Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

This is very interesting George. What brought you to these conclusions?
Can you translate a passage like Rolf did and show us how your method 
can help us translate these ideas in order to recreate the theatrical 
stage for the readers?

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of George Athas
Sent: Sun 7/31/2005 1:09 PM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbs
 
  Dear Rolf,

  You know what it looks like? It looks as though you're saying, "It 
  creates a lot of theoretical difficulties trying to unravel how these 
  various verb forms function in their contexts, so let's just throw 
  them all out and make up the meanings that seem logical to us."

Harold (and others),

While it might appear so, I think there is more in Rolf's theory than merely 
this. I have been working (among other things) at a theory of Hebrew verbal 
aspect over the last few years, and hope to have a grammar ready in the next 
couple of years.

Rolf's point that Biblical Hebrew has no tense is one with which I strongly 
agree. The evidence strongly points in this direction. But this statement 
needs to be nuanced. Perhaps another way to put it is that the verbal 
conjugations do not speak so much about tense, but rather the reader's 
distance from the action. In other words, the verbs do not work on a temporal 
plain, but rather a spatial plain. Tense must be inferred secondarily from 
the spatial sphere. The way I describe it to my students is a bit like 
watching a play in a theatre. English verbs, which have tense, are like 
watching the play from your seat in the audience: you don't move, the action 
moves before you. Biblical Hebrew verbs, though, invite you to come onto the 
stage and watch the play from various vantage points.

Thus, WAYYIQTOL verbs present an action which is viewed as being initially 
'far' from the viewer/reader, but which invites the viewer/reader to come and 
look at it. In this way, narrative momentum is produced, and the 
viewer/reader moves with the action. A QATAL verb, though, halts such 
narrative momentum and presents an action up close. This is not because the 
action of the QATAL is close in time, but because the author wants the 
viewer/reader to see the action as critically important. A YIQTOL verb 
presents an action which is quite distant from the viewer/reader, such that 
the action is almost seen as filling out the background or the 'set'. A 
WEQATAL verb is merely an 'add on' verb form and sustains the focus wherever 
the viewer/reader is. Thus, the verb forms are like stage directions, telling 
the viewer/reader 'where' the actions are occuring on the literary 'stage', 
rather than 'when' the actions are occuring in time.

The choice of verb forms has primarily to do with dramatic effect. After all, 
let's face it, Biblical Hebrew is great at telling a story or a poem. Timing 
is of secondary importance. For example, many times a YIQTOL is translated as 
a future tense, not because the future tense is intrinsic to it, but because 
the author wants the viewer/reader to see the future as 'far' from the 
current standpoint. On other occasions, a YIQTOL is translated as a 
continuous past tense because, again, the action is seen to be distant from 
the current standpoint. In any case, the author is trying to convey that the 
action conveyed by the YIQTOL, whether it be past, present, future, or a 
combination of these, should be seen as filling in the background or the 
'set'. Thus, it's not that Hebrew verbs have no temporal connotations, but 
they are not intrinsic to the verb form.

Having said that, some work needs to be done on the various stages of the 
development of Biblical Hebrew. At some stage, tense came into the Hebrew 
language. A diachronic analysis needs to be done to see how and when the 
language developed and gained a tense system.


Best regards,

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


BTW - On a personal note, as of next year I will be leaving Southern Cross 
College and joining the faculty at Moore College in Sydney.

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk  Sun Jul 31 09:21:11 2005
Return-Path: <k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail59.messagelabs.com (mail59.messagelabs.com 
[195.245.230.83])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C32AC4C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:21:10 -0400 
(EDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-59.messagelabs.com!1122816069!11957294!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.4.15; banners=kingston.ac.uk,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [141.241.2.22]
Received: (qmail 19779 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2005 13:21:09 -0000
Received: from kuexim3.king.ac.uk (141.241.2.22)
        by server-12.tower-59.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
        31 Jul 2005 13:21:09 -0000
Received: from [141.241.17.18] (helo=KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk)
        by kuexim3.king.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DzDka-0002ZA-Rw
        for b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:21:09 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:21:08 +0100
Message-ID: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F813A3FD AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [b-hebrew] Author of the torah
Thread-Index: AcWVN5wrIuiaNlgkSk6HfCd7bGrYHAAmINxD
From: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
To: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Author of the torah
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
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: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:21:11 -0000

Yizhak wrote:
> d)for strong reasons of fulfillment of tanak prophecy I hold
> that yehoshua was the messiach and was therefore far more
> qualified than any 'scholar' to comment on the torah's authorship.
> Yehoshua's testimony in this regard is clear that he held it to
> be Moses own work.

Yehoshua is a person who lived contemporary with Moses and is credited
in the Talmud with perhaps authoring the last verses of the Torah.  Please 
refrain from using this name to refer to Jesus.  Jesus' Hebrew name was 
most likely "y:$u(" spelled y$w(, and represents pronounciation before the 
development of a furtive patah under the (ayin in such cases.

More than that, while I have no problem with any personal belief you hold,
please don't make it a requirement for argument with you to assume that
Jesus was the Messiah.  This list is not the place to argue to and fro that
point.  It is, however, offensive that you invoke Jewish tradition over and
over again in light of such an assumption.

end quote

Yehoshua who took over Moshe' had the same name as the Yehoshua who 
fulfilled Moshe's prophecies. The name was in common usage and it is 
not inignificant that they shared the same name.
While I appreciate that you do not believe that Yehoshua was the messiah 
there are equally members of this mailing list who may be offended by 
your view that he was a fraud. But I don't see anyone telling you and 
talking down to you as you have done to me and this is a sign of maturity 
that those who may have felt offended have kept it to themselves.
While you are correct that arguments about Yehoshua's messiahship are 
inapproriate for this mailing list the evidence was appropriate for 
the question at hand and unfortunately for you it is the greatest proof 
that there is and so has a rightful place in this discussion.

As for your comment about the Anchor bible dictionary:

NO COMMENT!!! (trying my best not to laugh)

Was the best you could do after giving me a lecture on primary sources???

Regards
James Christian

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk  Sun Jul 31 09:39:15 2005
Return-Path: <k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail58.messagelabs.com (mail58.messagelabs.com 
[193.109.255.35])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72BE34C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:39:15 -0400 
(EDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-58.messagelabs.com!1122817154!0!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.4.15; banners=kingston.ac.uk,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [141.241.2.18]
Received: (qmail 12162 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2005 13:39:14 -0000
Received: from kuexim2.king.ac.uk (141.241.2.18)
        by server-12.tower-58.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
        31 Jul 2005 13:39:14 -0000
Received: from [141.241.17.18] (helo=KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk)
        by kuexim2.king.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DzE25-0005rL-RN
        for b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:39:14 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:39:13 +0100
Message-ID: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F813A3FE AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [b-hebrew] Author of the torah
Thread-Index: AcWVN5wrIuiaNlgkSk6HfCd7bGrYHAAm7UbI
From: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
To: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Author of the torah
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
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: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:39:15 -0000

Yitzhak wrote:
> c)why would the hebrews not object to a group of imposters
> fabricating the writings of their most important prophet
> centuries after his death?

I don't know what to tell you.  But you assume that the "Hebrews" diligently
copied and were all literate and familiar with the Torah for much of the 
ancient
times.  In fact, the two major holidays of the Jewish calendar - the Feast of
Tabernacles and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, were not observed for a great
many years.  See 2 Kings 23:21 and Nehemiah 8:13 - 18.  Both instances
also follow events where the Torah is made known to the people in some way,
apparently because they were not aware of it beforehand.  So now you ask
why they wouldn't object?  How would they object if they were not aware of
the contents of the Torah throughout most of the First Temple period and
when the Bible illustrates a situation where the Torah was forgotten again and
again?  However, I ask you to refrain from calling Ezra or Josiah or any other
Biblical personality an imposter.  That I may think they elaborated or
interpreted
the Torah text, part of it, or joined various earlier documents
together, does not
mean that they weren't divinely inspired to do so.  Your assumption that 
history
must have happened the way you think it was or else we are talking about 
"imposters" and "fabrication" is unwarranted and even offensive.
end quote.

Ezra was certainly not an imposter and I would never dare to incur Yah's 
wrath 
by suggesting such a thing. Without men like Ezra I wouldn't be able to read 
the
torah and I am thankful that he was such a faithful copyist. He is a link in 
a 
chain which relates all readers and copiers of Yah's words directly back to 
Moshe'
himself. He faithfully carried out the work which was patterned for him by 
Yehoshua
and commanded by Moshe. But let us not forget exactly what he was, a copyist. 
Not a prophet or 
a copyist given more than the usual authority but a normal copyist who loved 
Yah 
and would not have dared to overstep the mark of his duties. In fact, were he 
here
today he would set you straight on a fair few matters and teach you the ways 
of the 
true scholar 'Trust in Yahowah with all your heart and do not lean on your 
own 
understanding' Proverbs3:5.

Regarding Yosiah. Another interesting case that cuts your reasoning down 
mercilessly.
He was born Mannaseh's rule. The whole nation was filled with every kind of 
pagan 
ritual and divination and practices of magic. Yahowah's temple was desecrated 
and 
being used as a place of worship for foreign gods and the priests were all a 
part 
of it. Who do you think carried out the ritual sacrifices???
When Yosiah was king we read that Hilkiah accidently stumbled across Moshe's 
scroll 
when taking some dosh up to the temple. It was likely the only copy around 
and had only 
survived because of Yah's intervention so that Yosiah could restore pure 
worship to 
the land after Mannaseh's death.

I would be interested in hearing your distorted theories for how the 'oral 
traditions' 
managed to survive through this period in a pure enough state for Ezra to be 
able 
to complete the torah for us.

Love and Shalom! Yitzhak
Pray and ponder on these things before making another off the cuff attack.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From furuli AT online.no  Sun Jul 31 10:31:13 2005
Return-Path: <furuli AT online.no>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail44.e.nsc.no (mail44.e.nsc.no [193.213.115.44])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41644C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:31:12 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from ttttt (ti200710a080-9406.bb.online.no [85.164.164.190])
        by mail44.nsc.no (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j6VEVA6m020015
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:31:11 +0200 
(CEST)
Message-ID: <005f01c595dc$823d0cf0$ea81fea9@ttttt>
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: 
<011e01c59310$9c88d4a0$6800a8c0@hp><000d01c593a2$6915f980$ea81fea9@ttttt><42E996FD.5000408 AT twcny.rr.com><002901c59407$f6f59a20$ea81fea9@ttttt><42EA6C36.4050301 AT twcny.rr.com><000601c594e0$fee84ff0$ea81fea9@ttttt>
        <42EB5AAB.9030209 AT qaya.org><001601c594fc$de993860$ea81fea9@ttttt>
        <42EB9761.70004 AT twcny.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:31:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
        reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbs, text-segmenting and clause-types
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
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: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:31:13 -0000

Dear Bryan,

There are several attractive sides with your model, but I will concentrate
on two problems, 1) the lack of control mechanisms, and 2) the possibility
of circularity.

I will concentrate on Psalm 107: 17-20.

NIV has the following translation:

17. Some became fools (nominal cl. ) through their rebellious ways
and suffered affliction (YIQTOL) because of their iniquities.
18. They loathed (YIQTOL) all food and drew near (WAYYIQTOL) the
gates of death.
19. Then they cried (WAYYIQTOL) to the LORD on their trouble,
and he saved (YIQTOL) them from their distress.
20. He sent forth (YIQTOL) his word and healed them (WEYIQTOL), he
rescued (WEYIQTOL) them from the grave (YIQTOL)

It seems that the NIV translators viewed these verses as historical
narrative. They are expressed by 5 YIQTOLs, 2 WEYIQTOLs, and 2 WAYYIQTOLs.
You classify the first part of v 17 as historical narrative, and vv. 18, 19,
as PD (repeated actions in the past), and v 20 has no classification.  Only
the YIQTOL of v. 20 is sentence initial.

Q 1: Do the WAYYIQTOLs, the WEYIQTOLs, and the YIQTOLs have the same
semantic meaning (the imperfective aspect), or do they havve different
meanings?

Q 2: The WAYYIQTOLs and the WEYIQTOLs evidently have the same temporal
reference, so what is the difference?

 How can we pinpoint repeated action in the past  when both the
perefective and the imperfective aspect can portray repeated action? This is
a rhetorical question.
Look at 1a and 1b below, where both have perfective verbs. Example 1a may
very well
indicate repeated action, but whether Ann knocked once or several times is
not made visible. In 1b
the repeated action is made visible, not by the verb, but by the verb +
adverbial.  In the account of the death of Enkidu, the friend of Gilgamesh,
in the Akkadian Gilgamesh epic, Gilgamesh says:  uri u mu$i eli$u abki "Day
and night I cried over him" (the verb BAKÛ (to weep) is perfective (the
iprus form)) but the adverbial shows that the actions are repeated.

1a. Ann has knocked at the door.
1b. Ann has knocked at the door for one minute.

Also in classical Hebrew repeated actions in the past can be expressed both
by imperfective and perfective verbs.  Please compare the three clauses 2a,
2b, and 2c below.  In 2a the interpretation of repeated actions is caused by
a knowledge of the world: The paper is regularly published. In 2b and 2c the
adverbials are the cause for our interpretation of repeated actions, one
with a perfective and the other with an imperfective verb.

