Hi Karl,
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:26 pm
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.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:26 pm
ducky wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:43 am
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.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:26 pm
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.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:26 pm
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.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:26 pm
ducky wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:43 amAnd 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.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:26 pm
ducky wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:43 amHebrew 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.