Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Dear James,

In the Bible, the Amorites ("Emori")are on of the several "nations" of
Canaan, although they do seem to the most prominent and the term is
sometimes even used for all Canaanites. Num. 13:29 seems to indicate that
they lived in the hills, but other passages show them living elsewhere as
well. Bottom line is that we have no way to know what the difference between
an "Amorite" and a "Girgashite" is. 

The MAR.TU of Sumerian literature are called Amurru in Akkadian. "Amurru" is
a very general term meaning "west" and can refer to the lands of the west
(that is, anything west of the Euphrates), the people of the west, and
"westerners" living in Mesopotamia (for example, the dynasty of Hammurabi
that ruled Babylon in the 19-18th centuries were "Amurru" because they
originally came from the west-lands). During the 14-13the centuries there
was also a small kingdom called "Amurru" in what would now be called
northern Lebanon, known from the Amarna letters and other texts. 
Since we now know that most of the people living in the "westlands" during
the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (about 2000-1200 BCE) spoke Western Semitic
languages, we today conveniently lump them all together as "Amurru". There
were obviously differences between the different groups and their dialects,
but since they mostly wrote Akkadian anyway (and often Akkadian full of
"Amurruisms"), we tend to think that they were all the same. The passage
that you quoted below is one view from a particular time and perspective.
There were quite a few large fortified cities in "Amurru-land", including
Mari, Alalah, Damascus, Hamath, Hazor, and so on. It's like assuming that
all American Indians lived in tepees and rode horses. Most actually didn't.

Now, nobody knew any of this until the decipherment of Cuneiform about 150
years ago. All anyone knew was what the Bible says. Then, when the term
Amurru began appearing in Cuneiform, it was immediately assumed to be the
same as biblical Amorites, and people have been confusing them all this
time. But the fact is, that the two are not identical. While I don't deny
that there might be a connection, it's better to use Amorite for the Bible
and "Amurru" for other connects.

The same, BTW, is true for Hatti-Hitite and Hurrian "Horite". 


Yigal Levin 

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Christian
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 10:06 AM
To: b-hebrew
Subject: [b-hebrew] The Amorites

Hi,

the Amorites are identified with the Martu of Akkadian literature. Here is
an example of the way they were viewed by their Sumerian neighbours:

*The MAR.TU who know no grain.... The MAR.TU who know no house nor town, the
boors of the mountains.... The MAR.TU who digs up truffles... who does not
bend his knees (to cultivate the land), who eats raw meat, who has no house
during his lifetime, who is not buried after death.*
*
*
The Amorites were primarily a nomadic people. They did not respect
territorial boundaries and wandered wherever they pleased so their cattle
could eat whatever the land offered. Civilised neighbours who worked and
cultivated the land obviously did not take a liking to Amorite tribes
wandering in and eating the fruits of their labours.

The assumption that the wandering Amorites never reached as far as Oases to
the South of Dead Sea is not only baseless but almost certainly incorrect.

James Christian
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew