Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Thursday 18 March 2004 05:50, Peter Kirk wrote:
> On 18/03/2004 03:59, Stephen Goranson wrote:
> >Apparently, here is a photograph of a Genesis 22 fragment, said to be from
> >Qumran, that is mentioned in a recent news article:
> >
> >http://www.deadseaexhibit.com/downloads/Press_Images/Genesis_Frag-hi.jpg
> >
> >This was mentioned in 13 Sept 2003 Star Telegram:
> >
> >http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/living/religion/6753955.htm
> >
> >According to the 18 March 2004 Akron Beacon Journal
> >
> >http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/8215027.htm
> >
> >Hanan Eshel proposes that Abraham is told here not to take Isaac "your
> > son" but Isaac "my son."
> >
> >That reading has been questioned, as has the proposed association of this
> >fragment with 4Q252.
> >
> >best,
> >Stephen Goranson
> >
> >P.S. A related news article concerns financial disputes aamong the
> > fragment exhbitors.
> >
> >http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/8212995.htm
>
> It looks to me as if the second line of this fragment reads [י]שחק בנו
> [Y]#XQ BNW, i.e. "Isaac his son" with the non-standard spelling used in
> Psalms, Jeremiah and Amos but not in Genesis (# = unpointed shin),
> followed by קחאתה[...] QX)TH[...]. These letters do not occur together
> even approximately in Genesis 22; nor does אלהים לאבר[הם] )LHYM L)BR[HM]
> in the previous line; and so this must be a free retelling of the story.
> ִיצחק בנו YCXQ BNW occurs several times in narrative in this chapter;
> יצחק בנך YCXQ BNK "Isaac your son" appears nowhere, so this fragment
> cannot be a corruption of those words. I am aware that yod could look
> like vav in the DSS, but this uncertain letter is much longer than the
> yod in אלהים )LHYM in the line above.
>
> So it seems far more likely to me that the second line here is taken
> from a narrative sentence and בנו BNW should be read, meaning "his
> [Abraham's] son". I would suggest a retelling of verse 6: Abraham says
> to ישחק בנו Y#XQ BNW "his son Isaac": קח את האש QX )T H)#, "take the wood".

Um, wouldn't QX )T H)# actually be "take the fire"?  i.e. the torch for 
lighting the sacrifice...

Regards,
Sir Nitpick

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Learning about Christianity from a non-Christian
is like getting a kiss over the telephone.