Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 20:13

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 20:13
  • Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:47:27 -0600

Dear Dennis,

These four examples are in Genesis 20:13; Genesis 35:7; 2 Samuel 7:23; and Psalm 58:1. I am not sure if Genesis 31:53; Exodus 22:8; Deuteronomy 5:26; 1 Samuel 2:25; and 1 Samuel 17:26, 36 are also examples of this phenomena. Some have said they were but most Hebrew scholars do not even mention them as being in the same class the four examples previously mentioned. Nevertheless, my initial question really deals with Genesis 20:13.

HH: It seemed to me that Ps 58:1; Ex 22:8; and 1 Sam 2:25 do not show what you were suggesting. In Gen 31:53, the verb is plural, but God is mentioned more than once with a slightly different name, if that provides any extenuating circumstance. In Dt 5:26 and 1 Sam 17:26, 36 Elohim is modified by a plural adjective "living." The other verses do seem to use a plural verb with Elohim.

Adam Clarke, the great Methodist theologian of a couple hundred years ago, recognized a problem with this verse. He explained it as "Abraham was (probably referring) to his first call." In other words, he (Abraham) was referring back to his call when he was a polytheist; before he was a monotheist. Another possibility is that Abraham was "caught" in deceit by the pagan King Abimelech and to "get out of it" he rather appealed to the king's pagan belief in multiple gods. These explanations are more of a theological nature. My question deals more with grammar than theology though.


Either explanation seems reasonable to me but I have recently come across Albert Barnes' "Notes on the Bible" in which is quoted (with regard to Genesis 20:13) "13. ”™Ú hît°pû is plural in punctuation, agreeing grammatically with ýϔÈÌ 'e˜lohîym. Â(w), however, may be regarded as the third radical, and the verb may thus really be singular." Does this explanation seem reasonable to you? Is the verb "wander", as used in this verse, really to be understood as "the third radical"? I hope so, this explanation does appeal to me.

HH: There is no attestation for such a verb anywhere else, and few verbs have a third radical waw that I am aware of. I cannot think of any offhand, though there may be some. Anyway, it is much more likely that the normal understanding of the verb is right. Clarke is saying that rather than the waw letter being the sign of the third plural suffix for the verb, it may be a letter that is part of the root form of the verb. That is unlikely, since the verb supposed by the normal understanding exists and fits the context. And the form would be abnormal even if the letter was the third radical of the verb, since there is no yodh as a sign of the Hiphil. That sometimes occurs, though.

Perhaps you could explain what, exactly, is a Hebrew "third radical" verb? I may have a couple of follow up questions based on your response here.

HH: The normal understanding of the verb in Gen 20:13 is that the verb is a third "heh" verb. "Heh" is like our letter "h," and it customarily drops off before the suffix. So Clarke would be saying that the verb was not a third "heh" verb but a verb whose third letter was waw.

HH: I think it's easier just to admit that the form elohim can sometimes take a plural verb. After all, its grammatical form is plural, and when it has a plural meaning, it can take plural forms. So if it rarely takes a plural form for the verb when it has a singular meaning, that should not surprise us unduly.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard






Thanks,

Dennis K. Jones

_______________________________________________
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