Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 2/9/06, Karl Randolph
>
> > > 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.

This point was meant for you to consider that in the Bible
itself there are such uses.  Consider:

Ex. 26:54 )y$ lpy pqdyw
1 Sam 30:6 )y$ (l-bnw w(l-bntyw
Perhaps also 1 Sam 25:10 )y$ mpny )dnyw [although this
is not really plural]

> >  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?

You're assuming that "pre exilic inscriptions" and
"consonantal text of Tanakh" are part of the exact
same stratum in Hebrew (what you call "Biblical
Hebrew").  This has not been shown and is in fact
much the issue we are trying to determine in this
discussion.  The above question was meant for
you to show that.  Instead, you asked something
else that assumes without showing this particular
assertion.  Obviously, if they are not part of the
same stratum, it would be wrong to (directly) use
"consonantal Tanakh" conventions to interpret pre-
exilic inscriptions, just like it would be wrong to use
Mishnaic Hebrew conventions to (directly) interpret
Qumran Hebrew texts (including Biblical texts).

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

You're the one who brought a stone out of Scandinavia
to support your argument.

> > 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.

This must be why you had so far failed to give me a
numeric comparison of $mrm vs. $wmrm vs. $mrym vs.
$wmrym noun forms in the Bible to explain why the
standard usage in pre-exilic inscriptions is $mrm and
in the Bible this is very rare if used at all.  (I attempted
to search via the mechon-mamre FreeFind search to
determine if the entirely defective spelling was in use
and if to trust its results, this form is entirely absent
from the Bible.  But I am not sure I trust the search
results.)

Regarding the Mesad Hashavyahu ostracon:

> Thank you for the example. But even there the
> photograph of the ostracon is of such low quality

I had pointed you to an high-resolution site of
inscriptions.  Look in the archives.

> that only by looking at the page of "Mezad
> Hashavyahu - Inscription - navah's reading" can we

Who is Navah?  In any case, since you seem to
understand that #5 essentially refers to the standard
reading even if you didn't realize it was the standard
reading as established by a well-known paleographer,
you probably understood that #3 and #4 were intended
as college level student exercises in deciphering the
text themselves.  So you didn't have to depend on
Naveh's reading to read this, unless you're unable to
decipher a text such as this yourself -- something
you have in the past widely claim to be able to do.
#4 even provides the table of the alphabet right next to
the inscription.

> get an idea of what the text reads, then we have to
> take on faith that he has read the text correctly.

Or, you can shell out $20 and buy a standard inscriptions
handbook:

http://www.bialik-publishing.com/product_info.php?cPath=79&products_id=1220

(Perhaps they don't ship internationally, but their account
sign up allows you to specify other countries.  The older
version costs ~ $30 at biblio.com).

> 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.

No, it's not.  "The matter of the work" requires a definite
article - "h(bdh", which is not present in the text.  It can't
mean "his work" because that would be "(bdth."  See
also 1 Sam 26:19.  Add to that the obvious consistent
references to the author as "(bdk."

Yitzhak Sapir