The Library

12:00 AM

@e.s.kohen If you have this many problems with a question, chat would probably be a better place to address them. That said, Joseph’s question seems pretty clear to me. His assessments of singular, plural, and construct in all of these places is correct AFAIK, and the curious issue of why the fem. rather than the masculine is used for the collective remains.

e.s. kohen

Thanks Susan. I am not certain how "Hair" in Job, can be seen in the Singular form. I absolutely agree about the Collective Feminine being curious. This is what I want the question to focus on. I think the "singular/plural" question is not well-grounded, and detracts from the Collective Feminine.

It is "internally contradictory" to state that this is plural, and collective feminine, but then to state, "its singular". The form, the construct, and the context, all affirm its a plural concept.

P.S. Can you link your resources for Brenton? :D

Susan

@e.s.kohen In singular feminine constructs, the final qamets-hey changes to a patach-taw. My Hebrew is pretty basic, but I have very little doubt that he is correct about that one. It is grammatically singular, consistent with the preceding verb: ‏תְּסַמֵּ֗ר שַֽׂעֲרַ֥ת בְּשָׂרִֽי.

He doesn’t state that it is plural. He’s asking why it’s not plural or the more common (grammatically singular) collective masculine, either of which seems to fit better in the context (affirmed by the LXX). The question makes sense!

When you see a taw on the end and think it’s plural, you’re presumably thinking of the holem-waw+taw characteristic of feminine plurals (both absolute and construct). But taw itself does not a plural noun make.

e.s. kohen

@Susan The link that he provided shows that it is used elsewhere in a feminine construct. Psalms 69:4, for example.

@Susan Regarding the verb agreement, about singular verbs, and plural object - this is actually common in Hebrew. (Water, God, (elohim)... etc. I am trying to find a Masculine, Plural Construct for ''Hair"...

Susan

@e.s.kohen Sure, plural Ps 69:4(5). שַּׂעֲר֣וֹת. With the characteristic holem-waw + taw ending. Different from שַֽׂעֲרַ֥ת.

e.s. kohen

12:18 AM

@Susan So, that response can go two directions ... I would have the burden to show that Job has a tendency to do that ... Or .. We can find a masculine plural use of this, anywhere else.

Susan

@e.s.kohen Presumably you mean “subject” rather than “object” (the former governs the number of the verb). Yes, that happens when plural forms are used for singular ideas. My favorite Gesenius §124. Because this isn’t a plural form, that doesn’t apply.

e.s. kohen

@Susan Obviously, if a masculine plural form is used anywhere--then you are right, the Collective Femine, here, would be significant.

@Susan Ack. Okay, so I can show that it is Plural in form... But, what I am trying to say, is that it doesn't matter, if in fact there is no masculine plural form.

@Susan If there is a masculine plural form, then the significance of the Collective Feminine, here, is apparent.

Susan

@e.s.kohen No, that masculine singular is used all over as a collective (with masc. singular verbs). That’s the point. This example (Job) is unusual because it’s feminine singular apparently being used as a collective. Normally for this word the feminine is plural in form when used to describe plural hairs, as in the Psalms. Or it’s singular in form when used to describe single hairs, as in Judges/Sam/Kings.

@e.s.kohen You can show that it is plural in form? OK, that is yet to be apparent to me.

e.s. kohen

@Susan Okay, just to identify what we agree on: the Feminine Plural Construct is used for hair, elsewhere; but, the masculine plural is not.

@Susan Or, are you arguing the the feminine plural/singular construct is unique to Job?

Susan

@e.s.kohen Can we ignore the construct/absolute distinction? Doesn’t really matter for this discussion except for the forms, which are all typical morphology.

@e.s.kohen Masculine is generally (always based on my quick search) singular in form, collective in sense. Feminine is usually plural in form, plural in sense. It is also sometimes singular in form, singular in sense. Here the feminine is singular in form and plural in sense. This seems to be unusual. That’s the basis of the question.

e.s. kohen

12:35 AM

@Susan Okay. We agree that it is clearly plural in sense. 2 Sam 14:11 shows the same use of this form, and certainly plural in sense, biblehub.com/text/2_samuel/14-11.htm

@Susan Just ignore the word "One" in that verse.

Susan

@e.s.kohen Well if I were willing to ignore the word “one” I might agree with you. ;-) As it is, “certainly plural in sense” seems like a pretty tenuous assessment given that translations agree that it means “one hair."

e.s. kohen

@Susan Okay. Progress! Even if "one" can be translated from the text, the noun form, is the same as in Job, implying a sense of plurality.

@Susan It is also a feminine construct. Which, for me, diminishes the question of "curiousness"...

Susan

@e.s.kohen errrr, no. In Sam it makes sense as a singular because the idea being emphasized is not even a single hair. (Translations agree.) In Job it wouldn’t make sense, “a single hair of my flesh stood up.”

e.s. kohen

@Susan In Sam, it says "from hair", the prefix "mem". So, it has to absolutely imply a plurality. not fall [one] from your hair. Granted, "one" is certainly implied, but from a greater whole.

@Susan Susan, those references DO disagree, some illustrate the "one from many" denotation - "not a hair on your son’s head", a more accurate translation... "One from many" ... Though perhaps, "not one strand from your hair. ...

@Susan We should really have this conversation in the chat, there ... I was not able to move it to chat.

@Susan The three instances where this form of "hair" is used, is in Job 4:15, 2 Sam. 14:11, 1 Sam 14:45.

Susan

1:02 AM

@e.s.kohen OK, there I see what you’re saying. HALOT calls those a single hair, though: not one hair shall fall to the ground, with נָפַל S 1445 2S 1411 1K 152. In any case, the Job example is the only sing. coll. outside of that specific construction, it’s noted in HALOT to be the only coll. fem., and the LXX and Vulgate both felt a need to make it plural. I maintain that it’s a reasonable question.

@e.s.kohen Also Kings, see above.

@e.s.kohen Agreed. Generally it’s best just to open the conversation in chat if you have that many things to say. Otherwise, you can do what I did and copy the comments to chat.

e.s. kohen

Are you saying the references in psalms are not collective feminines?

@Susan I didn't have that option, (usually, when it gets long, it gives you the option).

I am nowhere in your league when it comes to this stuff. And I don't have the references.

Susan

@e.s.kohen They are plural.

@e.s.kohen You can always just manually copy. Click on the timestamp on the comment and it gives you a URL. Then just paste the URL into a message in chat by itself and the comment will be rendered. Then delete the comment. That’s all I did. I also don’t have the “migrate to chat” option unless there are a zillion messages.

e.s. kohen

okay ... משערות ראשי in psalms 40:12, is a feminine plural construct, syntactically plural, and plural in sense.

Susan

@e.s.kohen We agree!

(Morphologically or grammatically plural I would say, but I think that’s what you meant.)

e.s. kohen

@Susan Yes Morphologically... And I am "assuming" you assert that the "Tav" in Job, is simply to move it into a construct state, rather than to imply plurality. ?

@Susan (morphologically, yes).

Susan

1:09 AM

@e.s.kohen I’m not sure what you mean by “syntactically”. Here again, more like morphologically?

e.s. kohen

@Susan Yes Morphologically... And I am "assuming" you assert that the "Tav" in Job, is simply to move it into a construct state, rather than to imply plurality.

@Susan All I am trying to say, is that the case in Job isn't especially unique, (in consideration of 1 Sam), and whatever meaningfulness, if any, should apply in 1 Sam as well.

Susan

@e.s.kohen If the MT textual tradition means anything, then unambiguously, yes! Even without vowels that can be seen due to the absent waw of holem-waw.

e.s. kohen

@Susan You mean the Aleppo Codex tradition, not MT. ;)

@Susan And I totally understand that is not what you meant. ;) But the vowel pointings date back to Aleppo, 900 AD, I think.

