jim,
it is very difficult for me to draw the line between fact and supposition in
your arguments
below. but even if they are all correct, and if it can be detected in the old
testament that some
confusion exists between certain guttural letters, i imagine that
transliteration from akkadian
is only one among many possible explanations for this confusion. so, before you
jump into hasty conclusions, you will have to eliminate these other
possibilities.
1. i will mention just one. the letters H and X are very similar in the "new"
aramaic alphabet,
and so it might well be that, for example, HWBH (if indeed H was the original
correct choice here, and i really do not know where you got it) changed to XWBH
in a much later date than you suppose, by a scribe writing in aramaic letters.
clearly there are many other explanations: differences between dialects and
local pronounciation etc etc.
2-3. i am not sure that your claims concerning egyptian names and their
cuneiform or semitic
transliterations are backed by the egyptologists. i see little beyond your very
particular interpretations.
4. as to BR( and BR$( , your argument lacks any logical foundation: the fact
that "(" is used in CH 14 is not an argument that CH 15 was transliterated from
akkadian. actually, "(" and "x" and "h" exist galore in almost every chapter in
genesis. i just opened arbitrarily gen 32 and found jacob and esau in "(",
MXNYM in "x" etc etc.
[Chapters 14 and 49 of Genesis were transformed into alphabetical Biblical
Hebrew 300 years before the rest of the Patriarchal narratives was transformed
from Akkadian cuneiform into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew
is it a fact? is it what you are trying to prove? what is the evidence?
it is all supositions, conjectures and imagination. i have personally nothing
against the akkadian hypothesis, i just do not see enough evidence there to
argue about it, pro or con.
nir cohen
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:14:26 -0400 (EDT), JimStinehart wrote
>
>
> Nir Cohen:
>
> For sake of argument [and per what you wrote], why don’t “we assume that the
> hebrews did keep a written version of their history and faith,” either in
> Akkadian cuneiform or alphabetical writing. In either case, the language
> would be Canaanite/pre-Hebrew/Hebrew. But what writing system would be used?
> The question thus becomes whether the received text of the Patriarchal
> narratives indicates that the original was written down in Akkadian cuneiform
> and not transformed into alphabetical Hebrew until many centuries thereafter,
> or does it indicate that right from the beginning the Patriarchal narratives
> were written down in alphabetical writing?
>
> Here is how to go about resolving that key issue:
>
> (a) Way back in 1897, A.H. Sayce aptly observed at p. 301 of “The Early
> History of the Hebrews” (2004) that as to the Song of Deborah: “Had it been
> written in cuneiform there would have been a confusion between aleph, het and
> ayin, which cannot be detected in it.”
> (b) “[I]n the El Amarna tablets [written in Akkadian cuneiform] the h [he],
> ḥ [emphatic H], ǵ, and sometimes even ’ [aleph] and ‘[ayin] are represented
> by ḫ [heth]....” Yohanan Aharoni, “The Land of the Bible” (1979), p. 113.
>
> That’s why it’s important to give careful consideration to the examples of
> confusion of gutturals as to foreign proper names that I set forth on an
> earlier post on this thread. Those examples support my view that the
> Patriarchal narratives were originally written down in Akkadian cuneiform
> [which cannot differentiate one guttural from another] in the late Amarna
> time period, and were not transformed into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until
> late 7th century BCE Jerusalem:
>
> 1. XWBH at Genesis 14: 15. [The first guttural was intended to be he/H, not
> heth/X.]
>
> 2. The -R( ending of the name of Joseph’s Egyptian priestly father-in-law at
> Genesis 41: 45. [The last guttural was intended to be heth/X, not ayin/(.]
>
> 3. PR(H at Genesis 12: 15, etc. [The last guttural was intended to be
> heth/X, not he/H.]
>
> 4. BR( and BR$( at Genesis 14: 2. [Chapters 14 and 49 of Genesis were
> transformed into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew 300 years before the rest of
> the Patriarchal narratives was transformed from Akkadian cuneiform into
> alphabetical Biblical Hebrew (which is why, uniquely in the Patriarchal
> narratives, those two chapters have many archaic elements regarding Hebrew
> common words). The non-Indo-European language represented by the names BR(
> and BR$( has no ayin. The final guttural ayin/( is a Semiticization. But
> centuries later, in names otherwise of that same general type, that same
> final letter was customarily rendered alphabetically in Hebrew as he/H,
> rather than as ayin/(, such as )WRYH at II Samuel 11: 3.]
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
