B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Hi Jason,

You know, there is a story about a guy that couldn't find a parking space for an hour, then he started to cry out for God "Please, let me find a parking space", and he still didn't finish his prayer, and he saw a car coming out from its parking space. And then the guy stopped his prayer and said to God: "Never mind, I already found one".
You can see everything as circumstances and each one would call it and see it however he wants.
But as you said, and you're right, this is a Hebrew forum and it is not the place to talk about this here. I just advise you to read again the Book of Esther, but this time slower than you use to, and ask yourself what this book tries to tell in the religious aspect, what happened there, and where is God there, and what is the meaning of "circumstances".

***
I don't know about this Elephantine temple been used for foreign worship (עבודה זרה).
It was used by the Jews, and the Egyptians asked to destroy it (which they succeded eventually).

Also, the example from 2Kings is just one part which Menashe put all of those idols inside it (while his father actually kept the temple clean). So it is not a good example to focus on a sinning king's act to represent the attitude of the temple. The temple was clean from idols and fits the Biblical theology.

****
There was a proposition to built any stage after the temple in Jerusalem was built. It is said so and written (in the Torah) and everyone knew that.
Notice also, that Ezekiel, who lived in exile, there was no temple there, but it is said that God would be for them מקדש מעט.
The temple that was built by the Jews in Egypt was probably from despair as they saw themselves lost religiously, and maybe they also saw this prophecy in Isaiah to somehow give it justification.
And notice that there are no references to this temple in the Bible, as calling the Jews about it and calling them to serve God there if they run to Egypt. Because this temple and any stage were forbidden. and if it wasn't forbidden, why can't we see this "holy temple" in the Bible to call the people to use it to continue sacrificing to God?

The word בָּמָה in the Bible is normally translated as "high place," being an elevated place where deities were worshiped in various ways. I know that it's a "stage" in modern Hebrew, but that might confuse the reader.

Hi Jason, Thanks for the correction. I'll remember that.

Jason Hare wrote:

לְעֵת עַתָּה אֵינֶ֫נִּי עֹשֶׂה הַרְבֵּה בַּבַּ֫יִת אַךְ הִצְלַ֫חְתִּי לַעֲשׂוֹת שִׁעוּרִים רַבִּים׃ הִנֵּה עַבְדְכֶם אֹכֵל בְּכָל־יוֹם דַּי אֹ֫כֶל לָשׂ֫בַע וּלְחִזּוּק הַגּוּף וְיֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי שֻׁלְחַן עֲבֹדָתוֹ עִם סְפָרָיו אֲשֶׁר מֵהֶם הוּא קֹרֵא וְלֹמֵד יוֹמָם וָלַ֫יְלָה׃ וּמַה לֹּמֵד עַבְדְכֶם כִּי־אִם שָׂפוֹת עַתִּיקוֹת וּדְרָכִים שׁוֹנוֹת לַעֲזֹר לְתַלְמִידָיו לְהַשְׂכִּיל וּלְהַצְלִיחַ לְהָבִין אֶת־תֹּ֫כֶן לִמּוּדֵיהֶם׃

Notes:

לעת עתה | This is a post-biblical expression meaning literally "for the time of now," which is a way of saying "at the present time" or "in the meantime." A modern equivalent would be בֵּינְתַ֫יִם or לְבֵינְתַ֫יִם.

In Biblical Hebrew is found the phrase בעת ההוא (never לעת ההוא in Tanakh) but when referring to the present time simply used עתה.

Jason Hare wrote:שיעורים ולימודים | The word שיעורים is a late word that means "lessons." It can also mean "rates, measures; approximations" and comes from the verb לְשַׁעֵר "to estimate."

The verb לְשַׁעֵר exists only as Masoretic points only once in Tanakh, if even that. Unpointed it can metaphorically refer to a gate, like a city’s fortified gateway to keep a person out from having a close personal relationship.

Jason Hare wrote:The word לימודים is built off the biblical root for learning in the piel. We would call it a gerund (שֵׁם פְּעֻלָּה) today as it expresses the action of the verb לְלַמֵּד "to teach" from either the perspective of the teacher or the perspective of the student (more frequently). Another term for "learning" is לְמִידָה, constructed as a gerund from the qal form of the same root.

This is definitely post-Biblical Hebrew. Modern? I would never guess it from its form.

Jason Hare wrote:גוף | Whereas the word בָּשָׂר is used in the Tanach to refer to the body, we have both גְּוִיָּה and גוּפָה used to refer to a dead body or corpse. The word בשר often expresses the idea of weakness, whereas גוף has in it the connotation of strength. The גוף is made up of members that work together. It's a post-biblical word, but בשר just wouldn't be fitting here.

The word גְּוִיָּה is used for both living and dead, referring specifically to the physical body. גוּפָת is used in only one verse, possibly a loan word? נבלה sounds like a euphemism to refer to the dead. פגר specifically refers to dead corpses.

From where do you get the idea that בשר intrinsically expresses the idea of weakness? Are you thinking of אנש?

Jason Hare wrote:תוכן | This word means "content(s)" and refers to what is inside something. In this case, it is the content of the students' studies.

I would never have guessed it. That word follows no pattern of derivation from a root that I know of.

Again you use the Aramaic די.

[right]את דבריך אשר כתבת זרו מאד הם: הלא זכרת את אבן יהואש: ביום הראשון אשר קראתיה ואדע כי לא נכנה היא כי דבריה דברים זרים הם: ותכתב דברים זרים מהם:[/right]


………Next message………

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Where do you get the idea that a masculine plural noun with a first person singular possessive suffix is necessarily definitive? However, even if definitive, the ה prefix on the following adjective is optional.

From grammar books that speak about definiteness specifically as well as from the experience of being a Hebrew speaker.

You speak Israeli Hebrew, which completely messes up your understanding of Biblical Hebrew.

By now you should recognize my opinion of grammar books, seeing as I had to unlearn much of what I had been taught in class concerning grammar.

Jason Hare wrote:From Gesenius §125a:……

Gesenius had long ago disqualified himself 1) because he based his work on medieval Hebrew with the Masoretic points and 2) he was one of the founders of what later became known as the JEPD theory, Form Kritic, Higher Criticism, and whatever nom du jour that theory claims. Both of those show that he didn’t really know Biblical Hebrew, nor did he want to.

Anyone who bases his understanding on Geseniius instead of on Tanakh is based on a broken reed.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:The language is mentioned as a noun in 2 Kings 18:26, 28, Isaiah 36:11, 13, Nehemiah 13:24, 2 Chronicles 32:18.

Yes, it was called יהודית in connection with verbs of speaking.

So? What other verbs will you use in relation to naming a language?

Jason Hare wrote:Since שפת כנען is a biblical expression, I really like it. Also, it expresses how I see the Hebrew language — as part of the linguistic milieu that existed in the Promised Land at the time, in which Hebrew was just another dialect of the language that was spoken there.

You are bringing in your wishes, biases, presuppositions and understandings here, but is that what really happened? Furthermore, that expression was made in the context of a future event, not what was spoken at the time the prophesy was made. Historically, was that event ever fulfilled?

One thing about Biblical prophesy is often it comes in little snippets, a few verses here and a few there, sometimes a gap in time in fulfillment. For example, the destruction of Tyre was written in a way so that is sounds like one event. However its fulfillment was two events—the first when Nebuchadnezzar captured the land city, only to find that he captured an empty shell as the city had moved to an offshore island. The second event was when Alexander the Great made the island into a peninsula and captured the peninsular city.

Likewise, Isaiah 19:18–25, is that one event, or two? If we limit ourselves to Isaiah 19:18–21 as one event, then it was fulfilled during the Persian era. During the Persian era, there were Jewish troops stationed in Egypt and cities were built to support those troops. One of them was alleged even to have had a temple with an altar. At that time the שפת כנען was Aramaic and the language of those cities was Aramaic.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Half of the book of Daniel is in Aramaic, not Hebrew. The word עדן referring to time is found only in the Aramaic section, never in Hebrew.

That doesn't mean that you should not expect someone to import it from Aramaic to Hebrew.

But there’s no evidence of that happening in Biblical times. That it was borrowed at a later time is irrelevant to Biblical Hebrew. In Biblical times it was not part of the Hebrew vocabulary.

Jason Hare wrote:I don't see any problem with verbs being derived from nouns and nouns being derived from verbs. Both things happen.

There are patterns of derivation, and the patterns themselves import meaning to the derived words. If you want to make neologisms, you need to follow those patterns in order to make understandable neologisms. Do you know the Biblical patterns?

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Yet I recognize that the vocabulary that we have in Tanakh doesn’t represent an exhaustive list of words used in Biblical times.

That's all the concession we need to use words that naturally became part of the language at later states.

No. Your uses of Aramaic עדן and די and calling them “Hebrew” are examples of the confusion that can result. That also extends to using the Indo-European grammar found in Hebrew from the DSS period to today.

Jason Hare wrote:As long as we're conscious of what is biblical and what is not, and as long as we surround ourselves with the text of the Bible. Read the Bible daily and profusely. The goal needs to be a combination of learning for communication (which strengthens your natural tendency for the language) and learning for reading (since, ultimately, the Bible and understanding it is our objective).

kwrandolph wrote:Here’s the problem with this approach—languages change over time. … So if you plan to teach Biblical Hebrew, why confuse your students with teaching that which is not Biblical Hebrew?

It's one thing to be able to read texts that say things like "And the people marched forth and camped along the river.…

You missed the point. Let me put it another way.

Biblical Hebrew is a Semitic language. DSS Hebrew and later is an Into-European language with an altered Semitic vocabulary. The two are distinctly different languages.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:You have several items in this paragraph...

I think it's drawn on too long. It's less important to judge everything with a critical eye and more urgent that we be able to understand one another.

אֶדְרֹשׁ רַק שֶׁנַּעֲבִיר בִּקֹּ֫רֶת בֹּנָה וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתָּדֵּל לִהְיוֹת פָּחוֹת שְׁלִילִיִּים בְּאִמְרֵי פִ֫ינוּ׃

[right]מה כתבת פה: לא בנתי את הדברים האלה אשר כתבת:[/right]

Jason Hare wrote:I have a hard time seeing Isaiah 19 as fulfilled historically.

Isaiah 19 (NIV)

You haven’t been on this forum that long. Years ago, we had a fellow who tried to prove his points by quoting translation after translation. Our repeated answer was “Translation is not evidence.” My eyes glaze over when I see a translation quoted, because “Translation is not evidence.” If you want to quote a passage, quote it in Hebrew. Copy and paste is easy enough.

Karl W. Randolph.

kwrandolph wrote:Again you use the Aramaic די.

דַּי \ דֵּי is a Hebrew word. It's used 38 times in the Tanach. Link

kwrandolph wrote:You speak Israeli Hebrew, which completely messes up your understanding of Biblical Hebrew.

That's your opinion.

kwrandolph wrote:By now you should recognize my opinion of grammar books, seeing as I had to unlearn much of what I had been taught in class concerning grammar.

Rejecting grammars for rejection's sake isn't a virtue.

kwrandolph wrote:Gesenius had long ago disqualified himself 1) because he based his work on medieval Hebrew with the Masoretic points and 2) he was one of the founders of what later became known as the JEPD theory, Form Kritic, Higher Criticism, and whatever nom du jour that theory claims. Both of those show that he didn’t really know Biblical Hebrew, nor did he want to.

Ad hominem against Gesenius. If he said that the sky was blue, you would say that it wasn't blue because Gesenius said so. That isn't how things work.

kwrandolph wrote:Anyone who bases his understanding on Geseniius instead of on Tanakh is based on a broken reed.

Poisoning the well.

kwrandolph wrote:Do you know the Biblical patterns?

According to you, I know nothing of biblical Hebrew. I don't think saying "yes" would be very meaningful here. I obviously don't know anything because I haven't rejected everything.

kwrandolph wrote:No. Your uses of Aramaic עדן and די and calling them “Hebrew” are examples of the confusion that can result. That also extends to using the Indo-European grammar found in Hebrew from the DSS period to today.

די is Hebrew. Why is it that you declare everything not to be Hebrew? Must you be so critical?

kwrandolph wrote:Biblical Hebrew is a Semitic language. DSS Hebrew and later is an Into-European language with an altered Semitic vocabulary. The two are distinctly different languages.

Shakespeare didn't speak English, either, if this is the standard. I think it is a real detraction from your potential that you don't speak modern Hebrew. You think it's bad that I do; I think it's bad that you don't. Kinda at an impasse, which makes me think we can use this thread to play with production of our own Hebrew sentences, or we can continue at this game that I'm not too interested in playing. I know that you don't like modern Hebrew. That doesn't mean that we're ever going to agree by you staying on that topic.

kwrandolph wrote:[right]מה כתבת פה: לא בנתי את הדברים האלה אשר כתבת:[/right]

בנתי is not a biblical form. Daniel 9.2 has בִּינֹ֫תִי, but the normal form of בין appears in the hiphil. You'd expect הֵבַ֫נְתִּי (like we say today) or הֲבִינֹ֫תִי (by analogy to הֲקִימֹ֫תִי). Is it possible to use the qal? Yes, but the hiphil is certainly more common. Davidson classified אָבִין as qal, but I understand it as hiphil, too.

kwrandolph wrote:You haven’t been on this forum that long.

I joined B-Hebrew in 2000 as a listserv. I'd say that 20 years is enough to be considered a long time. This is my first email to B-Hebrew from February 22, 2000.

kwrandolph wrote:Years ago, we had a fellow who tried to prove his points by quoting translation after translation. Our repeated answer was “Translation is not evidence.” My eyes glaze over when I see a translation quoted, because “Translation is not evidence.” If you want to quote a passage, quote it in Hebrew. Copy and paste is easy enough.

I wasn't making an argument based on particular translation. Just thought it would be easier to throw out the English in whatever translation, since we're English speakers. Given how different our perspectives are with regard to Hebrew, I don't think you'd get what I was pointing out if I posted two paragraphs of Hebrew text at you.

Regards,
Jason

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Again you use the Aramaic די.

דַּי \ דֵּי is a Hebrew word. It's used 38 times in the Tanach. Link

It’s found in both Hebrew and Aramaic, but with different meanings. When using it in Hebrew, use it with the Hebrew meaning. When using it in Aramaic, use it with the Aramaic meaning. But how is it right to use it in Hebrew with the Aramaic meaning?

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:You speak Israeli Hebrew, which completely messes up your understanding of Biblical Hebrew.

That's your opinion.

Just look at the evidence.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:By now you should recognize my opinion of grammar books, seeing as I had to unlearn much of what I had been taught in class concerning grammar.

Rejecting grammars for rejection's sake isn't a virtue.

I agree with you there. But to reject them because they are wrong, that’s the right thing to do.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Gesenius had long ago disqualified himself 1) because he based his work on medieval Hebrew with the Masoretic points and 2) he was one of the founders of what later became known as the JEPD theory, Form Kritic, Higher Criticism, and whatever nom du jour that theory claims. Both of those show that he didn’t really know Biblical Hebrew, nor did he want to.

Ad hominem against Gesenius. If he said that the sky was blue, you would say that it wasn't blue because Gesenius said so. That isn't how things work.

What??? Ad hominem? Referring to what he did is ad hominem? I pointed to his record, not his person.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Anyone who bases his understanding on Geseniius instead of on Tanakh is based on a broken reed.

Poisoning the well.

When recognizing that his writings end up with rather flakey results, that’s poisoning the well?

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Do you know the Biblical patterns?

According to you, I know nothing of biblical Hebrew. I don't think saying "yes" would be very meaningful here. I obviously don't know anything because I haven't rejected everything.

I merely asked a question, at least twice, and your failure to answer it, does that not raise doubts? But talk about jumping to conclusions!

By the way, what are the Biblical patterns of noun derivation from roots and the meanings that they impart?

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:No. Your uses of Aramaic עדן and די and calling them “Hebrew” are examples of the confusion that can result. That also extends to using the Indo-European grammar found in Hebrew from the DSS period to today.

די is Hebrew. Why is it that you declare everything not to be Hebrew? Must you be so critical?

Why not be so critical? Is that not the purpose for this thread, to hone our understanding and use of Biblical Hebrew? Is not one of the reasons to put out what we write for the very purpose of being criticized and corrected?

The word שכח is found in both Hebrew and Aramaic. So when writing here should I use the Aramaic meaning of שכח and call it Hebrew? Would you call me out if I did so? Why is it any different when I call you out on your Aramaic use of די and calling it Hebrew?

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Biblical Hebrew is a Semitic language. DSS Hebrew and later is an Into-European language with an altered Semitic vocabulary. The two are distinctly different languages.

Shakespeare didn't speak English, either, if this is the standard.

