Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

You missed my point here, Ian. My point is that if this is a proper text,
rather than a random collection of sentences, the author must have intended
some sort of implicit logical connection between the two sentences. Scholars
are probably right not to include a link in the translation as they cannot
be sure of the author's intention across such a large cultural gap. But they
would be well advised to suggest the link in any commentary on the passage.
What logical connection would you suggest, from your wide reading of
translations into many modern languages (and translators' comments, no
doubt) as well as the original? Or do you think this was a tablet used for
writing practice so that the sentences do not make up a meaningful text?

Peter Kirk

----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: Infamous Ugaritic text: an eclipse


<snip>
>
> >Suppose we take the phrase `rbt $p$ on the tablet to mean "the sun set".
How
> >would you understand the relation between this phrase and the previous
> >phrases? Is it one of sequence, "the day was ashamed, then the sun set"?
Is
> >it one of explanation, "the day was ashamed, i.e. the sun set", or "the
day
> >was ashamed, because the sun set"? Or is it a temporal one, "the day was
> >ashamed, when the sun set"? As there is no conjunction, and assuming that
> >they are not totally independent phrases, there must be some such
> >connection. Some translators have inferred the temporal connection as the
> >most likely one. I think that is a reasonable, if debatable, choice.
>
> Nearly all translations have two separate clauses, ie functionally two
> sentences. Paolo Xella for example translated `rbt $p$ as "tramonto'" -- a
> verb in the definite past to describe what the sun does when it hits the
> horizon. Do you know of any translation from a single recognized scholar
in
> the field who translates the words as a temporal phrase?
>
> >I don't want to go into questions of chronology again now!
>
> Good show.
>
>
> Ian