ATTN: FL -- TEXTUAL CRISIS (Hebrew) - Ezekiel 17:21

David Paul

I'm pretty knotted up from trying to suss out what's going on in the Hebrew text of this verse. This is the NASB95…

My focus is on the term "choice men". NASB has a note attached…see below:

The NASB says that the Masoretic Text has the word for "fugitives", but they have preferred "choice men" in the presented text.

The NET Bible note for this says…

This note is helpful but lacks critical specificity. The explanation regarding the metathesis helps, but we aren't told WHICH manuscripts have which option—we must accept the NASB's assertion that the MT uses "fugitives".

In order to keep this all straight, let's determine which Hebrew word provides each meaning. Below are the lexical bases per DBLH (I'm only including enough to establish the fact for each)…

Okay…so baahhar means "choice" or "chosen", and baarahh means "fleeing" or "fugitive". Keep in mind, NASB said the MT has baarahh (the 2nd, or #1368).

Let's see what LHI has to contribute…

There's a lot here. First, we need to address LHI and it's front matter…or the lack thereof. I have always assumed that the base text of LHI was the MT, even though there is NOTHING in the document that addresses what its base text is. Could it be merely the idiosyncratic choices of van der Merwe? Who knows? For the rest of this post, until I am told otherwise, I am going to sustain my assumption that MT is what we are presented in LHI. There is a reason why I assume this, and it has to do with the yellow and blue boxes above. In the Hebrew scrolls used in synagogues, there are marginalia that indicate rabbinic preferences for how to read the text aloud in public. The terms as they are usually written are qere and ketib (or…per Wikipedia…)

I'm going to stick with the spelling from the blue box above (ketib), although I find all of these options sorely deficient…but that's a different post. Cutting to the chase, the rabbis of long-ago yesteryear made a decision that certain words and phrases in the Bible were troublesome, annoying, untrustworthy, or ______ enough that changes and adjustments needed to be made, and they were just the people to make that happen. Without making actual changes to the WRITTEN text itself (i.e. the KETIB), they marked in the margins of all Hebrew TaNaKh scrolls what they required readers to "call out" or READ ALOUD (i.e. the QERE) at various spots during Sabbath Scripture readings in the synagogue. This marginalia is marked with a qohpph (or qof), which is the Hebrew letter equivalent of a Q-sound (for qere, obviously), which is the ק symbol in the two yellow boxes of the LHI pic above.

It is the presence in LHI of the qere (qohpph) symbol that influences me to believe that the MT is the presented mainline text. The MT is the traditional, rabbinically-approved Hebrew text for synagogue scroll use, and the presence of ק readings in LHI insinuates the MT text. Lets look at the excised section included in the LHI pic above in a more complete presentation.

In a hardcopy scroll, the blue ק would be in the margin above the Hebrew combo-word translated "all of his choice troops", and printed beside it would be the rabbinically-preferred word. As these are digital and not tangible texts, clicking on the blue ק produces a popup that shows the qere word, which is shown as a footnote (see the yellow box ק above the green and blue boxes).

It is here where the consternation really kicks in. BOTH the ketib word AND the qere word are based on the word baarahh (#1368) which means "fleeing/fugitive". The only difference between the two is the suffixed portion of each (see the orange box of the ketib word and compare with the footnoted qere word). In other words, as presented, the difference of the ketib compared to the qere DOES NOT EXPLAIN AT ALL the alternate choice of baahhar (#1047 "choice troops"). Even more questionable and bizarre…notice the green square just above that's highlighting the "a" footnote—it corresponds to the footnote in the first (big) LHI pic above that has the green and blue boxes, and reads: "Read the ketib, 'choice troops'." BUT AS I JUST EXPLAINED, THE KETIB THAT IS PRESENTED IN THE LHI TEXT (the word with the orange box) IS BASED ON BAARAHH ("fleeing/fugitive") AND NOT ON BAHHAAR ("choice troops")!!!!

This is a major mistake. As presented in the LHI, NOTHING explains the presence of "choice troops" as a translation option, and, as a result, the footnote statement that "choice troops" is the ketib reading IS PLAINLY AND STARKLY FALSE.

The footnote that claims the ketib reading is "choice troops" also mentions a footnote in BHS, which I condense below…

What BHS presents is essentially an inversion of the typical "qere notation of a ketib revision". By transposition, BHS simply inserts the qere reading INTO THE PRESENTATION TEXT, and then marks the notation (usually being a Hebrew Q for qere) with a K for ketib. Being nothing more than a transposition, the BHS also FAILS TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT for the baahhar "choice troops" reading.

This marks yet another error in LHI that I have drawn attention to in the last month or so. I will repeat…the LHI is the only true Hebrew interlinear in Logos. It bears the Lexham name in the title, which is a FL imprint. This resource needs to be given a serious and significant review. Because I've copied so many fragments from LHI into my notes in years past, I can see both how many and how significant the changes are to this resource in recent years—I'm increasingly not sure it was for the better. FL can get away (to some degree) with having a typo-riddled resource like TWOT in its stable, even though it is a critical reference resource, because it was published elsewhere. Not so with LHI. Failing to address these kinds of errors can tar and sully FL's reputation as both a publisher and a credible research & study platform.

I'm still curious where "choice troops" comes from. If anyone has insight to share, please do. I will say, from a prophetic functionality perspective, both roots…

Beiytth / Reiysh / Hheiytth [B-R-Hh] ("fleeing/fugitive") & Beiytth / Hheiytth / Reiysh [B-Hh-R] ("chosen/choice troops")

…can and actually do get used to describe the parties that are being addressed here in this verse/passage. The choice troops are made to flee for safety. Spoiler Alert!!

They do not find it. I can't help but think that YHWH uses these textual "whichizit?" phenomena as a way to shoehorn multiple condensed semantic and prophetic possibilities into the Book. He's nothing if not efficient in that respect. These things occur all over the place. The factorial intertextual relationship possibilities of the Bible put a deck of cards to shame.

Michelle

I'm emotionally invested in this, thanks for the post, almost as equally obsessed as how you are posting to really want the real meaning of the true version of the word only to be shun away by even institute that train pastors when I asked too much questions. So my heart goes out to you & I lol at how you said "Cutting to the chase," halfway thru the post, very much humored. 😊

(also a sidetracked comment : I noticed some dictionaries replaced Israel with Pal. in location names.)

Jimmy Parks

Thank you for identifying these issues.
First, we should add more information about the base text for the LHI. The Hebrew text is the Lexham Hebrew Bible. That is basically the digital version of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgatensia.
Second, if you are looking for more detailed information about manuscript evidence, you will need to look at more robust resources. Translation notes and Strongs are decent tools, but they simply do not have the information that you are asking for.
Attached is a screen grab from a footnote for the textual evidence of the Qetiv Kere issue in Eze 17:21 from the Hermeneia commentary on the first half of Ezekiel.

Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Klaus Baltzer. Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979–.

As you can see in the provided footnote the Q and the K are both based on the same lemma (מִבְרָח) while other manuscripts also provide a reading with the lemma (מִבְחָר).

David Paul

Thank you @Jimmy Parks for your reply. I appreciate the direction to Hermeneia…I'll look at it. A few questions and observations:

I considered that BHS might be the underlying text, but LHI not following the BHS's inverted ketib/qere (per my last pic) of the baarahh-root lemma kinda threw me off of that view. So, Q: Is the LHI still van der Merwe's LHI, or has the Theseus's ship analogy taken hold? Did LHB even exist when LHI first was published? I just checked…LHB came a decade later. Kinda strange that you changed EVERYTHING about the LHI burger except the parsley on the plate and yet still are marketing it under the same name. To be honest, I really wish FL had left vdM's text alone and just produced a different text as a new resource. If at all possible, I'd like to see the original LHI restored and the "new thing" rebranded as a new thing. Having two different Hebrew interlinears isn't a bad thing, akin to the two LXX interlinears FL has (Rahlfs & Swete, per my other thread).

Quoting: "As you can see in the provided footnote the Q and the K are both based on the same lemma (מִבְרָח) while other manuscripts also provide a reading with the lemma (מִבְחָר)."

Yes…but that isn't what the footnote in LHI indicates. It says the lemma difference is a K/Q issue.

I'm going to repeat my request…I'd like vdM's LHI restored and then have the new LHB version be provided as a second resource. The second resource could eventually be continually expanded as a more hearty and rigorous work that incorporates NET style notes and direct links such as the one you provided to Herm. THAT would be a resource that attracts a lot of buzz and attention. Anyway, thanks for your input.

DMB

So, Q: Is the LHI still van der Merwe's LHI, or has the Theseus's ship analogy taken hold? 

Wondered myself. I wept (exaggeration) at LHI's demise.

Jimmy Parks

That is my mistake on the base text for LHI. I'll have to dig into the text history there. I would bet that it is a version of Westminster BHS, but I'll try and find that.

The LHI does not have an inverted Ketiv/Qere. The qop that you see is a hyperlinked symbol. In a physical BHS the ק is in the margin. In LHI it is next to the Ketiv. When you hover or click this symbol you can see the qere.

The note that points to BHS footnote 21b is a reference to the Masora. This note would be at the bottom of the physical BHS, in a digital edition it would appear with the (Apparatus).

These multiple manuscripts have a different reading which is not the Qere that could be translated "choice troops".

David Paul

Thanks for the additional input. Am I reading that right? From what I can tell, none of those sources are Hebrew…they are all apparently Greek, Latin, or Aramaic. So is this a case of people reverse engineering from these other languages and translating BACK INTO HEBREW to get baahhar? If so, then the NET explanation is very misleading, leaving out a massive part of the process—never mind the sheer falsehood of the LHI note.

Michelle

none of those sources are Hebrew…they are all apparently Greek, Latin, or Aramaic. So is this a case of people reverse engineering from these other languages and translating BACK INTO HEBREW

⁉️

May I know which sources are truly Hebrew & with English translation text ? A link for the Logos sources would be great.

MJ. Smith

@David Paul

 From what I can tell, none of those sources are Hebrew…they are all apparently Greek, Latin, or Aramaic. So is this a case of people reverse engineering from these other languages and translating BACK INTO HEBREW to get baahhar?

Rather, one is taking the early translations as evidence of how the text was understood at that time. Nothing more; nothing less. A smart All search with the argument textual evidence "choice men" or "fugitives" in Ezekiel 17:21 found several discussions of the issue giving both the arguments for and against the various options as well as information on which traditions followed the options.

David Paul

Below are the breakouts of the mentioned sources from the BHS Apparatus. [I'm presenting the listed sources following the superscript "b" going left-to-right (until getting to the "c").]

Of the six listed above, to me it seems that the only option for Hebrew would be the first, but (assuming my Latin isn't faulty) all it indicates is that there are more than 20 manuscripts that have the longer baahhar option with the yohdh-waaw ending. There's no indication just what those Mss are, so based on this, I don't see clear evidence of a Hebrew source…it depends on what the 20+ are. Also, I'm not sure what (1/2S: 16-60) refers to.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1368709#Comment_1368709

I can't perform that search right now…my system overheats during indexing, so, for now, I have to kill the process when I start Logos, until I can work on my comp to resolve the issue. But thanks…I'll give it a whirl eventually.

HJ. van der Wal

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1368707#Comment_1368707

The NET Bible note said that "[s]ome manuscripts" have the reading "choice men". This corresponds with the information in the BHS apparatus: mlt MSS = multi codices manuscripti = many manuscripts (i.e. more than 20).

Edit:

@David Paul I see you already found the information while I was writing my post.

Only in 1/2 Samuel "mlt MSS" in the BHS apparatus means 16-20 manuscripts (and "permlt MSS" means more than 60 mss in 1/2 Samuel).

Jimmy Parks

There is a great resource for understanding the notations of BHS which provides a lot more context to all the individual notes.
https://www.logos.com/product/2927/understanding-bhs

NichtnurBibelleser

There is a great resource for understanding the notations of BHS which provides a lot more context to all the individual notes.
https://www.logos.com/product/2927/understanding-bhs

What about bringing the original German version to Logos?