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 E or Elohistic source, whereas the revelation sopra chapter 6 is, mediante my view, from the Holiness School’s redaction of the Pentateuch. Jackie Feldman and Peretz Rodman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007; repr. of, http://datingranking.net/it/seniorpeoplemeet-review/ 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 tete-a-tete durante, David Frankel, “Reconstructing the Priestly Moses,” TheTorah .) Editor’s note: For how these two texts played an important role per the development of source criticism, see Zev Farber, “Documentary Hypothesis: The Revelation of YHWH’s Name Continues sicuro 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 per claim that this gloss is actually per redactional supplement, added after the Anche 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 settore as the Arabian tribes and were likely part of this Arab or proto-Arab group.
Editor’s note: For verso source critical explanation for why both Midianites and Ishmaelites appear con this story as the ones who bring Joseph onesto Egypt, see, Ben Sandler, “Encountering the Documentary Hypothesis per the Jo).
I discuss some of this briefly mediante my piece on Hovav, mediante the context of why the Torah cuts off the end of the story sopra Numbers 10. ” TheTorah (2016).
See Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, trans
The final w is a phonetic complement, i.ancora., it is not pronounced but is written sicuro clarify the pronunciation of the previous biliteral sign (i.e., 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 durante the word shaswe, it cannot be per phonetic complement since phonetic complements are paired puro the second consonant of a biliteral sign, or to both consonants, but not to just the first. Per theory it could be another consonant yielding Yehwaw. It could also be a redundant consonant (as sometimes occurs sopra toponyms) or an attempt by the scribe sicuro mimic a vowel sound from per 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 con Ramses II’s Amara West inscription, which also references Nomad-land Yehwa. If so, then the final consonant is just per phonetic complement, and the proper transcription would be yhw?. See colloque in, Faried Adrom and Matthias Muller, “The Tetragrammaton durante Egyptian Sources – Facts and Rappresentazione televisiva,” sopra The Origins of Yahwism, addirittura. Jurgen van Oorschot and ), 93-114 [98, n36].