) we have to bless, to greet, to consecrate. Nothing is mentioned in HALOT with regards to BRK or KRB meaning "to curse".
This word is usually connected with ברך “to bless” but is that correct? Could it have something to do with removal or neglecting?
The LXX translates this phrase as Μη ποτε οι υιοι μου εν τη καρδια αυτων κακα ενενοησαν προς θεον/Lest perhaps the sons of me in the hearts their evil [things] have thought towards God, which is either a paraphrase of sorts of חטאו [בני] ובֵרכו , or the LXX had a different Hebrew Vorlege. The rest of the verse is pretty much a literal word for word Hebrew-Greek translation, but also contains an expansion: καὶ μόσχον ἕνα περὶ ἁμαρτίας περὶ τῶν ψυχῶν αὐτῶν/and calf one for sin-offering for the souls their. This would definitely be in favour for a different Hebrew Vorlege for the LXX.
In Ezekiel 3:12 we have ברוך as a noun referring to an action in a context that definitely does not give a meaning of “to bless”. Is this another occurrence of a word from the same root? Here the word has a context indicating removal of some sort. Here the dictionaries list this under רוך but is that correct? Even in this context, the root could be a homograph to ברך.
Do they? I've not yet seen on that has ברוך as anything other than from ברך. Again, the LXX has taken it to mean "blessing" by translating it Εὐλογημένη, having it as a start of a sentence "Blessed [is/be] the glory of Yahweh from his place".

Well bar my rather long winded passages above, I'm afraid I don't actually have an answer to your question. I personally would just like to pass it off as a corrupt Masoretic Hebrew of Job. The LXX makes more sense, and unfortunately the DSS don't have anything from the first 8 chapters of Job extant to check =/
Ste Walch
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: ברכו in Job 1:5

Post by kwrandolph »

S_Walch wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Are there any references from cognate languages that may shed some light on this question? While I take cognate languages with a grain of salt, sometimes they clarify issues.
As per HALOT:

ברך: MHb., Ug. brk, Ph. Karat. 1:1; 3:2, Pun. pf. sffx. βαραχω (qal) besides impf. ybarku (pi.) (Friedrich, ZDMG 107:288); Aramaic (→ BArm.) pa., Syriac also pe., DISO 44; Arabic II and III, Old South Arabic (NSem. loan ? ZAW 75:111), Ethiopic bāraka; Egyptian brk (lw.) to pray; Akkadian karābu MAOG 4:294ff (AHw. 445) to bless, to greet; Old South Arabic krb to consecrate, mkrb (*mukarrib or makrūb) priestly ruler; Ethiopic mekwrāb temple; with בֶּרֶךְ to make fertile, Murtonen VT 9:176f; for formulae constructed with ברך → Gerber Verba denominativa 213ff; Fschr. Hempel 68, 177.

Not too helpful, but quite a few languages (Aramaic, Arabic, Ethiopic and Egyptian) use it to mean "to pray" according to the above; others that reverse the letters (KRB vs BRK) we have to bless, to greet, to consecrate. Nothing is mentioned in HALOT with regards to BRK or KRB meaning "to curse".
Thanks. No real surprise here.

(I wonder if the reversal letters are really cognates for קרב with the idea of bringing a sacrifice?)
S_Walch wrote:
This word is usually connected with ברך “to bless” but is that correct? Could it have something to do with removal or neglecting?
The LXX translates this phrase as Μη ποτε οι υιοι μου εν τη καρδια αυτων κακα ενενοησαν προς θεον/Lest perhaps the sons of me in the hearts their evil [things] have thought towards God, which is either a paraphrase of sorts of חטאו [בני] ובֵרכו , or the LXX had a different Hebrew Vorlege. The rest of the verse is pretty much a literal word for word Hebrew-Greek translation, but also contains an expansion: καὶ μόσχον ἕνα περὶ ἁμαρτίας περὶ τῶν ψυχῶν αὐτῶν/and calf one for sin-offering for the souls their. This would definitely be in favour for a different Hebrew Vorlege for the LXX.
There are some who claim that this text, as well as 1 Kings 21:13, were deliberately corrupted by the Masoretes because they couldn’t stand the idea of “curse” and “God” being together. I don’t know, but it is a possibility.

But, on the other hand, there are other places where the LXX gives evidence that some words and their meanings had been forgotten, therefore the translators were guessing. In the Job and 1 Kings passages, it’s clear that “blessing” is not meant, the context rules it out, so were the translators merely guessing here too?
S_Walch wrote:
In Ezekiel 3:12 we have ברוך as a noun referring to an action in a context that definitely does not give a meaning of “to bless”. Is this another occurrence of a word from the same root? Here the word has a context indicating removal of some sort. Here the dictionaries list this under רוך but is that correct? Even in this context, the root could be a homograph to ברך.
Do they? I've not yet seen on that has ברוך as anything other than from ברך. Again, the LXX has taken it to mean "blessing" by translating it Εὐλογημένη, having it as a start of a sentence "Blessed [is/be] the glory of Yahweh from his place".
The idea is that the ב is a prefix “in” so that ברוך in this case is not from the root ברך.

Grammatically and contextually, that translation doesn’t fit. This is one of the verses concerning which I puzzled long and hard, because “blessing” doesn’t fit the context, but some sort of “removal” does. That’s also why I ask if there were any cognate languages which may have preserved such a term.
S_Walch wrote:Well bar my rather long winded passages above, I'm afraid I don't actually have an answer to your question. I personally would just like to pass it off as a corrupt Masoretic Hebrew of Job. The LXX makes more sense, and unfortunately the DSS don't have anything from the first 8 chapters of Job extant to check =/
Thanks. I don’t mind a long-winded answer as long as it is on topic and answers questions, as yours does. Even though you don’t have an answer, you have given plenty of information.

Karl W. Randolph.
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: ברכו in Job 1:5

Post by Isaac Fried »

Karl says
the root could be a homograph to ברך.
Says I
In my opinion there is no such thing as a "homograph" of a Hebrew root.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: ברכו in Job 1:5

Post by Isaac Fried »

We recall that בְּרֵכָה BREKAH, 'pool, reservoir', as in Qohelet 2:6, has nothing to do, not with בֶּרֶךְ BEREK, 'knee', nor with water.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: ברכו in Job 1:5

Post by kwrandolph »

aavichai:

Your answer doesn’t make sense. It’s not only I who makes this claim, but others before me as well.

It’s not I who puts forth the claim that this is evidence that the Masoretes corrupted the text in order to avoid the appearance of “curse God” in the text. I merely mention it as a way some before me have dealt with this conundrum.

What I propose is that there may be a different answer, that a term that has been forgotten, may provide an answer without accusing the Masoretes of deliberate corruption of the text.

While I disagree with the Masoretic points (not only I) and find that many of their Qere readings make less sense than the Kethiv, I hesitate accusing them of deliberate corruption of the text, because if they deliberately corrupted the text here, where else did they corrupt the text? The evidence from elsewhere is that they wrote Kethivs rather than “correct” the text and a deliberate corruption of the text doesn’t fit that pattern.

There are examples of euphemisms being used in Biblical Hebrew, possibly the most common being אבד “to lose (way), get lost” used as an euphemism for “to die”. But having a term meaning its opposite isn’t a euphemism.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: ברכו in Job 1:5

Post by kwrandolph »

Avichai:
aavichai wrote:the word ברך in the meaning of curse is very common in the bible
it is not a thing that is made up in Job or in one or two places
check:
1kings 21:10
1kings 21:13
psalms 10:3 - in here you find curse and bless side by side
Job 1:5 - what we are talking about
Job 1:11
Job 2:5
Job 2:9
What you call “very common” is found only in these texts that you list above. Even there Psalm 10:3 doesn’t fit. In other words, it’s found in only two contexts, therefore quite rare.
aavichai wrote:it is clearly euphemisms, … and the thing that you said that "my answer doesn’t make sense. because It’s not only you who makes this claim, but others before me as well"
doesn't say a thing. what is the reason that is so hard to accept this as euphemisms?
The nature of euphemisms is that they say basically the same thing, but in a softened manner. For example, to say “He is lost to us” (to use a Hebrew euphemism) is the same thing as in English “He passed away” or “He’s no longer with us”, all meant to soften the harshness of “He died.” But it makes no sense to say “He was born” to describe death, because “born” has the opposite meaning from “died”.

