[b-hebrew] Samaritan Pentateuch On-Line?

C.N. Bartch cnbartch at gmail.com
Fri Mar 22 21:50:32 EDT 2013


The full edition is available here:
http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/mcmastercollection/163/

Its a beautiful scan too!

~Chris Bartch

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:01 AM, C L <sigebryht at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Carla,
>
> Thank you for posting the notice about the Samaritan Pentateuch. Volume 1
> is available for download at archive.org, thanks to being out of
> copyright: http://archive.org/details/derhebrischepent01gall. I was
> reading it a bit this morning, and it is fantastic. So far, the copy I have
> seen is very clear, and the citation of textual witnesses along the left
> margin is a very welcome feature. Would that other critical editions cited
> their witnesses in this fashion.
>
> Does anyone know where we might be able to download the remaining volumes
> in this set? They do not appear to be on archive.org, but volumes 2-5
> must surely be out of copyright.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Christopher Lovelace
>
>
>
>
> There is a print edition in modern Hebrew script of the Samaritan
> Pentateuch:
> Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner;
> August Freiherrn von Gall, editor
> Alfred Töpelmann Verlag, 1918
>
>
>
>  Best wishes,
>
> Carla Sulzbach
>
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* "b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org" <
> b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org>
> *To:* b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:00 PM
> *Subject:* b-hebrew Digest, Vol 123, Issue 17
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>
> Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
>     b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>     http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>     b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>     b-hebrew-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: P R (H/"Pharaoh"" Three Meanings (JimStinehart at aol.com)
>   2. Re: Samaritan Pentateuch (George Athas)
>  Will:
>
> In analyzing PR(H [“Pharaoh”] in the received alphabetical text on the
> assumption that this Biblical Egyptian name was originally written down in
> Akkadian cuneiform, let’s examine how Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayincome out in the
> Akkadian cuneiform of the Amarna Letters.  You will quickly see that in
> Akkadian cuneiform, Egyptian ayin cannot be distinguished from Egyptian
> aleph.
>
> As I noted previously, Amarna Letter EA 29 features mAat being spelled as
> mu-u, where the same Akkadian vowel U is used for both Egyptian aleph and
> Egyptian ayin.
>
> But now let’s see how Akkadian cuneiform A can also represent both
> Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin.  In Amarna Letter EA 1: 2 written by
> Amenhotep III himself, mAat is written, as you point out, as mu-a.  To
> me, that means that the Akkadian vowel A can stand for Egyptian ayin,
> although you oddly opt for seeing no ayin whatsoever being written down
> by Amenhotep III.  Without getting bogged down as to that one example,
> however, it is easy to confirm that Egyptian ayin could be represented by
> the Akkadian vowel A.  That is the case in the Egyptian name ap-pi-xa in
> four different Amarna Letters, including EA 105: 35, and the Egyptian
> name xa-ip in four different Amarna Letters, including EA 107: 16, where
> the Akkadian cuneiform vowel A is used for Egyptian ayin.
>
> But the Akkadian cuneiform vowel A can also be used for Egyptian aleph!  For
> example, in both the Amarna Letters and the Patriarchal narratives, the
> most frequent beginning of an Egyptian name is pA.  The Egyptian name pa-
> xa-na-te in four different Amarna Letters, including EA 60: 10, spells
> the Egyptian aleph with an A.  The Egyptian name pi-wu-ri features four
> different spellings of pA, but in three separate Amarna Letters,
> including EA 287: 45 from IR-Heba of Jerusalem [whose scribe may have
> been the scribe who, shortly after leaving Jerusalem, was commissioned by
> the tent-dwelling Hebrews to write down the Patriarchal narratives in
> Akkadian cuneiform], the second letter in pA is spelled with the Akkadianvowel A.
>
> So when PR(H in Genesis is setting forth an Egyptian name, the Hebrew
> alphabetical ayin/( that one sees in the received text could just as
> easily have been originally intended to be a Hebrew alphabetical aleph/).
> Why?  Because that name was first written down in the Late Bronze Age,
> when the only way to write down a sophisticated composition like the
> Patriarchal narratives was by means of Akkadian cuneiform.  The AmarnaLetters attest that sometimes the
> Akkadian vowel U was used to render both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin,
> and sometimes the Akkadian vowel A was used to render both Egyptian alephand Egyptian
> ayin.  In fact, on a more general level, Akkadian cuneiform generally was
> unable to differentiate among the various gutturals.  That applies in
> spades to ayin vs. aleph.
>
> As to PR(H in particular, we note that Akkadian cuneiform heth could
> render, among other letters, alphabetical Hebrew ayin/( or alphabetical
> Hebrew heth/X, and that the Akkadian vowel A was sometimes used to render
> both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin.  PR(H in the received text started
> out in Akkadian cuneiform as something like PR – RI – A – XI.  Those four
> Akkadian cuneiform signs could mean [among other possibilities] either
> (i) PR(H [per the received text], or (ii) P R )X, with the latter being pA
> ra Ax : pA ra a-khe : “Devoted to The Ra”, which compares nicely with Akhe
> -n-Aten : “Devoted to Aten”.
>
> If we reverse engineer the received alphabetical text as to the Biblical
> Egyptian name PR(H and determine what the original Akkadian cuneiform
> signs were, we then see an  e-x-a-c-t  letter-for-letter match of the
> original cuneiform version of PR(H to P R )X : pA ra Ax : pA ra a-khe :
> “Devoted to The Ra”.  Will, it’s an  e-x-a-c-t  match of  a-l-l  the
> letters.  It’s not merely close, it’s  e-x-a-c-t .
>
> Surely you would agree that if the Patriarchal narratives were not
> originally written down in the Bronze Age using Akkadian cuneiform, they
> can’t be old and accurate as to an historical Patriarchal Age.  To see
> then if the Patriarchal narratives are or are not truly ancient and
> accurate, simply reverse engineer the Egyptian names in the received text
> to determine how they would have originally been recorded in Akkadiancuneiform.
> Then the gorgeous result is  e-x-a-c-t  letter-for-letter matches to Late
> Amarna nomenclature that in each case fit the storyline perfectly.  The
> greatest wordsmith of all time created these Biblical Egyptian names.  But
> we cannot appreciate them unless we reverse engineer the alphabetical
> Hebrew letters in the received text to determine the Akkadian cuneiform
> originals, and then ask what Egyptian names could result from such
> Akkadian cuneiform originals.  For example, the name of Joseph’s Egyptian
> priestly father-in-law, once it is recognized that the final intended
> letter was heth, not ayin, is:  pA wAt  -Y-  pA rx, referencing such
> priest’s devotion to Akhenaten as allegedly being “the only one/pA who
> knows/rx the distant/pA wAt [God]”.  Only Akhenaten ever made such a
> daunting theological claim.  And Akhenaten himself is fittingly referred
> to as P R )X : pA ra Ax : pA ra a-khe : “Devoted to The Ra”, which
> exemplifies Late Amarna theology perfectly.
>
> The true antiquity and historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives
> come shining through when we reverse engineer the alphabetical Hebrew
> letters in these Biblical Egyptian names to determine the Akkadiancuneiform original signs, and then ask what Egyptian names could result
> from those original Akkadian cuneiform signs.  We find that, unlike all
> previous attempts to explain these Biblical Egyptian names, we don’t have
> to stretch a single letter!  Rather, we merely need to recognize that
> Akkadian cuneiform writing, such as in the original written version of
> the Patriarchal narratives, usually did not distinguish one guttural from
> another.
>
> Jim Stinehart
>  Evanston , Illinois
>   This further response comes courtesy of Carla Sulzbach in Montreal:
>
>  There is a print edition in modern Hebrew script of the Samaritan
> Pentateuch:
> Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner;
> August Freiherrn von Gall, editor
> Alfred Töpelmann Verlag, 1918
>
>
>
>  Best wishes,
>
> Carla Sulzbach
>
>
>  *GEORGE ATHAS*
> *Dean of Research,*
> *Moore Theological College *(moore.edu.au)
> *Sydney, Australia*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20130322/3568b6e4/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list