Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] TMR T)MR

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
  • To: chavoux AT gmail.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] TMR T)MR
  • Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:05:43 -0400 (EDT)


Chavoux Luyt wrote: “I also see no evidence that the Hebrew author created
any names, butrather that he (some-times) used chance correspondence between
a real person'sname and some (real) events in that person's life.”

That is a critically important issue. University scholars generally hold
that manyof the names in the Patriarchal narratives are very old, sometimes
evenpossibly dating back to the Bronze Age, but that the stories told in
thePatriarchal narratives are late, having been composed by JEP or other
scribesliving in the 1st millennium BCE. On the scholarly view, the
underlying meaning of the names often has norelationship to the storyline.
Thus manyscholars say that “Terah” means “ibex”, “Nahor” means “snoring”, and
“Haran”means “mountaineer”. The fact that thosemeanings bear no relationship
whatsoever to the storyline is viewed by scholarsnot as rendering their
proposed etymologies nonsensical and wrong, but ratheras supposedly being
evidence that JEP either didn’t know, or didn’t care, whatthe underlying
meaning was of the old names they used in the stories theycomposed in the 1st
millennium BCE.

That is why my proposed etymologies of names in thePatriarchal narratives are
much more controversial to scholars than one mightsuppose. Let’s use the
four names in thefirst sentence of the Patriarchal narratives (Genesis 11:
26) as a good exampleof what I’m talking about. TRX does notmean “ibex”, but
rather in Hebrew is T-)RX, meaning “you will go on a longcaravan trip”, and
in non-Semitic is tu-ru-xi, meaning “coming from a man” [asall 7 Patriarchs
and Matriarchs are descendants of Terah, and thus “come fromthe man”]; those
two meanings deftly sumup Terah’s role in the Patriarchal narratives. HRN
does not mean “mountaineer”, but rather means “mountain place”,referencing
that the place where firstborn son Haran has his untimely death, inKassite
southern Mesopotamia, was in the Patriarchal Age known by the name ofthe
“mountain people” from the Zagros Mountains, the Kassites, who
rulednon-mountainous southern Mesopotamia during the Late Bronze Age. NXWR
means in Hebrew “the neighing ofhorses”, referring to the fact that Nahor
ends up spending most of his life inthe heart of Hurrianland at Harran, with
the Hurrians being world-famous fortheir skills with horses and especially
with horse-drawn chariots. NXWR in non-Semitic means “dowry
[fromHurrianland]”, reflecting the fact that Nahor’s key role in the
Patriarchalnarratives is to provide the ultimate “dowry from Hurrianland”:
all three successor Matriarchs are femaledescendants of Nahor, who while not
being ethnic Hurrians are nevertheless bornand raised to adulthood in Harran
in the heart of Hurrianland. Finally, )BRM in Hebrew means “[the
divine]father is exalted”, and in non-Semitic means “lord”; that combination
lets us know right away thatAbram is the one son of Terah who is destined for
greatness.

Based on the foregoing linguistic analysis, we canalso surmise that Terah’s
first wife was a native west Semitic speaker, withher son Haran’s name having
only a Hebrew meaning. Perhaps she died in childbirth. Years later, Terah
married a second wife, whowas a Hurrian, and so the two much younger sons,
Nahor and Abram, have namesthat [like the name Terah] make good sense in both
Hebrew and non-Semitic. As to ages, note that such surmise alsonicely
explains why Nahor is the right age to marry a daughter of Haran, sinceby age
Nahor was more of a nephew to Haran than a brother, and it also explainswhy
Lot is twice called Abram’s “brother”, since by age they were similar tobeing
brothers, rather than Abram being in Lot’s father’s generation byage. We
even see that we can’t reallyfollow the storyline very well unless we do such
linguistic analysis.

In my opinion the same person, an early Hebrewauthor, both (i)
created/selected the names Terah, Haran, Nahor and Abram, and(ii) composed
the stories told about them in the Patriarchal narratives. In my view the
names in the text are notolder than the rest of the text, but rather were
generated by the same authorat the very same time as that author composed the
rest of the text. The same analysis holds true for the names“Tamar” and
“Mamre”. [Note that “Moreh”at Genesis 12: 6 is often rightly thought to
reference Amuri/Amu-ura, where like M-MR)there is no initial aleph when the
word “Amorite” is used in a personal name.] It is important to realize in
particular thatthe underlying meaning of all of these names makes perfect
sense in the contextof the role that each such person plays in the storyline
of the Patriarchalnarratives. As opposed to an ideaprovisionally floated by
Isaac Fried, I think that in fact “the Hebrew bible isplaying word games.”
The early Hebrewauthor of the Patriarchal narratives is utterly brilliant at
these inspired“word games”, which indeed are not even limited to the Hebrew
language.

Sorry that my ideas are controversial. I am trying to show, in part by
usinglinguistics as to Hebrew language etymologies as on this thread, that
thePatriarchal narratives are much older than today’s university scholars
realize.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page