Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Prof. Yigal Levin:
 
1.  I was utterly delighted to see you say this:
 
“I agree that there is really no reason to assume that Gen. 14 was written 
by anyone but the (presumably Israelite) author of the rest of Genesis.”
 
I agree with that 100%.  It was an early Hebrew, not a non-Israelite, who 
composed the phrase at Genesis 14: 13 “Abram the Hebrew”, along with the 
rest of the Patriarchal narratives.
 
2.  But I’m having trouble with your west Semitic interpretations of “
Hebrew” and “Eber”, where you wrote earlier on this thread:
 
“Yes, it makes sense that Ibri is someone from "across the river" and that 
THE River is the Euphrates, but as seen from which direction? One could 
claim that the perspective is Mesopotamian, as in the Mesopotamian term Ever 
Hanahar (eber-nari), which refers to the lands west of the Euphrates. But of 
course Abraham and co. were originally from east of the River. They may have 
only become Ibrim after crossing from east to west. But that would make Ibrim 
those who came from the east and are now in the west.  The relationship of 
the Ibrim to Eber is also a good question. Should we see Eber as a 
historical figure, or is he an artificial, literary, "eponymous ancestor" of 
the 
Ibrim?”
 
(a)  Neither based on the Patriarchal narratives, nor historically, is it 
true that “Abraham and co. were originally from east of the River”.   The 
names Terakh, Haran, Nahor and Abram are all west Semitic names that fit 
central Canaan perfectly, and do not fit Mesopotamia.  Genesis 11: 28 says 
that 
Haran died in the presence of his father and in the presence of his father’s 
descendants/molodet in Ur of the Kassite-country-people, and does not say 
that Ur was Haran’s native land.
 
Pursuant to #1 above, you agree that the Hebrew author of the Patriarchal 
narratives calls Abram at Genesis 14: 13 a (BR-Y/“Hebrew”.  So what counts 
in life is what the Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives thought as to 
the origins of the Hebrews, with it being largely irrelevant how later 
Biblical authors may have misinterpreted what the Patriarchal narratives say. 
 
Since the Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives uses 4 out of 4 names 
in the family of Abram’s father as being west Semitic names, in a composition 
that elsewhere has more foreign  names [such as Genesis 15: 19-21, etc.] 
than almost any other part of the Bible, the author of the Patriarchal 
narratives correctly viewed the Hebrews as being indigenous to Canaan.  If a 
family 
of indigenous Canaanites made a caravan trip on a one-time basis way out to 
southern Mesopotamia, then the one and only place they would go is to Ur, 
which throughout the Bronze Age was the wholesale center for the lucrative 
trade in lapis lazuli, which is generically referenced as “rekush” at Genesis 
12: 5.  Purchasing lapis lazuli at wholesale at Ur on a one-time basis is 
how Abram came out of Egypt laden with gold and silver [Genesis 13: 2].  
There is nothing in the Patriarchal narratives that is inconsistent with the 
Hebrews being indigenous to Canaan, whereas the west Semitic names Terakh, 
Haran, Nahor and Abram do not fit a claim that the Hebrew author was trying 
to 
fool us into thinking that the Hebrews were indigenous to Mesopotamia.
 
(b)  If you view Eber as being “an artificial, literary, ‘eponymous 
ancestor’ of the Ibrim”, then Eber spent his entire life east of the 
Euphrates 
River, and per 2(a) above you see Abram as being the first one to cross the 
Euphrates River heading west into Canaan.  But then how could Eber have a 
west 
Semitic name?  And why on earth would Eber, who always lived east of the 
Euphrates River, have a west Semitic name that means “the region beyond”, 
when to him his homeland east of the Euphrates River was the “correct”, 
natural side of that river?  If as you say “the perspective is Mesopotamian”, 
then (i) it doesn’t make sense for Eber’s name to be west Semitic, and (ii) 
it 
certainly doesn’t make sense for Eber to have a west Semitic name that 
means “the region beyond”, where Eber never crossed the Euphrates River.
 
Please consider the following alternative analysis.  “Eber”/(BR is a 
non-Semitic name that to its bearer east of the upper Euphrates River meant 
“lord”
, but which later Hebrews later gave a west Semitic re-interpretation as 
meaning “the region beyond”.  Eber had lived east of the upper Euphrates 
River where people had non-Semitic names like E-bi-ir/(BR meaning “lord”, and 
as such to the later Hebrews living in Canaan Eber had lived in “the region 
beyond”.  The later Hebrews no longer understood the original meaning of 
(BR-Y/E-bi-ir-ya [“Hebrew”], which had originally meant “God Is Lord” in 
non-Semitic, and they later re-interpreted their own non-Semitic name on a 
west 
Semitic basis as meaning “people from the region beyond”.  
 
In fact, the Hebrews are indigenous to Canaan, as accurately portrayed in 
the Patriarchal narratives.  But later Biblical authors misinterpreted the 
Patriarchal narratives to be saying that the Hebrews had migrated to Canaan 
from Mesopotamia.  The Table of Nations was composed centuries after the 
Patriarchal narratives, and retroactively applied west Semitic 
interpretations of 
several ancient non-Semitic names, including in particular (BR/E-bi-ir [“
Eber], which in turn allowed non-Semitic name (BR-Y/E-bi-ir-ya [“Hebrew”] to 
be given a new, west Semitic interpretation.
 
As to the non-Semitic nature of the name Eber, just look at his ancestors’ 
names.  His father is $LX, which is likely the attested Hurrian name 
$i-la-xi, meaning “Being Pleasant”, and all scholars seem to agree that his 
grandfather’s name is non-Semitic.  Arphaxad is )RPK$D in Hebrew, which looks 
like 
)RP-K$-D/Arip-ku$u-da, which is but a slight variant of the attested 
Hurrian name Arip-ku$u-ux, with both such names meaning “Lord [is] Good”.  
 
The dozens of non-Semitic names in the Patriarchal narratives strongly 
suggest that both the Hebrews historically, and the composition date of the 
Patriarchal narratives, date all the long way back to the mid-14th century 
BCE 
Amarna Age, which was the only time in 5,000 years of human history when 
Hurrian princelings dominated the ruling class of Canaan.  Though the Hebrews 
are indigenous to Canaan and are native west Semitic speakers, they couldn’t 
help but pick up a few names from the Hurrian ruling class that ruled Canaan 
at the time of the historical birth of Judaism in Year 15.  The original, 
non-Semitic meaning of the name “Eber”/(BR/E-bi-ir was “lord”, and much more 
importantly, the original, non-Semitic meaning of the name “Hebrew”
/(BR-Y/E-bi-ir-ya, which first appears at Genesis 14: 13 written by the first 
Hebrew [a native west Semitic speaker who was indigenous to Canaan, but who 
lived 
when Amarna Age Canaan was dominated by Hurrian princelings], was “God Is 
Lord”.  To me that makes much more sense than the conventional view that both 
“Eber” and “Hebrew” were west Semitic names from day #1.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois