JimStinehart at aol.com
JimStinehart at aol.com
Thu Mar 27 12:41:43 EDT 2008
Thank you for the references to Rebecca Hasselbach’s scholarly article
concerning the “-ay” ending in Hebrew.
But why would Rebecca Hasselback, or anyone else, think that the Masoretes,
in the Middle Ages, would know how to recognize and point an “-ay” ending? In
your own words, “it was a very ancient development”, by which I presume you
mean that it happened long prior to the mid-1st millennium BCE for certain,
and likely prior to 1200 BCE. How would the Masoretes, in the Middle Ages, be
picking up on this truly ancient phenomenon?
When I look at sin-resh-yod in unpointed text, I see no “-ay” ending there
at all. How did the Masoretes in the Middle Ages know that there was an “-ay”
I note that you yourself properly refer to a “-y” ending, when you say that “
It is therefore reasonable that –y is indeed an archaic feminine suffix….”
But I myself see sin-resh-yod in unpointed text at Genesis 12: 15, referring
to Pharaoh’s male top officers in the plural, which is not an abstract noun,
and which does not have an archaic feminine suffix. Why would the Masoretes,
in the Middle Ages, know that sin-resh-yod as Sarah’s birth name was
Looking on the bright side of things, if we take your argument seriously,
would that imply that the Patriarchal narratives are much older than the rest of
the Bible? After all, if Sarah’s birth name is “Sarai” (on the theory that
the Masoretes in the Middle Ages by some miracle got this ancient feminine
suffix just right), and if no other woman’s name in the entire Bible has this
archaic feminine suffix ending, then wouldn’t that strongly imply that the
Patriarchal narratives are much, much older than the rest of the Bible?
Despite the fact that such a consequence would greatly help my overall view
of the Patriarchal narratives, I myself simply cannot get over the hump of
trying to convince myself that the Masoretes in the Middle Ages somehow knew how
to recognize a truly ancient archaic feminine suffix.
Is it your considered opinion that Sarah’s birth name is truly ancient, long
pre-dating the mid-1st millennium for sure, and likely pre-dating 1200 BCE?
Does that then knock out JEPD as the original authors of the Patriarchal
narratives? Does this put historical linguists at loggerheads with all the
non-linguist scholars who insist, on a seemingly semi-unanimous basis, that the
Patriarchal narratives are just one of many parts of the Bible composed by JEPD in
the mid-1st millennium BCE?
What’s a pre-1200 BCE archaic feminine suffix doing in a mid-1st millennium
BCE composition by JEPD?
Yitzhak Sapir, you’ve got our heads spinning here. Are you claiming that
Sarah’s birth name is truly ancient, embodying an archaic feminine suffix not
seen in any other woman’s name in the entire Bible? How could JEPD come up with
such an ancient name, from many centuries before their time? Were JEPD really
that crafty? And how did those Masoretes in the Middle Ages recognize this
truly ancient feminine suffix?
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
More information about the b-hebrew