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: lehmann AT uni-mainz.de, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?
  • Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:14:40 EDT


Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann:

1. You have written a fine (if brief) scholarly defense of the view that
%HDWT) at Genesis 31: 47 is an Aramaic word, albeit focusing exclusively on
the issue of why the first letter in the received text is a sin/shin, not the
more expected samekh for Aramaic. You state first that Aramaic sibilants
are “not so simple to deal with”, and you cite Degen’s Grammar. You then go
on to make a point that was made in those two November 20, 2004 posts that
I previously cited, but which [in order to keep my post fairly short] I did
not reference as to this specific issue this time around, namely that “
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”. To that argument one might respond, however,
that
whereas %HD is written with a sin in Aramaic routinely, %HDWT) is not
attested in Aramaic as being written with a sin, rather than the expected
samekh,
until the very late time of the Nabateans.

2. But here’s my real point in this post. As a scholar, doesn’t it make
you nervous that no fellow scholar has e-v-e-r asked if %HDWT) may
originally have been $H-D-T), and be a Hurrianized Sanskrit phrase? Laban is
presented at Genesis 24: 10 as living in NHRYM in the Bronze Age, and you
know
that (i) Hurrian was the main language spoken at NHRYM, and (ii) most of the
kings of Naharim/Mitanni had Hurrianized Sanskrit names. So shouldn’t
scholars at least a-s-k if $H-D-T) may be $H, as a simplified Hebrew
version of
Sanskrit svaa, and D-T) may be Sanskrit da-ta, with the phrase being similar
to the Hurrian princeling name $u-wa-ar-da-ta [substituting svaa for svar]
attested in the Amarna Letters, and meaning in both cases: “Given by the
[Hurrian] Sky(god) [Te$$up]”?

Wouldn’t the scholarly view here be stronger and more convincing if
scholars had at least considered the Hurrianized Sanskrit alternative? I
think you
might agree with me that if $H-D-T) is Hurrianized Sanskrit, then this text
likely dates all the long way back to the Late Bronze Age, and may have
pinpoint historical accuracy, whereas if $HDWT) is Aramaic, then this text
must
be 1st millennium BCE fiction. That is to say, the entire integrity of the
Patriarchal narratives is riding on this linguistic issue. With so much
being at stake, shouldn’t the scholarly community address in writing the
possibility that $H-D-T) may be Hurrianized Sanskrit?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page