The Library

2:34 AM

@Davïd Agree about the problems. The form does match the Hiphil, which (as you noted in your comment) fits better with known potential (*) uses of an infinitive absolute.

(*) "potential" as Williams' Hebrew Syntax states the use of the infinitive absolute after a construct state noun is disputed (p.86 sec. 207a).

Susan

5:37 AM

I wonder what "disputed" means. Clearly it happens, right?

Davïd

7:05 AM

@Susan @ScottS My hunch is that Beckman (ed. of Williams' Hebrew Syntax) is getting this from Joüon-Muraoka, § 123c (p. 391) - not coming up in Google Books preview for me. Here it is:

(Sorry for the poor quality - I think it's legible!)

Checking into this would mean looking at the five cases closely; J-M is pretty adamant: "very rare, doubtful or incorrect"! (Bold in original.)

For @Joseph's case - it cannot be the definite article plus the Piel Inf Abs! It might be the Hiphil Inf Abs, but then (a) it would be the only known case of the Hif. of this verb (which otherwise has only a single attestation), and (b) we still need to know how the phrase "works" - how to translate it! I wouldn't know how.

Susan

@Davïd Thanks. I still don't really get that, but I'm probably not going to any time soon. Any idea what this fellow is getting at?

Davïd

+ for the banter, here's Beckman -

@Susan ;) I understand the question, if that's what you mean, but I can't think of any examples and it doesn't ring any bells.

I did add a comment, though.

Susan

@Davïd Is there such a thing as an aleph that changes a verb to a noun? (I follow the mem thing.)

Davïd

@Susan I'm struggling to think of one. My Aramaic is rusty, though - I'll take a quick poke around before getting down to the day's really work!

Susan

@Davïd OK, if it's not obvious to you it's probably not something I need to know. Just checking.

Davïd

7:17 AM

@Susan Right - that didn't take long.

@Susan Does this page show up for you?

Looks like three examples in the J-M paragraph that would correspond to that questioner's interest. Others are prosthetic on nouns.

Susan

@Davïd I'm still laughing about that usage of 'prosthetic.'

Davïd

(Gave me a paper cut checking this one up. I'm bleeding real blood. Sacrifice for the sake of BH.SE....)

Susan

@Davïd Yes, thanks.

Davïd

@Susan And here it is in GKC - does that OP show any signs of "research effort"? Harumph.

Right - I'm off! Clock is ticking....... . . .

Davïd

11:39 AM

@Caleb @Susan (handy mods!) - I agree with this comment, sort of....

I think this question is off-topic, but not a duplicate. Asking whether Melchizedek is God the Father is not the same as asking what Hebrews means by Jesus as a priest in the order of Melchizedek. — Dick Harfield yesterday

The OP is asking (essentially) about the identity of Melchizedek - and Dick's right (I think) that the linked question isn't a duplicate. But this one is:

2

Q: Melchizedek: He was a priest of the Most High?

I do not understand why Melchizedek is said "priest of God Most High" (Genesis 14:18) while to my humble knowledge, priesthood started in the law of Moses and at that point of time the law of Moses did not exist. Or, am I missing something? Hebrews 7:3 ".....resembling the Son of God he continue...

Any chance that the linked duplicate could be changed? Or is that not worth the bother? (or limited by software options?)? Whatever. Will leave it with you!

Caleb

@Davïd Done.

Davïd

@Caleb That was fast! Quicker than it took me to log the question, I reckon. :)

Caleb

@Davïd Normally when something is off topic, I don't worry too much about incorrect duplicate links. Being linked as a duplicate (even if only to something that is a "nearest match") is more likely to be helpful to the OP than just closing it. If the complaint is "this is not a dup but it's still off topic" I normally just leave it (or even delete itl), but if it really is a duplicate of something open then it isn't actually off topic (or the target is).

@Davïd That's because you had to find the links. All I had to do was follow them and click.

Davïd

I suppose that makes Dick's comment surplus-to-requirements, too. Clearing up comment flotsam and jetsam is a different matter, I suppose. (Wait till the turn of the year, and one might get a hat for it! Or is there a summerfest?)

@Caleb Thanks - minimally, it might be a help to the OP if there's a closer match. And it gets the Duplicate Link Police off the case, too. :)

Caleb

@Davïd flag: obsolete

Davïd

11:50 AM

@Caleb Ah! Learned something just there.

Caleb

@Davïd Ya, a better match is usually worth linking, at least in comments if not in a re-close (unfortunately I have to open before closing as another question).

ScottS

12:40 PM

@Davïd It would not be the first hapax legomenon (in form) in the Hebrew Bible :-). So while it makes the burden more upon the argument, it is at least a feasible as Hiphil. As to translation, something like "from the belly (or heart) of enveloping darkness." It is being within the belly/heart of the fish that is "causing" the darkness. This parallels the Hiphil idea of Isa 14:23 where the construct noun is causing the destruction; so here, the belly is causing surrounding darkness.

Davïd

1:10 PM

@ScottS I don't say the Hiphil is impossible (obviously - that's why I flagged it up!), and there have been yet more speculative suggestions, certainly. But that's pretty thin ice semantically, and in the context of a "fish" pretty much sure to cause confusion.

The meaning of the Qal (HALOT) is "spread, multiply", so I don't know where the "darkness" is coming from. The Hiphil (if it exists, and if it's obeying the rules) would be "cause x to multiply" (agency emphasis). As a wise man once said, just because it can mean x, doesn't mean it should mean x! ;)

FWIW, if there was a Hif inf abs of דגה it would look something like הַדְגֵּה. Not haddāgâ but hadgēh.

(In "traditional" pronunciation, then, quite distinct: the article + noun has hard "d" and soft "g"; for the Hif inf abs, its a soft "d" and a hard "g", and differing vowel patterns in each.)

Davïd

1:39 PM

@ScottS (I really need to leave this alone! But....) I think @Joseph is confusing etymology and meaning. Here's his Gesenius entry (now removed) that sparked the idea:

Notice that the "darkness" bit pertains to a word in Arabic. The meaning of the Hebrew verb is given towards the end of the entry: "be multiplied, increased". I don't see where this gets anyone in sorting out the dag/dagah mystery in Jonah!

Caleb

2:11 PM

@Davïd That ping won't work since he hasn't been in chat recently, but here is a superping: @Joseph see ^^^.

Joseph

2:46 PM

@Davïd David - I agree with everything you are saying - but as you indicate, the hiphil stem is at work in Jonah 2:1 - would you agree that the causative aspect of the hiphil stem may help in this regard?

ScottS

3:02 PM

@Davïd Definitely there has been confusion on the text, but also, Hebrew loves word plays like this, so perhaps the original readers would not have been confused.

@Davïd Agree, but the question is, in a sense, seeking of "can" type answers to resolve the oddity.

@Davïd Does not "pr. to cover" mean the Hebrew term is a "primitive root" for "to cover" according to Gesenius? And by extrapolation means "multiply" in Gen 48:16? That is, a translation of the phrasing in Gen 48:16 could thus be "and let them cover as a multitude upon the midst of the earth," or some such. The "multitude" from the לָרֹ֖ב seems to have influenced the meaning given to the verb in Gen 48:16, hence why it is translated "multiply."

Or at least, that seems to be Gesenius' point.

I grant you that "darkness" does not explicitly enter in. Perhaps "from the belly of covering," (i.e. praying from where Jonah was caused to be covered, the belly [of the fish; as the earlier verse states]). This would still match some to the parallel Joseph is trying to make to the NT. Anyway, I agree it may be time to "leave this alone."

Lyle's Mug

3:50 PM

all the fun stuff happens while I am not here...lol

ScottS

6:12 PM

@Davïd Regarding my comment here, I have had an exceptionally non-productive time trying to verify what "pr." means in this context. Uses of "pr. n." for proper noun, and in a few places it may mean "probably" or "perhaps" (maybe in the instance here). Nevertheless, I believe the TO COVER in caps in his Lexicon indicates what he believes is the root meaning of the Hebrew triliteral root.

Susan

11:30 PM

@Susan, (A.) We really should pin resources like that someplace here, that is awesome; Can you point me to the Brenton resources that you use? — e.s. kohen 8 mins ago

@e.s.kohen Stuff like this is really more appropriate for chat. Anyway, there are a few posts on meta that may be relevant: online resources and reading recommendations.

As for Brenton, I don’t use it much, preferring NETS (all of which are easily available as PDFs via google: NETS book of * or from the directory at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/). Brenton is pretty easy to find as well, e.g. http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/

For the Greek LXX and GNT + BHS, I mostly use the page I gave there: http://www.academic-bible.com/en/home/. For GNT there it has both NA28 and UBS5 (both without apparatuses [apparati?] as far as I’ve found).

Susan

11:59 PM

@Joseph, (A.) Judges 20:6 certainly is singular, in form, (without Tav/ת), and affirmed by the context. (B.) However, your presupposition that Job 4:15 is singular doesn't seem to have any basis; (C.) You acknowledge that "flesh hair" is in the Construct State, as, משערות ראשי, (Psa 40:12), which is a collective noun, implying plurality; (D.) Further, "hair" in Job ends with a "Tav/ת", implying plurality, (absence of Vav/ו doesn't change this)--and is the same in 2 Sam 14:11, (מִשַּׂעֲרַ֥ת), which is also plural, though the English word "One" is wrongfully injected. — e.s. kohen 19 mins ago

@Joseph, ... cont. (E.) I am not certain your initial assumptions about "singular/plural" are correct, or add anything to your question; (F.) Is your primary inquiry the issue of plurality? Or perhaps, are you more focused on whether there is significance behind the use of the Collective Feminine that Susan has pointed to? — e.s. kohen 14 mins ago

Transcript for