Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] XBR vs. ubburu: Hebron

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: pbekins AT fuse.net, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] XBR vs. ubburu: Hebron
  • Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:29:42 EST


Peter Bekins and Yitzhak Sapir:

1. Thanks, Peter Bekins, for the additional information as what types of
Aramaic had )QR), and what types of Aramaic had XQR). My point remains,
however,
that the root of both types of Aramaic words for “citadel” is QR, with
neither the initial aleph/), nor the initial heth/X, being a part of the
root.
Once the aleph/) and the heth/X in initial position are viewed in this
particular
case as being in effect prosthetic, the essential linguistic identity of )QR)
and XQR) in various forms of Aramaic becomes obvious.

2. I see the above analysis as being supported by Yitzhak Sapir’s comment:

“Moshe Held's article in Erets Israel 16, p. 78-79 with notes (Hebrew), to
which Victor Hurowitz referred me, makes the conclusion that xbr derives from
the semitic root of x.br "to bind by magical force" and which appears in
Akkadian as ubburu, rather than x_br "to make a lot of noise" which appears
in
Akkadian as xabaru.”

Note that presence or absence of an initial heth/X is not considered critical
here. The XBR in Hebrew that means “to bind by magical force”, which starts
with heth/X, is linked to ubburu in Akkadian, which starts with a mere vowel,
not a heth/X. Meanwhile, a possible Akkadian link that starts with heth/X,
namely xabaru, is rejected in analyzing the XBR in Hebrew that means “to bind
by magical force”. The point is that an initial heth/X may in some cases be
a
much less significant letter than is generally realized. Thus the initial
heth/X in Aramaic XQR) is a mere prefix, not part of the root. The root,
meaning
“citadel”, is QR.

3. Peter Bekins wrote: “There is no attestation of QR for citadel….”

I did not say that QR, standing alone, is a word for “citadel”. What I said
was that QR is an old 2-consonant Semitic root meaning “citadel”. In fact,
it seems that a-l-l of the ancient Semitic languages have a word for
“citadel
” that uses either QR, or a linguistic equivalent of QR, as its root.
Consider:

(a) Ugaritic/Akkadian: GR

The word “ugaru” [U + G-R] in Akkadian, featuring G-R, often means “citadel”
. This Akkadian word, with the meaning of “citadel”, may be the basis for
the name “Ugarit”/U + G-R + T. “Ugarit name is written Ugrt in the
Phoenician
language. It is similar to the Akkadian word Ugaru; it means the wall, the
walled city, or the walled citadel.”
_http://syriantrip.com/sites/sites.aspx?id=43_
(http://syriantrip.com/sites/sites.aspx?id=43) In a Bronze Age
context, Q-R and G-R may be linguistic equivalents. As shown by the mid-15th
century BCE Thutmosis III list, the Egyptians sometimes used Egyptian Q to
represent
west Semitic gimel/G, while at other times using Egyptian Q to represent
qof/Q. Accordingly, the G-R in “ugaru”, meaning “citadel”, may in a Late
Bronze
Age context be the linguistic equivalent of Q-R. The Akkadian vowel U is a
mere initial letter here, like the initial aleph and heth in )QR) and XQR) in
Aramaic. As to the final T suffix, see #i below re Biblical Hebrew. The
root
is simply GR, being the Bronze Age linguistic equivalent (at least as to
sound) of QR.

(b) Hittite: GR

“Gurta” in Hittite means “citadel”. Though Hittite is not a Semitic
language, that looks like a Semitic loanword. It’s G-R + T suffix, just like
#a.

(c) Akkadian: KR

The specific word for “citadel” (or “a fortified area within a city”) in
Akkadian is “kirhu”. Ellis Easterly, “Is Mesha's "qrhh" Mentioned in Isaiah
XV
2?”, in “Vetus Testamentum”, Vol. 41, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1991), pp. 215-219.
The key consonants there appear to be K-R. As to whether K-R in the east
Semitic language of Akkadian might be the linguistic equivalent of Q-R in a
west
Semitic language (such as Hebrew), we should consider that there was only a
slight differentiation between kaf/K and qof/Q in sound. Although it is true
that
west Semitic speakers consistently distinguished between these two sounds in
the Bronze Age (including on the Thutmosis III list), that was not always the
case in the east Semitic language of Akkadian. “The sound sequence k-q for
q-q
is attested in South Babylonian of the Larsa area, in North Babylonian of the
Sippar area, and in the Diyala region….” “Cases of Free Variants in the
Akkadian q Phoneme”, by E. E. Knudsen, in “Journal of Cuneiform Studies”,
Vol.
15, No. 3 (1961), pp. 84-90. It is thus possible that a kaf/K in the east
Semitic language of Akkadian in far-off Mesopotamia could have as its
linguistic
equivalent, in distant Canaan, a qof/Q. In that extremely limited, specific
context (though likely not otherwise), K-R and Q-R could be linguistic
equivalents. The sounds are very similar in any event.