Not modern English. He wrote in an English where the language has changed significantly since he wrote it.

Jason Hare wrote:I think it is a real detraction from your potential that you don't speak modern Hebrew.

Actually, at one time I wanted to learn modern Israeli Hebrew, but didn’t have the opportunity. I now think it’s a plus that I don’t know modern Israeli Hebrew. The reason it’s a plus is because of cross-pollination, or cross-contamination, of cognate languages. Because Biblical Hebrew is the only Hebrew I know, and I don’t know a single cognate language to it (other than just enough Aramaic to read Daniel and Ezra), my mind doesn’t present confusing messages to me as I read Tanakh.

Jason Hare wrote:You think it's bad that I do; I think it's bad that you don't. Kinda at an impasse, which makes me think we can use this thread to play with production of our own Hebrew sentences, or we can continue at this game that I'm not too interested in playing. I know that you don't like modern Hebrew. That doesn't mean that we're ever going to agree by you staying on that topic.

I’m considering dropping out of this topic, and may do so after this message, because your writing is so weird from a Biblical Hebrew point of view.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:[right]מה כתבת פה: לא בנתי את הדברים האלה אשר כתבת:[/right]

בנתי is not a biblical form. Daniel 9.2 has בִּינֹ֫תִי, but the normal form of בין appears in the hiphil. You'd expect הֵבַ֫נְתִּי (like we say today) or הֲבִינֹ֫תִי (by analogy to הֲקִימֹ֫תִי). Is it possible to use the qal? Yes, but the hiphil is certainly more common. Davidson classified אָבִין as qal, but I understand it as hiphil, too.

The Qal form is found in the third person masculine singular in Proverbs 13:1, בן חכם מוסר אב The wise has insight to his father’s correction.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:You haven’t been on this forum that long.

I joined B-Hebrew in 2000 as a listserv. I'd say that 20 years is enough to be considered a long time. This is my first email to B-Hebrew from February 22, 2000.

OK, you caught me jumping to a conclusion. We’re both guilty.

ibiblio deleted so many of my messages, including my first one, and I didn’t keep a record of them myself, that I no longer have a record of my participation. To say that I’m disappointed with ibiblio is an understatement.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Years ago, we had a fellow who tried to prove his points by quoting translation after translation. Our repeated answer was “Translation is not evidence.” My eyes glaze over when I see a translation quoted, because “Translation is not evidence.” If you want to quote a passage, quote it in Hebrew. Copy and paste is easy enough.

I wasn't making an argument based on particular translation. Just thought it would be easier to throw out the English in whatever translation, since we're English speakers. Given how different our perspectives are with regard to Hebrew, I don't think you'd get what I was pointing out if I posted two paragraphs of Hebrew text at you.

Today I just finished reading the last two chapters of Ezra for the Nth time, and the first chapter of Nehemiah. When discussing Biblical Hebrew, I prefer to read the passages in Hebrew, not English. I don’t know about others, but that’s my preference. Oh, I also read Proverbs eighth and ninth chapters. Of course, all in Hebrew.

Jason Hare wrote:Regards,
Jason

OK, I asked several questions in this reply. I’ll probably lurk here to see the response. Then I may just wipe this section of B-Hebrew off my participation list and not even look at it again.

Yours,
Karl W. Randolph.

Hi Karl

kwrandolph wrote:

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Again you use the Aramaic די.

דַּי \ דֵּי is a Hebrew word. It's used 38 times in the Tanach. Link

It’s found in both Hebrew and Aramaic, but with different meanings. When using it in Hebrew, use it with the Hebrew meaning. When using it in Aramaic, use it with the Aramaic meaning. But how is it right to use it in Hebrew with the Aramaic meaning?

Where do you see the word דֵּי in Biblical Aramaic? I'd like to know.
I hope you don't refer to Aramaic דִּי which cannot be mistaken for thinking that this is the word that Jason wrote in his sentence. Because the distance between the meanings is so much far for making anyone think like that.

I understand your point of sticking to only Hebrew, and that is fine. But then, one can say: What about the word דת (in Esther), or פרדס (in Song of Songs) - these are Persian words, but Hebrew used them. So would you call them Hebrew or not Hebrew? And a lot of Aramaic words that "invaded" Hebrew, and was used in Hebrew texts in the (second period) biblical Hebrew. What about them? Are they Hebrew or not?

