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 »

Ray Harder:

You wrote: “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.”

1. On the linguistic side, we don’t know if the original alphabetical version of Chedorlaomer’s title had 6 Hebrew letters or 7 Hebrew letters. A realistic possibility in that regard is that it had 6 Hebrew letters in the earliest alphabetical rendering, using defective spelling, and a post-exilic editor, centuries later, added in that interior yod/Y. In order to determine whether that realistic possibility is more likely than not, one needs to turn to history to see if, given that possibility, Genesis 14: 1-11 would then be a pinpoint historically accurate account of the Great Syrian War/Second Syrian War in Year 14.

2. As to cuneiform, an examination of the dozens of Hurrian proper names in the Patriarchal narratives reveals that except for the use of prosthetic aleph, the text consistently uses one Hebrew letter for one cuneiform sign. In the vast majority of cases, a CV or VC cuneiform sign is rendered by simply the consonant in alphabetical Hebrew. Yes, there are exceptions, but at least as to Hurrian names, such exceptions are rare in the Patriarchal narratives.

3. Since you seem to semi-admit that it’s possible that Chedorlaomer’s kingly title in the first alphabetical version may have been MLK ‘LM [with ‘ representing ayin], what’s needed now is to ask if, given that possibility, Genesis 14: 1-11 would then match up with astonishing historical accuracy to what indeed happened in the Great Syrian War/Second Syrian War in Year 14. In that connection, I think it’s helpful for me to set forth one scholarly view of this military conflict. [There is a surprisingly great divergence of views by historians as to the particulars of this military conflict. What is set forth below is o-n-e mainstream scholarly view. Moreover, the early Hebrew author, though a contemporary of the event, was not omniscient, and could not have a scribe record in writing more than what the early Hebrew author himself actually knew about this important military conflict just north of Canaan.] As we will now see, the scholarly account below meshes very nicely with what Genesis 14: 1-11 portrays as being “the four kings against five”:

“[T]he Syrian states [in central Syria] were seriously considering renouncing their oath to [Hittite King Suppililiumas]. Addu-nirari of Nukhashshe wrote [Egyptian pharaoh] Akhenaten directly, and [ii] Akkizzi of Qatna interceded on behalf of other Nukhashshe kings, requesting to be taken back into the pharaonic fold, while [iii] Tunip besought the king for a ruler of its own. Finally, the conspirators took action: [iv] Ituraddu of Mukishe, Addu-nirari of Nukhashshe, and [v] Aki-teshup of Niya formed an ad hoc league [of 5 rebellious princelings], renounced their vassalage to Khatte [the Hittites], and attempted to force Niqmaddu II of Ugarit to join them, on pain of invasion. But now came the unexpected. Niqmaddu…made a volte-face and appealed, not to Pharaoh, but to the Hittite king to extricate him from this dilemma. Suppiluliumas was not slow to seize the opportunity. …[T]roops were dispatched to drive out the rebel army from Ugaritian territory. …Suppiluliumas…crossed into Nukhashshe and took up residence, probably in Niya. …Etakama [Aitakkamma, the Hittite puppet ruler of Qadesh-on-the-Orontes]…led a small detachment of Hittite troops to ravage the district. …Aziru [the Amorite princeling ruler of Amurru in northern Lebanon] sent his own troops to assist Etakama against Amki and Upe, and he himself occupied Tunip [so that the winning coalition consisted of four parties].” Donald B. Redford, “Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times”, Princeton University Press (1992), pp. 175-176.

Note first the particulars as to the five (5) parties that formed the rebellious league in Year 13. Two of the names are pure Hurrian names: Akkizzi and Aki-teshup. Two of the names are Akkadian-based names of ethnic Hurrians: Addu-nirari and Ituraddu. Finally, “Tunip besought the king for a ruler of its own”; that is to say, oddly enough that rebellious Hurrian party had no princeling ruler at the time.

Genesis 14: 2 is the same. Two Patriarchal nicknames are pure Hurrian names: “Shinab” and “Shemeber”. Two Patriarchal nicknames are Hurrian names to which an ayin has been tacked on at the end: “Bera” and “Birsha”. With Hurrian having no ayin, that is an orthographic device to show that these are ethnic Hurrians who had Semitic-based names. [30% of the names of Hurrians at Nuzi are Akkadian-based names.] Finally and tellingly, the fifth rebellious Hurrian party had no princeling ruler at the time, so the Bible simply refers to “the king of Bela”, without giving any name of the ruler of that place.

Even more exciting than that is to note the ethnic identities of the four (4) members of the winning coalition, who utterly destroyed the league of five (5) rebellious princelings in Year 14 in the “four kings against five”:

(1) “Chedorloamer” is [as has been discussed in some detail on this thread] a nasty Patriarchal nickname in Ugaritic for Niqmaddu II, king of Ugarit: kdr l ‘mr mlk ‘lm.

(2) “Tidal” is the attested precise alphabetical spelling of the name of the older brother of mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma, who had ruthlessly murdered that older brother of his in order to seize the Hittite throne. This nasty Patriarchal nickname is deftly branding the Hittite king who invaded Syria “Murderer”. Nice! And nasty.

(3) “Amraphel” is the west Semitic Patriarchal nickname of the Amorite princeling Aziru of Amurru [who was a native west Semitic speaker]. Note that the first three Hebrew letters of this Patriarchal nickname recall both (a) Amorite and (b) Amurru.

(4). “Arioch” is recognized by all as being a bona fide Hurrian name. That’s the Patriarchal nickname for Hurrian princeling Aitakkama of Qadesh-on-the-Orontes, who was a Hittite puppet in Year 13 and tried to rally central Syria to accept Hittite domination.

Now let’s switch to geography. Note first that historically, the Hittites did not attack central Syria directly from the north. Rather, the Hittites first attacked Mitanni to their southeast, and then quickly swept into central Syria from the east. Likewise, note that Biblically the first conquest mentioned in chapter 14 of Genesis is in the east: Ashteroth [Genesis 14: 4], on the northeast edge of the Transjordan. So although the Hittites lived north (not east) of central Syria, nevertheless the Hittites under “Tidal”/Suppililiuma/“Murderer” swept into central Syria from the east, as accurately reported in chapter 14 of Genesis.

Equally stunning is the following geographical reference regarding the military fighting in “the four kings against five”/Great Syrian War/Second Syrian War of Year 14. The “Upe” that Prof. Redford references as the locale of some of the collateral fighting in the Great Syrian War/Second Syrian War is the “Hobah” that is similarly referenced at Genesis 14: 15. Due to confusion as to the cuneiform rendering of this Hurrian name of the Damascus region, the first Hebrew letter in the received text was intended to be he/H, not heth/X, being two Hebrew letters that cuneiform cannot distinguish. As such, the first intended letter [he/H] is the Hebrew word for “the”; the rest of the Biblical name then spells “Ube/Upe” -- the mid-14th century BCE Hurrian-based name that is attested at Amarna Letter EA 189, reverse 12 [from Hurrian princeling Aitakkama, who is Biblical “Arioch”] as being the name of the Damascus region in Year 13.

Thus we see that rather than the Biblical name transliterated as “Hobah” being made up out of whole cloth, as university scholars would have it [since there is no such name with a heth/X in the ancient world], the fact is that once one recognizes that the Patriarchal narratives became a written text in cuneiform a few years after Year 14, one can see that the intended first letter of that mysterious name was actually he/H. As such, it accurately recalls the site of one important ancillary location of fighting in the Great Syrian War/Second Syrian War in Year 14.

Finally, as to the precise dating of the Great Syrian War/Second Syrian War, one reasonable view is that it was Year 13 of Akhenaten’s 17-year reign when a rebellious league of five princelings was formed in central Syria, which began raiding Ugarit, and when Ugarit called in the Hittites for help. It was then Year 14 when the Hittites swept into central Syria and, with some help from their local allies Aitakkama and Aziru (and at the invitation of Ugarit, so that the winning coalition consisted of four parties), totally routed the five rebellious parties as set forth above. In his 2014 book "Ancient Syria", Trevor Bryce (who is the leading expert on the history of the Hittites) sees Akhenaten as reigning 17 years, from 1352 through 1336 BCE inclusive (p. 334), and sees the Great Syrian War as being “fought about 1340” BCE (p. 43). That would put the Great Syrian War in the approximate timeframe of Years 13-14. [Genesis 14: 4 references “year 13”, which is historical Year 13. Genesis 14: 5 references “year 14”, which is historical Year 14.]

If Chedorlaomer’s kingly title had 6 letters in the first alphabetical rendering, namely MLK ‘LM, which in Ugaritic is the well-attested kingly phrase mlk ‘lm, then given that reasonable supposition and the foregoing historical analysis, (i) “Chedorlaomer” is referencing Ugarit King Niqmaddu II, and (ii) more broadly, the p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy of Genesis 14: 1-11 in describing the Great Syrian War/Second Syrian War in Years 13-14 is truly breathtaking.

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
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.

Says I
it is not clear to me what is an "etymological root". Are there roots that are not "etymological"? It is also not clear to me How the word אל EL "evolved" from its "etymological root". Will "any good dictionary" reveal this to me?

Says Ray
a proto-semitic root with the form אלף* and with the meaning having something to do with ox.

Says I
A Hebrew (aka as the legendary proto-semitic) root can not mean 'ox'. This, in my humble opinion, is absolutely out of the question.

Says Ray
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.

Says I
You are back to this "etymological root", that you assert "has the meaning lion". So does the "etymological root" KPR, one among many; the specific "proto-semitic" progenitor of 'lion', has the same meaning as the begotten ("evolved") KPIYR? Are you implying that every such word has its own peculiar "etymological root", consisting of the same consonant cluster, albeit of a "different" meaning? I am sorry, but this is mind boggling. It means that there are at least ten "etymological roots" KPR, to wit, for:
KOPER, 'pitch', of Gen. 6:14
כופר KOPER, 'camphor bush', of Song 1:14
כופר KOPER, 'ransom', of Ex. 21:30
כיפור KIYPUR, 'atonement', of Lev. 23:28
כפורת KAPORET, 'overlay', of Ex. 25:17
כפר KPAR, 'village', of 1Chron. 27:25
כפור KPOR, 'frost, hoarfrost', of Ex. 16:14
כפור KPOR, 'cup?, cover?', of Ezra 1:10
כפיר KPIYR, 'lion', of Judges 14:5

and the post-biblical
כפירה KPIYRAH, 'denial, heresy'.

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

Re: Cuneiform Translation

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Ray Harder:

Since your post focused largely on the interior yod/Y that is present in the received text of Genesis 14: 1 in the name ‘YLM, let me focus on that particular issue in this post.

‘YLM can interchange with ‘WLM. Though the former is the more frequent spelling, consider the following Biblical instances of the latter. At Ezra 10: 2 we see ‘WLM. At Jeremiah 49: 36, this name is first spelled ‘YLM, and then later in that same verse is spelled ‘WLM.

Why is it that ‘YLM and ‘WLM are alternative Biblical Hebrew spellings of this name? Because in the beginning, in defective spelling this name would have been spelled simply: ‘LM. An interior yod/Y functioning as a vowel, and an interior vav/W functioning as a vowel, are inherently plene spelling mechanisms. With chapter 14 of Genesis having more archaic linguistic features than any other non-poetical section of the entire Bible, it makes no sense to think that the earliest alphabetical Hebrew version of this name would have featured plene spelling. Rather, even on a purely linguistic basis, it’s more likely than not that the first alphabetical Hebrew version of this name at Genesis 14: 1 was spelled with only three letters, using defective spelling: ‘LM.

Similarly, note that the Biblical Hebrew word for “city” can be spelled either ‘YR or ‘R. Why? Because ‘R is the older, defective spelling, whereas ‘YR is the later, plene spelling. Though the plene spelling ‘YR predominates in the Bible, here are 4 examples of where one finds the old defective spelling of just ‘R [as the name of a city]: Numbers 21: 15, 28; Deuteronomy 2: 9; Isaiah 15: 1.

