Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

There is no Aramaic in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives.  In 
particular, the scholarly assertion that %HDWT) [or $H-DT)] at Genesis 31: 47 
is Aramaic is untenable. 
 
1.  There were two fine posts on November 20, 2004 on the b-hebrew list that 
succinctly set forth the #1 problem with the scholarly analysis that YGR 
%HDWT) at Genesis 31: 47 is allegedly an Aramaic phrase consisting of two 
Aramaic words.  Yigal Levin correctly noted:  “[T]he Aramaic word "sahaduta" 
(testimony) in Gen. 31:47 is spelled with a Sin, while in standard Aramaic it 
would be spelled with Samekh.  Is this a ‘Hebraized’ spelling, or does it 
reflect use of Sin in early Aramaic?”  It turns out that %HDWT) as an Aramaic 
word, spelled with a sin instead of a samekh, is not attested in early 
Aramaic at all for this word, but rather is only attested with such spelling 
in the time of the Nabateans, south of Canaan, in the late 1st millennium 
BCE:   “This particular word is attested in Nabatean with sin….”  Trevor 
Peterson, UA/Semitics.  But what do the Nabateans south of Canaan in the late 
1st millennium BCE have to do with Laban in eastern Syria and the truly 
ancient Patriarchal narratives?  Nothing.
 
2.  Consider now that we are told at Genesis 24: 10 that Laban lived in 
NHRYM.  That’s the letter-for-letter word used in the Amarna Letters for the 
Late Bronze Age Hurrian state of Nahrima/Mitanni in eastern Syria.  
Historically, Laban would be expected to use the Hurrian way of naming that 
heap of stones, which would be to come up with a fanciful long name using 
Sanskrit, indirectly honoring the chief Hurrian god, Te$$up the sky-god.  As 
to the Sanskrit analysis, I see $HDWT) as originally not having had a vav/W 
[which was added in post-exilic times in updating the spelling to 
full-spelling].  The original Biblical word was:  $H-DT).  In my view, $H is 
the slightly simplified Hebrew version of the Sanskrit word “svaa” [since the 
Hebrews could not pronounce that initial consonant cluster], and DT) is 
Sanskrit “da-ta” (meaning “given”).  Another form of Sanskrit “svaa” is 
“svar”, with both Sanskrit words meaning “heaven” or “sky”.  The Hurrian 
princeling name from the Amarna Letters, $uwar-data, where $uwar is a Hurrian 
way of representing Sanskrit “svar”, is the same name as $H-DT)!  Both 
versions of this name mean:  “Given by the [Hurrian] sky(god) [Te$$up]”.  
 
It does not make logical sense to look to the Nabateans in the late 1st 
millennium BCE, south of Canaan, to try to understand %HDWT) at Genesis 31: 
47 as allegedly being an Aramaic word.  If that were an Aramaic word, it 
would start with a samekh.  Rather, we should instead look to the Amarna 
Letters, and understand that $H-DT) is a Hurrianized Sanskrit name, well 
reflecting historical NHRYM in Late Bronze Age eastern Syria.  $H-DT) in the 
Patriarchal narratives is simply a different spelling of the name of a 
Hurrian princeling in the Amarna Letters, $uwardata, having the same 
underlying meaning in Hurrianized Sanskrit.  There’s no Aramaic in the 
Patriarchal narratives.  Aramaic was not in existence yet when the truly 
ancient Patriarchal narratives were composed in the Late Bronze Age, by an 
early Hebrew contemporary of the events he accurately describes, with the 
Hebrews being indigenous to beloved Canaan. 
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois