Genesis 8:17 Ketiv ﬣוצא / Qere ﬣיצא

[RGLehmann]

Does anyone have a good explanation for the unusual qere hif'il imperative ﬣיצא instead of ketiv ﬣוצא in Genesis 8:17?
Commentaries & grammars, as far as I have seen, do not seem to be very helpful - of course it is to some extent "abnormal" (Gesenius) or "irregular" … but why?

[kwrandolph]

To me this appears to be just one of many examples where the Qere reading is inferior to the Kethib.

It appears that the Masoretes, when they came across a singular verb after a few nouns, they assumed that it referred to Noah and that it refers to his causing all the living creatures that were with him to exit with him. Hence a Hiphil verb.

I seem to remember noticing, though I don’t remember where off the top of my head, other examples where multiple singular subjects, or the leading subject being singular followed by other subjects, were all referred to by a singular verb. I thought it was strange at the time I first noticed it, but shrugged my shoulders and assumed that it was just an idiosyncrasy of Biblical Hebrew language. So I didn’t mark down where I saw such examples.

Sorry.

There are many, many other examples where I find that the commentary (Qere readings, dots) added by the Masoretes is not supported by the context, nor grammatical structure. Therefore I read the unpointed text for my personal readings, and regularly consult the DSS for difficult verses.

Karl W. Randolph.

[RGLehmann]

Karl, all this might be correct, and I my self prefer reading the OT in the depth of a historical, pre-masoretic layer. And that's how I teach it, too, since more than 25 years.
However, I am convinced that the Masoretes were no silly boys who didn't know what they were doing but had reasons to read thing like they did (at least in most cases). Maybe their reasons were not good and not convincing (this is true in many cases), but they did it not par hazard!
Whether multiple singular subjects or not is not the crucial point here (both readings are singular!) but why is there a qere היצא which is a unique singular imperative at all (isn't it?). As a rule, in "standard classical Hebrew" (whatever this might be), יצא should have a hifil perfect and imperative הוצא because it is etymologically *wṣᵓ, as it is in almost every other instances. היצא however pretends to be a *yṣᵓ verb …

So what about the parsing, the derivation, and maybe the etymology of the qere היצא? Even if it were inferior to the Ketiv, the Masoretes must have had a certain reason for choosing היצא instead of הוצא, and that's what I am interested in.

There are few grammars or commentaries which write about this. Gesenius-Kautzsch 69v calls it „abnorm“ only; not much better Bauer-Leander §59i "dialektisch" (which is an old German word for dialectal), … and so on.
In Bergsträsser's grammar fragment (1918/1929) 128 n. h you find at least a tentative explanation: „wohl künstliche Umformung zum Hinweis auf abweichende Bedeutung ‘sage, daß sie herausgehen sollen’. This is not so bad at all, but I wonder whether there are better explanations.

Nothing seems to be found in more modern German or English Hebrew grammars.

[kwrandolph]

However, I am convinced that the Masoretes were no silly boys who didn't know what they were doing but had reasons to read thing like they did (at least in most cases). Maybe their reasons were not good and not convincing (this is true in many cases), but they did it not par hazard!

I agree with you here.

Where I disagree with the Masoretes is that I think they were led astray by their dialect of Hebrew that they used, which caused them to insert the wrong points at times, and at times incorrect Qeres for Kethibs.

Whether multiple singular subjects or not is not the crucial point here (both readings are singular!) but why is there a qere היצא which is a unique singular imperative at all (isn't it?). As a rule, in "standard classical Hebrew" (whatever this might be), יצא should have a hifil perfect and imperative הוצא because it is etymologically *wṣᵓ, as it is in almost every other instances. היצא however pretends to be a *yṣᵓ verb …

So what about the parsing, the derivation, and maybe the etymology of the qere היצא? Even if it were inferior to the Ketiv, the Masoretes must have had a certain reason for choosing היצא instead of הוצא, and that's what I am interested in.

Here I’ll have to bow out, as I don’t know Tiberian medieval Hebrew, nor do I have any interest at this time to learn it—I fear that should I study it, that it would contaminate my understanding of Biblical Hebrew.

Having written that, I suspect that Bauer-Leander are correct that it is “dialektisch” to Tiberian medieval Hebrew.

There are few grammars or commentaries which write about this. Gesenius-Kautzsch 69v calls it „abnorm“ only; not much better Bauer-Leander §59i "dialektisch" (which is an old German word for dialectal), … and so on.
In Bergsträsser's grammar fragment (1918/1929) 128 n. h you find at least a tentative explanation: „wohl künstliche Umformung zum Hinweis auf abweichende Bedeutung ‘sage, daß sie herausgehen sollen’. This is not so bad at all, but I wonder whether there are better explanations.

Nothing seems to be found in more modern German or English Hebrew grammars.

Do you really expect more from more modern grammars? Not only is the general populace more ignorant, but even it appears that the level of scholarship among scholars has decreased. Take, for example, how many Biblical Hebrew scholars have read Tanakh through cover to cover—once? Twice (Randall Buth did so decades ago)? Three times? Ten times? Don’t even ask for 20 times. In order to internalize the language, all of it, one needs to do that. Otherwise it remains just descriptions from other scholars. And this is best done apart from the Masoretic points. But how many modern people have done that sort of scholarship? Quite frankly, I know of none.

What I have found is that modern scholarship is skewed towards Semitic language studies, rather than concentrating on one language. There’s a place for that sort of study too, but the result is that no one language is known inside-out. The question you asked probably requires a person with an inside-out understanding of Tiberian medieval Hebrew, does such a person exist? I know I’m not he.

Another problem I’ve noticed is that some say that Tiberian Hebrew is Biblical Hebrew. Only by reading Tanakh through cover to cover five times or more can one verify that claim. I think it’s clear that Tiberian Hebrew ≠ Biblical Hebrew.

With this I’ll have to bow out of this issue. I don’t think you’ll get an answer to your question, just as I often don’t get answers to questions i pose on list.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Do you really expect more from more modern grammars? Not only is the general populace more ignorant, but even it appears that the level of scholarship among scholars has decreased. Take, for example, how many Biblical Hebrew scholars have read Tanakh through cover to cover—once? Twice (Randall Buth did so decades ago)? Three times? Ten times? Don’t even ask for 20 times. In order to internalize the language, all of it, one needs to do that. Otherwise it remains just descriptions from other scholars. And this is best done apart from the Masoretic points. But how many modern people have done that sort of scholarship? Quite frankly, I know of none.

I just saw an example of what I wrote in the above paragraph. Just from the title alone, “Toward a Description of LBH Syntax: The Case of Ecclesiastes 1−2” indicates that the author has not done his homework. Who told him that Ecclesiastes is LBH (Late Biblical Hebrew)? Has he not read Samuel and Kings and noted the style of speech in the conversations recorded therein? I just took a few minutes to reread those two chapters (the Hebrew is simple, easy to read) to reacquaint myself with those two chapters, and noticed that stylistically, the Hebrew used comes across as a very folksy, conversational style rather than a more formal, written style more normally used.

Since the Hebrew used is more like conversational style recorded in Samuel and Kings, actually he would have to include Genesis through Judges as well, does he claim that all those books are LBH? On what basis? Or is this evidence that Ecclesiastes is not LBH? Has he analyzed recorded conversations and noted their style of speech, and how they differ between pre- and post- Babylonian Captivity conversations? I doubt it. Has he read Tanakh through cover to cover often enough that he could have a feel for conversational style even without formal analysis? Again I doubt it. The title indicates that the author merely took someone else’ word that Ecclesiastes is LBH and built up from there.

Karl W. Randolph.

[RGLehmann]

You wrote:

I just saw an example of what I wrote in the above paragraph. Just from the title alone, “Toward a Description of LBH Syntax: The Case of Ecclesiastes 1−2” indicates that the author has not done his homework.

Do you know the author? I doubt it.
Do you know her arguments? I doubt it.
Do you know how much and how often and in which manner the author have read the Hebrew Bible? I wonder how you should know.
Do you know the paper? Definitely not, because it is the announcement of a lecture that will be held only in autumn this year.
Prejudice and blatant bias like that is not a sign for sound scholarship.

And, by the way: this was not my question. I am not a silly schoolboy to tell me what I have to think about modern grammars or that "the level of scholarship among scholars has decreased" – I suppose you mean: except you?
Just as a reminder: My question was whether someone knows a good if any explanation for an unexpected qere in Genesis 8:17.
If you don't know, simply say: No. Me either.

There is no need to publicly dispraise the scholarly community worldwide. Note that Nili Samet of Bar Ilan University (whose lecture title you cite from http://www.micah.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de/eng/115.php) is MY GUEST. And I do not tolerate that any person – whoever you are – offends my guests!

[kwrandolph]

Dear Dr. Lehmann:

You sound a bit ticked. You have taken this in a manner in which I did not intend.

You wrote:

I just saw an example of what I wrote in the above paragraph. Just from the title alone, “Toward a Description of LBH Syntax: The Case of Ecclesiastes 1−2” indicates that the author has not done his homework.

Do you know the author? I doubt it.
Do you know her arguments? I doubt it.

Why should the identity of the author be an issue? Are not the ideas that which count, not the persons? Did I mention the author’s name? If I didn’t mention the name, do you suppose it was because I wanted to stick to the issues, and not attack people personally?

Doesn’t the title already give clues as to the arguments? Why or why not?

Do you know how much and how often and in which manner the author have read the Hebrew Bible? I wonder how you should know.

When it is an issue, I ask. Did I not ask in the message you complained about? Do you realize how others have answered that question?

Do you know the paper? Definitely not, because it is the announcement of a lecture that will be held only in autumn this year.

How should I know the paper? All I commented on was the title, and the clues left by the title. Furthermore, most of what I wrote were questions, not statements. The answers to those questions could show that I was mistaken, but based on answers to the question preceding this one that I have already gotten from other people, should I expect to be mistaken?

Why shouldn’t I expect that the title already gives clues as to the contents of the paper?

Prejudice and blatant bias like that is not a sign for sound scholarship.

OK, what prejudice and blatant bias do you perceive in my response? Other than I respect good scholarship?

I have admitted to a bias against the Documentary Hypothesis. I have seen many examples that lead me to conclude that its presuppositions result in poor scholarship.

And, by the way: this was not my question. I am not a silly schoolboy to tell me what I have to think about modern grammars or that "the level of scholarship among scholars has decreased" – I suppose you mean: except you?

Who says that I’m a scholar? No one that I know of.

You made a question concerning grammars, and all I did was to answer that question as to why I don’t expect you’ll get the answer for which you were looking.

Just as a reminder: My question was whether someone knows a good if any explanation for an unexpected qere in Genesis 8:17.
If you don't know, simply say: No. Me either.

That’s the answer I gave at first.

What you apparently don’t like is that I also gave a reason why I don’t think you’ll get an answer to your second question.

There is no need to publicly dispraise the scholarly community worldwide. Note that Nili Samet of Bar Ilan University (whose lecture title you cite from http://www.micah.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de/eng/115.php) is MY GUEST. And I do not tolerate that any person – whoever you are – offends my guests!

Incidentally, it is not only I, but better people than I claim that scholarship appears to be decreasing in many fields world wide. This is a process that started decades ago, and already documented before we were born. Therefore this claim is not referring to any individual, rather to a general cultural malaise. Since it appears world wide in many fields, why not also Biblical Hebrew?

Did I name your guest? Do you suppose the reason I didn’t name your guest was because I wanted to discuss an issue, and not offend the guest personally?

If your guest is offended by observations and questions from a non-scholar like myself, then how is she going to stand when questioned by scholars? Wouldn’t she be more offended if she can’t answer their questions?

OK, OK, I’ll admit to one thing that I’ve done. Due to a challenge from Randall Buth, the last couple of times I read Tanakh through, I made a list of some conversations recorded in Tanakh. I looked at the grammatical structure and syntax of those sentences. The answer I got was not as I expected, nor as Randall Buth expected (but he’s no longer here to hear about it). There is a difference between conversations from the kingdom era Biblical Hebrew, and LBH (after Babylonian captivity Hebrew). Ecclesiastes grammar and syntax is consistent with the style of the majority of kingdom era conversations. If I were in the audience when that paper is given, I’d ask the same questions I asked in the posting that offended you, and I’d bring up the results of my list made because of Randall Buth’s challenge. Based on the title, what do you expect would be the answers from the author?

Now it could be that the author will do something completely unexpected, based on the title, as did the author of the PhD dissertation titled “Zur Datierung der Genesis ‘P’ Stücke”. If that’s the case, then my jumping to conclusions based on the title was wrong. And the author should not be offended, because the author would recognize that my conclusions based on the title were wrong. But should I expect that, given that this is the title to a short paper and not a long dissertation? What is the probability of doing something completely unexpected?

There was no intent to attack persons, merely to discuss issues.

As I understood your original post, you asked two questions. I answered both questions with a reason I didn’t expect you to get an answer to your second question.

Karl W. Randolph.

[RGLehmann]

For those who are still seriously interested to think about such forms like my abovementiones in Gen 8:14, in the meanwhile I have found the same assumption as I have given above

"I am convinced that the Masoretes … had reasons to read things like they did"

Bernhard Stade in his Lehrbuch der hebräischen Grammatik, 1879 p. 97 (§120) hold such forms „bedenklich“, but assumes:
„Gleichwohl muss über diese Formen eine feste massoretische Tradition bestanden haben, deren Grund freilich nicht einzusehen ist.“

But for the also unexpected 'strong' Hif'il participle 1Chron 12:2 מַיְמִינִים he states maybe correctly:
„In מַיְמִינִים hingegen hat das Jod sein gutes Recht. Es zeigt, dass diese Form von יָמִין denominirt ist. Im gleichen Fall erhält sich auch in andern semitschen Sprachen gegen die Analogie der übrigen Formen ein Waw oder Jod.“

Just for your reference.

[porta]

Mr. R. Lehmann,
would you be so kind to give us the English translation of the Germans texts you quote?
Unfortunately I cannot read German.
I guess I have an answer to the "but why?" of your first post on this issue.

Thanks.

Pere Porta
Barcelona

[RGLehmann]

I will try, but maybe someone should translate it into English who is an English native speaker.…

Bernhard Stade in his Lehrbuch der hebräischen Grammatik, 1879 p. 97 (§120) hold such forms dubious („bedenklich“), but assumes:
„Gleichwohl muss über diese Formen eine feste massoretische Tradition bestanden haben, deren Grund freilich nicht einzusehen ist.“

This should be:
-> "Nevertheless there must have been a stable massoretic tradition, the reason of which is not apprehensible anyway."
The problem here is that the German word "einsehbar", which nowadays normally means "visible" (if you can see something from a certain position, e.g. if you can look from your window at your neighbours balkony, the balkony is "einsehbar"), but in 19th century German, "einsehbar" also means that the reason for something is not known or that one wonders whether there is any reason at all. I guess that Stade meant it this way.

The second quotation

„In מַיְמִינִים hingegen hat das Jod sein gutes Recht. Es zeigt, dass diese Form von יָמִין denominirt ist. Im gleichen Fall erhält sich auch in andern semitschen Sprachen gegen die Analogie der übrigen Formen ein Waw oder Jod.“

means:
-> „In מַיְמִינִים however, th Jod is well justified. It shows that this form is a derivate from the noun יָמִין . In similar cases also other Semitic languages preserve a Waw or a Yod against the analogy of the majority of forms“