criteria for parsing of "Creator" in Eccl. 12.1?

Don Parker · October 2023

Any thoughts on the methodology/criteria used by Logos in parsing the Heb. for “Creator” in Eccl. 12:1 as a singular ptc?

Seems an interpretive rather than a formal parsing - unlike the parsings of Maker (as a plural ptc in Job 35:10, Is 54.5, Ps 149.2), or a parsing which may presume a later date for Ecclesiastes and thus as perhaps a more Aramaic-inclined formation, or a parsing based on versions other than the MT??

WBC notes: The form of “your creator” is plural: בוראיך; it can be understood as a plural of majesty or even explained as a singular (a ע״ו verb vocalized as a ל״ה; so Gordis). The ancient versions have the singular. Roland Murphy, Ecclesiastes, vol. 23A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1992), 113.
So if it is deemed interpretively singular here, why are not the references to the different participle for “Maker” similarly parsed also as singular (pl. of majesty and One Maker/Creator), or similarly formally parsed as singular (that other Heb. word indeed being what is commonly referred to as a third heh verb), or textually parsed as singular (based on other ancient versions)? Or is the parsing for Eccl. in Logos perhaps sourced in a different authority/commentary/committee/etc., other than for the seemingly similar usages of “Maker” in other biblical texts?

MJ. Smith · October 2023

bumping in hopes of getting a response

David Paul · October 2023

Just pot-shotting here, but the choice, if theologically influenced, could be based on a concept that is "out in the wild" that baaraa' (create) is a word used exclusively for ':Elohhiym, whereas `aasaah (make, do) can be used of anyone or perhaps anything.

MJ. Smith · October 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274852#Comment_1274852

for ':Elohhiym, whereas `aasaah (make, do)

Just curious - is your system intended to be phonetic pronunciation or a transliteration? I've been wanting to ask for eons.

David Paul · October 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274853#Comment_1274853

Both, actually, although the premise is a direct symbol-for-symbol transliteration. Using my method, anyone who has the chart can move back and forth between fully pointed Hebrew and the English representation. It is a pretty useful benefit that the system is also very good at producing accurate pronunciation as well. I use the boldface to indicate stress. Biblical Hebrew usually stresses the final syllable (80-90%), whereas Modern Hebrew, under influence of Western languages, and particularly in English, tends to use penultimate stress. One of my biggest innovations is that I actually account for the differences between long and short vowels in my system, which is pretty much universally ignored in most transliteration of Hebrew into English. I also don't ignore the 'aalepph (א) or the `ayin (ע), which don't have comparable sounds in English (glottal stop & voiced pharyngeal fricative, respectively). My focus is accuracy to the original language, whereas most contemporary transliteration is haphazard and focused only on producing a simple Anglicized form. That's fine for everyday communication, but it is pretty useless for those trying to use the language in the way Bible students study.

For instance:
עָשָׂה = `aasaah ... by way of ... ע = ` // T = aa // שׂ = s // T = aa // ה = h *In most English translit, this would just be "asah".

אֱלֹהִים = ':Elohhiym ... by way of ... א = ' // : = : // tri-dots = e // ל = l // hi-dot = oh // ה = h // lo-dot = i // י = y // ם = m *Usually "Elohim".

I have to use "oh" for the long-o sound (about 90-95% of BH o-sounds) because otherwise there can be confusions with short-o in some words. It's all one-to-one correspondence, which also tends to produce very good phonetic representation, much better than typical translit of Hebrew into English.

Don Parker · October 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274852#Comment_1274852

Thank you.

That may indeed be the reason, but it would be good to confirm that and also to discover if such or similar reasoning is reflected in other places or if different criteria are always/sometimes/differently used in different corpora.

I would probably characterize such a reason as philological, rather than theological, and based in the common/more modern identification of three homonyms for bArA' (here root I) as in logos, with this root I solely having God as the Actor.

[I confess I still struggle with some of the distinctions modern lexicographers assert as opposed to older lexicographers who might, based on cognate languages and a possibly close - again in the eye of the beholder - semantic range of meaning - identify fewer homonymic roots. If you have any insight there as well, it would be much appreciated. So the bArA' in Josh 17:15, 18, Ez 23:47 for cutting down a forest or in Ez 21:24 don't seem so far removed from cutting/shaping/forming/creating. Perhaps you are or know a native Arabic speaker who can confirm they consider such completely distinct words rather than the same word used in a different context?]

MJ. Smith · October 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274888#Comment_1274888

Perhaps you are or know a native Arabic speaker who can confirm they consider such completely distinct words rather than the same word used in a different context?]

IIRC that is not expected in the identification of homoglyphs/homographs. Rather you look for differences in etymology, dialectic differences, contexts in which they may be used, pronunciation, meaning . . . The reason it is not dependent upon recognition of a name speaker is that one or more of the homographs may not be widely known e.g. go as a Japanese game in English or sow as a female adult pig.

