Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> You are not reading my questions correctly. I was asking for
> a dialect profile of a verb "qbl", which would include any and all forms
> with pronoun prefixes and/or suffixes, with or without vav, or a
> preposition,
> and I was not interested in Hif`il forms, since that is a different
> verb. I was adding 'L' in order to clarify that a Hif`il was not wanted in
> the discussion.
>
>
> I see no dialectal usage.

How is Hiphil a different verb? As a lexicographer, I found nowhere that the
Hiphil refers to a different action than Qal or any other Binyam. The only
difference was that it refers to a different manner that the action is
effected. If you think it is a different verb, are we talking about the same
language?


> Your statement "perfectly good Hebrew" is true
> but it is not a dialect profile.
>
> If it is intending to suggest that it is normal First Temple
> Hebrew then you have explaining to do.
>
> There are
> 4 in Esther,
> 1 in Ezra and
> 4 in Chronicles.
>
> 2 in Job 2.
> 1 in Prov 19.
>
> Are you claiming that Proverbs is also post-Babylonian Exile?


> qbl is mIssing elsewhere even though it would fit many a context where
> l.q.H 'take' occurs (also called laqaHat)
>
> Nope. While the two have similar meanings, they are different enough that
both can coexist in the same language.


> Do you still maintain that our published Job framework story
> is pre-exilic?
>
> Of course.

You have focussed on one word which you claim was not used pre-exile. But
there is no evidence to back up your claim.

I look at the book as a whole, analyse its literary style and find that with
the exception of a few difficult verses, that the book as a whole presents
much the same literary use as Jeremiah. That style is not found in any of
the post-exile Biblical writings. Therefore my conclusion that it is
pre-exile. One word, which could have been used pre-exile, is not enough to
change my perception


> Hurvitz concluded that l-q-b-l was 'Second Temple'. I agree.
>
> blessings
> Randall
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life


What other books do you consider post-exilic?

Karl W. Randolph.