From: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>
To: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>, <uzisilber AT gmail.com>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Asher again
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:16:24 +0200
----- Original Message -----
From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
To: fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr ; uzisilber AT gmail.com
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Asher again
Jim wrote
I had written to Uzi: “[J]ust look at all the vintage Hurrian names in the
Patriarchal narratives: $N(R, )RYWK, BR(, BR%(, $M)BR, $N)B, XCCN TMR,
(PRWN, )YLWN, and B)RY. Those are vintage Late Bronze Age Hurrian names
that would have been incomprehensible to all later Biblical authors.”
To that you responded: “I cannot see what makes these names vintage
Hurrian.
What are the vowels exactly in those names?”
Jim wrote
You are of course right to focus on the difficult issue of how Hurrian
vowels would be represented (to the extent they are represented at all) in
old Biblical Hebrew. Consider the following initial thoughts. Ayin/( is
used to represent Hurrian i; aleph/) is used to represent Hurrian e or a;
yod/Y is only used as a second vowel indicator in a Hurrian word where it
follows an earlier aleph, in which case the yod can represent any Hurrian
vowel, including i; vav/W and he/H are not used as vowel indicators in
representing Hurrian words; the vast majority of Hurrian vowels are not
represented at all in the defective spelling of old Biblical Hebrew, but
rather the foregoing vowel indicators are used (sparingly) only as needed to
indicate the syllable division of these Hurrian words. Using that fairly
simple scenario, all of the above Biblical names make perfect sense as
Hurrian words (though in a majority of cases not being attested Hurrian
names, but rather being Hurrian common words, which are used in the
Patriarchal narratives as names for Hurrian persons). $N(R is
$eni-ra, )RYWK is Arawa-ka, BR( is [after implying an initial (prosthetic)
aleph, which concept also applies to the next two words as well, with all
three words appearing in a single verse, Genesis 14: 2, and referring to
closely related people] eb-ri, BR%( is eb-ri-ssi, $M)BR is $umi-ebri, $N)B
is $ena-b [where the usual i ending changes in Hurrian to a here, in the
meaning “your brother”], XCC-N TMR is xaTSiTSi-na TM-R [meaning “the wisdom,
nine”, which is super-exciting, because Hurrian XCC is a rare word with an
Akkadian cognate, X%%, so that XCC-N TMR could be the long form of the
Hurrian name “Wisdom”, XCC, whose Akkadian equivalent would be X%%, whose
short form version in turn could well be Ha-si (with a heth) at Amarna
Letter EA 175, so that Biblical XCC-N TMR is Hasi in the Beqa Valley], (PRWN
is i-pi-ri-wa-n [meaning “the (Hurrian) lord of mine”, where I now see the
vav/W as being a consonant and meaning “my” or “of mine”, rather than being
a vowel indicator], )YLWN is i-i-al-la-a-wu-ne, and B)RY is e-bi-er-i.
***
In my opinion, if $N(R contain a Ayin, then it cannot be Hurrian. In
addition if you read Nuzi Person Names, you'll see that Seni "brother" is
about never the first morpheme of a Hurrian name.
)RYWK = Arawa-ka is also extremely strange.
BR = ebri is also strange. One would expect YBR. BR% is also fairly
desperate as a Hurrian word. A voiced initial is normally impossible in
Hurrian.
$M)BR = $umi-ebri sounds also nearly impossible.
$N)B = $ena-b: this does not seem possible. This is not a Person name.
Hurrian wisdom is an akkadian loanword: Hasisi and the consonants in that
loanword are voiced in Hurrian as shown by Ugaritic H_z_z. IN HZZ god of
wisdom (an akkadianism with Hurrian phonetics).
PRWN = i-pi-ri-wa-n cannot be "lord of mine". Lord is spellt with -b- or
sometimes -w-. In my opinion this word is a loanword of Akkadian abaru
"strong" with a number of Hurrianized vowels hence ebri.
A.
***
Please note that the vast majority of those Biblical names are not attested
Hurrian names.
***
Yes, this is indeed a very troublesome feature !
A.
***
Rather, they are simple Hurrian common words which the early Hebrew author
of the Patriarchal narratives is using as Hurrian names [for Hurrian
individuals, who are confusingly referred to in the Biblical text as “sons
of the Hittites” or as just “Hittite”, meaning the historical Hurrians].
Many of those Biblical names [like BR(] are super-simple Hurrian common
words, being simpler than actual attested Hurrian names [such as )RYWK,
which is complex in being the east Hurrian/Nuzi version of ebri which
reverses the two consonants, and uses W for B, to which is added a
diminutive ending; but if Richard Hess’s analysis is right as to the name
of the Hurrian princeling who ran Egypt’s garrison at Kumidu in the Beqa
Valley, with such name arguably being Arawa-na at Amarna Letter EA 198: 4,
then that is where the early Hebrew author would have picked up this slight
variant of a complex Nuzi name]. We must remember that the early Hebrew
author of the Patriarchal narratives only knew a few Hurrian words, mainly
ebri/“lord” and $eni/“brother” [though he was quite confident in doing many
manipulations of these two basic Hurrian words]. Most of the above Biblical
names are simple plays on those two Hurrian common words, being about the
only two Hurrian words that a contemporary Hebrew audience in the mid-14th
century BCE might be expected to know.
***
What should we expect only these two words?
A.
***
The presence of that plethora of Hurrian names/words in the Patriarchal
narratives is one key indication that the Patriarchal narratives were
composed in the mid-14th century BCE, with the 14th century BCE being the
only time in history when Hurrian princelings were widespread throughout
Canaan. Although Hurrian personal names continue to be present in northern
Mesopotamia after 1100 BCE, as you properly point out, the language of
Hurrian, and the Hurrian people as a distinct people, were basically extinct
long before that. Most of the above Biblical names are based on the Hurrian
common words ebri or $eni, whose meanings would have been unknown to the
Hebrews soon after the end of the 14th century BCE.
***
I cannot see what substantiates this claim? "soon after the end of the 14th
century" ? Why?