Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] The Amorites

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
  • To: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Amorites
  • Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 10:23:19 +0300

Agreed. We can't expect a complete 1:1 relationship between what biblical
authors call Amorites and what other cultures call Amurru. Also, it is quite
clear that there is no such 1:1 relationship between Hurrians and Horites.
Horites are confined to Seir. Hurrians had several large kingdoms.

James Christian

On 8 May 2010 22:58, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page