Likewise, the Biblical Hebrew word for “naked” can either be spelled in old-style defective spelling as ‘RM, or in plene spelling as ‘YRM. As always, it’s the same word, but the interior yod/Y functioning as a vowel is optional, being plene spelling. Genesis 3: 7, 10, 11 have the plene spelling, ‘YRM. By contrast, Ezekiel 16: 7, 22 have the older defective spelling, ‘RM. Yet Ezekiel 16: 39 has the plene spelling version, ‘YRM.

The point is that whenever one sees an interior yod/Y functioning as a vowel, immediately following ayin/‘, as in the name ‘YLM that we see in the received text of Genesis 14: 1, then one can be sure that that’s plene spelling, and that accordingly there likely was an older, defective spelling that left out that interior yod/Y entirely.
Thus when, at Genesis 14: 1, we see ‘YLM in the received text, that looks like plene spelling. And since chapter 14 of Genesis has so many archaic linguistic features, it’s more likely than not, even on purely linguistic grounds, that the earliest alphabetical Hebrew spelling of that name at Genesis 14: 1 used old-style defective spelling: ‘LM. The interior yod/Y that we see today in the received text was put there later, likely by a post-exilic copy-editor.

It’s true that the word “eternal” was never spelled ‘YLM. I never said or implied that it was. What I am saying, rather, is that (i) it is attested in the Bible that the proper name ‘YLM can alternatively be spelled ‘WLM, and it can be logically deduced that both variants thereof very likely have as their defective spelling ‘LM, and (ii) ‘LM is also the defective spelling of the Hebrew common word “eternal”, whose plene spelling is ‘WLM. The earliest alphabetical text of Genesis 14: 1 very likely had only three letters for this name, ‘LM. As such, it is ambiguous on its face as to (a) whether it meant “Elam”, a proper name whose later plene spelling was ‘YLM, or (b) whether it instead was intended to be the defective spelling version of ‘WLM, being the Hebrew common word “eternal”, or (c) whether it primarily meant ‘lm in Ugaritic, and only secondarily was the defective spelling [‘LM] of ‘WLM/“eternal” in Biblical Hebrew.

Focusing on linguistics, the one thing that is highly likely is that in the earliest alphabetical version of Genesis 14: 1, this name was spelled with only three Hebrew letters: ‘LM. Accordingly, the MLK ‘LM that was there in the earliest alphabetical version of Genesis 14: 1 works perfectly as the attested Ugaritic kingly title mlk ‘lm. If that Ugaritic kingly title was what was intended, then (i) “Chedorlaomer” is a nasty Patriarchal nickname for Ugarit King Niqmaddu II of Ugarit, who invited the dreaded Hittites into central and western Syria in Year 13 as the precipitating factor for the Great Syrian War/Second Syrian War of Year 14, a-n-d (ii) as shown by my prior post, Genesis 14: 1-11 thereby has p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy in describing that important military conflict of Years 13-14.

Jim Stinehart

Dr. James R. Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Ray Harder
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:59 am

Re: Cuneiform Translation

Post by Ray Harder »

Isaac Fried wrote:
it is not clear to me what is an "etymological root". Are there roots that are not "etymological"?
I am not sure what I am not communicating clearly. Let me try again.

First, let me state dogmatically the there ARE roots that are not etymological. In the first week of a Hebrew class we are usually taught that most Hebrew words have a three consonant base or “root.” Nouns are formed from this root by adding various other consonants and vowels after, before, or between these consonants. This is also true of verbal formations. This is simply an observation about the morphology of Hebrew. When we see groups of these words that share a morphological root like מלך “king,” מלכה “queen,” (which is the root with a feminine ending), and מלכות “kingdom” (which is the same root with an abstract ending) which also retain a meaning related to the concept of “royalty.” We expect some common ancestor at an earlier stage of the language. (aka. an “an etymological root.”)

Even if we had no examples of it, we could predict that at a later stage of the language there would evolve a verbal form that would add an aleph before this root (i.e. אמלך֝) forming a Qal imperfect form and meaning “I will reign.” We can say therefore, that there was a proto-semitic root *מלך meaning something like “royal.” We could call it “early proto-Hebrew” or something and this would be true, but misleading, because this stage of the earliest and reconstructed form of this language also evolved the same word/root into meaningful words in other semitic languages such as the Akkadian malku ׁ(“king”); or the Aramaic מלכאת (“king”) or Ugaritic malku. (So it makes no more sense to call it “proto-Hebrew” than to call it “proto-Akkadian” or “proto-Aramaic or “proto-Ugaritic!) Therefore scholars call it proto-semitic at this stage of the language(s).

Thus the first Hebrew letter name “aleph” has the base or root אלף. If we look up ‘aleph” in a technical dictionary like the older BDB, we will find all the words with those consonants as their base. The words in hebrew that translate “thousand” and “chief” which you reference in an earlier post, also share the triconsonantal/triliteral root and would be found under the same three consonants in the dictionary but may or may not be “etymologically” related to the name of the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Just because words share three consonants in common, they may or may not be etymologically related. I personally, cannot imagine a scenario where the “proto-semitic” root root with the form אלף* meaning “ox” could develop into a later form meaning “thousand” so I doubt that aleph, the name of the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet which originally was an actual picture of an ox, developed into a word meaning “1,000.”

An etymological root is simply a word at an earlier stage of the language
Isaac Fried wrote: Says Ray
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 proto-semitic root with same three consonants that meant village. Thus the place name Capernaum (‘village of Naum’) share the same three consonants as words meaning ‘lion’ but clearly has a different etymology.

Says I
You are back to this "etymological root", that you assert "has the meaning lion". So does the "etymological root" KPR, one among many; the specific "proto-semitic" progenitor of 'lion', has the same meaning as the begotten ("evolved") KPIYR? Are you implying that every such word has its own peculiar "etymological root", consisting of the same consonant cluster, albeit of a "different" meaning? I am sorry, but this is mind boggling. It means that there are at least ten "etymological roots" KPR, to wit, for:
KOPER, 'pitch', of Gen. 6:14
כופר KOPER, 'camphor bush', of Song 1:14
כופר KOPER, 'ransom', of Ex. 21:30
כיפור KIYPUR, 'atonement', of Lev. 23:28
כפורת KAPORET, 'overlay', of Ex. 25:17
כפר KPAR, 'village', of 1Chron. 27:25
כפור KPOR, 'frost, hoarfrost', of Ex. 16:14
כפור KPOR, 'cup?, cover?', of Ezra 1:10
כפיר KPIYR, 'lion', of Judges 14:5

and the post-biblical
כפירה KPIYRAH, 'denial, heresy'.

Isaac, it may be “mind boggling” to you, but your examples clearly show that in fact the are at least 10 proto-semitic roots with the same three consonants that had different meanings. What have I said or implied that indicates that there should not be 10 different words that have the same “root” letters and have different etymologies? Why not list 100 examples or 1000? Why is this mind boggling?” It happens in languages all the time. Because of the coincidental feature of semitic languages usually being made up of a three consonant root, we could adduce dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of examples from multiple semitic languages where a group of words share a three consonant “root” but have different “etymological roots.”

There are dozens of good books on the Hebrew language in particular and semitic languages in general that will show you that my assertions are “correct” and common in scholarly circles.

For Hebrew I would recommend a more recent example like Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkal 1982
“A History of the Hebrew Language.”
Or “A History of the Hebrew Language” by Angel Sáenz-Badillos (1993)
Or for the semitic languages in general:
A modern text like “The Semitic Languages”
 edited by Robert Hetzron
or a century old classic like “Introduction to the Semitic Languages: Text Specimens and Grammatical Sketches” By Gotthelf Bergsträsser
All still widely available, I believe.
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 »

Ray Harder:

In order to help determine whether MLK ‘YLM in the received text as Chedorlaomer’s kingly title is plene spelling, which likely had earlier been spelled MLK ‘LM in defective alphabetical Hebrew spelling, let’s start with the following basic explanation of the nature and dating of these two kinds of spelling:

“Before the Exile, for the most part, Israelite orthography was ‘defective’ – with few vowels represented except at the ends of words. After the Exile, ‘plene’ spelling, which used consonants such as h, w and y to represent vowels in medial position, inside words, was far more common. Later spellings – of the plene variety – dominate in [II Samuel], because scribes ‘corrected’ spelling as they recopied scrolls, so that many Dead Sea scroll manuscripts, for example, have very late orthography. This means that plene spellings, with internal vowel letters, are demonstrably late. In the case of biblical books, the spelling may have been updated by late copyists. But defective spellings indicate a preexilic date.” Baruch Halpern, “David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King” (2003), pp. 59-60.

Since chapter 14 of Genesis is filled with archaic linguistic elements, surely we would expect the names and titles of the 9 contending rulers at Genesis 14: 1-2 to have been spelled, in early alphabetical versions of this text, using defective spelling, not plene spelling. If one sees an obvious plene spelling in all versions of the received text, such as ‘YLM, then that does not mean that this name did not start out as the defective spelling ‘LM. Rather, it means precisely what Halpern says above: “[P]lene spellings, with internal vowel letters, are demonstrably late. In the case of biblical books, the spelling may have been updated by late copyists. But defective spellings indicate a preexilic date.”

Let’s now look at the names and titles of all 9 parties at Genesis 14: 1-2, to see whether defective spelling, or rather plene spelling, is being used in this ancient written text for these non-Hebrew foreign rulers. [Per Halpern’s comment above, I am basically going to ignore endings, because even in old-style defective spelling, vowels were sometimes represented in Hebrew endings, especially where a plural meaning or function was involved.]

1. “Amraphel king of Shinar”. These is no interior yod or interior vav, so there’s no plene spelling there.

2. “Arioch king of Ellasar”. This name, spelled ’RYWK, is almost universally, and properly, recognized as being a Hurrian name. Yet scholars don’t understand how Hurrian names are rendered in alphabetical Biblical Hebrew spelling. This is not “Ariukki” or any variant thereon, as normally supposed. Rather, in rendering Hurrian names in alphabetical Hebrew spelling, Hurrian yod/Y is consistently used to render the Hurrian true vowel A. This Hurrian name is actually IR-Awaka, where: (i) the logogram IR, which famously appears at the beginning of the name of Hurrian princeling IR-Heba of Jerusalem in the Amarna Letters, is rendered ’R : aleph-resh; there is no better way to render that logogram in alphabetical Biblical Hebrew for this Hurrian name; (ii) the root of the name starts with the Hurrian true vowel A, just as does the Hurrian name “Jebusites”, and in both cases Hurrian true vowel A is rendered by Hebrew yod/Y; and (iii) the vav/W is a consonantal vav. Thus we see that there is no plene spelling in this name or title. [Since you likely have not investigated the Biblical Hebrew alphabetical spelling of Hurrian names, it would not be surprising if you had assumed that “Arioch” utilizes plene spelling. But it does not.]

3. “Chedorlaomer king of Elam”. As we have been discussing, the earliest alphabetical text of this name and title probably had the following 13 letters, using defective spelling: KDR L ‘MR MLK ‘LM.

4. “Tidal king of Goiim”. Other than possibly as to endings, there is no plene spelling here. [GWYM is the plural form of GWY. Presumably that Hebrew common word has a 2-letter root, GW, where the vav is consonantal. The yod/Y ending in the singular form is a standard Hebrew ending. One adds the final -M (short for -YM) to make this Hebrew common word plural. So this is not plene spelling. This word in the plural was not originally spelled GWM, with the interior yod/Y being later added as optional plene spelling.]

5. “Bera king of Sodom”. There’s no interior yod/Y or vav/W for plene spelling there.

6. “Birsha king of Gomorrah”. Likewise, there’s no interior yod/Y or vav/W for plene spelling here.

7. “Shinab king of Admah”. There’s no interior yod/Y or vav/W for plene spelling. [Aleph appears twice, but that’s not plene spelling.]

8. “Shemeber king of Zeboiim”. The aleph in the name is not plene spelling. As to “Zeboiim”, that appears to be somewhat similar in format to “Goiim” analyzed above. [The singular form is CBY, and adding -YM for the long-form plural format results in CBYYM. Per the model of “Goiim”, perhaps a shortened form of this name might be CBYM. But this involves Hebrew endings, which will not be analyzed here.]

9. “The king of Bela”. There’s no interior yod/Y or vav/W for plene spelling. [That holds true even if one adds in “Zoar”.]

Given that Genesis 14: 1-11 is such an ancient text with so many archaic linguistic elements, it should be no surprise that all of these names and titles of foreign rulers used defective spelling in the earliest versions of the alphabetical Biblical Hebrew text. Later, in post-exilic times, a copy-editor added in an interior yod/Y to Chedorlaomer’s title. That was not an ending, but rather is classic plene spelling all the way. Per Halpern above, such classic plene spelling is, inherently, post-exilic in nature: “[P]lene spellings, with internal vowel letters, are demonstrably late. In the case of biblical books, the spelling may have been updated by late copyists. But defective spellings indicate a preexilic date.” Adding the interior yod/Y to ‘LM to make it ‘YLM in post-exilic times was done under the guise of updating this kingly title to plene spelling, but in actuality it likely was done in order to avoid an apparent blasphemy. The original MLK ‘LM looked like evil Chedorlaomer was being called “King Eternal”; but a grand, wondrous title like that was fitting only for YHWH Himself, not for evil Chedorlaomer. So there should be no real surprise that a post-exilic copy-editor took it upon himself to add in an interior yod/Y there on his own motion.

My point is that it’s more likely than not that the earliest alphabetical Hebrew text of Genesis 14: 1-2 used defective spelling for all of the above names and titles of foreign rulers. Certainly there was a written alphabetical Hebrew text of Genesis 14: 1 prior to the Exile! As such, it would have used defective spelling. “[P]lene spellings, with internal vowel letters, are demonstrably late.” Whether intending to spell “eternal” or “Elam”, the defective spelling of that word or proper name in either case would have been ‘LM, with no interior yod/Y; the interior yod/Y that we see in the text today definitely is a post-exilic addition under the guise of plene spelling.

As such, the name and title for “Chedorlaomer” had precisely 13 Hebrew letters prior to exilic times. As I have shown earlier on this thread, those 13 letters make even better sense in Ugaritic than they do in Hebrew: KDR L ‘MR MLK ‘LM : kdr l ‘mr mlk ‘lm. On that view, “Chedorlaomer” was a nasty Patriarchal nickname for Ugarit King Niqmaddu II, who historically called a mighty Hittite king into Syria in the year referenced at Genesis 14: 4: “Year 13”. mlk ‘lm is well-attested in Ugarit as a kingly title. By contrast, if ‘LM and/or ‘YLM is viewed as meaning “Elam”, located east of Babylon, then we have the nonsensical result of a king of the state that later became Persia [and later still Iran] being portrayed as allying with a Hittite king from Anatolia north of Syria, in putting down a rebellion near Canaan. Historically, that never happened. Why try to insist on such a nonsensical meaning of this text, while ignoring the great likelihood that the earlier defective spelling of Chedorlaomer’s title was MLK ‘LM?

The king of Ugarit, mlk ‘lm, did indeed invite the most powerful Hittite king of all time [who had murdered his older brother named “Tidal”] into Syria in Year 13. So instead of the text being nonsensical, as you would have it, this fine Biblical text turns out to have p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy, in the context of what is well-attested non-biblically as happening north of Canaan in Years 13-14.

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
First, let me state dogmatically the there ARE roots that are not etymological.

Says I
Examples for "etymological" and "non etymological" roots would be very helpful. I am still puzzled by this "etymological" thing. I am afraid that the confusion is due to a mixup of "etymology" and "meaning", as well as "root" and "word".

Says Ray
Even if we had no examples of it, we could predict that at a later stage of the language there would evolve a verbal form that would add an aleph before this root (i.e. אמלך֝) forming a Qal imperfect form and meaning “I will reign.” We can say therefore, that there was a proto-semitic root *מלך meaning something like “royal.”

Says I
Indeed, the root of מלכות MALKUT is MLK, but this root has certainly nothing to do with 'king'. A Hebrew root can not mean 'king'.
The word א-מלוך is formed by the adhesion to the root of the personal pronoun (PP) אני ANIY, 'I', contracted over time to a mere E-. Similarly, אתה תי-מלוך ATAH-TIMLOK, and אתה מלכ-ת ATAH MALAK-TA. With time, the two possibilities of pre-PP, and post-PP were "grammaticalized" (by those who subscribe to it) to indicate future action, and past action, respectively. Thus in Hebrew, I-eat is 'I will eat', and eat-I is 'I have eaten'. This has been understood, methinks, by at least a 100 generations of Hebrew school-children, sadly bereft of the benefit of Hetzron et. al. futzing their brain with this "Hebrew morphology".

Says Ray
Just because words share three consonants in common, they may or may not be etymologically related. I personally, cannot imagine a scenario where the “proto-semitic” root root with the form אלף* meaning “ox” could develop into a later form meaning “thousand” so I doubt that aleph, the name of the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet which originally was an actual picture of an ox, developed into a word meaning “1,000.”

Says I
Of course not. Because the root ALP does not mean 'ox', nor 'thousand', nor 'chiftain'. The root ALP means 'tall and thick'. There need not be a "horizontal" relationship among Hebrew words (words!) of the same root. The word דוברה DOBR-AH, 'raft', as in 1Ki. 5:23(8), and the word דיברה DIBR-AH, 'saying', as in Job 5:8, are not related, yet they are both of the same root DBR, 'collect, pileup, aggregate'.
So what is אלוף ALUP? It is the root ALP with the personal pronoun U (for HU, 'he') inserted between the radical L and the radical P, to indicate that the word refers to a person, or a thing, having the property of the root ALP. This is how Hebrew makes a noun out of a root.

