[b-hebrew] Potiphar's title

Peter Kirk peter.r.kirk at ntlworld.com
Thu Jul 10 17:35:56 EDT 2003


On 10/07/2003 14:06, Michael Banyai wrote:

>Dear Peter,
>
>Akkadian is a large word. Since not even the worst adepts of a maximalist view would sustain the idea, that biblical hebrew antedated the Akkadian, the fact whether saris is or not an Akkadian loan-word uninteresting to pinpoint the bible on the 7th century.
>
>Should you try to become more specific, and say saris is a word existing only in the neo-Assyrian begining by the 7th century, than of course its loan ought postdate this evolution within the "Akkadian".
>
>Othwerwise we should state frankly, there is no subject for this thread.
>
>About Akkadian we speak beginning by the empire of Sargon of Akkade. At which time point did it penetrate into the Hewbrew lexic? Can you make a concrete statement about this time point?
>
>Second, Walter´s was that the loanword itself would mark the date of creation of the work, what I doubt. How can you demonstrate the redactional evolution of the work in your sense?
>
>All the best,
>
>Bányai Michael
>Stuttgart
>
>
>  
>
Michael, I am not trying to support Walter here. Probably saris is a 
loan word from Akkadian. But that tells us very little. I don't think we 
can tell when it was loaned. Obviously 8th-7th centuries BCE was a time 
of close contact between Israel and Assyria when the loan might have 
taken place, but there was some contact much earlier. And then, as you 
pointed out so clearly, an earlier text may have been redacted in the 
8th-7th centuries or later. So this being a loan word does not prove 
that Genesis is late. And conversely, those who wish to defend Genesis 
as earlier have no need to rely on arguments like "we can't be sure that 
this really is a loan word".

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk at ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list