Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] H-XT-Y at II Samuel 11: 3

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, kwrandolph AT gmail.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] H-XT-Y at II Samuel 11: 3
  • Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:33:27 EDT


Dr. Arnaud Fournet:

You wrote: “I don't see what makes these people "obviously" not Hittites
or Anatolian Indo-Europeans of that kind in the first place!? Please explain.


1. The mainstream scholarly view is that the name “Uriah” is a west
Semitic name that means (per Gesenius) “YHWH Is My Light” or, per Karl, “Lord
Is
Light”. If that scholarly analysis is right, then no Hittite or Anatolian
Indo-European would have such a blatantly Hebrew name.

2. In chapter 23 of Genesis, Abraham is portrayed as buying Sarah’s
gravesite in the heart of Canaan from Ephron, a member of the X-T people.
Historically, no Hittite or A-n-a-t-o-l-i-a-n Indo-European people ever
dominated
a city in the heart of Canaan, or sold a plot of land to a tent-dwelling
Hebrew. The Luwians that you mention were never in the hill country of
Canaan
south of the Jezreel Valley, so their daughters couldn’t marry Esau.

How can you and James Christian talk about Hittite or A-n-a-t-o-l-i-a-n
Indo-European people being in south-central Canaan? There’s no evidence to
support that.

3. The mainstream scholarly view is that “Ephron” is a west Semitic name
that means “Bambi”/“fawn”, that his father “Zohar” has a west Semitic
name that means “tawny”, and that the phrase H-XT-Y has no attested
historical
meaning.

4. Could you please comment on the mainstream scholarly view that the
names “Uriah” and “Ephron” and “Zohar” should be viewed as being west Semitic
names with the above meanings, and that the phrase H-XT-Y should be viewed
as having no historical meaning whatsoever? Is west Semitic the first
language you think of when you see the following four Biblical names
referring to
people in Canaan?

‘WRY-H

‘PR-W-N

CXR

H-XT-Y

That west Semitic analysis is the semi-unanimous view of the leading
mainstream scholars, as we see here:

“[A]ll Hittites named in the OT have good Semitic names, e.g. Ephron,
Sohar, Uriah. ‘Apart from the expression “the land of the Hittites”, which
sometimes denotes Syria, all other references to “Hittites” in the OT are to
a
small group living in the hills during the era of the Patriarchs and
descendants of that group’ (H.A. Hoffner, POTT, 213-214).” Gordon Wenham, “
Genesis 16-50” (1994), at p. 126.

What is your own analysis of those four names? Do you agree with the
scholarly consensus that they are west Semitic names? (I’m quoting the very
top
scholars in the world here.) Why would the Biblical phrase “the land of the
Hittites” sometimes denote Syria [Joshua 1: 4], if the Biblical Hittites
are “a small group living in the hills” of Canaan? II Kings 7: 6 seems to
view the kings of the Hittites as being kings in Syria. There weren’t any
kings of “a small group living in the hills” of Canaan, were there? And why
is Solomon said to have Hittite wives at I Kings 11: 1? Did Solomon marry
several women from “a small group living in the hills” of Canaan, and if so,
why would that be noteworthy? I presume that university freshmen are taught
this stuff every year. Am I the only one who sees this scholarly analysis
as not making sense? Why would anyone think that the Biblical Hittites were
Canaanites with west Semitic names? Not only is there no historical
backing for such a claim, but also it makes no linguistic sense either.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page