Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Daniel Buck <bucksburg AT yahoo.com>]

From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>

Dewayne:

While the use of Jewish writings such as the Targums can be used as a
source to try to help with reading difficult passages, you have no
contrary argument from me.

As far as QCP against Israel in this particular context, we discussed
this issue a while back. Then I mentioned that there was QCP against
Israel even before Moab?s revolt, as seen in Elisha?s response to the
king of Israel. In fact, that could be the cause of Moab?s revolt. The
specific act of the king of Moab?s sacrifice of his son is not needed
to understand this act.

Karl W. Randolph.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is it certain that the king of Moab sacrificed his own son?  Could we not 
alternatively read it thus?

"the king of Moab . . .[tried] to break through to the king of Edom, but they 
could not. Then he took [the king of Edom']s eldest son, that should have 
reigned in his place, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall.

See Amos 2:1
"For three transgressions of Moab and for four I will not revoke its 
punishment, 
Because he burned the bones of the king of Edom to lime."

Daniel Buck


      
>From JimStinehart AT aol.com  Mon Dec  6 10:52:23 2010
Return-Path: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 091904C02A; Mon,  6 Dec 2010 10:52:22 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on malecky
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
        T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
Received: from imr-da06.mx.aol.com (imr-da06.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.203])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49B94C021
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon,  6 Dec 2010 10:52:20 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from imo-da01.mx.aol.com (imo-da01.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.199])
        by imr-da06.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id oB6Fq04T023902;
        Mon, 6 Dec 2010 10:52:00 -0500
Received: from JimStinehart AT aol.com
        by imo-da01.mx.aol.com  (mail_out_v42.9.) id t.d27.5b52567c (37564);
        Mon, 6 Dec 2010 10:51:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from magic-d18.mail.aol.com (magic-d18.mail.aol.com
        [172.19.155.134]) by cia-mb04.mx.aol.com (v129.7) with ESMTP id
        MAILCIAMB041-92bc4cfd0693205; Mon, 06 Dec 2010 10:51:47 -0500
From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Message-ID: <1195eb.44e4d349.3a2e6093 AT aol.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 10:51:47 EST
To: fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr, leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il,
        b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5046
X-AOL-IP: 68.78.130.31
X-AOL-SENDER: JimStinehart AT aol.com
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:30:20 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.13
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] HALOT Etymologies
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:52:23 -0000


Prof. Yigal Levin and Dr. Fournet:
=20
1.  Prof. Levin wrote:  =E2=80=9CI'd also suggest that the name [BR$(] is=
 a play on=20
the word "Rasha'", "evil", befitting the king of evil Gomorra.=E2=80=9D
=20
The traditional view is that BR$( is a west Semitic name, meaning =E2=80=
=9CIn=20
Wickedness=E2=80=9D, or per Gesenius, =E2=80=9CSon of Iniquity=E2=80=9D,=
 or per HALOT, =E2=80=9CArabic...ugly=E2=80=9D.=20
 Likewise, the traditional view of the immediately preceding name, BR(, is=
=20
that it is a west Semitic name meaning =E2=80=9CIn Evil=E2=80=9D, or per=
 Gesenius =E2=80=9CSon of=20
Evil=E2=80=9D, or per HALOT, =E2=80=9CArabic=E2=80=A6to triumph=E2=80=9D.=
  But there was no Arabic in the=20
Patriarchal Age, and BR( is not associated with =E2=80=9Ctriumph=E2=80=9D.=
  As to these=20
names allegedly being highly pejorative [the traditional view], what if on=
e of=20
Prof. Levin=E2=80=99s students were to ask this question:
=20
Why would the great Patriarch Abraham, after leading a heroic military=20
mission way up north to Syria to rescue Lot and Lot=E2=80=99s family from=
 the four evil=20
attacking rulers, be portrayed as turning over Lot and Lot=E2=80=99s famil=
y to a=20
ruler whose name in west Semitic, being Abraham=E2=80=99s native language,=
 means =E2=80=9CIn=20
Evil=E2=80=9D?  That does not seem sensible at all.  It is not until much=
 later, in=20
chapters 18 and 19 of Genesis, that Sodom and Gomorrah go over to the dark=
=20
side, and note how their leaders in chapter 14 of Genesis, BR( and BR$(,=
 are=20
notably absent in chapters 18 and 19.  Besides, historically we know that=
 in=20
Year 14, a league of 5 Hurrian princelings was smashed by four attacking=
=20
rulers in a valley of fields (the Orontes River Valley in western Syria)=
 that=20
is near a salt sea (the Mediterranean Sea) and that has pits, pits of bitu=
men=20
(that was sold to Ugarit for its great sailing ships).  So shouldn=E2=80=
=99t we at=20
least  a-s-k  if BR( is a dead ringer for the best-known Hurrian common wo=
rd=20
of all time, that effectively means =E2=80=9C(Hurrian) princeling=E2=80=9D=
?
=20
2.  Dr. Fournet, let=E2=80=99s consider now the expected early Biblical He=
brew=20
defective spelling of eb-ri, literally meaning =E2=80=9Clord=E2=80=9D or=
 =E2=80=9Cking=E2=80=9D, but=20
effectively meaning =E2=80=9C(Hurrian) princeling=E2=80=9D, being one of=
 the very few Hurrian common=20
words that most early Hebrews would be expected to have known.  In my view=
=20
there are 10 Hurrian names in the Patriarchal narratives that have an ayin=
. =20
In all 10 cases, that ayin is a generic vowel indicator for the Hurrian=20
vowels A or E or I.  Thus KN(N [meaning =E2=80=9CCanaan=E2=80=9D] makes pe=
rfect sense if the=20
ayin is the Hurrian vowel A, as the name then is kina + -N, with kina bein=
g=20
the root of the Hurrian word for =E2=80=9Cpurple=E2=80=9D.  [We also know=
 that both=20
Phoenician and Punic used ayin to represent such vowels in names.]  On tha=
t basis,=20
how would eb-ri be spelled in Genesis?  The first vowel would not be=20
represented, because the Hebrews would have viewed it as being merely pros=
thetic. =20
But BR won=E2=80=99t do, because that=E2=80=99s the Hebrew word for =E2=80=
=9Ccorn=E2=80=9D at Genesis 41:=20
35, 49.  So the expected early Biblical Hebrew defective spelling of the=
=20
best-known Hurrian common word of all time is exactly what we see in the=
=20
received text of Genesis 14: 2:  BR(.  The final ayin there represents the=
 Hurrian=20
vowel I, and shows that this is a two-syllable Hurrian word, not bar/BR in=
=20
Hebrew.
=20
Note how perfectly the meaning fits with both the Biblical text and secula=
r=20
history.  The name is a Hurrian name effectively meaning =E2=80=9CHurrian=
 princeling
=E2=80=9D.  It is neutral, which fits the situation in chapter 14 of Genes=
is.  And=20
the defeated league of 5 rebellious princelings in Year 14 historically wa=
s=20
made up of =E2=80=9CHurrian princelings=E2=80=9D.
=20
3.   You again ask why Hurrian names in the Biblical text do not have the=
=20
form of verb + name of famous pagan deity, or to use your language:  =E2=
=80=9CThe=20


regular formation [of Hurrian names] is Verb+Noun.=E2=80=9D  Please take=
 a look at=20
the 8 personal names of rulers at Genesis 14: 1-2.  What=E2=80=99s missing=
?  Not a=20
single well-known deity=E2=80=99s name is there, even though most rulers=
=E2=80=99 names in=20
the ancient world explicitly honored a pagan deity.  The early Hebrew auth=
or=20
knew that the actual name of one of the 5 rebellious Hurrian princelings=
 was=20
Aki-Te$up, and he knew that one of the best-known Hurrian names was=20
XuT-Te$up.  But it was against his religion to openly honor the name of a=
=20
well-known pagan deity, something that never happens in the Patriarchal na=
rratives. =20
So the Hurrians are not called the XuT-Te$up people, but rather the generi=
c=20
theophoric -iYa is substituted:  XuT-iYa, which in defective spelling is=
=20
XTY, the most commonly-used name for the Hurrians in Genesis.  Instead of=
=20
Aki-Te$up, we get generic common words for the personal names of the rebel=
lious=20
Hurrian princelings:  (i) BR( literally means =E2=80=9Clord=E2=80=9D, and=
 effectively means =E2=80=9C
Hurrian princeling=E2=80=9D;  (ii) BR$( literally means =E2=80=9Clordship=
=E2=80=9D, and=20
effectively means =E2=80=9CHurrian princeling=E2=80=9D;  (iii) $M-)BR lite=
rally means =E2=80=9Chand of the=20
lord=E2=80=9D, and effectively means =E2=80=9CHurrian princeling=E2=80=9D,=
 and (iv) where $eni means =E2=80=9C
brother=E2=80=9D, $N)B literally means =E2=80=9Cmy brother=E2=80=9D, that=
 is, =E2=80=9Cmy fellow=20
(Hurrian) princeling=E2=80=9D, and so it too effectively means =E2=80=9CHu=
rrian princeling=E2=80=9D.  [Note=20
the nice use of aleph there at the end of $eni, rather than ayin, because=
=20
as you know, when the -b suffix is added, the I unexpectedly changes to A=
 in=20
Hurrian.  So whereas $eni + the comitative suffix is $N(-R at Genesis 14:=
 1=20
(meaning =E2=80=9Cland of the Hurrian brothers=E2=80=9D, that is, Syria),=
 $ena-b at Genesis=20
14: 2 is $N)B.  Nice!]=20
=20
Note that all four names of the rebellious princelings are simple plays on=
=20
the two best-known Hurrian common words of all time, eb-ri and $e-ni.  All=
=20
the early Hebrews could pick up on those two very basic Hurrian common wor=
ds,=20
and know that the historical league of 5 rebellious Hurrian princelings in=
=20
Year 14 in the Orontes River Valley was being referenced.  For religious=
=20
reasons, the Hebrew author refused to write down Aki-Te$up.  Rather, one=
 sees=20
four Hurrian common words, all four of which effectively mean =E2=80=9CHur=
rian=20
princeling=E2=80=9D.  That=E2=80=99s the utter brilliance of the early Heb=
rew author of the=20
Patriarchal narratives.






4.  By the way, did either of you two guys check out that ultra-spectacula=
r=20
13-letter match of kdr l (mr mlk (lm as a Ugaritic curse?  You see, it was=
=20
the king of Ugarit who initiated the Great Syrian War in western Syria. =
 So=20
we should expect a highly pejorative nickname for Niqmaddu II at Genesis=
 14:=20
1, 9, as well as a highly pejorative nickname for Suppiluliuma I that in=
=20
context effectively calls the mighty Hittite king =E2=80=9CMurderer=E2=80=
=9D.  By contrast,=20
it makes no sense at all for members of the defeated league of 5 rebelliou=
s=20
Hurrian princelings, whose side Abraham is on in chapter 14 of Genesis in=
=20
opposing the evil 4 attacking rulers, to be thought to have highly pejorat=
ive=20
names.  No way!
=20
The pinpoint historical accuracy of Genesis 14: 1-11 in the historical=20
context of Year 14 [of Akhenaten=E2=80=99s troubled 17-year reign] is trul=
y stunning.
=20
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois