Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

   Yigal wrote:  "However, even if that date is off by about a century either 
way it would not
make a difference, as there is NO archaeological OR textual evidence of any
appearance of anything that anyone could identify as "Israelites" until the
very end of the 13th century.

Yigal"
      I believe you refer here to the the "Israel Stele" by Merenptah; indeed 
late 13th cent., and there the matter could rest.
 
  But some timid souls would still support Th. Meek's thesis, and he was not 
the first or the only one, that the infamous Habiru of the Amarna tablets in 
the 14th century were the Hebrews. He made this connection on clear 
linguistic grounds, which  makes this worth discussion on  this list. And it 
would push back the external references to biblical Hebrews by over a 
century. But please don't tell Rainey (among those who violently deny any 
connection with the Habiru) what I wrote here.
 
Uri  
,





_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
>From mauros AT iol.ie  Sat May 22 16:54:23 2004
Return-Path: <mauros AT iol.ie>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail1.mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [193.120.142.151])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76AB2200FE
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 22 May 2004 16:54:23 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from dialup015.ts521.cwt.esat.net ([194.165.162.15]
        helo=Maurice.iol.ie) by mail1.mail.iol.ie with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #9)
        id 1BRdVb-0004PY-00; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:54:20 +0100
Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.2.20040522210457.02074ec0 AT pop.iol.ie>
X-Sender: mauros AT pop.iol.ie
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 21:36:16 +0100
To: "wattswestmaas" <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros AT iol.ie>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Even-Shoshan + Verb recognition
In-Reply-To: <FAEIIKJEKGHNGLFNMDBCCEKDCBAA.wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
References: <FAEIIKJEKGHNGLFNMDBCCEKDCBAA.wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.4
Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org>
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 20:54:24 -0000

At 12:10 22/05/2004, wattswestmaas wrote:

>For example - Following a reading of Genesis 4:1:  The verb TeLeD
>(supposedly an imperfect that I absolutely can not fit into any known
>conjugation) Working on the premise that I am at fault in my understanding I
>try to look it up.  It is listed on page 468 under number 146. And yes this
>provides, in this instance, no further understanding of the way this
>imperfect?? is conjugated.

Chris:
I see two list members have been quick off the mark to help you out on 
this. But I would suggest that you consult either an introductory  grammar, 
such as Lambdin or a reference grammar such as van der Merwe etc: A 
Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar:

There is a good treatment in the latter of peh-Yod verbs, beginning on 
p.116. It makes the point, initially, about peh-Yod and peh-Waw that:
 >>  These two classes must be considered together because of their 
historical development.<<
  Of peh-Yod verbs it notes that >>  only seven verbs that belong to this 
category occur in the Bible <<  and yours is not one of them.

Instead, >> Original peh-Waw ( or 1 waw verbs as the book uses the modern 
temrinology ) include (sit), (give birth), (go down), (know) and (go out). 
In conjugating these verbs the original waw is sometimes retained, but each 
stem formation will be considered separately.<<

which is where it gets quite complicated and you really do need to 
consult  a good grammar to understand what is going on.

For instance, just taking the two elements in the example you raise, the 
combination of the waw-consecutive and the original 1 waw verb means that:
1. Fusion of the imperfect preformative and the waw of the verb stem leads 
to the vowel of the preformative changing
2. When the waw consecutive is added to the Qal imperfect, the vowel in the 
last syllable changes due to the accent shift that accompanies the addition 
of the conjunction.

In the light of this, is it any wonder that you " absolutely can not fit 
into any known conjugation" <vbg>.  There are, after all, some things you 
_have_ to accept ( and learn ) -- and BH is replete with them!

BTW, as to the waw-consecutive ( or the waw-disjunctive as Waltke, Bruce 
K., and M. O'Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona 
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. terms it,) this book notes:

 >> A disjunctive-waw clause may also shift the scene or refer to new 
participants; the disjunction may come at the beginning or end of a larger 
episode or it may "interrupt" one. The "interruptive" use, better called 
explanatory or parenthetical, "break[s] into the main narrative to supply 
information relevant to or necessary for the narrative" The disjunction may 
also indicate "either the completion of one episode or the beginning of 
another. [ see Lambdin  p.164, citing Gn. 3:1; 4:1; 16:1; 21:1 ] " <<





Maurice A. O'Sullivan  [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros AT iol.ie