Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 17.46 23/06/00 +0100, you wrote:
>You missed my point here, Ian. 

You are telling me I missed your point when the point you outline here
seems to have been dealt with in a few posts.

>My point is that if this is a proper text,
>rather than a random collection of sentences,  

No-one claimed it to be such. I think you are making a straw man.

>the author must have intended
>some sort of implicit logical connection between the two sentences.

I agree.

>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.

You might find it useful if you read what they had to say. I've already
provided some bibliography.

>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?

My posts have suggested that, if this is an eclipse description -- and that
is not necessarily the case --, there needs to be a description of the sun
being eclipsed. This I have indicated is not the first sentence which only
seems to say that the *day* of the New Moon of Hiyaru was ashamed (if b++
is a verb form -- L-stem passive? -- it hasn't been found elsewhere in
Ugaritic as yet). The second sentence appears to say how it was put to
shame: the sun went in -- and this going in was obviously not the normal
one -- as I pointed out, the Hebrew verb in Amos 8:9 seems to mean
something very similar and the verse describes an eclipse. Does this not
fit the requirement of a logical connection between the first and second
sentences? It was the connection in at least two of my previous letters.
Perhaps I was unclear.


Ian