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

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

MJ. Smith

bumping in hopes of getting a response

David Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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.

David Paul

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

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!!!?