See my, “Hovav the Midianite: Why Was the End of the Story Cut?
This article is based on ch.8 of my, ??? ???? ???”? [How the Bible Was Born] (Israel: Kinneret, Zmora-bitan, Dvir, 2018).
3 was part of the Anche or Elohistic source, whereas the revelation sopra chapter 6 is, durante my view, from the Holiness School’s redaction of the Pentateuch. Jackie Feldman and Peretz Rodman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007; repr. of, Minneapolis, MN; Fortress Press, 1995), 17 [n24]; trans. of, ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992). Other scholars, however, believe it puro be from the Priestly text (see conciliabule sopra, David Frankel, “Reconstructing the Priestly Moses,” TheTorah .) Editor’s note: For how these two texts played an important role mediante the development of source criticism, see Zev Farber, “Documentary Hypothesis: The Revelation of YHWH’s Name Continues esatto Enlighten,” TheTorah (2014).
Editor’s note: For more on how this meaning was understood over time, see James Diamond, “YHWH: The God that Is vs. the God that Becomes,” TheTorah (2017).
Editor’s note: For a claim that this gloss is actually per redactional supplement, added after the Di nuovo and J sources were combined, see, Zev Farber, “How Does God Answer the Question: ‘What Is Your Name?’” TheTorah (2017).
The term “Arab” here may be anachronistic, as the first time we see this term used is sopra 8 th century Assyrian documents. The point is that the Midianites are from the same reparto as the Arabian tribes and were likely part of this Arab or proto-Arab group.
Editor’s note: For per source critical explanation for why both Midianites and Ishmaelites appear sopra this story as the ones who bring Joseph sicuro Egypt, see, Ben Sandler, “Encountering the Documentary Hypothesis per the Jo).
I discuss some of this briefly sopra my piece on Hovav, con the context of why the Torah cuts off the end of the story durante Numbers 10. ” TheTorah (2016).
See Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, trans
The final w is per phonetic complement, i.anche., it is not pronounced but is written onesto clarify the pronunciation of the previous biliteral sign (i.addirittura., per sign that represents two consonants), which is why it is transcribed with only one w. The first vowel “a” is per common rendering for the vowel preceding an aleph; the final vowel “e” is just verso convention of Egyptologists; hieroglyphics were written without vowels and we do not know how the end of the word was pronounced.
Editor’s note: The second “w” is problematic. Unlike in the word shaswe, it cannot be a phonetic complement since phonetic complements are paired onesto the second consonant of per biliteral sign, or puro both consonants, but not preciso just the first. Per theory it could be another consonant yielding Yehwaw. It could also be per redundant consonant (as sometimes occurs mediante toponyms) or an attempt by the scribe puro mimic verso vowel sound from a foreign language, such as the diphthong a?. An attractive possibility, suggested by the Egyptologist Elmar Edel (1914-1997), is that the “w” quail chick (??) is a scribal error, and what should have been written is the “aleph” vulture (??), which is how the word is spelled durante Ramses II’s Amara West inscription, which also references Nomad-land Yehwa. If so, then the final consonant is just verso phonetic complement, and the proper transcription would be yhw?. See conciliabule per, Faried Adrom and Matthias Muller, “The Tetragrammaton con Egyptian Sources – Facts and Fiction,” in The Origins of Yahwism, anche. Jurgen van Oorschot and ), 93-114 [98, n36].
