Re: [ANE-2] Hebrew word for goddess:
- Ashtoret is the name of *A* goddess, like Asherah. The plural intensive
elohym is god OR goddess. Example 1 Kings 11:33 Ashtoreth elohy (Ashtoreth
San Antonio, TX
> From: ANEemail@example.com [mailto:ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
> Brian Colless
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:53 PM
> To: ANEemail@example.com
> Subject: [ANE-2] Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon and Elah valley
> IMHO There IS a Hebrew word for goddess but unrecognized as such - It is
> Ashtoret as in the combination be`alim wa'ashtarot! Cf Akk. Ilu u i$taru,
> god and goddess.
> Victor Hurowitz
> There is no Hebrew word for goddess, it is said, but it would have
> been 'elah (= 'ilat).
> Was the Elah valley associated with a goddess, or with a significant
> And is it mentioned in this inscription?
> Brian Colless
> Massey U, NZ
- On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Ariel L. Szczupak wrote:
> At 12:10 PM 11/6/2008, Frank Polak wrote:I did suggest a relationship in understanding these two words (and even
>>The waw of YRH.W is a analyzed, not as dual, but as
>>suffix after the plural/dual (ayHu>eHu>eW), in order to
>>enabler an interpretation as dual (its two months), so as to cover
>>the entire year. That is interpretation as much as linguistics.
> The interpretation of the rest of the inscription practically forces
> YRXW to be understood as "two months". That form can be explained in
> several ways. E.g., if I recall correctly Yitshak Sapir suggested a
> form akin to YXDW. But having possible explanations doesn't say
> they're correct, or else it's be a circular argument. I.e. "this
> explains how YXDW can be a dual form, and because we know that YXDW
> is a dual form the explanation is correct".
> Problem is that these explanations are not immediate recognitions of
> known forms. E.g. in the Mezad Hashavya ostracon there is the BH verb
> form of "W + future form" results in "past tense" ("W + will say" =
> "and he said" etc). This is immediately recognizable. All the
> explanations of how YXDW could be a dual form are not immediately
> recognizable - they are speculative and can't help in determining the
> language represented in the Gezer text. If the language of the text
> will be identified from other parts of the text, then an explanation
> of YXDW as a dual form in that language will have to be found for the
> sake of consistency.
wrote about it in a blog post). It wouldn't be anything necessarily special
to Hebrew, however. At best, it would show that Hebrew and the Gezer
dialect descended from a dialect that had some common morphology. As
the Gezer calendar shows us initial w > y, which identifies it as NWS,
and as it shows final -m in plurals, identifying it with Hebrew and
Phoenician against Moabite and Aramaic, within NWS, we already know
this, however. What it can explain is the vocalization of the word. In
other words, the waw of yrxw is useful in helping to suggest that yxdw
is a dual form (a suggestion that could be taken even without yrxw). Then,
the vocalization of yxdw could be used to support or reject various
hypotheses for the development of the -w suffix of this dual form. This is
not circular argumentation, in my opinion. At best, one could rephrase
the idea as a unified hypothesis that rests on two different pieces of data:
the consonants of yrxw in the Gezer calendar, and the Tiberian
vocalization in the Bible of yxdw.