B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

I think it is prudent to make a final point on the trustworthiness of the Masoretic text as handed down by the Ben Asher family. Angel Saenz-Badillos, history of the hebrew language, is quite a difficult book to follow at times. His is an extensive and thoroughly rich explanation about precisely what Second Temple period Hebrew, Aramaic, Rabbinic Hebrew, Mediaeval Hebrew, the DSS and Samaritan Hebrew were about and how they developed, changed, were influenced etc. He makes it clear that RH closely resembles the second temple period hebrew. That the masoretes did indeed have the purest form of the Biblical hebrew in as much as their consonantal text was undoubtedly well preserved and very reliable. that it was not just a case of a handful of scholars and one grammarian, rather that there were un-molested copies of the biblical hebrew reliably handed down without fault or corruption because the soferim (rabbinic writings also mention the Kotvanim and the Lavlarim) whose painstaking work assured that the text should be preserved without fault or change or amended, the vocalisation of course is a different matter. He goes into great detail to show how complex the issues were in deciding how to vocalize this word or that word.

His treatment of the DSS is particularly interesting, at least I appreciate its worth and use and its value in telling us how language changed and shedding light on vocalization changes, though as evidence of being used to correct the masoretes is completely out of order. The LXX in my opinion is a different issue, but in one word - it was written in Greek, and that is a translation out of Hebrew and that has so many inconsistencies with other manuscripts that one can not help but question its authority as a received text, it clearly is not a received text. Only the Hebrew is the received text.

I have unfortunately not seen any conclusive evidence that the masoretes changed a single letter to make a different meaning, (I am more than happy to consider this since I do think that Pierced is such a natural and overwhelmingly appropriate concept, it has everything going for it re context). However, after all that has been said, I prefer to stick with the ridiculous translation.....because it makes more sense

Kind regards

After Thoughts - they always happen.Probably going to get shot to pieces here, but considering how the original hebrew was written, without maqqefs, is there any possibility in this translation being considered: כאֹרֵי ..as if cursed are my hands and my feet....there is no vav before "my hands" and Yes I know there should be two 'Reshes', but it is certainly not uncommon to shorten words for extra meaning as in the missing vav from Toldot until we hit Ruth for example. (there are plenty of other examples but this just popped into my head) The missing resh could signify that this is an incomplete curse? Just happens to Maintain a perfect christian consistency without offending the scribal text. (Jesus became a curse, but it was not a complete curse as were many others in scripture) The 'as if' fits perfectly with the prefix כ that carries the semantic meaning of similtude. Can anyone offer a definitive and absolute no to this scary proposition?

On page 285 he says:
"The vernacular language has also converted originally impersonal and intransitive structures into transitive ones, for example יש לי את הסוס 'I have the horse' (lit. ׳there is to me the horse ׳), where the object-marker את is inserted contrary to the standard rules of grammar."

Not so, it means 'I have this (lit. 'the is') horse', as back in "proto-semitic" יש לי אתה סוס.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On page 285 he says:
"The vernacular language has also converted originally impersonal and intransitive structures into transitive ones, for example יש לי את הסוס 'I have the horse' (lit. ׳there is to me the horse ׳), where the object-marker את is inserted contrary to the standard rules of grammar."

Not so, it means 'I have this (lit. 'the is') horse', as back in "proto-semitic" יש לי אתה סוס.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

I am sorry for the erroneous repetition of the previous post.

On page 285 he brings also this: "אינני רוצה 'I do not want' (Lit. 'not־I wanting') has fallen into disuse in the day-to-day language which uses instead אני לא רוצה (lit. 'I not wanting ׳)."

Not mentioning that אינני = אין-אני, which is in essence the "history" of the Hebrew language. His: lit. 'I not wanting', is also dubious.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

I ask respectfully Isaac, what on earth have your last two posts to do with my last submission?
Regards

Isaac Fried wrote:On page 285 he says:
"The vernacular language has also converted originally impersonal and intransitive structures into transitive ones, for example יש לי את הסוס 'I have the horse' (lit. ׳there is to me the horse ׳), where the object-marker את is inserted contrary to the standard rules of grammar."

I totally get this quote. יש means there is. This is an intransitive structure. It technically cannot have an object. Thus one would not expect the presence of את, since it is an accusative marker. In this sentence the horse is not an object (patient or victim of the verb). But what is going on here is that the native Hebrew speaker is treating the verb phrase יש לי, there is to me, as a transitive structure. This is a wonderful insight into the native speaker's mind. This is what Chomsky meant when he spoke of deep structure.

By the way, African languages have similar ways of expressing possession while not having an equivalent verb to "have." In Swahili, I would say nina farasi, I am with a horse.

Galena wrote:I think it is prudent to make a final point on the trustworthiness of the Masoretic text as handed down by the Ben Asher family. Angel Saenz-Badillos, history of the hebrew language, is quite a difficult book to follow at times. His is an extensive and thoroughly rich explanation about precisely what Second Temple period Hebrew, Aramaic, Rabbinic Hebrew, Mediaeval Hebrew, the DSS and Samaritan Hebrew were about and how they developed, changed, were influenced etc. He makes it clear that RH closely resembles the second temple period hebrew. That the masoretes did indeed have the purest form of the Biblical hebrew in as much as their consonantal text was undoubtedly well preserved and very reliable. that it was not just a case of a handful of scholars and one grammarian, rather that there were un-molested copies of the biblical hebrew reliably handed down without fault or corruption because the soferim (rabbinic writings also mention the Kotvanim and the Lavlarim) whose painstaking work assured that the text should be preserved without fault or change or amended,

This is not true. The Masoretes, and that includes the ben Asher family, believed that they had a corrupted text, that’s why for some of the written words, they proposed alternate words to be read as corrections, the Kethib/Qere pairs. Besides those, the points that they wrote in sometimes indicated other places where they thought that the text was corrupted, but not badly enough to merit a Kethib/Qere “correction”.

Over the years I have heard the charge that the Hebrew text was deliberately corrupted. Verses that were corrupted include Judges 18:30 where Jewish scribes couldn’t bear with the thought that a grandson of Moses would have become an idolatrous priest, so they changed it to a grandson of Manasah. 1 Kings 21:10, 13 and Job 1:5, 2:9 all where cursing was changed to blessing because rabbis couldn’t bear with the thought of “curse God” being in the text. None of these verses are found among the DSS.

Besides those verses, I’ve heard the charge that other verses were deliberately changed because they were too obviously prophesies concerning Jesus.

My question here is: did anyone write up a list of verses deliberately changed by Jewish scribes, and where would one find such a list?

Galena wrote:His treatment of the DSS is particularly interesting, at least I appreciate its worth and use and its value in telling us how language changed and shedding light on vocalization changes, though as evidence of being used to correct the masoretes is completely out of order.

Oh? How and why is it “out of order”?

Galena wrote: The LXX in my opinion is a different issue, but in one word - it was written in Greek, and that is a translation out of Hebrew and that has so many inconsistencies with other manuscripts that one can not help but question its authority as a received text, it clearly is not a received text. Only the Hebrew is the received text.

“Received text” sounds suspicious. Are you one of those “KJV only-ers”? They talk about this “received text” concept without knowing what it’s all about.

Galena wrote:I have unfortunately not seen any conclusive evidence that the masoretes changed a single letter to make a different meaning, (I am more than happy to consider this since I do think that Pierced is such a natural and overwhelmingly appropriate concept, it has everything going for it re context). However, after all that has been said, I prefer to stick with the ridiculous translation.....because it makes more sense

This is a ridiculous idea.

Galena wrote:Kind regards

After Thoughts - they always happen.Probably going to get shot to pieces here, but considering how the original hebrew was written, without maqqefs, is there any possibility in this translation being considered: כאֹרֵי ..as if cursed are my hands and my feet....there is no vav before "my hands" and Yes I know there should be two 'Reshes', but it is certainly not uncommon to shorten words for extra meaning as in the missing vav from Toldot until we hit Ruth for example.

What missing waw? You mean in Genesis 2:4 with the only other example being Ruth 4:8? Is this an example of where the Masoretes applied the wrong vowel dots, assuming a corrupt text?

Galena wrote: (there are plenty of other examples but this just popped into my head) The missing resh could signify that this is an incomplete curse? Just happens to Maintain a perfect christian consistency without offending the scribal text. (Jesus became a curse, but it was not a complete curse as were many others in scripture) The 'as if' fits perfectly with the prefix כ that carries the semantic meaning of similtude. Can anyone offer a definitive and absolute no to this scary proposition?

Basic Biblical Hebrew sentences consisted of a subject and verb. Sometimes if a transitive verb, also an object. An exception is where some sentences would have had some variation on the verb “to be”, but those are easy to recognize. Many times where the subject is a pronoun, it is included in the grammatical structure of the verb.

This section of Psalm 22 has a group of short sentences, each with its subject and verb. Suddenly we come to the end of verse 17—where’s the subject? Where’s the verb? It doesn’t make sense. Or as I saw in an earlier message in this thread, it’s “garbage”.

The idea that a cursing could be the root instead of lion shares the same problem—where’s the subject, where’s the verb? That would have the cursing be plural participle in construct form.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl Asked:

“Received text” sounds suspicious. Are you one of those “KJV only-ers”? They talk about this “received text” concept without knowing what it’s all about.

My fingers cleaveth to my keyboard
An assembly of bulls surround me
Strong bulls from Karlstadt
A comapny of 70 have inclosed me
Waters of the dead sea have overcome me
Like a bull my hands and my feet
(They bully my hands and my feet)
the Lord hath shown me a flying scoll
From the land of Tiberius to the Land of Karlstadt
Upon every house it shall be received
Handed down, the King's text.

Deliver my thoughts from salted ink
From the Alexandrian turn my mind
My darling Thou King Jamie Dear from the power of the desert parchment.



Many scholars believe that this can not be an exclamation mark and argue that the dot to the left underneath is just an ink smudge, thus they insist that this must be an 'i' written in the vernacular English to mean 'y', as is attested in the earlier AAH scroll where a 'y' is clearly visible and also that there is a subtle curve below this letter on bull that is similar to the 'Y' beneath it. Yet a counter argument points out that the 'Y' on the other two letters is clear enough to dispute this hypothesis, they also stress that exclamation marks, while not common, have been attested in other English documents.

Galena wrote:Karl Asked:

“Received text” sounds suspicious. Are you one of those “KJV only-ers”? They talk about this “received text” concept without knowing what it’s all about.

This whole “received text” movement started out as a marketing ploy by a publisher who reprinted the Erasmus New Testament, a Greek version that was known to be inferior even in its time. Have you been taken in by the movement’s arguments? Your use of their term does not bode well.

You didn’t address the more substantial points in my last posting.

Karl W. Randolph.

Don't particularly want to divert into the Greek issues and the NT, things will just get super complicated and being a hebrew forum I doubt whether it will be appreciated. I decided to inject a humorous response to your afore-mentioned post when I read a certain remark, a whimsical moment springing from sheer agony. We disagree, that's fine, I don't mind. I think it wise to close the masoretic issue, what do you think? The good thing is that I have actually learned quite a bit from all this.
Kindest regards
chris