Prof. Yigal Levin and Dr. Fournet: 1. Prof. Levin wrote: “I'd also suggest that the name [BR$(] is a play on the word "Rasha'", "evil", befitting the king of evil Gomorra.” The traditional view is that BR$( is a west Semitic name, meaning “In Wickedness”, or per Gesenius, “Son of Iniquity”, or per HALOT, “Arabic...ugly”. Likewise, the traditional view of the immediately preceding name, BR(, is that it is a west Semitic name meaning “In Evil”, or per Gesenius “Son of Evil”, or per HALOT, “Arabic…to triumph”. But there was no Arabic in the Patriarchal Age, and BR( is not associated with “triumph”. As to these names allegedly being highly pejorative [the traditional view], what if one of Prof. Levin’s students were to ask this question: Why would the great Patriarch Abraham, after leading a heroic military mission way up north to Syria to rescue Lot and Lot’s family from the four evil attacking rulers, be portrayed as turning over Lot and Lot’s family to a ruler whose name in west Semitic, being Abraham’s native language, means “In Evil”? That does not seem sensible at all. It is not until much later, in chapters 18 and 19 of Genesis, that Sodom and Gomorrah go over to the dark side, and note how their leaders in chapter 14 of Genesis, BR( and BR$(, are notably absent in chapters 18 and 19. Besides, historically we know that in Year 14, a league of 5 Hurrian princelings was smashed by four attacking rulers in a valley of fields (the Orontes River Valley in western Syria) that is near a salt sea (the Mediterranean Sea) and that has pits, pits of bitumen (that was sold to Ugarit for its great sailing ships). So shouldn’t we at least a-s-k if BR( is a dead ringer for the best-known Hurrian common word of all time, that effectively means “(Hurrian) princeling”? 2. Dr. Fournet, let’s consider now the expected early Biblical Hebrew defective spelling of eb-ri, literally meaning “lord” or “king”, but effectively meaning “(Hurrian) princeling”, being one of the very few Hurrian common words that most early Hebrews would be expected to have known. In my view there are 10 Hurrian names in the Patriarchal narratives that have an ayin. In all 10 cases, that ayin is a generic vowel indicator for the Hurrian vowels A or E or I. Thus KN(N [meaning “Canaan”] makes perfect sense if the ayin is the Hurrian vowel A, as the name then is kina + -N, with kina being the root of the Hurrian word for “purple”. [We also know that both Phoenician and Punic used ayin to represent such vowels in names.] On that basis, how would eb-ri be spelled in Genesis? The first vowel would not be represented, because the Hebrews would have viewed it as being merely prosthetic. But BR won’t do, because that’s the Hebrew word for “corn” at Genesis 41: 35, 49. So the expected early Biblical Hebrew defective spelling of the best-known Hurrian common word of all time is exactly what we see in the received text of Genesis 14: 2: BR(. The final ayin there represents the Hurrian vowel I, and shows that this is a two-syllable Hurrian word, not bar/BR in Hebrew. Note how perfectly the meaning fits with both the Biblical text and secular history. The name is a Hurrian name effectively meaning “Hurrian princeling ”. It is neutral, which fits the situation in chapter 14 of Genesis. And the defeated league of 5 rebellious princelings in Year 14 historically was made up of “Hurrian princelings”. 3. You again ask why Hurrian names in the Biblical text do not have the form of verb + name of famous pagan deity, or to use your language: “The
regular formation [of Hurrian names] is Verb+Noun.” Please take a look at the 8 personal names of rulers at Genesis 14: 1-2. What’s missing? Not a single well-known deity’s name is there, even though most rulers’ names in the ancient world explicitly honored a pagan deity. The early Hebrew author knew that the actual name of one of the 5 rebellious Hurrian princelings was Aki-Te$up, and he knew that one of the best-known Hurrian names was XuT-Te$up. But it was against his religion to openly honor the name of a well-known pagan deity, something that never happens in the Patriarchal narratives. So the Hurrians are not called the XuT-Te$up people, but rather the generic theophoric -iYa is substituted: XuT-iYa, which in defective spelling is XTY, the most commonly-used name for the Hurrians in Genesis. Instead of Aki-Te$up, we get generic common words for the personal names of the rebellious Hurrian princelings: (i) BR( literally means “lord”, and effectively means “ Hurrian princeling”; (ii) BR$( literally means “lordship”, and effectively means “Hurrian princeling”; (iii) $M-)BR literally means “hand of the lord”, and effectively means “Hurrian princeling”, and (iv) where $eni means “ brother”, $N)B literally means “my brother”, that is, “my fellow (Hurrian) princeling”, and so it too effectively means “Hurrian princeling”. [Note the nice use of aleph there at the end of $eni, rather than ayin, because as you know, when the -b suffix is added, the I unexpectedly changes to A in Hurrian. So whereas $eni + the comitative suffix is $N(-R at Genesis 14: 1 (meaning “land of the Hurrian brothers”, that is, Syria), $ena-b at Genesis 14: 2 is $N)B. Nice!] Note that all four names of the rebellious princelings are simple plays on the two best-known Hurrian common words of all time, eb-ri and $e-ni. All the early Hebrews could pick up on those two very basic Hurrian common words, and know that the historical league of 5 rebellious Hurrian princelings in Year 14 in the Orontes River Valley was being referenced. For religious reasons, the Hebrew author refused to write down Aki-Te$up. Rather, one sees four Hurrian common words, all four of which effectively mean “Hurrian princeling”. That’s the utter brilliance of the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives. 4. By the way, did either of you two guys check out that ultra-spectacular 13-letter match of kdr l (mr mlk (lm as a Ugaritic curse? You see, it was the king of Ugarit who initiated the Great Syrian War in western Syria. So we should expect a highly pejorative nickname for Niqmaddu II at Genesis 14: 1, 9, as well as a highly pejorative nickname for Suppiluliuma I that in context effectively calls the mighty Hittite king “Murderer”. By contrast, it makes no sense at all for members of the defeated league of 5 rebellious Hurrian princelings, whose side Abraham is on in chapter 14 of Genesis in opposing the evil 4 attacking rulers, to be thought to have highly pejorative names. No way! The pinpoint historical accuracy of Genesis 14: 1-11 in the historical context of Year 14 [of Akhenaten’s troubled 17-year reign] is truly stunning. Jim Stinehart Evanston, Illinois _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
