Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Potiphar's title (fwd)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Banyai AT t-online.de (Michael Banyai)
  • To: "Biblical Hebrew List" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Potiphar's title (fwd)
  • Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:56:44 -0000



Dear Walter,

what you use is a garbled methodoloy:

in the case of Egyptian it is easy to recognise loanwords which come from
other ANE-languages, since Egyptian is strictly different from them. A
word-loan from Semitic to Egyptian or the other way round is a clear thing.
But a loanword from Semitic to Semitic is not such a trivial issue. First of
all, what one would need, would be a profound knowledge based on non-Biblical
evidence (which is here at stake). This large lexical evidence lacks
entirely. How many Hebrew words are attested epigraphically for the ages
before the 7th century BC?

So what?

We are comparing some lexical Assyrian fetches with exactly the biblical
lexic we intend to date. Would there be any correlation between the
development of both languages...

This is of a kind of Münchhausen attempt to pull oneself out of the water by
pulling oneself by his own hairs.

Furthermore you are making preassumptions about the redactional history of
the books you intend to date, without which preassumptions all your "little
discoveries" are but trivia.

Regards,

Bányai Michael



"Walter R. Mattfeld" <mattfeld12 AT charter.net> schrieb:
> Dave Washburn wrote:
> "Why do we have to assume that the term resulted from direct borrowing from
> the
> Akkadian term? The most we can say, ISTM, is that they are related, most
> likely both descending from a proto-Semitic term. The fact that the two
> terms seem to be related cannot be adduced as proof that the Hebrew term is
> nothing more than a loanword that came about because of Assyrian conquest.
> This strikes me as nothing more than another unfounded assumption, based on
> the notion that the Hebrews never had an original thought in their
> collective
> life."
>
> Dear Dave,
>
> Are you saying that AT NO TIME EVER did the Hebrews accept into the Hebrew
> language "loanwords" ?
>
> If you DO ALLOW that "loanwords" could have been accepted into the Hebrew
> language why the "fuss" ?
>
> Regards, Walter
> Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld, M.A. Ed.
> mattfeld12 AT charter.net
> www.bibleorigins.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>

------



  • Re: [b-hebrew] Potiphar's title (fwd), Michael Banyai, 07/10/2003

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page