Why the Keri and Ketiv שׁוּבָה

[Chris Watts]

Question A: Throughout, in Eight scriptures as listed here, whenever it is שבית it becomes שְׁבוּת and then whenever it is שְׁבוּת it becomes שבית
In the following: Jer 49:39, 29:14. Ezek 16:53 (x3), 39:25. Job 42:10. Lam 2:14. I can not fathom why and it is impossible to search out the grammar and reference books because I do not even know how to ask the key word question. Also I would like to know if I have missed any other scriptures that do this for this same noun and its verb. I am finding the whole thing confusing to be honest.

Question B: I can not find anywhere in even-shoshan's dictionary this verse from psalm 126:4. I have looked thoroughly under the noun שְׁבוּת ; under the verbs שבהand שוב. Is it likely an error of omission?
שׁוּבָה יְהוָה אֶת־שבותנו (שְׁבִיתֵנוּ) כַּאֲפִיקִים בַּנֶּגֶב Psalm 126:4

Chris watts

[bdenckla]

All I can do is commiserate and say that the situation is distantly reminiscent of היא vs הוא as in the following:

Job 31:11: כִּי־[הִ֥יא] (הוא) זִמָּ֑ה (והיא) [וְ֝ה֗וּא] עָוֺ֥ן פְּלִילִֽים׃

Isaiah 30:33: כִּֽי־עָר֤וּךְ מֵֽאֶתְמוּל֙ תׇּפְתֶּ֔ה גַּם־[הִ֛יא] (הוא) לַמֶּ֥לֶךְ הוּכָ֖ן

1 Kings 17:15: וַתֹּ֧אכַל (הוא והיא) [הִֽיא־וָה֛וּא] וּבֵיתָ֖הּ יָמִֽים׃

And I find 200 cases (all in Torah, none outside of Torah) in which הִוא functions as an implicit k/q.

[Chris Watts]

I know this does not help but thought I would post screenshots of these two pages anyway, Gesenius 1898 Grammar: Does not help with my question though.

[kwrandolph]

Question A: Throughout, in Eight scriptures as listed here, whenever it is שבית it becomes שְׁבוּת and then whenever it is שְׁבוּת it becomes שבית
In the following: Jer 49:39, 29:14. Ezek 16:53 (x3), 39:25. Job 42:10. Lam 2:14. I can not fathom why and it is impossible to search out the grammar and reference books because I do not even know how to ask the key word question. Also I would like to know if I have missed any other scriptures that do this for this same noun and its verb. I am finding the whole thing confusing to be honest.

This is a question I hadn’t considered before. I usually ignore Qere. I figure that the Masoretes were so far removed from native speakers (1000 years) that their “corrections” are based on their understanding of Tiberian Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew.

I looked up שבות and the following are a few more verses to consider. Without a change includes examples with a possessive suffix.

Changed in Jeremiah 29:14, Zephaniah 2:7, Psalm 85:2

Without a change Deuteronomy 30:3, Jeremiah 30:3, 18, 31:22, 32:44, 33:7, 11, 26, 48:47, 49:6, Ezekiel 29:14, Hosea 6:11, Joel 4:1, Amos 9:14, Obadiah 1:11, Psalm 14:7, 53:7

Interesting cases of Zephaniah 3:20, Zechariah 10:10

Question B: I can not find anywhere in even-shoshan's dictionary this verse from psalm 126:4. I have looked thoroughly under the noun שְׁבוּת ; under the verbs שבהand שוב. Is it likely an error of omission?
שׁוּבָה יְהוָה אֶת־שבותנו (שְׁבִיתֵנוּ) כַּאֲפִיקִים בַּנֶּגֶב Psalm 126:4

I have this listed under שבה

Chris watts

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

I have this listed under שבה

Karl W. Randolph.

Just a quickie....
Hi Karl, I need time to digest and look up those scriptures fully, but just for now I found psalm 126:4 in even-shoshan. They have given it a seperate listing under the feminine noun שבית and their definition as שבי, שביה "Captivity" of course. I am confused as to why they needed to give it a seperate listing considering they have this same Feminine noun under שְׁבוּת already, but with a slight deviation in the definition שביה למצב הקודים meaning "a return to the previous state". A very subtle difference, but a difference indeed.

If anyone can shed any light for me I would be thankful.

Karl said: "Interesting cases of Zephaniah 3:20, Zechariah 10:10"

WHY? I don't see anything out of the ordinary.

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

Karl said: "Interesting cases of Zephaniah 3:20, Zechariah 10:10"

WHY? I don't see anything out of the ordinary.

Chris watts

I found it interesting because those two have indications of plural following the tau.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi,

Basically, both שבית and שבות are understood with the meaning of "captivity", and with that - "exile" (root שבה, as Karl said).
The suffix ות or ית is not really a factor here.
And the word mostly comes in the context of people returning from exile to their homes.

On the other hand, some make distinctions between these two forms, and say that the שבית "focuses" on the "captivity",
while the שבות focuses on the "returning" (root שוב)
Focuses on the returning to their previous state (as you mention: שיבה למצב הקודם).

And anyway, the difference is very thin between these two since bringing back exiled people their home is bringing people back to their previous state.

*****************************************************************
For example,
Job 42:10 writes שבית but the reading is שבות.
And you can say that the change is because of the context that the meaning is that God brought Job back to his previous state, and not that it has anything with captivity.
(But on the other hand, some commentaries, and translations understand this also with the meaning of captivity).

Another example,
Ezekiel 16:53 which changes the שבית to שבות and the שבות to שבית
And you can compare this verse with verse 55, which says clearly "going back to their previous state)

****
So maybe this thin line of difference was the cause of change.

But - On the other hand, I'm not so sure that this is the reason. Because at that time, the accepted definition was "captivity, exile", and the distinction was not yet made (at least as far as I know - maybe I should check). So, I don't know if the Masora gave this interpretation through this Ktiv/Kere - since I don't think that distinction was made yet.

Could be that the change is because of just simple reading tradition vs. scribal tradition, with no "Special and important" reason.

For example, if in Deut. 30:3 it writes (and read) ושב את שבותך,
and then in Jer. 29:14 it writes ושבתי את שביתכם, so the change to שבותכם is not strange at all.
It just writes it in the same way that was known.

There can be a few reasons for Ktiv/Kere - not just of "corrections and fixes".

If the distinction between שבית and שבות was not exist at that time, then It's hard to know why these changes were made.
It really could be that it reflected the known reading (or "a" known reading), which is also a tradition, and it was put there next to the scribal tradition.

Notice that the very most of the changes are from שבית to שבות (and not the opposite) which can strengthen the assumption that it was just a reading tradition - that the combination שב/השיב שבות was stronger that שב/השיב שבית and that is how the reading was made. And the Masora wrote this reading tradition next to their scribal.

****************************
Just a note: I don't see this word on Zechariah 10:10.

[Chris Watts]

Karl said: "Interesting cases of Zephaniah 3:20, Zechariah 10:10"

WHY? I don't see anything out of the ordinary.

Chris watts

I found it interesting because those two have indications of plural following the tau.

Karl W. Randolph.

Sorry Karl, I don't get it. I do not see any plural endings following a tav in zephaniah only in Zechariah, so what is unusual with that?

Ducky...Hi...

thank you for your detailed comments, much appreciated, I want to look further into this subject and scriptures quoted, see if I can dig anything up, maybe wasting time on something pointless to concern myself about, unfortunately my teeth are stuck into this topic and it's hard to leave alone at the moment... I will get back to you.

Chris watts