Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] XBR vs. ubburu: Hebron

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] XBR vs. ubburu: Hebron
  • Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:53:28 EST


1. BR in Aramaic = “open pastureland” or “meadow”

The one-word English translation of BR in Aramaic is usually “field”, but
that is misleading. Based on the entry for BR in Michael Sokoloff's “A
Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic”, it appears that the primary
meaning of BR
in Aramaic is “open pastureland” or “meadow” or “the outdoors where
domesticated animals are pastured”. The English words in such entry
(excluding source
citations) for BR in Aramaic are as follows:

“…open country, field… oxen of the field…animals of the field…of the open
country…outside….”

The emphasis of BR in Aramaic seems to be on a good open place for
domesticated animals to be pastured, rather than BR having any emphasis on
cultivated
fields. Thus the English word “fields” is misleading, in that BR in Aramaic
refers first and foremost to open pastureland or meadow or the outdoors where
domesticated animals are pastured.

2. )BRN vs. XBRN

The Samaritan Pentateuch has something like )BRN [aleph-ibron, per HALOT],
whereas the Masoretic Text has XBRN or XBRWN. The differing initial letters
suggest that the geographical place name “Hebron” may be initial letter + BR
root + N suffix.

If BR is the root of )BRN/XBRN, then “Hebron” is “the open pastureland place”
, since BR in Aramaic means “open pastureland”, and BR is used in that sense
at Job 39: 4 in Hebrew, and at Daniel 2: 38, etc. in Aramaic. Thus Abraham,
the classic pastoralist, suitably chooses to sojourn at “the open pastureland
place”/)BRN/XBRN/“Hebron”, with the emphasis on the root BR, meaning “open
pastureland”. What could be more sensible, and less “fanciful”, than that?
Abraham the pastoralist would not take his huge flock of sheep and goats to
the
mountainous city of Hebron in the Northern Negev Desert. No, the Patriarchal
narratives portray Abraham as logically taking his huge flock of sheep and
goats, and his small herd of camels, to “the open pastureland
place”/)BRN/XBRN/“
Hebron”, a place which has nothing to do at all with the mountainous,
semi-arid city in southern hill country that about 500 years later was named
by the
Hebrews, for the first time, Hebron.

Now consider Peter Bekins’ analysis that )QR) was used by eastern Aramaic
speakers, whereas XQR) was used by western Aramaic speakers. I pointed out
that
in both cases, the 2-letter root is comprised of the 2nd and 3rd letters, QR,
a root that is attested in every Semitic language. Is )BRN vs. XBRN similar
to that? Did the northern Hebrews (per the Samaritan Pentateuch, from
Samaria
north of Judah) use )BRN, while the southern Hebrews (who were farther away
from the east and from eastern influences) use XBRN? And of critical
importance, in both cases is the 2-letter root comprised of the 2nd and 3rd
letters, BR,
a root that is attested in many Semitic languages?

3. XBRN = X + BR + N = the BR place = “the open pastureland place”

Yitzhak Sapir, voicing the sentiments of many posters on this thread, wrote:

“If what you want to do is "to get people to do a basic linguistic analysis,"
then you should understand how linguistics works.”

I have a better idea. Instead of making the world wait until Jim Stinehart
understands the fine points of how one type of Akkadian heth disappeared in
Akkadian yet shows up as an aleph or in other ways in Akkadian and (sometimes
as
a heth again) in other Semitic languages, why not answer now the question
posed by this thread?

Is it possible for an initial heth/X in a Biblical Hebrew word to be a mere
prefix, or function like a prosthetic aleph, instead of always being an
integral part of a 3-letter root? Could )BRN and XBRN in Hebrew be like )QR)
and
XQR) in Aramaic, where the initial letter differed depending on the geography
of
the speaker [with the more eastern oriented people in both cases favoring
aleph/)], but where in all cases the 2-letter root is comprised of the 2nd
and 3rd
letters, BR or QR, a root that is attested in many different Semitic
languages?

Note that if XBRN is X + BR + N, then everything about the Patriarchs’ “
Hebron” makes sense on all levels. Abraham did not go to the mountainous
fortress
“citadel”/QRYT of the city of Hebron in the Northern Negev Desert. No way.
Abraham logically took all his many animals to “the open pastureland place”,
the Aijalon Valley: X + BR + N = XBRN/“Hebron”.

And Yes, that very name, with the prominent root BR, is attested in secular
history in the Bronze Age for the Aijalon Valley, as JBR. That’s item #99 on
the mid-15th century BCE Thutmosis III list. Meanwhile, Joshua and Judges
and
secular historians all agree, and properly so, that the city of Hebron was
n-o-t called “Hebron” in the Bronze Age.

We see that e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g works -- historically, geographically,
linguistically, textually, and logically -- if XBRN = X + BR + N. Why is
that “
fanciful”? It’s just common sense.

Abraham the pastoralist is sensibly portrayed in Genesis as sojourning at “
the open pastureland place”, the BR place: X + BR + N/“Hebron”. The
Patriarchs
’ “Hebron” is the Aijalon Valley, a key point understood by every Biblical
author (none of whom equated Abraham’s Hebron with David’s Hebron), yet
consistently misinterpreted, unfortunately, by post-Biblical analysts.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000003)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page