jim, as i see nothing new in your repetitive and weak arguments, this is my last communication on this topic.
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 21:45:00 -0500 (EST), jimstinehart wrote > You wrote: “all thesethree words: AB, RAM, NAHAR were equally used in > canaanite and aramaic, amongseveral other very similar semitic dialects. now, > aramaic was spoken in syria and, in fact, is recorded in several > mesopotameansites. so, i do not see how, linguistically, these words can > provide a proofthat abraham did not come to canaan from these regions.” > I believe the scholarly consensus is that “Abram” looks likeperfectly good > Canaanite, but does not fit Aramaic well: > “[T]he name change of Abram to Abraham involves transforminga typical > Canaanite construction into one which resembles an Aramaic one. > Speiser…noted this…. …Abram reflects Hebrew rwm and Abrahamreflects Aramaic > rhm.” Gary A. Rendsburg,in “Eblaitica 2” (1990) at p. 110. > [I don’t agree with that analysis of “Abraham”, by the way,but I do agree > that “Abram” looks like Canaanite, rather than like Aramaic.] the fact is that these three words, AB, RM, NHR are as aramaic as they are canaanite. the rest is interpretation. i do not see consensus here, as far as linguistic is concerned. > A second problem with any claimed Aramaic analysis is thatAramaic is not > attested in writing until the 1st millennium BCE. I believe that most > scholars agree that thename “Abram” is centuries older than that. if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arameans and other open internet sources you will find that: (i) aramaic evidence in mesopotamian writing is prior to 2000bc; (ii) the earliest scripts in aramean dialects in mesopotamia are dated well into the second millenium. > As I said, there might well have been pre-Aramaic in easternSyria in the Late > Bronze Age. But therewas very little Canaanite in eastern Syria, because > eastern Syria is so very,very far away from Canaan. And the name “Abram”(i) > works perfectly in Canaanite, while (ii) not seeming to be Aramaic. again, as both AB and RAM are equal in both languages, how do you reach this conclusion? > And where would Ur fit into such an analysis? There was no Aramaic and no > Canaanite at Urin the Bronze Age. according to my sources, arameans were nomads and their evidence has been found in both east and west (2nd millenium) mesopotamia. IN ADDITION, there is one big unknown in your equation, which is the amorite language. the amorites migrated from canaan/syria to mesopotamiaaround 2200 bc where they moved to, of all places, ur!!! they also spoke (NW?) semitic, but unfortunately left a very small linguistic evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorite some researchers see the arameans and amorites as a single ethnic entity, given the historic-geographic proximity and the ARM/AMR proximity. > My own view remains that Abram and the first Hebrews wereindigenous to > Canaan, and happened to live during that one short period of timewhen the > ruling class of Canaan was dominated by Hurrian princelings. let us keep it this way: your own view. > I see Abram’s mother as being a Hurrian,whereas his father Terah was a native > west Semitic speaker. )BRM works well as a Canaanite name, )B-RM. But its > more profound meaning [reflectingAbram’s Hurrian mother] is its Hurrian > meaning: a-ba-ri-im : )BR-M, where the Hurrian meaning is “lord”. possibly a semitic loanword meaning high father. > Are you claiming that )BRM is an Aramaic name, and isneither a Canaanite name > nor a Hurrian name? I myself have seen no scholarly support for that > position. Can you cite a scholar who claims that )BRMis an Aramaic name and > is not a Canaanite name? again, i am not trying to prove anything. i have no ideological objection to the canaanite abraham hypothesis. i am just saying that your "evidence" is, at best, extremely shaky. more so, when you repeat it endlessly on b-hebrew. > I myself see Abram as living in Hurrian-dominated Canaan inYears 12-14 of the > Amarna Age. Giventhat time period and that geographical location, it makes > perfect sense on alllevels that his name )BRM makes good sense in both > Canaanite and Hurrian, whilenot being an Aramaic or pre-Aramaic name. again, both AB=father, RAM=high, NAHAR=river are as aramaic as canaanite, to the letter. so the LINGUISTIC evidence cannot be used to favor a canaanite ABRAM hypothesis, even if a thousand gurus swear to the contrary. it is just a manipulation of data. if there is OTHER evidence for your hypothesis, besides the linguistic, i am listening. nircohen
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
