b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

[b-hebrew] My five cents about the name

From: "Vadim Cherny" <vadim_lv AT center-tv.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: [b-hebrew] My five cents about the name
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:52:05 +0200

I guess there is no room for discoveries in the field of tetragrammaton, but
here is a suggestion:

Why don't we take the name as a noun of process, such as ctiva? Then, final
hey is the suffix. The first three letters correspond to possessive suffixes
for 1, 2, 3 masc.sing. (vowels i, a, u).
The tetragrammaton's meaning could be imagined as "process or result of I,
thou, you," or simply "community."

This identification of God with community makes sense of the "holy people"
promise.
Also, obviously (and as Milgrom convincingly argues) Leviticus is
reinterpretation of pagan rites for ethical purposes, essentially, for
achieving a perfect society. This is not far from the community' deification.
Also, we may consider that quite the same process took place in China, where
Confucius reinterpreted the ancestral worship in terms of ritual, elevating
humanity to divinity.

Vadim Cherny
>From hholmyard AT ont.com Fri Dec 10 10:49:49 2004
Return-Path: <hholmyard AT ont.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from online.OnlineToday.Com (online.OnlineToday.Com [204.181.200.2])
by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F5764C006
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:49:47 -0500
(EST)
Received: from [205.242.61.51] (na51.OnlineToday.Com [205.242.61.51])
by online.OnlineToday.Com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id
iBAFnfPt026347
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:49:42 -0600
(CST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: hholmyard AT mail.ont.com
Message-Id: <a06020400bddf74d30981@[205.242.61.148]>
In-Reply-To: <200412100756.55574.dwashbur AT nyx.net>
References: <20041210093942.306771CE304 AT ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
<41B9B523.6080000 AT theol.unibe.ch>
<200412100756.55574.dwashbur AT nyx.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:47:39 -0600
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:49:49 -0000

Dear Dave,

>On Friday 10 December 2004 07:39, Samuel Arnet wrote:
>> Karl Randolph wrote:
>> > The construct LMW occures over 50 times in Tanakh. Though the
>> > majority of its uses are for plural subjects, it refers to what is
>> > unquestionably a singular subject often enough that the numerical
>> > value of the -MW cannot be determined from the form. The only people
>> > I have run into before who insisted that LMW had to be plural did so
>> > for ideological, not linguistic, reasons.
>>
>> L/F^MOW is a plural form. For a discussion, and some literature, see
>>
>> http://whi.wts.edu/WHI/MORPH/BugTracker/7
>
>There was an extended discussion about this around 3 years ago on the
>newsgroup soc.religion.christian.bible-study where several of us pointed out
>numerous passages that can't possibly be plural. The word can go either way,
>and only context determines its number. I can try to dig through the
>archives for examples, but can't promise when.

HH: I don't know if Samuel read the entire page of the link he
provided, but it states at the bottom that LMW might be singular a
few times:

In the following 5 cases, it *could* be X3ms but may be X3mp; listed
below are the references in the order of descending likelyhood,
according to Jon-Muraoka:

gn9:26,9.1 L/F^MOW L@PpX3ms “probably”
gn9:27,9.1 L/F^MOW L@PpX3ms “probably”
dt33:2,7.1 L/F^MOW L@PpX3ms “perh.”
dt33:2,18.1 L/F^MOW L@PpX3ms “perh.”
is53:8,14.1 L/F^MOW L@PpX3ms “perh.”

Yours,
Harold Holmyard
>From kwrandolph AT email.com Fri Dec 10 15:56:24 2004
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT email.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com
(webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.67])
by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EFA34C005
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:56:24 -0500
(EST)
Received: from wfilter.us4.outblaze.com (wfilter.us4.outblaze.com
[205.158.62.180])
by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
E1391180012C
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:56:23 +0000
(GMT)
X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.55)
by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 10 Dec 2004 20:56:23 -0000
Received: by ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
id C4FB0101D0; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:56:23 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from [66.81.68.101] by ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com with http for
kwrandolph AT email.com; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:56:23 -0500
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:56:23 -0500
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53:8
X-Originating-Ip: 66.81.68.101
X-Originating-Server: ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com
Message-Id: <20041210205623.C4FB0101D0 AT ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:56:24 -0000

Samuel:

The -MW suffix is used well over 170 times in Tanakh, less than a third of
those connected to the L- prefix. When we take into account all the uses of
the suffix, there are several times that it refers to a singular object. That
is more than the at least three times (Genesis 9:26-27, Isaiah 44:15) that it
is connected to the L- prefix referring to a singular object. Examples
include Genesis 19:15 referring to the dawn, Exodus 15:5 where it refers to
"a stone", shall I go on? You need to refer to all of these uses, not to
restrict yourself to those connected to the L- prefix.

I agree that the majority of uses is plural, but not by a long shot all.

The insistance that the -MW suffix has to have a plural meaning comes from
its use in Isaiah 53:8 because of the theological implications of its use as
a singular in that verse. Therein lies the impetus to eisegete a plural
meaning into verses that have a singular construction.

It seems to me that the use of the -MW suffix indicates an emphatic, as in he
does obeissance to that very piece of wood Isaiah 44:15, or as that very dawn
broke Genesis 19:15.

Karl W. Randolph.

Ps. I noticed that the list you referrenced does not include all the uses of
LMW, where the L- prefix is used with the -MW suffix. Why were those examples
omitted?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Samuel Arnet" <samuel.arnet AT theol.unibe.ch>
>
> Karl Randolph wrote:
>
> > The construct LMW occures over 50 times in Tanakh. Though the
> > majority of its uses are for plural subjects, it refers to what is
> > unquestionably a singular subject often enough that the numerical
> > value of the -MW cannot be determined from the form. The only people
> > I have run into before who insisted that LMW had to be plural did so
> > for ideological, not linguistic, reasons.
>
> L/F^MOW is a plural form. For a discussion, and some literature, see
>
> http://whi.wts.edu/WHI/MORPH/BugTracker/7
>
> Samuel
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

[b-hebrew] My five cents about the name, Vadim Cherny, 12/10/2004