Ancient non-west Semitic Biblical proper names that have heretofore been considered inexplicable can often be figured out if we use the same approach as scholars routinely use regarding “Shinar”: (i) never trust a guttural in an ancient name that likely was originally written in cuneiform, because cuneiform writing cannot distinguish one guttural from another, and (ii) expect defective spelling.
On this thread, let’s examine the following 5 mysterious Biblical names that are ancient and non-west Semitic, using the above two straightforward principles [with defective spelling being the key to understanding #2, #3 and #4]:
1. “Shinar” [Genesis 14: 1, 9]
2. “Hobah” [Genesis 14: 15]
3. “Potiphar” [Genesis 37: 36; 39: 1]
4. “Potipherah” [Genesis 41: 45, 50; 46: 20; please note that we have already seen the name “Potiphar” twice, before we are later introduced to the name “Potipherah”]
5. “Pharaoh” [Genesis 12: 15, 17, 18, 20; 39: 1; 40: 2, etc., including in particular: Genesis 41: 46 -- “Pharaoh king of Egypt”.] [Why is it that neither the Pharaoh in chapter 12 of Genesis, nor the Pharaoh beginning with chapter 39 of Genesis, has a son? Are they the same historical person? Does “Pharaoh”, both at the beginning and at the end of the Patriarchal narratives, have the same #1 problem as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob do: inability for years to sire a son as heir by his favorite main wife? Is “Pharaoh” the Biblical Hebrew equivalent of the actual historical name of an actual king of Egypt, who in fact had that particular problem in spades? If “Pharaoh” is not the Biblical Hebrew equivalent of the personal name of a king of Egypt, then the phrase “Pharaoh king of Egypt” at Genesis 41: 46 seems quite strange. Moreover, since the Patriarchal narratives never once mention the king of Egypt as even having a palace, yet explicitly feature Pharaoh saying that Joseph has “the spirit of God” at Genesis 41: 38, why should we accept the scholarly view that the Biblical author very oddly used an ultra-obscure Egyptian phrase meaning “Great House” to refer to the king of Egypt, instead of a very famous Egyptian phrase that means (in Egyptian) “Spirit of God”?]
Not surprisingly, the KJV English transliterations of those 5 names are beyond belief bad. But here on the b-hebrew list, we won’t be slowed down by those ultra-atrocious English mis-transliterations.
We will find the following for all 5 above names: (a) never trust a guttural [regarding an ancient non-west Semitic proper name that likely was originally written down in cuneiform, which could not distinguish one guttural from another]; (b) expect defective spelling [because as to a Biblical ancient non-west Semitic proper name, why on earth would a post-exilic editor be thought to have added in generic vowel indicators via plene spelling? Not]; which two principles of analysis of such names then result in (c) the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for each one of those 5 names. Focus on a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e p-e-r-f-e-c-t-i-o-n of meaning. And if it turns out that all five of these ancient non-west Semitic Biblical names not only is redolent of the Late Bronze Age and the early Hebrews in general [what else would you expect?], but also literally reeks of Year 13 in particular [per Genesis 14: 4, etc.], then let the chips fall where they may.
Remember, we’re simply applying the above two straightforward principles of analysis that scholars routinely use for “Shinar”. On that basis, we will find, for all 5 names: a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meanings. Total perfection as to the underlying meanings is the name of the game here, because that is what will confirm that we are, for the first time, finally making the correct analysis of these 5 mysterious non-west Semitic Biblical names. The p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t h-i-s-t-o-r-i-c-a-l accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives is breathtaking. But to see that, we need to be willing to analyze these ancient non-west Semitic Biblical names on the basis of (i) never trust a guttural, and (ii) expect defective spelling. Those two sensible principles will prove to be the key to understanding, at long last, these ancient, mysterious, non-west Semitic Biblical names.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Defective Spelling re Non-West Semitic Biblical Names
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
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
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: Defective Spelling re Non-West Semitic Biblical Names
The "gutturals" alef and ayin are merely fillers intended to create a visual distinction in the written word. There is no inherent meaningful difference, for instance, between פרא and פרע They refer both to a disturbed state. How they were pronounced in biblical times is a mystery. Today we pronounce them both PARA, with impunity.
Why did the scribes choose to write the name ABRAM אברם with an א and not an ע is not clear, possibly to detract the eye and with it the mind from עבר pass.
So, you may indeed playfully interchange the alef and ayin in biblical names to try and undo the devious obfuscations of the sly scribes.
Isaac Fried Boston University
Why did the scribes choose to write the name ABRAM אברם with an א and not an ע is not clear, possibly to detract the eye and with it the mind from עבר pass.
So, you may indeed playfully interchange the alef and ayin in biblical names to try and undo the devious obfuscations of the sly scribes.
Isaac Fried Boston University
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Defective Spelling re Non-West Semitic Biblical Names
Isaac Fried:
1. I agree with this part of what you say: “There is no inherent meaningful difference, for instance, between פרא and פרע They refer both to a disturbed state. How they were pronounced in biblical times is a mystery. Today we pronounce them both PARA, with impunity. ...So, you may indeed playfully interchange the alef and ayin in biblical names to try and undo the devious obfuscations of the sly scribes.”
Moreover, in the cuneiform writing of the Amarna Letters, there generally was no distinction in writing between ayin and aleph. In order for the Patriarchal narratives to contain as much accurate information as they do about the Bronze Age, the Patriarchal narratives cannot have been merely a longstanding oral tradition, told around thousands of campfires, as scholars would have it. No, the Patriarchal narratives must have been recorded in writing in the Late Bronze Age. Back then, alphabetical writing wasn’t very advanced and is not attested in south-central Canaan, but we’ve got the Amarna Letters from south-central Canaan, written in cuneiform. Instead of using cuneiform to write Akkadian common words, as is the case for the Amarna Letters, the scribe retained by the first Hebrews to record the Patriarchal narratives in writing was instructed to use cuneiform to write Canaanite/pre-Hebrew common words. Except for that one important difference as to which language to use for common words, in all other respects the cuneiform writing of the Amarna Letters is identical to the cuneiform writing used to record the Patriarchal narratives in the mid-14th century BCE. That cuneiform writing did not distinguish ayin from aleph. So for a non-west Semitic name whose underlying non-west Semitic meaning a later Jewish scribe would likely not have understood, an ayin in the received alphabetical Hebrew text for such non-west Semitic name could just as easily be an aleph, or an aleph could just as easily be an ayin.
But I wonder if you will really honor that wise observation of yours. In particular, when we come to analyzing PR‘H [“Pharaoh”], which is spelled with an ayin in the received alphabetical Hebrew text, will you be willing to ask whether an aleph had instead been intended in the original cuneiform writing of this name?
2. I disagree, however, with this: “Why did the scribes choose to write the name ABRAM אברם with an א and not an ע is not clear, possibly to detract the eye and with it the mind from עבר pass.”
In the cuneiform original of that name, the cuneiform symbol, analyzed out of context, could be either ayin or aleph. But in context, the Jewish scribe who transformed the cuneiform original into alphabetical Hebrew knew that for this west Semitic name, of course the first letter was aleph, because the first element of this name means “[the divine] Father”, with such Hebrew word ’B being spelled with an aleph, not an ayin. ’BRM is ’B RM, where ’B means “[the divine] Father”, and RM means “is exalted”. That name is attested out the wazzoo historically, and is basically a generic west Semitic name.
The problem, you see, comes with non-west Semitic proper names, where the Jewish scribe had no idea what that non-west Semitic name meant. Looking at PR‘H, that Jewish scribe, scrutinizing the cuneiform symbols written on clay tablets many hundreds of years earlier, had no idea (i) whether the third cuneiform sign was an aleph or an ayin, and/or (ii) whether the last cuneiform sign was a heth/X or a he/H. So he guessed. And he guessed wrong.
How can we figure out today which guttural was originally intended for a non-west Semitic name in the Patriarchal narratives? Here’s the answer. Simply pick whatever guttural results in the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning. If we can pick gutturals that mean, in Egyptian, “Spirit of God” [per Genesis 41: 38], which we can(!), then bingo, we’ve got it.
My point is that all the original cuneiform written text could tell us, as to non-west Semitic names, was that a guttural was present. The cuneiform writing of the Amarna Letters could not distinguish one guttural from another, and for a non-west Semitic name written in cuneiform umpteen centuries earlier, the Jewish scribe tasked by King Josiah with turning the Patriarchal narratives into alphabetical Hebrew writing could only guess what the intended gutturals were. Often as not he guessed wrong as to the gutturals.
Never trust a guttural in a non-west Semitic name from the Patriarchal narratives. Expect defective spelling. And insist on picking gutturals that result in the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning. On that basis, we will quickly solve the 3,000-year-old mysteries of the names “Hobah”, “Potiphar”, “Potipherah”, and “Pharaoh”. The same simple rules solve all of these problems.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
1. I agree with this part of what you say: “There is no inherent meaningful difference, for instance, between פרא and פרע They refer both to a disturbed state. How they were pronounced in biblical times is a mystery. Today we pronounce them both PARA, with impunity. ...So, you may indeed playfully interchange the alef and ayin in biblical names to try and undo the devious obfuscations of the sly scribes.”
Moreover, in the cuneiform writing of the Amarna Letters, there generally was no distinction in writing between ayin and aleph. In order for the Patriarchal narratives to contain as much accurate information as they do about the Bronze Age, the Patriarchal narratives cannot have been merely a longstanding oral tradition, told around thousands of campfires, as scholars would have it. No, the Patriarchal narratives must have been recorded in writing in the Late Bronze Age. Back then, alphabetical writing wasn’t very advanced and is not attested in south-central Canaan, but we’ve got the Amarna Letters from south-central Canaan, written in cuneiform. Instead of using cuneiform to write Akkadian common words, as is the case for the Amarna Letters, the scribe retained by the first Hebrews to record the Patriarchal narratives in writing was instructed to use cuneiform to write Canaanite/pre-Hebrew common words. Except for that one important difference as to which language to use for common words, in all other respects the cuneiform writing of the Amarna Letters is identical to the cuneiform writing used to record the Patriarchal narratives in the mid-14th century BCE. That cuneiform writing did not distinguish ayin from aleph. So for a non-west Semitic name whose underlying non-west Semitic meaning a later Jewish scribe would likely not have understood, an ayin in the received alphabetical Hebrew text for such non-west Semitic name could just as easily be an aleph, or an aleph could just as easily be an ayin.
But I wonder if you will really honor that wise observation of yours. In particular, when we come to analyzing PR‘H [“Pharaoh”], which is spelled with an ayin in the received alphabetical Hebrew text, will you be willing to ask whether an aleph had instead been intended in the original cuneiform writing of this name?
2. I disagree, however, with this: “Why did the scribes choose to write the name ABRAM אברם with an א and not an ע is not clear, possibly to detract the eye and with it the mind from עבר pass.”
In the cuneiform original of that name, the cuneiform symbol, analyzed out of context, could be either ayin or aleph. But in context, the Jewish scribe who transformed the cuneiform original into alphabetical Hebrew knew that for this west Semitic name, of course the first letter was aleph, because the first element of this name means “[the divine] Father”, with such Hebrew word ’B being spelled with an aleph, not an ayin. ’BRM is ’B RM, where ’B means “[the divine] Father”, and RM means “is exalted”. That name is attested out the wazzoo historically, and is basically a generic west Semitic name.
The problem, you see, comes with non-west Semitic proper names, where the Jewish scribe had no idea what that non-west Semitic name meant. Looking at PR‘H, that Jewish scribe, scrutinizing the cuneiform symbols written on clay tablets many hundreds of years earlier, had no idea (i) whether the third cuneiform sign was an aleph or an ayin, and/or (ii) whether the last cuneiform sign was a heth/X or a he/H. So he guessed. And he guessed wrong.
How can we figure out today which guttural was originally intended for a non-west Semitic name in the Patriarchal narratives? Here’s the answer. Simply pick whatever guttural results in the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning. If we can pick gutturals that mean, in Egyptian, “Spirit of God” [per Genesis 41: 38], which we can(!), then bingo, we’ve got it.
My point is that all the original cuneiform written text could tell us, as to non-west Semitic names, was that a guttural was present. The cuneiform writing of the Amarna Letters could not distinguish one guttural from another, and for a non-west Semitic name written in cuneiform umpteen centuries earlier, the Jewish scribe tasked by King Josiah with turning the Patriarchal narratives into alphabetical Hebrew writing could only guess what the intended gutturals were. Often as not he guessed wrong as to the gutturals.
