Cuneiform Translation

[Ray Harder]

Says I
I think I start to have a glimpse into this creationist-evolutionist linguistic dogma.

This is a bizarre characterization of all modern linguistic methodologies. I don’t understand how the words “creationist-evolutionist” can be used in any way to describe my summaries of modern linguistic conclusions. I have spent dozens of hours responding to what I thought was an honest desire to learn something on your part. I have taken great care to break it down into the simplest terms without infusing any personal beliefs or opinions of my own. If you wish to remain blissfully ignorant of linguistics and you are arrogant enough to believe your views are superior to all Hebrew scholars then have at it. I will gladly join the ranks of all the other scholars on this list who apparently simply ignore you.

So it goes: In the beginning there was "proto-Semitic", the very basic of all (Semitic) languages --- the lowest strata of languages (namely, there was no "proto-proto-Semitic").

I never stated or implied that the stage of language reconstructed by careful consideration of the evidence and which in fact creates a rigorous framework that in fact explains the later evidence was the lowest strata of the language. There was indeed a “proto-proto-Semitic” as evidenced by the fact that the earliest forms of human language
evolved into not only the Semitic but also Hamitic, Indo-european, etc. branches of languages. Human language evolved along a very long continuum.

This root language (Ursprache) was the language the Semitic Adam spoke the moment he opened his eyes to contemplate the wonders of the brand new world around him. This "proto" language came replete with ready-made (since there was no "proto" to this prototypical tongue) words, all "built around" an invariant, meaningful in itself, "skeleton" (an icon?) of three consonants (invariably three?). These words are the "etymological" roots (roots!!! Eureka! I got it! or maybe not yet, but am at least on the way.)

The “Semitic Adam” would have learned the language like any other child as it existed at his point along the continuum. The roots were not “invariably three,” but as still exists in modern Hebrew, the root is usually three consonants if the word evolves and is not borrowed from some other language family.

As soon as Adam cast his eyes on his king, all resplendent in an ermine robe, and with a golden crown upon his head, he unhesitatingly exclaimed *AMEILEKUEY (or something to this effect.) The "original" pre-stored word just squeezed itself subconsciously from the long-term memory cells of the brain and propitiously dropped itself upon the tip of his tongue.

It is no more likely that your “Semitic Adam” would have made up the word *AMEILEKUEY spontaneously than any other child. He would have learned it from his mother or a teacher at school or from a friend on the street much like a kid learns a new word in any language today. How did the word originate? It was probably “coined” by an individual at some point on analogy from other words current in the language as it existed at that time. It might have been borrowed from another language or evolved from a root with a similar meaning to the new word required.

Later on, this word "evolved" (how, is not revealed to us) into the "Akkadian" MALIKU (or something to this effect), 'king'. Hence, the "proto-Semitic" *AMEILEKUEY, "built around" the invariant "skeleton" of the three consonants MLK, is the "etymological" root of the "Akkadian" MALIKU.
Then, the keen eyes of our Semitic Adam fell upon the mighty lion, and he instantly exclaimed *EMIEILIEKUEII. This word is the "etymological root" of the "evolved" word AMLEK, identically "built around" the "skeleton" of the three consonants MLK, yet being a "different" MLK, because a king and a lion are certainly not the same thing.

It evolved as any word evolves in any language. If you travel to a neighborhood in the south of England today or to the island of Barbados or even some inner cities in the US, you will hear English that is nearly unintelligible to you as a native speaker of English as the English language first evolves into dialects which will eventually become so mutually unintelligible that they can be classified as “new” words in “new” languages.

Then, the keen eyes of our Semitic Adam fell upon the mighty lion, and he instantly exclaimed *EMIEILIEKUEII. This word is the "etymological root" of the "evolved" word AMLEK, identically "built around" the "skeleton" of the three consonants MLK, yet being a "different" MLK, because a king and a lion are certainly not the same thing.

Why would he make up a word based on the root for king if he were talking about a lion? The evidence suggests that he would have exclaimed something like *EKIEIFIERUEII based on a root *KFR meaning lion (If we were to grant your reconstruction --the vowels of which you postulated in a way no trained linguist or Hebraist would, but which I quote from your reconstruction.)

[Ray Harder]

“You believe that 1.) Gen. 14:1[-11] represents real historical events that were originally recorded before the Israelite monarchy in a non-alphabetic cuneiform writing system

[that is essentially identical to the cuneiform of the Amarna Letters, except that Hebrew/pre-Hebrew words were recorded in cuneiform, not Akkadian words]

This is still somewhat unclear. Cuneiform is a writing system. Akkadian is a language. The Amarna letters are written in the cuneiform “script” rendering a dialect of the Akkadian language. Are you suggesting that the patriarchal stories were written in an early form/dialect of the Hebrew language in a cuneiform script? Would you argue that this script was alphabetic like that used to render Ugaritic? Or syllabic like that used to render Akkadian?

So here’s your theory of the etymology of “Elam” in a nutshell: “Hebrews would have heard a name and done their best to represent what they heard in Hebrew characters. ...[T]hey would transcribe the word as they heard the sounds. א and ע had VERY different sounds and are generally NOT interchanged in the Hebrew textual tradition or any traditions derived therefrom.”

I agree 100% with this key assertion of yours: “the sounds. א and ע had VERY different sounds and are generally NOT interchanged in the Hebrew textual tradition or any traditions derived therefrom.”

So we agree here.

That then brings us back to the key point noted earlier. The Akkadian ending on Elamtu might be dropped in the Hebrew rendering, leaving in shortened form Elam. But the expected way to render the Akkadian true vowel E in Hebrew would be (i) in plene spelling, as aleph-yod [with no ayin!], or (ii) in defective spelling as aleph [not ayin!]. That’s my point. If the received text had either aleph or aleph-yod, then that could easily be how the Hebrews heard the Akkadian vowel sound E at the beginning of “Elam”. But No, what the received text has is ayin-yod, which just doesn’t fit any non-biblical name for Elam.

Absolutely NOT! You are assuming that the word borrowed into Hebrew as Elam began with a vowel, viz. long “E.” (“the Akkadian true vowel E”) it clearly DOES NOT. How do you explain the initial ayin which is universal in the Hebrew tradition. This renders a CONSONANT and NOT a vowel! It is Ayin throughout the Hebrew Bible and in other semitic languages like the Syriac עילם which also renders it with an Ayin and not an Aleph. As does the Samaritan Pentateuch. עילם

The bible continues to render Elam with an Ayin throughout the biblical period when Elam would have been still spoken of in living memory. e.g. Ez. 32:24 The Hebrew bible renders the place name Elam with an Ayin exactly as expected. Is Elam ever mentioned in Ugaritic? I no longer have access to my Ugaritic texts, but I’d bet that if Elam is mentioned at Ugarit, it would be transliterated with the Ugaritic ayin.

You argue that it is ayin and should be rendered as a form of the word “eternal” parallel to Ugaritic MLK (LM and at the same time Elam would have been from an initial aleph representing a vowel if it were Elam here. Even though the geographic name Elam is universally rendered with ayin as in Gen 14:1 You seem to be arguing that ALL the Hebrew texts misspelled Elam with an Ayin under the influence of this one mistake at Gen14:1 How do you then explain Gen 10:22 which ostensibly was written before 14:1?

You seem to agree, based on what you wrote in #6 above, that the relevant non-biblical names for Elam are Elamtu, Hatalmti, Hatamti, elammatum or NIM. None of those names would begin with ayin-yod. You explicitly assert, in no uncertain terms, that “Hebrews would have heard a name and done their best to represent what they heard in Hebrew characters. ...[T]hey would transcribe the word as they heard the sounds. א and ע had VERY different sounds and are generally NOT interchanged in the Hebrew textual tradition or any traditions derived therefrom.”

Yes, in fact all of these Akkadian names are universally rendered Ayin yod.

Perhaps you and I can now agree that the alphabetical original was ‘LM. If so, then that fits my argument perfectly. MLK ‘LM is mlk ‘lm in Ugaritic, and Ugarit is the only place in human history where that phrase, mlk ‘lm, was routinely applied to kings. We know that, historically, the king of Ugarit was intimately linked to a Hittite king in Years 13-14, just as Genesis 14: 1-11 says. We also know that never in history did a king of Elam ally with a Hittite king to put down a rebellious league near Canaan. So the context strongly supports my view that MLK ‘LM primarily is referencing mlk ‘lm in Ugaritic, and is not referencing, non-historically and nonsensically, Elam. The linguistic key, which is the proper focus of the b-Hebrew list, is to note that ayin-yod simply won’t work as a reasonable spelling of Elam, although all of the following would work: ’LM, ’YLM, ‘LM. So please give up on your view that ‘YLM was the original alphabetical writing of Chedorlaomer’s kingly title. Such view is not plausible either linguistically or historically.

Whether the original was (YLM or (LM all of the evidence clearly points to an initial Ayin when this place name was first rendered into Hebrew. Your “historical arguments presuppose your conclusions and are therefore circular again.

Scholars have recognized that, although not the most expected case, it is possible that “e in Akkadian could represent an ayin in Hebrew”. Dan Leven and Beno Rothenberg, in Ada Rapoport-Albert, Gillian Greenberg, “Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts” (2001), p. 107. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no support for the proposition that the Akkadian true vowel E could be rendered by ayin-yod in Hebrew.

You seem to contradict yourself here. First you adduce the evidence then in the next sentence you deny that any evidence exists! What am I missing? Besides, if I read your citation correctly, it is talking about how Akkadian renders Hebrew, NOT how Hebrew renders Akkadian. So isn’t this irrelevant?

Ray

[Jim Stinehart]

Ray Harder:

1. You wrote: “Cuneiform is a writing system. Akkadian is a language. The Amarna letters are written in the cuneiform “script” rendering a dialect of the Akkadian language. Are you suggesting that the patriarchal stories were written in an early form/dialect of the Hebrew language in a cuneiform script? Would you argue that this script was alphabetic like that used to render Ugaritic? Or syllabic like that used to render Akkadian?”

The script was the standard cuneiform script of the Amarna Letters, having nothing to do with the alphabetical script of Ugarit. The common words were not Akkadian words, as in the Amarna Letters, but rather were early Hebrew words (usually called “Canaanite”). There are about 40 Amarna Letters from south-central Canaan, which is where the Patriarchs are portrayed as most often sojourning when they are in Canaan (and which is the locale where most Biblical authors lived). The Amarna Letters are well-known for “the presence of numerous Canaanite glosses”. Of the approximately 40 Amarna Letters from south-central Canaan, seven of them contain west Semitic glosses: Amarna Letters EA 252; EA 264; EA 282; EA 292; EA 294; EA 297; EA 366. Furthermore, it is clear that a scribe in 1st millennium BCE Jerusalem who was tasked with transforming the cuneiform originals into alphabetical Hebrew, who could read Akkadian-style cuneiform, would have little trouble in matching “Canaanite” words from the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Letters to classical Biblical Hebrew words of 1st millennium BCE Jerusalem:

“The Semitic dialect in which [the Amarna] letters are written…is, in some important details, closely related to the Hebrew of the Old Testament. …Canaanite is the name which has been given to the native dialects spoken by the vassals of Amenophis [pharaoh Akhenaten or his father] in Syria and Palestine. They closely resemble the Hebrew of the Old Testament.” Sir Ernest Alfred Wallis Budge, “The Tell-el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum” (1892), p. xiii.

2. You wrote: “Absolutely NOT! You are assuming that the word borrowed into Hebrew as Elam began with a vowel, viz. long “E.” (“the Akkadian true vowel E”) it clearly DOES NOT. How do you explain the initial ayin which is universal in the Hebrew tradition. This renders a CONSONANT and NOT a vowel! It is Ayin throughout the Hebrew Bible and in other semitic languages like the Syriac עילם which also renders it with an Ayin and not an Aleph. As does the Samaritan Pentateuch. עילם”

I myself am fine with that. But I thought you were saying that ‘YLM in the received text was the Hebrew rendering, by sound, of a shortened form, “Elam”, of the Babylonians’ name, “Elamtu”, for their eastern neighbour? You seem to be abandoning the foreign name “Elam” as the basis for the ‘YLM in the received text. I am course am fine with that, but now you’re abandoning the views of university scholars, and I don’t where you are going to go.

3. You wrote: “You seem to be arguing that ALL the Hebrew texts misspelled Elam with an Ayin under the influence of this one mistake at Gen14:1 How do you then explain Gen 10:22 which ostensibly was written before 14:1?”

Genesis 10: 22 was not composed or recorded in writing until umpteen centuries after Genesis 14: 1 was recorded in cuneiform writing. The Patriarchal narratives are the oldest part of the Bible.

But we’re drifting off the point here. You need to tell us where the ‘YLM in the received text originated. You seem to have abandoned “Elam”, and you have definitively abandoned the Hebrew common word “conceal”. As such, you have now abandoned the scholarly explanations of ‘YLM. Welcome to my world. But what then is y-o-u-r explanation of the ‘YLM at Genesis 14: 1?

4. You first noted my assertion that: “Elamtu, Hatalmti, Hatamti, elammatum or NIM… None of those names would begin with ayin-yod.” You then made the following shocking claim: “Yes, in fact all of these Akkadian names are universally rendered Ayin yod.”

Hello, hello! Where are you getting that from? Ayin-yod would be used to mimic the sound ah-yi. So for example ‘YN, meaning “eye”, starts out ah-yi. But none of the following foreign names for the country east of Babylon has an initial sound that is remotely like ah-yi: Elamtu, Hatalmti, Hatamti, elammatum, NIM. That’s my point, you see.

5. You wrote: “Whether the original was (YLM or (LM all of the evidence clearly points to an initial Ayin when this place name was first rendered into Hebrew.”

The antiquity and historical accuracy of the Bible depends in part on whether the earliest alphabetical versions of Genesis 14: 1 had ‘LM, instead of the ‘YLM that we see today in the received text. If and only if the earliest alphabetical versions had ‘LM, starting with an ayin and having no yod, then, and only then, is there a perfect match to the well-attested Ugaritic kingly title: mlk ‘lm. That in turn enables the “four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11 to be a p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t accurate historical record, by an early Hebrew contemporary, of the Great Syrian War in Years 13-14. There’s nothing about Elam or the Dead Sea in chapter 14 of Genesis. Nothing.

I sense that you are semi-conceding my #1 point, which is that it’s more likely than not that the earliest alphabetical versions of Genesis 14: 1 had ‘LM. ‘YLM could not possibly be the Hebrew sounding out of the foreign name “Elam”. Nor is there any other foreign name that’s closer to ‘YLM. ‘LM will work for both of us, but ‘YLM simply will not work.

Jim Stinehart

Dr. James R. Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Isaac Fried]

Says Ray
This is a bizarre characterization of all modern linguistic methodologies. I don’t understand how the words “creationist-evolutionist” can be used in any way to describe my summaries of modern linguistic conclusions.

Says I
That is what it appears to be. "Proto-Semitic" being a created language, and Hebrew having been evolved from it.

Says Ray
If you wish to remain blissfully ignorant of linguistics and you are arrogant enough to believe your views are superior to all Hebrew scholars then have at it.

Says I
Show me what the views of modern "linguistics" are and I will tell you if I am willing buy into them. I can tell you right away that "proto Semitic" is, in my opinion (and I am sure there are others who think likewise), a myth. Every "conclusion" predicated on the existence of this foggy legendary language is null and void.

Says Ray
There was indeed a “proto-proto-Semitic” as evidenced by the fact that the earliest forms of human language evolved into not only the Semitic but also Hamitic, Indo-european, etc. branches of languages. Human language evolved along a very long continuum.

Says I
This is interesting; there was, after all, a "zero-level" language that "evolved", on the one hand, into Hebrew (passing via Proto-Semitic), and on the other hand, into French.

Says Ray

The “Semitic Adam” would have learned the language like any other child as it existed at his point along the continuum.

Says I
Ah! So there was not only "Proto-Semitic", but a whole "continuum Semitic".
I hope you can see for yourself into what a mythological morass we are sinking with this "continuum".

Says Ray
How did the word originate? It was probably “coined” by an individual at some point on analogy from other words current in the language as it existed at that time.

Says I,
This is very good, I like it and agree with it whole heartedly. So, "in the beginning" or "once upon a time" Hebrew possessed the word אליף ALIYP, 'big beast'. This word is made up of the root (aka "skeleton") ALP plus the personal pronoun IY, short for היא 'he', namely the beast itself, inserted between the radicals L and P. Then came the poet laureate of his time, and for the glory of the language, "coined", by analogy, the word אלוף ALUP, 'big man, grandee'. This word is also "built around" the root ALP, yet now with the PP U, short for הוא 'he', namely the man itself, inserted between the radicals L and P. His delighted listeners readily understood who is meant by the "ALUP" at the head of the tribal council. Then, "somebody" else came along and introduced, still by analogy, the word ELEP, 'thousand, herd, big number'. Then came the seafaring Sidonians who upon seeing the majestic mountains of central Europe decided right there and then that this mountain is certainly the ALUP of all ALIYPIYM.

So far so good, but we are still being left with the nagging question as to the "origin" of the original word ALIYP that materialized in Hebrew apparently ex nihilo, sans analogy. Wherefrom did this word enter into Hebrew, was it invented out of thin air? Did the word come from the primordial soup of "Proto-Proto-Semitic" and then worked itself into the evolving "continuum". Or, otherwise, did God whisper it into Adam's ear. Or, did "somebody" just liked the sound of it? Is this how words are made?

Says Ray
If you travel to a neighborhood in the south of England

Says I
English is not Hebrew. Hebrew is a root based language with a transparent "grammar". I know how an Englishman will maul his mishmash language if left alone for a historical instant.

Says Ray
Why would he make up a word based on the root for king if he were talking about a lion?

Says I
He made it by analogy.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Ray Harder]

The script was the standard cuneiform script of the Amarna Letters, having nothing to do with the alphabetical script of Ugarit. The common words were not Akkadian words, as in the Amarna Letters, but rather were early Hebrew words (usually called “Canaanite”). There are about 40 Amarna Letters from south-central Canaan, which is where the Patriarchs are portrayed as most often sojourning when they are in Canaan (and which is the locale where most Biblical authors lived). The Amarna Letters are well-known for “the presence of numerous Canaanite glosses”. Of the approximately 40 Amarna Letters from south-central Canaan, seven of them contain west Semitic glosses: Amarna Letters EA 252; EA 264; EA 282; EA 292; EA 294; EA 297; EA 366. Furthermore, it is clear that a scribe in 1st millennium BCE Jerusalem who was tasked with transforming the cuneiform originals into alphabetical Hebrew, who could read Akkadian-style cuneiform, would have little trouble in matching “Canaanite” words from the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Letters to classical Biblical Hebrew words of 1st millennium BCE Jerusalem:

“The Semitic dialect in which [the Amarna] letters are written…is, in some important details, closely related to the Hebrew of the Old Testament. …Canaanite is the name which has been given to the native dialects spoken by the vassals of Amenophis [pharaoh Akhenaten or his father] in Syria and Palestine. They closely resemble the Hebrew of the Old Testament.” Sir Ernest Alfred Wallis Budge, “The Tell-el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum” (1892), p. xiii.

Thank you for the clarification of your views of how the patriarchal traditions would have been written down in the mid second millennium BC. Your view seems entirely consistent with your theory.

Let me correct/clarify some of your statements about the Amarna tablets because there may be some in this forum that might be misled by a couple of things. First, I no longer have my copy of Budge’s Amarna book and you edited the quote a little, but it appears from your quote that he is saying that the Amarna tabets were written in a Canaanite dialect closely related to Hebrew. Budge was a brilliant student of the ancient near east who has received a lot of bad press in recent years because his stuff is very out of date. I did own and read Budge’s book decades ago but have very little recollection thereof, but I would be really surprised if he believed that the Amarna letters were written in a Canaanite dialect closely related to Hebrew as your edit implies. I have read VERY little of the Amarna letters in Akkadian, and it has been over 30 years, but I can state very dogmatically that the Amarna letters were NOT written in a dialect of Hebrew or Canaanite. My recollections are consistent with the general scholarly consensus that the Amarna texts were written in AKKADIAN by scribes whose native language was some dialect of Canaanite. As you stated, the Amarna letters have a distinct feature which is unlike Akkadian texts in general, viz. the scribes wrote marginal comments (usually referred to as “glosses”) translating words (and some short phrases??) from the Akkadian in which they were writing into a local Canaanite dialect which would in fact “closely resemble the Hebrew of the Old Testament.” I believe a careful reading of Budge would show that that was what he was referring to and NOT the language of the Amarna texts in general. Even IF he did make that assertion (and it is my vague recollection that he did not), I would amend his statements on the basis of subsequent scholarship and my own limited, but personal, experience to say emphatically that the language of the Amarna texts is Akkadian and NOT a language that “closely resembles Hebrew.” (Anymore than say, German, “closely resembles” English.)

You seem to be abandoning the foreign name “Elam” as the basis for the ‘YLM in the received text. I am course am fine with that, but now you’re abandoning the views of university scholars, and I don’t where you are going to go.

I am sorry that I wasn’t clear. I am in absolute agreement with the MT of the Hebrew bible, all of the versions, and the consensus of modern scholarship that עילם renders the place name “Elam” throughout the Hebrew bible on the basis of what the Hebrews heard from other, probably Akkadian traditions. I suspect that by the time of the writing of the Hebrew bible, Elam would have been a known place and the word would have been current in the Hebrew language and there would have been no need to “borrow” it anew.

Genesis 10: 22 was not composed or recorded in writing until umpteen centuries after Genesis 14: 1 was recorded in cuneiform writing. The Patriarchal narratives are the oldest part of the Bible.

This is a VERY problematic part of your theory. Any beginning Hebrew student can easily read the first 2 chapters of Job, but suddenly as one reads further, the language becomes very archaic and poetic and very difficult to read because of its antiquity. Its like reading your newspaper and then suddenly coming across an extended quote from Shakespeare or even Chaucer.

After reading widely in the Hebrew bible, one gets a feel for the language (what the Germans call Sprachgefühl). Then one comes across a passage that “feels” old. Not only does Genesis 14 and the patriarchal narratives in general not “feel” old, but it does not contain archaic features exhibited in other parts of the Hebrew bible that are fairly universally recognized as older. (E.g. the “Song of Moses” in Exodus 15, the “Song of Deborah” in Judges 5, the “Blessings” of Jacob and Moses in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 respectively, the “Oracles of Balaam” in Numbers 23 & 24, the “Poems of Moses” in Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 68, etc.) If one chooses to ignore this “gut level” approach, one can more systematically analyze the language of these passages for more archaic features of morphology and vocabulary that are found therein. The are innumerable treatments of these passages in the commentaries and the scholarly literature. You will find it a long arduous and uphill battle if you attempt to assert your view of the antiquity of the language of the patriarchal narratives contrary to most scholars.

But what then is y-o-u-r explanation of the ‘YLM at Genesis 14: 1?

I accept the fairly universal view of both ancient and modern students of this passage that the when the Hebrews first heard this name from other languages (regardless of whether it was spoken in Akkadian or Elamite or Ugaritic, or...?) they heard an Ayin followed by a long “e” vowel resulting in the universal spelling ‘YLM as we find it 100% of the Hebrew literature (though vocalic variants exist as expected in an expanding scribal tradition) and 100% of the versions derived therefrom.

You first noted my assertion that: “Elamtu, Hatalmti, Hatamti, elammatum or NIM… None of those names would begin with ayin-yod.” You then made the following shocking claim: “Yes, in fact all of these Akkadian names are universally rendered Ayin yod.”

Hello, hello! Where are you getting that from? Ayin-yod would be used to mimic the sound ah-yi. So for example ‘YN, meaning “eye”, starts out ah-yi. But none of the following foreign names for the country east of Babylon has an initial sound that is remotely like ah-yi: Elamtu, Hatalmti, Hatamti, elammatum, NIM. That’s my point, you see.

No, your examples and reconstructions are not relevant. (ah-yi would probably be rendered by an alphabetic language with three consonants and two vowels --thus five consonants in the plene stage of the language.) I don’t think “eye” is rendered ah-yi in Akkadian. (But that is irrelevant.) Here the Hebrews simply heard an ayin followed by an e-class vowel, Which was the consonant plus vowel cluster (syllable) “(E” in Akkadian/Ugaritic/Elamite or whatever. They then rendered this syllable alphabetically with probably just ayin and the added yod to indicate the vowel they heard when Hebrew began to use “matres lectiones” (plene spelling) to indicate vowels later in the Hebrew scribal tradition. (For the sake of discussion, I am granting your assumption that this foreign place name was borrowed and transliterated very early and then developed along with the Hebrew scribal tradition.)

If and only if the earliest alphabetical versions had ‘LM, starting with an ayin and having no yod, then, and only then, is there a perfect match to the well-attested Ugaritic kingly title: mlk ‘lm.

Yes, if the earliest text had ‘LM as expected in defective spelling of Elam at an early stage then the consonants are the same as those in the Ugaritic word ‘LM. But it is a huge leap in logic and contrary to ALL of the evidence to speculate that this is a unique Hebrew parallel to the Ugaritic “Eternal king.” This is nothing more than speculation. All of the actual Evidence is that this is in fact a defective spelling of Elam and only an acceptance of your unique theory would even cause us to start speculating that this is a unique Hebrew attestation of an earlier Ugaritic phrase. Without your theory this obviously a simple case of a defective spelling of Elam and this is indeed how it is read by ALL who do not presuppose your theory. This is not evidence it is speculation based on circular reasoning. You can’t presuppose your theory, find things that fit your theory, and then call them evidence for your theory.

That in turn enables the “four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11 to be a p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t accurate historical record, by an early Hebrew contemporary, of the Great Syrian War in Years 13-14. There’s nothing about Elam or the Dead Sea in chapter 14 of Genesis. Nothing.

You then build on your speculation by moving into more speculation presupposing your earlier point. You dogmatically state that there is “Nothing” about Elam in Gen 14 when in fact there clearly is unless one grants your earlier (contrary to the universal interpretation and EVIDENCE) speculation.

I sense that you are semi-conceding my #1 point, which is that it’s more likely than not that the earliest alphabetical versions of Genesis 14: 1 had ‘LM.

Yes I concede the point, as I consistently have, that ‘LM would be a defective way of spelling Elam before the scribal practice of “matres lectionis” would have added a yod ‘YLM.

‘YLM could not possibly be the Hebrew sounding out of the foreign name “Elam”. Nor is there any other foreign name that’s closer to ‘YLM. ‘LM will work for both of us, but ‘YLM simply will not work.

As I have consistently said, and as ALL of the ancient and modern Evidence consistently demonstrates, ‘YLM not only is possible when Hebrew sounded out Elam, it is what the early Hebrews did in fact do. Only if we accept your speculations is this an issue. If we look at ALL of the evidence, it is internally consistent and supported by ALL of the linguistic and textual evidence

[Ray Harder]

Says I
Ah! So there was not only "Proto-Semitic", but a whole "continuum Semitic".
I hope you can see for yourself into what a mythological morass we are sinking with this "continuum".

So you not only reject out of hand all of modern linguistics, but you reject the idea that all languages evolve along a continuum. This is a “mythological morass” rather than a self evident truth for all human languages? So the language of Chaucer did not evolve into the language of Shakespeare and then into the language of any US newspaper today? A child in Shakespeare’s day learned and spoke a language that was not along the continuum between The Canterbury Tales of Chaucer and Toni Morrison’s novel Beloved. This whole idea of languages evolving along a continuum is in fact “a mythological morass” and not a self evident fact virtually universally accepted by professional linguist and educated people who have seriously considered human languages?

