The word HA-NI-MCA of the root מצא 'find', of Gen. 41:38, has embedded in it the personal pronoun NI. Does this PP identify Pharaoh and his servants, or does it refer to Joseph?
Isaac Fried, Boston University
הנמצא HANIMCA Gen. 41:38
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
-
markofcain
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:58 am
- Location: Sarasota, FL USA
- Contact:
Re: הנמצא HANIMCA Gen. 41:38
Why not take the Nun prefixed to a verb as the sign of a Niphal?
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: הנמצא HANIMCA Gen. 41:38
Isaac Fried:
You wrote: “The word HA-NI-MCA of the root מצא 'find', of Gen. 41:38, has embedded in it the personal pronoun NI. Does this PP identify Pharaoh and his servants, or does it refer to Joseph?”
Gesenius sees the presence of the nun/N, before MCA, as giving the word the passive meaning of “to be found”, rather than the active meaning it would otherwise have of “to find”. That same usage applies at Genesis 44: 16-17.
If Gesenius is right, then the standard translations of Genesis 41: 38, such as KJV, do not catch that subtlety: “And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?”
Rather, per Gesenius, a more accurate translation, using “to be found” in the passive, would be something like the following: “And pA-ra-Ax [“Pharaoh”] said unto his servants, Is there to be found such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?”
As to “identify[ing] Pharaoh”, Genesis 41: 38 is perfect for that task. If PR‘H [“Pharaoh”] was originally recorded in cuneiform writing in the Late Bronze Age/Patriarchal Age, when the only writing system sophisticated enough to record the Patriarchal narratives at that time was cuneiform, and if that word/name was not transformed into alphabetical Hebrew writing until 700 years later in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem, then consider the following. In evaluating PR‘H [“Pharaoh”] in the received text, (i) the ayin/‘ in the received text could just as easily be an aleph/’, and (ii) the he/H in the received text could just as easily be a heth/X, because the cuneiform writing of the Amarna Letters era could not distinguish those Hebrew letters one from the other. Thus the original intent may well have been: PR’X [with the last two letters being aleph-heth, rather than the ayin-he that we see in the received text, since cuneiform writing could not distinguish such letters]. That’s P-R-’X. Per the last two Hebrew letters of the name “Potiphar”, P-R means pA ra, “the Ra” [where pA is the Egyptian word for “the”]. The Hebrew letters ’X are Ax in Egyptian, in both cases being aleph-heth. Ax in Egyptian means “spirit”, so that Akhenaten’s historical name, Ax-n-itn, in Egyptian means: “Spirit of Aten”, or less literally, “Spirit of the Sun-God” or “Spirit of God”. In my opinion, the Biblical term transliterated as “Pharaoh” was originally intended to be P-R-’X, representing pA ra Ax in Egyptian, and meaning: “Spirit of The Ra”, or less literally, “Spirit of the Sun-God” or “Spirit of God”.
On that analysis, “Pharaoh” is the functional equivalent of Akhenaten’s historical name! Both effectively mean “Spirit of the Sun-God” or “Spirit of God”.
Backing up the foregoing analysis is the odd turn of phrase which appears at the end of Genesis 41: 38, “spirit of God”. The term “spirit of God” has the same meaning as both (i) Akhenaten’s historical name [with “Akhenaten” effectively meaning “Spirit of God”, while literally meaning “Spirit of Aten”], and (ii) the Hebrew word/name conventionally transliterated as “Pharaoh”, which in the Patriarchal narratives is the functional equivalent of Akhenaten’s historical name. PR’X : P-R ’X : pA ra Ax literally means “Spirit of The Ra”, and implies “Spirit of God”.
Each of the Hebrew term conventionally transliterated as “Pharaoh” [which in cuneiform was intended to be PR’X], and the Hebrew phrase “spirit of God”, at Genesis 41: 38 is the functional equivalent of the name “Akhenaten”. All three effectively mean: “Spirit of God”. The foregoing linguistic analysis shows that the Pharaoh of the Patriarchal narratives was Akhenaten.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “The word HA-NI-MCA of the root מצא 'find', of Gen. 41:38, has embedded in it the personal pronoun NI. Does this PP identify Pharaoh and his servants, or does it refer to Joseph?”
Gesenius sees the presence of the nun/N, before MCA, as giving the word the passive meaning of “to be found”, rather than the active meaning it would otherwise have of “to find”. That same usage applies at Genesis 44: 16-17.
If Gesenius is right, then the standard translations of Genesis 41: 38, such as KJV, do not catch that subtlety: “And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?”
Rather, per Gesenius, a more accurate translation, using “to be found” in the passive, would be something like the following: “And pA-ra-Ax [“Pharaoh”] said unto his servants, Is there to be found such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?”
As to “identify[ing] Pharaoh”, Genesis 41: 38 is perfect for that task. If PR‘H [“Pharaoh”] was originally recorded in cuneiform writing in the Late Bronze Age/Patriarchal Age, when the only writing system sophisticated enough to record the Patriarchal narratives at that time was cuneiform, and if that word/name was not transformed into alphabetical Hebrew writing until 700 years later in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem, then consider the following. In evaluating PR‘H [“Pharaoh”] in the received text, (i) the ayin/‘ in the received text could just as easily be an aleph/’, and (ii) the he/H in the received text could just as easily be a heth/X, because the cuneiform writing of the Amarna Letters era could not distinguish those Hebrew letters one from the other. Thus the original intent may well have been: PR’X [with the last two letters being aleph-heth, rather than the ayin-he that we see in the received text, since cuneiform writing could not distinguish such letters]. That’s P-R-’X. Per the last two Hebrew letters of the name “Potiphar”, P-R means pA ra, “the Ra” [where pA is the Egyptian word for “the”]. The Hebrew letters ’X are Ax in Egyptian, in both cases being aleph-heth. Ax in Egyptian means “spirit”, so that Akhenaten’s historical name, Ax-n-itn, in Egyptian means: “Spirit of Aten”, or less literally, “Spirit of the Sun-God” or “Spirit of God”. In my opinion, the Biblical term transliterated as “Pharaoh” was originally intended to be P-R-’X, representing pA ra Ax in Egyptian, and meaning: “Spirit of The Ra”, or less literally, “Spirit of the Sun-God” or “Spirit of God”.
On that analysis, “Pharaoh” is the functional equivalent of Akhenaten’s historical name! Both effectively mean “Spirit of the Sun-God” or “Spirit of God”.
Backing up the foregoing analysis is the odd turn of phrase which appears at the end of Genesis 41: 38, “spirit of God”. The term “spirit of God” has the same meaning as both (i) Akhenaten’s historical name [with “Akhenaten” effectively meaning “Spirit of God”, while literally meaning “Spirit of Aten”], and (ii) the Hebrew word/name conventionally transliterated as “Pharaoh”, which in the Patriarchal narratives is the functional equivalent of Akhenaten’s historical name. PR’X : P-R ’X : pA ra Ax literally means “Spirit of The Ra”, and implies “Spirit of God”.
Each of the Hebrew term conventionally transliterated as “Pharaoh” [which in cuneiform was intended to be PR’X], and the Hebrew phrase “spirit of God”, at Genesis 41: 38 is the functional equivalent of the name “Akhenaten”. All three effectively mean: “Spirit of God”. The foregoing linguistic analysis shows that the Pharaoh of the Patriarchal narratives was Akhenaten.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: הנמצא HANIMCA Gen. 41:38
Mark Cain. What is "Niphal"? NI-MCA is Niphal, and Niphal is NI-MCA, are we getting somewhere with this tautology?
Jim Stinehart: It is not clear to me what is "passive" and what is "activ". Is it Pharaoh or is it Joseph?
Isaac Fried, Boston University
Jim Stinehart: It is not clear to me what is "passive" and what is "activ". Is it Pharaoh or is it Joseph?
Isaac Fried, Boston University
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: הנמצא HANIMCA Gen. 41:38
Isaac Fried:
You wrote: “It is not clear to me what is "passive" and what is "activ". Is it Pharaoh or is it Joseph?”
Because it’s passive, neither is specified. Genesis 41: 38 says: “And Akhenaten [Ax-n-itn, whose Biblical Hebrew equivalent is the original intended spelling of “Pharaoh” : PR’X : pA-ra-Ax : “Spirit of God”] said unto his servants, Is there to be found such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God [which is the meaning of the name “Akhenaten”] is?”
Or if you really want to focus on to whom the verb “to be found” relates: “And Akhenaten [Ax-n-itn, whose Biblical Hebrew equivalent is the original intended spelling of “Pharaoh” : PR’X : pA-ra-Ax : “Spirit of God”] said unto his servants, Is there to be found [by anyone, anywhere in the world] such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God [which is the meaning of the name “Akhenaten”] is?”
The odd he-nun/HN dual prefix means that the reference is not an active reference to either Pharaoh or Joseph, specifically, but on the contrary applies, in the passive, to everyone. It’s a rhetorical question, by which Akhenaten announces to the world that he has found his soul mate, Joseph, to whom Akhenaten refers by the meaning of the name “Akhenaten”: “Spirit of God”. The claim being made by Pharaoh [Akhenaten] is that no one, anywhere in the world, is close to God like Pharaoh except Joseph. Joseph here is being treated like the son that Akhenaten never had.
To me, the exciting aspect of Genesis 41: 38 is that both the Biblical Hebrew term that is mis-transliterated as “Pharaoh”, and the Biblical phrase “Spirit of God”, have exactly the same meaning as does the name “Akhenaten”/Ax-n-itn: “Spirit of the Sun-God”, or “Spirit of God”. On that basis, the end of the first sentence in Genesis 41: 46 does not refer, nonsensically, to “king of Egypt, king of Egypt”, but rather, with pinpoint historical accuracy, refers to “Akhenaten, king of Egypt”. Only a pharaoh whose own name means “Spirit of God”, namely Akhenaten, would say what Pharaoh says at Genesis 41: 38 regarding Joseph: “...Is there to be found [by anyone, anywhere in the world] such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God [which is the meaning of the name “Akhenaten”] is?”
That’s the way to [in the words of your first post] “identify Pharaoh”. Yes!
As to your grammatical point, we find almost the same form, HNMC’W, at I Chronicles 29: 17, differing from the form at Genesis 41: 38 that you cite only in that a final vav/W is added at the end. The identical form is found at II Chronicles 34: 32: HNMC’. Although usually translated in those two places as “are present”, that form could alternatively be translated there as “are to be found”. All that is clear to me from the odd dual-prefixes there is that passive is indicated.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “It is not clear to me what is "passive" and what is "activ". Is it Pharaoh or is it Joseph?”
Because it’s passive, neither is specified. Genesis 41: 38 says: “And Akhenaten [Ax-n-itn, whose Biblical Hebrew equivalent is the original intended spelling of “Pharaoh” : PR’X : pA-ra-Ax : “Spirit of God”] said unto his servants, Is there to be found such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God [which is the meaning of the name “Akhenaten”] is?”
Or if you really want to focus on to whom the verb “to be found” relates: “And Akhenaten [Ax-n-itn, whose Biblical Hebrew equivalent is the original intended spelling of “Pharaoh” : PR’X : pA-ra-Ax : “Spirit of God”] said unto his servants, Is there to be found [by anyone, anywhere in the world] such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God [which is the meaning of the name “Akhenaten”] is?”
The odd he-nun/HN dual prefix means that the reference is not an active reference to either Pharaoh or Joseph, specifically, but on the contrary applies, in the passive, to everyone. It’s a rhetorical question, by which Akhenaten announces to the world that he has found his soul mate, Joseph, to whom Akhenaten refers by the meaning of the name “Akhenaten”: “Spirit of God”. The claim being made by Pharaoh [Akhenaten] is that no one, anywhere in the world, is close to God like Pharaoh except Joseph. Joseph here is being treated like the son that Akhenaten never had.
To me, the exciting aspect of Genesis 41: 38 is that both the Biblical Hebrew term that is mis-transliterated as “Pharaoh”, and the Biblical phrase “Spirit of God”, have exactly the same meaning as does the name “Akhenaten”/Ax-n-itn: “Spirit of the Sun-God”, or “Spirit of God”. On that basis, the end of the first sentence in Genesis 41: 46 does not refer, nonsensically, to “king of Egypt, king of Egypt”, but rather, with pinpoint historical accuracy, refers to “Akhenaten, king of Egypt”. Only a pharaoh whose own name means “Spirit of God”, namely Akhenaten, would say what Pharaoh says at Genesis 41: 38 regarding Joseph: “...Is there to be found [by anyone, anywhere in the world] such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God [which is the meaning of the name “Akhenaten”] is?”
