Ancient translations can be used to show us how the readers of that time understood the text. Your clichéd statements aside, the rest of the academic world refers to ancient translations as a guide to how people in that time understood the text and a witness (not authority) of earlier stages of textual transmission. If you don’t do so, it doesn’t make you better than the entire academic community.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 11:27 pm Seeing as translations are not evidence, I put this in the realm of speculation.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 11:27 pmYes, I do see this in other parts of the Tanakh. Examples include Leviticus 4:24, 5:9, 12, Ezekiel 43:21, Ezra 8:25. Admittedly most of these examples are of a type of sacrifice, but what I am looking at is the grammatical usage as masculines.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:02 pm You read חטאת as masculine? Where do you see this in any other parts of the Tanach?
Leviticus 4:24 (BHS)
וְסָמַ֤ךְ יָדוֹ֙ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַשָּׂעִ֔יר וְשָׁחַ֣ט אֹת֔וֹ בִּמְקֹ֛ום אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁחַ֥ט אֶת־הָעֹלָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא׃
Leviticus 5:9 (BHS)
וְהִזָּ֞ה מִדַּ֤ם הַחַטָּאת֙ עַל־קִ֣יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וְהַנִּשְׁאָ֣ר בַּדָּ֔ם יִמָּצֵ֖ה אֶל־יְס֣וֹד הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא׃
Leviticus 5:12 (BHS)
וֶהֱבִיאָהּ֮ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן֒ וְקָמַ֣ץ הַכֹּהֵ֣ן׀ מִ֠מֶּנָּה מְלֹ֨וא קֻמְצ֜וֹ אֶת־אַזְכָּרָתָה֙ וְהִקְטִ֣יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה עַ֖ל אִשֵּׁ֣י יְהוָ֑ה חַטָּ֖את הִֽוא׃
Ezekiel 43:21 (BHS)
וְלָ֣קַחְתָּ֔ אֵ֖ת הַפָּ֣ר הַֽחַטָּ֑את וּשְׂרָפוֹ֙ בְּמִפְקַ֣ד הַבַּ֔יִת מִח֖וּץ לַמִּקְדָּֽשׁ׃
Ezra 8:35 (BHS)
הַ֠בָּאִים מֵֽהַשְּׁבִ֨י בְנֵֽי־הַגּוֹלָ֜ה הִקְרִ֥יבוּ עֹל֣וֹת׀ לֵאלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל פָּרִ֨ים שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂ֤ר עַל־כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ אֵילִ֣ים׀ תִּשְׁעִ֣ים וְשִׁשָּׁ֗ה כְּבָשִׂים֙ שִׁבְעִ֣ים וְשִׁבְעָ֔ה צְפִירֵ֥י חַטָּ֖את שְׁנֵ֣ים עָשָׂ֑ר הַכֹּ֖ל עוֹלָ֥ה לַיהוָֽה׃
Above are all of the references you gave. I cannot think that you believe that I simply didn’t see them. I certainly did, but your offering them as evidence is yet another indication of how you have issues reading the text.וְסָמַ֤ךְ יָדוֹ֙ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַשָּׂעִ֔יר וְשָׁחַ֣ט אֹת֔וֹ בִּמְקֹ֛ום אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁחַ֥ט אֶת־הָעֹלָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא׃
Leviticus 5:9 (BHS)
וְהִזָּ֞ה מִדַּ֤ם הַחַטָּאת֙ עַל־קִ֣יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וְהַנִּשְׁאָ֣ר בַּדָּ֔ם יִמָּצֵ֖ה אֶל־יְס֣וֹד הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא׃
Leviticus 5:12 (BHS)
וֶהֱבִיאָהּ֮ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן֒ וְקָמַ֣ץ הַכֹּהֵ֣ן׀ מִ֠מֶּנָּה מְלֹ֨וא קֻמְצ֜וֹ אֶת־אַזְכָּרָתָה֙ וְהִקְטִ֣יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה עַ֖ל אִשֵּׁ֣י יְהוָ֑ה חַטָּ֖את הִֽוא׃
Ezekiel 43:21 (BHS)
וְלָ֣קַחְתָּ֔ אֵ֖ת הַפָּ֣ר הַֽחַטָּ֑את וּשְׂרָפוֹ֙ בְּמִפְקַ֣ד הַבַּ֔יִת מִח֖וּץ לַמִּקְדָּֽשׁ׃
Ezra 8:35 (BHS)
הַ֠בָּאִים מֵֽהַשְּׁבִ֨י בְנֵֽי־הַגּוֹלָ֜ה הִקְרִ֥יבוּ עֹל֣וֹת׀ לֵאלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל פָּרִ֨ים שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂ֤ר עַל־כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ אֵילִ֣ים׀ תִּשְׁעִ֣ים וְשִׁשָּׁ֗ה כְּבָשִׂים֙ שִׁבְעִ֣ים וְשִׁבְעָ֔ה צְפִירֵ֥י חַטָּ֖את שְׁנֵ֣ים עָשָׂ֑ר הַכֹּ֖ל עוֹלָ֥ה לַיהוָֽה׃
I don’t know if it is because of your rejection of vowel points and how it has affected how you think Hebrew works, but I’m astounded how you can think that the הוא of the three verses you gave in Leviticus can have any effect upon this argument. First, the form הוא is used throughout the Torah as a feminine demonstrative as well as a masculine one (it is pointed as הִוא for feminine and הוּא for masculine). This clearly isn’t a good argument for someone who reads only the consonantal text. Additionally, each is talking about something else as its subject, and חטאת is the predicate nominative of the sentence. In 4:24, it is שעיר that is a sin offering; in 5:9, it is הנשאר בדם “what is left of the blood” that is used as a sin offering; in 5:12, it is pointed as feminine (הִוא), since it refers to the יונה from the previous verse.
Ezekiel 43:21 is clearly referring to פר again in its use of the masculine, and there is no instance of חטאת in Ezra 8:25. I found one in 8:35, which I assume is what you meant. The masculine שבעה is paired with צפירי, not with חטאת, which isn’t even plural.
Your case has not been even close to established.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 11:27 pmIn Leviticus 6:23 the verb תאכל can also be taken as a second person Yiqtol verb. In the context of the previous verses, I think the second person Yiqtol verb fits better. The same with Leviticus 6:18. On Leviticus 4:33, look at verse 32 where the offering, the subject of the verb, is feminine.
I don’t feel that I should look up any other verses that you have offered until you have responded to what I already did above. I must assume that you have misread these in the same way that you read the others.