Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
  • To: furuli AT online.no, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?
  • Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:36:03 -0400



There is no Aramaic in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives. In
particular, the scholarly assertion that %HDWT) [or $H-DT)] at Genesis 31: 47
is Aramaic is untenable.

1. There were two fine posts on November 20, 2004 on the b-hebrew list that
succinctly set forth the #1 problem with the scholarly analysis that YGR
%HDWT) at Genesis 31: 47 is allegedly an Aramaic phrase consisting of two
Aramaic words. Yigal Levin correctly noted: “[T]he Aramaic word "sahaduta"
(testimony) in Gen. 31:47 is spelled with a Sin, while in standard Aramaic it
would be spelled with Samekh. Is this a ‘Hebraized’ spelling, or does it
reflect use of Sin in early Aramaic?” It turns out that %HDWT) as an Aramaic
word, spelled with a sin instead of a samekh, is not attested in early
Aramaic at all for this word, but rather is only attested with such spelling
in the time of the Nabateans, south of Canaan, in the late 1st millennium
BCE: “This particular word is attested in Nabatean with sin….” Trevor
Peterson, UA/Semitics. But what do the Nabateans south of Canaan in the late
1st millennium BCE have to do with Laban in eastern Syria and the truly
ancient Patriarchal narratives? Nothing.

2. Consider now that we are told at Genesis 24: 10 that Laban lived in
NHRYM. That’s the letter-for-letter word used in the Amarna Letters for the
Late Bronze Age Hurrian state of Nahrima/Mitanni in eastern Syria.
Historically, Laban would be expected to use the Hurrian way of naming that
heap of stones, which would be to come up with a fanciful long name using
Sanskrit, indirectly honoring the chief Hurrian god, Te$$up the sky-god. As
to the Sanskrit analysis, I see $HDWT) as originally not having had a vav/W
[which was added in post-exilic times in updating the spelling to
full-spelling]. The original Biblical word was: $H-DT). In my view, $H is
the slightly simplified Hebrew version of the Sanskrit word “svaa” [since the
Hebrews could not pronounce that initial consonant cluster], and DT) is
Sanskrit “da-ta” (meaning “given”). Another form of Sanskrit “svaa” is
“svar”, with both Sanskrit words meaning “heaven” or “sky”. The Hurrian
princeling name from the Amarna Letters, $uwar-data, where $uwar is a Hurrian
way of representing Sanskrit “svar”, is the same name as $H-DT)! Both
versions of this name mean: “Given by the [Hurrian] sky(god) [Te$$up]”.

It does not make logical sense to look to the Nabateans in the late 1st
millennium BCE, south of Canaan, to try to understand %HDWT) at Genesis 31:
47 as allegedly being an Aramaic word. If that were an Aramaic word, it
would start with a samekh. Rather, we should instead look to the Amarna
Letters, and understand that $H-DT) is a Hurrianized Sanskrit name, well
reflecting historical NHRYM in Late Bronze Age eastern Syria. $H-DT) in the
Patriarchal narratives is simply a different spelling of the name of a
Hurrian princeling in the Amarna Letters, $uwardata, having the same
underlying meaning in Hurrianized Sanskrit. There’s no Aramaic in the
Patriarchal narratives. Aramaic was not in existence yet when the truly
ancient Patriarchal narratives were composed in the Late Bronze Age, by an
early Hebrew contemporary of the events he accurately describes, with the
Hebrews being indigenous to beloved Canaan.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page