[b-hebrew] Re: Elohiym has a Hireq Yod in the M.T.
pennerkm at mcmaster.ca
Mon Sep 22 11:10:37 EDT 2003
> You claim that the three words ending with an alep are names.
> Those are not Hebrew names, possibly Aramaic.
> All in all, I find this a puzzling document. It is NOT good
> Biblical Hebrew.
I agree that this document is not Hebrew; Moabite seems the best bet.
> The second letter in the fourth
> word you read as a samekh, I as a gimmel. The hole in the
> papyrus there makes it difficult for me to be certain.
You are not alone; I too read it as a gimel at first, and so did FMCross ("A
Papyrus Recording a Divine Legal Decision and the Root RXQ in Biblical and
Near Eastern Legal Usage," pages 311-320 in _Texts, Temples, and
Traditions_; Winona Lake, 1996) and S. Ahituv, "A Divine Verdict: A Judicial
Papyrus of the 7th Century BCE," in _EI_ 26 (Frank Cross volume, 1999):1-4
(in Hebrew). But the 2000 Semitica article shows it to be a samek from
around 600 BCE.
> This papyrus has the correct usage to read
> it as "unto them".
I can't think how we could make sense of two prepositional phrases in this
context. What would your complete translation be?
Ken Penner, Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster University
Vocabulary Memorization software:
More information about the b-hebrew