Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew as a holy language

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org, George.Athas AT moore.edu.au
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew as a holy language
  • Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 15:59:41 +0100

Wow. You raise so many questionable issues in this one email I don't know where to start.

Quoting JimStinehart AT aol.com:


1. James Christian wrote: “Let us postulate that it is historically true
that Abraham came out of Ur and wandered around Canann. … c) As a chaldean
of Ur, what was likely to be Abraham's mother tongue of birth d) did Abraham
learn Canaanite while wandering about in Canaan?”

Abraham did not “come out of Ur”.

(a) No university scholars view the Hebrews as originating in Ur.


Could you please define the term 'university scholars' and explain to me how exactly you consider that term to scale in ladder of values when compared with primary data which is what I intended to discuss?

(b) The Patriarchal narratives do not portray the Hebrews as originating
in Ur. As leading commentator

In the world according to you could you please define 'leading commentator' and why you would expect that to mean anything to me? I want data!

Gordon Wenham notes at p. 55 of “World
Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15” (1987), MWLDT means “kindred”.

Ah. Finally, we get to some data.

Our own Prof.
Yigal Levin has likewise noted that whereas MWLDT can mean “birth” or “
birth place” in modern Hebrew, MWLDT means “kindred” in Biblical Hebrew. Thus
Genesis 11: 28 says that Haran died in the presence of his father, at the
place where Haran’s kindred/MWLDT were, in Ur of the Kasdim/K%DYM (i.e., Late
Bronze Age Ur; Kasdim is n-o-t “Chaldean”!).

This reading doesn't make any sense. Of course he was with them. The context already said that.

MWLDT is the most
economical way to refer to Abraham, Nahor and Lot, who are Haran’s
kindred/MWLDT/descendants of a common ancestor. Genesis 11: 31 does n-o-t say that Haran
was born in Ur. Abraham only visited Ur once, very briefly, on his father’s
one and only caravan trip from Canaan out to distant Ur to buy lapis lazuli.


You have no real evidence for this assertion.

(c) Linguistics proves the case. Biblical Hebrew is a virgin pure west
Semitic language. Biblical Hebrew is not a modified east Semitic language.


Really? Evidence please. Unsubstantiated assertions don't have much value around here.

(d) Abraham learned pre-Hebrew on his mother’s lap, in Canaan. YHWH
speaks pre-Hebrew to Abraham at Genesis 12: 1-3 in Harran, because that was
Abraham’s native language. (Over the centuries, the original spellings and
grammar of the Patriarchal narratives were modified slightly to conform to
fully-developed Biblical Hebrew. The substantive content was never changed.)


Evidence!?!

(e) No (M of Abraham or Terakh is ever mentioned in Mesopotamia in the
Patriarchal narratives. That’s not an oversight. No, that’s because no
ancestor of Terakh ever stepped foot in Mesopotamia. The Hebrews are indigenous
to Canaan.


What are you talking about? Evidence!?!

(f) Genesis 25: 8 specifically says that when Abraham died and was buried
in Canaan, Abraham was gathered to his (M/people/ancestors. That sentence
makes sense only if Terakh’s ancestors had lived in, were indigenous to, and
were buried in, Canaan.


At last. A statement you make and attempt to prove. However, does not explicitly say ancestors. You are reading things into the text that are not there. The greater context says that he is buried in a field he bought from a Hittite. No logical interpretation of the verse would have us believe that his ancestors were already buried in a field he had bought.

The whole context of the narrative is that Abraham is an alien to the land he is roaming.

2. James Christian wrote: “Let us also postulate that it is historically
true that Jacob and sons ended up in Egypt and that later generations ended
up in slavery and eventually came out of to wander about in Sinai.”

There was no 400-year bondage of the Hebrews in Egypt.


Evidence!?! Which part of 'let us postulate' caused confusion?

(a) Virtually no university scholar sees a 400-year bondage of the
Hebrews in Egypt in secular history.


And I care because...?

(b) All of Joseph’s prophecies come true in the Patriarchal narratives.
The Patriarchal narratives end with Joseph’s prophecy that very shortly after
Joseph’s death, YHWH will lead the Hebrews back home to Canaan. Genesis
50: 24-25

Why are you telling me this?


(c) The prophecy at Genesis 15: 14, 16 says nothing about Egypt, and is
not referring to Egypt.


Evidence!?!

(d) Once again, linguistics proves the case. Biblical Hebrew is a virgin
pure west Semitic language. There are virtually no traces of Egyptian in
Biblical Hebrew. The Hebrews were never in bondage in Egypt.



Evidence!?!


3. Abraham could not speak Egyptian or Akkadian. Abraham likely could not
speak Hurrian or Aramaic either. (Abraham’s brother, Nahor, probably
learned both Hurrian and pre-Aramaic as second languages.)

Evidence!?!


Abraham, like many
other people in Canaan, was able to get by in all the many various patois of
west Semitic languages that were spoken in Canaan. That was routine in Late
Bronze Age Canaan.


Evidence!?!


4. The Patriarchal narratives give accurate secular historical information
about all of these issues. In my controversial view, the Patriarchal
narratives are 700 years older than the rest of the Bible, and are much more
accurate concerning the secular history of the Late Bronze Age than is the rest
of the Bible.


That was the longest contentless email I have ever received. Please, make a better effort in the next attempt. I won't bother replying otherwise. Like George says, have you considered starting your own blog?

James Christian




Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************Huge savings on HDTVs from Dell.com!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221836042x1201399880/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.ne
t%2Fclk%3B215073686%3B37034322%3Bb)




--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page