[b-hebrew] Genesis 30:20-30
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Sun May 16 21:47:54 EDT 2010
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:57 AM, K Randolph wrote:
> >> Let us consider first the possibility that the text really does read
> >> "hot springs."
> >> In this case the most interesting issue that comes up is the fact that
> >> person's name is (nh. There are several roots of Ayin-Nun that have to
> >> with fertility:
> >> Ayin Nun Heh - Fertility,
> > Which verse in Tanakh has that reading?
> I will rephrase this and point out that (N appear in divine names, most
> Anat, which is a fertility goddess.
So you are talking about cognate languages, which I do not accept as valid
when talking about Hebrew.
> It is also used in Ex 21:10, which the LXX
> reads as "marital rights" while traditional Jewish interpretation reads
> this as
> "conjugal rights.
Look at the context—this refers to humility, not fertility.
> " HALOT suggests it might relate to ointment, but in any case
> the reading here does connect with fertility if not directly.
> >> from which probably comes the name of the goddess (nt,
> >> and perhaps also the word (t - season, time.
> > This sounds like the etymological fallacy to me.
> You use the term etymological fallacy without understanding what it means.
> The word season in English derives from the time of sowing of crops, and
> is no reason why the word in Hebrew does not similarly derive from the time
> fertilization of crops. What we do know is that there was a Nun in the
> because it is present in the Ugaritic cognate.
We’ll let the other on this list answer you, but when you claim that
derivatives of the root in cognate languages have a meaning connected with
fertility, therefore the word in Hebrew from the same root must have a
meaning connected with fertility. That sounds like the etymological error to
> >> Ayin Nun Nun - Raincloud
> >> Ayin Yodh Nun - Spring.
> >> …
> >> Before we explore this amazing agreement, it is important to point out
> >> the spelling of the Pentateuch definitely does not predate the 6th
> >> BCE.
> > Where is your evidence for that? I would love to see those Hebrew
> > manuscripts that predate the 6th century BC that you reference for your
> > evidence. Are they online? Looking at the Siloam inscription, I see
> > that looks out of place for MT unpointed Pentateuch.
> Well, for one thing, the spelling hyt is never found in the Pentateuch
Other than seven times in Exodus, three times in Leviticus and once each in
1 Samuel and 1 Kings.
> and is
> apparently only once found in the entire Bible, despite the many occurences
> of the verb. Other spellings common in pre-exilic inscriptions such as h)
> pronouns simply never appear in the Bible.
Hebrew or cognate languages? Are they online? Where can we see them?
> They apparently preserve a
> pronounciation [hu)a] and [hi)a] whereas the Pentateuch preserves a later
> [huwa] and [hiwa] and the Bible preserves a spelling according to [huwa]
> and [hiya]. The problem is not that the Siloam inscription has nothing out
> of place for MT unpointed Pentateuch. Yes, the Pentateuch preserves a
> later spelling that allowed some deviations that corresponded to older
> spellings. That is why the Siloam inscription does not offhand appear out
> of place. But the later spellings that are very common in the Pentateuch
> are simply out of place in preexilic inscriptions. In any case, the lack
> of the
> yodh in the word "heads"
“Heads” (plural) doesn’t appear in the Siloam inscription.
> and the lack of the heh in the word hyt are out of
> place for the unpointed Pentateuch.
> Yitzhak Sapir
Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew