Biblical Hebrew Forum

["R. Lehmann" <lehmann AT uni-mainz.de>]

Dear Jim,
just a few remarks.



> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:36:03 -0400
> From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
> To: furuli AT online.no, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?
> Message-ID: <8CD1717D4182E0E-1080-1144 AT Webmail-m108.sysops.aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 
> 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. 

Sure there is, though actually not more than those two words.
Why?

> 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.

Not at all. It is not so simple to deal with Aramaic Sibilants. I strongly 
recommend to have a look in the late RTainer Degen's Grammar of Ancient 
Aramaic: Rainer Degen 1969. Altaramäische Grammatik der Inschriften des 
19.-8. Jh. v. Chr. (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 38,3), 
Wiesbaden 1969 - it's page 32ff.

>  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:

The word in question, SHDWTH, is nothing that the abstract-emphatic of the 
root SHD  "(to) witness", which alone in the Elephantine papyri appears more 
than 120 instances and constantly written with Sin (check the TADAE for it, 
or Schwiderski, anyhow). And even earlier. 

> If that were an Aramaic word, it would start with a samekh. 
Not at all, as you might see. Samekh-Sin interchange in Aramaic is much 
earlier than the Nabataeans, and depends on areal factors as well. Check the 
grammars (and Margareta Folmer's wonderful book), and the inscriptions.

Reinhard G.Lehmann


¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann
Academic Director
Research Unit on Ancient Hebrew & Epigraphy
FB 01/ Faculty of Protestant Theology
Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz
D-55099 Mainz
Germany
lehmann AT uni-mainz.de
http://www.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de
http://www.ev.theologie.uni-mainz.de/297.php
Subsidia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis (SILO):
http://www.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de/182.php
10th  Mainz International Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH):
http://www.micah.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de/204.php