Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

Michael Banyai <Banyai AT t-online.de> wrote:
Dear Uri,

I understand your view of the Bible as Rahmengeschichte, but am still at 
odds, how such a general view should work in many cases, when one should 
rather turn against the text than go with the text. 

I preferr therefore a more relaxed view of the bible which could be here 
"Rahmengeschichte", there even a most accurate account, and in other place 
the exact opposite of what happened. This of course makes a decision 
dependent in each case from many variables, but one should bear in mind, that 
the bible was not written for us but for its contemporaries, and therefore we 
in many cases lacks the other view (or side of the medal)- the one it 
combats."....

Dear Michael,

This view is perfectly reasonable  -- one should indeed treat each element 
separately, and thus can arrive at different results. The problem as I see it 
that before the Divided Kingdom the historian can not come up with 
certainties, but rather with broad statements, such as  relative history as 
against firm dates, livinig conditions of nonsedentary clans, development of 
a sect of religious specialists and so forth.This is Ouline History.

In this sense I differ completely with the minimalists who find nothing of 
historical value  in the early -- and possibly also later  -- -parts of the 
HB.

By the way, did anyone ever use the term  "Gestaltgeschichte"?

Uri



 


                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
>From lehmann AT uni-mainz.de  Sun Sep 26 10:47:30 2004
Return-Path: <lehmann AT uni-mainz.de>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE
        [134.93.178.129])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA77320046
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:47:29 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from uni-mainz.de (dialin125.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.174.125])
        by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (Postfix) with ESMTP id A353E3000858
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:47:27 +0200 
(CEST)
Message-ID: <4156D626.AE08137A AT uni-mainz.de>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:45:58 +0200
From: lehmann <lehmann AT uni-mainz.de>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ps 90:8 (alumenu
References: <20040925160403.1AFC0200F0 AT happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854";
        x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at uni-mainz.de
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
Reply-To: lehmann AT uni-mainz.de
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: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:47:30 -0000

Karl,

I am well aware the context. Normally it's the first thing I do. My question 
was not whether the Qal passive participle fulfills what is deserved 
syntactically in Ps 90:8 or not. I simply want to know the reason for 
lexicographers to parse as Qal pass.pt, though there is not a single other 
Qal of this verb, and, in my opinion, even is very unlikely for semantic 
reasons.

(alumenu in Ps 90:8 (note the unusual writing!) fulfills the roll of the 
nominal qatUl pattern which, to be sure, is the same like the qal passive 
participle. So why make a verbal form of a root which never seems to form a 
qal? BTW: a similar problem is the root BRK, but it is actually not my 
problem.

Reinhard G. Lehmann


> Reinhard:
>
> Look at the context. In this verse it is being used as a substantive, like 
> a noun. It is referring to the unknown things, the things that we want to 
> keep hidden and unknown from others. The Qal passive participle fulfills 
> this roll.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lehmann <lehmann AT uni-mainz.de>
>
> > Dear colleages,
> >
> > can anyone explain me the traditional parsing of (alumenu Ps 90:8 as a
> > Qal passive participle? The verb does not have any Qal forms
> > at all, and, in my opinion, it seems to be much easier to explain it as
> > an adjective
> > like (acum "strong" or (arûm "clever".
> >
> > Reinhard G. Lehmann, Mainz
> >

********************************************************
   AkOR Dr.  Reinhard G. Lehmann
   Forschungsstelle für Althebräische Sprache und Epigraphik
   Fachbereich 02 Evangelische Theologie
   Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
   D - 55099 Mainz
   tel: (+49) 6131 - 39 23284
   mailto: lehmann AT mail.uni-mainz.de
   web-HP: http://www.uni-mainz.de/~lehmann/
   look at: http://www.uni-mainz.de/~lehmann/link.html
   look at: http://www.uni-mainz.de/~lehmann/KUSATU-dframe.html
********************************************************