Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

1.  The Akkadian phrase ina qati$unu, which means “under the command of (the 
gods)”, may be the basis for the city name QD$ in eastern Upper Galilee.  The 
possible linguistic relationship between qati$unu in Akkadian and QD$ in 
Hebrew may be fairly obvious.  But in this post, let’s examine the other word 
in that Akkadian phrase, something no one has ever done before, and see if 
“ina” in Akkadian may be a key to figuring out the long mysterious ‘YN M$P+ 
portion of “En Mishpat, that is, QD$” at Genesis 14: 7.
 
2.  Since, at least by the mid-14th century BCE, QD$ in eastern Upper Galilee 
had a Hurrian princeling ruler, Yamiuta [per Amarna Letter EA 177], we should 
ask whether, perhaps as early as the mid-15th century BCE, ina qati$unu may 
have had a Hurrian equivalent for the city name.  Focusing in this post on 
“ina”, in Hurrian a-a-i-e-e-ni means “the view”.  That would make sense as 
part of the city name of QD$ of eastern Upper Galilee, where “the view” would 
refer to the magnificent view of towering Mt. Hermon just to the north.  In 
the Mitanni Letter (Amarna Letter EA 24, written in Hurrian) at III-28, 29 
and IV-50, a-a-i-e-e = “view”.  If the common Hurrian suffix -ni were added 
for “the view”, it would be a-a-i-e-e-ni.  
 
In order to clarify what “the view” is referring to here, it would make sense 
in Hurrian to add $a-wa after a-a-i-e-e-ni.  $aw- is the Hurrian word for 
“great, august, elevated”.  “*[saw-] ‘great’  CA <ša-wu-u-ši> ‘great, 
august’.”  (The final $e is a suffix meaning “having the quality of”.)
 
The meaning of a-a-i-e-e-ni $a-wa is “the view of great, elevated”, referring 
to the magnificent view at QD$ of towering Mt. Hermon to the north.
 
In many cases, W and P are interchangeable in Hurrian.  So it is possible 
that an alternate rendering of a-a-i-e-e-ni $a-wa in Hurrian would be 
a-a-i-e-e-ni $a-pa, with no difference in meaning.
 
3.  In Hebrew, at Genesis 14: 7 we see ‘YN [M]$P+ QD$.  The first part of 
that name compares to a-a-i-e-e-ni $a-pa.  a-a-i-e-e-ni = ‘YN.  The sound is 
quite similar, and so is the meaning:  “the view” in Hurrian vs. “eye” in 
Hebrew.  $a-pa = [M]$P+.  In Hebrew, the M here is a mere prefix.  The two 
most prominent consonants in both languages are $-P.  Hebrew needs to add a 
tet/+ at the end to make it a Hebrew word, but the sound is somewhat similar. 
 $a-pa in Hurrian means “elevated, great”, and M$P+ in Hebrew means “seat of 
judgment”, with both here being references to towering Mt. Hermon.  
 
4.  The proof that the foregoing analysis may be correct is at item #5 on the 
mid-15th century BCE Thutmose III list, where we see:  ai-ni $a-wi.  It would 
make logical sense for item #5 to be QD$ of eastern Upper Galilee.  But does 
it make linguistic sense?
 
(i)  ai-ni.  The first Egyptian hieroglyph at item #5 on the Thutmose III 
list can represent either a west Semitic ayin or the dipthong AI.  The next 
hieroglyph is the letter N, apparently followed by some sort of vowel sound.  
So the sound seems to be ai-ni.  That is very close to Hurrian a-a-i-e-e-ni.  
It’s also close to ina in Akkadian and ‘YN in Hebrew.  
 
(ii)  $a-wi.  The second set of hieroglyphs at item #5 on the Thutmose III 
list is $-W or $a-Wi.  That’s $a-wa in Hurrian.  [Anson Rainey at p. 72 of 
“The Sacred Bridge” says that this is a scribal error, but I strongly 
disagree.]  The comparison to Hebrew is that $a-wa in Hurrian can 
alternatively be $a-pa, which has a somewhat similar sound to [M]$P+.
 
So ai-ni $a-wi at item #5 on the T III list is comparable to a-a-i-e-e-ni 
$a-wa in Hurrian.  And if the W were alternatively P, as it can be in 
Hurrian, then ai-ni $a-[p]i would be roughly comparable to ‘YN [M]$P+ in 
Hebrew.
 
*       *       *
 
Now let’s do a final comparison of these names, this time including the 
second element, which is qatisunu in Akkadian, and would be ka-du-u-$u-na in 
Hurrian [where the Hurrians pronounced Q as K].  Remember, there are no 
attested names in the Sinai Desert or the southern wilderness that compare to 
any aspect of ‘YN M$P+ QD$ at Genesis 14: 7.
 
A.  Compare Egyptian [items #5 and #4 on the T III list] to Hurrian:
 
ai-ni  $a-wi  k-t-su-na vs. a-a-i-e-e-ni  $a-wa  ka-du-u-$a-na.
ai-ni = a-a-i-e-e-ni.
$a-wi = $a-wa.
k-t-su-na = ka-du-u-$a-na.
 
You can’t get it closer than that.
 
B.  But now for the big news.  Compare Egyptian to Hebrew at Genesis 14: 7 
[where, based on the Hurrian analysis above, the $-W on the T III list could 
alternatively be $-P]:
 
ai-ni  $a-[p]i  k-t-su-na vs. ‘YN  [M]$P+ QD$.
ai-ni = ‘YN.
$a-[p]i = [M]$P+.
k-t-su-na = QD$ [where the final -N has been left off in Hebrew, so that QD$ 
at Genesis 20: 1 will have the double meaning of Galilee being a “holy spot” 
for the Patriarchs].
 
Scholars have been totally baffled by ‘YN M$P+ at Genesis 14: 7.  But it 
actually more or less matches to item #5 on the T III list, especially if, 
per the Hurrian analysis above, the W on the T III list could alternatively 
be P.  Looking at both items #5 and #4 on the T III list:
 
ai-ni $a-[p]i k-t-su-na [on the T III list] = ‘YN  [M]$P+ QD$ [at Genesis 14: 
7].
 
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois