ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Thu Sep 28 09:48:05 EDT 2000
On Wed 27 Sep 2000 (22:50:11), rwponder at lycos.com wrote:
> My question is this: Does this grammatical anomaly suggest that
> originally the Hebrew infinitive was a single phenomenon with *alternate*
> forms -- the construct and absolute or something akin to them -- but
> without the clear distinction in grammatical function that eventually
> was the case?
> Or is this likely a mistake in pointing -- it really should be
> pointed as an infinitive absolute?
No doubt the b-hebrew gurus will answer you in full. My "take" is that only
the Consonantal Text is "given" (the KeTiB), and that the pointing is added
by the Massoretes to facilitate our construing of the text. So no canonical
authority is invested in the pointing, ISTM.
The penultimate word is certainly taken by translators to be the Niph`al
Infinitive Absolute even though it is pointed Hi$$FMeD (inf construct with
tsere) instead of Hi$$FMoD (inf absolute with holem). The LXX (Brenton) has
ALL' H EKTRIBHi EKTRIBHSESQE - clearly for the Infinitive Absolute emphasising
the verbal idea of the root $-M-D.
I was always taught to be cautious about conjectural emendations of the
sacred KeTiB. Now the Pointing - that's fair game...
Revd Ben Crick, BA CF
<ben.crick at argonet.co.uk>
232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
More information about the b-hebrew