Biblical Hebrew Forum

[ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick)]

On Tue 15 Nov 2005 (15:03:58), kwrandolph AT email.com wrote:
> Within the sentence structure, it looks as if H)DM should 
> be a verb, but there is none listed in the dictionary that fits  this
> context. If a verb, which one? Could it be from the 
> same root as )YD ?
> 
> LXX doesn't seem to make any sense here either.
> 
> In the critical apparatus of Biblica Hebreica it was noted 
> that some recognize this as interrogative prefix, however 
> if so, that should be on the KY, not on )DM.

 KiY Ha'aDaM `eC Ha&&aReH LaBo' MiPPaNeYKa BaMMaCoWR

 Most of the modern translations make the last clause of verse 19 a
 rhetorical question, taking the He of He'aDaM as He interrogativa
 pointed with seghol. In this they are following the BHS footnote.
 The history of this interpretation is given by Keil & Delitzsch /ad loc/
 (which see).

 H)DM cannot be the subject of the sentence, but from its position
 it may be the object.

 The Vulgate has /quoniam lignum est et non homo nec potest bellantium
 contra te augere numerum/.

 The NRSV has "Are trees in the field human beings that they should come
 under siege from you?".

 The NIV has "Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege
 them?".

 The point seems to be that fruit trees should not be devastated in a
 time of siege, so that afterwards the survivors may have something left
 to eat.

 Shalom
 Ben
-- 
 Revd Ben Crick, BA CF                                       ZFC Hf
 <ben.crick AT NOSPAM.argonet.co.uk>
 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
*Acorn RPC700, RO4.03+Kinetic Card, 126MB, 4.3GB HD, x32CDROM
*Castle Iyonix X100, RO5.06, 600MHz XScale processor, 512MB DDR RAM,
 114GB HD, CD-RW, etc. *Ethernet networking.