Cuneiform: Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Written Text

[Jim Stinehart]

After discussing the matter in detail, Isaac Fried has basically agreed with me that the name of Tamar’s “firstborn” twin son at Genesis 38: 30, though spelled ZRX in the received text, should be viewed as being SRX, meaning “What Remained”. Though Isaac Fried has not considered the cuneiform angle, I myself attribute the foregoing confusion between zayin/Z and samekh/S to the fact that in the cuneiform writing used in Late Bronze Age Canaan [which is when, in my opinion, the Patriarchal narratives first became a written text, in cuneiform], Akkadian cuneiform Z rendered both Hebrew zayin/Z a-n-d Hebrew samekh/S. If my theory of the case is right, there should be many proper names in the Patriarchal narratives like this: they don’t make good sense as they appear in the received alphabetical text, but they instantly make perfect sense once one realizes that some transcription mistakes were inevitably made when, 700 years after the fact, the cuneiform original of the Patriarchal narratives was transformed into alphabetical Hebrew writing in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem.

In this post let’s examine another such name [that I have mentioned previously]. It is well-known that Akkadian cuneiform heth was used to render a whole host of Hebrew gutturals, including both Hebrew ayin/‘ a-n-d Hebrew heth/X. Does that cuneiform insight explain the otherwise mysterious $N‘R at Genesis 14: 1?

Although many competing theories have been floated, no solid consensus has ever developed as to explaining the geographical name $N‘R [“Shinar”] at Genesis 14: 1, whose third letter in the received text is ayin/‘. But if this name was originally recorded in cuneiform, then it would be little surprise if that third letter, written as Akkadian heth/X in cuneiform, was mistakenly viewed as meaning Hebrew ayin/‘, when it fact it was originally intended to mean Hebrew heth/X here, with a transcription error being made centuries later in going from cuneiform to alphabetical Hebrew writing, pursuant to the well-known, amply documented “confusion of gutturals” in cuneiform writing.

On that cuneiform analysis, $N‘R in the received text was actually intended to be $NXR. Now there is an exact, letter-for-letter match for this previously mysterious proper name: $a-an-xa-ar at Amarna Letter EA 35: 49. [Note that in recording non-west Semitic proper names, the general pattern in the Patriarchal narratives is one Hebrew letter per one foreign syllable. Plene spelling is n-e-v-e-r used!]

If the Patriarchal narratives were first recorded in cuneiform during the Late Bronze Age, then that was in [or at least near] the time of the short-lived Hurrian dominance of the ruling class of Canaan, which is largely limited to the first half of the 14th century BCE. Accordingly, it’s no real surprise that the intended $NXR at Genesis 14: 1, which matches to $a-an-xa-ar at Amarna Letter EA 35: 49, is a Hurrian name. At p. 297 of her Hurrian dictionary, N. Nozadze reports both of the following Hurrian proper names as country names: (i) $a-an-xa-ra; and (ii) from the Mitanni Letter [Amarna Letter EA 24: IV 95], KUR $a-an-xar-ra-$a-ni-in. These are very likely references to Hurrian-dominated Syria [not to Babylonia, as often supposed], as Nozadze at p. 298 reports $a-an-xa-ri as being very frequently attested as a Hurrian man’s name. Indeed, at the Late Bronze Age Hurrian province of Nuzi, at least 10 different men had this Hurrian personal name [or some slight variant thereof]. Gelb, Purves, “Nuzi Personal Names” (1943), p. 124.

Granted, “Amraphel”, who is associated with “Shinar” at Genesis 14: 1, is a west Semitic name. “Amraphel” in fact is an apt Patriarchal nickname for historical Amorite princeling Aziru of Amurru, who was one of the four attacking rulers in the Biblical “four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 9, which historically is the Second Syrian War in Year 14. But why would west Semitic-speaking Amorite princeling Aziru, who was not a Hurrian, be pejoratively and facetiously referred to as “king of Hurrian-dominated Syria”? Well, for starters, at the end of Amarna Letter EA 116 [which probably dates to Year 12], that very same Aziru is pejoratively and facetiously referred to historically as “king of Mittani”. Knowing that pejorative and facetious nicknames are attested as being used in or about Year 13, and in particular that west Semitic-speaking Aziru is on one occasion historically referred to by the pejorative and facetious nickname “king of Mitanni”, we must not rule out the possibility that the west Semitic name “Amraphel” may be referring to Aziru as the Amorite ruler of Amurru in northern Lebanon, with the title “king of Shinar/king of Hurrian-dominated Syria” being a pejorative and facetious Patriarchal nickname, vintage Year 13.

The name “Amraphel” : )MRPL should be analyzed as being a slightly abbreviated form of )MR plus )PL [aleph-mem-resh + aleph-peh-lamed]. )MR here is both (i) the country name “Amurru”, which is spelled a-mu-ri in the Amarna Letters; and (ii) the ethnic designation “Amorite”. The last part of this name, PL, is an abbreviated form of )PL [per Gesenius], where )PL = darkness, gloom, misery, misfortune, for example at Psalm 91: 6. Thus the full name, )MR -- )PL, abbreviated as )MRPL, is a pejorative Patriarchal nickname that means: “an Amorite [princeling] [who brought nothing but] gloom and darkness to Amurru”. Historically, that’s Aziru!

As I mentioned in a previous thread, at Genesis 15:2 a variant of the name “Aziru” [“Eliezer”] is negatively associated with Damascus. In the Amarna Age, Damascus [like most of the rest of Syria] was Hurrian country. [At p. 381 of “Amarna Letters”, Wm. Moran states that princeling Biryawaza, whose name indicates he was a Hurrian, was “mayor of Damascus”. The Damascus region is referred to by its Hurrian name, “Ú-bi”, which literally means “barley” in Hurrian, at Amarna Letter EA 189, line 12 on the reverse side. Not surprisingly, the Biblical Hebrew version of that Year 13 Hurrian name for the Damascus region then shows up at Genesis 14: 15 (though with a classic confusion of gutturals [per cuneiform] as to its first letter).] Aziru should properly have stayed home and minded his own business in Amurru, being west Semitic-speaking northern Lebanon. But No, that nefarious Amorite princeling Aziru instead insisted on allying with the notorious Hurrian princeling Aitakkama of Qadesh-on-the-Orontes in Syria. In particular, just as El – Aziru [Eliezer] is Biblically and negatively associated with Damascus at Genesis 15: 2, likewise the historical Amorite princeling Aziru is reported to pharaoh Akhenaten as being ominously present in Damascus [which at the time was Hurrian country]: “Aziru…is in Damascus along with his brothers.” Amarna Letter EA 107: 28. It was as if west Semitic-speaking Aziru were acting like a Hurrian king of Hurrian-dominated Syria/$a-an-xa-ar!

That’s why the west Semitic Patriarchal nickname “Amraphel” is deftly paired with the Hurrian name for “[Hurrian-dominated] Syria” [“Shinar”] at Genesis 14: 1. It all makes complete historical sense in the context of Year 13 [with “Year 13” being explicitly referenced at Genesis 14: 4], on the eve of the Year 14 Second Syrian War, even if it makes little or no sense at all in any other time period.

We begin to see that the key is to be willing to a-s-k if these otherwise mysterious proper names in the Patriarchal narratives were originally recorded in cuneiform, in the Late Bronze Age, and reflect the well-documented world of Year 13. $N‘R in the received alphabetical text was originally $NXR in cuneiform, matching exactly to $a-an-xa-ar at Amarna Letter EA 35: 49. Pejorative, fanciful nicknames were all the rage in attested cuneiform writings that date to Year 12 or Year 13. The Patriarchal narratives are much older as a written text, and much more accurate historically, than university scholars realize.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

Perhaps the best single example of cuneiform having been used to record a proper name in the Patriarchal narratives is the otherwise inexplicable XWBH : חובה in the received alphabetical text at Genesis 14: 15. As I have noted previously, from the context we know that XWBH must be referencing the Damascus region. Furthermore, Genesis 14: 4 references “Year 13”, so it seems logical to ask what the Damascus region is attested as being called in Year 13 [instead of being satisfied with the scholarly view that XWBH is utterly inexplicable]. Looking to the Amarna Letters, we find Hurrian princeling Aitakkama in or about Year 13 complaining about rival Hurrian princeling Biryawaza in Amarna Letter EA 189, and at line 12 on the reverse side he mentions “Ú-bi” -- the Damascus area. Hebrew uses the definite article he/H- when referring to either a region (such as “the Mizpeh”) or a geographical place name which, as here, could be a common word (the Hurrian word for “barley”). The only way to record the Hebrew word “the”, which is he/H, in cuneiform is by writing down the Akkadian cuneiform sign heth [plus a generic vowel]. Akkadian heth could render almost any Hebrew guttural, in particular Hebrew he/H or Hebrew heth/X. Cuneiform was notoriously incapable of distinguishing between the various Hebrew gutturals.

Now we can quickly figure out what happened here. In cuneiform, the intent was to record “the Ubi”, which in cuneiform would be something like XI U-BI. But the XI was misinterpreted centuries later, when the cuneiform original was being transformed into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew, as having been intended to render a Hebrew heth/X, when in fact it had been intended to render Hebrew he/H [the Hebrew word for “the”]. So the received alphabetical text has XWBH, when what had been intended was H-’WBH: the Ú-bi.

[In order to generate Hebrew vav/W as a vowel in initial position, with a long U sound, what is needed in alphabetical Hebrew, unlike in cuneiform, is that the initial Hebrew vav/W must be preceded by a Hebrew aleph/’. That was not done here, because the Jewish scribe in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem misinterpreted the first letter as being a Hebrew heth/X, when in fact the cuneiform heth had been intended to render Hebrew he/H, being the Hebrew common word “the”.]

Remember, the only way that the Patriarchal narratives can have pinpoint historical accuracy, as of Year 13, is if the Patriarchal narratives were recorded in writing, shortly after Year 13. Back then, in the Late Bronze Age, alphabetical Hebrew writing was not nearly advanced enough to handle a sophisticated composition like the Patriarchal narratives. So as a written text in the Late Bronze Age, the writing system would have to be cuneiform.

Guys, the o-n-l-y way to beat the scholarly insistence that the Patriarchal narratives were not recorded in writing until the 1st millennium BCE, centuries after any historical Patriarchal Age, is to show that many proper names in the received text bear all the telltale signs of having originally been recorded in cuneiform, shortly after Year 13. Exhibit A is XWBH : חובה at Genesis 14: 15. Though inexplicable on its face, a cuneiform analysis reveals that what was intended here, in the original cuneiform writing, had been H-’WBH, which per Amarna Letter EA 189 is the Year 13 name for the Damascus region: the Ú-bi.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[JLVaughn]

Jim,

PJ Wiseman's, Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis is very interesting in this regard. Wiseman was Woolley's librarian during his excavations in Mesopotamia 80-some years ago. Wiseman catalogued, and therefore examined every tablet they discovered. That is, he likely examined more cuneiform tablets than anyone else before or since has ever seen.

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-records-s ... an+genesis

Jeff

[Jim Stinehart]

J.L. Vaughn:

You wrote: “PJ Wiseman's, Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis is very interesting in this regard. Wiseman was Woolley's librarian during his excavations in Mesopotamia 80-some years ago. Wiseman catalogued, and therefore examined every tablet they discovered. That is, he likely examined more cuneiform tablets than anyone else before or since has ever seen.”

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. It’s nice to know that an expert in cuneiform thought that the Patriarchal narratives began as a written text in cuneiform, dating to the Bronze Age.

Here’s a mini-summary of the views of P.J. Wiseman that appears at the site you referenced:

“He believes that Moses did not WRITE Genesis but rather TRANSLATED it from ancient stone tablets written in Cuneiform script. The tablets each would have been originally written by eye-witnesses of the particular events, or those who received their information from eye-witnesses.”

My own view of the case, however, is very, very different from that. As I see it, the first Hebrew [not Moses, but rather the historical equivalent of Abraham-Isaac-Jacob] composed the Patriarchal narratives. This was done in Years 13-14, and primarily reflects the “Year 13” that is explicitly referenced at Genesis 14: 4. Then a few years later, the first Hebrew had a scribe record his composition in cuneiform. In my opinion, there was only one “eye-witness of the particular events” -- the first Hebrew himself. I see his composition, from beginning to end, as primarily reflecting Year 13, which was the “Year of Living Dangerously” for the first Hebrews, as evil princeling Yapaxu, the “iniquitous Amorite” [Genesis 15: 16], threatened to drive the tent-dwelling first Hebrews off of the fine land [not too far from Jerusalem] where they were then sojourning. I view Year 13 as being the year in which Judaism historically was born.

But P.J. Wiseman is definitely right about one thing: the Patriarchal narratives were recorded in writing in the Bronze Age, in cuneiform. Yes, that is correct.

I will plan to try to get a hold of P.J. Wiseman’s book and see if he has any good insights as to what particular mysterious names in the Patriarchal narratives contain evidence of an original cuneiform written text from the Late Bronze Age. That is the specific topic to which this thread is devoted.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

A prime of example of how a cuneiform analysis can clarify the pinpoint historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives is the word/name PR‘H : פרעה, which is transliterated as "Pharaoh". As we will see, that transliteration is not even in the ballpark accurate.

But more important is the question of whether we should accept the scholarly analysis of PR‘H. On a unanimous basis, university scholars say that PR‘H is the Egyptian common word praA, and that it is a generic reference to the king of Egypt. However, scholars well know, though they don’t often say this out loud, that there are three h-u-g-e problems with that unanimous view:

(1) Native Egyptians only rarely referred to the king of Egypt as praA.

(2) PR‘H is not a linguistic match to praA: the former ends with Hebrew he/H, whereas the latter ends with Egyptian aleph [capital A]. That’s not a match!

(3) If PR‘H is a generic reference to the king of Egypt, then the end of the first sentence of Genesis 41: 46 is so redundant as to be almost senseless: “…he stood before the king of Egypt [PR‘H : פרעה] the king of Egypt.”

Yes, it’s true that in l-a-t-e-r books of the Bible, PR‘H did indeed come to have the acquired meaning of being a generic reference to whoever was king of Egypt at the time. But the Patriarchal narratives are older than the rest of the Bible, and at Genesis 41: 46, PR‘H in context seems to be giving us the actual name of the pharaoh of the Patriarchal Age: PR‘H, king of Egypt. That exciting prospect warrants investigation.

The key to solving this millennia-old Bible mystery as to the mysterious word/name PR‘H in the received alphabetical text of the Patriarchal narratives is, as always, to consider that the Patriarchal narratives may have been a written text in the Late Bronze Age, in cuneiform. And per Genesis 14: 4, the relevant year may be Year 13. Who was pharaoh in Year 13? Is the Akkadian cuneiform original of PR‘H the Biblical Hebrew functional equivalent of that pharaoh’s historical name?

The cuneiform signs that could result in PR‘H [which Hebrew letters are what we see in the received alphabetical text] would likely be PA – RA – A – XI. But there are other alphabetical alternatives that would fit those four cuneiform signs just as well as PR‘H. We know that cuneiform A rendered either aleph/’ or ayin/‘ in the Amarna Letters, and that cuneiform writing could not distinguish Hebrew he/H from Hebrew heth/X. So although the received text has ‘H at the end of this word/name, it is very possible that based on the cuneiform original, the originally-intended final two letters may well have instead been ’X [aleph-heth]. That is to say, if the cuneiform original was PA – RA – A – XI, then although the PR‘H in the received text would work linguistically [out of context], another equally likely reading of that cuneiform original [which both works linguistically and fits the historical context] would be PR’X. That’s P-R -- ’X where, as we shall see, P-R is the same as the P-R at the end of the name “Potiphar”, namely pA ra: the Ra. And we will find that ’X is Ax in Egyptian, in both cases being aleph-heth. The name of the most famous pharaoh in the world, who was pharaoh in Year 13, historically begins with Ax, and the rest of that pharaoh’s historical name honors the Egyptian sun-god, whether called Ra or the Ra or Aten.

Honestly, it becomes virtually child’s play to figure out who the historical pharaoh of the Patriarchal Age is, if we think cuneiform and Year 13. The Biblical Hebrew equivalent of his historical name has been hiding there in plain sight for millennia. That’s what we can discuss in my next post.

The key, as always, is to be willing to think (i) cuneiform and (ii) Year 13. Then the p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives will come shining through. We are even going to discover the historical name of the Pharaoh of the Patriarchal Age right there in the Biblical text, by investigating the cuneiform original of PR‘H. If that’s not exciting, then what in life is exciting?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

If the Patriarchal narratives were originally recorded in cuneiform writing in the Late Bronze Age [which is my view of the case], then by using a cuneiform analysis, we can discern that the Biblical Hebrew equivalent of the pharaoh’s name “Akhenaten” is used repeatedly in this text.

The name “Akhenaten” is Ax-n-itn. The first two letters are Egyptian aleph-Egyptian heth, which is an Egyptian common word that has as one of its meanings “spirit”. At its simplest, the name Ax-n-itn means “Spirit of Aten”. Although Akhenaten favored the divine name “Aten” for the Egyptian sun-god in his early years [naming his first four daughters after Aten], by Year 13 Akhenaten had come to favor the divine name “Ra” for the sun-god; in particular, Akhenaten named his last two daughters after Ra. Akhenaten’s Great Hymn uses both “Ra” and “Aten” as names for the Egyptian sun-god deity, whom Akhenaten worshipped on a semi-monotheistic basis.
Accordingly, the following would be a functional equivalent of the name “Akhenaten” : Ax-n-itn : Spirit of the Sun-God, as of Year 13:
Spirit of the Sun-God : Spirit of The Ra : pA ra Ax [with the last Egyptian phrase simply reversing the word order in Egyptian]

The Biblical word PR‘H in the received alphabetical text that is transliterated into English as “Pharaoh” is unanimously viewed as being a generic reference to the king of Egypt, and furthermore is conventionally analyzed as meaning “Great House” in Egyptian. Yet scholars acknowledge that this is primarily a Biblical word; historically, native Egyptians themselves only rarely referred to their king as “Great House”. And why oh why would the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives be thought to pick up the obscure, rarely-used Egyptian term “Great House” to use as a Patriarchal nickname to refer routinely to the king of Egypt?

Moreover, the Hebrew spelling of “Pharaoh” does not match the expected Hebrew spelling of the Egyptian phrase “Great House”. In Hebrew, “Pharaoh” is PR‘H in the received alphabetical text, ending with a he/H. By contrast, in Egyptian “Great House” is praA, ending with aleph/A [where capital A stands for Egyptian aleph in one standard English transcription system]. It has often been remarked by scholars that the final he/H in PR‘H seems to be the “wrong” Hebrew letter here, despite the conventional view that PR‘H = praA = “Great House”, and the unanimous view that PR‘H is always a generic reference to the king of Egypt. Something is definitely out of place here! Note the h-u-g-e problems that are readily apparent for the view that PR‘H allegedly is the Egyptian common word praA, meaning “Great House”, and allegedly is a generic reference in the Patriarchal narratives to the king of Egypt.

