The Hebrew word ET

[yonah_mishael]

from
Q&A: Should We Translate the Hebrew Word ‘Et’? « God Didn't Say That

It's clear that you don't know Steve Greenberg was arguing for.

 

[Heber]

Have fun guys - night, night now - it is nearly Wednesday here!

 

[Yitzchak]

Sorry about that. Don't know how else to respond to something like what you said. I state that את is a particle and not a noun, and you can't identify it with a person. You respond by saying that את is also a noun meaning "plowshare", and I'm just like - huh? What the heck is this?!

Thank you.

My intended meaning was to show that words and letters are not limited to one use alone. While a grammatical marker is the primary use of ET , it is not limited to just that. That is a specific type of mark. A direct object marker.

There are lots of roots in Hebrew that are used in several ways for several different words.

Et is a proposition but oht is a noun which is from the same root.

I don't disagree with the basics of what you say. Et is a direct object marker that helps mark the direct object. But I disagree with limiting it to just that.

I am not sure how I can make it any more clear. ET as a preposition marks the direct object. Oht , from the same root means marker. The ancient Hebrew letter Tav is the picture of a marker.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Thank you.

My intended meaning was to show that words and letters are not limited to one use alone. While a grammatical marker is the primary use of ET , it is not limited to just that. That is a specific type of mark. A direct object marker.

There are lots of roots in Hebrew that are used in several ways for several different words.

Et is a proposition but oht is a noun which is from the same root.

I don't disagree with the basics of what you say. Et is a direct object marker that helps mark the direct object. But I disagree with limiting it to just that.

I am not sure how I can make it any more clear. ET as a preposition marks the direct object. Oht , from the same root means marker. The ancient Hebrew letter Tav is the picture of a marker.

Well, quite often את also represents the preposition "with". What does your position do with the fact that you can add endings to the particle?

רָאִיתִי אֹתְךָ מֵרָחוֹק - "I saw you from a distance."
אֹתְךָ is את with a suffix ending. Does this means "your Jesus" instead of "you"?

I don't understand the practical implications of understanding את as referring to Jesus. Does this happen in all of the thousands of verses where את appears? Do you get to pick and choose which ones it applies to?

What about Leviticus 18.22?
ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הוא
Is that a reference to Jesus?

 

[ContraMundum]

Some people have found images of Jesus in burnt toast too.

I think if you really want to find something, you will find it. I am not particularly impressed by spiritualising letters and words in larger texts to find Jesus where the authors may have never intended Him to be found- it's like finding images of Jesus in the clouds or in burnt toast, in such cases it may help you in your devotion and faith, but you don't build a dogma on it.

The use of את should as a "Jesus" indicator is not very sound- if that is indeed the point being made here.

 

[ContraMundum]

A Language of Letters: Inside the Hebrew Alef Bet - miscellaneous hebrew / languages hebrew torah codes and numbers

Some quotes from askmose.com

The authors at Ask Moses are chasidic. They can find reincarnation and a whole lot of weird stuff in the Hebrew text. I don't trust them. However, I think Yonah could clear this one up. I'm out of time tonight.

from
Q&A: Should We Translate the Hebrew Word ‘Et’? « God Didn't Say That

Not sure what that article proved in particular. Thanks for posting it though.

 

[Yitzchak]

The authors at Ask Moses are chasidic. They can find reincarnation and a whole lot of weird stuff in the Hebrew text. I don't trust them. However, I think Yonah could clear this one up. I'm out of time tonight.



Not sure what that article proved in particular. Thanks for posting it though.

The first response to my post about this topic is that I must not know Hebrew and be a complete idiot who makes no rational sense. ( my paraphrase) I never received a retraction of that.

My point is that the idea of finding deeper meaning in the Hebrew text is not original with me. Also the idea of looking specifically at the word ET as having deeper meaning is not original with me. Granted , I have taken that basic idea and made some specific conclusions that not all share. But the basic idea that we can discuss what the Hebrew letters and text mean is not my original idea. It is a well established way of looking at the Bible.

I think that there are two camps here . Those who disagree with me based upon my specific conclusions and those who disagree with any other meaning other than the plain reading of the text and find no deeper meanings whatsoever in the Hebrew text.

By the way, if you read my posts , you will find that some are putting words in my mouth or at least drawing conclusions which I never intended. It is being done with a tone of ridicule and implied or stated personal attack at times.

 

[Yitzchak]

Well, quite often את also represents the preposition "with". What does your position do with the fact that you can add endings to the particle?

רָאִיתִי אֹתְךָ מֵרָחוֹק - "I saw you from a distance."
אֹתְךָ is את with a suffix ending. Does this means "your Jesus" instead of "you"?

I don't understand the practical implications of understanding את as referring to Jesus. Does this happen in all of the thousands of verses where את appears? Do you get to pick and choose which ones it applies to?

What about Leviticus 18.22?
ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הוא
Is that a reference to Jesus?

These are some good questions. I don't know if I can answer all of them. I do know that every word in the Hebrew text has meaning. It is not co incidence or random that specific words and letters are in the text. I see contained within the word for marker a clue that points to the cross. That is all.

 

[yonah_mishael]

The first response to my post about this topic is that I must not know Hebrew and be a complete idiot who makes no rational sense. ( my paraphrase) I never received a retraction of that.

I will retract it when I see that you've demonstrated knowing Hebrew. So far, all I've heard is stuff that could easily be regurgitations of others' off-base opinions. Show me that you know Hebrew, and I'll gladly retract it. I don't hold grudges, but I do call things as I see them.

 

[Lulav]

ET is a preposition when used as a direct object marker.

However , look up the Hebrew word for plowshares in this verse. It is the word ET. Although it is in the plural here.




Not to mention the Hebrew word for marker which is ET with the letter vav added. Same root , similar meaning.

Correct me if I'm wrong Yonah, but there is no plural of et, right?

By adding the vav that only makes it translatable to 'and' as the vav as a prefix means 'and' or am I not remembering correctly?

 

[Yitzchak]

I will retract it when I see that you've demonstrated knowing Hebrew. So far, all I've heard is stuff that could easily be regurgitations of others' off-base opinions. Show me that you know Hebrew, and I'll gladly retract it. I don't hold grudges, but I do call things as I see them.

Unless your knowledge of Hebrew is somehow relevant then I take your comments as nothing more than a cheap shot rather than have a discussion based upon the merits of what was said. So far, there has been no introduction of superior Hebrew knowledge that disputes what I have said.

A person can have this discussion with a beginner's knowledge of Hebrew. How much can really be said about ET , after all ? I learned about ET in my first semester Hebrew course at the University I attended. So far , you have not added any insights about the Hebrew or the grammer which would put us beyond the fourth week of an introductory course in Hebrew. I don't blame you for that because it is a simple concept and how much can one be expected to say about it.


Unless a person is born "all-knowing" then we all regurgitate knowledge that we have received from someone else. Where did you learn your Hebrew and from whom ? It seems self evident that you were influenced by your experiences and teachers. I am influenced by my Hebrew teachers , as well. So what's your point ?

You have failed to show me how my knowledge of the Hebrew is the issue here. Everything we have discussed about Et and the Hebrew grammer are things which we both already knew. My application of that knowledge is what you disagree with. Your post seems to indicate that you have a problem with certain methods of interpretation , no matter who presents them. You do have the right to your own views. But those views do not seem to be based upon your superior Hebrew skills.

Also you were quick to bring Aramaic into the discussion which is a clue that we have a more basic disagreement than a discussion about the Hebrew.





By the way , as I have already said , my knowledge of Hebrew is not fluent. It is intermediate level. I think that after years of study I can say that I am no longer a novice. I would not say I am fluent but I suppose it is all relative.

I am certainly fluent in English ,as my native language but there are some scholars who know lots about the English language that I do not know. Speaking a language everyday does not make one an expert. just take a look at the College entrance exam test scores for English speakers on the subject of English. or better yet, take an English speaker and have them take a look at the 1611 King James version.

 

[Yitzchak]

Correct me if I'm wrong Yonah, but there is no plural of et, right?

By adding the vav that only makes it translatable to 'and' as the vav as a prefix means 'and' or am I not remembering correctly?

The reference to the plural was the word plowshares in Joel 3:10. Plow would be singular , plowshares , plural. Not the plural of the direct object marker though. the plural of the word plow.

The letters aleph , tav are used for more than just the direct object marker. This verse uses Et for the noun meaning mark or sign. It adds the vav in the middle. So aleph , tav becomes aleph, vav, tav.

Gen 4:15 ויאמר לו יהוה לכן כל־הרג קין שׁבעתים יקם וישׂם יהוה לקין אות לבלתי הכות־אתו כל־מצאו׃

Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him: 'Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.' And the LORD set a sign for Cain, lest any finding him should smite him.

This verse has the plural of the noun for mark usually translated as signs here.

Gen 1:14 ויאמר אלהים יהי מארת ברקיע השׁמים להבדיל בין היום ובין הלילה והיו לאתת ולמועדים ולימים ושׁנים׃

Gen 1:14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;

In this verse you see the plural of Oht. The Hebrew word for marker. Why the vav is missing in the second occurence is a good question linguistically but a tangent for our purposes.

Psa 74:4 שׁאגו צרריך בקרב מועדך שׂמו אותתם אתות׃

Psa 74:4 Thine adversaries have roared in the midst of Thy meeting-place; they have set up their own signs for signs.

Concerning root words. Even in the English we can see the basic concept of root words. Take the word sing. I sing but she sings. There is an s on the end. It is the plural form. Or he sang , the past tense. Still the same root word.

The word protest can be both a noun and a verb. He attended the protest versus he protested the event. Still the same root word.

The words telegraph , biography , geography all share the root graph. Graph comes from the the Greek graphia (to write) and tele from the Greek for far. So telegraph , that which writes at a distance. Bio is from the Greek word for life. So biography means write about someone's life.


The fact that the Hebrew word for marker and the direct object marker ET are using the same root are because they are related in meaning. When used as a direct object marker , it is a preposition. When used as a noun it is the noun meaning marker. it is probably more technically correct to say they both share the same root. A root can have several different applications.

The preposition Et is not plural. But the root word Et in it's use as a noun certainly can be plural.

Even the word for "you" (female) is "at" which is the same two Hebrew letters used for ET , Aleph , Tav. It uses a different vowel sound.

If you look at the function though. They all relate to each other."you" marks a person, Et marks the direct object , Oht is a physical marker or sign. Even plow is setting your eyes upon a mark. If one has ever farmed , they still use this method to this day.

The fact that the pictograph for Tav is a marker ( a cross) only emphasizes the connection.


The fact that it is used for both the direct object marker and the personal pronoun is no co incidence. Linguistically speaking , it means that if a person could trace it back to the original they would see the connection in the pictographs.


These ideas are not my original ideas. They are quite well known in the field of linguistics and also in etomology which traces words back to where they came from.

The basic ideas of word etomology and Linguistics are only under debate because some posters are being intentionally obtuse with the intent of entrapping me in some contradiction that they can attack and thus distract from the main point of the discussion.

Et had a meaning which is related to it's function. It means marker, In the case of the preposition , direct object marker.

I find it edifying to know that the original pictographic meaning of the word Et is the sign for strength and marker or "strong marker " and that the marker used is the picture of the cross.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Unless your knowledge of Hebrew is somehow relevant then I take your comments as nothing more than a cheap shot rather than have a discussion based upon the merits of what was said. So far, there has been no introduction of superior Hebrew knowledge that disputes what I have said.

A person can have this discussion with a beginner's knowledge of Hebrew. How much can really be said about ET , after all ? I learned about ET in my first semester Hebrew course at the University I attended. So far , you have not added any insights about the Hebrew or the grammer which would put us beyond the fourth week of an introductory course in Hebrew. I don't blame you for that because it is a simple concept and how much can one be expected to say about it.

And you learned in that first-semester class that it somehow miraculously was a reference to Jesus? Don't try to throw down red herrings. I know what we're talking about, and it's not this. Your introduction of Jesus to the particle את is outrageous and demands proof. In fact, no one is responsible for disproving it. It is the maker of wild claims that is expected to support their position, not those who hold to long-accepted normative hermeneutical methods.

Unless a person is born "all-knowing" then we all regurgitate knowledge that we have received from someone else. Where did you learn your Hebrew and from whom ? It seems self evident that you were influenced by your experiences and teachers. I am influenced by my Hebrew teachers , as well. So what's your point?

I've learned Hebrew from many sources. I studied formally for two years for courses 101-102 (Hebrew Grammar) and 203-204 (Hebrew through Text and Translation, in which we translated the Joseph narrative from Genesis, the book of Hosea and several sections from the rest of the Tanakh, as well as investigating Hebrew inscriptions from the First Temple period) under Dr. Pechawer at Ozark Christian College, who received his M.A. in Hebrew and his Ph.D. in Inscriptional Aramaic and Hebrew from Hebrew Union College: Jewish Institute of Religion.

I have independently studied several modern Hebrew textbooks, including both levels of Ivrit min ha-Hatchalah, HaYesod: Fundamentals of Hebrew, A Textbook of Israeli Hebrew, the final level of Ivrit Shalav (the textbook on poetry and prose readings). I've finished Seow's Grammar for Biblical Hebrew and worked through the exercises of Weingreen's text. I've also worked through A Workbook for Intermediate Hebrew by Chisholm.

I've extensive reading experience in the Bible. I say my daily, Shabbat and holiday prayers all in Hebrew. I attend my synagogue regularly, where the sermons are delivered in Hebrew (since I'm in Israel). I've lived here for three years and finished two ulpan courses, receiving high marks in both final exams. I have conducted numerous meetings in Hebrew at the school where I teach. It's a natural communication medium for me, and more than that -- I do everything I can to get more and more experience of the language daily, including reading commentaries on the Torah (Rashi, the Rambam, Sforno and Ibn Ezra) in Hebrew, listening to online Talmud lectures in Hebrew (from e-daf.com) and sharing every way that I can in Hebrew with others online -- both students of the language and native speakers.

You have failed to show me how my knowledge of the Hebrew is the issue here. Everything we have discussed about Et and the Hebrew grammer are things which we both already knew. My application of that knowledge is what you disagree with. Your post seems to indicate that you have a problem with certain methods of interpretation , no matter who presents them. You do have the right to your own views. But those views do not seem to be based upon your superior Hebrew skills.

I don't have a problem with Rabbi Greenberg, if that's what you're referring to. In fact, I've exchanged e-mails with him a few times and have seen him in public in New York. I just don't think that you would like what he represents, so using him as an example of someone who operates under your interpretive method doesn't seem sensible to me. You do know that he argues in support of homosexuality within Orthodox Judaism, don't you? It was in regard to this that he was making his argument about את in Leviticus 18:22. Have you read his book? It's entitled Wrestling with G-d & Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition. He was also formative in the creation of the documentary about GLBT Orthodox Jews, called Trembling Before G-d. Know your sources.

Also you were quick to bring Aramaic into the discussion which is a clue that we have a more basic disagreement than a discussion about the Hebrew.

I'm sure we do. I'm sure we disagree about almost everything. This doesn't mean that we can't both be held to the same degree of honesty in our dealings with the text.

I don't know why you think Aramaic came from Hebrew, but you're way off.

By the way , as I have already said , my knowledge of Hebrew is not fluent. It is intermediate level. I think that after years of study I can say that I am no longer a novice. I would not say I am fluent but I suppose it is all relative.

I am certainly fluent in English ,as my native language but there are some scholars who know lots about the English language that I do not know. Speaking a language everyday does not make one an expert. just take a look at the College entrance exam test scores for English speakers on the subject of English. or better yet, take an English speaker and have them take a look at the 1611 King James version.

I'm an English teacher. I'm quite aware of the pitfalls that people (even native speakers) make in English. Overall, though, I think that general literacy is certainly higher today than it was in previous generations.

Do you read the Bible in Hebrew? Or, do you use translations as your medium and Hebrew just as a "check-up tool"? Just curious.

Regards,
YM

 

[hamashiachagape]

Just to get going (again):

Untranslatable

Et – It’s there but you don’t see it. In Hebrew, this verse is Bere’shiyt bara’ Elohim et hashamayim ve et haarets. I have underlined the words translated “the heavens and the earth.” The first three words are “in the beginning created God.” But after elohim is a Hebrew particle, et. It also shows up before “the earth.” It is not translated. In fact, it is never translated in spite of more than 1000 occurrences in Scripture. Why? Well, the grammatical explanation is that et is just a marker, a kind of verbal signal, that the next word or words are the direct object of the sentence. And we don’t translate grammatical symbols. So, in English it disappears.
That is perfectly good English grammatical translation except for one amazing thing. Every Hebrew reader knows that et shows up in this verse and in hundreds of other verses. It’s all over the place. So, when Yeshua speaks in the book of Revelation, He refers to this odd phenomenon. In Hebrew, “I am the Alpha and Omega” becomes “I am the Aleph and the Taw.” And et points to the object: the two letters Aleph-Taw.

(From: A Hebrew Word Study web-site)

This makes a lot more sense out of my Hebraic understanding and Revelation. Thanks for this understanding as I kind of believed this was what et meant..but am glad that I investigated this.

 

[yonah_mishael]

This makes a lot more sense out of my Hebraic understanding and Revelation. Thanks for this understanding as I kind of believed this was what et meant..but am glad that I investigated this.

:: smacks himself on the forehead ::

 

[Heber]

YM - what were you saying about frustration?

 

[Yitzchak]

And you learned in that first-semester class that it somehow miraculously was a reference to Jesus? Don't try to throw down red herrings. I know what we're talking about, and it's not this. Your introduction of Jesus to the particle את is outrageous and demands proof. In fact, no one is responsible for disproving it. It is the maker of wild claims that is expected to support their position, not those who hold to long-accepted normative hermeneutical methods.

No I learned in my Hebrew class that Et is a grammatical marker which is distinctive to Hebrew and so it doe snot appear in the English translation. I learned it is a direct object marker. Nothing more. As I said , it is not my Hebrew knowledge that is the disagreement here.

I've learned Hebrew from many sources. I studied formally for two years for courses 101-102 (Hebrew Grammar) and 203-204 (Hebrew through Text and Translation, in which we translated the Joseph narrative from Genesis, the book of Hosea and several sections from the rest of the Tanakh, as well as investigating Hebrew inscriptions from the First Temple period) under Dr. Pechawer at Ozark Christian College, who received his M.A. in Hebrew and his Ph.D. in Inscriptional Aramaic and Hebrew from Hebrew Union College: Jewish Institute of Religion.

I have independently studied several modern Hebrew textbooks, including both levels of Ivrit min ha-Hatchalah, HaYesod: Fundamentals of Hebrew, A Textbook of Israeli Hebrew, the final level of Ivrit Shalav (the textbook on poetry and prose readings). I've finished Seow's Grammar for Biblical Hebrew and worked through the exercises of Weingreen's text. I've also worked through A Workbook for Intermediate Hebrew by Chisholm.

I've extensive reading experience in the Bible. I say my daily, Shabbat and holiday prayers all in Hebrew. I attend my synagogue regularly, where the sermons are delivered in Hebrew (since I'm in Israel). I've lived here for three years and finished two ulpan courses, receiving high marks in both final exams. I have conducted numerous meetings in Hebrew at the school where I teach. It's a natural communication medium for me, and more than that -- I do everything I can to get more and more experience of the language daily, including reading commentaries on the Torah (Rashi, the Rambam, Sforno and Ibn Ezra) in Hebrew, listening to online Talmud lectures in Hebrew (from e-daf.com) and sharing every way that I can in Hebrew with others online -- both students of the language and native speakers.

You sound like an interesting person. I am sure that your knowledge of Hebrew and of the Bible is quite good.

I don't have a problem with Rabbi Greenberg, if that's what you're referring to. In fact, I've exchanged e-mails with him a few times and have seen him in public in New York. I just don't think that you would like what he represents, so using him as an example of someone who operates under your interpretive method doesn't seem sensible to me. You do know that he argues in support of homosexuality within Orthodox Judaism, don't you? It was in regard to this that he was making his argument about את in Leviticus 18:22. Have you read his book? It's entitled Wrestling with G-d & Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition. He was also formative in the creation of the documentary about GLBT Orthodox Jews, called Trembling Before G-d. Know your sources.

I have disagreements with Rabbi Greenberg. But I respect his knowledge of Hebrew and the Bible. It is not his quest for creative interpretative methods that I disagree with. Just some of his conclusions. I think we should all be open minded when we approach the scripture. We also should be well grounded. One of my points was/is that this idea of using creative interpretative methods for the bible is shared by conservatives , moderates and liberals. It is not just some " kabalah "extreme.

I'm sure we do. I'm sure we disagree about almost everything. This doesn't mean that we can't both be held to the same degree of honesty in our dealings with the text.

O.k. I will admit that I took it a little farther and made some unorthodox conclusions. But not crazy conclusions. And Hebrew knowledge was not the issue. I did find the language used in Joel 3:10 a bit confusing, I will admit. That was an off the top of my head observation.

I don't know why you think Aramaic came from Hebrew, but you're way off.

I believe that Hebrew was the language spoken by Adam in the garden. I realize that many scholars think otherwise. But sometimes new discoveries are made and scholars change their mind.

Anyway , I believe that Hebrew was the language that all other languages came from. Obviously , I don't mean modern Hebrew when I say that.

I'm an English teacher. I'm quite aware of the pitfalls that people (even native speakers) make in English. Overall, though, I think that general literacy is certainly higher today than it was in previous generations.

I am sure you could find some problems in my English.

Do you read the Bible in Hebrew? Or, do you use translations as your medium and Hebrew just as a "check-up tool"? Just curious.

I am working towards reading it straight from the Hebrew. I do a daily study where I go through verses one by one in the Hebrew. But I am not quite there yet and so I still often rely upon the English translations first and then check the Hebrew after. I have an interlinear edition which helps. I usually read the weekly Torah Portion and the Haftorah in both English and Hebrew if I have the time. But sometimes if I am busy I just read the English.

 

[yonah_mishael]

No I learned in my Hebrew class that Et is a grammatical marker which is distinctive to Hebrew and so it doe snot appear in the English translation. I learned it is a direct object marker. Nothing more. As I said , it is not my Hebrew knowledge that is the disagreement here.

You sound like an interesting person. I am sure that your knowledge of Hebrew and of the Bible is quite good.

I have disagreements with Rabbi Greenberg. But I respect his knowledge of Hebrew and the Bible. It is not his quest for creative interpretative methods that I disagree with. Just some of his conclusions. I think we should all be open minded when we approach the scripture. We also should be well grounded. One of my points was/is that this idea of using creative interpretative methods for the bible is shared by conservatives , moderates and liberals. It is not just some " kabalah "extreme.

O.k. I will admit that I took it a little farther and made some unorthodox conclusions. But not crazy conclusions. And Hebrew knowledge was not the issue. I did find the language used in Joel 3:10 a bit confusing, I will admit. That was an off the top of my head observation.

I believe that Hebrew was the language spoken by Adam in the garden. I realize that many scholars think otherwise. But sometimes new discoveries are made and scholars change their mind.

Anyway , I believe that Hebrew was the language that all other languages came from. Obviously , I don't mean modern Hebrew when I say that.

I am sure you could find some problems in my English.

I am working towards reading it straight from the Hebrew. I do a daily study where I go through verses one by one in the Hebrew. But I am not quite there yet and so I still often rely upon the English translations first and then check the Hebrew after. I have an interlinear edition which helps. I usually read the weekly Torah Portion and the Haftorah in both English and Hebrew if I have the time. But sometimes if I am busy I just read the English.

This was a very nice response. Thank you for that. I disagree with the idea that Hebrew was the Edenic language, and I reject Edenics a priori. Hebrew came from a prior Semitic language, and Aramaic is actually older than Hebrew. There are also other Semitic languages that are older than Hebrew, such as Akkadian and Ugaritic, which no longer exist. Linguists have established the relationships between these languages and the fact that they come from a common ancestor. We observe linguistic evolution in history, and Hebrew was not free from that. I think it's the fact that we come from different worldviews (I'm a naturalist in my thinking) which makes our discussion points nearly incompatible.

Perhaps it's better that we not argue one way or another with each other. Our basic assumptions about life and about the Hebrew language are in contradiction to each other. So, our conclusions will surely always lie in different directions.

Agree to disagree?

 

[Yitzchak]

Agree to disagree?

Yes. Agree to disagree.

 

[ContraMundum]

:: smacks himself on the forehead ::

I had the same reaction!