[b-hebrew] Ezekiel 38:2f.; 39:1
Christopher.Heard at pepperdine.edu
Tue Dec 28 12:58:24 EST 2004
On 12/27/04 6:02 PM, "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph at email.com> wrote:
> I just checked all the verses where both N%Y) and RW$ are found in the save
> verse, which number 12 in Tanakh. Only in Ezekiel do we find this format of
> use, this context of the two words. All the others exept Number 10:4 have the
> words separated by other words, a separation that indicates a natural flow of
> meaning, and in Numbers the context indicates that these words are in two
> different phrases.
Karl, N&)Y followed by RO)$ is also attested in Numbers 36:1.
I wonder if you might expand on your statement that "in Numbers the context
indicates that these words are in two different phrases." How does the
content in Numbers indicate that _in distinction from_ the context in
Ezekiel? And what do you mean by "context" and how widely are you casting
the "context"? It seems to me that the immediate grammatico-syntactical
context makes the phrases in Num 10:4; 36:1; Ezek 38:2, 3; 39:1 look
parallel in construction.
Num 10:4 HANN:&IY)IYM RF)$"Y )LP"Y YI&RF)"L
Num 36:1 HANN:&IY)IYM RF)$"Y )FBWT LIBN"Y YI&RF)"L
Ezk 38:2 N:&IY) RO)$ ME$EK W:TUBFL
(Ezk 38:3 and 39:1 are the same as 38:2)
Those look syntactically parallel to me. Also the Masoretic accentuation,
for whatever it's worth, divides these phrases _the same way_. In each of
the five cases of N&Y) + RO)$, the Masoretes accent N&Y) with zaqef (zaqef
qatan in Num, zaqef gadol in Ezek), thus marking N&Y) as the end of a
phrase. I can't really see any syntactical distinctiveness of Num 10:4; 36:1
over against Ezk 38:2, 3; 39:1. The syntax looks analogous to me.
As I suggested in my long post of 12/25, RO)$ and N&Y) seem to be appositive
in each of the 5 cases where they appear side-by-side.
R. Christopher Heard
Assistant Professor of Religion
Armstrong Fellow in Religion
More information about the b-hebrew