Biblical Hebrew Forum

["George F. Somsel" <gfsomsel AT juno.com>]

Herman,

Here is an excerpt from the Anchor Bible Dictionary article on Ai

Another violent destruction overtook the city about 2400 b.c., during the
5th Dyn. of Egypt. No definite identity of the aggressor is known, but a
scene in the tomb of Inti at Dishashi depicts the capture of a Canaanite
town, and a mutilated inscription names two cities, neither of which can
be identified. If Ai was taken from control of Egypt about 2550 b.c., it
would be among the cities in Canaan listed for recapture in any campaign
to regain control of the region. In any case, the city was completely
destroyed and abandoned, and was not reoccupied until Iron Age settlers
came upon the ruins of the site 1,200 years later, ca. 1200 b.c. 
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York:
Doubleday.

On Sat, 22 May 2004 17:51:18 EDT Ephraim49 AT aol.com writes:
Hello Gfsomsel

You wrote the following:

<< There is, e.g. the problem of Ai which is described as
<<being immediated conquered after Jericho.  The occupation 
<<of this site shows nothing during this period.  There is nothing 
<<between the Early Bronze age and the Iron Age. 

Thanks for your input.  How about using definitive dates.  Are you 
saying there is nothing to support the 1400 BC timeframe?  That is
to be expected, since correct biblical chronology cites 1558 BC as 
being the  timeline.  What do the ruins of Ai show for that period?

Herman
>From hholmyard AT ont.com  Sat May 22 19:47:21 2004
Return-Path: <hholmyard AT ont.com>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from online.OnlineToday.Com (online.OnlineToday.Com [204.181.200.2])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52BDF200A6
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 22 May 2004 19:47:21 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [205.242.61.90] (na90.OnlineToday.Com [205.242.61.90])
        by online.OnlineToday.Com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 
i4MNlJK2025114
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 22 May 2004 18:47:20 -0500 
(CDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: hholmyard AT mail.ont.com
Message-Id: <a06020401bcd5960ec0b4@[205.242.61.90]>
In-Reply-To: <FAEIIKJEKGHNGLFNMDBCEEKKCBAA.wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
References: <FAEIIKJEKGHNGLFNMDBCEEKKCBAA.wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 18:45:08 -0500
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ex 7:26 - let my people go???
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
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 23:47:21 -0000

Dear Chris,

That's a Piel imperative. The forms for the 2ms imperative and the 
infinitive construct are the same.

                        Yours,
                        Harold Holmyard

>At the risk of irritating the board members I pose another question please.
>
>What appears as a 'good old fashioned simple command' by Moses has me
>somewhat bewildered.  It surrounds the way in which the verb SHaLaCH is
>"chosen" to convey a simple statement.  Infinite construct in the Piel
>stem??  I have to recall that only an Infinite Absolute can be used as an
>imperative, but either way can anyone show me why this straightforward
>verbal sense of "SEND" or "Let my people go" should be so (spoken) in the
>Inf Const piel manner.  Some english translators translate as "send" others
>as "let my people go" how do we arrive 'grammatically' at the latter ( I see
>that the verb take the direct object of God's people), if piel often
>intensifies the qal I do not see how we can intensify "send';  on the other
>hand infinite construct is a verbal noun (or taking the place of a noun) and
>therefore both "send" and "let my people go" are difficult to justify.