Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Karl wrote:  “Jim doesn’t take Genesis to be an accurate historical record.”

 

Let’s evaluate that claim by comparing my view of Genesis 26: 34-35 and 27: 46 with the scholarly view.  Unlike university scholars, I myself interpret Genesis 26: 34-35 and 27: 46 on the basis of the first seven XTY names in the Patriarchal narratives being Hurrian names:

 

 “And Esau was forty shanah old [age 20 in 12-month years] when he took to wife A-xu-ú-di-ia-T/YHWDY-T [“Judith”] the daughter of Bi-ir-ia/B-)R-Y [“Beeri”] the XTY/Xu-ti-ya/Hurrian [“Hittite”], and Ba-$i-ma-T/B$M-T [“Bashemath”] the daughter of I-la-nu/)Y-L-N the XTY/Xu-ti-ya/Hurrian [“Hittite”].  Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.  …And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life because of the Hurrian [XT] girls [who are Esau’s wives]:  if [younger twin son] Jacob were to take a Hurrian girl as wife, such as these who are daughters of the land [that is, lifelong residents of Canaan], what good shall my life be to me?”  Genesis 26: 34-35;  27: 46

 

1.  Esau was the realistic age of 20 years [in 12-month years] when his father Isaac arranges for Isaac’s favorite, firstborn son Esau to marry two Hurrian women who have lived their entire lives in Canaan, and who are desirable brides because they are of the ruling class of Canaan.  [Per Mark E. Cohen, “The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East” (1993), which is the leading scholarly work on this subject, the archaic meaning of shanah is “the turn of the year”, which effectively designates a 6-month period.  In my view [being a matter not mentioned by Cohen one way or the other], all stated ages in shanah in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives use this archaic meaning of shanah, and need simply to be un-doubled to convert them into 12-month year ages.]  The only time when Hurrians lived in Canaan on a regular basis was in the mid-14^th century BCE, when Hurrian charioteers dominated the ruling class of Canaan [per the Amarna Letters].  Accordingly, that is the only time period when it would make sense for Isaac to arrange for his favorite, firstborn son Esau to marry women named A-xu-ú-di-ia-T/YHWDY-T and Ba-$i-ma-T/B$M-T, whose fathers are named Bi-ir-ia/B-)R-Y and I-la-nu/)Y-L-N, all of whom are XTY/Xu-ti-ya/Hurrians.

 

 

2.  But while initially appearing to be very desirable brides for Isaac’s favorite, firstborn son Esau, why would women named YHWDY-T and B$M-T soon turn out to be “a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah”, to the point that Esau’s mother Rebekah specifically asks “what good shall my life be to me”?  The answer lies in the underlying meanings of these Hurrian women’s names.  The final -T in both names is the Hurrian feminine ending.  Y-HWD-Y is effectively ia – xuti – ia, where ia is the Hurrian theophoric, which for these XTY/Hurrian women implies “Teshup”, and xuti is the Hurrian word “to praise”.  The name of Esau’s first Hurrian wife thus means “Teshup, Praise Teshup”, which by implication is telling us why both domineering Rebekah and mild-mannered Isaac are so grieved by these Hurrian daughters-in-law.  Instead of cleaving to their husband Esau and adopting Esau’s culture and religion, this woman named “Teshup, Praise Teshup” is attempting to foist her Hurrian culture and religion upon Esau and their sons.  B$M-T means “Sent by Teshup”, with the same implications. 

 

*       *       *

 

Now let’s compare my Hurrian-based view of the above key Biblical passages to the “scholarly” view that is taught to the freshmen at university every fall.

 

1.  Isaac waited until his firstborn son, his favorite son Esau, was age 40 years before arranging for his marriages.  [That does not make good sense.]

 

2.  Esau’s marriages are characterized by scholars in one of the following two ways:

 

(i)  Esau married two Hittite women from eastern Anatolia.  [But they’re expressly stated to be “daughters of the land [of Canaan]”, and no Hittites ever lived in Canaan, so that makes no sense.]  Esau’s first Hittite wife inexplicably has a west Semitic name that means “Jewess”.  [No Hittite woman would have a west Semitic name, and no woman on planet Earth would have a name in the Patriarchal Age that means “Jewess”, since the state of Judah was centuries in the future.]  Nothing could make less sense than that;  e-x-c-e-p-t :

 

(ii) Or, Esau married two Canaanite women, with the XTY being an unattested Canaanite tribe.  But why on earth would Isaac do for his favorite, firstborn son Esau exactly what Abraham had said was forbidden for his son Isaac?  “[T]hou shalt not take a wife unto my son [Isaac] of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell”.  Genesis 24: 3

 

Ouch!  Note that the scholarly view of the above passages makes no sense linguistically, historically or textually.  By sharp contrast, everything makes perfect sense, on all levels, if and only if one realizes that all 7 of the first 7 references to the XTY in the Patriarchal narratives are utilizing attested Hurrian personal names from the Late Bronze Age Hurrian province of Nuzi.  The XTY are neither Hittites nor Canaanites;  rather, they’re the “Praise Teshup people”/Xuti-ia/XTY, i.e. the Hurrians, who dominated the ruling class of Canaan only in the mid-14^th century BCE, which is the historical Patriarchal Age.  The  p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t  historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives in that one particular, well-attested historical context is breathtaking.

 

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois