Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

Jim, I'm in a fun moode.

Lapis lazuli. Cool stuff.

Bobby said you don't need a weatherman to know
which way the wind blows.
and you don't really need a linguist for your theories.

my mama told me not to come ...
"that ain't the way to have fun, son."

Next time I'm reduced to a tent I think ..., no,
no lapis lazuli for me,
maybe some pyrethrum for the tsetse flies.

Meanwhile, while on the theme of the perfect
batqol-Hebrew of Gen 12, I love the use of the pure
volitional 'be a blessing' for a future promise.
that's quite effective, and I end on that serious note.

heve shalom
'be peace!' (as Ben Koseva says)
[hey, did he really say that? Uhhuh. Seems he knew
Hebrew pretty idiomatically funky.)

Randall Buth


> In my considered opinion, the traditional interpretation of the Patriarchal
> narratives as to Abraham’s origins is completely erroneous, both textually
> and historically.  I view the Patriarchal narratives as portraying Abraham
> as being indigenous to Canaan.  That is why the first Hebrews and the
> Canaanites spoke the same language, having only minor dialectal
> differences.  The Patriarchal narratives open with Abraham on a one-time
> caravan trip from Canaan way out to Ur in southern Kassite Babylonia, to buy
> lapis lazuli as commercial merchandise.  No, the early Hebrews weren’t
> professional merchants, but this was a one-time desperation move in the face
> of having recently been reduced to living in tents in Canaan (whereas
> Abraham’s father, Terakh, as a young man, and Terakh’s ancestors at all
> times, had lived in settled villages in a more peaceful, prosperous Canaan).
>
> Thus YHWH speaks to Abraham at Genesis 12: 1 in perfect Hebrew, a language
> that Abraham learned at his mother’s knee and spoke as a native.
>
> Terakh and Nahor get stuck, unfortunately, at Harran in Naharim/Mitanni,
> where they learn Hurrian as a second language, not Aramaic.  The word
> Sahaduta at Genesis 31: 47 can be viewed as being a Sanskrit name, revered
> by the Hurrians, that is similar to the Sanskrit name of Hurrian princeling
> Suwardata in the Amarna Letters.  Note that the names of their descendants,
> including descendants who never left Mitanni/Naharim, continue to be west
> Semitic/Hebrew names, based on the family’s origins in west Semitic-speaking
> Canaan:  Bethuel, Laban, Leah, Rachel, etc.  Note also that Laban, Leah and
> Rachel, being native Hebrew speakers, can speak perfect Hebrew to Jacob with
> ease, whereas if the family originated in Mesopotamia and that part of the
> family had never been to Canaan, how could they be speaking fluent Hebrew?
> Rather than being obvious “mistakes” in the text, all of this fits in
> perfectly with my view that the Patriarchal narratives portray Abraham,
> Terakh and the Hebrews as being indigenous to Canaan.
>
>
>
> Note that Abraham is surprised by nothing as he enters Canaan upon leaving
> Harran.  Why should he be surprised?  He had lived in Canaan his entire
> life.  True, Abraham and his ancestors had not previously lived at the
> Patriarchs’ “Hebron”.  [The very name “Hebron” itself, which may be XBRW +
> standard suffix -N, rather than the more expected XBR-N, recalls the
> Ugaritic name for an idealized kingdom, Khuburu, which is kind of like FDR
> historically naming the Presidential retreat, a very real place (not a
> fictional place) in a very real time, by the wondrously mythical name:
> “Shangri-la”.]  The early Hebrews were now living in tents, and moving
> around from place to place, having been displaced from their ancestral
> villages elsewhere in Canaan.  Textual proof of my view is at Genesis 25: 8,
> which states as follows, being a statement that makes sense only if all of
> Abraham’s ancestors except his unfortunate father had lived and died and
> been buried in beloved Canaan:  “Abraham breathed his last and died in a
> good old age [at the Patriarchs’ ‘Hebron’, in Canaan], an old man and full
> of years, and was gathered to his people.”  Abraham was “gathered to his
> people” in Canaan, a phrase that makes no sense if all of Abraham’s
> ancestors are portrayed in the text as living and dying and being buried in
> Mesopotamia.
>
>
>
> As to non-biblical sources, most historians agree that the Hebrews are
> indigenous to Canaan.
>
>
>
> Finally, since Randall Buth is an expert in the Hebrew language, he if
> anyone should know that Hebrew is a virgin pure west Semitic language,
> showing precious few traces of Mesopotamia or Egypt.  Scholars call Hebrew a
> “conservative west Semitic language”, which is the scholarly way of saying
> “virgin pure west Semitic language”.  The language of Hebrew itself, with so
> few foreign loanwords and so few linguistic connections to Mesopotamia or
> Egypt, is telling us that the Hebrews are indigenous to Canaan.
>
>
>
> Ed Walkwitz, please ask Randall Buth if “Terakh” is a west Semitic name,
> based on Ugaritic parallels.  If so, then how can scholars view the
> Patriarchal narratives as telling us that the Hebrews originated in southern
> Mesopotamia, near Ur, a place where west Semitic was not a primary
> language?  And how can you possibly imagine a more virgin pure Hebrew name
> than Abram?  It’s )B-RM, meaning “[the divine] Father is exalted”.  Even
> Biblical Minimalists can’t imagine a more virgin pure Hebrew name than
> that.  No one born in southern Mesopotamia would be expected to have a name
> like Abram.  If we take the personal names in the Patriarchal narratives
> seriously, the text is telling us, historically accurately, that the Hebrews
> were indigenous to Canaan.
>
>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois



-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life