Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Jerusalem (was nifty)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
  • To: Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Jerusalem (was nifty)
  • Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 22:28:35 -0600

Hello Randall:

Thanks for your comments.

קדש represents a nice word to interpret, with a plain root meaning to set
apart. And the applied meanings to set apart for bad or good come naturally.

That elusive פקד word we discussed earlier contains no such easy common root
meaning to bind all of the varied applied usages together.
As for change versus continuity in the masoretic text, we see from the 17th
century papers of harvard president increase mather, that many of the
english words used in 1700 boston continue to be used in 2000 boston. But
by the same token, no one writes that way today. So, the english language
has changed a lot since 1700, despite the continuity of individual words.

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/14298454?buttons=y

Likewise, the continuity of ye-ru-sha-la-yim pronunciation from 68 a.d., to
1068 a.d., can be argued to support all three alternative positions:

a. the m.t., represents a relatively ancient 1068 b.c., language;

b. the m.t. represents a 68 a.d., language.

c. the m.t., represents a 1068 a.d., language.

I recognize the corpus of other relevant available facts tends to support
option "a" above, but in the absence of an "increase mather autograph," the
inquiry remains speculative.

regards,

fred burlingame
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:36 PM, fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I recognize that I am identifying changes in form rather than substance
>
> actually, you are discussing differences in the writing system,
> where I was talking about what we learned about the 'language,'
> as per original comment.
>
> I should have added some background information
> that Aramaic vocalizes Jerusalem as Yerushalem
> (which fits the consonantal text), while this shekel
> appears to support Yerushalayim and the MT pronunciation of
> the city name at the end of the Second Temple.
>
>
> >
> > a. ha-ko-de-sha? The added "heh" letter at the end of the word does not
> > appear in the m.t.?
>
> for fun:
> howls of disagreement, she ain't no qdesha.
> Well, maybe the prophets think so some of the time (See Is 1.21-27,
> Jer 3.2),
> but that is certainly not what the shekel inscription is trying to say.
>
> braxot
> Randall BUth
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page