Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Yitzhak:

see below

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "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.
> 
This is supposed to be grammatically singular. This 
is written in a form where the singular is used to 
refer to a plural subject. Another example is 
Judges 7:22. Such usage is not unusual in Tanakh.

>...
> 
> 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.
> 
As for the materes lectionis, their use is very 
often optional. There are a few words where their 
use is de regueur, such as )LHYM, but otherwise a 
"missing" mater lectionis is nothing special, not 
worth noting. It is found more often than you 
expect in Tanakh. If one reads the text with 
Masoretic points, the Qere often masks "missing" 
materes lectionis.

Your comments indicate that you are not familiar 
with the text of the Tanakh.

You mentioned a specific ostracon. Do you have a 
picture clear enough to read that you can share 
with the group?

Karl W. Randolph.

>...
> 
> Yitzhak Sapir

-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/