DailyHebrew.com

וַיִּכְרְת֥וּ בְרִ֖ית בִּבְאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע וַיָּ֣קָם אֲבִימֶ֗לֶךְ וּפִיכֹל֙ שַׂר־צְבָא֔וֹ וַיָּשֻׁ֖בוּ אֶל־אֶ֥רֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּֽים׃ 33 וַיִּטַּ֥ע אֶ֖שֶׁל בִּבְאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע וַיִּ֨קְרָא־שָׁ֔ם בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהוָ֖ה אֵ֥ל עוֹלָֽם׃ 34 וַיָּ֧גָר אַבְרָהָ֛ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּ֖ים יָמִ֥ים רַבִּֽים׃ פ

Vocabulary

Verse 32

            באר שׁבע  name: “Beersheba”

            פיכל  name: “Phicol”

            פלשׁתים  name: “Philistines”

Verse 33

            נטל  verb (Niphal waw-consecutive imperfect 3ms): “plant”

            אשׁל  “tamarisk tree” (BDB, 79)

Verse 34

            גור  verb: “sojourn”

Syntax & Misc.

Verse 32

• Sentence Typology 1 (וַיִּכְרְת֥וּ בְרִ֖ית בִּבְאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע): V-O-M
• The noun phrase, באר שׁבע, is considered a proper noun (cf. verses 25 & 30).
• Sentence Typology 2 (וַיָּ֣קָם אֲבִימֶ֗לֶךְ וּפִיכֹל֙ שַׂר־צְבָא֔וֹ): V-S
• The compound subject includes the appositional phrase/title, שֹר־צבאו.
• Although the subject is plural, the verb declined as a singular agreeing with the foremost person of the compound subject in gender and number (GKC 146f).
• Sentence Typology 3 (וַיָּשֻׁ֖בוּ אֶל־אֶ֥רֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּֽים): V-M
• The construct form of the noun ארץ may be equivalent to the absolute, אֶרֶץ, or vary, אַרֶץ (BDB, 75).

Verse 33

• Sentence Typology 1 (וַיִּטַּ֥ע אֶ֖שֶׁל בִּבְאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע): V-S-M
• The Niphal verb is functioning as a passive—“was planted”—whose agent is implied from the subject of the previous clause.
• See Wikipedia for more information and pictures of the tamarisk tree (Tamarix syriaca boissier); however the Greek translates as ἄρουρα “field, land.”
• Sentence Typology 2 (וַיִּ֨קְרָא־שָׁ֔ם בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהוָ֖ה אֵ֥ל עוֹלָֽם):
• Notice the change from plural agent in the previous clause to singular implying possibly the action of only Abraham.  Most of the witnesses (including the Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX, Peshitta & Vulgate) insert the proper name, אברהם, in the first clause of verse 33.
• The designation, אל עולם “God Everlasting,” is in apposition to the Tetragrammaton. 

Verse 34

• Sentence Typology 1 (וַיָּ֧גָר אַבְרָהָ֛ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּ֖ים יָמִ֥ים רַבִּֽים): V-S-M
• The final phrase, ימים רבים, is adverbial—“[for] many days” (cf. GKC 118k).

וַֽיְהִי֙ בָּעֵ֣ת הַהִ֔וא וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲבִימֶ֗לֶךְ וּפִיכֹל֙ שַׂר־צְבָא֔וֹ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר אֱלֹהִ֣ים עִמְּךָ֔ בְּכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֖ה עֹשֶֽׂה׃ 23 וְעַתָּ֗ה הִשָּׁ֨בְעָה לִּ֤י בֵֽאלֹהִים֙ הֵ֔נָּה אִם־תִּשְׁקֹ֣ר לִ֔י וּלְנִינִ֖י וּלְנֶכְדִּ֑י כַּחֶ֜סֶד אֲשֶׁר־עָשִׂ֤יתִי עִמְּךָ֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה עִמָּדִ֔י וְעִם־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־גַּ֥רְתָּה בָּֽהּ׃ 24 וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם אָנֹכִ֖י אִשָּׁבֵֽעַ׃ 25 וְהוֹכִ֥חַ אַבְרָהָ֖ם אֶת־אֲבִימֶ֑לֶךְ עַל־אֹדוֹת֙ בְּאֵ֣ר הַמַּ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּזְל֖וּ עַבְדֵ֥י אֲבִימֶֽלֶךְ׃ 26 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲבִימֶ֔לֶךְ לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי מִ֥י עָשָׂ֖ה אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה וְגַם־אַתָּ֞ה לֹא־הִגַּ֣דְתָּ לִּ֗י וְגַ֧ם אָנֹכִ֛י לֹ֥א שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בִּלְתִּ֥י הַיּֽוֹם׃

Vocabulary

Verse 22

            אבימלך  name: “Abimelech”

            פיכל  name: “Phicol”

Verse 23

            הנה  “here” (BDB, 244)

            שׁקר  verb: “do falsely” (BDB, 1055)

            נין  “offspring” (BDB, 630)

            נכד  “posterity” (BDB, 645)

            גור  verb: “sojourn”

Verse 25

            יכח  verb (Hiphil waw-consecutive perfect 3ms): “reprove, chide”

            על־אודת  “because of” (BDB, 15)

            באר  “well, pit” (BDB, 91)

            גזל  verb: “seize” (BDB, 159) 

Verse 26

            בלתי  “except” (BDB, 116)

Syntax & Misc.

Verse 22

• Sentence Typology 1 (וַֽיְהִי֙ בָּעֵ֣ת הַהִ֔וא): V-SC
• The ויהי sequenced with the beth preposition designates a temporal clause—“in that time” (cf. Genesis 38:1)
• The perpetual Kethib Qere, הִוא, is pointed as if it was the 3fs pronoun, היא.
• הוא functions as a demonstrative agreeing in person, number and definiteness.
• Sentence Typology 2 (וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲבִימֶ֗לֶךְ וּפִיכֹל֙ שַׂר־צְבָא֔וֹ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר אֱלֹהִ֣ים עִמְּךָ֔ בְּכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֖ה עֹשֶֽׂה): V-S-IO-O
• The identifying phrase (possible a formal title), שַׂר־צְבָאוֹ, is in apposition to the proper name, פיכל.
• The object is direct speech marked by the infinitive construct, לאמר.
• Embedded Typology 1 (אֱלֹהִ֣ים עִמְּךָ֔ בְּכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֖ה עֹשֶֽׂה): S-P-M
• The verbless clause is modified by the following prepositional phrase and relative clause.
• Embedded Typology A (אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֖ה עֹשֶֽׂה): S-V
• The participle functions as a periphrastic verb—“you are doing.”

Verse 23

• Embedded Typology 2 (וְעַתָּ֗ה הִשָּׁ֨בְעָה לִּ֤י בֵֽאלֹהִים֙ הֵ֔נָּה): M-V-IO-M
• The imperative of נשׁבע always includes the final ָה , or he paragogicum (GKC 51o).
• The accentuation of the Niphal imperative is retracted, or מִלְּעֵיל mil’el, causing a dagesh forte with the monosyllabic particle, לִּי (GKC 20f).
• The object is the following oath marked by אִם (GKC 149c).
• Embedded Typology 3 (אִם־תִּשְׁקֹ֣ר לִ֔י וּלְנִינִ֖י וּלְנֶכְדִּ֑י כַּחֶ֜סֶד אֲשֶׁר־עָשִׂ֤יתִי עִמְּךָ֙):  V-M
• Embedded Typology A (עָשִׂ֤יתִי עִמְּךָ֙): V-M
• Embedded Typology B (תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה עִמָּדִ֔י וְעִם־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־גַּ֥רְתָּה בָּֽהּ): V-M
• The initial asyndetic verb may be considered a jussive, or volitional modality; however morphologically one would expect apocopation of the final he, אַל־תַּעַשֹ, as in the negative forms (Genesis 22:12; Jeremiah 39:12; Job 13:20).
• Embedded Typology i (גַּ֥רְתָּה בָּֽהּ): V-M
• The orthographic addition of תָּה instead of merely תָּ is not morphologically significant (the form is only extant in this verse).
• The final suffix is a 3fs pronominal suffix designated as such by the mappiq and refers to הארץ.

Verse 24

• Sentence Typology 1 (וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם אָנֹכִ֖י אִשָּׁבֵֽעַ): V-S-O
• The object is direct speech.
• Embedded Typology 1 (אָנֹכִ֖י אִשָּׁבֵֽעַ): S-V
• GKC notes the status of the first-person pronoun (135a).

Verse 25

• Sentence Typology 1 (וְהוֹכִ֥חַ אַבְרָהָ֖ם אֶת־אֲבִימֶ֑לֶךְ עַל־אֹדוֹת֙ בְּאֵ֣ר הַמַּ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּזְל֖וּ עַבְדֵ֥י אֲבִימֶֽלֶךְ): V-S-O-M
• See the similar previous of עַל־אֹדוֹת in Genesis 21:11.
• Embedded Typology 1 (גָּזְל֖וּ עַבְדֵ֥י אֲבִימֶֽלֶךְ): V-S

Verse 26

• Sentence Typology 1 (וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲבִימֶ֔לֶךְ לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי מִ֥י עָשָׂ֖ה אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה וְגַם־אַתָּ֞ה לֹא־הִגַּ֣דְתָּ לִּ֗י וְגַ֧ם אָנֹכִ֛י לֹ֥א שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בִּלְתִּ֥י הַיּֽוֹם): V-S-O
• The object is direct speech.
• Embedded Typology 1 (לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי מִ֥י עָשָׂ֖ה אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה): V-O
• The object constitutes the following clause.
• Embedded Typology A (מִ֥י עָשָׂ֖ה אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה): S-V-O
• Embedded Typology 2 (וְגַם־אַתָּ֞ה לֹא־הִגַּ֣דְתָּ לִּ֗י): S-V-IO-[O]
• The sequencing of וְגַם … וְגַם is understood as disjunctive coordination—“neither…nor” (GKC 162b).
• The initial nun is assimilated in the Hiphil 2ms conjugation of נגד.
• The object, הדבר הזה, is implied from the previous clause.
• Embedded Typology 3 (וְגַ֧ם אָנֹכִ֛י לֹ֥א שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בִּלְתִּ֥י הַיּֽוֹם): S-V-M
• The articulated form of יום is used to express present time, “today.”

Sorry for the lack of updates.  I will be back home next week and will resume the regular schedule with Genesis 22.

וַיִּקַּ֤ח אַבְרָהָם֙ צֹ֣אן וּבָקָ֔ר וַיִּתֵּ֖ן לַאֲבִימֶ֑לֶךְ וַיִּכְרְת֥וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֖ם בְּרִֽית׃ 28 וַיַּצֵּ֣ב אַבְרָהָ֗ם אֶת־שֶׁ֛בַע כִּבְשֹׂ֥ת הַצֹּ֖אן לְבַדְּהֶֽן׃ 29 וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲבִימֶ֖לֶךְ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֑ם מָ֣ה הֵ֗נָּה שֶׁ֤בַע כְּבָשֹׂת֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה אֲשֶׁ֥ר הִצַּ֖בְתָּ לְבַדָּֽנָה׃ 30 וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּ֚י אֶת־שֶׁ֣בַע כְּבָשֹׂ֔ת תִּקַּ֖ח מִיָּדִ֑י בַּעֲבוּר֙ תִּֽהְיֶה־לִּ֣י לְעֵדָ֔ה כִּ֥י חָפַ֖רְתִּי אֶת־הַבְּאֵ֥ר הַזֹּֽאת׃ 31 עַל־כֵּ֗ן קָרָ֛א לַמָּק֥וֹם הַה֖וּא בְּאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע כִּ֛י שָׁ֥ם נִשְׁבְּע֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶֽם׃

Vocabulary

Verse 27

            אבימלך  name: “Abimelech”

            כרת  verb: “cut”

            ברית  noun: “covenant”

Verse 28

            נצב  verb (Hiphil waw-consecutive imperfect 3ms): “set”

            כבשֹה  “ewe lamb” (BDB, 461)

            בד  noun: “part, member”

Verse 29

            כבשֹה  “ewe lamb” (BDB, 461)

Verse 30

            כבשֹה  “ewe lamb” (BDB, 461)

            בעבור  “in order that” (BDB, 721)

            עדה  “witness” (BDB, 729)

            חפר  verb: “dig” (BDB, 343)

            באר  “well, pit” (BDB, 91)

Verse 31

            על־כן  “therefore”

            באר שׁבע  name: “Beersheba”

Syntax & Misc.

Verse 27

• Sentence Typology 1 (וַיִּקַּ֤ח אַבְרָהָם֙ צֹ֣אן וּבָקָ֔ר): V-S-O
• Sentence Typology 2 (וַיִּתֵּ֖ן לַאֲבִימֶ֑לֶךְ): V-IO-[O]
• The object is implied from the previous clause.
• Sentence Typology 3 (וַיִּכְרְת֥וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֖ם בְּרִֽית): V-M-O
• The covenant making process is described in the text with the idiom, כרת “cut [a covenant].”

Verse 28

• Sentence Typology 1 (וַיַּצֵּ֣ב אַבְרָהָ֗ם אֶת־שֶׁ֛בַע כִּבְשֹׂ֥ת הַצֹּ֖אן לְבַדְּהֶֽן): V-S-O-M
• The 2fpl suffix is attached without a linking syllable to the doubly closed noun, בד (GKC 91c)

Verse 29

• Sentence Typology 1 (וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲבִימֶ֖לֶךְ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֑ם מָ֣ה הֵ֗נָּה שֶׁ֤בַע כְּבָשֹׂת֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה אֲשֶׁ֥ר הִצַּ֖בְתָּ לְבַדָּֽנָה): V-S-IO-O
• Sentence Typology 2 (מָ֣ה הֵ֗נָּה שֶׁ֤בַע כְּבָשֹׂת֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה אֲשֶׁ֥ר הִצַּ֖בְתָּ לְבַדָּֽנָה): S-P
• The final pronominal suffix is in pause (GKC 91f).
• For more information on the article attached to the demonstrative see GKC 126x & 134i.
• Sentence Typology 3 (הִצַּ֖בְתָּ לְבַדָּֽנָה): V-M

Verse 30

• Sentence Typology 1 (וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּ֚י אֶת־שֶׁ֣בַע כְּבָשֹׂ֔ת תִּקַּ֖ח מִיָּדִ֑י בַּעֲבוּר֙ תִּֽהְיֶה־לִּ֣י לְעֵדָ֔ה כִּ֥י חָפַ֖רְתִּי אֶת־הַבְּאֵ֥ר הַזֹּֽאת): V-O
• כִּי is used as an object marker (GKC 157b).
• The object clause is direct speech.
• Embedded Typology 1 (כִּ֚י אֶת־שֶׁ֣בַע כְּבָשֹׂ֔ת תִּקַּ֖ח מִיָּדִ֑י): O-V-M
• The Samaritan Pentateuch reads את שׁבע הכבשֹת.
• Embedded Typology 2 (בַּעֲבוּר֙ תִּֽהְיֶה־לִּ֣י לְעֵדָ֔ה): V-SC
• The imperfect, תהיה, is used with a conjunction to express wish or desire.
• Embedded Typology 3 (כִּ֥י חָפַ֖רְתִּי אֶת־הַבְּאֵ֥ר הַזֹּֽאת): V-O
• The demonstrative, זאת, agrees in gender, number and definiteness.

Verse 31

• Sentence Typology 1 (עַל־כֵּ֗ן קָרָ֛א לַמָּק֥וֹם הַה֖וּא בְּאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע): V-O
• The name, באר שׁבע, is in apposition to מקום.
• Sentence Typology 2 (כִּ֛י שָׁ֥ם נִשְׁבְּע֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶֽם): M-V-S

The Seventh Biblical Studies Carnival rolls into Chicago with DailyHebrew.com for the seventh month, July. Drawing upon your submissions, the Carnival highlights the best posts around the biblioblogosphere in the last four weeks.

Biblical Proportions & Numbers

Evangelical Textual Criticism asks what happens if biblical numbers are too large (Responses by P.J. Williams then James Snapp followed by Williams and finally Kevin Edgecomb).

The 666 phenomenon is addressed by Claude Mariottini.

Stephen says that SEVEN is the number for NT Text Criticism.

THREE is as important as three thousand to Kevin Wilson.

Chris Heard challenges Hector Avalos to not just a one, but a TWO round bout (Jim and James also jump into the ring).

and…

ONE missing Field Archeologist.

Archaeology in Pictures

Check out the pictures from the Tell es-Safi/Gath Excavations.

Ancient pottery inscriptions found in Indiana (pictures).

The Tel Gezer Blog is replete with action shots.

Ancient Near East

Duane comments on “How to Recognize a Scribal School” (Part 1 & Part 2).

Hebrew Bible

On the Main Line solves the mystery of the missing nun in the ashrei prayer in Psalm 145; Mississippi Fred weighs the issue of the pim from 1 Samuel 8:21,וְהָיְתָה הַפְּצִירָה פִים. Elsewhere, Justin discusses the Imagines of YHWH in the Psalms and Chris the לדוד superscriptions of the Psalms.

Buddy Boone lampoons the Satire of Jonah and violates Canaanite Malevolence.

The search for Joshua’s Long Day is completed by Dr. Mariottini.

Jeremy asks who is Zadok’s daddy—What Happened to Eleazar’s Line?.

Tyler defines the art and science of “Text Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.”

New Testament

Christianities and Judaisms abound at Euangelion (though Loren lobbies for a change in nomenclature to “Judahism”).

Who is the Savior of Egypt is the topic at Theological Musings.

Theophilos attacks the Hellenistic Jewish conflict over intermarriage from Acts 6.

The Busybody presents a series on NT parables from a peasant’s point of view.

Patristics

“Obey, and confess when you don’t obey” is the summation of the Christian teaching found in the Didache according to Rick Brannan.

Book Reviews/Miscellaneous

Gregory Mobley’s The Empty Men does not include Charles Halton, Kevin Wilson debates Hurvitz concerning the ABCs of P and H, and Chris Spinks endorses A Beginner’s Guide to NT Exegesis by Richard Erickson.

Jim West creates a new word, Flugschriften and a FIRESTORM (with responses from Alastair, James Crossley, Jim again, Tyler Williams, Loren Rosson, Duane Smith, Chris Heard, Rick Sumner, Loren again, Chris Weimer, Chris Heard again, Jim again, and one last time Chris Heard).

Safe travels to all those going to the SBL International Meeting!

The Carnival May Be Coming To Your Town Soon

Kevin Edgecomb will host the Biblical Studies Carnival VIII at Biblicalia in the first week of August 2006. Look for a call for submissions and nominations on his blog soon.

Submissions for the next Biblical Studies Carnival may be emailed to Biblical_Studies_Carnival [AT] hotmail . com or entered via the submission form at the Biblical Studies Carnival Homepage.

Other Biblioblogs may be found at http://www.biblioblogs.com/.