[b-hebrew] Ex 6:6 hiphil imperative 'bring'

JimStinehart at aol.com JimStinehart at aol.com
Wed Jul 10 16:34:14 EDT 2013


 
Dave Washburn: 
You wrote:  “The biggest problem with this kind of evidence is the fact 
that we're  transliterating the written form from an alphabetic script to a 
syllabic one.  What it actually indicates is that the writers using Akkadian 
script didn't have  a good way to indicate a closed syllable. Given the nature 
of Akkadian script,  this should come as no surprise. But it's also going 
to be of very little value  in telling us whether Hebrew did in fact have 
closed syllables at those times in  its history. That's the nature of the 
Akkadian beast, and I have a problem with  taking it as prima facie evidence that 
Hebrew was much more syllabic than we  thought. It seems to me that we're 
putting a square peg in a round hole, and  then declaring that yes, the round 
peg has parallel sides, just like the square  one. I don't really buy it.” 
That’s correct.  Thus when the Egyptian word wr [meaning “great, much”] is 
being rendered  in the Akkadian cuneiform of the Amarna Letters, though it 
might well in fact  have been a closed syllable/CVC, nevertheless in 
cuneiform it gets rendered as  wu-ri or wu-ra, in the name Pa-wu-ra at Amarna 
Letter EA 124: 44 or Pi-wu-ri at  Amarna Letter EA 129: 97.  Note that  the first 
element of this name is pA, meaning “the” in Egyptian, and that’s  
followed by an Egyptian word that begins with consonantal W.  Thus P-W+  -Y-  P-R 
at Genesis 39: 1 [mis-transliterated  by KJV as “Potiphar”] similarly may 
well be pA, represented by Hebrew peh/P,  followed by an Egyptian word that 
begins with consonantal W, namely wAt or  wA.ti, represented by Hebrew vav/W – 
Hebrew teth/+.  We can’t tell if it’s CVC, namely wAt,  or CV – CV, namely 
wA.ti, in the Hebrew rendering of this Biblical Egyptian  name, nor could 
that distinction have been made in the cuneiform writing of the  Amarna 
Letters either.  The  universal assumption that the Hebrew vav/W in this Biblical 
Egyptian name should  be totally ignored for all purposes makes no sense on 
any level, and is one  important reason why this Biblical Egyptian name has 
always been terribly  misunderstood.  In fact, it’s an  exact linguistic 
match to pA wA.ti  --  pA ra : “The Distant  [God] -- The Ra”.  W+/wA.ti 
means  “distant” or "you are distant", and implies “distant [god]”, and the 
Hebrew  yod/Y is a xireq compaginis, functioning like a modern dash.  If we’re 
willing to look at the Hebrew  vav/W in this Biblical Egyptian name, 
instead of ignore it, the meaning of this  Biblical Egyptian becomes readily 
apparent. Instead of being corrupt or  inexplicable, this Biblical Egyptian name 
has letter-for-letter spelling  accuracy. 
Jim Stinehart 
Evanston,  Illinois
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20130710/4c617e55/attachment.html 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list