[b-hebrew] Pharaoh Khepera'a in Jeremiah 44:30

JimStinehart at aol.com JimStinehart at aol.com
Tue Jul 20 11:13:56 EDT 2010


Dr. Arnaud Fournet:
 
You wrote:  “How do you tell a "fact" from something that is not a "fact" 
and something that is "historical" from something that is not?”
 
No Biblical Maximalist has been able to figure out the historical facts 
that support the pinpoint historical accuracy of the “four kings against five” 
at Genesis 14: 1-11.  But as a linguist, you can verify the following 
objective linguistic facts, which in turn will lead us to the historical 
explanation of the “four kings against five”.
 
1.  The first three letters of the name “Chedorlaomer” are KDR.
 
2.  The word KDR is splattered all over Ugaritic literature, having many 
meanings, including “sacred religious vessel”.
 
3.  No university scholar has ever asked whether “Chedorlaomer” may be a 
nasty nickname that is a Ugaritic curse:  kdr + l + (mr, being three 
well-attested words in Ugaritic that work nicely as a Ugaritic curse.
 
4.  No university scholar has ever asked where Chedorlaomer’s kingly title, 
in its original defective spelling, MLK (LM, is attested in non-biblical 
sources as to a human king.  The answer is:  only at Ugarit.  It was Ugarit 
that instigated the Great Syrian War in western Syria by calling in the 
Hittites in response to raids by Ugarit’s Hurrian princeling neighbors. 
 
5.  But now we get to your area of expertise.  You are presumably one of 
the very few people on earth who know the best potential support for the 
scholarly view that Chedorlaomer’s kingly title, (LM, references Elam [or at 
least could be reasonably viewed as referencing Elam].   Biblical scholars have 
only come up with Elammatum in Akkadian, but the prominent T there is not at 
Genesis 14: 1.  But you know the Hurrian word for Elam, which is Elami.  
That’s a perfect linguistic match!  As to the absence of the vowels A and I, 
that’s what’s expected in early Biblical Hebrew defective spelling.  Thus 
tu-ud-xa-li-ya in Hittite comes out as TDGL in Ugaritic, and TD(L at Genesis 
14: 1 (“Tidal”), with all non-essential vowels being routinely dropped in 
Late Bronze Age alphabetic spelling.
 
6.  But now we come to the really exciting part.  (LM at Genesis 14: 1 is a 
dead ringer for Elami in Hurrian.  So the Hebrew ayin there is representing 
the Hurrian vowel E.  Your most potent attack on my views last week was 
your excellent point that I had failed to show what Hurrian letter is attested 
as being the equivalent of Hebrew ayin.  I have now revised my former view 
to a significant degree, in reaction to your well-founded attack.  Now 
relying heavily on (LM at Genesis 14: 1, we see that Hebrew ayin represents 
Hurrian E.  With Hurrian E and Hurrian I often being interchangeable (per the 
Fournet/Bomhard Hurrian language website), Hebrew ayin represents either E or I 
in recording Hurrian words at Genesis 14: 1-2.  Meanwhile, “Arioch” at 
Genesis 14: 1, whose initial Hebrew letter is an aleph, is either Arawa-ka in 
Akkadian-style spelling, or Eriwi-ka in Hurrian-style spelling.  So we see 
that Hebrew aleph represents either Hurrian A or Hurrian E in spelling Hurrian 
words or names at Genesis 14: 1.  Per the F/B website, Hurrian E and Hurrian 
A are often interchangeable (but by contrast, Hurrian A is not 
interchangeable with Hurrian I).
 
7.  So now we have objective linguistic facts (not Jim’s idiosyncratic 
guesses, as before) to show that each of the four personal names at Genesis 14: 
2 is a Hurrian common word meaning “Hurrian princeling”.  Those Hurrian 
common words are brilliantly being used by the early Hebrew author as apt 
generic (non-pejorative) nicknames for the Hurrian princelings who historically 
comprised the league of five rebellious princelings.  $M)BR is $umi-ebri-[w]e 
in Hurrian, meaning “on behalf of a (Hurrian) lord”, and hence meaning:  “
Hurrian princeling”.  The first E there is expressed as a Hebrew aleph, per 
the Hurrian-style spelling of “Arioch”, whose first Hebrew letter at 
Genesis 14: 1 is aleph.  From the “Tidal” example above, we know that the rest of 
the vowels will not be represented at all in early Biblical Hebrew 
defective spelling, including the entire ending.  In two other similar personal 
names at Genesis 14: 2, we imply the same E before the B.  So BR( is ebri in 
Hurrian, meaning “(Hurrian) lord”, and hence meaning:  “Hurrian princeling”.  
Note that the final ayin is Hurrian I, per our analysis above of (LM, which 
showed that Hebrew ayin can be expected to represent Hurrian E or Hurrian 
I.  BR%( is ebri-ssi, meaning “your (Hurrian) lord”, and hence meaning:  “
Hurrian princeling”.  The final Hebrew ayin is Hurrian I once again, per the 
above analysis.  Finally, $N)B is $ena-b in Hurrian, meaning “your (Hurrian) 
brother”, and hence meaning:  “Hurrian princeling”.  The expected Hurrian I 
at the end of the Hurrian word $eni/“brother” changes to Hurrian A with 
the addition of this particular suffix, so to show that Hurrian peculiarity, 
the Hebrew aleph is there, indicating Hurrian A.  
 
The foregoing objective linguistic facts point the way to seeing the “four 
kings against five” as being a pinpoint historically accurate report by an 
early Hebrew contemporary of the well-documented Great Syrian War in the 
Orontes River Valley in mid-14th century BCE western Syria.  All the Biblical 
Maximalists have missed it, along with all the mainstream university scholars 
and all the Biblical Minimalists.  But as a linguist who knows Hurrian, you 
can see that (1) (LM at Genesis 14: 1 is a dead ringer for Elami in Hurrian, 
being the Hurrian word for Elam, and (2) on that basis, Hebrew ayin is 
being used to represent Hurrian E or Hurrian I in Hurrian words at Genesis 14: 
1-2.  Consequently, all four personal names at Genesis 14: 2 are Hurrian 
common words that are apt generic nicknames for Hurrian princelings like 
Aki-Te$$up, who historically comprised the 5-member league of rebellious Hurrian 
princelings in the Orontes River Valley in the Great Syrian War.  Scholars 
generally agree that chapter 14 of Genesis, unlike the rest of the Bible, 
pre-dates J, E and P, and hence is truly ancient.  But with a little help from a 
Hurrian expert like yourself, maybe we can show Biblical scholars the 
pinpoint historical accuracy of the “four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list