1

The fact that contact between ancient Israelites and other ancient Near Eastern entities resulted

in foreign linguistic elements that entered into the Hebrew language has been recognized since

antiquity. For example, Theodore of Mopsuestia in the fourth century stated that

“his (Abraham’s) language was corrupted through contact with the Canaanites…. For this

reason, we say that the Hebrew tongue was comprised of many tongues. Yet it bears a great

resemblance to Syriac.”

Theodore at once recognized both the composite nature of Hebrew, and yet the ability to trace its

genetic relatedness in some fashion with other Semitic languages such as Syriac, a recognition of both

linguistic similarities and oddities that would, in many ways, augur the concerns of genetic linguistics

and contact linguists a few millennia later. In the ninth century, Isho’dad of Merv likewise recognized the

influence of what he terms “Babylonian” in Syriac:

It is after all not surprising that Hebrew is a composite (mknsh) of (several) languages, since we

may ascertain that even Syriac has been altered (‘tdwd) and corrupted (‘tblbl) with the changing

of times, and the duration of generations. […] In fact, the Syriac language was especially

corrupted in Babylon, because of the kings that carried each other (there) as captives, for the

stranger and the immigrant never have a pure and polished language (gywr’ wtwtb’ l’ sk mtmrq

lshnh).

Like Theodore, Isho’dad’s comments about Syriac presage concerns that would later become central to

the examination of the Hebrew Bible, namely the role of conquest and power relations in the

development of ancient Israelite language and literature.

Such considerations would take on new importance with the decipherment of languages from

ancient Near Eastern empires themselves, thereby making available the literature of the people who

conquered ancient Israel and Judah. Agreement regarding the extent of the influence of Mesopotamian

literature on the Hebrew Bible and the method one should employ to explore similarities and

2

differences therein has remained elusive. Scholars such as George Smith took one extreme, seeing as

much cultural continuity as possible and going as far as repairing lacunae in Akkadian literature based on

supposed literary parallels in the Bible. He states that “the three next tablets in the Creation series are

absent, there being only two doubtful fragments of this part of the story. Judging from the analogy of

the Book of Genesis, we may conjecture that this part of the narrative contained the description of the

creation of light, the atmosphere or firmament, of the dry land, and of plants.”1 On the other extreme,

Assyriologists such as Benno Landsberger rightly cautioned against comparative work when a culture

had sufficient literary and linguistic information to be understood in its own context.2 William Hallo

proposed a mediating position, arguing that similarities and differences should be observed in the

juxtaposition of biblical texts with other ancient Near Eastern literature.3 Though Hallo’s approach has

proven to be influential, he offered more of an openness towards meaningful divergences in

comparative work and little in the way of methodological sophistication.

What remains lacking after these debates is a rigorous linguistic method for comparative work.4

It is the purpose of this dissertation to bring such a linguistic method to the study of the Hebrew Bible in

its ancient Near Eastern context. This proposal will explain basic elements of contact linguistics which

will be the methodological lens through which comparative examinations will be conducted in the

dissertation. A test case will be presented, following which implications for biblical studies will be

1 George Smith, The Chaldean Account of Genesis (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1876), 67.

2 Benno Landsberger, “Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der babylonischen Welt.” Islamica 2 (1926): 355-72; The

Conceptual Autonomy of the Babylonian World (translated by Thorkild Jacobsen, Benjamin R. Foster, and Heinrich von Siebenthal; Sources and Monographs, Monographs on the Ancient Near East; Malibu, California: Undena Publications, 1976).

3 William Hallo, “Biblical History in Its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach” (Scripture in

Context; Edited by Carl D. Evans, William W. Hallo, and John B. White; Pittsburgh Theological Monograph 34; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1980), 1-26.

4 For a more empirical approach to the literary aspect of borrowing which considers the role of

differences between the same literary texts that existed in the periphery and center of Mesopotamian society, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (eds. Mark E. Cohen, et al; Bethesda, Maryland: CDL, 1993), 250-55.

3

discussed. Finally, an outline of the aims and goals of the dissertation will be presented, including the

data set that will be analyzed.

Contact Linguistics

Before explaining why contact linguistics is needed for comparative studies between the

Hebrew Bible and Mesopotamian literature, I will present some of the basic tenants of the method as

well as some of the more disputed aspects of the field. Contact linguistics studies what happens when

two languages come into contact. What seems like an intuitive statement becomes more nuanced when

set in light of the history of historical linguistics: not every linguistic element can be explained

genetically, and thus a linguist must be able to determine what is due to internal development versus

what is due to foreign contact. A few implications become apparent. First, languages are not reified

entities, capable of contact independent from speakers and writers. Contact linguistics is therefore, at

least to a certain degree, also concerned with socio-linguistics. Though Sarah Thomason and Terence

Kaufman state that their study “is not primarily a socio-linguistic one,” they are nonetheless quick to

state that where applicable “sociohistorical circumstances” need to be taken into consideration. Indeed,

they claim that “social factors can and very often do overcome structural resistance to interference at all

levels,” an assertion which, as will be shown, is pertinent to some debates in biblical studies.5 Because

history, the uses of literature, and social factors play a role in contact situations, such considerations

5Sarah Thomason and Terence Kaufman, Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1988), 15. Note: Thomason was emphatic that social factors need to be taken into consideration in her talk at UC last spring, but denied, against Trudgill, that high-contact situations lead to simplification. Thomason claimed that “high contact” vs. “low contact” were very hard definitions to apply. Moreover, she claimed that there are very few detailed sociolinguistic studies of ongoing contact situations, so generalizing about factors such as relative isolation, low contact, tight vs. loose social network structures, and other issues is dangerously circular. She showed how Ethiopic was in a very high contact situation, but did not simplify overall. Thomason extrapolated on some of her work, arguing that imperfect learning in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) does not inevitably lead to simplification (she cited Birdsong).

Thomason’s overall thesis involved the assumption that contact leads to simplification, which she claimed happens but not nearly as universally as some scholars claim. Moreover, “simplification” is tough to define. Some parts of a language might be simple (morphology), but other aspects complex (pragmatics). She quoted Östen Dahl and Kuster’s dissertation (as well as McWhorter). Nichols (1992:193) argues the opposite: contact induced change results in linguistics/grammatical complication. She also addressed the older view of Schleicher (languages grow/evolve to a complexity, and then decay).

4

must be a part of any examination of contact linguistics, even more so as all of these factors are

important in the relationship between the Hebrew Bible and Mesopotamian literature.

Second, contact linguistics studies not simply the result of contact, but the processes which lead

to the contact-induced phenomena under investigation. Related to the issue of socio-linguistics, a highly

bilingual or multi-lingual society will process linguistic contact differently than a mono-lingual society.

Moreover, issues of technological need, cultural prestige, and politics also affect both the process and

result of language contact. Contact linguists have developed borrowing hierarchies which tend to

correlate with varying social situations to explain how a given linguistic feature resulted from a socio-

linguistic context. The most enduring of these hierarchies, and the one which will be employed in this

dissertation, comes from Thomason and Kaufman (table 1).6 This borrowing scale conveys the varying

results given certain degrees of cultural contact and mixing. On one end, lighter contact by fewer people

in less bi- or multi-lingual societies will result in more borrowing in content (less basic) vocabulary,

whereas heavier cultural contact and pressure on the other end can lead to more structural changes.

Other scholars such as Frans van Coetsem7 (table 2) and Yaron Matras8 (table 3) have constructed

similar hierarchies, and Aikhenwald and Dixon have offered sociological considerations for borrowing

(table 4).9 It should be noted that this hierarchy of borrowing describes situations when the recipient

language, or RL, is nonetheless maintained and passed on from generation to generation. This process of

borrowing and language maintenance should be distinguished from other contact situations, namely

language shift (which can result in language death), pidginization, and creolization. This dissertation will

6 Sarah Thomason and Terence Kaufman, Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1988), 74-76. 7 Frans van Coetsem, Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact (Publications in

Language Sciences; Providence, Rhode Island: Foris Publication, 1988), 26. 8 Yaron Matras, “The Borrowability of Structural Categories,” in Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic

Perspective (eds. Yaron Matras and Jeanette Sakel; Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 38; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007), 31-73.

9 Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, “Introduction,” in Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance:

Problems in Comparative Linguistics (eds. Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon; New York: Oxford University Press), 14-16.

5

focus on language maintenance and borrowing between the Hebrew of the Bible and Akkadian

literature, since there is no evidence of a language shift from Hebrew to Akkadian within the biblical

record.

Despite general consensus on some elements in linguistic contact, there remain some areas of

disagreement. For example, there are debates regarding what can be borrowed, especially in the area of

syntax. Donald Winford has offered counterarguments to Thomason and Kaufman’s assertion about

structural borrowing, including syntax, claiming that what appears to be syntactic borrowing is better

understood as a different linguistic process, which he terms, following van Coetsem, “imposition.”10 The

term “imposition,” however, has not been universally adopted, many scholars preferring “transfer,”11

and Bernd Heine and Tania Kuteva conducted studies which indicate that syntactic borrowing, though

rarer than other types of borrowing, can indeed happen. Heine and Kuteva argue directly against

Winford’s analysis claiming that Winford’s “generalization seems to be of doubtful value,” and thus

affirm Thomason and Kaufman’s thesis that anything can be borrowed.12 What is agreed upon, however,

is that certain things tend to be borrowed in specific types of contact situations and that these specific

social factors can be predictors of certain results of contact. This consensus should inform biblical

scholars regarding what one should and should not expect when relevant linguistic data become evident

in light of comparative examination between the Hebrew Bible and ancient Mesopotamian literature.13

10

Donald Winford, “Contact-induced Changes: Classification and Processes,” Diachronica 22 (2005): 379-81; “Contact and Borrowing” in The Handbook of Language Contact (Blackwell Handbook in Linguistics; ed. Raymond Hickey; Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 179-81. See also his general statement that “even where there is intimate inter-community contact leading to massive lexical diffusion, structure seems to resist externally motivated change” (An Introduction to Contact Linguistics [Language in Society; Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2003], 74; see page 97 for similar claims).

11 Even Winford has conceded the possibility that the term is infelicitous (An Introduction to Contact

Linguistics, 16). 12

Heine and Kuteva, Language Contact and Grammatical Change (Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 158.

13 Linguistic studies in Hebrew, Akkadian, and Aramaic have made the need for insight from contact

linguistics more apparent. As has been discussed, one of the main contributions of contact linguistics is in the area of borrowing, namely what can be borrowed and under what conditions. As early as 1974, Stephen Kaufman expressed a desire for a more rigorous method for understanding the nature of loanwords between Akkadian and

6

Example: Genesis 6:14

One of the classic examples of literary contact between Mesopotamia and the biblical record

comes from the flood narrative. If contact linguistics has explanatory value, such a widely distributed

story as Atra-ḫasis or Gilgamesh would likely prove to be an ideal case for the linguistic outcome of

literary engagement with a foreign text.14 Genesis 6-9 provides such an example. While all scholars

agree that this passage in the HB is interacting with ancient Near Eastern epics, the exact linguistic

nature of this interaction is still disputed. Indeed, Gen 6-9 contains multiple odd lexemes, which raises

the issue of linguistic traces of contact given the literary similarities that Gen 6-9 shares with Atra-ḫasis

and Gilgamesh. An examination of Gen 6:14, which contains a few of these odd words, reveals much

about the nature of contact, and can also be used as a basis for investigating the broader implications of

the nature of linguistic contact for biblical studies.

For contextual purposes, Gen 6:14-16 is as follows:

h f ,ä[ ]T; ¥ ~ y N Ißq i rp ,g Oë -y ce[ ] tb ;ä Te ‘^ l . h f eÛ[ ] WTT Genesis 6:14

rv <ïa ] h z< w > 15 ` rp , Ko) B; # W xßm iW ty IB:ïm i Ht'²a o T'î r>p ; k'(w > h b '_Teh ;- ta , ‘h M 'a ; ~ y V iÛm ix] h b 'êTeh ; % r<a o… h M 'ªa ; tAa åm e v l { ôv . H t'_a o h f ,Þ[ ]T;(

h b 'ªTel ; h f ,ä [ ]T; Ÿrh ; coå 16 ` Ht'(m 'Aq h M 'Þa ; ~ y v iîl {v .W H B'êx .r" ~ y f i_T' HD " äci B. h b 'ÞT eh ; x t; p ,îW h l '[ .m ;êl .m i h N "l <å k;T . ‘h M ' a ;-la ,w >

` h 'f ,([ ]T;¥ ~ y v iÞ l iv .W ~ YIïn Iv . ~ YI± Tix. T;

Aramaic (The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic [Assyriological Studies 19; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974] 16-17). While many helpful studies have appeared since, namely Chaim Cohen’s work on hapax legomena in the Hebrew Bible as well as Paul Mankowski’s 2000 dissertation on Akkadian loanwords into Hebrew, none of these scholars have seriously engaged with advances made in the field of contact linguistics (Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic [Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 37; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1978]; Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew [Harvard Semitic Studies 47; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2000]). Speaking in reference to Egyptian contact with Aramaic, Na’ama Pat-El has recently stated that while scholars such as T. Muraoka and Bezalel Porten have analyzed well loanwords, a full treatment of calquing and borrowed syntax is still lacking (“The Origin of the Official Aramaic Quotative Marker l’mr,” Aramaic Studies 7 [2009]: 37 n 33). Thus, in ancient Near Eastern languages generally and in issues of contact between ancient Israelites and Mesopotamians specifically, there is a need for contact linguistics.

14 For a brief discussion of this text and a brief review of comparative issues and perspectives, see Tigay,

“On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing,” 251-52.

7

One major question regarding the relationship between the Mesopotamian flood accounts and Gen 6-9

is whether or not Israelite scribes had direct access to Akkadian sources. Some scholars, such as Samuel

Loewenstamm, prefer to see the odd lexemes in Gen 6-9 as derivative of an older inner-Hebrew epic

tradition.15 That tradition would have been poetic and thus the lexical inventory of Gen 6-9 would

contain archaic and odd words due to the use of archaic and infrequently attested words in Hebrew

poetry generally. Other scholars, with a broader view of the sophistication of Israelite and Judean

scribes in accessing Mesopotamian traditions, posit an Aramaic intermediary between many biblical

texts and Mesopotamian literature (see below). The argument claims that the structural similarities

between Aramaic and the relative simplicity of the alphabetic writing system make Aramaic an ideal

candidate as an intermediary between Hebrew and Akkadian literature.

Both of these arguments contain assumptions which contact linguists have shown to be false.

Regarding the structural similarities, Winford, Thomason, and Kaufman agree that a study based

exclusively on structural similarities is flawed as such similarities in isolation are poor predictors of the

likelihood of contact.16 Conversely stated, Thomas and Kaufman claim that structural divergences

between languages are by no means necessarily constraints for contact-induced changes. Power

relationships, such as Neo-Assyrian imperial policy, can overcome such structural similarities. Indeed,

linguistic elements in Gen 6:14 suggest that a phrase has been loaned into Hebrew from Akkadian. The

verse is as follows:

עשה לך תבת עצי גפר קנים תעשה את התבה וכפרת אתה מבית ומחוץ בכפר

This verse contains many notable linguistic features, some of which will be discussed later. For the

purposes of analyzing the nature of contact, however, it is sufficient to focus on the phrase

15

Samuel L. Loewenstamm, Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 204; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, Neukircher Verlag, 1980), 116-21.

16 Winford, Introduction to Contact Linguistics, 9-10; Thomason and Kaufman, Language Contact,

Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics, 15.

8

This verb plus prepositional phrase is unique not only in biblical Hebrew, but in any .וכפרת...בכפר

dialect of Hebrew (ancient or modern). The G-stem of כפר and the noun כפר meaning “pitch” do not

appear in inscriptional, biblical, rabbinic, or medieval Hebrew in the semantic domain of the phrase in

Gen 6:14.17 Were the source of such odd lexemes an older Hebrew epic poem as Loewenstamm

suggests,18 one might expect some vestige of semantic equivalence to have survived into other forms of

Hebrew. No such vestige exists.19 These considerations open the possibility that this phrase comes from

another source.

Two possible sources exist. Both the noun from k-p-r in the qutl pattern meaning “bitumen” and

the G-stem of k-p-r exist in Aramaic and Akkadian. As far as the Aramaic attestation is concerned, the

nominal kuprāʾ appears in both Syriac and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. The first scholar who, as far as I

am aware, noticed a possible Aramaic connection, was Rashi in the eleventh century. He states:

כופרא (שבת סז). בתיבתו של משה על ידי שהיו המים ארמי, ומצינו בתלמוד תלמודזפת בלשון

תשים דיה בחומר מבפנים וזפת מבחוץ, ועוד, כדי שלא יריח א ת צדיק ריח רע של זפת, אבל

כאן מפני חוזק המים זפתה מבית ומחוץ.

17

The root does appear in broken and fragmentary texts in Old and Official Aramaic and Nabatean, but not with any of the meanings above. The verbal root, which could either be the G or D stem, appears once and seems to mean “to pardon or give compensation,” but the context is broken and this meaning is far from certain; the substantive means “village” or “tomb,” the latter being a possible Greek loanword into Nabatean.

18 Loewenstamm follows Cassuto on this suggestion. See Loewenstamm, Comparative Studies in Biblical

and Ancient Oriental Literatures, 115. Loewenstamm provides comparative evaluations, but only from the basis of a supposed Hebrew epic literary source, and he attributes any odd linguistic elements of Gen 6-9 to this hypothetical older tradition. He claims to save the text for comparative work by arguing against a source critical approach even as this line of argumentation forces him to posit a tradition in which all linguistic oddities are subsumed, thereby preventing any comparative linguistic analysis.

19 The authors of biblical Hebrew lexica claim that the verb is a denominative from the noun; however, G-

stem denominates are somewhat rare. According to the contact linguist Pieter Muysken, a hierarchy of borrowing is as follows (from most likely to least): nouns>adjectives>verbs>prepositions>coordinating conjunctions>quantifiers>determiners>free pronouns>clitic pronouns>subordinating conjunctions (“Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: The Case for Relexification” (Historicity and Variation in Creole Studies; Edited by Arnold Highfield and Albert Valdman; Ann Arbor: Karoma, 1981), 52-78. Verbs rank relatively high on this list and, given the Akkadian data, one could also appeal to this use of the G-stem of k-p-r as a loan.

9

Rashi’s insights were brilliant inasmuch as he could explain the odd word in Gen 6:14 and why this word

diverged from the marine sealants used on the other תבה in the Hebrew Bible, namely Moses’ basket in

Exod 2. His linguistic reasoning was acute given the evidence available to him. There are other Talmudic

references to פראכו in addition to the tractate he cites.20 The word is nonetheless rare, and the time

period is late; thus, the likelihood of Aramaic influence on the phrase וכפרת...בכפר in Gen 6:14 is

unlikely. Additionally, Rashi’s reasoning aligns כפר in Gen 6:14 with Hebrew זפת in Exod 2:3 on the

assumption that זפת was the outer coating in Exod 2:3 and חמר the inner coating. The E source in Exod

2:3, however, makes no such outer-inner distinction in terms of the two materials used. Rashi’s concern

is to preserve Moses from smelling foul, and he thus assumes that the Hebrew word he knows as

“pitch,” namely זפת, was the material used to coat Moses’ תבה on the outside.21 It is not clear that

Rashi’s definition of זפת and the material conceptualized in Exod 2:3 are the same. Indeed, two targums

(Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti) use the other substance of Exod 2:3, the חמר, which also appears in the J

source in Gen 14:10 and is a common Mishnaic Hebrew term for “pitch,” as the translation of כפר in

Gen 6:14 (ח[י]מרא). Rashi’s comments are instructive and ingenious, even as they appeal to sparse

data and do not adequately align the correlation of the Hebrew data to Aramaic.

Moreover, the verb k-p-r in the G-stem in Aramaic means “to wipe off,” but never “to wipe on,”

as the semantics of Gen 6:14 dictate. This association with wiping off is so strong in Aramaic that the

verb eventually adopted the meaning “repudiate, deny.” There is one expression, כפרא דודי, in which

the noun may mean “a smearing on,” but this noun is limited to this one phrase, and the underlying

20

The only use of k-p-r applied as a sealant for a boat appears in this tractate, and is the best literary parallel to Gen 6:14; the uses of the noun in the other tractates do not match literarily as well.

21 A similar logic appears in בראשית רבה, chapter 31, section 9.

10

action involved is uncertain.22 Additionally, there are no known uses of the verb k-p-r in the G-stem with

the noun kuprāʾ. The Targums and other Aramaic versions use kuprāʾ at times but employ different

verbs (ḥ-p-w/y, š-w-ʿ, or ṭ-ḥ-w/y) when describing Noah’s action of “smearing on” (table 5). Thus, while

the semantic domain of the noun in Aramaic is consistent with Gen 6:14, when one considers the

evidence of the phrase פרוכפרת...בכ , the verbal constituent of the Hebrew of this verse does not

match the known usages of the verb in Aramaic.

The attestation of the noun and verb from k-p-r in Akkadian cohere with the two forms of the

root in Gen 6:14 much better than do the Aramaic terms. Not only does the G-stem verb of Akkadian

from k-p-r mean “to wipe on,” a close fit to the same verb in the same stem in Gen 6:14, but there are at

least three attestations, from a wide geographic area and time period, of the verb and noun appearing

in the same sentence. Examples include (see also Table 6):

(various medications) eli šinnēšu takappar (Medicinal text)

“You shall wipe (various medications) on his teeth.”

daltu ša abulli šaknat uppu sikkūru epšu BI BI (?) [K]A? S[A (?) T]A(?) kupru kapru (from Nimrud)

“The door of the gate is set, the socket (and) bar23 made, the drainage openings coated with bitumen.”24

22

Sokoloff directs the reader’s attention to a parallel action in Akkadian, diqāra takappar, “you shall wipe

the pot clean; however, this action in Akkadian is clearly one of wiping off, in which case Sokoloff’s phraseological parallel is contradictory with his suggestion earlier in the entry that the noun is related to Akkadian k-p-r, “to wipe on” (A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002], 597). If this phrase is so limited and closely related to an Akkadian analogue, perhaps this is an Akkadian loan into Aramaic?

23 In one other text, the SAG.KUL (the logographic rendering of sikkūru) is adorned with a winged

representation of the Deluge monster (abūbu mupparšu). 24

Given the usages of חמר and זפת as bitumen and tar water sealants in Exod 2:3, and given that at least

the former term has an extensive usage in a variety of dialects in Hebrew, it appears that כפר, with no such

attested history in the Hebrew language, matches this usage in Akkadian well. Ancient Hebrew thus had at least

one native term for “pitch” which functioned as a water sealant (namely חמר; the origin of the word זפת is

obscure). That a different word for such a sealant appears in Gen 6:14 that has a direct cognate in Akkadian used in similar functions (as a water sealant) is significant. Contact linguists discuss a variety of notions for borrowing, the

11

ištu šaplānu adi eliš ESIR.UD.DU.A kapir elēnu ESIR.UD.DU.A ESIR kapir (from Mari)

“from the base upward (the igum structure) is smeared with ittû-bitumen, the upper part is smeared

with kuprum bitumen.”

(if a house) ESIR ESIR.UD.DU.A SIG4 AL.ÙR.RA IM.BABBAR IM.GÚ kapir (a building text)

“(if a house) is coated with ittû-bitumen, kupru-bitumen, baked bricks, gypsum (or) mud plaster….”

Thus, the linguistic properties of וכפרת...בכפר in Gen 6:14 have much closer and more precise

analogues in Akkadian.25 Additional evidence in this line of reasoning comes in the Akkadian word

kāpiru, referring to a caulker (one who applies a substance such as bitumen) as well as a tool, perhaps

the means of applying such material. The presence of kuprum in both Atra-ḫasis and Gilgamesh

denoting one of the building materials of the ark also more directly assures the tie to Akkadian as a

source language.

This observation has implications beyond the one phrase in Gen 6:14. Indeed, Klaus

Westermann has observed that hapax legomena in Gen 6-9 could indicate a foreign source for this text.

two most prominent (among many other factors) being need and prestige. Need, in this case, seems not to have been a factor since Hebrew had a word meaning “pitch” used as a water sealant.

25 The main linguistic difficulty, according to some, of adopting this phrase as a loan from Akkadian into

Hebrew involves whether or not the G-stem of k-p-r is a denominative or whether it constitutes a separate root from the D-stem kuppurum in Akkadian (Wolfram von Soden proposed the former, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, Band I [Harrasowitz: Wiesbaden], 443; Benno Landsberger proposed the latter, The Date of the Palm and its By-products according to the Cuneiform Sources [AfO Beiheft 17; Graz, 1967], 30-34). According to some, if the noun is

primary and the verb denominative, then the noun would be loaned directly from Atra-ḫasis or Gilgamesh and the

verb formed by analogy to a known Akkadian phrase. The reverse, however, would decrease the likelihood that the phrase is a direct borrowing into Hebrew according to some linguists. The relationship between the noun and verb

in Akkadian is only marginally relevant for Gen 6:14. That the noun exists in both Atra-ḫasis and Gilgamesh in the

same literary context and that the verb and noun are used together centuries prior to the writing of Gen 6:14 means that the author of the biblical flood story could have had access to both the noun and its use with the verb. From a biblical author’s point of view, whether or not k-p-r was a denominative verb may have had no impact if he simply knew the noun from his source text and the noun plus verb from other literary contexts. Moreover, comparatively speaking, a good case can be made that k-p-r in the G-stem is a denominative in Akkadian. It is the only Semitic language that uses this stem with this root for “to smear on.” It is easier to explain this particular semantic property in Akkadian by appeal to a denominative relationship to the noun (which exists in a variety of Semitic language, including Arabic and Aramaic) than to posit another proto-Semitic verbal root which survived only into Akkadian.

12

The noun כפר in Gen 6:14 is one such word in his list. What he does not observe, however, is that all of

the hapax he discusses fall in the P source and not the J source.26 Another disputed example of Akkadian

influence is less linguistically marked in this series, but is literarily intriguing. If one follows Ullendorf in

reading קנים instead of קנים, one may have a literary parallel to Atra-ḫasis (Table 7):

qá-ne-e gáb-bi lu bi-nu-us-sà, “may its structure (be) entirely of reeds.”

