[b-hebrew] Amalek = (ML + Q
JimStinehart at aol.com
JimStinehart at aol.com
Tue May 5 10:14:12 EDT 2009
Dear Yitzhak, George and Karl:
Yitzhak’s substantive comments are extremely helpful. (The lack of
substantive comments from George and Karl may indicate that I failed, in my first
post on this thread, to make clear what my theory of the case is.)
1. Yitzhak wrote: “sade3 - written in…Old Aramaic as Qof, and in Official
Aramaic and later as Ayin”. Thus we see that what had been written as a Q
in Old Aramaic was later written in Official Aramaic as an ayin. As such,
that “Q” probably was not a true qof/Q to begin with, but was simply
written as Q on the basis of sound. Yes! That is a key part of my theory of the
case. As I see it, that means that if we see a Q at the end of an ancient
name in the Bible that has an Aramaic or pre-Aramaic connection, that “Q”
may be an ancient Aramaic ayin, not a true qof/Q.
2. Amalek’s mother is portrayed in the text as being a person in ancient
times in the Transjordan who was a mere concubine. As such, instead of
speaking Biblical Hebrew or pre-Hebrew, she might well be expected to speak a
precursor of Aramaic. The Patriarchal narratives frequently portray mothers,
not fathers, as naming the children. Amalek’s mother might well be expected
to put an ancient Aramaic ayin at the end of her son’s name [just as the
ancient name )RB(/“Arbe” ends with an ayin]. That ancient Aramaic ayin came
out as Q in Old Aramaic, on the basis of sound, though it was not a real
qof/Q. Amalek’s mother may have meant that Amalek’s birth had been “hard work”
[one possible meaning of (ML], but the later Hebrews took the name of this
illegitimate grandson of Esau as having the pejorative meaning of “vexation”
[another meaning of (ML].
3. Consider now the name (NQ, which [like the name (MLQ] ends with a Q.
This is an ancient name in secular history, being the first name listed on
the older Egyptian Execration Text from the Middle Bronze Age: ya-(-n-q.
Moreover, the (NQ people (the Anakim) seem to have an Aramaic connection,
at least in the Bible, because their three tribes have Aramaic names. “Three
clans [of the Anakim] are mentioned: Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai (Judges,
i. 10; Num. xiii. 22). These names seem, from their form, to be Aramaic;
but what this signifies is not clear.” Jewish Encylopedia.com
I also noted in my post that most Biblical Hebrew words ending in Q have a
direct Aramaic equivalent, including: MXQ; YRQ; CDQ; $WQ; Z(Q; DQQ;
DLQ; and DBQ. In many of these cases, the final Q seems to be a mere suffix.
4. Yitzhak wrote: “In order to show a sound is a suffix in a
quadriliteral word, one has to adduce many similar examples.” I am afraid that “many
similar examples” may not be possible here, since we’re limited to Bronze
Age Aramaic names, of which only a tiny handful are known. But I consider the
final Q in ya-(-n-q to be a mere suffix. The root is the Semitic word
meaning “I” or “me”, rather than the root oddly being (as usually thought) “
neck”, “necklace”, etc. Based on (MLQ, (NQ and ya-(-n-q, a final Q is a
typical ending in an ancient Aramaic name, and as such may well be a mere suffix.
As I noted in my first post, I see YR + T at item #100 on the mid-15th
century BCE T III list as being based on the Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic word YR
+ Q, where the final “Q” is a mere suffix.
Yitzhak and I approach this problem from opposite angles. Yitzhak knows
formal linguistics, which is wonderful. I come at this from my close
examination of the city names on the T III list, trying to understand their
underlying meanings and match them to Biblical place names. Both a final ayin and a
final Q on the T III list are highly suspect, I found, and routinely are
optional suffixes that may or may not appear in the Biblical Hebrew equivalent
geographical place names.
5. If a final Q in a Bronze Age name in the Bible is an ancient Aramaic
ayin, then the name (MLQ in chapter 36 of Genesis makes perfect sense. That
final “Q” is not a true qof/Q, but rather is a mere suffix. Just as the
ancient Anakim giant’s name )RB( is prefix + RB + suffix, meaning “Big” [not
meaning “Four”], so also the ancient Aramaic name (MLQ is (ML + suffix,
meaning “vexation” or “hard, wearisome work” [rather than having no
discernible meaning].
6. It does not advance the analysis for HALOT to state that as to the
name (MLQ/“Amalek”: “no linguistic explanation possible”.
7. By contrast, my analysis explains the meaning of the names (MLQ and
(MLQY. There are no people called (MLQY in secular history, per my analysis,
because that term literally means “vexatious people”, and effectively means “
foreign devils”, rather than referring to a specific ethnic group like the
Hurrians, Hittites, Amorites, etc. (MLQ = (ML [vexation] + ayin [a mere
suffix, here in the form of a “Q”, that merely makes the preceding common word
a person’s name, rather than being a part of the underlying root that
determines the meaning of the name]. In Old Aramaic, an archaic Aramaic ayin was
written as “Q”.
Meanwhile, the scholarly view of HALOT explains nothing. The scholarly
view of HALOT has nothing in secular history to support it, and nothing in the
Bible to support it either.
If the name (MLQ had no discernible meaning (the scholarly view of HALOT),
why then would so many Biblical authors outside of the Book of Genesis
portray so many diverse enemies of the Hebrews as being (MLQY?
Everything becomes clear, however, once we recognize that a final “Q” in
an ancient Aramaic name may be an archaic Aramaic ayin that is a mere suffix.
That final Aramaic “Q” is not part of the word’s root, and does not
determine the word’s meaning.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322931x1201367171/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd
=May5509AvgfooterNO115)
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list