--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Paul Wexler
> Explorations in Judeo-Slavic Linguistics
> p 47, n 201
> (discussing interchange of /n/ and /m/ in loans between Hebrew and
> Slavic)
> '... See also OCz Sephyn 'Judges' (late 14th-early 15th c) < He
> šoft.īm (Schröpfer 1971:358, line 40) vs. B(ela)r(usian) Softim ~
> Å oftimÑ (1519) (Skaryna's forewords to 1 Kings and 1 Judges
> respectively). I have no evidence of the confusion of the two nasals
> from any Jewish source; nor is it clear yet whether the
> unetymological n or m became lexicalized.'
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francysk_Skaryna
>
> Isn't it more likely that the OCz Sephyn is related instead to
> this/these words for "judge"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6ffe
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schepen
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89chevin
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89chevin_(Luxembourg)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0epmistr
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scabino
> ?
The alternative is that all three words are related.
The Hebrew word is attested at least from the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Judges
(Sefer Shoftim, ספר ש×פ×××)
written in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_exile
cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Judges#Origins_and_redaction_history
which precludes a common origin of the word in Germanic or Slavic; in those languages it would be a loan from Hebrew. Which sounds odd, but on the other hand, on a proposed origin of some institutions of Frankish law in Jewish law, see
Jacob J. Rabinowitz
The Influence of Jewish Law upon the Development of Frankish Law
Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research,
Vol. 16 (1946 - 1947),
pp. 205-224
> The Semitic root Å¡-p.-t "judge"
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=/data/semham/semet&text_number=1012&root=config
> seems to be limited to the
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_language
> and the
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Semitic_languages
> which are distantly related, which seems to indicate it's a cultural
> term. A further relative is found in Chadic
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=/data/semham/wchet&text_number=1009&root=config
The origin of the verb here could be Babylonian, given the origin of the Book of Judges. That would imply, if the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Judges#Settlement_theory_of_Judges_1
is correct, that the writer(s) chose to use a Babylonian word for that particular form of judge / military leader. That depends of course on whether 'shoft' "judge" is attested earlier than the Book of Judges. Does anyone know?
BTW Wikipedia cites Theologian Garry K. Brantly for:
'Among such scholars who hold a low view of the historical reliability of the Bible, there are two popular theories explaining the emergence of Israel in Canaan. The first is the âpeaceful infiltrationâ model, which is associated with the German scholars Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth. Appealing to ancient Egyptian records (such as the Amarna letters), they concluded that the Israelite settlement of Canaan was due to a gradual immigration into the land, not a military offensive.'
Those two scenarios are nor exclusive. After the Prussians took over
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig
they engaged in a lengthy political process to get loyal Germans to take over land owned by locals.
Torsten