> HH: To me this is odd translation, taking the same verb and giving it
two different interpretations within three words.
You are seeing the neatness of the Niccacci model.
To him, the type of
clause and the position within the clause are critical to understanding
the meaning of a verb form. It would be great, if you would want to
learn more about Niccacci to read his "A Neglected Point of Hebrew
Syntax: _yiqtol_ and position in the sentence." Liber Anus (1987)
39:310-327. It may be available on the net.
In summary, a yiqtol in first position (the first ehyeh) is volitional,
but yiqtol in a dependent clause (the second ehyeh) expresses future or
habitual past.
I have studied all the weyiqtols in the Tanakh as a means of testing
Niccacci's claims about clause-initial yiqtols and found them to be 98%
volitional or ambiguous (IOW only 2% clear counter-examples).
From jwest AT highland.net Thu Aug 4 15:50:53 2005Return-Path: <jwest AT highland.net>
I realize it's an off-topic aside, but isn't interesting, to say the least, that the predominant model for biblical criticism (DH) finds its genesis in the period of Josiah, a period for which there is no more archaeological evidence for a temple than there is in the period of Solomon. And yet, so much rests on it, as if it were a strong foundation.
Best Salaams,
R. Brian Roberts
Amateur Researcher in Biblical Archaeology
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.