Foreign Loanwords and Kulturwoerter in Northwest Semitic (1400-600 B.C.E.)

Foreign Loanwords and Kulturwörter in Northwest Semitic (1400-600 B.C.E.
):
Linguistic and Cultural Contact in Light of Terminology for Realia
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
HEBREW UNION COLLEGE–JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGION
BY
Benjamin James Noonan
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
____________________________________
First Reader: Dr. Nili S. Fox
____________________________________
Second Reader: Dr. Stephen A. Kaufman
February 2012
UMI Number: 3517066
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3517066
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© Benjamin James Noonan, 2012
Acknowledgements
This project could not have been completed without either of my readers, to
whom I am extremely grateful. My first reader, Dr. Nili Fox, offered invaluable direction
as well as encouragement along the way. I genuinely appreciate her investment in this
project as well as her support. My second reader, Dr. Stephen Kaufman, also guided me
through this project with his exceptional grasp of the Semitic languages. Among other
things, he has taught me to think critically and to recognize what can and cannot be
concluded given the available evidence.
I would like to extend my special thanks to Grant Testut for reading over the
manuscript in its various stages, proofreading, and providing feedback. Grant’s careful
eye and linguistic sensitivity provided me with many helpful insights and corrections.
My mother, Lori Noonan, also proofread several portions of the manuscript and offered
valuable feedback.
The library staff at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion played a
crucial role in this project. I would especially like to thank Marilyn Krider, who
faithfully fulfilled many interlibrary loan requests. I would also like to thank the library
staff who offered their assistance with foreign language translation: Olga Lokshin
translated several Russian materials that I would not have had access to otherwise, and
Laura Gutmark helped me refine my translation of several modern Hebrew works.
Throughout the course of this project, I had the privilege of corresponding with
a number of different individuals regarding different aspects of my research: James
Allen, Richard Beal, Barry Blake, Gerald Leonard Cohen, Zev Handel, James Hoffmeier,
Harry Hoffner, Uli Kozok, Frank Seifart, P. Oktor Skjaervø, and Uri Tadmor. I am
grateful to each of these individuals for their help.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their support in my educational
journey. My parents and brothers have always encouraged my interest in learning, and
i
over the years they have taught me more than all my other teachers combined. I would
also like to express my appreciation to my wonderful wife, Jenn, who has seen me
through this project. She has supported me, encouraged me, and been there for me
throughout the whole process. Without her love and support, this dissertation would
not have been possible.
Having acknowledged all the assistance that was given to me in this project, I
take full responsibility for whatever shortcomings may be found herein.
ii
Abstract
This dissertation is an examination of terminology for realia in the corpus of
Northwest Semitic during the Late Bronze Age and the Iron I and Iron II periods (ca.
1400-600 BCE). In light of developments in the field of contact linguistics, this study
first formulates a methodology for identifying and analyzing non-Semitic loanwords
and culture words in Northwest Semitic texts. This study then investigates the
phonology, typology, and general distribution patterns of these words through
compilation of an annotated lexicon of loan hypotheses. In doing so, it offers a number
of important conclusions regarding linguistic and historical contact in the ancient Near
East.
iii
Abbreviations
Bibliographical Abbreviations
Aside from the below additions for lexica and text corpora, the bibliographical
abbreviations used in this work follow those found in Patrick H. Alexander, et al., The
SBL Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999).
AIW Bartholomae, Christian. Altiranisches Wörterbuch. 2d ed. Berlin: Walter de

Gruyter, 1961.
Avigad-Sass texts cited according to text number in Nahman Avigad and Benjamin
Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Publications of the Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities, 1997)
ÄW Hannig, Rainer. Ägyptisches Wörterbuch. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt.
Mainz, Germany: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2003-present.
Barthélemy Barthélemy, Adrien. Dictionnaire arabe-français: dialectes de Syrie: Alep,
Damas, Liban, Jérusalem. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1935-1954.
Blachère Blachère, Régis, Moustafa Chouémi, and Claude Denizeau. Dictionnaire
arabe-franc̜ais-anglais (langue classique et moderne):
Arabic/French/English Dictionary. 4 vols. Paris: Maisonneuve et
Larose, 1967-1988.
CAI Aufrecht, Walter E. A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. Ancient Near Eastern
Texts and Studies 4. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.
CDIAL Turner, Ralph Lilley. A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages.
London: Oxford, 1962-1966.
CED Černý, Jaroslav. Coptic Etymological Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1976.
CGED Rayfield, Donald. A Comprehensive Georgian-English Dictionary. 2 vols.
London: Garnett Press, 2006.
CHD Güterbock, Hans G., Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., and Theo P.J. van den Hout, eds.
The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1980-present.
CDG Leslau, Wolf. Comparative Dictionary of Geˁez (Classical Ethiopic): Geˁez-
English/English-Geˁez with an Index of the Semitic Roots. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1987.
CLC Melchert, H. Craig. Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon. Lexica Anatolica 2. Chapel
Hill, N.C.: H. Craig Melchert, 1993.
iv
CPD MacKenzie, D.N. A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary. London: Oxford University
Press, 1971.
CPED Steingass, Francis Joseph. A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary,
Including the Arabic Words and Phrases to Be Met with in Persian
Literature. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1892.
Crum Crum, W.E. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939.
DED Burrow, Thomas and M.B. Emeneau. A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. 2d
ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.
DELG Chantraine, Pierre. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des
mots. 2d ed. Librairie Klincksieck: Série linguistique 20. Paris:
Klincksieck, 2009.
DELL Ernout, Alfred, Antoine Meillet, and Jacques André. Dictionnaire
étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots 5th ed. Paris:
Klincksieck, 2001.
DG Erichsen, Wolja. Demotisches Glossar. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1954.
DJBA Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic
and Geonic Periods. Publications of the Comprehensive Aramaic
Lexicon Project. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press,
2002.
DJPA Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine
Period. 2d ed. Dictionaries of the Talmud, Midrash, and Targum 2.
Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.
DLL Laroche, Emmanuel. Dictionnaire de la langue louvite. Bibliothèque
archéologique et historique de l’Institut français d’archéologie
d’Istanbul. Paris: A. Maisonneuve, 1959.
DM Aura Jorro, Francisco and Francisco Rodríguez Adrados, eds. Diccionario
micénico. 2 vols. Diccionario griego-español 1. Madrid: Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Cientifícas, Instituto de Filología, 1985-
1993.
DMMPP Durkin-Meisterens, Desmond. Dictionary of Manichaean Middle Persian and
Parthian. Vol. 3/1 of Dictionary of Manichaean Texts. 3 vols. Corpus
fontium manichaeorum: Subsidia 2. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004.
DOSA Biella, Joan Copeland. Dictionary of Old South Arabic: Sabaean Dialect. Harvard
Semitic Studies 25. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982.
Dozy Dozy, Reinhart Pieter Anne. Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes. 2 vols.
Leiden: Brill, 1881.
v
DRS Cohen, David, François Bron, and Antoine Lonnet, eds. Dictionnaire des
racines sémitiques ou attestées dans les langues sémitiques. Leuven:
Peeters, 1994-present.
DUCHE Platts, John T. A Dictionary of Urdū, Classical Hindī, and English. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1965.
DUL Olmo Lete, Gregorio del and Joaqín Sanmartín. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic
Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Translated by Wilfred G.E.
Watson. 2d ed. 2 vols. Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One:
The Near and Middle East 67. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
EDE Takács, Gábor. Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. Handbook of Oriental
Studies, Section One: The Near and Middle East. Leiden: Brill, 1999-
present.
EDG Beekes, Robert S.P. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden Indo-European
Etymological Dictionary Series 10. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
EDH Kloekhorst, Alwin. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon.
Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 5. Leiden:
Brill, 2008.
EDLIL de Vaan, Michiel. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic
Languages. Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 7.
Leiden: Brill, 2008.
ESTI Sevortian, Ė.V. and A.V. Dybo. Этимологический словарь тюркских
языков. Moscow: Nauka, 1974-present.
ETCD Çankaya, Birsen. English-Turkish/Turkish-English Comprehensive Dictionary.
London: Milet, 1998.
EWA Mayrhofer, Manfred. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. 3 vols.
Indogermanische Bibliothek, 2 Reihe: Wörterbücher. Heidelberg: C.
Winter, 1986-2001.
Freytag Freytag, G.W. Lexicon arabico-latinum. 4 vols. Halle: C.A. Schwetschke, 1830-
1837.
FUV Collinder, Björn. Fenno-Ugric Vocabulary: Etymological Dictionary of the Uralic
Languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1955.
Gharib Gharib, Badr oz-Zamān. Sogdian Dictionary: Sogdian-Persian-English. Tehran:
Farhangan Publications, 1995.
GELS Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven:
Peeters, 2009.
GHwÄ Hannig, Rainer. Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch–Deutsch (2800 bis 950 v.
Chr.): die Sprache der Pharaonen. 5th ed. Kulturgeschichte der
antiken Welt 64. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2009.
vi
GLH Laroche, Emmanuel. Glossaire de la langue hourrite. 2 vols. Revue hittite et
asianique 34-35. Paris: Klincksieck, 1978-1979.
HAB Ačaṛian, Hračʻeay H. Հայերեն արմատական բառարան. 2d ed. 4 vols.
Հայագիտական ուսումնասիրությունների մատենաշար.
Yerevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakchowtʹyown, 1971-1979.
HDECT van der Molen, Rami. A Hieroglyphic Dictionary of Egyptian Coffin Texts.
Probleme der Ägyptologie 15. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
HED Puhvel, Jaan. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Trends in Linguistics:
Documentation. Berlin: Mouton, 1984-present.
HEG Tischler, Johann. Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Edited by Günter
Neumann. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 20.
Innsbruck, Austria: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität
Innsbruck, 1983-present.
HSED Orel, Vladimir E. and Olga V. Stolbova. Hamito-Semitic Etymological
Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction. Handbook of Oriental
Studies, Section One: The Near and Middle East. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
HHw Tischler, Johann. Hethitisches Handwörterbuch. 2d ed. Innsbrucker Beiträge
zur Sprachwissenschaft 128. Innsbruck, Austria: Institut für
Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck, 2008.
HW Friedrich, Johannes, Annelies Kammenhuber, and Inge Hoffman.
Hethitisches Wörterbuch. 2d ed. Indogermanische Bibliothek, 2
Reihe: Wörterbücher. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1975-present.
HWHT Soysal, Oğuz. Hattischer Wortschatz in hethitischer Textüberlieferung.
Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One: The Near and Middle
East 74. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
IESOI Abaev, Vasiliĭ Ivanovich. Историко-зтимологический словарЬ
осетинского языка. 3 vols. Leningrad: Izdatelʹstvo Akademii nauk
SSSR, 1958-1979.
IEW Pokorny, Julius. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. Bern: A.
Francke Verlag, 1959-1969.
JL Johnstone, T.M. Jībbali Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Kazimirski Kazimirski, Albert de Biberstein. Dictionnaire arabe-français. 2 vols. Paris:
G.P. Maisonneuve, 1960.
KEWA Mayrhofer, Manfred. Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des
Altindischen. 4 vols. Indogermanische Bibliothek, 2 Reihe:
Wörterbücher. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1956-1980.
vii
LEW Walde, Alois. Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Edited by Johann
Baptist Hofmann. 3d ed. 2 vols. Indogermanische Bibliothek 1.
Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1938-1956.
LHL De Martino, Stefano and Mauro Giorgieri. Literatur zum Hurritischen Lexikon.
Eothen. Florence: Logisma editore, 2008-present.
LIV Rix, Helmut and Martin Kümmel, eds. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben:
die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. 2d ed. Wiesbaden: L.
Reichert, 2001.
LKI Nozadze, N.A. Лексика хурритского языка. Studies of the Society of
Assyriologists, Bibliologists, and Caucasiologists 1. Tbilisi: Society
of Assyriologists, Bibliologists, and Caucasiologists, 2007.
LSp Schulthess, Friedrich. Lexicon Syropalaestinum. 1903.
MD Drower, E.S. and Rudolf Macuch. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1963.
MED Wilkinson, R.J. A Malay-English Dictionary, Romanised. 2 vols. London:
Macmillan, 1959.
NCED Starostin, S.A. and Sergeĭ L. Nikolayev. A North Caucasian Etymological
Dictionary. Edited by S.A. Starostin. Moscow: Asterisk Publishers,
1994.
NPED Hayyim, Sulayman. New Persian-English Dictionary: Complete and Modern. 2
vols. Tehran: Librarie-imprimerie Béroukhim, 1934-1936.
OLD Glare, P.G.W. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.
OND Browne, Gerald M. Old Nubian Dictionary. Corpus scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium: Subsidia 90 90. Leuven: Peeters, 1996.
ORS Guriev, T.A. Осетинско-русский словар. 5th ed. Vladikavkaz: “Alaniia”,
2004.
PRS Rabinovich, I.S. and I.D. Serebriakov. Панджабско-русский словарь.
Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelʹstvo Inostrannykh i
Natsionalʹnykh Slovarei, 1961.
PSD Sjöberg, Åke W. and Steve Tinney, eds., The Sumerian Dictionary of the
University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology), Online:
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/index.html.
SED Gudjedjiani, Chato and Letas Palmaitis. Svan-English Dictionary. Edited by B.
George Hewitt. Anatolian and Caucasian Studies. Delmar, N.Y.:
Caravan Books, 1985.
viii
SEDEPA Monier-Williams, Monier. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and
Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European
Languages. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899.
SKI Klimov, Georgiĭ Andreevich and Madzhid Sharipovich Khalilov. Словарь
кавказских языков: сопоставление основной лексики. Moscow:
Izdatelskaia firma “Vostochnaia lit-ra”, 2003.
SSSDI Khaĭdakov, Said Magomedovich. Сравнительно-сопоставительный
словарь дагестанских языко . Moscow: Nauka, 1973.
SyrLex Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction,
Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Linguistic Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are for language-related terms used in this study. For more
information on these linguistic terms and languages, see Appendix A: “Glossary of
Linguistic Terminology and Languages.”
Akk. Akkadian
Ammon. Ammonite
Arab. Arabic
Arm. Armenian
BA Biblical Aramaic
Copt. Coptic
CPA Christian Palestinian Aramaic
CW culture word (Kulturwort)
Drav. Dravidian
Ebla. Eblaite
Eg. Egyptian
Eth. Ethiopic (Geˁez)
Georg. Georgian
Gk. Greek
Hatt. Hattic
Heb. Hebrew
ix
Hitt. Hittite
Hurr. Hurrian
IA Imperial Aramaic (Official Aramaic)
IE Indo-European
Ind. Indic
Iran. Iranian
JA Jewish Aramaic
Lat. Latin
Lin. A Linear A
Lin. B Linear B
Luw. Luwian
Mal. Malayalam
Malay Malay
Mand. Mandaic
NPers. New Persian
Nub. Nubian
OAram. Old Aramaic
OSA Old South Arabian
Oss. Ossetic
Pahl. Pahlavi
Pāli Pāli
Palm. Palmyrene Aramaic
Phoen. Phoenician
Prāk. Prākrit
Pun. Punic
Sans. Sanskrit
Sogd. Sogdian
Sum. Sumerian
Svan Svan
Syll. Cypr. Syllabic Cypriot
x
Syr. Syriac
Tamil Tamil
Tulu Tulu
Turk. Turkish
Urart. Urartian
Urdu Urdu
WSem. West Semitic
xi
Table of Contents
Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………………………………. iv
Chapter 1: Introduction and Review of Scholarship…………………………………………… 1
Chapter 2: Terminology and Methodology…………………………………………………………. 10
Chapter 3: Survey of Historical Contact……………………………………………………………… 22
Chapter 4: Analysis of Loan Hypotheses…………………………………………………………….. 34
Food and Drink………………………………………………………………………………………… 37
Furniture…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 46
Metals and Metallurgy…………………………………………………………………………….. 53
Military Technology………………………………………………………………………………… 65
Minerals and Organic Materials……………………………………………………………… 77
Miscellanea……………………………………………………………………………………………… 109
Plants and Plant Products……………………………………………………………………….. 120
Religion and Cult…………………………………………………………………………………….. 168
Scribal Technology………………………………………………………………………………….. 177
Textiles and Clothing………………………………………………………………………………. 182
Tools………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 217
Vessels……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 229
Chapter 5: Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………… 258
Appendix A: Glossary of Linguistic Terminology and Languages………………………. 284
Appendix B: Indices……………………………………………………………………………………………. 291
Appendix C: Geographical Origins of Realia………………………………………………………. 308
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 310
xii
Chapter 1
Introduction and Review of Prior Scholarship
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
different languages of the world.
The situation is no different in the Semitic languages, in which a number of
words have been borrowed from non-Semitic languages such as Sumerian, Hittite, or
Persian. Despite their prevalence, however, much work remains to be done on foreign
(i.e., non-Semitic) loanwords and culture words (Kulturwörter) in the Semitic languages.
To date, no detailed analysis or synthesis of such words exists. Wilfred G.E. Watson
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.”2
Similarly, Stephen A. Kaufman calls for “a new assessment of the phonology and
typology of ancient Near Eastern culture words of foreign origin in Late Bronze Age
Semitic, and how the linguistic evidence all ties in with the textual and archaeological
sources to extend our picture of the history of trade, culture, technology, and the like.”3
This dissertation will attempt to fill this gap by examining terminology for
realia in the corpus of Northwest Semitic during the latter Late Bronze Age and the
1
Donald Winford, An Introduction to Contact Linguistics (Language in Society; Oxford: Blackwell, 2003),
29. Of course, French pueple, pople ultimately originate with Latin populus, and Italian zero comes from
Arabic ṣifr.
2
Wilfred G.E. Watson, “Loanwords in Semitic,” AuOr 23 (2005): 195.
3
Stephen A. Kaufman, “Languages in Contact: The Ancient Near East,” in Semitic Linguistics: The State
of the Art at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century (ed. Shlomo Izreˀel; Israel Oriental Studies 20; Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 301.
1
Iron I and Iron II periods, ca. 1400-600 BCE. In light of developments in the field of
contact linguistics, this study will formulate a methodology for identifying and
analyzing non-Semitic loanwords and culture words in Northwest Semitic texts. By
compiling an annotated lexicon of loan hypotheses, this dissertation will investigate
the phonology, typology, and general distribution patterns of these words. The present
study will also examine what is known about these terms for realia in light of
archaeological finds and will determine what historical conclusions can be drawn from
the data regarding linguistic and cultural contact.
Review of Prior Scholarship
General Scholarship on Loanwords

The history of contact linguistics, which may be broadly defined as the study of
linguistic interaction, is surveyed by Els Oksaar.4 Linguistic borrowing, or the adoption
into a language of a linguistic feature previously used in another language, is but one
sub-discipline of the larger field of contact linguistics. Because they are so common in
many languages, a significant amount of research on linguistic borrowing deals with
loanwords, or lexical items that have been adopted from one language into another
language.
The phenomenon of lexical borrowing has been noted since antiquity, being an
object of conversation in the classical period. Plato, for example, discussed the topic of
loanwords in his fourth century BCE work Cratylus. Within a lengthy dialogue with the
philosopher Cratylus on etymology (Crat. 390e-427d), Plato portrays Socrates as arguing
that the Greeks, especially Greeks who lived abroad, adopted words from foreign
languages. Socrates suggests that Greek πῦρ (“fire”) is a foreign word because it is
4
Els Oksaar, “The History of Contact Linguistics as a Discipline,” in Kontaktlinguistik: Ein internationales
Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (eds. Hans Goebel, et al.; 2 vols.; Handbücher zur Sprach- und
Kommunikationswissenschaft 12; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996), 1:1-12.
2
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 (Crat. 409d-410a).
Much later, medieval Arabic lexicographers were interested in lexical
borrowing, which was a common phenomenon in Arabic as early as the pre-Islamic
period due to invasions by foreign conquerors and commercial contacts with foreign
countries. Delimitation of words as Arabic or non-Arabic was undertaken by one of the
first significant Arabic lexicographers, al-Khalīl ibn Aḥmad (ca. 718-791 CE). Later
Arabic lexicographers, such as Abū Manṣūr al-Ǧawālīqi (ca. 1072-1145 CE), 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.5

The investigation of loanwords was also undertaken by medieval Hebrew
grammarians. David ben Abraham Alfāsi, a tenth century CE Karaite grammarian and
commentator, argued in his Kitāb Jāmi ˁal-Alfāẓ that words without a Hebrew etymology
in biblical Hebrew were probably Arabic or Aramaic in origin. Other grammarians, such
as Judah ibn Quraysh (eighth-ninth centuries CE), Menaḥem ben Saruq (ca. 920-970 CE),
and Jonah ibn Janāḥ (ca. 990-1050 CE), 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 as to whether a word was definitively a loanword, nor did they express how
5
Lothar Kopf, “The Treatment of Foreign Words in Medieval Arabic Lexicology,” in Studies in Arabic
and Hebrew Lexicography (ed. Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1976), 247-261.
3
to determine from what language a word was borrowed.6
This brief historical survey demonstrates that lexical borrowing was recognized
as a linguistic phenomenon in antiquity and remained a topic of study into the
medieval period. The study of loanwords as a modern discipline, however, did not begin
to develop until the mid-twentieth century. Important early studies include that of
Werner Betz, who in 1949 published a framework for classifying early loans in Old High
German during the medieval period.7 Building on the general classification of Betz as
well as their own analyses, in the 1950s Einar Haugen8 and Uriel Weinrich9 published
two seminal works that laid a solid basis for further study of linguistic borrowing and
related topics. Their studies have established much of the terminology and
methodology that is in use today.
The importance of lexical borrowing for linguistics is evident in its prevalence
in the scholarly literature. Many modern textbooks on historical linguistics or language
contact include a section on lexical borrowing.10 Moreover, to date numerous

investigations of loanwords in modern languages have been conducted, including
studies on Scandinavian and French loans in English; German and Baltic loans in Finish;
Basque, German, and Arabic loans in Spanish; Spanish loans in Native American
6
Aharon Maman, Comparative Semitic Philology in the Middle Ages: From Saˁadiah Gaon to Ibn Barūn (10th-
12th C.) (trans. David Lyons; Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 40; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 21-32.
7
Werner Betz, Deutsch und Lateinisch: die Lehnbildungen der althochdeutschen Benediktinerregel (Bonn: H.
Bouvier, 1949).
8
Einar Haugen, “The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing,” Language 26 (1950): 210-231; idem, The
Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Billingual Behavior (2 vols; Publications of the American Institute,
University of Oslo; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1953). A second edition of Haugen’s
The Norwegian Language in America was published in 1969 by Indiana University Press.
9
Uriel Weinrich, Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems (Publications of the Linguistic Circle of
New York 1; New York: Linguistic Circle of New York, 1953).
10
See, for example, Hans Henrich Hock and Brian D. Joseph, “Lexical Borrowing,” in Language History,
Language Change, and Language Relationship: An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics (2d ed.;
Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 218; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009), 241-278; Lyle
Campbell, “Borrowing,” in Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (2d ed.; Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004), 62-
102; Donald Winford, “Language Maintenance and Lexical Borrowing,” in An Introduction to Contact
Linguistics (Language in Society; Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), 29-60; Hans Henrich Hock, “Linguistic Contact:
Lexical Borrowing,” in Principles of Historical Linguistics (2d ed.; Trends in Linguistics: Studies and
Monographs 34; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991), 380-425; René Appel and Pieter Muysken, “Lexical
Borrowing,” in Language Contact and Bilingualism (London: Edward Arnold, 1987), 164-174.
4
languages; Turkic loans in Hungarian; English loans in Japanese; Sanskrit loans in Malay
and other Indonesian languages; and Arabic loans in various African and Asian
languages.11
Scholarship on Non-Semitic Loanwords in Northwest Semitic
Despite the widespread application of contact linguistics to investigations of
foreign loanwords in modern languages, much remains to be done by Semitic scholars
in this regard. Key studies by Kaufman12 and Mankowski13 provide a solid
methodological approach to investigating loanwords in the Semitic languages.14

However, neither of these studies focuses exclusively on foreign loans in Semitic. Thus,
a comprehensive and systematic investigation of non-Semitic loanwords in the Semitic
languages is lacking. As noted earlier, Kaufman has pointed to the need for such a
study,15 and Watson has echoed similar concerns in a recent survey of the topic of
loanwords in the Semitic languages.16
11
Lyle Campbell, Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (2d ed.; Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004), 63. The
Loanword Typology Project and the World Loanword Database, funded by the Department of Linguistics
of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig, Germany) constitutes an important
systematic examination of loanwords in the world’s modern languages; see Martin Haspelmath and Uri
Tadmor, “The Loanword Typology Project and the World Loanword Database,” in Loanwords in the World’s
Languages: A Comparative Handbook (eds. Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
2009), 1-34.
12
Stephen A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (AS 19; Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1974). For reviews, see Dennis Pardee, JNES 36 (1977): 318-319; Donald J. Wiseman, BSOAS 40 (1977):
144.
13
Paul V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (HSS 47; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
2000). For reviews, see Ryan Byrne, RBL (2002) (online: http://www.bookreviews.org); M.E.J. Richardson,
BSOAS 65 (2002): 567-569; Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, JAOS 122 (2002): 136-138; David M. Clemens, JNES 62
(2003): 290-294; Václav Blažek, ArOr 71 (2003): 557-563.
14
Another work worth noting, but which concerns borrowing in the opposite direction, is James E.
Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1994). Hoch’s work is an excellent study of Semitic terms borrowed into
Egyptian that is based on a solid methodological approach. For reviews, see Joachim Friedrich Quack,
ZDMG 146 (1996): 507-515; Gary A. Rendsburg, “Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts,” JAOS 116 (1996): 508-
511; Thomas Schneider, Or 65 (1996): 174-177; Kenneth A. Kitchen, BASOR 307 (1997): 89-91; Günter
Vittmann, WZKM 87 (1997): 277-288; Dimitri Meeks, “Les emprunts égyptiens aux langues sémitiques
durant le Nouvel Empire et la troisième période intermédiaire: les aléas du comparatisme,” BO 54 (1997):
32-61; Matthias Müller, OLZ 97 (2002): 29-43.
15
Kaufman, “Languages in Contact,” 297-306.
16
Watson, “Loanwords in Semitic,” 191-198.
5
A brief survey of scholarship on foreign loanwords and Northwest Semitic
confirms these concerns. One of the most significant early studies is that of Heinrich
Zimmern.17 Zimmern’s work dealt with Akkadian loanwords in all the Semitic languages
and not just Northwest Semitic, but he necessarily touched on loan relationships
involving both Semitic and non-Semitic terms in Northwest Semitic. Other scholarship
from the first half of the twentieth-century focused almost entirely on loanwords in
biblical Hebrew. Important publications include two works on Sumerian loanwords by
Johannes Theis18 and Simon Konrad Landersdorfer,19 research on Egyptian loanwords
by A.S. Yahuda,20 an analysis of Greek and Latin loanwords by Maurice Vernes,21 and a
study of Indo-Iranian loanwords in the exilic and post-exilic books of the Hebrew Bible
by Isidor Scheftelowitz.22 Robert Dick Wilson compiled a list of foreign loanwords in the
Hebrew Bible, albeit for apologetic purposes.23
The next significant work on foreign loanwords in Northwest Semitic to be
published was that of Maximillian Ellenbogen, who published a study of Semitic and
non-Semitic loanwords in biblical Hebrew.24 This work is particularly useful in that it
investigates in detail the way the ancient versions understood foreign loanwords. On
the other hand, Ellenbogen’s study lacks methodological rigor, and because it was
published nearly 50 years ago, it is badly outdated. There is thus no up-to-date study of
foreign loanwords in biblical Hebrew.25
17
Heinrich Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonische Kultureinfluss (2d ed.; Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs, 1917). The first edition of this book was published in 1915.
18
Johannes Theis, Sumerisches im Alten Testament (Trier: Paulinus-Druekerei, 1912).
19
Simon Konrad Landersdorfer, Sumerisches Sprachgut im Alten Testament: eine biblisch-lexikalische
Studie (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament 21; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1916).
20
A.S. Yahuda, “Hebrew Words of Egyptian Origin,” JBL 66 (1947): 83-90.
21
Maurice Vernes, Les emprunts de la Bible hébraïque au grec et au latin (Bibliothèque de l’École des
hautes études: Sciences religieuses 29; Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1914).
22
Isidor Scheftelowitz, Arisches im Alten Testament: Eine sprachwissenschaftliche und kulturhistorische
untersuchung (2 vols.; Berlin: S. Calvary & Co., 1901-1903).
23
Robert Dick Wilson, “Foreign Words in the Old Testament as an Evidence of Historicity,” PTR 26
(1928): 177-247.
24
Maximilian Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and Etymology (London: Luzac,
1962).
25
Cf. Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake,
6
Over the course of time since Ellenbogen’s work, a number of shorter studies on
foreign loanwords in Northwest Semitic have been published. None of these is meant to
be comprehensive, and none of these contains any substantial historical analysis. These
publications include works on Sumerian,26 Egyptian,27 Hittite,28 Greek,29 and Indo-
Iranian30 loanwords. Chaim Rabin has published a fairly comprehensive list of foreign
loanwords in biblical Hebrew but does not give any evaluation or analysis of the terms
he provides.31 In addition to these linguistic studies, Ian Young and Robert Rezetko as
well as Kevin J. Cathcart and Mats Eskhult have examined the possible chronological
significance of non-Semitic loanwords for dating biblical Hebrew texts.32

In addition to these shorter studies, two lengthy works on foreign loanwords in
Northwest Semitic have been published in recent years. Yoshiyuki Muchiki has
compiled a list of Egyptian proper names and loanwords that occur in Phoenician,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 58.

