sabbath in Exodus 31:13 and Ezekiel 20:20

The main place for discussion the Hebrew Bible, its language and message.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Danielkim
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 7:27 pm

sabbath in Exodus 31:13 and Ezekiel 20:20

Postby Danielkim » Mon May 16, 2016 2:05 pm

Hello.

I am trying to figure out the difference between these two verses.

the sabbaths in Exodus in 31:13 is שַׁבְּתֹתַ֖י

and the sabbaths in Ezekiel in 20:20 is שַׁבְּתוֹתַ֖י.

I would like to know why "vav" inserted in Ezekiel 20:20 ?

please help me.

וְאֶת־שַׁבְּתֹותַ֖י קַדֵּ֑שׁוּ וְהָי֤וּ לְאֹות֙ בֵּינִ֣י וּבֵֽינֵיכֶ֔ם לָדַ֕עַת כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם (ezekiel 20:20)

וְאַתָּ֞ה דַּבֵּ֨ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר אַ֥ךְ אֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתַ֖י תִּשְׁמֹ֑רוּ כִּי֩ אֹ֨ות הִ֜וא בֵּינִ֤י וּבֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ לְדֹרֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם לָדַ֕עַת כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶֽם׃ (Exodus 31:13)

thank you so much.

Daniel Kim.

bible student from Virginia U.S.A

kwrandolph
Posts: 905
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: sabbath in Exodus 31:13 and Ezekiel 20:20

Postby kwrandolph » Wed May 18, 2016 5:56 pm

Daniel:

You mean between Ezekiel 20:13 and 22:8, contrasted to Ezekiel 20:12, 16, 20, 21, 24, and 22:26, right?

The problem is that Biblical Hebrew language is not that well known, in other words, we still have unanswered questions concerning the language. The Masoretes assumed that those words that omitted the waw were defective plurals, and so pointed them as plurals. Now it is possible that the Masoretes were correct that those are defective plurals, possibly the result of copyist errors, but there are so many such “defective plurals” that I’m beginning to think that they had a different meaning. Is it possible that they refer to a group than to many individuals?

Sorry I cannot give a more definitive answer. The more I read, the more I realize that the pat answers that we got in class don’t add up.

Karl W. Randolph.

User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: sabbath in Exodus 31:13 and Ezekiel 20:20

Postby SteveMiller » Thu May 19, 2016 8:09 pm

Karl,
But often (maybe usually), when you have a defective cholem in MT, the full cholem is in DSS.
It may have become an accepted abbreviation by some.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)

Jemoh66
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: sabbath in Exodus 31:13 and Ezekiel 20:20

Postby Jemoh66 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:00 am

Maybe the prophet himself was inconsistent in his spelling. After all there was no royal academy that standardized the BH when these men were penning down what they received from God.
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary

S_Walch
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: sabbath in Exodus 31:13 and Ezekiel 20:20

Postby S_Walch » Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:13 pm

Perhaps Jonathan, but most people (even the ancients) stick to their own personal spelling and writing patterns. So if Ezekiel used the plene spelling in several places, then there's not a good reason to think that he doesn't do so consistently. The supposed defective spelling שבתת only appears twice in the MT text of Ezekiel (20:13 & 22:8), the plene occurs 10 times (20:12, 16, 20, 21, 24; 22:26; 23:38; 44:24; 45:17; 46:3).

This therefore gives us two main options: Corrupted MT Text, or 20:13 and 22:8 are intended to be different to the other 10 instances.
The third possible option, that Ezekiel wrote the defective spelling, would need more instances where he himself fluctuates between using the plene and defective spelling of words, especially in such close proximity.

Karl,
But often (maybe usually), when you have a defective cholem in MT, the full cholem is in DSS.
It may have become an accepted abbreviation by some.

Not only that, but in numerous places where the Masoretes have pointed something as singular, the DSS actually has the plene indicating plural - cf Isaiah 11:8 Great Isaiah Scroll (מאורות vs Mas מְאוּרַ֣ת - though GIS also has an alternative reading here as well: צפעונים).

Interestingly in Isaiah 11:8, 4QIsac also has the defective of מאורת, but then has the plural צפעונים in agreement with GIS. This reading is somewhat reflected in the LXX: κοίτην ἐκγόνων ἀσπίδων a bed of the children of vipers'.

We see a similar thing in Isaiah 18:6 (GIS/LXX ולבהמות/καὶ τοῖς θηρίοις & בהמות/θηρια vs Mas וּֽלְבֶהֱמַ֖ת & בֶּהֱמַ֥ת).

Essentially, what is pointed defective plural may be singular, and what is pointed singular may be defective plural.

@DavidKim:
As you'll see, even what may be seen as a simple question, won't have a simple answer, nor will it have an answer at all! Gotta love BH :D

To give a tl;dr version:
שַׁבְּתֹתַ֖י in Exodus 31:13 is a possible defective spelling of the plural, whereas in Ezek 20:12 שַׁבְּתוֹתַי is the plene spelling of the plural. However it is possible that the Masoretes incorrectly pointed שבתתי in Exodus 31:13, and is actually the singular form meaning 'My Sabbath'.
Ste Walch

User avatar
Ben Putnam
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:08 am

Re: sabbath in Exodus 31:13 and Ezekiel 20:20

Postby Ben Putnam » Thu May 25, 2017 4:08 pm

How can שבתתי be read as singular when there are two ת? This is simply a variation in spelling which is common and well documented.
Ben Putnam

S_Walch
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: sabbath in Exodus 31:13 and Ezekiel 20:20

Postby S_Walch » Thu May 25, 2017 8:04 pm

Hi Ben - that would be reading it as שבת-תי rather than שבתת-י. Rare I know, but the defective plural between two ת with α pronominal suffix itself is rare (as opposed to תות), occurring only around 12 times (that I've found - maybe a couple more but not many) in the MT Hebrew - Exo 31:13; Lev 19:3, 30; 26:2, 34 x2, 34, 43; Eze 20:13, 22:8 all for שבת; Psa 31:16 (עתתי) and Lam 3:59 (עותתי).

So we either have authors using a defective plural when they've usually used the plene; a corrupt text (so either שבתותי or שבתי); or a different meaning.

Having read through more than my fair share of DSS, my immediate reaction is to consider the possibility that it's just simply the singular, even if it's rare in the MT Hebrew to see such a reading consisting of two ת. Though personally, I would opt for merely the defective spelling, with the DSS I'd say around 90% likely to have the plene spelling.
Ste Walch

kwrandolph
Posts: 905
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: sabbath in Exodus 31:13 and Ezekiel 20:20

Postby kwrandolph » Sun May 28, 2017 5:58 pm

In the year since this thread was started, I’ve become more aware about the suffixes placed on nouns to make differentiation of nuances of use.

Some years ago, I noticed that some nouns were written as both masculine and feminine with a heh ending. I found some reasons for why some would be masculine and feminine and the differences in meaning that the different genders indicate.

Just recently I realized that some of the nouns listed in dictionaries as feminine ending in a heh actually end in a tau, not a heh. The Masoretes assumed that they were defective plurals, and so pointed them as such. But when such “defective plurals” are found in the same verses as correctly spelled feminine plurals … ???

My initial impression is that the tau ending is a singular noun indicating status. As all initial impressions, it could be wrong.

Possibly the most common such noun is אבת usually considered a defective plural for אבות (also found).

Then there are the singular nouns that end in waw tau (not feminine plurals), how does that affect the meaning?

Just as in English there are patterns to derive nouns from verbs, an example being “to act” with derivatives “act”, “action”, “activity”, “actor”, and so forth, so there appear to be patterns in Biblical Hebrew to derive nouns from verbs in such a way as to get the desired meanings. I have never seen those patterns spelled out.

We don’t know Biblical Hebrew as well as we think we do. That should be a blow to our pride.

My 2¢.

Karl W. Randolph.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests