Harold R. Holmyard III
hholmyard at ont.com
Mon Mar 5 19:48:40 EST 2001
>The absolute form for the word ark is written 'aron with a qametz on the
>Aleph (see 25:14).
Yes, that is normal, but BDB lists 'aron with a xataf-patax on the Aleph as
an absolute, and in fact lists the noun itself in that form. They give an
example of the absolute with xataf-patax in 2 Kgs 12:10.
>The absolute form for the word table is shilxan
>with a qametz on the Xeth as it is in Ex 25:23. The construct form would be
>with a patax on the Xeth.
I apologize, for I overlooked that difference. Maybe the solution here is
that 'aron could have an unusual form in the absolute with xataf-patax on
the Aleph. So perhaps the noun form for "ark" is absolute in Exodus 25:10,
even though it looks as though it were construct. Then it would match the
absolute form for "table" in Ex 25:23. It would also agree with the rule
for (&H that the verb "to make" often takes two
accusatives to describe that something is made out of something else (BDB,
p. 794d, right column, section g).
>As long as I'm elaborating we can also look on the word for lamp in Ex 25:31
>which is in the construct form with a Tav at the end of the word instead of
That would be true unless ZHB were a noun in construct relationship with
MNRT. Of course, this would go against what I said above, since you have
the verb (&H here too.
>I am quite certain that the correct form in these sentences requires the
>absolute form not the construct form.
How can you be so sure? It is possible to conceptualize these phrases as a
double accusative for the verb (&H, or as nouns in construct relationship
with one another. "Make an ark of gold" in English can suggest either "make
an ark out of gold" or "make an ark which is gold." So it may have been
possible in ancient times to look at the relationship either way. Either
could be correct. I am not sure about this, but that seems possible.
More information about the b-hebrew