Cuneiform: Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Written Text

For discussions which focus upon specific words, their origin, meaning, relationship to other ANE languages.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Cuneiform: Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Written Text

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Cuneiform Shows the Antiquity of the Patriarchal Narratives as a Written Text

The scholarly view [which is apparently unanimous, as far as I can tell] is that the Patriarchal narratives as a w-r-i-t-t-e-n text do not pre-date the Iron Age [which begins about 1200 BCE]. If that were the case [which, however, I myself do not believe is the case, being the topic that can be discussed on this thread], then there could not be proper names in the Patriarchal narratives whose spelling peculiarities in the received text indicate that these names were originally recorded in cuneiform, and only centuries later transformed into alphabetical Hebrew. Why? Because after 1200 BCE [the end of the Late Bronze Age], cuneiform quickly ceased to be a local writing system in Canaan. The exciting corollary of that is that to the extent we can document the existence of many proper names in the Patriarchal narratives whose spellings in the received text indicate that such names had originally been recorded in cuneiform, then the Patriarchal narratives as a written text must go all the long way back to the Bronze Age.

The leading scholarly work on this general subject states definitively that after the Late Bronze Age, cuneiform ceased to be a local writing system in Canaan:

“By the Late Bronze Age cuneiform had truly become a feature of the local social and cultural landscape. …n the Late Bronze Age we find local activities documented by means of cuneiform letters and administrative tablets throughout the land [of Canaan], with cuneiform serving as the main means of communication with Egypt as well. …This state of affairs came to an end with the end of the Late Bronze Age, which also marked the disappearance of cuneiform from the local landscape. In the Iron Age, alphabetic scripts dominated in the west [including Canaan], while cuneiform was apparently only reintroduced at the time of the Assyrian conquest…. Thus, cuneiform in Iron Age Canaan was in a sense no longer a local writing system but an extension of foreign hegemony in the land, particularly during the height of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.” Wayne Horowitz, Takayoshi Oshima, “Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times”, Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem (2006), pp. 18-19.

So to the extent that we can find proper names in the Patriarchal narratives whose particular spellings in the received text indicate that such name had originally been recorded in cuneiform [and only centuries later transformed into alphabetical Hebrew], we can thereby demonstrate that, contra the unanimous scholarly view to the contrary, the Patriarchal narratives were a w-r-i-t-t-e-n text already in the Bronze Age.

On this thread, let’s identify and discuss proper names in the Patriarchal narratives whose spellings don’t seem to make sense on the conventional assumption that their first written expression was in alphabetical Hebrew writing. Let’s ask if, instead, those proper names turn out to make complete and perfect sense if and only if they were originally recorded in cuneiform, and then centuries later transformed into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew writing.

Guys, this is the only way we can hope to get university scholars to re-consider their unanimous [but ill-conceived] judgment that the Patriarchal narratives as a written text allegedly do not pre-date the Iron Age. Not.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Cuneiform: Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Written Tex

Post by Jim Stinehart »

As one example of a proper name in the Patriarchal narratives that makes good sense if and only if it was originally recorded in cuneiform, consider the name שרח : $RX at Genesis 46: 17. No one else in the Bible has this odd name. The shin/$ here is often viewed as being a transmutation of samekh/S, so that this name would then match the Hebrew common word סרח : SRX at Exodus 26: 12. But rather than being an inexplicable transmutation, this phenomenon can be easily explained by the fact that this ancient name in the Patriarchal narratives was originally recorded in cuneiform, where Akkadian cuneiform shin [recorded during the Late Bronze Age] could [in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem, when the bulk of the cuneiform written text of the Patriarchal narratives was, for the first time, transformed into alphabetical Hebrew writing] come over into alphabetical Hebrew as either shin/$ or samekh/S.

We note for starters that 7th century BCE Jerusalem is known for:

“The reception of Akkadian shin as samekh….” James Maxwell Miller, J. Andrew Dearman, M. Patrick Graham, “The Land That I Will Show You” (2001), p. 125.

It has also often been noted that where names in II Kings also appear in cuneiform writing in Assyria: “As in many other proper names, we have here again the Samech in Assyrian for the Hebrew Shin.” George Evans, “An Essay on Assyriology” (1883), p. 54.

Confirmation and clarification that Akkadian cuneiform shin could come into alphabetical Hebrew as either shin/$ or samekh/S can be derived by considering the word “Ashur”. Ezra 4: 2 references Esarhaddon, which is routinely viewed as being Ashur-ach-iddina, "Ashur has given a brother". The Hebrew has samekh/S as the second letter: aleph-samekh-resh-heth-dalet-nun. In the Amarna Letters [from the Late Bronze Age], names with this element have two cuneiform signs, the first being the Akkadian true vowel A, and the second being a CVC cuneiform sign, $ur. Richard S. Hess, “Amarna Personal Names” (1993), p. 43. So once again, cuneiform shin/$ corresponds with Hebrew samekh/S. It is also possible for cuneiform shin/$ to equate with Hebrew shin/$: we see shin/$ in the alphabetical Hebrew rendering of “Ashur” at Genesis 25: 18. [Note that what one does not see, when cuneiform is involved, is samekh/S being linked to sin/%.]

Accordingly, even though in Late Biblical Hebrew samekh/S and sin/% eventually came to have the same sound, nevertheless in the Late Bronze Age context of Akkadian-style cuneiform, the shin/$ in the received alphabetical Hebrew text in the name שרח : $RX, at Genesis 46: 17, could just as easily be a samekh/S. Accordingly, on that cuneiform analysis, the Hebrew common word סרח : SRX at Exodus 26: 12 can readily be viewed as being the exact equivalent of the name שרח : $RX in cuneiform at Genesis 46: 17.

Many longstanding Biblical mysteries of this general type disappear instantly, if one is willing to ask whether an otherwise mysterious proper name in the Patriarchal narratives may have originally been recorded in cuneiform in Late Bronze Age south-central Canaan.

The Patriarchal narratives became a w-r-i-t-t-e-n text centuries earlier than scholars realize. The Patriarchal narratives were recorded in cuneiform, using cuneiform to write west Semitic common words, in south-central Canaan all the long way back in the Late Bronze Age. Yes! A cuneiform analysis of otherwise mysterious names in this wonderful Biblical text can confirm that critically important point.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Cuneiform: Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Written Tex

Post by Isaac Fried »

There is nothing "odd" about the name שרח SERAX. If it is a word, then it is of the root SRX, which is a variant of of the roots
זרח, טרח, ירח, סרח, צרח, שרך
"spread". The kindred name ZERAX is found in Ge. 36:17.

Otherwise the name SERAX is a compound of short theophoric names.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Cuneiform: Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Written Tex

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Isaac Fried:

You wrote: “There is nothing "odd" about the name שרח SERAX. If it is a word, then it is of the root SRX, which is a variant of the roots זרח, טרח, ירח, סרח, צרח, שרך
"spread". The kindred name ZERAX is found in Ge. 36:17. Otherwise the name SERAX is a compound of short theophoric names.”

ZRX is the name of many different Hebrew men in the Bible. But I don’t know why you picked the obscure ZRX who’s mentioned at Genesis 36: 17. Why don’t you pick the world-famous ZRX/Zerah whose story is told at Genesis 38: 30? Although Zerah was technically the “firstborn” son of Judah by Tamar, in that a red string was tied around his hand when his hand was the first thing that came out as the twins were being born, nevertheless “younger” son Perez actually came out of the womb first! [That extreme animus against firstborn sons is one of the most prominent themes throughout the Patriarchal narratives, as 7 out of 7 firstborn sons get the shaft and properly so: Haran, Lot, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Zerah, Manasseh.]

But now let’s get to the all-important linguistic issue here.

Isaac Fried, please tell us why Judah’s “firstborn” son by Tamar was called ZRX. Zerah’s birth has nothing to do with “spread”, does it? ZRX as a common word [Isaiah 60: 3] is thought to mean “rising, dawning”; but my guess is that you will not accept the conventional, scholarly view [e.g. Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 16-50” (1994), p. 369] that the name of Judah’s “firstborn” son by Tamar allegedly means “shining” [a stretch from “rising, dawning”], allegedly referring to how brightly “shining” the scarlet thread allegedly was that had been tied around his hand. Not. That scarlet thread was not “shining”, nor does ZRX as a Biblical Hebrew common word mean “shining” anyway. No way. And besides, what’s important about Zerah’s birth is that although he had been officially designated as the “firstborn” of the twins, nevertheless Zerah was “what remained” in Tamar’s womb after Perez had already come out of the womb.

Now consider that the common word SRX at Exodus 26: 12 literally means “what remains”. Bingo! Zerah was “what remains” in Tamar’s womb after Perez had already come out. ZRX at Genesis 38: 30 doesn’t mean “brightly shining”. No way. No, the name ZRX at Genesis 38: 30 means “what remains”, as if it were spelled SRX.

Hey guys, this reflects a classic “confusion of sibilants” that was endemic in cuneiform writing. Never trust a sibilant coming from cuneiform writing! Not in proper names in the Patriarchal narratives, which started out as an ancient cuneiform text in the Late Bronze Age [centuries before scholars think that the Patriarchal narratives were a written text, when alphabetical writing was still rudimentary and incapable of handling a sophisticated composition like the Patriarchal narratives]. As a brief glimpse at how sibilants get hopelessly confused in cuneiform, note the following account of using cuneiform to write Hurrian sibilants: “Akkadian s is usually represented in the Nuzi orthography by z-containing signs, e.g. in Zi-nu-ub-la for Sin-ubla. On the other hand s-containing signs usually interchange with $ signs; cf. Xa-si-ia, variant of Xa-$i-ia.” Gelb, Purves, “Nuzi Personal Names”, pp. 6-7. Along the same general lines, but much closer to home, note that in Amarna Letters EA 290: 15 and 289: 14 from Jerusalem, in approximately Year 13, the name “Jerusalem” is spelled with s, not $, and that same confusion of sibilants in cuneiform writing from Jerusalem applies to the name Beth-shan at EA 289: 20: “Comparison with Egyptian transcriptions confirms that the sibilant is an original /$/, and not /t/ or /ś/. The Jerusalem letters are known for their deviant use of the sibilant signs in transcriptions of non-Akkadian words (Cross 1962: 245 n. 95; 1973: 52-53 n. 36; Moran 1975b 152 and 163, n. 51). These probably pertain somehow to the scribe’s northern background, i.e. they stem from a dialect or more likely a writing tradition in which the representation of the sibilants was different.” Anson F. Rainey, “Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets” (1996), p. 16.

As I was saying, never trust a sibilant in a proper name coming from cuneiform!

Isaac Fried, don’t you think that the name ZRX at Genesis 38: 30 should properly be spelled in alphabetical Biblical Hebrew writing as SRX [that is, with a samekh, not a zayin]? Doesn’t that name, in context, necessarily mean “What Remains”, which is precisely what SRX means as a common word at Exodus 26: 12?

Isaac Fried, we’re on to something big here. The Patriarchal narratives as a w-r-i-t-t-e-n text are centuries older than scholars realize, having originally been recorded in cuneiform in Late Bronze Age south-central Canaan. That is why the Patriarchal narratives, contra the scholarly view that it’s all a pleasant, non-historical myth, in fact have p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy in terms of what was going on at the time of the “Year 13” that is referenced at Genesis 14: 4. For example, as I showed on an earlier thread: (i) the name “Potiphar” is the Biblical Hebrew equivalent of the historical name “Ramose”, with Ramose historically being the military man who was in charge of Pharaoh’s security in Year 13; and (ii) the name “Potipherah” is the Biblical Hebrew equivalent of the historical name and title “Pawah, Greatest Seer”, with Pawah, Greatest Seer historically being the high-priest of Ra from On at Amarna in Year 13.

Isaac Fried, the Patriarchal narratives are not convenient fiction, as university scholars would have it. No, just think cuneiform and Year 13, and suddenly one sees that the Patriarchal narratives have p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy in that particular context.

The name ZRX at Genesis 38: 30 should properly be SRX. The confusion between zayin/Z and samekh/S there is due to the inherent confusion of sibilants in cuneiform writing, where the Patriarchal narratives were a w-r-i-t-t-e-n text, in cuneiform, in the Late Bronze Age.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Cuneiform: Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Written Tex

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Isaac Fried and I have been discussing whether the name “Zerah” : ZRX : זרח (starting with zayin/Z) at Genesis 38: 30 should more properly be spelled SRX : סרח (starting with samekh/S). SRX as a common word means “what remains”, e.g. Exodus 26: 12. As noted in my prior post, what’s important about Zerah’s birth is precisely that although he had been officially designated as the “firstborn” of the twins [when the first thing that came out of Tamar’s womb as the twins were being born was Zerah’s hand, to which a scarlet string was tied], nevertheless Zerah was “what remained” : SRX [as a Biblical Hebrew common word] in Tamar’s womb, after Zerah’s “younger” twin brother Perez had already come out of the womb. Is that clever Biblical Hebrew wordplay or what?

Here are three additional thoughts now on that fascinating subject.

1. Genesis 38: 29 makes explicit that the name “Perez” : PRC : פרץ derives, fittingly, from the Biblical Hebrew common word PRC, which means “irruption, breach”. Since we are expressly told that “Perez” means “irruption”, with PRC/Perez having “irrupted”/PRC from his mother’s womb before his “older” twin brother Zerah had come out of the womb, it is eminently logical to deduce that “Zerah” must then mean “what remained”. The reason why Genesis 38: 30 does not explicitly say that in so many words is presumably because SRX had been the originally intended spelling of the name “Zerah”, in cuneiform, and but for this understandable scribal transcription error [due to confusion of sibilants in cuneiform writing] in transforming the cuneiform original of the Patriarchal narratives into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew [many centuries after the fact, in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem], it would have been patently obvious that SRX has the fitting meaning of “what remains”.

2. I see the Patriarchal narratives as originally having been a written text in cuneiform, in the Late Bronze Age, which used a cuneiform writing system that in most respects was just like the cuneiform writing used in the voluminous Amarna Letters. [However, although cuneiform writing was used to record Canaanite/pre-Hebrew common words in the first written text of the Patriarchal narratives, along with proper names, the Amarna Letters by contrast used cuneiform writing to record Akkadian common words, along with proper names, except for frequently adding Canaanite glosses.] If the name of Tamar’s “firstborn” twin son was originally written in cuneiform, then in deciding between ZRX and SRX as the preferred spelling of the name “Zerah”, please take note that cuneiform could not distinguish either the gutturals or, of more relevance here, the sibilants that were used in Canaanite/pre-Hebrew. The cuneiform writing system used in the Amarna Letters simply was, notoriously, unable to represent directly many west Semitic gutturals and sibilants:

“The Akkadian [cuneiform] script [used in the Amarna Letters] was unable to represent the pharyngeal and other consonants which may have been part of the Canaanite phonemic system (h, ḥ, ‘, ś, and possibly also d, t, ǵ, ẓ and ḍ)….” Shlomo Izre’el, “Vocalized Canaanite: Cuneiform-Written Canaanite Words in the Amarna Letters: Some Methodological Remarks”, DS-NELL (Dutch Studies - Society of Near Eastern Languages and Literatures) 5 (2003), p. 30. http://academia.edu/230041/Vocalized_Ca ... al_remarks

Moreover, in Old-Babylonian cuneiform [which was the forerunner of the Akkadian cuneiform used in Late Bronze Age Canaan], samekh was routinely spelled as a Z in the south: “Samekh with following vowel is spelled [in cuneiform]...in the South [southern Babylonia]: ZA, ZI, ZU. …Syllables ending with samekh…in the South: AZ, IZ, UZ.” “The Akkadian Dialects of the Old-Babylonian Mathematical Texts”, in Otto Neugebauer, Abraham Sachs, Albecht Götze, “Mathematical Cuneiform Texts” (1945), p. 146.

And now here’s the smoking gun [regarding cuneiform]. In the time of the Canaanites and early Hebrews, W.F. Albright states bluntly that “samekh was transcribed by cuneiform z”. No wonder then that the intended SRX in cuneiform got mixed up to come out in alphabetical Hebrew writing as ZRX! [Here’s Albright’s full quote: “Zapzaga is presumably of Hurrian origin; in any case, it corresponds exactly to a Canaanite-Hebrew spsg, since samekh was transcribed by cuneiform z….” W.F. Albright, “Some Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew Wisdom”, in “Supplements to Vetus Testamentum” (1960), p. 12.]

3. Finally, under the category of “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”, here are two historical examples where zayin/Z got mixed up with s-type sibilants in recording proper names in the Amarna Letters and other cuneiform writing. Zi-im-ri-da at Amarna Letter EA 103: 18 has as equivalents at Ugarit both $i-im-rad-du and zi-im-rad-du/i. Richard Hess, “Amarna Personal Names”, pp. 169-170. A-zi-ri at Amarna Letter EA 98: 7 has as one of its equivalents at Mari a-si-rum, and in Assyria a-si-ru/i. Hess, pp. 44-47.

Accordingly, where cuneiform writing is involved, an s-type sibilant in a proper name, including a samekh/S, could easily be confused with zayin/Z.

* * *

Therefore, if the name of Tamar’s “firstborn” twin son was originally recorded in cuneiform, my rule applies in spades that “never trust a sibilant coming from cuneiform writing!”. As such, what was intended to be SRX at Genesis 38: 30, as the name of Tamar’s “firstborn” twin son meaning “What Remained”, unfortunately got mis-transcribed 700 years after the fact as ZRX, thanks to the confusion of sibilants in cuneiform writing.

The unanimous scholarly view that the Patriarchal narratives were not a written text prior to the 1st millennium BCE is manifestly incorrect. If university scholars were right about that, then there’s no way that a name which should have been spelled SRX [per a nifty Patriarchal pun] would come out inexplicably in the received alphabetical Hebrew text as a meaningless ZRX. Tamar’s “firstborn” twin son Zerah was “what remained”/SRX in Tamar’s womb after “younger” twin son Perez/PRC had already “irrupted”/PRC out of the womb. The intended original spelling of Zerah’s name, in the cuneiform original from the Late Bronze Age, was SRX, meaning “What Remained”, based on the Biblical Hebrew common word SRX that means “what remained”.

That’s a-n-o-t-h-e-r millennia-old Biblical mystery solved, right here on the b-hebrew list. Imagine -- only people reading this very thread know the meaning of the name of Tamar’s “firstborn” twin son. If that ain’t exciting, then what in life is exciting?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Cuneiform: Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Written Tex

Post by Isaac Fried »

I am sorry, but I have to ignore what you are saying about the "sibilants" in "cuneiform writing" as well as all about the purported "Akkadian".

The Hebrew letters D, Z, Y, S, C, $, T are equivalent, and hence the root ZRX is equivalent to the roots

DRK, ZRX, TRX, YRX, YRK, YRQ, CRX, SRX

all meaning 'spread'. The act זרח ZARAX is specific to light and means 'shine', as does the appearing sun, as in EX. 22:2. The MI-ZRAX is 'the east, the side of the rising sun'. In post biblical Hebrew SIRAX-ON is 'stench'.

The root פרץ PRC is equivalent to

PRD, PRZ, PRT, RRS, PR$

פרד, פרז, פרט, פרס, פרש, פרת

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Cuneiform: Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Written Tex

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Isaac Fried:

A. You wrote: “The act זרח ZARAX is specific to light and means 'shine', as does the appearing sun....”

Correct. Please note that that has n-o-t-h-i-n-g whatsoever to do with Tamar’s “firstborn” son Zerah at Genesis 38: 30, who is “what remained” after his “younger” twin brother Perez had already come out of the womb. Zerah has nothing whatsoever to do with “The act זרח ZARAX is specific to light and means 'shine', as does the appearing sun....”

As you indirectly alluded to in your prior post, ZRX is a run-of-the-mill Hebrew man’s name, with an implied theophoric, effectively meaning: “[God Is] Rising and Shining [Like the Sun]”. But Tamar’s “firstborn” son does not have such a run-of-the-mill Hebrew man’s name. Not. Rather, uniquely in the Bible, Tamar’s “firstborn” son has a name that references the key fact that Zerah was “what remained”/SRX after Zerah’s “younger” twin brother Perez/PRC had already been an “irruption”/PRC from Tamar’s womb.

ZRX is an incorrect spelling of the name of Tamar’s “firstborn” son at Genesis 38: 30. The intended Hebrew alphabetical spelling [which got bollixed up due to the fact that cuneiform cannot distinguish one Hebrew sibilant from another] was: SRX, meaning “What Remained”.

B. You are right that the basic meaning of SRX is “spread”. When used as a verb, SRX usually means “spread”. But the one and only time that SRX is used as a noun in the Bible, it means “remnant”, that is, “what remained”.

In addition to “spread”, SRX can also mean “what remained” or “be redundant” Perhaps “what remained” [or “remnant”] is in a sense a play on “spread”, meaning “what remained” for additional “spreading” after the original “spreading” was complete. And perhaps “be redundant” is likewise a play on “spread”, in the sense of “flowed away”/“spread”.

Let’s confirm that by looking at SRX all 8 times it appears in the Bible.

(i) Here are the 6 cases where SRX, used as a verb, effectively means “spread”. (1) Ezekiel 17:6: “And it grew, and became a spreading [SRX] vine of low stature, whose branches turned toward him, and the roots thereof were under him: so it became a vine, and brought forth branches, and shot forth sprigs.” (2) The second usage only [“hang”] at Exodus 26:12: “And the remnant [SRX] that remaineth of the curtains of the tent, the half curtain that remaineth, shall hang [SRX] over the backside of the tabernacle.” (3) Exodus 26:13: “And a cubit on the one side, and a cubit on the other side of that which remaineth in the length of the curtains of the tent, it shall hang [SRX] over the sides of the tabernacle on this side and on that side, to cover it.” (4) Ezekiel 23:15: “Girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding [SRX] in dyed attire upon their heads, all of them princes to look to, after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea, the land of their nativity:” (5) Amos 6:4: “That lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch [SRX] themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall;” (6) Amos 6:7: “Therefore now shall they go captive with the first that go captive, and the banquet of them that stretched [SRX] themselves shall be removed.”

(ii) But now let’s carefully consider the 2 times when SRX does n-o-t mean “spread”, at least not literally.

1. The first usage only [“remnant”] at Exodus 26:12, which is the one and only case where SRX is a noun: “And the remnant [SRX] that remaineth of the curtains of the tent, the half curtain that remaineth, shall hang [SRX] over the backside of the tabernacle.”

Please note that the first usage of SRX at Exodus 26: 12 means “what remained”. The “remnant” here is precisely “what remained”, being the half-curtain that hangs over the backside of the tabernacle.

It is important to note in this connection that PRC [“irruption, breach”], which is the basis of the name “Perez”/PRC, at Genesis 38: 29 is a noun. So as a parallel, the name “Zerah” at Genesis 38: 30 is also a noun, which was originally intended to be spelled with a samekh [not a zayin], namely SRX, with SRX as a noun meaning “what remained”. No matter how many times SRX as a verb means “spread”, what counts here is what the meaning of SRX is as a noun. The meaning of the first instance of SRX at Exodus 26: 12 is basically all we’ve got going for us regarding the meaning of SRX as a n-o-u-n .

2. Jeremiah 49:7: “Concerning Edom, thus saith the LORD of hosts; Is wisdom no more in Teman? is counsel perished from the prudent? is their wisdom vanished [SRX]?”
Most translations follow KJV and use “vanished” as the meaning of SRX at Jeremiah 49: 7. The Darby translation has “spent” [which is perhaps the best translation I have seen]. The New International Version has “decayed”.

SRX at Jeremiah 49: 7 has the literal meaning of “be redundant”, in the sense of “what remained” is what “is redundant”. The meaning is related to “spread” in the sense of “flowed away”.

C. Thus although SRX often means “spread” as a verb, which indeed is its basic meaning as you properly point out, nevertheless per the first use of SRX at Exodus 26: 12, we see that the meaning of SRX as a n-o-u-n is, or at least certainly can be: “what remained”. In the context of Genesis 38: 30, with the name PRC/“Perez” having been explicitly stated in the preceding verse to mean “irruption, breach”/PRC, it’s clear that Zerah is, correspondingly, “what remained” after his “younger” twin brother Perez had already come out of the womb. So Zerah’s name must mean “What Remained”, and accordingly the proper spelling of Zerah’s name is SRX.

In the cuneiform writing used in Late Bronze Age Canaan during the Patriarchal Age, Akkadian Z could render either Hebrew zayin/Z or Hebrew samekh/S. 700 long years later, in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem, a Jewish scribe tasked with transforming the Late Bronze Age cuneiform original of the recently re-discovered 50 clay cuneiform tablets, on which the Patriarchal narratives had been originally recorded, simply guessed wrong. He saw Akkadian cuneiform Z, and he knew that [as you properly pointed out in your previous post] ZRX was a common Hebrew man’s name; so he went with ZRX, even though the underlying meaning of ZRX [“rising, shining”] is not related to the story of Zerah’s semi-miraculous birth. But in this case, Akkadian cuneiform Z in fact was intended to render Hebrew samekh/S, and the proper spelling of the name of Tamar’s “firstborn” son is SRX. Zerah, whose name SRX means “What Remained”, was “what remained”/SRX after his “younger” twin brother Perez/PRC had already been an “irruption”/PRC from Tamar’s womb.

Isaac Fried, don’t you agree that in the context of Genesis 38: 30, the name of Tamar’s “firstborn” twin son must certainly be SRX, not ZRX? Zerah was not what was “rising”/ZRX or “shining”/ZRX. No, Zerah was “what remained”/SRX, after his “younger” twin brother Perez/PRC had already been an “irruption”/PRC from Tamar’s womb. Please reconsider the meaning of SRX as a n-o-u-n in the first use of SRX at Exodus 26: 12, where SRX means “what remained”.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Cuneiform: Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Written Tex

Post by Isaac Fried »

No, in my opinion, SERAX is what is not what remains, but what is spread out. No son of TAMAR "remained" in her womb; one son "burst out" פרץ PARAC, hastily into the world, while the other son come out unhurriedly, more like the rising sun at the time of the זריחה ZRIYXAH.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Cuneiform: Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Written Tex

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Isaac Fried:

You wrote: “No, in my opinion, SERAX is what is not what remains, but what is spread out. No son of TAMAR "remained" in her womb; one son "burst out" פרץ PARAC, hastily into the world, while the other son come out unhurriedly, more like the rising sun at the time of the זריחה ZRIYXAH.”

How can you possibly write this sentence? “No son of TAMAR ‘remained’ in her womb....” That’s e-x-a-c-t-l-y what the story tells us. Though the first thing that came out of Tamar’s womb as her twin sons struggled to be born was Zerah’s hand, around which the midwife tied a red string, nevertheless it was Perez, the “younger” son, who actually was born first. That means, precisely, that the instant after Perez’s birth, Zerah indeed was the “son of TAMAR [who] ‘remained’ in her womb....”

Isaac Fried, are you somehow missing the cardinal fact that in 7 out of 7 cases, the firstborn son in the Patriarchal narratives always gets the shaft, and properly so? Haran, Lot, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Zerah, Manasseh. How can you miss that ubiquitous theme? Haran doesn’t even outlive his own father; Lot is reduced to living in a cave; Ishmael is exiled by his own father; Esau doesn’t get the grand blessing his father had intended; Reuben gets a terrible final curse; Zerah/SRX doesn’t even get the honor as the “firstborn” son of being born first (! ); and Mannaseh does not get the great blessing that his father Joseph had wanted for him.

How on earth can you think that Zerah’s name in that context means “the other son [who] c[a]me out unhurriedly, more like the rising sun at the time of the זריחה ZRIYXAH”? That would be a good name, but Zerah is getting the shaft! As an apt comparison here, note that everyone would have thought that the name of Leah’s firstborn son, Reuben, was a good name, meaning “Behold! A Son”; but look instead at how Leah interprets that name: “[The Lord] Hath Looked Upon My Affliction”. Genesis 29: 32. The name “Zerah” at Genesis 38: 30 m-u-s-t be negative, or else the entire integrity of the Patriarchal narratives is lost.

