1. You wrote: “Hebrew is not a bronze age or an Egyptian language, it's the Phoenician language, the Persian Empire adopted Phoenician as its official language of trade that became Imperial Aramaic, that is why Hebrew is written that way it is. אבג, that differs from the traditional Phoenician script, the entire Old Testament is written in that script and the language throughout the Hebrew scripture is consistent to a specific time period.”
(a) In the Amarna Age, the first Hebrews spoke a slight variant of Canaanite, which we could well call pre-Hebrew or early Hebrew. We know this, because most all of the many Canaanite glosses in the Amarna Letters have a direct parallel with Hebrew words:
“The Semitic dialect in which [the Amarna] letters are written…is, in some important details [regarding grammar and Canaanite glosses], closely related to the Hebrew of the Old Testament….” Sir Ernest Alfred Wallis Budge, “The Tell el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum” (1892), p. xiii.
(b) The early Hebrews liked the magnificent Patriarchal narratives so much that instead of allowing it to remain only an oral composition, shortly after Akhenaten’s death they hired a scribe for the occasion to record the Patriarchal narratives in cuneiform writing. Rather than using Akkadian vocabulary and Canaanite grammar as do the Amarna Letters, Canaanite / pre-Hebrew vocabulary and Canaanite grammar were used by the scribe.
(c) Although cuneiform writing had been ubiquitous in Amarna Age Canaan, it soon dropped out of sight in Canaan thereafter. The Hebrews kept the mysterious clay tablets that had the Patriarchal narratives written in cuneiform for centuries, but they were now seldom if ever read.
(d) Then in King Josiah’s day, the Patriarchal narratives, written in cuneiform on clay tablets, were found in the 7th century BCE in the Temple of Jerusalem. The only person in Jerusalem who could read cuneiform (which was no longer in use locally in Canaan) was the chief scribe, who had to use cuneiform in communicating with Assyria and Babylonia. King Josiah had the Patriarchal narratives transformed from cuneiform into alphabetical Hebrew writing, using the conventions of 7th century BCE Jerusalem as to grammar and the spelling of common words (very similar to II Kings, as to grammar and spelling). Though the grammar and spelling of common words was updated, the substantive content was not changed, subject to one huge exception. King Josiah’s scribe was not permitted to delete or overtly change a single word in the text, b-u-t the scribe was allowed to add “glosses”, comparable to modern footnotes, where the scribe put in his own new guesses as to where various geographical sites were located, always choosing to institute, retroactively, an ultra-southerly reorientation of the geography underlying the Patriarchal narratives. Whereas there had been no dislike of northern Canaan whatsoever when the Patriarchal narratives were composed in Year 13 in the Amarna Age, King Josiah’s scribe, by stark contrast, hated Israel for having failed to protect Canaan (and especially beloved Judah in southern Canaan) from the invading Assyrians. So most of the openly-disclosed “glosses”, which constitute about 1% of the received text, are geographically-oriented, and import into the text, retroactively and falsely, an ultra-southerly geography that never applied to the Patriarchal narratives in the Late Bronze Age.
Today, we can recover the original version of the Patriarchal narratives by simply giving zero weight to the substantive content of the 1% of the received text that constitutes “glosses”, especially the openly-disclosed “glosses”. Thus, for example, it is clear that Lot’s Sodom is located in the lush Jezreel Valley north of Bethel, in the heart of the later state of Israel, if one (i) looks at Genesis 13: 9-10, which is not a “gloss”, and (ii) ignores the openly-disclosed “glosses” in the last two sentences of chapter 19 of Genesis, which falsely say that Lot’s descendants are the people of Moab “unto this very day” [i.e., unto the 7th century BCE] and the people of Ammon “unto this very day” [i.e., unto the 7th century BCE]. The names “Moab” and “Ammon” did not exist in the Late Bronze Age. The two phrases “unto this very day” make these two verses the most obvious openly-disclosed “glosses” in the entire Bible, and their substantive content should be ignored entirely. Lot’s Sodom has no connection to Moab, Ammon, or the Dead Sea.
Unfortunately, mainstream university scholars have everything backwards. When faced with an openly-disclosed “gloss” like the last two sentences of chapter 19 of Genesis, they suddenly become Biblical Inerrantists. No university scholar has ever a-s-k-e-d whether the original version of the Patriarchal narratives did or did not place Lot’s descendants in Moab and Ammon, near the southern end of the Dead Sea. Yet meanwhile, as to the 99% of the received text that is not “glosses”, mainstream university scholars have become almost indistinguishable from Biblical Minimalists. They cavalierly throw out the substantive content of Genesis 13: 9-10 as to the geographical location of Lot’s Sodom, on the bizarre basis of “hate Israel, hate Israel, hate Israel”. University scholars worldwide insist that Lot could not possibly be portrayed as going north from Bethel (despite what Genesis 13: 9-10 clearly says), because that would take Abram’s nephew into what in later centuries became the heart of Israel, and (scholars contend) the Patriarchal narratives are allegedly pure fiction ginned up in mid-1st millennium BCE by Israel-hating Jews.
So in a way, mainstream university scholars deserve what they get when they appear almost defenseless against the outrageous charge by Biblical Minimalists that the entire Hebrew Bible is merely warmed-over Greek philosophy, which is entirely Greek in conception, with no Hebrew influence at all and not much Jewish influence either. No matter how ridiculous most of us consider that Biblical Minimalist position to be, the fact of the matter is that once mainstream university scholars are more than willing to cavalierly ignore any historical element in the substantive content of the 99% of the received text of the Patriarchal narratives that is not “glosses”, while taking a Biblical Inerrantist approach to the substantively-false 1% of the received text that is “glosses”, mainstream university scholars end up having little defense against the Biblical Minimalist claim that the entire Hebrew Bible is merely warmed over Greek philosophy. No, mainstream university scholars don’t accept the Biblical Minimalist view, but they sure struggle mightily in trying to oppose it.
* * *
Your comments as to the Phoenician and Aramaic influences regarding how the Hebrew letters are written orthographically are irrelevant. The grammar and spelling of the Patriarchal narratives follow the 7th century BCE Jerusalem conventions of II Kings; the entire Hebrew Bible, including all of Genesis, is now written in standard (Aramaic) script; but what counts is that the substantive content of 99% of the last 40 chapters of Genesis is coming to us straight out of the world of Year 13 in the Amarna Age / 14th century BCE, having no Greek or Jewish content at all, but rather being (except for the “glosses”) H-e-b-r-e-w , all the way in every way.
2. You wrote: “The change between שרי & שרה is pure dialects, the author of Genesis was aware that the original dialect of the emigrants assimilated with the local dialect of Phoenician or Aramaic. שרי means "mistress" (κυρίᾳ) that changed too שרה (κύρα).”
Totally wrong, on all counts. Saboi, there’s no Greek in the Patriarchal narratives.
(a) Sarah’s Birth Name
In the entirety of the ancient world, there is no west Semitic human female’s name “Sarai” / SR -Y or ŠR -Y / שרי attested. Indeed, no west Semitic human female’s name of that general type (west Semitic root, plus yod / Y archaic feminine ending) is attested. That archaic west Semitic feminine ending is only found, rather, on feminine common nouns at Ugarit, and in the names of divine beings (which retain archaic elements) -- never on an attested west Semitic human female’s name. Since “Sarai” is not a west Semitic human female’s name, on what basis do you speculate that this name means “Mistress”?
But since Akhenaten’s mother (Queen Tiye) was born an ethnic Hurrian, we should ask if Isaac’s mother (Abraham’s wife) will be portrayed in the Year 13 composition of the Patriarchal narratives as likewise being born an ethnic Hurrian. If so, then Abraham’s father Terakh (but not Terakh’s wife) adopted Sarai pursuant to a Hurrian custom well-documented at the Hurrian province of Nuzi, so that Sarai is Abram’s half-sister by adoption (per Genesis 20: 12).
The attested Hurrian name Šar-ri -ya appears at p. 302 of N. Nozadze, “Vocabulary of the Hurrian Language” (2007) (which is the standard Hurrian dictionary). This Hurrian name means: “God [is] King”. That is a plain vanilla name in the ancient world as to its meaning (similar, in that important regard, to Abraham’s birth name “Abram”). The expected Biblical Hebrew defective spelling of the attested Hurrian name Šar-ri -ya [where the first of doubled consonants in a foreign name is always dropped] is exactly what we see in the received text as Sarah’s birth name: ŠR -Y / שרי.
Sarah’s birth name is not a west Semitic name and does not mean “Mistress” (or “Princess”, etc.). Since sin and shin are not distinguished in Hebrew orthography, and since sin and shin can in any event function as natural puns, in evaluating the sibilant both in Sarah’s birth name and in her divinely-changed name, we must consider each of sin and shin. Shin / Š is the applicable sibilant in Sarah’s (Hurrian) birth name.
(b) Sarah’s Divinely-Changed Name
A divinely-changed name must, logically, be different than, and much grander than, the person’s birth name. “Sarah” / שרה / sA – ra -H is not a west Semitic name meaning “Princess”. For one thing, Sarah is definitely not a princess, as under no reading of the text is she the daughter of a king (which is the meaning of being a “princess”).
Genesis 17: 16 tells us that the grand meaning of Sarah’s divinely-changed name is (per KJV): “I will bless her…; kings of people shall be of her” or, slightly-simplified so that it can be rendered as a short name: “Divinely-Blessed Kings [shall be of] Her”.
The best-known kingly title in the ancient world was sA – ra, being each pharaoh’s most prized title. Although ultra-literally meaning “Son of the Egyptian Sun-God Ra”, the effective meaning of the pharaonic kingly title sA – ra was: “divinely-blessed king”. The Hebrew spelling of these two Egyptian words is confirmed by the Hebrew spelling of the Biblical Egyptian name “Potiphar”, where pA is rendered by peh / P alone, so that sA can be expected to be rendered by sin / S alone, and ra as the final element in the name is rendered by resh / R alone. So the Egyptian words sA – ra come out as SR / שר in Hebrew, to which is then added the standard Hebrew feminine suffix, -H, meaning “her” (in Hebrew), resulting in שרה / sA – ra -H.
Thus the meaning of “Sarah” / שרה / sA – ra -H is e-x-a-c-t-l-y what Genesis 17: 16 says the meaning of this grand divinely-changed name is: “Divinely-Blessed Kings [shall be of] Her”. The reason why the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives chose to put -ra- in the middle of all three divinely-changed names -- ab – ra – ham; sA – ra -H; is – ra – el -- is because in Year 13 (see Genesis 14: 4), the early Hebrew author was trying to create a linguistic bridge to the Ra-loving pharaoh Akhenaten, by using ra (not Ra) as an Egyptian-based generic theophoric.
Neither Sarah’s birth name, nor her divinely-changed name, means “Mistress” or “Princess”. Moreover, her divinely-changed name is, not surprisingly, much grander than her plain vanilla birth name. And that’s precisely what Genesis 17: 15-16 accurately tells us.
* * *
Saboi, the Greeks knew nothing, and cared less, about the world of Year 13 in Canaan in the Amarna Age / mid-14th century BCE / Late Bronze Age. Nor did the Jews in mid-1st millennium BCE Jerusalem. Rather, the Patriarchal narratives are H-e-b-r-e-w all the way, in every way.