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

Re: Cuneiform Translation

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Ray Harder:

In considering whether ‘YLM at Genesis 14: 1 is the Hebrew/Ugaritic common word meaning “eternal”, or is the country name “Elam”, consider how the Hebrew common word “eternal” is spelled at II Chronicles 33: 7:

‘YLWM

Since ‘YLWM is a non-standard spelling of the Hebrew common word “eternal” at II Chronicles 33: 7, it stands to reason that ‘YLM may be a non-standard spelling of the Hebrew/Ugaritic common word “eternal” at Genesis 14: 1. ‘YLWM is obviously plene spelling, and the interior vav/W near the end could be dropped, leaving ‘YLM. True, neither of these spellings is the standard spelling of the Hebrew common word “eternal”, which standard spelling is either ‘LM or ‘WLM. But the fact remains that ‘YLWM is an attested Biblical spelling of the Hebrew common word “eternal”, whether that be ascribed to a non-standard plene spelling of the older form defective spelling ‘LM, or whether it be ascribed to scribal error.

It is more likely than not that when Genesis 14: 1 was first written in alphabetical Hebrew, defective spelling was used, and the defective, non-pointed spelling of the Hebrew/Ugaritic common word “eternal” and of the country name “Elam” were identical at that point: ‘LM. Thus in evaluating Chedorlaomer’s kingly title, and determining whether or not Genesis 14: 1-11 has pinpoint historical accuracy in being a contemporary’s accurate account of the Great Syrian War in Years 13-14 [with such exact two years being explicitly referenced at Genesis 14: 4-5], it is more likely than not that the early alphabetical versions of Chedorlaomer’s title had only six letters: MLK ‘LM. Whether ‘LM at Genesis 14: 1 is the defective spelling of the country name “Elam”, or of the Hebrew/Ugaritic common word “eternal”, then depends on analyzing Genesis 14: 1-11 in context. It makes no sense to insist upon any, much less all, of the following: (i) context cannot be considered in evaluating ‘YLM in the received text of Genesis 14: 1; (ii) it is not possible that early alphabetical versions of Genesis 14: 1 could have spelled this title ‘LM; and (iii) without regard to the defective vs. plene spelling issue, and totally ignoring context, it is allegedly impossible that ‘YLM in the received text could possibly have any meaning other than the country name “Elam”.

Rather, it’s more likely than not that Chedorlaomer’s kingly title was spelled in early alphabetical versions of Genesis 14: 1 with only six letters: MLK ‘LM. That insight then opens up the real possibility that Chedorlaomer is a nasty Patriarchal nickname for Ugarit King Niqmaddu II, because this name and title make even better sense in Ugaritic than in Hebrew: kdr l ‘mr mlk ‘lm.

Jim Stinehart

Dr. James R. Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Ray Harder
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:59 am

Re: Cuneiform Translation

Post by Ray Harder »

Jim,

It is counter productive to have post after post without without waiting for a response from others. Let me respond first to your post of Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:30 pm First and then afterwards to you more recent posts if possible.

I appreciate your recent post (Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:30 pm) in which you do a much better job of focusing on one issue at a time. You also carefully attempted to address some of my points. You make several good observations and attempt to adduce relevant evidence. It would be helpful if you do the same with the other issues I raised.

So let’s continue to address your ideas to see if there is some factual and hard evidence and good, logical reasoning to support for your interesting theory. Let’s also try to shorten the posts and stay focussed.
Jim Stinehart wrote: ‘YLM can interchange with ‘WLM. Though the former is the more frequent spelling, consider the following Biblical instances of the latter. At Ezra 10: 2 we see ‘WLM. At Jeremiah 49: 36, this name is first spelled ‘YLM, and then later in that same verse is spelled ‘WLM.

The word in question is indeed spelled both ways in Ezra 10:2. There it clearly represents the place name Elam and therefore strongly argues against your interpretation that this is NOT Elam in Gen 14:1. Furthermore, at Ez. 10:2 it was recognized by an ancient scribe and all ancient and modern scholars and translators that the spelling ‘WLM for the city Elam is a misspelling when spelled ‘WLM. You could therefore assert that Gen. 14:1 contains a misspelling for the word ‘eternal.’ You simply cannot say that these words are “interchangeable.” The same situation exists at Jer. 49:36. (Where the word in question is again Elam spelled and then misspelled.) In neither case does it represent a spelling of the word ‘WLM meaning “eternal.”

Jim Stinehart wrote: Why is it that ‘YLM and ‘WLM are alternative Biblical Hebrew spellings of this name? Because in the beginning, in defective spelling this name would have been spelled simply: ‘LM. An interior yod/Y functioning as a vowel, and an interior vav/W functioning as a vowel, are inherently plene spelling mechanisms.
It is clearly true and recognized by scholars that yod and vay (to use your transliteration) are used to represent internal vowels when words are spelled plene at a (usually) latter stage of the textual tradition. A careful treatment of all of the evidence shows that an e/i class vowel will be represented by yod and a o/u class vowel will be represented by waw. The use of a particular vowel is NOT arbitrary (and therefore I would characterize your idea of the interchangeability of these as untrue), but clearly misspellings do occur in the MT of the Hebrew bible and this has been recognized by both ancient scribes and modern scholars. It is simply not true to say that “‘YLM and ‘WLM are alternative Biblical Hebrew spellings of this name.” Furthermore, even if they are, it is totally irrelevant to your argument since you are arguing that the use of this word in Gen. 14:1 is in fact NOT this name (contrary to 100% of the ancient and modern textual evidence.)
Jim Stinehart wrote: With chapter 14 of Genesis having more archaic linguistic features than any other non-poetical section of the entire Bible, it makes no sense to think that the earliest alphabetical Hebrew version of this name would have featured plene spelling. Rather, even on a purely linguistic basis, it’s more likely than not that the first alphabetical Hebrew version of this name at Genesis 14: 1 was spelled with only three letters, using defective spelling: ‘LM.
It is correct to assert that if ‘YLM is a plene form, the defective form would be ‘LM .
Jim Stinehart wrote: Why is it that ‘YLM and ‘WLM are alternative Biblical Hebrew spellings of this name? Because in the beginning, in defective spelling this name would have been spelled simply: ‘LM. An interior yod/Y functioning as a vowel, and an interior vav/W functioning as a vowel, are inherently plene spelling mechanisms. With chapter 14 of Genesis having more archaic linguistic features than any other non-poetical section of the entire Bible, it makes no sense to think that the earliest alphabetical Hebrew version of this name would have featured plene spelling. Rather, even on a purely linguistic basis, it’s more likely than not that the first alphabetical Hebrew version of this name at Genesis 14: 1 was spelled with only three letters, using defective spelling: ‘LM.
Yes. This al true IF this is a name, but that is exactly NOT what you are asserting!
Jim Stinehart wrote: Similarly, note that the Biblical Hebrew word for “city” can be spelled either ‘YR or ‘R. Why? Because ‘R is the older, defective spelling, whereas ‘YR is the later, plene spelling. Though the plene spelling ‘YR predominates in the Bible, here are 4 examples of where one finds the old defective spelling of just ‘R [as the name of a city]: Numbers 21: 15, 28; Deuteronomy 2: 9; Isaiah 15: 1
You do seem to correctly understand the concept of plene and defective spelling in the MT of the Hebrew bible as “matres lectionis.” Your assertions here are all true, but irrelevant because you are claiming that this is NOT the g.n. Elam, but a misspelled plene of the word ‘WLM from an original mlk ‘lm =מלך עלם.
Jim Stinehart wrote:
Likewise, the Biblical Hebrew word for “naked” can either be spelled in old-style defective spelling as ‘RM, or in plene spelling as ‘YRM. As always, it’s the same word, but the interior yod/Y functioning as a vowel is optional, being plene spelling. Genesis 3: 7, 10, 11 have the plene spelling, ‘YRM. By contrast, Ezekiel 16: 7, 22 have the older defective spelling, ‘RM. Yet Ezekiel 16: 39 has the plene spelling version, ‘YRM.

The point is that whenever one sees an interior yod/Y functioning as a vowel, immediately following ayin/‘, as in the name ‘YLM that we see in the received text of Genesis 14: 1, then one can be sure that that’s plene spelling, and that accordingly there likely was an older, defective spelling that left out that interior yod/Y entirely.
OK, this is clearly more evidence that the biblical text uses plene and defective spelling. It is NOT evidence that the word ‘YLM at Gen. 14:1 is a misspelled plene for ‘WLM representing an urtext of ‘LM and meaning “Eternal.”

You constantly state things like “as in the name ‘YLM that we see in the received text of Genesis 14: 1” when you are clearly arguing that it is NOT a name, but a title misspelled in plene form of a word that was in the original text as ‘LM.

The only thing that you haven proven is that in order to support your theory, one must do a scholarly emendation at Gen. 14:1 (AKA a scholarly guess that is in this case contrary to ALL of the existing textual evidence, but certainly possible.) This guess would make the passage analogous to the attested Ugaritic phrase mlk ‘lm =מלך עלם even though it does not occur anywhere else in the extant Hebrew bible.

You will need to build your scholarly reputation and your theory’s reputation through years of hard work if you wish to have your emendations taken seriously.
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 »

Regarding your post of Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:55 am:
Jim Stinehart wrote: In considering whether ‘YLM at Genesis 14: 1 is the Hebrew/Ugaritic common word meaning “eternal”, or is the country name “Elam”, consider how the Hebrew common word “eternal” is spelled at II Chronicles 33: 7:

‘YLWM

Since ‘YLWM is a non-standard spelling of the Hebrew common word “eternal” at II Chronicles 33: 7, it stands to reason that ‘YLM may be a non-standard spelling of the Hebrew/Ugaritic common word “eternal” at Genesis 14: 1. ‘YLWM is obviously plene spelling, and the interior vav/W near the end could be dropped, leaving ‘YLM. True, neither of these spellings is the standard spelling of the Hebrew common word “eternal”, which standard spelling is either ‘LM or ‘WLM. But the fact remains that ‘YLWM is an attested Biblical spelling of the Hebrew common word “eternal”, whether that be ascribed to a non-standard plene spelling of the older form defective spelling ‘LM, or whether it be ascribed to scribal error.

It is more likely than not that when Genesis 14: 1 was first written in alphabetical Hebrew, defective spelling was used, and the defective, non-pointed spelling of the Hebrew/Ugaritic common word “eternal” and of the country name “Elam” were identical at that point: ‘LM. Thus in evaluating Chedorlaomer’s kingly title, and determining whether or not Genesis 14: 1-11 has pinpoint historical accuracy in being a contemporary’s accurate account of the Great Syrian War in Years 13-14 [with such exact two years being explicitly referenced at Genesis 14: 4-5], it is more likely than not that the early alphabetical versions of Chedorlaomer’s title had only six letters: MLK ‘LM. Whether ‘LM at Genesis 14: 1 is the defective spelling of the country name “Elam”, or of the Hebrew/Ugaritic common word “eternal”, then depends on analyzing Genesis 14: 1-11 in context.
Your reasoning here is solid and your citation of II Chron. 33:7 אָשִׂים אֶת-שְׁמִי לְעֵילוֹם. is relevant and proves that the ancient scribes made mistakes in spelling the Hebrew word translated “eternal.” It is possible to speculate therefore that at Gen 14:1 ‘YLM is also an ancient misspelling of the plene form which later evolved from the defective form ‘LM. But you must then admit that this is speculation based on analogy and assumes your entire theory and is contrary to 100% of the scribal/textual tradition. This IS evidence for your interpretation, but you must be careful not to assume your conclusions in your analysis of the evidence.
Jim Stinehart wrote: It makes no sense to insist upon any, much less all, of the following: (i) context cannot be considered in evaluating ‘YLM in the received text of Genesis 14: 1; (ii) it is not possible that early alphabetical versions of Genesis 14: 1 could have spelled this title ‘LM; and (iii) without regard to the defective vs. plene spelling issue, and totally ignoring context, it is allegedly impossible that ‘YLM in the received text could possibly have any meaning other than the country name “Elam”.
I have never insisted, assumed or asserted otherwise. Let me clearly state that I agree that i.) context MUST be considered, (ii.) it is POSSIBLE that early alphabetical versions of Genesis 14:1 could have spelled this title ‘LM, and (iii.) it is POSSIBLE that the ‘YLM in the received text could have a meaning other than the country name “Elam” --IF AND ONLY IF we reject ALL manuscript evidence and accept your theory as “context” as you call it. We need to avoid assuming our conclusions in analyzing our evidence.
Jim Stinehart wrote: Rather, it’s more likely than not that Chedorlaomer’s kingly title was spelled in early alphabetical versions of Genesis 14: 1 with only six letters: MLK ‘LM. That insight then opens up the real possibility that Chedorlaomer is a nasty Patriarchal nickname for Ugarit King Niqmaddu II, because this name and title make even better sense in Ugaritic than in Hebrew: kdr l ‘mr mlk ‘lm.

In fact, as I have demonstrated above, it is not “likely” but mere speculation that the text once read MLK ‘LM. Furthermore, even if we do grant your emendation as factual, NOTHING in the evidence supports your assertion that “Chedorlaomer is a nasty Patriarchal nickname for Ugarit King Niqmaddu II.” Nowhere in either the Ugaritic or the Hebrew textual traditions are these two linked. In FACT Chedorlaomer is NEVER mentioned in the Ugaritic texts and Niqmaddu II is NEVER mentioned in the Hebrew bible.
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."
Rktect
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:53 pm

Re: Cuneiform Translation

Post by Rktect »

For the discussion of Genesis 14, we might posit that Genesis is not written from scratch in Hebrew for the first time in 950 but rather copies earlier texts either from wisdom literature, myth, history, genealogy, campaign accounts, accounts of contracts, treaties, bills of sale etc; which would be written in Akkadian as the lingua franca of the period c 950 -1750 BC.

"At the time when Amraphel was king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim, 2 these kings went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboyim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). 3 All these latter kings joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea Valley). 4 For twelve years they had been subject to Kedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled."

1. "At the time when Amraphel was king of Shinar" is often taken as a reference to Hamurabbi, but here the reference is to the time of Hamurabbi.
2. In Akkadian "Arioch king of Ellasar" might be read with Arioch as a Logogram used in reference to cities giving "URU El Lasar KI" (this El Lasar Place)
3. Thus if Arioch is not a king but a logogram, we should substitute the word "ruler" for "king" generally and make the discussion about the standard of measure of El Lasar
4. Suppose then that "Kedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim" should to be consistent be read as "Kedorlaomer ruler of Elam and Tidal ruler of Goyim
5. Suppose then that we observe "Kedorlaomer" is a phrase speaking of the standard of measure of the Omer
6. Wikipedia informs us that there is something not quite kosher about the Omer, or for that matter Canaan, the crookedest place on earth at the time.
A.
"The omer (Hebrew: עמר‎) is an ancient Israelite unit of dry measure used in the era of the Temple in Jerusalem."
B. "It is used in the Bible as an ancient unit of volume for grains and dry commodities"
C. "Its given as being equal to one tenth of an ephah.[1] The ephah was defined as being 72 logs, and the log was equal to the Sumerian mina, which was itself defined as one sixtieth of a maris;[2] the omer was thus equal to about 12⁄100 of a maris. The maris was defined as being the quantity of water equal in weight to a light royal talent,[3] and was thus equal to about 30.3 litres,[2] making the omer equal to about 3.64 litres.
D. The omer is not easy to fit into the remainder of the ancient Israelite measurement system, as it constitutes 1.8 kabs and 0.3 se'ah. It is alleged that the unit is a result of the sexagesimal[4] system being decimalised, perhaps under the influence of Egypt or Assyria, which both had decimal systems.[2][5]
E. "The word omer is sometimes translated as sheaf — specifically, an amount of grain large enough to require bundling."
F. The biblical episode of the manna describes God as instructing the Israelites to collect an omer for each person in your tent, implying that each person could eat an omer of manna a day."
G. "In the Instructions of Moses (Torah in Hebrew), the main significance of the omer is the traditional offering of an omer of barley on the day after the Sabbath during the feast of unleavened bread (during the period of Temple sacrifice) as well as the tradition of the Counting of the Omer (sefirat ha'omer) - the 49 days between this sacrifice and the two loaves of wheat offered on the holiday of Shavuot. The omer should not be confused with the homer, a much larger unit of volume for liquids
7.Suppose that shortly before we have the earliest appearance of Indo European in the instructions of Kikul a Hittite horse trainer we have the introduction of a new standard of definition for the Omer, from Tidal the ruler of Goyim or the foreign exchange rate.
8. A sexigesimal system decimalized, might have either invented or cut out the vig of the tithe or royal tax
9. The illegitimate standard secularizing or sanctifying the commerce 60 to or from the temple accounted as 50 or pay 6 for 5
9. An illegitimate standard which affected contracts, tithes and temple profits forced on Canaan by a foreign ruler.
10. Let us suppose we have a coalition which rebels against the illegitimate standard
11. Let us suppose that ched is like the Egyptian word kd whose glyph is a boat drifting down stream.
12. While I can't presume to say what language families this cluster of words does or does not include, it doesn't look unclassified
13. It has the sense of a lazy passive action, and does something more than its ed suffix with its ch infix as in reached, watched, launched, attached, touched, approached, stretched, switched, matched, searched, detached, marched, snatched, crouched, clenched, wretched, pitched, perched, arched, fetched, scratched, untouched, dispatched, hunched, outstretched, entrenched, punched, pinched, clutched, enriched, dispatched, etched, lurched, wrenched, breached, preached, ached, researched, scorched, poached, stitched, sketched, twitched, hatched, flinched, thatched, couched, clinched, bleached, coached, unmatched, bewitched, bunched, starched, relaunched, unattached, inched, notched, drenched, branched, broached, slouched, latched, reproached, hitched, belched, ditched, encroached, parched, patched, lunched, screeched, sandwiched, crunched, beached and as many words again that are of less common usage
14. If we take off ched as prefix and Omer as suffix the infix becomes perhaps oral instead of orla being illegitimate because it is nowhere written just inferred as a sort of bribe, penalty or interest that accrues as a fee or surcharge, a lazy passive action that oppresses and taxes without representation.
15. The Dead Sea Valley went to war against Kedorlaomer the tax on the omer.
16. Maybe the tax didn't come from Egypt, it came from the new guys, the horsemen, the bandits and pirates; the Apiru, or maybe it was the Mittani or even the Shashu.
Post Reply