Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Jim

There may be one issue you are missing in this argument.  There was a
regular change from strong to weak laryngeals/pharyngeals in general across
time in many Semitic languages.  The Massoretic text - at least the
consonantal text - represents an earlier pronunciation than the Samaritan
text.  It is probably somewhat simplistic, but the consensus is that both
Hebrew and Aramaic weakened heth to 'ayin and he to 'aleph, with a later
weakening of 'ayin to 'aleph in some areas.  Kha had already weakened to
heth in NW Semitic earlier.  This (apart from kha) followed the path that
Akkadian took many centuries earlier.  For Palestine it is usually dated
fairly late, so the Samaritan text is reflecting a *later* form of Hebrew,
not a northern form.  You need some evidence that any northern Hebrew or 
Canaanite dialect had made this change before c. C15th BC.  If you find no
evidence in the parts of the Tanakh ascribed to northern writers, and/or no
evidence in Phoenician texts, then your argument will forever remain one of 
it might be...".   If you found a regular weakening present in Ugaritic,
that also might help your case, but my understanding is that Ugaritic -
which is later than you date the patriarchal stories - evidences the change
from proto-Semitic with 27 consonants to Canaanite with 22 consonants, but
not the weakening of heth or he.  At the moment you are trying to use mostly
late evidence to argue for an earlier dialectal form. There is AFAIK no
evidence for northern Canaanite or Hebrew weakening anywhere near early
enough to support your case.  The Phoenician texts and the Hebrew texts
support the retention of heth at least as late as C4th BC.  You could argue
that weakening happened earlier and was then replaced, but while there is a
good argument to make for that for medieval Hebrew under Arabic influence,
it would be much harder to argue it for early Hebrew or Canaanite.

Kevin Riley
 
-------Original Message------- 

From: JimStinehart AT aol.com 
Date: 25/02/2009 2:14:26 AM 
 
George Athas: 
 
You wrote: “I don't know where you are getting this all from, Jim. It 
Doesn't seem to represent what we know of NW Semitic linguistics at all. If
you 
Consistently change the inherent value of a Semitic consonant, you can make
a text 
Say whatever you like.” 
 
I agree with that last statement. That is why I strongly disapprove of the 
English translations of I Samuel 6: 18 that change )BL to )BN, thereby
changing 
“meadow” (or “a long, narrow tract of land”) to “stone”. 
 
My point is that )BL in the Masoretic Text of I Samuel 6: 18 is not a
“mistake 
”, but rather is like the )BL that we see 11 other times in the Hebrew Bible

As the first element of a geographical place name in Canaan or the
Transjordan. 
 
Are you asserting that )BL is something other than a northern Hebrew or 
Canaanite version of XBL? Note that the Masoretic Text has XBRN, whereas the

Samaritan Pentateuch has )BRN. Per HALOT, when XBR is used as a noun in the 
Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch has )BR. In both of those cases,
the 
Aleph/) in the northern Hebrew or Canaanite version of the word is a heth/X
in the 
Masoretic Text. 
 
There is no )BL in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible, other than the 
Many times when )BL is used as the first element of a geographical place
name. 
But of course XBL is a very common noun in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew 
Bible. 
 
I am asserting that )BL is the northern Hebrew version of XBL, and that
these 
Are different, regional spellings of the same Hebrew word. 
 
Why do you say that “It doesn't seem to represent what we know of NW Semitic

Linguistics at all”? It is well known that in the Samaritan Pentateuch, one 
Often sees aleph/) where heth/X is found in the Masoretic Text. And several 
Posters on my previous thread noted that in many Semitic languages, certain 
Types of heth often dropped out and were replaced by other letters, usually
aleph. 
 
For example, Aramaic speakers in the east used )QR) for “citadel”, under 
Akkadian influence of dropping certain kinds of heths. But Aramaic speakers
in 
The west had XQR) for “citadel”. Going outside of NW Semitic, ubburu in 
Akkadian has no heth, but scholars think that originally that Akkadian word
had 
Begun with a heth, which is one reason for seeing ubburu as a cognate for
XBR. 
These are some of the important linguistic facts that we learned from
posters 
On my previous thread. 
 
If )BRN in the Samaritan Pentateuch is XBRN or XBRWN in the Masoretic Text, 
Then it makes logical sense that the )BL we see at I Samuel 6: 18 may be the

Northern Hebrew or Canaanite version of the Hebrew word which, when it is
not 
Part of a geographical place name (a proper name, whose spelling would not
be 
Edited by Jerusalem scribes), is consistently rendered in the Masoretic Text
 
When it is a common noun (not part of a proper name), as XBL. 
 
Per HALOT, XBL can mean “a long, narrow tract of land”. The Sorek Valley is 
“a long, narrow tract of land”. So that meaning would fit perfectly for )BL 
At I Samuel 6: 18, if the reference is to the Sorek Valley. I am trying to 
Follow the good linguistic advice I received on my prior thread, and move
the 
Ball forward by comparing )BL, in a Canaanite geographical place name at I 
Samuel 6: 18 that is an unedited spelling of a proper name, to XBL as a
common 
Word in the Masoretic Text. I see these as being different regional
spellings of 
The same word, )BL vs. XBL, fully in accord with “what we know of NW Semitic

Linguistics”. 
 
Jim Stinehart 
Evanston, Illinois 
 
**************Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in
your 
Neighborhood today. 
(http://yellowpages.AOL
com/search?query=Tax+Return+Preparation+%26+Filing&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000004)

_______________________________________________ 
B-Hebrew mailing list 
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
 
____________________________________________________________ 
 
No virus found in this incoming message. 
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1968 - Release Date: 02/23/09
18:22:00