Jim Stinehart wrote:
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:
Jim Stinehart wrote:
“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student of the ancient near east who has received a lot of bad press in recent years because his stuff is very out of date.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.)
Jim Stinehart wrote:
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.
Jim Stinehart wrote:
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.
Jim Stinehart wrote:
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.
Jim Stinehart wrote:
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.)
Jim Stinehart wrote:
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.
Jim Stinehart wrote:
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.
Jim Stinehart wrote:
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.
Jim Stinehart wrote:
‘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