Egyptian and Ethiopian Languages

A place for those new to Biblical Hebrew to ask basic questions about the language of the Hebrew Bible.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
Kenneth Greifer
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:05 pm

Re: Egyptian and Ethiopian Languages

Post by Kenneth Greifer »

Jason Hare wrote: Sun Nov 07, 2021 5:08 am Kenneth,

I remember when B-Hebrew had heated arguments about the time and place of the composition of the various biblical books. I can imagine that you would turn that into a “religious versus non-religious” debate. Not everything is squared away in this way. It’s problematic for me that you would suggest that people who take a less rigid interpretation of the Bible are not religious—that only strict fundamentalist readings of the text can be termed “religious” and anything else is “non-religious” or even “anti-religious.”
Jason Hare wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 12:52 pm Ezekiel saw himself as changing the way things had been up until then. I imagine that prophets felt that they had that authority, to bring in new revelations and new commandments from God (or ways to relate to God).
Maybe I misunderstood you. Do you mean that Ezekiel was saying what God said to say or he was making a new rule on his own?
If you are saying he made a new rule on his own, then you would be changing what the Hebrew Bible says, which I guess could be considered a religious interpretation, although not fundamentalist strict interpretation. I guess I didn't phrase it right. I think that any person, who discusses the prophet's motive no matter what their religious belief is, is starting a religious debate. Maybe it should not be called a "religious debate" also, because it assumes that only religious people debate this topic.
If scholars debate in a non-religious unbiased way who Isaiah 53 is about, then that should be allowed here too. Just because a person says it is about the Messiah or Israel or whoever does not make it a "religious debate" because scholars discuss it too. I suppose this discussion forum's rules about religious arguments discriminates against certain topics as being "religious" when in reality scholars debate those topics too. How do you define topics that are religiously controversial and off-limits here because scholars can argue about these topics in a scholarly way, so why can't people here argue about Isaiah 7:14 being about a certain person or not? Why would that be "religious" and not "scholarly"?
Kenneth Greifer
Kenneth Greifer
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:05 pm

Re: Egyptian and Ethiopian Languages

Post by Kenneth Greifer »

kwrandolph wrote: Sat Nov 06, 2021 5:12 pm What I see here is that God didn’t change his command through Ezekiel, rather he continued the same practice since the time of Moses. To give a few verses, one can see what happened during the time of Moses, as well as practices from later kings.

Deuteronomy 24:16: לא יומתו אבות על בנים ובנים לא יומתו על אבות  איש בחטאו יומת
Numbers 26:11: ובני קרח לא מתו 
II Kings 14:6: ואת בני המכים לא המית  ככתוב בספר תורת משה אשר צוה יהוה לאמר לא יומתו אבות על בנים ובנים לא יומתו על אבות—כי אם איש בחטאו ימות
II Chronicles 25:4: ואת בניהם לא המית  כי ככתוב בתורה בספר משה אשר צוה יהוה לאמר לא ימותו אבות על בנים ובנים לא ימותו על אבות—כי איש בחטאו ימותו

Basically, Ezekiel continued the teaching that God originally gave to Moses.

Karl W. Randolph.
Karl,
How do you interpret the saying about the fathers eating the sour grapes and the sons teeth being bothered by it?
Kenneth Greifer
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Egyptian and Ethiopian Languages

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Sat Nov 06, 2021 5:12 pm Deuteronomy 24:16: לא יומתו אבות על בנים ובנים לא יומתו על אבות  איש בחטאו יומת
Numbers 26:11: ובני קרח לא מתו 
With the 1985 JPS Tanach:
Deuteronomy 24:16
לֹֽא־יוּמְת֤וּ אָבוֹת֙ עַל־בָּנִ֔ים וּבָנִ֖ים לֹא־יוּמְת֣וּ עַל־אָב֑וֹת אִ֥ישׁ בְּחֶטְא֖וֹ יוּמָֽתוּ׃
Parents shall not be put to death for children, nor children be put to death for parents: a person shall be put to death only for his own crime.


Numbers 26:11
וּבְנֵי־קֹ֖רַח לֹא־מֵֽתוּ׃
The sons of Korah, however, did not die.
Notice that there is a textual variant at the end of the Deut verse between יוּמָת (singular) and יוּמָ֫תוּ (plural). Between the Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, and other versions, the variants increase quite a bit in this verse. In the end, it doesn’t make much difference. The BHQ has the following note on the verse:
לֹֽא־יוּמְת֤וּ This verb occurs three times in this verse in M in the hofal form. The variations between its renderings in M, and in its renderings in Smr and the versions are possibly due in part to the ambiguity that can arise in the nuances between active, passive, and middle meanings. In the case of the third occurrence, variation may also be due to an attempt to harmonize between subject and verb.
And the variations listed are as follows from the BHS:
16 a Mss 𝔊𝔖𝔗יָמוּתוּ‎, 2 Mss ימתו(ן); 𝔗J cf 19,12 || b cf a, VKen 1 ימתו‎ || c VKen 1 יומת ut Q 2 R 14,6; Ms Q Σαμ 𝔊𝔖𝔙 יָמוּת ut K 𝔊𝔖𝔙 2 R 14,6; 𝔗 ut a.
Question: The laws regarding the treatment of Hebrew slaves indicate that there is a difference between non-Hebrew slaves and Hebrew slaves. Should we understand there to be a difference between how Hebrews are treated with regard to fathers passing iniquity on to their sons as opposed to non-Hebrew nations? How do we harmonize אִ֥ישׁ בְּחֶטְא֖וֹ יוּמָֽתוּ with פֹּ֠קֵד עֲוֺ֨ן אָב֧וֹת עַל־בָּנִ֛ים וְעַל־שִׁלֵּשִׁ֥ים וְעַל־רִבֵּעִ֖ים?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Egyptian and Ethiopian Languages

Post by kwrandolph »

Kenneth Greifer wrote: Sat Nov 06, 2021 7:38 pm
Jason Hare wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 12:52 pm
Ezekiel saw himself as changing the way things had been up until then. I imagine that prophets felt that they had that authority, to bring in new revelations and new commandments from God (or ways to relate to God).
I was just saying that this comment seems to me to be saying a motive for what Ezekiel said. Yes, scholars can do that in their articles and books, but I don't think they would be allowed to say this on this discussion forum because you are deciding the motive of a prophet by saying they could change things if they wanted to. In a way, you are making a religiously controversial statement here that could lead to a religious argument, which is not allowed here. Can prophets change rules if they want to? That is a religious debate topic, and even if scholars discuss it, religious debates aren't allowed here. I am not against discussing this subject. I just think it is religiously controversial for this discussion forum. If a person says, no, prophets just obey God, and you are wrong. Then you have a religious debate. I think it is better to just say what you think Ezekiel meant in that quote you were discussing without mentioning his motive. I guess it is hard to know what is the rule for religious debates here. Is your comment just scholarly or is it starting a religious argument?

For example, you can discuss the grammar and word meanings in Isaiah 53, but if you discuss if it is about Israel, or the Messiah, or King Hezekiah, you are kind of starting a religious debate. Scholars discuss all of those topics, but would they be allowed to do that here? I am not the rule maker or enforcer here, but I think your comment crossed into religious debate territory when you explained Ezekiel's motive.
Kenneth, there’s no such thing as a subject that is free from religion. Others’ religious positions may and will offend, but it is our responsibility not to get offended by them. For example, I have been quite open as to my religious beliefs, and Jason has been open about his religious beliefs which are different from mine, I decided not to take offense when he expresses his beliefs. Though I have to admit that what I find most troubling about his religious beliefs are his claims that his are “scientific” which is nothing like the science I studied when I studied STEM at the university.

What is forbidden here is to proselytize, saying that our beliefs are the only way to understand certain controversial passages. For example, I can present how I understand Isaiah 52:13–53:12, including the linguistic reasons I think that is the correct way to understand the passage, but I cannot say that someone else is wrong when he presents a different understanding of the passage. Presenting my view is discussion, saying that others are wrong proselytizes.

Concerning Ezekiel, I understand that he didn’t change anything. The passage I quoted from Numbers 26:11 came from a history of a rebellion led by Qorach קרח. God killed Qorach and his followers. But his sons didn’t join the rebellion, therefore didn’t die. That was already God’s doing, he didn’t punish the sons for their father’s rebellion.

So what does it mean “visiting the perversion of the fathers upon the sons” (Exodus 20:4)? Is that automatically a punishment? Or is it what we today call “Karma”? Or is it something else? But we see that it was not an automatic death sentence, as evidenced by Qorach’s sons.

Kenneth, your other questions are deeper than can be answered right away, and this response is already getting too long.

Karl W. Randolph.
Post Reply