'Heh' Interrogative and the Negative particle.

[ducky]

Hi,

Verse 21.

****
זכר comes in singular, as referring to the people, while continuing with plural.
Showing that the reference to the people can be changed.
Therefore, שחת as referring to the people come as singular but as plural.
If I remember right (I don't have the "energy" to check now), Aramaic translates it that way (as plural). And I think that in the Samaritan Torah, it is written שחתו (But as I said, it is from memory, and maybe I'm wrong).

****
Anyway, my point is not to push to a specific reading but to claim that there are a few possibilities that for each one we can find excuses.
No point to argue about what is better.

[Chris Watts]

Hi,

Verse 21.

****
זכר comes in singular, as referring to the people, while continuing with plural.
Showing that the reference to the people can be changed.
Therefore, שחת as referring to the people come as singular but as plural.
If I remember right (I don't have the "energy" to check now), Aramaic translates it that way (as plural). And I think that in the Samaritan Torah, it is written שחתו (But as I said, it is from memory, and maybe I'm wrong).

****
Anyway, my point is not to push to a specific reading but to claim that there are a few possibilities that for each one we can find excuses.
No point to argue about what is better.

Thank you ducky for the verse number.

As for the שחת and the זכר : Verse 7 is an imperative. I would challenge anyone to justify changing the verb in v 6 to plural and placing a 3rd person plural pronoun before that verb. But V 7 presents no conflict at all grammatically, one because it is an imperative, and two, because there is no need for any pronoun, it is direct speech to a people which even in English and Dutch can be referred to in the singular by the use of the indefinite article "a". However, v 6 needs that pronoun "they" in order to make any sense at all and then you have no choice but to violate basic grammar.

I hope you understand I do agree with your view on not being able to arrive at the perfect translation, but I would like to see better examples of where a third person singular verb is altered in translation by acquiring a plural pronoun.

=============================================================================

On the subject of the interrogative particle without the 'Heh'

Isa 28:28

לֶ֣חֶם יוּדָ֔ק כִּ֛י לֹ֥א לָנֶ֖צַח אָד֣וֹשׁ יְדוּשֶׁ֑נּוּ וְ֠הָמַם גִּלְגַּ֧ל עֶגְלָת֛וֹ וּפָרָשָׁ֖יו לֹֽא־יְדֻקֶּֽנּוּ׃ According to Johannes Lange (1866) and Delitzcsh, also about 25% of English translations including JPS Tanach 1917 - this verse begins with a question : ""Is bread crushed? and the לֹ֥א is translated as a definite No! rather than a simple negative particle.

I have to admit that both senses of the translation are adequately suitable but the popular "Bread is crushed because he will not be forever threshing it" is a very awkward translation, making Lange and Deiitzsch's translation far more sensible.

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

As for the שחת and the זכר : Verse 7 is an imperative.

Why? What makes you think that?

I would challenge anyone to justify changing the verb in v 6 to plural and placing a 3rd person plural pronoun before that verb. But V 7 presents no conflict at all grammatically, one because it is an imperative, and two, because there is no need for any pronoun, it is direct speech to a people which even in English and Dutch can be referred to in the singular by the use of the indefinite article "a". However, v 6 needs that pronoun "they" in order to make any sense at all and then you have no choice but to violate basic grammar.

I hope you understand I do agree with your view on not being able to arrive at the perfect translation, but I would like to see better examples of where a third person singular verb is altered in translation by acquiring a plural pronoun.

Daniel 9:27 the subject of הגביר is עם נגיד הבא. In Hebrew it is a masculine singular, but in English a noun that refers to a collection of individuals, such as “people”, often takes a plural pronoun. In translation, sometimes the differences between different languages is so great, even when English is the target language, that in order to make an accurate translation, one must sometimes use even different grammar than in the originating language.

=============================================================================

On the subject of the interrogative particle without the 'Heh'

Isa 28:28

לֶ֣חֶם יוּדָ֔ק כִּ֛י לֹ֥א לָנֶ֖צַח אָד֣וֹשׁ יְדוּשֶׁ֑נּוּ וְ֠הָמַם גִּלְגַּ֧ל עֶגְלָת֛וֹ וּפָרָשָׁ֖יו לֹֽא־יְדֻקֶּֽנּוּ׃ According to Johannes Lange (1866) and Delitzcsh, also about 25% of English translations including JPS Tanach 1917 - this verse begins with a question : ""Is bread crushed? and the לֹ֥א is translated as a definite No! rather than a simple negative particle.

I am with the 75% who do not take this verse as a question.

I have to admit that both senses of the translation are adequately suitable but the popular "Bread is crushed because he will not be forever threshing it" is a very awkward translation, making Lange and Deiitzsch's translation far more sensible.

