Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

jim,

it is possible that, as you say, biblical hebrew contains simplified versions 
of hurrian words, with vowels removed. 
but can you also eliminate the possibility that these words have an earlier 
semitic origin, adapted to hurrian with
vowels or suffix added? or created independently? after all, diffusion 
processes may go both way. words like EL/ILU and 
endings like -YAH and -WN seem to go back quite a long time in the semitic 
records.

now, by "eliminate" i dont mean repeat the hurrian hypothesis, rather, start 
with the semitic or independence hypothesis and show it is impossible.

nir cohen

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:09:11 -0400 (EDT), jimstinehart wrote
> 
> 1.  Nir Cohen wrote:  “while i agree with jim that final Y may represent 
> -YA or -YAH in both ancient hebrew and hurrian, …the NWS endings -WT,-YM 
> used for plural and -H,-Y,-AH,-W etc used as verbal suffixes (assuming they 
> were also used so in biblical times hebrew) cannot be easily interpreted as 
> "consonants" followed by a vowel.”
>  
> Let’s use that insight to try to solve the 3,000-year-old Biblical mystery 
> of who is being referenced by the following 6 names at Genesis 15: 19-21 
> that have baffled scholars:  QYNY/Qa-a-ni-ya;  QNZY/ Qa-ni-zi-ya;  
> XTY/Xu-ti-ya;  PRZY/Pi-ri-zi-ya;  GRG$Y/Ge-ra-ge-$e-ya;  
> YBWSY/A-bu-u-se-ya.  Note first that the classic -YM west Semitic ending is 
> suspiciously absent in all 6 cases.  Rather, in all 6 cases the ending is 
> -Y, which can be the Hebrew rendering of the standard Hurrian theophoric 
> suffix -ya.  Starting with that key insight, then on the C-V theory that 
> we’re discussing, it turns out to be child’s play to match these 6 names on 
> a letter-for-letter basis to attested Hurrian personal names with vintage 
> Late Bronze Age spellings. We then realize that these 6 Hurrian personal 
> names are being used to reference the Hurrians [just like the personal name 
> “Knickerbockers” is used as a colorful reference to Manhattanites].
>  
> 2.  Many 3,000-year-old Biblical mysteries can be solved using the C-V 
> theory.  Here’s an important example of that.  If the original spelling of 
> the name of the Patriarchs’ favorite place to sojourn in Canaan was what we 
> still see in the received unpointed Masoretic Text today, namely XBRWN, 
> then on the C-V theory we would expect that 5-letter name to be a 
> 5-syllable name.  In fact, it’s the expected Hebrew spelling of the Hurrian 
> word for “heaven” or “the heaven”:  xa-bu-ru-u-ne.  Syllables 1, 2, 3 and 5 
> are C-V, with Hebrew rendering only the consonant.  The 4th syllable is, as 
> is so often the case in Hurrian, a vowel as its own separate syllable 
> [essentially unknown in Hebrew common words].  The modern Hebrew 
> mispronunciation of this ancient name is as bad as the KJV 
> mistransliteration of this name. It’s not a 2-syllable name, with two 
> closed syllables.  No way. Rather, it’s 5 syllables, per there being 5 
> Hebrew letters, with the rule being 
 that there is one Hebrew letter per foreign syllable.  There’s no closed 
syllable in sight.  Just as Karl’s C-V theory posits.
>  
> As everyone already knows, XBRWN can also, with quite a bit of stretching, 
> be stretched to mean “united” in Hebrew.  But the interior vav/W is not 
> plene spelling!!!  No, it’s a vowel as its own separate syllable in the 
> primary, Hurrian meaning of this name.  The meaning, then, of XBRWN is:  
> “Being United [Is] Heaven”.  Now look at Genesis 14: 13.  One of the best 
> things about the Patriarchs’ “Hebron” was that not only was it a rural 
> nirvana, but very importantly Abram was in covenant relationship with both 
> the ruling Amorite princeling there, whose Patriarchal nickname was Mamre 
> the Amorite, and also with such ruler’s fellow princelings, the Hurrian 
> princeling A-ni-ra and the Canaanite princeling Eshcol.  Historically that 
> checks out perfectly, as the Amorite princeling ruler of the place which is 
> the opposite of east of Bethel [Genesis 13: 9, 11] indeed allied with 
> tent-dwellers like the Hebrews and with Hurrian princelings and Canaanite 
> princeling
 s as well.  
>  
> All analysts have missed the key textual fact here that whereas Abram 
> [before his name change] had a valuable alliance with the Amorite 
> princeling ruler of the Patriarchs’ “Hebron”, nevertheless after the name 
> change to Abraham no Patriarch is ever reported as being in alliance with 
> any ruler of the Patriarchs’ Hebron.  The “good old days”, whose passing 
> was much lamented by the early Hebrews [and whose passing was also the 
> catalyst, in my opinion, for the historical birth of Judaism, which would 
> soon find the Hebrews moving a few miles east from the Ayalon Valley, up to 
> the secure hill country north of Jerusalem], were precisely when the first 
> Hebrew, Abram, had had a close alliance with the Amorite ruler of the place 
> west of Bethel.  Indeed, that grand old man Amorite ruler was so revered by 
> the first Hebrews that (i) the first Hebrews called the place where that 
> Amorite princeling ruled by the following Patriarchal nickname:  “Being 
> United [Is] Heaven”
 /XBRWN;  and (ii) the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives 
paired the root of XBRWN, namely XBR, with the Hebrew version of the 
historical name of “Mamre the Amorite”, the Amorite princeling ruler of the 
Ayalon Valley west of Bethel in Year 12, namely Milk-Ilu:  MLK – Y - )L, at 
Genesis 46: 17 [where the interior yod/Y there is a name divider].
>  
> If one is willing to  a-s-k  if the 5-letter name XBRWN may originally have 
> indicated a 5-syllable name, per the C-V analysis of how the Hebrew 
> language originally operated, and then consider that such is the expected 
> Hebrew rendering of the Hurrian common word for “the heaven”, namely 
> xa-bu-ru-u-ne, in addition to being able to be stretched to mean “united” 
> in Hebrew, then all of a sudden one comes to an amazing revelation.  It  
> a-l-l checks out!  The p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t  historical accuracy of the 
> Patriarchal narratives in describing south-central Canaan in Year 12 is 
> absolutely stunning.  We even have the  e-x-a-c-t  historical name of the 
> Amorite princeling ruler in Year 12 [one year before the reference to “Year 
> 13” in the second half of Genesis 14: 4] of the Ayalon Valley west of 
> Bethel, where tent-dwellers are attested as recording their thoughts in 
> writing at the time [Amarna Letter EA 273]:  Milk-Ilu.  
>  
> 3.  As I was saying, many 3,000-year-old Biblical mysteries can readily be 
> solved, if we’re willing to  a-s-k  if early Hebrew writing was done on a 
> C-V basis, as verified by the unchanged Hebrew renderings of Late Bronze 
> Age Hurrian names.
>  
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois     
> 
> 

-- 
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)