Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

The word “Hebrew” is primarily used in only two situations in early books 
of the Bible:  (i) by non-Israelites in identifying Israelites, and (ii) by 
Israelites in distinguishing themselves from foreigners when speaking to 
foreigners:
 
(1)  von Rad.  “The word ‘Hebrew’ occurs five times in the Joseph story:  
three times on the lips of foreigners (chs. 39.14, 17; 41.12), once on Joseph
’s lips with respect to foreigners (ch. 40.15), and once in the mouth of 
the narrator who contrasts the Hebrews with the Egyptians (ch. 43.32).  It is 
a peculiarity of the use of this word in the Old Testament that it occurs in 
the narrative literature where foreigners speak of Israelites or where 
Israelites speak of themselves in contrast to foreigners.”  Gerhard von Rad, “
Genesis” (1972), p. 367.
 
(2)  Speiser.  “[Other than the phrase ‘Abram the Hebrew’ at Genesis 14: 
13], the designation ‘Hebrew’ is not applied elsewhere in the Bible to 
Israelites, except by outsiders (e.g. xxxix 14), or for self-identification 
to 
foreigners xl 15;  Jon i 9).”  E.A. Speiser, “The Anchor Bible Genesis” 
(1962), p. 103. 
 
(3)  Wenham.  “‘the Hebrew.’  It is quite striking that Abram should be 
termed ‘the Hebrew’ here [at Genesis 14: 13].  This is not a term used by 
Israelites of themselves, but only by non-Israelites of Israelites (39:14; 
41: 
12).  Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis 1-15” (1987), p. 313.
 
[That is not true, however, as at Genesis 40: 15, as noted above by von Rad 
and Speiser, Joseph in speaking to Pharaoh’s loyal Cupbearer refers to 
Canaan as being “the land of the Hebrews”.]
 
(4)  Waltke.  “‘Hebrew’…The Bible ascribes the term only to Abraham and 
his descendants to show that they are the legitimate descendants of Shem 
through Eber.”  Bruce K. Waltke, “Genesis” (2001), p. 231.
 
But the Table of Nations was likely composed centuries after the truly 
ancient Patriarchal narratives.  And why would Israelites use an 
incomprehensible reference to a distant ancestor of theirs [Eber] in 
describing themselves 
to foreigners?  If the name “Hebrew” is “late”, why would Israelites want 
to be in bed with the other descendants of Shem, especially Assyria/Asshur, 
which beginning in the 9th century BCE was vehemently hated by the Hebrews?  
“Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of 
Japheth the elder, even to him were [children] born.  The children of Shem; 
Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.”  Genesis 10: 21-22.  But 
if 
the name “Hebrew” is ancient, as seems more likely, note that Eber is a 
descendant of Arphaxad [Genesis 10: 24], which scholars agree is definitely a 
non-Semitic name.  The odd transliteration Arphaxad is actually )RPK$D in 
Hebrew, which looks like )RP-K$-D, where )RP/Arip is likely one form of the 
Hurrian word for “lord”, and K$-D may be ku-$u-da, where -da is an 
alternative ending for the commonplace Hurrian suffix -ux, and with ku-$u 
coming from 
the same Sanskrit word as does the Kassite name Ku-$u or Ka-$a meaning “good”
.  As such, Biblical Arip-ku$u-da is but a slight variant of the attested 
Hurrian name Arip-ku$u-ux, with both such names meaning “Lord [is] Good”.  
 
Note that in order to get to Eber, which scholars desperately hope might be 
Semitic, one has to go through Arip-ku$u-da, which is definitely 
non-Semitic and probably Hurrian, and also $LX, which is likely the attested 
Hurrian 
name $i-la-xi, meaning “Being Pleasant”.  Moreover, “Eber” itself is (BR, 
and where Hebrew ayin is used to represent the Hurrian vowel E as its own 
separate syllable, note that e-bi-ir is one form of the Hurrian word for 
“lord”
, per Emmanuel Laroche, “Glossaire de la Langue Hourrite” (1980), p. 85.  
Thus “Eber” is a dead ringer for the Hurrian word e-bi-ir functioning as 
the Hurrian name E-bi-ir.  By contrast, if on the traditional view (BR is 
viewed as being a Semitic name meaning “the region beyond”, then how could a 
person living east of the upper Euphrates River have a name meaning “the 
region beyond” that meant his own homeland -- the area east of the upper 
Euphrates River?!  Rather, a more likely scenario is that (BR is a Hurrian 
name from 
east of the upper Euphrates River meaning “lord”, and the Hebrews later 
gave a west Semitic re-interpretation of this non-Semitic name to mean “the 
region beyond”, where to a Hebrew in Canaan “the region beyond” would refer 
to the area east of the upper Euphrates River.  This whole line of three 
names consists of Hurrian names:  Arip-ku$u-da, $i-la-xi, E-bi-ir. 
 
In my opinion, none of the scholarly views of the origin of the name (BR-Y/“
Hebrew” rings true.  Why wouldn’t Biblical authors choose a positive name 
for their own people?  Why call themselves after the disreputable habiru?  
Why refer to themselves in a neutral fashion based on the questionable name 
of a distant relative [Eber] whose Semitic bona fides are dubious at best, 
and who rather seems to be the third straight Hurrian name in this Table of 
Nations genealogy?  Why claim that they are “wanderers” from “beyond the 
Euphrates River”, when that’s not how the Patriarchal narratives present the 
first Hebrews, it’s historically false, and in any event it’s not a positive 
name?  
 
Doesn’t it make more sense for the first Hebrews in Year 15 to have chosen 
to call themselves the “God Is Lord” people?  The very fact that (BR-Y is a 
non-Semitic-based name, E-bi-ir-ya, that hearkens back to the Bronze Age 
days when the ruling class of Canaan was dominated by a non-Semitic people, 
was viewed as a good thing, not a bad thing, because it showed how old the 
Hebrews were, dating all the long way back to the mid-14th century BCE.  
 
To me, my proposed explanation of “Hebrew”/(BR-Y as being non-Semitic 
E-bi-ir-ya, meaning “God Is Lord”, makes more sense than any of the scholarly 
theories that have been floated regarding the mysterious name “Hebrew”. 
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois