[b-hebrew] Job 37:3

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Sat Oct 25 10:18:33 EDT 2008


Pere:

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:28 PM, <pporta at oham.net> wrote:

> [KR]
>
>> This verse has what seems to me to be an unusual form of a word, namely
>> Y$RHW. It looks as if it is from the noun Y$RH, but with the masculine
>> suffix it then should be Y$RTW, or if a lamed-he verb, the normal form
>> should be Y$RYTW.
>>
>
> [PP]
>
> I think it is a verb in Qal + suffix HW: he will let him/it loose. We find
> an analogous form (of a regular verb, not of verb lamed-he) in Psa 41:3:
> Y$MRHW, he will keep him.
> Look also at Y$RHW in Is 44:12
>
> Now this is an interesting point. It blows it wide open as to which verb is
used here, if it is in fact a verb.

( In Isaiah 44:12 there is no Y$RHW ).

If this is a verb, what is the object of the verb as indicated by the -HW?

Does not the context indicate that this is probably a noun or participle?
There are several nouns with a male singular suffix, then suddenly in the
middle of them a verb?


> [KR]
>
>> suffix it then should be Y$RTW, or if a lamed-he verb, the normal form
>> should be Y$RYTW.
>>
>
> [PP]
>
> Pay attention: if you introduce Y after R you're changing the voice: from
> Qal to Hiph'il. And this is a different thing. Now, our word in Job is in
> Qal.
>
> Not necessarily, especially when we deal with lamed hey verbs.


> [KR]
>
>  Though I noticed that in Genesis 22:13 that (LH has the
>> name form, so it's not unheard of.
>>
>
> [PP]
>
> What do you mean by "has the name form"? The word in Gn 22:13 is a verb (in
> Hiph'il this time) + suffix HW.
>
> Typo, that should have been "same" form.


> [KR]
>
>> If it is a noun, then the verb would be TXT. To fit the context from the
>> previous verse, would that not be the verb XTT "to be paralyzed from
>> fear",
>> or to fit the following half verse from XTH "to rake coals together"?
>> (Raking coals together would be to make a bright flame.)
>>
>
> [PP]
>
> I think it is not a noun, but a verb form + suffix HW
>
> [KR]
>
>> If it is a verb, then it is a happax legomai, then the question is what
>> does
>> it mean? The gloss supplied from the dictionaries I consulted doesn't seem
>> to fit the context. The LXX translators seemed to think that it was from
>> the
>> root as $RR, which has the meaning of chaining down, being a prince (law
>> enforcer).
>>
>
> [PP]
>
> The meaning "let loose" of verb $RH does not fit here?
>
> Nope. First, if that is a verb, what is its object? Secondly, what is being
let loose? (The two questions are similar, not exactly the same.) It seems
as if there is a list of actions that strengthen God's presence, then
suddenly something that is let loose?


> Pere Porta
> Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain)


As I said above, this is a puzzling verse, where the understanding seems to
turn on the meaning of Y$RHW.

Karl W. Randolph.



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list