Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

jim,

as i see nothing new in your repetitive and weak arguments, this is my last communication on this topic.

On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 21:45:00 -0500 (EST), jimstinehart wrote

> You wrote:  “all these three words: AB, RAM, NAHAR were equally used in canaanite and aramaic, among several other very similar semitic dialects.  now, aramaic was spoken in syria and, in fact, is recorded in several mesopotamean sites. so, i do not see how, linguistically, these words can provide a proof that abraham did not come to canaan from these regions.”
 
> I believe the scholarly consensus is that “Abram” looks like perfectly good Canaanite, but does not fit Aramaic well:  
> “[T]he name change of Abram to Abraham involves transforming a typical Canaanite construction into one which resembles an Aramaic one.  Speiser…noted this….  …Abram reflects Hebrew rwm and Abraham reflects Aramaic rhm.”  Gary A. Rendsburg, in “Eblaitica 2” (1990) at p. 110.
> [I don’t agree with that analysis of “Abraham”, by the way, but I do agree that “Abram” looks like Canaanite, rather than like Aramaic.]

the fact is that these three words, AB, RM, NHR are as aramaic as they are canaanite. the rest is interpretation. i do not see consensus here, as far as linguistic is concerned.
 
> A second problem with any claimed Aramaic analysis is that Aramaic is not attested in writing until the 1^st millennium BCE.  I believe that most scholars agree that the name “Abram” is centuries older than that.

if you look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arameans
and other open internet sources you will find that:
 (i) aramaic evidence in mesopotamian writing is prior to 2000bc;
(ii) the earliest scripts in aramean dialects in mesopotamia are dated well into the second millenium. 

> As I said, there might well have been pre-Aramaic in eastern Syria in the Late Bronze Age.  But there was very little Canaanite in eastern Syria, because eastern Syria is so very, very far away from Canaan.  And the name “Abram” (i) works perfectly in Canaanite, while (ii) not seeming to be Aramaic.

again, as both AB and RAM are equal in both languages, how do you reach this conclusion?

> And where would Ur fit into such an analysis?  There was no Aramaic and no Canaanite at Ur in the Bronze Age.

according to my sources, arameans were nomads and their evidence has been found in both east and west (2nd millenium) mesopotamia. IN ADDITION, there is one big unknown in your equation, which is the amorite language. the amorites migrated from canaan/syria to mesopotamia around 2200 bc where they moved to, of all places, ur!!! they  also spoke (NW?) semitic, but unfortunately left a very small linguistic evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorite

some researchers see the arameans and amorites as a single ethnic entity,  given the historic-geographic proximity and the ARM/AMR proximity.
 
> My own view remains that Abram and the first Hebrews were indigenous to Canaan, and happened to live during that one short period of time when the ruling class of Canaan was dominated by Hurrian princelings. 

let us keep it this way: your own view.

> I see Abram’s mother as being a Hurrian, whereas his father Terah was a native west Semitic speaker.  )BRM works well as a Canaanite name, )B-RM.  But its more profound meaning [reflecting Abram’s Hurrian mother] is its Hurrian meaning:  a-ba-ri-im : )BR-M, where the Hurrian meaning is “lord”.

possibly a semitic loanword meaning high father.

> Are you claiming that )BRM is an Aramaic name, and is neither a Canaanite name nor a Hurrian name?  I myself have seen no scholarly support for that position.  Can you cite a scholar who claims that )BRM is an Aramaic name and is not a Canaanite name? 

again, i am not trying to prove anything. i have no ideological objection to the canaanite abraham hypothesis. i am just
saying that your "evidence" is, at best, extremely shaky. more so, when you repeat it endlessly on b-hebrew.

> I myself see Abram as living in Hurrian-dominated Canaan in Years 12-14 of the Amarna Age.  Given that time period and that geographical location, it makes perfect sense on all levels that his name )BRM makes good sense in both Canaanite and Hurrian, while not being an Aramaic or pre-Aramaic name.

again, both AB=father, RAM=high, NAHAR=river are as aramaic as canaanite, to the letter.
so the LINGUISTIC evidence cannot be used to favor a canaanite ABRAM hypothesis, even if
a thousand gurus swear to the contrary. it is just a manipulation of data.

if there is OTHER evidence for your hypothesis, besides the linguistic, i am listening.

nir cohen