Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Stoney:

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Stoney Breyer <
stoneyb AT touchwoodcreative.com> wrote:

> Karl:
>
> You are confusing four things:
>

Oh???

>
> * the origin and meaning of the name Asher, which is a question for
> philologists knowledgeable in historical and comparative linguistics, but
> has no necessary connection with
>

Just as comparative linguistics can be led astray by words in different
languages having the same or similar form but vastly different meanings, so
historical linguistics, unless grounded in recovered or saved examples, is
even more speculative. Human history can take unexpected turns that no model
can account for.


> * Leah's understanding of the name's meaning, which may reflect the
> real meaning, or folk etymology of Leah's or some subsequent time, or a
> graceful authorial pun, or a calculated authorial false etymology designed
> to obscure a connection between Asher and Asherah, but in any case has no
> necessary connection with


Questions answered elsewhere, either directly or as a logical consequence of
other answers.


> * the historical truth of the account, which is absent Leah's own
> memoirs not recoverable, but in any case has no necessary connection
> (particularly if you regard the text as divinely inspired) with
>

The evidence from Genesis is that this account was written down by
contemporaries of Leah (divine inspiration not necessary), therefore could
recount what she told them.


> * the date at which the account was composed, whether in Moses' time
> or Ezra's or Judas the Hammer's
>

What? I expressly referenced this question—do you accept the text as written
(or more accurately, assume that the copyist errors are minimal) or do you
preach the modern mythology of late authorship?

Karl W. Randolph.

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of K Randolph
>
> If one accepts that Genesis is true history and contains an accurate
> account of why Leah name one of her sons Asher, then no way. The story
> records that the name is based upon the expectation that she would be
> counted as happy because she bore a son.
>
> On the other hand, if one accepts the modern mythology that Genesis
> was first penned over a millennium after the events were recorded to
> have happened, then I suppose that anything goes. But this is speculation
> that has no basis in the text.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
>