We have a kind-of-related post here on Hebrew prepositions, and the notion of preps marking definite objects, which they don’t. Anyway… We’ve been discussing the prepositional phrase באל שדי in Ex 6.3. Here are more thoughts.
Following Karyn’s advice, we did an Accordance search (ראה in Nifal stem followed by prep ב within 10 words). As we’re limited to searching within word proximity, perhaps someone with the Andersen-Forbes database can do a similar search and post their results. The search yields 26 verses (4, perhaps 5, are false hits). The relevant ones are Gen 18.1; 35.1, 9; 48.3; Ex 3.2; 6.3; 13.7; 34.3; Lev 13.14; Num 14.10; Dt 16.4; 31.15; Jdg 5.8; 1 Sam 3.21; 1 Kin 3.5; 9.2; 2 Kin 23.24; Ezk 19.11; 21.29; (Ps 84.8); Ps 102.17; 2 Chr 9.11. We argue that all but two ב prepositional phrases (Gen 35.1 and 9. ב + inf cnstr, obviously temporal) are locatives. Some locatives are physical, some are metaphorical, but they are locatives nonetheless. It seems that the most prototypical usage of ראה in the Nifal plus a ב prepositional phrase is to localize where the “appearing” takes places. In Gen 18.1, Yahweh’s “appearing” is localized to the oaks of Mamre. In Gen 48.3, God’s appearing is localized to a place called Luz. In Ex 3.2, the angel of Yahweh’s appearing is localized to a flame. And in Ex 6.3, Yahweh tells Moses that his appearing to the patriarchs was localized to the highest god of the Canaanite pantheon. That’s where the appearing happened.
While bet essentiae might very well be a use of bet, it seems (thus far by what the data says) that bet essentiaes do not follow ראה in the Nifal.
D&T, thanks for continuing this discussion. I disagree, however, that all of those are locative uses of preposition beth. First, what does it mean to be “localized to” El? In other words, does that mean he appeared “beside” El? Perhaps beside one of the images of El? Does it mean he appeared near where El normally appeared? Does it mean he appeared “in” El, as in he took over El’s form for a time? I don’t believe any of those fit the context. Rather, it seems to make more sense that YHVH appeared as (ie, in the essence of) El.
Of the verses you mentioned I would also find the beth of essence in Ex. 3.2. Beth is also used in proximity to a nifal of ראה in Nu. 14.14, just after your 14.10 reference. I agree that 14.10 is locative. Nu. 14.14 is a little different use, but again I would see it as the beth of essence. You don’t mention Ex. 16.10, though I think it is another example of essence. I admit, with this example, that one might take it as a locative. But it seems to work better as an example of essential beth.
The fact of the matter is that all prepositions have a very wide range of meaning, and I would be very wary of making statement to the effect that a preposition is never used in a particular way with a particular stem. There is almost always more than one way to understand a preposition.
The first statement made was “the most prototypical usage of ראה in the Nifal plus a ב prepositional phrase is to localize where the ‘appearing’ takes places”. This is not just a statement about nifal, but actually more about the semantic domain of ראה in the nifal, even more particularly, those instances when ראה in the nifal is complemented by a ב PP. This is not an overarching statement about nifals, but rather a few verses within the whole HB that exhibit one particular construction with one particular verb in the nifal stem.
What does it mean (for the appearing/self-revelation of Yahweh) to be localized to/in/through El? What does it mean for the appearing of Yahweh to be localized to the Oaks of Mamre? What does it mean for the appearing of Yahweh’s angel to be localized to a flame? All equally tricky scenes. Does it mean that Yahweh consisted of the oaks of mamre, El, and Yahweh’s angel a flame? Don’t think so.
To us, all these mean that God is reported as using recognizable/significant (to the ANE culture) means through which he appeared/revealed himself to certain folks. So for us, the picture Ex 6.3 paints is Abraham worshiping El, the highest god he knows to worship. This, according to the verse, will do fine for Yahweh.
As far as the “localize” language, see the “Why What We Wrote Was Wrong” post that we linked to at the beginning of this post.
D&T, forgive me. I should have been more clear. I was referring to this statement with my last comment, “that bet essentiaes do not follow ראה in the Nifal.” I’m not saying its impossible to make such a statement in certain instances. Rather, I’m pointing out that it is entirely possible to see certain instances of nifal of ראה followed by beth essentiae. Therefore the statement is not entirely accurate. It reflects your interpretation of the data, not unambiguous fact.
To be localized to the Oaks of Mamre would mean that God appears beside or near the Oaks. That doesn’t work in the case of El Shaddai. Hence we need a different way of understanding the preposition. In many ways, Ex. 6.3 is the example, par excellence, of the beth of identity (ie, beth essentiae).
Could God not be in the oaks of mamre?… and yes that is our interpretation of the data.
Hi D&T,
You know, with only 26 examples (of which you claim 4 or 5 are false hits), it seems like we are not working with enough data to make convincing generalisations.
Also, were you saying that Hebrew prepositions *never* are used to indicate what would be considered a direct object in English? If so, I would have to disagree with that. If you were referring to a specific case, please specify.
I’ll just reiterate that I think prepositions (in most languages) are very complex animals! The examples of English preps that I gave in our earlier discussion demonstrate that identical syntax (and sometimes even equivalent semantics) don’t always “translate” the same.
The point about the ‘bet of transitivity’ is made in the old post linked to at the beginning of this post. The point we try and make is, ב and את do different jobs. את marks direct objects, ב marks prepositional objects. So-called object-marking bets are more properly understood as marking oblique objects in Hebrew.
We’re not trying to make generalizations. We’ve looked at the only instances of this construction (only about 21) in the Bible and have made some preliminary conclusions. We’re not making any generalizations about nifals, ראה, or preps. We’re saying that one specific form in one specific stem followed by one specific PP does one specific job. How is that a generalization?
OK, thanks.