Says I
Show me what the views of modern "linguistics" are and I will tell you if I am willing buy into them. I can tell you right away that "proto Semitic" is, in my opinion (and I am sure there are others who think likewise), a myth. Every "conclusion" predicated on the existence of this foggy legendary language is null and void.

You have made it clear that not only do you reject modern linguistics, but you are not willing to take a class or even read a scholarly book on the subject of the Hebrew language or comparative semitics, etc. etc. Ok, I get it now. You reject the notion of “proto-semiitic” not only because you have never read a single modern comparative semitics published by a scholar, but you also spend time with “others who think likewise.” Just how did you all come to these conclusions contrary to modern scholarship? And if you reject modern academia, what exactly are your views of human languages? So Semitic languages did not evolve from “proto-semitic” and French and English did not evolve from “proto-indo-european” neither did Chinese evolve from “proto-sino-tibetan.” So God just spoke (I wonder what language He used?) to “Proto-Adam,” “proto-John,” ‘proto- Jacque,” and “proto-Ling-Fu” who had never spoken or understood a language before and they woke up speaking fluent Hebrew, English, French, and Chinese respectively. Oh, and obviously all their friends had the same experience in the middle of the night (Otherwise the poor men would have no one to speak with). Thus languages are “born” ex-nihilo from God Himself, the great linguist in the sky so we can ignore all that bothersome science-like post-enlightenment stuff like the whole mythology of modern “linguistics” and most especially that nonsense about “proto-languages.”

Says I,
This is very good, I like it and agree with it whole heartedly. So, "in the beginning" or "once upon a time" Hebrew possessed the word אליף ALIYP, 'big beast'. This word is made up of the root (aka "skeleton") ALP plus the personal pronoun IY, short for היא 'he', namely the beast itself, inserted between the radicals L and P. Then came the poet laureate of his time, and for the glory of the language, "coined", by analogy, the word אלוף ALUP, 'big man, grandee'. This word is also "built around" the root ALP, yet now with the PP U, short for הוא 'he', namely the man itself, inserted between the radicals L and P. His delighted listeners readily understood who is meant by the "ALUP" at the head of the tribal council. Then, "somebody" else came along and introduced, still by analogy, the word ELEP, 'thousand, herd, big number'. Then came the seafaring Sidonians who upon seeing the majestic mountains of central Europe decided right there and then that this mountain is certainly the ALUP of all ALIYPIYM.

So far so good, but we are still being left with the nagging question as to the "origin" of the original word ALIYP that materialized in Hebrew apparently ex nihilo, sans analogy. Wherefrom did this word enter into Hebrew, was it invented out of thin air? Did the word come from the primordial soup of "Proto-Proto-Semitic" and then worked itself into the evolving "continuum". Or, otherwise, did God whisper it into Adam's ear. Or, did "somebody" just liked the sound of it? Is this how words are made?

Now this is another really fascinating explication of your personal theories of the development of the Hebrew language. The ancient Hebrews formed words from roots (which of course had no meaning) interdigitated with personal pronouns! So that’s where those pesky vowels come from! What a marvelous and unique view! (But I thought you didn’t believe that etymological roots existed?) Oh, I get it! Those internal vowels are really pronouns that have magically lost that occasional and annoying consonant, but retained their “meaning” which mixed with meaningless groups of consonants to form a word with “ex-nihilo” a new meaning.

Says Ray
If you travel to a neighborhood in the south of England

Says I
English is not Hebrew. Hebrew is a root based language with a transparent "grammar". I know how an Englishman will maul his mishmash language if left alone for a historical instant.

Ah, so Hebrew and English are both human languages, but Hebrew is unique among languages and superior thereto. (Linguistic Zionism! How marvelous.)

By rejecting all modern linguistics one can make marvelous statements like:

Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:10 am
This שנער $INAR is possibly a variant of שניר SNIYR of Deut. 3:9. The SI in these names is possibly שיא 'summit', as in שיאון of Deut. 4:48, and also in mount ציון CIYON. The SIN in these names is possibly שן 'tooth', as in mount סיני SINAY, and צין CIYN. The AR ער is, indeed, possibly a slurred HAR, 'mountain'.

and

Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:22 pm

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).

by simply connecting words together that sound similar when transliterated into Latin characters. Why bother with learning linguistics when you can just make up connections between words that sound good together and call them related?!? By simply rejecting all scholarship out of hand, it frees us to make things up and with the magic of the Internet we can subject many others to our views. Maybe if we are joined by others who have not been biased by an education, we can form a community right here in cyberspace and happily exchange our views without being bothered by all those pesky facts and we can just reject outright any consensus arrived at by academic groups outside of our little cybercircle.

Well, you have made it very clear that you believe that your views are superior to those of all other educated people and I am clearly annoying you with facts and summaries of scholarship, please forgive me. (I am flattered that you think that modern scholarly conclusions are my ideas, but I cannot take credit for the last 300 years of scholarship.)

[Isaac Fried]

Says Ray,
by simply connecting words together that sound similar when transliterated into Latin characters.

Says I
Sorry to say, but he who denies that הר שיאון HAR SION of Deut. 4:48 is from שיא SIY, 'summit, top', as in Job 20:6, in turn from the act נשא (related to נסע 'traveled') NASA, 'lift', of which נשיא 'elevated', surely does not, in my opinion, understand what Hebrew is all about, and no amount of "modern linguistics" (nor reading the HB "seven times cover to cover") will help him there.
And the same goes for HAR CION הר ציון the שיא of hilly Jerusalem; and the variant ("analogous") words קדרה QDERAH 'walled cooking pot, vessel' and גדרה GDERAH, 'enclosure, fenced area, holding pen'.

