Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Baal-Hermon, Part II
 
6.  Based on the scholarly quotation typed below, it is very likely that JEPD 
would have been familiar with the phrase “Baal Hamon”, which is attested in 
1st millennium BCE Phoenician and Punic inscriptions.  Is “Baal Hamon” 
related to “Baal Hermon”?  For my own linguistic analysis that both “Hamon” 
and “
Hermon” should be viewed as being simple plays on the ancient verbal root 
M-N, 
see #7 below.  The scholarly quotation below also shows that ’amn and hmn 
were 
present at Ugarit, and that all three words (including Baal Hamon) probably 
referred to a towering mountain.  I myself see M-N as being the root of all 
of 
these words, including “Amana” in Hebrew.
 
It is likely that these secular inscriptions from Ugarit and the Phoenicians 
were not referring to the Mt. Hermon area.  But since they were referring to 
a 
towering mountain, which was viewed as having divine grandeur, the Hebrews 
could easily have picked up such appropriate phrases and applied them to the 
one 
towering mountain to the north that was relevant to the Hebrews:  Mt. Hermon.
 
Here is what Prof. Mark S. Smith of New York University has to say at p. 138 
of “The Origins of Biblical Monotheism” (2001): 
 
“The Phoenician and Punic inscriptions [from the 1st millennium BCE, in JEPD 
days] attest…to Baal Hamon….  F.M. Cross…sees the name of El’s mountain 
behind the epithet b‘l hmn, ‘lord of the Amanus’, and follows [B.] 
Landsberger in 
viewing it as a title of El in the Phoenician-Punic world [of the 1st 
millennium BCE].  According to Cross, the title b‘l hmn would fit El, as his 
home is 
located in the Amanus.  …[T]he attestation of both ’amn and hmn in Ugaritic 
(the latter in proper names and in a Hurrian text discovered at Ugarit) seems 
to represent a difficulty for identifying hmn with the Amanus [because why 
would there be two different names for the same mountain?].  M. Cogan and P. 
Xella 
prefer to take ’amn as Mount Amanus, but not hmn.  Cross attempts to 
reconcile this problem by claiming that hmn specifically refers to Mount 
Amanus 
whereas ’amn in CAT 2.33.16 is a different mountain though ‘in the same 
general 
region’.  …[O]ne fact favors the claim that Ugaritic hmn is Mount Amanus.  
The 
place-name p‘rhmn appears in a Phoenician seal dating to the eighth century 
[which is vintage JEPD times].  According to P. Bordreuil, p‘rhmn is to be 
understood as the town of Pagras of the Amanus region, corresponding to the 
modern 
village of Bagras located in the Amanus [in south-central modern Turkey, just 
north of the west coast of modern Syria].  In view of this evidence, the 
sources from Ugarit that give the spelling hmn and ’amn should be 
reconsidered.  As 
I noted, hmn appears in a Hurrian text and some proper names from Ugarit, 
whereas ’amn is attested in a single Ugaritic text.  The disparate character 
of 
these sources may suggest that hmn and ’amn represent two spellings for the 
same 
mountain, a phenomenon not without parallel among geographical names in the 
texts from Ugarit.”
 
In #7 below I set forth my own view that ’amn in Ugaritic and Amana in 
Hebrew, and hmn in Ugaritic and Baal Hamon in Phoenician and Baal-Hermon in 
Hebrew, 
along with Hermon and Mt. Hermon in Hebrew, are all mountain imagery words 
and 
phrases that are based on the ancient verbal root M-N, which has as one of 
its key meanings “to be appointed to oversee”.
 
7.  In considering whether ’amn and hmn in Ugaritic, and Baal Hamon in 
Phoenician, may be linked linguistically with Amana, Baal-Hermon, Hermon and 
Mt. 
Hermon in Biblical Hebrew, consider the following proposed linguistic 
analysis.  
M-N/mem-nun may be the true root of (i) Ugaritic ’amn, (ii) Hebrew 
aleph-mem-nun-he/Amana, (iii) Ugaritic hmn and Phoenician Hamon, (iv) Hebrew 
heth-resh-mem-vav-nun/Ch-r-m-o-n/Hermon, (v) Hebrew he-resh 
heth-resh-mem-vav-nun/H-r 
Ch-r-m-o-n/Mt. Hermon, and (vi) though referring to a different geographical 
place, tav-mem-nun-he/Timnah (to which Judah goes “up” at Genesis 38: 12, 
13).   
As to M-N, the standard view is that the root is M-N-H/mem-nun-he, meaning 
“to 
weigh out, to be allotted a proper share, to count, to number”.  But the 
final 
he/H may not be part of the true root, as Gesenius notes a final nun or a 
final heth as being “kindred” words.  Equally importantly, the ancient verb 
M-N 
may have also had the meaning of “to be appointed to oversee”.  In the Bible, 
we see that most clearly at I Chronicles 9: 29.  But we must remember that in 
ancient times, the power of a king to “count” the “number” of his subjects 
(in preparation for taxing them individually) was considered to be a very 
“high
” power.  This power was so great and powerful that it was almost god-like in 
nature, having overtones of towering grandeur.
 
If M-N means “to be appointed to oversee”, and has overtones of god-like, 
towering grandeur, then the tallest mountain in greater Canaan (Mt. Hermon) 
could easily have been envisioned by the Hebrews as being “appointed to 
oversee” 
Canaan.  It makes sense for all seven of the above words for a towering 
mountain to feature M-N.  I will capitalize the M-N in these words for 
emphasis:  
(i) ’aMN and (ii) hMN in Ugaritic;  Baal HaMoN in Phoenician;  and in Hebrew, 
(i) aleph-MEM-NUN-he/Amana, (ii)  bet-ayin-lamed  
heth-resh-MEM-vav-NUN/b-aa-l 
ch-r-M-o-N/Baal HerMoN (and, per #iv below, this could be preceded by 
he-resh/“
Mt.”), (iii) heth-resh-MEM-vav-NUN/ch-r-M-o-N/HerMoN, and (iv) he-resh 
heth-resh-MEM-vav-NUN/h-r ch-r-M-o-N/Mt. HerMoN.
 
In Hebrew, the aleph in Amana could be a prosthetic aleph that has no 
meaning, revealing the root to be M-N.  Perhaps a similar analysis applies to 
’amn in 
Ugaritic.  The Ugaritic H in hmn could have become first he/H, and then 
heth-resh/Ch-R in Hebrew, as the sound is somewhat similar to he-resh/H-R, 
which of 
course means “mountain” in Hebrew.  So hmn in Ugaritic could become 
het-resh-MEM-vav-NUN/ch-r-M-o-N/HerMoN in Hebrew, and could mean he-resh 
MEM-NUN/h-r 
M-N/har-MoN/ “Hermon”, that is, “Mt. M-N”.
 
Once one sees the true root of all these words for a towering mountain as 
being M-N, then the other letters can be seen as being for the most part 
differing prefixes, with the Hebrew prefix heth-resh/Ch-R perhaps meaning 
he-resh/H-R/“
mountain”.
 
The conventional linguistic analysis of “Hermon” is that its root is 
heth-resh-mem/Ch-R-M, meaning “to destroy”, but that makes little sense to me 
as 
being the primary, much less the sole, root of “Hermon”.  (As discussed 
below, 
however, Ch-R-M works well as a secondary, semi-root of “Hermon”.)  It makes 
much more sense to see “Hermon” as being heth-resh, for he-resh, meaning “Mt.”
, plus M-N, from the ancient pre-Hebrew verbal root meaning “to be appointed 
to oversee” (or, in effect, “towering”).  I see “Hermon” in Hebrew as 
meaning “Mt. M-N”, that is, “the mountain that [per its divine, towering 
grandeur] 
is appointed to oversee [Canaan]”.
 
On this M-N analysis that I have proposed, all of a sudden one sees that “
Amana” and “Hermon” are virtually identical!  They may look totally different 
in 
English, but each is a simple play on the ancient west Semitic root M-N, each 
is referring to the same mountain (or nearby mountain summits), and the “Her”
 in “Hermon” is a prefix that is an alterative (non-standard) spelling of “
har”, meaning “mountain”.  (Perhaps the non-standard spelling of this prefix 
served the nifty purpose of invoking heth-resh-mem/Ch-R-M, as a second 
semi-root of this word.  Now instead of merely meaning “towering”, per M-N, 
it also 
means that this majestic mountain looks so impressive and god-like that it 
might be capable of “destroying” everything.)
 
My proposed linguistic analysis effortlessly ties together ’amn and hmn in 
Ugaritic, Baal Hamon in Phoenician, and Amana and Baal-Hermon and Hermon and 
Mt. 
Hermon in Hebrew.  All seven such words can be viewed as being simple plays 
on the underlying west Semitic verbal root M-N, meaning “to be appointed to 
oversee”, while having a clear overtone of towering, divine grandeur.  I’m no 
linguist, but it makes sense to me.  I do not buy the traditional linguistic 
analysis that “Hermon” is primarily from a root meaning “to destroy”.  
Rather, “
Hermon” “Mt. Hermon”, “Baal-Hermon” and “Amana” in Hebrew are simple plays 
on M-N, meaning “to be appointed to oversee”.  To the Hebrews, that towering 
mountain (Mt. Hermon) truly was divinely “appointed to oversee” all of 
greater Canaan. 



Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, 
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.      
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)