Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

$XR vs. “Black” Egypt
 
Isaiah 23: 3 appears to refer to Egypt using the Hebrew word for “black”:  
$XR.  All the lexicons agree that $XR often means “black”.  $XR appears at 
Job 
30: 30, meaning “black”.
 
Yes, I know that scholars unanimously insist that $XR at Isaiah 23: 3 does  
n-o-t  mean “black”, at least in the sense of the fertile “black” earth along 
the Nile River, in referring to Egypt.  But is that suspiciously unanimous 
view of scholars as to $XR at Isaiah 23: 3 correct?
 
Here is Isaiah 23: 3, per the JPS 1917 translation:
 
“And on great waters the seed of Shihor [$XR], the harvest of the Nile, was 
her revenue….”
 
In context, $XR at Isaiah 23: 3 must refer to Egypt.  Everyone agrees with 
that.  But is that reference to Egypt done pursuant to a reference to the 
Hebrew 
word for “black”, namely $XR?
 
This post first sets forth part of the support I have come up with for my own 
view that $XR at Isaiah 23: 3 means “black”, and that the Hebrew word for “
black” is a very logical way for the Hebrews to refer to Egypt, being an 
historical reference to the fertile “black” earth along the Nile River in 
Egypt.  
Then we’ll take a look at HALOT’s unbelievable interpretation of $XR at 
Isaiah 
23: 3.
 
Throughout pharaonic times, the Egyptians always called their country by the 
name “Black”, that is, Kemet or km.t, meaning “the Black Land”.  The name “
Black” reflected the Egyptians’ proud claim that the “black”, fertile soil of 
Egypt along the Nile River was the best soil on earth.  (In Egyptian, km is 
an adjective, meaning “black”.  In Egyptian, km.t [“Kemet”] means “the Black 
place”, and presumably is referring to Egypt as being “the Black Earth place”
.)  
 
Since the Egyptians called their own country “the Black (Earth) place”, and 
everyone in Canaan knew that, and since everyone in Canaan also knew that 
Egypt was world-famous for the fertile “black” earth along the Nile River, it 
would make all the sense in the world for the Hebrews to refer to Egypt by 
the 
name “Black”, referring (as the Egyptians themselves did) to the “black”, 
fertile soil along the Nile River in Egypt.  Yet every Western scholar who 
has 
opined on this subject has, to the best of my knowledge, denied that.
 
It would certainly seem to make logical sense for $XR at Isaiah to mean “black
” in referring to Egypt.  In that case, $XR at Isaiah 23: 3, and km.t/Kemet/“
the Black place” in Egyptian, would have the same meaning.  The Biblical 
Hebrew word $XR at Isaiah 23: 3, and the Egyptian name used by the Egyptians 
for 
their own country, are both referring to Egypt, that’s for sure.  And if $XR 
at 
Isaiah 23: 3 is a Hebrew word that has a literal meaning of “black”, then 
this Biblical Hebrew word, and the Egyptian name used by the Egyptians for 
their 
own country, would both be referring to Egypt based on the respective 
languages’ word for “black”, referencing the world-famous fertile “black” 
soil in 
Egypt along the Nile River.
 
Indeed, the above analysis seems so straightforward and compelling that one 
wonders how it is that 100% of Western scholars have rejected it.  But 
believe 
it or not, HALOT says that $XR at Isaiah 23: 3 is an Egyptian phrase meaning “
pond of Horus”!  Though HALOT’s denial that $XR at Isaiah 23: 3 is a Hebrew 
word seems unique, nevertheless not a single Western scholar sees $XR at 
Isaiah 
23: 3 as meaning “black”, in the sense of the fertile “black” earth along 
the Nile River in Egypt, even though the normal meaning of $XR as a Hebrew 
word 
is “black”, and the Egyptians referred to their own country as “Black”.  
Yet it is a respectable scholarly view, asserted by HALOT (without HALOT 
saying 
that this view is questionable in any way), to see $XR at Isaiah 23: 3 as 
being a Hebrew version of the Egyptian words for “pond of Horus”.  Is that 
gigantic new scholarly leap an improvement on the much-discredited 
traditional view 
that $XR at Isaiah 23: 3 means “the turbid, muddy water of the Nile River”?  
How can scholars be so creative in universally denying that the Bible ever 
once uses the Hebrew word for “black”, meaning the fertile “black” earth 
along 
the Nile River, to refer to Egypt?  That interpretation would be solidly 
grounded in secular history, and would make perfect sense, yet all Western 
scholars 
reject it.  
 
As to HALOT’s assertion that $XR at Isaiah 23: 3 is an Egyptian phrase 
meaning “pond of Horus”, did the Hebrews view Egypt as being a “pond”?  Does 
that 
make sense?  And did the Hebrews refer to neighboring nations by reference to 
the proper name of a pagan deity honored by such nation?  Does that seem the “
Hebrew way”?  Did anyone in secular history, whether the Egyptians or the 
Hebrews or anyone else, ever refer to Egypt by the phrase “pond of Horus”?  
(Of 
course not.  Are you kidding?)  Why would anyone think that the author of 
Isaiah or Joshua would know the  E-g-y-p-t-i-a-n  words for the obscure 
Egyptian 
phrase “pond of Horus”?  Does Isaiah or Joshua use any other  E-g-y-p-t-i-a-n 
 
phrase like that?  Moreover, in three out of the four cases where HALOT sees 
the Bible using this Egyptian phrase, the meaning is the northeast border of 
Egypt.  Yet that makes no sense, as the primary cult centers for Horus were 
in 
southern Egypt:  “While Horus was venerated throughout Egypt, his primary 
cult 
centers were in the south, while Seth's cult centers tended to be in the 
north, and perhaps particularly in the Delta.”  
_http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/horus.htm_ 
(http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/horus.htm)   Why 
reject a perfectly sensible historical interpretation of this geographical 
reference, which sees the Bible as occasionally referring to Egypt or to the 
northeast border of Egypt as “Black”, just as the Egyptians referred to their 
own 
country as “Black”, in favor of a non-Hebrew, non-historical explanation that 
makes no sense on any level? 
 
Given the extreme creativity shown by HALOT in explaining $XR at Isaiah 23: 3 
as supposedly being the Hebrew version of the Egyptian words for “pond of 
Horus” (rather than as being a run-of-the-mill Hebrew word for “black”), why 
then is there no reference either to Egypt or to Isaiah 23: 3 at HALOT’s 
entry 
for $XR (an entry that says, straightforwardly, that $XR is a Hebrew verb 
meaning “to become black”)?  Is that kosher?  Why is HALOT so diligent in 
making 
certain that a student who looks up the Hebrew word for “black” never sees a 
reference to Egypt?  And a student who knows where to look in HALOT for this 
reference to Egypt sees no mention of “black”?  Why is it so very important 
to 
try to keep students from linking “black” to “Egypt”?  It is a well-known 
historical fact that the Egyptians called their own country “Black”.  Why are 
Western scholars so intent on hiding that historical fact from Bible students?
 
Isn’t $XR at Isaiah 23: 3 a  H-e-b-r-e-w  word (not a Hebrew version of an 
Egyptian phrase)?  Why is it that not a single Western scholar, in explaining 
the meaning of $XR at Isaiah 23: 3, has ever mentioned that the Egyptians 
famously referred to their own country as “Black”?  What’s going on here?  
Why all 
the secrecy and immense scholarly creativity, while never a mention of the 
basic, objective facts of secular history, which are that everyone in the 
ancient 
Near East knew that the Egyptians referred to their country as “Black”, 
referencing the fertile “black” soil along the Nile River in Egypt, with 
“black” 
being a word whose Hebrew equivalent is $XR?  The scholarly view of $XR at 
Isaiah 23: 3 is not for the faint of heart.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)