That’s the way to [in the words of your first post] “identify Pharaoh”. Yes!
As to your grammatical point, we find almost the same form, HNMC’W, at I Chronicles 29: 17, differing from the form at Genesis 41: 38 that you cite only in that a final vav/W is added at the end. The identical form is found at II Chronicles 34: 32: HNMC’. Although usually translated in those two places as “are present”, that form could alternatively be translated there as “are to be found”. All that is clear to me from the odd dual-prefixes there is that passive is indicated.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
markofcain
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:58 am
- Location: Sarasota, FL USA
- Contact:
Re: הנמצא HANIMCA Gen. 41:38
Perhaps -- if we recognize the Niphal as an incomplete passive about which Lambdin on page 176 maintains that "the speaker is not concerned with specifying the agent of the action. All Hebrew passives belong to this category; constructions with a specified agent are virtually non-existent."Isaac Fried wrote:Mark Cain. What is "Niphal"? NI-MCA is Niphal, and Niphal is NI-MCA, are we getting somewhere with this tautology
Now I will grant you that Walkte and O'Connor take Lambdin to task on Lambdin's hyper-categorization in the use of the Niphal but they sill recognize the use of the passive as the "most common" occurrence of the Niphal and they recognize that "in the incomplete passive the agent is not recognized."
That said I would posit that neither Pharaoh nor his servants are intended to be identified and that in fact the uniqueness of Joseph is underscored by the use of a non-specific agent as it is beyond the reasonable ability of anyone to find one like Joseph.
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: הנמצא HANIMCA Gen. 41:38
Isaac Fried:
1. First, I agree with everything Mark Cain wrote. [That is the case regardless of whether my own suggestion at #2 below has merit or not.]
2. Secondly, let me offer a further tentative suggestion. Perhaps it may be best to analyze HNMC’ as a gerund; that is, a verb being used as a noun. That is possible in Biblical Hebrew. Then HNMC’ would be: H N-MC’.
Instead of a verb being used as a passive verb, per my prior translation “is there to be found [by anyone, anywhere]”, perhaps a more accurate, ultra-literal translation would be: “is there the finding by [anyone]”.
H/he = “the”. That makes sense if this is a gerund, with a verb being used as a noun, since a noun can be introduced by “the”.
N/nun means niphil/passive. This is shown by the English word “by”. The implied phrase is “by [anyone]”.
MC’ would normally mean “to find” as active, or “to be found by” as passive, in both cases used as a verb. But here this is a gerund, with the verb being used as a noun. So MC’ here means: “[the] finding”.
Accordingly, H N-MC’ on that analysis means: “the finding by [anyone]”. It’s a bit clumsy in English, but it works. More importantly, it perhaps more closely follows the specific Hebrew grammar that is being used at Genesis 41: 38.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
1. First, I agree with everything Mark Cain wrote. [That is the case regardless of whether my own suggestion at #2 below has merit or not.]
2. Secondly, let me offer a further tentative suggestion. Perhaps it may be best to analyze HNMC’ as a gerund; that is, a verb being used as a noun. That is possible in Biblical Hebrew. Then HNMC’ would be: H N-MC’.
Instead of a verb being used as a passive verb, per my prior translation “is there to be found [by anyone, anywhere]”, perhaps a more accurate, ultra-literal translation would be: “is there the finding by [anyone]”.
H/he = “the”. That makes sense if this is a gerund, with a verb being used as a noun, since a noun can be introduced by “the”.
N/nun means niphil/passive. This is shown by the English word “by”. The implied phrase is “by [anyone]”.
MC’ would normally mean “to find” as active, or “to be found by” as passive, in both cases used as a verb. But here this is a gerund, with the verb being used as a noun. So MC’ here means: “[the] finding”.
Accordingly, H N-MC’ on that analysis means: “the finding by [anyone]”. It’s a bit clumsy in English, but it works. More importantly, it perhaps more closely follows the specific Hebrew grammar that is being used at Genesis 41: 38.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois