Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Nir Cohen: 

 

You wrote:  “where did you get the strange idea that solomon exported horses? certainly not from 1 kings 10. all it says is 1) solomon accrued horses; 2) the origin of
the horse IMPORT (not EXPORT, mind you!) was so-ans-so; 3) horses and chariots
were very expensive. the rest is deduction which is not in the text.”

 

I got that from I Kings 10: 29.  The prior verse, I Kings 10: 28, tells where King Solomon got horses.  Then I Kings 10:29 says that King Solomon YC( horses to Hurrian [XTY : H-XT-YM] rulers and other rulers in Syria.  YC( means “to exit, go forth, or go out”, and hence can mean “export”, but could not mean “import”.  Most translations use the word “exported” here, including New International Version, English Standard Version, and the Jewish Publication Society (1985).  As one typical translation, here is the English Standard Version translation of I Kings 10: 28-29:

 

“²⁸ And Solomon's import of horses was from Egypt and Kue, and the king's traders received them from Kue at a price. ²⁹ A chariot could be imported from Egypt for 600 shekels of silver and a horse for 150, and so through the king's traders they were exported to all the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Syria.”

 

You at least agree that I Kings 10 is talking about “overspending and luxury”.  So then why in the world mention small-time, oh-so-modest Que/Kue in southeast Anatolia?  If one is talking about “overspending and luxury” in almost mythical proportions here, then to me, in that context, it’s more likely that QW-H is referring to the semi-legendary place where domesticated horses may have originated:  Qijia in truly ancient China.  Que is way too prosaic for this passage.  Moreover, I don’t think Que was ever associated with horses anyway.  If you’re going to brag that King Solomon was so great that he was in position to export horses to “Hurrians”, that is, to the successors to the ancient Hurrians who had been world-famous in their bygone day (the Late Bronze Age) for being the finest horsemen in the world, with the finest horses for their state-of-the-art horse-drawn chariots, then you wouldn’t say that Solomon got those excellent horses from small-time, oh-so-modest Que, would you? 

 

I understand that Que was in historical existence in the 10^th century BCE, whereas the Qijia culture, which is sometimes credited with bringing the domesticated horse to the Eurasian steppe (Hurrian country), was many centuries in the past by then.  But a Biblical author who is using XTY : H-XT-YM as a colorful reference to the modern-day successors to the Hurrians, who were already 400 years in the past by the time of King Solomon, could also refer to the semi-legendary reputed home of domesticated horses, in far-off China, as allegedly being the place where Solomon got the world’s finest horses.  To me, that fits this passage’s theme of “overspending and luxury” better than does a prosaic reference to historical Que.

 

Last but not least, consider linguistics.  At the Late Bronze Age Hurrian province of Nuzi, the Hurrian personal name Qa-we-enni is attested;  -enni is a standard Hurrian suffix, and the root Qa-we is not a Hurrian common word or otherwise known in Hurrian.  Is Qa-we in Hurrian coming from the same place as QW-H in Hebrew [where -H may likely be a Hebrew ending]?  Qa-we in Hurrian, and the Biblical Hebrew letters QW/qof-vav, are a perfect linguistic match, but what are they referencing?  Are they possibly referencing the long-gone, semi-legendary place of origin of all domesticated horses, namely the Qijia culture in truly ancient China?  To me, that meaning would make perfect sense, in context, (i) for a Hurrian name, with the Hurrians being the premier horsemen of their day, and (ii) for I Kings 10: 28-29, where an integral part of the “overspending and luxury” for which King Solomon was duly famous/infamous was that Solomon allegedly got the world’s finest horses from the very place where horses had first been domesticated, and then Solomon exported those fine horses to the modern-day successors in Syria of the people who formerly had been the finest horsemen in the world:  the Hurrians. 

 

Who cares about small-time historical Que and the small-time historical Neo-Hittite kingdoms [which the academic community says are the intended references here]?  In my opinion, King Solomon is being portrayed here at I Kings 10: 28-29 as being much bigger and grander than that.  Forget Que.  Think big.  After all, it’s King Solomon we’re talking about here.

 

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois