Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Nir,

 

I appreciate our back and forth.  You have made some good observations in this last post.  Here are my counter-observations.

 

1. While Hag 2:4 does use the vocative H(M, the other plural imperatives in the book do not mention a specific addressee; H(M only occurs in 2:4.  This seems to be consistent with the way plural imperatives are used in the rest of the Hebrew Bible.  So while the singular imperative is quite often used to addressed a named collective, when and addressed group is un-named, the plural imperative is the preferred form.

 

2. 2 Sam 10:12 and 1 Chron 19:13.  Note that in this passage, Joab is the leader of one group, and he has made his brother, Abishai,  the leader of the other group.  The singular imperative is probably addressed most immediately to Abishai.  Notice in the preceding verses in both accounts that Joab uses singular verbs and pronouns: "If the Arameans are too strong for me (sing.), then you (sing.) will come and rescue me (sing.).  But if the Ammonites are too strong for you (sing.), then I will rescue you (sing.)."

 

3. 2 Chron 28:20.  Did you mean 1 Chron 28:20?  If so, the imperative there is addressed to Solomon.  If you did mean 2 Chron 28:20, XZQ there is a perfect form, not an imperative.

 

4. As a stative verb, XZQ would properly mean "be strong" in the Qal stem, and the Hithpael would not be needed.  In 2 Sam 10:12, the additional use of XZQ in the Hithpael stem probably involves the use of mutual encouragement between Joab and Abishai, and therefore the Hithpael is properly called for.

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

Jerry Shepherd

Taylor Seminary

Edmonton, Alberta

jshepherd53 AT gmail.com

 

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br> wrote:

dear jerry,

haggai addresses the nation, H(M, consistently as plural
in several places, with only one exception: after XZQ, though XZQW
was a viable option. in this context, pls compare with 2sam 10:12 and
1 chr 19:13, where again XZQ was used in singular addressing
a plural, and also 2 chr 28:20 where apparently it is used
as an idiom not addressing anybody, just "quote unquote XZQ".
there are also several other places where XZQ may be construed
as an idiom, but as they are directed to a single person, it
remains unclear (strong cites 24 cases of this word).

i might be wrong here, but i tend to think that (as these and other
places show) the correct volitive for XZQ ("be strong") should be
in HITPAEL and not in QAL. or else the cohortative would be NXZQ
and not NTXZQ as appears in the verses i quote above.

this MIGHT indicate that the use as QAL was idiomatic,
especially XZQ W(SH and XZQ W)MC, both in QAL. a parallel might
be made with )MN, which is an idiom possibly derived from another
stem, HIFIL, in the volitive.

i raise this more as a challenge than a conviction, as actually
i find your reading of haggai 2 the more natural.

best
nir cohen