Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

I see a problem with Naama's idea that the sentence element fronted 
for emphasis is not the verb "test" but the subject "God". In some 
cases that might suggest some sort of contrast i.e. that previously 
someone else (Abimelech and Phicol?) had been testing Abraham but now 
it was God doing the testing. Now I don't think that really fits here. 
But perhaps "God" is emphasised here to make it clear that it was not 
just Abraham's own idea to sacrifice his son, that God had taken the 
initiative and commanded it.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Genesis 22:1
Author:  <nxzaha AT wm.edu> at Internet
Date:    07/03/2000 10:16


Hello!  I always understood the x-qatal phrase in Genesis 22:1 as saying, in 
eff
ect,
"what follows was a TEST" -- that is, notifying the reader in advance and 
with e
mphasis
that the request from God to Abraham to sacrifice his son was a test, that 
God w
as not
really interested in getting a human sacrifice but rather in Abraham's 
willingne
ss to
obey.  There is a subtle difference between that and your translation:  your 
translation is like putting a descriptive title at the top of a paragraph, my 
understanding is rather like a notification that provides a specific viewing 
poi
nt from
which to observe a story that might otherwise be read differently.

Best wishes,

Naama



"Lee R. Martin" wrote:

> Dear Friends,
> How would you exegete the clauses in Genesis 22:1? 
> I am thinking of the following:
> 1- The verse begins with wayyiqtol of HYH, a discourse marker,
> introducing a new element into the narrative, namely the testing of 
> Abram.
> 2- The first clause is temporal, providing a setting for the upcoming 
> narrative: "And it happened after these events..."
> 3- The second clause is where I need your help.  It is a x-qatal clause. 
> "and God tested Abram."
> 4- The third clause begins with wayyiqtol, which suggests the beginning 
> of the narrative proper. "And God said to him, "Abram..."
>
> I am thinking that the second clause is the apodosis (a la Niccacci) to 
> the first clause.  The two clauses go together to form the
> introduction/background/setting for the narrative that begins with the 
> third clause.  I might paraphrase the interpretation thusly: "After
> these events, the testing of Abraham happened." 
>
> Niccacci's discussion of Wayihi (sections 31,32) points to the fact that 
> a temporal circumstance may be followed by wayyiqtol or x-qatal, and
> many examples may be given. He does not, however, explain the difference 
> between the two constructions.  He says that both structures refer to "a 
> single past action."  So what is the difference between them?
>
> --
>
> Lee R. Martin
> Pastor, Prospect Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee 
> Instructor in Hebrew and Old Testament
> Church of God Theological Seminary 
> http://earth.vol.com/~lmartin/
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: nxzaha AT wm.edu
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
> leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc
.edu
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.e
du
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.