Isaac Fried:
1. You wrote: “Rebekah's family spoke some sort of Hebrew-Aramaic.”
If Rebekah’s mother’s native language was “some sort of Hebrew-Aramaic”,
then Rebekah would not have given her firstborn son a name, ($W, that
makes no sense on any level in west Semitic.
Likewise, if Sarah’s mother’s native language was “some sort of
Hebrew-Aramaic”, then (i) Sarah’s birth name would not be unattested outside
of the
Bible as a west Semitic name, while being fully-attested in Late Bronze
Age eastern Syria in a language that is not related to Hebrew or Aramaic, and
(ii) Sarah would not have given her only son a name whose only meaning is
the west Semitic meaning “He Laughs”.
Finally, if Abraham’s mother’s native language was “some sort of
Hebrew-Aramaic”, then Abraham’s middle brother would not have a name [NXWR]
whose
only meaning is the west Semitic meaning “Snorer”. Not.
2. You wrote: “Their gods were the gods of the east, and they named
their children after them. All names from that period are theophoric….”
That may be true historically, but it’s not true Biblically. The most
obvious meaning of the name “Reuben” is “Behold! A son”, with no theophoric
element whatsoever. Yes, Leah cleverly ad-libs a creative alternate
etymology that contains a theophoric, “[the Lord] hath looked upon my
affliction”
, but though brilliant, that is terribly fanciful.
Historically, however, the name “Reuben” doesn’t exist in the ancient
world outside of the Bible. The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal
narratives in fact created that name, precisely so that it would have the
obvious
meaning of “Behold! A son”, while being able to be alternatively viewed as
having the fanciful etymology “[the Lord] hath looked upon my affliction”
, which brilliantly and eternally encapsulates Leah’s great sadness at
continuing not to be Jacob’s favorite wife.
The name “Esau” was likewise created by the early Hebrew author of the
Patriarchal narratives. It is carefully designed so that it will fit
perfectly the following narrow parameters: (i) its meaning is “red” and dark
[like a “hairy” mantle], and (ii) it makes perfect sense in the native
language of a woman like Rebekah from Late Bronze Age eastern Syria.
3. You wrote: “All names from that period are theophoric, including
יצחק IYCXAQ, which I think is a deliberate corruption of איש-חק I$-XAQ or
איש-שחק I$-$AXAQ.”
(a) The name “Isaac” is not corrupt at all. All the Hebrew letters in
the received text are perfect as is.
(b) There’s no )Y$ in the name “Isaac”.
(c) You seem to agree with me that there’s no way that Sarah would give
her only son a name whose only meaning is the west Semitic meaning “He Laughs
”. At least we agree about that.
(d) If one is willing to note that Sarah’s birth name, $RY, is attested
in Late Bronze Age eastern Syria in a language not related to Hebrew or
Aramaic, while no name of that kind is ever attested in the ancient world as
the west Semitic name of a human woman, then one will properly deduce that
the primary meaning of the name “Isaac” similarly is coming from that same
Late Bronze Age east Syrian language, and has a wondrously positive,
theophoric meaning, without the need to change a single Hebrew letter in the
received text.
3. You wrote: “I will listen to your ideas under the condition that you
refrain from mentioning any other language but Hebrew and Aramaic.”
But the name “Esau” makes no sense on any level in west Semitic. Nor was
Esau’s mother a native west Semitic speaker. Nor was Isaac’s mother.
Nor was Abraham’s mother.
Isaac Fried, all of these wonderful women, who indeed are truly admirable,
m-a-r-r-i-e-d into the Hebrews! They weren’t Hebrews at birth, and their
native language was neither Hebrew nor Aramaic nor any other west Semitic
language. Just look at the names they give to their precious sons, which
sometimes make little or no sense in west Semitic, but which invariably
have a profound meaning in the non-west Semitic language that was dominant in
eastern Syria in the Late Bronze Age.
Isaac Fried, the Patriarchal narratives as a written text are much older,
and much more historically accurate, than you and university scholars are
willing to contemplate. But the only way to prove that is to be willing to
a-s-k how Rebekah, a woman from Late Bronze Age eastern Syria, would have
viewed the name she gives to her firstborn son: ($W.
The received text is perfect, as is. All that’s needed is to view the
received text of the Patriarchal narratives from an historical perspective, and
then we’ll see how truly ancient it is as a written text, and also its
absolutely stunning historical accuracy.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston,
Illinois_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
