Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

> As far as the Siloam inscription is concerned, I
> don't know what you are talking about. Consistently
> the masculine possessive is indicated by the -W,
> just like most of Tanakh.

For someone who claims to read inscriptions with an open
mind unchallenged by earlier readings, this question seems
odd.  Both the context and the spelling suggest that the
reading is in the plural - "his peers."  By context, I mean,
that it is more likely that a group of diggers was on each
side of the tunnel than two sole diggers.  If read in the
plural, the text refers to each digger as he approaches
the other team -- the team of diggers (plural) on the other
side.

For another comment that still reads this in the singular,
see also here:

http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_paleojudaica_archive.html#107848320504673411

Perhaps the interest in reading it in the singular is based on Jer 6:21,
but given the Vulgate it may be possible to reconstruct "$kn wr(
wy)bdw" and suggest that perhaps due to the unexpected verbal form,
the "wr(w" received its waw from a redivision of the words.  This
suggestion can also explain the Qere/Ketiv as attempts to deal with
the word.

Regardless, I think the plural is the best reading in the Siloam
Inscription and causes no problems.

There are many instances, later than Siloam, where the use of
-h is clearly used for a singular.  For example, "(bdh" in the Mesad
Hashavyahu ostracon, where the sender is referring to himself as
the servant of the receiver of the letter.  From the verbs that follow
it is clear that a singular person is writing the complaint (and it is
not a complaint of several people), especially when compared to
his brothers "hqcrm )ty" that "y(nw" for him.

> There are plenty of
> materes lectionis in that document, most notably
> internal waws and yods, as well as final waws.

I cited a specific case whereby both internal waw and
internal yod was missing from the plural masculine
present participle (= $om:rim).  Note "hqcrm" also in
the above cited ostracon.  But see, my argument is that
you miss the details.  You try to pick up instances that
seem to match, when they don't really, and if you were
to look at the real picture you'd realize the difference.
Yes, you don't have an inscriptions handbook to be able
to start the examine the evidence as a whole, but then
you chose not to get one.  In this case, my argument is
that while internal mater lectionis are found in pre-exilic
documents, in the case of this particular noun form,
they are absent whereas in the Biblical spelling one or
both are usually present.  That's a difference that needs
to be explained by someone who claims there's practically
no difference.  It can't be answered simply because in
some other noun form or word there is a mater lectionis.
I never said there wasn't.

> The spelling is entirely consistent with pre-Exile
> documents as Isaiah (no, there is no post-Exile
> second or third Isaiah), Jeremiah and the other
> pre-Exile prophets.

Stating it as a definite doesn't make it so.  It is a
theory, and even if Isaiah is pre-exilic and a single
whole composition, that doesn't mean that the
spelling as preserved in the Massoretic is the
original spelling.  (The same can be said for
Peter's claim of words such as the name of
Solomon or the place name Shiloh).  Evidence wise,
the opposite is true, there is a second, a third, a
fourth, a fifth, and many many more post-exilic
Isaiah (manuscript)s but no known manuscript or portion
of  Isaiah survives from the pre-exilic period.  As for the
spelling, you are  ignoring vast differences in spelling
in your statement above on consistency.

> I found a legible drawing of the inscription at
> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com , but that site
> is so flakey that I want to find a better site
> online where I can read the stone. Does anyone here
> know of such? It took me a few days to re-access
> the image and for some reason Safari won't let me
> save the image to disk.

I had previously directed you to a high-resolution
inscription site.  You had responded that you felt
no good would come out of reading my responses.
I don't know if that site contains this particular
inscription, but look it up in the archives.

(Regarding the use of Modern Hebrew as relevant
to the discussion:)
> I said just the opposite, consistently so.

I am here to discuss the particular substantial
issues at hand regarding your theory.  Everyone
can look at the archives and see what you said,
and form their own opinions of what the above
statement constitutes.

Yitzhak Sapir