Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Chavoux Luyt:

 

You wrote:  “I have another scenario: The patriarchal narratives were already written down in the "proto-canaanite" alphabeth used by Moses to write the rest of the Torah in his own lifetime or shortly thereafter. Then, when it was copied in the time of the Kings (not necessarily the time of Josia, but possibly also earlier or later), the language, grammar and spelling was updated by one of the scribes (commonly done in the ANE cf. archaeologist K.A. Kitchen) to that of their own time.  What makes your scenario more probable than mine? And does this really have anything to do with Biblical Hebrew?”

 

1.  Prior to the 1^st millennium BCE [that is to say, during any time period that might be attributed to Moses], there was no Hebrew alphabet that was developed enough to write down a sophisticated composition like the Patriarchal narratives.  The Ugaritic alphabet was sophisticated enough, but Ugarit is located way up north in western Syria, and there is absolutely no evidence that the early Hebrews, who lived in south-central Canaan, ever used the Ugaritic alphabet.

 

What is attested, by contrast, is that tent dwellers like the first Hebrews, living close to where the first Hebrews portray themselves as living in the Patriarchal narratives, did use Akkadian cuneiform to write [by hiring a scribe] during the Amarna Age:

 

“May the king [pharaoh Akhenaten], my lord, take cognizance of his land, and may the king, my lord, know that the Apiru [tent-dwellers] wrote to Ayyaluna [Ayalon] and to Sarxa [Zorah], and the two sons of Milkilu barely escaped being killed.”  Amarna Letter EA 273

 

Indeed, the  o-n-l-y  time during the entire Bronze Age when any significant writing is attested as coming out of south-central Canaan is the mid-14^th century BCE, namely the Amarna Letters written in Akkadian cuneiform.  We know from the frequent west Semitic glosses in the Amarna Letters that Akkadian cuneiform could easily be used to write Hebrew or pre-Hebrew.  So based on what’s attested, the only realistic time period when the Patriarchal narratives could start out as a written composition, and as such possibly have pinpoint historical accuracy in describing the Patriarchal Age, is the Amarna Age.

 

2.  What this has to do with Biblical Hebrew is that many proper names in the received text of the Patriarchal narratives cannot be deciphered unless one realizes that (a) the original written version of the Patriarchal narratives was done in Akkadian cuneiform, and (b) the Achilles heel of Akkadian cuneiform was that it could not distinguish in writing one guttural from another.

 

To cite an example I have used before, no one but me has ever figured out the seemingly inexplicable XWBH at Genesis 14: 15.  In context, we’re certain that it either means the Damascus region or a site just north of Damascus, but even knowing precisely where to look, there is no XWBH out there.  But once we recognize that this was originally written down in Akkadian cuneiform, which cannot distinguish one guttural from another, we see that the first letter is really “guttural”, not necessarily alphabetical Hebrew heth/X.  Here, the actually intended guttural was Hebrew he/H.  Genesis 14: 15 is referring to H-WBH, where he/H is the Hebrew word “the”, and WBH is the well-documented Amarna Age word for “the Damascus area”.

 

If my theory of the case is right, then we’re bound to see a series of foreign proper names in the received text of the Patriarchal narratives where the gutturals are confused, because Akkadian cuneiform could not distinguish one guttural from another.  Will Parsons and I have explored that topic recently on another thread regarding the Biblical Egyptian names that appear near the end of Genesis.

 

To me it’s highly relevant to Biblical Hebrew to realize that the original written version of the Patriarchal narratives was done in Akkadian cuneiform, using the identical conventions for recording proper names as appear in the voluminous Amarna Letters.  That insight enables us to solve a whole series of 3,000-year-old Biblical mysteries.  As you know, Prof. Donald Redford speaks for the academic profession generally when he insists that the Biblical Egyptian names near the end of Genesis are 7^th century BCE in form and content.  He is 100% wrong about that.  He ignores many letters and adds in other letters to get to that false conclusion.  But on the other hand, the intended meaning of several of those Biblical Egyptian names cannot be deduced without understanding that all of those Biblical Egyptian names were originally written in Akkadian cuneiform, and not transformed into alphabetical Hebrew until 700 years later in 7^th century BCE Jerusalem, so that in several cases the particular guttural that is in the received text is not the originally-intended guttural.

 

The most important aspect of my theory of the case is that it fully squares what would otherwise seem impossible:  (i) the Patriarchal narratives were written down in the Bronze Age, and few substantive changes were ever made thereto;  a-n-d  (ii) the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in most of the Patriarchal narratives is basically indistinguishable from the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in the second half of II Samuel.  Secondly, previously inexplicable proper names in the received text can be readily deciphered once it is realized that the guttural you see in the received text may not be the originally-intended guttural, because the Patriarchal narratives were recorded in Akkadian cuneiform in the Late Bronze Age and not transformed into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until 700 years later, and Akkadian cuneiform is not capable of distinguishing one guttural from another.

 

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois