Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Vocalization of wnr)h 1Sam 1:22

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: CS Bartholomew <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>
  • Cc: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Vocalization of wnr)h 1Sam 1:22
  • Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:21:19 -0700

On 15/09/2003 13:24, CS Bartholomew wrote:

On 9/15/03 12:07 PM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:


On 15/09/2003 11:19, CS Bartholomew wrote:


...
Robert Alter translates it as an active QAL, "We will see the LORD's
presence ... ...



I wonder if the key issue here is not so much the form of the verb as
the meaning of pene-YHWH. Of course this is "literally" "the face of
YHWH", but as everyone knows (certainly now, not so sure about Samuel's
time) God doesn't have a literal face but only a metaphorical one. And
it seems that in biblical Hebrew panim, when referring to YHWH and to
important humans, tends to refer not so much to the physical face as to
the presence. Thus to "see the face" of a king is to be admitted into
his presence or his audience chamber. So similarly to "see the face" of
YHWH may simply mean to come to the tabernacle, which is the place of
his presence and his audience chamber. See BDB sense I 2b of panim and
the list of references there, as well as sense II 2.



Peter,

Yes, the idiom is a common one in the MT, but Alter only unpacks the idiom
about halfway in keeping with his translation philosophy which we have
already discussed.

Well, my point was not to discuss Alter's translation, but it looks to me that he has broken his own rules here probably because he finds theologically objectionable translation which his method would give him, with "face".


My question isn't really about translation, however, my curiosity is
directed toward the question: what kind of evidence can be used to support
the vocalization of the MT at this point? Aside from ancient versions what
kind of evidence is there to support reading nr)h as a nifal or qal or qal
passive?

Well, I would hold that the original author used an active verb, but without any anthropomorphic intention as this was an idiom. And later on literal-minded precursors of Alter altered the text because they didn't understand idioms and thought this was an anthropomorphism.


Also, the qal passive is an intriguing issue. What does it really solve to
call nr)h a qal passive in 1Sam 1:22.

The qal passive idea is simply obfuscation. The only qal passives in the Hebrew Bible are participles like BARUK.




greetings,
Clay Bartholomew



--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page