Lam 3:20 Nothing wrong with the Ketiv

[Chris Watts]

...at least from the way I read it...
זָכ֣וֹר תִּזְכּ֔וֹר (ותשיח) וְתָשׁ֥וֹחַ עָלַ֖י נַפְשִֽׁי

Assuming the root here is שׁ֥וֹחַ and not שחחfrom what I can gather, the difference in translation is indeed noticeable.

ותשיח Hiphil (Ayin vav/Ayin yod class) This is the Ketiv.

וְתָשׁ֥וֹחַ Qal (same as above, I am assuming) This is the Qeri.

My question : Why the qeri? What exactly is wrong with the Hifil? The qal seems to lend permanence to the sinking state, whereas the Hiphil lends itself to a subdued reflection out of which he rises. The Qal expressing a 'no return from this' feeling, whereas the Hiphil is more fruitful even though it is down, that is reflecting and will rise again.

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

This is one of those portions of the Tanach that are missing from the Aleppo Codex; however, the Leningrad Codex does show a ktiv–qri in this verse:



I’ll provide you the discussion in BHQ here:

וְתָשׁ֥יֹחַ There are two divergent readings attributed to σʼ here, one in a Greek manuscript and the other in Syh (see CTAT, 2:900). G (καταδολεσχήσει “will talk”) and σʼ (προσλαλήσει “will talk to”) presuppose a Hebrew וְתָשִׂיחַ‎ (√שׂיח^II), which obviously agrees with the kəṯîḇ. On the other hand, ‹σʼ› (κατακάμπτεται “bends down”) and T (ותצלי “inclines,” “prays”) align with the qərê וְתָשׁוֹחַ‎ (√שׁחח). G^L (τακήσεται “will melt”) and V (tabescet “will melt”) derive the word from the rare √שׁיח (HALAT, 4:1369), which regularly would have the form וְתָשִׁיחַ (= kəṯîḇ) but can probably also have the irregular form וְתָשׁוֹחַ (= qərê; see Bauer/Leander, Grammatik, §399 h′’). Thus G^L and V do not contribute to the decision between kəṯîḇ and qərê.

In comparison with M^qere וְתָשׁוֹחַ (a facilitation) and with וְתָשִׁיחַ (possibly a hybrid form), וְתָשִׂיחַ, which aligns with M^ket G σʼ, seems to be the older, more difficult and therefore preferable reading. Note, however, that CTAT, 2:899–901 finally prefers M^qere.

In spite of their different interpretations all ancient versions except S agree in regarding the verb as a 3 sg. Thus the Hebrew form most likely is a 3 f. sg. (relating to נַפְשִׁי as the subj.) and not a 2 m. sg. as sometimes has been suggested (e.g. Albrektson, Studies, 142f); cp. preceding comment on תִּזְכּוֹר. The whole phrase וְתָשִׂיחַ עָלַי נַפְשִׁי “my soul is talking about (or against?) me” probably means “I am soliloquizing about my destiny,” which gives a good parallel with the preceding זָכוֹר תִּזְכּוֹר.

[In the above, σʼ = Symmachus, Syh = Syro-Hexapla, G = Old Greek, √ = lexical root, ‹ › = the Greek reading offered for the witness has been established by retroversion, T = Targum, G^L = Lucianic Recension of the Old Greek, V = Vulgate, M = Masoretic Text, M^L = Leningrad Codex, M^ket = kəṯîḇ in M, and M^qere = qərê in M.]

Let me know if this helps.

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Jason,

one in a Greek manuscript and the other in Syh (see CTAT, 2:900). G (καταδολεσχήσει “will talk”) and σʼ (προσλαλήσει “will talk to”) presuppose a Hebrew וְתָשִׂיחַ‎ (√שׂיחII), which obviously agrees with the kəṯîḇ.

What is this Greek version? Where does this come from and is there a date?

The fact that the qeri reading comes from the a different root explains why other commentators gave this root, I will have to side with the Ketiv since the qeri does really rob the context of the impact that Jeremiah's suffering has had on him. He was not cast down without a purpose nor without hope. It served the opposite purpose, as the rest of the whole chapter shows the result of verse 20. That's my take and why I stick with the Ketiv, though why the scribe, upon discussion no doubt with his other scribes, thought that the queri suited better beats me.

Unfortunately the Sassoon Codex has these very verses missing from Lamentations, just my luck, I screen shot the Second Rabbinic just for fun, noticing that it also has a side note for the Infinitive absolute at the beginning of this verse which my bible does not have. Do you know what it means?

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

one in a Greek manuscript and the other in Syh (see CTAT, 2:900). G (καταδολεσχήσει “will talk”) and σʼ (προσλαλήσει “will talk to”) presuppose a Hebrew וְתָשִׂיחַ‎‎ (√שׂיחII), which obviously agrees with the kəṯîḇ.

What is this Greek version? Where does this come from and is there a date?

καταδολεσχήσει is found in both Swete and Rahlfs (both of which I have on Logos and can compare). It is what is generally referred to as the Septuagint or Old Greek. I don’t have access to Symmachus, but I just paid ^$28 to download the Göttingen Septuagint for Lamentations (Treni in Latin) on Logos just to see the options in this text. The Göttingen Septuagint is the standard academic version of the Septuagint, like BHS/BHQ for the Hebrew Bible. It mentions the textual variants between the LXX documents generally. Here it simply reads: “καταδολεσχήσει] τακησεται L′ = Vulg.; taediabitur La^w.” That doesn’t help much, I know. BHQ provided better information in this case. Apparently, though, L′ is the symbol in the Göttingen LXX for the Lucianic Recension.

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Jason, do I owe you 28 dollars? Thank you for this information though. It is interesting. Symmachus? Do you mean Quintus Aurelius or the Pope from the 6th century? Actually I have no idea what was meant here, I presume another Greek Codex?

Please be so kind as to tell me what that side note is supposed to mean regarding the last line in my PNG above, the note that refers to the 1st person singular for "I have hope". Unfortunately what I see is, nun yod vav chet lamed, no idea.

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

Hallo Jason, do I owe you 28 dollars? Thank you for this information though. It is interesting. Symmachus? Do you mean Quintus Aurelius or the Pope from the 6th century? Actually I have no idea what was meant here, I presume another Greek Codex?

You surely know that there were later Greek translations of the Tanach books that were not the Septuagint, no? The most famous were those of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus.

Please be so kind as to tell me what that side note is supposed to mean regarding the last line in my PNG above, the note that refers to the 1st person singular for "I have hope". Unfortunately what I see is, nun yod vav chet lamed, no idea.

I cannot make out what is written as a note for אוֹחִיל in that verse.

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Jason, do I owe you 28 dollars? Thank you for this information though. It is interesting. Symmachus? Do you mean Quintus Aurelius or the Pope from the 6th century? Actually I have no idea what was meant here, I presume another Greek Codex?

You surely know that there were later Greek translations of the Tanach books that were not the Septuagint, no? The most famous were those of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus.

Nope...well naturally I know there were later translations, just like the Latin, but I do not know how they are called, I never had anything to do with Greek. In fact where is Greece? Kidding....

Chris watts