Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

  Brian,  Yes, there are several examples of  3.f s. there, and it would 
appear they make a stronger case for vocalized consonants than matres:
 
    All the "BH" words in the stele ( meaning  "in her" ) are equivalent to 
the same word " BH"  in the MT; now the Mapiq in the letter He in such words 
in the Heb. bible clearly indiciates that they are fully pronounced consonant 
. It is quite possible that this is a reflection of of former final vowel,-- 
such as *  baha -- lost by the time of the MT ponounciation. 
   This can be deducted from the Arabic "beha"; the final Alif is the marker 
of all 3.f.s. pronominal suffixes in Arab.
   It can be more dramatically observed in the the qamatz under the "he" in 
all 3.f.plural Heb. declensioons : e.g..   "dodeyha" "suseyha" .  In the 
Mesha Stele one exmple would be in line 22 "sh'areyha"  her (its) gates.
   
   Uri   

"B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com> wrote:
Uri, I find it interesting that on the Mesha Stele, the final he is not 
only used for the 3. m. s. pronominal suffix, but also the 3. f. s., as 
in line 8 bah. According to contemporary Hebrew phonics such a word 
would be pronounced with an aspirated /h/, that is /bah/ with a 
"breathy" h. Let's assume the two pronominal suffixes, though written 
identically, were pronounced differently. If so, I think the existence 
of different pronunciations for a final he is an expression of matres 
lexionis.

Shalom,
Bryan

Uri Hurwitz wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> The letter "He" as a pronominal suffix, not only in the examples you 
> cite bellow but also for instance in in A&TR$TH in the Kunt. El- Ajrud 
> may well have been a vocalized consonant, --" ...tahu", as the 
> cited above . In classical Arabic this is the case to the present. 
> Interestingly, like in most cases in BH, this contracts to a syllable in 
> the colloqiual dialects.
> 
> Uri
> 
> */"B. M. Rocine" 
/* wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Yitzak,
> 
> Will you count the 3. m. s. pronominal suffixes as final he maters?
> There are many of them that are pronounced /o/: (line 6) vayyahlephoh,
> benoh, (7) boh, ubetoh, (8) moh, beyamoh, etc.
> 
> I admit, when we pronounce such final he's as /o/, we may be using
> anachronistic pronunciation rules. IOW, they may have been consonants
> as, I think, Joel Hoffman mentioned as a general possibility for
> epigraphic Hebrew ("Moabite").
> 
> Shalom,
> Bryan
> 


                
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
>From kwrandolph AT email.com  Thu Jul 28 11:54:39 2005
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 lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32784C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:54:38 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from unknown (unknown [192.168.9.180])
        by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
        1C534180012D
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:54:38 +0000 
(GMT)
X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.51)
        by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 28 Jul 2005 15:54:37 -0000
Received: by ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
        id C67446F029; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:54:37 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from [69.227.58.233] by ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com with http for
        kwrandolph AT email.com; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:54:36 -0500
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:54:36 -0500
X-Originating-Ip: 69.227.58.233
X-Originating-Server: ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com
Message-Id: <20050728155437.C67446F029 AT ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Fwd: Re: YHWH
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
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: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:54:39 -0000

Yigal:

"Modern critical scholarship" (if by this we are talking=20
about the documentary hypothesis and related theories) is=20
just as much a product of faith as the most devout Orthodox=20
Jew or Fundamentalist Christian. It is just a different faith.=20
It is a faith that historically claimed that God does not exist=20
and naturalistic evolution is how we got here, or if there's a=20
god, he sort of started the ball rolling, then went off and did=20
nothing as evolution took its course. It is a faith that denied=20
that God contacted men and women and had them prophecy then=20
write down exactly what God wanted. Everything else in modern=20
critical scholarship historically is based on these=20
presuppositions, and these presuppositions, by=20
their very nature, are faith.

It is not my purpose in this message to comment on the=20
validity of any faith claims, rather just to emphasize that=20
these faith claims exist and must be recognized for what they=20
are. And where these faith claims intersect how we understand=20
when, why and how Biblical Hebrew was written, that we don't=20
insist that our way is the only way to read the text, nor even=20
to claim that ours is the only way logically to interpret the=20
texts.

As for the use of the term )LHYM or one of its singular forms=20
in Tanakh, it is, as far as I can tell, nowhere used as a name.=20
Maybe in other cognate languages, but not in Tanakh. As a=20
simple noun, it refers to whatever people worship as a god.=20
Sometimes in combination with other words it refers to a=20
specific god, hence then it could be understood as part of a=20
name, but standing alone it is not ever used as a name. The=20
context defines what is meant when the person refers to a god,=20
and in Tanakh, that context is often assumed. By itself, the=20
word does not validate nor deny any faith claims to any=20
particular deity, in fact is used in contexts where deity claims=20
were even denied, so we should not read too much into its use. I=20
speak here as a lexicographer, not as an advocate of any=20
particular faith claim.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
>=20
> I can't believe I'm getting into this, but here goes:
>=20
> It is not a question of "accepting God's word". "Accepting God's word" is=
 a
> matter of faith, not of scholarship.The text of the Bible is multi-facete=
d,
> and can be interperated in many ways. Shiv'im panim laTorah. That's what
> makes it so fascinating.  Some people's faith is based on the idea that
> God's word can only be understood correctly, when interpreted according to
> rabbinic tradition, i.e. the Oral Torah. Others' faith is that the "Old
> Testament" must be understood in light of the "New Testament". Both views,
> and in fact the very existance of God, are based on faith, which scholars
> can niether prove nor disprove.
>=20
> Modern critical scholarship, whether practiced by people of faith or by
> athiests (or anything in between), is based on human logic and observatio=
n,
> not on faith. Critical scholars have no way of evaluating whether the text
> of the Bible is "really" "God's word". That's a question of faith. To the
> critical scholar, the texts were composed by human authors, over a long
> time, and then went through a long proccess of editing. That's what the
> evidence, as interpreted by out human logic, seems to poin to. And so to =
the
> critical scholar, the question below is NOT valid. It should, rather, be,
> why do the author(s) of these passages of Genesis and Exodus seem to
> recognize the existance of other gods, while the author(s) of other passa=
ges
> do not? Does this reflect a development of Israelite faith over time? Why
> did the later editors let both passages stand in the Bible? What does that
> say about them?
>=20
> Yigal

--=20
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm