Cuneiform Translation

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

Re: Cuneiform Translation

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Isaac Fried:

You wrote: “I am sorry, but you are wasting your time on me; I know nothing, neither of "Akkadian" nor of "Ugaritic". We should keep only to what we know first hand. The act קדר QADAR may meant 'bend over'. The post-biblical word קדרה QDERAH is 'cooking pot, vessel'. It is related to גדרה GDERAH, 'enclosure, holding pen', as in Nu. 32:24, because of it's encircling erect wall designed to contain and retain the cooked food. The act חתר XATAR is related to חדר XADAR, 'penetrate, dig into', as in Ezekiel 21:19(14).”

You are relating XDR at Ezekiel 21: 14/19 to KDR, as the first element of the name “Chedorlaomer”. Let’s accept your view that XDR means “penetrate, dig into”. Note then that the literal meaning of kdr in Ugaritic is “trough”. So maybe you’re right that kaf/K and heth/X can be related when they precede dalet-resh/DR; that seems to apply here, in comparing Hebrew XDR to Ugaritic kdr.

However, in context we know that a kdr was used as some kind of a sacred vessel in religious cultic ceremonies at Ugarit. Though its literal meaning is “trough”, at Ugarit it seems to have the overtones of being a “chalice” or something like that. That’s why I translate kdr in Ugaritic as “a sacred vessel”, rather than using the ultra-literal meaning of “trough”.

Note also that you see QDRH as being a related post-biblical Hebrew word, meaning “vessel”. QDRH + XDR = “trough”. So linguistically, your claims make some sense. The Ugaritic meaning of kdr fits right in with your Hebrew meanings of QDRH and XDR. You are explicitly asserting that kaf/K and qof/Q and heth/X may be related in meaning when they precede dalet-resh/DR. Ugaritic kdr/trough vs. Hebrew QDRH/vessel and Hebrew XDR/dig into -- all seem to bear out your linguistic theory here.

Historically, I myself see kdr/“a sacred vessel/trough” as symbolizing Ugarit’s independence, which was irrevocably lost when Ugarit King Niqmaddu II [whose apt Biblical nickname is “Chedorlaomer” : kdr l ‘mr] invited the dreaded Hittites into central and western Syria in Year 13. Certainly you can see that the ‘mr at the end of this name is like “Gomorrah”, without the standard nominative ending -H. Lamed/l in both Hebrew and Ugaritic means “to”. So the “sacred vessel/trough” : kdr is going “to” : l “ashes/Gomorrah” : ‘mr. If “Chedorlaomer” is taken as being a pejorative Patriarchal nickname for the king of Ugarit, you can see that such name is berating the king of Ugarit for forfeiting Ugarit’s independence in Year 13, which also potentially now put the dreaded Hittites in position to threaten beloved Canaan itself.

kdr is similar to your QDR -H, both meaning “vessel”. Likewise, ‘mr is similar to ‘MR -H, both meaning “Gomorrah” or “ashes” or “a row of fallen grain”. Gomorrah’s sad fate is to become like “a row of fallen grain”, being reduced to “ashes”. In Hebrew, ‘MYR at Jeremiah 9: 22 means “a row of fallen grain” and, importantly, there such word is used in a negative sense. In Ugaritic, ‘mr means “ashes” or “dust” or even “excrement”. Thus the Hebrew equivalent of the Ugaritic nickname kdr l ‘mr would be: QDRH L ‘MYR. The pejorative Patriarchal nickname KDR L ‘MR can thus be viewed as being but an alternative Hebrew spelling of QDRH L ‘MYR. But that pejorative Patriarchal nickname is not being applied to a God-fearing Hebrew, for heaven’s sake. No, it’s being applied to a foreigner, namely King Niqmaddu II of Ugarit, an Amorite whose actions were iniquitous in Year 13 in inviting the dreaded Hittites into central and western Syria, thereby potentially threatening beloved Canaan.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Ray Harder
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:59 am

Re: Cuneiform Translation

Post by Ray Harder »

I am afraid my question addressed to Rolf about the etymology of Nebuchadnezzar has sparked lengthy posts that are totally unrelated to the topic herein labeled as “Cuneiform Translation.” I don’t know if it is forum practice or sound wisdom to respond to these posts, but I do have some formal training in comparative semitics and therefore by Isaacs Fried’s criteria viz. “We should keep only to what we know first hand” have some sense that I should respond. If you are looking for something about Cuneiform Translation, you can stop reading here. I am responding to statements that are completely off that topic except for a few follow up statements below, q.v.

I hesitate to enter into dialogue on this public forum because there are people with so many different areas and levels of expertise, and my own training is decades out of date and my access to a good library is non-existent at this point, but let us take to heart and practice the words of contributor Isaac Fried to wit: “We should keep only to what we know first hand.” I value his frank admission that he has no expertise in either Akkadian or Ugaritic. I think we can all benefit from his recommended approach and his humility/frankness/honesty. I would add that we should limit ourselves to statements where we have formal training or acquired expertise. My impression as a newcomer here is that some here regularly make statements that vary widely from what could be called “scholarly consensus” in the fields of Hebrew language/linguistics in particular and even the wider field of “biblical studies” in general.

With that in mind let me point out that forums, by their nature are ego driven and participants do not always practice good scholarly methodologies and it is difficult to constructively dialogue in these forums if we don’t self impose good academic methods and keep blanket statements of our opinions out unless we have the formal training and expertise to make such statements. The nature of forums lead to mostly ad homonym arguments based on people’s credibility and our perceptions thereof. Thus it would be helpful if we all took the time to post a simple vita in the introduction area in the forum and I have suggested to a moderator that this should be a policy/requirement of the forum. This would help us all in evaluating statements in areas outside of our expertise.

I appreciate Rolf Furuli’s expertise and effort to contribute to the dialogue. His comments that Nebuchadnezzar is likely to refer to “eldest son” based on the definition of kudurru in Black, 1999 seem logical and methodologically sound. I appreciate his expertise and his citation of sources. I would accept his interpretation of the name as “O Nebo, guard my eldest son” as the most likely interpretation rather than my recollection of “O Nebo guard my boundary stone!” which is widely adduced in the literature and was the basis of my recollection and statement. I would like to see others follow Furuli’s example of speaking in our own areas of training and expertise and citing sources and I stand corrected.

Let me belabor this already lengthy post and respond to the postings of Isaac Fried and Jim Stinehart. I do so in a sincere effort to help elevate the overall quality of discussion in this forum and not to start a “flame war.” I endeavor to critique and not to criticize.

Isaac, be careful to heed your own advice “We should keep only to what we know first hand.” It does not appear to me that you have any training or expertise in comparative semitics. Regarding your post of 1/26/14 at 7:36pm, your equation of Akkadian words to others in various semitic languages based on the fact that they sound similar when transliterated into Latin characters is REALLY unsound methodology. How a word changes when passing from proto-semitic into later languages (e.g. Hebrew, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Aramaic, Arabic etc.) follows very strict and identifiable rules. If you wish to follow sound linguistic methodology you need to learn and observe the rules, you simply cannot make statements like: “QETER כתר 'crown' is related to ETER or עטרה ATARAH, 'wreath', as in Song 3:11. Also עזרה AZARAH, 'gallery', as in Ezekiel 43:14.”

This is also true of the whole discussion of Akkadian “KADR” as being “a variant of” Hebrew
גדר, גזר, גשר
הדר
חדר, חזר, חטר, חסר, חצר, חשר, חתר
כדר, כשר, כתר
קדר, קטר, קצר, קשר
This is again completely in error. These words are from different semitic roots and have NO etymological relationship to each other.


Jim, I appreciate your enthusiasm and the time you have taken to post in this forum. I appreciate it when you post your sources, e.g. “KTU 1.108 II. 1.21, 22 and 2.42 I. 9” in your post of 1/28/14 at 10:55pm.
However, It does not appear to me that you have ANY comparative semitics or historical training on which to base your numerous lengthy and unsupported statements in that and other posts. For example you seem to equate Chedorlaomer of Gen. 14 with Ugarit King Niqamddu II. On what basis? There is NOTHING in the text of Genesis about Niqamddu and there is NOTHING in the Ugaritic literature about Chedorlaomer.
Next, on what basis do you equate the hebrew מֶלֶךְ עֵילָם with the Ugaritic mlk ‘lm =מלך עלם? The manuscript tradition of the Bible is 100% in agreement in reading this as the place name “Elam” rather than some form of the semitic root עלם . Your interpretation would require rejecting the massoretic text of the Hebrew bible as well as the Dead sea scrolls, all manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint, all manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, and all manuscripts of the Syriac Peshitta texts which universally read עֵילָם as the geographic proper name Elam and not the semitic root for “eternal” as you interpret it. (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your ambiguous transliteration represents a semitic ע rather than an א.) Therefore according to good methodology in textual criticism, one can fairly dogmatically state that the 100% of the manuscript tradition (i.e. ALL external evidence) goes against your view. Furthermore, when you look at the internal evidence of this verse the same is true. 100% of the kings mentioned in Gen. 14:1 are named in a construct state followed by a geographic name and not a title as you interpret עֵילָם.

It seems to be your belief that patriarchal traditions of the pentateuch accurately reflect historical events and were preserved in some form of cuneiform by the hebrews. (As I understand your view from this and other posts you would ask us to believe the Hebrews wandered around for centuries carrying ca. 50 cuneiform tablets containing the narratives which were later translated or transcribed into alphabetic Hebrew and then preserved them in the massoretic tradition of the Bible.) Regardless of the complex and controversial issues of when the biblical accounts were first conceived, how they were preserved, and then written down in the form generally preserved in the extant Hebrew bible; your view is not reflective of the modern scholarly view of the pentateuch. Therefore, it is incumbent on you to demonstrate your extremely minority view in a methodologically sound way and to support by the actual extant evidence using sound methodology and reasoning.

A forum is an inappropriate vehicle for (and I am not willing to teach) an online class in historiography or comparative semitics here. With all due respect, I suggest that if you want the members of this forum to lend their ideas and expertise to help you develop your minority opinion, that you limit your posts to short statements of ideas and EVIDENCE you think supports your beliefs to see if they can stand up to peer review and build upon that over time. Over time, lengthy posts of unsupported and extreme non-standard opinions will be ignored by those qualified to discuss/interact with them and beginners will be confused by them. I would argue that this lessens the value of the forum process.
Raymond G. Harder

Forgive the length of my posts, but like H.L. Mencken said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Cuneiform Translation

Post by Isaac Fried »

Says Ray Harder:

How a word changes when passing from proto-semitic into later languages (e.g. Hebrew, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Aramaic, Arabic etc.) follows very strict and identifiable rules. If you wish to follow sound linguistic methodology you need to learn and observe the rules, you simply cannot make statements like: “QETER כתר 'crown' is related to ETER or עטרה ATARAH, 'wreath', as in Song 3:11. Also עזרה AZARAH, 'gallery', as in Ezekiel 43:14.”

Says I:

1. "proto-semitic" is fiction; it is a figment of the imagination.

2. The genetic relationship between Arabic (I know nothing of "Akkadian" and "Ugaritic") and Hebrew is a mystery, and therefore the path of "passing" words between them is a mere guess.

3. "strict and identifiable rules" are made by rulers.

4. I still need to see what is "sound linguistic methodology".

5. I still need to understand what is "Hebrew etymology", and what is an "etymological relationship"

6. It is not clear to me what is wrong with the statement:
“QETER כתר 'crown' is related to ETER or עטרה ATARAH, 'wreath', as in Song 3:11. Also עזרה AZARAH, 'gallery', as in Ezekiel 43:14.”

