Joseph of Arimathea.

[Ben C. Smith]

1) The definite article הָ (as I'm sure you know, the Hebrew at that time would not have had any vowels) before רָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים does not appear to indicate that a city follows (from the Ramoth*). The lack of a definite article would generally indicate a city (from Ramoth*).

To be clear, the Hebrew language always had vowels. They just were not written at that time. I feel confident that is what you meant, but do not wish to cause confusion, especially in light of what I will have to say about the transliteration of aleph and ayin below.

And it is quite true that most place names are considered definite in and of themselves and thus lack the definite article; however, with place names that are just common nouns elevated to proper status (such as Mizpeh, literally the watchtower or lookout point), the article is often present, especially early on. Ramah (height) and Ramoth (heights) obviously qualify. Other place names that (often) take the definite article are Bashan and Gilead. So do the great rivers, the Jordan and the Nile.

2) It's unclear what הָרָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים means here. If it's unclear to the Rashi than I think it would be unclear to you.

It is clear that it is the name of a settlement of some kind. After all, Elkanah and Hannah have a house there (1 Samuel 1.19). I detect no confusion as to what Ramathaim means at that Rashi link you provided; there may, however, be some confusion about Zophim.

3) הָרָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים sounds like and may refer to a clan.

I cannot imagine why it would sound like a clan to you. Why would it be in the dual?

4) 3) is supported by a definite location which follows, from "Mount Ephraim", which suggests that הָרָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים is not the location here.

Mount Ephraim is not a settlement. It is a hilly district containing numerous settlements: Timnath-serah (Joshua 19.50; 24.30), Shechem (Joshua 20.7; 21.21), Gibeah (24.33), Ramah and Bethel (Judges 4.5), Shamir (Judges 10.1), and of course Ramoth (1 Samuel 1.1). The NASB you used was trying to tell you that, but you crossed out the information and created a problem that is not there.

5) Of course there was no separation of letters in the Hebrew (or Greek), so how could Christians be sure of rightly dividing הָרָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים?

What Christians are you referring to? I am looking at the Hebrew scriptures and the LXX. (I presented Eusebius only because you asked whether the fathers ever made the connection between Greek Arimathea and Hebrew Ramoth. I also recall asking you which fathers you had in mind who did not, and you have yet to answer me.)

6) If you take the הָ here as the definite article before the city of Ramoth, why add the definite article to a Greek transliteration for "Ramoth"?

Because that just happens sometimes with Hebrew words transliterated (instead of translated) into Greek. For example, 1 Chronicles 4.21 mentions byssus (הַבֻּ֖ץ), a fine textile of some kind, and the Greek transliterates it, retaining the definite article as an initial alpha (αβακ).

7) Hebrew has two silent letters that could have an "a" sounding vowel, aleph and ayin. Are these ever transliterated into the Greek alpha?

I think those two letters were glottal or pharyngeal, not silent (I have no special knowledge on this; that is just what I have read, both in Hebrew textbooks and in linguistic studies); but, since the languages they were transliterated into (including English) often lacked those sounds, they were treated as silent in those target languages. There are places where both of these consonants look like an alpha is representing them in the Greek, and that may be the case sometimes (not sure), but I think that what is usually happening is that the consonant itself is being treated as silent, and the alpha is representing the underlying vowel sound that would be pronounced after the ayin or the aleph. (This is why, for example, a name with an initial ayin can start with a Greek eta in Genesis 38.3, yet another name with an initial ayin can start with a Greek alpha in 1 Chronicles 4.35.)

(You do realize, by the way, that I do not think Arimathea was necessarily the hometown of Elkanah and Hannah, right? That I am not sure which of the several towns called Ramoth it might have been? That the linguistic connection of Arimathea to Ramoth can be fairly secure, while the precise identification of which Ramoth is in mind might not be? Just checking.)

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Where's spin (picture me saying this like the Thenn saying "Where's Mance"?).

Found him:

Arimathea has a Greek place suffix, which when removed reflects αρημωθ in LXX Josh 20:8, the Hebrew of which is rendered in English Ramoth. Josephus has various forms of the name including Aramathe and Ariman (eg AJ 9.105).

You were right, Joe. He and I agree on this one.

Ben.

[JoeWallack]

1) The definite article הָ (as I'm sure you know, the Hebrew at that time would not have had any vowels) before רָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים does not appear to indicate that a city follows (from the Ramoth*). The lack of a definite article would generally indicate a city (from Ramoth*).

To be clear, the Hebrew language always had vowels. They just were not written at that time. I feel confident that is what you meant, but do not wish to cause confusion, especially in light of what I will have to say about the transliteration of aleph and ayin below.

JW:
Right. It would be kind of hard to pronounce without any vowels.

And it is quite true that most place names are considered definite in and of themselves and thus lack the definite article; however, with place names that are just common nouns elevated to proper status (such as Mizpeh, literally the watchtower or lookout point), the article is often present, especially early on. Ramah (height) and Ramoth (heights) obviously qualify. Other place names that (often) take the definite article are Bashan and Gilead. So do the great rivers, the Jordan and the Nile.

JW:
The Jordan and the Nile are not good examples here as they are parts of a larger category (rivers) so it would be natural to distinguish which river with a definite article.

2) It's unclear what הָרָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים means here. If it's unclear to the Rashi than I think it would be unclear to you.

It is clear that it is the name of a settlement of some kind. After all, Elkanah and Hannah have a house there (1 Samuel 1.19). I detect no confusion as to what Ramathaim means at that Rashi link you provided; there may, however, be some confusion about Zophim.

JW:
1 Samuel 1.19, the name of the city appears to be = הָרָמָתָה which is very close to what you are looking for. Why didn't you invoke that instead of 1:1?

3) הָרָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים sounds like and may refer to a clan.

I cannot imagine why it would sound like a clan to you. Why would it be in the dual?

JW:
Dual? You mean plural? Two names together sounds more like a clan description to me than a city. I think either could be referred to in the plural (Jerusalemites).

4) 3) is supported by a definite location which follows, from "Mount Ephraim", which suggests that הָרָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים is not the location here.

Mount Ephraim is not a settlement. It is a hilly district containing numerous settlements: Timnath-serah (Joshua 19.50; 24.30), Shechem (Joshua 20.7; 21.21), Gibeah (24.33), Ramah and Bethel (Judges 4.5), Shamir (Judges 10.1), and of course Ramoth (1 Samuel 1.1). The NASB you used was trying to tell you that, but you crossed out the information and created a problem that is not there.

JW:
And after all that, Mount Ephraim is still a location.

5) Of course there was no separation of letters in the Hebrew (or Greek), so how could Christians be sure of rightly dividing הָרָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים?

What Christians are you referring to? I am looking at the Hebrew scriptures and the LXX. (I presented Eusebius only because you asked whether the fathers ever made the connection between Greek Arimathea and Hebrew Ramoth. I also recall asking you which fathers you had in mind who did not, and you have yet to answer me.)

JW:
I don't believe in the "LXX" (an official, authoritative Christian Greek of the Jewish Bible). Only varying Christian Greek translations. Origen confesses to us their quality. Peter's e-catena does not show any early father making the connection. Eusebius seems to be the first (parve for the course and maybe should be added to the list), thanks for that.

6) If you take the הָ here as the definite article before the city of Ramoth, why add the definite article to a Greek transliteration for "Ramoth"?

Because that just happens sometimes with Hebrew words transliterated (instead of translated) into Greek. For example, 1 Chronicles 4.21 mentions byssus (הַבֻּ֖ץ), a fine textile of some kind, and the Greek transliterates it, retaining the definite article as an initial alpha (αβακ).

JW:
I'll take the "sometimes" and exorcise the "exactly" either you said before or I just think you said.

7) Hebrew has two silent letters that could have an "a" sounding vowel, aleph and ayin. Are these ever transliterated into the Greek alpha?

I think those two letters were glottal or pharyngeal, not silent (I have no special knowledge on this; that is just what I have read, both in Hebrew textbooks and in linguistic studies); but, since the languages they were transliterated into (including English) often lacked those sounds, they were treated as silent in those target languages. There are places where both of these consonants look like an alpha is representing them in the Greek, and that may be the case sometimes (not sure), but I think that what is usually happening is that the consonant itself is being treated as silent, and the alpha is representing the underlying vowel sound that would be pronounced after the ayin or the aleph. (This is why, for example, a name with an initial ayin can start with a Greek eta in Genesis 38.3, yet another name with an initial ayin can start with a Greek alpha in 1 Chronicles 4.35.)

JW:
Another "sometimes", thanks.

(You do realize, by the way, that I do not think Arimathea was necessarily the hometown of Elkanah and Hannah, right? That I am not sure which of the several towns called Ramoth it might have been? That the linguistic connection of Arimathea to Ramoth can be fairly secure, while the precise identification of which Ramoth is in mind might not be? Just checking.)
Ben.

JW:
You bet. I'm just trying to point out some of the related issues. It's never easy going from Hebrew to Greek to English.

I certainly consider spin a Biblical Hebrew authority. I just want to see all the details for myself.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Ben C. Smith]

The Jordan and the Nile are not good examples here as they are parts of a larger category (rivers) so it would be natural to distinguish which river with a definite article.

Yet the Euphrates lacks the definite article. So does the river Kishon.

1 Samuel 1.19, the name of the city appears to be = הָרָמָתָה which is very close to what you are looking for. Why didn't you invoke that instead of 1:1?

I did (underlining added):

...rendered as Ramathaim-Zophim (הָרָמָתַ֛יִם צוֹפִ֖ים) in 1 Samuel 1.1 (1 Kingdoms 1.1 LXX: Αρμαθαιμ Σιφα), or as just plain Αρμαθαιμ in 1 Kingdoms 1.3, 19 LXX.

Dual? You mean plural? Two names together sounds more like a clan description to me than a city. I think either could be referred to in the plural (Jerusalemites).

No, the dual. Ramathaim is the dual, Ramoth the plural, Ramah the singular. That this was the dual form was evident even from that link you provided:

from Ramathaim Zophim: There were two hills, each visible to the other.

The dual: hence two hills. That they were visible each to the other is apparently how he is interpreting zophim. That is why I said I could detect no confusion as to the meaning of Ramathaim at that link: two hills is just fine, but that there may be some confusion as to zophim, since he goes on to give a different interpretation of that bit.

And after all that, Mount Ephraim is still a location.

Sure, but one that contains other locations practically by definition. You said that the presence of Mount Ephraim as a place name here was an indicator that Ramathaim was not a place name. Joshua 19.50 says that Timnath-serah was in the hill country of Ephraim (Mount Ephraim), so why can Ramathaim not be in that region, as well? Do you still think that the presence of Mount Ephraim in 1 Samuel 1.1 is an indicator that Ramathaim is not a place name?

I don't believe in the "LXX" (an official, authoritative Christian Greek of the Jewish Bible). Only varying Christian Greek translations. Origen confesses to us their quality.

I see. You think the LXX is a Christian translation. Well, I am not going to get into that here.

Peter's e-catena does not show any early father making the connection.

Yes, I know. That is why I asked you whom you meant (by they all) when you said:

Added to this I'm not aware of any Patristic that made that connection. Didn't they all assume that it was some place called "Arimathea"?

Eusebius seems to be the first (parve for the course and maybe should be added to the list), thanks for that.

Arimathea also appears as hometown of Joseph in the gospel of Nicodemus.

I'll take the "sometimes" and exorcise the "exactly" either you said before or I just think you said.

The exactly was your contribution to the dialogue, not mine:

You conclude that "Arimathea" is exactly how the Hebrew "Ramoth" would be transliterated in the Greek.

No, I claim that it is one of the ways Ramoth would be transliterated. I stated that the vowels can be slippery, the consonants less so. I gave examples of all of this.

Ben.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
@Ben = I will get back to you with a response to your last post but I have to confess that the "Ramah" of 1:19 is a very important location in the Jewish Bible because it is where Samuel is from and he anointed King David. "Mark" (author) seems to want to show that his Jesus was anointed as a successor to King David at his (Jesus') death. So the possible link to the Ramah of 1:19 may be an intentional parallel to the Arimathea of 15:43 in the context of "preparation" for Kingship =

• Samuel from Ramah anoints King David
  
  Verses
  
  Joseph from Arimathea prepares King Jesus

Joseph from ErrancyWikia

cc: KK

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

"Mark" (author) seems to want to show that his Jesus was anointed as a successor to King David at his (Jesus') death. So the possible link to the Ramah of 1:19 may be an intentional parallel to the Arimathea of 15:43 in the context of "preparation" for Kingship =

• Samuel from Ramah anoints King David
  Verses
  Joseph from Arimathea prepares King Jesus

...
cc: KK

I've also been thinking about that. One of the problems is Mark 14:8

She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.

I think there is no need for a further anointing. The woman had all done. Beside that the story has no clue that Joseph is anointing the fallen body of Jesus. The Galilean women tried that, but came too late.

[JoeWallack]

JW:

1 Samuel 1.19, the name of the city appears to be = הָרָמָתָה which is very close to what you are looking for. Why didn't you invoke that instead of 1:1?

I did (underlining added):

...rendered as Ramathaim-Zophim (הָרָמָתַ֛יִם צוֹפִ֖ים) in 1 Samuel 1.1 (1 Kingdoms 1.1 LXX: Αρμαθαιμ Σιφα), or as just plain Αρμαθαιμ in 1 Kingdoms 1.3, 19 LXX.

JW:
What I meant was that you did not provide the exact Hebrew for 1:19, only for 1:1. For the Greek 1:19 the suffix is the natural Greek suffix and not a transliteration of the Hebrew. I would guess you would find a mix in Greek translations, sometimes complete transliteration and sometimes natural Greek suffix?

Dual? You mean plural? Two names together sounds more like a clan description to me than a city. I think either could be referred to in the plural (Jerusalemites).

No, the dual. Ramathaim is the dual, Ramoth the plural, Ramah the singular. That this was the dual form was evident even from that link you provided:

from Ramathaim Zophim: There were two hills, each visible to the other.

The dual: hence two hills. That they were visible each to the other is apparently how he is interpreting zophim. That is why I said I could detect no confusion as to the meaning of Ramathaim at that link: two hills is just fine, but that there may be some confusion as to zophim, since he goes on to give a different interpretation of that bit.

JW:
Suffixes in Hebrew

יָדַיִם yadayim (two hands) masculine and feminine noun dual form

Note that what distinguishes the dual form from the plural is the vowel (Patach) before the preceding letter (here the daled). As already noted, the written Hebrew of the time had no vowels, so there was no written distinction between plural and dual. As also noted, you would need to use vowels to pronounce the words. The introduction of vowels to some extent was influenced by musical/chanting tradition (you never read the Haftorah at your Bar Mitzvah, did you).

When I learned Hebrew they did not teach the dual form. In my experience words that naturally come in pairs, such as eyes and legs, normally have the dual form, even when the meaning is plural. Thus dual form is more determined based on the nature of the noun rather than context:

[wiki]Dual (grammatical number)[/wiki]

Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew

In Biblical, Mishnaic, and Medieval Hebrew, like Arabic and other Semitic languages, all nouns can have singular, plural or dual forms, and there is still a debate whether there are vestiges of dual verbal forms and pronouns.[1] However, in practice, most nouns use only singular and plural forms. Usually ־ים -īm is added to masculine words to make them plural for example ספר / ספרים sēfer / səfārīm "book / books", whilst with feminine nouns the ־ה -ā is replaced with ־ות -ōṯ. For example פרה / פרות pārā / pārōṯ "cow / cows". An example of the dual form is יום / יומיים / ימים yōm / yomạyim / yāmīm "day / two days / [two or more] days". Some words occur so often in pairs that the form with the dual suffix -ạyim is used in practice for the general plural, such as עין / עינים ʿạyin / ʿēnạyim "eye / eyes", used even in a sentence like "The spider has eight eyes." Thus words like ʿēnạyim only appear to be dual, but are in fact what is called "pseudo-dual", which is a way of making a plural.

"I could detect no confusion as to the meaning of Ramathaim at that link"

Hey, no argument there.

Regarding "Ramathaim Zophim", only "Ramathaim" is in dual form. So why do your enayim see two hills from "Ramathaim Zophim"? Ramathaim forms a nice rhyme here with Ephraim =

And there was one man from Ramathaim
Zophim, from Mt. Ephraim,

Also can't help wondering if Ramoth = "heights" and an important "lookout" in an important Biblical story, ties to "enayim" (eyes), hence the dual form. But maybe I'm seeing things.

The Rashi says:

"Jonathan, however, renders ‘Zophim’ of the disciples of the Prophets." And why not since "Zophim" is in the plural here. Targum Jonathan was also about a thousand years before Rashi. Not that I would expect much from them but your Christian translations don't show any evidence of a dual understanding here, do they?

And after all that, Mount Ephraim is still a location.

Sure, but one that contains other locations practically by definition. You said that the presence of Mount Ephraim as a place name here was an indicator that Ramathaim was not a place name. Joshua 19.50 says that Timnath-serah was in the hill country of Ephraim (Mount Ephraim), so why can Ramathaim not be in that region, as well?

JW:
Gee, I don't know, maybe because Joshua 19.50 explicitly says that Timnath-serah was in Mount Ephraim (תִּמְנַת סֶרַח בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם) .

Arimathea also appears as hometown of Joseph in the gospel of Nicodemus.

JW:
Right. [This isn't helping you]Post Eusebius Christianity knows where it is.[/This isn't helping you]



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Ben C. Smith]

What I meant was that you did not provide the exact Hebrew for 1:19, only for 1:1.

The OP was meant to get the ball rolling. It was not meant to be exhaustive. I expected those who knew a bit of Hebrew to look up the verses I supplied for themselves, and those who did not know any Hebrew to ask if they had any questions.

For the Greek 1:19 the suffix is the natural Greek suffix and not a transliteration of the Hebrew. I would guess you would find a mix in Greek translations, sometimes complete transliteration and sometimes natural Greek suffix?

I think the Greek of 1.19 simply shows awareness that the same town is under discussion. The translator either did not attempt to transliterate the Hebrew independently each time (that is, he or she chose to standardize) or was working from a copy that did not give divergent names for the same town.

JW:
Suffixes in Hebrew

יָדַיִם yadayim (two hands) masculine and feminine noun dual form

Note that what distinguishes the dual form from the plural is the vowel (Patach) before the preceding letter (here the daled). As already noted, the written Hebrew of the time had no vowels, so there was no written distinction between plural and dual. As also noted, you would need to use vowels to pronounce the words.

Here is what you may be missing: https://books.google.com/books?id=TSVIA ... 22&f=false.

Before the feminine dual ending, a he preceded by a qametz becomes a tav. Thus the singular Ramah becomes Ramat(h)aim.

Gee, I don't know, maybe because Joshua 19.50 explicitly says that Timnath-serah was in Mount Ephraim (תִּמְנַת סֶרַח בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם) .

And 1 Samuel 1.1 explicitly says that Ramathaim was in Mount Ephraim. (I cannot tell whether you have conceded the point or are still arguing it.)

When I learned Hebrew they did not teach the dual form. In my experience words that naturally come in pairs, such as eyes and legs, normally have the dual form, even when the meaning is plural. Thus dual form is more determined based on the nature of the noun rather than context....

I think that is true of most Biblical Hebrew (I am going more here by what I have read in English about Hebrew than from experience). Place names, however, can go back much further, and I think Hebrew is suspected as having used the dual more often in its earlier stages than what later came to be. (Greek, meanwhile, lost the dual pretty much altogether; languages seem to trend that way.)

Arimathea also appears as hometown of Joseph in the gospel of Nicodemus.

JW:
Right. [This isn't helping you]Post Eusebius Christianity knows where it is.[/This isn't helping you]

Not helping me do what? I do not understand what you think I am doing with the gospel of Nicodemus. I found that instance sometime between the OP and our latest exchange, and wanted to fill out the picture. Nothing more.

Ben.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Continuing this Hebreatdown that Ben is inflicting on me, my guess is that "Mark" (author) used a possible transliteration for the Hebrew Ramah/Ramat and added a Greek suffix. The contrived part is that the result can mean "best disciple" in Greek. I think related tables will help. Following is a starting table for the offending word in what I think should be a relatively pure form for comparison purposes to 15:43, singular and male:

1 Samuel 7:17

And his return was to Ramah, for there was his house, and there he judged Israel, and he built there an altar to the Lord.

Hebrew	Greek	English	Commentary
הָ	Ἁ	A	The first question is whether the Hebrew hey here is just the first letter of the proper name or is a prefix, "the". Ben has pointed out that Hebrew place names that indicate a physical attribute, here "height", often have the definite article prefix, "the height/s". The same city is sometimes presented with or without the prefix. Looking through 1 Samuel it looks to me that this city is usually shown with the prefix. The second question is the vowel. As pointed out here the Hebrew of the time had no written vowels. The later Masoretic text and earlier Greek translations provide evidence of what the vowels would have been for pronunciation.
ר	ρ	r	No issues here
רָ	ι	ah	Ignore the ר letter and only use the vowel underneath it. Looks to me like we have a difference here regarding what Greek vowel should have been used. The Hebrew vowel Qamets is an "ah" sound. The Greek vowel in that place, chosen by "Mark", the iota, is an "i" sound as in "bit". A better phonetic match would be alpha/diphthong. As mentioned here the Hebrew writing of the time lacked vowels so it would be understandable that transliteration of vowels would be looser (also because vowels are more similar in sound than letters) but it looks to me that "Mark's" choice of iota here is contrived to get the Greek prefix "best".

JW:
I'll stop here for now before continuing with other issues to get Ben's related comment but again, it already looks to me like "Mark's" transliteration was not the best one if the intent was only to identify the Hebrew city of Ramah/Ramat. The Greek translations of the time that presumably "Mark" was using do not appear to have any vowel there.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Ben C. Smith]

Continuing this Hebreatdown that Ben is inflicting on me, my guess is that "Mark" (author) used a possible transliteration for the Hebrew Ramah/Ramat and added a Greek suffix.

I think that is a fair statement.

The contrived part is that the result can mean "best disciple" in Greek.

I still think that best discipleship is a better fit; no missing tau to worry about. I admit that, on its own, the word would not be probative of a pun for me, but I find the parallels adduced by Kunigunde Kreuzerin to be pretty impressive in that regard.

Looks to me like we have a difference here regarding what Greek vowel should have been used. The Hebrew vowel Qamets is an "ah" sound. The Greek vowel in that place, chosen by "Mark", the iota, is an "i" sound as in "bit". A better phonetic match would be alpha/diphthong. As mentioned here the Hebrew writing of the time lacked vowels so it would be understandable that transliteration of vowels would be looser (also because vowels are more similar in sound than letters) but it looks to me that "Mark's" choice of iota here is contrived to get the Greek prefix "best".

Most instances, as you say, seem to omit the unaccented vowel here altogether. Many of the rest give an alpha. Some give an epsilon. Joshua 20.8 LXX gives an eta. Since this syllable bears no accent, its vowel would be even less stable than usual; still, the iota does seem pretty unique (like the eta in Joshua 20.8), so contrivance is definitely possible.

Ben.