Haggai 1:8

[Chris Watts]

Despite going through many occurrences of this word ואכבד in the 1st Pers Singular with and without the Heh letter ending, I am having trouble understanding the difference between the corrected version and the written version.

עֲל֥וּ הָהָ֛ר וַהֲבֵאתֶ֥ם עֵ֖ץ וּבְנ֣וּ הַבָּ֑יִת וְאֶרְצֶה־בּ֥וֹ ואכבד (וְאֶכָּבְדָ֖ה) אָמַ֥ר יְהוָֽה

As far as my understanding has taken me I can see no reason why the written version cannot be read as :..."I will delight in it and make glorious" Leaving out the "I" and the "it" does give the translation some depth I think considering these are not explicitly supplied in the Hebrew.

chris watts

[Glenn Dean]

Hi Chris:

I believe that's the cohortative - it (i.e. the cohortative) appears approximately 65% of the time with the ָה ending (according to my grammar book by Practico & VanPelt). since it is the cohortative, then the translation should be "so that I may delight in it and may be honored" (I put the word 'may' because it is the cohortative).

To say it another way, if the 1cs/1cp imperfect ends with the additional ָה then it is cohortative. If the 1cs/1cp does NOT have the additional ָה, it may or may not be the cohortative (this is because the cohortative appears with the additional ָה only 65% of the time)

Glenn

[ducky]

This reading is already written in the Talmud.
And in one hand script, this quote (that in the Talmud) is in the name of a Rabbi from the Mishnaic era.

And it is said there (as a question): Why is that in the second-temple it is written ואכבד but we read ואכבדה.
So the MT text is loyal to the old reading that was known.

The answer, by the way, is that the letter H (which equals 5) represents the 5 things that were missing in the second temple (in relation to the first one).

Of course, this is not a grammatical, or literal explanation. But it is a way to give a religious and more meaningful side to that reading.

[Chris Watts]

Thankyou Glenn, that clears up my first query. Cohortative implying that the action of being honoured is not dependent upon Israel's behaviour but on God's actions hereafter, as I understood things from B.T Arnold and J.H.choi's syntax book that the action is dependant upon the subject of the action. I do not want to turn this into a reflexive of course but would not the cohortative imply in this case that God will honour himself?

David, yes I read that too from Rashi's commentary. I do prefer to give more credence to Ketiv than to Qeri yet while finding the qeri important at the same time. However, in this particular case I am still wondering why the Ketiv was not given vowels in the first place? Looking at Leviticus 10:3 and Isaiah 60:13, I can not fathom what the problem is with the reading as it stands in Haggai?

Chris watts

[Glenn Dean]

However, in this particular case I am still wondering why the Ketiv was not given vowels in the first place? Looking at Leviticus 10:3 and Isaiah 60:13, I can not fathom what the problem is with the reading as it stands in Haggai?

Lev 10:3 doesn't have the same vowels as Hag 1:8, in Lev 10:3 it is אֶכָּבֵ֑ד (i.e. no ָה , "I be glorified" or, as at BibleHub, "I must be glorified"). I see that as very different from Hag 1:8 "I may be glorified" (which is the cohortative).

On a side note, in the BHS the Ketiv has the vowels while the Qere does not (the Qere is given in the margins). BUT at BibleHub the Ketiv doesn't have the vowels (the Ketiv is in [ ] square brackets, while the Qere does have vowels (the Qere is in ( ) parenthesis).

[Chris Watts]

However, in this particular case I am still wondering why the Ketiv was not given vowels in the first place? Looking at Leviticus 10:3 and Isaiah 60:13, I can not fathom what the problem is with the reading as it stands in Haggai?

Lev 10:3 doesn't have the same vowels as Hag 1:8, in Lev 10:3 it is אֶכָּבֵ֑ד (i.e. no ָה , "I be glorified" or, as at BibleHub, "I must be glorified"). I see that as very different from Hag 1:8 "I may be glorified" (which is the cohortative).

On a side note, in the BHS the Ketiv has the vowels while the Qere does not (the Qere is given in the margins). BUT at BibleHub the Ketiv doesn't have the vowels (the Ketiv is in [ ] square brackets, while the Qere does have vowels (the Qere is in ( ) parenthesis).

Hallo Glenn,

No, no, I know that the vowels in my quoted scriptures above are different from the Qeri reading in Haggai - what I was trying to ask was this: There are no vowels given in the Ketiv reading. Therefore, why is there a correction in the first place, since the vowels that are given in the two scriptures I referenced could easily have been used. This was my question. Why has it been given a cohortative reading?

[Glenn Dean]

Why has it been given a cohortative reading?

I see your question now, and I don't know why, without the vowels, it is given a cohortative reading.

Glenn

[ducky]

Hi,

I don't really see a major difference between the ואכבד and the ואכבדה.
Both would give the same meaning of the sentence.

But we already said that the MT wrote the Qere for that word because it was already read like that.
So there was the tradition of the scribes and the tradition of the readers, which Both are represented in the text.

**
As for the method of the Ketiv and Qere...
In the hand-scripts, the Qere comes in the side with no vowels (most of the hand-scripts),
And the Ketiv is given the vowels, according to the Vowels that the Qere had to have.
There were two methods:
1. give the vowels to the Ketiv in the same order that they come in the Qere (no matter if the vowels don't touch the right letter).
2. Give the right vowels to the right letter (even if the vowels are now not in order).

In this case, there is no problem, and the only thing that was given is Qamats at the end.

In Prints, there is a method of not giving vowels to the Ketiv at all, and giving them only to the Qere.
But a lot of prints gives vowels to the Ketiv (and also to the Qere)

So If you check other prints you would see the word like this:
Ktiv: וְאֶכָּבְדָ֖
Qere: וְאֶכָּבְדָ֖ה

[Chris Watts]

Ok Glen, but thanks for the other insights.

David, now that is something I was not aware about concerning the qeri and ketiv renderings, thankyou. So all in all there is nothing wrong with the Ketiv which is what I was concluding but for my lack of knowledge I had to see what the forum would suggest.
chris watts