Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Peter:

I did not claim that TA APOKEIMENA is the subject of the main sentence, 
rather it is a reference that points back to the subject of the main 
sentence. I agree that the former is not allowed, but the latter is. As a 
neuter plural, it is either nominative or accusative.

As I said before, I am not a Greek expert, so how would one say "until comes 
the one to whom they belong"? Whereas proper Greek has the subject of a verb 
only as a nominative, could this be a Hebreism by the translator as Hebrew 
allows the equivelant of the dative as the subject of the verb?

YQHT is mentioned only in Proverbs 30:17 besides this verse, and there is no 
verb YQH attested to in Tanakh. That such a verb was found in B-Hebrew is 
speculation on the part of BDB. Are there any clues from cognate languages? 
If not, the meaning, even etymology, is uncertain.

Karl W. Randolph.

.----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>

> 
> On 25/01/2005 08:18, Karl Randolph wrote:
> 
> > Peter:
> >
> > Taking the Greek listed below, it is interesting to note that the 
> > verb is singular, therefore it would not refer to TA APOKEIMENA 
> > which is plural, but to AUTWi. I don't know Greek that well, ...
> >
> 
> This is obvious! AUTWi certainly cannot be the subject of the verb, 
> because it is dative whereas the subject must be nominative. But 
> there is a Greek grammatical rule that a neuter plural subject like 
> TA APOKEIMENA often (although not always) takes a singular verb. So 
> the Greek syntax is unambiguous, TA APOKEIMENA is the subject.
> 
> > ... nor do I have an LXX handy, but could TA APOKEIMENA refer 
> > back to $B+ and MXQQ (the Hebrew words) that are the subjects of 
> > the first half of this verse?
> >
> >
> 
> No, not according to Greek grammar. The third line of the verse 
> (hEWS... AUTWi) is a subordinate clause with its own subject and 
> verb. Although Greek word order is flexible, the subject of the 
> main clause cannot occur in the middle of the subordinate clause. 
> Now in principle the meaning could be something like "until [this 
> ruler] comes to him/it" with TA APOKEIMENA as some kind of 
> adverbial accusative, but if the ruler is the subject, then 
> who/what is the him/it?
> 
> > Similarly YB) in Hebrew is singular, looking for a singular subject.
> >
> > As for the AUTOS after the KAI, it looks as if it is merely 
> > linguistic, not theological.
> >
> >
> >
> You may be right. But perhaps it depends on what YIQ.:HAT means. 
> BDB and KB explain as a noun "obedience" from the root YQH., with 
> an anomalous dagesh, and most English versions agree. But it looks 
> as if LXX has understood this as derived from QWH "wait for, hope" 
> or similar. Indeed KB suggests that LXX, Syriac and Vulgate all 
> support an emendation to T.IQ:WAT. Compare also the name  Q:HFT, 
> Kohath. Well, if the true reading is T.IQ:WAT, then the normal 
> Hebrew construction would be with L- and the person hoped in; 
> although in English a person can be described as a "hope", I don't 
> think this is possible in Hebrew. But it clearly is possible with 
> Greek PROSDOKIA. And so this would support the argument that the 
> change from dative to nominative reflects the difference in 
> linguistic structure between Hebrew and Greek.
> 
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm