Mitchell

Genesis 18:22 (phenomenon)

Not everything found in Codices of Hebrew Bible nor in the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible is translated in Christian editions of the OT.

There are numerous notes, lists, and pages left by the Masoretes that are rarely if ever translated into English or any other modern language.

Common examples of this include the Masorah Ketanah, Masorah Gedolah, keri uchetiv (Qere) readings, data list at the end of each book, mikra Soferim, ittur Soferim, and the Tiqqune Soferim.

In the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (page 25 print) Genesis 18:22 is notated with two lowercase ‘a’ one before (and Avraham) ‬וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם and one attached to יְהוָֽה (YHWH /usually translated as LORD)

a‬וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם עֹודֶ֥נּוּ עֹמֵ֖ד לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֽהa‬

(a) but, Avraham still stood before YHWH (a) (Genesis 18:22)

the (a)s direct us to the apparatus or footnotes:

22 a–a Tiq soph, lect orig אברהם … ויהוה

‘Tiq soph’ tells us that we are encountering what is known as a Tiqqūn sōferīm

‘lect’ is short for ‘lectio’ (reading)

‘Orig’ is short for originalis (original)

What, the abbreviated notes from the BHS’ textual apparatus are telling us is that originally the text may have ‘theoretically’ read:”but, YHWH still stood before Avraham“. This text is one of the 18 tiqqūnēy sōferīm texts that were alleged (according to tradition) changed by the ancient scribes for theological reasons.

This begs the question: “what was the theological reason that the text was supposedly changed for”?

Some claim that this text put YHWH is less role by having YHWH stand before Avraham rather than the other around, but it, in my opinion, is more likely that the alleged Scribes were worried if read that way it would paint an anthropomorphic picture of YHWH by directly stating that YHWH was actually standing in front of Avraham. The Masoretes themselves did not make the Tiqquney Soferim changes but only noted changes they believed had happened.

However, If the Masoretes were Karaite Jews (as some claim) rather than Rabbinic Jews and they would have outright rejected the early Midrashic/oral interpretations that claimed that YHWH would eithermanifest himself personally as the Memra and or Metatron or that these were mediators or conduits with which to speak to mankind. I have no doubt that would not have not also have found the later text found in Christian canon John 8:56-58 problematic too none the less they wanted to make sure that any changes or textual phenomenon were noted.

Sources Cited:
(1) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: SESB Version. electronic ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2003. Print.
(2) Weil, Gérard E., K. Elliger, and W. Rudolph, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5. Aufl., rev. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. Print.

Genesis 18:1

One of the aspects of the Biblical literature that I am very fond of is that is both familiar and unfamiliar at the very same time. If you have grown up in a community that values Biblical literature you have probably at some point read stories from the book of Genesis. You may even at least have some knowledge of some of the more famous stories and characters in Genesis like Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, and so on. Here below is one example of how a close reading of a familiar text, might actually reveal an unfamiliar one.

Gen 18:1 states that God appeared to Abraham, who immediately looked up and saw three men approaching. The first difficulty centers on the precise relationship between these four characters; was God one of the three, symbolized by all three, or a fourth visitor?
The answer to this question will affect how one understands the use of singular and plural verbs and pronouns throughout the chapter.
Thus verses 3-4, ‘im na’ masa’ti hen be-‘eneka, ‘al na’ ta’abor me-‘al ‘abdeka, “ I have found favor in your [sing.] sight, do not pass [sing.] your [sing.] servant by,” which is addressed to one individual, differs from the plural usages in the subsequent yuqqah na’ me’at mayim we-rahasu raglekem, “Let some water be brought and wash [pl] your [pl.] feet.”
Also, one must establish the relationship between God’s appearance in verse 1, the anonymous comment in verse 10, God’s speaking in verse 13, and the ambiguous use of ‘dny, traditional vocalized as a divine name but equally readable as a reference to the three guests, even in some masoretic traditions. These concerns run through Genesis 18 and 19, and their resolution has a profound impact on how one interprets the entire narrative, even on how parts of it are vocalized.

Levy, B, Barry, FIXING GOD’S TORAH; the Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law Oxford University press pg.82

What is the Tanakh?

Another informative video by the Institute of Biblical Culture worth watching.

How to be sure that you know a classical or Biblical language?

In the last post, I mentioned how one can know for sure if they or anyone else actually has acquired a modern Language. I then received a few questions from my subscribers about Biblical languages. The majority to the effect of: “What then of the so-called dead languages like classical languages, and Biblical languages? How does one ascertain that one has attained fluency in a Biblical language?”

The answer is easy. Since the main purpose of learning a classic or biblical language is to be able to read them, then can you read them? In other words…

If you can leisurely read and comprehend texts in your (dead, classical, or Biblical) language of choice without constantly needing to consult a lexicon or parse words you then know that you have acquired the language. Another good sign of acquisition is if you can figure out the meaning of unknown words from context much as you can in your native tongue then you know that you are competent.

Paul on Hebrew

How do you know whether you or someone else really knows a modern language? One practical indication is the ability to speak, listen, read, and write well enough to communicate effectively with native speakers and other highly proficient users of the language.

Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew are not identical, although Modern Hebrew draws heavily on earlier historical layers of Hebrew, including Biblical Hebrew. A native speaker of Modern Hebrew will recognize a great deal of biblical vocabulary and morphology, but the difficulty of reading the Hebrew Bible varies considerably according to genre and the reader’s education and experience. A useful, though imperfect, English analogy is Shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote in Early Modern English, not Middle English. Modern English readers can often understand his works, but they still encounter unfamiliar vocabulary, syntax, idioms, and meanings.

The following video on Hebrew (in Hebrew but with English subtitles) is from Paul of the LangFocus youtube channel.