If this emendation is accepted in Gen 6:14, then one not only has a strong parallel to Atra-ḫasis, but an

inner-Hebrew problem is also resolved.27 The context of the verse in Gen 6:14 deals with materials for

the ark, which gives way to a description of dimensions in 6:15 and then structural plans in 6:16. The

one detail which is out of this place is in Gen 6:14, namely the קנים. If one emends, however, to קנים,

then Gen 6:14 consists entirely of a list of materials, namely a wood type, reeds, and pitch.

This emendation has an interesting literary counterpart in a manuscript of Gilgamesh XI, called

“c1” in George’s edition of the epic. This manuscript allows for a surer reconstruction of tablet XI, lines

50-56, in which those constructing the boat consist of a carpenter (LÚnaggāru), a reed-worker

(LÚatkuppu), and a rich person carrying pitch (šarû naši kupra). An Old Babylonian manuscript of Atra-

26

Indeed, whether one follows one of the more standard divisions as in the models of R. E. Friedman, John Collins, or Baruch Schwartz or another, these lexemes only occur in the P source. See Baruch Schwartz, “The Flood Narratives in the Torah and the Question of Where History Begins” (Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, its Exegesis and its Language; Edited by Moshe Bar-Asher, at al; Jerusalem: Bialik, 2007), 139-54; John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 51-56; R. E. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2003), 42ff. Westermann is often adept at noting that J and P could have

separate literary traditions, and that P at times shares a literary tradition closer to Atra-ḫasis and at times closer to

Gilgamesh (an observation that also applies to J). See Genesis 1-11 (Translated by John J. Scullion, S. J.; Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1984), 384-458. He does not discuss the importance of the linguistic data, however, and what these data mean for language contact. Often Westermann seems to work from the same assumption as Loewenstamm that these lexemes reflect an older Hebrew epic and not direct literary contact with a foreign source.

27 Westermann and Loewenstamm rule out this proposal, but do not give sufficient explanations, and

neither discusses the impact of the emendation on Gen 6:14-16 as a whole (though Loewenstamm does discuss Gen 6:14 more narrowly). Westermann claims that parallels with Gilgamesh, which evidently lacks this detail, rules

out this suggestion; yet, the parallel of קנים is really on the basis of Atra-ḫasis, which does have this description of

“reeds.” See Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 420; Loewenstamm, Comparative Method, 115 n 34.

13

Ḫasis has the same order in a much more fragmentary section: na-ga-[ru], at-ku-up-[pu], and ku-up-ra.

While these elements are in this order but spread across 6 lines in Gilgamesh, they appear in contiguous

lines in Atra-Ḫasis. This grouping is significant for the above proposal in Gen 6:14 since, if קנים is

repointed to קנים, then all three elements would appear in this verse as well.28

These remarks have consequences for source criticism. In much of the discussion around Gen 6-

9 and Mesopotamian flood stories, Gen 6-9 have been treated somewhat as an aggregate. The linguistic

data presented, however, may reveal that the P source has a marked linguistic trace of its interaction

with the Mesopotamian flood stories, perhaps specifically with the Atra-ḫasis version or some version

like it (though it is not the intent of this study to claim dependence on a specific text, but rather from

Akkadian sources generally). Some scholars, such as Samuel Loewenstamm, have argued that a source

division prevents one from doing an adequate comparison with epic traditions and cognate stories of

the flood. He claims that words such as ףר ט ,צהר ,גפר ,כפר ,מבול , and םקוי should be understood as

coming from an earlier epic Hebrew source (table 8). It should be noted, however, that three words in

his list, כפר ,גפר, and צהר, are hapax legoumena, have no ready internal explanation within the

development of the Hebrew language,29 and only belong to the P source, whereas םקוי and ףר ט occur

28

George points out an Old Babylonian letter in which the carpenter and reed-maker are addressed to

make a cargo ship, indicating that even if the dimensions for the ship in Gilgamesh, Atra-Ḫasis, and Gen 6:15 are

absurd, the materials out of which the craft was built did have a foundation in historical ship-building. The text

reads LÚ naggārū(nagar)

MEŠ LÚmalāḫu(MÁ.LAḪ5)

MEŠ ù atkuppū(AD.KID)MEŠ…našpakam(MÁ.Ì.DUB) līpušū, “let

the carpenters, shipwrights and reed-workers…build a cargo-boat.” See George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition, and Cuneiform Texts, Volume II (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 880-881.

He discusses the similarities between Gilgamesh and Atra-Ḫasis, but does not discuss the connections made above

to Gen 6:14. 29

The most difficult word in this list to connect with Akkadian is צהר as Akkadian does not have /h/,

which merged with /ʾ/ early in the history of the language. A possible cognate appears in Amarna Akkadian,

namely zuḫru, meaning “back,” which, if related to the word in Gen 6:16, would be extended to mean “roof.” The

nominal pattern matches צהר, but the reflex of /ḫ/ in Akkadian should be /ḥ/ in Hebrew, not /h/. Another

14

elsewhere in the HB (even if they are rare) and can be explained as deriving from Hebrew itself.30

Despite Loewenstamm’s assertion to the contrary, isolating distinct sources can help define the nature

of linguistic contact, which is different in the P source and the J source. Thus, source division, when

linguistically informed, can aid comparative studies, and contact linguistics can highlight these aspects

when one has divided the sources.

problem occurs in that /z/ in Akkadian should correspond to /z/ in Hebrew, not /ṣ/ The spelling of this root in

Amarna, however, reveals that neither the first consonant (which was variously spelled with /ṣ/) nor the middle

element were stable. Perhaps regional variations existed in either an Akkadian or Canaanite word that could have

manifested themselves in later, biblical Hebrew צהר. One finds the following spellings: zu-uḫ-ru-ma (from Akko);

ṣú-uḫ-ru-ma (in letters from Abdi-Aširte, Šubandu, and Šuwardatta); ṣ[ú]-ru-ma (from Šuwardatta); and ṣú-ri-ia-

ri-ia (from Tyre). This instability leaves open the possibility for a dialect to preserve a somewhat related form

which developed later into צהר, the form seen in Gen 6:16.

Indeed, the variant spellings could be substrate influence in that these Canaanite dialects, which did not

have /ḫ/ as a phoneme in their native dialect, rendered an Akkadian word variously, sometimes correctly with /ḫ/,

sometimes without. Thus, ṣūru, or ṣuʾru (CAD lists both as a root heading) could have been a Canaanite attempt to

render a non-Canaanite word related to Akkadian sēru. Ugaritic also has a root ẓr; however, this root does not

provide an immediate solution for the appearance of צהר since one would have to explain the appearance of /h/

in Hebrew, which is lacking in the Ugaritic spelling of the cognate term ẓr. Expanding /h/ elements appear as

affixes on some Hebrew nouns (such as אלהים) and infixed in Aramaic (Hebrew rūṣ to Aramaic rhaṭ) but, as far as

this author is aware, no such expanding elements appear infixed in a Hebrew word that corresponds to a Ugaritic root. In any case, the forms of this word listed above also contain an enclitic –ma, which syntactically functions differently, and therefore is likely unrelated to, the Akkadian connective –ma. H. D. Hummel sees the –ma on the various forms listed above as related to the enclitic mem in early Northwest Semitic, especially in Hebrew. Thus,

despite the aforementioned phonological difficulties, a good case can be made for connecting צהר in Gen 6:16

with an Akkadian root (“Enclitic Mem in Early Northwest Semitic, especially Hebrew,” Journal of Biblical Literature 76 [1957]: 90).

One might argue on the basis of the above evidence that an oral line of transmission existed since a good

cognate which roughly matches צהר morphologically appears only in Amarna Akkadian.

It should be observed that the translators who produced the Peshitta also had trouble with this word,

which evidently had no direct Syriac cognate. This word used was zwēḏnē, meaning “clearstory, base,” and Payne

Smith proposed that it, too, was an Akkadian loanword from samētu, which was perhaps pronounced /zwēd/ in

Assyrian. Thus, an inexact phonological correspondence between Syriac and Akkadian also appears in Syriac if this is truly a loanword from Akkadian.

30 may be more difficult to explain. It could either derive from טרף The root .קום could be related to יקום

the verb טרף, meaning “to tear, rend,” and so its presence in Gen 8:11 could refer to a fresh twig, in the sense of

being freshly torn by the dove, a connection which Brown, Driver, and Briggs accept. Kohler and Baumgartner

propose a separate root טרף related to Arabic “to be fresh,” and related to an Amharic word for “sprig, branch.”

While such a separate root is possible, it is not necessary to explain Gen 8:11.

15

These considerations of linguistic data and source division remain no matter how one divides

the sources and no matter how one reconstructs the social world of the Priestly source. Regarding the

former, a few different divisions of sources of Gen 6-9 exist among scholars. No matter which model one

chooses, however, the foregoing linguistic comments regarding the difference between P and J remain

(table 9). Moreover, there are various scholarly reconstructions of the historical provenance of the

Priestly source. Again, no matter whether one chooses a late monarchic, exilic, or post-exilic date, there

is heavy Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian influence throughout the Levant. A fuller account of P in Gen

6-9 shows that while Akkadian linguistically influenced this source, borrowing is not slavish; thus, the

narrative of P diverges from Mesopotamian flood stories on the issue of sacrifice as sacrifice does not

begin in P until Sinai. Such a divergence, however, does not mean that P did not use a foreign source

text.31

In some ways, these observations seem obvious enough. They provide, however, a helpful test

case that should inform expectations when it appears as though ancient Israelites were the initiators of

linguistic contact. Some scholars have argued in other cases, such as the Covenant Code and its

relationship to Hammurapi’s law code, that direct Akkadian contact would reveal itself in the Hebrew

through the presence of Akkadian syntax, resulting in greater than normal verb-final structure. This is

not the case in the Covenant Code, and thus such scholars claim that Aramaic, which is structurally

closer to Hebrew, was the intermediary between any similarities in the Exodus legal material and

Mesopotamian literature. William Morrow has made a similar claim in a review of Eckart Otto’s Das

Deuteronomium regarding the relationship between Deuteronomy and the VTE, in which he asks “how

could cuneiform literacy be acquired by a small Iron Age state on the periphery of the NA empire? What

evidence is there, either in the biblical record or in archaeological discoveries, to support this idea?”32

31

See Tigay, “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing,” 254-55. 32

William S. Morrow, “Cuneiform Literacy and Deuteronomic Composition,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 62 (2005): 205.

16

Thus, he seems to posit, on the basis of the former claim regarding the possibility of cuneiform literacy

in such a small state, that Aramaic may be a more plausible intermediary between Hebrew and Akkadian

literature. The discovery of a NA treaty from Esarhaddon at Tel Tainat, however, makes Morrow’s

skepticism less warranted. Moreover, the idea that a simple scribal administration cannot acquire

knowledge of cuneiform literature and Akkadian, and therefore needs an Aramaic intermediary is

analogous to the idea that structural similarity is a good predictor that linguistic traces will be borrowed

from such comparable languages, a supposition contact linguists have shown to be false. As seen in the

case of Gen 6-9, direct contact with Akkadian is likely as foreign linguistic traces in the Hebrew of these

chapters cohere much better with Akkadian than Aramaic; however, no traces of Akkadian syntax are

apparent. Contact linguistics dictates that one should expect this result. Simply because Aramaic is

genetically closer to Hebrew and the Hebrew scribal schools were smaller and likely less sophisticated

than Akkadian scribes does not necessarily mean that Aramaic is a better candidate for contact-induced

changes in Hebrew.

The results of the test case of Gen 6:14 can also be affirmed in verses such as Isa 2:10, 19, and

21 (table 10). As Shawn Zelig Aster already noted, these verses contain a calque with the Akkadian terms

pulḫu and melammu (see Table 11 for examples).33 Whereas the case in Gen 6:14 combined both

semantic and morphological peculiarities of the words involved as indicators of contact, Isa 2:10, 19, and

21 involve both semantic and syntactic oddities. When a verb of motion is used with מפני, the object of

the preposition “is consistently and invariably the force or the person that causes the flight, never the

feeling of terror itself.”34 However, the usual semantic domain of פחד in the Hebrew Bible is the terror

33

Shawn Zelig Aster, “The Image of Assyria in Isaiah 2:5-22: The Campaign Motif Reversed,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 127 (2007): 249-78; “The Phenomenon of Divine and Human Radiance in the Hebrew Bible and in Northwest Semitic and Mesopotamian Literature: A Philological and Comparative Study,” Unpublished PhD Dissertation (University of Pennsylvania, 2006), 295-327.

34 “The Phenomenon of Divine and Human Radiance in the Hebrew Bible and in Northwest Semitic and

Mesopotamian Literature: A Philological and Comparative Study,” 315.

17

that one has, not the source of the terror. According to Aster, this semantic oddity is a good indication

of an Akkadian calque, and he is surely on solid grounds. His syntactic analysis, however, is on less solid

grounds. For example, at one point he claims that מפני governs both פחד יהוה and הדר גאונו; the

latter, however, is clearly governed by מן, which perhaps means that the calque is limited to מפני פחד

in this מן and מפני Moreover, Aster leaves completely unexplored the odd syntactic coupling of .יהוה

order as governed by the same verb in the Hebrew Bible. He can prove his case by semantics, and one

gets the sense that he overstates the similarities when he claims that the Hebrew syntax is mapped to

Akkadian syntax. However, even he is forced to recognize that the verb placement in Isa 2:10, 19, and 21

is common for Hebrew and not the expected Akkadian syntax. Thus, this case of contact, much like Gen

6:14, is indicated by an odd semantic domain even as the syntax is comfortably within biblical Hebrew

structures, a situation that contact linguists claim one should expect when examining a non-bilingual

society as was Iron Age Israel.

The analysis above is sufficient to establish that כפר in Gen 6:14 is loanword. The next step in

this analysis will include further socio-linguistic reasons for why Aramaic was likely not the intermediary

for this lexical oddity, as Iron-Age and Babylonian era Aramaic was not a vehicle, as far as evidence is

available, for writing or transmitting epic sources.35

35

Paul Dion claims that the first truly “literary” Aramaic text is Ahiqar from 400 BCE at the earliest (“Aramaean Tribes and Nations of First-Millennium Western Asia,” Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Volume 2 [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995], 1281-94). Though earlier royal inscriptions had literary elements, they are not the literary parallel to Gen 6-9 that many Neo-Assyrian document were. It is often assumed that since Aramaic existed as a mode of writing possibly as early as 1000 BCE that it could have been an intermediary between Mesopotamian and biblical literature. It has been shown in other ancient Near Eastern languages, however, that simply because a writing existed does not mean it was used for any and every kind of genre. See Yakubovich and Payne for socio-linguistic restrictions on the writing of Luwian (Annick Payne, Hieroglyphic Luwian: An Introduction with Original Texts [2

nd edition; Subsidia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis 2; Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010], 1; I. Yakubovich, “Hittite-Luwian Bilingualism and the Origin of Anatolian Hieroglyphs,” in Acta Linguistics Petropolitana, Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies, Vol. IV, Part I [St. Petersberg, 2008], 9-36; “Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language,” PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago, 2008, 18-90). Even in rabbinic times, various perceptions of scripts and languages were controlling factors regarding what could and could not serve as a mode of transmission of biblical texts (M. Bar-Ilan, ”Part Two: Scribes and Books in the Late

18

Conclusions

The foregoing analysis of Gen 6:14 is revealing both as to the reality of linguistic contact

between the authors of the Hebrew Bible and Akkadian and to the benefit of applying contact linguistics

as a method for exploring such interactions. Einar Haugen, an early contact linguist, lamented that the

field in his time was able to examine the results but not the process of contact induced phenomena. The

breakthroughs in the past few decades in the study of language contact have provided such a

methodological grounding for using contact linguistics as a means for describing not simply the results,

but also the process when speakers of one language interact with another language. Of course, since the

Iron Age is far removed from the present, we cannot be absolutely certain how such contact occurred

between ancient Israelites and Mesopotamian languages and literatures. The results, however, of

literary engagement with Akkadian are evident in the Hebrew Bible in linguistic traces that have little or

no internal explanation.36 The use of contact linguistics as a vehicle for comparative work with Akkadian

not only provides a means for describing the process of language contact as best as a modern scholar

can, but also has implications for biblical studies proper. This dissertation will focus on texts from the

Pentateuch, which have served as a classical locus for comparative work with Mesopotamia in each of

the sources (J and P in the flood narrative; E in the Covenant Code compared with the Code of

Hammurapi; D in comparisons with the Vassal Treat of Esarhaddon). It will also focus on Isaiah, since the

Second Commonwealth and Rabbinic Period,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity [eds. Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988], 21-38). Thus, simply because a language existed does not necessarily mean that it was used for any kind of writing, and the early evidence of anything like epic literature in Aramaic is not until well into the Persian period.

36 I should be observed that the above comments and lines of argumentation in this dissertation will not

preclude the possibility of Aramaic intermediaries. Even as Aster notes that the Hebrew of Isa 2:10, 19, and 21 shows marked Akkadian influences, other passages and phrases such as Dan 11:20, composed in the post-exilic period when Aramaic had been put to more literary uses than it had in the Iron Age and which contain literary reflexes akin to Akkadian literature, perhaps had an Aramaic intermediary has parallels to Ahiqar may indicate (“The Phenomenon of Divine and Human Radiance in the Hebrew Bible and in Northwest Semitic and Mesopotamian Literature: A Philological and Comparative Study,” 292-95).

19

rhetoric and background of the various strata in this book can with some certainty be located within a

period of heavy Assyrian and Babylonian influence in the Levant.

Outline of Dissertation:

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Comparative Method: History of the discipline and review of the literature

- Attempts to compare the Bible with Middle Eastern cultures before the decipherment of

Akkadian

- Franz Delitzsch, George Smith, and Parallel-O-Mania

- The contributions of Benno Landsberger

- William Hallo and the Contextual Approach

Chapter 3: Methodology: contact linguistics and the comparative method in biblical studies

- Brief History of Contact Linguistics

- Contact Linguistics and Historical Linguistics

o The Usefulness of Contact Linguistics as Applied to Ancient Languages

- What Contact Linguistics has to offer Biblical Studies

Chapter 4: Application of contact linguistics to bilinguals of the Iron Age as a methodological control

- General statements on evidence from bilingual inscriptions in the Iron Age generally

- Focus on Aramaic/Akkadian bilinguals specifically and the linguistic relationship evidenced in

this data relative to the models of contact linguistics

- Texts Considered:

o Tell-Fekhariya

o Incirli Trilingual Inscription

o Fales’ work on Aramaic/Akkadian letters

Chapter 5: Application of the method to issues in the Pentateuch

- Gen 6-9 and Mesopotamian Flood Stories

o Gen 6:14-16 and the Implications for the Priestly Source

- Exod 21:2-23:19 and Mesopotamian Legal Sources

o Exod 21:28-36 and the Law of the Goring Ox

- Deuteronomy 28 and Mesopotamian Treaties

o The Sequences of Curses in Deut 28 and the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon

Chapter 6: Application of the Method to Isaiah and its Various Layers

- Linguistic Evidence of Mesopotamian Contact in First Isaiah

o Implications of Machinist’s Theory Regarding כבוד and melammu

20

o Calque in Isa 2:10, 19, and 21

- Linguistic Evidence of Mesopotamian Contact in Second Isaiah

o A Divine Title in Isa 13:4

- Linguistic Evidence of Mesopotamian Contact in Third Isaiah

Chapter 7: Conclusion

Tables

Table 1: Thomason and Kaufman’s Borrowing Hierarchy:

� 1) Casual contact: lexical (content words) only; non-basic vocabulary is typically, if not always,

borrowed first.

