Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Gabe:
 
You wrote:  “The SP as we have it surely has a very late (2nd-1st cent.) 
layer, 
 containing the polemical 10th commandment. Another layer down, we have the 
extensive harmonizations which must be later than the base that agrees with 
MT. 
Somewhere down at the bottom there is a core that, in isolated cases, 
preserves readings that are probably older than those in MT. But most of the 
differences, including plene and other spelling differences, must be 
representative of 
Samaria from the 4th century on, not the kingdom of Israel. So I think it 
inappropriate to invoke 
 Canaanites and "northern Hebrews".  A limit on the age of the SP and its 
variations may be deduced from the fact that the Torah was edited in 
Jerusalem. 
When the Samaritans embraced it (possibly as late as the transfer of priests 
from Jerusalem 
 to Shechem described by Josephus), they were accepting some implicit enemy 
propaganda (as opposed to the overt propaganda in Samuel-Kings, which they 
rejected).”
 
Pursuant to George’s wishes, this will be my last post on Hebron.  I do want 
to thank everyone who made substantive comments on these threads.  Many of us 
learned a lot from those comments.
 
1.  I agree completely that (i) the Samaritan Pentateuch is not long on 
accuracy, and (ii) it was amended, in important ways, at a very late date.  
As to 
accuracy concerning substantive content, the Samaritan Pentateuch cannot hold 
a 
candle to the consonantal Masoretic Text.  Agreed.  And instead of saying “
northern Hebrews”, I should probably refer to “northerners” in Canaan.
 
2.  But the Samaritan Pentateuch often agrees with the Septuagint, against 
the Masoretic Text.  That suggests that the Samaritan Pentateuch and 
Septuagint 
come from one common source, and the Masoretic Text comes from a different 
source.  (Yes, there would also be a more ancient source common to all.)  The 
text of the Septuagint may well be older than the Masoretic Text, even 
though, 
once again, the Septuagint is not nearly as accurate as the Masoretic Text.  
You 
yourself note:  “Somewhere down at the bottom there is a core that, in 
isolated cases, preserves readings that are probably older than those in MT.”
 
3.  The very fact that there are 6,000 versions of the Samaritan Pentateuch 
means that it is more likely to reflect actual, vulgar pronunciations of west 
Semitic words by the people of Canaan.  The Masoretic Text, by contrast, is 
amazing in its refusal to permit any major spelling differences for common 
words 
(excluding proper names).  If one wants to see the full panoply of varying 
spellings and pronunciations of west Semitic words, the Samaritan Pentateuch 
is 
likely to be much more representative of the dozens of different patois in 
ancient Canaan than is the Masoretic Text.
 
4.  To me, the Samaritan Pentateuch fits perfectly with the frequent use of 
Egyptian J on the Thutmosis III list.  We know from the Samaritan Pentateuch 
that west Semitic words spelled and pronounced with an initial heth by the 
small 
number of Hebrews in and near Jerusalem were, often as not, either spelled or 
pronounced with an aleph (or ayin or a vowel-type sound) by other people in 
Canaan.  In my opinion, that is why the Egyptians used J so much.  Egyptian J 
was invaluable for use where some people in Canaan pronounced a word with an 
aleph, whereas other people, such as the southern Hebrews, persisted in 
pronouncing such words with a true heth sound.  Were it not for that aleph 
vs. heth 
routine dichotomy in the pronunciation of initial sounds in west Semitic 
words 
in Late Bronze Age Canaan, it is hard to see why Egyptian J would be so 
prominent on the Thutmosis III list.
 
My main argument here is that the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Egyptian J on 
the Thutmosis III list are singing the same song.  One misses that tune 
completely in the Masoretic Text.  But of course there was no Masoretic Text 
yet in 
the Late Bronze Age.  I am trying to show that XBR in Biblical Hebrew could 
be 
a deliberate reference to JBR at item #99 on the Thutmosis III list.  The 
scholarly assumption that the Egyptian J in JBR is an aleph, pure and simple, 
is 
not correct.  True, JBR is probably reflecting a majority of Canaanites 
saying 
aleph.  But the southern Hebrews or pre-Hebrews could have pronounced the 
same word with a heth/X.  That likely was the ancient, correct, original 
pronunciation of the word, which the southern Hebrews in Jerusalem insisted 
upon as 
being the only spelling and pronunciation allowed in their sacred scripture.  
The J in JBR implies that some people in Canaan, perhaps a small minority of 
people (near Jerusalem), pronounced the underlying west Semitic word with a 
true 
heth, even though a majority of people in Canaan pronounced the same word 
with 
an aleph.
 
The frequency of the Egyptian J on the Thutmosis III list, alongside the 
presence of the true Egyptian aleph that was also frequently used on the 
Thutmosis 
III list, strongly suggests to me that JBR may have XBR as its Biblical 
Hebrew equivalent.  The Samaritan Pentateuch duly gives us )BR or abar for 
XBR, 
which fits in perfectly with my theory of the case.
 
Instead of making a substantive attack on that key argument of mine, Yitzhak 
Sapir made only the following non-substantive comment:  “[H]e's using the 
Egyptian geographic lists to argue his point when these are the exact sources 
that 
prove him
 wrong.”  I myself see the Egyptian single reed/J as beautifully reflecting 
the same aleph vs. initial heth dichotomy that we so often see in comparing 
the 
Masoretic Text to the Samaritan Pentateuch. 
 
I agree with most all of what you say.  But I do not see anything in that 
which undercuts my theory that Egyptian J reflects a heth vs. aleph common 
pronunciation variation in Late Bronze Age Canaan.  XBRWN = XBR + WN.  I see 
the XBR 
in XBRWN/“Hebron” as being a deliberate reference to JBR and the Aijalon 
Valley at item #99 on the Thutmosis III list.  The Patriarchs’ “Hebron” is 
not 
King David’s mountainous city of Hebron 20 miles south of Jerusalem.  Rather, 
all Biblical authors knew that the Patriarchs’ “Hebron”, very fittingly for a 
divinely-blessed, classic pastoralist like Abraham, is portrayed in the 
Patriarchal narratives as being the excellent rural pastureland of the 
low-lying 
Aijalon Valley, west of Beth-el and west of hill country.
 
XBR primarily means “to bind”.  Softening the heth pronunciation, XBR could 
also imply )BR, meaning “mighty”, the “Mighty One”, that is, YHWH.  Each of 
XBR and )BR sounds a lot like JBR, which refers to the Aijalon Valley.  The 
root of XBRWN/“Hebron” is XBR.  I see the clever Hebrew wordplay here in the 
name “Hebron” as being as follows.  XBR, per )BR, to JBR.  “Bound”/XBR, per 
the “Mighty One”/)BR, to the Aijalon Valley/JBR.  XBR, per )BR, to JBR.  
That’s 
how I interpret the Hebrew name “Hebron”, as forcefully asserting that 
Abraham’s descendants are eternally bound, by Will of YHWH, to the Aijalon 
Valley 
and southern Canaan.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************Need a job? Find employment help in your area. 
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000005)