Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Asher again

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr, uzisilber AT gmail.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Asher again
  • Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:54:09 EDT


Dr. Fournet:

Richard Hess analyzes the name of a messenger from Mitanni, and the name of
a defeated princeling in the Orontes River Valley in western Syria, as
being Hurrian names. Why are you now talking about the Kassites? The
Kassites
did not serve as messengers to Hurrian King Tushratta of the Hurrian great
power state of Mitanni in eastern Syria. The Kassites did not form a league
of five rebellious princelings in the heart of Hurrian country in western
Syria and get crushed by the mighty Hittites and three regional allies of the
Hittites, in the historical “four kings against five” in the mid-14th
century BCE. All your talk of Mitanni and the Kassites is utterly irrelevant
to
discussing the ethnicity of the members of the league of five rebellious
parties.

Both in secular history and at Genesis 14: 2, we only have names of four
members of the league of five rebellious parties. (That’s because both in
secular history and at Genesis 14: 2, one member had no princeling ruler at
the
time. That’s Tunip in Amarna Letter 59: 1. “Tunip” is probably a Hurrian
name.) Of the four historical names we have of the members of the league
of five rebellious parties, two are thought to be Hurrian, two are thought to
be Akkadian, none are thought to be Indo-Aryan or Sanskrit, and none are
thought to be Kassite.

Though you haven’t yet agreed with any of Hess’s analyses of these names
yet, let’s try Aki-Teshup of Niya, at Amarna Letter EA 59: 15, 18. Here is
how Wm. Moran analyzes this name at p. 380 of his edition of the Amarna
Letters: “Aki-Te$$up (Hurr. ‘Te$$up is the guide’{?}, king of Nii”. Aki
sure
looks Hurrian to me, per p. 80 of F/B: “*[ag-ú] [P-x] ‘to bring, to lead’.
EL ag- <a-ku-u>. …UR <ag/j(u)>”. Tessup was the #1 god of the Hurrians.
I myself find it hard to imagine a more Hurrian-sounding Hurrian name than
Aki-Te$$up. Maybe “Te$$up” has an Aryan etymology, but it was a Hurrian
god known by the Hurrian name of Te$$up. Te$$up is all over the Mitanni
Letter. Wm. Moran observes at p. 387: “Te$$up, Hurr. Storm-god.” The name
Aki-Te$$up is not Indo-Aryan, it’s not Sanskrit, it’s not Mitannian, and
heaven knows it’s not Kassite!

So in order for the early Hebrew author of Genesis 14: 1-11 to come up with
an apt nickname for Aki-Te$$up, we note the following characteristics: It
should be a Hurrian common word that effectively means “Hurrian princeling”
. It should not be Indo-Aryan, Sanskrit, Mitannian or Kassite.

You will doubtless ask why the early Hebrew author did not either (i) write
down the historical name “Aki-Te$$up”, or (ii) write down an attested
Hurrian name. For one thing, the early Hebrew author was not about to
memorialize for eternity an outright, unambiguous blessing of a pagan god.
So the
historical name “Aki-Te$$up” was out for sure. Choosing an attested Hurrian
name would have been confusing, because the early Hebrew author was picking
out a nickname, that should have the generic meaning of “Hurrian princeling”
.

Now consider the four personal names that we have at Genesis 14: 2, and
consider that the early Hebrew author may have made the non-obvious choice of
using Hebrew ayin to represent Hurrian i. All four names mean “Hurrian
princeling” in Hurrian! Is that neat or what? $M)BR starts out with two
normal
Hurrian syllables, not needing any vowel indicators: $u-mi. But then we
have a more unusual Hurrian syllable that begins with a true vowel, an e. So
aleph is used there to represent that true vowel, primarily so that we can
figure out the syllable division. )B means the discrete Hurrian syllable ‘eb’
. The final R needs no vowel indicator here, because we already know the
other syllables and the final R is a normal Hurrian syllable, -ri. So $M)BR
is $u-mi-eb-ri in Hurrian, literally meaning “on behalf of a lord”, and
effectively meaning “Hurrian princeling”. That’s a fine generic nickname for
Aki-Te$$up, because it’s a Hurrian common word, it means “Hurrian princeling
”, the name “Aki-Te$$up” is a virgin pure Hurrian name, and nothing here
has anything to do with Indo-Aryan, Sanskrit, Mitanni or Kassite.

As to $u-mi, it’s at p. 101 of F/B. “*[summi] [P x-] ‘hand’. EL šummi <š
u-mi->. Prepositional use as ‘with, on behalf of’.”

$umi is a classic Hurrian word meaning “on behalf of”.

As to ebri, it’s at p. 17 of F/B. [The word ‘ebri’ is at the end of the
line of Hurrian text. The English definition “lord” is near the very end of
the English translation.] “- < 14. dIM-ub URU kum-mi-ni-i-bi da-la-a-wu-š
i eb-ri > -- x : x x x : x x x: -- x : -- x. The paragraph means: ‘8. And
Meki, on hearing the order, 9. whining about it: ‘woe on Meki’, said he, 10.
he bends his two legs toward Teššub, 11. (empty), 12. Meki these words
toward Teššub, 13. remaining knelt down, says: ‘May you hear, Teššub,
strongmost lord of Kummi’.”

Ebri is a classic Hurrian word meaning “lord”.

$umi-ebri makes perfect sense in Hurrian as literally meaning “on behalf of
a (Hurrian) lord”, and as effectively meaning: “Hurrian princeling”.

Thus we see a Hurrian common word, $umi-ebri, rendered in old Biblical
Hebrew as $M)BR, effectively meaning “Hurrian princeling”, being used as an
apt
nickname for one of the five rebellious Hurrian princelings at Genesis 14:
2. How could it be any clearer than that? There’s nothing about
Indo-Aryan, Sanskrit, Mitanni or Kassite here.

Dr. Fournet, I have shown that every single element of the four personal
names at Genesis 14: 2 is right there on the Fournet/Bomhard website, without
exception: ebri, -ssi, $umi-, and $an-a-b. Nothing is missing. The four
personal names at Genesis 14: 2 are ebri, ebri-ssi, $umi-ebri, and $an-a-b.
It’s just the Hebrew spelling of these Hurrian common words that’s throwing
you off: BR(, BR-%(, $M-)BR, and $N-)-B. You’re letting the old Biblical
Hebrew orthography get in the way of seeing these simple Hurrian common
words, all of which effectively mean: “Hurrian princeling”. You’re upset
because the Hurrian true vowel e is not expressly set forth at the beginning
of
BR( and BR-%(, but that’s par for the course in the defective spelling used
in old Biblical Hebrew. You’ve got to imply vowels right and left in old
Biblical Hebrew defective spelling. That’s just the way it is. That’s the
way an early Hebrew would have done the orthography (even if it makes modern
Hurrian linguists role over in their graves). It’s Hurrian common words
with old Biblical Hebrew characteristics, as it were. There’s nothing in
those
four personal names at Genesis 14: 2 that’s not front and center on the F/B
website. It’s very simple Hurrian. Anyone can see it, if you’ll just
widen the strike zone a bit as to how these simple Hurrian words might be
rendered in the defective spelling of old Biblical Hebrew. Forget Kassite.
Think Hurrian!

Dr. Fournet, I think the following hypothetical may change your mind. As a
hypothetical, assume that Ezra could read Akkadian cuneiform, and that Ezra
found the following Hurrian word in a library in Babylon during the Exile:
$umi-ebri. Using full spelling Hebrew of which Ezra was the master, here
is how Ezra could be expected to record that Hurrian word in post-exilic full
spelling Hebrew: $WMY)BRY. It’s an 8-letter exact match. In particular,
all four Hurrian vowels are explicitly written down in Ezra-style,
post-exilic full spelling Hebrew. But Genesis 14: 2 was composed prior to
the 1st
millennium BCE, when full spelling Hebrew had not yet been invented. So at
that time, the vav/W and yod/Y would not be used as routine vowel indicators,
as they are in the later full spelling. So dropping out those vowel
indicators, which did not yet exist, this Hurrian word would be recorded in
old-style defective spelling Hebrew as: $M)BR. That’s exactly what we see
at
Genesis 14: 2! Yes, $WMY)BRY “looks” like Hurrian, because it has all those
blessed vowels. But there’s no way that a Late Bronze Age early Hebrew
author
would write down all those Hurrian vowels, since that Ezra-style full
spelling was never done in Hebrew itself at that time. The absence of
express
vowels means that $M)BR does not “look” Hurrian, but it is Hurrian, just done
in old-style defective spelling Hebrew, that’s all.

[I’ll address your specific comments, one by one, in my next post.]

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page