Never trust a guttural in a non-west Semitic name from the Patriarchal narratives. Expect defective spelling. And insist on picking gutturals that result in the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning. On that basis, we will quickly solve the 3,000-year-old mysteries of the names “Hobah”, “Potiphar”, “Potipherah”, and “Pharaoh”. The same simple rules solve all of these problems.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Defective Spelling re Non-West Semitic Biblical Names
“Shinar” at Genesis 14: 1, 9, which is spelled $N‘R in the received alphabetical Hebrew text, is routinely analyzed by scholars as follows. The only way to match $N‘R to a non-biblical source is via $a-an-xa-ar at Amarna Letter EA 35: 49, differing only in the guttural. The meaning is either “Syria” [the better view, as of the Patriarchal Age], or “Mesopotamia” [a later meaning, after the Hurrians were no longer prominent in west-central Syria subsequent to the Great Syrian War]. Note the three key elements of such standard analysis of “Shinar” [with which I am in broad agreement]: (i) do not trust a guttural in comparing a Biblical name to a name attested in cuneiform in the Amarna Letters, where cuneiform writing was unable to distinguish one guttural from another; (ii) expect defective spelling; and (iii) if the meaning here is “Syria”, then such meaning fits in perfectly with the Great Syrian War of Years 13-14. The Great Syrian War [referred to by some historians as “the Second Syrian War”] featured a league of 5 rebellious parties being overwhelmed by a winning coalition of 4 rulers [“four kings with five”, per Genesis 14: 9]. As to the exact dating of this famous military conflict which potentially threatened the first Hebrews, note that Genesis 14: 4-5 can well be interpreted as referencing each of Year 13 and Year 14. That’s exact dating!
To that I would add that a slight variant of “Shinar” is attested as a Hurrian personal name. That entails both of the following: (a) this is a Hurrian-based name, literally meaning in Hurrian “brotherhood of all the Hurrians”; through the Great Syrian War [but not for long thereafter], the meaning of “Shinar” was thus “Syria”; and (b) the actual guttural here is heth/X, since Hurrian had neither he/H nor ayin/‘.
So far so good.
But oddly and unfortunately, no university scholar has ever attempted to apply the above Shinar-type analysis to “Hobah” at Genesis 14: 15. That has resulted in the following consensus “analysis” by the greatest Genesis scholars in the world:
“Hobah, a site mentioned nowhere else in the Bible or in other ancient texts.” Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis 1-15” (1987), p. 315
As to analyzing “Hobah”, certainly we on the b-hebrew list can do better than t-h-a-t ! In my next post, I will simply apply the above Shinar-type analysis in a straightforward fashion to “Hobah”. Voila, like magic, we will promptly discover the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for “Hobah”. As always [regarding non-west Semitic proper names in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives]: (i) expect defective spelling, (ii) never trust a guttural, and (iii) don’t settle for anything less than the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning. Also, don’t be surprised if “Hobah” shows up in an Amarna Letter written by a Hurrian princeling, on the eve of the Great Syrian War, in Year 13, and references a geographical locale that was important in the Great Syrian War. Remember, we’re looking for the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning.
“Shinar” and “Hobah” are like two peas in a pod. The same tools that unlock the meaning of “Shinar” work equally well regarding “Hobah”.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
To that I would add that a slight variant of “Shinar” is attested as a Hurrian personal name. That entails both of the following: (a) this is a Hurrian-based name, literally meaning in Hurrian “brotherhood of all the Hurrians”; through the Great Syrian War [but not for long thereafter], the meaning of “Shinar” was thus “Syria”; and (b) the actual guttural here is heth/X, since Hurrian had neither he/H nor ayin/‘.
So far so good.
But oddly and unfortunately, no university scholar has ever attempted to apply the above Shinar-type analysis to “Hobah” at Genesis 14: 15. That has resulted in the following consensus “analysis” by the greatest Genesis scholars in the world:
“Hobah, a site mentioned nowhere else in the Bible or in other ancient texts.” Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis 1-15” (1987), p. 315
As to analyzing “Hobah”, certainly we on the b-hebrew list can do better than t-h-a-t ! In my next post, I will simply apply the above Shinar-type analysis in a straightforward fashion to “Hobah”. Voila, like magic, we will promptly discover the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for “Hobah”. As always [regarding non-west Semitic proper names in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives]: (i) expect defective spelling, (ii) never trust a guttural, and (iii) don’t settle for anything less than the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning. Also, don’t be surprised if “Hobah” shows up in an Amarna Letter written by a Hurrian princeling, on the eve of the Great Syrian War, in Year 13, and references a geographical locale that was important in the Great Syrian War. Remember, we’re looking for the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning.
“Shinar” and “Hobah” are like two peas in a pod. The same tools that unlock the meaning of “Shinar” work equally well regarding “Hobah”.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Defective Spelling re Non-West Semitic Biblical Names
As noted in my last post, the scholarly “analysis” of “Hobah” : XWBH at Genesis 14: 15 is, unfortunately, limited to the following:
“Hobah, a site mentioned nowhere else in the Bible or in other ancient texts.” Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis 1-15” (1987), p. 315
But in fact it’s easy to find “Hobah” being “mentioned…in other ancient texts”, if we’re willing to apply the same three principles that scholars themselves effectively use in analyzing “Shinar”. For non-west Semitic proper names in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives:
1. Expect defective spelling.
2. Never trust a guttural. [That’s because cuneiform writing cannot distinguish one guttural from another, and names like “Shinar” and “Hobah” were recorded in cuneiform.]
3. Insist upon the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for each such name.
Let’s now apply those three principles to “Hobah”. That will not only allow us to find “Hobah” being frequently “mentioned…in other ancient texts” [contra the scholarly view], but also will result in the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for “Hobah”, as such term is used at Genesis 14: 15.
Rule #1: Expect Defective Spelling
“Hobah” is XWBH in the received alphabetical text of Genesis 14: 15. That’s not a plene spelling of xu-bi, which makes no sense on any level. No, it’s defective spelling: xa-u-bi. [The final -H is simply a generic west Semitic ending that is frequently used for geographical place names in Biblical Hebrew.]
Rule #2: Never Trust a Guttural
Cuneiform writing could not distinguish heth/X from he/H [or otherwise distinguish gutturals]. So instead of xa- at the beginning [with a heth/X], what was intended by the original author was, rather: ha [with a he/H]. That’s the definite article in Canaanite and Hebrew. Per the great work of Prof. Pat-El since 2009, we now know that Hebrew had the definite article from day #1.
Rule #3: Insist on the A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y P-e-r-f-e-c-t Meaning
ha means “the”. u-bi is ú-bi, which is the historical name, in the Amarna Letters, for the Damascus region. As to the presence of ha here, both in the Patriarchal narratives, and in the rest of the Bible, we know that the name of a region is preceded by the definite article. Thus “the Mizpeh [region]” at Genesis 31: 49 is H-MCPH. Likewise, at Joshua 10: 40 we see both “the south region” as H-NGB, and “the Shephelah [region]” as H-$PLH.
The Amarna Letters use logograms and Akkadian common words, so “the Damascus region” at Amarna Letter EA 189:R12 comes out as follows there: “KUR ú-pi”. P and B are interchangeable both in (i) the many variants of this geographical place name in the Amarna Age, and in (ii) Hurrian generally. So to the Hurrian authors of Amarna Letters EA 189:R12 and EA 53: 27, ú-pi = ú-bi = the Hurrian common word for “barley”.
By not trusting the guttural heth/X, and instead viewing that initial ambiguous cuneiform sign as originally intending he/H, we see that xa-u-bi was actually intended to be ha u-bi. Instead of the XWBH that we see in the received alphabetical text, a more accurate rendering would have been: H-WBH. Indeed, if the Jewish scribe in King Josiah’s late 7th century BCE Jerusalem would have understood what had been intended here in the original cuneiform version of Genesis 14: 15, he in fact would have written either H-’WBH or just H-’BH. But since he mistakenly thought that the vav/W here was the second letter in this name, not the first letter, he simply wrote vav/W, with no prosthetic aleph.
Note that the historical meaning of “Hobah” as ha ú-bi is the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for “Hobah”, namely: “the Damascus region [during the Amarna Age]”. In fact, way back in 1903, Neibuhr, though doing no linguistic analysis whatsoever, correctly discerned that based on context alone, Biblical “Hobah” at Genesis 14: 15 certainly must have the same meaning as “Ubi” in the Amarna Letters, since both reference the Damascus region in the Late Bronze Age.
We are beginning to see that all of these mysterious, ancient, non-west Semitic names -- “Shinar”, “Hobah”, “Potiphar”, “Potipherah”, “Pharaoh” -- can be readily explained, if we simply follow the foregoing 3-step procedure: (1) expect defective spelling; (2) never trust a guttural; and (3) insist upon finding the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for each of these names.
University scholars can s-a-y that “Hobah” is allegedly “a site mentioned nowhere else in the Bible or in other ancient texts”, but it just ain’t true. [Ditto for the ubiquitous, and 100% false, scholarly claim that allegedly the Patriarchal narratives report not a single attested historical incident. Not.] “Ubi” in fact is plastered all over the Amarna Letters as meaning “the Damascus region”, including in Amarna Letter EA 189 written in Year 13 by a Hurrian princeling who was a member of the 4-party winning coalition in the “four kings with five”/Great Syrian War, which per Genesis 14: 5 historically was fought in Year 14. Just recognize the apparent heth/X at the beginning of this phrase as in fact being he/H, which is the definite article that in Canaanite and Hebrew is used to indicate that a proper name is the name of a region. “Hobah” then is “the Ubi”. XWBH should have been recorded in Hebrew as H-[’]WBH, representing the ha u-bi that was intended by the original cuneiform writing.
That’s one more 3,000-year-old Biblical mystery neatly solved in a single post on the b-hebrew list. “Hobah” is “the Ubi”, which is attested out the wazzoo in the Amarna Letters as the name of the Damascus region, which in turn is the perfect meaning, in the ideal time frame [Year 13, per Genesis 14: 4], for XWBH : H-[’]WBH : ha ú-bi : “the Ubi” : “the Damascus region [in the Amarna Age]” at Genesis 14: 15.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
“Hobah, a site mentioned nowhere else in the Bible or in other ancient texts.” Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis 1-15” (1987), p. 315
But in fact it’s easy to find “Hobah” being “mentioned…in other ancient texts”, if we’re willing to apply the same three principles that scholars themselves effectively use in analyzing “Shinar”. For non-west Semitic proper names in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives:
1. Expect defective spelling.
2. Never trust a guttural. [That’s because cuneiform writing cannot distinguish one guttural from another, and names like “Shinar” and “Hobah” were recorded in cuneiform.]
3. Insist upon the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for each such name.
Let’s now apply those three principles to “Hobah”. That will not only allow us to find “Hobah” being frequently “mentioned…in other ancient texts” [contra the scholarly view], but also will result in the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for “Hobah”, as such term is used at Genesis 14: 15.
Rule #1: Expect Defective Spelling
“Hobah” is XWBH in the received alphabetical text of Genesis 14: 15. That’s not a plene spelling of xu-bi, which makes no sense on any level. No, it’s defective spelling: xa-u-bi. [The final -H is simply a generic west Semitic ending that is frequently used for geographical place names in Biblical Hebrew.]
Rule #2: Never Trust a Guttural
Cuneiform writing could not distinguish heth/X from he/H [or otherwise distinguish gutturals]. So instead of xa- at the beginning [with a heth/X], what was intended by the original author was, rather: ha [with a he/H]. That’s the definite article in Canaanite and Hebrew. Per the great work of Prof. Pat-El since 2009, we now know that Hebrew had the definite article from day #1.
Rule #3: Insist on the A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y P-e-r-f-e-c-t Meaning
ha means “the”. u-bi is ú-bi, which is the historical name, in the Amarna Letters, for the Damascus region. As to the presence of ha here, both in the Patriarchal narratives, and in the rest of the Bible, we know that the name of a region is preceded by the definite article. Thus “the Mizpeh [region]” at Genesis 31: 49 is H-MCPH. Likewise, at Joshua 10: 40 we see both “the south region” as H-NGB, and “the Shephelah [region]” as H-$PLH.
The Amarna Letters use logograms and Akkadian common words, so “the Damascus region” at Amarna Letter EA 189:R12 comes out as follows there: “KUR ú-pi”. P and B are interchangeable both in (i) the many variants of this geographical place name in the Amarna Age, and in (ii) Hurrian generally. So to the Hurrian authors of Amarna Letters EA 189:R12 and EA 53: 27, ú-pi = ú-bi = the Hurrian common word for “barley”.
By not trusting the guttural heth/X, and instead viewing that initial ambiguous cuneiform sign as originally intending he/H, we see that xa-u-bi was actually intended to be ha u-bi. Instead of the XWBH that we see in the received alphabetical text, a more accurate rendering would have been: H-WBH. Indeed, if the Jewish scribe in King Josiah’s late 7th century BCE Jerusalem would have understood what had been intended here in the original cuneiform version of Genesis 14: 15, he in fact would have written either H-’WBH or just H-’BH. But since he mistakenly thought that the vav/W here was the second letter in this name, not the first letter, he simply wrote vav/W, with no prosthetic aleph.
Note that the historical meaning of “Hobah” as ha ú-bi is the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for “Hobah”, namely: “the Damascus region [during the Amarna Age]”. In fact, way back in 1903, Neibuhr, though doing no linguistic analysis whatsoever, correctly discerned that based on context alone, Biblical “Hobah” at Genesis 14: 15 certainly must have the same meaning as “Ubi” in the Amarna Letters, since both reference the Damascus region in the Late Bronze Age.
We are beginning to see that all of these mysterious, ancient, non-west Semitic names -- “Shinar”, “Hobah”, “Potiphar”, “Potipherah”, “Pharaoh” -- can be readily explained, if we simply follow the foregoing 3-step procedure: (1) expect defective spelling; (2) never trust a guttural; and (3) insist upon finding the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for each of these names.
University scholars can s-a-y that “Hobah” is allegedly “a site mentioned nowhere else in the Bible or in other ancient texts”, but it just ain’t true. [Ditto for the ubiquitous, and 100% false, scholarly claim that allegedly the Patriarchal narratives report not a single attested historical incident. Not.] “Ubi” in fact is plastered all over the Amarna Letters as meaning “the Damascus region”, including in Amarna Letter EA 189 written in Year 13 by a Hurrian princeling who was a member of the 4-party winning coalition in the “four kings with five”/Great Syrian War, which per Genesis 14: 5 historically was fought in Year 14. Just recognize the apparent heth/X at the beginning of this phrase as in fact being he/H, which is the definite article that in Canaanite and Hebrew is used to indicate that a proper name is the name of a region. “Hobah” then is “the Ubi”. XWBH should have been recorded in Hebrew as H-[’]WBH, representing the ha u-bi that was intended by the original cuneiform writing.
That’s one more 3,000-year-old Biblical mystery neatly solved in a single post on the b-hebrew list. “Hobah” is “the Ubi”, which is attested out the wazzoo in the Amarna Letters as the name of the Damascus region, which in turn is the perfect meaning, in the ideal time frame [Year 13, per Genesis 14: 4], for XWBH : H-[’]WBH : ha ú-bi : “the Ubi” : “the Damascus region [in the Amarna Age]” at Genesis 14: 15.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Defective Spelling re Non-West Semitic Biblical Names
The unanimous scholarly view of the Biblical Egyptian names “Potiphar” [Genesis 37: 36; 39: 1] and “Potipherah [Genesis 41: 45, 50; 46: 20] is, unfortunately, as follows:
1. Both of these non-west Semitic names in the Patriarchal narratives embody thoroughgoing plene spelling. [This, despite the fact that scholars readily acknowledge that the non-west Semitic names “Tidal” and “Shinar” use defective spelling in Genesis, even though their non-biblical equivalents render all vowels. Why would a post-exilic editor be thought to have jammed generic Hebrew vowel indicators into ancient Biblical Egyptian names? That seems inherently unlikely.]
2. The guttural ayin/‘ at the end of “Potipherah” has never been questioned. [This, despite the fact that scholars readily acknowledge that the ayin/‘ in the Biblical Hebrew renderings of “Tidal” and “Shinar” is a heth/X in the original languages [Hittite, Hurrian].
3. Most outrageously of all, scholars insist that the Captain of the Palace Guard [“Potiphar”] and the high-priest of Ra from On [“Potipherah”] allegedly have the s-a-m-e Egyptian name! Per scholars, these two names differ only in the Hebrew spellings of that one Egyptian name. If you question that 100% of university scholars who have opined on this matter in writing would adopt such an untenable view that even on its face certainly cannot be true, read it and weep:
“Potiphar is usually taken to be the same name [as the name of Joseph’s Egyptian priestly father-in-law Potipherah] with loss of the final consonant, ‘ayin. This would be unusual; but for the present I can do no better on this one!” K.A. Kitchen, “On the Reliability of the Old Testament” (2003), p. 347
Certainly we on the b-hebrew list can do better than t-h-a-t !
A. “Potiphar” : PW+YPR
If, contra the scholarly view, we apply defective spelling, PW+YPT is then analyzed as follows:
P = pA, meaning “the” [in Egyptian]. W+ is wA.ti, meaning “distant [one]”. Note in particular that, contra the scholarly view, the vav/W here is definitely a consonantal vav/W, not plene spelling. Y = xireq compaginis, which is attested as such both elsewhere in the Patriarchal narratives, and in Amarna Letters from Jerusalem; it functions like a modern dash. P = pA, meaning “the” [just as per the first letter of this name]. Finally, R = ra. Please note that every one of these underlying Egyptian words or names appears in Akhenaten’s Great Hymn, where Ra is often referred as being wA.ti: “the distant [god]”.
So “Potiphar” is pA wA.ti -- pA ra, and means: “The Distant [One] -- The Ra”. That is a colorful way of saying “Devoted to Ra”.
As per usual, that is the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for this Biblical name. The historical name of the Captain of the Palace Guard at Amarna in Year 13 was Ra-mose. Such historical name literally means “Born to Ra”, but that’s just another colorful way of saying: “Devoted to Ra”. Note that each of the names “Ramose” and “Potiphar” (i) features the godly name “Ra” explicitly, and (ii) in effect means “Devoted to Ra”. As such, “Potiphar” is the Biblical Hebrew equivalent of the name “Ramose” as Akhenaten’s
Captain of the Palace Guard, who had the all-important job of preventing unpopular pharaoh Akhenaten from being assassinated.
B. “Potipherah” : PW+YPR‘
Until we get to the last two letters, the analysis is the same as for “Potiphar” above. As to the last letter, remember our rule #2: “Never trust a guttural [in a non-west Semitic proper name in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives].” As scholars readily admit is the case for the non-west Semitic names “Tidal” and “Shinar” in the Patriarchal narratives, we should consider whether the ayin/‘ in the received Biblical text here [re “Potipherah”] is a heth/X in the original language [which in this case is Egyptian]. If so, then the last two letters, R‘, were intended to be RX, which is the well-known Egyptian common word rx, meaning “to know”. So “Potipherah” is then analyzed as follows:
pA wA.ti -- pA rx, meaning “The Distant [One] -- The One Who Knows”. Using normal English word order, the meaning is: “The One Who Knows the Distant [God (Ra)]”.
As per usual, that is the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for this Biblical name. The historical name and title of the high-priest of Ra from On at Amarna in Year 13 was “Pawah, Greatest Seer”. “Pawah” literally means “[that which] sets”, referring to the sun, and hence being an indirect reference to the sun-god Ra. Note that each of the names “Pawah, Greatest Seer” and “Potipherah” (i) only references the sun-god Ra indirectly [either as “that which sets” or as “the distant one”], and (ii) each means “The One Who Knows the Sun-God [Ra]”. That is to say, “Potipherah” is the Biblical Hebrew equivalent of the name and title of Akhenaten’s high-priest of Ra from On: “Pawah, Greatest Seer”. [Incidentally, Ramose and Pawah had the two largest, finest houses in the best part of Akhenaten’s brand new capital city.]
Not only do the names “Potiphar” and “Potipherah” have different meanings [contra the untenable, if unanimous, scholarly view], but also we have now seen that each such name is a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t as to its meaning in a Year 13 historical context.
In my next post we will ask, logically, if “Pharaoh” is, per the above striking pattern, the Biblical Hebrew equivalent of the historical name of the king of Egypt at Amarna in Year 13.
No matter how baffled university scholars are as to these various non-west Semitic names in the Patriarchal narratives, note how everything becomes clear, and makes perfect sense on all levels, if we simply adopt the following three straightforward rules of interpreting such ancient non-west Semitic names:
(1) Expect defective spelling.
(2) Never trust a guttural.
(3) Don’t be satisfied with anything less than the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for each one of these names.
Those three rules have worked perfectly for “Shinar”, “Hobah”, “Potiphar” and “Potipherah”. [They also work perfectly for “Tidal” as well.] For the last such name that we will analyze on this thread, those same three rules will likewise work perfectly in finally solving the 3,000-year-old mystery as to the underlying meaning of “Pharaoh”. There’s no way that “Pharaoh” means “Big House”, with nary a reference to Ra, as university scholars would have it. Not.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
1. Both of these non-west Semitic names in the Patriarchal narratives embody thoroughgoing plene spelling. [This, despite the fact that scholars readily acknowledge that the non-west Semitic names “Tidal” and “Shinar” use defective spelling in Genesis, even though their non-biblical equivalents render all vowels. Why would a post-exilic editor be thought to have jammed generic Hebrew vowel indicators into ancient Biblical Egyptian names? That seems inherently unlikely.]
2. The guttural ayin/‘ at the end of “Potipherah” has never been questioned. [This, despite the fact that scholars readily acknowledge that the ayin/‘ in the Biblical Hebrew renderings of “Tidal” and “Shinar” is a heth/X in the original languages [Hittite, Hurrian].
3. Most outrageously of all, scholars insist that the Captain of the Palace Guard [“Potiphar”] and the high-priest of Ra from On [“Potipherah”] allegedly have the s-a-m-e Egyptian name! Per scholars, these two names differ only in the Hebrew spellings of that one Egyptian name. If you question that 100% of university scholars who have opined on this matter in writing would adopt such an untenable view that even on its face certainly cannot be true, read it and weep:
“Potiphar is usually taken to be the same name [as the name of Joseph’s Egyptian priestly father-in-law Potipherah] with loss of the final consonant, ‘ayin. This would be unusual; but for the present I can do no better on this one!” K.A. Kitchen, “On the Reliability of the Old Testament” (2003), p. 347
Certainly we on the b-hebrew list can do better than t-h-a-t !
A. “Potiphar” : PW+YPR
If, contra the scholarly view, we apply defective spelling, PW+YPT is then analyzed as follows:
P = pA, meaning “the” [in Egyptian]. W+ is wA.ti, meaning “distant [one]”. Note in particular that, contra the scholarly view, the vav/W here is definitely a consonantal vav/W, not plene spelling. Y = xireq compaginis, which is attested as such both elsewhere in the Patriarchal narratives, and in Amarna Letters from Jerusalem; it functions like a modern dash. P = pA, meaning “the” [just as per the first letter of this name]. Finally, R = ra. Please note that every one of these underlying Egyptian words or names appears in Akhenaten’s Great Hymn, where Ra is often referred as being wA.ti: “the distant [god]”.
So “Potiphar” is pA wA.ti -- pA ra, and means: “The Distant [One] -- The Ra”. That is a colorful way of saying “Devoted to Ra”.
As per usual, that is the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for this Biblical name. The historical name of the Captain of the Palace Guard at Amarna in Year 13 was Ra-mose. Such historical name literally means “Born to Ra”, but that’s just another colorful way of saying: “Devoted to Ra”. Note that each of the names “Ramose” and “Potiphar” (i) features the godly name “Ra” explicitly, and (ii) in effect means “Devoted to Ra”. As such, “Potiphar” is the Biblical Hebrew equivalent of the name “Ramose” as Akhenaten’s
Captain of the Palace Guard, who had the all-important job of preventing unpopular pharaoh Akhenaten from being assassinated.
B. “Potipherah” : PW+YPR‘
Until we get to the last two letters, the analysis is the same as for “Potiphar” above. As to the last letter, remember our rule #2: “Never trust a guttural [in a non-west Semitic proper name in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives].” As scholars readily admit is the case for the non-west Semitic names “Tidal” and “Shinar” in the Patriarchal narratives, we should consider whether the ayin/‘ in the received Biblical text here [re “Potipherah”] is a heth/X in the original language [which in this case is Egyptian]. If so, then the last two letters, R‘, were intended to be RX, which is the well-known Egyptian common word rx, meaning “to know”. So “Potipherah” is then analyzed as follows:
pA wA.ti -- pA rx, meaning “The Distant [One] -- The One Who Knows”. Using normal English word order, the meaning is: “The One Who Knows the Distant [God (Ra)]”.
As per usual, that is the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for this Biblical name. The historical name and title of the high-priest of Ra from On at Amarna in Year 13 was “Pawah, Greatest Seer”. “Pawah” literally means “[that which] sets”, referring to the sun, and hence being an indirect reference to the sun-god Ra. Note that each of the names “Pawah, Greatest Seer” and “Potipherah” (i) only references the sun-god Ra indirectly [either as “that which sets” or as “the distant one”], and (ii) each means “The One Who Knows the Sun-God [Ra]”. That is to say, “Potipherah” is the Biblical Hebrew equivalent of the name and title of Akhenaten’s high-priest of Ra from On: “Pawah, Greatest Seer”. [Incidentally, Ramose and Pawah had the two largest, finest houses in the best part of Akhenaten’s brand new capital city.]
Not only do the names “Potiphar” and “Potipherah” have different meanings [contra the untenable, if unanimous, scholarly view], but also we have now seen that each such name is a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t as to its meaning in a Year 13 historical context.
In my next post we will ask, logically, if “Pharaoh” is, per the above striking pattern, the Biblical Hebrew equivalent of the historical name of the king of Egypt at Amarna in Year 13.
No matter how baffled university scholars are as to these various non-west Semitic names in the Patriarchal narratives, note how everything becomes clear, and makes perfect sense on all levels, if we simply adopt the following three straightforward rules of interpreting such ancient non-west Semitic names:
(1) Expect defective spelling.
(2) Never trust a guttural.
(3) Don’t be satisfied with anything less than the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y p-e-r-f-e-c-t meaning for each one of these names.
Those three rules have worked perfectly for “Shinar”, “Hobah”, “Potiphar” and “Potipherah”. [They also work perfectly for “Tidal” as well.] For the last such name that we will analyze on this thread, those same three rules will likewise work perfectly in finally solving the 3,000-year-old mystery as to the underlying meaning of “Pharaoh”. There’s no way that “Pharaoh” means “Big House”, with nary a reference to Ra, as university scholars would have it. Not.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Defective Spelling re Non-West Semitic Biblical Names
It is inherently unlikely that university scholars are correct in insisting that “Pharaoh” : PR‘H in the Patriarchal narratives allegedly means “Big House”, for the following 7 reasons:
1. The Egyptian phrase “Big House” does not end with he/H or any other true guttural.
2. In the thousands of references to the king of Egypt by native Egyptians, only a tiny handful of such references use the odd, if colorful, phrase “Big House”.
3. The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives had zero interest in the king of Egypt having a palace. In the entirety of the Patriarchal narratives, no palace of a pharaoh is ever mentioned.
4. By stark contrast, the early Hebrew author goes out of his way to quote the king of Egypt as saying, at Genesis 41: 38, that Joseph is a man in whom “the Spirit of God” resides. That implies that the name of the king of Egypt may itself be “Spirit of God”, perhaps in a form such as “Spirit of the Sun-God Ra”.
5. It is conceded by all that the names of the Captain of the Palace Guard and of the high-priest of Ra from On honor the Egyptian sun-god Ra. Wouldn’t we then rightly expect the name of the king of Egypt likewise to honor Ra?
6. Indeed, the first two Hebrew letters of “Pharaoh”, namely P-R, are identical to the last two Hebrew letters of the name “Potiphar”, and in the latter case it is agreed by all that P-R means pA ra: “the Ra”. That seems a much more promising line of analysis than the scholarly view that “Pharaoh” allegedly is an obscure Egyptian phrase having the basically irrelevant meaning of “Big House”.
7. Finally, Genesis 41: 46 refers to “PR‘H, king of Egypt”. Such phrasing implies that PR‘H is the actual name of the king of Egypt during the Patriarchal Age, rather than being an odd nickname that generically means “Big House”.
The key to analyzing “Pharaoh” : PR‘H is our rule #2 on this thread: “Never trust a guttural [in a non-Semitic proper name from the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives]”.
Accordingly, PR‘H : “Pharaoh” is better analyzed as follows.
P-R is identical to the ending of the name “Potiphar” that we noted in my prior post. P-R = pA ra = “the Ra”. Right off the bat, that nicely ties the name of the king of Egypt during the Patriarchal Age to the names of his Captain of the Guard and the high-priest of Ra from On. Very sensibly, all three such Biblical Egyptian names honor the Egyptian sun-god Ra. So far, so good.
The next letter is the guttural ayin/‘ in the received Biblical text. But “never trust a guttural”, because the Patriarchal narratives are so old and historically accurate that they must have been recorded in cuneiform writing during the Late Bronze Age; cuneiform writing [per the Amarna Letters from south-central Canaan in the Late Bronze Age/mid-14th century BCE] is infamous for being unable to distinguish one guttural from another generally. In particular, the cuneiform writing of the Amarna Letters cannot distinguish ayin from the semi-guttural aleph. So contra the scholarly view, we will treat the third letter in “Pharaoh” as having originally been intended to be aleph/’ [not the ayin/‘ that is in the received text].
Finally, the last letter is he/H in the received Biblical text, but cuneiform could not distinguish he/H from heth/X. So we will treat the last letter as having originally been intended to be heth/X [not the he/H in the received text]. Remember, scholars themselves agree that the guttural in the Biblical renderings of “Tidal” and “Shinar” is not the originally-intended guttural, and my last post showed the same cuneiform phenomenon for the name “Potipherah” as well.
The last two letters in “Pharaoh” thus were originally intended to be aleph-heth [with Hebrew aleph Hebrew heth representing Egyptian aleph Egyptian heth], which is Ax in Egyptian, being the Egyptian common word for “spirit”.
“Pharaoh” is pA ra Ax: “The Ra, Spirit”, or in normal English word order: “Spirit [of] The Ra”.
That’s the same basic phrase as Pharaoh applies to Joseph at Genesis 41: 38!
And what is the most famous pharonic name of all times, being the historical name of the king of Egypt in Year 13? “Akhenaten” : Ax-n-itn. Ax in the name “Akhenaten” is the same as the Ax [aleph-heth] in “Pharaoh”, meaning “spirit” in Egyptian. -n- is merely a generic connector in Egyptian, which is not used in the Biblical rendering. The Biblical equivalent of itn/Aten is pA ra. We must recall in that connection that although Akhenaten had formerly favored the nomenclature “Aten” [in his own changed name and when his first 4 daughters were named], nevertheless by the time his last two daughters were born, shortly before Year 13, he had come to favor the nomenclature “Ra”. So although he did not change his own name again, as of Year 13 Akhenaten preferred “Ra” or “the Ra/pA ra” to Aten. Note that both such names are used in his Great Hymn [which slightly pre-dates Year 13].
Thus “Pharaoh” is the Biblical Hebrew equivalent of “Akhenaten”. PR - ’X = Ax-n-itn.
The king of Egypt in the Patriarchal Age was Akhenaten, who ruled [or co-ruled] for 17 years in the mid-14th century BCE. The name “Akhenaten” is manifestly plastered all over the Patriarchal narratives, as “Pharaoh”. “PR‘H, king of Egypt” at Genesis 41: 45 means: “Akhenaten, king of Egypt”. Using deft artistic license, each of Abram, Jacob and Joseph is portrayed as dealing with Akhenaten as king of Egypt. The mindset of the Patriarchal narratives is consistently Year 13. Note that each of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Akhenaten had the same #1 problem: a longstanding inability to sire a son as heir by his only or favorite main wife.
The scholarly claim that “Pharaoh” supposedly means “Big House” cannot stand the light of day. Rather, “Pharaoh” : PR - ’X = “Akhenaten” : Ax-n-itn.
A-l-l of the names we have examined in this thread -- Shinar, Tidal, Hobah, Potiphar, Potipherah, Pharaoh -- make perfect sense in the historical context of Year 13, while making little or no sense outside of the time period of the mid-14th century BCE.
This thread has solved beaucoup 3,000-year-old Biblical mysteries. Now if we could just get university scholars to realize how old and historically accurate the Patriarchal narratives are -- as a written cuneiform document coming out of south-central Canaan shortly after Year 13. The troubling times of Year 13 were “The Year of Living Dangerously” for the first Hebrews. Thank goodness the first Hebrews survived to tell the tale!
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
1. The Egyptian phrase “Big House” does not end with he/H or any other true guttural.
2. In the thousands of references to the king of Egypt by native Egyptians, only a tiny handful of such references use the odd, if colorful, phrase “Big House”.
3. The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives had zero interest in the king of Egypt having a palace. In the entirety of the Patriarchal narratives, no palace of a pharaoh is ever mentioned.
4. By stark contrast, the early Hebrew author goes out of his way to quote the king of Egypt as saying, at Genesis 41: 38, that Joseph is a man in whom “the Spirit of God” resides. That implies that the name of the king of Egypt may itself be “Spirit of God”, perhaps in a form such as “Spirit of the Sun-God Ra”.
5. It is conceded by all that the names of the Captain of the Palace Guard and of the high-priest of Ra from On honor the Egyptian sun-god Ra. Wouldn’t we then rightly expect the name of the king of Egypt likewise to honor Ra?
6. Indeed, the first two Hebrew letters of “Pharaoh”, namely P-R, are identical to the last two Hebrew letters of the name “Potiphar”, and in the latter case it is agreed by all that P-R means pA ra: “the Ra”. That seems a much more promising line of analysis than the scholarly view that “Pharaoh” allegedly is an obscure Egyptian phrase having the basically irrelevant meaning of “Big House”.
7. Finally, Genesis 41: 46 refers to “PR‘H, king of Egypt”. Such phrasing implies that PR‘H is the actual name of the king of Egypt during the Patriarchal Age, rather than being an odd nickname that generically means “Big House”.
The key to analyzing “Pharaoh” : PR‘H is our rule #2 on this thread: “Never trust a guttural [in a non-Semitic proper name from the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives]”.
Accordingly, PR‘H : “Pharaoh” is better analyzed as follows.
P-R is identical to the ending of the name “Potiphar” that we noted in my prior post. P-R = pA ra = “the Ra”. Right off the bat, that nicely ties the name of the king of Egypt during the Patriarchal Age to the names of his Captain of the Guard and the high-priest of Ra from On. Very sensibly, all three such Biblical Egyptian names honor the Egyptian sun-god Ra. So far, so good.
The next letter is the guttural ayin/‘ in the received Biblical text. But “never trust a guttural”, because the Patriarchal narratives are so old and historically accurate that they must have been recorded in cuneiform writing during the Late Bronze Age; cuneiform writing [per the Amarna Letters from south-central Canaan in the Late Bronze Age/mid-14th century BCE] is infamous for being unable to distinguish one guttural from another generally. In particular, the cuneiform writing of the Amarna Letters cannot distinguish ayin from the semi-guttural aleph. So contra the scholarly view, we will treat the third letter in “Pharaoh” as having originally been intended to be aleph/’ [not the ayin/‘ that is in the received text].
Finally, the last letter is he/H in the received Biblical text, but cuneiform could not distinguish he/H from heth/X. So we will treat the last letter as having originally been intended to be heth/X [not the he/H in the received text]. Remember, scholars themselves agree that the guttural in the Biblical renderings of “Tidal” and “Shinar” is not the originally-intended guttural, and my last post showed the same cuneiform phenomenon for the name “Potipherah” as well.
The last two letters in “Pharaoh” thus were originally intended to be aleph-heth [with Hebrew aleph Hebrew heth representing Egyptian aleph Egyptian heth], which is Ax in Egyptian, being the Egyptian common word for “spirit”.
“Pharaoh” is pA ra Ax: “The Ra, Spirit”, or in normal English word order: “Spirit [of] The Ra”.
That’s the same basic phrase as Pharaoh applies to Joseph at Genesis 41: 38!
And what is the most famous pharonic name of all times, being the historical name of the king of Egypt in Year 13? “Akhenaten” : Ax-n-itn. Ax in the name “Akhenaten” is the same as the Ax [aleph-heth] in “Pharaoh”, meaning “spirit” in Egyptian. -n- is merely a generic connector in Egyptian, which is not used in the Biblical rendering. The Biblical equivalent of itn/Aten is pA ra. We must recall in that connection that although Akhenaten had formerly favored the nomenclature “Aten” [in his own changed name and when his first 4 daughters were named], nevertheless by the time his last two daughters were born, shortly before Year 13, he had come to favor the nomenclature “Ra”. So although he did not change his own name again, as of Year 13 Akhenaten preferred “Ra” or “the Ra/pA ra” to Aten. Note that both such names are used in his Great Hymn [which slightly pre-dates Year 13].
Thus “Pharaoh” is the Biblical Hebrew equivalent of “Akhenaten”. PR - ’X = Ax-n-itn.
The king of Egypt in the Patriarchal Age was Akhenaten, who ruled [or co-ruled] for 17 years in the mid-14th century BCE. The name “Akhenaten” is manifestly plastered all over the Patriarchal narratives, as “Pharaoh”. “PR‘H, king of Egypt” at Genesis 41: 45 means: “Akhenaten, king of Egypt”. Using deft artistic license, each of Abram, Jacob and Joseph is portrayed as dealing with Akhenaten as king of Egypt. The mindset of the Patriarchal narratives is consistently Year 13. Note that each of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Akhenaten had the same #1 problem: a longstanding inability to sire a son as heir by his only or favorite main wife.
The scholarly claim that “Pharaoh” supposedly means “Big House” cannot stand the light of day. Rather, “Pharaoh” : PR - ’X = “Akhenaten” : Ax-n-itn.
A-l-l of the names we have examined in this thread -- Shinar, Tidal, Hobah, Potiphar, Potipherah, Pharaoh -- make perfect sense in the historical context of Year 13, while making little or no sense outside of the time period of the mid-14th century BCE.
This thread has solved beaucoup 3,000-year-old Biblical mysteries. Now if we could just get university scholars to realize how old and historically accurate the Patriarchal narratives are -- as a written cuneiform document coming out of south-central Canaan shortly after Year 13. The troubling times of Year 13 were “The Year of Living Dangerously” for the first Hebrews. Thank goodness the first Hebrews survived to tell the tale!
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois