Nb. The preterite can also be used in a past-perfect sense. See Observations on Some Aspects of the Use of Tenses in Psalms <http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew_psalmsTOC.pdf> ( http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew_psalmsTOC.pdf ).
David Steinberg On 11/03/2012 12:00 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Psa 1,1f (George Athas) > 2. Re: The Name "Haran" (rob acosta) > 3. Re: The Name "Haran" ([email protected]) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 06:15:00 +0000 > From: George Athas<[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Psa 1,1f > To: B-Hebrew<[email protected]> > Message-ID:<cb828a42.19028%[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > A few issues here: > > Firstly, Wayyiqtol is not not the only way for referring to the past. Qatal > can also be used. However, I would argue that even calling these conjugations > as past referring is a misunderstanding of the grammar. > > Karl argued that Hebrew is not marked for aspect, but then defined this as an > axis of completed/uncompleted action. That, however, is not so much 'aspect' > as it is 'Aktionsart'. > > Todd did raise the issue of clause initial verbs, which is an important > consideration. A negated verb can never be clause initial, because the > negation must precede it. So there is a pragmatic consideration here. But > even if we had three positive assertions being made in Ps 1.1, we would not > get wayyqitol verbs, because they would each produce narrative momentum. This > is not what the verse is trying to do, though. The use of Qatal verbs in this > clause is for the statement of simple fact: a man who has not walked? stood? > or sat? This is just what the Qatal does: state an action as a simple fact. > > The use of Yiqtol in 1.2 is simply to indicate the generality of the > righteous man's practice. These are actions that occur many times, and are > indicative of the past, as well as implying intention for the future. > > > GEORGE ATHAS > Director of Postgraduate Studies, > Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au) > Sydney, Australia > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 01:15:07 -0600 > From: rob acosta<[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Name "Haran" > To:<[email protected]> > Message-ID:<[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > Mr Stinehart: > > As usual your response to Mr Chavous was filled with misinformation. > We've covered this ground many times before, obviously to no avail, but as > briefly as possible let me offer this recap of real facts versus your > assertions for the benefit of those who are non students of the Amarna > period. > > 1.Regarding your many references to Amarna Letter 155 as support for your > claim of the Great Syrian War in Year14 and Abimilek's relationship with > Abraham one must read the ENTIRE letter, but you focus on only Abimilek's > reference to Meritaten and the water crisis faced by Tyre. > > According to Mr K.A. Kitchen ( Whom you've made clear whose conclusions > you dismiss) and many others this was Abimilek's FINAL letter to Pharaoh and > could NOT have been written LATER than Year 14 but possibly years earlier. At > the end Abimilek writes: > "Behold, I go away with all thy ships and my whole city" after Zimredda's cut > off of access to three specific powerful springs still there today (not > wells, ) made life on Tyre impossible. > He is never heard from again. This wasn't some "over the top" missive > but a final desperate message. > > 2. Again, according to Mr Kitchen ("Suppiluliumas and the Amarna > Pharaohs "page 30) Abimilek's last letter(EA155) was written about TWO YEARS > AFTER the Great Syrian War. As you now claim EA 155 was written in Year 13 (A > month ago you said Year 14)and it is your oft stated idea the Great Syrian > War took place in Year 14 (the foundation for your entire theory,) your new > estimate of when EA 155 was written now places the Syrian War in Year 11 or > 12. > You have created a contradiction to your own theory. > > 3. You wrote: "There is a split in scholarly opinion as to whether Year > 14 or Year 12 is the historical date of that disastrous war, " Please name a > scholar, any scholar, who places the Great War in Year 14. I can find no one, > but it is possible I missed someone so please enlighten me. Estimates I've > read range from as early as Year 5 to Year12 which is the most commonly > agreed upon. Again, by the time EA 155 is written , the war is about 2 years > in the past and Abimilek has already reported ( as per instruction from > Pharaoh)on the Great War and a number of events known to have taken places > after the war was over in earlier letters. > Are you claiming Mr Kitchen and many others are wrong in stating EA 155 > is Abimilek's last letter? > > 4. Mr Kitchen includes Cyril Aldred's 11 Year co regency theory amongst > the various theories for the year of the Great Syrian War and concludes, in > after offering much detail, if Mr Aldred's theory is followed, the many > events in the Amarna letters makes it impossibe for that war to have taken > place either before or after Year 12. > In other words an 11 Year co regency, which you subscribe to, leaves only > Year 12 as the only possible year for the Great Syrian War. In short, you > adhere to a co regency theory that alone completely undermines your theory of > the Great Syrian war taking place in Year 14. > > We now have two of of your favorite references, EA 155 and Aldred that > actually undermine your theory. > > Any argument you may have is with Mr Kitchen or Mr Aldred, not with me. I > am just the messenger and I have read all your arguments before. > > Bottom line is there is a great chasm between your assertions and the > conclusions of known and respected scholars such as Mr Kitchen. > > No one can go to a library or online and read Kitchen or Redford of > Campbell or anyone else and hope to find a single one of their conclusions > that lend credence to your assertions regarding Aziru, Abimilek or anyone > else. This is unfortunate. > We should be able to trust SOME of the many things you assert is based on > sound research supported by scholars, but this is rarely the case. > > > Rob Acosta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:56:28 -0400 (EDT) > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Name "Haran" > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Message-ID:<[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > Rob: > > Scholars split between Year 14 and Year 12 as the date of the Great Syrian > War in western Syria, with the majority view since 1990 probably being Year > 14. K.A. Kitchen, writing in the early 1960s, tentatively suggested Year 12, > but there are good reasons why his dating is often rejected (as is his > peculiar 8-year co-regency theory, which no one accepts). Much of Year 12 at > Amarna was spent having a grand durbar, which was a foreign tribute festival, > and having elaborate, gorgeous portrayals of that durbar done in two nobles? > rock tombs at Amarna. It?s hard to believe that these triumphalist > portrayals of foreign tribute were being done at Amarna precisely when > Suppiluliuma was conquering all of northern Syria in Year 12! > > One major aspect of Amarna Letter EA 155 that you cite is almost certainly a > mistranslation. "Behold, I go away with all thy ships and my whole city" is > said to apply to both Abimelek and Zimredda, but there?s no way that those > rival princelings in Lebanon were both fleeing. Wm. Moran?s later > translation is now preferred, which sees this phrase as the princelings > preparing boats for Egypt, not as ?going away? with their ships. > > The bottom line is that I go with the many scholars who favor a Year 14 date > for the Great Syrian War in western Syria, which matches Genesis 14: 5 > perfectly, rather than following Kitchen?s old, outdated view from the early > 1960s: > > (1) ?[T]he Great Syrian campaign falls at the latest in years 14/15, but > conceivably as early as year 12?.? Wm. J. Murnane, ?The Road to Kadesh? > (1990), p. 126. > > (2) ?At some point in the reign, the Hittite King, Suppiluliuma, conducted a > major campaign in north Syria, seizing Egyptian vassal states. This is > probably to be dated between years 12 and 14 of Akhenaten?s reign.? Robert > Morkot, ?Historical Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian Warfare? (2003), p. 5. > > The following statement of yours is peculiar: ?Please name a scholar, > any scholar, who places the Great War in Year 14. I can find no one, but it is > possible I missed someone so please enlighten me.? See Murnane and Morkot > quoted above. > > Jim Stinehart > Evanston, Illinois > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 111, Issue 7 > **************************************** > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
