[b-hebrew] H-XT-Y at II Samuel 11: 3
fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr
Sat Jul 31 11:33:53 EDT 2010
----- Original Message -----
From: jimstinehart at aol.com
To: fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr ; kwrandolph at gmail.com
Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] H-XT-Y at II Samuel 11: 3
1. You wrote: “Assuming that Hiti can have a relationship with some kind of
Hurro-Urartian population, How do you explain that a person of that kind
could ever be commander of an *Egyptian* garrison? [NB: as far as I'm
concerned the idea can be discarded at first glimpse.]”
We know from the Amarna Letters that Egypt often used non-Semitic maryannu
as its military agents.
This very much sounds your own interpretation.
Who else writes that?
Not only was Arawa-na the commander of the Egyptian garrison at Kumidu, but
also Biryawaza was Pharaoh’s military man in the Transjordan, per Amarna
Letters EA 196 and EA 197.
I have two problems with that name Biryawaza in EA 196 and 197.
The first one is that the first syllable was originally read nam- instead of
bir-, so there's a doubt on the reading. The second one is that the last
syllable is -zi not -za.
So in fact, this **Biryawaza is in fact at least Bir-ia-wa-zi and maybe even
All this makes the Hurrianicity of that person seriously dubious (either as
a Mitanni Aryan or a Hurrian properly).
In addition this dubious name was succeeded by another dubious A-ri-wa-na,
of dubious ethnicity.
I agree that A-ri-wa-na includes A-ri- which can be a Hurrian formative of
Person names, but -wana is not.
The data is not clean.
The civil war in Canaan in Year 13, which accounts for the bulk of the
Amarna Letters from the southern half of Canaan, pitted one coalition, which
included princeling rulers with non-Semitic names, against another
coalition, which was made up almost exclusively of princeling rulers with
If people with non-Semitic names like that are the Biblical “Hittites”, then
in the 14th century BCE, everywhere one looked, the ruling class was
primarily such people. No wonder those fully historical non-Semitic people
made it into the Bible.
2. You wrote: “Moreover it seems that Uriyah the Hiti belongs to a period
*younger* than this time, doesn't he?”
Yes, but the phrase H-XT-Y goes back to the first Hebrews.
On account of what?
Who are the H-XT-Y?
(1) Unknown, or (2) maybe some Hurro-Urartian people as we discussed before.
Hatti remains potentially comparable with Xiti as a is not infrequently
rendered by e or i.
Is H-XT-Y a nickname for a people who are properly called H-XR-Y, and who
have a second nickname in this same text: H-XW-Y? Many of the Syrian
“brothers” of the non-Semitic princelings in 14th century BCE Canaan had
names whose first two consonants were XT, and whose first two letters in
those same names were XW (if W in that context is viewed as being the vowel
U). So all three names may be referring to the same non-Semitic people, who
were so prominent throughout Canaan in the Amarna Age: H-XT-Y and H-XR-Y
and H-XW-Y. In all 3 cases, there’s only one letter different in the
Biblical name/nickname. And in all 3 cases, the name or nickname fits these
particular non-Semitic people linguistically. Are they the Biblical
“Hittites”, being fully historical, and not having west Semitic names?
I don't understand the way you are using "historical" and "non historical".
What do these words mean?
3. You wrote: “I cannot see the "similarity" between Aryokh and Arawa[xx].
Less than 25% match.”
The suffix in the first case is –ka, meaning “son” or “Junior”, etc. The
suffix in the second case is –na, meaning “the”. So the suffixes differ.
1. I can see no -a in Aryokh.
2. Aryo- and Arawa are obvious not the same root.
3. These two persons are apparently separated by half a millenium.
The Akkadian-style spelling of )RYW-K is Arawa-ka [whereas a non-Semitic
spelling of that same name would be Eriwi-ka].
Do you have a reference for these two claims?
The other name is Arawa-na (per the Akkadian-style spelling which seems to
be favored for this name). There’s only one letter difference. The root is
identical. It’s the same root, having the identical meaning, but with
different suffixes, that’s all.
Actually the name Aryokh and Arawa[na?] have two letters in common -a-
and -r- and maybe three if we kindly add the initial consonant.
Don’t you see that the critical importance of the name Arawa-na in the
Amarna Letters, regarding the southern Beqa Valley, is that it means that
the consonant reversal (metathesis) from the east was known in Canaan?
Erwi, eriwi, arawa -- they’re all the same as “Uriah”, once the metathesis
from the east is recognized. It’s the same non-Semitic word, being one of
the few non-Semitic words that the early Hebrews could be expected to know.
Indeed, that particular non-Semitic word, in many different forms, seems to
be the linguistic hallmark of the Biblical “Hittites”, the XT people,
H-XT-Y, a fully historical people in Canaan who did not have west Semitic
I believe in good data, properly discussed as far it is possible to do so,
descriptive neutral words with preferably no hidden premices and
We are very far from that here: unclear names, quite demonstrably different
whatever they were and conclusions popping out of the hat, that wasn't there
the step before. To be more precise it seems to be procrustean hat that
transforms Uriyah, Arawa[xx] and erwi into the same thing.
I cannot even describe what your line of reasoning is and i would not be
able to explain to somebody else what you wanted to say.
The only thing i can say is that Hurrian ebri "lord" or erbi "dog" and
Uriyah cannot be the same name [even though Uriyah may be a distortion of
Urhiya, which remains an optional speculation] and the XeTh and the Xiti
cannot be the same name [in addition there is a millenium gap in between].
The rest is darkness.
More information about the b-hebrew