Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Nir Cohen:

 

I’m not so sure that you and I are interpreting Ezekiel 16: 3 very differently.  It seems rather that my phrasing was misleading.

 

1.  You wrote:  “all the three nations: emorite, canaanite, hurrian, are simply mentioned there for having been the lords of canaan at the time of the patriarchs.”

 

Yes, that was the situation in Canaan right before the rise of the Hebrews.  That key historical fact is very nicely encapsulated at Genesis 14: 13 as follows [where I will add my own comments in brackets]:

 

“Abram the Hebrew…dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite [that’s the “Amorites”], brother [that is, a fellow princeling, though having no actual blood connection] of Eshcol [that’s a Canaanite name, representing the “Canaanites”], and brother of Aner [that’s a Hurrian name, representing the “Hurrians”]….”

 

So I agree completely with you that on the eve of the Hebrews beginning their great rise to prominence in Canaan, “emorite, canaanite, hurrian, are simply mentioned there for having been the lords of canaan at the time of the patriarchs.” 

 

[Let me reiterate for the benefit of others reading this post that there’s nothing in any of these passages about the classic Hittites from eastern Anatolia.  The Hebrew letters XTY have nothing whatsoever to do with the classic Hittites from Anatolia, who were never in Canaan.  Rather:  XTY = xu-ti-ya = a classic Hurrian personal name meaning “Praise Teshup” = an apt Patriarchal nickname for the Hurrians.]

 

So far, so good.

 

2.  You wrote:  “there is no indication in the text to your allegation that the hebrews were
associated, in this text, with the canaanites and emorites, more than with the hurrians. this is only your personal interpretation.”

 

My phrasing must have been misleading.  In fact, I’m the one who argues that the Patriarchal narratives portray each Patriarch as marrying a woman/Matriarch whose mother was an ethnic Hurrian.  So I’m the one who emphasizes the maternal Hurrian connection regarding the early Hebrews, while not emphasizing so greatly any connection to Canaanites or Amorites.  In fact, the greatest villain to the early Hebrews was an Amorite:  Yapaxu.

 

Moreover, one of the most prominent but totally overlooked themes throughout the entire Hebrew Bible is how the Hebrews gradually displaced the Hurrian nobles in Canaan who, at the time of the birth of Judaism and the Hebrews, had dominated the ruling class of Canaan.

 

The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives in fact had a quite low opinion of the Canaanites, because for over a century they had been “yesterday’s people”.  Both the hill country north of Jerusalem, and the northeast Ayalon Valley, being the two main places where the early Hebrews sojourned, had lost about 90% of their Middle Bronze Age population by the time of the Late Bronze Age Patriarchal Age.  That was mainly a startling loss of Canaanite population.  In a real sense, that opened the door to other peoples.  When one looks at the names of the princelings in Canaan in the Amarna Letters, it’s really quite shocking how relatively few non-Hurrian non-Amorite names there are.  The Canaanites had ruled the roost in Canaan during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages [when Canaan was as strong as Egypt, and there was a much better, wetter climate in Canaan].  But now, in the mid-14^th century BCE in the unduly dry Late Bronze Age, the new normal was that Canaanites had become has-beens in Canaan.  The Hurrians were more cultured, better fighters, more dominant, and more admired in the eyes of the early tent-dwelling Hebrews than were the declining Canaanites.  Amorites were much more dynamic than the Canaanites, but were few in number.  And although the Amorite princeling Milk-i-Ilu had been great through Year 13, his firstborn son Yapaxu was the [short-lived] nemesis of the first Hebrews.

 

3.  You wrote:  “moreover, mention of these nations (including the semitic ones) has in ezek. 16 a strong negative sense, as nations that corrupted the nation, as clear from his 16:44-48.”

 

Yes.  The Hebrews are viewed as being YHWH’s Chosen People, and they should not follow in the ways of other peoples.  But of course Ezekiel is saying that in relation to his own day, whereas the situation in the Patriarchal Age was quite different.

 

I don’t really disagree with what you say;  it’s just that I was trying to make a different point.  Historically, the Hebrews first arose in a Canaan which had the following characteristics [as accurately reflected throughout the Patriarchal narratives, and as fairly accurately briefly summarized in one sentence at Ezekiel 16: 3]:  (i) the Canaanites, who had been dominant in Canaan for well over a millennium, were seemingly fading away;  (ii) Amorites were more dynamic, but were few in number;  and (iii) Canaan had for a generation now been dominated, oddly enough, by dashing Hurrian charioteers, yet even before the Patriarchs’ very eyes, it seemed that the days of the Hurrians too might soon be numbered as well [since the Hurrian homeland of MDYN/Mitanni in eastern Syria was being utterly crushed by the Hittites under mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma (Biblical “Tidal”)].   Canaan was hollowing out.  But what was bad for Canaan as a whole was in fact a perfect storm that benefited the fledgling Hebrews greatly.  No wonder the first Hebrews thought that YHWH was on their side!  For the time being the stars had aligned exactly perfectly, against all odds.

 

4.  You wrote:  “by this i do not reject a miscigenous picture of canaan in the early patriarchal time: quite on the contrary.”

 

I agree.

 

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois