Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Peter, 
> My point was to show that the reading was doubtful. I will leave the 
> choice of emendation (or not) to others. I was not going along with 
> the major change proposed in BHS, merely with the evidence quoted, 
> which as far as I can understand it is for ("BER rather than (FBAR. (I 
> am translating "prb dl et postea l" in the BHS footnote as "probably 
> delete and afterwards read" and taking the text in the footnote as an 
> alternative to the following three Hebrew words - this agrees with 
> LXX.) I think I would lean towards the consonantal text of BHS with 
> this one change of pointing, and like you explain the )EL- as a later 
> addition. But I don't claim to be an expert on this.

I apologize if my post carried a tone that I didn't intend.  You're 
right that the text is tenuous, and grammatical conclusions we 
draw from it must be equally so.  I took "postea" to mean "in its 
place," but looking at the placement of the note etc. again I see 
you're right, and I stand corrected.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.