Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com>]

On 10/07/2003 15:54, Dave Washburn wrote:

> ... So my
>
> question is, "how was such a consensus (assuming it really is such) arrived 
> at?"  Until I know that, I have no way to determine whether someone's 
> "research" is accurately based, built on speculation, or circular reasoning 
> (e.g. Akkadian is "early" and Genesis is "late" therefore such and such a 
> word in Genesis MUST be a loanword from Akkadian, which proves that Genesis 
> is "late").  ...
>  
There must be more to it than this, Dave. See the scholars cited by K-B 
in my response to Stephen. Also, if as you suggested this word is part 
of the common Semitic stock, instead of being Akkadian ša rēši “the one 
at the head” > Hebrew saris, it would be Hebrew še rō'š, or 'ašer rō'š 
“the one at the head”. I'm not sure why Akkadian š becomes Hebrew s when 
borrowed, but you can hardly argue that Hebrew š (shin) becomes Hebrew s 
(samek).

--
Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/