Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Gen 49:10

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Gen 49:10
  • Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:07:12 -0500

Peter:

I did not claim that TA APOKEIMENA is the subject of the main sentence,
rather it is a reference that points back to the subject of the main
sentence. I agree that the former is not allowed, but the latter is. As a
neuter plural, it is either nominative or accusative.

As I said before, I am not a Greek expert, so how would one say "until comes
the one to whom they belong"? Whereas proper Greek has the subject of a verb
only as a nominative, could this be a Hebreism by the translator as Hebrew
allows the equivelant of the dative as the subject of the verb?

YQHT is mentioned only in Proverbs 30:17 besides this verse, and there is no
verb YQH attested to in Tanakh. That such a verb was found in B-Hebrew is
speculation on the part of BDB. Are there any clues from cognate languages?
If not, the meaning, even etymology, is uncertain.

Karl W. Randolph.

.----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>

>
> On 25/01/2005 08:18, Karl Randolph wrote:
>
> > Peter:
> >
> > Taking the Greek listed below, it is interesting to note that the
> > verb is singular, therefore it would not refer to TA APOKEIMENA
> > which is plural, but to AUTWi. I don't know Greek that well, ...
> >
>
> This is obvious! AUTWi certainly cannot be the subject of the verb,
> because it is dative whereas the subject must be nominative. But
> there is a Greek grammatical rule that a neuter plural subject like
> TA APOKEIMENA often (although not always) takes a singular verb. So
> the Greek syntax is unambiguous, TA APOKEIMENA is the subject.
>
> > ... nor do I have an LXX handy, but could TA APOKEIMENA refer
> > back to $B+ and MXQQ (the Hebrew words) that are the subjects of
> > the first half of this verse?
> >
> >
>
> No, not according to Greek grammar. The third line of the verse
> (hEWS... AUTWi) is a subordinate clause with its own subject and
> verb. Although Greek word order is flexible, the subject of the
> main clause cannot occur in the middle of the subordinate clause.
> Now in principle the meaning could be something like "until [this
> ruler] comes to him/it" with TA APOKEIMENA as some kind of
> adverbial accusative, but if the ruler is the subject, then
> who/what is the him/it?
>
> > Similarly YB) in Hebrew is singular, looking for a singular subject.
> >
> > As for the AUTOS after the KAI, it looks as if it is merely
> > linguistic, not theological.
> >
> >
> >
> You may be right. But perhaps it depends on what YIQ.:HAT means.
> BDB and KB explain as a noun "obedience" from the root YQH., with
> an anomalous dagesh, and most English versions agree. But it looks
> as if LXX has understood this as derived from QWH "wait for, hope"
> or similar. Indeed KB suggests that LXX, Syriac and Vulgate all
> support an emendation to T.IQ:WAT. Compare also the name Q:HFT,
> Kohath. Well, if the true reading is T.IQ:WAT, then the normal
> Hebrew construction would be with L- and the person hoped in;
> although in English a person can be described as a "hope", I don't
> think this is possible in Hebrew. But it clearly is possible with
> Greek PROSDOKIA. And so this would support the argument that the
> change from dative to nominative reflects the difference in
> linguistic structure between Hebrew and Greek.
>
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page