If the Patriarchal narratives were originally recorded in cuneiform, then the following basic linguistic argument would apply regarding the Biblical term PR‘H that we see in the received alphabetical text. We know that (i) cuneiform A in the Amarna Letters could be either aleph/’ or ayin/‘, and that (ii) cuneiform could not distinguish between Hebrew heth/X and Hebrew he/H. So it may well be that the original cuneiform spelling of this term in Hebrew was intended to represent the following Hebrew letters: PR’X. If so, then PR’X, namely P-R -- ’X, would be the expected Hebrew rendering of pA ra Ax in Egyptian. pA ra Ax is the functional equivalent of the name “Akhenaten”/Ax-n-itn, simply (i) reversing the word order, and (ii) using “the Ra” as the name of the Egyptian sun-god deity instead of “Aten”. Each of “Akhenaten” and pA ra Ax could be translated as: “Spirit of the Sun-God”.

If the Patriarchal narratives are reflecting Year 13 [per Genesis 14: 4], then the pharaoh at that time was Akhenaten. If one is looking for the name “Akhenaten” in the text, look no farther than the Hebrew term that is always translated [and grotesquely mis-transliterated] as “Pharaoh”. The last letter of that Hebrew word in the received alphabetical text is he/H, but if the Patriarchal narratives started out as a written cuneiform text in the Late Bronze Age, then such last letter could just as easily be heth/X, as cuneiform writing could not distinguish between Hebrew he/H and Hebrew heth/X. Similarly, the next to last letter in the received text is ayin/‘, but cuneiform A could just as easily be aleph/’ as ayin/‘. If the last letter was intended to be Hebrew heth/X and the preceding letter was intended to be aleph/’, then: (a) the intended Biblical term was PR’X, that is P-R -- ’X, which is the expected Hebrew rendering of the Egyptian phrase pA ra Ax, and (b) pA ra Ax in turn is the functional equivalent of the name “Akhenaten”/Ax-n-itn; each of “Akhenaten” and pA ra Ax could be translated as “Spirit of the [Egyptian] Sun-God”.

Surely the phrase “Pharaoh, king of Egypt” at the end of the first sentence of Genesis 41:46 cannot have the senseless, redundant meaning of “king of Egypt, king of Egypt”. No way! Rather, it actually has the following meaning, with p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy in the context of the “Year 13” that is expressly referenced at Genesis 14: 4: “Akhenaten, king of Egypt”. The literal meaning of PR’X there [P-R -- ’X; pA ra Ax] is “The Ra, Spirit [of]”, and Akhenaten’s historical name means “Spirit of Aten”. With Ra and Aten being alternative names used by Akhenaten for the Egyptian sun-god, PR’X in effect means: “Akhenaten”. As I was saying, if it’s Year 13 [per Genesis 14: 4], the pharaoh is Akhenaten, and the Patriarchal narratives have p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy. Just think cuneiform and Year 13, and you’ll see it right away. The Patriarchal narratives are much older as a written text, and much more historically accurate, than scholars realize.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[JLVaughn]

Jim,

Wiseman recognized that the early pictograph cuneiform of Sumer and the later syllabic or semi-alphabetic cuneiform of Akkad each had specific features. His analysis concludes that Gen. 1-11 was originally written in Sumer in pictograph, while Gen. 12-36 was originally written in Akkad or Akkadian speaking Canaan in the Akkadian form of cuneiform. Gen. 37ff is in yet a third form not found in the Middle East, presumably an Egpytian form.

Akkadian is considered to be the parent language of Hebrew and Aramaic. I'm told that the "translating" into Hebrew would be more like translating middle English into modern English.

Wiseman explains who the various authors of the portions of Genesis are and how Genesis names them. Surprisingly, Ishmael is the first and most important author of the Akkadian section.

Wiseman's analysis matches the results of Radday's Statistical Linguistics, both of which demonstrate the words of the text are not due to Moses, but likely far older.

Jeff