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Ray Harder
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:59 am

Re: Cuneiform Translation

Post by Ray Harder »

Isaac Fried wrote: Says Ray Harder:

How a word changes when passing from proto-semitic into later languages (e.g. Hebrew, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Aramaic, Arabic etc.) follows very strict and identifiable rules. If you wish to follow sound linguistic methodology you need to learn and observe the rules, you simply cannot make statements like: “QETER כתר 'crown' is related to ETER or עטרה ATARAH, 'wreath', as in Song 3:11. Also עזרה AZARAH, 'gallery', as in Ezekiel 43:14.”

Says I:

1. "proto-semitic" is fiction; it is a figment of the imagination.
If by that you mean that there are no extant examples of a language called “proto-semitic” the you are absolutely correct. When you find many words and linguistic features that are similar in two or more languages, it can be deduced that these languages evolved from the same language even if that language no longer exists and there are no texts left from when that language did exist. Linguists look carefully at all the remnants of a language in later stages of that language and carefully reconstruct it by deriving a set of rules that explain all the remnants we find. These remnants have evolved into forms so different that these later groups of forms would not be understood by a native speaker of that original language and we therefore call these later stages new languages. I would not therefore characterize proto-semitic as a “figment of the imagination,” but rather the result of a rigorous application of accepted linguistic methodology.
Isaac Fried wrote: The genetic relationship between Arabic (I know nothing of "Akkadian" and "Ugaritic") and Hebrew is a mystery, and therefore the path of "passing" words between them is a mere guess.
There is nothing “mysterious’ about it. Languages evolve over time and branch off from other languages to become new languages. Because of this certain words in one language will be similar to words in another language (cognates) if both languages evolved from the same language. This is not the result of words “passing” from one language to another, but evolving from the same language. When a word “passes” from one language to another, it is usually referred to as borrowing --which also occurs. If good solid linguistic methodologies are involved and there are enough extant examples of the various stages of the languages, there is no need for a “mere guess.” One just has to practice good methodology.
Isaac Fried wrote: 3. "strict and identifiable rules" are made by rulers.
No. The rules in comparative linguistics are deduced from the evidence by established/accepted methodologies. See above.
Isaac Fried wrote: 4. I still need to see what is "sound linguistic methodology".
You will have to go to a good university and take a class like "comparative semitics" or "the history of the Hebrew language" from a reputable scholar. I'm sure Boston has several such classes in their catalog. Though they may only be taught in alternate years or some such schedule.
Isaac Fried wrote: 5. I still need to understand what is "Hebrew etymology", and what is an "etymological relationship"
Etymology is the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings and forms have changed throughout history as languages evolve. An etymological relationship exists when words in two or more different languages from the same language family derived from the same word in the “proto” stage of that family. For example the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet is called Aleph. The etymology of the word Aleph is that it derives from a proto-semitic root *אלף which has to do with word for “Ox.” (Note the asterisk which in standard linguistic methodology indicates that this is a reconstructed form from an earlier stage that no longer exists.) This letter in the earliest Hebrew script in fact looks like an ox. There is no Aleph in Akkadian since Akkadian has no alphabet. However, the noun for ox in Akkadian is alpu and evolved from the same proto-semitic root and therefore Akkadian alpu and Hebrew aleph are said to have an “etymological relationship.” I.e. they both derived from the proto-semitic root *אלף.
Isaac Fried wrote: 6. It is not clear to me what is wrong with the statement:
“QETER כתר 'crown' is related to ETER or עטרה ATARAH, 'wreath', as in Song 3:11. Also עזרה AZARAH, 'gallery', as in Ezekiel 43:14.”
The first Hebrew word which you transcribe as “QETER” would derive from a proto-semitic root *כתר according to the examples in the various semitic languages and according to the rules derived therefrom one can dogmatically state that the words כתר 'crown', עטרה ATARAH, 'wreath', and עזרה AZARAH, 'gallery have no etymological relationship (which is normally what we mean when we say words are “related”) because כ does not evolve into ע,   in the semitic languages nor does ת become ט and also ז.

The words “shoe” and “sandal” have a similar meaning in English (i.e. have overlapping semantic fields), but are not “related” in the sense linguists use the word.
Raymond G. Harder

Forgive the length of my posts, but like H.L. Mencken said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Cuneiform Translation

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Raymond G. Harder:

1. You wrote: “[Y]ou seem to equate Chedorlaomer of Gen. 14 with Ugarit King Niqamddu II. On what basis? There is NOTHING in the text of Genesis about Niqamddu and there is NOTHING in the Ugaritic literature about Chedorlaomer. Next, on what basis do you equate the hebrew מֶלֶךְ עֵילָם with the Ugaritic mlk ‘lm =מלך עלם? The manuscript tradition of the Bible is 100% in agreement in reading this as the place name “Elam” rather than some form of the semitic root עלם . Your interpretation would require rejecting the massoretic text of the Hebrew bible as well as the Dead sea scrolls, all manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint, all manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, and all manuscripts of the Syriac Peshitta texts which universally read עֵילָם as the geographic proper name Elam and not the semitic root for “eternal” as you interpret it. (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your ambiguous transliteration represents a semitic ע rather than an א.) Therefore according to good methodology in textual criticism, one can fairly dogmatically state that the 100% of the manuscript tradition (i.e. ALL external evidence) goes against your view.”

(a) The interior yod/Y in MLK ‘YLM looks like plene spelling, doesn’t it? In defective spelling, wouldn’t we expect to see MLK ‘LM? Chapter 14 of Genesis has many archaic elements, including many linguistic archaic elements, so we would expect the earliest alphabetical version of Chedorlaomer’s title to use defective spelling. Accordingly, it’s likely that a post-exilic editor added in that interior yod/Y, under the guise of merely updating defective spelling to plene spelling, but having as its real motivation the removal of an apparent blasphemy. The earliest alphabetical version probably had six letters, MLK ‘LM, using defective spelling, but to a post-exilic copy-editor those six letters [taken originally from six cuneiform signs] looked like a blasphemous title, a title fit for YHWH Himself, but grotesquely out of place for evil Chedorlaomer: “King Eternal” or “King Forever”.

