[b-hebrew] Anderson-Forbes analysis of 1 Chron 29:1

Stephen Shead sshead.email at gmail.com
Sat Mar 17 13:46:23 EDT 2012


Hi Phil,

I agree, that seems very strange in the Andersen-Forbes analysis. Not quite
sure how 'echad (clearly referring to Solomon) can "complete" the subject
'elohiym. (I find it sometimes helps to consult the definitions given in
their "Systematic Glossary", but in this case it shed no light. Maybe their
forthcoming book??...)

It feels to me much more like a relative particle/pronoun - i.e. I would
have expected 'asher. This would fit with typical Hebrew syntax: the
embedded clause with the resumptive pronoun "him" (*bo*) pointing back to
the relative particle - i.e. something like "my son Solomon THE-ONE-WHOM
God chose him...".

However, that begs the question as to whether 'echad can function as a
relative particle, of course! I can't see that it does elsewhere (anybody
have an expert opinion??). However, I notice that Gesenius, in his section
on relative clauses, has a note on contexts in which 'asher is omitted
before a relative clause, with a special sub-note on Chronicles. In a list
of references, he cites 1 Chron 29:1 and, in parentheses, says "read prob.
'asher for 'echad" (Gesenius sect. 155 d). So it seems he found this
problematic as well.

Stephen Shead
Centro de Estudios Pastorales
Santiago, Chile


---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Philip Sumpter <philsumpter at hotmail.com>
> To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 14:10:18 +0100
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Anderson-Forbes analysis of 1 Chron 29:1
> Could someone translate for me Andersen and Forbe's syntactic analysis of 1
> Chron 29:1? I specifically mean the clause that reads: "shlomo bni 'echad
> bachar bo 'elohim". They read "shlomo bni" as being one appositional clause
> ("Solomon my son") and the rest of the phrase as a sub-clause, whereby
> "echad" = subject complement; "bachar" = verb; "bo" = direct object and
> "'elohim" = subject.
>
> How can "echad" be the subject complement of "elohim" in this sentence?
>
> And is this analysis correct?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Phil Sumpter.
>
>
>


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list