Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Herman Meester <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>]

There is no "change from )L to DRK"; unless there would be manuscripts
were )L would be found. Even then, there is no "change" yet; we would
in this imaginary case have to judge first what the authentic reading
is. We just have two different words here that have been employed, and
as I wrote earlier, the brilliant composition of biblical prose is
what we have to take a look at first, in order to find out why certain
words are used. In almost every case where we wonder "would this or
that word not have been the same or better instead of this word we
have?" it is because we don't know enough about all the things that
are possible in Hebrew.
I think we should not think the grammar books available so far give us
full coverage of all the syntactical possibilities in Hebrew; in fact
I'm sure.
Regards,
Herman

2005/11/22, Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>:
> Michael Avraham wrote:
>
> It was claimed that the reason for the change from  )L to DRK(derech) was 
> to indicate that the temple had been destroyed in  verse 48. Is there any 
> accuracy to that?
>
> HH: No, I don't think there's any validity to it. The same words could be 
> used if the temple were standing.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>