Christopher:
 
You may check this site:

http://patrologia.narod.ru/biblia/samarit/
 
Kevin
Prof. Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div., M.S.I.S.
Library Director/Reference Librarian, Assistant Professor of Bible, Greek, 
Theological Bibliography and Research
Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary, 1815 Union Ave. 
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404, United States of America
423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX)
[email protected] http://pages.prodigy.net/cierpke/woodruff.htm

--- On Fri, 3/22/13, C L <[email protected]> wrote:


From: C L <[email protected]>
Subject: [b-hebrew] Samaritan Pentateuch On-Line?
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013, 12:01 PM





Dear Carla,

Thank you for posting the notice about the Samaritan Pentateuch. Volume 1 is 
available for download at archive.org, thanks to being out of copyright: 
http://archive.org/details/derhebrischepent01gall. I was reading it a bit this 
morning, and it is fantastic. So far, the copy I have seen is very clear, and 
the citation of textual witnesses along the left margin is a very welcome 
feature. Would that other critical editions cited their witnesses in this 
fashion.

Does anyone know where we might be able to download the remaining volumes in 
this set? They do not appear to be on archive.org, but volumes 2-5 must surely 
be out of copyright.

Sincerely,

Christopher Lovelace




There is a print edition in modern Hebrew script of the Samaritan Pentateuch:
Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner;
August Freiherrn von Gall, editor
Alfred Töpelmann Verlag, 1918
 




Best wishes,
 
Carla Sulzbach










From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:00 PM
Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 123, Issue 17

----- Forwarded Message -----

Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
    [email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    [email protected]

You can reach the person managing the list at
    [email protected]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."

Today's Topics:

  1. Re: P R (H/"Pharaoh"" Three Meanings ([email protected])
  2. Re: Samaritan Pentateuch (George Athas)




Will:
 
In analyzing PR(H [“Pharaoh”] in the received alphabetical text on the 
assumption that this Biblical Egyptian name was originally written down in 
Akkadian cuneiform, let’s examine how Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin come out 
in the Akkadian cuneiform of the Amarna Letters.  You will quickly see that in 
Akkadian cuneiform, Egyptian ayin cannot be distinguished from Egyptian aleph.
 
As I noted previously, Amarna Letter EA 29 features mAat being spelled as mu-u, 
where the same Akkadian vowel U is used for both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian 
ayin.
 
But now let’s see how Akkadian cuneiform A can also represent both Egyptian 
aleph and Egyptian ayin.  In Amarna Letter EA 1: 2 written by Amenhotep III 
himself, mAat is written, as you point out, as mu-a.  To me, that means that 
the Akkadian vowel A can stand for Egyptian ayin, although you oddly opt for 
seeing no ayin whatsoever being written down by Amenhotep III.  Without getting 
bogged down as to that one example, however, it is easy to confirm that 
Egyptian ayin could be represented by the Akkadian vowel A.  That is the case 
in the Egyptian name ap-pi-xa in four different Amarna Letters, including EA 
105: 35, and the Egyptian name xa-ip in four different Amarna Letters, 
including EA 107: 16, where the Akkadian cuneiform vowel A is used for Egyptian 
ayin.
 
But the Akkadian cuneiform vowel A can also be used for Egyptian aleph!  For 
example, in both the Amarna Letters and the Patriarchal narratives, the most 
frequent beginning of an Egyptian name is pA.  The Egyptian name pa-xa-na-te in 
four different Amarna Letters, including EA 60: 10, spells the Egyptian aleph 
with an A.  The Egyptian name pi-wu-ri features four different spellings of pA, 
but in three separate Amarna Letters, including EA 287: 45 from IR-Heba of 
Jerusalem [whose scribe may have been the scribe who, shortly after leaving 
Jerusalem, was commissioned by the tent-dwelling Hebrews to write down the 
Patriarchal narratives in Akkadian cuneiform], the second letter in pA is 
spelled with the Akkadian vowel A.
 
