[b-hebrew] sulam

JimStinehart at aol.com JimStinehart at aol.com
Thu Nov 29 15:31:37 EST 2012


 
Nir Cohen: 
You wrote:  “SULAM is used in modern hebrew. your logic seems to imply that 
we  still
live in the 14th century BC because we use a word of (supposedly)  hurrian 
origin.” 
No, my logic is that if and to the extent the Patriarchal  narratives 
contain several mysterious hapax legomenon like SLM that seem  inexplicable on 
Semitic grounds but make perfect sense as Hurrian loanwords,  then that is one 
important indication that the Patriarchal narratives likely  were composed 
in the mid-14th century BCE.  Only in the Amarna Age did Hurrian  
princelings dominate the ruling class of Canaan, so that is the only time when Hurrian 
common words  would likely slip over into Hebrew. 
Likewise, no west Semitic name Sarai is attested, nor is  there even a west 
Semitic woman’s name attested that has the format of (i) west  Semitic root 
+ (ii) -ai as an archaic west Semitic feminine ending.  But $aru-ya is an 
attested Hurrian  woman’s name, and that Hurrian woman’s name would come 
over into Hebrew as  $RY.  Logically, that means that  Sarah’s biological 
parents were Hurrian, with Sarah being adopted by Terah in  order to marry Terah’
s blood son Abram.  That particular type of marriage is well-attested in the 
14th  century BCE, and in no other time period, which is another indication 
that the  Patriarchal narratives were composed in, and accurately reflect, 
the Amarna  Age.  The scholarly claim that  Sarah’s birth name is allegedly 
a Canaanite name is simply false.  Each of Abraham and Isaac explicitly  
reams out Canaanite brides in no uncertain terms, yet each of Abraham and Isaac 
 truly loved dear Sarah.  There’s no  contradiction there at all, because 
Sarah was not a Canaanite bride:  Sarah was a Hurrian by birth with a  
vintage Hurrian woman’s name. 
Finally, that in turn makes it sensible that the  Patriarchs would call 
their beloved “valley”/(MQ [Genesis 37: 14] by a Hurrian  name that means “
nirvana”:  xa-bu-ru-u-ne : XBRWN [“Hebron”].  Instead of none of SLM and $RY 
and XBRWN  making good sense on a Hebrew linguistic analysis, all three make 
perfect sense  on a Hurrian linguistic analysis.  
Please understand that I have little interest in Hurrian  culture, nor do I 
see Judaism as borrowing much of anything from Hurrian  culture.  Rather, 
my only real  interest in Hurrian is to seek to document the true antiquity, 
and the pinpoint  historical accuracy in a Years 12-14 historical time 
period, of the Patriarchal  narratives.  The Hurrians basically  went extinct at 
the end of the 13th century BCE, so to the extent the  Patriarchal 
narratives exhibit many Hurrian elements, that is testament to the  Biblical text’s 
true antiquity and Late Bronze Age historical  accuracy. 
Jim Stinehart 
Evanston,  Illinois
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20121129/43865636/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list