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: "James Spinti" <JSpinti AT Eisenbrauns.com>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] XBR vs. ubburu: Hebron
  • Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:18:05 -0500

Jim asks:
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?

James answers: NO!

James

________________________________
James Spinti
Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 30 years
Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
Fax: 574-269-6788

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of
JimStinehart AT aol.com
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:53 AM
To: yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] XBR vs. ubburu: Hebron


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=emlcnt
usyelp00000003)
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page