Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

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)