� 2) Slightly more intense contact: slight structural borrowing (lexicon/function words and minor

structural changes).

� 3) More intense contact: slightly more structural borrowing (lexicon and less minor structure

changes/adpositions, derivational suffixes, phonemes).

� 4) Strong cultural pressure: moderate structural borrowing (relatively major structural features

that cause relatively little typological change/word order, distinctive features in phonology,

inflectional morphology).

� 5) Very strong cultural pressure: heavy structural borrowing (major structural features that

cause significant typological disruption, phonetic changes).

Table 2: Van Coetsem, Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact, 26: Language

Domains

� Least stable: Vocabulary

� More stable: Phonology and grammar (morphology and syntax)- (possibly) more frequent and

structured elements

Table 3: Yaron Matras, Language Contact, 157ff :

� Nouns, conjunctions>verbs>discourse markers>adjectives>interjections>adverbs>other

particles, adpositions>numerals>pronouns>derivational affixes>inflectional affixes

� Each domain can have its own hierarchy (coordinating conjunctions: but>or>and)

Table 4: Aikhenvald and Dixon, Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, 14-17:

� Hierarchy of borrowing and what can be borrowed depend upon:

21

� Type of community: tight knit vs. externally open; lifestyle matters.

� Size of community

� Relations within a community

� Contact with other communities

� Degrees of “lingualism”

� Types of interaction of languages within a putative area

� Language attitudes

Table 5: Aramaic Evidence:

� Gen 6:14:

(Onkelos) ותחפי יתה מגיו ומברא בכופרא �

(Pseudo Jonathan)ותישוע יתה מן גיו ומברא בחימרא �

(Neofiti)ותשוע יתה מלגוא ומן לבר בחמרא �

� ������� � �� �� � � ����� (Syriac/Peshitta)

(Talmud Bavli, Nedarim 51a; Giṭṭim 69b)טחייה בכופרא �

Table 6: Akkadian evidence:

� (various medications) eli šinnēšu takappar (Medicinal text, perhaps from the Namburbi texts, SB,

late 8th-late 5th cent)

� “You shall wipe (various medications) on his teeth.”

� daltu ša abulli šaknat uppu sikkūru epšu BI BI (?) [K]A? S[A (?) T]A(?) kupru kapru (from

Nimrud/Kalḫu, Neo-Assyrian)

� “The door of the gate is set, the socket (and) bar made, the drainage openings coated

with bitumen.”

� ištu šaplānu adi eliš ESIR.UD.DU.A kapir elēnu ESIR.UD.DU.A ESIR kapir (from Mari)

� “from the base upward (the igum structure) is smeared with ittû-bitumen, the upper

part is smeared with kuprum bitumen.”

� (if a house) ESIR ESIR.UD.DU.A SIG4 AL.ÙR.RA IM.BABBAR IM.GÚ kapir (a building text)

22

� “(if a house) is coated with ittû-bitumen, kupru-bitumen, baked bricks, gypsum (or) mud

plaster….”.

Table 7: Atra-Ḫasis (middle Babylonian fragment CBS 13532, rev., line 7):

� Compare קנים in Gen 6:14 vs. קנים:

קנים תעשה את1התבה �

� qanē gabbī lū binūssa

� “May its structure (be) entirely of reeds.”

Lambert and Millard, Atra-Ḫasis, 126

Table 8:

� Loewenstamm’s list of odd lexemes in Gen 6-9:

hapax, P only, Gen 6:14 -כפר �

hapax, P only, Gen 6:14 -גפר �

hapax, P only, Gen 6:16 -צהר �

not a hapax, J only, Gen 8:11 (also Ezek 17:9) -טרף �

not a hapax, J only, Gen 7:4, 23 (also Deut 11:6) -יקום �

Table 9:

� R. E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 246:

� J: Gen 6:5-8; 7:1-5, 7, 10, 12, 16b-20, 22-23; 8:2b-3a, 6, 8-12, 13b, 20-22

� P: Gen 6:9-22; 7:8-9, 11, 13-16a, 21, 24; 8:1-2a, 3b-5, 7, 13a, 14-19; 9:1-17

� Baruch Schwartz, “The Flood Narratives in the Torah and the Question of Where History

Begins,”143-47:

� J: 6:5-8; 7:1-5, 7-8a, 10, 12, 16b-17a, 23; 8:2b-3a, 6, 8-12, 13b, 20-22

� P: 6:9-22; 7:6, 8b-9, 11, 13-16a, 17b-22, 23; 8:1-2a, 3b-5, 7, 13a, 14-19; 9:1-17

� Samuel L. Boyd

� J: 6:5-8, 9b; 7:1-5, 7-8a, 10, 12, 16b-17a, 23; 8:2b-3a, 6, 8-12, 13b, 20-22

23

� P: 6:9a, 9c-22; 7:6, 8b-9, 11, 13-16a, 17b-22, 24; 8:1-2a, 3b-5, 7, 13a, 14-19; 9:1-17

Table 10:

� Isa 2:10:

בצור והטמן בעפר מפני פחד יהוה ומהדר גא נ ב א �

� Isa 2:19

ר מפני פחד יהוה ומהדר גא נ ובאו במער ת צרים ובמחל ת עפ �

� Isa 2:21

לב א בנקר ת הצרים ובסעפי הסלעים מפני פחד יהוה ומהדר גא נ �

Table 11:

� From Shalmaneser III (Kurkh Monolith Annals, against the Bīt Adini):

� ina pān namurrat kakkēja melammē bēlūtīja iplaḫma ālêšu umaššir ana šūzub napšātīšu ÍDPuratti ēbir

� He became afraid in the face of the terrifying appearance of my weapons, the melammu

of my lordship. He abandoned his cities and crossed the Euphrates to save his life.

� Annals of Ashurnasirpal II

� ina pān melammē bēlūtīja iplaḫūma, ālānīšu dūrēšunu uššerū ana šūzub napšātēšunu

ana šadî matni šadî danni ēlû

� “They took fright in the face of the melammu of my lordship. They abandoned their

strong cities. In order to save their lives, they went up to Mount Matnu, a strong

mountain.”

� Sennacherib’s third campaign (against Sidon)

� pulḫi melammē bēlūtīja isḫupšuma ana ruqqi qabal tâmtim innabit

� “Fear of the melammu of my lordship overwhelmed him and he fled far into the midst

of the sea.”

� Sennacherib’s third campaign (against Hezekiah)

� šū IḪazaqiau pulḫi melammē bēlūtīja isḫupšuma

� “As for Hezekiah, fear of melammu of my lordship overcame him.”