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 584 06_B
584 BENJAMIN J. NOONAN
ing. The medial ḫ assimilated, leaving the form dušû, which subsequently
became the preferred form in Akkadian as indicated by its widespread
usage in the majority of dialects (Old Akkadian, Old Babylonian, Middle
Assyrian, Middle Babylonian, Standard Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian, and
Neo-Babylonian). Second, Akkadian speakers at Mari borrowed Hurrian
tuḫšiwe as duḫšu. Unlike their fellow Akkadian speakers elsewhere, they
borrowed it without the Hurrian genitive ending as indicated by the lack
of representation of a final diphthong. Hebrew speakers subsequently bor-
rowed Akkadian duḫšu as #$xA tA. %
Dalley defines Akkadian dušû, and therefore also Hebrew #$xA tA%, as
“faience beadworkâ€. She defends this definition by means of at least three
points. First, she contends that the many different determinatives that
occur before Akkadian dušû, such as KUŠand NA4, are in fact not deter-
minatives but nouns with which dušû is bound by the construct state. Sec-
ond, she notes that the ancient versions understood Hebrew #$xA tA% with
reference to a color, indicating that this word relates to appearance and
decoration. Third, she contends that the wide variety of contexts in which
dušû appears — such as sandals, leather, and jewelry, among other items
— finds parallels in ancient Near Eastern realia. These objects include
beaded sandals discovered in Tutankhamen’s tomb (to which Dalley com-
pares Tušratta’s gift of sandals in EA 22 ii 23-25) and a leather-based
headdress with lapis lazuli beads attached from the third-millennium BCE
tomb of Queen Pu-abi at Ur. Dalley further argues that these items provide
parallels to the items associated with #$xAtA % in the Hebrew Bible.
Dalley’s view constitutes an admirable attempt to make sense of all the
data, particularly the ancient versions’ insistence that this word relates to
a color. However, the ancient versions are not always correct, particularly
in the case of rare Hebrew terms. Moreover, like Ahituv and Tadmor’s in-
terpretation, Dalley’s derivation cannot adequately explain the final long
–û vowel of the Akkadian form. As discussed above, Dalley tries to burke
the problem of the final vowel by postulating two separate borrowings,
contending that Mari Akkadian — the source of Hebrew #$xAtA% — borrowed
Hurrian tuḫšiwe without the genitive ending (duḫšu), whereas Sumerian
(and thereby Akkadian) did (duḫšû). It is unlikely, however, that Hurrian
is the source of the Sumerian and Akkadian forms. The appearance of this
word in the Hurrian genitive form does not demonstrate that it is ultimately
Hurrian, especially since its Akkadian forms are widespread and not pri-
marily limited to peripheral dialects as would probably be the case if it
were Hurrian. In his work on Sumerian loanwords in Akkadian Stephen J.
Lieberman derives Akkadian dušû from Sumerian 13 , and the Chicago As-
S.J. LIEBERMANN, The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akka-
13
dian. Prolegomena and Evidence [HSS 22; Missoula, MT 1977] 507.
© Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati