Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Author(s): E. A. Speiser
Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 85 (Feb., 1942), pp. 1013
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1355052
Accessed: 24-11-2016 00:10 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
This content downloaded from 168.150.51.145 on Thu, 24 Nov 2016 00:10:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
usage is far from clear. After more than two thousand years of interp
tation the matter is still open. The postulates and queries set dow
the medieval Hebrew commentators are reflected to this day in the
recent discussions on the subject.
The substance of the incident is plain enough. Some time in or cl
the eleventh century B. C. a group of Ephraimites sought to esca
band of vengeful Gileadites by attempting to get across the Jorda
into Palestine. Halted at the fords the fugitives pretended to be n
of Gilead. They were betrayed, however, by their inability to pron
a chosen test word in the proper Gileadite manner, with consequ
that can hardly be called academic. The telltale element was the
sound of the word .*ibbdlEt, which at that time probably had the
*Subbultu. The best that the Ephraimites could do was *subbultu,
was not good enough.
beyond dispute. It has also been assumed universally that the dia
peculiarity in question set off the Ephraimites from other speake
Hebrew, in Palestine and Transjordan alike, thus constituting an E
mite isogloss.a Ready to hand as such an assumption may be,
scarcely bear closer investigation. What is more, it appears that
erroneous premise has been chiefly responsible for our failure to r
struct the primary details of the shibboleth incident, even thoug
catchword itself has long since become proverbial. We have yet to
how suspects were caught by the catchword. A review of the prob
therefore, may not be without interest.
The meaning of the test word is of minor importance. Elsewhere in
Old Testament it has the sense of " ear of corn "1 or, less comm
" flood, torrent." " In our passage it is taken in the former sense b
to the occasion.
difficult to reconcile this view with the available facts. We have no knowl-
edge of any West Semitic language that fails to include both s and s as
a [I. e., a linguistic phenomenon characteristic of a given area.--W. F. A.]
10
This content downloaded from 168.150.51.145 on Thu, 24 Nov 2016 00:10:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
to them."
Less commonly advanced is an attempted solution based on the premise that the Ephraimites employed the spirant t in place of the Gileadite . On this assumption subbult" would be the necessarily inadequate
writing for a spoken *tubbultu. This approach to the problem was fore-
-ibb'ldt are 'ebaltd and tubld. This pair presupposes an original initial t
which may yet turn up in Arabic. Accordingly, Proto-Semitic possessed
a root 'bl from which is derived the word meaning " ear of corn "; further-
more, another root *tbl which yielded the Hebrew homonym of that
form meaning " flood, torrent." By the time of Jephthah the Ephraimites
had not yet lost the t-phoneme; that is why they said *tubbult".
There are three serious objections to this view. The first is etymological. The Aramaic variant with t- signifies " ear of corn " and not
"flood." ' The latter value can scarcely be separated from Arab. sbl
" rain, flow," so that a sibilant is assured in the cognate forms of Cana-
1To assume some peculiar differences in the pronunciation of the ?-phoneme itself,
as is done, e. g., by Budde, Richter 89, is to resort to speculation unrelieved by any
semblance of fact.
This content downloaded from 168.150.51.145 on Thu, 24 Nov 2016 00:10:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
11a [In view of the vast number of known loanwords in Semitic, it seems to me
that the original stem began with t and that Aramaic tubl4, etc., is thus genuinely
Aramaic, whereas Sib(b)altd and Subbaltd have been borrowed from Canaanite or
Accadian. Arabic suinbulah is in any event a loan from Aramaic, and so is presumably Arab. sdbalah (from 8ebalt4). Original t is strongly suggested by the
Canaanite cognate word for "tendril, vine," preserved in New Egyptian as sabir,
since original t appears regularly in Egyptian transcription of this age as s.--W. F. A.]
12
This content downloaded from 168.150.51.145 on Thu, 24 Nov 2016 00:10:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
surprising.
This content downloaded from 168.150.51.145 on Thu, 24 Nov 2016 00:10:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms