Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>]

The change of heth (and he) to 'ayin or 'aleph is part of the development of
Samaritan Hebrew and some forms of Aramaic.  That is why the Samaritan
Pentateuch has few heth's and he's.  It represents a change in pronunciation
and doesn't mean that the first syllable is a prefix.  You cannot build a
theory on one or two isolated examples.  If the interchange of heth and 
aleph represents a prefix here, why does it not do so in all the other
examples of this process?  Would you see the first syllable of every word
with a heth in Hebrew and a vowel in Akkadian as being a prefix?  Simple
sound change is a much simpler explanation.

Kevin Riley
 
-------Original Message------- 
 
From: JimStinehart AT aol.com 
Date: 20/02/2009 2:54:24 AM 
 
 
 
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?