[b-hebrew] Pharaoh Khepera'a in Jeremiah 44:30

JimStinehart at aol.com JimStinehart at aol.com
Tue Jul 20 14:31:55 EDT 2010


Dr. Arnaud Fournet:
 
7.  You wrote:  “As explained before, $M)BR should be $M)BR-Y/W.”
 
That is simply not true in the context of the early Biblical Hebrew 
defective spelling used at Genesis 14: 1-2.  As I stated in my prior post, 
tu-ud-xa-li-ya in Hittite comes out as TDGL in Ugaritic, and TD(L at Genesis 14: 1 (“
Tidal”), with all non-essential vowels being routinely dropped in Late 
Bronze Age alphabetic spelling.  Note that the entire Hittite ending, -iya, is 
dropped completely in the spelling TD(L at Genesis 14: 1.  The genitive 
ending in Hurrian, -[w]e, likewise is dropped completely.  No matter how much a 
Hurrian linguist like yourself loves all those many Hurrian vowels, the 
example of Tidal shows that early Biblical Hebrew defective spelling ruthlessly 
omitted most of those non-Semitic vowels in rendering in Hebrew the names and 
titles at Genesis 14: 1-2.  We must go with what is attested at Genesis 14: 
1-2 regarding the critical issue of how non-Semitic names and titles and 
words were spelled in early Biblical Hebrew defective spelling.
 
8.  You wrote:  “In addition this word is vocalized $eMaVeR (in the French 
Bible) which goes against your suggestion even more powerfully.”
 
That’s the entirely irrelevant medieval pointing by the Masoretes in the 
Middle Ages once again.
 
9.  You wrote:  “Your example above suggests that the initial of ebri is 
written )e- with ).  So your idea lacks internal coherence. If $M)BR is to be 
segmented $M - )BR then BR cannot be ebri.”
 
Yes it can.  The E/aleph is explicit in the case of $M)BR, coming right 
before the B.  In the case of the similar word BR(, we are supposed to imply 
that same E/aleph before the B.  To a Hebrew (as opposed to a Hurrian or a 
modern Hurrian linguist), that initial vowel was akin to a prosthetic aleph, 
and would not ordinarily be explicitly recorded in defective spelling.
 
10.  You wrote:  “In my humble (but stubborn) opinion there's no way BR 
Bera can ever stand for ebri. Ebri should be either )BR or YBR, which are the 
most logical writings for the consonants alone.”
 
Ebri is [)]BR(.  The initial E, which was viewed by the Hebrews as being in 
the nature of a prosthetic aleph, was merely implied for this word, rather 
than being expressly set forth.  We know to imply that initial E here, 
because BR( is quite similar to $M-)BR, where the aleph/E is expressly written 
down.
 
11.  You wrote:  “Now I can see that BR is apparently written Bera which 
makes matters even worse.”
 
That’s the medieval pointing once again that was done by the Masoretes in 
the Middle Ages.  It has no relevance here whatsoever.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list