Nir Cohen:
1. You wrote: “…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.”
A key linguistic support for my view that the Patriarchal narratives were
originally written down in Akkadian cuneiform about four years after Year
14, using the Canaanite/pre-Hebrew/Hebrew language, is this. In the
received text, (i) there often is a confusion of gutturals in exotic foreign
proper names, whereas (ii) all other letters in the received text seem to be
letter-for-letter perfect [including all gutturals in Hebrew common words].
The o-n-l-y place where one routinely sees wrong letters in the received
unpointed Masoretic text of the Patriarchal narratives is regarding
gutturals in non-Hebrew proper names. Such a pattern is antithetical to the
scholarly view that the Patriarchal narratives were an oral tradition for
centuries: an oral tradition (i) would have little or no confusion of
gutturals
in foreign proper names per se, but (ii) would have countless problems with
all aspects of the spellings of foreign proper names. Such a pattern is
also antithetical to a traditional religious view that the Patriarchal
narratives were at an early date recorded in writing using alphabetical
Hebrew:
an early alphabetical tradition (i) would have no confusion of gutturals
in foreign proper names, and (ii) would only have occasional scribal
sloppiness errors, rarely if ever confusing gutturals.
So you see that an essential proof of my view that the Patriarchal
narratives are much older as a written text than university scholars realize,
having been recorded in Akkadian cuneiform in the late Amarna time period, is
that virtually the o-n-l-y time one sees spelling errors in the received
text is a confusion of gutturals in exotic non-Hebrew proper names, which in
all other regards feature perfect Late Bronze Age spellings from various
languages. This issue is a very big deal for my theory of the case. If
there is no confusion of gutturals in foreign proper names in the received
text, I’m out of business, because that would mean that the Patriarchal
narratives did not start out being a written text in Akkadian cuneiform during
the Amarna Age.
2. You wrote: “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.”
Consider the objective facts there. In the Amarna Age, we know that the
Damascus region was called “the Ubi”. [Amarna Letter EA 189 at line 12 on
the reverse side.] That would fit H-WBH perfectly, and fits the context
of Genesis 14: 15 perfectly. If the text was originally written in Akkadian
cuneiform, what the Jewish scribe in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem saw as
the first letter there was Akkadian cuneiform heth. Not knowing the
Amarna Age name of the Damascus area, he didn’t realize that Akkadian
cuneiform
heth there was meant to render H-e-b-r-e-w he/H, meaning “the” in
Hebrew. He just wrote down Hebrew heth/X, being a very understandable
mistake,
having nothing whatsoever to do with scribal sloppiness. Your theory would
have it be “by chance” that a scribal sloppiness error happened to occur
regarding a guttural in a foreign proper name, even though there are
virtually no such guttural errors regarding anything in this long text except
foreign proper names. Note that my explanation is more logical and
convincing.
3. You wrote: “ i am not sure that your claims concerning egyptian names
and their cuneiform or semitic transliterations are backed by the
egyptologists.”
If you looked at what Biblical Egyptologists claim are the explanations of
the Biblical Egyptian names near the end of Genesis, you would be
absolutely horrified. For example, it is “unanimously agreed” by university
scholars that the Hebrew ssade/C at the beginning of Joseph’s Egyptian name
allegedly represents two different Egyptian consonants with two different
pronunciations, being both Egyptian dj [alternatively rendered as D] a-n-d
regular Egyptian d, so that Hebrew ssade allegedly renders the Egyptian word
djed [alternatively transliterated as Dd]. It is of course manifestly
i-m-p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e that a single Hebrew letter could represent two different
Egyptian consonants with two different pronunciations! Lest you think I
am misrepresenting the utterly untenable scholarly view here, read it for
yourself:
“[Joseph’s Egyptian name] _Ṣ_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ṣ) aphnathpane
’aḫ is unanimously agreed to be the transliteration of an Egyptian
name-type that means ‘God N speaks (or spoke) [djed] and he lives’. The type
begins in the 21st Dynasty [1070-945 BCE], becomes very common in the ninth
through seventh centuries B.C., and thereafter peters out, though sporadic
examples survive in Greco-Roman times.” Donald B. Redford, “Egypt, Canaan
and Israel in Ancient Times”, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Jersey (1992), p. 424.
As you know, the second letter in Joseph’s Egyptian name at Genesis 41: 45
is peh/P, so the single initial letter Hebrew ssade/C is claimed by
scholars, nay is “unanimously agreed” by scholars, to represent both the dj
and
the d in djed, which is inherently impossible on its face. The scholarly
interpretation of the Biblical Egyptian names near the end of Genesis (not
just Joseph’s Egyptian name) cannot possibly stand the light of day.
4. You wrote: “as to BR( and BR$( , your argument lacks any logical
foundation: the fact that "(" is used in CH 14 is not an argument that CH 15
was transliterated from akkadian.”
How are you interpreting the names BR( and BR$(? I see them as being
Semiticized Hurrian names, just like “Uriah”. Hurrian has no ayin [and no he/H
either]. Whereas the 10th century BCE scribe in King David’s Jerusalem
used ayin/( to show this Semiticization, the guttural used by the late 7th
century BCE scribe in King Josiah’s Jerusalem is he/H, both in the
Semiticized Hurrian name “Keturah” and the Semiticized Hurrian name “Uriah”.
5. To my comment that “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”, you responded: “is it a fact? is it what you are trying to
prove? what is the evidence?”
The evidence is that only chapters 14 and 49 of Genesis have frequent
archaisms regarding Hebrew common words. As to Genesis 49:
“Most of the Hebrew of Genesis reads quite smoothly. Gen 49, one of the
specimens of archaic poetry in the OT, is an exception to this rule, and
its Hebrew will test the mettle of even the best Hebraist.” Victor P.
Hamilton, “The Book of Genesis” (1990), p. 73.
Now ask yourself what the only two parts of the Patriarchal narratives are
that King David needed to have readily available to support his kingship.
Chapter 14 of Genesis shows a military tradition of the early Hebrews,
with King David surpassing Abraham in that regard. Genesis 49: 8-10 features
YHWH saying that Judah will rule over all of the tribes of Israel, which
was the theoretical basis for King David’s kingship. So it’s logical that
those two chapters of the Patriarchal narratives, and only those two
chapters, were transformed from Akkadian cuneiform to alphabetical Biblical
Hebrew in the 10th century BCE. By contrast, the rest of the Patriarchal
narratives was not rendered into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until the days
of
King Josiah, who needed a comprehensive religious foundation to support his
attempts to have Jerusalem again become an important political center.
6. You wrote: “ i have personally nothing against the akkadian
hypothesis, i just do not see enough evidence there to argue about it, pro or
con.”
Each of my posts sets forth additional evidence. I can only give so many
examples in a single post.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
