Deuteronomy vs. Genesis: “Seir”

For discussions which focus upon specific words, their origin, meaning, relationship to other ANE languages.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Deuteronomy vs. Genesis: “Seir”

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Deuteronomy vs. Genesis: “Seir”

If one asked a university scholar where Deuteronomy portrays “Seir” as being located in Deuteronomy, presumably the answer would be something like the following:

“According to Deut 2: 12, 22, the Horites lived in Seir, the mountainous region east of the Arabah between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba [i.e., south of the Dead Sea], before the Edomites settled there.” Gordon J. Wenham, "World Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15", Thomas Nelson, Nashville, Tennessee (1987), p. 311.

Curiously, if one asks a very different question, namely where Genesis portrays “Seir” as being located in Genesis, the answer one will receive from a university scholar will likely be, word for word, identical to the answer to the preceding question. Here is how the leading Genesis scholars in the world address that question in their published works:

1. “[Genesis 14: ]6. ‘The Horites in the mountains of Seir’. According to Deut 2: 12, 22, the Horites lived in Seir, the mountainous region east of the Arabah between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba [i.e., south of the Dead Sea], before the Edomites settled there.” Gordon J. Wenham.

2. “[Genesis 14: ]6. the Horites. ....the Semitic predecessors of Seir/Edom (…Deut 2: 12, 22…)….” E.A. Speiser, "The Anchor Bible Genesis", Doubleday, New York, New York (1962), p. 102.

3. “Hurrians (= Horites)…. [But t]he biblical use of the name raises difficulties. First, in Gen. 14: 6; 30: 20-30; and Deut. 2: 12, 20, the Hurrians are localized in Edom [south of the Dead Sea]; but there is no [historical] proof of this.” Claus Westermann, "Genesis An Introduction", Fortress Press, Minneapolis [first published 1974] (1992), p. 161.

4. “Another similarity with the exilic revision of Deuteronomy is the antiquarian interest in the ancient inhabitants of Transjordan and the Negeb. The list in Deut. 2: 10-12, 20-23 and 3: 9-13 is very similar to Gen. 14: 5-7, with the Rephaim in Bashan,…Horites in Edom….” John Van Seters, "Abraham in History and Tradition", Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut (1975), pp. 117-118.

What gives? When Jacob is returning to Canaan from Harran in chapters 32-33 of Genesis, Jacob cannot avoid encountering his estranged older twin brother Esau in Seir, when Jacob is at the following location: just east of the Jordan River, and just north of the Jabbok River. Certainly “Seir” at Genesis 32: 3; 33: 14, 16 cannot possibly be referring to a locale south of the Dead Sea. Rather, in the context of chapters 32-33 of Genesis, “Seir” must be referring to northwest Gilead, a locale that is dominated by Esau’s “Horite” in-laws.

Yet the leading Genesis scholars in the world never cite Genesis 32: 3; 33: 14, 16 in addressing the question of where “Seir” is portrayed as being located in Genesis. No, the leading Genesis scholars invariably refer, instead, to “Deut 2: 12, 22”. Who cares what chapter 2 of Deuteronomy says about “Seir”, if the question is where Genesis portrays “Seir” as being located in Genesis? Isn’t it relevant, and at least worth mentioning, in this connection that “Seir” cannot possibly be referring to a locale south of the Dead Sea at Genesis 32: 3; 33: 14, 16?

By the way, university scholars are well aware that the author of Deuteronomy is notorious for playing fast and loose with his sources, so that one can never depend on Deuteronomy to accurately report its source material. Consider for example the very title of Prof. Jeffrey Stackert’s book, "Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation". Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany (2007). As just one example of Deuteronomy frequently, and deliberately, changing what was said in its sources, Stackert at p. 53 notes that whereas the source in Exodus clearly states that asylum is to be in “cult places” (not in cities), Deuteronomy changes this to assert, falsely, that ancient law had allegedly provided for “asylum cities”: “In Deut 19:1-13…the author must revise his source, secularizing what is explicitly cultic at Exod 21: 12-14. Rather than meaning ‘cult place’, as it does in Exod 21: 13…, the author of Deut 19:1-13 reinterprets מקום so that it might mean עיר [‘city’].” Prof. Stackert (of the University of Chicago) concludes at p. 218: “[E]very example of revision identified in this study from Deuteronomy…is most plausibly explained as an attempt to subvert and replace its source(s).”

Since university scholars don’t trust Deuteronomy any farther than they can throw it, as to accurately reporting its sources, then why on earth would one consider trusting what Deuteronomy says regarding Seir, if the question is where “Seir” is portrayed as being located in Genesis? Why ignore Genesis 32: 3; 33: 14, 16 entirely, and focus solely on “Deut 2: 12, 22”, if the question is where Genesis portrays “Seir” as being located in Genesis?

What gives? What am I missing here?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Deuteronomy vs. Genesis: “Seir”

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Perhaps most of us, including virtually all university scholars, would agree that the 7th century BCE author of Deuteronomy knew nothing, and cared less, about the non-biblical history of the Bronze Age. But what about “Seir” and “Horites” in the Patriarchal narratives in Genesis? Are those Biblical names letter-for-letter expected Biblical Hebrew spellings of Hurrian names from the mid-14th century BCE? And are the meanings of these two names in Genesis [not in Deuteronomy!] identical to the meanings of these two names in the Amarna Letters? If so, then “Seir” is a Late Bronze Age nickname for Hurrian-dominated land north and northeast of Jerusalem, including northwest Gilead, per Amarna Letter EA 288: 26 and Genesis 32: 3; 33: 14, 16. The Biblical “Horites” in Genesis are, as we shall see, the historical Hurrians.

On the historical linguistics front, let’s examine whether the Biblical Hebrew spellings of “Seir” and “Horites” in Genesis are letter-for-letter matches to the comparable names in the Amarna Letters, which originated as the Hurrian names of Teshup’s two divine bulls.

A. “Seir”

At Amarna Letter EA 24(iv)115 (written in Hurrian), the spelling of the Hurrian name of one of the divine bulls of the Hurrian main god Teshup is: Še-e-ir-ri. When used as a geographical place name at Amarna Letter EA 288: 26 (as a nickname for Hurrian-dominated land north and northeast of Hurrian princeling IR-Heba’s Jerusalem), the spelling of this name is shortened to Še-e-ri; Wm. Moran (somewhat unfortunately) transliterates that name in this Amarna Letter as “Šeru”. I agree with many scholars that each such name is the same name as the Biblical name transliterated by KJV as “Seir”; for example, at p. 392 of his famous translation of the Amarna Letters, Wm. Moran notes: “Šeru, a region, perhaps Biblical Seir”.

We start by confirming that the Biblical name “Seir” : שעיר in Genesis is the linguistic equivalent of the Hurrian name Še-e-ir-ri or Še-e-ri referenced in the above two Amarna Letters. For the Biblical Hebrew expected spelling of the long-form Hurrian name of one of Teshup’s divine bulls, Še-e-ir-ri, the first step is to realize that the first of Hurrian doubled consonants is always dropped. So for Hebrew orthographic purposes, the name is Še-e-i-ri. Per defective spelling: (i) Še- is rendered by Hebrew shin; (ii) -e- is rendered by Hebrew ayin; (iii) -i- is rendered by Hebrew yod; and (iv) -ri is rendered by Hebrew resh. So the expected Biblical Hebrew spelling of Še-e-ir-ri/Še-e-i-ri is exactly what we see, on a letter-for-letter basis, at Genesis 14: 6; 32: 3; 33: 14, 16; 36: 8, 9, 20, 21, 30, namely: שעיר.

“Seir” in Genesis is a Hurrian name, being the name of one of Teshup’s divine bulls, and is used to reference Hurrian-dominated land north and northeast of Jerusalem, including northwest Gilead.

B. “Horite”

The name of Teshup’s other divine bull was Ḫur-ri. This name appears as an adjective at Amarna Letter EA 60: 14 in the phrase “Ḫur-ri forces”. The expected Biblical Hebrew spelling of the Hurrian word Ḫur-ri [without yet adding the concept of “people” at the end] would drop the first of Hurrian doubled consonants, leaving Ḫu-ri. Per defective spelling: (i) Ḫu- is rendered by Hebrew heth; and (ii) -ri is rendered by Hebrew resh.

“Horite”, which is חרי at Genesis 14: 6; 36: 20, 21, 29, consists of the foregoing Hurrian root, heth-resh (as the name of one of Teshup’s divine bulls), plus the standard Hebrew suffix that means “people”, namely yod. The “Teshup’s Divine Bull People” [the ultra-literal meaning of חרי] are the Hurrians. This is a linguistic match, on a letter-for-letter basis, to the spelling of the name “Hurrian people” at Ugarit: ḫry. Note that both in the Ugaritic and Hebrew rendering of this people’s name, the Hebrew suffix that means “people”, namely yod, is the suffix.

* * *

For both “Seir” and “Horite”, the spellings in Genesis are letter-for-letter matches to mid-14th century BCE attested spellings of the Hurrian names of Teshup’s two divine bulls. The linguistic match is absolutely perfect in both cases. Per the Amarna Letters, we know that in the mid-14th century BCE, “Horites”/“Hurrians” dominated “Seir”/Še-e-ir-ri/Še-e-ri/northwest Gilead.

That is why, per chapters 32-33 of Genesis, when Jacob is just north of the Jabbok River and just east of the Jordan River, in northwest Gilead, on his way home to Canaan [heading to Shechem, which is west of the Jordan and Jabbok Rivers] from Harran in eastern Syria, Jacob cannot avoid running into his estranged older twin brother Esau. Esau lives, along with Esau’s Hurrian [“Horite”] in-laws, in “Seir”/Še-e-ir-ri/Še-e-ri/Hurrian-dominated northwest Gilead. Now everything about Genesis 32: 3 makes perfect sense on all levels, instead of “Seir” being -- per chapter 2 of Deuteronomy but impossible in the context of chapters 32-33 of Genesis -- a reference to land south of the Dead Sea. That also means that all 25 of the 25 names of Esau’s Hurrian/“Horite” male relatives at Genesis 36: 20-30 will turn out to be Hurrian-type names: 18 are Hurrian-based Hurrian names, 1 is a Sanskrit-based Hurrian name, and 6 are either Akkadian names or Akkadian-based Hurrian names. (That is the expected breakdown of names for Hurrians, per the extensive list of names of Hurrians at the Hurrian province of Nuzi in eastern Syria [near Harran].)

The pinpoint historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives in a mid-14th century BCE context is simply breathtaking. Note in particular the letter-for-letter Hebrew spellings of the vintage mid-14th century BCE non-Semitic Hurrian names of Teshup’s two divine bulls: Še-e-ir-ri and Ḫur-ri. These two names are used, both in Genesis and in the Amarna Letters, to refer to, respectively, Hurrian-dominated land northeast of Jerusalem, and the Hurrians.

When leading Biblical historians claim that חרי is allegedly a west Semitic word meaning “hole-people”, for fictional troglodytes south of the Dead Sea, why, it’s enough to make a grown man cry. In analyzing the חרי at שעיר in Genesis, can’t some university professor out there somewhere be brave enough to take a look at Genesis, and forget about the non-historical, 7th century BCE mythology in chapter 2 of Deuteronomy?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Deuteronomy vs. Genesis: “Seir”

Post by Jim Stinehart »

