Genesis 25: 30: אדם vs. אדום
In order to understand the profound significance of the clever pun on אדם vs. אדום at Genesis 25: 30 (which is set forth below), the first order of business is to figure out the pronunciation of אדום in that Biblical verse. Most analysts ignore the history of the ancient world in this regard and instead rely on (i) the pointing of the Masoretic Text that was done umpteen centuries after the fact in the Middle Ages, and/or (even worse) (ii) the KJV transliteration. But on this thread, let’s consider instead an historical analysis of the pronunciation of אדום at Genesis 25: 30.
The name of the mid-1st millennium BCE state south of the Dead Sea that KJV transliterates/mis-transliterates as “Edom” was referred to by the Assyrians as “Udūmu”. Oded Lipschitz, “Palestine in the Pre-Persian Period”, in “Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period” (2006), p. 20. In this regard, note that Assyrian cuneiform eliminates the ambiguity as to the vowel sounds that exist regarding the Hebrew alphabetical defective spelling אדום. Focusing for the moment on the first vowel sound, it is unclear, out of context and based on Hebrew orthography, whether אדום is or is not short for אודום. But based on the foregoing Assyrian inscription, it seems highly likely that in fact, אדום was indeed short for אודום, at least if a reference to the mid-1st millennium BCE state south of the Dead Sea was intended here (a key issued raised below). If so, then the initial vowel sound in this geographical place name is U.
If אדום at Genesis 25: 30 was pronounced “Udūmu”, then out of context, Genesis 25: 30 could be referring to one or both of the following two completely different places in two entirely different historical epochs:
(1) The mid-1st millennium BCE state south of the Dead Sea (which KJV misleadingly mis-transliterates as “Edom”); or
(2) The Late Bronze Age city of ú-du-mu, located east or southeast of the Sea Galilee in, or at the northern border of, northwest Gilead, which is referenced at Amarna Letter EA 256: 24.
On that basis, let’s take a look at the clever pun utilized at Genesis 25: 30:
“And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with the red [אדם] -- the red thing [אדם] there, for I am faint. Therefore was his name called אדום [: Udūmu].” Darby translation of Genesis 25: 30, substituting the Hebrew letters אדום for the conventional transliteration “Edom”. [I have used Darby because its first sentence here is more literal and more accurate than most translations.]
1. Which of the above two geographical place names is being referenced here?
2. Is Udūmu a west Semitic name, and does it mean “Red”? Yes, adm : אדם is the west Semitic common word that means “red” (in both Hebrew and Ugaritic), that’s for sure. But just as surely, there’s no west Semitic common word udūmu.
Here we go again with another 3,000-year-old Biblical mystery, which we will solve, in plain sight, right here on the b-hebrew list.
Hint: The Patriarchal narratives are far older, and far more historically accurate, than university scholars realize. If you can’t trust an Assyrian cuneiform inscription (as to the historical pronunciation of a geographical place name), what can you trust?
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Genesis 25: 30: אדם vs. אדום
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
-
S_Walch
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm
Re: Genesis 25: 30: אדם vs. אדום
Are you going to take into account the fact that the LXX transliterated it as Εδωμ (Edom)? Seeing as though there's no evidence to the contrary, the pronunciation of אדום as Edom goes back to at least the 3rd Century BCE, and probably earlier, in order for it to effect the Greek transliteration.
Also, do we have the Assyrian cuneiform to hand? Unfortunately, the book Judah and the Judeans in the Persion Period doesn't show it - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1zi ... &q&f=false
Also, do we have the Assyrian cuneiform to hand? Unfortunately, the book Judah and the Judeans in the Persion Period doesn't show it - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1zi ... &q&f=false
Ste Walch
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Genesis 25: 30: אדם vs. אדום
Ste Walch:
1. You wrote: “Are you going to take into account the fact that the LXX transliterated it as Εδωμ (Edom)? Seeing as though there's no evidence to the contrary, the pronunciation of אדום as Edom goes back to at least the 3rd Century BCE, and probably earlier, in order for it to effect the Greek transliteration.”
Well, let’s start with looking at when the state of Edom or Udūmu, south of the Dead Sea, was in existence. That state was in existence only from the 8th century BCE to the end of the 6th century BCE. Edward Lipiński, “On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and Topographical Researches” (2006), p. 393.
So the Septuagint dates to 300 long years after the state of Edom or Udūmu, south of the Dead Sea, had ceased to be in existence.
Meanwhile, the Assyrian cuneiform inscription that I referenced (discussed in #2 below) was done during the time that the state of Edom or Udūmu, south of the Dead Sea, was in existence. That Assyrian cuneiform inscription purports to set forth all vowels (unlike Hebrew defective spelling, and even Hebrew plene spelling does not record all vowels).
So to me, it seems that a cuneiform inscription that dates to the time when the state of Edom or Udūmu, south of the Dead Sea, was actually in existence is much, much better evidence for how such state’s name was pronounced from the 8th century BCE through the 6th century BCE.
Am I missing something here? I would agree with you that from the 3rd century BCE to the present, “Edom” is how that state’s name has been pronounced.
As you probably know, the majority view of university scholars is that Genesis 36: 9-30 was composed in the 7th or 6th century BCE (not my view!). University scholars (contra my view of the case) see אדום at Genesis 36: 16, 17, 21, where the phrase is “in [the] land of אדום”, as referencing the mid-1st millennium BCE state south of the Dead Sea:
“It is difficult to see the rationale for this collection of materials about Edom, save that Edom was viewed as Israel’s closest neighbor and was for a while under Israelite rule.” Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 16-50” (1994), p. 334.
Only Biblical Minimalists, not mainstream scholars, see the Patriarchal narratives as being composed as late as the 5th or 4th century BCE. Mainstream scholars see many, and perhaps all, of the references to אדום in the Patriarchal narratives as having been composed at approximately the time of the Assyrian cuneiform inscription that I referenced -- that is, when such state south of the Dead Sea was actually in existence. (I myself, unlike university scholars, see the vast bulk of the Patriarchal narratives -- including Genesis 25: 30 and Genesis 36: 16, 17, 21 -- as dating all the long way back to the Late Bronze Age [which is the time period of the city of ú-du-mu, located east or southeast of the Sea Galilee in, or at the northern border of, northwest Gilead, which is referenced at Amarna Letter EA 256: 24], which is when I see the Patriarchal narratives as having been recorded in cuneiform writing.)
Assuming that you’re not taking a Biblical Minimalist position here (and I don’t think that you are, though I really don’t know), then to me an Assyrian cuneiform inscription recorded during the time when the state south of the Dead Sea was actually in existence is far, far better evidence of the Biblical pronunciation of that state’s name than is the Greek rendering in the Septuagint 300 years after such state had gone extinct.
2. You wrote: “Also, do we have the Assyrian cuneiform to hand? Unfortunately, the book Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period doesn't show it - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1zi ... &q&f=false ”
I have not literally seen a cuneiform inscription, but there’s plenty of evidence as to this matter. Here’s another leading historian who says the same thing. In about 785 BCE or so, Assyrian King Adad-nīrārī III refers to Udūmu, saying that he conquered Tyre, Sidon, Israel, Udūmu, Philistia. Luis Robert Siddall, “The Reign of Adad-nīrārī III” (2013), p. 67.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rb0dA ... an&f=false
Although lacking diacritical markings, here’s another cite to consider: “Udumu (= Edom)…is mentioned…in Assyrian texts”. A.A. Macintosh, “Isaiah XXI”, Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K. (1980), p. 41.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Du48A ... m)&f=false
Finally, here’s an old 1915 source that says that same thing as do modern scholars: “n Assyr inscriptions the name Udumu occurs of a city and of a country.” “The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia”, Volume 2 (1915), p. 899.
https://books.google.com/books?id=wYIPA ... m)&f=false
3. Accordingly, to me it’s clear that when the state south of the Dead Sea was actually in existence, it was called Udūmu. The possible dating of the Biblical references to אדום ranges from the 14th century BCE (my view as to most such references, when not preceded by הוא as a later-added gloss) to the 6th century BCE (many mainstream scholars). I myself don’t see the relevance of how the Greek language, as per usual, mangled such name 300 years after such state went extinct.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
1. You wrote: “Are you going to take into account the fact that the LXX transliterated it as Εδωμ (Edom)? Seeing as though there's no evidence to the contrary, the pronunciation of אדום as Edom goes back to at least the 3rd Century BCE, and probably earlier, in order for it to effect the Greek transliteration.”
Well, let’s start with looking at when the state of Edom or Udūmu, south of the Dead Sea, was in existence. That state was in existence only from the 8th century BCE to the end of the 6th century BCE. Edward Lipiński, “On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and Topographical Researches” (2006), p. 393.
So the Septuagint dates to 300 long years after the state of Edom or Udūmu, south of the Dead Sea, had ceased to be in existence.
Meanwhile, the Assyrian cuneiform inscription that I referenced (discussed in #2 below) was done during the time that the state of Edom or Udūmu, south of the Dead Sea, was in existence. That Assyrian cuneiform inscription purports to set forth all vowels (unlike Hebrew defective spelling, and even Hebrew plene spelling does not record all vowels).
So to me, it seems that a cuneiform inscription that dates to the time when the state of Edom or Udūmu, south of the Dead Sea, was actually in existence is much, much better evidence for how such state’s name was pronounced from the 8th century BCE through the 6th century BCE.
Am I missing something here? I would agree with you that from the 3rd century BCE to the present, “Edom” is how that state’s name has been pronounced.
As you probably know, the majority view of university scholars is that Genesis 36: 9-30 was composed in the 7th or 6th century BCE (not my view!). University scholars (contra my view of the case) see אדום at Genesis 36: 16, 17, 21, where the phrase is “in [the] land of אדום”, as referencing the mid-1st millennium BCE state south of the Dead Sea:
“It is difficult to see the rationale for this collection of materials about Edom, save that Edom was viewed as Israel’s closest neighbor and was for a while under Israelite rule.” Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 16-50” (1994), p. 334.
Only Biblical Minimalists, not mainstream scholars, see the Patriarchal narratives as being composed as late as the 5th or 4th century BCE. Mainstream scholars see many, and perhaps all, of the references to אדום in the Patriarchal narratives as having been composed at approximately the time of the Assyrian cuneiform inscription that I referenced -- that is, when such state south of the Dead Sea was actually in existence. (I myself, unlike university scholars, see the vast bulk of the Patriarchal narratives -- including Genesis 25: 30 and Genesis 36: 16, 17, 21 -- as dating all the long way back to the Late Bronze Age [which is the time period of the city of ú-du-mu, located east or southeast of the Sea Galilee in, or at the northern border of, northwest Gilead, which is referenced at Amarna Letter EA 256: 24], which is when I see the Patriarchal narratives as having been recorded in cuneiform writing.)
Assuming that you’re not taking a Biblical Minimalist position here (and I don’t think that you are, though I really don’t know), then to me an Assyrian cuneiform inscription recorded during the time when the state south of the Dead Sea was actually in existence is far, far better evidence of the Biblical pronunciation of that state’s name than is the Greek rendering in the Septuagint 300 years after such state had gone extinct.
2. You wrote: “Also, do we have the Assyrian cuneiform to hand? Unfortunately, the book Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period doesn't show it - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1zi ... &q&f=false ”
I have not literally seen a cuneiform inscription, but there’s plenty of evidence as to this matter. Here’s another leading historian who says the same thing. In about 785 BCE or so, Assyrian King Adad-nīrārī III refers to Udūmu, saying that he conquered Tyre, Sidon, Israel, Udūmu, Philistia. Luis Robert Siddall, “The Reign of Adad-nīrārī III” (2013), p. 67.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rb0dA ... an&f=false
Although lacking diacritical markings, here’s another cite to consider: “Udumu (= Edom)…is mentioned…in Assyrian texts”. A.A. Macintosh, “Isaiah XXI”, Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K. (1980), p. 41.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Du48A ... m)&f=false
Finally, here’s an old 1915 source that says that same thing as do modern scholars: “n Assyr inscriptions the name Udumu occurs of a city and of a country.” “The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia”, Volume 2 (1915), p. 899.
https://books.google.com/books?id=wYIPA ... m)&f=false
3. Accordingly, to me it’s clear that when the state south of the Dead Sea was actually in existence, it was called Udūmu. The possible dating of the Biblical references to אדום ranges from the 14th century BCE (my view as to most such references, when not preceded by הוא as a later-added gloss) to the 6th century BCE (many mainstream scholars). I myself don’t see the relevance of how the Greek language, as per usual, mangled such name 300 years after such state went extinct.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
S_Walch
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm
Re: Genesis 25: 30: אדם vs. אדום
The problem with all of the above Jim, is the fact that there's no one around now that speaks ancient Assyrian. The transliteration done by scholars of cuneiform is, as it happens, pretty much guesswork. Highly advanced guesswork, but guesswork nonetheless.
This then doesn't take into account that the pronunciation of cuneiform is even further guesswork. How do we know that Udūmu wasn't pronounced "Edom"? Was the final "u" always pronounced? Looking at the guesswork transliteration of cuneiform in https://books.google.com/books?id=rb0dA ... an&f=false , I notice that Tyre, Sidon, and Philistia all end in -u - was this always pronounced, or is the guessed cuneiform for -u also used to mark the end of places, or used as a breaker between certain letters? Is the initial U at the start of cuneiform words pronounced the same as when it appears in other places in words? Maybe the initial U had an 'e' or "ee" sound.
What I also find interesting is the apparent cuneiform spelling of Sidon: Hebrew spells it צידון; Greek spells it Σιδών; and apparently Assyrian cuneiform spells it Ṣidūnu. One can therefore conclude that ו = ώ = ū ; and so the pronunciation of ū is quite probably an 'o' type sound, rather than a 'u'.
Also, the LXX also refers to the southern Dead-Sea state of Edom as Ιδουμαια as well as Εδωμ, fluctuating between the two (see 1 Kings 11:15; Genesis 36:16-17).
All in all, if you're going to try and argue that 'Edom' isn't actually 'Edom', you're going to have to prove the cuneiform transliteration and pronunciation Udūmu (which I've been pronouncing as "Uh-doo-mu") is correct first, before proving that אדום should actually be אודום
This then doesn't take into account that the pronunciation of cuneiform is even further guesswork. How do we know that Udūmu wasn't pronounced "Edom"? Was the final "u" always pronounced? Looking at the guesswork transliteration of cuneiform in https://books.google.com/books?id=rb0dA ... an&f=false , I notice that Tyre, Sidon, and Philistia all end in -u - was this always pronounced, or is the guessed cuneiform for -u also used to mark the end of places, or used as a breaker between certain letters? Is the initial U at the start of cuneiform words pronounced the same as when it appears in other places in words? Maybe the initial U had an 'e' or "ee" sound.
What I also find interesting is the apparent cuneiform spelling of Sidon: Hebrew spells it צידון; Greek spells it Σιδών; and apparently Assyrian cuneiform spells it Ṣidūnu. One can therefore conclude that ו = ώ = ū ; and so the pronunciation of ū is quite probably an 'o' type sound, rather than a 'u'.
Also, the LXX also refers to the southern Dead-Sea state of Edom as Ιδουμαια as well as Εδωμ, fluctuating between the two (see 1 Kings 11:15; Genesis 36:16-17).
All in all, if you're going to try and argue that 'Edom' isn't actually 'Edom', you're going to have to prove the cuneiform transliteration and pronunciation Udūmu (which I've been pronouncing as "Uh-doo-mu") is correct first, before proving that אדום should actually be אודום
Ste Walch
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Genesis 25: 30: אדם vs. אדום
Ste Walch:
Let me address your points in reverse order (because then you will see where I’m going with this analysis).
1. You wrote: “All in all, if you're going to try and argue that 'Edom' isn't actually 'Edom', you're going to have to prove the cuneiform transliteration and pronunciation Udūmu (which I've been pronouncing as "Uh-doo-mu") is correct first, before proving that אדום should actually be אודום.”
I see defective spelling as applying to all proper names in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives. Yes, the plene spelling of Udūmu would be אודום, but in the Patriarchal narratives we should expect defective spelling, which is exactly what we see: אדום.
If I can shift the focus here for a moment to the second U in this name, what’s exciting here is that long U in a non-west Semitic name is the only vowel that is rendered by a Hebrew letter, namely ו, in a consonant-vowel syllable in defective spelling. Consider first the following Akkadian name (of the son of a Hurrian prince : אלוףחרי : ulp.ḫry) at Genesis 36: 23: “Shepho” : שפו : Šu-pū [meaning “Greatness [of God]”]. This name has only two syllables, but the second vowel is long U, so it is rendered by the Hebrew letter ו in that second CV syllable. Now consider the word at Ugarit meaning “foreign prince” that is attested as ulp, and that scholars view as likely being: ’ullūpu. The format is the same as Udūmu: three U’s, the second of which is long U. So we predict that in Hebrew defective spelling that second U, being a long U, will be rendered by Hebrew ו, even though this is a CV syllable, and it is: אלוף, at Genesis 36: 21.
I see אדום at Genesis 25: 30 as being defective Hebrew spelling of a 3-syllable non-west Semitic name, Udūmu, where the ו is present in a CV syllable because it renders long U in that foreign name.
2. You wrote: “What I also find interesting is the apparent cuneiform spelling of Sidon: Hebrew spells it צידון; Greek spells it Σιδών; and apparently Assyrian cuneiform spells it Ṣidūnu. One can therefore conclude that ו = ώ = ū ; and so the pronunciation of ū is quite probably an 'o' type sound, rather than a 'u'.”
By the time the Greeks got to the Near East, many of the original Late Bronze Age pronunciations had shifted. In particular, U later was pronounced O in certain cases. But in the Late Bronze Age, which is my dating of the composition and cuneiform recording of the Patriarchal narratives, cuneiform U was pronounced U, not O. When you say “(which I've been pronouncing as ‘Uh-doo-mu’)”, I hope that means you are pronouncing the second syllable with a long U, not with an O.
3. You wrote: “This then doesn't take into account that the pronunciation of cuneiform is even further guesswork. How do we know that Udūmu wasn't pronounced "Edom"? Was the final "u" always pronounced? Looking at the guesswork transliteration of cuneiform in https://books.google.com/books?id=rb0dA ... an&f=false , I notice that Tyre, Sidon, and Philistia all end in -u - was this always pronounced, or is the guessed cuneiform for -u also used to mark the end of places, or used as a breaker between certain letters? Is the initial U at the start of cuneiform words pronounced the same as when it appears in other places in words? Maybe the initial U had an 'e' or "ee" sound.”
(a) I agree that the final U is suspicious in these names. It may likely be the Akkadian nominative ending, which was not present in the locals’ pronunciation of these place names. For example, in transliterating personal names in the Amarna Letters, Wm. Moran has Lab’ayu, whereas Richard Hess and Shlomo Izre’el have: la-ab-a-ya. The Canaanites likely did not pronounce this name with a final U, but that’s a standard ending in Akkadian grammar. So I agree that the final U is not important here, as it may reflect Akkadian cuneiform rather than reflecting local pronunciation.
(b) Why would cuneiform U in initial position be pronounced ‘e’ or ‘ee’? Has any scholar proposed that? Yes, there were different pronunciations of U, but I don’t know of an ‘e’ or ‘ee’ pronunciation.