Is “crushed” the right verb here? Or does this refer to “thin” or “fine” (small as opposed to fat or large) because of the lack of crops there was not much that could be used to make bread?

Chris watts

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Karl, Thank you for replying,

שחת and the זכר

This was a copy/paste error and I should have paid more attention, I was referring to Deut 32:7 in response to Ducky and pointing out the three imperatives. I remarked that..."Remember the days of old" I see no issue with "Remember" being 3rd Person singular here. I have experience with Dutch here where if you are speaking to a room full of people and you say something like "You must remember to clean the...." and the plural is used then everyone is responsible and it becomes a generalised statement and a command; However if I use the singular then it is still a command BUT, it becomes a more personal, more intimate request, and it lands softer on the ear. It's hard to explain but I also get this impression here in verse 7. What would you say Karl?

You said :

Daniel 9:27 the subject of הגביר is עם נגיד הבא. In Hebrew it is a masculine singular, but in English a noun that refers to a collection of individuals, such as “people”, often takes a plural pronoun

Yes Karl I know that collectives can take a singular. But what on earth are you referring to here in Daniel 9:26 - 27?
v26 : יַ֠שְׁחִית עַ֣ם נָגִ֤יד הַבָּא֙
v27 : וְהִגְבִּ֥יר בְּרִ֛ית לָרַבִּ֖ים
I do not see any issues here. The Prince is singular, People is a collective, though I would see the fact that הַבָּא֙is singular therefore laying the stress on the "Prince" rather than the "People". then also "He" not the "People" will establish the covenant. So what have I misunderstood? (I naturally expect that I have missed something since I am not as conversant with Hebrew as many are on this Four-person forum ).


==================================

Isa 28:28

לֶ֣חֶם יוּדָ֔ק כִּ֛י לֹ֥א לָנֶ֖צַח אָד֣וֹשׁ יְדוּשֶׁ֑נּוּ וְ֠הָמַם גִּלְגַּ֧ל עֶגְלָת֛וֹ וּפָרָשָׁ֖יו לֹֽא־יְדֻקֶּֽנּוּ׃ According to Johannes Lange (1866) and Delitzcsh, also about 25% of English translations including JPS Tanach 1917 - this verse begins with a question : ""Is bread crushed? and the לֹ֥א is translated as a definite No! rather than a simple negative particle.

(We can add Cheyne to this list)

Karl Said :

I am with the 75% who do not take this verse as a question

Fair enough...

Karl then Said :

Is “crushed” the right verb here? Or does this refer to “thin” or “fine” (small as opposed to fat or large) because of the lack of crops there was not much that could be used to make bread?

1. What makes you think that there was not enough harvest when Isaiah spoke this?
2. דקק means 'crush'; what else is there? It is not the same as 'thresh'.

To be honest a bit of steam coming off my head right now. The parable speaks volumes, I understand that. But NOT from the hebrew or the English translations, without the various commentaries however, I would not have understood how to translate this at all. The only English 'non-question' translation that made any reasonable effort is this one :
""Bread flour must be ground; Therefore he does not thresh it forever, Break it with his cartwheel, Or crush it with his horsemen" The word "Therefore" really does not make much sense but nevertheless This is perhaps the only meaningful translation that actually seems reasonable. The other translations fail to say anything meaningful except those that actually turn the translations into a question - and these are the only translations that actually convey the point, makes sense, and deliver a sensible beginning to the whole parable. Is it crushed? No!

The confusion for me is the reasoning clause : So you have verse 28 : לֶ֣חֶם יוּדָ֔ק כִּ֛י לֹ֥א לָנֶ֖צַח אָד֣וֹשׁ יְדוּשֶׁ֑נּוּ וְ֠הָמַם גִּלְגַּ֧ל עֶגְלָת֛וֹ וּפָרָשָׁ֖יו לֹֽא־יְדֻקֶּֽנּוּ You then have the כִּ֛י לֹ֥א , this is confusing everything. And this is why there are so many different translations to this one clause.

If I were to ignore these two words all together I would still understand the parable, taking these two words would lose absolutely nothing, in fact, take these words out and the meaning is clear and strong: Bread corn is bruised, you do not thresh it forever, you do not run your wheels over it (which would crush it), nor do you have your horses trample it. Now what is wrong with just this, Isaiah?

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

Hallo Karl, Thank you for replying,

שחת and the זכר

This was a copy/paste error and I should have paid more attention, I was referring to Deut 32:7 in response to Ducky and pointing out the three imperatives. I remarked that..."Remember the days of old" I see no issue with "Remember" being 3rd Person singular here. I have experience with Dutch here where if you are speaking to a room full of people and you say something like "You must remember to clean the...." and the plural is used then everyone is responsible and it becomes a generalised statement and a command; However if I use the singular then it is still a command BUT, it becomes a more personal, more intimate request, and it lands softer on the ear. It's hard to explain but I also get this impression here in verse 7. What would you say Karl?

I too take that understanding of the singular verb with a group of people.

You said :

Daniel 9:27 the subject of הגביר is עם נגיד הבא. In Hebrew it is a masculine singular, but in English a noun that refers to a collection of individuals, such as “people”, often takes a plural pronoun

Yes Karl I know that collectives can take a singular. But what on earth are you referring to here in Daniel 9:26 - 27?
v26 : יַ֠שְׁחִית עַ֣ם נָגִ֤יד הַבָּא֙
v27 : וְהִגְבִּ֥יר בְּרִ֛ית לָרַבִּ֖ים
I do not see any issues here. The Prince is singular, People is a collective, though I would see the fact that הַבָּא֙is singular therefore laying the stress on the "Prince" rather than the "People". then also "He" not the "People" will establish the covenant. So what have I misunderstood? (I naturally expect that I have missed something since I am not as conversant with Hebrew as many are on this Four-person forum ).

The reason I quoted these verses is because נגיד הבא is adjectival to עם which is singular masculine noun in Hebrew. Hence it takes a singular masculine verb. But in English, “people” is a collective noun that usually takes a plural verb and pronoun.

Secondly, the verb הגביר has the meaning of “causing to overpower” or in English “to impose”. It was the people of the coming political leader who imposed their treaty, “Pax Romana”, on the many during the seven year suppression of the Jewish revolt 66–73 AD.

==================================

Isa 28:28

Karl then Said :

Is “crushed” the right verb here? Or does this refer to “thin” or “fine” (small as opposed to fat or large) because of the lack of crops there was not much that could be used to make bread?

1. What makes you think that there was not enough harvest when Isaiah spoke this?
2. דקק means 'crush'; what else is there? It is not the same as 'thresh'.

The verb here is used to grind grain so fine that it is a powder. It’s also used to refer to thin. So, no, we are not talking about threshing here.

To be honest a bit of steam coming off my head right now. The parable speaks volumes, I understand that. But NOT from the hebrew or the English translations, without the various commentaries however, I would not have understood how to translate this at all. The only English 'non-question' translation that made any reasonable effort is this one :
""Bread flour must be ground; Therefore he does not thresh it forever, Break it with his cartwheel, Or crush it with his horsemen" The word "Therefore" really does not make much sense but nevertheless This is perhaps the only meaningful translation that actually seems reasonable. The other translations fail to say anything meaningful except those that actually turn the translations into a question - and these are the only translations that actually convey the point, makes sense, and deliver a sensible beginning to the whole parable. Is it crushed? No!

The confusion for me is the reasoning clause : So you have verse 28 : לֶ֣חֶם יוּדָ֔ק כִּ֛י לֹ֥א לָנֶ֖צַח אָד֣וֹשׁ יְדוּשֶׁ֑נּוּ וְ֠הָמַם גִּלְגַּ֧ל עֶגְלָת֛וֹ וּפָרָשָׁ֖יו לֹֽא־יְדֻקֶּֽנּוּ You then have the כִּ֛י לֹ֥א , this is confusing everything. And this is why there are so many different translations to this one clause.

Look at the last part of verse 27 where it describes threshing not using the usual tools, rather the tools for only a small amount at a time. That indicates a poor harvest.

If I were to ignore these two words all together I would still understand the parable, taking these two words would lose absolutely nothing, in fact, take these words out and the meaning is clear and strong: Bread corn is bruised, you do not thresh it forever, you do not run your wheels over it (which would crush it), nor do you have your horses trample it. Now what is wrong with just this, Isaiah?

The usual way for threshing in ancient times was to spread the grain thickly on the hard ground of a threshing floor. Then when cattle or horses were trampling it, most of the grain was not crushed, rather only the husks were removed from the grain. Again the reference of not using the normal tools while threshing, or doing so for only a short time because of not enough harvest.

Chris watts

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Karl,

1. I am just going to keep this short with simple statements, a case of logical flow of thought. "Bread Corn is crushed to a fine powder because he will not forever be threshing it" makes about as much sense agriculturally as it does as a sentence - taking this as a parable for God's Discipline and treatment of His people israel.

2. Threshing is sifting and gentle in comparison to crushing, so the above statement is absurd.

3. However bread corn is bruised not crushed because he will not forever be threshing it, in other words, we thresh only up to a point so as not to crush it.

4. However, Is bread corn crushed? ? No it is not. Since we will not be forever threshing it into oblivion.

5. דקק is crushed to fine powder, so we have to prefer this to the idea of "Bruising" which can not be right by any stretch of the imagination.

6. Now since these verses 22 to 29 are a representation about how God treats, disciplines harshly and gently according to each person's character and Israel's national character, then point 4 above, as a question, is the only translation that makes sense to me. Point 3 does make perfect sense IF and ONLY IF the verb דקק was Not being used here; which explains why the KJV club chose to use the word "Bruised" rather than "crushing to a fine powder".

Chris watts

(By the way, your comment about the end of verse 27 does not make sense to me either - sorry Karl).

Look at the last part of verse 27 where it describes threshing not using the usual tools, rather the tools for only a small amount at a time. That indicates a poor harvest

The issue with this is that Isaiah is not reporting on a bad year of crops, nor does he observe an absence of a good harvest, he would not be cryptic about this if it were part of his prophetic discourse, he is however teaching Israel a valuable lesson about God's ways with them, which is also about God's ways with individuals, not just Israel's national character.

[ducky]

Hi,

Chris,
The point of זכר as a singular imperative is based on the fact that the same verse continues with בינו which is a plural imperative.
So same verse. Same "recipient". Same form (imperative).
One singular. One plural.
That was the point.
I'm not taking sides here.
All I'm saying (from the beginning) that this verse has a few interpretations, and each one has its excuse.


******
לחם יודק
As for seeing it as a question, I guess that it meant to say that the grains are not threshed "forever" to not damaged them or turn them into "dust", and there is time to know when the threshing is over.
(And the answer of No is not really written but understood alone, like a rhetorical question).

The other way, as a statement referring the crush to grinding in the mill (to flour) and saying that the bread (its corns) is to be grinded, and that the threshing cannot do that.

So each type of grain/plant has its method.

I don't see it as a reflection of that time's agricultural status.
These words talk about the wisdom that God gave the man to know how to treat his lands, and how to treat his different grains/plants, each type in a manner that suits it.
And just like the man knows how to treat each gran in a different manner according to its type, so is God knows how to treat his people/s in a different manner, or maybe as saying that each man/people get the "beating" that he deserves and/or suits him (with a rod, with a threshing tool, on the mill, and so on...)

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Ducky,

And the answer of No is not really written but understood alone, like a rhetorical question)

I agree also with this idea.

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

Hallo Karl,

1. I am just going to keep this short with simple statements, a case of logical flow of thought. "Bread Corn is crushed to a fine powder because he will not forever be threshing it" makes about as much sense agriculturally as it does as a sentence - taking this as a parable for God's Discipline and treatment of His people israel.

“Crushed” is not part of the definition here. Where the context includes grinding grain, the emphasis was on the making fine, not grinding.

2. Threshing is sifting and gentle in comparison to crushing, so the above statement is absurd.

See above. Also your points 3–6.

(By the way, your comment about the end of verse 27 does not make sense to me either - sorry Karl).

What do you know about ancient farming practices?

Look at the last part of verse 27 where it describes threshing not using the usual tools, rather the tools for only a small amount at a time. That indicates a poor harvest

The issue with this is that Isaiah is not reporting on a bad year of crops, nor does he observe an absence of a good harvest, he would not be cryptic about this if it were part of his prophetic discourse, he is however teaching Israel a valuable lesson about God's ways with them, which is also about God's ways with individuals, not just Israel's national character.

What Isaiah described was well known to the people of his time. What have you studied about ancient culture?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:14 am

(By the way, your comment about the end of verse 27 does not make sense to me either - sorry Karl).

Karl Replied : What do you know about ancient farming practices?

Only what I have read in Encyclopedias and a little knowledge about Victorian practises before the age of motors. Having said this - Fitches and cumin are not wheat, so why would you want to use anything bigger? And I do not see how a knowledge of ancient farming practises confirms your point that verse 27 indicates a failing harvest?

Karl Said : “Crushed” is not part of the definition here. Where the context includes grinding grain, the emphasis was on the making fine, not grinding.

But Karl, Isaiah chose this word specifically to emphasize the point that God does not necessarily crush (is the same as grind to powder, making fine elicits the same result) His Harvest.

Karl also said : What Isaiah described was well known to the people of his time. What have you studied about ancient culture?

- Ancient Egyptian Bread making with Wild fungal spores and Bacteria which I actually make twice a week!

But seriously, do please clarify, do you see these verses as a parable as I have described above, or as an Agricultural stock market forecast? There is no hint of a bad harvest at all anywhere.

Chris watts