Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dr. Reinhard G.Lehmann" <lehmann AT mail.uni-mainz.de>]

Dear Nick, and all,

> could it also be said that 'Maher-shalal' is Hebrew,
>      pertaining to Samaria, and 'hash-baz' is Aramaic (or maybe
>      'Aramaizing' Hebrew) relating to Damascus?

A nice idea, but I think Trevor Petersen is right, because the roots are
linuistically not very distinctive to address Aramaeans.

The root bzz is common semitic, but as far as I can see there is only one 
uncertain
instance of bzz in Early and Old Aramaic damaged context (Cowley 37:7), and 
some
later in the DSS as well as in Syriac.

There seems to be no real Aramaic chush (Aramaic chashash af means 'to 
consider'),
and there is also Aramaic mhr ('fast', maybe also 'expert, skilled', cf. 
Ahiqar 1).

If hash-baz' were Aramaic or aramaizing, relating to Damascus, why didn't the 
author
choose distinct Aramaic words (e.g. bhl), as is mutatis mutandis the case in 
Jer
10:11?

Reinhard


--
********************************************************
   Dr.  Reinhard G. Lehmann
   Forschungsstelle für Althebräische Sprache
   Fachbereich 02 Evangelische Theologie
   Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
   D - 55099 Mainz
   tel: (+49) 6131 - 39 23284
   mailto: lehmann AT mail.uni-mainz.de
   http home: www.uni-mainz.de/~lehmann/
   look at: http://www.uni-mainz.de/~lehmann/link.html
   look at: http://www.uni-mainz.de/~lehmann/KUSATU-dframe.html
********************************************************