Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] jim: )DMY HNQB

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
  • To: nir AT ccet.ufrn.br, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] jim: )DMY HNQB
  • Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 22:53:45 -0400



Nir Cohen:

You wrote: “just for the argument, if indeed )DM (possibly +suffix) derives,
somehow, from ADON, namely, agricultural land as property owned by a
particular chief, the toponym problem might have a slightly different
interpretation, and plural might indicate several chiefs, or several
properties owned by one chief, as might be the case of XWWT Y)YR. continuing
this logic, QB or HNQB might have been a chief or ethnic group, originally.”

Based on my analysis, the two questions here, from the standpoint of Hebrew
grammar, are as follows. (1) Is )DMY here the plural construct form of a
masculine noun, )DM? (2) Is the underlying word here, )DM, a proper name, or
rather primarily a common word? If )DMY is here a proper name in masculine
construct plural form, which is how I analyze this geographical place name,
then several things follow from that. There must be another place in the
general vicinity that has a similar name, which here would obviously be )DMH,
located only a few miles north of )DMY H-NQB. But only one of these two
Adams/Adamahs is being referenced here, the one associated with NQB. Perhaps
most importantly, the usual reason for using the construct plural form of a
proper name in a place name in the first place is to focus attention on
location, location, location. The only reason why the small place known as
)DMY H-NQB was important was precisely because of its location: it was
located at a “pipe”/socket/narrow passageway/NQB in eastern Lower Galilee, so
that everyone traveling in that neck of the woods had to go right by this one
place.

If the foregoing analysis is right, then the precise meaning of )DM as a
common word is not so terribly important. If )DM means “agricultural land”,
as you suggest, rather than meaning “something red”, as others have
suggested, that is almost beside the point. But please note that there is in
fact no indication of “several properties owned by one chief”. No, only a
single place is being referenced here, despite the plural construct form.
The plural aspect of the plural construct form (i) lets us know that there
are two places in the area having the same basic name, being variants of )DM,
but then (ii) specifies, per the word/name that is not in construct form,
that only one of these two places is being referenced here, namely the one
that has a strategic location at a “pipe”/socket/narrow passageway/NQB.

On this thread I plan to set forth a series of Biblical place names that
feature a proper name in plural construct. You will see that the pattern is
always the same. There’s always another place with a similar name in the
area, but the word that is not in construct then specifies which of these two
places is being referenced here, and the real point of using the construct
plural format is precisely to emphasize that the one outstanding feature of
the one place being referenced is its location, location, location. I think
you will see that the pattern is quite clear, and quite predictable. In
fact, the reason why a proper name in construct plural in a place name is
fairly rare in the Bible is because only a limited number of places were
important solely for their geographical location. Two places that qualify in
that regard, being important solely for their geographical location, are the
first two places I have set forth on this thread: )DMY H-NQB and R)MWT GL(D.

My main point on this thread is to argue that when one sees a Biblical place
name that features construct plural, one should not assume that a local
topographical feature, in the plural, is being referenced. Rather, as with
)DMY H-NQB and R)MWT GL(D, the purpose of the use of construct plural may
rather be to focus attention on the fact that the one place being referenced
has a strategic geographical location [which will be the case, however, if
and only if the word/name in construct plural form is a proper name]. I see
XWT Y)YR at Joshua 13: 30 differently. There, Numbers 32: 41 makes it quite
clear that the common word for “towns”, in the plural, is the intended
reference. There are not two places in the same general vicinity that each
have XWT as a proper name. But by pointing out a series of examples like
)DMY H-NQB and R)MWT GL(D, I hope to be able to show that when the word/name
in construct plural is in fact a proper name [rather than primarily
functioning as a common word, as in XWT Y)YR], then the focus of attention is
on the strategic location of a single place, with the plural aspect of the
construct plural form being limited to asserting that there are at least two
places in the general vicinity with the same basic name.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page