Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Randall Buth:
 
1.  You wrote:  ”My point is that 'goats' have a masculine looking form and 
a masculine looking plural, yet they are "feminine".”
 
I agree.  But that has no relevance to ibexes.  Y(LH looks as feminine as 
can be for “female ibex”, and so does Y(LT as meaning “of a female ibex”.  
By sharp contrast, Y(L is very masculine as meaning “male ibex”.
 
True, the plural may be the same for both.  Y(LYM may mean either “male 
ibexes” or “female ibexes”.  But I don’t see any such confusion or ambiguity 
as to the singular forms.  Do you?
 
2.  You wrote:  “So there really isn't any problem in applying ya`el to a 
girl. the ya`el is a goat. A majestic goat to be sure.”
 
Yes, there’s a major league problem.  As a woman’s name, it should be 
Y(LH, meaning “female ibex”.  Most, though not all, Hebrew women’s names end 
in 
-H:  Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, Deborah.  Rachel and Tamar do not, and Keturah 
is not a Hebrew name [in my opinion], though her name has a Semiticized -H 
ending.  And it’s also true that a Semiticized man’s name, where the 
underlying name is non-Semitic, often ends in -H, such as Uriah and Araunah.
 
My point stands:  Y(L means “male ibex”, and does not mean “female ibex”, 
and as such does not make sense as a west Semitic name of Heber’s wife.
 
3.  You wrote:  “As for the masculinity of ya`el, is/was there any concord 
with the other occurrences in the Bible to show that ya`el was always 
'masculine-only'?”
 
Yes.  Y(LT is a feminine-only construct form, meaning “of a female ibex”, 
and it’s right there at Proverbs 5: 19.  Given Y(LT as feminine construct 
singular, the standard lexicons must be right that the regular feminine 
singular for “female ibex” would be Y(LH, and would not be Y(L.
 
4.  You wrote:  “Other 'cross-forms' exist. For example "qohelet" appears 
to be the 'convener of an assembly" and was masculine, yet the form with" 
-et" is distinctively 'feminine'.”
 
QHLT is a feminine word meaning “preacher” or “convener of an assembly”, 
and it can be applied to a man who performs such role.  Gesenius notes:  “on 
account of the f[eminine] termination, which is not uncommon in nouns 
denoting offices”.
 
5.  You wrote:  “And we have Yona, a man's name formed from a feminine noun.
” 
 
Why is that surprising?  YWNH as a man’s name comes from the feminine noun 
YHWH, meaning “dove”.  The key is that YWNH as a Hebrew common word means “
[male or female] dove”, and is not limited to meaning “female dove”.  Since 
it can mean “male dove” as one of its meanings, it can function nicely as 
a man’s name.
 
By sharp contrast, Y(L cannot mean “female ibex”, because for the word “
ibex”, there’s a masculine form and a distinctive feminine form in the 
singular.  Y(L means “male ibex”, and Y(LH means “female ibex”.  That’s 
different from the Hebrew words for “dove” and “preacher”.
 
*       *       *
 
It makes no sense for Heber’s wife to have a west Semitic name that means “
male ibex”.  She is not male, and she does not act like an ibex.
 
Look at all the names connected with Y(L that likewise make little or no 
sense as west Semitic names:  (i) MDYN does not make sense as an unattested 
singular form of a Hebrew common word allegedly meaning “a brawling”.  (ii)  
The best that HALOT can come up with for “Kenite”/QYN-Y at p. 1097 is:  “
folk-etymology from QNH Gn 4: 1;  Jewish Aramaic QYN’H metal-worker, smith”.  
(iii)  Unless a sarcastic or ironic meaning (or no meaning) were intended, 
it would not make sense for XBR in the phrase XBR H-QYN-Y to be a west 
Semitic name meaning “united” or “comrade”, since the very sentence that sets 
forth that name goes on to say immediately that Heber “had  s-e-v-e-r-e-d  
himself from the Kenites”.  (iv) As to the R(W root of the name R(W-)L [Moses’
 father-in-law], Hebrew has no word R(W.  [R( means “friend”, but R(W does 
not.]  A Semiticized ending has been added, but the root of this name is a 
non-Semitic common word.  (v) XBB in west Semitic would mean “burning with 
fiery love” in west Semitic, which does not seem appropriate for the name of 
Moses’ father-in-law.  
 
Can’t you see that “Kenite” and the personal names of Kenites in the 
Bible, including but by no means limited to Y(L, do not make sense in context 
as 
west Semitic names?  But all six of these names make perfect sense as “
Jebusite” names, that is, non-west Semitic names for a people who originated 
in 
Late Bronze Age eastern Syria, and regarding whom a small remnant stayed on 
in Jerusalem for umpteen centuries.  Joshua 15: 63 flat out  t-e-l-l-s  us 
that:  “As for the Jebusites [of non-west Semitic origin] the inhabitants of 
Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites 
[of non-west Semitic origin] dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem 
unto this day”.
 
Why would the Bible say that a distinct minority group remained in 
Jerusalem “unto this day” unless it were true that a minority group was 
prominent 
in Jerusalem, and that such minority group gave its children in every 
generation vintage non-Semitic names, hearkening back to their age-old origin 
in 
Late Bronze Age eastern Syria?
 
People underestimate how savvy those pre-exilic Biblical authors were.  
Yes, I understand that they knew practically nothing about Late Bronze Age 
eastern Syria.  But what they  d-i-d  know was that six names of peoples in 
old, 
pre-Israel Canaan at truly ancient Genesis 15: 19-21 are non-west Semitic 
names.  So if they were going to reference any of those six names in their 
pre-exilic writings, they should talk to the elders of that notable minority 
group in Jerusalem and get some appropriate non-Semitic names to pair with 
the four of those six non-west Semitic names that have personal names 
attached 
to them in pre-exilic books in the Bible.  When you see XT-Y or QYN-Y or 
QN-Z-Y or YBWS-Y in pre-exilic books of the Bible, then take it to the bank, 
you are going to see personal names like XBR and R(W-)L and XB-B and Y(L and 
Uriah and Araunah and, to reference an earlier thread, KL-B, every one of 
which, in each and  e-v-e-r-y  case [with no exceptions], makes perfect sense 
as a non-Semitic personal name that recalls Late Bronze Age eastern Syria, 
and few of which make sense as west Semitic names.
 
I know you think that’s impossible and is a fantasy, but consider this.  It’
s not “impossible”, because those savvy pre-exilic Biblical authors got 
those names easily from that distinctive minority group that the Bible keeps 
on telling us remained at Jerusalem “unto this day”.  And linguistically, it 
does not make sense for Heber’s heroine wife to have a west Semitic name 
that means “Male Ibex”.  Not.  Rather, Y(L is a non-Semitic name, recalling 
Late Bronze Age eastern Syria [courtesy of that minority group that continued 
to live in Jerusalem until the Exile], that means “lady” or “queen” or “
sister”.
 
Today’s scholars profoundly underestimate how savvy those pre-exilic 
Biblical authors were.  They were  n-o-t  stuck with using only west Semitic 
names 
when they talked about descendants of non-Semitic, pre-Israel people in 
Canaan.  No.  The name of Heber’s wife is not a west Semitic name that means “
Male Ibex”.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois