Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.


So you are talking about cognate languages, which I do not accept as valid
when talking about Hebrew.


>  It is also used in Ex 21:10, which the LXX
> reads as "marital rights" while traditional Jewish interpretation reads
> this as
> "conjugal rights.


Look at the context—this refers to humility, not fertility.


> "  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.
>

We’ll let the other on this list answer you, but when you claim that
derivatives of the root in cognate languages have a meaning connected with
fertility, therefore the word in Hebrew from the same root must have a
meaning connected with fertility. That sounds like the etymological error to
me.

>
> >> 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


Other than seven times in Exodus, three times in Leviticus and once each in
1 Samuel and 1 Kings.


> 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.


Hebrew or cognate languages? Are they online? Where can we see them?


>  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"


“Heads” (plural) doesn’t appear in the Siloam inscription.


> and the lack of the heh in the word hyt are out of
> place for the unpointed Pentateuch.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>

Karl W. Randolph.