Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 29/12/2004 04:49, Heard, Christopher wrote:

> ...
>
> It seems to me there is at least one more option, which I will call:
>
> 4) R)$ is a construct but N&Y) is not, and the two nouns are appositive to
> each other, yielding the reading "prince Gog, head of Meshek and Tubal." I
> view #4 as the most likely, given the considerations I will outline or refer
> to below.
>  

This is only an option if you ignore the Masoretic pointing, which 
clearly has N:&IY) as a construct. While I would expect Karl to ignore 
this, I don't expect you to, Christopher, especially as you quote this 
pointing extensively.

> In my view, your options #2 and #3 are unlikely. As corroborative data, I
> note that in the two verses from Numbers--remember that the two verses from
> Numbers and the three from Ezekiel are the only places in the Tanakh where a
> form of N&Y) immediately follows a form of RO)$--it is clear that HANN:&IYIM
> is in the absolute state and RF)$"Y is in the construct state.
>
>  
And it is clear that in Ezekiel the construction is a different one, a 
construct followed by what might be either an absolute or a construct.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.6 - Release Date: 28/12/2004