26
Edward Lipiński, “Emprunts suméro-akkadiens en hébreu biblique,” ZAH 1 (2001): 61-73.
27
Thomas O. Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” JAOS 73 (1953): 145-155.
28
Chaim Rabin, “‫מלים חיתוית בעברית‬,” in ‫ מוגשו לכבוד הפרופ׳ משה צבי סגל על־ידי חבריו ותלמדי‬:‫ספר סגל‬
(eds. Jehoshua M. Grintz and Jacob Liver; Publications of the Israel Society for Biblical Research 17.
Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1964), 151-79; idem, “Hittite Words in Hebrew,” Or 32 (1963): 113-39.
29
John Pairman Brown, Israel and Hellas (3 vols.; BZAW 231, 276, 299; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995-
2001), 2:273-323; John Pairman Brown, “Literary Context of the Common Hebrew-Greek Vocabulary,” JSS
13 (1968): 163-191.
30
Chaim Rabin, “Lexical Borrowings in Biblical Hebrew from Indian Languages as Carriers of Ideas
and Technical Concepts,” in Between Jerusalem and Benares: Comparative Studies in Judaism and Hinduism (ed.
Hananya Goodman; Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1994), 25-32; Sylvia Powels,
“Indische Lehnwörter in der Bibel,” ZAH 5 (1992): 186-200; Chaim Rabin, “Loanword Evidence in Biblical
Hebrew for Trade between Tamil Nad and Palestine in First Millenium B.C.,” in Proceedings of the Second
International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies (ed. R.E. Asher; 3 vols.; Madras: International Association of
Tamil Research, 1971), 432-440; idem, “‫מלים בעברית המקראית מלשון האינדו־ארים שבמזרח הקרוב‬,” in ‫ספר‬
‫ לשון‬,‫ ארכיאולוגיה‬,‫ מחקרים במקרא‬:‫ מוגשים לו בהגיעו לשיבה שמואל ייבין‬,‫( ותולדות ישראל‬eds. Shmuel Abramski,
et al.; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1970), 462-97.
31
Chaim Rabin, “‫מלים זרות‬,” ‫ אוצר הידיעות על המקרא ותקופתו‬:‫( אנציקלופדיה מקראית‬9 vols; Jerusalem:
Mosad Bialik, 1950-1988), 4:1070-80.
32
Ian Young and Robert Rezetko, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2 vols.; BibleWorld; Oakland, Conn.:
Equinox, 2008), 1:280-311; Kevin J. Cathcart, “Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew and the Dating of Biblical
Texts,” in Studia Semitica: The Journal of Semitic Studies Jubilee Volume (eds. Philip S. Alexander, et al.;
Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 16; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 45-57; Mats Eskhult,
“The Importance of Loanwords for Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology
and Typology (ed. Ian Young; JSOTSup 369; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 8-23.
7
Punic, Aramaic, Hebrew, Ugaritic, and Amarna Akkadian.33 As such, his study is an
update and expansion of Thomas O. Lambdin’s earlier study on Egyptian terms in the
Semitic languages.34 Muchiki draws important conclusions on phonological
correspondences between the languages he examines, but his work is only a
compilation of loanwords that have been proposed by others with brief analysis. Much
of his work is devoted to the analysis of proper names rather than loanwords, and his
study lacks any detailed historical analysis of the terminology he examines.
Watson has put together a fairly comprehensive list of foreign loanwords in
Ugaritic.35 However, like the investigation of Muchiki, Watson’s study is primarily a

compilation of loanwords that have been proposed in the secondary literature with
brief evaluations. In most cases, he does not provide any detailed linguistic analysis,
and he does not discuss the historical implications of non-Semitic loanwords in Ugaritic
for linguistic and cultural contact.
Lastly, mention should be made of two additional works. First is the Hamito-
Semitic Etymological Dictionary, edited by Vladimir E. Orel and Olga V. Stolbova.36 While
this work is useful, it does not deal exclusively with foreign loans in Northwest Semitic
33
Yoshiyuki Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic (SBLDS 173; Atlanta,
Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999). For reviews, see Joachim Friedrich Quack, RBL (April 24, 2000)
(online: http://www.bookreviews.org); Anson F. Rainey, JAOS 121 (2001): 490-491; Thomas Schneider, JQR
92 (2001): 155-163; Wilfred G.E. Watson, JSS 47 (2002): 117-119.
34
Thomas O. Lambdin, “Egyptian Loanwords and Transcriptions in the Ancient Semitic Languages”
(Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1952).
35
Wilfred G.E. Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic (Aula orientalis Supplementa 19; Sabadell, Barcelona:
Editorial AUSA, 2007), 118-151. The content of this portion of Watson’s study is essentially a reprint of
several of his articles: Wilfred G.E. Watson, “Non-Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon,” UF 27 (1995):
533-558; Wilfred G.E. Watson, “Non-Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon (2),” UF 28 (1996): 701-719;
Wilfred G.E. Watson, “Non-Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon (3),” UF 30 (1998): 751-760; Wilfred G.E.
Watson, “Non-Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon (4),” UF 31 (1999): 785-799; Wilfred G.E. Watson,
“Non-Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon (5),” UF 32 (2000): 567-575.
36
Vladimir E. Orel and Olga V. Stolbova, Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a
Reconstruction (HO; Leiden: Brill, 1995). For reviews, see Joseph H. Greenberg, Anthropological Linguistics 38
(1996): 550-556; Gábor Takács, JCS 49 (1997): 108-117; Alan S. Kaye, BSOAS 60 (1997): 365-367; F.H.H.
Kortlandt, Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 20 (1999): 198-203; I.M. Diakonoff, and Leonid Kogan.
“Addenda et Corrigenda to Hamito‐Semitic Etymological Dictionary by V. Orel and O. Stolbova,” ZDMG 146
(1996): 25-38; Leonid Kogan, “Addenda et Corrigenda to the Hamito‐Semitic Etymological Dictionary (HSED)
by V. Orel and O. Stolbova (II),” JSS 47 (2002): 183-202.
8
and does not examine the historical implications of loanwords in the Semitic languages.
It lacks methodological rigor in that it merely lists potentially related words and does
not incorporate insights from the larger field of contact linguistics into its entries.
Similar critiques can be raised against the otherwise helpful Semitic Etymological
Dictionary, an in-process work edited by Alexander Militarev and Leonid Kogan,37
although its methodology is more rigorous and its entries are more detailed than that
of the Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary.
Conclusion
As a brief survey of the literature demonstrates, no up-to-date comprehensive
studies of foreign loanwords and culture words in Northwest Semitic exist. Many of the
studies on foreign loanwords in Northwest Semitic that have been done are largely
lacking in methodological rigor and do not attempt to apply developments in the field
of language contact to their analyses. Moreover, they generally do not draw any
historical conclusions regarding the implications of loanwords for cultural contact. In
light of this significant gap, the next chapter will develop a methodology for discussing,
identifying, and analyzing non-Semitic loanwords in Northwest Semitic.
37
Alexander Militarev and Leonid Kogan, eds., Semitic Etymological Dictionary (AOAT 278; Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 2000-present). Presently, two volumes of this multivolume project have been published,
one dealing with anatomical terms (volume 1) and the other dealing with words for animals (volume 2).
For reviews of the first volume, see Václav Blažek, ArOr 69 (2001): 496-510; Marten Stol, BO 64 (2007): 332-
335.
9
Chapter 2
Terminology and Methodology
Introduction
As demonstrated in the previous chapter, no up-to-date, comprehensive study
of foreign loanwords and culture words in Northwest Semitic currently exists. The
present study will attempt to fill this significant gap by analyzing various loan
hypotheses in Northwest Semitic. Before doing so, however, it is necessary to clearly
define the terminology and methodology that will be used for identifying and analyzing
non-Semitic loanwords in Northwest Semitic. This is especially the case since nearly all
previous studies on loanwords in the Semitic languages have largely neglected
methodology in their analyses, ignoring insights from the general field of contact
linguistics. Accordingly, this chapter will discuss relevant terminology and outline a
methodology informed by contact linguistics.
Terminology
A loanword may be defined as a word that has been borrowed from another
language. Thus, a loanword is a lexical item that has been adopted from one language
(the donor language, designated as L1) and made part of the vocabulary of another
language (the recipient language, designated as L2). For example, the English word
chocolate is derived from Nahuatl (Aztec) čokolātl. The Spanish borrowed this term as
chocolate, by which other languages, including English, obtained this term.1 Words can
be borrowed for a number of reasons, including necessity (i.e., lack of a native term for
a particular item) or prestige.2
1
Martin Haspelmath, “Lexical Borrowing: Concepts and Issues,” in Loanwords in the World’s Languages:
A Comparative Handbook (eds. Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009), 36-
37; Hans Henrich Hock and Brian D. Joseph, Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship:
An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics (2d ed.; Trends in Linguistics: Studies and
Monographs 218; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009), 241; Lyle Campbell, Historical Linguistics: An
Introduction (2d ed.; Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004), 63.
2
Haspelmath, “Lexical Borrowing,” 46-51; Hock and Joseph, Language History, Language Change, and
10
A loanword can originate from within or outside the same language family. In
the Semitic languages, therefore, a word may be classified as an intra-Semitic loan (i.e., a
loan from one Semitic language to another) or a non-Semitic or foreign loan (i.e., a loan
from a non-Semitic language into a Semitic language).3 It is the latter category and not
the first that will be examined in the proposed study.
Within this general framework, it is possible to distinguish several
subcategories depending on the level and nature of the lexical borrowing.4 The simplest
category 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 biblical Hebrew
‫“( ַא ְח ָל ָמה‬red jasper”), borrowed from Egyptian ḫnmt.5 It is also possible for a word to be
loaned from one language (L2) into another (L3) after having been borrowed from the
original language (L1). Such a word is transmitted between two languages via another
language (L1 → L2 → L3) and is called a transmitted loanword. A good example of a
transmitted loanword is Hebrew ‫“( ֲאגַ ם‬reed pool, marsh”), a Sumerian word (AGAM)
that was borrowed into Akkadian (agammu) and then loaned from Akkadian into
biblical Hebrew.6 As a third category, words can be reborrowed, having been borrowed
from L1 into L2 and then borrowed (in a slightly different form) from L2 back into L1 (L1
→ L2 → L1). These loanwords can be designated secondary-creation loanwords. An
example of this type is Ugaritic kld (“bow”), a loan from Hurrian keldu, which was in
turn a loan from the common Semitic noun qšt.7
Language Relationship, 258-259; Campbell, Historical Linguistics, 64-65; Hans Henrich Hock, Principles of
Historical Linguistics (2d ed.; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991), 408-421.
3
Wilfred G.E. Watson, “Loanwords in Semitic,” AuOr 23 (2005): 194.
4
The terminology here is adapted from that of Lutz Edzard, Polygenesis, Convergence, and Entropy: An
Alternative Model of Linguistic Evolution Applied to Semitic Linguistics (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998), 35-36
and Watson, “Loanwords in Semitic,” 193.
5
Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 238-239.
6
Paul V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (HSS 47; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
2000), 20-21.
7
Wilfred G.E. Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic (Aula orientalis Supplementa 19; Sabadell, Barcelona:
Editorial AUSA, 2007), 130.
11
In the aforementioned categories, something of the phonetic form of the word
is transferred into the recipient language. However, it is also possible to borrow only
the meaning so that L1 is simply translated into L2. This type of term is known as a
calque or loan translation. A classic example of this is the German term Wolkenkratzer,
which corresponds semantically to English skyscraper.8 An example of this in the
Semitic languages is Hebrew ‫“( ָשׂ ֵרי ֲח ִמ ִשּׁים‬commander of fifty”), which probably
corresponds semantically to Akkadian rab ḫanšu.9 It is also possible for a loanword to be
a combination of a native word and a foreign word; this is known as a hybrid loan.10 A
good example of this is Hebrew ‫שׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬,

ֶ a compound of the Hebrew word ‫“( ֵשׁן‬tooth”)
and the Egyptian word 3bw (“elephant”).11

Lastly, a culture word (German Kulturwort), also referred to as a Wanderwort, may
be defined as 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 marked by a high degree of mobility and is recognizable in more than one
language family in disparate geographical regions. Because culture words are typically
imported along with the name of the object they represent, these terms usually denote
naturally occurring items such as plants, metals, and minerals as well as manufactured
products such as ceramics, textiles, and utensils.12 A good example of this type of word
is the term “cup,” which shows up in numerous languages, both Semitic and non-
Semitic: Hebrew ‫כּוֹס‬, Ugaritic ks, Akkadian kāsu, Hittite and Hurrian kazzi, and Egyptian
kṯ.13
8
Haspelmath, “Lexical Borrowing,” 39; Campbell, Historical Linguistics, 81-82; René Appel and Pieter
Muysken, Language Contact and Bilingualism (London: Edward Arnold, 1987), 165.
9
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 9.
10
Haspelmath, “Lexical Borrowing,” 39; Appel and Muysken, Language Contact and Bilingualism, 165.
11
Maximilian Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and Etymology (London: Luzac,
1962), 162.
12
Haspelmath, “Lexical Borrowing,” 45; Hock and Joseph, Language History, Language Change, and
Language Relationship, 242; Watson, “Loanwords in Semitic,” 193; E.Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew
Language (ed. Raphael Kutscher; 2d corrected ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984), 47-48.
13
Edward Lipiński, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar (2d ed.; OLA 80; Leuven:
Peeters, 2001), 573.
12
Integration of Loanwords
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.14 As an example, consider the
two terms honcho and Hauptsturmführer in American English. The term honcho, a
loanword, has assimilated to the native English lexicon, but the term Hauptsturmführer,
a foreign word, remains an obvious foreign term. A probable example of this in
ַ “Assyrian field marshal.”15 The recognition

Northwest Semitic is biblical Hebrew ‫תּ ְר ָתּן‬,
of a word as a borrowing by speakers is a complex matter, and thus the difference
between loanwords and foreign words can be subjective, depending on a variety of
factors such as novelty and time of borrowing.16 For this reason, the technical
distinction between loanwords and foreign words plays no substantial role in the
present study.
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 or same word—by
bilingual speakers.17 Such a phenomenon is well-attested in Northwest Semitic. One
may note, for example, the Transjordanian-like speech of the prophetic oracle in Isa
21:11-12.18 Given the similarity of this phenomenon with lexical borrowing, it can be
difficult to distinguish between the two. Generally speaking, loanwords can often be
distinguished from single-word switches by the degree of integration: loanwords
typically evince various kinds of phonological and morphological adaptation, whereas
14
Haspelmath, “Lexical Borrowing,” 42-43.
15
16
Haspelmath, “Lexical Borrowing,” 43.
17
Haspelmath, “Lexical Borrowing,” 40.
18
Stephen A. Kaufman, “The Classification of the North West Semitic Dialects of the Biblical Period
and Some Implications Thereof,” in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, 4-12
August, 1985: Division D: Panel Sessions, Hebrew and Aramaic Languages (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 54-55;
cf. Gary A. Rendsburg, “Linguistic Variation and the ‘Foreign’ Factor in the Hebrew Bible,” IOS 15 (1996):
177-190.
13
code-switching does not. Moreover, frequency is a useful criterion: 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.19 Given the important linguistic
differences between the phenomena of lexical borrowing and code-switching, the
present study will focus on the topic of loanwords, and words that reflect clear
examples of code-switching will be excluded.
Methodology
Identification of Loanwords and Direction and Borrowing

In order to evaluate the loan hypotheses of the present study, it is necessary to
develop a methodology for the identification of loanwords and the direction of
borrowing. Because past lexical borrowing and its surrounding circumstances cannot
be directly observed, the following criteria can only establish probable loanwords on
the basis of supporting evidence. Loanword identification operates in accordance with
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. As noted below, some criteria hold more
weight than others.
In general, the strongest evidence for loanword identification comes from
phonological criteria. Words that contain sounds not normally expected in native
words are candidates for loans.20 This is because when a word is borrowed from one
language to another, foreign sounds are replaced by the nearest phonetic equivalent in
the borrowing language, but the nearest equivalent may not always be common to the
borrowing language.21 Thus, the usage of the phoneme ś in a Ugaritic word such as śśw,
19
Haspelmath, “Lexical Borrowing,” 40-41.
20
Haspelmath, “Lexical Borrowing,” 44; Campbell, Historical Linguistics, 69.
21
Hock, Principles of Historical Linguistics, 390-397.
14
ssw (“horse”) may suggest that the term is a loan, since Ugaritic does not commonly use
this phoneme.22
Similarly, words that do not follow the typical phonological or morphological
patterns of a language are likely to be loans.23 Thus, if a word contains an irregular
cluster of phonemes or does not follow a typical Semitic noun pattern, the word may be
a good candidate for a loan. Hebrew ‫“( ִפּ ְט ָדה‬peridot”), for example, is a good candidate
because it contains two consecutive dentals, a phenomenon highly unusual for a
Hebrew term, and indeed this word is probably a loan from northern Africa.24
Another phonological criterion for identifying non-Semitic loanwords is variant
spellings. While there may be typical patterns of substitution for foreign sounds and
phonological patterns, 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, meaning that the older loan reflects older sound substitutions than the
newer loan. Alternatively, variance could be created by a discrepancy between
orthography and pronunciation.25 As a third option, perhaps the foreign sound was not
easily represented by any native sounds so that several options were available for
representing it.26 Regardless of the reason, the general principle remains that a word
may be a loanword if it has variant orthographical spellings. A good example is Hebrew
ַ (“helmet”), written ‫כּוֹבע‬

‫כּוֹבע‬ ַ in 1 Samuel 17:5 but ‫קוֹבע‬
ַ in 1 Samuel 17:38; the fact that
this word is written two different ways suggests that it is a loanword.27
In cases where the phonological history of the languages of a family is known,
22
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 146; cf. Josef Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik (AOAT 273; Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), 44-47; Stanislav Segert, “The Last Sign of the Ugaritic Alphabet,” UF 15 (1983): 210-
211.
23
Campbell, Historical Linguistics, 70.
24
Jehoshua M. Grintz, “‫מונחים קדומים ב׳תורת כהנים׳‬,” Leš 39 (1974-1975): 8-9.
25
Campbell, Historical Linguistics, 67-68.
26
Hock and Joseph, Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship, 248-249.
27
Ian Young, Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (FAT 5; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993), 67-68.
15
information concerning the sound changes that they have undergone can be helpful for
determining the direction of borrowing within that language family. This is
particularly true when one language that underwent a particular sound change is
compared with another language that did not undergo that same sound change. If a
word from the latter exhibits the sound change characteristic of the former, it is
probably a loan borrowed from the former and not vice versa.28 This criterion does not
apply to foreign loanwords in Semitic, which by definition deal with different language
families whose sound changes cannot be compared in this same way. However, it can be
useful for determining the direction of intra-Semitic borrowing. Biblical Hebrew ‫סגֶ ן‬,ֶ for
example, must be a loan from the Neo-Assyrian dialectal form of Akkadian šaknu
because original š came to be pronounced s and because intervocalic k became g in Neo-
Assyrian Akkadian.29
The morphological structure of words can also help determine the direction of
borrowing. When the form in question in one language is morphologically complex or
has an etymology that is morphologically complex, but the form in other languages has
no morphological analysis, then the donor language is most likely the one with the
morphologically complex form.30 For example, Hebrew ‫ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬has no morphological
complexity and is most probably a loan from Greek κιννάμωμον, which does exhibit
complexity (the components κίννα and ἄμωμον).31 Of course, this criterion for
determining loan direction is not foolproof because in some cases a word may appear
to be morphologically complex due to folk etymology. Nevertheless, it remains a useful
and often strong criterion.32
A different type of criterion for loanword identification and loan direction is
28
29
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 106-107; Stephen A. Kaufman, The Akkadian
Influences on Aramaic (AS 19; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 139.
30
Haspelmath, “Lexical Borrowing,” 45; Campbell, Historical Linguistics, 70-72.
31
See the entry for this word in chapter four.
32
16
distribution of the term and its cognates. If a word has legitimate cognates within
languages of one family but is found in only one language, or even a few languages, of
another family, then the donor language is usually one of the languages for which the
form in question has cognates in the related languages.33 Therefore, if the root on
which a Semitic word is based is alien to the Semitic languages, there is a good chance
that the word might be a non-Semitic loanword.34 For example, although the Hebrew
term ‫“( ֶר ֶסן‬bridle”) could be explained as a primary noun, the fact that it not based on a
Semitic root and the fact that several good cognates exist in the Indo-Iranian languages
(cf. Sanskrit raśanā and New Persian resen) may indicate that it is a loan.35
Context can also be a useful clue, albeit less reliable than a term’s phonology
and morphology and distribution of cognates. If a word occurs in a foreign context,
such as a list of items obtained from a foreign region by trade, the word may be a good
candidate for a foreign loanword. For example, the Hebrew term ‫“( ֶשׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬ivory”)
occurs within the context of a list of imported items (1 Kgs 10:22) and is thus a possible
candidate for a loanword. Similarly, if a word occurs within a context where other
foreign loanwords have been identified, the likelihood that it is also a foreign loanword
may be increased. Considering 1 Kgs 10:22 again, two of the other terms in the list (‫ֻתּ ִכּי‬
and ‫ )קוֹף‬are often considered foreign loanwords. Thus, foreign context or association
with other foreign loanwords may indicate that a word in question is a loanword.
Indeed, ‫ ֶשׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬is a loan from northern Africa.36
The geographical or ecological associations of a word suspected of being a loan
can also provide clues as to whether it was borrowed and what the identity of the
donor language is, meaning that the cultural background of a word may indicate its
33
Campbell, Historical Linguistics, 72-73.
34
Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 46.
35
Baruch Podolsky, “Notes on Hebrew Etymology,” in Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of
the Ancient Near East (eds. Shlomo Izreˀel, et al.; Israel Oriental Studies 18; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
1998), 203-204.
36
Cf. Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 257.
17
foreign origin.37 Again, Hebrew ‫ ֶשׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬provides a fitting example. Because ivory was a
product not native to Palestine, this term reflects a foreign association and is a good
candidate for a loanword in Hebrew. Moreover, the fact that ivory is not native to
Palestine indicates that the term was borrowed from a language used outside of
Palestine and not vice versa.
Lastly, the semantic domain of a word can sometimes indicate that it may be a
loan.38 Because loanwords are most often nouns, and often nouns associated with
particular objects or technology such as the words considered in this study,39 a word
may be a loan if it appears to be a technical term of this sort in its context. However,
this criterion has several pitfalls and is only a rough indication of possibilities, so
potential sources for the loan still need to be sought and cannot be automatically
assumed.40
Loanwords as Evidence for Cultural Contact
Once a possible loanword has been identified, the task remains to determine
what possible implications can be drawn concerning cultural contact. By their very
definition, loanwords provide evidence of contact among people speaking different
languages. As noted above, people typically borrow a word because of need or prestige,
using the borrowed term to denote an item foreign to their culture and language. Thus,
the semantic content of loanwords can reveal a great deal about the kinds of contacts
that took place as well as social relationships among different peoples.41 In other words,
if a given language contains a significant number of loanwords related to a particular
37
Campbell, Historical Linguistics, 73-74; Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 46-47.
38
39
Uri Tadmor, “Loanwords in the World’s Languages: Findings and Results,” in Loanwords in the
World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook (eds. Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor; Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 2009), 61-65; Hock and Joseph, Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship, 245-
246; Hock, Principles of Historical Linguistics, 384; Appel and Muysken, Language Contact and Bilingualism, 170-
171.
40
41
18
aspect of material culture, it is likely that the material culture was introduced to the
people of that language along with the terminology. Because languages most often
borrow words due to the need to represent a foreign item in their own language, this is
particularly true with words for realia that are introduced via different means of
contact, such as trade.
However, some loans (i.e., transmitted loans) may enter a language via an
intermediate language, meaning that no cultural contact actually occurred between the
original donor language and final recipient language.42 For example, Hebrew ‫ ְשׁבוֹ‬is a
loan from Sumerian via Akkadian.43 It would be a mistake to assume that the existence
of this word in Hebrew demonstrated contact between Hebrew and Sumerian speakers,
even if ‫ ְשׁבוֹ‬is ultimately Sumerian in origin. Thus, rather than immediately assuming
significant historical contact, the phonology, morphology, and other linguistic or
historical aspects must be examined to determine if a word was transmitted via
another language.
It is also possible for a loan to enter a language in spite of very limited contact
between speakers of the donor and recipient languages.44 If the loanword is one of
several loanwords of a particular category, especially a category not native to a culture,
it is likely that the loan entered the language through significant cultural contact.
However, if there are few or no other loans from the language, the loan was probably
borrowed with limited contact. Biblical Hebrew ‫( ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬a yellow-colored gem),
borrowed from Tartesian,45 constitutes an example of borrowing in spite of limited
contact because Hebrew speakers presumably did not have much contact with Spain in
antiquity.
In this regard, historical and archaeological data can supplement linguistic
42
43
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 136-137.
44
45
Cf. Edward Lipiński, “‫ ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬taršîš,” TDOT 15:792.
19
considerations. If a loanword can with all probability be identified with a specific item,
and if that item is known to have originated from a particular area historically, it may
be possible to correlate the historical and linguistic evidence. Returning once again to
the example of Hebrew ‫שׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬,

ֶ ivory was most often obtained from African sources in
the ancient Palestine, which corresponds well with the fact that this word contains a
foreign element meaning “elephant” found in Egyptian ȝbw.
Caution is necessary here because it is not always possible to identify the
referent of a particular term. Many foreign loanwords occur relatively rarely in
Northwest Semitic, and paucity of description can make identification difficult. Usage
of cognate terms in other languages, however, can provide additional clues regarding
the object’s identification. In the case of biblical Hebrew, the translations of the
Septuagint and other ancient versions can also be useful for identifying a word’s
referent, although sometimes the ancient versions disagree on the meaning of a
particular term. For example, biblical Hebrew ‫ ֱאגוֹז‬only occurs in Song 6:11. However,
Semitic cognates (e.g., Jewish Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic) and the translations of the
ancient versions (e.g., the Septuagint and Vulgate) demonstrate that it most probably
denotes a type of nut.
Moreover, a word may sometimes refer to a variety of objects that share
common characteristics rather than one object. Terms for ceramics, for example, need
not always refer to the exact same vessel but can denote several different styles of a
vessel type. Biblical Hebrew ‫ כּוֹס‬and Ugaritic ks, for example, can refer to a variety of
different drinking cups.46 Similarly, one cannot assume that a particular term has been
applied throughout the centuries to the same referent because sometimes transference
of names occurs. This is the case with Hebrew ‫ ִפּ ְט ָדה‬and Greek τοπάζιον, which both
referred to “peridot” in antiquity in spite of their similarity with our modern English
46
A.M. Honeyman, “The Pottery Vessels of the Old Testament,” PEQ 71 (1939): 82.
20
term “topaz.”47 Another good example is Hebrew ‫ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬and its related terms, which did
not refer to our modern species of cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum).48
Nevertheless, in spite of these difficulties it is often possible to identify the
referent of a foreign loan. When identification is possible, the linguistic and historical
evidence can coincide to provide valuable information on cultural contact between
different peoples in the ancient Near East.
Conclusion
The above discussion briefly outlined a number of items related to language
contact: basic terminology, levels of language contact and integration of loanwords,
and methodology for identifying loanwords. These items provide a foundation for the
presentation of loan hypotheses in chapter four.
47
Donald B. Hoover, Topaz (Butterworth-Heinemann Gem Books; Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann,
1992), 3-13; Lauge Koch, “The Name ‘Topaz’ in Precious Stone Literature,” trans. Frederick H. Pough,
Lapidary Journal 18 (1964): 868-871, 873, 876.
48
Manfred G. Raschke, “New Studies in Roman Commerce with the East,” ANRW 9.2.652-655; F. Nigel
Hepper, “On the Transference of Ancient Plant Names,” PEQ 109 (1977): 129-130; Richard Hennig,
“κιννάμον und κινναμωφόρος in der antiken Literatur,” Klio 32 (1939): 325-330.
21
Chapter 3
Survey of Historical Contact
Introduction
As noted in the previous chapter, historical data can inform linguistic
considerations when identifying loanwords. The present chapter offers a brief
overview of historical contact that Northwest Semitic speakers had in antiquity,

providing a framework within which to discuss the loan hypothesis of the next chapter
as well as the conclusions of the final chapter. More specifically, the following
discussion surveys historical contact, focusing primarily on the Late Bronze and Iron I-
II periods, between the Levant and four key regions: Egypt; Anatolia and Mitanni; the
Aegean; Iran and East Asia.
Historical Contact in the Ancient Near East
Egypt
Egypt and the Levant 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 the Levant through military
campaigns. Egypt’s contact with the Levant—a landbridge between Africa and Asia—
was often motivated by seeming threats from other peoples, such as the Hittites,
Hurrians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and the inhabitants of the Levant themselves.
Textual and archaeological evidence points to contact between Egypt and the
Levant as early as the Chalcolithic period.1 Beginning with the Early Bronze Age,
however, evidence for contact between Egypt and the Levant becomes much more
plentiful. Egyptian cultural goods—particularly pottery—appear at sites in southern
Palestine (e.g., ˁEn Besor), and sites in the northern Sinai. Several Old Kingdom
1
Potsherds bearing the Egyptian ruler Narmer’s name at sites such as Arad and Tell Erani, for
example, attest to contact between Egypt and Palestine.
22
Egyptian pharaohs conducted military campaigns in Palestine, but these military
incursions were of a temporary nature and did not significantly affect ties between
Egypt and Palestine. Egypt’s interests during the Old Kingdom largely focused on
Byblos, which had access to timber, and the southern Sinai, a source of copper and
turquoise.2
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-
Dabˁa (Avaris). A tomb painting from the Tomb of Beni Hasan, moreover, depicts
Semitic traders entering Egypt. During this same time, Egypt renewed 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.3

