Psalm 35:21 and 22 saw it ?

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
ducky
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Psalm 35:21 and 22 saw it ?

Post by ducky »

I don't know if "we've got you" is a nice way to say it.
The meaning of ראתה עיני comes in the sense of "seeing the fall of (the enemy).

It appears a few times more:
Psalms 54:9 ובאיבי ראתה עיני
Psalms 118:7 ואני אראה בשנאי
Psalms 59:11 אלהים יראני בשררי
Micha 7:10 עיני תראינה בה

The same "phrase" comes with the verbs חזה and נבט as well:
Micha 4:11 ותחז בציון עינינו
Psalms 92:12 ותבט עיני בשורי

*******************************
This "phrase" also comes in the non-Hebrew Mesha Stele.
There it is written:
וכי הראני בכל שנאי

***********************************************

In Psalms 92:12, after he says ותבט עיני בשורי,
he continues to say בקמים עלי מרעים תשמענה אזני

And this תשמענה אזני also comes in the same sense.
But instead of "seeing", he uses "hearing".
And it seems that this is a one-time case that was influenced by the known "seeing" way.

Also, Notice the nice pun in this verse
ותבט עיני בשורי
שורי is a term to describe the enemies (probably based on the meaning of seeing, and of course, the root means "seeing" as well) - therefore, he uses תבט.

בקמים עלי מרעים תשמענה אזני
מרעים give the feeling of the sound for תרועה (or even רעם) and it fits the way of "hearing". Therefore, תשמענה אזני.
David Hunter
ducky
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Psalm 35:21 and 22 saw it ?

Post by ducky »

Jason Hare wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:48 pm Yes, the Aleppo Codex does have the easier reading, that's for sure. How do we deal with the Leningrad Codex, though, or with the Septuagint and Vulgate, which both have plural readings?
It is interesting not because of the large possibility that they saw עינינו in their text, but because they chose to translate that as plural even though the verb is singular.

Because The flexibility between עינינו/עיננו is way larger than the ראתה case.
But still, they chose to focus on the עינינו as plural and ignore the ראתה as singular.

But actually, (just to give a general note), this form (of perfect, 3rd, feminine, singular) is the archaic form of the plural feminine (and not singular).
(The singular was ראת - and the plural was ראתה)
But that is very archaic and rare, and it would be hard to assume that this is how they "caught" it.

**********
Something interesting that I saw...
I checked in the Aleppo Masoretic notes about this word עיננו, and it was written that it is one of two times when this word is written without Y (doesn't mean that it was supposed to be with Y. Only that there are two cases).
The other case is in 2Sam 20:6.

And then I checked the note on the Leningrad Codex, and it doesn't say anything its עינינו in Psalm.
But in 2Sam 20:6 it has a note for the עיננו in that verse.
The note looks a little bit blurry so I hope I saw it write.
But if I did, it seems that it writes there also ב חס (as two times with no Y).

Now if the only two cases, according to the Aleppo codex, are only in 2Sam and in Psalms - And Leningrad doesn't have this case in Psalm, then what two cases does it mean?

I wanted to check if Leningrad Codex has another case of עיננו (as it has in 2Sam) but I didn't find a way to search the text. (I can go one by one, but it would take some time).

If there is another case, then it must be another difference between it and the Allepo Codex (but it is hard for me to believe that).

But if there isn't, then we have to ask ourselves, if the second case supposed to be the case in Psalm which in its text it is עינינו (and the note would point at it as עיננו).

Do you have a way that we can search the Leningrad text?
David Hunter
Jason Hare
Posts: 917
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Psalm 35:21 and 22 saw it ?

Post by Jason Hare »

The easiest access I have to it is through tanach.us, which is always mentioned here when an update comes out.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
ducky
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Psalm 35:21 and 22 saw it ?

Post by ducky »

I did a check from the site that has the Leningrad codex, and I didn't find any other case of עיננו.

So it is weird.
In the note in 2Sam for the word עיננו, it writes (if I saw right) that there are 2 cases like that (as עיננו).
And this note is also in the Aleppo codex.
But in the Allepo Codex, it is clear that the second case is in Psalm.
But in the Leningrad Codex, I couldn't find the second case.

So it seems to me that the note does support the עיננו also in Psalm - even though the text itself writes עינינו
David Hunter
kwrandolph
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 35:21 and 22 saw it ?

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:48 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:26 pm Here’s a textual variation—I usually read an electronic transcription of the Aleppo text without points. ראתה is the usual form for Qatal, feminine singular, third person III-he verb. עין is feminine. In the Aleppo codex the noun עין is singular “…our eye sees”. In this case it appears that the Aleppo codex is correct, and the WLC wrong.
Yes, the Aleppo Codex does have the easier reading, that's for sure. How do we deal with the Leningrad Codex, though, or with the Septuagint and Vulgate, which both have plural readings?
The verb is conjugated as a third person feminine singular with no suffix, as can be seen in several other examples. That is true also in Leningrad Codex. So how does the Leningrad Codex deal with that incongruity?

The LXX and Vulgate are translations and we don’t know how close they were to the texts they had. The plural may have been understood based on the first person plural possessive suffix and so got written in translation and even in some Hebrew MSS.

My understanding is that someone saw “our eye” and thought it a mistake, so changed it to “our eyes” even though the verb is feminine singular, and that’s what ended up in the Leningrad Codex.

Karl W. Randolph.
Post Reply