Benjamin J. Noonan, «Hide or Hue? Defining Hebrew #x$ At%A», Vol. 93 (2012) 580-589
The word #$xAtA% has long puzzled Hebrew lexicographers. The present paper evaluates the most common definitions for this elusive Hebrew word, focusing particularly on Stephanie Dalley’s recent consideration of this term. Dalley’s proposal that #$xAtA%A% is derived from Akkadian dušû and means «faience beadwork» falls short linguistically as well as contextually. More plausibly, Hebrew #$xAtA% originates with Egyptian ths, a term used with reference to leather. This well suits the contexts in which #$xAtA% occurs and reflects Egyptian influence on the tabernacle and its terminology.
06_Biblica_2_AM_A_Noonan_Layout 1 30/01/13 13:17 Pagina 583
583
HIDE OR HUE?
Without pointing specifically to any potential Arabic cognate, the nine-
teenth-century surveyor Edward Robinson suggested a similar meaning
for Hebrew #$xA tA% by noting the modern Bedouin practice of making san-
dals from the thick skin of a fish caught in the Red Sea. He suggested
that, based on this practice, the ancient Israelites could have utilized fish
skin for constructing the tabernacle 11. The idea that Hebrew #$xAtA%% denotes
a marine animal like the dugong has found its way into several modern
English translations, including the NIV, NEB, and NJPS.
This derivation is implausible on at least two counts. First, although the
consonantal correspondence is correct, the nominal pattern of Hebrew #$xAtA %
is not the pattern one would expect if it were cognate with Arabic tuḫas. If
the two were cognate, one would not expect a segolate pattern noun in He-
brew. Second, there is no evidence that the Israelites ever had access to
dugong or dolphin skins, much less ever utilized them for the tabernacle.
Robinson’s observation that the modern Bedouin make sandals from fish —
notably, not dugongs or dolphins — caught in the Red Sea does not prove
that the Israelites did this in antiquity. Third, Cross’ claim that the use of dol-
phin skins finds a parallel in El’s dwelling falls apart under closer scrutiny.
The Ugaritic texts never mention dolphins in connection with El’s abode.
Iconography does associate the dolphin with the goddess Tanit, but this is a
later first-millennium BCE phenomenon attested at Punic sites such as
Carthage, sites influenced by Greek iconography and mythology. Hence, no
clear evidence exists for an association between dolphins and El’s dwelling.
V. Hebrew #$xAtA% as “Faience Beadworkâ€
Stephanie Dalley has published a recent analysis of Hebrew #$xAtA , de-
%
voting a relatively lengthy article to its derivation and meaning 12. Like
Ahituv and Tadmor, she postulates a connection between Hebrew #$xA tA%
and Akkadian dušû. However, she departs from their view in her defini-
tion of the term as “faience beadworkâ€. According to Dalley, non-Hurrian
peoples borrowed this allegedly Hurrian term on two separate occasions.
First, Sumerian speakers borrowed Hurrian tuḫšiwe as DUḪ.ŠÚ.A,
DUḪ.ŠI.A. Preservation of the Hurrian genitive ending –we accounts for
the final diphthong. Akkadian speakers subsequently borrowed this term
from Sumerian as duḫšiu, duḫšû, still preserving the Hurrian genitive end-
E. ROBINSON, Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the Adjacent Re-
11
gions. A Journal of Travels in the Year 1838 (Boston 21860) I, 116; cf. H.B.
TRISTAM, The Natural History of the Bible. Being a Review of the Physical Ge-
ography, Geology, and Meterology of the Holy Land, with a Description of
Every Animal and Plant Mentioned in Holy Scripture (London 91898) 44-45.
DALLEY, “Hebrew taḥaÅ¡, Akkadian duḫšuâ€, 1-19.
12
© Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati