Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 2:03 AM, K Randolph 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?!
>>
>
> This is the advantage of a reputation, where, unless I make an innocent
> mistake, I do not set out deliberately to deceive.

Karl, this is great!  I really abhor deception.

On a different note, you have been quoting various wikinfo articles recently.
The links to these wikinfo articles recently has been absent any introduction.
But you have also in the past introduced them with an explanation such as:

> If you want written evidence for my claim, someone posted at
> wikinfo.org (part of the ibiblio empire that also hosts b-hebrew) two
> articles that say the same things as I claim here, including  links to
> the same textbook I had with page references so that you can look it
> up yourself if you don’t believe me.

Well, Karl, I am going to ask you now that you stop quoting wikinfo articles
that you wrote without indicating that you are their author.

>> 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.
>>
>
> This is an argument from silence, and this inscription may be the example
> that shows it.

The inscription can't be an example that shows it, because the reading is open
to multiple interpretations.  The example that shows it has to be clear and
unambiguous.  For example, in the inscription a זדה is definitely something in
the rock, צר.  So this inscription is proof that a זדה can be something in a
rock.  But as regarding אש, it is not an independent proof or example of
anything.

> But with both LHB/LHBH flame and BRQ lightning, both synonyms of )$ fire,

LHB and BRQ are not synonyms of fire.  They are related words, but not
synonyms.  Just like a flame is not a synonym of fire.

>> 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'.

> Can you show one example in Tanakh where )Y$ [any synonym for communicate]
> )L R(W refers to reciprocity? I can’t find them, but then I have a
> reputation of not being very good in my searches. Or for that matter, )Y$
> [any verb] R(W with the idea of reciprocity?

The issue is not אש אל רעו but אש with רעו.

I am going to add some more points to Randall's:

1) In the inscription, we see הגרזן אש.  In Biblical Hebrew, if אש was
part of the גרזן, we
would expect אש הגרזן.

2) I generally read רעו in this inscription as plural, comparable to
Biblical Hebrew
רעיו.  The pronoun is still referring to a masculine noun.  This has
to do with the
particular situation in the event, where the diggers on one side are
each digging
towards all the diggers (רעים) on the other side, rather than being
pitted digger
on one side against digger on the other.  There is still a concept of
reciprocity
involved in this interpretation.

3) The term לקרת comparable to Biblical Hebrew לקראת is used in the Bible only
between individuals and nations and not between inanimate objects.

4) The word איש is used with the singular of רע (see point #2) many times,
including 1 Sam 10:11, Gen 15:10, and many other examples.

So in the Bible, קל generally refers to a sound making entity where fire does
not appear as a possibility, לקראת refers to animate entities only, as does 
the
word רע.  All this suggests that the reading here is אש - 'man'.  Again, the
text cannot serve as an example of אש  - 'blade' because if so, it would still
be an ambiguous reading to the perfectly reasonable reading אש - 'man'.  But
furthermore, this text is very unlikely to be the one example that proves אש
is a blade and that רע can refer to inanimate objects and that לקראת refers
to inanimate objects and that הגרזן אש is a reasonable grammatical phrase.

> In view of the above, you can argue that my answer is an answer from
> silence, well enough, but here you claim that “This is a classic reciprical
> [sic] idiom for ‘each other’” which means it should be well known, and I
> can’t find it.

> To be fair, after not finding the exact equivalent, I looked up )Y$ and R(HW
> which usually, though not always, has a concept of reciprocity.

Just look up רע in the concordance, Karl.  It is used all over the place, איש
אל רעהו, איש לקראת רעהו, בין איש ובין רעהו, etc etc.  Just because the 
singular
of רע is spelled in the Bible רעהו does not mean it is not an example of the
reciprocity that Randall is speaking of.  Even when איש-רעהו does not have
reciprocity the combination is idiomatic.

> What can we deduce from this inscription? The third line down, far left,
> part of a word in a damaged section ends with -WBYM, along with MWC) and
> MATYM indicating that the materes lectionis were used at the time the stone
> was inscribed.

Huh?
ובים - and on the day, is purely consonantal.
מאתים - both aleph and yodh are consonantal in this case, although the aleph
is not consonantal in Tiberian Hebrew.
מוצא - this may be an example of matres lectionis, especially one in the 
middle
of the word, but this is not certain.

> The use of )$ is disputed, so it can’t be a proof of
> anything. R(W instead of R(HW indicates that spelling was not standardized,

No, it indicates a different spelling than the Bible.

> but that phonetic spelling gave close enough results such that people had no
> problem understanding what was written.

> A final thought that just crossed my mind as I prepared to close this
> message, is it possible that the disputed )$ on this stone meant neither
> “fire” nor “man”, rather is a form of the word Y$, which has alternate
> spellings of both )$ and )Y$? And that its uses are not fully understood by
> modern linguists? (Are both sides in this discussion wrong?)

Practically all the points against אש - blade/fire in this inscription are 
valid
against אש - 'is' (יש).  But where do you see יש לקראת or יש אל in the Bible?
This is again a non-starter.

Yitzhak Sapir