In my prior post, I set forth my views of the Biblical names “Seir” and “Horite”. שעיר and חרי are letter-for-letter Biblical Hebrew spellings of the non-Semitic Hurrian names of Teshup’s two divine bulls. These are attested Late Bronze Age names for, respectively, Hurrian-dominated land northeast of Jerusalem, including northwest Gilead, and the Hurrians. In chapters 32-33 of Genesis, in returning to Canaan (Shechem), Jacob cannot avoid meeting up with Esau and Esau’s Hurrian : חרי : ḫry (“Horite”) in-laws in שעיר/“Seir”/Še-e-ir-ri/Še-e-ri/Hurrian-dominated northwest Gilead. Everything makes perfect sense on all levels. It is totally irrelevant, for all purposes of Genesis, that seven centuries later the author of Deuteronomy in 7th century BCE Jerusalem misused the Hurrian name “Seir” to refer to a locale south of the Dead Sea. If we focus on the Patriarchal narratives in Genesis, and ignore the thoroughly non-historical chapter 2 of Deuteronomy, it should be clear that in Genesis, “Seir” is Hurrian-dominated northwest Gilead, which is where Esau’s Hurrian/“Horite” in-laws live.

Yet university scholars will have none of that. No way.

A. Scholarly View of “Hurrians”: West Semitic Word Referencing Fictional Troglodytes South of the Dead Sea
Scholars admit that חרי is a perfect linguistic match to ḫry at Ugarit, referencing the Late Bronze Age Hurrians, and that ḫry in turn is probably based on the Hurrian name for one of Teshup’s divine bulls: Ḫur-ri. Nevertheless, many scholars insist that חרי is a west Semitic word meaning “hole-people”, referencing fictional cave-dwelling troglodytes in a locale where there are virtually no caves (and no Hurrians): the land south of the Dead Sea.

Leading Biblical historian Nadav Na’aman asserts that the “Horites” in Genesis are allegedly cave-dwelling troglodytes:

“More likely is…that the author of Genesis 36 referred to cave dwellers (Horrites derived from Hebrew hor, ‘hole’)….” E-mail to this author dated June 30, 2015 from Prof. Nadav Na’aman.

Esau’s in-laws the Horites are asserted on this view to be cave-dwelling troglodytes south of the Dead Sea, despite the inconvenient fact that there are very few caves in that locale:

“As to the ethnonym ḥōrî,…E.A. Speiser’s suggestion [a view he originally enunciated in 1930] to derive this ethnonym Heb. ḥōr (or ḥôr), ‘a hole, a pit’, and thus to understand it as ‘cave dwellers, troglodytes’ was rejected by R. de Vaux [in “Les Hurrites de l'histoire et les Horites de la Bible”, Revue Biblique, Vol. 74 (1967), pp. 481-503], who pointed out, inter alia, that south of the Dead Sea caves are rare.” S. Frolov, “Merneptah’s Israel and the Horite Genealogy in Gen 36: 20-30”, Aula Orientalis, No. 13, vol. 2 (1995), p. 207.

Nevertheless, Frolov (writing in 1995) then basically adopts Speiser’s 1930 idea, and rejects de Vaux, by accepting much of the “cave” portion of Speiser’s view (though rejecting the “troglodyte” nomenclature): “aves, ravines, and all kinds of holes in the ground may serve as natural fortifications and traps, not merely as dwellings.” P. 207.

As opposed to that prevalent scholarly view, it should be noted there never were “hole-people” south of the Dead Sea, there is no non-biblical attestation of people living south of the Dead Sea being called “hole-people”, nowhere in the Bible (in Genesis or elsewhere) is it stated or implied that “Horites” are cave-people, it would be senseless for troglodytes to be featured in the military conflict narrated at Genesis 14: 1-15, and it is simply unbelievable that if Esau’s in-laws were in truth cave-dwelling troglodytes, certain of them would be characterized at Genesis 36: 21, 29-30 as being אלופיהחרי : “Hurrian chiefs” (singular form ulp.ḫry at Ugarit). Finally, as shown in a prior post, a geographical locale south of the Dead Sea for Esau’s in-laws the “Horites” simply cannot be forcefit to chapters 32 and 33 of Genesis. Furthermore, all of the “Horites” in Genesis can be shown to have Hurrian-type names.

B. Scholarly View of “Seir”: West Semitic Word Referencing a “Hairy” Area South of the Dead Sea (Which Area in Fact Is Not “Hairy” At All)

Scholars see the place name “Seir” : שעיר as being the same as the west Semitic common word שעיר, which means “he-goat” (57 or 59 times in the Bible, including at Genesis 37: 31) Although scholars routinely claim that in two places only in the Bible, namely at Genesis 27: 11, 23, שעיר supposedly is an adjective that means “hairy, rough”, that is special pleading. In all other 57 uses of this Hebrew common word in the Bible, the meaning is “he-goat” or some similar animal. Genesis 27: 11 should be viewed more literally as Jacob saying that his older twin brother Esau is a “he-goat man”, where a Hebrew noun meaning “he-goat” is being used as an adjective.

Yes, there is a Hebrew adjective that means “hairy, rough”, but that is spelled with only three Hebrew letters: שער. At Genesis 25: 25, the early Hebrew author makes a nifty pun on “hairy” : שער, with the implication being that Esau will be fated to live as an adult in שעיר, that is, Hurrian-dominated northwest Gilead (not in a “hairy” area, which the land south of the Dead Sea is not). A very similar pun is then made twice more, at Genesis 27: 11, 23, where Esau is said to be a “he-goat man”, where the Hebrew common word for “he-goat” has the identical Hebrew spelling as the Hurrian geographical place “Seir”, namely שעיר. Thus the early Hebrew author on three occasions puns one of two Hebrew common words with a Hurrian geographical place name, thereby neatly foreshadowing that Esau is fated to live out his days in Hurrian-dominated “Seir”/northwest Gilead.
There is nothing about the land south of the Dead Sea that resembles a “he-goat”. Such land is not “hairy” and is not bristled with thick woods (though much of northwest Gilead, by contrast, was indeed bristled with thick woods). But as we will now see, neither topography nor Hurrian linguistics nor history can slow scholars down.

Here is how Gesenius in 1833 explained “Seir” as a geographical place name (before anyone knew about the Hurrians, and before the Amarna Letters were discovered):

“ ‘the rough mountain’, i.e. clothed, and, as it were, bristled with trees and thick woods”

Never mind that the land south of the Dead Sea is not “bristled with trees and thick woods”, but rather is mostly barren desert. Yes, there are substantial oases southeast of the Dead Sea, but there is nothing “hairy” south of the Dead Sea, given the absence of trees and thick woods. And remember, Esau is associated with “Seir” after the divine destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which makes totally irrelevant any claim that the land south of the Dead Sea was supposedly nirvana prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (a claim which, by the way, is totally false on all levels).

That old view of Gesenius is, however, still frequently repeated today:

“[A]nother name for Esau is…Seir (‘Hairy’).” Tremper Longman III, “Genesis”, Harper Collins (2016).

“Seir was Mount Seir (‘hairy = Wooded Mountain’; cf. Gen 25:25), located in Edom, west of the Arabah and northeast of the Wilderness of Paran [south of the Dead Sea].” Jack R. Lundbom, “Theology in Language, Rhetoric, and Beyond” (2015), p. 73.
But there is no “wooded mountain” south of the Dead Sea, which rather is a desert area.

Here is a more scholarly statement to the same effect:

“To deepen closure his [Esau’s] name is fixed on the basis of this appearance, although now only through synecdochic relation of the name Esau to the place names with which he was later associated, that is, Edom (reddish), and Seir (hairy).” Hugh C. White, “Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis”, Cambridge University Press (1991), p. 209.

“Seir” at Amarna Letter EA 288: 26 is certainly not referring to a non-existent wooded mountain south of the Dead Sea. Not. Rather, “Seir” at Amarna Letter EA 288: 26 is a geographical place name that refers to Hurrian-dominated land north and northeast of Jerusalem. IR-Heba, the Hurrian princeling ruler of Jerusalem, is complaining that all around him cities in Canaan are falling to the habiru, in an arc starting as far southwest as the southern Shephelah, and ending as far northeast as northwest Gilead. “Seir” has that same meaning (being a Hurrian-based geographical place name attested in the mid-14th century BCE), referencing Hurrian-dominated northwest Gilead, at Genesis 32: 3; 33: 14, 16, as well as at Genesis 14: 6; 36: 8, 9, 30.

The Patriarchal narratives are much older than scholars realize.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Post Reply