Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Pharaoh Khepera'a in Jeremiah 44:30

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr, George.Athas AT moore.edu.au, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Pharaoh Khepera'a in Jeremiah 44:30
  • Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:31:55 EDT


Dr. Arnaud Fournet:

7. You wrote: “As explained before, $M)BR should be $M)BR-Y/W.”

That is simply not true in the context of the early Biblical Hebrew
defective spelling used at Genesis 14: 1-2. As I stated in my prior post,
tu-ud-xa-li-ya in Hittite comes out as TDGL in Ugaritic, and TD(L at Genesis
14: 1 (“
Tidal”), with all non-essential vowels being routinely dropped in Late
Bronze Age alphabetic spelling. Note that the entire Hittite ending, -iya,
is
dropped completely in the spelling TD(L at Genesis 14: 1. The genitive
ending in Hurrian, -[w]e, likewise is dropped completely. No matter how much
a
Hurrian linguist like yourself loves all those many Hurrian vowels, the
example of Tidal shows that early Biblical Hebrew defective spelling
ruthlessly
omitted most of those non-Semitic vowels in rendering in Hebrew the names and
titles at Genesis 14: 1-2. We must go with what is attested at Genesis 14:
1-2 regarding the critical issue of how non-Semitic names and titles and
words were spelled in early Biblical Hebrew defective spelling.

8. You wrote: “In addition this word is vocalized $eMaVeR (in the French
Bible) which goes against your suggestion even more powerfully.”

That’s the entirely irrelevant medieval pointing by the Masoretes in the
Middle Ages once again.

9. You wrote: “Your example above suggests that the initial of ebri is
written )e- with ). So your idea lacks internal coherence. If $M)BR is to be
segmented $M - )BR then BR cannot be ebri.”

Yes it can. The E/aleph is explicit in the case of $M)BR, coming right
before the B. In the case of the similar word BR(, we are supposed to imply
that same E/aleph before the B. To a Hebrew (as opposed to a Hurrian or a
modern Hurrian linguist), that initial vowel was akin to a prosthetic aleph,
and would not ordinarily be explicitly recorded in defective spelling.

10. You wrote: “In my humble (but stubborn) opinion there's no way BR
Bera can ever stand for ebri. Ebri should be either )BR or YBR, which are the
most logical writings for the consonants alone.”

Ebri is [)]BR(. The initial E, which was viewed by the Hebrews as being in
the nature of a prosthetic aleph, was merely implied for this word, rather
than being expressly set forth. We know to imply that initial E here,
because BR( is quite similar to $M-)BR, where the aleph/E is expressly
written
down.

11. You wrote: “Now I can see that BR is apparently written Bera which
makes matters even worse.”

That’s the medieval pointing once again that was done by the Masoretes in
the Middle Ages. It has no relevance here whatsoever.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page