And why are you explaining the name PRC/“Perez” in terms of a Hebrew verb, “burst out”? That ain’t no verb here. Genesis 38: 29 explicitly tells us that the name PRC/“Perez” is a play on the Hebrew n-o-u-n PRC, which means “irruption, breach”. So please analyze the name “Zerah” accordingly, as a noun. We only see SRX once in the entire Bible as a noun, and that’s as the first word at Exodus 26: 12, where SRX as a noun means “remnant” or “what remained”. Yes, it may well derive from the verb SRX meaning “to spread”, yet as a noun, it means “remnant” or “what remained”, that is, “what remained to be ‘spread’ after the initial ‘spreading’ [for the tabernacle] had been completed”.

The meaning of the first word at Exodus 26: 12, SRX, meaning “remnant” or “what remained” or “what remained for further ‘spreading’ after the initial ‘spreading’ had been completed”, is p-e-r-f-e-c-t as the meaning of the name “Zerah”: Tamar’s “firstborn” son who nevertheless was “what remained” after the “irruption”/PRC of his younger twin brother PRC/“Perez” from Tamar’s womb, before ill-fated Zerah had even been born as the “firstborn” twin son.

Surely you’re not surprised that Perez, not Zerah, is the twin son who is destined for glory. At Genesis 46: 12, we are even given the names of the two sons that infant Perez will eventually sire, which is a surefire indication that it is Perez who is the descendant of Judah who will be in the very most favoured line of the Hebrews. It sure ain’t “firstborn” son Zerah! Each of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and Perez is a younger son, not a firstborn son. Can’t you see it?

Zerah cannot possibly have the glorious name “the other son [who] c[a]me out unhurriedly, more like the rising sun at the time of the זריחה ZRIYXAH”. No way. Rather, as a “firstborn” son who gets the shaft even at the moment of his birth, Zerah must have a negative name: “What Remained”/SRX. No other man in the entire Bible has the name SRX. That’s because the only Hebrew male for whom the name SRX would be appropriate is a twin son who, though marked as being the “firstborn” twin son, nevertheless suffered the horrible ignominy for a “firstborn” son of not even being born before his “younger” twin brother came out of the womb first.

Isaac Fried, this is clever Hebrew wordplay at its absolute finest. This is the good stuff. This is the most brilliant Hebrew wordsmith of all time at the zenith of his tremendous literary powers. You yourself know Hebrew backwards and forwards, so you can richly appreciate clever Hebrew wordplay like this. Certainly you of all people can see this world-class pun that is so exciting that it leaves one breathless. The name of Tamar’s “firstborn” son who was “what remained” after his “younger” twin brother came out of the womb first is properly spelled SRX, meaning “What Remained”. You just can’t get ingenious Hebrew wordplay better than that. The important substantive point that this Biblical Hebrew author is making here, by using that creative pun, is that like every other firstborn son in the Patriarchal narratives, “Zerah”/SRX too gets the shaft, and properly so.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Cuneiform: Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Written Tex

Post by Isaac Fried »

1. If you prefer it, and if it pleases you, you may think about ZERAX as a dialectical variant of SERAX, and interpret it as "remaining".

2. This may be an opportunity to demonstrate the extensive semantic spread and interconnectivity of the mutating Hebrew roots:

Related to ZRX is YRX, the root of ירח YAREAX, 'moon', the shining זורח heavenly body. Also YRK, the root of ירך YEREK, 'hip', related to ברך BEREK, 'knee', and פרך PEREK (of which we have פרוכת 'curtain'), and פרק PEREQ, 'hinge, fork, section', all related in turn to רך RAK, 'soft'.

Also צרח CARAX, 'scream, roar, spread a shrill sound', as in Is. 42:13. From the root CRX we have also the צריח CRIAX, 'rising turret', as in Judges 9:49. Also צורך COREK, 'need, necessity', of 2Ch. 2:15(16).

Also שרך SARAK, 'to stray', as in Jer. 2:23. From the root SRK we have also שרוך SROK, 'shoelace, shoestring, thong', as in Gen. 14:23.
In spoken Hebrew שרכים SRAKIYM is the name of the lacy, stretchy סורח weed called 'fern'.
Post Reply