Says Ray
By simply rejecting all scholarship out of hand, it frees us to make things up and with the magic of the Internet we can subject many others to our views.

Says I
Yes. First we reject all scholarship out of hand, then we hand pick only what we think is true. The internet has indeed given us the opportunity to freely express our dissenting opinions, free of the tyranny of the supreme arbiters of all sorts of funny disciplinary knowledge.
What you refer to so reverently as "scholarship", may be no more than the perpetuation by "consensus" of pure baloney.

Says Ray
So the language of Chaucer did not evolve into the language of Shakespeare and then into the language of any US newspaper today?

Says I
We are talking Hebrew not English. Hebrew is a root based language with a natural grammar.
If you want to talk about Hebrew, then explain to me how Hebrew changed with time along the Semitic linguistic continuum. Show me what "proto-Semitic" used to look like. You still owe us an explanation as to the origin of the Hebrew word אליף ALIYP, 'big beast'. What was under it in the big stack of this "Semitic continuum" maelstrom?
It is easy to vaguely mumble about “proto-languages”, but we want to see them. Show us "proto-Hebrew".

Says Ray
but you are not willing to take a class or even read a scholarly book

Says I
Not so. I have just recently read (or rather forced myself to read) Maya Arad's book Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-syntax, but I need now to let my stomach calm down for some time before undertaking another such disturbing reading.

Says Ray
Now this is another really fascinating explication of your personal theories of the development of the Hebrew language. The ancient Hebrews formed words from roots (which of course had no meaning) interdigitated with personal pronouns! So that’s where those pesky vowels come from! What a marvelous and unique view!

Says I
I did not say that root is meaningless. I said to you before that, in my opinion, the root LP means 'tall and thick', but then you came back and said that you can not find it in your dictionary. I say it is a big mistake to use a dictionary. When I grew up we had no Hebrew dictionary at home nor in school. I did not even know that there is such a thing as dictionary. All we had at home was some prayer books and a Hebrew bible, which we used to read nightly.

The "pesky vowels" are personal pronouns (except for A which is for the flow of air.) The "vowel" U in the word ALUP is the contracted personal pronoun הוא HU, 'he'. Namely ALUP is 'he which is lofty and thick'. HU with a consonant can not be inserted among the radicals lest the root be modified. Also, it is possible that in your "proto-Semitic" the personal pronoun was merely U (as it is in spoken Hebrew today, namely, U AMAR LI, 'he said to me'), and then it "evolved' into the longer independent HU. It is obvious that the end U in, say, שברו $ABRU is also a contracted personal pronoun.
Consonants are routinely discarded in attached personal pronouns. For instance, it is obvious (at least to me) that the word שברתם $BARTEM, 'you have broken' is the combination שבר אתם $ABAR + ATEM, but where did the א of ATEM (which in my opinion is AT+HEM) go? It was thrown out of the window for the sake of word compactness. Likewise, the word לשמרם L$AMRAM of Jos. 10:18 is obviously the combination ל שמר הם LE-$AMR-HEM, but where did the ה H of HEM go? It was thrown out of the window for the sake of word compactness. Similarly, the word שמרתני $MARTANIY of Job 10:14 is obviously the combination שמר אתה אני $AMAR + ATAH + ANIY, 'you guarded me', but where did the א and ה of אתה and the א of אני go? They were all thrown out of the window for the sake of word compactness.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[George Athas]

On behalf of the moderators:

This thread is going nowhere fast. Either make some substantive progress in discussion, or else we'll close down the thread. Thank you.

[Jim Stinehart]

Ray Harder:

1. Sorry if my explanation of “Canaanite” in the Amarna Letters was not clear. With the exception of “glosses”, the Amarna Letters are written in Akkadian, not in Canaanite, as to common words. [In cuneiform, there is not necessarily a distinction between Akkadian and Canaanite in recording proper names.] The only Canaanite common words in the Amarna Letters are the “glosses”. If you look at those Canaanite “glosses” from the mid-14th century BCE, and if you know late 7th century BCE Jerusalem standard Biblical Hebrew, then you can make out at least 80% of the glosses. The endings are completely different, and the glosses show vowels, but the underlying west Semitic words changed very little.

The reason why that is important regarding how the Patriarchal narratives could have been recorded in cuneiform shortly after Akhenaten’s death is that those glosses show that the scribes in south-central Canaan, though usually writing Akkadian common words, were fully capable of alternatively writing Canaanite/early Hebrew common words instead. As you know, the Patriarchal narratives are replete with clever west Semitic puns to no end. Such written puns would make little or no sense if recorded using Akkadian common words. Thus it is more likely than not that when the tent-dwelling Hebrews commissioned a scribe (probably the former scribe of Hurrian princeling IR-Heba of Jerusalem) to record the Patriarchal narratives on about 50 cuneiform clay tablets, the instructions were that such scribe was to use Canaanite/pre-Hebrew common words, not Akkadian common words, in recording the Hebrews’ sacred story in cuneiform.

2. You wrote: “Not only does Genesis 14 and the patriarchal narratives in general not “feel” old, but it does not contain archaic features exhibited in other parts of the Hebrew bible that are fairly universally recognized as older.”

Indeed, the grammar and spelling of most of the Patriarchal narratives [excluding Jacob’s poetic Blessings] is virtually indistinguishable from that of II Samuel. How can that be?

In the beginning, the Patriarchal narratives were recorded, using Canaanite/pre-Hebrew common words, in cuneiform shortly after Akhenaten’s death. The vast bulk of the Patriarchal narratives was not transformed into alphabetical Hebrew until so ordered by King Josiah in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem. In transforming the cuneiform writing into alphabetical Hebrew writing at that time and in that place, it is little surprise that the Jewish scribes made the sensible decision that as to common words, the spelling and grammar current in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem would be used. That is why the spelling and grammar of common words in most of the Patriarchal narratives is virtually indistinguishable from that of II Samuel, with II Samuel having been composed and recorded in alphabetical writing at about the same time and in the same place as most of the Patriarchal narratives were, for the first time, transformed from cuneiform writing into alphabetical Hebrew.

The great antiquity of the Patriarchal narratives is still readily apparent, however, based on the following two key factors: (i) the substantive content, which is redolent of Year 13 in all ways, and (ii) the proper names which, unlike common words, were for the most part [subject to the rare exception of Chedorlaomer’s title, which seemed blasphemous on its face and for that reason was updated to ersatz plene spelling by a post-exilic copy-editor] left as is. So with the rare partial exception of Chedorlaomer’s kingly title, the proper names in the Patriarchal narratives are redolent of Year 13. I agree with you that a linguistic analysis of the common words in the bulk of the Patriarchal narratives [ignoring substantive content and proper names] would suggest a late 7th century BCE Jerusalem time and place. That’s because that is where and when the Patriarchal narratives, originally recorded in cuneiform, were transformed into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew. If you can read II Samuel or even Chronicles, you can read most of the Patriarchal narratives.

3. You wrote: “I accept the fairly universal view of both ancient and modern students of this passage that the when the Hebrews first heard this name from other languages (regardless of whether it was spoken in Akkadian or Elamite or Ugaritic, or...?) they heard an Ayin followed by a long “e” vowel resulting in the universal spelling ‘YLM as we find it 100% of the Hebrew literature…. Here the Hebrews simply heard an ayin followed by an e-class vowel, Which was the consonant plus vowel cluster (syllable) “(E” in Akkadian/Ugaritic/Elamite or whatever. They then rendered this syllable alphabetically with probably just ayin and the added yod to indicate the vowel they heard when Hebrew began to use “matres lectiones” (plene spelling) to indicate vowels later in the Hebrew scribal tradition.”

(a) Thank you for effectively conceding that the earliest alphabetical writing of Chedorlaomer’s kingly title was likely MLK ‘LM, having no interior yod/Y, with the interior yod/Y that we see in the received text having been added much later. Honestly, that’s the main point that you and I have been discussing on this thread. If the original writing was MLK ‘LM, then that fits perfectly with my theory that the primary meaning of that kingly title could have been intended to be the Ugaritic kingly phrase mlk ‘lm.

You later explicitly say: “Yes I concede the point, as I consistently have, that ‘LM would be a defective way of spelling Elam before the scribal practice of ‘matres lectionis’ would have added a yod ‘YLM.” That key concession means that it is linguistically possible that MLK ‘LM was meant to recall the Ugaritic kingly title mlk ‘lm. Whether that linguistic possibility was or was not the actual intent of the Biblical author of Genesis 14: 1 cannot be determined solely on a linguistic basis; rather, we need to ask if it makes more sense for Chedorlaomer to be from Ugarit than to be from Elam.

Responding now to a point that you raise a little later in your post, never in history did a king of Elam ally with a Hittite king to put down a rebellion in or near Canaan. But in the Great Syrian War, which occurred during the “Year 13” and “Year 14” that are specifically referenced at Genesis 14: 4-5, the king of Ugarit did indeed invite the most powerful Hittite king of all time, who had come to power by murdering his older brother named “Tidal” [the exact historical spelling, per Ugaritic alphabetical spelling], into west-central Syria. So if MLK ‘LM was intended to recall the Ugaritic kingly title mlk ‘lm, and if each Biblical name of a member of the winning coalition can readily be viewed as being an apt, pejorative Patriarchal nickname, then e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g about Genesis 14: 1-11 fits historically, based on non-biblical sources, to the Great Syrian War. By contrast, if MLK ‘LM was intended to reference far-off Elam, which was never relevant to the Hebrews until post-exilic times, then the “four kings against five” is not only not historical, but also it’s nonsensical on its face, as no king of Elam ever united with a Hittite king to put down a rebellion in or near Canaan.

(b) Returning now to your own analysis of ‘YLM, I don’t see how you can talk about “consonant plus vowel cluster” regarding any known non-biblical name for the country east of Babylon, such as Elamtu, elammatum, Hatamti, Hatalmti, or NIM. There is no “consonant plus vowel cluster” there. The pronunciation of the Hebrew word for “eye” starts out ah-yi, hence the spelling ‘YN [which is not updated plene spelling, but rather is the original spelling], featuring ayin-yod as the first two Hebrew letters. But there’s no ah-yi sound at the beginning of Elamtu, elammatum, Hatamti, Hatalmti, or NIM. In order for you theory of the case to work, you would need to identify a non-biblical ancient name for the country east of southern Mesopotamia that begins either with ah-yi or with a “consonant plus vowel cluster”. To the best of my knowledge, there is no non-biblical name for that country like that.

But honestly, all I really need is the concession you have now made that the early alphabetical spelling of Chedorlaomer’s kingly title likely was MLK ‘LM, with no interior yod/Y. Given that, there is no linguistic or other impediment to my proposed match of the “four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11 to the Great Syrian War.

Jim Stinehart

Dr. James R. Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois