Dear Avichai:
aavichai wrote:second, I disagree with you saying that the other semitic languages have low value to understand the Hebrew
My statements concerning language learning are true for all languages, not just Biblical Hebrew. For example, does one learn more about Norwegian and some of its little known and unique features by learning also Swedish, Danish, Icelandic, Dutch, German and English, or by studying Norwegian so deeply that he learns it as well as a native speaker? So the same way, is not the best way to learn Biblical Hebrew being through reading Tanakh many times (recognizing that Tanakh contains only a subset of Biblical Hebrew from when it was spoken as a native tongue), or by studying Mishnaic Hebrew, modern Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic, etc.? I understand most scholars have taken the second route.
For Hebrew, did you know that Mishnaic Hebrew has a different grammar than the grammar used in Biblical Hebrew? And that some of the words have different meanings? One reason I stopped reading according to the Masoretic points is because the points represent Tiberian Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew.
aavichai wrote:The argument was (as i understood), about verse 28
Talk about misunderstanding! From what you say here, you concentrated on one verse out of the whole narrative, whereas I considered the whole narrative starting at Exodus 5:1 through 14:17. I pointed to the one example of verse 8:11, but in the background I considered the other examples as well.
aavichai wrote:Because i refered also to chapter 9:34
You meant Exodus 9:35 here. The form of that verb can be Qal, Niphal, Piel, Pual, or Hophal, not Hiphil nor Hitpael. We need other contextual clues to tell us which it is.
aavichai wrote:First, According to the context of the stories like we said we have to do
This verse talks about Pharaoh comes after the disaster of the frogs
The frogs came, Pharaoh begged, and then the frogs are gone
Then it says in verse 11
וירא פרעה כי הייתה הרוחה
…
And then comes the word והכבד
you say this is Hophal
That’s the only binyan it can be, unless you claim that the text was corrupted here.
aavichai wrote:…what is the relevance between those two parts of the verse?
why does it has to say that he saw that the comfort time has come before his heart was hardened?
Unless there is casual connection between those parts
You mean “Unless there is a causal connection…” On the whole, you are doing pretty well in English.
aavichai wrote:The action of hardening is a result from the feeling that he had
The first part of the verse gives us the reason for the והכבד
Not necessarily. The connection can be merely temporal. The reason could be from other sources, e.g. his rich associates fearing the loss of their slaves may have put a lot of pressure on him, and the pressure may have caused his heart to become hardened.
aavichai wrote:The "AND" means here:
"And becaue of that"
or "And therefore"
“And” in Biblical Hebrew does have a larger circle of meaning than it has in English. In my dictionary I list it as follows: “ו (prefix) this is a connecting mark that leads from one idea to the next. It is normally used to show a continuity, where the following is connected to or a consequence of the previous. In English, there are times where it is best to omit it, often translate it as “and” though sometimes it is best to translate it as “that”, “such that”, “then”, “in order that”, and possibly other combinations showing continuity from one idea to the next.” In spite of “and” having a wider meaning than in English, I think a causal relationship is pushing it for its usages in Biblical Hebrew. If I remember correctly, the causal relationship is carried by the phrase על כן.
aavichai wrote:More i say that many times this pattern continue - it is said from time to time that Pharaoh hardenend is heart - literaly
And in verse 28 it is said clearly
ויכבד פרעה את לבו גם בפעם הזאת
And Paraoh hardened his heart also this time
…If after two disasters, he became soft and broken, and God needed to harden his heart,
Then after four disasters, we would expect that he would be more broken - and not tougher
Again, the form of the verb can be Qal, Niphal, Piel, Pual, Hophal, but not Hiphil nor Hitpael, unless you claim that the text was corrupted here too.
It looks as if you start with a psychological understanding, then read into the text what you think the text should say, whereas I start with what the text actually says, then try to see how it all fits together.
aavichai wrote:…So we have to understand that this wasn't the first time HE did it
Was he caused to do it? The form of the verb is open to that reading.
aavichai wrote:And therefore, the only time left is our verse which uses the exact root כבד
so the ויכבד פרעה את לבו גם בפעם הזאת refer directly to והכבד את לבו
OK…
aavichai wrote:which is the only time that he was active in that sense
That’s what I question, the claim that it was active and not passive.
aavichai wrote:and the ויכבד refer to the והכבד as they are the same root (and not like ויחזק)
And I say it’s the other way around.
aavichai wrote:and also because there is no other option
Why no other option?
aavichai wrote:and also because of the logic (second disaster vs. forth)
So it means that והכבד is the action made by Pharaoh - Hiphil
In short, your claim is that the text has been corrupted. And that claim is based on psychology and logic, not based on finding manuscripts that have your reading. Do I understand you correctly?
aavichai wrote:as for והכבד את לבו
This is infinitive that can be use in any form we want also as "he hardened" in Hiphil perfect and it continue the pattern of וירא
and we shouldnt look at it strange becaue we know that form and pattern
like in Genesis 41:43 ונתון אותו על כל ארץ מצרים
ונתון is infinite and here it meanes qal perfect
ונתן אותו על כל ארץ מצרים
Nope, this example from Genesis doesn’t parallel Exodus 8:11. In Genesis 41:43, the waw nun suffix changes the verb to a noun. Another example is the noun חרון. The Exodus 8:11 form is a Qatal Hophal form.
aavichai wrote:And you right that i cant think of a word in the meaning of "made someone to do somethig"
But one cannot categorically say that such a construct didn’t exist in Biblical Hebrew. It may even appear in Tanakh, but we don’t see it because the Masoretes may have incorrectly pointed it as a Hiphil.
There are over 1700 words that are used only once in Tanakh, so why not also an unusual sentence structure to express an idea that is almost never expressed in Tanakh?
aavichai wrote:In the story with eve and the sanke she said to God that
הנחש השאני ואכל
the snake "seduce"/"Convinced" me, and i ate
Here Eve wanted to bring out an idea that a mere Hophal wouldn’t bring out, namely who was to blame (she wanted to pass blame on someone else than herself). A simple “I was caused to eat…” wouldn’t carry that idea.
aavichai wrote:So for now, if i think of a verb for that - that is the closest i can think of
Avichai Cohen
Karl W. Randolph.