From the evidence within Tanakh, a SRYS was a trusted servant (or slave) who
worked in the royal household, in other words, a courtier. When and where did
the practice take place that the courtiers were to be eunochs? Obviously not
ancient Egypt. Apparently not ancient Israel. Apparently, in Esther, those
household workers were eunochs, but they were still referred to as royal
household workers. Where is the exchange in meaning?
On 17/02/2004 14:39, Karl Randolph wrote:
>Thanks, Peter:
>
>
>
>Are there any examples of a lexeme losing its original meaning and taking on
another in Biblical Hebrew? I can‘t think of any.
> >
How hard have you tried to think? It's a bit difficult to prove if you accept only evidence within the Tanakh and not reconstructions of original meanings. One possible example is SARIYS, which clearly means "eunuch" in Esther, but in Genesis is used of married Egyptian officials, in a country where I don't think there were eunuchs.
--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.