DIY -- new favorite dessert

I've made cheesecake from scratch but this is better.

1 9 inch crust, either a short pie crust or a graham cracker crust

1 package cream cheese, softened
1 egg
1 TBSP lemon juice
1/4 cup sugar
1/4 tsp salt

1 21 ounce can pie filling

Preheat oven to 350.
Mix cream cheese with  next 4 ingredients.
Pour into crust, bake 20 minutes.  It might be lightly brown on top.
Take out, turn oven up  to 400.
Spoon pie filling to cover cream cheese.
Put back in and bake another 20 minutes.  If the  crust is starting to burn, put a ring of foil over it.
Let cool and enjoy!
Keep in the fridge.

This is better because there's fruit with it. 
OK, the fruit is heavily sugared; you're not going to eat the whole thing in one day right?
My preference is berry pie fillings, not apple, peach or apricot.
The berries give more of a color contrast with the cream cheese.
YMMV.
I found this online.

Another suggestion is put 2/3 of a 15 ounce  can of pie filling in a yellow cake,
or especially raspberry or cherry in a chocolate cake.
You can use the leftovers in oatmeal.

I have a recipe by George Greenstein for  something called wine loaf.
It makes two large loaf cakes.
I love it with plumped dried fruit and nuts in various combinations.
I'm  going to try layering the cake with pie filling.

Dessert is back!

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

Fact-Checking the Torah -- Septuagint and "and"

The 21^st century way of looking at Biblical Hebrew has other important fallout besides identifying modality that Jewish Torah and Samaritan Pentateuch have in common, but which Septuagint never reflects.

First, it shows that Septuagint gets translations more wrong than anybody realized, even in the 20^th century. The main fact in the proof of this is the simple word “and.”

Every time a vav shows up in Biblical Hebrew prefixed to a verb or any other word, Septuagint translates it as “and”. The habit has persisted ever since, and that’s why so many verses in your Bible start with “and.”

Dr. Cook shows in his 2002 dissertation that in most cases, the vav prefix does not mean “and”.

In a large number of cases, it’s a prefix for a grammatical form called “narrative past.” In Biblical Hebrew, the narrations have verbs in them that until now have mostly been classed as “aorist”. This comes from the model of Greek grammar, which uses the same stem for the aorist past tense and for the future tense. It was a convenient label for scholars in the Classics who turned their attention to Hebrew, but it has nothing to do with how Biblical Hebrew really works.

In Biblical Hebrew, what really happens is that the vav is attached to an imperfect aspect verb, not to a tense-conjugated verb. With a vav, and in verb-subject order, this narrative past reflects an action in a narrative before the narrative is over, but which happened in the past relative to the person telling the story.

The second largest number of situations where vav does not mean “and” is with a 2^nd person verb, in either imperfect or perfect aspect, which indicates a commandment. It also shows up with a 3^rd person verb, in either imperfect or perfect aspect, in descriptions of rituals which, therefore, turn out also to be commandments.

On the Hebrew blog I discuss why deontic imperatives are inappropriate in these situations, and also the difference that the verb aspect and person make in the significance of the commandment. I go into more detail in Narrating the Torah.

The next example of why Septuagint was wrong is that, with perfect aspect verbs, in verb-subject syntax, vav signals a subordinate clause of condition, purpose, result, cause or effect, called oblique modality.

And there are situations where the vav should be translated “but” or “[so] that,” or even “for” because it is the linchpin of a coordinate or relative clause or a subordinate clause that uses an imperfect aspect verb, not perfect aspect.

I know this is all very new to you. As I said, I discussed it all step by step on the Biblical Hebrew page. In Narrating the Torah I discuss examples in excruciating detail.

But what it means is that the habit of translating vav as “and”, which began in the Septuagint and has continued to the present, is proof that the translation of a word is not its definition. And that all translations which don’t take 21^st century grammar into account, are wrong to some extent. Which is why I insist that you can’t understand work in translation, only in the source document for the translations. And for Torah, that’s in Biblical Hebrew.

Which had an effect on Hebrew in later times.

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

Bit at a Time Bible Hebrew -- dagesh redux

Call this an advanced lesson on dagesh. I told you previously that one of the rules governing dagesh is using it after a short vowel. I also told you that it occurs in piel and hitpael verbs. You have seen it in other places, or you will see it, as you keep reading Torah.

There are three situations which some writers refer to as gemination and there’s a lot of history behind that. I don’t agree with some of what I’ve read on the subject. My classification is this.

True gemination in verbs occurs only after a short vowel. It is marked by dagesh in Hebrew. Arabic does a similar thing; its sign is called shadda. Verb gemination in Hebrew applies regularly throughout the conjugations in the binyanim UNLESS it would fall in a guttural (alef, heh, chet, ayin) or resh.

The piel, pual, and hitpael binyanim are famous for gemination. Other Semitic languages function like this.  Akkadian geminates in the middle of its II-stem, cognate to piel, and the related stem which is much like the hitpael. Assyrian has the II-stem like its parent Akkadian. Arabic does it in Form II and Form V which is cognate to the hitpael. Ugaritic does it in the D-stem and the related stem that uses a t-infix.

Assimilation is the disappearance of a letter in one or more binyan, with dagesh in the following letter. This happens in nifal in Hebrew, and in the cognate Akkadian and Assyrian IV-stem. It also happens in hitpael, quite rarely; the premier example is Numbers 22:25 where the ass pushes herself into the wall.

Arabic has an “assimilated” verb root class but it does not use dagesh.  These are verbs starting in waw, not nun.

Contraction is where two identical letters appear in sequence, and they contract into one. This happens in some parts of the conjugation of polel verbs in Hebrew.  A polel verb has a root with the second and third letters identical. One example is bishesh, “was embarrassed.”  Some polel verbs drop the third root letter in nifal, if they have that binyan, but there’s no dagesh in the remaining letter because it is deduplicated. There are some examples in Torah.

There’s a problem between what is a stem (or Form in Arabic) and what is a verb root class. The polel is a verb root class in Hebrew. Its appearance in various binyanim is the evidence that it is not a binyan (or Form). Arabic has the “doubled” verb root class which is cognate to the polel and the various Forms in Arabic show up in verbs of this root class.

Cyrus Gorden mistakenly labeled his “L” class (in Ugaritic) a stem; it’s the same thing as polel.  Likewise, he mistakenly named his “R” class a stem; it’s a quadriliteral verb root class, both halves of  which  are identical.  Hebrew has them:  hitmahmeah.  Arabic has  them, and they conjugate in more than one of the Forms.  Gordon made his mistake due to a historical concept which some scholars of Semitic languages disagree with.

One more subject, something people wrestle with in their street language which  is also complicated in Biblical Hebrew.

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

Bit at a Time Bible Hebrew -- et 2

If you didn’t see that title coming, you need to read more Shakespeare.

Here I’ll demonstrate some cases illustrating rules 6 and 7 from last week.

Leviticus 7:2-4 rings the changes, as Exodus 29 rang the changes on “passives”.

ב בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת־הָעֹלָה יִשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת־הָאָשָׁם וְאֶת־דָּמוֹ יִזְרֹק עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב:

ג וְאֶת־כָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ יַקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ אֵת הָאַלְיָה וְאֶת־הַחֵלֶב הַמְכַסֶּה אֶת־הַקֶּרֶב:

ד וְאֵת שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיֹת וְאֶת־הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עֲלֵיהֶן אֲשֶׁר עַל־הַכְּסָלִים וְאֶת־הַיֹּתֶרֶת עַל־הַכָּבֵד עַל־הַכְּלָיֹת יְסִירֶנָּה:

In verse 2, the olah is referred to here in contrast with the asham and they both take the segol version of et.  The blood is being considered as a specific part of the sacrifice so it does the same.  Same thing for the chelev at the start of verse 3; there is more than one place to get chelev and the et kal shows that each one of them is meant.

The alyah, the “fat tail” is considered as an entire entity, separate unto itself, and there are halakhot that specifically address component parts of it in Mishnah and Gemara.

The kidneys are another entity, like the alyah, and require the tseire version; the segol version is used with the chelev because it is considered in contrast to the actual kidneys and also to the other kind  of chelev.  The yoteret is listed in contrast to the liver of which it is part.

Test yourself.  Go through Torah and watch for the word erets.  I’ll give you the main examples that demonstrate my point.

Genesis 1:1 deals with heaven and earth as wholes.  This is part of the basis for the midrash that the creation story isn’t about the exact order in which things happened.  We don’t get the details.

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ:

Exodus 20:11.  Notice the contrast with the tseire version in Genesis 1:1; this verse is dealing with the four different parts of the creation – actually five when you get to yom ha-shabbat.  There is no definite article with yom, but it is understood because this is a construct phrase.

כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת-יָמִים עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֶת-הַיָּם וְאֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-בָּם, וַיָּנַח, בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי; עַל-כֵּן, בֵּרַךְ יְהוָה אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת—וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּ

When there’s a restrictive sense to erets, we get the segol version as in Deuteronomy 3:8:

נִּקַּח בָּעֵת הַהִוא אֶת־הָאָרֶץ מִיַּד שְׁנֵי מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן מִנַּחַל אַרְנֹן עַד־הַר חֶרְמוֹן:

It’s pretty obvious that the only land concerned here is that of Sichon and Og.  It can’t possibly mean all of the world.  That’s why it has segol. 

We have a problem in Leviticus 26:42.  We have three contrasted covenants using the segol version, and we also have erets as a definite noun with NO et.  Why not?  Beats me.  Unless the emphasis  of the topic order clause  means et  shouldn’t be  used.

וְזָכַרְתִּי אֶת־בְּרִיתִי יַעֲקוֹב וְאַף אֶת־בְּרִיתִי יִצְחָק וְאַף אֶת־בְּרִיתִי אַבְרָהָם אֶזְכֹּר וְהָאָרֶץ אֶזְכֹּר:

Just a few more dogs and cats to cover.

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

 

Slight change

The look of Twitter posts is going to change a bit.
The  automatic feed app is going away at the  end of the month.
I'll be posting manually.
This won't affect you as a follower or other Twitter user.
It's the link between Blogger and Twitter that changes.
If somebody publishes another way of  doing this automatically I'll try it  out.
But  my Facebook posts are done manually so this is no big deal.

I'm just saying -- the sequel

Last week I wrote about how the chickadees' behavior may mean a harsh winter.

Yeah.  Winter is coming.  You're going  to see snow fly.  Get over it.
Seriously. 
If you have storage space in your home, you have no excuse not to be prepared for winter.
Stock up now on your canned food, crackers, bottled water, dry roast peanuts, dried fruit, jerky.
Stuff you don't have to cook.
Three weeks' worth. 
We've had back to back storms that kept the tractor trailers outside the Beltway that long.

Toilet paper doesn't go bad; get it.  Lots of it.  NOW.

Buy your calcium chloride and kitty litter.
Get a snow shovel.
De-icers don't work well on snow, they only keep pavement clean when they can get to it. 
You  have to shovel before you spread.

Get your batteries, your LED lamp, your battery powered radio.
Get some long johns, some ski gloves, some snow boots and thick socks, a hat and a scarf.
Get your chimney cleaned if you have a fireplace.
Keep up with your laundry, or buy extras because sometimes you can't get to the laundromat and sometimes a water main breaks.
Get a couple of Mylar emergency blankets for when the heat goes out.

Listen to the news and when it's going to snow, dress for it and drive for it.
Or stay off the roads.

Whining will not be tolerated.

I'm just saying...

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

Fact-Checking the Torah -- {{citation needed}}

In 1851 the Bagster edition of Brenton’s English translation of Septuagint included an introduction from the translator, in which he makes a claim about Samaritan Pentateuch – which I believe he never saw.

Brenton claimed that when Samaritan Pentateuch and Torah differ, Septuagint is much more like Jewish Hebrew than it is like Samaritan Hebrew.  Brenton weasel-words this claim by restricting it to “important and material points.”  He never defines what he means by important or material.

He also said that in “many” places where Samaritan Hebrew and Septuagint both differ from Biblical Hebrew, they resemble each other.  As you know, “many” is the classic weasel wording that earns the remark {{citation needed}} in so many places on so many Wikipedia pages.

{{citation found}}, I think.  After digging around online a while, I found an 1848 publication with an article on this exact subject.  The author of the article, Rev. Walter Fitzgerald, said that, taking both similarities and differences into account (my emphasis), he believes that it’s a wash (my phrase) as to which of Septuagint or Samaritan more closely resembles Jewish Hebrew.  Brenton didn’t quote that part. 

And Brenton sneers at the “crooked” letters of the Samaritan alphabet.  I have traced this sneer, I believe, to another 1848 publication which is available online.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Brenton copied this information – and he did it without attribution – and that he not only could not read Hebrew, but he had never seen Samaritan.

To do that, he would have to access Rev. Brian Walton’s Biblia Sacra, also known as the London Polyglot, published by Bagster’s in the 1600s, 2 centuries earlier.  This work had eight versions of the Torah, including the Samaritan Hebrew and Samaritan Aramaic, each with a separate Latin translation.  The polyglot is available free on Internet Archive in 10 sections. 

Not only would Brenton have to see this work, but he would also have to know how the Samaritans pronounce and interpret their Pentateuch to evaluate how much it was like Jewish Hebrew.  He could only do that in his time if he worked among the Samaritans to find these things out.  Apparently Ze’ev ben Hayyim was the first person ever to do this – after 1950 -- and his five-volume work was available only in Hebrew until 2000 CE when an English translation of Volume V was published. 

And so Brenton’s urban legend about the relationship between Torah, Septuagint, and Samaritan requires him to do work that he probably could do only if he could read both versions of Hebrew.  But if he could read Jewish Hebrew and wanted to do an accurate translation from the Greek, he failed abysmally. 

But it gets worse. 

In 2014 I discovered information that shows Rev. Fitzgerald was also wrong.

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved