Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

[RB]
>> didn't you notice that Karl did not produce one citation but merely
>> made an allegation? And you don't have any objections?!
>[James]
> I'm not sure what you mean by citation or why you feel he needs one. He's
> provided an alternative understanding of the inscription with some lexical
> justification. The simple fact is that we have no tradition or ancient
> translation that demonstrates how this text was understood.
> We are fairly sure its a description of how they tunnelled towards each
> other from opposite ends.

OK, I re-read the source and I quote here

            (three >>> is Yitzhaq, two >> is Karl):
>>> אש - The word 'man' is always spelled איש in the Bible, well over a
>>> thousand times,
>>> and never with yodh.   The spelling אש is reserved in the Bible for 
>>> 'fire'.
>>
>>
>>“Flame”, “spark”, synonyms of “fire” are used in the Bible for the metal
>>head of a tool or weapon, so here it refers to the head of a pickax, which
>>would be heard long before human voices. I already mentioned this.

So "it" refers to 'esh' "fire". And there are ZERO references in the Hebrew
Bible where esh is the metal head of a tool, whether hammer or pickaxe.
(also, never in the history of the Hebrew language, as far as we can tell)
What Karl did not mention is that lahav refers to the blade of a sharp
instrument, and to a part of a fire (flames ). The word esh never refers to
a metal tool head. On this word alone his suggestion is without merit. But
there's more.
Three times in the inscription, the grapheme אש alef-shin
occurs in a pairing with re`o רעו . This is a classic reciprical idiom for
'each other'. It's not "fire with his friend" but 'a man with his friend'. So
one more mark against the suggestion, even more conclusive, since
it is a positive attestation rather than the absence of attestation.   But
there's more. "fire" is usually feminine. But the suffix in re`o is masculine.
A low-probability in the proposal. Responsible readers can only
conclude that the one 'not wearing clothes' is Karl's suggestion. And
more ironically, he was the one who added the pejorative name calling
(emperor without clothes) that you applauded. That's a double shame
all around. And just having to point this out is unpleasant.

-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life