Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

At Genesis 15: 2, Biblical El-i-Ezir is historical Ezir/Aziru, who is rightly referred to derogatorily as being a “usurper”:  BN-M$Q [based on the Hebrew root $QQ meaning “to seek greedily”].  That aggressive Amorite princeling, arguably being the most notorious figure in the entirety of the Amarna Letters [or at least close to it], was a bona fide threat to what the first Hebrews saw [per the Biblical account] as being their manifest destiny to be the divinely-ordained inheritors of Canaan.

 

If you want a nastier Patriarchal nickname for Aziru, the upstart Amorite princeling who by usurping Damascus had effectively proclaimed himself king of Syria/Shinar/$N(R in Year 12, it’s at Genesis 14: 1.  [Per the P.S. below, $N(R should be viewed as being a reference to Syria, as in Damascus, Syria, where Aziru had been ominously ensconced in Year 12, per Amarna Letter EA 107: 26-28].  Aziru was one of the historical four attacking rulers in the Year 14 “four kings against five” that is accurately reported at Genesis 14: 1-11.  Since Aziru was one of the bad guys [with the attacking rulers being portrayed (using artistic license) as kidnapping Abram’s nephew Lot and trying to turn Lot into a Hittite puppet like Aziru and Etakkama], we can fully expect Aziru to have a very nasty Patriarchal nickname at Genesis 14: 1.

 

The derogatory Patriarchal nickname at Genesis 14: 1 for Amorite princeling Aziru of Amurru is )MRPL [transliterated by KJV as “Amraphel”].  )MR means “Amorite” [or “Amurru”].  )PL means “dark”, with the necessary connotation of being “evil”.  )MRPL is a shortened form of )MR-)PL, and means:  “dark, evil Amorite”.  Nasty!  And a well-deserved derogatory Patriarchal nickname for Aziru, I might add, who indeed was a “dark, evil Amorite”.

 

Here is how professor Donald Redford describes the notorious Aziru at p. 171 of “Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times” (1992):  “The tactics of…Aziru were irregular for the times and confused [his] contemporaries….  Amurru was an ‘Apiru community, but lately graduated from that type of stateless, lawless brigandage for which ‘Apiru bands throughout the Levant were notorious.  And it was the tactics of a brigand that Aziru used in all his diplomatic dealings with his equals.  If a town could be taken and pillaged or a territory ransacked, Aziru did so without a second thought.” 

 

That is to say, Ezir/Aziru was (1) a “usurper”/BN-M$Q, and (2) a “dark, evil Amorite”:  )MR + )PL = )MRPL.  The Biblical nomenclature, though derogatory, is well-deserved, and it is solidly based on the well-documented history of Years 12-14 in the Amarna Age/Patriarchal Age.

 

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois

 

P.S.  $N(R is more easily understood as $NXR, or possibly $NHR or $NgR, all of which reference “Syria” [not Babylonia].  Aziru, by usurping Damascus, had effectively proclaimed himself “king of Syria/$NXR/Shinar” in Year 12.  The proper names in the Patriarchal narratives, such as $N(R in the received alphabetical Hebrew text here, were originally written on tablets using Akkadian-style cuneiform in the mid-14^th century BCE to write down west Semitic/Canaanite/pre-Hebrew words.  Those original cuneiform tablets were later transformed into alphabetical Hebrew in the 1^st millennium BCE, usually with letter-for-letter accurate Late Bronze Age spellings.  The one and only main defect in using Akkadian-style cuneiform to write pre-Hebrew words is that Akkadian cuneiform heth/X had to be forced into service to represent four different Hebrew letters:  Hebrew heth/X, Hebrew ayin/(, Hebrew ghayin/g, and Hebrew he/H.  [Akkadian itself has no ayin, ghayin or he:  only heth.]  Here, the 1^st millennium BCE scribe in Jerusalem guessed the wrong letter that was intended by the Akkadian cuneiform heth/X in this proper name.  He guessed Hebrew ayin/(, when the likely intended letter was Hebrew heth/X.  Even Hebrew ghayin/g or Hebrew he/H would work fairly well, but not Hebrew ayin/(!  This is a scribal mis-recognition error, not scribal sloppiness.

 

The bottom line is that at Genesis 14: 1, the phrase “king of Shinar/$N(R” should be interpreted as meaning “king of Syria”.  That title for this notorious west Semitic-speaking Amorite princeling ruler of Amurru is used in the somewhat sarcastic sense that Aziru in Year 12 had temporarily taken over Damascus, Syria, and in Years 12-14 he seemed intent on trying to grab as much of Syria and Lebanon and Canaan as he could get away with.

 

The historical Aziru truly was a "dark, evil Amorite".  )MR [Amorite] + )PL [dark, evil] = )MRPL : "Amraphel" : "dark, evil Amorite".  If you're looking for  p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t  historical accuracy in a mid-14th century BCE Late Bronze Age historical context, that's the Patriarchal narratives, all the way in every way.