2a. Last year I have read (perfective) the New Tork Times.
2b. As they have done (QATAL) from the day I brought them out of Egypt until
this day. 1 Samuel 8:8 NIV
2c. That is why to this day neither the priests of Dagon nor any others who
enter Dagon`s temple in Asdod step (YIQTOL) on the threshold. 1 Samuel 5:5
NIV

My point is that if we have a clause in classical Hebrew where we see
repeated actions in the past, this interpretation is caused by other factors
than the conjugation.  The only exceptions are verbs whith punctiliar
Aktionsart where the imperfective aspect is used. But the requirements to be
certain are that we can be sure that the verb really is punctiliar and that
we know which conjugation is imperfective. So, when you classify verbs as
signifying repeated action in the past on the basis of discourse analysis,
it seems to me that this may be circular, because there are no control
mechanisms.  It seems to me that v. 17 is of the same nature as vv. 18-20,
and if the actions of these verses are interpreted as repeated, that should
be the case with the actions in v. 17. Why should they not?


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



v. 17 (or the first part?)  you classify as historical narrative - one
nominal clause and one YIQTOL.


----- Original Message -----
From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbs, text-segmenting and clause-types


>
>
> Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
>> A fine test-case of temporal ambiguousness is Psalm 107.
>>
>
> I think you understand that I do not view the BH verb forms as tenses.
> On the other hand, I am not a Sperberite!  ;-)
>
> In a different post, I mentioned how critical it is to segment a poetic
> text to comprehend the variety of verb forms used (it is true for a
> prose text as well; it is just that the need to segment a poetic text is
> less well understood).  We should not assume that the verb forms
> represent one continuous string from the beginning of a poem to the end.
>
> In the other post I mentioned a mechanism by which to segment a poem,
> performance deixis.  In Psa 107, a different mechanism segments the
> poem; the performance deixis is consistent, bard > general audience,
> except for, perhaps, 29a, which is YHWH > storm.
>
> Here is a schemeatic representation of the psalm's structure:
>
>           _____
> Hortatory |
> Discourse |
>           |  _____
>           |  |
>           |  | Historical Narrative 1
>           |  |_____
>           |
>           |
>           |  _____
>           |  |
>           |  | Historical Narrative 2
>           |  |_____
>           |
>           |  etc.
>
> IOW, a Hortatory Discourse, which may be characterized by the
> exhortation, "Let them praise YHWH!" has embedded within it several
> Historical Narrative sections that provide reason to praise YHWH.
>
> In addition, some of the Historical Narratives have embedded within them
>   elaborative material that takes the form of other discourse types.
>
> *Within each section*, the distribution of the verb forms is mostly
> conventional, that is, mostly just as we observe in prose texts *based
> on discourse genre*.  IOW, in Historical Narratives we will find a
> wayyiqtol mainline, in Expository sections we will see a noun sentence
> and complex noun sentence (X-yiqtols and X-qatal) mainline, and in
> Hortatory Discourse we will see an imperative and clause-initial yiqtol
> mainline.
>
> Below is a verse by verse bracket diagram of Psa 107.  Note the pleasing
> parallelism between the embedded Nistorical Narratives.
>
> Abbreviations:
> H = Hortatory Discourse (makes exhortations)
> HN = Historical Narrative Discourse (tells a story in the past)
> E = Expository Dicourse  (explains a truth)
> P = Procedural Discourse (for repeated actions in the past)
>
>
>       _____
> 1  H  |
> 2     |
> 3     | ____
> 4     | | HN 1
>       | | ____
>       | | | E
> 5     | | |____
> 6a    | |
> 6b    | | P
> 7     | |____
> 8     |
> 9     | ____
> 10    | | HN 2
>       | | ____
>       | | | E
> 11    | | |____
> 12    | |
> 13a   | |
> 13b   | |__P__
> 14    |
> 15    |
> 16    | ____
> 17    | | HN 3
>       | | ____
>       | | | P
> 18a   | | |____
> 18b   | |
> 18c   | |
> 19a   | |
> 19b   | |__P__
> 20    |
> 21    |
> 22    | ____
> 23    | | HN 4
>       | | ____
>       | | | E
> 24    | | |____
> 25    | |
>      ___________
> 26   | Parenthetical H
> 27   |__________
> 28    | |
> 29a   | | YHWH's H
> 29b,c | |
> 30    | |_____
> 31    |
> 32    |
> 33    |
> 34    |
> 35    | ____
> 36    | | HN 5
> 37    | |
> 38    | |
> 39    | |
> 40    | |
> 41    | |____
> 42    |
> 43    |_____________
>
> Shalom,
> Bryan Rocine
>