# לסתר‬



## absoluteBeginner

As I understand it, in Modern Hebrew סתר can be translated as "to contradict". Is לסתר found in Modern Hebrew, and can it be translated as "to contradict" or is לסתר a form only found in Biblical Hebrew which translates as "to hide"?


----------



## tFighterPilot

Only להסתיר means "to hide", at least in modern Hebrew.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

Thanks. Can לסתר be translated as "to contradict" in Modern Hebrew, or does לסתר not exist in Modern Hebrew?


----------



## tFighterPilot

It doesn't exist at all. ליסתור is "to contradict".


----------



## absoluteBeginner

tFighterPilot said:


> It doesn't exist at all. ליסתור is "to contradict".


Thank you that was very helpful


----------



## absoluteBeginner

Hi, 

As far as I understand according to 
http://concordances.org/hebrew/5641.htm

סָתַר meant "to hide" in Biblical Hebrew

and in Isaiah 29:15 (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1029.htm, http://biblos.com/isaiah/29-15.htm) there is the form: לַסְתִּר which is only found once in the Bible. 

According to Morfix http://www.morfix.co.il/en/ in Modern Hebrew the verb סָתַר now has the meaning "to contradict" and סֵתֶר is the noun "hideaway" or "secret hiding place"

Now the form לסתר doesn't exist in Modern Hebrew, but what would the translation of לסתר be if the Biblical Hebrew verb סָתַר had had its modern day meaning ("to contradict" rather than "to hide")? If anyone could see any problems with having such a form if the verb had meant "to contradict" then I'd be grateful if they mentioned them. I realise this is all a bit hypothetical, "what if.." etc., I hope people don't mind.


----------



## origumi

לַסְתִּר lastir in Isaiah 29:15 is most likely an alternative spelling of the more common להסתיר lehastir = to hide (something). רש"י says the same: "לסתיר עצה" - כמו להסתיר עצה. To suggest another meaning one must have good arguments.

In the Gemara סתר is usually the antonym of בנה thus means to destroy, disassemble, dismantle. I guess that the later "contradict" is derived from this meaning.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

origumi said:


> לַסְתִּר lastir in Isaiah 29:15 is most likely an alternative spelling of the more common להסתיר lehastir = to hide (something). רש"י says the same: "לסתיר עצה" - כמו להסתיר עצה. To suggest another meaning one must have good arguments.
> 
> In the Gemara סתר is usually the antonym of בנה thus means to destroy, disassemble, dismantle. I guess that the later "contradict" is derived from this meaning.



Thank you for your response, and the change of meaning in the Gemara is interesting, and does as you suggest show how the later "contradict" meaning could have been derived. 
I was just wondering if it is correct to say that the primary root סָתַר had the meaning "to hide" in Biblical Hebrew, while in modern Hebrew it has taken on the meaning "to contradict", because if it is correct to say this, then one might wonder what the meaning of לסתר would be if one were to imagine that סָתַר had of had its modern day meaning rather than the meaning it actually had at the time.


----------



## origumi

In the Bible it means to hide (figuratively also to provide shelter, protection, to steal, etc.)
In the Gemara the Biblical meaning applies + it means to destroy, refute, make something void, make something untidy (and several similar meanings)
In Moderm Hebrew the Biblical meaning applies, the Gemaraic meaning applies + it means to contradict, counteract (in Chemistry) (and several similar meanings)


----------



## absoluteBeginner

origumi said:


> In the Bible it means to hide (figuratively also to provide shelter, protection, to steal, etc.)
> In the Gemara the Biblical meaning applies + it means to destroy, refute, make something void, make something untidy (and several similar meanings)
> In Moderm Hebrew the Biblical meaning applies, the Gemaraic meaning applies + it means to contradict, counteract (in Chemistry) (and several similar meanings)



Thanks you, that's very clear and helpful. 

So if one were to imagine that the Modern Hebrew meaning of "to contradict" had been around in Biblical times, then modern day translators could have translated לסתר as either "to hide" or "to contradict", the form itself isn't linked particularly to hiding (other than actually the only meaning at the time was "to hide" and the form isn't used any more)?


----------



## origumi

You're taking it to the wrong direction.

* The meaning "contradict" is not likely to have existed in Biblical times (AFAIK, maybe someone can לסתור it). Therefore translating "contradict" to סתר or vice versa is anachronistic in Biblical Hebrew.
* The meaning "hide" is very much alive in Modern Hebrew as in any earlier period since the Bible.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

origumi said:


> You're taking it to the wrong direction.
> 
> * The meaning "contradict" is not likely to have existed in Biblical times (AFAIK, maybe someone can לסתור it). Therefore translating "contradict" to סתר or vice versa is anachronistic in Biblical Hebrew.
> * The meaning "hide" is very much alive in Modern Hebrew as in any earlier period since the Bible.



I can understand that it wouldn't be a direction that most would take it in. As you mentioned, one would have to have a very good argument for doing it. I'm assuming סָתַר didn't have the meaning "to contradict" in Biblical times. 

But... if one were to imagine that the Modern Hebrew meaning of "to contradict" had been around in Biblical times, then could modern day translators have translated לסתר as either "to hide" or "to contradict"? Or is there a particular link between the form itself and something about hiding which wouldn't be appropriate to contradicting (other than actually the only meaning at the time was "to hide" and the form isn't used any more)?


----------



## origumi

I'm going to the basics not knowing how much Hebrew you've learned already. Hebrew verbs are constructed from 3-consonant roots (usually, there are many 4-consonant and a few 5-consonant). The root is conjugated in one of the "binyanim", which are patterns that dictate the conjugation forms and also influence the meaning (active, passive, repetitive, causative, etc.). There are 7 binyanim in Hebrew (and a different number in sister languages).

One of the binyanim is called הפעיל _hif`il_. This is usually causative. Another one is נפעל _nif`al_ which is usually passive. Yet another binyan is פעל _pa`al_ which is the most basic one and serves for active actions.

Root סתר in the Bible appears (almost?) always in binyan הפעיל or נפעל. Thus הסתיר _histir_ literally means "caused something to be hidden" and  נסתר _nistar_ means "hidden".
Root סתר "contradict" appears mainly in binyan פעל. Thus סתר _satar_ means simply "contradicted".

If  both meanings existed in the Bible, the binyan would tell whether it's "contradict" or "hide". This is exactly the case in Modern Hebrew.

Note though that there are many variations and exceptions in regard to binyanim, their conjugation and meaning, so this is no kind of absolute truth. For example החומצה נסתרת may mean "the acid is counteracted" or "the acid is hidden".


----------



## absoluteBeginner

Thank you so much (Origumi), I'm pretty much an absolute beginner in Hebrew, so that was very useful for me. Given that you have explained so much I feel embarrassed to ask for more, but if you (or anyone else) could mention anything more about the form לסתר, I'd appreciate it. Under http://concordances.org/bdb/5641.htm it is shown under the causative Hiph`il binyan. But where the other forms of סתר are split down according to the various grammar implications (imperfect masculine etc.) , there doesn't seem to be a similar breakdown for the לסתר form. Instead it seems to have what I assume is a reference  (Ges§ 53q) next to it, but i don't know what it means. You mentioned that לסתר might be an alternative spelling (abbreviation of) להסתיר, could anyone let me know what the grammar implications of that are?


----------



## origumi

absoluteBeginner said:


> Instead it seems to have what I assume is a reference  (Ges§ 53q) next to it, but i don't know what it means.


It's a reference to the Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius'_Hebrew_Grammar/53. In this case it simply says: לַסְתִּר‎ Is 29:15 for לְהַסְתִּיר‎.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

origumi said:


> It's a reference to the Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius'_Hebrew_Grammar/53. In this case it simply says: לַסְתִּר‎ Is 29:15 for לְהַסְתִּיר‎.



Wow thanks for that, and what it says is exactly what you had said earlier  

I've got a book, and with what you told me, I had thought I could understand some of the tables. הַסְתִּיר I understood to be Hiph'il indicating the perfect singular 3. masculine, and I understood לְ to be the preposition meaning "to". 

But I'm not sure I have understood, because if that is right then I'm confused about the usual translations, since

הוי המעמיקים מיהוה לסתר עצה 

can be translated as something like:

הי
Woe! Alas!

‫המעמיקים
The ones who make deep

‫הוהמי
from God

‫לסתר
To hide

‫עצה
counsel

And interpreted as suggesting the ones who are making deep are the ones doing the hiding. What I'm not clear on is why "hide" in "to hide" would be using the singular (if the ones who are making deep are the ones doing the hiding, why wouldn't it be plural?). I am guessing I have made a mistake somewhere, or still (despite all the help you have given me) not understanding it properly.


----------



## arielipi

TLDR
the word ליסתור
does not exist.
לסתור
is the right form.


----------



## origumi

absoluteBeginner said:


> I've got a book, and with what you told me, I had thought I could understand some of the tables. הַסְתִּיר I understood to be Hiph'il indicating the perfect singular 3. masculine, and I understood לְ to be the preposition meaning "to".
> 
> But I'm not sure I have understood, because if that is right then I'm confused about the usual translations, since
> 
> הוי המעמיקים מיהוה לסתר עצה
> 
> can be translated as something like:
> 
> הוי
> Woe! Alas!
> Or: *Oh*
> 
> ‫המעמיקים
> The ones who make/*go* deep
> 
> ****מ
> from God
> 
> ‫לסתר
> to hide
> 
> ‫עצה
> (*Their*) counsel
> 
> And interpreted as suggesting the ones who are making deep are the ones doing the hiding. What I'm not clear on is why "hide" in "to hide" would be using the singular (if the ones who are making deep are the ones doing the hiding, why wouldn't it be plural?). I am guessing I have made a mistake somewhere, or still (despite all the help you have given me) not understanding it properly.


In Isaiah we read לַסְתִּר (usually לְ-הַסְתִּיר = le-hastir) which is infinitive (or more precisely "infinitive construct", which is very similar to English _to ..._ when having ל is in the beginning). As in English (and as its name means), it has no gender, singular/plural, tense. What you saw in the tables in another form, הִסְתִּיר (= histir)  which is singular, past (a.k.a. "perfect" in Biblical Hebrew), 3rd, masculine.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

Thanks that explains it  Might I just say how amazingly helpful and knowledgeable members of this forum have been, I'm so glad that I found it


----------



## arielipi

if you want s-t-r as in to hide something. then the word will be lehastir. if to contradict itll be listor.
hastara/hester. stira


----------



## absoluteBeginner

Thanks. 

Just to recap on some of what I have understood. סָתַר in Biblical Hebrew meant "to hide". In the Gemara it gains new meanings such as destroy and refute, and in Modern Hebrew gains the meaning "to contradict". 

While לַסְתִּר is a form only found in the Bible, if one were to give סָתַר the modern day meaning of "to contradict" then לַסְתִּר would mean "to contradict". A good argument would be needed to do this however, as סָתַר didn't have the meaning "to contradict" when the text was written, it only had the meaning "to hide".


----------



## arielipi

I recognize it even from the bible as both.


----------



## origumi

arielipi said:


> I recognize it even from the bible as both.


סתר  = _contradict _in the Bible? Can you provide a reference?


----------



## absoluteBeginner

Does לסתור come from the root סתר or is there another root סתור?

The reason I ask, is that if לסתור and הסתיר both come from the same root סתר, and the root can mean either "to hide" or "to contradict" in Modern Hebrew, what dictates that the particular forms are associated with the particular meanings?


----------



## arbelyoni

> Does לסתור come from the root סתר or is there another root סתור?
> 
> The reason I ask, is that if לסתור and הסתיר both come from the same root סתר, and the root can mean either "to hide" or "to contradict" in Modern Hebrew, what dictates that the particular forms are associated with the particular meanings?


You're right; the two meanings do not belong to the same root originally.

The root סתר in the bible means "to hide".

סתר in Mishnaic Hebrew is a borrowing from Aramaic and means "to destroy; to break". The Hebrew cognate שׂתר appears in 1 Samuel 5:9 (וַיַּךְ אֶת אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר מִקָּטֹן וְעַד גָּדוֹל וַיִּשָּׂתְרוּ לָהֶם עפלים).


----------



## absoluteBeginner

arbelyoni said:


> You're right; the two meanings do not belong to the same root originally.
> 
> The root סתר in the bible means "to hide".
> 
> סתר in Mishnaic Hebrew is a borrowing from Aramaic and means "to destroy; to break". The Hebrew cognate שׂתר appears in 1 Samuel 5:9 (וַיַּךְ אֶת אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר מִקָּטֹן וְעַד גָּדוֹל וַיִּשָּׂתְרוּ לָהֶם עפלים).



Thanks for your patience here, and sorry if I am being a bit slow, but are you saying להסתיר comes from the Biblical Hebrew root סתר "to hide", and לסתור comes from the Mishnaic Hebrew root סתר "to destroy; to break"? If so there would still be the question of what dictates that the particular forms are associated with the particular meanings (why one meaning of סתר goes to להסתיר while the other goes to לסתור)?  (I'm assuming you were saying that לסתור ​doesn't come from a different root סתור)


----------



## arielipi

It just does. many other words share the same root and not the same meaning.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

Thank you.

I was led to believe that the forms themselves had grammatical implications, but were not directly linked to meanings. I'm therefore assuming that the grammatical implications of these forms give rise to why one form tends to be used when סתר is meant as "to hide", and the other is used when it means "to contradict".

Could someone possibly give me a grammatical break down of להסתיר and לסתור so that I might understand the differences between them?  

For example as I understand it so far for להסתיר
הסתיר is the infinitive construct for סתר (I don't know why the infinitive construct should look like that, it seems quite different from the examples I've seen, and so don't know whether that form has other grammatical implications) and when the inseparable proposition ל is added, it can be generally be thought of as expressing a purpose of result: (in order) to ....


----------



## arielipi

Some things are just "know it" and thats it. Why in english you say "did he *make*....? ", why make and not made? just is that way.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

arielipi said:


> Some things are just "know it" and thats it. Why in english you say "did he *make*....? ", why make and not made? just is that way.



English is my native language, but the technicalities of grammar aren't my strong point, so I've actually had to look at the internet to find some of the grammatical terminology. I might be wrong but I am assuming that the active present simple tense (generally the verb in the form "to ...." with the "to" knocked off) is used in interrogative statements like that. 

Am I wrong to assume that להסתיר has different grammatical implications from לסתור? Is לסתור also an infinitive construct (with an inseparable proposition)?


----------



## arielipi

Like you, i am not very good with all the formal names.
listor is for "to contradict", while lehastir is for "to hide".
when you say all those words: infinitive construct and such, i have no idea what youre talking about.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

Neither did I until I looked infinitive construct on the internet and checked in a book I had 

Origumi mentioned that lehastir להסתיר was the infinitive construct(earlier on this thread), so I checked it up. He also seemed to imply that the forms of סתר aren't particular to a meaning, but instead modify the meaning. He gave the example that החומצה נסתרת may mean "the acid is counteracted" or "the acid is hidden"

Therefore I assume that the differences between the grammatical implications of להסתיר and לסתור will offer a hint why the meaning "to hide" tends to be associated with one of them, while the meaning "to contradict" tends to be associated with the other.


----------



## arbelyoni

> what dictates that the particular forms are associated with the particular meanings?


The Binyan (verb pattern).
The root סתר appears in Modern Hebrew in all seven Binyanim (note that the lemma of Hebrew verbs is their third-person masculine singular past tense form):

Pa'al (Qal): סָתַר - to contradict
Pi''el: סִתֵּר - to hide (archaic)
Hif'il: הִסְתִּיר – to hide
Hitpa''el: הִסְתַּתֵּר – to hide oneself
Huf'al: הֻסְתַּר – to be hidden (by someone/ something)
Pu''al: סֻתַּר – to be hidden (archaic)
Nif'al: נִסְתַּר – to be hidden

The general meaning of "hide" is biblical; the meaning of "destroy, break; contradict" is Mishnaic, after Aramaic.
Biblical Hebrew did not assign Binyan Pa'al to this root, so it was "free" to adopt the Aramaic meaning (that was used in the equivalent of Binyan Pa'al in Aramaic).
The reason why Binyan Pa'al takes on this meaning is not grammatical, but historical.


