Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 26/08/2004 20:32, MarianneLuban AT aol.com wrote:

> ...
>
>
> I am not tossing any missiles.  I just gave views.  The Bible dictionary in 
> which I looked up "Pu'ah" was compiled by James P. Boyd, hopefully an expert.  
> He treats the Pu'ah of Exodus and the Puah of Judges as the same name. ...

This is sufficient to prove that he is not an expert, indeed that he 
hasn't even looked at the Hebrew text. You don't get scholarship for 
$3.99 (which I found it offered for); that's the price of a reprint of a 
second rate 19th century work (although I wasn't actually able to 
confirm that this is the original date of this work).

> ... What 
> his rationale for this is and why he gives the meaning as "mouth", he does not 
> say.  I am as puzzled at this as anyone.  But I can read Hebrew quite well and 
> can contribute.  Ask "Noam".  About a month ago he posed a question on a 
> Hebrew term and I gave him a private answer.  The only reason I answered privately 
> is because I was brand new to the list and had not yet figured out that to 
> respond to a post, one needs to hit "reply all" instead of just "reply" as with 
> the Yahoo groups.  If "Noam" remembers, perhaps he can attest that my answer 
> was the same as that of the majority he received onlist.  I studied Hebrew 
> before I ever cracked open an Egyptian grammar.  It is not a language I am "in no 
> position" to comment on.  However, at this point my expertise in Egyptian is 
> far greater than in Biblical Hebrew--that is true.  But you don't know me well 
> enough to be able to make any judgments on what I am fit to comment upon--or 
> not. ...

Fair enough. I would just suggest that if you were a true Hebrew expert 
you would not have confused two quite different Hebrew names just 
because they have the same English transliteration - although we can all 
make mistakes of course. I will accept this as a mistake, and that your 
Hebrew is in fact reasonably good. And I don't claim too much of mine.

> ... If my sources are not good enough for you, perhaps it is you who has a 
> source that explains the meaning of Pu'ah and gives a rationale that is 
> unempeachable.
>  

No, I don't. There are no unimpeachable sources for the meanings of 
Hebrew names as a lot must be speculative. One thing that is necessary, 
however, is to work from the Hebrew spelling, and not from the English 
as Boyd seems to.

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