Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Yitzhak Sapir:
 
Based on Victor Hurowitz’s analyses, I believe this is what he sees.
 
1.  Ubburu, meaning “to bind”, in Akkadian or Assyrian is linked to the XBR 
in Biblical Hebrew that means “to bind by magical force”.
 
I see no heth/X in that Akkadian word.  You say that the heth/X had 
originally been there, being an h/Oriental type of heth, but that it “dropped 
in 
Akkadian”.
 
When did that heth drop in Akkadian?  Wasn’t it dropped before any written 
Hebrew language is attested?
 
Did this meaning of XBR in Biblical Hebrew, on your view, come over from 
Akkadian before or after Akkadian dropped the heth?
 
2.  Another Akkadian/Assyrian cognate, meaning “bind”, for XBR in Biblical 
Hebrew is abaru.  Once again, I see no heth/X.
 
If you see XBR in Biblical Hebrew as coming from ubburu and abaru, doesn’t 
that downgrade the significance of the heth/X which is the initial letter in 
XBR?
 
3.  XBL meaning “rope” in Biblical Hebrew is linked to eblu in Akkadian.  
Once again, I see no heth/X in the Akkadian cognate.
 
*       *       *
 
Victor Hurowitz links XBR or XBL in Biblical Hebrew to three Akkadian words 
that begin with mere vowels:  U or A or E.  Doesn’t that suggest to you that 
the heth/X in the Biblical Hebrew word XBR may be a mere prefix?  As to an 
initial U in Akkadian, in the Akkadian word ugaru the initial U is a mere 
prefix, 
with the root being GR/QR/“citadel”.  The Hittite version drops the initial U 
altogether, and just has gurta, with the same GR/QR root, and the same T 
suffix, again meaning “citadel”.  The equivalent in Biblical Hebrew is QRYT, 
once 
again not bothering to have any initial letter, where the root is, as always, 
QR/“citadel”, and once again there is a final T suffix.  Aramaic has XQR) or 
)QR), where there is an initial letter, but it varies and it may or may not 
be 
an initial heth/X;  the suffix is not T, but the root, being what counts, is 
QR/“citadel” once again. 
 
What’s constant in ubburu/abaru/XBR is the BR.  The first letter varies all 
over the lot, suggesting that it is a mere prefix.  Likewise, in eblu/XBL, 
what’
s constant is BL (which in Bronze Age Canaan sounded like BR), with the 
initial letter again varying, suggesting once again that the initial letter, 
a 
heth/X in Hebrew, is a mere prefix.
 
I am not ignoring that initial heth/X in Biblical Hebrew.  But I’m saying it 
may be a mere prefix.
 
I do not necessarily agree, by the way, with Victor Hurowitz’s analysis of 
the Hebrew words XBR and XBL in terms of the Akkadian cognates he has 
suggested. 
 The early Hebrews looked at things their own way.  But I do think that 
Victor Hurowitz’s analysis tends to support my suggestion that the heth/X in 
XBR 
and XBRN/XBRWN may be a mere prefix, with the root being BR in all cases.  
When 
Victor Hurowitz links XBR and XBL to three Akkadian words that begin, 
respectively, with the Akkadian vowels U and A and E, that should cause us to 
wonder 
if the heth/X as the initial Hebrew letter in the Hebrew words XBR and XBL 
and 
XBRN and XBRWN may be a prefix.  That’s my argument.
 
My view that an initial heth/X may be a mere prefix is strongly supported by 
the fact that both XQR) and )QR) in Aramaic mean “citadel”.  The heth/X in 
that case in effect functions as a mere prosthetic aleph/).  The root is QR/“
citadel”.
 
Likewise, I see the heth/X in XBR and XBRN as being a mere prefix (though the 
prefix cannot be ignored, as it often shades the meaning in important ways).  
In my controversial view, those two Biblical Hebrew words are X + BR, and X + 
BR + N, with BR being the true root.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

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