The Hebrew word ET

[Yitzchak]

What is the meaning of the Hebrew word ET ?

 

[Heber]

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)

 

[Yitzchak]

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)

Make sense to me...So where is the issue ?

 

[Lulav]

I think he is saying that the 'et' points to the 'I AM'.

 

[Yitzchak]

I think he is saying that the 'et' points to the 'I AM'.

Which is what I was saying also.

 

[Heber]

Which is what I was saying also.

Have you noticed that, in the quote I posted, 'et' points forward to the subject, not backwards, so I am unclear as to how you see it referring to the 'I am' that precedes it.

 

[Yitzchak]

Have you noticed that, in the quote I posted, 'et' points forward to the subject, not backwards, so I am unclear as to how you see it referring to the 'I am' that precedes it.

In the verse that says I am the alpha and the omega. I guess I misunderstood your point. I thought that you meant the direct object marker was pointing towards the alpha and the omega

 

[yonah_mishael]

The particle את can only appear with a transitive verb. It is like a preposition (we call it a מילת יחס milat yachas in Hebrew, just like we call all other prepositions), and its purpose is to mark the direct object of the transitive verb so that we know for sure where the object is. This is important in languages (like ancient Hebrew) in which the word order is less static than English.

In Greek, you have case endings that mark the direct object and other noun functions. In Hebrew, we don't have such things. So, in order to mark relationships between parts of sentences, it's necessary to use prepositions. את just happens to be another preposition that we use in that regard.

In Aramaic, a sister language of Hebrew, the same marker is seen. Instead of את, however, we find it as ית yat.

The Targum of Genesis 1:1 reads in Aramaic:
בְּקַדְמִין בְּרָא יְיָ יָת שְׁמַיָּא וְיָת אַרְעָא׃
bekadmin bra HASHEM yat shmaya ve-yat ar'a.

There's nothing any more mystical about the use of את in Hebrew than about the use of ית in Aramaic (ܝܬ in Assyrian). It's just not remarkable. Searching for meaning in this is like searching for mystical explanations for why ארץ contains a tsadi! Why would someone even attempt to explain something like that? The word את just is that way. It's completely arbitrary, and it could have been spelled אב if that word hadn't already been occupied.

 

[yonah_mishael]

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)

I just don't understand that quote at all. "And et points to the object: the two letters Aleph-Taw". Huh? What does this mean?

What's amazing about את showing up in the text? ית shows up just as regularly in Aramaic without being translated in English translations. What's the point of this?

 

[Heber]

I just don't understand that quote at all. "And et points to the object: the two letters Aleph-Taw". Huh? What does this mean?

What's amazing about את showing up in the text? ית shows up just as regularly in Aramaic without being translated in English translations. What's the point of this?

I posted what I found in response to the OP when I did a simple search on the question raised which worked out fairly similar to Yitzchak's earlier version. I make no assertion that it is necessarily correct but, taking it at face value, as the OP accepted (and as it is less convoluted than the previous attempt), the subject cannot be 'I am' as suggested by Lulav and Yitchak because the article says differently.

I couldn't see anything amazing, either, but I suspect that may be why Lulav and Yitzchak came up with the 'I am' connection - if there is something amazing, find it. However, my point is that that understanding cannot be drawn from the quote I used because it seems to say that the object following 'et' is Yeshua's claimed title, not Yeshua's name: I AM. In other words 'I am' just does not resonate with the findings of the rest of that quote.

 

[yonah_mishael]

I am making the point that to say that et = I am does not resonate with the findings of the rest of the quote.

That's for certain.
Et isn't a noun and cannot function as the subject of a sentence. This is just another reason to reject the reasoning of the OP.

 

[Yitzchak]

The particle את can only appear with a transitive verb. It is like a preposition (we call it a מילת יחס milat yachas in Hebrew, just like we call all other prepositions), and its purpose is to mark the direct object of the transitive verb so that we know for sure where the object is. This is important in languages (like ancient Hebrew) in which the word order is less static than English.

In Greek, you have case endings that mark the direct object and other noun functions. In Hebrew, we don't have such things. So, in order to mark relationships between parts of sentences, it's necessary to use prepositions. את just happens to be another preposition that we use in that regard.

In Aramaic, a sister language of Hebrew, the same marker is seen. Instead of את, however, we find it as ית yat.

The Targum of Genesis 1:1 reads in Aramaic:
בְּקַדְמִין בְּרָא יְיָ יָת שְׁמַיָּא וְיָת אַרְעָא׃
bekadmin bra HASHEM yat shmaya ve-yat ar'a.

There's nothing any more mystical about the use of את in Hebrew than about the use of ית in Aramaic (ܝܬ in Assyrian). It's just not remarkable. Searching for meaning in this is like searching for mystical explanations for why ארץ contains a tsadi! Why would someone even attempt to explain something like that? The word את just is that way. It's completely arbitrary, and it could have been spelled אב if that word hadn't already been occupied.

Thank you for your post. Your explanation of the function and meaning of ET agrees with what I have learned about it.

I disagree though that there is not any meaning to be found in the letters. Not only do I disagree though. language scholars would disagree , as well. Even a google search will provide you with dozens of websites that go into these issues in detail.

The ancient Hebrew consisted of pictographs. This really is common knowledge in the study of the history of language. It is certainly not arbitrary. The pictographs were rooted in the daily life of ancient society. They can even be seen in the surrounding ancient languages such as Egyptian hieroglyphs. Although it may seem random to you from your modern perspective. These languages do have a history and there are definite reasons why certain letters were chosen for certain words. Many of the ancient Semitic languages have very similar pictographs/ letters.


Aramaic came much later and is derived from the Hebrew language and not the other way around. Therefore the Aramaic is a secondary source. Just one example of where things can be lost in the translation. I have not studyed Aramaic enough to know why it was changed in the Aramaic. but if you want the original , go back to the Hebrew which pre-dates the Aramaic. There you will find it as ET.

ET is used because the letters used have the meaning strong marker. As you mentioned in your post , that is the function it serves. Hardly a co incidence that the word for marker in Hebrew is " aleph, vav , tav. ". I am sure you are aware that several words can be related in meaning when they share the same root.

When a person looks at modern languages , the original roots may be obscured by centuries of the evolution of that language. But the origin remains unchanged. ET is ancient Hebrew. In the ancient Hebrew it has a definite meaning. A marker.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Thank you for your post. Your explanation of the function and meaning of ET agrees with what I have learned about it.

I disagree though that there is not any meaning to be found in the letters. Not only do I disagree though. language scholars would disagree , as well. Even a google search will provide you with dozens of websites that go into these issues in detail.

The ancient Hebrew consisted of pictographs. This really is common knowledge in the study of the history of language. It is certainly not arbitrary. The pictographs were rooted in the daily life of ancient society. They can even be seen in the surrounding ancient languages such as Egyptian hieroglyphs. Although it may seem random to you from your modern perspective. These languages do have a history and there are definite reasons why certain letters were chosen for certain words. Many of the ancient Semitic languages have very similar pictographs/ letters.


Aramaic came much later and is derived from the Hebrew language and not the other way around. Therefore the Aramaic is a secondary source. Just one example of where things can be lost in the translation. I have not studyed Aramaic enough to know why it was changed in the Aramaic. but if you want the original , go back to the Hebrew which pre-dates the Aramaic. There you will find it as ET.

ET is used because the letters used have the meaning strong marker. As you mentioned in your post , that is the function it serves. Hardly a co incidence that the word for marker in Hebrew is " aleph, vav , tav. ". I am sure you are aware that several words can be related in meaning when they share the same root.

When a person looks at modern languages , the original roots may be obscured by centuries of the evolution of that language. But the origin remains unchanged. ET is ancient Hebrew. In the ancient Hebrew it has a definite meaning. A marker.

I know what Paleo-Hebrew is. I have translated the Mesha Stele Inscription (which is technically Moabite, but is the same as Hebrew) as well as the Hezekiah Tunnel Inscription. I have dealt with inscriptional Hebrew from the first Temple period. I know what the language was like, and the fact that it was pictographic in form (though alphabetic in intention, as this is what we inherited from the Phoenicians) lends nothing to the position that you've espoused here. What is the logical connection that you're attempting to create? It's not obvious to anyone who doesn't share it, so it would be helpful if you spelled it out without referring to the pictographic nature of Paleo-Hebrew. Help me understand where you're coming from.

Aramaic is certainly not derived from Hebrew. They are sister languages, and one is just as old as the other.

 

[Heber]

In the verse that says I am the alpha and the omega. I guess I misunderstood your point. I thought that you meant the direct object marker was pointing towards the alpha and the omega

The quote I posted (which you were happy with and which was very similar to that which you posted on the other thread, but without the explanation) in order to help get the conversation going again with no derailing, says that the marker points towards the next word, or words - in this case to Yeshua's claimed name Aleph-Taw, so I cannot see how you make it to point back to I AM.

 

[Yitzchak]

That's for certain.
Et isn't a noun and cannot function as the subject of a sentence. This is just another reason to reject the reasoning of the OP.

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.

Mic 4:3 And He shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide concerning mighty nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

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

 

[yonah_mishael]

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.

Right. Jesus is a plowshare. I get it.

 

[Yitzchak]

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

Some quotes from askmose.com

Biblical Hebrew, also known as "Lashon Kodesh" (The Holy Tongue) is a unique language. It is the only language whose letters communicate meaning independent of the words they form.

Jewish scholars have... in fact pondered, explored, and revealed, the meaning of each individual Hebrew letter.

Notice there is a Hebrew word (repeated twice) which isn't translated. The word Et. Et is a Biblical Hebrew word that has no translation. To be sure, the word is not meaningless, and while it cannot be translated, it is interpreted. The Talmud is replete with respective explanations for the numerous Et's that appear throughout the Torah.

 

[Yitzchak]

Right. Jesus is a plowshare. I get it.

Your mocking tone is back.



Plowshare as in moving towards a marker. Ever do any plowing ? I have. You need a "mark" to fix your eyes on or your rows will be crooked. The root word is consistent in it's meaning.

The meaning I would take out of it is if I want to plow straight then I need to fix my eyes on a marker. In this case the ancient Hebrew letter for marker is a cross. So I fix my eyes on the cross and I will plow straight.

 

[Yitzchak]

From a religious point of view — and, in particular, from a Jewish religious point of view — every word has meaning. Indeed (traditionally in Judaism) every letter has meaning, as do the spaces between the letters. In this case, Rabbi Steven Greenberg notes that the word et starts with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (Aleph) and ends with the last (Tav). Therefore, he opines, the word brings connotations of “A to Z” (or Alpha to Omega, we might say) with it.

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

 

[yonah_mishael]

Your mocking tone is back.

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?!

Plowshare as in moving towards a marker. Ever do any plowing ? I have. You need a "mark" to fix your eyes on or your rows will be crooked. The root word is consistent in it's meaning.

The meaning I would take out of it is if I want to plow straight then I need to fix my eyes on a marker. In this case the ancient Hebrew letter for marker is a cross. So I fix my eyes on the cross and I will plow straight.

Stretching. It still has nothing to do with Jesus. You're just making this up.