In any event, when we see initial U in (i) Udm in the 15th century BCE Ugaritic heroic myth of Keret, and in (ii) ú-du-mu in the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Letter EA 256: 24, and in (iii) Udūmu in the 8th century BCE Assyrian cuneiform of Adad-nīrārī III, we should expect the following Hebrew renderings: (a) plene spelling would be אודום; (b) defective spelling (in the Patriarchal narratives) would be: אדום.
I personally don’t see the relevance of how the Greeks mangled these pronunciations centuries later. (I presume you know how the Greeks mangled all the Egyptian names. For example, the English name “Egypt” derives from a strange Greek rendering of ḥwt-k-ptḥ.)
I am focusing on the spellings, not on how the pronunciations may have shifted over time (and certainly not on how Greeks pronounced these non-Greek names).
4. The אדום that we see at Genesis 25: 30 matches to ú-du-mu, a city in northwest Gilead in the Late Bronze Age, and to Udm, a city in the northern Transjordan in the Late Bronze Age. As to that Amarna Letter reference, we know that Hurrian princelings were prominent there, per Tadua referenced in that same Amarna Letter. As to the Ugaritic myth of Keret, his lovely bride there has as her name Ḫry, which is ḫry : חרי : “Hurrian”. So אדום in the Patriarchal narratives fits perfectly with Esau’s in-laws being ḫry : חרי : “Hurrian” in the land of Udūmu : אדום in northwest Gilead in the Late Bronze Age, and with some of Esau’s in-laws being a “Hurrian princeling” : אלוףחרי : ulp.ḫry in Hurrian-dominated northwest Gilead. Per Amarna Letter EA 288: 26, Biblical “Seir” is attested as being a Late Bronze Age reference to Hurrian-dominated Gilead.
Meanwhile, n-o-t-h-i-n-g in the Patriarchal narratives fits with the scholarly view that Esau’s in-laws are allegedly “hole”-people (previously called “cave-dwelling troglodytes”) south of the Dead Sea, where there are few caves, no Horites, no Seir, and no possibility that Esau could have Jacob’s lifestyle there with a flock of sheep and goats as large as Jacob’s big flock (Genesis 36: 7). Nor would Jacob take his family s-o-u-t-h across the Jabbok River at night (Genesis 32: 22) to avoid a possible sneak attack by Esau if Esau’s in-laws were “hole”-people from south of the Dead Sea.
Genesis 25: 30 deftly foreshadows that Esau will end up living outside of Canaan in Hurrian-dominated Late Bronze Age northwest Gilead, in the land of Udūmu:
“And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with the red [אדם] -- the red thing [אדם] there, for I am faint. Therefore was his name called אדום [: Udūmu].”
That text is gorgeous, and also has pinpoint historical accuracy in a Late Bronze Age historical context, while saying absolutely nothing (contra the scholarly view) about either the mid-1st millennium BCE or any locale south of the Dead Sea.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Let me address your points in reverse order (because then you will see where I’m going with this analysis).
1. You wrote: “All in all, if you're going to try and argue that 'Edom' isn't actually 'Edom', you're going to have to prove the cuneiform transliteration and pronunciation Udūmu (which I've been pronouncing as "Uh-doo-mu") is correct first, before proving that אדום should actually be אודום.”
I see defective spelling as applying to all proper names in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives. Yes, the plene spelling of Udūmu would be אודום, but in the Patriarchal narratives we should expect defective spelling, which is exactly what we see: אדום.
If I can shift the focus here for a moment to the second U in this name, what’s exciting here is that long U in a non-west Semitic name is the only vowel that is rendered by a Hebrew letter, namely ו, in a consonant-vowel syllable in defective spelling. Consider first the following Akkadian name (of the son of a Hurrian prince : אלוףחרי : ulp.ḫry) at Genesis 36: 23: “Shepho” : שפו : Šu-pū [meaning “Greatness [of God]”]. This name has only two syllables, but the second vowel is long U, so it is rendered by the Hebrew letter ו in that second CV syllable. Now consider the word at Ugarit meaning “foreign prince” that is attested as ulp, and that scholars view as likely being: ’ullūpu. The format is the same as Udūmu: three U’s, the second of which is long U. So we predict that in Hebrew defective spelling that second U, being a long U, will be rendered by Hebrew ו, even though this is a CV syllable, and it is: אלוף, at Genesis 36: 21.
I see אדום at Genesis 25: 30 as being defective Hebrew spelling of a 3-syllable non-west Semitic name, Udūmu, where the ו is present in a CV syllable because it renders long U in that foreign name.
2. You wrote: “What I also find interesting is the apparent cuneiform spelling of Sidon: Hebrew spells it צידון; Greek spells it Σιδών; and apparently Assyrian cuneiform spells it Ṣidūnu. One can therefore conclude that ו = ώ = ū ; and so the pronunciation of ū is quite probably an 'o' type sound, rather than a 'u'.”
By the time the Greeks got to the Near East, many of the original Late Bronze Age pronunciations had shifted. In particular, U later was pronounced O in certain cases. But in the Late Bronze Age, which is my dating of the composition and cuneiform recording of the Patriarchal narratives, cuneiform U was pronounced U, not O. When you say “(which I've been pronouncing as ‘Uh-doo-mu’)”, I hope that means you are pronouncing the second syllable with a long U, not with an O.
3. You wrote: “This then doesn't take into account that the pronunciation of cuneiform is even further guesswork. How do we know that Udūmu wasn't pronounced "Edom"? Was the final "u" always pronounced? Looking at the guesswork transliteration of cuneiform in https://books.google.com/books?id=rb0dA ... an&f=false , I notice that Tyre, Sidon, and Philistia all end in -u - was this always pronounced, or is the guessed cuneiform for -u also used to mark the end of places, or used as a breaker between certain letters? Is the initial U at the start of cuneiform words pronounced the same as when it appears in other places in words? Maybe the initial U had an 'e' or "ee" sound.”
(a) I agree that the final U is suspicious in these names. It may likely be the Akkadian nominative ending, which was not present in the locals’ pronunciation of these place names. For example, in transliterating personal names in the Amarna Letters, Wm. Moran has Lab’ayu, whereas Richard Hess and Shlomo Izre’el have: la-ab-a-ya. The Canaanites likely did not pronounce this name with a final U, but that’s a standard ending in Akkadian grammar. So I agree that the final U is not important here, as it may reflect Akkadian cuneiform rather than reflecting local pronunciation.
(b) Why would cuneiform U in initial position be pronounced ‘e’ or ‘ee’? Has any scholar proposed that? Yes, there were different pronunciations of U, but I don’t know of an ‘e’ or ‘ee’ pronunciation.
In any event, when we see initial U in (i) Udm in the 15th century BCE Ugaritic heroic myth of Keret, and in (ii) ú-du-mu in the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Letter EA 256: 24, and in (iii) Udūmu in the 8th century BCE Assyrian cuneiform of Adad-nīrārī III, we should expect the following Hebrew renderings: (a) plene spelling would be אודום; (b) defective spelling (in the Patriarchal narratives) would be: אדום.
I personally don’t see the relevance of how the Greeks mangled these pronunciations centuries later. (I presume you know how the Greeks mangled all the Egyptian names. For example, the English name “Egypt” derives from a strange Greek rendering of ḥwt-k-ptḥ.)
I am focusing on the spellings, not on how the pronunciations may have shifted over time (and certainly not on how Greeks pronounced these non-Greek names).
4. The אדום that we see at Genesis 25: 30 matches to ú-du-mu, a city in northwest Gilead in the Late Bronze Age, and to Udm, a city in the northern Transjordan in the Late Bronze Age. As to that Amarna Letter reference, we know that Hurrian princelings were prominent there, per Tadua referenced in that same Amarna Letter. As to the Ugaritic myth of Keret, his lovely bride there has as her name Ḫry, which is ḫry : חרי : “Hurrian”. So אדום in the Patriarchal narratives fits perfectly with Esau’s in-laws being ḫry : חרי : “Hurrian” in the land of Udūmu : אדום in northwest Gilead in the Late Bronze Age, and with some of Esau’s in-laws being a “Hurrian princeling” : אלוףחרי : ulp.ḫry in Hurrian-dominated northwest Gilead. Per Amarna Letter EA 288: 26, Biblical “Seir” is attested as being a Late Bronze Age reference to Hurrian-dominated Gilead.
Meanwhile, n-o-t-h-i-n-g in the Patriarchal narratives fits with the scholarly view that Esau’s in-laws are allegedly “hole”-people (previously called “cave-dwelling troglodytes”) south of the Dead Sea, where there are few caves, no Horites, no Seir, and no possibility that Esau could have Jacob’s lifestyle there with a flock of sheep and goats as large as Jacob’s big flock (Genesis 36: 7). Nor would Jacob take his family s-o-u-t-h across the Jabbok River at night (Genesis 32: 22) to avoid a possible sneak attack by Esau if Esau’s in-laws were “hole”-people from south of the Dead Sea.
Genesis 25: 30 deftly foreshadows that Esau will end up living outside of Canaan in Hurrian-dominated Late Bronze Age northwest Gilead, in the land of Udūmu:
“And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with the red [אדם] -- the red thing [אדם] there, for I am faint. Therefore was his name called אדום [: Udūmu].”
That text is gorgeous, and also has pinpoint historical accuracy in a Late Bronze Age historical context, while saying absolutely nothing (contra the scholarly view) about either the mid-1st millennium BCE or any locale south of the Dead Sea.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Genesis 25: 30: אדם vs. אדום
Ste Walch:
Let me now give a more systematic response to the following question that you raised in your first post on this thread, when you wrote: “Also, do we have the Assyrian cuneiform to hand?”
Let me start with the Amarna Letters first. The Akkadian cuneiform used in the Amarna Letters does not distinguish between a long vowel and a short vowel. The diacritical marks that are added by the modern editor distinguish which cuneiform sign was used, but do not say whether or not a vowel was long. Thus consider in that light the key place name at Amarna Letter EA 256: 24. ú-du-mu. We do not know if any, some, or all of the U’s are long. Rather, what we know is this: (i) there are 3 cuneiform signs (which usually, though not always, means 3 syllables); (ii) the first sign is the u-2 cuneiform sign (as shown by the diacritical marking); that more complicated cuneiform sign may have been chosen here to clarify that it’s alphabetic U, not a conjunction; and (iii) the other two cuneiform signs are CV signs ending in U, where nothing is said as to whether the U is or is not long. Please note that there is no indication which U’s in ú-du-mu, if any, are long. “In the cuneiform texts themselves, vowel length was only rarely distinguished.” Guy Deutscher, “Syntactic Change in Akkadian: The Evolution of Sentential Complementation”, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. (2000), p. 21. Even though vowel length can dramatically change the meaning of a word, nevertheless cuneiform writing did not distinguish long vowels from short vowels.
Based on extrinsic evidence, scholars can routinely determine whether a vowel written in Neo-Assyrian cuneiform was long or short, even though cuneiform itself, out of context, does not make that important distinction. We know that Neo-Assyrian has Udūmu for both the name of a city, and the name of a country. Scholars have determined that the second U is long U, while the other two U’s are short. As a country name, this is probably “Edom” [likely pronounced Udūmu : "Uh-doo-muh"/"Uh-due-muh") south of the Dead Sea. But as a city name, it’s probably the udm of the Ugaritic myth of Keret and the ú-du-mu of Amarna Letter EA 256: 24: that is, it’s probably a city on the northern edge of northwest Gilead.
Here’s what the leading Ugaritic dictionary says about the udm of the myth of Keret: “udm…cf….toponyms…NA [Neo-Assyrian] Udūmu”. G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartín, “A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition”, translated by Wilfred G.E. Watson, Brill, Boston (2003), p. 18.
If אדום is a Sanskrit-based Hurrian name (my view), then (i) Old Assyrian toponyms won’t help, because they pre-date the Hurrians, whereas (ii) the Neo-Assyrian toponym Udūmu is the best evidence we have for the pronunciation. Yes, Neo-Assyrian post-dates the Hurrians by several centuries, but toponyms routinely live on for many centuries even if, as here, everyone forgets their original historical underlying meaning.
As I said in my first post on this thread, in my considered opinion the best evidence we have as to the contemporary pronunciation of אדום at Genesis 25: 30 is the Neo-Assyrian cuneiform rendering Udūmu. If this is a Sanskrit-based Hurrian name from the Late Bronze Age, where long U was rendered by Hebrew ו even in a CV syllable in Hebrew defective spelling, then the expected defective Hebrew spelling of Udūmu as a city name in Amarna Age northwest Gilead in the Patriarchal narratives is exactly what we see at Genesis 25: 30: אדום. [Because the first U is short, we should not expect או, even in plene spelling; rather, prosthetic aleph/א is the expected Hebrew spelling for the first syllable.]
The Assyrian cuneiform spelling probably has the following two characteristics: (i) the scribe knew that it was an inscrutable Hurrian name of sorts, but (ii) the closest word at hand with a similar sound was the Akkadian common word udūmu, albeit with the incongruous meaning of “a kind of ape”. So the Sanskrit-based Hurrian name Ud-du -mu was rendered in cuneiform, both for the Patriarchal narratives and the much-later Neo-Assyrian cuneiform renderings, as if it were spelled like the Akkadian common word udūmu. In the 7th century BCE alphabetical Hebrew rendering, that naturally came out as: אדום.
Let me add here the entry in the Lete Ugaritic dictionary for ulp: “ulp…only in…‘chef’, cf. Heb. ’lwp [אלוף] and in syll. Ug. the element /’ullūpu/ in PNN [personal names]”. Lete, p. 63.
I see Ugaritic ulp : ’ullūpu as being an Akkadian word (not a regular Ugaritic/west Semitic common word). As such, the long U, even in a CV syllable, is rendered in Hebrew defective spelling by ו, hence: אלוף.
The Patriarchal narratives are much older, and much more historically accurate in a Bronze Age context, than scholars realize.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Let me now give a more systematic response to the following question that you raised in your first post on this thread, when you wrote: “Also, do we have the Assyrian cuneiform to hand?”
Let me start with the Amarna Letters first. The Akkadian cuneiform used in the Amarna Letters does not distinguish between a long vowel and a short vowel. The diacritical marks that are added by the modern editor distinguish which cuneiform sign was used, but do not say whether or not a vowel was long. Thus consider in that light the key place name at Amarna Letter EA 256: 24. ú-du-mu. We do not know if any, some, or all of the U’s are long. Rather, what we know is this: (i) there are 3 cuneiform signs (which usually, though not always, means 3 syllables); (ii) the first sign is the u-2 cuneiform sign (as shown by the diacritical marking); that more complicated cuneiform sign may have been chosen here to clarify that it’s alphabetic U, not a conjunction; and (iii) the other two cuneiform signs are CV signs ending in U, where nothing is said as to whether the U is or is not long. Please note that there is no indication which U’s in ú-du-mu, if any, are long. “In the cuneiform texts themselves, vowel length was only rarely distinguished.” Guy Deutscher, “Syntactic Change in Akkadian: The Evolution of Sentential Complementation”, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. (2000), p. 21. Even though vowel length can dramatically change the meaning of a word, nevertheless cuneiform writing did not distinguish long vowels from short vowels.
Based on extrinsic evidence, scholars can routinely determine whether a vowel written in Neo-Assyrian cuneiform was long or short, even though cuneiform itself, out of context, does not make that important distinction. We know that Neo-Assyrian has Udūmu for both the name of a city, and the name of a country. Scholars have determined that the second U is long U, while the other two U’s are short. As a country name, this is probably “Edom” [likely pronounced Udūmu : "Uh-doo-muh"/"Uh-due-muh") south of the Dead Sea. But as a city name, it’s probably the udm of the Ugaritic myth of Keret and the ú-du-mu of Amarna Letter EA 256: 24: that is, it’s probably a city on the northern edge of northwest Gilead.
Here’s what the leading Ugaritic dictionary says about the udm of the myth of Keret: “udm…cf….toponyms…NA [Neo-Assyrian] Udūmu”. G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartín, “A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition”, translated by Wilfred G.E. Watson, Brill, Boston (2003), p. 18.
If אדום is a Sanskrit-based Hurrian name (my view), then (i) Old Assyrian toponyms won’t help, because they pre-date the Hurrians, whereas (ii) the Neo-Assyrian toponym Udūmu is the best evidence we have for the pronunciation. Yes, Neo-Assyrian post-dates the Hurrians by several centuries, but toponyms routinely live on for many centuries even if, as here, everyone forgets their original historical underlying meaning.
As I said in my first post on this thread, in my considered opinion the best evidence we have as to the contemporary pronunciation of אדום at Genesis 25: 30 is the Neo-Assyrian cuneiform rendering Udūmu. If this is a Sanskrit-based Hurrian name from the Late Bronze Age, where long U was rendered by Hebrew ו even in a CV syllable in Hebrew defective spelling, then the expected defective Hebrew spelling of Udūmu as a city name in Amarna Age northwest Gilead in the Patriarchal narratives is exactly what we see at Genesis 25: 30: אדום. [Because the first U is short, we should not expect או, even in plene spelling; rather, prosthetic aleph/א is the expected Hebrew spelling for the first syllable.]
The Assyrian cuneiform spelling probably has the following two characteristics: (i) the scribe knew that it was an inscrutable Hurrian name of sorts, but (ii) the closest word at hand with a similar sound was the Akkadian common word udūmu, albeit with the incongruous meaning of “a kind of ape”. So the Sanskrit-based Hurrian name Ud-du -mu was rendered in cuneiform, both for the Patriarchal narratives and the much-later Neo-Assyrian cuneiform renderings, as if it were spelled like the Akkadian common word udūmu. In the 7th century BCE alphabetical Hebrew rendering, that naturally came out as: אדום.
Let me add here the entry in the Lete Ugaritic dictionary for ulp: “ulp…only in…‘chef’, cf. Heb. ’lwp [אלוף] and in syll. Ug. the element /’ullūpu/ in PNN [personal names]”. Lete, p. 63.
I see Ugaritic ulp : ’ullūpu as being an Akkadian word (not a regular Ugaritic/west Semitic common word). As such, the long U, even in a CV syllable, is rendered in Hebrew defective spelling by ו, hence: אלוף.
The Patriarchal narratives are much older, and much more historically accurate in a Bronze Age context, than scholars realize.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: Genesis 25: 30: אדם vs. אדום
The root אדם is a member of the family of roots אדם, אטם, אסם, אשם, עצם all meaning 'extended, massive'.
The dark color אדוֹם comes from something that is naturally such pigmented.
The וֹ of אֱדוֹם EDOM, is the personal pronoun הוּא, 'he', for the object referred to, possibly a mountain range.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
The dark color אדוֹם comes from something that is naturally such pigmented.
The וֹ of אֱדוֹם EDOM, is the personal pronoun הוּא, 'he', for the object referred to, possibly a mountain range.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Genesis 25: 30: אדם vs. אדום
Isaac Fried wrote: “The dark color אדוֹם comes from something that is naturally such pigmented. The וֹ of אֱדוֹם EDOM, is the personal pronoun הוּא, 'he', for the object referred to, possibly a mountain range.”
I respectfully disagree.
1. Better than the KJV transliteration of אדום as “Edom” is: Udūmu. An earlier post of mine cited several top scholars as referencing that Neo-Assyrian cuneiform inscription as being the name of both (a) the mid-1st millennium BCE state south of the Dead Sea, and (b) a city. That city may be the same city as the Udūmu in Late Bronze Age northwest Galilee that is referenced at Amarna Letter EA 256: 24 and in the Ugaritic myth of Keret.
