Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [biblicalist] Re: Did Moses Know the Alphabet? Was There Writing in Ancie...

Expand Messages
  • jimstinehart@aol.com
    George Somsel: You wrote: “[W]edon t know that anyone recorded the patriarchal narratives SHORTLY afterAkhenaten s death. What would make you assume such.
    Message 1 of 16 , Dec 25, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      George Somsel:

      You wrote: “[W]edon't know that anyone recorded the patriarchal narratives SHORTLY afterAkhenaten's death. What would make you assume such. You seem to assume manythings.”

      The Patriarchal narratives contain 37 numbers that are aperson’s age or a length of time. If allsuch 37 numbers are redolent of the Amarna Age, then we can be assured thatsomeone indeed “recorded the patriarchal narratives SHORTLY after Akhenaten'sdeath.”

      In this short post, let’s look at the most obvious suchnumber, which appears at Genesis 47: 28:

      “And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen shanah….”

      The non-archaic meaning of shanah is a 12-month year. On that level of meaning, Jacob/“Israel” is portrayed in Genesis as beinga semi-monotheistic leader of his people in Egypt for 17 years. Outside of the Bible, only one person in5,000 years of history was a semi-monotheistic leader of his people in Egyptfor 17 years: pharaoh Akhenaten (whosefinal regnal year was his Year 17). Thusthe number 17 at Genesis 47: 28 is utterly redolent of the Amarna Age, whichlasted 17 years: each of Jacob andAkhenaten was a semi-monotheistic leader of his people in Egypt for 17 years.

      But what about the other 36 numbers in the received text ofthe Patriarchal narratives? Are theylikewise redolent of the Amarna Age? Ifso, then as we can explore, we can be quite sure that someone indeed “recordedthe patriarchal narratives SHORTLY after Akhenaten's death.”

      Jim Stinehart











      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • HUMAP@aol.com
      Hello again. I did not realize that my screen name identified me when I made my last post. I am Mark Anthony Phelps. Hiding behind a screen name smacks of
      Message 2 of 16 , Dec 25, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello again. I did not realize that my screen name identified me when I made my last post. I am Mark Anthony Phelps. Hiding behind a screen name smacks of disingenuousness. I didn't intend to smack in such fashion.


        I assume if you are arguing for a historical Moses writing the Pentateuch (which I have no interest in debating either way). then I assume that you are arguing for the Moses narratives to be literal, that he was raised in the court of an Egyptian pharaoh. Now that I have spent a second five minutes considering your theory, I must admit I am completely perplexed as to why one would ever assume that a member of the Egyptian royal family would write about events among any ethnic group in Akkadian, even if it were the diplomatic lingua franca. Why cuneiform rather than hieroglyphics, which one would assume to be the first language of the court (regardless of his ethnicity which the narrative states he knew about)? I am sorry, it is just bizarre. It does raise the question of why it would have been done in an alphabet, as opposed to Egyptian, if Moses were indeed raised in the royal court.


        Secondly, to put forth such an ambitious theory, you would need to have a large number (corresponding at some rate to those attributed to Hebrew-Hebrew textual transmission problems) of occurrences in textual transmission in which translation from Akkadian copies to Hebrew copies (orally or written) would be evident. Further, orthographic confusion among Akkadian signs or auditory confusion could be posited for early steps in the transmission process. I have not taken time to reflect upon what sorts of conceptual issues arise when going from syllabic to alphabetic documents, but there must be several (e.g., mistaking a logogram for a syllabic value). You have a few haphazard bits of circumstantial evidence which are not remotely close to coherent (I am thinking of your assertions about time and labeling EA personages as biblical ones: virtually nothing in your list can withstand scrutiny, and I just do not want to take the time to dismember each one), let alone convincing. Sorry, it is a question that held my attention for a few minutes, and I would have loved to have seen some fruit. Alas, there is no hope for this tree.


        Back to Shapan reading to Josiah. What are you suggesting that the context of Jeremiah dictating to Baruch who then in turn reads the scroll to Jehoiakim who then destroys the text (Jer 36)? Is Baruch the lone literate one of this triad? Was he writing in a language the other two did not know? Again, there are reasons why things are read to others that have nothing to do with being illiterate in Akkadian. Tie your creativity to hard evidence, and your work will be profitable for all of us. I am sorry to be a buzzkiller.


