Dr. Fournet:
. You wrote: “Hurrian initial z was a voiceless affricate, it should therefore be rendered as tsamekh which was also a voiceless affricate at that time.” But that is not borne out by the historical record, where it is Hurrian Z and ssade/C [not tsamekh] that are closely related. Gelb notes at p. 6 of “Nuzi Personal Names” that Z is not distinguished from C/ssade for alphabetic purposes in his listing of the Nuzi names, and then adds: “Etymological C/ssade is normally expressed by z-containing syllables…; but they are alphabeted not with or near s [%/sin, nor near or with $/shin either, and there is no tsamekh/S] but with z because of the interchange of C/ssade and z values.” 2. You wrote: ““KUR [country] Mi-zi- ir- ri- e- wə-ni-eš” This is the ergative case (eS) of the syntagm "the one (-ni-) of (-wə-) Egypt (Mi-zi- ir- ri- e-)", obviously referring to the Egyptian Ruler.” Now we’re finally getting somewhere! Leaving off the ergative case ending, let’s see how that same non-Semitic suffix, -we-ni/-WN, works in the name of Leah’s #2 son, who was born near where that famous letter came from, and whose mother, who named him, had to that point never lived anywhere else: $M(-WN. “The one of understanding.” Nice! How’s that for a Hebrew name [with the Hebrew root $M, in the form of $M(], with non-Semitic characteristics? [Leah gives a creative spin on this, focusing solely on the west Semitic root of the name, in saying it means that YHWH has “heard and understood” her.] Or how about the name of Leah’s son #6: ZBL-WN? “The one of dwelling with (my other sons, all of whom are dwelling here in eastern Syria/Naharim).” Hebrew -WN is non-Semitic -we-ni-. Since Leah in Naharim is portrayed as coming up with these names, why wouldn’t the endings have a non-Semitic sound? [Once again, Leah puts a spin solely on the west Semitic root of this name, saying it means that Jacob will “dwell with” her.] Or if you don’t like your own phrase “the one of” as the meaning of the Biblical Hebrew vav nun/-we-ni-/-WN suffix in these names that Leah in Naharim came up with, what then would you propose as an alternative meaning of this vav nun/-we-ni-/-WN suffix in the names of these two sons of Jacob? 3. You wrote: “The phonetic reality between simple graphemes -t- and -d- is [d]. hich is what real speakers would hear and render as -d-“ Do you really think that these 25 non-Semitic names were told around campfires for umpteen generations? No, they obviously were written down in the mid-14th century BCE, and never altered thereafter. The person who wrote down these names knew that XuT-iYa was often written with a T, not a D, so that’s the Biblical written rendering. Even if you were right that the pronunciation was D, not T, it’s the written record that counts. 4. You wrote: “What are the *philological* reasons to think or to doubt that Abraham should be born in this period rather than before?” Prior to the 14th century BCE, there were no non-Semitic princelings in Canaan, so there would have been no reason to record 25 non-Semitic names in the Patriarchal narratives. Once you see 25 out of 25 non-Semitic names spelled with letter-for-letter accuracy, that sets the composition date as being the only time period in which non-Semitic maryannu held sway over many cities throughout Canaan (including Jerusalem and Hebron): the mid-14th century BCE -- not earlier, and not later. 5. You wrote: “[L]ooking at the genealogies transmitted from David backward to Sem….It makes your Battle of Kings contemporary of Tidal = possibly Tudaliya (II) ca. 1430 to 1400 BC.” If we can keep the discussion on the linguistic level, you are of course aware of the super-spectacular match between Biblical TD(L and the Hittite kingly name “Tudhaliya”, where as confirmed by Ugaritic alphabetic writing, that killer Hittite voiced velar fricative is accurately rendered in the Biblical text as ghayin. Very nice. But on the historical side, no Hittite king named “Tudhaliya” ever did any of the things recorded at Genesis 14: 1-11. No, all of those things were done by the Hittite king who nefariously gained the Hittite throne by murdering his older brother named -- Tudhaliya! In a mid-14th century BCE historical context, near the end of the Amarna Age, the Biblical text is 100% accurate in stating that the league of rebellious Hurrian princelings formed in Year 13, and that the Hittite-led coalition of four attacking rulers crushed that rebellion in Year 14. We’ve got exact year numbers in the Biblical text, and a letter-for-letter rendering of the ideal, if pejorative, nickname for mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma. The key linguistic fact is that 25 non-Semitic names in the Patriarchal narratives have letter-for-letter spelling accuracy. And that’s why common words and personal names having a -we-ni-/-WN/vav nun suffix are concentrated in the last 40 chapters of Genesis. The only time period in 5,000 years of human history when the Patriarchal narratives could have been composed is the mid-14th century BCE. That glorious vav nun suffix, with the accent on the interior vav, is itself one of the main “*philological* reasons to think…that Abraham should be born in this period [the mid-14th century BCE]”. And the same goes for Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Judah as well: the entire text is coming out of, and reflects, the handful of critical years in the mid-14th century BCE that witnessed the difficult birth of Judaism, in the face of non-Semitic militaristic princelings from Naharim in eastern Syria holding sway over much of Canaan. Think vav nun/-we-ni-/-WN suffix, and 25 Semitic names in the text with letter-for-letter spelling accuracy, and you’ll come to the same super-exciting conclusion as I have. The Patriarchal narratives are much older, and more historically accurate, than university scholars realize. The philological case is clear. The vav nun suffix tells all. Jim Stinehart Evanston, Illinois _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