Likewise the Hebrew verb ברך has the abstract meaning of “to bless”, so to say that it is an euphemism for “to curse” is not two words with a similar meaning with one being a softened expression of the same idea, rather one word that is given opposite meanings. That’s nuts. It doesn’t make sense. Except in some slangy uses that don’t reach mainstream, just isn’t done.

Psalm 10:3: why it doesn’t fit in your examples:
כי-הלל רשע על-תאות נפשו    ובצע ברך נאץ יהוה
For the wicked boasts about the desires of his life, and the one who blesses unjust gain has contempt for the Lord.

Because the idea that here we have a euphemism is nonsense, and the evidence is against the claim that the Masoretes deliberately corrupted the text, I then propose that there was another word that has the meaning of “to leave behind, to neglect” as a possible way to answer this conundrum.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: ברכו in Job 1:5

Post by kwrandolph »

aavichai wrote:hi karl

The ברך in Psalms can be understood both way
Huh?? In Psalm 10:3, it’s a noun referring to the person who makes a blessing.
Jemoh66 wrote:the euphemisms is not have to be the same thing in a softened manner
That’s the very definition of “euphemism”.
Jemoh66 wrote:it can be the exact opposite
By definition, no. You may be thinking of slang, but I’ve seen no evidence of slang being used in Tanakh.
Jemoh66 wrote:but I wont continue argue about it
cause i know its going to take a lot of time
Apparently English is not your native tongue, so you shouldn’t argue with someone whose native tongue is English.
Jemoh66 wrote:according to your translation to ברך as neglect
To leave behind, hence to neglect. I put that out as a possible homograph to a different root that means to bless.
Jemoh66 wrote:in 1kings they took Navot out and stoned him to death
this punishment is because he neglected God?? What is that mean
Leaving God behind him was the same as saying that he was an atheist, and leaving the king behind him was understood as being in rebellion against the king.
Jemoh66 wrote:that punishment fits the law in Leviticus 24:14,15
הוֹצֵא אֶת-הַמְקַלֵּל אֶל-מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְסָמְכוּ כָל-הַשֹּׁמְעִים אֶת-יְדֵיהֶם עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ וְרָגְמוּ אֹתוֹ כָּל-הָעֵדָה. טו וְאֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תְּדַבֵּר לֵאמֹר אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי-יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ.
14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.

as you can see, the man that curse God is stoned
and this is what happened in this story
Navot has been stoned because he ברך God and it fit as the law say
The word here is not “curse”, rather ‎קלל to treat lightly (unimportant), also to move lightly, quickly, to become light. That would include leaving God.

The word for “to curse” is ארר.
Jemoh66 wrote:***i see that you find a meaning to that word without any proof
You want proof? Then get a time machine and go back 3000 years and talk with the people of that time. Many questions could be answered if we could talk with native speakers of Biblical Hebrew. How did they pronounce words? What did many words mean that today we can only guess, knowing that our guesses could likely be wrong? How exactly did their grammar work? There are many things about Biblical Hebrew which we know only imperfectly, with no proof, knowing that imperfect knowledge is better than none.

You don’t have a time machine? Then don’t ask for proof. We can work with only the incomplete evidence we have. That evidence is so incomplete that sometimes we are just guessing.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: ברכו in Job 1:5

Post by kwrandolph »

aavichai wrote:hi karl
Huh?? In Psalm 10:3, it’s a noun referring to the person who makes a blessing.
what? the ברך is a noun? how did you got that?
It’s clearly that from the context.
aavichai wrote:the ברך is clearly a verb
From where do you get that idea?
aavichai wrote:It's funny that you talk about my native tounge and tell me not to argue in english
when my native tounge is hebrew
and before you jump like the avarage student of hebrew
to claim that it is like two different languages (the bible and the modern)
if you dont speak hebrew - you dont know how much you wrong
and if you dont speak hebrew - try not to argue about that
it is right that we don't talk like in the bible
I cannot read מעריב because the languages are so different—all the weird spellings, the words used in strange ways, and so forth. No, I don’t know modern Israeli Hebrew—it has a different grammar, different spelling rules, different pronunciations, different vocabulary, different rules of noun derivations from roots, all the signs that it is a different language. That you didn’t recognize that ברך in Psalm 10:3 is a noun is a good example of that you don’t know Biblical Hebrew.
aavichai wrote:like you dont talk like Shakespeare - but still if you read Shakespeare you will understand it
No I don’t understand Shakespeare. I need to have it translated to modern English in order to understand it. Well, I can understand it partially, not completely.

The differences between Shakespeare and modern English are far smaller than the differences between Biblical Hebrew and modern Israeli Hebrew.
aavichai wrote:more than a hebrew guy that read it with one eye on the book and the other on the dictionary
I wrote the dictionary that I use.
aavichai wrote:Take every teenager in Israel and let him read the bible and he will understand it
in school we study the bible stories in the sixth grade (12yo) with the original text
and everybody understand it because like I said, It doesn't really so much diffrent
You can talk about the tenses and all that, but eventually
if I sit you next to a 15yo kid from Israel and put Samuel or Kings or the Tora in front of you
(its harder to understand Isa, Jer and the preach of Job, But I'm talking about the classic biblical lang)
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Job, Psalms, they are all “classic Biblical language”.
aavichai wrote:I'm sure to tell you that he will read better than you and understand better than you
even though you can talk about the biblical grammar better than him
and if you dont believe you can check it out somehow
maybe in chat find someone
I have chatted with adult Israelis, and with the humility of adulthood have admitted that they don’t understand Tanakh. Teenagers with a little knowledge think they know everything, but with more knowledge in adulthood recognize that they don’t know everything.

I have heard that there are now translations of Tanakh into modern Israeli Hebrew so that modern Israelis can really understand Tanakh, not just think they do. Beyond just hearing that they exist, I don’t know any details about these translations.
aavichai wrote:but the word קללה and the verb קלל got the meaning of curse (next to take lightly)
and I will show you verses that show that
I put verses with those two roots ברך next to קלל so you can see the clear connection
I won’t go into detail in each example, but in all of them you make the mistake that translation = understanding within the language. English doesn’t have a word to refer to the concept contained in קללה, so a translator uses a word with a similar but not the same meaning for easy reading in English.

Did you notice that not once in those examples did ברך or any of its derivatives have the meaning of “curse”?
aavichai wrote:---and what you say about proof
you should say it to yourself
the fact that we don't have a time machine
doesn't make it right to take some word and give it a new definition because it sound right
when we have doubt we should look for another sources to help us
look for more occasions in the bible
other Semitic languages
With this you show that you don’t know lexicography, the writing of dictionaries.
aavichai wrote:more written stuff in Hebrew like Qumran or Ben Sira or other
or mishna and talmud
There’s evidence that the meanings to many words were forgotten before the Septuagint was written, and the Septuagint is older than most of Qumran, ben Sira, not to mention Mishnah and Talmud. Those who have studied Qumran Hebrew admit that already at that time Qumran Hebrew had different grammar, different spelling rules, some of the vocabulary was different, from Biblical Hebrew. In other words, it was already a different language.
aavichai wrote:and even if you want, you cannot ignore that
the Hebrew was never dead as a religious language
Latin is a dead language. Yet Latin has not ceased to be spoken since the time of the Romans. The definition of a “dead language” is one that is not spoken in the home, nor in the market, even though it may still be spoken with new writings among the educated elite.

From the evidence we have, Biblical Hebrew was already a dead language among most of the returnees from the Babylonian Exile, and completely so by the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.
aavichai wrote:אין סכין מתחדדת אלא בירך חברתה
I didn’t understand this modern Israeli sentence. Google translate gives “No knife is sharpened but congratulated her friend”. It still doesn’t make sense.
aavichai wrote:so maybe next time I hope we agree

Avichai Cohen
There is the concept of “to agree to disagree”. That means that we have come to an impasse where an agreement cannot be made, but that we won’t argue about it. In fact, we won’t even discuss it.

I think you want to agree to disagree. OK, fine with me.

Karl W. Randolph.
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: ברכו in Job 1:5

Post by Isaac Fried »

שבט is not found in the HB as a verb, but as we know, it is in use in spoken Hebrew, לשבט L-$ABET being 'to clone'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Post Reply