Deuteronomy 33:27-28
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
-
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:05 pm
Deuteronomy 33:27-28
Deuteronomy 33:27 - 28 דברים
33:27מְעֹנָה֙ אֱלֹ֣הֵי קֶ֔דֶם וּמִתַּ֖חַת זְרֹעֹ֣ת עוֹלָ֑ם וַיְגָ֧רֶשׁ מִפָּנֶ֛יךָ אוֹיֵ֖ב וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הַשְׁמֵֽד׃ 33:28וַיִּשְׁכֹּן֩ יִשְׂרָאֵ֨ל בֶּ֤טַח בָּדָד֙ עֵ֣ין יַעֲקֹ֔ב
אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ דָּגָ֣ן וְתִיר֑וֹשׁ אַף־שָׁמָ֖יו יַֽעַרְפוּ טָֽל׃
JPS 1917
27The eternal God is a dwelling-place,
And underneath are the everlasting arms;
And He thrust out the enemy from before thee,
And said: ‘Destroy.’
28And Israel dwelleth in safety,
The fountain of Jacob alone,
In a land of corn and wine;
Yea, his heavens drop down dew.
Most translations of Deuteronomy 33:27 say "destroy", but shouldn't it be "be destroyed"?
Also, most translations say "and Israel dwelled in safety", but it is about the future, so it could be "and Israel will dwell in safety"?
33:27מְעֹנָה֙ אֱלֹ֣הֵי קֶ֔דֶם וּמִתַּ֖חַת זְרֹעֹ֣ת עוֹלָ֑ם וַיְגָ֧רֶשׁ מִפָּנֶ֛יךָ אוֹיֵ֖ב וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הַשְׁמֵֽד׃ 33:28וַיִּשְׁכֹּן֩ יִשְׂרָאֵ֨ל בֶּ֤טַח בָּדָד֙ עֵ֣ין יַעֲקֹ֔ב
אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ דָּגָ֣ן וְתִיר֑וֹשׁ אַף־שָׁמָ֖יו יַֽעַרְפוּ טָֽל׃
JPS 1917
27The eternal God is a dwelling-place,
And underneath are the everlasting arms;
And He thrust out the enemy from before thee,
And said: ‘Destroy.’
28And Israel dwelleth in safety,
The fountain of Jacob alone,
In a land of corn and wine;
Yea, his heavens drop down dew.
Most translations of Deuteronomy 33:27 say "destroy", but shouldn't it be "be destroyed"?
Also, most translations say "and Israel dwelled in safety", but it is about the future, so it could be "and Israel will dwell in safety"?
Kenneth Greifer
-
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Tue May 26, 2020 6:28 pm
Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28
that's not the niphal stem (if it were the niphal stem you would see the dagesh in the first root consonant (representing the assimulated nun) - as in הִשָּׁמֵד. Notice very carefully the prefix here in the niphal imperative is הִ
What you see in 33:27 is the hiphil stem, imperative: "Destroy!"
Glenn
What you see in 33:27 is the hiphil stem, imperative: "Destroy!"
Glenn
-
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:05 pm
Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28
Glenn,
I am sorry that I didn't explain my opinion better. I meant that I think the traditional reading of the word as "destroy" is wrong and maybe it makes more sense as "be destroyed." I usually look at the consonants and what the quote says to see if it makes sense some other way.
I am sorry that I didn't explain my opinion better. I meant that I think the traditional reading of the word as "destroy" is wrong and maybe it makes more sense as "be destroyed." I usually look at the consonants and what the quote says to see if it makes sense some other way.
Kenneth Greifer
- Jason Hare
- Posts: 1923
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
- Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
- Contact:
Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28
It's hiphil. It isn't passive. That's the point that Glenn is making.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
-
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:05 pm
Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28
Glenn and Jason,
I don't see who God would be commanding to "destroy", but it sounds like He was commanding the enemy to "be destroyed."
I don't see who God would be commanding to "destroy", but it sounds like He was commanding the enemy to "be destroyed."
Kenneth Greifer
-
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:05 pm
Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28
I guess He could be talking to Israel when He says destroy. Never mind. (Some character on TV used to say that. (Emily Litella on Saturday Night LIve played by Gilda Radner).
Kenneth Greifer
-
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28
Using the unpointed text, the verb is Hophal binyan with a middle voice “cause to be destroyed” where the “cause” is active and “be destroyed” passive, hence together making a middle voice.Kenneth Greifer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:07 am Deuteronomy 33:27 - 28 דברים
33:27מְעֹנָה֙ אֱלֹ֣הֵי קֶ֔דֶם וּמִתַּ֖חַת זְרֹעֹ֣ת עוֹלָ֑ם וַיְגָ֧רֶשׁ מִפָּנֶ֛יךָ אוֹיֵ֖ב וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הַשְׁמֵֽד׃ 33:28וַיִּשְׁכֹּן֩ יִשְׂרָאֵ֨ל בֶּ֤טַח בָּדָד֙ עֵ֣ין יַעֲקֹ֔ב
אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ דָּגָ֣ן וְתִיר֑וֹשׁ אַף־שָׁמָ֖יו יַֽעַרְפוּ טָֽל׃
Most translations of Deuteronomy 33:27 say "destroy", but shouldn't it be "be destroyed"?
This is one of the many places where the Masoretes incorrectly pointed a Hophal as a Hiphil.
Yes, this is a future use of the Wayyiqtol.Kenneth Greifer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:07 am Also, most translations say "and Israel dwelled in safety", but it is about the future, so it could be "and Israel will dwell in safety"?
Karl W. Randolph.
- Jason Hare
- Posts: 1923
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
- Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
- Contact:
Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28
If it were hophal, it wouldn't mean "cause to be destroyed." The hiphil השמיד doesn't mean "cause to destroy." It just means "destroy." Therefore, the hophal would simply be the passive of that sense. It would be "be destroyed," not "cause to be destroyed." You're reading "cause" into the hiphil where it isn't there naturally.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:14 pm Using the unpointed text, the verb is Hophal binyan with a middle voice “cause to be destroyed” where the “cause” is active and “be destroyed” passive, hence together making a middle voice.
I don't trust your instincts with Hebrew to be better than those of the Masoretes. You're just speculating.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:14 pm This is one of the many places where the Masoretes incorrectly pointed a Hophal as a Hiphil.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
-
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28
Here you confuse translation with meaning in Biblical Hebrew itself. Literal translation often comes out awkward.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:11 amIf it were hophal, it wouldn't mean "cause to be destroyed." The hiphil השמיד doesn't mean "cause to destroy." It just means "destroy." Therefore, the hophal would simply be the passive of that sense. It would be "be destroyed," not "cause to be destroyed." You're reading "cause" into the hiphil where it isn't there naturally.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:14 pm Using the unpointed text, the verb is Hophal binyan with a middle voice “cause to be destroyed” where the “cause” is active and “be destroyed” passive, hence together making a middle voice.
Here is also a place where we disagree concerning Biblical Hebrew grammar—the Hiphil and Hophal binyanim are grammatical forms that impart the causative force to verbs. In other words, the binyanim are a type of conjugation.
Without doing a detailed study, I noticed that the Hiphil of שמד has the causative meaning in Deuteronomy 31:3–4 where God caused the destruction by means of the weapons in Israel’s hands.
You don’t have to trust me, that’s your business.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:11 amI don't trust your instincts with Hebrew to be better than those of the Masoretes. You're just speculating.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:14 pm This is one of the many places where the Masoretes incorrectly pointed a Hophal as a Hiphil.
I don’t trust the Masoretes’ instincts concerning Biblical Hebrew language when they disregard the text as written. In other words, I trust the writers of Tanakh more than I trust the Masoretes.
Karl W. Randolph.
- Jason Hare
- Posts: 1923
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
- Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
- Contact:
Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28
Karl,
How do you distinguish between the hiphil imperative (הַקְטֵל haqṭēl) and the hophal perfect (הָקְטַל hoqṭal)? What makes you certain that it's hophal and not hiphil?
This isn't about trusting the writers of the consonantal text over against the Masoretes. You haven't proved that the Masoretes were incorrect. You're just ever so eager to reject all points and declare yourself more knowledgeable and more reasonable in your conclusions. I think the Masoretic points should be accepted as-is, and if we disagree with them on occasion (as happens), great. But don't just reject them outright and act as if they were always wrong (which they certainly are not). You are too eager to call them fools.
Jason
How do you distinguish between the hiphil imperative (הַקְטֵל haqṭēl) and the hophal perfect (הָקְטַל hoqṭal)? What makes you certain that it's hophal and not hiphil?
This isn't about trusting the writers of the consonantal text over against the Masoretes. You haven't proved that the Masoretes were incorrect. You're just ever so eager to reject all points and declare yourself more knowledgeable and more reasonable in your conclusions. I think the Masoretic points should be accepted as-is, and if we disagree with them on occasion (as happens), great. But don't just reject them outright and act as if they were always wrong (which they certainly are not). You are too eager to call them fools.
Jason
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