Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Chris and Nel" <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>]

-------------------------------------
YIGAL wrote

It would seem that from a grammatical point of view, all of the
interpretations are possible. So it's a matter of context. Why do you assume
that "drinking" means alcohol (and why the capital A?)? And if it does, why
do you think that anyone who drank was drunk (that is, intoxicated)? True,
she later assured Eli that she was not drunk, but that does NOT mean that
she did not partake some of the wine as part of the feast - if indeed there
was any wine at all.

We must be careful not to allow our pre-conceptions to cloud our
interpretations. There might have been alcoholic drinks at early Israelite
sacral feasts, but we do not know. And if there were - that does not mean
that they all went home drunk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My Reply to Yigal:

Yigal, I totally agree, not everyone !  BUT The mere fact that Eli was quick 
to judge Hannah on this, was I feel, demonstrating his experience with the 
fact that SOME or a FEW people did exactly what Hannah appeared to be doing, 
but were indeed drunk. Not necessarily inside the tent I agree. Drinking was 
a part of the feast and feasts in general.  He was quick to judge and this 
leads us to assume that he was familiar with this occurence at feasts.

regards, Chris.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YONAH wrote

The reason that "drinking" also refers to Hanah is because she is the
subject of the verb WTQM (vat?kom, "and she arose"). If the subject of
$TH (shatoh) were different from Hanah, we would expect a personal
pronoun to indicate the change of subject. I do not agree with your
evaluation of a change in subject here. Hanah is the one mentioned as
eating and drinking, IMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My Reply to Yonah:

Yonah, it is rare for an infinitive absolute to be controlled by a 
preposition.  the fact that SHaToH is an infinitive absolute AND follows a 
preposition leads one to the natural question as to WHY,  the narrator has 
very clearly left room for doubt about Hannah's participation in the 
drinking by not wording this phrase more clearly, maybe with a fem suffix, 
maybe making it more clear that he was indeed referring to Hannah and NOT 
drinking in general.  But this is not the case.  The vav that joins onto the 
word "ACHaRei" just after the word for Shiloh seperates it from the previous 
clause.  Why not say "After the eating and drinking in Shilo", instaed of 
"After the eating in Shilo, and the drinking???  I think that the narrator 
wished to convey with EMPHASIS the drinking!

One last point, there is a zaquef qaton above the letter 'nun' in Hannah, 
this is seperating it from the next word which begins the clause about 
eating.  I am not saying that HANNAH DID NOT EAT, but rather that the 
subtlety of the narrator's conveyance of this apparently simple episode is 
telling his readers that HANNAH DID NOT FULLY PARTICIPATE IN THE FESTIVITIES 
AND SACRIFICIAL MEAL, obviously since she was overwhelmed with years of 
pent-up grief, and she had now reached the end of all that.

Regards  Chris.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On 10/20/06, Chris and Nel <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net> wrote:
> There seems to be disagreement between my textual workbook and some
> translations and the Jewish interpretation concerning specifically the 
> word
> "AaCHLaH",  alternative infinitive construct, or Infinitive construct with
> 3rd person fem suffix.
>
> The two interpretations are:
> 1. after the eating and the drinking in Shiloh
> 2. After she had eaten and drunk in Shiloh
>
> I dissagree with both and propose what seems to me the most rational
> ie...... After her eating in Shiloh and after the drinking.
>
> MEANING:  She had eaten BUT the drinking refers to Alchohol which She did
> not drink.  In other words there was drunkeness in Shiloh. But that Hannah
> had indeed eaten but not fully participated in family affairs at that
> moment.
>
> It seems that this, for me at least, is explained by TWO things:
> 1.  The verb SHaToH (drink) in  Inf Absolute????? while "eat" is in Inf
> const.
> 2. Word order where "in Shiloh" seems to be strategically placed before 
> the
> drinking.
>
> I would appreciate your comments, corrections etc.
>
> Chris Watts
> Ireland.