Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - BH: Hebrew Aspects

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Cynthia Edenburg <cynthia AT oumail.openu.ac.il>
  • To: 'Biblical Hebrew digest' <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: BH: Hebrew Aspects
  • Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:18:18 +0200


1. Rolf and Peter wrote:
If we use statistics, we find that there is no significant
difference in the occurrences of WAYYIQTOL, YIQTOL, QATAL and WEQATAL in
the different books, so why should we expect a change in verbal meaning?

PK: Because scholars more competent than I am have alleged this; and
because languages change gradually and not by sudden steps. These
other scholars' arguments need to be answered in detail, not simply
dismissed. The matter is not a simple one of statistics
Peter further wrote:
I would view such examples of doublets in which a different verb form
is used, especially between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, not as free
variation "without any difference in meaning", but as evidence that
and how verbal semantics changed with time
-----
I would suggest that anyone interested in further pursuit of the verbal use
in Chr/Sam-Kgs carefully read A.J.C. Verheij, Words and Numbers; A Study of
the Frequencies of the Hebrew Verbal Tense Forms in the Books of Samuel,
Kings, and Chronicles, Assen/Maastricht 1990.
Verheij conducted a thorough statistical investation of the frequencies of
the various verb forms in these books, including a comparison of usage in
synoptic passages in Chr with non-synoptic passages. Any further discussion
without reference to his findings is ignoring the primary data. What further
need to be undertaken is an examination of the frequencies of verb forms in
other second temple Biblical texts, such as Esther, Hebrew prose passages in
Daniel, etc. to see how they corelate with the findings for Chr. If the
corelation is minimal, then one must form a hypothesis (probably not
diachronic) which explains this.

2. Peter wrote:
If I assumed a linguistic argument for dating Chronicles to the same
general period as Ezra and Nehemiah, then at least I am making the
same assumption as many others.
-----
The date of Chronicles is not the problem with BH diachronics, but the
assumed Iron I provenence for MT Sam-Kgs.

Sincerely,

Cynthia Edenburg

The Open University of Israel Tel. 972-3-6460500 fax.
972-3-460767
Dept. of History, Philosophy and Jewish Studies
POB 39328 Rehov Klausner 16
Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 61392 ISRAEL








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page