Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: 1Samuel 1.9again.

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>, ian goldsmith <iangoldsmith1969 AT yahoo.co.uk>
  • Subject: RE: 1Samuel 1.9again.
  • Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:21:43 -0400


Ian wrote:

>I wouldn't expect my house to be a castle, but the
>expression still stands, 'my home is my castle'.

A couple of things. First, this sort of construction (one thing "is"
another)
is ideal for clear, metaphorical statement. It is used to say that something
is something, which is quite different from simply assuming that something is
something and calling it that in passing. Second, the second "my" is
important to the expression. By putting it that way, you don't literally
think that it's a castle--only that it's a castle to you.

[snipped]
>
>"Then would you also say that the shift in use from
>bet to hekal over time (as hekal becomes more common
>in later Bib. Heb.) reflects a shift in thinking
>about God's royal role?"
>
>Not really. It may reflect the preference of the
>author for the term.

But you're saying that the point of using the term is to stress the
tabernacle
as God's royal residence. Since the author doesn't seem to be making a point
of that fact, it seems like it should be a matter of general perspective.
But
if that's not also why the term becomes so much more common in later biblical
literature, it seems like maybe this case is being viewed too
idiosyncratically.

[snipped]
>
>Driver and Briggs are both Wellhausians, so I wouldn't
>expect them to want to find a semitic root, that
>doesn't mean that there isn't one, just that we don't
>know of one. Perhaps they're right, point is we don't
>know.

There are a lot of things that we don't know, many of them in this discussion.
But if we're talking about evidence, it seems hard to me to contest the
notion that E.GAL is originally Sumerian. Please let me know when you've
come
up with its Semitic origins otherwise, but until then I'll stick with the
most
plausible explanation :-)
>
[snipped]

>Who says you have to stretch anything. Just because
>it's the first use of the word in this context doesn't
>mean they meant something else. Would the writer have
>clarified by adding something like,"sat on a seat near
>the post of the temple, the one near the tabernacle",
>if the tabernacle wasn't what was meant.

I hardly feel qualified to say what the author would have said. I'm just
trying to deal with what in fact was said and what seems to be plausibly
attached to that term.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics




  • Re:1Samuel 1.9again., ian goldsmith, 10/19/2001
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • RE: 1Samuel 1.9again., Trevor Peterson, 10/19/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page