Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Well, well well, Whose changing a hundred years of a basic rule - Infinite Absolute!

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Chris and Nel" <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
  • To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Well, well well, Whose changing a hundred years of a basic rule - Infinite Absolute!
  • Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:20:35 +0100

To my complete surprise, when I translated the verse in Exodus 21: 28, as "when an ox gores a man or a woman and they die, the ox shall deffinately be stoned" - I was wrong. Apparantly an Infinitive Absolute plus imperfect most likely conveyed: 'it is liable to be stoned' or 'it may be stoned'. BUT, not killing it is NOT breaking the law. Cited in "Readings in biblical hebrew, Ehud Ben Zvi, Hancock and Beinert - 1993"

Similarly, in Leviticus 20:10 "he shall surely be put to death" (I have always cringed at this 'shall surely' business anyway), means that he is liable to execution but if PARDONED that is not breaking God's commandment. And you know what, all this makes much more sense anyway. BUT what is this new developement in the Infinitive absolute, is this an isolated opinion or is there a consensus out there, and how did they arrive at this understanding? (And if it is correct then why don't they correct the 'Modern' grammar books).

NOTE:
Of course all this allows for the fact that there WAS mercy to be found in the law after all and this excites me, since I have always been under the impression that there was no Flexibility in the regulations, just rigidity. This would thoroughly explain Jesus's ability to be both an upholder of the law while at the same time appearing to break it by not having that woman stoned who was brought to him by those individuals who wanted to test Jesus.

regards
chris




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page