Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Dr. Fournet:
 
You wrote:  “[Samekh] was a voiceless affricate /ts/.”
 
Scholars are split as to the early pronunciation of samekh in Semitic 
languages.  Perhaps samekh had been an affricate prior to the Late Bronze 
Age, but was no longer an affricate in the Amarna Age.  In “Semitic 
Linguistics” (2002), Shlomo Izre’el comments:  
 
“The original sound value of the Semitic sibilant that is realized in Hebrew 
as samekh has been assumed to be [s]; [but there are] arguments for assuming 
an original sound value [ts], at least until the second millennium BC….”
 
Even if samekh may arguably have been an affricate in Proto Semitic, prior to 
the Late Bronze Age, for our purposes the only relevant time period is the 
Amarna Age, because that is the only time when Hurrian lords interacted with 
Hebrews in Canaan.  Several scholars who have focused on the Amarna Letters 
have specifically concluded that at that time, samekh was  n-o-t  “a 
voiceless affricate /ts/”:
 
“[I]n the Amarna Letters samekh is always ‘z’ (Albright 1943a: 32).  Thus, 
for example, zu-u-zi-ma is Hebrew SuSim, ‘horses’.  Thus while sin and shin 
were classed together, samekh was perhaps felt to be closer to the voiced 
fricative zayin.”  Ian Young, “Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew” (1993), at pp. 
189-190.  [That’s SWSYM/‘horses’ at Genesis 47: 17.]
 
Dr. Fournet, since it is a mainstream scholarly view [though scholars 
admittedly are split on this issue], please  c-o-n-s-i-d-e-r  that in the 
Amarna Age, samekh in early Biblical Hebrew may not have been a fricative TS; 
 rather, already at that time, tsade may have been the sole fricative TS 
sibilant.  If so, then in a mid-14th century BCE historical context:
 
(1)  The root Cuxar in the Hurrian name Cuxur + tiya at Nuzi is a dead ringer 
for CXR at Genesis 23: 8.  He’s the Hurrian father of the Hurrian lord, 
‘PRWN, who imperiously charges Abraham a king’s ransom for a gravesite for 
Sarah, and whose own name is Hurrian, E-pi-ri-e-ne, meaning [in Hurrian] 
“(Hurrian) lord”.  [“Pir” is the form of the Hurrian word “lord” that is 
found in Amarna Letters EA 27 and 28 in the Hurrian name Pi-ri-iz-zi, and at 
Amarna Letter EA 17: 12 for the Hurrian name Pir-xi.]  This Hurrian lord’s 
city’s name, ’RB‘, is Hurrian as well, ir-bi, meaning [in Hurrian] city of 
the “(Hurrian) lords”.  [Note the metathesis (reversal) of the consonants, 
which was not only commonplace at Nuzi, but it’s attested at Jerusalem as 
well;  in Amarna Letter EA 289: 38, Hurrian princeling IR-Heba uses the word 
irpi (presumably pronounced ir-bi, as you would agree) regarding an Egyptian 
official.]  In the Amarna Age, if one was to buy a plot of land near a city 
for a gravesite, one would likely have to buy that land from a “Hurrian 
lord”, hence the Biblical names ‘PRWN/E-pi-ri-e-ne/“(Hurrian) lord”, and city 
of ’RB‘/ir-bi/“(Hurrian) lords”.  E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g  makes perfect sense on 
a Hurrian analysis.  [The west Semitic meanings would have “Mr. Fawn” 
operating in the “City of Four”, but those west Semitic meanings make no 
sense in context.]
 
(2)  XCC-N TMR at Genesis 14: 7 is a dead ringer for Hurrian xa-tsi-tsi-ni 
tam-ri, meaning [in Hurrian] “Wisdom-the Nine”.  [Only the Hurrians had a 
mystical appreciation of the number “nine”.]  The short-form version of that 
name is xa-si/Hasi, where we know from Amarna Letter EA 175 there was an 
Amorite enclave in the Hurrian-dominated Beqa Valley that was attacked by 
coalition forces, just exactly as Genesis 14: 7 says.  Once again, 
e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g   makes perfect sense on a Hurrian analysis.
 
Dr. Fournet, if you would consider the possibility that in the mid-14th 
century BCE [regardless of how Proto Semitic may have operated, in an earlier 
time period], tsade may have been the sole fricative TS sibilant in early 
Biblical Hebrew, then we’ve got Hurrian names by the dozens in the 
Patriarchal narratives!  [Wherever HALOT says “no linguistic analysis 
possible”, think Hurrian.]  Maybe we could even convince Prof. Yigal Levin to 
stop teaching his students that the Patriarchal narratives are late fiction.  
[Well, I can dream, can’t I?]  Hurrian is not “late”, that’s for sure.  The 
more Hurrian names we find in the Patriarchal narratives, the better, because 
that is showing the great antiquity of this incomparable Biblical text.  
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois