Re: LXX 1Kings 8:11

Date: Mon Jun 15 1998 - 05:30:32 EDT

Regarding whether the LXX rendering from the Hebrew (as imperfect)
was perfect,

I don't know much Hebrew either, just enough to know you need expert
help on the verb & particular form they were rendering. Only
indicative in the clause is "they were (not) able" or "(not) being
able," which is Hebrew yaklu . The triliteral root of this verb is
ykl, and I guess it's probably "pe waw," since real pe yodhs are rare,
 and get a double y at the front in forms like these. (Doesn't seem
totally certain here, since the dictionary I'm using (old-fashioned
Gesenius) gives one citation of a form yhukal, which would make it pe
he --- He he! This language is horrible!!! The way Hebrew works,
that's bad news, since, if there is any doubt about the root, it
could be in more than one conjugation, shedding even more darkness on
the tense form. Hopefully, there's not a lot of doubt.

Anyway, the point is that Benjamin Davidson's Hebrew & Chaldee
Analytical Lexicon gives this form (WITH pointing) as Kal future (=
imperfect here for Greek); but a couple of lines down, it gives an
almost identical form as Kal preterite (= aorist here in Greek). The
only differences between these forms are in the vowel points (&
accents?), which, of course, were added later. So, IMVVHO, that
means it would be hard to tell for sure what the original, unpointed
Hebrew text really said -- or really meant.

I'd tell you what BDB says, but I'm still trying to figure it out.
I'm always still trying to figure THEM out! "lo ukal lah," it says
here, "it is high,...'I cannot (reach) to it.'"

(BTW, i hate to post this, because i know the list is going to shout
my name. I've got to find out how to stop those capitals.)

Diana N. Shaw,

b-greek home page:
To post a message to the list,
To subscribe,
To unsubscribe,[]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:48 EDT