There is a thin line which one can go one way or the other way, So I don't think you should be so strict. But it is good to point your notes as you do (even though I don't think you are right in some cases).

kwrandolph wrote:By the way, what are the Biblical patterns of noun derivation from roots and the meanings that they impart?

Can you please give a few examples?

kwrandolph wrote:The word שכח is found in both Hebrew and Aramaic. So when writing here should I use the Aramaic meaning of שכח and call it Hebrew? Would you call me out if I did so? Why is it any different when I call you out on your Aramaic use of די and calling it Hebrew?

I don't see the problem you see when you talk about the word די.
This word has the meaning of "sufficient measure" (or even just a certain measure).
When Jason wrote עובדים די קשה (I don't remember the exact word), it just means that they work in the defined measure of "hard".
I don't really see the problem.
Indeed, in the Bible we usually see it comes to define a measure of a noun, but the principle is the same, and I don't see any different meaning as you claim to be.

kwrandolph wrote:

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Biblical Hebrew is a Semitic language. DSS Hebrew and later is an Into-European language with an altered Semitic vocabulary. The two are distinctly different languages.

Shakespeare didn't speak English, either, if this is the standard.

Not modern English. He wrote in English where the language has changed significantly since he wrote it.

1. Where did you get this nonsense of DSS and later is an Into-European language with an altered Semitic vocabulary?
Since you said it yourself, that you don't know any Hebrew except the one that is presented in the Bible, then how would you know?
And if it is just Into-European language with an altered Semitic vocabulary, so I would guess it would be very easy for you to study it really quickly.

2. Modern Hebrew is way closer to Biblical Hebrew than Modern English is close to Shakespearian English.

kwrandolph wrote:Actually, at one time I wanted to learn modern Israeli Hebrew, but didn’t have the opportunity. I now think it’s a plus that I don’t know modern Israeli Hebrew. The reason it’s a plus is because of cross-pollination, or cross-contamination, of cognate languages. Because Biblical Hebrew is the only Hebrew I know, and I don’t know a single cognate language to it (other than just enough Aramaic to read Daniel and Ezra), my mind doesn’t present confusing messages to me as I read Tanakh.

According to what you say, an English person, or an American Person, cannot really study well Shakespeare since he faces cross-pollination, or cross-contamination, of cognate languages. And since his mindset is modern English, he then cannot excel in Shakespearian English because he would be confused, and won't remember what's what.

kwrandolph wrote:

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:[right]מה כתבת פה: לא בנתי את הדברים האלה אשר כתבת:[/right]

בנתי is not a biblical form. Daniel 9.2 has בִּינֹ֫תִי, but the normal form of בין appears in the hiphil. You'd expect הֵבַ֫נְתִּי (like we say today) or הֲבִינֹ֫תִי (by analogy to הֲקִימֹ֫תִי). Is it possible to use the qal? Yes, but the hiphil is certainly more common. Davidson classified אָבִין as qal, but I understand it as hiphil, too.

The Qal form is found in the third person masculine singular in Proverbs 13:1, בן חכם מוסר אב The wise has insight to his father’s correction.

You may want to find another example for Qal (which there are). This is your own reading.
The suggestion of reading this word בן (son) as Qal of בין is known. And those who do that, also change the word אב (father) to אהב since they must change it.
But this suggestion is poor.

The style of this book and the idea of this verse fits the same ideas and style and links that this book makes over and over again. And in this book, there are more than a dozen times when it talks about the son in relation to his father, and this is one of them. And there is no חכם next to אב unless it refers to בן חכם (and that is why I said before, that those who reads it as בן also reads the אב as אהב).


Second, from one who says he read the whole Bible multiple times, it would be expected to know well the style of missing words (in construct-states and in general). And there are dozens of examples.
More than that, the book of Proverbs (since it is proverbs) is usually written in a way that one part of the verse completes the other part, and there are a lot of missing words that are completed by the other part, or by the idea of the verse.

And so, this word בן in this verse means "Son" (like any ancient and new translation read it), and the meaning is understood by the verb of the second part (parallel by the idea) or by the general idea which is clear.

If you do want to go against the known reading, it is better if you just read the word מוסר as מיסר, and then you will have two complete parts in this verse.
But that is not necessary at all.

Regarding my use of the word תֹּ֫כֶן in my writing above, when confronted I didn’t even think to check the word in the Bible, since Karl said: “I would never have guessed it. That word follows no pattern of derivation from a root that I know of.” I just assumed that he was right, that it was not a biblical word. After all, I’ve never written a lexicon of the biblical Hebrew language!

I just got a bug in my head today and decided to check the Bible for the word, and it does indeed exist. It is used in two verses (Exodus 5.18 and Ezekiel 45.11), and in one verse (1 Chronicles 4.32) it is used as a place name.

Exodus 5.18 1 Chronicles 4.32 Ezekiel 45.11 In Ezekiel, it says that the אֵיפָה and the בַּת are to be of the same measuring standard (תֹּ֫כֶן). Exodus says that the people would be expected to produce the same measure (תֹּ֫כֶן) of bricks while not being provided with the straw (תֶּ֫בֶן).

So, the biblical word תֹּ֫כֶן meant “the same/specific measure” of something. It was brought into modern Hebrew to mean “the content” or “what is contained in something.” It’s a biblical word, but it was given new meaning over time.

I guess that the modern Hebrew תכן (as "content") is based somehow on a combination of תכן as "measure" (original meaning), and the תוך (what's inside). As if the "content" is the measure/value/amount that a thing contains inside it.

Jason Hare wrote:Regarding my use of the word תֹּ֫כֶן in my writing above, when confronted I didn’t even think to check the word in the Bible, since Karl said: “I would never have guessed it. That word follows no pattern of derivation from a root that I know of.” I just assumed that he was right, that it was not a biblical word. After all, I’ve never written a lexicon of the biblical Hebrew language!

I just got a bug in my head today and decided to check the Bible for the word, and it does indeed exist. It is used in two verses (Exodus 5.18 and Ezekiel 45.11), and in one verse (1 Chronicles 4.32) it is used as a place name.

Exodus 5.18

וְעַתָּה֙ לְכ֣וּ עִבְד֔וּ וְתֶ֖בֶן לֹא־יִנָּתֵ֣ן לָכֶ֑ם וְתֹ֥כֶן לְבֵנִ֖ים תִּתֵּֽנּוּ׃

1 Chronicles 4.32

וְחַצְרֵיהֶם֙ עֵיטָ֣ם וָעַ֔יִן רִמּ֥וֹן וְתֹ֖כֶן וְעָשָׁ֑ן עָרִ֖ים חָמֵֽשׁ׃

Ezekiel 45.11

הָאֵיפָ֣ה וְהַבַּ֗ת תֹּ֤כֶן אֶחָד֙ יִֽהְיֶ֔ה לָשֵׂ֕את מַעְשַׂ֥ר הַחֹ֖מֶר הַבָּ֑ת וַעֲשִׂירִ֤ת הַחֹ֙מֶר֙ הָֽאֵיפָ֔ה אֶל־הַחֹ֖מֶר יִהְיֶ֥ה מַתְכֻּנְתּֽוֹ׃

In Ezekiel, it says that the אֵיפָה and the בַּת are to be of the same measuring standard (תֹּ֫כֶן). Exodus says that the people would be expected to produce the same measure (תֹּ֫כֶן) of bricks while not being provided with the straw (תֶּ֫בֶן).

So, the biblical word תֹּ֫כֶן meant “the same/specific measure” of something. It was brought into modern Hebrew to mean “the content” or “what is contained in something.” It’s a biblical word, but it was given new meaning over time.

I’ll break my planned for lurking this thread to make a quick comment.

From your description of the meaning of תוכן meaning “contents” which refers to that which is inside, I came to the understanding that the root to which you referred was תוך which means “inside”. That derivation of תוכן from תוך follows no rule of derivation of which I know.

There is a root תכן meaning “to measure” but from its meaning I’d have never connected it to תוכן meaning “contents”.

Is this not an example of cross-contamination of cognate languages that would give you difficulties in knowing Biblical Hebrew that I mentioned earlier?

Now to go back to lurking.

Yours, Karl W. Randolph.

Ps: I looked up your original post to B-Hebrew when you were a second semester student of Hebrew. The same year that you were a first year student, I had already read Tanakh through, cover to cover, 10+ times in Hebrew. In the past 20 years, how many times have you read Tanakh through cover to cover in Hebrew?