Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:57 AM, K Randolph wrote:

>> Let us consider first the possibility that the text really does read
>> "hot springs."
>> In this case the most interesting issue that comes up is the fact that the
>> person's name is (nh.  There are several roots of Ayin-Nun that have to do
>> with fertility:
>>
>> Ayin Nun Heh - Fertility,
>
> Which verse in Tanakh has that reading?

I will rephrase this and point out that (N appear in divine names, most 
notably
Anat, which is a fertility goddess.  It is also used in Ex 21:10, which the 
LXX
reads as "marital rights" while traditional Jewish interpretation reads this 
as
"conjugal rights."  HALOT suggests it might relate to ointment, but in any 
case
the reading here does connect with fertility if not directly.

>> from which probably comes the name of the goddess (nt,
>> and perhaps also the word (t - season, time.
>
> This sounds like the etymological fallacy to me.

You use the term etymological fallacy without understanding what it means.
The word season in English derives from the time of sowing of crops, and there
is no reason why the word in Hebrew does not similarly derive from the time of
fertilization of crops.  What we do know is that there was a Nun in the word,
because it is present in the Ugaritic cognate.

>> Ayin Nun Nun - Raincloud
>> Ayin Yodh Nun - Spring.
>>
>> …
>> Before we explore this amazing agreement, it is important to point out that
>> the spelling of the Pentateuch definitely does not predate the 6th century
>> BCE.

> Where is your evidence for that? I would love to see those Hebrew
> manuscripts that predate the 6th century BC that you reference for your
> evidence. Are they online? Looking at the Siloam inscription, I see nothing
> that looks out of place for MT unpointed Pentateuch.

Well, for one thing, the spelling hyt is never found in the Pentateuch and is
apparently only once found in the entire Bible, despite the many occurences
of the verb.  Other spellings common in pre-exilic inscriptions such as h) for
pronouns simply never appear in the Bible.  They apparently preserve a
pronounciation [hu)a] and [hi)a] whereas the Pentateuch preserves a later
[huwa] and [hiwa] and the Bible preserves a spelling according to [huwa]
and [hiya].  The problem is not that the Siloam inscription has nothing out
of place for MT unpointed Pentateuch.  Yes, the Pentateuch preserves a
later spelling that allowed some deviations that corresponded to older
spellings.  That is why the Siloam inscription does not offhand appear out
of place.  But the later spellings that are very common in the Pentateuch
are simply out of place in preexilic inscriptions.  In any case, the lack of 
the
yodh in the word "heads" and the lack of the heh in the word hyt are out of
place for the unpointed Pentateuch.

Yitzhak Sapir