[b-hebrew] Re: Elohiym has a Hireq Yod in the M.T.

Ken Penner pennerkm at mcmaster.ca
Mon Sep 22 11:10:37 EDT 2003

Karl wrote:

> 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:
http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/westerholm/flash or

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list