[b-hebrew] Vocalization of wnr)h 1Sam 1:22

CS Bartholomew jacksonpollock at earthlink.net
Sat Sep 13 00:26:40 EDT 2003


Karl,

Note the following places where r)h is followed by )t pny yhwh

Ex. 34:24 
Deut. 16:16 
Deut. 31:11 
1Sam. 1:22 

Do you see r)h as a qal here? No, they are all nifal. I could not find any
examples of r)h in qal followed by pny yhwh.

Also note that the Vulgate supports the MT:

1Sam. 1:22 ... et appareat ante conspectum Domini et maneat ibi iugiter

The vulgate uses the active form appareat to render the niphal r)h where the
LXX uses the passive ophthesetai. Both render the sense of the MT but of
course the MT didn't exist so we can push the date of this "reading" back a
long time before the MT. Robert Alter seems to imply that the MT
vocalization can be set aside here because the MT is late. But the reading
in question isn't late.

greetings,
Clay Bartholomew 
 


On 9/12/03 3:38 PM, "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph at email.com> wrote:

> When I read the passage in an unpointed text, I read it as a qal impf. first
> plural. The context is that Hannah is planning not to go alone, but that she
> will bring Samuel with her, so we are dealing with a plural of people. The
> first word after WNR)H is )T indicating the accusative, so where is the
> subject of the verb if it is not Hannah and Samuel?
> 
> Changing it to a niphal form seems somewhat contrived, and in the end it
> doesn’t get around the anthropomorphism. This is reading )T as meaning “with”.
> 
> Verses 1:15 and 2:18 also have the same problem with anthropomorphism as 1:22,
> but they provide extra contextual clues.
> 
> Karl W. Randolph.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: CS Bartholomew <jacksonpollock at earthlink.net>
> 
>> Robert Alter (David Story, p.7) suggests that wnr)h in 1Sam 1:22 was
>> originally vocalized as a qal impf. first plural and later changed to a
>> niph. perf. third sing. to avoid an apparent anthropomorphism.
>> 
>> What sort of evidence, specific to this passage, is there to support Alter
>> on this? Rahlfs' LXX supports the MT with a indicative future passive
>> singular ophthesetai. Are there other sources that suggest a change of
>> vocalization in the MT here?
>> 
>> 
>> greetings,
>> Clay Bartholomew








More information about the b-hebrew mailing list