Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
  • To: kwrandolph AT gmail.com, edwalkwitz AT yahoo.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?
  • Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:15:48 -0400


Ed Walkwitz:

You wrote: “Abram took a new ‘local’ name. I've immigrants to the USA who
have done that.”

No, that’s inconsistent with what the text says. “And Terah lived seventy
years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Now these [are] the generations of
Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.” Genesis
11: 26-27 We’re told twice that Abraham’s birth name was )B-RM. That’s a
virgin pure west Semitic name that would not make sense for a newborn child
in southern Mesopotamia, while making perfect sense for a newborn child in
Canaan. Note also what YHWH says at Genesis 17: 5: “Neither shall thy name
any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of
many nations have I made thee.” The first Patriarch’s birth name was )B-RM,
and his divinely-changed name is Abraham. How could the text be any clearer
than that? Abraham’s birth name, being the virgin pure west Semitic name
)B-RM, is telling us that Abraham and the Hebrews are indigenous to Canaan.

The name “Laban” is the same. It means “white” in Hebrew, and refers to the
white moon, with Harran being famous as a center of worship of the moon god.
Akkadian does not have these words or names.

As to Aramaic, it’s true that many words and names make sense in both Hebrew
and Aramaic, both of which are west Semitic languages. But how late to you
think the names in the Patriarchal narratives are, as to when they were first
written down? Aramaic is not even attested as being in existence prior to
the 1st millennium BCE, whereas most mainstream scholars agree that at least
chapter 14 of Genesis was composed centuries before that time period. “Old
Aramaic inscriptions are first attested in North Syria and Mesopotamia in the
ninth century bce….” Eric M. Meyers, “The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology
in the Near East, Vol. 4” (1997).

If you’re seeing Aramaic as underlying the Patriarchal narratives (as opposed
to the great influence Aramaic obviously had on post-exilic portions of the
Bible), then you’re saying that the Patriarchal narratives date to the 1st
millennium BCE. That contradicts both the Bronze Age substantive content of
the Patriarchal narratives, and the ancient nomenclature of the Patriarchal
narratives, such as the Hurrian proper names in that ancient text. Unless
the Patriarchal narratives are 1st millennium BCE fiction, Aramaic does not
underlie the Patriarchal narratives.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page