@Dɑvïd what is it that prevents Bethel from being the subject. וַ/יַּ֥עַל ("and arises he/it will") מִ/שָּׁ֖ם בֵּֽית אֵ֑ל ("from there Bethel") if the prophet were the subject, why isn't there a preposition "to" in the text. Wouldn't the absence of the preposition weigh in favour of "it" rather than "he" as the subject?

@enegue Bethel, as a city/town, is grammatically feminine, so cannot (at least not normally!) be the subject of a masc verb. It is (clearly) an "accusative" of "place": see GKC para. 118d +118f, and that's why there is no "to". This construction must happen hundreds of times in the Hebrew Bible. Hope that helps! (And thanks for asking in Chat. ;))

Besides which, how does Bethel (a place) move ("go up"). As far as I know, towns don't "travel"... Hmmm...

About the next clause, הוּא עֹלֶה, the hu' isn't "emphatic" as you have it ("himself"), but is required since the vb is a participle, and needs an explicit subject. And it's the ptc + impf (יָצְאוּ) in the next clause that implies the "while he was ascending ... the youths were exiting..." (something like contemporaneous, ongoing action).

No, towns don't travel but they do arise in one's view and sense of where they are.

What should I look for in the Hebrew to know that "himself" is not emphatic?

If Bethel is the subject, then wouldn't "himself" be necessary to indicate that he had decided to go up "by the way" it lay.

@Dɑvïd Sorry I forgot to use your tag

@David I went to the link you gave, but you must know my ability to make sense of the "grammar speak" is not good. If you have time, I could use a couple of examples from the Bible so I can investigate first hand.

@enegue But that's not how this verb works: the subject itself is in motion.

@enegue Check to see if there is already a known "subject": so, for "finite" verb (pf, impf), inflected for person/gender/number, there is a subject (minimally, implied) and addition of pronoun reinforces that. But with participle, there is no person/gender/number, and thus no subject implied or otherwise: when used as predicate, then pronoun is needed to have a subject. That's the case here.

@enegue But Bethel isn't the subject, and the pronoun is "needed" by the verbal use of the participle. (See comment immediately above.)

@enegue The examples for this situation are in para. 118f, where it says: "Examples of (a)..." - there are loads of 'em there, all hyper-linked. Click away to your heart's content! ;)

Correction: when I said "...with participle, there is no person/gender/number,...", I ought to have said: "...with participle, there is no person, although there is gender/number,...", and my point still stands. I.e., participles when used verbally need an explicit subject, but finite verbs (in Heb., "perf" and "imperf"), do not need an explicit subject, since subject is already "inflected" in verb.

(Pf/Imperf can have, additionally, an explicit subject of course: "He said" = no explicit subject; "he himself said" = vb + pronoun, "emphatic"; "Samuel said" = explicit subjet + inflected verb.)

@enegue Are you interested in/watching France v. Australia, btw? ;)

@Dɑvïd You have given me much to digest. It will take me some time.

@Dɑvïd I'm watching now. It's half-time. Second half just starting. It's very tense at the moment. Who will score first!!!!!

@enegue Cahill, off the bench?? :) Good game!

@enegue OK - I was wrong about Cahill. Seems it was an exciting game (I was just checking in on the BBC text updates), but Australia hard done by! Should be a good tournament for you, though.

@Dɑvïd Yes. I think France looked more dangerous. More shots at goal etc. Nice of France to give us a penalty shot to balance at 1-1.

@Dɑvïd Thanks for your help with the Hebrew. I remember in my youth watching episodes of Coronation Street and hearing a character say, "Goin' down shop", omitting the "to". I had no problem understanding what was meant, so I guess a preposition is superfluous sometimes.