Rt2.7 “Bringing in the sheaves:” Langue and parole, grammatical possibilities/impossibility, qamets or qamets chatuph?,
and the invalidity of inclusivist interpretation
One of the exciting, motivating factors for studying the biblical languages is seeing that grammar may allow for multiple interpretations, as well as exclude some, beyond a particular English Bible translation [= a more or less specific interpretation]. At the same time, it can moderate enthusiasm to find that grammar alone is not always decisive for interpretation.
In Ruth 2:7, there is either a definite article (= a qamets, long “a”), OR NOT (= a qamets chatuph, short “o”) under the prefixed preposition beth > respectively, (gather) “in/among [spatial] the" bundles of sheaves, as in many English translations, OR (gather) “in/into [product]” bundles of sheaves [more recent commentators, see same transliteration as in RI/EG and defense of this view: Daniel Isaac Block,Judges, Ruth, vol. 6, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999)].
N.B. Qs below are not essentially tied to whether a particular English translation includes a definite article or not. Nor are my Qs specifically advocating either interpretive option, but simply asking about representation in Logos.
In answering, please indicate if any disambiguating information is supplied by morphologies other than the 3 in my basic version of Logos 10: Logos Hebrew, SESB, and Andersen-Forbes, all of which parse as the definite article in the Exegetical Guide (EG), contrary to the RI/EG transliteration.
My Qs for Logos users (and developers?) are — using only reverse interlinears and/or the word-by-word section of the Exegetical Guide to help one decode the Hebrew [and not relying too heavily on my preceding paragraph]:
- Would one clearly see these TWO interpretive options, AND their inextricably-bound determination of the presence of an article (necessarily, a qamets/A) or lack of an article (necessarily, a qamets chatuph/o)?
2) In the word-by-word section of the EG, by vocalizing/transliterating the prepositional phrase with a qamets chatuph/o (= NO article) and, under that, breaking down the BH prepositional phrase with a listing of the definite article [necessarily qamets/A!], might this not seem to combine these two interpretations?
Put another way, How is it clear in the EG word-by-word section that there even is a no-article interpretation AND that that is what is represented by the transliteration? [The RI does this by omitting the definite article, consistent with the transliteration, but, understandably perhaps, doesn't point to the alternative.]
P.S.This relates to two possible interpretations for this word-form/prepositional phrase. Block calls the last clause of this verse “unquestionably the most difficult line in the book” and notes that it has given rise to at least 19! differing interpretations, p. 656 and n 27.
[Brief BH review, if needed, for how the Hebrew represents potentially either option:
#1 Definite article (qamets, A): Good news in biblical Hebrew: 1) No indefinite article. 2) Don't have to memorize 24 forms of the definite article, as in NT Greek [based on an 8-case system]. Bad news, the simple heh + patach + daghesh forte (doubling dot) of the definite article can have an “allergic reaction” to it's neighbor, specifically before a guttural consonant (and sometimes resh), so that the forte is rejected and the patach vowel is “compensatorially lengthened” to the longer A-class vowel, an initial qamets, long “A.”
A further wrinkle is that when inseparable prefixed prepositions (simply, leh, to, beh in, keh, like/as) are attached onto nouns with the definite article prefixed, they do their “magic trick” (“now you see me, now you don't”) of replacing the heh consonant, while retaining the rest of the “pointing” of the definite article.
#2 No definite article (qamets chatuph, o): “The rule [or, 'battle'] of shewa(s),” namely, Where two vocal shewas (reduced vowels) would come together, the first (vocal) shewa becomes chireq and the second becomes silent, or, in the case of (attaching next to) a compound (always vocal) shewa, the initial vocal shewa becomes the corresponding full vowel.
So in Rt 2.7, vocal shewa of beth prefix preposition attaching to indefinite N with initial guttural, (ayin, plus composite qamets chatuph/oh > a corresponding initial qamets chatuph/o.]
