1 Chron 5:26 - Hiphel Verb Stem - LTUBH Videos

EDIT: Ok, as usual I made things worse so here is my original post which I deleted because I was embarrassed...Then David posted before I deleted it , then he is replying to a blank dumb post... (PRIDE goeth before the fall there ya have it in all my glory!) My brain was all wrapped up in the Hebrew, but then I got to thinking that is the WHOLE point of the videos so...here ya go...

EDIT: Nevermind what a dork... Embarrassed Duh brain fry...

I am just thinking aloud...This verse is in the videos 1 Chronicles 5:26:

So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and he took them into exile, namely, the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, and brought them to Halah, Habor, Hara, and the river Gozan, to this day.

I was wondering why it could not/should not be translated as follows:

So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and He took them into exile, namely, the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, and brought them to Halah, Habor, Hara, and the river Gozan, to this day.

Need and expert! Watch out newbies on the loose!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

David Knoll

Linguistically both are possible. It is a matter of interpretation. Your interpretation is more to my liking: The first clause states the means by which [second clause] god sent the Israelites into exile. Against this interpretation is the notion that in unmarked sentences the subject is the candidate closest to the verb and verses 2Ki 17:6, 2 Ki 18:11.

PS The more interesting part of this verse is not the subject but the object with "l-" as is common in Aramaic.

Nathan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153210#Comment_153210

PS The more interesting part of this verse is not the subject but the object with "l-" as is common in Aramaic.

You mean "the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh"?

Splain

"l-" as is common in Aramaic.

plz.

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153212#Comment_153212

1) Yeah I meant these three tribes out of the Israelites. Too lazy to type all these in English transliteration.

2) Usually the object is denoted using את and a noun marked with the definite article (or without את if the noun is indefinite). Here a different construction is used. You have the object suffix of the third plural "ם" (this is usually described as anticipatory pronoun because it anticipates the object) followed by the preposition ל and the three tribes.However ל in BH indicates a direction or the dative (like "to" in English). Obviously this is not the case here. No one was deported to the area (now in the north of the Kingdom of Jordan) where these three tribes resided. As a matter of fact the destination is stated clearly again with the preposition ל this time after ויביאם.

So in BH this should typically have looked like this:

וַיֶּ֥גֶל אֶת־הַראוּבֵנִ֣י ואת הַגָּדִ֔י וְאת חֲצִ֖י שֵׁ֣בֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁ֑ה וַ֠יְבִיאֵם לַחְלַ֨ח וְחָב֤וֹר...

(This is my own creation)

You can see such constructions in the verses I mentioned in the message above. Unfortunately by the time the chronicler wrote her book (note the feminist touch :-) ) Hebrew was either no longer the vernacular or maybe it was heavily affected by Aramaic where the object can be denoted by an anticipatory pronoun followed by its explication with ל.

Now I think the translation here is wrong. In Aramaic this construction is a normal method to designate the object. So the translation is too literal adding markedness to the object (he took them into exile NAMELY...). They should have translated:

"and he took the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh into exile and brought them to Halah..."

They are also inconsistent because in Ex 2:6 they don't translate ותראהו את הילד with "and she saw him, namely the child" but with "and she saw the child".

You can read about this in the old fashioned but still important Gesenius Hebrew Grammar in paragraph 117n. In the much better Jouon Muraoka paragraph 146e and Davidson Syntax 29r7 and esp. 73r7 the sentence beginning with: "In later style". If you read German you can enjoy Brockelmann's "Hebräische Syntax" paragraph 95 (page 87 in my copy).

PS Note the corruption Tilgath instead of Tiglath for Tugulti-apil-šar-ra. This we call Metathesis.

Nathan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153215#Comment_153215

"and he took the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh into exile and brought them to Halah..."

Thx David, this is actually quite interesting (the Aramaic slant) I appreciate your taking the time out to "splain" it...

You can read about this in the old fashioned but still important Gesenius Hebrew Grammar in paragraph 117n. In the much better Jouon Muraoka paragraph 146e and Davidson Syntax 29r7 and esp. 73r7 the sentence beginning with: "In later style". If you read German you can enjoy Brockelmann's "Hebräische Syntax" paragraph 95 (page 87 in my copy).

Hey I have some of these resources!...Oh oh mo money! (A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Joüon/Muraoka)

PS Note the corruption Tilgath instead of Tiglath for Tugulti-apil-šar-ra. This we call Metathesis.

Ok, I will google this before I bother you with a question! My brain just got nuked.

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153218#Comment_153218

Instead of googling try Toving. Attached are 2 pages from a book you better own and know by heart: Emanuel Tov's "Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible" soon to be published in its third edition.

4682.Metathesis from tov_textual.criticism.of.the.hebrew.bible-2nd.ed.pdf

Also note you linked an older edition of JM. The current is:

http://www.logos.com/products/details/4606