So when PR(H in Genesis is setting forth an Egyptian name, the Hebrew 
alphabetical ayin/( that one sees in the received text could just as easily 
have been originally intended to be a Hebrew alphabetical aleph/).  Why?  
Because that name was first written down in the Late Bronze Age, when the only 
way to write down a sophisticated composition like the Patriarchal narratives 
was by means of Akkadian cuneiform.  The Amarna Letters attest that sometimes 
the Akkadian vowel U was used to render both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin, 
and sometimes the Akkadian vowel A was used to render both Egyptian aleph and 
Egyptian ayin.  In fact, on a more general level, Akkadian cuneiform generally 
was unable to differentiate among the various gutturals.  That applies in 
spades to ayin vs. aleph.
 
As to PR(H in particular, we note that Akkadian cuneiform heth could render, 
among other letters, alphabetical Hebrew ayin/( or alphabetical Hebrew heth/X, 
and that the Akkadian vowel A was sometimes used to render both Egyptian aleph 
and Egyptian ayin.  PR(H in the received text started out in Akkadian cuneiform 
as something like PR – RI – A – XI.  Those four Akkadian cuneiform signs could 
mean [among other possibilities] either (i) PR(H [per the received text], or 
(ii) P R )X, with the latter being pA ra Ax : pA ra a-khe : “Devoted to The 
Ra”, which compares nicely with Akhe-n-Aten : “Devoted to Aten”.
 
If we reverse engineer the received alphabetical text as to the Biblical 
Egyptian name PR(H and determine what the original Akkadian cuneiform signs 
were, we then see an  e-x-a-c-t  letter-for-letter match of the original 
cuneiform version of PR(H to P R )X : pA ra Ax : pA ra a-khe : “Devoted to The 
Ra”.  Will, it’s an  e-x-a-c-t  match of  a-l-l  the letters.  It’s not merely 
close, it’s  e-x-a-c-t .
 
Surely you would agree that if the Patriarchal narratives were not originally 
written down in the Bronze Age using Akkadian cuneiform, they can’t be old and 
accurate as to an historical Patriarchal Age.  To see then if the Patriarchal 
narratives are or are not truly ancient and accurate, simply reverse engineer 
the Egyptian names in the received text to determine how they would have 
originally been recorded in Akkadian cuneiform.  Then the gorgeous result is  
e-x-a-c-t  letter-for-letter matches to Late Amarna nomenclature that in each 
case fit the storyline perfectly.  The greatest wordsmith of all time created 
these Biblical Egyptian names.  But we cannot appreciate them unless we reverse 
engineer the alphabetical Hebrew letters in the received text to determine the 
Akkadian cuneiform originals, and then ask what Egyptian names could result 
from such Akkadian cuneiform originals.  For example, the name of Joseph’s 
Egyptian priestly
 father-in-law, once it is recognized that the final intended letter was heth, 
not ayin, is:  pA wAt  -Y-  pA rx, referencing such priest’s devotion to 
Akhenaten as allegedly being “the only one/pA who knows/rx the distant/pA wAt 
[God]”.  Only Akhenaten ever made such a daunting theological claim.  And 
Akhenaten himself is fittingly referred to as P R )X : pA ra Ax : pA ra a-khe : 
“Devoted to The Ra”, which exemplifies Late Amarna theology perfectly.
 
The true antiquity and historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives come 
shining through when we reverse engineer the alphabetical Hebrew letters in 
these Biblical Egyptian names to determine the Akkadian cuneiform original 
signs, and then ask what Egyptian names could result from those original 
Akkadian cuneiform signs.  We find that, unlike all previous attempts to 
explain these Biblical Egyptian names, we don’t have to stretch a single 
letter!  Rather, we merely need to recognize that Akkadian cuneiform writing, 
such as in the original written version of the Patriarchal narratives, usually 
did not distinguish one guttural from another.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston , Illinois




This further response comes courtesy of Carla Sulzbach in Montreal:


There is a print edition in modern Hebrew script of the Samaritan Pentateuch:
Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner;
August Freiherrn von Gall, editor
Alfred Töpelmann Verlag, 1918
 




Best wishes,
 
Carla Sulzbach





GEORGE ATHAS
Dean of Research,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia





_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Reply via email to