@Susan I guess my comment there was to indicate that I do not agree with the patach-tav morphological rule... and because the holem-vav construction has many exceptions, it could not be "the rule", applied in the reading of Job--even before the vowel pointings existed.

Susan

@e.s.kohen OK, I need to go but it was good to chat with you.

e.s. kohen

So, I could point to the Aramaic targums regarding plurality, whatever ... but in the end, but question remains the same -- "None of these issues have any effect on the reading of this passage--except perhaps to create a poetic, and visual image illustrating each delicate strand of hair on the back of his neck standing up ...

@Susan Likewise... I hope you answer the question. I think you could bring in the Collective Feminine and make that point. :)

Susan

1:22 AM

@e.s.kohen Yes, I am spoiled to have HALOT and a searchable, morphologically tagged text easily accessible. It’s cheating in a way because it makes it almost too easy. So sorry about that.

In the future, if you have comments to make that require “A, B, C” notation, it’s better to just take it to chat. Comments are not intended the type of extended discussion that that type of comments require to be addressed properly.

Susan

6:14 AM

@ScottS @Davïd @Joseph Thanks to all three of your for all your attention to this question. I had no idea there would be so much to discuss! And agreed about "time to leave it alone."

Davïd

@ScottS @Joseph @Susan - I thought I had posted a reply to Scott last night, but obviously in my harried and harassed state of mind ... I forgot to click the send button. Sigh. Well - looks like we've reached a caesura of sorts, and this has been very stimulating for me! I'll probably return to it when time permits, but no space just now.

Susan

12:05 PM

@Davïd Edit (because I can ;-)): Please disregard this +f. Question asked. Provide correction there as warranted. || I want to talk more about ‏מִזְמ֥וֹר לְדָוִֽד. It’s not exactly the most natural way of expressing ‘of David’ in Hebrew (nor the dative Greek rendering) unlike, say, Psalm 72:20. Your answer on that is the only thing I’ve found here that addresses לְדָוִֽד.

(Although the issue isn’t different from my Song 1:1 question - which nobody has answered with respect to the linguistic/translation problem.) Do you think there’s room for another question here? I’m just finding it hard to believe we haven’t already talked about this. Or maybe there’s nothing to be said other than ‘nobody really knows’?

ScottS

@Davïd A quick reply about what is meant by "pr." would be appreciated, if you know. I have looked at four different electronic copies of the lexicon, and have not yet found any that give a section indicating what his abbreviations mean.

Lyle's Mug

1:43 PM

good morning.

does your question feed show up as oneboxed chat posts? or as an rss feed popup?

Jack Douglas

@Lyle'sMug we have an rss feed in here

but meta questions are oneboxed

possible duplicate of The Hebrew word Yom — Jack Douglas 1 min ago

^^^^ I don't see how this is in any way off topic, but it is a) very poorly written and b) a duplicate

it's pretty obvious what text the Q is referring to

Lyle's Mug

thank you @JackDouglas, I just posted a question and was wondering how it would show in chat, if it would show in chat

Jack Douglas

1

Q: Who were the people of Jericho?

Joshua 6:21-25 says that they killed every living thing in it (the City of Jericho) -- "men, women, young, old, cattle, sheep, donkeys." except for Rahab and her family, which is a good thing because she becomes part of the lineage of David and then Jesus Christ, but then the Israelites burned ...

^^^ this one?

the rss feed only shows up posts/comments from a list of users: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/1505/the-library?tab=feeds

I think it was those over 5k or something

Lyle's Mug

yep. my first question. what do you think? is it on-topic?

oh so it doesn't show all new questions?

Jack Douglas

1:58 PM

no, that would be too much I think even for a low-traffic site like BH.SE

@Lyle'sMug are you specifically asking for extra-biblical evidence as to what sort of a people the inhabitants were?

Lyle's Mug

@JackDouglas CR has it for all new questions, but we have more people in chat as well.

@JackDouglas yes but also in text as well. I have read through a majority of the Old Testament, but it was quite some time ago

Jack Douglas

Battle of Jericho

According to the Book of Joshua, the Battle of Jericho was the first battle of the Israelites in their conquest of Canaan. According to Joshua 6:1-27, the walls of Jericho fell after Joshua's Israelite army marched around the city blowing their trumpets. The story of the battle is not supported by the archaeological evidence, and almost all scholars agree that the Book of Joshua holds little historical value. == Joshua 6:1-27 == The story of Jericho is told in Joshua 6:1-27. The first five books of the Hebrew Bible tell how Noah cursed Canaan to become a slave, and how God gave the land of the...

^^^ secular scholarship regards the story as something of a fairy tale

@Lyle'sMug you might want to edit the question to make that clear - I think you'll have more joy with answers then

Caleb

Not to dredge up the mud that we just stopped stirring, but this suggestion not only makes a lot of sense in general, I have an idea the tactic would be very applicable to specific misunderstandings with BH.

6

A: How should we revise the standard off-topic reasons, if we can have up to five?

I found working on this jigsaw puzzle a personally rewarding experience. It really helped me appreciate what you do here. Obviously the longer your site has been around, the more problems you find that need addressing. I'm sure you've tried cramming more unrelated close reasons into each slot, b...

Lyle's Mug

2:15 PM

@JackDouglas will do, thank you

Lyle's Mug

4:27 PM

@JackDouglas interesting about how they talk about it being a fallacy because the evidence in a single place doesn't match the time frame they guessed that the battle happened. and

> demonstrated that the destruction occurred c.1500 BCE during a well-attested Egyptian campaign of that period

Moses was sort of an Egyptian

so they were probably called Egyptians and clothed similar to Egyptians of the time, because they came from Egypt.

what Egyptian Campaign? the one that Joshua led? might they have called them all the Israelites, Egyptians?

Lyle's Mug

4:46 PM

please ping me when my edit to this questions is accepted so that I can write a little wiki for timeline thanks!

@Caleb Chronology is a much better tag than Timeline. thank you!

that is a good synonym!

I will get the hang of these tags yet. :) thank you for your help

Caleb

@Lyle'sMug Also, it already existed ;-) Also please note that adding tags like context isnt't an improvement to site taxonomy for most questions. Almost all questions requiring exegesis will involve an inspection of the context in one way or another, but that doesn't make them questions about the concept of context.

Lyle's Mug

@Caleb I read the tag description after I saw your edit removing the tag, and that makes total sense.

@Caleb when I typed timeline in it didn't autopopulate, it must have been a lag on my computer or something. I apologize, chronology is a much better tag than timeline

Caleb

5:09 PM

@Lyle'sMug I only just added the synonym for any others that search for timeline rather than chronology.

Lyle's Mug

6:09 PM

I mean, it looked like I created timeline

Librarian

0

Q: Should we reword the close reasons to reflect more the intent of the site in the wording

Caleb's finding of this meta post on Code Review, and his analysis that "this makes sense" also makes sense to me. So even though we just finished a round of changing the close questions, taking the general content of those and rewording similar to the example form given on Code Review seems to ...

discussion close-reasons

ScottS

@Caleb I took the bait... :-) (see "Librarian" link above ^^^)

I did agree very much with you that such an approach improves the close reasons.

ScottS

8:49 PM

@All Note that in four of the five close reasons on the latest iteration of that discussion, I link to this question.

Currently that only has one answer, but it does seem as though that question should be a core resource to point people to. Perhaps consider upvoting the answer there, or posting your own answer if you disagree or want to add in some way, or edit (perhaps making it a community answer... I'm not sure how that exactly works).

Transcript for