Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Interchange of L/lamed with R/resh in Biblical Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Interchange of L/lamed with R/resh in Biblical Hebrew
  • Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:30:28 -0400

David,

I think that the bible uses here the obscure, only once appearing, verb (AQAD [related to )AGAD, 'unified, held together', and used here supposedly instead of QA$AR or ASAR] intentionally to further obfuscate an absolutely minimal tale.
There is (AQOD, for a coloring pattern on sheep, as in Genesis 30:39 and Genesis 31:10, and the the place name BEIT (EQED HA-RO(IM of 2 Kings 10:12-14, both not easily related to 'bind'.
At the time of this event Abraham was a very old man and Isaac a fully developed NA(AR. Biblical time scales are not easy to figure out, but the fact of the matter is that Isaac was strong enough to carry uphill and to quiet a distance the full load of firewood needed to burn a goat. So how did this old man succeed, all by himself, in binding his son and placing him on the altar? Did Isaac play along, or did the old man stealthily sneak upon him with a rope, previously used to bound the kindling, during sleep? Was there a struggle or did the old man stun him first with a stone to the head? And why did he place Isaac upon the altar before slaughtering him?
But these questions are not for us. We want to just try and figure out what (AQAD means. The context here is not helpful as there is actually barely a coherent context here. So we replace the D by an R and have (AQAR, suggesting that all we can say about what Abraham did is that he held is son still [literally "planted" him] upon the altar above the firewood.
(AQAD = bound is no more than imagination working overtime, "cognates" not withstanding.
Just for the sake of interest. In Rembrandt's famous depiction of the (AQEDAH, which can be seen here
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/rembrandt/abraham.jpg.html
Isaac is not shown bound, at least not by the feet.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 22, 2008, at 11:43 PM, David Kummerow wrote:


I would have thought that the more natural semantic antonym of `QR "to
uproot" would be NT` "to plant". There is nothing "obvious" about your
contrary claim. It makes little sense to have Isaac "planted" into the
alter. In any case, from memory I think that `QD is not so obscure in
that there are common cognates meaning "to tie, bind". There is nothing
lame about an English rendering "tied up" or "bound" if that is indeed
the case.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


Jim,

The letters L and R don't "interchange". In my opinion the letter L
indicates elevation and the letter R dispersion/aggregation. Every
Hebrew root containing the letter R refers to a material state of
several bodies, such as (RM for a heap of grain versus (LM for
something tall and massive.
Some jump on this supposedly L-R interchangeability to relate Hebrew
and Indo-European words, for instance KAPTOR of Exodus 25:33 to the
Latin word capitulum. See: Vernes, Maurice: Les Emprunts de la Bible
Hebraique au Grec et au Latin, Ernest Leroux, Paris, 1914, pages 68-69.
Often, the substitution of R for another letter sharpens the meaning
of a word otherwise obscure. Take for instance the rare verb (AQAD of
Genesis 22:9, lamely translated by the NAB as 'tied up', and by the
JPS bible as 'bound'. Obviously it is the opposite of (AQAR, 'tore
away'.
See more in my book at www.hebrewetymology.com

Isaac Fried, Boston University

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page