Beguiled in Gen 3:13
zellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph
Sat Sep 26 07:27:17 EDT 1998
Lewis Reich wrote:
> On 25 Sep 98, at 20:12, Paul Zellmer wrote:
> > The quote of Eve is: HaNNfXf$ Hi$$iY)aNiY Wf)oK"L
> > Your question is about Hi$$iY)aNiY, which is from N$)
> > [nun shin aleph]. There appears to be two roots with >
> these root letters, one with a basic idea of lending
> Isn't the verb with the meaning "to lend" N$H (e.g. Deut.
> 15:2, 24:11)?
I based my answer on Holladay, who in turn was basing his work on Koehler & Baumgartner. I agree
that the nikkud in the hiphil look suspiciously like a lamed-he, but who am I to argue with these
> > and the other with the basic concept of giving a false
> <color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> hope. <color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>
> <color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> The word is used some fifteen times in the Tanakh, most
> > of which deal with prophets (like Hezekiah) being
> > charged with "deceiving" or "giving false hope" to their
> > listeners. Cf 2 King 18:29, Jeremiah 4:10.
> <color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>One thing about those two examples struck me as somewhat
> different from Gen. 3:13, where the suffix aNiY indicates
> Hi$$iYa )oWTiY; if Gen. 3:13 were parallel to 2K 18:29
> [ )aL Ya$iY) LfKeM ] and J 4:10 [ Ha$") Ha$"(Tf Lf(fM ]
> it would have Hi$$iYa LiY, wouldn't it? Is this
> difference in construction significant?
The question had to do with the meaning of N$). Are you suggesting a different meaning *of the
word* due to different construction? I see no difference in the root meaning even if Gen 3:13
uses the hiphil perfect while 2 Kings 18:29 and Jer. 4:10 use the imperfect.
BTW, are my messages still coming through with encoding? I realize I let two slip out in HTML
format, but I thought I fixed that.
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
zellmer at faith.edu.ph
More information about the b-hebrew