> Could someone possibly give me a grammatical break down of להסתיר and לסתור so that I might understand the differences between them?





> Am I wrong to assume that להסתיר has different grammatical implications from לסתור? Is לסתור also an infinitive construct (with an inseparable proposition)?


Both are infinitive forms.
לִסְתֹּר  is the infinitive of סָתַר  (Binyan Pa'al; compare: שָׁבַר  and לִשְׁבֹּר)
לְהַסְתִּיר is the infinitive of הִסְתִּיר (Binyan Hif'il; compare: הִכְתִּיב and לְהַכְתִּיב)


> For example as I understand it so far for להסתיר
> הסתיר is the infinitive construct for סתר (I don't know why the infinitive construct should look like that, it seems quite different from the examples I've seen, and so don't know whether that form has other grammatical implications) and when the inseparable proposition ל is added, it can be generally be thought of as expressing a purpose of result: (in order) to ....


As I wrote earlier, הסתיר and סתר are 3rd person singular masculine past tense forms of two different Binyanim.
הסתיר cannot be an infinitive construct, because they always begin with a preposition letter (בכל"ם). In Modern Hebrew they always begin with ל.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

Ah ok thanks  

I didn't realise that infinitive constructs could be of differing Binyan. 

As I understand the Binyan 

_Pa'al (Qal) _is the simple active, e.g. he has ...
_Nif'al_ is the simple passive, e.g. he was ...
_Pi'el _is the intensive active e.g. he has totally...
_Pu'al _is the intensive passive e.g. he was totally...

_Hif'il_ is the causative active e.g. he has made...
_Hofal_ is the causative passive e.g. he was made...
_Hitpa'el_ is the reflexive e.g. he has made himself...

(The form for each binyan varies dependent upon the gender, person, or tense it is being used to indicate) 

So from what you are saying (and from what Origumi was also saying) when סתר is taken to mean "to contradict" the_ Pa'al (Qal) _Binyan is usually used. Whereas in Biblical Hebrew when סתר is taken to mean "to hide" the _hi'fal_ and _ni'fal_ were usually used. 

You were saying that לִסְתֹּר is the infinitive construct of סָתַר (Binyan _Pa'al (Qal)_), and that לְהַסְתִּיר is the infinitive construct of הִסְתִּיר (_Hif'il_). Given this one might expect that in Modern day Hebrew לִסְתֹּר would imply "to contradict", but as I understand it the form isn't found in Modern day Hebrew and the scholars have chosen to interpret it in the Bible as a shortening of לְהַסְתִּיר. Instead for "to contradict" I have been given to understand that the form לסתור is used. Though I'm not clear on the explanation of לסתור. The סתור form seems to be similar to what I would expect for the infinitive absolute, though given that it has the ל preposition, I would be assuming this isn't the reason it has that form. 

Sorry if I have misunderstood some stuff here, but thought I might as well explain it as I am understanding it so far. Thanks for all the help with this.


----------



## arbelyoni

> As I understand the Binyan
> 
> _Pa'al (Qal) _is the simple active, e.g. he has ...
> _Nif'al_ is the simple passive, e.g. he was ...
> _Pi'el _is the intensive active e.g. he has totally...
> _Pu'al _is the intensive passive e.g. he was totally...
> 
> _Hif'il_ is the causative active e.g. he has made...
> _Hofal_ is the causative passive e.g. he was made...
> _Hitpa'el_ is the reflexive e.g. he has made himself...
> 
> (The form for each binyan varies dependent upon the gender, person, or tense it is being used to indicate)


In theory you may say that each Binyan has one main semantic meaning, but in reality you'll find out that there are as many exceptions to the rule as examples of it (סִתֵּר and הִסְתִּיר are only one example of two verbs in different Binyanim that mean practically the same thing).
Ascribing one single meaning to each Binyan may seem helpful at first, but it'll turn out to be very confusing later.
When you learn a verb, learn it as it is. Don't spend time on thinking in which Binyan you should put it in order to get a certain meaning, because usually it doesn't work.


> So from what you are saying (and from what Origumi was also saying) when סתר is taken to mean "to contradict" the_ Pa'al (Qal) _Binyan is usually used. Whereas in Biblical Hebrew when סתר is taken to mean "to hide" the _hi'fal_ and _ni'fal_ were usually used.


No. I'm saying that "to contradict" in Hebrew is לִסְתֹּר: root סת"ר, Binyan Pa'al.
In all other Binyanim the root takes on the meaning of "hide", as it is in the bible (actually, the Huf'al form, הֻסְתַּר, does not appear in the bible but was created later as analogy to הִסְתִּיר).
The two meanings of this root are not related and do not have the same origin. They in fact belong to two different roots that have been merged.


> You were saying that לִסְתֹּר is the infinitive construct of סָתַר (Binyan _Pa'al (Qal)_), and that לְהַסְתִּיר is the infinitive construct of הִסְתִּיר (_Hif'il_). Given this one might expect that in Modern day Hebrew לִסְתֹּר would imply "to contradict", but as I understand it the form isn't found in Modern day Hebrew and the scholars have chosen to interpret it in the Bible as a shortening of לְהַסְתִּיר. Instead for "to contradict" I have been given to understand that the form לסתור is used. Though I'm not clear on the explanation of לסתור. The סתור form seems to be similar to what I would expect for the infinitive absolute, though given that it has the ל preposition, I would be assuming this isn't the reason it has that form.


No, לִסְתֹּר (alternative spelling: לסתור) /lis'tor/ does exist in Mishnaic and Modern Hebrew as "to contradict".
The unique form לַסְתִּר /las'tir/ is found in the bible and presents a problem in determining its Binyan. Scholars believe that it is a shortening of the very common לְהַסְתִּיר /lehas'tir/, the infinitive of הִסְתִּיר – to hide.
לסתור/לִסְתֹּר is just the infinitive of סָתַר (to contradict), and follows the basic pattern of the infinitive of Pa'al: לפעול /lif'ol/, like לכתוב, לאכול, לשמור.



> Sorry if I have misunderstood some stuff here, but thought I might as well explain it as I am understanding it so far. Thanks for all the help with this.



אין הבישן למד


----------



## absoluteBeginner

Thanks  So לסתר does exist in Modern Hebrew? At the beginning of this thread I was asking whether it existed and tFighterPilot, who like yourself speaks Hebrew as their first language, said it didn't exist. Is it that לסתור is more common, or is there a subtlety that I'm missing? You could write לִסְתֹּר as לסתר right, if you didn't want to make the vowels explicit?


----------



## arbelyoni

> Thanks  So לסתר does exist in Modern Hebrew? At the beginning of this thread I was asking whether it existed and tFighterPilot, who like yourself speaks Hebrew as their first language, said it didn't exist. Is it that לסתור is more common, or is there a subtlety that I'm missing? You could write לִסְתֹּר as לסתר right, if you didn't want to make the vowels explicit?


לסתר is *not *the standard spelling of לִסְתֹּר without Niqqud; לסתור is, according to the rules of כתיב מלא.
I imagine that tFighterPilot interpreted לסתר as /lesa'ter/ (Binyan Pi'el), like I did.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

arbelyoni said:


> לסתר is *not *the standard spelling of לִסְתֹּר without Niqqud; לסתור is, according to the rules of כתיב מלא.
> I imagine that tFighterPilot interpreted לסתר as /lesa'ter/ (Binyan Pi'el), like I did.



Thank you for your help here, and sorry for the delay in response. 

I noticed in the link you provided that it mentions that the Ktiv hasar is the writing that is used in the Torah, and it tends to match the consonants used in voweled text, but;

Because of the difficulty of reading unvowelled text, the Vaad HaLashon introduced the Rules for the Spelling-Without-Niqqud (כללי הכתיב חסר הניקוד), which in reality dictates ktiv male. This system mostly involved the addition of ו and י to mark the different vowels. Later on, these rules were adopted by the Academy of the Hebrew Language, which continued to revise them, and they were mostly accepted by the public, mainly for official writing.

So when you say "לסתר is *not *the standard spelling of לִסְתֹּר without Niqqud; לסתור is, according to the rules of כתיב מלא", I assume you mean לסתר is *not *the standard spelling of לִסְתֹּר in Ktiv Male. Would it not be the standard spelling in Ktiv Hasar (found in the Torah) if it behaved as a regular verb for the infinitive construct of Binyan Pa'al (Qal)?


----------



## arbelyoni

> I assume you mean לסתר is *not *the standard spelling of לִסְתֹּר in Ktiv Male


Yes


> Would it not be the standard spelling in Ktiv Hasar (found in the Torah) if it behaved as a regular verb for the infinitive construct of Binyan Pa'al (Qal)?


Absolutely, לסתר is the Ktiv Haser spelling of לִסְתֹּר. Note, however, that we've adopted Ktiv Male in all aspects of our lives (especially when the Ktiv Haser version is ambiguous like לסתר), so it is, in fact, the standard spelling de facto.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

arbelyoni said:


> Yes
> 
> Absolutely, לסתר is the Ktiv Haser spelling of לִסְתֹּר. Note, however, that we've adopted Ktiv Male in all aspects of our lives (especially when the Ktiv Haser version is ambiguous like לסתר), so it is, in fact, the standard spelling de facto.



Fantastic  I'd like to thank you, and everyone else who helped. It's all seems much clearer now


----------



## absoluteBeginner

Earlier in this thread I had offered a word by word translation of 

הוי המעמיקים מיהוה לסתר עצה

And Origumi made the following adjustments (in blue): 

הוי
Woe! Alas!
Or: *Oh*

‫המעמיקים
The ones who make/*go* deep

****מ
from God

‫לסתר
to hide

‫עצה
(*Their*) counsel

Can anyone explain to me why the counsel has to be _their_ counsel, and couldn't be God's counsel for example? What I mean is is there something grammatically indicating that what they were hiding belonged to them.

I am assuming it has something to do with the vowels. For in Job 42:3 there are those that are presumably hiding God's advice:

 מִי זֶ֨ה ׀ מַעְלִ֥ים עֵצָ֗ה בְּֽלִ֫י דָ֥עַת 

(Taken from http://biblos.com/job/42-3.htm slightly changed when pasted not sure if change is significant)

and advice there has vowel differences to the advice word עֵצָ֑ה found in Isaiah 29:15, or even עֵצָה֙ in Isaiah 30:1. So I am assuming that the indicator to the possession of the advice is connected to these vowels. If that is correct then presumably written in Ktiv Haser, then it wouldn't be clear whether the word advice or counsel was to be interpreted as it is in Job 42:3 or whether as it is usually interpreted in Isaiah 29:15?


----------



## Tararam

Actually, I reckon it's context based... I highly doubt any native Hebrew speaker (who doesn't study the Torah) is aware of such vowel difference.
Most, if not all, speakers who can comprehend this verse, will understand it that way.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

ah ok, thanks for the help there


----------



## absoluteBeginner

I'd like to thank everyone for their help, and I don't mean to be a pain but I'm still not sure I am clear on a certain matter, and would just like to check it to make sure that I am understanding it correctly. 

Earlier in this thread I had offered a word by word translation of 

הוי המעמיקים מיהוה לסתר עצה

And Origumi made the following adjustments (in blue): 

הוי
Woe! Alas!
Or: *Oh*

‫המעמיקים
The ones who make/*go* deep

****מ
from God

‫לסתר
to hide

‫עצה
(*Their*) counsel

Am I correct in thinking that ‫עצה
is ambiguous here, and that Origumi added (their) as a guide to how it is usually translated, but that actually if one wanted one could interpret it as people going deep to hide (God's) counsel (a bit like in Job 42:3)? If not could someone please explain why.


----------



## arbelyoni

Yes, the possession "their" is not found in the Hebrew verse; it's a premise of the translator.
The Niqqud is the same in all three verses: עֵצָה.


> ... if one wanted one could interpret it as people going deep to hide (God's) counsel (a bit like in Job 42:3)?


One could, but what would be the meaning of such a translation? Whom are they hiding god's counsel from? And how does it relate to the rest of the verse?


----------



## absoluteBeginner

arbelyoni said:


> Yes, the possession "their" is not found in the Hebrew verse; it's a premise of the translator.
> The Niqqud is the same in all three verses: עֵצָה.
> 
> One could, but what would be the meaning of such a translation? Whom are they hiding god's counsel from? And how does it relate to the rest of the verse?



There do appear to be some differences in the way they are written in the Leningrad Codex between the verses on the letter צ, but I'm not sure what these differences represent, I couldn't find the niqqud signs that match them, and wasn't sure of what they were. 


עֵצָ֑ה ‘ê·ṣāh (Isaiah 29:15) http://interlinearbible.org/isaiah/29-15.htm
עֵצָ֥ה ‘ê·ṣāh (Job 38:2)
עֵצָ֗ה ‘ê·ṣāh (Job 42:3)

_A_ reason for reading it as God's advice would be to translate it with the same sentiments as in Job. With such an interpretation it could have simply meant that those that those that were far from God in their hearts were obscuring God's real message. 

That isn't the reason I was checking for that though. I was looking for the text to back up the idea that we are spiritual beings and what we are having is a spiritual experience, and that only the spiritual exists. One way of sealing a text would be to have a text that doesn't get its real meaning until later. Verse 11 indicates that what is sealed is in the scroll, and that would have been the writing in Ktiv haser. Now, as I understand it given the conversations in this thread; in Modern Hebrew לסתור means to contradict while להסתיר means to hide. These are written in Ktiv Male however in Ktiv haser they become לסתר and להסתיר respectively. Throughout the Bible Hiph'il (rather than Qal) is used for the active form of the verb סתר, and so the scholars have assumed that the form לסתר (which is found no where else in the Bible) is a shortening of להסתיר. If the verse where to be read as Modern Hebrew written in Ktiv haser however this word would specifically mean "to contradict" (it is the Ktiv haser form of  לסתור). If one were to do this, as I understand it, one could have the translation:

Woe! Alas! The ones that make deep (in thought) from God to contradict (God's) advice, whose works are done in darkness (ignorance) and who say "who sees us, who will know us"

With this translation one can identify the group as a distinct one from those mentioned in verse 13, who are people that believe in God but have lost their way a bit (they have grown far from God in their hearts). Verse 15 can be thought to refer to another group which don't believe in God at all, and contain those (such as Richard Dawkin's for example) that argue against God's advice (that only one God exists for example). 

This has implications for verse 16, because this group are said to turn things upside down. People (especially children) can be thought to tend towards a dualistic outlook, in which there is the spiritual (mind distinct from the physical) and the physical. The atheists have 'reasoned' that this is incorrect and that the physical is real, and that spiritual is unreal.  If this is the wrong way around though, this indicates the spiritual is real and the physical is unreal, i.e. we are spiritual beings and that this is a spiritual experience, and that the source of the experience is spiritual also. 

Obviously this would be a controversial interpretation, but if it is allowable (and the unique use of לסתר seems to allow it), then presumably the mention of it would be permissable. I'm not trying to argue for people to adopt such an interpretation (I'm mentioning it here only because you asked), though I certainly would be interested in hearing why such an interpretation wasn't possible.


----------



## arbelyoni

> There do appear to be some differences in the way they are written in the Leningrad Codex between the verses on the letter צ, but I'm not sure what these differences represent, I couldn't find the niqqud signs that match them, and wasn't sure of what they were.


The difference is not in vowel signs, but in cantillation accents (טעמים).
The accents represent the duration and pitch of each word (like musical notes) and indicate the rhythm of a sentence (like punctuation marks). They do not change the meaning of a single word.


> _A reason for reading it as God's advice would be to translate it with the same sentiments as in Job. With such an interpretation it could have simply meant that those that those that were far from God in their hearts were obscuring God's real message._


That's stretching it a bit.
1) You translate עצה as "massage", but such a meaning is nowhere to be found in the Bible. עצה is usually either advice or plan; in this context, plan seems to fit in perfectly.
2) Keep in mind that the counsel is hidden *from *God (המעמיקים *מ*ה' לסתר עצה). According to your interpretation, it means:
"Woe to those who go deep to hide (God's) counsel from God"…
Which doesn’t make much sense.


> Obviously this would be a controversial interpretation, but if it is allowable (and the unique use of לסתר seems to allow it), then presumably the mention of it would be permissable. I'm not trying to argue for people to adopt such an interpretation (I'm mentioning it here only because you asked), though I certainly would be interested in hearing why such an interpretation wasn't possible.


Such an interpretation isn't possible because the verb סָתַר ("contradict") does not exist in Biblical Hebrew.
1) The root סתר has only one meaning in the bible: hide. It is inflected in five Binyanim (Pi'el, Hif'il, Hitpa'el, Nif'al, Pu'al).
2) סָתַר (Binyan Pa'al/ Qal) is a Mishnaic loanword from Aramaic, meaning: to break; to ruin; to contradict.
3) It may look (according to the Hebrew spelling) that both meanings belong to the same Proto-Semitic root – but they're not! The root for "hide" is _str_; the root for "destroy" is _śtr_.
4) Biblical Hebrew represented the phoneme _s _with the letter ס (_str_> סתר) and the phoneme _ś _with the letter ש (_śtr_> שׂתר).
Aramaic represented both phonemes with the letter ס (_str/śtr_> סתר).
5) The root _śtr _already existed in Hebrew with the meaning of "burst" (1 Samuel 5:9). When it was brought back to Hebrew via Aramaic, the Aramaic spelling was used, so the two roots became identical.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

arbelyoni said:


> The difference is not in vowel signs, but in cantillation accents (טעמים).
> The accents represent the duration and pitch of each word (like musical notes) and indicate the rhythm of a sentence (like punctuation marks). They do not change the meaning of a single word.



Ah, thank you, that explains it 



arbelyoni said:


> That's stretching it a bit.
> 1) You translate עצה as "massage", but such a meaning is nowhere to be found in the Bible. עצה is usually either advice or plan; in this context, plan seems to fit in perfectly.
> 2) Keep in mind that the counsel is hidden *from *God (המעמיקים *מ*ה' לסתר עצה). According to your interpretation, it means:
> "Woe to those who go deep to hide (God's) counsel from God"…
> Which doesn’t make much sense.



I was thinking it could have been interpreted as:
"Woe to those who go deep from God to hide (God's) counsel..."

Is this not possible?



arbelyoni said:


> Such an interpretation isn't possible because the verb סָתַר ("contradict") does not exist in Biblical Hebrew.
> 1) The root סתר has only one meaning in the bible: hide. It is inflected in five Binyanim (Pi'el, Hif'il, Hitpa'el, Nif'al, Pu'al).
> 2) סָתַר (Binyan Pa'al/ Qal) is a Mishnaic loanword from Aramaic, meaning: to break; to ruin; to contradict.
> 3) It may look (according to the Hebrew spelling) that both meanings belong to the same Proto-Semitic root – but they're not! The root for "hide" is _str_; the root for "destroy" is _śtr_.
> 4) Biblical Hebrew represented the phoneme _s _with the letter ס (_str_> סתר) and the phoneme _ś _with the letter ש (_śtr_> שׂתר).
> Aramaic represented both phonemes with the letter ס (_str/śtr_> סתר).
> 5) The root _śtr _already existed in Hebrew with the meaning of "burst" (1 Samuel 5:9). When it was brought back to Hebrew via Aramaic, the Aramaic spelling was used, so the two roots became identical.



For:

Woe! Alas! The ones that make deep (in thought) from God to contradict (God's) advice, whose works are done in darkness (ignorance) and who say "who sees us, who will know us"

The idea of the translation of the word לסתר as "to contradict" rather than as "to hide" relied on the text not meaning what a writer (or reader) at the time would have made of it.


----------



## arbelyoni

> I was thinking it could have been interpreted as:
> "Woe to those who go deep from God to hide (God's) counsel..."
> 
> Is this not possible?


According to your translation, לסתיר עצה is a final clause (פסוקית תכלית).
Biblical Hebrew usually conveys final clauses with the structure of _Vav + imperfect verb_ (המעמיקים מה' _ויסתירו _עצה), or using a final conjunction (המעמיקים מה' _למען הסתר_ עצה).
As far as I could check, there are no cases of infinitive construct used as final clause.

מעמיקים לסתיר seems to follow a common structure in the bible of _verb + infinitive_ (although separated), in which the infinitive represents the main action and the preceding verb is a modifier. The best translation of such a phrase would be "those who hide deep", and not "those who go deep to hide".


----------



## absoluteBeginner

arbelyoni said:


> According to your translation, לסתיר עצה is a final clause (פסוקית תכלית).
> Biblical Hebrew usually conveys final clauses with the structure of _Vav + imperfect verb_ (המעמיקים מה' _ויסתירו _עצה), or using a final conjunction (המעמיקים מה' _למען הסתר_ עצה).
> As far as I could check, there are no cases of infinitive construct used as final clause.
> 
> מעמיקים לסתיר seems to follow a common structure in the bible of _verb + infinitive_ (although separated), in which the infinitive represents the main action and the preceding verb is a modifier. The best translation of such a phrase would be "those who hide deep", and not "those who go deep to hide".



Thanks for helping again, I apologise if I am being slow on picking up the points, I don't know much about grammar, though am learning more as I look up these new terms 

Presumably the way you (and the King James Bible) are translating it would also make sense if it had been written as:
​


מֵֽיהוָ֖העֵצָ֑הלַסְתִּ֣רהַמַּעֲמִיקִ֥יםה֛וֹיfrom the LORDcounselto Hidethe ones that go deepWoe! Alas!


or 




עֵצָ֑המֵֽיהוָ֖הלַסְתִּ֣רהַמַּעֲמִיקִ֥יםה֛וֹיcounselfrom the LORDto Hidethe ones that go deepWoe! Alas!


And had it of been written either of these ways then yes I can see that it wouldn't make sense to consider the counsel to have been God's counsel. As you have pointed out:

Woe! Alas! the ones that go deep (in thought) to hide (the LORD's) counsel from the LORD

wouldn't really make much sense.

Though written as:



עֵצָ֑הלַסְתִּ֣רמֵֽיהוָ֖ההַמַּעֲמִיקִ֥יםה֛וֹיcounselto Hidefrom the LORDthe ones that go deepWoe! Alas!


where מֵֽיהוָ֖ה is in between the verb הַמַּעֲמִיקִ֥ים and the infinitive לַסְתִּ֣ר it does seem to allow the translation:

Woe! Alas! The ones that go deep (in thought) from the LORD to hide (the LORD's) Counsel. 

Though I haven't seen any other translations that have considered this point to be significant. 

What I'm still not clear about is why you have a problem with the infinitive construct being used if such a translation was to be used. It seems to be that you are viewing it to be final clause, perhaps a short form of:

Woe! Alas! The ones that go deep (in thought) from the LORD in order that they might hide (the LORD's) Counsel.

And instead you regard it best to translate the infinitive as "those who hide deep" and not "those who go deep to hide". I can understand that if you were to translate it as "those who hide deep" then it wouldn't be similar to a final clause.

Though presumably the idea that it is best to translate the infinitive as "those who hide deep" and not "those who go deep to hide" is debatable, as the King James translation is:

Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD...

which could be be considered to be a short form of: 

Woe unto them that seek deep in order that they might hide their counsel from the LORD...

it seems to me that if it is justified to suggest my translation involves translating the infinitive construct as a final clause, then that it would also be justified with regards to the King James translation. 

I also did some internet research and noticed the following on the http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius'_Hebrew_Grammar/114 page. Which I am hoping would provide me with some justification of translating the infinitive construct לַסְתִּ֣ר as "to hide", used in such a way as to be the equivalent of a final clause:

114_g_ Rem. 1. The original meaning of the לְ‎ is most plainly seen in those infinitives with לְ‎ which expressly state a purpose (hence as the equivalent of a final clause), e.g. Gn 115_and the Lord came down, לִרְאֹת אֶת־הָעִיר‎ to see the city; also with a change of subject, e.g. 2 S 1210 and thou hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite לִֽהְיוֹת לְךָ לְאִשָּׁה‎ to be (i.e. that she may be) thy wife; cf. Gn 284, Jer 3826 (לָמוּת‎).—If there is a special emphasis on the infinitive with לְ‎, it is placed, with its complement, before the governing verb, e.g. Gn 429, 474, Nu 2220, Jos 23, 1 S 162 with בּוֹא‎; Ju 1510, 1 S 1725 with עָלָה‎.
_


----------



## InfatigableLearner

absoluteBeginner,

I personally find no problem beginning with a highly literal translation here: “Woe to those who go deep from YHWH to hide counsel.” However, I find it interesting that on the one hand you have a desire (need?) to read the infinitive לַסְתִּר so literally as “to hide” and yet on the other introduce the phrases “in thought” and “the Lord’s,” even if in parentheses, where they simply do not appear in the Hebrew. This all seems to me to be somewhat inconsistent, especially since these additions are themselves dubious.

It has been noted by others, though not in these words, that in Isaiah 29:15 the infinitive לַסְתִּר stands in a relationship with the hiphil participle הַמַּעֲמִיקִים whereby the participle acts as an auxiliary verb to the infinitive. This relationship produces what in English would be “those who deeply hide.” Thus moving away from a literal, atomistic, “word-for-word” method of reading the text to a more global one which seeks to understand how the words relate to one another, a better English translation would be “Woe to those who deeply hide counsel from YHWH.” This view is not something that I and others here are making up, for one can see the same usage of the hiphil √עמק with an infinitive found in Isaiah 29:15 in Jeremiah 49:8 and 30 as well:

נֻסוּ הַפְנוּ הֶעְמִיקוּ לָשֶׁבֶתיֹשְׁבֵי דְּדָן
_Flee! Turn back! Dwell deeply! O dwellers of Dedan!_
(emending הָפְנוּ to הַפְנוּ per BHS)

נֻסוּ נֻּדוּ מְאֹד הֶעְמִיקוּ לָשֶׁבֶתיֹשְׁבֵי חָצוֹר
_Flee! Wander far! Dwell deeply! O dwellers of Hazor!_

In these two verses as well one finds the hiphil √עמק followed by the infinitive לָשֶׁבֶת. Because this phrase is preceded by two other simple imperatives, it is clear that here the two verbs work as a unit for a singlular imperative idea: “dwell deeply!” = “Lay low!” = Hide out! The command here is not to be translated literally as “Go deep to dwell!” Incidentally, the fact that מֵיהוה (“from YHWH”) stands between the hiphil participle הַמַּעֲמִיקִים and the infinitive לַסְתִּר in Isaiah 29:15 does not mean that the relationship between these two verbs is any different than that seen in Jeremiah which does not have a word standing between the hiphil imperative הֶעְמִיקוּ and the infinitive לָשֶׁבֶת.

This brings us to the last question, the word עֵצָה (“counsel,” or “plan”/“advice”). Again, as noted by others, the text is not explicit in stating whose “counsel” is mentioned here. However, the text implicitly makes this clear in several ways. First knowing that the verbs הַמַּעֲמִיקִים and לַסְתִּר form a relationship with עֵצָה as their object, it is implicit that it is those who are doing the hiding whose עֵצָה is the focus. If this were not so, then one would expect a third person suffix on עֵצָה, i.e. עֲצָתוֹ, to signal the shift to YHWH whose “counsel” is to be discussed, especially after having just introduced him with מֵיהוה. This, however, is not what the text does. Furthermore, the text continues on by mentioning the “deeds” of these same people and presents them as asking מִי רֹאֵנוּ וּמִי יוֹדְעֵנוּ (“Who sees us? Who knows us?”). Thus it is the actions of these people which is the focus here, not YHWH's. Finally I would direct your attention to a few verses later at Isaiah 30:1 where the woe continues against these people and where the text explicitly states “Woe to the stubborn children...making a plan (עֵצָה), but not mine.” It is in fact the people’s planning to rely on Egypt for assistance rather than on YHWH which is the central focus of the woes here. It is this which the people sought to hide from YHWH without success. With all this in mind then, the text is best understood as:

“Woe to those who deeply hide counsel from YHWH; their deeds are in a dark place, and they say, ‘Who sees us? Who knows us?’

Thus understanding עֵצָה as being the planning of those who are doing the hiding is the best reading of the text in Isaiah 29:15 not only by considering the Hebrew text, but also the immediate and larger contexts as well.

InfatigableLearner


----------



## absoluteBeginner

Dear InfatigableLearner,

Thank you for your help here, I appreciate how much time it must have taken you and I am grateful.



InfatigableLearner said:


> I personally find no problem beginning with a highly literal translation here: “Woe to those who go deep from YHWH to hide counsel.” However, I find it interesting that on the one hand you have a desire (need?) to read the infinitive לַסְתִּר so literally as “to hide” and yet on the other introduce the phrases “in thought” and “the Lord’s,” even if in parentheses, where they simply do not appear in the Hebrew. This all seems to me to be somewhat inconsistent, especially since these additions are themselves dubious.



The point of them being in parentheses is to indicate that they do not appear in the Hebrew. This is quite a common practise I think. They are added where the text is slightly ambiguous in order to clarify the interpretation. I'm not trying to insist that people accept the translation/interpretation, but if it is a permissible and justifiable translation then I (at least) would like to know.



InfatigableLearner said:


> It has been noted by others, though not in these words, that in Isaiah 29:15 the infinitive לַסְתִּר stands in a relationship with the hiphil participle הַמַּעֲמִיקִים whereby the participle acts as an auxiliary verb to the infinitive. This relationship produces what in English would be “those who deeply hide.” Thus moving away from a literal, atomistic, “word-for-word” method of reading the text to a more global one which seeks to understand how the words relate to one another, a better English translation would be “Woe to those who deeply hide counsel from YHWH.” This view is not something that I and others here are making up, for one can see the same usage of the hiphil √עמק with an infinitive found in Isaiah 29:15 in Jeremiah 49:8 and 30 as well:
> 
> נֻסוּ הַפְנוּ הֶעְמִיקוּ לָשֶׁבֶתיֹשְׁבֵי דְּדָן
> _Flee! Turn back! Dwell deeply! O dwellers of Dedan!_
> (emending הָפְנוּ to הַפְנוּ per BHS)
> 
> נֻסוּ נֻּדוּ מְאֹד הֶעְמִיקוּ לָשֶׁבֶתיֹשְׁבֵי חָצוֹר
> _Flee! Wander far! Dwell deeply! O dwellers of Hazor!_
> 
> In these two verses as well one finds the hiphil √עמק followed by the infinitive לָשֶׁבֶת. Because this phrase is preceded by two other simple imperatives, it is clear that here the two verbs work as a unit for a singlular imperative idea: “dwell deeply!” = “Lay low!” = Hide out! The command here is not to be translated literally as “Go deep to dwell!”



The translation I gave assumes a relationship between the hiphil participle and the infinitive. That they are going deep (in thought) from God is modifying the infinitive, since it is how the hiding is being done.

As for the idea of translating it literally as "to hide" though this seems a matter of choice, you would need a good argument to claim that one _cannot_ justify translating לַסְתִּ֣ר in Isaiah 29:15 as "to hide" 

New International Version (©1984)
Woe to those who go to great depths *to hide* their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"

New Living Translation (©2007)
What sorrow awaits those who try *to hide* their plans from the LORD, who do their evil deeds in the dark! "The LORD can't see us," they say. "He doesn't know what's going on!"

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Woe unto them that seek deep *to hide* their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?

I could give another 7 examples of translations where it is translated as "to hide". 



InfatigableLearner said:


> Incidentally, the fact that מֵיהוה (“from YHWH”) stands between the hiphil participle הַמַּעֲמִיקִים and the infinitive לַסְתִּר in Isaiah 29:15 does not mean that the relationship between these two verbs is any different than that seen in Jeremiah which does not have a word standing between the hiphil imperative הֶעְמִיקוּ and the infinitive לָשֶׁבֶת.



It doesn't make any difference between the relationship between the two verbs, one still modifies the other. This doesn't mean that it shouldn't make a difference to the translation. I accept that it doesn't make a difference to the way you and others tend to translate it, though as I have mentioned if it had been written as:



מֵֽיהוָ֖העֵצָ֑הלַסְתִּ֣רהַמַּעֲמִיקִ֥יםה֛וֹיfrom the LORDCounselto Hidethe ones that go deepWoe! Alas!


or




עֵצָ֑המֵֽיהוָ֖הלַסְתִּ֣רהַמַּעֲמִיקִ֥יםה֛וֹיCounselfrom the LORDto Hidethe ones that go deepWoe! Alas!


then I couldn't have offered the translation I am giving. Which means that there is something significant about the form it is written in compared to these two other forms: the form is one that if taken literally allows for the translation I am giving, whereas the others aren't.

Given all the other examples of the hiphil + the infinitive that don't have a word standing in between them, if the meaning was as you and others suppose, why wasn't it also written in that fashion, as in one of the two ways above for example? If you hadn't seen the sentence in Hebrew but had seen the type of translation that you favour, then given the numerous other examples of the hiphil + the infinitive wouldn't you find it surprising that the hiphil and the infinitive had a word standing in between them?

The way I am translating it, the word would _need_ to be between the hiphil and the infinitive, it wouldn't be a surprising feature with a significance thought best to ignore.




InfatigableLearner said:


> This brings us to the last question, the word עֵצָה (“counsel,” or “plan”/“advice”). Again, as noted by others, the text is not explicit in stating whose “counsel” is mentioned here. However, the text implicitly makes this clear in several ways. First knowing that the verbs הַמַּעֲמִיקִים and לַסְתִּר form a relationship with עֵצָה as their object, it is implicit that it is those who are doing the hiding whose עֵצָה is the focus. If this were not so, then one would expect a third person suffix on עֵצָה, i.e. עֲצָתוֹ, to signal the shift to YHWH whose “counsel” is to be discussed, especially after having just introduced him with מֵיהוה. This, however, is not what the text does. Furthermore, the text continues on by mentioning the “deeds” of these same people and presents them as asking מִי רֹאֵנוּ וּמִי יוֹדְעֵנוּ (“Who sees us? Who knows us?”). Thus it is the actions of these people which is the focus here, not YHWH's.



Regarding your first point I understand it to revolve around the expectation of a third person suffix on advice. Though God is the one that is talking so if advice hadn't been written in the absolute form, then I would have expected a first person suffix if it was God's counsel, and a third person suffix if it was their counsel (עֲצָתָם as in Jeremiah 18:23).

The form used is the same as it is in Job 42:3 where God is talking about a person performing the action of hiding advice and the advice here is not the person's doing the action, but God's. 

I agree with you that in Isaiah 29:15 it is the action of the people that is in focus, the issue is to do with the action that they are doing: whether they are hiding their own counsel, or God's (as in Job 42:3).




InfatigableLearner said:


> Finally I would direct your attention to a few verses later at Isaiah 30:1 where the woe continues against these people and where the text explicitly states “Woe to the stubborn children...making a plan (עֵצָה), but not mine.” It is in fact the people’s planning to rely on Egypt for assistance rather than on YHWH which is the central focus of the woes here. It is this which the people sought to hide from YHWH without success.



Thanks for pointing that out, but it would also fit in with the translation I put forward. In 29:15 they are said to be hiding/obscuring God's counsel/advice/plan, and in 30:1 the sentiments could be thought to be that the stubborn children are going with a plan of their own rather than the one they have hidden/obscured. 

I should mention that I'm not strictly going with that interpretation, since I haven't read around the text. I am just pointing out that the part you quoted could easily be said to fit in with the interpretation I gave and so I am not clear on the weight you think it holds against it.

I'd like to thank you and the others that have taken the time to help me with this, and I apologise if I have misunderstood any of the points through my lack of knowledge of Hebrew.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

I will give this one more go to see if I can explain how I see things...

1. The verb הַמַּעֲמִיקִים is a _hiphil_ of √עמק. The _hiphil_ of √עמק is used “as an auxiliary verb to indicate the depth of an action” (Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner’s _The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament_ (HALOT), s.v. עמק). This is the usage seen in Isaiah 29:15 and was the same usage I showed in my examples from Jeremiah 49:8 and 30 which were both drawn from HALOT. In line with this, “the depth of...action” specified by the _hiphil_ participle of √עמק in Isaiah 29:15 _must_ refer to the depth of “hiding” of the infinitive construct לַסְתִּר. In this way, the thought is already “to hide deep(ly).” Note that there is nothing “slightly ambiguous” here needing clarification. Thus your introduction of “(in thought)” is simply dubious since it disrupts the clear connection to the word “hide” by unnecessarily localizing the “depth of action” somewhere which is not even implied in the text.

2. The verb לַסְתִּר is a _hiphil_ infinitive construct of √סתר. The use of the infinitive construct לַסְתִּר in Isaiah 29:15 falls under a nominal use of the infinitive construct known as an adverbial accusative; a fact which is clear by the infinitive construct’s use with the _hiphil_ of √עמק. This use of the infinitive construct is noted in many grammars:
A further class [of infinitive construct] comprises the very numerous cases, *in which the infinitive with **לְ**‎ is used as the object of a governing verb*, hence, again, *for the direction which an action takes*...We must further mention here a number of verbs in Hiphʿîl (partly denominatives), which express an action in some definite direction (cf. §53f), as הִגְּדִּיל‎ to do greatly, הִשְׁפִּיל‎ to make (it) low, הִגְבִּיהַּ‎ to make (it) high, *הֶֽעֱמִיק**‎ to make (it) deep*...
-W. Gesenius, _Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar_, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E. Cowley, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), §114m, n.​
When the infinitive construct occurs with verbs which have a distinctly adverbial force (denoting place, time, manner, etc.), it is best construed as an adverbial accusative; *the construction is usually to be translated by rendering the infinitive as a finite verb and the finite verb or participle by an adverb*.
-Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, _An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax_ (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, 2004), 602 (§36.2.1d).

Just as nouns may be adverbial accusatives…so the infinitive construct may take on adverbial force when following a finite verb (often a Hiphil or Piel denominative). *In such cases, the infinitive construct takes on the function of the main verb in the English translation*: וַתָּרַע לַעֲשׂוֹת “you have done evil” (1 Kgs 14:9).
-Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, _A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 68.​
Gesenius’ grammar shows once again that the _hiphil_ of √עמק is a type of verb used to “express an action in some definite direction” and, although not using the same terminology, links this to an adverbial accusative use of the infinitive construct. In Gesenius’ parlance, the infinitive construct לַסְתִּר stands as an object of the _hiphil_ of √עמק whereby the _hiphil_ of √עמק denotes the direction (“deep”) in which the action of the infinitive construct לַסְתִּר (“hide”) takes place. Furthermore, two of the grammars specifically lay out how this syntactical relationship in Hebrew is accurately communicated in English. All this leads us once again back to “to hide deep(ly).”

Looking at the example from 1 Kings given in the last grammar cited, in an atomistic, “word-for-word” translation such as you favor, 1 Kings 14:9 would be translated “you did evil to do more than all who were before you” (וַתָּרַע לַעֲשׂוֹת מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ). Such a translation is only appropriate for an interlinear where a “word-for-word” translation is necessary, but which ultimately misrepresents the thought of the text to the English speaker. This is precisely because words in a sentence are not independent units unto themselves, but rather work with other words to produce larger meanings. And so it is in 1 Kings 14:9. Understanding how the specific syntactical relationship which the infinitive construct stands with the _hiphil_ וַתָּרַע, a more accurate translation is “you have done more evil than any who were before you.” This is not slavishly “literal,” but it does more accurately convey the thought of the Hebrew _syntactical relationship_ of these words in the appropriate English so that it is actually superior to the “literal” translation which is only concerned with word meaning regardless of the larger role the word performs in the sentence. In this way, the “literal” translation is one in which the forest is missed by concentrating on the tree.

Thus returning to Isaiah 29:15, the appropriate translation is not “those who go deep to hide” but rather “those who deeply hide” or “those who hide deep.” This is true regardless of what 3 to 10 English translations have to say. I too could cite numerous English translations of the Bible which translate as I do, but this is also immaterial. In the end it is not about “justifying” one’s position through some English translation, but rather knowing what the Hebrew text actually says by understanding the grammar of that text. As it stands, the translations you cited do not represent the Hebrew accurately and thus fail to overturn what is clear from the Hebrew grammar here. Further, personally imagining how the author could have worded himself better to yield the same meaning is also irrelevant. The text is what it is, and barring some sign of clear error must be grappled with on its terms. Thus to sum up this first part, your translation of “those who go deep (in thought) to hide” fails to accurately represent the Hebrew text because 1. the infinitive construct לַסְתִּר stands as an adverbial accusative to the _hiphil_ of √עמק whereby the _hiphil_ of √עמק denotes the direction (“deep”) in which the action of the infinitive construct לַסְתִּר (“hide”) takes place, 2. this syntactical relationship in Isaiah 29:15 is accurately translated in English by translating the infinitive construct as the main verb with the hiphil participle translated adverbially to yield “those who deeply hide,” 3. there is nothing in the text either explicit or implicit to indicate that the “going deep” is of a mental nature so that the introduction of “(in thought)” is simply a dubious intrusion to a text which is secure and whose syntax is clear. Your objections fail because 1. the fact that מֵיהוה (“from YHWH”) stands between the participle and the infinitive does not disrupt the syntactical relationship outlined above, 2. English translations are irrelevant to the meaning of the source text if they are not accurately translating that source text, 3. Hypothetical improvements to the text which you personally find better able to communicate the same idea are irrelevant since it is only the text as it stands which is of concern.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

3. With regards to whose עֵצָה (“plan/counsel”) is spoken of in Isaiah 29:15, I have already noted that since the phrase “those who deeply hide” concerns others who are obviously not God, that the עֵצָה which is the object of this phrase likewise refers to the same people’s עֵצָה is supported by the fact that, although having introduced YHWH with מֵיהוה (“from YHWH”; a 3rd person reference), the text nevertheless does not use עֲצָתוֹ (“his plan/counsel”). To this I noted that this view is further supported by both the immediate context where the very next clause is focused specifically on the “deeds” of these people done in “dark places” (= “deeply hiding (their) plan”) as well as the larger context where the focus is on God’s rebuke of the rulers for their scheme to rely on Egypt for assistance rather than on YHWH; a point made explicit in the woe against these same people for “making a plan (עֵצָה), but not mine” (Isaiah 30:1). All of this comes together in an organic way that rises up from the grammar of the Hebrew text as well as the immediate and larger context and is thus clearly the preferred understanding of the text.

Your objections to all this fails because 1. the עֵצָה in Job 42:3, although sharing the same non-suffixed form, appears in an entirely different context and it is the context which is primary to establish whose עֵצָה is in view given the lack of pronominal suffix, not the form itself, 2. there is no need to have a 3rd person masculine plural suffix for עֵצָה, i.e. עֲצָתָם, since עֵצָה is already associated with “those who deeply hide” by virtue of it’s being the object to that phrase, whereas having עֵצָה be God’s עֵצָה _would_ require a 3rd person masculine singular suffix (to match the 3rd person reference מֵיהוה (“from YHWH”)) since that would represent an object that is not associated with those who are specified by the phrase, 3. the fact that you _could_ harmonize the context ad hocly to your understanding of the text, clear from your admission that “I haven’t read around the text,” evidences a backward methodology since one must first read a text globally to develop the overall context and only then hone in on finer details.

Intrinsically too your understanding of the text fails since given that the first phrase means “those who deeply hide,” as already established on grammatical grounds, the only opinion here is either to read 1. “those who deeply hide from YHWH (his) plan/counsel” or 2. “those who deeply hide from YHWH (their) plan/counsel.” The absurdity of the first of these options has already been pointed out by others and by itself shows that the introduction of “(the Lord’s)” is another dubious intrusion to the text as would the word “(his).”

In a word then, your whole approach to Isaiah 29:15 is methodologically flawed, being that you 1. start with a certain view that you clearly have some vested interest in keeping, 2. seek to “justify” and “back up” that view by searching for grammatical insights you like in an effort to impose a meaning onto the text (eisegesis) rather than derive meaning from the text itself (exegesis), and 3. ad hocly seek to conform the context around your predetermined view. You stated in one of your posts that:

“I was looking for the text to back up the idea that we are spiritual beings and what we are having is a spiritual experience, and that only the spiritual exists. One way of sealing a text would be to have a text that doesn’t get its real meaning until later.”

Thus your interest is not actually in what the text has to say but what new meaning you can give to it. Overall what you are attempting to do is paint a bull’s eye around an arrow you have already shot into a tree and asking archers whether you have effectively hit the target when in fact you should be learning archery and listening to what the archer’s are telling you. I think I have pretty much said all I could say, enjoy your quest for new meaning.

InfatigableLearner


----------



## absoluteBeginner

InfatigableLearner said:


> I will give this one more go to see if I can explain how I see things...
> 
> 1. The verb הַמַּעֲמִיקִים is a _hiphil_ of √עמק. The _hiphil_ of √עמק is used “as an auxiliary verb to indicate the depth of an action” (Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner’s _The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament_ (HALOT), s.v. עמק). This is the usage seen in Isaiah 29:15 and was the same usage I showed in my examples from Jeremiah 49:8 and 30 which were both drawn from HALOT. In line with this, “the depth of...action” specified by the _hiphil_ participle of √עמק in Isaiah 29:15 _must_ refer to the depth of “hiding” of the infinitive construct לַסְתִּר. In this way, the thought is already “to hide deep(ly).” Note that there is nothing “slightly ambiguous” here needing clarification. Thus your introduction of “(in thought)” is simply dubious since it disrupts the clear connection to the word “hide” by unnecessarily localizing the “depth of action” somewhere which is not even implied in the text.



I  wasn't suggesting that it was ambiguous that depth referred to the depth of action - it does so in every translation, including the one I provided. What was ambiguous was whether the depth was literal or figurative. I am translating it as being used figuratively as in to make deep (in thought) rather than translating it literally as to make deep (in the ground). As for whether it could be justified to use a figurative interpretation, according to the Brown-Driver-Higgs Old Testament Hebrew-English Lexicon עָמַק means :
1) to be deep, be profound, make deep
    1a) (Qal) to be deep
    1b) (Hiphil) to make deep, make profound

While Strong’s Hebrew & Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament defines it as follows:

A primitive root; to _be_ (causatively _make_) deep (literally or figuratively):—(be, have, make, seek) deep (-ly), depth, be profound.  

Both show that it can be used figuratively with thought (as is the case with profound), and in Psalms 92:5 it is clearly used figuratively with relation to thoughts. 

http://concordances.org/hebrew/6009.htm gives some other examples of where it is used figuratively as in going deep into corruption or apostasy.

Also two verses prior to this, there is mention of a group that have removed their hearts from God. The removal is also an example of a word being used in the text which could be thought to have literal spatial implications but which is clearly being used figuratively.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

InfatigableLearner said:


> 2. The verb לַסְתִּר is a _hiphil_ infinitive construct of √סתר. The use of the infinitive construct לַסְתִּר in Isaiah 29:15 falls under a nominal use of the infinitive construct known as an adverbial accusative; a fact which is clear by the infinitive construct’s use with the _hiphil_ of √עמק. This use of the infinitive construct is noted in many grammars:
> A further class [of infinitive construct] comprises the very numerous cases, *in which the infinitive with **לְ**‎ is used as the object of a governing verb*, hence, again, *for the direction which an action takes*...We must further mention here a number of verbs in Hiphʿîl (partly denominatives), which express an action in some definite direction (cf. §53f), as הִגְּדִּיל‎ to do greatly, הִשְׁפִּיל‎ to make (it) low, הִגְבִּיהַּ‎ to make (it) high, *הֶֽעֱמִיק**‎ to make (it) deep*...
> -W. Gesenius, _Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar_, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E. Cowley, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), §114m, n.​



I would have thought that examples where the infinitive is the object of a governing verb would be "to be able to walk", "to will to run", "to desire to eat" etc. In the online version 114m the first part you put in bold is written as:

... in which the infinitive with לְ‎ is used as the object[8]

and in the footnote you can see examples such as _they desired not obeying_, _they could not make up their mind as to hearkening_, which seems to confirm what I thought. 

In the case we are looking at, I think the infinitive "to hide" is the verb governing the object עֵצָ֑ה (counsel).​
Earlier (114f - 114g) it states:
But by far the most frequent is the connexion of the infinitive construct with לְ‎.[1] Starting from the fundamental meaning of לְ‎, i.e. *direction towards something, infinitives with לְ‎ serve to express the most varied ideas of purpose or aim, and very commonly also (with a weakening or a complete disregard of the original meaning of the לְ‎) to introduce the object of an action*, or finally even (like the infinitive absolute used adverbially, §113_h_, and the Latin gerund in _-ndo_) to state motives or attendant circumstances. See the instances in the Remarks.114_g_​Rem. 1. *The original meaning of the לְ‎ is most plainly seen in those infinitives with לְ‎ which expressly state a purpose (hence as the equivalent of a final clause)*, e.g. Gn 115 _and the Lord came down_, לִרְאֹת אֶת־הָעִיר‎ _to see the city_;

In which the theme of direction is still there, but also that a purpose of direction is given, so that it acts as the equivalent of a final clause, as would be the case if one were to translate it make deep to hide. The purpose of making deep is to hide, and that is why it is the equivalent of a final clause as it is in the translation I gave. 

Also of interest is the example given of Genesis 11:5:

וַיֵּרֶד יְהוָה לִרְאֹת

Here, like in, Isaiah 29:15 we notice a word standing between the modifier and the infinitive. It seems to me that the position of this word is important. If it had been 

וַיֵּרֶד לִרְאֹת יְהוָה

I would have thought it would be interpreted as "came to see the LORD" which wouldn't make sense given the context. Which seems to me to indicate that the position of יְהוָה _can_ be considered to be significant.
​


----------



## absoluteBeginner

InfatigableLearner said:


> 3. With regards to whose עֵצָה (“plan/counsel”) is spoken of in Isaiah 29:15, I have already noted that since the phrase “those who deeply hide” concerns others who are obviously not God, that the עֵצָה which is the object of this phrase likewise refers to the same people’s עֵצָה is supported by the fact that, although having introduced YHWH with מֵיהוה (“from YHWH”; a 3rd person reference), the text nevertheless does not use עֲצָתוֹ (“his plan/counsel”).



Yes it doesn't say his counsel it doesn't say theirs either. You notice of course that verse 13 has stated that it is God that is saying these words. 

As I mentioned in my previous post in Job 42:3 the one that is doing the hiding of the counsel is obviously not God, and the עֵצָ֑ה form is used and yet here it means God's counsel. 



InfatigableLearner said:


> To this I noted that this view is further supported by both the immediate context where the very next clause is focused specifically on the “deeds” of these people done in “dark places” (= “deeply hiding (their) plan”) as well as the larger context where the focus is on God’s rebuke of the rulers for their scheme to rely on Egypt for assistance rather than on YHWH; a point made explicit in the woe against these same people for “making a plan (עֵצָה), but not mine” (Isaiah 30:1). All of this comes together in an organic way that rises up from the grammar of the Hebrew text as well as the immediate and larger context and is thus clearly the preferred understanding of the text.



Though as I pointed out, who is doing the action isn't a point of debate, any more than it is in Job 42:3. The issue is whose counsel it is, and in Job 42:3 it is God's, _not_ the person who is doing the action. I also pointed out that Isaiah 30:1 would also make sense given the translation I gave, which is why I asked you to explain why you are quoting it as though it is only compatible with the interpretation you favour. 



InfatigableLearner said:


> Your objections to all this fails because 1. the עֵצָה in Job 42:3, although sharing the same non-suffixed form, appears in an entirely different context and it is the context which is primary to establish whose עֵצָה is in view given the lack of pronominal suffix, not the form itself,



The point I was trying to make is that it is an example that clearly shows that the form can be used to mean God's advice. I agree that the context leaves this in no doubt which is why I quoted it as an example. Though I think it is rather strong to say it is an _entirely_ different context, they do share the similarity that in both God is talking about another that is performing the action of hiding counsel, and the form for counsel is the same in both. I'm not suggesting that I have a knock down argument for why you should treat them both similarly and consider the counsel in Isaiah to be God's counsel like in Job. I'm still not clear on why you are suggesting that I _cannot_ treat them both similarly given the precedent. 



InfatigableLearner said:


> 2. there is no need to have a 3rd person masculine plural suffix for עֵצָה, i.e. עֲצָתָם, since עֵצָה is already associated with “those who deeply hide” by virtue of it’s being the object to that phrase, whereas having עֵצָה be God’s עֵצָה _would_ require a 3rd person masculine singular suffix (to match the 3rd person reference מֵיהוה (“from YHWH”)) since that would represent an object that is not associated with those who are specified by the phrase,



Could you point out where the grammar rule exists? Because the counsel in Job 42:3 is associated with the phrase מַעְלִ֥ים  "hide" (perfect 3rd person masculine singular) by virtue of it being an object of that phrase and is in the absolute form. Your rule would suggest that counsel would be (his) counsel, and yet the context clearly shows this to be false.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

Not wishing to waste yet even more time on this, I respond to only one of your posts...



absoluteBeginner said:


> I would have thought that examples where the infinitive is the object of a governing verb would be "to be able to walk", "to will to run", "to desire to eat" etc. In the online version 114m the first part you put in bold is written as:
> 
> ... in which the infinitive with לְ‎ is used as the object[8]
> 
> and in the footnote you can see examples such as _they desired not obeying_, _they could not make up their mind as to hearkening_, which seems to confirm what I thought. ​



Just as in Isaiah 29:15 you are reading the grammar selectively in a “pick what I like and ignore what I don’t” manner. This section of the grammar (§114) is explaining the different uses of the infinitive construct. Throughout this section subtopics are numbered both in an outline format in the main text and individually with a letter in the margin. For the use of the infinitive construct as an adverbial accusative, as in Isaiah 29:15, this equates to sections 114.2.3 in the outline format and 114m, n in the lettered format. The footnote deals with examples of verbs governing the infinitive to give direction in a more general way which is the subject of 114m within section 114.2.3. It is still in 114.2.3, now in the subtopic 114n, that Gesenius discusses verbs governing the infinitive to give direction “in some definite direction.” This is why he begins this subtopic with “We must *further* mention here a number of verbs in Hiphʿîl (partly denominatives), *which express an action in some definite direction*” because 114n is a continuation of 114m, both of which are under section 114.2.3 dealing with the use of the infinitive construct as an adverbial accusative and it is here that Gesenius specifically cites the _hiphil_ of √עמק, the verb found in Isaiah 29:15, as an example of verbs which govern the infinitive construct to give the adverbial accusative syntactical relationship. Confirmation that this is indeed the correct reading of Gesenius’ Grammar comes from the fact that in Gesenius’ own Lexicon he too gives “those who hide deeply” for Isaiah 29:15 showing the adverbial accusative understanding for this verse (Gesenius, _Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon_, s.v. עמק). Thus your attempt to limit Gesenius’ comments to 114m only and say “well I would think it only applies to these kind of verbs” and then cite the footnote which only gives examples for the earlier part of his discussion thinking that you are then “justified” is disingenuous and actually a red herring as the problem is not with the grammar but with your comprehension of the grammar. If you can’t even read English correctly, why argue about Hebrew? It is sad that I have to make such a comment to someone who is English.



absoluteBeginner said:


> Earlier (114f - 114g) it states:
> But by far the most frequent is the connexion of the infinitive construct with לְ‎.[1] Starting from the fundamental meaning of לְ‎, i.e. *direction towards something, infinitives with לְ‎  serve to express the most varied ideas of purpose or aim, and very  commonly also (with a weakening or a complete disregard of the original  meaning of the לְ‎) to introduce the object of an action*, or finally even (like the infinitive absolute used adverbially, §113_h_, and the Latin gerund in _-ndo_) to state motives or attendant circumstances. See the instances in the Remarks.114_g_​Rem. 1. *The original meaning of the לְ‎ is most plainly seen in those infinitives with לְ‎ which expressly state a purpose (hence as the equivalent of a final clause)*, e.g. Gn 115 _and the Lord came down_, לִרְאֹת אֶת־הָעִיר‎ _to see the city_;
> 
> In which the theme of direction is still there, but also that a purpose  of direction is given, so that it acts as the equivalent of a final  clause, as would be the case if one were to translate it make deep to  hide. The purpose of making deep is to hide, and that is why it is the  equivalent of a final clause as it is in the translation I gave. ​



Here too you are misreading the grammar. 114f-114g appears in subsection 114.2.1, thus at the very beginning, which is stating things in a very general way to set the tone that will follow.  Subsection 114.2.1 is an overview of the usage of infinitive constructs with prepositions. Parts 114d, e of subsection 114.2.1 deal with the use of infinitive constructs appearing with the prepositions other than _le_. 114f of subsection 114.2.1 gives an overview of the use of infinitive constructs appearing with the prepositions לְ. It is here in that overview that the words you cited state that from the core meaning of direction inherent in the preposition לְ, the usage of the infinitive construct with the preposition לְ has a range of meanings beginning with more concrete ideas of direction on down to weaker ones as the purely directional meaning of the preposition לְ diminishes into more and more abstract ones. Gesenius is not, as you would do, to be understood as conflating all these uses together so that all these meaning may be taken together simultaneously and emphasized as one sees fit. Rather, he is setting an overview for several uses of the infinitive construct with the preposition לְ that he will discuss below in more detail. Gesenius ends his overview by noting in subsection 114g the most concrete use of the infinitive absolute with the preposition לְ in the words you quoted which show purpose, but it is in 114m, n that he discusses the use of the infinitive construct with the preposition לְ along with the _hiphil_ of √עמק that is actually applicable to Isaiah 29:15. In it in this section that Gesenius discusses adverbial accusative usage which is actually applicable to Isaiah 29:15 and which is not to be conflated with the purpose/aim usage he had already discussed. Once again the problem is not with Gesenius’ grammar, but your poor comprehension of it.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

absoluteBeginner said:


> Also of interest is the example given of Genesis 11:5:
> 
> וַיֵּרֶד יְהוָה לִרְאֹת
> 
> Here, like in, Isaiah 29:15 we notice a word standing between the modifier and the infinitive. It seems to me that the position of this word is important. If it had been
> 
> וַיֵּרֶד לִרְאֹת יְהוָה
> 
> I would have thought it would be interpreted as "came to see the LORD" which wouldn't make sense given the context. Which seems to me to indicate that the position of יְהוָה _can_ be considered to be significant.​


The two passages are only partially analogous. Genesis 11:5 falls under the use of “purpose/aim” which is why Gesenius cites it as an example where he does (114g; 114.2.1), whereas Isaiah 29:15 falls under adverbial accusative usage which is clear from Gesenius’ mention of the _hiphil_ of √עמק under a different section (114n; 114.2.3) and is also supported by his own Lexicon as noted above. Nor are the two strictly analogous in terms of an intervening word between the main verb and the infinitive construct. YHWH is placed where it is in Genesis 11:5 because it is the *subject* of the verb whereas “from YHWH” in Isaiah 29:15 is a prepositional phrase and thus incidental. That is, מֵיהוָה in Isaiah 29:15 could have been placed later, i.e. after לַסְתִּר, but this would not change the adverbial accusative syntactical relationship between הַמַּעֲמִיקִים and לַסְתִּר. Incidentally, placing YHWH after לִרְאֹת in Genesis 11:5 would not give “he descended to see YHWH” (ירד is “descend,” not “come”), as this would require the direct object marker אֶת after לִרְאֹת. Thus it is true that in both instances there is an intervening word and yet this makes *no* impact whatsoever on the syntactical relationship between וַיֵּרֶד and לִרְאֹת or between הַמַּעֲמִיקִים and לַסְתִּר. Thus your argument that it is “significant” that “from YHWH” intervenes between הַמַּעֲמִיקִים and לַסְתִּר ultimately falls flat. It does not matter that Isaiah reads הַמַּעֲמִיקִים מֵיהוָה לַסְתִּר or could have read הַמַּעֲמִיקִים לַסְתִּר מֵיהוָה, the same adverbial accusative syntactical relationship remains.

Your confusion is due to your assumption that Hebrew syntax must operate the same as English syntax so that for you, the fact that “from YHWH” intervenes between הַמַּעֲמִיקִים and לַסְתִּר is “significant” because you expect הַמַּעֲמִיקִים לַסְתִּר מֵיהוָה if the meaning is “those who deeply hide from YHWH” and on this basis think it odd that others and I reposition “from YHWH” toward the end in English translation. This is why you throw out the red herring here of “came to see the LORD” for Genesis 11:5. I could of course argue nonsensically that Genesis 11:5 should be translated as “and descended YHWH to see” and that any other translation is in error and that the text should have read “וַיהוה יָרַד לִרְאֹת” to unambiguously give “and YHWH descended to see.” Of course the best translation for Genesis 11:5 as it stands is “and YHWH descended to see” for the sake of proper English usage and the fact that this does not strictly match the Hebrew syntax is immaterial. This is the exact same reason why one must place “from YHWH” somewhere after “those who deeply hide.” Further the simple fact that I can imagine a text which comes closer to English syntax is also immaterial. This is the exact same reason why your discussing “what could have been” is completely irrelevant.

In summary then, your reading of the Gesenius is wrong and your reading of Isaiah 29:15 is wrong because you seek to understand the text in terms of English syntax and supplement that understanding ad hocly with cherry picked citations from a Hebrew grammar that you do not even understand and then willfully ignore the same grammar when it speaks against your understanding. This all goes back to the motivations and methods you are using. You are not here to ask others for help in understanding the text based on grammar, lexical meaning, etc. You are here simply to find someone to justify your position which you have already arrived at even before you read a grammar, read the context, or spoke to anyone. Given this state, I really don’t see how anyone could help you or even what value there is to what anyone else has to say for you given the priority you place on your own preconceived notions of what the Hebrew must say.


----------



## absoluteBeginner

InfatigableLearner said:


> ...because 114n is a continuation of 114m, both of which are under section 114.2.3 dealing with the use of the infinitive construct as an adverbial accusative and it is here that Gesenius specifically cites the _hiphil_ of √עמק, the verb found in Isaiah 29:15, as an example of verbs which govern the infinitive construct to give the adverbial accusative syntactical relationship. Confirmation that this is indeed the correct reading of Gesenius’ Grammar comes from the fact that in Gesenius’ own Lexicon he too gives “those who hide deeply” for Isaiah 29:15 showing the adverbial accusative understanding for this verse (Gesenius, _Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon_, s.v. עמק). Thus your attempt to limit Gesenius’ comments to 114m only and say “well I would think it only applies to these kind of verbs” and then cite the footnote which only gives examples for the earlier part of his discussion thinking that you are then “justified” is disingenuous and actually a red herring as the problem is not with the grammar but with your comprehension of the grammar. If you can’t even read English correctly, why argue about Hebrew? It is sad that I have to make such a comment to someone who is English.



How can you say I was trying to limit Gesenius's comments to 114m only? I didn't even bring the section up, and instead introduced other sections for you to consider, and thus clearly _didn't_ limit it. 

As for my grammar, well... I never made out that I was an expert. 

You are correct that both 114m and 114n are under remark 3 about section 2, and there is an obvious connection between the two, they are both concerned with the direction of the action. 

Section 2 (without the remarks) ends with the comment that:

But by far the most frequent is the connexion of the infinitive construct with לְ.‎[1] Starting from the fundamental meaning of לְ‎, i.e. direction towards something, infinitives with לְ‎ serve to express the most varied ideas of purpose or aim, and very commonly also (with a weakening or a complete disregard of the original meaning of the לְ‎) to introduce the object of an action, or finally even (like the infinitive absolute used adverbially, §113h, and the Latin gerund in -ndo) to state motives or attendant circumstances. See the instances in the Remarks.​
When you look at Remark 1 (which starts at 114g) you see that it talks about cases where the infinitives expressly state a purpose:

Rem. 1. The original meaning of the לְ‎ is most plainly seen in those infinitives with לְ‎ which expressly state a purpose (*hence as the equivalent of a final clause*), e.g. Gn 115 and the Lord came down, לִרְאֹת אֶת־הָעִיר‎ to see the city;...​
The second remark is about when the sense of purpose isn't derived from the infinitive itself but by the combination of the infinitive with the verbs such as _to be:

_2. Just as clearly the idea of aiming at a definite purpose or turning towards an object may be seen in the combination of the verb הָיָה‎ to be, with לְ‎ and an infinitive. In fact הָיָה לַֽעֲשׂוֹת‎ may mean, either (a) _he was in the act of_, _he was about to_ (as it were, he set himself), _he was ready_, _to do_ something, or (b) _he_ or it _was appointed_ or _compelled_, &c., to do the action in question....​
The third remark (which starts off with 114m) is about direction and starts off by saying:

3. A further class comprises the very numerous cases, in which the infinitive with לְ‎ is used as the object[8] of a governing verb, hence, again, for _the direction_ which an action takes.​
The emphasis on _direction_ is in the original text. When one looks at footnote 8 one sees that it says:
↑ This view is based upon the fact, that in numerous expressions of this kind (see the examples above) the לְ‎ may be omitted,​​and when one goes back to look at remark 3 it goes onto say:

The verbs (or conjugations) which occur most frequently in this combination with לְ‎ and an infinitive are: הֵחֵל‎ (with an infinitive without לְ‎, e.g. Dt 225...​
And when we look at Deuteronomy 2:25 we see from this example that even though לְ‎ is omitted from the infinitive  one would nevertheless still translate it as _to put_. In this example of where it says _will begin to put_, you can see that the object of the verb _to begin_ is _to put. _One could think of the partial sentence _John will begin to put ..._ and then consider the question _what will John begin?_ The answer is that he will begin to put (plus whatever the object of _to put_ is). 

Section 114n is also under remark 3, and is also to do with direction. It starts off by saying:

We must further mention here a number of verbs in Hiphʿîl (partly denominatives), which express an action in some definite direction (cf.§53f),​
The section starts under a new paragraph, and this adds emphasis to the point that 114m and 114n are talking about different cases. Though this is most clearly seen by what is actually said in each. 114m is about a class of verbs which take infinitives as their object and give a sense of direction, whereas 114n is about verbs in the hiph'il form which give direction to the infinitives though not because they take the infinitives as objects, but because of they explicitly express direction. Consider the case _John will go far to hide_... . The question _What will John go far?_ isn't appropriate. Instead one would ask _Why will John go far... . _This should be obvious to you in English. _To hide_ is expressing the purpose of going far. It is the type of case remarked upon in Remark 1, but it is specifically mentioned under Remark 3 because Remark 3 is about verbs that when combined with infinitives give a sense of direction, whereas Remark 1 is about how infinitives which expressly state purpose are acting as the equivalent of final clauses. 

In the case we are looking at the sense of direction is given by the verb associated with the infinitive (the hiph'il of _to make deep) _as explained in remark 3 - 114n, the sense of purpose is expressly given by the infinitive (_to hide_) which acts as the equivalent of a final clause as explained in remark 1 - 114g.

Now regarding the translation, I suspect many have decided that the word order can be changed but the meaning kept if in translation it was written as _make deep __to hide __counsel__ from the LORD _and this is because they have taken counsel to be (their) counsel. It wouldn't have been fine to do otherwise (which is why I don't). Others have taken it a step further and considered that the meaning could be maintained in a more acceptable manner if the text was translated as _deeply hide their counsel from the LORD_. In other words they chose not to make such a literal translation but were not intending to mislead. You can see how they get to the translation that you favour, and it doesn't involve numerous translators not having grasped that the Hebrew didn't imply that _to hide_ was being used as the equivalent of a final clause..


----------



## InfatigableLearner

absoluteBeginner said:


> How can you say I was trying to limit Gesenius's comments to 114m only? I didn't even bring the section up, and instead introduced other sections for you to consider, and thus clearly _didn't_ limit it.



Because you were responding to what *I had said* as if I had *only* cited 114m all while ignoring the fact I had also rightfully included 114n which is part of the same section (114.2.3) and which, again, explicitly gives the _hiphil_ of √עמק as an example of a verb which governs the infinitive construct as its object and thus, again, is most directly related to Isaiah 29:15 where this same exact verb is being used in connection with an infinitive construct. Thus you *are* incorrectly limiting not only what I said but also what Gesenius’ grammar says since you are, again, willfully ignoring the most relevant section of Gesenius’ grammar to Isaiah 29:15 (114.2.3; 114m, n) in your reading of the grammar to reply to me. This is why my comment about “your attempt to limit Gesenius’ comments to 114m” is made in relation to your response to me and not your entire post as a whole. Thus my charge against you is wholly substantiated.



absoluteBeginner said:


> You are correct that both 114m and 114n are under remark 3 about section 2, and there is an obvious connection between the two, they are both concerned with the direction of the action.



I already knew I was correct on this and in a moment I will explain in a little more detail why they are together and what Gesenius is talking about with “direction of action” in section 114.2.3.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

absoluteBeginner said:


> Section 2 (without the remarks) ends with the comment that[,etc.]


 
 Yes, yes, I have already discussed this:



InfatigableLearner said:


> 114f of  subsection 114.2.1 gives an   overview of the use of infinitive constructs  appearing with the   prepositions לְ. It is here in that overview that  the words you cited   state that from the core meaning of direction  inherent in the   preposition לְ, the usage of the infinitive construct  with the   preposition לְ has a range of meanings beginning with more  concrete   ideas of direction on down to weaker ones as the purely  directional   meaning of the preposition לְ diminishes into more and more  abstract   ones. Gesenius is not, as you would do, to be understood as  conflating   all these uses together so that all these meaning may be  taken  together  simultaneously and emphasized as one sees fit. Rather, he  is  setting  an overview for several uses of the infinitive construct  with  the  preposition לְ that he will discuss below in more detail.


 
 And with respect to 114g I stated that “Gesenius ends his overview by  noting in subsection 114g the most concrete use of the infinitive  absolute with the preposition לְ in the words you quoted which show  purpose” to which I even discussed why the example from Genesis 11:5 is  not parallel to Isaiah 29:15. So I have not ignored anything you said  about this section. What you have willfully ignored continually is the  second part of the sentence just quoted in which I said “but it is in  114m, n that he discusses the use of the infinitive construct with the  preposition לְ along with the _hiphil_ of √עמק that is actually applicable to Isaiah 29:15. In it (_sic!_;  It is) in this section that Gesenius discusses adverbial accusative  usage which is actually applicable to Isaiah 29:15 and which is not to  be conflated with the purpose/aim usage he had already discussed.”  Again, there is no way around this and it shows in no uncertain terms  why your emphasizing the “purpose/aim” usage in 114g in the earlier part  of Gesenius fails and is not applicable to the particular “verb  governing the infinitive construct as an object” (= adverbial  accusative) usage found in Isaiah 29:15.

Just to make it clear what the “purpose” usage looks like as Gesenius discusses 114.2.1, here are three passages:

וַיֵּרֶד יהוה _לִרְאֹת_ אֶת־הָעִיר (and YHWH descended *to see* the city; Genesis 11:5).
וְלָבָן הָלַךְ _לִגְזֹז_ אֶת־צֹאנוֹ (and Leban went *to shear* his sheep; Genesis 31:19).
_לִרְאוֹת_ אֶת־עֶרְוַת הָאָרֶץ בָּאתֶם (you have come *to see* the exposed part of the land; Genesis 42:9).

In these passages, “to see” and “to shear” is tantamount to saying “*in order to* see/sheer.” This then is what the “purpose” usage of the infinitive construct actually looks like and it is this usage which is what would be found in a final clause.



absoluteBeginner said:


> The second remark is about when the sense of purpose isn't derived from  the infinitive itself but by the combination of the infinitive with the  verbs such as to be[, etc.]



Section 114.2.2 discusses what modern grammars more clearly and concisely show are uses of the infinitive construct to express imminence (114h-k) as well as obligation, permission, and possibility (114l) (Gesenius also discusses a usage to express “resoluteness” as is supported from the citation of 2 Chronicles 26:5). Here are some examples of imminence as well as obligation, permission, and possibility:

imminence:
וַיְהִי הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ _לָבוֹא_ (and when the sun was _about to set_; Genesis 15:12).
וַיְהִי הַשַּׁעַר _לִסְגּוֹר_ בַּחֹשֶׁךְ (and when the gate was _about to shut_ at dark; Joshua 2:5).
[Gesenius needlessly puts Joshua 2:5 under an idea of “obligation” of action]

obligation, permission, and possibility:
_וּלְגַדְּלָם_ שָׁנִים שָׁלוֹשׁ (and _one had to raise_ them for three years; Daniel 1:5).
הָס כִּי לֹא _לְהַזְכִּיר_ בְּשֵׁם יהוה (Hush! For _one must_ not _mention_ the name of YHWH; Amos 6:10).
כִּי אֵין _לָבוֹא_ אֶל־שַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ בִּלְבוּשׁ שָׂק (For _one could_ not _enter_ the king’s gate in a sackcloth garment; Esther 4:2).
כִּי לֹא _לְהוֹרִישׁ_ אֶת־יֹשְׁבֵי הָעֵמֶק (but _one could_ not _dispossess_ the inhabitants of the plain; Judges 1:19).

That Gesenius is decidedly not focusing on usages where there is a “combination of the infinitive with...verbs,” so that one can say that the accompanying verb gives “the sense of purpose,” may be seen in the fact that the majority of the examples he gives for both the usage of imminence as well as obligation, permission, and possibility lack any other verb outside of the infinitive construct itself. This is why he cites passages such as Isaiah 38:20: יהוה לְהוֹשִׁיעֵנִי (YHWH _is about to save me_) as an example the use of the infinitive construct to express imminence and is obvious in the obligation, permission, and possibility usage which is always seen in a verbless clause as far as I know. Further, one will note that the usage here has clearly moved away from that of strictly “purpose.” Thus Genesis 15:12 does not mean “and the sun was *in order to come*,” Daniel 1:5 does not mean “and *in order to raise* them three years,” Amos 6:10 does not mean “for *in order* not *to mention* the name.” The idea here is not one of “purpose,” but rather “the idea of aiming at a definite purpose” as Gesenius states. When Gesenius says “Just as clearly” here you are perhaps thinking that he means “just as clearly the idea of purpose is also found here, etc.,” but what he actually means is “just as clearly as the idea of purpose was in the previous section, ‘the idea of aiming at a definite purpose’ is found, etc.” The distinction is perhaps too subtle that you might have missed it: 114.2.1 is strictly about “purpose,” while 114.2.2 is about “aiming at a purpose.” This all fits with what Gesenius’ setup in the overview where he briefly set out a range of meanings for the infinitive with preposition לְ starting with the concrete idea of purpose that gradually weaken into more abstract ideas. It is here in these “remarks” that he fleshes out the declining gradation which he setup in the overview.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

absoluteBeginner said:


> The third remark (which starts off with 114m) is about direction and starts off by saying[,etc.]



Now we *finally* get to discuss the section that is actually applicable to Isaiah 29:15. I am fully aware that the section (114.2.3; 114m, n) is about “verbs governing the infinite construct as their object” to denote “the direction of action.” And I am also aware that with such usage the presence/omission of the preposition לְ is one of difference of emphasis so that this category of usage itself is not contingent on the appearance of the preposition as explained in footnote 8. I simply didn’t see the need to mention this point since Isaiah 29:15, the passage we are discussing, *does* have a preposition לְ so that bringing this up would only add more extraneous information to the discussion of the grammar of Isaiah 29:15 which you already can’t understand clearly.

Now what Gesenius means by “the infinite construct as the object” falls under what modern grammars more precisely call the “nominal” usage of the infinitive construct. The infinitive construct functions syntactically as a verb or a noun depending on its role in the sentence and it is the later which is the focus in 114m. For the usage discussed by Gesenius in 114m, it is in this nominal role where the infinitive construct acts as a “verbal compliment” because the specific verbs involved need the infinitive construct to complete their idea. It is this usage described by modern grammars as “verbal compliment” which more precisely describes what Gesenius means by his more vaguely worded “direction of action” here. The key thing to note here is that this nominal use of the infinitive absolute to serve as a “verbal compliment” centers around *the specific verb involved*. This is why Gesenius gives such a list of verbs in this section (114m). A few examples of this usage are:

_וַיַּחְדְּלוּ לִבְנֹת_ הָעִיר (_and they ceased building_ the city; Genesis 11:8).
וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר _הִקְרִיב לָבוֹא_ מִצְרָיְמָה (and when _he approached to enter_ Egypt; Genesis 12:11).
עַל־כֵּן לֹא־_נְתַתִּיךָ לִנְגֹּעַ_ אֵלֶיהָ (therefore _I did_ not _allow you to touch_ her; Genesis 20:6).
מִי הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר _יָחֵל לְהִלָּחֵם_ בִּבְנֵי עַמּוֹן (who is the man who _will begin to fight_ with the sons of Ammon?; Judges 10:18).

As with section 114.2.2, the usage here is also not one of “purpose.” Thus Genesis 11:8 is not “they ceased *in order to build*,” Genesis 12:11 is not “he approached *in order to enter*,” Genesis 20:6 is not “I did not allow you *in order to touch her*,” and Judges 10:18 is not “who will begin *in order to fight*.” Rather the usage here is one of “verbal compliment” and is not to be conflated with “purpose” which is a different usage of the infinitive construct and for that reason is why Gesenius discusses it in section 114.2.1 and not here. Your recent comment seems to indicate that you grasp the idea of “verbal compliment,” yet you would continue to cite 114.2.1 (114g) as if that section were applicable to the usage outlined in 114.2.3. In this way, you continue to conflate usages of the infinitive construct which are in fact to be differentiated.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

this post starts at #61



absoluteBeginner said:


> Section 114n is also under remark 3,  and is also to do with direction. It starts off by saying[,  etc.]



Yes, 114n is in section 114.2.3 because it too is about “verbs governing the infinite construct as their object” to denote “the direction of action” so that Gesenius is still discussing a nominal usage of the infinitive construct which likewise will be “governed” by a verb. As such, your reading of Gesenius that “114m is about a class of verbs which take infinitives as their object and give a sense of direction, whereas 114n is about verbs in the hiph'il form which give direction to the infinitives *though not because they take the infinitives as objects, but because of *[_sic!_] _they explicitly express direction_” is not entirely correct because even in 114n the infinitive constructs stand as objects to their governing verbs. Actually the reason for the different subtopic (114n) is because whereas in 114m Gesenius discussed a “direction of action” where the infinitive construct acts as a “verbal compliment” to the “governing” verb, in 114n Gesenius discusses a “direction of action” where the “governed” infinitive construct acts as an “adjectival accusative” as it is more precisely known in more modern grammars. Further, like 114m, where the use of the infinitive construct as a “verbal compliment” revolves around the specific verb involved, so too in 114n the use of the infinitive construct as an “adjectival accusative” revolves around *the specific verb involved*. Thus the difference involves the *kind* of “direction of action” involved which is associated with the specific verb the infinitive construct stands as the object of. This is to be expected because the “definite direction” of the verb, i.e. the adjectival meaning of these specific verbs, is working with the infinitive construct to give an adjectival meaning to the verbal action in the sentence. This is why, as in 114m, Gesenius in 114n also gives a partial listing of these _hiphil_ verbs which are used with infinitive constructs to give this specific “direction of action,” i.e. “adjectival accusative” usage. A few examples of this usage:

כִּי _הִגְדִּיל לַעֲשׂוֹת_ (for _he has performed greatly_; Joel 2:20)
_הִגְדִּיל_ יהוה _לַעֲשׂוֹת_ עִם־אֵלֶּה (YHWH has _performed greatly_ with these ones; Psalm 126:3)
Not “_he has acted greatly *in order to do*_,” nor even “_he has acted greatly *to do*_”

וַתָּרַע לַעֲשׂוֹת מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ (and _you have performed_ more _wickedly_ that any who were before you; 1 Kings 14:9)
Not “_you have acted wickedly *in order to do*_,” nor even “_you have acted wickedly *to do*_”

אִישׁ _מֵיטִיב לְנַגֵּן_ (a man _who plays well_; 1 Samuel 16:17)
Not “a man _who does well *in order to play*_,” nor even “a man _who does well *to play*_”

_הֵיטַבְתָּ לִרְאוֹת_ (_you have seen well_; Jeremiah 1:12)
Not “_you have done well *in order to see*_,” nor even “_you have done well *to see*_”

_וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת_ עִם־אֱלֹהֶיךָ (and _to walk humbly_ with your God; Micah 6:8)
Not “_to act humbly *in order to walk*_,” nor even “_to act humbly *to walk*_” (here the infinitive English translation “_to walk_” represents the infinitive idea transferred from the first infinitive absolute)

So we see that it is this usage of the infinitive construct that Gesenius discusses in 114n which is an “adjectival accusative” one, not to be conflated with the “purpose” usage from 114g, and which is contingent on the “governing” verb involved. Now it happens that in his list of verbs which govern the infinitive construct to give this specific “direction of action” (= “adjectival accusative”) that Gesenius expressly lists הֶעֱמִיק, the _hiphil_ of √עמק, as one of these verbs which governs the infinitive construct in just this manner. And what do we see when we look at the occurrences of the _hiphil_ of this verb when it is used with the infinitive construct? The very same “adjectival accusative” use already seen above:

נֻסוּ נֻּדוּ מְאֹד _הֶעְמִיקוּ לָשֶׁבֶת_ (Flee! Wander far! _Dwell deeply!_; Jeremiah 49:8, cf. Jeremiah 49:8)
Not “_go deep *in order to dwell*!_,” nor even “_go deep *to dwell*!_”

הוֹי _הַמַּעֲמִיקִים_ מֵיהוה _לַסְתִּר_ עֵצָה (Woe to _those who hide deeply_ a plan from YHWH; Isaiah 29:15)
Not “_those who go deep_ *in order to hide*,” nor even “_those who go deep_ *to hide*”

This is the “direction of action” which is given by the _hiphil_ verb הַמַּעֲמִיקִים in Isaiah 29:15 to the infinitive construct לַסְתִּר so that the infinitive construct is used as an “adjectival accusative” which in turn has nothing to do with the “purpose” usage given by Gesenius two sections earlier in 114g. You are simply conflating categories of usage to “justify” and “back up” your preconceived notions about what the Hebrew must say here.

Now what about translations? well by your taking 114g as primary, you give (ignoring your parentheses) “those who go deep from the Lord to hide counsel.” Such a translation could equally be given as “those who go deep from the Lord *in order to* hide counsel” and still give the exact same sense which shows that your translation assumes an understanding where the infinitive construct denotes “purpose” so that the clause as a whole is to be regarded as a final clause as if it were a verse like Genesis 11:5. However, Gesenius shows in 114n that the _hiphil_ verb הַמַּעֲמִיקִים which appears in this verse is of that type of verb which governs the infinitive construct in a specific way to give “direction of action,” i.e. an “adverbial accusative” use. Knowing this is what Gesenius actually says and that such category is not part of the “purpose” category he discusses two sections earlier in 114g, I again cite grammars which relate how this syntactical relationship is correctly expressed in English:

When the *infinitive construct occurs with verbs which have a distinctly adverbial force* (denoting place, time, manner, etc.), it is best construed as *an adverbial accusative*; *the construction is usually to be translated by rendering the infinitive as a finite verb and the finite verb or participle by an adverb*.
-Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, 2004), 602 (§36.2.1d).

Just as nouns may be *adverbial accusatives*…so *the infinitive construct may take on adverbial force when following a finite verb* (often a *Hiphil* or Piel denominative). *In such cases, the infinitive construct takes on the function of the main verb in the English translation*: וַתָּרַע לַעֲשׂוֹת “you have done evil” (1 Kgs 14:9).
-Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 68.

This gives “those who hide deeply counsel from YHWH” or perhaps “those who hide deeply from YHWH counsel” as the most accurate translations of the Hebrew text. And when we turn to Gesenius’ own lexicon, lo and behold!, Gesenius himself gives “those who hide deeply” for Isaiah 29:15 showing the adverbial accusative understanding for this verse as well as confirming that I have understood the syntax correctly here (Gesenius, _Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon_, s.v. עמק). This being the case, why would you try to use Gesenius’ grammar one-sidedly to argue against the very understanding of the text which Gesenius himself gives elsewhere? Are you not oblivious to the irony in that whole enterprise? Is it really that hard for you to see that you are reading his grammar wrong?




absoluteBeginner said:


> Now regarding the translation[,  etc.]



Well I have already explained why English word order relative to Hebrew word order must be changed for the sake of accurate English while at the same time accurately conveying the thought of the Hebrew as well; a point you failed to address. I will not spend time theorizing about why others translate as they do. Perhaps what you should do is send a letter or E-mail to those who produced the NIV or other versions which read like you want to ask the grammatical arguments for why they translated as they did instead of trying to argue with me over the meaning of the infinitive construct here or Gesenius’ grammar. I have said rather clearly how the text is best understood as well as how the text is best translated into English and supported this now from several different sources. Further discussion would simply be beating a dead horse, and I for my part I have already beaten that horse too much in my posts for this topic.

InfatigableLearner


----------



## absoluteBeginner

Since your reply was spread over several posts, I quote from different ones here and give the post number before each. 

*#62*


InfatigableLearner said:


> Just to make it clear what the “purpose” usage looks like as Gesenius discusses 114.2.1, here are three passages:
> 
> וַיֵּרֶד יהוה לִרְאֹת אֶת־הָעִיר (and YHWH descended to see the city; Genesis 11:5).
> וְלָבָן הָלַךְ לִגְזֹז אֶת־צֹאנוֹ (and Leban went to shear his sheep; Genesis 31:19).
> לִרְאוֹת אֶת־עֶרְוַת הָאָרֶץ בָּאתֶם (you have come to see the exposed part of the land; Genesis 42:9).
> 
> In these passages, “to see” and “to shear” is tantamount to saying “in order to see/sheer.” This then is what the “purpose” usage of the infinitive construct actually looks like and it is this usage which is what would be found in a final clause.



I agree, and you'll notice that in the following translations:
New International Version (©1984)
Woe to those who go to great depths *to hide* their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"​New Living Translation (©2007)
What sorrow awaits those who try *to hide* their plans from the LORD, who do their evil deeds in the dark! "The LORD can't see us," they say. "He doesn't know what's going on!"
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Woe unto them that seek deep *to hide* their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
How horrible it will be for those who try *to hide* their plans from the LORD. Their deeds are done in the dark, and they say, "No one can see us" and "No one can recognize us."
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Woe unto them that go the depths *to hide* their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who sees us? and who knows us?
American King James Version
Woe to them that seek deep *to hide* their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who sees us? and who knows us?
Douay-Rheims Bible
Woe to you that are deep of heart, *to hide* your counsel from the Lord: and their works are in the dark, and they say: Who seeth us, and who knoweth us?
English Revised Version
Woe unto them that seek deep *to hide* their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
Webster's Bible Translation
Woe to them that seek deep *to hide* their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
Young's Literal Translation
Woe to those going deep from Jehovah *to hide* counsel, And whose works have been in darkness. And they say, 'Who is seeing us? And who is knowing us?'​
​They all translate _to hide_ as a final clause. In other words each translation maintains its sense if one were to substitute _to hide_ with _in order to hide_. Also notice the similarity between Young's Literal Translation and the one I am giving, even to the point of not making the assumption that it was (their) counsel. Am I right in thinking that you are claiming that they were all mistaken in thinking that _to hide_ could be translated as a final clause?


*#62*


InfatigableLearner said:


> That Gesenius is decidedly not focusing on usages where there is a “combination of the infinitive with...verbs,” so that one can say that the accompanying verb gives “the sense of purpose,” may be seen in the fact that the majority of the examples he gives for both the usage of imminence as well as obligation, permission, and possibility lack any other verb outside of the infinitive construct itself.



And yet, immediately after the comments about purpose in the first remark on section two (114.2.1/114g)), the first sentence of the second remark about section two (114.2.2/114h) seemingly unambiguously states:
2. Just as clearly the idea of aiming at a definite purpose or turning towards an object may be seen in the combination of the verb הָיָה‎ to be, with לְ‎ and an infinitive.​
*#64*


InfatigableLearner said:


> this post starts at #61
> ....Gesenius in 114n also gives a partial listing of these hiphil verbs which are used with infinitive constructs to give this specific “direction of action,” i.e. “adjectival accusative” usage. A few examples of this usage:
> 
> כִּי הִגְדִּיל לַעֲשׂוֹת (for he has performed greatly; Joel 2:20)
> הִגְדִּיל יהוה לַעֲשׂוֹת עִם־אֵלֶּה (YHWH has performed greatly with these ones; Psalm 126:3)
> Not “_he has acted greatly *in order to do*_,” nor even “_he has acted greatly *to do*_”
> 
> וַתָּרַע לַעֲשׂוֹת מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ (and you have performed more wickedly that any who were before you; 1 Kings 14:9)
> Not “_you have acted wickedly *in order to do*_,” nor even “_you have acted wickedly *to do*_”
> 
> אִישׁ מֵיטִיב לְנַגֵּן (a man who plays well; 1 Samuel 16:17)
> Not “_a man who does well *in order to play*_,” nor even “_a man who does well *to play*_”
> 
> הֵיטַבְתָּ לִרְאוֹת (you have seen well; Jeremiah 1:12)
> Not “_you have done well *in order to see*_,” nor even “_you have done well *to see*_”
> 
> וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִם־אֱלֹהֶיךָ (and to walk humbly with your God; Micah 6:8)
> Not “_to act humbly i*n order to walk*_,” nor even “_to act humbly *to walk*_” (here the infinitive English translation “_to walk_” represents the infinitive idea transferred from the first infinitive absolute)
> 
> So we see that it is this usage of the infinitive construct that Gesenius discusses in 114n which is an “adjectival accusative” one, not to be conflated with the “purpose” usage from 114g, and which is contingent on the “governing” verb involved.



I was saying that 114n discusses the direction of action and not the purpose *#60*:



> In the case we are looking at the sense of direction is given by the verb associated with the infinitive (the hiph'il of to make deep) as explained in remark 3 - 114n, the sense of purpose is expressly given by the infinitive (to hide) which acts as the equivalent of a final clause as explained in remark 1 - 114g.



You might also notice that for the examples you supplied, pretty much all translate a similar way to yourself, i.e. not as a final clause.  Take 1 Samuel 16:17 for example:
Young's Literal Translation
And Saul saith unto his servants, 'Provide, I pray you, for me a man playing well -- then ye have brought him in unto me.'​King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me.​New International Version (©1984)
So Saul said to his attendants, "Find someone who plays well and bring him to me."​
It is implausible that the reason for this is that when the hiph'il verbs associated with the infinitive convey a sense of direction that the infinitive with לְ‎ cannot express purpose, because it would mean that they knew it to get the translation right in 1 Samuel 16:17 and yet all messed up and mistranslated  _to hide _in Isaiah 29:15 as a final clause.

The reason I suspect is that in these cases the translators didn't translate the infinitive + לְ as a final clause is because they didn't consider it to be expressly stating a purpose (114g).

Now I'm _*not*_ saying the following is the reason but in 114n it says:
We must further mention here a number of verbs in Hiphʿîl (partly denominatives), which express an action in some definite direction (cf.§53f), as הִגְּדִּיל‎ to do greatly, ... הֶֽעֱמִיק‎ to make (it) deep,...​
And when we go to 53f we see that it says:
(c) Stems which express action in some particular direction: ...; יטב‎ to act well, to do good;...רעע‎, רשׁע‎ to act wickedly, ...​53g​Further, there are in Hiphʿîl a considerable number of denominatives which express the bringing out, the producing of a thing, and so are properly regarded as causatives,[2] ​
Implying that _to act well_, _to act wickedly_ etc., which were in your examples, aren't properly regarded as causatives. In foot note 2 about those properly regarded as causatives it says:
↑ The same ideas are also paraphrased by the verb עָשָׂה‎ (to make)...​
So the answer could be that where the Hiph'il is one of the cases under 53f such as _to act well_, they aren't properly regarded as causatives, but when the ideas can be paraphrased by _to make, _as in _to make deep _they are properly regarded as causatives and the infinitive with לְ‎ is considered to express purpose as in 114g, do you know of any examples to the contrary?


----------



## InfatigableLearner

Firstly, on section 114.2.2 you had said,



absoluteBeginner said:


> The second remark [= 114.2.2 (114h-l)] is about *when the sense of purpose isn't derived from the infinitive itself but by the combination of the infinitive with the verbs such as to be:* –Bold emphasis added


 
To which I said,



InfatigableLearner said:


> That Gesenius [in section 114.2.2] is decidedly _*not focusing on*_ usages where there is a “combination of the infinitive with...verbs,” so that one can say that the accompanying verb gives “the sense of purpose,” may be seen in the fact that the majority of the examples he gives for both the usage of imminence as well as obligation, permission, and possibility lack any other verb outside of the infinitive construct itself.–Bold emphasis added


 
And then I backed up the fact that Gesenius _*is not focused on*_ showing “when the sense of purpose isn’t derived from the infinitive itself but *by the combination of the infinitive with the verbs*” by clearly showing from Gesenius’ text in this section that:



InfatigableLearner said:


> This is why he cites passages such as Isaiah 38:20: יהוה לְהוֹשִׁיעֵנִי (YHWH _is about to save me_) as an example [of] the use of the infinitive construct to express imminence and is obvious in the obligation, permission, and possibility usage which is always seen in a verbless clause as far as I know.–Bold emphasis added


 
As I said, it is “the use of the infinitive construct to express imminence and...obligation, permission, and possibility” that *is the focus* of Gesenius in Section 114.2.2 and not when a “sense of purpose” comes from a “combination of the infinitive with...verbs.” This is why, as I said, Gesenius gives examples of usage of the infinitive construct to express imminence “with the omission of הָיָה‎...Mostly with the omission of הָיָה‎” and where his examples about obligation, permission, and possibility have no other verb outside the infinitive construct. Do you not see *his focus* is on *a particular use* of the infinitive construct which is not contingent on an accompanying verb to give the infinitive construct these meanings. It is true that in the first sentence he discusses some examples which accompany the verb הָיָה‎ with this usage, *but this is incidental to the focus* here. If you had spent time reading past the first sentence or even what I had said about section 114.2.2 you would know this. Further there is no “sense of purpose” in section 114.2.2 which I clearly demonstrated from six examples of the usage discussed by Gesenius here. Thus your quoting of Gesenius’ first sentence as if that sentence characterizes the entire section fails to overturn what I said from a much larger reading of the entire section. Further, you have introduced “sense of purpose” into Gesenius’ discussion where he himself says he is talking about “aiming at a definite purpose” so that as I already said:



InfatigableLearner said:


> The idea here is not one of “purpose,” but rather “the idea of aiming at a definite purpose” as Gesenius states. When Gesenius says “Just as clearly” here you are perhaps thinking that he means “just as clearly the idea of purpose is also found here, etc.,” but what he actually means is “just as clearly as the idea of purpose was in the previous section, ‘the idea of aiming at a definite purpose’ is found, etc.” The distinction is perhaps too subtle that you might have missed it: 114.2.1 is strictly about “purpose,” while 114.2.2 is about “aiming at a purpose.” This all fits with what Gesenius’ setup in the overview where he briefly set out a range of meanings for the infinitive with preposition לְ starting with the concrete idea of purpose that gradually weaken into more abstract ideas. It is here in these “remarks” that he fleshes out the declining gradation which he setup in the overview.


 
You do this because you appear to believe that the use of the infinitive construct with the preposition לְ always denotes some inherent “purpose,” best seen in 114g, but which is just more strongly or weakly emphasized in the various usages Gesenius discusses so that you would conflate other usages with that seen in 114g. In fact, in the intro to this entire section [114.2] Gesenius specifically say that “the fundamental meaning of לְ‎” is “_*direction*_ towards something” so that it is the fundamental meaning of *direction* which Gesenius says is most concretely expressed by “purpose” in the first remark of 114.2.1 (114g), but that this *directional* meaning of the preposition לְ takes on other, more abstract ideas in the other categories. Thus you are, as I said, conflating categories of usage and you continue to do so into section 114.2.3 as well which I yet will *again* show below.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

This post starts at #66

Secondly, on the English translations you cited you asked:



absoluteBeginner said:


> Am I right in thinking that you are claiming that they were all mistaken in thinking that to hide could be translated as a final clause?


 
  Absolutely, as I myself explicitly told you days ago:



InfatigableLearner said:


> As it stands, the translations you cited do not represent the Hebrew accurately and thus fail to overturn what is clear from the Hebrew grammar here.


 
  And as I told you just before this:



InfatigableLearner said:


> [T]he appropriate translation is not “those who go deep to hide” but rather “those who deeply hide” or “those who hide deep.” This is true regardless of what 3 to 10 English translations have to say. I too could cite numerous English translations of the Bible which translate as I do, but this is also immaterial. In the end it is not about “justifying” one’s position through some English translation, but rather knowing what the Hebrew text actually says by understanding the grammar of that text.


 
  Thus what English translations say are “immaterial” because the issue is not what some translator _thought_ the Hebrew text says, but, as I said, “knowing what the Hebrew text actually says by understanding the grammar of that text.” It is for this reason that I keep referring back to Hebrew grammars and lexicons which are the correct tools for understand the Hebrew text *on its own terms*. But since you seem to put so much stock in what English translations have to say, here are some translations for you that translate the sense of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 29:15 better which* are actually just as irrelevant to the question at hand even though they agree with me*:   

  American Standard Version
  Woe unto them *that hide deep* their counsel from Jehovah,

  Darby Bible Translation
  Woe unto *them that hide deep*, far from Jehovah, their counsel!

  English Standard Version
  Ah, you *who hide deep* from the LORD your counsel,

  Jewish Publication Society (1985)
  Ha! *Those who would hide* their plans *Deep* from the LORD!

  New American Standard Bible
  Woe to *those who deeply hide* their plans from the LORD,

  Revised Standard Version
  Woe to *those who hide deep* from the LORD their counsel,

  World English Bible
  Woe to *those who deeply hide* their counsel from Yahweh,

  Am I right in thinking that you would see all of these translations as mistaken for correctly translating the syntactical relationship between the _hiphil_ participle הַמַּעֲמִיקִים and the infinitive construct לַסְתִּר in the same manner that Hebrew grammars state how the adverbial accusative use of the infinitive construct works and how it is properly to be translated in English?

  Related to your citation of English translations as if they were authoritative for understanding the Hebrew text here, you state:



absoluteBeginner said:


> It is implausible that the reason for [translations translating the infinitive construct in 1 Samuel 16:17 as an adverbial accusative] is that when the hiph'il verbs associated with the infinitive convey a sense of direction that the infinitive with לְ‎ cannot express purpose, because it would mean that they knew it to get the translation right in 1 Samuel 16:17 and yet all messed up and mistranslated _to hide_ in Isaiah 29:15 as a final clause.


 
  And yet it is not implausible because that is exactly what we see happening in those translations you cited: *Inconsistency in translating the adjectival accusative use of the infinitive construct*!! It is *this* which makes those translations of Isaiah 29:15 problematic. Do you actually think that these translators or any other always succeed in faithfully translating their source texts into another language? Have you never heard the expression _Traduttore, traditore_? This is why your focus should be on the Hebrew text, especially so given that this is a Hebrew language forum, not on English translations which are entirely secondary.

  But your statement “the hiph'il verbs associated with the infinitive convey a sense of direction that the infinitive with לְ‎ cannot express purpose” shows how completely mixed up you are because that is exactly the reason. The translations which translate 1 Samuel 16:17 as an adverbial accusative do so because of the _hiphil_ verb הֵיטִיב in the phrase מֵיטִיב לְנַגֵּן (“_who plays well_”) is that type of verb which “governs” the infinitive construct in the manner that Gesenius relates in 114n *apart from any consideration of the fact that there is a preposition **לְ**‎ on the infinitive construct*. It is for this reason that all three translations you cited translate with “play skillfully” for the imperative version of the phrase הֵיטִיבוּ נַגֵּן (“_play well!_”) at Psalm 33:3 where the _hiphil_ verb הֵיטִיב appears and yet *the infinitive construct does not have the preposition **לְ**‎*. This is to be expected because as I told you in connection with your citation of Gesenius’ footnote 8 in 114m, which applies to 114n as well, “with such usage [as outlined in 114.2.3] the presence/omission of the preposition לְ is one of difference of emphasis so that this category of usage itself *is not contingent on the appearance of the preposition*” and as I told you as well “the use of the infinitive construct as an ‘adjectival accusative’ revolves around *the specific verb involved*.” Thus the reason for the translations in 1 Samuel 16:17 and Psalm 33:3 is due to the presence of the _hiphil_ verb הֵיטִיב which “governs” the infinitive constructs in these passages to give a particular syntactical relationship so that the infinitive construct stands as an adjectival accusative to that verb regardless of the preposition לְ. That being said, it is certainly true that the preposition לְ is almost always found accompanying the infinitive construct when it is used as an adjectival accusative. However, as Psalm 33:3 demonstrates, this is not a _*necessary condition*_ for the meaning given by this syntactical relationship.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

This post starts at #66



absoluteBeginner said:


> The reason I suspect is that in these  cases the translators didn't translate the infinitive + לְ as a final clause is because they didn't consider it to be expressly stating a purpose (114g).


 
  No, it is not because “they didn't consider [infinitive + לְ] to be expressly stating a purpose” but rather because, as I just said, “[it is] the presence of the _hiphil_ verb הֵיטִיב  which ‘governs’ the infinitive constructs in these passages to give a  particular syntactical relationship so that the infinitive construct  stands as an adjectival accusative to that verb regardless of the  preposition לְ.” Whether the infinitive construct has the preposition לְ is immaterial to this and when the infinitive construct does have this preposition there is still *no* expression of “purpose” when used with these types of _hiphil_ verbs in Isaiah 29:15 or any other verse *because  of the specific syntactical relationship which obtains from the  connection between the verb and the infinitive construct through the  verb’s use of the infinitive construct as an adjectival accusative*.  The two categories of usage for the infinitive construct are thus not  to be conflated as I have told you repeatedly and further demonstrated  with numerous examples from the first three remarks/sections in  Gesenius’ grammar which showed that after 114g *the idea of  strict “purpose,” i.e. “in order to,” is no longer present in any of  these usages and thus not to be projected onto them*. This is why the translations you cited are not accurate at Isaiah 29:15 because, while there *is* in fact this type of the _hiphil_ verb in Isaiah 29:15, i.e. הַמַּעֲמִיקִים, which *is* “governing” the infinitive construct as an adjectival accusative, *they  have nevertheless failed to translate the syntactical relationship of  this verse accurately given the specific way the verb governs the  infinitive construct* and instead translated it as if the infinitive construct simply fell under the “purpose” use *completely disregarding the role of the hiphil verb **הַמַּעֲמִיקִים*.  So the problem is not with me, or Hebrew grammars, or Hebrew lexicons,  or the translations which do accurately translate this verse, rather the  problem is with you and with those translations which have failed their  readers here by not accurately conveying the sense of the Hebrew text.



absoluteBeginner said:


> Now I'm *not* saying the following is the reason but in 114n it says[,etc.]


 
  Yes, yes. More speculation which even you are diffident about. No need  for me to discuss this as I have just told you above why the  translators did not translate the infinitive construct with the  preposition לְ in 1 Samuel 16:17 as if it  appeared in a final clause denoting “purpose”: there is no “purpose” in  the adjectival accusative use of the infinitive construct.

  So like I said, dead horse, dead horse, dead horse. I really think it is time that we move on.

  InfatigableLearner

המתרגם פסוק כצורתו הרי זה בדאי והמוסיף עליו הרי זה מחרף ומגדף
  -_b. Qiddushin_ 49a (cf. _t. Meg._ 3:41).


----------



## absoluteBeginner

Since you've replied over several posts, I've supplied the post number I'm quoting from.

*#66*


InfatigableLearner said:


> As I said, it is “the use of the infinitive construct to express imminence and...obligation, permission, and possibility” that *is the focus *of Gesenius in Section 114.2.2 and not when a “sense of purpose” comes from a “combination of the infinitive with...verbs.” This is why, as I said, Gesenius gives examples of usage of the infinitive construct to express imminence “with the omission of הָיָה‎...Mostly with the omission of הָיָה‎” and where his examples about obligation, permission, and possibility have no other verb outside the infinitive construct. Do you not see *his focus* is on* a particular use* of the infinitive construct which is not contingent on an accompanying verb to give the infinitive construct these meanings. It is true that in the first sentence he discusses some examples which accompany the verb הָיָה‎ with this usage, _but this is incidental to the focus _here.



The beginning of section 2 states:2. *Just as clearly the idea of aiming at a definite purpose or turning towards an object may be seen in the combination of the verb הָיָה ‎to be, with לְ‎ and an infinitive*. In fact הָיָה לַֽעֲשׂוֹת‎ may mean, either (a) _he was in the act of_,_ he was about to_ (as it were, he set himself),_ he was ready_,_ to do something_, or (b) _he_ or_ it was appointed_ or _compelled_, &c., to do the action in question. In the latter case הָיָה לַֽעֲשׂוֹת‎ corresponds to the Latinfaciendum erat, cf. also the English I am to go. *In both cases הָיָה‎ (as elsewhere when copula) is often omitted*.​
So yes the section does supply examples without the verb הָיָה to be, but these are suggested to be cases where הָיָה is grammatically significant to the text but has been left out. They could be written with _to be_ not left out and the meaning would be maintained. So effectively the cases where הָיָה is omitted are shortened forms. 

In post *#67* you go onto claim that many of the most popular English biblical translations over the last 300 years (at least) have consistently mistranslated the text. Presumably you also believe that they know the rule that you think is appropriate to Isaiah 29:15 to translate 1 Samuel 16:17 correctly, and that even though it also applies to Isaiah 29:15 none the translators that worked on the widely read Bible translations that I quoted realised that the rule (that they knew) applied in this case, and so mistranslated. Presumably you also believe that even though translations that had (in your opinion) correctly applied the rule had been produced in the intervening years, the team working on King James 2000 Bible for example hadn't realised why these versions had translated it the way that they did and even though they knew the rule (to translate 1 Samuel 16:17 correctly) they messed up again and didn't realise it applied to Isaiah 29:15, and no one told them. Am I right that you not only think this is plausible, but think that this is what happened (because you think it is more plausible than you not realising why the two verses are translated differently)?

You quoted a few examples of where it was translated as you thought it should be and asked:



InfatigableLearner said:


> Am I right in thinking that you would see all of these translations as mistaken for correctly translating the syntactical relationship between the _hiphil participle הַמַּעֲמִיקִים and the infinitive construct לַסְתִּר in the same manner that Hebrew grammars state how the adverbial accusative use of the infinitive construct works and how it is properly to be translated in English?
> _



I think all the translators realise that_ to hide_ is being used in the Hebrew as a final clause, and that there is no academic debate about it at all. As I said previously  in post #60



> Now regarding the translation, I suspect many have decided that the word order can be changed but the meaning kept if in translation it was written as _make deep to hide counsel from the LORD_ and this is because they have taken counsel to be (their) counsel. It wouldn't have been fine to do otherwise (which is why I don't). Others have taken it a step further and considered that the meaning could be maintained in a more acceptable manner if the text was translated as _deeply hide their counsel from the LORD_. In other words they chose not to make such a literal translation but were not intending to mislead. You can see how they get to the translation that you favour, and it doesn't involve numerous translators not having grasped that the Hebrew didn't imply that to hide was being used as the equivalent of a final clause.



When I quoted the cases of where _to hide_ is translated as a final clause it was a legitimate _appeal to authority_. The idea that the appeal wasn't legitimate because there is an academic split on the matter and yet the rule be undisputable is implausible, because if they all agreed on the rule, and all agreed that the rule was applicable then it would have been resolved. And Gesenius doesn't mention any controversy over the rules.

Let's assume you're right, and that 114n and 114m are both cases where the infinitive is taken to be the object of the verb. Then let us look at Young's Literal Translation:Woe to those going deep from Jehovah to hide counsel, And whose works have been in darkness. And they say, 'Who is seeing us? And who is knowing us?'​
Notice Young doesn't assume that the counsel is (their) counsel, and so doesn't assume it is OK to change the word order. Also notice that Young doesn't take the object of the participle הַמַּעֲמִיקִים to be the verb _to hide_. [It seems to me as though the participle הַמַּעֲמִיקִים is acting as a verbal adjective on_ the (*ones*) that make deep _and that _from the LORD to hide counsel_ acts as part of an adjectival phrase with the _going deep_. Also it seems to me that within the phrase _the LORD_ is being considered to be the object (through preposition) of the _going deep _and _to hide_ is acting as a final clause]. If one were to assume that there was no academic controversy over Young's translation then the assumption that the other translations make (that counsel is (their) counsel) explains why they thought it was OK to change the word order as I mentioned above. This explains how we get to the various translations, and explains why Isaiah 29:15 is often translated as having a final clause but 1 Samuel 16:17 isn't. In the former they didn't consider the infinitive with לְ‎ to be the object of the Hiph'il verb, but in 1 Samuel 16:17 they did. Issue resolved without requiring the claim that many of the translators of the Bible have an understanding of Hebrew that is inferior to your own.


----------

