Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] quesiton about Song of the Sea

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dora Smith" <villandra AT austin.rr.com>
  • To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] quesiton about Song of the Sea
  • Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 22:56:51 -0600

WaY.e):SoR )eT_RiC:B.ow?

werikbo/ werokbo?

$l$ym"
> (shalishim) ?

wexeylo?

HELP!!!! I'm sticking to Hebrew script! My dyslexia can't handle this!

I'm starting to not even be able to make sense out of English!

Yeep!

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
villandra AT austin.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] quesiton about Song of the Sea


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Polycarp66 AT aol.com>
> > I'm not sure that this is an adequate answer. If RKB means the one who
is
> > sitting upon that which is ridden, then certainly even poetic license
> would not
> > account for calling a person a "rider" of a horse before horses were
> generally
> > used in such fashion. I would suggest rather that RKB in Ex 15.1 does
not
> > mean "rider" but rather "chariot." If we look at Ex 14.6, it states
that
> > WaY.e):SoR )eT_RiC:B.ow. "and he yoked his chariot." I would therefore
> suggest that
> > we should understand 15.1 in this sense "the horse and its chariot . .
."
> >
>
> Nice idea - read "sus werikbo" instead of "sus werokbo". I suppose that
> semantically it's possible. But would the chariot be spoken of as
belonging
> to the horse? Verse 4 speaks of "markebot par(oh wexeylo" - the chariots
of
> Pharaoh and his troop. Note the use of "merkaba" for chariot, rather than
> "rekeb". The chariots belonged to Pharaoh, not to the horses. From the
> context, I'd stick with "horse and his rider". I have no idea whether the
> Egyptians used cavalry in the 12th century, but even if this is an
> anachronism, I can live with that. As I've already said, I don't think
that
> anyone can prove that this is a particularly early text.
>
> By the way, does anyone have any new ideas about what the "$l$ym"
> (shalishim) of verse 4 are?
>
> Yigal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page