The binyanim of אכל
A printable
version of this post is available here.
Which
morphologically tagged electronic version of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia outclasses the
others? Based on my study of the verb אכל, that prize goes to
the Westminster Hebrew
Morphology 4.2 (version 4.4, unavailable to me, is marketed by Accordance).
Read on to see why.
The binyanim of אכל attested in MT appear to be four: qal, niphal, pual, and
hiphil. The binyanim of אכל to
which the text underlying MT plausibly attests are also four: qal, qal passive,
niphal, and hiphil. Let me explain.
In an essay of
enduring importance, Jeremy Hughes argues against an approach to Hebrew grammar
in functional denial about the existence of non-primitive linguistic phenomena
in Tiberian masoretic Hebrew. A distinction can and must
be made between the understanding of biblical Hebrew reflected in the
orthography and vocalization of the Tiberian masoretic text and biblical Hebrew
insofar as we are able to reconstruct it based on linguistic analysis of MT and
sources that predate it.
For example, it
is possible to identify and remove a number of errors of grammatical analysis which
are integral to the received text. The examples Hughes cites are or should be
uncontroversial: cases in which an original hiphil infinitive absolute was
misconstrued as a 3ms hiphil perfect (e.g., Gen 15:6; 21:25; 31:7; and 34:5); cases
in which an original qal passive imperfect was misparsed as a hophal (e.g., Gen
4:15, 24; 12:15; 18:4; 24:33; 50:26), qal (Gen 50:26; Exod 30:32), piel (Isa
1:20), or niphal (e.g., 2 Sam 3:2 [the ketiv in my view probably reflects an
original וַיֻּלְדוּ])
imperfect; cases in which an original qal passive perfect was misparsed as a
pual perfect (e.g., Gen 4:26; 10:21, 25: 35:26; 41:50; 46:22, 27); and cases in
which a fs participle was misconstrued as a 3fs (e.g., Gen 18:21; 46:27; Job
2:11; Ruth 1:22; 2:6; 4:3) or 3ms perfect (1 Kgs 11:9; Gen 22:13; Isa 56:3. A
close reading of Hughes’ essay leaves the impression that the reading tradition
preserved in MT accurately reflects the vast majority of grammatical details
the texts it transmits instantiate, but this impression depends on a
concomitant recognition that it sometimes does not.
Other examples
where MT’s accuracy cannot be taken for granted have been pointed out by
others. As Hughes notes, James Barr concluded that the reading tradition has
inserted the article under inseparable prepositions in a number of cases where
it was not originally present. Stephen Kaufman points out
a set of hypercorrections in Deuteronomy and Judges in which paragogic nun
was added to non-indicative imperfect forms via misapplication of a rule whereby
the final nun of the imperfect indicative assimilates to the initial consonant
of the next except in pause and when the next word begins with a consonant that
does not allow assimilation (א and possibly ע). He also notes in passing the “ubiquitous
and quite erroneous Masoretic practice” in which weyiqtol
forms have been mispointed as consecutives via assimilation to perfect forms
with which they co-occur. He cites the example of וַיֶּאֱתָיוּן in Isa 41:5. One might wish Kaufman would cite more examples and dedicate
an essay to the topic.
With the partial
exception of eBDB, eHALOT, and DCH, reference
tools currently available tend to turn a blind eye to the issues mentioned and
others like them. To the extent that they do, they lack scientific rigor and
lull students of biblical Hebrew into a false sense of security.
Even-Shoshan,
eBDB, and WIVU list
five occurrences of אכל as examples of pual
forms (Nah 1:10; Neh 2:3, 13; Exod 3:2; Isa 1:20). But אכל is not otherwise attested in the D stem. These forms are
best revocalized as Qal passives. WHM 4.2 so parses them,
as does AFAT, except in Isa 1:20. eHALOT is equivocal.
eTregelles lists
תְּאָכְלֵהוּ in
Job 20:26 as a piel. AFAT so parses as well. On this construal, MT תְּאָכְלֵהוּ might be a mixed form, that is, a
stand-in for two alternatives: תְּאַכְּלֵהוּ (Piel) and תֹּאכְלֵהוּ (qal). Driver and others so aver, but the hypothesis is
not compelling. In later Hebrew, the qal, niphal, hiphil, hithpael, and nithpael
of אכל are securely attested; the D stem of אכל apparently is not, beyond the pual participle. The
example Jastrow lists under piel is a pual participle. If so, it is perilous to
posit the existence of the piel of אכל in earlier Hebrew on
the basis of MT Job 20:26 תְּאָכְלֵהוּ.
Qimron lists an example
of אכל piel in the DSS under
“Words Mainly Attested in the DSS and in the Tannaitic and Amoraitic [MH2]
Literature”: 4Q513 2 II:5 (Qimron, 98). Abegg, Bowley, and Cook do not so parse
it. The context is broken, making it difficult to know how to construe the form
in question. The construal of the relevant phrase implied by García Martínez and Tigchelaar, הזנות מאכליהם ‘the fornication of their food,’ in which
they treat the form as an example of the well-attested noun מאכל, seems more probable
than that suggested by Qimron.
As I will now
argue, WHM and WIVU correctly parse MT Job 20:26 תְּאָכְלֵהוּ
as a qal imperfect. As the vocalization demonstrates, Isa 1:20 תְּאֻכְּלוּ was understood as a pual imperfect in MT, but WHM, with Hughes and others, correctly parse it as a qal
passive, given the weak to non-existent attestation of D active אכל elsewhere. The following pairs illustrate a phenomenon in
masoretic Hebrew whereby a form which disambiguates and “protects” a medial א occurs alongside
another which does not.
שְׂאֵת לָשֵׂאת(bound form)
בְּאֹשׁ בָּאְשׁוֹ (bound form)
בְּאֵרוֹת בֶּאֱרוֹת(bound form)
תְּאֵהֲבוּ תֶּאֱהָ֑בוּ (first form from Prov 1:22; the second,
Zech 8:17)
תְּאֻכְּלוּ* תֻּאכְּלוּ* תֻּאכְלוּ
(MT Isa 1:20 is a byform of the second form, which goes
back to the third)
תְּאָכְלֵהוּ* תּׁאכֲלֵהוּ
(first
form from Job 20:26; the second by analogy with Gen 3:17 תּׁאכֲלֶנּוּ)
In cases (1) – (3), the phenomenon occurs
according to a rule. In cases (4) – (6), it apparently does not.
This foray into morphological analysis has shown that older reference works retain interest. Logos is to be commended for producing eTregelles. It was also
seen that newer works incorporate the results of recent research very unevenly.
In terms of MT, WIVU consistently reports the parsing implied by it. WHM alone
parses the six occurrences discussed here correctly in full recognition of the
rediscovery of the qal passive by modern philologists. The importance of having
multiple resources at one’s fingertips is patent.
Can you please translate this in hebrew please. its very important.
" I LOVE JESUS "
Thanks very much. Its very important.
Posted by: Josh | March 20, 2008 at 04:29 AM