Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Thanks, James:

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:12 AM, James Spinti <JSpinti AT eisenbrauns.com>wrote:

> Apparently no one bothered to look up the reference, because there is no
> Exodus 43:6. Exodus ends at chapter 40 :)
>

I looked up the complete message, and the correct reference is in the text
of the message. A typo in the title.

>
> Here is an excerpt from TWOT (via Accordance--BibleWorks gives the same
> text):
>
> By the act of breathing, emotions can be expressed. Perhaps it was observed
> that the nose dilates in anger. God is said to be “‏אֶרֶךְ־אַפַּיִם‎“ (lit.
> “long of anger,” i.e. long before getting angry) in such passages as Ex
> 34:6; Num 14:18; Ps 86:15; Neh 9:17. The thought is that God takes a long,
> deep breath as he holds his anger in abeyance, A ruler is said to be
> persuaded by a display of forbearance, patience, i.e. “the long of breath”
> (Prov 25:15).
>

Anger is shown in the face via a frown. Try this experiment—look in a mirror
and frown, really frown as in strong anger. Do your nostrils dilate or
flare? (If they do, your face is different from mine.)

(I disagree with this entry in more than one area, but that is getting off
topic, so I won’t elaborate here.)

>
> …
> A quick look at the various lexica shows no related words in Hebrew or
> cognate languages to back up Karl's suggestion of a related root. And, the
> fact that it occurs in the Mesha stela (Moabite) makes me more than a little
> suspicious of a separate root.
>

Who says that there has to be “a related root”? While I make greater use of
etymologies for analyzing meanings than do most lexicographers, I recognize
fewer roots than do most other lexicographers and I hesitate making up roots
where none are explicitly extant. It is possible that )P meaning ‘anger’ is
its own root, a stand alone noun used in more than one language (Moabite was
so close to Hebrew that it is most likely that people speaking Hebrew could
understand Moabite and visa versa) so that there should be no ‘root’ found.

>
> Hope that helps,
> James
>
> As a lexicographer, two of the things that caused me to become one was
using others’ dictionaries where there were:
1) words connected to roots where there was no connection in meaning, only
form. That’s like saying that “to” is from the same root at “two” because
they are both pronounced the same. In other words, a connection is made
based on form that did not exist in practice.
2) roots were made up that are nowhere extant in the language.
I think that using etymologies to analyze the meaning of words has fallen
into disrespect among most modern lexicographers is at least partially
related to the misuse of etymologies as in the two examples above.

So here we have a question based on an apparent formal relationship, but is
it accurate? Did the words have the same vowels in Biblical Hebrew?

Karl W. Randolph.