Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Thanks, for that Randall. You raise many good and evidently valid points. I
was most impressed with the agreement argument and the idiomatic arguments.
Thanks for that.

James Christian

On 27 May 2010 21:49, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> [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
>