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 588 06_B
588 BENJAMIN J. NOONAN
Egyptian loans, including h+#, “acacia wood†(Exod 25,5; 35,7) and ##,
“linen†(Exod 35,23; Ezek 16,10) 36. The Egyptian origin of many of the
tabernacle realia as well as this term’s association with several specific
Egyptian products strongly implies that #$xAtA % is also an Egyptian product.
Thus, it is likely that an unattested nominal form of Egyptian ṯḥs refer-
ring to leather was adopted by Hebrew speakers as #$xAtA . This fits nicely
A%
with the frequent association of #$xA tA% with rw( as well as the usage of #$xAtA %A
with reference to sandals 37, which together strongly suggest that this word
denotes a particular type of leather 38. 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) — much more suitable, I contend,
than hides of faience beadwork.
* *
*
Hebrew #$xA tA% has a rich and varied history of interpretation, the most
recent of which is Dalley’s proposal that #$xAtA % means “faience beadworkâ€
and is cognate with Akkadian dušû. However, as argued above, this der-
ivation falls short linguistically as well as contextually. Dalley incorrectly
attributes a Hurrian origin to this word and cannot explain the final –û of
the Akkadian form. Moreover, she never demonstrates conclusively that
the Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hebrew forms mean “faience beadworkâ€.
Sumerian DUŠIA and Akkadian dušû seem rather to refer to a color,
whereas Hebrew #$xA tA% relates to animal skin.
On the other hand, a derivation from Egyptian ṯḥs, a term used with
reference to leather, well explains the origin of Hebrew #$xAtA %. The lack of
any convincing Semitic etymology for Hebrew #$xAtA % indicates a foreign
Tents, O Israel! The Terminology, Function, Form, and Symbolism of Tents
in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (Culture and History of the
Ancient Near East 12; Leiden 2002) 89-185; K.A. KITCHEN, “The Tabernacle
– A Bronze Age Artifactâ€, :Myrqxm :l)r#y Cr) +mlm Mhrb) rps
htwqyt(w Cr)h t(ydyb (eds. S. AHITUV, et al.) (Eretz-Israel 24; Jerusalem
1993) 119*-129*.
MUCHIKI, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 256-258.
36
Footwear, including sandals, was most commonly made from leather in
37
antiquity. Cf. VAN DRIEL-MURRAY, “Leatherwork and Skin Productsâ€, 312-
316; M. STOL, “Leder(Industrie)â€, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasi-
atischen Archäologie (eds. E. EBELING, et al.) (Berlin 1932-) VI, 539-540.
Cf. C. HOUTMAN, Exodus (trans. S. WOUDSTRA) (Historical Commen-
38
tary on the Old Testament; Leuven 1993-2002) I, 145.
© Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati