Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Gen 14:6 and the construct state

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Donald R. Vance, Ph.D." <donaldrvance AT mac.com>
  • To: James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org, JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Gen 14:6 and the construct state
  • Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 10:48:52 -0500

Jim,
OK, let's try this again. It is impossible for bhrrm to be a construct. Period. The construct state is a different form of the noun. It is actually spelled differently as I explained in my earlier post. A noun is NOT in construct because one wants to translate it in a genitive relationship. As for "bhrrm", the form is not dubious at all. It is a noun, masculine, singular, status pron. of "har" from a root hrr with a 3, m, pl, gen. sx. and the prep. "be" to be translated “in their mountain (hill, hill country, whatever)." This form with the two reshes is found two other times (Ps 30:8 and Jer 17:3). I was not disputing the translation as "hill country" or some such. That is fine. The noun har means "hill, hill country, mountain." The phrase is in apposition to the GN "Seir." This is a common grammatical construction. The phrase then is translated "the Horites (or Hurrians) in their hill country, Seir."

James,
As for Speiser's comments, he is emending the text because he sees a difficulty in the text. He is actually changing the text. His notes indicates that he understands the MT as "in their hill country, Seir," but he finds the versions more readable. The emendation is unnecessary since the apposition relationship here is the equivalent of a genitive relationship. The construct is not the only way to express a genitive relationship. The versions are expressing the genitive relationship.

Karl,
Proper Names do NOT occur in construct. Beth-Lehem Ephratha is NOT a construct relation ship. It is an appositional phrase. How do I know this? There is no reduction as occurs in nouns in the construct relationship. Further, there are no examples of PNs in construct with the resulting vowel reduction.




On May 4, 2010, at 4:34 PM, James Christian wrote:

You misrepresented me by saying I deny it to be a plural. I accept this as a
possibility and in fact have offered the LXX translation as corroborative
line of evidence for this traditional understanding. However, where I have
to pull you up is in the way you call George and Don's an 'erudite
analysis'. What analysis? All they have done is raised objections to a
construct interpretation. They are both still to date to offer a sensible
translation which demonstrates an alternative understanding. There is no
other logical way of understanding this phrase in this context than that of
a construct relationship. If you believe there is then please offer a
concrete translation that illustrates this alternative interpretation. In
you can't then the silence speaks for itself.

James Christian


On May 4, 2010, at 3:33 PM, JimStinehart AT aol.com wrote:


Dear Professor Vance:

You wrote: “Since HRRM ends in either a m pl absolute
ending or with a 3 m pl genitive suffix (making HRR status
pronominalis--forgive the butchered Latin), it cannot be in the
construct state by definition. As for translation, "mountains, Seir"
if we go with a plural understanding, or "their mountain(s), Seir" if
we go with a gen. sx.”

Could you please explain the following translation and comment by E.A. Speiser in “The Anchor Bible Genesis”?

“…in the* hill country of Seir.
*So most versions; MT ‘their’.”

On May 4, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Karl Randolph wrote:

Karl wrote:
But if it is a name, then it is possible to have its form in the construct. In fact, because it is in the construct, that is one of the reasons I claim that it
is a name and not a noun followed by a suffix.

If a name, it can be a combination of two or more words. One possibility is HR RM (high mountain) of the land of Seir. Another possibility is that it is not a Semitic name.

There are other names used in the construct, i.e. a site name followed by a district name. Examples include Bethlehem Ephrata to distinguish it from other places named Bethlehem, and Qadesh Barnea to distinguish it from two other places named Qadesh mentioned in Tanakh. So here I see two proper nouns in construct, one a city name, one a district name.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page