[b-hebrew] Jerusalem

Garth Grenache garthgrenache at hotmail.com
Sun Jul 11 01:28:55 EDT 2010

Dear Yitzhak and all,

Garth wrote,
> In post-exilic times, however, there is an increasing use of
> maters WITHIN words.  In the consonantal MT they are usually
> only used for long vowels, but in later works such as the DSS,
> w or y can be used even to represent short vowels. There are
> even places where w represents what in MT is a shwa.

Yitzhak replied,
> I have no problem with this statement.  Where I differ is the
> specific use of yodh for e: that does not derive from -aj-.

I will seek to give evidence that in post-exilic times,
in Hebrew writing,
there is at least occasional use of yodh for e: (tsere),
even when it did not derive from diphthong -ay-.

This will be evidence that likewise
the last syllable of Biblical word Jerusalem,
can be reckoned as simply -le:m,
even though it is occasionally spelled -LYM
in the later post-exilic books.

I am not expecting consistent use of y for e: (tsere),
as there is always the post-exilic defective spelling
to contest new fuller spelling tendency.

*Qumran Isaiah scroll
**31:2 WYBY' for wayya:be:'
**37:26 HBY'WTYH for habe:'thiha

from http://books.google.com/books?id=xm3mIIZ6E-wC&pg=PR6&lpg=PR6&dq=medial+matres+lectionis&source=bl&ots=LqYwpnQEOF&sig=CYa1ycDQKbEQbg0ks5Pd57uJGBU&hl=en&ei=TU05TNbOIsuTkAX94qWyAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=medial%20matres%20lectionis&f=false
*Qumran 'SYR for ha:se:r "to remove" 
*Samaritan SDY for SDe:H "field of"
(reported by "A history of the Hebrew Language", Angel Saenz-Badillos)

Also, if it be admitted that y was used for e: when it came from -ay-,
is it reasonable to assume that scribes always knew
whether a particular e: came from short i or diphthong -ay-,
and all consistently avoided use of y if the particular e: came from short i?
I'm not sure.

If by this stage an e: is truly e:, regardless of origin,
and e: may or may not be marked with y,
then whether an e: is marked with y or not probably depends
more on habit and tradition and community consensus
on the 'correct' spelling of that name or form,
rather than its origin.

Gesenius says the fuller form YRWShLYM is found on some of the Maccabean coins,
whilst others have the usual Biblical form YRWShLM.
A scribe with coins which had YRWShLYM may have been tempted to see this
as the official spelling.

Perhaps the late Hebrew spelling with Y to represent long e: may be
to contrast it from the Aramaic spelling which is often with short e,
as if to assert, "The name of our city in our language is properly with a LONG e."

Whatever the case may be, it is an important name and an official name,
such that if the spelling changed at the whim of a ruler,
there would be a tendency to use the new form and get used to writing it,
and this may be why it is occasionally written instead of YRWShLM
in the consonants of the MT.

But if YRWShLYM in the MT means Yerushalaym/-ayim,
how should YRWShLM in the same books be read?
Yerushalaym/-ayim is only compatible with the longer spelling, isn't it? 
Does this not evidence that YRWShLYM is a scribal introduction to the text,
not the original spelling used by the authors?

If the author knew the name as "Yerushalaym/-aym",
would we not expect more than occasional occurrences of -LYM in the text?

Kind regards,
Garth Grenache,
New, Used, Demo, Dealer or Private? Find it at CarPoint.com.au

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list