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 Ed or Elohistic source, whereas the revelation durante 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, Minneapolis, MN; Fortress Press, 1995), 17 [n24]; trans. of, ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992). Other scholars, however, believe it to be from the Priestly text (see colloque durante, David Frankel, “Reconstructing the Priestly Moses,” TheTorah .) Editor’s note: For how these two texts played an important role durante the development of source criticism, see Zev Farber, “Documentary Hypothesis: The Revelation of YHWH’s Name Continues puro 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 verso redactional supplement, added after the Ancora 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 mediante 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 durante this story as the ones who bring Joseph preciso Egypt, see, Ben Sandler, “Encountering the Documentary Hypothesis durante the Jo).
I discuss some of this briefly durante my piece on Hovav, durante the context of why the Torah cuts off the end of the story mediante Numbers 10. ” TheTorah (2016).
See Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, trans
The final w is verso phonetic complement, i.ancora., it is not pronounced but is written preciso clarify the pronunciation of the previous biliteral sign (i.addirittura., verso sign that represents two consonants), which is why it is transcribed with only one w. The first vowel “a” is verso 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 sopra the word ferzu shaswe, it cannot be a phonetic complement since phonetic complements are paired esatto the second consonant of verso biliteral sign, or onesto both consonants, but not puro just the first. Per theory it could be another consonant yielding Yehwaw. It could also be verso redundant consonant (as sometimes occurs con toponyms) or an attempt by the scribe sicuro mimic a vowel sound from verso 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 per scribal error, and what should have been written is the “aleph” vulture (??), which is how the word is spelled per Ramses II’s Amara West inscription, which also references Nomad-land Yehwa. If so, then the final consonant is just a phonetic complement, and the proper transcription would be yhw?. See colloque con, Faried Adrom and Matthias Muller, “The Tetragrammaton con Egyptian Sources – Facts and Sceneggiato,” in The Origins of Yahwism, ed. Jurgen van Oorschot and ), 93-114 [98, n36].