ADITES DESCENDANTS OF ADAM

ADITES DESCENDANTS OF ADAM

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2000-June/007568.html



alter Mattfeld mattfeld at mail.pjsnet.com 
Thu Jun 8 14:52:42 EDT 2000

• Previous message: Hebrew language, antiquity of ?
• Next message: Ur of the Chaldees, various proposals
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

Josephus states that the Arphachshadites are "NOW CALLED CHALDEANS,"
suggesting that he understands Abraham to be descended not from the peoples
of Northern Mesopotamia and the area of Urfa/Harran, but from Babylonia. It
is important to remember that Josephus is writing in Greek for an audience
that understands Chaldea to be Babylonia, not Upper Mesopotamia:

"Arphaxad named the Arphaxadites, who are now called Chaldeans...Sala was
the son of Arphaxad; and his son was Heber, from whom they originally called
the Jews Hebrews." (Josephus, Antiquities 1.6.4)

It is also important to point out that Josephus claimed priestly bloodlines,
and training. His association of Arpachshad with the Chaldeans may not be
his own imaginative speculation, it may reflect genuine Jewish traditions of
an earlier period.

Pinches noted some scholarly attempts at deciphering the name Arpachshad,
one scholar thinking it meant "the border of the Kasdim or Chesed" in
Akkadian, while another suggested an Egyptian derivation:

"The theory that Arpachshad represents a community is rather supported by
the fact that it is mentioned in Gen 10:22, where it is accompanied by the
names of Elam, Asshur, Lud and Aram, which were later, as we know, names of
nationalities...There is a considerable amount of difference of opinion as
to the correct identification of the Arpachshad of Gen 10:10, though nearly
every critic places the country it represents in the same tract. It has been
identified with Arrapkha, or Arrapachitis, in Assyria. Schrader makes it to
be for Arpa-cheshed, "the coast of the Chaldeans".  Professor Hommel, who is
always ready with a seductive and probable etymology, suggests that
Arpachshad is an Egyptianized way of writing Ur of the Chaldees,
Ar-pa-Cheshed, for Ur-pa-Cheshed."
(p.143, T.G. Pinches, The Old Testament, In the Light of the Historical
Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia, London: S.P.C.K., 1908)

"Anyone care to comment on Schrader's and Hommel's interpretation of
Arpachshad as presented by Pinches (I realize these are rather "dated," ca.
1908) ?  Any other ideas on this name ?

Some scholars have suggested that the biblical explanation of Abraham's name
meaning "father of many nations," (Gen.17:5)
appears to be etymologically unsound. It is suggested his name is an
"Aramaic expansion." Now according to 2 Kings 18:26 the Jewish populace did
not understand Aramaic, only the educated serving Hezekiah's court spoke it.
If Abraham is an Aramaic expansion, then, wouldn't the meaning of his name
have been lost to the Jewish audience ? But if the audience is ca. 560 BCE
(2 Kings 25:27) or later, 538-458 BCE (Cyrus to Ezra), this audience would
be familiar with Aramaic and comprehend the expansion.

"The etymology and translation of "Abraham" are uncertain. The traditional
etymology is given at Gen. 17:4-5 in establishing his covenant with Abram,
God changed the patriarch's name to Abraham as witness to the divine promise
that he should be the "father of a multitude of nations." Accordingly,
`abhraham is represented as being in some way similar to `abh hamon (goyim).
BUT THIS EXPLANATION IS PHILOLOGICALLY INADEQUATE. Abraham cannot be derived
from `abh hamon by any known lexicography. The biblical reference must be
seen as a popular etymology (volksetymologie), resting on assonance rather
than sound philology- a phenomenon common in Genesis (e.g., 2:23b, 25b;
11:9a)...It is best to take `abhraham as an Aramaic expansion of `abram, and
basically identical with it it in form and meaning...Although philologically
unsound, the traditional explanation of Abraham's name (17:5b) is
nevertheless valuable, for Abraham was indeed the "father of a multitude."
(p.15, Vol.1, L.Hicks, "Abraham," G.A. Buttrick, et al, The Interpreter's
Dictionary of the Bible, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1962)

For the language experts who frequent this list, why is Hicks arguing for an
"Aramaic expansion" rather than a "Hebrew expansion" ? Can a case be made
for a "Hebrew expansion" ?

All the best,

Walter

Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld
Walldorf by Heidelberg
Baden-Wurttemburg
Germany