Help translating 1 Sam 2:32

[Jason Hare]

No, those instances of שלך are indeed hiphil. Admittedly, the Genesis instance is defective (missing the yod), but saying that it is qal because of this is like saying that תולדת is not plural even when it is to be read as תולדות. Words do appear defectively. You're just digging in your heels. Every contention you've made in this post is justifiable only on the contention that your general rejection of the nikkud is correct.

hishlich-holladay.jpg

[Isaac Fried]

Jason wrote

Are you, then, claiming that the root meaning of הבין is "clarity" and that the hiphil means "cause to be clear"? What would the meaning of הבהיר be, then?

To get to the "root meaning" of הבין we need to leave English an return to the Hebrew, which was also one of Karl's claims with which I am in full agreement.
The root of להבין is בן as in בנה, 'build, construe, realize, recognize'.

The root of הבהיר is בהר related to בחר, פכר, באר essentially meaning 'display the details'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

No, those instances of שלך are indeed hiphil. Admittedly, the Genesis instance is defective (missing the yod),

The Genesis instance is just one of several examples.

but saying that it is qal because of this is like saying that תולדת is not plural even when it is to be read as תולדות.

Now you introduce another issue. But from your previous action, you’ll complain if I follow up on it.

Words do appear defectively.

How often? Did ancient Hebrews write with multiple spellings, like American frontiersmen before 1820, or were they more careful in their spelling?

You're just digging in your heels. Every contention you've made in this post is justifiable only on the contention that your general rejection of the nikkud is correct.

And you reject that the consonantal text is correct.

Which is to be followed? Which is more trustworthy? The consonantal text which is original, or the Nikkudim after a thousand years of no native speakers, pronunciation changes, grammar changes, and often not understanding the text?

Why should anyone consider the Niddudim as correct? After all, the system wasn’t invented until over a thousand years after Biblical Hebrew ceased to be a natively spoken language (it was a learned, second language by its speakers). During that thousand years, there were major changes to the grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation of spoken Hebrew. They were not applied to the text according to Biblical Hebrew rules, but according to linguistic and theological traditions connected to medieval Tiberian Hebrew.

I come from the position that the original, consonantal text was far more carefully written than the often sloppy copies found among the DSS. Further, that the consonantal text underlying the Masoretic text comes from an exceedingly careful copying process that introduced very few mistakes. With the result, that for all intents and purposes, we can claim that we have the original text. Therefore, when I see examples of where consonantal text + context indicate one reading, and the Nikkudim a different reading, I go with the consonantal text.

You de facto reject the consonantal text.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Let's look at an example, and you explain what's going on to me.

Joshua 10:27

וַיְהִ֞י לְעֵ֣ת ׀ בּ֣וֹא הַשֶּׁ֗מֶשׁ צִוָּ֤ה יְהוֹשֻׁ֙עַ֙ וַיֹּֽרִידוּם֙ מֵעַ֣ל הָעֵצִ֔ים וַיַּ֨שְׁלִכֻ֔ם אֶל־הַמְּעָרָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר נֶחְבְּאוּ־שָׁ֑ם וַיָּשִׂ֜מוּ אֲבָנִ֤ים גְּדֹלוֹת֙ עַל־פִּ֣י הַמְּעָרָ֔ה עַד־עֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃

The word הוריד most naturally has a vav in the first syllable when in the imperfect: יורידו. We would also expect the internal yod to remain in place in the imperfect: ישימו. These things should not change when they are put in the vav-consecutive. We should see both ויורידו (with the object suffix ויורידום) and וישימו. Yet, the text has both of these written defectively.

The subject of וישלכם is the same as the subject of וירידום and has the same object suffix (ם for "them"). It should be written with a vav at the very least, וישלכום. It's already defective, and we should read it as plural because it has the same subject as וירידום, which is explicitly plural.

We see in this verse four confirmed instances of defective spelling, and yet only in the one do you say it isn't defective but should be read according to the consonants!

וַיֹּֽרִידוּם֙ = וַיּוֹרִידוּם (vayoridúm)
וַיַּ֨שְׁלִכֻ֔ם = וַיַּשְׁלִכוּם (vayashlichúm) [without acknowledging the missing yod]
וַיָּשִׂ֜מוּ = וַיָּשִׂ֫ימוּ (vayasímu)
גְּדֹלוֹת֙ = גְּדוֹלוֹת (gdolot)

These four are confirmed defective spellings, even if גְּדֹלוֹת is a common spelling.

Your argument that וישלכם can only be qal based on the consonants is what is suspect. If the long vav can be missing, why not the long yod? Your argument would hang on your explaining why it is impossible for the yod to be missing. Sometimes the consonantal text assumes a level of knowledge regarding the language. It shouldn't be used to invalidate the language itself. In this case, it would be assumed that the reader knows that שלך must be read in the hiphil.

It often happens that words are written defectively. Creating a whole new reading of the text based on this fact is simply untenable, and this does not mean that I reject the consonants of the text. Again, an unsupportable claim.

If reading "according to the consonants" is your thing, then you must also read וישמו as vayasmu (without the yod) and וירידום as vayaridum (without the vav). These are clearly impossible forms, and if you were reading correctly you would realize that וַיִּשְׁלֹךְ vayishloch (a qal of שלך) is a form that doesn't exist and the normal vav-consecutive hiphil reduces i to e, so וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ as a hiphil is obviously reading "according to the consonants." There are just a handful of forms of this verb that are missing the yod. It can obviously be explained.

Can you explain how וישמו and וירידום should be read "according to the consonants"?

Thank you.

[kwrandolph]

Can you explain how וישמו and וירידום should be read "according to the consonants"?

Thank you.

OK, I’ll do these two for right now.

First of all, what is the root of וירידום? You assume that it is ירד, but is that accurate? Or is the root רוד to be not tied down, to be free with the Hiphil meaning to cause not to be tied down, cause to be free, or the Hiphil in colloquial English, to untie, to free? Doesn’t that better fit both the context and the verbal form in the consonantal text? (The verb רוד is used only six times in Tanakh, once as Qal, five times as Hiphil.)

The difficulty connected with וישמו is because its subject is not named in the verse. It is a masculine plural from the verb שים. Because it’s plural, it cannot refer back to Joshua. But when the verse is taken in its entirety, Joshua commands a plural somebody who are not named, but their actions are indicated by the plural verbs. Therefore וישמו is a Qal Yiqtol verb—“they placed”.

Did you notice that the Masoretic points actually make the verse harder to read and understand? That’s one reason I read an unpointed text, so I don’t get confused by inaccurate points.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Can you explain how וישמו and וירידום should be read "according to the consonants"?

Thank you.

OK, I’ll do these two for right now.

First of all, what is the root of וירידום? You assume that it is ירד, but is that accurate? Or is the root רוד to be not tied down, to be free with the Hiphil meaning to cause not to be tied down, cause to be free, or the Hiphil in colloquial English, to untie, to free? Doesn’t that better fit both the context and the verbal form in the consonantal text? (The verb רוד is used only six times in Tanakh, once as Qal, five times as Hiphil.)

The difficulty connected with וישמו is because its subject is not named in the verse. It is a masculine plural from the verb שים. Because it’s plural, it cannot refer back to Joshua. But when the verse is taken in its entirety, Joshua commands a plural somebody who are not named, but their actions are indicated by the plural verbs. Therefore וישמו is a Qal Yiqtol verb—“they placed”.

Did you notice that the Masoretic points actually make the verse harder to read and understand? That’s one reason I read an unpointed text, so I don’t get confused by inaccurate points.

Karl W. Randolph.

Your method leads nowhere if not to confusion. With this, we're surely at an impassible point and should just let it go. You're never going to convince me that you're at any kind of advantage, since all I can see is that your ability to comprehend the text is constantly at a disadvantage as a result of your dogmatic refusal to read points.

This back-and-forth will get us nowhere.

Jason

[kwrandolph]

Your method leads nowhere if not to confusion.

There are so many places where the Masoretic points are demonstrably wrong such that if a person rigorously follows the points, he has to twist himself into such mental pretzels and jump through weird hoops to make sense of the text; it’s easier just to follow the consonantal text as written. So which leads to confusion, following the text as written, or the points as added?

With this, we're surely at an impassible point and should just let it go. You're never going to convince me that you're at any kind of advantage, since all I can see is that your ability to comprehend the text is constantly at a disadvantage as a result of your dogmatic refusal to read points.

Hebrew has been written some 3500 years if not longer, only a little over 1000 of which were the points added. Further the points were added over 1000 years after Biblical Hebrew ceased to be a natively spoken language (it was a learned, second language by those who spoke it). It has been documented that after Biblical Hebrew ceased to be a natively spoken language, that pronunciations changed, words and their meanings were forgotten while neologisms were added and some words changed meanings, and the grammar was to a large extent replaced by a new grammar. The points were added after many of these changes had occurred. Therefore the points don’t represent the text as originally written, rather they represent the understanding of men through the lens of a changed language. Therefore, when studying Biblical Hebrew, do we tie ourselves to the understandings of men who invented the points, or do we study the language as originally written?

There’s also a theological issue here that I mention only as a “let you know” basis: for those of us who accept that the Bible is God’s message to mankind, such that God had a hand in guiding people to write exactly what God intended, that means that the consonantal text is inviolate. The points were added by people who were neither guided by God, nor do they represent Biblical era pronunciations. Therefore the points are not what we call “inspired by God”. Therefore the points are not authoritative. Therefore there’s no expectation that the points are accurate. Therefore, where there are conflicts between the meanings of passages as indicated by the points, and their meanings as indicated by the consonantal text, the consonantal text gets priority.

This back-and-forth will get us nowhere.

Jason

I know you don’t share the theological position of many on this forum, but I expect that you have been exposed to it making any attempt on my part to convert you to it will be just wasted effort (and it will anger many on this forum). On this issue, I think you are right, that any further back-and-forth will get us nowhere.

On the linguistic side of the discussion, as long as you give priority to the Masoretic points, and I give priority to the consonantal text, that too is an unbridgeable gap. For us to come to an agreement, one of us will have to abandon his present position. I have both linguistic and theological reasons not to abandon my position.

While the two of us have reached an impasse, I wonder what others who have been following this discussion have to say? Do they have anything to add?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason wrote

your dogmatic refusal to read points.

Karl wrote

There are so many places where the Masoretic points are demonstrably wrong such that if a person rigorously follows the points, he has to twist himself into such mental pretzels and jump through weird hoops to make sense of the text; it’s easier just to follow the consonantal text as written. So which leads to confusion, following the text as written, or the points as added?

This is puzzling to me. How does one read a consonantal Hebrew text without reentering into it the omitted vowels? I think that what Karl is saying is that reading the biblical texts he is not merely looking at a string of mute symbols, but that he rather ignores the printed points to replace them by his own vowels. Namely, looking at משה he does not consider it a mere silent hieroglyphic symbol, but he actually utters, by his lips or in his heart, the name Moshe, or any other audible expression variant thereof.

The Torah scroll is without niqud but the public reader, the בעל קורא, vocalizes it as he reads it to his congregation the way he was trained to do. Occasionally, even the most experienced public reader makes a "mistake" relative to the printed books, and is immediately tumultuously corrected by the congregation. It often happens that this alternate, intuitive, "mistaken" readings make no difference in meaning, or they may even seem more logical.

Some people consider the niqud as sacred as the bare text, believing that it was introduced by faithful masoretes בעלי מסורה who preserved the absolutely true reading tradition as handed down on mount Sinai. More liberal minded people look at it with a less certain eye.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the traditional niqud, but we should be convinced where an alternative is viable, or even desirable. I think that instead of scolding Karl for his "idiosyncratic" ideas and entering into twisted, lengthy, abstract, arguments with him, the moderators of this forum should invite him to bring some clear and complete examples of instances where his reading would be preferred to the traditional.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

Your method leads nowhere if not to confusion.

The more I think about this response, the more I’m puzzled—how is recognizing that a different root is used, whose meaning exactly matches the action done and whose form exactly matches the consonantal text, lead to confusion? Why wouldn’t it just clear up present confusion “resolved” by claiming a misspelling?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Your method leads nowhere if not to confusion.

The more I think about this response, the more I’m puzzled—how is recognizing that a different root is used, whose meaning exactly matches the action done and whose form exactly matches the consonantal text, lead to confusion? Why wouldn’t it just clear up present confusion “resolved” by claiming a misspelling?

Karl W. Randolph.

(1) There is no clear way to pronounce words according to your position. You don't have a standardized pronunciation that can be shared with other people. Even ulpan classes in Israel begin with the vowels and break learners from them with time. It is impossible to pronounce words without vowels — even if they are unwritten, they must be there.

(2) You seem to just guess at what form you think fits and invent relationships that are actually not part of the consonantal text. This guessing without grounding is not a way to get out of confusion. It only leads into it.