Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Nir Cohen:
 
You wrote:  “in my opinion, you fall victim, willingly and unwittingly, to 
the most basic of all linguistic errors: the false cognate. if you BELIEVE 
the name is hurrian, you PROVE it is hurrian. If you BELIEVE the other name 
is hebrew you PROVE it is hebrew.  all, by producing close cognates from the 
chosen language of the spur of the moment.”
 
You make a good point there.  Let me first briefly clarify what my prior 
post showed in that regard, and then go on to some exciting implications of 
what you say.
 
1.  My prior post showed that if we look at the 9 names associated with XTY 
in the Bible, we find the following:  9 of 9 make good sense as Hurrian 
names.  Only 5 of 9 make sense as west Semitic [“Hebrew”] names.  My post 
focused on the 4 such names that do not make good sense as west Semitic 
names.  
[I did not mean to imply that linguistically, the other 5 names could not 
work as west Semitic names.]
 
2.  2 of the 9 names that work either as Hurrian or west Semitic names are 
particularly fascinating:
 
(i)  We see )YLWN at Genesis 36: 2, featuring both an interior yod and an 
interior vav, as the name of a Hurrian/XTY.  Zebulun’s son in fact has a 
slightly different name, not having the interior yod:  )LWN, at Genesis 46: 
14.  
That spelling is confirmed at Numbers 26: 26.  Centuries later, a 
descendant of the line of Zebulun has a similar name, but sometimes spells it 
with an 
interior yod, )YLWN at Judges 12: 11, though in the very next verse that 
interior yod is missing:  )LWN at Judges 12: 12.
 
To me the -WN ending in the name of Zebulun’s son has a Hurrian ambience, 
and Zebulun’s son is given this name in remembrance of the fact that Zebulun 
was born in the heartland of Hurrian country, in eastern Syria.  The 
spelling of Zebulun’s own name that his mother Leah used in eastern Syria 
featured 
that Hurrian-like -WN ending, though Jacob later Semiticized the spelling of 
that son’s name by dropping the interior vav.
 
We also see the Hurrian version of this name Semiticized at Genesis 26: 34. 
 The -WN Hurrian-style ending is dropped in favor of a -N standard west 
Semitic ending:  )YLN.  This may be a scribal error, for as discussed below, 
the listing of Esau’s in-laws embodies varying traditions.  But it could also 
show that some of the Hurrians in Canaan at times used Semiticized versions 
of their names.  Thus for example many scholars see “Uriah” as being a 
Hurrian name that features a Semiticized ending. 
 
(ii)  Also interesting is the female name Bashemath.  On the one hand, she 
is said to be a Hurrian/XTY at Genesis 26: 34.  On the other hand, she is 
said to be a daughter of Ishmael at Genesis 36: 3.  In fact, the daughter of 
Ishmael whom Esau married was Mahalath, per Genesis 28: 9.  It appears that 
one of the few aspects of the Patriarchal narratives where the received text 
has alternative traditions are the in-laws of Esau.
 
The 5 names associated with XTY that work both as Hurrian names and as west 
Semitic names are all names of Esau’s in-laws, and this is precisely one of 
the least trustworthy aspects of the Patriarchal narratives, because it 
embodies varying traditions.  To me, the three important names in this regard 
are (PRWN, XTY and “Uriah”, being the XTY names that are not Esau’s in-laws.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois