Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Prov. 30:19

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • Cc: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Prov. 30:19
  • Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 14:35:57 -0700

On 07/10/2003 12:14, Karl Randolph wrote:

Dear Peter:

I am cognisant of that argument, but I deliberately did not mention it.

When I already question how applicable a contemporary cognate language is to
the understanding of a Biblical Hebrew word, even question the use of
Mishnaic Hebrew at times because languages change, how authoritative should I
consider a cognate language first written over a thousand years later? If
your only evidence is Arabic (which was the case at the time of Gesenius,
even BDB) when the evidence internal to Tanakh and Biblical Hebrew indicate
otherwise, it makes your argument even more presuppositionally biased and
speculative than my admittedly speculated definition I proposed for Proverbs
30:19.

Well, etymology is quite an exact science concerning forms of words in cognate languages, though a poor guide to meaning. And Arabic is rather close to Hebrew. In Arabic there are two separate words, obviously from different root consonants, ghulaam (with gheyn) = boy and `aalam (with `eyn) = world. It is well known that Arabic gheyn and `eyn both correspond to Hebrew `ayin. It doesn't take much of a leap to conclude that Hebrew `elem/`alma corresponds ghulaam, and that `olam corresponds to `aalam. But you don't have to accept this evidence if you don't want to. Just accept that there is even less evidence, i.e. none at all, for most of your speculations.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page