Discussion:
Samaritan Pentateuch
(too old to reply)
Joseph Roberts
2013-03-16 04:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for all the helpful responses!
Far be it from me to be afraid of learning a new script or alphabet! What
my major concern was finding an authoritative text for
the Samaritan Pentateuch. My area of study is not so much the Biblical
Hebrew as it is The Hebrew Bible as it relates to the Greek Septuagint. So
my major interest is the text in how it is different from the MT yet
similar to the LXX. My understanding was that Von Gall's text was
substandard because of it not taking into account newer manuscripts and how
he chose readings of the Samaritan Pentateuch that were in line with the MT
against readings that were unique.
--
Joseph Roberts ( UCC 1-308)
George Athas
2013-03-20 09:16:18 UTC
Permalink
This further response comes courtesy of Carla Sulzbach in Montreal:

There is a print edition in modern Hebrew script of the Samaritan Pentateuch:
Der HebrÀische Pentateuch der Samaritaner;
August Freiherrn von Gall, editor
Alfred Töpelmann Verlag, 1918



Best wishes,

Carla Sulzbach


GEORGE ATHAS
Dean of Research,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia
C L
2013-03-23 18:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Chris and Kevin,

Fantastic! Thank you for pointing out these resources for downloading the Samaritan Pentateuch. Good stuff.

Sincerely,

Christopher Lovelace
________________________________
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:50 PM
Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 123, Issue 18
----- Forwarded Message -----
Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
  1. Samaritan Pentateuch On-Line? (C L)
  2. Re: Samaritan Pentateuch On-Line? (Kevin W. Woodruff)
  3. Re: Samaritan Pentateuch On-Line? (C.N. Bartch)
Dear Carla,
Thank you for posting the notice about the Samaritan Pentateuch. Volume 1 is available for download at archive.org, thanks to being out of copyright: http://archive.org/details/derhebrischepent01gall. I was reading it a bit this morning, and it is fantastic. So far, the copy I have seen is very clear, and the citation of textual witnesses along the left margin is a very welcome feature. Would that other critical editions cited their witnesses in this fashion.
Does anyone know where we might be able to download the remaining volumes in this set? They do not appear to be on archive.org, but volumes 2-5 must surely be out of copyright.
Sincerely,
Christopher Lovelace
There is a print edition in modern Hebrew script of the
Der HebrÀische Pentateuch der Samaritaner;
August Freiherrn von Gall, editor
Alfred Töpelmann Verlag, 1918
 
Best wishes,
 
Carla Sulzbach
________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:00 PM
Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 123, Issue 17
----- Forwarded Message -----
Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
  1.
  2. Re: Samaritan Pentateuch (George Athas)
 
In analyzing PR(H [“Pharaoh”] in the received
alphabetical text on the assumption that this Biblical Egyptian name was
originally written down in Akkadian cuneiform, let’s examine how Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin come out in the Akkadian cuneiform of the Amarna Letters.  You will quickly see that in Akkadian cuneiform, Egyptian ayin cannot be distinguished from Egyptian aleph.
 
As I noted previously, Amarna Letter EA 29 features mAat being spelled as mu-u, where the same Akkadian vowel U is used for both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin.
 
But now let’s see how Akkadian cuneiform A can also
represent both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin.  In Amarna Letter EA 1: 2 written by
Amenhotep III himself, mAat is written, as you point out, as mu-a.  To me, that means that the Akkadian vowel A can stand for Egyptian ayin, although you oddly opt for seeing no ayin whatsoever being written down by Amenhotep III.  Without getting bogged down as to that
one example, however, it is easy to confirm that Egyptian ayin could be
represented by the Akkadian vowel A.  That is the case in the Egyptian name ap-pi-xa in four different Amarna Letters, including EA 105: 35, and the Egyptian name xa-ip in four different Amarna Letters, including EA 107: 16, where the Akkadian cuneiform vowel A is
used for Egyptian ayin.
 
But the Akkadian cuneiform vowel A can also be used for
Egyptian aleph!  For example, in
both the Amarna Letters and the Patriarchal narratives, the most frequent
beginning of an Egyptian name is pA.  The Egyptian name pa-xa-na-te in four different Amarna Letters, including
EA 60: 10, spells the Egyptian aleph with an A.  The Egyptian name pi-wu-ri features four
different spellings of pA, but in three separate Amarna Letters, including EA
287: 45 from IR-Heba of Jerusalem [whose scribe may have been the scribe who,
shortly after leaving Jerusalem, was commissioned by the tent-dwelling Hebrews
to write down the Patriarchal narratives in Akkadian cuneiform], the second
letter in pA is spelled with the Akkadian vowel A.
 
So when PR(H in Genesis is setting forth an Egyptian
name, the Hebrew alphabetical ayin/( that one sees in the received text could
just as easily have been originally intended to be a Hebrew alphabetical aleph/).  Why?  Because that name was first written down
in the Late Bronze Age, when the only way to write down a sophisticated
composition like the Patriarchal narratives was by means of Akkadian cuneiform.  The Amarna Letters
attest that sometimes the Akkadian vowel U was used to render both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin, and sometimes the Akkadian vowel A was used to render
both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin.  In fact, on a more general level, Akkadian cuneiform generally was unable
to differentiate among the various gutturals.  That applies in spades to ayin vs. aleph.
 
As to PR(H in particular, we note that Akkadian cuneiform heth could render, among other letters, alphabetical Hebrew ayin/( or
alphabetical Hebrew heth/X, and that the Akkadian vowel A was sometimes used to
render both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin.  PR(H in the received text started out in Akkadian cuneiform as something like PR – RI – A – XI.  Those four Akkadian cuneiform signs
could mean [among other possibilities] either (i) PR(H [per the received text],
or (ii) P R )X, with the latter being pA ra Ax : pA ra a-khe : “Devoted to The
Ra”, which compares nicely with Akhe-n-Aten : “Devoted to Aten”.
 
If we reverse engineer the received alphabetical text as
to the Biblical Egyptian name PR(H and determine what the original Akkadian cuneiform signs were, we then see an  e-x-a-c-t  letter-for-letter
match of the original cuneiform version of PR(H to P R )X : pA ra Ax : pA ra a-khe : “Devoted to The Ra”.  Will,
it’s an  e-x-a-c-t  match of  a-l-l  the letters.  It’s not merely close, it’s  e-x-a-c-t .
 
Surely you would agree that if the Patriarchal narratives
were not originally written down in the Bronze Age using Akkadian cuneiform,
they can’t be old and accurate as to an historical Patriarchal Age.  To see then if the Patriarchal
narratives are or are not truly ancient and accurate, simply reverse engineer
the Egyptian names in the received text to determine how they would have
originally been recorded in Akkadian cuneiform.  Then the gorgeous result is  e-x-a-c-t  letter-for-letter matches to Late Amarna nomenclature that in each case fit the storyline perfectly.  The greatest wordsmith of all time
created these Biblical Egyptian names.  But we cannot appreciate them unless we reverse engineer the alphabetical
Hebrew letters in the received text to determine the Akkadian cuneiform
originals, and then ask what Egyptian names could result from such Akkadian cuneiform originals.  For example,
the name of Joseph’s Egyptian priestly father-in-law, once it is recognized that
the final intended letter was heth, not ayin, is:  pA wAt  -Y-  pA rx, referencing such priest’s
devotion to Akhenaten as allegedly being “the only one/pA who knows/rx the
distant/pA wAt [God]”.  Only Akhenaten ever made such a daunting theological claim.  And Akhenaten himself is fittingly
referred to as P R )X : pA ra Ax : pA ra a-khe : “Devoted to The Ra”, which
exemplifies Late Amarna theology perfectly.
 
The true antiquity and historical accuracy of the
Patriarchal narratives come shining through when we reverse engineer the
alphabetical Hebrew letters in these Biblical Egyptian names to determine the Akkadian cuneiform original signs, and then ask what Egyptian names could result
from those original Akkadian cuneiform signs.  We find that, unlike all previous
attempts to explain these Biblical Egyptian names, we don’t have to stretch a
single letter!  Rather, we merely
need to recognize that Akkadian cuneiform writing, such as in the original
written version of the Patriarchal narratives, usually did not distinguish one
guttural from another.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston , Illinois
Der HebrÀische Pentateuch der Samaritaner;
August Freiherrn von Gall, editor
Alfred Töpelmann Verlag, 1918
 
Best wishes,
 
Carla Sulzbach
GEORGE ATHAS
Dean of Research,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
 
http://patrologia.narod.ru/biblia/samarit/
 
Kevin
Prof. Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div., M.S.I.S.
Library Director/Reference Librarian, Assistant Professor of Bible, Greek, Theological Bibliography and Research
Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary, 1815 Union Ave.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404, United States of America
423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX)
Subject: [b-hebrew] Samaritan Pentateuch On-Line?
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013, 12:01 PM
Dear Carla,
Thank you for posting the notice about the Samaritan Pentateuch. Volume 1 is available for download at archive.org, thanks to being out of copyright: http://archive.org/details/derhebrischepent01gall. I was reading it a bit this morning, and it is fantastic. So far, the copy I have seen is very clear, and the citation of textual witnesses along the left margin is a very welcome feature. Would that other critical editions cited their witnesses in this fashion.
Does anyone know where we might be able to download the remaining volumes in this set? They do not appear to be on archive.org, but volumes 2-5 must surely be out of copyright.
Sincerely,
Christopher Lovelace
Der HebrÀische Pentateuch der Samaritaner;
August Freiherrn von Gall, editor
Alfred Töpelmann Verlag, 1918
 
Best wishes,
 
Carla Sulzbach
________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:00 PM
Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 123, Issue 17
----- Forwarded Message -----
Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
  2. Re: Samaritan Pentateuch (George Athas)
 
In analyzing PR(H [“Pharaoh”] in the received alphabetical text on the assumption that this Biblical Egyptian name was originally written down in Akkadian cuneiform, let’s examine how Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin come out in the Akkadian cuneiform of the Amarna Letters.  You will quickly see that in Akkadian cuneiform, Egyptian ayin cannot be distinguished from Egyptian aleph.
 
As I noted previously, Amarna Letter EA 29 features mAat being spelled as mu-u, where the same Akkadian vowel U is used for both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin.
 
But now let’s see how Akkadian cuneiform A can also represent both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin.  In Amarna Letter EA 1: 2 written by Amenhotep III himself, mAat is written, as you point out, as mu-a.  To me, that means that the Akkadian vowel A can stand for Egyptian ayin, although you oddly opt for seeing no ayin whatsoever being written down by Amenhotep III.  Without getting bogged down as to that one example, however, it is easy to confirm that Egyptian ayin could be represented by the Akkadian vowel A.  That is the case in the Egyptian name ap-pi-xa in four different Amarna Letters, including EA 105: 35, and the Egyptian name xa-ip in four different Amarna Letters, including EA 107: 16, where the Akkadian cuneiform vowel A is used for Egyptian ayin.
 
But the Akkadian cuneiform vowel A can also be used for Egyptian aleph!  For example, in both the Amarna Letters and the Patriarchal narratives, the most frequent beginning of an Egyptian name is pA.  The Egyptian name pa-xa-na-te in four different Amarna Letters, including EA 60: 10, spells the Egyptian aleph with an A.  The Egyptian name pi-wu-ri features four different spellings of pA, but in three separate Amarna Letters, including EA 287: 45 from IR-Heba of Jerusalem [whose scribe may have been the scribe who, shortly after leaving Jerusalem, was commissioned by the tent-dwelling Hebrews to write down the Patriarchal narratives in Akkadian cuneiform], the second letter in pA is spelled with the Akkadian vowel A.
 
So when PR(H in Genesis is setting forth an Egyptian name, the Hebrew alphabetical ayin/( that one sees in the received text could just as easily have been originally intended to be a Hebrew alphabetical aleph/).  Why?  Because that name was first written down in the Late Bronze Age, when the only way to write down a sophisticated composition like the Patriarchal narratives was by means of Akkadian cuneiform.  The Amarna Letters attest that sometimes the Akkadian vowel U was used to render both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin, and sometimes the Akkadian vowel A was used to render both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin.  In fact, on a more general level, Akkadian cuneiform generally was unable to differentiate among the various gutturals.  That applies in spades to ayin vs. aleph.
 
As to PR(H in particular, we note that Akkadian cuneiform heth could render, among other letters, alphabetical Hebrew ayin/( or alphabetical Hebrew heth/X, and that the Akkadian vowel A was sometimes used to render both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin.  PR(H in the received text started out in Akkadian cuneiform as something like PR – RI – A – XI.  Those four Akkadian cuneiform signs could mean [among other possibilities] either (i) PR(H [per the received text], or (ii) P R )X, with the latter being pA ra Ax : pA ra a-khe : “Devoted to The Ra”, which compares nicely with Akhe-n-Aten : “Devoted to Aten”.
 
If we reverse engineer the received alphabetical text as to the Biblical Egyptian name PR(H and determine what the original Akkadian cuneiform signs were, we then see an  e-x-a-c-t  letter-for-letter match of the original cuneiform version of PR(H to P R )X : pA ra Ax : pA ra a-khe : “Devoted to The Ra”.  Will, it’s an  e-x-a-c-t  match of  a-l-l  the letters.  It’s not merely close, it’s  e-x-a-c-t .
 
Surely you would agree that if the Patriarchal narratives were not originally written down in the Bronze Age using Akkadian cuneiform, they can’t be old and accurate as to an historical Patriarchal Age.  To see then if the Patriarchal narratives are or are not truly ancient and accurate, simply reverse engineer the Egyptian names in the received text to determine how they would have originally been recorded in Akkadian cuneiform.  Then the gorgeous result is  e-x-a-c-t  letter-for-letter matches to Late Amarna nomenclature that in each case fit the storyline perfectly.  The greatest wordsmith of all time created these Biblical Egyptian names.  But we cannot appreciate them unless we reverse engineer the alphabetical Hebrew letters in the received text to determine the Akkadian cuneiform originals, and then ask what Egyptian names could result from such Akkadian cuneiform originals.  For example, the name of Joseph’s Egyptian priestly
father-in-law, once it is recognized that the final intended letter was heth, not ayin, is:  pA wAt  -Y-  pA rx, referencing such priest’s devotion to Akhenaten as allegedly being “the only one/pA who knows/rx the distant/pA wAt [God]”.  Only Akhenaten ever made such a daunting theological claim.  And Akhenaten himself is fittingly referred to as P R )X : pA ra Ax : pA ra a-khe : “Devoted to The Ra”, which exemplifies Late Amarna theology perfectly.
 
The true antiquity and historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives come shining through when we reverse engineer the alphabetical Hebrew letters in these Biblical Egyptian names to determine the Akkadian cuneiform original signs, and then ask what Egyptian names could result from those original Akkadian cuneiform signs.  We find that, unlike all previous attempts to explain these Biblical Egyptian names, we don’t have to stretch a single letter!  Rather, we merely need to recognize that Akkadian cuneiform writing, such as in the original written version of the Patriarchal narratives, usually did not distinguish one guttural from another.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston , Illinois
Der HebrÀische Pentateuch der Samaritaner;
August Freiherrn von Gall, editor
Alfred Töpelmann Verlag, 1918
 
Best wishes,
 
Carla Sulzbach
GEORGE ATHAS
Dean of Research,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
The full edition is available here: http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/mcmastercollection/163/
Its a beautiful scan too!
~Chris Bartch
Dear Carla,
Thank you for posting the notice about the Samaritan Pentateuch. Volume 1 is available for download at archive.org, thanks to being out of copyright: http://archive.org/details/derhebrischepent01gall. I was reading it a bit this morning, and it is fantastic. So far, the copy I have seen is very clear, and the citation of textual witnesses along the left margin is a very welcome feature. Would that other critical editions cited their witnesses in this fashion.
Does anyone know where we might be able to download the remaining volumes in this set? They do not appear to be on archive.org, but volumes 2-5 must surely be out of copyright.
Sincerely,
Christopher Lovelace
There is a print edition in modern Hebrew script of the
Der HebrÀische Pentateuch der Samaritaner;
August Freiherrn von Gall, editor
Alfred Töpelmann Verlag, 1918
 
Best wishes,
 
Carla Sulzbach
________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:00 PM
Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 123, Issue 17
----- Forwarded Message -----
Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
  1.
  2. Re: Samaritan Pentateuch (George Athas)
 
In analyzing PR(H [“Pharaoh”] in the received
alphabetical text on the assumption that this Biblical Egyptian name was
originally written down in Akkadian cuneiform, let’s examine how Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin come out in the Akkadian cuneiform of the Amarna Letters.  You will quickly see that in Akkadian cuneiform, Egyptian ayin cannot be distinguished from Egyptian aleph.
 
As I noted previously, Amarna Letter EA 29 features mAat being spelled as mu-u, where the same Akkadian vowel U is used for both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin.
 
But now let’s see how Akkadian cuneiform A can also
represent both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin.  In Amarna Letter EA 1: 2 written by
Amenhotep III himself, mAat is written, as you point out, as mu-a.  To me, that means that the Akkadian vowel A can stand for Egyptian ayin, although you oddly opt for seeing no ayin whatsoever being written down by Amenhotep III.  Without getting bogged down as to that
one example, however, it is easy to confirm that Egyptian ayin could be
represented by the Akkadian vowel A.  That is the case in the Egyptian name ap-pi-xa in four different Amarna Letters, including EA 105: 35, and the Egyptian name xa-ip in four different Amarna Letters, including EA 107: 16, where the Akkadian cuneiform vowel A is
used for Egyptian ayin.
 
But the Akkadian cuneiform vowel A can also be used for
Egyptian aleph!  For example, in
both the Amarna Letters and the Patriarchal narratives, the most frequent
beginning of an Egyptian name is pA.  The Egyptian name pa-xa-na-te in four different Amarna Letters, including
EA 60: 10, spells the Egyptian aleph with an A.  The Egyptian name pi-wu-ri features four
different spellings of pA, but in three separate Amarna Letters, including EA
287: 45 from IR-Heba of Jerusalem [whose scribe may have been the scribe who,
shortly after leaving Jerusalem, was commissioned by the tent-dwelling Hebrews
to write down the Patriarchal narratives in Akkadian cuneiform], the second
letter in pA is spelled with the Akkadian vowel A.
 
So when PR(H in Genesis is setting forth an Egyptian
name, the Hebrew alphabetical ayin/( that one sees in the received text could
just as easily have been originally intended to be a Hebrew alphabetical aleph/).  Why?  Because that name was first written down
in the Late Bronze Age, when the only way to write down a sophisticated
composition like the Patriarchal narratives was by means of Akkadian cuneiform.  The Amarna Letters
attest that sometimes the Akkadian vowel U was used to render both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin, and sometimes the Akkadian vowel A was used to render
both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin.  In fact, on a more general level, Akkadian cuneiform generally was unable
to differentiate among the various gutturals.  That applies in spades to ayin vs. aleph.
 
As to PR(H in particular, we note that Akkadian cuneiform heth could render, among other letters, alphabetical Hebrew ayin/( or
alphabetical Hebrew heth/X, and that the Akkadian vowel A was sometimes used to
render both Egyptian aleph and Egyptian ayin.  PR(H in the received text started out in Akkadian cuneiform as something like PR – RI – A – XI.  Those four Akkadian cuneiform signs
could mean [among other possibilities] either (i) PR(H [per the received text],
or (ii) P R )X, with the latter being pA ra Ax : pA ra a-khe : “Devoted to The
Ra”, which compares nicely with Akhe-n-Aten : “Devoted to Aten”.
 
If we reverse engineer the received alphabetical text as
to the Biblical Egyptian name PR(H and determine what the original Akkadian cuneiform signs were, we then see an  e-x-a-c-t  letter-for-letter
match of the original cuneiform version of PR(H to P R )X : pA ra Ax : pA ra a-khe : “Devoted to The Ra”.  Will,
it’s an  e-x-a-c-t  match of  a-l-l  the letters.  It’s not merely close, it’s  e-x-a-c-t .
 
Surely you would agree that if the Patriarchal narratives
were not originally written down in the Bronze Age using Akkadian cuneiform,
they can’t be old and accurate as to an historical Patriarchal Age.  To see then if the Patriarchal
narratives are or are not truly ancient and accurate, simply reverse engineer
the Egyptian names in the received text to determine how they would have
originally been recorded in Akkadian cuneiform.  Then the gorgeous result is  e-x-a-c-t  letter-for-letter matches to Late Amarna nomenclature that in each case fit the storyline perfectly.  The greatest wordsmith of all time
created these Biblical Egyptian names.  But we cannot appreciate them unless we reverse engineer the alphabetical
Hebrew letters in the received text to determine the Akkadian cuneiform
originals, and then ask what Egyptian names could result from such Akkadian cuneiform originals.  For example,
the name of Joseph’s Egyptian priestly father-in-law, once it is recognized that
the final intended letter was heth, not ayin, is:  pA wAt  -Y-  pA rx, referencing such priest’s
devotion to Akhenaten as allegedly being “the only one/pA who knows/rx the
distant/pA wAt [God]”.  Only Akhenaten ever made such a daunting theological claim.  And Akhenaten himself is fittingly
referred to as P R )X : pA ra Ax : pA ra a-khe : “Devoted to The Ra”, which
exemplifies Late Amarna theology perfectly.
 
The true antiquity and historical accuracy of the
Patriarchal narratives come shining through when we reverse engineer the
alphabetical Hebrew letters in these Biblical Egyptian names to determine the Akkadian cuneiform original signs, and then ask what Egyptian names could result
from those original Akkadian cuneiform signs.  We find that, unlike all previous
attempts to explain these Biblical Egyptian names, we don’t have to stretch a
single letter!  Rather, we merely
need to recognize that Akkadian cuneiform writing, such as in the original
written version of the Patriarchal narratives, usually did not distinguish one
guttural from another.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston , Illinois
Der HebrÀische Pentateuch der Samaritaner;
August Freiherrn von Gall, editor
Alfred Töpelmann Verlag, 1918
 
Best wishes,
 
Carla Sulzbach
GEORGE ATHAS
Dean of Research,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Yigal Levin
2013-03-23 20:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Especially those of you who receive digests rather than individual posts: please remember to delete everything that is not directly related to whatever it is that you’re responding to.





Thanks,



Yigal Levin



Co-moderator, B-hebrew

Loading...