Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible: A Lexicon of Language Contact 9781646020416

Citation preview

Non-​Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

LI NGUISTIC STU DIES I N ANCIENT W EST SEMITIC Edited by CYNTHIA L. MILLER-NAUDÉ and JACOBUS A. NAUDÉ

The series Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic is devoted to the ancient West Semitic languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic, and their near congeners. It includes monographs, collections of essays, and text editions informed by the approaches of linguistic science. The material studied will span from the earliest texts to the rise of Islam.

Non-​Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible A Lexicon of Language Contact

Benjamin J. Noonan

EISENBRAUNS  |  University Park, Pennsylvania

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Noonan, Benjamin J., author. Title: Non-​semitic loanwords in the Hebrew Bible : a lexicon of language contact / Benjamin J. Noonan. Other titles: Linguistic studies in ancient West Semitic. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns, [2019] | Series: Linguistic studies in ancient West Semitic | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “An analysis of the Hebrew Bible’s non-​Semitic terminology, providing insight into foreign contact in ancient Israel”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: lccn 2018060046 | isbn 9781575067742 (cloth) Subjects: lcsh: Bible. Old Testament—Terminology. | Hebrew language—Foreign words and phrases. Classification: lcc bs525 .n57 2019 | ddc 221.4—dc23 lc record available at https://​lccn​.loc​.gov​/2018060046 Copyright © 2019 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802–1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-​free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992.

‫‪For my two girls‬‬ ‫‪Jenn‬‬ ‫)אֵ ׁשֶ ת־חַ יִ ל ִמי יִ ְמצָ א וְ ָרחֹ ק ִמּפְ נִ ינִ ים ִמכְ ָרּה(‬ ‫‪Katy‬‬ ‫)הִ ּנֵה ַנ ֲחלַת יְ הוָה ּבָ נִ ים ׂשָ כָר ּפְ ִרי הַ ּבָ טֶ ן(‬

Contents

List of Tables   ix Acknowledgments  xi List of Abbreviations   xiii List of Entries   xxxi Chapter 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 History of Research   4 1.2 Corpus and Parameters of This Study   7 1.3 Terminology   8 1.4 Identifying Loanwords   12 1.5 Mechanisms of Borrowing   14 1.6 Loanwords as Cultural Symbols   18 1.7 Conclusion   20 Chapter 2. Non-​Semitic Contact in Ancient Palestine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.1 The Egyptians   21 2.2 The Greeks   23 2.3 The Hittites and Luvians   25 2.4 The Hurrians   26 2.5 The Indo-​Aryans   27 2.6 The Iranians   28 2.7 Conclusion   29 Chapter 3. Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Chapter 4. Quantitative Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 4.1 Methodology and Terminology   235 4.2 General Distribution of the Hebrew Bible’s Loanwords   237 4.3 Loanwords and the Hebrew Bible’s Canonical Divisions   240 4.4 Loanwords and the Hebrew Bible’s Source-​Critical Divisions   254 4.5 Loanwords and the Hebrew Bible’s Typological Divisions   259 4.6 Loanwords and Parts of Speech   266 4.7 Loanwords and Domain of Use   267 vii

viii

Contents

Chapter 5. Linguistic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 5.1 Phonology   273 5.2 Orthography   292 5.3 Morphology   293 Chapter 6. Evidence for Dialect of Origin and Date of Borrowing. . . . . . . . . 301 6.1 Egyptian   301 6.2 Greek   307 6.3 Hittite and Luvian   308 6.4 Hurrian   309 6.5 Old Indic   309 6.6 Old Iranian   310 6.7 Synthesis   313 Chapter 7. Non-​Semitic Loanwords as Evidence for Foreign Contact in Ancient Palestine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 7.1 The Egyptians   314 7.2 The Greeks   315 7.3 The Hittites and Luvians   316 7.4 The Hurrians   316 7.5 The Indo-​Aryans   316 7.6 The Iranians   317 Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 Appendix: Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-​Semitic Loans   321 Bibliography  359 Index of Authors   425 Index of Scripture   437 Index of Ancient Sources   463 Index of Words   471

Tables

Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Table 4.10 Table 4.11 Table 4.12 Table 4.13 Table 4.14 Table 4.15 Table 4.16 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6

Number of Loans and Their Frequency by Recipient Language. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 Number of Loans and Their Frequency by Donor Language. . . . 238 Number of Loans in the Torah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Frequency of Loans in the Torah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Number of Loans in the Former Prophets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Frequency of Loans in the Former Prophets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Number of Loans in the Latter Prophets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Frequency of Loans in the Latter Prophets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Number of Loans in the Writings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Frequency of Loans in the Writings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Number of Loans in J, E, D, P, H, & DtrH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Frequency of Loans in J, E, D, P, H, & DtrH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Number of Loans in ABH, SBH, Core SBH, LBH,  & Core LBH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Frequency of Loans in ABH, SBH, Core SBH, LBH,  & Core LBH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Distribution of Parts of Speech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Distribution of Semantic Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Consonant Correspondences with Egyptian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Consonant Correspondences with Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 Consonant Correspondences with Hittite & Luvian. . . . . . . . . . . 281 Consonant Correspondences with Hurrian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Consonant Correspondences with Old Indic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 Consonant Correspondences with Old Iranian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

ix

Acknowledgments

John Donne’s famous line “No man is an island” well expresses the individual and cooperative effort that has gone into the writing of this book. Academic research and scholarly pursuits are best undertaken within the context of community, and for this reason I offer my sincere gratitude to all who have contributed. This work represents a substantial revision and expansion of my Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion (Cincinnati, Ohio) doctoral dissertation, which I could not have completed without either of my readers, Nili S. Fox and Stephen A. Kaufman. Both invested much time in this project and offered invaluable direction from beginning to end. Above all, they have taught me how to think critically and to recognize what can and cannot be concluded given the available evidence. My hope is that this book honors the lasting legacy they have passed on to me. I am grateful to Cynthia Miller-​Naudé and Jacobus Naudé as well as Jim Eisenbraun for accepting my manuscript for publication in Eisenbrauns’ Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic series. Throughout the editorial process they have worked diligently to see the manuscript to publication, and it has been a privilege to work with them. I am very grateful to Matthew Williams, my production editor, for shepherding this book through the production process. I would like to express special gratitude to Peter T. Daniels, whose superb skills as a copy editor resulted in many improvements in terms of readability and formatting. Sarah Cho and Stephen Koehn are also to be thanked for assisting with the formatting of the manuscript. The library staffs at Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion and Columbia International University played a crucial role in this project. I would like to thank them for diligently fulfilling my many interlibrary loan requests. This project could not have been completed without their assistance in obtaining library resources. Throughout the course of this project I have enjoyed the privilege of corresponding with several individuals: James P. Allen, Michael Barré, Barry Blake, Ben Bryan, Claudia Ciancaglini, Francesco Gardani, Samuel Greengus, Mauro Giorgieri, Zev Joseph Handel, Lars Johanson, Aaron J. Koller, Joseph Lam, John Makujina, Ganesh Malla, H. Craig Melchert, Robert Rezetko, Frank Seifart, P. Oktor Skjærvø, Grant Testut, and Ian Young. I am grateful to each of these individuals xi

xii

Acknowledgments

for their assistance with various topics covered in the manuscript. I am especially thankful to Grant, who read over much of the manuscript in its various stages and offered many valuable insights. Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my family. My wonderful wife Jenn—who also has a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible—read my entire manuscript, offered valuable feedback, and above all supported and encouraged me throughout the process. My precious daughter Katy graciously allowed her daddy to put time into this project at the occasional expense of playtime. Because their sacrifices ultimately made this book possible, I dedicate this book to Jenn and Katy. Having acknowledged all the assistance that was given to me in this project, I take full responsibility for whatever shortcomings may be found herein.

Abbreviations

Bible Texts and Versions α′ Aquila BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia BHQ Biblia Hebraica Quinta, ed. Adrian Schenker et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004 𝕲 Septuagint (Greek) MT Masoretic Text NIV New International Version NJPS Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the Traditional Hebrew Text NRSV New Revised Standard Version OG Old Greek 𝕾 Peshiṭta (Syriac) σ′ Symmachus SP Samaritan Pentateuch 𝕿 Targum(s)   Esth.   Esther (II)   Neof.  Neofiti   Onq. Onqelos   Ps.-J.  Pseudo-​Jonathan   Sam. Samaritan θ′ Theodotion 𝖁 Vulgate (Latin) VL Vetus Latina (Old Latin)

Abbreviations for Ancient Sources Biblical and Deuterocanonical Books Gen ​Exod ​Lev ​Num ​Deut ​Josh ​Judg ​1–2 Sam ​1–2 Kgs ​Isa ​Jer ​ Ezek ​Hos ​Joel ​​Amos ​Obad ​Jonah ​Mic ​Nah ​Hab ​Zeph ​Hag ​ Zech ​Mal ​Ps ​Job ​Prov ​Ruth ​Song ​Qoh ​Lam ​Esth ​Dan ​Ezra ​ Neh ​1–2 Chr ​Sir ​Luke ​John ​Gal ​Heb ​Rev xiii

xiv

Abbreviations

Classical Sources Aesop (6th c. b.c.e.)  Fab.  Fabulae (Fables) Agatharchides of Cnidus (2nd c. b.c.e.)   M. Eryth.  De mari Erythraeo (On the Erythaean Sea) Alcaeus (7th–6th c. b.c.e.)  Frag.  Fragmenta (Fragments) Anacreon (6th c. b.c.e.)  Frag.  Fragmenta (Fragments) Antiphanes (4th c. b.c.e.)  Com.  Comicus (Comic) Arcadius (4th c. c.e.?)  Acc.  De accentibus (On Accents) Arrianus (2nd c. c.e.)   Peripl. M. Eux.  Periplus maris Euxini Athenaeus (2nd–3rd c. c.e.)  Deipn.  Deipnosophistae (The Learned Banqueteers) Chamaeleon (4th–3rd c. b.c.e.)  Frag.  Fragmenta (Fragments) Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th c. c.e.)  Top.  Topographia christiana (Christian Topography) Demosthenes (4th c. b.c.e.)  Orat.  Oratores (Orations) Diodorus Siculus (1st c. B.C.E.)   Bibl. hist.  Bibliotheca historica Dioscorides Pedanius (1st c. c.e.)   Mat. med.  De materia medica (On Pharmacology) Euripides (5th c. b.c.e.)  Alc.  Alcestis Festus (Sextus Pompeius Festus) (2nd c. c.e.)   Verb. sign.  De verborum significatione (On the Sense of Words) Galen (2nd c. c.e.)   Simp. med.  De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis ac facultatibus (On the Powers of Simple Remedies) Herodianus (2nd c. c.e.)   Pros. cath.  De prosodia catholica (General Prosody) Herodotus (5th c. b.c.e.)  Hist.  Historiae (Histories) Hesychius of Alexandria (5th–6th c. c.e.)  Lex.  Lexicon (Lexicon) Hippasus (6th c. b.c.e.)  Test.  Testimonia (Testimonies) Hippocrates (5th c. b.c.e.)  Aer.  De aere aquis et locis (On Airs, Waters, and Places)

Abbreviations

Homer (8th c. b.c.e.)  Il.  Ilias (Iliad)  Od.  Odyssea (Odyssey) Isaeus (4th c. b.c.e.)  Orat.  Oratores (Orations) Isidorus Hispalensis (6th–7th c. c.e.)  Orig.  Origines (Origins) Josephus (1st c. c.e.)  Ant.  Antiquitates judaicae (Jewish Antiquities)  B.J.  Bellum judaicum (Jewish War) Justinian (6th c. c.e.)  Dig.  Digesta (Digest) Palladius (4th c. c.e.)   Op. agr.  Opus agriculturae (Work of Farming) Periplus Maris Rubri (1st c. c.e.) (The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea) Plato (5th–4th c. b.c.e.)  Crat.  Cratylus Plautus (2nd c. b.c.e.)  Poen.  Poenulus Pliny the Elder (1st c. c.e.)  Nat.  Naturalis historia (Natural History) Plutarch (1st–2nd c. c.e.)  Cim.  Cimon Pollux (2nd c. c.e.)  Onom.  Onomasticon (Onomasticon) Polybius (3rd–2nd c. b.c.e.)  Hist.  Historiae (Histories) Porphyrius (3rd c. c.e.)   in Harm.  Commentarius in Harmonica Ptolemaei (Commentary on Ptolemy’s Harmonics) Propertius (1st c. b.c.e.)  El.  Elegiae (Elegies) Pseudo-​Lucian (2nd c. c.e.)  Am.  Amores (Loves) Publilius Syrus (1st c. b.c.e.)   Sent.  Sententiae (Sentences) Strabo (1st c. b.c.e.–1st c. c.e.)  Geog.  Geographica (Geography) Theocritus (4th–3rd c. b.c.e.)  Id.  Idylls (Idylls) Theophrastus (4th–3rd c. b.c.e.)   Hist. plant.  Historia plantarum (Enquiry into Plants)  Lap.  De lapidibus

xv

xvi

Abbreviations

Thucydides (5th c. b.c.e.)  Hist.  Historiae (Histories) Xenophon (5th–4th c. b.c.e.)  Anab.  Anabasis (Ascent)  Cyr.  Cyropaedia Zonaras (12th c. c.e.)  Lex.  Lexicon (Lexicon) Patristic Sources Ishodad of Merv   Comm. Dan.   Commentariorum in Danielem (Commentary on Daniel) Jerome  Epist.   Epistulae (Letters) Theodoret of Cyrrhus   Comm. Dan.   Commentariorum in Danielem (Commentary on Daniel) Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH Hymns of Thanksgiving (Hoyadot) 1QM War Scroll (Milḥamah) (1Q33) 1QS Serek Hayaḥad (Rule of the Community) 4QpNah Pesher Nahum (4Q169) 11QTa Temple Scrolla (11Q19) 11QtgJob Targum of Job (11Q10) apGen Genesis Apocryphon (1Qap Genar) CD Cairo Geniza Damascus Document Pseudepigrapha Odes Sol. Odes of Solomon Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon Rabbinic Sources b. Babylonian Talmud Cant. Rab. Canticles Rabbah (Song of Songs Rabbah) Kelim Kelim m. Mishnah Menaḥ. Menaḥot Nid. Niddah Sanh. Sanhedrin Sem. Semaḥot Šabb. Šabbat Šeb. Šebiˁit Yoma Yoma

Abbreviations

Abbreviations for Languages Akk Akkadian Alalakh Alalakh Akkadian Ammon Ammonite Amor Amorite Arab Arabic Aram Aramaic Arm Armenian Av Avestan BA Biblical Aramaic BH Biblical Hebrew Bogh Boghazköy Akkadian Can Canaanite Akkadian Chagar Chagar Bazar Akkadian CLuv Cuneiform Luvian Copt Coptic   A Akhmimic   B Bohairic   S Sahidic CPA Christian Palestinian Aramaic CW culture word (Kulturwort) Dem Demotic EA Amarna Akkadian Ebla Eblaite Eg Egyptian EH Epigraphic Hebrew Elam Elamite Emar Emar Akkadian Eth Ethiopic (Geʿez) Georg Georgian Gk Greek Hatra Hatran Aramaic Hatt Hattic Heb Hebrew Hitt Hittite HLuv Hieroglyphic Luvian Hurr Hurrian IA Imperial Aramaic (Official Aramaic) IAV Indo–Aryan of the Ancient Near East (Indoarisch im Alten Vorderasien) JA Jewish Aramaic Lat Latin LB Late Babylonian Akkadian LinA Linear A

xvii

xviii

LinB Luv MA Mand ManMPers ManParth Mari MB Med MK Munbaqa NA Nab NB NK NPers Nuzi NWS OA OAkk OAram OB OInd OIran OK OPers OSA Pahl Palm Phoen Ptolm Pun QA Qatna QH RS SA Saite SB Scyth Sir Skt Sogd

Abbreviations

Linear B Luvian Middle Assyrian Akkadian Mandaic Manichaean Middle Persian Manichaean Parthian Mari Akkadian Middle Babylonian Akkadian Median Egyptian of the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Munbaqa Akkadian Neo-​Assyrian Akkadian Nabatean Neo-​Babylonian Akkadian Egyptian of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period New Persian Nuzi Akkadian Northwest Semitic Old Assyrian Akkadian Old Akkadian Old Aramaic Old Babylonian Akkadian Old Indic Old Iranian Egyptian of the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period Old Persian Old South Arabian Pahlavi Palmyrene Aramaic Phoenician Egyptian of the Ptolemaic Kingdom Punic Qumran Aramaic Qatna Akkadian Qumran Hebrew Ras Shamra Akkadian Samaritan Aramaic Egyptian of the Saite Dynasty (26th Dynasty) Standard Babylonian Akkadian Scythian Hebrew from Ben Sira Sanskrit Sogdian

xix

Abbreviations

Sum SyllCypr Syr Ug Urar WSem

Sumerian Syllabic Cyprian Syriac Ugaritic Urartian West Semitic

Abbreviations for Reference Works Abbreviations for Dictionaries and Lexica AAT Arisches im Alten Testament: Eine sprachwissenschaftliche und kulturhistorische Untersuchung, by Isidor Scheftelowitz. 2 vols. Berlin: Calvary, 1901–1903 ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 AHw Akkadisches Handworterbuch, by Wolfram von Soden. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965–1981 AIA The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic, by Stephen A. Kaufman. AS 19. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1974 AISN Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen, by Walther Hinz. Göttinger Orientforschungen, 3. Reihe: Iranica 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975 AIW Altiranisches Wörterbuch, by Christian Bartholomae. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1961 ALBH Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, by Paul V. Mankowski. HSS 47. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2000 ÄW Ägyptisches Wörterbuch, by Rainer Hannig. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 98, 112. Mainz: von Zabern, 2003– BDB Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic, based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius as Translated by Edward Robinson. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906 BGH Bibliographisches Glossar des Hurritischen, by Thomas Richter. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012 CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, ed. A. Leo Oppenheim, Erica Reiner, and Martha T. Roth 21 vols. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956–2010 CAL The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, ed. Stephen A. Kaufman. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College, 1986–. http://cal​.huc​.edu/ CDD The Demotic Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, ed. Janet H.Johnson. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2001–

xx

CDG CHD

CLL CPD CPED Crum DCH DCPA DELG DELL DG DJBA

DJPA DLE DMMPP DMSB

Abbreviations

Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez (Classical Ethiopic): Geʿez– English/English–Geʿez with an Index of the Semitic Roots, by Wolf Leslau. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987 The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, ed. Hans G., Güterbock, Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., and Theo P. J. van den Hout. 5 vols. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1980– Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon, by H. Craig Melchert. Lexica Anatolica 2. Chapel Hill, NC: Author, 1993 A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary, by D. N. MacKenzie. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971 A Comprehensive Persian–English Dictionary, Including the Arabic Words and Phrases to Be Met with in Persian Literature, by Francis Joseph Steingass. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1892 A Coptic Dictionary, by W. E. Crum. Oxford: Clarendon, 1939 Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. David J. A. Clines. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 1993–2011 A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic, by Michael Sokoloff. OLA 234. Leuven: Peeters, 2014 Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots, by Pierre Chantraine. 2nd ed. Librairie Klincksieck: Série linguistique 20. Paris: Klinksiek, 2009 Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots, by Alfred Ernout, Antoine Meillet, and Jacques André. 5th ed. Paris: Klinksiek, 2001 Demotisches Glossar, by Wolja Erichsen. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1954 A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, by Michael Sokoloff. Publications of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002 A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, by Michael Sokoloff. 2nd ed. Dictionaries of the Talmud, Midrash, and Targum 2. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002 A Dictionary of Late Egyptian,by Leonard H. Lesko. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Berkeley, CA: B.C. Scribe Publications, 2002–2004 Dictionary of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian, by Desmond Durkin-​Meisterernst = Dictionary of Manichaean Texts 3/1. Corpus fontium manichaeorum: Subsidia. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004 Dictionary of Manichaean Sogdian and Bactrian, by Nicholas Sims-​Williams and Desmond Durkin-​Meisterernst = Dictionary of Manichaean Texts 3/2. 3 vols. Corpus fontium manichaeorum: Subsidia. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012

Abbreviations

DNWSI DOSA DQA DRS DSA DUL EDE EDG EHLL EIr EPNL EW EWAia FWOT GHwÄ GLH HAB

xxi

Dictionary of the North-​West Semitic Inscriptions, by Jacob Hoftijzer and Karel Jongeling. 2 vols. HdO 21. Leiden: Brill, 1995 Dictionary of Old South Arabic: Sabaean Dialect, by Joan Copeland Biella. HSS 25. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982 Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic, by Edward M. Cook. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015 Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestées dans les langues sémitiques, by David Cohen, François Bron, and Antoine Lonnet. Leuven: Peeters, 1970– A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, by Abraham Tal. 2 vols. HdO 50. Leiden: Brill, 2000 A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, by Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaqín Sanmartín, Ed. and trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson. 3rd ed. 2 vols. HdO 112. Leiden: Brill, 2015 Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian, by Gábor Takács. 3 vols. HdO 48. Leiden: Brill, 1999–2007 Etymological Dictionary of Greek, by Robert S. P. Beekes. 2 vols. Leiden Indo-​European Etymological Dictionary Series 10. Leiden: Brill, 2010 Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, ed. Geoffrey Khan. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2013 Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. Ehsan Yarshater. New York: Encyclopedia Iranica Foundation, 1982–. http://​www​.iranicaonline​.org/ Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-​West Semitic, by Yoshiyuki Muchiki. SBLDS 173. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999 Elamisches Wörterbuch, by Walther Hinz and Heidemarie Koch. 2 vols. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran: Ergänzungsband 17. Berlin: Reimer, 1987 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, by Manfred Mayrhofer. 3 vols. Indogermanische Bibliothek, 2. Reihe: Wörterbücher. Heidelberg: Winter, 1986–2001 Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and Etymology, by Maximilian Ellenbogen. London: Luzac, 1962 Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch–Deutsch (2800 bis 950 v. Chr.): die Sprache der Pharaonen, by Rainer Hannig. 6th ed. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 64. Mainz: von Zabern, 2015 Glossaire de la langue hourrite, by Emmanuel Laroche. 2 vols. RHA 34–35. Paris: Klinksiek, 1978–1979 Hayeren armatakan baṛaran [Armenian Language Radical Dictionary], by Hrachʻeay H. Achaṛean. 4 vols. Hayagitakan usumna­ sirutʻyunneri matenashar [Armenian Research Series]. Yerevan: Yerevani Hamalsarani Hratarakchʻutʻyun, 1971–1979

xxii

HALOT HED HEG

HHW IAP KEWA LÄ Lane LEW LS² LSJ MD OEAE OLD OPGTL PSD

Abbreviations

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Ludwig Köhler and Walter Baumgartner. Trans. M. E. J. Richardson. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001 Hittite Etymological Dictionary, by Jaan Puhvel. Trends in Linguistics: Documentation 1, 5, 14, 18, 22, 26, 32. Berlin: Mouton, 1984– Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar, by Johann Tischler. Ed. Günter Neumann and Erich Neu. 16 vols. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 20. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 1983–2016 Hethitisches Handwörterbuch, by Johann Tischler. 2nd ed. Inns­ brucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 128. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck, 2008 Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550–330 B.C.): Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords Attested in Non-​Iranian Texts, by Jan Tavernier. OLA 158. Leuven: Peeters, 2007 Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen, by Manfred Mayrhofer. 4 vols. Indogermanische Bibliothek, 2. Reihe: Wörterbücher. Heidelberg: Winter, 1956–1980 Lexikon der Ägyptologie, ed. Wolfgang Helck, Eberhard Otto, and Wolfhart Westendorf. 7 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972–1992 Lane, Edward William. An Arabic–English Lexicon. 8 vols. London: Williams & Norgate, 1863–1893 Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, by Alois Walde. Ed. Johann Baptist Hofmann. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Indogermanische Bibliothek 1. Heidelberg: Winter 1938–1956 A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum, by Michael Sokoloff. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009 Liddel, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie. A Greek–English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996 Drower, E. S., and Rudolf Macuch. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963 The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. Donald B. Redford. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001 Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. P. G. W. Glare. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012 Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, by Roland G. Kent. 2nd ed. AOS 33. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1953 The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, ed. Åke W. Sjöberg and Steve Tinney. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 1984–. http://​psd​.museum​.upenn​.edu​/epsd/

xxiii

Abbreviations

RlA SLOB SWET TDOT

VE WÄS WKAS

Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archaologie, ed. Ernst F. Weidner, Wolfram von Soden, and Dietz Otto Edzard. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1957– The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-​Babylonian Akkadian: Prolego­ mena and Evidence, by Stephen J. Lieberman. HSS 22. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977 Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, by James E. Hoch. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994 Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-​Josef Fabry. Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, David E. Green, Douglas W. Stott, and John T. Willis. 16 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974–2018 “Il vocabolario di Ebla,” pp. 115–343 in Testi lessicali bilingui della biblioteca L. 2769, by Giovanni Pettinato. MEE 4. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, 1982 Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, by Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow. 5 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1926–1931 Wörterbuch der klassischen arabischen Sprache, by Jörg Kraemer, Helmut Gätje, and Manfred Ullmann. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1957–

Abbreviations for Journals and Series AB Anchor Bible Commentary ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library ABSA Annual of the British School at Athens AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AfOB Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures AKM Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes ALASP Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-​Syrien-​Palastinas und Mesopotamiens ALUOS Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society ANES Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series ANES Ancient Near Eastern Studies AnOr Analecta orientalia AnSt Anatolian Studies AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament AoF Altorientalische Forschungen AOS American Oriental Series ArOr Archiv orientální AS Assyriological Studies AS Aramaic Studies

xxiv

ASAE ASAW ATA AuOr BA BaghM BASOR BASORSup BBR BEHEH Bib BibOr BKAT BLT BN BO BRev BSL BSOAS BT BWAT BZ BZAW CAT CBQ CBQMS CC ChrEg CII CIS DA DSD ErIs EvQ FAT FBBS HANEM HAT HCOT

Abbreviations

Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philologisch-​Historische Klasse Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen Aula Orientalis Biblical Archaeologist Baghdader Mitteilungen Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement Studies Bulletin for Biblical Research Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes études: Sciences historiques et philologiques Biblica Biblica et Orientalia Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament Babylonische Texte (Leipzig) Biblische Notizen Bibliotheca Orientalis Bible Review Bulletin de la Société linguistique de Paris Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London The Bible Translator Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Continental Commentaries Chronique d’Égypte Corpus inscriptionum iranicarum (London) Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum (Paris) Documenta Asiana Dead Sea Discoveries Eretz-​Israel Evangelical Quarterly Forschungen zum Alten Testament Facet Books: Biblical Series History of the Ancient Near East Monographs Handbuch zum Alten Testament Historical Commentary on the Old Testament

xxv

Abbreviations

HdO HKAT HSS HTR HUCA ICC IEJ IF IOS IOS IUOSMi JA JANES JBL JCS JEA JEOL JHebS JHS JIES JJS JNES JNSL JQR JSOR JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAT KBo LANE Leš LSAWS MAD MDAI MEE MSL MSS MVAG

Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One: The Near and Middle East Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Indogermanische Forschungen Israel Oriental Studies Israel Oriental Studies Istituto universitario orientale, Dipartimento di studio asiatici: Series minor Journal asiatique Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-​Egyptisch Gezelschap Ex Oriente Lux Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Indo-​European Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of the Society of Oriental Research Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi (Leipzig/Berlin) Languages of the Ancient Near East Lešonénu Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary Mitteilungen der Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Materiali epigrafici di Ebla (Naples) Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon (Rome) Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatische-​Aegyptischen Gesellschaft

xxvi

NABU NICOT OBO OIP OLA OLZ Or OrAnt OTL OtSt PEQ PIASH PLO RB RBL REA REg RES RHA RSO SAA SAOC SBLABS SBLDS SBLRBS SBLWAW SBS SCCNH ScrHier Sef SEL Sem SIr SR StBoT StMed StOr TA TCL TGUOS TynBul TZ UF

Abbreviations

Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires New International Commentary on the Old Testament Orbis biblicus et orientalis Oriental Institute Publications Orientalia lovaniensia analecta Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Orientalia Oriens antiquus Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Palestine Exploration Quarterly Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Porta Linguarum Orientalium Revue biblique Review of Biblical Literature Revue des études anciennes Revue d’Égyptologie Revue des études sémitiques Revue hittite et asianique Rivista degli studi orientali State Archives of Assyria (Helsinki) Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians Scripta Hierosolymitana Sefarad Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico Semitica Studia Iranica Studies in Religion Studien zu den Boğazköy-​Texten Studia Mediterranea Studia Orientalia Tel Aviv Textes cunéiformes, Musée du Louvre (Paris) Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Ugarit-​Forschungen

Abbreviations

VAB VT VTSup WBC WO WUNT WVDOG YJS ZA ZABR ZAH ZÄS ZAW ZDMG ZDPV ZVS

xxvii

Vorderasiatische Bibliothek Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Die Welt des Orients Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orientgesellschaft Yale Judaica Series Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Zeitschrift für Althebraistik Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-​Vereins Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen

Abbreviations and Sigla for Ancient Sources ADD Assyrian Deeds and Documents Recording the Transfer of Property, Including the So-​Called Private Contracts, Legal Decisions and Proclamations Preserved in the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum, Chiefly of the 7th Century B.C., by C. H. W Johns. 4 vols. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, 1898–1923 AO tablets in the collections of the Musée du Louvre (Paris) API Altpersische Inschriften, by Ernst Herzfeld. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran: Ergänzungsband 1. Berlin: Reimer, 1938 ARM Archives royales de Mari (Paris) AT The Alalakh Tablets, by Donald J. Wiseman. Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 2. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1953 Atraḫasis Atra-ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood, by W. G. Lambert and Alan R. Millard. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969 Azatiwada [inscription of Azatiwada] Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, 45–68, by J. David Hawkins and Halet Çambel. Studies in Indo-​European Language and Culture, New Series 8. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999–2000, 1/1; 1/2 plates 52–105 Babylon tablets in the collections of Bode (Kaiser-​Friedrich) Museum (Berlin) BD [Book of the Dead] Das aegyptische Todtenbuch der XVIII. bis XX. Dynastie aus verschiedenen Urkunden zusammengestellt und herausgegeben, by Édouard Naville. 2 vols. Berlin: Asher, 1886

xxviii

Abbreviations

BIN

Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of J. B. Nies (New Haven) tablets in the collections of the British Museum (London) A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions, by Walter E. Aufrecht. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 4. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1989 Corpus inscriptionum Atticarum, by Adolf Kirchhoff, Ulrich Leopold Koehler, Johannes Kirchner, Wilhelm Dittenberger, and Richard Wünsch. 4 vols. Berlin: Reimer, 1873–1897 Cuneiform in Canaan: The Next Generation, by Wayne Horowitz, Takayoshi Oshima, and Seth L. Sanders. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum (London) Inschriften von Cyrus, König von Babylon (538–529 v. Chr.), by J. N. Strassmaier. BLT 7. Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1890 Inschriften von Darius, König von Babylon (521–485 v. Chr.), by J. N. Strassmaier. BLT 10–12. Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1892–1897 The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Old Persian Text, by Rüdiger Schmitt. CII 1/1/Texts 1. London: Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, 1991 [inscription a of Darius at Naqsh-​i Rustam] The Old Persian Inscriptions of Naqsh-​i Rustam and Persepolis, 25–32, by Rüdiger Schmitt. CII I/1/Texts 2. London: Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, 2000 [inscription f of Darius at Susa] Nouveaux mélanges épigraphiques: inscriptions royales de Suse et de la Susiane, 64–77, by Marie-​Joseph Steve. Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique en Iran 53. Nice: Serre, 1987 The El-​Amarna Correspondence: A New Edition of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site of El-​Amarna based on Collations of All Extant Tablets, by Anson F. Rainey. Ed. William M. Schniedewind and Zipora Cochavi-​Rainey. 2 vols. HdO 110. Leiden: Brill, 2015 The Egyptian Coffin Texts, by Adriaan De Buck, Alan H. Gardiner, and James P. Allen. 8 vols. OIP 34, 49, 64, 67, 73, 81, 87, 132. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1935–2006 [tablets from Emar] Textes sumériens et accadiens, by Daniel Arnaud. 3 vols. Recherches au pays d’Aštata 6/1–3. Paris: Recherche sur les civilisations, 1985–1986 [Foundation Inscription of Yaḫdun-Lim] “L’inscription de fondation de Iaḫdun-​Lim, roi de Mari,” by Georges Dossin. Syria 32 (1955) 1–28

BM CAI CIA CIC CT Cyr Dar DB DNa

DSf

EA

ECT

Emar Foundation Inscription

Abbreviations

HAE Ḫḫ HT Igituḫ KAI KAJ KAR KBo Khalili KTU

KUB KUKN M malku NTA P An IV PBS P Ch Beatty P Edwin Smith

xxix

Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik by Johannes Renz and Wolfgang Röllig. 3 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995 lexical series Ḫar-ra = ḫubullu (MSL 5–11) [Hagia Triada] Testi minoici trascritti con interpretazione e glossario, 47–116, by Carlo Consani. Incunabula Graeca 100. Rome: Istituto per gli studi micenei ed egeo-​anatolici, 1999 lexical series igituḪ = tamartu (MSL 18) Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, Band 1: Texte, by Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Röllig. 5th ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002 Keilschrifttexte aus Assur juristischen Inhalts, by Erich Ebeling. WVDOG 50. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1927 Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts, by Erich Ebeling. 2 vols. WVDOG 28, 34. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1919–1923 Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi (Leipzig/Berlin) Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria (Fourth Century b.c.e.) from the Khalili Collections, by Joseph Naveh and Shaul Shaked. London: Khalili Family Trust, 2012 Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Ḫani und anderen Orten, by Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, Joaqín Sanmartín, and Ingo Kottsieper. 3rd ed. 2 vols. AOAT 360. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag, 2013–2014 Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi (Berlin) Korpus urartskikh klinoobraznykh nadpiseĭ [Corpus of Urartian Cuneiform Inscriptions], by N. V. Arutiunian. Yerevan: Gitutiun, 2001 tablets from Mari in the collections of the Musée du Louvre (Paris) Die akkadische Synonymenliste malku = šarru: eine Textedition mit Übersetzung und Kommentar, by Ivan Hrůša. AOAT 50. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag, 2010 Nouvelles tablettes araméennes, by Edward Lipiński. Moyen et Proche-​Orient 1. Geneva: Droz, 2001 [Papyrus Anastasi IV] Late-​Egyptian Miscellanies, 34–56, by Alan H. Gardiner. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 7. Brussels: Fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth, 1937 Publications of the Babylonian Section, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum, Third Series: Chester Beatty Gift, by Alan H. Gardiner. 2 vols. London: British Museum, 1935 The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, by James Henry Breasted. 2 vols. OIP 3–4. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1930

xxx

Abbreviations

PF

Persepolis Fortification Tablets, by Richard T. Hallock. OIP 92. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1969 Persepolis Fortification Tablets, unpublished but numbered and transliterated by Richard T. Hallock Papyrus Harris I: Hieroglyphische Transkription, by Wolja Erichsen. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 6. Brussels: Fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth, 1933 “Le Papyrus Judiciare de Turin,” by Théodule Devéria. JA ser. 6 vols. 6 (1865) 227–61, 331–77; 8 (1866) 154–95; 10 (1867) 402–76 Persepolis Treasury Tablets, by George G. Cameron. OIP 65. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1948; idem, “Persepolis Treasury Tablets Old and New,” JNES 17 (1958) 161–76; George G. Cameron and Ilya Gershevitch, “New Tablets from the Persepolis Treasury,” JNES 24 (1965) 167–192 Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique, ed. Charles Clermont-​ Ganneau and Jean Baptiste Chabot. 8 vols. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1900–1963 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods (Toronto/ Winona Lake) Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods (Toronto/ Winona Lake) Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-​Assyrian Period (Winona Lake) tablets from Ras Shamra in the collections of the Musée du Louvre (Paris) and the National Museum of Damascus (Damascus) [Shipwreched Sailor] Middle-​Egyptian Stories, 41–48, by Aylward M. Blackman. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 2. Brussels: Fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth, 1932 Šurpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations, by Erica Reiner. AfOB 11, 1958 Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, by Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986–1999 Textes cunéiformes, Musée du Louvre (Paris) Urkunden des aegyptischen Altertums, by Kurt Sethe, Wolfgang Helck, Heinrich Schäfer, Hermann Grapow, and Otto Firchow. 8 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903–1957 tablets in the collections of the Staatliche Museen (Berlin) Verstreute Boghazköi-Texte, by Albrecht Goetze. Marburg: Universitätsstadt Marburg, 1930

PFNN P Harris I P Jud Turin PT

RES RIMA RIME RINAP RS Shipwrecked Sailor Šurpu TAD TCL Urk VAT VBoT

Entries

Non-​Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible (pp. 33–231) ‫‘ אֵ בּוס‬stable’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ‫גּוּּמים‬ ִ ְ‫אַל‬‎ ⇒ ‫אַ לְ מֻּגִ ים‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 ַ‫‘ אֲבַ ִּטיח‬watermelon’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 ‫אַ לְ מֻּגִ ים‬‎, ‫גּוּּמים‬ ִ ְ‫( אַל‬a kind of tree ‫( אַ בְ נֵט‬a sash or wrap). . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 valuable for timber). . . . . . . . . . . 54 ‫‘ אַ בְ ֵרְך‬pay attention!’. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 ‫‘ אָ ּמָ ן‬artisan’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 ‫‘ אֱגֹוז‬walnut’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 ‫‘ ֲאנְָך‬lead, tin’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 ‫‘ ֲאגַם‬reed pool, marsh’. . . . . . . . . . . . 38 ‫‘ אָ ְסּפ ְַרנָא‬in full, entirely’. . . . . . . . . . . 57 ‫( אַ ּגָן‬a krater-​like vessel) . . . . . . . . . . 39 ‫‘ אֵ פֹ ד‬ephod’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 ‫( ֲאג ְַרטָ ל‬a vessel). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 ‫‘ אַ ּפֶדֶ ן‬columned palace, audience ‫אֵ דֹו‬‎, ‫‘ אֵ ד‬ground flow’. . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 hall’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 ‫( אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬a financial official) . . . . . . . . 41 ‫אֵ פָה‬‎, ‫( אֵ יפָה‬a volume measure for ‫‘ אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א‬diligently, grain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 wholeheartedly’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 ‫‘ אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬litter, sedan chair’. . . . . . . . . . 60 ‫אֲדַ ְרכֹון‬‎ ⇒ ‫ ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 ‫‘ ֲאפ ְַר ְסָך‬legal investigator’. . . . . . . . . 61 ‫אֲהָ לֹות‬‎, ‫‘ אֲהָ לִ ים‬aloe’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 ‫( ֲאפ ְַרסַ ְתָך‬a chief official). . . . . . . . . . 62 ‫‘ אֹוב‬spirit of the dead’. . . . . . . . . . . . 44 ‫( אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬a type of income, perhaps ‫אֵ זֹ ב‬‎, ‫‘ אֵ זֹוב‬origanum’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 usufruct). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 ‫‘ אַ זְּדָ א‬certain, known’. . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 ‫אַ ְרּגָמָ ן ⇒ אַ ְרּגְ וָן‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 ‫ אֵ זֹ ב ⇒ אֵ זֹוב‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 ‫( אַ ְרּגַז‬a container or chest). . . . . . . . . 63 ‫‘ אַ ח‬brazier’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 ‫אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬‎, ‫( אַ ְרּגְ וָן‬BH); ‫( אַ ְרּגְ וָן‬BA) ‫( אָ חּו‬a rush or reed plant). . . . . . . . . . 48 ‘purple, purple cloth’. . . . . . . . . . 64 ‫‘ אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬red jasper’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 ‫‘ א ֲִריְך‬fitting, proper’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 ‫( אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬BH); ‫( אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן‬BA) ‫‘ אֹ ֶרן‬cedar’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 ‘satrap’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 ‫‘ אֶ ְׁשּכָר‬payment, tribute’. . . . . . . . . . . 67 ‫‘ אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן‬royal’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 ‫( אַ ְשׁלַג‬an alkaline substance used ‫‘ אֵ טּון‬fine linen’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 for washing). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 ‫‘ ִא ִּטים‬spirit’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 ‫‘ אַ ְׁשּפָה‬quiver (for arrows)’. . . . . . . . . 68 ‫אֵ פָה ⇒ אֵ יפָה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 ‫‘ אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא‬necessities, essentials’. . . . . . 70 ‫‘ ִאּכָר‬farmer, plower’. . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 ‫‘ אַ ּתּון‬kiln’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 ‫אֶ לְ ּגָבִ יׁש‬‎, ‫( ּגָבִ יׁש‬a dark-​colored ‫‘ ּבַ ד‬pole’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 stone) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 ‫‘ ּבַ ד‬linen’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 xxxi

xxxii

‫‘ ּבְ דֹ לַח‬bdellium’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 ‫( ּבַ הַ ט‬a stone from Nubia) . . . . . . . . . 74 ‫‘ ּבַ חַ ן‬tower, watchtower’. . . . . . . . . . . 75 ‫‘ ּבֹ חַ ן‬greywacke’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 ‫ּבְ רֹוׁש‬‎, ‫( ּבְ רֹות‬a coniferous tree) . . . . . . 77 ‫ּבְ רֹוׁש ⇒ ּבְ רֹות‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 ‫( ּבַ ְרזֶל‬BH); ‫( ּפ ְַרזֶל‬BA) ‘iron ore’. . . . . 78 ‫‘ ּגָבִ י ַע‬vessel, cup-​shaped candleholder’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 ‫אֶ לְ ּגָבִ יׁש ⇒ ּגָבִ יׁש‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 ‫‘ ּגְ דָ בַ ר‬treasurer’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 ‫( ּגִ זְּבָ ר‬BH); ‫( ּגִ זְּבַ ר‬BA) ‘treasurer’. . . . 81 ‫( ּגְ לֹום‬a wrap or cloak). . . . . . . . . . . . 82 ‫( ּגֹ מֶ א‬a rush or reed plant). . . . . . . . . . 83 ‫( ֶּגּנֶז‬BH); ‫( ּגְ נַז‬BA) ‘treasury’ . . . . . . . 83 ‫‘ ּגַנְ זְַך‬treasury’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 ‫( ּגֹ פֶר‬a kind of wood, perhaps cypress) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 ‫( ּג ְַרזֶן‬an axe). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 ‫‘ ְּדיֹו‬ink’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 ‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬‎, ‫‘ אֲדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬drachma’. . . . . . . . . . 87 ‫( ּדָ ת‬BH, BA) ‘law, order’. . . . . . . . . . 89 ‫‘ ְּדתָ בַ ר‬judge’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 ‫‘ הָ בְ נִ ים‬Egyptian ebony, African blackwood’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 ‫‘ הַ ּדָ בַ ר‬assistant, aide’. . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 ‫‘ הַ ּדָ ם‬limb’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 ‫‘ הֲדֹ ם‬footstool’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 ‫( הֵ יכָל‬BH); ‫( הֵ יכַל‬BA) ‘palace, temple’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 ‫( הִ ין‬a liquid volume measure). . . . . . 94 ‫‘ הַ ְמיָנְ כָא‬necklace’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 ‫זְמַ ן‬‎, ‫‘ זְמָ ן‬appointed time’. . . . . . . . . . . 96 ‫( זַן‬BH, BA) ‘kind, type’. . . . . . . . . . 97 ‫( ֶזפֶת‬a type of pitch). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 ‫‘ ז ֶֶרת‬hand-​span’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 ‫חֹ תָ ם ⇒ חֹותָ ם‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 ‫‘ חַ ּל ִָמיׁש‬flint rock’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 ‫( חָ רּוץ‬a type of gold). . . . . . . . . . . . 101 ‫( חַ ְרטֹ ם‬BH, BA) ‘magician’. . . . . . . 102 ‫( חֹ ִרי‬a type of cake). . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 ‫( חֶ ְרמֵ ׁש‬a cutting implement). . . . . . . 104 ‫חֶ ֶרׂש‬, ‫‘ חֶ ֶרס‬earthenware vessel; potsherd’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Entries

‫‘ חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬amber’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 ‫‘ חִ ּתּול‬wool’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 ‫חֹ תָ ם‬‎, ‫‘ חֹותָ ם‬seal, signet ring’. . . . . . . 108 ‫‘ טַ ּבַ עַת‬seal, signet ring’ . . . . . . . . . . 109 ‫‘ טּור‬course, row’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 ‫( טֶ נֶא‬a basket for produce). . . . . . . . 110 ‫( ִטפְ סָ ר‬an official). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 ‫ יְ אֹ ר ⇒ יְ אֹור‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 ‫יְ אֹ ר‬‎, ‫‘ יְ אֹור‬the Nile River; river’. . . . 112 ‫‘ יַיִ ן‬wine’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 ‫‘ י ְָׁשפֵה‬jasper’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 ‫( ּכַד‬a pithos or large jar) . . . . . . . . . 115 ‫ּכ ְַדּכֹ ד‬‎, ‫( ּכ ְַדכֹ ד‬a gemstone, perhaps a type of jasper). . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 ‫ּכֹובַ ע‬‎, ‫( קֹובַ ע‬a helmet) . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 ‫‘ ּכֹוס‬cup’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 ‫( ּכִ ידֹון‬a straight sword). . . . . . . . . . . 119 ‫( ּכִ ּיֹור‬a metal vessel). . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 ‫( ּכֵילָף‬an axe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 ‫( ּכִ יר‬an oven for cooking) . . . . . . . . 122 ‫‘ ּכְ לִ י‬ship’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 ‫‘ ּכַּמֹ ן‬cumin’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 ‫‘ ּכֹ מֶ ר‬pagan priest’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 ‫‘ ּכִ ּנֹור‬lyre’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 ‫‘ ּכִ ּסֵ א‬seat, throne’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 ‫‘ ּכֹ פֶר‬henna’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 ‫( ּכֹ ר‬BH, BA) (a measure for volume) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 ‫( ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬a type of pointed cap) . . . . . 130 ‫‘ ּכָרֹוז‬herald’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 ‫‘ ּכ ְַרּכֹ ם‬saffron’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 ‫‘ ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬crimson’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 ‫‘ ּכ ְַרּפַס‬cotton’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 ‫‘ ּכ ֵָרׂש‬belly, stomach’. . . . . . . . . . . . 135 ‫( ּכֶתֶ ם‬a type of fine gold) . . . . . . . . . 136 ‫( ּכֻּתֹ נֶת‬an outer garment). . . . . . . . . . 137 ‫‘ לָבִ יא‬lion’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 ‫( לִ ילִ ית‬a female demon). . . . . . . . . . 139 ‫‘ לַיִ ׁש‬lion’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 ‫‘ לַּפִ יד‬torch; lightning’. . . . . . . . . . . 141 ‫לִ ְׁשּכָה‬‎, ‫‘ נִ ְׁשּכָה‬room, chamber’. . . . . . 142 ‫‘ לֶׁשֶ ם‬feldspar, amazonite’. . . . . . . . 143 ‫( לֵתֶ ְך‬a volume measure) . . . . . . . . . 143 ‫‘ מגן‬to give, give over’. . . . . . . . . . . 144

Entries

‫‘ מַ ּלָח‬sailor, mariner’ . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 ‫( מֶ לֶט‬a kind of mortar). . . . . . . . . . . 146 ‫‘ מַ ס‬conscription for corvée labor, tribute’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 ‫‘ ְמ ֻסּכָן‬Indian rosewood’. . . . . . . . . . 148 ‫( מֶ ִׁשי‬a luxury garment) . . . . . . . . . . 149 ‫‘ נֶבְ ְר ְׁשּתָ א‬lamp’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 ‫( נָדָ ן‬BH); ‫( נְ דַ ן‬BA) ‘sheath’ . . . . . . . 150 ‫‘ נַחַ ת‬power, strength’. . . . . . . . . . . . 151 ‫( נְ כ ִָסים‬BH); ‫( נִ כְ ִסין‬BA) ‘wealth, property’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 ‫‘ נֹ פְֶך‬turquoise’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 ‫‘ נ ְֵר ְּד‬spikenard’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 ‫לִ ְׁשּכָה ⇒ נִ ְׁשּכָה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 ‫( נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬BH, BA) ‘document, decree’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 ‫‘ נֶתֶ ר‬natron’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 ‫ׂשַ ּבְ כָא ⇒ סַ ּבְ כָא‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 ‫( סָ ִדין‬a luxury garment). . . . . . . . . . 157 ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬‎ ְ , ‫‘ ִסּיּפֹ נְ יָה‬musical harmony’. . 158 ‫‘ סּוס‬horse’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 ‫( סּוף‬a rush or reed plant). . . . . . . . . 160 ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה ⇒ ִסּיּפֹ נְ יָה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ְ 161 ‫‘ סָ ְך‬shrine, sanctuary’ . . . . . . . . . . . 161 ‫( ִסּמָ גַר‬an official). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 ‫( סַ ף‬a type of bowl) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 ‫( סֵ פֶל‬a metal bowl). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 ‫( סַ ְרּבָ ל‬a type of trousers). . . . . . . . . 165 ‫ ִׁש ְריֹון ⇒ ִס ְריֹון‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 ‫( ְס ַרְך‬a chief official) . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 ‫( סֶ ֶרן‬a Philistine official). . . . . . . . . 166 ‫‘ עֹ פ ֶֶרת‬lead’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 ‫‘ ע ָָרה‬reed’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 ‫‘ ּפְ אֵ ר‬headwrap’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 ‫‘ ּפּוְך‬kohl, eye paint’. . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 ‫‘ ּפּור‬lot’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 ‫‘ ּפַח‬trap, bird trap’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 ‫‘ ּפַח‬metal plating, metal foil’. . . . . . 173 ‫‘ ּפֶחַ ר‬potter’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 ‫( ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬a gemstone, perhaps peridot). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 ‫( ּפ ִַּטיׁש‬a type of leg wrappings) . . . . 175 ‫ּפִ ֶלגֶׁש ⇒ ּפִ י ֶלגֶׁש‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 ‫ּפִ ֶלגֶׁש‬‎, ‫‘ ּפִ י ֶלגֶׁש‬concubine’. . . . . . . . . . 176

xxxiii

‫‘ ֶּפלְֶך‬spindle’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 ‫( ַּפּנַג‬a type of bread). . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 ‫‘ ּפְ נִ ינִ ים‬pearls’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 ‫ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין ⇒ ּפְ סַ נְ טֵ ִרין‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 ‫ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬‎, ‫( ּפְ סַ נְ טֵ ִרין‬a stringed musical instrument). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 ‫( ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬a roofed structure). . . . . . . . . 180 ‫‘ ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬garden’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 ‫( ּפ ְַרוָר‬an enclosed area). . . . . . . . . . 182 ‫ּבַ ְרזֶל ⇒ ּפ ְַרזֶל‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 ‫‘ ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬pharaoh’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 ‫‘ ּפ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן‬copy’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 ‫( ּפ ְַרּתָ ם‬an official of the royal court) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 ‫‘ ּפ ְַתּבַ ג‬food allowance’. . . . . . . . . . . 185 ‫( ּפִ ְתגָם‬BH, BA) ‘decree’. . . . . . . . . . 186 ‫( ּפְ ִתיגִ יל‬a luxurious garment). . . . . . 187 ‫‘ ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬copy’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 ‫( צָ ב‬a type of wagon). . . . . . . . . . . . 188 ‫‘ צִ י‬riverboat’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 ‫( קַ ב‬a volume measure) . . . . . . . . . . 190 ‫ּכֹובַ ע ⇒ קֹובַ ע‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 ‫ קֹ ף ⇒ קֹוף‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 ‫‘ קִ יקָ יֹון‬castor-​oil plant’. . . . . . . . . . . 190 ‫( קִ יתָ רֹוס‬a type of lyre). . . . . . . . . . . 191 ‫( קַ ּלַחַ ת‬a type of cooking pot). . . . . . 192 ‫( קִ ּנָמֹון‬a cinnamon-​like plant). . . . . . 193 ‫‘ קֶ סֶ ת‬scribal palette’. . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 ‫קֹ ף‬‎, ‫( קֹוף‬an African monkey). . . . . . 194 ‫( קְ צִ יעָה‬a cassia-​like plant). . . . . . . . 196 ‫( קַ ְרּדֹ ם‬an axe). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 ‫‘ קִ ּׁשֻ אָ ה‬melon’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 ‫( ָרז‬BH, BA) ‘secret, mystery’. . . . . 198 ‫‘ ִרּמֹון‬pomegranate’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 ‫‘ ַרּמָ כָה‬herd’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 ‫‘ ֶרסֶ ן‬bridle, rein’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 ‫ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬‎, ‫( סַ ּבְ כָא‬a stringed musical instrument). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 ‫( ׂשַ ּכִ ין‬a type of knife). . . . . . . . . . . . 204 ‫( ְׂשכִ ית‬a ship) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 ‫( ְׁשבֹו‬a precious stone). . . . . . . . . . . 206 ‫ׁשֹ פָר ⇒ ׁשֹופָר‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 ‫ׁשּוׁשַ ן‬‎, ‫‘ ׁשֹוׁשַ ן‬water lily, Egyptian lotus’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

xxxiv

‫( ְׁשחֵ לֶת‬a fragrant plant, probably cress) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 ‫‘ ִׁשּטָ ה‬acacia wood’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 ‫שַ ׁיִ ׁש‬‎, ‫‘ ׁשֵ ׁש‬Egyptian alabaster, travertine’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 ‫אַ ְׁשלַג ⇒ ׁשֶ לֶג‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 ‫‘ ׁשָ ִמיר‬emery, corundum’. . . . . . . . . 210 ‫‘ ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬ivory’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 ‫ׁשֹ פָר‬‎, ‫( ׁשֹופָר‬an instrument made from an animal horn). . . . . . . . . 212 ‫ׁש ְריֹון‬‎ִ , ‫‘ ִס ְריֹון‬scale armor, scale mail’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 ‫‘ ְׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬corporal punishment’ . . . . . . 214 ‫‘ ׁשֵ ׁש‬Egyptian linen’. . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 ‫( ְּתאַ ּׁשּור‬a coniferous tree). . . . . . . . . 216 ‫‘ ּתֵ בָ ה‬ark; basket’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 ‫ ּתֹ ר ⇒ ּתֹור‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 ‫( ּתַ חְ ָרא‬a type of leather vest). . . . . . 218

Entries

‫( ּתַ חַ ׁש‬a type of Egyptian leather). . . 219 ‫‘ ִּתירֹוׁש‬grape; fresh wine’. . . . . . . . . 219 ‫( ּתֻ ּכִ י‬a female African ape). . . . . . . . 221 ‫‘ ּתֵ ל‬heap, ruin’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 ‫( ּתַ ּנּור‬a type of oven). . . . . . . . . . . . 222 ‫( ּתֻ ּפִ ין‬a bread made from coarse flour). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 ‫‘ ִּתפְ ּתָ י‬lord, overseer’. . . . . . . . . . . . 224 ‫ּתֹ ר‬‎, ‫‘ ּתֹור‬string’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 ‫‘ תרגם‬to translate’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 ‫‘ ְּת ָרפִ ים‬teraphim, divinatory figurines’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 ‫( ּתַ ְר ִׁשיׁש‬a precious stone, perhaps Spanish topaz or fool’s gold). . . 228 ‫( ִּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬a supervisor of religious matters). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 ‫( ּתַ ְרּתָ ן‬an Assyrian official). . . . . . . . 230

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-​Semitic Loans (pp. 321–358) ‫‘ אֶ בְ יֹון‬poor, needy’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 ‫‘ ְמכ ֵָרה‬blade, knife’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 ‫[ אָ זֵן‬allegedly ‘equipment, ‫( מָ נֶה‬a unit of weight). . . . . . . . . . . . 337 tools’]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 ‫‘ מרח‬to rub, spread on’. . . . . . . . . . . 338 ‫‘ אַ ּלּוף‬tribal chief’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 ‫‘ נְ בִ זְּבָ ה‬gift’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 ‫[ אֵ ְׁשּדָ ת‬allegedly ‘fiery law’] . . . . . . 324 ‫‘ ּנֹ קֵ ד‬shepherd’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 ‫( אַ ּׁשָ ף‬BH); ‫( אָ ׁשַ ף‬BA) ‘exorcist’. . . . 325 ‫( ְסאָ ה‬a measure of volume). . . . . . . 340 ‫‘ אֶ ְׁשתַ ּדּור‬war, conflict’ . . . . . . . . . . . 325 ‫אּסאָ ה‬ ְ ַ‫‘ ס‬expulsion’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 ‫‘ ּבְ ִדיל‬lead, tin’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 ‫‘ סֶ גֶר‬spear-​hilt’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 ‫ּבָ ֶרקֶ ת‬, ‫( ּבָ ְרקַ ת‬a green gem) . . . . . . . . 327 ‫‘ סּוגַר‬neckstock’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 ‫‘ ַּגּלָב‬barber’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 ‫( סֶ לָה‬a liturgical term). . . . . . . . . . . 343 ‫‘ ּדּוד‬pot, cauldron’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 ‫‘ סלח‬to forgive’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 ‫‘ חֲנִ ית‬spear’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 ‫( סָ לְ עָם‬a species of locust) . . . . . . . . 344 ‫‘ חׁשב‬to think, reckon’. . . . . . . . . . . 329 ‫( סַ ם‬a fragrant spice) . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 ‫[ חַ ְׁשמַ ן‬allegedly ‘bronze’ or ‘red ‫‘ סַ ף‬threshold’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 cloth’]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 ‫‘ סַ ּפִ יר‬lapis lazuli’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346 ‫‘ טמא‬to be unclean’. . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 ‫[ *סַ פְ ִסיג‬allegedly ‘glaze’] . . . . . . . . 347 ‫‘ יָצּו ַע‬bed, couch’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 ‫( ּפַז‬a type of fine gold). . . . . . . . . . . 348 ‫‘ ּכּור‬smelting furnace’. . . . . . . . . . . 333 ‫‘ ּפְַך‬vial, flask’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 ‫‘ ּכְ לּוב‬bird cage; woven basket’. . . . 334 ‫[ ּפְ לָדָ ה‬allegedly ‘steel’] . . . . . . . . . . 350 ‫[ מֵ זַח‬allegedly ‘shipyard’]. . . . . . . . 334 ‫‘ ּפִ ּסָ ה‬allotment, portion’. . . . . . . . . . 350 ‫מֵ זַח‬, ַ‫‘ מָ זִיח‬belt, waistband’. . . . . . . . 335 ‫‘ ּפָרֹ כֶת‬curtain’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 ‫מכְ מָ ר‬, ִ ‫מַ כְ מֹ ר‬, ‫‘ ִמכְ מֶ ֶרת‬net’. . . . . . . . . . 336 ‫‘ צִ יר‬door-​hinge’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

Entries

‫‘ קָ נֶה‬reed’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 ‫‘ ׂשַ ק‬sack, sackcloth’. . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 ‫‘ ׁשֶ בֶ ר‬grain’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 ‫‘ ׁשּועָל‬fox’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 ‫( ׁשָ לִ יׁש‬a high–ranking official). . . . . 355 ‫‘ ִׁשקְ מָ ה‬sycomore-​fig tree’. . . . . . . . . 356

xxxv

‫‘ ְׁש ִתי‬warp (of woven material)’. . . . 357 ‫⇒ ּתֹועֵבָ ה‬ ‎ ‫ּתֹ עֵבָ ה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 ‫[ ּתַ לְ ּפִ ּיֹות‬allegedly ‘seen from afar, far away’]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 ‫ּתֹ עֵבָ ה‬‎, ‫‘ ּתֹועֵבָ ה‬abomination, taboo’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358

Chapter 1 Introduction

Without realizing it, most English-​speakers today use a number of words that are not English in origin. In fact, nearly 75 percent of the words in English have been borrowed from other languages, including common words such as people (borrowed from French) and zero (borrowed from Italian).1 Words like these that have been borrowed from one language to another, or loanwords, are found frequently in the various languages of the world. The Semitic languages are no different and contain many words borrowed from non-​Semitic languages such as Egyptian and Persian. Despite their prevalence, however, much work remains to be done on foreign (i.e., non-​Semitic) loanwords in the Semitic languages. Wilfred G. E. Watson (2005, 195) notes that “the topic of loanwords is discussed only marginally” and that scholars “need to determine the reasons for the use of loanwords . . . their distribution and frequency, and how they fit into general theories of Semitics and linguistics”. Neglect of this topic is particularly evident with respect to the Hebrew Bible. More than 25 years ago Bruce Waltke and M. O’Connor (1990, 58) lamented that “there is no up-​to-​date study of loanwords in biblical Hebrew”. The situation today remains the same. The present study, an examination of foreign terminology in the Hebrew Bible, seeks to remedy this unfortunate situation by means of several steps. First, it formulates a methodology for identifying non-​Semitic loanwords and culture words in Biblical Hebrew in light of recent developments in contact linguistics (chapter  1) and the sociohistorical context of ancient Palestine (chapter 2). Second, it presents an annotated lexicon of loan hypotheses, giving special attention to what might be known about these terms from ancient texts and archaeological finds (chapter 3). Lastly, it investigates the phonology, typology, and distribution patterns of these words (chapters 4–6). In doing so, this study draws many important 1.  Winford 2003, 29. Both of these are ultimately derived from other languages. French peuple, earlier pople comes from Lat populus, and Italian zero comes from Arabic ṣifr.

3

4

Chapter 1

conclusions regarding non-​Semitic influence on the Hebrew Bible and ancient Palestine (chapter 7). 1.1 HISTORY OF RESEARCH The ancient Israelites were certainly aware of the existence of different languages (see Gen 31:47; Neh 13:23–24), and some Israelites were even bilingual (2 Kgs 18:26). However, they have left us no discussions of loanwords.2 It is not until hundreds of years after the completion of the Hebrew Bible that the first evidence for an interest in loanwords appears in the Jewish community. David ben Abraham Alfāsi, a 10th-​century c.e. Karaite grammarian and commentator, argued in his Kitāb Jāmi ʿal-​Alfāẓ that words without a Hebrew etymology in Biblical Hebrew were probably Aramaic or Arabic in origin. Other grammarians, such as Judah ibn Quraysh (eighth–ninth centuries c.e.), Menaḥem ben Saruq (ca. 920–970 c.e.), and Jonah ibn Janāḥ (ca. 990–1050 c.e.), also discussed words that they thought were borrowed from Aramaic or Arabic. Although these and other Hebrew grammarians recognized the presence of loanwords in Hebrew, they never formulated clear principles for deciding whether a word was definitively a loanword, nor did they express how to determine the language from which a word was borrowed. Furthermore, they focused primarily on terminology borrowed from other Semitic languages rather than from non-​Semitic languages.3 More than half a millennium later, Wilhelm Genesius published his Hebräisch– deutsches Handwörterbuch über die Schriften des Alten Testaments (later Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament).4 Gesenius arranged his lexicon according to root, so many Hebrew terms that could not be 2.  Texts from the Greco-​Roman world, on the other hand, do contain discussions of loanwords. Plato, for example, mentions the topic of loanwords in his Cratylus, dating to the fourth century b.c.e. Within a lengthy dialogue with the philosopher Cratylus on etymology (390e–427d), Plato portrays Socrates as arguing that the Greeks—especially Greeks who lived abroad—adopted words from foreign languages. Socrates suggests that Gk πῦρ ‘fire’ is a foreign word because it is difficult to connect with the Greek language and because the Phrygians have a comparable but slightly different term for fire. Socrates goes on to say that ὕδωρ ‘water’ and κύων ‘dog’ are also loanwords for similar reasons and suggests that there are many other loanwords in the Greek language (409d–10a). 3.  Maman 2004, 21–32. Medieval Arabic lexicographers also examined lexical borrowing, but they paid more attention to foreign terminology. Determination of words as Arabic or non-​Arabic was undertaken by one of the first significant Arabic lexicographers, al-​Khalīl ibn Aḥmad (ca. 718–791 c.e.). Later Arabic lexicographers, such as Abū Manṣūr al-​Ǧawālīqi (ca. 1072–1145 c.e.), devoted entire works to the presence of Persian loanwords in Arabic. Although unfamiliar with many of the languages through which loanwords in Arabic originated, these and other Arabic lexicographers suggested that a particular word was non-​Arabic in origin by means of several criteria, including atypical phonetic features and morphological structure as well as various extra-​linguistic considerations. See Kopf 1976. 4.  Gesenius 1810–1812. The latest edition to derive primarily from Gesenius’ hand was Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguae Hebraeae et Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti (1829–1858), which was completed by Gesenius’ pupil Emil Rödiger.

Introduction

5

identified with a particular root were identified as foreign. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, compiled by Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs and first published in 1906, followed in this tradition and marked various Hebrew words as foreign when no appropriate Semitic etymology was evident.5 During the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th, various studies on non-​Semitic loanwords in the Hebrew Bible built on the lexical work of Gesenius and Brown, Driver, and Briggs. Heinrich Zimmern’s Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonische Kultureinfluss (1917) dealt with Akkadian loanwords in all the Semitic languages, not just Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, but he necessarily touched on many loan relationships involving non-​Semitic terms in the Hebrew Bible. Other scholars examined loanwords from a number of different languages and language families, including Sumerian, Egyptian, Hittite and other Anatolian languages, Hurrian, Greek and Mediterranean substrate languages, Philistine, and Old Iranian.6 Some of these early works investigated foreign loanwords as a means of critiquing source criticism. For example, Robert Dick Wilson compiled a list of foreign loanwords in the Hebrew Bible, contending that terminology from languages such as Egyptian and Hittite appears mainly in biblical books purporting to record Israel’s early history (Genesis–Samuel) whereas terminology from languages such as Old Persian occurs primarily in biblical books from Israel’s later history (Ezra-​Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel). According to Wilson (1928), this is not what one would expect if the Hebrew Bible was composed entirely during the first millennium b.c.e., but it is what one would expect if each book was written contemporaneously with the events recorded. A. S. Yahuda (1933) similarly pointed to the existence of Egyptian words in the Pentateuch (among other alleged Egyptian elements) as evidence for its antiquity.7 A long-​awaited breakthrough came in 1962 when Maximilian Ellenbogen published his Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and Etymology (1962; FWOT).8 His work offers many excellent insights concerning the origin of various terms and is particularly useful in that it carefully investigates the way the ancient versions understood foreign loanwords. Unfortunately, Ellenbogen’s study makes no attempt to incorporate any of the contact linguistics research of his day, most notably the studies of Werner Betz, Einar Haugen, and Uriel Weinrich.9 It generally 5.  Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1906. This lexicon, which appeared in Britain the following year (1907), was based on Edward Robinson’s English translation of Gesenius’ Hebräisches und chaldäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. 6.  Sumerian: Landersdorfer 1916; Theis 1912; Egyptian: Cook 1874; Harkavy 1870; Lambdin 1953b; Lieblein 1898; Yahuda 1947; Hittite and other Anatolian languages: Autran 1926; Sayce 1928; Hurrian: J. Lewy 1938a; Sayce 1928; Greek and Mediterranean substrate: Cuny 1910; Derenbourg 1884; Philistine: Bork 1939–1941; Old Iranian: Scheftelowitz, AAT; Tisdall 1911a; 1911b; 1912; 1913. 7.  The original German edition of Yahuda 1933 was published as Die Sprache des Pentateuch in ihren Bezeihungen zum Aegyptischen (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1929). 8.  This book is a revision of Ellenbogen’s 1957 Queens College (New York City) dissertation. 9.  Betz 1949; Haugen 1950, 210–31; 1969; Weinrich 1953.

6

Chapter 1

lacks methodological rigor and contains a number of incorrect etymologies. Furthermore, Ellenbogen makes no attempts to synthesize his data through quantitative and linguistic analysis. Due to advances in philology, the discovery of new texts, and the completion of important dictionary projects (e.g.,  HALOT and CAD),10 much has changed in the fields of Semitic lexicography and contact linguistics over the past 50 years. As such, Ellenbogen’s study is badly outdated (see Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 58). Since the publication of Ellenbogen’s FWOT, a number of studies on foreign loanwords in the Hebrew Bible have been published. However, none of these constitutes a thorough treatment. Chaim Rabin (1962) published a relatively comprehensive list of foreign loanwords in Biblical Hebrew in his article “Foreign Words” in the Hebrew Biblical Encyclopedia, but this article consists of only a few pages, and he gives scant evaluation and analysis of the terms he provides. The only relatively comprehensive discussion of non-​Semitic loanwords in Biblical Aramaic is found in Franz Rosenthal’s Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, which contains a very brief section devoted to Persian and Greek loans.11 Other studies focus only on a specific non-​Semitic language or language family, such as Sumerian, Egyptian, Hittite, Greek, Old Iranian, or Old Indic.12 The recently published Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (Khan 2013) contains a number of articles devoted to borrowings from these and other languages into Biblical Hebrew.13 In recent years several studies have appeared that examine the possible significance of non-​Semitic loanwords for dating Biblical Hebrew texts. These include two articles, by Mats Eskhult (2003) and Kevin J. Cathcart (2005), who argue that non-​Semitic loanwords are significant for dating. The recent two-​volume work on dating biblical texts by Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd, on the other hand, contains a chapter titled “Loanwords” (2008, 1:280–311) contending that non-​Semitic loanwords cannot be used to date biblical texts. Jonathan A. Thambyrajah (2019) likewise shifts the discussion away from dating biblical texts by arguing that many of the Hebrew Bible’s loanwords serve a rhetorical function. As this brief survey demonstrates, no up-​to-​date, comprehensive study of foreign loanwords in the Hebrew Bible exists. Most previous studies are limited to loans from a particular non-​Semitic language or language family, largely lack methodological rigor, and do not integrate insights from contact linguistics into their analyses. Furthermore, they are largely unconcerned with the role that

10.  Ludwig Köhler and Walter Baumgartner’s The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament and The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 11.  F. Rosenthal 2006, 62–63. W. B. Henning contributed to this grammar’s two sections on Old Iranian loanwords (§§189–90). 12.  Sumerian: Lipiński 1988; Egyptian: Muchiki 1999; Hittite: Rabin 1963; 1964; Greek: J. P. Brown 1968; 1995–2001, 2:273–323; Coxon 1973–1974; Old Iranian: Aĭkhenval’d 1987; Wilson-​Wright 2015; Old Indic: Powels 1992; Rabin 1970; 1971; 1994. 13.  See especially Yadin-​Israel 2013; Rendsburg 2013; Rubin 2013a; 2013b; Heijmans 2013; Lange 2013; Gindin 2013; Kurzon 2013.

Introduction

7

loanwords can have in understanding the influence on ancient Palestine that has been exhibited historically by non-​Semitic peoples. 1.2 CORPUS AND PARAMETERS OF THIS STUDY The present study seeks to fill this significant gap by compiling and analyzing the Hebrew Bible’s non-​Semitic terminology in order to better understand foreign contact in ancient Palestine. Its corpus and parameters naturally flow from this goal. The corpus for this study is the text of the Hebrew Bible as preserved by the Masoretes, namely the Masoretic Text (MT). This study thus encompasses both Hebrew and Aramaic. Although Hebrew and Aramaic are obviously different languages, the Hebrew and Aramaic portions of the Hebrew Bible as preserved by the Masoretes comprise a single collection of religious texts. Together these texts inform our understanding of ancient Palestine and the emergence of Judaism, requiring the consideration of the Hebrew Bible as a whole and not merely in part. Contemporaneous inscriptions and the ancient versions (e.g., the Septuagint [𝕲], Vulgate [𝖁], Peshiṭta [𝕾], and Targums [𝕿]) are consulted often in this study, but they do not make up part of the present corpus. Because it is primarily an up-​to-​date analysis of non-​Semitic loanwords in the Hebrew Bible that remains a desideratum, and because it is only such a study that can enhance our understanding of foreign (i.e., non-​Semitic) contact in ancient Palestine, the present study focuses exclusively on terminology that can be traced back to non-​Semitic languages. This includes both loans directly borrowed from non-​Semitic and foreign loans transmitted into Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic via a Semitic language, each of which has the potential to reveal something about ancient Palestine’s contact with non-​Semitic peoples. This study is not concerned, however, with borrowings from other Semitic languages into Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Although important and worthy of study, such borrowings reveal nothing about the influence that non-​Semitic peoples had on ancient Palestine. Words common to Afroasiatic and terms that reflect very early contact between Proto-​Semitic and other proto-​language families (such as Proto-​Indo-​European) are also omitted because it is difficult to say anything meaningful linguistically about such ancient contact. Lastly, foreign proper names (i.e., personal names, toponyms, and month names) and non-​Semitic components in proper names are beyond the scope of this study and likewise excluded. This study aims to be comprehensive, identifying as much of the Hebrew Bible’s non-​Semitic terminology as possible given our present state of knowledge. Many of the words analyzed in this study are drawn from FWOT; Rabin 1962; and F. Rosenthal 2006, 62–63, as described in the previous section. This study not only treats all words from these sources that are determined to be genuine foreign loans; it also discusses many other words that have been discovered via independent examination of the vocabularies of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Thus the reader will find a number of additions to the lists of Ellenbogen, Rabin, and Rosenthal.

8

Chapter 1

1.3 TERMINOLOGY 1.3.1 What Is a Loanword? Our understanding of loanwords directly depends on how one understands borrowing. Linguists use the term borrowing in a number of different ways, but perhaps the most prevalent is as a general term for all kinds of linguistic transfer or copying at the lexical, phonological, morphological, or syntactical levels.14 In borrowing, a specific feature of one language, called the donor language or source language (L1), is transferred to another language, called the recipient langage (L2) (Haspelmath 2009, 37). Borrowing, furthermore, can be understood in terms of either adoption or imposition. The difference depends on the dominant language, the language in which a bilingual speaker is most proficient and fluent,15 and on the agent of change. In adoption, people adopt features from a source language that is nondominant (recipient language agentivity); in imposition, people impose features of their dominant language onto a language in which they are more proficient (source language agentivity). Adoption tends to manifest itself as borrowing at the lexical level, whereas imposition tends to manifest itself as borrowing at the phonological, morphological, and syntactic levels.16 With this framework in mind, a loanword (German Lehnwort) or loan may be defined as a lexical item that has been adopted from one language (the donor language) and made part of the vocabulary of another language (the recipient language). For example, the English word chocolate is ultimately derived from Nahuatl (Aztec) čokolātl. The Spanish borrowed this term as chocolate, from which other languages, including English, obtained this term (Haspelmath 2009, 36–37; Hock and Joseph 2009, 241; L. Campbell 2013, 56–57). There are many examples of loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, including ‫‘ סָ ִריס‬eunuch’ (a loan from Akkadian), ‫‘ אֵ ָפה‬a volume measure’ (a loan from Egyptian), and ‫‘ ַּפ ְרּדֵ ס‬garden’ (a loan from Old Iranian). 1.3.2 Types of Loanwords Beyond this basic definition, there are many different subtypes of loanwords. A loanword can originate from within or outside the same language family. In the 14.  Haspelmath 2009, 36–37. Borrowing is an inadequate term in that languages never lend out a particular feature expecting to get it back, and for this reason terms like transference or copying are more accurate. Nevertheless, borrowing is a well-​established term in contact linguistics and is utilized throughout this study. 15.  Linguistic dominance is to be distinguished from social dominance, or a language’s sociopolitical status. Both adoption and imposition can take place either from a socially dominant to a socially subordinate language or vice versa. See Winford 2013, 171. 16.  Haspelmath 2009, 50–51; Coetsem 1988, 7–94; 2009, 49–134; Winford 2005. Although similar, this approach to borrowing differs slightly from that of Thomason and Kaufman 1988, 35–166; Thomason 2001, 59–98.

Introduction

9

Semitic languages, therefore, a word may be classified as an intra-​Semitic loanword (a loan from one Semitic language to another) or a non-​Semitic or foreign loanword (a loan from a non-​Semitic language into a Semitic language) (Watson 2005, 194). On the one hand, Hebrew ‫‘ סֶ גֶן‬governor, prefect’ is a loan from Neo-​ Assyrian Akkadian (a Semitic language) and is thus an intra-​Semitic loan (ALBH 106–7; AIA 139). Hebrew ‫†  אַ ח‬17 ‘brazier’, on the other hand, is a loan from Egyptian (a non-​Semitic language) and is thus a non-​Semitic loan. The latter category, not the former, is the topic of this study.18 It is possible to distinguish several subcategories of loans depending on the level and nature of the lexical borrowing.19 In these types of loans, something of the phonetic form of the word is transferred into the recipient language. They therefore represent what is called material borrowing or matter borrowing rather than structural borrowing or pattern borrowing (Haspelmath 2009, 38–39). The former is an exclusively lexical phenomenon whereas the latter is not limited to lexemes and can entail the borrowing of morphology as well as other items.20 The simplest type of loan is the direct loanword, in which a term has been directly borrowed from one language into another (L1 → L2). An example of this type of loanword is Hebrew ‫‘ † אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬red jasper’, borrowed from Egyptian ḫnm.t. However, a word can be loaned from one language (L1) to another (L3) via an intermediate language (L2). Such a word is transmitted via two languages (L1 → L2 → L3) and is called a transmitted loanword. A good example of a transmitted loanword is Hebrew ‫‘ † הֵ יכָל‬temple’, a Sumerian word (egal) that was borrowed into Akkadian (ekallu) and th en loaned from Akkadian into Biblical Hebrew. Sometimes, a word borrowed by a language (L2) can also be reborrowed into the language from which it originated (L1) in a slightly different form (L1 → L2 → L1). These loanwords are designated secondary-​creation loanwords. Secondary-​ creation loanwords are relatively rare, and no clear examples of this type of loan occur in this study. A culture word (German Kulturwort), sometimes referred to as a Wanderwort, is a lexical item for which no ultimate lexical provenance, or even the direction and process of its borrowing between languages, can be assigned. This type of term is typically marked by a high degree of mobility and can be recognized in more than one language family in disparate geographical regions. Because culture words are typically imported along with the object they designate, these terms usually denote naturally occurring items such as plants, metals, and minerals or manufactured 17.  The symbol † prefixed to a Hebrew word indicates an entry in chapter 3, q.v. 18.  For general discussions of intra-​Semitic borrowing, see L. Edzard 2015; Pat-​El 2013. 19.  The terminology here is adapted from that of L. Edzard (1998, 35–36) and Watson (2005, 193). 20.  There are two main types of structural borrowing (Haspelmath 2009, 39). The first is the calque or loan translation, in which the meaning of a donor term is translated directly into the recipient language; a classic example of this is German Wolkenkratzer, which corresponds semantically to English skyscraper. The second is loan meaning extension, in which a semantic pattern is reproduced; a good example of this is German Kopf, which can refer to the main word in a syntactic phrase based on the use of head in English.

10

Chapter 1

products such as ceramics, textiles, and utensils.21 A good example of this type of word is the term ‘wine’, which shows up in numerous languages, both Semitic and non-​Semitic: Hebrew ‫† יַיִ ן‬, Ugaritic yn, Hittite wiyan-, wiyana-, Linear B wo-​no, Greek οἶνος, and Latin vinum, through which this term has entered several modern Indo-​European languages (English wine, Italian vino, etc.). Sometimes a native word and a foreign word are integrated into a single term. This is known as a loanblend (Haspelmath 2009, 39; Appel and Muysken 1987, 165). A good example of this is Hebrew ‫‘ † ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬ivory’, a compound of the Hebrew word ‫‘ ׁשֵ ן‬tooth’ and Egyptian Ꜣbw ‘elephant’. Properly speaking, a loanblend is is only partly a loanword because it uses previously borrowed material to create a new word within a language. 1.3.3 Cultural vs. Core Borrowings Explaining why languages borrow lexemes from other languages is a complicated issue. Lexical borrowing rates vary greatly among languages, and some languages borrow more readily than others (U. Tadmor 2009, 55–58). Nevertheless, the two most common reasons for lexical borrowing among the world’s languages are necessity (i.e., lack of a native term for a particular item) and prestige (i.e., because the foreign term is highly esteemed).22 These two motivations correspond with cultural borrowings and core borrowings, respectively (Myers-Scotton 2002, 239–40; Haspelmath 2009, 46–49). Cultural borrowings are words for objects and concepts new to a culture. In a situation for which no native word exists to express a foreign object or concept, native speakers will borrow the foreign word that denotes that foreign object or concept, unless of course they choose to make up a new word or use an indigenous circumlocution. Hence, cultural borrowings are often rapidly integrated into the recipient language and often appear abruptly in a language; they can appear in either monolingual or bilingual contexts. Core borrowings, on the other hand, are words that more or less duplicate already existing words in the recipient language. Hence, core borrowed forms often enter the recipient language gradually. Unlike cultural borrowings, which can arise in either monolingual or bilingual situations, core borrowings appear in bilingual contexts. It is important to point out that foreign terminology can be taken on rapidly or gradually because biblical scholars sometimes make hasty generalizations about how quickly non-​native words can be borrowed.23 21.  Haspelmath 2009, 45; Hock and Joseph 2009, 242; Watson 2005, 193. Culture words, therefore, are defined at least in part by a negative and wholly extrinsic criterion, namely, ignorance of a word’s origin. Although a negative claim, to call a term a culture word is also to make a claim that is syntactically and semantically positive in that culture words tend to refer to concrete, physical objects. Cf. ALBH 7–8. 22.  Haspelmath 2009, 46–51; Hock and Joseph 2009, 258–71; Matras L2009, 149–53; L. Campbell 2013, 58–59. 23.  Even so excellent a Hebraist as E. Y. Kutscher (1984, 100) falls into this trap. He states: “Before the influx of a foreign vocabulary becomes possible, a kind of language resistance must be overcome

Introduction

11

1.3.4 Lehnwörter vs. Fremdwörter Sometimes a foreign term may not be fully adapted to the recipient language’s system. These words remain recognizable as loanwords to speakers of the recipient language and are known as foreign words or Fremdwörter (Haspelmath 2009, 42–43). As an example, consider the two terms salsa and Schadenfreude in American English. The term salsa, a loanword, has largely assimilated to the native English lexicon, but the term Schadenfreude, a foreign word, remains an obvious foreign term. A probable example of this in Hebrew is ‫‘ † ּתַ ְרּתָ ן‬Assyrian field marshal’, which is always associated with Assyrian officials in Biblical Hebrew (cf. Akk turtānu). The degree to which people recognize a word as foreign can be a complex matter. One importact factor that influences a word’s recognition as a borrowing is adaptation, or the degree to which the donor term is made to fit the phonological, orthographic, morophological, and syntactic properties of the receipient language. The less adapted a term is, the more likely people are to recognize it as a foreignism. Another important factor is novelty, in that older speakers are more likely to be aware of a recently borrowed word’s age, leading them to consider it a foreignism, whereas younger speakers will not recognize the word’s age and therefore will not consider it a foreignism (Haspelmath 2009, 43). Thus, Lehnwörter and Fremdwörter operate on a continuum rather than constituting a binary opposition. The degree to which a word has been adapted, the degree to which a word still refers specifically to a foreign item or concept, and explicit designation of a word as a foreignism in a text all provide clues as to where that word falls along the spectrum. Unfortunately, the Hebrew Bible provides such clues only infrequently, making it difficult to separate Lehnwörter from Fremdwörter confidently. For this reason, the technical distinction between loanwords and foreign words plays no substantial role in the present study. The burden of proof lies on establishing that a particular word is a Fremdwort, and each word is assumed to be a loanword unless clear evidence exists to the contrary. 1.3.5 Loanwords vs. Code-​Switching Even less integrated into the recipient lexicon are single-​word switches. These words constitute the phenomenon of code-​switching, or the alternation between two languages in the same discourse—perhaps even the same sentence—by bilingual speakers.24 Code-​switching is certainly attested in the Semitic languages, and this takes time”. In his defense, the study by which Kutscher comes to this conclusion is faulty. Kutscher refers to Otto Jespersen’s (1982, 86–87) analysis of French words in English after the Norman Conquest, which assumes a problematic methodology, as Coleman (1995) demonstrates. As described below (§1.6), a peak of French linguistic borrowing during the 13th century c.e. reflects particular historical circumstances, not a universal language resistance that must be overcome over time. 24.  Haspelmath 2009, 40. There are various types of contact situations that can lead to code-​ switching in written documents such as the Hebrew Bible, including extensive contact between native

12

Chapter 1

including Biblical Hebrew. An example of intra-​Semitic code switching is the Transjordanian-​like speech of the prophetic oracle in Isa 21:11–12 (Kaufman 1988, 54–55; cf. Rendsburg 1996). An example of non-​S emitic code-​switching, on the other hand, is Joseph’s exclamation ‫‘ † אַ בְ ֵרְך‬pay attention!’ in Gen 41:43, a single-​ word switch of Egyptian *ı̓b-​r.k. In theory, loanwords can be distinguished from single-​word switches by the degree of integration because loanwords typically display various kinds of phonological and morphological adaptation whereas code-​switching does not. However, this distinction does not always apply. Relative frequency is a much more useful criterion in that if particular concepts are very frequently or regularly expressed by a word originating in another language, whereas other concepts show much variability, the former constitute loanwords and the latter constitute code-​switching.25 Nevertheless, we cannot look directly into a speaker’s mental lexicon and know whether or not a word is actually a part of that person’s bilingual vocabulary. Moreover, the criteria of adaptation and relative frequency are not foolproof, because Hebrew and Aramaic-​speakers are always free to adapt a term when they borrow it and because a low relative frequency in the Hebrew Bible may simply be due to the types of texts and genres that have been preserved. For this reason, the technical distinction between loanwords and code-​switches plays no substantial role in the present study. The burden of proof lies on establishing that a particular word is a code-​switch, and that word is assumed to be a loanword unless clear evidence exists to the contrary. 1.4 IDENTIFYING LOANWORDS Having discussed the terminology of this study, we can now turn to the question of how to identify loanwords. The following criteria provide excellent guidelines for recognizing loanwords and determining their language of origin. However, because past lexical borrowing and its surrounding circumstances cannot be directly observed, the following criteria can only establish probability. Loanword identification operates like a cumulative case argument: the more criteria that are met by a particular word, the more likely it is that the word is a loanword. Furthermore, some criteria hold more weight than others. In general, the strongest evidence for identiying a loanword comes from abnormal phonology and morphology. Words that contain phonological or morphological patterns not normally expected in the recipient language are good candidates for and foreign speakers, contact with foreign languages through scribal education and exposure to written documents containing foreign terminology, and oral performance of texts. See Skaffari and Mäkilähde 2014. 25.  Haspelmath 2009, 40–41; Myers-​Scotton 1993, 191–205. It is probable that, similar to Lehnwörter and Fremdwörter, loanwords and single-​word switches operate on a continuum rather than a binary opposition in that many loanwords start out as singly occurring switches. See Myers-​Scotton 1993, 163–207; Thomason 2003, 695–97; Sankoff 2013, 508.

Introduction

13

loans (Haspelmath 2009, 44; L. Campbell 2013, 62–63). When a word is borrowed from one language to another, foreign sounds or sound combinations are replaced by the nearest phonetic equivalent in the borrowing language, but the nearest equivalent may not always be common in the borrowing language; similarly, a non-​ native word’s morphology may not be adapted fully to the typical morphological patterns of the borrowing language (Hock 1991, 390–97). Thus, if a Hebrew word contains an irregular cluster of phonemes or does not follow a typical Semitic noun pattern, it is probably a loan. Hebrew ‫( † ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬a gemstone, perhaps peridot), for example, is a good candidate because it contains two consecutive dentals, a phenomenon that is highly unusual for a native Hebrew word. Indeed, this word is a loan from Egyptian. As a minor caveat, one should note that this criterion is not always foolproof. This is because borrowers sometimes nativize a foreign term, making it conform fully to the phonology and morphology of the borrowing language (cf. Bynon 1983, 226). A good example of this is Hebrew ‫‘ † מַ ּלָח‬sailor’. This word exhibits the typical Hebrew nominal pattern for professions (e.g., ‫‘ ַּגּנָב‬thief’ and ‫‘ צַ ּיָד‬hunter’), and there are thus no phonological or morphological indications that it is a loan. Closer investigation, however, reveals that ‫ מַ ּלָח‬is a transmitted loan from Sumerian via Akkadian (ALBH 93). Thus, although atypical phonology and morphology is a strong criterion, one must also consider other criteria. A second criterion for identifying non-​Semitic loans relates to etymology and cognates. If a word does not appear to be based on a Semitic root and has no Semitic etymology, it is a good candidate for a loan; similarly, if a word has no or few cognates in Semitic, it may be a loan. This is particularly true when a word is rare in Semitic but similar-​looking terms occur commonly in a non-​Semitic language family with perfectly good etymologies within that family (cf. L. Campbell 2013, 64–65). For example, the rare Hebrew term ‫† רסֶ ן‬ ֶ ‘bridle’ could be explained as a primary noun. However, it does not seem to be based on any Semitic root, it has a very limited distribution in Semitic, and similar-​looking terms occur commonly in the Indo-​Iranian languages (cf. Skt raśanā́ - and NPers resen, which have a perfectly good Indo-​Iranian etymology). This strongly suggests that Hebrew ‫ֶרסֶ ן‬ is a loan from Indo-​Iranian. Sometimes a word has several cognates in Semitic and thereby appears to be Semitic. Nevertheless, information concerning the sound changes that the cognate languages have undergone can demonstrate a foreign loan. If a word has cognates in several Semitic languages but does not exhibit the consonant correspondences expected if it were Semitic, it most probably originates from a non-​Semitic source. For example, Hebrew ‫† ׁשחֵ לֶת‬ ְ ‘cress’ has cognates in Akkadian (saḫlû, šeḫlātu), Ugaritic (šḥlt), Old Aramaic (‫)שחלין‬, Jewish Aramaic (‫תחלין‬‎, ‫)תחלי‬, and Syriac (taḥlā). However, the initial consonant varies unpredictably and cannot be explained as an intra-​Semitic development. It therefore cannot be Semitic and instead constitutes an ancient culture word. A third criterion for identifying non-​Semitic loanwords is variant spellings. There may be typical patterns of substitution for foreign sounds and phonological

14

Chapter 1

patterns, but substitutions in borrowed words are not always uniform: the same foreign sound or pattern can be borrowed in one loanword one way and in another loanword a different way. This could be because the words were borrowed at different times, so that the older loan reflects older sound substitutions than the newer loan. Alternatively, variance could be created by a discrepancy between orthography and pronunciation (L. Campbell 2013, 60–61), or perhaps the foreign sound was not easily represented by any native sounds so that several options were available for representing it (Hock and Joseph 2009, 390–92). Regardless of the specific reason, the general principle remains that a word may be a loanword if it has variant orthographical spellings. A good example is Hebrew ‫‘ † ּכֹובַ ע‬helmet’, written ‫ ּכֹובַ ע‬in 1 Samuel 17:5 but ‫ קֹובַ ע‬in 1 Samuel 17:38. Indeed, this word comes from Hurrian. A fourth criterion is the geographical or ecological association of a word. These associations can provide clues concerning the region from which it was borrowed and what the donor language might be (L. Campbell 2013, 65). Hebrew ‫† ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬ (a gemstone, perhaps peridot) once again provides a good example. Job 28:19 associates this gem with Nubia. Moreover, 𝕲 and 𝖁 translate ‫ ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬as τοπάζιον and topazius, respectively, a gemstone which classical sources associate with the island of Zabargad (St. John’s Island) in the Red Sea. This word’s association with northeastern Africa suggests that ‫ ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬originated from a language in this region. This hunch turns out to be correct, and further investigation reveals that this word comes from Egyptian. A fifth criterion is context. If a word occurs in a foreign context, such as a list of items obtained from a foreign region by trade, it may well be a foreign loanword. This is especially true for words that occur amidst mention of other foreign loanwords. Hebrew ‫‘ † ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬ivory’, for example, occurs within a list of imported items (1 Kgs 10:22) and is thus a good candidate for a loanword. The likelihood that it is a foreign loan is increased by the presence of two other foreign loans in the context, ‫( † קֹ ף‬an African monkey) and ‫( † ּתֻ ּכִ י‬an African ape). Lastly, the semantic domain of a word can sometimes indicate a loan (Haspelmath 2009, 45; L. Campbell 2013, 65–66). Because loanwords are most often nouns, and often nouns associated with specific objects related to material culture, a technical term may be a loan.26 However, this criterion is only a rough indication of possibilities, so one cannot automatically assume that a word must be a loan just because it refers to a specific aspect of material culture (L. Campbell 2013, 65). 1.5 MECHANISMS OF BORROWING Loanwords can be directly borrowed or transmitted via another language; loanwords can even be inherited from an earlier stage of a language. These mechanisms 26.  H. Tadmor 1999, 61–65; Hock and Joseph 2009, 245–46; Hock 1991, 384; Appel and Muysken 1987, 170–71.

Introduction

15

of borrowing are important because they directly relate to the question of how loanwords can inform our understanding of contact between groups of people. Speakers of two different languages come into contact when a loan is directly borrowed from one language into another without any intermediary. However, when the immediate source and ultimate source are different, or when a loanword appears in a language because it was inherited, contact need not take place between the recipient language and the ultimate source language. Thus, in order to identify words that point to foreign contact in ancient Palestine and those that do not, it is important to be able to distinguish direct loanwords from transmitted loans or inherited loans. 1.5.1 Immediate vs. Ultimate Source The immediate source is the language from which the recipient language directly borrowed the term, and the ultimate source is the language in which the word itself originated. In many cases the immediate source and ultimate source are the same (cf. Butts 2016, 53–54). The two are always identical when the loanword represents a direct borrowing. Thus, in the example of a direct loanword given above (§1.3.2), both the immediate and ultimate source of Hebrew ‫‘ † אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬red jasper’ are Egyptian ḫnm.t because this word originated in Egyptian and was transferred directly from Egyptian into Hebrew. How ever, in  some cases the immediate source and ultimate source are not the same.27 For a transmitted loanword, or a loan borrowed via an intermediary, the immediate source and ultimate source will be different. Thus, for example, the immediate source of Hebrew ‫‘ † הֵ יכָל‬palace, temple’ is Akkadian ekallu whereas the ultimate source is Sumerian egal. Akkadian served as an intermediary, but this word is not native to Akkadian and instead originated in Sumerian. Two good critera for identifying a loanword as transmitted are phonology and morphology. If a borrowed word exhibits a phonology or morphology that differs from the source term but is characteristic of a possible intermediate language, then there is a good chance that the word was borrowed via that language. For example, Hebrew ‫( † אַ ּגָן‬a krater-like vessel) exhibits gemination of the second consonant but not the third, which is unexpected given the Hurrian form of this word (aganni-). This, however, is characteristic of Aramaic, indicating that Hebrew ‫ אַ ּגָן‬was borrowed from Hurrian via Aramaic and not directly. Another excellent criterion for determining whether a word has been transmitted or borrowed directly is the degree to which it has been integrated into the lexicon. If a word is portrayed as foreign, then it is likely to have been borrowed directly, whereas a transmitted loanword will not display any foreign associations. Paying attention to the geographical associations of a word is particularly helpful here. If the item denoted by a word is said to come from a particular region, then the 27. For culture words, the ultimate source is unknown and therefore the relationship between the loanword and the ultimate source is unknown. Thus, in the example of a culture word given above (§1.3.2), both the immediate source and the ultimate source of Heb ‫ † יַיִ ן‬are unknown.

16

Chapter 1

word is most probably a direct loan from that region even if similar forms exist in other languages. For example, Hebrew ‫( † קֹ ף‬an African monkey) occurs in a number of different languages, including Sumerian (ugubi), Akkadian (uqūpu), Aramaic (‫)קוף‬, Greek (κῆβος, κῆπος), and even Sanskrit (kapí-). Despite its wide distribution, however, this word is consistently considered foreign. The Hebrew Bible claims that the monkey it refers to comes from Egypt (1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21), as do Akkadian texts and Classical sources. Thus, ‫ קֹ ף‬is most probably a direct rather than a transmitted loanword. A final criterion for identifying a loanword as transmitted is known historical circumstances. If a word can be traced back to a particular source but no known evidence exists for contact between the recipient language and that source language, then it may have been borrowed via an intermediary. For example, given the lack of evidence for contact between Sumerian and Hebrew or Aramaic, it can safely be assumed that words such as ‫ † הֵ יכָל‬that have a Sumerian origin were borrowed via Akkadian (cf. AIA 20). Unfortunately, many past studies of loanwords in the Hebrew Bible have paid little attention to criteria for determining transmission, invoking various languages as intermediaries when there is insufficient evidence to do so. For example, Max Wagner (1966, 97 [#243]) includes Hebrew ‫‘ † ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬copy’ in his study of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Bible. The form of Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬is clearly different from that of Biblical Aramaic ‫‘ † ּפ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן‬copy’, however, indicating two separate borrowings from two different donor terms (*patčagna- and *paččagna-, respectively) rather than a Hebrew adaptation of the Aramaic form. Thus, when determining whether a foreign loanword is transmitted or not, this study errs on the side of direct loans. By default, a loanword is considered a direct loan unless clear evidence provided by these criteria exists to categorize it otherwise, and the burden of proof lies on establishing that it is a transmitted loan. 1.5.2 Lexical Inheritance An important issue related to a loanword’s source is lexical inheritance. All languges change over time, and most can be traced back to a proto-​language or language family. A word can be borrowed into that proto-​language or language family and appear later in a daughter language descended from it. An inherited loanword is a loan that appears in a language by virtue of its descent from an earlier linguistic ancestor, while an independent loanword is a loan that was independently borrowed from a given source language (i.e, it was not inherited). For example, Proto-​Indo-​European *ḱr̥-n ‘horn’ was loaned very early into Proto-​Semitic (cf. Akk qarnu, Ug qrn, Heb ‫קֶ ֶרן‬, Phoen ‫קרן‬, Aram ‫קרן‬, Arab qarn, and Eth qarn). That the Semitic forms must be of Indo-​European origin and not vice versa is evident from the observation that Proto-​Indo-​European *ḱr̥-n- is clearly derived from *ḱer- ‘top, head’ (Nussbaum 1986). Hebrew ‫ קֶ ֶרן‬is not a loan from Proto-​Indo-​European, but is instead an inherited loan because Hebrew has inherited it from Proto-​Semitic.

Introduction

17

Once again, phonology and morphology provide good criteria for identifying a loan as inherited rather than independent. If a loanword possesses variant phonology or morphology in various Semitic languages, particularly a phonology or morphology that cannot be explained as a development of an earlier stage of Semitic or a branch thereof, that word was probably borrowed independently. For example, although one might initially think that Hebrew ‫אֵ בּוס‬, Akkadian abūsu, and Ugaritic ı͗ bsn represent a single borrowing from Hurrian, this cannot be the case. Hebrew ‫‘ † אֵ בּוס‬stable’ cannot readily be derived from Akkadian abūsu because the latter should yield ‫*אָ בּוס‬, not ‫ ;אֵ בּוס‬Ugaritic ı͗ bsn possesses the Hurrian derivational suffix -ni, -nni whereas Hebrew ‫ אֵ בּוס‬does not. Thus, each form must represent an independent, separate borrowing. A second criterion for identifying a loanword as inherited is distribution. If a word occurs in several Semitic languages other than Hebrew, there is the chance that it entered into Semitic or a branch thereof and was subsequently inherited into Hebrew, particularly if there is evidence that it was borrowed early. For example, Egyptian ḫtm ‘seal’ appears in many of the West Semitic languages (Heb ‫חֹ תָ ם‬, Phoen ‫חתם‬, Aram ‫חתם‬, and Arab ḫātm). That this borrowing took place very early is indicated by the wide distribution of this word in West Semitic as well as the archaic Egyptian phonology exhibited in some of its West Semitic forms. Accordingly, the appearance of the term ‫‘ † חֹ תָ ם‬seal, signet ring’ in Hebrew probably does not represent a direct loan from Egyptian into Hebrew, but a loan inherited from West Semitic. This criterion of distribution is not foolproof, because many of the Semitic languages—not only Hebrew—had contact with non-​Semitic-​speakers over the course of history. Thus it is possible that a word was independently borrowed multiple times. This is especially plausible given the Levant’s historical role as a land bridge frequented by merchants, traveling armies, and the like; these individuals would have had multiple contacts with speakers of different Semitic languages over the course of their travels. Nevertheless, the criterion remains useful. Finally, the degree to which a word is integrated into the lexicon once again plays a role in determining whether a word is inherited or not. If a word does not carry any foreign association and is well integrated—as evidenced through its full morphological adaptation, its use in forming denominal verbs, and the like—then it may have been inherited from a linguistic ancestor (Ciancaglini 2008, 27–28). The potential problem with this criterion is that the integration of a word may only indicate that the word was borrowed significantly earlier than the date of the text in which the loanword is preserved. This criterion must thus be used carefully and is best utilized in conjunction with the other criteria. The term ‫ † חֹ תָ ם‬again serves as a good example of how to use this criterion. This word has no strong Egyptian associations in the Hebrew Bible, and the feminine form ‫ חֹ תֶ מֶ ת‬as well as a denominal verb ‫ חתם‬are attested. By itself, these obervations are suggestive of an inherited loan but not necessarily conclusive. Taken in conjunction with the wide distribution of this word in West Semitic, however, the integration of ‫ חֹ תָ ם‬into the Hebrew lexicon makes it even more likely that it is a loan inherited from West Semitic rather than a direct loan into Hebrew.

18

Chapter 1

To sum up, there are several criteria that can be used to determine whether a word is an inherited loan: phonology and morphology, distribution, and the degree of integration into the lexicon. As with determining a loanword’s possible transmission, this study considers a loanword to be independent rather than inherited unless good evidence exists to categorize it otherwise; the burden of proof lies on establishing that it is an inherited loan. 1.6 LOANWORDS AS CULTURAL SYMBOLS Our discussion of the various mechanisms of borrowing lays the groundwork for discussing the value of loanwords as cultural symbols. Loanwords can be extremely useful because they illuminate our understanding of cultural contact (Hope 1962, 1963). By their very definition, loanwords provide evidence of contact between groups of people. Loanwords can therefore reveal a great deal about past historical, cultural, and social relationships as well as the kinds of contacts that have taken place among different people. In many cases, these relationships can be confirmed by what is known from history and archaeology (L. Campbell 2013, 432–33). The role of loanwords as cultural symbols is determined by breaking down borrowed vocabulary into categories of meaning. Then, those categories of meaning can be arranged in a hierarchical order that represents a progression of increasingly important influences (Hope 1962, 112–13). When certain semantic domains from a particular donor language emerge as prominent, it can be assumed that speakers of the recipient language were significantly influenced by contact with speakers of that donor language in the realm of culture represented by that semantic domain (cf. L. Campbell 2013, 72–74). Such historical reconstruction must be undertaken carefully. Some loans (i.e., transmitted loans) enter a language via an intermediate language, and sometimes a loanword may enter a language despite contact being very limited between speakers of the donor and recipient languages. One cannot always assume, therefore, that loanwords provide evidence of extensive contact and can facilitate historical reconstruction (L. Campbell 2013, 434). Furthermore, it would be a mistake to conclude from the complete or relative absence of loanwords in a particular domain that no contact occurred because people are never obligated to borrow foreign terminology. This last point is particularly important because scholars often assume that the absence of foreign loanwords in a biblical text reflects a historical situation in which there would have been little or no foreign influence (e.g., Eskhult 2003, 23). Despite these cautions, in many cases loanwords are extremely useful tools for establishing points of cultural contact between groups of people (Hope 1963, 36). Let us consider a concrete example from the English language. Between ca. 1050 and 1400 c.e., and peaking in relative terms during the mid-13th century, thousands of French loanwords entered the English language (Coleman 1995). Prior to

Introduction

19

ca. 1250, these loans from French were largely limited to words associated with the nobility, but after this period there was an influx of French loans in other semantic domains, including law and administration as well as words related to everyday life (e.g., food, fashion, society, and art). We can infer from all this that something must have happened during this 350-year time period for English-​speakers to have adopted such a large quantity of French vocabulary. Specifically, we might infer that French-​speakers exerted significant influence upon the nobility prior to ca. 1250 but that French somehow extended its influence in the realms of law and administration as well as everyday life after ca. 1250. Indeed, something did happen in history, something that well explains the significant increase of French loanwords as well as the shift in the domain of influence. Duke William II of Normandy conquered England in 1066. However, when the Normans first conquered England, they consciously avoided French in order to maintain an air of legitimacy and did not formally teach it. Accordingly, French words entered English only through those in contact with the French-​speaking nobility. It was not until two centuries later that French was declared the official language of the government and instruction in French began. This opened the door for the widespread adoption of French loanwords in the realms of law and administration as well as everyday life. Accordingly, beginning ca. 1250, French exerted a much more significant influence on English than it had previously (Kibbee 1991, 186–88; Baugh and Cable 2013, 104–21, 163–69; Kastovsky 2006, 249–50). Similarly, we may observe that the book of Ezra contains a significant number of Old Iranian loanwords, more than any other book of the Hebrew Bible except Esther and Daniel. Of these loanwords, half belong to the semantic domain of law and administration and another handful belong to the domain of finance and commerce, which naturally was related to the administration.28 From this we might infer that the circumstances described in the book of Ezra were significantly influenced by Old Iranian peoples, especially in the realm of law and administration. Ezra led a group of exiled Jews back to Yehud ca. 458 b.c.e. The Hebrew Bible portrays Ezra as a priest and scribe (Ezra 7:6, 11–12, 21; Neh 8:1, 4, 9, 13; 12:26, 36). He was, furthermore, endorsed by the Achaemenid Empire (Ezra 7:11–26), whose policy was to establish officials throughout the empire who would maintain order and good relations with the Persian administration. As a local official established by the Achaemenids, he would have been proficient in Old Persian and would have been responsible for administering Yehud on the Persian king’s behalf (Lipschits 2006; Blenkinsopp 1987; cf. Wilson-​Wright 2015, 161). Archaeological evidence for contact between Yehud and Persia is plentiful for this era, reflecting the historical situation that the book of Ezra describes (Stern 1984a; 2001, 353–582). This situation more than adequately explains the high number of Old Iranian loanwords in the 28. The book of Ezra contains 20 Old Iranian loanwords. Of these, the following 10 belong to the legal-​administrative domain: ‫אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬, ‫ ֲאפ ְַר ְסָך‬, ‫ ֲאפ ְַרסַ ְתָך‬, ‫( ּדָ ת‬in both Hebrew and Aramaic), ‫( נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬in both Hebrew and Aramaic), ‫ ַּפ ְרׁשֶ גֶן‬, ‫ּפִ ְתגָם‬, ‫ׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬. ְ Words belonging to the commercial domain are ‫אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬, ‫ּגִ זְּבָ ר‬, ‫ּגִ זְּבַ ר‬, and ‫ּגְ נַז‬.

20

Chapter 1

book of Ezra as well as the high percentage of those words that relate to law and administration.29 As these examples demonstrate, loanwords can reflect cultural influence in the semantic domains they represent and illuminate our understanding of history. 1.7 CONCLUSION The preceding discussion has outlined the history of research, the corpus and parameters of this study, the terminology of lexical borrowing, methodology for identifying loanwords, motivation for borrowing, and the significance of loanwords as evidence for cultural contact. The following chapter investigates the sociohistorical context of foreign contact in ancient Palestine. Together these two chapters provide a foundation for the foreign terminology discussed in Chapter 3.

29. Nehemiah, on the other hand, contains only two Old Iranian loanwords (‫ ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬and ‫)ּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬. ִ We would not conclude from the relative absence of Old Iranian loanwords in the book that no contact between Yehud and the Achaemenid Empire took place, demonstrating that it is a mistake to assume the absence of contact from the absence of loanwords.

Chapter 2 Non-​Semitic Contact in Ancient Palestine

Ancient Palestine served as a land bridge between the three continents of Asia, Africa, and Europe. Speakers of non-​Semitic languages often passed through the land, exposing it to foreign influence, and any investigation of non-​Semitic lexical borrowing in the Hebrew Bible must take this sociohistorical context into account. Accordingly, the present chapter surveys the evidence for historical contact between ancient Palestine and groups of non-​Semitic people, focusing on the cultures that spoke the primary donor languages encountered in this study: the Egyptians, Greeks, Hittites and Luvians, Hurrians, Indo-​Aryans, and Iranians. This chapter thereby provides a sociohistorical framework within which to discuss the loanwords found in chapter 3 as well as the analyses and conclusions of chapters 4–7. 2.1 THE EGYPTIANS Egypt and Palestine remained in close contact throughout much of their ancient history due to their geographical proximity. Peaceful trade was sometimes a factor, but Egypt often sought to extend its influence into Palestine through military campaigns. Egypt’s contact with Palestine was often motivated by seeming threats from other peoples, such as the Hittites, Hurrians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and the inhabitants of Palestine themselves. Textual and archaeological evidence points to contact between Egypt and Palestine as early as the Chalcolithic period.1 Beginning with the Early Bronze Age, however, evidence for contact between Egypt and Palestine becomes much more plentiful. Egyptian cultural goods—particularly pottery—appear at sites in southern Palestine (e.g., ʿEn Besor) and sites in the northern Sinai. Egyptian texts testify that several Old Kingdom Egyptian pharaohs conducted military campaigns in Palestine, but these military incursions were of a temporary nature and did not 1.  Ceramic potsherds bearing the Egyptian ruler Narmer’s name at sites such as Arad and Tell Erani, for example, attest to early contact between Egypt and Palestine. 21

22

Chapter 2

significantly affect ties between Egypt and the Levant. Egypt’s interests during the Old Kingdom largely focused on Byblos to the north of Palestine, a source of timber, and the southern Sinai, a source of copper and turquoise (Redford 1992, 17–24, 29–55; Hoffmeier 1998, 255–64; W. Ward 1992, 400–401). Beginning with the First Intermediate Period and continuing into Egypt’s Middle Kingdom, Asiatics began infiltrating the Delta, as  indicated by Egyptian texts (e.g., The Instruction of Merikare) as well as archaeological evidence at sites such as Tel el-​Dabʿa (Avaris). A tomb painting from the Tomb of Amenemhat at Beni Hasan, moreover, depicts Semitic traders entering Egypt. During this same time, Egypt renewed both its contact with the Levant, particularly Byblos, and its mining expeditions in the Sinai. Semitic infiltration reached its culmination during Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period, when the Hyksos–Canaanites became rulers of Lower Egypt. Similarities in material culture, such as scarabs of Hyksos kings and officials, point to significant connections between Egypt and the Levant during this period (Redford 1992, 57–70, 98–122; Hoffmeier 1998, 264–71; W. Ward 1992, 401–2). The Egyptians drove the Hyksos out ca. 1540 b.c.e., initiating the New Kingdom and reestablishing native rule over Egypt. With this change in leadership came Egyptian campaigns into southern Palestine under pharaohs Ahmose, Amenhotep I, and Thutmoses I. Egypt’s establishment of a lasting presence in the Levant, however, did not come until the military campaigns of Thutmoses III during the latter part of the 15th century. As a result of Thutmoses III’s campaigns, Egypt took control of all Palestine and extended Egyptian rule to the borders of Hurrian control in northern Syria. By the 14th century, the Hittites had wrested control of the northernmost of Egypt’s territory, and Egyptian control of Palestine waned due to civil unrest. Accordingly, Seti I and Ramesses II campaigned in Palestine and reestablished Egyptian control of the region during the Late Bronze II period. The existence of Egyptian-​style governors’ residences, administrative centers, and burial practices at certain sites (Tell es-​Saʿidiyeh, Deir el-​Balah, Beth-​Shean) indicates that Egypt’s presence in Palestine was imperialistic in nature (Redford 1992, 192–213; Hoffmeier 1998, 271–79; W. Ward 1992, 403–4). It was during this period of Egyptian hegemony that Canaanite scribes adopted the Egyptian system of hieratic numerals, a system eventually adopted and further developed by scribes and administrators of the Israelite monarchy (N. S. Fox 2000, 250–68). By the end of the Late Bronze Age, Egypt had to withdraw from Palestine due to internal unrest, economic problems, its exploitation of Palestine, and the arrival of the Sea Peoples during the reigns of Merneptah and Ramesses III. The result was a decline in Egyptian–Levantine relations, a phenomenon reflected in the weakening of ties between Byblos and Egypt (see the Report of Wenamun). Egypt did not significantly interact again with Palestine until the Third Intermediate Period. Sheshonq I, the founder of the Twenty-​Second Dynasty, conducted a military campaign into Palestine (1 Kgs 14:25–26), as recorded in the temple of Amun at Thebes. However, his campaigns did not establish a lasting Egyptian presence in Palestine, in part due to internal divisions of the Twenty-​Second through Twenty-​Fourth Dynasties (Redford 1992, 312–15; Hoffmeier 1998, 281, 289; W. Ward 1992, 405).

Non-Semitic Contact in Ancient Palestine

23

When the Neo-​Assyrian and Neo-​Babylonian Empires came on the scene during the mid-first millennium b.c.e., Palestine became a battleground between Egypt and Mesopotamia. Hoshea, the Northern Kingdom’s last king, unsuccessfully attempted to make an alliance with Egypt against Assyria ca. 726 b.c.e. (2 Kgs 17:4). The Nubian pharaoh Taharqa challenged Assyrian power in Palestine only a few decades later (ca. 701), causing Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal to drive him from Egypt. Psamtik I broke free from Assyrian rule and exerted Egyptian control in the Levant as far as Phoenicia in 656. After Assyria fell and Babylon rose to power, Pharaoh Necho II sought to reestablish Egyptian control in Palestine. He defeated Josiah, king of Judah, at Megiddo in 609, enabling Egypt to expand into Palestine. Necho II subsequently installed Jehoiakim as king of Judah (2 Kgs 23:31–37), maintaining influence on Palestine. However, in  605  Necho  II was defeated at Carchemish by Nebuchadnezzar II and was forced to return to Egypt, ending Egyptian control of Judah’s throne. With the impending threat of Babylon, many Judeans fled to Egypt in hopes of finding safe haven there (Jer 43:1–7) (Redford 1992, 351–64, 431–69; Hoffmeier 1998, 281–82, 289; W. Ward 1992, 405–6). Egypt became a satrapy of the Persian Empire in 525 b.c.e. under Cambyses2 and later passed into the hands of Alexander the Great in 332. After its conquest by Persia, Egypt played a much less significant role in the events of the ancient Near East, and as it declined, contact between Egypt and Palestine became far less significant than previously. Yet, archaeological evidence of contact with Egypt, such as Egyptian-​style jewelry, scarabs, and imported Egyptian seals, exists (Stern 1984a; cf. 2001, 353–582). The Egyptians even briefly occupied the coastlands of Palestine during the earlier part of the fourth century, while Persia struggled with the Greeks (Stern 1984b, 75; 2001, 358). Moreover, during the Persian and Hellenistic periods Egypt continued to play a role in the shaping of Judaism in that Jews settled there, most notably at Elephantine, where a temple to Yahweh was constructed, and at Alexandria, the birthplace of the Septuagint (Hoffmeier 1998, 282–83, 289; W. Ward 1992, 406–7). 2.2 THE GREEKS Significant contact between the Aegean and the Levant is attested as early as the Middle Bronze Age. This early evidence, however, indicates contact with Minoans rather than with Greeks proper.3 It is not until the Late Bronze Age that evidence for contact between the Greeks and Palestine begins to appear. The Cape Gelidonya and Uluburun shipwrecks 2.  Egypt briefly regained its independence during the Twenty-​Eighth through Thirtieth Dynasties (404–343 b.c.e.) but subsequently returned to Persian control. 3.  Minoan Kamares Ware appears throughout the Levant during the Middle Bronze Age, and the Middle Bronze Age palace discovered at Tel Kabri in the Galilee contains several frescoes paralleled by those of Minoan Crete.

24

Chapter 2

attest to widespread Mediterranean trade during the Late Bronze Age, including trade between the Mycenaean Greeks and Palestine (Sasson 1966). Ceramic remains likewise indicate trade between Greece and Palestine during the Late Bronze Age: Canaanite pottery is found at sites throughout the Greek mainland (e.g., Mycenae, Athens, and Tiryns), and Mycenaean pottery appears at sites in Palestine (e.g., Tell Abu Hawam, Lachish, Tel Dan; Cline 2009, 48–59; Wijngaarden 2002, 31–124; Stubbings 1951, 53–89). After the crisis years of the Late Bronze Age, contact between Greece and Palestine is first attested during the late tenth century b.c.e., when Protogeometric Greek pottery appears at Tel Hadar in the Galilee. Early Geometric Greek pottery is attested throughout the Iron Age at northern sites (e.g., Tell Abu Hawam, Megiddo, Samaria, Dor, Tel Dan, and Tel Kabri) as well as southern sites (e.g., Tel Miqne [Ekron], Ashkelon, Arad, and Meṣad Ḥašavyahu). Most of the pottery forms represented are kitchen vessels (e.g., skyphoi, kraters, oinochoai, jugs). This strongly suggests the presence of Greek-​speakers in these areas because vessels of this type would normally not be imported from Greece.4 At some of these sites, particularly Meṣad Ḥašavyahu and Tel Kabri, these Greeks were almost certainly mercenaries. Classical sources attest to the presence of Greek mercenaries at Palestine during the Iron Age (Alcaeus, Frag. 48 LP; 350 LP), as does the Hebrew Bible, which notes that Carians (‫ )ּכ ִָרי‬served as bodyguards for Athaliah (2 Kgs 11:4, 19).5 Thus, although little evidence exists for a substantial Greek population in Palestine during the Iron Age, there is good evidence for the presence of Greeks in Palestine, many of whom were probably traders, artisans, and mercenaries (Hagedorn 2005, 89–93). These traders, artisans, and mercenaries continued to live in mixed communities in Palestine into the Persian period (cf. Isaeus, Orat. 4.7; Demosthenes, Orat. 52.20). Greek pottery appears in even greater quantities in Palestine throughout the Persian period at sites such as Dor, Akko, Tel Dan, Samaria, Tell el-Ḥesi, Tell Abu Hawam, Tell Jemmeh, and Ashkelon; and commonly attested in Palestine during the Persian period are Greek currency and its local imitations, particularly the drachma (Wenning 2001, 344–57; Auscher 1967, 9–27). Lastly, there is significant evidence of Greek cultural influence, particularly in the realms of technology and religion, during the Persian period (Ambar-​Armon and Kloner 2009). Contact between the Greeks and Palestine reached its zenith during the Hellenistic period. The Persian period came to an end in 332 b.c.e. when Alexander the Great conquered the Achaemenid Empire. After Alexander’s death, rule of Palestine fell into the hands of Ptolemy, establishing a dynasty that lasted until the second century b.c.e., when the Seleucids took control of Palestine. The practice 4.  Hagedorn 2005, 87–89; Wenning 2001, 341–44; Waldbaum 1994; Auscher 1967, 9–21. 5.  Hagedorn 2005, 76–87; Niemeier 2002. The Arad ostraca frequently refer to the Kittim within a military context (HAE Arad (6):1:2; (6):2:2; (6):4:1; (6):7:2; (6):8:2; (6):10:2; (6):11:2; (6):17:9). Although originally connected with Kition and Cyprus (Josephus, Ant. 1.28), Kittim seems to have expanded its referent to include Greece (1 Macc 1:1; 8:5) and even Rome (cf. 𝕿Onq.’s rendering of Num 24:24 and 𝖁’s translations of Ezek 27:6 and Dan 11:30). If “Kittim” indeed refers to Greeks in the Arad ostraca, this would provide additional evidence of Greek mercenaries in Palestine during the Iron Age.

Non-Semitic Contact in Ancient Palestine

25

of establishing mixed communities in Palestine with Greek traders, artisans, and mercenaries continued, as is evident at sites such as Marisa (Maresha). However, during the Hellenistic period much more significant Greek influence on Palestine took place through Hellenism, the spread of the Greek language and Greek culture as a result of Alexander the Great’s conquests (Hengel 1974). 2.3 THE HITTITES AND LUVIANS Some of the earliest evidence of contact between Semitic peoples and Anatolian peoples—including Hittites and Luvians—comes from the Old Assyrian period, when private entrepreneurs from Assyria established trading colonies in Anatolia (cf. Veenhof 1995). However, there is no evidence for contact between Anatolia and the Levant until the latter half of the second millennium b.c.e., and even then little evidence exists for direct contact between the Hittites and Luvians and the inhabitants of Palestine. 2.3.1 The Hittites During the second millennium b.c.e. there is much evidence for contact between the Hittites and northern Syria, particularly at sites such as Ugarit, Minet el-​Beida, Alalakh, Tell Kazel, Ebla, Tell Fray, and Emar. Less evidence exists for a relationship between the Hittites and Palestine further south during the second millennium. Nevertheless, the signing of a peace treaty in 1258 b.c.e. between Ramesses II of Egypt and Muwatalli of Ḫatti opened the possibility of contact because the Hittites had to pass through Palestine to get to Egypt. The Hittites who passed through Palestine were from a variety of trades (e.g., diplomats, soldiers, merchants, doctors, and artisans) and stopped at major Egyptian strongholds in Palestine (e.g., Beth-​ Shean, Megiddo, Aphek, Jaffa, and Gaza) on their journeys. A number of Hittite objects—including an ivory plaque of Hittite style found at Megiddo, as well as Hittite-​style seals, bullae, and signet rings found at sites such as Megiddo, Aphek, and Tel el-​Farah (South)—point to Hittite contact with Palestine during the Late Bronze Age (Genz 2011, 316–17; Lebrun 1998). This contact was never substantial in that no significant Hittite population ever lived in Palestine, but it did result in the transmission of Hittite culture to Palestine during the second millennium (Singer 2006; B. J. Collins 2007, 213–18; Hoffner 2002). After the collapse of Ḫatti ca. 1200 b.c.e. and until the advent of the Neo-​ Assyrian Empire, a small portion of the Hittite population established several Neo-​ Hittite states in northern Syria, including Carchemish, Melid, Que, and Karatepe– Aslantaş. The existence of texts from northern Syria written in Hieroglyphic Luvian (the official language of the Neo-​Hittite states) and Northwest Semitic points to contact with the Neo-​Hittite states, as does the Hebrew Bible’s references to them (Josh 1:4; 1 Kgs 10:29; 2 Kgs 7:6; 2 Chr 1:17; Hoffner 1969, 28–37; cf. McMahon 1992, 231–33). Aside from mention of Solomon’s horse trade with the north (1 Kgs

26

Chapter 2

10:29; 2 Chr 1:17),6 however, little evidence exists for direct contact between the Neo-​Hittite states and Palestine. Nevertheless, various points of continuity between Neo-​Hittite and Israelite culture (e.g., political and judicial affairs, architecture, religion and ideology, and linguistic and literary forms of expression) suggest that contact did occur during the first millennium b.c.e. (Hess 2008; Kitchen 2003). 2.3.2 The Luvians The Luvians primarily inhabited western Anatolia (mostly in the region of Arzawa and the Lukka lands) and were politically subservient to Ḫatti, giving them few opportunities for direct contact with the Levant, much less Palestine. The spread of Luvians to the east during the Late Bronze Age opened the door for the possibility of contact between Luvians and Northwest Semitic–speaking peoples. If the Lk of the Sea Peoples are to be identified as the Luvian-​speaking Lukka people, then it is conceivable that Luvians were displaced as far south as Egypt and that the inhabitants of ancient Palestine encountered them during the latter half of the second millennium b.c.e. (Bryce 2003, 87–88). Eastward movements of Luvian peoples continued after the fall of the kingdom of Ḫatti, leading to the establishment of Luvian regions in southeastern Anatolia during the first millennium b.c.e. at Hartapu and Tabal as well as in Lycia in the southwest and Cilicia Aspera (Tracheai) in the southeast. Multilingual inscriptions, such as the Azatiwada Inscription from Karatepe–Aslantaş and the Xanthos (Letoon) Trilingual, indicate contact between Luvian- and Northwest Semitic– speaking peoples who settled in southeastern Anatolia (Bryce 2003, 93–124). There is less evidence of direct contact between Luvian-​speaking peoples and the inhabitants of ancient Palestine during the first millennium. However, events such as the deportation of Luvian-​speaking peoples from Neo-​Hittite states (e.g., Hamath) to  Palestine after 722 b.c.e. provide a plausible means of the transmission of Luvian culture to Palestine (Hutter 2004). Moreover, the above-​mentioned points of continuity between Palestine and the Neo-​Hittite states (§2.3.1), the latter of which probably contained substantial Luvian populations,7 suggest that contact between Luvians and the inhabitants of ancient Palestine did exist during the first millennium (Hess 2008; Kitchen 2003). 2.4 THE HURRIANS Similar to the Hittites and Luvians, most evidence of contact between the Hurrians and Northwest Semitic–speakers is limited to the north, specifically northern Syria. In contrast to the Hittites and Luvians, however, more substantial evidence exists for direct contact between the Hurrians and the inhabitants of Palestine. 6.  On the Hebrew Bible’s mention of Solomon trading horses with the Neo-​Hittite states, see Ikeda 1982. 7.  However, cf. Bryce 2003, 124–27.

Non-Semitic Contact in Ancient Palestine

27

The Hurrians had a significant role politically as well as culturally in northern Syria beginning in the Middle Bronze Age, particularly at sites such as Ugarit, Alalakh, Ḫalab, Uršum, Haššum, and Carchemish. Their influence was not limited to northern Syria, however, and as early as the 17th century b.c.e., Hurrian names appear in cuneiform tablets from Palestine. Hurrian names, as well as Hurrian loanwords, continue to be attested in cuneiform texts from Palestine into the Late Bronze Age. In fact, as evidenced by the Amarna letters, individuals with Hurrian names (e.g., Abdi-ḫeba of Jerusalem) even came to rule several cities in Palestine by the Late Bronze Age. It is during this same time that the Egyptians begin to apply the term ḪꜢrw (Ḫurru) to the inhabitants of Syria–Palestine, indicating that enough Hurrians lived in Palestine to justify its designation as Ḫurru. Moreover, New Kingdom Egyptian texts (e.g., the Memphis and Karnak Stelae of Amenhotep II) mention taking captive Hurrian men and their wives from Palestine (Na‌ʾaman 1994; Hess 1997; Lebrun 1998). The Hebrew Bible, moreover, indicates the presence of Hurrians in the land of Palestine during the late second millennium in that it refers to several individuals with Hurrian names in Palestine, including the Jebusite ‫ אָ ְר נָן‬‎(2 Sam 24:16, 18, 20–24; 1 Chr 21:15, 18; 2 Chr 3:1)8 and several local rulers during Joshua’s conquest, including ‫ הֹוהָ ם‬and ‫( ּפִ ְראָ ם‬Josh 10:3), and ‫ ׁשֵ ׁשַ י‬and ‫( ּתַ לְ מַ י‬Josh 15:15) (Hess 2015, 5–12; 1996, 209–12; Hoffner 1973, 224–25). Similarities between centers of Hurrian culture (e.g., Nuzi and Alalakh) and Palestine with respect to social customs and literary forms likewise point to contact between Hurrians and the inhabitants of ancient Palestine during the late second millennium (Hess 2002; Hoffner 1973, 225–26). 2.5 THE INDO-​A RYANS Although evidence exists for early trade and cultural contact between Mesopotamia and what is now India (e.g., Meluḫḫa and Harappa; Ratnagar 2004), these cultures were not ethnically Indic. Indic-​speaking peoples (Indo-​Aryans) did not arrive in ancient India until the earlier part of the second millennium b.c.e. (Kulke and Rothermund 2010, 12–14). During the latter half of the second millennium, evidence for Indic-​speaking peoples appears in the ancient Near East: Indic names and vocabulary appear in texts connected with Mittani, particularly literature from these regions on hippiatrics (e.g., the Kikkuli Texts), and Indic linguistic elements also appear in several personal names of Hurrian-​influenced areas in southern Syria and Palestine.9 Scholars debate, however, what exactly these Indic elements imply. They may reflect fossilized elements, indicating past contact with Indic-​ speaking peoples, or they may reflect the actual presence of a small population of 8. 𝕲 (Ορνα) as well as the parallel account in Chronicles indicate that the spelling ‫ א ֲַרוְ נָה‬found in 1 Sam 24 is a transposition of ‫אָ ְרנָן‬, a Hurrian name. 9.  Mayrhofer 1966. Annelies Kammenhuber (1968) and I. M. Diakonoff (1972), however, dispute the identification of the linguistic elements as Indo-​Aryan (i.e., Indic).

28

Chapter 2

Indic peoples (not an Indo-​Aryan superstrate, as sometimes contended) in these regions.10 Subsequently the ancient Near East was largely isolated from Indic-​speaking peoples until the latter half of the first millennium b.c.e., when Cyrus the Great and Darius I brought much of the northwestern subcontinent of India under Persian rule and Alexander the Great expanded Greek territory into India. Classical sources indicate that the Achaemenids and Greeks traded with India during this time (e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 4.44). Nevertheless, it was not until the first century c.e. that regular trade and contact took place between India and the west (Rawlinson 1926, 16–154; Margabandhu 1983; Crone 1987, 30–50). That the inhabitants of ancient Palestine were aware of Indic-​speaking peoples is clear from occasional references to India in the Hebrew Bible (Esth 1:1, 8:9) and Apocrypha (1 Esdr 3:2; Add Esth 13:1, 16:1; 1 Macc 6:37). However, these references always mention India incidentally within the context of the Persian and Greek Empires, and there is no evidence—linguistic, historical, archaeological, or otherwise—of any direct contact between India and Palestine during the first millennium b.c.e.11 2.6 THE IRANIANS Iranian-​speaking peoples migrated to the Iranian plateau beginning in the second millennium b.c.e. and continuing into the early first millennium b.c.e. The first clear reference to Iranian peoples in ancient Near Eastern sources is found in texts from the reign of Shalmaneser  III (ca.  840 b.c.e.), who mentions the presence of Persians and Medes in the Zagros Mountains region (Waters 1999). The inhabitants of ancient Palestine likewise were aware of Iranian peoples and undoubtedly came into contact with them prior to the Exile (Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008, 1:296–98). The Hebrew Bible mentions Iranian mercenaries serving in the army of Tyre just to the north of Palestine (Ezek 27:10), as well as the deportation of Iranian-​speaking peoples to Samaria by Ashurbanipal (Ezra 4:9–10). Neo-​Assyrian texts note that Sargon II settled peoples of the east—most probably Iranian peoples, because he had previously conducted campaigns against Iran (ca. 716–713)—in Samaria ca. 712.12 The use of Iranian names such as Bigvai in Palestine prior to the Exile (Ezra 2:12; Neh 7:7) provides additional evidence for contact between Iranian peoples and the inhabitants of Palestine before the advent of the Achaemenid Empire. Contact may have been minimal prior to the Exilic period, but it did exist (cf. Wilson-​Wright 2015). 10.  Wilhelm 1989, 17–19; Kuhrt 1997, 296–98; Stiebing 2009, 112; cf. Kulke and Rothermund 2010, 13–14. 11.  Cf. Lott 1992. For refutation of the relatively common notion that Solomon traded with India, see Luke 1994. 12.  Na‌ʾaman 1993, 108–9. This is supported by the presence of Iranian names in eighth–seventh century ostraca from Tell Jemmeh. See Na‌ʾaman and Zadok 1988, 40–42.

Non-Semitic Contact in Ancient Palestine

29

Cyrus the Great’s conquest of Babylon in 539 b.c.e. ushered in a new age of contact between Iranian peoples—particularly the Persians and Medes—and the Jews. The Hebrew Bible records that Cyrus permitted the Jews to return to their land under the leadership of Sheshbazzar ca. 539 (2 Chr 32:23; Ezra 1:2–4), an event not explicitly mentioned in any other ancient Near Eastern text but supported by the Cyrus Cylinder. Later waves of returnees were permitted by Persia to return to Palestine under the leadership of Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, the last of whom was the cupbearer of Artaxerxes I (Neh 1:11) before he became governor of the province Yehud within the satrapy of Eber-​Nāri (Trans-​Euphrates). The Hebrew Bible thus attests to close contacts between Persia and Palestine.13 Various archaeological finds from Palestine confirm contact with Persia during the sixth–fourth centuries b.c.e., including Achaemenid-​style architecture (e.g., at the Lachish Residence), pottery inspired by Achaemenid metal vessels (e.g., rhytons) and metal vessels of Persian style, Irano-​Scythian weaponry, Achaemenid-​style seals and seal impressions, and Persian coins (e.g., darics) (Stern 1984a; cf. 2001, 353–82). In addition to contact between Iranian-​speaking peoples and the inhabitants of Palestine, textual sources also provide evidence for contact between Iranian-​ speaking peoples and the Jews of the Diaspora. The Elephantine papyri provide evidence for the Persian government’s involvement in the politics and religious practices of the Jews at Elephantine, and the book of Esther provides a window into Jewish life in Achaemenid Persia (Longman 2005, 490–92). Texts such as these, therefore, provide additional evidence of contact between the Jews and Iranian-​ speaking peoples, albeit outside the land of Palestine. 2.7 CONCLUSION In antiquity, just as today, foreign contact often led to contact-​induced change (Thomason 2004). The discussion in this chapter demonstrates that ancient Palestine was in varying levels of contact with its non-​Semitic neighbors, specifically the Egyptians, Greeks, Hittites and Luvians, Hurrians, Indo-​Aryans, and Iranians. This contact with non-​Semitic peoples undoubtedly provided many opportunities for borrowing (cf. Gowen 1922). The dominant language of the ancient Israelites was Hebrew, in that they remained most proficient and fluent in that language. No  evidence exists that the ancient Israelites as a whole ever became more proficient in a non-​Semitic language than they were in Hebrew. Because their dominant language remained Hebrew, it is expected that the primary form of borrowing that took place in ancient Palestine was lexical borrowing, or the adoption of loanwords. The next chapter investigates the non-​Semitic loanwords in the Hebrew Bible in light of this sociohistorical framework. 13.  Williamson 2004; Stern 1984b; Longman 2005, 485–90. The Persian government’s endorsement and financial support of Yehud was due, in part, to desires for a loyal ally in the west. See Hoglund 1989.

Chapter 3 Non-​Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

This chapter presents foreign loans or culture words as individual lexical entries. The words are listed alphabetically, according to the order of the Hebrew alphabet, with cross references provided when necessary. Each entry begins with the term in question, a brief gloss, and its occurrences. In most cases, if a term has multiple spellings it is listed under its most common form unless both a defective and a plene spelling exist, in which case the word is listed under its defective spelling; additionally, if a word occurs in both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, the specific forms are marked as such.1 Precise definitions or synonyms are given in single quotation marks; general definitions are given in parentheses. References to the term in Köhler and Baumgartner’s and Clines’s lexica follow, and the word’s attestations in the biblical text. In many cases, there follow the translations of the ancient versions, especially for rare words whose precise meaning may be in doubt. Following these basic data is a summary of the loan relationships for the term. The loan relationships are first marked for type with a capital letter in square brackets: [D] for a direct loan, [T] for a transmitted loan, [I] for an inherited loan, [N] for a denominal verb derived from a foreign noun, and [?] for a loanword whose type is uncertain. An arrow (→) indicates a loan from one language to another, an angle bracket (>) indicates a denominal verb created from a foreign noun, and a semicolon (;) marks co-​receptors of a loan. The loan relationship information is arranged on multiple lines when a word is loaned into two or more languages, each with further, distinct development. After the loan relationship information is a list of words pertinent to the establishment of cognate and loan relations. Unless otherwise noted, all words from languages with case endings—excluding Greek and Latin—are provided without declined endings.

1.  In rare cases, the consonants and/or vowels of a word are reconstructed on the basis of its donor term, causing it to differ from the form found in HALOT and/or DCH. 33

34

Chapter 3

A discussion of the linguistic, cultural, and historical data concerning the word makes up the bulk of each entry. By necessity, some terms require more discussion than others; depending on the word, the nature and direction of the discussion varies. ‫‘ אֵ בּוס‬stable’ HALOT 4; DCH 1:102 (Isa 1:3; Job 39:9; Prov 14:4) 𝕲 φάτνη ‘feeding trough’; 𝖁 praesaepes ‘pen, feeding trough’; 𝕾 ‌ʾwry‌ʾ ‘animal pen’; 𝕿 ‫‘ אורי‬animal pen’ [D] Hurr → Akk; Ug; Heb; Hitt Akk abūsu (OB, Nuzi, MA, RS, SB, NA) CAD A/1 92–93; AHw 9; Ug ı͗ bsn DUL 14; Hitt apuzzi- HHw 21; Hurr abuzi- BGH 41 The word ‫ אֵ בּוס‬occurs three times, always in conjunction with animals. Although commonly defined as ‘feeding trough’, it seems to denote an enclosed area for animals, such as a stable, as many of the ancient versions recognized. One may compare Akkadian abūsu ‘storehouse, stable’.2 However, Akkadian abūsu is probably not cognate with Hebrew ‫אֵ בּוס‬, nor is the latter a loan from the former. Hebrew ‫ אֵ בּוס‬indicates an earlier qītūl-pattern noun, but this nominal pattern is rare in Hebrew and does not exist in Proto-​Semitic. Furthermore, Akkadian abūsu should yield ‫*אָ בּוס‬, not ‫אֵ בּוס‬, in Hebrew. Neither Akkadian abūsu nor Hebrew ‫ אֵ בּוס‬has a good Semitic etymology, and this word is most probably a foreign loan.3 Morphological markers indicate that this word comes from Hurrian. Hittite apuzzi- ‘storehouse’ contains the Hurrian noun-​formation suffix -zi (often used to create words for buildings), and the final -n of Ugaritic ı͗ bsn can be explained as the Hurrian derivational suffix -ni, -nni.4 In Nuzi Akkadian, moreover, the term abūsu can denote a more specific type of storehouse, a stable, where livestock and related materials were kept (e.g., HSS 19.5:7, 16, 29). This perfectly matches the definition of Biblical Hebrew ‫ אֵ בּוס‬and the contexts in which it occurs. It is likely, therefore, that Semitic- and Hittite-​speakers adopted a Hurrian term abuzi- meaning ‘storehouse, stable’ (cf. Albright 1955b, 11). Hebrew probably borrowed this term independently from Hurrian because both Akkadian and Ugaritic preserve forms that could not have been the source of Hebrew ‫אֵ בּוס‬.

2.  When attested in Middle and Neo-Assyrian texts, Akk abūsu can mean ‘feeding trough’, and the expression bīt abusati can mean ‘stable’ (Weidner 1963, 123). 3. Cf. ALBH 15–16. The verb ‫‘ אבס‬to feed livestock’, which occurs only in 1 Kgs 5:3 and Prov 15:17, is denominal (cf. Bauer and Leander 1922, 472 [§61wa]). The noun ‫ מַ אֲבּוס‬does occur in Jer 50:26, but it is probably a late noun created from the denominal verb ‫אבס‬. 4.  HED A 102–3; HEG A–K 48. On the noun-​formation suffix -zi, see Wegner 2007, 56–57; Giorgieri 2000, 202–4; Wilhelm 2008, 90. On the derivational suffix -ni, -nni, see Wegner 2007, 53; Giorgieri 2000, 210–12; Wilhelm 2008, 92.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

35

ַ‫‘ אֲבַ ִּטיח‬watermelon’ HALOT 4; DCH 1:102 (Num 11:5) 𝕲 πέπων ‘gourd, melon’; 𝖁 pepo ‘gourd, melon’; 𝕾, 𝕿 both use their corresponding form of this word (pṭyḥ‌ʾ and ‫אבטיח‬, respectively) [?] CW JA ‫ בטיח‬DJPA 91; Syr paṭṭīḥā LS² 1181; Arab baṭṭīḫ Lane 216–17; Eg bddw-​kꜢ (MK) ÄW 2:830; GHwÄ 283; WÄS 1:488 This word occurs only in Num 11:5, a list of fruits and vegetables that the Israelites ate in Egypt as slaves. Through comparison with related Semitic forms such as Arabic baṭṭīḫ, many scholars identify the fruit denoted by Hebrew ַ‫ אֲבַ ִּטיח‬as the watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) (e.g., Musselman 2012, 143; Paris and Janick 2008, 48; Löw 1924–1934, 1:550–53). This word has no convincing Semitic etymology, and the varying spellings indicate a foreign term.5 Notably, the Egyptian term meaning ‘watermelon’ is bddw-​kꜢ, which contains the element *bd ‘gourd’ found also in Nilo-​Saharan, Chadic, and Omotic with the same meaning. Hebrew ַ‫ אֲבַ ִּטיח‬bears some resemblance to Egyptian bddw-​kꜢ, but a direct borrowing from Egyptian is unlikely on phonological grounds (cf. EDE 2:362–63). Most likely, both the Hebrew and Egyptian terms can be traced back to a language spoken in Sub-​Saharan Africa, where the watermelon was first cultivated.6 The watermelon was brought from Sub-​Saharan Africa to Egypt at a very early date. Archaeologists have discovered remains of watermelon seeds dating back at least to the Twelfth Dynasty. Watermelons, moreover, are often depicted in ancient Egyptian tomb paintings.7 It is not surprising, then, that the Israelites associated the watermelon with Egypt (Num 11:5). ‫( אַ בְ נֵט‬a sash or wrap) HALOT 8–9; DCH 1:114 (Exod 28:4, 39–40; 29:9; 39:29; Lev 8:7, 13; 16:4; Isa 22:21) 𝕲 ζώνη ‘belt, girdle’; 𝖁 balteus ‘belt’ except cingulum ‘belt’ Exod 39:29; 𝕾 hmyn‌ʾ ‘belt’; 𝕿 ‫‘ המין‬belt’ [D] Eg → Heb; Gk QH ‫ ;אבנט‬Eg bndw (NK) GHwÄ 272; DLE 1:135; Gk βύνητος LSJ 333 The word ‫ אַ בְ נֵט‬appears almost exclusively with reference to the priestly garments (Exod 28:4, 39–40; 29:9; 39:29; Lev 8:7, 13; 16:4), but it also shows up with 5. Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 4) connect this word with the root ‫‘ בטח‬to be tight, be taut’. However, this is semantically unconvincing. 6.  Post-​Vedic Skt bhaṭā-, which denotes a type of melon mentioned in late lexical texts (cf. Skt carbhaṭa-, cirbhaṭa-, cirbhiṭa- and Lat cucurbita), lacks a final uvular fricative and is probably unrelated (contra Janick, Paris and Parrish 2007, 1148). 7.  Janick, Paris and Parrish 2007, 1148; Murray 2000, 633–34; Blench 1991, 55; D.  Zohary and Hopf 2000, 193.

36

Chapter 3

reference to the clothing of a non-​religious official in Isa 22:21. At Qumran, this word likewise appears with reference to a priestly garment (1QM vii:10). Its atypical morphology suggests a non-​Semitic loan, as does the lack of a known Semitic root on which this term could be based.8 Its frequent appearances in the Wilderness-​wandering narratives, which have an Egyptian literary context, suggest a loan from Egyptian bndw, which denotes a sash or wrap.9 Greek βύνητος, noted by lexicographers as a word for an Egyptian garment (Aelius Herodianus, Pros. cath. 1.219.19; Arcadius, Acc. 93.16), confirms the existence of a garment known by this name in Egyptian. The garment denoted by Egyptian bndw was probably a rectangular piece of cloth that was wrapped around the wearer (Meeks 1997, 41; J. J. Janssen 2008, 63–65). The ancient Egyptians wore a variety of sashes and wraps such as this, ranging from simple to elaborate (Vogelsang-​Eastwood 2000, 286–88). According to Exod 28:39, the sash denoted by ‫ אַ בְ נֵט‬was to be made of fine twisted linen and colored yarn, embroidered with needlework. Elaborate, woven sashes such as this are found in a number of New Kingdom Egyptian depictions of kings and dignitaries.10 ‫‘ אַ בְ ֵרְך‬pay attention!’ HALOT 9–10; DCH 1:115 (Gen 41:43) 𝕲 κῆρυξ ‘herald’; 𝖁 paraphrases as ut omnes coram eo genu flecterent ‘that all should bow their knee before him’; 𝕾 ‌ʾbʾ wšlyṭ‌ʾ ‘father and ruler’; 𝕿Onq., Ps.-J. ‫‘ אבא למלכא‬father of the king’ [D] Eg → Heb Eg *ı̓b-​r.k This word is a hapax, occurring within the narrative of Pharaoh’s promotion of Joseph. Pharaoh has Joseph ride in the chariot of his second-​in-​command, with the drivers calling out ‫ אַ בְ ֵרְך‬before him (Gen 41:43). This term has attracted much attention in the literature, and scholars have proposed a number of different loan hypotheses to explain this rare word.11 Of these 8. ‫ אַ בְ נֵט‬cannot be derived from a hypothetical Semitic root *bnṭ because there is no evidence for the existence of this root in Semitic (contra BDB 126; DRS 71). 9. EPNL 237; Lambdin 1953b, 146; Grintz 1975a, 7. Eg bndw is derived from bnd ‘to wrap, envelop’. This Egyptian verb is written with group writing and its origin is somewhat uncertain, although it is clear that it did not come from Semitic (EDE 2:237–41). Regardless of whether Eg bnd is to be connected with Indo-​European *bhendh- ‘to bind’, BH ‫ אַ בְ נֵט‬does not derive from Indo-​European (contra Rabin 1970, 493–94). 10.  Vogelsang-​Eastwood 1993, 80–82. For example, on his tomb’s golden shrine, King Tutankhamun is shown wearing a long, elaborate sash with fringes. Similarly, Prince Amenhikhopeshef (the son of Ramesses III) is depicted in his tomb wearing a decorative sash wrapped three times around his waist, and Nubian dignitaries and soldiers are portrayed with broad, decorative sashes in New Kingdom tomb paintings. 11. S ome sch ola rs h ave compared ‫ אַ בְ ֵרְך‬with Akk abarakku ‘household steward’ or abriqqu, abrikku ‘purification priest’ (e.g., Lipiński 1988, 61–62; Croatto 1966). However, these derivations

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

37

options, an Egyptian derivation remains the most plausible given the Egyptian context of the narrative in which ‫ אַ בְ ֵרְך‬occurs. Long ago, Spiegelberg (1903) proposed that it derives from Egyptian *ı̓b-​r.k ‘pay attention!’ (literally, ‘heart to you’), and his etymology has been accepted by a number of scholars (cf. EPNL 236; Lambdin 1953b, 146). The only potential objection is that the Egyptian plural (-tn) suffix might be expected in place of the singular (-k) suffix, especially since ı̓b-​r.tn occurs in Egyptian texts (e.g., P Jud Turin 1,8) (cf. Breasted 1905, 248). Nevertheless, the singular form certainly works in the context, and it need not be assumed that ‫ אַ בְ ֵרְך‬was always addressed to multiple individuals. This term constitutes a perfect example of a single-​word switch, utilized by the writer to indicate that a non-​Hebrew— namely, an Egyptian—is speaking. ‫‘ אֱגֹוז‬walnut’ HALOT 10; DCH 1:116 (Song 6:11) 𝕲 καρύα ‘nut tree’; 𝖁 nux ‘nut, nut-​tree’; 𝕾 gwz‌ʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 is interpretive and does not directly represent this word [D] OIran → Heb; Aram; Arab; Eth JA, CPA ‫ גוז‬DJPA 122; DCPA 69; Syr gawzā LS² 213; Arab ǧawz Lane 485; Eth gawz CDG 207; OIran *agauza-, *gauzaThe word ‫ אֱגֹוז‬is attested only in Song 6:11. Its meaning is not entirely clear from the context, but its definition ‘walnut’ (Juglans regia) is established by the ancient versions and by comparison with related terms in Semitic, especially Arabic ǧawz (Musselman 2012, 142; Löw 1924–1934, 2:29–59). It comes from Old Iranian *agauza-, *gauza- (cf. Gilaki åγuz and Pashto oγz, which have an initial vowel, as well as Pahl gōz and NPers gauz, gūz, goz, which have no initial vowel).12 It is formed from the Old Iranian root *gauz- ‘to hide’ (Gharib 1975; cf. OPers gaud- and Av gauz-: OPGTL 182; AIW 485). The latter is a productive root for seed plants in the Iranian languages and provides a fitting etymology for a nut, which can be thought of as hidden inside its shell. An Old Iranian origin, moreover, is consistent with the known origin of the walnut. Archaeobotanical evidence points to northeastern Turkey, the Caucasus, and northern Iran as the earliest regions of the walnut’s domestication (D. Zohary and Hopf 2000, 188–89). face phonological problems, and it is difficult to see how they fit the meaning required by the use of ‫ אַ בְ ֵרְך‬in Gen 41:13 (cf. ALBH 19–20). Vergote (1959, 135–41) derives ‫ אַ בְ ֵרְך‬from an Egyptian imperative *brk ‘kneel!’ with prothetic ʾ. However, the verb *brk does not occur in Egyptian with the meaning ‘to kneel’, and a prothetic ʾ ‌is not characteristic of three-​radical verbs in Egyptian (cf. Lambdin 1953b, 146; Couroyer 1959, 594). Finally, Ellenbogen (1962, 3–5) compares ‫ אַ בְ ֵרְך‬with Eg bꜢk ‘servant’. This, however, is problematic on phonological and semantic grounds. 12.  Cf. Ciancaglini 2008, 136. On the Gilaki, Pashto, Pahlavi, and New Persian forms, see Kerimova, Mamedzade and Rastorgueva 1980, 38; Aslanov 1985, 91; CPD 37; CPED 1102.

38

Chapter 3

Hebrew probably borrowed this term independently, as indicated by the prothetic ‌ʾalep not found in the other Semitic forms. As indicated by the use of z rather than d for Proto-​Iranian *ȷ́,13 this word must have been borrowed from an Old Iranian language other than Old Persian. This other dialect of origin remains unclear.14 However, the long ō indicates a borrowing some time during the Achaemenid period, when the Old Iranian diphthong au monophthongized to ō.15 Some scholars contend that Ugaritic ʿrgz, which primarily occurs in hippiatric texts (KTU 1.71:5, 10; 1.72:7, 14; 1.85:5, 10), also means ‘walnut.’16 They claim that use of the verb ‫ ירד‬with reference to ‫ אֱגֹוז‬in Song 6:11 provides a verbal parallel to KTU 1.24:23, which uses the verb yrd with reference to ʿrgz. However, the use of this verb in both texts is hardly enough basis for associating the two terms, especially since it is so common. Additionally, there is a potential phonological problem: Hebrew ‫ אֱגֹוז‬begins with ‌ʾalep, but Ugaritic ʿrgz begins with ʿ and contains an r absent in the Hebrew form.17 These problems cast doubt on a relationship between ‫ אֱגֹוז‬and ʿrgz, especially because there is no clear indication that ʿrgz means ‘walnut’ (cf. DUL 179) and because the parallels between Song 6:11 and KTU 1.24:23 are superficial. ‫‘ ֲאגַם‬reed pool, marsh’ HALOT 11; DCH 1:116–17 (Exod 7:19; 8:1 [8:5]; Isa 14:23; 35:7; 41:18; 42:15; Jer 51:32; Ps 107:35; 114:8) 𝕲 ἕλος ‘marsh’ Exod 7:19; 8:1; Isa 35:7; 41:8; 42:15, πηλός ‘mud, clay’ Isa 14:23, σύστεμα ‘company’ Jer 51:32, λίμνη ‘lake’ Ps 107:35; 114:8; 𝖁 palus ‘marsh’ except stagnum ‘pool’ Isa 35:7; 41:18; 42:15; 𝕾 ʾgmʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫אגם‬ [Aramaic form] except ‫‘ בצה‬pond’ Isa 14:23, ‫‘ ארית‬stream’ Ps 107:35; 114:8 [T] Sum → Akk →   → Heb   → Aram → Arab Sum agam PSD; Akk agammu (OB, SB) CAD A/1 142; AHw 15; IA, JA, SA, CPA ‫ אגם‬DNWSI 9; DJPA 34; DSA 6; DCPA 79; Syr ʾ‌aḡmā, ‌ʾeḡmā LS² 7; Mand agma, agama MD 5; Arab ʾaǧama Lane 26 The word ‫ ֲאגַם‬appears several times in the Hebrew Bible. By virtue of its association with reed plants, Hebrew-​speakers added the individualizing suffix ‫ֹון‬- to 13.  On the phonological development of Proto-​Iranian *ȷ́, see Skjærvø 2009, 51; Schmitt 2008, 84–85; Testen 1997, 575; OPGTL 33–34 (§88). 14. Ėdelʹman and Klimov 1987, 163–64; Steblin-​Kamenskiĭ 1982, 110. JA ‫ אמגוז‬and Mand anguza contain a nasal and instead come from OIran *hamgauza- (*gauza- and the prefix ham- ‘together, with’) just like Ossetic ængūz, ængozæ and Arm ənkuwz (DJBA 138; MD 25; Abaev 1958–1989, 1:160–61; HAB 2:130–31). 15.  On the monophthongization of au to ō, see Skjærvø 2009, 58; Schmitt 2008, 83. 16.  E.g., Pope 1977, 574–79; Dahood 1964, 98; 1963, 292; Dietrich and Loretz 1986, 118–20. 17.  Pardee 1985, 54; C. Cohen and Sivan 1983, 20. Pope (1977, 574–75) explains the ʿ by comparing various plant and animal terms in Semitic that begin with ʿ and explains the presence of the r by pointing to later nasalized forms of this word, arguing that the r of Ug ʿrgz reflects the n of these forms.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

39

denote a reed rather than the terrain in which this plant is found, producing the form ‫‘ אַ גְ מֹון‬reed, rush’ (Isa 9:13; 19:15; 58:5; Job 40:26) (HALOT 11; DCH 1:117; cf. Bauer and Leander 1922, 500 [§61qϑ]). Hebrew ‫ ֲאגַם‬has several cognates in Semitic, including Akkadian and Aramaic. Yet, despite its relatively widespread distribution in Semitic, this term is ultimately non-​Semitic in origin (AIA 33). Akkadian agammu comes from Sumerian agam, as indicated by the double final consonant, indicative of non-​Semitic loans into Akkadian (SLOB 140 [#34]). Akkadian subsequently loaned this Sumerian word into Hebrew and Aramaic, making Hebrew ‫ ֲאגַם‬a transmitted loan.18 Arabic ʾaǧama is a loan from Aramaic (Fränkel 1886, 68–69). ‫( אַ ּגָן‬a krater-​like vessel) HALOT 11; DCH 1:117 (Exod 24:6; Isa 22:24; Song 7:3 [7:2]) 𝕲 κρατήρ ‘bowl’; 𝖁 cratera ‘bowl’; 𝕾 lqn‌ʾ ‘platter’ Exod 24:6, m‌ʾn‌ʾ ‘vessel’ Isa 22:24, ‌ʾgn‌ʾ [Syriac form] Song 7:3; 𝕿 ‫‘ מזרק‬bowl’ Exod 24:6, omits Isa 22:24, ‫[ אגן‬Aramaic form] Song 7:3 [T] Hurr →   → Akk; Ug; Eg; Hitt; Gk   → Aram → Heb; Arab; Eth Akk agannu (Qatna, Nuzi, MA, EA, SB, NA, NB) CAD A/1 142–43; AHw 15; Ug a͗gn DUL 26; EH ‫ אגן‬DNWSI 9–10; IA, JA, SA, CPA ‫ אגן‬DNWSI 9–10; DJPA 34; DJBA 79; DSA 6; DCPA 4; Syr ‌ʾaggānā LS² 7–8; Mand agana MD 5; Arab ʾ‌iǧǧanat Lane 26; Eth ʿaygan CDG 79; Eg ı̓kn (NK) GHwÄ 121; WÄS 1:140; SWET 42–43 (#36); Hitt aganni- HHw 13; Hurr aganni- BGH 7; GLH 37; Gk ἄγγος LSJ 7 The word ‫ אַ ּגָן‬occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible, each time referring to a vessel (Exod 24:6; Isa 22:24; Song 7:3). In Epigraphic Hebrew, this word is also attested once in an early sixth century ostracon from Tel Arad (HAE Arad(6)2:10). Additional Semitic forms exist in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Aramaic, and Arabic. In non-​ Semitic, this word occurs in New Kingdom Egyptian,19 Hittite, Hurrian, and Greek. Notably, in at least one case Egyptian texts associate the term with northern Syria: ‌ʾkn ʿꜢ m bꜢk n ḪꜢrw ‘a large basin of Syrian manufacture’ (Urk 4:665,16). The geographical association of this item with northern Syria and this word’s attestation in Nuzi Akkadian suggests a Hurrian origin. Indeed, Hurrian agannihas a perfectly good Hurrian etymology: it is formed from the verb ag- ‘to carry’ 18. FWOT 6–7; ALBH 20–21. The plural absolute form ‫ ֲאג ִַּמים‬in Biblical Hebrew (Exod 8:1; Isa 42:15; Jer 51:32) preserves the final double consonant, and the pataḥ of the singular absolute form also indicates a doubled final consonant. 19.  The representation of ı̓kn by group writing indicates a loan into Egyptian (contra W. Ward 1996, 27; Lambdin 1953a, 363). This word is probably not related to the older Eg ı̓kn ‘ladle, scoop, cup’ derived from the verb ı̓kn ‘to draw water’ (cf. SWET 42–43), although Hannig (GHwÄ 121) does connect the older ı̓kn with Akk agannu and Hitt aganni-.

40

Chapter 3

(BGH 4–6; GLH 36), the thematic vowel -a, and the derivational suffix -ni, -nni (ag=a=nni).20 Hebrew ‫אַ ּגָן‬, which exhibits gemination of the second root consonant but not the third, is most probably a loan from Hurrian via Aramaic, as is Arabic ‌ʾiǧǧanat (ALBH 22; AIA 33; Fränkel 1886, 68). Archaeological data indicate that the vessel denoted by this term was a squat, ring-​based bowl with a large mouth and two handles, similar to a krater (Amadasi Guzzo 1990, 21–23; Kelso 1948, 15–16; Honeyman 1939, 78–79). A Late Bronze Age stone bowl fragment (8.4 × 8.1 × 7.25 cm) from Hazor contains a dedicatory inscription on this type of vessel, specifically mentioning it by name (CIC Hazor 13:1). A Ugaritic text from Sarepta (KTU 6.70:1), also a dedicatory inscription, is inscribed on a wide krater handle (Pritchard 1975, 102–4; Greenstein 1976). Lastly, nine krater-​like stone vessels from the Palmyrene sanctuary at Khirbet Semrîn inscribed with dedicatory formulae label the vessels by this term. The only intact vessel discovered at this sanctuary was 49 cm in height and had an inside diameter of 56 cm (Milik 1972, 108–11). ‫( ֲאג ְַרטָ ל‬a vessel) HALOT 11; DCH 1:118 (Ezra 1:9 [2×]) 𝕲 ψυκτέον ‘wine-​cooler’; 𝖁 phiala ‘saucer’; 𝕾 ‌ʾgn‌ʾ ‘basin’ [D] ?? → Heb This word appears twice with reference to items taken from the temple, kept by Nebuchadnezzar, and finally released by Cyrus. According to Ezra 1:9, included within the temple inventory were 30 ‫ ֲאג ְַרטָ ל‬of gold (‫ֹלשים‬ ִ ‫ ) ֲאג ְַר ְטלֵי זָהָ ב ְׁש‬and 1000 ‫ ֲא ג ְַרטָ ל‬of silver (‫) ֲאג ְַר ְטלֵי־כֶסֶ ף אָ לֶף‬. The next verse mentions vessels made of gold (‫פֹורי זָהָ ב‬ ֵ ְ‫ )ּכ‬and silver (‫פֹורי כֶסֶ ף‬ ֵ ְ‫)ּכ‬, paralleling Ezra 1:9 and indicating that ‫ֲאג ְַרטָ ל‬ denotes a container of some sort. This word does not look Semitic and is almost certainly a foreign loan.21 It could be an Old Iranian or Greek loan, given the historical context of the book of Ezra, but a convincing hypothesis regarding either remains to be proposed.22 Thus, while 20.  De Martino and Giorgieri 2008–, 1:34. On the thematic vowel -a, see Wegner 2007, 52; Giorgieri 2000, 199; Wilhelm 2008, 90. On the derivational suffix -ni, -nni, see Wegner 2007, 55; Giorgieri 2000, 210–12; Wilhelm 2008, 92. 21. JA, CPA ‫ קרטל‬and Syr qarṭālā are late loans from Gk κάρταλλος, κάρταλος and do not prove that this word is Semitic. Their representation has perhaps been influenced by that of BH ‫( ֲאג ְַרטָ ל‬DJPA 504; DCPA 381; LS² 1406). 22. Scheftelowitz (AAT 1:68) compares Gk κάρταλλος, κάρταλος. However, this is problematic on several counts. First, Gk κάρταλλος denotes a basket or wicker basket, especially one used for holding foodstuffs, which is difficult to reconcile with the fact that the vessel denoted by ‫ ֲאג ְַרטָ ל‬was made of metal. Second, 𝕲 does not translate ‫ ֲאג ְַרטָ ל‬as κάρταλλος as expected if the former were borrowed from the latter. Third, the initial ‌ʾalep of ‫ ֲאג ְַרטָ ל‬indicates an initial consonant cluster, which Gk κάρταλλος does not have. Humbert (1950, 199–200), on the other hand, compares NPers khirtāl, which denotes a leather purse filled with gold or silver. However, this hardly suits the meaning of ‫ ֲאג ְַרטָ ל‬in Ezra 1:9. If ‫ ֲאג ְַרטָ ל‬is from

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

41

a non-​Semitic origin is almost certain, the donor language and donor term behind this word escape identification at present (FWOT 11). ‫אֵ דֹו‬‎, ‫‘ אֵ ד‬ground flow’ HALOT 11; DCH 1:118 (Gen 2:6; Job 36:27) 𝕲 πηγή ‘spring, fountain’ Gen 2:6, νεφέλη ‘cloud’ Job 36:27; 𝖁 fons ‘spring’ Gen 2:6, gurges ‘eddy’ Job 36:27; 𝕾 mbwʿʾ ‘spring, source’ Gen 2:6, blḥwdwhy ‘by itself’ Job 36:27; 𝕿 ‫‘ ענן‬cloud’ [T] Sum → Akk → Heb Sum adea PSD; Akk edû (OB, SB) CAD E 35–36; AHw 187 This word is a dis legomenon. The MT preserves two different forms of this word, ‫( אֵ ד‬Gen 2:6) and ‫( אֵ דֹו‬Job 36:27). It refers to water, whether water that swells up from the ground as in Gen 2:6 (‫ )אֵ ד ַי ֲעלֶה ִמן־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬or the product of purified rain as in Job 36:27 (‫)יָזֹ ּקּו מָ טָ ר לְ אֵ דֹו‬. Albright (1939, 102) attempted to connect ‫ אֵ דֹו‬with Sumerian id ‘river’. Speiser, however, demonstrated that Hebrew ‫ אֵ דֹו‬instead comes from Akkadian edû ‘ground flow, flood’.23 The latter is a loan from Sumerian adea of the same meaning (SLOB 215 –16 [#161]; contra Hasel and Hasel 2000, 328–29). At least one lexical list equates Sumerian a.dé.a with e-​du-​u among mention of terms such as esigu ‘low water’ and mīlu ‘flood’ (Igituḫ iv:45). At first glance Job 36:27 may not seem to fit the meaning ‘flood’ very well, but the Assyrian version of the epic of Atraḫasis (iv:44–45) links the term mīlu with rain. Hence, rising ground water and rain water were thought to be connected in ancient Near Eastern thought (cf. Gen 7:11; 8:2). Based on comparative evidence in the Aramaic treatment of Akkadian loanwords, as well as scant evidence from Biblical Hebrew (cf. BH ‫ׁשבֹו‬, ְ from Akk šubû), the final long -û of Akkadian edû should be represented as ḥolem-​waw in Hebrew. Accordingly, the form ‫ אֵ ד‬in Gen 2:6 should probably be emended to ‫אֵ דֹו‬, as in Job 36:27 (ALBH 26; AIA 47). ‫( אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬a financial official) HALOT 1807 (Dan 3:2–3)

Old Iranian, it must come from a non-​standard dialect because the liquids r and l merged in most Old Iranian dialects (cf. Schmitt 2008, 83; Testen 1997, 582; OPGTL 38 [§107]). Lastly, Rabin (1963, 126–28; 1964, 164) connects ‫ ֲאג ְַרטָ ל‬with Hitt kurtal-, kurtali-, kurtalli-. However, Hitt kurtal- denotes a wooden crate or wicker basket and faces the same problems as Scheftelowitz’s derivation from Gk κάρταλλος, κάρταλος. 23. Speiser 1955; cf. ALBH 26–27; FWOT 13. Dahood (1981; cf. Rogland 2010) instead associates ‫ אֵ דֹו‬with Ebla ì.du (ì-túm), a name for one of the late autumn months. Because this is the rainy season, he contends that the month-​name, and also BH ‫אֵ דֹו‬, means ‘rain cloud’. However, this is quite speculative, and the reading of the Eblaite month name is in doubt (Pettinato 1974–1977, 30).

42

Chapter 3

𝕲, 𝖁 omit one of the officials in the lists of Dan 3:2–3, so it is difficult to tell how they translate BA ‫אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬, if at all; 𝕾 ‌ʾrgdy, an erroneous rendering of BA ‫אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬ [D] OIran → Aram OIran *ādrangāžaraBiblical Aramaic ‫ אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬occurs within a list of officials summoned by Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 3:2–3). It does not look Semitic and has no cognates or Semitic etymology, so it is almost certainly a foreign loan.24 Because it appears within a list of primarily Persian officials, Old Iranian is the probable candidate. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 1078) as well as Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 1807) compare a hypothetical Old Iranian *handarzakara- ‘counselor’, formed from *handarza- ‘instruction, order’ and the element kara- ‘doer, maker’ (cf. F. Rosenthal 2006, 62; AAT 2:57–58). However, the Middle Persian compound they cite in favor of this loan hypothesis does not exist, and their derivation makes several problematic assumptions. It requires the initial h of Old Iranian *handarzato be omitted in Biblical Aramaic even though it is otherwise represented in Imperial Aramaic ‫הנדרז‬.25 Their etymology cannot explain the lack of representation of Old Iranian n unless the MT is presumed to be in error. Finally, this loan hypothesis requires that gimel rather than the usual kap appear for Old Iranian k and that the gimel and zayin have metathesized inexplicably.26 I propose that Biblical Aramaic ‫ ֲאדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬instead comes from Old Iranian *ādrangāžara-, which denotes a financial official (cf. Szemerényi 1975, 387). This word consists of *ādranga- ‘financial obligation’ and *āžara- ‘announcer’.27 Old Iranian *ādrangāžara- matches ‫ אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬well phonologically. Furthermore, its meaning fits well within the context since the financial title ‫‘ ּגְ דָ בַ ר‬treasurer’ directly follows ‫ אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬in the lists of Dan 3:2–3. Based on its etymology, the financial official denoted by ‫ אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬probably supervised loans, credit, and debt obligations.28 24. JA ‫ אדרגזר‬occurs only in Cant. Rab. 7:9 and is adopted from BA ‫( אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬Jastrow 1903, 18). 25. Of course, initial h can sometimes be lost, especially if the recipient language has no corresponding phoneme (cf. Gk ἁλληλουϊά, from Heb ‫)הַ לְ לּו־יָּה‬. One may also compare the Haphel-​Aphel variants of the Semitic Š-​stem in Aramaic. 26.  Rundgren 1967, 93; Szemerényi 1975, 387. Hinz (AISN 115) doubts the existence of OIran *handarzakara-, and Tavernier (AIP) does not reconstruct an OIran *handarzakara-. Given these difficulties, Rundgren (1967, 93, 96) instead derives ‫ אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬from a hypothetical OIran *hadargāzar- ‘chiliarch’, formed from hadahra- ‘thousand’ and the verb *gāzar- ‘to determine, decree’, borrowed from Semitic. However, this suggestion is just as unlikely. Rundgren’s loan hypothesis is phonologically problematic, assumes the existence of an Old Iranian verb *gāzar- for which there is little evidence, and erroneously connects Gk ἀζαραπατεῖς with OIran *hazahrapati- (Szemerényi 1975, 383–89; Schmitt 2007, 356–57). 27. OIran *ādranga- literally has to do with making something firm, as in Av drang-, ādrang(AIW 772), but it is used with reference to financial obligations in IA ‫( אדרנג‬AISN 22–23; IAP 442). The element *āžara- is found in Gk ἀζαραπατεῖς, which Hesychius of Alexandria (Lex. α1441) defines as οἱ εἰσαγγελεῖς παρὰ Πέρσαις ‘those who announce before Persians’ (Szemerényi 1975, 387–89; Huyse 1999, 134). 28.  For a detailed analysis of this word, see Noonan 2018.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

43

‫‘ אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א‬diligently, wholeheartedly’ HALOT 1808 (Ezra 7:23) 𝕲, 𝕾 do not directly represent this word; 𝖁 diligenter ‘diligently, carefully’ [D] OIran → Aram OIran *drazdā- AISN 92–93 Biblical Aramaic ‫ אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א‬occurs only in Ezra 7:23, where Artaxerxes instructs Ezra to do whatever God commands in the manner of ‫ אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א‬‎(‫ָל־ּדי ִמן־טַ עַם ֱאלָּה ְׁשמַ ּיָא יִ ְתעֲבֵ ד‬ ִ ‫ּכ‬ ‫)אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א‬. The context indicates that ‫ אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א‬is an adverb and means something like ‘diligently’ or ‘wholeheartedly’, a definition supported by 𝖁 (diligenter). This word certainly does not look Semitic, and it has no apparent Semitic etymology. Thus, it is most certainly a foreign loan. The donor term is Old Iranian *drazdā- ‘diligently, wholeheartedly’ (cf. Av zarazdā- ‘faithful’: AIW 1702–3).29 Old Iranian *drazdā- has a perfectly good etymology: it is composed of *draz‘heart’ (cf. Av zǝrǝd-: AIW 1692) and dā- ‘to give’ (cf. OPers, Av dā-: OPGTL 188; AIW 711–23), literally meaning ‘to give the heart to’.30 ‫ אֲדַ ְרכֹון‬‎⇒ ‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬ ‫אֲהָ לֹות‬‎, ‫‘ אֲהָ לִ ים‬aloe’ HALOT 19; DCH 1:146 (Ps 45:9 [45:8]; Prov 7:17; Song 4:1431) 𝕲 στακτή ‘myrrh oil’ Ps 45:9, οἶκος ‘dwelling’ Prov 7:17, transliterates as ἀλώθ Song 4:14; 𝖁 gutta ‘drop’ Ps 45:9, aloe [Latin form] Prov 7:17; Song 4:14; 𝕾 ʾsṭqṭʾ ‘myrrh oil’ Ps 45:9, kwrkmʾ ‘saffron’ Prov 7:17, ʿlwy [Syriac form] Song 4:14; 𝕿 ‫‘ אקסיל אלואון‬aloewood’ Ps 45:9; Song 4:14, ‫‘ כורכם‬saffron’ Prov 7:17 [D] ?? →   → Heb   → Gk → Aram; Lat JA, CPA ‫ אלוא‬DJBA 115; DCPA 310; Syr ʿalway, ʾalwā LS² 48, 1100; Mand ʿluaia MD 351; Arab ‌ʾuluwwa, ʾ‌alwa Lane 2651; Eth ʿalwā, ʿālwā, ʿāləw, ‌ʾalaw, ʾ‌aləw CDG 62; Gk ἀλόη LSJ 72; Lat aloe OLD 117 This word shows up only three times in the Hebrew Bible, twice in the plural form ‫( אֲהָ לֹות‬Ps 45:9; Song 4:14) and once in the plural form ‫( אֲהָ לִ ים‬Prov 7:17). It always appears in conjunction with fragrant plants: always with ‫‘ מֹ ר‬myrrh’, but also along with the fragrant plants ‫‘ לְ בֹ נָה‬frankincense’, ‫‘ נ ְֵר ְּד‬spikenard’, and ‫‘ ּכ ְַרּכֹ ם‬saffron’ 29.  FWOT 16; F. Rosenthal 2006, 63; AAT 1:68–69; Schaeder 1930, 75. 30.  Rundgren 1982–1983, 143–46; Nober 1958, 134–38. 31. In light of the parallelism with ‫‘ א ֲָרזִים‬cedars’, ‫ אֲהָ לִ ים‬in Num 24:6 should be emended to ‫ אֵ ילִ ים‬or ‫( אַ ּלֹונִ ים‬cf. BHS). The ancient versions unanimously understood this as a reference to tents, reading ‫אֹ הָ לִ ים‬.

44

Chapter 3

(Song 4:14) as well as ‫( קְ צִ יעָה‬a cassia-​like plant) (Ps 45:9) and ‫( קִ ּנָמֹון‬a cinnamon-​ like spice) (Prov 7:17). Since many of these terms are foreign, it is probable that ‫ אֲהָ לֹות‬is also a non-​Semitic loan. Hebrew ‫ אֲהָ לֹות‬is sometimes derived from post-​Vedic Sanskrit agaru-, aguru-, ‘agarwood’ (EWAia 3:4; KEWA 1:17–18),32 but this is problematic on at least two counts. First, significant phonological differences exist between the Hebrew and Sanskrit forms. In particular, advocates of this loan relationship cannot offer any convincing explanation for the use of Hebrew he for Sanskrit g.33 Second, Hebrew ‫ אֲהָ לֹות‬most probably means ‘aloe’ (genus Aloe) rather than ‘agarwood’ (Aquilaria malaccensis). Ancient texts associate aloe—not agarwood—with myrrh (e.g., John 19:39), just as the Hebrew Bible associates ‫ אֲהָ לֹות‬with myrrh (Ps 45:9; Prov 7:17; Song 4:14). It is telling that, although they sometimes struggled to translate Hebrew ‫אֲהָ לֹות‬, the ancient versions took it as ‘aloe’ more often than ‘agarwood’.34 Instead, Hebrew ‫ אֲהָ לֹות‬probably comes from a term native to the region encompassing the Horn of Africa and Arabia Felix. Many of the products elsewhere associated with ‫( אֲהָ לֹות‬e.g, ‫מֹ ר‬, ‫לְ בֹ נָה‬, ‫קְ צִ יעָה‬, and ‫ )קִ ּנָמֹון‬come from this region. Moreover, both Greco-​Roman sources (e.g., Dioscorides, Mat. med. 3.22; Peripl. M. Rubr. 28) and classical Muslim authors associate aloe with the region encompassing the Horn of Africa and Arabia Felix (Crone 1987, 59–60, 267–69). The aloe plant is native to this region (Heinrich, Pieroni and Bremner 2005, 208), and the term would have been borrowed along with the plant. The same word behind Hebrew ‫ אֲהָ לֹות‬is undoubtedly behind Greek ἀλόη. The Greek form is the origin of this term in Aramaic (JA, CPA ‫ אלוא‬and Syr ‌ʿalway, ʾalwā), Arabic (‌ʾ uluwwa, ‌ʾalwa), and Ethiopic (ʿalwā, ʿāləw, ʿālwā, ‌ʾalaw, ‌ʾaləw) as well as Latin (aloe). ‫‘ אֹוב‬spirit of the dead’ HALOT 20; DCH 1:148 (Lev 19:31; passim35) [D] Hurr →   → Akk → Sum   → Heb 32.  E.g., Rabin 1962, 1079; FWOT 19–20; Powels 1992, 186–88; Löw 1924–1934, 3:411–14; Greppin 1988, 33–48. 33.  Greppin (1988, 34–35) compares the weakening of the voiceless stop k (or ḱ) to h in Grimm’s Law (cf. Lat centum and English hundred, Lat canis and English hound). However, this reflects a linguistic development within Indo-​European. There is no evidence that the velar of the Indic forms was weakened, so this explanation does not account for why Hebrew-​speakers would represent a velar as a laryngeal. It is significant that Gk ἀγάλοχον, ἀγάλλοχον (cf. Syr ‌ʾagālōḵōn), which does mean ‘agarwood’ and is a loan from Indic, clearly preserves the velar. 34.  Dioscorides (Mat. Med. 1.22; 3.22) distinguishes agarwood (ἀγάλλοχον) from the true aloe (ἀλόη), demonstrating that these plants were not confused even as late as the first century c.e. It was not until several centuries later that Gk ἀλόη and Lat aloe came to be confused with agarwood (e.g., Cosmas, Top. 11.15 and perhaps also Justinian, Dig. 39.4.16.7). See Crone 1987, 267–69. 35.  Lev 20:6, 27; Deut 18:11; 1 Sam 28:3, 7 (2×), 8–9; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24; Isa 8:19; 19:3; 29:4; 1 Chr 10:13; 2 Chr 33:6.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

45

  → Luv → Hitt Sum abum PSD; Akk apu (NA) CAD A/2 201; AHw 62; QH ‫ ;אוב‬Hitt api- HHw 21; Luv āpit- (CLuv) CLL 23; Hurr abi- BGH 37–38; GLH 34–3536 The word ‫ אֹוב‬occurs 16 times, frequently in conjunction with ‫‘ יִ ְּדעֹ נִ י‬familiar spirit’. This usage, as well as its association with ‫‘ ִא ִּטים‬ghost’ in Isa 19:3, demonstrates that it denotes a spirit. Notably, the necromancer from Endor is called a ‫ּבַ ֲעלַת־‬ ‫‘ אֹוב‬mistress of ‫’אֹוב‬‎ (1 Sam 28:7).That this type of spirit was associated with the ground is clear from passages such as Isa 29:4 and 1 Sam 28:8 (cf. 1 Sam 28:13). In the Damascus Document, ‫ אוב‬appears parallel to ‫ידעני‬, similar to its use in the Hebrew Bible (CD xii:3). One may compare various forms in Sumerian (abum), Akkadian (apu), Hittite (api-), and Cuneiform Luvian (āpit-), all of which mean ‘necromantic pit’. However, there is no evidence that any of these forms is native to their respective languages. Cuneiform Luvian āpit- clearly comes from Hurrian. Furthermore, Hittite api- occurs in Hurrian contexts (e.g., KBo 17.98 v:10–11, 17) even though it is borrowed from Luvian (HED A 100–101; Starke 1990, 211–12). Thus, this word is native to Hurrian, and the Semitic and Indo-​European forms must all come from Hurrian abi-. Hebrew probably borrowed this word independently in light of its use of bet rather than the p found in Akkadian, Hittite, and Luvian. Sumerian abum, which preserves mimation, must be a loan from Akkadian.37 Hittite and Luvian texts use this term within the context of placing objects, including food, before a necromantic pit when consulting the gods. This divine association led to this term’s personification, and sometimes it appears with the diĝir determinative—which is occasionally used even when no particular deity is in mind. The few Sumerian and Akkadian texts that use this word likewise describe pits in the ground from which spirits come forth, but they do not personify the term as in Hurro-​Anatolian texts. All these texts reflect the ancient association of ritual pits and necromancy, an association found particularly in the Mediterranean world (cf. Homer, Od. 11.23–29, 34–43). These ritual holes served as a bridge between the living and the dead, an individual who offered food or libations to elicit the spirits of the dead from the pit (Hoffner 1967). Notably, Hebrew ‫ אֹוב‬exhibits the same semantic development from ‘necromantic pit’ to ‘spirit of the dead’ seen in Hurro-​Anatolian texts, likewise retaining a connection with the ground (cf. Isa 29:4; 1 Sam 28:8). This provides further confirmation of its Hurrian origin. 36. JA, SA ‫אוב‬, used in biblical-​related contexts, are adopted from Biblical Hebrew (DJBA 84; DSA 12). 37. Singer 2006, 750–51; Hoffner 1967; Rabin 1963, 115–16; 1964, 155–56; Vieyra 1961. Other loan hypotheses remain unconvincing. Albright (1968, 203) defines ‫ אֹוב‬as ‘revenant’ on the basis of Arab ‌ʾāba ‘to come back’. This derivation, however, has no support from cognates. Hays and LeMon (2009) postulate a derivation from Eg Ꜣb.t ‘clan, extended family’ and suggest that BH ‫ אֹוב‬relates to the ancestor cult. However, Eg Ꜣb.t has no explicit connection with spirits of the dead. This loan hypothesis largely rests on an alleged but unsubstantiated connection between Eg Ꜣb.t ‘clan, extended family’ and Eg Ꜣbw.t ‘form’ as well as an unproven meaning of ‘cultic image’ for ‫ אֹוב‬in 2 Kgs 23:24.

46

Chapter 3

‫אֵ זֹ ב‬‎, ‫‘ אֵ זֹוב‬origanum’ HALOT 27; DCH 1:168 (Exod 12:22; Lev 14:4, 6, 49, 51–52; Num 19:6, 18; 1 Kgs 5:13 [4:33]; Ps 51:9 [51:7]) 𝕲 ὕσσωπος [Greek form]; 𝖁 hysopus [Latin form]; 𝕾 zwpʾ [Syriac form] except lwpʾ ‘pellitory’ 1 Kgs 5:13; 𝕿 ‫[ איזוב‬Aramaic form] except omits 1 Kgs 5:13 [?] CW Akk zūpu (NB) CAD Z 163; AHw 1538; Ug u͗zb DUL 133; QH ‫ ;אזוב‬Syr zōp̱ā LS² 375; Eth ‌ʾazāb, ‌ʾazab, ‌ʾazōb CDG 52; Hitt zūpu- HHw 337; Gk ὕσσωπος LSJ 190538 This word, also spelled with ḥolem-​waw as ‫אֵ זֹוב‬, occurs 10 times. Most often it appears within the context of Israel’s cult (Exod 12:22; Lev 14:4, 6, 49, 51–52; Num 19:6, 18). Although commonly translated as ‘hyssop’, this species is not true hyssop (Hyssopus officinalils), but origanum (Origanum spp. L.). Saʿadia Gaon renders Hebrew ‫ אֵ זֹ ב‬as zaʿatar ‘origanum’ (Judeo-​Arabic ‫ )צעתר‬in his translation of Exod 12:22, and Maimonides (Piruš Hamisnayot, ed. Biṭon 2009, 441) states that biblical hyssop is the same as zaʿatar is in his commentary on m. Neg 14:6 (S. Joseph 1969, 99). Dioscorides’ description of ὕσσωπος likewise indicates that he identified this substance with origanum (Mat. med. 3.25). Origanum has curative properties, hence its association with purification (Lev 14:4, 6, 49, 51–52; Num 19:6, 18; Ps 51:9). It is common to the Mediterranean basin and western Asia, including Arabia, where it would have been accessible to the Israelites during their wilderness journeys.39 One may compare Hebrew ‫ אֵ זֹ ב‬with a number of other Semitic forms (Akk zūpu, Syr zōp̱ā, and Eth ‌ʾazāb, ‌ʾazab, ‌ʾazōb) as well as Hittite zūpu- and Greek ὕσσωπος. The latter is commonly thought to be a loan from Semitic (e.g., EDG 1538–39; DELG 1122; Rosół 2013, 102–4), but this is unlikely given its rough breathing and differing vocalization. The variant treatment of this word’s initial pronunciation points to a foreign loan, and Rabin suggests that this ancient term originated somewhere in Asia Minor (1964, 151; cf. Mayer 1960, 325). In favor of this loan hypothesis is the existence of Hittite zūpu- as well as Dioscorides’ claim that the best origanum comes from Cilicia (Mat. med. 3.25). Thus, this culture word probably originated in the place of origanum’s first cultivation and then spread from Asia Minor to other regions. ‫‘ אַ זְּדָ א‬certain, known’ HALOT 1808 (Dan 2:5, 8) 38. JA, SA ‫ אזוב‬are used in biblical-​related contexts and are loans from Biblical Hebrew (DJPA 48; DSA 15); CPA ‫ אסופוס‬is a clear loan from Greek (DCPA 22). 39. Musselman 2012, 73–75; Fleisher and Fleisher 1988; Harrison 1954; Löw 1924–1934, 2:84–101. Despite the widespread consensus in identifying ‫ אֵ זֹוב‬as origanum, it remains difficult to explain the comment in 1 Kgs 5:13 that this plant grew out of cracks in a wall.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

47

OG departs somewhat from the MT but θ′ ἀφίστημι ‘to be removed’ (reading ὁ λόγος ἀπ̓ ἐμοῦ ἀπέστη Dan 2:5 and ἀπέστη ἀπ̓ ἐμοῦ τὸ ῥῆμα Dan 2:8); 𝖁 likewise recedo ‘to recede, withdraw’ in both instances; 𝕾 šryr ‘firm, true’ [D] OIran → Aram IA ‫ אזד‬DNWSI 25; OIran azdā AISN 52; IAP 411 Biblical Aramaic ‫ אַ זְּדָ א‬occurs twice, both times with reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s decree concerning his statue dream. Nebuchadnezzar describes his decree as ‫אַ זְּדָ א‬ (Dan 2:5, 8), and the contexts of both instances demonstrate that this word is an adjective.40 This word has no apparent Semitic etymology and is therefore a good candidate for a foreign loan. The donor term is Old Iranian azdā ‘known’, which can also mean ‘certain, sure’ (cf. OPers, Av azdā and Pahl azd: OPGTL 173–74; AIW 228–29; CPD 16).41 The latter especially fits the contexts in which ‫ אַ זְּדָ א‬occurs. Nebuchadnezzar’s magicians think the king’s decree and threat of punishment are certain or sure (‫)אַ זְּדָ א‬, which is why they try to stall for additional time (cf. Dan 2:8). Because this word occurs in both West (i.e., Old Persian) and East (i.e., Avestan) Iranian texts, and because it has no distinctive dialectal features, it is impossible to know the exact Old Iranian dialect from which Biblical Aramaic ‫ אַ זְּדָ א‬comes. Nevertheless, an Old Persian or Median source is likely given the high number of Old Persian and Median loanwords elsewhere in the book of Daniel as well as the significant influence these two languages had on the ancient Near East. Old Iranian azdā is also the source of Imperial Aramaic ‫אזד‬, attested twice in the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine (TAD A4.5:8; B8.11:4) and once in the Aramaic documents from fourth century b.c.e. Bactria (Khalili B1:3). ‫אֵ זֹ ב ⇒ אֵ זֹוב‬ ‫‘ אַ ח‬brazier’ HALOT 29; DCH 1:179 (Jer 36:22, 23 [2×]) 𝕲 ἐσχάρα ‘hearth, fireplace’; 𝖁 arula ‘small altar’; 𝕾 nwrʾ ‘fire’ Jer 36:22, qmynʾ ‘brazier, fire place’ Jer 36:23; 𝕿 ‫‘ נור‬fire’ Jer 36:22, ‫‘ גומרה‬burning coals’ Jer 36:23 [D] Eg → Heb Eg ʿḫ (since OK) ÄW 1:288, 2:564; GHwÄ 170; WÄS 1:223 The word ‫ אַ ח‬appears only three times, in the narrative which recounts Jehoiakim burning the scroll containing Jeremiah’s prophecies (Jer 36:22–23). This word’s 40. The expressions used are ‫( ִמּלְ תָ א ִמּנִ י אַ זְּדָ א‬Dan 2:5) and ‫( אַ זְּדָ א ִמּנִ י ִמּלְ תָ א‬Dan 2:8). 41.  F. Rosenthal 2006, 63. OIran azdā is not a substantive meaning ‘announcement’ (Huyse 1998, 32–37; Rundgren 1978; contra AISN 52).

48

Chapter 3

limited appearance and its lack of apparent Semitic etymology together point to a foreign origin. The donor term is Egyptian ʿḫ ‘brazier’, which specifically denotes a brazier used for burnt offerings and burning incense (cf. Dem ʿḫ and Copt aš: CDD ʿ 125–27; DG 69; Crum 22).42 This Egyptian word first appears in the Old Kingdom. The use of Hebrew ‌ʾalep for Egyptian ʿ does not present any problems because Egyptian ʿ often dissimilates to ı̓ in the presence of ḫ.43 The brazier denoted by Hebrew ‫ אַ ח‬was probably made of metal because it was the property of the king. As indicated by the Egyptian origin of Hebrew ‫אַ ח‬, this particular brazier was probably imported from Egypt or manufactured according to Egyptian design (Kelso 1948, 46). The Egyptian pharaoh Necho II installed Jehoiakim, whose birth name was Eliakim, as king of Judah (cf. 2 Kgs 23:31–37). Given Egypt’s influence over Judah during the late monarchy, it is not surprising that an Egyptian brazier was used in the royal Judahite court. ‫( אָ חּו‬a rush or reed plant) HALOT 30–31; DCH 1:183 (Gen 41:2, 18; Job 8:11) 𝕲 transliterates as ἄχι Gen 41:2, 18, βούτομον ‘reed’ Job 8:11; 𝖁 locus palustribus ‘marshy place’ Gen 41:2, pastus paludis ‘swampland’ Gen 41:18, carectum ‘sedgy spot’ Job 8:11; 𝕾 mrgʾ ‘meadow, marsh’ Gen 41:2, 18, ʾrbnʾ ‘bulrush’ Job 8:11; 𝕿 ‫[ אחו‬Aramaic form] Gen 41:2, 18, ‫‘ ערק‬reed’ Job 8:11 [D] Eg → Heb; Aram OAram ‫אחו‬, JA ‫ אחוון‬DNWSI 35; DJPA 46; DJBA 103; Eg Ꜣḫ (MK, NK), Ꜣḫy (NK) ÄW 2:42; GHwÄ 13; WÄS 1:18; DLE 1:844 This word occurs only three times in Biblical Hebrew, each time with reference to a rush or reed plant (Löw 1924–1934, 1:571–72). It appears twice within the Joseph cycle, denoting the reeds along the banks of the Nile in Pharaoh’s dream (Gen 41:2, 18). It also appears once in the book of Job, where it is parallel with the Egyptian loanword ‫( ּגֹ מֶ א‬Job 8:11). Elsewhere in Semitic, this word occurs in the Old Aramaic Sefire Treaty inscription (KAI 222A:29, 32) and in Jewish Aramaic (e.g., b. Šabb. 20a) with the more general meaning ‘grass, vegetation’. The specific use of this word with reference to reeds growing along the Nile in Gen 41:2, 18 indicates an Egyptian loan referring to an Egyptian marsh plant. Without doubt the donor term is Egyptian Ꜣḫw, the plural form of Ꜣḫ, Ꜣḫy, which denotes a papyrus thicket beginning with the Middle Kingdom (cf.  Dem Ꜣẖy: 42.  EPNL 238; Lambdin 1953b, 146; FWOT 21. 43.  EPNL 238. On the dissimilation of ʿ to ı̓, see Peust 1999, 104; Osing 1980a. 44. 𝕲’s transliteration of ‫ אָ חּו‬as ἄχι is the source of this word in Greek, and, in turn, Copt Baḫi, Bakhi (LSJ 295; Crum 25). It is unclear whether Ug a͗ḫ is related. It lacks the final w of the Biblical Hebrew and Old Aramaic forms and could be taken as meaning ‘shore’ (cf. Akk aḫu) in the few contexts in which it occurs (KTU 1.10 ii:9, 12)

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

49

CDD Ꜣ 68; DG 10).45 During the New Kingdom, the term Ꜣḫ came to denote the rushes and reeds found in this papyrus thicket. The retention of the final waw indicates an early borrowing when the Egyptian masculine plural ending -w, -aw was still pronounced.46 The final waw, moreover, simultaneously excludes a loan from Akkadian aḫu ‘side, shore’ (contra Mazzini 2004, 84). Notably, Biblical Hebrew ‫ אָ חּו‬preserves the original referent of an Egyptian marsh plant in its occurrences in the book of Genesis. This observation indicates that it was a direct borrowing into Hebrew and not a loan inherited from early Northwest Semitic. Egyptian Ꜣḫw must also have entered Aramaic early because the Aramaic forms preserve the final semivowel, but their more general meaning indicates a separate borrowing. ‫‘ אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬red jasper’ HALOT 34; DCH 1:191 (Exod 28:19; 39:12) 𝕲 ἀμέθυστος, 𝖁 amethystus ‘amethyst’; 𝕾 ʿyn ʿgl‌ʾ, 𝕿Onq., Ps.-J. ‫( עין עגל‬a precious stone) [D] Eg → Heb Eg ḫnm.t (since NK) GHwÄ 649–50; WÄS 3:294; DLE 1:364 Exodus 28:17–20; 39:10–13 mention this dis legomena along with several gemstones found on the high priest’s breastplate. Hebrew ‫ אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬is not based on any Semitic root, and it does not occur in any of the other Semitic languages. Thus, its identification as a non-​Semitic loanword is virtually certain.47 The donor term is Egyptian ḫnm.t, first attested in Egyptian texts during the Eigtheenth Dynasty.48 Egyptian n can represent both the nasal [n] and the lateral [l] (J. Allen 2013, 39; Loprieno 1995, 33). Thus, the use of lamed for Egyptian n presents no problems. The Berlin Amulet Board, which contains a number of jasper amulets described as made of ḫnm.t, supports the identification of ḫnm.t as red jasper.49 Jasper, a type of fine-​grained quartz containing significant amounts of other minerals (particularly iron oxides), is typically a dark brownish red in color but can also be yellow, black, or green (O’Donoghue 2006c, 312). Veins of red jasper existed in various regions of the Eastern Desert of Egypt, particularly to the northwest and west of 45.  EPNL 165, 238, 280–81; Lambdin 1953b, 146; Spiegelberg 1902. Eg Ꜣḫ and Ꜣḫy come from the verb wꜢḫy ‘to be flooded, be green’, which is not surprising since the annual inundation of the Nile was an important water source for Egypt’s vegetation. 46.  EPNL 238; Lambdin 1953b, 146. On the Egyptian masculine plural ending -w, -aw and its lenition by the end of the New Kingdom, see Loprieno 2008, 168; 1995, 56, 58–61. 47. Aside from 𝕲 and 𝖁, there is no evidence to identify ‫ אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬with the amethyst. Thus, little basis exists for the notion that this word is based on the root ‫ חלם‬because the amethyst stone was associated with dreams (contra J. S. Harris 1963–1965, 54–55). 48.  EPNL 238–39; Lambdin 1953b, 147; FWOT 22; Grintz 1975a, 8. 49.  Putter and Karlshausen 1992, 102; Aufrère 1991, 2:553–54; J. R. Harris 1961, 123; cf. Harrell, Hoffmeier and Williams 2017, 24–25.

50

Chapter 3

Quseir (Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 29; Putter and Karlshausen 1992, 103). In Predynastic Egypt, beads were made from red and green jasper beginning with the Badarian period; later, red and green jasper came to be used for amulets, jewelry inlay, scarabs, small vessels, and parts of composite statues. The Egyptians employed brown jasper exclusively during the Middle Kingdom, primarily for scarabs, and yellow jasper was used for sculpture from the Eighteenth Dynasty onward.50 ‫( אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬BH); ‫( אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן‬BA) ‘satrap’ HALOT 37, 1811; DCH 1:201 (Esth 3:12; 8:9; 9:3; Dan 3:2–3, 27; 6:2–5, 7–8; Ezra 8:36) 𝕲 στρατηγός ‘captain, chief’ Esth 3:12, σατράπης [Greek form] Esth 8:9; 9:3; Dan 3:2; 6:2–5, 7–8, τοπάρχης ‘governor’ Dan 3:3, ὕπατος ‘consul’ Dan 3:27, διοικητής ‘governor, administrator’ Ezra 8:36; 𝖁 satrapes [Latin form] Esth 3:12; Dan 3:2–3, 27; 6:2–5, 7–8; Ezra 8:36, princeps ‘chief, leader’ Esth 8:9, dux ‘leader, chief’ Esth 9:3; 𝕾 rb ḥylʾ ‘army commander’ Esth 3:12; 8:9; 9:3; Dan 3:2–3, 27; 6:2–3, 5, 7–8, omits Dan 6:4, rb mlkʾ Ezra 8:36; 𝕿 ‫איסטרטילוס‬ ‘army commander’ Esth 3:12; 8:9; 9:3 [D] OIran (Med) → Akk; Heb; Aram Akk aḫšadrapānu (NB) CAD A/1 195; AHw 21; IA ‫ חשתרפן‬DNWSI 412; OIran *xšaθrapāna- (Med) AISN 136; IAP 436–3751 Hebrew ‫‘ אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬satrap’ occurs four times (Esth 3:12; 8:9; 9:3; Ezra 8:36). The Biblical Aramaic form of this word, ‫אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן‬, appears nine times (Dan 3:2–3, 27; 6:2–5, 7–8). Both forms of this word possess a non-​Semitic morphology and always refer to a ruler in the Persian Empire, just like the related Akkadian aḫšadrapānu (e.g., PBS 2/1 2:6; 21:7, 11) and Imperial Aramaic ‫( חשתרפן‬KAI 319:4). Naturally, then, one suspects an Old Iranian loan. The donor term is Old Iranian *xšaθrapāna-, which means ‘protector of the kingdom’ and is composed of xšaθra- ‘kingdom’ (cf. OPers xšaça- and Av xšaθra-: OPGTL 181; AIW 542–46), pā- ‘to protect’ (cf. OPers, Av pā-: OPGTL 194; AIW 885–87), and the suffix -na.52 Representation of the consonant cluster θr rather than ç (as in OPers xšaçapāvan-: OPGTL 181) indicates a loan from an Old Iranian dialect other than Old Persian, most probably Median given the influence of the Medes on Achaemenid administration.53 The initial consonant cluster xš was 50.  Hannig 1980; Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 29–30; Putter and Karlshausen 1992, 103–4; Lucas 1962, 397–98. 51.  JA ‫ אחשדרפן‬is adopted from Biblical Aramaic (Jastrow 1903, 42). Also related are Gk σατράπης, ξατράπης, ἐξατράπης and Lycia n χssadrapa-, used with reference to Persian officials (LSJ 1585; Melchert 2004, 85; Schmitt 1976, 378–79). 52.  FWOT 23; F. Rosenthal 2006, 62; AAT 1:38; Haug 1853, 153–54. On the suffix -na, see Skjærvø 2007, 902; OPGTL 51 (§147). 53.  On the phonological development of Proto-​Iranian *θr, see Skjærvø 2009, 51; Schmitt 2008, 84–85; Testen 1997, 575; OPGTL 33 (§87).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

51

difficult for non-​Iranian-​speakers to pronounce, hence its representation with a prothetic vowel in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Satraps were the rulers of the Persian Empire’s primary administrative unit, the satrapy. Each satrap was responsible for ruling his satrapy, raising taxes and forwarding them to the king, recruiting a military, and controlling local bureaucracies. The title of satrap was also held by rulers of minor satrapies that made up part of a main satrapy. Depending on how a satrap was counted, ancient sources justifiably record different numbers of satrapies in the Persian Empire: the Hebrew Bible mentions more than 127 satrapies (Esth 1:1), whereas the Bisotun (Behistun) Inscription gives 23 (DB i:12–17) and Herodotus lists 20 (Hist. 3.89–94). This system of satrapies arose due to Achaemenid expansion: as the Persian kings conquered new territories, they adapted prior political structures, replacing the conquered king with a new ruler and adding new satrapies as needed (Briant 2002, 338–47; Dandamaev and Lukonin 1989, 96–103). ‫‘ אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן‬royal’ HALOT 37; DCH 1:201 (Esth 8:10, 14) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾, 𝕿 each do not directly represent this term [D] OIran (Med) → Heb OIran *xšaθrana- (Med) This word occurs twice in the book of Esther with reference to King Ahasuerus’s horses (‫( )רֹ כְ בֵ י הָ ֶרכֶשׁ הָ ֲאחַ ְשׁ ְתּ ָרנִ ים‬Esth 8:10, 14). It has no Semitic etymology and certainly does not look Semitic. Accordingly, scholars have long identified it as a loan from Old Iranian *xšaθrana- ‘royal’.54 It is formed from the noun xšaθra‘kingdom’ (cf. OPers xšaça- and Av xšaθra-: OPGTL 181; AIW 542–46) and the suffix -na, used to create nouns and adjectives from roots.55 Like Hebrew ‫אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬, the use of the consonant cluster θr rather than ç indicates a borrowing from an Old Iranian dialect other than Old Persian, probably Median.56 ‫‘ אֵ טּון‬fine linen’ HALOT 37; DCH 1:202 (Prov 7:16) 𝕲 ἀμφίταπος ‘double-​sided rug’; 𝖁 tapete pictus ‘painted tapestry’; 𝕾 qrm‌ʾ, 𝕿 ‫‘ קרם‬fine cloth’ [D] Eg →   → Heb   → Phoen → Gk Eg ı̓dmı̓ (since OK) ÄW 1:244, 2:455; GHwÄ 130; WÄS 1:153; Gk ὀθόνη LSJ 1200 54.  FWOT 24; AAT 1:39; Haug 1853, 154. 55.  On the suffix -na, see Skjærvø 2007, 902; OPGTL 51 (§147). 56.  On the phonological development of Proto-​Iranian *θr, see Skjærvø 2009, 51; Schmitt 2008, 84–85; Testen 1997, 575; OPGTL 33 (§87).

52

Chapter 3

This word occurs only in Prov 7:16, which describes a prostitute’s bed as decked with ‫‘ ֲחטֻבֹות‬multicolored coverings’ and ‫ אֵ טּון‬from Egypt. Because ‫ אֵ טּון‬is explicitly described as a type of cloth from Egypt, this word is probably an Egyptian loan. This supposition is supported by the non-​Semitic nominal pattern of this word as well the surrounding context, which mentions the foreign luxury goods ‫קִ ּנָמֹון‬ (a cinnamon-​like spice) and ‫‘ אֲהָ לֹות‬aloe’ in the very next verse (Prov 7:17). The donor term is Egyptian ı̓dmı̓, a word meaning ‘red linen’ attested as early as the Old Kingdom.57 Notably, Hebrew ‫ אֵ טּון‬exhibits dissimilation of m to n. Greek ὀθόνη, a term for fine linen, also exhibits dissimilation. This indicates that Greek-​speakers adopted ὀθόνη from Northwest Semitic, probably via Phoenician even though no form is attested in extant Phoenician texts. Transmission through Northwest Semitic would explain why Greek texts do not associate ὀθόνη with Egypt.58 ‫‘ ִא ִּטים‬spirit’ HALOT 37; DCH 1:202 (Isa 19:3) 𝕲 ἄγαλμα ‘image, statue’; 𝖁 divinus ‘soothsayer’; 𝕾 mgwš‌ʾ ‘magician’; 𝕿 ‫חרש‬ ‘sorcerer’ [T] Sum → Akk → Heb Sum gidim PSD; Akk eṭemmu, eṭammu, iṭemmu (OA, OB, Mari, Nuzi, MB, SB, NB) CAD E 397–401; AHw 263–64 This hapax occurs in Isa 19:3 within a list of necromantic objects consulted by the Egyptians, including idols (‫)הָ אֱלִ ילִ ים‬, spirits from the pit (‫)הָ אֹ בֹות‬, and familiar spirits (‫)הַ ּיִ ְּדעֹ נִ ים‬. Hence, the definition ‘spirit’ is certain. Perles and Jirku were the first to identify ‫ ִא ִּטים‬as a loan from Akkadian eṭemmu ‘spirit of the dead’, in turn a loan from Sumerian gidim of the same meaning.59 The doubling of the second consonant implies a loan from Aramaic, but no forms of this word are attested in Aramaic. The Masoretic pointing may therefore be in error, especially since this word occurs nowhere else in Biblical Hebrew. Moreover, ‫ִא ִּטים‬ is presumably plural in light of the parallelism and context. Accordingly, haplography must have occurred unless one assumes that Hebrew-​speakers mistakenly identified the singular Akkadian eṭemmu as a plural (AIA 50; ALBH 31–32). ‫אֵ פָה ⇒ אֵ יפָה‬ 57.  EPNL 239; Lambdin 1953b, 147. A feminine form ı̓dmı̓.t is also attested in Egyptian beginning with the Old Kingdom (ÄW 1:245, 2:455; GHwÄ 130; WÄS 1:153). This feminine form appears in Demotic as ı̓tm.t (CDD 243; DG 47). All these Egyptian terms are, of course, connected with the common Semitic root ‌ʾdm ‘to be red’. 58.  DELG 750; Rosół 2013, 134; Masson 1967, 89–90. Some scholars, however, contend that Gk ὀθόνη is a direct loan from Egyptian (e.g., EDG 1051; Spiegelberg 1907, 129–30). 59.  Perles 1914a; 1914b; Jirku 1914; cf. ALBH 31–32; FWOT 25. On the Sumerian origin of Akk eṭemmu, see SLOB 353–54 (#401).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

53

‫‘ ִאּכָר‬farmer, plower’ HALOT 48; DCH 1:249 (Isa 61:5; Jer 14:4; 31:24; 51:23; Joel 1:11; Amos 5:16; 2 Chr 26:10) 𝕲 γεωργός ‘farmer’ except ἀροτήρ ‘farmer, plowman’ Isa 61:5, omits 2 Chr 26:10; 𝖁 agricola ‘farmer’ except omits 2 Chr 26:10; 𝕾 ʾkrʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫ אכר‬or ‫[ איכר‬Aramaic forms] except does not directly represent this word 2 Chr 26:10 [T] Sum → Akk →   → Heb   → Aram → Arab Sum engar PSD; Akk ikkaru (OAkk, OB, Mari, Alalakh, Nuzi, MA, MB, NA, NB) CAD I–J 49–54; AHw 368; QH ‫ ;אכר‬IA, JA, CPA ‫ איכר‬DNWSI 53; DJBA 114; DCPA 15; Syr ʾ‌ikkārā, ʾ‌akkārā LS² 46; Mand ʿkara MD 349; Arab ‌ʾakkār Lane 71 This word occurs seven times, primarily in the Prophets (Isa 61:5; Jer 14:4; 31:24; 51:23; Joel 1:11; Amos 5:16; 2 Chr 26:10). Zimmern was the first to derive this word from Akkadian ikkaru, in turn a loan from Sumerian engar, and there is no reason to dispute this loan hypothesis.60 Akkadian-​speakers also lent this word to Aramaic, through which it entered Arabic (AIA 58; Fränkel 1886, 128–29). ‫אָ לְ ּגָבִ יׁש‬‎, ‫( ּגָבִ יׁש‬a dark- colored stone) HALOT 51, 173; DCH 1:271–72, 308 (Ezek 13:11, 13; 38:22; Job 28:18) 𝕲 πετροβόλος ‘throwing stone’ Ezek 13:11, 13, χαλάζης ‘hail, hailstone’ Ezek 38:22, transliterates as γαβις Job 28:18; 𝖁 praegrandis ‘very great’ Ezek 13:11, grandis ‘great’ Ezek 13:13, inmensus ‘immense, immeasurable’ Ezek 38:22, eminentia ‘excellence’ Job 28:18; 𝕾 dḥrʾ ‘hard stone, flint’ Ezek 13:11, 13; 38:22, does not directly represent this word Job 28:18; 𝕿 ‫[ אלגביש‬Aramaic form] except ‫‘ פירוצין‬precious stone’ Job 28:18 [?] CW Sum algameš PSD; Ebla urgubasu; Akk algamešu, algamišu (OAkk, OB), alkabašu (RS), gamēsu (NA) CAD A/1 337–38, G 32; AHw 35, 278; Ug a͗ lgbṯ DUL 52; Eg ı̓rqbs, ı̓rgbs (NK) GHwÄ 106; WÄS 1:116; SWET 30 (#22); DLE 1:4161 The word ‫ אֶ לְ ּגָבִ יׁש‬appears only in Exilic Hebrew, where it denotes a kind of stone that looks like hail (Ezek 13:11, 13; 38:22). Hebrew ‫ּגָבִ יׁש‬, mentioned in Job 28:18 along with other precious stones, could be an error for ‫ אֶ לְ ּגָבִ יׁש‬but is probably a shortened form of the same word (cf. Akk gamēsu). 60.  Zimmern 1917, 40; cf. ALBH 32–33; Lipiński 1988, 62–63; FWOT 27–28. On the Sumerian origin of Akk ikkaru, see SLOB 329–30 (#360). Salonen instead contends that this word ultimately comes from a pre-​Sumerian substrate (Salonen 1969, 109–10, 115; 1952, 10). 61. JA ‫ אלגביש‬is adopted from Biblical Hebrew (Jastrow 1903, 66).

54

Chapter 3

Outside Hebrew, this word occurs quite early. Sumerian algameš appears already in pre-​Sargonic lexical texts but also occurs later in literary texts, and Eblaite urgubasu appears solely in the Early Dynastic Practical Vocabulary. Beginning with the Old Akkadian period, Akkadian texts mention algamešu, algamišu as a mineral or stone; the alternate form gamēsu appears in Neo-​Assyrian. Ugaritic a͗ lgbṯ occurs once in an economic text with reference to a mineral or stone (KTU 4.158:15). Lastly, this word appears in Egyptian as ı̓rqbs during the Nineteenth Dynasty and as ı̓rgbs during the Third Intermediate Period (cf. Meeks 1997, 34). The unusual nominal pattern of this word and lack of a known Semitic root upon which it could be based are both good indications that it has a foreign source. Furthermore, the alternation of b and m between the West and East Semitic terms reflects the transmission of a non-​Semitic culture word into West and East Semitic separately (Boyd 1975, 31). As indicated by its early presence in Sumerian and Eblaite, this ancient culture word may have originated somewhere to the north. Evidence from Akkadian literature indicates that this stone was employed for a variety of everyday objects, including bowls, flasks, and spindle-​whorls. This suggests an inexpensive and easily carved stone. Use of the logogram ge6 ‘dark, black’ before this word in Ras Shamra Akkadian implies that this stone was dark-​ colored (RS 20.225A). This same text contrasts it with the kabdu-stone, which is preceded by the logogram for the color white (babbar). The formation or color of the hailstones mentioned in Ezekiel must have been similar to this stone.62 ‫גּוּּמים‬ ִ ְ‫אַ לְ מֻּגִ ים ⇒ אַל‬ ‫אַ לְ מֻּגִ ים‬‎, ‫גּוּּמים‬ ִ ְ‫( אַל‬a kind of tree valuable for timber) HALOT 57–58; DCH 1:294 (1 Kgs 10:11, 12 [2×]; 2 Chr 2:7 [2:8]; 9:10–11) 𝕲 ξύλον ἀπελέκητον ‘unhewn timber’ 1 Kgs 10:11–12, πεύκινος or ξύλον πεύκινον ‘pine’ 2 Chr 2:7; 9:10–11; 𝖁 lignum thyinus ‘thyine wood’ 1 Kings 10:11–12; 2 Chr 9:10–11, pineus ‘of pine’ 2 Chr 2:7; 𝕾 qysʾ dqswtʾ ‘precious wood’ 1 Kgs 10:11–12, ʾškrʿʾ ‘boxtree’ 2 Chr 2:7; 9:10, omits 2 Chr 9:11; 𝕿 ‫אלמוג‬ [Aramaic form] [D] ?? →   → Akk → Sum   → Ug; Heb Sum elammakum PSD; Akk elammakku, elammaggu (OAkk, OB, Mari, MB, EA, SB, NA, NB), elammaḫḫi (Nuzi) CAD E 75–76; AHw 196; Ug a͗ lgm DUL 55 This word, which refers to an unknown species of tree, occurs within the context of Hiram’s provision of materials for Solomon’s building activities. In 1 Kgs 10:11–12 the word is spelled ‫אַ לְ מֻּגִ ים‬, but the metathesized form ‫גּוּּמים‬ ִ ְ‫ אַל‬appears in 2 Chr 2:7; 62.  Boyd 1975, 33; cf. Harrell, Hoffmeier and Williams 2017, 33–34. The logographic representation of Akk algamešu, u4.sal.ḫúb (frequently with the na4 determinative), means ‘stone of the female donkey’ and probably refers to the dark color of the stone.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

55

9:10–11. Other forms of this word include Sumerian elammakum, a loan from Akkadian; Akkadian elammakku, found at Nuzi as elammaḫḫi; and Ugaritic a͗lgm. Although it occurs in Semitic, this word does not look Semitic and is undoubtedly foreign. According to 2 Chr 2:7 this tree grew in the northern Levant along with ‫אֶ ֶרז‬ ‘cedar’ and ‫( ּבְ רֹוׁש‬a coniferous tree).63 Similarly, Yaḫdun-​Lim is said to have obtained this wood from northern Syria (Foundation Inscription ii:17). Therefore, although this word’s source is unclear, it must have been borrowed from somewhere in northern Syria where the tree grew. Sumerian elammakum is a clear loan from Akkadian, as indicated by the preservation of mimation.64 Although this tree’s identity is uncertain, it is clear that—like much other timber from northern Syria—the ancients considered its wood precious. Akkadian texts note its particular value as timber (Postgate 1991, 182), and the Hebrew Bible attributes great worth to it by virtue of its use for constructing Solomon’s temple. ‫‘ אָ ּמָ ן‬artisan’ HALOT 64; DCH 1:317 (Song 7:2 [7:1]65) 𝕲 τεχνίτης, 𝖁 artifex ‘artisan’; 𝕾, 𝕿 both use their corresponding forms of this word (ʾwmnʾ and ‫אומן‬, respectively) [T] Sum → Akk → Heb; Phoen; Aram Sum ummia PSD; Akk ummânu, ummênu, ummiānu (OAkk, OA, OB, Mari, MA, MB, SB, NA, NB) CAD U–W 108–15; AHw 1415–16; Pun ‫ אמן‬DNWSI 71–72; IA, Nab, Palm, SA ‫אמן‬, JA, CPA ‫ אומן‬DNWSI 71–72; DJPA 40; DJBA 90; DSA 42; DCPA 7; Syr ummānā LS² 17; Mand ʿumana MD 344 This word occurs only in Song 7:2, where the rounded thighs (‫ )חַ ּמּוקֵ י יְ ֵרכַיִ ם‬of the beloved are said to be the work of an ‫)מַ עֲׂשֵ ה יְ דֵ י אָ ּמָ ן( אָ ּמָ ן‬. Based purely on the context, ‫ אָ ּמָ ן‬can be defined as something like ‘artisan’. Cognates in Akkadian, Punic, and Aramaic all support this definition. Scholars have long connected ‫ אָ ּמָ ן‬with Akkadian ummânu, ‘expert, artisan’, a loan from Sumerian ummia of the same meaning.66 The circumflex accent on 63. First Kings 10:11 states that this wood came from Ophir, but this description is not present in the parallel account of 2 Chr 9:10–11 or 𝕲. Accordingly, the second ‫ מֵ אֹופִ יר‬is probably a dittographic error and should be omitted (BHS; Cogan 2009, 313; Gray 1970, 258). 64.  The traditional rendering ‘sandalwood’, which is based on a speculative etymology from Skt valguka-, cannot be correct. Skt valguka- occurs with the meaning ‘sandalwood’ only in a very late lexicon, the Śabdakalpadruma. The more common word for ‘sandalwood’ in Sanskrit is candana-, and aside from the Śabdakalpadruma there is no evidence that valguka- ever had the meaning ‘sandalwood’. Therefore, Skt valguka- was probably given the otherwise unattested meaning ‘sandalwood’ by a lexicographer. See Greenfield and Mayrhofer 1967, 83–89. 65. 𝕲 ἁρμόζω ‘to fit together’, 𝖁 compono ‘to build’, and 𝕾 tqn ‘to establish, fix’ may support the emendation of ‫ אָ מֹון‬in Prov 8:30 to ‫( אָ ּמָ ן‬cf. Wis 7:21; 8:6). If so, this would provide an additional occurrence of ‫( אָ ּמָ ן‬cf. BHQ; M. Fox 2000, 285–87; Waltke 2004–2005, 1:417–20). 66.  ALBH 33–34; Lipiński 1988, 63; AIA 109; FWOT 30; Zimmern 1917, 25. On the Sumerian origin of Akk ummânu, see SLOB 514–16 (#687). The Akkadian form can mean ‘financier’ or ‘scholar’ in addition to ‘artisan’. Like Sum ummia, it denotes anyone who is an expert in his field.

56

Chapter 3

the vowel of Akkadian ummânu (cf. ummiānu) represents the diphthong of the Sumerian form but is unrepresented in any of the Northwest Semitic forms, to be expected since the latter all come from Akkadian (ALBH 33–34). ‫‘ ֲאנְָך‬lead, tin’ HALOT 71–72; DCH 1:342 (Amos 7:7 [2×], 8 [2×]) OG ἀδαμάντινος, σ′ ἀδάμας ‘adamant, steel’; 𝖁 trulla cementarii ‘mason’s trowel’; 𝕾 ʾdmws ‘steel’; 𝕿 ‫‘ דין‬judgment’ [?] CW Sum anna PSD; Akk annaku (OA, OB, Mari, Alalakh, Nuzi, MA, MB, NA, NB) CAD A/2 127–30; AHw 49; JA ‫ אנך‬DJBA 145; Syr ‌ʾānḵā LS² 62; Mand anka MD 27; Arab ʾ‌anuk Lane 118; Eth nā‌ʾk CDG 381; Eg ı̓nꜢq (NK) SWET 26 (#14); Skt nāga- EWAia 3:285; KEWA 2:150; Arm anag HAB 1:177 This word occurs only in Amos 7:7–8, twice in each verse. The widespread distribution of cognates in both Semitic and non-​Semitic demonstrates that this term is a culture word with no clear lexical provenance.67 Some scholars claim that Hebrew ‫ ֲאנְָך‬was loaned from Akkadian annaku (e.g., Zimmern 1917, 59; FWOT 31). However, it is difficult to establish any clear loan relationship between the Hebrew and Akkadian forms because of this term’s widespread distribution (ALBH 35). Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts consistently indicate that Anatolia and Iran were the ancient Near East’s sources of tin and lead, and geological evidence confirms the availability of these metals from both regions (Moorey 1999, 293–94, 298–300; Yener, et al. 1991, 541–77; Reiter 1997, 113–16). Thus, this ancient culture word must have come from one of these two regions, probably Anatolia because lead and tin were more commonly obtained from there than from the east. Landsberger (1965) contended that Akkadian annaku means ‘tin’ and not ‘lead’ for two reasons: first, Akkadian texts frequently place the value of annaku somewhere between those of silver and copper, so annaku must denote tin because tin and not lead occupied that intermediate position; second, annaku was commonly traded during the Old Assyrian period, but a heavy metal like lead would not be worth transporting such long distances. Based on Landsberger’s conclusions, many scholars and commentators writing on Amos 7:7–9 now define ‫ ֲאנְָך‬as ‘tin’ rather than ‘lead’.68 Shalom Paul’s Hermeneia commentary on Amos provides a typical example of this reasoning: “The substantive ‫ ֲאנְָך‬is a loanword from Akk. annaku, ‘tin.’ Thus the usual meaning ‘plumb line,’ which is set against the wall to measure its straightness, must now be discarded. The word simply does not mean ‘lead’ and thus cannot be a ‘plumb’ line” (1991, 233–34). 67.  ALBH 35–36; Salonen 1952, 6. Rabin (1962, 1079) derives this word from Sanskrit. However, Skt nāga- appears only in post-​Vedic texts, and its origin remains unclear (EWAia 3:285; KEWA 2:150). 68.  E.g., Beyerlin 1988; Paul 1991, 233–35; Andersen and Freedman 1989, 754, 756–58; Notebaart 2010, 91–100.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

57

Yet, contra Landsberger, Akkadian annaku can mean both ‘lead’ and ‘tin’. Some Akkadian texts use annaku with reference to both ‘tin’ and ‘lead’ depending on the qualifier (e.g., VAT 18062). Other texts attribute a value to it that can only be that of lead (e.g., VAT 9002 = KAJ 168), and still others mention it in quanities that only make sense if annaku is understood as ‘lead’ rather than ‘tin’ (e.g., TCL 3 iii:352) (Moorey 1999, 295–96; Kashkaĭ 1976, 150–53; Thompson 1936, 121–22). Similarly, all the other Semitic and non-​Semitic forms can potentially denote either ‘tin’ or ‘lead’. The ancients did not classify metals as we do today, and naturally they would have used the same term to refer to both of these similar-​looking metals. There is therefore little reason to think that Hebrew ‫ ֲאנְָך‬cannot and does not mean ‘lead’ in Amos 7:7–8, especially since it is difficult to make sense of this passage if ‫ ֲאנְָך‬is defined as ‘tin’ rather than ‘lead’.69 ‫‘ אָ ְסּפ ְַרנָא‬in full, entirely’ HALOT 1820–21 (Ezra 5:8; 6:8, 12–13; 7:17, 21, 26) 𝕲 ἐπιδέξιος ‘dexterous’ Ezra 5:8, ἐπιμελῶς ‘carefully, diligently’ Ezra 6:8, 12–13, ἕτοιμος ‘ready, willingly’ Ezra 7:17, 21, 26; 𝖁 studiosus ‘eager, zealous’ except diligenter ‘diligently, carefully’ Ezra 5:8; 𝕾 bʿgl ‘quickly’ except does not directly translate this word Ezra 5:8; 6:8 [D] OIran → Aram; Elam IA ‫ אספרן‬DNWSI 89–90; OIran *uspṛna- AISN 246; IAP 406–7; Elam ú-iš-barna-iš-be, ú-iš-pír-na-iš-be EW 1204–5 Biblical Aramaic ‫ אָ ְסּפ ְַרנָא‬occurs seven times, exclusively in the book of Ezra. Each time, it appears as an adverb referring to the work of the returnees, whether in the Persian kings’ decrees or in narratives that recount the carrying out of those decrees (Ezra 5:8; 6:8, 12–13; 7:17, 21, 26). This word does not look Semitic, and Haug was the first to correctly postulate that the donor term is Old Iranian *uspṛna- ‘in full, entirely’.70 This Old Iranian word literally means ‘filled out’, being formed from *us- ‘out’ and *pṛna- ‘full’ (cf. Av aspǝrǝnah- ‘completeness’ and Pahl spurrīg ‘entire, complete’: AIW 218; CPD 76).71 Accordingly, English renderings such as ‘with diligence’ or ‘diligently’ (e.g., NRSV, NIV) and ‘with dispatch’ (e.g., NJPS) should be corrected. Old Iranian *uspṛna- is also the source of Imperial Aramaic ‫אספרן‬, which occurs in a text from Abydos in Asia Minor (KAI 263) as well as in the Elephantine texts (TAD A6.13:4) and Aramaic documents from fourth century b.c.e. Bactria (Khalili A6:8, 10). Elamite *ú-​iš-​bar-​na, which occurs in the plural forms ú-​iš-​bar-​na-​iš-​be 69. For a detailed analysis of this word, see Noonan 2013a. 70.  Haug 1853, 154–55; cf. FWOT 33–34; F. Rosenthal 2006, 63; Schaeder 1930, 75. 71.  Scholars debate whether *uspṛna- or *aspṛna- is the correct reconstruction of the Old Iranian form, but the rarity of Av aspǝrǝnah- and the shape of Pahl spurrīg speak in favor of the reconstruction *uspṛna- (IAP 406–7).

58

Chapter 3

and ú-​iš-​pír-​na-​iš-​be in the Persepolis Tablets (e.g., PT 12:6; 13:7–8; 15:8; 18:9–10), also reflects this Old Iranian word. ‫‘ אֵ פֹ ד‬ephod’ HALOT 77; DCH 1:356 (Exod 25:7; passim72) 𝕲 commonly ἐπωμίς ‘tunic’ or transliterates as εφουδ; 𝖁 most commonly transliterates as ephod but also frequently superumerale ‘upper garment’; 𝕾 often pdtʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 almost always ‫ אפוד‬or ‫[ איפוד‬Aramaic forms] [?] CW Ebla ‌ʾipdum VE 257 (#513); Akk epattu (OA) CAD E 183; AHw 222; Ug ı͗ pd DUL 85–86; QH ‫ ;אפד‬Hitt ipantu-73 This word occurs frequently in the Bible, almost exclusively with reference to a sleeveless outer garment with a band for wrapping it around the wearer. It most commonly refers to a priestly garment (Exod 25:7; passim), but in several instances ‫ אֵ פֹ ד‬denotes this garment used in some way other than that sanctioned by the Pentateuch (Judg 8:27; 17:5; 18:14, 17–18, 20; Hos 3:4). The feminine form ‫ ֲאפֻּדָ ה‬also appears three times, twice with reference to the priestly ephod (Exod 28:8; 39:5) and once with reference to a garment used in pagan worship (Isa 30:22). Several passages note the ephod’s use for divinatory purposes (1 Sam 23:6, 9; 30:7), and others similarly link the ephod with the ‫( ְּת ָרפִ ים‬Judg 17:5; 18:14, 17–18, 20; Hos 3:4). There are only a few related nominal forms in other languages. The earliest is Eblaite ‌ʾipdum, written as ib-​tum and lexically equated with šu.dag (Conti 1990, 145). Akkadian epattu (plural epadātu) occurs exclusively in Old Assyrian texts and denotes a luxury garment imported by Old Assyrian merchants to Assyria. This garment is frequently said to come from the city of Talḫayum (Talḫat), located in the western portion of the Ḫabur Triangle (Michel and Veenhof 2010, 232; Veenhof 1972, 128–29). Ugaritic ı͗ pd occurs several times with reference to a special garment (KTU 1.5 v:24; 1.136:1, 10; 4.707:11, 13, 22; 4.780:1–4, 7).74 Lastly, the word ipantuappears twice in Hittite texts. It occurs in KBo 29.211 iv:6 and in the Hittite version of the Hurrian Song of Kumarbi (KUB 33.120 + KUB 33.119 + KUB 36.31 + KUB 48.97 iv:26), where it occurs amidst mention of garments (túg.gú.è.a) and is said to be made of silver or to have silver ornamentation (kù.babbar.aš i-​pa-​an-​tu) (Hoffner 1996, 154–55). 72.  Exod 28:4, 6, 12, 15, 25–26, 27 (2×), 28 (3×), 31; 29:5 (3×); 35:9, 27; 39:2, 7–8, 18–19, 20 (2×), 21 (3×), 22; Lev 8:7 (2×); Judg 8:27; 17:5; 18:14, 17–18, 20; 1 Sam 2:18, 28; 14:3; 21:10 [21:9]; 22:18; 23:6, 9; 30:7 (2×); 2 Sam 6:14; Hos 3:4; 1 Chr 15:27. 73. JA, SA, CPA ‫( אפד‬DJPA 69; DSA 56; DCPA 25) as well as Syr ʾāp̄ ūḏā, peddeṯā (LS² 82, 1157) occur in contexts associated with the priestly ephod and are undoubtedly adaptations of Hebrew ‫אֵ פֹ ד‬. 74.  Vita 2010, 328; Ribichini and Xella 1985, 31–32. In addition to these occurrences, Ug ı͗ pd may appear in several fragmentary contexts (KTU 1.5 i:5, 31; v:2; 1.48:6; 1.136:2; 4.275:3; 4.594:5).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

59

In light of this word’s northern associations, particularly its explicit association with Talḫayum, this culture word probably originated in Asia Minor.75 The occasional association of ‫ אֵ פֹ ד‬with ‫( ְּת ָרפִ ים‬Judg 17:5; 18:14, 17–18, 20; Hos 3:4), a Luvian loanword, may further support an Anatolian origin. The n of the consonant cluster nt has assimilated in the Semitic forms (cf. Akk epattu and BH ‫) ֲאפֻּדָ ה‬, and the ḥolem of Hebrew ‫ אֵ פֹ ד‬reflects the Canaanite shift. ‫‘ אַ ּפֶדֶ ן‬columned palace, audience hall’ HALOT 77–78; DCH 1:356 (Dan 11:45) OG τότε ‘then, at that time’; θ′ transliterates as εφαδανω; 𝖁 translates as the proper noun Apadno; 𝕾 ‌ʾtrʾ špy‌ʾ ‘pleasant place’ [D] OIran → Akk; Heb; Aram Akk appadānu (LB) CAD A/2 178; AHw 59; JA ‫ אפדן‬DJBA 154; Syr ‌ʾāppaḏnā LS² 81; OIran apadāna- IAP 35; Elam ha-​ba-​da-​na EW 583 The hapax ‫ אַ ּפֶדֶ ן‬occurs in Dan 11:45. The king of the south is described as pitching the tents of his ‫)וְ יִ ּטַ ע אָ ֳה לֶי אַ ּפ ְַדנֹו( אַ ּפֶדֶ ן‬. It is not possible to determine precisely the meaning of Hebrew ‫ אַ ּפֶדֶ ן‬based solely on Dan 11:45, but, its meaning is evident through comparison with the related Akkadian appadānu. The latter occurs only once in a Late Babylonian text describing the columned palace that Darius built (VAB 3 A2Sa:2–3). Its use with reference to an Achaemenid building points to an Old Iranian origin. The donor term is Old Iranian apadāna- ‘columned audience hall, columned palace’ (cf. OPers apadāna-: OPGTL 168; AIW 74).76 Two interesting phonological issues are of note. First, unless the Masoretes have incorrectly pointed this word, we must assume that Hebrew-​speakers adopted this word as a segolate-​pattern noun—similar to Aramaic—rather than the expected non-​segolate form. Second, as noted by Jerome, only here is Hebrew pe rendered as Latin p rather than ph.77 75. Cf. Hoffner 1996, 154–55; Singer 2006, 2:750–51. Noting the existence of New Kingdom Egyptian garments that resemble the priestly ephod, several scholars connect this word with Eg ı̓fd, which can denote rectangular textiles or garments (Grintz 1975a, 10–13; I. Friedrich 1968, 31–33; Tvedtnes 1982, 218). However, Eg ı̓fd does not refer to the same type of garment as the ephod, and the ephod-​ like garments from Egypt are not associated with the term ı̓fd (cf. J. J. Janssen 2008, 21–23). Hence, the phonological similarity between BH ‫ אֵ פֹ ד‬and Eg ı̓fd is only coincidental (cf. Kogan 2003: 260). 76.  FWOT 35; Aĭkhenval’d 1987, 5; AAT 2:58; Tisdall 1912, 370. The etymology of this Old Iranian form has thus far escaped consensus (cf. Schmitt 1987, 2:145–46). On the one hand, Kent and Tavernier (OPGTL 168; IAP 35) derive it from apa- ‘away’ and dāna-, an element found in several architectural terms based the root dā- ‘to put, make, create’. In their view, OIran apadāna- is thus formed analogously to Gk ἀποθήκη ‘storehouse’. On the other hand, Szemerényi (1980, 233–37; cf. Henning 1944, 110) thinks that the initial element should be spelled *appa- and that it reflects Akk aptu ‘window’. In his view, OIran apadāna- therefore means ‘window-​house’. 77. In light of this, R. Steiner (1993) contends that the pe of ‫ אַ ּפֶדֶ ן‬is not just a voiceless stop, but is actually an emphatic consonant.

60

Chapter 3

The structure denoted by Old Iranian apadāna- was first introduced by Darius I and quickly became a distinctive part of Achaemenid architecture. It had a large main hall with stone columns as well as corner towers and porticoes on at least three sides. The best preserved example of this structure is from Persepolis, although archaeological remains have also been discovered at other sites, such as Susa (Stronach 1987). ‫אֵ פָה‬‎, ‫( אֵ יפָה‬a volume measure for grain) HALOT 43; DCH 1:221 (Exod 16:36; passim78) [D] Eg → Heb Sir, QH ‫ ;איפה‬Eg ı̓p.t (since MK) ÄW 2:165; GHwÄ 43; WÄS 1:67; DLE 1:25 The word ‫אֵ פָה‬, also spelled ‫אֵ יפָה‬, appears 40 times in the Hebrew Bible, almost exclusively with reference to a unit of dry measure. The only exception is Zech 5:6–10, where it denotes a container of the same measure. It was one-​tenth of one ‫( חֹ מֶ ר‬Ezek 45:11) and equaled 10 of the measures denoted by ‫( עֹ מֶ ר‬Exod 16:36). Its precise modern equivalent is unknown, but in pre-​Exilic Israel it probably was about 10–20 liters (Powell 1992, 903). Hebrew ‫ אֵ פָה‬has no Semitic cognates; scholars commonly identify the donor term as Egyptian ı̓p.t, a volume measure for grain (approximately 19 liters) that first appears during the Middle Kingdom (cf. Dem ı̓py.t, ı̓p.t and Copt oeipe: CDD ı̓ 96, 101–2; DG 29; Crum 256).79 There is no reason to question this loan hypothesis, and Hebrew ‫ אֵ פָה‬is undoubtedly an Egyptian loan. ‫‘ אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬litter, sedan chair’ HALOT 80; DCH 1:361 (Song 3:9) 𝕲 φορεῖον [Greek form]; 𝖁 ferculum ‘carrier’; 𝕾 mgdlʾ ‘tower’; 𝕿 ‫היכל קדשא‬ ‘holy temple’ [D] Gk → Heb; Aram JA ‫פורי‬, ‫ פורין‬DJPA 426; DJBA 891; Syr peryawwān LS² 1170; Mand puria MD 368; Gk φορεῖον LSJ 1950 This word occurs only in Song 3:9. After describing the approach of Solomon on his litter (Song 3:6–8), an object denoted as ‫ אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬is mentioned. This object is said to be made of the wood of Lebanon along with silver, gold, and purple (Song 3:9–10). Following the ancient versions, it is natural to assume that ‫ אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬is another term for the litter referred to earlier as ‫ ִמּטָ ה‬in Song 3:7.80 78.  Lev 5:11; 6:13; 19:36; Num 5:15; 28:5; Deut 25:14 (2×), 15; Judg 6:19; 1 Sam 1:24; 17:17; Isa 5:10; Ezek 45:10, 11 (2×), 13 (2×), 24 (3×); 46:5 (2×), 7 (3×), 11 (3×), 14; Amos 8:5; Mic 6:10; Zech 5:6–10; Prov 20:10 (2×); Ruth 2:17. 79.  EPNL 239–40; Lambdin 1953b, 147; FWOT 26; Grintz 1975a, 10; Sethe 1927. 80. Because the wood is said to come from from Lebanon, Ibn Ezra long ago argued that Song 3:9–10 denotes a palace rather than a litter. Several scholars have followed in his footsteps, emending the

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

61

Hebrew ‫ אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬has no apparent Semitic cognates and does not look Semitic. For this reason, scholars have proposed a number of different loan hypotheses. Most probably, Hebrew ‫ אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬comes from Greek φορεῖον.81 This is exactly how 𝕲 translates ‫אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬, indicating that at least 𝕲’s translators recognized a connection between ‫ אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬and φορεῖον. Dobbs-​Allsop (2005, 67–68) objects to this loan hypothesis, citing the prothetic vowel, the doubled pe, and the ḥireq as problematic. Although somewhat unexpected, the prothetic vowel with doubled pe is a possible representation of the Greek consonant φ. The fact that Aramaic-​speakers represent this word without any prothetic vowel presents no problems because the Greek aspirate φ has no exact correspondent in Semitic; it is entirely conceivable that Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers would represent it differently.82 Furthermore, the ḥireq is easily explainable: Hebrew dislikes two u-class vowels in a word, frequently changing the first one to i via dissimilation (cf. BH ‫ ִראׁשֹון‬and ‫)צִ ּפֹור‬. There is therefore little reason to question the Greek origin of Hebrew ‫אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬. ‫‘ ֲאפ ְַר ְסָך‬legal investigator’ HALOT 1822 (Ezra 5:6; 6:8) 𝕲, 𝖁 both translate as a proper name; 𝕾 omits [D] OIran (Med) → Akk; Aram; Elam Akk iprasakku (LB) CAD I–J 165–66; AHw 385; OIran *frasaka- (Med) AISN 97; IAP 420–21; Elam pír-​ra-​iš-​šá-​ik-​ka4 EW 214 The Biblical Aramaic word ‫ ֲאפ ְַר ְסָך‬is found only twice, both times in the book of Ezra (Ezra 5:6; 6:8). 𝕲 and 𝖁 understand it as a proper name, but in both cases ‫ ֲאפ ְַר ְס ָך‬follows ‫‘ ּכְ נָת‬associate, colleague’. This indicates that, like ‫ּכְ נָת‬, ‫ ֲאפ ְַר ְסָך‬is a title for an official. Biblical Aramaic ‫ ֲאפ ְַר ְסָך‬has no Semitic etymology. The donor term is Old Iranian *frasaka- ‘legal investigator’, an abbreviated form of *fraskara-.83 The latter is a compound noun made up of the root fras- ‘to examine, investigate, punish’ text here to ‫‘ אַ ּפֶדֶ ן‬palace’ (e.g., Winckler 1897–1906). However, this conclusion is largely unsupported by either the context or the ancient versions. 81. Rundgren 1962. Gordis (1944, 270) connects ‫ אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬with Skt paryaṅka-, palyaṅka- ‘litter’. However, this does not adequately explain the prothetic ʾ‌alep, and it must be assumed that Hebrew-​speakers borrowed a form without the suffix -ka. Widengren (1952, 112) offers an Old Iranian etymology, deriving ‫ אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬from a hypothetical *upariyāna-. However, such a form does not occur in Old Iranian texts and has no suitable meaning as reconstructed (cf. Rundgren 1962). Gerleman (1965, 139–42), lastly, derives ‫ אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬from Eg pr ‘house’ with a prothetic ‌ʾalep and ‫יֹון‬-‫‏‬suffix. However, he offers no plausible reason for the addition of the preformative and suffix. 82.  Rundgren 1962. A given language does not always borrow a foreign phoneme the same way, and in this case we are comparing two different—albeit similar—languages. Complicating the matter is the fact that Gk φ changed from an aspirate ([ph]) to a voiceless fricative ([f ]) after the Classical period, a process that was probably complete in most Greek-​speaking regions by the first or second centuries c.e. 83.  F. Rosenthal 2006, 62; Aĭkhenval’d 1987, 5; Eilers 1985, 29; 1940, 30.

62

Chapter 3

(cf. OPers fraθ- and Av fras-: OPGTL 198; AIW 997–1000) and kara-, which literally means ‘doer, maker’ but is used to form compound nouns of professions (OPGTL 53 [§160], 179). The use of s rather than θ reflects a phonology other than Old Persian, most probably Median.84 The Akkadian form of *frasaka- is iprasakku, a loan from Old Iranian that occurs only in Late Babylonian texts (e.g., PBS 2/1 189:16). The Elamite form is pír-​ra-​iš-​šá-​ik-​ka4 (PFNN 540:3–4). Semitic-​speakers found the initial consonant cluster of *frasaka- difficult to pronounce, hence the prothetic vowel in both the Biblical Aramaic and Akkadian forms. ‫( ֲאפ ְַרסַ ְתָך‬a chief official) HALOT 1822–23 (Ezra 4:9) 𝕲, 𝖁 both translate as a proper name; 𝕾 ‌ʾspry, an erroneous rendering of BA ‫ֲאפ ְַרסַ ְתָך‬ [D] OIran → Aram OIran *frastāka- AISN 97 Biblical Aramaic ‫ ֲאפ ְַרסַ ְתָך‬appears only in Ezra 4:9. The mention of ‫ ֲאפ ְַרסַ ְתָך‬after two nouns for officials strongly suggests that it is a title for an official even though 𝕲 and 𝖁 both understand it as a proper name. This word does not seem Semitic and is most probably an Iranian loan. It comes from Old Iranian *frastāka-, a term for a chief official. This word does not appear in extant Old Iranian texts but has a perfectly good Iranian etymology: it is composed of fra- ‘before, forth’ (cf. OPers, Av fra-: OPGTL 197; AIW 974), the root stā‘to set, stand’ (cf. OPers, Av stā-: OPGTL 210; AIW 1600–1605), and the suffix -ka.85 Hence, *frastāka- is formed analogously to Greek προστάτης ‘leader, chief, guardian’ (literally ‘one who stands before’). Despite any apparent similarity, ‫ ֲאפ ְַרסַ ְתָך‬has no etymological connection with Biblical Aramaic ‫‘ ֲאפ ְַר ְסָך‬legal investigator’. ‫( אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬a type of income, perhaps usufruct) HALOT 1823 (Ezra 4:13) 𝕲 τοῦτο ‘this’; 𝖁 usque ad ‘all the way up to’; 𝕾 omits86 [D] OIran → Akk; Aram Akk aptumu (LB); OIran *aptaumaBiblical Aramaic ‫ אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬is a hapax occurring in Ezra 4:13. The returnees’ opponents contend that if Jerusalem is rebuilt and the walls are completed, the Jews will not 84.  On the phonological development of Proto-​Iranian *ć, see Skjærvø 2009, 51; Schmitt 2008, 84–85; Testen 1997, 575; OPGTL 33 (§87). 85.  F. Rosenthal 2006, 62. On the suffix -ka, see Skjærvø 2007, 903; OPGTL 51 (§146). 86. Several Hebrew manuscripts have ‫ אַ ּפְ תֹ ס‬or ‫ אַ ּפְ תֹוס‬instead of ‫אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬, but these variants are undoubtedly errors in which final mem has been mistaken for samek.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

63

pay various taxes (denoted by ‫מנְ ּדָ ה‬, ִ ‫ּבְ לֹו‬, and ‫ ) ֲהלְָך‬and that the ‫ אַ ּפְ תֹ ם מַ לְ כִ ים‬would suffer harm. Within this context, ‫ אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬is most probably the first noun of a construct chain (‘‫ אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬of kings’) that describes a form of income similar to the terms ‫מנְ ּדָ ה‬, ִ ‫ּבְ לֹו‬, and ‫ ֲהלְָך‬.87 Attempts to derive ‫ אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬from Akkadian encounter difficulties.88 More plausible is a derivation from Old Iranian *aptauma-. This Old Iranian word does not appear in extant texts, but its existence is confirmed by the attestation of the word aptumu in a Late Babylonian text from the reign of Darius I (BM 29447:15).89 Within the context of this text, Akkadian aptumu denotes a kind of income, perhaps usufruct. The Achaemenid context in which Akkadian aptumu occurs indicates that aptumu comes from Old Iranian, even if its etymology remains unclear. Old Iranian *aptauma- perfectly matches Biblical Aramaic ‫ אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬phonologically and semantically and is undoubtedly the latter’s source as well.90 The ḥolem of Biblical Aramaic ‫ אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬and the u of Akkadian aptumu point to a borrowing during the Achamenid period, when the diphthong au monophthongized to ō.91 ‫אַ ְרּגָמָ ן ⇒ אַ ְרּגְ וָן‬ ‫( אַ ְרּגַז‬a container or chest) HALOT 84; DCH 1:370 (1 Sam 6:8, 11, 15) 𝕲 partially translates as θέμα βερσεχθαν ‘coffer of βερσεχθαν’ 1 Sam 6:8, θέμα εργαβ ‘coffer of εργαβ’ 1 Sam 6:11, 15; 𝖁 capsella ‘small box’; 𝕾 uses the Aramaicized form ʾrgztʾ; 𝕿 ‫‘ תיבו‬chest, box’ [D] Philistine → Heb

87. Cf. H. Tadmor 1999, 143*. The terms ‫מנְ ּדָ ה‬, ִ ‫ּבְ לֹו‬, and ‫ ֲהלְָך‬are loans from Akk maddattu, biltu, and ilku, respectively (AIA 44, 58, 67). 88. Henning compares Akk appittimma ‘accordingly, just as’ (F. Rosenthal 2006, 63). However, this does not provide a good match phonologically or semantically (cf. AIA 47). H. Tadmor (1999) instead connects ‫ אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬with Akk iptu ‘tribute’. However, this is unlikely because mimation was lost long before the Achaemenid period. 89.  Zadok 2002, 64. As Zadok notes, the word is spelled ap-​pu-​tú-​mu, but the doubling of the p is probably motivated by the ambiguity of the orthographic sequence ab/p-​b/pu-. Hence, it can be normalized as aptumu in Akkadian. 90. Zadok 2002, 65; 2007, 260–61. Scholars have proposed a variety of other Iranian etymologies, but they remain problematic. Both Haug and Schaeder contend that ‫ אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬means ‘finally’. The former connects ‫ אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬with Pahl abdom ‘finally’, whereas the latter postulates an OIran *apatama- of the same meaning (Haug 1853, 156; Schaeder 1930, 74; cf. Aĭ khenval’d 1987, 5). However, the context indicates that ‫ אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬is a noun rather than an adverb, and Hinz (AISN 31) rightly questions this etymology. Scheftelowitz (AAT 1:78–79; cf. FWOT 36–37) instead compares Av paθām. However, paθā- means ‘road’, not ‘treasury’, and the case ending should not be borrowed along with the word. Lastly, Tisdall (1912, 369–70) postulates an OIran *apatauma- ‘progeny’, literally meaning ‘from family’. While this is possible, ‫ אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬more plausibly relates to money than to offspring. 91.  On the monophthongization of au to ō, see Skjærvø 2009, 58; Schmitt 2008, 83.

64

Chapter 3

The word ‫ אַ ְרּגַז‬occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible, each time within the narrative describing the Philistines’ return of the ark of the covenant (1 Sam 6:8, 11, 15). Within this context it refers to some type of container or chest. At least two clues indicate that this is not a Hebrew word. First, ‫אֲרֹון‬, not ‫אַ ְרּגַז‬, is the common Hebrew word meaning ‘chest’. Second, this word has no apparent Semitic etymology or cognates.92 Because this word specifically refers to an item of Philistine realia, and because it first occurs within the speech of the Philistines, a Philistine loanword is likely. The precise Philistine donor term is unknown,93 but there is little reason to question this loan hypothesis given the exclusive association of this word with the Philistines. Thus, Hebrew ‫ אַ ְרּגַז‬is most probably a Philistine loanword. ‫אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬‎, ‫( אַ ְרּגְ וָן‬BH); ‫( אַ ְרּגְ וָן‬BA) ‘purple, purple cloth’ HALOT 84, 1823; DCH 1:370–71 (Exod 25:4; passim94) [D] Hitt, Luv →   → Akk → Aram   → Ug; Heb Akk argamannu (Bogh, SB, NB, NA) CAD A/2 253; AHw 67; Ug a͗rgmn, ı͗ rgmn DUL 96–97; QH ‫;ארגמן‬ QA ‫ארגואן‬, Palm, JA, CPA ‫ ארגון‬DQA 22; DNWSI 103; DJPA 73; DJBA 164; DCPA 28; Syr ʾ‌argəwānā LS² 95; Hitt arkama-, arkaman-, arkamman- HHw 24; Luv arkamman- (CLuv) CLL 28; Laroche 1959, 31195 Hebrew ‫ אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬appears 38 times, most frequently in conjunction with ‫‘ ְּת ֵכלֶת‬blue’ whe n describing the fabrics of the tabernacle or the garments of its priests (e.g., Exod 25:4; 26:1, 31, 36; 27:16; 28:5–6, 8, 15, 33). In its remaining occurrences, Hebrew ‫ אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬refers to a valued commodity or a luxurious textile (e.g., Judg 8:26; Ezek 27:7, 16; Song 3:10; 7:6; Esth 1:6). Biblical Aramaic ‫ אַ ְרּגְ וָן‬occurs only in the book of Daniel (Dan 5:7, 16, 29). Both the Hebrew and Aramaic forms also appear at Qumran. Related forms exist in Semitic, but not all have the same meaning. On the one hand, Akkadian argamannu means ‘purple cloth’ in Standard Babylonian, 92. Syr ʾargāztā ‘chest, wallet’, which occurs in 𝕾 of 1 Samuel, is an obvious adoption from BH ‫( אַ ְרּגַז‬LS² 1432). 93.  Sapir 1936. Sapir reconstructs (ibid., 279–81) the Philistine word as *argaz, based on an older *arkos in turn derived from Proto-​Indo-​European *h2erḱ- ‘to hold, contain’. This same Indo-​European root is the basis for Lat arca ‘chest, box’ (from Lat arceo ‘to shut, enclose, protect from’). This etymology is conceivable, but at present the Indo-​European affiliation of Philistine remains uncertain. 94.  Exod 26:1, 31, 36; 27:16; 28:5–6, 8, 15, 33; 35:6, 23, 25, 35; 36:8, 35, 37; 38:18, 23; 39:1–3, 5, 8, 24, 29; Num 4:13; Judg 8:26; Jer 10:9; Ezek 27:7, 16; Prov 31:22; Song 3:10; 7:6 [7:5]; Esth 1:6; 8:15; Dan 5:7, 16, 29; 2 Chr 2:6 [2:7], 13 [2:14]; 3:14. 95. SA ‫ ארגמן‬is adopted from the Hebrew form, as indicated by its use of mem rather than waw (DSA 59).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

65

Neo-​Assyrian, and Neo-​Babylonian just as in Biblical Hebrew. Boghazköy Akkadia n argamannu, on the o ther hand, means ‘tribute’ just like Ugaritic a͗rgmn, ı͗ rgmn.96 All the Aramaic forms, which mean ‘purple cloth’ just like Akkadian argamannu, come from Babylonian Akkadian, as indicated by the representation of intervocalic m as w. Biblical Hebrew ‫אַ ְרּגְ וָן‬, which occurs only in 2 Chr 2:6, is therefore an Aramaicized form (AIA 35–36; M. Wagner 1966, 28–29 [#27]). Despite its wide attestation in Semitic, this word has no clear Semitic etymology, its nominal pattern is not typical of Semitic nouns, and the final double consonant of Akkadian argamannu indicates a foreign loan. The Semitic forms can be traced back to Hittite arkama-, arkaman-, arkamman- and Luvian arkamman-, both of which mean ‘tribute’.97 These Indo-​European Anatolian terms most likely derive from Proto-​Indo-​European *h1erk- ‘to divide’, analogous to Latin erctum, herctum ‘inheritance’ and ercisco, hercisco ‘divide an estate’.98 Growing evidence points to the origin of the purple dye industry in ancient Anatolia. Accordingly, it is easy to see how ‘tribute’ could come to mean ‘purple cloth’ because expensive purple cloth was antiquity’s tribute par excellence (Singer 2008; Reese 1987; cf. Dietrich and Loretz 1964–1966, 218–19). ‫‘ א ֲִריְך‬fitting, proper’ HALOT 1825 (Ezra 4:14) 𝕲 ἔξεστιν, the present infinitive of ἔξειμι ‘to go out, come out’; 𝖁 nefas ducimus ‘we think it a crime’; 𝕾 omits [D] OIran → Aram JA ‫ אריך‬DJPA 74; DJBA 167; OIran *arīkaThe Biblical Aramaic term ‫ א ֲִריְך‬occurs only in Ezra 4:14, where the returnees claim that it is not ‫ א ֲִריְך‬for them to see the dishonor of the king (‫ע ְַרוַת מַ לְ ּכָא לָא א ֲִריְך־ ַלנָא‬ ‫)לְ מֶ ֱחזֵא‬. The context makes it clear that ‫ א ֲִריְך‬is an adjective, but within the context it makes no sense to take ‫ א ֲִריְך‬as a passive participle from a verb ‫‘‏*ארך‬to be long’. In l ieu of a native A ramaic form, scholars have turned to the Iranian languages for a donor term. Hinz (AISN 36) thinks that ‫ א ֲִריְך‬derives from Old Iranian 96.  There are no clear cases in which Ug a͗ rgmn means ‘purple cloth’. Rather, the parallel use of Akk mandattu and Ug a͗ rgmn in RS 17.227:20 and KTU 3.1:18 clearly establishes the meaning ‘tribute’. See Knoppers 1993, 86; van Soldt 1990, 344–45; Pardee 1974, 277–78. 97. Other derivations remain unconvincing. Ellenbogen (FWOT 38–39) connects ‫ אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬with Proto-​Indo-​European *h2erǵ- ‘brilliant, white’. However, ‫ אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬has nothing to do with the color white. Rabin (1963, 116–18; 1964, 156–57) instead derives ‫ אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬from Gk ἀργεμώνη ‘wind-​rose’. However, Gk ἀργεμώνη comes from ἄργεμον ‘white spot in the eye’ and is not attested until the second–first centuries b.c.e. (cf. EDG 125; DELG 99–100). 98.  Starke 1990, 263; Kronasser 1962–1966, 1:180, 271. Although Hitt arkamman- is a Luvianism, the differences in spelling, gender, and morphology demonstrate that Hitt arkama-, arkaman- and Luv arkamman- are cognate (Melchert 1992, 311; Neu 1974, 123–24). Furthermore, it is unlikely on semantic grounds that the Hittite and Luvian forms come from Skt arghá- ‘value, price’ (contra KEWA 1:50). I am grateful to H. Craig Melchert for his assistance with this entry.

66

Chapter 3

*arīka- ‘evil, faithless’. While this could suit the context of Ezra 4:14, this explanation is awkward and does not explain the clear meaning of ‘fitting, proper’ for later Jewish Aramaic ‫אריך‬. Scheftelowitz (AAT 1:79) more plausibly suggests that ‫א ֲִריְך‬ comes from Old Iranian *arīka-, formed from *arī- ‘Aryan’ (cf. OPers ariya- and Av airya-: OPGTL 170; AIW 198) and the adjectival suffix -ka.99 The returnees’ opponents appeal to Artaxerxes by stating that to see the king’s dishonor would be to act in an ‘un-​Aryan’ (‫ )לָא א ֲִריְך‬manner. In other words, they claim solidarity with the king and the Persian Empire, contending that they are Persian in attitude even if not ethnically Persian, and hence unlike the allegedly rebellious returnees. ‫‘ אֹ ֶרן‬cedar’ HALOT 90; DCH 1:383 (Isa 44:14) 𝕲 ὃ ἐφύτευσεν κύριος ‘that which the Lord planted’ (apparently reading ‫אָ דֹ ן נָטַ ע‬ rather than ‫𝖁 ;)אֹ ֶרן נָטַ ע‬ pinus ‘pine’; 𝕾 paraphrases the entire verse as lqysʾ dpsyq mn ʿbʾ dbmṭrʾ ʾtrby ‘for wood that is cut from the forest, which with rain is nourished’; 𝕿 ‫[ ארן‬Aramaic form] [?] CW Sum eren PSD; Akk erēnu, erinnu (OAkk, OA, OB, Mari, Nuzi, MA, EA, SB, NA, NB), urīnu (Nuzi), urnu (OAkk, Mari, RS, SB) CAD E 274–79, U–W 227, 234; AHw 237, 1430–32; Hitt arimpa- HHw 24; Luv irimpit-, irippit(CLuv) CLL 93; Hurr erippi-, irippi-, irimpi- BGH 98–99100 This word occurs only in Isa 44:14, where it denotes a species of tree. It appears amidst mention of various trees, including ‫‘ אֶ ֶרז‬cedar’, ‫( ִּת ְרזָה‬an unknown species of tree), and ‫( אַ ּלֹון‬a large tree).101 Given this word’s referent and its phonological similarity with Akkadian erēnu, erinnu, which also denotes a species of tree, there is a relationship between the two. There can be no direct loan relationship, however, because a qutl-pattern noun cannot be derived readily from the Akkadian forms. On the other hand, Akkadian urnu, attested in Old Akkadian and Standard Babylonian as well as at peripheral sites such as Mari (e.g., ARM 6.63 rev. 5ʹ; 14.31:15) and Ugarit (RS 19.71:1), provides an excellent morphological match and demonstrates that this ancient term meaning ‘cedar’ had a variety of forms (ALBH 39–40; Huehnergard 2008, 110; Rainey 1973, 46). The varying spellings of these different forms point to an ancient culture word, which undoubtedly originated in the Amanus region of southeastern Anatolia where the cedar tree grew. An Anatolian origin is further suggested by the ending -innu 99.  The -iya- of ariya has contracted to -ī-, a phenomenon which tends to appear in Old Persian texts after the time of Darius I and Xerxes I (Skjærvø 2009, 59; Schmitt 2008, 85; OPGTL 13–14, 47–48 [§§23, 140]). On the suffix -ka, see Skjærvø 2007, 903; OPGTL 51 (§146). 100. JA ‫ ארן‬is adopted from Biblical Hebrew (Jastrow 1903, 123). 101. Most extant Masoretic manuscripts preserve this word as ‫אֹ ֶרן‬, with a reduced final nun, perhaps to avoid confusion with ‫ אֶ ֶרז‬earlier in the verse (C. Cohen 1978, 83).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

67

(cf. Akk erinnu), which is commonly found in ancient Anatolian terms (Dercksen 2007, 39–42). That this word was used in Asia Minor is also demonstrated by the existence of several related terms in ancient Anatolia, including Hittite arimpa-, Cuneiform Luvian irimpit-, irippit-, and Hurrian erippi-, irippi-, irimpi-, which all relate in some way to cedar. The ultimate origin of this culture word meaning ‘cedar’ remains uncertain.102 ‫‘ אֶ ְׁשּכָר‬payment, tribute’ HALOT 95; DCH 1:414 (Ezek 27:15; Ps 72:10) 𝕲 μισθός ‘wages’ Ezek 27:15, δῶρον ‘gift’ Ps 72:10; 𝖁 pretium ‘wages’ Ezek 27:15, donum ‘gift’ Ps 72:10; 𝕾 qwrbnʾ ‘gift’; 𝕿 ‫‘ קורבן‬gift, offering’ Ezek 27:15, ‫‘ דורון‬gift’ Ps 72:10 [T] Sum → Akk → Heb; Aram Sum ešgar PSD; Akk iškaru (OAkk, OB, Nuzi, MA, MB, SB, NA, NB) CAD I–J 244–49; AHw 395–96; EH ‫ אשכר‬DNWSI 123–24; IA ‫אשכר‬, JA ‫אישכר‬ DNWSI 123–24; DJBA 126; Syr ʾ‌ēškārā LS² 107 This word occurs only twice. In Ezek 27:15 it appears within mention of commerce, and in Ps 72:10 it appears parallel to ‫‘ ִמנְ חָ ה‬gift’ as offered tribute. Based on these two occurrences, it can be concluded that ‫ אֶ ְׁשּכָר‬denotes something given as payment or tribute. It is widely recognized that this word has been borrowed from Akkadian iškaru.103 This Akkadian word has a variety of meanings. Its basic meaning is ‘work assignment’, but through semantic extension it can refer to the materials used for this type of work, the products produced by workers, a delivery of these products, a field for conducting work (only in Old Akkadian and Old Babylonian), or a tax (only in Neo-​Assyrian). Akkadian iškaru is, in turn, probably a loan from Sumerian ešgar ‘work assignment’.104 The use of Hebrew šin for Akkadian š points to a loan from Neo-​Babylonian, which fits well with the use of iškaru with reference to a delivery of products in Neo-​Babylonian texts. The Aramaic forms have also been borrowed from Neo-​Babylonian Akkadian. ‫( אַ ְשׁלַג‬an alkaline substance used for washing) HALOT 1503; DCH 8:364 (Job 9:30) 102. Cf. Fortes Fortes 2001, 76–77. Some scholars derive Akk erēnu, erinnu from Sum erEn, but this does not adequately explain the morphology of all the Semitic forms, and it is clear that Sum eren is itself a loan from Akkadian (Civil 1983, 3). Rabin (1964, 164–65) makes the intriguing but unproven suggestion that the same basic element behind BH ‫ אֹ ֶרן‬and Akk erēnu, erinnu is also behind BH ‫אֶ ֶרז‬ and its related Northwest Semitic forms. 103.  ALBH 42; Lipiński 1988, 64; FWOT 42; AIA 59. 104.  On the Sumerian origin of Akk iškaru, see SLOB 235–36 (#192). It is possible, however, that Sumerian borrowed this word from Akkadian.

68

Chapter 3

𝕲 χιόνι ‘with snow’ follows the reading ‫( בְ ּמֹו־ׁשָ לֶג‬Ketiv); 𝖁 quasi aquis nivis, 𝕾 bmy‌ʾ dtlg‌ʾ, 𝕿 ‫ במי תלגא‬can each be translated ‘with snow water’ following the reading ‫( בְ ּמֵ י־ׁשָ לֶג‬Qere) Sum → Akk → Heb Sum azlag PSD; Akk ašlāku (OAkk, OA, OB, Mari, MA, MB, SB, NA, NB) CAD A/2 445–47; AHw 81105 In Job 9:30, Hebrew ‫ ׁשֶ לֶג‬occurs parallel to ‫‘ בֹ ּר‬lye’ and denotes a purifying substance used for washing (Löw 1924–1934, 1:648–49; J. Preuss 1911, 431). This is different from the way ‫ ׁשֶ לֶג‬appears everywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, where it has the meaning ‘snow’ (2 Sam 23:20; Isa 55:10; Jer 18:14; Ps 147:16; 148:8; Prov 25:13; 26:1; 31:21; Job 6:16; 24:19; 37:6; 38:22; 1 Chr 11:22).106 A connection between snow and soap is readily apparent, but it is unlikely that this word was simply derived from the common term for ‘snow’. Notably, a similar-​looking term that denotes an alkaline substance, ‫אַ ְשׁלַג‬, occurs in Rabbinic Hebrew (m. Nid. 9:6; Šabb. 9:5).107 This word can be traced back to Akkadian ašlāku ‘fuller’, which is in turn a loan from Sumerian azlag.108 The preservation of Akkadian š as šin (rather than samek) indicates that Hebrew-​speakers borrowed this word from Babylonian rather than Assyrian Akkadian. The use of final gimel is unusual because typically syllable-​final k is continued in Hebrew, but the final gimel may be due to contamination with ‫ׁשֶ לֶג‬, and some manuscripts (e.g., Codex Munich 95) preserve the form ‫ אַ ְשׁלְַך‬rather than ‫( אַ ְשׁלַג‬Jastrow 1903, 129). It is likely that the ‫ ׁשֶ לֶג‬of Job 9:30 has the same origin as that of Rabbinic Hebrew ‫אַ ְשׁ לַג‬, having acquired its referent of an alkaline substance—used by a fuller for washing—by metonymy (Rabin 1962, 1073; Zimmern 1917, 28). It may be written as ‫ ׁשֶ לֶג‬rather than ‫ אַ ְשׁלַג‬in Job 9:30 due a folk etymology connecting this alkaline substance with snow, but more likely its form is due to textual corruption, and it should be corrected to ‫אַ ְשׁלַג‬.109 ‫‘ אַ ְׁשּפָה‬quiver (for arrows)’ HALOT 96; DCH 1:418 (Isa 22:6; 49:2; Jer 5:16; Ps 127:5; Job 39:23; Lam 3:13) 𝕲 φαρέτρα ‘quiver’ Isa 22:6; 49:2; Lam 3:13, omits Jer 5:16, ἐπιθυμία ‘desire’ Ps 127:5, τόξον ‘bow’ Job 39:23; 𝖁 faretra ‘quiver’; 𝕾 qṭrqʾ ‘quiver’ Isa 22:6;

105. JA ‫ אשלג‬is adopted from BH ‫( אַ ְשׁלַג‬CAL; DJBA 173). 106. In a few other instances, ‫ ׁשֶ לֶג‬is used as a comparison for whiteness and purity (Exod 4:6; Num 12:10; 2 Kgs 5:27; Isa 1:18; Ps 51:9; Lam 4:7). In these cases it may also denote a purifying substance, but the context does not specifically require it. 107. Jastrow (1903, 129) vocalizes the Hebrew form as ‫אַ ְׁשלֵג‬, with ṣere rather than pataḥ. However, Codex Kaufmann A. 50 reveals that the vocalization is ‫ אַ ְשׁלַג‬as expected. 108.  On the Sumerian origin of Akk ašlāku, see SLOB 160–61 (#70). 109. The Qere–Ketiv variant reflects some uncertainty in the text, although not enough to warrant emendation. To conclude that ‫ ׁשֶ לֶג‬in Job 9:30 is an error for ‫אַ ְשׁלַג‬, one must also conclude that any other instance in which ‫ ׁשֶ לֶג‬denotes an alkaline substance is also in error.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

69

49:2; Ps 127:5, ggrtʾ ‘throat’ Jer 5:16, šlhbytʾ ‘flame’ Job 39:23, gʾrʾ ‘arrow’ Lam 3:13; 𝕿 ‫‘ זין‬weapon’ Isa 22:6; Job 39:23, ‫‘ אזין‬weapon’ Isa 49:2; Jer 5:16, ‫‘ בית מדרש‬school’ Ps 127:5, ‫‘ תיק‬sheath’ Lam 3:13 [I] Hurr →   → Akk; Eg; Hitt   → NWS (Ug; Heb) Akk išpatu (OB, Alalakh, Nuzi, EA, SB, NA) CAD I–J 257–58; AHw 397; Ug u͗ṯpt DUL 123; EH, QH ‫ אשפה‬DNWSI 124; Eg ı̓spt (MK), ı̓sp.t (NK) ÄW 2:411; GHwÄ 116; WÄS 1:132; SWET 40–41 (#34); DLE 1:47; Hitt išpati-, išpanti- HHw 72; Hurr ispadi-, ispandi- BGH 106; GLH 127 The word ‫ אַ ְׁשּפָה‬occurs six times with the meaning ‘quiver’, commonly occurring amidst mention of weapons and armor.110 Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 96) claim it is a loan from Akkadian išpatu, but this cannot be correct. The ṯ of Ugaritic u͗ṯpt argues against this origin because Akkadian š should have been borrowed as š by Northwest Semitic during the second millennium b.c.e.111 Attempts to derive this word from Sumerian are likewise problematic.112 Instead, the various spellings of this word in Semitic suggest a borrowing from a foreign source. This word is associated consistently with the Hurrians, which points to a Hurrian origin.113 It first appears in Akkadian texts during the Old Babylonian period, but otherwise it occurs in peripheral dialects (Alalakh, Nuzi, and Amarna). At Alalakh and Nuzi, elaborate quivers mounted with precious metals and gems are commonly mentioned (e.g., AT 427:4; HSS 15.17:4–7), and according to the Amarna letters Tušratta gives quivers inlaid with gold as a gift (EA 29:184). Hittite texts, moreover, contain the term išpati-, išpanti- within Hurrian contexts (e.g., KBo 15 iv:23).114

110.  This word also appears once with the same meaning in the Lachish ostraca (HAE Lak(6)1.13:3). 111.  ALBH 45. Definitive Akkadian loanwords in Ugaritic are relatively rare, but they consistently represent Akk š as š rather than ṯ (e.g., u͗ šr from ušāru ‘penis’, ršy from rašû ‘to receive, have’, and šbr from šuburru ‘rump, anus’). 112.  Ehelolf (1924) tries to etymologize Akk išpatu as Sum *ešban (written èš.ban), allegedly ‘house of arrows’, noting that išpatu is written gišé.ban in the lexical series ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu (Ḫḫ viiA:51) and assuming that èš is the equivalent of é. However, the two are not equivalent. Ellenbogen (FWOT 45–46) instead connects Akk išpatu with Sum bandudu, which he alleges means ‘quiver’. However, Sum bandudu means ‘seeding basket’, not ‘quiver’, and the phonological changes required by Ellenbogen’s loan hypothesis are speculative. 113.  This word has no apparent etymology in Hurrian, so Hurr ispadi-, ispandi- may come from a reconstructed IAV *íṣbandha- ‘quiver’ (Rabin 1970, 482–83). This Indo-​Aryan word would mean ‘arrow container’, being a compound of íṣu- ‘arrow’ (cf. Skt íṣu-) and bandha- ‘container’ (cf. Skt bandhá-, which typically means ‘binding’ but can also mean ‘container’ similar to how Lat receptaculum ‘container’ comes from recipio ‘to hold back’). One may compare the reconstructed *íṣbandha- ‘quiver’ with Skt íṣunibandhána-, essentially the same term but with bandhá- expanded via a prefix and a suffix (Monier-​Williams 1899, 1321). 114.  Some scholars contend that Hitt išpati-, išpanti- is a loan from Akkadian, but this is by no means certain (Kammenhuber 1968, 130; contra GLH 127; Kronasser 1962–1966, 1:244).

70

Chapter 3

Hurrian must have loaned this word early on to Akkadian and Northwest Semitic separately, hence the š in Akkadian but ṯ in Ugaritic.115 Egyptian ı̓spt, ı̓sp.t is written syllabically during the Middle and New Kingdoms and probably also comes from Hurrian, especially since it is difficult to reconcile its vocalization with the Semitic forms (cf. Hoch 1994, 40–41). Semitic- and Egyptian-​speakers originally considered the Hurrian form’s final dental part of the word, but it was later reanalyzed as the feminine ending. At Nuzi and Alalakh, the plural forms are written as išpatātu and išpatena respectively, both of which exhibit a plural suffix added to the base form išpatu. Similarly, Egyptian ı̓spt is treated as a masculine noun during the Middle Kingdom, but by the time of the New Kingdom it is treated as a feminine noun, ı̓sp.t. ‫‘ אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא‬necessities, essentials’ HALOT 1827–28 (Ezra 5:3, 9) 𝕲 χορηγία ‘supplies’; 𝖁 murus ‘wall’; 𝕾 šwr‌ʾ ‘wall’ [D] OIran → Aram; Elam IA ‫ אשרן‬DNWSI 129–30; OIran *āčarna- AISN 21; IAP 437; Elam ha-​za-​ir-​ na-um, ha-​za-​ra-​an-​na EW 653 Biblical Aramaic ‫ אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא‬occurs only twice, both times in the book of Ezra. In Ezra 5:3, the returnees’ opponents ask who gave the decree permitting the Jews to build the temple (‫ )מַ ן־ׂשָ ם לְ כֹ ם ְט ֵעם ּבַ יְ תָ א ְדנָה לִ ּבְ נֵא‬and to complete its ‫ֻאּׁשַ ְרנָא ְדנָה( ֻאּׁשַ ְרנָא‬ ‫)לְ ׁשַ כְ ָל ָל ה‬. The second occurrence in Ezra 5:9 simply recounts a second asking of the same question. Scholars have offered several different Semitic etymologies for this term, but none is convincing, and this word certainly looks foreign.116 Imperial Aramaic ‫אשרן‬, the only other form of this word in Semitic, appears in Achaemenid-​period texts that suggest an Old Iranian origin (e.g., TAD A6.2:5, 9, 21; Khalili C1:20). Elamite ha-​za-​ir-​na-um, ha-​za-​ra-​an-​na occurs in the Persepolis texts (e.g., PF 821:4–6; 864:14–15; 865:16), again pointing to an Old Iranian origin. All these terms come from Old Iranian *āčarna- ‘necessities, essentials’.117 This Old Iranian word can 115.  Cf. ALBH 45. Hurr s typically appears as š in Akkadian and ṯ in Ugaritic (e.g., Akk unuššu vs. Ug u͗ nṯ ‘state service’ from Hurr unussi- and Akk ḫuprušḫu vs. Ug ḫbrṯ from Hurr ḫubrus(ḫi)- ‘incense burner’). 116. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 1083) compare Akk *ašurrû. However, this is a ghost word that does not actually appear in Akkadian texts. Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 1828) instead compare ‫ אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא‬to Akk ašru, which typically means ‘place, site’ but can also denote a building complex or a sacred site. However, the vocalization and morphology of ‫ אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא‬are not at all what one would expect if it were borrowed from Akk ašru. Lastly, Joüon (1941) compares Arab ‌ʾašara ‘to saw’, contending that ‫ ֻאּׁשַ ְרנָא‬denotes wooden equipment. However, this etymology does not adequately explain the morphology of ‫ אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא‬either. 117.  F. Rosenthal 2006, 63; Nyberg 1930, 138–39; cf. Naveh and Shaked 2012, 182–83; Tuland 1958, 271–72. The Iranian languages lent this word to Armenian as ačaṙ, awčaṙ (HAB 1:139–40).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

71

be etymologized as *čar- ‘to be necessary’ (cf. ManParth c‌ʾr: DMMPP 124) with the adverbial prefix ā- and the suffix -na.118 The meaning ‘necessities, essentials’ suits the two occurrences of Biblical Aramaic ‫ אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא‬well and indicates that the temple was not nearing completion when the returnees’ opponents asked what they were doing, but was instead still in the initial stages of preparation (Tuland 1958, 271–74). ‫‘ אַ ּתּון‬kiln’ HALOT 1829 (Dan 3:6, 11, 15, 17, 19–23, 26) OG, θ′ κάμινος ‘furnace’; 𝖁 fornax ‘furnace’ Dan 3:6, 11, 15, 19–22, 26, caminus ‘furnace, forge’ Dan 3:17, 23; 𝕾 ʾtwnʾ [Syriac form] [T] Sum → Akk → Aram → Arab; Eth Sum udun PSD; Akk utūnu, atūnu, itūnu (OB, Nuzi, MA, MB, EA, SB, NB), adūgu (NB) CAD U–W 346–47; AHw 1445–46; JA, CPA ‫ אתון‬DJPA 79; DJBA 176; DCPA 33; Syr ʾ‌attūnā LS² 109; Mand atuna MD 43; Arab ʾ‌attūn Lane 14; Eth ‌ʾǝton CDG 46 Biblical Aramaic ‫ אַ ּתּון‬occurs 10 times in the third chapter of the book of Daniel with reference to the fiery furnace used as punishment for those who do not bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s newly-​constructed image. Although this word has many forms in Aramaic, all the Aramaic forms—including Biblical Aramaic ‫—אַ ּתּון‬are borrowed from Akkadian utūnu, atūnu, itūnu, adūgu, which denotes a kiln used for making pottery and glass. The initial a- rather than u-class vowel of the Aramaic forms indicates that the Akkadian form atūnu was the specific source of borrowing; Aramaic later loaned this word to Arabic (AIA 110; Fränkel 1886, 26). The Akkadian forms are most probably borrowed from Sumerian udun.119 Accordingly, this term follows the typical pattern of many words of Sumerian origin that enter Akkadian, pass from Akkadian into Aramaic, and then are loaned from Aramaic to Arabic. Notably, Akkadian texts note that this kiln was used as punishment, exactly as it is in Daniel (e.g., VAT 9652+9655+10402 r. 19 // VAT 9140+12959 r. 16; BIN 7.10:9).120 The oven denoted by this word must have been large enough to fit a person, making it appropriate for such a punishment. ‫‘ ּבַ ד‬pole’ HALOT 109; DCH 2:93–94 (Exod 25:13–15, 27–28; passim121) 118.  On the prefix ā-, see OPGTL 164. On the suffix -na, see Skjærvø 2007, 902; OPGTL 51 (§147). 119.  SLOB 321 (#344). Salonen (1964, 114–18), however, suggests that both the Sumerian and Akkadian forms represent an ancient culture word. 120.  For discussion of VAT 9652+9655+10402 // VAT 9140+12959, see Weidner 1954–1956, 285. 121.  Exod 27:6 (2×), 7 (2×); 30:4–5; 35:12–13, 15–16; 37:4–5, 14–15, 27–28; 38:5–7; 39:35, 39; 40:20; Num 4:6, 8, 11, 14; 1 Kgs 8:7, 8 (2×); Ezek 19:14; Job 17:16; 2 Chr 5:8, 9 (2×).

72

Chapter 3

[D] Eg → Heb Eg bḏꜢ (MK, NK) ÄW 2:830; GHwÄ 284; WÄS 1:488122 The word ‫ ּבַ ד‬occurs a total of 40 times. Nearly all these occurrences are found within the description of the Israelite sanctuary, in which it refers to poles for carrying the ark of the covenant (e.g., Exod 25:13–15), altar (e.g., Exod 27:6–7), and the table for bread (e.g., Exod 25:27–28). The only attestations outside mention of the tabernacle are Ezek 19:14, where ‫ ּבַ ד‬denotes a shoot of a vine, and Job 17:16, where it denotes a bar holding shut Sheol’s gates. This word has no known cognates and no apparent Semitic etymology.123 The almost exclusive use within the context of the Israelite tabernacle, whose materials were putatively Egyptian, suggests an Egyptian origin. The likely donor term is Egyptian bḏꜢ, ‘spar, pole’. This word shows up in the Coffin Texts as well as the Book of the Dead with reference to the spar of a ship (ECT 5,132a–b [Spell 398]; 5,190e [Spell 404]; 5,205f [Spell 405]; BD 99,20 Aa [Chapter 99]). In some of these cases, the spar of the ship is compared with a phallus, reflecting the rod-​like nature of this word’s referent (ECT 5,132a–b [Spell 398]; BD 99,20 Aa [Chapter 99]).124 Egyptian ḏ merged with d via palatal fronting, and Egyptian Ꜣ commonly elided in final position,125 which would have produced a suitable donor term for Hebrew ‫ּבַ ד‬. In sum, Egyptian bḏꜢ provides a good match on phonological and semantic grounds. ‫‘ ּבַ ד‬linen’ HALOT 109; DCH 2:93 (Exod 28:42; passim126) 𝕲 λινοῦς ‘made from linen’ Exod 28:42; Lev 6:3; 16:4, 23, 32, βύσσος ‘fine linen’ or βύσσινος ‘made from linen’ Exod 39:28; Dan 10:5; 12:6–7; 1 Chr 15:27, transliterates as βαρ (reading ‫ ּבַ ר‬for ‫ּבַ ד‬‎) 1 Sam 2:18, omits 1 Sam 22:18, 122. JA ‫בד‬, used to refer to poles in the Israelite sanctuary, is adopted from BH ‫( ּבַ ד‬Jastrow 1903, 138). 123. Traditionally, Hebrew lexicographers have connected ‫ ּבַ ד‬with the root ‫בדד‬, ‘to separate’, comparing Arab badda ‘to separate’ and its derivative budd, which refers to a part or portion of something (cf. HALOT 109; BDB 94; Gesenius, Thesaurus 179). ‫ ּבַ ד‬is used in this way with reference to limbs (Job 18:13; 41:4) and shoots of a vine (Ezek 17:6; 19:14), but these occurrences seem to be homonyms that have no relationship with ‫‘ ּבַ ד‬pole’. Arab badd, cited by Köhler and Baumgartner with the meaning ‘beam’, occurs only in Palestinian Arabic and provides no evidence that this word was native to Semitic in antiquity. 124.  There is some debate among Egyptologists as to whether bḏꜢ refers to a spar or the top of a mast. However, the former is more likely in light of potential etymology and its comparison with a phallus (cf. EDE 2:368). 125.  On the depalatalization of ḏ, see J. Allen 2013, 48–50; Loprieno 1995, 38; Peust 1999, 123–25; Junge 2005, 36. On the elision of Ꜣ, see J. Allen 2013, 40–42; Loprieno 1995, 33, 38; Peust 1999, 127–29, 142–51. 126.  Exod 39:28; Lev 6:3 [6:10] (2×); 16:4 (4×), 23, 32; 1 Sam 2:18; 22:18; 2 Sam 6:14; Ezek 9:2–3, 11; 10:2, 6–7; Dan 10:5; 12:6–7; 1 Chr 15:27.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

73

ἔξαλλος ‘special’ 2 Sam 6:14, ποδήρης ‘long robe’ Ezek 9:2–3, 11, στολή ‘robe’ Ezek 10:2, 6–7; 𝖁 lineus ‘made of linen’ except omits Lev 16:23; 𝕾 bwṣʾ ‘fine linen’ except ʾyqrʾ ‘honor’ Dan 10:5; 12:6–7; 𝕿 ‫‘ בוץ‬fine linen’ except ‫‘ לבוש‬clothing’ Ezek 9:2–3, 11; 10:2, 6–7 [D] Eg → Heb QH ‫ ;בד‬Eg bḏꜢ (MK) ÄW 2:830; GHwÄ 284; WÄS 1:488 This word occurs with reference to priestly or cultic garments. It appears, for example, in conjunction with the terms ‫‘ אֵ פֹ ד‬ephod’ (1 Sam 2:18; 22:18; 2 Sam 6:14; 1 Chr 15:27) as well as ‫( ּכֻּתֹ נֶת‬a garment) (Lev 16:4). Parallels in the Dead Sea Scrolls use the term ‫ בד‬in a similar manner (e.g., 1QM vii:10). Hebrew ‫ ּבַ ד‬also occurs in Ezekiel and Daniel with reference to the garments of angelic messengers (Ezek 9:2–3, 11; 10:2, 6–7; Dan 10:5; 12:6–7). This word has no Semitic cognates and no clear Semitic etymology, suggesting a loan from a foreign source.127 Grintz (1975a, 14–15) postulates that Hebrew ‫ּבַ ד‬ comes from Egyptian bḏꜢ, a word found in the Second Intermediate Period Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus that denotes a linen fabric utilized for a splint (bḏꜢ n ḥbsw) (P Edwin Smith 5,13). This same word also seems to occur in the plural form (bḏꜢw) with reference to linens in the Coffin Texts (ECT 6,12d [Spell 473]; 6,38x [Spell 479]).128 Egy ptian ḏ merged with d via palatal fronting, and Egyptian Ꜣ commonly elided in final position.129 This would produce a suitable donor term for Hebrew ‫ּבַ ד‬. In light of the putative Egyptian context of the tabernacle, an Egyptian origin remains the best explanation for Hebrew ‫ּבַ ד‬. ‫‘ ּבְ דֹ לַח‬bdellium’ HALOT 110; DCH 2:96 (Gen 2:12; Num 11:7) 𝕲 ἄνθραξ ‘dark red stone’ Gen 2:12, κρύσταλλος ‘rock crystal’ Num 11:7; 𝖁, 𝕾, 𝕿 each use their corresponding forms of the word (bdellium, brwlḥʾ, and ‫בדולח‬, respectively) [D] Havilite → Akk; Heb; Phoen; Gk; Lat Akk budulḫu, bidurḫu, buddarḫu (SB, NB) CAD B 305–6; AHw 136; Phoen ‫בדלח‬ DNWSI 145; Gk βδέλλιον, βδολχόν, βδέλλα, μάδαλχον LSJ 312, 1077; Lat bdellium, maldacum OLD 248, 1173130 127. Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 109) state that the etymology of ‫ ּבַ ד‬is uncertain and suggest comparing it with Arab batt, a rough-​cut garment, derived from batta ‘to cut’. This etymology remains unconvincing, however, because ‫ ּבַ ד‬has no clear association with roughness or cutting. 128.  On the usage of Eg bḏꜢ in the Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, see Breasted 1930, 1:239. 129.  On the depalatalization of ḏ, see J. Allen 2013, 48–50; Loprieno 1995, 38; Peust 1999, 123–25; Junge 2005, 36. On the elision of Ꜣ, see J. Allen 2013, 40–42; Loprieno 1995, 33, 38; Peust 1999, 127–29, 142–51. 130. JA ‫בדלח‬‎, ‫בדלוח‬, which occurs only in 𝕿, is adopted from Biblical Hebrew (DJPA 85).

74

Chapter 3

The word ‫ ּבְ דֹ לַח‬occurs only twice. It appears within the description of the four rivers encompassing Eden (Gen 2:12), and its color is compared with that of manna (Num 11:7). The term ‫ בדלח‬is mentioned along with ‫‘ מר‬myrrh’ in a sixth–fifth century b.c.e. Phoenician text (KAI 280:1), indicating that it denotes a fragrant product. Comparison with related terms in Semitic (Akkadian) as well as non-​ Semitic (Greek and Latin) confirm this understanding and demonstrate that Hebrew ‫ ּבְ דֹ לַח‬denotes bdellium, an aromatic gum resin derived from flowering plants of the genus Commiphora.131 This word does not look Semitic and is undoubtedly a foreign loan. Its geographical association with Havilah (Gen 2:11–12), a region in the Horn of Africa or Felix Arabia, indicates that this “Havilite” word comes from the same region.132 The Egyptians are known to have obtained Commiphora from Africa as well as Arabia (Serpico and White 2000, 439–42). Classical sources bear similar witness. Dioscorides (Mat. med. 1.67), for example, says that bdellium comes from the sap of an Arabian tree, and Pliny (Nat. 12.19.35–36) likewise associates it with Arabia.133 Classicists frequently claim that Northwest Semitic loaned this term directly to Greek and Latin (cf. EDG 208; DELG 163; LEW 1:99), but the numerous variant forms of this word in Greek and Latin and its geographical associations with Africa and Arabia suggest that—like Hebrew—Greek and Latin borrowed this term directly from the original source. ‫( ּבַ הַ ט‬a stone from Nubia) HALOT 111; DCH 2:97 (Esth 1:6) 𝕲 σμαραγδίτης, 𝖁 smaragdinus ‘of emerald’; 𝕾 translates the collocation ‫ּבַ הַ ט־‬ ‫ וָׁשֵ ׁש‬as šyšʾ wtšwytʾ ‛marble and covering’; 𝕿 ‫‘ עמוד‬pillar’ [D] Eg → Heb; Arab Arab baht Dozy 1927, 1:121; Eg ı̓bhty (NK), bht (Ptolm) GHwÄ 41; WÄS 1:64

131. Harrell, Hoffmeier and Williams 2017, 36–37. This evidence proves conclusively that ‫ּבְ דֹ לַח‬ does not refer to a precious stone as understood by 𝕲 and later Jewish interpreters (e.g., Saʿadiah Gaon, Jonah Ibn Janaḥ, and Ibn Ezra). Such a misunderstanding led to the use of JA ‫בדלח‬‎, ‫ בדלוח‬with the meaning ‘precious stone’ in 𝕿. 132. Cf. FWOT 47. On the location of Havilah, see W. W. Müller 1992. Frequent attempts to connect BH ‫ ּבְ דֹ לַח‬with Sanskrit are speculative. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 95) connect ‫ ּבְ דֹ לַח‬with Skt ulū́ khala-. However, this Sanskrit word typically means ‘mortar’ and refers to bdellium only in lexical texts (EWAia 1:231; KEWA 1:111). Löw (1924–1934, 1:304) instead derives ‫ ּבְ דֹ לַח‬from Skt *madālaka-. However, *madālaka- is not even attested in Sanskrit, and the word with which it is allegedly connected, madāra-, means ‘thorn-​apple’ and appears only in late Sanskrit lexical texts (EWAia 3:385–86; KEWA 2:568–69). 133.  Some Classical sources connect bdellium with Bactria and India (e.g., Peripl. M. Rubr. 37, 39, 48–49; cf. Pliny, Nat. 12.19.35–36). These sources are probably confused because the Red Sea region and India could be referred to with the same term. Nevertheless, regardless of any potential confusion, it is clear that bdellium is an Arabian product. See Crone 1987, 67–70.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

75

The word ‫ ּבַ הַ ט‬occurs only in Esth 1:6, where it appears amidst various luxury items adorning Ahasuerus’s palace. Its mention along with ‫‘ שַ ׁיִ ׁש‬Egyptian alabaster’, ‫ּדַ ר‬ ‘pearl’, and ‫( סֹ חֶ ֶרת‬a type of stone) indicate that it denotes a mineral of some kind. The mention of ‫ ּבַ הַ ט‬in conjunction with ‫שַ ׁיִ ׁש‬, an Egyptian loan, suggests that ‫ ּבַ הַ ט‬may also be Egyptian.134 The likely donor term is Egyptian ı̓bhty, bht (Harrell, Hoffmeier and Williams 2017, 42–43). This Egyptian word describes a stone, possibly a kind of anorthosite gneiss, that comes from the region of Ibhat (IbhꜢt) in Nubia. The form ı̓bhty occurs during the New Kingdom, whereas the form bht is only attested during the Ptolemaic period (J. R. Harris 1961, 96–97). Hebrew-​ speakers presumably borrowed the latter form, which reflects the Later Egyptian elision of ı̓ and y and more closely matches Hebrew ‫ּבַ הַ ט‬.135 Lambdin (1953b, 147) and Muchiki (EPNL 240–41) reject any connection between Hebrew ‫ ּבַ הַ ט‬and Egyptian bht on the basis that Hebrew ṭeṭ and Egyptian t do not typically correspond. However, this contention assumes an overly rigid view of linguistic borrowing that disregards the complexity of the opposition between Egyptian t and d. Contrary to their claims, the presence of the term baht in Arabic does not demonstrate that this word is Semitic. In fact, the irregular correspondence between Hebrew ṭeṭ and Arabic t argues against a cognate relationship, and Arabic texts associate baht with northeastern Africa. Hence, Arabic baht probably also comes from Egyptian. ‫‘ ּבַ חַ ן‬tower, watchtower’ HALOT 119; DCH 2:137 (Isa 23:13; 32:14) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾, 𝕿 do not directly represent this word Isa 23:13; 𝕲 translates ‫ עֹ פֶל וָבַ חַ ן‬as αἱ κῶμαι ‘the villages’, 𝖁 palpatio ‘terror’, 𝕾 translates ‫ עֹ פֶל וָבַ חַ ן‬as šwprhwn dbtʾ ‘his beauty of the house’, 𝕿 ‫‘ מטמור‬hidden treasure’ Isa 32:14 [D] Eg → Heb QH ‫ ;בחן‬Eg bḫn (NK) GHwÄ 275; WÄS 1:471; DLE 1:139 This word occurs only twice in the Bible, both times in Isaiah. In Isa 32:14, ‫ּבַ חַ ן‬ appears along with ‫‘ עֹ פֶל‬citadel’. Nehemiah 3:27, which uses similar language to Isa 32:14, refers to a great tower (‫ )הַ ִּמגְ ּדָ ל הַ ּגָדֹול‬located on the Ophel, implying that ‫ ּבַ חַ ן‬denotes a fortified structure such as a tower or watchtower. This word probably also appears in Isa 23:13, where the Assyrians are said to set up a ‫( ּבַ חַ ן‬Qere ‫ּבַ חּון‬ and Ketiv ‫ )ּבַ חִ ין‬for besieging. 134. Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 750) compare BH ‫סֹ חֶ ֶרת‬, also mentioned in Esth 1:6, with Eg *sḥr.t. If this were correct, it would further support an Egyptian origin for ‫ּבַ הַ ט‬. However, the Egyptian term they presumably have in mind is not the nonexistent *sḥr.t, but shr.t, which cannot be connected with ‫ סֹ חֶ ֶרת‬unless the MT is in error. 135.  On the elision of ı̓ and y in Later Egyptian, see J. Allen 2013, 37–38, 43; Loprieno 1995, 33–35, 38; Peust 1999, 49–50, 142–51; Junge 2005, 33.

76

Chapter 3

Gesenius (Thesaurus 246) derives ‫ ּבַ חַ ן‬from the root ‫בחן‬, which he alleges means ‘to watch, look out’. However, this root clearly means ‘to test, examine’ in Biblical Hebrew as it does elsewhere in the Semitic languages (e.g., IA, JA, QA ‫ בחן‬and Syr bḥn: DNWSI 150; DQA 32; DJPA 90; LS² 135; cf. DRS 57). Thus, the root ‫ בחן‬does not provide a suitable derivation for a noun meaning ‘watchtower’. There is, however, evidence for the existence of a root *bḫn meaning ‘to watch, be watchful’ in Egyptian.136 This verb is the basis for New Kingdom Egyptian bḫn ‘citadel, tower’ and bḫn.t ‘pylon, gatehouse building’. It likely, therefore, that Hebrew-​speakers borrowed this word from Egyptian. Hebrew ‫ ּבַ חַ ן‬does not seem to represent the Egyptian feminine ending, so Hebrew-​speakers presumably borrowed the masculine rather than feminine form of this Egyptian noun.137 ‫‘ ּבֹ חַ ן‬greywacke’ HALOT 119; DCH 2:137 (Isa 28:16) OG translates ‫ אֶ בֶ ן ּבֹ חַ ן‬as λίθος πολυτελὴς ἐκλεκτός ‘costly chosen stone’; α′, σ′, θ′ λίθος δόκιμος, 𝖁 lapis probatum, 𝕾 kʾpʾ bḥyrtʾ ‘tested stone’; 𝕿 does not directly represent this word [D] Eg → Heb Eg bḫn (since MK) ÄW 2:821; GHwÄ 275; WÄS 1:471 This word, which occurs only in Isa 28:16, has been explained in at least two ways. Some scholars associate it with the root ‫‘ בחן‬to test, examine’, understanding ‫ּבֹ חַ ן‬ as a ‘tested stone’ (i.e., a sturdy and reliable stone) (e.g., Wildberger 1991–2002, 1:28, 30–31, 40–42; Watts 1985, 366–67, 370). Others connect it with Egyptian bḫn ‘tower’ and take the collocation ‫ אֶ בֶ ן ּבֹ חַ ן‬to mean ‘stone of a fortress’ (i.e., a foundation stone used in constructing a fortress or a fortified watchtower).138 However, neither of these is convincing (Noonan 2013b, 315–16). Concerning the first view, the Masoretic vocalization is not the passive form ‫ ּבּוחַ ן‬that one would expect for such an origin, and nowhere in antiquity is a stone described as ‘tested’ or ‘proved’ in the sense advocated. Concerning the second view, the Masoretes explicitly distinguished this term from ‫‘ ּבַ חַ ן‬watchtower’, and one would expect a collocation such as ‫ אֶ בֶ ן מּוסָ ד‬or ‫ אֶ בֶ ן יְ סֹוד‬rather than ‫ אֶ בֶ ן ּבַ חַ ן‬to express the meaning ‘foundation stone’. Instead, Hebrew ‫ ּבֹ חַ ן‬is probably a loan from Egyptian bḫn.139 The latter, first attested during the Middle Kingdom, denotes greywacke, a dark-​colored stone.140 136.  Osing 1976, 258, 833. Both Semitic bḥn and Eg *bḫn can be traced back to a common Afroasiatic root (EDE 2:286–87). 137.  EPNL 241; Lambdin 1953b, 148–49; Rabin 1962, 1076. On bḫn.t, which occurs beginning with the New Kingdom, see GHwÄ 275–76; WÄS 1:471; DLE 1:139. 138.  E.g., Childs 2001, 202, 208; Beuken 2000–, 2:12, 15; Roberts 1987, 29–34; Tsevat 1975, 2:69–72. 139.  Noonan 2013b; Lambdin 1953b, 148; FWOT 48; Köhler 1947b, 391–93. 140.  Eg bḫn is probably unrelated to Gk βάσανος ‘Lydian touchstone’ and therefore has no inherent connection with the concept of testing. See Noonan 2013b, 316–17.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

77

This stone was used to make statues, stelae, sarcophagi, and temples and would have been well suited for the construction described in Isa 28:16.141 Additional support for this loan hypothesis comes from the Egyptian context of Isa 28:1–22: the covenant with death (‫ )בְ ִּרית אֶ ת־מָ וֶת‬and the agreement (‫ )חֹ זֶה‬with Sheol of Isa 28:15 probably refer to Judahite reliance upon Egypt for protection from the Neo-​Assyrian Empire (cf. Isa 30:1–5; 31:1–3), and the mention of death and Sheol may very well reflect the well-​known Egyptian preoccupation with death and the afterlife.142 First Isaiah often uses foreign language elements or foreign motifs in its prophetic addresses that relate to foreign nations (Rabin 1967, 304–5). Accordingly, it is not surprising to find an Egyptian loanword within such an Egyptian context.143 ‫ּבְ רֹוׁש‬‎, ‫( ּבְ רֹות‬a coniferous tree) HALOT 155; DCH 2:261 (1 Kgs 5:22 [5:8], 24 [5:10]; passim144) [D] ?? → Ebla; Akk; Heb; Aram; Gk; Lat Ebla barāsum VE 241 (#374); Krebernik 1983, 14; Akk burāšu (OAkk, OB, NA, NB) CAD B 326–27; AHw 139; QH ‫ ;ברוש‬QA ‫ברות‬, JA, CPA ‫ברת‬‎, ‫ברות‬‎, ‫ בראת‬DQA 39; DJPA 112; DJBA 250; DCPA 62; Syr brōṯā LS² 187; Gk βράθυ, βόρατον LSJ 328, 322; Lat bratus OLD 263145 The word ‫ ּבְ רֹוׁש‬occurs a number of times, most frequently referring to a type of wood imported from Lebanon. The variant form ‫ּבְ רֹות‬, with a final dental rather than a sibilant, occurs in Song 1:17. The ancient versions struggled to translate this word consistently, and ‫ ּבְ רֹוׁש‬seems to refer to a variety of coniferous trees (e.g., juniper and cypress) rather than one particular species (Lawrence 2004). This word has no Semitic etymology, and Semitic texts consistently portray it as a non-​native commodity. Similar to the Hebrew Bible’s association of this tree with the north, Akkadian texts locate this tree in the Amanus region of southern Turkey (e.g., RIMA 3.102.10 iv:8) and Urartu (e.g., TCL 3 iii:280). Accordingly, this term must have come from the north where this tree grew. Because Hebrew ‫ּבְ רֹוׁש‬ is explicitly said to come from the north and because its form differs significantly from that of Akkadian and Aramaic, it must have been borrowed independently.146 141.  Cf. Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 57–58; Gundlach 1977; J. R. Harris 1961, 78–81; Lucas and Rowe 1938. 142. Dekker 2007, 115–23; Blenkinsopp 2000, 393. Hays (2010) even contends that Isa 28:1–22 should be read against the cult of the Egyptian goddess Mut (Eg Mwt). If this suggestion is correct, Isaiah’s mention of ‫‘ מָ וֶת‬death’ creates a clever and effective wordplay with the name of the goddess Mut. 143.  For a detailed analysis of this word, see Noonan 2013b. 144. 1 Kgs 6:15, 34; 9:11; 2 Kgs 19:23; Isa 14:8; 37:24; 41:19; 55:13; 60:13; Ezek 27:5; 31:8; Hos 14:9 [14:8]; Nah 2:4 [2:3]; Zech 11:2; Ps 104:17; 2 Chr 2:7 [2:8]; 3:5. The occurrence of ‫ ּבְ רֹוׁש‬in 2 Sam 6:5 should probably be emended to ‫ ּובְ ִׁש ִירים‬in accordance with its parallel in 1 Chr 13:8 and 𝕲 (McCarter 1984, 164). 145. JA ‫ברוש‬, which occurs only in late literary texts, is adopted from Biblical Hebrew (Jastrow 1903, 191). 146.  One could try to explain the Semitic forms from a hypothetical *burāṯu, with *ṯ yielding š in Akkadian, ṯ in Ugaritic, and š in Hebrew. This, however, does not explain the s of Eblaite unless one

78

Chapter 3

Greek- and Latin-​speakers most likely borrowed this word via Anatolia rather than from Semitic, especially since they claimed that the tree it denotes grew in Asia Minor (e.g., Pliny, Nat. 12.38.78) (EDG 234–35). This particular tree was commonly used as a building material in antiquity. Akkadian texts describe its use for columns, roof construction, and interior work (Moorey 1999, 355–58; cf.  Meiggs 1982, 417–20). Its value for construction is reflected in its use for building Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 5:22, 24; 6:15, 34; 9:11; 2 Chr 2:7; 3:5). ‫ּבְ רֹוׁש ⇒ ּבְ רֹות‬ ‫( ּבַ ְרזֶל‬BH); ‫( ּפ ְַרזֶל‬BA) ‘iron ore’ HALOT 155–56, 1958; DCH 2:261–62 (Gen 4:22; passim147) [I] Luv →   → Akk → Aram   → NWS (Ug; Heb; Phoen) Akk parzillu (OA, OB, Qatna, Bogh, MA, MB, EA, NA, NB) CAD P 212–16; AHw 837–38; Ug brḏl DUL 234; Sir, QH ‫ ;ברזל‬Phoen ‫ ברזל‬DNWSI 196; IA, QA, JA ‫פרזל‬, CPA ‫ פורזל‬DNWSI 196; DQA 194; DJPA 445; DJBA 930; DCPA 326; Syr parzlā LS² 1235; Mand parzla MD 364; Luv *parzilli- (CLuv)148 Hebrew ‫ ּבַ ְר זֶל‬occurs frequently in the Hebrew Bible, both in lists of metals (e.g., Num 31:22) and with reference to objects made of iron (e.g., Gen 4:22). Its Biblical Aramaic form, ‫ּפ ְַרזֶל‬, occurs 20 times, all in the book of Daniel. Related forms also occur in many of the other Semitic languages, including Akkadian, Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Aramaic. Notably, the Akkadian and Aramaic forms have initial p whereas all the other forms have initial b. Despite its widespread distribution in Semitic, this word’s atypical morphology makes its identification as a foreign loan virtually certain.149 Notably, Old Assyrian parzillu bears similarity to several Old Assyrian terms with final -l/-ll that entered Akkadian as a result of contact between Assyrian traders and the inhabitants of postulates a loan from Akkadian into Eblaite. Furthermore, it does not explain the varying vocalization. Thus, it is better to consider this a direct loan into each language, especially because these languages preserve memory of where the word originated (contra ALBH 49). 147.  Lev 26:19; Num 31:22; 35:16; Deut 3:11; 4:20; 8:9; 19:5; 27:5; 28:23, 48; 33:25; Josh 6:19, 24; 8:31; 17:16, 18; 22:8; Judg 1:19; 4:3, 13; 1 Sam 17:7; 2 Sam 12:31 (2×); 23:7; 1 Kgs 6:7; 8:51; 22:11; 2 Kgs 6:5–6; Isa 10:34; 44:12; 45:2; 48:4; 60:17 (2×); Jer 1:18; 6:28; 11:4; 15:12 (2×); 17:1; 28:13–14; Ezek 4:3 (2×); 22:18, 20; 27:12, 19; Amos 1:3; Mic 4:13; Ps 2:9; 105:18; 107:10, 16; 149:8; Job 20:24; 28:2; 40:18; 41:19 [41:27]; Prov 27:17 (2×); Qoh 10:10; Dan 2:33 (2×), 34–35, 40 (3×), 41 (3×), 42, 43 (2×), 45; 4:12, 20 [4:15, 23]; 5:4, 23; 7:7, 19; 1 Chr 20:3; 22:3, 14, 16; 29:2, 7 (2×); 2 Chr 2:6 [2:7], 13 [2:14]; 18:10; 24:12. 148.  It is possible that OSA frzn is also related (DOSA 409). 149. Some scholars compare the nominal pattern of BH ‫‘ ּכ ְַרמֶ ל‬vineyard, orchard’ from ‫ ּכ ֶֶרם‬of the same meaning (e.g., Bauer and Leander 1922, 503–4 [§§561iι–lι]). However, this nominal pattern is quite rare in Biblical Hebrew and does not seem to be a productive, or even native, formation.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

79

Anatolia.150 The donor term is Cuneiform Luvian *parzilli- ‘iron ore’, formed from *parza- (cf. parzašša ‘of iron’ and parzagulliya ‘having loops of iron’) and the substantivizing adjectival suffix -alli, -alla.151 Use of related terms indicates that *parzilli- refers not to iron per se, but its natural source in the form of iron ore (i.e., either black magnetite or black hematite).152 The alternation of the initial consonant between p and b reflects Luvian’s lack of phonemic contrast in word-​initial position.153 It also indicates that two separate paths of borrowing occurred, one into Ugaritic, Hebrew, and Phoenician, which is also reflected in “western” cuneiform spellings of this word; and a second into Akkadian (through which it entered Aramaic) reflected in its “eastern” cuneiform spellings (Artzi 1969). The Ugaritic spelling of this word with ḏ indicates that the Northwest Semitic forms with z are secondary.154 Thus, Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּבַ ְרזֶל‬is probably an inherited loan from early Canaanite rather than a direct borrowing from Luvian. Extant textual sources from the ancient Near East indicate that most iron came from either the northwest (Anatolia and Syria) or the north (Urartu).155 Technology necessary for iron-​smelting was firmly in place in Anatolia at least by the Hittite period and possibly even during the early second millennium b.c.e. (Yalçın 1999, 184–86; Waldbaum 1999, 28–31; Muhly, et al. 1985), hence the adoption of this word from Anatolia. Naturally, this Luvian term would have subsequently spread to other regions and languages along with the product and its associated technology. ‫‘ ּגָבִ י ַע‬vessel, cup-​shaped candleholder’ HALOT 173; DCH 2:307 (Gen 44:2 [2×], 12, 16–17; Exod 25:31, 33 [2×], 34; 37:17, 19 [2×], 20; Jer 35:5) 𝕲 κόνδυ ‘drinking vessel’ in Genesis, κρατήρ ‘hollow of a candlestick’ in Exodus, κεράμιον ‘earthenware jar’ Jer 35:5; 𝖁 scyphus ‘cup, goblet’; 𝕾 ʾsqpʾ ‘cup’ except ʾgnʾ ‘basin’ Jer 35:5; 𝕿 ‫‘ כליד‬cup’ [D] Eg → Heb QH ‫ ;גביע‬Eg qbḥw (since OK) ÄW 1:1330, 2:2513; GHwÄ 922–23; WÄS 5:30; DLE 2:149 This word occurs 14 times, and its distribution is limited to three contexts. The first is the Joseph cycle, in which ‫ ּגָבִ י ַע‬appears with reference to the vessel Joseph 150.  Dercksen 2007, 36–37. Examples include padallu ‘fetter’, išpadallu, išpandallu ‘lodging’, and išḫiulu ‘contract’. 151.  On the Luvian suffix -alli, -alla, see Starke 1990, 63–64; Melchert 2003, 195. 152.  Valério and Yakubovich 2010; contra Rendsburg 1982. Luv parzašša occurs in KUB 13.35 iii:46–47; KBo 48.262 ii:22–23, and parzagulliya appears in KUB 12.1 iii:2–3. 153.  On the lack of phonemic contrast in word-​initial position in Luvian, see Melchert 2003, 177; 2008, 34. 154. ALBH 49–50. Thus, BH ‫ ּבַ ְר ֶז ל‬and the other forms beginning with b cannot be loans from Akkadian (contra FWOT 52–53; Zimmern 1917, 59). 155.  McConchie 2004, 42–43; Moorey 1999, 280–82; Reiter 1997, 361–75; Maxwell-​Hyslop 1974.

80

Chapter 3

used for divination (Gen 44:2, 12, 16–17). In the second, ‫ ּגָבִ י ַע‬occurs with reference to the vessel-​shaped candleholders of the tabernacle’s lampstand (Exod 25:31, 33, 34; 37:17, 19–20).156 Lastly, ‫ ּגָבִ י ַע‬occurs once in the book of Jeremiah along with ‫ּכֹוס‬ ‘cup’, denoting a vessel filled with wine (Jer 35:5). In the Dead Sea Scrolls, ‫גביע‬ occurs in contexts clearly influenced by the biblical descriptions of the tabernacle (e.g., 11QTa ix:2, 5). The standard Hebrew lexica derive ‫ ּגָבִ י ַע‬from the root ‫ גבע‬that is behind the term ‫‘ ּגִ בְ עָה‬hill’ (HALOT 173; BDB 149; Gesenius, Thesaurus 336–37). However, this etymology is conceivable only if Hebrew-​speakers thought of the shape of the vessel as upside-​down because a drinking vessel is otherwise concave rather than convex like a hill. The limitation of this word to Hebrew among the Semitic languages as well as the very specific contexts in which it occurs suggest another possibility. Based on the Egyptian setting of the Joseph cycle as well as the Egyptian literary context of the tabernacle, a more plausible etymology is Egyptian qbḥw ‘libation vessel, which first appears during the Old Kingdom (cf. Dem qbḥ: CDD Q 23; DG 535).157 The vessel denoted by Egyptian qbḥw was made of metal and may have been shaped like the hieroglyph 𓎿 because the same vessel with water poured from it (depicted with the hieroglyph 𓏁) is frequently used to write qbḥw (J. J. Janssen 1975, 433). Notably, the Babylonian Talmud preserves a tradition associating Hebrew ‫ּגָבִ י ַע‬ with Egypt, comparing the menorah’s cup-​shaped candleholders with cups from Alexandria, Egypt (‫( )גביעין למה הן דומין כמין כוסות אלכסנדריים‬b. Menaḥ. 28b) (Meyers 1976, 38). More generally, the adoption of this term from Egypt reflects Egyptian influence on the construction of the tabernacle’s lampstand.158 ‫אֶ לְ ּגָבִ יׁש ⇒ ּגָבִ יׁש‬ ‫‘ ּגְ דָ בַ ר‬treasurer’ HALOT 1842 (Dan 3:2) 𝕲, 𝖁 omit one of the terms in the lists of officials in Dan 3:2–3, so it is difficult to tell how they translate BA ‫ּגְ דָ בַ ר‬, if at all; 𝕾 grbdy, an erroneous rendering of BA ‫ּגְ דָ בַ ר‬ [D] OIran (OPers) → Aram; Elam OIran *gandabara- (OPers) AISN 102; IAP 422; Elam kán-​da-​bar-​ra EW 430 156.  The semantic connection between a vessel and a flower bud is a natural one. 157. Köhler 1940, 36. A feminine form, qbḥy.t, also occurs during the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms and appears in Demotic as qbḥ.t (ÄW 1:1330, 2:2513; GHwÄ 922–23; WÄS 5:30; CDD Q 23–24; DG 535). However, Hebrew-​speakers presumably adopted the masculine rather than feminine form because there is no representation of the Egyptian feminine ending in ‫ּגָבִ י ַע‬. Köhler also connects ‫ קֻ ּבַ עַת‬with Eg qbḥw. However, as the initial consonant demonstrates, ‫קֻ ּבַ עַת‬ does not come from Egyptian. It is instead a perfectly good Semitic term for a drinking vessel (cf. Akk qabūtu and Ug qbʿt). 158.  Hoffmeier 2005, 214–15; Meyers 1976, 39. I am grateful to James P. Allen for his assistance with this entry.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

81

Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּגְ דָ בַ ר‬occurs twice in Dan 3:2–3. It exhibits a non-​Semitic morphology and has no Semitic root on which it could be based, making it a good candidate for a foreign loan. It is most probably Old Iranian because it occurs amidst a number of titles borrowed from Old Iranian, namely ‫‘ ְּדתָ בַ ר‬judge’, ‫ִּתפְ ּתָ י‬ ‘lord, overseer’, ‫‘ אֲחַ ְשׁדַ ְּר ַפּן‬satrap’, and ‫( אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬a financial official). The donor term is Old Iranian *gandabara- ‘treasurer’, formed from *ganda-, ‘treasury’ (cf.  Pahl ganǰ, ManParth gnz, Sogd γzn, and NPers ganj: CPD 35; DMMPP 163; DMSB 91; CPED 1098) and bara- ‘bearer’ (cf. OPers, Av bara-: OPGTL 53 [§160], 200; AIW 943).159 This official managed the treasuries of regional centers, distributed monies, collected tribute, and recorded relevant commercial operations and transactions (Stolper 2001). The use of dalet for Proto-​Iranian *ȷ́ indicates that this word is a loan from Old Persian because *ȷ́ became d only in Old Persian.160 This Old Persian form is attested in Elamite texts as kán-​da-​bar-​ra (PF 1947:19; PFNN 544:3; 2356:12). Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּגִ זְּבָ ר‬and Biblical Aramaic ‫ּגִ זְּבַ ר‬, which appear identical except in their use of zayin rather than dalet, come from Median *ganzabara- rather than Old Persian *gandabara-. Thus, there is no need to try to explain the use of dalet as a case of scribal updating or an internal Aramaic development (contra Kitchen 1965, 62–63; Mancini 1987, 49; Schaeder 1930, 47–48). ‫( ּגִ זְּבָ ר‬BH); ‫( ּגִ זְּבַ ר‬BA) ‘treasurer’ HALOT 185–86, 1843–44; DCH 2:339 (Ezra 1:8; 7:21) 𝕲 transliterates as γασβαρηνός Ezra 1:8, γάζα ‘treasury’ Ezra 7:21; 𝖁 translates as a proper name Ezra 1:8, custos arcae publicae ‘keeper of the public chest’ Ezra 7:21; 𝕾 gzbrʾ [Syriac form] [D] OIran (Med) → Akk; Heb; Aram; Elam Akk ganzabaru (LB) CAD G 43; AHw 281; IA ‫גנזנב‬, Hatra, JA ‫ גזבר‬DNWSI 229; DJBA 273; Syr gēzaḇrā LS² 223–24; Mand ganzibra MD 77; OIran *ganzabara- (Med) AISN 102; IAP 422; Elam ka4-an-​za-​ba-​ra, ka4-in-​za-​ba-​ra, kán-​za-​ba-​ra, kán-​za-​bar-​ra, ka4-za-​ba-​ra EW 406, 415, 433, 456 Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּגִ זְּבָ ר‬occurs only in Ezra 1:8, and Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּגִ זְּבַ ר‬appears only in Ezra 7:21. In both instances this word has the meaning ‘treasurer’. Related forms occur in Akkadian, Aramaic, and Elamite. The use of this word with reference to Persian officials in both Late Babylonian Akkadian (Dar 296:2; 527:5) and Elamite (e.g., PT 10a:1; 31:1; 33:1; 49a-2:1; PFNN 1564:4) indicates that it comes from Old Iranian. The donor term is Old Iranian *ganzabara- ‘treasurer’ (cf. Pahl ganǰwar, ManParth gznbr, and NPers ganjwar, ganjūr: CPD 35; DMMPP 159.  FWOT 54; F. Rosenthal 2006, 62; Haug 1853, 156; AAT 2:57–58. The Iranian languages also lent this word to Armenian as ganjawor (HAB 1:518). 160.  On the phonological development of Proto-​Iranian *ȷ́, see Skjærvø 2009, 51; Schmitt 2008, 84–85; Testen 1997, 575; OPGTL 33–34 (§88).

82

Chapter 3

170; CPED 1099).161 This compound is formed from *ganza- ‘treasury’ (cf. Pahl ganǰ, ManParth gnz, Sogd γzn, and NPers ganj: CPD 35; DMMPP 163; DMSB 91; CPED 1098) and bara- ‘bearer’ (cf. OPers, Av bara-: OPGTL 53 [§160], 200; AIW 943). In contrast with Biblical Aramaic ‫ּגְ דָ בַ ר‬, which uses dalet for Proto-​Iranian *ȷ́ and thereby represents the Old Persian form of this word, Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּגִ זְּבָ ר‬and Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּגִ זְּבַ ר‬use zayin. Both Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּגִ זְּבָ ר‬and Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּגִ זְּבַ ר‬thereby represent Median *ganzabara-. The Median form of this word is also attested in Elamite texts (PT 10a:1; 22:1; 31:1; 33:1; 59:1; 49a–2:1; 1342:3; PFNN 1564:4). ‫( ּגְ לֹום‬a wrap or cloak) HALOT 192–93; DCH 2:353 (Ezek 27:24) 𝕲 translates ‫ בִ ּגְ לֹומֵ י ְּת ֵכלֶת‬as ὑάκινθος ‘blue’; 𝖁 involucrum ‘wrap’; 𝕾 m‌ʾn‌ʾ ‘garment’; 𝕿 ‫‘ גוזז‬woolen garment’ [?] CW Akk gulēnu, gulānu (NA, NB) CAD G 127; AHw 296–97; JA ‫ גלים‬DJPA 130; DJBA 287–88; Syr glīmā LS² 237; Gk χλαμύς, χλαῖνα LSJ 1993 This word occurs only in Ezek 27:24 among a list of items obtained from the northern cities of Harran, Kanneh, and Eden.162 Hebrew ‫ ּגְ לֹום‬is often derived from the root ‫גלם‬, but this verb occurs only in 2 Kgs 2:8 and is otherwise unattested in the Semitic languages. Most probably, then, the root ‫ גלם‬is denominal. The observations that ‫ ּגְ לֹום‬represents a traded item and has a relatively limited distribution in Semitic suggest the likelihood of a foreign loan. Akkadian gulēnu, gulānu is limited to Neo-​Assyrian and Neo-​Babylonian. The garment it denotes is associated with the north in Akkadian texts similar to Ezek 27:24, and its Northwest Semitic origin is by no means clear. Furthermore, Greek χλαμύς, which is connected but has a foreign, non-​Semitic origin,163 is associated with the non-​Greek inhabitants of Thrace (e.g., Xenophon, Anab. 7.4.4). The base stem of χλαμύς, χλαμύδ-, contains the afformative -δ which occurs in some words that have entered Greek via Anatolia (cf. ἴασπις ‘jasper’ with base stem ἴασπιδ-, παλλακίς ‘concubine’ with base stem παλλακίδ-, and σμύρις ‘emery’ with base stem σμύριδ-). The alternate form χλαῖνα further confirms a foreign but non-​ Semitic origin of the Greek term. Thus, Hebrew ‫ ּגְ לֹום‬most probably represents a culture word (cf. Hoch 1994, 326). This term must have originated in the north, in Anatolia, as Ezek 27:24 claims and the evidence surrounding this word otherwise suggests.164 161.  FWOT 54–55; F. Rosenthal 2006, 62; Aĭkhenval’d 1987, 5; Eilers 1940, 123–24; Schaeder 1930, 47–48; AAT 1:81. The Iranian languages also lent this word to Armenian as ganjawor (HAB 1:518). 162.  Both Harran and Eden are mentioned together with Gozan, Rezeph, and Tel Assar in Isa 37:12. 163.  EDG 1635–36; DELG 1216–17; Rosół 2013, 107–9; contra Szemerényi 1974, 148. 164.  This foreign word may also be the source of NPers gilīm, which can denote a garment of goat hair or wool as well as a rug (CPED 1096).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

83

‫( ּגֹ מֶ א‬a rush or reed plant) HALOT 196; DCH 2:362 (Exod 2:3; Isa 18:2; 35:7; Job 8:11) 𝕲 omits Exod 2:3, βύβλινος ‘of papyrus’ Isa 18:2, ἕλος ‘marsh’ Isa 35:7, πάπυρος ‘papyrus’ Job 8:11; 𝖁 scirpeus ‘of reeds’ Exod 2:3, papyrus ‘papyrus’ Isa 18:2, iuncus ‘reed’ Isa 35:7, scirpus ‘reed, bulrush’ Job 8:11; 𝕾 ʿrqʾ ‘boxwood’ Exod 2:3, ppyrwn ‘papyrus’ Isa 18:2, ʾrbnʾ ‘bulrush’ Isa 35:7, ʾgmʾ ‘pool’ Job 8:11; 𝕿 ‫[ גומא‬Aramaic form] except ‫‘ ובדגוגין‬and in skiffs’ for MT’s ‫ וּבִ כְ לֵי־גֹ מֶ א‬Isa 18:2 [D] Eg → Heb; Aram IA ‫ גמא‬DNWSI 225; JA ‫גמא‬‎, ‫גמי‬, SA ‫ גמא‬DJPA 131; DJBA 289; DSA 149–50; Eg qmꜢ, gmy (NK, Ptolm) GHwÄ 925, 970; WÄS 5:37, 170; DLE 2:151, 189165 This word, which denotes a rush or reed plant, appears only four times in Biblical Hebrew. In three of its four occurrences it appears within an Egyptian context: Exod 2:3 mentions it with reference to the basket of Egyptian reeds in which Moses was placed, Isa 18:12 notes its use in making Egyptian boats, and ‫ ּגֹ מֶ א‬is parallel with the Egyptian loanword ‫( אָ חּו‬also a rush or reed plant) in Job 8:11. This association with Egypt points to an Egyptian loan, and the donor term is Egyptian qmꜢ, also spelled gmy (cf. Dem qmꜢ and Copt kam: CDD Q 43; DG 537; Crum 108).166 Notably, Egyptian texts describe the use of the reed denoted by qmꜢ, gmy to make mats as well as baskets, which is congruent with the use of this reed to make a basket for the baby Moses in Exod 2:3. Egyptian also loaned this word to Imperial Aramaic, where it is attested in the Elephantine papyri. ‫( ֶּגּנֶז‬BH); ‫( ּגְ נַז‬BA) ‘treasury’ HALOT 199, 1846; DCH 2:368 (Esth 3:9; 4:7; Ezra 5:17; 6:1; 7:20167) 𝕲 γάζα [Greek form] except γαζοφυλάκιον ‘treasury’ Esth 3:9; 𝖁 gaza [Latin form] Esth 3:9, thesaurus ‘treasure’ Esth 4:7; Ezra 7:20, bibliotheca ‘library’ Ezra 5:17; 6:1; 𝕾 gzʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫[ גנז‬Aramaic form] Esth 3:9; 4:7 [D] OIran (Med) → Heb; Aram; Elam IA ‫גנז‬, JA ‫גז‬‎, ‫ גיז‬DNWSI 229; DJBA 273; Syr gazzā LS² 223; Mand ginza MD 90–91; OIran *ganza- (Med) AISN 102; IAP 443; Elam ka4-an-​za, ka4-in-​za-​ um, kán-​za-​um EW 406, 415, 433

165. Eth gomeʿ is a transcription of BH ‫( ּגֹ מֶ א‬CDG 193). 166.  EPNL 241–42; Lambdin 1953b, 149; FWOT 56. Muchiki and Lambdin object that Eg q most commonly appears as Heb qop, not gimel. However, this is insufficient reason to reject a possible loan from Eg qmꜢ, especially because the opposition between Eg k, g, and q is not fully understood. 167. 𝕲 θησαυρός ‘treasure’, 𝖁 pretiosus ‘costly’, and 𝕾 symtʾ ‘treasure’ understand ‫( ֶגּנֶז‬without dageš) in Ezek 27:24 as ‫( ֶּגּנֶז‬with dageš) ‘treasury’, but 𝕿 reads ‫ ֶּגנֶז‬as ‫‘ כושף‬cloak’. It is unlikely a word meaning ‘treasury’ would be used in Ezek 27:24, so ‫ ֶּגנֶז‬is probably unconnected with ‫ ֶ ּג ֶנּז‬.

84

Chapter 3

Hebrew ‫‘ ֶּגּנֶז‬treasury’ occurs twice in the book of Esther (Esth 3:9; 4:7). The Biblical Aramaic form of this word, ‫ּגְ נַז‬, appears three times in the book of Ezra (Ezra 5:17; 6:1; 7:20). Although sometimes thought to be a late equivalent of ‫אֹוצָ ר‬, the contexts in which this word occurs suggest it refers to a different kind of treasury than ‫( אֹוצָ ר‬Rezetko 2007, 396–97). Scholars generally agree that this word is a loan from Old Iranian *ganza-, ‘treasury’. This term does not occur in extant texts but can be reconstructed on the basis of attested Iranian forms such as Pahlavi ganǰ, Manichaean Parthian gnz, Sogdian γzn, and New Persian ganj (CPD 35; DMMPP 163; DMSB 91; CPED 1098).168 The use of z rather than d for Proto-​Iranian *ȷ́ reflects a Median form.169 Old Iranian *ganza- is also the source of the Elamite and various Aramaic (Imperial and Jewish Aramaic, Syriac, and Mandaic) forms. Modern English genizah can even be traced back to Old Iranian, having been borrowed via Semitic. As discussed below in the entry for ‫ּגַנְ זְַך‬, Biblical Hebrew ‫ ֶּגּנֶז‬and Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּגְ נַז‬have an origin that is similar to but separate from it, though it also means ‘treasury’ and looks nearly identical in form. ‫‘ ּגַנְ זְַך‬treasury’ HALOT 199; DCH 2:368 (1 Chr 28:11) 𝕲 ζακχω, an erroneous rendering of BH ‫𝖁 ;ּגַנְ זְַך‬ cellarium ‘storehouse, storeroom’; 𝕾 kssṭrwn‌ʾ ‘balcony, portico’; 𝕿 ‫‘ קורטור‬storehouse’ [D] OIran (Med) → Heb OIran *ganzaka- (Med) Biblical Hebrew ‫ּגַנְ זְַך‬, which occurs only in 1 Chr 28:11, means ‘treasury’ and is therefore very similar to Biblical Hebrew ‫ ֶּגּנֶז‬and Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּגְ נַז‬of the same meaning. Like these two terms, it also comes from Old Iranian. However, it comes not from Old Iranian *ganza- but from Old Iranian *ganzaka- ‘treasury’.170 The latter can be analyzed as *ganza- ‘treasury’ (cf. Pahl ganǰ, ManParth gnz, Sogd γzn, and NPers ganj: CPD 35; DMMPP 163; DMSB 91; CPED 1098) with the suffix -ka.171 Like Old Iranian *ganza-, the use of z rather than d for Proto-​Iranian *ȷ́ reflects a Median form.172 Hebrew-​speakers undoubtedly borrowed ‫ ּגַנְ זְַך‬separately from ‫ ֶּגּנֶז‬, given the former’s use only in Chronicles and the latter’s use only in the book of Esther (Esth 168.  FWOT 57; F. Rosenthal 2006, 62; AAT 1:42. Arm ganj also comes from Iranian (HAB 1:516–17). 169.  On the phonological development of Proto-​Iranian *ȷ́, see Skjærvø 2009, 51; Schmitt 2008, 84–85; Testen 1997, 575; OPGTL 33–34 (§88). 170.  Cf. FWOT 57; Haug 1853, 156–57. OIran *ganzaka- is not attested in Old Iranian texts but is represented in Armenian as ganjanak (HAB 1:517–18). 171.  Arm ganj comes from Iranian (HAB 1:516–17). On the suffix -ka, see Skjærvø 2007, 903; OPGTL 51 (§146). 172.  On the phonological development of Proto-​Iranian *ȷ́, see Skjærvø 2009, 51; Schmitt 2008, 84–85; Testen 1997, 575; OPGTL 33–34 (§88).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

85

3:9; 4:7). In order to consider ‫ ֶּגּנֶז‬and ‫ ּגַנְ זְַך‬a single borrowing, one would have to assume one of two options, both of which are unlikely: either Hebrew-​speakers borrowed *ganzaka- and, recognizing -ka as an Old Iranian suffix, produced the shortened form ‫ ֶּגּנֶז‬within Hebrew; or, alternatively, Hebrew-​speakers borrowed *ganza- and, recognizing -ka as an Old Iranian suffix, produced the form ‫ ּגַנְ זְַך‬via hyper-​foreignization. ‫( ּגֹ פֶר‬a kind of wood, perhaps cypress) HALOT 200; DCH 2:372 (Gen 6:14) 𝕲 ξύλον τετράγωνον ‘rectangular wood’; 𝖁 lignum levigatum ‘smooth wood’; 𝕾 ʿrqʾ ‘boxwood’; 𝕿Onq., Ps.-J. ‫‘ קדרוס‬cedar’ [D] Pre-​Greek → Heb; Gk; Lat Gk κυπάρισσος LSJ 1011; Lat cupressus OLD 519 The hapax ‫ ּגֹ פֶר‬occurs in Genesis 6:14, which describes God’s command to Noah to make an ark out of ‫עֲצֵ י־גֹ פֶר‬. It is clear from this phrase that ‫ ּגֹ פֶר‬refers to a type of wood, but the context does not permit a more specific identification. Nevertheless, it seems likely that it refers to a resinous wood such as that of the cypress tree. The 17th-​century French biblical scholar Samuel Bochart long ago postulated a connection between Hebrew ‫ ּגֹ פֶר‬and Greek κυπάρισσος and Latin cupressus, both meaning ‘cypress’ (Bochart 1681, 25). This identification is almost certainly correct.173 The ending -ισσος/-essus of the Greek and Latin forms reflects a Pre-​Greek term, also the probable source of Hebrew ‫ּגֹ פֶר‬.174 Notably, resinous woods such as cypress were utilized for shipbuilding in antiquity: Theophrastus mentions several resinous woods, including cedar, with reference to shipbuilding (Hist. plant. 5.7.1–2), and the Late Roman writer Vegetius (De re militari 4.34) similarly notes that cypress was used to construct warships. ‫( ּג ְַרזֶן‬an axe) HALOT 202–3; DCH 2:375 (Deut 19:5; 20:19; 1 Kgs 6:7; Isa 10:15) 𝕲 ἀξίνη ‘axe’ Deut 19:5; Isa 10:15, σίδηρος ‘iron, iron instrument’ Deut 20:19, πέλεκυς ‘axe’ 1 Kgs 6:7; 𝖁 securis ‘axe, hatchet’; 𝕾 nrg‌ʾ ‘axe’ Deut 19:5; Isa 10:15, przl‌ʾ ‘iron, iron instrument’ Deut 20:19, mgzrʾ ‘axe’ 1 Kgs 6:7; 𝕿 ‫גרזן‬ 173. C. Murphy (1946) instead compares ‫ ּגֹ פֶר‬with Akk gibarû, gibarbarrû ‘reed’, in turn a loan from Sumerian. However, Akk gibarû is only attested in lexical lists (cf. CAD G 64; AHw 287), and it is unlikely that Hebrew-​speakers would have borrowed this rare word. Furthermore, ‫ ּגֹ פֶר‬cannot represent Akk gibarû because the i-class vowel of gibarû should be represented as such if it were an Akkadian loanword and because ‫ ּגֹ פֶר‬exhibits a segolate pattern whereas gibarû does not. 174.  EDG 803–4; DELL 159; LEW 1:313; Schrader 1911, 469. The identity of “Pre-​Greek” remains uncertain, although there is the possibility that Pre-​Greek represents an Indo-​European Anatolian language, specifically Luvian (Finkelberg 2014).

86

Chapter 3

[Aramaic form] Deut 19:5, ‫‘ ברזל‬iron, iron instrument’ Deut 20:19, ‫חוליל‬ ‘auger’ 1 Kgs 6:7; Isa 10:15 [?] CW Sum Ḫazin PSD; Akk ḫaṣṣinnu (OAkk, OB, Mari, Nuzi, Bogh, MB, EA, NB) CAD Ḫ 133–34; AHw 332; EH ‫ גרזן‬DNWSI 234; JA ‫ חצין‬DJBA 479; Syr ḥaṣṣīnā LS² 483; Arab karzan, kirzin, karzam, kirzim WKAS K 125; Eth ḫaṣīn CDG 267; Eg qrḏn (NK) GHwÄ 933; WÄS 5:66; DLE 2:158; SWET 303–4 (#438); Gk ἀξίνη LSJ 170; Lat ascia OLD 197–98; Arm kacʽin HAB 2:560–61 The word ‫ ּג ְַרזֶן‬occurs only four times in Biblical Hebrew, each time with the meaning ‘axe’ (Deut 19:5; 20:19; 1 Kgs 6:7; Isa 10:15). In Epigraphic Hebrew, this word appears in the Siloam Tunnel Inscription with reference to an axe used by the workers to hew the tunnel (KAI 189:2, 4). Hebrew ‫ ּג ְַרזֶן‬may appear to be derived from the Semitic root grz/gzr ‘to cut, divide’ (cf. Heb ‫גזר‬/‫)גרז‬, but it is undoubtedly a non-​Semitic term. If Hebrew-​ speakers were to create a noun meaning ‘axe’ based on the verbal root ‫גזר‬/‫גרז‬, they probably would have used the typical Hebrew nominal pattern (maqtēl) for a tool; indeed, the form ‫ מַ גְ ז ֵָרה‬is already attested in Biblical Hebrew. Furthermore, the nominal pattern of ‫ ּג ְַרזֶן‬is extremely rare in Semitic and elsewhere is used for foreign loans such as ‫‘ ּבַ ְרזֶל‬iron’ (cf. Bauer and Leander 1922, 503–4 [§§61iι–lι]). Comparison of similar-​looking forms in both Semitic and non-​Semitic points to a connection with Anatolia. Akkadian ḫaṣṣinnu is attested at Boghazköy and contains the ending -innu, which is commonly found in terms from ancient Anatolia (Dercksen 2007, 39–42). Furthermore, the -ιν component of Greek ἀξίνη likewise probably points to an Anatolian term (EDG 111; Ruijgh 1997, 540; cf. Szemerényi 1971, 656). The second consonant’s alternation between [z] (cf. BH ‫ ּג ְַרזֶן‬and Sum Ḫazin), [ṣ] (cf. Akk ḫaṣṣinnu and JA ‫)חצין‬, [ks] (cf. Gk ἀξίνη), and [t͡sʰ] (cf. Arm kacʽin) reflects a consonant foreign to both Semitic- and Indo-​European–speakers. Some Semitic-​speakers dissimilated the second consonant to aid pronunciation (cf. Arab karzan, karzam), just as Hebrew-​speakers did with this word. The similarity between ‫ ּג ְַרזֶן‬and the Hebrew root ‫גזר‬/‫ גרז‬is only coincidental unless it reflects a folk etymologization of this foreign word, which is quite possible.175 In sum, Hebrew ‫ ּג ְַרזֶן‬represents an ancient culture word that probably originated in Anatolia but has a wide distribution in many different language families.176 As discussed below under its entry, Hebrew ‫ קַ ְרּדֹ ם‬represents another form of this Anatolian culture word, which is also attested in Eblaite gurdumum and Emar Akkadian gurdimu. ‫‘ ְּדיֹו‬ink’ HALOT 220; DCH 2:433 (Jer 36:18) 175.  I am grateful to Aaron J. Koller for his assistance with this entry. 176.  Cf. AIA 54; Fränkel 1886, 84–87; Rubio 1999, 12; Salonen 1952, 8–9.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

87

𝕲 omits; 𝖁 atramentum ‘ink’; 𝕾, 𝕿 both use their corresponding forms of this word (dywtʾ and ‫דיות‬, respectively) [D] Eg → Heb; Aram JA ‫דיות‬, ‫ דיוט‬DJBA 328; Syr dayūṯā LS² 294; Mand diuta MD 107; Eg ry.t (since MK) ÄW 2:1455; GHwÄ 489; WÄS 2:399; DLE 1:266 This word is a hapax meaning ‘ink’ that occurs in Baruch’s reply to Jehoiakim’s officials. Baruch says that Jeremiah dictated his prophecies, and he wrote them down on a scroll with ink (‫)ּבַ ְּדיֹו‬. Related forms exist in Aramaic (Jewish Aramaic, Syriac, and Mandaic). Nevertheless, this word has a limited distribution in Semitic. Thus, Schneider and Quack plausibly postulate that Hebrew ‫ ְּדיֹו‬is a loan from Egyptian ry.t, ‘ink’ (Quack 2000; Schneider 2001, 162; cf. Hoch 1994, 430). The use of Hebrew dalet for Egyptian r does not present any problems because Egyptian r had a dental-​like, tapped pronunciation during the Middle and New Kingdoms. This indicates an early borrowing into Northwest Semitic, as does this word’s attestation in both Hebrew and Aramaic.177 Hebrew and Aramaic must have borrowed this word independently because they preserve the Egyptian form differently. The Egyptians regularly used black ink for pen-​written material, and red ink was also used alongside for various purposes (e.g., distinguishing headings). Black ink was made from carbon (derived from partially burned organic materials such as oil or wood) that was mixed with a binder, probably some sort of gum. Red ink, on the other hand, was made from hematite (red iron oxide) (Leach and Tait 2000, 238–39). This type of iron-​based ink is probably what was used to write the Lachish Letters, whose ink contains chemical traces of iron (A. Lewis 1938b; 1938a). ‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬‎, ‫‘ אֲדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬drachma’ HALOT 17, 232; DCH 2:473 (Ezra 2:69; 8:27; Neh 7:69–71 [7:70–72]; 1 Chr 29:7) 𝕲 χρυσίον ‘gold, gold coin’ except ὁδός ‘way, road’ (probably confusion with ‫‘ ּדֶ ֶרְך‬way’) Ezra 8:27; 𝖁 solidus ‘gold coin’ except dragma ‘drachma’ Neh 7:69–71; 𝕾 drykwnʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫( זוז‬a weight) 1 Chr 29:7 [D] Gk → Heb; Phoen; Aram Phoen ‫ דרכמן‬DNWSI 262; JA ‫ דרכמון‬DJPA 156; Gk δραχμή LSJ 449 This word occurs four times. In each instance, it denotes a coin given by the returnees for the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 2:69; Neh 7:69–71). Because the coin it 177.  Schneider 1999, 155–58; Quack 1992, 76–77; Rössler 1966, 220–23, 227. On the tapped pronunciation of Eg r, see J. Allen 2013, 40; Loprieno 1995, 33; Peust 1999, 127–29. Lambdin (1953b, 149) suggests that ‫ ְּדיֹו‬is an orthographical error for ‫‏*ריֹו‬ ְ . However, Muchiki (EPNL 242) rightly points out that if ‫ ְּדיֹו‬originated as a scribal error for ‫‏*ריֹו‬ ְ , one would have to assume that the Jewish Aramaic, Syriac, and Mandaic forms—which have an initial d rather than r—all originated from a Hebrew manuscript with this error.

88

Chapter 3

denotes was in use during the Persian period, one might think that it comes from Old Iranian and means ‘daric’. However, this loan hypothesis falls short whether one derives the Old Iranian word for ‘daric’ from the name of Darius (*dārayaka-) or from a reconstructed Old Iranian term for ‘gold’ (*darika-).178 The morphology of ‫ ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬indicates that the donor term begins with two consonants with no vowel between them, unlike *dārayaka- or *darika-, and the mem is inexplicable as a loan from either *dārayaka- or *darika-. A borrowing from Greek δραχμή ‘ drac hma’ , on the other hand, perfectly explains the initial consonant cluster and the presence of the mem. This word occurs as ‫ דרכמן‬in a Phoenician–Greek bilingual inscription from Athens (KAI 60:6; cf. CIA 2/5:1335b), undoubtedly a loan from Greek in light of the inscription’s provenance, as well as in Jewish Aramaic. Greek coinage, which included locally minted coins bearing Athenian motifs, was common in Palestine during the Persian period. It is likely, therefore, that Hebrew-​speakers adopted this term for a Greek coin, applying it to their own local adaptations of Greek drachmae.179 The ending ‫ֹון‬-‫‫‬ could be a Semitic innovation, but it more probably represents the Greek genitive plural ending -ῶν because the genitive case frequently expresses price and value in ancient Greek. Hence, Semitic-​speakers borrowed the genitive plural δραχμῶν rather than the nominative singular δραχμή.180 Investigation of ‫ ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬necessarily entails examination of Hebrew ‫אֲדַ ְרכֹ נִים‬, which occurs with reference to the value of gold bowls donated for the second temple (Ezra 8:27) but also appears anachronistically with reference to money given for the building of the first temple (1 Chr 29:7). Ellenbogen derives ‫ אֲדַ ְרכֹ נִ ים‬from Old Iranian (FWOT 17–18; cf. Schwyzer 1931, 14–16), but it cannot be a loan from *dārayaka- or *darika- for the same reasons mentioned above regarding ‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬. The best solution is to read ‫ ֲא דַ ְרכֹ נִ ים‬as a corrupted form of ‫( ֲאדַ ְרּכְ מֹ נִ ים‬singular ‫)אֲדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬.181 That the text originally read ‫ ַלאֲדַ ְרּכְ מֹ נִ ים‬rather than ‫ ַלאֲדַ ְרכֹ נִ ים‬is indicated by 𝕲’s renditions of Ezra 8:27: OG reads εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν χαμανιμ, reflecting a consonantal text ‫לדרך כמנים‬, and Codex Alexandriunus and the Lucianic recension read εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν δραχμωνειν and εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν δραχμὰς. The ‌ʾalep of ‫ אֲדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬reflects the initial consonant cluster of Greek δραχμή, represented differently in Ezra 8:27; 1 Chr 29:7 than in Ezra 2:69; Neh 7:69–71.182 178.  The ancients derived the Old Iranian word for ‘daric’ from the name of Darius (cf. Pollux, Onom. 3.87, 7.98), whereas some modern scholars derive it from darika- (Alram 1996). 179. Albright 1951, 21–22; 1950b, 64–65. On these coins, see Meshorer 2001, 1–19; Mildenberg 1979; Stern 2001, 562–69. Because these coins were local versions, one need not object that Greek drachmae were typically made of silver, not gold as Ezra 2:69 and Neh 7:69–71 claim. For the same reason, these coins’ gold composition does not prove that ‫ ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬must refer to a Persian daric, commonly made of gold. Gold darics did circulate in Palestine during the Persian period but were much less common than Greek or Greek-​influenced coinage. 180.  Schwyzer 1931, 17–18. On the use of the genitive to express price and value, see Schwyzer 1939–1971, 2:122. 181. Albright 1960, 242. As Albright notes, a similar error seems to occur in KAI 60:3, which has ‫ דרכנם‬for ‫( דרכמנם‬contra Gibson 1982, 150). 182. Perhaps significantly, the form ‫ ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹ נִ ים‬always appears alone whereas ‫ אֲדַ ְרכֹ נִ ים‬occurs with either the inseparable preposition lamed (Ezra 8:27) or the conjunction waw (1 Chr 29:7).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

89

‫( ּדָ ת‬BH, BA) ‘law, order’ HALOT 234, 1855; DCH 2:478 (Dan 2:9, 13, 15; passim183) 𝕲 often νόμος ‘law’ or δόγμα ‘statement, decree’ when translated as a noun; 𝖁 most often lex ‘law’, sententia ‘sentence, judgment’, or edictum ‘decree’; 𝕾 most often nmwsʾ ‘law, ordinance’ or pwqdnʾ ‘command’; 𝕿 most frequently ‫‘ גזירה‬decree, command’ in Esther [D] OIran → Akk; Heb; Phoen; Aram; Elam Akk dātu (NB, LB) CAD D 122–23; AHw 165; Phoen ‫ דת‬DNWSI 263; IA, QA, JA ‫ דת‬DNWSI 263; DQA 59; DJBA 356; Syr daṯā LS² 326; OIran dāta- AISN 84; IAP 80–81; Elam da-​tam5 EW 298 Hebrew ‫‘ ּדָ ת‬law, order’ occurs 21 times in the Bible. The Biblical Aramaic form, ‫ּדָ ת‬, appears 14 times (Dan 2:9, 13, 15; 6:6, 9, 13, 16; 7:25; Ezra 7:12, 14, 21, 25, 26 [2×]). Related forms exist in Akkadian, Phoenician, and various dialects of Aramaic (Imperial and Jewish Aramaic and Syriac), but these related forms only occur in late texts, some of which have Old Iranian contexts; this word is also attested in Elamite (PF 1980:31). Not surprisingly, then, already Gesenius (Thesaurus 469) identified ‫ ּדָ ת‬as a loan from Old Iranian. The donor term is Old Iranian dāta-, a passive past participle of the verb dā- ‘to give’ (cf. OPers, Av dāta- and Pahl dād: OPGTL 189; AIW 726–27; CPD 23).184 No reason exists to reject this loan hypothesis, and Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic ‫ ּדָ ת‬undoubtedly come from Old Iranian dāta-. ‫‘ ְּדתָ בַ ר‬judge’ HALOT 1855 (Dan 3:2–3) 𝕲, 𝖁 omit one of the terms in the lists of officials found in Dan 3:2–3, so it is difficult to tell how they translate BA ‫ּדתָ בַ ר‬,ְ if at all; 𝕾 trbdy, an erroneous rendering of BA ‫ְּדתָ בַ ר‬ [D] OIran → Akk; Aram; Elam Akk dātabara (LB) CAD D 122; AHw 165; IA ‫ דתבר‬DNWSI 263; OIran *dātabara- AISN 85; IAP 418–19; Elam da-​ud-​da-​bar-​ra EW 300185 Biblical Aramaic ‫ ְּדתָ בַ ר‬occurs twice, both times with reference to one of the officials whom Nebuchadnezzar summons to worship his newly set up statue (Dan 3:2–3). The majority of the terms mentioned in this list, including ‫‘ אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן‬satrap’, ‫אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬ (a financial official), ‫‘ ּגִ זְּבַ ר‬treasurer’, and ‫‘ ִּת פְ ּתָ י‬lord, overseer’, are derived from Old Iranian. Given this observation as well as this word’s quadriliteral, non-​Semitic morphology, ‫ ְּדתָ בַ ר‬must also be an Old Iranian loan. 183. Dan 6:6, 9, 13, 16; 7:25; Esth 1:8, 13, 15, 19; 2:8, 12; 3:8 (2×), 14–15; 4:3, 8, 11, 16; 8:13–14, 17; 9:1, 13–14; Ezra 7:12, 14, 21, 25, 26 (2×); 8:36. The expression ‫ אֵ ְׁשּדָ ת‬in Deut 33:2 is problematic and does not provide an additional attestation of BH ‫ ;ּדָ ת‬see its entry in the Appendix. 184.  FWOT 61; F. Rosenthal 2006, 62; AAT 1:43. Arm dat also comes from Iranian (HAB 1:629). 185. JA ‫דתבר‬, which occurs in 𝕿, is adopted from Biblical Aramaic.

90

Chapter 3

The donor term is *dātabara-, formed from dāta- ‘law’ (cf. OPers, Av dātaand Pahl dād: OPGTL 189; AIW 726–27; CPD 23) and bara- ‘bearer’ (cf. OPers, Av bara-: OPGTL 53 [§160], 200; AIW 943).186 Although not attested in Old Iranian, this word clearly occurs in later Iranian as Pahlavi dādwar and Manichaean Parthian d‌ʾdbr.187 Old Iranian *dātabara- is also the source of Late Babylonian Akkadian dātabara and Imperial Aramaic ‫דתבר‬, the first of which clearly occurs in Iranian contexts (PBS 2/1 1:14; 34:13; 185:15). The official denoted by Old Iranian *dātabara- was a high official in the Achaemenid legal and juridical system. In later times its cognates clearly refer to a judge, but during the Achaemenid period it can also refer more generally to a lawyer. In the Murašû archives, this official simply appears as a witness to various transactions (e.g., PBS 2/1 34:13) (Schmitt 1996; Dandamaev 1992, 9, 41–42). ‫‘ הָ בְ נִ ים‬Egyptian ebony, African blackwood’ HALOT 237; DCH 2:486 (Ezek 27:15) 𝕲 εἰσαγομένος ‘one who comes’; 𝖁 ebenus ‘ebony’; 𝕾 lbwntʾ ‘frankincense’; 𝕿 ‫‘ טוס‬peacock’ [D] Eg → Ug; Heb; Gk; Lat Ug hbn DUL 328; Eg hbny (since OK) ÄW 1:748, 2:1562; GHwÄ 523; WÄS 2:487; DLE 1:287; Gk ἔβενος LSJ 466–67; Lat hebenus, ebenus OLD 866 This word, a plurale tantum, occurs once with reference to a traded commodity (Ezek 27:15). Its mention amidst various imported items indicates a foreign loanword, as does its atypical vocalization pattern (cf. Bauer and Leander 1922, 571 [§72u]). Hebrew ‫ הָ בְ נִ ים‬is undoubtedly a loan from Egyptian hbny ‘Egyptian ebony’, which occurs as early as the Old Kingdom.188 The qameṣ-ḥatup of Hebrew ‫ הָ בְ נִ ים‬permits the reconstruction *húbney in Egyptian and indicates that this word was borrowed into Hebrew after the loss of final y that took place beginning with the New Kingdom but prior to ca. 700 b.c.e., when Egyptian u had become e in accented syllables.189 An early loan is supported, although not confirmed, by the attestation of hbn amidst imported woods in a Late Bronze Age Ugaritic economic text (KTU 4.402:6). The use of an i-class vowel in 186.  FWOT 62; F. Rosenthal 2006, 62; Aĭkhenval’d 1987, 5; AAT 2:58; Haug 1853, 157. 187.  CPD 23; DMMPP 133. Arm datawor comes from Iranian (HAB 1:630–31). 188.  EPNL 281–82; Lambdin 1953b, 149; FWOT 63. Eg hbny, in turn, is probably a loan from some African language, perhaps Nubian. Egyptian texts note that the wood denoted by this term was imported from Genebteyew as well as Nubia and Punt. Similarly, Herodotus (Hist. 3.97) describes ebony as an item of tribute from Ethiopia, and Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica 1.33) and Strabo (Geogr. 17.2.2) both claim that ebony trees grow in Ethiopia. 189.  Lambdin 1953b, 149. On the lenition of y in final position, see J. Allen 2013, 37–38, 43; Loprieno 1995, 33, 38; Peust 1999, 49–50, 142–51; Junge 2005, 33. On the change of u to e in stressed syllables, see J. Allen 2013, 24–26; Loprieno 1995, 38–39; Peust 1999, 222–26, 250–59.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

91

Greek ἔβενος and Latin hebenus, ebenus, on the other hand, indicates that these languages borrowed this word from Egyptian after the shift of Egyptian u to e.190 Ebony in ancient Egypt was a different species from modern ebony (Diospyros ebenum, native to East Asia, and D. dendo from West Africa). Egyptian ebony was Dalbergia melanoxylon, or African blackwood, which is native to the drier parts of tropical Africa, including the Sudan.191 This particular wood was a luxury item used primarily for furniture in antiquity. Small ebony objects such as tables have been discovered in Egyptian tombs from the First Dynasty, and during the New Kingdom Egyptian ebony was used to make figurines (including shabti figurines), statuettes, and door paneling in addition to furniture.192 The Late Bronze Age in particular was characterized by widespread trading of ebony obtained from Africa (Moorey 1999, 352–53; Meiggs 1982, 282–84; Pulak 1998, 203), but ebony continued to be in great demand during the first millennium. It was commonly used along with ivory (cf. Ezek 27:15) as veneer and inlay for the ornamentation of furniture, boxes, and other objects.193 ‫‘ הַ ּדָ בַ ר‬assistant, aide’ HALOT 1856 (Dan 3:24, 27; 4:33 [4:36]; 6:8 [6:7]) OG φίλος ‘friend’ Dan 3:24, 27, omits Dan 4:33; 6:8; θ′ μεγιστάν ‘magnate, courtier’ Dan 3:24, δυνάστης ‘ruler’ Dan 3:27, τύραννος ‘tyrant’ Dan 4:33, ὕπατος ‘consul’ Dan 6:8; 𝖁 optimas ‘aristocrat’ Dan 3:24, potens ‘powerful one’ Dan 3:27; 4:33, senator ‘senator’ Dan 6:8; 𝕾 rbʾ ‘chief, master’ [D] OIran → Aram OIran *hadabara- AISN 109 Biblical Aramaic ‫הַ ּדָ בַ ר‬, which denotes a royal official, occurs four times. This official seems to have been high-​ranking and to have administered in close conjunction with the king: Nebuchadnezzar questions these officials concerning the number of men in the fiery furnace (Dan 3:24), and along with the nobles (‫)רבְ ְרבָ נִ ין‬ ַ they seek out Nebuchadnezzar after his mind is restored (Dan 4:33). Based on their position in the lists of officials found in Dan 3:27; 6:8, they may have been less important than the king’s governors. This word occurs nowhere else in the Semitic languages and certainly does not look Semitic. The donor term is Old Iranian *hadabara- ‘assistant, aide’ (literally ‘one who carries with’), which is formed from the preposition hada ‘with’ 190.  Rosół 2013, 170; Fournet 1989, 59; contra EDG 368; DELG 294–95; DELL 190; LEW 1:387. 191.  Gale, et al. 2000, 338; Hepper 1977, 129–30. The referent ‘ebony’ was only later transferred to the species Diospyros ebenum and Diospyros dendo. There is no evidence for these latter species’ presence in ancient Egypt. 192.  Gale, et al. 2000, 338–39; Vartavan 1997, 103; Germer 1985, 97–98; Lucas 1962, 434–35. 193.  Gale, et al. 2000, 339; Germer 1985, 97–98; Meiggs 1982, 284–85; Lucas 1962, 435–36.

92

Chapter 3

(cf. OPers hadā and Av hadā, haδa: OPGTL 212–13; AIW 1755–56) and bara‘bearer’ (cf. OPers, Av bara-: OPGTL 53 [§160], 200; AIW 943).194 This word does not occur in extant Old Iranian texts, but one may compare later Iranian forms such as Manichaean Parthian ‌ʾdy‌ʾwr ‘helper, friend’ (DMMPP 26). The definition ‘assistant, aide’ suits ‫ הַ ּדָ בַ ר‬well, for this official served in close conjunction with the king (cf. Dan 3:24; 4:33). ‫‘ הַ ּדָ ם‬limb’ HALOT 1856–57 (Dan 2:5; 3:29) OG παραδειγματίζω ‘to disgrace someone publicly’ Dan 2:5, διαμελίζω ‘to dismember’ Dan 3:29; θ′ εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἔσεσθε ‘you will be destroyed’ Dan 2:5, εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἔσονται ‘they will be destroyed’ Dan 3:29; 𝖁 peribitis vos ‘you shall be destroyed’ Dan 2:5, dispereat ‘he shall be destroyed’ Dan 3:29; 𝕾 hdmʾ [Syriac form] [D] OIran → Aram JA ‫ הדם‬DJBA 362–63; Syr haddāmā LS² 331–32; Mand handama MD 124; OIran *handāma- AISN 115 Biblical Aramaic ‫‘ הַ ּדָ ם‬limb’ only occurs twice, both times in descriptions of punishment and mutilation (Dan 2:5; 3:29). This word has no Semitic etymology and does not seem to be native to Semitic, so scholars are right to derive it from Old Iranian *handāma- ‘limb, part’ (cf. Pahl handām and NPers andām: CPD 41; CPED 108).195 Nasal assimilation has taken place, as commonly occurs in Iranian loanwords in Aramaic, particularly those containing the consonant cluster nd (Shaked 2005, 169–70). Its later Aramaic forms (JA ‫הדם‬, Syr haddāmā, and Mand handama) are probably inherited from earlier Aramaic (cf. Ciancaglini 2008, 331). The two expressions in which this word occurs, ‫( הַ ּדָ ִמין ִּת ְתעַבְ דּון‬Dan 2:5) and ‫הַ ּדָ ִמין‬ ‫( יִ ְתעֲבֵ ד‬Dan 3:29), are unique in that the Biblical Aramaic verb ‫ עבד‬does not elsewhere occur in a double-​object construction describing the transformation of one thing to another. On the other hand, Old Persian kar- ‘to do, make’ does appear in this type of construction, notably in descriptions of execution following mutilation (e.g., DB ii:73–76, 88–91). The associated expressions ‫( ּבָ ּתֵ יכֹון נְ וָלִ י יִ ְּתׂשָ מּון‬Dan 2:5) and ‫( בַ יְ תֵ ּה נְ וָלִ י יִ ְׁשּתַ ּוֵה‬Dan 3:29), moreover, may be Old Persian calques. Accordingly, Makujina convincingly shows that the expressions ‫ הַ ּדָ ִמין ִּת ְתעַבְ דּון‬and ‫ הַ ּדָ ִמין יִ ְתעֲבֵ ד‬are calques of an Old Persian expression *handāma- kar-.196

194.  FWOT 64; F. Rosenthal 2006, 62; Aĭkhenval’d 1987, 5; AAT 2:58. 195.  FWOT 65; F. Rosenthal 2006, 63; AAT 2:58–59. The Iranian languages also lent this word to Armenian as andam (HAB 1:187). 196.  Makujina 2001, 178–79; 1999. This phrase does not occur in Old Persian texts, but its equivalent does occur in New Persian.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

93

‫‘ הֲדֹ ם‬footstool’ HALOT 239; DCH 2:490–91 (Isa 66:1; Ps 99:5; 110:1; 132:7; Lam 2:1; 1 Chr 28:2) 𝕲 ὑποπόδιον ‘footstool’ Isa 66:1; Ps 99:5; 110:1; Lam 2:1, ὁ τόπος οὗ ἔστησαν οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ‘the place where his feet stand’ Ps 132:7, στάσις ποδῶν ‘standing of the feet’ 1 Chr 28:2; 𝖁 scabillum ‘footstool’ except locus ubi steterunt pedes eius ‘the place where his feet stand’ Ps 132:7; 𝕾 kwbš‌ʾ ‘footstool’ except škyn‌ʾ ‘dwelling’ 1 Chr 28:2; 𝕿 ‫‘ כיבש‬footstool’ except ‫‘ בית מקדשה‬house of his sanctuary’ Ps 99:5; Lam 2:1 [?] CW Akk atmû (Nuzi) CAD A/2 498; AHw 87; Ug hdm DUL 329; QH ‫ ;הדם‬Eg hdm, hdmw (since NK) GHwÄ 532; WÄS 2:505; SWET 221–22 (#304); DLE 1:293; Hurr admi- BGH 66 This word appears only six times, always in conjunction with ‫‘ ַרגְ לַיִ ם‬feet’. In several instances it refers to God’s dwelling place on earth, the ark of the covenant (Isa 66:1; Ps 99:5; 132:7; 1 Chr 28:2), whereas in Ps 110:1 ‫ הֲדֹ ם‬is an image of the subjection of the Israelite king’s enemies. Notably, the related Ugaritic term hdm appears in mythological texts with the same meaning and similar associations.197 Two related words can be found in non-​Semitic. The first is Hurrian admi‘footstool’. This Hurrian term occurs in a Hurro–Hittite bilingual that describes the god Tešub sitting on a footstool (admi-) of enormous size (KBo 32.13 vs. i:4–6, ii:5–8).198 Akkadian texts from Nuzi mention this word as atmû, which occurs with the wood determinative giš, amidst different pieces of furniture (HSS 15.132:2–4, 7). The second is Egyptian hdm, hdmw, a foreign loan into Egyptian during the New Kingdom (cf. Dem htm ‘throne’: CDD H 100–101; DG 282). The absence of any native etymology for any of these terms indicates an ancient culture word, as do the key phonological differences between the various forms.199 During the second millennium, footstools are only occasionally found in glyptic art from Anatolia; in contrast, the use of footstools became much more common during the Neo-​Hittite period (Symington 1996, 117). Footstools are frequently depicted in both Egyptian and Mesopotamian art. In Egypt, footstools illustrated in New Kingdom tombs fall into two basic types: domestic (which function to elevate the king’s feet from the ground) and ceremonial (which depict the king with his 197.  Ug hdm is associated with pʿn ‘feet’ several times in Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.6 i:60; iii:15; 1.161:14), and other times it appears parallel to either ksu͗ (KTU 1.3 ii:22, 37; 1.5 vi:13) or kḥṯ (KTU 1.4 i:24), both meaning ‘seat, throne’. 198.  See Neu 1996, 242. On the realia denoted by Hurr admi-, see Schneider-​Ludorff 2002, 134–35. 199. Mitchell 1996, 55. Watson (2007, 43–44) derives Ug hdm and BH ‫ הֲדֹ ם‬from Hurr admi-. However, this does not adequately explain the Semitic forms’ initial h. Furthermore, Hebrew’s ḥolem vowel contrasts with the lack of a vowel after the d in Hurr admi-. ‫ הֲדֹ ם‬is from a presumed original *hidām (cf. Bauer and Leander 1922, 473 [§68hβ]), which cannot be readily derived from Hurr admi-. A  derivation of Hurr admi- from an alleged *ad- ‘to support’ is not assured, so the Hurrian term is not necessarily primary (cf. BGH 66; De Martino and Giorgieri 2008–, 1:26).

94

Chapter 3

feet on top of his defeated enemies) (Killen 1980–1994, 2:87–91). Mesopotamian footstools, depicted on Neo-​Assyrian bas-​reliefs, sculptures, and ivory plaques, are most often associated with the king (Kubba 2006, 100; Curtis 1996, 173–75). ‫( הֵ יכָל‬BH); ‫( הֵ יכַל‬BA) ‘palace, temple’ HALOT 244–45, 1859; DCH 2:541–42 (1 Sam 1:9; passim200) [T] Sum → Akk → NWS (Ug; Heb; Aram); Hurr Sum egal PSD; Akk ekallu (OAkk, OA, OB, Mari, Alalakh, Nuzi, MA, MB, RS, SB, NA, NB) CAD E 52–61; AHw 191–93; Ug hkl DUL 330; IA, QA, Palm, Hatra, JA ‫ היכל‬DNWSI 278; DQA 64; DJPA 163; DJBA 377; Syr hēḵlā LS² 340–41; Mand hikla MD 143; Hurr ḫaigalli- BGH 117–18 Hebrew ‫ הֵ יכָל‬occurs 80 times with the meaning ‘palace’ (e.g., 1 Kgs 21:1; 2 Kgs 20:18; Isa 39:7) as well as ‘temple’ (e.g., 1 Sam 1:9; 2 Kgs 18:16; Ps 5:8). In Biblical Aramaic ‫ הֵ יכַל‬occurs 13 times with the same two meanings, ‘palace’ (e.g., Dan 4:1, 26; 5:5; 6:19; Ezra 4:14) and ‘temple’ (e.g., Dan 5:2–3; Ezra 5:14, 15; 6:5). It has long been recognized this word is a loan from Akkadian ekallu ‘palace’, in turn a loan from Sumerian egal of the same meaning (literally ‘great house’).201 However, all the Northwest Semitic forms of this word have an initial h that is absent in Akkadian ekallu. This initial h points to a very early borrowing via Akkadian, one that preserves the original Sumerian pronunciation of egal, written é.gal. The Sumerogram é, equivalent to ‌ʾà, can render Semitic ḥ in Old Akkadian and both h and ḥ at Ebla.202 It seems quite likely, then, that the initial h of the Northwest Semitic forms reflects the initial onset still pronounced by Akkadian-​ speakers at the time of borrowing. Hence, this word must have been borrowed no later than the Late Bronze Age (ALBH 52; Lipiński 1988, 63; AIA 27). Hurrian ḫaigalli-, attested in a Hurro–Hittite bilingual from Ḫattuša (KBo 32.13 i:2), also preserves the initial h and was probably borrowed from early Akkadian as well (Neu 1997, 256). Notably, Akkadian ekallu only means ‘palace’ just as Sumerian egal does, but the Northwest Semitic forms—with the exception of Ugaritic—can also mean ‘temple’. This includes Biblical Hebrew ‫ הֵ יכָל‬and Biblical Aramaic ‫הֵ יכַל‬. A clear pattern exists, however, concerning this word’s use in the Hebrew Bible. In most 200.  1 Sam 3:3; 2 Sam 22:7; 1 Kgs 6:3, 5, 17, 33; 7:21, 50; 21:1; 2 Kgs 18:16; 20:18; 23:4; 24:13; Isa 6:1; 13:22; 39:7; 44:28; 66:6; Jer 7:4 (3×); 24:1; 50:28; 51:11; Ezek 8:16 (2×); 41:1, 4, 15, 20–21, 23, 25; 42:8; Hos 8:14; Joel 4:5 [3:5]; Amos 8:3; Jon 2:5, 8 [2:4, 7]; Mic 1:2; Nah 2:7 [2:6]; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:18; Zech 6:12–15; 8:9; Mal 3:1; Ps 5:8 [5:7]; 11:4; 18:7 [18:6]; 27:4; 29:9; 45:9, 16 [45:8, 15]; 48:10 [48:9]; 65:5 [65:4]; 68:30 [68:29]; 79:1; 138:2; 144:12; Prov 30:28; Dan 1:4; 4:1, 26; 5:2–3, 5; 6:19; Ezra 3:6, 10; 4:1, 14; 5:14 (3×), 15; 6:5 (2×); Neh 6:10 (2×), 11; 2 Chr 3:17; 4:7–8, 22; 26:16; 27:2; 29:16; 36:7. 201.  ALBH 51–52; Lipiński 1988, 65; AIA 27; FWOT 67; Zimmern 1917, 8. On the Sumerian origin of Akk ekallu, see SLOB 216–17 (#163). 202.  Rubio 2006, 115–16; Gelb 1961, 25–26; Krebernik 1982, 220–21. On the existence of a phoneme h in Sumerian, see D. Edzard 2003, 19.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

95

if not all cases, it only means ‘palace’ when referring to structures outside the territory of Judah (Dreier 2004). ‫( הִ ין‬a liquid volume measure) HALOT 245; DCH 2:543 (Exod 29:40 [2×]; passim203) [D] Eg → Akk; Heb; Aram Akk (EA) ḫina CAD Ḫ 194; AHw 347; EH, QH ‫ הן‬DNWSI 285; IA ‫ הן‬DNWSI 285; Eg hnw (since OK) ÄW 1:750, 2:1565–66; GHwÄ 526; WÄS 2:493; DLE 1:289204 The word ‫ הִ ין‬appears 22 times with reference to a unit of liquid measure. Its precise modern equivalent is unknown, but it was probably about 6 liters (Powell 1992, 904). This word occurs in Imperial Aramaic in addition to Epigraphic and Qumran Hebrew, but it is not native to Semitic. The donor term is Egyptian hnw, a unit of liquid measure equal to approximately 0.5 liters (cf. Dem hn and Copt hin: CDD H 62–65; DG 277; Crum 685).205 The Egyptian rather than Semitic origin of this word is indicated by its great antiquity in Egyptian, in which it first appears during the Old Kingdom, as well as its use in EA 14, a letter from Amenophis IV of Egypt to Burnaburias of Babylon. This letter equates a large cup made of stone (gal ra-​buú na4) with Egyptian hnw, transcribed as ḫina in cuneiform (EA 14 iii:62).206 The latter demonstrates that the w of hnw had dropped already by the mid-13th century b.c.e., so Hebrew-​speakers could have adopted this word anytime after then.207 Interestingly, even taking into consideration the uncertain volume of Hebrew ‫הִ ין‬, it is relatively clear that its volume is at least 10 times that of Egyptian hnw. This is unusual because loanwords for technical terms often preserve the referrent of the donor term quite closely, but even today measures differ (e.g., the American gallon differs from the Imperial gallon). ‫‘ הַ ְמיָנְ כָא‬necklace’ HALOT 1860–61 (Dan 5:7, 16, 29) 203.  Exod 30:24; Lev 19:36; 23:13; Num 15:4–10; 28:5, 7, 14 (3×); Ezek 4:11; 45:24; 46:5, 7, 11, 14. 204. Although this word occurs in Imperial Aramaic as ‫הן‬, JA, SA ‫ הין‬occur in biblical contexts and are adopted from BH ‫( הִ ין‬DJPA 163; DSA 205). Gordon (1998, 391 [§19.785]) postulates the existence of an additional related form in Ugaritic found in KTU 1.23:75. However, as he admits, the text is fragmentary. Most likely, this particular text does not contain a Ug *hn that denotes a volume measure (Smith 2006, 123). 205.  EPNL 243; Lambdin 1953b, 149; FWOT 68; Grintz 1975a, 15–17. 206.  Cochavi-​Rainey 2011, 252; Lambdin 1953a, 365. CAD (Ḫ 194; cf. AHw 347) interprets Akk ḫina as a stone. However, nearby lines contain the appellation ša na4 (rather than just na4 as in EA 14 iii:62) followed by the name of the vessel. Hence, ḫina is the name of a vessel rather than a stone. 207.  Eg w was commonly dropped at the end of a stressed syllable, particularly in Later Egyptian. On this phenomenon, see J. Allen 2013, 37–38, 43; Loprieno 1995, 33, 38; Peust 1999, 49–50, 142–51; Junge 2005, 33.

96

Chapter 3

𝕲 μανιάκης, 𝖁 torques ‘necklace’; 𝕾 hmnyk‌ʾ [Syriac form] Dan 5:7, 29, hmnynʾ ‘belt’ Dan 5:16 [D] OIran → Aram Syr hamnīḵā LS² 346; OIran *hamyānaka- AISN 114208 Biblical Aramaic ‫ הַ ְמיָנְ כָא‬appears only three times (Dan 5:7, 16, 29).209 The definition ‘necklace’ is secured by the fact that it is made of gold and is worn around the neck. In each instance, ‫ הַ ְמיָנְ כָא‬refers to the necklace offered by Belshazzar as a reward for interpreting the writing on the wall. This word has no clear Semitic etymology and looks non-​Semitic, indicating a foreign origin. It comes from Old Iranian *hamyānaka-, or *hamyāna- ‘belt’ with the suffix -ka.210 Old Iranian *hamyāna- can be etymologized as a shortened form of *ham​yāha​na- ‘that which surrounds together’, an apt description for a necklace or any other item worn around the body, such as a belt or girdle (cf. NPers hamyān, hamayān ‘girdle, belt’: CPED 1512). This Old Iranian word is also the origin of Syriac hamnīḵā ‘necklace’. An  unsuffixed form, on the other hand, led to Jewish Aramaic ‫המיין‬, ‫הימיין‬, Syriac hemyān, and Mandaic himiana, all meaning ‘belt’ (DJPA 166; DJBA 385; LS² 345; MD 145). These terms have no relationship to Greek μανιάκης ‘necklace, torc’ (cf. Arm maneak), which lacks an initial laryngeal; Greek μανιάκης instead comes from Old Iranian *manyaka-.211 ‫זְמַ ן‬‎, ‫‘ זְמָ ן‬appointed time’ HALOT 1865–66 (Dan 2:16, 21; 3:7–8; 4:33; 6:11, 14; 7:12, 22, 25; Ezra 5:3) 𝕲 χρόνος ‘time’ Dan 2:16; 7:12, καιρός ‘time, season’ Dan 2:21; 3:7–8; 4:33; 7:22, 25; Ezra 5:3, omits Dan 6:11, 14; 𝖁 tempus ‘time’ except omits Dan 3:7; 𝕾 zbnʾ [Syriac form] except šʿtʾ ‘hour’ Dan 3:7–8 [D] OIran → Aram → Heb; Arab; Eth BH ‫זְמָ ן‬, EH, Sir, QH ‫ זמן‬HALOT 273; DCH 3:118; DNWSI 332; QA, Nab, JA, ‫זמן‬, Palm, Nab, JA, CPA ‫ זבן‬DNWSI 305, 332; DQA 72; DJPA 171, 178; DJBA 409–10; DCPA 107–8; Syr zabnā LS² 363; Mand zibna MD 165; Arab zaman Lane 1253–54; Eth zaman CDG 638–39; OIran *ǰamāna- AISN 143

208. JA ‫המניך‬, which occurs only in 𝕿, is adopted from BA ‫( הַ ְמיָנְ כָא‬Jastrow 1903, 356). 209. The Ketiv is ‫הַ ּמֹונְ כָא‬, whereas the Qere is ‫הַ ְמנִ יכָא‬. Based on the Old Iranian etymology advocated here, neither reading is entirely correct and this word should instead be read as ‫הַ ְמיָנְ כָא‬. 210.  FWOT 70; F. Rosenthal 2006, 63; AAT 2:60. On the suffix -ka, see Skjærvø 2007, 903; OPGTL 51 (§146). 211.  Ciancaglini 2008, 162–64; Schmitt 1967; contra FWOT 70. The κ reflects the Old Iranian suffix -ak, as does the k of the Armenian form (cf. EDG 901; DELG 640; HAB 3:252–53). Significantly, Gk μανιάκης occurs with reference to necklaces worn by Persians (e.g., 𝕲 1 Esdras 3:6; Plutarch, Cim. 9.3).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

97

Aramaic ‫זְמָ ן‬, ‫ זְמַ ן‬appears relatively frequently in the Hebrew Bible—primarily in the book of Daniel but also in the book of Ezra—with the meaning ‘appointed time’ (Dan 2:16, 21; 3:7–8; 4:33; 6:11, 14; 7:12, 22, 25; Ezra 5:3). Hebrew ‫זְמָ ן‬, which occurs only four times (Qoh 3:1; Esth 9:27, 31; Neh 2:6) and has the same meaning of ‘appointed time’, no doubt comes from Aramaic, as indicated by the reduced pretonic vowel.212 However, scholars debate the origin of the Aramaic form. Some derive it from Akkadian simanu ‘season, proper time’ (CAD S 268–71; AHw 1044).213 Others trace it back to a hypothetical Old Iranian *ǰamānaof the same meaning (cf. Pahl zamān, ManMPers zm‌ʾn, and ManParth jm‌ʾn, jm‌ʾ‌ʾn: CPD 98; DMMPP 198–99, 382).214 Phonological considerations indicate that Old Iranian rather than Akkadian is the donor language. On the one hand, if the Hebrew and Aramaic forms were loans from Akkadian, they would begin with an initial šin if borrowed from Assyrian Akkadian or samek if borrowed from Babylonian Akkadian (cf. the Hebrew month name ‫סיוָן‬, ִ which is borrowed from Akk simanu).215 On the other hand, Old Iranian ǰ regularly appears as z in Semitic and Elamite, so a loan from Old Iranian *ǰamāna- presents no phonological problems as a loan from Akkadian does.216 Accordingly, Biblical Aramaic ‫זְמָ ן‬, ‫ זְמַ ן‬was most probably borrowed from Old Iranian. Hebrew-​speakers subsequently borrowed this word from Aramaic, hence the reduced pretonic vowel of Biblical Hebrew ‫זְמָ ן‬. Aramaic also lent this word to Arabic and Ethiopic (Nöldeke 1910, 44; CDG 638–39). In some Aramaic dialects, especially later ones (i.e., Palmyrene, Nabatean, Jewish and Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Syriac, and Mandaic), the nasal dissimilated to produce a form with b rather than m. ‫( זַן‬BH, BA) ‘kind, type’ HALOT 274, 1866–67; DCH 3:120 (Ps 144:13 [2×]; Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15; 2 Chr 16:14) 𝕲 τοῦτο ‘this’ Ps 144:13, γένος ‘kind’ Dan 3:5; 2 Chr 16:14, ἦχος ‘noise, sound’ Dan 3:7, 10, 15; 𝖁 hoc ‘this’ and illud ‘that’ Ps 144:13, genus ‘offspring, descendants’ Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15, meretricius ‘of a prostitute’ 2 Chr 16:14; 𝕾 ḥd

212. M. Wagner 1966, 49 (#77). The Hebrew verb ‫זמן‬, which occurs only three times (Ezra 10:14; Neh 10:35; 13:31), is denominal as indicated by its attestation in the Pual stem. 213.  E.g., Zimmern 1917, 63; Schaeder 1941, 269–70. 214.  E.g., AAT 1:45–46; Widengren 1960, 106; Nyberg 1928–1931, 2:228; Telegdi 1935, 242. Arm žamanak comes from Iranian (HAB 2:221–25). 215.  Lipiński 1990, 108–9. Kaufman (AIA 92, 141) proposes that the s of simanu was pronounced like [z] or [ž] in Neo-​Assyrian Akkadian due to the presence of the m. This, however, is an ad hoc explanation (cf. ALBH 55). 216.  Cf. AISN 142–43. Both Kaufman (AIA 91–92) and Mankowski (ALBH 55) contend that the use of Akk simanu already in Old Babylonian and the possibility of deriving simanu from asāmu, wasāmu ‘to be fitting, be appropriate’ demonstrate that this word is ultimately Semitic rather than Iranian. However, the early attestation of Akk simanu is disputed, as is its derivation of simanu from asāmu, wasāmu (Ciancaglini 2008, 169–70; Landsberger 1949, 256–57). Furthermore, OIran *ǰamāna- has a plausible etymology, namely the Indo-​Iranian root *gam- ‘to go’.

98

Chapter 3

‘one’ Ps 144:13, znʾ [Syriac form] Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15, omits 2 Chr 16:18; 𝕿 ‫שנה‬ ‘year’ Ps 114:13, ‫[ זן‬Aramaic form] 2 Chr 16:14 [D] OIran (Med) → Heb; Aram Sir ‫ ;זן‬IA, QA, JA ‫ זן‬DNWSI 333; DQA 72; DJPA 179; DJBA 417; Syr znā LS² 387; Mand zan MD 159; OIran zana- (Med) OPGTL 211; AISN 276; IAP 404 Biblical Hebrew ‫ זַן‬occurs three times with the meaning ‘kind, type’ as the equivalent of the more common ‫( ִמין‬Ps 144:13 [2×]; 2 Chr 16:14) (cf. Rezetko 2007, 397). Biblical Aramaic ‫ זַן‬has the same meaning and appears four times in the phrase ‫ּכֹ ל‬ ‫‘ ְזנֵי זְמָ ָרא‬every kind of music’ (Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15). Related forms occur in Aramaic, including Imperial Aramaic (TAD A6.1:3).217 These forms can all be traced back to Old Iranian zana- ‘human being’ (cf. Av zana- ‘humanity, human race’: AIW 1660). The meaning in Old Iranian differs from that of the Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic forms, which instead mean ‘kind, type’. However, Old Iranian zana- does mean ‘kinds of people’ in various compounds, including Old Persian paruzana- ‘having many kinds of people, having many people’ and vispazana- ‘containing all kinds of people’ (OPGTL 196, 208; AIW 868, 1464; cf. OPGTL 211). Thus, it is plausible that Old Iranian zana- could also mean ‘kind, type’ even though we have no actual examples of this in extant texts (FWOT 71–72; AAT 2:59). The initial z (rather than d) reflects an origin from an Old Iranian dialect other than Old Persian, most probably Median.218 ‫( ֶזפֶת‬a type of pitch) HALOT 277; DCH 3:129 (Exod 2:3; Isa 34:9 [2×]) 𝕲 translates ‫ ּבַ חֵ מָ ר ּובַ ָּזפֶת‬as ἀσφαλτόπισσα ‘bitumen’ Exod 2:3, ‫ ֶזפֶת‬as πίσσα ‘pitch’ Isa 34:9; 𝖁 pix ‘pitch, tar’; 𝕾, 𝕿 both use their corresponding forms of this word (zbtʾ and ‫זפת‬, respectively) [D] Eg →   → Heb   → Aram → Akk; Arab Akk zibtu (NB) CAD Z 104; AHw 1529; Sir, QH ‫ ;זפת‬JA, SA ‫ זפת‬DJPA 181; DJBA 410–11; DSA 238; Syr zep̄ tā, zeḇtā LS² 392; Arab zift Lane 1236; Eg sfṯ (since OK), sft (NK) ÄW 1:1114–18, 2:2191–93; GHwÄ 756; WÄS 4:118; DLE 2:35 This word occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible, once in Exod 2:3 and twice in Isa 34:9. In Exodus, it denotes a pitch-​like substance with which Moses’ mother 217. Some scholars contend BH ‫ זַן‬comes from Old Iranian via Aramaic because this word occurs in various dialects of Aramaic (e.g., M. Wagner 1966, 49 [#79]). However, this is insufficient evidence to postulate an Aramaic intermediary, especially because BH ‫ זַן‬does not definitively exhibit any Aramaic phonological or morphological features. 218.  On the phonological development of Proto-​Iranian *ȷ́, see Skjærvø 2009, 51; Schmitt 2008, 84–85; Testen 1997, 575; OPGTL 33–34 (§88).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

99

coats the reed basket in which she places her baby; in Isaiah, it appears within an oracle of judgment against Edom in which God says he will turn the land’s rivers into ‫ ֶזפֶת‬and ‫‘ ּגָפְ ִרית‬sulfur’. Related forms exist in Akkadian, various dialects of Aramaic (Jewish and Samaritan Aramaic as well as Syriac), and Arabic. However, despite the existence of these related terms, this word has no satisfactory Semitic etymology. The Akkadian and Arabic forms, furthermore, are both loans from Aramaic (CAD Z 104; AHw 1529; Fränkel 1886, 151). Finally, if this word were Semitic, the Aramaic forms should have an initial d rather than z. Hence, this word is most likely non-​Semitic in origin. A good clue to its origin comes from Exod 2:3, which describes events set in the land of Egypt. Hebrew ‫ ֶזפֶת‬appears in this verse along with several Egyptian loanwords, namely ‫‘ ּתֵ בָ ה‬chest’, ‫( ּגֹ מֶ א‬a reed or rush plant), and ‫( סּוף‬another reed or rush plant). In light of this use, Hebrew ‫ ֶזפֶת‬is most probably an Egyptian loan, and the likely donor term is Egyptian sfṯ (cf. Dem sfy, sf, syf and Copt sife: CDD S 201–3; DG 429; Crum 379).219 This Egyptian term appears already during the Old Kingdom and refers to a resinous oil or pitch, which perfectly matches the meaning of Hebrew ‫ ֶזפֶת‬. New Kingdom texts spell sfṯ as sft, demonstrating that the ṯ had become t via palatal fronting.220 The use of Hebrew zayin for Egyptian s is atypical and should perhaps be explained via word-​initial voicing. If so, it does not indicate a direct phonological correspondence between Hebrew zayin and Egyptian s. ‫‘ ז ֶֶרת‬hand-​span’ HALOT 283; DCH 3:145 (Exod 28:16 [2×]; 39:9 [2×]; 1 Sam 17:4; Isa 40:12; Ezek 43:13) 𝕲 σπιθαμή ‘span’; 𝖁 mensura palmi ‘hand-​span’ Exod 28:16; 39:9, palmus ‘palm of the hand’ 1 Sam 17:4; Isa 40:12; Ezek 43:13; 𝕾 zrtʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫[ זרת‬Aramaic form] [D] Eg → Heb; Aram QH ‫ ;זרת‬IA, JA, SA, CPA ‫ זרת‬DNWSI 342; DJPA 183; DJBA 422–23; DSA 241; DCPA 115; Syr zartā, zirtā LS² 401; Mand zart MD 168; Eg ḏr.t (since OK) ÄW 1:1504–5, 2:2844–45; GHwÄ 1084–85; WÄS 5:580–85; DLE 2:272 Hebrew ‫‘ ז ֶֶרת‬hand-​span’ appears in the Pentateuch with reference to a unit of length for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod 28:16; 39:9). Outside the Pentateuch, it appears three times. It occurs as a unit of measure that describes Goliath’s height (1 Sam 17:4) and appears parallel to ‫‘ ׁשֹ עַל‬hollow of the hand’ in Isa 40:12. The use 219. Hoffmeier 1996, 139; Černý 1976, 73; Cook 1874, 484. Phonological considerations rule out a common Afroasiatic origin for BH ‫ ֶזפֶת‬and Eg sfṯ (contra Hoffmeier 1996, 139). Hoffmeier alternatively compares Eg ḏf.t, but this is phonologically problematic, as he himself notes. To make this loan hypothesis work, one must assume that this word was borrowed very early, but Eg ḏf.t occurs only once and relatively late, during the New Kingdom. 220.  On the depalatalization of Eg ṯ, see J. Allen 2013, 48–50; Loprieno 1995, 38; Peust 1999, 123–25; Junge 2005, 36.

100

Chapter 3

of ‫ ז ֶֶרת‬within the context of Ezekiel’s temple, lastly, echoes its use with reference to the tabernacle (Ezek 43:13). Despite its appearance in both Hebrew and Aramaic, ‫ ז ֶֶרת‬has no apparent Semitic etymology.221 The Egyptian language provides a good place to look for a donor term because Hebrew ‫ ז ֶֶרת‬occurs in the Wilderness narratives, which contain a number of Egyptian loanwords. Indeed, ‫ ז ֶֶרת‬is most probably a loan from Egyptian ḏr.t ‘hand’, first attested during the Old Kingdom (cf. Dem ḏrt and Copt tore: CDD Ḏ 60–65; DG 643–55; Crum 425–29).222 Hebrew-​speakers must have borrowed this term quite early, before the feminine ending -t dropped from the Egyptian form, before ḏ was depalatalized, and before stressed a (*zárt > *zéret) became o (cf. the Coptic forms, which have o rather than a).223 An early borrowing explains the correspondence between Hebrew zayin and Egyptian ḏ, which is otherwise atypical. ‫חֹ תָ ם ⇒ חֹותָ ם‬ ‫‘ חַ ּל ִָמיׁש‬flint rock’ HALOT 321; DCH 3:238 (Deut 8:15; 32:13; Isa 50:7; Ps 114:8; Job 28:9) 𝕲 πέτρα ἀκροτόμου ‘sharp rock’ Deut 8:15, στερεὸς πέτρα ‘hard rock’ Deut 32:13; Isa 50:7, ἀκροτόμος ‘sharp’ Ps 114:8; Job 28:9; 𝖁 petra durissimus ‘hard rock’ Deut 8:15; Isa 50:7, saxum durissimus ‘hard rock’ Deut 32:13, petra ‘rock’ Ps 114:8, silex ‘flint’ Job 28:9; 𝕾 ṭrn‌ʾ ‘flint’ Deut 8:15, kʾp‌ʾ ‘rock’ Deut 32:13; Isa 50:7, kʾp‌ʾ šryrt‌ʾ ‘firm rock’ Ps 114:8, kʾp‌ṭrnyn‌‘flint rock’ Job 28:9; 𝕿 ‫‘ שמיר‬emery’ Deut 8:15; Ps 114:8; Job 28:9, does not directly represent this word Deut 32:13, ‫‘ טינר‬flint’ Isa 50:7 [D] Sinaitic → Heb; Arab Arab ‌ʾalmas Lane 2744 The term ‫ חַ ּל ִָמיׁש‬occurs only five times. Of these instances, three are in connection with the Israelites’ wilderness wanderings, specifically God’s provision of water out of a rock near Rephidim (Deut 8:15; 32:13; Ps 114:8; cf. Exod 17:5–7). Related to Hebrew ‫ חַ ּל ִָמיׁש‬is Arabic ‌ʾalmas, which denotes a very hard stone. In both Hebrew and Arabic this word displays some irregularities. In Hebrew, this word exhibits an unusual morphology with doubled lamed in the absolute form (‫ )חַ ּל ִָמיׁש‬but single lamed in the construct form (‫)חַ לְ ִמיׁש‬. In Arabic, the ‌ʾ and l appear to be part of the definite article but are actually part of the root. As was recognized 221. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 284–85) rightly note that the Semitic etymology of ‫ ז ֶֶרת‬is dubious. 222.  EPNL 243; Lambdin 1953b, 149–50; Grintz 1975a, 18; Bondi 1894, 132. 223.  EPNL 243; Lambdin 1953b, 150. On the loss of the Egyptian feminine ending -t, see J. Allen 2013, 49, 61; Loprieno 1995, 57, 60–63; Gardiner 1957, 34; Junge 2005, 35. On the depalatalization of ḏ, see J. Allen 2013, 48–50; Loprieno 1995, 38; Peust 1999, 123–25; Junge 2005, 36. On the change of stressed a to o, see J. Allen 2013, 24–26; Loprieno 1995, 38–39; Peust 1999, 222–26, 250–59.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

101

by early Arabic lexicographers (e.g., Ali Ibn al-​Athir al-​Jazari; cf. Lane 2744), these irregularities and this word’s unusual quadriliteral pattern demonstrate that it is a foreign loan. Flint occurs naturally in many parts of the world and was readily available in the ancient Near East, but natural flint deposits can be found in south Sinai at sites such as the Tih Plateau (Sampsell 2014, 186). This observation, the fact that this word is only attested in Arabic outside of Hebrew, and the Hebrew Bible’s association of this word with the Sinai Peninsula all indicate that this “Sinaitic” word originated from the same region. ‫( חָ רּוץ‬a type of gold) HALOT 352; DCH 3:315 (Zech 9:3; Ps 68:14 [68:13]; Prov 3:14; 8:10, 19; 16:16) 𝕲 χρυσός [Greek form]; 𝖁 aurum ‘gold’; 𝕾 dhb‌ʾ ‘gold’; 𝕿 ‫‘ דהב‬gold’ except does not directly represent this word Ps 68:14 [?] CW Akk ḫurāṣu (OAkk, OA, OB, Mari, Nuzi, MA, MB, RS, EA, SB, NA, NB) CAD Ḫ 245–47; AHw 343; Ug ḫrṣ DUL 401–2; Sir ‫ ;חרוץ‬Pun ‫ חרץ‬DNWSI 406–7; Hurr ḫiyari-, ḫiyaruḫḫe- BGH 145–46; GLH 105; LinB ku-​ru-​so Aura Jorro and Adrados 1985–1993, 1:409; Gk χρυσός LSJ 2011 Hebrew ‫ חָ רּוץ‬appears only six times in the Bible, most often in the book of Proverbs (Zech 9:3; Ps 68:14; Prov 3:14; 8:10, 19; 16:16). Despite its relative rarity in Biblical Hebrew, Semitic forms also occur in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Punic. It is perhaps possible to derive Hebrew ‫ חָ רּוץ‬and its other Semitic forms from a Semitic root ḥrḏ ̣ ‘to be yellow’ (cf. the rare Syriac term ḥrāʿ ‘yellow’ and Arab ‌ʾiḫrīḍ ‘safflower, safflower dye’) (Nöldeke 1886, 728; cf. Huehnergard 2003, 105). However, if Hebrew ‫ חָ רּוץ‬is genuinely Semitic, it is difficult to explain the differing morphological patterns of the Akkadian and Northwest Semitic forms.224 It is also difficult to explain Linear B ku-​ru-​so and Classical Greek χρυσός, which are clearly related but have an initial consonant cluster unlike the Semitic forms.225 Finally, further complicating the picture is Hurrian ḫiyari-, ḫiyaruḫḫe-, whose relationship to Semitic and Greek is debated. If genuinely related, it cannot be a direct loan from Semitic because Hurrian ḫ does not correspond to Semitic ṣ.226 224. ‫ חָ רּוץ‬could be explained as a passive qatūl form. However, Akk ḫurāṣu is not easily explainable because there is no productive qutālu pattern in the Semitic languages, including Akkadian (J. Fox 1996, 229–30). 225.  Schrader 1911, 473; Cuny 1910, 162; contra EDG 1652; DELG 1233; Rosół 2013, 109–11; Masson 1967, 37–38. The Linear B writing system represents consonant clusters as two syllables with both taking the same vowel, so the form ku-​ru-​so does not necessarily point to a form *χυρῡσος. This means that explaining the initial consonant cluster of Gk χρυσός via syncope (i.e., NWS *ḫurōṣ > Gk *χυρῡσος > χρυσός) is simply an ad hoc explanation (contra Szemerényi 1964, 53–54). 226.  Limet 1978, 144–45. On the various etymologies given for Hurr ḫiyari-, ḫiyaruḫḫe-, see GLH 145.

102

Chapter 3

The various forms of this word instead suggest different attempts to represent a foreign term. The geographical distribution of this word suggests that it originated somewhere in Anatolia (Limet 1978; Schrader 1911, 474; Cuny 1910, 162). It appears frequently in Old Assyrian texts as the personal name Ḫu​rā​zi (spelled Ḫu-ra-zi), and the attestation of this word in Linear B and Classical Greek as well as Hurrian demonstrate that this word was used in the north. Similar variation in vocalization occurs in other foreign loans associated with Anatolia (cf. BH ‫ּכִ ידֹון‬, Akk katinnu, and Hurr kadinni-; BH ‫ ּכֻּתֹ נֶת‬and Gk χιτών, κιθών, κιτών; and BH ‫סָ ִדין‬, Hurr sadinni-, and Gk σινδών) (cf. Limet 1978, 146–47). Accordingly, this ancient culture word meaing ‘gold’ most probably originated somewhere in Anatolia along with the gold to which it refers. In this regard, it is significant that both ancient texts and geological surveys reveal that Anatolia was a significant source of gold in antiquity (Moorey 1999, 219–21). ‫( חַ ְרטֹ ם‬BH, BA) ‘magician’ (Gen 41:8, 24; Exod 7:11, 22; 8:3, 14–15 [8:7, 18–19]; 9:11 [2×]; Dan 1:20; 2:2, 10, 27; 4:4, 6; 5:11) 𝕲 ἐξηγητής ‘interpreter’ Gen 41:8, 24, ἐπαοιδός ‘enchanter’ Exod 7:11, 22; 8:3, 14–15; Dan 2:2, 10, 27; 4:4, 6; 5:11, φάρμακος ‘sorcerer’ Exod 9:11, σοφιστής ‘wise man’ Dan 1:20; 𝖁 coniector ‘interpreter’ Gen 41:8, 24, incantatio ‘charm’ Exod 7:11, maleficus ‘sorcerer’ Exod 7:22; 8:3, 14–15; 9:11, hariolus ‘diviner’ Dan 1:20; 2:2, 10, 27; 4:4, 6, magus ‘sorcerer’ Dan 5:11; 𝕾 ḥršʾ ‘sorcerer’ except ḥkymʾ ‘wise man’ Dan 4:6; 𝕿 ‫‘ חרש‬enchanter’ in Genesis and Exodus HALOT 352–53, 1880; DCH 3:316 [D] Eg → Akk; Heb; Aram Akk ḫarṭibi (NA) CAD Ḫ 116; AHw 328; QH ‫ ;חרטם‬Eg ḥry-tp (since OK) ÄW 1:874–77, 2:1747–51; GHwÄ 594–95; WÄS 3:140 This word appears 16 times in the Hebrew Bible, most often with reference to Egyptian magicians. In the book of Genesis, ‫ חַ ְרטֹ ם‬denotes the magicians who cannot interpret Pharaoh’s dream (Gen 41:8, 24), and in the book of Exodus it refers to the magicians who mimic the miracles that Moses and Aaron perform (Exod 7:11, 22; 8:3, 14–15; 9:11).227 Its form in Akkadian, ḫarṭibi, is likewise associated with Egypt: a list of prisoners taken from Egypt by Esarhaddon includes ḫarṭibi among mentions of artisans and other professionals (RINAP 4.9 iʹ:9ʹ), and ḫarṭibi appears in a document after three Egyptian names (ADD 851 iv:2). Given its association with Egypt, an Egyptian loan is expected, and the donor term is Egyptian ḥry-​tp. The expression ḥry-​tp occurs already during the Old Kingdom with the meaning ‘chief, head’, but by the New Kingdom it had come to be 227. Only in the book of Daniel does ‫ חַ ְרטֹ ם‬denote non-​Egyptian (Mesopotamian) magicians in both its Hebrew (Dan 1:20; 2:2) and Aramaic (Dan 2:10, 27; 4:4, 6; 5:11) forms.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

103

used as an abbreviation for ẖry-ḥb ḥry-​tp ‘chief magician, chief lector priest’ (ÄW 1:1006–14, 2:1998–2003; GHwÄ 691–92; WÄS 3:395; cf. Dem ḥr-​tb ‘magician’: CDD Ḥ 211–12; DG 321–22, 25). These priests studied magic texts—including dream-​interpretation manuals—and served in temples and in the palace.228 Two phonological issues are of note. First, ṭeṭ typically represents Egyptian d rather than t. However, one cannot expect Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers to consistently represent a foreign phoneme that has no exact correspondence in their languages, especially when the opposition between the Egyptian stops is sufficiently distinctive that it is not entirely understood today.229 Second, Egyptian b is represented as mem in the Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic forms. This phonological shift, a relatively common cross-​linguistic phenomenon, is probably due to the accompanying u-class vowel (EPNL 245; Quaegebeur 1985, 169, 172). ‫( חֹ ִרי‬a type of cake) HALOT 353; DCH 3:317 (Gen 40:16) 𝕲 χονδρίτης ‘cake of fine grain’; 𝖁 farina ‘flour’; 𝕾 ḥwrṭ‌ʾ ‘white’; 𝕿Onq. ‫חורי‬, 𝕿Ps.-J. ‫נקי‬, both ‘white’ [D] Eg → Heb Eg ḥr.t, ḥry.t (OK, MK, NK) ÄW 1:879, 2:1755; GHwÄ 598; WÄS 3:148 This word is a hapax that occurs in the Joseph cycle: the chief baker tells Joseph how, in his dream, there were three baskets of ‫ חֹ ִרי‬on his head (Gen 40:16). Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 301) as well as Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 353) derive this word from the root ‫‘ חור‬to be white’ and contend that Hebrew ‫ חֹ ִרי‬refers to some kind of white bread, perhaps made of white flour (cf. G. R. Driver 1957, 59–60; Segert 1956, 59–60). Such a derivation could be supported by the use of Imperial Aramaic ‫חורי‬, an adjective meaning ‘white’ that modifies ‫‘ קמח‬flour’ and ‫‘ משח‬oil’ (TAD A6.9:3; Khalili C1:15, 25, 34, 38, 40, 42, 44, 47, 50; C5:5). However, the use of ‫ חֹ ִרי‬within an Egyptian context—specifically within the speech of an Egyptian—suggests that ‫ חֹ ִרי‬is an Egyptian loanword, or at the very least a single-​word switch. Additionally, the use of an Egyptian term here would fit well with the appearance of numerous Egyptian elements found throughout the Joseph cycle.230 228.  EPNL 245; Hoffmeier 1996, 88–89; H.-P. Müller 1986; Quaegebeur 1985; J. M. A. Janssen 1955–1956, 65; Vergote 1959, 66–73. 229.  Quaegebeur (1985) tries to explain the use of ṭeṭ for Eg t by arguing that New Kingdom texts use ḥry-​tp and ḥry-ı̓db interchangeably with reference to the same person. However, ḥry-ı̓db is best interpreted as a ritual performed by the lector-​priest rather than a variant spelling of ḥry-​tp (Goedicke 1996, 26–27). Muchiki, on the other hand (EPNL 245), tries to explain this anomaly by noting that Eg t can appear as ṭeṭ between a labial and ḥet. There are no examples of this occurring when a resonant intervenes, however. 230.  On the various Egyptian elements in the Joseph cycle, see Hoffmeier 1996, 83–95.

104

Chapter 3

The donor term is Egyptian ḥr.t, ḥry.t ‘cake’, which appears in Egyptian texts from the Old through New Kingdom.231 Hebrew-​speakers presumably adopted this term after the loss of the Egyptian feminine ending -t.232 ‫( חֶ ְרמֵ ׁש‬a cutting implement) HALOT 355; DCH 3:319 (Deut 16:9; 23:26233) 𝕲 δρέπανον ‘sickle, reaping-​hook’; 𝖁 falx ‘sickle, scythe’; 𝕾 mgl‌ʾ ‘sickle’; 𝕿Onq. ‫‘ מגל‬sickle’ [?] CW Akk ḫarmišatu (RS); Ug ḫrmṯt DUL 400 The word ‫ חֶ ְרמֵ ׁש‬occurs only twice, both times in the book of Deuteronomy. Here it refers to an instrument used for cutting standing grain (Deut 16:9; 23:26). The implement it denotes differs from the typical tool used for the regular harvest, ‫מַ ּגָל‬ ‘sickle’, and may refer to a small cutting tool that could be used as a reaping knife (Koller 2012, 124). This word elsewhere appears only in Ugaritic, both in syllabic texts as ḫrmṯt and in Ras Shamra Akkadian as ḫarmišatu. In the former, it occurs amidst mention of various tools used for agriculture (KTU 4.625:1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17; 4.632:4, 8, 13, 17) (cf. Sanmartín 1987, 150; J. Healey 1983, 50). In the latter, it refers to an implement used on a ship (RS 19.112:3). It is difficult to determine the precise meaning of Hebrew ‫ חֶ ְרמֵ ׁש‬and Ugaritic ḫrmṯt in light of their varying uses. This word has no apparent Semitic etymology and, if genuinely Semitic, must be a quadriradical. However, the limited distribution of this word in the Semitic languages and the lack of any Semitic etymology point to a loan from some foreign source.234 Unfortunately, the ultimate source of this ancient culture word remains uncertain.235 231. EPNL 244; cf. Görg 1980. Dahood (1980) postulates an Eblaite origin for ‫חֹ ִרי‬. However, his loan hypothesis is based on a mistaken understanding of Ebla ḫa-​rí. It does not mean ‘baker’ as Dahood contends, but instead refers to a female servant of the court (D’Agostino 1996). 232.  On the loss of the Egyptian feminine ending -t, see J. Allen 2013, 49, 61; Gardiner 1957, 34; Junge 2005, 35. 233. Some scholars emend ‫ מַ ח ֲֵרׁשָ תֹו‬in 1 Sam 13:20 to ‫( חֶ ְרמֵ ׁשֹו‬C. Cohen and Klein 2001, 247–48). However, this emendation is by no means certain. Following 𝕲 and 𝕾, it is instead quite possible that ‫ מַ ח ֲֵרׁשָ תֹו‬should be emended to ‫( ּדָ ְרבָ ן‬S. R. Driver 1913, 104). 234.  Cf. DRS 1029; Huehnergard 2008, 130. Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 355) compare Arab hamasa ‘to cut’, assuming that dissimilation has occurred. This derivation, however, is entirely ad hoc. For refutation of other suggestions, see Koller 2012, 115–18. 235. Assuming that ‫ מַ ח ֲֵרׁשָ תֹו‬should be emended to ‫ חֶ ְרמֵ ׁשֹו‬in 1 Sam 13:20, Bork identifies this word as Philistine (Bork 1939–1941, 228–29). However, as already noted, there is little reason to prefer this emendation. Furthermore, a Philistine origin for ‫ חֶ ְרמֵ ׁש‬does not really explain the attestation of this word in Ugaritic. Koller, on the other hand, suggests that ‫ חֶ ְרמֵ ׁש‬refers to a straight reaping blade, introduced to Palestine during the Early Bronze Age. According to Koller (2012, 119–24), the introduction of this new technology explains why Hebrew uses both ‫ חֶ ְרמֵ ׁש‬and ‫ מַ ּגָל‬with reference to reaping tools. While this is a possibility, Koller offers no explanation for the attestation of Ug ḫrmṯt with reference

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

105

‫חֶ ֶרׂש‬, ‫‘ חֶ ֶרס‬earthenware vessel; potsherd’ HALOT 357; DCH 3:323 (Lev 6:21; passim236) 𝕲 frequently ὄστρακον ‘earthenware vessel, potsherd’ or ὀστράκινος ‘made of earthenware’; 𝖁 most often testa ‘earthenware vessel, potsherd’ or fictile ‘made of earthenware’; 𝕾 often pḥr‌ʾ ‘clay’; 𝕿 frequently ‫‘ חסף‬clay’ [D] Hitt → Heb; Phoen; Arab QH ‫ ;חרש‬Pun ‫ חרש‬DNWSI 408; Arab ḫars Lane 722; Hitt ḫarši- HHw 49 This word occurs 17 times in the Hebrew Bible. It can refer to either a pottery vessel (Lev 6:21) or a sherd from that vessel (Ezek 23:34; Job 2:8).237 The vessel denoted by ‫חֶ ֶרׂש‬, furthermore, was made of earthenware rather than a precious material. It is occasionally associated with cheap materials (Prov 26:23; Lam 4:2) and is sometimes contrasted with more valuable materials, such as bronze (Lev 6:21). The name of one of Jerusalem’s gates, ‫‘ ׁשַ עַר הַ חַ ְרסֹות‬Gate of Potsherds’ (Jer 19:2), contains an alternate form of this word, namely ‫חֶ ֶרס‬, with samek instead of śin. Several clues indicate that ‫ חֶ ֶרׂש‬is not native to Hebrew and is instead a foreign loan. First, its distribution is quite limited, in that the only other Semitic languages it occurs are in are Punic (‫)חרש‬238 and Arabic (ḫars). Second, it is difficult to derive this word from any known Semitic root. Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 357) as well as Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 360) associate Hebrew ‫ חֶ ֶרׂש‬with Arabic ḫaraša ‘to scratch’ (cf. DRS 926). It is true that potsherds could be used as scrapers (cf. Job 2:8), but this only accounts for the meaing ‘potsherd’ in Hebrew and does not explain how a term for a potsherd could come to refer to the vessel itself (Rabin 1963, 118; 1964, 166). Third, Hebrew śin does not correspond to Arabic s, so the Hebrew and Arabic terms cannot both be descended from a common Proto-​ Semitic ancestor. Rabin more plausibly connects Hebrew ‫ חֶ ֶרׂש‬with Hittite ḫarši- ‘bowl, jar’ (1963, 118–20; 1964, 166; cf. Simon 2014, 882). Hittite pottery is plain with simple and standardized shapes, cursory finishes, and little if no decoration (Schoop 2011, 241; Henrickson 1995, 82; Müller-​Karpe 1988). The simplicity of Hittite pottery may lie behind the low value of the vessel denoted by ‫חֶ ֶרׂש‬, but so may its shape and style. The Early Bronze Age adoption of the style known as Khirbet Kerak ware provides

to a ship’s implement. It seems more likely that the term behind BH ‫ חֶ ְרמֵ ׁש‬and Ug ḫrmṯt originally referred to a general cutting tool—not specifically a sickle or reaping blade—that could be used both for agricultural and nautical purposes. 236.  Lev 11:33; 14:5, 50; 15:12; Num 5:17; Isa 30:14; 45:9 (2×); Jer 19:1–2; 32:14; Ezek 23:34; Ps 22:16; Job 2:8; 41:22; Prov 26:23; Lam 4:2. 237. In this way, the semantic range of BH ‫ חֶ ֶרׂש‬is similar to that of Gk ὄστρακον and Lat testa, which both mean ‘earthenware vessel’ as well as ‘potsherd’. 238. Punic ‫ חרש‬is attested twice, once as chirs (Plautus, Poen. 937) and once as ers (ibid. 94).

106

Chapter 3

a precedent for Palestinian borrowing of Anatolian pottery styles, demonstrating the influence that Anatolia could have on Palestinian pottery.239 ‫‘ חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬amber’ HALOT 362; DCH 3:333 (Ezek 1:4, 27; 8:2) 𝕲 ἤλεκτρον, 𝖁 electrum ‘electrum’; 𝕾 translates ‫ ּכְ עֵין חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬as ʾ‌yk ḥzw‌ʾ ‘like a vision’ Ezek 1:4, 27 but with the addition d‌ʾlh‌ʾ ‘of God’ Ezek 8:2; 𝕿 ‫חשמל‬ [Aramaic form] [?] CW Akk elmēšu CAD E 107–8; AHw 205240 This word appears only in the book of Ezekiel, where it occurs with reference to the divine being of Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek 1:4, 27; 8:2). In these contexts ‫חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬ occurs in the collocation ‫‘ ּכְ עֵין חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬like the shining of ‫’חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬, indicating that ‫חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬ denotes a shiny material. Scholars have associated ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬with many different terms, both Semitic and non-​ Semitic. However, most of these connections are unsatisfactory.241 Most probably, Hebrew ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬is related to Akkadian elmēšu ‘amber’. This substance was known for its gleaming color and semi-​magical properties in antiquity (cf. Pliny, Nat. 37.12.47–48), which matches the Hebrew Bible’s use of ‫חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬.242 Strong parallels between the above passages in Ezekiel and Akkadian texts (e.g., AO 17642:9–12) further support the connection between Hebrew ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬and Akkadian elmēšu.243 239.  Rabin 1963, 118–20; 1964, 166. On the adoption of the Khirbet Kerak ware style from Anatolia, see Amiran 1952, 96–97; Mazar 1992, 132–34. 240. QA, JA ‫חשמל‬, which occur in biblical contexts, are adopted from BH ‫( חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬DQA 93; Jastrow 1903, 511). 241. For Semitic, a connection with Akk ešmarû is sometimes postulated (e.g., von Soden 1967, 297–300; Delitzsch 1884, xii; Cooke 1937, 1:10–11). However, Akk ešmarû means ‘silver’, and Ezekiel could easily have used the term ‫ ּכֶסֶ ף‬rather than ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬if he wanted to use a word meaning ‘silver’. For this reason, many scholars instead propose a non-​Semitic origin. Some of these scholars connect ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬with Sum *Ḫušmal (e.g., Landersdorfer 1916, 70–71; Hoonacker 1914, 333–34). However, such a form is not attested, and it is unlikely on chronological grounds that Hebrew would have borrowed this word directly from Sumerian. Others derive ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬from Akk ḫašmānu (e.g., Cazelles 1959, 211). However, this alleged donor term is not attested in Akkadian dialects contemporaneous with the book of Ezekiel. Still others see a connection with Elam *is-​ma-​lu (e.g., Cameron 1948, 129–30; Irwin 1952), but such a derivation must take ‫ עַיִ ן‬in the expression ‫ ּכְ עֵין הַ ְׁשמַ ל‬as meaning something other than ‘gleam’ as it undoubtedly does (cf. Auvray 1954), and in any case Elam *is-​ma-​lu does not in fact exist. Yet another proposed donor term is Eg ḥsmn (e.g., Erman 1892, 115), but this word means ‘bronze’, and Ezekiel could easily have used the term ‫ נְ חֹ ׁשֶ ת‬rather than ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬if he wanted to use a word meaning ‘bronze’. Finally, some scholars propose that BH ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬comes from Philistine (e.g., Bork 1939–1941, 230). However, this explanation is entirely ad hoc because neither the Philistine language nor any possible Philistine donor term is known. 242.  Landsberger 1967a, 190–98. Akk elmēšu corresponds lexically to Sum sudaĝ, which is often used to designate the exceptional brilliance of stones, metals, stars, and even the gods (Civil 1964, 7–8). 243.  Bodi 1991, 88–94; Garfinkel 1983, 81–82; Landsberger 1967a, 190–98. On AO 17642, see Nougayrol 1947, 39–40. This particular text, a hymn to Nergal, dates to the Achaemenid period and is therefore relatively close to the time of the book of Ezekiel.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

107

One could try to derive Hebrew ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬and Akkadian elmēšu from a common Proto-​Semitic ancestor, assuming that metathesis has occurred due to the liquid and that the initial ḥet of the Hebrew form points to an original *ḥ, reduced to zero in Akkadian. However, amber does not occur naturally in Mesopotamia, and there probably was not a Proto-​Semitic term for this substance. This word should instead have originated from the place where amber was obtained. In antiquity, amber primarily came from the Baltic Sea region (cf. Herodotus, Hist. 3.115; Pliny, Nat. 37.11.42–46) (Moorey 1985, 80; Todd 1985; Grimaldi 1996, 47–61). Our evidence for the ancient languages of this region is scant, but several terms from this region preserve the ancient term for ‘amber’ (e.g., Estonian helmes244 and Livonian el’maz, el’m). None of these words is native to Finno-​Ugric, as indicated by the lack of related forms in western Finno-​Ugric languages such as Mari and Komi. Thus, the eastern Finno-​Ugric languages must also have borrowed their term for ‘amber’ from a local substrate used in the Baltic Sea region (Masing 1977; Ariste 1959; Jaanits 1975). This culture word is most probably the source behind Hebrew ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬and Akkadian elmēšu (Heltzer 1999). ‫‘ חִ ּתּול‬wool’ HALOT 363; DCH 3:334 (Ezek 30:21) 𝕲 μάλαγμα ‘emollient’; 𝖁 translates ‫ חִ ּתּול‬in ‫ לָשֹ ּום חִ ּתּול‬twice as pannus ‘cloth, garment’ and linteolum ‘linen, cloth’; 𝕾 mlgm‌ʾ ‘salve’; 𝕿 makes Pharaoh the subject of the verse and does not provide a direct translation of BH ‫חִ ּתּול‬ [D] Hitt → Heb Hitt ḫuttulli- HHw 63245 The word ‫ חִ ּתּול‬occurs only in Ezek 30:21, with reference to a material used for treating a wound. However, the derived feminine form ‫ חֲתֻ ּלָה‬occurs in Job 38:9 with reference to a textile or textile material, and the denominal verb ‫ חתל‬appears twice in Ezek 16:4 with the meaning ‘to swathe’. Evidence for a root *ḥtl ‘to wrap’ in the Semitic languages is dubious, so Hebrew ‫ חִ ּתּול‬has no apparent Semitic etymology.246 Rabin notes that the use of ‫ חִ ּתּול‬in Ezek 244.  Modern Estonian helmes means ‘bead’ but originally meant ‘amber’. The latter meaning is found in older texts and is still preserved today in some isolated dialects (Ariste 1959, 214). 245. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín (DUL 371) connect Ug ḥtl with BH ‫חִ ּתּול‬. However, a relationship between the two is uncertain given the difficult nature of the text in which ḥtl occurs. Ug ḥtl occurs only in KTU 1.12 i:19 in conjunction with the terms ksa͗n and ḥdg, both of unclear meaning. Ug ksa͗n is commonly associated with ksu͗ ‘seat, throne’ and defined as ‘chair’ (cf. DUL 456), whereas ḥdg is commonly associated with Arab ḥidǧ ‘saddle’ and also defined as ‘chair’ (cf. DUL 349–50). However, whether or not these definitions for ksa͗n and ḥdg are correct, they provide little help in defining Ug ḥtl. Aside from general phonological similarity and the context of KTU 1.12 i:19, which relates to giving birth as does Ezek 16:4, no clear reason exists to connect BH ‫ חִ ּתּול‬and Ug ḥtl. 246. DRS 940–41; contra W. W. Müller 1985, 271. The only possible cognate is South Arabian (Śḥɛri) ḥtəl ‘to envelop’ (Johnstone 1981, 119). The word ‫ חתיל‬appears in Imperial Aramaic with the possible definition ‘string’ but it only occurs once, and its meaning is debated (DNWSI 413).

108

Chapter 3

30:21 implies a soft material such as wool as in Rabbinic Hebrew, where ‫חֹותָ ל‬ refers to a soft material used for packing (Jastrow 1903, 441). Accordingly, Rabin proposes that Hebrew ‫ חִ ּתּול‬comes from Hittite ḫuttulli- ‘wool strand, wool-​tuft’ (1963, 120–21; 1964, 167–68). This loan hypothesis fits the data quite well. The phonological correspondence between the Hebrew and Hittite forms is perfect.247 Furthermore, the attestation of ‫ חתל‬in the Pual (Ezek 16:4) shows that the verb is denominal and that the noun is primary.248 ‫חֹ תָ ם‬‎, ‫‘ חֹותָ ם‬seal, signet ring’ HALOT 300; DCH 3:180 (Gen 38:18; passim249) [I] Eg → WSem (Heb; Phoen; Aram; Arab) Sir, QH ‫ ;חותם‬Phoen ‫ חתם‬DNWSI 413–14; IA, QA, JA, SA ‫ חתם‬DNWSI 413–14; DQA 93; DJBA 490; DSA 301; Syr ḥātmā LS² 505; Mand hatma MD 128; Arab ḫātm Lane 702; Eg ḫtm (since OK) ÄW 1:986, 2:1956; GHwÄ 674; WÄS 3:350; DLE 1:377250 The word ‫חֹ תָ ם‬, most often written fully as ‫חֹותָ ם‬, occurs 14 times in the Hebrew Bible. It refers to a seal used for sealing documents (e.g., 1 Kgs 21:8) but can also be used metaphorically as a symbol of authority because those who sealed official documents were in positions of authority (e.g., Jer 22:23; Hag 2:23). The feminine form ‫חֹ תֶ מֶ ת‬, which occurs solely in Gen 38:25, is a secondary derivation within Hebrew. This word has related forms in other Semitic languages, but only in West Semitic; Akkadian instead uses the word kunukku for ‘seal’ (CAD K 543–48; AHw 507–8). All the West Semitic forms come from Egyptian ḫtm ‘seal’, which is attested beginning with the Old Kingdom (cf. Dem ḫtm and Copt štom: CDD Ḫ 173; DG 372; Crum 596).251 The a-vowel of the Aramaic and Arabic forms points to an early borrowing because ā would have shifted to o in Egyptian ca. 1300 b.c.e. Hebrew ‫ חֹ תָ ם‬probably has ō rather than ā due to the Canaanite shift, not because of a later borrowing.252 In light of this word’s early borrowing, wide distribution, and the existence of denominal verb forms in Semitic (cf. BH ‫‘ חתם‬to seal’), it was 247. The i- rather than u-class vowel found in the first syllable presents no problems. Biblical Hebrew dislikes two consecutive u-class vowels and often dissimilates the first in the sequence to an i-class vowel (cf. ‫ ר ֹאׁש‬and ‫ ִראׁשֹון‬as well as ‫ חּוץ‬and ‫)חִ יצֹון‬. 248.  Akk ḫatlunu, which seems to denote an item related to a garment in Old Assyrian Akkadian (TCL 20.193:7), may point to the existence of a related Hittite term (CAD Ḫ 150; AHw 336). 249.  Exod 28:11, 21, 36; 39:6, 14, 30; 1 Kgs 21:8; Jer 22:23; Hag 2:23; Job 38:14; 41:7 [41:5]; Song 8:6 (2×). 250. The term ‫ חתם‬also appears in several Ammonite seals, although these may be forgeries (CAI 55:1; 57:1; 61:1). 251.  EPNL 45, 246; Lambdin 1953b, 151; FWOT 74. 252.  EPNL 246; Lambdin 1953b, 151. On the change of ā to o in Egyptian, see J. Allen 2013, 24–26; Loprieno 1995, 38–39; Peust 1999, 222–26, 250–59.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

109

probably borrowed very early into West Semitic. Thus, Biblical Hebrew ‫ חֹ תָ ם‬is an inherited loan. Ancient Egyptian seals functioned to ensure that no one tampered with documents or containers. The seal’s exterior was incised with a unique decorative pattern or set of characters. The earliest type of seal, used from the Early Dynastic period onward and probably adopted from Mesopotamian models, was a cylinder seal hung around the owner’s wrist or neck. Seal amulets came to be used later in the Old Kingdom, and during the Middle Kingdom scarab seals were introduced. Sealing in ancient Egypt, like elsewhere in the ancient Near East, ensured that documents and the contents of containers were preserved intact. However, seals were also used as protective amulets, funerary labels, and personal ornaments, sometimes to the exclusion of their sealing function (Shubert 2001; Kaplony 1984). ‫‘ טַ ּבַ עַת‬seal, signet ring’ HALOT 369; DCH 3:342 (Gen 41:42; passim253) [D] Eg →   → Heb; Phoen   → Aram → Arab Phoen ‫ טבעת‬DNWSI 420; JA ‫טיבע‬‎, ‫טבע‬, CPA ‫ טבע‬DJPA 220; DJBA 500–501; DCPA 144; Syr ṭaḇʿā, ṭiḇʿā LS² 512; Arab ṭābāʿ Lane 1824; Eg ḏbʿ.t (since OK) ÄW 1:1502, 2:2836–37; GHwÄ 1079; WÄS 5:566254 This word occurs commonly, appearing 50 times. The book of Exodus contains the majority of these occurrences, using ‫ טַ ּבַ עַת‬to denote the metal rings for the tabernacle’s accoutrements (Exod 25:12, passim). However, ‫ טַ ּבַ עַת‬also appears several times with reference to royal signet rings (Gen 41:42; Esth 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10) or to rings worn as jewelry (Exod 35:22; Num 31:50; Isa 3:21). Other Northwest Semitic forms include Phoenician ‫טבעת‬, Jewish Aramaic ‫טבע‬‎, ‫טיבע‬, Christian Palestinian Aramaic ‫טבע‬, and Syriac ṭaḇʿā, ṭiḇʿā.255 Despite the existence of these related forms in Semitic, this word is not native to the Semitic languages. Hebrew ‫ טַ ּבַ עַת‬is a loan from Egyptian ḏbʿ.t ‘seal, signet ring’, attested beginning with the Old Kingdom (cf. Dem ḏbʿ and Copt tbbe: CDD Ḏ 31–34; DG 623; Crum 398).256 This word was probably borrowed sometime after palatal fronting occurred and Egyptian ḏ had become d, hence the initial ṭ of the Semitic forms.257 253.  Exod 25:12 (3×), 14–15, 26 (2×), 27; 26:24, 29; 27:4, 7; 28:23 (2×), 24, 26–27, 28 (3×); 30:4; 35:22; 36:29, 34; 37:3 (3×), 5, 13 (2×), 14, 27; 38:5, 7; 39:16 (2×), 17, 19–20, 21 (2×); Num 31:50; Isa 3:21; Esth 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8 (2×), 10. 254.  Akk timbuttu, which denotes a piece of jewelry in the Amarna letters (e.g., EA 25 i:69, ii:20) is listed as a gift of Tušratta and is unrelated (contra Lambdin 1953b, 151; FWOT 75). 255.  Arab ṭābāʿ comes from Aramaic (Fränkel 1886, 192–94). 256.  EPNL 247; Lambdin 1953b, 151; FWOT 75. 257.  On the depalatalization of Eg ḏ, see J. Allen 2013, 48–50; Loprieno 1995, 38; Peust 1999, 123–25; Junge 2005, 36.

110

Chapter 3

Egyptian lent this word to Northwest Semitic at least twice. The Hebrew and Phoenician forms retain the final -t, a marker lost in Egyptian by the Amarna period, whereas the Aramaic forms do not. This indicates that Hebrew and Phoenician borrowed this word prior to the loss of Egyptian -t whereas Aramaic borrowed it afterward.258 Furthermore, the attestation of ‫ טַ ּבַ עַת‬within an Egyptian context (Gen 41:42) and its frequent association with the tabernacle, putatively made from Egyptian materials, indicate that the Hebrew form is not an inherited loan from an early borrowing into so-​called Canaanite (contra Schneider 2001, 162). ‫‘ טּור‬course, row’ HALOT 373; DCH 3:361–62 (Exod 28:17 [3×], 18–20; passim259) [T] Sum → Akk → Heb Sum dur PSD; Akk ṭurru, turru (OB, Mari, MA, MB, SB, NA, NB) CAD Ṭ 164–65; AHw 1397 The word ‫ טּור‬occurs 26 times with reference to a course or row of jewels (Exod 28:17; 39:10 [3×], 11–13), cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36 [2×]), pillars (1 Kgs 7:2–4, 12 [2×]), ornaments (1 Kgs 7:18, 20, 24, 42; 2 Chr 4:3, 13), or stone (Ezek 46:23). Within the Hebrew Bible it is always associated with the divine sanctuary. Like Hebrew ‫ּתֹ ר‬, ‫ טּור‬comes from Sumerian dur via Akkadian ṭurru, turru, which means ‘string, band’.260 The semantic shift from ‘string, band’ to ‘row’ is a natural semantic development. Sumerian texts describe bands, denoted with the term dur, of stones similar to the rows of stones on the high priest’s breastplate and ornaments in the temple (e.g., Inanna and Ebiḫ 58), and Akkadian texts describe the band of a door similar to the courses of the temple (e.g., VAB 4 Nbk. 21 ii:34). Akkadian ṭ usually appears in Hebrew as ṭeṭ.261 Unlike Hebrew ‫ּתֹ ר‬, then, Hebrew-​ speakers presumably borrowed this word from the form ṭurru rather than turru. ‫( טֶ נֶא‬a basket for produce) HALOT 377; DCH 3:372 (Deut 26:2, 4; 28:5, 17) 𝕲 κάρταλλος Deut 26:2, 4, ἀποθήκη ‘storehouse’ Deut 28:5, 17; 𝖁 cartallus ‘basket’ Deut 26:2, 4, horreum ‘barn’ Deut 28:5, 17; 𝕾 msntʾ ‘basket’ Deut 26:2, 4, slʾ ‘basket’ Deut 28:5, 17; 𝕿Onq., Ps.-J. ‫‘ סל‬basket’ [D] Eg → Heb Sir, QH ‫ ;טנא‬Eg dnı̓.t (since OK) ÄW 1:1478, 2:2791; GHwÄ 1054; WÄS 5:467; DLE 2:250262 258. EPNL 247; Lambdin 1953b, 151. Rössler (1971, 304–5) rightly notes the connection between Eg ḏbʿ ‘finger’, the word on which ḏbʿ.t is based, and the common Semitic noun ʾ‌ṣbʿ ‘finger’ (cf. BH ‫)אֶ צְ ּבַ ע‬. 259.  Exod 39:10 (3×), 11–13; 1 Kgs 6:36 (2×); 7:2–4, 12 (2×), 18, 20, 24, 42; Ezek 46:23; 2 Chr 4:3, 13. 260. Rabin 1962, 1072; cf. Zimmern 1917, 35. See the entry for ‫ ּתֹ ר‬below. 261.  ALBH 154. The same is true of Akkadian loanwords in Aramaic (AIA 138). 262. This word may occur in Phoenician as ‫ טנא‬in KAI 37A:10, but its attestation is debated and dubious (DNWSI 426). Schneider (2001, 162) contends that JA ‫ צן‬is cognate to BH ‫ טֶ נֶא‬and that the latter

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

111

The word ‫ טֶ נֶא‬appears only in the book of Deuteronomy, where it occurs four times with reference to a basket for produce (Deut 26:2, 4; 28:5, 17). The lack of any known Semitic root on which it could be based and the observation that this word is limited to Biblical Hebrew together imply a non-​Semitic loan. The donor term is most probably Egyptian dnı̓.t, which first occurs during the Old Kingdom (EPNL 247; Lambdin 1953b, 152; FWOT 77). In Egyptian texts dnı̓.t denotes a basket for holding produce as well as other objects. Notably, this is precisely the meaning of ‫ טֶ נֶא‬in Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew-​ speakers presumably borrowed this word after the loss of the Egyptian feminine -t marker.263 ‫( ִטפְ סָ ר‬an official) HALOT 379; DCH 3:373 (Jer 51:27; Nah 3:17) 𝕲 βελόστασις ‘war implement’ Jer 51:27, omits Nah 3:17; 𝖁 translates as the proper noun Thapsar Jer 51:27, parvulus ‘young one’ Nah 3:17; 𝕾 ‌ʾbdn‌ʾ ‘loss’ Jer 51:27, ktyš ‘excited, furious’ Nah 3:17; 𝕿 ‫‘ עבדי קרבא‬maker of war’ Jer 51:27, ‫[ טפסר‬Aramaic form] Nah 3:17 [T] Sum → Akk → Heb Sum dubsar PSD; Akk ṭupšarru (OAkk, OA, OB, Mari, MA, MB, Nuzi, Emar, RS, NA, NB) CAD Ṭ 151–62; AHw 1395–96264 This word occurs only twice. Both times it denotes an official, specifically one who serves in the military (Jer 51:27; Nah 3:17). Hebrew ‫ ִטפְ סָ ר‬has no Semitic etymology and is commonly recognized as a loan from Akkadian ṭupšarru, in turn a loan from Sumerian dubsar ‘scribe’.265 The latter has a perfectly good native etymology, being derived from dub ‘tablet’ and sar ‘to write’. At least some level of writing would probably have been expected of military officials in antiquity, and the connection between the two is therefore a natural one.266 The use of Hebrew samek for Akkadian š indicates that Hebrew-​ speakers borrowed this word from Neo-​Assyrian Akkadian (ALBH 60–61). ‫יְ אֹ ר ⇒ יְ אֹור‬

is therefore not an Egyptian loan. However, as the initial consonant indicates, JA ‫ צן‬is not cognate with BH ‫טֶ נֶא‬. Sokoloff (DJBA 967) more plausibly compares JA ‫ צן‬with Akk ṣēnu ‘laden’, an adjective used of a basket. 263.  On the loss of the Egyptian feminine ending -t, see J. Allen 2013, 49, 61; Gardiner 1957, 34; Junge 2005, 35. 264. JA ‫טפסר‬, which occurs only in 𝕿 and late literary Aramaic, is adopted from BH ‫( ִטפְ סָ ר‬Jastrow 1903, 548). 265.  ALBH 60–61; Lipiński 1988, 66; FWOT 78. On the Sumerian origin of Akk ṭupšarru, see SLOB 207–8 (#146). 266. The same semantic development is evident in BH ‫ׁשֹ טֵ ר‬, which denotes a military official and is probably associated with Akk šaṭāru ‘to write’.

112

Chapter 3

‫יְ אֹ ר‬‎, ‫‘ יְ אֹור‬the Nile River; river’ HALOT 381–82; DCH 4:71–72 (Gen 41:1–2, 3 [2×], 17–18; passim267) [D] Eg → Heb Sir, QH ‫ ;יאור‬Eg ı̓trw (OK, MK), ı̓rw (since NK) ÄW 1:236, 2:441–42; GHwÄ 125–26; WÄS 1:146–47 Hebrew ‫( יְ אֹ ר‬also occasionally spelled ‫ )יְ אֹור‬occurs 64 times and most often refers to the Nile River. However, there are several instances in which ‫ יְ אֹ ר‬more generally means ‘river’ or refers to a river other than the Nile. Isaiah 33:21 mentions the plural form ‫ יְ אֹ ִרים‬parallel to ‫‘ נְ הָ ִרים‬rivers’, Job 28:10 has ‫ יְ אֹ ר‬with the meaning ‘water channel’, and Dan 12:5–7 even uses ‫ יְ אֹ ר‬for the Tigris River. Nevertheless, the nearly exclusive use of ‫ יְ אֹ ר‬with reference to the Nile strongly suggests that this word comes from Egyptian. The donor term is Egyptian ı̓trw, ı̓rw, which means ‘stream, river’ but can also refer specifically to the Nile River—the river par excellence of ancient Egypt—as well as its tributaries (cf. Dem yr and Copt eioor: CDD Y 11–12; DG 50; Crum 82–83).268 The t of ı̓trw became a secondary glottal stop by the end of the New Kingdom, as it regularly did at the end of a stressed syllable in Later Egyptian, hence the ʾ‌alep of Hebrew.269 The lack of representation of final Egyptian w likewise points to a borrowing after w underwent lenition in Later Egyptian.270 Accordingly, Hebrew-​speakers must have borrowed this term sometime after this sound change took place. ‫‘ יַיִ ן‬wine’ HALOT 409–10; DCH 4:206–9 (Gen 9:21, 24; passim271) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾, 𝕿 most frequently translate this word as οἶνος, vinum, ḥmrʾ, and ‫חמר‬ (each meaning ‘wine’), respectively 267.  Exod 1:22; 2:3, 5 (2×); 4:9 (2×); 7:15, 17, 18 (3×), 19, 20 (2×), 21 (3×), 24 (2×), 25, 28 [8:3]; 8:1, 5, 7 [8:5, 9, 11]; 17:5; 2 Kgs 19:24; Isa 7:18; 19:6, 7 (3×), 8; 23:3, 10; 33:21; 37:25; Jer 46:7–8; Ezek 29:3 (2×), 4 (3×), 5, 9–10; 30:12; Amos 8:8; 9:5 (2×); Nah 3:8; Zech 10:11; Ps 78:44; Job 28:10; Dan 12:5 (2×), 6–7. 268.  EPNL 247–48; Lambdin 1953b, 151; FWOT 80; Erman 1892, 108. 269.  Cf. Vycichl 1940, 81–82. On the lenition of t to Ꜣ at the end of a stressed syllable, see Junge 2005, 35; Loprieno 1995, 38; Peust 1999, 152. The secondary glottal stop derived from t is most often not written. When it is, it is frequently written as ı̓ and only rarely appears as Ꜣ. 270.  On the lenition of -w, see J. Allen 2013, 37–38, 43; Loprieno 1995, 33, 38; Peust 1999, 49–50, 142–51; Junge 2005, 33. 271.  Gen 14:18; 19:32–35; 27:25; 49:11–12; Exod 29:40; Lev 10:9; 23:13; Num 6:3 (2×), 4, 20; 15:5, 7, 10; 28:14; Deut 14:26; 28:39; 29:5 [29:6]; 32:33, 38; Josh 9:4, 13; Judg 13:4, 7, 14 (2×); 19:19; 1 Sam 1:14–15, 24; 10:3; 16:20; 25:18, 37; 2 Sam 13:28; 16:1–2; Isa 5:11–12, 22; 16:10; 22:13; 24:9, 11; 28:1, 7 (2×); 29:9; 51:21; 55:1; 56:12; Jer 13:12 (2×); 23:9; 25:15; 35:2, 5 (2×), 6 (2×), 8, 14; 40:10, 12; 48:33; 51:7; Ezek 27:18; 44:21; Hos 4:11; 7:5; 9:4; 14:8 [14:7]; Joel 1:5; 4:3 [3:3]; Amos 2:8, 12; 5:11; 6:6; 9:14; Mic 2:11; 6:15; Hab 2:5; Zeph 1:13; Hag 2:12; Zech 9:15; 10:7; Ps 60:5 [60:3]; 75:9 [75:8]; 78:65; 104:15; Job 1:13, 18; 32:19; Prov 4:17; 9:2, 5; 20:1; 21:17; 23:20, 30–31; 31:4, 6; Song 1:2, 4; 2:4; 4:10; 5:1; 7:10 [7:9]; 8:2; Qoh 2:3; 9:7; 10:19; Lam 2:12; Esth 1:7, 10; 5:6; 7:2, 7–8; Dan 1:5, 8, 16; 10:3; Neh 2:1 (2×); 5:15, 18; 13:15; 1 Chr 9:29; 12:41 [12:40]; 27:27; 2 Chr 2:9 [2:10], 14 [2:15]; 11:11.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

113

[?] CW Akk yēnu (Can); Ug yn DUL 954–56; EH ‫ין‬, ‫ יין‬DNWSI 455–56; Sir, QH ‫;יין‬ Phoen ‫ ין‬DNWSI 455–56; Ammon ‫ ין‬DNWSI 455–56; IA ‫ יין‬DNWSI 455–56; OSA wyn DOSA 127; Eth wayn CDG 623; Hatt *windu; Hitt wiyan-, wiyanaHHw 228; Luv wiyana- (HLuv) Payne 2010, 152; Lin B wo-​no Aura Jorro and Adrados 1985–1993, 2:443; Gk οἶνος LSJ 1207; Lat vinum OLD 2279; Arm gini HAB 1:558–59; Georg ġvino Rayfield 2006, 1325 The word ‫ יַיִ ן‬occurs 140 times in the Hebrew Bible with the meaning ‘wine’. This word also occurs commonly in Epigraphic Hebrew, especially the Samaria Ostraca. Elsewhere in the Semitic languages this word is found only in West Semitic; Akkadian karānu, kirānu instead represents the East Semitic term for ‘grape, grapevine, wine’ (CAD K 202–6; AHw 446–47).272 Outside the Semitic languages, this word is also found in Indo-European (Hittite, Hieroglyphic Luvian, Greek, Latin, and Armenian), Kartvelian (Georgian), and Hattic.273 This word’s distribution points to a non-​Semitic origin, as does the lack of a convincing Semitic etymology.274 Some scholars claim that it is of Indo-​European etymology, but this is unlikely given this word’s widespread distribution and great antiquity. Moreover, it is difficult to explain the spread of this term from Indo-​ European to the other languages in which it is attested, particularly the Kartvelian languages.275 The grapevine was first cultivated in the eastern Mediterranean and southern Caucasus, and wine was primarily a beverage of these regions.276 Accordingly, this ancient culture word must have originated from either the eastern Mediterranean or southern Caucasus (cf. Schrader 1911, 470). ‫‘ י ְָׁשפֵה‬jasper’ HALOT 449; DCH 4:339 (Exod 28:20; 39:13; Ezek 28:13) 𝕲 ὀνύχιον ‘onyx’ Exod 28:20; 39:13, ἴασπις [Greek form] Ezek 28:13; 𝖁 berillus ‘beryl’; 𝕾 yšph [Syriac form] Exod 28:20; 39:13, spylʾ ‘sapphire’ Ezek 28:13; 𝕿 ‫( פנתירי‬a precious stone, presumably one spotted like a panther)

272.  A fragmentary lexical text from Late Bronze Age Aphek lists this word as yēnu (CIC Aphek 3:2ʹ). That yēnu is West Semitic is indicated by its position in the third column of this Sumerian–Akkadian–West Semitic trilingual. 273.  Hatt *windu occurs only in the compound windukaram ‘wine steward’ (Soysal 2004, 324, 913–14). 274. Van Selms (1974) proposes a Semitic etymology for ‫יַיִ ן‬, deriving it from the verb ‫‘ ינה‬to be violent’ and contending that this verb originally meant ‘to squeeze’. However, this etymology is speculative and without any sound basis. 275.  Cf. Greppin 1998. Scholars who consider this word to be Indo-​European typically derive it from the Proto-​Indo-​European root *u̯ eh2- ‘to turn, twist’ (e.g., Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1994–1995, 1:557–61, 778; Beekes 1987). 276.  D. Zohary and Hopf 2000, 151–59; Olmo 1996. Inhabitants of the ancient Near East adopted grapevine growing very early, perhaps as early as the fifth millennium b.c.e. (D. Zohary 1996), but “Babylonia like Bavaria was essentially a beer drinking culture” (Powell 1996, 106).

114

Chapter 3

[D] Hurr →   → Akk; Heb   → Hitt → Gk → Lat Akk ašpu (SB, NA, NB), yašpu (Bogh, EA) CAD I–J 328; AHw 413; Hitt yašpuHHw 65, 311; Hurr *iaspe-; Gk ἴασπις LSJ 816; Lat iaspis OLD 898277 This word appears with reference to the high priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:20; 39:13) and the king of Tyre’s adornment (Ezek 28:13). In the Amarna letters this word appears as yašpu (EA 22 iv:6), but in other dialects of Akkadian (Standard Babylonian, Neo-​Assyrian, and Neo-​Babylonian) the form is ašpu. This word also occurs in Hittite as yašpu-, written as an Akkadogram (KUB 15.5 i:4; ii:21). The atypical morphology of Hebrew ‫ י ְָׁשפֵה‬points to a non-​Semitic loan, and textual evidence likewise indicates a foreign origin. The substance denoted by this term is one of the gifts that Tušratta, the king of Mittani, gives as tribute to Pharaoh Amenophis III (EA 22 iv:6). Sargon II, moreover, refers to Zimur—located near Lake Van in Urartu—as kurZimur šadī na ašpê ‘jasper mountain’ (TCL 3 ii:145). Textual evidence thus points to a Hurrian origin, presumably a form such as *iaspewith thematic vowel -e (cf. EA 22 iv:6).278 This loan hypothesis is supported by the geological attestations of jasper, which are particularly concentrated in the southern Elburz and the central Zagros.279 Greek ἴασπις, the source of Latin iaspis (DELL 305), is typically assumed to be borrowed from Northwest Semitic. However, Greek ἴασπις probably came from Hurrian indirectly, especially because the attestation of this word in Hittite demonstrates that the word was used in Anatolia. The base stem of ἴασπις is ἴασπιδ- (cf. the genitive ἴασπιδος), and the -δ afformative elsewhere occurs in words that have entered Greek via Anatolia (cf. παλλακίς ‘concubine’ with base stem παλλακίδ-, σμύρις ‘emery’ with base stem σμύριδ-, and χλαμύς ‘mantle’ with base stem χλαμύδ-).280 4

277. SA ‫ ישפה‬and Syr yašpēh occur in biblical contexts and are adopted from BH ‫( י ְָׁשפֵה‬DSA 364; LS² 586). 278.  Cf. FWOT 81; Grintz 1975a, 9. On the Hurrian thematic vowel -e, see Wegner 2007, 52; Giorgieri 2000, 199; Wilhelm 2008, 90. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 448) claim that this term originated from Persian. However, this word is not attested in any Iranian language until the eighth century c.e. in a Sogdian text as ʾ‌yšph, which is a clear borrowing from Semitic (Gharib 1995, 88; MacKenzie 1976, 2:90). NPers yašm and yašb, in turn, are the origin of Arab yašm and yašb (Asbaghi 1988, 274). 279.  Moorey 1999, 98. The frequent identification of this gemstone as jasper is thus confirmed (cf. Harrell, Hoffmeier and Williams 2017, 29–30). 280.  Cf. Rabin 1964, 152; contra EDG 574; DELG 436–37; Rosół 2013, 40; Masson 1967, 65–66. If borrowed indirectly, the -δ afformative could represent the Luvian suffix -it ([-id]), a very productive suffix found especially on Hurrian loans (Starke 1990, 151–226; Melchert 2003, 198). Alternatively, if borrowed directly, the -δ afformative could represent the Hurrian nominalizing element -idi (Wegner 2007, 59; Giorgieri 2000, 200; Wilhelm 2008, 89).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

115

‫( ּכַד‬a pithos or large jar) HALOT 460; DCH 4:362 (Gen 24:14–18, 20, 43, 45–46; passim281) [?] CW Akk kandu (NB) CAD K 148–49; AHw 436; Ug kd DUL 424–25; EH, QH ‫כד‬ DNWSI 487–88; IA ‫כד‬, JA ‫כד‬‎, ‫ כנד‬DNWSI 487–88; DJPA 250; DJBA 553; Gk κάδος, κάδιον LSJ 848; SyllCypr ka-​to-​se Hintze 1993, 28; Lat cadus OLD 273282 The word ‫ ּכַד‬occurs a total of 18 times in the Hebrew Bible. In several instances it refers to the jar with which Rebekah draws water for the camels of Abraham’s servant, implying a large vessel (Gen 24:14–18, 20, 43, 45–46; cf. 1 Kgs 18:34). Such a jar was sometimes used for storing foodstuffs (1 Kgs 17:12, 14, 16). Related Semitic forms are limited to Northwest Semitic, because Neo-​Babylonian Akkadian kandu is a first-​millennium loan from Northwest Semitic.283 This word also occurs in non-​Semitic languages, including Greek, Syllabic Cyprian, and Latin. The western distribution points to a Mediterranean origin for this ancient culture word, as does its early and frequent attestation in the texts from Ugarit, a Late Bronze Age trade hub for the Mediterranean. Notably, Hesychius of Alexandria (Lex. κ58) glosses Greek καδία (the plural of κάδιον) as Σαλαμίνιοι ὑδρίαν, connecting this term with Salamis in Cyprus. The Northwest Semitic and Indo-​European forms of this culture word may ultimately come from Cyprus as Hesychius implies, although they could just as easily stem from some other, unknown Mediterranean language.284 ‫ּכ ְַדּכֹ ד‬‎, ‫( ּכ ְַדכֹ ד‬a gemstone, perhaps a type of jasper) HALOT 460–61; DCH 4:362 (Isa 54:12; Ezek 27:16) 𝕲 ἴασπις ‘jasper’ Isa 54:12, κορχορυς (Codex Alexandrinus) and χορχορ (Codex Vaticanus) Ezek 27:16; 𝖁 iaspis ‘jasper’ Isa 54:12, chodchod Ezek 27:16;

281.  Judg 7:16 [2×], 19–20; 1 Kgs 17:12, 14, 16; 18:34; Qoh 12:6. 282.  LinB ka-​ti could preserve another form of this Mediterranean culture word, although ka-​ti is probably instead related to Gk κηθίς because κάδος should have been written as *ka-​di (Aura Jorro and Adrados 1985–1993, 1:331). 283. QA, JA ‫ כדן‬and Syr kaddānā are derived forms (DQA 110; Jastrow 1903, 614; LS² 600). On the Northwest Semitic origin of Akk kandu, attested in Neo-Babylonian, see CAD K 148–49; AHw 436. 284.  See Aspesi 1983. There is no evidence for a Dravidian origin, contra Podolsky 1998, 199–200. Podolsky compares Dravidian forms such as Tamil kiṇṭi and claims the Semitic forms originated with Dravidian. He points, moreover, to Akk kandu, suggesting that the n reflects the nasalized Dravidian forms. However, Akk kandu cannot reflect the nasalization found in Dravidian because kandu is a loan from Northwest Semitic, which does not display any nasalization until the late period. Moreover, there is a semantic discrepancy between this term’s meanings in Semitic and Dravidian. In Semitic, it is a large storage vessel (most frequently for water or wine), and in Dravidian, it is a small drinking vessel or goblet (see Burrow and Emeneau 1984, 142). There is nothing specific about this vessel that would suggest a Dravidian origin, and it is unlikely that Semitic peoples would have reason to borrow this term from Dravidian-​speakers.

116

Chapter 3

𝕾 ‌ʾyspwn ‘jasper’ Isa 54:12, ptwtk‌ʾ (a gem associated with chalcedony) Ezek 27:16; 𝕿 ‫‘ מרגלי‬pearl’ [?] CW JA ‫כדכוד‬, ‫כדכדין‬, ‫כרכדין‬, ‫כדכדון‬, ‫ כרכדון‬DJPA 251; Jastrow 1903, 614; Syr qarkednā LS² 1411; Arab karkand, karkuhan Dozy 1927, 2:459; Eth karakand, karkand, karkande, kādkod, karkaden CDG 275, 291; Gk χαλκηδών LSJ 1973; Lat calcedonius This word appears only twice, both times in the Major Prophets. Isaiah 54 describes God’s promise to restore Israel, stating that Zion’s architecture will be composed of precious gems (Isa 54:11–12). The parallelism with ‫ אַ בְ נֵי אֶ קְ ּדָ ח‬and ‫ אַ בְ נֵי חֵ ֶפץ‬in Isa 54:12 clearly indicates that this word denotes a gemstone. Ezekiel 27:16 mentions this term amidst various traded items, including ‫‘ נֹ פְֶך‬turquoise’, ‫‘ אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬purple cloth’, ‫‘ ִרקְ מָ ה‬colored fabric’, ‫‘ ּבּוץ‬fine linen’, and ‫‘ ָראמֹות‬corals’. This word can hardly be separated from several ancient terms commonly translated as ‘chalcedony’: Jewish Aramaic ‫כדכוד‬, ‫כדכדין‬, ‫כרכדין‬, ‫כדכדון‬, ‫כרכדון‬, Syriac qarkednā, Arabic karkand, karkuhan, Ethiopic karakand, karkand, karkande, kādkod, karkaden, Greek χαλκηδών, and Latin calcedonius (𝖁’s translation of χαλκηδών in Rev 21:19).285 It is unlikely that these ancient terms refer to the gemstone known as chalcedony in modern times. Rather, they instead more plausibly denote a gemstone similar to jasper. 𝕲, 𝖁, and 𝕾 of Isa 54:12 all understand ‫ ּכ ְַדכֹ ד‬as a kind of jasper, Pliny (Nat. 37.37.115) associates a jasper of turbid color with Chalcedon, and Ethiopic karkaden refers to jasper. This word’s multiple renditions in Semitic and Indo-​European indicate a donor term not native to either of these language families.286 The gemstone denoted by 285.  Use of both [d] and [r] indicates authentic dialectal variation rather than scribal error (cf. CAL). S. Krauss (1898–1899, 2:299) connects these terms with Gk *καρχηδών ‘carbuncle’. However, Gk Καρχηδών occurs only as a proper name (‘Carthage’) and never with reference to a gemstone. Furthermore, it is unlikely that these terms are connected with Arab kadkad ‘intense redness’ (contra HALOT 460; Gesenius, Thesaurus 660) or that the forms with r rather than d can be explained via dissimilation (contra Tur–Sinai 1962; Růžička 1909, 161). 286. In Ezek 27:16 the MT reads ‫ּכ ְַדּכֹ ד‬, but Isa 54:12 omits the dageš in the second kap and reads ‫ּכ ְַדכֹ ד‬. Jewish Aramaic uses reš as well as dalet for this word’s second consonant. Greek texts preserve at least three different variants of the toponym ‘Chalcedon’ (Καλχαδών, Καλκηδών, and Χαλκηδών). Similar variation occurs in Latin, in which the toponym ‘Chalcedon’ appears as Chalcedon as well as Calchedon; additionally, although most manuscripts of 𝖁 read calcedonius in Rev 21:19, a few read carcedonius. The variant spellings in Greek and Latin seem to have led to an erroneous association of this gemstone with Carthage, adapted as Καρχηδών in Greek and Carthago in Latin from the Phoenician name of the city, ‫‘ קרת חדשת‬New City’. Pliny claims that the gemstone carchedonia comes from North Africa (Nat. 37.30.104), but this is probably a mistake resulting from its apparent similarity to Gk Καρχηδών and Lat Carthago. Extant manuscripts of Pliny preserve several different variants (charcedonia, calcedonia, calchedonia, and carchedonius), some of which are more similar to the ancient name for Chalcedon than to Carthage. It makes little sense to think that the gemstone denoted by ‫ ּכ ְַדּכֹ ד‬comes from Carthage because Ezek 27:16 lists this gemstone as a product imported by Tyre from the north. Carthage was a colony of Tyre, and it would be unnecessary for Tyre to import this gem from the north when it could get it from Carthage.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

117

these terms most probably originated around the ancient city of Chalcedon (Greek Καλχήδων), located on the shore of the Black Sea near the mouth of the Bosporus Strait.287 The donor term behind this ancient “Chalcedonian” culture word and the transmission process by which this word reached Hebrew remains uncertain, however.288 ‫ּכֹובַ ע‬‎, ‫( קֹובַ ע‬a helmet) HALOT 463, 1081–82; DCH 4:370, 7:211 (1 Sam 17:5, 38; Isa 59:17; Jer 46:4; Ezek 23:24; 27:10; 38:5; 2 Chr 26:14) 𝕲 περικεφαλαία ‘helmet’ except βαλοῦσιν φυλακήν ‘they will set watch’ Ezek 23:24; 𝖁 galea ‘helmet’ except cassis ‘helmet’ 1 Sam 17:5; 𝕾 snwrt‌ʾ ‘helmet’; 𝕿 ‫‘ קולס‬helmet’ except does not directly represent this word Isa 59:17 [D] Hurr → Heb; Aram; Arab; Eth; Hitt; Gk JA ‫קובע‬‎, ‫כובע‬, SA ‫ קובע‬DJPA 478; DSA 761; DCPA 364; Syr qubbʿā LS² 1323; Arab qubbaʿ Dozy 1927, 2:303; Eth qobʿ CDG 418; Hitt kupaḫi- HHw 94; Hurr kuvaḫi- BGH 225; GLH 157; Gk κύμβαχος LSJ 1009 This word occurs in two different forms in Biblical Hebrew, namely ‫( ּכֹובַ ע‬1 Sam 17:5; Isa 59:17; Jer 46:4; Ezek 27:10; 38:5; 2 Chr 26:14) and ‫( קֹובַ ע‬1 Sam 17:38; Ezek 23:24). In each of these occurrences, Hebrew ‫ ּכֹובַ ע‬appears in a military context and denotes a type of helmet. The alternation between kap and qop is excellent evidence for a foreign loan, as is the lack of a plausible Semitic root on which this term could be based. Scholars have long recognized that, due to its association with the Philistine Goliath in 1 Sam 17, this word most probably entered Hebrew from the eastern Mediterranean.289 One might suspect a Philistine origin in light of the connection with Goliath, but this word has a relatively wide distribution in the Mediterranean and the ancient Near East and is unlikely to have been borrowed directly from Philistine. Rather, it is most plausibly Hurrian. Hebrew ‫ׁש ְריֹון‬, ִ used to denote Goliath’s scale armor, is Hurrian in origin. Furthermore, the alternation between [b], [p], and [w] in this word’s various representations is suggestive of the Hurrian labiodental fricative F.290 Accordingly, the donor term behind Hebrew ‫ ּכֹובַ ע‬is almost certainly Hurrian kuvaḫi- (written in cuneiform as kuwaḫi-). This Hurrian term entered Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic in addition to Hebrew and was also borrowed by 287. Rabin 1964, 152; cf. Zwierlein-​Diehl 2007, 307. Harrell, Hoffmeier, and Williams (2017, 32–33) identify ‫ ּכ ְַדּכֹ ד‬as mizzi ahmar, a reddish limestone available near Jerusalem. However, this ignores the foreign associations of this word as well as its similarity to various ancient terms that denote a type of jasper. 288.  Via Greek, this word entered Middle Iranian (cf. Pahl karkēhan), through which it reentered Arabic (karkuhan) and was also transmitted to Armenian (karkehan). See CPD 50; HAB 2:555; Hübschmann 1897, 167; 1895, 199. 289.  FWOT 82; Sapir 1937; cf. Rabin 1963, 124–25; 1964, 158; Szemerényi 1974, 153. 290.  On the Hurrian labiodental fricative F, see Wegner 2007, 46; Giorgieri 2000, 187; Wilhelm 2008, 84–85.

118

Chapter 3

Hittite and Greek (see HED K 257–58; Kronasser 1962–1966, 1:209; Szemerényi 1965, 4–5). The description of this helmet in the Hebrew Bible is scant, although 1 Sam 17:5 does note that it was made of bronze (‫)ּכֹובַ ע נְ חֹ ׁשֶ ת‬. Ancient Near Eastern helmets from the second millennium b.c.e. were typically made from bronze—either bronze scale armor plates or hammered bronze—and could be plain or could have plumes or crests (Zorn 2010, 3–4; Dezső 2002, 200). ‫‘ ּכֹוס‬cup’ HALOT 466; DCH 4:376–77 (Gen 40:11 [3×], 13, 21; passim291) [?] CW Sum kasu PSD; Akk kāsu (OAkk, OA, OB, Qatna, Mari, Nuzi, MA, MB, Alalakh, Bogh, EA, RS, NA, NB) CAD K 253–56; AHw 454–55; Ug ks DUL 454– 55; Phoen ‫ כס‬DNWSI 521; IA, QA, Hatra, JA, CPA ‫ כס‬DNWSI 521; DQA 117; DJPA 264–65; DJBA 590; DCPA 182; Syr kāsā LS² 638; Mand kasa MD 199; Arab ka‌ʾs Lane 2581–82; Eg kṯ GHwÄ 962; WÄS 5:148; SWET 338–39 (#502); DLE 2:180; Hatt kazue, kazui, gazue, gazui Soysal 2004, 288, 559; Hitt gazi-, gazzi- HHw 85; Hurr kasi-, kazi-, kazzi- BGH 193; GLH 140 The word ‫ ּכֹוס‬occurs frequently with reference to a cup. Related forms appear in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Phoenician, various dialects of Aramaic, and Arabic.292 Notably, these forms exhibit a western distribution. Some of this word’s earliest occurrences in Akkadian are in peripheral dialects such as Old Assyrian, Boghazköy, Alalakh, Mari, and Nuzi, and the sole attestation of ‫ כס‬in Phoenician is found very early—the tenth century b.c.e.—in the Tekke Bowl Inscription from Crete (KAI 291). Despite Köhler and Baumgartner’s claim (HALOT 466) that Hebrew ‫ ּכֹוס‬is derived from Akkadian, there are no phonological indications that this is the case. Rather, this term is almost certainly a very ancient culture word of wide distribution (ALBH 62–63). This is indicated by the attestation of this word in Hattic (kazue, gazue, gazui, kazui), Hittite (gazi-, gazzi-), and Hurrian (kasi-, kazi-, kazzi-), which cannot conclusively be traced back to Akkadian.293 There is no clear evidence that Sumerian kasu is a loan from Akkadian, especially because this word is only spelled phonetically (gú.zi, ku.zi, ka.zi, and ka.a.su) in Sumerian and lacks a specific logogram.294 Egyptian kṯ, which first appears in the Nineteenth Dynasty, 291.  2 Sam 12:3; 1 Kgs 7:26; Isa 51:17 (2×), 22 (2×); Jer 16:7; 25:15, 17, 28; 35:5; 49:12; 51:7; Ezek 23:31–32, 33 (2×); Hab 2:16; Ps 11:6; 16:5; 23:5; 75:9 [75:8]; 116:13; Prov 23:31; Lam 4:21; 2 Chr 4:5. 292.  Fränkel (1886, 171) contends that Arab ka‌ʾs is a loan from Aramaic despite the unmotivated hamza. 293.  Cf. Puhvel 1984–, K 141–42; HEG A–K 549–50; Neu 1988, 29; Kassian 2010, 460. 294.  Contra ALBH 63; Dietrich and Loretz 1964–1966, 237. I am grateful to Samuel Greengus for his assistance with this entry.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

119

is probably a loan from Northwest Semitic but could potentially be a loan from another source.295 This generic term for a drinking vessel can encompass several different types. It could have a distinct lip (1 Kgs 7:26) or could be deep and wide, like a shallow wine bowl (Ezek 23:32). It is sometimes described as made from metal (e.g., Jer 51:7; cf. KTU 3.1:27), but ceramic types of this vessel also existed (Amadasi Guzzo 1990, 16–17; Kelso 1948, 19–20; Honeyman 1939, 82). ‫( ּכִ ידֹון‬a straight sword) HALOT 472; DCH 4:391 (Josh 8:18 [2×], 26; 1 Sam 17:6, 45; Jer 6:23; 50:42; Job 39:23; 41:21 [41:29]) 𝕲 γαῖσος ‘javelin’ Josh 8:18, 26, ἀσπίς ‘shield’ 1 Sam 17:6, 45, ζιβύνη ‘spear’ Jer 6:23, ἐγχειρίδιον ‘dagger, knife’ Jer 50:42, does not directly represent this word Job 39:23; 41:21; 𝖁 clypeus ‘shield’ Josh 8:18, 26; 1 Sam 17:6, 45; Job 39:23, scutum ‘shield’ Jer 6:23; 50:42, hasta ‘spear’ Job 41:21; 𝕾 nyzk‌ʾ ‘spear’ except ṭrpns‌ʾ ‘cuirass’ 1 Sam 17:6, skr‌ʾ ‘shield’ 1 Sam 17:45; 𝕿 ‫‘ רומח‬spear’ except ‫‘ מסחף‬visor’ 1 Sam 17:6, ‫‘ תריס‬shield’ Jer 6:23; 50:42 Hurr → Akk; Heb Akk katinnu (Alalakh, Nuzi, MB, Emar, Munbaqa, RS) CAD K 307; AHw 466; QH ‫ ;כידן‬Hurr kadinni- BGH 197; GLH 133 This word occurs only nine times in the Hebrew Bible. It sometimes appears amidst mentions of military armaments (1 Sam 17:6, 45; Jer 6:23; 50:42; Job 39:23), indicating that it denotes a weapon. The War Scroll from Qumran uses the term ‫כידן‬, a clear derivation from Biblical Hebrew ‫ּכִ ידֹון‬, several times. Its provided dimensions demonstrate that it refers to a long sword (1QM v:10–13) (Yadin 1962, 124–25, 129–31). Hebrew ‫ ּכִ ידֹון‬has no convincing Semitic etymology, but its mention in conjunction with Goliath’s weaponry (1 Sam 17:6, 45) and its association with the Anatolian term ḫaṣṣinnu ‘axe’ in Ras Shamra Akkadian (RS 19.23:11) suggest a loan from the eastern Mediterranean. The donor term is almost certainly Hurrian kadinni-, which contains the Hurrian derivational suffix -ni, -nni and is the source of Akkadian katinnu.296 The latter occurs in peripheral Akkadian dialects, including those associated with the Hurrians, and clearly refers to a weapon: at Alalakh it appears within mention of various objects, including weapons (AT 440:17), and at Emar it similarly occurs among mention of weapons (Emar 45:1–2).297 295.  SWET 338–39. According to Hoch, any association between Eg kṯ and Copt kači ‘pitcher, bucket’ is unfounded (cf. Crum 134; Černý 1976, 69). 296.  On the Hurrian derivational suffix -ni, -nni, see Wegner 2007, 55; Giorgieri 2000, 210–12; Wilhelm 2008, 92. 297.  Vita and Watson 2002, 147–49; Heltzer 1989; Huehnergard 2008, 174, 398. Although alleged by Heltzer to occur in Amarna Akkadian, EA 25 ii:42 should be read as [but]-ti-​in-​na-​šu-​nu (i.e., Akk butinnu) rather than [kat]-ti-​in-​na-​šu-​nu (i.e., Akk katinnu). Furthermore, there is probably no relationship between Ug qṭn and Akk katinnu (Vita 1996; Huehnergard 2008, 398).

120

Chapter 3

The Hebrew form ‫ ּכִ ידֹון‬exhibits vocalic metathesis, after which the stressed a-vowel became ḥolem due to the Canaanite shift. Vocalic metathesis occurs in other loans associated with Asia Minor, of Hurrian origin and otherwise (cf. BH ‫חָ רּוץ‬, Akk ḫurāṣu, and Hurr ḫiyari-, ḫiyaruḫḫe-; BH ‫ ּכֻּתֹ נֶת‬and Gk χιτών, κιθών, κιτών; and BH ‫סָ ִדין‬, Hurr sadinni-, and Gk σινδών), and therefore the vocalization presents no problems (contra Koller 2012, 181–82). The biblical evidence is ambiguous, but the War Scroll and rabbinic literature indicate that the sword denoted by ‫ ּכִ ידֹון‬was a long, straight sword (Koller 2012, 183–98). The passage 1 Sam 17:6 describes this weapon as slung across Goliath’s shoulders. The best parallels to this type of sword come from an eastern Mediterranean context, befitting Goliath’s origins: the Sea Peoples are depicted at Medinet Habu with swords slung across their chest, and Paris and Menelaus are said to carry swords across their chest (Il. 3.330–39) (Zorn 2010, 9–11; cf. Molin 1956). ‫( ּכִ ּיֹור‬a metal vessel) HALOT 472; DCH 4:392 (Exod 30:18, 28; passim298) [D] Hurr → Heb QH ‫ ;כיור‬Hurr *kiuri-299 This word appears 23 times in the Hebrew Bible. It almost always occurs in cultic contexts, in which it denotes a metal basin for washing in the tabernacle (Exod 30:18, 28; 31:9; 35:16; 38:8; 39:39; 40:7, 11, 30; Lev 8:11) or the temple (1 Kgs 7:30, 38, 40, 43; 2 Kgs 16:17; 2 Chr 4:6, 14; 6:13) (cf. Kelso 1948, 20; Honeyman 1939, 82). This word occurs in the Temple Scroll within similar contexts (e.g., 11QTa xxxiii:5). Scholars frequently connect Hebrew ‫ ּכִ ּיֹור‬with Neo-​Assyrian Akkadian kiūru (CAD K 476; AHw 496) and Urartian kiri- (Arutiunian 2001, 451), both of which denote a metal vessel.300 The former occurs in the annals of the Urartian king Sarduri II (KUKN 241E:56) and is the source of the latter, which in Neo-​Assyrian texts refers to metal cauldrons taken from Urartu as plunder (TCL 3 iii:362–63, 380, 395–96). However, neither of these terms refers to a cultic vessel, and there are additional problems with deriving Hebrew ‫ ּכִ ּיֹור‬from either Urartian or Akkadian. Concerning Urartian kiri-, it seems unlikely on historical grounds that Hebrew-​ speakers would borrow such a term from Urartu. Concerning Akkadian kiūru, there is no evidence that this word was ever fully integrated into the Akkadian 298.  Exod 31:9; 35:16; 38:8; 39:39; 40:7, 11, 30; Lev 8:11; 1 Sam 2:14; 1 Kgs 7:30, 38 (4×), 40, 43; 2 Kgs 16:17; Zech 12:6; 2 Chr 4:6, 14; 6:13. 299. JA, SA ‫ כיור‬are adopted from Biblical Hebrew (DJPA 256; DJBA 575; DSA 386). 300. E.g., J. Friedrich 1932, 66–70; ALBH 66. Albright (1968, 152–54, 216) contends that Urar kiri- comes from Sum kiur ‘foundation’ because Akk kiūru is written both syllabically (ki-​ú-​ri) and logographically (kiur) and because ‫ ּכִ ּיֹור‬appears with reference to a platform that Solomon stands on in 2 Chr 6:13. However, Sum kiur has no etymological relationship with Urar kiri- (cf. J. Friedrich 1932, 66–70). Furthermore, as Albright himself notes, Ugaritic and Egyptian depictions of deities standing on upside-​down cauldrons could serve as a possible background for 2 Chr 6:13.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

121

lexicon, and Neo-​Assyrian tribute lists are an unlikely source for borrowing by Hebrew-​speakers.301 Given Urartian’s cognate relationship to Hurrian, it is possible that this word entered Biblical Hebrew via a Hurrian form *kiuri-. The Akkadian representation of Urartian kiri- as kiūri demonstrates that this term contained a dipthong in Hurro-​ Urartian, hence the glide in Hebrew ‫ּכִ ּיֹור‬.302 Hurrian-​speakers lent a good number of vessel terms to Northwest Semitic during the second millennium b.c.e., especially vessels used in the cult (e.g., BH ‫ סֵ פֶל‬and Ug ḫbrṯ, ḫptr, ḫršḫ, kpsln).303 Postulating the existence of a Hurrian form *kiuri-, a term for a metal vessel cognate with later Urartian kiri-, best explains how this word came to be found in Palestine.304 ‫( ּכֵילָף‬an axe) HALOT 472; DCH 4:392 (Jer 22:7; Ps 74:6) 𝕲 πέλεκυς ‘axe’; 𝖁 armum ‘weapon’ Jer 22:7, ascia ‘axe’ Ps 74:6; 𝕾 nrgʾ ‘axe’ Jer 22:7, plqʾ ‘axe’ Ps 74:6; 𝕿 ‫‘ זין‬weapon’ Jer 22:7, ‫‘ מפסלת דיוסטר‬two-sided axe’ Ps 74:6 [?] CW Akk kalappu, kalabbu (Nuzi, MA, NA, NB), kullupinnu (OA) CAD K 66; AHw 424; JA, CPA ‫ כולב‬DJPA 253; DCPA 175; Syr kulbā LS² 607; Mand kulab MD 207; Hitt kullupi- HHw 93 This word appears in Ps 74:6, where it is mentioned along with the striking tool ‫ ּכ ִַּׁש יל‬and the verb ‫‘ הלם‬to hit, strike’. It also occurs in Jer 22:7, which describes the Babylonians’ destruction of the temple in terms similar to those in Ps 74:6: the MT reads ‫ ֵּכלָיו‬, but this should almost certainly be emended to ‫( ֵּכלַּפֹו‬Tur-​Sinai 1958–1959, 217). These two occurrences demonstrate that ‫ ּכֵילָף‬denotes an axe-​like implement. Hebrew ‫ ּכֵילָף‬is undoubtedly related to Akkadian kalappu, kalabbu, kullupinnu, which likewise refers to a tool like an axe. Also connected is Hittite kullupi-, which occurs in conjunction with agricultural implements for digging. The final double consonant of the Akkadian forms, the final -innu ending of Old Assyrian kullupinnu, this word’s peripheral distribution in Akkadian (Old Assyrian, Nuzi, 301. It could perhaps be argued that the association of kiūru with kannu ‘stand’ (e.g., 3 kiūrī erî dannūti ša 50-a-​a i mandat mê libbašunu ṣabtu adi kannīšunu dannūti erî [TCL 3 iii:396]) supports an Akkadian loan because the Hebrew Bible frequently associates ‫ ּכִ ּיֹור‬and ‫ּכַן‬. However, it is only natural that this type of vessel be mentioned along with its stand, and ‫ ּכַן‬and kannu are the common, expected words for denoting this. 302.  Urartian sometimes orthographically represents the diphthong iu as i. See Salvini and Wegner 2014, 15. 303.  LinB ki-​u-​ro could provide an additional form of this word, but its meaning is disputed. Its identification with the later Gk κίουρος, which may be related to Hurro-Urartian *kiuri-, is in question (Aura Jorro and Adrados 1985–1993, 1:369; LSJ 953). 304.  I am grateful to Joseph Lam for his assistance with this entry.

122

Chapter 3

and Middle Assyrian), and its attestation in Hittite all point to an ancient culture word originating in Anatolia.305 The vocalization of the Hebrew form, which may be in error, is difficult to reconcile as a direct borrowing from either the Hittite or the Akkadian form. It is therefore likely that Hebrew-​speakers adopted this word directly from the unknown source of this ancient culture word.306 ‫( ּכִ יר‬an oven for cooking) HALOT 473; DCH 4:392 (Lev 11:35) 𝕲 χυτρόπους ‘pot, cauldron’; 𝖁 chytropus ‘pot’; 𝕾 byt tpy‌ʾ ‘household hearth’; 𝕿Onq. ‫[ כור‬Aramaic form], 𝕿Ps.-J., Neof. ‫‘ תפי‬hearth’ [?] CW Sum gir PSD; Akk kīru (OB, SB, NB) CAD K 415–16; AHw 484–85 The word ‫ ּכִ יר‬appears only in Lev 11:35, where it describes an oven or stove for cooking. Rabin (1962, 1072) associates ‫ ּכִ יר‬with ‫ּכּור‬, which raises the important question as to whether Hebrew ‫ ּכּור‬and ‫ ּכִ יר‬are indeed variations of the same basic term. However, the former consistently refers to a furnace for smelting or testing metals whereas the latter refers to an oven for cooking. This distinction is supported by the ancient versions, which consistently understand the two words in that way. Thus, ‫ ּכִ יר‬should be kept separate from ‫ּכּור‬.307 At this point another important question arises, namely the possible relationship between Akkadian kīru and Hebrew ‫ּכִ יר‬. Akkadian kīru is limited to Babylonian Akkadian and consistently refers to a bitumen or lime kiln, unlike Hebrew ‫ּכִ יר‬, which denotes an oven for cooking. Thus, the semantic differences between Akkadian kīru and Hebrew ‫ ּכִ יר‬preclude a loan relationship (see Peacock 2013, 87). This raises a final question regarding Sumerian gir, the probable source of Akkadian kīru, and its relationship with Hebrew ‫ּכִ יר‬. Sumerian gir most often refers to an oven for cooking but can sometimes refer to a kiln for making bitumen. Hebrew ‫ ּכִ יר‬shares the first of these referents but not the second. Because Akkadian kīru is not attested with the meaning ‘cooking oven’, no Akkadian intermediary exists between Sumerian gir and Hebrew ‫ ּכִ יר‬and the latter cannot be a Sumero-​ Akkadian loanword. It is conceivable, therefore, that these terms all represent an ancient culture word for an oven that could also be used as a kiln.308 305.  Dercksen 2007, 34; ALBH 66; AIA 61; cf. Rabin 1963, 124; 1964, 169. The form kullupi- does not seem to be native to Hittite (Puhvel 1984–, K 245; HEG A–K 630). 306. Rabin 1963, 124; 1964, 169. Mankowski (ALBH 66–67) contends that the final doubled consonant (cf. the plural form ‫ ּכֵילַּפֹות‬in Ps 74:6) reflects Akk kalappu, implying an Akkadian intermediary. One could potentially support this argumentation by noting that ‫ ּכֵילָף‬specifically refers to Babylonian axes. However, it remains difficult to reconcile the vocalization of BH ‫ ּכֵילָף‬with that of Akk kalappu. 307. Contra ALBH 67–69; Peacock 2013, 86–88. It logically follows, then, that ‫ ּכִ יר‬must also be kept separate from Akk kūru ‘furnace’, which is cognate to BH ‫ּכּור‬. See the discussion of ‫ ּכּור‬in the Appendix. 308. AIA 65. Further complicating the picture is Arab kīr ‘bellows’ (Lane 2639). This word looks similar enough to Sum gir, Akk kīru, and BH ‫ּכִ יר‬, but the difference in meaning is somewhat troubling.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

123

‫‘ ּכְ לִ י‬ship’ HALOT 478–79; DCH 4:420–24 (Isa 18:2) 𝕲 ἐπιστολή ‘command, message’; 𝖁 vas ‘vessel, container’; 𝕾 mʾnʾ ‘vessel, container’; 𝕿 ‫‘ אזגד‬messenger’ [D] Eg → Heb Eg qwr, qr (NK, Ptolm), qrr (NK), kr, kwr (NK) GHwÄ 921, 932, 956; WÄS 5:21, 57, 134; DLE 2:175 The expression ‫ ּכְ לֵי־גֹ מֶ א‬in Isa 18:2 is often analyzed as the plural of ‫‘ ּכְ לִ י‬vessel, container’ in construct with ‫ּגֹ מֶ א‬, which denotes a reed or rush plant. Words of the same semantic range as Hebrew ‫ ּכְ לִ י‬can be used with reference to a container as well as a ship in other languages (cf. Modern English vessel), but there is no evidence that ‫ ּכְ לִ י‬ever refers to a ship elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew. It is also unusual that the biblical author did not use ‫אֳנִ ּיָה‬, the common word for ‘ship’ in Hebrew, because ‫ אֳנִ ּיָה‬is found elsewhere in Isaiah’s prophetic oracles (Isa 2:16; 23:1, 14; 43:14; 60:9) (Lubetski and Gottlieb 1998, 372). Isaiah 18 is an oracle against Kush, and ‫ּגֹ מֶ א‬, which is in construct with ‫ּכְ לִ י‬, is an Egyptian loanword. Therefore, it is likely that ‫ ּכְ לִ י‬is also borrowed from Egyptian. Indeed, a common word for ‘ship’ in Egyptian is qwr, also written as qr, qrr, kr, kwr (cf. Dem qry: CDD Q 59; DG 543). This Egyptian term provides a good phonological and semantic match to Hebrew ‫ּכְ לִ י‬.309 Thus, it is likely that Hebrew ‫ ּכְ לִ י‬comes from Egyptian qr, especially since the Egyptians made boats and rafts out of papyrus reeds.310 The precise vocalization of Hebrew ‫ּכְ לִ י‬, here incorrectly pointed by the Masoretes as the construct plural of ‫‘ ּכְ לִ י‬vessel’, remains uncertain because the vocalization of Egyptian qr remains uncertain.311 ‫‘ ּכַּמֹ ן‬cumin’ HALOT 481; DCH 4:429 (Isa 28:25, 27 [2×]) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾, 𝕿 each use their corresponding forms of the word (κύμινον, cyminum, kmwnʾ, and ‫כמון‬, respectively) [?] CW Sum gamun PSD; Akk kamūnu, kamannu (OAkk, OA, OB, Mari, Nuzi, SB, NA) CAD K 131–32; AHw 434; Ug kmn DUL 441; Phoen ‫ כמן‬DNWSI 515; JA, CPA ‫ כמון‬DJPA 262; DJBA 586; DCPA 180; Syr kammōnā LS² 630; Mand kamuna MD 197; Arab kammūn WKAS K 365; Eth kəmin, kamen, Furthermore, Fränkel (1886, 254) insists that kīr is a genuine Arabic word, in part because there is no obvious Aramaic candidate to serve as an intermediary. See ALBH 68. 309.  Lubetski and Gottlieb 1998, 372. Eg r can represent the lateral [l]; see J. Allen 2013, 40; Loprieno 1995, 33; Peust 1999, 127–29. Hence, the use of lamed for Eg r presents no problems. 310.  On Egyptian shipbuilding, see C. Ward 2001. 311.  Unfortunately, there are no extant Coptic forms that might shed light on the correct vocalization.

124

Chapter 3

kamin, kāmin, kamun CDG 285; Hitt kappani- HHw 79; LinA ku-mi-na Consani 1999, 278; LinB ku-mi-no Aura Jorro and Adrados 1985–1993, 1:401; Gk κὺμινον LSJ 1009; Lat cuminum, cyninum OLD 516 This word occurs only in Isa 28:25, 27. It is parallel to ‫‘ קֶ צַ ח‬dill’ in both verses, indicating that ‫ ּכַּמֹ ן‬refers to a spice, most probably the species Cuminum cyminum, or cumin (M. Zohary 1982, 88; Moldenke and Moldenke 1952, 89; Löw 1924–1934, 3:345–47). Additional Semitic forms of this word can be found in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Phoenician, Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that this word is native to Semitic. This word is widely attested outside the Semitic languages—namely, in Sumerian, Hittite, Linear A, Greek, and Latin—as is characteristic of ancient culture words. Furthermore, the species C. cyminum is not native to the ancient Near East but originated in the eastern Mediterranean region (Pickersgill 2005, 162; D. Zohary and Hopf 2000, 206). Accordingly, this culture word must have originated from this same area.312 Remains from a variety of sites (e.g., Tell ed-​Der in Syria) attest to the introduction and cultivation of cumin in the ancient Near East as early as the second millennium b.c.e. Its cultivation in ancient Palestine by the Iron Age is demonstrated by its mention as an agricultural product in Isa 28:25, 27. The seeds of this flowering plant were used as a condiment in antiquity, and it became particularly popular during the Roman period. In addition to its use as a spice, cumin was also valued for its medicinal qualities, and its oil was utilized for perfumes (Pickersgill 2005, 162; D. Zohary and Hopf 2000, 206; Borowski 1987, 98). ‫‘ ּכֹ מֶ ר‬pagan priest’ HALOT 482; DCH 4:429 (2 Kgs 23:5; Hos 10:5; Zeph 1:4) 𝕲 transliterates as χωμαριμ 2 Kgs 23:5, παρεπίκραναν ‘they provoked’ (perhaps seeing a connection with ‫‘ כמר‬to be stirred up’) Hos 10:5, Βααλ ‘Baal’ Zeph 1:4; 𝖁 aruspex ‘diviner, soothsayer’ 2 Kgs 23:5, aedituus ‘keeper of a temple’ Hos 10:5; Zeph 1:4; 𝕾 kwmr‌ʾ [Syriac form] 2 Kgs 23:5; Hos 10:5, khn‌ʾ ‘priest’ Zeph 1:4; 𝕿 ‫[ כמר‬Aramaic form] 2 Kgs 23:5, does not directly represent this word Hos 10:5, ‫‘ פלחיהון‬their worshippers’ Zeph 1:4 [D] Hurr → Akk; Heb; Phoen; Aram; Hitt Akk kumru (OA, Mari, Alalakh, Emar, MA) CAD K 534–35; AHw 506; QH ‫;כמר‬ Phoen, Pun ‫ כמר‬DNWSI 515–16; OAram, IA, Palm, Hatra ‫כמר‬, JA, CPA ‫כומר‬ DNWSI 515–16; DJPA 254; DJBA 563; DCPA 176; Syr kumrā LS² 608; Mand kumra MD 207; Hitt kumra- HHw 93; Hurr kumri- BGH 222313 312.  This is suggested by the element -ιν of κὺμινον, characteristic of Pre-​Greek words (EDG 802–3; Ruijgh 1982, 209). 313. Eg kmr occurs within a list of dancers, acrobats, and other court entertainers. Hence, it is unrelated to ‫( ּכֹ מֶ ר‬SWET 320–21; contra Albright 1934, 60). Akk kamiru, which occurs only in the Amarna letters with reference to some kind of official (EA 1:15, 33), is probably also unrelated.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

125

This word appears three times. In each instance, it clearly denotes a priest who is associated with idolatrous worship rather than worship of God (2 Kgs 23:5; Hos 10:5; Zeph 1:4). Hence, it has a more specific connotation than the common Hebrew word meaning ‘priest’, ‫ּכֹ הֵ ן‬, which occurs some 750 times in the Hebrew Bible. Hebrew ‫ ּכֹ מֶ ר‬has related forms in Semitic (Akkadian, Phoenician, and Aramaic) and non-​Semitic (Hittite and Hurrian). The Semitic forms have been derived from a root *kmr meaning ‘to be hot’ (cf. HALOT 482) or ‘to trap’ (cf. BDB 485) and assumed to be the source of the non-​Semitic forms. These derivations, however, are semantically unsatisfying because a priest has nothing to do with being hot or being trapped. The observation that Hebrew ‫ ּכֹ מֶ ר‬exclusively refers to a pagan (i.e., non-​ Israelite) priest, similar to the way that many of the Aramaic representations of this word denote a foreign priest, instead suggests that this word is non-​Semitic. The donor term is most probably Hurrian kumri-, which denotes a type of priest. Akkadian kumru first occurs in Old Assyrian texts and otherwise occurs primarily in peripheral dialects that tend to contain Hurrian terminology. In at least one Hurrianized context the derived form kumurse- ‘priesthood’ (BGH 222) is provided as a gloss to saĝa-še (AT 15:11), indicating that the former is the Hurrian equivalent of the Sumero-​Akkadian word for ‘priesthood’ and suggesting that it is native to Hurrian (cf. Von Dassow 2008, 274). Hittite kumra-, which alternates with the Sumerogram gudu12 and denotes a class of male priestly personnel of the Hittite temple in KUB 59.60:8–9, is otherwise unattested in Hittite and undoubtedly comes from Hurrian because KUB 59.60 is of Hurrian origin.314 Accordingly, this word probably entered Akkadian, Northwest Semitic, and Hittite via Hurrian. It must have been borrowed during the second millennium, but Hebrew-​speakers’ recognition that this term denoted a non-​Israelite priest indicates that it represents an independent rather than inherited loan. Along with other cultic terminology (e.g., ‫ )אֹוב‬and various cultic practices (e.g., the scapegoat ritual of the Day of Atonement in Lev 16), the Hebrew borrowing of this word reflects second millennium b.c.e. Anatolian influence on Israelite religion.315 ‫‘ ּכִ ּנֹור‬lyre’ HALOT 484; DCH 4:435 (Gen 4:21; passim316) [?] CW 314.  Yakubovich 2005, 432; cf. Hoffner 1996, 151–54. If Arm kʽurm ‘priest’ indeed comes from Urartian, this would provide confirmation of this word’s existence in the Hurro-​Urartian languages (cf. Yakubovich 2005, 432). However, Arm kʽurm probably comes from Syriac (HAB 4:596; Hübschmann 1897, 320). 315.  Hoffner 2002, xxxi–xxxiii; Singer 2006, 747. I am grateful to H. Craig Melchert and Mauro Giorgieri for their assistance with this entry. 316.  Gen 31:27; 1 Sam 10:5; 16:16, 23; 2 Sam 6:5; 1 Kgs 10:12; Isa 5:12; 16:11; 23:16; 24:8; 30:32; Ezek 26:13; Ps 33:2; 43:4; 49:5 [49:4]; 57:9 [57:8]; 71:22; 81:3 [81:2]; 92:4 [92:3]; 98:5 (2×); 108:3 [108:2]; 137:2; 147:7; 149:3; 150:3; Job 21:12; 30:31; Neh 12:27; 1 Chr 13:8; 15:16, 21, 28; 16:5; 25:1, 3, 6; 2 Chr 5:12; 9:11; 20:28; 29:25.

126

Chapter 3

Ebla kinnārum VE 264 (#572); Krebernik 1983, 21; Akk kinnāru (Mari, RS, Emar) CAD K 387; AHw 480; Ug knr DUL 445–46; QH ‫ ;כנור‬OAram ‫כנר‬, JA, CPA ‫ כינר‬DNWSI 520; DJPA 256; DJBA 575; DCPA 177; Syr kennārā LS² 636; Mand kinar, kinara MD 214; Hatt zinar, zinir Soysal 2004, 328, 941–42; Hitt *kinir-; Hurr *kinari- BGH 207; Eg knı̓wr (NK) GHwÄ 955; WÄS 5:132; SWET 324 (#467); DLE 2:174; Gk κινύρα LSJ 953; Skt kiṁnara- EWAia 3:90; KEWA 1:209; Arm kʽnar HAB 4:582 This word occurs 42 times in a variety of contexts. The term has a very wide distribution, but the majority and earliest of its occurrences are found to the north. The earliest attestations are from the third millennium, namely Eblaite kinnārum and Hattic zinar, zinir.317 Other related terms, once again found primarily to the north, include Mari and Emar Akkadian kinnāru, Ugaritic knr, Old Aramaic ‫כנר‬, Hittite *kinir-, and Hurrian *kinari-.318 This word is also likely attested in post-​ Vedic Sanskrit as kiṁnara-, a stringed instrument associated with the half-​human mythological creature kiṃnara.319 New Kingdom Egyptian knı̓wr, Greek κινύρα, and Armenian kʽnar may be loans from Semitic, but a Semitic origin is by no means proven and is ultimately unlikely.320 This term’s widespread distribution points to an ancient culture word. It most probably originated in northern Syria or Anatolia, where the earliest (i.e., third millennium b.c.e.) depictions of this lyre come from sites such as Carchemish, Urkesh, and Oylum Höyük in Anatolia (Lawergren 1998, 43–47, 58–59). The typical lyre denoted by this term, the thin lyre, had a flat base with a small sound box and arms that curved slightly outward. Ancient depictions of the thin lyre—​ primarily found on reliefs, seal impressions, and figurines—occasionally show lyre-​players with a plectrum, and it is likely that plectra were used on all thin lyres.321 ‫‘ ּכִ ּסֵ א‬seat, throne’ HALOT 487; DCH 4:439–40 317.  Hatt zinar, zinir also appears in the compounds ḫunzinar ‘large lyre’ and ippizinar ‘small lyre’ (Soysal 2004, 281, 283, 471, 495). Hatt zinar, zinir is the likely origin of Akk zannaru ‘lyre’. The Hattic forms may have originated from a Proto-​Luvian form of this word, in turn derived from a migratory term, no later than the end of the third millennium b.c.e. See Ivanov 1999, 587–89. 318.  Ug Knr also occurs as a deity name in pantheon lists (KTU 1.47:32; 1.118:31) and in a sacrificial list (KTU 1.148:9), and kinnāru occurs in Ras Shamra Akkadian as a deity name (RS 20.024:31) (Wyatt 1999). Hitt *kinir- appears in the compound kinirtalla- ‘lyre player’ (HHw 87). Finally, Hurr *kinari- appears in the compound kinnaruḫuli- ‘lyre player’, attested at Alalakh (BGH 207; GLH 148). 319.  Skt kiṁnara- occurs only in post-​Vedic Sanskrit and does not seem to be native to Indic; Tamil kiṇṇaram also appears in late texts and is not native to Dravidian (EWAia 3:90; KEWA 1:209). Hence, there is no evidence that this word originated in East Asia (contra Rabin 1962, 1079). 320.  SWET 324; EDG 701; DELG 513; Masson 1967, 69; HAB 4:582. 321.  Lawergren 1998, 43–47. As Lawergren notes, plectra are small and hard to represent, hence their lack of representation in ancient depictions.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

127

(Gen 41:40; passim322) [?] CW Sum guza PSD; Akk kussī‌ʾu (OAkk, OA), kussû (Nuzi, SB, NB), kissu (Emar) CAD K 587–93; AHw 515; Ug ksu͗, kśu͗ DUL 456; Sir, QH ‫ ;כסא‬Phoen ‫כסא‬ DNWSI 522; OAram, IA, QA ‫כרסא‬, JA, CPA ‫ כורסי‬DNWSI 522, 536–37; DQA 119; DJPA 254; DJBA 566; DCPA 176–77; Syr kursyā LS² 614; Mand kursia MD 209; Arab kursī WKAS K 126–27; Lane 2605–6; Hatt kusim, kušim Soysal 2004, 292, 572 The word ‫ ּכִ ּסֵ א‬appears 137 times in the MT and means ‘throne’, almost always with reference to a throne of God or of kings. Related Semitic forms can be found in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Phoenician, and various dialects of Aramaic. The Aramaic forms exhibit dissimilation of the double sibilant, and Arabic kursī is a loan from Aramaic (FWOT 89; cf. ALBH 71). There is no clear evidence that the Northwest Semitic forms are loans from Akkadian. Rather, several clues point to a non-​Semitic origin, despite this word’s widespread attestation in Semitic: the Semitic forms lack a convincing native etymology, quttil-pattern nouns are rare in Semitic, and the alternation between s and ś in Ugaritic ksu͗ , kśu͗ is common in non-​Semitic loans.323 This word cannot be a loan from Sumerian, however, because Sumerian guza comes from Akkadian.324 As already noted, the piece of furniture denoted by Hebrew ‫ ּכִ ּסֵ א‬tends to be associated with God or royalty; naturally, one does not expect a term for a simple seat to have been borrowed. Extant ancient chairs are likewise associated with gods or kings, since most ancient Mesopotamian people instead squatted on the floor or a small stool.325 Unfortunately, relevant extant realia shed no light on its origins,326 and this ancient culture word’s origin remains unclear. Whatever its origin, it is 322.  Exod 11:5; 12:29; Deut 17:18; Judg 3:20; 1 Sam 1:9; 2:8; 4:13, 18; 2 Sam 3:10; 7:13, 16; 14:9; 1 Kgs 1:13, 17, 20, 24, 27, 30, 35, 37 (2×), 46, 47 (2×), 48; 2:4, 12, 19 (2×), 24, 33, 45; 3:6; 5:19 [5:5]; 7:7; 8:20, 25; 9:5 (2×); 10:9, 18, 19 (2×); 16:11; 22:10, 19; 2 Kgs 4:10; 10:3, 30; 11:19; 13:13; 15:12; 25:28 (2×); Isa 6:1; 9:6 [9:7]; 14:9, 13; 16:5; 22:23; 47:1; 66:1; Jer 1:15; 3:17; 13:13; 14:21; 17:12, 25; 22:2, 4, 30; 29:16; 33:17, 21; 36:30; 43:10; 49:38; 52:32 (2×); Ezek 1:26 (2×); 10:1; 26:16; 43:7; Jon 3:6; Hag 2:22; Zech 6:13 (2×); Ps 9:5 [9:4], 8 [9:7]; 11:4; 45:7 [45:6]; 47:9 [47:8]; 81:4 [81:3]; 89:5 [89:4], 15 [89:14], 30 [89:29], 37 [89:36], 45 [89:44]; 93:2; 94:20; 97:2; 103:19; 122:5 (2×); 132:11–12; Job 26:9; 36:7; Prov 7:20; 9:14; 16:12; 20:8, 28; 25:5; 29:14; Lam 5:19; Esth 1:2; 3:1; 5:1; Neh 3:7; 1 Chr 17:12, 14; 22:10; 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chr 6:10, 16; 7:18; 9:8, 17, 18 (2×); 18:9, 18; 23:20. 323.  Cf. ALBH 70–71; AIA 29. Salonen (1963, 58) derives the Semitic forms from a hypothetical root *ksī ‘to bind’. However, he offers no positive evidence for this etymology or the existence of such a root in Semitic. 324.  AIA 28–29; ALBH 70; contra FWOT 89; Rabin 1962, 1072. The final -a of Sum guza is characteristic of Akkadian loans into Sumerian, Sum guza has no native etymology (there is no Sumerian verb *guz meaning ‘to cower, squat’, contra FWOT 89), and the doubled ss and final ‌ʾ of the Akkadian forms are inexplicable as a loan from Sumerian. On the Akkadian origin of Sum guza, see G. Steiner 2003, 633. 325.  Kubba 2006, 19. As Kubba notes, much of the rural population of the Middle East today prefers squatting and sleeping on the ground rather than on chairs or couches. 326.  On the realia associated with this term, cf. Metzger 1985.

128

Chapter 3

conceivable that a quttil-pattern non-​Semitic noun could have assimilated to the qittil-pattern of Biblical Hebrew ‫ּכִ ּסֵ א‬.327 ‫‘ ּכֹ פֶר‬henna’ HALOT 495; DCH 4:457 (Song 1:14; 4:13) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾 each use their corresponding forms of the word (κύπρος, cyprus, and kwprʾ, respectively); 𝕿 translates as ‫‘ כפר‬to make atonement’ Song 1:14, ‫כפור‬ [Aramaic form] Song 4:13 [D] ?? → Heb; Eg; Gk Eg qwpr, kwpr; Gk κύπρος LSJ 1012328 This word occurs only twice, both times in the Song of Songs. Following a comparison of her beloved to a sachet of myrrh between her breasts, the woman says that her beloved is a cluster of ‫ ּכֹ פֶר‬in the vineyards of Engedi (Song 1:14). The man later says his beloved’s watered fields are like a pomegranate orchard with ‫ ּכֹ פֶר‬and spikenard (Song 4:13). The contexts of these two passages, particularly their mention of myrrh and spikenard, indicate that ‫ ּכֹ פֶר‬denotes an aromatic plant. Scholars typically identify Hebrew ‫ ּכֹ פֶר‬with henna (Lawsonia inermis) based on its use in Song of Songs and through comparison with Greek κύπρος ‘henna’ (Musselman 2012, 72–73; Löw 1924–1934, 2:218–25). One could perhaps try to derive ‫ ּכֹ ֶפר‬from a root ‫‘ כפר‬to cover, smear’, but qutl-pattern nouns in Biblical Hebrew tend to represent primary rather than derived nouns.329 Furthermore, this plant term has a relatively late and limited attestation in the Semitic languages. Jewish Aramaic ‫ כופר‬and Syriac kup̄ rā occur rarely and often in connection with biblical passages mentioning ‫ּכֹ פֶר‬, suggesting that they are borrowings from Hebrew (DJBA 565; LS² 611). Greek κύπρος is also relatively late and rare, indicating that it comes from a non-​Greek source.330 The henna plant is native to northern Africa, so Hebrew ‫ ּכֹ פֶר‬and Greek κύπρος most probably come from this region along with the plant. Two pieces of evidence support such an origin. First, Classical writers associate henna with Africa. The physician Galen, for example, specifically associates henna with the βάρβαροι Ἰνδοί, an epithet used to refer to those living along the coast of the Red Sea (Simp. med. 327.  ALBH 71. Hatt kusim, kušim is a loan from Akkadian, as indicated by the final -m (Kassian 2010, 460). 328.  Interpreting Ug kpr, which occurs only within a particular portion of the Baal Cycle and parallel texts (KTU 1.3 ii:2; 1.7:15, 35), as ‘henna’ is dubious. Ug kpr does appear in connection with the expression rḥ gdm, ‘the scent of coriander’, but each of its three occurrences is fragmentary, and it is uncertain whether kpr constitutes a whole word. Even if kpr does occur as a distinct word in Ugaritic, it probably does not mean ‘henna’ (Renaut 2009, 196–97; contra DUL 448). 329. Cf. Bauer and Leander 1922, 460 (§61hʹʹ). On the difficulties of deriving ‫ ּכֹ פֶר‬from the root ‫כפר‬, albeit from the perspective of the homonym ‫‘ ּכֹ פֶר‬pitch’, see ALBH 72–73. 330.  Gk κύπρος is often derived from Northwest Semitic (e.g., EDG 805; DELG 577; Rosół 2013, 56–57; Masson 1967, 52–53). However, there is no clear evidence for this.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

129

7.96; cf. Dioscorides, Mat. med. 1.95; Pliny, Nat. 12.51.109). Second, this word has several forms used in northern Africa. It exists in Egyptian as qwpr, kwpr (cf. Dem qwpr, kwpr and Copt koupr: CDD Q 11–12; DG 536; Crum 114) and in Old Nubian as kofre. Both the Demotic and Coptic forms are used as personal names.331 Notably, Herod the Great’s Nabatean mother was named Κύπρος (Josephus, B.J. 1.407, 417; 2.484), and the Nabateans controlled the African–Arabian aromatics trade. These geographical associations suggest that this term meaning ‘henna’ came from somewhere in northern Africa along with the plant.332 By the first and second centuries c.e., this plant had come to be cultivated in Palestine (m. Šeb. 7:6). ‫( ּכֹ ר‬BH, BA) (a measure for volume) HALOT 496, 1901; DCH 4:458 (1 Kgs 5:2 [4:22] [2×], 25 [5:11] [2×]; Ezek 45:14; Ezra 7:22; 2 Chr 2:9 [2:10] [2×]; 27:5) 𝕲 κόρος [Greek form] except omits Ezek 45:14; 𝖁 transliterates as chorus; 𝕾 kwrʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫[ כור‬Aramaic form] [T] Sum → Akk →   → Heb   → Aram → Arab Sum gur PSD; Akk kurru (OAkk, OA, OB, Mari, Nuzi, SB, NB) CAD K 564– 65; AHw 511; QH ‫ ;כר‬IA, Nab, Hatra ‫כר‬, JA, CPA ‫ כור‬DNWSI 533–34; DJPA 254; DJBA 565–66; DCPA 176; Syr kūra LS² 612; Mand kura MD 209; Arab kurr WKAS K 105–6; Lane 2601; Gk κόρος LSJ 982 Hebrew ‫ ּכֹ ר‬occurs nine times in the Hebrew Bible, each time with reference to a measure for volume. According to Ezek 45:14, this measure contains 10 baths just like the ‫חֹ מֶ ר‬, another Semitic measure of volume equivalent to what could be carried by a donkey. Accordingly, its capacity was probably somewhere between 100 and 200 liters (Powell 1992, 903–4). The Biblical Aramaic form of this word, which has the exact same form as Biblical Hebrew ‫ּכֹ ר‬, appears only in Ezra 7:22. Related forms appear in Akkadian, Aramaic, and Arabic, yet this word has no Semitic etymology. Accordingly, scholars have long recognized that it is a loan from Akkadian kurru, in turn from Sumerian gur.333 Akkadian lent this word to Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, and Aramaic subsequently lent this word to Arabic.

331.  Kuentz 1972. Copt koupr is often thought to be borrowed from Semitic (e.g., Černý 1976, 61; Vycichl 1940, 80). However, as with Gk κύπρος, there is no clear evidence for this. 332.  Renaut 2009. Merrillees (1986) connects the origin of this word with the name for the island of Cyprus (Κύπρος), positing a connection between the metal copper for which Cyprus was known and the red-​brown color of henna (cf. Mayer 1960, 323). However, only Pliny associates henna with Cyprus (Nat. 12.51.109). He perhaps does so because they sound similar, a resemblance that is probably only coincidental given the clear association of henna with North Africa. 333.  ALBH 73; Lipiński 1988, 68; AIA 65; FWOT 91–92; Zimmern 1917, 21; Fränkel 1886, 207. On the Sumerian origin of Akk kurru, see SLOB 277 (#263).

130

Chapter 3

Greek κόρος, attested primarily in Jewish literature of the Second Temple period (e.g., 𝕲 Num 11:32; Luke 16:7; Josephus, Ant. 15.9.2), comes from Semitic. ‫( ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬a type of pointed cap) HALOT 1901–2 (Dan 3:21) OG omits; θ′ περικνημίς ‘gaiter, leg-​covering’; 𝖁 calciamentum ‘shoe’; 𝕾 nḥt‌ʾ ‘garment’ [D] OIran (Scyth) → Akk; Aram Akk karballatu, karballutu (NA, NB, LB) CAD K 215; AHw 449; IA, JA ‫כרבלה‬ DNWSI 534; DJBA 599; OIran *karbala- (Scyth)334 The term ‫ ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬occurs only once in Biblical Aramaic within the list of clothing worn by Daniel’s companions Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. According to Dan 3:21, these three men were thrown into Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace still wearing all their clothes, which included ‫( סַ ְרּבָ ל‬a type of trousers), ‫( ּפ ִַּטיׁש‬a type of leg wrappings), and ‫( לְ בּוׁש‬a generic term for clothing). Related forms occur in Akkadian as well as Imperial Aramaic and later Aramaic dialects.335 Nevertheless, this word’s quadriliteral morphology betrays a non-​ Semitic origin, as does the book of Daniel’s association of ‫ ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬with the foreign terms ‫ סַ ְרּבָ ל‬and ‫ּפ ִַּטיׁש‬. An Old Iranian loan is likely given the context of the book of Daniel and the presence of numerous other Old Iranian loans within the chapter. This word must have come from a non-​standard Old Iranian dialect because the liquids r and l merged in most Old Iranian dialects (cf.  Schmitt 2008, 83; Testen 1997, 582; OPGTL 38 [§107]). Therefore, I propose that the donor language is Scythian. Akkadian karballatu, karballutu denotes a pointed cap worn on the head. It only occurs in late texts, most often in texts related to Persia (e.g., Cyr 183:17; Dar 253:7). At least one Late Babylonian text specifically associates it with the Scythians, described as Sakā tigraxaudā in the parallel Old Persian text (API 24:15 // DNa 15).336 The Scythians had a significant cultural influence on various peoples of the Iranian plateau, and by the end of the sixth century b.c.e. many of the latter had adopted Scythian clothing (Lubotsky 2002, 189). Thus, the pointed cap denoted by this term probably originated with the Scythians and passed on to Persia, where it became a part of Persian dress and subsequently entered Akkadian and Aramaic.337 334.  Syr karbāltā ‘cock’s comb’ is also related (LS² 647; cf. AIA 63). 335. BH ‫כרבל‬, a verb meaning ‘to wrap’, occurs only once (1 Chr 15:27). It could be denominal, as its attestation in the Pual stem suggests, but ‫ ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬seemingly has nothing to do with wrapping. It is possible, therefore, that ‫ כרבל‬exhibits dissimilation from ‫‘ *כבל‬to bind’ (HALOT 459). 336.  The text has Gimirri, but in Late Babylonian Akkadian Gimirri was the equivalent of OPers Sakā ‘Scythians’ (Tokhtasʹev 1992; Dandamaev 1979, 96). 337. Cf. F. Rosenthal 2006, 63. Rabin connects ‫ ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬with Gk κρωβύλος, which denotes a roll or tuft of hair at the crown of the head, as well as Hitt kariulli-, which seems to refer to a hood (Rabin 1963, 123–24; 1964, 169). Classical sources do connect Gk κρωβύλος with the Persians (Xenophon, Anab.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

131

The Scythians are portrayed wearing pointed caps (much like a modern balshyk) in the Apadāna Relief at Persepolis, and their particular style of pointed cap was so well known that one of their tribes, the Orthocorybantians (Greek Ὀρθοκορυβαντίων), are called Sakā tigraxaudā ‘Scythians wearing a pointed cap’ in Old Persian texts (Yatsenko 1992; Klochko 1986; Widengren 1956, 234). ‫‘ ּכָרֹוז‬herald’ HALOT 1902 (Dan 3:4) OG κῆρυξ ‘herald, public messenger’; 𝖁 praecox ‘herald’; 𝕾 krwz‌ʾ [Syriac form] Gk → Aram JA, SA, CPA ‫ כרוז‬DJPA 268; DSA 409; DCPA 184; Syr kārōzā LS² 647; Gk κῆρυξ, κᾶρυξ LSJ 949338 Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּכָרֹוז‬occurs only once. Nebuchadnezzar builds a golden image and summons his subjects. After everyone has arrived, a ‫ ּכָרֹוז‬calls aloud (‫)קָ ֵרא בְ חָ יִ ל‬ to everyone and relays Nebuchadnezzar’s message that they are to worship the image (Dan 3:4). The context clearly demonstrates that ‫ ּכָרֹוז‬means ‘herald’ or the like. The verb ‫כרז‬, meaning ‘to announce, proclaim,’ is common in Aramaic.339 Nevertheless, this verb does not occur in the Semitic languages outside Aramaic and is denominal. Thus, Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּכָרֹוז‬and other related forms in Jewish, Samaritan, and Christian Palestinian Aramaic as well as Syriac cannot be derived from it. Moreover, Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּכָרֹוז‬does not follow the nominal pattern for professions typical of Aramaic.340 Biblical Aramaic, therefore, is plausibly foreign. The donor term is non-​Attic Greek κᾶρυξ ‘herald’, the non-​Attic form of κῆρυξ attested in Mycenaean (cf. LinB ka-​ru-​ke: Aura Jorro and Adrados 1985–1993, 1:327), Aeolic, and Doric.341 Original 5.4.13) as well as the Ionians and peoples living in the Black Sea and Pontic regions (Thucydides, Hist. 1.6.3). Nevertheless, the forms and meanings of Gk κρωβύλος and Hitt kariulli- differ noticeably from those of Semitic, so a direct connection remains unlikely. 338.  This word may also occur in Official and Palymerene Aramaic, but its attestation is debated (DNWSI 535). 339.  It appears, for example, in Biblical Aramaic, Nabatean, Jewish and Samaritan Aramaic, and Syriac (HALOT 1902; DNWSI 534–35; DJPA 268; DJBA 600; DSA 408–9; LS² 649–50). 340. The typical nomen agentis pattern in Biblical Aramaic is qattāl (F. Rosenthal 2006, 26–27 [§40]). Tropper (1997, 113) compares the qātōl nominal pattern used for professions in Syriac. However, his comparison with the qātōl nominal pattern in Syriac is misleading because qātōl is a pattern particular to the Peal stem in Syriac, whereas BA ‫ כרז‬only occurs in the Haphel. Furthermore, the use of the qātōl pattern as a nomen agentis is a later development, something that occurred as the original participle qātel became a true present tense. 341. Lipiński 1978, 236; cf. AAT 2:58. Several scholars derive BA ‫ ּכָרֹוז‬from an OIran *xrauzā, comparing Av xraos- ‘to call, shout’ and noting the existence of several substantives meaning ‘rooster’ in later Persian, such as Pahl xrōs and NPers xurōs (Eilers 1940, 19–20; Schaeder 1930, 56). While conceivable, the use of kap for OIran x is unheard of in Old Iranian loans from this period, as is the lack of representation of the Iranian consonant cluster xr (cf. Telegdi 1935, 198). Shaffer (1965) instead connects Aram ‫ כרז‬with Hurr *kirezzi-, an alleged assimilated form of kirenzi- attested in HSS 19.75:17.

132

Chapter 3

ᾱ (cf. LinB ka-​ru-​ke) is preserved in all Greek dialects with the exception of Attic-​ Ionic, in which it becomes η (Buck 1955, 21 [§8]; Thumb, Kieckers and Scherer 1932–1959, 2:196–97 [§285]; Lejeune 1972, 234–35 [§249]). Biblical Aramaic does not tolerate final consonant clusters, and hence the velar stop [k] of the consonant group represented by Greek ξ was ignored so that only the final alveolar fricative [s] was represented.342 Because the non-​Attic dialects were progressively Atticized, and because Alexander the Great popularized the Attic koine, the non-​Attic nature of ‫ ּכָרֹוז‬points to a borrowing prior to the Hellenistic era (Noonan forthcoming). Not surprisingly, the Greek herald denoted by the Greek loanword ‫ ּכָרֹוז‬is associated with Greek instruments. In Dan 3:5 he calls for instruments to be played, including several Greek ones (‫קִ יתָ רֹוס‬, ‫ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬, and ‫)סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ along with traditional Mesopotamian ones (‫ קֶ ֶרן‬and ‫)מַ ְׁשרֹוקִ י‬. Many artisans, merchants, and merchants from the Greek isles and Greek Asia Minor served in the ancient Near East.343 Accordingly, it would not be surprising if Greek musicians were also present, led by a Greek herald.344 ‫‘ ּכ ְַרּכֹ ם‬saffron’ HALOT 498; DCH 4:460 (Song 4:14) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾 each use their corresponding forms of the word (κρόκος, crocus, and kwrkmʾ, respectively); 𝕿 ‫‘ מוריק‬safflower’ [?] CW Gk κρόκος LSJ 998; Lat crocus OLD 505; Skt kuṅkuma- EWAia 3:95; KEWA 1:219; Pahl kurkum CPD 52345 The word ‫ ּכ ְַרּכֹ ם‬occurs only in Song 4:14, where it appears amid mentions of exotic spices and aromatics, including ‫‘ נ ְֵר ְּד‬spikenard’, ‫( קִ ּנָמֹון‬a cinnamon-​like plant), and ‫‘ ֲא הָ לֹות‬aloe’. Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּכ ְַרּכֹ ם‬plausibly denotes saffron, obtained from the flower of the crocus plant (Crocus sativus L.). This plant product was used for making frankincense, flavoring foods, and dyeing items golden-​yellow.346

However, Hurr kirenzi- does not mean ‘proclamation’ but is the equivalent of Hitt parā tarnumar and means ‘remission, release’ (BGH 211; Neu 1996, 8–9). 342.  Although rare, some Greek loanwords in Syriac also represent ξ as [s] without the velar stop (e.g., ἐξκουβίτωρ > ‌ʾsqwbyṭrws, λῶταξ > lwṭs‌ʾ). Cf. Butts 2013, 105. 343.  Hagedorn 2005; Niemeier 2001; Waldbaum 1997; Yamauchi 1970; 1981. 344.  I am grateful to John Makujina for his assistance with this entry. 345. JA ‫כורכם‬, which occurs only in late literary texts, as well as Syr kurkmā are both borrowings from Middle Persian (DJBA 566; LS² 613; Ciancaglini 2008, 194). Akk kurkānû, an aromatic medicinal plant, is almost certainly not related. This Akkadian term appears already in Middle and Standard Babylonian and has a final -û that is not represented in the other allegedly related forms (Landsberger 1964–1966, 260). 346. Musselman 2012, 127; Löw 1924–1934, 2:7–25. The related Indic, Iranian, Greek, and Latin terms all clearly refer to C. sativus rather than Curcuma longa L. Unless there has been a change in referent, there is no reason to think that ‫ ּכ ְַרּכֹ ם‬refers to the latter (contra Brenner 1983, 76).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

133

This word’s quadriliteral structure suggests a foreign origin. Several scholars contend that Hebrew ‫ ּכ ְַרּכֹ ם‬comes from post-​Vedic Sanskrit kuṅkuma- (e.g., Rabin 1962, 1079; FWOT 93). However, the latter’s late attestation argues against its originality to Indic, and the medial consonant cluster does not match the Hebrew form. Other scholars compare a hypothetical Old Iranian *kurkum- (e.g., Brenner 1983, 76–77; Dobbs-​Allsopp 2005, 66), but a direct borrowing does not adequately explain the Hebrew vocalization. In any case, this word did not exist in Old Iranian and was first borrowed into Middle Persian from Indic (cf. Pahl kurkum: CPD 52).347 Lastly, one might compare Greek κρόκος, the origin of Latin crocus (DELL 152), but phonological and morphological differences once again argue against a direct borrowing. Ultimately, all these terms must go back to an ancient culture word that most probably originated in the eastern Mediterranean, where the saffron crocus was first cultivated.348 Classical authors consistently locate the saffron crocus in the Aegean, from whence it spread to places such as Cilicia (e.g., Dioscorides, Mat. med. 1.26; Pliny, Nat. 21.12.31–32).349 At least two additional pieces of evidence associate the saffron crocus with the early Aegean: the croc logogram, a clear representation of the saffron crocus, appears in Linear B tablets from the Palace of Minos at Knossos; and Minoan and Cycladic art (especially frescoes) commonly depict saffron crocus flowers. All this demonstrates that the saffron crocus plant was first cultivated in the Aegean (Negbi and Negbi 2002; D. Zohary and Hopf 2000, 207). This culture word must have originated somewhere in the Aegean because the term would have been borrowed along with the product. How, precisely, it passed into Hebrew, however, remains unclear. ‫‘ ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬crimson’ HALOT 498–99; DCH 4:462 (2 Chr 2:6, 13 [2:7, 14]; 3:14350) 𝕲 κόκκινος, 𝖁 coccinus, 𝕾 ssgwn‌ʾ, 𝕿 ‫ זהורי‬all refer to a vermillion-​like color [D] OInd → Heb OInd *kṛmila- EWAia 1:394–95; KEWA 1:261–62 The word ‫ ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬occurs three times in the book of Chronicles with reference to materials used for Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 2:6, 13; 3:14). Its mention along with the colors ‫‘ אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬purple’ and ‫‘ ְּת ֵכלֶת‬blue’ indicates that it refers to a color or dye.

347.  Cf. Gignoux 1998–1999, 199. Notably, neither Hinz (AISN) nor Tavernier (AIP) reconstructs an OIran *kurkum-. 348.  Cf. Schrader 1911, 469. Contrary to what is sometimes thought, the Indic languages are not the original source of this ancient culture word (EWAia 3:95; KEWA 1:219). 349.  According to Strabo (Geogr. 14.5.5), the best saffron crocus flowers grew in the Corycian Cave, located at Corycus (Κώρυκος) in Cilicia. 350. It is possible that, following Ibn Janaḥ and Ibn Ezra, ‫ ַּכּכ ְַרמֶ ל‬in Song 7:6 should be emended to ‫ּכְ כ ְַר ִמל‬, thus providing an additional attestation of ‫( ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬cf. Graetz 1871, 196).

134

Chapter 3

This word approximates, although is not necessarily precisely equivalent to, the relatively more common Hebrew terms ‫ ׁשָ נִ י‬and ‫( ּתֹולָע‬Rezetko 2007, 397–98). This word has no apparent Semitic cognate or etymology, and its quadriliteral structure suggests a non-​Semitic origin. The donor term is Old Indic *kṛmila- ‘crimson’ (cf. Skt kṛmilikā-) (Powels 1992, 196–97). Old Indic *kṛmila- is an adjectival form of *kṛ́mi- (cf. Skt kṛ́mi-), which can refer to an insect or worm (EWAia 1:394– 95; KEWA 1:261–62, 3:681). Old Indic *kṛmila- came to mean ‘crimson’ because a dye of this color was obtained from some of the insects denoted by this term, namely those of the genus Kermes (and especially the species K. vermilio). According to Indian texts, the coloring principle was obtained by squeezing the insect while submerged in liquid. The resulting substance was then mixed with other materials to produce a fast dye of excellent color, used primarily for dyeing silken and woolen materials (cf. Abhayadeva Suri’s commentary on Sthānaṅga Sūtra 4.2.293).351 ‫‘ ּכ ְַרּפַס‬cotton’ HALOT 500; DCH 4:463 (Esth 1:6) 𝕲 καρπάσινος, 𝖁 carbasinus ‘of cotton’; 𝕾 ʿmr kwbʾ ‘cotton’; 𝕿 does not directly represent this word [D] OInd →   → Heb   → Gk → Lat Gk κάρπασος LSJ 879; Lat carbasus OLD 302; OInd *karpāsa- EWAia 1:317–18; KEWA 1:174–75352 This word appears only once, in the book of Esther, where it refers to a white material that adorns Artaxerxes’ palace (Esth 1:6). Its quadriliteral structure and lack of any Semitic etymology together suggest a foreign loan. Some scholars assume that, given the Persian setting of the book of Esther, Hebrew ‫ ּכ ְַרּפַס‬comes from a hypothetical Old Iranian *karpāsa- ‘cotton’, in turn borrowed from Old Indic *karpāsa- (cf. Skt karpāsa-) (Powels 1992, 189–90; FWOT 94). However, this word does not occur in the Iranian languages until much later (cf. NPers karbās: CPED 1021), and there is little basis for reconstructing this word in Old Iranian aside from a presumed Iranian origin for Hebrew ‫ּכ ְַרּפַס‬.353 Greek κάρπασος ‘cotton’ is a direct loan from Indic.354 The Periplus of the Erythaean Sea specifically states that this product comes from India (Peripl. M. Rubr. 41), and the cotton plant is native to India (Barber 1991, 32–33; D. Zohary and 351. Roy 1978, 91–92. A completely different Indic term was used to refer to lac, or the dye produced by lac-​insects (cf. Skt lākṣā́ -). Because the term should have been borrowed along with the product, ‫ ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬probably does not refer to lac (contra Powels 1992, 197). 352. JA ‫ כרפס‬occurs in 𝕿 and is adopted from BH ‫( ּכ ְַרּפַס‬Jastrow 1903, 673). Syr krap̄ sā does not mean ‘cotton’ but ‘celery, parsley’ (CAL; contra LS² 647). 353.  Notably, neither Hinz (AISN) nor Tavernier (IAP) reconstructs an OIran *karpāsa-. 354.  EDG 648; DELG 481. Lat carbasus is, in turn, a loan from Greek (DELL 99; LEW 1:165).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

135

Hopf 2000, 134–35). Thus, it is likely that Hebrew also adopted this word directly from Old Indic (Rabin 1962, 1079; AAT 1:47). The Achaemenid Empire extended as far eastward as India, and it is almost certain that Indian cotton would have been available to a ruler like Artaxerxes. ‫‘ ּכ ֵָרׂש‬belly, stomach’ HALOT 500; DCH 4:463 (Jer 51:34) 𝕲 κοιλία ‘stomach, intestines’; 𝖁 venter ‘belly, stomach’; 𝕾 krsʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫‘ בית גנזין‬treasury’ [?] CW Akk karšu, karašu (OA, OB, SB, NA), kursānu, kursinnu (OA), gusānu (OB, Chagar, Mari, MA), kušānu (Alalakh), gusannu (Nuzi) CAD G 142–43, K 223–25, 567; AHw 299, 450–51, 1557; Ug krsu͗, krśu͗, qrsu͗, krsn, krśn DUL 452–53, 701; JA, CPA ‫כרס‬, ‫ כריס‬DJPA 270; DJBA 603–4; DCPA 185–86; Syr karsā LS² 655–56; Mand kras MD 201; Arab kirš WKAS K 129–30; Lane 2606–7; Eth karś CDG 294; Eg krs (NK) GHwÄ 957; WÄS 5:135; SWET 332– 33 (#483); Hitt kurša- HHw 95; Gk βύρσα LSJ 333 Hebrew ‫ ּכ ֵָרׂש‬occurs only in Jer 51:34, which colorfully describes Nebuchadnezzar’s defeat of Jerusalem through the imagery of devouring. Within this context, ‫ ּכ ֵָרׂש‬is used to denote Nebuchadnezzar’s belly. This word has related forms with the meaning ‘belly’ in many other Semitic languages, including Akkadian, Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic. Some of these related forms also occur with the meaning ‘sack’, a natural use for an animal’s stomach. This invites further comparison with terms found with the meaning ‘hide, skinbag’ in Akkadian and Ugaritic. Also related are New Kingdom Egyptian krs ‘sack’ (written with group writing and non-​native to Egyptian) as well as Hittite kurša and Greek βύρσα, both meaning ‘hide, skinbag’. In Hittite texts, the sack denoted by this term was associated with the hunt and related rituals (Güterbock 1989). The spelling varies greatly among these different forms: the initial consonant is most often k but sometimes appears as q (Ugaritic) or b (Greek and Latin), the medial consonant r is not always present, and the final sibilant varies considerably. The wide variety of spellings, this term’s wide distribution, and the lack of a plausible Semitic etymology all point to an ancient culture word. The western distribution, moreover, indicates that this culture word originated in the same region.355 This word even found its way into a number of modern languages, including French bourse and Modern English purse (via post-​Classical Latin bursa, in turn borrowed from Greek βύρσα).

355.  This western Asiatic culture word may ultimately be of Pre-​Greek origin (EDG 249; Furnée 1972, 65; cf. Puhvel 1984–, K 274; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1994–1995, 1:798).

136

Chapter 3

‫( ּכֶתֶ ם‬a type of fine gold) HALOT 505; DCH 4:475 (Isa 13:12; Ps 45:10 [45:9]; Job 28:16, 19; 31:24; Prov 25:12; Song 5:11; Lam 4:1; Dan 10:5) 𝕲 ὁ λίθος ὁ ἐκ Σουφιρ ‘stone from Ophir’ Isa 13:12, χρυσίον ‘gold’ Ps 45:10; Job 28:16, 19; Song 5:11, λίθος πολυτελής ‘expensive stone’ Job 31:24, σάρδιον πολυτελής ‘precious carnelian’ Prov 25:12, τὸ ἀργύριον τὸ ἀγαθόν ‘good silver’ Lam 4:1, does not directly represent this word Dan 10:5; 𝖁 obrizus ‘pure gold’ Isa 13:12; Job 31:24; Dan 10:5, translates ‫ כֶתֶ ם אֹופִ יר‬as diadema aureus ‘diadem of gold’ Ps 45:10, tinctus Indiae color ‘dyed color of India’ Job 28:16, tinctura mundissima ‘clean dye’ Job 28:19, margaritum fulgens ‘bright pearl’ Prov 25:12, aurum optimum ‘finest gold’ Song 5:11, color optimus ‘finest color’ Lam 4:1; 𝕾 dhbʾ ‘gold’ Isa 13:12; Ps 45:10; Job 28:16; 31:24; Song 5:11; Lam 4:1, kʾpʾ dpdtʾ ‘stone of ephod’ Job 28:19, srdwnʾ ṭbʾ ‘good sardius’ Prov 25:12, yqrʾ ‘honor, glory’ Dan 10:5; 𝕿 ‫‘ מסנן‬that which is pure’ Isa 13:12, ‫אובריז‬ ‘pure gold’ Ps 45:10, ‫‘ פיטלון‬gold leaf’ Job 28:16, 19; 31:24, ‫‘ זמרגד‬emerald’ Prov 25:12, ‫ דהב‬Song 5:11; Lam 4:1 ‘gold’ [D] Ophirite → Heb; Eg QH ‫ ;כתם‬Eg ktm.t (since NK), kṯm.t (NK), qtm (Ptol) GHwÄ 961; WÄS 5:145; SWET 338 (#501); DLE 2:179, 181 This word occurs nine times. Based on its contexts, it is clear that it refers to a special type of gold. In four of the occurences, ‫ ּכֶתֶ ם‬appears in poetic bicola in the MT and occupies the second colon (Isa 13:12; Job 28:19; 31:24; Lam 4:1), which may provide indirect evidence for its relative value compared with regular gold. In at least three of its occurrences (Isa 13:12; Ps 45:10; Job 28:16), the Hebrew Bible associates ‫ ּכֶתֶ ם‬with Ophir, a toponym located near the southern shore of the Red Sea.356 The region of Ophir was well known for its gold in antiquity, and the evidence thus points to a southern “Ophirite” origin for this term.357 New Kingdom Egyptian texts mention ktm.t, kṯm.t, qtm (cf. Dem ktm, qtm: CDD K 41–42, Q 104; DG 569) as a type of gold that comes from Nubia, attributing it to the same region as Ophir.358 There is no evidence of any connection between these words and Akkadian kutimmu.359 356. Daniel 10:5 may also contain the same association if ‫ ּכֶתֶ ם אּופָז‬should be emended to ‫ּכֶתֶ ם אֹופִ יר‬ (cf. BHS; J. J. Collins 1993, 361). On the location of Ophir, see Baker 1992a. 357. Cf. FWOT 95; Lambert 2003, 132. Ophir became so associated with gold that ‫ אֹופִ יר‬denotes ‘gold’ rather than the toponym ‘Ophir’ in Job 22:24. An eighth century b.c.e. inscription from Tell Qasile also mentions gold from Ophir, albeit using the common Hebrew word for ‘gold’ (‫)זהב אפר‬ (HAE Qas (8):2:1). 358. Like ‫ּכֶתֶ ם‬, Eg ktm.t refers to a special kind of gold, being preceded by nbw nfr ‘fine gold’ in a number of occurrences (e.g., P Harris I 13a,5; 47,5). By the Ptolemaic period, however, it had broadened its referent to include gold in general. 359.  Contra Albright 1934, 61; Lambdin 1953b, 151–52; ALBH 76–77. Albright, Lambdin, and Mankowski each suggest that the source of Eg ktm.t is an unattested form from second millennium b.c.e. Northwest Semitic (so-​called “early Canaanite”) which was, in turn, loaned from Akk kutimmu ‘goldsmith’. However, there is no clear relationship between Eg ktm.t and Akk kutimmu, and Mankowski admits that little evidence exists to support the speculative series of semantic changes required to move

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

137

An African origin for this word coheres well with known sources of gold in antiquity. There are no known sources of gold that were exploited in ancient Mesopotamia, Syria, or Palestine, but Egypt and Nubia as well as western and southern Arabia were well known for their gold (cf. Strabo, Geogr. 16.4.18; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 3.45.5–8) (Moorey 1999, 219–20). In ancient Egypt, gold mines were common from the Eastern Desert (roughly near the level of Qena–Quseir) as far south as the border of modern Sudan. The Egyptians themselves delimited three gold-​mining regions: Koptos, Wawat, and Kush. Each of these was a significant source of the metal during different periods, beginning with the Old Kingdom. Gold objects manufactured in Egypt include bracelets and beads, and gold foil and plating were very common (Ogden 2000, 161, 165–66; Lucas 1962, 224–34; Klemm and Klemm 1994). ‫( ּכֻּתֹ נֶת‬an outer garment) HALOT 505; DCH 475–76 (Gen 3:21; passim360) [?] CW Ug ktn DUL 464; QH ‫ ;כתנת‬IA ‫כתן‬, QA ‫כתון‬, JA ‫כיתון‬‎, ‫כתונה‬‎, ‫ כיתנית‬DNWSI 548; DQA 120; DJPA 272; DJBA 579; Syr kittōnā, kuttīnā LS² 616, 663; Mand kituna MD 216; LinB ki-​to Aura Jorro and Adrados 1985–1993, 1:368; Gk χιτών, κιθών, κιτών LSJ 1993; Lat tunica OLD 2193361 The word ‫ ּכֻּתֹ נֶת‬occurs 29 times in the Hebrew Bible, primarily with reference to priestly garments (e.g., Exod 28:4, 39–40). However, it also denotes Joseph’s special garment given to him by his father (Gen 37:3, 23, 31–33) and elsewhere occurs as a generic term for an outer garment (e.g., Gen 3:21; 2 Sam 13:18–19). The precise etymology of this word is obscure. One may compare a number of forms in Semitic (Ugaritic, Imperial and Jewish Aramaic, and Mandaic) as well as non-​Semitic (Greek, including Linear B,362 and Latin). The variant spellings and vocalizations together point to an ancient culture word. The western distribution suggests an origin from the same region. A western origin could be supported by the varying spelling of the Greek forms, thought to reflect an Anatolian origin by some Classicists.363 from ‘goldsmith’ to ‘fine gold’. Hence, the similarity of the Egyptian and Hebrew forms to that of Akk kutimmu is coincidental. 360.  Gen 37:3, 23 (2×), 31 (2×), 32 (2×), 33; Exod 28:4, 39–40; 29:5, 8; 39:27; 40:14; Lev 8:7, 13; 10:5; 16:4; 2 Sam 13:18–19; 15:32; Isa 22:21; Job 30:18; Song 5:3; Ezra 2:69; Neh 7:69 [7:70], 71 [7:72]. 361.  Best (1973, 57–58) also finds this word as qi-​tu-​ne in the Linear A tablets from Hagia Triada (HT 7b:1; 117b:1). However, the sign group qi-​tu-​ne instead seems to represent a name or title (Consani 1999, 293). 362.  Notably, an n appears in several forms other than the nominative singular of LinB ki-​to: the nominative plural is ki-​to-​ne, and the accusative singular and accusative plural is ki-​to-​na. 363. EDG 1635; Furnée 1972, 136; contra DELG 1216; Rosół 2013, 105–7; Masson 1967, 27–29. Kutscher (1984, 69–70) argues that the Greek vocalization reflects the Hebrew tendency to dissimilate the first of two u-class vowels into an i-class vowel. While this is possible, the vocalization of the Greek forms could have arisen through dissimilation in Greek rather than Hebrew. Similar patterns occur in

138

Chapter 3

One may perhaps also compare the above terms with a number of similar-​ looking terms meaning ‘linen, flax’ (Phoen ‫כתן‬, IA ‫כתן‬, JA, CPA ‫כיתן‬‎, ‫כיתאן‬, Syr kettānā, Mand kitana, and Eth kətān: DNWSI 547–48; DJPA 257; DJBA 579; DCPA 178; LS² 663; MD 216; CDG 298). It is quite possible, moreover, that these are all ultimately connected with Sumerian gada and Akkadian kitû, both of which mean ‘linen’ (PSD; CAD K 473–75; AHw 495).364 If so, the final -n of the western forms may represent an Anatolian ending absent in the Mesopotamian forms.365 Nevertheless, the exact relationship between Sumerian gada and kitû is uncertain, as is their connection to the Northwest Semitic and Indo-​European forms (AIA 28). The relationship between this word and Old Assyrian and Mari Akkadian kutānu (CAD K 607–8; AHw 930), used to denote a woolen (rather than linen) garment imported from Assyria (rather than the west), is also unclear.366 ‫‘ לָבִ יא‬lion’ HALOT 517; DCH 4:513 (Gen 49:9; passim367) 𝕲 frequently σκύμνος ‘lion’s whelp’ but sometimes λέων ‘lion’; 𝖁 commonly leaena ‘lioness’ or leo ‘lion’; 𝕾 almost always ʾryʾ ‘lion’; 𝕿 commonly ‫ לית‬or ‫ארי‬, both ‘lion’ [?] CW Ebla labwum; Akk labbu, lab‌ʾu, lābu (OAkk, OA, OB, Mari, SB, NA), labbatu, lābatu (OAkk, OB, SB) CAD L 23–25; AHw 524, 526; Amor lab-, labuʾ-, labw- Huffmon 1965, 225; Ug lbu͗ DUL 486; QH ‫לביא‬, ‫ ;לביה‬Arab labuʾ WKAS L 97; Lane 2644; OSA lb‌ʾ DOSA 256; LinB re-​wo Aura Jorro and Adrados 1985–1993, 2:248–49; Gk λέων LSJ 1043; Georg lomi Rayfield 2006, 846 This word occurs 11 times. The masculine form appears several times in archaic Pentateuchal poetry (Gen 49:9; Num 23:24; 24:9; Deut 33:20), but most of its occurrences are in the Prophets (Isa 5:29; 30:6; Hos 13:8; Joel 1:6; Nah 2:12). The feminine form occurs twice, once as the singular ‫( לְ בִ ּיָא‬Ezek 19:2) and once as the plural ‫( לִ בְ אֹ ת‬Nah 2:13).368 Both the masculine and feminine forms appear parallel to several other Hebrew terms meaning ‘lion’, including ‫( א ֲִרי‬Gen 49:9; Num 23:24; other Anatolian loanwords found in both Hebrew and Greek, but with no clear loan relationship between the two (e.g., BH ‫חָ רּוץ‬, Akk ḫurāṣu, and Hurr ḫiyari-, ḫiyaruḫḫe-; BH ‫ּכִ ידֹון‬, Akk katinnu, and Hurr kadinni-; and BH ‫ סָ ִדין‬and Gk σινδών). 364.  AIA 28; cf. FWOT 96. 365.  As noted by Kaufman (AIA 28), a form with final -n does not occur in Akkadian until the Neo-​Babylonian period. This form is kitinnû, perhaps an Aramaic loan. 366. Some scholars question any connection (e.g., AIA 28; Oppenheim 1967, 251), whereas others think that BH ‫ ּכֻּתֹ נֶת‬and Akk kutānu are related (e.g., Fensham 1962; Landsberger 1967b, 158). 367.  Num 23:24; 24:9; Deut 33:20; Isa 5:29; 30:6; Hos 13:8; Joel 1:6; Nah 2:12 [2:11]; Ps 57:5 [57:4]; Job 4:11; 38:39. 368. The MT of Ezek 19:2 need not be in error, as is evident from 4QpNah f3–4 i:4 (which cites Nah 2:13) as well as Rabbinic Hebrew ‫( לְ בִ ּיָא‬attested in b. Sanh. 106a). See Strawn 2005, 317–18; Kaplan 1981, 91–92.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

139

24:9; Ezek 19:2; Joel 1:6; Nah 2:12–13), ‫( לַיִ ׁש‬Job 4:11; Isa 30:6), and ‫( ּכְ פִ יר‬Job 38:39; Isa 5:29; Ezek 19:2; Nah 2:12) (Strawn 2005, 311–19; Kaplan 1981, 78–94). This word occurs early in Eblaite as labwum, where it is equated with Sumerian pigir.369 It also appears already in Old Akkadian in both masculine (labbu, lab‌ʾu, lābu) and feminine (labbatu, lābatu) forms.370 Other Semitic forms are attested in Ugaritic and Old South Arabian, and the element lab-, labuʾ-, labw- also occurs in Amorite personal names. Nevertheless, this word exhibits varying spellings, most notably an alternation between ‌ʾ and w, and is not native to Semitic. It can hardly be separated from Linear B re-​wo and Classical Greek λέων, which are not native to Indo-​European and come from some source other than Semitic.371 One may also compare various Kartvelian forms such as Georgian lomi. The northern distribution of all these forms indicates an ancient Asiatic culture word.372 The lion inhabited much of Africa and southern Eurasia—including Palestine, Mesopotamia, the Aegean, Anatolia, and even India—in ancient times (Gilbert 2002, 27–28, 54; 1995, 1:167; Wapnish 1997). Köhler (1939, 121–24) contends that Hebrew ‫ לָבִ יא‬designates the Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) whereas Hebrew ‫א ֲִרי‬ refers to an African lion (P. leo leo). He is correct that the former is an Asiatic term whereas the latter is an Afroasiatic term. However, it is dubious that the ancients clearly distinguished between the various subspecies recognized by zoologists today (Strawn 2005, 318–19; Kaplan 1981, 82–83). ‫( לִ ילִ ית‬a female demon) HALOT 528–29; DCH 4:543 (Isa 34:14) 𝕲 ὀνοκενταύρα (an ape-like demon); 𝖁 lamia ‘witch’; 𝕾, 𝕿 both use their corresponding forms of this word (lylytʾ and ‫לילית‬, respectively) [T] Sum → Akk → Heb; Phoen; Aram Sum lil PSD; Akk lilītu (OB, SB) CAD L 190; AHw 553; QH ‫ ;לילית‬Phoen ‫ללי‬ DNWSI 578; JA ‫ לילית‬DJBA 626; Syr lēlīṯā LS² 691; Mand lilit, lilita MD 236 369.  Civil 1984, 90; Sanmartín 1991, 192–93. Alternatively, this Eblaite word could be read as lab‌ʾum. 370.  The feminine form is attested only as an epithet of Ishtar. 371.  A Semitic origin for Gk λέων remains dubious (EDG 854; DELG 610; Rosół 2013, 146–48; Masson 1967, 85–87; Mayer 1960, 320). Lat leo as well as various other Indo-​European forms (e.g., German Löwe, Modern English lion, and Russian lev) all come from Greek, either directly or indirectly (DELL 352; LEW 1:785). 372.  Rabin 1962, 1078; 1964, 152; cf. Blažek 2005, 83–85. Eg rby appears only once in syllabic form (r=ba=ya) during the New Kingdom and is a loan from a foreign source; Dem lby and Copt laboi represent its later forms. See SWET 202 (#273); CDD L 6; DG 262; Crum 136. There is no direct relationship between BH ‫ לָבִ יא‬and Eg rw, the latter of which means ‘lion’ and appears already during the Old Kingdom and reflects an Afroasiatic word meaning ‘lion’ found in Semitic (cf. BH ‫ ֲא ִרי‬, ‫אַ ְריֵה‬, Ug a͗rw, OAram, IA ‫אריה‬, JA ‫ארי‬, and Syr ‌ʾaryā), Berber (ar), Chadic (e.g., Mubi ‌ʾórúwà), and Cushitic (e.g., Somali ar) in addition to Egyptian. All these forms begin with a vowel and contain the liquid r, unlike ‫ לָבִ יא‬and immediately related forms. See Militarev and Kogan 2000–, 2:24–26; M. Cohen 1947, 83; contra Glück 1969; Lipiński 1999, 214–15.

140

Chapter 3

This term occurs only in Isa 34:14, within the context of God’s judgment of Edom. It functions as the subject of the two clauses ַ‫ הִ ְרגִ ּיעָה לִ ּילִ ית ּומָ צְ אָ ה לָּה מָ נֹוח‬‎‘‫ לִ ילִ ית‬will lie down and find a resting place for itself’. The context mentions a number of different animals, all of which are associated with disorder and judgment. That these creatures, including the ‫‘ צִ יִ ּים‬desert creatures’ (cf. Ps 74:14) and the ‫ׂשָ עִ יר‬ ‘goat’ (cf. Lev 17:7; 2 Chr 11:15), are not merely animals but also represent various evil spirits inhabiting the wasteland of Edom is apparent from their associations elsewhere (cf. Rev 18:2). The ancient versions all understand ‫ לִ ילִ ית‬as such, taking it as a reference to a female demon that came to be known in popular lore as Lilith.373 Akkadian lilītu, the source of Hebrew ‫לִ ילִ ית‬, is the feminine form of lilû. Both refer to a demon or spirit, and the masculine form lilû is a clear loan from Sumerian lil ‘wind, spirit’ (cf. SLOB 15). Akkadian also lent this word to Phoenician, in which it is attested in the Arslan Tash amulets (KAI 27:20), as well as to Aramaic (AIA 179). ‫‘ לַיִ ׁש‬lion’ HALOT 529; DCH 4:545 (Isa 30:6; Job 4:11; Prov 30:30) 𝕲 σκύμνος λέοντος ‘lion’s whelp’ Isa 30:6; Prov 30:30, μυρμηκολέων ‘lion’ Job 4:11; 𝖁 leo ‘lion’ Isa 30:6; Prov 30:30, tigris ‘tiger’ Job 4:11; 𝕾 gwry‌ʾ d‌ʾry‌ʾ ‘lion cub’ Isa 30:6; Prov 30:30, ʾry‌ʾ ‘lion’ Job 4:11; 𝕿 ‫‘ בר אריון‬lion cub’ Isa 30:6, ‫‘ ארי‬lion’ Job 4:11; Prov 30:30 [?] CW Akk nēšu (OB, Mari, Qatna, Nuzi, Chagar, Bogh, MA, SB, NA, NB, LB) CAD N/2 193–97; AHw 783; JA, SA ‫ לית‬Jastrow 1903, 710; DSA 438; Arab layṯ Lane 2684; Gk λίς LSJ 1053 The word ‫ לַיִ ׁש‬is rare, occurring only three times in the Hebrew Bible and only in poetic contexts (Isa 30:6; Job 4:11; Prov 30:30). Lipiński (1999, 218; cf. Blažek 2005, 85–86) claims that this word is Semitic, noting the existence of Akkadian nēšu, Jewish Aramaic ‫לית‬, and Arabic layṯ. However, at least two observations argue against a Semitic origin. First, contrary to Lipiński’s claims, the variation between n and l is unusual and cannot be explained in terms of an early phase of Semitic in which l, n, and r were partially allophones of the same phoneme. Second, the monophthongization of ay to ī, unparalleled in Greek borrowings from Semitic, argues against a Semitic origin for Greek λίς, which is attested as early as Homer (Il. 11.239; 15.275; 18.318) and occurs elsewhere only as a dialectical variant for λέων used in Greek epic. This word is not the typical term for ‘lion’ in either Semitic or Indo-​European and is almost certainly an ancient culture word, borrowed from a third source into 373. Wildberger 1991–2002, 3:335–37; Blenkinsopp 2000, 453–54; cf. Hutter 1999, 521. No clear evidence exists that ‫ לִ ילִ ית‬is personified in Isa 34:14. Rather, ‫ לִ ילִ ית‬seems to merely denote a female demon rather than “Lilith” as in later Jewish tradition.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

141

both Semitic and Greek (DELG 617; Masson 1967, 86; contra Rosół 2013, 66–67). It must have been borrowed into Semitic relatively early because it displays the typical sibilant developments found in Semitic (Akk š, Heb šin, Aram taw, and Arab ṯ). ‫‘ לַּפִ יד‬torch; lightning’ HALOT 533; DCH 4:556–57 (Gen 15:17; passim374) [D] Luv → Heb QH ‫ ;לפיד‬Luv *lappit-375 The term occurs 13 times in the Hebrew Bible. In many of its occurrences it means ‘torch’ (Gen 15:17; Judg 7:16, 20; 15:4–5; Isa 62:1; Zech 12:6), but in other instances ‫ לַּפִ יד‬metaphorically denotes lightning (Exod 20:18; Ezek 1:13; Nah 2:5; Job 41:11; Dan 10:6). Hebrew ‫ לַּפִ יד‬has no Semitic cognates or known Semitic root on which it could be based, suggesting a foreign origin.376 It is unlikely that Hebrew ‫ לַּפִ יד‬can be dissociated from the Indo-​European root *leh2p- ‘to glow, shine’, so I propose that the donor term is Luvian *lappit-.377 This Luvian term is formed from the verb *lap- and the suffix -it ([-id]), a very productive suffix used to create neuter nouns.378 The word *lappit- is not presently attested in extant Luvian texts, but the verb lap- is attested in Hittite as various derived nouns (e.g., lappina- ‘flame-​holder’ and lappiya- ‘fever, kindling’: CHD L–N 39–40, 44–45; HHw 102) and possibly also in Cuneiform Luvian (e.g., lappiya- ‘heat’: CLL 126). Semitic-​speakers perceived the geminated consonants of Indo-​European Anatolian as voiceless when intervocalic, representing them in written texts with gemination when possible (cf. Hoffner and Melchert 2008, 1:35). This explains the dageš in the pe of Hebrew ‫לַּפִ יד‬. Furthermore, the i-vowel of the Luvian suffix -it perfectly accounts for the ḥireq of Hebrew ‫לַּפִ יד‬. 374. Exod 20:18; Judg 7:16, 20; 15:4 (2×), 5; Isa 62:1; Ezek 1:13; Nah 2:5 [2:4]; Zech 12:6; Job 41:11 [41:19]; Dan 10:6. The word ‫ לַּפִ יד‬in Job 12:5 is best understood as the inseparable preposition lamed plus the word ‫‘ ּפִ יד‬misfortune’ (Gordis 1978, 136; Pope 1965, 90). 375. QA, SA ‫ לפיד‬are adopted from Biblical Hebrew (DQA 129; DSA 442). 376. Zimmern (1917, 36) derives ‫ לַּפִ יד‬from Akk dipāru ‘torch’. However, this is highly speculative because it assumes an interchange of r and l as well as transposition of the consonants and vowels. 377. Other attempts to associate ‫ לַּפִ יד‬with the Indo-​European root *leh2p- remain unconvincing. Gordon (1955, 61) and Segert (1962, 324) connect ‫ לַּפִ יד‬with Gk λαμπάς, which has the form λαμπάδος in the genitive. However, this loan hypothesis faces several difficulties, including the lack of an i-vowel in the second syllable of the Greek and the disappearance of the μ. JA, CPA ‫ למפד‬and Syr lampēḏā, which are loans from Greek but have been influenced by the vocalization of BH ‫לַּפִ יד‬, notably preserve the μ. Rabin instead derives ‫ לַּפִ יד‬from an alleged Hitt *lappit, the instrumental of lappiya- (Rabin 1963, 128–29; 1964, 169–70). However, it is unlikely that Hebrew-​speakers would borrow a Hittite noun in the instrumental case, and it is not even clear that nouns of the common gender in -iya form their instrumentals by monophthongization of the -iya to -i (Hoffner 1968, 66). 378.  On the Luvian suffix -it, see Starke 1990, 151–226; Melchert 2003, 198.

142

Chapter 3

‫לִ ְׁשּכָה‬‎, ‫‘ נִ ְׁשּכָה‬room, chamber’ HALOT 536–37; DCH 4:580, 5:778 (1 Sam 9:22; passim379) [?] CW QH ‫ ;נשכה‬IA ‫ נשכה‬DNWSI 765; Gk λέσχη LSJ 1040 This word occurs 48 times, most often in Late Biblical Hebrew (Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah) or transitional Biblical Hebrew (Jeremiah and Ezekiel). However, it also occurs once in the book of Samuel (1 Sam 9:22). The by-​form ‫ נִ ְׁשּכָה‬occurs several times in the book of Nehemiah (Neh 3:30; 12:44; 13:7). The varying initial consonant indicates a foreign origin, and several scholars have derived Hebrew ‫ לִ ְׁשּכָה‬from Greek λέσχη ‘public building, hall’ (Rabin 1962, 1079; Gordon 1955, 60–61). However, this view faces several problems. First, Greek λέσχη never occurs with initial ν, and no evidence exists that Greek λ and ν ever alternated in initial position for native Greek terms. If Hebrew-​speakers borrowed this word from Greek, they should have maintained the initial liquid with no variance because Greek λ was always pronounced [l], not [n].380 Second, the use of šin for Greek σ is unusual because other languages with phonemes for [s] and [ʃ], including Hebrew, always represent σ by their phoneme for [s], not [ʃ] (cf. W. S. Allen 1987, 45). Third, there is little reason to think that the verb presumed to be behind λέσχη, *λέσχεται (supposedly from the σκ-present *λέχσκεται), ever existed (EDG 850; contra DELG 607). Lastly, there is a slight semantic difference between the Hebrew and Greek forms. Hebrew ‫ לִ ְׁשּכָה‬refers to a room or chamber, often a private one belonging to an individual, whereas Greek λέσχη refers to a public building or hall used for lounging. These problems make a direct borrowing from Greek unlikely. It is more plausible that Hebrew-, Aramaic-, and Greek-​speakers borrowed this culture word from a third—most probably Anatolian—source.381

379.  2 Kgs 23:11; Jer 35:2, 4 (3×); 36:10, 12, 20–21; Ezek 40:17 (2×), 38, 44–46; 41:10; 42:1, 4–5, 7 (2×), 8, 10–12, 13 (3×); 44:19; 45:5; 46:19; Ezra 8:29; 10:6; Neh 3:30; 10:38–40 [10:37–39]; 12:44; 13:4–5, 7–9; 1 Chr 9:26, 33; 23:28; 28:12; 2 Chr 31:11. 380.  On the pronunciation of Gk λ and ν, see Petrounias 2007, 563–64; Woodard 2008, 16; W. S. Allen 1987, 33, 40. Rabin (1962, 1079) argues that the interchange of [l] and [n] indicates a borrowing via Cyprus. Presumably he is thinking of ‫ נרנך‬for Gk Λάρναξ in line 9 of KAI 43, a Phoenician text from Lapethos. However, the use of nun rather than lamed in this case is due to non-​Greek indigenous interference; this toponym and its derived noun λάρναξ come from some non–Greek source on Cyprus (see EDG 834–35; DELG 596). There is, moreover, no evidence that Phoenician-​speakers adopted this toponym from Greek. 381.  Bremmer 2008, 164–66; Schrader 1911, 469. Little evidence exists for the contention that the Philistines mediated this word to Hebrew, especially because its origin is uncertain (contra Burkert 1993; Gordon 1955, 60–61). It is also unlikely that Semitic-​speakers loaned this word to Greek because it is probably not Semitic (contra Rosół 2008).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

143

‫‘ לֶׁשֶ ם‬feldspar, amazonite’ HALOT 537; DCH 4:580 (Exod 28:19; 39:12) 𝕲 λιγύριον, 𝖁 ligurius ‘Ligurian stone’; 𝕾 qnkynwnʾ, 𝕿Onq., Ps.-J. ‫( קנכירי‬a precious stone) [D] Eg → Heb Eg nšm.t (since NK) GHwÄ 459; WÄS 2:339–40; DLE 1:250382 Biblical Hebrew ‫ לֶׁשֶ ם‬occurs only twice, both times in the description of the high priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:19; 39:12). It has no Semitic cognates and is not based on any known Semitic root, suggesting a foreign loan. The donor term is Egyptian nšm.t, which is attested from the New Kingdom onward in texts such as the Book of the Dead.383 The Berlin Amulet Board utilizes the term nšm.t to describe scepters made of feldspar, indicating a type of blue or green feldspar, most probably amazonite (Putter and Karlshausen 1992, 102; Aufrère 1991, 2:544–45; J. R. Harris 1961, 115). Amazonite was obtained from the Eastern Desert in the area of Wadi Higelig and Gebel Migif. The ancient Egyptians considered this mineral one of Egypt’s six most precious stones, and Egyptian texts often associate it with turquoise and lapis lazuli (Putter and Karlshausen 1992, 48; J. R. Harris 1961, 116). Beginning with the Predynastic period, amazonite was used to make beads, and during the Middle Kingdom, it was especially popular for jewelry. The Egyptians used it for amulets as well as inlay during the New Kingdom, as the tomb of Tutankhamen attests (Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 46; Putter and Karlshausen 1992, 48; Lucas 1962, 393–94). ‫( לֵתֶ ְך‬a volume measure) HALOT 537; DCH 4:581 (Hos 3:2) 𝕲 νεβελ οἴνου ‘wineskin’ (perhaps reading ‫ נֵבֶ ל ׁשֵ כָר‬for the MT’s ‫לֵתֶ ְך ְ ֹשעֹ ִרים‬, although Origen’s Hexapla ὀυλὲθχ σεωρίμ follows the MT); 𝖁 coro (a volume measure); 𝕾 ltkʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 does not directly represent this word [?] CW Sum lidga PSD; Akk litiktu, litku (OA) CAD L 216–17; AHw 556–57; Ug ltḥ DUL 501–2; EH ‫ לתך‬DNWSI 585; JA ‫ ליתך‬DJBA 629; Syr leṯkā‌ʾ LS² 699 382. JA ‫לשם‬, which occurs in 𝕿 with reference to the biblical gemstone denoted by ‫לֶׁשֶ ם‬, is adopted from Biblical Hebrew (DJPA 287). 383.  EPNL 248; Lambdin 1953b, 152; FWOT 97; Grintz 1975a, 8; Harrell, Hoffmeier and Williams 2017, 22–23. Eg n can represent both the nasal [n] and the lateral [l] (J. Allen 2013, 39; Loprieno 1995, 33). Thus, the use of lamed for Eg n presents no problems.

144

Chapter 3

This word is a hapax that appears in Hos 3:2 as a measure of volume, mentioned along with the ‫חֹ מֶ ר‬. It was probably equivalent to somewhere between 50 and 100 liters (cf. Powell 1992, 904). This word occurs in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and shows up in several other Semitic languages, including Akkadian (litiktu, litku), Ugaritic (ltḥ), Jewish Aramaic (‫)לתיך‬, and Syriac (leṯkā‌ʾ), as well as Sumerian (lidga). The variation in spelling (particularly the final ḥ rather than k of the Ugaritic form), the difference in gender, and the peripheral appearance in Old Assyrian Akkadian indicate that this word is not native to Semitic. Thus, Hebrew ‫ לֵתֶ ְך‬and its related forms are probably not connected with Akkadian latāku ‘to test’ or Syriac lāṯek ‘suitable’, but instead represent an ancient culture word.384 ‫‘ מגן‬to give, give over’ HALOT 545; DCH 5:134 (Gen 14:20; Hos 11:8; Prov 4:9) 𝕲 παραδίδωμι ‘to deliver, give over’ Gen 14:20; Hos 11:8, ὑπερασπίζω ‘to shield’ (probably by association with ‫‘ מָ גֵן‬shield’) Prov 4:9; 𝖁 protego ‘to protect’; 𝕾 Aphel of šlm ‘to give over, deliver’ Gen 14:20, ʿdr ‘to aid’ Hos 11:8, sbʿ ‘to be satisfied’ Prov 4:9; 𝕿 ‫‘ מסר‬to hand over’ Gen 14:20, ‫‘ שיצי‬to destroy’ Hos 11:8, does not directly represent this word Prov 4:9 [N] Hurr > Ug; Heb; Phoen Ug mgn DUL 525; QH ‫ ;מגן‬Phoen ‫ מגן‬DNWSI 593; Hurr maganni- BGH 239; GLH 164 This word occurs only three times. In Gen 14:20 it has the meaning of ‘to give over’, referring to God delivering Abraham’s enemies into his hand. It has a similar sense in Hos 11:8, where it occurs parallel to the verb ‫ נתן‬and expresses God’s reluctance to give the northern kingdom over to destruction. Lastly, in Prov 4:9 ‫מגן‬ describes wisdom giving a beautiful crown to the one who treasures her. The exclusive use in the Piel stem indicates that ‫ מגן‬is denominal, and a nominal form must have existed even though it is not clearly attested in Biblical Hebrew.385 Aside from Biblical Hebrew ‫מגן‬, the only other verbal forms attested in Semitic are Ugaritic mgn and Phoenician ‫מגן‬, and these are almost certainly denominal as well. One may presume the existence of a Hebrew noun ‫ *מָ גָן‬meaning ‘gift’, comparing Akkadian magannu, Ugaritic mgn, and Punic ‫מגן‬.386 384.  ALBH 82–83; AIA 67; contra CAD L 216–17; von Soden 1951, 164. 385. The term ‫‘‏*מָ גָן‬gift’ may occur in Hos 4:18 if the problematic phrase ָ‫ קָ לֹון מָ גִ ּנֶיה‬is to be repointed to ָ‫‘ קָ לֹון ְמ ָגנֶה‬her gifts are shame’ (cf. Rudolph 1966, 108; Rabin 1961, 389; G. Bauer 1786–1790, 1:32–33). Some scholars also find two occurrences of ‫‘‏*מָ גָן‬gift’ in the book of Proverbs, reading ‫ ִאיׁש מָ גָן‬for ‫ִאיׁש‬ ‫ מָ גֵן‬in Prov 6:11; 24:34 (e.g., O’Connor 1989, 28). However, the ancient versions offer no support for this understanding, and ‫ ִאיׁש מָ גֵן‬could just as easily mean ‘armed warrior’, literally ‘man of a shield’ (M. Fox 2000, 217–18; Waltke 2004–2005, 1:327, 340–41). 386. CAD M/1 31–32; AHw 574–75; DUL 525; DNWSI 593–94. Palm, JA ‫ מגן‬as well as Syr maggān all mean ‘gratis’ rather than ‘gift, present’ (DNWSI 593–94; DJPA 291; DJBA 641; LS² 709–10). The

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

145

These Semitic nouns meaning ‘gift’ are not native to Semitic. They have a relatively limited distribution and possess no evident Semitic etymology, and the final double consonant of Akkadian magannu is indicative of a foreign loan. During the second millennium, Akkadian magannu occurs only in texts from Boghazköy and Nuzi. Its limitation to these sites suggests a Hurrian origin, especially because a perfect donor term, maganni-, occurs in Hurrian.387 There is no reason to think that the Northwest Semitic forms have been borrowed from Akkadian, and both the Akkadian and the Northwest Semitic forms most likely come directly from Hurrian.388 ‫‘ מַ ּלָח‬sailor, mariner’ HALOT 588; DCH 5:293 (Ezek 27:9, 27, 29; Jon 1:5) 𝕲 κωπηλάτης ‘rower’ except ναυτικός ‘sailor’ Jon 1:5; 𝖁 nauta ‘sailor’; 𝕾 mlḥʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫‘ ספן‬sailor’ [T] Sum → Akk →   → Heb; Phoen   → Aram → Arab Sum malaḪ PSD; Akk malāḫu (OAkk, OA, OB, Mari, Nuzi, MA, MB, RS, NA, NB) CAD M/1 149–52; AHw 592–93; QH ‫ ;מלח‬Phoen ‫ מלח‬DNWSI 632; IA, JA ‫ מלח‬DNWSI 632; DJPA 309; DJBA 678; Syr mallāḥā LS² 767; Mand malaha MD 243; Arab mallāḥ Lane 2733 Biblical Hebrew ‫ מַ ּלָח‬occurs only four times, with reference to a sailor of a ship. Although related forms exist in Akkadian, Phoenician, Aramaic, and Arabic, this word has no Semitic etymology. Scholars have long recognized that the Northwest Semitic forms originate with Akkadian malāḫu, which in turn comes from Sumerian malaḪ, which does have a perfectly good etymology: ma ‘ship’ and LAḪ

Akkadian expressions ana magāni and ina magāni, both meaning ‘in vain’ or ‘for nothing, gratis’, occur only in Neo-​Assyrian and Neo-​Babylonian and constitute Aramaisms. See AIA 67. 387.  Scholars debate whether Hurr maganni-, in turn, comes from Indo-​Aryan (cf. Skt maghá‘gift’). It is possible that it does, especially because the Hurrian derivational suffix -nni appears on other Hurrian nouns of foreign origin, including Indo-​Aryan loans (Giorgieri 2000, 211; F. Bush 1973, 43; cf. Rabin 1970, 484–86; EWAia 2:289; KEWA 2:545–46). Nevertheless, an Indo-​Aryan origin is not entirely certain. 388.  AIA 67; von Soden 1964; Kronasser 1958. Some scholars contend that the Hurrian word is a loan from Semitic (e.g., O’Connor 1989; Kammenhuber 1968, 222–30; Diakonoff 1972, 114). However, these scholars ignore the nearly exclusive association of this word with the Hurrians during the second millennium and overlook the denominal nature of the verbal forms, which are in any case limited to Northwest Semitic. The occurrences of magannu with the meaning ‘gratis’ during the first millennium are clear Aramaisms, and Arab maǧǧān is also an Aramaic loan in light of its meaning and doubled second consonant. There is little evidence, therefore, that this word is widespread in Semitic, much less native to Semitic. Accordingly, it must have been borrowed from Hurrian, the language with which it is most closely associated in its earliest attestations.

146

Chapter 3

‘to bring’.389 Therefore, as indicated by the differing vocalizations, Hebrew ‫ מַ ּלָח‬has no etymological connection with ‫‘ מֶ לַח‬salt’. This word provides a good example of an adopted term that has been completely nativized, for it displays the typical Hebrew nominal pattern for professions (e.g., ‫‘ ַּגּנָב‬thief’ and ‫‘ צַ ּיָד‬hunter’) (cf. Bauer and Leander 1922, 478–79 [§§61hγ–nγ]). ‫( מֶ לֶט‬a kind of mortar) HALOT 590; DCH 5:299 (Jer 43:9) 𝕲 translates ‫ ּבַ ּמֶ לֶט ּבַ ּמַ לְ ּבֵ ן‬as πρόθυρον ‘forecourt’; 𝖁 translates the same expression as crypta ‘crypt, vault’; 𝕾 mlṭʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫‘ טפיל‬plaster’ [D] Gk → Heb; Aram; Lat Syr mlāṭā LS² 768; Gk μάλθα, μάλθη LSJ 1077; Lat maltha, malta OLD 1176 This word occurs only in Jer 43:9, where God tells Jeremiah to take two large stones and bury them ‫ּבַ ּמֶ לֶט ּבַ ּמַ לְ ּבֵ ן‬. This expression presents some difficulties, but comparison with Syriac mlāṭā establishes the meaning of Hebrew ‫ מֶ לֶט‬as ‘mortar’, and Palmyrene Aramaic ‫ מלבן‬and Syriac malbānā indicate that Hebrew ‫ מַ לְ ּבֵ ן‬here refers to the base or frame of a gate.390 Hence, Jeremiah is to take two large stones and bury them in the mortar (‫ )ּבַ ּמֶ לֶט‬at the base of the gate (‫ )ּבַ ּמַ לְ ּבֵ ן‬at the entrance to Pharaoh’s palace (‫)אֲׁשֶ ר ּבְ פֶתַ ח ּבֵ ית־ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬. Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 590) derive Hebrew ‫ מֶ לֶט‬from a hypothetical root ‫‘ *מלט‬to plaster’ that is allegedly cognate with Syriac mlṭ ‘smear with oil, smear with chalk’. However, this etymology remains dubious, especially since Syriac mlṭ may be a denominal verb from mlāṭā.391 One should instead compare Greek μάλθα, μάλθη, which can denote a variety of soft substances, such as wax for covering writing tablets or a wax–pitch mixture used for caulking ships. The substance denoted by this term could also be used for cementing, as indicated by Latin maltha, malta, a loan from Greek that denotes a particular type of mortar (DELL 380; LEW 2:17). Pliny, for example, describes maltha as a kind of cement made from limestone (Nat. 36.58.181; cf. Festus Verb. sign. 135.16; Palladius, Op. agr. 1.17.2–4). Greek μάλθα, μάλθη also has a plausible native etymology, namely, a number of words meaning ‘soft’ or the like (e.g., μαλθακός).392 Because this word has a good 389.  ALBH 93; Lipiński 1988, 69; AIA 69; FWOT 103; Zimmern 1917, 45. On the Sumerian origin of Akk malāḫu, see SLOB 384–85 (#461). As indicated by the ḥ rather than ḫ, Arab mallāḥ is a loan from Aramaic (Fränkel 1886, 221). 390. ‫ מַ לְ ּבֵ ן‬elsewhere refers to a brick-​mold (Nah 3:14) or brick-​kiln (2 Sam 12:31), similar to Akk nalbanu. 391.  Arab milāṭ derives from Syriac (Fränkel 1886, 10–11). Hence, it does not provide any additional evidence for a root *mlṭ meaning ‘to plaster’ in Semitic. 392.  DELG 637–38; contra EDG 898. Hesychius of Alexandria (Lex. μ180–81) explicitly connects Gk μάλθα, μάλθη with the adjective μαλακία, a variant form of μαλθακία meaning ‘soft, weak’.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

147

Greek etymology but no Semitic etymology, Hebrew ‫ מֶ לֶט‬most probably comes from Greek rather than vice versa.393 ‫‘ מַ ס‬conscription for corvée labor, tribute’ HALOT 603–4; DCH 5:358–59 (Gen 49:15; passim394) [D] Hurr → Akk; Heb Akk massu (Alalakh, EA) CAD M/1 327; AHw 619; QH ‫ ;מס‬Hurr *mese-395 Biblical Hebrew ‫ מַ ס‬occurs 23 times. It most often refers to forced labor during the time of Joshua and the judges (Josh 16:10; 17:13; Judg 1:28, 30, 33, 35) and that of David and Solomon (2 Sam 20:24; 1 Kgs 4:6; 1 Kgs 5:27–28; 9:15, 21; 12:18; 2 Chr 8:8; 2 Chr 10:18). Only once does ‫ מַ ס‬mean ‘tribute’ (Esth 10:1). This word has no clear Semitic etymology and occurs in place of the native Hebrew word meaning ‘conscription for corvée labor’, ‫( סֵ בֶ ל‬cf. Akk sablu, attested only at Mari: CAD S 4; AHw 999). Thus, it is a likely candidate for a foreign loan.396 The only other Semitic language in which this word occurs is Akkadian, but even here it is found only rarely: it is attested as massu several times in one of the Amarna letters (EA 365:14, 23, 25) and at Alalakh (AT 246:6, 13; 259:15; 265:7; 268:14; 269:18–19; 274:25). Because the Akkadian form occurs primarily at Alalakh, and because the Hurrians exerted various cultural and linguistic influences in Late Bronze Age Palestine during the time of the Amarna letters, Hebrew ‫ מַ ס‬is probably of Hurrian origin.

393.  Rabin 1964, 152; contra H. Lewy 1895, 172; Mayer 1960, 330. According to Masson (1967, 8), the direction of borrowing from Greek to Hebrew in this case is obvious (cf. Rosół 2013, 190). 394.  Exod 1:11; Deut 20:11; Josh 16:10; 17:13; Judg 1:28, 30, 33, 35; 2 Sam 20:24; 1 Kgs 4:6; 5:27 [5:13] (2×), 28 [5:14]; 9:15, 21; 12:18; Isa 31:8; Prov 12:24; Lam 1:1; Esth 10:1; 2 Chr 8:8; 10:18. 395. JA ‫ מס‬occurs in biblical contexts and is adopted from BH ‫( מַ ס‬DJPA 319). 396. Scholars have offered both Semitic and non-​Semitic etymologies for this word, none of which is convincing. Montgomery (1935, 267) connects it with OSA mnš‌ʾ and Eth mǝnśā‌ʾ. However, these terms are derived from the Semitic root ns‌ʾ ‘to lift, bear, carry’. Phonologically, both are incompatible with BH ‫ ;מַ ס‬they also differ semantically in that OSA mnš‌ʾ means ‘mustering of troops’ and Eth mǝnśā‌ʾ means ‘gift’ (DOSA 319; CDG 404). Tawil (2009, 217–18) instead connects ‫ מַ ס‬with ‫ ִמּסָ ה‬of Deut 16:10, which he contends means ‘basket’. However, little evidence exists that ‫ ִמּסָ ה‬means ‘basket’ or that this alleged meaning semantically developed into ‘corvée work’. Noth (1968, 212–13) derives it from Eg ms ‘to bring, present’. However, this does not adequately explain the frequent attestation of this term at Alalakh. Finally, Rabin (1964, 171–72) compares BH ‫ מַ ס‬with Hitt mazz-, which he contends means ‘to endure, bear’. Yet, Hitt mazz- does not mean ‘to endure, bear’ with respect to servitude, but ‘to withstand, tolerate, resist’ in the sense of withstanding or resisting someone’s powers, particularly an enemy’s military strength. Rabin admits this difficulty but contends that the bilingual Azatiwada inscription uses the Hieroglyphic Luvian term *miti- for Phoen ‫( עבד‬Azatiwada §I,6), demonstrating the definition ‘to serve’ for Hitt *mat-, allegedly a by-​form of mazz-. However, the syllabographic value for the Hieroglyphic Luvian logogram servus is not mi, and *miti- is a ghost word. In any case, no  by-​form *mat- exists in Hittite; the sole alleged occurrence of Hitt *mat- is based on an incorrect reading of ma–t[e–er] in KBo 3.13 vs. 18 (cf. CHD L–N 214).

148

Chapter 3

The Hurrian donor term is *mese-. Although presently unattested in Hurrian texts, Urartian meše- ‘obligation, tribute’ and meš- ‘to collect’, both of which are used to refer to a foreign vassal’s obligations in Urartian texts (Arutiunian 2001, 455; cf. Diakonoff and Starostin 1986, 22), indicate the existence of this word in Hurro-​Urartian and permit the reconstruction of *mese- in Hurrian. The i-class vowel of Hurrian *mese-, which is preserved in the Hebrew plural form ‫מ ִּסים‬, ִ has shifted to an a-class vowel in the Hebrew singular form ‫ מַ ס‬in accordance with Philippi’s Law.397 This institution that originated in the second millennium b.c.e. differs from other forms of conscripted labor, such as that denoted by Akkadian ilku or unuššu, both of which refer to service obligations of landholders. Akkadian massu instead refers to conscripted labor carried out by those away from their home towns. Many of the occurrences in the biblical text share this same meaning. Solomon conscripts men to work in Mt. Lebanon (1 Kgs 5:27–28). Similarly, the Israelites conscript the Canaanites, displaced peoples because the Israelites are portrayed as the rightful inhabitants of the land, to forced labor (Josh 16:10; 17:13; Judg 1:28, 30, 33, 35; cf. Deut 20:11). By the Persian period, Hebrew ‫ מַ ס‬came to mean ‘tribute’ instead (cf. Esth 10:1), similar to the semantic development undergone by Akkadian ilku.398 ‫‘ ְמ ֻסּכָן‬Indian rosewood’ HALOT 606; DCH 5:364 (Isa 40:20) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾 do not directly represent this word; 𝕿 ‫‘ אורן‬laurel’ [T] Sum → Akk → Heb Sum mesmagana PSD; Akk musukannu (OB, Mari, SB, NA, NB) CAD M/2 237–39; AHw 678 The word ‫ ְמ ֻסּכָן‬is attested only in Isa 40:20. Traditionally, lexicographers have understood this word as a Pual participle from an alleged verb ‫‏*סכן‬, ‘to be poor’ (HALOT 606; BDB 698). However, the parallelism with ‫‘ עֵץ ל ֹא־יִ ְרקַ ב‬wood that does not rot’ indicates that ‫ ְמ ֻסּכָן‬refers to a tree. Hebrew ‫ ְמ ֻסּכָן‬should instead be compared with Akkadian musukannu, a particular species of tree (FWOT 106–7). This fits the contextual meaning of ‫ְמ ֻסּכָן‬ perfectly. In further support of the relationship is the observation that Akkadian texts describe musukannu as a durable wood (iṣṣu dārû), an expression similar to 397.  As a “Canaanite” dialect, Amarna Akkadian exhibits the same vowel change, explaining the form massu in Amarna Akkadian. The use of an a-class rather than i-class vowel in Alalakh Akkadian is not detrimental to the loan hypothesis proposed here, because Alalakh Akkadian can alternate these two vowel classes (Giacumakis 1970, 28). 398.  Cf. Na‌ʾaman (2005), who argues that Israel’s conscription of the Canaanites for forced labor represents a distinct development in the use of this term. While it does introduce the element of foreigners being forced into conscripted labor, conceptually it still relates to conscripted labor outside one’s land because the Canaanites are viewed as non-​inhabitants. Hence, the difference in usage is not as great as Na‌ʾaman contends.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

149

‫( עֵץ ל ֹא־יִ ְרקַ ב‬Millard and Snook 1964). Akkadian musukannu, in turn, is a loan from Sumerian mesmagana ‘mes-tree from Magan’ (cf. Ḫḫ iii:204).399 The identity of this tree is established by an Old Persian–Akkadian–Elamite trilingual text. Using the term yakā-, the Old Persian equivalent of Akkadian musukannu, Darius claims to have brought this kind of wood from Gandara and Karmara located west of modern Pakistan (API 5:24–25 // DSf 34). Assuming that this equation between Old Persian yakā- and Akkadian musukannu is correct, the species of this tree can be identified as sissoo, or Indian rosewood (Dalbergia sissoo) on the basis of its descendant in modern Iranian (cf. NPers jag). Sissoo wood is native to what is now India and southern Iran (cf. Arrianus, Peripl. M. Eux. 36; Cosmas, Top. 11.15), precisely the region from where Darius is said to have obtained the wood. It is also very durable, matching the characteristics of this tree as described in Akkadian texts and in Isa 40:20.400 ‫( מֶ ִׁשי‬a luxury garment) HALOT 645; DCH 5:520 (Ezek 16:10, 13) 𝕲 τρίχαπτος ‘woven hair’; 𝖁 subtilis ‘fine’ Ezek 16:10, polymitus ‘colorfully woven’ Ezek 16:13; 𝕾 ḥl‌ʾ ‘covering, cloth’ Ezek 16:10, tklt‌ʾ ‘purple fabric’ Ezek 16:13; 𝕿 ‫‘ צבענין‬dyed material’ [D] Eg → Heb Eg msy (NK, Ptolm) GHwÄ 384; WÄS 2:143; DLE 1:204 This word appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible, both times in Ezekiel with reference to God’s provision of fine clothing for Judah (Ezek 16:10, 13). Hebrew ‫ מֶ ִׁשי‬lacks a plausible Semitic etymology, indicating a foreign origin. Possible donor terms include both Hittite maššiya- and Egyptian msy (cf. Rabin 1963, 130; 1964, 172). Hittite maššiya- is used in New Hittite texts to denote a garment (HHw 114; CHD L–N 205–6).401 Egyptian msy, which appears during the New Kingdom and Ptolemaic period, also refers to a garment.402 Three loan hypotheses therefore present themselves: Hebrew ‫ מֶ ִׁשי‬is a loan from Hittite, a loan from Egyptian, or a loan from a third language that also gave rise to 399.  Landersdorfer 1916, 49. Lieberman (SLOB), however, does not list Akk musukannu as a loan from Sumerian. 400.  Gershevitch 1957; Williamson 1986; Millard and Snook 1964. Thompson’s identification (1949, 316–17) of Akk musukannu with the mulberry tree is based on the observation that no Akkadian word is known to mean ‘mulberry tree’, as well as an alleged phonological similarity between Akk musukannu and Gk συκάμινος ‘sycomore-fig tree’. Such reasoning, however, is hardly convincing. 401.  This word entered Ugaritic via Hurrian as mṯyn, which occurs once in the alphabetic texts (KTU 4.146:5) and several times in Ras Shamra Akkadian (RS 17.148 A:7; 25.131:11) (DUL 598). 402.  Hannig (GHwÄ 386) and Erman and Grapow (WÄS 2:149) etymologically connect Eg msy with mss, which also appears in New Kingdom texts. If this is true, there would be no relationship between the Egyptian and Hittite forms. However, a connection between Eg msy and mss is not necessarily evident (EDE 3:580).

150

Chapter 3

the Hittite and Egyptian forms (Rabin 1963, 130; 1964, 172; EPNL 250). Given the data and this word’s sparse attestation, one cannot be too dogmatic. Nevertheless, two factors indicate that Hebrew ‫ מֶ ִׁשי‬comes from Egyptian msy and not Hittite maššiya-. First, in Ezek 16:10, 13 ‫ מֶ ִׁשי‬appears in conjunction with ‫ׁשֵ ׁש‬, an Egyptian loan into Biblical Hebrew. Second, the surrounding context alludes to the Exodus from Egypt by mentioning God’s covenant with Israel (Ezek 16:8). Hence, Hebrew ‫ מֶ ִׁשי‬is likely an Egyptian loan.403 ‫‘ נֶבְ ְר ְׁשּתָ א‬lamp’ HALOT 1925 (Dan 5:5) OG φῶς ‘light’; θ′ λαμπάς ‘torch, lamp’; 𝖁 candelabrum ‘candlestick’; 𝕾 šrg‌ʾ ‘lamp’ [D] OIran → Aram Syr naḇreštā LS² 885–86; OIran *nibrāštā- AISN 175 Biblical Aramaic ‫ נֶבְ ְר ְׁשּתָ א‬is found only in Dan 5:5, where it denotes a lamp illuminating Belshazzar’s great feast. It has no convincing Semitic etymology, and already Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 1102) suspected a foreign word.404 The donor term is Old Iranian *nibrāštā- ‘lamp’ (cf. Pahl brāzišn and NPers nibrās: CPD 19; CPED 1384).405 This word does not actually occur in extant Old Iranian texts, but it has a perfectly good Iranian etymology: the prefix ni- ‘down’ (cf. OPers ni- and Av nī: OPGTL 193; AIW 1080), the root *brāš- ‘to shine, glow’ (cf. Av brāza-: AIW 972), and the suffix -ta.406 Syriac naḇreštā ‘lamp, fire’ can also be traced back to Old Iranian, and Arabic nibrās ‘lamp’ comes from Syriac (Ciancaglini 2008, 211; Fränkel 1886, 95–96). ‫( נָדָ ן‬BH); ‫( נְ דַ ן‬BA) ‘sheath’ HALOT 674, 1926–27; DCH 5:626 (Dan 7:15; 1 Chr 21:27) OG omits, θ′ ἔφριξεν τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐν τῇ ἕξει μου ‘my spirit shuddered in my state’, 𝖁 horruit spiritus meus ego Daniel territus sum in his ‘my spirit

403. FWOT 109. Muchiki (EPNL 250) objects to this loan hypothesis on the basis that ‫ מֶ ִׁשי‬refers to a material used for making garments, not a garment itself, and on the basis that it postulates an irregular correspondence between Heb šin and Eg s (EPNL 250). However, ‫ מֶ ִׁשי‬can certainly refer to a garment within the context of Ezek 16:10, 13, and the sibilant correspondences between Hebrew and Egyptian are too problematic for Muchiki to be so dogmatic. 404. Millard (1987) considers ‫ נֶבְ ְר ְׁשּתָ א‬a loan from Akkadian. He postulates a hypothetical Akk *nebrartu (originally mabrartu) from barāru ‘to flicker’, assuming the shift of ma to ne before a labial and further assuming a shift from rt to št. While possible, Millard’s etymology involves a number of phonetic shifts and is quite speculative. Montgomery (1927, 255) instead derives ‫ נֶבְ ְר ְׁשּתָ א‬from an alleged root ‫‘ *ברר‬to be bright’. However, the root brr always has to do with being clean or pure in Semitic, not brightness, and the series of phonetic shifts Montgomery proposes is likewise speculative. 405.  FWOT 110; F. Rosenthal 2006, 63; AAT 2:59; Tisdall 1912, 366–67. 406.  On the suffix -ta, see OPGTL 51 (§145).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

151

trembled, I Daniel, was frightened at this’ both render the verse idiomatically, 𝕾 mškbʾ ‘bed’ Dan 7:15; 𝕲 κολεόν ‘sheath, scabbard’, 𝖁 vagina ‘sheath, scabbard’, 𝕾 ḥltʾ ‘sheath’, 𝕿 ‫‘ לדן‬sheath’ 1 Chr 21:27 [D] OIran → Heb; Aram; Elam QA, JA ‫ נדן‬DQA 152; Jastrow 1903, 879; OIran *nidāni- AISN 175; IAP 439; Elam nu-​da-​nu-​ia-​iš, nu-​da-​nu-​iš EW 1005407 Hebrew ‫ נָדָ ן‬occurs only in 1 Chr 21:27, where the angel plaguing David’s people finally stops and returns his sword to its sheath (‫) ַוּיָׁשֶ ב חַ ְרּבֹו אֶ ל־נְ דָ נָּה‬. This word also occurs in Biblical Aramaic as ‫נְ דַ ן‬, assuming that ‫ נִ ְדנֶה‬of Dan 7:15 should be emended to ‫נִ ְדנֵּה‬, or ‫ נְ דַ ן‬with a third person feminine pronominal suffix. Here, the expression ‫ אֶ ְתּכְ ִר ַּי ת רּוחִ י ּבְ גֹוא נִ ְד ֵנ ּה‬means ‘my spirit was troubled within me’ (more literally ‘my spirit was troubled within its sheath’). A very similar expression, ‫נשמתי לגו‬ ‫נדנהא‬, appears at Qumran (apGen 2:10) (cf. Greenfield and Shaked 1972, 38). This word is relatively rare in Semitic, occurring elsewhere only in later Aramaic, and has no apparent Semitic etymology. This suggests a foreign origin. Nöldeke was the first to suggest that the donor term is Old Iranian *nidāni- ‘container’ (cf. ManParth nyy‌ʾm, ny‌ʾm and NPers niyām: DMMPP 256; CPED 1441).408 Such a word is not directly attested in Old Iranian texts, but the Elamite texts from Persepolis (e.g., PT 19:6; 21:6–7; 56:7; PFNN 1622:4–5) confirm the existence of this word in Old Iranian. Old Iranian *nidāni- properly refers to a storage room but can also be used to denote anything that can be used for storage, such as a container (cf. Skt nidhána-, nidhā́ na- ‘container’: EWAia 1:772, 2:40; KEWA 2:163).409 Hence, in 1 Chr 21:27 ‫נָדָ ן‬ refers to a container for a sword, and ‫ נְ דַ ן‬refers to Daniel’s body, the “container” for his soul, in Dan 7:15. Notably, this Old Iranian loanword appears in place of ‫ּתַ עַר‬, the more common biblical word denoting a sheath for a sword. ‫‘ נַחַ ת‬power, strength’ HALOT 692; DCH 5:671 (Isa 30:30) 𝕲 θυμός ‘anger, wrath’; 𝖁 terror ‘dread, terror’; 𝕾 mḥwt‌ʾ ‘force, blow’; 𝕿 ‫תקוף‬ ‘strength’ [D] Eg → Heb Eg nḫt (since OK) ÄW 1:650, 2:1325–26; GHwÄ 452; WÄS 2:316–17; DLE 1:246 This word occurs only in Isa 30:30 in the expression ‫‘ נַחַ ת זְרֹועֹו‬the ‫ נַחַ ת‬of his arm’. It appears within a short oracle against Assyria (Isa 30:27–33), which, in turn, occurs within a broader condemnation of Israel’s reliance upon Egypt (Isa 30–31). 407. The variant ‫ לדן‬also occurs in Late Jewish Aramaic (Jastrow 1903, 693). 408.  Nöldeke 1884, 1022; cf. F. Rosenthal 2006, 63; AAT 2:59; Tisdall 1912, 367–68. 409. ‫נָדָ ן‬, ‫ נְ דַ ן‬could have come from Indic rather than Iranian, but this seems less likely (contra Rabin 1962, 1079; 1970, 478–79). The Iranian context of the book of Daniel favors an Old Iranian loan, as does the presence of other Iranian loanwords in the Genesis Apocryphon.

152

Chapter 3

Hebrew lexicographers commonly define ‫ נַחַ ת‬as ‘lowering’, deriving it from the verb ‫( נחת‬cf. HALOT 692; BDB 539; Gesenius, Thesaurus 500). However, the root ‫ נחת‬is more typical of Aramaic than Hebrew. This might suggest an Aramaism, but Hebrew ‫ נַחַ ת‬cannot be an Aramaism because an Aramaic loan would be vocalized differently.410 The parallelism suggests that, like ‫‘ הֹוד‬majesty’, ‫ נַחַ ת‬is a noun representing one of God’s characteristics rather than a gerund meaning ‘lowering’. Instead, Hebrew ‫ נַחַ ת‬derives from Egyptian nḫt.411 This word means ‘strength’ and appears as early as the Old Kingdom (cf. Dem nḫt.t and Copt našte: CDD N 117–18; DG 226; Crum 238). The term nḫt occurs in Egyptian texts in the expressions nḫt ḫpš and nḫt ʿ, both meaning ‘strength of arm’, with reference to gods and kings (cf. Hoffmeier 1983, 66–67; Görg 1986a). Coptic našte demonstrates that the Egyptian form contained a consonant cluster, explaining the segolate pattern of the Hebrew form. Additionally, defining Hebrew ‫ נַחַ ת‬as ‘strength’ perfectly fits the parallelism and the broader context. As is typical of his oracles, Isaiah uses vocabulary (in this case, an Egyptian loan) appropriate to the subject matter of his oracle (in this case, condemnation of Israel’s reliance upon Egypt). In doing so, he adds to the effect of the passage: the arm of Pharaoh provides no support, but the arm of God defeats Assyria. This imagery takes on even more significance given the Hebrew Bible’s frequent contrast of God’s arm (ַ‫)זְרֹוע‬, a symbol of his power and deliverance, with the powerless arm of Egypt.412 ‫( נְ כ ִָסים‬BH); ‫( נִ כְ ִסין‬BA) ‘wealth, property’ HALOT 699, 1930–31; DCH 5:692 (Josh 22:8; Qoh 5:18 [5:19]; 6:2; Ezra 6:8; 7:26; 2 Chr 1:11–12) 𝕲 χρῆμα ‘possessions, wealth’ Josh 22:8; 2 Chr 1:11–12, ὑπάρχον ‘possessions’ Qoh 5:18; 6:2; Ezra 6:8, βίος ‘life’ Ezra 7:26; 𝖁 substantia ‘goods’ except arca ‘coffer’ Ezra 6:8; 𝕾 nksy‌ʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫[ נכסין‬Aramaic form] [T] Sum → Akk → Heb; Aram Sum niĝkas PSD; Akk nikkassu (OA, OB, Elam, Mari, MB, RS, Nuzi, MA, SB, NA, NB) CAD N/2 223–30; AHw 789; EH, Sir, QH ‫ נכסים‬DNWSI 731–32; IA, Palm, SA ‫נכסין‬, JA, CPA ‫ניכסי‬‎, ‫ נכסי‬DNWSI 731–32; DJPA 351; DJBA 751; DSA 527; DCPA 264; Syr niksayyā LS² 919 This word occurs five times in Biblical Hebrew as the plurale tantum ‫( נְ כ ִָסים‬Josh 22:8; Qoh 5:18; 6:2; 2 Chr 1:11–12). The Biblical Aramaic form also occurs only in the plural as ‫( נִ כְ ִסין‬Ezra 6:8; 7:26). 410. On the alleged Aramaic origin of ‫נַחַ ת‬, see M. Wagner 1966, 83 (#188). Comparison with Ps 38:3, which uses the verb ‫ נחת‬in conjunction with ‫יָד‬, does little to support the definition ‘lowering’ in Isa 30:30 (contra EPNL 250; Gesenius, Thesaurus 500). 411. FWOT 112; Görg 1986b. Rin (1963, 24–25) also derives BH ‫ נַחַ ת‬from Eg nḫt. His comparison with Ugaritic, however, is mistaken because Ug nḫt does not mean ‘strength’. 412.  This imagery occurs in the Exodus narratives as well as the Prophets. See Hoffmeier 1986; 1988.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

153

Related terms include Akkadian nikkassu ‘account, wealth, property’ and various forms meaning ‘wealth, property’ in Aramaic. The Hebrew and Aramaic forms come from Akkadian nikkassu, in turn a loan from Sumerian niĝkas, also meaning ‘account’. The meaning ‘wealth, property’, the same meaning that the Hebrew and Aramaic forms have, is attested only in Neo-​Assyrian and Neo-​Babylonian during the first millennium b.c.e. Hence, this word must have been adopted by Northwest Semitic–speakers sometime during the first millennium.413 ‫‘ נֹ פְֶך‬turquoise’ HALOT 709; DCH 5:715 (Exod 28:18; 39:11; Ezek 27:16; 28:13414) 𝕲 ἄνθραξ ‘dark red stone’ Exod 28:18; 39:11, omits Ezek 27:16, χρυσίον ‘gold’ Ezek 28:13; 𝖁 carbunculus ‘carbuncle’ except gemma ‘gem’ Ezek 27:16; 𝕾 ṣdyd‌ʾ ‘antimony’ Exod 28:18; 39:11, omits Ezek 27:16, qrwsṭlws‌‘crystal’ Ezek 28:13; 𝕿 ‫‘ אזמרגד‬emerald’ except ‫‘ תכריכין‬wrappings’ Ezek 27:16 [D] Eg → Heb Eg mfkꜢ.t (OK), mfꜢk.t (MK), mfk.t (since NK) ÄW 1:526–27, 2:1060–61; GHwÄ 352; WÄS 2:56; DLE 1:183415 This word occurs four times. It appears three times in the list of gemstones of the high priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:18; 39:11) and the adornment of the king of Tyre (Ezek 28:13). The fourth attestation is Ezek 27:16, which lists ‫ נֹ פְֶך‬as a traded item. Hebrew ‫ נֹ פְֶך‬has no cognates and is not based on any known Semitic root, indicating a foreign origin. It comes from Egyptian mfkꜢ.t, mfꜢk.t, mfk.t ‘turquoise’.416 By the New Kingdom, the Ꜣ of the Egyptian form had dropped out, hence its lack of representation in Hebrew. Furthermore, the use of nun for Egyptian m reflects the neutralization between m and n that occurred in some environments in Later Egyptian.417 Neo-​Assyrian literature refers to the Egyptian toponym Pr-ḥtḥr-(nb.t)mfkꜢ.t as uruPi-ḫa-​at-​ti-ḫu-​ru-​un-​pi-​ki, providing a precedent for the writing of this word with Semitic n for Egyptian m.418 The turquoise mines of the Sinai Peninsula have been a significant source of this blue-​green mineral since antiquity. The two principal sources in this region were Wadi Maghara, which was mined from the Early Dynastic period through the Middle Kingdom, and Serabit el-​Khadim, which was mined from the Middle Kingdom until 413.  ALBH 103; Lipiński 1988, 69–70; AIA 77; Zimmern 1917, 20. On the Sumerian origin of Akk nikkassu, see SLOB 414–15 (#514). 414. As indicated by the contextual mention of precious stones and materials, the occurrences of ‫ ּפּוְך‬in Isa 54:11 and 1 Chr 29:2 are probably scribal errors for ‫‘ נֹ פְֶך‬turquoise’ (Baltzer 2001, 448, 452; McKenzie 1968, 138; Rudolph 1955, 190; Kittel 1902, 102–3). 415. JA, SA ‫ נופך‬are adopted from BH ‫( נֹ פְֶך‬Jastrow 1903, 889; DSA 537). 416.  EPNL 251; Lambdin 1953b, 152; Grintz 1975a, 8; Harrell, Hoffmeier and Williams 2017, 17–18. On the substance denoted by Eg mfkꜢ.t, mfꜢk.t, mfk.t, see Fuchs 1986. 417.  On the elision of Ꜣ, see J. Allen 2013, 40–42; Loprieno 1995, 33, 38; Peust 1999, 127–29, 142–51. On the neutralization between m and n in Later Egyptian, see Junge 2005, 37. 418.  Gauthier 1925–1931, 2:118; cf. EPNL 251; Lambdin 1953b, 152.

154

Chapter 3

the Late period (Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 62; Lucas 1962, 404; cf. O’Donoghue 2006d). Canaanite peoples were the primary laborers in the mines at Serabit el-​ Khadim, and the evidence of the Proto-​Sinaitic inscriptions from this site—coupled with discoveries at Wadi el-Ḥôl in Egypt—points to the origin of the Semitic alphabet in Egypt under the influence of Egyptian hieroglyphs (Hamilton 2006, 269–321). The long history of extensive contact between Egyptian- and Semitic-​speaking peoples and the latter’s involvement in turquoise mining at Serabit el-​Khadim support the plausibility of this term being borrowed into Hebrew via Egyptian. Turquoise was used primarily for jewelry as early as the Predynastic period, a use that continued into the Greco-​Roman period. Contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence that powdered turquoise was used as a cosmetic pigment, although it may have been used in powdered form for the production of glazes (Lee and Quirke 2000, 111; Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 62–63). ‫‘ נ ְֵר ְּד‬spikenard’ HALOT 723–24; DCH 5:756 (Song 1:12; 4:13–14) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾 each use their corresponding forms of the word (νάρδος, nardus, and nrdyn, respectively); 𝕿 ‫[ נרד‬Aramaic form] Song 1:12, ‫‘ רשק‬spikenard’ Song 4:13–14 [D] OInd →   → Heb; Aram; OSA   → Gk → Lat QA, JA, CPA ‫ נרד‬DQA 161; Jastrow 1903, 936; DCPA 273; Syr nardīn LS² 951; OSA rnd DOSA 489; Gk νάρδος LSJ 1160; Lat nardus, nardum OLD 1271; OInd *narda- EWAia 2:23; KEWA 2:140–41419 This word occurs three times in the Song of Songs (Song 1:12; 4:13–14) and refers to spikenard (Nardostachys jatamansi). This perennial plant’s underground stems (rhizomes) are covered in spike-​like hairs that can be crushed to obtain a fragrant, aromatic oil (Musselman 2012, 100–101; Löw 1924–1934, 3:482–88). It is not surprising, therefore, that Hebrew ‫ נ ְֵר ְּד‬occurs within the context of various aromatics and spices. Related forms are found in Aramaic and Old South Arabian as well as Greek and Latin. The final unbroken consonant cluster, something not typically tolerated in Biblical Hebrew, indicates a non-​Semitic origin. The word would have been borrowed along with the product, and the natural place to look is East Asia because spikenard is native to the Himalayan region. Already Gesenius recognized Hebrew ‫ נ ְֵר ְּד‬as a loan from Old Indic *narda- (cf. Skt nálada- and Pāli narada-), also the source of Greek νάρδος. 420 Classical authors mention several different kinds of 419.  Akk lardu, the equivalent of Sum Ḫirim in lexical texts, is almost certainly not connected. It occurs already in Standard Babylonian Akkadian, significantly earlier than any of the allegedly related Semitic forms, and denotes a species of grass with a high alkali content that was used for soap (cf. CAD L 103). 420.  Gesenius, Thesaurus 914; cf. Rabin 1962, 1079; Powels 1992, 193–94. Classicists often assume that Gk νάρδος derives from Semitic (e.g., EDG 996; DELG 708; Rosół 2013, 75–76; Masson 1967, 56).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

155

spikenard, but they consistently associate true spikenard with India (Peripl. M. Rubr. 39, 48–49; Pliny, Nat. 12.26.45; Dioscorides, Mat. med. 1.7; Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 9.7.2) (cf. Crone 1987, 72–73). Thus, there is little reason to question an Old Indic origin for Hebrew ‫נ ְֵר ְּד‬.421 ‫לִ ְׁשּכָה ⇒ נִ ְׁשּכָה‬ ‫( נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬BH, BA) ‘document, decree’ HALOT 732, 1935; DCH 5:782 (Ezra 4:7, 18, 23; 5:5; 7:11) 𝕲 φορολόγος ‘tribute collector’ except διάταγμα ‘edict, command’ Ezra 7:11; 𝖁 epistula ‘letter’ Ezra 4:7; 7:11, accusatio ‘accusation, indictment’ Ezra 4:18; 5:5, edictum ‘command, decree’ Ezra 4:23; 𝕾 ‌ʾgrt‌ʾ ‘letter, document’ except ptgm‌ʾ ‘message, word’ Ezra 5:5 [D] OIran → Heb; Aram IA ‫ נשתון‬DNWSI 766; OIran *ništāvana- AISN 176; IAP 409 The term ‫ נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬occurs five times in the Hebrew Bible, both in Biblical Hebrew (Ezra 4:7; 7:11) and in Biblical Aramaic (Ezra 4:18, 23; 5:5). In each instance it refers to an official document or decree. Elsewhere in Semitic this word only occurs in Imperial Aramaic, where it is attested as ‫( נשתון‬TAD A6.1:3; Khalili A1:10; A6:6).422 The typical word for an official document is ‫ ִאּג ֶֶרת‬in Biblical Hebrew and ‫ִאּגְ ָרה‬ in Biblical Aramaic, not ‫נִ ְׁש ְּת וָן‬. 423 This observation, along with the non-​Semitic shape of ‫נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬, indicates a foreign loan. Scholars have long proposed that this word comes from Old Iranian *ništāvana- (cf. Ossetic nystwan, nistawæn: Abaev 1958– 1989, 2:210).424 Old Iranian *ništāvana- is formed from the verb *ništā- ‘to order, command’ (cf. Av ništaiia-: AIW 1604) and the afformatives -va and -na.425 This perfectly matches the phonology, morphology, and meaning of ‫נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬.426 However, there is little evidence for a Semitic origin, especially since Classical authors consistently state that nard came from India. Lat nardus, nardum comes from Greek (DELL 429; LEW 2:143). 421. Some scholars contend that ‫ ֵנ ְר ְּד‬comes from an alleged OIran *nardin- rather than Indic (e.g., Dobbs-​Allsopp 2005, 66; Brenner 1983, 77). However, no such word is attested in Old Iranian. Neither Hinz (AISN) nor Tavernier (IAP) reconstructs an OIran *nardin-. The earliest this word occurs in Iranian is NPers nārdīn (CPED 1370). Proponents of an Iranian origin, moreover, offer no explanation for the omission of the -īn ending in the Hebrew form. In any case, the -īn ending cannot be explained in terms of Old Iranian morphology. NPers nārdīn undoubtedly comes from Aramaic, in which this word commonly occurs as a plurale tantum with final -īn, via Arabic. I am grateful to John Makujina for his assistance with this entry. 422. The related form ‫‘ הונשתון‬good order’ occurs once in Imperial Aramaic (KAI 273:8). 423. On BH ‫ ִאּג ֶֶרת‬and its Akkadian origin, see Kaufman 1977. 424.  FWOT 116; F. Rosenthal 2006, 63; Aĭkhenval’d 1987, 6; Tisdall 1912, 365–66. 425.  OIran *ništā- means ‘to set down’, being composed of ni- ‘down’ and stā- ‘to set’. On the suffix -va, see OPGTL 51 (§150). On the suffix -na, see Skjærvø 2007, 902; OPGTL 51 (§147). 426. Hinz (AISN 176) contends that the use of š rather than s indicates a Median word because he thinks that *štā- is the Median equivalent of OPers stā-. However, the Proto-​Indo-​European and Old Indic equivalents contradict his hypothesis (cf. IAP 565). Hence, the Old Iranian dialect from which ‫ נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬comes remains unknown.

156

Chapter 3

‫‘ נֶתֶ ר‬natron’ HALOT 737; DCH 5:818 (Jer 2:22; Prov 25:20) 𝕲 νίτρον [Greek form] Jer 2:22, omits Prov 25:20; 𝖁 nitrum [Latin form]; 𝕾 ntrʾ [Syriac form] Jer 2:22, ytrʾ ‘bowstring’ Prov 25:20; 𝕿 ‫[ נתר‬Aramaic form] [D] Eg →   → Akk; Heb; Aram; Arab; Hitt   → Gk → Lat Akk nitiru, nitru (SB, NA) CAD N/2 299; AHw 798; IA, JA ‫ נתר‬DNWSI 771; Jastrow 1903, 946; Syr neṯrā LS² 957; Arab naṭūr Lane 2810; Eg nṯrı̓, ntrı̓ (since OK) ÄW 1:684, 2:1411–12; GHwÄ 471; WÄS 2:366; Hitt nitri- HHw 127; Gk νίτρον, λίτρον LSJ 1054, 1177; Lat nitrum OLD 1300 This word occurs only twice in the Hebrew Bible. Jeremiah 2:22 uses it in conjunction with ‫‘ ּבֹ ִרית‬soap’ used for washing, and Prov 25:30 refers to the stinging of the substance ‫ נֶתֶ ר‬on a wound. Hence, ‫ נֶתֶ ר‬refers to a chemical substance used for cleansing. Related terms are found in many languages, both Semitic (Akkadian, Aramaic, and Arabic) and Indo-​European (Hittite, Greek, and Latin).427 They all come from an Egyptian word first attested as nṯrı̓ during the Old Kingdom and later attested as ntrı̓ after palatal fronting occurred. Because the Semitic and Indo-​European forms have the consonant t rather than the typical reflexes of ṯ, they must have adopted this term after the merging of Egyptian ṯ and t, which took place during the second millennium B.C.E. Furthermore, the i-class vowel in the majority of the cognates points to an original vocalization of *nitr and indicates a loan before the shift of Egyptian i to a, which occurred in closed accented syllables prior to 700 b.c.e. The a-vowel of Arabic naṭūr, on the other hand, points to a later borrowing after this vowel shift had occurred.428 Egyptian evidence identifies this substance with natron, a naturally occurring soda consisting of sodium carbonate and bicarbonate (Aufrère 1991, 2:606–36; J. R. Harris 1961, 193). There were three primary sources of natron in ancient Egypt, two in Lower Egypt (the Wadi Natrun and the Beheira province) and one in Upper Egypt (El Kab). Natron was obtained from deposits at the bottom of shallow lakes and rivers in these three regions. Classical authors, including Strabo (Geogr. 17.1.23) and Pliny (Nat. 31.46.109, 111) make note of these sources of natron in Egypt.429 Natron had many purposes in Egypt, including purification ceremonies, making

427.  Lat nitrum comes from Greek (DELL 442; LEW 2:171–72). 428.  EPNL 251; Lambdin 1953b, 152–53; FWOT 117. On the depalatalization of Eg ṯ, see J. Allen 2013, 48–50; Loprieno 1995, 38; Peust 1999, 123–25; Junge 2005, 36. On the change of i to a in Egyptian, see J. Allen 2013, 24–26; Loprieno 1995, 38–39; Peust 1999, 222–26, 250–59. 429.  Lucas 1962, 263–66; J. R. Harris 1961, 193; Lucas 1932. Pliny also claims that smaller sources of natron existed in Media as well as Thrace and Macedonia.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

157

incense, cooking, medicine, bleaching linen, mummification, and the manufacture of glass as well as glaze and other pigments (Lucas 1962, 267; Sandison 1963). ‫ׂשַ ּבְ כָא ⇒ סַ ּבְ כָא‬ ‫( סָ ִדין‬a luxury garment) HALOT 743–44; DCH 6:121 (Judg 14:12–13; Isa 3:23; Prov 31:24) 𝕲 σινδών [Greek form] Judg 14:12–13; Prov 31:24, ὑακίνθινος ‘blue-​colored cloth’ Isa 3:23; 𝖁 sindon [Latin form]; 𝕾 ‌ʾpqrsyn ‘sheets’ Judg 14:12–13, tklyt‌ʾ ‘blue garment’ Isa 3:23, ktn‌ʾ ‘linen garment’ Prov 31:24; 𝕿 ‫‘ פלדיס‬wrap’ Judg 14:12–13, ‫‘ קרטיס‬garment’ Isa 3:23, ‫‘ פתג‬garment of mixed cloth’ Prov 31:24 [D] Hurr →   → Akk; Heb; Aram   → Gk → Syr; Lat Akk saddinnu (Nuzi, EA), šaddinnu (NA) CAD S 17; AHw 1001, 1123; JA, CPA ‫ סדין‬DJPA 368; DJBA 788; DCPA 279; Syr seddōnā LS² 970; Gk σινδών LSJ 1600; Lat sindon OLD 1949; Hurr sadinni-430 The term occurs only four times in Biblical Hebrew, each time with reference to a luxury garment: twice in Judg 14:12–13 as one of the gifts that Samson promises to the inhabitants of Timnah if they can solve his riddle, in Isa 3:23 as a luxury item alongside several other garments, and in Prov 31:24 as one of the special garments made by the industrious woman of Prov 31:10–31. Related words exist in Semitic (Akkadian, Jewish and Christian Palestinian Aramaic, and Syriac) as well as non-​Semitic (Greek). Several observations indicate a non-​Semitic origin: the varying spellings, particularly the different representations of the initial sibilant; the double final consonant of the Akkadian forms; and the apparent lack of any Semitic etymology. As Kaufman (AIA 94–95) notes, the -innu ending of the Akkadian forms indicates a northern, Anatolian origin. This ending frequently occurs in terminology from languages spoken in ancient Anatolia, both Indo-​European and non-​Indo-​European (see Dercksen 2007, 39–42). In this case, the -innu ending probably represents the Hurrian derivational suffix -ni, -nni because texts associate this word with the Hurrians.431 Akkadian saddinnu, šaddinnu first appears in the second millennium Nuzi texts, where it denotes a piece of apparel of specific shape and function (Oppenheim 1967, 249), and this garment is listed as a gift by Tušratta, king of Mittani, in EA 22 i:44. 430.  Fränkel (1886, 48) rightly denies a connection between the Aramaic terms and Arab sadīn, which can mean ‘fat, blood’ in addition to ‘wool’. A connection with Eg šnḏyt, first attested during the Old Kingdom, is also unlikely. 431.  On the Hurrian derivational suffix -ni, -nni, see Wegner 2007, 55; Giorgieri 2000, 210–12; Wilhelm 2008, 92.

158

Chapter 3

Hebrew ‫ סָ ִדין‬cannot be a loan from Akkadian, as indicated by the Neo-​Assyrian spelling with š.432 This observation, along with the Hurrian associations of this word, together point to a borrowing from a Hurrian sadinni-. Greek σινδών exhibits dissimilation of the geminated consonant and a different vowel pattern that also occurs in loans borrowed via Asia Minor (cf. BH ‫חָ רּוץ‬, Akk ḫurāṣu, and Hurr ḫiyari-, ḫiyaruḫḫe-; BH ‫ּכִ ידֹון‬, Akk katinnu, and Hurr kadinni-; BH ‫ ּכֻּתֹ נֶת‬and Gk χιτών, κιθών, κιτών).433 Syriac seddōnā and Latin sindon are loans from Greek (LS² 970; LEW 2:542). ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬‎ ְ , ‫‘ ִסּיּפֹ נְ יָה‬musical harmony’ HALOT 1937 (Dan 3:5, 10, 15) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾 each use their corresponding forms of the word (συμφωνία, symphonia, and ṣpwnyʾ, respectively) [D] Gk → Aram; Lat Syr ṣeppōynā LS² 1297; Gk συμφωνία LSJ 1689; Lat symphonia OLD 2090 The Biblical Aramaic word ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ occurs three times within the description of Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra (Dan 3:5, 10, 15). Furthermore, it appears with two different spellings: one with a šureq followed by mem in Dan 3:5, 15 (‫)סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬, ְ and another with a ḥireq-​yod and without the mem in verse 10 (‫)סּיּפֹ נְ יָה‬. ִ The omission of the word in Dan 3:7, which also describes the various instruments of Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra, is probably an error; all the ancient versions use their respective terms for ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ in Dan 3:7. Biblical Aramaic ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ is an obvious loan from Greek συμφωνία, as are the related forms found in Syriac (ṣeppōnyā) and Latin (symphonia).434 The term συμφωνία is first attested in Greek literature during the sixth century b.c.e. (Hippasus, Test. 12.6, 13; 13.1, 5, 8, 10), where it has the meaning ‘musical harmony’. In later sources, συμφωνία can also mean ‘band, orchestra’ (e.g., Polybius, Hist. 26.1.4; 30.26.8). Throughout its attestations, this word rarely refers to a specific instrument. Some authors use Greek συμφωνία or its Latin derivative symphonia to denote an instrument that produces musical consonance (e.g., Pliny, Nat. 8.64.157; Isidorus Hispalensis, Orig. 3.22.14), but the typical referent of this word is ‘musical harmony’ rather than a specific instrument, as Jerome notes (Epist. 21.29) (Coxon 1973–1974, 32–33). It is unlikely, therefore, that ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ denotes a specific instrument in the book of Daniel, especially since the context does not demand it. Rather,

432.  ALBH 109–10; contra FWOT 121; Zimmern 1917, 36–37. There is no Sumerian word *sudin that denotes a garment, contrary to the claim of Ellenbogen. 433.  Cf. Mayer 1960, 331. Although commonly taken as a direct loan from Semitic (e.g., Masson 1967, 25–26), there is little evidence for such a view. 434. FWOT 122; Coxon 1973–1974, 32; AAT 2:58. Mitchell and Joyce (1965, 26) instead suggest that BA ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ is a loan from non-​Attic Gk τύμπανον, a type of drum. Although attractive, this loan hypothesis cannot explain the final ‫יָה‬-‫‏‬of ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬, ְ and the ancient versions all identify ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ with συμφωνία.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

159

because ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ is followed by the phrase ‫‘ וְ כֹ ל ְזנֵי זְמָ ָרא‬and every kind of music’ it most likely means ‘musical harmony’.435 This means there is no basis for contending, as some have done, that Biblical Aramaic ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ must have been borrowed during the Hellenistic period. Rather, Greek συμφωνία could have the meaning ‘musical harmony’ both before and after the time of Alexander the Great. Thus, Biblical Aramaic ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ could have been borrowed at either an early or a late period (Coxon 1973–1974, 36–37). ‫‘ סּוס‬horse’ HALOT 746; DCH 6:130–32 (Gen 47:17; passim436) [?] CW Akk sīsû (OB, MA, MB, Alalakh, Bogh, EA, NA, NB), sisāʾu (OA) CAD S 328–34; AHw 1051–52; Ug śśw DUL 760–61; EH, QH ‫ סוס‬DNWSI 795; Phoen ‫ סס‬DNWSI 795; OAram, IA, Palm, Nab, SA ‫סוס‬, JA, CPA ‫ סוסי‬DNWSI 795; DJPA 371; DJBA 794–95; DSA 574; DCPA 283; Syr sūsyā LS² 986; Mand susia MD 322–23; Eg ssm.t (since NK) GHwÄ 824; WÄS 4:276–77; DLE 2:77; Hitt azzuwa- HHw 34; Luv azzu-, azzuwa- (CLuv), asuwa-, asu- (HLuv) CLL 44; Payne 2010, 144; Gk ἵππος LSJ 835; Lat equus OLD 675; Skt áśva- EWAia 1:139–40; KEWA 1:62; OPers asa- OPGTL 173; Arm êš HAB 2:117–19 This word appears 138 times in the MT, and the feminine form ‫ סּוסָ ה‬occurs only in Song 1:9. Yet, despite its prevalence in the Hebrew Bible and the existence of related forms in many of the Semitic languages, it is not native to Semitic. This term does not seem to be based on any Semitic root, and scholars have long connected it with Proto-​Indo-​European *h1eḱuo- ‘horse’. There is little reason to think that this word is not connected in some way with Indo-​European, because it is practically universal in the Indo-​European languages (Adams, Mallory and Miller 1997, 274; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1994–1995, 1:463). Nevertheless, the details of the word’s Indo-​European connections remain uncertain. The Semitic forms could have come from one of the satem-languages or one of the Anatolian Indo-​European languages, both of which use a sibilant rather than a velar for Proto-​Indo-​European ḱ. Either option seems possible at first glance. 435. Mitchell and Joyce 1965, 26. One might be tempted to interpret the waw as a waw explicativum, translating ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה וְ כֹ ל ְזנֵי זְמָ ָרא‬ ְ as ‘musical harmony, even every kind of music’ (see Kolari 1947, 82). However, such a use of the waw is not in accordance with its use in lists elsewhere in the book of Daniel. See Coxon 1973–1974, 33–34. 436.  Gen 49:17; Exod 9:3; 14:9, 23; 15:1, 19, 21; Deut 11:4; 17:16 (2×); 20:1; Josh 11:4, 6, 9; Judg 5:22; 2 Sam 15:1; 1 Kgs 5:6, 8 [4:26, 28]; 10:25, 28–29; 18:5; 20:1, 20–21, 25 (2×); 22:4 (2×); 2 Kgs 2:11; 3:7 (2×); 5:9; 6:14–15, 17; 7:6–7, 10, 13–14; 9:18–19, 33; 10:2; 11:16; 14:20; 18:23; 23:11; Isa 2:7; 5:28; 30:16; 31:1, 3; 36:8; 43:17; 63:13; 66:20; Jer 4:13; 5:8; 6:23; 8:6, 16; 12:5; 17:25; 22:4; 31:40; 46:4, 9; 50:37, 42; 51:21, 27; Ezek 17:15; 23:6, 12, 20, 23; 26:7, 10–11; 27:14; 38:4, 15; 39:20; Hos 1:7; 14:4 [14:3]; Joel 2:4; Amos 2:15; 4:10; 6:12; Mic 5:9 [5:10]; Nah 3:2; Hab 1:8; 3:8, 15; Hag 2:22; Zech 1:8 (2×); 6:2 (2×), 3 (2×), 6; 9:10; 10:3, 5; 12:4 (2×); 14:15, 20; Ps 20:8 [20:7]; 32:9; 33:17; 76:7 [76:6]; 147:10; Job 39:18–19; Prov 21:31; 26:3; Qoh 10:7; Esth 6:8, 9 (2×), 10–11; 8:10; Ezra 2:66; Neh 3:28; 2 Chr 1:16–17; 9:24–25, 28; 23:15; 25:28.

160

Chapter 3

Regarding the satem languages, several Indo-​Aryan terms for hippiatrics entered the ancient Near East, perhaps supporting an Old Indic origin (cf. Mayrhofer 1951–1952, 16–17; Ungnad 1923, 90–91). As for the Anatolian languages, this word first appears in Semitic in Old Assyrian Akkadian texts, perhaps supporting an Anatolian origin (cf. Rabin 1964, 159–60; Goetze 1962, 34–35). However, both loan hypotheses leave the reduplicated s of the Semitic forms, and of Egyptian ssm.t, unexplained. Reduplication of *h1eḱuo-, even with assibilated ḱ, would probably not produce the required Semitic or Egyptian forms. Proto-​Indo-​European *śeḱuowould explain the initial s of Semitic (as well as the initial aspiration of Greek ἵππος), but little evidence exists for a palatalized sibilant phoneme *ś in Proto-​Indo-​ European (Kogan 2006, 270; contra Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1994–1995, 1:478–79). If not directly borrowed from Indo-​European, perhaps this word entered Semitic via the mediation of some other language. It is also possible that Proto-​Indo-​ European *h1eḱuo- was itself borrowed from some other source (see Blažek 1998). If so, it is conceivable that the Semitic forms come from this other source—most probably the home of the domestication of the horse—rather than one of the Indo-​ European languages. In sum, while there is certainly some connection between the Semitic forms and Indo-​European, the specifics remain unclear. ‫( סּוף‬a rush or reed plant) HALOT 747; DCH 6:134 (Exod 2:3, 5; passim437) [D] Eg → Heb QH ‫ ;סוף‬Eg ṯwfy, ṯwf (NK, Ptolm) GHwÄ 1023; WÄS 5:359; DLE 2:227 The word ‫ סּוף‬occurs 28 times in the Hebrew Bible, primarily in the toponym ‫יַם‬ ‫‘ סּוף‬Reed Sea’ (Exod 10:19; passim). Elsewhere it appears with reference to the reeds along the riverbank where Moses was placed (Exod 2:3, 5) and to the rushes of the Nile (Isa 19:6). With the exception of Jon 2:6, where ‫ סּוף‬more generally means ‘seaweed’ or the like, this term always occurs within an Egyptian context. This word’s Egyptian associations invites comparison with Egyptian ṯwfy, ṯwf, which refers to a rush or reed plant (cf. Dem ḏwf and Copt čoouf: CDD Ḏ 25; DG 676; Crum 795). Many scholars derive Egyptian ṯwfy, ṯwf from Hebrew ‫סּוף‬,438 but this is unlikely on at least three counts. First, Egyptian ṯwfy, ṯwf is written consonantally, not syllabically, as demonstrated by the Coptic form čoouf. The Egyptians did not write this word with group writing as if it were a Semitic loan, as they 437.  Exod 10:19; 13:18; 15:4, 22; 23:31; Num 14:25; 21:4; 33:10–11; Deut 1:40; 2:11; 11:4; Josh 2:10; 4:23; 24:6; Judg 11:16; 1 Kgs 9:26; Isa 19:6; Jer 49:21; Jon 2:6; Ps 106:7, 9, 22; 136:13, 15; Neh 9:9. 438. E.g., EPNL 251–52; Lambdin 1953b, 153; Erman 1892, 122. Semitic etymologies remain unconvincing. W. Ward (1974, 343–49) relates a hypothetical Semitic root *sp ‘to reach, arrive at’ to BH ‫סַ ף‬ ‘bowl’ and contends that it developed semantically into BH ‫ סּוף‬as well as Eg ṯwfy, ṯwf. Copisarow (1962, 10–13) offers a similar etymology, connecting these terms with BH ‫‘ סֹוף‬end’. Despite the analogies of semantic evolution that Ward and Copisarow provide, their etymologies are speculative and without any secure basis.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

161

would be expected to do.439 Second, ‫ סּוף‬has no cognates elsewhere in Semitic as would be expected if this word were Semitic.440 Third, the frequent biblical association of ‫ סּוף‬with Egypt strongly suggests that it is Egyptian. A word denoting an Egyptian plant should be Egyptian, not Semitic, in origin. Thus, Hebrew ‫ סּוף‬should be derived from Egyptian ṯwfy, ṯwf rather than vice versa.441 The lack of representation of final y indicates that Hebrew-​speakers borrowed this word sometime after y was dropped during the New Kingdom.442 Notably, Egyptian ṯwfy, ṯwf occurs commonly in the collocation pꜢ-ṯwfy, a toponym frequently mentioned in Egyptian texts. This usage closely parallels the collocation ‫ יַם סּוף‬in the Hebrew Bible and further supports an Egyptian origin for Hebrew ‫סּוף‬.443 ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה ⇒ ִסּיּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ ‫‘ סָ ְך‬shrine, sanctuary’ HALOT 753; DCH 6:150–51 (Ps 42:5 [42:4]) 𝕲 τόπος σκηνῆς θαυμαστῆς, 𝖁 locus tabernaculi admirabilis translate ‫בַ ּסָ ְּך אֶ דַ ּדֵ ּם‬ as ‘place of the wonderful tabernacle’; 𝕾 str‌ʾ ‘hidden place’; 𝕿 ‫‘ טלל‬shade’ [T] Sum → Akk → Heb Sum sug PSD; Akk sukku (OB, MB, SB, NA, NB) CAD S 361–62; AHw 1055 Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 753) derive the term ‫ סָ ְך‬in Ps 42:5 from the root ‫‘ סכך‬to block off’, taking its meaning as ‘refuge’ (cf. BH ‫)סֹ ְך‬. 𝕲 and 𝖁, however, take ‫ בַ ּסָ ְּך אֶ דַ ּדֵ ּם‬together as a reference to the tabernacle, suggesting that ‫ סָ ְך‬may not mean ‘refuge’ as traditionally understood. Adopting the readings of 𝕲 and 𝖁 produces nice parallelism with what directly follows, ‫‘ עַד־בֵ ּית אֱֹלהִ ים‬unto the house of God’ (H.-J. Kraus 1993, 1:437, 439–40). Assuming ‫ סָ ְך‬refers to a divine sanctuary, Hebrew ‫ סָ ְך‬becomes a prime candidate for Akkadian loanword status. Akkadian sukku ‘shrine’ provides a perfect donor term semantically but also phonologically. Biblical Hebrew typically preserves Akkadian u in a closed syllable as qameṣ, which is precisely the vowel of the 439.  Albright 1934, 65; contra EPNL 252. Notably, this word is not listed as a Semitic loan into Egyptian by Hoch (SWET). 440. JA ‫ סוף‬occurs only with ‫ ים‬and is adopted from BH ‫סּוף‬, as is Mand sup. Arab ṣūf, which typically means ‘wool’, is used in a rare Arabic lexicon to denote reeds of the sea, but this unusual usage is probably due to the influence of Copt čoouf (Lane 1748; Lambdin 1953b, 153). 441. Muchiki (EPNI 252) objects to the correspondence of Heb samek and Eg ṯ, contending that it is unexpected. However, this correspondence is the norm in loans from Northwest Semitic into Egyptian beginning with the Middle Kingdom (SWET 407–8). There is, therefore, no reason to reject an Egyptian origin for BH ‫ סּוף‬on the basis of this correspondence. 442.  On the elision of final y in Later Egyptian, see J. Allen 2013, 37–38, 43; Loprieno 1995, 33, 38; Peust 1999, 49–50, 142–51; Junge 2005, 33. 443. Batto (1983) and Vervenne (1995) reject any identification of ‫ יַם סּוף‬with Eg pꜢ-ṯwfy. However, there is no convincing reason to dissociate these two toponyms (Hoffmeier 2005, 85–89; Bietak 1984).

162

Chapter 3

underlying form behind ‫ סָ ְך‬as the Masoretes have pointed it (*sakk). Hebrew-​ speakers must have borrowed this term from Babylonian rather than Assyrian Akkadian, as indicated by the use of initial samek instead of šin. Akkadian sukku, in turn, comes from Sumerian sug ‘shrine’.444 Thus, Hebrew ‫ סָ ְך‬is a Sumero-​Akkadian loan. It is possible that the few instances of ‫ סֹ ְך‬that seem to refer to the divine sanctuary (Ps 27:5; 76:3) have been incorrectly pointed by the Masoretes and should be emended to ‫( סָ ְך‬see ALBH 112). ‫( ִסּמָ גַר‬an official) HALOT 759; DCH 6:167 (Jer 39:3) 𝕲 Σαμαγωθ, 𝖁 Semegar both translate as a personal name, separated from ‫נְ בּו‬ unlike the MT; 𝕾 Smgdnbw (misreading ‫ סַ ְמּגַר־נְ בּו‬as ‫)סַ ְמּגַד־נְ בּו‬, 𝕿 ‫ סמגר־נבו‬also translate as a personal name but follow the MT’s division [T] Elam → Akk → Heb Akk simmagir (NB) CAD S 272–73; AHw 1045; Elam sin-​ma-​gir, si-​im-​ma-​gir This word occurs only in Jer 39:3, where the MT has grouped it with ‫ נְ בּו‬and taken it as part of a personal name ‫סַ ְמ ַגּר־נְ בּו‬. Both 𝕲 and 𝖁 understand ‫ סַ ְמּגַר‬as a personal name, but they separate it from ‫נְ בּו‬, which they attach to the beginning of the following name. This results in three names, each followed by a title: ‫נ ְֵרגַל־‬ ‫שַ ׂר־אֶ צֶ ר סַ ְמ ּגַר‬, ‘Nergal-​Sharezar, a ‫ׂר־סכִ ים ַרב־סָ ִריס ;’סַ ְמּגַר‬ ְ ַ‫נְ בּו־ש‬, ‘Nebo-​Sarsekim, a chief official’; and ‫‘ נ ְֵרגַל־שַ ׂר־אֶ צֶ ר ַרב־מָ ג‬Nergal-​Sharezer, a military official’. This suggests that ‫ סַ ְמּגַר‬is also a title and not part of a personal name as suggested by the MT. Indeed, the term simmagir occurs in Neo-​Babylonian texts with reference to an official. This word is first attested in the form lú dSin-​ma-​gir and later attested simply as si-​im-​ma-​gir. The Akkadian orthography indicates a foreign word, most probably Elamite, as suggested by its use with reference to an individual from Sippar (CT 55.558:10) and its appearance in Achaemenid texts. Von Soden (1972) reconstructs the Elamite form as *simakir, formed from si- ‘to dedicate’, -ma(a root augment indicating durative action), -k (the passive participle morpheme), and -r(a) (a derivational suffix used to form personal substantives, often from passive participles).445 Although not attested in Elamite texts, the related personal name Si-​im-​gir-​na does occur (EW 1073). All this indicates that this word is a loan from Neo-​Babylonian Akkadian simmagir, in turn a borrowing from Elamite *simakir. The ancient versions and form of Akkadian simmagir suggest that the MT’s ‫ סַ ְמּגַר‬should be repointed to ‫סּמָ גַר‬. ִ 444.  ALBH 112; Tawil 2009, 260; Peacock 2013, 103–5. On the Sumerian origin of Akk sukku, see SLOB 521–22 (#696). I am grateful to Michael Barré for his assistance with this entry. 445.  On the root augment -ma-, see Khachikyan 1998, 13, 36. On the passive participle morpheme -k, see ibid., 41. On the derivational suffix -r(a), see ibid., 12, 41.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

163

Thus, although the order of the elements in the list of Jer 39:3 remain uncertain, it is quite probable that this word comes from Elamite via Neo-​Babylonian Akkadian (ALBH 120–21). ‫( סַ ף‬a type of bowl) HALOT 762; DCH 6:176–77 (Exod 12:22 [2×]; 2 Sam 17:28; 1 Kgs 7:50; 2 Kgs 12:14 [12:13]; Jer 52:19; Zech 12:2) 𝕲 ἀμφίταπος ‘tapestry, rug’ 2 Sam 17:28, transliterates as σαφφωθ Jer 52:19; 𝖁 tapete ‘tapestry’ 2 Sam 17:28, hydria ‘urn, jug’ 1 Kgs 7:50; 2 Kgs 12:14; Jer 52:19; 𝕾 ‌ʾmr‌ʾ ‘lamb’ Exod 12:22, tšwyt‌ʾ ‘bedding’ 2 Sam 17:28, mzmk‌ʾ ‘lampstand’ 1 Kgs 7:50, lqn‌ʾ ‘basin, bowl’ 2 Kgs 12:14, qṭrwq‌ʾ ‘incense pan’ Jer 52:19; 𝕿 ‫‘ מאן‬vessel’ Exod 12:22; Zech 12:2, ‫‘ קולה‬pitcher’ 2 Sam 17:28; 1 Kgs 7:50; 2 Kgs 12:14; Jer 52:19446 [?] CW Sum sab PSD; Akk sappu (OA, OB, MB), šappu (OB), šappatu, šabbatu, šapputu (MA, Alalakh, SB, NA), sappatu (NB), suppannu (OA) CAD S 166, 391–92, Š/1 477–80; AHw 1027, 1060, 1175; Ug sp DUL 753–54; Phoen, Pun ‫סף‬ DNWSI 796; Eg sp.t (NK) GHwÄ 746; WÄS 4:100; Hitt zuppu- HHw 236447 This word, which denotes a type of bowl, occurs only seven times in the Hebrew Bible. It appears primarily within the context of the cult, whether related to celebration of the first Passover (Exod 12:22 [2×]) or the vessels of the temple (1 Kgs 7:50; 2 Kgs 12:14; Jer 52:19). However, it appears without any cultic association in its two other occurrences (2 Sam 17:28; Zech 12:2). Hebrew ‫ סַ ף‬can be compared with several related terms found in both Semitic and non-​Semitic.448 The initial sibilant in the Semitic forms varies between s and š and is inexplicable in terms of the expected developments of the sibilants; the varying gender likewise points to the possibility of a non-​Semitic origin. The attestation of suppannu in Old Assyrian Akkadian suggests an Anatolian origin,449 and such an origin is further supported by the association of Ugaritic sp with Anatolian proper names such as Prwsdy (KTU 4.44:24), Klnmw (KTU 4.44:25), Tgyn (KTU 446. 𝕲 ὁ παρὰ τὴν θύραν ‘what is by the door’ Exod 12:22, πρόθυρον ‘forecourt’ 1 Kgs 7:50; Zech 12:2, θύραι ‘doors’ 2 Kgs 12:14, 𝖁 qui est in limine ‘what is by the threshold’ Exod 12:22, superliminare ‘lintel’ Zech 12:2, 𝕾 tr‌ʾ ‘gate’ Zech 12:2 mistakenly read the homonym ‫‘ סַ ף‬doorpost’. 447.  Some argue that LinA su-​pu, attested only as a superscript to the vessel *415VAS at Hagia Triada (HT 31:2), also reflects this word (e.g., Stieglitz 1971, 110). However, su-​pu instead seems to refer to the contents of the vessel or its function (Consani 1999, 64–65, 302). 448.  There is no conclusive evidence that Eg sp.t, a vessel used for holding incense, comes from Semitic (contra W. Ward 1961, 40). Notably, Hoch (SWET) does not list it as a Semitic loanword into Egyptian. 449.  Akk suppannu, attested in Old Assyrian texts, contains the -n(n)u suffix typical of Anatolian borrowings at Kültepe (Dercksen 2007, 33).

164

Chapter 3

4.44:29), and Ḫndr (KTU 4.56:4–5), as well as Anatolian social classes such as tpnr (a Hittite dignitary) (KTU 4.56:23). Despite this evidence for an Anatolian origin, the Anatolian donor term behind all its different forms is unclear. Therefore, for the present Hebrew ‫ סַ ף‬remains an ancient culture word of uncertain origin.450 ‫( סֵ פֶל‬a metal bowl) HALOT 764; DCH 6:181 (Judg 5:25; 6:38) 𝕲 λεκάνη or λακάνη ‘dish, pot’; 𝖁 phiala ‘shallow cup, bowl’ Judg 5:25, concha ‘shell-​shaped bowl’ Judg 6:38; 𝕾 ksʾ ‘cup’ Judg 5:25, lqnʾ ‘platter’ Judg 6:38; 𝕿 ‫‘ פילי‬flat bowl’ Judg 5:25, ‫‘ לקן‬platter’ Judg 6:38 [D] Hurr → Akk; Ug; Heb Akk saplu (OA, Alalakh, EA, RS, MA, MB, SB, NA, NB) CAD S 165; AHw 1027; Ug spl DUL 754–55; Hurr zabli- BGH 353; GLH 210451 This word occurs only twice, both times in the book of Judges. The first instance is in the Song of Deborah, where Jael is said to bring curds to Sisera in a bowl (Judg 5:25). In the second instance, Gideon squeezes the water of his wet fleece into a vessel denoted by this term (Judg 6:38). Several observations indicate that this word comes from a non-​Semitic language. First, both occurrences of Hebrew ‫ סֵ פֶל‬are associated with the north: Sisera was the commander of the army of Hazor in the north, and Gideon was from the northern tribe of Manasseh. Second, Ugaritic texts mention the vessel denoted by spl among the items owned by an individual named Krw (KTU 4.385:3), a Hurrian name. Third, the earliest occurrences of saplu in Akkadian are in peripheral dialects such as Old Assyrian, Alalakh, and Amarna. Fourth, the Amarna letters specifically list this vessel as an item of tribute from Tušratta, king of Mittani (EA 22 iv:21), and the Neo-​Assyrian Kurkh Monolith inscription lists it among items received as booty from the peoples of Nairi, who lived in the northern region of Nihriya (RIMA 2.101.19:89). All the evidence thus points a northern origin for this word. The donor term is Hurrian zabli- (Wilhelm 1996). This Hurrian term most often refers to a metal (rather than ceramic) bowl, so Hebrew ‫ סֵ ֶפל‬probably denoted a similar type of vessel. 450.  Scholars have proposed several different Semitic etymologies (e.g.,  Militarev 2007, 155; W. Ward 1974, 344–46). However, these loan hypotheses cannot adequately explain the variation of the initial sibilant or the varying gender of the Semitic forms. 451. QA ‫ ספל‬and JA, CPA ‫ סיפל‬,‫ ספל‬occur in biblical contexts and are adopted from Biblical Hebrew (DQA 168; DJPA 386; DCPA 286). Some scholars argue that LinA su-​pa3-ra, attested only as a superscript to the vessel *402VAS at Hagia Triada (HT 31:5), represents another form of this word (e.g., Stieglitz 1971, 111). However, su-​ pa3-ra seems instead to refer to the contents of the vessel or its function (Consani 1999, 64–65, 302).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

165

‫( סַ ְרּבָ ל‬a type of trousers) HALOT 1940 (Dan 3:21, 27) OG ὑπόδημα ‘sandal’ Dan 3:21, σαράβαρα [Greek form] Dan 3:27; θ′ σαράβαρα [Greek form]; 𝖁 bracae ‘trousers, breeches’ Dan 3:21, sarabara [Latin form] Dan 3:27; 𝕾 šrbl‌ʾ [Syriac form] [D] OIran (Scyth) → Aram; Gk; Lat JA ‫ סרבל‬DJBA 829–30; Syr šarbālā LS² 1601; Mand šaruala MD 445; Arab sirbāl Lane 1343;452 Gk σαράβαρα LSJ 1583; Lat sarabarae OLD 1864; OIran *sarabāla- (Scyth) AISN 222; IAP 489–90 Biblical Aramaic ‫ סַ ְרּבָ ל‬occurs twice. In Dan 3:21 it appears in the list of clothing worn by Daniel’s companions along with the terms ‫( ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬a type of pointed cap), ‫( ּפ ִַּטיׁש‬a type of leg wrappings), and ‫( לְ בּוׁש‬a generic term for clothing). In Dan 3:27 the clothing denoted by ‫ סַ ְרּבָ ל‬is said to be free from burns (‫ )לָא הִ ְתחָ ַרְך וְ סָ ְרּבָ לֵיהֹון‬after Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are retrieved from the furnace. This word’s quadriliteral pattern indicates a foreign origin. An Old Iranian origin is likely, given the frequency of Old Iranian loans in the book of Daniel. However, this word must have come from a non-​standard Old Iranian dialect because the liquids r and l merged in most Old Iranian dialects (Schmitt 2008, 83; Testen 1997, 582; OPGTL 38 [§107]). Furthermore, the geographical associations of related forms in other languages indicate that this word comes from the Scythian language. The fourth century b.c.e. comic poet Antiphanes calls the loose trousers worn by Scythians σαράβαρα (Com. 201), the same Greek term used by 𝕲 for ‫ סַ ְרּבָ ל‬in Dan 3:27. Latin sarabarae likewise occurs with reference to the trousers worn by Iranian peoples (Publilius Syrus, Sent. 19). Along with their caftans and tunics, the Scythians were known for wearing loose leather trousers that terminated in shoes, appropriate for their northern climate and horseback riding.453 As discussed above under the entry for Biblical Aramaic ‫ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬, the Scythians exerted significant influence on the clothing of the peoples of the Iranian plateau. This particular style of Scythian trousers was likely adopted in Persia, where it became part of Persian dress. The word would have been adopted along with the product, presumably in a form such as *sarabāla- (cf. Pahl šalwar and NPers šalwār, šulwār: CPD 79; CPED 758).454 Then, this word entered Aramaic (cf. Shaked 1994, 108; Ciancaglini 2008, 265). Given their literary connections with the Scythians, the Greek and Latin forms are probably direct borrowings from Scythian (see EDG 1307; DELG 953; LEW 2:478). 452.  Arab sirbāl comes from Aramaic (cf. Fränkel 1886, 47–48). 453.  Yatsenko 1992; Widengren 1956, 229. The Apadāna Relief depicts Scythians wearing trousers. Moreover, Classical Greek sources describe the Persians and Scythians as wearing trousers, albeit using the term ἀναξυρίδες rather than σαράβαρα (e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 5.49; 7.61, 64; Xenophon, Anab. 1.5.8; Hippocrates, Aer. 22). 454.  Knauer 1954; cf. F. Rosenthal 2006, 63. OIran *sarabāla- may also be present in the Elamite personal name Šarbaladda, attested in PF 1947:19; PFNN 2356:12 (AISN 222; IAP 489–90).

166

Chapter 3

‫ִׁש ְריֹון ⇒ ִס ְריֹון‬ ‫( ְס ַרְך‬a chief official) HALOT 1940 (Dan 6:3–5, 7–8 [6:2–4, 6–7]) OG ἡγούμενος (a title derived from the verb ἡγέομαι ‘to go before, lead’ used of officials and rulers) Dan 6:3, πάντες ἔχων ἐξουσίαν ‘all those holding authority’ Dan 6:4; θ′ τακτικός ‘fit for ordering or arranging’ Dan 6:3, 5–6, πάντες οἱ ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας ‘all those over the kingdom’ Dan 6:8; 𝖁 princeps ‘leader, chief’; 𝕾 šlyṭ‌ʾ ‘ruler’ except klhwn ‘all of them’ Dan 6:3 [D] OIran → Aram JA ‫ סרך‬DJPA 389; OIran *sāraka- AISN 221 Biblical Aramaic ‫ ְס ַרְך‬occurs five times within the span of a few verses in the book of Daniel, always with reference to a high Persian official in charge of the kingdom’s satraps (Dan 6:3–5, 7–8). According to the book of Daniel, there were three of these officials in the kingdom, one of whom was Daniel himself. This word refers to an official in the Persian Empire. This association implies an Old Iranian origin, especially because the final kap of ‫ ְס ַרְך‬could represent the Old Iranian suffix -ka. Indeed, the donor term is Old Iranian *sāraka-, which refers to a chief official and is formed from *sara- ‘head’ (cf. Av sarah- and NPers sar: AIW 1565; CPED 664) and the suffix -ka.455 Old Iranian *sāraka- is also the source of Jewish Aramaic ‫( סרך‬F. Rosenthal 2006, 62; AAT 2:60; Haug 1853, 162). ‫( סֶ ֶרן‬a Philistine official) HALOT 770; DCH 6:200 (Josh 13:3; passim456) [D] Philistine → Heb This word occurs 21 times, exclusively in the plural form and exclusively with reference to an official of the Philistines. In several cases, it specifically denotes officials functioning in the Philistine Pentapolis, namely the cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath (Josh 13:3; Judg 3:3; 1 Sam 6:4, 16, 18).457 Hebrew ‫ סֶ ֶרן‬has no Semitic etymology or cognates and is undoubtedly a loanword from a foreign source. The exclusive association of Biblical Hebrew ‫סֶ ֶרן‬ with the Philistines indicates that it comes from the Philistine language (FWOT 126–27; contra Edel 1983). Greek τύραννος (LSJ 1836) and Hieroglyphic Luvian 455.  On the suffix -ka, see OPGTL 51 (§146). 456.  Judg 3:3; 16:5, 8, 18 (2×), 23, 27, 30; 1 Sam 5:8, 11; 6:4 (2×), 12, 16, 18; 7:7; 29:2, 6–7; 1 Chr 12:20 [12:19]. 457. Singer 1993, 132. For the idea that ‫ סֶ ֶרן‬denotes a subordinate Philistine official with mostly military authority, see V. Wagner 2008.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

167

tarwani- (Payne 2010, 150) are also undoubtedly related, but not directly, as demonstrated by their initial dental rather than sibilant (Pintore 1983). Rather, the Greek, Luvian, and Philistine forms all seem to reflect a Pre-​Greek term.458 This Pre-​Greek term was adopted by Greek- and Luvian-​speakers but also by the Philistines, and the Philistines subsequently lent it to Hebrew-​speakers after they had migrated to the Levant.459 ‫‘ עֹ פ ֶֶרת‬lead’ HALOT 863; DCH 6:519 (Exod 15:10; Num 31:22; Jer 6:29; Ezek 22:18, 20; 27:12; Zech 5:7–8; Job 19:24) 𝕲 μόλιβος; 𝖁 plumbum ‘lead’; 𝕾 ʾbrʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫[ אבר‬Aramaic form] except does not directly represent this word Zech 5:7–8, ‫‘ כרכמיש‬lead’ Job 19:24 [?] CW Sum agar PSD; Akk abāru (OA, OB, Alalakh, MA, MB, NA, NB) CAD A/1 36–38; AHw 4; QH ‫ ;עפרת‬Pun ‫ עפרת‬DNWSI 879; JA, SA, CPA ‫ אבר‬DJPA 33; DJBA 76; DSA 5; DCPA 3; Syr ʾ‌abbārā LS² 5; Mand abara MD 1; Arab ʾabār Dozy 1927, 1:2460 This word occurs nine times. Related to ‫ עֹ פ ֶֶרת‬are several Semitic and non-​Semitic forms. The sole non-​Semitic form is Sumerian agar, which appears very early in

458.  EDG 1519–20; DELG 1106; Heubeck 1961, 68–70; cf. Parker 1998, 146–49. This solves the oft-​cited problem of a direct borrowing from Greek or Luvian (cf. Giusfredi 2009; Maeir, Davis and Hitchcock 2016, 334–35). 459.  At least two alternative reconstructions have been proposed. Garbini (1991) contends that Philistine *seren comes from an Indo-​European Anatolian root *sar-, *ser- meaning ‘to rule’ and further alleges that the suffix -ēn creates titles of political authorities, comparing Lycian esẽne- and *palēnas well as Phrygian balēn. However, his argumentation is erroneous. First, there is no Anatolian root *sar-, *ser- meaning ‘to rule’. There is an adverb meaning ‘above, upon’ (cf. Hitt šer and Luv šarri), and Lydian serli- does seem to refer to a temple authority, but this is probably an adjective functioning substantivally (cf. Luv sarli ‘upper, superior’). Second, the suffix -ēn does not exist at all in Anatolian, much less in the specific function of creating words for political authorities. Lycian esẽne- clearly does not mean ‘king’, and Lycian *palēn- is a ghost word; Phrygian balēn does mean ‘king’, but Phyrgian does not belong to the Anatolian branch of Indo-​European and offers no evidence for a suffix -ēn in these languages. Thus, there is little reason to think that Philistine *seren comes from an Indo-​European Anatolian language as Garbini contends, especially since Gk τύραννος is Pre-​Greek. I am grateful to H. Craig Melchert for his assistance with this topic. Schneider (2011, 572) tries instead to connect BH ‫ סֶ ֶרן‬with Etruscan śerona-, which is attested in lines A4 and A7 of the Lemnos Stele. However, the meaning of śerona- is uncertain, and even if it did mean ‘magistrate’, Etruscan would be an unlikely source for ‫סֶ ֶרן‬. Schneider (ibid.) alternatively derives BH ‫ סֶ ֶרן‬from Gk σθεναρός ‘strong, mighty’. As he himself recognizes, however, this loan hypothesis faces several phonological difficulties. 460.  This word may occur in Ugaritic as ʿprt (KTU 4.780:9), but the text is fragmentary and scholars debate whether it actually occurs (DUL 172).

168

Chapter 3

Uruk Archaic and pre-​Sargonic Sumerian.461 The relationship between the different Semitic forms, moreover, remains unclear. The Aramaic forms of this word could conceivably come from Akkadian abāru, but this is by no means certain. Hebrew ‫ עֹ פ ֶֶרת‬and Punic ‫ עפרת‬begin with initial ʿayin and cannot be loans from Akkadian, at least not if they were borrowed during the first millennium b.c.e. These observations suggest the possibility that this word has a foreign origin. Furthermore, the alternation between initial ʾ‌ and ʿ as well as the difference in gender points to an ancient culture word (cf. Salonen 1952, 5–6). Anatolia was antiquity’s primary sources of lead, which was obtained from galena (lead sulphide) rather than in pure form (Moorey 1999, 293–94; Yener, et al. 1991; Reiter 1997, 113–16). Accordingly, this culture word quite possibly originated in Anatolia. An Anatolian origin could also be supported by the early attestation of abāru in Old Assyrian Akkadian. Evidence of lead use as early as the Neolithic period includes beads found at Çatal Hüyük in Anatolia and a lead bracelet from Yarim Tepe. During the third millennium, lead was used at Ur for covering and repairing stone vessels, but by the Early Dynastic III period, production of lead vessels seems to have declined in Mesopotamia. During the early second millennium b.c.e., lead was commonly used to make figurines and trinkets at the Old Assyrian merchant colonies of Alishar and Kanesh (modern Kültepe). Numerous uses of lead are attested at Ashur during the latter part of the second millennium and the first millennium, including large inscribed plaques, model tools, and tokens. Lead is otherwise attested only sporadically during the Neo-​Assyrian period (Moorey 1999, 294–96). The increased use of lead for castings, filling weights, and as additions to copper alloys in Egypt after the beginning of the New Kingdom probably reflects imports of metallic lead (Ogden 2000, 168). ‫‘ ע ָָרה‬reed’ HALOT 882; DCH 6:554 (Isa 19:7) 𝕲 ἄχι ‘reed, bulrush’; 𝖁 nudabitur ‘to uncover, lay bare’ (associating ‫ עָרֹות‬with the root ‫‘ ערה‬to be bare, naked’); 𝕾 lwʿʾ ‘jaw’; 𝕿 translates ‫ עָרֹות עַל־יְ אֹור‬as ‫‘ ייבש רוביה דנהרא‬the juice of the river will dry up’ [D] Eg → Heb Eg ʿr (since OK) ÄW 1:279–80, 2:544; GHwÄ 161; WÄS 1:208; DLE 1:71 This hapax legomenon occurs in Isa 19:7 within an oracle concerning Egypt (Isa 19:1–15). The context demonstrates that this term denotes a plant growing on the bank of the Nile, a deduction supported by 𝕲’s translation of ‘green rushes’ (τὸ ἄχι τὸ χλωρὸν) (Thacker 1933, 164). The rarity of this word and the absence of any cognates elsewhere in Semitic together suggest a foreign loan. That Hebrew ‫ ע ָָרה‬is an Egyptian loan is further 461.  Different spellings for this word include a.gar5, a.gàr, a.bár, é.gar, é.gar8, and ugúr. On the possible Sumerian origin of Akk abāru, see SLOB 140–41 (#35); Civil 1973a, 60. A Sumerian origin, however, is by no means certain.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

169

suggested by the broader context—an oracle concerning Egypt—and the presence of the Egyptian loans ‫‘ יְ אֹ ר‬the Nile’ and ‫( סּוף‬a reed or rush plant) in the immediate context.462 The donor term is no doubt Egyptian ʿr, which occurs as early as the Old Kingdom with reference to a reed or rush plant.463 Because ‫ ע ָָרה‬is found within a prophetic oracle against a foreign nation, it is possible that its presence reflects addressee-​switching. Addressee-​switching, or the embedding of foreign language elements in the prophetic addresses to foreign nations, is a common phenomenon in the Hebrew Bible. This is especially true of First Isaiah (Rabin 1967, 304–5). Nevertheless, the use of the plural form ‫עָרֹות‬ indicates morphological adaptation, and the existence of other Egyptian loanwords denoting reeds in the Hebrew Bible (‫אָ חּו‬, ‫ּגֹ מֶ א‬, and ‫ )סּוף‬suggests the possibility that Hebrew-​speakers also borrowed this word. Thus, Hebrew ‫ ע ָָרה‬is probably an actual Egyptian loanword into Hebrew, although the use of this Egyptian term in an oracle against Egypt effectively functions in the same manner as addressee-​switching. ‫‘ ּפְ אֵ ר‬headwrap’ HALOT 908–9; DCH 6:646 (Exod 39:28; Isa 3:20; 61:3, 10; Ezek 24:17, 23; 44:18) 𝕲 μίτρα ‘turban’ Exod 39:28; Isa 61:10, ἡ σύνθεσις τοῦ κόσμου τῆς δόξης ‘clothing of the glorious order’ Isa 3:20, δόξα ‘glory’ Isa 61:3, τρίχωμα ‘hair’ Ezek 24:17, 23, κίδαρις ‘headdress’ Ezek 44:18; 𝖁 omits Exod 39:28, discriminalis ‘headdress’ Isa 3:20, corona ‘crown’ Isa 61:3, 10; Ezek 24:17, 23, vitta ‘ribbon’ Ezek 44:18; 𝕾 šwbḥʾ dklwʾ dbwṣʾ ‘praise of a linen crown’ Exod 39:28, ṣdʿʾ ‘temple of the head’ Isa 3:20, šbḥʾ ‘praise’ Isa 61:3, šbyḥʾ ‘praised’ Isa 61:10, mʾnʾ ‘garment’ Ezek 24:17, sʿrʾ ‘hair’ Ezek 24:23, mṣnptʾ ‘turban’ Ezek 44:18; 𝕿 ‫‘ קובע‬headcovering’ Exod 39:28; Ezek 44:18, ‫‘ כליל‬crown’ Isa 3:20; 61:3, omits Isa 61:10, ‫‘ טוטפה‬phylactery’ Ezek 24:17, 23 [D] Eg → Heb QH ‫ ;פאר‬Eg pry, pyr (since NK) GHwÄ 290, 304; WÄS 1:502, 531; DLE 1:151 The term occurs seven times. It appears in the prophetic books as a status symbol representative of joy and contrasted with mourning (Isa 3:20; 61:3, 10; Ezek 24:17, 23). It also occurs twice with reference to the head covering of the priests (Exod 39:28; Ezek 44:18; cf. 1QM vii:11). Some scholars derive this word from the root ‫‘ פאר‬to glorify, honor’, assuming that ‫ ּפְ אֵ ר‬exhibits the qetīl pattern sometimes found in segolate nouns from 462. Rabin 1962, 1076; EPNL 252–53; Thacker 1933. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 788) derive ‫ ע ָָרה‬from the root ‫‘ ערה‬to be bare, naked’ and take it as a nominal form meaning ‘bare place’. However, this does not adequately fit the context. Attempts to emend the text (e.g., Reider 1952, 115–16) or propose a new Hebrew root ‫‘ *ערה‬to be green’ (e.g., Sacchi 1965) are unnecessary. 463. The feminine form, ʿr.t, means ‘papyrus scroll, leather scroll’ beginning with the Old Kingdom but does not occur with the definition ‘reed, stalk’ until the Greek period (ÄW 1:280, 2:544; GHwÄ 161; WÄS 1:208–9; DLE 1:72). It therefore provides a less likely donor term for ‫ע ָָרה‬. Nevertheless, it remains possible that Hebrew-​speakers borrowed the feminine rather than masculine form, especially in light of the final he of ‫ע ָָרה‬, which could represent the Egyptian feminine ending. Cf. EPNL 253.

170

Chapter 3

medial-‌ʾalep roots. This could be supported by the use of ‫ ּפְ אֵ ר‬as a status symbol in the Prophets (cf. Hausmann 2001, 464; C. J. Collins 1997, 574). However, ‫ ּפְ אֵ ר‬has no cognates in any of the Semitic languages, nor do any of the Semitic languages have a cognate verb *p‌ʾr.464 The base stem of Hebrew ‫ פאר‬is the Piel, indicating that it is denominal and not primary. Hence, ‫ פאר‬most probably comes from ‫ּפְ אֵ ר‬ and not vice versa. Hebrew ‫ ּפְ אֵ ר‬first occurs in the book of Exodus within a context that contains a significant number of Egyptian loanwords. Accordingly, it is conceivable that it comes from Egyptian. Indeed, Egyptian texts contain the perfect donor term: the word pry, pyr denotes a cloth-​wrapping of various sorts, including one wrapped around the head. Egyptian pry, pyr provides a perfect phonological and semantic match to Hebrew ‫ּפְ אֵ ר‬. Hence, ‫ ּפְ אֵ ר‬is almost certainly a loanword from Egyptian.465 ‫‘ ּפּוְך‬kohl, eye paint’ HALOT 918; DCH 6:666 (2 Kgs 9:30; Jer 4:30466) 𝕲 στιμίζομαι ‘to paint the eyelids’ 2 Kgs 9:30, στίβι ‘eye paint’ Jer 4:30; 𝖁 stibium ‘kohl, eye paint’; 𝕾 ṣdyd‌ʾ, 𝕿 ‫‘ צדיד‬eye paint, antimony’ [?] CW Gk φῦκος LSJ 1959–60; Lat fucus OLD 814 The word ‫ ּפּוְך‬appears only twice. In the first instance, Jezebel puts ‫ ּפּוְך‬on her eyes and beautifies herself in an attempt to avoid death (2 Kgs 9:30). In the second attestation, the prophet Jeremiah condemns Judah for its spiritual harlotry and describes Judah as enlarging her eyes with ‫( ּפּוְך‬Jer 4:30). This word is not cognate with the typical Semitic word meaning ‘eye paint’, and no cognates exist elsewhere in Semitic. This suggests that ‫ ּפּוְך‬is a foreign loan.467 Related are Greek φῦκος and Latin fucus, which often mean ‘seaweed, red algae’ but can also refer to a red rouge that was extracted from seaweed and used as a cosmetic (Theocritus, Id. 15.16; Dioscorides Mat. med. 4.99; Pseudo-​Lucian, Am. 41; Propertius, El. 2.18B.31–32) (Hünemörder 1998). Greek φῦκος and Latin fucus are not native to their respective languages, but it is also unlikely that they come 464. JA ‫פאר‬, attested only on a silver amulet discovered at Agabeyli in Turkey, is adopted from BH ‫( ּפְ אֵ ר‬DJPA 424). 465.  Rabin 1962, 1077; cf. EDE 2:476. On the realia associated with Eg pry, pyr, see J. J. Janssen 2008, 29–31. 466. The occurrences of ‫ ּפּוְך‬in Isa 54:11 and 1 Chr 29:2 are probably errors for ‫‘ נֹ ֶפְך‬turquoise’, as indicated by the mention of precious stones and materials in both of these verses (Baltzer 2001, 448, 452; McKenzie 1968, 138; Rudolph 1955, 190; Kittel 1902, 102–3). 𝕲 renders ‫ ּפּוְך‬as ἄνθραξ ‘charcoal, dark red stone’ in Isa 54:11 and λίθος πολυτελής ‘expensive stone’ in 1 Chr 29:2. 467. The common Semitic word for ‘eye paint’ appears, for example, as Akk guḫlu and Arab kuḥl (cf. also the denominal Hebrew verb ‫ כחל‬in Ezek 23:40). There is no clear evidence that ‫ ּפּוְך‬comes from the roots ‫ *פוך‬or ‫( *פכך‬allegedly meaning ‘to crush’), both of which are unattested in Biblical Hebrew.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

171

from Semitic because Biblical Hebrew does not seem to represent the meaning ‘seaweed, red algae’.468 Hebrew ‫ ּפּוְך‬could be a direct loan from Greek φῦκος or Latin fucus, but it could also have come from the language that lent this word to Greek and Latin or have been transmitted through another language. The biblical text, furthermore, does not provide any clues that Hebrew ‫ ּפּוְך‬came directly from Greek or Latin. Thus, Hebrew ‫ ּפּוְך‬most probably comes from the same unknown Mediterranean source that lent this word to Greek and Latin.469 Given her Phoenician royal descent (c f. 1  Kgs 16:31), Jezebel would have had access to luxury products acquired through Phoenician trade, which provides a plausible opportunity for borrowing this Mediterranean culture word. ‫‘ ּפּור‬lot’ HALOT 920; DCH 6:670 (Esth 3:7; 9:24, 26) 𝕲 κλῆρος ‘lot, portion’; 𝖁 transliterates as phur; 𝕾 pṣ‌ʾ ‘lot’ Esth 3:7; 9:24, Pṣḥ‌ʾ ‘Passover’ Esth 9:26; 𝕿 ‫‘ פיס‬lot’ [T] Hitt → Akk → Heb Akk pūru (OA, Emar, Nuzi, MA, NA, NB) CAD P 528–29; AHw 881–82; OAram ‫ ;פור‬Hitt pul- CHD P 373–74; HHw 150470 This word does not occur outside the book of Esther (Esth 3:7; 9:24, 26). The observation that the MT glosses ‫ ּפּור‬as ‫ּגֹורל‬, ָ the typical Hebrew term for ‘lot’, indicates that ‫ ּפּור‬is not native to Biblical Hebrew. Long ago Jensen (1895, 339–40; cf. ALBH 126–27) suggested that Hebrew ‫ ּפּור‬is a borrowing from Akkadian pūru ‘lot, portion, allotment’. This makes good sense because ‫ ּפּור‬appears only in Late Biblical Hebrew and otherwise occurs in Old Aramaic as a loan from Akkadian (NTA 12:13). Akkadian pūru, in turn, is most likely a loan from Hittite pul- ‘lot’. Hittite pul- appears early in Old Hittite texts, and the earliest attestation of Akkadian pūru is in Old Assyrian Akkadian. This indicates a loan from Hittite to Akkadian via Assyrian traders in Anatolia. That this word has a western origin is also suggested by its use at peripheral sites such as Emar and Nuzi.471 468.  DELG 1186; DELL 258; contra EDG 1594–95; LEW 1:555. 469. Lambdin (1953b, 152; cf. Harrell, Hoffmeier and Williams 2017, 31–32) derives ‫ ּפּוְך‬from Eg *fkꜢ.t, *fꜢk.t, *fk.t, a hypothetical shortened form of mfkꜢ.t, ‘turquoise’, but there is no evidence that powdered turquoise was ever used as a cosmetic pigment in ancient Egypt (Lee and Quirke 2000, 111; Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 62). Moreover, Eg *fkꜢ.t, *fꜢk.t, *fk.t never occurs in Egyptian texts, although the adjectival form fkꜢtı̓ ‘made of turquoise’ without an initial m is attested. 470. JA ‫ פור‬occurs only in discussions of Esther and is adopted from Biblical Hebrew (DJBA 891; AIA 84). 471.  Cf. Singer 2006, 751. Other explanations for the origin of Akk pūru remain unconvincing. J. Lewy (1938b, 124) derives pūru from the verb parā‌ʾu ‘to cut’, connecting the acts of cutting and deciding one’s fate. However, this view cannot explain the absence of the final ‌ʾ in the nominal form.

172

Chapter 3

The name for the festival Purim, ‫ּפּורים‬, ִ most probably has no etymological relationship with Hebrew ‫ּפּור‬, and the book of Esther’s connection between the two (Esth 9:26) almost certainly reflects a folk etymology. Otherwise, there would be little reason for the author of the book to use an obscure Hebrew word—so obscure as to require a gloss—to refer to a lot. The name for the festival Purim occurs with plene (‫)ּפּורים‬ ִ as well as defective spelling (‫)ּפ ִֻרים‬, and the former probably represents an attempt to make an association between the lot (‫ )ּפּור‬and the festival (‫)ּפּורים‬ ִ more clear. The name for the festival Purim most likely comes from an Old Iranian festival name, as might be expected from the Persian setting of the book of Esther.472 ‫‘ ּפַח‬trap, bird trap’ HALOT 921; DCH 6:672–73 (Josh 23:13; passim473) [D] Eg →   → Heb   → Aram → Arab QH ‫ ;פח‬QA, JA ‫פח‬‎, ‫פאח‬, CPA ‫ פח‬DQA 190; DJPA 427; DJBA 895; DCPA 326; Syr paḥḥā LS² 1177; Arab faḫḫ Lane 2348; Eg pḫꜢ (NK) GHwÄ 308; WÄS 1:543; DLE 1:154 The word ‫ ּפַח‬occurs with the meaning ‘trap’ 24 times in the Hebrew Bible. Several times it refers specifically to a trap for snaring birds (Hos 9:8; Amos 3:5; Ps 91:3; 124:7; Prov 7:23; Qoh 9:12). Related forms exist in other Semitic languages but offer no proof of a Semitic origin, especially because there is no known Semitic root on which this word could be based.474 This observation suggests that ‫ ּפַח‬comes from a foreign source. The donor term is Egyptian pḫꜢ ‘bird trap’, first attested during the New Kingdom

Kaufman (AIA 84) instead derives pūru from Sum bur ‘bowl’, suggesting that this type of bowl was used in magical incantations and the casting of lots. However, texts provide no instances of pūru or bur with reference to cleromancy, and Akk pūru ‘lot’ is seemingly distinguished from Akk pūru ‘bowl’ by a different plural form (pūranu). Notably, CAD (P 526–29) lists pūru ‘bowl’ and pūru ‘lot’ as separate lexemes. See ALBH 127. 472. Moore 1971, xlvi–xlx; cf. ALHB 127. Notably, 𝕲 and Josephus preserve no connection between lots and the festival of Purim. The former renders ‫ ּפ ִֻרים‬as Φρουραι whereas the latter uses Φρουραια in Ant. 11.183–296. The Lucianic recension, however, reads Φουρδια. Some scholars have therefore derived the name for Purim from the Persian festival of Fravardīgān, which coincides with the time when Purim is celebrated (e.g., Hintze 1994; Lagarde 1896, 164–65). 473. Isa 8:14; 24:17–18; Jer 18:22; 48:43–44; Hos 5:1; 9:8; Amos 3:5 (2×); Ps 69:23 [69:22]; 91:3; 119:110; 124:7 (2×); 140:6 [140:5]; 141:9; 142:4 [142:3]; Job 18:9; 22:10; Prov 7:23; 22:5; Qoh 9:12. The MT reads ‫ ּפַחִ ים אֵ ׁש‬in Ps 11:6, but this should be emended to ‫ ַּפחֲמֵ י אֵ ׁש‬or something similar (BHS; H.-J. Kraus 1993, 1:201). 474. The verb ‫ פחח‬in Isa 42:22 is denominal.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

173

(cf. Dem pḫ and Copt Spaš, Bphaš: CDD P 153; DG 139; Crum 277).475 An  Egyptian origin is supported by the popularity of the fowler’s trade in ancient Egypt. Egypt was a major migratory flyway for birds, which were very plentiful in Egypt and an important part of the ancient Egyptians’ diet. Egyptian tombs depict fowlers using large, rectangular clapnets to capture birds, and the importance of fowling in Egypt is described in Egyptian texts such as The Pleasures of Fishing and Fowling and The Discourse of the Fowler. Not surprisingly, Egypt’s reputation for fowling was well known in antiquity (Martin 1986; Houlihan 2001, 59). ‫‘ ּפַח‬metal plating, metal foil’ HALOT 922; DCH 6:673 (Exod 39:3; Num 17:3) 𝕲 πέταλον ‘metal leaf, metal plating’ Exod 39:3, ἐλατή ‘plate’ Num 17:3; 𝖁 bractea ‘gold leaf’ Exod 39:3, lamina ‘metal plate, metal leaf’ Num 17:3; 𝕾 ṭs‌ʾ, 𝕿Onq., Ps.-J. ‫‘ טס‬metal plating’ [D] Eg → Heb Eg pḫꜢ (MK, NK, Ptolm) ÄW 2:935; GHwÄ 308; WÄS 1:543; DLE 1:154476 The word ‫ ּפַח‬occurs only twice, meaning ‘metal plating, metal foil’, both times in the Pentateuch. It refers to hammered gold or gold foil plating for the ephod (Exod 39:3) and also denotes a hammered plate used for covering the altar (Num 17:3). This word has few, if any, Semitic cognates. In addition, there is no known Semitic root on which it could be based. The Egyptian context of the Israelite tabernacle suggests the likelihood of an Egyptian loan, and a plausible donor term is Egyptian pḫꜢ ‘veneer, plating’.477 The ancient Egyptians were well known for their gold foil work in antiquity and were highly skilled in covering objects, particularly ones made of wood, with gold foil (Markowitz and Lacovara 2001, 36–37; James 1972, 40–42). It comes as no surprise, then, that Hebrew-​speakers borrowed this term from Egyptian (cf. Hoffmeier 2005, 211–12). ‫‘ ּפֶחַ ר‬potter’ HALOT 1956 (Dan 2:41) OG κεραμικός ‘of a potter’; 𝖁 figulus ‘potter’; 𝕾 pḥrʾ [Syriac form] [T] Sum → Akk → Aram → Arab 475.  EPNL 253; Lambdin 1953b, 153. Eg pḫꜢ is perhaps based on a common Afroasiatic root meaning ‘to close’, but BH ‫ ַחּפ‬is probably not, as has been suggested, a descendant of a common Afroasiatic noun meaning ‘trap’ (EDE 2:498–99). Arab faḫḫ comes from Aramaic (Fränkel 1886, 119). 476. The word ‫ פח‬may occur in a Phoenician inscription from Idalion, Cyprus (RES 1209B), but the text is difficult and such a reading is by no means certain (DNWSI 904). 477.  EPNL 253; Lambdin 1953b, 153; FWOT 130; Rabin 1962, 1077. Eg pḫꜢ, first attested in the Middle Kingdom, can also refer to a variety of thin objects, including plates, ship decks, and planks.

174

Chapter 3

Sum baḪar PSD; Akk paḫāru (OAkk, OB, Nuzi, RS, MA, MB, SB, NA, NB) CAD P 21–23; AHw 810; IA, JA, CPA ‫ פחר‬DNWSI 907–8; DJPA 428; DJBA 895; DCPA 326; Syr paḥḥārā LS² 1179; Mand pahara MD 360; Arab faḫḫār Lane 2349478 Biblical Aramaic ‫‘ ֶּפחַ ר‬potter’ appears only in Dan 2:41, where it occurs in the expression ‫‘ חֲסַ ף ִּדי־פֶחָ ר‬clay of the potter’. Related words include Akkadian paḫāru and various forms in Aramaic (Imperial, Jewish, and Christian Palestinian Aramaic as well as Syriac and Mandaic). The Aramaic forms, including Biblical Aramaic ‫ּפֶחַ ר‬, have been recognized since Zimmern as loans from Akkadian paḫāru ‘potter’ (1917, 26; cf. AIA 79; FWOT 132). The latter is, in turn, a loan from Sumerian baḪar.479 Aramaic later lent this word to Arabic as faḫḫār (Fränkel 1886, 257). ‫( ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬a gemstone, perhaps peridot) HALOT 924; DCH 6:679 (Exod 28:17; 39:10; Ezek 28:13; Job 28:19) 𝕲 τοπάζιον, 𝖁 topazius ‘peridot’; 𝕾 zrg‌ʾ ‘topaz’ Exod 28:17; 39:10, qrkdn‌ʾ ‘agate’ Ezek 28:13, mrgnyt‌ʾ ‘pearl’ Job 28:19; 𝕿 ‫‘ ירקן‬yellow gem’ except ‫מרגלי‬ ‫‘ ירק‬yellow pearl’ Job 28:19 [D] Eg → Heb Eg *pꜢ-ḏd This term, which refers to a gemstone, is unusual because Biblical Hebrew typically does not tolerate two consecutive dentals in the same word.480 In addition, it has no cognates and does not seem to be based on any known Semitic root.481 These observations provide strong evidence for a foreign origin. Job 28:19 associates this gem with Nubia (‫ )ּפִ ְטדַ ת־ּכּוׁש‬and mentions it along with ‫ּכֶתֶ ם‬, a type of gold connected with Ophir near the Red Sea. This geographical association points to a loan from northern Africa rather than East Asia as is commonly supposed.482 The initial - ִ‫ ּפ‬of ‫ ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬is also suggestive of the Egyptian article pꜢ, 478.  The interpretation of Ug pḫr as ‘potter’ in KTU 1.96:7, 9–10 is by no means certain (contra DUL 659). 479.  On the Sumerian origin of Akk paḫāru, see SLOB 433–34 (#547). Salonen (1952, 11) instead thinks that this word can be traced back to the pre-​Sumerian substrate. 480. Cf. Koskinen 1964, 37. The letters ṭeṭ and dalet occur together in the same word only in the noun ‫‘ אָ טָ ד‬buckthorn’ and the verb ‫‘ טרד‬to drip’, but even in these lexemes the consonants ṭeṭ and dalet are separated by at least a full vowel. 481. JA, SA ‫ פטדה‬are adopted from Biblical Hebrew (Jastrow 1903, 1154; DSA 678). 482. Many scholars derive ‫ ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬from Skt pīta- ‘yellow’ (e.g., Rabin 1962, 1079; FWOT 133; Powels 1992, 197–98). However, pīta- only occurs with reference to a gemstone in late Sanskrit texts (EWAia 2:137; KEWA 2:292). Pope (1965, 204) instead derives ‫ ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬from Skt tápas- ‘heat, fire’, arguing that such an etymology represents an appropriate description for a yellow gemstone. However, tápas- is not used

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

175

rendered as -‫ ּפִ י‬in some Egyptian personal names borrowed into Hebrew (cf. ‫ּפִ ינְ חָ ס‬, borrowed from Eg PꜢ-nḥsy ‘the Nubian’).483 The Egyptian donor term, not attested in extant texts, was presumably something like *pꜢ-ḏd.484 𝕲 and 𝖁 translate Hebrew ‫ ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬as τοπάζιον and topazius, further supporting an Egyptian origin. Agatharchides of Cnidus (M. Eryth. 5.84), Pliny (Nat. 6.34.169; 37.32.107–9), and Strabo (Geogr. 16.4.6) all claim that this gem comes from the island of Zabargad (St. John’s Island) in the Red Sea. The island of Zabargad was a primary source of the greenish-​yellow mineral peridot in antiquity, and this gemstone is still found there today.485 Assuming that 𝕲 and 𝖁 are correct in their translations, Hebrew ‫ ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬may denote the gemstone peridot.486 However, evidence for peridot prior to the Hellenistic period is currently lacking (see Harrell, Hoffmeier and Williams 2017, 13–14). ‫( ּפ ִַּטיׁש‬a type of leg wrappings) HALOT 1956 (Dan 3:21) OG, θ′ τιάρα ‘Persian headdress’; 𝖁 tiara ‘turban, headdress’; 𝕾 pṭš‌ʾ [Syriac form] [D] OIran (Scyth) → Aram Syr peṭšā LS² 1184; OIran *patiš- (Scyth) AISN 188 Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּפ ִַּטיׁש‬occurs only in Dan 3:21 within the list of clothing worn by Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah when they were thrown into Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace. That the ancients already struggled with this word is evident from its multiple spellings in the MT, which include ‫( ּפ ְַּטיׁשֵ יהֹון‬Qere) and ‫( ּפ ִַּטיׁשֵ יהֹון‬Ketiv). Given the different variants preserved in extant manuscripts, its exact spelling remains uncertain. in Sanskrit texts with reference to any gemstone (EWAia 1:624; KEWA 1:477). Most problematically, neither of these Sanskrit etymologies can adequately account for the dalet of ‫ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬. 483. In other instances, the Egyptian masculine definite article pꜢ appears as -‫( ּפּו‬e.g., ‫ּפּוטיאֵ ל‬ ִ ‘Putiel’, a hybrid of Eg PꜢ-dı̓ and BH ‫)אֵ ל‬, -‫( ּפֹו‬e.g., ‫ּפֹוטיפַר‬ ִ ‘Potiphar’, from PꜢ-dı̓-pꜢ-ı̓ry), or even -ַ‫( ּפ‬e.g., ‫ּפ ְַתרֹוס‬ ‘Pathros’ or ‘Upper Egypt’, from PꜢ-tꜢ-rsy). Although the Egyptian masculine definite article pꜢ otherwise only appears in proper nouns in Biblical Hebrew, a number of common nouns in Imperial Aramaic represent it, including ‫( פחטמוני‬from pꜢ-ḫt-mnı̓.t), ‫פק‬, ‫( פיק‬from pꜢ-wg), ‫( פסחמצנותי‬from pꜢ-sẖ-mḏꜢ.t-​nṯr), ‫( פעקס‬from pꜢ-ʿgs), and ‫( פערער‬from pꜢ-ʿrʿr). 484.  Cf. Grintz 1975a, 8–9; contra Rabin 1974–1975. Harrell, Hoffmeier, and Williams (2017, 12–14) identify the Egyptian donor term as dı̓dı̓, which seems to denote hematite. However, this loan hypothesis does not adequately explain the lack of representation of Eg ı̓ or the presence of the Hebrew feminine ending. 485.  Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 47; Harrell 2014; Thoresen and Harrell 2014; O’Donoghue 2006b, 290. 486.  In antiquity Gk τοπάζιον, τόπαζος and Lat topazius did not refer to the topaz. The referent ‘topaz’ is a later development that only arose by virtue of the topaz’s similarity to the peridot. See Hoover 1992, 3–13; Koch 1964.

176

Chapter 3

The uncertainty regarding this word’s spelling as well as its association with the foreign loans ‫( סַ ְרּבָ ל‬a type of trousers) and ‫( ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬a type of pointed cap) indicate a non-​Semitic origin. Because both ‫ סַ ְרּבָ ל‬and ‫ ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬denote Scythian items of dress, it is likely that ‫ ּפ ִַּטיׁש‬can also be traced back to the Scythian language.487 Syriac peṭšā, used by 𝕾 to translate ‫ ּפ ִַּטיׁש‬in Dan 3:21, occurs elsewhere in Syriac literature with reference to leg wrappings. Notably, the Syriac exegete Ishodad of Merv claims that this word refers to a kind of Persian leg covering (Comm. Dan. 3:21; cf. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Comm. Dan. 3:21 [§1324]). Accordingly, this term probably refers to the leather straps the Scythians used to hold their trousers and boots together.488 This particular style of leg wrappings was almost certainly adopted in Persia, where it became part of Persian dress along with other Scythian clothing. From here, the term for these leg wrappings entered Aramaic (see F. Rosenthal 2006, 63). ‫ּפִ ֶלגֶׁש ⇒ ּפִ י ֶלגֶׁש‬ ‫ּפִ ֶלגֶׁש‬‎, ‫‘ ּפִ י ֶלגֶׁש‬concubine’ HALOT 929; DCH 6:681–82 (Gen 22:24; passim489) [?] CW QH ‫ ;פילגש‬Gk πάλλαξ, παλλακίς LSJ 1293; Lat paelex, pelex, pellex OLD 1411490 This word, which means ‘concubine’ and is also spelled ‫ּפִ י ֶלגֶׁש‬, occurs 37 times in the Hebrew Bible. It has no Semitic etymology or cognates and is undoubtedly a foreign loan. H. Lewy (1895, 66–67) derives Hebrew ‫ ּפִ ֶלגֶׁש‬from Greek πάλλαξ ‘young girl’, παλλακίς ‘concubine’, and Latin paelex, pelex, pellex ‘concubine, mistress’, but it is difficult to derive the Hebrew form directly from Greek and Latin because they have no clear Indo-​European etymology.491 Notably, the base stem of παλλακίς is παλλακίδ- (cf. the genitive παλλακίδος). The -δ afformative elsewhere occurs in words that have entered Greek via Anatolia (cf. ἴασπις ‘jasper’ with base stem ἴασπιδ-, σμύρις ‘emery’ with base stem σμύριδ-, χλαμύς ‘mantle’ with base stem χλαμύδ-). Thus, the Semitic and Indo-​European forms probably come from a third, Anatolian source and together represent an

487.  Nyberg (1931, 187) reconstructs it as *patyuša-, whereas Hinz (AISN 188) more plausibly reconstructs it as *patiš-.  488.  On this item of Scythian clothing, see Yatsenko 1992; Widengren 1956, 229. 489.  Gen 25:6; 35:22; 36:12; Judg 8:31; 19:1–2, 9–10, 24–25, 27, 29; 20:4–6; 2 Sam 3:7 (2×); 5:13; 15:16; 16:21–22; 19:6 [19:5]; 20:3; 21:11; 1 Kgs 11:3; Ezek 23:20; Song 6:8–9; Esth 2:14; 1 Chr 1:32; 2:46, 48; 3:9; 7:14; 2 Chr 11:21 (2×). 490. JA ‫ פילגש‬occurs only in 𝕿 and is adopted from Biblical Hebrew (Jastrow 1903, 1177). JA ‫פלקה‬ and Syr plqʾ (of uncertain vocalization) are loans from Gk πάλλαξ (DJPA 437; LS² 1203). 491.  On the etymology of Gk πάλλαξ, παλλακίς and Lat paelex, pelex, pellex, see EDG 1147; DELG 823; Vaan 2008, 439; DELL 474; LEW 2:233–34.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

177

ancient culture word.492 All these words probably imply a particular form of cohabitation, hence the borrowing of this foreign social word.493 ‫‘ ֶּפלְֶך‬spindle’ HALOT 933; DCH 6:696 (2 Sam 3:29; Prov 31:19) 𝕲 σκυτάλη ‘staff, crutch’ 2 Sam 3:29, ἄτρακτος ‘spindle’ Prov 31:19; 𝖁 fusus ‘spindle’; 𝕾 mwʿzl‌ʾ ‘spindle’; 𝕿 ‫( אגר‬error for ‫‘ אגד‬staff’) 2 Sam 3:29, ‫מעזלה‬ ‘spindle’ Prov 31:19 [?] CW Sum balak PSD; Ebla pi‌ʾakku VE 251 (#459); Krebernik 1983, 16; Akk pilakku, palakku, pilaggu, pilaqqu (OB, Bogh, EA, SB, NA, NB) CAD P 371–73; AHw 863; Ug plk DUL 661; Phoen ‫ פלך‬DNWSI 915–16; JA ‫פילך‬, ‫ פלכה‬DJPA 436; DJBA 900–901 This word occurs only twice in the Hebrew Bible. In Prov 31:19, ‫ ֶּפלְֶך‬appears parallel to ‫‘ ּכִ יׁשֹור‬spindle’ within the description of the industrious woman (‫)אֵ ׁשֶ ת־חַ יִ ל‬. Although debated, ‫ ֶּפלְֶך‬in 2 Sam 3:29 also has the meaning ‘spindle’.494 Related terms include Sumerian balak, Eblaite pi‌ʾakku (written as bi2-a-​gu and lexically equated with gišbalak), Akkadian pilakku, pilaqqu, Ugaritic plk, Phoenician ‫פלך‬,495 and Jewish Aramaic ‫פילך‬‎, ‫פלכה‬. The final double consonant of Akkadian pilakku, pilaqqu is indicative of a foreign loan, but the variant spellings argue against a loan from Sumerian. Accordingly, this term almost certainly represents an ancient culture word.496 Notably, this word is associated with women in several of its occurrences in Northwest Semitic (Prov 31:19; KAI 26 A ii:6; KTU 1.4 ii:3–4). This connection reflects antiquity’s association of spinning and weaving with women (cf. Hoffner 1966, 328–29; Barber 1991, 283–98). For example, women are attributed the role 492.  There is little evidence that this word came to the Levant via the mediation of the Philistines (Brug 1985, 198; contra Rabin 1974, 359–64; Bork 1939–1941, 228; Niesiołowski–Spanò 2016, 197–98). 493. FWOT 134; J. P. Brown 1968, 166–69; Schrader 1911, 471. Rabin (1974, 357–59) derives ‫ִ ּֽפ ֶלגֶׁש‬ from Indo-​European *h1epi- ‘at, on’ and *legh- ‘to lie down’. However, as Rabin himself admits, the actual Greek and Latin forms differ from the forms that would be expected if this were the case. Görg (1979b, 10–11) instead derives ‫ ִ ּֽפ ֶלגֶׁש‬from a hypothetical Eg *pꜢ-r-​gs ‘the one beside’. However, this is speculative, especially because *pꜢ-r-​gs is unattested in Egyptian texts. There is, furthermore, nothing about ‫ ִ ּֽפ ֶלגֶׁש‬that might suggest an Egyptian origin. 494. Caquot and Robert 1994, 391; McCarter 1984, 118. Hollaway (1987) suggests that Joab’s household will be condemned to corvée labor, deriving ‫ ֶּפלְֶך‬in 2 Sam 3:29 from Akk pilku ‘work duty, corvée’. However, the expression ‫ מַ ֲחזִיק ּבַ ֶּפלְֶך‬is best interpreted as a curse rendering Joab effeminate and without descendants (S. Layton 1989; Malul 1992). 495. Phoenician ‫ פלך‬only occurs with the meaning ‘spindle’ in the Azatiwada Inscription from Karatepe (KAI 26 A ii:6). This meaning is supported by the presence of the hieroglyph for ‘spindle’ (fusus) in the Luvian version of this bilingual text (Azatiwada §XXXV,186). 496. AIA 82–83; Salonen 1969, 116. Attempts to connect BH ‫ ֶּפלְֶך‬and its related forms with Arab falaka ‘to be round’ are semantically unsatisfying (contra HALOT 933).

178

Chapter 3

of spinning in Exod 35:25–26, the book of Tobit says that weaving cloth is the type of work that women do (Tob 2:11–12), weaving is associated with women in an Ur III Sumerian text from the time of King Šu-​Sîn (RIME 3​/2​.1​.4​.3 iv:23–31), and administrative texts from Mari refer to female weavers in the palaces (ARM 9.24 iv:18; 25:38; 27 v:43; 13.21 r. 9ʹ–16ʹ). Ancient Near Eastern iconography likewise depicts women with spindles or other weaving instruments (Pritchard 1969, 42–43 [nos. 142–44]). The abundant remains of spindles and spindle-​whorls from the ancient Near East and Mediterranean indicate their frequent use for spinning cloth in antiquity (Barber 1991, 51–65). ‫( ַּפּנַג‬a type of bread) HALOT 937; DCH 6:705 (Ezek 27:17) 𝕲 μύρον καὶ κασία ‘myrrh and cassia’; 𝖁 balsamum ‘balsam, balm’; 𝕾 dḥn‌ʾ ‘millet’; 𝕿 ‫‘ קולוי‬flour from grain’ [?] CW Akk pannigu, pananigu, pangu, punnigu, punnugu (Emar, MA, SB) CAD P 83–84; AHw 818; Hitt puniki-, punniki- CHD P 376–77; HHw 150 The word ‫ ַּפּנַג‬occurs only in Ezek 27:17 as one of several imported foodstuffs. Akkadian pannigu and its various forms as well as Hittite puniki-, punniki- are almost certainly related, given their phonological and semantic resemblance. Several observations, furthermore, suggest a foreign origin: the fact that ‫ ַּפּנַג‬refers to an imported foodstuff, the limited distribution of this word in Akkadian, this word’s attestation in Hittite, and this term’s multiple spellings in both Akkadian and Hittite. The u-vowel of the first syllable of Hittite puniki-, punniki- points to a northern origin, and the -ik ending is paralleled by the pre-​Hittite Anatolian bread name tunik- (HHw 203).497 Accordingly, this ancient culture word seems to have originated somewhere to the north. There are no clear phonological clues that this word entered Hebrew via Akkadian, and the Hebrew and Akkadian forms probably constitute separate borrowings from the north.498 ‫‘ ּפְ נִ ינִ ים‬pearls’ HALOT 946; DCH 6:721–22 (Job 28:18; Prov 3:15; 8:11; 20:15; 31:10; Lam 4:7) 𝕲 ὁ ἐσώτερος ‘hidden thing’ Job 28:18, λίθος πολυτελής Prov 3:15; 8:11; 31:10, λίθος σαπφείρου ‘sapphire stone’ Lam 4:7; 𝖁 occultus ‘hidden thing’ Job 28:18, cunctus ops ‘all abundance’ Prov 3:15, cunctus pretiosus ‘everything 497.  Hoffner 1974, 177–78; Durand 1989, 35; cf. HEG L–S 648–49. 498. Rabin originally (1966, 8–9) compared BH ‫ ַּפּנַג‬with Skt bhaṅgá- ‘hemp’. However, he later (1971, 435) changed his mind and instead associated it with Lat panicum ‘millet’. There is little basis for either of these derivations, especially in light of the word’s more plausible connection with Akk pannigu and Hitt puniki-, punniki-.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

179

precious’ Prov 8:11, gemma ‘gem’ Prov 20:15, ulterior finis ‘uttermost country’ Prov 31:10, ebur antiquus ‘old ivory’ Lam 4:7; 𝕾 kwl mdm ‘everything’ Job 28:18, kʾpʾ ṭbtʾ ‘precious stone’ Prov 3:15; 8:11; 20:15; 31:10, srdwnʾ ‘carnelian’ Lam 4:7; 𝕿 ‫‘ מרגלי‬pearl’ Job 28:18, ‫‘ כיף טב‬precious stone’ Prov 3:15; 8:11; 20:15; 31:10, ‫‘ זהרי‬scarlet’ Lam 4:7 [?] CW Akk pinnu (Qatna, NB) CAD P 384; AHw 864; Ug bnn DUL 226; Eg bnn (NK) GHwÄ 270; WÄS 1:460499 The word ‫ּפְ נִ ינִ ים‬, a plurale tantum, occurs six times in the Hebrew Bible. At least two of these instances mention this term along with foreign products such as peridot and gold (Job 28:18) or lapis lazuli (Lam 4:7). Based on its occurrences, it seems to refer to some kind of precious material or luxury item. It is unlikely that ‫ ּפְ נִ ינִ ים‬derives from the alleged root ‫*פנן‬, which is not actually attested in Biblical Hebrew (contra BDB 819; Horsnell 1997). It should instead be compared with Akkadian pinnu, a word attested at Qatna and in Neo-​Babylonian texts with reference to a bead-​like object, as well as with Ugaritic bnn, a term for an object made of precious material, as indicated by the succeeding mention of ı͗ qnu͗ ‘lapis lazuli’ (KTU 4.247:27).500 It should also be compared with New Kingdom Egyptian bnn ‘pearl, bead’ (cf. EDE 2:227). The various spellings of these various forms points to an ancient culture word denoting pearls as well as other round precious objects, such as beads.501 Where it came from remains uncertain, but it most probably came from the region where the product originated. ‫ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין ⇒ ּפְ סַ נְ טֵ ִרין‬ ‫ּפְ סנַּתֵ ִרין‬‎, ‫( ּפְ סַ נְ טֵ ִרין‬a stringed musical instrument) HALOT 1958 (Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15) 𝕲, 𝖁 both use their corresponding forms of this word (ψαλτήριον and psalterium, respectively); 𝕾 knrʾ ‘lyre’

499.  Gk πίνη, πίνα are probably not related (contra H. Lewy 1927–1928, 25). These Greek words refer to a species of bivalve and only came to mean ‘pearl’ during the late period because this particular bivalve produced pearls (LSJ 1405). 500.  De Moor (1996, 157) suggests that Ug bnn is cognate with Arab bunnīy and Syrian Arabic benni and therefore denotes a species of carp. This, however, is unlikely because lapis lazuli (ı͗ qnu͗ ) is listed in the very next line. De Moor’s finding of various fish species in KTU 4.427:23–29 is itself fishy and relies on some highly speculative lexical work. 501. Cf. Harrell, Hoffmeier and Williams 2017, 35–36. Byington (1945, 340–41) contends that ‫ּפְ נִ ינִ ים‬ refers to corals whereas ‫ ָראמֹות‬refers to pearls in Ezek 27:16. However, he does so under the incorrect assumption that these products come from India. Rabbinic tradition (e.g., Rashi) correctly recognized that this word means ‘pearls’ and not ‘red coral’. The parallelism in Lam 4:7 does not necessarily suggest a reddish color for ‫ ּפְ נִ ינִ ים‬because the context indicates that ‫ אדם‬means ‘pinkish’ rather than ‘red’ (Gault forthcoming; cf. Brenner 1981–1982).

180

Chapter 3

[D] Gk → Aram; Lat Gk ψαλτήριον, *ψαντήριον LSJ 2018; Lat psalterium OLD 1662502 This Biblical Aramaic word occurs four times in the description of Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra (Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15). It appears with two different spellings: one with taw in Dan 3:5, 10, 15 (‫ )ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬and another with ṭeṭ in Dan 3:7 (‫)ּפְ סַ נְ טֵ ִרין‬. The non-​Semitic morphology and variant spellings indicate a foreign loan, and it has long been recognized as a loan from Greek ψαλτήριον (FWOT 135; Coxon 1973–1974, 31–32; AAT 2:58). Greek ψαλτήριον can denote a number of different plucked instruments, but it also refers to a specific type of stringed instrument. Harps were most often plucked, but lyres were also plucked occasionally, so this instrument could be either a harp or lyre (Mitchell 1992, 137). Greek ψαλτήριον does not appear in extant texts until the fourth or third century b.c.e., when it appears in the writings of Chamaeleon (Frag. 34.9). However, its absence prior to the fourth century does not mean that this word did not yet exist. The verb from which ψαλτήριον is derived, ψάλλω, occurs already in the sixth century (Aesop, Fab. 1.3; Anacreon, Frag. 28.3; 29.1). Furthermore, the use of nun rather than lamed indicates a borrowing from an unattested non-​Attic form *ψαντήριον (rather than standard Attic ψαλτήριον) because the consonant cluster λτ becomes ντ in some non-​Attic dialects.503 Non-​Attic dialects gradually fell out of use as Attic and Koine Greek spread, so it is likely that Aramaic-​speakers borrowed Greek ψαλτήριον prior to the Hellenistic era (Noonan forthcoming). Therefore it cannot be assumed a priori that it must have been borrowed during the Hellenistic period just because it is not attested earlier (cf. Kutscher 1971, 401–2; Mitchell 1992, 136–37; Kitchen 1965, 48–49). Greek also loaned this word to Latin as psalterium. ‫( ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬a roofed structure) HALOT 962; DCH 6:754 (1 Chr 26:18 [2×]) 𝕲 διαδεχομένοι ‘those who relieve guard’; 𝖁 cellula ‘small room’; 𝕾 prbrʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 translates ‫ ַלּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬as two words, ‫‘ כלפי ברא‬toward the field’ [D] OIran → Heb; Aram; Elam IA, JA ‫ פרבר‬DNWSI 935; Jastrow 1903, 1213; OIran *paribāra- AISN 179; IAP 440; Elam ba-​ri-​ba-​ra-​um, ba-​ri-​ba-​ráš, ba-​ri-​pa-​ráš, ba-​ri-​ba-​ráš EW 148, 151

502.  Sum *saliṬelu, alleged by Kolari (1947, 78–79) to occur in a Seleucid Sumerian–Akkadian text, is a ghost word that should instead be read as two distinct words, sali bí.ib. Accordingly, it provides no additional attestations of this word (contra FWOT 135). 503.  On the shift of λτ to ντ in non-​Attic dialects, see C. D. Buck 1955, 64–65 (§72); Lejeune 1972, 152 (§151). Although l and n are sometimes confused in the world’s languages, there is no evidence that Gk λ was pronounced as [n] (cf. Petrounias 2007, 563–64; Woodard 2008, 16; W. S. Allen 1987, 33, 40). It is unlikely that Aramaic-​speakers would have represented Gk λ as nun, especially because they do not do so in any other loanwords from Greek.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

181

Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬occurs twice in 1 Chr 26:18 with reference to an architectural structure in the Solomonic temple. The lack of any convincing Semitic etymology and this word’s rarity indicate that it comes from a foreign source. The donor term is Old Iranian *paribāra-, formed from the prefix pari ‘around’ (cf. OPers pariy and Av pairi: OPGTL 195; AIW 860–61) and the noun bara- ‘bearer’ (cf. OPers, Av bara-: OPGTL 53 [§160], 200; AIW 943). This word has a relatively general meaning in Iranian, with its precise connotation dependent on the context. Nevertheless, each of its different meanings relates to some kind of roofed structure,504 which perfectly matches the use of ‫ ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬in Biblical Hebrew. Elsewhere, Old Iranian *paribāra- appears in Imperial Aramaic and Elamite. In an Aramaic–Lydian bilingual from Sardis (KAI 260:3, 5), Imperial Aramaic ‫ פרבר‬denotes a structure connected with a tomb.505 In Elamite in the texts from Persepolis, it refers to a structure used for storage, such as a granary or silo (e.g., PF 107:7; 161:7–8; 586:3–4; PFNN 440:4; 1536:5–6) (cf. Hinz 1970, 436). This parallels the mention of storehouses (‫ ) ֲאסֻּפִ ים‬in conjunction with the structure ‫ ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬in 1 Chr 26:17–18. Although commonly thought to reflect spirantization of the labial, the form ‫ּפ ְַרוָר‬ of 2 Kgs 23:11 has a different origin, as explained below under its entry. Thus, the similarity between Hebrew ‫ ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬and Hebrew ‫ ּפ ְַרוָר‬is coincidental. ‫‘ ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬garden’ HALOT 963; DCH 6:756 (Song 4:13; Qoh 2:5; Neh 2:8) 𝕲 παράδεισος [Greek form]; 𝖁 paradisus [Latin form] Song 4:13, pomerium ‘sacred land tract’ Qoh 2:5, saltus ‘forest’ Neh 2:8; 𝕾 prdys‌ʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫‘ גן‬garden’ Song 4:13; Qoh 2:5 [D] OIran (Med) → Akk; Heb; Aram; Gk Akk pardēsu (NB) CAD P 182; AHw 833; JA, SA, CPA ‫פרדס‬‎, ‫ פרדיס‬DJPA 444; DJBA 927–28; DSA 700–701; DCPA 326; Syr pardaysā LS² 1228; Mand pardisa, pardasa MD 363; Gk παράδεισος, παράδισος LSJ 1308; OIran *pardēza- (Med) AISN 179; IAP 447 This word occurs three times. In Neh 2:8 it describes a wooded area from which timber could be obtained. Elsewhere, ‫ ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬refers to a garden-​like area. In Song 4:13 it denotes a lush area where pomegranates grow, and in Qoh 2:5 it appears in conjunction with ‫‘ ַּגּנָה‬garden’. The related Akkadian form pardēsu means ‘garden’ and appears only in Neo-​ Babylonian Akkadian. In several texts, Akkadian pardēsu clearly refers to a Persian garden (e.g., Cyr 212:3). Similarly, Greek παράδεισος, παράδισος is first attested in the works of Xenophon (e.g., Anab. 1.2.7; 2.4.14; Cyr. 1.3.14), where it refers to the gardens of Persian kings and nobles. These specific associations with Persia suggest that ‫ ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬is a loan from Old Iranian, and the donor term is Old Iranian 504.  OIran *paribāra- does not mean ‘portico’ (AISN 179; IAP 440). 505.  The Lydian equivalent is laqrisa-, unfortunately of unclear meaning.

182

Chapter 3

*pardēza-, an elided form of Old Iranian *paridaiza- (cf. Av pairidaēza- ‘wall-​ enclosure’, Sogd prδyz ‘garden’, and NPers palēz ‘kitchen garden’: AIW 865; DMSB 142; CPED 233).506 The ṣere of ‫ ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬indicates a borrowing sometime during the Achaemenid period, when the diphthong ai monophthongized to ē.507 In the Iranian languages this word generally refers to an enclosed region, sometimes an estate or enclosed garden, but both Semitic- and Greek-​speakers adopted the latter definition. The Achaemenids inherited a long ancient Near Eastern tradition of establishing gardens, but they were the first to make it the centerpiece of their architecture. Their gardens had practical horticultural and agricultural aspects (cf. Neh 2:8) and served as a place for sensual pleasures (cf. Song 4:13), but they also carried political, philosophical, and religious symbolism: by creating a fertile garden in a barren land, the king established himself as a symbol of authority and fertility. Perhaps the best-​known garden is that of Cyrus at Pasargadae, which contained dressed stone watercourses and various flora and fauna. This garden served as the locus around which the royal palaces and pavilions were located (Fakour 2001; Stronach 1989). ‫( ּפ ְַרוָר‬an enclosed area) HALOT 962; DCH 6:760 (2 Kgs 23:11) 𝕲 transliterates as φαρουριμ; 𝖁 translates as the proper noun Farurim; 𝕾 prwrʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫[ פרור‬Aramaic form] [D] OIran → Heb OIran *parivaraThis word occurs only in the plural form ‫ּפ ְַרו ִָרים‬, found in 2 Kgs 23:11. It is often thought to be the same as Biblical Hebrew ‫ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬, which appears twice in 1 Chr 26:18 with reference to a structure connected with Solomon’s temple. Those who hold to this view assume that the form ‫ ּפ ְַרוָר‬reflects spirantization (e.g., Aĭ khenval’d 1987, 6–7; Lipiński 1975, 156–57; Schaeder 1930, 97), but they cannot explain adequately why spirantization has taken place. In addition, ‫ ּפ ְַרוָר‬refers to a courtyard in which horses were kept, not a roofed structure as is the case with ‫ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬. Thus, Hebrew

506. FWOT 136; Aĭ khenval’d 1987, 6; AAT 1:91; Haug 1853, 162–63. Seow (1996, 649–50) thinks that ‫ ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬may have been borrowed via Akkadian, contending that “we should expect Old Persian ḏ to appear as Hebrew z or d; Hebrew s should go back to Old Persian s, not ḏ.” However, this word appears in Semitic texts, spelled with s, with clear reference to Persian gardens. In any case, there is no Old Persian consonant ḏ. Proto-​Iranian *ȷ́, perhaps what Seow is thinking of when he refers to “Old Persian ḏ,” regularly becomes d in Old Persian but z in all other Old Iranian dialects (Skjærvø 2009, 51; Schmitt 2008, 84–85; Testen 1997, 575; OPGTL 33–34 [§88]). Hence, this word exhibits Median phonology, as the use of s for z also suggests. The Old Persian form *pardēda- appears in Elamite as bar-​te-​da and bar-​te-​taš (EW 160). See Klíma 1977; Lecocq 1990, 209. 507.  On the monophthongization of ai to ē, see Skjærvø 2009, 58; Schmitt 2008, 83.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

183

‫ ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬and Hebrew ‫ ּפ ְַרוָר‬do not represent the same word, and their similarity is only coincidental.508 Hebrew ‫ ּפ ְַרוָר‬comes from Old Iranian *parivara-, which is formed from pari ‘around’ (cf. OPers pariy and Av pairi: OPGTL 195; AIW 860–61) and var- ‘to protect, enclose’ (cf. OPers, Av var-: OPGTL 206; AIW 1360). Related are Avestan pairiuuāra- ‘enclosure, surrounding protection, fence’ and Pahlavi parwār ‘surrounding area’ (AIW 866; CPD 65). Based on its etymology and on comparison with cognates, this Old Iranian term refers to a courtyard-​like area enclosed by a wall or fence. This well suits the context of 2 Kgs 23:11, which describes an open courtyard where horses were kept.509 ‫ּבַ ְרזֶל ⇒ ּפ ְַרזֶל‬ ‫‘ ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬pharaoh’ HALOT 971; DCH 6:774–76 (Gen 12:15 [3×], 17–18, 20; passim510) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾, 𝕿 most commonly use their corresponding forms (Φαραω, Pharao, Prʿwn, and ‫פרעה‬, respectively) [D] Eg → Heb; Aram IA ‫ פרעה‬DNWSI 943; Eg pr-ʿꜢ (since OK) ÄW 1:450–51, 2:898; GHwÄ 296; WÄS 1:516–17 This word appears some 274 times in the Hebrew Bible with reference to the ruler of Egypt, Pharaoh. Most of these occurrences are in the Pentateuch, particularly 508. QH ‫פרור‬, which denotes an architectural structure with columns (11QTa xxv:9–10), does not demonstrate that ‫ ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬and ‫ ּפ ְַרוָר‬must be the same word. Old Iranian medial b became v in later dialects, so OIran *paribāra-, which denotes a roofed structure, would have become *parivāra- by the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 509. The etymology of OIran *parivara- is different from that of OIran *paribāra-, whose last component comes from the Indo-​European root *bher- ‘to bear’ rather than Indo-​Iranian *var- ‘to enclose’. Nevertheless, due to the change of Old Iranian medial b to v, OIran *paribāra- and *parivara- formally merged to become *parivāra-. They are both represented in Middle Iranian as Pahl parwār, which can mean ‘citadel, circumvallation’ as well as ‘suburb, surrounding area’. JA ‫פרוור‬, which follows the latter definition, is a loan from Middle Iranian (E. S. Rosenthal 1983, 509–12). I am grateful to Claudia Ciancaglini for her assistance with this entry. 510.  Gen 37:36; 39:1; 40:2, 7, 11 (2×), 13 (2×), 14, 17, 19–21; 41:1, 4, 7, 8 (2×), 9–10, 14 (2×), 15, 16 (2×), 17, 25 (3×), 28 (2×), 32–35, 37–39, 41–42, 44 (2×), 45, 46 (2×), 55 (2×); 42:15–16; 44:18; 45:2, 8, 16 (2×), 17, 21; 46:5, 31, 33; 47:1–2, 3 (2×), 4–5, 7 (2×), 8–9, 10 (2×), 11, 14, 19, 20 (2×), 22 (2×), 23–25, 26 (2×); 50:4, 6–7; Exod 1:11, 19, 22; 2:5, 7–10, 15 (2×); 3:10–11; 4:21–22; 5:1–2, 5–6, 10, 14–15, 20–21, 23; 6:1, 11–13, 27, 29–30; 7:1–4, 7, 9 (2×), 10 (2×), 11, 13–15, 20, 22–23, 26 [8:1]; 8:4–5 [8:8–9], 8 [8:12] (2×), 11 [8:15], 15 [8:19] (2×), 16 [8:20], 20–21 [8:24–25], 24 [8:28], 25 [8:29] (2×), 26–28 [8:30–32]; 9:1, 7 (2×), 8, 10, 12–13, 20, 27, 33–35; 10:1, 3, 6–8, 11, 16, 18, 20, 24, 27–28; 11:1, 3, 5, 8–9, 10 (2×); 12:29–30; 13:15, 17; 14:3, 4 (2×), 5, 8–10, 17–18, 23, 28; 15:4, 19; 18:4, 8, 10; Deut 6:21–22; 7:8, 18; 11:3; 29:1 [29:2]; 34:11; 1 Sam 2:27; 6:6; 1 Kgs 3:1 (2×); 7:8; 9:16, 24; 11:1, 18–19, 20 (3×), 21–22; 2 Kgs 17:7; 18:21; 23:29, 33–34, 35 (3×); Isa 19:11 (2×); 30:2–3; 36:6; Jer 25:19; 37:5, 7, 11; 43:9; 44:30; 46:2, 17, 25 (2×); 47:1; Ezek 17:17; 29:2–3; 30:21–22, 24–25; 31:2, 18; 32:2, 31 (2×), 32; Ps 135:9; 136:15; Song 1:9; Neh 9:10; 1 Chr 4:18; 2 Chr 8:11.

184

Chapter 3

Exodus, where ‫ ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬refers to the unnamed pharaoh of the Exodus. Only texts purported to take place later chronologically use ‫ ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬as a title with a specific name, i.e., Apries (Jer 44:30) and Necho (2 Kgs 23:29, 33–35; Jer 46:2).511 Long ago Josephus claimed that Hebrew ‫ ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬was of Egyptian origin because it occurs with reference to the ruler of Egypt (Ant. 8.155). Following in this vein, many scholars plausibly connect Hebrew ‫ ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬with Egyptian pr-ʿꜢ ‘great house’ (cf. Dem pr-ʿꜢ and Copt rro: CDD P 69–77; DG 133; Crum 299).512 Originally, pr-ʿꜢ referred to the palace or residence of the king and his administration, but by the Twelfth Dynasty it came to be associated with the three wishes following the royal name (life, prosperity, health), by the New Kingdom it came to be used as a title for the king himself, and during the Third Intermediate Period pr-ʿꜢ became a fixed part of the king’s name. The distribution of the biblical occurrences corresponds to this development in that only texts purported to take place later chronologically use ‫ ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬as a title with a specific name (Cazelles 2003, 102; Osing 1980b). Notably, Egyptian pr-ʿꜢ also appears in Imperial Aramaic ‫פרעה‬, specifically texts written in the dialect of Egyptian Aramaic (KAI 266:1, 3, 6 = TAD A1.1:1, 3, 6). Given the Egyptian origin of this word, it is not surprising that it appears in such a context. ‫‘ ּפ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן‬copy’ HALOT 1960 (Ezra 4:11, 23; 5:6) 𝕲 διαταγή ‘decree, ordinance’ Ezra 4:11, translates ‫ פּ ְַרשֶׁ גֶן נִ ְׁש ְּת ָונָא‬as φορολόγος ‘tribute collector’ Ezra 4:23, διασάφησις ‘explanation’ Ezra 5:6; 𝖁 exemplar ‘copy, pattern’ Ezra 4:11; 5:6, exemplum ‘sample, example’ Ezra 4:23; 𝕾 pršgnʾ [Syriac form] [D] OIran → Aram QA, JA ‫ פרשגן‬DQA 195; Jastrow 1903, 1243; Syr paršagnā LS² 1254; Mand paršigna MD 365; OIran *paččagnaBiblical Aramaic ‫ ַּפ ְרׁשֶ גֶן‬occurs solely in the book of Ezra (Ezra 4:11, 23; 5:6). It shares the meaning ‘copy’ with Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬and looks very similar with the exception of the reš in place of the taw. This suggests that, like ‫ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬, it comes from Old Iranian. The problem is that Biblical Aramaic ‫ ַּפ ְרׁשֶ גֶן‬cannot readily be derived from Old Iranian *patčagna- ‘copy’, the source of Biblical Hebrew ‫ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬, because Old Iranian t should be represented with a dental, not a liquid.513 Most probably, Aramaic-​speakers borrowed the alternate Old Iranian form *paččagna-, in which the 511.  Of its 274 occurrences, 216 are in the Pentateuch (94× in Genesis; 115× in Exodus; 7× in Deuteronomy). Most of the remaining occurrences are in the books of Kings (13× in 1 Kings; 8× in 2 Kings) and the Major Prophets (5× in Isaiah; 11× in Jeremiah; 13× in Ezekiel). 512.  EPNL 253; Lambdin 1953b, 153; FWOT 139; Rabin 1962, 1076. 513.  There is scant evidence for any interchange between t and r in Iranian, so the presence of r in the Aramaic forms cannot be explained as an Iranian development. There is likewise little value

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

185

cluster tč had assimilated to čč (cf. Pahl paččēn: CPD 62), and then dissimilated the consonant cluster čč after borrowing. The Aramaic languages provide several examples of rhotacism via dissimilation (e.g., OAram, IA ‫‘ כרסא‬throne’ vs. BH ‫)ּכִ ּסֵ א‬. It is likely, therefore, that the reš of Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּפ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן‬has arisen as a result of rhotacisim via dissimilation. The same process of dissimilation is attested in Qumran and Jewish Aramaic ‫פרשגן‬, Syriac paršagnā, and Mandaic paršigna, which may also be traced back to Old Iranian *paččagna-.514 ‫( ּפ ְַרּתָ ם‬an official of the royal court) HALOT 979; DCH 6:789 (Esth 1:3; 6:9; Dan 1:3) 𝕲 ἔνδοξος ‘honored one’ Esth 1:3; 6:9, ἐπιλέκτος ‘chosen one’ Dan 1:3; 𝖁 inclitus ‘famous one’ Esth 1:3, princeps ‘chief, leader’ Esth 6:9, tyrannus ‘ruler’ Dan 1:3; 𝕾 Prtwyʾ ‘Parthian’; 𝕿 ‫‘ איסטרמיג‬general’ Esth 1:3; 6:9 [D] OIran → Heb; Elam OIran fratama- AISN 98; IAP 405; Elam pír-​ra-​tam6-ma EW 216 The Hebrew Bible uses ‫ ּפ ְַרּתָ ם‬three times, twice with reference to officials in the Persian court (Esth 1:3; 6:9) and once with reference to the exiled Jews’ royal family and administration (Dan 1:3). This word has no cognates or Hebrew etymology, and one suspects an Old Iranian derivation given the contexts in which it occurs. The donor term is Old Iranian fratama- ‘foremost’ (cf. OPers fratama- ‘foremost’ and Av fratəma- ‘first’: OPGTL 197; AIW 979), which is composed of the prefix fra- ‘before, forth’ (cf. OPers, Av fra-: OPGTL 197; AIW 974) and the superlative suffix -tama.515 This word does not actually occur as a substantive denoting an official in Old Iranian texts. The Elamite texts from Persepolis, which preserve this word as pír-​ ra-​tam6-ma, are ambiguous but may preserve evidence that this word came to denote an honorific court title by the mid-fifth century b.c.e. (Tulpin 2005, 200; Eilers 1985, 29; 1955). Regardless, the prefix fra- clearly occurs in compounds for official titles elsewhere in Old Iranian, such as *frastāka- and framātar- (AISN 97; cf. OPGTL 198; AIW 987–88). Therefore, it is conceivable that Old Iranian fratama- could be used to denote an official connected with the royal court. ‫‘ ּפ ְַתּבַ ג‬food allowance’ HALOT 984; DCH 6:797 (Dan 1:5, 8, 13, 15–16; 11:26) in reconstructing an Old Iranian form *paričagna-, formed with the preposition pari instead of pati (Ciancaglini 2008, 241; contra Widengren 1960, 97–98; Benveniste 1934, 180–85). 514.  Cf. FWOT 143; Wilson-​Wright 2015, 160–61. I am grateful to Claudia Ciancaglini for her assistance with this entry. 515.  FWOT 140; Aĭkhenval’d 1987, 6; AAT 1:51; Haug 1853, 164. On the superlative suffix -tama, see OPGTL 66 (§190).

186

Chapter 3

𝕲 τράπεζα ‘food, meal’ except δεῖπνον ‘dinner’ Dan 1:16, μέριμνα ‘anxiety’ Dan 11:26; 𝖁 cibus except mensa ‘meal, feast’ Dan 1:8, panis ‘bread’ Dan 11:26; 𝕾 pṭbg‌ʾ [Syriac form] except šqlhwn ‘their portion’ Dan 1:16 [D] OIran → Heb; Aram Syr paṭgābā, patgābā LS² 1180; OIran *patibāga- AISN 185 The word ‫ ּפ ְַתּבַ ג‬occurs only six times in Biblical Hebrew. Five times it denotes the food that Nebuchadnezzar provides for Daniel and his friends in the Babylonian court (Dan 1:5, 8, 13, 15–16). The other occurrence is found in Dan 11:26, which states that those who eat of this food will plot against the king and betray him. This word has no clear Semitic etymology, and it refers to a particular item of material culture, so a foreign loan is likely. The use of a maqqēp (‫ )ּפ ְַת־ּבַ ג‬in Dan 1:5; 11:26 specifically indicates that ‫ ּפ ְַתּבַ ג‬is a foreign compound word. The donor term is Old Iranian *patibāga- ‘food allowance’. This word literally means ‘additional portion’, being formed from pati ‘thereto, again’ (cf. OPers patiy and Av paiti: OPGTL 194; AIW 822–27) and *bāga- ‘portion’ (cf. Av bāga-, baγā-: AIW 921–22).516 Syriac paṭbāgā, patbāgā also comes from Old Iranian.517 The use of an Old Iranian term for provisions from the royal court fits well with what is known of Persian customs. Xenophon, for example (e.g., Cyr. 8.2.3–4; cf. Anab. 1.9.25–26), notes how Persian kings provided food to honored members of the kingdom. Notably, Biblical Hebrew ‫ ַּפ ְתּבַ ג‬occurs with reference to food provided by the Babylonian rather than Persian court. However, it is certainly conceivable that Babylonian kings had a similar practice (cf. 2 Kgs 25:29–30) and that an author writing later used a Persian term for this custom. ‫( ּפִ ְתגָם‬BH, BA) ‘decree’ HALOT 984, 1961; DCH 6:798 (Qoh 8:11; Esth 1:20; Dan 3:16; 4:14; Ezra 4:17; 5:7, 11; 6:11) 𝕲 ἀντίρρησις ‘controversy’ Qoh 8:11, νόμος ‘law’ Esth 1:20, ἐπιταγή ‘commandment’ Dan 3:16, does not directly represent this word Dan 4:14; Ezra 4:17, ῥῆσις ‘saying’ Ezra 5:7, ῥῆμα ‘word’ Ezra 5:11; 6:11; 𝖁 sententia ‘judgment’ Qoh 8:11, does not directly represent this word Esth 1:20, res ‘matter’ Dan 3:16, decretum ‘decree’ Dan 4:14, verbum ‘word’ Ezra 4:17, sermo ‘saying’ Ezra 5:7, 11, iussio ‘command’ Ezra 6:11; 𝕾 ptgmʾ [Syriac form] except tbʿtʾ ‘vengeance’ Qoh 8:11; 𝕿 ‫[ פתגם‬Aramaic form] Qoh 8:11; Esth 1:20 [D] OIran → Heb; Aram; Elam IA, JA ‫ פתגם‬DNWSI 948; DJPA 454; DJBA 945; Syr peṯgāmā LS² 1264; Mand pugdama MD 367; OIran *patigāma- AISN 186; IAP 410; Elam bat-​ti-​ka4-ma, bat-​ti-​ka4-maš EW 171 516. FWOT 141; AAT 2:59–60. Eilers (1940, 77–80) instead suggests that ‫ ּפ ְַתּבַ ג‬comes from *piθvaka‘meal’, supposedly formed from *piθva- and the suffix -ka. This, however, is less likely on phonological grounds, especially since OIran *piθva- elsewhere is represented with a final labial (cf. IA ‫‘ פתף‬ration’ and the element pitipa- in Akk pitipabaga ‘one who apportions rations’). 517.  Ciancaglini 2008, 230. The Syriac verb pṭbg ‘to feast on good food’ is denominal.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

187

Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּפִ ְתגָם‬occurs twice with the meaning ‘decree’ (Qoh 8:11; Esth 1:20). The Biblical Aramaic form of this word is identical and appears six times in the books of Daniel and Ezra (Dan 3:16; 4:14; Ezra 4:17; 5:7, 11; 6:11). Related forms exist in Aramaic, but otherwise it does not occur in Semitic, and its use in Elamite (e.g., PF 654:10–11; 659:8–9; 672:13; 1795:13) suggests an Old Iranian origin. The donor term is Old Iranian *patigāma- ‘message’ (cf. ManParth pdg‌ʾm, pdγ‌ʾm and Sogd ptγ‌ʾm: DMMPP 269; DMSB 152).518 This Old Iranian word is formed from the preposition pati ‘thereto, again’ (cf. OPers patiy and Av paiti: OPGTL 194; AIW 822–27) and the verb gam- ‘to come’ (cf. OPers, Av gam-: OPGTL 183; AIW 493–502). The fricative pronunciation of the gimel, indicated by the absence of a dageš, may be a reflex of the i-vowel of the Old Iranian form.519 ‫( ּפְ ִתיגִ יל‬a luxurious garment) HALOT 989; DCH 6:810 (Isa 3:24) 𝕲 χιτὼν μεσοπόρφυρος ‘mixed purple tunic’; 𝖁 fascia pectoralis ‘chest bandage’; 𝕾 tklyt‌ʾ ‘purple garment’; 𝕿 ‫‘ דהואה מהלכן בגיוה‬those who go about with pride’ [D] ?? → Heb The word ‫ ּפְ ִתיגִ יל‬is a hapax. As recognized by most of the ancient versions, and as implied by the context, it denotes some kind of garment. In light of the antithetic parallelism found throughout the verse and the contrast with ‫‘ ׂשַ ק‬sackcloth’, it seems to denote a luxurious garment.520 This word certainly does not look Semitic, and it has no apparent Semitic etymology. Accordingly, Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 836) as well as Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 989) rightly suggest that it is probably a foreign loanword (cf. Bauer and Leander 1922, 485 [§61gε]). However, the context of Isa 3:24 gives no indications of where Hebrew ‫ ּפְ ִתיגִ יל‬comes from, and no plausible donor term presents itself. Thus, the donor language for this word remains uncertain given our present state of knowledge.521

518.  FWOT 142; F. Rosenthal 2006, 63; AAT 1:51–52; Haug 1853, 164. Arm patgam is a loan from Iranian (HAB 4:38). There is no connection between OIran *patigāma- and Gk φθέγμα, φθέγγμα, which means ‘voice, speech, utterance’ rather than ‘message’ and is based on the verb φθέγγομαι, which occurs already in Homer (cf. EDG 1568–69; DELG 1154; contra Lagarde 1877, 126). 519.  Sokoloff 2000, 101. This is also suggested by Syr peṯgāmā (Ciancaglini 2008, 62). 520. Tur-​Sinai (1951, 307) suggests emending the text to ‫‘ ּתֻ ּפֵי גִ יל‬drums of jubilation’. However, this is speculative and unsupported by the ancient versions. 521. Some scholars have postulated alternative, but quite speculative, Old Iranian etymologies. Greger (1992) derives ‫ ּפְ ִתיגִ יל‬from *patigīl-, allegedly ‘master girder’. Tisdall (1911b, 214–15) instead derives it from *patigar-, allegedly ‘(garment) up to the throat’.

188

Chapter 3

‫‘ ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬copy’ HALOT 991, 1960; DCH 6:813 (Esth 3:14; 4:8; 8:13) 𝕲 ἀντίγραφον ‘copy, transcript’; 𝖁 summa ‘content’ Esth 3:14; 8:13, exemplar ‘copy, pattern’ Esth 4:8; 𝕾 pršgnʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫‘ דייוטגמה‬edict, ordinance’ [D] OIran → Heb; Elam OIran *patčagna- AISN 186; IAP 410; Elam bat-​ti-​zí-​ik-​nu-​še EW 173 This word means ‘copy’ and has two different forms in the Hebrew Bible. The Biblical Hebrew form, ‫ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬, appears in the book of Esther with reference to royal documents and decrees (Esth 3:14; 4:8; 8:13). The Biblical Aramaic form, ‫ּפ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן‬, has a reš instead of a taw and occurs three times in the book of Ezra (Ezra 4:11, 23; 5:6). Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬does not look Semitic and undoubtedly comes from Old Iranian *patčagna-, an elided form of *patičagna- ‘copy’. The latter is formed from pati ‘thereto, again’ (cf. OPers patiy and Av paiti: OPGTL 194; AIW 822–27), the root *čag- ‘to give’ (cf. Av cag-: AIW 576), and the suffix -na.522 Although not attested in Old Iranian texts, *patčagna- is represented in Elamite bat-​ti-​zí-​ik-​nu-​še (PF 231:8–9) and later Armenian patčên (HAB 4:45–46). As noted above in its entry, Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּפ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן‬has a separate origin from Biblical Hebrew ‫ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬. The former comes from *paččagna-, a form of Old Iranian *patčagna- in which the t of the consonant cluster tč has assimilated (cf. Pahl paččēn: CPD 62). ‫( צָ ב‬a type of wagon) HALOT 994; DCH 7:64 (Num 7:3; Isa 66:20) 𝕲 λαμπήνη ‘covered chariot’; 𝖁 tectum ‘covering, canopy’ Num 7:3, lectica ‘palanquin’ Isa 66:20; 𝕾 mtqnn ‘prepared’ Num 7:3, qrwkʾ ‘carriage’ Isa 66:20; 𝕿 ‫‘ מחפי‬covered’ Num 7:3, ‫‘ רחלה‬sheep’ Isa 66:20 [T] Elam → Akk → Heb; Aram Akk ṣumbu, ṣubbu (OB, SB, NB) CAD Ṣ 244–45; AHw 1111; JA ‫ צב‬Jastrow 1903, 1257; Elam zù-​um-​bu, zu-​um-​bu, zù-​ub-​bu523 This word occurs only twice. It denotes a wagon used by the Israelites to bring offerings to God (Num 7:3) and to transport people (Isa 66:20). In Num 7:3, furthermore, it appears in construct with ‫‘ ֲע ָגלָה‬wagon, cart’. Scholars have long recognized that Hebrew ‫ צָ ב‬comes from Akkadian ṣumbu, ṣubbu ‘wagon’, which is also also the source of the rare Jewish Aramaic ‫צב‬, ‘cart, palanquin’.524 Yet, Akkadian ṣumbu, ṣubbu has no clear Semitic etymology, and its variation in spelling indicates a non-​Semitic origin. Its earliest occurrences are in Elamite 522.  On the suffix -na, see Skjærvø 2007, 902; OPGTL 51 (§147). 523. SA ‫צב‬, which occurs in Sam.𝕿 Num 7:3, is adopted from Biblical Hebrew (DSA 719). 524.  Zimmern 1917, 42; FWOT 144; ALBH 130–31; AIA 96.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

189

texts from the Old Babylonian period, and Standard Babylonian and Neo-​Assyrian texts use this word with reference to Elamite wagons. For example, in his annals Ashurbanipal mentions this particular wagon among the items he plundered from Elam (VAB 7.1.1 vi:22; x:85). Because the term would be borrowed with the product, Akkadian ṣumbu, ṣubbu almost certainly comes from Elamite. Unfortunately, the Elamite donor term is unattested in extant Elamite texts and therefore unknown (see Salonen 1951, 62–64). Because Hebrew borrowed this word from Akkadian and because Akkadian borrowed it from Elamite, Hebrew ‫ צָ ב‬is a transmitted loan.525 It does not retain any connection with Elam, although it probably refers to a style of wagon similar to that denoted by the original Elamite donor term. If the ancient versions provide any clue, this particular wagon was a covered one. ‫‘ צִ י‬riverboat’ HALOT 1020; DCH 7:113 (Num 24:24; Isa 33:21; Ezek 30:9; Dan 11:30) 𝕲 ἐξελεύσεται ‘it will go forth’ Num 24:24 and ἐξώσουσιν ‘they will force out’ Dan 11:30 (both connecting ‫ צִ י‬with the verb ‫)יצא‬, πλοῖον ‘ship’ Isa 33:21, σπεύδοντες ‘hastening’ (misreading ‫ ּבַ ּצִ ים‬as ‫)רצִ ים‬ ָ Ezek 30:9; 𝖁 trieris ‘trireme’; 𝕾 lgywnʾ ‘legion’ Num 24:24, omits Isa 33:21, msrhbʾyt ‘hurriedly’ Ezek 30:9, mšrytʾ ‘camp’ Dan 11:30; 𝕿 ‫‘ סיעה‬army’ Num 24:24, ‫‘ בורני‬ship’ Isa 33:21, ‫‘ לגיון‬legion’ Ezek 30:9 [D] Eg → Heb Eg ḏꜢy (since MK) ÄW 2:2816; GHwÄ 1067; WÄS 5:515526 This word occurs only four times. It denotes a generic ship used in rivers (Isa 33:21), ships sent from God against Kush (Ezek 30:9), and ships of the Kittim (Num 24:24; Dan 11:30). The lack of any Semitic cognates suggests that ‫ צִ י‬is not native to Hebrew, and a number of scholars plausibly derive it from Egyptian ḏꜢy ‘river-​boat’ (cf. Dem ḏy, ḏꜢy and Copt čoi: CDD Ḏ 14–15; DG 674; Crum 754).527 The latter has a perfectly good etymology in Egyptian in that it comes from the verb ḏꜢy ‘to cross, go over’, which is often used with reference to going over water. The fact that Egyptian ḏꜢy specifically refers to a river-​going ship fits quite well with Isa 33:21, where Hebrew ‫ צִ י‬clearly refers to a boat that travels in rivers. An Egyptian origin also explains this word’s use in Ezek 30:9, an oracle against Egypt. The appearance of ‫ צִ י‬in Ezekiel’s oracle may reflect addressee-​switching, a common phenomenon in the Prophets.

525. ALBH 130–31. Despite the phonological similarity, there is probably no relationship between BH ‫ צָ ב‬and Eg ḏbw, which refers to a component of a wagon or chariot (contra HALOT 994). 526. Copt čoi is the source of OSA ṣy ‘merchant ship’, which occurs only in a sarcophagus inscription from Giza (RES 4913:3) (W. W. Müller 1963, 313). Hence, OSA ṣy is not truly cognate with BH ‫צִ י‬. 527.  EPNL 253–54; Lambdin 1953b, 153–54; FWOT 145; Rabin 1962, 1077; Erman 1892, 123.

190

Chapter 3

‫( קַ ב‬a volume measure) HALOT 1060; DCH 7:169 (2 Kgs 6:25) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾, 𝕿 each use their corresponding forms of the word (κάβος, cabus, qbʾ, and ‫קב‬, respectively) [D] Eg → Heb; Aram IA, JA ‫ קב‬DNWSI 977; DJPA 472; DJBA 977–78; Syr qabbā‌ʾ LS² 1308; Mand qaba MD 398; Eg qby (MK), qb (since NK) ÄW 2:2511; GHwÄ 921; WÄS 5:25 This word occurs only in 2 Kgs 6:25, in the context of Ben-​Hadad’s siege of Samaria. The siege was so bad that, according to this verse, a donkey’s head was sold for 80 shekels of silver and dove’s dung was sold for one fourth of the volume measure denoted by ‫קַ ב‬. This volume measure was probably about two liters (Powell 1992, 905). Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 1060) argue that this word is a noun derived from the root ‫‘‏*קבב‬to be round’, implying that ‫ קַ ב‬refers to a round vessel. However, such a meaning was entirely missed by the ancient versions. A much more plausible derivation is Egyptian qby, qb, which refers to a measure of volume (cf. Dem qb, qb.t and Copt Bkēbi: CDD Q 19; DG 534; Crum 99).528 This Egyptian term first appears during the Middle Kingdom with reference to a specific vessel, which soon came to denote a unit of volume associated with that vessel. Egyptian loaned this term not only to Hebrew, but also to Aramaic (Imperial and Jewish Aramaic, Syriac, and Mandaic). The adoption of this Egyptian term by Hebrew-​speakers probably reflects broader Egyptian influence on Israelite administration. This influence includes the adoption of Egyptian hieratic numerals and symbols for weights, measures, and commodities. The Samaria Ostraca, for example, use Egyptian hieratic numerals in their date formulas (N. S. Fox 2000, 250–68). Such Egyptian influence would also have provided a good opportunity for Hebrew-​speakers to adopt Egyptian qby, qb. ‫ּכֹובַ ע ⇒ קֹובַ ע‬ ‫קֹ ף ⇒ קֹוף‬ ‫‘ קִ יקָ יֹון‬castor-​oil plant’ HALOT 1099; DCH 7:250 (Jon 4:6 [2×], 7, 9–10) 𝕲 κολόκυνθα, 𝖁 cucurbita, 𝕾 qr‌ʾ‌ʾ (a type of gourd); 𝕿 ‫[ קיקיון‬Aramaic form] [D] Eg → Heb; Gk Eg kꜢkꜢ (MK), kyky (since NK) ÄW 2:2565; GHwÄ 948; WÄS 5:109; Gk κίκι LSJ 951529 528.  EPNL 254; FWOT 147; Rabin 1962, 1077. 529.  Possibly also related is Akk kukkānītu, which appears in Standard and Neo-​Babylonian texts with reference to a medicinal plant. However, the correspondence between Akk k and Heb qop is

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

191

This word occurs only in the book of Jonah, where it denotes a plant that provides Jonah with shade (Jon 4:6 [2×], 7, 9–10). It has a long history of interpretation, but many recent scholars identify ‫ קִ יקָ יֹון‬with the castor-​oil plant (Ricinus communis). This plant was originally native to east Africa but later spread throughout the Mediterranean, ancient Near East, and India.530 This identification is supported by the likelihood that Hebrew ‫ קִ יקָ יֹון‬stems from Egyptian kꜢkꜢ ‘castor-​oil plant’. This word is first attested during the Middle Kingdom, and beginning with the Nineteenth Dynasty it appears as kyky. The individualizing suffix ‫ֹון‬-‫‏‬found on ‫קִ יקָ יֹון‬, used elsewhere for Hebrew plant terms (cf. ‫אַ גְ מֹון‬ ‘rush, reed’), is a subsequent development within Hebrew. Greek κίκι, described and glossed by Classical writers as the castor-​oil plant (Herodotus, Hist. 2.94; Dioscorides, Mat. med. 4.161; Pliny, Nat. 15.7.25), is also a loan from Egyptian.531 The castor-​oil plant is known for its relatively rapid growth and large palmate leaves, which is consistent with the biblical portrayal of this plant as quick-​growing and able to provide shade.532 The attestation of an Egyptian loanword in the book of Jonah, which has an Assyrian—not Egyptian—setting, demonstrates that Hebrew-​ speakers had completely nativized this word by the time of Jonah and also reflects the fact that this plant spread early from Africa to the ancient Near East. ‫( קִ יתָ רֹוס‬a type of lyre) HALOT 1970 (Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾 each use their corresponding forms of the word (κιθάρα, cithara, and qytrʾ, respectively) [D] Gk → Aram; Lat Gk κιθάρα, κιθάρις LSJ 950; Lat cithara OLD 359533 This Biblical Aramaic word occurs four times within the description of Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra (Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15). Scholars have long recognized that it comes from Greek κιθάρις.534 The final sibilant demonstrates that Aramaic-​speakers unusual, and CAD (K 498) suggests that kukkānītu means ‘kukku-like plant’, Akk kukku being a type of bread or cake with a characteristic shape. 530.  M. Zohary 1982, 193; Moldenke and Moldenke 1952, 203–4; Löw 1924–1934, 1:608–11. For a detailed history of this word’s interpretation, see Robinson 1985, 390–96. 531.  EDG 695; DELG 510; Fournet 1989, 61. On κίκι in Classical Greek sources, see Robinson 1985, 400–401. 532.  M. Zohary 1982, 193; Moldenke and Moldenke 1952, 203–4. However, the text attributes the growth of the plant to divine intervention, so its characteristics in Jonah do not provide conclusive evidence for its botanical identification. 533. JA ‫ קתרוס‬occurs only in 𝕿 and is adopted from Biblical Aramaic (Jastrow 1903, 1434). 534. FWOT 148; Coxon 1973–1974, 30–31; AAT 2:58. The Masoretes have preserved both a Ketiv (‫ )קִ יתָ רֹוס‬and Qere (‫ )קַ ְתרֹוס‬reading for this word. In light of its derivation from Gk κιθάρις, it is likely that neither reading is entirely correct and that this word should be vocalized as ‫קִ יתָ ִריס‬, assuming a yod in place of the waw (a very common scribal error). It is also possible, however, that the Ketiv preserves the correct reading because in later Aramaic the third declension nominative ending -ς is often represented as ‫ֹוס‬-‫‏‬rather than ‫ִיס‬-‫‏‬on analogy with the second declension nominative ending -ος

192

Chapter 3

adopted the non-​Attic form κιθάρις as opposed to its Attic form, κιθάρα. The former first appears in the eighth century b.c.e. (Homer, Il. 2.600; 3.54; Od. 1.159; 8.248), whereas the latter first appears in the fifth century (e.g., Euripides, Alc. 583) and largely supplanted κιθάρις with the rise of Athens to prominence. Most likely, then, Aramaic-​speakers borrowed this word from the Greek isles or Asia Minor at a time prior to the Hellenstic era. Otherwise, they most probably would have used the Attic form κιθάρα (Noonan forthcoming; cf. Coxon 1973–1974, 31). Greek loaned the Attic form of this word into Latin as cithara (DELL 123). Archaic and Classical period depictions of this particular kind of lyre represent it with a crossbar furnished with knobs and kollopes. Seven strings are wrapped around the kollopes in a figure-​eight pattern, and each arm is ornamented with a scroll or volute on the inner edges. A sling allowed the player to support the instrument, which was played with a plektron (Maas and Snyder 1989, 30–34, 53–78, 171–78). ‫( קַ ּלַחַ ת‬a type of cooking pot) HALOT 1102; DCH 7:255 (1 Sam 2:14; Mic 3:3) 𝕲 does not directly translate this word 1 Sam 2:14, χύτρα ‘earthen pot’ Mic 3:3; 𝖁 olla ‘pot, jar’; 𝕾 qrdlʾ ‘pot’ 1 Sam 2:14, qdrʾ ‘cooking pot’ Mic 3:3; 𝕿 ‫קדר‬ ‘pot’ [D] Eg → Ug; Heb Ug qlḫt DUL 690; Eg qrḥ.t (since OK) ÄW 1:1339, 2:2528; GHwÄ 932; WÄS 5:62–63 This word is a dis legomena in the Hebrew Bible. In 1 Sam 2:14 it appears with reference to a pot that the priests used to cook meat at Shiloh, and in Mic 3:3 it refers to a pot used to cook meat. Accordingly, Hebrew ‫ קַ ּלַחַ ת‬denotes a cooking pot of some sort, although it is impossible to identify it with a particular sort of cooking pot (Kelso 1948, 31; Honeyman 1939, 90). The only other related Semitic form is Ugaritic qlḫt, which appears once in a scribal exercise (KTU 5.22:16). The rarity of this term in the Semitic languages points to a possible foreign origin, as does the lack of a known Semitic root on which it could be based.535 Several scholars plausibly argue that the donor term is Egyptian qrḥ.t ‘pot, bowl’, first attested during the Old Kingdom. 536 The doubling of the second radical in Hebrew ‫ קַ ּלַחַ ת‬probably mimics the pattern found in Hebrew vessel terms such as ‫‘ צַ ּלַחַ ת‬bowl, dish’, ‫‘ צַ ּפַחַ ת‬pilgrim flask’, and ‫‘ קֻ ּבַ עַת‬cup, goblet’.

(S. Krauss 1898–1899, 1:193 [§339]). Given this possibility, and for the sake of simplicity, I have used the Ketiv throughout. 535. De Moor (1970, 317) proposes that BH ‫ קַ ּלַחַ ת‬and Ug qlḫt are connected with Akk qullû, qullītu, ‘roasted’. This etymology, however, is unpersuasive on phonological and morphological grounds. 536.  EPNL 254–55, 282–83; Lambdin 1953b, 154; FWOT 149; Rabin 1962, 1077.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

193

Hebrew and Ugaritic both have the feminine ending -t, and final -t was lost in Egyptian by the New Kingdom. Therefore, this word must have entered Northwest Semitic early, probably during the early second millennium b.c.e.537 That this word was borrowed early into Northwest Semitic is supported by the fact that the Egyptians borrowed this word back from Semitic as krḥt (cf. Copt qalaht: Crum 813) during the New Kingdom (SWET 331–32 [#481]). ‫( קִ ּנָמֹון‬a cinnamon-​like plant) HALOT 1114; DCH 7:271 (Exod 30:23; Prov 7:17; Song 4:14) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾, 𝕿 each use their corresponding forms of the word (κιννάμωμον, cinnamomum, qwnmwn, and ‫קנמון‬, respectively) [D] → Heb; Gk; Lat Gk κιννάμωμον, κίνναμον LSJ 953; Lat cinnamomum, cinnamum OLD 346538 This word occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible. In each of these occurrences, ‫ קִ ּנָמֹון‬denotes an exotic spice with aromatic properties (Exod 30:23; Prov 7:17; Song 4:14). No productive root *qnm exists in Semitic that would lend itself to use for a cinnamon-​like spice, and ‫ קִ ּנָמֹון‬cannot be derived from the common Semitic word for ‘reed’ (cf. BH ‫)קָ ֶנ ה‬.539 A foreign term is therefore likely. However, its origin must not be sought in East Asia, as is commonly done.540 Hebrew ‫ קִ ּנָמֹון‬does not clearly refer to an East Asian species of cinnamon. This is especially true because no evidence exists for the presence of Cinnamon zeylanicum, or any other East Asian cinnamon species, in the ancient Near East prior to the Late Classical period. Classical authors are nearly unanimous in attributing cinnamon and cassia to the Horn of Africa (e.g., Pliny, Nat. 12.42.86–88) or Felix Arabia (e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 3.110–11; Dioscorides, Mat. med. 1.13–14). Furthermore, their descriptions make it clear that they cannot be describing true cinnamon or cassia (e.g., Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 9.5.1–3; Pliny, Nat. 12.42.89–92; 12.43.95–97).541 537.  EPNL 254–55. On the loss of the Egyptian feminine ending -t, see J. Allen 2013, 49, 61; Gardiner 1957, 34; Junge 2005, 35. 538. QA ‫ קונם‬and JA ‫ קנמון‬appear in biblical contexts and are adopted from Biblical Hebrew (DQA 208; DJPA 497). The same may be true of Syr qēwnāmōn, which occurs in similar contexts, although it could be a loan from Gk κίνναμον (LS² 1337). 539. Cf. Cooley 1849, 168. De Romanis (1996, 103–8) derives ‫ קִ ּנָמֹון‬from this word, supposing it is natural to think of cinnamon as a reed- or cane-​like spice (cf. French cannelle). He argues that the ‫מֹון‬-‫‏‬ending is not a suffix, but the proper name of the Minaeans, a first millennium b.c.e. Arabian tribe of ancient Yemen known for its involvement in the spice trade. However, this explanation does not adequately account for the ʿ in the Minaeans’ name (cf. BH ‫ ְמעּונִ ים‬and OSA Mʿwn). 540. E.g., Musselman 2012, 38–39; Powels 1992, 190–92; M. Zohary 1982, 202; Löw 1924–1934, 2:107–13. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 890) compare ‫ קִ ּנָמֹון‬with Malay kayu manis ‘cinnamon’, literally ‘sweet tree’ or ‘sweet wood’, but there are significant phonological differences between the Hebrew and Malay forms. 541.  Crone 1987, 253–63; Raschke 1978, 652–55; Hepper 1977; Hennig 1939; Laufer 1919, 541–43.

194

Chapter 3

Accordingly, Hebrew ‫ קִ ּנָמֹון‬must denote an aromatic cinnamon-​like plant found in either the Horn of Africa or Felix Arabia, not the species C. zeylanicum. Moreover, this culture word must have originated from one of these two regions because the word would have been borrowed along with the product. In support of this loan hypothesis, it is notable that the element amom also appears in the spice terms amomon and cardamom, said to originate in the same general region (cf. Pliny, Nat. 12.28.48–49; Dioscorides, Mat. med. 1.6).542 This indicates that, like the products amomon and cardamom and their corresponding terms, Hebrew ‫ קִ ּנָמֹון‬and Greek κιννάμωμον, κίνναμον (as well as Latin cinnamomum, cinnamum) ultimately come from the Horn of Africa or Felix Arabia. ‫‘ קֶ סֶ ת‬scribal palette’ HALOT 1116; DCH 7:272–73 (Ezek 9:2–3, 11) 𝕲 ζώνη ‘belt, waistband’; 𝖁 atramentarium ‘inkstand, inkwell’; 𝕾 ʾsr ḥṣʾ ‘loin belt’; 𝕿 ‫ פנקס‬or ‫‘ פינקס‬tablet, board’ [D] Eg → Heb; Gk Eg gstı̓ (since OK) ÄW 1:1378, 2:2614; GHwÄ 979; WÄS 5:207; DLE 2:195; Gk κάστυ LSJ 882 This word appears only three times, in the book of Ezekiel, all within the same chapter (Ezek 9:2–3, 11). The item denoted by ‫ קֶ סֶ ת‬is carried by the six executioners that Ezekiel encounters. This term has no cognates or Semitic etymology. It comes from Egyptian gstı̓, ‘scribal palette’, which is first attested the Old Kingdom (cf. Dem gst and Copt qost, qast: CDD G 71–72; DG 593; Crum 832).543 The Coptic forms and Greek κάστυ demonstrate that this word originally had the shape *qast, becoming qéset after anaptyxis occurred. This is also indicated by the segolate pattern of the Hebrew form (Eisler 1930). Along with reed pens and a leather pouch for pigment pellets and other items, the scribal palette was one of the key instruments of ancient Egyptian scribes. The typical palette was rectangular and had at least two inkwells, one for black ink and the other for red. Tomb paintings such as the Tomb of Hesyre at Saqqara (Third Dynasty) depict Egyptian scribal equipment, including the palette, and Howard Carter discovered a nearly complete set of scribal equipment in a New Kingdom tomb near the Hatshepsut temple on the Theban west bank. The hieroglyphic sign for sš ‘scribe’ (𓏟𓏜), moreover, stylistically depicts a scribal palette along with a cylindrical holder for reed pens and the leather pouch (Piacentini 2001; Helck 1982). ‫קֹ ף‬‎, ‫( קֹוף‬an African monkey) HALOT 1089; DCH 7:236 542.  On the origins of amomon and cardamom, see Crone 1987, 70–71. 543.  EPNL 255; Lambdin 1953b, 154; FWOT 150; Rabin 1962, 1077; W. M. Müller 1900.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

195

(1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21) 𝕲 omits 1 Kgs 10:22, translates ‫ קֹ ף‬and ‫ ּתֻ ּכִ י‬together as πίθηκος ‘ape’ 2 Chr 9:21; 𝖁 simia ‘ape, monkey’; 𝕾 qwpʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫[ קוף‬Aramaic form] [D] Eg → Sum; Akk; Heb; Aram; Gk; Skt Sum ugubi PSD; Akk uqūpu (SB, NB) CAD U–W 204; AHw 1427; JA ‫ קוף‬DJPA 483; DJBA 1000; Syr qōpˉā LS² 1338ā; Mand qupa MD 409; Eg gı̓f, gf (since OK), gwf (MK), gꜢf (NK) ÄW 1:1364, 2:2589; GHwÄ 965–67, 969; WÄS 5:155, 158, 160, 166; DLE 2:185, 188; Gk κῆβος, κῆπος LSJ 946; Skt kapí- EWAia 1:300–301; KEWA 1:156 Hebrew ‫קֹ ף‬, also spelled ‫קֹוף‬, occurs alongside various trade items, including ‫ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬ ‘ivory’ and ‫( ּתֻ ּכִ י‬a female African ape), that were brought by Solomon’s ships of Tarshish (1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21). In both occurrences, Solomon’s ships traveled at sea along with Hiram’s fleet and brought back these items once every three years. Related forms occur in a number of language families, including Semitic (Akkadian and Aramaic), Sumerian, Egyptian, and Indo-​European (Sanskrit and Greek). Nevertheless, the Semitic forms come from Egyptian gı̓f, gf, which was later spelled gꜢf or gwf and denotes a species of monkey (cf. Dem kf, qwf: CDD K 21, Q 12; DG 562). This is indicated by the word’s African associations. The products listed originated in Africa. The mention of gold and Hiram’s fleet recalls the earlier comment that Hiram’s fleet obtained gold from Ophir, which was located near the southern shore of the Red Sea (1 Kgs 10:11; 2 Chr 9:10),544 and the associated products ‫ ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬and ‫ ּתֻ ּכִ י‬come from Africa. Futhermore, Akkadian texts utilize uqūpu with reference to Egypt. A tribute list from Shalmaneser III’s reign mentions monkeys given as tribute by Egypt (RIMA 3.102.89), and a ration list from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II mentions the Egyptian Pusamiski, described as a lúšušān ša uqupê ‘groomer of monkeys’ (Babylon 28122 r. 24).545 Scholars debate the origin of this word’s other forms. Nevertheless, Africa seems to be the place of its origin for several reasons. First, although this word does occur early in Sumerian and Vedic Sanskrit, it appears even earlier—and first—in Old Kingdom Egyptian. Second, it is easier to derive the non-​Egyptian terms from Egyptian than to derive the Egyptian form from any of the non-​Egyptian terms.546 Third, at least some Greek sources connect this particular species of monkey with Africa (Strabo, Geogr. 16.4.16; Agatharchides, M. Eryth. 5.75). Almost certainly, then, this term must have spread from Africa to other regions, where it was adopted by Sumerian-, Semitic-, and Indo-​European-​speaking peoples (Klein 1979, 157–60; EPNL 254; Lambdin 1953b, 154). The Semitic forms were most 544.  On the location of Ophir, see Baker 1992a. 545.  On the ration list Babylon 28122, see Weidner 1939, 931. 546.  Gk κῆβος, κῆπος is best explained as a loan from Egyptian rather than as a native Indo-​ European term (Fournet 1989, 73; Frisk 1954–1972, 1:836). Mayrhofer argues that Skt kapí- is primary and connected with Skt kapilá- ‘brownish, reddish’ (EWAia 1:300–301; KEWA 1:156). However, this remains unconvincing, especially given the term’s association with Africa.

196

Chapter 3

probably borrowed early, prior to the shift of stressed u to e, whereas Greek κῆβος, κῆπος was borrowed after this vocalic change (Lambdin 1953b, 154). Although borrowed early, Hebrew ‫ קֹ ף‬is probably a direct loan from Egyptian because the Hebrew Bible preserves a connection between Africa and the monkey denoted by this term. ‫( קְ צִ יעָה‬a cassia-​like plant) HALOT 1122; DCH 7:281 (Ps 45:9 [45:8]) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾, 𝕿  each use their corresponding forms of the word (κασία, cassia, qsyʾ, and ‫קציעה‬, respectively) [D] ?? → Heb; Gk; Lat Gk κασία, κασσία LSJ 882; Lat casia, cassia OLD 308547 This hapax legomenon occurs in Ps 45:9. It is commonly identified with Cinnamomum cassia, a species native to East Asia and cultivated especially in southeastern China (e.g., Powels 1992, 190–92; M. Zohary 1982, 203; Löw 1924–1934, 2:113–14). However, there is no evidence for the existence of any East Asian cinnamon species in the ancient Near East before the Late Classical period. Classical sources unequivocally state that the spice denoted by κασία and casia comes from Ethiopia and Arabia, and they clearly describe a spice other than C. cassia (e.g., Dioscorides, Mat. med. 1.13; Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 9.5.1–3; Pliny, Nat. 12.43.95–97).548 Therefore, Hebrew ‫ קְ צִ יעָה‬as well as Greek κασία and Latin casia must refer to a cassia-​like spice found in Ethiopia or Arabia, not true cassia. Some scholars try to connect Hebrew ‫ קְ צִ יעָה‬with the root ‫‘ קצע‬to scrape, cut off’, etymologizing it as bark scraped off the C. cassia plant (e.g., G. R. Driver 1956, 261–62; Nielsen 1986, 65). Other scholars derive Hebrew ‫ קְ צִ יעָה‬from Chinese, a completely speculative loan hypothesis.549 Phonological plausibility aside, neither of these derivations can be correct because they wrongly assume that Hebrew ‫ קְ צִ יעָה‬denotes C. cassia. Without doubt this word originates from Ethiopia or Arabia, exactly where Classical sources say this plant comes from.550 The contextual 547. JA ‫ קציעה‬occurs only in 𝕿 and is adopted from Biblical Hebrew. There is no connection between BH ‫ קְ צִ י ָעה‬and Sum gazi or Akk kasû, which refer to mustard or licorice rather than to a cassia-​like plant (Powell 2003–2005, 20). 548.  Cf. Crone 1987, 253–63; Raschke 1978, 652–55; Hepper 1977; Hennig 1939; Laufer 1919, 541–43. 549. E.g., Powels 1992, 190–92; Löw 1924–1934, 2:113–14. Although the common Chinese word for ‘cassia’, guì (桂), is attested during the second half of the first millennium b.c.e., the combinations guìzĭ (桂子) and guìzhī (桂枝) are not attested until the 11th and 14th centuries c.e., respectively. Neither of these combinations, moreover, became common terms for ‘cassia’ (Luo 1986–1994, 4:955–57). Assuming that guìzĭ and guìzhī did exist earlier, phonological reconstruction of their hypothetical earlier forms (*kwes-tseʔ and *kwes-ke, respectively) rules out a connection between them and BH ‫קְ צִ יעָה‬. I am grateful to Zev Joseph Handel for his assistance with this entry. 550. Recognizing this, De Romanis (1996, 44–45) derives ‫ קְ צִ יעָה‬from Eg ẖsꜢy.t, a balsam or resin obtained from a flowering plant. This, however, remains implausible on phonological grounds. Additionally, the referent of Eg ẖsꜢy.t differs from that of BH ‫קְ צִ יעָה‬.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

197

mention of myrrh, ivory, and Ophir (Ps 45:9–10), all connected with the Red Sea region between Ethiopia and Arabia, confirms this loan hypothesis. ‫( קַ ְרּדֹ ם‬an axe) HALOT 1137; DCH 7:318 (Judg 9:48; 1 Sam 13:20–21; Jer 46:22; Ps 74:5) 𝕲 ἀξίνη ‘axe’ except does not directly represent this word Ps 74:5; 𝖁 securis ‘axe’; 𝕾 nrg‌ʾ ‘axe’ Judg 9:48; Ps 74:5, kwlb‌ʾ ‘axe’ 1 Sam 13:20–21; Jer 46:22; 𝕿 ‫‘ כולב‬axe’ except ‫‘ כשיל‬axe’ Jer 46:22 [?] CW Ebla gurdumum VE 253 (#477); Akk gurdimu (Emar) The word ‫ קַ ְרּדֹ ם‬occurs five times in the Hebrew Bible. It denotes tools used for cutting wood (Judg 9:48) and in farming (1 Sam 13:20–21). In both Jeremiah and the Psalter, ‫ קַ ְרּדֹ ם‬similarly refers to a tool used for chopping wood (Jer 46:22; Ps 74:5). The ancient versions consistently understand this word as ‘axe’ or the like. Accordingly, Biblical Hebrew ‫ קַ ְרּדֹ ם‬most certainly denotes an axe that could be used for chopping or in farming.551 This word does not follow any typical Hebrew nominal patterns and is undoubtedly foreign.552 Furthermore, its phonology and morphology are too close to those of Hebrew ‫ ּג ְַרזֶן‬and its various manifestations in other languages (cf. Akk ḫaṣṣinnu, Arab karzan, kirzin, karzam, kirzim, and Gk ἀξίνη: CAD Ḫ 133–34; AHw 332; WKAS K 125; LSJ 170) to be coincidental. Accordingly, it can probably be traced back to the same Anatolian culture word behind Hebrew ‫ּג ְַרזֶן‬. If so, ‫ קַ ְרּדֹ ם‬must be a different form of this culture word that was borrowed separately.553 The same alternate form of this culture word seems to be behind Eblaite gurdumum (VE 253 (#477); Krebernik 1982, 231) and Emar Akkadian gurdimu (Emar 545:345ʹ; Civil 1989, 8; Pentiuc 2001, 54). How exactly this ancient culture word came to Palestine remains unknown.554 ‫‘ קִ ּׁשֻ אָ ה‬melon’ HALOT 1151; DCH 7:332 (Num 11:5) 551. Koller 2012, 35–36. Rabbinic tradition states that this particular tool was a combination of axe and adze, with an axe blade on one side and an adze blade on the other (e.g., m. Kelim 13:3). However, ‫ קַ ְרּדֹ ם‬need not mean the same thing in Biblical Hebrew. 552. Little basis exists for deriving ‫ קַ ְרּדֹ ם‬from a root ‫‘‏*קדד‬to cut’. Although it is possible to explain the reš via dissimilation, this etymology does not adequately explain where the final mem comes from. 553.  Albright 1934, 51; Fränkel 1886, 84–87. I am grateful to Aaron J. Koller for his assistance with this entry. 554.  The rabbinic understanding of this tool as an adze-​axe could potentially support an Aegean transmission because double tools—including adze-​axes—originated in the Aegean, especially Minoan Crete (Miron 1992, 82–88). If this word was transmitted via the Aegean, the Philistines may have brought it to Palestine (cf. Bork 1939–1941, 229–30), but such an origin remains unproven.

198

Chapter 3

𝕲 σίκυος [Greek form]; 𝖁 cucumis ‘cucumber’; 𝕾 qṭwʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿Onq. ‫‘ בוצין‬gourd’, 𝕿Ps.-J. ‫[ קטי‬Aramaic form] [?] CW Sum ukuš PSD; Akk qiššû (OB, EA, SB, NA, NB) CAD Q 271–72; AHw 923; IA ‫קטי‬, JA ‫ קטו‬DNWSI 1005; DJPA 485; Syr qaṭṭū LS² 1349; Gk σίκυος, σίκυς, σικύα LSJ 1598 This word occurs only in Num 11:5 within a list of foods the Israelites ate in Egypt, including ‫‘ אֲבַ ִּטחִ ים‬watermelons’, ‫‘ חָ צָ יר‬leeks’, ‫‘ ּבְ צָ לִ ים‬onions’, and ‫ׁשּומים‬ ִ ‘garlic’. Related forms occur early in Sumerian and Old Babylonian Akkadian, and later forms occur in various dialects of Aramaic as well as in Greek. Based on the use of these terms in ancient texts, Hebrew ‫ קִ ּׁשֻ אָ ה‬probably refers to a variety of members of the melon family (Cucumis melo), including the chate melon, muskmelon, and sweet melon.555 Although this word appears very early in the ancient Near East, phonological differences preclude a direct loan relationship between the Sumerian and Akkadian forms (cf. Stol 1987, 81). The variation between š (Akkadian and Hebrew) and ṭ (Aramaic), moreover, cannot be explained as a natural development of Proto-​ Semitic. Finally, it is difficult to explain the various Greek forms as a direct borrowing from Semitic or as a native Indo-​European word (cf. EDG 1330; DELG 968). All this points to a very ancient culture word that originated from the place of the melon’s original domestication. Cucumis melo is widespread, being found in the subtropical and tropical parts of Asia and Africa as well as Central Asia and the Mediterranean basin (D. Zohary and Hopf 2000, 194; Andrews 1956, 368–69). Accordingly, it could have originated from any of these regions. The melons it refers to were cultivated quickly throughout the ancient Near East, as early mention of this fruit in Sumerian and Akkadian texts indicates. Archaeobotanical evidence and Egyptian tomb paintings indicate its availability in Egypt (Murray 2000, 634– 35), hence its association with Egypt in Num 11:5. Use of the term ‫‘ ִמקְ ׁשָ ה‬melon field’ in the Hebrew Bible reflects the eventual cultivation of the melon in Palestine (Isa 1:8; Jer 10:5). ‫( ָרז‬BH, BA) ‘secret, mystery’ HALOT 1980; DCH 7:457–58 (Isa 24:16 [2×]; Dan 2:18–19, 27–30, 47 [2×]; 4:6) 𝕲 μυστήριον ‘mystery’ except omits Isa 24:16 (but σ′, θ′ μυστήριον ‘mystery’ Isa 24:16); 𝖁 secretus Isa 24:16, sacramentum ‘mystery, secret’ Dan 2:18, 30, 47; 4:6, mysterium ‘mystery, secret’ Dan 2:19, 27–29, 47; 𝕾 rʾz or ʾrzʾ [Syriac forms]; 𝕿 ‫[ רז‬Aramaic form] Isa 24:16 [D] OIran → Heb; Aram 555.  Musselman 2012, 44–45; Paris and Janick 2008, 45–46; Löw 1924–1934, 1:530–35. There is no relationship between this term and the cucumber (C. sativus L.).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

199

QH ‫ ;רז‬IA, QA. JA, SA, CPA ‫ רז‬DNWSI 1065; DQA 221; DJPA 520; DJBA 1067– 68; DSA 826; DCPA 396; Syr rāzā LS² 1424; Mand raz, raza MD 420; OIran *rāza- AISN 203 The word ‫‘ ָרז‬secret, mystery’ occurs in both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic within apocalyptic contexts. The Biblical Hebrew form appears only in Isa 24:16, within the so-​called “Isaiah Apocalypse.”556 The Biblical Aramaic form is relatively more common, occurring nine times in the book of Daniel with reference to a mystery that only God can reveal (Dan 2:18–19, 27–30, 47 [2×]; 4:6). This term has a relatively limited distribution in the Semitic languages, being found only in Hebrew and Aramaic, and it has no clear Semitic etymology. Thus, it is probably a foreign loan. Indeed, scholars have long recognized that all the Aramaic forms can be traced back to Old Iranian *rāza- ‘secret, mystery’ (cf. Pahl rāz and ManParth r‌ʾz: CPD 71; DMMPP 294).557 The origins of Jewish apocalyptic literature are complex and uncertain, but Semitic-​speakers probably adopted Old Iranian *rāza- along with the concept of ‘secret, mystery’ from Iranian texts. Otherwise, there would be no reason to adopt this particular Old Iranian term and use it in place of the typical Hebrew vocabulary denoting the concepts of ‘secret’ or ‘mystery’ (e.g., ‫)סֹוד‬.558 The Iranian apocalyptic conception of ‘secret, mystery’ as denoted by ‫ ָרז‬took on an important role in post-​Exilic Jewish literature, especially for the Qumran community and New Testament. The term ‫ ָרז‬occurs in several other core texts from Qumran—including Pesher Habakkuk, the Community Rule, the War Scroll, and the Hodayot—with reference to special knowledge imparted by God that is connected with creation and has various cosmic, ethical, and eschatological dimensions. According to these texts, knowledge of the mystery enables one to behave righteously in the present and to endure the evil of the present age. This theology is a clear development of the concept of ‘secret, mystery’ expressed by the term ‫ָרז‬ in the book of Daniel. The New Testament also adapts Daniel’s concept of ‘secret,

556. Scholars debate whether the phrase ‫רזִי־לִ י ָרזִי־לִ י‬,ָ found in Isa 24:16, contains the word ‫‘ ָרז‬secret’. Some think ‫ ָרזִי‬is a nominal form from the root ‫‘ רזה‬to dwindle, disappear’ that means ‘my dwindling’ or the like (Wildberger 1991–2002, 2:493, 498–99; Oswalt 1986–1998, 1:439, 451–52; Watts 1985, 323–24). However, this finds no support in the ancient versions, which are nearly unanimous in rendering ‫ָרז‬ as ‘secret’. Within the context, Isa 24:16 contrasts everyone’s expectation of future blessing with the unique knowledge that judgment is coming. The context therefore suggests that ‫ ָרז‬means ‘secret’. The apocalyptic character of Isa 24–27 further supports the interpretation as ‘secret’, as do a number of potential parallels between Isa 24:16 and the book of Daniel, which frequently uses the term ‫רז‬.ָ Accordingly, many other scholars read ‫ ָרזִי‬as ‘my secret’ (Blenkinsopp 2000, 353–55; Sawyer 1993, 312–13; Niehaus 1981; Kaiser 1974, 189–90). 557.  FWOT 153; F. Rosenthal 2006, 63; AAT 2:60; cf. Telegdi 1935, 254–55. 558.  On the possible Iranian influences on Jewish apocalypticism, see J. J. Collins 1998, 29–33; Hultgård 1998. Although later and with uncertain direction of influence, there is clear evidence that the concept of ‘secret, mystery’ as expressed by Pahl rāz functioned eschatologically in Middle Persian texts (Shaked 1969, 206–13).

200

Chapter 3

mystery’ and applies it to God’s eschatological revelation, especially as revealed through Christ.559 ‫‘ ִרּמֹון‬pomegranate’ HALOT 1241–42; DCH 7:496 (Exod 28:33, 34 [2×]; passim560) [?] CW Sum nurma PSD; Akk lurmû, lurimā‌ʾu, lurimtu, lurindu, lurinnu, nurmû, nurumu (OA, OB, Nuzi, EA, SB, MA, MB, NA, NB), nurmânu (Qatna), nurimdu (EA) CAD L 255–56, N/2 344–47; AHw 564–65, 804–5; Ug lrmn DUL 499; QH ‫ ;רמון‬IA ‫רמן‬, JA ‫רמון‬‎, ‫רימון‬‎, ‫רומן‬‎, ‫רומאן‬, CPA ‫ רימון‬DNWSI 1078; DJPA 525; DJBA 1066; DCPA 403; Syr rummānā LS² 1451; Mand rumana MD 430; Arab rummān Lane 1161; Eth rōmān CDG 471; Eg ı̓nhmn, nhm (NK) GHwÄ 89, 443; WÄS 1:98, 2:286; SWET 24–25 (#12); Hitt nurati- CHD L–N 475; HHw 128; Hurr nurandi- BGH 277; GLH 188; Pahl anār CPD 9; NPers anār CPED 103; Arm nr̄ eni HAB 3:472–73 The term occurs numerous times in the Hebrew Bible. It commonly appears with reference to pomegranate fruit or pomegranate trees (Num 13:23; 20:5; Deut 8:8; 1 Sam 14:2; Joel 1:12; Hag 2:19; Song 4:3, 13; 6:7, 11; 7:13; 8:2) but can also denote pomegranate decorations such as the pomegranates adorning the fringes of the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:33–34; 39:24–26) or the pomegranate pattern inscribed on the capitals of two columns in the temple (1 Kgs 7:18, 20, 42; 2 Kgs 25:17; Jer 52:22–23; 2 Chr 3:16; 4:13).561 Numerous forms of this word exist in many different languages, including Sumerian, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Aramaic, New Kingdom Egyptian (cf. Copt Sherman, Berman: Crum 703), Hittite, Hurrian, Pahlavi, New Persian, and Armenian. Compared with these forms, the Hebrew and Aramaic forms of this word exhibit metathesis. This word’s varying spellings and wide distribution, and the absence of a plausible Semitic etymology, suggest a foreign origin. The pomegranate was first domesticated in the southern Caspian belt, so this culture word most probably originated in this same region.562 559.  Bornkamm 1967; Harrington 2000; R. E. Brown 1968; Bockmuehl 1990. 560.  Exod 39:24, 25 (2×), 26 (2×); Num 13:23; 20:5; Deut 8:8; 1 Sam 14:2; 1 Kgs 7:18, 20, 42 (2×); 2 Kgs 25:17; Jer 52:22 (2×), 23 (2×); Joel 1:12; Hag 2:19; Song 4:3, 13; 6:7, 11; 7:13 [7:12]; 8:2; 2 Chr 3:16; 4:13 (2×). 561. ‫ ִרּמֹון‬also occurs as a toponym (Josh 21:35; Num 33:19–20; Judg 20:45, 47; 21:13; Zech 14:10; 1 Chr 6:62) and a personal name (2 Sam 4:2, 5, 9). 562.  Kaelin 2004, 114; SWET 25; Laufer 1919, 284–85. On the botanical origins of the pomegranate, see D. Zohary and Hopf 2000, 170–71; D. Zohary and Spiegel-​Roy 1975, 324. Kaelin and Laufer suggest that this word comes from the Iranian languages. However, little concrete proof exists for this. Given the pomegranate’s origins, the donor language could be any ancient language spoken in the region south of the Caspian Sea.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

201

Iconic depictions of pomegranates—particularly pomegranate-​shaped jewelry, pomegranate bas reliefs, and pomegranate-​shaped pottery vessels—are very common. Numerous examples are attested from Mesopotamia (Uruk, Susa, Ashur), Egypt (Thebes, Karnak, Abydos), the Levant (Ugarit, Hama, Lachish, Megiddo, Tel Miqne–Ekron, Tell Qasile, Ashdod), Cyprus (Enkomi, Larnaca, Kourion, Kition) and the Aegean (Knossos, Phaistos, Mycenae, Athens) (C. Ward 2003, 533–34; Börker-​Klähn 1957–1971, 617–24; Muthmann 1982, 13–71). The Israelite use of this pomegranate motif on the fringes of the priests’ clothing and the capitals of two columns in the temple reflects the pomegranate’s frequent cultic connections and symbolism in antiquity (Mulder 2004, 13:507–8; cf. Dothan and Ben-​Shlomo 2007, 4–12). ‫‘ ַרּמָ כָה‬herd’ HALOT 1244; DCH 7:498 (Esth 8:10) 𝕲, 𝖁 omit; 𝕾 rmk‌ʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫[ רמך‬Aramaic form] [D] OIran → Heb; Aram IA, JA ‫ רמך‬DNWSI 1078; DJPA 526; DJBA 1088; Syr ramkā LS² 1474; Mand ramka MD 421; OIran *ramakaThe word ‫ ַרּמָ כָה‬occurs only in the expression ‫‘ ּבְ נֵי הָ ַרּמָ כִ ים‬members of the ‫’הָ ַרּמָ כִ ים‬ (Esth 8:10). This verse describes Ahasuerus sending letters via different types of horses, denoted by the terms ‫ סּוס‬and ‫רכֶׁש‬.ֶ It can be concluded, therefore, that ‫ַרּמָ כָה‬ relates to horses. This word appears elsewhere as an Aramaeogram (“ideogram”) in  Pahlavi (Middle Iranian) from Persia and also as a distinct lexeme in later dialects of Aramaic. Nevertheless, it does not seem to be Semitic, and Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 1244) rightly wonder whether it is a foreign word. An Old Iranian source is likely given the Iranian context of the book of Esther, as well as the word’s connection with Persia in Imperial Aramaic. The donor term is Old Iranian *ramaka- (cf. Pahl ramag and ManMPers, ManParth rmg: CPD 70; DMMPP 296).563 This Old Iranian word is formed from *ram‘herd’ (cf. Pahl ram and ManMPers, ManParth rm: CPD 70; DMMPP 296) with the suffix -ka.564 The expression ‫ ּבְ נֵי הָ ַרּמָ כִ ים‬therefore means ‘members of the herd’, referring to the fast-​running horses to be found among Ahasuerus’ stables (AAT 1:52; Shaked 1993, 78–79; contra G. R. Driver 1922, 69). ‫‘ ֶרסֶ ן‬bridle, rein’ HALOT 1249; DCH 7:505

563.  Arm evramak also comes from Iranian (HAB 2:37–38). 564.  On the suffix -ka, see Skjærvø 2007, 903; OPGTL 51 (§146).

202

Chapter 3

(Isa 30:28; Ps 32:9; Job 30:11565) 𝕲 does not directly represent this word Isa 30:28, κημός ‘muzzle’ Ps 32:9, χαλινός ‘bit, bridle’ Job 30:11; 𝖁 frenum ‘bridle’; 𝕾 pgwdt‌ʾ ‘bridle’; 𝕿 ‫זמם‬ ‘muzzle’ Isa 30:28; Job 30:11, ‫‘ פרומבי‬halter’ Ps 32:9 [D] IAV → Heb IAV *raśna- EWAia 2:440–41; KEWA 3:47566 The term occurs three times in the Hebrew Bible (Isa 30:28; Ps 32:9; Job 30:11). It does not occur elsewhere in Semitic aside from the rare Jewish Aramaic ‫רסן‬, which occurs in late 𝕿 texts and is adopted from Biblical Hebrew, and Arabic rasan, a first millennium c.e. loan from Persian (Jastrow 1903, 1484; Lane 1086; Asbaghi 1988, 136). However, many comparable forms occur in Indo-​Iranian (cf. Skt raśanā́ -, raśmí- ‘rein, bridle’ as well as Pahl rasan, NPers rasn, and Ossetic rætæn ‘rope’: EWAia 2:440–41; KEWA 3:47; CPD 71; CPED 576; Abaev 1958–1989, 2:382–83). There are at least two reasons why this term must have been loaned from Indo-​ Iranian to Hebrew and not vice versa. First, the Indo-​Iranian forms have a perfectly good Indo-​European etymology, namely the root *rei̯ g-, *rei̯ ǵ- ‘to bind’. Second, this word is one of the many Indo-​Iranian loanwords borrowed into Finno-​Ugric (cf. Finno-​Permian *reśmä) prior to the end of the fourth millennium b.c.e. This attests to its great antiquity in Indo-​Iranian.567 This word must have been introduced at a very early stage along with other hippological technology and terminology, probably via Indo-​Aryan influence during the second millennium b.c.e. The meaning of Hebrew ‫ ֶרסֶ ן‬matches the meaning of the Indic rather than Iranian forms, further supporting an Indic rather than Iranian origin (Podolsky 1998, 203–4; Rabin 1970, 472; Rosén 1991, 233–35). The Indo-​ Aryan donor term may be reconstructed as *raśna- based on the Indo-​Iranian and Finno-​Ugric forms. Given the early borrowing of this term as well as its lack of foreign association, it is possible that this word was transmitted to Hebrew via another language or represents an inherited loan. However, no related forms are attested in the other Semitic languages, and no evidence exists for an intermediary. The lack of foreign association could simply be due to a significant gap of time between the initial borrowing and the composition of the texts in which ‫ ֶרסֶ ן‬occurs. Thus, Hebrew ‫ֶרסֶ ן‬ should be considered a direct loan from Indo-​Aryan until clear evidence indicating otherwise is found. 565. Following 𝕲 (πτύξιν θώρακος αὐτοῦ), the phrase ‫‘ ּבְ ֶכ ֶפל ִר ְסנֹו‬its double bridle’ in Job 41:5 [41:13] should be emended to ‫‘ ּבְ ֶכפֶל ִס ְריֹ נֹו‬its double coat of mail’ (Gordis 1978, 486; Pope 1965, 335). 566. Akk rissittu (plural risnētu) occurs with reference to manufactured leather items in a few Neo-​Babylonian letters, but it does not specifically refer to bridles or reins and otherwise has a wide semantic range. It comes from the verb rasānu ‘to soak’, so its similarity to ‫ ֶרסֶ ן‬is only coincidental. 567.  Koivulehto 2001, 250; Rédei 1986–1991, 2:744; Joki 1973, 308; Collinder 1955, 136. Much later, during the first millennium c.e., the Iranian languages loaned this word to Armenian as evrasan (HAB 2:40–41).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

203

‫ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬‎, ‫( סַ ּבְ כָא‬a stringed musical instrument) HALOT 1984 (Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15) 𝕲, 𝖁 both use their corresponding forms of the word (σαμβὺκη and sambuca, respectively); 𝕾 omits [D] Gk → Aram; Lat Gk σαμβύκη, *σαμβύκα, ζαμβύκη LSJ 1582; Lat sambuca OLD 1858 This word occurs four times in Biblical Aramaic, each time within the description of Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra (Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15). Most often it is spelled ‫( ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬Dan 3:7, 10, 15), but it appears once as ‫( סַ ּבְ כָא‬Dan 3:5). Lexicographers sometimes derive ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬from the root ‫‘ ‏*ׂשבך‬to interweave’ and compare it with Biblical Hebrew ‫‘ ְׂשבָ כָה‬net, latticework’ (cf. HALOT 1984; BDB 1113). However, this derivation remains dubious because no musical instrument can be strung in a lattice-​like fashion (Mitchell and Joyce 1965, 24; Masson 1967, 92). The variant spellings found in Biblical Aramaic, moreover, point to a foreign term. Biblical Aramaic ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬is instead connected with Greek σαμβύκη, a triangular instrument with short strings producing a high range of pitch (Athenaeus, Deipn. 14.63 3–34; Porphyrius, in Harm. 34–35).568 Classical sources contend that the instrument denoted by ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬comes from northern Syria and Asia Minor (Athenaeus, Deipn. 14.633–34; Strabo, Geogr. 10.3.17), so some scholars wonder if both ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬and σαμβύκη are loans from a third, separate source (cf. Mitchell and Joyce 1965, 24–25; Rowley 1929, 146). However, the association of ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬with the undisputed Greek loans ‫קִ יתָ רֹוס‬, ‫ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬, and ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ suggest that ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬also comes from Greek. Furthermore, a Greek herald denoted by the Greek loanword ‫ ּכָרֹוז‬supervises the playing of the ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬along with the above-​mentioned Greek instruments. Given these Greek connections, it is nearly certain that Biblical Aramaic ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬is a loan from Greek.569 Notably, it is unlikely that the final ‌ʾalep with a-class vowel marks the determined state. This is because all the other Greek loans in the list of Nebuchadnezzar’s instruments lack final ʾalep ‫(‏‬cf. ‫קִ יתָ רֹוס‬, ‫ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬, and ‫)סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬, ְ whereas the non-​Greek instrument terms have it (cf. ‫ קַ ְרנָא‬and ‫)מַ ְשׁרֹוקִ יתָ א‬. If the final ‌ʾalep does not mark the determined state and instead marks a final vowel, the vowel it marks is unusual in that, if borrowed from σαμβύκη with final -η, then we would expect an i-class vowel.570 The solution is to take ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬as representing a non-​Attic form *σαμβύκα because original final -ᾱ marking the feminine nominative singular 568.  Mitchell 1992, 138; Maas and Snyder 1989, 184; Landels 1966. This instrument is said to be shaped like the siege engine boat of the same name (Polybius, Hist. 8.4.11). 569.  AAT 2:58. Greek subsequently loaned this word to Latin as sambuca (DELL 592; LEW 2:473). 570. In later Aramaic, the Greek nominative ending -η is represented as an i-c lass vowel; e.g., διαθήκη > JA, CPA ‫דיתיקי‬ /dīatīqi/ ‘testament, will’ and σχολή > Syr ‌ʾskwl‌ʾ /‌ʾɛskole/ ‘school’ (S. Krauss 1898–1899, 1:67 [§88]; Butts 2013, 199).

204

Chapter 3

became -η in Attic-​Ionic but was preserved in other Greek dialects.571 Thus, like the instruments ‫ קִ יתָ רֹוס‬and ‫ ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬of Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra, ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬exhibits non-​Attic features. This, in turn, implies that ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬was borrowed from Greek prior to the Hellenistic era because non-​Attic dialects gradually fell out of use as Attic and Koine Greek spread (Noonan forthcoming). ‫( ׂשַ ּכִ ין‬a type of knife) HALOT 1327; DCH 8:149 (Prov 23:2) 𝕲 translates ‫ וְ ׂשַ ְמּתָ ׂשַ ּכִ ין ּבְ ֹלעֶָך‬as καὶ ἐπίβαλλε τὴν χεῖρά σου ‘and put on your hand’; 𝖁 culter ‘knife’; 𝕾 skyn‌ʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫[ סכין‬Aramaic form] [?] CW IA, JA, CPA ‫ סכין‬DNWSI 785; DJPA 377; DJBA 809–10; DCPA 287; Syr sakkīnā LS² 1009; Mand sikin MD 326a; Arab sikkīn Lane 1388, 3018; Lat sacena, scena OLD 1845 This word appears only in Prov 23:2 within the expression ‫וְ ׂשַ ְמּתָ ׂשַ ּכִ ין ּבְ ֹלעֶָך ִאם־ּבַ עַל‬ ‫‘ ֶנפֶׁש אָ ּתָ ה‬put a ‫ ׂשַ ּכִ ין‬to your throat if you have a big appetite’. The definition ‘knife’ makes sense within the context, and the existence of similar forms meaning ‘knife’ in Aramaic confirms this reading. As such, Hebrew ‫ ׂשַ ּכִ ין‬is a rare term roughly equivalent to ‫ מַ ֲא ֶכלֶת‬and ‫ּתַ עַר‬, the more common Hebrew terms for a small blade. Hebrew ‫ ׂשַ ּכִ ין‬is often thought to be native to Aramaic because it occurs more commonly in Aramaic (e.g., M. Wagner 1966, 109 [#296]; Bauer and Leander 1922, 479 [§61pγ]). However, the Aramaic forms have no convincing Semitic etymology. Furthermore, the final ending offers no proof of a native Aramaic word because the noun is singular, not plural.572 The ending instead resembles the suffix -innu, used in terminology from languages spoken in ancient Anatolia (Dercksen 2007, 39–42). There is good evidence, moreover, that this word existed in ancient Anatolia, even if it is not attested in any extant texts. Latin sacena, scena ‘knife’ appears in Livius Andronicus’ fragmentary play Ludius ‘The Lydian’, preserved for us by the Roman grammarian Festus (Verb. sign. 318.32–34). It has no apparent Latin etymology and was unclear enough to require a gloss by Festus. Accordingly, it is probably not

571.  C. D. Buck 1955, 21, 84 (§§8, 104); Thumb, Kieckers and Scherer 1932–1959, 2:196–97 (§285); Lejeune 1972, 234–35 (§249). The exception is in Attic, which preserves -ᾱ after ε, ι, and ρ; Ionic uses -η regardless. 572. Koller 2012, 206–10. BH ‫ סכן‬in Qoh 10:9 means ‘to encounter danger’, not ‘to cut’ (HALOT 755; contra Kottsieper 1986, 219–22). Furthermore, the Semitic root skk (cf. Aram ‫ סכך‬and Arab šakka) means ‘to stick in, pierce’ rather than ‘to cut’. This root is the basis for Semitic nouns such as Akk sikkatu ‘peg, nail’ as well as BH ‫ ׂשֵ ְך‬and Eth śok (both meaning ‘thorn’). It is therefore an unlikely candidate for a word meaning ‘knife’, although one could perhaps compare Arab šikkat ‘sharp weapon’. Nevertheless, even if BH ‫ ׂשַ ּכִ ין‬were based on an alleged root ‫ *ׂשכך‬meaning ‘to pierce’, this would not explain the ending.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

205

native to Latin.573 Its association with Lydia, indicated by the title of the play in which it occurs, likewise demonstrates that it is an Anatolian term.574 This foreign Anatolian source is probably also the source of the Aramaic forms. Given its Aramaic-​like morphology as well as the frequency of Aramaisms in Proverbs, Hebrew-​speakers could have adopted ‫ ׂשַ ּכִ ין‬from Anatolia via Aramaic (Rabin 1962, 1078; Szemerényi 1989, 172; Rosén 1994). However, this is far from proven; and without good evidence for transmission via Aramaic, Hebrew ‫ ׂשַ ּכִ ין‬must be categorized as a direct loan. Arabic sikkīn, on the other hand, is most probably a loan from Aramaic (Fränkel 1886, 84). ‫( ְׂשכִ ית‬a ship) HALOT 1327; DCH 8:149, 352 (Isa 2:16) 𝕲 θεά πλοίων ‘view of ships’, 𝖁 visus ‘sight’, 𝕾 dwqʾ ‘observation, spectacle’, 𝕿 ‫‘ בירה‬fortress’ all seem to mistakenly connect this word with ‫‘‏*ׂשכה‬to see’ (cf. Rabbinic Hebrew ‫סכה‬‎, ‫)ׂשכה‬ [D] Eg → Ug; Heb Ug ṯkt DUL 891–92; Eg skty (since OK) ÄW 1:1250–51, 2:2371; GHwÄ 839; WÄS 4:315; DLE 2:88 The term occurs only in Isa 2:16, where it occurs in the plural form ‫ ְׂשכִ ּיֹות‬and is poetically parallel to ‫‘ אֳנִ ּיָה‬ship’. The surrounding verses use synonymous parallelism (Isa 2:13–15, 17), indicating that ‫ אֳנִ ּיָה‬and ‫ ְׂשכִ ית‬are synonyms. Accordingly, ‫ ְׂשכִ ית‬most probably means ‘ship’ or the like. There are no forms related to Hebrew ‫ ְׂשכִ ית‬aside from Ugaritic ṯkt.575 Neither Hebrew ‫ ְׂשכִ ית‬nor Ugaritic ṯkt has a good Semitic etymology, which points to a foreign origin. The donor term is Egyptian skty ‘ship’, which provides a good match phonologically and semantically even if Hebrew samek is the more common reflex of Egyptian s.576 Both the Ugaritic and the Hebrew forms represent independent 573.  Lat sacena, scena is often derived from Proto-​Indo-​European *(s)ker- ‘to cut’ (e.g., DELL 585, 607–8; LEW 2:459), but this leaves the vocalization unexplained (Szemerényi 1989, 172; cf. Vaan 2008, 551). 574.  Szemerényi 1989, 172. Scholars frequently also compare Gk συκίνη, attested only in entry σ2232 of Hesychius of Alexandria’s Lexicon (e.g., Rabin 1962, 1078; Kutscher 1967, 112; H. Lewy 1895, 176). However, Hesychius’ text actually reads συκίνη  μάχαιρα· συκοφάντρια, demonstrating that συκοφάντρια ‘swindling, unreliable’ is a gloss for συκίνη μάχαιρα ‘worthless sword’. Gk συκίνος means ‘of the fig tree’ but can also mean ‘worthless’; in Hesychius it refers to a sword made of fig-​tree wood, i.e., a worthless sword (cf. Lat ficulnus gladius). See Rosén 1994, 170. 575.  Although Ug ṯkt denotes a boat in administrative texts (KTU 4.81:4–5, 8–9; 4.366:1–14), the sole appearance of ṯkt in the Baal Cycle (KTU 1.4 v:7) seems to be an error for ṯrt (Smith and Pitard 2009, 532, 558–60). 576.  EPNL 255–56; Lambdin 1953b, 154–55; FWOT 154; Rabin 1962, 1077; Budde 1931, 197–98; Albright 1950a, 5. Egyptian texts also preserve a form skt.t, primarily written as mskt.t (ÄW 1:565, 2:1138–39; GHwÄ 386; WÄS 2:150; DLE 1:206).

206

Chapter 3

loans, rather than a common borrowing, in light of their different rendings of the Egyptian sibilant s. The form of this word as preserved by the Masoretes (‫)ׂשכִ ּיֹות‬ ְ does not represent the final -y of Egyptian skty, although how Hebrew-​speakers treated the final Egyptian semivowel is unclear because the MT seems to be corrupt. Based on the Egyptian donor term, the singular Hebrew form should probably be reconstructed as ‫ ְׂשכִ ית‬or ‫ׂשֶ כֶת‬.577 ‫( ְׁשבֹו‬a precious stone) HALOT 1383; DCH 8:225 (Exod 28:19; 39:12) 𝕲 ἀχάτης, 𝖁 achates, 𝕾 qrkdn‌ʾ ‘agate’; 𝕿Onq., Ps.-J. ‫‘ טרקי‬turquoise’ [T] Sum → Akk → NWS (Heb) → Eg Sum šuba PSD; Akk šubû (SB, NA, NB) CAD Š/III 185–87; AHw 1258; Eg šby (NK) GHwÄ 879; SWET 275–76 (#395)578 This word occurs only twice in the Hebrew Bible, within the description of the high priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:19; 39:12). Its atypical morphology, particularly the final ḥolem-​waw, points to a non-​Semitic loanword. The source is Sumerian šuba, in turn the origin of Akkadian šubû. Via Akkadian, this word entered Hebrew, and Biblical Hebrew ‫ ְׁשבֹו‬is therefore a transmitted loan.579 Egyptian šby, attested during the New Kingdom (P Ch Beatty IV vs. 7,12) and written with group writing, probably comes from Northwest Semitic. Ancient texts provide little help in identifying this stone because their references to it could fit any number of precious stones.580 Akkadian texts note that this gemstone was used for medicinal and ritual purposes as well as for making jewelry, cylinder seals, and signet rings, and its occurrences in Egyptian texts describe its usage for seals (CAD Š/III 185–87; J. R. Harris 1961, 183). ‫ׁשֹ פָר ⇒ ׁשֹופָר‬ ‫ׁשּוׁשַ ן‬‎, ‫‘ ׁשֹוׁשַ ן‬water lily, Egyptian lotus’ HALOT 1454–55; DCH 8:314–15 (1 Kgs 7:19, 22, 26; passim581) [D] Eg → WSem (Heb; Aram; Arab) → Gk 577. Lambdin 1953b, 154–55; Albright 1950a, 5; G. R. Driver 1950, 52–53. The MT may preserve the correct consonantal spelling, but with an incorrect vocalization influenced by the parallel term ‫( אֳנִ ּיֹות‬EPNL 255). 578. SA ‫ שבו‬occurs in biblical contexts and is adopted from Biblical Hebrew (DSA 862). 579.  ALBH 136–37; FWOT 155. On the Sumerian origin of Akk šubû, see SLOB 465–66 (#607). 580.  Traditionally this gemstone has been identified with agate (Harrell, Hoffmeier and Williams 2017, 23–24). This is possible, but the destriptions of this gemstone in ancient texts are broad enough to permit several different identifications. 581.  Ps 45:1; 60:1; 69:1; 80:1; Song 2:16; 4:5; 5:13; 6:2–3; 7:3 [7:2].

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

207

QH ‫ ;שושנה‬JA, SA ‫שושן‬, JA, CPA ‫ שושנה‬DJPA 543; DSA 884; DCPA 423; Syr šawšantā LS² 1539; Arab sausan Lane 1466; Eg sššn (OK), sšn, ššn (since MK) ÄW 1:1239, 2:2357; GHwÄ 831, 834; WÄS 3:485–86; DLE 2:81; Gk σοῦσον LSJ 1621 Hebrew ‫ׁשּוׁשַ ן‬, also spelled as ‫ׁשֹוׁשַ ן‬, occurs a number of times in the Bible with several different referents. It can refer to a flower (Song 2:16; 4:5; 5:13; 6:2–3; 7:3) or a flower-​shaped design found on architectural components or other objects in the temple (1 Kgs 7:19, 22, 26). Lastly, it occurs several times in the superscripts of the book of Psalms, where its exact function is uncertain (Ps 45:1; 60:1; 69:1; 80:1). A derived feminine form, ‫ׁשֹוׁשַ ּנָה‬, occurs several times in the Hebrew Bible as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls (Hos 14:6 [14:5]; 2 Chr 4:5; Song 2:1–2; 1QH xviii:31). A convincing Semitic etymology for ‫ ׁשּוׁשַ ן‬remains elusive, and the donor term is undoubtedly Egyptian sššn, sšn, ššn ‘water lily’ (cf. Dem sšn and Copt šōšen: CDD S 452; DG 464; Crum 608).582 During the Old Kingdom this word had the form sššn, but during the Middle Kingdom the two middle consonants of the Egyptian form merged, producing the form sšn. Subsequently, both an assimilated form (ššn) and a non-​a ssimilated form (sšn) continued to be used. Semitic-​speakers could have borrowed the assimilated form ššn or could have borrowed the form sšn and assimilated the sibilants (Kitchen 1987). The various spellings of this word indicate that it is a direct rather than an inherited loanword into Biblical Hebrew. One of the West Semitic languages loaned this word to Greek, through which we know it today as the personal name Susan.583 Despite its name, there is no relationship between the water lily, also known as the Egyptian lotus, to either true lilies (family Lilaceae) or true lotuses (genus Nelumbo). Rather, Egyptian water lilies are part of the genus Nymphaea. Blue and white water lilies (N. caerulea and N. lotus, respectively) were both native to the Nile River in antiquity (Slocum 2005, 85, 99). The Egyptian lotus was known for its narcotic properties (Harer 1985) and was associated with wine in ancient Egypt, particularly during the New Kingdom and later dynasties, hence the frequent depiction of lotuses on ancient Egyptian drinking vessels. Egyptian lotuses were also commonly portrayed on tombs and coffins due to the plant’s association with rebirth in the afterlife (Harer 2001; Brunner-​Traut 1980). Water lilies, moreover, were incorporated into architecture, palmette designs, and objects such as lamps like the one found in Tutankhamun’s tomb (Hepper 2009, 11–12). It is

582. EPNL 256; Lambdin 1953b, 154; FWOT 159; Rabin 1962, 1077. Löw (1924–1934, 2:165–66) instead suggests that ‫ ׁשּוׁשַ ן‬is a reduplicated form of ‫‘ ׁשֵ ׁש‬six’ because the lily appears to have six petals. However, this derivation does not adequately explain the phonological and morphological pattern of ‫ׁשּוׁשַ ן‬. 583.  Gardiner 1936, 189–90. On the probable Semitic origin of Gk σοῦσον, see EDG 1373; DELG 995; Rosół 2013, 135; Masson 1967, 58–59. Greek writings do not associate σοῦσον with Egypt, but both Dioscorides (Mat. med. 3.102) and the late lexicographer Zonaras (Lex. σ1662) explicitly state that this word comes from Syro-​Palestine.

208

Chapter 3

not surprising, therefore, that Egyptian lotus imagery was adopted by the ancient Israelites for ornamentation of the temple (1 Kgs 7:19, 22, 26; 2 Chr 4:5) (Hepper 1992, 182). ‫( ְׁשחֵ לֶת‬a fragrant plant, probably cress) HALOT 1462; DCH 8:323 (Exod 30:34) 𝕲 ὄνυξ, 𝖁 onyx ‘onycha’; 𝕾 ṭprʾ, 𝕿Onq. ‫‘ טופר‬nail’ [?] CW Sum zaḪili PSD; Akk saḫlû (OB, MB, NB), šeḫlātu (Mari) CAD S 62–65, Š/2 264; AHw 1009–10, 1209; Ug šḥlt DUL 800–801; OAram ‫שחלין‬, JA ‫תחלין‬‎, ‫תחלי‬ DNWSI 1121; DJPA 579; DJBA 1202; Syr taḥlā LS² 1638; Arab salīḫat Lane 1404; Hitt zaḫḫeli- HHw 229584 This word is a hapax, in a list of the components of the tabernacle’s incense (Exod 30:34) (Nielsen 1986, 65–66). Related forms appear in a number of different languages, both Semitic and non-​Semitic. These terms all refer to a fragrant plant, perhaps cress (cf. Löw 1924–1934, 1:506–10; Stol 1983–1984, 24–29). The West Semitic forms cannot be a loan from Akkadian due to the lack of correspondence between Akkadian s and West Semitic ṯ. Also atypical is the correspondence of Akkadian ḫ with Ugaritic ḥ rather than ḫ.585 The unusual consonantal correspondences, the different treatments of gender, and the word’s widespread distribution characterize it as an ancient culture word (cf. AIA 154). It most probably comes from the place this plant originated. ‫‘ ִׁשּטָ ה‬acacia wood’ HALOT 1473–74; DCH 8:332 (Exod 25:5, 10, 13, 23, 38; passim586) 𝕲 ξύλον ἄσηπτον ‘incorruptible wood’ except πύξον ‘box-​tree’ Isa 41:19; 𝖁 transliterates as setim except spina (perhaps ‘sloe-​tree’) Isa 41:19; 𝕾 ‌ʾškrʿ‌ʾ ‘box-​tree’; 𝕿 ‫[ שטה‬Aramaic form] [D] Eg → Akk; Heb Akk šamṭu, samṭu (NA) CAD Š/1 339; AHw 1159; QH ‫ ;שטה‬Eg šnḏ.t (OK), šnd.t (since MK), šnty (NK) ÄW 1:1314, 2:2477–78; GHwÄ 898–99; WÄS 4:520–21; DLE 2:131 This word occurs almost exclusively in the book of Exodus, where it appears 26 times with reference to a type of wood used for the construction of the tabernacle 584.  Comparison with Arab suḥālat ‘grain husks, filings’ is questionable on semantic grounds (contra HALOT 1462). 585.  AIA 154; Falk 1966, 205. Akk šeḫlātu, attested at Mari, probably reflects the West Semitic form of this word, as indicated by the initial š and the feminine ending. 586.  Exod 26:15, 26, 32, 37; 27:1, 6; 30:1, 5; 35:7, 24; 36:20, 31, 36; 37:1, 4, 10, 15, 25, 28; 38:1, 6; Deut 10:3; Isa 41:19.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

209

and ark of the covenant (cf. 11QTa viii:5). The only occurrences outside the book of Exodus are in Deut 10:3, where Moses recalls the construction of the ark of the covenant, and Isa 41:19, where this term appears amidst other trees with reference to a plant found in the desert (‫)ע ֲָרבָ ה‬. In Akkadian, this word appears as šamṭu, samṭu. A plant list from Ashurbanipal’s library specifically connects this plant with Meluḫḫa in Africa (CT 14 pl. 21 v/vi:22).587 This observation, together with the Hebrew Bible’s nearly exclusive association of ‫ ִׁשּטָ ה‬with the construction of the tabernacle, points to an Egyptian origin. The donor term is Egyptian šnḏ.t, šnd.t, šnty ‘acacia wood’ (cf. Dem šnt, šnty.t, ḫnty.t and Copt šonte: CDD Š 184–87; DG 516; Crum 573).588 Ancient Egyptian texts associate this tree with a wide variety of applications, including roof beams (cf. Exod 26:15, 26; 36:20, 31), shipbuilding, furniture construction, and the making of coffins, bows, dowels, and various other objects. Hebrew-​speakers probably borrowed this word sometime after the Middle Kingdom, when it had become šnd.t, because Hebrew ṭeṭ typically reflects Egyptian d (EPNL 256; Lambdin 1953b, 154). O n th e basis of two assumptions, Zevit (1992, 138*–42*; cf . Feliks 1987, 1:533–34) argues that Hebrew ‫ ִׁשּטָ ה‬must denote the specific species Acacia albida. First, he contends that ‫ עֹ ְמ ִדים‬in Exod 26:15 (‫)וע ִָׂשיתָ אֶ ת־הַ ּקְ ָר ִׁשים ל ִַּמ ְׁשּכָן עֲצֵ י ִׁש ִּטים עֹ ְמ ִדים‬ modifies ‫ ִׁש ִּטים‬rather than ‫הַ ּקְ ָר ִׁשים‬. Second, he argues that the 10-cubit-​high frames mentioned in this same passage require a tall species of acacia, namely A. albida. He then goes on to note that A. albida is not native to the Sinai Peninsula, where the wilderness wanderings putatively took place, and claims that no historicity can be ascribed to the construction of the tabernacle. However, one cannot assume that this term exclusively denotes this species. It is likely that it refers to several different types of acacia, not just one particular species, especially since numerous species existed in Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula (e.g., A. raddiana, A. tortilis, A. nilotica, and A. albida) (Vartavan 1997, 24–32). There is therefore no need to conclude, as Zevit does, that the use of the term ‫ ִׁשּטָ ה‬in Exodus is the product of a late, uninformed writer (Hoffmeier 2005, 209–11). ‫ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬‎, ‫‘ ׁשֵ ׁש‬Egyptian alabaster, travertine’ HALOT 1663; DCH 8:572 (Song 5:15; Esth 1:6 [2×]; 1 Chr 29:2) 𝕲 μαρμάρινος ‘of marble’ Song 5:15, πάρινος ‘of marble’ and πάρινος λίθος ‘marble stone’ Esth 1:6, πάριος ‘Parian marble’ 1 Chr 29:2; 𝖁 marmoreus ‘of marble’ Song 5:15, marmor ‘marble’ Esth 1:6, marmor Parium ‘Parian marble’ 1 Chr 29:2; 𝕾 šyšʾ [Syriac form] except mrgnytʾ ‘pearl’ 1 Chr 29:2; 𝕿 ‫‘ מרמר‬marble’ except does not directly represent this word Song 5:15 [D] Eg → Heb; Aram 587.  Thompson 1949, 180–84. Although Meluḫḫa was perhaps located east of Mesopotamia during Sumerian times (Heimpel 1993–1997), first millennium references to this region from the time of Esarhaddon clearly associate Meluḫḫa with Africa (RINAP 4.16:4; 4.34:7ʹ, 15ʹ; 4.48:29; 4.84:5; 4.85:6; 4.86:3). 588.  EPNL 256; Lambdin 1953b, 154; FWOT 160; Rabin 1962, 1077.

210

Chapter 3

IA, QA, Palm, JA ‫שש‬, ‫ שיש‬DNWSI 1196; DQA 244; DJPA 547; DJBA 1141; Syr šīšā LS² 1554; Mand šiša MD 464; Eg šs (since OK) ÄW 1:1315–16, 2:2480; GHwÄ 901; WÄS 4:541; DLE 2:134 This word occurs four times, thrice in the form ‫( ׁשֵ ׁש‬Song 5:15; Esth 1:6 [2×]) and once in the non-​monophthongized form ‫ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬‎(1 Chr 29:2). The contexts in which it occurs demonstrate that it refers to a stone or mineral. Hebrew ‫ ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬has no apparent Semitic etymology and no related forms aside from those in Aramaic. Accordingly, a foreign origin is likely. The donor term is Egyptian šs ‘Egyptian alabaster, travertine’, which appears in Egyptian texts as early as the Old Kingdom.589 Egypt’s sources of this mineral include Hatnub (located about 18 km southeast of Amarna) and Wadi Gerrawi (near Helwan). The Egyptians used it for pavements and wall-​linings in temple passages and rooms (cf. Esth 1:6; 1 Chr 29:2) as well as statuettes (cf. Song 5:15), well suiting its use in the Hebrew Bible.590 Two phonological and morphological points are of note. First, a feminine form, šs.t (ÄW 1:1316; GHwÄ 901; WÄS 4:540–41), also appears in Egyptian texts during the Old and New Kingdoms, but Hebrew-​speakers most probably borrowed the masculine form because there is no trace of the Egyptian feminine ending in ‫ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬. Second, because both of the consonants in Hebrew ‫ ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬are šin, sibilant assimilation probably occurred subsequent to borrowing, just as also happened with Hebrew ‫‘ ׁשֵ ׁש‬Egyptian linen’. ‫אַ ְׁשלַג ⇒ ׁשֶ לֶג‬ ‫‘ ׁשָ ִמיר‬emery, corundum’ HALOT 1562–63; DCH 8:443 (Jer 17:1; Ezek 3:9; Zech 7:12) 𝕲 omits; 𝖁 adamas ‘adamant’; 𝕾 šmyr‌ʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫[ שמיר‬Aramaic form] [?] CW Eg ı̓smr (NK), smr (Ptolm) GHwÄ 116; WÄS 1:132, 4:139; Gk σμύρις, σμίρις LSJ 1620591 This word occurs only three times in the Bible. Each time it appears, the context indicates that it refers to a mineral substance and that it is very hard. A clue to its referent is provided by Egyptian ı̓smr and Greek σμύρις, σμίρις, both of which resemble Hebrew ‫ ׁשָ ִמיר‬phonologically. Egyptian texts use ı̓smr with reference to 589.  EPNL 256–57; Lambdin 1953b, 155; Rabin 1962, 1077. 590. Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 59–60. Harrell, Hoffmeier, and Williams (2017, 39–40) suggest travertine as a possible rendering of this term but prefer limestone local to Jerusalem because there is no evidence for the use of travertine in Israel. However, this lack of evidence is probably due to the incomplete archaeological record, especially since travertine suits the term ‫ ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬well otherwise. 591. JA ‫ שמיר‬and Syr šāmīrā are adopted from BH ‫( ׁשָ ִמיר‬DJPA 557; DJBA 1158; LS² 1573). Lat smyris is a loan from Greek (DELL 630; LEW 2:549).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

211

corundum, and Classical authors such as Dioscorides (Mat. med. 5.147) note the stone σμύρις was used for polishing gems. This indicates that Hebrew ‫ ׁשָ ִמיר‬refers to a form of corundum such as emery.592 Both the Egyptian and the Greek terms differ slightly from Hebrew ‫ׁשָ ִמיר‬, so it is unlikely that either of the former comes from the latter. Egyptian ı̓smr contains an initial ı̓ prior to the Ptolemaic period, which cannot easily be reconciled with the Hebrew form that lacks an initial vowel. Greek σμύρις, σμίρις is of uncertain origin, lacks a vowel between its first two consonants, and has a base stem with -δ that elsewhere occurs in words that have entered Greek via Anatolia (cf. ἴασπις ‘jasper’ with base stem ἴασπιδ-, παλλακίς ‘concubine’ with base stem παλλακίδ-, and χλαμύς ‘mantle’ with base stem χλαμύδ-). A connection with Anatolia is further supported by the geographical associations of corundum. Egyptian texts note that ı̓smr is imported from Syria, and the Mari texts associate Akkadian šammu ‘corundum’ with northern Syria (J. R. Harris 1961, 163–65; Heimpel, Gorelick and Gwinnett 1988, 198–201). Furthermore, both Turkey and Syria contain deposits of corundum and were likely sources of this mineral in antiquity (Moorey 1999, 82; Heimpel, Gorelick and Gwinnett 1988, 204). Accordingly, this ancient culture word most probably originated somewhere in the north where corundum was obtained.593 ‫‘ ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬ivory’ HALOT 1602; DCH 8:504 (1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21) 𝕲 translates ‫ ׁשֶ נְ הַ בִ ּים וְ קֹ פִ ים וְ תֻ כִ ּיִ ּים‬as λίθος τορευτὸς καὶ πελεκητός ‘worked and hewn stone’ 1 Kgs 10:22, ὀδοὺς ἐλεφαντίνων ‘tooth of elephants’ 2 Chr 9:21; 𝖁 dens elefantorum ‘tooth of elephants’ 1 Kgs 10:22, ebur ‘ivory’ 2 Chr 9:21; 𝕾 pylʾ ‘elephant’; 𝕿 ‫‘ שן דפיל‬teeth of elephants’ [D] Eg → Heb Eg Ꜣbw (OK, MK, NK) ÄW 1:5, 2:12; GHwÄ 6; WÄS 1:7; DLE 1:5 The term occurs only twice in the Hebrew Bible (1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21). Both passages mention this word alongside two Egyptian loans, ‫( קֹ ף‬an African monkey) and ‫( ּתֻ ּכִ י‬a female African ape), as products that were imported from the Horn of Africa by Solomon.

592. Harrell, Hoffmeier and Williams 2017, 37–38. ‫ ׁשָ ִמיר‬cannot denote the diamond because the diamond’s earliest attested use in ancient Mesopotamia is in the Roman period (Moorey 1999, 82). 593. Rabin 1962, 1078; 1964, 153. Thompson (1936, 52) instead considers ‫ ׁשָ ִמיר‬cognate with an alleged Akkadian term *ašmuru. Based on the variety of contexts in which the sign group as.Ḫar occurs, he argues that *ašmuru, another possible reading of the signs, is a different term from asḫar. However, aside from the desire to find cognates for *ašmuru in BH ‫ ׁשָ ִמיר‬and Eg ı̓smr, Thompson gives no reasonable justification for reading the sign group as.Ḫar as both asḫar and *ašmuru. The CAD (A/2 330) and von Soden (AHw 73) rightly read only one term, asḫar.

212

Chapter 3

Hebrew ‫ ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬can be analyzed as a hybrid loan containing Hebrew ‫‘ ׁשֵ ן‬tooth’ and a foreign lexeme meaning ‘elephant’.594 Its geographical association with the Horn of Africa strongly suggests that the second element meaning ‘elephant’ comes from the same region, as does the observation that ivory was imported from the Horn of Africa in antiquity.595 The obvious donor term is Egyptian Ꜣbw ‘elephant’, which is attested as early as the Old Kingdom.596 Hebrew he and Egyptian Ꜣ are hardly compatible phonologically, and the usage of he in ‫ ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬most likely reflects the compound nature of this word (cf. EPNL 257). Ivory was used primarily as a medium for sculpture in the ancient Near East, the two most important traditions of ivory-​working being carvings of the human figure and plaques. A local tradition of ivory-​carving developed in Late Bronze Age Palestine, most notably at Megiddo, where plaques depicting Egyptian deities, feasts, and military scenes have been found. The ninth and eighth centuries b.c.e. saw a resurgence in ivory-​working, and ivories have been discovered at a number of different locations, including Nimrud and Khorsabad in Assyria, Zinçirli, Carchemish, and Arslan Tash in Syria, and Samaria in Palestine.597 ‫ׁשפָר‬‎, ‫( ׁשֹופָר‬an instrument made from an animal horn) HALOT 1447–48; DCH 8:309 (Exod 19:16, 19; passim598) [?] CW Sum šeĝbar PSD; Akk sappāru, sabbāru, šappāru (OB, MA, SB) CAD S 166; AHw 1027; QH ‫שופר‬‎599 Hebrew ‫ׁשֹ פָר‬, more commonly spelled with ḥolem-​waw as ‫ׁשֹופָר‬, refers to a animal’s horn blown in celebration (e.g., Lev 25:9; 2 Sam 6:15) or in battle (e.g., Josh 594.  This is analogous to the Akkadian expression for ivory, šinnu pīri, a compound of the Akkadian words for ‘tooth’ (šinnu) and ‘elephant’ (pīru). 595.  Caubet 2002, 232–333; Krzyszkowska and Morkot 2000, 320–27. There were two main species of elephants in antiquity, Asian (Elephas maximus) and African (Loxodonta africana). The Asian elephant became largely extinct in Western Asia in the later part of the first millennium b.c.e., and by the middle of the third millennium b.c.e., the African elephant no longer inhabited Egypt, although it continued to be found in other parts of Africa. The so-​called “Syrian elephant” is best explained as a relict population of the Asian elephant because it is depicted just like it in ancient Near Eastern representations. See Gilbert 2002, 26, 55; Moorey 1999, 116–17. 596. FWOT 162. ‫ ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬cannot be derived from Skt ibha- ‘elephant’. This Sanskrit word is not attested until the post-Vedic period, when it appears as a secondary interpretation of earlier Skt íbha‘servants, entourage’ (EWAia 1:194, 3:28; KEWA 1:90, 3:644). 597.  Liebowitz 1992; Herrmann and Millard 2003; Caubet 2002, 233–34. 598.  Exod 20:18; Lev 25:9 (2×); Josh 6:4 (2×), 5–6, 8 (2×), 9 (2×), 13 (3×), 16, 20 (2×); Judg 3:27; 6:34; 7:8, 16, 18 (2×), 19, 20 (2×), 22; 1 Sam 13:3; 2 Sam 2:28; 6:15; 15:10; 18:16; 20:1, 22; 1 Kgs 1:34, 39, 41; 2 Kgs 9:13; Isa 18:3; 27:13; 58:1; Jer 4:5, 19, 21; 6:1, 17; 42:14; 51:27; Ezek 33:3–6; Hos 5:8; 8:1; Joel 2:1, 15; Amos 2:2; 3:6; Zeph 1:16; Zech 9:14; Ps 47:6 [47:5]; 81:4 [81:3]; 98:6; 150:3; Job 39:24–25; Neh 4:12, 14 [4:18, 20]; 1 Chr 15:28; 2 Chr 15:14. 599. JA, SA, CPA ‫ שופר‬all occur in biblical contexts and are adopted from BH ‫( ׁשֹ פָר‬DJPA 541–42; DSA 883; DCPA 421).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

213

6:4; Jer 4:5). Rabin (1962, 1074) lists this word as a loan from Sumerian šeĝbar via Akkadian sappāru, both of which denote a horned animal.600 There are two problems with this loan hypothesis, however. First, the use of ō for Akkadian short a and the lack of doubling of the second radical preclude a direct loan on phonological grounds.601 Second, Akkadian sappāru never refers to the horn of an animal. Akkadian instead reserves the form sappartu, a secondary feminine form, to denote the animal’s horn.602 Neverthel ess, Hebrew ‫ ׁשֹ ָפר‬cannot be completely separated from Sumerian šeĝbar and Akkadian sappāru, and these terms represent an early culture word for a horned animal.603 Sumerian and Akkadian maintained the referent of this culture word as a horned-​animal, whereas in Hebrew the referent of this word became the animal’s horn—rather than the animal itself—by metonymy. ‫ש ְׁריֹון‬‎ִ , ‫‘ ִס ְריֹון‬scale armor, scale mail’ HALOT 769, 1655; DCH 6:197, 8:561 (1 Sam 17:5 [2×], 38; passim604) [D] Hurr → Akk; Ug; Heb; Eg; Hitt Akk sariam, širiam, šir‌ʾam, siriannu, šir‌ʾannu (Bogh, Nuzi, MB, EA, SB, NA, NB) CAD S 313–15; AHw 1029; Ug ṯryn DUL 921; Eg ṯryn (NK) GHwÄ 1032; WÄS 5:386; SWET 366–67 (#546); Hitt šariya- CHD Š 259; HHw 163; Hurr sarianni-, sariyanni- BGH 357–58; GLH 215–16605 This word occurs in two different forms in Biblical Hebrew: ‫( ִׁש ְריֹון‬1 Sam 17:5, 38; 1 Kgs 22:34; Isa 59:17; Neh 4:10; 2 Chr 18:33; 26:14) and ‫( ִס ְריֹון‬Jer 46:4; 51:3). Each time it appears, it occurs within a military context and means ‘scale armor, scale mail’. The alternation between šin and samek indicates a foreign loan. In light of this word’s association with the Philistine Goliath, a Philistine origin is possible, but the existence of numerous related forms in other ancient Near Eastern languages indicates otherwise. Along with Hebrew ‫ׁש ְריֹון‬, ִ they can all be traced back to Hurrian 600.  Steinkeller (1995, 50) insists that Sum šeĝbar denotes a deer because this animal is commonly associated with deer and gazelles and not sheep or goats. 601. One could try to contend that Hebrew-​speakers lengthened the first syllable’s vowel rather than preserve the gemination of p in the Akkadian form. This, however, would still not explain the long ō because the final rather than the initial syllable of ‫ ׁשֹ פָר‬is accented; the Canaanite shift caused accented ā to shift to ō but not unaccented ā. 602.  CAD S 165; AHw 1027. Akk sappartu occurs only in Standard Babylonian. 603.  Cf. Landsberger 1934, 97–98. There is no clear evidence that Sumerian lent this word to Akkadian. Lieberman (SLOB 481–82 [#626]) lists it as a loan from Sumerian into Akkadian, whereas Civil (2007, 21) lists it as a loan from Akkadian into Sumerian. 604. 1 Kgs 22:34; Isa 59:17; Jer 46:4; 51:3; Neh 4:10; 2 Chr 18:33; 26:14. Following 𝕲 in Job 41:5 [41:13] (πτύξιν θώρακος αὐτοῦ), the phrase ‫‘ ּבְ ֶכפֶל ִר ְסנֹו‬its double bridle’ should be emended to ‫ּבְ ֶכפֶל ִס ְריֹ נֹו‬ ‘its double coat of mail’ (Gordis 1978, 486; Pope 1965, 335). 605. JA ‫שריין‬, ‫ שרין‬and Syr šeryānā are adopted from Biblical Hebrew (Jastrow 1903, 1631; LS² 1607).

214

Chapter 3

sarianni-, sariyanni- ‘scale armor, scale mail’ (FWOT 163; Speiser 1950, 47–48; Brandenstein 1940, 104–5). The armor denoted by Hurrian sarianni-, sariyanniis one of the gifts given by Tušratta the king of Mittani (EA 22 iii:37–38), and archaeological excavations reveal that it was a particularly popular item at Nuzi, confirming its Hurrian origin. Furthermore, some of the borrowings of this Hurrian term contain the Hurrian derivational suffix -ni, -nni whereas some do not.606 The different adaptations of this word as well as the uncertainty in Hebrew regarding the initial sibilant indicate that Hebrew borrowed it directly from Hurrian.607 The scale armor denoted by this term was worn by both humans and horses. Textual and archaeological evidence from Nuzi indicates that the human scale armor was composed of 400–600 bronze scales for the cuirass and nearly as many for the sleeves. The armor’s individual bronze plates were secured in overlapping patterns to a fabric or leather base. The total weight of this type of armor could approach 25 kg, and due to the cost of materials and labor involved in making it, it was worn only by elite chariot warriors. Armor of this type is depicted in the Egyptian tombs of Kenamun, Paimosi, and Ramesses II.608 ‫‘ ְׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬corporal punishment’ HALOT 2002–3 (Ezra 7:26) 𝕲 παιδεία ‘child-​rearing’; 𝖁 exilium ‘exile, banishment’; 𝕾 ḥy‌ʾ ‘life’ [D] OIran → Aram IA ‫סרושי‬, ‫ סרושית‬DNWSI 802; OIran *sraušī- AISN 227; IAP 448 This Biblical Aramaic word occurs only in Ezra 7:26, within a list of punishments including death (‫)מֹות‬, confiscation of property (‫) ַל ֲענָׁש נִ כְ ִסין‬, and imprisonment (‫)אָ סּור‬, which Darius prescribes for not obeying his law or God’s law.609 Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 1117) and Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 2002–3) connect ‫ ְׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬with the common Semitic noun šrš ‘root’, contending that it means ‘banishment’ (literally ‘rooting out’). This seems to be the understanding of 𝖁, and the verb šrš does occasionally mean ‘to uproot’ in late Aramaic (cf. JA ‫שרש‬ and Syr šršy: DJBA 1182; LS2 1613), but no noun *šršw, *šršy meaning ‘uprooting’ exists in Semitic. Therefore, ‫ ְׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬is probably not connected with Semitic šrš. Biblical Aramaic ‫ ְׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬occurs within the context of Darius’s decree, and several other Old Iranian loanwords appear in Ezra 7:26. Thus, ‫ ְׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬undoubtedly comes from Old Iranian. The donor term is Old Iranian *sraušī- ‘corporal punishment’ 606.  On the derivational suffix -ni, -nni, see Wegner 2007, 55; Giorgieri 2000, 210–12; Wilhelm 2008, 92. The use of final m rather than n in several of the Akkadian forms reflects dissimilation. 607.  Conti and Bonechi (1992) find this word in Eblaite as ‌ʾasaryānum, written as a-​sar-​a-​nu. However, this does not prove an Eblaite origin. Even if this attestation is genuine, the strong association between this type of armor and the Hurrians still needs to be explained. 608.  Dezső 2003–2005; 2002, 195–99; Decker 1982; Speiser 1950, 47–48. 609. The Qere is ‫ ְׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬whereas the Ketiv is ‫ׁשרֹ ׁשּו‬. ְ Based on the Old Iranian etymology advocated here, the Qere is most probably the correct reading.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

215

(cf. Av sraošiiā-: AIW 1637).610 The sibilants have assimilated, hence the initial šin rather than śin or samek. The initial [s] is preserved, on the other hand, in Imperial Aramaic, as in ‫( סרושי‬Khalili C3:41) and ‫( סרושית‬TAD A6.3:6).611 The ḥolem of ‫ ְׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬indicates a borrowing sometime during the Achaemenid period, when the diphthong au monophthongized to ō.612 ‫‘ ׁשֵ ׁש‬Egyptian linen’ HALOT 1663–64; DCH 8:572 (Gen 41:42; passim613) [D] Eg → Heb QH ‫ ;שש‬Eg šs (since NK) GHwÄ 901; WÄS 4:539–40 Most, if not all, of the occurrences of ‫ ׁשֵ ׁש‬in the Hebrew Bible are connected with Egypt. In Genesis 41:42, ‫ ׁשֵ ׁש‬appears with reference to the garments with which Pharaoh clothed Joseph, and in Ezek 27:7, it explicitly refers to Egyptian material used for a ship’s sail. This word occurs frequently, moreover, within the description of the tabernacle (Exod 25:4; passim; cf. 1QM vii:10). Only two of its occurrences in Biblical Hebrew, namely Ezek 16:10 and Prov 31:22, do not have such an explicit association with Egypt, but even these occurrences probably have an Egyptian literary context.614 This clear association with Egypt strongly suggests that Hebrew ‫ ׁשֵ ׁש‬comes from the Egyptian language, and without doubt the donor term is Egyptian šs.615 As with ‫‘ ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬Egyptian alabaster, travertine’, sibilant assimilation probably occurred within Hebrew subsequent to borrowing. Egypt was well known for its distinctive method of working linen in antiquity (cf. Herodotus, Hist. 2.105), which produced a unique and valued fabric.616 It is therefore not surprising that Hebrew-​speakers adopted this Egyptian term for this particular commodity.

610.  F. Rosenthal 2006, 63; Rundgren 1957. The -iya- of OIran *sraušiya- has contracted to -ī-, a phenomenon which tends to appear in Old Persian texts after the time of Darius I and Xerxes I (Skjærvø 2009, 59; Schmitt 2008, 85; OPGTL 13–14, 47–48 [§§23, 140]). 611. There are two possible explanations for the final taw in the Elephantine form. IA ‫סרושית‬ could be considered a feminine noun in Aramaic (Naveh and Shaked 2012, 196; Bogoliubov 1971, 18; G. R. Driver 1957, 47). Alternatively, IA ‫ סרושית‬could be interpreted as a loan from OIran *sraušyatā-, formed from *sraušya- and the suffix -tā (IAP 448). 612.  On the monophthongization of au to ō, see Skjærvø 2009, 58; Schmitt 2008, 83. 613.  Exod 25:4; 26:1, 31, 36; 27:9, 16, 18; 28:5–6, 8, 15, 39 (2×); 35:6, 23, 25, 35; 36:8, 35, 37; 38:9, 16, 18, 23; 39:2–3, 5, 8, 27, 28 (3×), 29; Ezek 16:10, 13 (2×); 27:7; Prov 31:22. 614.  Ezekiel 16:8–10, which describes God entering into a covenant with Israel, reflects the account of the Exodus. Proverbs 31:10–31 may have an Egyptian background as well. See Knobloch 2009, 462. 615.  EPNL 257–58; FWOT 164; Rabin 1962, 1077; Grintz 1975b, 178–80. 616.  Vogelsang-​Eastwood 2000, 268–76. As depicted in Egyptian tombs, flax seeds were sown in the middle of November following the annual inundation of the Nile and harvested by grabbing and pulling out bundles (rather than by cutting) once the flax was full grown. After drying and further preparation, linen thread was produced by spinning.

216

Chapter 3

In an influential study published in 1967, Hurvitz analyzed the usage of ‫ ׁשֵ ׁש‬and ‫ ּבּוץ‬in the Hebrew Bible. He argued that, because ‫ ּבּוץ‬is purportedly not attested in Biblical Hebrew before the sixth century b.c.e. and because ‫ ּבּוץ‬is allegedly the semantic equivalent of ‫ׁשֵ ׁש‬, the exclusive usage of ‫ ׁשֵ ׁש‬in the description of the tabernacle points to the antiquity of the priestly source. However, nearly all the biblical uses of ‫ ׁשֵ ׁש‬have an Egyptian connection. On the other hand, the same cannot be said of ‫ּבּוץ‬, which has no association with Egypt and therefore does not seem to be an exact synonym of ‫ׁשֵ ׁש‬.617 Thus, while the use of an Egyptian loanword may be significant for our understanding of Egyptian influence on the Priestly source, the use of ‫ ׁשֵ ׁש‬in the Exodus description of the tabernacle has no direct bearing on the Priestly source or the date of its composition. ‫( ְּתאַ ּׁשּור‬a coniferous tree) HALOT 1677; DCH 8:585 (Isa 41:19; 60:13618) 𝕲 omits Isa 41:19, κέδρος ‘cedar’ Isa 60:13; 𝖁 buxum ‘boxwood’ Isa 41:19, pinus ‘pine’ Isa 60:13; 𝕾 šrwyn‌ʾ, 𝕿 ‫( אשכרע‬a coniferous tree) [D] Hitt → Ug; Heb Ug tı͗ šr DUL 842–43; QH ‫ ;תאשור‬Hitt tieššar- HHw 197 The word ‫ ְּתאַ ּׁשּור‬occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible, both times in lists of trees (Isa 41:19; 60:13). These two occurrences are not particularly useful in determining the type of tree to which this word refers, a difficulty reflected in the variance of the ancient versions. Nevertheless, ‫ ְּתאַ ּׁשּור‬seems to refer to a coniferous tree, perhaps juniper or cypress (Musselman 2012, 78–79; Hepper 1992, 31, 34; Löw 1924–1934, 1:316–19). At Qumran the Hoyadot alludes to both of the passages from Isaiah, using the form ‫( תאשור‬1QHa xvi:5). This word occurs elsewhere in Semitic only as Ugaritic tı͗ šr. The absence of any other related forms, the difficulty with basing the word on any known Semitic root, and its unusual morphological pattern all point to a foreign loan.619 The Hebrew Bible’s association of the tree denoted by ‫ ְּתאַ ּׁשּור‬with northern Syria in Isa 60:13 indicates an origin from the same region. As suggested by Rabin, the donor term is Hittite tieššar- ‘forest’.620 Northwest Semitic–speakers presumably adapted this 617. Knobloch 2009, 460–69. In fact, Ezek 27:7 mentions ‫ ׁשֵ ׁש‬with reference to Egypt whereas ‫ּבּוץ‬ appears in connection with the Levant a few verses later (Ezek 27:16). 618. The collocation ‫ ּבַ ת־אֲׁשֻ ִרים‬in Ezek 27:6 should perhaps be emended to ‫( ּבִ ְתאַ ּׁשֻ ִרים‬Block 1997– 1998, 2:56; Greenberg 1997, 545, 549–50; Zimmerli 1979–1983, 2:44, 141–42, 149). 619. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 81) derive this term from the root ‫אׁשר‬, which they claim means ‘to go straight’, and argue that BH ‫ ְּתאַ ּׁשּור‬describes an upright tree. However, the verb appearing in Hebrew as ‫ אׁשר‬is attested in Ugaritic as ‌ʾṯr, not *‌ʾšr, demonstrating that both verbs derive from ʾ‌ṯr. If the Ugaritic tree name were derived from this root, it should be written as *tı͗ ṯr, not tı͗ šr. Feliks (1997, 244) instead derives BH ‫ ְּתאַ ּׁשּור‬from the root ‫יׁשר‬, ‘to be straight’. This avoids the root problem since this verb is yšr in both Hebrew and Ugaritic. However, it creates an unusual ta‌ʾqattul-pattern noun in which the first root letter is inexplicably omitted. 620.  Rabin 1964, 177; cf. Moor 1965, 362. Hitt tieššar- is also written logographically as gištir and gištir.sar.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

217

general term to denote a particular tree characteristic of forests in Anatolia when they borrowed this term. ‫‘ ּתֵ בָ ה‬ark; basket’ HALOT 1677–78; DCH 8:585–86 (Gen 6:14 [2×], passim621) 𝕲 κιβωτός ‘box, chest’ in Genesis, θῖβις [Greek form] in Exodus; 𝖁 arca ‘chest, box’ in Genesis, fiscella ‘wicker basket’ in Exodus; 𝕾 qbwtʾ ‘box, ark’; 𝕿Onq., Ps.-J. ‫[ תיבו‬Aramaic form] [D] Eg → Heb QH ‫ ;תבה‬Eg ḏbꜢ.t (since OK), db.t (MK, NK), tbı̓ (NK), tb.t (Ptolm) ÄW 1:1500, 2:2774, 2834; GHwÄ 993, 1046, 1078; WÄS 5:261, 434, 561; DLE 2:203, 244, 267622 This word occurs a total of 28 times, but these instances are limited to two specific uses. Most commonly, the word ‫ ּתֵ בָ ה‬refers to the ark that Noah builds to escape the flood (Gen 6:14, passim). Elsewhere, ‫ ּתֵ בָ ה‬appears twice with reference to the basket in which Moses was placed (Exod 2:3, 5). This word also appears as ‫ תבה‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls in contexts alluding to the flood narrative in Genesis (e.g., CD v:1). In the book of Exodus, the basket denoted by ‫ ּתֵ בָ ה‬is said to be made of ‫( ּגֹ מֶ א‬a reed or rush plant), an Egyptian loan. This Egyptian association, the general Egyptian context of the passage, and the lack of any known Semitic root on which Hebrew ‫ ּתֵ בָ ה‬could be based suggest that ‫ ּתֵ בָ ה‬is an Egyptian loan. The donor term is Egyptian ḏbꜢ.t, db.t, tbı̓, tb.t, attested with the meaning ‘coffin, box’ as well as ‘shrine, room’ (cf. Dem tby.t, tb.t, tbꜢ.t, tbeꜢ.t, tyb.t, tybꜢ.t and Copt taibe, tēēbe: CDD T 89, 143, 145–47; DG 622; Crum 397) (EPNL 258). The form of this word is ḏbꜢ.t in Old Kingdom Egyptian texts, but by the Middle and New Kingdoms this word came to be written as db.t, and by the Ptolemaic period it was written as tb.t. This demonstrates that ḏ became d and then t and that the Ꜣ dropped out early on (EPNL 258). As already noted, the use of an Egyptian loan in Exod 2:3, 5 fits well within the broader Egyptian context. The appearance of ‫ ּתֵ בָ ה‬in the Flood narrative, however, is somewhat unexpected, since there is no clear Egyptian context and because Egyptian ḏbꜢ.t, db.t, tbı̓, tb.t never refers to a boat. The usage of ‫ ּתֵ בָ ה‬in Genesis probably stems from the strong thematic links between the flood narrative and the narrative of Moses’ birth: in both cases, the item denoted by ‫ ּתֵ בָ ה‬is the means of deliverance of the narrative’s hero.623 ‫ּתֹ ר ⇒ ּתֹור‬ 621.  Gen 6:15, 16 (2×), 18–19; 7:1, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17–18, 23; 8:1, 4, 6, 9 (2×), 10, 13, 16, 19; 9:10, 18; Exod 2:3, 5. 622. JA ‫ תיבו‬and Gk θῖβις are adopted from BH ‫( ּתֵ בָ ה‬DJPA 580; DJBA 1203; LSJ 801). 623.  Hoffmeier 1996, 138; Cassuto 1967, 18–19; contra C. Cohen 1972. Propp (1999, 159–60) notes similarities between the Epic of Atraḫasis and Exod 2:1–10, further strengthening the thematic connections between the narratives of the flood and Moses’ birth.

218

Chapter 3

‫( ּתַ חְ ָרא‬a type of leather vest) HALOT 1720; DCH 8:621 (Exod 28:32; 39:23) 𝕲, 𝖁 do not directly represent this word but emphasize the well-​woven nature of the material; 𝕾 syrs‌ʾ ‘threads’; 𝕿Onq. ‫‘ שרין‬coat of mail’, 𝕿Ps.-J. ‫‘ שירי‬silk’ [D] Eg → Heb Eg dḥr (since OK) ÄW 1:1480, 2:2797; GHwÄ 1058; WÄS 5:481–82; DLE 2:254 The word ‫ ּתַ חְ ָרא‬occurs twice within the description of the high priest’s ephod (Exod 28:32; 39:23). In both instances, it appears in the expression ‫‘ ּכְ פִ י תַ חְ ָרא‬like the opening of a ‫’ּתַ חְ ָרא‬, which compares the well-​stitched opening of the item ‫ּתַ חְ ָרא‬ to the head opening of the high priest’s garment. This word’s morphology is somewhat unusual, and it does not seem to be based on any known Semitic root.624 These observations point to a foreign origin for Hebrew ‫ּתַ חְ ָרא‬, and the donor term is Egyptian dḥr ‘leather, animal hide’.625 The Egyptians subsequently borrowed this word back from Northwest Semitic as tḫr (GHwÄ 1010; WÄS 5:328; DLE 2:219), applying it to the leather paneling of a carriage (SWET 363 [#538]). This establishes a terminus ante quem of ca. 1200 b.c.e. for the borrowing of Egyptian dḥr by Biblical Hebrew because Egyptian tḫr is first attested in the late Nineteenth Dynasty (P An IV 16,9). In light of its connection with Egyptian dḥr, Hoffmeier (2005, 216–17) proposes that Hebrew ‫ ּתַ חְ ָרא‬refers to a well-​stitched leather vest. He compares it (2001, 2:410) to the collar of New Kingdom coats of armor, which consisted of a leather jacket or vest onto which small bronze or copper plates were sewn. That Canaanite peoples would have been familiar with such a garment is indicated by a relief on the chariot body of Thutmose IV (1419–1410 b.c.e.), which depicts this type of armor on Canaanite charioteers (Hoffmeier 2005, 217; Sarna 1991, 182). ‫( ּתַ חַ ׁש‬a type of Egyptian leather) HALOT 1720–21; DCH 8:621 (Exod 25:5; passim626) 𝕲 ὑακίνθινος ‘dark red, dark blue’; 𝖁 ianthinus ‘dark red, dark blue’; 𝕾 ssgwnʾ, 𝕿 ‫‘ ססגון‬vermilion’ [D] Eg → Heb Eg ṯḥs (OK, MK), tḥs (Saite) ÄW 1:1456, 2:2750; GHwÄ 1034; WÄS 5:396

624. It is unlikely that ‫ ּתַ חְ ָרא‬means ‘anus’ and is derived from a hypothetical root ‫ *חרא‬meaning ‘to defecate’ (contra Tur-​Sinai 1950–1955, 2:219–23). 625.  W. M. Müller 1893, 109; cf. Tvedtnes 1982, 218. Muchiki (EPNL 258) and Lambdin (1953b, 155) object to the correspondence of Heb taw and Eg d. However, one cannot rule out this loan hypothesis purely on preconceived consonantal correspondences, especially because the opposition between Eg t and d is not fully understood. 626.  Exod 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:19; 39:34; Num 4:6, 8, 10–12, 14, 25; Ezek 16:10.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

219

The word ‫ ּתַ חַ ׁש‬occurs 14 times in the Hebrew Bible. In all but two of its occurrences (Num 4:25; Ezek 16:10), ‫ ּתַ חַ ׁש‬occurs in construct with ‫‘ עֹור‬skin, hide’. This demonstrates that it denotes a material made from animal hides (see Houtman 1993–2002, 1:145). This word occurs nearly exclusively in descriptions of the tabernacle, which are set within a literary context in which several Egyptian materials are used to build the tabernacle and its accoutrements. Even the sole occurrence of ‫ ּתַ חַ ׁש‬elsewhere appears in conjunction with two Egyptian loanwords, ‫‘ ׁשֵ ׁש‬Egyptian linen’ and ‫מֶ ִׁשי‬ (a garment), and in a context that alludes to the Exodus (Ezek 16:10; cf. Ezek 16:8). The contexts in which ‫ ּתַ חַ ׁש‬occur, therefore, point to an Egyptian loanword. The donor term comes from Egyptian ṯḥs, which became tḥs after palatal fronting occurred.627 This verb most commonly occurs along with ẖnt ‘animal hide’ and relates to the process of stretching leather across a wooden frame for oil-​curing. It also appears sometimes in conjunction with ṯbw ‘sandal, sole of the foot’, similar to the attestation of ‫ ּתַ חַ ׁש‬in Ezek 16:10. It is therefore likely that Hebrew-​speakers adopted an unattested nominal form of Egyptian *tḥs that denotes leather prepared via stretching and oil-​curing. Leather would have served as a durable, resilient material for the outer covering for the tabernacle (Exod 26:14; 36:19; 39:34; Num 4:25) and would have been the material of choice for making sandals (Ezek 16:10). ‫‘ ִּתירֹוׁש‬grape; fresh wine’ HALOT 1727–28; DCH 8:629–30 (Gen 27:28, 37; passim628) 627.  Noonan 2012; cf. Görg 2001; Hoffmeier 2005, 212–13; Bondi 1897. On the depalatalization of Eg ṯ, see J. Allen 2013, 48–50; Loprieno 1995, 38; Peust 1999, 123–25; Junge 2005, 36. Cross (1947, 62) originally held to this loan hypothesis. Later (1984, 95–96) he changed his mind and contended that BH ‫ ּתַ חַ ׁש‬comes from Arab tuḫas ‘dugong’, claiming that the use of dugong skins for the Israelite tabernacle reflects the dolphins of El’s watery abode. However, no evidence exists that the Israelites would have used such skins for the tabernacle, and the Ugaritic texts never mention dolphins in connection with El. Other scholars try to connect BH ‫ ּתַ חַ ׁש‬with Akk dušû, duḫšû. Dalley (2000) suggests that Akk dušû, duḫšû denotes faience beadwork and that ‫ ּתַ חַ ׁש‬means the same. Mastnjak (2017) maintains the traditional view that Akk dušû, duḫšû is a color term sometimes applied to textiles, arguing that the use of this textile to make tents at Mari (ARM 24.176; M.10482; M.10483; M.12217) provides a functional parallel to ‫ּתַ חַ ׁש‬. However, both of these suggestions are unable to explain why ‫ ּתַ חַ ׁש‬would use an a-class vowel to represent the u-class vowel of the Akkadian form. Furthermore, because the final diphthong of the Akkadian form is attested in all other dialects apart from Mari, and because the diphthong should be represented in BH ‫ ּתַ חַ ׁש‬if it were connected with Akk dušû, duḫšû, both Dalley and Mastnjak must assume that the spelling attested at Mari is representative of a West Semitic tradition behind BH ‫ּתַ חַ ׁש‬. The Egyptian associations of ‫ ּתַ חַ ׁש‬in the Hebrew Bible make an Egyptian origin more plausible, even if a nominal form of ṯḥs, tḥs is not attested in extant Egyptian texts. This is especially true because—notwithstanding West Semitic parallels with Mari—Egypt possesses the closest analogues to the Israelite tabernacle (cf. Homan 2000). 628.  Num 18:12; Deut 7:13; 11:14; 12:17; 14:23; 18:4; 28:51; 33:28; Judg 9:13; 2 Kgs 18:32; Isa 24:7; 36:17; 62:8; 65:8; Jer 31:12; Hos 2:10–11 [2:8–9], 24 [2:22]; 4:11; 7:14; 9:2; Joel 1:10; 2:19, 24; Mic 6:15; Hag 1:11; Zech 9:17; Ps 4:8 [4:7]; Prov 3:10; Neh 5:11; 10:38 [10:37], 40 [10:39]; 13:5, 12; 2 Chr 31:5; 32:28.

220

Chapter 3

𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾, 𝕿 most frequently translate this word as οἶνος, vinum, ḥmrʾ, and ‫חמר‬ (each meaning ‘wine’), respectively [?] CW Ebla tirišu; Ug trṯ DUL 867; QH ‫ ;תירוש‬Phoen ‫ תרש‬DNWSI 1234; Luv tuwarsa(HLuv) Payne 2010, 151; Gk θύρσος LSJ 812629 The word ‫ ִּתירֹוׁש‬occurs 38 times in the Hebrew Bible. It frequently appears along with ‫‘ ּדָ גָן‬grain’ as a commodity of the land of Canaan (e.g., Gen 27:28; Deut 7:13). It can refer to either the grape itself (e.g., Deut 7:13; 11:14; 28:51; Zech 9:17; Ps 4:8; 2 Chr 32:28) or to fresh wine (e.g., Isa 62:8; Joel 2:24).630 This word also occurs as ‫ תירוש‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Elsewhere in Semitic, this word only occurs in Eblaite, Ugaritic, and Phoenician. Eblaite tirišu appears in a pharmaceutical text and seems to mean ‘wine’ (Fronzaroli 1998, 231–32). Ugaritic trṯ occurs several times in mythological texts within the context of feasting, occurring parallel to yn ‘wine’ in at least two instances (KTU 1.114:4, 16). Lastly, ‫ תרש‬occurs in the Phoenician portion of the Azatiwada Inscription from Karatepe, Anatolia (KAI 26A iii:7, 9; C iv:7, 9). In this text, ‫תרש‬ is paired with ‫‘ שבע‬grain’ similar to the collocation of ‫ ִּתירֹוׁש‬and ‫ ׂשָ בָ ע‬in Biblical Hebrew (Prov 3:10).631 Such a distribution is relatively limited, and this word has no plausible Semitic etymology.632 Accordingly, ‫ ִּתירֹוׁש‬is a good candidate for a foreign loan. Related forms include Hieroglyphic Luvian tuwarsa- ‘grapevine, vineyard’ and Greek θύρσος, which denotes a wand-​staff twined with vine leaves. The primary distribution of this word in the north suggests an origin from this same area, which is plausible in light of the origin of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera) in western Asia or the Caucasus (D. Zohary and Hopf 2000, 151–59; Olmo 1996). Similar to ‫יַיִ ן‬, therefore, Hebrew ‫ ִּתירֹוׁש‬most probably represents an ancient culture word that originated in the same region where the grapevine originated.633 Notably, this Asiatic culture word is also attested as the name of an ancient Near Eastern deity found in the Ugaritic texts as Trṯ (KTU 1.39:11, 16; 1.102:9) 629. The Punic homonym ‫תרש‬, attested in CIS 1:5522:2, is of uncertain meaning but probably does not mean ‘wine’ (DNWSI 1234). 630. Naeh and Weitzmann 1994. The association of ‫ ִּתירֹוׁש‬with grain (‫ ּדָ גָן‬or ‫ )ׂשָ בָ ע‬and fresh olive oil (‫ )יִ צְ הָ ר‬demonstrates the definition of ‘grape’ or ‘new wine’ because these words stand in contrast to the more aged forms, i.e., ‫‘ יַיִ ן‬wine’, ‫‘ סֹ לֶת‬fine flour’, and ‫‘ ׁשֶ מֶ ן‬oil’. 631. Younger 1998, 20. The Hieroglyphic Luvian text reads (deus)bonus-sa (Azatiwada §LIII,307), supporting the rendering ‘grain’ rather than ‘plenty’ for Phoenician ‫ שבע‬because the ‘good god’ Kuparmas is to be identified with the Hurrian grain god Kumarbi. 632. There is no convincing evidence for the existence of a root *wrṯ/*yrṯ ‘to press out, squeeze’ in Semitic. This includes the hypothetical Hebrew root ‫‘ *ירׁש‬to press out, squeeze’, allegedly attested in Mic 6:15; Job 20:15 (contra Loretz 1977). Ebla warisu, equated with the Sumerogram ni.a.engur of unclear meaning, does not establish the existence of such a root in Semitic (contra Fronzaroli 1994, 123). 633. Rabin 1963, 137–38; 1964, 178–79; cf. J. P. Brown 1969, 168–70; Görg 1979a. Rabin postulates that Hieroglyphic Luvian is the source of ‫ּתירֹוׁש‬. ִ However, HLuv tuwarsa- has no Indo-​European etymology, and a Hieroglyphic Luvian word could not have been the source of Ebla tirišu.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

221

and in the name of Abdi-​Tirši, a ruler of Hazor mentioned in the ​Amarna letters (EA 228:3).634 ‫( ּתֻ ּכִ י‬a female African ape) HALOT 1731; DCH 8:632 (1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21) 𝕲 omits 1 Kgs 10:22, translates ‫ קֹ ף‬and ‫ ּתֻ ּכִ י‬together as πίθηκος ‘ape’ 2 Chr 9:21; 𝖁 pavo, 𝕾 ṭws‌ʾ, 𝕿 ‫‘ טווס‬peacock’ [D] Eg → Heb Eg tꜢ-ky.t (NK, Ptolm) GHwÄ 949; WÄS 5:110 The word ‫ ּתֻ ּכִ י‬designates an item brought along with ‫‘ זָהָ ב‬gold’, ‫‘ ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬ivory’, and ‫( קֹ ף‬an African monkey) by Solomon’s ships of Tarshish (1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21). As noted under the entry for Hebrew ‫קֹ ף‬, the products listed in these parallel texts come from the Horn of Africa. This word has no Semitic cognates or Semitic etymology and is undoubtedly a foreign loan. However, Ellenbogen’s derivation of Hebrew ‫ ּתֻ ּכִ י‬from Dravidian (FWOT 165) cannot be correct. Tamil tōkai and Malayam tōka can refer to a peacock’s tail, but these words generally refer to something that hangs down, such as the tail of a peacock, a cloth, a flag, or a streamer, and not to a peacock itself (Burrow and Emeneau 1984, 311). Furthermore, no good evidence exists for contact between Palestine and East Asia in antiquity. Rather, the term ‫ ּתֻ ּכִ י‬must have originated from northern Africa like the terms and their products mentioned in 1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21. Albright p lausibly derives Hebrew ‫ ּתֻ ּכִ י‬from Egyptian tꜢ-ky.t, consisting of ky.t, which denotes a species of African ape, and the feminine definite article tꜢ.635 Hebrew-​speakers borrowed tꜢ-ky.t after the loss of the Egyptian feminine -t marker, considering the definite article as part of the word.636 Notably, The Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor mentions gwf and ky (the masculine form of ky.t) together as items of tribute from Punt (Shipwrecked Sailor 165), providing an excellent parallel to the association of ‫ קֹ ף‬and ‫ ּתֻ ּכִ י‬in 1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21. ‫‘ ּתֵ ל‬heap, ruin’ HALOT 1735–36; DCH 8:634–35 634.  J. Healey 1999. Probably also related are the Eblaite deity Zilašu and the Mesopotamian deity Siraš (cf. Akk siraš, sirišu, širisu ‘beer’), divine patrons of beer. If so, the alternation of the initial consonant further demonstrates that this word is not native to Semitic. 635. Albright 1968, 212; 1921, 144. Elsewhere in Hebrew, the Egyptian feminine definite article tꜢ occurs only in the personal name ‫( ּתַ חְ פְ ּנֵיס‬probably from TꜢ-n.t-ḥ.t-​pꜢ-nsw). However, a number of common nouns in Imperial Aramaic represent it, including ‫( תחית‬from tꜢ-ḫꜢ.ty), ‫( תמואנתי‬from tꜢ-mı̓.t-​nṯr), ‫( תמנח‬from tꜢ-mnḫ.t), ‫( תסהר‬from tꜢ-shr.t), ‫( תקבה‬from tꜢ-qb.t), ‫( תרי‬from tꜢ-rı̓.t), and ‫( תשי‬from tꜢ-šꜢy.t). 636.  On the loss of the Egyptian feminine ending -t, see J. Allen 2013, 49, 61; Gardiner 1957, 34; Junge 2005, 35. A masculine form of this noun, ky, appears beginning with the Middle Kingdom (ÄW 2:2567; GHwÄ 948; WÄS 5:110; DLE 2:171). However, because the feminine definite article is used, Hebrew-​speakers must have borrowed the feminine form.

222

Chapter 3

(Deut 13:17 [13:16]; Josh 8:28; 11:13; Jer 30:18; 49:2) 𝕲 ἀοίκητος ‘deserted’ Deut 13:17; Josh 8:28, κεχωματισμένος ‘that which is fortified with dirt mounds’ Josh 11:13, ὕψος ‘height’ Jer 30:18, ἄβατος ‘desolation’ Jer 49:2; 𝖁 tumulus ‘mound’ except excelsum ‘eminence, rank’ Jer 30:18; 𝕾 tlʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫[ תל‬Aramaic form] except ‫‘ תקף‬strength’ Josh 11:13, ‫‘ אתר‬place’ Jer 30:18 [?] CW Sum dud PSD; Akk tillu (OAkk, OA, OB, SB, MB, Mari, Nuzi, RS, NA, NB) CAD T 409–11; AHw 1359; Ug tl DUL 855; OAram, IA, CPA ‫תל‬, JA ‫תל‬‎, ‫תיל‬ DNWSI 1215; DJPA 581; DJBA 1205; DCPA 454; Syr tellā LS² 1646; Mand talilia, tallia MD 479; Arab tall Lane 311; Eg tnr (NK) GHwÄ 1006; WÄS 5:384; SWET 356–57 (#527); DLE 2:214 This word, which means ‘heap, ruin’, occurs only five times in the Hebrew Bible (Deut 13:17; Josh 8:28; 11:13; Jer 30:18; 49:2). Related forms do appear in many of the other Semitic languages, specifically Akkadian, Ugaritic, Aramaic, and Arabic. However, this word is probably not Semitic. Akkadian tillu has no native etymology, its final doubled consonant is indicative of a foreign loan, and its origin remains obscure. It could potentially come from Sumerian dud, which can also be read as dul6, tul5, or til2. However, both the Sumerian and Semitic forms could just as easily be loans from some third, separate source (AIA 108; SLOB 16; D. Edzard 1961, 263). Similarly, New Kingdom Egyptian tnr could be a loan from Semitic or could also derive from this third source (SWET 356–57 [#527]). Given the lack of convincing evidence for any loan relationship between the Semitic, Sumerian, and Egyptian terms, Hebrew ‫ ּתֵ ל‬and its related forms are best classified as an ancient culture word. ‫( ּתַ ּנּור‬a type of oven) HALOT 1763; DCH 8:653 (Gen 15:17; passim637) [?] CW Sum duruna, dilina PSD; Akk tinūru (OB, MA, MB, Alalakh, Nuzi, Emar, NA, NB) CAD T 420–21; AHw 1360; Sir ‫ ;תנור‬Pun ‫ תנר‬DNWSI 1224; OAram, JA, SA, CPA ‫ תנור‬DNWSI 1224; DJPA 585; DJBA 1217; DSA 956; DCPA 459; Syr tannūrā‌LS² 1654; Mand tanur, tanura MD 480; Arab tannūr Lane 318–19; Eg trr (NK) GHwÄ 1007; WÄS 5:318; SWET 359 (#531); Urdu tanūr, tannūr, tandūr Platts 1965, 339–40; Pahl, NPers tanūr CPD 82; CPED 331; Arm tʽonir HAB 2:196; Georg t’one Rayfield 2006, 724638 637.  Exod 7:28 [8:3]; Lev 2:4; 7:9; 11:35; 26:26; Isa 31:9; Hos 7:4, 6–7; Mal 3:19 [4:1]; Ps 21:10 [21:9]; Lam 5:10; Neh 3:11; 12:38. 638.  It is unlikely that Ug tnrr in KTU 1.119:9 means ‘oven’ (contra Sanmartín 1979, 728). If it did mean ‘oven’ it should be spelled as *tnr, not tnrr, and in any case, tnrr is best interpreted as a form of the verb nr ‘to shine’ (cf. DUL 633).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

223

The word ‫ ּתַ ּנּור‬denotes an oven, especially one used for baking bread (e.g., Exod 7:28; Lev 2:4; 7:9; 26:26; Hos 7:4, 6–7) (Kelso 1948, 31–32). This term occurs elsewhere in both Semitic and non-​Semitic. In Semitic it appears in Akkadian, Punic, Aramai c, and Arabic. Rel ated no n-​Semitic terms include Sumerian duruna, dilina639 and various forms from a number of different languages, including Urdu tanūr, tannūr, tandūr, Pahlavi and New Persian tanūr, Armenian tʽonir, and Georgian t’one. New Kingdom Egyptian trr comes from a foreign source, as indicated by its syllabic spelling (cf. Dem trr and Copt trir: CDD T 262–63; DG 648; Crum 431). Each of these terms refers to a cylindrical oven, similar to the modern tandoor, used for baking bread.640 Greppin (1991, 204) contends that the Semitic languages loaned this word to Indo-​I ranian, from which it entered the Caucasus. However, this term lacks a plausible Semitic etymology and a recognizable Semitic noun pattern. Specifically, the doubling of the nun prohibits the interpretation of ‫ ּתַ ּנּור‬as a taw-preformative noun from the Semitic root nwr ‘to shine’. It is much more likely that a separate, unknown language lent this word to Semitic, Indo-​Iranian, Armenian, and the Caucasian languages (ALBH 150; AIA 108; Jeffery 1938, 92–95). This ancient culture word most probably originated with the people group, now unknown, who first utilized the oven denoted by this term. ‫( ּתֻ ּפִ ין‬a bread made from coarse flour) HALOT 1775; DCH 8:665 (Lev 6:14 [6:21]) 𝕲 ἑλικτός ‘twisted’; 𝖁 translates ‫ ּתֻ פִ ינֵי ִמנְ חַ ת ּפִ ִּתים‬as calidam ‘hot’; 𝕾 smydʾ ‘fine flour’; 𝕿Onq. ‫[ תופין‬Aramaic form] [T] Sum → Akk → Heb; Hitt Sum dabin PSD; Akk tappinnu, dappinnu, tuppinnu (OAkk, OB, Mari, Qatna, NA) CAD T 182–83; AHw 1321; Hitt tappinu- HHw 188 This word occurs in the construct phrase ‫‘ ּתֻ פִ ינֵי ִמנְ חַ ת ּפִ ִתים‬‎‫ ּתֻ ּפִ ין‬of the offering in pieces’ in Lev 6:14. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 1074) derive it from the verb ‫‘ אפה‬to cook’. However, this derivation cannot adequately explain the omission of the ‌ʾalep (Levine 1989, 433). Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 1775) recognize this difficulty and state that the origin of ‫ ּתֻ ּפִ ין‬is obscure. However, a perfectly good donor term presents itself in Akkadian tappinnu, dappinnu, tuppinnu, in turn a loan from Sumerian dabin (cf. SLOB 194 [#122]). The Akkadian form refers to a type of coarse flour and to bread made from this flour, and it is used within ritual contexts very similar to that 639.  The variety of forms in Sumerian, some of which are spelled according to the Semitic forms, must be loans from Akkadian or from the non-​Semitic source of Akk tinūru (Civil 1973b, 172–75). The rare, late Sumerian lexical list forms ti.nu.ur and tu.nu.ur, however, are artificial creations by scribes (AIA 108). 640.  On this oven in the ancient Near East, see Bottéro 2004, 47–50; Shafer-​Elliott 2013, 120–21.

224

Chapter 3

of Lev 6:14 (e.g., Šurpu vii:54–55; KAR 1.90:9). The qibbuṣ of Hebrew ‫ ּתֻ ּפִ ין‬indicates that the donor term was tuppinnu (rather than tappinnu or dappinnu, which have an a-class vowel in their first syllable), and the MT’s ‫ ּתֻ פִ ינֵי‬should be repointed to ‫ ּתֻ ּפִ ינֵי‬in light of the gemination of Akkadian tuppinnu as well as the short vowel qibbuṣ in the first syllable (Tawil 2009, 433–35). Hittite tappinu- appears with the ninda logogram and likewise denotes a type of bread. Although sometimes spelled syllabically, it is more frequently attested as an Akkadogram and is a probable loan from Akkadian (HEG T/D 128–29; Hoffner 1974, 186). ‫‘ ִּתפְ ּתָ י‬lord, overseer’ HALOT 2008 (Dan 3:2–3) 𝕲, 𝖁 omit one of the officials in the lists of Dan 3:2–3, so it is difficult to tell how they translate BA ‫ּתפְ ּתָ י‬, ִ if at all; 𝕾 tpty‌ʾ [Syriac form] [D] Elam → OIran → Aram IA ‫ תיפת‬DNWSI 1212; OIran *tīpti- AISN 236; IAP 431; Elam te-im-ti, te-ip-ti EW 308–9, 313 Biblical Aramaic ‫ ִּתפְ ּתָ י‬appears twice within the list of various officials whom Nebuchadnezzar summons to worship his newly set up statue (Dan 3:2–3). It has no apparent Semitic etymology and appears amidst a number of other Old Iranian loans, including ‫‘ אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן‬satrap’, ‫( אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬a financial official), ‫‘ ּגִ זְּבַ ר‬treasurer’, and ‫‘ ְּדתָ בַ ר‬judge’. Accordingly, ‫ ִּתפְ ּתָ י‬is a good candidate for an Old Iranian loanword. This word’s sole attestation outside of Biblical Aramaic confirms this supposition. Imperial Aramaic ‫ תיפת‬occurs in a letter from Elephantine with reference to one of several Iranian officials. Similar to Dan 3:2, it follows the mention of legal officials, although the word ‫ דין‬is used rather than ‫( דתבר‬TAD A4.5:9). Many scholars have suggested that Biblical Aramaic ‫ ִּתפְ ּתָ י‬derives from two components, *tai-, *ti- ‘to look, watch’ and *pati- ‘chief, master’ (cf. Av paiti-: AIW 821). In this etymology, the first element *tai-, *ti- is postulated as a variant voiceless form of the more common *dai-, *di- of the same meaning (cf. OPers dīand Av dai-, di-: OPGTL 191; AIW 724–26).641 However, the evidence for a variant root *tai-, *ti- in Old Iranian is slim.642 Furthermore, the Old Iranian languages do not typically form compound nouns with verbal roots as their first component. 641. AISN 236; IAP 431; Bailey 1959, 115–16. Tisdall (1911b, 216–17) also finds the presence of the element *pati- in ‫ּתפְ ּתָ י‬, ִ but he implausibly derives the first element from ati- ‘beyond’. Other etymologies that meet the required semantic sense include *tāyupātā- (Henning 1937, 90; cf. F. Rosenthal 2006, 62) and *tāyupati- (Harmatta 1965, 162–63), both of which could be interpreted as meaning ‘police chief’. However, assuming that the vocalization of BA ‫ ִתּפְ תָ ּי‬is correct and that the yod of IA ‫ תיפת‬is a mater lectionis, these options can be rejected because they assume a consonantal yod (cf. AISN 236). 642.  As evidence that this root could have initial t rather than d, Bailey (1959, 114–16) points to Bakhtiari tē and Balochi teləg, both meaning ‘eye’.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

225

A more plausible derivation for this Old Iranian word is found through comparison with Elamite te-​ip-​ti ‘lord’ (Thambyrajah 2019, 248). In Elamite texts te-​ip-​ti, which has the variant form te-​im-​ti, frequently appears as a title for deity and is sometimes even used as a divine name (EW 308–9, 313). Aramaic-​speakers could have borrowed this word directly from Elamite, but it is more likely that this word entered Aramaic via the intermediary of Old Iranian, given the presence of other Old Iranian loanwords in Dan 3:2–3 (cf. Thambyrajah 2019, 248). ‫ּתֹ ר‬‎, ‫‘ ּתֹור‬string’ HALOT 1709; DCH 8:611–12 (Song 1:10–11) 𝕲 τρυγών ‘turtledove’ Song 1:10, ὁμοίωμα ‘likeness, form’ Song 1:11; 𝖁 turtur ‘turtledove’ Song 1:10, murenula ‘small necklace’ Song 1:11; 𝕾 gdwlʾ ‘plaited hair, braid’; 𝕿 does not directly represent this word [T] Sum → Akk → Heb; Aram Sum dur PSD; Akk ṭurru, turru (OB, Mari, MA, MB, SB, NA, NB) CAD Ṭ 164–65; AHw 1397; JA ‫ תור‬DJBA 1199 Hebrew ‫ּתֹ ר‬, also spelled ‫ּתֹור‬, appears with the meaning ‘string’ only in Song 1:10– 11.643 That it refers to some kind of string with jewels is suggested by the parallelism with ‫חָ רּוז‬, which means ‘necklace’ (often one with jewels or some other kind of adornment) in cognate languages (cf. IA ‫חרז‬, Syr ḥerzā, and Arab ḫaraz: DNWSI 404; LS² 489; Lane 721). As noted by Rabin (1962, 1072), ‫ ּתֹ ר‬is a loan from Akkadian ṭurru, turru ‘string, band’.644 The latter, in turn, is borrowed from Sumerian dur of the same meaning.645 In favor of this is the observation that Akkadian ṭurru, turru occasionally occurs in expressions similar to the collocation ‫ּתֹורי זָהָ ב‬ ֵ (Song 1:11), such as ṭurrū ša ḫurāṣi (VAT 16462 iv:11ʹ) (Köcher 1957–1958, 306). Akkadian ṭurru, turru also appears in conjunction with necklaces, comparable to the context of Song 1:10–11 (e.g., [x] abnū kišādi 8 ṭurrī [SAA 7​/1​.85:​6ʹ]). When not written logographically as dur, this word occurs as ṭurru as well as turru in Akkadian texts. Sumerian d usually appears in Akkadian as ṭ, and Akkadian ṭ usually appears in Hebrew as ṭeṭ.646 Presumably, then, Hebrew-​speakers borrowed this word from the form turru rather

643. BH ‫ ּתֹור‬and QH ‫‘ תור‬turn, sequence’ (Esth 2:12, 15; 1QS vi:11; CD xiv:11) represent a homonym based on a root cognate with Akk târu ‘to turn’ (contra HALOT 1709; DCH 8:611–12). 644. Elsewhere, Rabin (1970, 475–76) claims that ‫ ּתֹ ר‬comes from Skt dhū́ - ‘harness’, the Old Indic form of Proto-​Indo-​European *dhur-. However, given the parallelism with ‫‘ חָ רּוז‬necklace’ and the existence of a potential cognate in Akkadian, this is both unnecessary and unlikely. 645.  Lieberman (SLOB) does not list Akk ṭurru, turru as a loan from Sumerian, but the CAD (Ṭ 164) and von Soden (AHw 1397) do. The double final consonant indicates a loanword from Sumerian, as does the varying initial consonant (both ṭ and t). 646.  ALBH 154. The same is true of Akkadian loanwords in Aramaic (AIA 138).

226

Chapter 3

than ṭurru.647 However, Hebrew ‫טּור‬, which is also a loan from Sumerian dur via Akkadian, probably borrowed the form ṭurru.648 ‫‘ תרגם‬to translate’ HALOT 1787; DCH 8:675 (Ezra 4:7) 𝕲 ἑρμηνεύω ‘to translate, interpret’; 𝖁 lego ‘to read, recite’; 𝕾 trgm [Syriac form] [N] Luv >   > Heb   > Aram → Arab; Eth JA, CPA ‫ תרגם‬DJPA 591; DJBA 1231–32; DCPA 462; Syr trgm LS² 1664; Arab tarğama Lane 302; Eth targwama CDG 579–80; Luv *tarkummanni-, *tarkummiyanni- (CLuv) Biblical Hebrew ‫ תרגם‬occurs only in Ezra 4:7, where it describes Ezra’s opponents writing a letter to Artaxerxes. The letter is said to be written in Aramaic (‫)ּכָתּוב א ֲָר ִמית‬ and then translated (‫)מתֻ ְרּגָם‬. ְ 649 Related verbal forms meaning ‘to interpret, explain’ as well as ‘to translate’ appear in Aramaic, and no nominal form is attested in Biblical Hebrew, but Hebrew ‫ תרגם‬is probably denominal given its usage in the Pual. Indeed, many different nominal forms occur in Akkadian (targumannu, targamannu, targumyanu, turgumannu: CAD T 229–30; AHw 1329) as well as Aramaic (JA ‫תרגמן‬, CPA ‫תירגומן‬, and Syr targmānā, turgmānā: DJPA 578; DCPA 462; LS² 1664). The quadriliteral structure of these nouns and verbs is unusual, and there is no evidence for the root rgm meaning ‘to translate, interpret’ in Semitic.650 The frequent distribution of Akkadian targumannu and its various forms in peripheral dialects (Old Assyrian, Mari, Amarna, Ras Shamra, and Boghazköy) points to a foreign origin. So does their -annu ending, which is indicative of Anatolian loanwords (cf. Dercksen 2007, 37). The donor term for all these Semitic nouns meaning ‘interpreter’ is Luvian *tarkummanni-, *tarkummiyanni-, a nominal form of the Luvian verb tarkummi‘to report, to pass on’ attested in Cuneiform Luvian texts (CLL 213; Laroche 1959, 92; cf. Hitt tarkummai-, tarkummiya-: HHw 190). Luvian-​speakers lent the noun 647.  The spelling turru rather than ṭurru is attested—not always consistently—in Assyrian Akkadian as well as peripheral dialects (including Boghazköy, Alalakh, and Middle Babylonian Elamite). Hebrew-​speakers may have borrowed this word from one of these dialects, but the data are too incomplete to be sure. 648. See above under the entry for ‫טּור‬. 649. Following ‫ּומתֻ ְרּגָם‬ ְ is an additional ‫א ֲָר ִמית‬. It does not make sense to say that the letter was written in Aramaic and then translated into Aramaic, so the additional ‫ א ֲָר ִמית‬may be a gloss introducing the Aramaic text that follows (Ezra 4:8–6:18). 650.  Rabin 1963, 134–36; 1964, 163–64; Gelb 1968, 100–101. Akk ragāmu, for example, means ‘to prosecute, raise claim’. Ug rgm is the only form of this Semitic verb that seems to mean ‘to speak’. Nevertheless, many scholars continue to connect Akk targumannu and ragāmu (e.g., Levine 2009).

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

227

*tarkummanni-, *tarkummiyanni- to speakers of Akkadian and Northwest Semitic.651 Because nouns are more likely to be borrowed than verbs, because Hebrew ‫ תרגם‬occurs in the Pual stem, and because no related verb exists in Akkadian, the few Northwest Semitic verbal forms are almost certainly denominal. Thus, after adopting the noun from Anatolia, Northwest Semitic–speakers subsequently created a denominal verb meaning ‘to translate, interpret’.652 Arabic tarğama and Ethiopic targwama, both meaning ‘to translate’, are loans from Aramaic (Fränkel 1886, 280). ‫‘ ְּת ָרפִ ים‬teraphim, divinatory figurines’ HALOT 1794–96; DCH 8:679–80 (Gen 31:19, 34–35; passim653) 𝕲 most commonly transliterates as θεραφιν but sometimes translates as εἴδωλον ‘image, idol’ or γλυπτός ‘carved image’; 𝖁 commonly idolum ‘image, idol’; 𝕾 commonly ṣlm‌ʾ ‘image’; 𝕿 frequently ‫‘ צלם‬image’, ‫‘ צלמן‬image, statue’, or ‫‘ דמאין‬figurines, idols’ [D] Luv → Heb Luv tarpi- (CLuv) HHw 192; CLL 216; Laroche 1959, 93654 The word ‫ ְּת ָרפִ ים‬occurs only 15 times in the Hebrew Bible. In several contexts it refers to a figurine of varying size: in the Jacob cycle the teraphim are small enough for Rachel to sit on (Gen 31:19, 34–35), but in 1 Samuel this figurine is life-​size (1 Sam 19:13, 16). The teraphim, moreover, have a cultic function: they are associated with Micah’s shrine and pagan ephod in the book of Judges (Judg 17:5; 18:14, 17–18, 20) and with divination in late biblical texts (Ezek 21:26; Zech 10:2). This word has no cognates in Semitic and does not seem to be based on any Semitic root.655 These observations point to a foreign loan. It probably comes from Cuneiform Luvian tarpi-, which properly means ‘strength’ but can be used with reference to a stronghold as well as a strong demon. A lexical text equates tarpiwith Akkadian šēdu ‘spirit, demon’ (KBo 1.44+13.1 iv:35), and at least one other context in which tarpi- occurs demonstrates that it can refer to a powerful chthonic spirit (KUB 33.66 ii:9–11). Hebrew-​speakers presumably borrowed Luvian tarpi- as 651.  Starke 1993; cf. Rabin 1963, 134–36; 1964, 163–64; García Trabazo 2014; Singer 2006, 746; Gelb 1968. 652.  West Semitic could have borrowed this word from Anatolia via Akkadian, but there is no conclusive evidence for this (AIA 107). 653.  Judg 17:5; 18:14, 17–18, 20; 1 Sam 15:23; 19:13, 16; 2 Kgs 23:24; Ezek 21:26 [21:21]; Hos 3:4; Zech 10:2. 654. JA ‫תרפים‬, which occurs only in late literary texts, is adopted from Biblical Hebrew (Jastrow 1903, 1702). 655. Proposed Semitic derivations, the most common of which take ‫ ְּת ָרפִ ים‬from ‫‘ רפא‬to heal’, are convincingly refuted by Hoffner (1968, 61–63). Albright correctly noted long ago (1941a) that Ug ttrp (KTU 1.5 i:4) does not mean ‘teraphim’.

228

Chapter 3

a monosyllabic noun *tarpi-, and when epenthesis later occurred the form became *térep, hence the plural form ‫ּת ָרפִ ים‬. ְ 656 In light of the biblical data and comparative evidence, the teraphim were probably figurines associated with deceased ancestors comparable to the ilānu of Akkadian sources from Nuzi and Emar, which are paired with dead spirits denoted by the terms eṭemmu or mētu. These figurines functioned most generally in divination (cf. Ezek 21:26; Zech 10:2) but more specifically played a role in necromancy (cf. 2 Kgs 23:24) (T. Lewis 1999; Toorn 1990; Hess 2007, 267). ‫( ּתַ ְר ִׁשיׁש‬a precious stone, perhaps Spanish topaz or fool’s gold) HALOT 1797–98; DCH 8:680 (Exod 28:20; 39:13; Ezek 1:16; 10:9; 28:13; Song 5:14; Dan 10:6) 𝕲 χρυσόλιθος ‘chrysolite’ Exod 28:20; 39:13, transliterates as θαρσις Ezek 1:16; Song 5:14; Dan 10:6, ἄνθραξ ‘dark red stone’ Ezek 10:9; 28:13; 𝖁 chrysolitus ‘chrysolite’ except visio maris ‘appearance of the sea’ Ezek 1:16, hyacinthus ‘hyacinth’ Song 5:14; 𝕾 tršyš [Syriac form] Exod 28:20; 39:13; Ezek 1:16, 10:9, brwlʾ ‘beryl’ Ezek 28:13, kʾpʾ dhbʾ ‘stone of gold’ Song 5:14, does not directly represent this word Dan 10:6; 𝕿 ‫‘ כרום ים‬yellow-​green gem’ Exod 28:20; 39:13; Ezek 28:13, ‫‘ אבן טב‬precious stone’ Ezek 1:16; Ezek 10:9, does not directly represent this word Song 5:14 [D] Tartessian → Heb Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּתַ ְר ִׁשיׁש‬occurs in the description of the high priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:20; 39:13) and the adornment of the king of Tyre (Ezek 28:13). In addition, it also occurs in the context of theophanies (Ezek 1:16; 10:9; Dan 10:6) and a description of the Shulamite’s lover (Song 5:14). However, outside Hebrew this word does not occur in any of the Semitic languages.657 Furthermore, ‫ ּתַ ְר ִׁשיׁש‬does not look Semitic.658 Thus, a foreign origin is likely. Hebrew-​speakers would have adopted the name for this precious stone from Tarshish, where it was found (Lipiński 2006, 791; Baker 1992b, 6:332).659 Ancient

656. Hoffner 1968, 63–68; Singer 2006, 751; contra Rouillard and Tropper 1987, 360–61; Josephson 1979, 181. Benno Landsberger was the first to compare Luv tarpi- and BH ‫ּת ָרפִ ים‬. ְ He did so in 1965 at the annual meeting of the American Oriental Society in Chicago (Hoffner 1968, 63–64). 657. SA ‫ תרשיש‬and Syr taršīš are adopted from Biblical Hebrew (DSA 966; LS² 1673). 658. Albright (1941b, 21–22; 1961, 346–47) argues that ‫ ּתַ ְר ִׁשיׁש‬is a taqtîl-pattern noun from a root ‫ *רׁשׁש‬cognate with Akk rašāšu, which he alleges means ‘to smelt’. However, the meaning of Akk rašāšu instead seems to be ‘to glow, shine’ (CAD R 191; AHw 960–61). 659. Failing to recognize this, scholars have offered several less likely possibilities. Gordon (1978) compares Homer’s description of the sea as οἶνοψ ‘wine-​colored’ (Il. 23.316; Od. 2.421, 5.132), proposing a derivation from the supposedly Afroasiatic root *trš ‘to be wine-red, wine-dark’. Hoenig (1979) equates ‫ ּתַ ְר ִׁשיׁש‬with Gk θάλασσα ‘sea’, supposing an interchange of the liquids r and l. Görg (1981, 81–82) considers ‫ ּתַ ְר ִׁשיׁש‬symbolic of a distant land, deriving it from a hypothetical Eg *ḏr-šš ‘distant land of treasures’. Finally, Torr (1895, 2–3) and Barnett (1958, 226–27) derive ‫ ּתַ ְר ִׁשיׁש‬from Gk τάρσος, which can sometimes denote a row of oars.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

229

Tarshish, also known as Tartessos, was located in southern Iberia.660 Accordingly, Hebrew ‫ ּתַ ְר ִׁשיׁש‬is an adaptation of an indigenous Iberian (i.e., Tartessian) toponym. This toponym has several different forms in ancient texts: the Phoenician Nora Stone spells it as ‫תרשש‬, similar to Biblical Hebrew (KAI 46:1); one of King Esarhaddon’s inscriptions calls it Tarsisi (RINAP 4.60:10ʹ–11ʹ); Greek authors call it Ταρτησσός; and Latin writers call it Tartesos/Tartessos and Tartesus/Tartessus.661 The alternation between t, s, and š indicates different articulations of an indigenous Iberian phoneme, perhaps an interdental or palatalized sibilant, and the suffixed ending probably reflects several Iberian toponyms with a similar ending recorded in Iberian coin legends (e.g., Aŕatis, Bilbilis, Oŕośis, Otatiiś, and Segobris) (López-​ Ruiz 2009, 262–63; Lipiński 2006, 792). Two possibilities for the identification of this precious stone present themselves, assuming that the ancients’ common understanding of it as a yellow-​green stone is correct.662 First, ‫ ּתַ ְר ִׁשיׁש‬could refer to chrysolite because Spain was well known for deposits of chrysolite in antiquity (Pliny, Nat. 37.43.127).663 Second, ‫ּתַ ְר ִׁשיׁש‬ could denote iron disulphide or fool’s gold, which is well documented at Riotinto and other mines of the Iberian Pyrite Belt (Canales, Serrano and Llompart 2010, 140). ‫( ִּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬a supervisor of religious matters) HALOT 1798; DCH 8:681 (Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65, 69 [7:70]; 8:9; 10:2 [10:1]) 𝕲 translates as the proper noun Αθερσαθα Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65, replaces with Νεεμια ‘Nehemiah’ Neh 7:69, omits Neh 8:9; 10:2; 𝖁 translates as the proper noun Athersatha; 𝕾 ryšʾ dʾysryl ‘head of Israel’ Ezra 2:63, qšyšʾ dkwmrʾ ‘elder priest’ Neh 7:65, 69, ryšʾ dkwmrʾ ‘head priest’ Neh 8:9, qšyšʾ ‘elder’ Neh 10:2 [D] OIran → Heb Biblical Hebrew ‫ ִּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬appears five times. The contexts make it clear that it represents a title of some sort, which is specifically applied to Nehemiah twice (Neh 8:9, 10:2) and to an unnamed individual, perhaps Nehemiah, in its other instances (Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65, 69). In each instance, ‫ ִּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬denotes someone involved in overseeing religious matters, including judging whether potential priests could eat of holy food (Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65), depositing resources for the temple in the treasury (Neh 7:69), declaring a day set apart for fasting before God (Neh 8:9), and 660.  Day 2012; López–Ruiz 2009; Lipiński 2004, 225–65; cf. Beitzel 2010, 38–42. 661.  Villar 1995, 244–47. The same root found in these toponyms also appears in the names of several south Iberian peoples, including the Thersitae (e.g., Polybius, Hist. 3.33.9) and the Turdetani and Turduli (e.g., Strabo, Geogr. 3.1.6). 662. Harrell, Hoffmeier, and Williams (2017, 25–27) instead suggest amber. However, this is already designated by the term ‫חַ ְׁשמַ ל‬. 663.  Quiring 1954, 206–8. Principal deposits of Spanish topaz include the Valle de la Serena and Mérida deposits in the province of Badajoz and the Lovios deposit in the province of Orense (Galan and Guinea 1984, 360–62).

230

Chapter 3

signing a covenant to follow God and his law (Neh 10:2). Hence, although often translated as ‘governor’ or the like (e.g., NRSV, NJPS), ‫ ִּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬does not have the primary sense of a political official.664 This word has no clear Semitic etymology or cognates. Naturally, scholars have turned to Old Iranian in light of the Achaemenid setting of Ezra–Nehemiah. This is likely in light of the final ‌ʾalep of ‫ּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬, ִ also found on a number of other Old Iranian loanwords (e.g., ‫אַ זְּדָ א‬, ‫אָ ְסּפ ְַרנָא‬, ‫הַ ְמיָנְ כָא‬, ‫)נֶבְ ְר ְׁשּתָ א‬. However, all Old Iranian etymologies suggested to date are unsatisfactory, especially because all wrongly assume that ‫ ִּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬denotes a political rather than religious official.665 Thus, the precise donor term remains unknown at present, although an Old Iranian origin remains plausible. ‫( ּתַ ְרּתָ ן‬an Assyrian official) HALOT 1798–99; DCH 8:681 (2 Kgs 18:17; Isa 20:1) 𝕲 Θαρθαν, 𝖁 Tharthan, 𝕾 Tʾrtn, 𝕿 ‫ תרתן‬all simply transliterate this word [T] Hurr → Akk → Heb; Aram Akk turtānu, turtannu, tartānu, tartannu (MA, Emar, SB, NA, NB), tardennu, terdennu (Bogh, Nuzi, RS, NB) CAD T 225–28, 489–90; AHw 1329, 1332; OAram ‫ תרתן‬DNWSI 1234–35; Hurr tardenni- BGH 448 This word occurs only twice, both times with reference to an Assyrian official. In 2 Kgs 18:17 this official goes to Jerusalem as part of Sennacherib’s embassy, and in Isa 20:1 Sargon II sends this official to besiege Ashdod. The only related Semitic form is Akkadian turtānu, turtannu, tartānu, tartannu, which refers to an Assyrian official. Scholars have long recognized that Hebrew ‫ ּתַ ְרּתָ ן‬is a borrowing from Akkadian turtānu, probably still considered a Fremdwort by Hebrew-​speakers because it specifically refers to Assyrian officials (ALBH 664. Notably, the typical Hebrew word for governor, ‫ּפֶחָ ה‬, is used elsewhere of Nehemiah (Neh 5:14; 12:26; Hag 1:1) and Zerubbabel (Hag 1:14; 2:2, 21). 665. Perhaps the most popular loan hypothesis is that of Scheftelowitz (AAT 1:93–94), who connects ‫ ִּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬with OIran *tarsa- ‘to fear’, assuming a perfect passive participle form *tršāta- meaning ‘excellency’ or the like (literally ‘feared one’). However, in Iranian texts the verb tarsa- only describes physical fear, not the awe one feels in the presence of a superior, and *tršāta- should mean ‘frightened (one)’ rather than ‘feared (one)’ (cf. Av taršta- ‘frightened’). Thus, it is unlikely that ‫ ִּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬comes from a hypothetical OIran *tršāta- (Skjærvø 1994, 501). Second, Theis (1910, 66–67) connects ‫ִּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬ with NPers tāraš ‘to cut’, assuming that Nehemiah was a ‘cut one’ or eunuch. However, there is no evidence that Nehemiah was a eunuch, and the verb tāraš only occurs in modern Persian. Third, Skjærvø (1994, 501) suggests that ‫ ִּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬comes from an unattested OIran *taršita- ‘thirsty’ (cf. Skt tṛṣitá-), a title which would suit Nehemiah’s role as cupbearer to the Persian king. However, this does not explain why the official of Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65, 69, not a cupbearer, is also called a ‫ּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬, ִ unless this title was anachronistically applied to him. Lastly, Tisdall (1911b, 218–19) derives ‫ ִּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬from OIran *tišaiθra- ‘prefect’ (literally ‘watcher of the city’), assuming metathesis of the r. However, this seems unlikely on phonological grounds, and there is no evidence for the existence of the word *šaiθra- ‘city’ in Old Iranian texts.

Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible

231

151–52; Lipiński 1988, 73; FWOT 169–70). Akkadian turtānu, in turn, appears at Nuzi as tardennu, terdennu and is a loan from Hurrian.666 Thus, Hebrew ‫ ּתַ ְרּתָ ן‬is a transmitted loan, adopted from Hurrian by Akkadian-​ speakers and subsequently loaned into Biblical Hebrew. Old Aramaic ‫תרתן‬, which occurs solely in NTA 4:15, is also a loan from Akkadian.

666.  Wilhelm 1970. The derived term tardennūtu, terdennūtu, which seems to refer to the position of the crown prince or royal successor, occurs in Akkadian texts from Boghazköy, Ras Shamra, and Emar (CAD T 228; AHw 1329).

Chapter 4 Quantitative Analysis

Chapter 3 presented 235 different loan hypotheses for Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic terms considered to be of foreign origin. Chapters 4 through 7 analyze the data for the Hebrew Bible’s 135 direct Egyptian, Greek, Hittite and Luvian, Hurrian, Old Indic, and Old Iranian loanwords with respect to four key topics: quantitative analysis, linguistic analysis, evidence for dialect of origin and date of borrowing, and contact between the inhabitants of ancient Palestine and the speakers of these languages. The rationale for examination of direct loanwords from those languages in this way is in part based on the scholarly literature, which typically treats the Hebrew Bible’s loanwords according to these categories. Loanwords borrowed directly from other languages (e.g., Philistine) are not considered in the analysis because little if anything can be said about such languages and because the present study is not concerned with interaction between ancient Palestine and the speakers of those languages. Furthermore, the Hebrew Bible’s transmitted loans, inherited loans, denominal nouns based on foreign loanwords, and culture words are not considered in the analysis in most instances because they provide no evidence for direct contact and therefore cannot be evaluated in terms of the three topics. This chapter provides a quantitative analysis of the data from chapter 3 with respect to several key items: recipient and donor language, canonical division, source critical division, typological division, part of speech, and semantic domain. 4.1 METHODOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY All the lexeme and graphic unit1 count data used in this chapter’s analysis are drawn from BibleWorks, using the Groves-​Wheeler Westminster Morphology and 1. A graphic unit groups a word with any associated inseparable parts of speech. Thus, ‫ ּובָ עִ יר‬counts as one graphic unit (one “word”) rather than four (Young, Rezetko and Ehrensvärd 2008, 1:130).

235

236

Chapter 4

Lemma Database of the MT as preserved in Codex Leningrad.2 For the purposes of the analysis in this chapter, the MT is treated as a sample of the whole of Classical Hebrew, which is found in various other sources that are not the focus of this study (e.g., Iron Age Hebrew inscriptions, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Samaritan Pentateuch).3 The number of loans refers to the number of lexemes that are loans in the Hebrew Bible. In corpus-​linguistics terminology, this quantity (represented as a simple Arabic numeral) thus represents the number of types that occur in the Hebrew Bible. The number of loans relates to the initial impact of non-​Semitic terminology on Hebrew and Aramaic. By examining the extent to which various non-​Semitic languages contribute words to the lexicon, we can determine the extent to which the foreign cultures behind those non-​Semitic languages influenced Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers. Frequency refers to the number of times the lexemes that are loans in the Hebrew Bible occur. In corpus-​linguistics terminology, this quantity (represented as an Arabic numeral followed by the symbol “×”) thus represents the number of tokens that occur in the Hebrew Bible. Frequency relates to the success of non-​ Semitic terminology in Hebrew and Aramaic after borrowing. The extent to which a foreign word is used within the Hebrew Bible conceivably reveals its integration into the lexicon: a low-​frequency word is less fully integrated whereas a high-​ frequency word is more fully integrated. Unfortunately, our ability to determine the extent of loanword integration is limited because the vast majority of the Hebrew Bible’s loanwords are cultural rather than core borrowings. Cultural borrowings tend to represent technical terminology that occurs only in limited contexts, so they should not be expected to appear frequently throughout the Hebrew Bible.4 For this reason, the number of loans is far more important than the frequency in this chapter’s analysis. While important, the absolute counts expressed by the number of loans and frequency are not entirely helpful for discussing the distribution of loanwords in the Hebrew Bible. This is because the various divisions of the Hebrew Bible are not all of the same size. When comparing the distribution of loanwords in one portion of the Hebrew Bible with that in one or more other portions, therefore, relative counts that take into consideration the varying length of those portions provide more meaningful expressions of the data. The number of loans and frequency can 2.  BibleWorks can only generate a word list using whole verses, which in some cases results in slightly inflated total word counts, total graphic unit counts, and total lexeme counts for a division. If part of a verse belongs to one division and the rest of the verse to another, BibleWorks will count all the words in that verse toward both divisions. This, however, inflates a division’s counts by no more than approximately 1%, which is negligible. 3.  On the issues involved in treating the Hebrew Bible as a representative corpus, see Miller-​Naudé 2004, 284–87. 4.  Because there are so few core borrowings in the Hebrew Bible, it is not possible to examine adequately the extent to which native words in the Hebrew Bible are replaced with foreign terminology, itself another measure of the success of borrowing.

Quantitative Analysis

237

thus be expressed in relative terms: the relative number of loans refers to the ratio of the number of loans (the number of lexemes that are loans in the Hebrew Bible) to the total number of lexemes, or distinct vocabulary items, in the Hebrew Bible, and the relative frequency refers to the ratio of the occurrences (the number of times the lexemes that are loans in the Hebrew Bible occur) to the total number of graphic units in the Hebrew Bible.5 Both of these ratios are expressed as percentages. In examining the distribution of loanwords in the Hebrew Bible, one important goal is to discover whether the data display trends that are statistically significant: does the variation in the number of loans and frequency represent genuine differences in linguistic influence, or has it arisen purely by chance? A chi-​square test for goodness of fit, with a null hypothesis that states there is no preference among the categories, can determine whether such variation is likely genuine or due to chance.6 Once the variation within is determined to be genuine, the different tiers of contributors can be determined using Jenks natural breaks optimization in conjunction with the elbow method. Because it constitutes a crucial way of determining trends, statistical significance of the data or the lack thereof is reported throughout the quantitative analysis in this chapter.7 4.2 GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE HEBREW BIBLE’S LOANWORDS This section surveys the general distribution of loans found in the Hebrew Bible according to domain of use in terms of the recipient and donor language.8 4.2.1 Distribution by Recipient Language The Hebrew Bible (Table 4.1) contains 135 (1196×) direct foreign loanwords. Thus, 1.600% (the relative number of loans) of the Hebrew Bible’s 8,435 lexemes and 0.386% (the relative frequency) of the Hebrew Bible’s 309,977 graphic units are of foreign origin. 5.  According to BibleWorks, there are 8,435 lexemes in the Hebrew Bible (7,732 in the Hebrew portions and 707 in the Aramaic portions) and 309,977 graphic units in the Hebrew Bible (304,968 in the Hebrew portions and 5,009 in the Aramaic portions). 6.  This assumes that the total number of loans and the total frequency are large enough to permit comparison. In general, the total number of loans and the total frequency must be large enough so that the expected number of loans and the expected frequency are no less than five for a chi-​square test to be accurate. For small sample sizes, the typical way of dealing with this limitation is to increase the sample size or collapse categories. However, it is not possible to increase the sample size because there is a fixed number of loanwords in the Hebrew Bible, and collapsing too many categories would make the observations less useful in the case of this study. Cf. Woods, Fletcher and Hughes 1986, 144–45. 7.  I am grateful to Ben Bryan and Ganesh Malla for their guidance with the statistical analysis. 8.  At least two limitations dictate that the analysis in this section not be considered firm and absolute. First, the determination of semantic categories is, by its very nature, subjective. Second, not all words belong neatly to a single category; some could arguably belong to multiple categories. Cf. SWET 460–61.

135 1196× 1.600% 0.386%

97 1066× 1.255% 0.350%

Loans into Hebrew

Number of Loans Frequency Relative Number of Loans Relative Frequency

135 1196× 1.600% 0.386%

All 54 799× 0.640% 0.258%

Egyptian 8 24× 0.095% 0.008%

Greek 6 86× 0.071% 0.028%

Hittite/Luvian

Table 4.2  Number of Loans and Their Frequency by Donor Language

Number of Loans Frequency Relative Number of Loans Relative Frequency

All

11 104× 0.130% 0.034%

Hurrian

4 10× 0.047% 0.003%

Old Indic

38 130× 5.375% 2.595%

Loans into Aramaic

Table 4.1  Number of Loans and Their Frequency by Recipient Language

52 173× 0.616% 0.056%

Old Iranian

238 Chapter 4

Quantitative Analysis

239

The Hebrew portions of the Bible contain 97 (1066×) direct loans, and the Aramaic portions of the Bible possess 38 (130×) direct loans. Thus, 71.852% of the Hebrew Bible’s direct loans are from the Hebrew portions and 28.148% are from the Aramaic portions. Proportionally, the Aramaic portions possess a higher number of loans than the Hebrew portions: the relative number of loans for the Hebrew portions is 1.255% but 5.375% for the Aramaic portions.9 4.2.2 Distribution by Donor Language This section surveys the loans found in the Hebrew Bible according to donor language (Table 4.2). The number of loans from each donor language is indicated first, followed by the percentage of the 135 word total in parentheses.10 Egyptian 54 (40.000%): ‫אַ בְ נֵט‬, ‫אַ בְ ֵרְך‬, ‫אַ ח‬, ‫אָ חּו‬, ‫אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬, ‫אֵ טּון‬, ‫אֵ פָה‬, ‫ּבַ ד‬, ‫ּבַ ד‬, ‫ּבַ הַ ט‬, ‫ּבֹ חַ ן‬, ‫ּבַ חַ ן‬, ‫ּגָבִ י ַע‬, ‫ּגֹ מֶ א‬, ‫ּדיֹו‬,ְ ‫הָ בְ נִ ים‬, ‫הִ ין‬, ‫ ֶזפֶת‬, ‫ז ֶֶרת‬, ‫חַ ְרטֹ ם‬, ‫חַ ְרטֹ ם‬, ‫חֹ ִרי‬, ‫טַ ּבַ עַת‬, ‫טֶ נֶא‬, ‫יְ אֹ ר‬, ‫ּכְ לִ י‬, ‫לֶׁשֶ ם‬, ‫מֶ ִׁשי‬, ‫נַחַ ת‬, ‫נֹ פְֶך‬, ‫נֶתֶ ר‬, ‫סּוף‬, ‫ע ָָרה‬, ‫ּפְ אֵ ר‬, ‫ּפַח‬, ‫ּפַח‬, ‫ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬, ‫ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬, ‫צִ י‬, ‫קַ ב‬, ‫קִ יקָ יֹון‬, ‫קַ ּלַחַ ת‬, ‫קֶ סֶ ת‬, ‫קֹ ף‬, ‫ׂשכִ ית‬, ְ ‫ׁשּוׁשַ ן‬, ‫ׁשּטָ ה‬, ִ ‫ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬, ‫ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬, ‫ׁשֵ ׁש‬, ‫ּתֵ בָ ה‬, ‫ּתַ חְ ָרא‬, ‫ּתַ חַ ׁש‬, ‫ּתֻ ּכִ י‬ Greek 8 (5.930%): ‫אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬, ‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬, ‫ּכָרֹוז‬, ‫מֶ לֶט‬, ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬, ְ ‫ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬, ‫יתרֹוס‬ ְ ַ‫ק‬, ‫ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬ Hittite/Luvian 6 (4.444%): ‫אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬, ‫חִ ּתּול‬, ‫חֶ ֶרׂש‬, ‫לַּפִ יד‬, ‫ּתאַ ּׁשּור‬, ְ ‫ְּת ָרפִ ים‬ Hurrian 11 (8.148%): ‫אֵ בּוס‬, ‫אֹוב‬, ‫י ְָׁשפֵה‬, ‫ּכֹובַ ע‬, ‫ּכִ ידֹון‬, ‫ּכִ ּיֹור‬, ‫ּכֹ מֶ ר‬, ‫מַ ס‬, ‫סָ ִדין‬, ‫סֵ פֶל‬, ‫ִׁש ְריֹון‬ Old Indic 4 (2.963%): ‫ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬, ‫ּכ ְַרּפַס‬, ‫נ ְֵר ְּד‬, ‫ֶרסֶ ן‬ Old Iranian 52 (38.519%): ‫אֱגֹוז‬, ‫אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬, ‫אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א‬, ‫אַ זְּדָ א‬, ‫אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬, ‫אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן‬, ‫אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן‬, ‫אָ ְסּפ ְַרנָא‬, ‫אַ ּפֶדֶ ן‬, ‫ ֲאפ ְַר ְסָך‬, ‫ ֲאפ ְַרסַ ְתָך‬, ‫אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬, ‫א ֲִריְך‬, ‫אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא‬, ‫ּגְ דָ בַ ר‬, ‫ּגִ זְּבָ ר‬, ‫ּגִ זְּבַ ר‬, ‫ ֶּגּנֶז‬, ‫ּגְ נַז‬, ‫ּגַנְ זְַך‬, ‫ּדָ ת‬, ‫ּדָ ת‬, ‫ּדתָ בַ ר‬,ְ ‫הַ ּדָ בַ ר‬, ‫הַ ּדָ ם‬, ‫הַ ְמיָנְ כָא‬, ‫זְמַ ן‬, ‫זַן‬, ‫זַן‬, ‫ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬, ‫נֶבְ ְר ְׁשּתָ א‬, ‫נָדָ ן‬, ‫נְ דַ ן‬, ‫נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬, ‫נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬, ‫סַ ְרּבָ ל‬, ‫ס ַרְך‬, ְ ‫ּפ ִַּטיׁש‬, ‫ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬, ‫ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬, ‫ּפ ְַרוָר‬, ‫ּפ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן‬, ‫ּפ ְַרּתָ ם‬, ‫ּפ ְַתּבַ ג‬, ‫ּפִ ְתגָם‬, ‫ּפִ ְתגָם‬, ‫ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬, ‫רז‬,ָ ‫רּמָ כָה‬,ַ ‫ׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬, ְ ‫ּתפְ ּתָ י‬, ִ ‫ִּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬ These donor languages can be ranked according to their degree of contribution. Two tiers exist, the first contributing more, the second less significantly to the foreign vocabulary of the Hebrew Bible. Egyptian and Old Iranian belong to the first tier, contributing more significantly to the Hebrew Bible’s vocabulary. The high number of Egyptian and Old Iranian loanwords in the Hebrew Bible indicates a high degree of contact with Egyptianand Iranian-​speaking peoples. Hittite/Luvian, Hurrian, Greek, and Old Indic belong to the second tier and contribute less significantly to the Hebrew Bible’s vocabulary. The low relative number of loans from these languages indicates only minor influence from the speakers of these languages. These numbers concern the Hebrew Bible as a whole. However, it is also useful to compare the highest-​contributing donor languages with respect to the Hebrew 9.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically significant when the Hebrew and Aramaic portions are compared: χ2 (df = 1, n = 135) = 68.744, p < .05. 10.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically significant when the different donor languages are compared: χ2 (df = 5, n = 135) = 125.311, p < .05.

240

Chapter 4

and Aramaic portions of the Bible. In the Hebrew portions, the top contributor is Egyptian (55.670%), with lesser contributions from other donor languages. In the Aramaic portions, on the other hand, the top contributor is Old Iranian (82.051%), with minimal or nonexistent contributions from all other donor languages. 4.2.3 Synthesis The Hebrew Bible contains foreign terminology in both its Hebrew and Aramaic portions. The top two contributors are Egyptian and Old Iranian. Notably, this is exactly what we would expect given the sociohistorical context of ancient Palestine, on which Egyptian and Iranian peoples exerted a significant amount of influence both historically and culturally. The remaining discussion of quantitative analysis examines the specific distribution of foreign terminology with respect to the Hebrew Bible’s canonical, source critical, and typological divisions as well as part of speech and semantic domain. 4.3 LOANWORDS AND THE HEBREW BIBLE’S CANONICAL DIVISIONS This section surveys the types of loans found in the major canonical divisions of the Hebrew Bible following the order and arrangement of the Jewish canon (Torah, Prophets, and Writings). Here I use this threefold division to look for trends and patterns that might exist, and not to argue for a particular model of the canon. Doing so will inform our understanding of foreign influence on specific biblical books and canonical divisions. 4.3.1 The Torah (Pentateuch) The Torah, the equivalent of the Pentateuch in the Christian canonical tradition, has 38 (575×) loanwords (Tables 4.3–4.4).11 The top contributor to the Torah is clearly Egyptian (30 [519×]), with the remaining contributors (Hittite/Luvian and Hurrian) together constituting a second tier of minor contributors. The role of Egyptian as a top contributor becomes significant when one considers that, of the Torah’s 38 loanwords, more than two thirds (30 [519×]) are Egyptian. The vast majority of Egyptian loans occur in the book of Exodus, although a notable number also occur in the Joseph cycle (Gen 37–50). Other donor languages have contributed minimally to the Torah’s foreign vocabulary, and no Greek, Old Indic, or Old Iranian loanwords are attested in the Torah. Genesis contains 13 (141×) loanwords from Egyptian, Hittite/Luvian, and Hurrian.12 The variation within the book of Genesis is statistically insignificant due 11.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically significant when the different donor languages are compared: χ2 (df = 5, n = 38) = 109.158, p < .05. 12.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 13) = 35.462, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five.

38 (1.300%) 13 (0.747%) 30 (2.151%) 7 (0.742%) 10 (0.714%) 7 (0.491%)

30 (0.907%) 10 (0.574%) 25 (1.792%) 4 (0.424%) 8 (0.571%) 5 (0.351%)

Egyptian

Torah   Genesis  Exodus  Leviticus  Numbers  Deuteronomy

575× (0.712%) 141× (0.680%) 359× (2.126%) 21× (0.174%) 34× (0.205%) 20× (0.138%)

All

519× (0.643%) 136× (0.656%) 320× (1.895%) 13× (0.108%) 32× (0.193%) 18× (0.124%)

Egyptian

Table 4.4  Frequency of Loans in the Torah

Torah   Genesis  Exodus  Leviticus  Numbers  Deuteronomy

All

Table 4.3  Number of Loans in the Torah

0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%)

Greek

0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%)

Greek

37× (0.046%) 4× (0.019%) 27× (0.160%) 4× (0.033%) 2× (0.012%) 0× (0.000%)

Hittite/Luvian

4 (0.121%) 2 (0.115%) 2 (0.143%) 1 (0.106%) 2 (0.143%) 0 (0.000%)

Hittite/Luvian

0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%)

0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%)

Old Iranian

0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%)

Old Iranian

Old Indic

0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%)

Old Indic

19× (0.024%) 1× (0.005%) 12× (0.071%) 4× (0.033%) 0× (0.000%) 2× (0.014%)

Hurrian

4 (0.121%) 1 (0.057%) 3 (0.215%) 2 (0.212%) 0 (0.000%) 2 (0.140%)

Hurrian

Quantitative Analysis 241

242

Chapter 4

to the low number of loans it contains. Nevertheless, it is notable that the Joseph cycle (Gen 37–50) possesses a goodly number of Egyptian loanwords: no fewer than 10 (108×) different ones, and thus 1.190% of the lexemes in the Joseph cycle are Egyptian. This high relative number of Egyptian loans is comparable statistically to the high relative number of Egyptian loanwords in the book of Exodus and indicates a high degree of Egyptian influence on the Joseph cycle.13 Exodus possesses 30 (359×) loanwords. Egyptian, Hittite/Luvian, and Hurrian are represented whereas Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian are not.14 The predominant donor language in the book of Exodus is clearly Egyptian, with 25 (320×) different Egyptian loans occurring throughout the book: the relative number of Egyptian loans is 1.792%. No other book of the Hebrew Bible contains such a high relative number of Egyptian loanwords, and the high number of Egyptian loans in the book is statistically significant when compared with the number of Egyptian loans in all other books of the Hebrew Bible.15 The most plausible explanation for the high relative number of Egyptian loanwords in Exodus is significant Egyptian influence on the book’s traditions.16 The books of Leviticus (7 [21×]) and Numbers (10 [34×]) possess relatively few foreign loans. Loans from Egyptian, Hittite/Luvian, and Hurrian are attested; on the other hand, the books of Leviticus and Numbers contain no Greek, Old Indic, or Old Iranian loans. Nevertheless, the variation within these two books is statistically insignificant.17 Deuteronomy similarly contains few foreign loans (7 [20×]). Like the rest of the Pentateuch, it has no Greek, Old Indic, or Old Iranian loanwords. However, there is nothing statistically significant about the variation of foreign terminology within the book of Deuteronomy as a whole.18 4.3.2 The Prophets The Prophets contain 61 (304×) loanwords.19 The most significant portion of the Prophets’ foreign terminology is Egyptian (40 [198×]), which represents the top tier 13.  Compared with Exodus, the variation in the number of Egyptian loans is statistically insignificant: χ2 (df = 1, n = 35) = 1.212, p > .05. For other evidence of Egyptian influence on the Joseph cycle, see Hoffmeier 1996, 83–95; Redford 1970, 187–243. 14.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically significant when the different donor languages are compared: χ2 (df = 5, n = 30) = 97.600, p < .05. 15.  Comparison with the number of Egyptian loans in the book of Ezekiel, the book with the next highest relative number of Egyptian loans (0.888%), is statistically significant: χ2 (df = 1, n = 40) = 4.814, p < .05. 16.  For detailed discussion, see Noonan 2016. For other evidence of Egyptian influence on the book of Exodus, see Hoffmeier 1996, 135–63; 2005, 193–234. 17.  For Leviticus, the variation within the books is statistically insignificant, regardless of the expected number of loans being less than five in at least one cell: χ2 (df = 5, n = 7) = 11.000, p > .05; for Numbers, although χ2 (df = 5, n = 10) = 30.800, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 18.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 7) = 17.857, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 19.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically significant when the different donor languages are compared: χ2 (df = 5, n = 61) = 112.410, p < .05.

Quantitative Analysis

243

of contributors. Hittite/Luvian and Hurrian constitute a second tier, and Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian constitute a third tier; both the second and third tiers have exhibited significantly less influence on the Prophets than the first tier, Egyptian. There is a good deal of overlap in the non-​Semitic terminology between the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets. 4.3.2.1 The Former Prophets The Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) contain 31 (141×) of the Prophets’ 61 (304×) foreign loans (Tables 4.5–4.6).20 Terminology belonging to the categories of Egyptian, Hittite/Luvian, Hurrian, and Old Iranian are attested. There are no Greek or Old Indic loanwords in the Former Prophets. Joshua and Judges possess 4 (9×) and 8 (21×) foreign loanwords, respectively.21 No statistically significant trends occur within either of the books. Of Samuel’s 14 (26×) foreign loans, 11 (24×) occur in 1 Samuel and 2 (2×) in 2 Samuel, with some terms occurring in both 1 and 2 Samuel.22 No statistically significant variation exists within the book of Samuel as a whole or between 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel.23 Nevertheless, of note is the observation that neither 1 Samuel nor 2 Samuel contains any Greek, Old Indic, or Old Iranian terminology. Kings possesses 16 (54×) loanwords. Of these, 10 (38×) occur in 1 Kings and 8 (16×) occur in 2 Kings, with some overlap in terminology between the two books.24 No statistically significant trends exist within the book of Kings as a whole or between 1 Kings and 2 Kings.25 Nevertheless, of note is the observation that whereas 1 Kings has no Old Iranian loans, 2 Kings possesses one, namely ‫ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬, which only occurs once (2 Kgs 23:11); both 1 and 2 Kings lack Greek and Old Indic terminology. 20.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 27) = 36.778, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 21.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically insignificant when the different donor languages are compared, regardless of the expected number of loans being less than five in at least one cell: for Joshua, χ2 (df = 5, n = 4) = 8.000, p > .05; for Judges, χ2 (df = 5, n = 8) = 8.500, p > .05. 22.  The division of Samuel into 1 and 2 Samuel is not original to the Jewish canon and was adopted only later. Nevertheless, it is helpful for our purposes to consider 1 and 2 Samuel both as individual books and as a unit. 23.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 12) = 19.000, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. Comparison of the number of loans in 1 Samuel with the number of loans in 2 Samuel is statistically insignificant with respect to each donor language, regardless of the expected number of loans being less than five in at least one cell: for Egyptian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 6) = 2.856, p > .05; for Hittite/Luvian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 1) = 0.147, p > .05; for Hurrian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 6) =2.856, p > .05; for Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian, no loans exist. 24.  The division of Kings into 1 and 2 Kings is not original to the Jewish canon and was adopted only later. Nevertheless, it is helpful for our purposes to consider 1 and 2 Kings both as individual books and as a unit. 25.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 16) = 24.500, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. Comparison of the number of loans in 1 Kings with the number of loans in 2 Kings is statistically insignificant with respect to each donor language, regardless of the expected number of loans being less than five in at least one cell: for Egyptian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 10) = 1.553, p > .05; for Hittite/Luvian, χ2 (df = 1, n =1) = 1.012, p > .05; for Hurrian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 6) = 0.000, p > .05; for Old Iranian, χ2 (df = 1, n =1) = 1.012, p > .05; for Greek and Old Indic, no loans exist.

27 (0.828%) 4 (0.352%) 8 (0.683%) 12 (0.666%) 11 (0.894%) 2 (0.155%) 16 (0.873%) 10 (0.791%) 8 (0.640%)

14 (0.429%) 2 (0.176%) 2 (0.171%) 5 (0.277%) 5 (0.407%) 1 (0.078%) 9 (0.491%) 7 (0.553%) 3 (0.240%)

Egyptian

Former Prophets  Joshua  Judges  Samuel   1 Samuel   2 Samuel  Kings   1 Kings   2 Kings

110× (0.156%) 9× (0.088%) 21× (0.210%) 26× (0.105%) 24× (0.178%) 2× (0.018%) 54× (0.210%) 38× (0.286%) 16× (0.129%)

All 48× (0.068%) 4× (0.039%) 2× (0.020%) 9× (0.036%) 8× (0.059%) 1× (0.009%) 33× (0.128%) 23× (0.173%) 10× (0.080%)

Egyptian

Table 4.6  Frequency of Loans in the Former Prophets

Former Prophets  Joshua  Judges  Samuel   1 Samuel   2 Samuel  Kings   1 Kings   2 Kings

All

Greek

0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%)

Greek

0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%)

Table 4.5  Number of Loans in the Former Prophets

15× (0.021%) 0× (0.000%) 11× (0.110%) 3× (0.012%) 3× (0.022%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.004%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.008%)

Hittite/Luvian

3 (0.092%) 0 (0.000%) 3 (0.256%) 1 (0.055%) 1 (0.081%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.055%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.080%)

Hittite/Luvian

46× (0.065%) 5× (0.049%) 8× (0.080%) 14× (0.056%) 13× (0.096%) 1× (0.009%) 19× (0.074%) 15× (0.113%) 4× (0.032%)

Hurrian

9 (0.276%) 2 (0.176%) 3 (0.256%) 6 (0.333%) 5 (0.407%) 1 (0.078%) 5 (0.273%) 3 (0.237%) 3 (0.240%)

Hurrian

1× (0.001%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.004%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.008%)

Old Iranian

1 (0.031%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.055%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.080%)

Old Iranian

0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%)

Old Indic

0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%)

Old Indic

244 Chapter 4

Quantitative Analysis

245

4.3.2.2 The Latter Prophets The Latter Prophets (Isaiah–Malachi) contain 54 (194×) of the Prophets’ 61 (304×) foreign loans (Tables 4.7–4.8).26 Terminology from each of the different donor languages is attested, although Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian have contributed only one loanword each. Isaiah contains 30 (55×) loans, with Egyptian standing out as the clear top contributor.27 A noteworthy majority of Isaiah’s foreign terminology appears in First Isaiah, which contains 24 (44×) loans, whereas Second and Third Isaiah contain only 4 (5×) and 5 (6×) loans, respectively. First Isaiah contains several Egyptian loans (17 [34×]), many of which are found in prophetic oracles against or related in some way to Egypt (‫[ ּגֹ מֶ א‬Isa 18:2], ‫[ יְ אֹ ר‬19:6, 7 (3×), 8], ‫[ ּכְ לִ י‬18:2], ‫נַחַ ת‬ [30:30], ‫[ סּוף‬19:6], ‫[ ע ָָרה‬19:7], ‫ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬‎ [19:11 (2×); 30:2–3; 36:6]), but proportionally Second and Third Isaiah do not contain as many Egyptian loans (2 [2×] and 1 [2×], respectively). These differences in the relative number of Egyptian loanwords are statistically significant.28 First Isaiah also contains one Old Iranian loanword, ‫רז‬,ָ in the so-​called “Isaiah Apocalypse” (Isa 24:16 [2×]), whereas Second and Third Isaiah—typically thought to be Exilic or post-​Exilic—do not contain any Old Iranian loans. These differences in the relative number of Old Iranian loanwords are not statistically significant due to the low number of loans found in Second and Third Isaiah.29 Of Jeremiah’s 14 (29×) loans, 8 (20×) are Egyptian. At least some of the Egyptian loanwords in Jeremiah occur within contexts related to Egypt (‫[ אַ ח‬Jer 36:22, 23 (2×)], ‫[ יְ אֹ ר‬46:7–8], ‫[ ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬25:19; 37:5, 7, 11; 43:9; 44:30; 46:2, 17, 25 (2×)]). No Old Indic or Old Iranian loanwords appear in the book, but one Greek loan (‫[ מֶ לֶט‬Jer 43:9]) does. Unfortunately, none of these observable trends is statistically significant within the book of Jeremiah as a whole.30 Ezekiel contains 23 (79×) loanwords. Many of Ezekiel’s loans are Egyptian (15 [68×]), and it is quite possible that some of Ezekiel’s Egyptian loans are inherited from the Pentateuch, specifically material related to Israel’s cult, given Ezekiel’s priestly background. The book of Ezekiel contains no Greek, Old Indic, or Old Iranian loans. None of these observable trends is statistically significant within the book of Ezekiel as a whole,31 but Ezekiel’s high relative number of Egyptian 26.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically significant when the different donor languages are compared: χ2 (df = 5, n = 61) = 112.410, p < .05. 27.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically significant when the different donor languages are compared: χ2 (df = 5, n = 30) = 51.600, p < .05. 28.  The variation in the number of Egyptian loans is statistically significant: for comparison of First and Second Isaiah, χ2 (df = 1, n = 19) = 3.741, p < .05; for comparison of First and Third Isaiah, χ2 (df = 1, n = 18) = 4.827, p < .05. 29.  The variation in the number of Old Iranian loans is statistically insignificant, regardless of the expected number of loans being less than five in at least one cell: comparing First and Second Isaiah, χ2 (df = 1, n = 1) = 0.520, p > 0.5; comparing First and Third Isaiah, χ2 (df = 1, n = 1) = 0.410, p > 0.5. 30.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 14) = 19.429, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 31.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 23) = 46.130, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five.

Latter Prophets  Isaiah   First Isaiah   Second Isaiah   Third Isaiah  Jeremiah  Ezekiel  Book of the Twelve  Hosea  Joel  Amos  Obadiah  Jonah  Micah  Nahum  Habakkuk  Zephaniah  Haggai  Zechariah  Malachi

54 (1.343%) 30 (1.224%) 24 (1.222%) 4 (0.391%) 5 (0.621%) 14 (0.728%) 23 (1.326%) 11 (0.592%) 4 (0.548%) 0 (0.000%) 3 (0.470%) 0 (0.000%) 2 (0.791%) 2 (0.348%) 2 (0.556%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.275%) 0 (0.000%) 5 (0.695%) 0 (0.000%)

All 35 (0.871%) 19 (0.775%) 17 (0.866%) 2 (0.196%) 1 (0.124%) 8 (0.416%) 15 (0.888%) 7 (0.345%) 2 (0.274%) 0 (0.000%) 3 (0.470%) 0 (0.000%) 2 (0.791%) 2 (0.348%) 1 (0.278%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 2 (0.278%) 0 (0.000%)

Egyptian

Table 4.7  Number of Loans in the Latter Prophets

1 (0.025%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.052%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%)

Greek 6 (0.149%) 3 (0.122%) 1 (0.051%) 2 (0.196%) 2 (0.248%) 2 (0.104%) 6 (0.355%) 2 (0.099%) 1 (0.137%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.278%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 2 (0.278%) 0 (0.000%)

Hittite/Luvian 10 (0.249%) 6 (0.245%) 4 (0.204%) 0 (0.000%) 2 (0.248%) 3 (0.156%) 2 (0.118%) 2 (0.099%) 1 (0.137%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.275%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.139%) 0 (0.000%)

Hurrian 1 (0.025%) 1 (0.041%) 1 (0.051%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%)

Old Indic

1 (0.025%) 1 (0.041%) 1 (0.051%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%)

Old Iranian

246 Chapter 4

Latter Prophets  Isaiah   First Isaiah   Second Isaiah   Third Isaiah  Jeremiah  Ezekiel  Book of the Twelve  Hosea  Joel  Amos  Obadiah  Jonah  Micah  Nahum  Habakkuk  Zephaniah  Haggai  Zechariah  Malachi

194× (0.266%) 55× (0.320%) 44× (0.438%) 5× (0.113%) 6× (0.220%) 29× (0.130%) 79× (0.415%) 30× (0.207%) 5× (0.208%) 0× (0.000%) 6× (0.289%) 0× (0.000%) 6× (0.868%) 2× (0.141%) 2× (0.354%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.129%) 0× (0.000%) 9× (0.284%) 0× (0.000%)

All 150× (0.205%) 38× (0.221%) 34× (0.338%) 2× (0.045%) 2× (0.073%) 20× (0.090%) 68× (0.357%) 24× (0.165%) 3× (0.125%) 0× (0.000%) 6× (0.289%) 0× (0.000%) 6× (0.868%) 2× (0.141%) 1× (0.177%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 6× (0.189%) 0× (0.000%)

Egyptian

Table 4.8  Frequency of Loans in the Latter Prophets

1× (0.001%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.004%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%)

Greek 20× (0.027%) 6× (0.035%) 1× (0.010%) 3× (0.068%) 2× (0.073%) 3× (0.013%) 7× (0.037%) 4× (0.028%) 1× (0.042%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.177%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 2× (0.063%) 0× (0.000%)

Hittite/Luvian 20× (0.027% 8× (0.047%) 6× (0.060%) 0× (0.000%) 2× (0.073%) 5× (0.022%) 4× (0.021%) 2× (0.014%) 1× (0.042%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.129%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.032%) 0× (0.000%)

Hurrian 1× (0.001%) 1× (0.006%) 1× (0.010%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%)

Old Indic

2× (0.003%) 2× (0.012%) 2× (0.020%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%)

Old Iranian

Quantitative Analysis 247

248

Chapter 4

loans is comparable statistically to the relative number of Egyptian loanwords in the book of Isaiah.32 The Twelve (the Minor Prophets) contain 11 (30×) loans. No statistically significant variation exists within the Twelve as a whole,33 and the distribution of the different donor languages is not uniform within each individual book of the Twelve. Nevertheless, of note is the observation that Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian loanwords do not occur in any of the Minor Prophets, even the post-​Exilic Minor Prophets. 4.3.3 The Writings The Writings possess 95 (305×) loanwords (Tables 4.9–4.10). All donor languages have contributed at least one loanword, but these contributors can be organized according to three tiers of varying influence: a first tier consisting of Old Iranian, a second tier consisting of Egyptian, and a third tier consisting of the remaining languages.34 Old Iranian (50 [170×]) is clearly the predominant contributor to the Writings, but the vast majority of the Writings’ Old Iranian loanwords occur in the books of Esther, Daniel, and Ezra. The book of Psalms has 12 (27×) loans from Egyptian, Hittite/Luvian, and Old Indic. As an anthology of poems composed by many different people in many different time periods, it is not surprising that the Psalter contains loans from several different languages, but there is no clear top contributor to the book.35 The book of Job contains 11 (13×) loans. Most languages are represented; the only languages absent from the book are Greek and Old Iranian. No single donor language emerges as a statistically significant influence within the book as a whole.36 The book of Proverbs contains 10 (12×) loans. Represented categories are Egyptian, Hittite/Luvian, and Hurrian. No statistically significant trends emerge for the book as a whole.37 In light of the international character of ancient Israelite wisdom, it is perhaps surprising that more foreign terminology is not attested. It is of note that no Egyptian loanwords are attested in the “Sayings of the Wise” (Prov 22:17–24:34), a pericope quite probably connected with the Egyptian text The Instruction of Amenemope. The book of Ruth contains only one loanword, the Egyptian loanword ‫אֵ פָה‬, which occurs only once (Ruth 2:17). This word occurs commonly enough in other portions of the Hebrew Bible that its presence in Ruth cannot be interpreted as 32.  Compared with Isaiah, the variation in the number of Egyptian loans is statistically insignificant: χ2 (df = 1, n = 34) = 0.155, p > .05. However, the relative number of Egyptian loans in Ezekiel is statistically insignificant when compared with Exodus: χ2 (df = 1, n = 40) = 4.814, p > .05. 33.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 11) = 20.091, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 34.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically significant when the different donor languages are compared: χ2 (df = 5, n = 95) = 105.021, p < .05. 35.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 12) = 16.143, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 36.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 11) = 13.545, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 37.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 10) = 12.800, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five.

Writings  Psalms  Job  Proverbs  Ruth   Song of Songs  Qoheleth  Lamentations  Esther  Daniel   Ezra–Nehemiah  Ezra  Nehemiah  Chronicles   1 Chronicles   2 Chronicles   Synoptic Chronicles   Non-​Synoptic Chronicles

95 (1.6375%) 7 (0.326%) 11 (0.667%) 10 (0.751%) 1 (0.313%) 8 (1.6235) 3 (0.524%) 2 (0.338%) 14 (2.979%) 34 (3.060%) 25 (1.577%) 21 (2.115%) 6 (0.567%) 19 (0.740%) 8 (0.406%) 13 (0.931%) 13 (1.033%) 12 (0.568%)

All

Table 4.9  Number of Loans in the Writings

23 (0.396%) 5 (0.326%) 6 (0.364%) 5 (0.376%) 1 (0.313%) 3 (0.609%) 1 (0.175%) 0 (0.000%) 3 (0.638%) 5 (0.450%) 2 (0.126%) 0 (0.000%) 2 (0.189%) 8 (0.312%) 3 (0.152%) 6 (0.430%) 7 (0.556%) 2 (0.095%)

Egyptian 7 (0.121%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.203%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 5 (0.450%) 1 (0.063%) 1 (0.101%) 1 (0.094%) 1 (0.039%) 1 (0.051%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.047%)

Greek 3 (0.052%) 1 (0.047%) 2 (0.121%) 2 (0.150%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.203%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.169%) 1 (0.213%) 1 (0.090%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.039%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.072%) 1 (0.079%) 1 (0.047%)

Hittite/Luvian 8 (0.138%) 0 (0.000%) 2 (0.121%) 3 (0.225%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.169%) 1 (0.213%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.063%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.094%) 5 (0.195%) 1 (0.051%) 5 (0.358%) 4 (0.318%) 4 (0.189%)

Hurrian 4 (0.069%) 1 (0.047%) 1 (0.061%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.203%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.213%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.039%) 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.072%) 1 (0.079%) 1 (0.047%)

Old Indic

50 (0.861%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 2 (0.406%) 2 (0.350%) 0 (0.000%) 8 (1.702%) 23 (2.070%) 21 (0.1325%) 20 (2.014%) 2 (0.189%) 3 (0.117%) 3 (0.152%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 3 (0.142%)

Old Iranian

Quantitative Analysis 249

Writings  Psalms  Job  Proverbs  Ruth   Song of Songs  Qoheleth  Lamentations  Esther  Daniel   Ezra–Nehemiah  Ezra  Nehemiah  Chronicles   1 Chronicles   2 Chronicles   Synoptic Chronicles   Non-​Synoptic Chronicles

305× (0.257%) 22× (0.112%) 13× (0.154%) 12× (0.171%) 1× (0.076%) 18× (1.413%) 3× (0.100%) 2× (0.121%) 47× (1.525%) 112× (1.845%) 56× (0.597%) 45× (1.147%) 11× (0.202%) 31× (0.126%) 9× (0.081%) 22× (0.163%) 18× (0.182%) 13× (0.089%)

All

Table 4.10  Frequency of Loans in the Writings

75× (0.063%) 20× (0.102%) 6× (0.071%) 7× (0.099%) 1× (0.076%) 10× (0.785%) 1× (0.033%) 0× (0.000%) 9× (0.292%) 15× (0.247%) 2× (0.021%) 0× (0.000%) 2× (0.037%) 11× (0.045%) 3× (0.027%) 8× (0.059%) 9× (0.091%) 2× (0.014%)

Egyptian 23× (0.019%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.078%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 16× (0.264%) 5× (0.053%) 2× (0.051%) 3× (0.055%) 1× (0.004%) 1× (0.009%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.007%)

Greek 12× (0.010%) 1× (0.005%) 3× (0.036%) 2× (0.028%) 0× (0.000%) 2× (0.157%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.060%) 2× (0.065%) 1× (0.016%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 2× (0.008%) 0× (0.000%) 2× (0.015%) 1× (0.010%) 1× (0.007%)

Hittite/Luvian 16× (0.014%) 0× (0.000%) 3× (0.036%) 3× (0.043%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.060%) 1× (0.032%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.011%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.018%) 10× (0.041%) 1× (0.009%) 9× (0.067%) 6× (0.061%) 4× (0.027%)

Hurrian 9× (0.008%) 1× (0.005%) 1× (0.012%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 3× (0.235%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.032%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 3× (0.012%) 0× (0.000%) 3× (0.022%) 2× (0.020%) 1× (0.007%)

Old Indic

170× (0.144%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 2× (0.157%) 2× (0.067%) 0× (0.000%) 34× (1.104%) 80× (1.318%) 48× (0.512%) 43× (1.096%) 5× (0.092%) 4× (0.016%) 4× (0.036%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 4× (0.027%)

Old Iranian

250 Chapter 4

Quantitative Analysis

251

reflecting Egyptian influence on the book, especially given the fact that it is the sole loan in the book. Song of Songs contains 8 (18×) foreign loanwords. In addition to words from Egyptian and Hittite/Luvian, the book also contains one Greek loan (‫[ אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬2×]), one Old Indic loan (‫[ נ ְֵר ְּד‬3×]), and two Old Iranian loans (‫[ אֱגֹוז‬1×] and ‫[ ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬1×]). The existence of foreign loanwords in Song of Songs goes hand in hand with the many different foreign luxury products mentioned in the Song, but unfortunately no statistically significant patterns emerge.38 Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) possesses only 3 (3×) loanwords, from Egyptian and Old Iranian; no loans come any of the other languages. The low number of loanwords in the book prevents the recognition of any statistically significant trends within the book as a whole.39 Lamentations possesses 2 (2×) foreign loans, from Hittite/Luvian and Hurrian. The book contains no loanwords from any of the other languages. No statistically significant trends are apparent within the book as a whole.40 Esther has 14 (47×) loanwords. Eight (34×) of these are Old Iranian, and 1.702% of the lexemes in Esther are Old Iranian. However, Old Iranian does not clearly emerge as the most significant contributor to the book, and the relative number of Old Iranian loans in Esther is not statistically higher than that of all other books in the Hebrew Bible, in both cases largely due to the low total number of loans in the book.41 Daniel has 34 (112×) loanwords: 8 (19×) are in the Hebrew portion of the book and 26 (93×) are in the Aramaic portion. Twenty-​three (80×) of the book’s 36 loans are Old Iranian, and 2.070% of the lexemes in Daniel are Old Iranian, making Old Iranian the book’s predominant donor language.42 No other book of the Hebrew Bible contains so high a relative number of Old Iranian loanwords, which points to significant Iranian influence on the book, especially on the court narratives in which most of the Old Iranian vocabulary appears. Of Ezra–Nehemiah’s 25 (56×) foreign loans, 21 (45×) occur in Ezra (6 ([6×] in the Hebrew portion of the book and 16 [39×] in the Aramaic portion) and 6 (11×) occur in Nehemiah.43 No statistically significant trends exist within the book of 38.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically insignificant when the different donor languages are compared, regardless of the expected number of loans being less than five in at least one cell: χ2 (df = 5, n = 8) = 4.000, p > .05. 39.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically insignificant when the different donor languages are compared, regardless of the expected number of loans being less than five in at least one cell: χ2 (df = 5, n = 3) = 7.000, p > .05. 40.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically insignificant when the different donor languages are compared, regardless of the expected number of loans being less than five in at least one cell: χ2 (df = 5, n = 2) = 4.000, p > .05. 41.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 14) = 18.571, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 42.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically significant when the different donor languages are compared: χ2 (df = 5, n = 34) = 68.353, p < .05. 43.  The division of Ezra–Nehemiah is not original to the Jewish canon and was adopted only later. Nevertheless, it is helpful for our purposes to consider Ezra and Nehemiah both as individual books and as a unit.

252

Chapter 4

Ezra–Nehemiah as a whole, or between Ezra and Nehemiah, with the exception of Old Iranian, which occurs predominantly in Ezra rather than Nehemiah.44 Ezra contains 20 (43×) different Old Iranian loanwords, or 2.014% of the lexemes in Ezra, whereas Nehemiah contains only 2 (5×) Old Iranian loans, or 0.189% of the lexemes in Nehemiah. Although the number of Old Iranian loanwords in Ezra cannot be considered statistically significant because of the low total number of loans in the book,45 Ezra’s relative number of Old Iranian loans is comparable statistically to the high relative number of Old Iranian loanwords in the book of Daniel.46 Chronicles contains 19 loanwords (31×). All donor languages are represented, but no statistically significant variation exists within Chronicles as a whole or between 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles.47 One may also separate Synoptic Chronicles from Non-​Synoptic Chronicles on the assumption that Synoptic Chronicles inherited its loanwords from Synoptic Samuel–Kings.48 Synoptic Chronicles (8 [9×]) and Non-​S ynoptic Chronicles (13 [22×]) contain approximately the same number of loans overall, with no statistically significant variation.49 However, it is noteworthy that Non-​Synoptic Chronicles possesses a number of loanwords not found in Samuel–Kings or Synoptic Chronicles: ‫ּגַנְ זְַך‬, ‫אֲדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬, ‫נָדָ ן‬, ‫ּפ ְַרוָר‬, and ‫ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬.50 Of these, one is Egyptian (‫)ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬, one is Greek (‫)אֲדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬, and three are Old Iranian 44.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 25) = 82.280, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. Comparison of the number of loans in Ezra with the number of loans in Nehemiah is statistically insignificant with respect to each donor language except Old Iranian, regardless of the expected number of loans being less than five in at least one cell: for Egyptian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 2) = 1.875, p > .05; for Greek, χ2 (df = 1, n = 2) = 0.002, p > .05; for Hurrian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 2) = 1.875, p > .05; for Hittite/Luvian and Old Indic, no loans exist in either Ezra or Nehemiah. For Old Iranian, the variation in the number of loans is statistically significant: χ2 (df = 1, n =22) = 15.924, p < .05. 45.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 25) = 82.280, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 46.  Compared with Daniel, the variation in the number of Old Iranian loans is statistically insignificant: χ2 (df = 1, n = 43) = 0.008, p > .05. 47.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 19) = 12.895, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. Comparison of the number of loans in 1 Chronicles with the number of loans in 2 Chronicles is statistically insignificant with respect to each donor language except Hurrian, regardless of the expected number of loans being less than five in at least one cell: for Egyptian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 9) = 2.351, p > .05; for Greek, χ2 (df = 1, n = 1) = 2.687, p > .05; for Hittite/Luvian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 1) = 1.410, p > .05; for Old Indic, χ2 (df = 1, n = 1) = 2.687, p > .05; for Old Iranian, χ2 (df =1, n = 6) = 0.179, p < .05. For Hurrian, although χ2 (df = 1, n = 6) = 4.328, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 48.  I am grateful to Robert Rezetko for his assistance with this section and for his suggestion to separate Non-​Synoptic Chronicles from Synoptic Chronicles. 49.  Comparison of the number of loans in Synoptic Chronicles with the number of loans in Non-​ Synoptic Chronicles is statistically insignificant with respect to each donor language except Egyptian, regardless of the expected number of loans being less than five in at least one cell: for Greek, χ2 (df = 1, n = 2) = 0.596, p > .05; for Hittite/Luvian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 2) = 0.137, p > .05; for Hurrian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 8) = 0.549, p > .05; for Old Indic, χ2 (df = 1, n = 2) = 0.137, p > .05; for Old Iranian, χ2 (df =1, n = 3) = 1.787, p < .05. For Egyptian, although χ2 (df = 1, n = 9) = 6.295, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 50. Non-​Synoptic Chronicles also contains several loanwords attested in non-​related portions of Samuel–Kings: ‫ּבְ רֹוׁש‬, ‫ּכֹובַ ע‬, ‫סֶ ֶרן‬, and ‫ּתירֹוׁש‬. ִ

Quantitative Analysis

253

(‫ּגַנְ זְַך‬, ‫נָדָ ן‬‎, ‫ ;)ּפ ְַרוָר‬all occur elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in some form with the exception of ‫ּפ ְַרוָר‬, which occurs only in Chronicles.51 Synoptic Chronicles, moreover, contains two loanwords unique to Chronicles that are not found in either Synoptic or Non-​Synoptic Samuel–Kings, namely ‫ זַן‬and ‫ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬. Of these, ‫ זַן‬occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in both its Biblical Hebrew (Ps 144:13 [2×]) and Biblical Aramaic (Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15) forms, whereas ‫ ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬is unique and does not appear anywhere else. The low number of Old Iranian loanwords in Chronicles and Nehemiah is striking when compared with the high number of the same in Ezra, Esther, and Daniel, because all these books are acknowledged to be late (cf. Rezetko 2007, 395–98). As discussed in more detail below (§4.5.6), the significant variation in the number of Old Iranian loanwords found in Late Biblical Hebrew books indicates that Late Biblical Hebrew is not a homogeneous entity in terms of the lexicon. 4.3.4 Synthesis The general distribution of foreign loanwords in the Hebrew Bible indicates that the the two most influential languages are Egyptian and Old Iranian. Further analysis of each of the Hebrew Bible’s canonical divisions reveals that Egyptian and Old Iranian terminology is not distributed uniformly, but is instead concentrated in certain places. Egyptian terminology appears in almost every canonical division but is particularly concentrated in the Torah, specifically the Joseph cycle and the book of Exodus. The high concentration of Egyptian terminology in those two parts is undoubtedly due to the purported Egyptian settings of these divisions. Egyptian loanwords also occur to a lesser degree in the Prophets, specifically the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel. Egyptian terminology is particularly concentrated in Isaiah’s oracles against Egypt, as would be expected, and the high concentration of Egyptian terminology in Ezekiel is most likely inherited from the Pentateuch’s priestly traditions. Old Iranian terminology has a more limited distribution in the Hebrew Bible. It cannot be found at all in the Torah, is attested very sparsely in the Prophets, and is almost entirely limited to the Writings. The vast majority of Old Iranian loanwords appear in the books of Esther, Daniel, and Ezra, with some words also appearing in Chronicles as well as Qoheleth and Song of Songs. The plethora of Old Iranian terminology in Esther, Daniel, and Ezra is undoubtedly due to the purported Iranian connections of these books. Loanwords from the other categories are attested, but to a significantly lesser degree. On the one hand, terminology from Hittite/Luvian and Hurrian is found throughout the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, with no particular concentration in 51. For ‫ּגַנְ זְַך‬, cf. BH ‫( ֶּגּנֶז‬Esth 3:8, 4:7) and BA ‫( ּגְ נַז‬Ezra 5:17, 6:1, 7:20); for ‫אֲדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬, cf. the same form in Ezra 8:27 as well as the variant form ‫( ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬Ezra 2:69; Neh 7:69–71); for ‫נָדָ ן‬, cf. BA ‫( נְ דַ ן‬Dan 7:15); for ‫ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬, cf. the monophthongized form ‫( ׁשֵ ׁש‬Esth 1:6; Song 5:15).

254

Chapter 4

any of these three canonical divisions. Greek and Old Indic, on the other hand, are not attested at all in the Torah, are only very sparsely attested in the Prophets, and are primarily concentrated in the Writings. 4.4 LOANWORDS AND THE HEBREW BIBLE’S SOURCE-​C RITICAL DIVISIONS This section surveys the types of loans found in the major source-​critical divisions of the Hebrew Bible: J, E, D, P, H, and DtrH (Tables 4.11–4.12). Disagreements regarding the Hebrew Bible’s composition certainly exist, and attempts to identify and reconstruct its literary strands beyond the broadest outlines are fraught with difficulties, as demonstrated by the multiplicity of views on this topic.52 Thus, the abiding value of the source-​critical approach is the manner in which it helps to identify various types of literature, regardless of whether or not those strands represent different sources (Hess 2007, 59). Here I use the traditional source critical framework (J, E, D, P, H, DtrH)53 to look for trends and patterns that might exist, not to argue for a particular compositional model. Doing so will inform our understanding of how foreign vocabulary may or may not relate to the Hebrew Bible’s traditional source-​critical divisions. 4.4.1 J (The Yahwist Source) J is found only in the Pentateuch, specifically the books of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers with a few minor portions in Deuteronomy.54 Traditionally, J has been dated to the tenth–ninth centuries b.c.e. and associated with the Southern Kingdom of Judah, but current scholarship disagrees as to its date and provenance, sometimes even doubting its very existence as a source (Young, Rezetko, and 52.  Kaufman 1982, 29–43. On the history of scholarship of the composition of Genesis–Kings, see Young, Rezetko and Ehrensvärd 2008, 2:2–33. 53.  The source-​critical divisions used here largely follow the traditional divisions found in Noth 1972; A. Campbell and O’Brien 1993. 54.  Gen 2:4b–4:26; 5:29; 6:1–8; 7:1–5, 7–10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22–23; 8:2b–3a, 6, 8–12, 13b, 20–22; 9:18–27; 10:8–19, 21, 25–30; 11:1–9, 28–30; 12:1–4a, 6–20; 13:1–5, 7–11a, 13–18; 15:1–2, 3b–4, 6–12, 17–21; 16:1b–2, 4–14; 18:1–33; 19:1–28, 30–38; 20:1a; 21:7; 22:20–24; 24:1–67; 25:1–6, 11, 21–26a, 27–34; 26:1–33; 27:1–45; 28:10, 13–16, 19; 29:1–35; 30:4–5, 7–16, 20–21, 24–43; 31:1, 3, 17, 19a, 20–23, 25b, 27, 30a, 31, 36a, 38–40, 46–49, 51–53a; 32:4–14a, 23–33; 33:1–3, 6–7, 12–17, 18b; 34:1–31; 35:21–22a; 37:3a, 4–21, 25–28; 38:1–40:1; 41:34a, 35b, 41–45, 46b, 49, 55–57; 42:1b, 4–5, 8–11a, 12, 27–28a, 38; 43:1–44:34; 45:1, 4–5a, 16–28; 46:5b, 28–34; 47:1–5a, 6b, 13–26, 29–31; 50:1–10a, 14; Exod 1:8–12, 22; 2:1–22; 3:1–4a, 5, 7–8, 16–22; 4:1–16, 19–20a, 21–31; 5:1–6:1; 7:14–18, 20–21a, 23–29; 8:4–11a, 16–28; 9:1–7, 13–35; 10:1–11:8; 12:21–23, 27b, 29–39; 13:20–22; 14:5b–6, 13–14, 19b–20, 24, 25b, 27aα, 30–31; 15:20–25a; 16:4–5, 28–31, 35b–36; 17:2, 4–16; 19:2b, 7–9, 11b–13, 18, 20–25; 24:1–2, 9–15a; 32:1a, 4b–6, 15–20, 25–35; 33:1–34:35; Num 10:29–12:16; 13:17b–20, 22–24, 27–31; 14:1b, 4, 11–25, 39–45; 16:1b, 12–15, 25–26, 27b–34; 20:19–20, 22a; 21:1–3, 4–9; 22:3b–8, 13–19, 21–37, 39–40; 23:28; 24:1–25:5; 32:1, 16, 39–42; Deut 31:14–15, 23; 34:1b–5a, 6, 10.

11 (0.657%) 9 (0.893%) 7 (0.675%) 27 (1.477%) 3 (0.480%) 29 (0.823%)

8 (0.478%) 7 (0.694%) 5 (0.482%) 23 (1.258%) 2 (0.320%) 16 (0.454%)

Egyptian 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%)

Greek

J E D P H DtrH

189× (0.950%) 68× (0.823%) 20× (0.215%) 275× (0.837%) 6× (0.135%) 130× (0.155%)

All

161× (0.809%) 64× (0.774%) 18× (0.194%) 257× (0.782%) 3× (0.068%) 66× (0.079%)

Egyptian 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%)

Greek

Table 4.12  Frequency of Loans in J, E, D, P, H, and DtrH

J E D P H DtrH

All

27× (0.136%) 4× (0.048%) 0× (0.000%) 6× (0.018%) 0× (0.000%) 15× (0.018%)

Hittite/Luvian

2 (0.119%) 2 (0.198%) 0 (0.000%) 2 (0.109%) 0 (0.000%) 3 (0.085%)

Hittite/Luvian

Table 4.11  Number of Loans in J, E, D, P, H, and DtrH

1× (0.005%) 0× (0.000%) 2× (0.022%) 12× (0.037%) 3× (0.068%) 48× (0.057%)

Hurrian

1 (0.060%) 0 (0.000%) 2 (0.193%) 2 (0.109%) 1 (0.160%) 9 (0.255%)

Hurrian

0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.001%)

Old Iranian

0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%)

Old Iranian

0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%)

Old Indic

0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%) 0 (0.000%)

Old Indic

Quantitative Analysis 255

256

Chapter 4

Ehrensvärd 2008, 2:9–11). J makes up 24.640% of the Pentateuch, or 6.418% of the Hebrew Bible. J contains 11 loans occurring a total of 189 times. Loans from Egyptian, Hittite/ Luvian, and Hurrian categories are attested, but loans from Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian do not occur at all. Given the low number of foreign loans overall in J, it is not possible to distinguish any statistically significant variation within J as a whole.55 4.4.2 E (The Elohist Source) E occurs only in the Pentateuch, primarily in the books of Genesis and Exodus but also in some parts of the book of Numbers.56 Welhausen dated E to the ninth century b.c.e. and associated it with the Northern Kingdom of Israel, but much current scholarship denies its existence separate from J (Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008, 2:11). E makes up only 10.239% of the Pentateuch, or 2.667% of the Hebrew Bible. There is little borrowed terminology in E, which contains 9 loans occurring a total of 68 times. Foreign terminology belonging to the Egyptian and Hittite/Luvian categories are represented; there are no loans belonging to the Greek, Hurrian, Old Indic, or Old Iranian categories. Unfortunately, E contains so few loans that no statistically significant trends emerge within E as a whole.57 4.4.3 D (Core of the Book of Deuteronomy) D comprises the core of the book of Deuteronomy.58 In the classical form of the Documentary Hypothesis, D is dated to the seventh century b.c.e. and associated with Josiah’s discovery of the law and the resulting reforms. Modern scholarship, however, finds little consensus as to its date and association with Josiah’s reform (Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008, 2:18–23). D makes up only 11.500% of the Pentateuch, or 2.995% of the Hebrew Bible. There are 7 loans occurring a total of 20 times. Foreign terminology belonging to the categories of Egyptian and Hurrian are represented; there are no loans belonging to the Greek, Hittite/Luvian, Old Indic, or Old Iranian categories. D contains 55.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 11) = 26.636, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 56.  Gen 15:3a, 5, 13–16; 20:1b–18; 21:6, 8–34; 22:1–19; 28:11–12, 17–18, 20–22; 30:1–3, 6, 17–19, 22–23; 31:2, 4–16, 19, 24–25a, 26, 28–29, 30b, 32–35, 36b–37, 41–45, 50, 53b–54; 32:1–3, 14–22; 33:4–5, 8–11, 19–20; 35:1–5, 7–8, 14, 16–20; 37:3b, 22–24, 29–36; 40:2–23; 41:1–33, 34b, 35a, 36–40, 47–48, 50–54; 42:1a, 2–3, 6–7, 11b, 13–26, 28b–37; 45:2–3, 5b–15; 46:1–5a; 47:5b, 6a, 7–12; 48:1–2, 7–22; 50:10b–11, 15–26; Exod 1:15–21; 3:4b, 6, 9–12, 13–15; 4:17–18, 20b; 13:17–19; 14:5a, 7, 11–12, 19a, 25a; 17:3; 18:1–27; 19:3–6, 10–11a, 14–17, 19; 20:1–23:33; 24:3–8; 32:1b–4a, 32:21–24; Num 20:14–18, 21; 21:21–35; 22:2–3a, 9–12, 20, 38, 41; 23:1–27, 29–30. 57.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 9) = 26.333, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 58.  Deut 4:44–26:19; 28.

Quantitative Analysis

257

so few loans overall that no statistically significant trends emerge within D as a whole.59 4.4.4 P (The Priestly Source) P occurs primarily in the Pentateuch, mostly in the legal and cultic material found in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, but also occurs in various other material (e.g., genealogies) throughout the Pentateuch.60 The classic form of the Documentary Hypothesis dates P to the sixth–fifth centuries b.c.e. and associates it with the exiled priests in Babylon, but most modern scholarship considers P a codification of ancient traditions dating to both before and after the Exile (Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008, 2:11–17). It comprises 40.680% of the Pentateuch, or 10.596% of the Hebrew Bible. There are 27 loans in P occurring a total of 275 times. There are no Greek, Old Indic, or Old Iranian loanwords in P. The major contributor to P is Egyptian, which has loaned 23 (257×) words. Although the number of Egyptian loanwords in P cannot be considered statistically significant because of the low total number of loans in the book, P’s relative number of Egyptian loans is comparable statistically to the high relative number of Egyptian loanwords in Exodus.61 From the standpoint of contact linguistics, the high number of Egyptian loanwords in P points to significant Egyptian influence upon P. Many of the Egyptian loanwords in P refer to materials used to construct the tabernacle and its accoutrements, which is not surprising given the many parallels between the tabernacle and various aspects of Egyptian society and culture (Hoffmeier 2005, 193–222). In support of recent scholarship (e.g., Knohl 1995), this suggests an early date for (at least) the portions of P that contain these Egyptian loans, because it is unlikely that priests living as exiles in Babylon would incorporate such a high degree of Egyptian technical vocabulary. An earlier date becomes even more plausible given the phonological and morphological indications that many of P’s Egyptian loans 59.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 7) = 17.857, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 60.  Gen 1:1–2:4a; 5:1–28, 30–32; 6:9–22; 7:6, 11, 13–16a, 17, 18–21, 24; 8:1–2a, 3b–5, 7, 13a, 14–19; 9:1–17, 28–29; 10:1–7, 20, 22–24, 31–32; 11:10–27, 31–32; 12:4b–5; 13:6, 11b–12; 16:1a, 3, 15–16; 17:1–27; 19:29; 21:1b–5; 23:1–20; 25:7–11a, 12–17, 19–20, 26b; 26:34–35; 27:46–28:9; 31:18; 33:18a; 35:6, 9–13, 15, 22b–29; 36:1–14; 37:1–2; 41:46a; 46:6–27; 47:27–28; 48:3–6; 49:1a, 29–33; 50:12–13; Exod 1:1–7, 13–14; 2:23–25; 6:2–30; 7:1–13; 7:19, 20aα, 21b, 22; 8:1–3, 11aβb, 12–15; 9:8–12; 11:9–10; 12:1–20, 28, 40–51; 14:1–4, 8–10, 15–18, 21–23, 26, 28–29; 15:22aα, 27; 16:1–3, 6–27, 32–35a; 17:1; 19:1–2a; 24:15b–31:18; 35:1–40:38; Lev 8:1–10:20; 16:1–34; Num 1:1–4:49; 7:1:–10:28; 13:1–17a, 21, 25–26, 32–33; 14:1a, 2–3, 5–10, 26–38; 16:1a, 2–11, 16–24, 27a, 35; 17:1–18:32; 20:1–13, 22b–29; 22:1; 25:6–18; 27:12–23; Deut 32:48–52; 34:1aα, 5b, 7–9. Noth lists several texts as later additions to P: Gen 36:15–43; Lev 1:1–7:38; 11:1–15:32; 27:1–34; Num 5:1–6:21; 15:1–41; 19:1–22; 25:19–27:11; 28:1–31:54; 32:2–15, 17–38; 33:1–36:12. Some scholars also find P outside of the Pentateuch, especially in the book of Joshua (Young, Rezetko and Ehrensvärd 2008, 2:24–25). However, these possible occurrences of P outside of the Pentateuch are not included here. 61.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 27) = 92.333, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. However, compared with Exodus, the variation in the number of Egyptian loans is statistically insignificant: χ2 (df = 1, n = 48) = 1.514, p > .05.

258

Chapter 4

were borrowed prior to the Exile, although it is always possible that a gap existed between the date of borrowing and the date of the biblical traditions’ origin. 4.4.5 H (The Holiness Code) H occurs only in the Pentateuch, specifically the latter part of the book of Leviticus.62 According to the current scholarly consensus, H is a core body of earlier material incorporated by P, although some scholars argue that H instead redacted P (Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008, 2:11–17). It makes up 5.501% of the Pentateuch, or 1.433% of the Hebrew Bible. H contains the fewest loans of all the source-​critical divisions of the Hebrew Bible: only 3 different loanwords occur a total of 6 times. Only Egyptian and Hurrian loans are represented; there are no Greek, Hittite/Luvian, Old Indic, or Old Iranian loanwords. Nevertheless, the corpus of H is so small and H contains so few loans overall that no statistically significant trends emerge within H as a whole.63 4.4.6 DtrH (The Deuteronomistic History) DtrH consists of the book of Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings). Noth first formulated the concept of the Deuteronomistic History, theorizing a single person writing during the sixth century b.c.e. Since Noth, however, a variety of modifications and alternate theories have arisen, causing both its date of composition and its coherence as a history to be questioned (Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008, 2:18–23). DtrH comprises 27.057% of the Hebrew Bible. As a source, DtrH possesses 29 loans occurring a total of 130 times. All languages but Greek and Old Indic are present in DtrH. The top contributor to DtrH is Egyptian, which has provided 16 loans that occur 66 times. Although the variation within DtrH is statistically insignificant due to the low total number of loans in the book,64 the number of Egyptian loanwords in DtrH is comparable with that of Isaiah and Ezekiel (but not Exodus, which is significantly higher).65 However, there is no statistically significant relationship between the variation in Deuteronomy and the variation of Joshua–Kings, so no trends regarding foreign terminology connect the book of Deuteronomy with the rest of the Deuteronomistic History.66 62.  Lev 17:1–26:46. 63.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically insignificant when the different donor languages are compared, regardless of the expected number of loans being less than five in at least one cell: χ2 (df = 5, n = 3) = 7.000, p > .05. 64.  Although χ2 (df = 5, n = 29) = 42.793, p < .05, the expected number of loans is less than five. 65.  Compared with Isaiah and Ezekiel, the variation in the number of Egyptian loans is statistically insignificant: for Isaiah, χ2 (df = 1, n = 35) = 2.543, p > .05; for Ezekiel, χ2 (df = 1, n = 31) = 3.614, p > .05. However, the relative number of Egyptian loans in DtrH is statistically significant when compared with Exodus: χ2 (df = 1, n = 41) = 21.458, p < .05. 66.  Comparison of the number of loans in Deuteronomy with the number of loans in Joshua–Kings is statistically insignificant with respect to each donor language, regardless of the expected number

Quantitative Analysis

259

4.4.7 Synthesis Traditionally, vocabulary has played an important role in identifying a biblical text’s source, in that differences in termonology have been attributed to different sources. However, the preceding discussion makes apparent that on the whole the Hebrew Bible’s source-​critical divisions do not possess a distinctive loanword vocabulary in that the sources J, E, D, and H possess no statistically significant trends. The two exceptions are P and DtrH, which are characterized by a significant number of Egyptian loanwords (especially P). Thus, whereas vocabulary has played a significant role historically in determining the sources of the Hebrew Bible, loanwords can offer little help with respect to identifying specific sources, with the possible exception of P and DtrH. 4.5 LOANWORDS AND THE HEBREW BIBLE’S TYPOLOGICAL DIVISIONS This section surveys the types of loans found in the major typological divisions of the Hebrew Bible: Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH), Standard (Classical) Biblical Hebrew (SBH), and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) (Tables 4.13–4.14). Scholars have long recognized that the Hebrew Bible exhibits linguistic heterogeneity despite its overall homogeneity, but they have disagreed on how to explain that heterogeneity. Traditionally, many of these scholars have defined this heterogeneity in chronological terms, arguing that ABH, SBH, and LBH reflect three distinct phases in the stage of the Hebrew language: an archaic form from the late second millennium b.c.e. (ABH), a  standardized or classical form from the period of the monarchy (SBH), and an Exilic and post-​Exilic form influenced by Aramaic (LBH). Evidence for this three-​part chronological framework involves various criteria (e.g., Kutscher 1984, 77–85; Sáenz-​Badillos 1993, 50–75, 112–60; Hurvitz 2000), including linguistic distribution (i.e., the characteristics of each period are largely limited to that period), linguistic opposition (i.e., distinct linguistic features take the place of features in other periods), extrabiblical attestation (i.e., early features are found in early extrabiblical sources such as Ugaritic whereas late features are found in late extrabiblical sources in Aramaic and Rabbinic Hebrew), and accumulation (i.e., a text may exhibit an accumulation of these features). More recently, however, some scholars have argued that the distinction between ABH, SBH, and LBH involves not primarily chronology but different scribal styles.67 These scholars dispute the traditional criteria for dating biblical texts. They contend that features alleged to belong to a particular typology do not occur of loans being less than five in at least one cell: for Egyptian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 21) = 0.256, p > .05; for Hittite/Luvian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 3) = 1.214, p > .05; for Hurrian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 11) = 0.606, p > .05; for Old Iranian, χ2 (df =1, n =1) = 0.405, p > .05; for Greek and Old Indic, no loans exist. 67.  E.g., Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008; Davies 1999, 97–101; Cryer 1994.

260

Chapter 4

exclusively or even predominantly in that typology, and they likewise note that clear evidence of linguistic opposition is lacking in most cases. They also argue that we do not have an adequate corpus of extrabiblical material for comparison and that the similarities between that extrabiblical material and their connected periods are often superficial. Finally, they point out that no consensus exists regarding how much accumulation of features is necessary to classify a text typologically. The heterogeneity that the Hebrew Bible displays reflects different scribal approaches to language use that range on a spectrum from conservative (i.e., reliance on a limited core of linguistic forms) to non-​conservative (i.e., an openness to a variety of linguistic forms). This disagreement is a significant one, but the difference largely lies not in accepting or rejecting the Hebrew Bible’s heterogeneity, but in explaining it. Thus, the typological divisions used here follow the traditional three-​part ABH–SBH– LBH framework. I use this framework to look for trends and patterns that might exist as well as to evaluate methodology, not to argue for a particular explanation of the typology. Doing so will inform the ongoing debate regarding diachrony in Biblical Hebrew and how loanwords may or may not relate to this discussion. 4.5.1 Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH) ABH consists of several poems found at the seams of the Pentateuch, namely Jacob’s Final Blessing (Gen 49:1b–27), the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:1b–18), Balaam’s Oracles (Num 23:7b–10, 18b–24; 24:3b–9, 15–24), the Song of Moses (Deut 32:1–43), and Moses’ Final Blessing (Deut 33:2–29), as well as the Song of Deborah in the book of Judges (Judg 5:2–31a) and the Songs of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1b–10) and David (2 Sam 22:2b–51) in Samuel. ABH, which makes up approximately 0.784% of the Hebrew Bible, represents a notably smaller corpus than SBH and LBH. There are fewer loans in ABH than in SBH or LBH. ABH contains only 4 loans occurring a total of 5 times. Represented donor languages include Egyptian and Hurrian; there are no Greek, Hittite/Luvian, Old Indic, or Old Iranian loans. The corpus of ABH is so small and contains so few loans overall that no statistically significant trends emerge within ABH as a whole.68 4.5.2 Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) SBH, also called Early Biblical Hebrew or Classical Biblical Hebrew, is the largest typological division, making up 69.262% of the Hebrew Bible. Texts traditionally belonging to SBH include the Pentateuch (excluding poems belonging to ABH), 68.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically insignificant when the different donor languages are compared, regardless of the expected number of loans being less than five in at least one cell: χ2 (df = 5, n = 3) = 7.000, p > .05.

3 (0.341%) 70 (1.162%) 51 (1.108%) 84 (1.883%) 74 (2.059%)

2 (0.227%) 49 (0.813%) 36 (0.782%) 18 (0.403%) 10 (0.278%)

Egyptian 0 (0.000%) 1 (0.017%) 0 (0.000%) 6 (0.134%) 6 (0.167%)

Greek 0 (0.000%) 6 (0.100%) 4 (0.087%) 4 (0.090%) 2 (0.056%)

Hittite/Luvian

ABH SBH   Core SBH LBH   Core LBH

4× (0.165%) 856× (0.399%) 681× (0.457%) 264× (0.494%) 228× (0.687%)

All

3× (0.123%) 700× (0.326% 564× (0.378%) 46× (0.086%) 28× (0.084%)

Egyptian 0× (0.000%) 1× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 22× (0.041%) 22× (0.066%)

Greek 0× (0.000%) 69× (0.032%) 52× (0.035%) 9× (0.017%) 4× (0.012%)

Hittite/Luvian

Table 4.14  Frequency of Loans in ABH, SBH, Core SBH, LBH, and Core LBH

ABH SBH   Core SBH LBH   Core LBH

All

Table 4.13  Number of Loans in ABH, SBH, Core SBH, LBH, and Core LBH

1× (0.041%) 82x (0.038%) 64× (0.043%) 15× (0.028%) 6× (0.018%)

Hurrian

1 (0.114%) 11 (0.183%) 10 (0.217%) 5 (0.112%) 5 (0.139%)

Hurrian

0× (0.000%) 3× (0.001%) 1× (0.001%) 168× (0.314%) 166× (0.500%)

Old Iranian

0 (0.000%) 2 (0.033%) 1 (0.022%) 49 (1.098%) 49 (1.363%)

Old Iranian

0× (0.000%) 1× (0.000%) 0× (0.000%) 4× (0.007%) 2× (0.006%)

Old Indic

0 (0.000%) 1 (0.017%) 0 (0.000%) 2 (0.045%) 2 (0.056%)

Old Indic

Quantitative Analysis 261

262

Chapter 4

Joshua, Judges (excluding the Song of Deborah), Samuel (excluding the Songs of Hannah and David), Kings, First and Second Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Lamentations.69 SBH contains 70 loans occurring a total of 856 times. All donor languages contribute to SBH. The highest contributor to SBH is Egyptian (49 [700×]). The remaining contributors together constitute a second tier of minor (Hittite/Luvian and Hurrian) and a third tier of even more minor (Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian) contributors.70 The number of Egyptian loans in SBH is significantly higher statistically when compared with LBH.71 Because SBH is thought to have transitioned to LBH ca. 550 b.c.e., and because Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian loanwords are often thought to be markers of late texts, it is instructive to examine the occurrences of loans from these languages in SBH. It contains only one Greek loan, ‫מֶ לֶט‬, which appears in an early Exilic portion of Jeremiah (Jer 43:9). The sole Old Indic loan in SBH, ‫רסֶ ן‬,ֶ appears in pre-​Exilic First Isaiah (Isa 30:28). Lastly, the two Old Iranian loans in SBH, ‫ ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬and ‫רז‬,ָ occur in pre-​Exilic (Josianic) 2 Kings (2 Kgs 23:11) and pre-​Exilic First Isaiah (24:16 [2×]), respectively. Unless considered late additions or redactions—which would have to be established on grounds other than the assumption that certain types of loanwords demonstrate the lateness of a text—these loans demonstrate that Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian terminology can and does exist in SBH. 4.5.3 Core Standard Biblical Hebrew (Core SBH) Core SBH is defined here as the Pentateuch (excluding poems belonging to ABH), Joshua, Judges (excluding the Song of Deborah), Samuel (excluding the Songs of Hannah and David), and Kings. Because it is limited to the Hebrew Bible’s narrative prose and excludes material that might be considered transitional Hebrew (i.e., Second Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Lamentations), it generally constitutes a more accurate representation of SBH. Core SBH makes up 48.080% of the Hebrew Bible, or more than half (69.417%) of SBH. There are 51 (681×) loanwords in Core SBH. Proportionally, the number of loans in Core SBH is nearly the same as that of SBH as a whole: no statistically significant difference exists between SBH and Core SBH with respect to the number of loans from each donor language.72 69.  As noted below (§4.5.3), some consider several of these books as transitional and not SBH per se: Second Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Lamentations. 70.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically significant when the different donor languages are compared: χ2 (df = 5, n = 70) = 149.771, p < .05. 71.  Comparison of the number of loans in SBH with the number of loans in LBH is statistically significant with respect to Egyptian: χ2 (df = 1, n = 67) = 6.741, p < .05. 72.  Comparison of the number of loans in SBH with the number of loans in Core SBH is statistically insignificant with respect to each donor language, regardless of whether or not the expected number of loans is less than five in at least one cell: for Egyptian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 85) = 0.031, p > .05; for Greek,

Quantitative Analysis

263

Accordingly, Core SBH seems to be an accurate representation of SBH with respect to its foreign terminology. 4.5.4 Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) LBH, which makes up approximately 17.253% of the Hebrew Bible, consists of Third Isaiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Qoheleth, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. There are 84 loans in LBH occurring a total of 264 times. All donor languages contribute to LBH. By far the highest contributor to LBH is Old Iranian, which loaned 49 words occurring a total of 168 times. Making up the second tier of contributors is Egyptian, and a third tier is made up of Greek, Hittite/ Luvian, Hurrian, and Old Indic.73 LBH contains a significantly higher number of Old Iranian loanwords than SBH but a significantly lower number of Egyptian loanwords than SBH.74 Although Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian loanwords appear most commonly in LBH, not all material classified as LBH contains a high number of Greek, Old Indic, or Old Iranian loans. Of the LBH books, Greek loans only exist in Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah, and Chronicles; Esther and Chronicles are the only books to possess any Old Indic loans, and even these are few; the only books to contain a high concentration of Old Iranian terminology are Esther, Daniel, and Ezra. This demonstrates that LBH is not a homogeneous entity in terms of the lexicon, at least with respect to foreign terminology. The lack of Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian loanwords in some LBH material further demonstrates that a book can be late and yet not contain any Greek, Old Indic, or Old Iranian loans. 4.5.5 Core Late Biblical Hebrew (Core LBH) Core LBH is defined here as Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Non-​Synoptic Chronicles. Because it is limited to material that most prominently exhibits the features of LBH, and because it does not contain material that might be influenced lexically by earlier texts (e.g., Synoptic Chronicles), it generally constitutes a more accurate representation of LBH. Core LBH makes up 10.709% of the Hebrew Bible, or more than half (62.073%) of LBH. There are only 80 (236×) loanwords in Core LBH.

χ2 (df = 1, n = 1) = 0.764, p > .05; for Hittite/Luvian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 10) = 0.044, p > .05; for Hurrian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 21) = 0.159, p > .05; for Old Indic, χ2 (df = 1, n = 1) = 0.764, p > .05; for Old Iranian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 3) = 0.121, p > .05. 73.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically significant when the different donor languages are compared: χ2 (df = 5, n = 84) = 116.429, p < .05. 74.  Comparison of the number of loans in LBH with the number of loans in SBH is statistically significant with respect to both Old Iranian and Egyptian: for Old Iranian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 51) = 59.785, p < .05; for Egyptian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 67) = 6.741, p < .05.

264

Chapter 4

Proportionally, the number of loans in Core LBH is nearly the same as in LBH: no statistically significant difference exists between LBH and Core LBH with respect to the number of loans from each donor language.75 Accordingly, Core LBH seems to be an accurate representation of LBH with respect to its foreign terminology. 4.5.6 Synthesis Traditionally, loanwords have been used to date biblical texts as early or late. The assumption has been that Egyptian, Hittite and Luvian, and Hurrian loanwords appear in biblical texts prior to the Exile whereas Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian loanwords only appear after the Exile; furthermore, the lack of loans from donor languages assumed to be pre-​Exilic indicates a late date, whereas the lack of loans from donor languages assumed to be Exilic indicates an early date.76 Given what we know of historical contact between the ancient Israelites and non-​Semitic peoples, it is logical that Egyptian, Hittite and Luvian, and Hurrian loanwords would tend to appear more frequently in earlier texts whereas Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian loanwords would tend to occur more frequently in later texts if the traditional understanding of the Hebrew Bible’s typology were true. However, this argumentation is subject to two critiques. First, the ancient Israelites were never obligated to adopt or reject foreign terminology at any point in time. Various sociolinguistic factors—such as the need to borrow, linguistic conservatism, and a community’s relationship (whether positive or negative) to a linguistically influential group of people—determine whether or not foreign terminology is adopted, not the date of a text’s composition.77 Second, as the above data demonstrate, the distribution of loanwords in the Hebrew Bible’s typological divisions does not support a uniform distinction between SBH and LBH in terms of non-​Semitic terminology. It is true that the number of Egyptian, Hittite and Luvian, and Hurrian loans is greater in SBH than in LBH and that the number of Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian loanwords is greater in LBH than in SBH. However, Egyptian, Hittite and Luvian, and Hurrian loans 75.  Comparison of the number of loans in LBH with the number of loans in Core LBH is statistically insignificant with respect to each donor language, regardless of whether or not the expected number of loans is less than five in at least one cell: for Egyptian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 28) = 0.897, p > .05; for Greek, χ2 (df = 1, n = 12) = 0.141, p > .05; for Hittite/Luvian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 6) = 0.309, p > .05; for Hurrian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 10) = 0.117, p > .05; for Old Indic, χ2 (df = 1, n = 4) = 0.047, p > .05; for Old Iranian, χ2 (df = 1, n = 98) = 1.151, p > .05. 76.  For example, according to Eskhult: “Whereas Akkadian and Egyptian culturally and politically could influence Hebrew from the oldest time, Persian had little possibility to do so before the sixth century b.c.e. . . . If loanwords of Persian origin are considered a strong argument when dating biblical texts, then the lack of every vestige of such loanwords ought to be considered as important evidence for a date of origin prior to the Persian era” (Eskhult 2003, 21, 23). 77.  Winford 2003, 39. Cf. above §1.6.

Quantitative Analysis

265

are also attested in LBH, and several Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian loanwords are attested in SBH.78 Furthermore, neither SBH nor LBH possesses a uniform loanword vocabulary. SBH may be characterized overall by Egyptian, Hittite and Luvian, and Hurrian terminology, but not all SBH books possess the same relative quantities and frequencies of such vocabulary; LBH may be characterized overall by Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian terminology, but Greek loans are lacking in some LBH material (Esther), Old Indic loans are generally absent from most LBH material, and Old Iranian loans abound in some LBH material (Esther, Daniel, and Ezra) but are nearly absent if not completely absent in other LBH material (Nehemiah and Chronicles) (Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008, 1:289, 293–95). This lack of uniformity should be attributed to the spectrum of sociolinguistic situations in which the biblical text was produced. Thus, simply asking whether loanwords of a given type are present or absent cannot conclusively fix the date of a biblical text, especially when used as a sole criterion (Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008, 1:309–11). This does not mean that loanwords are completely useless when it comes to this issue, however. Two items can be useful for dating biblical texts, both of which relate to the sociolinguistic context of borrowing: the relative number of non-​Semitic loans and the phonological and morphological features of foreign terminology. First, the relative number of non-​Semitic loans in the Hebrew Bible can provide some evidence for the dating of biblical texts. Investigation of the relative number of loanwords in a language can lead to inferences about the circumstances of borrowing (cf. L. Campbell 2013, 72–75). Thus, if a biblical text contains a high relative number of loans from a particular donor language, then it is likely that the biblical text was significantly influenced by the culture of that donor language. This in turn suggests that the biblical text originated during a historical situation in which the ancient Israelites experienced that kind of significant influence, allowing the exploration of possible dates of composition in light of the biblical text’s self-​ testimony and what is known from history. Comparison with the relative number of loans from other texts—both biblical and non-​biblical—whose date of composition is known can help to narrow the possibilities: if a text contains a relative number of loans close to that of the biblical text in question, and if the date of that text’s composition is known, then it is possible that the biblical text originated under similar historical circumstances. Thus, for example, the high relative number of Old Iranian loans in the book of Daniel points to an Old Iranian setting for the 78.  The presence of Egyptian, Hittite and Luvian, and Hurrian loanwords in LBH has at least two causes. First, although Egypt exerted less influence in the ancient Near East and upon ancient Palestine in the Exilic and post-​Exilic periods, there were still opportunities for contact with Egyptian-​speakers during the Exile and afterward. Second, once a foreign word entered the lexicon, it could potentially reappear at any time if sufficiently integrated. The attestation of Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian loanwords in SBH should not be surprising in light of the evidence for pre-​Exilic contact between the inhabitants of ancient Palestine and Greek, Indic, and Iranian peoples (see above §§2.2, 5–6).

266

Chapter 4

book’s traditions just as the high relative number of Old Iranian loanwords in Ezra reflects an Achaemenid origin.79 Second, the phonology and morphology of the non-​Semitic loans in the Hebrew Bible can shed light on the dating of biblical texts. As discussed in more detail below (chapter 6), phonological and morphological features preserved in a loanword may reflect a specific stage of the donor language’s development (cf. L. Campbell 2013, 66–68). It is therefore possible to determine when a non-​Semitic term was borrowed by Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers if that word exhibits phonological or morphological features characteristic of a particular stage of its donor language: foreign words exhibiting early phonological and morphological features must have been borrowed early, whereas foreign words exhibiting late phonological and morphological features must have been borrowed late.80 Thus, for example, several phonological and morphological features of the Egyptian loanwords in the book of Exodus point to an early origin for the Exodus tradition, and the non-​Attic forms of the Greek loanwords in Dan 3 indicate that at least portions of this chapter’s narrative originated prior to the time of Alexander the Great.81 Consideration of these two items does not conclusively prove the date of the biblical text’s composition, given the complex process by which the biblical text has come to us.82 Nevertheless, these two items can be useful for establishing the initial time of borrowing and thereby the date of the traditions behind the biblical text. 4.6 LOANWORDS AND PARTS OF SPEECH When the loanwords are divided into parts of speech, it quickly becomes evident that the vast majority of foreign loanwords in the Hebrew Bible (95.556%) are nouns (Table 4.15). There are only one verb (‫)אַ בְ ֵרְך‬, three adjectives (‫אַ זְּדָ א‬, ‫אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן‬, ‫)א ֲִריְך‬, and two adverbs (‫אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א‬, ‫)אָ ְסּפ ְַרנָא‬, comprising 0.741%, 2.222%, and 1.481% of the Hebrew Bible’s foreign loanwords, respectively. No other parts of speech occur as direct loans in the Hebrew Bible.83 79.  Cf. above §4.3.3. 80.  It is unlikely that the ancient Israelites would have used forms from an earlier stage of the donor language to give them an air of authenticity. Not only was a desire for historical verisimilitude like this largely absent in the ancient Near East, but it is unlikely that the ancient Israelites would have been able to research the level of detail required to produce any such thing. This is especially true of the Hebrew Bible’s non-​Semitic loanwords, the vast majority of which relate to particular aspects of foreign culture: such technical vocabulary presumably would be hard to come by without research, assuming that resources for such research were even available. 81.  See above §§4.3.1, 3. For detailed discussion, see Noonan 2016; forthcoming. 82.  Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008, 1:309–11. On the one hand, a word could have been borrowed early and adopted early into the biblical tradition, yet the text containing that tradition could have been composed later; on the other hand, a word could have been borrowed late and adopted late into the biblical tradition, yet the text containing that tradition could have been composed earlier. 83.  The variation in the number of loans is statistically significant when the different categories are compared: χ2 (df = 5, n = 135) = 611.701, p < .05.

267

Quantitative Analysis

Table 4.15  Distribution of Parts of Speech

Nouns Pronouns Verbs Adjectives Adverbs Adpositions Interjections

All

Egyptian

Greek

Hittite/ Luvian

Hurrian

Old Indic

Old Iranian

129 0 1 3 2 0 0

53 0 1 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0 0

47 0 0 3 2 0 0

This distribution is consistent with the observation that nouns are borrowed more frequently than other parts of speech. Cross-​linguistically, nouns tend to be borrowed more often than verbs, which in turn tend to be borrowed more often than adjectives and adverbs. Generally speaking, this is because things and concepts are easily adopted across cultures along with the words for them, whereas verbs, adjectives, and adverbs are not. Borrowed nouns tend to represent cultural vocabulary that is more prone to borrowing, whereas borrowed adjectives and verbs tend to represent core vocabulary that is more resistant to borrowing (U. Tadmor 2009, 61–63; Matras 2009, 166–92). The few examples of borrowed adjectives and adverbs in the Hebrew Bible, which are limited to Old Iranian, undoubtedly reflect bilingual situations of intense contact with speakers of Old Iranian during the Achaemenid Empire that made borrowing of non-​noun parts of speech more likely to occur. 4.7 LOANWORDS AND DOMAIN OF USE This section surveys the types of loans found in the Hebrew Bible according to domain of use in terms of semantic categories and categories by donor language (Table 4.16).84 4.7.1 Semantic Categories The following data summarize the semantic categories of the non-​Semitic loanwords found in the Hebrew Bible. The number of items in each category is indicated first, followed by the percentage of the 135-word total. 84.  At least two limitations dictate that the analysis in this section not be considered firm and absolute. First, the determination of semantic categories is, by its very nature, subjective. Second, not all words belong neatly to a single category; some could arguably belong to multiple categories. Cf. SWET 460–61.

Animals Architecture Finances & Commerce Food, Drink, & Cooking Furniture Legal–Administrative Terminology Measures Metals & Metallurgy Minerals & Organic Materials Miscelleanous Non-​Realia Miscelleaneous Realia Music Plants & Plant Products Religion Textiles & Clothing Tools & Weaponry Topography Transportation Vessels & Containers

3 5 9 1 1 25 4 1 12 10 7 4 11 8 15 6 2 3 8

All 2 1 0 1 0 4 4 1 10 2 2 0 8 2 8 0 1 3 5

Egyptian

Table 4.16  Distribution of Semantic Categories

0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Greek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 1

Hittite/Luvian 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 2

Hurrian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Old Indic 1 3 8 0 0 19 0 0 0 8 3 0 1 3 3 2 1 0 0

Old Iranian

268 Chapter 4

Quantitative Analysis

269

Animals 3 (2.222%): ‫קֹ ף‬, ‫רּמָ כָה‬,ַ ‫ּתֻ ּכִ י‬ Architecture 5 (3.704%): ‫אֵ בּוס‬, ‫אַ ּפֶדֶ ן‬, ‫ּבַ חַ ן‬, ‫ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬, ‫ּפ ְַרוָר‬ Finances & Commerce 9 (6.667%): ‫אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬, ‫אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬, ‫ ֶּגּנֶז‬, ‫ּגְ נַז‬, ‫ּגַנְ זְַך‬, ‫ּגִ זְּבָ ר‬, ‫ּגִ זְּבַ ר‬, ‫ּגְ דָ בַ ר‬, ‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬ Food, Drink, & Cooking 1 (0.741%): ‫חֹ ִרי‬ Furniture 1 (0.741%): ‫אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬ Lega l –Administrative Technology 25 (18.519%): ‫ ֲאחַ ְׁשּדַ ְר ָּפן‬, ‫ ֲאחַ ְׁשּדַ ְר ַּפן‬, ‫ ֲא ַפ ְר ְסָך‬, ‫ ֲא ַפ ְר סַ ְתָך‬, ‫ּדיֹו‬,ְ ‫ּדָ ת‬, ‫ּדָ ת‬, ‫ּדתָ בַ ר‬,ְ ‫הַ ּדָ בַ ר‬, ‫טַ ּבַ ַעת‬, ‫ּכָרֹוז‬, ‫מַ ס‬, ‫נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬, ‫נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬, ‫ס ַרְך‬, ְ ‫ ַּפ ְרעֹ ה‬, ‫ּפ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן‬, ‫ּפ ְַרּתָ ם‬, ‫ּפ ְַתּבַ ג‬, ‫ּפִ ְתגָם‬, ‫ּפִ ְתגָם‬, ‫ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬, ‫קֶ סֶ ת‬, ‫ׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬, ְ ‫ִּתפְ ּתָ י‬ Measures 4 (2.963%): ‫אֵ פָה‬, ‫הִ ין‬, ‫ז ֶֶרת‬, ‫קַ ב‬ Metals & Metallurgy 1 (0.741%): ‫ּפַח‬ Minerals & Organic Materials 12 (8.889%): ‫אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬, ‫ּבַ הַ ט‬, ‫ּבֹ חַ ן‬, ‫ ֶזפֶת‬, ‫י ְָׁשפֵה‬, ‫לֶׁשֶ ם‬, ‫מֶ לֶט‬, ‫נֹ פְֶך‬, ‫נֶתֶ ר‬, ‫ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬, ‫ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬, ‫ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬ Miscellaneous Non-​Realia 10 (7.407%): ‫אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א‬, ‫אַ זְּדָ א‬, ‫אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן‬, ‫אָ ְסּפ ְַרנָא‬, ‫א ֲִריְך‬, ‫הַ ּדָ ם‬, ‫זְמַ ן‬, ‫זַן‬, ‫זַן‬, ‫נַחַ ת‬ Miscellaneous Realia 7 (5.185%): ‫אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא‬, ‫ּבַ ד‬, ‫הַ ְמיָנְ כָא‬, ‫ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬, ‫נֶבְ ְר ְׁשּתָ א‬, ‫פַח‬, ‫ֶרסֶ ן‬ Music 4 (2.963%): ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬, ְ ‫ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬, ‫קִ יתָ רֹוס‬, ‫ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬ Plants & Plant Products 11 (8.148%): ‫אֱגֹוז‬, ‫אָ חּו‬, ‫ּגֹ מֶ א‬, ‫הָ בְ נִ ים‬, ‫נ ְֵר ְּד‬, ‫סּוף‬, ‫ע ָָרה‬, ‫קִ יקָ יֹון‬, ‫ׁשּוׁשַ ן‬, ‫ׁשּטָ ה‬, ִ ‫ְּתאַ ּׁשּור‬ Religion 8 (5.923%): ‫אֹוב‬, ‫חַ ְרטֹ ם‬, ‫חַ ְרטֹ ם‬, ‫ּכֹ מֶ ר‬, ‫רז‬,ָ ‫רז‬,ָ ‫ּת ָרפִ ים‬, ְ ‫ִּת ְרׁשָ תָ א‬ Textiles & Clothing 15 (11.111%): ‫אַ בְ נֵט‬, ‫אֵ טּון‬, ‫אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬, ‫ּבַ ד‬, ‫חִ ּתּול‬, ‫ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬, ‫ּכ ְַרּפַס‬, ‫מֶ ִׁשי‬, ‫סָ ִדין‬, ‫סַ ְרּבָ ל‬, ‫ּפְ אֵ ר‬, ‫ּפ ִַּטיׁש‬, ‫ׁשֵ ׁש‬, ‫ּתַ חְ ָרא‬, ‫ּתַ חַ ׁש‬ Tools & Weaponry 6 (4.444%): ‫ּכֹובַ ע‬, ‫ּכִ ידֹון‬, ‫לַּפִ יד‬, ‫נָדָ ן‬, ‫נְ דַ ן‬, ‫ִׁש ְריֹון‬ Topography 2 (1.481%): ‫יְ אֹ ר‬, ‫ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬ Transportation 3 (2.222%): ‫ּכְ לִ י‬, ‫צִ י‬, ‫ְׂשכִ ית‬ Vessels & Containers 8 (5.926%): ‫אַ ח‬, ‫ּגָבִ י ַע‬, ‫חֶ ֶרׂש‬, ‫טֶ נֶא‬, ‫ּכִ ּיֹור‬, ‫סֵ פֶל‬, ‫קַ ּלַחַ ת‬, ‫ּתֵ בָ ה‬ Overall, the three most common categories of foreign loans in the Hebrew Bible are Legal–Administrative Terminology (18.519%), Textiles & Clothing (11.111%), and Minerals & Organic Materials (9.630%). These numbers concern the Hebrew Bible as a whole. However, it is also useful to compare the most common categories with respect to the Hebrew and Aramaic portions of the Bible. In the Hebrew portions, the three most common categories are Legal–Administrative Terminology (12.371%), Minerals & Organic Materials (12.371%), and Textiles & Clothing (12.371%). In the Aramaic portions, on the other hand, the three most common categories are Legal–Administrative Terminology (34.211%), Miscellaneous Non-​ Realia (18.421%), and Finances & Commerce (13.158%). 4.7.2 Categories by Donor Language It is also instructive to investigate the most common fields with respect to the different donor languages. Certain categories tend to be associated with particular regions. Based on the available data, one can draw general conclusions as to what

270

Chapter 4

cultural ideas and concepts were typically borrowed from different regions in the ancient Near East. Egyptian had the most influence in the realms of Minerals & Organic Materials (18.519%), Textiles & Clothing (14.815%), and Plants & Plant Products (14.815%). Less significant influences are found on the categories of Legal–Administrative Terminology, particularly with respect to scribal technology (7.407%), and Vessels & Containers (9.259%). There are very few Greek loanwords in the Hebrew Bible. Greek exhibited the strongest influence in the realm of Music, with half of attested Greek loans belonging to this category (50.000%). The only other categories represented are Finances  & Commerce (12.500%), Furniture (12.500%), Legal–Administrative Technology (12.500%), and Minerals & Organic Materials (12.500%). There are even fewer Hittite/Luvian loanwords in the Hebrew Bible. The categories represented are Plants & Plant Products (16.667%), Religion (16.667%), Textiles & Clothing (33.333%), Tools & Weaponry (16.667%), and Vessels & Containers (16.667%). Hurrian exhibited some minor influence in the realm of Tools and Weaponry (27.273%), with even less significant influences on Religion (18.182%) and Vessels & Containers (18.182%). Other categories represented by Hurrian include Architecture (9.091%), Legal–Administrative Terminology (9.091%), Minerals & Organic Materials (9.091%), and Textiles & Clothing (9.091%). There are very few Old Indic loanwords in the Hebrew Bible. Of the four Old Indic loanwords, two belong to the category of Miscellaneous Realia (50.000%), one belongs to Plants & Plant Products (25.000%), and one belongs to Textiles & Clothing (25.000%). Old Iranian made the most recognizable impact on the realm of Legal–Administrative Terminology (36.538%). Less significant influence is found on the categories of Finances & Commerce (15.385%) and Miscellaneous Non-​Realia (15.385%). 4.7.3 Synthesis As is evident from the above data, the vast majority of foreign words in the Hebrew Bible are cultural borrowings (i.e., loans designating a new, non-​native item or concept) rather than core borrowings (i.e., loans that duplicate meanings for which a native word already exists) (cf. FWOT iv). This is significant because it reflects the types of historical situations under which the Hebrew Bible’s loanwords were borrowed. As noted in chapter 1, cultural borrowings arise out of necessity and can occur within either monolingual or bilingual contexts. Core borrowings, on the other hand, occur within bilingual contexts (Myers-​Scotton 2002, 239–40; Haspelmath 2009, 46–49). It follows that the vast majority of loanwords in the Hebrew Bible were borrowed out of necessity. Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers adopted foreign terminology as they encountered non-​native items and concepts, both in monolingual contexts (more casual contact with foreign speakers) or bilingual contexts (more

Quantitative Analysis

271

intense contact with foreign speakers). The few examples of core borrowings, on the other hand, reflect bilingual situations of more intense contact with foreign speakers. Nearly all of these core borrowings, which include several non-​nominal forms, belong to the historical circumstances of the Achaemenid Empire (‫אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א‬, ‫אַ זְּדָ א‬, ‫אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן‬, ‫אָ ְסּפ ְַרנָא‬, ‫הַ ּדָ ם‬, ‫זְמַ ן‬, ‫זַן‬, ‫נָדָ ן‬, ‫)ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬.85 The exceptions are ‫ אַ בְ ֵרְך‬and ‫נַחַ ת‬, which both constitute examples of style-​switching.86

85.  Other texts from the time of the Achaemenid Empire, such as the Elamite Persepolis Treasury Tablets, exhibit the borrowing of cultural as well as core vocabulary (cf. Cameron 1948, 19). 86.  Notably, core borrowings usually begin life in the recipient language when bilinguals introduce them as singly-​occurring code-​switching forms in the mixed constituents of their code-​switching (Myers-​Scotton 2002, 239).

Chapter 5 Linguistic Analysis

This chapter provides a linguistic analysis of the direct Egyptian, Greek, Hittite and Luvian, Hurrian, Old Indic, and Old Iranian loanwords from Chapter 3. First, it investigates phonological issues, including phonological correspondences, assimilation and dissimilation, and the resolution of consonant clusters in both initial and final position. Second, it analyzes the orthographic representation of vowels in the Hebrew Bible’s foreign loanwords. Finally, it summarizes how various morphological aspects of non-​Semitic terminology were treated by Hebrewand Aramaic-​speakers. 5.1 PHONOLOGY 5.1.1 Phonological Correspondences This section analyzes the phonological correspondences between consonantal inventories of the primary donor languages encountered in this study and the consonantal inventories of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Each subsection contains a chart summarizing the consonantal correspondences and detailed discussion organized primarily by manner of articulation. 5.1.1.1 Egyptian Consonant correspondences are displayed in Table 5.1. 5.1.1.1.1 Stops The phonological oppositions between the pairs of Egyptian stops are not well understood. Egyptologists offer several different theories: voiceless vs. voiced, non-​emphatic vs. emphatic, and aspirate vs. non-​aspirate (Peust 1999, 80–84). It is likely that all these features come into play, because no single feature adequately explains all the data. This unusual combination of features—one of which is foreign to the Semitic languages—cautions against ruling out loan hypotheses on the 273

274

Chapter 5

Table 5.1  Consonant Correspondences with Egyptian Egyptian

Hebrew/Aramaic

Attestation

Ꜣ ı̓ y ˁ w b

‫י‬ ‫י‬ ‫ע‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ ב‬a‎, ‫ מ‬b

p f m n

‫פ‬ ‫פ‬ ‫ מ‬a‎, ‫ נ‬b ‫ נ‬a‎, ‫ ל‬b

r

‫ ר‬a‎, ‫ ל‬b‎, ‫ ד‬c

h ḥ ḫ ẖ s š q k g t ṯ d ḏ

‫ה‬ ‫ ח‬a‎, ‫ ע‬b ‫ח‬

‫יְ אֹ ר‬ ‫ְּדיֹו‬ ‫טַ ּבַ עַת‬‎, ‫ע ָָרה‬‎, ‫ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬ ‫אָ חּו‬ a ‫אַ בְ נֵט‬‎‎, ‫אַ בְ ֵרְך‬‎, ‫ּבַ הַ ט‬‎, ‫ּבַ חַ ן‬‎, ‫ּבֹ חַ ן‬‎, ‫ּגָבִ י ַע‬‎, ‫הָ בְ נִ ים‬‎, ‫טַ ּבַ עַת‬‎, ‫קַ ב‬‎, ‫ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬‎, ‫ ּתֵ בָ ה‬b ‫חַ ְרטֹ ם‬ ‫אֵ פָה‬‎, ‫ּפְ אֵ ר‬‎, ‫ּפַח‬‎, ‫ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬ ‫ ֶזפֶת‬‎, ‫נֹ פְֶך‬‎, ‫סּוף‬‎, ‫קֹ ף‬ a ‫אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬‎, ‫ּגֹ מֶ א‬‎, ‫לֶׁשֶ ם‬‎, ‫ מֶ ִׁשי‬b ‫אֵ טּון‬‎, ‫נֹ פְֶך‬ a ‫אַ בְ נֵט‬‎, ‫ּבַ חַ ן‬‎, ‫ּבֹ חַ ן‬‎, ‫הָ בְ נִ ים‬‎, ‫הִ ין‬‎, ‫טֶ נֶא‬‎, ‫נַחַ ת‬‎, ‫נֶתֶ ר‬‎, ‫ ׁשּוׁשַ ן‬b ‫אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬‎, ‫לֶׁשֶ ם‬ a ‫אַ בְ ֵרְך‬‎, ‫ז ֶֶרת‬‎, ‫חַ ְרטֹ ם‬‎, ‫יְ אֹ ר‬‎, ‫חֹ ִרי‬‎, ‫נֶתֶ ר‬‎, ‫ע ָָרה‬‎, ‫ּפְ אֵ ר‬‎, ‫ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬‎, ‫ּתַ חְ ָרא‬ b  ‫ּכְ לִ י‬‎, ‫ קַ ּלַחַ ת‬c ‫ְּדיֹו‬ ‫ּבַ הַ ט‬‎, ‫הָ בְ נִ ים‬‎, ‫הִ ין‬ a ‫חַ ְרטֹ ם‬‎, ‫חֹ ִרי‬‎, ‫קַ ּלַחַ ת‬‎, ‫ּתַ חַ ׁש‬‎, ‫ ּתַ חְ ָרא‬b ‫ּגָבִ י ַע‬ ‫אַ ח‬‎, ‫אָ חּו‬‎, ‫אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬‎, ‫ּבַ חַ ן‬‎, ‫ּבֹ חַ ן‬‎, ‫נַחַ ת‬‎, ‫ּפַח‬

‫ ס‬a‎, ‫ ׂש‬b‎, ‫ ׁש‬c ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ק‬a‎, ‫ ג‬b ‫ כ‬a‎, ‫ ק‬b ‫ק‬ ‫ ת‬a‎, ‫ ט‬b‎, ‫ א‬c ‫ ס‬a‎, ‫ ת‬b ‫ ט‬a‎, ‫ ת‬b ‫ צ‬a‎, ‫ ז‬b‎, ‫ ט‬c‎, ‫ ד‬d‎, ‫ ת‬e

‫ קֶ סֶ ת‬b ‫ ְׂשכִ ית‬c ‫מֶ ִׁשי‬‎, ‫ּתַ חַ ׁש‬ ‫לֶׁשֶ ם‬‎, ‫ׁשּוׁשַ ן‬‎, ‫ׁשּטָ ה‬‎ִ , ‫ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬‎, ‫ׁשֵ ׁש‬ a ‫קַ ב‬‎, ‫ קַ ּלַחַ ת‬b ‫ּגָבִ י ַע‬‎, ‫ּגֹ מֶ א‬ a ‫אַ בְ ֵרְך‬‎, ‫ּכְ לִ י‬‎, ‫נֹ פְֶך‬‎, ‫ׂשכִ ית‬‎ְ , ‫ ּתֻ ּכִ י‬b ‫קִ יקָ יֹון‬ ‫קֹ ף‬‎, ‫קֶ סֶ ת‬ a ‫ז ֶֶרת‬‎, ‫טַ ּבַ עַת‬‎, ‫נַחַ ת‬‎, ‫קַ ּלַחַ ת‬‎, ‫קֶ סֶ ת‬‎, ‫ׂשכִ ית‬‎ְ , ‫ ּתֻ ּכִ י‬b ‫ּבַ הַ ט‬‎, ‫ חַ ְרטֹ ם‬c ‫יְ אֹ ר‬ a ‫ סּוף‬b ‫ ֶזפֶת‬‎, ‫נֶתֶ ר‬‎, ‫ּתַ חַ ׁש‬ a ‫אַ בְ נֵט‬‎, ‫אֵ טּון‬‎, ‫טֶ נֶא‬‎, ‫ ִׁשּטָ ה‬b ‫ּתַ חְ ָרא‬ a ‫ צִ י‬b ‫ ז ֶֶרת‬c ‫ טַ ּבַ עַת‬d ‫ ּבַ ד‬e ‫ּתֵ בָ ה‬ a

basis of preconceived consonant correspondences and invites multiple representations of the Egyptian consonants in Semitic. Egyptian contains two bilabial stops, b (𓃀) and p (𓊪). Their distinctive feature seems to be largely limited to voice, and voiced b and voiceless p were probably pronounced [b] and [ph], respectively (J. Allen 2013, 43; Loprieno 1995, 33–34; Peust 1999, 133–35). Egyptian b and p are commonly represented as bet and pe in the Hebrew Bible. Only in the case of Hebrew and Aramaic ‫ חַ ְרטֹ ם‬does Egyptian b appear as mem, most likely because of the accompanying u-class vowel. The features distinguishing Egyptian t (𓏏) and d (𓂧) are unclear but seem to be voice, emphasis, and aspiration. Egyptian t was probably a voiceless dental, sometimes aspirated, that was perhaps pronounced [t(h)]; Egyptian d was probably a voiced emphatic pronounced [d’]. The opposition between these two consonants was progressively neutralized in Later Egyptian.1 1.  J. Allen 2013, 48–50; Loprieno 1995, 32–34, 38; Junge 2005, 37; cf. SWET 427.

Linguistic Analysis

275

Egyptian t regularly appears as taw in the present corpus but twice appears as ṭeṭ (‫ּבַ הַ ט‬, ‫)חַ ְרטֹ ם‬. While this is unusual, Semitic-​speakers cannot be expected to consistently represent a foreign phoneme that has no exact correspondence in their languages. The usage of ʾ‌alep for Egyptian t in the case of ‫ יְ אֹ ר‬represents a secondary glottal stop that arose from etymological t in accordance with its regular lenition in Later Egyptian (cf. Eg ı̓trw, written as ı̓rw beginning with the Eighteenth Dynasty).2 Egyptian d most often appears as ṭeṭ in the present corpus. The exception is ‫ּתַ חְ ָרא‬, in which taw represents Egyptian d. Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers would normally perceive Egyptian d as emphatic because voicing is phonemically irrelevant with Semitic emphatics, hence its common representation as ṭeṭ. The use of taw for Egyptian d could reflect the neutralization between t and d that took place in Later Egyptian, but it could also result from the lack of a one-​to-​one correspondence between Egyptian d and Semitic. The features distinguishing Egyptian g (𓎼), k (𓎡), and q (𓈎) are equally unclear but also seem to be voice, emphasis, and aspiration. Egyptian k was probably a voiceless velar, sometimes aspirated, that was pronounced [k(h)]; Egyptian g was probably an emphatic velar pronounced [k’]; the Egyptian uvular q was probably an emphatic consonant pronounced [q’]. As with Egyptian t and d, in Later Egyptian the opposition between Egyptian k and g was progressively neutralized and the opposition between the Egyptian velars k and g and the Egyptian uvular q was also gradually lost.3 Egyptian g appears only twice in the present corpus, both times as qop (‫ קֹ ף‬and ‫)קֶ סֶ ת‬. This naturally reflects the emphatic nature of Egyptian g. Egyptian k occurs as kap with the exception of ‫קִ יקָ יֹון‬, in which it appears as qop. The reason for this exception is uncertain. Hebrew-​speakers may have interpreted the aspiration as emphasis, but it could also result from the lack of a one-​to-​one correspondence between Egyptian k and Semitic. Egyptian q most commonly appears as qop, reflecting the emphatic nature of Egyptian q. However, in the case of ‫ּגָבִ י ַע‬, and probably also ‫ּגֹ מֶ א‬, it is represented as gimel.4 The use of gimel for Egyptian q could reflect the neutralization of the opposition between the Egyptian velars and uvulars that occurred in Later Egyptian, but it could also result from the lack of a one-​to-​one correspondence between Egyptian q and Semitic.5

2.  J. Allen 2013, 51; Loprieno 1995, 38; Peust 1999, 152; Junge 2005, 35. The secondary glottal stop derived from t is most often not written; when it is, it is frequently written as ı̓ and only rarely appears as Ꜣ. 3.  J. Allen 2013, 46–48; Loprieno 1995, 32–34, 38; Peust 1999, 107–14; Junge 2005, 36–37; cf. SWET 428. 4. The case of ‫ ּגֹ מֶ א‬is not entirely certain because it could come from either Eg qmꜢ or gmy. Incidentally, the spelling of this Egyptian term with both q and g demonstrates the neutralization between the Egyptian velars and uvulars. 5.  It is also conceivable that in some environments Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers heard the voicing of Eg q more than its emphatic nature, hence its representation as gimel (cf. SWET 428).

276

Chapter 5

5.1.1.1.2 Affricates Egyptian contains two palatal affricates, ṯ (𓍿) and ḏ (𓆓). Egyptian ṯ is probably voiceless, perhaps with aspiration ([ č(h)]), and Egyptian ḏ is probably emphatic ([č ̣]).6 Egyptian ṯ appears as samek only in the case of ‫סּוף‬, borrowed from Egyptian ṯwfy, ṯwf. This correspondence regularly occurs in loans from Northwest Semitic to Egyptian during the New Kingdom, and Amarna Akkadian represents Egyptian ṯ as s. Thus, there is no reason to question the equivalence of Hebrew samek and Egyptian ṯ in this instance. Many Semitists think that Hebrew samek was pronounced [ʧ], a natural choice for representing Egyptian ṯ.7 Egyptian ḏ has two different representations in the Hebrew Bible. It appears during the second millennium b.c.e. as zayin (‫)ז ֶֶרת‬.8 Later, during the first millennium, it appears as ṣade (‫ ;)צִ י‬this is the typical correspondence found elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew proper names as well as in first-​millennium Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions (EPNL 317). During the second millennium, Egyptian ṯ merged with t and ḏ merged with d through a process of depalatalization called palatal fronting. The ancient Egyptians sometimes expressed the new pronunciation in writing, but often they spelled the word with ḏ and ṯ even though the pronunciation of these phonemes had changed.9 Several loanwords in the present corpus reflect palatal fronting: Hebrew-​speakers borrowed ‫ ֶזפֶת‬, ‫נֶתֶ ר‬, and ‫ ּתַ חַ ׁש‬after Egyptian ṯ had become t and borrowed ‫ּבַ ד‬, ‫טַ ּבַ עַת‬, and ‫ ּתֵ בָ ה‬after Egyptian ḏ had become d. 5.1.1.1.3 Fricatives The voiceless bilabial fricative f (𓆑), pronounced [f] (J. Allen 2013, 43–44; Loprieno 1995, 33; Peust 1999, 133), occurs in the present corpus as pe, the natural choice for rendering this Egyptian consonant that has no exact correspondence in Northwest Semitic. The voiceless glottal h (𓉔), pronounced [h] (J. Allen 2013, 44; Loprieno 1995, 33; Peust 1999, 98), appears in the present corpus as he. Egyptian ʿ (𓂝), a voiced pharyngeal pronounced [ʕ] (J. Allen 2013, 42–43; Loprieno 1995, 33; Peust 1999, 99–106), corresponds to ʿayin. The only possible exception occurs in the case of ‫אַ ח‬, borrowed from Egyptian ʿḫ. One can easily explain this via dissimilation. It is likely that the dissimilation process took place in Hebrew, but dissimilation of ʿ to ı̓ does take place in Egyptian and it is possible that the dissimilation process occurred within Egyptian (Osing 1980a). 6.  J. Allen 2013, 48–49; Loprieno 1995, 33–34. Traditionally, Egyptologists have transliterated the hieroglyph 𓍿 as ṯ and the hieroglyph 𓆓 as ḏ. However, this system can be misleading, especially for those familiar with that used for the Semitic languages. Many modern Egyptologists therefore prefer to transliterate 𓍿 as č and 𓆓 as č ̣. 7.  Cf. SWET 407–8; Rainey 2001, 491; contra EPNL 252. On the articulation of Heb samek, see Bomhard 1988, 123–25. 8. Early borrowing during the second millennium is indicated by the preservation of the Egyptian feminine ending -t in ‫ז ֶֶרת‬. 9.  J. Allen 2013, 48–50; Loprieno 1995, 38; Peust 1999, 123–25; Junge 2005, 36.

Linguistic Analysis

277

E gyptian ḥ (𓎛), a voiceless pha ryngeal p rono unced [ḥ] (J. Allen 2013, 44; Loprieno 1995, 33; Peust 1999, 98), nearly always corresponds to ḥet in the present corpus. The only exception is ‫ ָּג בִ י ַע‬, which renders Egyptian ḥ as ʿayin. The only difference between Egyptian ḥ and Hebrew ʿayin is one of voice, and Egyptian ʿ sometimes represents Northwest Semitic ḥ in New Kingdom loans into Egyptian (Hoch 1994, 413; cf. Peust 1999, 98, 103–5). Hence, this atypical correspondence presents no problems. The Egyptian voiceless uvular ḫ (𓐍), pronounced [χ] (J. Allen 2013, 44; Loprieno 1995, 33; Peust 1999, 115–17), appears solely as ḥet in the present corpus. There are no attestations of Egyptian ẖ (𓄡), a voiceless palatal pronounced [ç] (J. Allen 2013, 44–45; Loprieno 1995, 33; Peust 1999, 115–17), in the present corpus.10 The Egyptian sibilant s is the phoneme represented by the hieroglyphs 𓊃 (commonly transliterated s or z) and 𓋴 (commonly transliterated s or ś), which became allographs by the Middle Kingdom. Both represent the sound [s].11 In the present corpus, the Egyptian sibilant s appears in several different ways. Egyptian s corresponds once to samek in the case of ‫ קֶ סֶ ת‬and once to śin in the case of ‫ׂשכִ ית‬. ְ 12 Both of these correspondences are expected given the pronunciation of Egyptian s as well as Hebrew samek and śin. However, Egyptian s corresponds to šin in the cases of ‫ מֶ ִׁשי‬and ‫ּתַ חַ ׁש‬. This second correspondence is a longtime crux. It is true that s is the most common representation of Egyptian s in Hebrew as well as Northwest Semitic in general, but the sibilants are notoriously difficult and one cannot discount the possibility of dialectal variation (cf. Judg 12:4–6). Even if one unnecessarily disregards proper names such as that of Moses (‫)מֹ ׁשֶ ה‬, Amarna Akkadian renders Egyptian s as š more frequently than it does as s (cf. EPNL 310). This evidence demonstrates that Egyptian s could be represented as š in Northwest Semitic, at least during the second millennium b.c.e. Thus, there is no reason to reject a priori the correspondence between Egyptian s and Hebrew šin.13 Egyptian š (𓈙), probably pronounced as the alveo-​palatal [ʃ],14 consistently appears as šin in the present corpus. 5.1.1.1.4 Nasals and Liquids Egyptian m (𓅓) represents a labial consonant pronounced [m] (J. Allen 2013, 43; Loprieno 1995, 33). It most often occurs in the present corpus as mem. However, 10.  However, evidence from Phoenician and Aramaic not considered in the corpus indicates that Eg ẖ could be represented as k or ḥ in Northwest Semitic (EPNL 316; Peust 1999, 117). 11.  J. Allen 2013, 46; Loprieno 1995, 33–34; Peust 1999, 125–26. It is conceivable that, prior to the merging of Eg s and z, s was palatalized as [sj] and z was an ejective [s’]. 12. The use of Heb zayin for Eg s in the case of ‫ ֶזפֶת‬should perhaps be explained via word-​initial voicing and does not indicate a direct phonological correspondence between Heb zayin and Eg s. 13.  Cf. Quack 2000, contra EPNL 266–67. Muchiki never offers any concrete proof that Heb šin cannot represent Eg s because he rules out any potential loans demonstrating this correspondence by claiming that Heb šin cannot represent Eg s. This, of course, is circular. 14.  J. Allen 2013, 45; Loprieno 1995, 33. Eg š arose from palatalization of the consonant ẖ (Peust 1999, 115–17).

278

Chapter 5

in the cases of ‫ אֵ טּון‬and ‫ נֹ פְֶך‬Egyptian m appears as nun. These examples could be attributed to the fact that in certain environments (e.g., before labials), the articulation of m and n was progressively neutralized in Later Egyptian (Junge 2005, 37). Egyptian n (𓈖) can represent two different sounds in Egyptian: the nasal [n] and the lateral [l] (J. Allen 2013, 39; Loprieno 1995, 33). Both sounds are reflected in the Hebrew Bible. Most often, Egyptian n occurs as nun. In the two cases where Egyptian n represents the lateral [l], however, Egyptian n occurs as lamed (‫אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬, ‫)לֶׁשֶ ם‬. The consonant r (𓂋) can also represent two different sounds in Egyptian: the vibrant [ɾ], pronounced as an apical tapped r, and the lateral [l]. The vibrant [ɾ] eventually lost its tapped pronunciation no later than the beginning of the first millennium b.c.e. (J. Allen 2013, 40; Loprieno 1995, 33; Peust 1999, 127–29). Given the variety of sounds to which Egyptian r can correspond, it is not surprising that it has several different representations in the Hebrew Bible. It most commonly occurs as reš in borrowings after r had largely lost its tapped pronunciation. Hebrew ‫ּדיֹו‬,ְ the only loanword that clearly preserves the original pronunciation of Egyptian r, must be an early borrowing, most likely during the Middle Kingdom (cf. Schneider 1999, 155–58; Quack 1992, 76–77). Hebrew ‫ ּכְ לִ י‬and ‫קַ ּלַחַ ת‬, which use lamed for Egyptian r, represent this consonant’s lateral pronunciation. The Egyptian vibrant Ꜣ (𓄿), originally pronounced as the uvular trill [ʀ], progressively came to acquire the realization of a glottal stop [ʔ], a process that was probably complete by the New Kingdom. It was commonly elided in both medial and final positions, although its omission is not always represented in writing. By the time of Coptic, it had dropped out entirely (J. Allen 2013, 40–42; Loprieno 1995, 33, 38; Peust 1999, 127–29, 142–51). Egyptian Ꜣ is never represented in Biblical Hebrew, in some cases because it had elided in Egyptian (‫ּבַ ד‬, ‫נֹ פְֶך‬, ‫ּפַח‬, ‫)צִ י‬.15 5.1.1.1.5 Semi-​Vowels The Egyptian glides w (𓅱 or 𓍢) and y (𓇌 or 𓏭) are commonly dropped at the end of a syllable, particularly in Later Egyptian.16 Final Egyptian w does not appear in the present corpus except in the case of ‫אָ חּו‬, borrowed from Egyptian Ꜣḫw when the Egyptian masculine plural ending -w, -aw was still pronounced (cf. EPNL 238; Lambdin 1953b, 146). In all other cases, Egyptian w drops out in final position (‫אַ בְ נֵט‬, ‫ּגָבִ י ַע‬, ‫הִ ין‬, ‫)יְ אֹ ר‬.17 Egyptian y clearly appears as yod only once (‫)ּדיֹו‬ ְ and drops out in final position elsewhere (‫חַ ְרטֹ ם‬, ‫חֹ ִרי‬, ‫מֶ ִׁשי‬, ‫סּוף‬, ‫צִ י‬, ‫קַ ב‬, ‫ׂשכִ ית‬, ְ ‫)ּתֻ ּכִ י‬.18 15. The initial ‌ʾalep of ‫( אָ חּו‬from Eg Ꜣḫw) probably represents an initial vowel rather than corresponding to Eg Ꜣ, although it could represent a direct correspondence. Eg Ꜣ may appear as ‌ʾalep in ‫ּגֹ מֶ א‬, but most likely in this case ‌ʾalep marks a final vowel. The use of he for Eg Ꜣ in ‫( ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬a hybrid of BH ‫ ׁשֵ ן‬and Eg Ꜣbw) does not represent phonological correspondence and instead reflects the compound nature of this word. 16.  J. Allen 2013, 37–38, 43; Loprieno 1995, 33, 38; Peust 1999, 49–50, 142–51; Junge 2005, 33. 17. Omission of final w is likely in the case of ‫ ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬but cannot be proven because this word only appears in the plural form ‫ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬. 18. BH ‫ קִ יקָ יֹון‬may provide an additional example of Eg y appearing as yod, but it is not clear that the second yod represents Eg y. Omission of final y is likely in the case of ‫ הָ בְ נִ ים‬but cannot be proven because this word only appears in the plural form.

Linguistic Analysis

279

The Egyptian glide ı̓ (𓇋) often has no sound of its own, simply indicating that a syllable begins or ends with a vowel in certain positions. It was lost in many environments by the first millennium b.c.e., as evidence from Coptic demonstrates. However, in some instances ı̓ can represent a semivowel.19 The only clear representation of Egyptian ı̓ is ‫יְ אֹ ר‬, which uses Hebrew yod for Egyptian ı̓, indicating a semivowel pronunciation for the latter, at least in this instance.20 Final Egyptian ı̓ is dropped in several instances (‫אֵ טּון‬, ‫נֶתֶ ר‬, ‫)קֶ סֶ ת‬,21 reflecting its lenition by the end of the New Kingdom. 5.1.1.2 Greek Consonant correspondences are displayed in Table 5.2. 5.1.1.2.1 Stops The ancient Greek consonantal inventory contains both unaspirated and aspirated stops. The unaspirated stops include the voiceless stops π ([p]), τ ([t]), and κ ([k]) and the voiced stops β ([b]), δ ([d]), and γ ([g]) (Petrounias 2007, 561–62; Woodard 2008, 16; W. S. Allen 1987, 14–17, 29–32). Of the unaspirated stops, the bilabial β occurs as bet; the bilabial π does not occur; the dental τ appears as both taw and ṭeṭ, and the dental δ occurs as dalet; lastly, the velar κ appears as both kap and qop; γ does not appear in the present corpus. Each of the Greek aspirated stops is voiceless rather than voiced.22 The bilabial φ, pronounced [ph], occurs as pe in medial position but is preceded by ʾ‌alep in initial position. The dental θ, pronounced [th], occurs as both ṭeṭ and taw. Lastly, the velar χ, pronounced [kh], is represented as kap. 5.1.1.2.2 Fricatives The Greek alveolar fricative σ represents the two allophones [s] and [z] (Petrounias 2007, 562–63; Woodard 2008, 16; W. S. Allen 1987, 45–46). It appears as both samek and śin in the Hebrew Bible. 5.1.1.2.3 Nasals and Liquids Greek contains two nasals, μ ([m]) and ν ([n]) (Petrounias 2007, 563; Woodard 2008, 16; W. S. Allen 1987, 33). They appear in the Hebrew Bible as mem and nun, 19.  J. Allen 2013, 37–38; Loprieno 1995, 33–35; Peust 1999, 49–50, 142–51. By the time of the New Kingdom, ı̓ had merged with Eg Ꜣ and also took on the value of a glottal stop in certain positions. 20. Several Egyptian loanwords beginning with ‌ʾalep could potentially also represent Eg ı̓: ‫אַ בְ ֵרְך‬ (from *ı̓b-​r.k), ‫( אֵ טּון‬from ı̓dmı̓), and ‫( אֵ פָה‬from ı̓p.t). However, their initial ‌ʾalep more probably represents an initial vowel. 21. Eg ı̓ also seems to have dropped in the case of ‫טֶ נֶא‬, assuming the ‌ʾalep could simply be a vowel marker. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the Egyptian donor term, dnı̓.t, is a feminine noun with the feminine ending -t. 22.  Although not fricatives as in Modern Greek, φ, θ, and χ did eventually transition from aspirated plosives to fricatives. The clearest evidence for the beginnings of this transition appears during the first century c.e. See Petrounias 2007, 562; W. S. Allen 1987, 18–26.

280

Chapter 5

Table 5.2  Consonant Correspondences with Greek Greek β γ δ ϝ ζ θ κ λ μ ν ξ π ρ σ τ φ χ ψ

Hebrew/Aramaic

Attestation

‫ב‬

‫ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬

‫ד‬

‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬

‫ ט‬a‎‎, ‫ ת‬b ‫ כ‬a‎, ‫ ק‬b ‫ל‬ ‫מ‬ ‫נ‬ ‫ז‬

‫ מֶ לֶט‬b ‫קִ יתָ רֹוס‬ ‫ּכָרֹוז‬‎, ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬b ‫קִ יתָ רֹוס‬ ‫מֶ לֶט‬ ‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬‎, ‫מֶ לֶט‬‎, ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ ‫אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬‎, ‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬‎, ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ ‎, ‫ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬ ‫ּכָרֹוז‬

‫ר‬ ‫ ס‬a‎, ‫ ׂש‬b ‫ ת‬a‎, ‫ ט‬b ‫פ‬ ‫כ‬ ‫פס‬

‫אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬‎, ‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬‎, ‫ּכָרֹוז‬‎, ‫קִ יתָ רֹוס‬ a ‫קִ יתָ רֹוס‬‎, ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ ‎, ‫ סַ ּבְ כָא‬b ‫ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬ a ‫ ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬b ‫ּפְ סַ נְ טֵ ִרין‬ ‫אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬‎, ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ ‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬ ‫ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬

a

a

respectively. Greek contains two liquids, λ ([l]) and ρ ([r] and [r̥]) (Petrounias 2007, 563–64; Woodard 2008, 16; W. S. Allen 1987, 39–45). The liquid λ appears as lamed, and the liquid ρ is represented by reš. 5.1.1.2.4 Semivowels Greek ϝ, which represents the semivowel [w] in Early Greek but was lost as an independent phoneme in Attic (W. S. Allen 1987, 47–51; cf. Woodard 2008, 16), does not occur in the present corpus. 5.1.1.2.5 Single-​Symbol Consonant Groups Greek ζ, probably pronounced [zd] or [dz] prior to Classical Greek and [z] later (Petrounias 2007, 563; W. S. Allen 1987, 56–59), is not represented in the present corpus. Greek ξ, pronounced [ks] (W. S. Allen 1987, 59–60), is represented once as zayin in the present corpus. The Semitic languages do not tolerate final consonant clusters, and Aramaic-​speakers ignored the [k] sound of the consonant group represented by Greek ξ and only represented the [s]. Greek ψ, pronounced [ps] (W. S. Allen 1987, 59–60), is represented in the present corpus by the consonant cluster ‫פס‬. 5.1.1.3 Hittite and Luvian Consonant correspondences are displayed in Table 5.3.

281

Linguistic Analysis

Table 5.3  Consonant Correspondences with Hittite & Luvian Hittite/Luvian b d g gw ḫ k K kw Kw l m n p P r š t T w y z

Hebrew/Aramaic

Attestation

‫ח‬ ‫ג‬

‫חֶ ֶרׂש‬‎‎, ‫חִ ּתּול‬ ‫אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬

‫ל‬ ‫מ‬ ‫נ‬ ‫פ‬

‫לַּפִ יד‬‎, ‫חִ ּתּול‬ ‫אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬ ‫אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬ ‫לַּפִ יד‬‎, ‫ְּת ָרפִ ים‬

‫ר‬ ‫ ׁש‬a‎, ‫ ׂש‬b ‫ת‬ ‫ ת‬a‎, ‫ ד‬b

‫אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬‎, ‫חֶ ֶרׂש‬‎, ‫ ְּתאַ ּׁשּור‬‎, ‫ְּת ָרפִ ים‬ ‫ ְּתאַ ּׁשּור‬b ‫חֶ ֶרׂש‬ ‫חִ ּתּול‬ a ‫ ְּתאַ ּׁשּור‬‎, ‫ ְּת ָרפִ ים‬b ‫לַּפִ יד‬ a

5.1.1.3.1 Stops Hittite/Luvian possessed four series of stops: bilabials, velars, dentals, and labiovelars. Phonemic contrast was neutralized in word-​initial and word-​final position (P, K, T, and Kw).23 In intervocalic position, on the other hand, phonemic contrast is distinguished by geminate and single spellings: in cuneiform writing, a geminated consonant represents a voiceless stop (p, t, k, or kw) whereas a single consonant represents a voiced stop (b, d, g, or gw). The exact nature of the stops’ opposition in intervocalic position remains unclear and is referred to here as “voiceless” and “voiced” for the sake of simplicity. Because their opposition is unknown, their pronunciation is uncertain.24 The Hittite/Luvian bilabial P does not appear in the present corpus of direct loans in either word-​initial or -final position.25 Voiceless p occurs medially as pe, and voiced b does not occur in the present corpus. 23.  Capitalized voiceless stops represent cases in which the voicing opposition is neutralized. 24.  Hoffner and Melchert 2008, 1:35–36; Watkins 2008, 10, 12–13; Melchert 2003, 177–78. The opposition could be tense/lax, voiceless/voiced, or aspirated/unaspirated. For a survey of options, see Melchert 1994, 13–21. 25. However, Hitt/Luv P appears as both bet and pe in word-​initial position in BH ‫ ּבַ ְרזֶל‬and BA ‫ּפ ְַרזֶל‬, both inherited loans that can be traced back to Luv *parzilli-. The alternation of the initial consonant between p and b in this instance reflects Luvian’s lack of phonemic contrast in word-​initial position.

282

Chapter 5

Concerning the velars, Hittite/Luvian K does not appear in either word-​initial position or word-​final position in the present corpus. Voiceless k appears medially as gimel, and voiced g is not attested. Regarding the dentals, Hittite/Luvian T appears as taw in word-​initial position and dalet in word-​final position. Voiceless t appears medially as taw, and voiced d is not found in the present corpus. The Hittite/Luvian labiovelars do not occur in any position in the present corpus. 5.1.1.3.2 Affricates The Hittite/Luvian consonant transliterated as z seems to denote a voiceless affricate, probably pronounced [ʦ] (Hoffner and Melchert 2008, 1:37–38; Watkins 2008, 11; Melchert 2003, 178). It does not appear in the present corpus of direct loans.26 5.1.1.3.3 Fricatives The phonological value of the Hittite/Luvian fricative transliterated as š is uncertain. It may have been pronounced as a dental-​alveolar [s], an alveo-​palatal sibilant [ʃ], a palatal [ç], or some combination of these. Hittite/Luvian scribes consistently distinguish between single and double š, possibly reflecting a tense–lax opposition.27 Hittite/Luvian š appears as šin as well as śin in the present corpus. The exact pronunciation of the Hittite/Luvian fricative ḫ also remains uncertain. It probably stands for a velar fricative, but it could possibly represent a pharyngeal fricative. Hittite/Luvian scribes regularly distinguish between ḫ and ḫḫ in intervocalic position, but the nature of this phonemic contrast remains unclear.28 Hittite/ Luvian ḫ appears as ḥet in the present corpus. 5.1.1.3.4 Nasals and Liquids Hittite/Luvian possesses two nasals, m and n, as well as two liquids, l and r. Hittite/ Luvian scribes regularly distinguish between single and double nasal and liquid consonants, but the nature of this phonemic contrast remains unclear (Hoffner and Melchert 2008, 1:39–41; Watkins 2008, 11; Melchert 2003, 179). Hittite/Luvian m and n appear as mem and nun, respectively, and Hittite/Luvian l and r are attested as lamed and reš, respectively.

26. However, Hitt/Luv z appears appears as zayin in BH ‫ ּבַ ְרזֶל‬and BA ‫ּפ ְַרזֶל‬, both inherited loans that can be traced back to Luv *parzilli-; Akk parzillu represents it as z and Ug brḏl renders it as ḏ. 27.  Hoffner and Melchert 2008, 1:38–39; Watkins 2008, 11; Melchert 2003, 178. Because they used the Akkadian signs containing z to represent the Hittite/Luvian dental affricate [ʦ], Hittite/Luvian scribes were left with the Akkadian signs containing š to represent this consonant. This says nothing about the quality of the sound in Hittite/Luvian, although it is clear that Hittite only possessed a single /s/ phoneme that probably represents a dental-​alveolar [s]. 28.  Hoffner and Melchert 2008, 1:38–39; Watkins 2008, 11; Melchert 2003, 179. Similar to the Hittite/ Luvian stops, the opposition could be one of tense/lax or voiceless/voiced.

283

Linguistic Analysis

Table 5.4  Consonant Correspondences with Hurrian Hurrian f v ḫ ġ k g

F Ḫ K l m n

p b

P r

s z t d cc c

S T C w y

Hebrew/Aramaic

Attestation

‫ב‬

‫ּכֹובַ ע‬

‫ע‬ ‫ כ‬a‎, ‫ ק‬b

‫ּכֹובַ ע‬ a ‫ּכֹובַ ע‬‎, ‫ּכִ ידֹון‬‎, ‫ ּכִ ּיֹור‬b ‫קֹובַ ע‬

‫ל‬ ‫מ‬ ‫נ‬ ‫פ‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ ס‬a‎, ‫ ׁש‬b ‫ס‬

‫סֵ פֶל‬ ‫מַ ס‬ ‫ּכִ ידֹון‬‎, ‫סָ ִדין‬‎, ‫ִׁש ְריֹון‬ ‫סֵ פֶל‬ ‫אֵ בּוס‬‎, ‫אֹוב‬ ‫ּכִ ּיֹור‬‎, ‫ִׁש ְריֹון‬ a ‫סָ ִדין‬‎, ‫מַ ס‬‎, ‫ ִס ְריֹון‬b ‫ִׁש ְריֹון‬ ‫אֵ בּוס‬‎, ‫סֵ פֶל‬

‫ד‬

‫ּכִ ידֹון‬‎, ‫סָ ִדין‬

‫י‬

‫י ְָׁשפֵה‬‎, ‫ִׁש ְריֹון‬

5.1.1.3.5 Semivowels Hittite/Luvian has two semivowels, represented by y (probably pronounced [j]) and w (probably pronounced [w]) (Hoffner and Melchert 2008, 1:39; Watkins 2008, 11; Melchert 2003, 177). Neither is attested in the present corpus. 5.1.1.4 Hurrian Consonant correspondences are displayed in Table 5.4. 5.1.1.4.1 Stops Hurrian is characterized by consonant pairing for all non-​sonorant consonants. The distribution of voiced or unvoiced consonants follows a positional pattern, and phonemic contrast was often distinguished by geminate and single spellings in cuneiform writing.29 Non-​sonorant consonants are perceived as voiceless in 29.  Capitalized voiceless stops are used to noncommittally represent non-​sonorant consonants exhibiting allophonic voicing.

284

Chapter 5

word-​initial position, in intervocalic position when long (i.e., written as doubled), and in contact with a consonant other than the sonorants m, n, l, and r. Non-​ sonorant consonants are perceived as voiced, on the other hand, when word-​final, when “short” (i.e., not written as doubled), and in contact with m, n, l, or r. As with Hittite and Luvian, the exact nature of their opposition is uncertain and here is referred to as “voiced” and “voiceless” for the sake of simplicity. Because their opposition is unknown, their pronunciation is uncertain (Wegner 2007, 56–57; Giorgieri 2000, 184–85; Wilhelm 2008, 84). Hurrian possesses three stops, all characterized by consonant pairing as already described: P (voiceless p and voiced b), K (voiceless k and voiced g), and T (voiceless t and voiced d). They are written with signs containing b or p, g or k, and d or t, respectively, in cuneiform (Wegner 2007, 55; Giorgieri 2000, 185; Wilhelm 2008, 84). Hurrian P is attested in its voiceless and voiced forms. Voiceless p occurs in medial and final position as pe, and voiced b appears as bet. Regarding Hurrian K, voiceless k only occurs in initial position. It most commonly appears as kap but also occurs as qop in the case of Hebrew ‫ּכֹובַ ע‬, also spelled ‫קֹובַ ע‬. The alternation between kap and qop indicates that there was no one-​to-​one correspondence between this Hurrian consonant and Semitic. Voiced g does not appear in the present corpus. Lastly, Hurrian T only occurs in its voiced form, in which d is attested as dalet in medial position. Its voiceless counterpart t is not attested in the present corpus. 5.1.1.4.2 Affricates Hurrian possesses only one affricative, C, most often written with signs contaiing z in cuneiform and probably pronounced [ʦ] when voiceless and [ʣ] when voiced. As a non-​sonorant consonant, consonant pairing applies as described above (§5.1.1.4.1) (Wegner 2007, 46; Giorgieri 2000, 185–86; Wilhelm 2008, 84–85). Hurrian C is not attested in the present corpus. 5.1.1.4.3 Fricatives Lastly, consonant pairing as described above (§5.1.1.4.1) also applies to the Hurrian fricatives. The Hurrian fricative F (voiceless f and voiced v), most often written with signs containing w in cuneiform but also sometimes with p or b signs, seems to be a labiodental fricative (Wegner 2007, 46; Giorgieri 2000, 187; Wilhelm 2008, 84–85). Its existence in Hurrian is indicated by alternation between b, p, and w in cuneiform writing (F. Bush 1964, 72–73; cf. Wilhelm 2008, 85). Neither voiceless f nor voiced v occurs in the present corpus. Voiceless f does not occur, but voiced v does occur in Hebrew ‫ּכֹובַ ע‬. That the Hurrian consonant is a labiodental fricative is indicated by the different spellings of this word in cuneiform (written as both kuwaḫi- and kupaḫi-) and Hebrew. Hurrian Ḫ (voiceless ḫ and voiced ġ), regularly written as ḫ in cuneiform, may represent a velar fricative (Wegner 2007, 46; Giorgieri 2000, 185; Wilhelm

Linguistic Analysis

285

2008, 84). It only appears in the present corpus in Hebrew ‫ּכֹובַ ע‬, where Hurrian ġ is represented as ʿayin. This parallels the use of ǵ in Ugaritic to represent single intervocalic ḫ (cf. F. Bush 1964, 78–79). Hurrian seems to possess only one sibilant, S (voiceless s and voiced z), whose phonetic realization remains unclear. Akkadian scribes commonly write it with signs containing š except at Mari, where it is written with signs containing z; and Ugaritic scribes represent it as ṯ or ḏ.30 Voiceless s appears as both samek and šin in the present corpus; both representations are attested in the case of Hebrew ‫ִׁש ְריֹון‬ and ‫ס ְריֹון‬, ִ demonstrating the lack of any one-​to-​one correspondence in Semitic for this foreign phoneme. Voiced z appears only as samek in the present corpus. 5.1.1.4.4 Nasals and Liquids Consonant pairing does not apply to nasals or liquids in Hurrian (Wegner 2007, 47; Giorgieri 2000, 185). Hurrian’s two nasals, m and n (Wegner 2007, 46–47; Giorgieri 2000, 185; Wilhelm 2008, 84), appear as mem and nun, respectively. Hurrian’s two liquids, l and r (Wegner 2007, 46–47; Giorgieri 2000, 185; Wilhelm 2008, 84), are attested as Hebrew lamed and reš, respectively. 5.1.1.4.5 Semivowels Hurrian possesses two semivowels, w and y. As sonorants, consonant pairing does not apply (Giorgieri 2000, 187; Wilhelm 2008, 84). Hurrian w is not attested in the present corpus, but Hurrian y appears as Hebrew yod. 5.1.1.5 Old Indic Consonant correspondences are displayed in Table 5.5. 5.1.1.5.1 Stops Old Indic possesses a nicely symmetrical series of stops, articulated as voiceless, voiceless aspirated, voiced, and voiced aspirated: labials (p [p], ph [ph], b [b], bh [bh]), dentals (t [t̪ ], th [t̪ h], d [d̪ ], dh [d̪ h]), retroflexes (ṭ [ʈ], ṭh [ʈʰ], ḍ [ɖ], ḍh [ɖh]), and velars (k [k], kh [kh], g [g], gh [gh]).31 Given the scarcity of Old Indic loans in the present corpus, only a few of these stops are attested. The voiceless labial p appears as pe, the voiced dental d appears as dalet, and the voiceless velar k appears as kap. There are no other representations of the Old Indic stops in the present corpus. 30.  Scholars debate how many sibilants existed in Hurrian. Some think that only S exists (e.g., Wegner 2007, 46). Others, however, think that both S and Š exist (e.g., Giorgieri 2000, 185; Wilhelm 2008, 84–85). In absence of clear, conclusive evidence for the existence of Š, it is conceivable that only one phoneme S existed and that possible occurrences of Š can be explained via a combination of orthographic convention, dialectal variation, and loans from other Semitic languages. I am grateful to Joseph Lam for his assistance with this topic. 31.  Jamison 2008, 9; Cardona 2003, 109. The stops are often arranged according to five places of articulation, including palatals in addition to the four places of articulation listed here. Technically speaking, however, the palatals are affricates and not stops.

286

Chapter 5

Table 5.5  Consonant Correspondences with Old Indic Old Indic

Hebrew/Aramaic

Attestation

k kh g gh c ch j jh ṭ ṭh ḍ ḍh t th d dh n ṇ ñ ṅ p ph b bh m ṃ y r l v ś ṣ s h ḥ

‫כ‬

‫ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬‎, ‫ּכ ְַרּפַס‬

‫ד‬

‫נ ְֵר ְּד‬

‫נ‬

‫נ ְֵר ְּד‬‎, ‫ֶרסֶ ן‬

‫פ‬

‫ּכ ְַרּפַס‬

‫מ‬

‫ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬

‫ר‬ ‫ל‬

‫ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬‎, ‫ּכ ְַרּפַס‬‎, ‫נ ְֵר ְּד‬‎, ‫ֶרסֶ ן‬ ‫ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬

‫ס‬

‫ֶרסֶ ן‬

‫ס‬

‫ּכ ְַרּפַס‬

5.1.1.5.2 Affricates The Old Indic palatals c, ch, j, and jh, pronounced [c], [ch], [ɟ], and [ɟh] (Jamison 2008, 9; Cardona 2003, 109), do not appear in the present corpus. 5.1.1.5.3 Fricatives The voiceless dental sibilant s ([s̪ ]) and voiceless palatal ś ([ɕ]) (Jamison 2008, 9; Cardona 2003, 109) both appear in the present corpus as samek. The voiced retroflex

Linguistic Analysis

287

ṣ ([ʂ]) and the glottal fricatives h ([ɦ]) and ḥ ([h]) (Jamison 2008, 9; Cardona 2003, 109–10) do not occur in the present corpus. 5.1.1.5.4 Nasals and Liquids The Old Indic nasals m and n, pronounced [m] and [n̪] (Jamison 2008, 9; Cardona 2003, 109), appear in the Hebrew Bible as mem and nun, respectively. There are no attestations of the remaining Old Indic nasals ṇ ([ɳ]), ñ ([ɲ]), and ṅ ([ŋ]) in the present corpus. The liquids l ([l̪ ]) and r (exact pronunciation unknown) occur as lamed and reš, respectively. 5.1.1.5.5 Semivowels Neither of the semivowels v ([w]) or y ([j]) (Jamison 2008, 9; Cardona 2003, 109) appears in the present corpus. 5.1.1.6 Old Iranian Consonant correspondences are displayed in Table 5.6. 5.1.1.6.1 Stops There are three sets of stops in Old Iranian: the bilabials b and p, the dentals d and t, and the velars g and k. In certain environments, the consonants b, d, and g could represent the voiced continuants [β], [ð], and [ɣ] (Skjærvø 2009, 51; Testen 1997, 574, 580–81). The voiced bilabial stop b ([b]) and the voiceless bilabial stop p ([p]) appear in Hebrew and Aramaic as bet and pe, respectively. Hebrew and Aramaic render the voiced dental d ([d]) and the voiceless dental t ([t]) as dalet and taw, respectively. Lastly, the voiced velar g ([g]) and the voiceless velar k ([k]) occur as gimel and kap, respectively. 5.1.1.6.2 Affricates Old Iranian possesses four palatal affricates, the voiced affricates ǰ ([ɟ]) and ȷ́ and the voiceless affricates č ([c]) and ć (Skjærvø 2009, 51; Testen 1997, 574).32 Old Iranian ǰ appears as zayin. There are few attestations of Old Iranian č in the Hebrew Bible, but all represent this consonant as šin. 5.1.1.6.3 Fricatives The Old Iranian stops p, t, and k become fricatives when followed directly by a consonant: f (a labiodental), θ (an interdental), and x (a velar fricative) (Skjærvø 2009, 51; Testen 1997, 574). These continuants are represented less commonly in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic than the stops. Nevertheless, their representations are clear: Old Iranian f appears as pe, θ appears as both dalet and taw,33 and x appears as ḥet. 32.  The affricates ć and ȷ́ are securely reconstructed but are of uncertain phonetic nature. 33. There is no obvious distinction between the representations of θ as dalet and as taw. The word ‫אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן‬, which renders θ as taw, occurs only twice, in the book of Esther (Esth 8:10, 14). BH ‫אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬

‫‪288‬‬

‫‪Chapter 5‬‬

‫‪Table 5.6  Consonant Correspondences with Old Iranian‬‬ ‫‪Attestation‬‬ ‫‪‎,‬סַ ְרּבָ ל ‪‎,‬נֶבְ ְר ְׁשּתָ א ‪ּ‎,‬כ ְַרּבְ לָה ‪‎,‬הַ ּדָ בַ ר ‪ְּ ‎,‬דתָ בַ ר ‪ּ‎,‬גִ זְּבַ ר ‪ּ‎,‬גִ זְּבָ ר ‪ּ‎,‬גְ דָ בַ ר‬ ‫ּפ ְַתּבַ ג ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַרּבָ ר‬ ‫ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן ‪‎,‬אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא‬ ‫‪‎,‬הַ ּדָ ם ‪‎,‬הַ ּדָ בַ ר ‪ְּ ‎,‬דתָ בַ ר ‪ּ‎,‬דָ ת ‪ּ‎,‬גְ דָ בַ ר ‪‎,‬אַ ּפֶדֶ ן ‪‎,‬אַ זְּדָ א ‪‎,‬אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א ‪‎,‬אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬ ‫ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס ‪‎,‬נְ דַ ן ‪‎,‬נָדָ ן‬ ‫ּפ ְַרּתָ ם ‪ֲ ‎,‬אפ ְַרסַ ְתָך ‪ֲ ‎,‬אפ ְַר ְסָך‬ ‫‪ּ‎,‬פִ ְתגָם ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַתּבַ ג ‪ּ‎,‬גַנְ זְַך ‪ּ‎,‬גְ נַז ‪ֶּ ‎,‬גּנֶז ‪ּ‎,‬גְ דָ בַ ר ‪ּ‎,‬גִ זְּבַ ר ‪ּ‎,‬גִ זְּבָ ר ‪‎,‬אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר ‪‎,‬אֱגֹוז‬ ‫ּפ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬ ‫הַ ְמיָנְ כָא ‪‎,‬הַ ּדָ ם ‪‎,‬הַ ּדָ בַ ר‬ ‫זְמַ ן‬ ‫ַרּמָ כָה ‪ְ ‎,‬ס ַרְך ‪ּ‎,‬כ ְַרּבְ לָה ‪‎,‬הַ ְמיָנְ כָא ‪ּ‎,‬גַנְ זְַך ‪‎,‬א ֲִריְך ‪ֲ ‎,‬אפ ְַרסַ ְתָך ‪ֲ ‎,‬אפ ְַר ְסָך‬ ‫סַ ְרּבָ ל ‪ּ‎,‬כ ְַרּבְ לָה‬ ‫ַרּמָ כָה ‪ּ‎,‬פִ ְתגָם ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַרּתָ ם ‪‎,‬זְמַ ן ‪‎,‬הַ ְמיָנְ כָא ‪‎,‬הַ ּדָ ם ‪‎,‬אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬ ‫‪ֶּ ‎,‬גּנֶז ‪‎,‬אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא ‪‎,‬אַ ּפֶדֶ ן ‪‎,‬אָ ְסּפ ְַרנָא ‪‎,‬אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן ‪‎,‬אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן ‪‎,‬אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬ ‫‪‎,‬נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן ‪‎,‬נְ דַ ן ‪‎,‬נָדָ ן ‪‎,‬נֶבְ ְר ְׁשּתָ א ‪‎,‬זַן ‪‎,‬זְמַ ן ‪‎,‬הַ ְמיָנְ כָא ‪ּ‎,‬גַנְ זְַך ‪ּ‎,‬גְ נַז‬ ‫ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן‬ ‫‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַרּדֵ ס ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַרּבָ ר ‪‎,‬אַ ּפְ תֹ ם ‪‎,‬אַ ּפֶדֶ ן ‪‎,‬אָ ְסּפ ְַרנָא ‪‎,‬אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן ‪‎,‬אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬ ‫ִּתפְ ּתָ י ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן ‪ּ‎,‬פִ ְתגָם ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַתּבַ ג ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַרוָר‬ ‫‪‎,‬אָ ְסּפ ְַרנָא ‪‎,‬אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן ‪‎,‬אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן ‪‎,‬אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן ‪‎,‬אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א ‪‎,‬אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬ ‫‪ְּ ‎,‬דתָ בַ ר ‪ּ‎,‬גְ דָ בַ ר ‪ּ‎,‬גִ זְּבַ ר ‪ּ‎,‬גִ זְּבָ ר ‪‎,‬אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא ‪‎,‬א ֲִריְך ‪ֲ ‎,‬אפ ְַרסַ ְתָך ‪ֲ ‎,‬אפ ְַר ְסָך‬ ‫‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַרּתָ ם ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַרּדֵ ס ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַרּבָ ר ‪ְ ‎,‬ס ַרְך ‪‎,‬סַ ְרּבָ ל ‪‎,‬נֶבְ ְר ְׁשּתָ א ‪ּ‎,‬כ ְַרּבְ לָה ‪‎,‬הַ ּדָ בַ ר‬ ‫ְׁשרֹ ִׁשי ‪ַ ‎,‬רּמָ כָה ‪ָ ‎,‬רז‬ ‫ְס ַרְך ‪‎,‬סַ ְרּבָ ל ‪ֲ ‎,‬אפ ְַרסַ ְתָך ‪ֲ ‎,‬אפ ְַר ְסָך ‪‎,‬אָ ְסּפ ְַרנָא‬ ‫ְׁשרֹ ִׁשי ‪‎,‬נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן ‪‎,‬נֶבְ ְר ְׁשּתָ א ‪‎,‬אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן ‪‎,‬אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן ‪‎,‬אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬ ‫‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַתּבַ ג ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַרּתָ ם ‪‎,‬נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן ‪‎,‬נֶבְ ְר ְׁשּתָ א ‪ְּ ‎,‬דתָ בַ ר ‪ּ‎,‬דָ ת ‪‎,‬אַ ּפְ תֹ ם ‪ֲ ‎,‬אפ ְַרסַ ְתָך‬ ‫ִּתפְ ּתָ י ‪ּ‎,‬פ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן ‪ּ‎,‬פִ ְתגָם‬ ‫‪a‬‬ ‫אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן ‪ b‬אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן ‪‎,‬אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬ ‫ּפ ְַרוָר ‪‎,‬נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬ ‫אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן ‪‎,‬אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן ‪‎,‬אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬ ‫הַ ְמיָנְ כָא‬ ‫‪a‬‬ ‫ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס ‪ָ b‬רז ‪‎,‬זַן ‪ּ‎,‬גַנְ זְַך ‪ּ‎,‬גְ נַז ‪ֶּ ‎,‬גּנֶז ‪ּ‎,‬גִ זְּבַ ר ‪ּ‎,‬גִ זְּבָ ר ‪‎,‬אַ זְּדָ א ‪‎,‬אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א ‪‎,‬אֱגֹוז‬ ‫אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬

‫‪Hebrew/Aramaic‬‬

‫‪Old Iranian‬‬

‫ב‬

‫‪b‬‬

‫ׁש‬

‫‪č‬‬ ‫‪ç‬‬ ‫‪d‬‬

‫פ‬ ‫ג‬

‫‪f‬‬ ‫‪g‬‬

‫ה‬ ‫ז‬ ‫כ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫מ‬ ‫נ‬

‫‪h‬‬ ‫‪ǰ‬‬ ‫‪k‬‬ ‫‪l‬‬ ‫‪m‬‬ ‫‪n‬‬

‫פ‬

‫‪p‬‬

‫ר‬

‫‪r/ṛ‬‬

‫ס‬ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ת‬

‫‪s‬‬ ‫‪š‬‬ ‫‪t‬‬

‫‪ b‬ת ‪ a‎,‬ד‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ח‬ ‫י‬ ‫‪ b‬ס ‪ a‎,‬ז‬ ‫ז‬

‫‪θ‬‬ ‫‪v‬‬ ‫‪x‬‬ ‫‪y‬‬ ‫‪z‬‬ ‫‪ž‬‬

‫ד‬

‫‪ The Old Iranian fricative h ([h]) (Skjærvø 2009, 51; Testen 1997, 574) occurs‬‬ ‫‪only a few times in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, but it is consistently represented‬‬ ‫‪as he.‬‬ ‫‪ Old Iranian has four sibilants: the dental-​alveolars s ([s]) and z ([z]) as well as the‬‬ ‫‪palatal-​alveolars š ([ʃ]) and ž ([ʒ]) (Skjærvø 2009, 51; Testen 1997, 574). They appear‬‬ ‫‪, which appear in the books of Ezra and Daniel in addition to Esther, both render θ as‬אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן ‪and BA‬‬ ‫‪dalet. This varied representation of OIran θ is evident in other Old Iranian borrowings into Semitic.‬‬ ‫‪.‬חשתרפן ‪For example, the θ of OIran *xšaθrapāna- appears as d in Akk aḫšadrapānu but taw in IA‬‬

Linguistic Analysis

289

in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic as samek, zayin, šin, and zayin, respectively. The sole exception is ‫ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬, which uses samek to represent Old Iranian z.34 In addition to these sibilants common to Old Iranian, Old Persian possesses a unique sibilant ç that is the reflex of the Old Iranian cluster θr, which is preserved as such in nearly all other Old Iranian dialects. Its exact pronunciation is unclear, but it seems to be a voiceless sibilant (Skjærvø 2009, 51; Testen 1997, 581; OPGTL 31 [§§78–79]). This phoneme is not represented in the present corpus. 5.1.1.6.4 Nasals and Liquids The Old Iranian nasals m ([m]) and n ([n]) (Skjærvø 2009, 51; Testen 1997, 574) regularly appear as mem and nun in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic. Old Iranian possesses two liquids, r ([r] as well as [ṛ]) and l [l]. The former appears as the allophone ṛ when between stops (Skjærvø 2009, 51; Testen 1997, 574–75). Old Iranian r/ṛ is the most represented consonant in the present corpus, and it commonly appears as reš. Only one word contains the allophone ṛ, namely, ‫אָ ְסּפ ְַרנָא‬. Old Iranian l is much less common because the liquids r and l merged in most Old Iranian dialects. Hence, in Old Persian, for example, the phoneme l only occurs in foreign personal names (Schmitt 2008, 83; Testen 1997, 582; OPGTL 38 [§107]). In the present corpus, Old Iranian l only occurs as lamed in the case of two terms that do not belong to any of the typical dialects of Old Iranian: ‫ ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬and ‫סַ ְרּבָ ל‬. These two words are probably Scythian, hence their use of the liquid l that did not exist in most Old Iranian dialects. 5.1.1.6.5 Semivowels Old Iranian had two semivowels, y ([j]) and v [ʋ] (Skjærvø 2009, 51; Testen 1997, 574). The former appears as yod only in ‫הַ ְמיָנְ כָא‬. Old Iranian v appears as waw only in ‫ נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬and ‫ּפ ְַרוָר‬. 5.1.2 Assimilation There are no clear instances of vocalic assimilation in the present corpus, but consonantal assimilation of foreign nasals and sibilants does occur. Assimilation of foreign nasals occurs with respect to both n (‫אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬, ‫)ׁשּטָ ה‬ ִ and m (‫סּיּפֹ נְ יָה‬, ִ ‫)ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬. In these cases, the assimilated nasal is indicated in the MT by a dageš. Assimilation does not always take place consistently, even with the same word, as the case of ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬, ְ also written ‫סּיּפֹ נְ יָה‬, ִ demonstrates. Sibilant assimilation also takes place in a few instances (‫ׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬, ְ ‫ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬, ‫)ׁשֵ ׁש‬.35 In Imperial Aramaic, Old Iranian *sraušī- appears as ‫סרושית‬, with initial samek 34. The reason for this is uncertain, but the evidence is clear. The other Semitic languages (e.g., Akk pardēsu, JA ‫פרדס‬‎, ‫פרדיס‬, and Syr pardaysā) as well as Greek (e.g., παράδεισος, παράδισος) also represent OIran z with [s]. 35. The case of ‫ ׁשּוׁשַ ן‬is unfortunately ambiguous because both assimilated (ššn) and non-​assimilated (sšn) donor terms are attested in Egyptian.

290

Chapter 5

rather than šin as in Biblical Aramaic ‫;ׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬ ְ this again demonstrates that assimilation does not always take place consistently, even with respect to the same foreign word. 5.1.3 Dissimilation Consonantal dissimilation is attested only a few times in the present corpus (‫אַ ח‬, ‫אֵ טּון‬, ‫)ּפ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן‬. Although it is likely that dissimilation occurred after borrowing in each of these cases, especially since a dissimilated form is not attested in extant texts of the donor languages, it is conceivable that dissimilation occurred prior to borrowing within the donor language itself. Vocalic dissimilation occurs in several instances, particularly when two u-class vowels exist in a world. Hebrew-​speakers dislike this pattern and frequently change the first vowel to an i-class vowel via dissimilation.36 A few foreign loans exhibit this specific type of vocalic dissimilation (‫אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬, ‫חִ ּתּול‬, ‫)סּיּפֹ נְ יָה‬. ִ Several loanwords borrowed from Asia Minor may additionally exhibit vocalic dissimilation, although differences between the vocalic phonology of the donor and recipient languages could also be responsible in these instances (‫ּכִ ידֹון‬, ‫)סָ ִדין‬.37 Neither consonantal nor vocalic dissimilation is always treated consistently, even in the case of the same word. Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬does not exhibit consonantal dissimilation whereas Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּפ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן‬does; Biblical Aramaic contains the non-​dissimilated form ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ as well as a dissimilated form ‫סּיּפֹ נְ יָה‬. ִ The varying treatment of dissimilation doubtlessly depended on a number of factors, including the phonological systems of the donor and recipient languages. 5.1.4 Initial Consonant Clusters Hebrew and Aramaic do not typically tolerate initial consonant clusters, and speakers of these languages used several different techniques to represent a foreign term’s initial consonant cluster. Most commonly, they used a prothetic vowel with ‌ʾalep functioning as a placeholder (‫אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א‬, ‫אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬/‫אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן‬, ‫אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן‬, ‫)אֲדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬.38 However, in other instances, an initial consonant cluster was represented as CaC, with a pataḥ used to separate the two consonants (‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬, ‫ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬, ‫)ּפ ְַרּתָ ם‬. In at least one instance, t he initial conso nant cluster was represented by a šewa (‫)ׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬. ְ The use of both a prothetic vowel and CaC pattern in the case of ‫ ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬demonstrates that there was no fixed way of representing initial consonant clusters and that Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers were free to represent these in varying ways, even for a single word. 36. Kutscher 1984, 69. This phenomenon occurs, for example, in the cases of ‫ראׁשֹון‬,ִ ‫חִ יצֹון‬, and ‫צִ ּפֹור‬. 37.  For example, a German ü, pronounced as [y] in German, could easily be pronounced as [e], [ɨ], or [ʉ] in other target languages. I am grateful to Stephen Kaufman for this example. 38. It is unclear whether the ‌ʾalep of ‫ אַ בְ נֵט‬represents an initial vowel or an initial consonant cluster because Egyptian does not represent vowels. The Greek form of Eg bndw is βύνητος, which has neither an initial vowel nor an initial consonant cluster.

Linguistic Analysis

291

5.1.5 Final Consonant Clusters Hebrew does not tolerate a final consonant cluster (CvCC), which typically is resolved via anaptyxis (Cv́CvC). For the vast majority of non-​Semitic words ending with a consonant cluster or with a consonant cluster followed by a final vowel, the resolution is precisely the same. These words undergo anaptyxis: ‫( ֶּגּנֶז‬from OIran *ganza-) ‫( חֶ ֶרׂש‬from Hitt ḫarši-), ‫( ּכֹ מֶ ר‬from Hurr kumri-), ‫( מֶ לֶט‬from Gk μάλθα, μάλθη), ‫( ַנ חַ ת‬from Eg nḫt; cf. Copt našte), ‫( סֵ פֶל‬from Hurr zabli-), ‫( ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬from OIran *patčagna-), ‫( קֶ סֶ ת‬from Eg gstı̓; cf. Copt qost, qast), ‫( ֶרסֶ ן‬from IAV *raśna-). In at least one instance, namely ‫( ְּת ָרפִ ים‬from Luv tarpi-), the segolate form of the noun is preserved in the plural.39 There are only two exceptions to this rule, and both are problematic. The morphology of Hebrew ‫ אַ ּפֶדֶ ן‬indicates that it was borrowed from a word ending in a final consonant cluster, but neither the Old Iranian donor term, apadāna-, nor borrowings from Old Iranian in other languages (cf. Akk appadānu, Elam ha-​ba-​ da-​na, and Gk [θ′] εφαδανω) preserve a final consonant cluster. It is possible that the MT is incorrectly vocalized in this case, especially because this word occurs only once in Biblical Hebrew.40 The other exception is ‫( נ ְֵר ְּד‬from OInd *narda-), which has not resolved the final consonant cluster via anaptyxis. It is possible, therefore, that the MT has also incorrectly vocalized this word.41 Aramaic also resolves final consonant clusters via anaptyxis but vocalizes the noun as CeCv́C because it prefers a reduced pretonic vowel. The only example of a foreign term with a final consonant cluster in the present corpus is ‫( ּגְ נַז‬from OIran *ganza-). In at least this case, therefore, Aramaic-​speakers dealt with the final consonant cluster just as they would with any other term. Biblical Aramaic ‫ּפ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן‬ (from OIran *paččagna-), on the other hand, resolves the final consonant cluster as Hebrew does (cf. BH ‫)ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬. 5.1.6 Synthesis Generally speaking, there are predictable correspondences between Hebrew and Aramaic and the non-​Semitic languages considered in this analysis (Egyptian, 39. Assuming the Masoretes have preserved the correct vocalization and morphology, several additional Egyptian loanwords in Biblical Hebrew presumably ended in a final consonant cluster: ‫ּבַ הַ ט‬, ‫ּבַ חַ ן‬, ‫ּבֹ חַ ן‬, ‫ּגֹ מֶ א‬, ‫ ֶזפֶת‬, ‫ז ֶֶרת‬, ‫טַ ּבַ עַת‬, ‫טֶ נֶא‬, ‫לֶׁשֶ ם‬, ‫נֹ פְֶך‬, ‫קַ ּלַחַ ת‬, ‫ּתַ חַ ׁש‬. It is impossible to know for sure in these cases, however, because Egyptian writing practices do not represent vowels and their Coptic forms provide no certain evidence of morphology. In the case of ‫נֶתֶ ר‬, on the other hand, comparison with other related forms indicates that Egyptian did indeed have a final consonant cluster (cf. Akk nitru, Hitt nitri-, and Gk νίτρον). 40. An additional difficulty is the fact that ‫ אַ ּפֶדֶ ן‬is not attested in its absolute form in the MT; it only occurs with a pronominal suffix as ‫( אַ ּפ ְַדנֹו‬Dan 11:45). Hence, the absolute form ‫ אַ ּפֶדֶ ן‬is reconstructed. 41.  Additional difficulties are the presence of an i-class vowel rather than the expected a-class vowel (cf. Gk νάρδος), and the observation that other languages indicate a final consonant cluster (again cf. Gk νάρδος), whereas extant Indic forms do not (cf. Skt nálada- and Pāli narada-).

292

Chapter 5

Greek, Hittite/Luvian, Hurrian, Old Indic, and Old Iranian). However, when the donor and recipient languages do not have the same consonantal inventory—as is often the case—the recipient language is forced to represent a foreign sound as best it can. The method of doing so may not always be consistent, and therefore the same foreign sound can be borrowed in one loanword in one way and in another loanword in a different way. This can be due to a variety of factors, such as chronology, dialect, lack of a native phoneme for representing a foreign sound, different scribal or orthographical practices, and borrowing based on orthography rather than pronunciation (cf. L. Campbell 2013, 60–61; Hock and Joseph 2009, 248–49). One cannot and should not, therefore, rule out potential borrowings on the assumption that consonantal correspondences are always the same. Predictable correspondences do exist, but exceptions can and do occur. Sometimes foreign consonants, particularly nasals and sibilants, are adapted to Hebrew and Aramaic via their assimilation before consonants; sometimes dissimilation occurs, especially if the borrowed word exhibits a phonology uncharacteristic of Hebrew and Aramaic. Hebrew and Aramaic do not tolerate initial or final consonant clusters, and foreign consonant clusters in these positions are adapted accordingly. The addition of ‌ʾalep is the most common way of resolving an initial consonant cluster, and the insertion of an anaptytic vowel is typically used to resolve a final consonant cluster. 5.2 ORTHOGRAPHY In accordance with its use of matres lectionis, the Hebrew Bible sometimes uses the consonants ‌ʾalep, he, waw, and yod to represent the vowels of foreign loanwords. Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers frequently used the consonant ʾ‌alep to indicate an initial vowel (‫אֵ בּוס‬, ‫אַ בְ ֵרְך‬, ‫אֱגֹוז‬, ‫אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬, ‫אֹוב‬, ‫אַ זְּדָ א‬, ‫אַ ח‬, ‫אָ חּו‬, ‫אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬, ‫אֵ טּון‬, ‫אֵ פָה‬, ‫אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬, ‫אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬, ‫א ֲִריְך‬, ‫)אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא‬.42 In each instance, use of ‌ʾalep does not indicate any kind of consonant correspondence and simply represents the initial vocalic onset of the borrowed foreign term. As expected, the consonants he, waw, and yod never represent a simple initial vowel. There is only one clear use of ‌ʾalep to indicate a medial vowel, namely in ‫ּפְ אֵ ר‬. In only one case, moreover, does ‌ʾalep represent a diphthong (‫)ּתאַ ּׁשּור‬. ְ Hebrew he is not used to indicate a medial vowel, but both waw (‫אֵ בּוס‬, ‫אֱגֹוז‬, ‫אֵ טּון‬, ‫אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬, ‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬, ‫חִ ּתּול‬, ‫ּכֹובַ ע‬, ‫ּכָרֹוז‬, ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬, ְ ‫סּוף‬, ‫קֹוף‬, ‫קִ יתָ רֹוס‬, ‫ׁשּוׁשַ ן‬, ‫)ּתאַ ּׁשּור‬ ְ and yod (‫אֵ יפָה‬, ‫א ֲִריְך‬, ‫ּגָבִ י ַע‬, ‫הִ ין‬, ‫ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬, ‫לַּפִ יד‬, ‫סָ ִדין‬, ‫ )קִ יקָ יֹון‬are used frequently for this purpose.43 The semivowel yod 42. It is unclear whether the ‌ʾalep of ‫ אַ בְ נֵט‬represents an initial vowel or an initial consonant cluster because Egyptian does not represent vowels. The Greek form of Eg bndw is βύνητος, which has neither an initial vowel nor an initial consonant cluster. 43. Two of these words are also spelled defectively, without use of waw or yod to represent a vowel: ‫( אֵ יפָה‬defectively written ‫ )אֵ פָה‬and ‫( קֹוף‬defectively written ‫)קֹ ף‬. Not included in this list are words in which waw or yod represents a medial vowel due to internal developments within Hebrew, namely the Canaanite shift (‫אֹוב‬, ‫חֹותָ ם‬, ‫יְ אֹור‬, ‫)ׁש ְריֹון‬ ִ and vocalic dissimilation (‫ּכִ ידֹון‬, ‫)סּיּפֹ נְ יָה‬.

Linguistic Analysis

293

can even represent a dipthong, sometimes in conjunction with waw or a u-class vowel (‫אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬, ‫ּכִ ּיֹור‬, ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬, ְ ‫ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬, ‫)ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬.44 Lastly, Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers sometimes use ‌ʾalep, he, waw, or yod to represent a final vowel. The consonant ‌ʾalep is used often to indicate a final vowel (‫אַ ְד ַרזְּדָ א‬, ‫אַ זְּדָ א‬, ‫אָ ְסּפ ְַרנָא‬, ‫הַ ְמיָנְ כָא‬, ‫נֶבְ ְר ְׁשּתָ א‬, ‫)ּתַ חְ ָרא‬,45 as is he (‫אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬, ‫י ְָׁשפֵה‬, ‫ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬, ‫ע ָָרה‬, ‫ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬, ‫ ַּפ ְרעֹ ה‬, ‫רּמָ ָכ ה‬,ַ ‫ׁשּטָ ה‬, ִ ‫ ;)ּתֵ בָ ה‬the former occurs almost exclusively in Old Iranian loans. The consonant yod represents a final vowel in several instances (‫חֹ ִרי‬, ‫מֶ ִׁשי‬, ‫צִ י‬, ‫ּתֻ ּכִ י‬, ‫)ּתפְ ּתָ י‬, ִ 46 and waw indicates a final vowel only once (‫)ּדיֹו‬. ְ In many cases, however, the final vowel of the donor term is left unrepresented. 5.3 MORPHOLOGY This section analyzes the way in which Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers adopted the morphology of non-​Semitic terminology with respect to two key items, namely the integration of case endings and the integration of plural markers and definite markers. 5.3.1 Structural Integration of Case Endings The adoption of donor terms from languages with case endings naturally raises the question of whether Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers recognized the case endings as such, omitting the case ending and adopting only the nominal stem, or assumed it was a part of the noun, adopting the nominal stem with its case ending as a unified whole. Before examining this question with respect to the foreign loanwords in the Hebrew Bible, it is helpful to consider it within the larger framework of contact linguistics. Languages have several different options for morphologically integrating borrowed nouns: first, to treat borrowed nouns just like native nouns, integrating them fully into its native inflection patterns; second, to avoid integration and maintain a simplified representation of the borrowed noun; third, to integrate nouns along with their original inflection in the source language; fourth, to apply a special integration strategy that marks out borrowed nouns as loan; or fifth, a combination of any of these (Matras 2009, 172). It seems that languages tend to follow the first of these options, integrating a noun fully into its native inflection pattern.47 Languages less 44. ‫ ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬also appears as ‫ׁשֵ ׁש‬, but this is probably an internal development within Hebrew. 45. Although it probably represents a final vowel, the ‌ʾalep of ‫ ּגֹ מֶ א‬could potentially represent Eg Ꜣ. The ambiguity with respect to the Egyptian donor term (either Eg qmꜢ or Eg gmy) further contributes to the uncertainty. 46. It is unclear whether ‫הָ בְ נִ ים‬, ‫ּכְ לִ י‬, and ‫ ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬fall within this category because the singular absolute forms of these words are unclear. 47.  One can infer from the morphological borrowing of case endings that words can sometimes be borrowed along with case endings before the affixes are reanalyzed as part of the system of the borrowing language (Gardani 2008, 93–95). However, aside from isolated instances such as the morphological

294

Chapter 5

frequently borrow the original inflection along with the nominal stem. Notable exceptions include mixed languages and “learned” borrowings from Greek and Latin.48 Ancient languages that did borrow case endings as part of the word most often borrowed the word in the nominative rather than oblique case, although borrowing of the accusative form also occurs relatively frequently.49 These trends assume a certain level of bilingualism: at the bare minimum, enough knowledge of the donor language to recognize case endings as such. Given the existence of bilingualism in the ancient Near East, it is reasonable to assume that Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers had at least some knowledge of the more familiar non-​Semitic languages from which they borrowed.50 In most cases, therefore, they probably would have borrowed the nominal stem without any case ending. However, it is unclear whether Hebrew- and Aramaic-speakers were fully aware of case endings for some of the less-​encountered languages. In these instances, one can potentially envisage Hebrew- and Aramaic-speakers adopting the term in a number of possible cases,51 although cross-​linguistic evidence suggests that the nominative or possibly the accusative would be the most common. Having examined this question cross-​linguistically and set forth appropriate expectations, let us now evaluate the data from the present corpus. borrowing of case endings in Arnhem Land, borrowing of this specific type of inflectional morphology is relatively rare; when it does occur it tends to occur in languages that already utilize case endings (Matras 2009, 215–16; Gardani and Seifart 2014; Comrie 2008). I am grateful to Barry Blake, Francesco Gardani, Lars Johanson, and Frank Seifart for their assistance with this topic. 48.  Johanson 2009, 495; Matras 2009, 173; Hock 1991, 387. Examination of many of the world’s language families from many different regions provides no notable instances of case markers borrowed along with a loanword (Matras 2007, 44). 49.  Cf. Matras 2009, 160. Phoenician and Punic tend to preserve the nominative endings of Greek and Latin personal names, but they do not always completely preserve the case endings of common nouns borrowed from Greek and Latin (Friedrich and Röllig 1999, 141–43). Jewish Aramaic and Syriac often borrow the nominative singular case form of Greek words, although they also frequently borrow the accusative (either singular or plural) case form or do not borrow the case ending at all (S. Krauss 1898–1899, 1:65–73; Brock 1996, 253–55). Common nouns entered New Kingdom Egyptian from Northwest Semitic primarily as accusative forms with a significant minority borrowed in the nominative case (SWET 452–54). Coptic tends to borrow the nominative singular case form when borrowing from Greek (B. Layton 2011, 12). 50.  On bilingualism in the ancient Near East, see Thomason 2004; J. Adams, Janse, and Swain 2002. Issues of historicity aside, the Hebrew Bible presents several cases of bilingualism. Joseph could understand both Hebrew and Egyptian but used an interpreter to conceal his identity from his brothers (Gen 42:13). The shibboleth/sibboleth incident (Judg 12:4–6), the request of Hezekiah’s officials to speak in Aramaic rather than Hebrew (2 Kgs 18:26; Isa 36:11), and the diverse linguistic situation of post-​Exilic Judea (Neh 13:23–24), moreover, reflect knowledge of other Semitic dialects and languages. The presence of bilingual wordplay and addressee-​switching, lastly, indicates that at least some Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers were relatively bilingual because these literary devices would otherwise be meaningless. 51.  This could especially be true with respect to foreign terminology for realia. For example, at a port of trade, a seller could use the term in nominative (“This is X ”), genitive (“Here are four jars of Y ”), or accusative (“Here, take Z”) cases. I am grateful to Grant Testut for these examples.

Linguistic Analysis

295

5.3.1.1 Egyptian The Egyptian case endings (nominative -u, genitive -i, and accusative -a) dropped out very early in the history of the language (Loprieno 1995, 55–56; Zeidler 1992, 210–21), leaving a system that marked its nouns for only gender and number. The majority of Egyptian loans are from the singular form of the donor term and preserve the Egyptian masculine singular (-Ø) or feminine singular endings (-t). The sole exception is the term ‫אָ חּו‬, which is borrowed from the plural noun Ꜣḫw and preserves the masculine plural ending -w, -aw (EPNL 238; Lambdin 1953b, 146). 5.3.1.2 Greek Greek has five cases: nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, and vocative. Nouns are further marked for gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter), declension classes (first, second, or third), and number (singular, plural, or dual) (Papanastassiou and Petrounias 2007, 572–79; Woodard 2008, 24–28). Most first-​declension nouns are feminine and end with their theme vowel in the nominative and -ν in the accusative. Three words in the present corpus are borrowed from first-​declension Greek nouns (‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬, ‫מֶ לֶט‬, ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬, ְ ‫)ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬. Of these, ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬ ְ preserves the nominative ending -α, ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬seems to preserve it, and ‫ מֶ לֶט‬is ambiguous. The term ‫ּדַ ְרּכְ מֹון‬, lastly, preserves the genitive plural ending -ῶν. The genitive case frequently expresses price and value in ancient Greek, and it is therefore not surprising that Hebrew-​speakers adopted the genitive plural form of a term for coinage.52 Second declension nouns end with either -ς (masculine and feminine) or -ν (neuter) in the nominative and with -ν when in the accusative (all genders). Only two loans in the present corpus come from second-​declension Greek nouns, both of them neuter (‫אַ ּפִ ְריֹון‬, ‫ )ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬and both of them preserving their case endings. It is unclear, however, whether the preserved case ending is the nominative or accusative because both the nominative and accusative end with -ν in the neuter. Lastly, third-​d eclension nouns end with either -ς (masculine and feminine) or -∅ (neuter) in the nominative and either -α or -ν (both masculine and feminine) or -∅ (neuter) in the accusative. Two words borrowed from third-​declension nouns appear in the present corpus, one feminine (‫ )קִ יתָ רֹוס‬and one masculine (‫)ּכָרֹוז‬. Both clearly preserve the nominative case ending -ς. In sum, nearly all the Greek loanwords in the Hebrew Bible are borrowed with their case endings, often in the nominative case. This is unlike the majority of other foreign loans in the Hebrew Bible, which do not borrow a word along with its case ending. On the other hand, borrowings from Greek tend to preserve the nominative case in many other languages, including some Semitic languages (i.e., Jewish Aramaic and Syriac).53 Thus, this exception to the norm in the Hebrew Bible actually follows the typical norm found elsewhere. 52.  Cf. Schwyzer 1931, 17–18. On the use of the genitive to express price and value, see Schwyzer 1939–1971, 2:122. 53.  Johanson 2009, 495. On the frequent borrowing of Greek nouns in the nominative case by Jewish Aramaic- and Syriac-​speakers, see S. Krauss 1898–1899, 1:65–73; Brock 1996, 253–55.

296

Chapter 5

5.3.1.3 Hittite and Luvian Old Hittite had nine cases (nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative-​ locative, allative, ablative, instrumental, and ergative); by the time of New Hittite, several of these cases had merged or dropped out, leaving six (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative-​locative, ablative-​instrumental, and ergative). Cuneiform Luvian has five cases (nominative, vocative, accusative, dative-​locative, and ablative-​instrumental), whereas Hieroglyphic Luvian has six, adding the genitive. The form of these case endings is dependent on a noun’s gender (common/animate or neuter/inanimate, as in other old Indo-​European languages), nominal stem (e.g., a-stem, i-stem, u-stem, n-stem, r-stem), and number (singular or plural).54 The Hebrew Bible’s Hittite and Luvian loanwords come from several different types of nouns: common i-stem (‫)ּת ָרפִ ים‬, ְ neuter i-stem (‫חֶ ֶרׂש‬, ‫)חִ ּתּול‬, common n-stem (‫)אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬, neuter r/n-stem (‫)ּתאַ ּׁשּור‬, ְ and neuter t-stem (‫)לַּפִ יד‬. Of these, the neuter i-stem and t-stem nouns have -∅ as their ending in the nominative and accusative cases, appearing identical to the nominal stem. Thus, in these instances it is not possible to determine whether Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers adopted the donor term along with its case endings. On the other hand, the other two types of nouns end with -š (Hittite and Cuneiform Luvian) or -s (Hieroglyphic Luvian) in the nominative and -n in the accusative. These endings are not preserved in any of the Hittite or Luvian loanwords. Most other case endings are clearly not preserved, including the ergative (-anza in Hittite and -antiš in Luvian), genitive (Hitt -aš and HLuv -as), ablative (Hitt -az, -aza), instrumental (Hitt -it, -d/ta), and ablative-​instrumental (Luv -ati).55 The majority of the Hittite and Luvian loanwords, therefore, were not borrowed along with their case endings. The data are ambiguous only in three instances (‫חֶ ֶרׂש‬, ‫חִ ּתּול‬, ‫)לַּפִ יד‬, but it is probable that these words were not borrowed along with their case endings either. 5.3.1.4 Hurrian Hurrian is a fully ergative language: the agent of an action with no explicit patient is marked as an ergative and the patient as an absolutive, whereas the subject of a verb is marked as absolutive if no patient is explicitly mentioned. Hurrian has 14 cases: absolutive, ergative, genitive, dative, directive, comitative, ablative-​instrumental, ablative, directive, essive, instrumental, equative, associative, and associative-​ essive. Hurrian nouns do fall into various classes (thematic i-, a-, and o/u-stems

54.  Hoffner and Melchert 2008, 1:64–131; Watkins 2008, 14–17; Melchert 2003, 185–87; 2008, 35–36. Hittite and Luvian are “split ergative” languages. When a common noun functions as the subject of a transitive or intransitive verb, it appears in the nominative, and direct objects of transitive verbs appear in the accusative. However, when a neuter noun functions as the subject of a transitive verb, it takes the ergative case ending. See Hoffner and Melchert 2008, 1:66–67; Watkins 2008, 15; Melchert 2003, 186. 55.  The remaining case endings (vocative, dative-​locative, and allative) are vocalic, and therefore it cannot be determined whether the case endings were borrowed along with the nominal stem. It is unlikely that Hebrew- or Aramaic-​speakers would have borrowed a word in these cases, however.

Linguistic Analysis

297

or athematic stems), but the case endings are not dependent on the nominal class (Wegner 2007, 65–67; Giorgieri 2000, 216–19; Wilhelm 2008, 93–94). Statistically speaking, the most common case in Hurrian is the absolutive. Thus, if Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers were to borrow a Hurrian term along with its case ending, they probably would borrow it in the absolutive case. However, the absolutive case in Hurrian has no marker in the singular, so it is impossible to tell whether Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers adopted Hurrian nouns in the absolutive case or whether they simply borrowed the nominal stem. It is impossible to be certain, but it is unlikely that they borrowed any Hurrian nouns in the absolutive case given their languages’ tendency to adopt the nominal stem without any endings.56 Although there is no clear evidence that Hurrian loanwords in the Hebrew Bible represent case endings, there are several instances in which Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers adopted various other nominal components. Thematic vowels are omitted with the probable exception of Hebrew ‫י ְָׁשפֵה‬, which seems to represent the thematic vowel -e.57 The exact reason for this inconsistency is unknown.58 The suffixes -ni, -nni (‫סָ ִדין‬, ‫)ׁש ְריֹון‬ ִ and -zi (‫ )אֵ בּוס‬are represented, undoubtedly because they were considered part of the noun.59 5.3.1.5 Old Indic Eight cases existed in Old Indic: nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive, locative, and vocative. The case endings of any given noun are dependent on its gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter), its nominal stem class (vowel stems and consonant stems), and number (singular, plural, or dual) (Jamison 2008, 16–18; Cardona 2003, 141–45). All the Old Indic donor terms in the present corpus are from vocalic nominal stems. The masculine (‫ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬, ‫)ּכ ְַרּפַס‬, neuter (‫)נ ְֵר ְּד‬, and feminine (‫)רסֶ ן‬ ֶ genders are each attested.60 Generally speaking, in vowel stems the masculine, feminine, and neuter nominative endings are -s, -∅, and -m, respectively, whereas the masculine, 56.  With the exception of the directive, essive, and instrumental, the remaining Hurrian case endings contain at least one consonant. The Hurrian donor terms found in the present corpus preserve no trace of these case endings, although it is unlikely that Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers would have borrowed from these cases anyway. 57.  On the Hurrian thematic vowel -e, see Wegner 2007, 46; Giorgieri 2000, 199; Wilhelm 2008, 90. 58.  It could be attributed to our lack of knowledge of each donor term’s thematic vowel. It  is possible that some of the Hurrian donor terms are in reality athematic; alternatively, perhaps they were originally athematic and only became thematic later (as happened with a number of Hurrian words). The morphology of many Hurrian terms remains unclear, especially when they are reconstructed on the basis of terms that are identifiable as Hurrian but occur in non-Hurrian texts. 59.  On the noun-​formation suffix -zi, see Wegner 2007, 49–50; Giorgieri 2000, 202–4; Wilhelm 2008, 90. On the derivational suffix -ni, -nni, see Wegner 2007, 49; Giorgieri 2000, 210–12; Wilhelm 2008, 92. 60.  Admittedly, the genders and nominal classes are not entirely certain. They are based on corresponding forms in Sanskrit, but it is unlikely that the Old Indic language behind the Hebrew Bible’s Old Indic loans was Sanskrit. There is a high probability, however, that the Old Indic donor terms’ genders and nominal classes—and the corresponding case endings—were the same as that of Sanskrit even if they were borrowed from a language other than Sanskrit.

298

Chapter 5

feminine, and neuter accusative endings are all -m. Thus, no concrete evidence exists for the borrowing of case endings. In fact, the evidence is decisively against it. The loans from masculine and neuter nouns should preserve traces of the endings -s and -m, respectively, if they were borrowed from the nominative form; the loans from masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns should preserve the ending -m if they were borrowed from the accusative form.61 Little evidence exists for borrowings from other cases.62 5.3.1.6 Old Iranian Old Iranian has seven cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, locative, instrumental, and ablative. Nouns are grouped into declensional classes dependent on their gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter), nominal stem (e.g., -a, -ā, -i, -ī, -ī/yā, -u, -ū, -n, -r, -h, -š), and number (singular, plural, or dual).63 The vast majority of the Old Iranian loanwords found in the Hebrew Bible come from a-stem nouns. Their genders often cannot be determined because the donor forms are reconstructed and unattested in actual texts, but a number of a-stem nouns are known to be masculine: the donor term for ‫אַ ּפֶדֶ ן‬, apadāna-, occurs in Old Persian texts as a masculine noun, and the terms denoting various professions presumably are masculine (‫אֲדַ ְר ָּגזַר‬, ‫אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬/‫אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן‬, ‫ ֲאפ ְַר ְסָך‬, ‫ ֲאפ ְַרסַ ְתָך‬, ‫ּגְ דָ בַ ר‬/‫ּגִ זְּבָ ר‬/‫ּגִ זְּבַ ר‬, ‫ּדתָ בַ ר‬,ְ ‫הַ ּדָ בַ ר‬, ‫ס ַרְך‬, ְ ‫)ּפ ְַרּתָ ם‬. Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell whether Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers adopted these masculine a-stem nouns in the nominative case because the nominative ending is -∅ for these nouns. On the other hand, it is clear that they did not borrow these masculine a-stem nouns in the oblique case because no trace is preserved of the oblique case endings of this noun class, at least with respect to the genitive (-hayā) and accusative (-m).64 Most of the Old Iranian loanwords in the Hebrew Bible are a-stem nouns, but there are a few examples of words borrowed from neuter a-stem nouns (‫אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא‬, ‫ ֶּג ּנֶז‬/‫ּגְ נַז‬, ‫ ַּג נְ זְַך‬, ‫ )ּדָ ת‬and masculine i-stem nouns (‫נָדָ ן‬/‫נְ דַ ן‬, ‫)ּתפְ ּתָ י‬. ִ 65 Old Iranian neuter 61. There is only one possible instance in which the nominative form could have been borrowed. The nominative form of the donor term behind ‫ ֶרסֶ ן‬would be raśnā (assuming the donor term is feminine and not masculine, which remains a possibility). Hebrew-​speakers would have borrowed it as rasnā, but the case ending would have dropped off after anaptyxis, producing the same result as if Hebrew-​speakers had borrowed the term without case endings. Although the evidence is ambiguous, it is unlikely that Hebrew-​speakers adopted the nominative case ending in this instance given the clear evidence that they did not adopt the case endings for any other Old Indic loan. 62.  In Old Indic, the instrumental, ablative, and genitive cases all contain a consonant for a-vowel stems; the dative, locative, and vocative do not. It is doubtful that Semitic-​speakers would have borrowed from these cases anyway, however. 63.  Skjærvø 2009, 71–79; 2007, 879–96; Schmitt 2008, 86–89; OPGTL 49–53, 57–65 (§§141–58, 168–89). 64.  The locative, instrumental, ablative, and vocative all have vocalic endings in Old Iranian, rendering it nearly impossible to tell whether Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers borrowed the a-stem masculine nouns in these cases. However, it is unlikely that Semitic-​speakers would have reason to borrow a word in these cases over the nominative or accusative. 65.  The gender and stem class of these nouns are known from attested forms in Old Iranian texts, morphology, etymology, and attested forms in the collateral tradition (e.g., Elamite). They are listed as such by Hinz (AISN).

Linguistic Analysis

299

a-stem nouns end in -m for both the nominative and accusative cases, and masculine i-stem nouns end in either -š (nominative) or -m (accusative). The Hebrew and Aramaic forms lack any representation of these case markers and therefore must have been borrowed without case endings. In sum, there are no clear examples of Hebrew- or Aramaic-​speakers borrowing Old Iranian case endings along with their words. In some instances, there is clear evidence that they did not borrow the cases one would expect them to borrow from if they were to do so, i.e., the nominative and accusative cases. Accordingly, it seems that Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers simply borrowed the nominal stem without any case endings when adopting Old Iranian words. 5.3.1.7 Conclusion The data indicate that, as expected from cross-​linguistic studies, Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers most often borrowed only the stem of a noun and did not borrow its case ending.66 The only significant exception to this trend occurs with respect to the Hebrew Bible’s Greek loanwords, which frequently adopt the word in the nominative case. As noted above (§5.3.1.2), however, Greek loanwords in various languages tend to preserve the nominative case. Thus, the preservation of the nominative case in the Hebrew Bible’s Greek loans is not as exceptional as may seem at first glance. 5.3.2 Structural Integration of Plural Markers Although case endings of loanwords are rarely borrowed along with the word, plural markers are frequently adopted (Matras 2009, 174–75; 2007, 43–44). The only example of a loanword adopted along with its plural marker in the Hebrew Bible is ‫אָ חּו‬, which is borrowed from the plural Egyptian noun Ꜣḫw and preserves the masculine plural ending -w, -aw (cf. EPNL 238; Lambdin 1953b, 146). 5.3.3 Structural Integration of Definite Articles Definite articles are often adopted along with loanwords (Matras 2009, 174–75; 2007, 43). There are only two examples in the present corpus of borrowing a term along with its definite article, both from Egyptian. The term ‫ ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬preserves the masculine definite article pꜢ, and ‫ ּתֻ ּכִ י‬preserves the feminine definite article tꜢ.67 66.  Even though certain trends with respect to the borrowing or lack of borrowing of case endings are apparent, the problem is undoubtedly complicated by issues of genre, dialect, and the difference between fully integrated loanwords and foreign words (Fremdwörter). 67. The adoption of an Egyptian word along with its definite article occurs commonly in proper nouns in Biblical Hebrew and in common nouns in Imperial Aramaic. In Biblical Hebrew, the Egyptian masculine definite article pꜢ appears in the proper nouns ‫ּפּוטיאֵ ל‬ ִ (a hybrid of Eg PꜢ-dı̓ and BH ‫)אֵ ל‬, ‫ּפֹוטיפַר‬ ִ (from PꜢ-dı̓-pꜢ-ı̓ry), ‫( ּפִ ינְ חָ ס‬from PꜢ-nḥsy), and ‫( ּפ ְַתרֹוס‬from PꜢ-tꜢ-rsy); the feminine definite article tꜢ occurs in the personal name ‫( תַ ּחְ פְ ּנֵיס‬probably from TꜢ-n.t-ḥ.t-​pꜢ-nsw). In Imperial Aramaic, the Egyptian masculine definite article pꜢ appears in the nouns ‫( פחטמוני‬from pꜢ-ḫt-mnı̓.t), ‫פק‬, ‫( פיק‬from pꜢ-wg), ‫( פסחמצנותי‬from pꜢ-sẖ-mḏꜢ.t-​nṯr), ‫( פעקס‬from pꜢ-ʿgs), and ‫( פערער‬from pꜢ-ʿrʿr); examples of words

300

Chapter 5

5.3.4 Synthesis In many instances, Hebrew- and Aramaic-​speakers did not adopt any case endings along with the loanword; this is consistent with the lack of adoption of case endings cross-​linguistically. There is only one example of the borrowing of a plural marker, and there are only two examples of the borrowing of the definite article, but these are sufficient to demonstrate that plural markers or the definite article could be borrowed along with the word.

with the feminine definite article tꜢ include ‫( תחית‬from tꜢ-ḫꜢ.ty), ‫( תמואנתי‬from tꜢ-mı̓.t-​nṯr), ‫( תמנח‬from tꜢ-mnḫ.t), ‫( תסהר‬from tꜢ-shr.t), ‫( תקבה‬from tꜢ-qb.t), ‫( תרי‬from tꜢ-rı̓.t), and ‫( תשי‬from tꜢ-šꜢy.t).

Chapter 6 Evidence for Dialect of Origin and Date of Borrowing

Phonological, orthographical, and morphological features preserved in a loanword may reflect a particular dialect of a donor language or a specific stage of the donor language’s development (cf. L. Campbell 2013, 66–68). This chapter examines possible evidence for determining the specific dialects of origin and the dates of borrowing for the Hebrew Bible’s Egyptian, Greek, Hittite/Luvian, Hurrian, Old Indic, and Old Iranian loanwords.1 6.1 EGYPTIAN No evidence exists that permits identification of specific dialects from which the Hebrew Bible’s Egyptian loanwords have come, in part because our knowledge of Egyptian dialects prior to Coptic is scant. However, knowledge of the phonological and morphological development of the Egyptian language can provide important clues regarding the date of borrowing.2 6.1.1 Neutralization of Phonemic Opposition As noted above (§§5.1.1.1.1, 4), phonemic opposition gradually came to be neutralized for the dentals (t and d), velars and uvulars (k, g, and q), and nasals (m and n) of Egyptian.3 Egyptian loanwords that may reflect neutralization of phonemic opposition (‫אֵ טּון‬, ‫ּגָבִ י ַע‬, ‫ּגֹ מֶ א‬, ‫נֹ פְֶך‬, ‫ּתֵ בָ ה‬, ‫ )ּתַ חְ ָרא‬could have been borrowed when this phenomenon occurred in Later Egyptian (beginning ca. 1300 b.c.e.). On the other 1.  Languages from the Other category are not analyzed in this section for the simple reason that little if anything is known of them. 2.  The phonological and morphological changes described below (§§6.1.1–5) took place over time, and therefore the dates given are only approximate. 3.  J. Allen 2013, 46–50; Loprieno 1995, 32–34, 38; Peust 1999, 107–14; Junge 2005, 36–37.

301

302

Chapter 6

hand, Egyptian’s consonantal inventory is not identical to that of Hebrew or Aramaic, meaning that multiple ways of rendering its consonants could have existed, and interference from neighboring phonemes could potentially influence their representation. Hence, it remains possible that explanations other than the neutralization of phonemic opposition are responsible for these varying consonantal correspondences, and this criterion should not be seen as conclusive. 6.1.2 Lenition By the New Kingdom, the Egyptian glides w and y had undergone a process of lenition at the end of a stressed syllable, and they eventually dropped out completely at the end of a word. Although they continue to appear in writing, they have no linguistic function and can be ignored.4 The Egyptian glide ı̓ and the vibrant Ꜣ were similarly lost in many environments beginning with Later Egyptian (ca. 1300 b.c.e.) (J. Allen 2013, 37–41; Loprieno 1995, 33–35, 38; Peust 1999, 49–50, 127–29, 142–51). In light of these phonological changes, words that preserve these phonemes must have been borrowed prior to their lenition whereas words that do not must have been borrowed subsequently. The only instance in which final w is preserved is ‫אָ חּו‬, in which the final ‫ּו‬-‫‏‬of ‫ אָ חּו‬reflects the Egyptian masculine plural ending -w, -aw before it was dropped. Hence, ‫ אָ חּו‬must have been borrowed at an early stage, perhaps even as early as the Middle Kingdom.5 Final w is omitted in all other instances (‫אַ בְ נֵט‬, ‫ּגָבִ י ַע‬, ‫הִ ין‬, ‫)יְ אֹ ר‬,6 indicating a borrowing sometime during the Later Egyptian period even though the w continued to be written in Egyptian texts. Egyptian y is omitted in several instances (‫הָ בְ נִ ים‬, ‫חַ ְרטֹ ם‬, ‫חֹ ִרי‬, ‫מֶ ִׁשי‬, ‫סּוף‬, ‫צִ י‬, ‫קַ ב‬, ‫ׂשכִ ית‬, ְ ‫)ּתֻ ּכִ י‬.7 In some of these cases, Egyptian texts do not preserve the y in writing as early as the New Kingdom. This demonstrates that its lenition was complete at an early stage and that these words could have been borrowed from the New Kingdom onward. The retention of Egyptian y in the case of ‫ ְּדיֹו‬probably indicates an early borrowing, as is also implied by the dental pronunciation of Egyptian r.8 There are no clear examples in which Egyptian ı̓ is preserved. Egyptian ı̓, though, is lost in several instances in both initial (‫ )ּבַ הַ ט‬and final (‫אֵ טּון‬, ‫נֶתֶ ר‬, ‫)קֶ סֶ ת‬ 4.  J. Allen 2013, 37–38, 43; Loprieno 1995, 33, 38; Peust 1999, 49–50, 142–51; Junge 2005, 33. 5.  Cf. EPNL 238; Lambdin 1953b, 146. On the Egyptian masculine plural ending -w, -aw and its lenition by the end of the New Kingdom, see J. Allen 2013, 43; Loprieno 1995, 56, 58–61. 6. As noted above (§5.1.1.1.5), omission of final w is likely in the case of ‫ ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬but cannot be proven because this word only appears in the plural form. 7. Although some of these terms contain a yod where y would be in the Egyptian donor term, the Masoretes have pointed them vocalically (i.e., with yod as a mater lectionis) rather than consonantally. As noted above (§5.1.1.1.5), omission of final y is likely in the case of ‫ הָ בְ נִ ים‬but cannot be proven because this word only appears in the plural form. 8.  On the early borrowing of Eg ry.t into Northwest Semitic, see Quack 2000; Schneider 2001, 162; cf. SWET 430.

Evidence for Dialect of Origin and Date of Borrowing

303

positions,9 indicating a borrowing after ca. 1300 b.c.e., after Egyptian ı̓ had been lost. In the case of ‫ּבַ הַ ט‬, the Egyptian donor term regularly appears as ı̓bhty and is not written without the initial ı̓ until the Ptolemaic Period. This suggests that ‫ּבַ הַ ט‬ was borrowed in the latter half of the first millennium b.c.e. or so, although this cannot be proven. None of the Egyptian loanwords represents Ꜣ, indicating that they were borrowed after its lenition. Nevertheless, the terminus post quem for these loanwords is quite early. In at least two cases it can be demonstrated that lenition occurred by the New Kingdom because Egyptian texts omit the Ꜣ in these words during this period, namely ‫( נֹ פְֶך‬borrowed from mfk.t, written as mfkꜢ.t, mfꜢk.t in earlier periods) and ‫( ּתֵ בָ ה‬borrowed from db.t, written as ḏbꜢ.t in earlier periods). Egyptian texts do not omit the Ꜣ of the donor terms for ‫ּבַ ד‬, ‫ּפַח‬, and ‫צִ י‬, but the Ꜣ probably underwent lenition early on in these instances as well. One additional but important instance of lenition occurs in the present corpus. Egyptian t became a secondary glottal stop, not always written in Egyptian texts, by the end of the New Kingdom.10 Hence, the presence of ‌ʾalep and the absence of any dental in ‫ יְ אֹ ר‬indicate a borrowing after Egyptian t underwent lenition. Notably, the form ı̓rw first appears in place of ı̓trw in Egyptian texts during the Eighteenth Dynasty. 6.1.3 Vocalization Several important developments in Egyptian’s vocalic system occurred by ca. 700 b.c.e., when these changes are first attested in Neo-​Assyrian cuneiform renditions of Egyptian proper names and toponyms. Most unstressed vowels gradually lost phonological status and became [ə]; stressed ā became ō (ū after nasals), stressed a became o, stressed ū became ē, and stressed i and u merged into e and became a unless followed by a glottal stop.11 Although Egyptian is not written with vowels, evidence from Coptic as well as related forms in other languages can sometimes permit reconstruction of an Egyptian word’s earlier vocalization. When this information is available, it can be possible to determine when a Hebrew or Aramaic word was loaned from Egyptian based on the vocalization of the borrowed form. Egyptian loanwords in the Hebrew Bible that preserve the earlier Egyptian system of vowels were probably borrowed prior to ca. 700 b.c.e., whereas Egyptian loans preserving the later system of vowels were probably borrowed subsequently. 9. As noted above (§5.1.1.1.5), Eg ı̓ also seems to be dropped in the case of ‫טֶ נֶא‬, although the ‌ʾalep could simply be a vowel marker. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the Egyptian donor term, dnı̓.t, has the Egyptian feminine ending. 10.  J. Allen 2013, 51; Loprieno 1995, 38; Peust 1999, 152; Junge 2005, 35. 11.  J. Allen 2013, 24–26; Loprieno 1995, 38–39; Peust 1999, 222–26, 250–59. These vowel changes are typically thought to have occurred prior to 700 b.c.e., probably sometime before 1200–1000, but confirmation of these changes is not attested until the Neo-​Assyrian period.

304

Chapter 6

There are several Egyptian loanwords that preserve the earlier system of vocalization and therefore were probably borrowed prior to ca. 700: • stressed a/ā rather than later o/ō: ‫( ז ֶֶרת‬cf. Copt tore) and ‫( חֹ תָ ם‬cf. Copt štom)12 • stressed u rather than later e and finally a: ‫( הָ בְ נִ ים‬cf. Gk ἔβενος, borrowed after u became e) and ‫( קֹ ף‬cf. Gk κῆβος, κῆπος, borrowed after u became e) • stressed i rather than later e and finally a: ‫( נֶתֶ ר‬cf. Arab naṭūr, borrowed after i became a) There may be additional Egyptian loanwords that preserve an earlier vocalization, but ambiguities in the Egyptian donor terms’ original vocalizations prevent their identification.13 There are no clear examples of Egyptian loans that preserve the later system of vowels. Egyptian loanwords preserving a later vocalization may exist in the Hebrew Bible, but ambiguities in the Egyptian donor terms’ original vocalizations prevent confident identification of such.14 6.1.4 Representation of the Egyptian Feminine Ending -t The Hebrew Bible contains several loans from Egyptian feminine nouns, namely, ‫אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬, ‫אֵ פָה‬, ‫ּדיֹו‬,ְ ‫ז ֶֶרת‬, ‫חֹ ִרי‬, ‫טַ ּבַ עַת‬, ‫טֶ נֶא‬, ‫לֶׁשֶ ם‬, ‫נֹ פְֶך‬, ‫קַ ּלַחַ ת‬, ‫ׁשּטָ ה‬, ִ and ‫ּתֵ בָ ה‬. Representation of the feminine ending in Egyptian changed over time, and the way it is represented in the Hebrew Bible can have important implications for determining the time of borrowing (cf. EPNL 271). The loss of Egyptian feminine -t begins already during the Old Kingdom, primarily with the adjective nb ‘all, every’ in place of nb.t after feminine nouns. This phenomenon had extended to feminine nouns by the end of the Middle Kingdom, and by Later Egyptian it was dropped altogether.15 Akkadian texts demonstrate this same change. By the Amarna period (ca. 1300 b.c.e.), the final -t appears as -a rather than -at, and by ca. 700 b.c.e. it appears as -i in Neo-​Assyrian texts.16 A final -i rather than -a, lastly, is also evident in Egyptian loans into Imperial Aramaic, in which final yod represents an i-vowel (EPNL 181, 270–71). The final vowel of the 12. The long ō of BH ‫ חֹ תָ ם‬is due to the Canaanite shift rather than the change of stressed a/ā to o/ō in Egyptian (cf. Syr ḥātmā, Mand hatma, and Arab ḫātm). 13.  Lambdin reconstructs some additional Egyptian donor terms for dating purposes (Lambdin 1953b). However, they remain unconfirmed. 14. One example is ‫יְ אֹ ר‬, which could reflect the sound change of stressed a/ā to o/ō but could just as easily reflect the Canaanite shift. 15.  J. Allen 2013, 49, 61; Gardiner 1957, 34; Junge 2005, 35. The feminine -t was lost only in absolute nouns during the Old and Middle Kingdoms. Nouns with pronominal suffixes, on the other hand, preserved the -t, often by means of a second -t (or -ṯ) added before a suffix pronoun. I am grateful to James P. Allen for his assistance with this topic. 16.  It is conceivable that final -at had become -a prior to ca. 1300 b.c.e. and that -a had become -i prior to ca. 700 b.c.e., but textual evidence for this is lacking.

Evidence for Dialect of Origin and Date of Borrowing

305

feminine ending, left after the loss of final -t, therefore changed from -a (second millennium b.c.e.) to -i (first millennium b.c.e.). The preservation of Egyptian feminine -t in the words ‫ז ֶֶרת‬, ‫טַ ּבַ עַת‬, and ‫ קַ ּלַחַ ת‬indicates that they were borrowed before the loss of -t during the Middle Kingdom. Thus, they must have been borrowed quite early. The Hebrew forms that contain final he (‫אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬, ‫אֵ פָה‬, ‫ׁשּטָ ה‬‎ִ , ‫)ּתֵ בָ ה‬, on the other hand, come from ca. 1300–700 b.c.e., after the loss of -t but before the -a shifted to -i. The segolate nouns ‫טֶ נֶא‬, ‫לֶׁשֶ ם‬, and ‫ נֹ ֶפ ְך‬must have been borrowed sometime after final -at was lost, but it is unclear when they entered Hebrew because the vowel that had marked the feminine was lost when anaptyxis later occurred (*ṭan‌ʾa/*ṭan‌ʾi > ṭéne‌ʾ, *lašma/*lašmi > léšem, and *nufka/*nufki > nṓfek). Similarly, the remaining Hebrew terms borrowed from Egyptian feminine nouns were borrowed after the loss of Egyptian feminine -t, but it is impossible to know if they were borrowed before or after the -a shifted to -i.17 6.1.5 Palatal Fronting As noted above (§5.1.1.1.2), during the second millennium b.c.e. ṯ merged with t and ḏ merged with d through a process of depalatalization called palatal fronting. The ancient Egyptians sometimes expressed the new pronunciation in writing, but often they spelled the word with characters for ḏ and ṯ even though the pronunciation of these phonemes had changed.18 Hebrew ‫ ז ֶֶרת‬lacks any evidence of palatal fronting, indicating that it was borrowed during the earlier part of the second millennium b.c.e. because this word later underwent palatal fronting in Egyptian (cf. Copt tore). On the other hand, lack of evidence for palatal fronting does not always require an early loan because this phenomenon did not occur in all environments. Palatal fronting clearly did not occur in the cases of ‫ סּוף‬and ‫( צִ י‬cf. Copt čoouf and čoi, respectively). Several loanwords in the present corpus reflect palatal fronting with respect to both ṯ (‫ ֶזפֶת‬, ‫נֶתֶ ר‬‎, ‫ )ּתַ חַ ׁש‬and ḏ (‫ּבַ ד‬, ‫טַ ּבַ עַת‬‎, ‫ )ּתֵ בָ ה‬and must have been borrowed during the latter part of the second millennium b.c.e. or subsequently. 6.1.6 Reborrowings Just as the inhabitants of ancient Palestine borrowed many words from Egypt, so Egypt borrowed a number of Northwest Semitic words, especially during the New Kingdom. Occasionally, Northwest Semitic–speaking peoples borrowed a word from Egyptian and then subsequently lent it back into Egyptian in a slightly different form. In cases like these, the terminus ante quem of when a word entered Northwest Semitic can be determined by noting the reborrowed form’s earliest attestation in Egyptian. 17. BH ‫ּדיֹו‬,ְ ‫חֹ ִרי‬, and ‫ ּתֻ ּכִ י‬were probably also borrowed after the loss of -t, but representation of the Egyptian feminine ending seems to be overruled by preservation of the Egyptian noun’s final vowel, and it is difficult to know whether they were borrowed prior to or after ca. 700 b.c.e. 18.  J. Allen 2013, 48–50; Loprieno 1995, 38; Peust 1999, 123–25; Junge 2005, 36.

306

Chapter 6

There are only two words in this category, both of which must have been borrowed into Hebrew prior to ca. 1300 b.c.e. because they are first attested in Egyptian texts dating to the Nineteenth Dynasty: ‫ּתַ חְ ָרא‬, a loan from Egyptian dḥr borrowed back from Northwest Semitic as tḫr, and ‫קַ ּלַחַ ת‬, a loan from Egyptian qrḥ.t borrowed back from Northwest Semitic as krḥt. 6.1.7 Attestation of Related Forms in Ugaritic If an Egyptian loanword in the Hebrew Bible has a related form in Ugaritic, a second millennium b.c.e. Northwest Semitic language, it is likely—although far from proven—that the loanword was also adopted by Hebrew- or Aramaic-​speakers during the second millennium. There are three Egyptian loanwords that occur in both the Hebrew Bible and in Ugaritic texts that were probably borrowed during the second millennium: ‫( הָ בְ נִים‬cf. Ug hbn), ‫( קַ ּלַחַ ת‬cf. Ug qlḫt), and ‫( ְׂשכִ ית‬cf. Ug ṯkt).19 A second millennium b.c.e. borrowing can be confirmed for the first two of these via other criteria already discussed: ‫ הָ בְ נִ ים‬preserves Egyptian stressed u before it shifted to e in Later Egyptian (cf. §6.1.3), and ‫ קַ ּלַחַ ת‬was reborrowed into Egyptian no later than the Nineteenth Dynasty (cf. §6.1.6). 6.1.8 Synthesis The date of borrowing cannot be determined for all the Egyptian loanwords in the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, based on the above data it is possible to roughly approximate the date of borrowing for some of them. Only a few Egyptian loans must have been borrowed prior to ca. 1300 b.c.e. Some of these exhibit phonology and morphology characteristic of Egyptian prior to that date (‫אָ חּו‬, ‫ּדיֹו‬,ְ ‫ז ֶֶרת‬, ‫טַ ּבַ עַת‬, ‫)קַ ּלַחַ ת‬, and some are attested in Ugaritic or as reborrowings in Nineteenth-​Dynasty Egyptian texts (‫הָ בְ נִ ים‬, ‫ׂשכִ ית‬, ְ ‫)ּתַ חְ ָרא‬. A number of Egyptian loans exhibit evidence of phonological and morphological changes that took place during the latter part of the New Kingdom, ca. 1300 b.c.e.: some of these preserve phonological and morphological characteristics lost by the end of Late Egyptian ca. 700 b.c.e. and therefore must have been borrowed sometime between ca. 1300 and 700 (‫אַ חְ לָמָ ה‬, ‫אֵ פָה‬, ‫נֶתֶ ר‬, ‫קֹ ף‬, ‫ׁשּטָ ה‬, ִ ‫)ּתֵ בָ ה‬,20 whereas the rest could have been borrowed any time after ca. 1300 (‫אַ בְ נֵט‬, ‫אֵ טּון‬, ‫ּבַ ד‬, ‫ּבַ הַ ט‬, ‫ּגָבִ י ַע‬, ‫הִ ין‬, ‫ ֶז ֶפת‬, ‫[ חַ ְרטֹ ם‬BH], ‫[ חַ ְרטֹ ם‬BA], ‫חֹ ִרי‬, ‫טֶ נֶא‬, ‫יְ אֹ ר‬, ‫לֶׁשֶ ם‬, ‫נֹ פְֶך‬, ‫סּוף‬, ‫ּפַח‬, ‫קַ ב‬, ‫קֶ סֶ ת‬, ‫ׁשֶ נְ הַ ּבִ ים‬, ‫)ּתַ חַ ׁש‬. Although the date of borrowing for the latter cannot be determined more precisely on phonological and morphological grounds, there is a good chance that some of

19. Eg hnw, the source of BH ‫הִ ין‬, was also lent to Amarna Akkadian as ḫina. This suggests that Eg hnw could have entered Hebrew as early as the second millennium b.c.e. On the other hand, Akk ḫina only occurs in EA 14, a letter from Egypt to Babylon, so there is no direct evidence of Eg hnw in Northwest Semitic during the second millennium b.c.e. 20. BH ‫ חֹ תָ ם‬also preserves phonological and morphological characteristics lost by the end of Late Egyptian ca. 700 b.c.e., but there is no evidence that it was borrowed after ca. 1300.

Evidence for Dialect of Origin and Date of Borrowing

307

them entered Hebrew and Aramaic during the latter part of the New Kingdom because that is when most of their donor terms are attested in Egyptian texts.21 The remaining Egyptian loanwords in the Hebrew Bible cannot be securely dated to any particular time period, at least on phonological or morphological grounds (‫אַ בְ ֵרְך‬, ‫אַ ח‬, ‫ּבַ חַ ן‬, ‫ּבֹ חַ ן‬, ‫ּגֹ מֶ א‬, ‫ּכְ לִ י‬, ‫מֶ ִׁשי‬, ‫נַחַ ת‬, ‫ע ָָרה‬, ‫ּפְ אֵ ר‬, ‫ּפִ ְטדָ ה‬, ‫ּפ ְַרעֹ ה‬, ‫צִ י‬, ‫קִ יקָ יֹון‬, ‫ׁשּוׁשַ ן‬, ‫ׁשַ יִ ׁש‬, ‫ׁשֵ ׁש‬, ‫)ּתֻ ּכִ י‬. Once again, however, it is likely that some of them were borrowed during the latter part of the New Kingdom given that many of their donor terms are attested in New Kingdom texts. 6.2 GREEK Some indications of the time of borrowing can be gleaned from what is known of the Greek donor terms. With the exception of Greek κᾶρυξ, attested in Linear B as ka-​ru-​ke, there is no textual evidence that the Greek donor terms existed during the second millennium b.c.e., although they may very well have and their absence in Linear B texts is not evidence that they did not. Only Greek δραχμή, the source of ‫ּדַ ְר ּכְ מֹון‬, must have been borrowed during the first millennium b.c.e. because coinage was not invented until then.22 Clear dialectal markers are not available for all the Greek loanwords in the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, evidence exists that at least four of them—each found in Daniel 3, which is written in Biblical Aramaic—came from a dialect other than Attic: • The vocalization of Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּכָרֹוז‬indicates that it is a loan from non-​Attic Greek κᾶρυξ, attested in Aeolic and Doric, rather than Attic-​Ionic κῆρυξ. Original ᾱ (cf. LinB ka-​ru-​ke) is preserved in all Greek dialects with the exception of Attic-​Ionic, in which it becomes η (Buck 1955, 21 [§8]; Thumb, Kieckers and Scherer 1932–1959, 2:196–97 [§285]; Lejeune 1972, 234–35 [§249]). • Similarly, the final ʾalep of Biblical Aramaic ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬points to a non-​Attic origin because original final -ᾱ marking the feminine nominative singular became -η in Attic-​Ionic but was preserved in other Greek dialects.23 • Biblical Aramaic ‫ ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬uses a nun rather than lamed, indicating a borrowing from an unattested non-​Attic form *ψαντήριον rather than Attic ψαλτήριον. 21.  Many of these Egyptian loans occur in the book of Exodus, including those that exhibit phonological and morphological features characteristic of earlier stages of Egyptian. This points to an early origin for the Exodus tradition. See Noonan 2016. 22.  LinB do-​ka-​ma may mean ‘handle’ and derive from Gk δράσσομαι ‘to grasp’ just as Gk δραχμή probably does (Aura Jorro and Adrados 1985–1993, 1:188; Shelmerdine and Bennet 1995, 131–32). However, Gk δραχμή does not occur with reference to a specific weight or coin until the seventh–sixth centuries b.c.e. 23.  C. D. Buck 1955, 21, 84 (§§8, 104); Thumb, Kieckers and Scherer 1932–1959, 2:196–197 (§285); Lejeune 1972, 234–35 (§249). The exception is in Attic, which preserves -ᾱ after ε, ι, and ρ; Ionic uses -η regardless.

308

Chapter 6

In some non-​A ttic dialects, including Arcadian and Doric, the consonant cluster λτ becomes ντ.24 • Biblical Aramaic ‫ קִ יתָ רֹוס‬represents a final -ς rather than a vowel and clearly comes from non-​Attic κιθάρις, attested in Ionic or Aeolic, rather than from Attic κιθάρα. It is significant that these four terms come from a non-​Attic dialect.25 Beginning with the fifth century b.c.e., Attic began its rise to ultimate supremacy due to the political conditions of the time: it was during the fifth century that Athens became the intellectual center of Greece, and Attic became the recognized language of literary prose. The Attic dialect spread through the Delian League and the Athenian Empire, and as it spread, other Greek dialects (especially Ionic) began to lose their identity as distinct dialects. It was during this time that the Attic dialect became the koine of Macedon. When Alexander the Great conquered the known world, the Attic dialect was spread over a vast territory and was permanently established in many places to the exclusion of other dialects, which gradually died out (Buck 1955, 175–76 [§277]). This includes the land of Palestine, where the Attic koine became established (Hengel 1974, 1:58). 𝕲, which translates the musical instruments in Daniel 3 with the Attic rather than the non-​Attic forms, demonstrates that the Attic forms were in use during the Hellenistic period and would have been the preferred forms. Since ‫ּכָרֹוז‬, ‫ּפְ סַ נְ ּתֵ ִרין‬, ‫קִ יתָ רֹוס‬, and ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬do not come from the Attic dialect, Aramaic-​speakers almost certainly borrowed them sometime prior to the Hellenistic era; otherwise, the Attic forms would have been borrowed. Individuals from the Greek isles and Greek Asia Minor commonly served as artisans, merchants, and mercenaries in the ancient Near East.26 Their presence would have provided a likely means of transmission for the terms ‫ּכָרֹוז‬, ‫ּפְ סַ נְּתֵ ִרין‬, ‫קִ יתָ רֹוס‬, and ‫ ׂשַ ּבְ כָא‬before the time of Alexander the Great.27 6.3 HITTITE AND LUVIAN Several of the loanwords from the Indo-​European Anatolian languages come from Hittite (‫חֶ ֶרׂש‬, ‫חִ ּתּול‬, ‫)ּתאַ ּׁשּור‬. ְ Hittite texts are only extant for the second millennium b.c.e., the Hittite language being replaced by Luvian at least in official 24.  C. D. Buck 1955, 64–65 (§72); Lejeune 1972, 152 (§151). Although l and n are sometimes confused in some of the world’s languages, there is no evidence that Gk λ was pronounced as [n] (cf. Petrounias 2007, 563–64; Woodard 2008, 16; W. S. Allen 1987, 33, 40). It is unlikely that Aramaic-​speakers would have represented Gk λ as nun, especially because they do not do so in any other loanwords from Greek. 25. Given the non-​Attic origin of these three Greek loanwords, it would not be surprising if the remaining Greek loanword in Dan 3, ‫סּומּפֹ נְ יָה‬, ְ also came from a non-​Attic dialect. This, unfortunately, cannot be proven because it does not exhibit any phonological features characteristic of a particular Greek dialect. 26.  Cf. Hagedorn 2005; Niemeier 2001; Waldbaum 1997; Yamauchi 1981, 1970. 27.  For detailed discussion, see Noonan forthcoming. Cf. Kutscher 1971, 401–2; Coxon 1973–1974, 37–38.

Evidence for Dialect of Origin and Date of Borrowing

309

documentation of the Neo-​Hittite states, and therefore these loans probably date to the second millennium. Hebrew ‫ ּפּור‬does not come directly from Hittite and was borrowed during the first millennium b.c.e. via Akkadian (in turn borrowed from Hittite, presumably during the second millennium). There are also several loanwords from Luvian in the present corpus (‫לַּפִ יד‬, ‫)ּת ָרפִ ים‬. ְ The Luvian donor terms for these words are found in Cuneiform Luvian and therefore could have been borrowed as early as the second millennium b.c.e., although they could also have been borrowed later because Luvian continued to be spoken into the first millennium b.c.e.28 It is unclear whether ‫ אַ ְרּגָמָ ן‬comes from Hittite or Luvian because possible donor terms occur in both languages. Nevertheless, it is likely that this word entered Hebrew during the second millennium in light of the attestation of related Semitic forms from that period (Akk argamannu and Ug a͗rgmn, ı͗ rgmn). 6.4 HURRIAN A number of Hurrian loanwords are attested in the present corpus (‫אֵ בּוס‬, ‫אֹוב‬, ‫י ְָׁשפֵה‬, ‫ּכֹובַ ע‬, ‫ּכִ ידֹון‬, ‫ּכִ ּיֹור‬, ‫ּכֹ מֶ ר‬, ‫מַ ס‬, ‫סָ ִדין‬, ‫סֵ פֶל‬, ‫)ׁש ְריֹון‬. ִ All have counterparts in other ancient Near Eastern languages (e.g., Akkadian and Ugaritic) during the second millennium b.c.e. Moreover, the Hurrian language fell out of use by the end of that period. Accordingly, the Hebrew Bible’s Hurrian loanwords were undoubtedly borrowed then. Hebrew ‫אַ ּגַן‬, borrowed from Hurrian via Aramaic, can be compared with a number of other ancient Near Eastern terms from the second millennium b.c.e. (e.g., Akk agannu, Ug a͗gn, Eg ı̓kn, and Hitt aganni-) and probably originated during the same time, although it is conceivable that it was borrowed from Aramaic during the first millennium b.c.e. Hebrew ‫ּתַ ְרּתָ ן‬, on the other hand, was borrowed from Akkadian (in turn borrowed from Hurrian, presumably during the second millennium) during the first millennium b.c.e. because it specifically refers to an Assyrian official in the Hebrew Bible. 6.5 OLD INDIC Very few Old Indic loanwords are attested in the Hebrew Bible. Although little evidence exists for their dialectal classification, they fall into two basic categories related to their time of borrowing. 28.  Luv *lappit- is not presently attested in extant texts, but related verbs and nouns exist in Hittite and possibly also in Cuneiform Luvian. Hence, it is plausible that *lappit- existed already during the second millennium b.c.e. Luv *tarkummanni-, *tarkummiyanni-, the basis for a presumed but nonexistent Hebrew noun from which the denominal verb ‫ תרגם‬comes, derives from the verb tarkummi-, attested only in Cuneiform Luvian texts from the second millennium. Luv *parzilli-, the source for the inherited loans BH ‫ּבַ ְרזֶל‬ and BA ‫ּפ ְַרזֶל‬, must have been borrowed during the second millennium as indicated by the attestation of related Semitic forms that clearly date to that period (Akk parzillu and Ug brḏl).

310

Chapter 6

First, there are only a few loanwords from Indo-​Aryan of the Ancient Near East (Indoarisch im Alten Vorderasien). These words were borrowed during the second millennium b.c.e., when Old Indic influence on the ancient Near East is apparent. They left linguistic traces elsewhere in the ancient Near East and even Europe. There is only one example of a direct loan from this source (‫)רסֶ ן‬. ֶ 29 Second, there are several Old Indic loans that were borrowed during the first millennium b.c.e. (‫ּכ ְַר ִמיל‬, ‫ּכ ְַרּפַס‬, ‫)נ ְֵר ְּד‬. Unlike the loans from Indo-​Aryan of the Ancient Near East, there is no evidence of these words in the ancient Near East or Europe prior to the first millennium. Moreover, they denote products not obtained from the east until the latter part of the first millennium. Hence, although no concrete linguistic proof exists for dating their adoption to the first millennium, they were almost certainly borrowed during this time. The Indo-​Aryan of the Ancient Near East loans reflect an older stage of Old Indic, whereas the first-​millennium loans represent a later stage. Beyond this obvious fact, however, the precise dialectal differences between these two types of Old Indic loanwords remain uncertain. There is no evidence that these words were borrowed directly from Sanskrit: in fact, the reconstructed Old Indic forms occasionally differ from attested Sanskrit forms, indicating that they come from some Old Indic language other than Sanskrit. 6.6 OLD IRANIAN Although Iranian-​speaking peoples probably entered the ancient Near East prior to 1000 b.c.e., the Iranian loanwords in the Hebrew Bible almost certainly come from the first millennium b.c.e., when the Medes and Persians exhibited significant influence in the ancient Near East. The Hebrew Bible’s Iranian loanwords can safely be located within the time of the Achaemenid Empire: in other words, they are specifically Old Iranian. This is supported by the existence of many of the donor terms in Old Iranian texts as well as in the collateral tradition, or Nebenüberlieferungen (the preservation of Old Iranian vocabulary in borrowed form in non-​Iranian languages influenced by the Achaemenids, including Elamite, Akkadian, Aramaic, Egyptian, and Greek). Given the presumed circumstances of borrowing, the vast majority of the Hebrew Bible’s Old Iranian loans should come from either Old Persian or Median. Because Old Persian and Median differ phonologically in several key ways, it is sometimes possible to distinguish between Old Persian and Median loanwords in the Hebrew Bible:30 29. BH ‫ אַ ְׁשּפָה‬represents an inherited loan that may ultimately be traced back to Indo-​Aryan via Hurrian. Hurr maganni-, the basis for a presumed but nonexistent Hebrew noun from which the denominal verb ‫ מגן‬comes, may also derive from Indo-​Aryan of the Ancient Near East. However, as noted above under its entry, scholars dispute its Indo-​Aryan origin (cf. Giorgieri 2000, 211). 30.  The reconstructed nature of many of the Hebrew Bible’s Old Iranian loanwords does not prevent identification of dialectal markers. Several factors permit reliable reconstruction: a plausible Old Iranian

Evidence for Dialect of Origin and Date of Borrowing

311

• Proto-​Iranian *ȷ́ became d in Old Persian but z in Median.31 Thus, words that use z for *ȷ́ must be borrowed from Median (‫ּגִ זְּבָ ר‬/‫ּגִ זְּבַ ר‬, ‫ ֶּגּנֶז‬/‫ּגְ נַז‬, ‫ּגַנְ זְַך‬, ‫זַן‬, ‫ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬32), whereas ‫ּגְ דָ בַ ר‬, which uses d for *ȷ́, must be from Old Persian. • Proto-​Iranian *θr remained θr in all dialects but Old Persian, where it became ç.33 Hence, the forms ‫אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬/‫ אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן‬and ‫ אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן‬reflect Median rather than Old Persian phonology. • Proto-Iranian *ć became s everywhere in Iranian except in Old Persian, where it became θ.34 Thus, the preservation of s in ‫ ֲאפ ְַר ְסָך‬, which contains the Old Iranian root fras- (< *frać-), points to a Median form. A few Old Iranian terms probably come from a language other than Old Persian or Median. The term ‫ אֱגֹוז‬contains z rather than d for etymological *ȷ́, but it is probably not Median because it does not belong to the typical sphere of Median terminology. It quite possibly comes from Scythian, especially since the geographical region inhabited by the Scythians was home to the walnut in antiquity. The terms ‫ ַּכ ְרּבְ לָה‬, ‫סַ ְרּבָ ל‬, and ‫ּפ ִַּטיׁש‬, all of which refer to items of clothing, are probably also Scythian in origin. As noted above (§5.1.1.6.4), Old Iranian l merged with r in most dialects, and its presence in ‫ ּכ ְַרּבְ לָה‬and ‫ סַ ְרּבָ ל‬therefore indicates a dialect other than Old Persian or Median. Ancient texts link these two words with the Scythians, suggesting a Scythian origin, and because ‫ ּפ ִַּטיׁש‬is associated with these two terms it is probably also Scythian. This is consistent with the fact that the Scythians exerted significant influence on the Achaemenid Empire in terms of material culture, including dress. Old Iranian gave way to Middle Iranian during the fourth century b.c.e. with the collapse of the Achaemenid Empire. A number of distinctive phonological changes occur between Old and Middle Iranian.35 These phonological changes are not observable in the Hebrew Bible’s Iranian loanwords, indicating that they were borrowed from Old Iranian (i.e., prior to ca. 300 b.c.e.): • Voiceless stops in intervocalic position or after voiced continuants (i.e., m, n, r, and l) become voiced, causing p, t, and k to become b, d, and g, respectively.36 When applicable, voiceless intervocalic stops are always preserved in etymology, the collateral tradition (Nebenüberlieferungen), or a later descendant of the hypothetical Old Iranian term found in Middle Iranian (e.g., Pahlavi or Parthian) or New Iranian (New Persian). 31.  Skjærvø 2009, 51; Schmitt 2008, 84–85; Testen 1997, 575; OPGTL 33–34 (§88). 32. BH ‫ ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬is unique in that it represents Med z by samek, rather than the expected zayin. However, the difference is only one of voicing, and it remains clear that BH ‫ ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬reflects Median phonology. 33.  Skjærvø 2009, 51; Schmitt 2008, 83; Testen 1997, 581; OPGTL 31 (§78). 34.  Skjærvø 2009, 51; Schmitt 2008, 84–85; Testen 1997, 575; OPGTL 33 (§87). 35.  Similar to the case with dialect, the reconstructed nature of many of the Hebrew Bible’s Iranian loanwords does not prevent identification of any chronological markers. 36.  Pisowicz 1984, 17–22; Hale 2008, 126–27; Weber 1997, 613. Voiceless p, t, and k remained voiceless in initial and final positions. Voiceless intervocalic stops also appear under certain conditions, including loanwords from Avestan and non-​Iranian languages and in positions of morphemic boundaries.

312

Chapter 6

the Hebrew Bible’s Iranian loanwords: ‫אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬/‫( אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן‬from xšaθrapāna-), ‫( אַ ֶּפדֶ ן‬from apadāna-), ‫( ּדָ ת‬from dāta-; cf. Pahl dād), ‫( ּפ ְַרּתָ ם‬from fratama-), ‫( ַּפ ְת ּבַ ג‬from *patibāga-), and ‫( ּפִ ְתגָם‬from *patigāma-; cf. ManParth pdg‌ʾm, pdγ‌ʾm).37 The preservation of voiceless intervocalic stops in these terms indicates that they were borrowed sometime prior to ca. 300 b.c.e. • Intervocalic b and g undergo lenition to w (Hale 2008, 127). When applicable, intervocalic b and g are preserved: ‫( אֱגֹוז‬from *agauza-), ‫ּגִ זְּבָ ר‬/‫ ּגִ זְּבַ ר‬and ‫ּגְ דָ בַ ר‬ (from *ganzabara- and *gandabara-; cf. Pahl ganǰwar and NPers ganjwar, ganjūr), ‫( ְּדתָ בַ ר‬from *dātabara-; cf. Pahl dādwar), ‫( הַ ּדָ בַ ר‬from *hadabara-; cf. ManParth ‌ʾdy‌ʾwr), ‫( סַ ְרּבָ ל‬from *sarabāla-; cf. Pahl šalwar and NPers šalwār, šulwār), ‫( ּפ ְַרּבָ ר‬from *paribāra-), and ‫( ּפִ ְתגָם‬from *patigāma-).38 The preservation of intervocalic b and g in these terms indicates that they were borrowed prior to ca. 300 b.c.e. • Two vocalic changes provide additional evidence for a date of borrowing. One is vocalic contraction. By the fifth century b.c.e., -iya- had contracted to ī, as is evident from Old Persian texts (i.e., texts beginning with the reigns of Darius I and Xerxes I).39 Hence, the terms ‫ א ֲִריְך‬and ‫ׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬, ְ which evidence contraction of -iya- to -ī-, were probably borrowed sometime beginning with the fifth century b.c.e. Another important clue for the date of borrowing is monopthongization. The diphthongs ai and au became ē and ō during the Achaemenid period, and Akkadian, Elamite, and Greek transcriptions show little if any trace of diphthongs. Hence, the use of monophthongized ē for ai (‫ )ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬and monophthongized ō for au (‫אֱגֹוז‬, ‫אַ ּפְ תֹ ם‬, ‫)ׁשרֹ ִׁשי‬ ְ indicate borrowings sometime as early as the Achaemenid period.40 I t i s also of note that in the present corpus Iranian x is represented as ḥet (‫ ֲאחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפָן‬, ‫אֲחַ ְׁשּדַ ְרּפַן‬, ‫)אֲחַ ְׁש ְּת ָרן‬, not kap as in later Iranian loans into Jewish Aramaic and Syriac, and that Iranian č is represented as šin (‫אֻּׁשַ ְרנָא‬, ‫ּפ ְַתׁשֶ גֶן‬, ‫)ּפ ְַרׁשֶ גֶן‬, not ṣade (or a combination of ṣade and šin) as in later Iranian loans into Jewish Aramaic and Syriac (Telegdi 1935, 197–200, 205–6; Ciancaglini 2008, 80–82). This indicates once again that the Hebrew Bible’s Iranian loanwords were borrowed from Old Iranian and not Middle Iranian. 37. Forms that preserve the Old Iranian suffix -ka, including ‫( ֲאפ ְַר ְסָך‬from *frasaka-), ‫( ֲאפ ְַרסַ ְתָך‬from *frastāka-), ‫( ּגַנְ זְַך‬from *ganzaka-), ‫( הַ ְמיָנְ כָא‬from *hamyānaka-), ‫( ְס ַרְך‬from *sāraka-), and ‫( ַרּמָ כָה‬from *ramaka-), could also indicate a borrowing before intervocalic k became g. However, this is less likely because the suffix -ka probably did not undergo voicing in all Middle Iranian dialects (Pisowicz 1985, 140). This conclusion may be supported by late loanwords from Middle Persian into Jewish Aramaic and Syriac, in which the suffix -ak (otherwise expected to change to -ag), appears as k (Telegdi 1935, 190–92; Ciancaglini 2008, 72–77). 38. The absence of a dageš in the bet in several of these terms most probably indicates spirantization due to the preceding vowel in the Iranian donor term, rather than lenition. Iranian v is preserved as waw rather than bet, as the cases of ‫( נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬from *ništāvana-) and ‫( ּפ ְַרוָר‬from *parivara-) demonstrate. 39.  On the contraction of -iya- to -ī-, see Skjærvø 2009, 59; Schmitt 2008, 85; OPGTL 13–14, 47–48 (§§23, 140). 40.  On the monophthongization of ai to ē and au to ō, see Skjærvø 2009, 58; Schmitt 2008, 83.

Evidence for Dialect of Origin and Date of Borrowing

313

Thus, phonological evidence indicates that the Hebrew Bible’s Iranian loanwords were borrowed, as one would suspect on other grounds, before the collapse of the Achaemenid Empire (i.e.,  prior to ca.  300 b.c.e.). In  other words, they are Old Iranian and not later. This is further suggested by the fact that the donor terms behind many of the Hebrew Bible’s Iranian loanwords are also found in other ancient Near Eastern languages from the time of the Achaemenid Empire (e.g., Akkadian, Elamite, and Imperial Aramaic). 6.7 SYNTHESIS The non-​Semitic loanwords attested in the Hebrew Bible were borrowed over a wide span of time. As early as the second millennium b.c.e., but especially during the Late Bronze Age and the Iron I Age, the ancient Israelites adopted terminology from Egyptian, Hittite and Luvian, Hurrian, Old Indic (in the form of Indoarisch im Alten Vorderasien), and even other languages such as Philistine. During the first millennium b.c.e., Egyptian continued to exhibit significant linguistic influence on Palestine, and, during the latter half of the first millennium, Greek, Old Indic, and Old Iranian made an especially noteworthy contribution to the Hebrew Bible’s lexicon.

Chapter 7 Non-​Semitic Loanwords as Evidence for Foreign Contact in Ancient Palestine

As discussed in chapter 1, loanwords can be useful tools for establishing points of cultural contact between groups of people. This chapter revisits the historical framework discussed in chapter 2, briefly sketching the history of contact between the inhabitants of ancient Palestine and the Egyptians, Greeks, Hittites and Luvians, Hurrians, Indo-​Aryans, and Iranians as informed by the linguistic evidence. 7.1 THE EGYPTIANS The linguistic evidence indicates that significant contact between ancient Palestine and Egypt began early on and then continued through the first millennium b.c.e. A handful of Egyptian loanwords can be traced back to the early second millennium, a number were borrowed during the latter half of the second millennium (i.e., the Late Bronze Age), and the rest are without a clear date and therefore could have been loaned during either the second or the first millennium. However, many of the Hebrew Bible’s Egyptian loanwords are attested in the Exodus and Wilderness traditions, which purport to describe events of the Late Bronze Age. The majority of these are terms for specific aspects of material culture; there are few loans from other realms of influence, and they are all cultural rather than core borrowings. Such a profile of Egyptian loanwords in the Hebrew Bible contrasts with that of other Northwest Semitic languages.1 There are very few Egyptian loanwords of any type in Ugaritic, Phoenician, or Old Aramaic. The one exception is Imperial 1.  The Amarna correspondence of the 14th century b.c.e. contains a number of Egyptian loanwords, attesting to Egyptian influence on the language of the inhabitants of Canaan (EPNL 298–303). However, many of the Egyptian loanwords in the Amarna correspondence are attested in only two letters, EA 14 and EA 368, both lists of Egyptian items almost certainly written in Egypt. Thus, they provide no evidence for native inhabitants of Canaan having adopted Egyptian vocabulary, especially because the native, Semitic equivalent is provided along with the Egyptian term.

314

Non-Semitic Loanwords as Evidence for Foreign Contact in Ancient Palestine

315

Aramaic, which attests to many different Egyptian loans of all different semantic spheres—including legal–administrative and commercial terminology—and in a higher proportion even than any specific portion of the Hebrew Bible, but this is to be expected because the vast majority of Egyptian terminology in Imperial Aramaic is found in Aramaic texts written in Egypt (i.e., Egyptian Aramaic texts).2 The linguistic evidence from the first millennium b.c.e. fits well with the historical picture. We would expect to find influence in terms of material culture then because, although Egypt attempted to assert rule over Palestine several times, Egypt never established a lasting political presence there and did not exert nearly the same kind of imperialistic influence it had had during the Late Bronze Age. The high quantity of Egyptian terminology related to material culture during the second millennium b.c.e., however, is somewhat unusual at first glance. Given Egypt’s imperialistic rule of Canaan during the Late Bronze Age, we might expect to find more terminology from other realms (e.g., the legal–administrative and commercial spheres) as well as core borrowings, as found in Imperial Aramaic and as is common in situations of cultural hegemony.3 However, the concentration of Egyptian terms for material culture in the Exodus and Wilderness narratives makes sense if these narratives preserve authentic traditions and reflect actual Israelite knowledge of Egyptian material culture, because it is exactly those aspects to which the Egyptian loanwords relate (Noonan 2016). 7.2 THE GREEKS Greek loanwords are not attested during the second millennium b.c.e. and appear for the first time in late biblical books dating to the latter part of the first millennium b.c.e. (Jeremiah, Song of Songs, Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah, Chronicles). Even then, they are relatively sparse and are largely limited to the realm of material culture. Especially notable is the non-​Attic features of some of the Greek loans. The linguistic evidence thus fits the historical picture in that, prior to the Hellenistic period and the spread of the Attic-​based koine, Greek influence was primarily mediated through traders, artisans, and mercenaries. Such influence would be sparse and largely limited to the realm of material culture, which is exactly what we find in the Hebrew Bible. Greek loanwords become more common in Northwest Semitic (i.e., Phoenician, Punic, and Aramaic) once the Hellenistic era begins.4 2.  EPNL 45, 165–76, 280–83; Muraoka and Porten 1998, 373–75. Practically none of the alleged Egyptian loans mentioned in Watson 2007, 135–45 is a genuine loanword. For detailed discussion of Egyptian loanwords in Northwest Semitic during the second and first millennia b.c.e., see Noonan 2016, 57–61. 3.  Northwest Semitic terminology in Egyptian texts from the Late Bronze Age primarily relates to material culture, as we would expect if Egypt were politically dominant (SWET 470). 4.  Friedrich and Röllig 1999, 141 (§208); Segert 1976, 91 (§46.4); 1975, 162 (§4.7.1.2.5); Muraoka and Porten 1998, 377.

316

Chapter 7

7.3 THE HITTITES AND LUVIANS The linguistic evidence points to some contact with Hittites and Luvians during the second millennium b.c.e. Many of the Hebrew Bible’s Hittite and Luvian loanwords are attested in books purporting to describe the premonarchic and early monarchic periods. The relative lack of loanwords from Hittite and Luvian during this period indicates that overall relatively little contact took place between the speakers of these languages and the inhabitants of Palestine. This is consistent with the observation that during the second millennium Palestine was impacted more significantly by Egypt to the south than it was by the Hittites or the Luvians to the north. Ugarit, which is known to have significant historical-​cultural contact with Ḫatti during the Late Bronze Age, attests to a greater amount of Hittite and Luvian terminology (Watson 2007, 118–24). 7.4 THE HURRIANS As with the Hittites and Luvians, the linguistic evidence points to some contact with Hurrians during the second millennium b.c.e., particularly in books purporting to describe the premonarchic and early monarchic periods. Some of the attested Hurrian loans belong to the realms of religion and tools and weaponry, cultural spheres in which the Hurrians are otherwise known to have influenced ancient Near Eastern cultures. The relative lack of Hurrian loanwords during this period indicates that overall little contact took place between Hurrians and the inhabitants of Palestine. Compared with other Northwest Semitic languages of the second millennium, the low number of Hurrian loans in the Hebrew Bible contrasts notably with the significant quantity at Ugarit (cf. Richter 2012, 552–56; Watson 2007, 124–35). The difference is undoubtedly due to the fact that Ugarit was located closer geographically to the realm of the Hurrians and had political ties with them during the Late Bronze Age. 7.5 THE INDO-​A RYANS Very little linguistic evidence exists for contact with Indo-​Aryans during the second and first millennia b.c.e. Only one Old Indic loanword can be dated to the second millennium. During the first millennium, Old Indic loanwords appear in several late biblical books (Esther, Song of Songs, and Chronicles), and these few attested loans are limited to material culture. Other Northwest Semitic languages contain few, if any Old Indic loans.5 5.  Cf. O’Connor 1989, 30. Watson lists only a handful of possible Indo-​European terms in Ugaritic, some of which he alleges are from Sanskrit, but most of them are dubious (Watson 2007, 146–47).

Non-Semitic Loanwords as Evidence for Foreign Contact in Ancient Palestine

317

The near lack of Old Indic loanwords from the second millennium is undoubtedly due to the near lack of contact between Indo-​Aryans and the inhabitants of Palestine at that time. Similarly, the low impact that Old Indic had on the Hebrew Bible during the first millennium probably reflects the fact that, although trade between India and the west is attested during the Achaemenid and Hellenistic eras, there is no evidence of substantial contact between Palestine and India during this time. 7.6 THE IRANIANS No linguistic evidence exists for contact with Iranian-​speaking peoples during the second millennium b.c.e.; it is not until the first millennium that evidence for contact first appears. During the first millennium, a few Old Iranian loanwords occur in later pre-​Exilic (Isaiah and Kings) as well as post-​Exilic (Song of Songs and Chronicles) books. However, the vast majority of the Hebrew Bible’s Old Iranian loanwords are found in the late books of Esther, Daniel, and Ezra–Nehemiah, books whose events either purport to take place in or are connected to Mesopotamia, the heartland of Old Iranian influence during the latter first millennium. Furthermore, as in other ancient Near Eastern cultures that adopted Old Iranian terminology, the vast majority of the Old Iranian loanwords in these books belong to the spheres of law, administration, and commerce. This profile is comparable to that of Imperial Aramaic, whose Old Iranian terminology also primarily consists of legal–administrative and commercial terminology.6 Thus, the picture painted by the linguistic evidence is consistent with what we know from history. Prior to the Achaemenid era, the inhabitants of Palestine experienced occasional contact with Iranian-​speaking peoples, which explains the paucity of Old Iranian loans in Isaiah and Kings. It was not until Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon that significant contact with Iranian-​speaking peoples came about in Mesopotamia (the setting of Esther and Daniel) and Palestine (the primary setting of Ezra–Nehemiah). In both locations the primary nature of Iranian contact was political—just as was the case with Imperial Aramaic—hence the predominance of Old Iranian loans from law, administration, and commerce.

6.  Greenfield 1987; Muraoka and Porten 1998, 370–73. One may also compare the profile of Akkadian loanwords in Aramaic, which contains a relatively high percentage of legal–administrative terminology (AIA 165–68).

Epilogue

In this work, I examine non-​Semitic vocabulary in the Hebrew Bible. The first two chapters lay the foundation for my investigation. Chapter 1 explains the need for this study and outlines pertinent terminology and methodology. In chapter 2, I survey foreign contact in ancient Palestine as a background to investigating the Hebrew Bible’s non-​Semitic loanwords. The bulk of the present work appears in the next five chapters. Chapter 3 presents all of the foreign loanwords in the Hebrew Bible in the form of an annotated lexicon. Discussion of each term includes the reasons for identifying it as non-​ Semitic, its donor language and donor term, and additional pertinent linguistic and historical-​cultural information. Then, in chapters 4–7 I analyze the data surfaced by the Hebrew Bible’s non-​Semitic loanwords. My analysis focuses on these loanwords’ distribution, linguistic features, dialect of origin and date of borrowing, and contribution to our understanding of non-​Semitic cultural contact. This study thereby provides valuable insight into the Hebrew Bible’s non-​ Semitic vocabulary. Specifically, it offers at least three major contributions. First, this work enriches our understanding of the lexical semantics of the Hebrew Bible’s non-​Semitic terminology. Naturally, this leads to better translation and exegesis of the biblical text. Therefore, scholars can utilize these data to better translate and understand biblical passages with non-​Semitic loanwords. Second, this work enhances our knowledge of the biblical languages and the ancient Near East’s non-​Semitic languages. The linguistic features it discusses provide significant insight into the phonology, orthography, and morphology of the languages of the ancient Near East. Thus, this study has use both for scholars of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic and for specialists of the ancient Near East’s non-​ Semitic languages. Third, by tying together linguistic evidence with textual and archaeological data, this work extends our picture of ancient Palestine’s interactions with non-​ Semitic peoples. Therefore, this study provides a significant starting point for biblical scholars, historians, archaeologists, and others who wish to examine contact between the ancient Israelites and other groups of people in the ancient Near East. 318

Epilogue

319

Nevertheless, there is room for additional research on non-​Semitic language contact in ancient Palestine. By building on the methodology of this study, others could investigate non-​Semitic personal names in the Hebrew Bible, which were not covered in this study. Investigation of other types of non-​Semitic linguistic influence in ancient Palestine, including grammatical and phonological borrowing, would also provide fruitful avenues for further research. Hopefully, some will rise to this task and thereby continue to enhance our understanding of the Hebrew Bible in light of contact linguistics.

Appendix Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-​Semitic Loans

Chapter 3, “Non-​Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible,” presents all the non-​ Semitic loanwords in the Hebrew Bible. Its goal is to be comprehensive, identifying as much of the Hebrew Bible’s foreign terminology as is possible given our present state of knowledge. It is exhaustive in the positive sense that it primarily contains terms deemed to be of non-​Semitic origin. Some readers may have questions about why a particular word is not included in chapter 3 as a loan from non-​Semitic. This appendix seeks to address possible concerns by analyzing a number of words that are alleged to be non-​Semitic loanwords but are, in fact, Semitic. The secondary literature on this topic is vast, and it is impossible to analyze every single loan hypothesis ever suggested, so this appendix makes no attempt to address every questionable loan hypothesis ever been proposed. The discussion in this chapter is limited to two types of words: first, the dubious non-​Semitic loan hypotheses found in the lists of Ellenbogen, Rabin, and Rosenthal, because any analysis of foreign words in the Hebrew Bible must interact with these foundational studies;1 second, alleged non-​Semitic loanwords of interest for dating biblical texts. Words in this category come from the chapter entitled “Loanwords” in Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd’s Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2008, 1:280–311).2 The presentation of data generally follows the format of chapter 3. Each entry begins with the term in question, a brief gloss, and its occurrences. The same sigla are used but with the addition of square brackets, which indicate hypothetical definitions for dubious, conjectural, textually corrupt, or uncertain forms. After this 1.  Ellenbogen 1962; Rabin 1962; F. Rosenthal 2006, 62–63. Some of the words found in these works are indeed foreign, but not as alleged (i.e., the donor language was misidentified). Analysis of these words can be found in chapter 3. 2.  I am grateful to Ian Young and Robert Rezetko for reading through the entries in this appendix that pertain to their work and offering feedback.

321

322

Appendix

basic information, the reasons the word in question is not a non-​Semitic loanword are presented. ‫‘ אֶ בְ יֹון‬poor, needy’ HALOT 5; DCH 1:104–5 (Exod 23:11; passim3) This word appears 19 times in the Hebrew Bible with the meaning ‘poor, needy’. Ellenbogen contends that ‫ אֶ בְ יֹון‬derives from Egyptian bı̓n ‘bad, evil’ (ÄW 1:416, 2:802–3; GHwÄ 263–64; WÄS 1:442–43; DLE 1:131).4 However, as pointed out by William Ward and others, Hebrew ‫ אֶ בְ יֹון‬has a perfectly good Semitic derivation. It comes from the Semitic root ʾ‌by ‘to want, desire’ (DRS 3), a root that occurs in Hebrew as ‫ ;אבה‬the suffix ‫ֹון‬-‫ ‏‬is a perfectly good Hebrew suffix.5 Additionally, both Hebrew ‫ אֶ בְ יֹון‬and its Ugaritic cognate, a͗bynt, mean ‘poor, needy’, whereas Egyptian bı̓n means ‘bad, evil’. Thus, the Northwest Semitic and Egyptian forms are probably not related. Demotic Ꜣbyn and Coptic ebiēn, both meaning ‘poor person, wretched person’ (CDD Ꜣ 18; DG 112; Crum 53) and both possessing an initial vowel, come from Northwest Semitic and are not directly related to Egyptian bı̓n (EDE 2:146; EPNL 236–37; W. Ward 1961, 31–32). ‫[ אָ זֵן‬allegedly ‘equipment, tools’] HALOT 28; DCH 1:171 (Deut 23:14 [23:13]) 𝕲 ζώνη, 𝖁 balteus ‘girdle, waistband’; 𝕾 zyn‌ʾ, 𝕿Onq., Ps.-J. ‫‘ זין‬weapon’

This word occurs only once, in Deuteronomy, within a prescription concerning the cleanliness of the Israelite camp: when an Israelite relieves himself, he is to take a peg on his ‫ )יָתֵ ד ִּתהְ יֶה לְ ָך עַל־ ֲא ֵזנֶָך( אָ זֵן‬to dig a hole and cover up his excrement (Deut 23:14). Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008, 1:303; cf. S. R. Driver 1902, 263) list Hebrew ‫ אָ זֵן‬as a possible Old Iranian loan in pre-​Exilic Biblical Hebrew, suggesting that it means ‘equipment’ and comparing a variety of Aramaic terms meaning ‘weapon’ (cf. JA, CPA ‫זין‬, Syr zaynā, and Mand zaina: DJPA 175; DJBA 410; DCPA 110; LS² 378; MD 158).6 There is no doubt that the Aramaic forms come from Old Iranian *zaina- (cf. Av zaēna- and Elam za-​a-​na: AIW 1650; EW 1270).7 However, it is difficult to explain the prothetic ‌ʾalep if ‫ אָ זֵן‬is a loan from Old Iranian 3.  Deut 15:11; Isa 14:30; 29:19; 41:17; Jer 2:34; 5:28; Amos 4:1; 5:12; Ps 12:6 [12:5]; 69:34 [69:33]; 72:13; 112:9; 132:15; 140:13 [140:12]; Job 24:4; 29:16; Prov 30:14; Esth 9:22. 4.  FWOT 1; cf. Lambdin 1953b, 145–46; Erman 1892, 109. The Demotic and Coptic forms are bı̓n and bōōne, respectively (CDD B 46; DG 112; Crum 39). 5. On the suffix ‫ֹון‬-‫‏‬in Hebrew, see Bauer and Leander 1922, 498–500 (§§61bθ–uθ). 6. IA ‫זין‬, which occurs in TAD D7.57:9, probably does not mean ‘weapon’ (cf. DNWSI 319). 7.  Widengren 1960, 104; Ciancaglini 2008, 174. The Iranian languages lent this word to Armenian as zên, zêan (HAB 2:89, 91).

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

323

*zaina- because none of the forms of this word has an initial vowel or consonant cluster. Moreover, the Old Iranian and Aramaic forms of this word most commonly refer to a weapon or military equipment, not simple tools.8 One could perhaps translate the preposition ‫ עַל‬as ‘together with’ or ‘in addition to’, but neither of these follows the typical meaning of ‫עַל‬.9 Following 𝕲 (ζώνη) and 𝖁 (balteus), the Hebrew text probably originally read ‫‘ אֵ זֹ ְרָך‬your loincloth’ rather than ‫ ֲא ֵזנֶָך‬. Deuteronomy 23:14 should therefore be translated: ‘You shall have a peg on your loincloth [‫]וְ יָתֵ ד ִּתהְ יֶה לְ ָך עַל־אֵ זֹ ְרָך‬, and when you relieve yourself outside you shall dig with it, return, and cover up your excrement [‫וְ הָ יָה ּבְ ִׁשבְ ְּתָך חּוץ וְ חָ פ ְַרּתָ ה בָ ּה‬ ‫’]וְ ׁשַ בְ ּתָ וְ כִ ִּסיתָ אֶ ת־צֵ אָ תֶ ָך‬.10 ‫‘ אַ ּלּוף‬tribal chief’ HALOT 54; DCH 1:288–89 (Gen 36:15 [5×], passim11) The term occurs 60 times in the Hebrew Bible, most often in the book of Genesis (43 times). With the exception of the book of Zechariah, in which ‫ אַ ּלּוף‬denotes a leader in Judah (Zech 9:7; 12:5–6), this word always occurs with reference to a tribal leader in Edom. Gray (1957, 189–90) argued that Ugaritic u͗lp meant ‘tribal chief’, suggesting that it might be of Hurrian origin because the Hurrians are mentioned within the same general context along with other foreign peoples (cf. its use in KTU 1.40:3–4, 11–13, 19–21, 28–30, 36–38; 1.84:4–6, 14–16, 19–21). Accordingly, Rabin (1962, 1078) lists ‫ אַ ּלּוף‬as a possible loan from Hurrian. He, however, doubts the Hurrian origin of this word, and rightly so: Gray mistakenly took u͗lp in KTU 1.40 and 1.84 as meaning ‘tribal chief’ when it should instead be read as three words (the conjunction u͗, the preposition lê, and the noun pî).12 There is no evidence, therefore, that Ugaritic u͗lp means ‘tribal chief’. The nearly exclusive association of this term with Edom indicates that ‫ אַ ּלּוף‬is an Edomite—not a Hurrian—word.13 This Edomite word is 8. Scholars have proposed several different words as cognates, but none of them is in fact cognate. Rabbinic Hebrew ‫אֹ זֶן‬, which occurs in Sem. 2.4–5, means ‘ear’ rather than ‘iron–shod stick’ (Zlotnick 1966, 33–34; contra Chajes 1903). Eth mā‌ʾzen means ‘corner, angle, border of a garment’ and is not cognate (CDG 325). I cannot find any Old South Arabian word ‌*ʾḏn that means ‘possessions’ as Rabin (1961, 387) alleges. Unfortunately, he gives no citations. 9. The preposition ‫ עַל‬only rarely means ‘with’ or ‘in addition to’ (see Gen 32:12; Exod 12:8; 34:25; 35:22; Lev 2:3; 3:4; 4:11; 7:12; 19:26; Num 9:11; 31:8; Deut 16:3; Hos 10:14; Amos 3:15; Job 38:32). 10. Contra BHQ, whose analysis assumes a priori that ‫ אָ זֵן‬is cognate with JA, CPA ‫זין‬, Syr zaynā, and Mand zaina. 11.  Gen 36:16 (4×), 17 (5×), 18 (4×), 19, 21, 29 (5×), 30 (5×), 40 (4×), 41 (3×), 42 (3×), 43 (3×); Exod 15:15; Zech 9:7; 12:5–6; 1 Chr 1:51 (4×), 52 (3×), 53 (3×), 54 (3×). 12.  Pardee 2002, 111–12. Gray subsequently removed his suggestion that Ug u͗ lp meant ‘tribal chief’ in the second edition of his book, which was published in 1965. 13. Cf. Moritz 1926, 89; Sprenger 1957. A connection between the Horites of the Hebrew Bible and the Hurrians remains unlikely (cf. Knauf 1992). Thus, the association of the Horites with the Edomites does not prove any association between the Hurrians and Edomites that could be used to claim a Hurrian origin for ‫אַ ּלּוף‬.

324

Appendix

unattested, but that is not surprising given the limited number of extant Edomite texts (Beyer 2012, 123). ‫[ אֵ ְׁשּדָ ת‬allegedly ‘fiery law’] HALOT 93; DCH 1:404 (Deut 33:2) OG ἄγγελοι ‘angels’; α′ πῦρ δόγμα ‘fiery law’; σ′ πυρινὸς νόμος ‘fiery law’; 𝖁 ignea lex ‘fiery law’; SP ‫‘ אש דת‬fiery law’; 𝕾 omits; 𝕿Onq. ‫‘ אישתא אוריתא‬the fire, the Torah’; 𝕿Ps.-J. ‫‘ מיגוא שלהובית אישתא פיקודיא יהב להון‬from the midst of a flaming fire he gave them the commandments’; Sam.𝕿 ‫‘ נור אורה‬fiery Torah’

The term ‫ אֵ ְׁשּדָ ת‬occurs only in Deut 33:2. The Qere variant divides it up into two words, ‫אֵ ׁש ּדָ ת‬. The majority of the ancient versions—including α′, σ′, 𝖁, SP, and 𝕿—follow the Qere and find an occurrence of the word ‫ּדָ ת‬, an interpretation shared by later rabbinic writers. Beginning with the 19th century, however, many biblical scholars came to reject this reading because Hebrew ‫ ּדָ ת‬is a loan from Old Iranian dāta- (cf. OPers, Av dāta- and Pahl dād: OPGTL 189; AIW 726–27; CPD 23) and is otherwise found only in Late Biblical Hebrew, whereas the Blessing of Moses is typically thought to be early (see R. Steiner 1996, 693–94). Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008, 1:303–4) contend that, based on the Qere, Deut 33:2 contains the term ‫ ּדָ ת‬and hence represents an Old Iranian loanword. Their point is well taken that one must not assume a priori that Old Iranian loanwords can only occur in post-​Exilic texts. Nevertheless, it is not clear that the text of Deut 33:2 contains the word ‫ּדָ ת‬. The Masoretes have preserved two distinct readings, only one of which clearly contains the term ‫ּדָ ת‬, and the Qere variant probably represents an attempt to make sense of a word that was not understood and corrupt (McCarthy 2002, 128–29). Additionally, that other textual traditions existed in antiquity is evident from OG’s rendering of ‫ אֵ ְׁשּדָ ת‬as ἄγγελοι, perhaps reflecting a tradition in which angels accompanied the giving of the law (cf. Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2). Lastly, it is difficult to make sense of what ‘fiery law’ or the like might mean in the context, especially because fire is not otherwise an attribute of divine law in the Hebrew Bible or in Zoroastrianism. It is unlikely that Deuteronomy—a book so self-​consciously focused on the Torah—would chose the collocation ‫ אֵ ׁש ּדָ ת‬as a substitute for ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ when it has no qualms about using it later in the immediate context (Deut 33:4, 10). In sum—the issue of whether Old Iranian loanwords can occur before the time of the Exile aside—there are good reasons to reject the presence of the word ‫ ּדָ ת‬in Deut 33:2, even if no perfect alternative exists.14

14.  BHQ; Joosten 2012, 541–42; Ben-​Hayyim 1950. I am grateful to John Makujina for his assistance with this entry.

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

325

‫( אַ ּׁשָ ף‬BH); ‫( אָ ׁשַ ף‬BA) ‘exorcist’ HALOT 96, 1827; DCH 1:418 (Dan 1:20; 2:2, 10, 27; 4:4; 5:7, 11, 15) OG φιλόσοφος ‘philosopher’ Dan 1:20, μάγος ‘magician’ Dan 2:2, 10; 4:4, φάρμακος ‘magician, sorcerer’ Dan 2:27, ἐπαοιδός ‘enchanter’ Dan 5:7, omits Dan 5:11, 15 but θʹ μάγος ‘magician’ Dan 5:11, 15; 𝖁 magus ‘mage, sorcerer’ except incantator ‘enchanter, charmer’ Dan 5:11; 𝕾 ʾšwpʾ [Syriac form] except mgwš‌ʾ ‘magician’ Dan 2:27 Biblical Hebrew ‫ אַ ּׁשָ ף‬occurs only twice, both times in the book of Daniel (Dan 1:20; 2:2). The Biblical Aramaic form, attested as ‫אָ ׁשַ ף‬, also appears only in the book of Daniel (Dan 2:10, 27; 4:4; 5:7, 11, 15). Each time it occurs, this word refers to an official of the royal court who is able to interpret dreams and omens. Related forms exist in Sumerian and Akkadian as išib and āšipu, wāšipu (PSD; CAD A/2 431–35; AHw 1487–88). Both are used in cuneiform texts with reference to an exorcist who performs incantations to heal the sick (Ritter 1965). The Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic forms cannot be cognate with Akkadian, however, because the Akkadian form points to a *wšp root, which would appear in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic as ‫( *יסף‬ALBH 43; AIA 38). Thus, Zimmern was right to identify this word as a loan from Akkadian āšipu. The use of šin rather than samek indicates that it was borrowed from Babylonian rather than Assyrian Akkadian.15 It is notable, moreover, that both the Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic forms have been nativized in that they exhibit the typical Northwest Semitic nominal pattern for professions.16 In light of their derivation from Akkadian āšipu, Ellenbogen (1962, 43–44) contends that the Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic forms are ultimately of Sumerian origin because he claims that Sumerian išib is the source of Akkadian āšipu. What is true, however, is the reverse, in that Akkadian lent this word to Sumerian.17 Thus, this word is not a Sumero-​Akkadian loan into Hebrew.18 ‫‘ אֶ ְׁשתַ ּדּור‬war, conflict’ HALOT 1828 (Ezra 4:15, 19) 𝕲 φυγαδεῖον δούλων ‘place of refuge for slaves’ Ezra 4:15, φυγαδεῖον ‘place of refuge’ Ezra 4:19; 𝖁 bellum ‘war’ Ezra 4:15, seditio ‘sedition, insurrection’ Ezra 4:19; 𝕾 tktwš‌ʾ ‘contest, fighting’

15.  Zimmern 1917, 67; cf. FWOT 43–44; ALBH 43–44; Lipiński 1988, 64; AIA 38–39; M. Wagner 1966, 31 (#30). 16. It is possible that the Biblical Aramaic form is in error and should be repointed as ‫( אַ ּׁשָ ף‬AIA 38–39; Dion 1989, 210). 17.  G. Steiner 2003, 634. Notably, Lieberman (SLOB) does not list this term as a Sumerian loanword into Akkadian. 18.  Akkadian also lent this word to Hittite as apiši- (Otten 1974–1975; see HHw 21).

326

Appendix

Biblical Aramaic ‫ אֶ ְׁשתַ ּדּור‬appears only twice, both times in the letter sent by the returnees’ opponents to Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:15, 19). They claim that Jerusalem is a rebellious city with ‫ אֶ ְׁשתַ ּדּור‬made in it. Use of ‫ אֶ ְׁשתַ ּדּור‬for ‫ ִמלְ חָ מָ ה‬in the Targum of Job (11QtgJob 38:23) demonstrates that ‫ אֶ ְׁשתַ ּדּור‬means ‘conflict’ or the like, a definition appropriate to Ezra 4:15, 19. Henning suggests that Biblical Aramaic ‫ אֶ ְׁשתַ ּדּור‬comes from Old Iranian *āštidrauga- ‘bre ach of peace’, formed from *āšti- ‘peace’ and drauga- ‘breach’ (F. Rosenthal 2006, 63). However, the first element of this compound should be āxšti-, not *āšti- (cf. Av āxšti-: AIW 311), leaving the omission of the x unexplained. Moreover, Biblical Aramaic ‫ אֶ ְׁשתַ ּדּור‬looks exactly like an Ethpaal infinitive of the root ‫‘ ׁשדר‬to strive, struggle with’ (see BDB 1114). This verb appears only once in Biblical Aramaic (Dan 6:15) but occurs elsewhere in Imperial and Jewish Aramaic (HALOT 1991; DNWSI 1112; DJPA 538). Given the absence of a convincing Old Iranian etymology and the existence of a perfectly good Semitic one, little reason exists to think that Biblical Aramaic ‫ אֶ ְׁשתַ ּדּור‬is non-​Semitic. ‫‘ ּבְ ִדיל‬lead, tin’ HALOT 110; DCH 2:95 (Num 31:22; Isa 1:25; Ezek 22:18, 20; 27:12; Zech 4:10) 𝕲 μόλιβος ‘lead’ Num 31:22; Ezek 22:18, 20, ἄνομος ‘lawlessness’ Isa 1:25, κασσίτερος ‘tin’ Ezek 27:12, κασσιτέρινος ‘of tin’ Zech 4:10; 𝖁 plumbum ‘lead’ Num 31:22; Ezek 22:18, 20, stannum ‘tin’ Isa 1:25; Ezek 27:12; Zech 4:10; 𝕾 ʾnkʾ ‘tin’ Num 31:22; Ezek 22:18, 20; 27:12, ʿwlʾ ‘wicked person’ Isa 1:25, pwršnʾ ‘separation’ Zech 4:10; 𝕿 ‫‘ עבץ‬tin’ Num 31:22, ‫‘ חיב‬sinner’ Isa 1:25, ‫‘ בעיץ‬tin’ Ezek 22:18, 20; 27:12, ‫‘ משקולה‬plumb-​line’ Zech 4:10 This word occurs only six times. Just like ‫ ֲאנְָך‬, the term ‫ ּבְ ִדיל‬can refer to both ‘lead’ and ‘tin’. It means ‘lead’ in Isa 1:25, where it denotes the unwanted metal (i.e., lead) separated from the wanted metal (i.e., silver), as well as in Zech 4:10, where it denotes a plumbline symbolizing judgment (cf. Amos 7:7–9).19 On the other hand, the lists of Num 31:22 and Ezek 22:18, 20 mention ‫ ּבְ ִדיל‬amidst the metals ‫‘ זָהָ ב‬gold’, ‫‘ ּכֶסֶ ף‬silver’, ‫‘ נְ חֹ ׁשֶ ת‬copper’ or ‘bronze’, ‫‘ ּבַ ְרזֶל‬iron’, and ‫‘ עֹ פ ֶֶרת‬lead’. Tin was one of the six most-​used metals in antiquity, so in these cases ‫ ּבְ ִדיל‬probably means ‘tin’. It probably also means ‘tin’ in Ezek 27:12, which mentions this metal as a product of Tarshish; tin was an important product of Tarshish (Tartesoss) in antiquity.20 Rabin lists this word as a loan from Sanskrit pāṭīra- ‘tin’ (1962, 1079; cf. Köhler 1947a; G. R. Driver 1954, 24). However, Hebrew ‫ ּבְ ִדיל‬is almost certainly not derived from Sanskrit pāṭīra. The latter is a rare word attested with the meaning ‘tin’ only in very late, post-​Vedic lexical texts, and Sanskrit instead uses other words to 19. Abramski 1958; Landsberger 1965, 286–87. There is no convincing reason to separate the occurrence of ‫ ּבְ ִדיל‬in Isa 1:25 from its other occurrences. 20.  Levene and Rothenberg 2001, 101–4. On the identification of Tarshish with Tartessos in Spain, see Day 2012; López-​Ruiz 2009; Lipiński 2004, 225–65.

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

327

refer to this metal (e.g., trápu-).21 There is no evidence, moreover, that tin was imported from India to ancient Mesopotamia, much less to Palestine (Moorey 1999, 299–300). This means there would be no reason or even opportunity for Hebrew-​s peakers to borrow this word from East Asia. In any case, Hebrew ‫ּבְ ִדיל‬ is easily explained as a qetīl-pattern noun from the root ‫‘ בדל‬to separate, divide’. If this etymology is correct, ‫ ּבְ ִדיל‬means ‘(that which is) separated’. This indicates that ‘lead’ was the original meaning of ‫ּבְ ִדיל‬, for tin is not separated from any other metal during its production, whereas lead is a natural by-​product of making silver.22 ‫ּבָ ֶרקֶ ת‬, ‫( ּבָ ְרקַ ת‬a green gem) HALOT 162; DCH 2:275 (Exod 28:17; 39:10; Ezek 28:13) 𝕲 σμάραγδος (a green gem) Exod 28:17; 39:10, λιγύριον ‘Ligurian stone’ Ezek 28:13; 𝖁 smaragdus (a green gem); 𝕾 brq‌ʾ [Syriac form] Exod 28:17; 39:10, mrgnyt‌ʾ ‘pearl’ Ezek 28:13; 𝕿 ‫[ ברק‬Aramaic form]

This word occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible, twice in the form ‫ּבָ ֶרקֶ ת‬ (Exod 28:17; 39:10) and once in the form ‫( ּבָ ְרקַ ת‬Ezek 28:13) (cf. Bauer and Leander 1922, 510–11 [§62v]). It appears within the description of the high priest’s breastplate in Exod 28:17–20; 39:10–13. Speaking of the king of Tyre’s adornment, Ezek 28:13 mentions ‫ ּבָ ְרקַ ת‬in conjunction with many of the same gemstones as are listed in Exodus. Related Semitic forms include Neo-​Babylonian Akkadian barraqtu (CAD B 113; AHw 107) and Syriac bārqā (LS² 192). Along with Hebrew ‫ּבָ ֶרקֶ ת‬, these terms are frequently translated as ‘emerald’, but Classical descriptions of σμάραγδος, μάραγδος and smaragdus (e.g., Theophrastus, Lap. 4.23–27; Pliny, Nat. 37.16.62– 37.19.75; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 2.52) demonstrate that this term could refer to a number of different green gemstones, not just the emerald (Sinkankas 1981, 13–21; J. F. Healy 1999, 241–45; cf. Harrell, Hoffmeier, and Williams 2017, 15–17). There is no evidence for the use of emeralds in Mesopotamia prior to the fourth century b.c.e. or in Egypt prior to the Ptolemaic period, probably due to its hardness, which made it difficult to work and shape (Moorey 1999, 81; Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 25). Rabin (1962, 1079) connects Hebrew ‫ ּבָ ֶרקֶ ת‬with Sanskrit marakata-, marakta‘emerald’ (cf. HALOT 162; BDB 140). However, Sanskrit marakata- only occurs in late, post-​Vedic Sanskrit (EWAia 3:389; KEWA 2:587–58). Indic scholars consider Sanskrit marakata- a loan from Semitic, just as Classical scholars think Greek

21.  EWAia 3:313–14; KEWA 2:247. Skt pāṭīra- can have a wide variety of definitions in addition to ‘tin’, including ‘sandal tree’, ‘radish’, ‘sieve’, ‘cloud’, ‘field’, ‘bamboo pith’, and ‘catarrh’. On the typical Sanskrit words for tin, see Garbe 1882, 36–37. 22. Forbes 1950, 258. Because there is no reason to derive BH ‫ ּבְ ִדיל‬from Sanskrit, this is no mere folk etymology as G. R. Driver contends (1954, 24).

328

Appendix

σμάραγδος, μάραγδος comes from Semitic.23 In this regard, it is significant that one of the earliest references to Greek σμάραγδος is by Herodotus, who associates this gem with Phoenicia (Hist. 2.44). No evidence exists that Palestine, Mesopotamia, or Egypt obtained emeralds or other green gems from East Asia during the first millennium b.c.e. (see Moorey 1999, 81; Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 24–25), so Hebrew-​speakers would have had no reason or opportunity to borrow this word from Old Indic. In any case, it has a perfectly good etymology in Semitic: the root brq ‘to flash, shine’, an appropriate etymology for a gemstone (cf. DRS 86). Thus, Hebrew ‫ ּבָ ֶרקֶ ת‬is Semitic and not an Old Indic loan. ‫‘ ַּגּלָב‬barber’ HALOT 190; DCH 2:347 (Ezek 5:1) 𝕲 κουρεύς ‘barber’; 𝖁 pilus ‘hair’; 𝕾 grʿʾ ‘barber’; 𝕿. ‫[ גלב‬Aramaic form]

Rabin (1962, 1072) lists Hebrew ‫ ַּגּלָב‬, which occurs only in Ezek 5:1, as a loan from Akkadian gallābu (CAD G 14–17; AHw 274–75). However, it is not all clear that Hebrew ‫ ַּגּלָב‬and its related Northwest Semitic forms (Phoen, Pun ‫ גלב‬and Nab, JA ‫גלב‬: DNWSI 222; Jastrow 1903, 243) are loans from Akkadian; they may simply be cognate.24 In any case, there is no suitable donor term in Sumerian, which instead uses the words Ḫursaĝ, kinda, or munsub to denote ‘barber’. Thus, Hebrew ‫ַּגּלָב‬ is not a Sumero–Akkadian loan. ‫‘ ּדּוד‬pot, cauldron’ HALOT 215; DCH 2:424 (1 Sam 2:14; 2 Kgs 10:7; Jer 24:1, 2 [2×]; Ps 81:7 [81:6]; Job 41:12 [41:20]; 2 Chr 35:13) 𝕲 χαλκίον ‘copper vessel’ 1 Sam 2:14, κάρταλλος ‘basket’ 2 Kgs 10:7, κάλαθος ‘basket’ Jer 24:1–2, κόφινος ‘basket’ Ps 81:7, κάμινος ‘furnace’ Job 41:12, does not directly represent this word 2 Chr 35:13; 𝖁 caldaria ‘cauldron’ 1 Sam 2:14, cofinus ‘basket’ 2 Kgs 10:7; Ps 81:7, calathus ‘basket’ Jer 24:1–2, olla ‘jar, pot’ Job 41:12, caccabus ‘cooking pot’ 2 Chr 35:13; 𝕾 ‌ʾyr‌ʾ ‘pot, cauldron’ 1 Sam 2:14; 2 Chr 35:13, msn‌ʾ ‘basket’ 2 Kgs 10:7; Jer 24:1–2, ‌ʾswry‌ʾ ‘captivity’ Ps 81:7, qds‌ʾ ‘metal pot, cauldron’ Job 41:12; 𝕿  [Aramaic form] 1 Sam 2:14; Job 41:12; 2 Chr 35:13, ‫‘ סל‬basket’ 2 Kgs 10:7; Jer 24:1–2, ‫‘ קידר‬pot’ Ps 81:7 23.  EDG 1365–66; DELG 991, 1353; EWAia 3:389; KEWA 2:587–58. The initial consonant cluster σμ probably represents a folk etymology (cf. Gk σμαραγέω ‘to thunder’). Gk μάραγδος does not occur until the fourth–third centuries b.c.e. and may be a loan from Sanskrit or simply an alternate form (EDG 1365–66; DELG 991, 1353; Mayrhofer 1955, 187–88). Eg brgt, attested only once in the Late period Sehel Inscription (line 16), is a loan from Semitic (J. R. Harris 1961, 105). Pahl uzumburd and NPers zumurrud as well as their Arabic derivative zummurud, in turn, are loans from Gk σμάραγδος (Asbaghi 1988, 147). 24. AIA 51. One may also compare JA ‫ גלב‬and Syr gallāḇā, both meaning ‘razor’ (DJPA 128; LS² 232).

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

329

Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּדּוד‬occurs eight times across a wide variety of genres. Rabin (1962, 1077; cf. W. Ward 1961, 40) contends that it comes from Egyptian ddw.t, dd.t (ÄW 1:1483; GHwÄ 1062; WÄS 5:501; DLE 2:258), which commonly denotes a shallow bowl but can also refer to a measure of volume based on how much the bowl holds. Although attested already in Egyptian texts from the Old Kingdom, this word also appears quite early in Semitic (Old Babylonian Akkadian) and has a relatively wide distribution in that it appears in Akkadian (dūdu: CAD D 170; AHw 174), Ugaritic (dd: DUL 262–63), and various dialects of Aramaic (Palm, JA ‫דוד‬, Syr dūḏā, and Mand duda: DNWSI 242; DJPA 140; DJBA 315; LS² 278; MD 104) in addition to Biblical Hebrew. There is nothing to suggest that any of the Semitic forms have been borrowed from Egyptian, and their lack of representation of the Egyptian feminine ending argues against any loan relationship. Most likely, this word is simply a common Afroasiatic word.25 ‫‘ חֲנִ ית‬spear’ HALOT 333–34; DCH 3:271 (1 Sam 13:19, 22; passim26) This word occurs 48 times in the Hebrew Bible with reference to a spear. Because it has no Semitic cognates, Ellenbogen (1962, 73) and Rabin (1962, 1077) both claim that Hebrew ‫ חֲנִ ית‬is a loan from Egyptian ḥny.t ‘spear’ (GHwÄ 576–77; WÄS 3:110). However, Muchiki (1999, 244) notes that Egyptian ḥny.t does not show up in Egyptian until the New Kingdom, when the feminine ending t would have been lost; because Hebrew ‫ חֲנִ ית‬preserves a final taw, borrowing from Egyptian could not have taken place except at a relatively early stage. Moreover, Egyptian ḥny.t is written syllabically, as a loan from Northwest Semitic, and is mentioned twice as an import from Palestine (Rṯnw) (Urk 4:719,1; 727,1). Thus, Egyptian ḥny.t is undoubtedly a Northwest Semitic loanword (SWET 229 [#318]). Hebrew ‫ חֲנִ ית‬is probably derived from the Semitic root ḥnw, ḥny ‘to incline toward’ (DRS 891; cf. Syr ḥny27 and Arab ḥanā: LS² 471; Lane 660). This Semitic word meaning ‘spear’ is also attested twice in Ras Shamra Akkadian, where it is spelled ḫinuta (RS 19.64 rev. 5ʹ; 20.235:8) (Huehnergard 2008, 125–26). ‫‘ חׁשב‬to think, reckon’ HALOT 359–60; DCH 3:326–29 (Gen 15:6; passim28) 25.  EPNL 281; cf. DRS 232. Hitt duddu-, on the other hand, is a loan from Akkadian (HHw 205; HEG T/D 475). 26.  1 Sam 17:7 (2×), 45, 47; 18:10–11; 19:9, 10 (2×); 20:33; 21:9 [21:8]; 22:6; 26:7–8, 11–12, 16, 22; 2 Sam 1:6; 2:23 (2×); 21:19; 23:7, 18, 21 (3×); 2 Kgs 11:10; Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3; Nah 3:3; Hab 3:11; Ps 35:3; 46:10 [46:9]; 57:5 [57:4]; Job 39:23; 41:18 [41:26]; 1 Chr 11:11, 20, 23 (2×); 12:35; 20:5; 2 Chr 23:9. 27.  Syr ḥny can be used specifically with reference to aiming a spear. 28.  Gen 31:15; 38:15; 50:20 (2×); Exod 31:4; 35:32; Lev 7:18; 17:4; 25:27, 31, 50, 52; 27:18, 23; Num 18:27, 30; 23:9; Deut 2:11, 20; Josh 13:3; 1 Sam 1:13; 18:25; 2 Sam 4:2; 14:13–14; 19:20 [19:19]; 1 Kgs

330

Appendix

This verb is very common, occurring 112 times in the Hebrew Bible. Rabin (1962, 1076) lists it a loan from Egyptian ḥsb ‘to count, to think’ (ÄW 1:886, 2:1772; GHwÄ 603; WÄS 3:166–67; DLE 1:332). However, it is highly improbable that Egyptian loaned this word into Hebrew because of its wide distribution in the West Semitic languages. Cognates appear in Punic (‫חשב‬: DNWSI 409–11), virtually all dialects of ancient Aramaic (BA, IA, Palm, Nab, Hatra, QA, JA, SA, CPA ‫ חשב‬as well as Syr ḥšb and Mand hšb: HALOT 1880; DNWSI 409–11; DJPA 216; DJBA 486; DSA 298; DCPA 140–41; LS² 497–98; MD 154), Arabic (ḥasaba: Lane 564–65), and Ethiopic (ḥasaba: CDG 244–45). Egyptian ḥsb, first attested during the Old Kingdom in the Pyramid Texts, represents the Egyptian form of a common Semitic term (DRS 936–37; Vycichl 1958, 375; Rössler 1971, 287). Thus, Hebrew ‫ חׁשב‬is not a loan from Egyptian, although both are indeed ultimately related. ‫[ חַ ְׁשמַ ן‬allegedly ‘bronze’ or ‘red cloth’] HALOT 362; DCH 3:333 (Ps 68:32 [68:31]) OG πρέσβεις, VL legati, 𝕾 ‌ʾyzgd‌ʾ ‘ambassadors’; α′ ἐσπευσμένως, 𝖁 velociter ‘quickly’; 𝕿 ‫‘ בנוי דחם חוסמניא‬the sons of Ham the Ḥosmanite’ (cf. Num 33:29–30) This word is a hapax that occurs in Ps 68:32. Its rarity has made it difficult to interpret. The majority of the ancient versions, including 𝕲, 𝖁, and 𝕾, seem to have read ‫‘ חָ ִׁשים‬quick ones’ in place of the MT’s ‫חַ ְׁשמַ ן‬. Midrash Tehillim gives four different interpretations of ‫( חַ ְׁשמַ ן‬Braude 1959, 1:549), further demonstrating the problematic nature of this word. Rabin (1962, 1077) lists ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ן‬as a loan from Egyptian ḥsmn ‘bronze’ (ÄW 1:887, 2:1775; GHwÄ 605; WÄS 1:163; DLE 1:333), first attested beginning with the Old Kingdom. This loan hypothesis can be traced back to Mowinckel (1953, 61–62; cf. H.-J. Kraus 1993, 2:45; LePeau 1981, 214–15). However, despite its common use in Egypt, bronze was not particularly known as an Egyptian product in antiquity, and one would not expect Egypt to send bronze to Palestine. Thus, despite their phonological similarity, there is probably no connection between Hebrew ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ן‬and Egyptian ḥsmn ‘bronze’. Albright also held to an Egyptian etymology but considered Egyptian ḥsmn ‘natron’, attested beginning with the Old Kingdom, as the donor term. Because he thought that Akkadian ḫašmānu ‘red cloth’ came from Egyptian ḥsmn, he concluded

10:21; 2 Kgs 12:16 [12:15]; 22:7; Isa 2:22; 5:28; 10:7; 13:17; 29:16–17; 32:15; 33:8; 40:15, 17; 53:3–4; Jer 11:19; 18:8, 11, 18; 23:27; 26:3; 29:11; 36:3; 48:2; 49:20, 30; 50:45; Ezek 11:2; 38:10; Hos 7:15; 8:12; Amos 6:5; Jon 1:4; Mic 2:1, 3; Nah 1:9, 11; Zech 7:10; 8:17; Mal 3:16; Ps 10:2; 21:12 [21:11]; 32:2; 35:4, 20; 36:5 [36:4]; 40:18 [40:17]; 41:8 [41:7]; 44:23 [44:22]; 52:4 [52:2]; 73:16; 77:6 [77:5]; 88:5 [88:4]; 106:31; 119:59; 140:3, 5 [140:2, 4]; 144:3; Job 6:26; 13:24; 18:3; 19:11, 15; 33:10; 35:2; 41:19, 21, 24 [41:27, 29, 32]; Prov 16:9, 30; 17:28; 24:8; 27:14; Lam 2:8; 4:2; Esth 8:3; 9:24–25; Dan 11:24–25; Neh 6:2, 6; 13:13; 2 Chr 2:13 [2:14]; 9:20.

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

331

that Hebrew ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ן‬denotes a type of cloth dyed with red natron from Egypt.29 However, Albright’s argumentation is flawed. Akkadian ḫašmānu is a Hurrian, not an Egyptian, term.30 It therefore has no connection with Egyptian ḥsmn, which instead comes from the Egyptian verb ḥsmn ‘to be clean’.31 Thus, there is no connection between Akkadian ḫašmānu and Egyptian ḥsmn, and Albright’s association of Hebrew ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ן‬with Egyptian ḥsmn ‘natron’ is invalid.32 Following Albright, many modern commentators connect Hebrew ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ן‬with Akkadian ḫašmānu, assuming that this term took on the more general meaning of ‘gift, tribute’ (Hossfeld and Zenger 2005, 159–60; N. Bush 1980, 321–23; Dahood 1968, 150). If the MT preserves the Hebrew correctly, and if Hebrew ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ן‬does indeed mean ‘red cloth’ or ‘gift, tribute’, then ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ן‬may be a Hurrian loan. However, this requires several unprovable assumptions. As the ancient versions suggest, it is more likely that the text is corrupt. Most probably, the text originally read ‫חָ ִׁשים‬ but dittography later occurred due to the following ‫מּנִ י‬, ִ creating the ghost word ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ן‬in the present text.33 ‫‘ טמא‬to be unclean’ HALOT 366–76; DCH 3:366–68 (Gen 34:5, 13, 27; passim34) This verb is very common, occurring 162 times in the Hebrew Bible with the meaning ‘to be unclean’ in the Qal stem. It frequently refers to that which is ceremonially 29. Albright (1950–1951, 33–34) originally thought ‫ חַ ְׁשמַ ן‬meant ‘red natron’ because he assumed it was derived from Eg ḥsmn ‘natron’ (ÄW 1:887, 2:1774–75; GHwÄ 604; WÄS 1:162–63; DLE 1:333). With the discovery of ḫašmānu in the Akkadian texts from Ugarit, however, Albright subsequently (1955a, 5) rejected the meaning of ‘red natron’ for ‫חַ ְׁשמַ ן‬, instead proposing the meaning ‘red cloth’ while still maintaining the Egyptian connection. 30.  CAD Ḫ 142, 257; AHw 334, 360. Following Goetze (1956, 35), who argues that ḫašmānu is a Hurrian term in light of its mention among a number of Hurrian textiles, Dietrich and Loretz (1964–1966, 227) explain the alternation between š and s in Akk ḫašmānu and the related form ḫusmānu as indicative of a Hurrian origin. A Hurrian origin is reflected in this term’s primary distribution in western peripheral dialects (Mari, Boghazköy, Nuzi, and Ras Shamra). 31.  Like its derivative nominal form, the verb ḥsmn is attested beginning with the Old Kingdom (ÄW 1:887; GHwÄ 604–5; WÄS 1:163; DLE 1:332). 32.  The Egyptians denoted various types of natron by qualifying the term ḥsmn. Red natron was indicated by the phrase ḥsmn dšr (equivalent to hosm efurešroš in Coptic and βερενικάριον in Greek) and is known primarily from medical texts (J. R. Harris 1961, 195–96). Although natron may have been used at times for making red dye (Lucas 1962, 153), the Egyptians primarily used red ochre or realgar (an arsenic sulfide) for red pigments (Lee and Quirke 2000, 113–14; Lucas 1962, 346–48). 33.  Psalm 68 presents many textual difficulties, so it would not be surprising if the text were corrupt. 34.  Lev 5:3; 11:24 (2×), 25–28, 31, 32 (2×), 33, 34 (2×), 35–36, 39, 40 (2×), 43 (2×), 44; 12:2 (2×), 5; 13:3, 8, 11, 14–15, 20, 22, 25, 27, 30, 44 (2×), 46, 59; 14:46; 15:4 (2×), 5–9, 10 (2×), 11, 16–19, 20 (2×), 21–23, 24 (2×), 27 (2×), 31–32; 17:15; 18:20, 23, 24 (2×), 25, 27–28, 30; 19:31; 20:3; 20:25; 21:1, 3–4, 11; 22:5 (2×), 6, 8; Num 5:3, 13, 14 (2×), 20, 27–29; 6:7, 9, 12; 19:7–8, 10–11, 13–14, 16, 20 (2×), 21, 22 (2×); 35:34; Deut 21:23; 24:4; 2 Kgs 23:8, 10, 13, 16; Isa 30:22; Jer 2:7, 23; 7:30; 32:34; Ezek 4:14; 5:11; 9:7; 14:11; 18:6, 11, 15; 20:7, 18, 26, 30, 31, 43; 22:3–4, 11; 23:7, 13, 17 (2×), 30, 38; 33:26; 36:17–18; 37:23; 43:7–8; 44:25 (2×); Hos 5:3; 6:10; 9:4; Mic 2:10; Hag 2:13 (2×); Ps 79:1; 106:39; 2 Chr 36:14.

332

Appendix

impure, especially in the book of Leviticus. Cognates occur in Aramaic, specifically in Imperial, Qumran, Jewish, and Samaritan Aramaic (‫טמא‬‎, ‫טמי‬: DNWSI 424; DQA 96; DJPA 226; DJBA 506; DSA 315–16) as well as Syriac (ṭmy: LS² 535) and Mandaic (ṭma: MD 180). The derived noun ‫ ט ְֻמאָ ה‬and the derived adjective ‫ טָ מֵ א‬are relatively common and also have related forms in Aramaic.35 Rabin (1962, 1077) lists ‫ טמא‬as an Egyptian loan, albeit a questionable one. He compares Egyptian dmı̓, attested with the meaning ‘to touch, attach’ as early as the Old Kingdom (ÄW 1:1476, 2:2783; GHwÄ 1051; WÄS 5:453–55; DLE 2:247–48; cf. Dem tm, Copt tōōme: CDD T 195–96; DG 631; Crum 414–15). He also notes that Egyptian and Syrian Arabic ṭamy denotes silt or alluvial mud (Wehr 1979, 666). Indeed, Rabin is right to doubt an Egyptian loan in this case. There is little if any semantic connection between Hebrew ‫ טמא‬and Egyptian dmı̓. It is unlikely that Hebrew-​speakers would borrow such a common Egyptian verb and apply it to impurity, a concept that Egyptian dmı̓ never signifies. Furthermore, Arabic ṭamy is related to the root ṭamā ‘to flow over’ and therefore has no connection with ‫טמא‬.36 In addition to the above Aramaic forms, Old South Arabian ṭm‌ʾ ‘dirty, impure’ (DOSA 219) is undoubtedly connected (W. W. Müller 1963, 309). The relatively widespread attestation of this word in West Semitic indicates that this is a native rather than a foreign word, and there is little reason to consider Hebrew ‫ טמא‬an Egyptian loanword. ‫‘ יָצּו ַע‬bed, couch’ HALOT 428; DCH 4:267 (Gen 49:4; Ps 63:7 [63:6]; 132:3; Job 17:13) 𝕲 στρωμνή ‘bed’; 𝖁 stratum ‘bed, blanket’ Gen 49:4, cubile ‘bed’ Ps 63:7, stramen ‘straw’ Ps 132:3, lectulus ‘small bed’ Job 17:13; 𝕾 tšwyt‌ʾ ‘bedding, mattress’ except ʿrs‌ʾ ‘bed’ Ps 132:3; 𝕿 ‫‘ שוי‬bed’ Gen 49:4; Job 17:13, ‫‘ דרגוש‬bed, couch’ Ps 63:7, ‫‘ מצע‬bed’ Ps 132:3 The term occurs several times throughout the Hebrew Bible, each time with reference to a bed or couch (Gen 49:4; Ps 63:7; 132:3; Job 17:13). Rabin (1962, 1078) lists this word as a possible, albeit doubtful, loan from Hurrian, comparing Alalakh

35. ‫ ט ְֻמאָ ה‬occurs 36 times (Lev 5:3; 7:20–21; 14:19; 15:3, 25–26, 30–31; 16:16, 19; 18:19; 22:3, 5; Num 5:19; 19:13; Judg 13:7, 14; 2 Sam 11:4; Ezek 22:15; 24:11, 13; 36:17, 25, 29; 39:24; Zech 13:2; Lam 1:9; Ezra 6:21; 9:11; 2 Chr 29:16); its cognates in Aramaic include JA, SA ‫( טמאה‬DJBA 497; DSA 316). ‫טָ מֵ א‬ occurs 88 times (Lev 5:2 [5×]; 7:19, 21 [3×]; 10:10; 11:4–8, 26–29, 31, 35 [2×], 38, 47; 13:11, 15, 36, 44, 45 [2×], 46, 51, 55; 14:40–41, 44–45, 57; 15:2, 25–26, 33; 20:25 [2×]; 22:4; 27:11, 27; Num 5:2; 9:6–7, 10; 18:15; 19:13, 15, 17, 19–20, 22; Deut 12:15, 22; 14:7–8, 10, 19; 15:22; 26:14; Josh 22:19; Judg 13:4; Isa 6:5; 35:8; 52:1, 11; 64:5; Jer 19:13; Ezek 4:13; 22:5, 10, 26; 44:23; Hos 9:3; Amos 7:17; Hag 2:13–14; Job 14:4; Lam 4:15; Qoh 9:2; 2 Chr 23:19); its cognates in Aramaic include IA, JA ‫טמא‬, ‫ טמי‬and Syr ṭmē (DNWSI 424; DJPA 226; DJBA 506; LS² 535–36). 36.  Wehr (1979, 666) lists ṭamy as a derivative of the verb ṭamā.

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

333

Akkadian wizza‌ʾena.37 Indeed, Hebrew ‫ יָצּו ַע‬is not a loan from Hurrian. It is based on the root ‫יצע‬, which occurs several times with the meaning ‘to spread out as a bed’ (Isa 14:11; 58:5; Ps 139:8; Esth 4:3). This verb, which is cognate with Jewish Aramaic ‫‘ יצע‬to spread out’ (Jastrow 1903, 589) as well as Old South Arabian wḍʿ and Arabic waḍaʿa (both of which mean ‘to put, lay down’; DOSA 143–44; Lane 3055), is also the basis for the term ‫‘ מַ ּצָ ע‬couch’ (Isa 28:10). Thus, this word has a perfectly good etymology in Biblical Hebrew, and little reason exists to think it is of non-​Semitic origin. Word-​initial w occurs in Hurrian only in foreign loanwords (Wilhelm 2008, 85), and therefore Hurrian wizzaena- is undoubtedly a borrowing from Semitic. ‫‘ ּכּור‬smelting furnace’ HALOT 466; DCH 4:377 (Deut 4:20; 1 Kgs 8:51; Isa 48:10; Jer 11:4; Ezek 22:18, 20, 22; Prov 17:3; 27:21) 𝕲 κάμινος ‘furnace’ except χωνευτήριον ‘smelting furnace’ 1 Kgs 8:51, omits Ezek 22:18, πύρωσις ‘burning’ Prov 27:21; 𝖁 fornax ‘furnace’ except caminus ‘furnace, forge’ Isa 48:10; Prov 17:3, conflatorium ‘furnace, crucible’ Prov 27:31; 𝕾 kwr‌ʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫[ כור‬Aramaic form] except ‫‘ דחוק‬stress, pressure’ Isa 48:10 Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּכּור‬occurs only nine times, each time with reference to a furnace for smelting metals. Despite its relative rarity in the Hebrew Bible, this word has numerous related forms in the Semitic languages, including Akkadian (kūru: CAD K 571; AHw 512), Aramaic (QA, JA, SA, CPA ‫ כור‬as well as Syr kūrā: DJPA 254; DSA 383; DCPA 176; LS² 612), Old South Arabian (kwr: DOSA 244), Arabic (kūr: Lane 2673), and Ethiopic (kawr: CDG 300). In all the Semitic languages this term has the same referent of ‘smelting furnace’ or the like. Both Ellenbogen (FWOT 83) and Rabin (1962, 1072) trace Hebrew ‫ ּכּור‬back to Sumerian gir, connecting this term with both Akkadian kūru and Akkadian kīru. However, Akkadian kūru refers to a smelting furnace whereas kīru refers to a kiln for processing lime or bitumen. The CAD (K 416) and von Soden (AHw 484) rightly distinguish between kūru and kīru because lexical texts consistently equate Akkadian kūru with Sumerian dinig but equate kīru with Sumerian gir (written gir4).38 It is notable in this regard that Sumerian dinig (the equivalent of Akk kūru) consistently means ‘furnace’ whereas Sumerian gir frequently denotes an oven for baking rather than a furnace. These observations, along with the widespread distribution of the above cognates with the basic meaning ‘smelting furnace’, argue against a relationship between Hebrew ‫ ּכּור‬and Sumerian gir. Hebrew ‫ּכּור‬ 37.  On Akk wizza‌ʾena, which denotes a bed in a single text from Alalakh, see CAD U–W 409; AHw 1496. It occurs in AT 227:13. 38.  Contra ALBH 67–69; Zimmern 1917, 32; Salonen 1964, 118; Schulthess 1911, 294–97. The phonological similarity between the two terms is coincidental, and any semantic overlap can be attributed to cross-​contamination (cf. AIA 65).

334

Appendix

and its cognates are simply Semitic and should be kept separate from Sumerian gir (as well as Hebrew ‫)ּכִ יר‬.39 ‫‘ ּכְ לּוב‬bird cage; woven basket’ HALOT 478; DCH 4:419 (Jer 5:27; Amos 8:1–2) 𝕲 παγίς ‘trap’ Jer 5:27, ἄγγος ἰξευτοῦ ‘fowler’s vessel’ Amos 8:1–2; 𝖁 decipula ‘snare’ Jer 5:27, uncinus ‘basket’ Amos 8:1–2; 𝕾 qlwbyʾ ‘basket’ Jer 5:27, nyšʾ ‘sign’ Amos 8:1–2; 𝕿 ‫‘ כבית פטם‬like a house of animal fat’ Jer 5:27, ‫‘ מאן‬vessel’ Amos 8:1–2 This word occurs three times with two meanings: in Jer 5:27 it denotes a birdcage, whereas in Amos 8:1–2 it refers to a woven basket used for holding fruit. Rabin (1962, 1078; cf. 1964, 152) compares Hebrew ‫ ּכְ לּוב‬with Greek κλωβός, κλουβός ‘birdcage’ (LSJ 962–63) and contends that the former is a loan from Anatolia. However, this word occurs as kilūbu (CAD K 361; AHw 353) in several of Rib-​Addi’s letters as a gloss for Akkadian ḫuḫāru, the common Akkadian term for ‘bird trap’ (EA 74:46, 79:36, 81:35, 105:9, 116:18), and hence must be a native Northwest Semitic term. Cognates include Ethiopic karabo ‘woven basket, pouch’ (CDG 290).40 This word most probably comes from a Semitic root krb/klb meaning ‘to tie, interweave’ (cf. Arab karaba ‘to fasten tightly’, Eth karaba ‘to hang up’, and Tigre kärba ‘to tie’: WKAS K 110–12; Lane 2602; CDG 290). Classical scholars unanimously derive κλωβός, κλουβός, which is first attested in the second century c.e., from Northwest Semitic.41 Thus, there is little reason to think that Hebrew ‫ ּכְ לּוב‬is an Anatolian loanword as Rabin contends. ‫[ מֵ זַח‬allegedly ‘shipyard’] HALOT 565; DCH 5:208 (Isa 23:10) 𝕲 translates ‫ ּכַיְ אֹ ר ּבַ ת־ּתַ ְר ִׁשיׁש אֵ ין מֵ זַח עֹוד‬as γὰρ πλοῖα οὐκέτι ἔρχεται ἐκ Καρχηδόνος ‘for no more ships come from Carthage’; 𝖁 cingulum ‘belt, girdle’; 𝕾 translates ‫ אֵ ין מֵ זַח עֹוד‬as lyt twb ddḥq lky ‘there is no one to drive you away’; 𝕿 ‫‘ תקוף‬strength’

39. AIA 65. Rabin connects ‫ ּכּור‬with BH ‫ ּכִ יר‬as well as Akk kīru. This raises two important questions, namely whether ‫ ּכּור‬and ‫ ּכִ יר‬are indeed variations of the same term, and whether Akk kūru and kīru are genuinely connected. First, regarding the question of whether ‫ ּכּור‬and ‫ ּכִ יר‬are variations of the same term, the former consistently refers to a furnace for smelting or testing metals whereas the latter refers to an oven for cooking. This distinction is supported by the ancient versions, which consistently understand ‫ ּכּור‬as a furnace or crucible and understand ‫ ּכִ יר‬as a pot for cooking. Second, regarding the question of whether Akk kūru and kīru are genuinely connected, as already noted the two should be kept separate based on their separation in lexical texts as well as their different meanings. Thus, ‫ּכּור‬ and ‫ ּכִ יר‬are separate lexemes. See the entry on ‫ ּכִ יר‬in chapter 3. 40.  Probably also reflecting this Semitic word is Syr kulbāšē (LS² 607; CAL). 41.  EDG 719; DELG 524; Masson 1967, 108–10; Mayer 1960, 329.

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

335

This word occurs only in Isa 23:10, where the ships of Tarshish are told to return to their land because their ‫ מֵ זַח‬is no more (‫)אֵ ין מֵ זַח עֹוד‬. This suggests that ‫ מֵ זַח‬designates a place for ships. Rabin (1962, 1077) takes Hebrew ‫ מֵ זַח‬to mean ‘shipyard’ and compares Egyptian mḏḥ, a verb used with reference to hewing timber and constructing ships (ÄW 2:1172; GHwÄ 404; WÄS 2:190–91; DLE 1:220). However, this verb has no inherent connection with ships in Egyptian and is also used with the meaning ‘to hew stone’. The MT may be corrupt and metathesis may have occurred; confusion is evident already in the ancient versions. If so, the text should probably be reconstructed as ‫‘ מָ חֹ ז‬harbor’ (cf. Akk maḫāzu, IA, Palm, JA ‫מחוז‬, Syr māḥōz, and Mand mahuza, all meaning ‘town, quay’: CAD M/1 85–89; AHw 582; DNWSI 611; DJBA 654; LS² 737; MD 240; cf. AIA 68), which suits the context of Isa 23:10 quite well (BHS; Rudolph 1959, 169; Blenkinsopp 2000, 342). No connection exists between this word and Hebrew ‫מֵ זַח‬, ַ‫‘ מָ זִיח‬belt, waistband’ (contra Lambdin 1953b, 152). ‫מֵ זַח‬, ַ‫‘ מָ זִיח‬belt, waistband’ HALOT 565; DCH 5:208 (Ps 109:19; Job 12:21) 𝕲 ζώνη ‘belt, girdle’, 𝖁 zona ‘belt’, 𝕾 ʾsr ḥṣʾ ‘loin belt’, 𝕿 ‫‘ קמור‬belt’ Ps 109:19; 𝕲, 𝖁 translate ‫ּומזִיחַ אֲפִ יקִ ים ִרּפָה‬ ְ as ταπεινοὺς δὲ ἰάσατο ‘he heals the lowly’ and eos qui oppressi fuerant relevans ‘he relieves those who are oppressed’, 𝕾 ḥlyṣwtʾ ‘stoutness’, 𝕿 ‫‘ תקוף‬strength’ Job 12:21

This term occurs only twice in Biblical Hebrew, once in the form ‫( מֵ זַח‬Ps 109:19) and once in the form ַ‫( מָ זִיח‬Job 12:21). The context of Job 12:21 is not transparent enough to establish its meaning, but clearer information is supplied by Ps 109:19. Here, its use with the verb ‫‘ חגר‬to wrap, gird’ and its parallelism with ‫ְּתהִ י־לֹו ּכְ בֶ גֶד‬ ‫‘ יַעְ טֶ ה‬may it be like a garment that he wraps around himself’ both indicate that ‫מֵ זַח‬ refers a belt or waistband wrapped around the body. R a bi n (1962, 1077) lists Hebrew ‫ מֵ זַח‬as a loan from Egyptian mḏḥ, mdḥ (ÄW 1:580, 2:1172; GHwÄ 404; WÄS 2:189).42 However, this loan hypothesis is flawed on at least two counts. First, Egyptian mḏḥ means ‘headband’ rather than ‘belt’ and does not provide a fitting semantic parallel to Hebrew ‫( מֵ זַח‬EPNL 248– 49; Lefebvre and Gunn 1939). Second, Coptic Smočh, S,Amačḫ (Crum 213–14) permits the reconstructed form *maḏḥ in earlier Egyptian, which cannot easily be reconciled with the Semitic forms.43 42.  The Demotic form of this word is mḏẖ (CDD M 309; DG 195). There is no need to separate the occurrences of mḏḥ in the expression ṯs mḏḥ ‘to put on the headband’ (i.e., ‘to attain puberty’) from the occurrences of mḏḥ elsewhere; both mean ‘headband’ (Lefebvre and Gunn 1939; Gardiner 1957, 505). 43.  Lambdin 1953b, 152; Quack 2005, 314. As Takács (EDE 3:864) notes, it is not possible to derive these Coptic forms from Semitic.

336

Appendix

Hebrew ‫ מֵ זַח‬is more likely derived from Akkadian mēzeḫu ‘scarf, belt’ (CAD M/2 46; AHw 650),44 which comes from the verb ezēḫu, a common Akkadian verb meaning ‘to gird’ that occurs as early as the Old Babylonian period (CAD E 426–27; AHw 269). Thus, despite any apparent similarity, Hebrew ‫ מֵ זַח‬is most probably Semitic rather than Egyptian in origin. ‫מכְ מָ ר‬, ִ ‫מַ כְ מֹ ר‬, ‫‘ ִמכְ מֶ ֶרת‬net’ HALOT 580; DCH 5:270 (Isa 19:8; 51:20; Hab 1:15–16; Ps 141:10) 𝕲 σαγήνη ‘dragnet’ Isa 19:8; Hab 1:15, translates ‫ כְ ּתֹוא ִמכְ מָ ר‬as ὡς σευτλίον ἡμίεφθον ‘like a half-​boiled beet’ Isa 51:20, ἀμφίβληστρον ‘casting net’ Hab 1:16; Ps 141:10; 𝖁 rete ‘net’ except inlaqueo ‘to ensnare’ Isa 51:20, retiaculum ‘net’ Ps 141:10; 𝕾 mṣydtʾ ‘net’ Isa 19:8; Ps 141:10, translates ‫ כְ ּתֹוא ִמכְ מָ ר‬as ʾyk slqʾ dkmyr ‘like a black beet’ Isa 51:20, gwpʾ ‘net’ Hab 1:15–16; 𝕿 ‫‘ מצדה‬net’

The Hebrew Bible contains three related terms that denote a net used for catching or trapping animals. Two are masculine, ‫( ִמכְ מָ ר‬Isa 51:20) and ‫( מַ כְ מֹ ר‬Ps 141:10), whereas the third, ‫( ִמכְ מֶ ֶרת‬Isa 19:8; Hab 1:15–16), is feminine. Based on the three different forms in Biblical Hebrew, Ellenbogen (1962, 101) supposes a borrowing from some foreign source. He compares Akkadian nakmaru, nakamaru, nakuaru, which refers to a storage container made of reeds (CAD N/1 188–89; AHw 722), as well as kamāru, which denotes a trap used as a snare (CAD K 111; AHw 430). Ellenbogen further connects the latter with Sumerian kamar.45 He alleges that it means ‘net’, but according to the PSD kamar refers to a kind of wood, not a net, as indicated by its attestations with the GIŠ determinative. Thus, there is no basis for connecting any of the above Hebrew or Akkadian forms with Sumerian kamar, and this word should not be traced back to Sumerian. ‫‘ ְמכ ֵָרה‬blade, knife’ HALOT 582; DCH 5:274 (Gen 49:5) 𝕲 αἵρεσις ‘opinion, dogma’; 𝖁 bellantia ‘warring, fighting’; 𝕾 mn kynhwn ‘according to their nature’; 𝕿Onq. ‫‘ תותבו‬settlement, sojourn’

This word is a hapax that appears within Jacob’s final blessing of his sons. Speaking of Simeon and Levi, Jacob says that their ‫)מכֵרֹ תֵ יהֶ ם( ְמכֵרֹ ת‬ ְ are weapons of violence (‫)ּכְ לֵי חָ מָ ס‬. This word has puzzled lexicographers and translators since 44.  ALBH 89–90. Zimmern derives Akk mēzeḫu from Eg mḏḥ (Zimmern 1917, 38), but this is unnecessary given a perfectly good Semitic etymology for the former. That mēzeḫu is more typical of Akkadian rather than of Northwest Semitic is indicated by its position in the second column of the malku = šarru synonym list (malku viii:70). 45.  Both CAD (K 112–14) and AHw (430–31) derive these words from the verb kamāru ‘to heap, pile up’.

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

337

antiquity, and it is not possible to discuss the long history of its interpretation.46 Among the various interpretations, one common understanding in medieval Jewish exegesis suggests that ‫ ְמכ ֵָרה‬derives from Greek μάχαιρα ‘short sword, dagger’. This fits well with the narrative of Gen 34:25, in which each man takes his sword (‫)חֶ ֶרב‬, and Rabin (1962, 1078) lists ‫ ְמכ ֵָרה‬as a loan from Greek (cf. Gordon 1955, 60; O. Margalith 1984; Rendsburg 2002, 140). A possible Greek origin of Hebrew ‫ ְמכ ֵָרה‬should not be ruled out by preconceived notions concerning the distribution of Greek loans in Biblical Hebrew, but there are no contextual reasons to expect a Greek loan. Additionally, if this word did come from Greek μάχαιρα, one would expect 𝕲 to translate ‫ ְמכ ֵָרה‬as μάχαιρα, which it does not. Lastly, the Greek diphthong αι would have been pronounced [ai], which does not match the Masoretic vocalization unless one assumes contraction of the diphthong.47 In light of these objections, Hebrew ‫ ְמכ ֵָרה‬should not be considered a loan from Greek, especially when Greek μάχαιρα is itself of unclear origin (cf. EDG 915; DELG 648). It is much more likely that the MT is corrupt and that ‫ ְמכ ֵָרה‬should be read as ‫מַ כְ ֵרת‬, a mem-preformative noun meaning ‘blade’ or ‘knife’ from the root ‫‘ כרת‬to cut’.48 ‫( מָ נֶה‬a unit of weight) HALOT 599; DCH 5:347 (1 Kgs 10:17; Ezek 45:12; Ezra 2:69; Neh 7:70–71 [7:71–72]) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾, 𝕿 each use their corresponding forms of the word (μνᾶ, mina, mnyʾ, and ‫מנה‬, respectively) This word occurs only five times. It refers to a unit of weight used to measure quantities of metals (1 Kgs 10:17; Ezra 2:69; Neh 7:70–71). According to Ezek 45:12, it was the equivalent of 60 shekels. Cognates appear in several of the Semitic languages, including Akkadian (manû: CAD M/1 219–21; AHw 604), Ugaritic (mn: DUL 554), and Aramaic (IA, Palm, Hatra, JA ‫ מנה‬and Syr manyā: DNWSI 658; DJPA 317; DJBA 687; LS² 782).49 Egyptian mnn (GHwÄ 359; WÄS 2:82; DLE 1:187) as well as Greek μνᾶ (LSJ 1138) and Latin mina, mna (OLD 1221) can be traced back to Semitic.50 Both Ellenbogen (1962, 104–5) and Rabin (Rabin 1962, 1073) list Hebrew ‫מָ נֶה‬ as a loan from Akkadian manû, in turn allegedly from Sumerian mana (PSD). However, Sumerian mana is instead a loan from Akkadian manû, as indicated by

46.  For recent surveys of proposed etymologies, see Millard 2012, 227–28; Koller 2012, 248–51. 47.  Only beginning with the second century c.e. did the diphthong αι come to be pronounced as [ē]; see W. S. Allen 1987, 79. 48. Koller 2012, 242–48; Hoop 1998, 108–9; cf. Dahood 1961. SP reads ‫ מַ כְ ֵרת‬rather than ‫מכ ֵָרה‬, ְ although this does not conclusively establish the original Hebrew text as ‫מַ כְ ֵרת‬. See Florentin 2001. 49. BA ‫מנֵא‬, ְ which occurs in Dan 5:25–26, probably also refers to a unit of weight (HALOT 1919). Arab manā is a loan from Aramaic (Fränkel 1886, 203). 50.  SWET 127 (#162); EDE 3:296; EDG 959–60; DELG 680; DELL 403; LEW 2:89.

338

Appendix

the final -a characteristic of Akkadian loans into Sumerian.51 Furthermore, Akkadian manû has a perfectly good Semitic etymology, namely, the Semitic root mny ‘to count, measure’. Thus, even if Hebrew ‫ מָ נֶה‬and the other Northwest Semitic forms are loans from Akkadian, as seems likely,52 this word is native to the Semitic languages and does not have a foreign origin. ‫‘ מרח‬to rub, spread on’ HALOT 634; DCH 5:484 (Isa 38:21) 𝕲 τρίβω ‘to rub’; 𝖁 cataplasmo ‘to apply a poultice’; 𝕾 swm ‘to put, place’; 𝕿 ‫‘ סרט‬to scratch, draw’

Biblical Hebrew ‫ מרח‬occurs only in Isa 38:21, where it describes the application of a fig poultice to the ill Hezekiah. Rabin (1962, 1077) lists this verb as a loan from Egyptian mrḥ.t ‘oil, salve’ (ÄW 1:547, 2:1104–6; GHwÄ 369–70; WÄS 2:111; DLE 1:194–95), which first occurs during the Old Kingdom.53 In doing so, he follows Albright (1944, 24) and Lambdin (1953b, 152), both of whom contended that Egyptian mrḥ.t is primary and therefore the source of Hebrew ‫ מרח‬because the former can be derived from the root wrḥ ‘to anoint’ (ÄW 1:364, 2:711; GHwÄ 220; WÄS 1:334–35; DLE 1:105). It may seem plausible at first glance to derive mrḥ.t from the root wrḥ. However, the verb wrḥ itself has no apparent origin. This suggests that wrḥ is a back-​formation created from mrḥ.t when m was still used as a nomen instrumenti prefix in Egyptian. Furthermore, Hebrew ‫ מרח‬has related forms in Ugaritic (mrḫ: DUL 567–68), Aramaic (JA ‫מרח‬: DJPA 705), and Arabic (maraḫa: Lane 2705).54 Thus, it is best to see Egyptian mrḥ.t as representative of a common Afroasiatic word that is also evidenced in these Semitic forms.55 Therefore, Hebrew ‫ מרח‬is not borrowed from Egyptian mrḥ.t but is instead related to it through a common ancestry.56

51.  Cf. Oberhuber 1981, 258. Other terms exhibiting this phenomenon include guza (from kussû ‘throne’), zara (from ṣirru, ṣarra ‘door-​hinge’), ibila (from aplu ‘heir’), damgara (from tamkaru ‘merchant’), mada (from mâtu ‘land’), and nagada (from nāqidu ‘herdsman’). G. Steiner (2003, 633) lists Sum mana as a loan from Akkadian. 52.  ALBH 94–95; AIA 69. The rarity and primarily late distribution in Semitic supports an Akkadian origin. 53.  Eg mrḥ.t is the source of the denominal verb mrḥ, which appears in late literary texts (WÄS 2:111). 54.  The alleged reading *šmrgt in KTU 1.4 i:32 is incorrect and should instead be read as šmrḫt (Smith and Pitard 2009, 417). This demonstrates the existence of the root mrḫ ‘to cover, overlay’ (appearing as a Š-stem participle here) in Ugaritic. 55.  EDE 3:428–35. The evidence is inconclusive as to whether the original Afroasiatic term had ḥ or ḫ (EDE 3:429–30; contra Albright 1944, 24). 56. Muchiki (1999, 249–50) remains uncommitted as to the relationship between BH ‫ מרח‬and Arab maraḫa, claiming that if they are cognate then ‫ מרח‬is a “Semitio-​Egyptian loanword” and claiming

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

339

‫‘ נְ בִ זְּבָ ה‬gift’ HALOT 1924–25 (Dan 2:6; 5:17) OG omits but θ′ δωρεά ‘gift, present’; 𝖁 donum ‘gift’; 𝕾 ‌ʾwtr‌ʾ ‘wealth’ Dan 2:6, ‌ʾyqr bytk ‘the honor of your house’ Dan 5:17 Biblical Aramaic ‫ נְ בִ זְּבָ ה‬occurs twice in the book of Daniel, both times with the meaning ‘gift’. Nebuchadnezzar offers gifts to whoever can interpret his statue dream (Dan 2:6), and Daniel refuses Belshazzar’s gifts that are offered for interpreting the writing on the wall (Dan 5:17). Aside from Targumic Aramaic ‫נבזבה‬, which is clearly derived from the Biblical Aramaic form,57 this word does not occur elsewhere in the Semitic languages. Perhaps for this reason, F. Rosenthal (2006, 63) includes ‫ נְ בִ זְּבָ ה‬among a list of possible Old Persian loanwords (cf. AAT 2:59; Tisdall 1912, 368–69; Haug 1853, 160–61). Biblical Aramaic ‫נְ בִ זְּבָ ה‬, however, cannot adequately be explained in terms of Old Iranian phonology and morphology.58 Moreover, Old Iranian already has a common term for ‘gift’, *dāšna- (AISN 84; AIW 407), which is attested as a loan in Aramaic (IA, JA ‫ דשן‬and Syr dāšnā: DNWSI 262; DJBA 355; LS² 326), so there would be little reason to borrow another word for ‘gift’ unless it had some particular nuance now lost to us. Lastly, although the etymology of ‫ נְ בִ זְּבָ ה‬remains unexplained, it is quite possibly connected with Imperial, Jewish, Samaritan, and Christian Palestinian Aramaic ‫‘ נבז‬receipt’ (DNWSI 711–12; DJPA 339; DSA 494; DCPA 255),59 which is native to Aramaic and is the source of Neo-​Assyrian and Neo-​Babylonian Akkadian nizbu (CAD N/2 206; AHw 786; AIA 77; von Soden 1968, 261; 1977, 191). Thus, it is unlikely that ‫ נְ בִ זְּבָ ה‬is an Old Iranian loan.60 ‫‘ ּנֹ קֵ ד‬shepherd’ HALOT 719–29; DCH 5:748 (2 Kgs 3:4; Amos 1:1) that if they are not cognate then ‫ מרח‬is an Egyptian loanword. Neither of these options can be correct, however. 57. On JA ‫נבזבה‬, see Jastrow 1903, 868. 58. ‫ נְ בִ זְּבָ ה‬looks like it could contain the Old Iranian element *nibaž-, which is unattested but could be etymologized as ni- ‘down’ (cf. OPers ni- and Av nī) and the root *baž- ‘to give, allot’ (cf. Av bag-, baj- ‘to distribute, allot’ as well as OPers bāji- ‘tribute’). However, the vocalization of ‫ נְ בִ זְּבָ ה‬does not match that of OIran *nibaž-. There is, moreover, no explanation for the final syllable of ‫ נְ בִ זְּבָ ה‬because no suffix -ba exists in Old Iranian. It is unlikely that Aramaic-​speakers would use bet (especially with a dageš) to represent the Old Iranian suffix -va, especially when they represent it accurately in loans such as ‫( נִ ְׁש ְּתוָן‬contra AAT 2:59); the suggestion that the MT must be emended is an entirely ad hoc explanation (contra Tisdall 1912, 368–69). Notably, neither Hinz (AISN) nor Tavernier (IAP) reconstructs any Old Iranian term *nibazba- or *nibazva-. 59. In Late Jewish Literary Aramaic, ‫ נבזב‬is spelled as two words, ‫𝕿( נבז ביית‬Ps.-J. Deut 23:24; 𝕿Esth. 5:1). This may reflect a popular etymology, but it may also preserve the original derivation of ‫( נבזב‬CAL). 60.  I am grateful to P. Oktor Skjærvø for his assistance with this entry.

340

Appendix

𝕲 transliterates as νωκηδ 2 Kgs 3:4, misreads as νακκαριμ Amos 1:1; 𝖁 reads ‫נֹ קֵ ד‬ ‫ הָ יָה‬as nutriebat pecora multa ‘he nourished many sheep’ 2 Kgs 3:4, pastor ‘shepherd’ Amos 1:1; 𝕾 nqd‌ʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫‘ מרי גיתין‬master of the flocks’ This word is a dis legomenona. It describes the occupations of Mesha king of Moab (2 Kgs 3:4) and of Amos the prophet (Amos 1:1). Although it occurs only these two times in Biblical Hebrew, related forms exist in Sumerian (nagada: PSD), Eblaite (nāqidum: VE 305 [#958]; Krebernik 1983, 35), Akkadian (nāqidu: CAD N/1 333–35; AHw 744), Ugaritic (nqd: DUL 630–31), Aramaic (Syr nāqdā: LS² 945), and Arabic (naqqād: Lane 2837).Although its semantic development is unclear, this term is clearly connected with shepherding in the Semitic languages (cf. 2 Kgs 3:4) (Segert 1987). Ellenbogen (FWOT 115) contends that ‫ ּנֹ קֵ ד‬is a loan from Akkadian nāqidu via Sumerian nagada. Ignoring for the sake of argument the unlikelihood that Hebrew has borrowed this word from Akkadian,61 ‫ ּנֹ קֵ ד‬cannot be a transmitted loan because Sumerian nagada is a loan from Akkadian nāqidu and not vice versa. This is evident from the final -a in nagada, which is characteristic of Akkadian loans into Sumerian.62 In sum, ‫ ּנֹ קֵ ד‬is not a Sumero-​Akkadian loan. ‫( ְסאָ ה‬a measure of volume) HALOT 737–38; DCH 6:103 (Gen 18:6; 1 Sam 25:18; 1 Kgs 18:32; 2 Kgs 7:1 [2×], 16 [2×], 18 [2×]) 𝕲 μέτρον ‘measure’ Gen 18:6; 2 Kgs 7:1, 16, 18, μετρητής ‘measure’ 1 Kgs 18:32, οιφι ‘ephah’ 1 Sam 25:18; 𝖁 sata ‘corn crops’ Gen 18:6; 1 Sam 25:18, aratiuncula ‘small plowed field’ 1 Kgs 18:32, modius ‘corn-​measure’ 2 Kgs 7:1, 16, 18; 𝕾 s‌ʾtʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫[ סאה‬Aramaic form]

This word occurs nine times in the Hebrew Bible as a dry measure for grain. Rabin (1962, 1073) lists it as a loan from Akkadian sūtu (CAD S 420–26; AHw 1064) via Sumerian. However, no Sumerian word presents itself as a possible donor term. Rather, Hebrew ‫ ְסאָ ה‬and Akkadian sūtu most probably reflect a very ancient term for a dry measure along with similar forms in the Semitic languages, especially Aramaic (IA, QA, JA, SA ‫סאה‬, Nab ‫סאי‬, CPA ‫סאא‬, and Syr sāʾtā: DNWSI 772; DQA 163; DJPA 364; DJBA 782; DSA 558–59; DCPA 275; LS² 959). Thus, Hebrew ‫ְסאָ ה‬ is not a Sumero-​Akkadian loan.63 61. Against the Akkadian origin of ‫ּנֹ קֵ ד‬, see ALBH 103–4; AIA 76. 62. Cf. Oberhuber 1981, 258. Other terms exhibiting this phenomenon include guza (from kussû ‘throne’), mana (from manû ‘mina’), zara (from ṣirru, ṣarra ‘door-​hinge’), ibila (from aplu ‘heir’), damgara (from tamkaru ‘merchant’), and mada (from mâtu ‘land’). G. Steiner (2003, 634) lists Sumerian nagada as a loan from Akkadian. 63. ALBH 105–6. Derivation of ‫ ְסאָ ה‬from Akkadian is problematic on phonological as well as other grounds (contra Lipiński 1988, 70; FWOT 118).

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

341

‫אּסאָ ה‬ ְ ַ‫‘ ס‬expulsion’ HALOT 738; DCH 6:103–4 (Isa 27:8) 𝕲 μαχόμενος ‘fighting, quarreling’; 𝖁 mensura ‘measure’, 𝕾 sʾtʾ ‘seah’, 𝕿 ‫סאה‬ ‘seah’ each see a connection with BH ‫( ְסאָ ה‬a grain measure) This word occurs only in Isa 27:8 within the expression ‫אּסאָ ה ּבְ ׁשַ לְ חָ ּה ְּת ִריבֶ ּנָה‬ ְ ַ‫ּבְ ס‬. The Piel infinitive that directly follows (‫ )ּבְ ׁשַ לְ חָ ּה‬and the use of ‫ הגה‬in the following colon indicate that ‫אּסאָ ה‬ ְ ַ‫ ס‬has to do with the act of expelling or removing. Rabin (1962, 1077) lists this word as a loan from Egyptian sꜢsꜢ ‘to drive back, overthrow’, first attested during the Middle Kingdom (ÄW 2:2091; GHwÄ 716; WÄS 4:25; DLE 2:9). While possible, this loan hypothesis faces at least two difficulties. First, the context provides no reasons to expect an Egyptian loan. Isaiah 27 is not an oracle against Egypt, nor does it deal extensively with Egypt. Second, no nominal form of this word exists in Egyptian, so it has to be postulated either that one did but is simply not attested, or that Hebrew-​speakers borrowed the verbal form. Both are possible, but they cannot be proven, and the latter seems especially unlikely given the fact that verbs are borrowed less frequently than nouns. In light of the infinitive construct ‫ בְ ּשַ ׁלְ חָ ּה‬that directly follows ‫אּסאָ ה‬ ְ ַ‫בְ ּס‬, the word ‫אּסאָ ה‬ ְ ַ‫ ס‬is perhaps an infinitive construct meaning ‘expulsion’ or the like that should be repointed as ‫סַ ְא ְסאָ ּה‬. If so, the root ‫ סאסא‬is an onomatopoeic word that refers to driving something or someone away. Similar terms are found in many languages of the world, including Arabic sa‌ʾsa‌ʾ (Freytag 1830–1837, 2:272), Greek σοῦ σοῦ (LSJ 1621), and Modern English shoo (cf. German schu, French shou, and Italian scioia).64 ‫‘ סֶ גֶר‬spear-​hilt’ HALOT 743; DCH 6:121 (Ps 35:3) 𝕲 συγκλείω ‘to enclose’; 𝖁 concludo ‘to shut up, confine’; 𝕾 brq ‘to shine, flash’; 𝕿 ‫‘ טרק‬to sting, strike, fight’

The form ‫ ְסגֹ ר‬occurs in Ps 35:3. Based on the context with the preceding verse as well as the mention of ‫‘ חֲנִ ית‬spear’ just before this word, it presumably refers to a weapon in some way. Rabin (1962, 1079) connects this form with Greek σάγαρις (LSJ 1579), a kind of axe associated with the Scythians, Massagetae, Mossynoecians, and Amazons in Classical sources (e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 1.215; Xenophon, Anab. 4.4.416; 5.4.13).65 However, it is difficult to derive ‫ ְסגֹ ר‬from Greek σάγαρις unless one emends the MT to ‫‏*סָ גָר‬. There is no clear reason, moreover, for a foreigner’s axe to be mentioned along with standard Hebrew military equipment.66 64.  G. R. Driver 1929, 371–72; Wildberger 1991–2002, 2:589; cf. Gesenius 1910, §55f. 65.  This Scythian axe is discussed by Potts (2012, 465–66). 66.  The similarity with Lat securis, which also denotes a type of axe, is therefore coincidental. Lat securis is derived from the verb seco, secare ‘to cut’ and first appears in the writings of the third–second

342

Appendix

All indications are that this word is native to Semitic. The term ‫ סגר‬appears twice in the War Scroll, where it refers to the hilt of a spear (1QM v:7, 9). Akkadian šikru similarly refers to the haft of various tools and weapons (including chisels, hoes, and axes) in the dialects of Old and Standard Babylonian as well as Mari (CAD Š/2 440; AHw 1235). One must presume a loan from Assyrian Akkadian, hence the samek for š and the gimel for k, and emend ‫ ְסגֹ ר‬to ‫ סֶ גֶר‬as suggested by the segolate pattern of the Akkadian form. This is less problematic than emending ‫ ְסגֹ ר‬to ‫‏*סָ גָר‬ and deriving the latter from a Greek term used exclusively for a nomadic people’s axe, especially because there is no hint of foreign influence in the context of Ps 35:3. The term ‫ סֶ גֶר‬could be used metonymically in Ps 35:3 to refer to the whole javelin, but a javelin is not normally handled by its end, and such metonymy would be somewhat unusual. The observation that ‫ מָ גֵן וְ צִ ָנּה‬together form a hendiadys in the previous verse (Ps 35:2) indicates that ‫ּוסגֹ ר‬ ְ ‫ חֲנִ ית‬is also a hendiadys, and thus the expression ‫ּוסגֹ ר‬ ְ ‫ וְ הָ ֵרק חֲנִ ית‬could be translated as ‘lay bare the spear and the end of the shaft’ (Keel 1978, 221). ‫‘ סּוגַר‬neckstock’ HALOT 742; DCH 6:125 (Ezek 19:9) 𝕲 κημός ‘muzzle’; 𝖁 cavea ‘cage’; 𝕾 nmrt‌ʾ ‘den’; 𝕿 ‫‘ קולר‬collar, neck chain’

Biblical Hebrew ‫ סּוגַר‬occurs with the meaning ‘neckstock’ only in Ezek 19:9, which refers to the deportation of prisoners to Babylon in a neckstock and fetters. This word could be derived from the root ‫‘ סגר‬to close, shut’, but the nominal pattern qutal is not otherwise common in Biblical Hebrew (see J. Fox 1996, 221). This suggests a possible loanword. In light of the observation that ‫ סּוגַר‬is used with reference to a specific cultural practice, and in light of the Mesopotamian practice of placing prisoners in neckstocks for transport, the donor term must be Akkadian šigaru, sigaru (CAD Š/2 408–11; AHw 1230–31) (Held 1973, 184–85). Akkadian also lent this word to Aramaic, as evidenced in Syriac suḡārā ‘chain for the neck’ (LS² 976) and Mandaic sugara ‘cage, leash’ (MD 321), through which this word also entered into Arabic (sāǧūr: Lane 1308; Fränkel 1886, 114). It is impossible to tell whether Northwest Semitic–speaking peoples borrowed this word from Assyrian or Babylonian Akkadian, in that this word has two forms in Akkadian, one beginning with š and the other with s. Thus, what is normally a good clue regarding the dialect of origin— the Northwest Semitic representation of the Akkadian sibilants—provides no help in this case.67 century b.c.e. playwright Titus Maccius Plautus (OLD 1899). Thus, it is an unlikely source for the Greek and Hebrew forms. 67.  There is little reason to think that the MT vocalization is in error, especially given the Syriac form suḡārā (contra ALBH 109).

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

343

Rabin (1962, 1072) recognizes the Akkadian origin of Hebrew ‫ סּוגַר‬but further claims that Akkadian šigaru comes from Sumerian siĝar (PSD). The Sumerian origin of Akkadian šigaru is in doubt, however. The phonetic rendering si.gar and the absence of a designated logogram for this word both suggest the possibility of a loan from Akkadian to Sumerian. Furthermore, the root sgr/skr occurs commonly in the Semitic languages with the meaning ‘to shut, close’, providing a perfect etymology for Akkadian šigaru, but in Sumerian this word has no clear etymology. Thus, it is likely that Sumerian siĝar comes from Akkadian and not vice versa.68 ‫( סֶ לָה‬a liturgical term) HALOT 756; DCH 6:159 (Hab 3:3, 9, 13; Ps 3:3, 5, 9 [3:2, 4, 8]; passim69) 𝕲 διάψαλμα (a neologism, perhaps ‘musical interlude’); VL diapsalma (a transliteration of 𝕲); 𝖁 semper ‘always’; 𝕾, 𝕿 almost always lʿlmyn and ‫לעלמין‬, both ‘for eternity, forever’ This word appears almost exclusively in the Psalms, where it occurs 70 times. Elsewhere, it occurs only in the book of Habakkuk, where it appears three times (Hab 3:3, 9, 13). Its exact meaning is unclear, but it seems to have had some kind of liturgical or musical function within ancient Hebrew song.70 Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008, 1:304; cf. Hemmerdinger 1971, 152–53) list Hebrew ‫ סֶ לָה‬as a possible loan from Old Iranian, comparing New Persian salā (CPED 691), which can mean ‘song’ and can also refer to a special type of music (Kiesewetter 1842, 94). However, this loan hypothesis faces at least two problems. First, even though the exact meaning of Hebrew ‫ סֶ לָה‬is uncertain, it does not seem to have the same meaning as New Persian salā. Second, there is no evidence that this word existed in Iranian earlier than New Persian, much less as early as Old Iranian.71 The etymology and precise meaning of Hebrew ‫ סֶ לָה‬may be unclear, but this does not justify the reconstruction of a hypothetical Old Iranian term. In sum, little reason exists to think that Hebrew ‫ סֶ לָה‬is a loan from Old Iranian (see Wilson-​ Wright 2015, 154). 68.  See ALBH 108–9; contra SLOB 461 (#596). I am grateful to Samuel Greengus for his assistance with this entry. 69.  Ps 4:3, 5 [4:2, 4]; 7:6 [7:5]; 9:17, 21 [9:16, 20]; 20:4 [20:3]; 21:3 [21:2]; 24:6, 10; 32:4–5, 7; 39:6, 12 [39:5, 11]; 44:9 [44:8]; 46:4, 8, 12 [46:3, 7, 11]; 47:5 [47:4]; 48:9 [48:8]; 49:14, 16 [49:13, 15]; 50:6; 52:5, 7 [52:3, 5]; 54:5 [54:3]; 55:8, 20 [55:7, 19]; 57:4, 7 [57:3, 6]; 59:6, 14 [59:5, 13]; 60:6 [60:4]; 61:5 [61:4]; 62:5, 9 [62:4, 8]; 66:4, 7, 15; 67:2, 5 [67:1, 4]; 68:8, 20, 33 [68:7, 19, 32]; 75:4 [75:3]; 76:4, 10 [76:3, 9]; 77:4, 10, 16 [77:3, 9, 15]; 81:8 [81:7]; 82:2; 83:9 [83:8]; 84:5, 9 [84:4, 8]; 85:3 [85:2]; 87:3, 6; 88:8, 11 [88:7, 10]; 89:5, 38, 46, 49 [89:4, 37, 45, 48]; 140:4, 6, 9 [140:3, 5, 8]; 143:6. 70. Interestingly, this word appears in several noncanonical texts. Heb ‫ סלה‬occurs in psalms and liturgical texts from Qumran that are not found in the canonical book of Psalms; it also appears in the Eighteen Benedictions. Gk διάψαλμα occurs two more times in 𝕲’s edition of Psalms than in the MT; it also appears in Odes Sol. 4:3, 9 as well as Pss. Sol. 17:29; 18:9. 71.  Notably, neither Hinz (AISN) nor Tavernier (IAP) reconstructs any OIran *salā-.

344

Appendix

‫‘ סלח‬to forgive’ HALOT 757; DCH 6:160–61 (Exod 34:9; passim72) The term occurs 47 times in the Hebrew Bible. Each time, it has the meaning ‘to forgive’, referring to divine acts of forgiveness (e.g., Exod 34:9; Isa 55:7; Jer 31:34) as well as explicitly ritual purification (e.g., Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18, 26; 19:22). Rabin (1962, 1074) contends that Hebrew ‫ סלח‬is a loan from Sumerian via Akkadian salāḫu ‘to sprinkle with water’ (CAD S 85–88; AHw 1013). While a connection between purification with water and the act of forgiving is plausible, it is unlikely that Hebrew-​speakers borrowed this word from Akkadian because salāḫu is never attested with the more general meaning ‘to forgive’ in Akkadian texts. Regardless of the relationship between Hebrew ‫ סלח‬and Akkadian salāḫu, the former could still not be considered of non-​Semitic origin because no Sumerian donor term presents itself and therefore Akkadian salāḫu cannot come from Sumerian.73 Thus, Hebrew ‫ סלח‬is not ultimately of foreign origin. ‫( סָ לְ עָם‬a species of locust) HALOT 758; DCH 6:166 (Lev 11:22) 𝕲 ἀττάκης, 𝖁 attacus (a locust); 𝕾 reads ‫ אַ ְרּבֶ ה‬and ‫ סָ לְ עָם‬together as qmṣʾ ‘locust’; 𝕿Onq., Ps.-J. ‫( רשון‬a kind of locust)

Biblical Hebrew ‫ סָ לְ עָם‬occurs only in Lev 11:22 among clean insects that the Israelites may eat. It appears along with several terms for locusts (‫אַ ְרּבֶ ה‬, ‫חַ ִרּגֹ ל‬, and ‫)חָ גָב‬, demonstrating that it also refers to a particular species of locust. Rabin (1962, 1079; cf. Erman 1892, 117; Calice 1936, 192) lists Hebrew ‫ סָ לְ עָם‬as a loan from Egyptian snḥm ‘locust’, which appears as early as the Old Kingdom (ÄW 1:1159, 2:2263; GHwÄ 780–81; WÄS 3:461).74 This loan hypothesis seems possible at first glance, especially because ‫ סָ לְ עָם‬has no Semitic cognates and does not look Semitic.75 However, there seems to be little reason for Hebrew-​speakers to borrow an Egyptian term for this particular species of locust, especially since presumably it was found outside of Egypt where the Israelites would have been

72.  Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18, 26 [5:26]; 19:22; Num 14:19–20; 15:25–26, 28; 30:6, 9, 13 [30:5, 8, 12]; Deut 29:19 [29:20]; 1 Kgs 8:30, 34, 36, 39, 50; 2 Kgs 5:18 (2×); 24:4; Isa 55:7; Jer 5:1, 7 (2×); 31:34; 33:8; 36:3; 50:20; Amos 7:2; Ps 25:11; 103:3; Lam 3:42; Dan 9:19; 2 Chr 6:21, 25, 27, 30, 39; 7:14. 73. Akk salāḫu is instead best related to JA ‫זלח‬, Syr zalaḥ, Mand zhl, zla, zlh, and Eth zalḥa, zallǝḥa, all of which have to do with sprinkling water (DJBA 414; LS² 381–82; MD 163; CDG 637). 74.  Eg snḥm appears in Coptic as sanneh (Crum 345). 75. The suggestion that ‫ סָ לְ עָם‬is a noun from the root ‫‘‏*סלע‬to split’ with a mem-afformative remains unconvincing because a locust has little to do with splitting (contra BDB 701).

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

345

able to eat it. Additionally, although a number of the words found in Lev 11 are of uncertain meaning and origin, this chapter contains no clear foreign loanwords. Most modern Egyptologists consider Egyptian snḥm and Hebrew ‫ סָ לְ עָם‬to be common to Afroasiatic, because potential cognates exist in several Afroasiatic languages of Africa, and the Egyptian and Hebrew forms display the expected reflexes of Afroasiatic.76 Thus, Hebrew ‫ סָ לְ עָם‬is probably not an Egyptian loan, but the descendant of an Afroasiatic etymon also underlying Egyptian snḥm. ‫( סַ ם‬a fragrant spice) HALOT 759; DCH 6:167 (Exod 25:6; 30:7, 34 [2×]; passim77) This word occurs 16 times, always in the plural form ‫סַ ִּמים‬, and denotes a fragrant spice used in the divine sanctuary. Rabin (1962, 1073) lists this word as a possible loan from Akkadian šammu via Sumerian šim (CAD Š/1 315–21; PSD). However, it is not at all clear that Akkadian šammu is a loan from Sumerian, and the reverse is probably true.78 This word is common to Afroasiatic, being attested in Semitic (JA ‫סם‬, Syr sammā, Mand samania, and Arab samm: DJPA 381; DJBA 817; LS² 1016; MD 312; Lane 1449) as well as Egyptian (smw: ÄW 1:1120, 2:2196–97; GHwÄ 757; WÄS 4:119–20; DLE 2:37) and a number of other Afroasiatic languages (Diakonoff 1981, 32).79 The Akkadian, Aramaic, and Egyptian forms demonstrate that the initial consonant of this word was originally *ś, meaning that the Biblical Hebrew spelling with samek (rather than śin) is Aramaicized (AIA 100). In sum, Hebrew ‫ סַ ם‬is simply Semitic and not a Sumero-​Akkadian loanword.80 ‫‘ סַ ף‬threshold’ HALOT 763; DCH 6:177 (Judg 19:27; passim81) This word occurs 25 times throughout the Bible, each time with reference to the threshold of a door. Rabin (1962, 1072) lists this word as a Sumero-​Akkadian loanword, allegedly from Akkadian sippu (CAD S 300–303; AHw 1049). However, Akkadian sippu does not seem to be a Sumerian loan. Salonen (1961, 62) tries to argue for a loan relationship between Sumerian zig ‘threshold’ (PSD) and 76.  Rössler 1971, 288; Schneider 2001, 162; EDE 1:276, 311–12; Loprieno 1995, 34–35; Vycichl 1959, 147. 77.  Exod 31:11; 35:8, 15, 28; 37:29; 39:38; 40:27; Lev 4:7; 16:12; Num 4:16; 2 Chr 2:3; 13:11. 78.  Cf. ALBH 118. Notably, Lieberman (SLOB) does not list this term as a Sumerian loanword into Akkadian. 79.  Arab samm ‘poison’ is a loan from Aramaic (Fränkel 1886, 262). 80.  I am grateful to Samuel Greengus for his assistance with this entry. 81.  1 Kgs 14:17; 2 Kgs 12:10 [12:9]; 22:4; 23:4; 25:18; Jer 35:4; 52:24; Ezek 40:6 (2×), 7; 41:16 (2×); 43:8 (2×); Amos 9:1; Zeph 2:14; Esth 2:21; 6:2, 4; 1 Chr 9:19, 22; 2 Chr 3:7; 23:4; 34:9.

346

Appendix

Akkadian sippu on the basis that zig can also have the value zíb, which is translated in one lexical text by Akkadian ziqqu, which in turn is matched with sippu in the malku = šarru synonym list (malku i:248). As Kaufman (AIA 92) notes, this is slim and indirect evidence, hardly sufficient to demonstrate that Akkadian sippu comes from Sumerian. In any case, even if Akkadian sippu were a loan from Sumerian zig, there is little evidence to suggest that Biblical Hebrew ‫ סַ ף‬and its Northwest Semitic cognates (IA ‫סף‬, JA ‫סיף‬, Syr seppā, and Mand sipa: DNWSI 796–97; DJBA 807; LS² 1028; MD 329) come from Akkadian; all the Northwest Semitic forms seem instead to be cognate with Akkadian sippu. In sum, there is little reason to classify Hebrew ‫ סַ ף‬as a Sumero-​Akkadian loan. ‫‘ סַ ּפִ יר‬lapis lazuli’ HALOT 764; DCH 6:181 (Exod 24:10; 28:18; 39:11; Isa 54:11; Ezek 1:26; 10:1; 28:13; Job 28:6, 16; Song 5:14; Lam 4:7) 𝕲 σάπφειρος [Greek form]; 𝖁 sapphirus [Latin form] except sapphirinus ‘of sapphire’ Exod 24:10; 𝕾 spylʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿 ‫‘ אבן טב‬precious stone’ Exod 24:10; Isa 54:11; Ezek 1:26; 10:1, ‫‘ שבזיז‬sapphire’ Exod 28:18; 39:11; Ezek 28:13; Job 28:6, 16; Song 5:14 The word ‫ סַ ּפִ יר‬occurs 11 times in the Hebrew Bible. Despite its similarity to Modern English sapphire, Hebrew ‫ סַ ּפִ יר‬refers to lapis lazuli (Harrell, Hoffmeier and Williams 2017, 18–20). On the one hand, Job 28:6 associates the gemstone ‫ סַ ּפִ יר‬with gold dust (‫)עַפְ רֹ ת זָהָ ב‬, which is echoed in Classical descriptions of σάπφειρος (Theophrastus, Lap. 4.23) and sappirus, sapphirus (Pliny, Nat. 37.38.119–37.39.120). This perfectly suits lapis lazuli, which is characterized by rich deep blue color speckled with brassy yellow spots (O’Donoghue 2006a, 329). Further support for this identification comes from several biblical passages that mention ‫ סַ ּפִ יר‬within the context of heavenly visions (Exod 24:10; Ezek 1:26; 10:1). These descriptions find parallels in Akkadian texts that refer to thrones made of uqnû ‘lapis lazuli’.82 On the other hand, sapphire is extremely hard, registering as a nine on the Mohs scale, and is therefore very difficult to carve and fashion. For this reason, it was not used as a gemstone in the ancient Near East until the later part of the first millennium b.c.e. (Moorey 1999, 82). Rabin (1962, 1079) derives Hebrew ‫ סַ ּפִ יר‬from Sanskrit śanipriya- ‘sapphire’. This, however, is problematic. First, Hebrew ‫ סַ ּפִ יר‬refers to lapis lazuli, not sapphire. Second, Sanskrit śanipriya- occurs only in late, post-​Vedic lexical texts, where it is explained as a foreign word meaning ‘precious to Saturn’ via folk etymology. If there is any connection between Hebrew ‫ סַ ּפִ יר‬and Sanskrit śanipriya-, the latter must have been borrowed from the former (EWAia 3:485; KEWA 3:295). Instead, Hebrew ‫ סַ ּפִ יר‬can readily be derived from the old West Semitic root spr ‘to shine, be fair’ (cf. Amor špr, BH ‫ׁשפר‬, JA, CPA ‫שפר‬, Syr špr, and Arab safara: 82.  Propp 2006, 296; Keel 1977, 255–60. On the definition ‘lapis lazuli’ for Akk uqnû, see CAD U–W 195–202; AHw 1426–27.

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

347

Huffmon 1965, 252; HALOT 1635; DCH 8:545; DJPA 564; DJBA 1172; DCPA 442; LS² 1592; Lane 1370), assuming that Hebrew-​speakers were influenced by a form of the root with initial s rather than š (Grintz 1975a, 9). The qattīl-pattern commonly forms actant nouns or adjectives (J. Fox 1996, 268–69). This suggests that ‫סַ ּפִ יר‬ originally meant something like ‘fair’ or ‘shining’, an apt description for a precious stone. In sum, this word is Semitic, not a Sanskrit loan.83 ‫[ *סַ פְ ִסיג‬allegedly ‘glaze’] HALOT 765; DCH 6:182 (Prov 26:23) 𝕲 ἀργύριον διδόμενον μετὰ δόλου ‘silver given with deceit’; 𝖁 argentum sordidum ‘silver dross’; 𝕾 ‌ʾyk s‌ʾm‌ʾ msly‌ʾ ‘like rejected silver’; 𝕿 ‫היך סימא מסליא‬ ‘like rejected silver’ Hebrew ‫ *סַ פְ ִסיג‬never actually occurs in the MT but is a hypothetical emendation of the expression ‫‘ ּכֶסֶ ף ִסיגִ ים‬silver of dross’ in Prov 26:23 to ‫‏*ּכְ סַ פְ ִסיגִ ים‬, supposedly meaning ‘like glaze’. Comparing Ugaritic spsg (DUL 758) and its Hittite donor term zapzagi- (HHw 232), which they alleged means ‘glaze’, Ginsberg (1945, 21) and Albright (1945) were the first to suggest this emendation.84 If correct, Hebrew ‫ *סַ פְ ִסיג‬would be a loan from Hittite as Rabin contends (1962, 1078; cf. 1963, 139; 1964, 161–62). However, both Hittite zapzagi- and Ugaritic spsg denote a stone or mineral rather than glaze. Hittite zapzagi- clearly refers to a stone or mineral in extant texts, where it is put on a balance as is elsewhere done with metals or precious stones (e.g., KUB 7.37:10–11; 30.19+ i:32; 30.24a+ i:7) and is mentioned alongside silver, gold, and precious stones (e.g., KUB 29.8 i:32–33). Furthermore, in one text it is preceded by the stone determinative na4 (VBoT 37:3), and in another text it is mentioned along with the na aš.tur stone (KUB 15.31 iii:40–41). In both of these texts, zapzagi- is scattered (anda išḫuwai) as part of a particular ritual (Neu 1995). The claim that Ugaritic spsg means ‘glaze’ usually involves the following two fallacious arguments. First, the contention is made that ḥrd, which is parallel with spsg in KTU 1.17 iv:36–37, means ‘potash’ or ‘milk of lime’ (e.g., Ginsberg 1945, 22). However, the alleged Arabic cognate ḥurud (Lane 549) refers to the plants from which potash is obtained, not potash itself, and comparison of Ugaritic ḥrd with Arabic ḥurud is questionable (Wright 2001, 152; Renfroe 1992, 118–21). Second, the Neolithic practice of plastering crania is compared with KTU 1.17 iv:36–37, supposedly establishing the definition ‘glaze’ for Ugaritic spsg (e.g., Margalit 1984). However, this practice is far removed chronologically from the Ugaritic texts and 4

83. If Ug spr in KTU 2.39:32–33 indeed means ‘lapis lazuli’, this would provide an additional occurrence of this word in Northwest Semitic (Ford 2008). Gk σάπφειρος and Lat sappirus, sapphirus are borrowings from Semitic; JA ‫סמפורין‬‎, ‫סנפרינון‬, Syr sappīlā, sappīrā, and Eth sofor, sanper come from Greek (EDG 1307; DELG 953; DELL 594; DJPA 383–84; LS² 1030, 1033; CDG 489, 507). 84.  Many scholars have adopted this emendation: see, e.g., Barr 1987, 219–20; McKane 1970, 603–4; Scott 1965, 158; G. R. Driver 1951b, 191.

348

Appendix

cannot establish the definition of Ugaritic spsg, especially since a funerary character of the text is not necessarily clear (Wright 2001, 147–53; Rainey 1971, 154). Since Ugaritic spsg is a loan from Hittite zapzagi-, which clearly denotes a stone or mineral, one expects the former to denote the same. It is therefore unlikely that Ugaritic spsg means ‘glaze’ (Wright 2001, 148–52). All this leaves little reason to emend the phrase ‫ ּכֶסֶ ף ִסיגִ ים‬in Prov 26:23 to ‫*ּכְ סַ פְ ִסיגִ ים‬. The ancient versions support the MT’s reading, and a number of commentators read this verse without any emendation (cf. BHQ).85 Hence, the existence of Hebrew ‫ *סַ פְ ִסיג‬in Prov 26:23 remains dubious, and it cannot be considered a genuine Hittite loan. ‫( ּפַז‬a type of fine gold) HALOT 921; DCH 6:671 (Isa 13:12; Ps 19:11 [19:10]; 21:4 [21:3]; 119:127; Job 28:17; Prov 8:19; Song 5:11, 15; Lam 4:2) 𝕲 χρυσίον ‘gold’ or χρυσοῦς ‘golden’ Isa 13:12; Job 28:17; Song 5:15; Lam 4:2, λίθος τίμιος ‘precious stone’ Ps 19:11; 21:4; Prov 8:19, τοπάζιον ‘peridot’ Ps 119:127; 𝖁 aurum ‘gold’ or aureus ‘of gold’ Isa 13:12; Job 28:17; Song 5:15; Lam 4:2, lapis pretiosus ‘precious stone’ Ps 19:11; Ps 21:4, does not directly represent this word Job 28:17, Prov 8:19, topazion ‘peridot’ Ps 119:127; 𝕾 dhbʾ ‘gold’ Isa 13:12; Song 5:11, 15, kʾpʾ ṭbtʾ ‘precious stone’ Ps 19:11; 119:127; Lam 4:2, mšbḥʾ ‘glorified’ Ps 21:4, snynʾ ‘refined’ Prov 8:19; 𝕿 ‫‘ דהב‬gold’ Isa 13:12; Ps 21:4, ‫‘ אובריז‬pure gold’ Ps 19:11; 119:127, ‫‘ פזוז‬pure gold’ Job 28:17, ‫דהב‬ ‫‘ דאוברוזין‬pure gold’ Prov 8:19, ‫‘ דהב טב‬fine gold’ Song 5:11, 15; Lam 4:2 This word occurs nine times—exclusively in poetry—and, as indicated by the contexts in which it occurs, refers to a type of gold.86 That it refers to a gold of higher quality than regular gold is indicated by intensifying expressions such as ‫‘ ִמּזָהָ ב ּומֶ ּפַז‬more than gold and than ‫ ’ּפַז‬in Ps 19:11; 119:127 (cf. Job 28:17; Prov 8:19) and by Lam 4:2, which contrasts its value with worthless earthen pots (‫)נִ בְ לֵי־חֶ ֶרׂש‬. Rabin (1962, 1078) compares Hebrew ‫ ַּפז‬with Greek τόπαζος ‘peridot’ (LSJ 1805), arguing that both come from some Anatolian language. He alleges that Greek τόπαζος means ‘chrysolite’ and contends that this meaning—presumably along with the element παζ of Greek τόπαζος—demonstrates an etymological connection between Hebrew ‫ ּפַז‬and Greek τόπαζος. However, there are at least two problems with this loan hypothesis. First, Greek τόπαζος refers to peridot, a yellow-​green gemstone, and aside from its color has no connection with gold.87 Even if it were 85.  E.g., R. E. Murphy 1998, 197; Van Leeuwen 1988, 111; Tur-​Sinai 1947, 57–59; R. L. Harris 1940. 86. Interestingly, the Talmud explains ‫( מּופָז‬a denominal Hophal verb) in 1 Kgs 10:18 by contending that ‫ ּפַז‬is a gemstone (b. Yoma 44b). This tradition is also preserved by the ancient versions in Ps 19:11 (𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾), Ps 21:4 (𝕲, 𝖁), Ps 119:127 (𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾), Prov 8:19 (𝕲, 𝖁), and Lam 4:2 (𝕾). 87.  Agatharchides of Cnidus (M. Eryth. 5.84), Pliny (Nat. 6.34.169; 37.32.107–9), and Strabo (Geogr. 16.4.6) claim that this gem comes from the island of Zabargad (St. John’s Island) in the Red Sea. The island of Zabargad was a primary source of peridot in antiquity, and it is still found there today.

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

349

also used with reference to chrysolite, it is an etymological fallacy to suppose that it has any connection with gold because χρυσόλιθος contains the component χρυσός ‘gold’. Second, the similarity between the element παζ of Greek τόπαζος and Hebrew ‫ ּפַז‬does not prove any kind of relationship between the two, especially because such a connection leaves the initial το- unexplained. Rather, Hebrew ‫ ַּפז‬seems to be a good Semitic word. This word is already attested in Ugaritic as pḏ (DUL 654) during the late second millennium b.c.e. (KTU 1.2 i:19, 35).88 Both the Hebrew and the Ugaritic forms point to a root pḏḏ that is cognate with Arabic faḏḏa ‘to be alone, separated’ (Lane 2354–55). The semantic development from ‘separated’ to ‘unalloyed (metal)’ is a natural one and is also evident in Hebrew ‫‘ ּבְ ִדיל‬tin’, from the root ‫‘ בדל‬to separate’ (Macintosh 1971, 552).89 Thus, there is little reason to suppose that Hebrew ‫ ּפַז‬comes from some Anatolian language or any other foreign source.90 ‫‘ ּפְַך‬vial, flask’ HALOT 926; DCH 6:683 (1 Sam 10:1; 2 Kgs 9:1, 3) 𝕲 φακός ‘bottle’; 𝖁 lenticula ‘bottle’; 𝕾 qrn‌ʾ ‘horn’; 𝕿 ‫‘ מאן‬vessel’

This word appears only three times, each time with reference to a small vial or flask used for holding oil (1 Sam 10:1; 2 Kgs 9:1, 3) (Kelso 1948, 28). Rabin (1962, 1077) lists ‫ ּפְַך‬as a loan from Egyptian pgꜢ, which is first attested beginning with the Old Kingdom (ÄW 1:482, 2:955; GHwÄ 316; WÄS 1:563). However, Egyptian pgꜢ denotes a small bowl, not a vial or flask as suggested by the occurrences of Hebrew ‫ּפְַך‬. The latter seems to be onomatopoeic, expressing the sound of liquid gurgling when poured out. One can compare other onomatopoeic vessel terminology found in the Semitic languages, such as Hebrew ‫( ּבַ קְ ּבֻק‬HALOT 926; BDB 132; cf. Syr baḡbūgā ‘pitcher’: LS² 116). Hence, little reason exists to think that Hebrew ‫ ּפְַך‬comes from Egyptian.

Hence, Gk τόπαζος and Lat topazius most probably denote the gemstone peridot. Cf. Hoover 1992, 3–13; Koch 1964. 88.  Gold is elsewhere among the spoils of battle (KTU 1.3 iii:39–46), and Anat claims to have disposed of the gold of Baal’s enemies (KTU 1.3 iv:47). This confirms the understanding of pḏ as ‘gold’. See Smith 1994, 293–94. 89. JA ‫ פיז‬is a loan from Biblical Hebrew, as indicated by its rarity as well as the use of zayin for etymological ḏ (Jastrow 1903, 1160). 90. Görg (1983) derives ‫ ּפַז‬from a perfect passive participle psy ‘that which is smelted’ from Eg psı̓ ‘to cook’. This initially seems possible because the Egyptian verb psı̓ also means ‘to smelt gold, anneal gold’ in New Kingdom Egyptian texts (ÄW 1:475, 2:940–41; GHwÄ 311; WÄS 1:551–52). However, the use of Heb zayin for Eg s would be unusual; furthermore, when it occurs, psy is always used adjectivally rather than as a stand-​alone term referring to gold, and Hebrew-​speakers should have borrowed the noun form modified by the participle rather than the participle itself. Görg’s loan hypothesis also cannot readily explain the early attestation of Ug pḏ.

350

Appendix

‫[ ּפְ לָדָ ה‬allegedly ‘steel’] HALOT 929; DCH 6:689 (Nah 2:4 [2:3]) 𝕲 ἡνία ‘rein, bridle’; 𝖁 lampas ‘lamp’; 𝕾 lmpydʾ dnwrʾ ‘lamps of fire, torches’; 𝕿 ‫‘ פיילי‬plating’

Biblical Hebrew ‫ ּפְ לָדָ ה‬is a hapax legomenon, occurring in Nah 2:4. Several difficulties surround this word: the ancient versions differ widely in their understanding of it, the scene this verse describes is not entirely clear, and this verse contains the otherwise unattested verb ‫רעל‬. It is therefore not surprising that scholars have offered numerous interpretations for this problematic verse (cf. Christensen 2009, 269–76; Pinker 2005). Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008, 1:305) suggest that ‫ ּפְ לָדָ ה‬is an Old Iranian loan, comparing New Persian pūlād ‘steel’.91 This suggestion initially sounds attractive, especially given the historical context of Nah 2:4, namely the fall of the Assyrian capital of Nineveh to the Babylonians and Medes. However, New Persian pūlād is a contracted form of an earlier Iranian term, which—assuming it even existed—would be reconstructed as *purābat or *purāvat in Old Iranian (cf. Pahl pōlāwad and ManParth pwl‌ʾwd: CPD 69; DMMPP 286).92 Hebrew ‫ ּפְ לָדָ ה‬cannot readily be derived from such a form and therefore cannot be an Old Iranian loan.93 Alternative readings, including the common comparison with Ugaritic pld ‘cloth, covering’ are not very profitable, either.94 Accordingly, the text may very well be corrupt.95 ‫‘ ּפִ ּסָ ה‬allotment, portion’ HALOT 947; DCH 6:722–23 (Ps 72:16) 𝕲 στήριγμα ‘support, foundation’; 𝖁 firmamentum ‘support’; 𝕾 swg‌ʾ‌ʾ ‘large amount, multitude’; 𝕿 ‫‘ סעיד‬support’

This word occurs only in Ps 72:16 within the collocation ‫‘ יְ הִ י פִ ּסַ ת־בַ ּר בָ ּאָ ֶרץ‬may there be ‫ ּפִ ּסָ ה‬of grain in the land’. The expression ‫ פִ סַ ּת־בַ ּר‬is parallel to ‫ פִ ְּריֹו‬in the

91. Rabin (1962, 1079) lists ‫ ּפְ לָדָ ה‬as an Old Iranian loan but does so only hesitantly, doubting whether the word ‫ ּפְ לָדָ ה‬even occurs in the Hebrew Bible. 92.  Notably, neither Hinz (AISN) nor Tavernier (IAP) reconstructs an OIran *purābat- or *purāvat-. 93.  Cf. Tisdall 1913, 102–3. Syr pūlāḏ and Arab fūlāḏ are borrowed from New Persian and represent the contracted form (Ciancaglini 2008, 229; Asbaghi 1988, 63). Arm połvat, połpat, on the other hand, reflects the Middle Persian form (HAB 4:96). I am grateful to P. Oktor Skjærvø for his assistance with this entry. 94. E.g., Spronk 1997, 89–90; Roberts 1991, 57; Cathcart 1973, 87–88; Dietrich and Loretz 1968; Dahood 1970, 396–97. This view may be supported by the renderings of 𝕲 and 𝕿, but it requires that ‫ֶרכֶב‬ mean ‘horse’ rather than ‘chariot’. This is a possible, but rare, meaning of ‫( ֶרכֶב‬cf. 2 Sam 8:4). No clear connection between BH ‫ ּפְ לָדָ ה‬and Ug pld has been established, especially because the meaning of a comparison between cloth and fire in this verse (‫ )ּבְ אֵ ׁש־ּפְ לָדֹות הָ ֶרכֶב‬is unclear. 95.  Pinker 2005, 416; Ehrlich 1899–1901, 3:445; Haldar 1947, 44–46; cf. Christensen 2009, 271–73.

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

351

second colon of this verse, ‫בְ ּר ֹאׁש הָ ִרים יִ ְרעַׁש ַכּלְ ּבָ נֹון פִ ְּריֹו‬, indicating that together ‫פִ ּסַ ת־‬ ‫ בַ ּר‬refers to food. Rabin (1962, 1077; cf. G. R. Driver 1951a, 249) derives ‫ ּפִ ּסָ ה‬from Egyptian psš.t ‘portion, share’, first attested during the Old Kingdom and later written as pš.t and psš (ÄW 1:478, 2:944; GHwÄ 313; WÄS 1:554; DLE 1:156–57).96 The context in which ‫ ּפִ ּסָ ה‬occurs, however, gives no indications that it might be an Egyptian loan, and the use of Hebrew samek to represent Egyptian š would be unusual. Furthermore, there is no reason to look outside the Semitic languages for the origin of ‫ּפִ ּסָ ה‬. One may compare Nabatean ‫פס‬, Jewish Aramaic ‫פס‬‎, ‫פיס‬, Samaritan Aramaic ‫פס‬, and Syriac pessā (DNWSI 921; DJPA 438; DJBA 901; DSA 691; LS² 1208). Like Hebrew ‫ ּפִ ּסָ ה‬they are based on a common Semitic root pss meaning ‘to divide, distribute’ (cf. Rabbinic Hebrew ‫פסס‬, JA ‫פספס‬‎, ‫פסס‬, and Syr pss: Jastrow 1903, 1198; DJPA 441; LS² 1211).97 Together with Egyptian psš (ÄW 1:478, 2:943–44; GHwÄ 312; WÄS 1:553–54; DLE 1:157), they represent a common Afroasiatic root from which both the Semitic and Egyptian terms meaning ‘portion, allotment’ are derived (cf. EDE 2:512–13). In sum, Hebrew ‫ ּפִ ּסָ ה‬is not foreign, given the existence of several related terms in Semitic, a perfectly plausible Semitic etymology, and the lack of contextual indicators of an Egyptian loan. ‫‘ ּפָרֹ כֶת‬curtain’ HALOT 968–69; DCH 6:770 (Exod 26:31, 33 [3×], 35; passim98) This word occurs 25 times in the Hebrew Bible, nearly exclusively within the description of the tabernacle. It only occurs one time outside the Pentateuch—Solomon’s construction of the temple in 2 Chr 3:14—which reflects the same context as that of the other uses. Hebrew ‫ ּפָרֹ כֶת‬clearly means ‘curtain’, as indicated by the contexts in which it occurs: it is said to be made of multicolored yarn and fabric (Exod 26:31; 36:35; 2 Chr 3:14) and separates the holy of holies from the rest of the tabernacle sanctuary (Exod 26:33). Rabin (1962, 1074; cf. Landersdorfer 1916, 54) derives Hebrew ‫ ּפָרֹ כֶת‬from Akkadian parakku, a loan from Sumerian barag (SLOB 437–38 [#552]). However, both Akkadian parakku and Sumerian barag mean ‘dais’ and sometimes ‘shrine’, not ‘curtain’ (CAD P 145–53; AHw 827–28; PSD). Additionally, the double final consonant of Akkadian parakku is unrepresented in Hebrew ‫ּפָרֹ כֶת‬, which is feminine and has a different nominal pattern. The similarity between Hebrew ‫ ּפָרֹ כֶת‬and Akkadian 96.  The Demotic and Coptic forms are pš.t and paše, respectively (CDD P 165–67; DG 140; Crum 278). 97. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 821) also suggest a connection with the root ‫‏*פסס‬, plausibly connected with ‫‘ פׂשה‬to spread’. 98.  Exod 27:21; 30:6; 35:12; 36:35; 38:27; 39:34; 40:3, 21–22, 26; Lev 4:6, 17; 16:2, 12, 15; 21:23; 24:3; Num 4:5; 18:7; 2 Chr 3:14.

352

Appendix

parakku and Sumerian barag is only superficial, and ‫ ּפָרֹ כֶת‬is not a Sumero-​Akkadian loanword.99 ‫‘ צִ יר‬door-​hinge’ HALOT 1024; DCH 7:119 (Prov 26:14) 𝕲 στρόφιγξ ‘pivot, axle, pin’; 𝖁 cardo ‘hinge, pivot’; 𝕾, 𝕿 both use their corresponding forms of this word (ṣyrtʾ and ‫ציר‬, respectively) This word occurs only in Prov 26:14, where it means ‘door-​hinge’. Although it occurs only this one time in Biblical Hebrew, related forms exist in Akkadian (ṣerru, ṣarru: CAD Ṣ 137; AHw 1093), Aramaic (IA, JA ‫ ציר‬and Syr ṣāyartā: DNWSI 967; DJPA 464; DJBA 963; LS² 1285), and Arabic (ṣā‌ʾirat, ṣiyyārat: Lane 1392, 1755). Ellenbogen (FWOT 146) claims that Hebrew ‫ צִ יר‬is loan from Sumerian zara ‘pivot’, (PSD) transmitted via Akkadian.100 However, Sumerian zara is a loan from Akkadian, as indicated by the final -a.101 Moreover, even if Akkadian ṣerru, ṣarru were a loan from Sumerian, there is little evidence to suggest that the West Semitic forms have been borrowed from Akkadian (AIA 96; Salonen 1961, 66). In short, there is insufficient reason to classify Hebrew ‫ צִ יר‬as a Sumero-​Akkadian loan. ‫‘ קָ נֶה‬reed’ HALOT 1113; DCH 7:269–70 (Gen 41:5, 22; passim102) This word, which typically means ‘reed’ but can have several different derived meanings (e.g., a reed’s length as in Ezek 40:3, 5–8; 41:8; 42:16–19), occurs quite commonly in the Hebrew Bible. Related forms occur in Akkadian (qanû: CAD Q 85–91; AHw 898), Ugaritic (qn: DUL 694), Punic (‫קנה‬: DNWSI 1014), Aramaic (IA, JA ‫קנה‬, CPA ‫קני‬, Syr qanyā, and Mand qaina: DNWSI 1014; DJPA 496–97; DJBA 1028–29; DCPA 376–77; LS² 1383–84; MD 400), and Arabic (qanāt: Lane 2994).103 Greek κάννα (LSJ 874) and Latin canna (OLD 291) are loans from Semitic (EDG 636; DELG 473–74; DELL 93; LEW 1:154). 99. Hatra ‫פרך‬, ‫ פריך‬and Syr prakkā are loans from Akk parakku (DNWSI 938; LS² 1241; AIA 80). Unlike ‫ּפָרֹ כֶת‬, they preserve the morphology and gender, as would be expected for an Akkadian loan. 100. Rabin (1962, 1072) lists ‫ צִ יר‬as a loan from Akk ṣerru, ṣarru but questions the Sumerian origin of the latter. 101. Cf. Oberhuber 1981, 258. Other terms exhibiting this phenomenon include GUZA (from kussû ‘throne’), MANA (from manû ‘mina’), IBILA (from aplu ‘heir’), DAMGARA (from tamkaru ‘merchant’), MADA (from mâtu ‘land’), and NAGADA (from nāqidu ‘herdsman’). 102.  Exod 25:21, 32 (3×), 33 (3×), 35 (4×), 36; 30:23; 37:17, 18 (3×), 19 (2×), 21 (4×), 22; 1 Kgs 14:15; 2 Kgs 18:21; Isa 19:6; 35:7; 36:6; 42:3; 43:24; 46:6; Jer 6:20; Ezek 27:19; 29:6; 40:3, 5 (3×), 6 (2×), 7 (3×), 8; 41:8; 42:16 (3×), 17 (2×), 18 (2×), 19 (2×); Ps 68:31 [68:30]; Job 31:22; 40:21; Song 4:14. 103.  A connection with Eth qannot, qǝnnot ‘nail, goad, spine’ is doubtful (CDG 436–37).

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

353

Rabin (1962, 1072) lists Hebrew ‫ קָ נֶה‬as a loan from Akkadian qanû, in turn allegedly a loan from Sumerian gi (PSD). However, while equated in the lexical series ḪAR-​ra = ḫubullu (Ḫḫ viii:1), there is no evidence that Akkadian qanû is a loan from Sumerian. Particularly troubling is the absence of any final -n in Sumerian gi.104 Moreover, even if Akkadian qanû were a loan from Sumerian, there is no reason to think that all the West Semitic forms are loans from Akkadian; they are more probably cognate. The widespread nature of this word in Semitic indicates that it is, in fact, a native Semitic term, and hence Hebrew ‫ קָ נֶה‬is not a Sumero-​ Akkadian loanword. ‫‘ ׂשַ ק‬sack, sackcloth’ HALOT 1349–50; DCH 8:181 (Gen 37:34; passim105) The term appears quite commonly in the Hebrew Bible, occurring 48 times in a wide variety of books and genres. Related forms can be found in Akkadian (saqqu: CAD S 168–69; AHw 1027), Aramaic (IA ‫שק‬, JA ‫סק‬, Mand saqa, and Syr saqqā: DNWSI 1186; DJBA 828; LS² 1036; MD 314), and Ethiopic (šaqq: CDG 532). Following Bertoldi, Rabin (1962, 1078; cf. 1964, 153) contends that this word comes from some Anatolian language.106 Bertoldi (1952; cf. Mayer 1960, 331) thinks that Greek σάκκος, σάκος (LSJ 1581) is an Anatolian loan because it has the same essential morphology as Greek κόκκος ‘seed’, which he alleges is of Anatolian origin, and because the element σακ-/σαγ- also appears in the terms σακοφόρος ‘shield-​bearing’ and σαγήνη ‘fishing net’. However, similar morphology is insufficient in this case to prove an Anatolian connection—even assuming κόκκος comes from some Anatolian language—and the element σακ-/σαγ- has no obvious etymological relationship with Hebrew ‫ ׂשַ ק‬and its cognates. Because it occurs relatively late and has the exact same meaning as Hebrew ‫ ׂשַ ק‬and its West Semitic cognates, Classical scholars almost universally acknowledge Greek σάκκος, σάκος to be a loan from West Semitic, not some Anatolian language (EDG 1302; DELG 950–51; Masson 1967, 24–25).107 104.  The gi sign could be read as gin6, but this is insufficient reason to conclude that qanû comes from an alleged *gin rather than gi. 105.  Gen 42:25, 27, 35 (2×); Lev 11:32; Josh 9:4; 2 Sam 3:31; 21:10; 1 Kgs 20:31–32; 21:27 (2×); 2 Kgs 6:30; 19:1–2; Isa 3:24; 15:3; 20:2; 22:12; 37:1–2; 50:3; 58:5; Jer 4:8; 6:26; 48:37; 49:3; Lam 2:10; Ezek 7:18; 27:31; Joel 1:8, 13; Amos 8:10; Jon 3:5–6, 8; Ps 30:12 [30:11]; 35:13; 69:12 [69:11]; Job 16:15; Esth 4:1–4; Dan 9:3; Neh 9:1; 1 Chr 21:16. 106. Kutscher (1984, 47) similarly states: “While [‫ ]ׂשַ ק‬looks Semitic, its Semitic origin cannot be taken for granted.” 107.  Eg sg, attested during the New Kingdom, is also a loan from Semitic (GHwÄ 841; WÄS 4:320; DLE 2:89; SWET 269 [#383]). Lat saccus, through which we ultimately get Modern English sack, comes from Greek (DELL 585; LEW 2:458–59).

354

Appendix

This word has no clear foreign cultural associations, and its relatively wide distribution in Semitic indicates that it is native to the Semitic languages.108 Thus, there seems little reason to think this word comes from some non-​Semitic source, especially since Bertoldi’s arguments toward this end are specious. ‫‘ ׁשֶ בֶ ר‬grain’ HALOT 1405–6; DCH 8:254 (Gen 42:1–2, 19, 26; 43:2; 44:2; 47:14; Amos 8:5; Neh 10:32 [10:31]) 𝕲 πρᾶσις ‘sale, transaction’ Gen 42:1; Neh 10:32, σῖτος ‘grain’ Gen 42:2, 26; 43:2; 44:2; 47:14, ἀγορασμὸς τῆς σιτοδοσίας ‘provision of grain’ Gen 42:19, does not directly represent this word Amos 8:5; 𝖁 alimenta venderentur ‘food that is sold’ Gen 42:1, triticum venundetur ‘wheat that is sold’ Gen 42:2, cibus ‘food, fodder’ Gen 43:2, triticum ‘wheat’ Gen 44:2, frumentum ‘corn, wheat’ Gen 42:19, 26; 47:14, merces ‘pay, reward’ Amos 8:5, omnis ad usum ‘things for use’ Neh 10:32; 𝕾 ʿbwr‌ʾ ‘wheat’ except myrʾ ‘grain’ Gen 44:2, bʿyr‌ʾ ‘sheep, cattle’ Neh 10:32; 𝕿 ‫‘ עבור‬grain’ except does not directly represent this word Gen 44:2 This word occurs with the meaning ‘grain’ nine times in the Hebrew Bible. Ellenbogen (1962, 157) contends that Hebrew ‫ ׁשֶ בֶ ר‬comes from Akkadian šibirru (CAD Š/2 377–79; AHw 1227) via Sumerian šibir (PSD), which he alleges mean ‘grain’. However, both Akkadian šibirru and Sumerian šibir mean ‘staff’, not ‘grain’, and the morphology of Akkadian šibirru differs significantly from that of Hebrew ‫ׁשֶ בֶ ר‬. It therefore cannot be a Sumero-​Akkadian loanword.109 ‫‘ ׁשּועָל‬fox’ HALOT 1445; DCH 8:307 (Judg 15:4; Ezek 13:4; Ps 63:11 [63:10]; Song 2:15 [2×]; Lam 5:18; Neh 3:35 [4:3]) 𝕲 ἀλώπηξ, 𝖁 vulpes ‘fox’; 𝕾 tʿlʾ [Syriac form], 𝕿 ‫[ תעל‬Aramaic form]

This word occurs six times in the Hebrew Bible (Judg 15:4; Ezek 13:4; Ps 63:11; Song 2:15 [2×]; Lam 5:18; Neh 3:35). Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (2008, 1:307) list Hebrew ‫ ׁשּו ָעל‬as a possible Persian word that occurs in pre-​Exilic Biblical Hebrew, comparing New Persian šagāl ‘jackal’ (CPED 756).110 However, there are several problems with this loan hypothesis. First, there would be no need to borrow such a term because the fox is native to regions inhabited by Semitic-​speakers. 108. If Ug ṯq could be convincingly defined as ‘sack’, then the irregular correspondence of Ug ṯ with Akk s, Heb śin, and Aram śin would suggest that this word is, indeed, a foreign loan. However, there is no clear evidence that Ug ṯq means ‘sack, sackcloth’, because it has been defined on the basis of a formal similarity with BH ‫( ׂשַ ק‬contra DUL 913). 109. Yahuda (1933, 90–91) instead connects ‫ ׁשֶ בֶ ר‬with Eg šbw ‘food’ (ÄW 1:1289–92, 2:2435–36; GHwÄ 878; WÄS 4:437; DLE 2:116), but this Egyptian derivation has no phonological basis. 110. They alternatively suggest that ‫ ׁשּועָל‬might come from a “cognate language to Persian which existed in ancient Canaan.”

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

355

In fact, this word clearly refers to an animal native to Palestine in each of its instances. Second, this word has a very wide and early distribution in the Semitic languages, permitting its reconstruction in Proto-​Semitic (cf. Akk šēlebu, šēlabu, šellebu, šālibu, JA, CPA ‫תעל‬, Syr taʿlā, Mand tala, and Arab ṯaʿlab, ṯuʿāl, ṯuʿālat: CAD Š/2 268–70; AHw 1210; DJPA 587; DJBA 1223; DCPA 460; LS² 1657; MD 478; Lane 337–38) (Militarev and Kogan 2000–, 2:302–4). The variant representations of the initial consonant, in particular, exactly follow the expected development of Proto-​Semitic *ṯ.111 Third, this word is used commonly as a proper name in the Semitic languages, indicating that it is native to these languages. It appears frequently as a personal name in Old Akkadian, Amorite, and Ugaritic (Stamm 1939, 253; Huffmon 1965, 267; Gröndahl 1967, 198). It also occurs as the toponym ‫ׁשַ עַלְ בִ ים‬ twice in the Hebrew Bible (Judg 1:35; 1 Kgs 4:9).112 Lastly, the phonological and morphological differences between the Semitic forms and Old Iranian *šargu- (IAP 564),113 the form Hebrew-​speakers presumably would have borrowed if ‫ ׁשּועָל‬were an Old Iranian loan, are considerable. In sum, there is little reason to think that Hebrew ‫ ׁשּועָל‬is derived from Old Iranian (cf. Wilson-​Wright 2015, 154). ‫( ׁשָ לִ יׁש‬a high–ranking official) HALOT 1526–28; DCH 8:392–93 (Exod 14:7; passim114) Biblical Hebrew ‫ ׁשָ לִ יׁש‬refers to an official most often associated with military contexts. This particular official could serve individually (2 Kgs 7:2; 9:25; 15:25) or as part of a group (e.g., Exod 14:7; 15:4; 2 Kgs 10:25). Rabin (1962, 1078; cf. Cowley 1920) lists this word as a loan from Hittite šalliš, the nominative form of šalli- ‘great, important’ (HHw 157). However, he  later (1963, 133–34; 1964, 162–63) questions the validity of this loan hypothesis in that it would be unusual for Hebrew-​speakers to adopt a word of such general meaning and apply it to a specific official. A further objection, not noted by Rabin, is that Hebrew-​speakers probably would not have adopted a Hittite term along with its case ending, leaving the final šin unexplained. There is little reason, therefore, to consider Hebrew ‫ ׁשָ לִ יׁש‬a loan from Hittite šalliš.115 It is much more natural to connect ‫ ׁשָ לִ יׁש‬with the word ‫‘ ׁשָ לׁש‬three’. The 111.  The suffix -b seems to be an Afroasiatic suffix used on animal terms. 112. The Hebrew toponym ‫ ׁשַ עַלְ בִ ים‬reflects the Semitic forms of this word with suffixed -b (cf. Akk šēlebu and Arab ṯaʿlab). It is located within the same general region as that of the ‘land of the fox’ (‫ )אֶ ֶרץ ׁשּועָל‬mentioned in 1 Sam 13:17. This is also the same area where Samson caught 300 foxes (Judg 15:4). Cf. Kutscher 1984, 57–58. 113.  One may compare Skt śṛgālá- (EWAia 2:652; KEWA 3:368). 114.  Exod 15:4; 2 Sam 23:8; 1 Kgs 9:22; 2 Kgs 7:2, 17 (2×), 19; 9:25; 10:25; 15:25; Ezek 23:15, 23; 1 Chr 11:11; 12:19 [12:18]; 2 Chr 8:9. 115. There is even less justification for a connection between BH ‫ ׁשָ לִ יׁש‬and Eg srsı̓ (contra Craigie 1970). The verb srsı̓ always means ‘to waken’ with the sole exception of an Eighteenth Dynasty text, in which it means ‘to have command (of a corps)’ (ÄW 1:1174, 2:2284–85; GHwÄ 790; WÄS 4:200–201).

356

Appendix

contexts in which ‫ ׁשָ לִ יׁש‬occurs indicate that it refers to a high-​ranking official of the third rank, coming after the king and his commanders in the royal administration and hierarchy. Contrary to common opinion, there is little evidence to suggest that this official was the third member of a chariot team (analogous to Akk tašlīšu), much less an official associated with the chariotry (Beyse and Ringgren 2006, 125–26; Mastin 1979). ‫‘ ִׁשקְ מָ ה‬sycomore-​fig tree’ HALOT 1644; DCH 8:554 (1 Kgs 10:27; Isa 9:9 [9:10]; Amos 7:14; Ps 78:47; 1 Chr 27:28; 2 Chr 1:15; 9:27) 𝕲, 𝖁, 𝕾, 𝕿 each use their corresponding forms of the word (συκάμινος, sycomorus, šqmʾ, and ‫שקמה‬, respectively) The term ‫ׁשקְ מָ ה‬, ִ which appears only in the plural form ‫ׁשקְ ִמים‬, ִ occurs seven times in the Hebrew Bible. The tree it denotes can be identified by examination of Amos 7:14, in which the prophet Amos claims he is a tender of this particular tree (‫ּבֹולֵס‬ ‫)ׁשקְ ִמים‬. ִ In all likelihood, this refers to the sycomore-​fig tree (Ficus sycomorus), whose fruits were gashed before maturity in order to aid their development (cf. 𝕲’s κνίζων συκάμινα ‘scraper of sycomore-​figs’).116 The tree continues to bear fruit in winter that could have been fed to the cattle, so Amos could tend to the herds and the trees at the same time.117 Rabin (1962, 1078) contends that this word is an ancient Anatolian term, comparing Greek συκάμινος ‘sycomore-​fig, mulberry’ and συκόμορος ‘sycomore-​fig tree’ (LSJ 1670). However, the Hebrew Bible notes that this particular tree grew in Palestine. In addition to the testimony of Amos 7:14, Kings and Chronicles state that it grew in the Shephelah (1 Kgs 10:27; 1 Chr 27:28; 2 Chr 1:15; 9:27). Hebrew ‫ ִׁשקְ מָ ה‬is undoubtedly related to Arabic sawqam (Lane 1384), which refers to the same tree, also native to Arabia.118 The various Aramaic forms of this word (Nab ‫שקם‬, JA ‫שקמה‬, CPA ‫שוקם‬, and Syr šeqmā: DJPA 565; DCPA 421; LS² 1598) must have been borrowed from either Palestine or Arabia because they use initial šin rather than taw as would be expected if this word were Proto-​Semitic. As recognized long ago by H. Lewy (1895, 23; cf. EDG 1420–21; DELG 1032), Greek συκάμινος (the source of Lat sycomorus) is most certainly a loan from the Aramaic plural form ‫שקמין‬. It is highly unlikely that Hebrew-​speakers would have applied this rare, secondary meaning. See Mastin 1979, 144–45. 116.  Galil 1968. Theophrastus mentions this ancient practice (Hist. plant. 4.2.1). 117.  R. Steiner 2003; Musselman 2012, 130–31; Löw 1924–1934, 1:274–80. 118.  R. Steiner 2003, 52–65. Steiner contends that OSA s1qmtm, which occurs twice in an inscription from Wadi Bayḥān (RES 4932), means ‘sycomore-​figs’ in the expression ‌ʾlhw s1qmtm ‘deities of the s1qmtm). Because Qatabanian uses a š-causative, he etymologizes s1qmtm as a š-causative of the Semitic root qwm (see Haupt 1916, 282). Although possible, this interpretation of OSA s1qmtm as ‘sycomore-​figs’ is speculative since nothing in the context suggests this, notwithstanding their religious connections in antiquity.

Words Incorrectly Identified as Non-Semitic Loans

357

‫‘ ְׁש ִתי‬warp (of woven material)’ HALOT 1669; DCH 8:578 (Lev 13:48–49, 51–53, 56–59) 𝕲 στήμων ‘warp’; 𝖁 stamen ‘warp’ Lev 13:48, 59, omits elsewhere; 𝕾 šty‌ʾ [Syriac form]; 𝕿Onq., Ps.-J. ‫[ שתי‬Aramaic form]

This word, which refers to the warp of woven material, occurs exclusively within the book of Leviticus (Lev 13:48–49, 51–53, 56–59). Rabin (1962, 1079) lists this word as a loan from Greek ἱστός (LSJ 842), which refers to anything set upright (cf. Gk ἵστημι ‘to stand, set, cause to stand’) but often specifically denotes a loom beam or warp fixed to its beam. However, this is problematic on at least three counts. First, there is no apparent reason for Hebrew-​speakers to borrow this term from Greek. Second, the rough breathing and initial vowel of ἱστός are completely absent in the Hebrew form. Third, Hebrew ‫ ְׁש ִתי‬has a perfectly good Semitic etymology. It is undoubtedly derived from the root ‫ׁשתה‬, which probably occurs in Isa 19:10 (assuming that ָ‫ׁשָ תֹ תֶ יה‬ should be emended to ָ‫‘ ׁשֹ תֶ יה‬its weavers’). Furthermore, cognates to ‫ ְׁש ִתי‬exist in Akkadian (šatû: CAD Š/3 408; AHw 1202), Aramaic (JA, SA ‫ שתי‬and Syr šeṯyā: DJPA 569; DJBA 1185; DSA 936; LS² 1615), and Arabic (sadan, satan: Lane 1306, 1336). In sum, there is no reason to look outside the Semitic languages for this word’s origin, especially because doing so is phonologically problematic. ‫ּתֹ עֵבָ ה ⇒ ּתֹועֵבָ ה‬ ‫[ ּתַ לְ ּפִ ּיֹות‬allegedly ‘seen from afar, far away’] HALOT 1741; DCH 8:638 (Song 4:4) 𝕲 transliterates as θαλπιωθ; 𝖁 propugnaculum ‘bulwark, fortress’; 𝕾 tktʾ ‘twisted chain’; 𝕿 does not directly represent this word

This word occurs only in the expression ‫( ּבָ נּוי לְ תַ לְ ּפִ ּיֹות‬Song 4:4). This phrase refers to the beloved’s neck, compared to the tower of David with 1000 shields hung on it. Rabin (1962, 1078) lists ‫ ּתַ לְ ּפִ ּיֹות‬as one of two Greek loanwords in the book of Song of Songs, connecting it with τηλῶπις ‘seen from afar, far away’.119 However, this is highly improbable on at least two levels. First, translating the phrase ‫ּבָ נּוי‬ ‫ לְ תַ לְ ּפִ ּיֹות‬as ‘built for display’ does not fit the context of Song 4:4 very well. Second, and even more problematic, Hebrew ‫ ּתַ לְ ּפִ ּיֹות‬and Greek τηλῶπις differ significantly with respect to their vocalization and morphology. In light of these difficulties, it is almost certain that Hebrew ‫ ּתַ לְ ּפִ ּיֹות‬does not derive from Greek τηλῶπις. The former looks like a standard taqtīl-pattern noun and is almost certainly Semitic, even if its meaning and etymology remain uncertain.120 119. Graetz (1871, 156–57) was the first to propose a connection between BH ‫ ּתַ לְ ּפִ ּיֹות‬and Gk τηλῶπις. Rabin later (1973–1974, 215) considered this loan relationship unlikely. 120. BH ‫ ּתַ לְ ּפִ ּיֹות‬is commonly derived from an alleged verb ‫‘ *לפי‬to arrange’ (cf. Honeyman 1949, 51–52; Pope 1977, 465–68). However, as pointed out by Rendsburg (1994, 13–16), this etymology is based

358

Appendix

‫ּתֹ עֵבָ ה‬‎, ‫‘ ּתֹועֵבָ ה‬abomination, taboo’ HALOT 1702–4; DCH 8:607–9. (Gen 43:32; passim121) Hebrew ‫ּתֹו ֵע בָ ה‬, less commonly spelled defectively as ‫ּתֹ עֵבָ ה‬, occurs 118 times in a wide variety of texts and genres but especially in Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and Proverbs (cf. Pickett 1985; Humbert 1960). It refers to that which is abhorred or taboo (H. D. Preuss 2006; Gerstenberger 1997), similar to Sumerian niĝgig (PSD) and Akkadian ikkibu (CAD I–J 55–57; AHw 368–69). The root ‫תעב‬, which occurs only 22 times,122 is most probably denominal, as suggested by its appearance in the Piel stem. With the exception of Phoenician, which once uses the phrase ‫‘ עשתרת תעבת‬an abomination to Ashtart’ with reference to the desecration of Tabnit’s sarcophagus (KAI 13:6; DNWSI 1225), and Jewish and Samaritan Aramaic ‫( תועבה‬DJPA 578; DSA 958), a clear borrowing from Biblical Hebrew, this word does not occur elsewhere in the Semitic languages. Rabin (1962, 1077) lists ‫ ּתֹ ֵע בָ ה‬as an Egyptian loan, albeit a questionable one. In doing so, he follows Albright (1957, 176; cf. Yahuda 1933, 95), who connected ‫ ּתֹ ֵעבָ ה‬wi th Egypti an wʿb ‘ t o purify’ (ÄW 1:319–21, 2:628–33; GHwÄ 195; WÄS 1:280–82; DLE 1:94) and contended that the close association between holiness and taboo in many cultures led to the meaning ‘abomination’ for ‫ּתֹ עֵבָ ה‬. Indeed, based purely on its morphology, ‫ ּתֹ עֵבָ ה‬appears to be a taw-preformative noun from the root ‫)*ועב