Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> 
> On 2/8/06, Karl Randolph wrote:
> 
>...
> > >
> > 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.
> 
> There are several issues here.  That such usage is not
> unusual in the Bible does not mean that other usages are
> not possible.

True, but the fact that this is a common expression 
in Biblical Hebrew and it reads correctly in this 
document the same way, means that we should prefer 
it over the other options.

>    Furthermore, even if this is the only type of
> usage in the Bible, would you insist that no other usage
> was possible in the Biblical language?

Again, it's the preferred reading. See above.

>  And finally, even
> if we had some way to be certain that in the entire language
> of the Hebrew Bible (even parts of the language not attested
> in the Hebrew Bible) there is no such usage, how do you
> know that this also applies to the pre-exilic inscriptions
> from Judea?
> 
What we have in Tanakh is the largest example of 
Biblical Hebrew. The sum total of all inscriptions 
outside of that document is a tiny fraction of that 
document. Therefore, unless it is impossible to 
read an inscription according to patterns found in 
Tanakh, why not follow known linguistic patterns?

To me it appears that you are grasping at straws to 
maintain your theory.

...
> 
> In any case, even if it is in the singular, the -w is not
> necessarily a mater lectionis -- see the explanation
> by Dr. Davila in the blog posting.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Maybe if you noted them you'd find there is some
> regularity involved -- even for the cases where they
> are missing.  But since you figure they are "not worth
> noting," I guess you'd never know.
> 
"Missing" materes lectionis are so common that I 
didn't bother to list them. Anyone who has read the 
whole Tanakh using an unpointed text would have 
noticed them. Lots of them.

> > Your comments indicate that you are not familiar
> > with the text of the Tanakh.
> 
> I gave specific examples.  You prefer to answer by
> a generalization based on your own subjective
> impression from reading the Bible.  Instead of making
> claims about my familiarity or non-familiarity with the
> text of the Hebrew Bible, why don't you answer the
> specific examples?
> 
> > You mentioned a specific ostracon. Do you have a
> > picture clear enough to read that you can share
> > with the group?
> 
> Some of the following sites are in Hebrew:
> http://archaeology.huji.ac.il/scribe/mezad/index.htm
> (Obviously the photo up front, but see also links #3, #4, #5)
> http://mikranet.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=11131
> (You can click on the picture for a close up)
> http://www.tau.ac.il/~yavneyam/viewer.htm
> 
Thank you for the example. But even there the 
photograph of the ostracon is of such low quality 
that only by looking at the page of "Mezad 
Hashavyahu - Inscription - navah's reading" can we 
get an idea of what the text reads, then we have to 
take on faith that he has read the text correctly.

If we strip out navah's dots, (BDH meaning "work" 
is a perfectly normal reading for the text. There 
is no need to insist that it means "his slave" as 
navah's dots imply.

> Yitzhak Sapir

Read your Tanakh all the way through.

Karl W. Randolph.

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