(d) Assyrian: KL?

One capital city of Assyria was “Kalkhu”. With L and R sometimes being
interchangeable, that looks a lot like “kirhu” in Akkadian above. So perhaps
K-L
was used in this case by the Assyrians to mean K-R/Q-R/“citadel”. The
Assyrian capital of Kalkhu definitely was a “citadel”, although I have not
been
able to confirm that “Kalkhu” means “citadel”.

(e) Ugaritic: QR

Ugaritic has qryt like Hebrew (see #i below), and also simply qrt, dropping
the yod/Y. These words probably mean “city” or “granary” in Ugaritic, but
are related to the concept of a “citadel”. As discussed in #i below, the
root
in all cases is QR.


(f) Phoenician: QR

QRT in Phoenician is the same as qrt in Ugaritic in #d above. It primarily
means “city”, but is related in concept to “citadel”.

(g) Moabite: QR

In Moabite, qorhh or qrhh (where the first H is a heth) means “citadel”.
Ellis Easterly’s above-cited article. Although the suffix varies greatly
(and
the interior heth here might even be part of the root), the key elements in
the
root once again seem to be Q-R.

(h) Aramaic: QR

As noted previously, the root of several Aramaic words for “citadel” is Q-R.
)QR) or XQR or XQR) mean “citadel” in Aramaic.

(i) Biblical Hebrew: QR

Last, but certainly not least, is QRYT in Biblical Hebrew. The final T
indicates construct state in Biblical Hebrew, and is a mere suffix. The
Egyptian
QRT at the beginning of item #11 on the Thutmosis III list of places in
Canaan
probably refers to a QRYT/“Kiriath”, and is one reason to think that in a
Late
Bronze Age historical context, the yod/Y was not part of this word’s root.
As noted in #e above, Ugaritic has two versions of this word, one of which is
qryt like Hebrew, but the other of which is simply qrt, dropping the yod/Y
altogether. With yod/Y thus not being part of the root, and with the tav/T
being
a mere suffix, the key consonants in QRYT/Kiriath are simply: Q-R.

QRYT is sometimes said to be a poetic word for “city” in Biblical Hebrew.
But in the Hebrew Bible, QRYT is often used in the sense of “fortified city”
or “citadel”, rather than as a mere synonym for “city”.

* * *

Those are all the ancient Semitic languages I know. They a-l-l seem to
have some form of Q-R (Q-R or G-R or K-R or K-L) as an old 2-consonant
Semitic
root meaning “citadel”.

4. Historians have been unable to figure out the Bronze Age name of the
grand “citadel” in hill country in southern Canaan that in the Iron Age came
to
be called “Hebron” [XBRN or XBRWN]. But if we take a new, more literal, look
at Joshua 14: 15, in light of the two spellings of “citadel” in Aramaic [)QR)
vs. XQR)], we can solve that important Bible mystery. (We’ll be able to
confirm that our linguistic analysis is right by a quick glance at the Amarna
Letters afterwards.) From those two spellings of that Aramaic word, we learn
that
(i) QR means “citadel” [as in QR + T/QRYT, or possibly QL + T, but
n-e-v-e-r Q(YL, which is not QR or QL], and (ii) an initial heth/X may be
far less
important than is usually supposed [such as in XBRN: X + BR + N, where BR in
Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew can mean “field” or “what is produced from fields”
, with the mountainous city of Hebron in the Northern Negev Desert, though
being an ideal fortress/“citadel”/QRYT, having precious little of either
“fields”
or “what is produced from fields”]. The city names QRYT and XBRN [QR + T,
with the accent on QR/“citadel”; and X + BR + N, with the accent on BR/“field
”/“what is produced from fields”] themselves are telling us the Bronze Age
history of these places (as confirmed in secular history by the Thutmosis III
list and the Amarna Letters). We simply need to pay close attention to those
city names, and do a basic linguistic analysis of those city names in light
of
the above huge hints from Aramaic.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000003)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page