... So myThere must be more to it than this, Dave. See the scholars cited by K-B in my response to Stephen. Also, if as you suggested this word is part of the common Semitic stock, instead of being Akkadian ša rēši “the one at the head” > Hebrew saris, it would be Hebrew še rō'š, or 'ašer rō'š “the one at the head”. I'm not sure why Akkadian š becomes Hebrew s when borrowed, but you can hardly argue that Hebrew š (shin) becomes Hebrew s (samek).
question is, "how was such a consensus (assuming it really is such) arrived at?" Until I know that, I have no way to determine whether someone's "research" is accurately based, built on speculation, or circular reasoning (e.g. Akkadian is "early" and Genesis is "late" therefore such and such a word in Genesis MUST be a loanword from Akkadian, which proves that Genesis is "late"). ...
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.