        Mark






        -----Original Message-----
        From: jimstinehart <jimstinehart@...>
        To: biblicalist <biblicalist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 3:15 am
        Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Did Moses Know the Alphabet? Was There Writing in Ancie...






        George Somsel:

        1. To my assertionthat “As I demonstrated in a prior post, we know that, based on the substantivecontent of the Patriarchal narratives, someone recorded the Patriarchalnarratives in writing shortly after Akhenaten’s death", you responded: “You demonstrated no such thing. You assertedas much (no demonstration involved). Who wrote down the events of the TrojanWar, and when? (No, don't say "Homer"). Who wrote the story of thefox and the grapes? Was it immediately after the fox decided that they probablyweren't very appetizing?”

        I have listed a half dozen specific events in thePatriarchal narratives where an exact Year number is indicated. In each case, we can verify both the specificevent and the exact Year number by reference to a non-biblical source: the Amarna Letters. Someone who knew the same detailed informationas is in those Amarna Letters from Years 12-14 recorded the Patriarchalnarratives in writing, shortly after these historical events transpired.

        2. You wrote: “The Hebrews were never in Akkad either priorto their deportation on two occasions (much later).”

        The Hebrews never wrote in Akkadian. Cuneiform will work for any language. We know from Amarna Letters written in southern Canaan that inparticular, cuneiform works well for recording either Akkadian words or westSemitic/pre-Hebrew words. The Hebrews hireda scribe, who likely was IR-Heba’s former scribe, to write down the Patriarchalnarratives shortly after Akhenaten’s death, using cuneiform to write westSemitic/pre-Hebrew words, most of which, as I have shown, match to classic Hebrew words in II Samuel.

        3. You wrote: “To whom were the Ugaritans writing? Fortheir posterity alone? Or did those Documents in Hittite and Akkadian actuallygo to someone who used those languages?”

        The people of Ugarit never wrote to the Hebrews, who livedin tents in south-central Canaan at that time.

        But we know for a fact that tent-dwellers in the same valleywhere the Hebrews preferred to sojourn, in the same year, namely Year 14, diduse writing. See Amarna Letter EA 273:

        “May the king [pharaohAkhenaten], my lord, take cognizance of his land, and may the king, my lord,know that the Apiru wrote to Ayyaluna and to Sarxa [Zorah], and the two sons ofMilkilu barely escaped being killed.”


        4. The Patriarchal narratives are much older,and much more historically accurate, than university scholars realize. That’s thanks to cuneiform being used on 50tablets to write down the Patriarchal narratives using west Semitic/pre-Hebrewwords, at the end of the Amarna Age. Theearly Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives was a contemporary who knewexactly what happened in Year 12, in Year 13, and in Year 14. A few years later he hired IR-Heba’s formerscribe to write it all down, in cuneiform using west Semitic words, on 50tablets that were still intact in the days of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah, in 7thcentury BCE Jerusalem. That’s the onlyway that the received alphabetic Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives canhave the p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy that it does have as tothe birth of Judaism in Year 14.


        Jim Stinehart

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • jimstinehart@aol.com
        Mark Anthony Phelps: You wrote: “I assumethat you are arguing for the Moses narratives to be literal, that he was raisedin the court of an Egyptian pharaoh.
        Message 3 of 16 , Dec 25, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Mark Anthony Phelps:

          You wrote: “I assumethat you are arguing for the Moses narratives to be literal, that he was raisedin the court of an Egyptian pharaoh. Now that I have spent a second five minutesconsidering your theory, I must admit I am completely perplexed as to why onewould ever assume that a member of the Egyptian royal family would write aboutevents among any ethnic group in Akkadian, even if it were the diplomaticlingua franca. Why cuneiform rather than hieroglyphics, which one would assumeto be the first language of the court (regardless of his ethnicity which thenarrative states he knew about)?”

          1. No Hebrew, whetherMoses or anyone else, wrote in Akkadian. But early Hebrews in the Late Bronze Age wrote west Semitic words incuneiform, rather than in alphabetical Hebrew, because alphabetical Hebrew didn’texist yet.

          2. I for one do notassume that Moses was “a member of the Egyptian royal family”. The name M$H doesn’t make good sense inEgyptian. The Egyptian common word msi, which is often asserted to be the Egyptian root of the nameM$H, has an s like sin or samekh, not sh like shin. Likewise, R‘MSS [“Ramses”],at Exodus 1: 11 as a personal name and at Exodus 12: 37 as a geographical placename, is spelled with a samekh. So if,as routinely alleged, M$H is an Egyptian name based on the Egyptian word msi and, many would insist, merely ashortened form of R‘MSS, then the sibilant should be samekh. But it isn’t. It’s shin. The Hebrew pun on the name “Moses” at Exodus2: 10 is on the Hebrew common word M$H with a shin, not a samekh or sin.

          Where a final -H is usually a Semiticization of a foreign name,for the name M$H [“Moses”] we need a non-west Semitic root M$, to which -H canthen be added. mu$ in Hurrian means “exalted, sublime, just”. Many Hurrian proper names begin with Mu$, such as: Mu$-te$up; Mu$-teya; Mu$-$enni; Mu$-apu; Mu$-tilla; Mu$u$-$e, etc. mu$is a wonderfully positive word in Hurrian, that is usually used in conjunctionwith praising the divine attributes of a deity.

          M$ -H [“Moses”] is a Semiticized version of the Hurrian commonword mu$. As a proper name, it means “Exalted, Sublime,Just”. The Semiticized -H ending meansthat the person, although of Hurrian ancestry, is committed to living inCanaan.

          3. And now consider thatMoses’s wife also has a Hurrian name. CPR-H, as the name of Moses’s wife, indicates that Zipporah was a Hurrian (a LateBronze Age people in northern Mesopotamia/Mitanni), who may have been associatedwith the Kassites (a Late Bronze Age people who originated near the Zab Riverin the Zagros Mountains and ruled southern Mesopotamia).

          The Kassites are from the Zagros Mountains, and the Zab Riveroriginates in the Zagros Mountains. Zab- is a Hurrian root meaning “steal”,and there’s a Hurrian common word: za-ab-ri¸ also spelled sa-ap-ri, meaning “angry”, perhaps inthe sense of “tempestuous”.

          The name of Moses’s wife is CPR-H: ssade-peh-resh-he. The final -H in her name, as in the name M$-H[“Moses”], may be a Semiticization, meaning that Zipporah was committed tostaying with the Hebrews in or near Canaan, rather than planning to return toMesopotamia to resume her old Hurrian ways, per Exodus 18: 2. Ssade/C, which may have been an emphatic sinin the Late Bronze Age, is usually Z or S in Hurrian, and here either suchHurrian letter is used in the Hurrian common word za-ab-ri¸ also spelled sa-ap-ri. Peh/P is either P or B in Hurrian, andhere either such letter is used. So theHurrian common word sa-ap-ri is afine linguistic match to CPR -H, the name of Moses’s wife Zipporah.

          As to za-ab-ri/sa-ap-rimeaning “angry” or “tempestuous” as a Hurrian common word, Zipporah definitelyseems “tempestuous”, and even “angry”, in the ambiguous incident related atExodus 4: 25 (which is one of only three Bible verses that mention her name,and the only Bible verse using her name in which Zipporah is active): “Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut offthe foreskin of her son, and cast [it] at his feet, and said, Surely a bloodyhusband [art] thou to me.” By contrast,Zipporah definitely does not act like “a little bird”, so the conventional westSemitic etymology of her name, based on CPWR in Hebrew meaning “a little bird”,is suspect. Moreover, if Zipporah iscalled a “Kassite” at Numbers 12: 1 [being the interpretation that I myselffavor for that ambiguous passage], and if her homeland is the Hurrian state ofMDYN/Mitanni (discussed below), then Zipporah could not have a west Semiticname. In fact, Zipporah well lives up toboth aspects of her Hurrian name CPR -H/za-ab-ri/sa-ap-ri: she’sboth (i) “angry” and “tempestuous”, per Exodus 4: 25 and the meaning of theHurrian common word za-ab-ri/sa-ap-ri; and (ii) her name za-ab-ri recalls the Zab River as the original homeland of theKassites.

          The word sa-ap-ri usedas a woman’s name is redolent both of (i) the Hurrians, and (ii) the Kassites. As to the Hurrians, note the reference atExodus 2: 15 to MDYN as being Zipporah’s homeland. The root of the country name “Mitanni” is theHurrian verb mid-, so this name ofthe only Hurrian great power state could be rendered as: mi-da-a-ni. That would come into Hebrew as MDYN,where Hebrew yod/Y is consistently used to render the Hurrian true vowel A asits own separate segment in Hurrian proper names. As to the Kassites, see K$-YT at Numbers 12: 1(where the root is K$, which compares to the K$ root in K$-D-YM, meaning "Kassite country people", at Genesis 11: 28, 31;15: 7). Finally, as noted above sa-ap-ri or za-ab-ri is redolent of the Zab river which originates in theZagros Mountains as the original homeland of the Kassites. Mitanni and the Kassites and Hurrian-basednames are all redolent of the Late Bronze Age historical time period; in particular, Mitanni and Kassites make nosense in any other time period.

          4. The Moses tradition is aHebrew remembrance of Hurrians who helped the early Hebrews by using theirknowledge of cuneiform to write west Semitic words. Hebrew sacred scripture was never written inAkkadian, but at least the Patriarchal narratives for 700 years were written incuneiform, using west Semitic words. Thescribe whom the first Hebrews hired likely was an ethnic Hurrian with a Hurrianname like M$-H [“Moses”], who probably had a Hurrian wife with a Hurrian namelike CPR-H [“Zipporah”].

          Jim Stinehart




          _._,_.___
























          .







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • George F Somsel
          Jim,   You resort to the ridiculous.  This conversation is finished.  Moreover, I will NEVER respond to another of you posts until you remove the ingrown
          Message 4 of 16 , Dec 26, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Jim,
             
            You resort to the ridiculous.  This conversation is finished.  Moreover, I will NEVER respond to another of you posts until you remove the ingrown hair from your brain so you can engage in an intelligent conversation.  You may post (so long as the moderator allows), but you will not get a response.

            george

            gfsomsel

             search for truth, hear truth, learn truth,
             love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
             defend the truth till death.

            - Jan Hus
            _________



            >________________________________
            > From: "jimstinehart@..." <jimstinehart@...>
            >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
            >Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 9:33 AM
            >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Did Moses Know the Alphabet? Was There Writing in Ancie...
            >
            >

            >
            >
            >George Somsel:
            >
            >You wrote: “[W]edon't know that anyone recorded the patriarchal narratives SHORTLY afterAkhenaten's death. What would make you assume such. You seem to assume manythings.”
            >
            >The Patriarchal narratives contain 37 numbers that are aperson’s age or a length of time. If allsuch 37 numbers are redolent of the Amarna Age, then we can be assured thatsomeone indeed “recorded the patriarchal narratives SHORTLY after Akhenaten'sdeath.”
            >
            >In this short post, let’s look at the most obvious suchnumber, which appears at Genesis 47: 28:
            >
            >“And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen shanah….”
            >
            >The non-archaic meaning of shanah is a 12-month year. On that level of meaning, Jacob/“Israel” is portrayed in Genesis as beinga semi-monotheistic leader of his people in Egypt for 17 years. Outside of the Bible, only one person in5,000 years of history was a semi-monotheistic leader of his people in Egyptfor 17 years: pharaoh Akhenaten (whosefinal regnal year was his Year 17). Thusthe number 17 at Genesis 47: 28 is utterly redolent of the Amarna Age, whichlasted 17 years: each of Jacob andAkhenaten was a semi-monotheistic leader of his people in Egypt for 17 years.
            >
            >But what about the other 36 numbers in the received text ofthe Patriarchal narratives? Are theylikewise redolent of the Amarna Age? Ifso, then as we can explore, we can be quite sure that someone indeed “recordedthe patriarchal narratives SHORTLY after Akhenaten's death.”
            >
            >Jim Stinehart
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • HUMAP@aol.com
            Jim. This is the last exchange I choose to have here, as I am unable to intuit the layers of background assumptions you have and I cannot even begin to unravel
            Message 5 of 16 , Dec 26, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Jim.


              This is the last exchange I choose to have here, as I am unable to intuit the layers of background assumptions you have and I cannot even begin to unravel what you are asserting. I just want a bit of clarity.

              I have no clue as to what it is you are asserting when you write that no "Hebrew" including Moses wrote in Akkadian, but rather wrote west Semitic words in cuneiform. You invoke EA letters for what purpose then? The scribes wrote in bad Akkadian. It is Akkadian, the Akkadian of the Kassites which you mention in your convoluted response to me. Yes, they used WS glosses and verbal forms. It is still Akkadian, bad, bad Akkadian.


              I don't know what you call the Nuzi tablets, but they are referred to as being written in a dialect of Akkadian. Jim, do you know Akkadian? William Moran gave the world proto Hebrew by his work in EA, and terrorized me and everyone else who had him for Akkadian. I had to translate Nuzi tablets from drawings (no transliterations existed) for Raymond Westbrook at grad school number two. Whatever Hurrian and EA and west Semitic glosses and grammar mean to you, this is all under the umbrella of Akkadian. I have no idea as to what your point is in all this. I would like to, so I can find something redeeming. What you have presented so far reminds me of Wittgenstein's notion of a private language. Nothing is getting conveyed here.


              The Moses tradition is really about giving props to the Hurrians for helping them with writing in cuneiform (but not Akkadian--never mind the cuneiform that the Hurrians used was Akkadian)? I really would like to say something here with a straight face. I cannot.It is just a bad idea.


              Jim, you are a bright, creative guy. Use it for the forces of good from now on. Work within the scholarly consensus and modify it, rather than creating whole new models that no one will follow. Thanks for your time. I wish you the best.


              Mark





              -----Original Message-----
              From: jimstinehart <jimstinehart@...>
              To: biblicalist <biblicalist@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 5:59 pm
              Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Did Moses Know the Alphabet? Was There Writing in Ancie...






              Mark Anthony Phelps:

              You wrote: “I assumethat you are arguing for the Moses narratives to be literal, that he was raisedin the court of an Egyptian pharaoh. Now that I have spent a second five minutesconsidering your theory, I must admit I am completely perplexed as to why onewould ever assume that a member of the Egyptian royal family would write aboutevents among any ethnic group in Akkadian, even if it were the diplomaticlingua franca. Why cuneiform rather than hieroglyphics, which one would assumeto be the first language of the court (regardless of his ethnicity which thenarrative states he knew about)?”

              1. No Hebrew, whetherMoses or anyone else, wrote in Akkadian. But early Hebrews in the Late Bronze Age wrote west Semitic words incuneiform, rather than in alphabetical Hebrew, because alphabetical Hebrew didn’texist yet.

              2. I for one do notassume that Moses was “a member of the Egyptian royal family”. The name M$H doesn’t make good sense inEgyptian. The Egyptian common word msi, which is often asserted to be the Egyptian root of the nameM$H, has an s like sin or samekh, not sh like shin. Likewise, R‘MSS [“Ramses”],at Exodus 1: 11 as a personal name and at Exodus 12: 37 as a geographical placename, is spelled with a samekh. So if,as routinely alleged, M$H is an Egyptian name based on the Egyptian word msi and, many would insist, merely ashortened form of R‘MSS, then the sibilant should be samekh. But it isn’t. It’s shin. The Hebrew pun on the name “Moses” at Exodus2: 10 is on the Hebrew common word M$H with a shin, not a samekh or sin.

              Where a final -H is usually a Semiticization of a foreign name,for the name M$H [“Moses”] we need a non-west Semitic root M$, to which -H canthen be added. mu$ in Hurrian means “exalted, sublime, just”. Many Hurrian proper names begin with Mu$, such as: Mu$-te$up; Mu$-teya; Mu$-$enni; Mu$-apu; Mu$-tilla; Mu$u$-$e, etc. mu$is a wonderfully positive word in Hurrian, that is usually used in conjunctionwith praising the divine attributes of a deity.

              M$ -H [“Moses”] is a Semiticized version of the Hurrian commonword mu$. As a proper name, it means “Exalted, Sublime,Just”. The Semiticized -H ending meansthat the person, although of Hurrian ancestry, is committed to living inCanaan.

              3. And now consider thatMoses’s wife also has a Hurrian name. CPR-H, as the name of Moses’s wife, indicates that Zipporah was a Hurrian (a LateBronze Age people in northern Mesopotamia/Mitanni), who may have been associatedwith the Kassites (a Late Bronze Age people who originated near the Zab Riverin the Zagros Mountains and ruled southern Mesopotamia).

              The Kassites are from the Zagros Mountains, and the Zab Riveroriginates in the Zagros Mountains. Zab- is a Hurrian root meaning “steal”,and there’s a Hurrian common word: za-ab-ri¸ also spelled sa-ap-ri, meaning “angry”, perhaps inthe sense of “tempestuous”.

              The name of Moses’s wife is CPR-H: ssade-peh-resh-he. The final -H in her name, as in the name M$-H[“Moses”], may be a Semiticization, meaning that Zipporah was committed tostaying with the Hebrews in or near Canaan, rather than planning to return toMesopotamia to resume her old Hurrian ways, per Exodus 18: 2. Ssade/C, which may have been an emphatic sinin the Late Bronze Age, is usually Z or S in Hurrian, and here either suchHurrian letter is used in the Hurrian common word za-ab-ri¸ also spelled sa-ap-ri. Peh/P is either P or B in Hurrian, andhere either such letter is used. So theHurrian common word sa-ap-ri is afine linguistic match to CPR -H, the name of Moses’s wife Zipporah.

              As to za-ab-ri/sa-ap-rimeaning “angry” or “tempestuous” as a Hurrian common word, Zipporah definitelyseems “tempestuous”, and even “angry”, in the ambiguous incident related atExodus 4: 25 (which is one of only three Bible verses that mention her name,and the only Bible verse using her name in which Zipporah is active): “Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut offthe foreskin of her son, and cast [it] at his feet, and said, Surely a bloodyhusband [art] thou to me.” By contrast,Zipporah definitely does not act like “a little bird”, so the conventional westSemitic etymology of her name, based on CPWR in Hebrew meaning “a little bird”,is suspect. Moreover, if Zipporah iscalled a “Kassite” at Numbers 12: 1 [being the interpretation that I myselffavor for that ambiguous passage], and if her homeland is the Hurrian state ofMDYN/Mitanni (discussed below), then Zipporah could not have a west Semiticname. In fact, Zipporah well lives up toboth aspects of her Hurrian name CPR -H/za-ab-ri/sa-ap-ri: she’sboth (i) “angry” and “tempestuous”, per Exodus 4: 25 and the meaning of theHurrian common word za-ab-ri/sa-ap-ri; and (ii) her name za-ab-ri recalls the Zab River as the original homeland of theKassites.

              The word sa-ap-ri usedas a woman’s name is redolent both of (i) the Hurrians, and (ii) the Kassites. As to the Hurrians, note the reference atExodus 2: 15 to MDYN as being Zipporah’s homeland. The root of the country name “Mitanni” is theHurrian verb mid-, so this name ofthe only Hurrian great power state could be rendered as: mi-da-a-ni. That would come into Hebrew as MDYN,where Hebrew yod/Y is consistently used to render the Hurrian true vowel A asits own separate segment in Hurrian proper names. As to the Kassites, see K$-YT at Numbers 12: 1(where the root is K$, which compares to the K$ root in K$-D-YM, meaning "Kassite country people", at Genesis 11: 28, 31;15: 7). Finally, as noted above sa-ap-ri or za-ab-ri is redolent of the Zab river which originates in theZagros Mountains as the original homeland of the Kassites. Mitanni and the Kassites and Hurrian-basednames are all redolent of the Late Bronze Age historical time period; in particular, Mitanni and Kassites make nosense in any other time period.

              4. The Moses tradition is aHebrew remembrance of Hurrians who helped the early Hebrews by using theirknowledge of cuneiform to write west Semitic words. Hebrew sacred scripture was never written inAkkadian, but at least the Patriarchal narratives for 700 years were written incuneiform, using west Semitic words. Thescribe whom the first Hebrews hired likely was an ethnic Hurrian with a Hurrianname like M$-H [“Moses”], who probably had a Hurrian wife with a Hurrian namelike CPR-H [“Zipporah”].

              Jim Stinehart

              _._,_.___




















              .


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]










              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • jimstinehart@aol.com
              Mark: 1. You wrote: “I haveno clue as to what it is you are asserting when you write that no Hebrew including Moses wrote in Akkadian, but rather wrote
              Message 6 of 16 , Dec 26, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark:


                1. You wrote: “I haveno clue as to what it is you are asserting when you write that no"Hebrew" including Moses wrote in Akkadian, but rather wrote westSemitic words in cuneiform. You invoke EA letters for what purpose then? Thescribes wrote in bad Akkadian. It is Akkadian, the Akkadian of the Kassiteswhich you mention in your convoluted response to me. Yes, they used WS glossesand verbal forms. It is still Akkadian, bad, bad Akkadian.”

                The “WS glosses” to which you refer are old west Semiticwords, many of which are found (though usually with different endings) in IISamuel. So that small number of westSemitic words written in cuneiform in the Amarna Letters can be calledpre-Hebrew. That is proof that in theLate Bronze Age, it was easy to write pre-Hebrew words using cuneiform. Back then, the alphabet was not yetsufficiently developed to write Biblical Hebrew, but it was easy to writepre-Hebrew words using cuneiform. NoHebrew wrote Akkadian words, but the early Hebrews wrote westSemitic/pre-Hebrew words using cuneiform, just like the west Semitic/pre-Hebrewwords [“WS glosses”] found in the Amarna Letters. If Moses wrote anything in the Late Bronze Age,he would have written pre-Hebrew using cuneiform, as alphabetical Biblical Hebrewdid not yet exist.

                2. You wrote: “I don't know what you call the Nuzi tablets,but they are referred to as being written in a dialect of Akkadian.”

                No, the Nuzi tablets are written in Hurrian, usingcuneiform.

                3. You wrote: “Whatever Hurrian and EA and west Semiticglosses and grammar mean to you, this is all under the umbrella of Akkadian.”

                That’s not true. Cuneiformis a writing system, which can be used to write either Akkadian words orHurrian words or west Semitic words. Youcan call it Akkadian-style cuneiform, but cuneiform is by no means limited towriting Akkadian words. The Nuzi tabletshave Hurrian words and Hurrian names written in cuneiform, and there are dozensof old west Semitic/pre-Hebrew words scattered throughout the Amarna Letters,written in cuneiform.

                4. You wrote: “The Moses tradition is really about givingprops to the Hurrians for helping them with writing in cuneiform (but notAkkadian--never mind the cuneiform that the Hurrians used was Akkadian)?”

                The name “Moses” is a Hurrian name, as is the name of hiswife, “Zipporah”. It is likely that thefirst Hebrews engaged a Hurrian scribe to write down the Patriarchal narrativesin cuneiform [Akkadian-style cuneiform, if you will], using west Semitic/pre-Hebrewwords [not Akkadian words!].

                5. You wrote: “Work within the scholarly consensus and modifyit, rather than creating whole new models that no one will follow.”

                The scholarly consensus i-s that if Moses wrote downparts of the Torah in the Late Bronze Age, then he would have used cuneiform towrite west Semitic/pre-Hebrew words. Asa Hebrew, Moses would not write Akkadian words, that’s for sure. But Moses could not use alphabetical BiblicalHebrew in the Late Bronze Age, because we know from the Qeiyafa Ostracon thatthe alphabet was not sufficiently developed yet prior to 1200 BCE to be used towrite down any significant portion of the complex, sophisticated Torah.

                The substantive content of the Patriarchal narrativesrequires that the Patriarchal narratives must have been written down in theLate Bronze Age. The only way for aHebrew to do that was to have a scribe write down west Semitic/pre-Hebrew wordsusing cuneiform.

                Jim Stinehart










                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • jimstinehart@aol.com
                Miles: * You wrote: “There is a different feel to a backdated narrative. Genesis is a backdated narrative as are the Gospels to some extent since they
                Message 7 of 16 , Jan 4, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Miles:
                  *
                  You wrote: “There is a different feel to a backdated narrative. Genesis
                  is a backdated narrative as are the Gospels to some extent since they were
                  written many decades after the fact.”
                  *
                  Nothing could be further from the truth as to the Patriarchal narratives,
                  which were recorded on 50 cuneiform tablets, using west Semitic words, only
                  a few years after the fact. Let me quickly note a few examples of the
                  pinpoint historically accurate specific details from Years 12-14 that are in
                  the received text:
                  *
                  1. “Year 13” is explicitly referenced at Genesis 14: 4. That is the
                  historical year in which 5 parties rebelled in central Syria against the
                  Hittites, leading to the “four kings against five” historically in Year 14,
                  which is “the fourteenth year” at Genesis 14: 5. “Tidal” is a bona fide
                  Hittite royal name, but analysts have missed that it is a pejorative
                  Patriarchal nickname. The mighty Hittite king who led a coalition of 4 rulers in
                  winning the Great Syrian War in western Syria was Suppiluliuma I, who had
                  gained the Hittite throne by the dubious expedient of murdering his own older
                  brother named: “Tidal”. (That exact Late Bronze Age spelling of
                  Tudhaliya is verified at Ugarit.) So the Hittite king is effectively called “
                  Murderer” in the Patriarchal narratives, and the exact dating of this military
                  conflict is overtly set forth in the Biblical text.
                  *
                  2. One year before “Year 13”, that is in Year 12, Genesis 13: 18
                  presents Abram as first coming to a “broad true valley” (per Genesis 37: 14):
                  Ayalon – Mamre. Genesis 14: 13 soon clarifies that Mamre refers to the
                  ruling princeling of the area in Year 12, who has the following Patriarchal
                  nickname: “Mamre the Amorite”. And it all checks out perfectly. In Year 12,
                  the Ayalon Valley was in fact governed from Gezer by Milk-i-Ilu, who was
                  an Amorite princeling with an Amorite name. Abram attains an invaluable
                  covenant relationship with him (but not with his successor), so it’s not so
                  surprising that one of Jacob’s descendants who goes to Egypt has been given
                  his historical name in his honor, which appears at Genesis 46: 17 immediately
                  after the XBR root of “Hebron”: MLK -Y- ’L = Milk-i-Ilu.
                  *
                  3. To make sure that we know that “Year 13” at Genesis 14: 4 is
                  referring to the real Year 13, during Akhenaten’s 17-year reign, Genesis 47: 28
                  portrays Jacob as being like Akhenaten: an early semi-monotheist who was the
                  ruler of his people in Egypt for 17 shanah/years.
                  *
                  4. Historically, in Year 13 Pharaoh’s vizier confiscated for Pharaoh much
                  fine land along the Nile River at firesale prices. Joseph is portrayed as
                  doing that as Pharaoh’s vizier, and we are even given the exact historical
                  date, by means of shortly thereafter Jacob being stated to be age 13
                  tenfold shanah. Genesis 47: 9
                  *
                  The entirety of the Patriarchal narratives works just like that.
                  Virtually all of the main stories in the Patriarchal narratives reflect the
                  detailed facts on the ground from Years 12-14, as verified by the Amarna Letters
                  and other non-biblical sources. Such pinpoint accuracy, which routinely
                  includes giving us (one way or the other) the e-x-a-c-t Year date[!], could
                  only result from the Patriarchal narratives having been recorded on 50
                  tablets, using cuneiform to write west Semitic words, a year or two after
                  Akhenaten’s death.
                  *
                  Jim Stinehart

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.