Question on the name Samuel from 1 Sam 1:20

[kwrandolph]

Absolutely. It has been v at least since the earliest part of the Second Temple Period.

Where’s your evidence for your pronunciation?

Karl W. Randolph.

Haven't we been over this already?

Not that I remember for this phone pair.

Do you not remember the appearance of גב and גו in the late literature?

Not in Biblical literature.

The sound of ו=V is also very old (Yiddish didn't created that).
But the original sound was W (and it is not just in the Yemenite accent).

Absolutely. It has been v at least since the earliest part of the Second Temple Period.

The earliest part of the Second Temple Period included the post-exile Biblical writings. According to Lisowski’s concordance, גב is not found once in post-exile Biblical writings, and גו is found only once.

In the handscripts of the Mishna there are mix between the ו and the ב in clear cases.
For example,
אבזים/אוזים=avazim (here the ו was written as ב)
יונה/יבנה=yavne (here the ב was written as ו)
there are more examples, but I picked only two.

Also, in old Hebrew/grammar books from the medivial era, it is said that in Israel there is a pronunciation of the ו as V.

for example, The Karaite Abu al-Faraj Harun wrote a book about the right reading of the bible, and he wrote that in Israel there is a pronunciation of the letter ו, when it comes at the end of a word, it is like V.

in three other books:
1. by the karaite David ben Abraham al-Fasi
2. by anonimous writer
3. by Mishael ben Uziel

It is understood, that also ו that starts the word or in its mddle, was pronounced as V.

****
So clearly this ו as V is not something new, and it goes back to the mishnaic times.
And surely it doesn't mean that everyone pronounced it like that, but it shows about a known pronounciation of that letter by some speakers and reader.

OK, so the earliest examples come from six centuries after Hebrew ceased to be spoken as a native tongue.

I didn’t know about these previous patterns because all I know is Biblical Hebrew. All I knew was that Yiddish has that pronunciation. But I see no evidence that it ever had that pronunciation during Biblical times. Not even in late Biblical times after the Babylonian exile.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

Not in Biblical literature.

I think we can see
psalms 129:3 עַל גַּבִּי חָרְשׁוּ חֹרְשִׁים
and Isa. 50:6 גֵּוִי נָתַתִּי לְמַכִּים
as both refer to the back

The earliest part of the Second Temple Period included the post-exile Biblical writings. According to Lisowski’s concordance, גב is not found once in post-exile Biblical writings, and גו is found only once.

I think that Psalms 129 is considered to be a post-biblical psalm (גב).

About גו - indeed I see it in Nehenia, but I also see it in Kings and in Ezekiel.
Kings is pre-exile
Ezekiel is at the time of exile
and Nehemia is post-exile.

***
Also, when I read your comment that the גב is not found on post-exile and גו is found once, I wonder...
Because you say that in the post-exile, Hebrew used Aramaic forms.
And Aramaic has גב (as in Daniel).
So how come Nehemia, which could use גב as a Hebrew word, and also it is the Aramaic word - why it doesn't write גב if he wrote according to Aramaic?
the גו in Aramaic is in the meanng of "inside".
And still, he wrote גו and not גב as in Aramaic?

OK, so the earliest examples come from six centuries after Hebrew ceased to be spoken as a native tongue.

I gave example also from the Mishnaic time
But it really doesn't matter for this subject.

I see no evidence that it ever had that pronunciation during Biblical times. Not even in late Biblical times after the Babylonian exile.

I think that every one agree with you about that.

[kwrandolph]

Hi Karl,

Not in Biblical literature.

I think we can see
psalms 129:3 עַל גַּבִּי חָרְשׁוּ חֹרְשִׁים
and Isa. 50:6 גֵּוִי נָתַתִּי לְמַכִּים
as both refer to the back

Do they? I don’t question the Isaiah verse, but the meaning of the Psalm 129:3 is certainly questionable as referring to “back”.

The earliest part of the Second Temple Period included the post-exile Biblical writings. According to Lisowski’s concordance, גב is not found once in post-exile Biblical writings, and גו is found only once.

I think that Psalms 129 is considered to be a post-biblical psalm (גב).

Post-Biblical? By whom? It’s in Hebrew in a popular format. The popular songs after the Babylonian exile most likely would have been in Aramaic which Jews natively spoke.

About גו - indeed I see it in Nehenia, but I also see it in Kings and in Ezekiel.
Kings is pre-exile
Ezekiel is at the time of exile
and Nehemia is post-exile.

***
Also, when I read your comment that the גב is not found on post-exile and גו is found once, I wonder...
Because you say that in the post-exile, Hebrew used Aramaic forms.

Maybe post-Biblical. All I said is that they used Aramaic pronunciations, not Aramaic forms.

OK, so the earliest examples come from six centuries after Hebrew ceased to be spoken as a native tongue.

I gave example also from the Mishnaic time
But it really doesn't matter for this subject.

Mishnaic times started about six centuries after Hebrew ceased to be a natively spoken language.

There is a difference between “spoken” and “natively spoken”. For example, Latin is still spoken, but no one natively speaks Latin. So the same way, Hebrew continued to be spoken for centuries after the Babylonian exile, but the evidence is that nobody spoke Hebrew natively. They all spoke it as a learned second language.

I see no evidence that it ever had that pronunciation during Biblical times. Not even in late Biblical times after the Babylonian exile.

I think that every one agree with you about that.

We’ll see.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

I think we can see
psalms 129:3 עַל גַּבִּי חָרְשׁוּ חֹרְשִׁים
and Isa. 50:6 גֵּוִי נָתַתִּי לְמַכִּים
as both refer to the back

Do they? I don’t question the Isaiah verse, but the meaning of the Psalm 129:3 is certainly questionable as referring to “back”.

How do you see it?

I know, that there is a suggestion that the גב, in this case, refers to הר ציון like it is said in Jer. 26:18 צִיּוֹן שָׂדֶה תֵחָרֵשׁ וִירוּשָׁלַיִם עִיִּים תִּהְיֶה וְהַר הַבַּיִת לְבָמוֹת יָעַר.
Or in Micha 3:12 צִיּוֹן שָׂדֶה תֵחָרֵשׁ וִירוּשָׁלִַם עִיִּין תִּהְיֶה וְהַר הַבַּיִת לְבָמוֹת יָעַר

And in this psalm, it could be that it says that, as verse 5 says:
יֵבֹשׁוּ וְיִסֹּגוּ אָחוֹר כֹּל שֹׂנְאֵי צִיּוֹן
As talking about the land and refers to those who took control over it and plowed it as if it was theirs.

But even if we want to see it like that as if the גב is the "high place" (as if it was saying על גבי הרי ציון), I think that the word still would be mean "back", because the psalm compares the land as human.
And the psalm starts as if Israel themselves (as a nation and land) talks in 1st person.

And you can see in Isa. 51:23
וְשַׂמְתִּיהָ בְּיַד מוֹגַיִךְ אֲשֶׁר אָמְרוּ לְנַפְשֵׁךְ שְׁחִי וְנַעֲבֹרָה וַתָּשִׂימִי כָאָרֶץ גֵּוֵךְ וְכַחוּץ לַעֹבְרִים
So here we can see the same thing, as the land bends (like a human) and people pass through it.

So also in this psalm it seems to me that the Israel (as nation and land) talks about itself in 1st person as if it was a human, and the people plow on his back.

But maybe this suggestion is not what you meant.
if so, please tell me how you see it.

I think that Psalms 129 is considered to be a post-biblical psalm (גב).

Post-Biblical? By whom? It’s in Hebrew in a popular format. The popular songs after the Babylonian exile most likely would have been in Aramaic which Jews natively spoke.

I didn't undertsand the last part - as if you say that every post-exile text is Aramaic. I think you are taking Aramaic influence too far.

As for the psalm itself.
I can see the prefix ש twice (verses 6+7)
שקדמת
שלא

The ש as a prefix is found in the bible in two eras.
1. A very early era, such in old poetries (considered to be pre-classic Biblical Hebrew) - like in the Song of Deborah.
And In the classic Hebrew (as in the prose untill Jer., the common word is אשר.

2. This prefix ש returned to the biblical text only in the late era.
So when we se this prefix ש here, and not אשר - it could be a sign for the late era of this psalm.

Also, I can see in verse 6, the word קדמת which sound like an Aramaic influence.
Like in Daniel מקדמת דנא.
The word קדמה (in feminine - but not in a construct state) is found also in Exekiel, which is at the time of Exile.

And also, the text itself, as it talks about a story of People who took over the land and used it as their own, and now Israel came back...
It sound to me to fit the events of the people return to Jerusalem after they were expelled from there. So it sound like it fits Ezra-Nehemia era.

Also, when I read your comment that the גב is not found on post-exile and גו is found once, I wonder...
Because you say that in the post-exile, Hebrew used Aramaic forms.

Maybe post-Biblical. All I said is that they used Aramaic pronunciations, not Aramaic forms.

Yes, but in this case, pronunciation creates the forms.
If Nehemia pronounce the word "back" as in Aramaic גב, he should also wrote it like he pronounced that, and therefore, avoid from writing גו - but גב, in the way that he pronunced it according to waht you say.

Mishnaic times started about six centuries after Hebrew ceased to be a natively spoken language.

There is a difference between “spoken” and “natively spoken”. For example, Latin is still spoken, but no one natively speaks Latin. So the same way, Hebrew continued to be spoken for centuries after the Babylonian exile, but the evidence is that nobody spoke Hebrew natively. They all spoke it as a learned second language.

I understand what you're saying, and that is correct.
But actually, there is evidence about a natural non-literary Hebrew in that era.
the letters of Bar-Kokhva are letters to soldiers, common people who are not the educated people.
And the letters are written in very natural Hebrew.
But if, as you say, at that era the common people didn't know Hebrew, and used Aramaic as their natural tongue, How come these letters weren't written in Aramaic?
This alone should break your idea.
Because the text is in Hebrew - Not a literary one, and not as letters that should be kept for the later generation. just to read and throw away.
So when you see that the natural way, of the common people, the one who hold swords, is also Hebrew (and not Aramaic), it should tell you that Hebrew was still alive at that era.

Hebrew ceased to exist as a living spoken language something around 250 AD.

I see no evidence that it ever had that pronunciation during Biblical times. Not even in late Biblical times after the Babylonian exile.

I think that every one agree with you about that.

We’ll see.

If you refer to Jason, he also said that in his last comment.

[kwrandolph]

Hi Karl,

I think we can see
psalms 129:3 עַל גַּבִּי חָרְשׁוּ חֹרְשִׁים
and Isa. 50:6 גֵּוִי נָתַתִּי לְמַכִּים
as both refer to the back

Do they? I don’t question the Isaiah verse, but the meaning of the Psalm 129:3 is certainly questionable as referring to “back”.

How do you see it?

There’s no question that גו means “back”.

But גב is used fewer then 20 times in the Bible. But it is used in several different contexts, which makes it hard to pin it down as to its meaning.

It is used for holes in the ground 2 Kings 3:16, Jeremiah 14:3.
Used of hollows between wood panelling over stone construction 1 Kings 6:9.
Used for the hollow of an altar, where the sacrifices are burned Ezekiel 43:13.
Used in Ezekiel 16 for where prostitutes plied their trade. Probably hollow places, like little rooms, where Johns would have some privacy while purchasing services.
It’s used with a ת suffix understood as eyebrows Leviticus 14:9.
Many of the places it’s used lack enough context to give an idea what is meant. So we can only guess based on where it’s used in contexts where a meaning is understood.

Getting back to Psalm 129:3, the idea of “hollows” would include rooms where people lived and worked.

I think that Psalms 129 is considered to be a post-biblical psalm (גב).

Post-Biblical? By whom? It’s in Hebrew in a popular format. The popular songs after the Babylonian exile most likely would have been in Aramaic which Jews natively spoke.

I didn't undertsand the last part - as if you say that every post-exile text is Aramaic. I think you are taking Aramaic influence too far.

Please read what I wrote more carefully. I never wrote that every post-exile text is Aramaic.

As for the psalm itself.
I can see the prefix ש twice (verses 6+7)
שקדמת
שלא

The ש as a prefix is found in the bible in two eras.
1. A very early era, such in old poetries (considered to be pre-classic Biblical Hebrew) - like in the Song of Deborah.
And In the classic Hebrew (as in the prose untill Jer., the common word is אשר.

2. This prefix ש returned to the biblical text only in the late era.
So when we se this prefix ש here, and not אשר - it could be a sign for the late era of this psalm.

By your own admission, it’s also a sign of early authorship. Because it was early and known throughout the history of Biblical Hebrew, there’s no reason for it not to be used in poetry for reasons of meter at any time when Hebrew was spoken as a native tongue.

Also, I can see in verse 6, the word קדמת which sound like an Aramaic influence.
Like in Daniel מקדמת דנא.
The word קדמה (in feminine - but not in a construct state) is found also in Exekiel, which is at the time of Exile.

That ת suffix is far more common than you may think. Most of the time the Masoretes considered it a defectively written feminine plural, and pointed it as such.

Mishnaic times started about six centuries after Hebrew ceased to be a natively spoken language.

There is a difference between “spoken” and “natively spoken”. For example, Latin is still spoken, but no one natively speaks Latin. So the same way, Hebrew continued to be spoken for centuries after the Babylonian exile, but the evidence is that nobody spoke Hebrew natively. They all spoke it as a learned second language.

I understand what you're saying, and that is correct.
But actually, there is evidence about a natural non-literary Hebrew in that era.
the letters of Bar-Kokhva are letters to soldiers, common people who are not the educated people.

Among those letters were those that were written in Aramaic, including at least one where the writer explained he wrote in Aramaic because he didn’t know Hebrew.

And the letters are written in very natural Hebrew.

Just as to be expected for a language that was used the same way as Latin in medieval to Renaissance Europe.

Hebrew ceased to exist as a living spoken language something around 250 AD.

But there’s no evidence that it was spoken as a natively spoken language.

By the way, Latin is still a living, spoken language among certain groups. But nowhere is it natively spoken.

I think that every one agree with you about that.

We’ll see.

If you refer to Jason, he also said that in his last comment.

I referred to anyone, not just Jason.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

גב is used fewer then 20 times in the Bible. But it is used in several different contexts, which makes it hard to pin it down as to its meaning.

It is used for holes in the ground 2 Kings 3:16, Jeremiah 14:3.
Used of hollows between wood panelling over stone construction 1 Kings 6:9.
Used for the hollow of an altar, where the sacrifices are burned Ezekiel 43:13.
Used in Ezekiel 16 for where prostitutes plied their trade. Probably hollow places, like little rooms, where Johns would have some privacy while purchasing services.
It’s used with a ת suffix understood as eyebrows Leviticus 14:9.
Many of the places it’s used lack enough context to give an idea what is meant. So we can only guess based on where it’s used in contexts where a meaning is understood.

Getting back to Psalm 129:3, the idea of “hollows” would include rooms where people lived and worked.

Hi Karl, without referring to the specific verses you brought, and the way you catch the meaning.
(I don't want to start another subject).

just one thing...
your view of גב In Ezekiel 16 is interesting, and nice as well.
it is like you see this word גב in these verse close to קבה and that is nice.
(but I don't see the "hollow" meaning as its base, but another one - and never mind about it).

Anyway, just to add some words about this...

In my opinion, In Ezekiel, that word גב seems to be the parallel word for רמה - as a high place (as a rite place). because it seems to me that it come with two references:
the allegory of the woman,
and the act of the land itself as having rite-places במות).

And also it seems to me that the description is about being shameless, and not to have a private place, but doing it with pride and publiclly (like there were sexual ritual for worship at that time)

But I have to say that your view about it can fit too.

*********************
As for the psalm itself...
You said that you examine the word by the context.

And you said that you read the גבי in this psalm as "rooms".
I didn't quite catch it.
Can you translate this verse?


*****
And if you say you examine this word by the specific context it's at, why not "back"?
doesn't it fit more?

We already saw the Isa. verse which the land is compared to a leaning body which everyone pass on it.

Also, what more fit to describe pain and sorrow by using this metaphor?
as someone is plowing the back.

****
You should also be aware that this metaphor is also found in Ugarit (which, by the way, its poetry has links to the Hebrew poetry).
And in Ugarit, there is a description of sorrow people that were hurting themselves - and it is said about them that "they ploughed their back (and arms) like it was a valley".
And it also uses the root חרש as in the Hebrew verse.

So using this root חרש to a body should not be strange.
And of course, it comes to say that they plough the land.
But the 1st person talker is Israel itself, as saying they ploughed my back (as the land).

Anyway, I would like to see your translation.

As for the psalm itself.
I can see the prefix ש twice (verses 6+7)
שקדמת
שלא

The ש as a prefix is found in the bible in two eras.
1. A very early era, such in old poetries (considered to be pre-classic Biblical Hebrew) - like in the Song of Deborah.
And In the classic Hebrew (as in the prose untill Jer., the common word is אשר.

2. This prefix ש returned to the biblical text only in the late era.
So when we se this prefix ש here, and not אשר - it could be a sign for the late era of this psalm.

By your own admission, it’s also a sign of early authorship. Because it was early and known throughout the history of Biblical Hebrew, there’s no reason for it not to be used in poetry for reasons of meter at any time when Hebrew was spoken as a native tongue.

The prefix ש was not used at the classic period.
(I guess it was linked more to the northern dialect, I think)
So it doesn't occure in Kings for example.
(we can see the word משלנו in Kings, but it is not the same as the refular usage).

You say that your study is about the facts, but now it seems that you ignore them.
The psalm talks about Zion so it cannot be an old poetry or a northern one.

if your position is to say "anything can happen", then I agree.
because really, anything can happen.

But it is not likely that we would see the ש prefix in first temple era.
Think about it...
This "word" is very common.
And we always see אשר - but not once ש.
If it was even a little bit common in writings, then at least it would be found a few little times.

And when I saw the word קדמת (in that form) which looks like an Aramaic form. And when I look at the event that is told...

for Each one of them, more or less, I can say: anything can happen.
But when they come in three, then it seems to me that it doesn't belong to a first temple era.

That ת suffix is far more common than you may think. Most of the time the Masoretes considered it a defectively written feminine plural, and pointed it as such.

I didn't come to talk about the T suffix.
Maybe I explained myself wrong.
I was talking about the form.

Among those letters were those that were written in Aramaic, including at least one where the writer explained he wrote in Aramaic because he didn’t know Hebrew.

And this thing could be said only if it was not obvious.

if it was obvious, why write it?
it actually says that he was not like the others.

And the letters are written in very natural Hebrew.

Just as to be expected for a language that was used the same way as Latin in medieval to Renaissance Europe.

Hebrew ceased to exist as a living spoken language something around 250 AD.

But there’s no evidence that it was spoken as a natively spoken language.

There is a book by Uri Mor, and his book is about the letters from the era from the mid 1st century to the mid 2nd century.

and he shows there, that the Hebrew was alive, with a living grammar and syntax.
And more than that, he shows how this Hebrew dialect rejected Aramaic influence (of course it had a simple influence) but this dialect has grammatical lines that cannot be seen as artificial of as influenced from Aramaic or something like that.
but I can't write it here of course because it has a lot of issues.

Also the Mishnaic research shows about the living dialects that was at that time

Let's stop talk about this issue because we're just talking in the air right now.
Becuase to get into it, there is a nees for more writings.
And let's keep this topic to another time when it would rise again in more focused manner.

[kwrandolph]

David:

You are grasping at straws here. You are trying to insist that the word means “back” because of a certain theory. But that’s not how scientific research is carried out, also not in linguistics.

In linguistics, we start out with observation. How is a word used? Are there places where the context gives a clear meaning? In the case of גב, the examples where there is a clear understanding, is that it refers to a hollow or indentation like a pit. Are there any places where there is a clear different meaning, indicating a homonym or, in the case of Hebrew, a homograph? In the case of גב, I know of none.

Except in the case of homonyms, and homographs in Hebrew, words don’t have one meaning in one context, but a radically different one in a different context.

The next step is to apply that clear meaning to places where the context doesn’t give a clear meaning, does it make sense? In the case of a boss of a shield, from the perspective of the warrior, itˀs the hollow in the shield where the handle is situated. The hollow of a wheel is for the axle. And so forth.

Anyway, I would like to see your translation.

Here I’ll go with the reading from the DSS.

“Wicked ones are working on (to destroy) my hollow place (where I take refuge) (taking the context that the writer has many enemies).

As for the psalm itself.
I can see the prefix ש twice (verses 6+7)
שקדמת
שלא

The ש as a prefix is found in the bible in two eras.
1. A very early era, such in old poetries (considered to be pre-classic Biblical Hebrew) - like in the Song of Deborah.
And In the classic Hebrew (as in the prose untill Jer., the common word is אשר.

You don’t know when this psalm was written. It could be very early.

2. This prefix ש returned to the biblical text only in the late era.
So when we se this prefix ש here, and not אשר - it could be a sign for the late era of this psalm.

But by your own admission, it can be a sign of early authorship.

The psalm talks about Zion so it cannot be an old poetry or a northern one.

The ש prefix for אשר was used by Solomon in his book Kohelet/Ecclesiastes. That was before the divided kingdom, still quite early but during early first temple era.

And when I saw the word קדמת (in that form) which looks like an Aramaic form. And when I look at the event that is told...

It’s also a Hebrew form, from the earliest Hebrew.

Among those letters were those that were written in Aramaic, including at least one where the writer explained he wrote in Aramaic because he didn’t know Hebrew.

And this thing could be said only if it was not obvious.

He apologized because he wanted to write in Hebrew, but couldn’t.

But remember, that was only one of several Aramaic letters.

There is a book by Uri Mor, and his book is about the letters from the era from the mid 1st century to the mid 2nd century.

and he shows there, that the Hebrew was alive, with a living grammar and syntax.

Latin is still alive, but no one speaks is as a native tongue. You need to recognize that there’s a difference between a living language, and a natively spoken language. Just because the language is alive, does not mean that it’s a natively spoken language. There’s no evidence that after the Babylonian exile, that Hebrew was a natively spoken language.

Let's stop talk about this issue because we're just talking in the air right now.
Becuase to get into it, there is a nees for more writings.
And let's keep this topic to another time when it would rise again in more focused manner.

Okay.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Here I’ll go with the reading from the DSS.

“Wicked ones are working on (to destroy) my hollow place (where I take refuge) (taking the context that the writer has many enemies).

BHQ hasn't yet been released for Psalms. BHS says that the Septuagint reads οἱ ἁμαρτωλοί instead of the MT חֹרְשִׁים—as if the reading were הָֽרְשָׁעִים. Do you know if הָֽרְשָׁעִים is found in the DSS, or should this have been the LXX reading?

[S_Walch]

11Q5 Psalms (The Great Psalms Scroll) does indeed read רשעים:

https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explo ... e/B-371128

Right-column, fourth line from the top:

[צררוני מנעורי גם לו]א יכולו לי על גבי חרשו רשעים

Possibly a case of dittography in the Masoretic or Masoretic ancestor?

חרשו חרשים < חרשו רשעים

[Isaac Fried]

Ps. 129:3

עַל גַּבִּי חָרְשׁוּ חֹרְשִׁים הֶאֱרִיכוּ לְמַעֲנִיתָם
יהוה צַדִּיק קִצֵּץ עֲבוֹת רְשָׁעִים

KJV: "The plowers plowed upon my back: they made long their furrows. The Lord is righteous: he hath cut asunder the cords of the wicked"
The poet is metaphorically describing here the long and deep welts on his back caused by flogging, possibly with the עֲבוֹת of verse 4.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com