Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Surely a word with a pronominal suffix can never be a construct form? But
then I don't see why the translation "Thy throne is God" requires a
construct form anyway. Perhaps your (plural) terminology is confused here.

Peter Kirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Ross [mailto:wross AT farmerstel.com]
> Sent: 03 November 2001 00:54
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: RE: [christian-philosophy] Psalm 45:6 interlinear and
> exposition
>
>
> Glen, I am forwarding a copy of this to the Biblical Hebrew list
> as well, in
> the hopes that someone will have additional comment.
>
>
> <Glen>
> >>In order to translate Psalm 45:6 to say 'Thy throne is God' it would
> require that 'Thy throne' be construct and 'God' be absolute.
> Ordinarily, however, there is no difference between the masculine
> singular absolute and construct, but because we have a pronomial
> suffix, we can probably expect to see under the aleph a composite
> sere in construct and a composite patach in absolute.
>
> <Bill>
> Hey, I appreciate your taking the time to provide this background!
>
> Now, aren't the sere and the patach both vowels that were added by the
> Masorete's relatively recently?  Perhaps as late at the 9th century. Does
> your reasoningthent depend on the placement of these additions?
>
> <Glen>
> 'Thy Throne' has a pronomial suffix.  Namely, the word /kisak/ (your
> throne) is really /kisa/ (throne) plus /k/ (yours).  Now with this
> pronomial suffix I am having a very difficult time imagining this as
> being a construct form, which would be required for the translation
> you speak to.  The composite patach  under the aleph (as opposed to
> the composite sere) would seem to rule that out.
>
> <Bill>
> The vowel points? What if they are ignored? I always consider them
> inconclusive.
>
> <Glen>
> It should also be noted, however that several early Hebrew grammars,
> such as the Aben Ezra., the F. Hitzig., the the EW cluster, and the
> F. Baethgen groupings (early Hebrew grammars with textural citations)
> have a different reading for this verse, saying instead, 'Thy throne
> is of God.'
>
> <Bill>
> That approximates my reading very well...
>
> <Glen>
> And so the only real support for the idea that it's not God who is
> being addressed here, comes not from the text itself, but instead
> from some early (Circa J. Calvin era or earlier) Hebrew grammars in
> German, and their citations of this passage of text.
>
> So your reading, while not without tradition, seems to be lacking
> textural witness.
>
> <Bill>
> What of the Masoretic text, sans pointing?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Ross
>
>
> Notes:
>
> http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/10035A.TXT
>
>