Jer. 12:9 question on a collective noun

[Dizerner]

Why do the majority of translations make the הַעַ֖יִט סָבִ֣יב עָלֶ֑יהָ (Jer 12:9 WTT) a plural "birds of prey" instead of its grammatical singular, and how does one determine whether a noun qualifies to be used collectively?

One fellow I asked said "The image of the first being surrounded by the second implies some sort of collective entity doing so." But could "encircled" here be something like the circling of a vulture overhead? I'm thinking it refers to Babylon here, the idea being one bird of prey deserves another.

Thanks for any help.

[Chris Watts]

Why do the majority of translations make the הַעַ֖יִט סָבִ֣יב עָלֶ֑יהָ (Jer 12:9 WTT) a plural "birds of prey" instead of its grammatical singular, and how does one determine whether a noun qualifies to be used collectively?

One fellow I asked said "The image of the first being surrounded by the second implies some sort of collective entity doing so." But could "encircled" here be something like the circling of a vulture overhead? I'm thinking it refers to Babylon here, the idea being one bird of prey deserves another.

Thanks for any help.

I agree, it should not be plural at all. My visual idea of all this is: Jerusalem being compared to a coloured bird of prey (vulture no doubt), and another single black or grey vulture circling overhead. The coloured vulture is obviously a symbol of something more beautiful than the one circling. But since vultures never attack other vultures and they only feed on what is already dead, I see an allusion to the dying coloured vulture. And I find it far more of an ominous sign to have a single lonley vulture suddenly appear overhead than a whole group of them. Hence the visual image here I think.

The single coloured vulture is an ominous sign of something weak and slowly dying, when a group of them appear, then the feast is about to start because something is already dead. Sorry for the nature waffle, but I hope this helps a wee bit.

I think the collective nature as translated into English anaesthitises the depth of the imagery that Jeremiah must have seen.

As for your second question about collective plurality of a noun I have to leave that to more experienced hebraists here. Though I will say that I think more thought should be given to the passage than to just simply assume something according to our English language grammatical senses.

chris watts

[Dizerner]

One Jewish commentator considered the bird of prey could be "speckled" with its own blood, which fits in with what you were saying. My theory is it was the blood of its victims. The verse has some other wild theories attached to it.

Appreciate the feedback, would welcome more information about determining collectives.

[Chris Watts]

One Jewish commentator considered the bird of prey could be "speckled" with its own blood, which fits in with what you were saying. My theory is it was the blood of its victims. The verse has some other wild theories attached to it.

Appreciate the feedback, would welcome more information about determining collectives.

The word :צָב֤וּעַ according to BDB could mean Hyena. According to others, colourful. But having the word vulture and Hyena together - I am not sure if there is something in that - no sense here. Anyway I do notice that in Genesis 15:11 and twice in Isaiah 18: 6 this word is indeed a collective. For example in Gen 15:11 it is immediately followed by "..and Abraham drove themaway..." so that makes the noun to be a multitude of birds of prey. However I see no signs of plurality within the context of Jer 12:9 and I also can not see how any blood stained bird could be envisaged.

I am guessing here, but I presume that when a noun is in the singular and it is followed or preceded by some contextual grammar that is itself plural, like Gen15:11 for example, one has to make the singlar noun to be plural. I presume this is just a quirk in hebrew. I wonder if using the example of an English word such as the word : 'People' is a good case. It is imbued with the essence of plurality, yet clearly it is a singular noun, we also use the word Peoples and this is obviously plural. What do you think?

Chris watts

[Dizerner]

I also can not see how any blood stained bird could be envisaged.

The word means "splotched" or "dyed" with color. So in fact it does not specify what is doing the dyeing.

What do you think?

This guy has an elaborate theory and some bad dance moves that might help determine collectives with a singular verb:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiXxainJ9JU

[Jason Hare]

Just throwing this out there, in modern Hebrew צבוע means "hypocrite," too.

[Dizerner]

Just throwing this out there, in modern Hebrew צבוע means "hypocrite," too.

Interesting! Wonder how far back that goes. Maybe it stemmed somehow from hyena. I wasn't convinced about the hyena theory, here is NET on it:

the Greek which reads the first two words as "cave of hyena." This translation has led some scholars to posit a homonym for the word "bird of prey" meaning "cave" which is based on Arabic parallels. The metaphor would then be of Israel carried off by hyenas and surrounded by birds of prey. The evidence for the meaning "cave" is weak and would involve a wordplay of a rare homonym with another word that is better known.

I found some translations that made bold choices:

My inheritance is a long clawed eagle to me. But the eagle is round about her! Come, assemble together all the wild beasts of the field, bring them to devour. (Jer 12:9 Koren Bible)

Another Jewish Bible also took this unusual approach:

Is my heritage become unto me as a bird of prey stained with blood? so that the birds of prey are all around it? Come ye, assemble all the beasts of the field, bring them hither to devour. (Jer 12:9 Leeser Bible)

My people grown strange to me as carrion-bird, its mottled plumage all bathed in blood!° Gather here, beasts that roam the earth, eager for your prey. (Jer 12:9 Knox Bible) [However in his notes Knox speculates the "true meaning is probably lost."]

Several go the hyena route, with Moffatt being the boldest with a "carcass torn by hyenas" instead of the "cave."

[Jason Hare]

Even Shoshan says it was used in this sense in the Talmud (Sotah 22).

In translation:

2. Adj. [borrowed] The name for a person who hides his thoughts and shows himself as in another color, who is fake, whose inside is not like his outside, who acts pious toward the outside: “Do not let yourself be afraid... except of hypocrites” (Sotah 22). “Such people are yet struck with blindnesses or they are hypocrites, true hypocrites” (Berdyczewski, Stories 22). A conman and hypocrite. [inflection: tsavúa, tsvuá, tsvu'ím, tsvu'ót]

I tried to find the source for the Sotah quote, but I didn't see it on that page. Rather I found this quote, which seems to be the real source:

אל תתיראי מן הפרושים ולא ממי שאינם פרושים אלא מן הצבועים הדומין לפרושים ואינם פרושים

It says: “Do not be afraid of the Pharisees or of those who are not Pharisees, but of the hypocrites who are similar to Pharisees but are not Pharisees.”

It's from a midrashic collection called Pirkei Rabbeinu HaKadosh. You can access it here.

Attached is an image of the Even Shoshan entry for צבוע.

[Chris Watts]

Sorry I have no access to Leningrad codex online for some reason and so can not insert the verses or words below in my comments.

Ezekiel 23:15 has a word for "to dye" in the plural, strangely under this verb's root in even-shoshan it does not list Ezekiel 23:15 at all. It does however have a question mark next to the word in its description but does not list the verse. No idea why.

But surely if any form of being bloodied was truly meant then why the need to obfuscate. And if dyed was meant, why not use the word that is in Ezekiel. Also in Isaiah 63:1 we have a different word translated as dyed into English, it is the same word that is used for leaven, though this might have a different significance perhaps.

If it indeed means "Dyed" then I would rather draw the conclusion that the significance, based upon the previous descriptive verses and context, this would allude to a people who have dipped themselves in order to re-colour their behaviours to make them seem something other than what they really are. (a bit like a wicked person wearing a suit and a tie with a white handkerchief in his pocket dishing out smiles and welcoming gestures) Excuse the analogy. Perhaps even God's heritage now being compared to a coloured bird all nice and colourful, but really it is a vulture underneath all that colour and so God is sending the vultures that do not hide their identity with dyed colours to punish. Just thoughts popping around my head.

Chris watts

[Chris Watts]

Jason, just seen your even shoshan entry. What even shoshan dictionary is this please?
chris watts