東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Grammatical analysis of various Bibl...

McDonald, Richard Charles.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Grammatical analysis of various Biblical Hebrew texts according to a traditional Semitic grammar.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Grammatical analysis of various Biblical Hebrew texts according to a traditional Semitic grammar./
Author:	McDonald, Richard Charles.
Description:	242 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-05(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International76-05A(E).
Subject:	Biblical studies. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3668213
ISBN:	9781321430745

Grammatical analysis of various Biblical Hebrew texts according to a traditional Semitic grammar.
McDonald, Richard Charles.

Grammatical analysis of various Biblical Hebrew texts according to a traditional Semitic grammar. - 242 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-05(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014.

Although linguistic Hebraists are dissatisfied with traditional grammatical analysis, this dissertation demonstrates that traditional Semitic grammar---primarily based on Arabic grammar and grammarians---still provides the most simple, clear, and accurate description of biblical Hebrew grammar. Chapter 1 illustrates the role of Arabic grammar in the study of Biblical Hebrew grammar. From the inception of biblical Hebrew grammatical studies, Jewish scholars drew from the insights of Arabic grammar. For centuries afterwards, Jewish and Christian Hebrew grammarians followed this method. In recent decades, grammarians have turned to modern linguistic principles, leading to a misunderstanding of various points of Biblical Hebrew syntax.

ISBN: 9781321430745Subjects--Topical Terms:

2122820
Biblical studies.

Grammatical analysis of various Biblical Hebrew texts according to a traditional Semitic grammar.
LDR:04154nmm a2200325 4500 001 2065880
005 20151205152714.5
008 170521s2014 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781321430745
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI3668213
035 $a AAI3668213
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a McDonald, Richard Charles. $3 3180625
245 1 0 $a Grammatical analysis of various Biblical Hebrew texts according to a traditional Semitic grammar.
300 $a 242 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-05(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: Russell T. Fuller.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014.
520 $a Although linguistic Hebraists are dissatisfied with traditional grammatical analysis, this dissertation demonstrates that traditional Semitic grammar---primarily based on Arabic grammar and grammarians---still provides the most simple, clear, and accurate description of biblical Hebrew grammar. Chapter 1 illustrates the role of Arabic grammar in the study of Biblical Hebrew grammar. From the inception of biblical Hebrew grammatical studies, Jewish scholars drew from the insights of Arabic grammar. For centuries afterwards, Jewish and Christian Hebrew grammarians followed this method. In recent decades, grammarians have turned to modern linguistic principles, leading to a misunderstanding of various points of Biblical Hebrew syntax.
520 $a Chapters 2 and 3 analyze the syntax of select verses in Genesis 2 and 3, respectively. Barry Bandstra's Genesis commentary in the Baylor Press series serves as the main point of comparison between the traditional Semitic approach and the modern linguistic approach. Each chapter introduces typical categories and definitions of traditional Semitic grammar, and critiques Bandstra's analysis when it contradicts Semitic grammar. Both chapters discuss a few main grammatical issues; in these discussions, other linguistic Hebraists are taken into consideration. For example, chapter 2 argues that the terms 'nominative,' 'genitive,' and 'accusative,' are still valid grammatical categories in biblical Hebrew syntax, contra Jan Kroeze. Chapter 2 also contends that the pronoun [special characters omitted] is not a copula. Chapter 3 demonstrates that the Hebrew verb [special characters omitted]is not a copula but a real verb showing action, and that the energic suffixes on the imperfect do, in fact, have semantic value and do show emphasis.
520 $a In chapter 4, the analysis shifts to Ruth 1. Robert Holmstedt's commentary on Ruth from the Baylor Press series serves as the point of reference. There are three main discussions in the chapter. First, the chapter outlines biblical Hebrew word order in opposition to Holmstedt's claim that the typical word order is Subject-Verb. Second, the chapter demonstrates that the masoretic accents are crucial for biblical Hebrew syntax. Third, the chapter critiques Holmstedt's theory that the particle [special characters omitted] marks headless relative clauses. The remainder of the verses are utilized to highlight traditional analysis or to contradict Holmstedt.
520 $a Appendix 1 outlines Geoffrey Khan's use of comparative Semitics to defend his copula pronoun theory. The excursus contends that Khan reinterprets Semitic grammar through discourse analysis, and that his copula pronoun theory cannot be substantiated. Appendix 2 differentiates between the participle as a verbal adjective (the traditional Semitic definition), and John A. Cook's placement of the participle in the class of 'adjective.' This appendix maintains that the participle cannot be included in the biblical Hebrew verbal system. Appendix 3 responds to the external reader's critiques regarding the author's Arabic descriptions, the analysis of the reflexive Niphal, the use of the masoretic accents, and casus pendens.
590 $a School code: 0207.
650 4 $a Biblical studies. $3 2122820
650 4 $a Ancient languages. $3 2122823
650 4 $a Linguistics. $3 524476
690 $a 0321
690 $a 0289
690 $a 0290
710 2 $a The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. $b School of Theology. $3 2099693
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 76-05A(E).
790 $a 0207
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2014
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3668213