2. The ו of אדום renders the long U in Udūmu. As set forth in #3 below, I see Udūmu as being a non-west Semitic name. The one and only exception to the rule that in defective Hebrew spelling no Hebrew letter is used for the vowel in a CV syllable is this. The Hebrew letter ו renders long U in a CV syllable in a non-west Semitic name in Hebrew defective spelling. Here are two examples of that from chapter 36 of Genesis.
(i) “Shepho” at Genesis 36: 23 is an Akkadian name of a Hurrian who is the son of a Hurrian princeling: אלוףחרי : ulp.ḫry. “Shepho” is שפו : Šu-pu-u. It means “Greatness [of God]” in Akkadian. Cf. Šu-pu-ia as an attested (Akkadian) name of a Hurrian at Nuzi. The underlying Akkadian word here can be transcribed as either šu-pu-u or šu-pū; in either case, in Akkadian it is a 2-syllable word ending in long U. In Akkadian-based (or Sanskrit-based) names that appear in the Patriarchal narratives -- such as šu-pu-u : šu-pū [שפו] -- long U is rendered by the Hebrew letter ו, even for a CV syllable in defective Hebrew spelling.
(ii) A second example of this phenomenon is ’ullūpu [אלוף] at Genesis 36: 21 [where we find the plural form of the phrase אלוףחרי : ulp.ḫry, which is attested at Late Bronze Age Ugarit as meaning “Hurrian prince”, even though university scholars emphatically deny that such Biblical phrase has that historical Late Bronze Age meaning at Genesis 36: 21, and claim that it allegedly refers instead to a chief of fictional mid-1st millennium BCE “hole”-people south of the Dead Sea]. Although attested at Ugarit, it is not a west Semitic common word, but rather is a foreign word, likely being Akkadian. The etymology of the Ugaritic word ’ulp / ’ullūpu is unclear, but perhaps there is a dual etymology, as follows. On the one hand, ’ulp / ’ullūpu may derive from *’allūpu, and hence from the Akkadian word alpu for “ox”, which signifies “strength”. On the other hand, in Assyrian, ullû (albeit with no final -p) means “high, elevated”, and is compared to illû and elû; that could signify a “high, elevated (leader)”, and it can be a divine reference. Nuzi has the following Hurrian name: Al-pu-ia. Though the ultra-literal meaning may be “God/Teshup [is an] Ox”, the actual meaning is probably: “God/Teshup [is] Strong” (or “God/Teshup [is] Strong (as an Ox)”). Nuzi also has many Hurrian names that begin with ullu, including: Ul-lu-ia. This name probably means: “God/Teshup [is] High, Elevated” or “God/Teshup [is a] High, Elevated Leader”. (Each of these two names at Nuzi may be either a Hurrian name or an Akkadian-based Hurrian name.) If these two concepts are combined, a person who is both “strong” and “high” would be a “leader, chieftain, prince”. As a foreign word used only in limited contexts at Ugarit -- presumably deriving from Akkadian, but possibly via Hurrian -- the implied meaning would then be exactly what we know ’ulp / ’ullūpu at Ugarit means: “[foreign] leader, [foreign] chieftain, [foreign] prince”.
For both of those two non-west Semitic names/terms, long U in a CV syllable is rendered by the Hebrew letter ו in Hebrew defective spelling.
We see that there is a linguistic equivalence between (a) אדום as the expected Hebrew spelling of the name of the mid-1st millennium BCE country south of the Dead Sea whose name KJV transliterates as “Edom”, and (b) אדום as the expected Hebrew spelling of the name of a Late Bronze Age city in the northern Transjordan that is conventionally transliterated variously as Udm or ’udm or Udumu or ú-du-mu. Although the Neo-Assyrian cuneiform transcription Udūmu post-dates the Late Bronze Age by many centuries, it is nevertheless the best evidence we have for the pronunciation of this Late Bronze Age city name. The linguistic equivalence of Udūmu and “Edom” is routinely acknowledged. Accordingly, there is no linguistic problem in asserting that אדום in the Patriarchal narratives may be referencing the city name that appears as ú-du-mu at Amarna Letter EA 256: 24.
3. I see the city-name Udm/Udūmu as being a Hurrian name: Ud-du -mu. This is a Sanskrit-based Hurrian name, where ud-tu or uttu means “to prosper” in Sanskrit. That is used as the root of the following Hurrian personal name at Nuzi: Ud-du -li. In their classic 1943 study of thousands of Hurrian names at Nuzi, Gelb and Purves at p. 273 say that the root (Ud-du) of this Hurrian name may be Indo-Aryan. (-li is merely a routine Hurrian formative in Hurrian personal names, having no specific meaning.) The Hurrian suffix -mu often appears in Hurrian personal names, and can be short for muš, per Gelb and Purves at p. 235; Fournet at p. 95 reports that muš means “a just [deity]”. Ud-du -mu as a Hurrian city-name would literally mean “Just Deity Prospers”, and would imply: “[This city] Prospers [due to a] Just Deity[, Teshup]”.
Thus Udūmu is a Hurrian city-name that does not mean “Red”, but that nevertheless works well, at Genesis 25: 30, as a west Semitic pun on the west Semitic common word ’dm that means “red”: אדם vs. אדום.
In fact, this s-a-m-e pun was made in the Late Bronze Age (long before a state of “Edom” south of the Dead Sea existed) both in the Ugaritic myth of Keret and at Genesis 25: 30. Neat!
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
I respectfully disagree.
1. Better than the KJV transliteration of אדום as “Edom” is: Udūmu. An earlier post of mine cited several top scholars as referencing that Neo-Assyrian cuneiform inscription as being the name of both (a) the mid-1st millennium BCE state south of the Dead Sea, and (b) a city. That city may be the same city as the Udūmu in Late Bronze Age northwest Galilee that is referenced at Amarna Letter EA 256: 24 and in the Ugaritic myth of Keret.
2. The ו of אדום renders the long U in Udūmu. As set forth in #3 below, I see Udūmu as being a non-west Semitic name. The one and only exception to the rule that in defective Hebrew spelling no Hebrew letter is used for the vowel in a CV syllable is this. The Hebrew letter ו renders long U in a CV syllable in a non-west Semitic name in Hebrew defective spelling. Here are two examples of that from chapter 36 of Genesis.
(i) “Shepho” at Genesis 36: 23 is an Akkadian name of a Hurrian who is the son of a Hurrian princeling: אלוףחרי : ulp.ḫry. “Shepho” is שפו : Šu-pu-u. It means “Greatness [of God]” in Akkadian. Cf. Šu-pu-ia as an attested (Akkadian) name of a Hurrian at Nuzi. The underlying Akkadian word here can be transcribed as either šu-pu-u or šu-pū; in either case, in Akkadian it is a 2-syllable word ending in long U. In Akkadian-based (or Sanskrit-based) names that appear in the Patriarchal narratives -- such as šu-pu-u : šu-pū [שפו] -- long U is rendered by the Hebrew letter ו, even for a CV syllable in defective Hebrew spelling.
(ii) A second example of this phenomenon is ’ullūpu [אלוף] at Genesis 36: 21 [where we find the plural form of the phrase אלוףחרי : ulp.ḫry, which is attested at Late Bronze Age Ugarit as meaning “Hurrian prince”, even though university scholars emphatically deny that such Biblical phrase has that historical Late Bronze Age meaning at Genesis 36: 21, and claim that it allegedly refers instead to a chief of fictional mid-1st millennium BCE “hole”-people south of the Dead Sea]. Although attested at Ugarit, it is not a west Semitic common word, but rather is a foreign word, likely being Akkadian. The etymology of the Ugaritic word ’ulp / ’ullūpu is unclear, but perhaps there is a dual etymology, as follows. On the one hand, ’ulp / ’ullūpu may derive from *’allūpu, and hence from the Akkadian word alpu for “ox”, which signifies “strength”. On the other hand, in Assyrian, ullû (albeit with no final -p) means “high, elevated”, and is compared to illû and elû; that could signify a “high, elevated (leader)”, and it can be a divine reference. Nuzi has the following Hurrian name: Al-pu-ia. Though the ultra-literal meaning may be “God/Teshup [is an] Ox”, the actual meaning is probably: “God/Teshup [is] Strong” (or “God/Teshup [is] Strong (as an Ox)”). Nuzi also has many Hurrian names that begin with ullu, including: Ul-lu-ia. This name probably means: “God/Teshup [is] High, Elevated” or “God/Teshup [is a] High, Elevated Leader”. (Each of these two names at Nuzi may be either a Hurrian name or an Akkadian-based Hurrian name.) If these two concepts are combined, a person who is both “strong” and “high” would be a “leader, chieftain, prince”. As a foreign word used only in limited contexts at Ugarit -- presumably deriving from Akkadian, but possibly via Hurrian -- the implied meaning would then be exactly what we know ’ulp / ’ullūpu at Ugarit means: “[foreign] leader, [foreign] chieftain, [foreign] prince”.
For both of those two non-west Semitic names/terms, long U in a CV syllable is rendered by the Hebrew letter ו in Hebrew defective spelling.
We see that there is a linguistic equivalence between (a) אדום as the expected Hebrew spelling of the name of the mid-1st millennium BCE country south of the Dead Sea whose name KJV transliterates as “Edom”, and (b) אדום as the expected Hebrew spelling of the name of a Late Bronze Age city in the northern Transjordan that is conventionally transliterated variously as Udm or ’udm or Udumu or ú-du-mu. Although the Neo-Assyrian cuneiform transcription Udūmu post-dates the Late Bronze Age by many centuries, it is nevertheless the best evidence we have for the pronunciation of this Late Bronze Age city name. The linguistic equivalence of Udūmu and “Edom” is routinely acknowledged. Accordingly, there is no linguistic problem in asserting that אדום in the Patriarchal narratives may be referencing the city name that appears as ú-du-mu at Amarna Letter EA 256: 24.
3. I see the city-name Udm/Udūmu as being a Hurrian name: Ud-du -mu. This is a Sanskrit-based Hurrian name, where ud-tu or uttu means “to prosper” in Sanskrit. That is used as the root of the following Hurrian personal name at Nuzi: Ud-du -li. In their classic 1943 study of thousands of Hurrian names at Nuzi, Gelb and Purves at p. 273 say that the root (Ud-du) of this Hurrian name may be Indo-Aryan. (-li is merely a routine Hurrian formative in Hurrian personal names, having no specific meaning.) The Hurrian suffix -mu often appears in Hurrian personal names, and can be short for muš, per Gelb and Purves at p. 235; Fournet at p. 95 reports that muš means “a just [deity]”. Ud-du -mu as a Hurrian city-name would literally mean “Just Deity Prospers”, and would imply: “[This city] Prospers [due to a] Just Deity[, Teshup]”.
Thus Udūmu is a Hurrian city-name that does not mean “Red”, but that nevertheless works well, at Genesis 25: 30, as a west Semitic pun on the west Semitic common word ’dm that means “red”: אדם vs. אדום.
In fact, this s-a-m-e pun was made in the Late Bronze Age (long before a state of “Edom” south of the Dead Sea existed) both in the Ugaritic myth of Keret and at Genesis 25: 30. Neat!
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: Genesis 25: 30: אדם vs. אדום
I know not of "Hurrian", "Akkadian", "Assyrian", "Neo-Assyrian", "Old Assyrian", "Ugaritic", still, I can imagine a branch of Hebrew producing a noun out of a root by the addition of the personal pronoun הוּא U, 'he', say מלך MLK, 'rule', מלכּוּ=מלך-הוּא MLK-U, 'king', literally, 'rule-he'.
Hebrew does something similar: מַלְכָּה=מלך-היא, 'queen', literally, 'rule-she'.
Otherwise in Hebrew: מַלְכּוֹ=מלך-הוּא, 'his king, מַלְכָּהּ=מלך-היא, 'her king', מָלְכָה=מלך-היא, 'she ruled', מָלְכוּ=מלך-הוּא, 'they ruled'.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
Hebrew does something similar: מַלְכָּה=מלך-היא, 'queen', literally, 'rule-she'.
Otherwise in Hebrew: מַלְכּוֹ=מלך-הוּא, 'his king, מַלְכָּהּ=מלך-היא, 'her king', מָלְכָה=מלך-היא, 'she ruled', מָלְכוּ=מלך-הוּא, 'they ruled'.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: Genesis 25: 30: אדם vs. אדום
I think it needs be stressed that the geographical name אדוֹם EDOM may have nothing to do with אדוֹם, ADOM, 'red', the same way that לְבֵנָה LBENAH, 'brick', has nothing to do with לבן LABAN, white', and that יְרִיקָה, YRIYQAH, 'spitting', has nothing to do with ירוֹק YAROQ, 'green'.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
Isaac Fried, Boston University