Biblical Hebrew Forum

[FPutnam AT biblical.edu]

Hi, Chris.

This is a pausal form, linked to the *athnach*. Like *silluq* (the 
vertical accent under the last word in most vv.), the major pause signaled 
by *athnach* causes some vowels to "lengthen" to *qamets*. Of course this 
explanation is entirely post hoc, but is generally accepted. See the ref. 
grammars (e.g., GKC 29i-v; Jouon-Muraoka 32).

<snip>

Subject:  EZEKIEL  20:7 AND 18  HITPAEL STEM.

Why, in place of the expected 'sheva' under the 'mem' in the verb: "defile
yourselves", am I dissappointed to see an irritating little 'qames'??

Thankyou

Chris

<snip>


Frederic Clarke Putnam, Ph.D.
Professor of Old Testament
Biblical Theological Seminary
Hatfield, PA
>From gathas AT hotkey.net.au  Thu May 27 08:58:00 2004
Return-Path: <gathas AT hotkey.net.au>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from duckula.hotkey.net.au (duckula.hotkey.net.au [202.138.0.111])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F7920021
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 27 May 2004 08:57:59 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from Presario (242.d.002lg.syd.iprimus.net.au [210.50.99.242])
        by duckula.hotkey.net.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i4RCvfd03121;
        Thu, 27 May 2004 22:57:41 +1000
Message-ID: <013d01c443ea$2fe71c60$f26332d2@Presario>
From: "George Athas" <gathas AT hotkey.net.au>
To: "Brian Roberts" <formoria AT carolina.rr.com>
References: <94B5F41E-AFD6-11D8-84E9-0005028E3A38 AT carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] question re: Tel Dan stela
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 22:57:30 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.4
Cc: bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz, 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: Thu, 27 May 2004 12:58:01 -0000

Hi Brian!

> When you say seemingly unanimous evidence, are you referring to all=20
> those dozens of Israelite royal inscriptions? Oh, wait. There aren't=20
> dozens of Israelite royal inscriptions. So then are you referring to=20
> non-Israelite royal inscriptions for your standard against which to=20
> measure the Tel Dan inscription? Clearly, there was enough of a =
cultural=20
> difference between the Israelites and surrounding examples you might=20
> cite that accounts for their lack of long royal inscriptions. This=20
> cultural difference can account for the interpretation of Bayt Dawid =
as=20
> a dynastic Davidic House.

Good point about the royal Israelite inscriptions. Are you saying that =
there were none, or that we have found none? The answer to that at this =
point in time must be that we don't know. It must be an argument from =
silence. I for one think that there probably were Israelite royal =
inscriptions, but since we don't have any in our domain we can't argue =
either for or against whether they did or did not refer to kings as =
'king of [Dynastic Name]'.

In terms of epistemology and logic, if you are saying that I cannot make =
my point, then you cannot make your point either. There is no logically =
necessary link between proposing the likelihood of Israelite royal =
inscriptions and the use of the phraseology 'king of [Dynastic Name]' in =
those same inscriptions.

However, since the field of interest is not devoid of all royal =
inscriptions, I believe we can say something. I am not declaring the =
matter proven -- I am merely building a cumulative case. And there is =
far more evidence for saying that kings were not labelled as 'king of =
[Dynastic Name]' than there is to say that they were. Neighbouring =
cultures do not seem to have used that phraseology. Neither does it =
appear anywhere in the entire biblical corpus. Granted, the biblical =
corpus is not a royal inscription, but it is literary Hebrew.

Furthermore, bear in mind that the Tel Dan Inscription is not an =
Israelite royal inscription at all -- it is a Syrian royal inscription. =
To say that Israelite royal inscriptions may have used the phraseology =
in question is to argue from another culture -- the very thing you are =
arguing against. Following that logic, we may just as well argue the =
case from the fact that Aztec or Chinese inscriptions may have used the =
phraseology in question. If that is illegitimate, then what makes =
Israelite culture a legitimate measure? If it comes down to the fact =
that Israelite culture is sufficiently proximate or similar to Syrian =
culture, then we are back to my initial assertion.

Finally, you will notice that I used the terminology 'seemingly =
unanimous evidence'. I am aware that the case cannot be proved, so we =
must qualify the statement with the word 'seemingly'. This shows that I =
am building a cumulative case, not an absolute proof. But, then I =
believe that is also what you are trying to do. We have to weigh up the =
two arguments side by side, then, and see where the burden of proof =
lies.

To summarise, if we say that a neighbouring culture cannot be used as a =
standard here, and we use a neighbouring culture as the standard to back =
our argument, our argument defeats itself. I realise that you are saying =
an argument from silence has the potential to be an argument, but I want =
to say it also has the potential to argue against you. While the silence =
persists, we will have to build cumulative cases that appeal to the =
burden of evidence, rather than the absolutes of proof.


Best regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Lecturer in Biblical Languages
Southern Cross College
Sydney, Australia