Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Adam Lipstadt <abl215 AT nyu.edu>]

I wanted to thank all who responded to my bibliographic
inquiry.  I found a few sources I did not yet have as a 
result - sources that I think should prove useful. I have 
not read everything yet, but I did get through a good number
of them. Gary Rendsberg's book, of course, has been especially
useful by being so systematic, though some criteria are clearly 
better founded than others.

In examining the origins of Ex. 15, I have been 
considering the use of P(L as opposed to (&H 
as evidence of northern authorship (drawing
on Phonecian, Ugaritic).  

Originally, I was not sure whether this would apply to Ex 15, 
as all three roots appear, however, (&H is not used 
as a verb, rather as a participle in Ex15:11 - (&H PL) 
almost as a formula, and not an active form...

Am I seeing too much in the morphology, or is this
a real distinction? Any opinions?

Thanks,
Adam


---
Adam Lipstadt
abl215 AT nyu.edu
New York University
(212) 355-1277

"It is a widely accepted notion among painters
that it does not matter what one paints, as
long as it is well painted. This is the essence
of academicism. There is no such thing as a
good painting about nothing. We assert that
the subject is crucial and only that subject
matter is valid which is tragic and timeless.
That is why we profess a spiritual kinship with
primitive and archaic art."

Mark Rothko