Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

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