Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Prof. George Athas:
 
1.  You wrote:  “The linguistic impossibilities of your suggestion do not 
bother me so much as the breathtaking fantasy of a Mesopotamian-born man in 
the Bronze Age (whichever subsection of it you wish to assign makes no 
difference at this point) being named after an Egyptian deity, although only 
half the deity's name made it into the Mesopotamian man's name.”
 
I agree with the majority of scholars that the Hebrews historically are 
indigenous to Canaan.  The Hebrews did not migrate into Canaan from 
Mesopotamia.  There is no historical support for that proposition.  I also 
note that Hebrew is a virgin pure west Semitic language, which supports a 
Canaanite origin of the Hebrews.
 
It is also my view that, as I have frequently voiced on the b-hebrew list, 
the author of the Patriarchal narratives presents the Hebrews [historically 
accurately] as being indigenous to Canaan.  Terakh is trying to get back to 
his homeland of Canaan after a one-time semi-disastrous caravan trip from 
Canaan out to Ur in southern Babylonia to buy lapis lazuli at wholesale.  
Otherwise, why would old Terakh be trying to go to Canaan from Harran after 
his son Haran had died at Ur?  All of Abraham’s ancestors lived in Canaan, 
and all except Terakh were buried in Canaan, and that is why Abraham is said 
to be “gathered to his people” at Genesis 25: 8 when he is buried at the 
Patriarchs’ Hebron in Canaan.  If all of Abraham’s ancestors had been buried 
in Mesopotamia, as you would have it, how could Abraham be said to be 
“gathered to his people” when he died in Canaan?
 
The notion of Abraham being “a Mesopotamian-born man” is false historically 
[per the majority view of today’s scholars], and in my view is also 
inconsistent with what the Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives says.
 
Moreover, the text has presented Abram as having gone to Egypt before he 
receives a divinely-changed name.  The author of the Patriarchal narratives 
later uses p3-r‘, in the form P-R(, as the last 3 Hebrew letters in the name 
of Joseph’s Egyptian priestly father-in-law, showing a great familiarity with 
Egyptian religious thinking and wording as of Years 12-14 of the Amarna Age.  
And the Hebrew author also portrays Joseph himself as receiving an Egyptian 
name.  So the Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives was well aware of 
Egyptian religious thought and Egyptian words.
 
Finally, as to the claim that “only half the deity's name made it into the 
Mesopotamian man's name”, the same is true that only half [or less than half, 
actually] of B(NYY made it into the BN portion of the name “Reuben”, per the 
explicit Biblical analysis of this name at Genesis 29: 32.  If a Biblical 
author can see BN as short for B(NYY, then why on earth couldn’t that same 
Biblical author see R as short for R(?  In both cases the ayin/( is dropped 
in the explicit Biblical analysis of these names.  Same.  What I am doing on 
this thread is setting forth the reasonable suggestion that R is used as a 
shortened form of R( in the name “Abraham”, a suggestion that is to a large 
extent corroborated by the analysis at Genesis 29: 32.

You seem eager to throw both Genesis 17: 5 and Genesis 29: 32 under the bus.  
Why?  The rest of us are interested in trying to make sense of those two 
verses of Biblical text in the Patriarchal narratives.  If people on the 
b-hebrew list have a better idea than mine as to how we should understand 
those two Biblical verses, then I’m all ears.  Isn’t this the kind of 
question the b-hebrew list was designed to discuss?
 
2.  You wrote:  “This thread is still closing on Sunday night.”
 
We were all waiting with baited breath for William Parsons’ heavy-hitting 
Egyptian analysis of p3-r‘ and P-R( and s3-r‘, and the critical issue of 
whether there’s an Egyptian connection s3-r‘ to %-R and %-R-H in Hebrew.  [At 
least I sure was.]  Now it seems that, most unfortunately, William Parsons 
will not have time to provide us with that Egyptian analysis.  Although he 
does not accept my Egyptian analysis of the R in Abraham, I for one would 
love to learn from his expertise on Egyptian matters as to this.

3.  Still no one on this thread, including the two moderators, has overtly 
defended the scholarly view that “Abraham” is merely a “lengthening” of 
“Abram”.  Many of us are extremely reluctant to abandon what Genesis 17: 5 
says, and are searching for an etymology of )B-R-HM that fits what Genesis 
17: 5 says.  )B is a natural for meaning a human “father”, and the explicit 
reference to HMWN/“multitude” at Genesis 17: 5 sure makes -HM in “Abraham” 
look like a shortened form of HM-WN.  The $64,000 question then is how to 
understand the -R- in )B-R-HM.  If my controversial suggestion is found 
wanting, then what are other people’s suggestions?  For example, might I be 
so bold as to ask for the second time what your own view is as to the meaning 
of the name “Abraham”, as well as your view of Genesis 17: 5?  If I’m wrong 
that R is a shortened form of R( in the name “Abraham”, being a reference to 
the Egyptian word r‘ for Deity, then how do you deal with Genesis 17: 5?
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois