The word “Hebrew” is primarily used in only two situations in early books
of the Bible: (i) by non-Israelites in identifying Israelites, and (ii) by
Israelites in distinguishing themselves from foreigners when speaking to
foreigners:
(1) von Rad. “The word ‘Hebrew’ occurs five times in the Joseph story:
three times on the lips of foreigners (chs. 39.14, 17; 41.12), once on Joseph
’s lips with respect to foreigners (ch. 40.15), and once in the mouth of
the narrator who contrasts the Hebrews with the Egyptians (ch. 43.32). It is
a peculiarity of the use of this word in the Old Testament that it occurs in
the narrative literature where foreigners speak of Israelites or where
Israelites speak of themselves in contrast to foreigners.” Gerhard von Rad, “
Genesis” (1972), p. 367.
(2) Speiser. “[Other than the phrase ‘Abram the Hebrew’ at Genesis 14:
13], the designation ‘Hebrew’ is not applied elsewhere in the Bible to
Israelites, except by outsiders (e.g. xxxix 14), or for self-identification to
foreigners xl 15; Jon i 9).” E.A. Speiser, “The Anchor Bible Genesis”
(1962), p. 103.
(3) Wenham. “‘the Hebrew.’ It is quite striking that Abram should be
termed ‘the Hebrew’ here [at Genesis 14: 13]. This is not a term used by
Israelites of themselves, but only by non-Israelites of Israelites (39:14; 41:
12). Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis 1-15” (1987), p. 313.
[That is not true, however, as at Genesis 40: 15, as noted above by von Rad
and Speiser, Joseph in speaking to Pharaoh’s loyal Cupbearer refers to
Canaan as being “the land of the Hebrews”.]
(4) Waltke. “‘Hebrew’…The Bible ascribes the term only to Abraham and
his descendants to show that they are the legitimate descendants of Shem
through Eber.” Bruce K. Waltke, “Genesis” (2001), p. 231.
But the Table of Nations was likely composed centuries after the truly
ancient Patriarchal narratives. And why would Israelites use an
incomprehensible reference to a distant ancestor of theirs [Eber] in describing
themselves
to foreigners? If the name “Hebrew” is “late”, why would Israelites want
to be in bed with the other descendants of Shem, especially Assyria/Asshur,
which beginning in the 9th century BCE was vehemently hated by the Hebrews?
“Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of
Japheth the elder, even to him were [children] born. The children of Shem;
Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.” Genesis 10: 21-22. But if
the name “Hebrew” is ancient, as seems more likely, note that Eber is a
descendant of Arphaxad [Genesis 10: 24], which scholars agree is definitely a
non-Semitic name. The odd transliteration Arphaxad is actually )RPK$D in
Hebrew, which looks like )RP-K$-D, where )RP/Arip is likely one form of the
Hurrian word for “lord”, and K$-D may be ku-$u-da, where -da is an
alternative ending for the commonplace Hurrian suffix -ux, and with ku-$u
coming from
the same Sanskrit word as does the Kassite name Ku-$u or Ka-$a meaning “good”
. As such, Biblical Arip-ku$u-da is but a slight variant of the attested
Hurrian name Arip-ku$u-ux, with both such names meaning “Lord [is] Good”.
Note that in order to get to Eber, which scholars desperately hope might be
Semitic, one has to go through Arip-ku$u-da, which is definitely
non-Semitic and probably Hurrian, and also $LX, which is likely the attested
Hurrian
name $i-la-xi, meaning “Being Pleasant”. Moreover, “Eber” itself is (BR,
and where Hebrew ayin is used to represent the Hurrian vowel E as its own
separate syllable, note that e-bi-ir is one form of the Hurrian word for “lord”
, per Emmanuel Laroche, “Glossaire de la Langue Hourrite” (1980), p. 85.
Thus “Eber” is a dead ringer for the Hurrian word e-bi-ir functioning as
the Hurrian name E-bi-ir. By contrast, if on the traditional view (BR is
viewed as being a Semitic name meaning “the region beyond”, then how could a
person living east of the upper Euphrates River have a name meaning “the
region beyond” that meant his own homeland -- the area east of the upper
Euphrates River?! Rather, a more likely scenario is that (BR is a Hurrian name
from
east of the upper Euphrates River meaning “lord”, and the Hebrews later
gave a west Semitic re-interpretation of this non-Semitic name to mean “the
region beyond”, where to a Hebrew in Canaan “the region beyond” would refer
to the area east of the upper Euphrates River. This whole line of three
names consists of Hurrian names: Arip-ku$u-da, $i-la-xi, E-bi-ir.
In my opinion, none of the scholarly views of the origin of the name (BR-Y/“
Hebrew” rings true. Why wouldn’t Biblical authors choose a positive name
for their own people? Why call themselves after the disreputable habiru?
Why refer to themselves in a neutral fashion based on the questionable name
of a distant relative [Eber] whose Semitic bona fides are dubious at best,
and who rather seems to be the third straight Hurrian name in this Table of
Nations genealogy? Why claim that they are “wanderers” from “beyond the
Euphrates River”, when that’s not how the Patriarchal narratives present the
first Hebrews, it’s historically false, and in any event it’s not a positive
name?
Doesn’t it make more sense for the first Hebrews in Year 15 to have chosen
to call themselves the “God Is Lord” people? The very fact that (BR-Y is a
non-Semitic-based name, E-bi-ir-ya, that hearkens back to the Bronze Age
days when the ruling class of Canaan was dominated by a non-Semitic people,
was viewed as a good thing, not a bad thing, because it showed how old the
Hebrews were, dating all the long way back to the mid-14th century BCE.
To me, my proposed explanation of “Hebrew”/(BR-Y as being non-Semitic
E-bi-ir-ya, meaning “God Is Lord”, makes more sense than any of the scholarly
theories that have been floated regarding the mysterious name “Hebrew”.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
