[b-hebrew] help with Ezekiel 32:21 LXX portion

kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Wed Sep 27 23:51:03 EDT 2006


Sorry I forgot to mention the stuff you said about the LXX.  It looks like according to  HALOT has 'lh is linked to 'yl.  It reads under 'lh

"ailat, unitary noun from 'yl.  If I am reading this correctly.  Then it reads Low 1:19 1f unitary noun from 'lym > 'yl;.... massive tree.

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: kgraham0938 at comcast.net 

> that is very interesting what Joshua Fox studies revealed, I was thinking maybe 
> the yod there was a vowel. Not trying to contridict what Fox's studies show but 
> just pointing out something I found interesting in H.A.L.O.T (hebrew and aramaic 
> lexicon of the old testament) p 40, has listed 'ayil and right next to it 'awl 
> which I believe is suggesting the yod is a vowel. And then goes on to list a 
> ugaritic form il, and an akkadian form (y)alu AHw. It also list Eg. which I 
> believe is Egyptian has lw.yyr =irr = 'el. (I don't know either language but it 
> seems relevant to etomology.) 
> 
> But relative to our passage, it list 'eley as the construct of 'ayil and list 
> 'ayley as a variant. 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kelton Graham 
> KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net 
> 
> -------------- Original message -------------- 
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" 
> 
> > On 9/27/06, kgraham0938 at comcast.net wrote: 
> > > 
> > > @Yitzhak: 
> > > 
> > > Thanks alot I appreciate it, the only problem I have is that the apparatus 
> > > of BHS says many manuscripts have 'ayil' here as opposed to 'el. And it 
> > > seems to me that 'el going into 'eley is not impossible but pretty rare if 
> > > in the Hebrew bible. I have not found one other example of 'el going into 
> > > plural construct, but that is not to say it is impossible and I have not 
> > > checked other outside sources but it seems that 'ayil would be the better 
> > > rendering. 
> > 
> > You are right, it doesn't occur anywhere else. 
> > 
> > However, there are various reasons to think that it is the plural of 'el and 
> not 
> > 'ayil. 
> > 
> > Joshua Fox, a linguist, reconstructs the word )ayil from PS *)ayyal, "ibex, 
> > mountain goat." I guess )ayil derives *)ayyal > *)ayyl > *)ayil, where the 
> last 
> > vowel first drops and the geminated yy takes it place first as )ay-yl and 
> later 
> > it degrades into a vowel. The significance of all this is that the -y- in 
> )ayil 
> > is a geminated root letter in its origin. I doubt it would be lost. 
> > 
> > It's true that )eley never appears as a construct of )el. But neither does it 
> > appear as the plural of )ayil. The plural of )ayil is generally (this example 
> > excluded) )eyley. Take for example Ex 15:15. Here )eyley is parallel with 
> > )aluwfey, which is very fitting. Both )ayil and )alp refer to strong beasts 
> > that in turn are used to denote the leaders of a community. In this text, 
> > the -y- of )eyley appears, even though this text generally uses spellings 
> > that are defective such as )elim in Ex 15:10. This underscores the 
> > point about the -y- being a consonantal root letter made earlier. 
> > 
> > The word )el is a very unique word. It is the only two-root letter PS word 
> that 
> > Fox reconstructs as a masculine and yet its vowel is not reconstructed 
> > as dropped in construct cases (compare ben "son", bni "my son", $em 
> > "name", $mi "my name"). It is also used, besides for "god" as a general 
> > term for "power" or "strength" as in Genesis 31:29. Furthermore, this is 
> > a special case, speaking of the ")el"s that will speak out from Sheol. It is 
> > by its very nature a supernatural scenario. This would suggest that the 
> > word with a more supernatural meaning - )el - may be the one intended 
> > here. 
> > 
> > More interesting than that comment in the apparatus of BHS is the 
> > comment I see in the HUB that in the Greek, verse 19 is displaced and 
> > placed immediately after Sheol in this verse. The HUB refers to two 
> > Medieval manuscripts (of the five it normally examines for possible 
> > differences) that have )yly, one of them as an initial spelling that was 
> > later corrected (to ")ly" I suppose). I don't think that is sufficient 
> > reason to correct the MT's spelling. The Septuagint, apparently reads 
> > ")lh" and not ")ly". But it doesn't read a middle -y-: 
> > 
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/text/religion/biblical/parallel/44.Ezekiel.par 
> > 
> > Yitzhak Sapir 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > b-hebrew mailing list 
> > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org 
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list