Note in this regard I Kings 1: 31, which features both MLK, and ‘LM spelled without an interior vav/W: ’DNY H-MLK DWD L- ‘LM. [A somewhat similar phrase appears at Nehemiah 2: 3, but there the word “eternal” or “forever” has an interior vav/W, per plene spelling.]

It’s perhaps worth pointing out that, regarding mainstream scholarship, the Blue Letter Bible states as to Chedorlaomer’s title, ‘YLM: “probably from ‘LM”. Though the Blue Letter Bible of course does not challenge the conventional view that you espouse of chapter 14 of Genesis, nevertheless that is one support for the proposition that, on the l-i-n-g-u-i-s-t-i-c front, it is possible that ‘YLM may be a plene spelling variant of the defective spelling ‘LM.

Now compare Ezra 8: 7 with Ezra 10: 2: the former uses the spelling ‘YLM, whereas the latter uses the spelling ‘WLM. Thus we see that it is possible to get ‘YLM and ‘WLM mixed up in Biblical Hebrew. I am suggesting that the original, defective spelling of both such words/names was likely ‘LM, with neither an interior yod/Y nor an interior vav/W. In that connection, we see the following interesting statement at p. 743d of BDB: “ ‘YLWM v. ‘WLM sub ‘LM.” Indeed, for the Hebrew word ‘WLM, meaning “eternity”, etc., BDB starts out at p. 761 with its guideword actually being just ‘LM, and gives cognates in other languages on that basis.

The point is that one likely scenario is that in the oldest alphabetical version of Chedorlaomer’s title, after MLK came only three letters, ‘LM, being defective spelling for either ‘WLM or ‘YLM. It was likely a post-exilic copy-editor who took it upon himself to add in the interior yod/Y that we see in the received text, precisely because he couldn’t stand the thought of evil Chedorlaomer being thought to be referred to as “King Eternal” [and of course such post-exilic copy-editor knew no Ugaritic, that’s for sure].

Do you see how weak your purely linguistic argument is [before we get to my super-strong historical arguments]? Many mainstream sources [for example BDB and Blue Letter Bible] recognize that at times, all three of the following may interchange in Biblical Hebrew: ‘LM vs. ‘YLM vs. ‘WLM. Your linguistic argument thus has little or no force that allegedly under no circumstances could Chedorlaomer’s title be thought to possibly have originally been ‘LM. Even if the original Biblical author meant to refer to the country of Elam [which I don’t think he did], still in chapter 14 of Genesis, which is very old and replete with linguistic archaisms, we would expect defective spelling, and hence the expected spelling of “Elam” in chapter 14 of Genesis might well, in that context, be ‘LM. If you’re a fair-minded person [which you strike me as being], I think you may agree that it’s a realistic possibility that the earliest alphabetical Hebrew rendering of Chedorlaomer’s title is not the plene spelling that we see in the received Masoretic Text, but very likely could have been ‘LM. If so, then Chedorlaomer’s title in Hebrew letters is MLK ‘LM, and his title in Ugaritic letters would in that case be mlk ‘lm, being a kingly phrase that is well-attested at Ugarit.

(b) Let’s now move on to historical considerations. Do you have any non-biblical support for the proposition that a king of the land east of Babylon was ever referred to historically as MLK ‘YLM? Prior to exilic times, no such title is ever historically attested [outside of the Bible] for any king from that locale, is it?

(c) If you agree with virtually all analysts that “Tidal” is a bona fide Hittite kingly name, why would you think that a Hittite king would unite with a king of Elam? Such a thing never happened historically, did it? But wasn’t a Hittite king [Suppililiuma], who had seized the Hittite throne by the dastardly expedient of murdering his own older brother named “Tidal”, called into central and western Syria in Year 13 [with Genesis 14: 4 referencing “year 13”] by Niqamaddu II, the king of Ugarit? Wouldn’t an expected title for such king of Ugarit be MLK ‘LM, per mlk ‘lm being historically attested in Ugaritic literature?

2. You wrote: “It seems to be your belief that patriarchal traditions of the pentateuch accurately reflect historical events and were preserved in some form of cuneiform by the hebrews. (As I understand your view from this and other posts you would ask us to believe the Hebrews wandered around for centuries carrying ca. 50 cuneiform tablets containing the narratives which were later translated or transcribed into alphabetic Hebrew and then preserved them in the massoretic tradition of the Bible.)”

Yes. That’s likely the kernel of historical truth in the Biblical tradition that Moses’s followers had a small chest that they kept with them at all times, which contained sacred text.

3. You wrote: “ Regardless of the complex and controversial issues of when the biblical accounts were first conceived, how they were preserved, and then written down in the form generally preserved in the extant Hebrew bible; your view is not reflective of the modern scholarly view of the pentateuch.”

Correct. Has any university scholar ever a-s-k-e-d whether “Tidal” may be an apt, pejorative Patriarchal nickname for Hittite King Suppiluliuma, who seized the Hittite throne by the dastardly expedient of murdering his own older brother named “Tidal”? No. Has any university scholar ever a-s-k-e-d whether it would make sense for the king of Ugarit who invited Suppiluliuma into central and western Syria in Year 13 [with Genesis 14: 4 referencing “year 13”] to have as an apt, pejorative Patriarchal nickname, in Ugaritic, the Biblical name and title: kdr l ‘mr mlk ‘mr? No. Has any university scholar ever noted that, per the “four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11, the Great Syrian War [sometimes referred to as the Second Syrian War] features a rebellious league of 5 parties that was smashed by a winning coalition of 4 rulers in Year 14 [with Genesis 14: 5 explicitly referring to “year 14”], where the ethnic identification of the four winning rulers matches perfectly: one Ugarit, one Hittite, one Amorite, and one Hurrian? No.

No university scholar has ever a-s-k-e-d any of those questions. So Yes, you’re 100% right in your statement that my “view is not reflective of the modern scholarly view of the pentateuch.”

4. You wrote: “With all due respect, I suggest that if you want the members of this forum to lend their ideas and expertise to help you develop your minority opinion, that you limit your posts to short statements of ideas and EVIDENCE you think supports your beliefs to see if they can stand up to peer review and build upon that over time.”

O.K., here’s a short statement of the EVIDENCE that shows that the “four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11 is an accurate account by an early Hebrew contemporary of the Great Syrian War/Second Syrian War that was fought in Year 14:

(a) The year in which a rebellious league was formed is correct: Year 13.

(b) The year in which the decisive battle was fought is correct: Year 14.

(c) The number of parties in the rebellious league is correct: 5.

(d) The ethnic identities of the 5 rebellious parties are correct: 2 Hurrian with Hurrian names, 2 Hurrian with Akkadian names [symbolised by Hebrew ayin/‘ at the end of their Patriarchal nicknames], and, oddly and tellingly, the 5th party, Tunip, temporarily had no ruler at that time.

(e) The number of rulers in the winning coalition is correct: 4.

(f) The ethnic identities of the 4 winning rulers are correct: 1 Ugarit, 1 Hittite, 1 Amorite, and 1 Hurrian. Note that not a single ruler is from the “east”, being an erroneous reading of the Biblical text by university scholars.

(g) The outcome of the fighting is correct: the winning coalition of 4 rulers totally destroyed the league of 5 rebellious parties, in a men against boys complete mismatch.

(h) The geography of both the opening act for military hostilities, and where the decisive battle was fought, is correct, once one recognizes that the “Valley of Siddim”/valley of fields is the Orontes River Valley, being the breadbasket of central Syria, and “sea the salt” refers to the Mediterranean Sea. The opening act is in the northwest Orontes River Valley near the Mediterranean Sea, as correctly reported at Genesis 14: 3, as several of the rebellious princelings raided defenceless Ugarit there. The main battle is then fought in central Syria in the Orontes River Valley, as correctly reported at Genesis 14: 8. The early Hebrew author then uses artistic license to portray the losing rebellious princelings as getting stuck, in a panicked flight out of Syria, in the pits of bitumen that famously are located on the southern edge of the Beqa Valley, being just south of the southernmost Orontes River Valley, at Genesis 14: 10. [Although the Dead Sea has bitumen floating on top of the water, the Dead Sea has never had pits of bitumen in which fleeing rulers could get stuck.] All of those geographical sites are in Syria and Lebanon, with nothing in chapter 14 of Genesis having anything to do with the southern Transjordan.

Jim Stinehart

Dr. James R. Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Cuneiform Translation

Post by Isaac Fried »

Says Ray Harder:

Etymology is the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings and forms have changed throughout history as languages evolve. An etymological relationship exists when words in two or more different languages from the same language family derived from the same word in the “proto” stage of that family. For example the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet is called Aleph. The etymology of the word Aleph is that it derives from a proto-semitic root *אלף which has to do with word for “Ox.” (Note the asterisk which in standard linguistic methodology indicates that this is a reconstructed form from an earlier stage that no longer exists.) This letter in the earliest Hebrew script in fact looks like an ox. There is no Aleph in Akkadian since Akkadian has no alphabet. However, the noun for ox in Akkadian is alpu and evolved from the same proto-semitic root and therefore Akkadian alpu and Hebrew aleph are said to have an “etymological relationship.” I.e. they both derived from the proto-semitic root *אלף.

Says I:

The Hebrew root אלף ALP has nothing to do with 'ox'. It is out of the question that a Hebrew root can mean ox. the Hebrew root ALP or LP consists of the combination L+P of the uni-literal roots L and P.
The uni-literal root L is the concise form of עלה 'be up, be lofty'. From this root we have the words עלה ALEH, 'leaf', מעלה MA-ALEH, 'rise', and מעלה MA-ALAH, 'step, degree'.
The uni-literal root P is the concise form of עוף UP, 'be up'. Also of אפה APAH, 'bake, bring up the dough'. Also, AP אף 'nose', is from it, and so is עפי APIY, 'branch' as in Ps. 104:12, and also עפעף APAP, 'eyelid'.

Hence אלף means to be tall and thick. From this root we have the Hebrew words ELEP, 'thousand, large number'. Also ALUP, 'a hefty goat' as in Ps. 144:14, and the ALUP 'chief', of Gn.36:15. Also עלף 'to cover up'. Possibly the Alp mountains also got their name from the root אלף.


Isaac Fried, Boston University
Ray Harder
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:59 am

Re: Cuneiform Translation

Post by Ray Harder »

Isaac Fried wrote: Says Ray Harder:

Etymology is the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings and forms have changed throughout history as languages evolve. An etymological relationship exists when words in two or more different languages from the same language family derived from the same word in the “proto” stage of that family. For example the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet is called Aleph. The etymology of the word Aleph is that it derives from a proto-semitic root *אלף which has to do with word for “Ox.” (Note the asterisk which in standard linguistic methodology indicates that this is a reconstructed form from an earlier stage that no longer exists.) This letter in the earliest Hebrew script in fact looks like an ox. There is no Aleph in Akkadian since Akkadian has no alphabet. However, the noun for ox in Akkadian is alpu and evolved from the same proto-semitic root and therefore Akkadian alpu and Hebrew aleph are said to have an “etymological relationship.” I.e. they both derived from the proto-semitic root *אלף.

Says I:

The Hebrew root אלף ALP has nothing to do with 'ox'. It is out of the question that a Hebrew root can mean ox. the Hebrew root ALP or LP consists of the combination L+P of the uni-literal roots L and P.
The uni-literal root L is the concise form of עלה 'be up, be lofty'. From this root we have the words עלה ALEH, 'leaf', מעלה MA-ALEH, 'rise', and מעלה MA-ALAH, 'step, degree'.
The uni-literal root P is the concise form of עוף UP, 'be up'. Also of אפה APAH, 'bake, bring up the dough'. Also, AP אף 'nose', is from it, and so is עפי APIY, 'branch' as in Ps. 104:12, and also עפעף APAP, 'eyelid'.

Hence אלף means to be tall and thick. From this root we have the Hebrew words ELEP, 'thousand, large number'. Also ALUP, 'a hefty goat' as in Ps. 144:14, and the ALUP 'chief', of Gn.36:15. Also עלף 'to cover up'. Possibly the Alp mountains also got their name from the root אלף.
Isaac,Isaac, Isaac,

Please take your own advice and stick to your own areas of expertise. You make multiple blatantly erroneous statements and you assert them dogmatically without citing your sources/evidence and without any evidence of understanding of basic Hebrew linguistics.

You state "The Hebrew root אלף ALP has nothing to do with 'ox'." This is simply not true. Why is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, Aleph, a pictograph of an Ox in the ancient script? Look at any Iron Age Hebrew inscription and you can clearly see that the early Hebrew aleph is an Ox head. You need no special expertise to look at ALL of the evidence to see this. Look at any history of the alphabet and you will see that alphabets derive their first character from a picture of an Ox. I suppose it is a matter of semantics whether or not to call it a "Hebrew root." I would say it is more precise to say that the proto-semitic root from which the Hebrew word Aleph derives is *אלף. The same root evolved into 'alpu in Akkadian where it means "ox." I don't recall if there are words in Ugaritic, Aramaic, Phoenician, Syriac, Arabic etc. that mean Ox, but it wouldn't surprise me. The Hebrew word Aleph most definitely DOES have to do with 'ox.' Look it up in any modern dictionary that contains etymologies.

You state "the Hebrew root ALP or LP consists of the combination L+P of the uni-literal roots L and P." This is nonsense. There is no such thing as a Hebrew triliteral root made from the combination of "uni-literal roots." If a word has three consonants, it generally has a triliteral/triconsonantal root it is not made up of three uniliteral roots combined. You cannot make statements like "the Hebrew root ALP or LP consists..." it is EITHER the triliteral root ALP or the biliteral root LP, it can't be both. If there were words from "the triliteral root ALP" or "the biliteral root LP" they would be unrelated to each other. The aleph in a proto-semitic root does not just simply drop out and then evolve from the biliteral root LP from that point in history on. The Hebrew word Aleph, like almost all Hebrew words, has a triliteral/triconsonontal root. The three consonants are: אלף The uniliteral roots and other words you cite have NOTHING to do with this discussion. You cite עלה , מעלה , מעלה ,עוף ,אפה ,אף ,עפי ,עפעף , עלף which are ALL from different roots. Look them up in any standard Hebrew dictionary if you doubt me.

ALL the evidence supports my original statement. You have adduced ZERO amount of evidence to the contrary. Forgive me if my statements are too harsh. I don't mean them to be, but your statements are so dogmatic and demonstrably wrong.
Raymond G. Harder

Forgive the length of my posts, but like H.L. Mencken said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Cuneiform Translation

Post by Isaac Fried »

Says Ray
You state "The Hebrew root אלף ALP has nothing to do with 'ox'." This is simply not true. Why is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, Aleph, a pictograph of an Ox in the ancient script? Look at any Iron Age Hebrew inscription and you can clearly see that the early Hebrew aleph is an Ox head. You need no special expertise to look at ALL of the evidence to see this.

Says I
1. I am sorry, but I am afraid you are committing the cardinal etymological error of confusing the Hebrew root (root!) with the Hebrew word (word!). The Hebrew root אלף ALP has nothing to do with 'ox', the same way the Hebrew Root כפר KPR has nothing to do with 'lion', the כפיר KPIYR of Judges 14:5 notwithstanding.

Are the Swiss Alps האלפים השויצריים the swiss oxen? Is the ALUP TEYMAN אלוף תימן of Gen. 36:15 the ox of Yemen? Are the ALPEI MNA$EH אלפי מנשה of Dt. 33:17 the oxen of Mnasheh? Is the ALUP N'URIYM אלוף נעורים of Prov. 2:17 the ox of youth?

Admittedly, the ALUP of Jer. 11:19 and Ps. Ps. 144:14 is apparently a goat or an ox, and hence possibly the name ALEP אליף? for the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, which indeed looks like the picture of the head of a horned beast.

2. The Hebrew word EL אל 'god', is from the Hebrew uni-literal root L, 'up, lofty, elevated'. The Hebrew word AP אף 'nose, is from the Hebrew uni-literal root P, 'up'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Ray Harder
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:59 am

Reply to Jim Stinehart

Post by Ray Harder »

Jim, (may I address you informally and directly? No disrespect is intended.)
You have a theory which you yourself admit is counter to virtually ALL modern scholars who have made careers studying the literature and linguistic milieu that form the backdrop of your ideas. It is incumbent on you therefore to gather factual and especially “hard” evidence and to make logical deductions therefrom and to use that evidence in a logical and systematic way. You must also defend your interpretations of, and your deductions from, any relevant evidence or arguments adduced by others in a sound manner. You must show them as not factual or not relevant in the case of evidence and not logical or not relevant in the case of arguments.

Even though your ideas are not accepted or conventional, I took my time to help you develop your theory. I did take the time (decades) to educate myself formally to be qualified to address such ideas which apparently you have not. Therefore the burden is on you to be especially careful and methodologically sound in your presentation. You cannot dismiss me by simply characterizing my arguments as “purely linguistic” and “weak” because they go against your theory. My comments were not “purely linguistic” (so what if they were? You seem to be dismissing the entire field of linguistics with that statement) and you have not even attempted to demonstrate in any way that they were “weak” (with a couple of minor exceptions). Name ONE of my statements that was factually incorrect. You simply cannot dismiss my evidence and arguments because you do not agree with them because they go contrary to your theory --which is nothing more than your apparently self educated opinion until you develop and defend it systematically.

Rather than addressing a single one of my points systematically with hard evidence or even good logic, you dismissively caricature them as “purely linguistic and weak” and then you go off on another long, rambling, tirade that doesn’t address a single one of the facts or arguments I raised and further cloud the issues with your own self educated opinions. Did I make factual statements? Name one example where my evidence were not facts. Let’s see if we can take this out of the realm of your opinions and deal with your ideas in a way that can help you.
Jim Stinehart wrote: The interior yod/Y in MLK ‘YLM looks like plene spelling, doesn’t it? In defective spelling, wouldn’t we expect to see MLK ‘LM?
Jim Stinehart wrote: “If you’re a fair-minded person [which you strike me as being], I think you may agree that it’s a realistic possibility that the earliest alphabetical Hebrew rendering of Chedorlaomer’s title is not the plene spelling that we see in the received Masoretic Text, but very likely could have been ‘LM.”

It would be helpful if you used Hebrew characters or a more careful transliteration scheme for your examples. When you mean מלך עלם you shouldn’t use MLK ‘LM because (at least on my computer) the vertical single quote beginning the second word is ambiguous. It could be either a transliteration of א or ע and the difference between these two letters is often critical to these discussions.

Let me address your first statements in reverse order for clarity. Yes, IF מלך עילם is a case of plene spelling then we would expect the defective spelling to be מלך עלם. As to your first statement “The interior yod/Y in MLK ‘YLM looks like plene spelling, doesn’t it?” I would reply no, not if we accept your theory that this is a Hebrew parallel to the attested Ugaritic phrase (expressed in Hebrew characters for clarity) מלך עלם and we read the second word as a form of the Hebrew עֹלָם. If we accept your proposal, we would expect the plene of the Hebrew form of the word for eternal to be עולם as elsewhere in the Hebrew bible. (Can you cite a single exception?) Therefore it “looks like plene spelling” of Elam not עֹלָם. (I am not sure, strictly speaking, that I would call this a plene form at all, but that is largely irrelevant.) The fact is that what we have as hard evidence is what would be expected from the g.n. Elam regardless of whether we regard it as plene. This true of the entire Hebrew bible as in the other examples that you yourself cite. (E.g. Neh. 2:3 I Kg 1:31 Ezra 8:7 Ezra 10:2) The only thing that these verses evidence that is relevant and in support of your theory is Ezra 10:2 which proves scribes were not perfect spellers by misspelling Elam (note however that the ancient scibes caught the misspelling in this instance and corrected it!)

You can make a statement like “scribes sometimes misspelled. (See Elam in the Hebrew text of Ezra 10:2)” and then follow it up with something like “I believe that Gen. 14:1 has been universally misinterpreted by ancient and modern scribes and scholars because I believe מלך עילם is a misspelling for מלך עלם which although unique in the Hebrew bible should be recognized as the Hebrew equivalent of the Ugaritic phrase מלך עלם meaning eternal king.” This is called a scholarly emendation, but until you gain a good scholarly reputation it will not be taken seriously.

I do not accept your conclusion or your methodology. You ask me to speculate about what “could have been” rather than addressing the “facts of what is” that I brought up. Let me reiterate my original point (which is derived from the only physical hard evidence we have and can not be characterized as “purely linguistic” or “weak.”) Let’s stick to the facts. Like it or not this is at the the core of our discussion and is central to the only hard EVIDENCE we have. I am assuming that you believe your theory can stand up in the face of the facts and sound arguments as well as long, rambling, dogmatic assertions of your self educated opinion which is all you have done to support it so far.

You do not seem to be willing to do the hard work of defending a new theory. No matter how long and dogmatic your assertions, your theory will never gain any acceptance without the hard work. Let’s try to be systematic about this and to stick to the facts.

Rather than long dogmatic replies containing your theories, please discipline your replies to simple yes or no responses to the following statements about a key component of your theory.

1. Do you agree with me that based on ALL of the Hebrew manuscript traditions (I.e. ALL Masoretic texts and ALL the Dead Sea Scrolls) the reading in question at Genesis 14:1 is מלך עילם This is a fact is it not? Yes or no? This is a fact based statement and neither “linguistic” or “weak.”

2. Do you agree that ALL of the ancient (e.g. LXX, Targumim, Vulgate, Peshitto, etc.) and ALL modern versions (e.g. KJV, RSV, NAB, NASB, etc.) read the second word as the place name Elam? Again, I request that you limit yourself to yes or no so we can have a starting point to dialogue. Again, this is a fact based statement and neither “linguistic” nor “weak.”

Do you agree that you equate Chedorlaomer of Gen. 14 with Ugarit King Niqamddu II even though the later is never mentioned in the Hebrew text and the former is never mentioned in the Ugaritic texts? Yes or no? You have not shown ONE example of Niqamddu mentioned in the Hebrew bible or ONE example of Chedorlaomer mentioned in the extant Ugaritic literature.

4. Do you agree that the kings mentioned in Gen. 14:1 all are all mentioned in the form “King of...” followed by a place name unless one accepts your view that מלך עילם  is “King of...” followed by some form of the Hebrew word for eternity and is equivalent to the Ugaritic formula מלך עלם and thus an exception to the formula in the rest of the verse? Yes or no?

Do you agree that your interpretation of  עילם depends on reading it as a plene spelling of the root  עלם meaning eternal or something? This is speculation again. Can you adduce ONE other example from the Hebrew bible of a word meaning “eternal” or something spelled  עילם?

Do you agree that you have not adduced ONE example from the Hebrew bible of a Hebrew parallel to the attested Ugaritic phrase מלך עלם meaning “Eternal king” or something similar?


If you are a fair minded person you must agree that the answer to these 6 questions is yes.

Jim Stinehart wrote: “The earliest alphabetical version probably had six letters, MLK ‘LM, using defective spelling, but to a post-exilic copy-editor those six letters [taken originally from six cuneiform signs]...”
The earliest alphabetic texts would indeed have had six letters if spelled defectively and IF we accept your idea that this is a Hebrew parallel to the attested Ugaritic phrase (expressed in Hebrew characters for clarity) מלך עלם. (Be careful not to assume your conclusions in your arguments.) However, you cannot deduce that even if this is true that these six alphabetic characters come from six cuneiform characters! This betrays your lack of knowledge of cuneiform. Unless you are suggesting that the patriarchal narratives were written in Ugaritic. (which is to my recollection the ONLY alphabetic cuneiform) In other cuneiform traditions signs were syllabic or logographic and would be represented by multiple signs when transliterated into an alphabetic writing system. Therefore it is most certainly untrue that six cuneiform signs would be represented by six alphabetic signs! There is not a 1:1 relationship between cuneiform and alphabetic writing systems. Anyone who has actually read ancient texts in their original forms is going to tend to dismiss your arguments and ideas when you make untrue statements like this.
In conclusion I must restate my original points which you have not addressed.
Ray Harder wrote: You seem to equate Chedorlaomer of Gen. 14 with Ugarit King Niqamddu II. On what basis? There is NOTHING in the text of Genesis about Niqamddu and there is NOTHING in the Ugaritic literature about Chedorlaomer. Next, on what basis do you equate the hebrew מֶלֶךְ עֵילָם with the Ugaritic mlk ‘lm =מלך עלם? The manuscript tradition of the Bible is 100% in agreement in reading this as the place name “Elam” rather than some form of the semitic root עלם . Your interpretation would require rejecting the massoretic text of the Hebrew bible as well as the Dead sea scrolls, all manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint, all manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, and all manuscripts of the Syriac Peshitta texts which universally read עֵילָם as the geographic proper name Elam and not the semitic root for “eternal” as you interpret it. (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your ambiguous transliteration represents a semitic ע rather than an א.) Therefore according to good methodology in textual criticism, one can fairly dogmatically state that the 100% of the manuscript tradition (i.e. ALL external evidence) goes against your view.
Raymond G. Harder

Forgive the length of my posts, but like H.L. Mencken said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Ray Harder
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:59 am

Re: Cuneiform Translation

Post by Ray Harder »

Isaac Fried wrote: Says Ray
You state "The Hebrew root אלף ALP has nothing to do with 'ox'." This is simply not true. Why is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, Aleph, a pictograph of an Ox in the ancient script? Look at any Iron Age Hebrew inscription and you can clearly see that the early Hebrew aleph is an Ox head. You need no special expertise to look at ALL of the evidence to see this.

Says I
1. I am sorry, but I am afraid you are committing the cardinal etymological error of confusing the Hebrew root (root!) with the Hebrew word (word!). The Hebrew root אלף ALP has nothing to do with 'ox', the same way the Hebrew Root כפר KPR has nothing to do with 'lion', the כפיר KPIYR of Judges 14:5 notwithstanding.

Are the Swiss Alps האלפים השויצריים the swiss oxen? Is the ALUP TEYMAN אלוף תימן of Gen. 36:15 the ox of Yemen? Are the ALPEI MNA$EH אלפי מנשה of Dt. 33:17 the oxen of Mnasheh? Is the ALUP N'URIYM אלוף נעורים of Prov. 2:17 the ox of youth?

Admittedly, the ALUP of Jer. 11:19 and Ps. Ps. 144:14 is apparently a goat or an ox, and hence possibly the name ALEP אליף? for the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, which indeed looks like the picture of the head of a horned beast.

2. The Hebrew word EL אל 'god', is from the Hebrew uni-literal root L, 'up, lofty, elevated'. The Hebrew word AP אף 'nose, is from the Hebrew uni-literal root P, 'up'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Isaac,

Perhaps our differences are terminological. The roots from which a word evolves are reconstructions based on what we see in latter records. Roots had a form and also a semantic range (which I am calling “meaning”). When these roots evolve into words, both the form and the meaning can and do evolve with them. It is NOT an “etymological error” cardinal or otherwise to say that the word aleph designating the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet evolved from a proto-semitic root with the form אלף* and with the meaning having something to do with ox. It is not true that all words which evolved from this proto-semitic root have the meaning ox because meanings evolve over time. Thus two words from the same root may have different meanings. For example, I think the words matinee in English and the french word matin share the same Indo-european root having something to do with “morning,” but by the time the root evolves into modern english a “matinee” has to with an afternoon performance. It is also not true that two words in Hebrew that share the three consonants which form the etymology of one have the same etymology in both.

I did NOT say that all Hebrew words with the three letters אלף are from the same root. Thus your example of the Swiss Alps האלפים השויצריים is totally irrelevant because although it is a word used in modern Hebrew and it shares three consonants with Aleph, it is clearly NOT a native word that shares an etymology with Aleph. It comes from an Indo-European root (its etymology) because it is borrowed from an Indo-European language. (I am assuming, though I do not know, that the word “Alps” here is Indo-european.) The Hebrew word האלפים meaning “Alps” has nothing to do with ox and shares a different etymology from aleph the name of the first letter of the alphabet.

I would say that your example from Judges 14:5 is relevant where contrary to your assertion that “כפר KPR has nothing to do with 'lion’,” in fact it does and shows that its etymological root had the meaning lion. Those same root letters have the meaning ‘village’ in various semitic languages and therefore we an deduce that there was another root with same three consonants that meant village. Thus the place name Capernaum (‘village of Naum’) which shares the same three consonants as words meaning ‘lion’ has a different etymology.

Because the word for thousands in Dt 33:17 shares the consonants with the Hebrew aleph, ‘A’/Ox, they may or may not share an etymology, and even if they do, it can have a meaning that has evolved into something different and even unrelated to Ox.

The same points can be made to address your other examples.

I am not sure of your point or the relevance when you say “The Hebrew word EL אל 'god', is from the Hebrew uni-literal root L, 'up, lofty, elevated'. The Hebrew word AP אף 'nose, is from the Hebrew uni-literal root P, 'up'.” Look them up in any good dictionary and you will find that neither of these statements are correct. Neither word evolves from a uni-literal root. If they did, the second consonant would not simply drop out as the word evolved from its etymological root.

Ray
Raymond G. Harder

Forgive the length of my posts, but like H.L. Mencken said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Post Reply