Don Parker · October 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274903#Comment_1274903

Ooops, maybe I should not have directed to potentially another rabbit trail about homonyms in this thread. Agreed that checking with native speakers is not a strict methodological approach, but perhaps might have some pragmatic value to show something along the lines of "one person's treasure is another's trash" or "you say poTAYtoe; I say poTAHtoe," -- that is, one scholar's two roots is sometimes another's single root, albeit used in different context. The bit about a native speaker was actually kind of a throw-away in search of any clarification as to how words that might seem pretty close (to some anyway) in semantic range, are 100% clearly determined as derived from different words, rather than merely the same word used in a different context. So while I personally don't find such a radical distinction in semantic meaning of bArA' I and bArA' III, would a native speaker in Arabic, or for that matter in any language, necessarily rule out such a linkage -- apart from other clear evidence?

And the reason for mentioning Arabic was precisely that the classic BDB lexicon mentions "cutting/shaping" as attested in Arabic sources and as part of their proposed etymological derivation, seemingly, for a single root (now identified as two separate roots by contemporary lexicographers). [BDB's second/now marked as pointing to a third root bArA' II has a clearly distinct meaning in the range of "fat/fullness/satisfaction" as well as cognate attestations elsewhere, so identification of that as a distinct root seems unquestionable.]

However, if you have any specifics as to "differences in etymology, dialectic differences, contexts in which they may be used, pronunciation, meaning" that mark out bArA' I as definitely distinct from bArA' III, other than the aforementioned distinction of Actor, I am always interested in learning. Not only about that individual word, but more particularly about a process that can be applied uniformly in lexicography.

And any of this discussion may be ancillary to my question about seemingly different parsing criteria used in Eccl. 12, unless - and it may be! so, thanks again are due to the other respondent - this lexicographical decision was the primary determinate there. And to the further questions as to whether the same criteria is used elsewhere and uniformly in logos and whether the same parsing source is used throughout logos for BH and then another single source for NT Greek. (This latter question I think you may know from logos docs, M.J.)

Thank you for the responses you generated to what on the one hand may seem a question about minutiae, but even in this side-track shows some potential for greater understanding of both logos and biblical texts.

MJ. Smith · October 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274931#Comment_1274931

And to the further questions as to whether the same criteria is used elsewhere and uniformly in logos and whether the same parsing source is used throughout logos for BH and then another single source for NT Greek. (This latter question I think you may know from logos docs, M.J.)

Unfortunately, much of Logos is parsed against the Logos morphology coding system ... including one book still advertised as being a separate system. But fortunately, we still have some variety. See KS4J for Logos Morphologies and David Hooten and myself for Morphology Codes (logos.com). As for the lemma distinctions, those are totally left up to each lexicographer with the Logos created interlinears and the context menu running off the Logos scheme. I'm not sure but I can't think of a current Logos Hebrew-specialist employee who was involved in the creation of the Logos system ... maybe someone has the oral history knowledge but I don't know who to ask.

Don Parker · October 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274936#Comment_1274936

The links you provided are interesting.

Perhaps due to my ignorance of tagging, questions remain for me: If multiple morphologies were consulted, doesn't that mean there would necessarily be some differences between them; otherwise, why not use just one?

So if these two were used for BH, what was done in cases where there were differences? Logos always lists the differences? Logos always prefers one source above the other, etc.?

Don Parker · October 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274943#Comment_1274943

Maybe a different approach will show why I ask some of these questions and how any answers might be significant for some Bible students.

So I was perusing a YouTube video and the presenter used Eccl. 12.1 as "proof" of a tri-unity within God along the lines of 'elohiym, both being grammatically plural. (I myself would not make such a theological assertion from grammatical/morphological data alone.) The YouTube editor brought logos on-screen showing singular as parsing for the ptc. "Creator," which the presenter immediately pronounced "Wrong" and instructed the editor to bring up a different online parsing tool which marked it as plural. (I do not recall the site he used, but another such commonly used resource is found at Bible Hub showing: your Creator
בּ֣וֹרְאֶ֔יךָ (bō·wr·’e·ḵā)
Verb - Qal - Participle - masculine plural construct | second person masculine singular
Strong's 1254: To create, to cut down, select, feed [older source not distinguishing homonym]

So, when people see these differing parsings, I think some will ask, "How do I know the parsing given in logos is correct?" And the answer is ...? [And maybe a better answer than simply along the lines of "Bible Hub can't be trusted because it relies on older sources like Strong's." As I said, I don't recall the other site actually used in the video and maybe such an attack vs. a solid defense of logos' parsing might not be applicable there.]

MJ. Smith · October 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274943#Comment_1274943

Perhaps due to my ignorance of tagging, questions remain for me: If multiple morphologies were consulted, doesn't that mean there would necessarily be some differences between them; otherwise, why not use just one?

All morphologies are designed to fit what is seen in the language i.e., they are a model imposed on language - different models emphasize different aspects of the language and different understandings of how language works. Models are not intended to match what actually happens - they are designed to do the best possible job of predicting what happens. Therefore, I always want as many morphologies (models) as possible because each can add an additional nuance to my understanding ... these nuances often being innate in a native speaker's understanding and completely lost to a non-native speaker.

Logos has its own morphologies which it always prefers except if a resource is already coded with a specific system, then that system is preferred for all resources tagged with that morphology. In the exegetical guide the plus/minus single character is used as an indication that there are different analyses available.

You should recognize two truths:

No description of a language covers 100% of the language accurately as it is impossible to do so as language is always in a state of flux
Even the best description of a closed corpus of language should eventually be replaced as our understanding of language improves

The West has only been serious about linguistics for under two hundred years. The grammarian Pāṇini in the East (5th century or so BC) was matched in the West in the second half of the 19th century.

David Paul · October 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274888#Comment_1274888

So the bArA' in Josh 17:15, 18, Ez 23:47 for cutting down a forest or in Ez 21:24 don't seem so far removed from cutting/shaping/forming/creating.

For future reference, I'm pretty sure you meant Ezekiel when you typed Ez, but RefTagger interpreted as Ezra. Try Eze or Ezek in the future.

Don Parker · October 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274950#Comment_1274950

Well, for swift citation I had simply copied refs. from a published work; perhaps someone needs to track down publishers of all such to make such corrections? Or maybe you could quote the verses as they appear in chapters 21 and 23 of Ezra!!!?

Don Parker · October 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274945#Comment_1274945

Of course I recognize the “two truths” to the effect that advances in understanding of Hebrew words and comparative Semitics have been made over centuries. (Although that hardly means newer opinions are always to be preferred over older ones, in any field. So, in the example I gave from TWOT about the KB lexicon, the later edition reverted to the historically older view of two, not three, homonyms for bArA'.)

Certainly there is benefit in using multiple models, as for projecting paths of hurricanes or examining divergent interpretations of biblical passages. I was initially appealing for transparity as to which model (= source/scholar/compilation/etc. for morphological analysis, right?) is followed and, if possible, the rationale behind what is proposed in a particular model.

And you led me to one fount of knowledge, MJ., being an always helpful and reliable guide to logos, namely, the "plus/minus single character" in the word by word section of the Exegetical Guide!!

Perhaps you could further enlighten me? (Maybe one could say, "I was blind and now see somewhat, but still my sight is hazy as to morphology/parsing sourcing in logos."):

1) Is the Logos Hebrew morphology available as a database resource or a book; and who were its compilers?

2) You seemed to indicate a preference in weighting for that resource in an earlier comment and here at Eccl. 12.1 the +/- lists two sources for a parsing as singular vs. one as plural. Is that Logos Hebrew morphology treated as a fixed basis for the main parsing and modified only if two other models/sources differ? or is logos' primary parsing completely ecclectic in individual decisions? (Comparable to either such approach in publications representing an “original” text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Testaments; and those publications make their methodology explicit.)

3/4) You made an earlier comment, “As for the lemma distinctions, those are totally left up to each lexicographer with the Logos created interlinears and the context menu running off the Logos scheme.”

3) This doesn't suggest there are different lemma analyses provided between different interlinears as the primary morphology/parsing in logos even when no textual variant is at issue, does it? My very rough impression was that the parsings had been homogenized/uniformly filled fields (and so identical in the reverse interlinear whether for the KJV, ESV, etc.)

4) And/or does it imply that the analysis in any interlinear is sourced with those lexicographers and their source(s) and that wherever the context menu differs it is sourced in the Logos Morphology (or the logos methodology applied for resolving different analyses, as opposed to the interlinear)?

Even with your help in unraveling some of these questions, the original question of criteria at this point seems to amount to an appeal to authority merely (our sources are newer and/or more numerous, and so must be deemed "better") without explaining the reasoning used by the sources. Unless logos wants to publish a companion volume about the logos mophology, along the lines of the UBS commentary on it's decision-making process found in:
Metzger, Bruce Manning, United Bible Societies. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.). London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994.

MJ. Smith · October 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274979#Comment_1274979

1) Is the Logos Hebrew morphology available as a database resource or a book; and who were its compilers?

Heiser, Michael S., and Vincent M. Setterholm. Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology. Lexham Press, 2013; 2013. is the only documentation that comes to mind.

or is logos' primary parsing completely ecclectic in individual decisions?

No, but unfortunately, I can't find the forum post I half-remember on the topic. Logos took a well-known morphology and adjusted it where they took issue with it. I think there were three main people but I can only think of two - Heiser and Setterholm.

3) This doesn't suggest there are different lemma analyses provided between different interlinears as the primary morphology/parsing in logos even when no textual variant is at issue, does it?

No, what I was thinking of was the Andersen-Forbes or the BHt that come with their own interlinears rather than having a Logos Interlinear.

To take the first reverse interlinear, SBL Greek New Testament is coded with Logos coding once - then all the reverse interlinears that are aligned to it are simply mapping the English text to the Greek text. All the reverse interlinears aligned to the SBL Greek New Testament will pick up identical coding because it is coded only once.

I'm not sure I understand the last question but I believe the interlinear is the source of the Context Menu data e.g. the Andersen-Forbes is consistently Andersen-Forbes.

Don Parker · October 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274999#Comment_1274999

You are awesome!

criteria for parsing of "Creator" in Eccl. 12.1?

Comments

Categories