Chavoux Luyt: You wrote: “I haveanother scenario: The patriarchal narratives were already written down in the"proto-canaanite" alphabeth used by Moses to write the rest of theTorah in his own lifetime or shortly thereafter. Then, when it was copied inthe time of the Kings (not necessarily the time of Josia, but possibly alsoearlier or later), the language, grammar and spelling was updated by one of thescribes (commonly done in the ANE cf. archaeologist K.A. Kitchen) to that oftheir own time. What makes your scenariomore probable than mine? And does this really have anything to do with BiblicalHebrew?” 1. Prior to the 1stmillennium BCE [that is to say, during any time period that might be attributed to Moses], there was no Hebrew alphabetthat was developed enough to write down a sophisticated composition like thePatriarchal narratives. The Ugaritic alphabetwas sophisticated enough, but Ugarit is located way up north in western Syria,and there is absolutely no evidence that the early Hebrews, who lived insouth-central Canaan, ever used the Ugaritic alphabet. What is attested, by contrast, is that tent dwellers likethe first Hebrews, living close to where the first Hebrews portray themselvesas living in the Patriarchal narratives, did use Akkadian cuneiform to write[by hiring a scribe] during the Amarna Age: “May the king [pharaohAkhenaten], my lord, take cognizance of his land, and may the king, my lord,know that the Apiru [tent-dwellers] wrote to Ayyaluna [Ayalon] and to Sarxa[Zorah], and the two sons of Milkilu barely escaped being killed.” Amarna Letter EA 273 Indeed, the o-n-l-y time during the entire Bronze Age when any significant writing isattested as coming out of south-central Canaan is the mid-14thcentury BCE, namely the Amarna Letters written in Akkadian cuneiform. We know from the frequent west Semiticglosses in the Amarna Letters that Akkadian cuneiform could easily be used towrite Hebrew or pre-Hebrew. So based on what’sattested, the only realistic time period when the Patriarchal narratives couldstart out as a written composition, and as such possibly have pinpoint historicalaccuracy in describing the Patriarchal Age, is the Amarna Age. 2. What this has todo with Biblical Hebrew is that many proper names in the received text of thePatriarchal narratives cannot be deciphered unless one realizes that (a) theoriginal written version of the Patriarchal narratives was done in Akkadiancuneiform, and (b) the Achilles heel of Akkadian cuneiform was that it couldnot distinguish in writing one guttural from another. To cite an example I have used before, no one but me hasever figured out the seemingly inexplicable XWBH at Genesis 14: 15. In context, we’re certain that it eithermeans the Damascus region or a site just north of Damascus, but even knowingprecisely where to look, there is no XWBH out there. But once we recognize that this was originallywritten down in Akkadian cuneiform, which cannot distinguish one guttural fromanother, we see that the first letter is really “guttural”, not necessarilyalphabetical Hebrew heth/X. Here, theactually intended guttural was Hebrew he/H. Genesis 14: 15 is referring to H-WBH, where he/H is the Hebrew word “the”, andWBH is the well-documented Amarna Age word for “the Damascus area”. If my theory of the case is right, then we’re bound to see aseries of foreign proper names in the received text of the Patriarchalnarratives where the gutturals are confused, because Akkadian cuneiform couldnot distinguish one guttural from another. Will Parsons and I have explored that topic recently on another threadregarding the Biblical Egyptian names that appear near the end of Genesis. To me it’s highly relevant to Biblical Hebrew to realizethat the original written version of the Patriarchal narratives was done inAkkadian cuneiform, using the identical conventions for recording proper namesas appear in the voluminous Amarna Letters. That insight enables us to solve a whole series of 3,000-year-oldBiblical mysteries. As you know, Prof.Donald Redford speaks for the academic profession generally when he insiststhat the Biblical Egyptian names near the end of Genesis are 7thcentury BCE in form and content. He is100% wrong about that. He ignores manyletters and adds in other letters to get to that false conclusion. But on the other hand, the intended meaningof several of those Biblical Egyptian names cannot be deduced withoutunderstanding that all of those Biblical Egyptian names were originally writtenin Akkadian cuneiform, and not transformed into alphabetical Hebrew until 700years later in 7th century BCE Jerusalem, so that in several casesthe particular guttural that is in the received text is not theoriginally-intended guttural. The most important aspect of my theory of the case is thatit fully squares what would otherwise seem impossible: (i) the Patriarchal narratives were writtendown in the Bronze Age, and few substantive changes were ever madethereto; a-n-d (ii) the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common wordsin most of the Patriarchal narratives is basically indistinguishable from thespelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the second half of II Samuel. Secondly, previously inexplicable propernames in the received text can be readily deciphered once it is realized thatthe guttural you see in the received text may not be the originally-intended guttural,because the Patriarchal narratives were recorded in Akkadian cuneiform in theLate Bronze Age and not transformed into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until 700years later, and Akkadian cuneiform is not capable of distinguishing oneguttural from another. JimStinehart Evanston,Illinois
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