The Egyptians drove the Hyksos out ca. 1540 BCE, 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
fifteenth century BCE. Because 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 fourteenth century BCE, the Hittites had wrested control of the
2
Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1992), 17-24, 29-55; James K. Hoffmeier, “Egyptians,” in Peoples of the Old Testament World (eds.
Alfred J. Hoerth, et al.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998), 255-264; William A. Ward, “Egyptian Relations
with Canaan,” ABD 2:400-401.
3
Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 57-70, 98-122; Hoffmeier, “Hittites,” 264-271; Ward, “Egyptian
Relations,” 2:401-402.
23
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 governor’s residences, administrative centers, and burial practices at
certain sites (Tell es-Saˁidiyeh, Deir el-Balah, Beth-Shean) indicate that Egypt’s
presence in Palestine was imperialistic in nature.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.5
Egyptian influence also extended to Ugarit in northern Syria. Egyptian
geographical lists at Karnak and Soleb mention the city of Ugarit, and several Amarna
letters from the reign of Ammiṯtamru I claim loyalty to Egypt (EA 45-47). A letter from
the reign of Niqmaddu II, Ammiṯtamru I’s successor (EA 49), as well as alabaster
imported from Egypt bearing the cartouches of Akhenaton and Nefertiti and Egyptian-
influenced iconography likewise point to close connections between Ugarit and Egypt.
This relationship ended when Ugarit entered into a treaty with Amurru and then the
Hittites during the later part of Niqmaddu II’s reign.6 However, once Ḫattušili II and
Ramesses II made peace after the Battle of Qadesh, Ugarit was free to reestablish trade
with Egypt. Ugaritic texts point to the resumption of full-scale trade contacts, with
ships and caravans trading various luxury goods with Egypt.7
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. Egypt’s close relationship
4
Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 192-213; Hoffmeier, “Hittites,” 271-279; Ward, “Egyptian
5
Nili S. Fox, In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah (HUCM 23; Cincinnati, Ohio:
Hebrew Union College Press, 2000), 250-268.
6
Itamar Singer, “A Political History of Ugarit,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (eds. Wilfred G.E.
Watson and Nicolas Wyatt; HO 39; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 621-629, 632-634.
7
Singer, “Political History of Ugarit,” 673-675.
24
with Ugarit, moreover, ended when the city collapsed at the end of the Late Bronze
Age. The result was a decline in Egyptian-Levantine relations, a phenomenon reflected
in the weakening of ties between Byblos and Egypt (cf. the Report of Wenamun). Egypt
did not significantly interact again with the Levant until the Third Intermediate Period.
Sheshonq I, the founder of the Twenty-Second Dynasty, conducted a military campaign
into Palestine (cf. 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.8
When the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires came on the scene during
the mid-first millennium BCE, the Levant 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 BCE (cf. 2 Kgs 17:4). The Nubian
pharaoh Taharqa challenged Assyrian power in the Levant only a few decades later (ca.
701 BCE), 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 BCE. After Assyria fell and Babylon rose to power, Pharaoh Necho II
sought to reestablish Egyptian control in the Levant. He defeated Josiah, king of Judah,
at Megiddo in 609 BCE, enabling Egypt to expand into the Levant. Necho II subsequently
installed Jehoiakim as king of Judah (cf. 2 Kgs 23:31-37), maintaining influence on
Palestine. However, in 605 BCE Necho II was defeated at Carchemish by
Nebuchadnezzar II and was forced to return to Egypt, ending Egyptian control of
Judah’s throne.9
8
Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 312-315; Hoffmeier, “Hittites,” 281; Ward, “Egyptian Relations,”
2:405.
9
Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 351-364, 431-469; Hoffmeier, “Hittites,” 281-282; Ward, “Egyptian
25
Anatolia and Mitanni
The Hittites
Some of the earliest evidence of contact between Semitic peoples and the
Hittites comes from the Old Assyrian period, when private entrepreneurs from Assyria
established trading colonies in Anatolia.10 However, there is little evidence for contact
between Ḫatti and the Levant until the Late Bronze Age.
The Hittite kings Ḫattušili I and Muršili I expanded Hittite territory into
northern Syria. However, after Muršili’s death, Ḫatti lost all of its territory south of the
Taurus Mountains. During the latter half of the fourteenth century, Šuppiluiluma I led
campaigns into northern Syria, conquering Carchemish and establishing one of his sons
as viceroy there. Šuppiluiluma I established another of his sons as the high priest of the
weather god at Ḫalab, which had come under Hittite influence.11

The city of Ugarit does not appear in Hittite sources until ca. 1340 BCE, when
Šuppiluiluma I made a treaty with Niqmaddu II, the king of Ugarit. This treaty initiated
a new period of Hittite interest in Ugarit. During the reign of Muršili II, Ugarit became a
vassal state of the Hittites, supplying Ḫatti with troops and tribute. Because Ḫatti
benefited from the wealth of Ugarit’s trade, the Hittites adopted a relatively positive
disposition toward the city.12
The Hittites’ relationship with northern Syria lasted until the collapse of the
Hittite empire at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Ḫatti and Syria solidified their
diplomatic relationships through political marriages, such as those of Bentešina of
Amurru and Niqmaddu III of Ugarit to Hittite princesses.13 The majority of
archaeological evidence of contact between the Hittites and northern Syria occurs in
10
Klass R. Veenhof, “Kanesh: An Assyrian Colony in Anatolia,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East
(ed. Jack M. Sasson; 4 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995), 859-871.
11
Hermann Genz, “Foreign Contacts of the Hittites,” in Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology (eds.
Hermann Genz and Dirk Paul Mielke; Colloquia antiqua; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 310-311.
12
Genz, “Foreign Contacts of the Hittites,” 310-311; Singer, “Political History of Ugarit,” 632-635, 646-
650.
13
Genz, “Foreign Contacts of the Hittites,” 311.
26
the form of Hittite seals and seal impressions found at Syrian sites (Ugarit, Minet el-
Beida, Alalakh, Tell Kazel, Ebla, Tell Fray, and Emar). Additional evidence for contact
consists of Hittite cuneiform tablets found at some of these same sites (Ugarit, Emar,
and Alalakh) as well as Hittite pottery, figurines, monumental art, and architecture in
northern Syria.14
In contrast, there is no clear evidence for a direct political relationship between
Ḫatti and Palestine. This was because Palestine was largely under the influence of
Egypt, as described above. Nevertheless, the signing of a peace treaty in 1258 BCE
between Ramesses II of Egypt and Muwatalli of Ḫatti opened a new era 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, 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 this period.15
The Hurrians
The archives from the royal palace of Mari mention different Hurrian city-states
extending eastward from northern Syria through northern Mesopotamia all the way to
the Zagros Mountains. The most western town that the Hurrians occupied was Alalakh
in northern Syria. Here, many Hurrian names occur in texts from Level VII (ca. 1700-
1560 BCE). The Hurrians also maintained a significant presence at sites such as Ḫalab,
Uršum, Haššum, and Carchemish during this same period.16 At the city of Ugarit, on the
14
Genz, “Foreign Contacts of the Hittites,” 311-313.
15
Genz, “Foreign Contacts of the Hittites,” 316-317; Billie Jean Collins, The Hittites and Their World
(SBLABS 7; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 216-218.
16
Gernot Wilhelm, The Hurrians (trans. Jennifer Barnes; Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1989),
12-16.
27
other hand, the Hurrians seem to have exerted less influence in terms of toponymy and
onomasticon, which contain a much smaller percentage of Hurrian names when
contrasted with Alalakh. Comparison of Hurrian and Ugaritic texts demonstrates that
the Hurrians did have significant impact on Ugarit in terms of religion and literature,
however.17
As the Hittites rose to power and expanded southward, the Hurrians lost control
of their western territory and shifted their focus to the region of Mitanni in northern
Mesopotamia. It was not until ca. 1470 BCE that the Hurrians were able to expand to the
west again and regain key cities in northern Syria, such as Ḫalab. Conflicts between
Egypt and Mitanni over northern Syria began during the reign of the Egyptian pharaoh
Thutmoses III and continued for several years until Thutmoses IV of Egypt and
Artatama I of Mitanni finally signed a treaty during the late fifteenth century BCE,
leaving the Hurrians in control of Aleppo and northern Syria.18 Egyptian texts’ repeated
references to pro-Mitannian parties found at Syrian cities (e.g., Qadesh, Tunip, and
Qatna) and mariyannu chariot warriors captured during campaigns attest to the
presence of Hurrians in northern Syria.19
Not too soon afterward, the Hittite king Šuppiluiluma I campaigned in northern
Syria, wresting Hurrian control of the area. Nevertheless, the Hurrians continued to
maintain a noteworthy presence in the Levant, and in Syria and Phoenicia the Hurrians
occupied a significant proportion of the population. Egyptian texts from the time of
Amenhotep II and Thutmoses IV associate Hurrian people (Ḫȝrw) with the land of
Palestine. Amenhotep II, for example, claims to take Hurrian men and their wives
captive after one of his campaigns. During the Amarna period, moreover, individuals
17
18
Wilhelm, Hurrians, 20-29.
19
Martha A. Morrison, “Hurrians,” ABD 3:336-337.
28
with Hurrian names even ruled several cities in the Levant: the ruler of Jerusalem, for
example, had the Hurrian name Abdi-ḫeba.20
The Aegean
Contact between the Aegean and the Levant is first attested during the Middle
Bronze Age. Kamares ware (fine black-slip, polychrome pottery of the Middle Minoan
IB-II periods) from Crete appears throughout the Levant, particularly to the north (e.g.,
Byblos and Hazor), during the Middle Bronze Age.21 The multi-room palace discovered
at Tel Kabri in the Lower Galilee contains several frescoes paralleled by those of Minoan
Crete and Tel el-Dabˁa.22 Ceramic remains likewise reflect a highly developed trade
network between the Aegean, Levant, and Hyksos Egypt.23
Ugarit’s commercial contacts with the eastern Mediterranean extend as far back
as the eighteenth century BCE, when relations existed with Crete.24 During the Late
Bronze Age, Ugarit functioned as a hub for the distribution of international goods,
including goods coming from or destined for Cyprus and the Aegean.25 The presence of
Cypro-Minoan inscriptions as well as architectural similarities between Ugarit’s
fourteenth century BCE palace and Minoan palaces (at Knossos and Mallia) likewise
indicate contact between the Aegean and Ugarit.26
20
Nadav Naˀaman, “Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine,” Levant 26 (1994):
175-187; Richard S. Hess, “Hurrians and Other Inhabitants of Late Bronze Age Palestine,” Levant 29 (1997):
153-156; Morrison, “Hurrians,” 3:337; Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., “The Hittites and Hurrians,” in Peoples of Old
Testament Times (ed. Donald J. Wiseman; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 224-225.
21
Robert B. Koehl, “Minoan Kamares Ware in the Levant,” in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy
in the Second Millennium B.C. (eds. Joan Aruz, et al.; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008), 59.
22
Piotr Bienkowski, “Aegean,” Dictionary of the Ancient Near East (eds. Piotr Bienkowski and Alan R.
Millard; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), 5.
23
David O’Connor, “Egypt, the Levant, and the Aegean from the Hyksos Period to the Rise of the New
Kingdom,” in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (eds. Joan Aruz, et al.;
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008), 109.
24
Singer, “Political History of Ugarit,” 617.
25
26
Jean-Claude Margueron, “Ugarit: Gateway to the Mediterranean,” in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and
Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (eds. Joan Aruz, et al.; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,
2008), 237.
29
The Cape Gelidonya and Uluburun shipwrecks attest to widespread
Mediterranean trade during the Late Bronze Age. These two ships probably followed a
route from the Levant to Cyprus, from Cyprus to Anatolia, from Anatolia to the Aegean,
from the Aegean down to Egypt, and from Egypt to the Levant again.27 A wide variety of
archaeological evidence, moreover, demonstrates that the Aegean was closely linked
with the political and cultural worlds of Egypt and the Levant during the fifteenth
through thirteenth centuries BCE.28 Connections between the Aegean and Levant are
especially evident ca. 1350-1250 BCE, when quantities of imported Mycenaean and
Minoan ceramics increased significantly.29

With the collapse of many civilizations due to Sea People incursions, contact
between Aegean and the Levant largely ceased. The precise relationship between the
Aegean and the Syrian coast at this time is unclear, but Aegean pottery reappears in the
Levant during the tenth century BCE at the coastal site of Ras el-Bassit in northern
Syria. Interaction between Aegean and the Levant into the Iron II period is further
indicated by the presence of Aegean cultural items (such as a pendant semicircle
skyphos at Tell Abu Hawam) and the appearance of Greek pottery at sites such as Tyre,
Tel Kabri, Al Mina, and Meṣad Hašavyahu. Some of these sites (e.g., Tyre) probably do
not reflect a strong Aegean presence, but others (e.g., Tel Kabri, Al Mina, and Meṣad
Hašavyahu) seem to reflect a mixed population that included Aegean peoples,
especially Aegean mercenaries. Notably, the Arad ostraca refer to Aegean mercenaries
27
George F. Bass, “Cape Gelidonya and Bronze Age Maritime Trade,” in Orient and Occident: Essays
Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. Harry A. Hoffner, Jr.; AOAT 22;
Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1973), 29-37; Cemal M. Pulak, “The Uluburun Shipwreck: An
Overview,” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27 (1998): 188-224; Cemal M. Pulak, “The Uluburun
Shipwreck and Late Bronze Age Trade,” in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second
Millennium B.C. (eds. Joan Aruz, et al.; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008), 288-310.
28
Stanley Mayer Burstein, “Greek Contact with Egypt and the Levant: ca. 1600-500 BC: An Overview,”
The Ancient World 27 (1996): 24.
29
Robert B. Koehl, “Aegean Interactions with the Near East and Egypt during the Late Bronze Age,”
in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (eds. Joan Aruz, et al.; New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008), 271.
30
as the “Kittim” in several instances. Akkadian texts from the time of Tiglath-pileser III
and Sargon II similarly mention the presence of Aegean peoples in the Levant.30
Iran and East Asia
The earliest evidence for contact with the east—although not necessarily with
eastern regions connected with the Indo-Iranians—comes from Mesopotamia.
Sumerian and Akkadian texts attribute products such as gold, lapis lazuli, precious
stones, and wood to the regions of Dilmun, Magan, and Meluḫḫa, most probably located
along the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean during the third and second millennia BCE.
The discovery of pottery and beads as well as other items confirms trade between
Mesopotamia and early eastern cultures such as the Harappan and Oxus civilizations.31
Similarly, Iranian sites such as Shar-i Sokhta and Jirot maintained trade with
Mesopotamia, particularly sites such as Ur. That Iran was the origin of many of these
goods (e.g., ornamental soap dishes) and that they were considered luxury goods is
indicated by the observation that they occur commonly in non-royal graves in Iran but
occur only in royal tombs or temples in Mesopotamia.32
During the second millennium BCE, Indo-Iranian peoples played an uncertain
role in the Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni as well as the Levant. Indo-Iranian names and
30
Anselm C. Hagedorn, “‘Who Would Invite a Stranger from Abroad?’ The Presence of Greeks in
Palestine in Old Testament Times,” in The Old Testament in Its World: Papers Read at the Winter Meeting,
January 2003, the Society for Old Testament Study and at the Joint Meeting, July 2003, the Society for Old Testament
Study and het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België (eds. Robert P. Gordon and Johannes C.
de Moor; OtSt 52; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 68-93; Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, “Archaic Greeks in the Orient:
Textual and Archaeological Evidence,” BASOR 322 (2001): 11-32; Jane C. Waldbaum, “Greeks in the East or
Greeks and the East? Problems in the Definition and Recognition of Presence,” BASOR 305 (1997): 1-17;
Jane C. Waldbaum, “Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Levant, ca. 1000-600 B.C.: The Eastern
Perspective,” BASOR 293 (1994): 53-66; Burstein, “Greek Contact,” 25-28.
31
Daniel T. Potts, “Distant Shores: Ancient Near Eastern Trade with South Asia and Northeast Africa,”
in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (ed. Jack M. Sasson; 4 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995),
1451-1463; Shereen Ratnagar, Trading Encounters: From the Euphrates to the Indus in the Bronze Age (2d ed.;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 272-338; E.C.L. During-Caspers, “Harappan Trade in the Arabian
Gulf in the Third Millennium B.C.,” Mesoptamia 7 (1972): 167-191.
32
William H. Steibing, Jr., Ancient Near Eastern History and Culture (2d ed.; New York: Pearson
Education, 2009), 66.
31
vocabulary appear in texts from Mitanni, and Hurrian literature on hippology may very
well be influenced by Indo-Iranian literature on the same topic. Indo-Iranian linguistic
elements also appear in several personal names of Hurrian-influenced areas in
southern Syria and Palestine.33 Unfortunately, what exactly this evidence implies is
ambiguous at present. The Indo-Iranian elements may reflect “fossilized” elements,
indicating past contact between the Hurrians and Indo-Iranian peoples, or they may
reflect the presence of Indo-Iranian peoples in these regions.34
Contact with Indo-Iranian peoples is first attested during the first millennium
BCE in an inscription of Shalmaneser III (ca. 840 BCE), which records the presence of
the Persians peoples in the Zagros Mountains region in close proximity to the Medes.
About a century later, texts from the time of Sargon II (ca. 720-705 BCE) again mention
the presence of the Persians, along with the Medes and Mannaeans, in the Zagros.
During the seventh century BCE, Sennacherib notes in the records of his eighth
campaign (ca. 692-691 BCE) that the Persians had allied with Elam and Anshan in
southwestern Iran, and Ashurbanipal (ca. 640 BCE) mentions an individual named Cyrus
who was king of Persia.35

Written sources attest to the presence of Iranian peoples in Palestine prior to
fall of Jerusalem.36 Ashurbanipal used deported Iranian bowmen for his army,37 a
phenomenon probably also seen in the book of Ezekiel, which refers to Iranian peoples
serving in the army of Tyre before the exile (Ezek 27:10). The book of Ezra indicates
33
Manfred Mayrhofer, Die Indo-Arier im Alten Vorderasien (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966), 29-30.
Annelies Kammenhuber (Die Arier im Vorderen Orient [Indogermanische Bibliothek, 3 Reihe:
Untersuchungen; Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1968]), however, disputes the identification of the linguistic
elements as Indo-Iranian.
34
Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, c. 3000-330 BC (2 vols.; Routledge History of the Ancient World;
London: Routledge, 1997), 296-298; Wilhelm, Hurrians, 17-19.
35
T. Cuyler Young, Jr., “Persians,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East (ed. Eric M.
Meyers; 5 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 4:295-300; Steibing, Ancient Near Eastern History and
Culture, 313-314.
36
Ian Young and Robert Rezetko, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2 vols.; BibleWorld; Oakland, Conn.:
Equinox, 2008), 1:296-298.
37
Bustanay Oded, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Wiesbaden: Ludwig
Reichert Verlag, 1979), 50.
32
that Ashurbanipal settled Iranian peoples in Samaria (Ezra 4:9-10), and similarly,
Sargon II speaks of settling peoples of the east in Samaria ca. 712 BCE. Since he had
previously conducted campaigns against Iran (ca. 716-713 BCE), it seems that Sargon II
moved Iranian peoples from the Zagros Mountains to Palestine.38
Conclusion
Although there are some gaps in our understanding of the connections between
the Levant and the above regions, it is clear that contact existed throughout the Late
Bronze and Iron Ages. The Late Bronze Age in particular was a time in which gift
exchange was a key component of diplomacy, international marriages, and treaties.39

Interaction between these regions dropped off significantly at the end of the Late
Bronze Age, but various regions maintained or quickly reestablished contact during the
first millennium BCE.
This international contact, which necessarily involved the exchange of goods,
provided many opportunities for lexical borrowing during the Late Bronze and Iron
Ages. Notably, much of Egypt’s contact was with Palestine whereas other regions
(Anatolia, Mitanni, the Aegean) were primarily in contact with northern Syria,
especially Ugarit. The next chapter investigates loan hypotheses within the corpus of
Northwest Semitic ca. 1400-600 BCE in light of this historical framework.
38
Nadav Naˀaman, “Population Changes in Palestine Following Assyrian Deportations,” TA 20 (1993):
108-109. This is supported by the presence of Iranian names in eighth-seventh century BCE ostraca from
Tell Jemmeh; see Nadav Naˀaman and Ran Zadok, “Sargon II’s Deportations to Israel and Philistia (716-
708 B.C.),” JCS 40 (1988): 40-42.
39
Mario Liverani, International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600-1100 B.C. (Studies in Diplomacy;
New York: Palgrave, 2001).
33
Chapter 4
Analysis of Loan Hypotheses
Corpus and the Scope of This Study
The corpus for the present study includes Northwest Semitic texts dating to the
period ca. 1400-600 BCE. Thus, this corpus includes Ugaritic, biblical and epigraphic
Hebrew, Old Aramaic, and Phoenician, as well as lesser-attested languages such as

Moabite, Ammonite, and Edomite. Within this corpus, only non-Semitic terms for
naturally-occurring and manufactured realia are examined. As such, personal names,

titles, and the like are not included in this study.
The chronological justification for the cutoff point of this corpus is twofold.
First, the end of the Iron II period provides a significant marker in the history and
archaeology of the ancient Near East, including the West Semitic world. With the
collapse of the Neo-Assyrian empire and the transition from Babylonian to Persian rule,
significant political, social, and cultural changes were introduced.
Second, the end of the Iron II period marks notable developments within the
Northwest Semitic languages. The transition from Old Aramaic to Imperial (Official)
Aramaic occurred near the end of the seventh century BCE,1 and earlier Phoenician
dialects and Tyro-Sidonian Phoenician gave way to later Phoenician dialects during this
general period.2 In terms of the biblical material, the end of the Iron II period coincides
roughly with the emergence of Late Biblical Hebrew. In books clearly identified as exilic
and post-exilic, such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, there is a distinct difference in
grammar and style, reflecting a new stage in the development of the Hebrew language.3
1
Stephen A. Kaufman, “Aramaic,” in The Semitic Languages (ed. Robert Hetzron; New York: Routledge,
1997), 114-116.
2
Johannes Friedrich and Wolfgang Röllig, Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik (ed. Maria Giulia Amadasi
Guzzo; 3d ed.; AnOr 55; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1999), 3-4; Stanislav Segert, A Grammar of
Phoenician and Punic (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1976), 27-30.
3
Ian Young, Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (FAT 5; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), 73-96;
E.Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (ed. Raphael Kutscher; 2d corrected ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1984), 81-85. Scholars debate what specifically constitutes Late Biblical Hebrew and which portions
of the Hebrew Bible fall within this category, but there is general agreement on many of the grammatical
34
Moreover, whereas there is a significant number of Greek and Persian loanwords in
Late Biblical Hebrew,4 Standard Biblical Hebrew generally lacks Greek and Persian
loanwords but contains loans from Akkadian, Egyptian, Hittite and other languages not
typically found in Late Biblical Hebrew.5 While one cannot automatically assume that
the absence of Greek or Persian loanwords points to an early date for a biblical text,6 it
is nevertheless generally true that biblical books reflecting a pre-exilic historical
setting do not contain as many Greek or Persian loanwords as books reflecting an exilic
or post-exilic historical setting. Thus, a word belonging to the corpus of Late Biblical
Hebrew is of a different nature lexically as well as grammatically and is excluded from
the present study, unless that term also occurs elsewhere in earlier Northwest Semitic.7
All pre-exilic biblical material representative of Standard Biblical Hebrew, however, is
included.8
The majority of terms in this study have been derived from the standard lexica9
as well as important studies on loanwords in Northwest Semitic, especially those of
Maximilian Ellenbogen10 and Wilfred G.E. Watson11 and the list of loanwords provided
and lexical features that Late Biblical Hebrew contains. For a discussion of the issues, see Ian Young, ed.,
Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (JSOTSup 369; London: T&T Clark, 2003).
4
Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 52.
5
Mats Eskhult, “The Importance of Loanwords for Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts,” in Biblical Hebrew:
Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. Ian Young; JSOTSup 369; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 19-23.
6
Ian Young and Robert Rezetko, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2 vols.; Bible World; Oakland, Conn.:
Equinox, 2008), 1:286-289, 293-298.
7
Thus, for example, if a Hebrew word occurs only in Late Biblical Hebrew but has a cognate in
Ugaritic, the Hebrew term is treated along with the Ugaritic term.
8
The following books of the Hebrew Bible are excluded from the present corpus on the grounds that
they reflect Late Biblical Hebrew or are exilic/post-exilic: Second Isaiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes
are also excluded on the basis that they are generally considered to be exilic, even though their language
may reflect diglossia different than standard Judean Hebrew (Young, Pre-Exilic Hebrew, 140-165). Once
again, however, words from these books are included if a cognate exists elsewhere in earlier Northwest
Semitic (e.g., Ugaritic). Due to the difficulties involved, no attempt is made to delineate possible
exilic/post-exilic redactions in pre-exilic books or books that may include both pre-exilic and
exilic/post-exilic material.
9
HALOT; DUL; DNWSI.
10
Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament.
11
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic.
35
by Chaim Rabin.12 This study is intended to be exhaustive only in the sense that all loan
hypothesis deemed to be influential in the secondary literature are evaluated.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to analyze every loan hypothesis, and no attempt is
made to affirm or refute every single loan hypothesis that has ever been proposed.
Loan hypothesis based on dubious textual readings or words for which an adequate
meaning cannot be determined are omitted from this study.13
Loan Hypotheses
Loan hypotheses for Northwest Semitic terms alleged to be foreign loans or
culture words are discussed below as individual articles. Words are listed according to
realia category (Food and Drink, Furniture, Metals and Metallurgy, Military
Technology, Minerals and Organic Materials, Miscellanea, Plants and Plant Products,
Religion and Cult, Scribal Technology, Textiles and Clothing, Tools, and Vessels) and
then alphabetically according to the order of the Semitic alphabet.
Each entry begins with the term in question, a brief gloss, and its occurrences.
Following this is a summary of the loan relationships for the term and 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.
An arrow (→) denotes the direction of a loan from one language to another. To
avoid confusion, a double arrow (⇒) marks parallel but separate loans when a word is
loaned into two or more languages, each with further, distinct development. Either a
12
Chaim Rabin, “‫מלים זרות‬,” ‫ אוצר הידיעות על המקרא ותקופתו‬:‫( אנציקלופדיה מקראית‬9 vols; Jerusalem:
Mosad Bialik, 1950-1988), 4:1070-80.
13
Thus, due to the likelihood of textual corruption (as indicated by the ancient versions), Hebrew
‫ ַח ְשׁ ַמן‬and ‫ ְפּ ָל ָדה‬are excluded. A number of words listed in Wilfred G.E. Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic
(Aula orientalis: Supplementa 19; Sabadell, Barcelona: Editorial AUSA, 2007), 118-149 are also excluded on
the basis that they reflect dubious textual readings, words in fragmentary contexts, or words of
uncertain meaning: ˀaškrr, ˀazmr, ˀilg, ˁbs/ˁps, dn, ḥbr, ḫlˀu, krk, knḫ, ktǵḏ, llḫ, lty, nḥ, pgˀu, prs, qrẓ, rtn, šˀan,
šˀurt, tṯnt, ṯrmn, ṯmk.
36
comma (,) or a semi-colon (;) is used to mark co-receptors of a loan: a comma separates
independent co-receptors within the same language family whereas a semi-colon
separates independent co-receptors of different language families.
A discussion of significant linguistic, cultural, and historical data concerning the
word makes up the bulk of each entry. By necessity, some terms require more
discussion than others, and, depending on the word, the nature and direction of the
discussion will vary.
Food and Drink
dǵ “bran; draff, marc”
(KTU 4.284:7)
Sum. → Akk. → Ug.
Sum. DUḪ; Akk. tuḫḫu
Ugaritic dǵ appears only once, mentioned alongside jars of yn (“wine”), šmn
(“oil”), and ztm (“olives”) in KTU 4.284:7. This context suggests a definition associated
with foodstuffs, specifically foods used to produce wine and various oils.14
Watson15 notes that this word is cognate with Akkadian tuḫḫu, which means
“residue, waste product” as well as “bran.” The term tuḫḫu often refers to the draff that
results from brewing beer in Akkadian texts, and the product that it denotes was
14
DUL 268. This term may also occur in KTU 7.99:3, but the text is very fragmentary and it is
impossible to accurately reconstruct the text and determine the general context.
15
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 82. Aartun (Kjell Aartun, Studien zur ugaritischen Lexikographie: mit
kultur- und religionsgeschichtlichen Parallelen [2 vols.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991-2006], 1:43) posits a
connection with Arabic dūġ, dawġ, “whey” (Kazimirski 1:750; Dozy 1:476) but this etymology cannot be
correct because this Arabic word was borrowed much later from Persian (Asya Asbaghi, Persische
Lehnwörter im Arabischen [Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1988], 128).
37
frequently used for animal fodder.16 This points to a definition that includes a variety of
residues or waste products derived from the production of foodstuffs, which is
congruent with the usage of dǵ in KTU 4.284:7.
This term entered the Semitic languages via Sumerian DUḪ,17 the origin of
Akkadian tuḫḫu. Like its Semitic derivations, Sumerian DUḪ also denotes bran or waste
products relating to foodstuffs. Because the Semitic words for this product originated
with Sumerian, Ugaritic dǵ is a transmitted loan: this term first entered Akkadian via
Sumerian, and from Akkadian it was loaned into Ugaritic.
‫“ ח ִֹרי‬cake”
(Gen 40:16)
Eg. → Heb.
Eg. ḥr.t, ḥry.t
Hebrew ‫ ח ִֹרי‬is a hapax that occurs in the Joseph cycle: the chief baker tells
Joseph how, in his dream, there were three baskets of ‫ ח ִֹרי‬on his head (Gen 40:16).18
Brown, Driver, and Briggs as well as Köhler and Baumgartner derive this word
from the root ‫חור‬, “to be white,”19 and assume that Hebrew ‫ ח ִֹרי‬refers to some kind of
white bread, perhaps made of white flour.20 While this is possible, the usage of ‫ח ִֹרי‬
16
CAD T 452-454; AHw 1366; Marten Stol, “Zur altmesopotamischen Bierbereitung,” BO 28 (1971): 170-
171. The term tuḫḫu occurs once in Ugaritic Akkadian (RS 20.123+180A+180α+185A,B+190A+197E+426C,
E+21.07B iii:3).
17
PSD.
18
HALOT 353. The Septuagint utilizes χονδρίτης (“cake of fine grain”), the Vulgate uses farina
(“flour”), and the Peshitta has ḥwrṭˀ (“white”); Targum Onqelos utilizes ‫ חורי‬whereas Targums Pseudo-
Jonathan read ‫נקי‬, both Aramaic terms meaning “white.”
19
HALOT 299.
20
BDB 301; HALOT 353; cf. G.R. Driver, Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. (2d ed.; Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1957), 59-60; Stanislav Segert, “Aramäische Studien I. Die neuen Editionen von Brooklyn
Papyri und Aršāms Briefe in ihrer Bedeutung für die Bibelwissenschaft,” ArOr 24 (1956): 59-60. These
scholars compare Imperial Aramaic ‫חורי‬, which occurs once as an adjective modifying ‫“( קמח‬flour”), as
well as Jewish Aramaic ‫חיוָּ ֶר ָתא‬, “white flour,” and Arabic ḥuwārā, which means “white” and sometimes
occurs with reference to flour and bread (DNWSI 357; DJBA 451; Lane 666). Additional support for this loan
38
within an Egyptian context—specifically within the speech of an Egyptian—points to an
Egyptian loan. As Muchiki notes,21 the donor term is Egyptian ḥr.t, ḥry.t “cake,” which
first appears in Egyptian texts during the Old Kingdom. 22 The usage of this Egyptian
term here fits well with the appearance of numerous Egyptian elements and motifs
throughout the Joseph cycle.23
‫( יַ יִ ן‬Heb.), ‫( יין‬Phoen., Ammon.), yn (Ug.) “wine”
(Gen 9:21, 24; passim; Sam(8):1.5:3; passim; Shiqmona 532/7:2; CAI 80:7-8; KTU 1.4 iii:43;
passim)
CW
IA ‫ ;יין‬OSA wyn; Eth. wayn; Eg. wnš (“grape, raisin”), wnš.t (“wine”); Hatt. windu; Hitt.
wiyana; Luw. wiyana (“vine”); Lin. B. wo-no; Gk. οἶνος; Lat. vinum; Arm. gini; Georg.
ḡvino; Svan ḡvinäl
The word ‫ יַ יִ ן‬occurs 141 times in the Hebrew Bible with the meaning “wine.”24
hypothesis may come from the Egyptian Nineteenth Dynasty “Dream Book,” which mentions white
bread in dreams as a positive omen (P. Chester Beatty III 3,4). There is no evidence, on the other hand, for
a connection with Eblaite, contra Mitchell Dahood, “Eblaite ha-rí and Genesis ḥōrî,” BN 13 (1980): 14-16.
Eblaite ḫa-rí does not mean “baker” as Dahood supposes, but refers to a female servant of the court; see
Franco D’Agostino, “Il termine ‘ḫa-rí’ nella documentazione di Ebla: antroponimo o professione? (note di
lessicografia eblaita),” RSO 70 (1997): 15-21.
21
Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 244; cf. Manfred Görg, “Ein eblaitisches Wort in der
Josepherzählung?” BN 13 (1980): 29-31.
22
ÄW 1:879; 2:1755; GHwÄ 598; WÄS 3:148.
23
For a summary of the Egyptian elements and motifs found in the Joseph cycle, see James K.
Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1996), 83-95.
24
HALOT 409-410. See Gen 9:21, 24; 14:18; 19:32-35; 27:25; 49:11-12; Exod 29:40; Lev 10:9; 23:13; Num
6:3 (2x), 4, 20; 15:5, 7, 10; 28:14; Deut 14:26; 28:39; 29:5; 32:33, 38; Josh 9:4, 13; Judg 13:4, 7, 14 (2x); 19:19; 1
Sam 1:14-15, 24; 10:3; 16:20; 25:18, 37; 2 Sam 13:28; 16:1-2; 1 Chron 9:29; 12:41; 27:27; 2 Chron 2:9, 14; 11:11;
Neh 2:1 (2x); 5:15, 18; 13:15; Esth 1:7, 10; 5:6; 7:2, 7-8; Job 1:13, 18; 32:19; Ps 60:5; 75:9; 78:65; 104:15; Prov
4:17; 9:2, 5; 20:1; 21:17; 23:20, 30-31; 31:4, 6; Eccl 2:3; 9:7; 10:19; Song 1:2, 4; 2:4; 4:10; 5:1; 7:10; 8:2; Isa 5:11-
12, 22; 16:10; 22:13; 24:9, 11; 28:1, 7 (2x); 29:9; 51:21; 55:1; 56:12; Jer 13:12 (2x); 23:9; 25:15; 35:2, 5 (2x), 6
(2x), 8, 14; 40:10, 12; 48:33; 51:7; Lam 2:12; Ezek 27:18; 44:21; Dan 1:5, 8, 16; 10:3; Hos 4:11; 7:5; 9:4; 14:8; Joel
1:5; 4:3; 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. The
Septuagint, Vulgate, Targums, and Peshitta most commonly translate ‫ יַ יִ ן‬as οἶνος, vinum, ‫חמר‬, and ḥmrˀ,
all meaning “wine,” respectively.
39
This term occurs elsewhere in preexilic inscriptional Hebrew as either ‫ יין‬or ‫ין‬.25 In
Phoenician, the word ‫ יין‬is attested only once in a Persian period inscription from
Shiqmona (Shiqmona 532/7:2);26 in Ammonite, this word is attested twice in a seventh-
sixth century from Heshbon (CAI 80:7-8).27 Ugaritic yn appears numerous times, most
frequently in economic texts.28
This word is entirely limited to West Semitic, karānu, kirānu being the typical
Akkadian (East Semitic) term for “grape, grapevine, wine.”29 This distribution and
several additional factors indicate that Hebrew ‫ יַ יִ ן‬and its cognates are not native to
Semitic: this term has no Semitic etymology;30 the grapevine (Vitis vinifera) was first
cultivated in the eastern Mediterranean and the southern Caucasus;31 lastly, the
25
DNWSI 455-456. See Sam(8):1.5:3; 1.6:3 [=KAI 185:3]; 1.10:3; 1.11:1; 1.12:1, 3; 1.13.3; 1.14:3; 1.35:3;
1.53:1; 1.54:1 [= KAI 187:1]; 1.57:1; 1.62:1; 1.72:1; 1.73:1; 1.101:1; Kom(8):6:1; Lak(7/6):20:1; Arad(6):1:3, 9; 2:2,
5; 3:2; 4:3; 8:5; 10:2; 11:3. It is likely that ‫ יין‬or ‫ ין‬is to be restored also in Sam(8):1.1:2; 1.3:2; 1.4:3; 1.7:2; 1.8:3;
1.9:3; 1.15:2; 1.20:1; 1.89:1; Arad(6):9:2; 14:2; 61:2. Lastly, this word is found as ‫ יין‬on an unprovenanced
Iron II decanter (Robert Deutsch and Michael Heltzer, Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions [Tel Aviv:
Archaeological Center Publication, 1994], 23-26). The lack of representation of the diphthong y in the
Samaria Ostraca does not necessarily mean that monophthongization had occurred in the north; it may
reflect a different orthographic tradition practiced by scribes of the region.
26
DNWSI 455-456; Frank Moore Cross, Jr., “Jar Inscriptions from Shiqmona,” IEJ 18 (1968): 227.
Phoenician ‫ ין‬also occurs in an unprovenanced jar inscription, dated to the Persian period and bought in
Gaza; see Joseph Naveh, “Unpublished Phoenician Inscriptions from Palestine,” IEJ 37 (1987): 27.
27
DNWSI 455-456.
28
DUL 968-971. See KTU 1.4 iii:43; iv:37; vi:47-54, 58; 1.5 i:25; iv:15; 1.6 i:10; vi:45; 1.14 ii:19; iv:1; 1.15
iv:5, 16; 1.16 iii:15; 1.17 i:31; ii:6, 20; vi:5, 8; 1.19 iv:53, 57; 1.22 i:17-19; 1.23:6, 74-76; 1.41:1, 23; 1.45:1; 1.87:1,
24; 1.91:1, 21-28, 35; 1.92:36; 1.101:9; 1.112:13; 1.114:3, 16; 2.31:66; 4.123:8, 22-23; 4.149:10, 14; 4.160:2;
4.182:32; 4.213:1-7, 9-17, 19-28, 30; 4.216:1; 4.219:1, 12; 4.221:5; 4.225:3; 4.230:1, 11, 15; 4.246:2, 4, 6; 4.269:27-
28, 34; 4.274:1; 4.279:1, 3-5; 4.284:5; 4.285:1-12; 4.387:21; 4.400:1, 5, 10, 14, 18; 4.424:16-17; 4.786:7, 10;
4.691:3, 6; 4.715:2; 5.9 i:15; 6.11:1.
29
CAD K 202-206; AHw 446-447. West Semitic forms include Imperial Aramaic ‫יין‬, Old South Arabian
wyn, yyn, and Ethiopic wayn (DNWSI 455-456; DOSA 127; CDG 623). A fragmentary lexical text from Late
Bronze Age Aphek (IAA 90/254 = Aphek 8151/1) lists this word as yēnu (line 2ʹ); that this word is West
Semitic is indicated by its position in the third column of this Sumerian-Akkadian-West Semitic trilingual
(Wayne Horowitz, Takayoshi Oshima, and Seth L. Sanders, Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the
Land of Israel in Ancient Times [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2006], 32).
30
Van Selms proposes a Semitic etymology for Hebrew ‫יַ יִ ן‬, deriving it from the verb ‫ינה‬, “to be
violent” and assuming that this verb originally meant “to squeeze” (A. Van Selms, “The Etymology of
yayin, ‘Wine,’” JNSL 3 [1974]: 76-84). However, this etymology is completely speculative.
31
Daniel Zohary and Maria Hopf, Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of
Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley (3d ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 151-
159; H.P. Olmo, “The Origin and Domestication of the Vinifera Grape,” in The Origins and Ancient History of
Wine (eds. Patrick E. McGovern, et al.; Food and Nutrition in History and Anthropology 11; Amsterdam:
Gordon & Breach Publishers, 1996), 31-43. Inhabitants of the ancient Near East adopted grapevine
40
inhabitants of ancient Mesopotamia primarily drank beer rather than wine, which was
instead a Mediterranean and Caucasian beverage.32
Since the grapevine was first cultivated in the regions of the eastern
Mediterranean and southern Caucasus, this word must have originated there. This
western Asiatic culture word is the source of numerous forms in Indo-European (Hittite
wiyana, Luwian wiyan, wiyana, Linear B wo-no, Greek οἶνος, Latin vinum, and Armenian
gini),33 Kartvellian (Georgian γvino and Svan γvinäl),34 Hattic (windu),35 and Egyptian
(wnš, “grape, raisin,” and wnš.t, “wine”).36 Some Indo-European scholars claim that this
word is of Indo-European etymology,37 but this is speculative given this word’s

antiquity and wide distribution.38
growing very early, perhaps as early as the fifth millennium BCE; see Daniel Zohary, “The Domestication
of the Grapevine Vitis Vinifera L. in the Near East,” in The Origins and Ancient History of Wine (eds. Patrick E.
McGovern, et al.; Food and Nutrition in History and Anthropology 11; Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach
Publishers, 1996), 22-30.
32
Powell notes that “Babylonia like Bavaria was essentially a beer drinking culture” (Marvin A.
Powell, “Wine and the Vine in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Cuneiform Evidence,” in The Origins and Ancient
History of Wine [eds. Patrick E. McGovern, et al.; Food and Nutrition in History and Anthropology 11;
Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach Publishers, 1996], 106).
33
HHw 228; CLL 269; Annick Payne, Hieroglyphic Luwian (2d ed.; Elementa Linguarum Orientis 3;
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 152; DLL 111; DM 2:443; LSJ 1207; OLD 2067-2068; HAB 1:558-559.
34
CGED 1325; SED 269.
35
HWHT 913-914. Hattic windu is presently attested only in the compound word windukaram, “wine
steward.”
36
ÄW 1:353; 2:689; GHwÄ 214; WÄS 2:325. The earliest attestation of Egyptian wnš is the Old Kingdom;
wnš.t, on the other hand, first appears during the New Kingdom.
37
Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and Vjačeslav V. Ivanonv, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A
Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture (ed. Werner Winter;trans.
Johanna Nichols; 2 vols.; Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 80; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
1994-1995), 1:557-561, 778; Robert S.P. Beekes, “On Indo-European ‘Wine,’” Münchener Studien zur
Sprachwissenschaft 48 (1987): 21-26. These scholars postulate the existence of a nominal form derived
from the Indo-European root *u̯eh2, “to turn, twist” (LIV 663; IEW 1:1120-1122).
38
The difficulties of deriving the Kartvellian (particularly Georgian) forms from Indo-European are
noted in John A.C. Greppin, “Arm. գիէի gini, Grg. ლვინო γvino ‘Wine,’” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 19
(1998): 65-69.
41
mndǵ “groats”
(KTU 1.85:4)
Akk. → Hurr. → Ug.
Akk. mundu
Ugaritic mndǵ occurs once in the hippiatric texts as a remedy for sick horses
(KTU 1.85:4).39 According to the specified treatment, the substance denoted by mndǵ is
to be pulverized and liquefied (ydk w ymsś) and then placed in the sick horse’s nose.
This word has no known Semitic cognates, suggesting a foreign loan. A Hurrian
form of Akkadian mundu, “groats, fine flour,”40 is the likely donor term.41 The final ǵ of
Ugaritic mndǵ presumably reflects the Hurrian suffix –ḫi.42 Although no Hurrian term
*munduḫi is presently attested, the appearance of Akkadian mundu at Alalakh and Nuzi
demonstrates this word’s usage within a Hurrian context.
Usage of groats for medicinal purposes in a water solution (A.NÍG.ḪAR.RA) was a
common practice in Mesopotamian medicine (e.g., VAT 10170 ii:15; A238+VAT
13727+14208:4-5; VAT 9138:17),43 providing a fitting parallel to the usage of mndǵ in the
Ugaritic hippiatric texts.
39
DUL 561-562. It is possible that mndǵ should be restored in KTU 1.71:4; 1.72:5.
40
CAD M/2 201-202; AHw 673.
41
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 69, 131; Joaqín Sanmartín, “Textos hipiátrocos de Ugarit y el
discurso del método,” AuOr 6 (1988): 232.
42
Sanmartín, “Textos hipiátrocos de Ugarit y el discurso del método,” 232. The final ǵ does not
reflect the presence of a final laryngeal in Akkadian mundu, contra Chaim Cohen, “The Ugaritic Hippiatric
Texts: Revised Composite Text, Translation, and Commentary,” UF 28 (1996): 117 (cf. Marten Stol, review
of Chaim Cohen and Daniel Sivan, The Ugaritic Hippiatric Texts: A Critical Edition, BO 43 [1986]: 173).
43
Franz Köcher, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur 2 (vol. 2 of Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und
Untersuchungen; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1963), pl. 39, 43, 71. The term A.NÍG.ḪAR.RA also appears in
ritual texts with the same sense (KAR 234:27, rev. 5, 18); see George Castellino, “Rituals and Prayers
against ‘Appearing Ghosts,’” Or 24 (1955): 260-264. There is no reason to reject the meaning “groats
water” for A.NÍG.ḪAR.RA, contra CAD M/2 202.
42
mrṯ “wine”
(KTU 1.22 i:18, 20; 2.34:32; 2.36:7)
CW
Akk. merištu; JA ‫מ ַירת‬, ְ Syr. merītā

ֵ ‫;מ ֵרית‬
Ugaritic mrṯ occurs four times with reference to an alcoholic beverage of some
kind, most probably wine.44 Two instances are in the Rapiˀuma texts: in the first, mrṯ
appears along with yn, “wine” (KTU 1.22 i:18), and in the second, mrṯ is said to be made
from dew by El (KTU 1.22 i:20). Ugaritic mrṯ also occurs twice in letters with reference
to a substance that, in at least one case, is said to be drunk (KTU 2.34:32; 2.36:7).45
Semitic cognates to Ugaritic mrṯ include Akkadian merištu (attested only in the
phrase garšikar u merištum [CBM 3005:9]46), Jewish Aramaic ‫מ ַירת‬, ְ and Syriac merītā.47
ֵ ‫מ ֵרית‬,
All these terms presumably reflect an ancient culture word48 connected with western
Asia or the Caucasus, the origin of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera).49 It is probable that this
culture word is connected with the same culture word behind Hebrew ‫ ִתּירוֹשׁ‬and
44
DUL 579. The word mrṯ may also appear in line 14 of the mythological text RS 92.2016, but the
tablet is fragmentary and another possible restoration is trṯ; see André Caquot and Anne-Sophie Dalix,
“Une texte mythico-magique,” in Études ougaritiques: travaux 1985-1995 (eds. Marguerite Yon and Daniel
Arnaud; Ras Shamra-Ougarit 14; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 2001), 395, 400.
45
Ugaritic mrṯ in these last two cases probably does not mean “estate,” contra Meindert Dijkstra,
“Marginalia to the Ugaritic Letters in KTU (I),” UF 19 (1987): 47-48; Meindert Dijkstra, “Marginalia to the
Ugaritic Letters in KTU (II),” UF 21 (1989): 143. Most likely, it has to do with an alcoholic drink; see José-
Ángel Zamora, La vid y el vino en Ugarit (Banco de datos filológicos semíticos noroccidentales: Monografías
6; Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientifícas, 2000), 252-258; Dennis Pardee, “Ugaritic: The
Letter of Puduḫepa: The Text,” AfO 29/30 (1983-1984): 327.
46
D.D. Luckenbill, “A Study of the Temple Documents from the Cassite Period,” AJSL 23 (1907): 293.
47
Jastrow 844; SyrLex 834.
48
Some scholars contend that Ugaritic mrṯ is an m-preformative noun from the hypothetical Semitic
root *wrṯ/*yrṯ, allegedly meaning “to press out, squeeze” (e.g., Zamora, Vid y el vino en Ugarit, 249-252).
However, there is no evidence for the existence of this root in Semitic. The hypothetical Hebrew root
‫ירש‬, “to press out, squeeze,” allegedly attested in Job 20:15 and Mic 6:15 does not exist (Oswald Loretz,
“Hebräisch tjrwš und jrš in Mic 6,15 und Hi 20,15,” UF 9 [1977]: 353-354). Eblaite warisu, equated with
Sumerian NI.A.ENGUR and of uncertain meaning, likewise does not establish the existence of this root
(cf. Pelio Fronzaroli, “Osservazioni sul lessico delle bevande dei testi di Ebla,” in Drinking in Ancient
Societies: History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East: Papers of a Symposium Held in Rome, May 17-19,
1990 [ed. Lucio Milano; History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 6; Padova: Sargon, 1994], 123).
49
Zohary and Hopf, Domestication of Plants in the Old World, 151-159; Olmo, “Origin and Domestication
of the Vinifera Grape,” 31-43.
43
Ugaritic trṯ.50 West Semitic, in turn, is the origin of New Kingdom Egyptian mrsw and its
Coptic derivative ⲙⲣⲓⲥ.51
‫( נ ֶֹפת‬Heb.), nbt (Ug.) “bee honey”
(Ps 19:11; Prov 5:3; 24:13; 27:7; Song 4:11)
The word ‫ נ ֶֹפת‬appears only five times in the Hebrew Bible, exclusively in poetic
texts.52 It occurs several times in conjunction with ‫( ְדּ ַבשׁ‬Ps 19:11; Prov 24:13),
establishing its definition as “honey.” The description as ‫צוּפים‬

ִ (“flowing”) in Ps 19:11
and its association with the verb ‫“( נטף‬to drip”) indicate that it specifically refers to
fresh bee honey rather than date syrup, as ‫ ְדּ ַבשׁ‬sometimes indicates. Ugaritic nbt also
means “honey” and occurs in mythological (KTU 1.6 iii:7, 13; 1.14 ii:19; iv:2; 1.41:21;
1.87:22; 1.148:22) as well as administrative (KTU 4.14:2, 8, 15; 4.751:6; 4.780:13) texts.53
Despite Watson’s attempt to derive Hebrew ‫ נ ֶֹפת‬and Ugaritic nbt from non-
Semitic,54 these terms reflect a common Semitic word (cf. Akkadian nūbtu, Arabic nūb,
and Ethiopic nəhb, all meaning “bee”)55 and do not constitute a foreign loan.
50
Cf. Manfred Görg, “Ein semitisch-ostmediterranes Kulturwort im Alten Testament,” BN 8 (1979): 7-
10.
51
GHwÄ 370; WÄS 2:112; Crum 183; CED 89; James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New
Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), 140-141.
52
HALOT 713-714. The Septuagint uses μέλι (“honey”) in Ps 19:11; Prov 5:3 and κηρίον (“honeycomb”)
in Prov 24:13; 27:7; Song 4:11; the Vulgate has favus (“honeycomb”) throughout; the Peshitta has kkrytˀ
(“honeycomb”) in Ps 19:11; Prov 5:3; 27:7; Song 4:11 but dbšˀ (“honey”) in Prov 24:13; the Targum has
‫“( ככריתא‬honeycomb”) everywhere but Song 4:11, where it reads ‫“( יערה‬honeycomb”).
53
DUL 618-619.
54
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 142. He derives this word from Egyptian bi.t, “bee, honey” (ÄW
1:413; 2:796-797; GHwÄ 261; WÄS 1:434), but this is phonologically problematic.
55
CAD N/2 309; AHw 800; Lane 2863; CDG 393. Egyptian nf.t, “honey,” is only attested once during the
Old Kingdom and probably reflects a borrowing from Semitic (Francesco Aspesi, “The Lexical Item nft of
an Old Egyptian Inscription,” in Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies in Memoriam W. Vycichl
[ed. Gábor Takács; Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 39; Leiden: Brill, 2004], 3-12).
44
‫( ִתּירוֹשׁ‬Heb.), ‫( תרש‬Phoen.), trṯ (Ug.) “grape; new wine”
(Gen 27:28, 37; passim; KAI 26 A iii:7, 9; C iv:7, 9; KTU 1.5 iv:20; 1.17 vi:7; 1.114:4, 16)
CW
Ebla. tirišu; Luw. tuwarsa (“grapevine, vineyard”); Gk. θύρσος (“wand-staff wreathed in
vine-leaves”)
The word ‫ ִתּירוֹשׁ‬occurs 38 times in the Hebrew Bible.56 It is frequently mentioned
along with ‫דּגָ ן‬,ָ “grain” as a commodity of the land of Palestine (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; 2 Chron 32:28; Ps
6:8; Zech 9:17) or to fresh wine (e.g., Isa 62:8; Joel 2:24).57 In Phoenician, ‫ תרש‬occurs only
in the ˀAzatiwada Inscription (KAI 26 A iii:7, 9; C iv:7, 9).58 In this text, ‫ תרש‬is paired with
‫שבע‬, “grain,” similar to the collocation of ‫ ִתּירוֹשׁ‬and ‫ ָשׂ ָבע‬in biblical Hebrew (Prov 3:10)
as well as ‫ ִתּירוֹשׁ‬and ‫דּגָ ן‬.ָ 59 Lastly, Ugaritic trṯ appears several times in the mythological
texts within the context of feasting, occurring parallel to yn (“wine”) in at least two
instances (KTU 1.114:4, 16).60
56
HALOT 1727-1728. See Gen 27:28, 37; 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; 2 Chron 31:5; 32:28; Neh 5:11; 10:38, 40; 13:5, 12; Ps 4:8; Prov 3:10; Isa 24:7; 36:17; 62:8;
65:8; Jer 31:12; Hos 2:10-11, 24; 4:11; 7:14; 9:2; Joel 1:10; 2:19, 24; Mic 6:15; Hag 1:11; Zech 9:17. The
Septuagint, Vulgate, Targums, and Peshitta most frequently translate ‫ ִתּירוֹשׁ‬as οἶνος, vinum, ‫חמר‬, and
hmrˀ, respectively.
57
Shlomo Naeh and M.P. Weitzmann, “Tīrōš: Wine or Grape? A Case of Metonymy,” VT 44 (1994): 115-
120. The association of ‫ ִתּירוֹשׁ‬with grain (‫ ָדּגָ ן‬or ‫)שׂ ָבע‬
ָ and fresh olive oil (‫ )יִ ְצ ָהר‬demonstrates the definition
of “grape” or “new wine” since these words stand in contrast to the more aged forms, i.e., ‫“( יַ יִ ן‬wine”), ‫ס ֶֹלת‬
(“fine flour”), and ‫“( ֶשׁ ֶמן‬oil”).
58
DNWSI 1234. The meaning of Punic ‫תרש‬, attested only in CIS I,5522:2, is of uncertain meaning but
probably does not mean “wine” (DNWSI 1234).
59
John David Hawkins, Inscriptions of the Iron Age (vol. 1 of Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions; 2
vols.; Studies in Indo-European Language and Culture, New Series 8; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 66;
K. Lawson Younger, Jr., “The Phoenician Inscription of Azatiwada: An Integrated Reading,” JSS 48 (1998):
20. The Hieroglyphic Luwian text reads (DEUS)BONUS-sa, supporting the rendering of “grain” rather
than “plenty” for Phoenician ‫ שבע‬since the “good god,” Kuparmas, is identified with the Hurrian grain
god Kumarbi.
60
DUL 880. The word trṯ may also appear in line 14 of the mythological text RS 92.2016, but the tablet
is fragmentary and another possible restoration is mrṯ; see Caquot and Dalix, “Texte mythico-magique,”
395, 400. The word trṯ also appears as a divine name in several Ugaritic offering lists (KTU 1.39:11, 16;
1.102:9).
45
This word has no known Semitic root on which it could be based61 and is a
foreign loan. It constitutes an ancient culture word most probably borrowed from
western Asia or the Caucasus, the botanical orign of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera).62 It is
probable that this culture word is connected with the same culture word behind
Ugaritic mrṯ.63 Additional forms of this old term include Eblaite tirišu, “wine,”64 Luwian
tuwarsa, “grapevine, vineyard,”65 and Greek θύρσος, which denotes a wand-staff twined
with vine-leaves.66
Furniture
‫( ֲהד ֹם‬Heb.), hdm (Ug.) “footstool”
(1 Chron 28:2; Ps 99:5; 110:1; 132:7; Lam 2:1; KTU 1.3 ii:22, 37 [2x]; 1.4 i:34; iv:29; 1.5 vi:13
[2x]; 1.6 i:60; iii:15; 1.7:5; 1.17 ii:11; 1.161:14)
CW
Akk. atmû; Eg. hdmw, hadmu; Hurr. admi
Hebrew ‫הד ֹם‬,ֲ “footstool,” appears only five times, always in conjunction with
‫“( ַרגְ ַליִם‬feet”).67 In several instances it refers to God’s dwelling place on earth, the ark of
61
As noted in the entry for Ugaritic mrṯ, there is no evidence for the existence of a root *wrṯ/*yrṯ
meaning “to press, squeeze” in the Semitic languages.
62
Zohary and Hopf, Domestication of Plants in the Old World, 151-159; Olmo, “Origin and Domestication
of the Vinifera Grape,” 31-43.
63
Görg, “Ein semitisch-ostmediterranes Kulturwort im Alten Testament,” 7-10.
64
Pelio Fronzaroli, “A Pharmaceutical Text at Ebla (TM.75.G.1623),” ZA 88 (1998): 231-232.
65
Payne, Hieroglyphic Luwian, 151; Emmanuel Laroche, Les hiéroglyphes hittites: l’écriture (Paris: Éditions
du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1960), 85-86.
66
LSJ 812; EDG 566; DELG 430; Gamkrelidze and Ivanonv, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, 1:798.
Rabin postulates that Luwian is the source of Hebrew ‫( ִתּירוֹשׁ‬Chaim Rabin, “Hittite Words in Hebrew,” Or
32 [1963]: 137-138). However, Luwian tuwarsa has no Indo-European etymology and a Luwian word could
not have been the source of Eblaite tirišu.
67
HALOT 239. The ancient versions utilize a variety of terms and phrases to translate Hebrew ‫הד ֹם‬.ֲ
The Septuagint uses ὑποπόδιον (“footstool”) in Ps 99:5; 110:1; Lam 2:1 but στάσις ποδῶν (“standing of the
46
the covenant (1 Chron 28:2; Ps 99:5; 132:7; Isa 66:1); in Ps 110:1, ‫ ֲהד ֹם‬is an image of the
subjection of the Israelite king’s enemies. Ugaritic hdm, which occurs exclusively in
mythological texts, also means “footstool.”68 This term is associated with pˁn (“feet”)
several times in Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.6 i:60; iii:15; 1.161:14), and other times it appears
parallel to ksˀu (KTU 1.3 ii:22, 37; 1.5 vi:13) or kḥṯ (KTU 1.4 i:24), both meaning “seat,
throne.”
Two related terms can be found in non-Semitic. The first is Hurrian atmi,
“footstool.” This Hurrian term occurs in a Hurro-Hittite bilingual that describes the god
Tešub sitting on a footstool (atmi) of enormous size (KBo 32.13 Vs. i:4-6, ii:5-8).69
Akkadian texts from Nuzi mention this Hurrian term as atmû, which occurs with the
wood derminative GIŠ, amidst different pieces of furniture.70 The second is New
Kingdom Egyptian hdm.w, a loan from West Semitic.71 The absence of any native
etymology for the Semitic, Egyptian, and Hurrian terms points to an ancient culture
word, as do the key phonological differences between the various forms.72
During the second millennium, footstools are only occasionally found in glyptic
art from Anatolia; in contrast, footstool usage became much more common during the
feet”) in 1 Chron 28:2 and ὁ τόπος, οὗ ἔστησαν οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ (“the place where his feet stand”) in Ps
132:7. The Vulgate has scabillum (“footstool”) in every instance but Ps 132:7, where it reads locus ubi
steterunt pedes eius (“the place where his feet stand”). The Peshitta reads kwbš (“footstool”) everywhere
but 1 Chron 28:2, where škyn (“dwelling”) is used. Lastly, the Targum translates Hebrew ‫ ֲהד ֹם‬with ‫כיבשׁ‬
(“footstool”) everywhere but Ps 99:5 and Lam 2:1, where it has ‫“( בית מקדשה‬house of his sanctuary”).
68
DUL 335.
69
Erich Neu, Das hurritische Epos der Freilassung: Untersuchungen zu einem hurritisch-hethitischen
Textensemble aus Ḫattuša (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 32; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996), 242.
70
CAD A/2 498; AHw 87. On the realia of Hurrian admi, see Helga Schneider-Ludorff, “Das Mobiliar
nach den Texten von Nuzi,” in General Studies and Excavations at Nuzi 10/3 (eds. David I. Owen and Gernot
Wilhelm; Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 12; Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press,
2002), 134-135.
71
GHwÄ 532; WÄS 2:505; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 221-222. In Demotic, this word occurs as
htm and has the meaning “throne” (DG 282).
72
UT 389 (§19.751). Watson (Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 43-44) derives Ugaritic hdm and
Hebrew ‫ ֲהד ֹם‬from Hurrian atmi, but this does not adequately explain the Semitic forms’ initial h or the
long o-vowel contrasted with the lack of a vowel after the t in Hurrian. Hebrew ‫ ֲהד ֹם‬is from a presumed
original *hidām (Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten
Testamentes: Einleitung, Schriftlehre, Laut- und Formenlehre [Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1922], 473 [§468hβ]), which
cannot be readily derived from Hurrian atmi.
47
Neo-Hittite period.73 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 feet on top of his defeated enemies).74
Mesopotamian footstools, depicted on Neo-Assyrian bas-reliefs, sculptures, and ivory
plaques, exhibit great variety and are most often associated with the king.75
kḥṯ “seat, throne”
(KTU 1.1 iv:24; 1.2 i:23, 25, 27, 29; iv:13, 20; 1.3 iv:3; 1.4 i:33; vi:51; 1.6 i:58, 64; v:6; vi:34;
1.10 iii:14; 1.16 v:25; vi:24; 1.22 ii:18)
CW
Akk. kaḫšu; Eg. kḥs, kḥss; Hurr. kešḫi
Ugaritic kḥṯ occurs exclusively in mythological texts. It appears frequently along
with ksˀu, “seat, throne” (KTU 1.1 iv:24; 1.2 iv:13, 20; 1.3 iv:3; 1.6 v:6; vi:34; 1.10 iii:14; 1.16
vi:24) and hdm, “footstool” (KTU 1.4 i:33; 1.6 i:58), demonstrating that kḥṯ means “seat,
throne.”76 Notably, the seat denoted by kḥṯ is exclusively associated with the gods with
the exception of KTU 1.16 vi:24, where it is associated with King Kirta.
This word has no Semitic etymology, and several related forms exist in both
Semitic and non-Semitic: Amarna Akkadian kaḫšu (attested only in EA 120:18),77 Hittite
73
Dorit Symington, “Hittite and Neo-Hittite Furniture,” in The Furniture of Western Asia, Ancient and
Traditional: Papers of the Conference Held at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, June 28 to 30,
1993 (ed. Georgina Herrmann; Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 1996), 117,
74
Geoffrey Killen, Ancient Egyptian Furniture (2 vols.; Modern Egyptology Series; Warminster, England:
Aris & Phillips, 1980-1994), 2:87-91.
75
Shamil A.A. Kubba, Mesopotamian Furniture: From the Mesolithic to the Neo-Assyrian Period (ca. 10,000
B.C.-600 B.C.) (BAR International Series 1566; Oxford: Hedges, 2006), 100; John Curtis, “Assyrian Furniture:
The Archaeological Evidence,” in The Furniture of Western Asia, Ancient and Traditional: Papers of the
Conference Held at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, June 28 to 30, 1993 (ed. Georgina
Herrmann; Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 1996), 173-175.
76
DUL 434.
77
CAD K 36; AHw 420.
48
and Hurrian kešḫi,78 and Egyptian kḥs, kḥss (first attested beginning with the Middle
Kingdom).79 All these forms reflect an ancient culture word.80 The variety of shapes that
these forms exhibit reflect different attempts to match the borrowing language’s
phonology: note especially the metathesis between the final two consonants and
alternation between š/s/ss and ˀ/ḫ.
As noted above, the furniture piece denoted by kešḫi tends to be associated with
the gods and royalty in Ugaritic literature: one would not expect a term for a simple
seat to have been borrowed. Extant ancient chairs are likewise associated with gods or
kings. Two of the earliest depictions of chairs from Mesopotamia include the Standard
of Ur’s depiction of a king on a low-back chair with animal legs and a stone statue of a
woman seated on a chair with animal legs from Mari (both Early Dynastic period). Both
backless and high-backed chairs and thrones are attested much later in Neo-Assyrian
representations.81 Seal depictions indicate that backless or low-backed seats were

preferred in Anatolia during the second millennium, but during the Iron Age high-
backed chairs came to be preferred.82 In Egypt, evidence for usage of the chair is first
attested during the early third millennium BCE. Chairs gilded with gold or ivory and
decorated with various animal motifs have been discovered in Egyptian tombs, such as
the tomb of Queen Hetepheres at Giza (Fourth Dynasty) and the tomb of Tutankhamun
78
LKI 211-212; GLH 143-144; HHw 86. Puhvel as well as Diakonoff and Starostin (HED 4:167; I.M.
Diakonoff and S.A. Starostin, Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language [Münchener Studien zur
Sprachwissenschaft 12; Munich: R. Kitzinger, 1986], 59) suggest that kešḫi is an inner-Hurrian derivation
from an Eastern Caucasian root *iq̇w, “to sit, be” (SKI 439-440; NCED 647-648; SSSDI 140). Laroche, on the
other hand, considers kešḫi a loan from Akkadian kussû with addition of the Hurrian suffix -ḫe (GLH 144).
However, it is impossible to prove either of these etymologies based on the evidence; Hurrian kešḫi
simply reflects an ancient culture word.
79
ÄW 2:2580; GHwÄ 959; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 336-337.
80
Friedrich contends that Ugaritic kḥṯ is a borrowing from Hurrian kešḫi, assuming metathesis of the
last two consonants (Johannes Friedrich, “Churritisch-Ugaritisches und Churritisch-Luwisches,” AfO 14
[1944]: 329-331; Johannes Friedrich, “Ein churritisches Wort,” AfO 16 [1952-1953]: 66). However, given the
wide distribution of this term and its varying forms, it is impossible to prove this loan hypothesis.
81
Kubba, Mesopotamian Furniture, 27, 29-30; Curtis, “Assyrian Furniture,” 168-173; Martin Metzger,
Königsthron und Gottesthron: Thronformen und Throndarstellungen in Ägypten und im Vorderen Orient im dritten
und zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christus und deren Bedeutung für das Verständnis von Aussagen über den Thron im
Alten Testament (2 vols.; AOAT 15; Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1985), 1:125-230, 122:186-211.
82
Symington, “Hittite and Neo-Hittite Furniture,” 121, 129-130.
49
(Eighteenth Dynasty).83
‫( ִכּ ֵסּא‬Heb.), ‫( כסא‬Phoen.), ‫( כרסא‬OAram.), ksˀu, kśˀu (Ug.) “seat, throne”
(Gen 41:40; passim; KAI 1:2; 216:7; 224:17; 309:13; KTU 1.1 iii:1; passim)
CW
Sum. GUZA; Akk. kussû, kussīˀu, kissu; Pun. ‫ ;כסאה‬IA ‫ ;כרסא‬JA ‫;כּוּר ְסיָ א‬
ְ JA, CPA ‫ ;כורסי‬Syr.
kursā; Mand. kursia; Arab. kursī
Hebrew ‫ ִכּ ֵסּא‬appears 137 times in the Masoretic text and means “seat” or
“throne,” nearly always with reference to that of God or kings.84 In Phoenician, ‫כסא‬
appears only in the second line of the Aḥiram Sarcophagus inscription (KAI 1), and Old
Aramaic ‫ כרסא‬appears in one of the Bar-Rakib from Zinjirli (KAI 216:7), the Sefire Treaty
(KAI 224:17),85 and the Tel Fakherye inscription (KAI 309:13). Both mean “seat, throne”
like Hebrew ‫כּ ֵסּא‬.ִ 86 Ugaritic ksˀu, quite common and having the same definition, also
appears in the form kśˀu.87 It is also used with reference to the divine and royalty.
83
Killen, Ancient Egyptian Furniture, 51-63; Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron, 1:5-123, 122:122-185.
84
HALOT 487. See Gen 41:40; 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 (2x), 46, 47 (2x), 48; 2:4, 12, 19 (2x), 24, 33, 45; 3:6; 5:19; 7:7;
8:20, 25; 9:5 (2x); 10:9, 18, 19 (2x); 16:11; 22:10, 19; 2 Kgs 4:10; 10:3, 30; 11:19; 13:13; 15:12; 25:28 (2x); 1
Chron 17:12, 14; 22:10; 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron 6:10, 16; 7:18; 9:8, 17, 18 (2x); 18:9, 18; 23:20; Neh 3:7; Esth 1:2;
3:1; Est. 5:1; Job 26:9; 36:7; Ps 9:5, 8; 11:4; 45:7; 47:9; 81:4; 89:5, 15, 30, 37, 45; 93:2; 94:20; 97:2; 103:19; 122:5
(2x); 132:11-12; Prov 7:20; 9:14; 16:12; 20:8, 28; 25:5; 29:14; Isa 6:1; 9:6; 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 (2x); Lam 5:19; Ezek
1:26 (2x); 10:1; 26:16; 43:7; Jon 3:6; Hag 2:22; Zech 6:13 (2x).
85
In KAI 224:17, the text reads ‫ כהסאי‬but should be emended to ‫ ;כרסאי‬see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The
Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (2d ed.; BibOr 19; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1995), 155. This
hardly provides evidence for r becoming h following a labialized vowel and before a dental stop, contra
Rainer Maria Voigt, “Die sog. Schreibfehler im Altaramäischen und ein bislang unerkannter Lautwandel,”
Orientalia Suecana 40 (1991): 242.
86
DNWSI 522, 536-537.
87
DUL 460-461.See KTU 1.1 iii:1; iv:24; 1.2 iii:18; iv:12, 20; iv:7; 1.3 ii:21, 36; iv:2; vi:15; 1.4 v:46; vi:52;
viii:12; 1.5 ii:15; vi:12; 1.6 v:5; vi:28; 1.10 iii:13; 1.16 vi:23; 1.22 i:17; 1.100:7, 12, 18, 23, 29, 34, 39, 44, 49, 56;
1.106:28; 1.161:13, 20. Other possible attestations in fragmentary contexts include KTU 1.50:2; 1.57:5;
1.151:3; 2.31:15; 4.496:4; RS 18.250 bis 2. The only clear attestation of the reading kśˀu occurs in KTU 1.53:7,
although this form probably also appears in KTU 1.57:4. This word occurs several times in Ugaritic
Akkadian (RS 17.35:14; 17.129:13). The form ksˀan in KTU 1.12 i:18 may be an additional form of this word
(DUL 461), but this is uncertain.
50
Semitic cognates can be found in Akkadian88 and various dialects of Aramaic
(Imperial, Jewish, and Christian Aramaic as well as Syriac and Mandaic).89 Although
sometimes said to be the source of the Akkadian form,90 Sumerian GUZA91 must be a
loan from Akkadian: the final –a of Sumerian GUZA is characteristic of Akkadian loans
into Sumerian,92 Sumerian GUZA has no native etymology,93 and the doubled ss and
final ˀ of the Akkadian forms are inexplicable as a loan from Sumerian.94 The Northwest
Semitic forms, on the other hand, do constitute a loan from Akkadian; because they
preserve the final ˀ found only in Old Akkadian and Old Assyrian forms (kussīˀu), the
borrowing must have taken place relatively early.95 All the Semitic forms lack a
convincing native etymology despite their wide attestation,96 pointing to an ancient
culture word.
88
CAD K 587-593; AHw 515. The form of this word is kissu in the Akkadian from Emar (Eugen J.
Pentiuc, West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar [HSS 49; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
2001], 102-103).
89
DNWSI 522, 536-537; DJPA 254; DJBA 566; LSp 98; SyrLex 614; MD 209). The liquid in the Aramaic forms
is probably due to hypercorrection in which the doubled s was thought to contain an assimilated n.
Arabic kursī (Lane 2605-2606; WKAS K 126-127) is a loan from Aramaic.
90
E.g., AHw 515; Stephen J. Liebermann, The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian:
Prolegomena and Evidence (HSS 22; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 285-286.
91
PSD.
92
Karl Oberhuber, “Kontaktwirkungen der Symbiose Sumerisch-Akkadisch: Bemerkungen zum
akkadischen Lehngut im Sumerischen,” in Al-Hudhud: Festschrift Maria Höfner zum 80. Geburtstag (ed.
Roswitha G. Stiegner; Graz: Karl-Franzens-Universität, 1981), 257-258; Paul V. Mankowski, Akkadian
Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (HSS 47; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 70. Terms exhibiting this
phenomenon include MANA (from manû, “mina”), IBILA (from apilu, aplu, “heir”), DAMGARA (from
tamkaru, “merchant”), and MADA (from mâtu, “land”). Gerd Steiner, “Akkadische Lexeme im
Sumerischen,” in Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues (ed.
Paolo Marrassini; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 633 lists Sumerian GUZA as a loan from Akkadian.
93
There is no Sumerian verb GUZ meaning “to cower, squat” as contended by Maximilian
Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and Etymology (London: Luzac, 1962), 89. The
native Sumerian word for “chair” is DÚR.GAR, which is from the verb DÚR, “to sit” (PSD).
94
Stephen A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (AS 19; Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1974), 28-29; Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 70.
95
Kaufman, Akkadian Influences, 28-29. Mankowski contends that Akkadian and Northwest Semitic
borrowed this term separately from a western source (Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew,
70), but there is no conclusive evidence for this claim.
96
Armas Salonen, Die Möbel des alten Mesopotamien nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen: Eine lexikalische
und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Suomalaisen tiedeakatemian toimituksia, Annales Academiae
Scientiarum Fennicae, Sarja B 127; Helsinki, Finland: Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia, 1963), 58
derives these terms from the hypothetical *ksī, “to bind,” but offers no arguments at all for this
etymology.
51
nḫt “seat”
(KTU 1.1 iv:24; 1.3 iv:3; 1.4 i:33; 1.6 vi:34; 1.16 vi:24; 1.22 ii:18)
Hurr. → Ug.
Hurr. naḫḫidi
Ugaritic nḫt occurs exclusively in the mythological texts. It appears a number of
times in the Baal Cycle, in which it occurs along with ksˀu and kḥṯ (both meaning “seat,
throne”) (KTU 1.1 iv:24; 1.3 iv:3; 1.4 i:33). In the Kirta Epic and in one of the Rapiˀuma
texts it likewise appears parallel to these same terms (1.16 vi:24; 1.22 ii:18).97 Its usage in
conjunction with ksˀu and kḥṯ demonstrates that nḫt means “seat.”98 Similar to the
former, it is utilized with reference to the seat of gods and kings rather than common,
everyday chairs.
This word typically is derived from the Semitic root nwḫ, “to rest, be at ease” (cf.
Akkadian nâḫu and Hebrew ‫)נוח‬99 and compared with Akkadian nēḫtu.100 However, nēḫtu
does not mean “seat” but “peace, security.”101 A much better semantic comparison is
found in Hurrian naḫḫidi, “seat.”102 This Hurrian word is a formation from the Hurrian
verb naḫḫ, “to sit,”103 and the nominal complement –idi. Hurrian naḫḫidi provides a
more plausible donor term than Akkadian nēḫtu.104
97
In KTU 1.22 ii:18 the text actually reads nzt, but this is a scribal error for nḫt.
98
DUL 630.
99
CAD N/1 143-150; AHw 716-717; HALOT 679-680.
100
E.g., DUL 630. Some scholars have also proposed an Egyptian origin for Ugaritic nḫt. Gordon
compares Egyptian nḫt, (UT 443 [§19.1640]), but this word means “to be strong; strength” rather than
something to stand on as he claims (ÄW 1:649-650; 2:1324-1326; GHwÄ 452; contra WÄS 2:314). Watson’s
comparison with ḫtyw, “platform, dais” (Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 132) is unacceptable
phonologically and morphologically.
101
CAD N/2 150-151; AHw 775.
102
Ilse Wegner, Einführung in die hurritische Sprache (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000), 52.
103
On this verb in Hurrian, see Wilhelm, “Hurritische Lexikographie und Grammatik,” 132; Mirjo
Salvini, “Betrachtungen zum hurritisch-urartätischen Verbum,” ZA 81 (1991): 127-128.
104
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 52-53.
52
Metals and Metallurgy
‫“ ֲאנָ ְך‬tin, lead”
(Amos 7:7-8)
CW
Sum. NAGGA (ANNA); Akk. annaku; JA ‫ ;אנכא‬Syr. ˀānkā; Mand. anka; Arab. ˀanuk; Eth.
nāˀk; Eg. inȝq; Sans. nāga; Arm. anag
ֲ typically glossed as “tin” or “lead,” occurs only in Amos 7:7-8.105

Hebrew ‫אנָ ְך‬,
The widespread distribution of cognates in both Semitic (Akkadian, Hebrew, Jewish
Aramaic, Syriac, Mandaic, Arabic, Ethiopic)106 and non-Semitic (Sumerian, Sanskrit,
Armenian)107 demonstrates that this term is a culture word with no clear lexical
provenance.108 Zimmern and Ellenbogen claim that Hebrew ‫ ֲאנָ ְך‬was loaned from
Akkadian annaku,109 but because of this term’s widespread distribution, it is difficult to
establish any clear loan relationship between the Hebrew and Akkadian forms.110 New
Kingdom Egyptian inȝq is a loan from a non-Egyptian source, as demonstrated by the
usage of group writing (ˀa2=na=q).111
Because tin and lead look alike, ancient peoples—who were not metallurgical
specialists— naturally would have used the same term for both metals. Despite
105
HALOT 71-72. The ancient versions vary widely in their understanding of Hebrew ‫אנָ ְך‬:ֲ the
Septuagint reads ἀδάμας, “adamant,” the Vulgate has trulla, “scoop, basin,” the Peshitta has ˀdmws,
“steel,” and the Targums read ‫דין‬,ִ “judgment.”
106
CAD A/2 127-130; AHw 49 ; HALOT 71-72; DJBA 145; SyrLex 62; MD 27; Lane 118; CDG 381.
107
PSD; KEWA 2:150; HAB 1:177; Heinrich Hübschmann, Armenische Grammatik (Bibliothek
indogermanischer Grammatiken 6; Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1897), 300-301.
108
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 35-36; Armas Salonen, “Alte Substrat- und
Kulturwörter im Arabischen,” Studia Orientalia 17, no. 2 (1952): 6.
109
Heinrich Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonische Kultureinfluss (2d ed.; Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs, 1917), 59; Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 31.
110
111
Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 26.
53
Landsberger’s dogmatic conclusions on this issue,112 Akkadian annaku denotes both
“tin” and “lead”;113 the Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic forms can also denote either “tin”
or “lead,”114 as can Egyptian inȝq.115 Attempts to rule out the definition “lead” for
Hebrew ‫ ֲאנָ ְך‬in Amos 7:7-8116 are problematic due to the difficult nature of the text as
well as the likelihood that Hebrew ‫ ֲאנָ ְך‬can mean “lead” like its related forms.
Textual evidence indicates that both Anatolia and Iran were the ancient Near
East’s primary sources of tin and lead; hence, this ancient culture word must have
originated in one of these two regions. During the third and earlier second millennium
BCE, tin seems to have reached Mesopotamia and the Levant via Iran; from the second
half of the second millennium BCE, Middle Assyrian and Hittite texts name parts of
Turkey (Nairi and Kizzuwatna) as sources of tin.117 Regions such as Diyarbakır in

southeastern Anatolia were a common source for lead as early as the Chalcolithic
period,118 and lead was frequently collected as tribute from peoples of southern
Anatolia.119 Egyptian historical texts from the Late Bronze Age likewise refer to the
importing of lead from regions in Syria adjacent to Anatolian source zones (Djahi,
Retenu, and Isy).120 Sources of galena ore could also be found in Iran or in the Tiyari
112
Benno Landsberger, “Tin and Lead: The Adventures of Two Vocables,” JNES 24 (1965): 285-296.
113
P.R.S. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence (2d ed.;
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 295-296; Solmaz Mir-Taghy Kashkaĭ, “О металле annaku(m)
приурмийских областей,” Vestnik drevneĭ istorii 3 (1976): 150-53; R. Campbell Thompson, A Dictionary of
Assyrian Chemistry and Geology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936), 121-122.
114
DJBA 145; SyrLex 62; Lane 118; CDG 381.
115
John Richard Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals (Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin: Institut für Orientforschung, Veröffentlichung 54; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1961), 62-63.
116
E.g., Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 36; Alan Cooper, “The Meaning of Amos’s
Third Vision (Amos 7:7-9),” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (eds.
Mordechai Cogan, et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 13-21; Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A
Commentary on the Book of Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 233-236.
117
Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 293.
118
K. Aslıhan Yener et al., “Stable Lead Isotope Studies of Central Taurus Ore Sources and Related
Artifacts from Eastern Mediterranean Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Sites,” Journal of Archaeological Science
18 (1991): 541-577.
119
Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 293; Karin Reiter, Die Metalle im Alten Orient:
unter besonderer Berücksichtigung altbabylonischer Quellen (AOAT 249; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1997), 113-
116.
120
Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 293; Alfred Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials
54
mountains north of Nineveh.121
‫“ ְבּ ִדיל‬tin”
(Num 31:22; Isa 1:25; Ezek 22:18, 20; 27:12; Zech 4:10)
Hebrew ‫ ְבּ ִדיל‬occurs only five times.122 In Num 31:22, it occurs in a list of metals
including ‫“( זָ ָהב‬gold”), ‫“( ֶכּ ֶסף‬silver), ‫“( נְ ח ֶֹשׁת‬copper” or “bronze”), ‫“( ַבּ ְרזֶ ל‬iron”) and
‫“( ע ֶֹפ ֶרת‬lead”). Following the Septuagint (κασσίτερος), Vulgate (stannum), and Peshitta
(ˀnkˀ), as well as the observation that tin was among the six most used metals in
antiquity, ‫ ְבּ ִדיל‬probably means “tin.”123 A similar list occurs in Ezek 22:18, 20, and the
mention in Ezek 27:12 of this metal in association with Tarshish (identified with
Tartessos in southern Spain)124 also supports the definition “tin” since Tarshish was
connected with tin in antiquity.125
Köhler and Driver argue that Hebrew ‫ ְבּ ִדיל‬is derived from Sanskrit pāṭīra,
“tin.”126 Driver, moreover, contends that ‫ ְבּ ִדיל‬was subsequently taken by popular
etymology as a derivation from the root ‫בדל‬, “to separate, divide.”127 However, Hebrew
and Industries (ed. John Richard Harris; 4th ed.; London: E. Arnold, 1962), 244.
121
122
HALOT 110. See Num 31:22; Isa 1:25; Ezek 22:18, 20; 27:12; Zech 4:10.
123
Dan Levene and Beno Rothenberg, “Tin and Tin-Lead Alloys in Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic,” in
Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (eds. Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian
Greenberg; JSOTSup 333; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 101. There is no reasonable basis for
separating, as Köhler and Baumgartner do (HALOT 110), the meaning of “tin” from the occurrence of ‫ְבּ ִדיל‬
in Isa 1:25 (Levene and Rothenberg, “Tin and Tin-Lead Alloys in Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic,” 104-105;
Landsberger, “Tin and Lead,” 286-287).
124
Carolina López-Ruiz, “Tarshish and Tartessos Revisited: Textual Problems and Historical
Implications,” in Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations (eds. Michael
Dietler and Carolina López-Ruiz; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 255-280; Edward Lipiński,
Itineraria Phoenicia (Studia Phoenicia 18; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2004), 225-265; Witold Tyloch, “Le
problème de Taršîš à la lumière de la philologie et l’exégèse,” in Actes du deuxième Congrès international
d’études des cultures de la Méditerranée occidentale, Malta 1976 (ed. Micheline Galley; 2 vols.; Algiers: Société
nationale d’édition et de diffusion, 1978), 2:46-51. The Nora Stone (KAI 46) as well as one of Esarhaddon’s
inscriptions (RINAP 4.60:10ʹ-11ʹ) support this identification.
125
Levene and Rothenberg, “Tin and Tin-Lead Alloys in Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic,” 101-104.
126
Ludwig Köhler, “Alttestamentliche Wortforschung: Bedīl und *bedīlīm,” TZ 3 (1947): 155-156; G.R.
Driver, “Babylonian and Hebrew Notes,” WO 2 (1954): 24.
127
HALOT 110.
55
‫ ְבּ ִדיל‬cannot be connected with Sanskrit pāṭīra. Sanskrit typically uses other words to
refer to tin,128 and Sanskrit pāṭīra is attested with the meaning “tin” only in lexical
texts.129 A derivation from the Hebrew root ‫ בדל‬adequately explains the origin of this
word, relating it to the metallurgical process of separating tin from other metals.130
‫( ַבּ ְרזֶ ל‬Heb.), ‫( ברזל‬Phoen.), brḏl (Ug.) “iron”
(Gen 4:22; passim; CIS I, 67:4-5; KTU 4.91:6)
Luw. ⇒
⇒ Akk; BA; IA; JA; Syr.; Mand.; OSA; Arab.
⇒ Ug., Heb., Phoen.
Akk. parzillu; BA ‫;פּ ְרזֶ ל‬

ַ IA, JA ‫ ;פרזל‬Syr. parzlā; Mand. parzla; OSA przn; Arab. firzil
(“fetter”); Luwian parzašša (“made of iron”), parzagulliya (“having loops of iron”)
Hebrew ‫ ַבּ ְרזֶ ל‬occurs 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).131 It occurs in
Phoenician in an inscription from Kition (CIS I, 67:4-5) and in the Incirli Trilingual (rev.
line 19)132 as well as in several later Punic funerary texts.133 In Ugaritic, this term occurs
only in a fragmentary economic text that mentions two talents (kkrm) of iron (KTU
128
Cf. Richard Garbe, Die indischen Mineralien: ihre Namen und die ihnen zugeschriebenen Kräfte: Narahari’s
Râǵanighaṇṭu Varga XIII (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1882), 36-37.
129
Sanskrit pāṭīra occurs in lexical texts with a very wide variety of meanings in addition to “tin,”
including “sandal tree,” “radish,” “sieve,” “cloud,” “field,” “bamboo pith,” and “catarrh.” It is not listed
in the standard lexicons of Mayrhofer or Turner, but it does occur in the nineteenth-century dictionary
of Monier-Williams (SEDEPA 615). Along with its rarity and limitation to lexical texts, the wide range of
meanings pāṭīra can have makes any connection with Hebrew ‫ ְבּ ִדיל‬very unlikely.
130
Cf. BDB 95.
131
HALOT 155-156. See Gen 4:22; 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 (2x); 23:7; 1 Kgs 6:7; 8:51;
22:11; 2 Kgs 6:5-6; 1 Chron 20:3; 22:3, 14, 16; 29:2, 7 (2x); 2 Chron 2:6 , 13; 18:10; 24:12; Job 20:24; 28:2; 40:18;
41:19; Ps 2:9; 105:18; 107:10, 16; 149:8; Prov 27:17 (2x); Ecc 10:10; Isa 10:34; 44:12; 45:2; 48:4; 60:17 (2x); Jer
1:18; 6:28; 11:4; 15:12 (2x); 17:1; 28:13-14; Ezek 4:3 (2x); 22:18, 20; 27:12, 19; Amos 1:3; Mic 4:13.
132
Stephen A. Kaufman, “The Phoenician Inscription of the Incirli Trilingual: A Tentative
Reconstruction and Translation,” Maarav 14, no. 2 (2007): 14, 17.
133
DNWSI 196.
56
4.91:6).134 It also occurs in numerous other Semitic languages (Akkadian, postexilic
Aramaic, Arabic), but this word’s atypical morphology makes its identification as a
foreign loan virtually certain.
Valério and Yakubovich135 trace these words back to Luwian *parza, “iron ore.”
This Luwian word only exists at present in the suffixed forms parzašša, “of iron” (KUB
13.35 iii:46-47; KBo 48.262 ii:22-23) and parzagulliya, “having loops of iron” (KUB 12.1
iii:2-3). The adjectival suffix il(l), –il(l)i is found in Luwian and suggests the form *parzilli,
explaining the final ending of this term in Semitic.136 The earliest form of this word in
Semitic, 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 Anatolia.137 The initial consonant’s alternation between p and b in

Akkadian and Aramaic as opposed to Ugaritic, Hebrew, and Phoenician, respectively,
points to two separate borrowings.138
Extant textual sources from the ancient Near East indicate that most iron came
from either the northwest (Anatolia and Syria) or the north (Urartu).139 Technology
necessary for iron smelting was firmly in place in Anatolia at least by the Hittite period
134
DUL 236.
135
Miguel Valério and Ilya S. Yakubovich, “Semitic Word for ‘Iron’ as Anatolian Loanword,”
Исследования по Лингвистике и Семиотике: Сборник статей к юбилею Вяч. Вс. Иванова (ed. T.M.
Nikolaeva; Studia philolgica; Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kulʹtur, 2010), 108-116.
136
Comparison is often made with the nominal pattern of Hebrew ‫כּ ְר ֶמל‬,ַ “vineyard, orchard,” from
‫ ֶכּ ֶרם‬of the same meaning (HALOT 498-499); cf. Bauer and Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen
Sprache des Alten Testamentes, 503-504 (§561iι-lι). However, this nominal pattern is quite rare in biblical
Hebrew.
137
Jan Gerrit Dercksen, “On Anatolian Loanwords in Akkadian Texts from Kültepe,” ZA 91 (2007): 36-
37. Examples include padallu (“fetter”), išpadallu, išpandallu (“lodging”), and išḫiuli (“contract”) (CAD I-J
241-242, 257; P 2; AHw 394, 397).
138
Pinḥas Artzi, “On the Cuneiform Background of the Northwest-Semitic Form of the Word brḏl,
b(a)rz(e)l, ‘Iron’,” JNES 28 (1969): 268-270.
139
Matasha McConchie, Iron Technology and Ironmaking Communities of the First Millennium BC (vol. 5 of
Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier; Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 13;
Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 42-43; Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 280-282; Reiter,
Metalle im Alten Orient, 361-375; K.R. Maxwell-Hyslop, “Assyrian Sources of Iron: A Preliminary Survey of
the Historical and Geographical Evidence,” Iraq 36 (1974): 139-154.
57
and possibly even during the early second millennium BCE.140 Naturally, this word
would have subsequently spread to other regions and languages along with the
technology.141
ḥtṯ “silver”
(KTU 1.14 ii:17; iv:1)
Hatt. → Hitt → Ug.
Hatt. ḫatt; Hitt. Ḫattuša
Ugaritic ḥtṯ occurs twice within the context of Kirta’s preparations for besieging
the city of ˀUdmu (KTU 1.14 ii:17; iv:1).142 The typical word for “silver” in Ugaritic is
ksp,143 the common Semitic term for silver (cf. Hebrew ‫ ֶכּ ֶסף‬and Akkadian kaspu).144 That
ḥtṯ is not based on a known Semitic root and is not the typical Ugaritic term for “silver”
constitutes good evidence that it is a foreign loan.
Watson, Hoffner, and Friedrich145 suggest that Ugaritic ḥtṯ is a loan from Hattic
ḫatt.146 The word ḫatt never occurs in extant texts, but the equivalence of
140
Ünsal Yalçın, “Early Iron Metallurgy in Anatolia,” AnSt 49 (1999): 184-186; Jane C. Waldbaum, “The
Coming of Iron in the Eastern Mediterranean,” in The Archaeometallurgy of the Asian Old World (ed. Vincent
C. Pigott; University Museum Monographs 89; Philadelphia: University Museum, University of
Pennsylvania, 1999), 28-31; James D. Muhly et al., “Iron in Anatolia and the Nature of the Hittite Iron
Industry,” AnSt 35 (1985): 67-84.
141
Valério and Yakubovich, “Semitic Word for ‘Iron,’” 113-114.
142
DUL 376.
143
DUL 463-465.
144
HALOT 490-491; CAD K 245-247; AHw 454.
145
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 120, 140; Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., “An Anatolian Cult Term in
Ugaritic,” JNES 23 (1964): 67; Johannes Friedrich, “Hethitisch-Ugaritisches,” ZDMG 96 (1942): 490-492.
Gordon (UT 400 [§19.916]) suggests a connection with Egyptian ḥḏ, which appears beginning with the
New Kingdom (ÄW 1:916; 2:1820; GHwÄ 618; WÄS 3:209-210). However, the similarity between Egyptian ḥḏ
and Hattic ḫatt can only be coincidental: Egyptian ḥḏ has a clear etymology in Egyptian (from the verb ḥḏ,
“to be white” [ÄW 1:915-916; 2:1817-1819; GHwÄ 617; WÄS 3:206-208]), whereas Hattic ḫatt is native to
Anatolia. In addition to the phonlogical difficulties of connecting Hattic ḫatt and Egyptian ḥḏ, it is
doubtful that the Hattians would have had reason to adopt a non-native term for “silver” as the name of
one of their cities. See G. G. Giorgadze, “К вопрсу об обозначении ‘серебра’ в хеттских клинописных
текстах,” Vestnik drevneĭ istorii 13 (1987): 133.
146
HWHT 458-459; Friedrich, “Hethitisch-Ugaritisches,” 490-492.
58
uru
KÙ.BABBAR.ša with uruḪa-at-tu-ša (Ḫattuša), the Hittite capital, in lexical texts
demonstrates its existence in the Hattic language. This word is not native to Hittite,147
but the Hittites used a frozen form of Hattic ḫatt, namely ḫattuš, in addition to their
native term for “silver” as well as another non-Hittite term for “silver,” Hurrian
ušḫuni.148
Anatolia has the largest quantity of geologically identified silver-bearing ores
(primarily argentiferous lead ores, such as galena or cerussite) in the ancient Near East,
and most of the silver from the fourth millennium BCE through the Achaemenid period
originated in Anatolia.149 The Bolkardaǧ mining district of the Taurus Mountains is

thought to be the “silver mountain” (ḪUR.SAG KÙ.GA.ŠÈ/KUR.KUR KÙ) referred to in
the campaigns of Sargon of Akkad (Sargon b1:27-28);150 similarly, Shalmaneser III speaks
of going to Mount Tunni, the “silver mountain” (KUR-e KÙ.BABBAR), in the Taurus
(RIMA A.0.102.40 iii:2-3).151
Objects made of silver, including vessels, animal statuettes, and jewelry, were in
use in Mesopotamia as early as the fourth millennium BCE. At the royal tombs of Ur,
belts, hair ornaments, animal statuettes, vessels, and a number of other silver objects
have been discovered. After the third millennium BCE, silver occurs more rarely in the
ancient Near East. It is found primarily in the form of jewelry in Mesopotamia, although
isolated examples of silver vessels from the Old Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian periods
147
The Hittite word for “silver,” which is Indo-European, is ḫarki (HHw 47). Indo-European cognates
include Linear B a-ku-ro, Greek ἄργυρος, and Latin argentum (DM 53; LSJ 236; OLD 167).
148
LKI 412; GLH 289. See Giorgadze, “Вопрсу об обозначении ‘серебра,’” 132-133; Harry A. Hoffner,
Jr., “A Hittite Text in Epic Style about Merchants,” JCS 22 (1968): 41-42.
149
Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 232-235; K. Aslıhan Yener, “The
Archaeometry of Silver in Anatolia: The Bolkardaǧ Mining District,” AJA 90 (1986): 469-472; K. Aslıhan
Yener, “The Production, Exchange and Utilization of Silver and Lead Metals in Ancient Anatolia,”
Anatolica 10 (1983): 1-15.
150
Hans Hirsch, “Die Inscrhiften der Könige von Agade,” AfO 20 (1963): 38; cf. Yener, “Archaeometry
of Silver in Anatolia,” 469-472.
151
A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114-859 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions
of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods 2; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 118; cf. Bruno Meissner,
“Woher haben die Assyrer Silber bezogen?” OLZ 15 (1912): 145-149.
59
have been found.152 In Egypt, one of the earliest finds of silver is a box-lid from Naqada
dating to the middle of the fourth millennium BCE. Later finds include vessels and
ingots from the Middle Kingdom “el-Tod Treasure” assemblage and silver vessels from
the Ramesside “Bubastis Treasure” hoard.153
‫“ ֶכּ ֶתם‬gold”
(Job 28:16, 19; 31:24; Ps 45:10; Prov 25:12; Song 5:11; Isa 13:12; Lam 4:1; Dan 10:5)
Ophirite ⇒
⇒ WSem. (Heb.)
⇒ Eg.
Eg. ktm.t
This term occurs nine times in the Hebrew Bible, and based on its contexts, it is
clear that it refers to a special type of gold.154 In four of the five instances that ‫ֶכּ ֶתם‬
occurs in poetic bicola in the Masoretic text, it occupies the second colon (Job 28:19;
31:24; Isa 13:12; Lam 4:1), which may provide indirect evidence for its relative value
compared with regular gold.
In at least three of its occurrences (Ps 45:10; Job 28:16; Isa 13:12), the Hebrew
Bible associates ‫ ֶכּ ֶתם‬with Ophir,155 a toponym located near the southern shore of the
152
Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 235-237.
153
Robert Fuchs, “Silber,” LÄ 5:940-491; Jack Ogden, “Metals,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Technology (eds. Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 170-171;
Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 245-253.
154
HALOT 505. Supporting this definition, the Septuagint frequently renders Hebrew ‫ ֶכּ ֶתם‬as χρυσίον,
“gold” (Job 28:16, 19; Psa 45:10; Song 5:11; Dan 10:5 [Theodotion]), although it also renders it as ὁ λίθος ὁ
ἐκ Σουφιρ, “stone from Ophir” (Isa 13:12), σάρδιον πολυτελὲς “precious carnelian” (Prov 25:12), and τὸ
ἀργύριον τὸ ἀγαθόν, “good silver” (Lam 4:1). The Vulgate understands Hebrew ‫ ֶכּ ֶתם‬to mean “gold” with
the exception of Prov 25:12, where it has margaritum fulgens, “gleaming pearl.” The Peshitta translates
this term as dhb (Job 28:16; 31:24; Ps 45:10; Song 5:11; Isa 13:12; Lam 4:1), and the Targums utilize a variety
of terms for “gold” when translating this term (‫[ פיטלון‬Job 21:18, 19], ‫[ אובריזון‬Psa 45:10], ‫[ דהב‬Song 5:11;
Lam 4:1], and ‫מסנן‬, [Isa 13:12]).
155
Daniel 10:5 may also contain the same association if ‫אוּפז‬
ָ ‫ ֶכּ ֶתם‬should be emended to ‫אוֹפיר‬
ִ ‫ ֶ;כּ ֶתם‬see
60
Red Sea.156 Although using the common Hebrew term for “gold,” an eighth century BCE
inscription from Tell Qasile also mentions gold from Ophir (‫( )זהב אפר‬Qas[8]2:1).157 It is
clear that Ophir was known for its gold in antiquity,158 and the evidence thus points to a
southern origin for Hebrew ‫כּ ֶתם‬.ֶ 159 New Kingdom Egyptian texts specifically mention
ktm.t as a type of gold that comes from Nubia, attributing it to the same basic region as
Ophir.160 There is no evidence of any connection between these words and Akkadian
kutimmu.161
An African origin for Hebrew ‫ ֶכּ ֶתם‬coheres 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.162 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
John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993),
361.
156
David W. Baker, “Ophir (Place),” ABD 5:26-27.
157
Johannes Renz and Wolfgang Röllig, Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik (3 vols.; Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995), 1:230; Benjamin Mazar, “Two Hebrew Ostraca from Tell
Qasîle,” JNES 10 (1951): 266.
158
Ophir became so associated with gold that ‫אוֹפיר‬ִ denotes “gold” rather than the toponym “Ophir”
in Job 22:24.
159
Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 95.
160
GHwÄ 961; WÄS 5:145; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 338. Like Hebrew ‫כּ ֶתם‬,ֶ Egyptian 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, this word was written as qtm (WÄS 5:72), and by Greco-
Roman times its referent had broadened to gold in general rather than fine gold.
161
Albright, Lambdin, and Mankowski suggest that the source of Egyptian ktm.t is an unattested form
from second millennium BCE Northwest Semitic (so-called “early Canaanite”) which was, in turn, loaned
from Akkadian kutimmu, “goldsmith” (CAD 608-609; AHw 518); see William F. Albright, The Vocalization of
the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography (AOS 5; New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1934), 61; Thomas
O. Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” JAOS 73 (1953): 151-152; Mankowski, Akkadian
Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 76-77. However, there is no clear relationship between Egyptian ktm.t and
Akkadian kutimmu (Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 338), and Mankowski admits that no evidence
exists to support the speculative series of semantic changes required to move from “goldsmith” to “fine
gold” (Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 76-77). The similarity of the Egyptian and
Hebrew forms to that of Akkadian kutimmu is simply coincidental (Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old
Testament, 95).
162
61
during different periods, beginning with the Old Kingdom.163 Gold objects manufactured
in Egypt include bracelets and beads, and gold foil and plating were very common.164
Similarly, most extant evidence of gold use in Mesopotamia consists of jewelry and gold
foil, although more elaborate objects with gold decor—such as weapons, tools, vessels,
and statues—are also attested at various sites.165
‫“ ע ֶֹפ ֶרת‬lead”
(Exod 15:10; Num 31:22; Job 19:24; Jer 6:29; Ezek 22:18, 20; 27:12; Zech 5:7-8)
CW
Sum. AGAR; Akk. abāru; Pun. ‫ ;עפרת‬JA, CPA ‫;א ָב ָרא‬

ֲ Syr. abārā; Mand. abara
Hebrew ‫ע ֶֹפ ֶרת‬, “lead” occurs nine times.166 Related to ‫ ע ֶֹפ ֶרת‬are several Semitic
and non-Semitic forms. Sumerian AGAR, the source of Akkadian abāru (first attested in
Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian),167 appears very early in Uruk Archaic and pre-
Sargonic Sumerian.168 The Aramaic (Jewish Aramaic, Christian Palestinian Aramaic,
Syriac, Mandaic)169 forms of this term, in turn, come from Akkadian. Hebrew ‫ ע ֶֹפ ֶרת‬and
Punic ‫עפרת‬, on the other hand, begin with initial ‫ ע‬and cannot be first millennium
163
Ogden, “Metals,” 161; Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 224-228; Rosemarie Klemm
and Dietrich D. Klemm, “Chronologischer Abriß der antiken Goldgewinnung in der Ostwüste Ägyptens,”
MDAI 50 (1994): 189-222.
164
Ogden, “Metals,” 165-166; Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 229-234.
165
166
HALOT 863. The ancient versions most often translate ‫ ע ֶֹפ ֶרת‬with their corresponding word for
“lead”: μόλιβος (Septuagint), plumbum (Vulgate), ˀbrˀ (Peshitta), and ‫ אברא‬or ‫( כרכמישא‬Targums).
However, Hebrew ‫ ע ֶֹפ ֶרת‬is rendered by Greek κασσίτερος and Latin stannum, both meaning “tin,” in Num
31:22; Ezek 27:12; similarly the Peshitta reads ˀnkˀ in Ezek 18:20, Targum Jonathan has ‫ אֲ בָר‬for the
collocation ‫וּב ִדיל‬ ֶ in the same verse, and Targum Jonathan does not translate ‫ ע ֶֹפ ֶרת‬in Zech 5:7-8. In
ְ ‫עוֹפ ֶרת‬
Ezek 18:20, at least, this is probably because these verses deviate from the typical order in which these
metals are listed.
167
CAD A/1 36-38; AHw 4. On the Sumerian origin of Akkadian abāru, see Liebermann, Sumerian
Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian, 140-141; Miguel Civil, “From Enki’s Headaches to Phonology,” JNES
32 (1973): 60.
168
PSD. Different spellings for this word include A.GAR5, A.GÀR, A.BÁR, É.GAR, É.GAR8, UGÚR.
169
DNWSI 879; DJBA 76; DJPA 33; LSp 225; SyrLex 5; MD 1.
62
loans from Akkadian. The alternation between initial ˀ and ˁ as well as the difference in
gender points to an ancient culture word.170 As noted under the entry for Hebrew ‫אנָ ְך‬,
ֲ
Anatolia and Iran were antiquity’s primary sources of lead, obtained from galena (lead
sulphide) rather than in pure form.171 Accordingly, this culture word must have
originated in one of these regions.
Evidence of lead usage 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 BCE, 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 BCE, lead was commonly used to
make figurines and trinkets at the Old Assyrian merchant colonies of Alishar and
Kanesh (modern Kültepe). Numerous usages 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.172 The increased usage 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.173
‫“ ַפּח‬metal plating, metal foil”
(Exod 39:3; Num 17:3)
Eg. → Heb.
Eg. pḫȝ
Hebrew ‫ ַפּח‬occurs only twice with the meaning “metal plating, metal foil,” both
170
It is clear that this word entered Northwest Semitic early since it occurs in the second millennium
BCE Hebrew poem, the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:10).
171
172
173
Ogden, “Metals,” 168.
63
times in the Pentateuch. It refers to hammered gold or gold foil plating for the ephod in
Exod 39:3, and in Num 17:3 it denotes a hammered plate used for covering the altar.174
This word has no Semitic cognates175 and no known root on which it could be
based, indicating a foreign loan. The Egyptian context of the Israelite tabernacle176
specifically suggests an Egyptian borrowing, and Muchiki, Ellenbogen, and Lambdin177
point to Egyptian pḫȝ, “veneer, plating,”178 as the donor term. 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.179 It comes as no
surprise, therefore, that Hebrew speakers borrowed this term from Egyptian.180
174
HALOT 922. The Septuagint has πέταλον (“metal leaf, metal plating”) in Exod 39:3 but λεπίς ἐλατή
(“beaten plate”) in Num 17:3; the Vulgate reads bractea (“gold leaf”) in Exod 39:3 but lamina (“metal plate,
metal leaf”) in Num 17:3; the Peshitta and Targum have ṭsˀ and ‫טס‬, ַ respectively (both meaning “metal
plating”).
175
The word ‫ פח‬may occur in a Phoenician inscription from Idalion, Cyprus (RES 1209B); see Émile
Puech, “Remarques sur quelques inscriptions phéniciennes de Chypre,” Sem 29 (1979): 30. However, the
text is difficult and this reading is by no means certain (DNWSI 904).
176
The wilderness wandering narratives follow the narrative of the exodus, which concerns the
Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt. Regardless of the historicity of the event, this places the wilderness
wanderings and construction of the tabernacle within a setting closely associated with Egypt. The
materials of the tabernacle presumably originate (again, from a literary perspective, regardless of the
possible historicity of the event of the exodus) from the Israelites’ plundering of the Egyptians (cf. Exod
11:2; 12:35-36), creating yet another literary link between this portion of the Pentateuch and Egypt.
177
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 253; Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament,
130; Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 153.
178
ÄW 2:935; GHwÄ 308; WÄS 1.543. This term, first attested in the Middle Kingdom, can also refer to a
variety of thin objects such as a plates, ship decks, and planks.
179
Yvonne J. Markowitz and Peter Lacovara, “Gold,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (ed.
Donald B. Redford; 3 vols; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 2:36-37; T.G.H. James, “Gold Technology
in Ancient Egypt,” Gold Bulletin 5, no. 2 (1972): 40-42.
180
James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 211-212.
64
Military Technology
‫( ַא ְשׁ ָפּה‬Heb.), ˀuṯpt (Ug.) “quiver”
(Job 39:23; Ps 127:5; Isa 22:6; 49:2; Jer 5:16; Lam 3:13; Lak[6]1.13:3; KTU 4.53:15; 4.145:7;
4.204:1-12; 4.624:3-4, 7, 9, 21, 23; 4.670:2)
Hurr. → Akk., WSem. (Ug., Heb.); Eg.
Akk. išpatu; Hitt. išpati, išpanti; Hurr. išpati, išpanti; Eg. ispt
Hebrew ‫ ַא ְשׁ ָפּה‬occurs six times with the meaning “quiver,” commonly occurring
amidst mention of weapons and armor.181 This word is also mentioned once in one of
the Lachish ostraca (Lak[6]1.13:3).182 Ugaritic ˀuṯpt appears a number of times with the
same meaning.183 Most frequently it occurs within the context of military armaments:
for example, in KTU 4.53 and KTU 4.624, ˀuṯpt is mentioned in conjunction with qšt
(“bow”), and KTU 4.204 repeats the phrases ˀuṯpt ḥẓm (“quiver of arrows”) or ˀuṯpt
srdnnm (“quiver of projectiles”) in each of its twelve lines.
Hebrew ‫ ַא ְשׁ ָפּה‬and Ugaritic ˀuṯpt are frequently cited as loans from Akkadian
išpatu,184 but this cannot be correct. The usage of ṯ in the Ugaritic form argues against
this origin because Akkadian š should have been borrowed as š by West Semitic during
the second millennium.185 This word first appears in Akkadian during the Old
Babylonian period, but the majority of other early occurrences are in peripheral
181
HALOT 96. It is unnecessary to emend ‫ ַא ְשׁ ָפּ ֖תוֹ‬in Jer 5:16 to ‫( ֲא ֶשׁר ִפּיהוּ‬Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20:
A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999], 396; William L.
Holladay, Jeremiah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah [2 vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1986-1989], 1:188; contra HALOT 96). There is likewise no need to emend ‫ ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬in Deut
32:41 to ‫( ָבּ ַא ְשׁ ָפּה‬Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation [JPS
Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996], 313, 405; Duane L. Christensen,
Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12 [WBC 6B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002], 819; contra HALOT 96).
182
Renz and Röllig, Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, 1:432.
183
DUL 126.
184
E.g., HALOT; Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 45-46.
185
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 45,
65
dialects (Alalakh and Nuzi).186 At Nuzi and Alalakh, elaborate quivers mounted with
precious metals and gems are commonly mentioned (e.g., SMN 800:4-7; ATT 8/27:4),187
and Tušratta is said to give as a gift quivers inlaid with gold (EA 29:184). Hurro-Hittite
texts, moreover, contain the term išpati, išpanti.188 In light of this distribution, this
ancient culture word most probably comes from Hurrian.189 The vocalization of
Egyptian ispt, written syllabically before the New Kingdom, is uncertain,190 and Egyptian
ispt may very well be derived from this word’s original source rather than Semitic.
grbz “helmet”
(KTU 4.363:2)
Hurr. → Akk.; Hitt.
Akk. gurpisu, gursipu; Hitt. gurzipant (“wearing a helmet”); Hurr. gurbiši
Ugaritic grbz occurs only once.191 It appears in line 2 of KTU 4.363, a list of
charioteer equipment, amidst mention of different pieces of chariotry equipment.
Thus, grbz must be an item used in chariotry.
The four-consonantal structure of grbz strongly indicates a foreign loan. The
donor term is Hurrian gurbiši,192 attested first in Old Babylonian texts from Tell Ishchali
186
CAD I/J 257-258; AHw 397.
187
Ernest René Lacheman, The Administrative Archives, vol. 6 of Excavations at Nuzi Conducted by the
Semitic Museum and the Fogg Art Museum of Harvard University, with the Cooperation of the American School of
Oriental Research at Bagdad (8 vols.; HSS 15; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1955), pl. xvii;
Donald J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at
Ankara 2; London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1953), 110.
188
LKI 187; GLH 127; HHw 72.
189
Laroche postulates that Hurrian išpati, išpanti is a loan from Akkadian (GLH 127), but this is by no
means certain and the reverse is probably true; cf. Annelies Kammenhuber, Die Arier im Vorderen Orient
(Indogermanische Bibliothek, 3 Reihe: Untersuchungen; Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1968), 130.
190
ÄW 2:411; GHwÄ 116; WÄS 1:132;Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 40-41.
191
DUL 306-307. This term also appears in Ugaritic Akkadian as gurbizu (RS 19.85 rev. 5ʹ; 19.92:1); see
John Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription (2d ed.; HSS 32; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press,
2008), 117.
192
LKI 227; GLH 155.
66
and Mari as gurpisu and gursipu.193 Its Hurrian origin is evident from its frequent
mention along with sariam (“scale armor, mail”), a Hurrian loanword found primarily in
the Nuzi texts, as well as its mention as a gift from Tušratta, the king of Mitanni, in the
Amarna letters (EA 22 iii:37-41).194
The meaning of gurbiši has been debated, but the evidence points to the
definition “helmet” rather than “haulberk.”195 The Nuzi texts provide examples of at
least seven different types of helmets to which this term could refer—both for people as
well as horses—and examples of most of these have been discovered in archaeological
contexts or ancient depictions of soldiers.196 This Hurrian word also appears in Hittite
as the participle gurzipant, “wearing a helmet.”197
‫“ ֲחנִ ית‬spear”
(1 Sam 13:19, 22; passim)
The word ‫ ֲחנִ ית‬occurs 48 times in the Hebrew Bible with reference to a spear.198
193
CAD G 139-140; AHw 929.
194
Contra Jean-Marie Durand, review of Sergio Ribichini and Paolo Xella, La terminologia dei tessili nei
testi di Ugarit, MARI 6 (1990): 659.
195
Tamás Dezső, “Scale Armour of the 2nd Millennium B.C.,” in A Tribute to Excellence: Studies Offered in
Honor of Erno Gaál, Ulrich Luft, László Török (ed. Tamás A. Bács; Studia Aegyptiaca 17; Budapest: Université
Eötvös Lorand de Budapest, 2002), 201-204; Timothy Kendall, “gurpisu ša awēli: The Helmets of the
Warriors at Nuzi,” in In Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 29, 1981 (eds. M.A.
Morrison and David I. Owen; Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 1; Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 202-206. This is indicated by the frequent usage of gurbiši along with
sariam: contemporary Egyptian representations depict no additional piece of armor (allegedly identified
by many scholars with gurbiši) besides scale armor and a helmet. Since sariam is known to refer to armor,
gurbiši must refer to a helmet, which is consistent with its usage in texts. The only text in which the
identification of gurbiši with “helmet” is possible is JEN 6.527:15, in which reference is made to the gurbiši
of the body: 1 [gur]-pí-sú UD.KA.BABAR [ša] NÍ L[Ú] (Edward Chiera, Mixed Texts, vol. 5 of Joint Expedition
with the Iraq Museum at Nuzi [6 vols.; American Schools of Oriental Research: Publications of the Baghdad
School, Texts 5; Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1934], pl. cdlxxxix). However,
mention of NÍ (Akkadian ramānu, “self” [CAD R 117-125; AHw 949-950]) in this line has been influenced by
the mention of NÍ with reference to siriam in the preceding line since this long inventory list everywhere
else utilizes only the phrases sariam ša NÍ LÚ and gurbiši ša LÚ. Hence, it constitutes an scribal error, and
there is no evidence that gurbiši means anything other than “helmet.”
196
Dezső, “Scale Armour,” 204-210; Kendall, “Note on Nuzi Textiles,” 206-231.
197
HHw 96.
198
HALOT 333-334. See 1 Sam 13:19, 22; 17:7 (2x), 45, 47; 18:10-11; 19:9, 10 (2x); 20:33; 21:9; 22:6-8, 11-
67
Because it has no Semitic cognates, Köhler and Baumgartner as well as Ellenbogen199
claim that Hebrew ‫ ֲחנִ ית‬is a loan from Egyptian ḥny.t, “spear.”200 However, Muchiki
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 ‫ ֲחנִ ית‬preserves a final ‫ת‬,
borrowing from Egyptian could not have taken place except at a relatively early
stage.201 Moreover, Egyptian ḥny.t is written syllabically as a loan from West Semitic and
is mentioned twice as an import from Palestine (Rṯnw) (Urk. IV 719,1; 727,1).202 Hebrew
‫ ֲחנִ ית‬is probably derived from the Semitic root ḥnw, ḥny, meaning “to incline toward”203
(cf. Syriac ḥenā and Arabic ḥanā).204 This Semitic word meaning “spear” is also attested
twice in Ugaritic Akkadian, where it is spelled ḫinuta (RS 19.64 rev. 5ʹ; 20.235:8).205
‫כּוֹבע‬, ַ “helmet”
ַ֫ ‫קוֹבע‬
(1 Sam 17:5; 17:38; Isa 59:17; Jer 46:4; Ezek 23:24; 27:10; 38:5; 2 Chron 26:14)
Hurr. ⇒
⇒ WSem. (Heb.; JA; CPA; Syr.; Eth.)
⇒ Hitt. → Gk.
JA, CPA ‫כובע‬, ‫ ;קובע‬JA ‫כּוֹב ָעא‬,

ְ ‫;קוֹב ָעא‬
ְ Syr. qubbeˁā, qubˁā; Eth. qobˁ; Hurr. kuwaḫi
(“headdress”); Hitt. kupaḫi (“headgear”); Gk. κὺμβαχος (“helmet crest”)
This word occurs in two different forms in biblical Hebrew, namely ‫כּוֹבע‬
ַ֫ (1 Sam
17:5; Isa 59:17; Jer 46:4; Ezek 27:10; 38:5; 2 Chron 26:14) and ‫קוֹבע‬
ַ (1 Sam 17:38; Ezek
12, 16, 22; 2 Sam 1:6; 2:23 (2x); 21:19; 23:7, 18, 21 (3x); 2 Kgs 11:10; 1 Chron 11:11, 20, 23 (2x); 12:35; 20:5; 2
Chron 23:9; Job 39:23; 41:18; Ps 35:5; 46:10; 57:5; Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3; Nah 3:3; Hab 3:11.
199
HALOT 333-334; Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 73.
200
GHwÄ 576-577; WÄS 3:110.
201
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 244.
202
203
DRS 891.
204
SyrLex 471; Lane 660. Notably, Syriac ḥenā can be used specifically with reference to aiming a
spear.
205
Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription, 125-126.
68
23:24). In all these occurrences, ‫כּוֹבע‬, ַ appears in a military context, and it is clear
that this word means “helmet.”206
The alternation between ‫ כ‬and ‫ ק‬provides good evidence for a foreign loan. It
has long been recognized that, due to its association with the Philistine Goliath in 1
Sam 17:5, this word entered Hebrew from Anatolia.207 Goliath is likely an Anatolian
name,208 and a number of Aegean and Anatolian motifs can be found in the David and
Goliath narrative.209
The Hurrian origin for several of Goliath’s other military equipment (‫כּידוֹן‬,ִ
“sword,” and ‫שׁ ְריוֹן‬,

ִ ‫ס ְריוֹן‬,ִ “scale armor, mail”) suggests a Hurrian origin for Hebrew
‫כּוֹבע‬,
ַ֫ ‫קוֹבע‬.
ַ The donor term is Hurrian kuwaḫi, which denotes Tešub’s headdress in
Hurro-Hittite texts.210 This Hurrian term is the source of Hittite kupaḫi (“headgear”)211
and the probable source of Greek κὺμβαχος (“helmet crest”).212 The usage of Hebrew ‫ע‬
for ḫ reflects correspondence between Semitic ǵ and (single) intervocalic Hurrian ḫ.213
This term entered a number of other West Semitic languages (Jewish Aramaic, Syriac,
Arabic, and Ethiopic) in addition to Hebrew.214
The description of this helmet in the Hebrew Bible is scant, although 1 Sam 17:5
206
HALOT 463, 1081-1082.
207
Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 82; Rabin, “Hittite Words in Hebrew,” 124-125;
Oswald Szemerényi, “The Origins of the Greek Lexicon: Ex Oriente Lux,” JHS 94 (1974): 153; Edward Sapir,
“Hebrew ‘Helmet,’ a Loanword, and Its Bearing on Indo-European Phonology,” JAOS 57 (1937): 73-77.
208
HALOT 193.
209
The evidence best supports a Late Bronze/Iron I setting for the narrative; see Jeffrey R. Zorn,
“Reconsidering Goliath: An Iron Age I Philistine Chariot Warrior,” BASOR 360 (2010): 1-22; Alan R. Millard,
“The Armor of Goliath,” in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager (ed. J. David
Schloen; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 337-343; Philip J. King, “David Defeats Goliath,” in ‘Up to
the Gates of Ekron’: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin
(eds. Sidnie White Crawford, et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2007), 350-357; contra Israel
Finkelstein, “The Philistines in the Bible: A Late-Monarchic Perspective,” JSOT 27 (2002): 142-148.
210
GLH 157.
211
HHw 94. On the Hurrian origin of Hittite kupaḫi, see HED 4:257-258; Heinz Kronasser, Etymologie der
hethitischen Sprache (2 vols.; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1962-1966), 1:209.
212
LSJ 1009. Greek κὺμβαχος is also used adverbially with the meaning “falling head-first.” On the
Anatolian origin of Greek κὺμβαχος, see Oswald Szemerényi, “Etyma Graeca I,” Die Sprache 11 (1965): 4-5.
Beekes, however, suggests that this word reflects a pre-Hellenic term (EDG 801).
213
Frederic William Bush, “A Grammar of the Hurrian Language” (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University,
1964), 78; cf. Hoffner, “Anatolian Cult Term in Ugaritic,” 67.
214
DJPA 478; Jastrow 616, 1324; LSp 174; SyrLex 1323; CDG 418.
69
does note that it was made of bronze (‫)כּוֹבע נְ ח ֶֹשׁת‬.
ַ Ancient Near Eastern helmets from
the second millennium BCE were typically made from bronze—either from bronze scale
armor plates or hammered bronze—and could be plain or could have plumes or
crests.215
‫“ ִכּידוֹן‬sword”
(Josh 8:18, 26; 1 Sam 17:6, 45; Job 39:23; 41:21; Jer 6:23; 50:42)
Hurr. → Akk., Heb.
Akk. katinnu; Hurr. kadinni
The word ‫ ִכּידוֹן‬occurs only eight times in the Hebrew Bible.216 It appears amidst
mention of military armaments in several instances (1 Sam 17:6, 45; Job 39:23; Jer 6:23;
50:42), indicating that it denotes a weapon. The War Scroll mentions the term ‫ כידון‬a
number of times, and its provided dimensions (69 × 6 cm) suggest that it refers to a
sword (1QM v:10-13).217 In Ras Shamra Akkadian, katinnu is listed along with ḫaṣṣinnu,
“axe” (RS 19.23:11).218
This word has no Semitic etymology, and mention of ‫ ִכּידוֹן‬in conjunction with
Goliath’s weaponry (1 Sam 17:6, 45) points specifically to a loan from Anatolia or the
Aegean. As Heltzer notes,219 the donor term is Hurrian kadinni,220 attested primarily in
peripheral Akkadian dialects (Alalakh, Nuzi, Amarna).221 This word appears in the
215
Zorn, “Reconsidering Goliath,” 3-4; Dezső, “Scale Armour,” 200.
216
HALOT 472.
217
Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (trans. Bayta Rabin
and Chaim Rabin; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 124-125, 129-131.
218
Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription, 174, 398. There is no relationship
between Ugaritic qṭn and Akkadian katinnu; see Juan-Pablo Vita, “La herramienta katinnu en el texto de
Ugarit RS 19.23,” Sefarad 56 (1996): 439-444; Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription, 398.
219
Michael Heltzer, “Akkadian katinnu and Hebrew kīdōn, ‘Sword,’” JCS 41 (1989): 65-68.
220
GLH 133.
221
CAD K 307; AHw 466. There is no evidence that katinnu refers to a decorative object other than a
weapon, contra the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary.
70
Akkadian texts from Emar222 as katinnu and is mentioned along with different weapons;
in at least one text, it is listed as a weapon of Baal (Msk 73114:1-5).223 The term katinnu
occurs at Alalakh within mention of Hurrian terms (AAT/17 rev. 3),224 and the weapon
denoted by katinnu is mentioned as a gift of Tušratta in the Amarna letters (EA 25 ii:42),
confirming this item’s Hurrian origin. The Hebrew form exhibits vocalic metathesis,
after which the stressed a-vowel became ō due to the Canaanite shift.
First Samuel 17:6 describes this weapon as slung across Goliath’s shoulders. The
best parallels to this type of sword come from a Mediterranean context, befitting
Goliath’s Aegean origins: the Sea Peoples are depicted at Medinet Habu with short,
sickle-shaped swords slung across their chest, and similarly, Paris and Menelaus are
said to carry swords across their chest (Il. 3.330-339).225
kld “bow”
(KTU 4.277:1)
Ug. → Hurr. → Ug.
Ugaritic kld occurs only in KTU 4.277, a list of personal names.226 In line 9 of this
text, some of the listed individuals are said to be makers of ˀarkd (“projectile, spear”).
Based on this observation, it is likely that the item denoted by kld in line 1 is some type
of weapon.
Ugaritic kld has no known Semitic cognates, indicating a foreign loan. Dietrich
and Loretz227 plausibly suggest that Ugaritic kld is a Hurrian form of the common
222
Pentiuc, West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar, 145-146.
223
Daniel Arnaud, Recherches au pays d’Aštata (4 vols.; Emar 6; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les
civilisations, 1985-1987), 2:60-61.
224
Wiseman, Alalakh Tablets, 112.
225
Zorn, “Reconsidering Goliath,” 9-11.
226
DUL 439.
227
Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, “Ug. kld ‘Bogen’ und arkd ‘Wurfholz, Lanze(?)’ in KTU 4.277,”
UF 10 (1978): 429; cf. Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 130.
71
Semitic noun qšt, “bow” (cf. Ugaritic qšt, Hebrew ‫ק ֶשׁת‬,ֶ and Akkadian qaštu).228 Although
the Hurrian form of this word is unattested, the profession associated with it, kelduḫli, is
mentioned several times in the Nuzi texts. In one of these texts, 10 minas of bronze for
arrowheads are given to kelduḫli-craftsmen (SMN 908).229 This association with
arrowheads indicates that Hurrian kelduḫli has to do with the manufacturing of a
product related to arrows, and accordingly kelduḫli probably means “bowmaker.”230
Thus, Hurrian *keldi must probably means “bow,” for kelduḫli is the noun *keldi
with the nomen agentis suffix -uḫl attached. The usage of l for š reflects the similar
pronunciation of these two consonants in Semitic (cf. Akkadian ištu and ultu231). Thus,
Ugaritic kld is a secondary-creation loanword, having been borrowed from Semitic by
Hurrian and then loaned back into Semitic.
ktp “mace”
(KTU 1.6 v:2)
Hurr. → Akk., Ug.
Akk. katappu; Hurr. kadabi
Ugaritic ktp occurs only once with reference to a weapon (KTU 1.6 v:2). Its
parallelism with ṣmd, “mace,” indicates that it refers to a similar type of weapon,
although the context provides no additional clues to its identification.232
Ugaritic ktp is often connected with the common Semitic word for “shoulder”
228
DUL 718-719; HALOT 1155-1156; CAD Q 147-154; AHw 906-907.
229
Ernest René Lacheman, Miscellaneous Texts from Nuzi: Part II: The Palace and Temple Archives (vol. 5 of
Excavations at Nuzi Conducted by the Semitic Museum and the Fogg Art Museum of Harvard University, with the
Cooperation of the American School of Oriental Research at Bagdad; 8 vols.; HSS 14; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1950), pl. 92.
230
Walter Mayer, Nuzi-Studien I: die Archive des Palastes und die Prosopographie der Berufe (AOAT 205;
Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1978), 186-188. The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary and von Soden leave
this word undefined, although they recognize its Hurrian nature (CAG G 60; AHw 284). Nozadze simply
defines it as an official or craftsman (LKI 207).
231
CAD I-J 284-288; AHw 401-402, 1411.
232
DUL 469.
72
(cf. Hebrew ‫)כּ ֵתף‬
ָ and assumed to mean something like “shoulder-blade shaped
sword.”233 However, Ugaritic ktp word is probably not Semitic. Akkadian katappu occurs
only in peripheral dialects (Old Assyrian, Alalakh, Mari, and Emar), and the double final
consonant indicates a foreign loan into Akkadian.234 The occurrences in Mari Akkadian
clearly demonstrate that katappu refers to a weapon such as a mace or an axe (e.g., ARM
21.231:6-9).235 Its attestation in Emar Akkadian likewise shows that katappu refers to a
weapon (e.g., Msk 73114:7-12).236 At Alalakh, katappu occurs among a number of other
Hurrian terms (ATT/39/98:11).237
As noted by Vita and Watson,238 the donor term for Ugaritic ktp is Hurrian
kadabi, which appears once in a Hurrian ritual text amidst mention of two other
weapons, šauri and ḫašeri (ChS-E I Rs. iv:5-6).239 It is likely that this weapon term’s root is
also present in Hurrian kadinnu,240 the origin of Hebrew ‫( ִכּידוֹן‬see the corresponding
entry).
The item denoted by ktp must have been familiar to Semitic speakers, who
adopted the term for this weapon along with the product. Via Semitic, this term
entered Egyptian as ktp.241
233
Cf. DUL 469. Arabic katīf (“broad sword”) is connected with katīf (“flat metal piece”), not katif
(“shoulder, shoulder-blade”) (Lane 2998; WKAS K 49). It therefore does not provide evidence for semantic
development from “shoulder-blade” to “shoulder-blade-shaped sword.”
234
CAD K 303; AHw 465. This word does not denote a vessel or container, contra the Chicago Assyrian
Dictionary and von Soden; see Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee, “Le combat de Baˁlu avec Yammu
d’après les textes ougaritiques,” MARI 7 (1993): 68; Jean-Marie Durand, Textes administratifs des salles 134 et
160 du palais de Mari: transcrits, traduits et commentés (ARM 21; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1983), 342-343.
235
Durand, Textes administratifs des salles 134 et 160, 260-261. On another occasion, this item is
associated with Crete (Georges Dossin, “Les archives économiques du palais de Mari,” Syria 20 [1939]:
111).
236
Arnaud, Recherches au pays d’Aštata, 61.
237
Wiseman, Alalakh Tablets, 107.
238
Juan-Pablo Vita and Wilfred G.E. Watson, “Are the Akk. Terms katappu (Ug. ktp) and katinnu
Hurrian in Origin?” AoF 29 (2002): 146-149.
239
Gernot Wilhelm, Ein Ritual des AZU-Priesters (Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler, I.
Abteilung: Die Texte aus Bogazköy 1; Rome: Bonsignori, 1995), 6.
240
Vita and Watson, “Akk. Terms katappu (Ug. ktp) and katinnu,” 149.
241
GHwÄ 961; WÄS 5:145; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 337-338.
73
nˀit “axe”
(KTU 1.65:13; 4.625:2, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18; 4.632:3, 7, 11, 16)
CW
Ebla. nītu; Akk. nētu; Eg. nw.t
Ugaritic nˀit appears several times in three separate texts. It occurs in KTU 1.65,
a ritual text, and is mentioned amidst different weapons of El such as mrḥ (“spear”) and
ṣmd (“mace, axe”). In KTU 4.625, nˀit occurs along with mention of various tools such as
mˁṣd (“axe”) and mqb (“hammer”). Similarly, nˀit appears again with mˁṣd as well as
ḫrmṯt (“sickle”) in KTU 4.632. These occurrences are enough to establish this word’s
referent as a chopping tool or weapon such as an axe.242

This ancient culture word also appears in Akkadian, Eblaite, and Egyptian.243
Akkadian nētu, which means “axe,” is attested at Mari.244 In Eblaite texts, this word
appears with the meaning “axe” in conjunction with the cities Manuwad and Ibal (ARET
XIII 11 rev. iii:2, 9; iv:2)245 as well as Anarabid (ARET VII 141 rev. i:2; iv:1).246 Lastly,
Egyptian nw.t, which also means “axe,” first occurs in the Old Kingdom.247 This word
appears in the Pyramid and Coffin Texts with reference to divine weapons (Pyramid
242
DUL 612-613.This word occurs several times in Ugaritic Akkadian (RS 19.23:1, 5; 19.135:2; 20.235:13;
21.199:2, 11); see Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription, 150.
243
Ugaritic nˀit cannot be connected with Hebrew ‫את‬, ֵ “plowshare, mattock” as claimed in Manfried
Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, “Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (I),” BO 23 (1966): 131; see Jonas C.
Greenfield, “Ugaritic Lexicographical Notes,” JCS 21 (1967): 93.
244
Marco Bonechi, “A Tool at Ebla, Mari and Ugarit,” Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica 9 (1998-
1999): 277-282; Alfonso Archi, “Minima Eblaitica 22: The Symbolism of the Axe (niˀtum) in the Oath,”
NABU (2005): 74-75; Jean-Marie Durand, “A propos du nom de la hache à Mari,” MARI 3 (1984): 279.
Probably also related is Old Akkadian nātu (CAD N/2 121; AHw 766), which contra the Chicago Assyrian
Dictionary and von Soden means blade rather than “blade handle” (Durand, “Nom de la hache à Mari,”
279). Another possible related form is the rare verb nētum, “to chop” (CAD N/2 198; AHw 783) attested in a
lexical text (Aa 27 [V/2]:22-23) (MSL 14:416).
245
Pelio Fronzaroli, Testi di cancelleria: i rapporti con le città (archivio L. 2769) (Archivi reali di Ebla testi
13; Rome: Missione archaeologica italiana in Siria, 2003), 122.
246
Alfonso Archi, Testi amministrativi: registrazioni di metalli e tessuti (Archivio L. 2769) (Archivi reali di
Ebla testi 7; Rome: Missione archaeologica italiana in Siria, 1988), 159.
247
ÄW 1:602; 2:1209; GHwÄ 419; WÄS 2:216. The hieroglyphs 𓍇 and 𓍈, representations of an axe,
have the phonetic value nw.
74
Text 315c [Spell 259]; Coffin Text IV,29c [Spell 280]). The distribution of this word in
Akkadian, Eblaite, and Old Kingdom Egyptian indicates a culture word.
‫ ִשׁ ְריוֹן‬, ‫( ִס ְריוֹן‬Heb.), ṯryn (Ug.) “scale armor, mail”
(1 Sam 17:5, 38; 1 Kgs 22:34; 2 Chron 18:33; 26:14; Neh 4:10; Isa 59:17; Jer 46:4; 51:3; KTU
4.17:15; 4.169:5-6)
Hurr. ⇒
⇒ Akk., Hitt.
⇒ WSem. (Ug., Heb., JA, Syr.) → Eg.
Akk. sariam, siriannu, širiam, širˀam, širˀannu; JA ‫שׁ ְריָ ין‬,

ִ ‫שׁ ְריָ ן‬,
ִ ‫שׁ ְריָ ינָ א‬, ִ Syr. šeryānā; Eg.
ִ ‫;שׁ ְריָ נָ א‬
ṯryn; Hitt. šariya; Hurr. šariyanni
This word occurs in two different forms in biblical Hebrew: ‫( ִשׁ ְריוֹן‬1 Sam 17:5, 38;
1 Kgs 22:34; 2 Chron 18:33; 26:14; Neh 4:10; Isa 59:17) and ‫( ִס ְריוֹן‬Jer 46:4; 51:3).248 In all
these occurrences, ‫שׁ ְריוֹן‬,

ִ ‫ ִס ְריוֹן‬appears in a military context and means “scale armor,
mail.”249 Notably, it is frequently associated with the Hurrian term ‫כּוֹבע‬,

ַ֫ ‫קוֹבע‬,
ַ “helmet”
(1 Sam 17:5, 38; 2 Chron 18:33; Isa 59:17; Jer 46:4). Ugaritic ṯryn appears three times with
the same meaning.250 It occurs in the fragmentary text KTU 4.17, where it follows the
word lbš (line 15). It also occurs in KTU 4.169—a list of armaments including qšt (“bow”),
ḥẓ (“arrow”), and mrḥ (“lance”)—with reference to the armor of horses (line 5) as well
as a person (line 6).
The alternation between ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ ס‬in biblical Hebrew points to a foreign loan, and
248
Following the Septuagint (πτύξιν θώρακος αὐτοῦ), the phrase ‫“( ְבּ ֶכ ֶפל ִר ְסנוֹ‬its double bridle”) in Job
41:5 should probably be emended to ‫“( ְבּ ֶכ ֶפל ִס ְרי ֹנו‬its double coat of mail”), providing an additional
attestation of ‫ ִס ְריוֹן‬in the Hebrew Bible; see John E. Hartley, The Book of Job (NICOT; Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1988), 527; Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies
(Moreshet 2; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978), 486; Marvin H. Pope, Job:
Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 15; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965), 335.
249
HALOT 769, 1655.
250
DUL 934-935.
75
the final –n of both the Hebrew and Ugaritic forms suggests a Hurrian origin.251 The
donor term is Hurrian šariyanni, “scale armor, mail,”252 whose earliest attestations are
Hittite šariya and Akkadian (especially Amarna and Nuzi dialects) sariam, siriannu,
širiam, širˀam, širˀannu.253 Via Hurrian, this term entered Ugaritic and Hebrew,254 and via
West Semitic this term entered Egyptian.255
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 be as much as nearly
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 III.256
251
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 135; Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 163; C.G. von
Brandenstein, “Zum churrischen Lexikon,” ZA 46 (1940): 104-105.
252
LKI 300; GLH 215-216.
253
CHD Š 259; HHw 163; CAD S 313-315; AHw 1029.
254
The Jewish Aramaic and Syriac cognates are translations of the Hebrew (Jastrow 1631; SyrLex
1607).
255
Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 366-367.
256
Tamás Dezső, “Panzer,” RlA 10:319-323; Dezső, “Scale Armour,” 195-199; Wolfgang Decker,
“Panzer(hemd),” LÄ 4:665-666; E.A. Speiser, “On Some Articles of Armor and Their Names,” JAOS 70
(1950): 47-48.
76
Minerals and Organic Materials
‫“ ַא ְח ָל ָמה‬red jasper”
(Exod 28:19; 39:12)
Eg. → Heb.
Eg. ḫnm.t
Exodus 28:17-20; 39:10-13 mentions this dis legomenon along with several
gemstones found on the high priest’s breastplate, including ‫“( ִפּ ְט ָדה‬peridot”), ‫נ ֶֹפְך‬
(“turquoise”), ‫“( ַס ִפּיר‬lapis lazuli”), ‫“( ֶל ֶשׁם‬amazonite”), and ‫“( ָי ְֽשׁ ֵפה‬jasper”).257 It is
unlikely that Hebrew ‫ ַא ְח ָל ָמה‬is based on any Semitic root258 and it does not occur in any
of the other Semitic languages, so its identification as a non-Semitic loanword is
virtually certain.259
As Muchiki, Ellenbogen, and Lambdin postulate,260 ‫ ַא ְח ָל ָמה‬is a loan from
Egyptian ḫnm.t, “red jasper” (first attested in the Eighteenth Dynasty).261 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
257
HALOT 34. The Septuagint (ἀμέθυστος) and Vulgate (amethystus) both understood this gemstone to
be an amethyst whereas the Peshitta (ˁyn ˁglˀ) and Targums Onqelos (‫ )עין־עגלא‬and Pseduo-Jonathan ( ‫עין‬
‫ )עיגל‬take it as a reference to a generic precious stone.
258
It is unlikely that this noun is based on the Hebrew root ‫ חלם‬and means “dream-stone” as Brown,
Driver, and Briggs (BDB 29), suggest.
259
On the correspondence between Hebrew ‫ ל‬and Egyptian n, see the Egyptian “Consonant
Correspondences” section in the conclusions chapter.
260
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 238-239; Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old
Testament,” 147; Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 22.
261
GHwÄ 649-650; WÄS 3:294; Rainer Hannig, “Jaspis,” LÄ 3:246. The Berlin Amulet Board, which
contains a number of jasper amulets described as made of ḫnm.t, supports this term’s identification with
jasper; see Thierry de Putter and Christina Karlshausen, Les pierres utilisées dans la sculpture et l’architecture
de l’Egypte pharaonique: guide pratique illustré (Étude Connaissance de l’Egypte ancienne 4; Brussels,
Belgium: Connaissance de l’Egypte ancienne, 1992), 102; Sydney Aufrère, L’univers minéral dans la pensée
égyptienne (2 vols.; Institut français d’archéologie orientale: Bibliothèque d’étude 105; Cairo: Institut
français d’archéologie orientale, 1991), 2:553-554; Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian
Minerals, 123.
77
green.262 Veins of red jasper existed in various regions of the Eastern Desert of Egypt,
particularly to the northwest and west of Quseir.263 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 onwards.264
‫( ֶא ְלגָּ ִבישׁ‬Heb.), ˀalgbṯ (Ug.) “a dark-colored stone”
(Ezek 13:11, 13; 38:22; KTU 4.158:15)
CW
Sum. AL.GA.MÈŠ; Ebla. urgubasu; Akk. algamešu, algamišu; Eg. irqbs, irgbs
The word ‫ ֶא ְלגָּ ִבישׁ‬appears only in postexilic Hebrew, in which it occurs with
reference to hail (Ezek 13:11, 13; 38:22).265 Either the formation or color of the
hailstones in Ezekiel were similar enough to this word for a stone that its name was
adopted as a word for hailstone. Hebrew ‫גָּ ִבישׁ‬, mentioned in Job 28:18 along with other
ֶ 266 Ugaritic ˀalgbṯ occurs

precious stones, is a shortened or corrupted form of ‫א ְלגָּ ִבישׁ‬.
262
Michael O’Donoghue, “Quartz,” in Gems: Their Sources, Descriptions and Identification (ed. Michael
O’Donoghue; 6th ed.; Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006), 312.
263
Barbara G. Aston, James A. Harrell, and Ian Shaw, “Stone,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Technology (eds. Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 29; de
Putter and Karlshausen, Pierres utilisées dans la sculpture et l’architecture de l’Egypte pharaonique, 103.
264
Hannig, “Jaspis,” 3:246; Aston, Harrell, and Shaw, “Stone,” 29-30; de Putter and Karlshausen,
Pierres utilisées dans la sculpture et l’architecture de l’Egypte pharaonique, 103-104; Lucas, Ancient Egyptian
Materials and Industries, 397-398.
265
HALOT 51. The Septuagint translates Hebrew ‫ ֶא ְלגָּ ִבישׁ‬as λίθους πετροβόλους (“throwing stones”) in
Ezek 13:11, 13 and λίθοις χαλάζης (“hailstones”) in Ezek 38:22; the Peshitta reads kˀpˀ ddḥrˀ (“very hard
stones”) in all three occurrences; Targum Jonathan uses the Aramaic form of this word.
266
HALOT 173. The Septuagint simply transliterates ‫ גָּ ִבישׁ‬as γαβις; the Vulgate reads eminentia
(“excellence”); the text of the Peshitta deviates from the Masoretic text at this point, repeating itself, but
mentions several terms for precious materials; lastly, the Targum uses ‫“( בירוצין‬precious stone”).
78
once with reference to a mineral or stone in line 15 of the economic text KTU 4.158.267
Outside Hebrew and Ugaritic, this word occurs relatively early. Akkadian texts
beginning with the Old Akkadian period refer to algamešu, algamišu as a mineral or
stone.268 Sumerian ALGAMEŠ and Eblaite urgubasu, of the same meaning, appear only in
lexical lists.269 Lastly, two forms of this word are found in Egyptian: irqbs (written with
group writing as ˀa2=-r=qa=bi=sa during the Nineteenth Dynasty) and irgbs (attested
during the Third Intermediate Period).270
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 is a foreign loan.
Moreover, the alternation of b and m between the West and East Semitic terms,
respectively, reflects the transmission of a non-Semitic culture word into two separate
Semitic dialects.271 As indicated by its early presence in Sumerian and Eblaite, this
ancient culture word perhaps 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.272 Usage of the logogram GI6 (“dark, black”)
before this word in Ugaritic Akkadian implies that this stone was dark-colored (RS
20.225A); this text, moreover, constrasts it with the kabdu-stone, which is preceded by
the logogram for the color white (BABBAR).273 The logographic representation of
Akkadian algamešu, UD.SAL.ḪÚB, also indicates a dark color: this can be translated as
“stone of the female donkey,” a description that refers to the color of the stone rather
267
DUL 54-55. A Ugaritic Akkadian letter from the Hittite court thrice mentions the word gi6algabašu, a
gloss for na4MEŠ.GÍG( RS 20.225 A ii:4, 10; iii:3).
268
CAD A/1 337-338; AHw 35.
269
PSD; Miguel Civil, The Early Dynastic Practical Vocabulary A (Archaic HAR-ra A) (Archivi reali di Ebla
studi 4; Rome: Missione archaeologica italiana in Siria, 2008), 30, 71.
270
GHwÄ 106; WÄS 1:116.
271
Jesse L. Boyd, III, “A Collection and Examination of the Ugaritic Vocabulary Contained in the
Akkadian Texts from Ras Shamra” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1975), 31.
272
CAD A/1 338.
273
Boyd, “Collection and Examination of the Ugaritic Vocabulary,” 33.
79
than its composition.274
ˀiqnˀu, qnˀu “lapis lazuli”
(KTU 1.1 ii:5; 1.4 v:19, 35; 1.14 iii:43, vi:29; 1.24:21-22; 2.73:7, 17; 3.1; passim)
CW
Akk. uqnû; Hitt. kuwanna, kunna; Lin. B ku-wa-no; Gk. κύανος; Lat. cyanus
This term has two forms in Ugaritic (ˀiqnˀu and qnˀu) and occurs most often in
legal and economic texts.275 It can be used with reference to the colors blue or violet-
blue, but, like its Akkadian cognate uqnû, it most commonly denotes lapis lazuli.276 Lapis
lazuli, an opaque, semi-precious stone, consists of lazurite (a blue mineral), calcite,
pyrite. Its color can vary from a rich deep blue, speckled with brassy-yellow spots, to a
pale mottled blue and white.277
Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín278 connect Ugaritic ˀiqnˀu and Akkadian uqnû with
several Indo-European terms: Hittite kuwanna, kunna, Linear B ku-wa-no, Greek κύανος,
and Latin cyanus.279 All these Indo-European words denote “copper” in addition to blue-
colored (i.e., copper-based) materials or objects, such as dark-blue enamel. If the Indo-
European forms, which seem to be derived from a Hurrian word kab, kap, “copper,”280
274
CAD A/1 338.
275
DUL 93-94, 705. KTU 1.1 ii:5; 1.4 v:19, 35; vii :1; 1.14 iii:43, vi:29; 1.24:21-22; 2.73:7, 17; 3.1:23, 28, 30,
32, 34, 36, 38; 4.168:1, 6-8, 15, 18; 4.182:12, 16, 20 (2x), 21 (2x), 23, 31, 37, 39; 4.203:5; 4.247:28; 4.341:4;
4.738:5; 4.778:14, 17; 4.782:26; 4.779:6 (2x); 4.782:20 (2x). The form ˀiqnˀu is the most common form,
occurring numerous times, but the form qnˀu only occurs in KTU 2.73:7, 17.
276
CAD U-W 195-202; AHw 1426-1427; Wolfgang Röllig, “Lapislazuli: A. Philologisch,” RlA 6:488-89.
Besides the Ugaritic and Akkadian forms, this term may also occur in Semitic as ‫ אקנא‬in an Achaemenid
period funerary inscription from Byblos (DNWSI 100; Frank Moore Cross, Jr., “A Recently Published
Phoenician Inscription of the Persian Period from Byblos,” IEJ 29 [1979]: 44); however, the text is
fragmentary and the reading of ‫ אקנא‬is dubious.
277
Michael O’Donoghue, “Lapis Lazuli,” in Gems: Their Sources, Descriptions and Identification (ed.
Michael O’Donoghue; 6th ed.; Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006), 329.
278
DUL 93-94.
279
HHw 98; DM 1:415-416; LSJ 1004; OLD 479-480.
280
On the existence of this word in Hurrian, see Erich Neu, “Zur Herkunft des Inselnamens Kypros,”
Glotta 73 (1995): 1-7. It is attested with the root complement -l in a Hittite-Hurrian bilingual text, in which
80
are indeed related to Ugaritic ˀiqnˀu and Akkadian uqnû, phonological differences
prohibit a borrowing from Indo-European or Hurrian.281 The Semitic, Indo-European,
and Hurrian terms must constitute distinct forms of an ancient culture word.
This word must have originated from the place where lapis was obtained, and
the evidence indicates that it came from the territory of western Iran, near the Zagros
Mountains.282 Sumerian texts from the third millennium BCE associate lapis lazuli
(ZAGIN) with regions located in Iran or regions farther east, such as Aratta283 (e.g.,
Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta lines 18, 345, 481).284 Neo-Assyrian texts similarly claim
that lapis came from Mount Dapara (Lipšur Litanies line 26)285 as well as Mount Bikni,
probably Kuh-i-Alwand in western Iran (RINAP 4.1 iv:47);286 in the Akkadian version of
his Palace Foundation Inscription, Darius I similarly attributes lapis to the Bahtar
Mountain in the land of Sogdiana (line 26).287 Geological evidence supports this ancient
association of lapis with western Iran.288 As indicated by geological surveys, it is likely
that the region near the upper branches of the Kokcha River in the Badakshan district
the form kabali/kapali is equated with URUDU, “copper” (KBo 32.14 Vs. i:47, 54; ii:46, 53). This root is the
origin of the place name “Cyprus,” well-known for its copper in antiquity (cf. Greek Κύπρος, “Cyprus,” as
well as Latin Cyprus, “Cyprus” and cyprum, “Cyprian copper” [LSJ 1012; OLD 482]).
281
Cf. Albrecht Goetze, “Contributions to Hittite Lexicography,” JCS 1 (1947): 310. The prothetic ˀ in
Ugaritic ˀiqnˀu may reflect an initial vowel unrepresented in the Indo-European forms. Alternatively, the
prothetic ˀ may constitute an attempt to semitize a foreign word by making it conform to the ˀqtl-
nominal pattern, a pattern used for color terms in several Semitic languages, including Arabic and
Hebrew (Jakob Barth, Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen: mit einem Wörter- und Sachverzeichnis
[2d ed.; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1894], 224). Regardless, the final ˀ remains unexplainable as a loan from
Indo-European or Hurrian.
282
Stuart C. Brown, “Lapis Lazuli and Its Sources in Ancient West Asia,” Bulletin of the Canadian Society
for Mesopotamian Studies 22 (1991): 5-13.
283
Brown, “Lapis Lazuli and Its Sources in Ancient West Asia,” 9-12; Giovanni Pettinato, “Il
commercio con l’estero della Mesopotamia meridionale nel III mil. av.C. alla luce delle fonti letterarie e
lessicale sumerische,” Mesoptamia 7 (1972): 77-78. Brown situates Aratta in Iran, but its location is debated
and it may be located further east than Iran.
284
Catherine Mittermayer, Enmerkara und der Herr von Arata: eine ungleicher Wettstreit (OBO 239;
Freiburg: Academic Press, 2009), 114-115, 134-135, 142-143.
285
Erica Reiner, “Lipšur Litanies,” JNES 15 (1956): 132-133.
286
Erle Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions
of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 20.
287
Vincent Scheil, Inscriptions des Achéménides a Suse (Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique de Perse
21; Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1929), 8, 29.
288
Brown, “Lapis Lazuli and Its Sources in Ancient West Asia,” 12-13.
81
of modern Afganistan was likewise an ancient source of lapis lazuli.289
Lapis lazuli has a long and rich history of usage in the ancient Near East and
Egypt. Craftsmen frequently utilized this material for jewelry as well as other objects,
such as beads, amulets, and cylinder seals.290 As the Amarna letters indicate,291 it was a
common item of tribute.
‫“ ֫בֹּ ַחן‬greywacke”
(Isa 28:16)
Eg. → Heb.; Gk.
Eg. bḫn; Gk. βάσανος
Hebrew ‫ ֫בֹּ ַחן‬, which occurs only in Isa 28:16, has been explained in at least two
different ways. The Septuagint (λίθον πολυτελῆ ἐκλεκτὸν), Vulgate (lapis probatus), and
Peshitta (kˀpˀ bḥyrtˀ) all seem to associate this word with the root ‫בחן‬, “to test,
examine.”292 The traditional rendering of “tested stone,” followed by some

commentators, stems from this interpretation.293 Other scholars,294 however, derive
Hebrew ‫ ֫בֹּ ַחן‬from Egyptian bḫn.295 This term, which is attested beginning with the
Middle Kingdom, refers to greywacke, a dark-colored stone from the Wadi Hammamat
289
Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 85-92. The presence of raw lapis lazuli and
evidence of lapis lazuli bead manufacture at the Harrapan city of Shortgugai on the nearby Oxus River
indicate that mines here were exploited as early as the third millennium BCE.
290
Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 88-92; Aston, Harrell, and Shaw, “Stone,” 39-
40.
291
Cf. EA 15:13; 16:11; 19:80-81; 21:36; 22 i.52; 25 i.20-21; 25 ii.27, iii.43.
292
HALOT 119. This root is common to Semitic, with cognates in Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic in
addition to Hebrew (DRS 56).
293
E.g., Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 28-39: A Commentary (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; CC; Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2002), 30-31, 40-42; James W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33 (WBC 24; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 366-367,
370.
294
E.g., Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 148; Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the
Old Testament, 48; Ludwig Köhler, “Alttestamentliche Wortforschung: Zwei Fachwörter der Bausprache in
Jesaja 28, 16,” TZ 3 (1947): 391-393.
295
ÄW 2:821; GHwÄ 275; WÄS 1:471; Rolf Gundlach, “Grauwacke,” LÄ 2:894; Aston, Harrell, and Shaw,
“Stone,” 57-58; Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals, 78-81; Alfred Lucas and Alan
Rowe, “The Ancient Egyptian Bekhen-Stone,” Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 38 (1938): 127-156.
82
that was used for constructing monuments and statues.296
Several factors point to an Egyptian origin for Hebrew ‫ ֫בֹּ ַחן‬. First, the Masoretic
vocalization is not the passive form one would expect for such an origin. Second,
deriving ‫ ֫בֹּ ַחן‬from the verbal root ‫ בחן‬yields an unclear interpretation: what exactly is
meant by a “tested stone”? Wildberger and Watts suggest it refers to an approved or
reliable foundation stone,297 but this is difficult to support in the context, and the
description of a foundation stone as “tested” or “approved” is otherwise anomalous in
antiquity.298 Third, a derivation from Egyptian bḫn is appropriate within the
architectural context of Isa 28:16 since this stone was used in Egypt for constructing
monuments.299
Greek speakers also borrowed this word from Egyptian as βάσανος,
“touchstone.”300 However, in the process of borrowing, the Greeks changed its referent
from greywacke to another dark stone familiar to them, the Lydian touchstone.301 From
296
Following the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS VIII:7-8; 1QHa XIV:25-27) as well as Rashi and David Kimḥi,
others revocalize ‫ ֫בֹּ ַחן‬to ‫בּ ַחן‬,ַ֫ “fortress, tower” (e.g., Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary [AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 391-392; J.J.M. Roberts, “Yahweh’s
Foundation in Zion (Isa 28:16),” JBL 106 [1987]: 31-34). However, this option makes little sense and does
not adequately explain the parallelism between ‫ ָא ֶבן ֶא ֶבן בּ ַֹחן‬and ‫מוּסּד‬ ָ ‫ יִ ְק ַרת‬in this verse.
ָ ‫מוּסד‬
297
Wildberger, Isaiah 28-39, 41-42; Watts, Isaiah 1-33, 370.
298
In light of the references to measuring instrumentation in the next verse (v. 17), it is possible that
Isaiah intends wordplay, knowing those who heard ‫ ֫בֹּ ַחן‬might think of “testing” (Wildberger, Isaiah 28-39,
41-42), but this cannot be the primary point of the passage.
299
The presence of an Egyptian loan in Isa 28:16 is supported by the larger pericope’s allusions to
negotiations with Egypt against Assyria and, possibly, Egyptian preoccupation with death and the
afterlife (cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39, 393).
300
LSJ 308-309. On the origin of βάσανος, see EDG 203; DELG 158-159; Jean-Luc Fournet, “Les emprunts
du grec à l’égyptien,” Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 84 (1989): 57-58. The seemingly unusual
correspondence between Egyptian ḫ and Greek σ is attested elsewhere; for example, compare the proper
nouns Μισφρῆς and Ψουσέννης, which correspond to Mn-ḫpr-rˁ and Pȝ-sbȝ-ḫˁ-n-nw.t, respectively, in
Manetho.
301
D.T. Moore and W.A. Oddy, “Touchstones: Some Aspects of Their Nomenclature, Petrography and
Provenance,” Journal of Archaeological Science 12 (1985): 60. The earliest definitive classical sources (e.g.,
Theophrastus, De Lapidibus 7.45-47) attribute the touchstone to Tmolos in ancient Lydia. Ptolemy
associates this term with the Wadi Hammamat—Egypt’s primary source of greywacke in antiquity
(Geography 4.5.27), and Pliny attributes this stone to both Egypt and Lydia (Nat. 33.43; 36.11). By means of
a medieval transcription error in copying Pliny’s work, this term became basalten. This error was
introduced into the modern period with the publication of De Natura Fossilium by Georg Bauer (Georgius
Agricola) in 1546 CE, a work that used the erroneous form basaltes. See James A. Harrell, “Ancient
Egyptian Origins of Some Common Rock Names,” Journal of Geological Education 43 (1995): 33.
83
this noun, the Greeks developed the verb βασανίζω,302 which only secondarily
developed the general meaning “to test.”303 The similarity in meaning between Greek
βασανίζω and the common Semitic root bḥn, then, is a coincidence, and the Greek
adaptation of this word as “touchstone” should not be incorporated into Egyptian bḫn
and Hebrew ‫ ֫בֹּ ַחן‬.304
‫בּ ֶ ֫ר ֶקת‬,ָ ‫“ ָ ֽבּ ְר ַקת‬a shiny gem”
(Exod 28:17; 39:10; Ezek 28:13)
This word occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible, twice in the form ‫ָבּ ֶ ֫ר ֶקת‬
(Exod 28:17; 39:10) and once in the form ‫( ָ ֽבּ ְר ַקת‬Ezek 28:13).305 In Exod 28:17-20; 39:10-13,
it appears within the description of the high priest’s breastplate along with several
gemstone terms that are foreign loans. Speaking of the king of Tyre’s adornment, Ezek
28:13 mentions ‫ ָ ֽבּ ְר ַקת‬in conjunction with many of these same gemstones.306
Köhler and Baumgartner307 postulate that Hebrew ‫ ָבּ ֶ ֫ר ֶקת‬is derived from Sanskrit
302
LSJ 308-309.
303
EDG 203; DELG 158-159. The denominative nature of βασανίζω is supported by several additional
pieces of evidence: the ending –ίζω is often used to form denominative verbs, βάσανος is attested slightly
earlier than βασανίζω, and other verbs (such as πειράω or πειράζω [LSJ 1354-1355]), more commonly
denote testing the quality of something in classical Greek.
304
Cf. Robert Fuchs, “Wetzstein,” LÄ 6:1241-1242; Heinrich Quiring, “Der Probierstein,” FF 25 (1949):
238-239; contra Kurt Sethe, “Die Bau- und Denkmalsteine der alten Ägypter und ihre Namen,”
Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 8 (1933): 894-909; Lambdin, “Egyptian
Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 148. There is no clear evidence that bḫn, “greywacke,” is based on a
hypothetical Egyptian root bḫn that means “to test, examine” (EDE 2:286). It is also highly unlikely that
the common Semitic root bḥn is a denominative based on the noun ‫ ֫בֹּ ַחן‬because this does not account for
the verb’s widespread occurrence in Semitic (contra Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old
Testament,” 148).
305
HALOT 162. The difference in spelling is due to the fact that the occurrences in Exodus are pausal
forms, whereas the occurrence in Ezekiel is not; see Bauer and Leander, Historische Grammatik der
hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes, 510-511 (§62v).
306
The ancient versions all take ‫ ָבּ ֶ ֫ר ֶקת‬as a type of precious stone, often using the corresponding
forms: the Septuagint reads σμάραγδος in Exod 28:17; 39:10 but λιγύριον (“precious stone”) in Ezek 28:13;
the Vulgate has smaragdus in all three instances; the Peshitta reads brqˀ in Exod 28:17; 39:10 but mrgnytˀ
(“pearl”) in Ezek 28:13; the Targum reads ‫ ברקן‬in all three cases.
307
HALOT 162.
84
marakata, “emerald.”308 However, Sanskrit marakata is a late loan from Greek σμάραγδος
(in turn recognized by classicists as a loan into Greek from Semitic)309 and thus cannot
be the origin of the Semitic forms.310 Hebrew ‫ ָבּ ֶ ֫ר ֶקת‬is based on the common Semitic root
brq, “to flash, shine,”311 an appropriate etymology for a gemstone. Attested cognates
exist in Syriac (bārqā)312 as well as Neo-Babylonian Akkadian (barraqtu).313 Based on its
lexical derivation as well as the testimony of classical sources, ‫ ָבּ ֶ ֫ר ֶקת‬and its Semitic
cognates could designate a variety of shiny gemstones, including (but not limited to)
the emerald.314
‫“ גָּ ְפ ִרית‬sulfur, brimstone”
(Gen 19:24; Deut 29:22; Job 18:15; Ps 11:6; Isa 30:33; Ezek 38:22)
The word ‫ גָּ ְפ ִרית‬occurs several times in the Hebrew Bible with the meaning
“sulphur, brimstone.”315 Aside from the fact that ‫ גָּ ְפ ִרית‬refers to a specific substance,
308
KEWA 2:587-258; CDIAL 567.
309
LSJ 1080, 1619; EDG 1365-1366; DELG 991, 1353. Mayrhofer and Beekes plausibly suggest that the
spelling of σμάραγδος represents an attempt by the Greeks to folk etymologize this term on the basis of
the verb σμαραγέω, “to thunder” (LSJ 1619); see EDG 1365-1366; Manfred Mayrhofer, “Indogermanistische
Randglossen zu ‘Kluge-Mitzka,’” Die Sprache 7 (1955): 187-188. The form μάραγδος does not occur in Greek
until late, namely the first century BCE, and may be a reborrowing from Sanskrit (EDG 1366).
310
KEWA 2:587-588; Mayrhofer, “Indogermanistische Randglossen zu ‘Kluge-Mitzka,’” 187-188.
Egyptian brgt, attested only once in the Late Period Sehel Inscription (line 16), is a loan from Semitic in
light of its late attestation and rarity in Egyptian (Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian
Minerals, 105). Pahlavi uzumburd and New Persian zumurrod as well as their derivative Arabic zummurud,
in turn, are loans from Greek σμάραγδος as demonstrated by their representation of an initial sibilant
(Lane 1251; CPD 85; CPED 621; NPED 1:1018; Asbaghi, Persische Lehnwörter im Arabischen, 147).
311
DRS 86.
312
SyrLex 192.
313
CAD B 113; AHw 107.
314
Classical descriptions of σμάραγδος and smaragdus (e.g., Theophrastus, De Lapidibus 4.23-27; Pliny,
Nat. 37.16-19; Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 2.52) indicate that a variety of different gems were
denoted by this term in antiquity, but not exclusively the emerald; see John Sinkankas, Emerald and Other
Beryls (Radnor, Pa.: Chilton Book Company, 1981), 13-21; John F. Healy, Pliny the Elder on Science and
Technology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 241-245. Probably due to its hardness, usage of the
emerald is not attested in Mesopotamia prior to the fourth century BCE and in Egypt prior to the
Ptolemaic period (Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 81; Aston, Harrell, and Shaw,
“Stone,” 25).
315
HALOT 201. The Septuagint and Vulgate translate Hebrew ‫ גָּ ְפ ִרית‬as θεῖον and sulphur, respectively
(both meaning “brimstone, sulfur”). The Peshitta and Targums have the Aramaic form of this word.
85
there are no clear indications that it might be a loan. Yet, following Abu Manṣūr
Mauhūb al-Jawālīqī and other Arabic lexicographers, de Lagarde as well as Köhler and
Baumgartner contend that the term was borrowed from Bactrian vohûkereti.316
However, this term occurs frequently in Semitic with related terms in Akkadian (kibrītu,
kubrītu), various dialects of Aramaic (Imperial Aramaic ‫כברי‬, Jewish Aramaic ‫גופריתא‬,
‫יתא‬ ָ ‫כּ ְיב ִר‬,ִ and Syriac kebrītā), and Ethiopic (kabārit).317 In addition to the fact that
ָ ‫כּ ְב ִר‬,ִ ‫יתא‬
Bactrian was spoken much later than the earliest occurrences of this term in Semitic,
this word’s widespread distribution in Semitic precludes a Bactrian loan.318
As Thompson argues, Akkadian kibrītu is derived from Akkadian kibru, “river
bank, shore.”319 Several Akkadian lexical lists equate kibrītu with kibir ilunāri (KI.A.dÍD),
“bank of the river” (e.g., Ḫḫ 11:327)320 an appropriate origin because the banks of the
Tigris had several sulfur springs from which this product was derived.321 Because initial
k of Akkadian first millennium loans into Northwest Semitic always corresponds to k,322
the usage of ‫ ג‬rather than ‫ כ‬indicates that Hebrew ‫ גָּ ְפ ִרית‬was borrowed before the first
millennium BCE.323 Hittite kipriti324 as well as Hurrian kibriti325 are likewise loans from
Akkadian.326 Egyptian kbrt, which occurs once in a text from the Twentieth or Twenty-
First Dynasty, is written with group writing (ka=bi=ra=ta) and is a clear loan from West
316
Paul de Lagarde, Semitica (2 vols.; Göttingen: Dietrichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1878-1879), 1:64-
65; HALOT 201. Nöldeke critiqued de Legarde’s proposal (Theodor Nöldeke, review of Paul de Lagarde,
Semitica, ZDMG 32 [1878]: 401-10), and de Lagarde responded to these criticisms, elaborating upon his
hypothesis (Paul de Lagarde, Symmicta [2 vols.; Göttingen: Dietrichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1877-
1880], 2:92-94; Paul de Lagarde, Uebersicht über die im Aramäischen, Arabischen und Hebräischen übliche
Bildung der Nomina [Göttingen: Dietrichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1889], 217-220).
317
CAD K 333-334; AHw 471; DNWSI 487; DJBA 270, 574; SyrLex 597; MD 212; CDG 274.
318
Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 58-59.
319
CAD K 334-336; AHw 471.
320
MSL 7:141.
321
Thompson, Dictionary of Assyrian Chemistry and Geology, 38-39.
322
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 155; Kaufman, Akkadian Influences, 139.
323
Alternatively, this could indicate that Hebrew ‫ גָּ ְפ ִרית‬was borrowed from Akkadian via an
intermediary language.
324
HHw 88.
325
GLH 146.
326
HED 4:188; HEG 1:583; GLH 146.
86
Semitic.327
‫“ גִּ ר‬limestone, chalk”
(Isa 27:9)
The hapax legomenon ‫ גִּ ר‬occurs in Isa 27:9, where it has the meaning “limestone,
chalk.”328 Despite its rarity in Hebrew, this term is attested frequently in various
dialects of Aramaic as ‫גִּ יר‬, including biblical Aramaic (Dan 5:6) as well as Jewish and
Christian Palestinian Aramaic.329 It also occurs in both Old South Arabian (gyrm) and
Arabic (ǧīr, ǧayyār).330
All these Semitic words meaning “limestone, chalk” are derived from Akkadian
kīru, “kiln.”331 Akkadian texts specifically use this term with reference to a kiln for
either bitumen or lime, and this association with lime is likely the basis for the meaning
“limestone, chalk” in Hebrew as well as Aramaic and Arabic. Akkadian loaned the term
into the other Semitic languages and Akkadian kīru, in turn, is a loan from Sumerian
GIR4, which like its Akkadian derivative means “kiln, oven.”332 Köhler and Baumgartner
therefore claim that Hebrew ‫ גִּ ר‬is from Sumerian,333 but Sumerian GIR4 is in turn a loan
from Akkadian kūru, also meaning “kiln, oven.”334 Thus, Hebrew ‫ גִּ ר‬is a transmitted loan:
327
328
HALOT 201.The ancient versions are nearly unanimous in their understanding of this word: the
Septuagint has κονία (“fine powder, chalk”), the Vulgate reads lapides cineris allisos (“broken burnt
stones”), the Peshitta has klš (“chalk, lime”), and the Targum has the Aramaic form of this word.
329
HALOT 1844; DJPA 128; LSp 36.
330
DOSA 71-72; Lane 493.
331
CAD K 415-416; AHw 484-485.
332
PSD.
333
HALOT 201.
334
In Akkadian lexical texts, kūru is equated with Sumerian DINIG, but kīru is equated with Sumerian
GIR4, suggesting a distinction between these two Akkadian terms. The fact that Akkadian kūru has a wider
Semitic distribution than kīru and the fact that Akkadian kīru has a more limited meaning (“kiln for lime
or bitumen”) than kūru (“oven”) suggest the following derivation: Sumerian GIR4 was borrowed from
Akkadian kūru and given a technical application—that of a lime or bitumen kiln—and was subsequently
borrowed into Akkadian as kīru with reference to this specific type of kiln. See Mankowski, Akkadian
Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 67-69.
87
although this word did pass through Sumerian during the course of its history, it did
not originate with Sumerian and is Semitic rather than non-Semitic in origin. As with
Hebrew ‫גָּ ְפ ִרית‬, the initial ‫ ג‬rather than ‫ כ‬in ‫ גִּ ר‬points to a loan into Hebrew earlier than
the first millennium BCE.
‫“ ָי ְֽשׁ ֵפה‬jasper”
(Exod 28:20; 39:13; Ezek 28:13)
Hurr. ⇒
⇒ Akk.; Hitt.
⇒ WSem. (Heb., Syr.) → Gk., Lat.; Sogd., NPers. → Arab.
Akk. ašpu, yašpu; Syr. yašpēh; Arab. yašb, yašm; Gk. ἴασπις; Lat. iaspis; Hitt. yašpu; Sogd.
ˀyšph; NPers. yašm
Hebrew ‫י ְֽשׁ ֵפה‬,ָ “jasper,” appears with reference to the high priest’s breastplate
(Exod 28:20; 39:13) and the king of Tyre’s adornment (Ezek 28:13).335 In the Amarna
letters this word appears as yašpu (EA 22 iv:6), and in other dialects of Akkadian
(Standard Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian, and Neo-Babylonian) the form is ašpu.336 Also
related are Syriac yašpēh, “jasper,”337 and Hittite yašpu;338 Greek ἴασπις and Latin iaspis339
are loans from West Semitic.340
335
HALOT 449. The ancient versions vary widely in their understanding of this word: the Septuagint,
Vulgate, Peshitta, and Targum Onqelos read ὀνύχιον (“onyx”), berillus (“beryl”), yšph (“jasper”), and
ֵ ‫“( ַפ‬a precious stone”), respectively, in Exod 28:20; 39:13, wheareas in Ezek 28:13 the Septuagint,
‫נת ִירי‬
Vulgate, Peshitta, and Targum Jonathan read ἴασπιν (“jasper”), berillus, spylˀ (“sapphire”), and ‫נת ִרין‬
ֵ ‫“( ַפ‬a
precious stone”), respectively.
336
CAD I-J 328; AHw 413.
337
SyrLex 586.
338
HHw 65.
339
LSJ 816; OLD 817. Both these terms denote jasper, although in light of Pliny’s discussions of this
gem (Nat. 37.37; cf. Dioscorides, Mat. med. 5.142), this word seems to have denoted green jasper as well as
similar precious stones like chalcedony and plasma.
340
EDG 574; DELG 436-437; DELL 305; Émilia Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en
grec (Études et commentaires 67; Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1967), 65-66.
88
The atypical morphology of Hebrew ‫ ָי ְֽשׁ ֵפה‬points to a non-Semitic loan, and
textual evidence likewise indicates a foreign origin. The substance denoted by yašpu is
one of the gifts that Tušratta, the king of Mitanni, gives as tribute to Pharaoh
Amenophis III (EA 22 iv:6). Sargon II, moreover, refers to Zimur (located near Lake Van
in Urartu) as the “jasper mountain” (kurZimur šadī na4ašpê) (TLC 3 ii:145).341 Textual
evidence thus points to a Hurrian origin for this term,342 namely, yašpi. This loan
hypothesis is supported by geological attestation of jasper along the Irano-Arabian and
Arabian mountains, with sources particularly concentrated in the southern Elburz and
the central Zagros.343
‫“ ֶל ֶשׁם‬feldspar, amazonite”
(Exod 28:19; 39:12)
Eg. → Heb.
Eg. nšm.t
Hebrew ‫ ֶל ֶשׁם‬occurs only twice, both times in the description of the high priest’s
breastplate (Exod 28:19; 39:12).344 Hebrew ‫ ֶל ֶשׁם‬has no Semitic cognates and is not based
on any known Semitic root, indicating that it is a foreign loan. Muchiki, Ellenbogen,
and Lambdin345 identify the appropriate donor term as Egyptian nšm.t, which is attested
341
François Thureau-Dangin, Une relation de la huitième campagne de Sargon (714 av. J.-C.) (Textes
cunéiformes 3; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1912), 24-25.
342
Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 81; cf. Grintz, “‫מונחים קדומים ב׳תורת כהנים׳‬,” 9.
Brown, Driver, and Briggs claim that this term originated from Persian (BDB 448). However, this word is
not attested in Persian until the eighth century CE in a Sogdian (Middle Iranian) text, and Sogdian ˀyšph
constitutes a clear borrowing from Semitic (Gharib 88; D.N. MacKenzie, The Buddhist Sogdian Texts of the
British Library [Acta Iranica, Troisième série: Textes et mémories 3; Tehran: Bibliothèque Pahlavi, 1976],
90 [glossary]). New Persian yašm and yašb are the origin of Arabic yašm and yašb (Lane 2978; CPED 1531;
NPED 2:1235; Asbaghi, Persische Lehnwörter im Arabischen, 274).
343
344
HALOT 537. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and Peshitta translate Hebrew ‫ ֶל ֶשׁם‬as λιγύριον, liguirius,
qnkynwn, and ‫נכ ִירי‬
ֵ ‫ק‬,ַ respectively, all utilizing a fairly generic term for a gem or precious stone.
345
89
from the New Kingdom onward in texts such as the Book of the Dead.346 The Berlin
Amulet Board utilizes the term nšm.t to describe scepters made of feldspar, indicating a
type of blue or green feldspar (probably amazonite).347
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.348
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, as the tomb of Tutankhamen attests, during the New
Kingdom.349 In Mesopotamia, amazonite was obtained from Kashmir or the Ural

Mountains, although there may have been additional sources directly to the north or
east of Mesopotamia. The inhabitants of Mesopotamia used this mineral for beads as
well as cylinder seals beginning with late prehistoric Uruk and continuing into the first
millennium.350
346
GHwÄ 459; WÄS 2:339-340.
347
de Putter and Karlshausen, Pierres utilisées dans la sculpture et l’architecture de l’Egypte pharaonique,
102; Aufrère, Univers minéral dans la pensée égyptienne, 2:544-545; Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient
Egyptian Minerals, 115. Feldspar is a very common mineral, making up approximately 50-60% of the
earth’s crust. Minerals within this group are composed of calcium, barium, sodium, or potassium
aluminosilicates. Amazonite, a member of the microline feldspar group, is an alkali feldspar, or a
potassium aluminosilicate. It is opaque and green or blue-green in color. See Brian Jackson, “Feldspar
Group,” in Gems: Their Sources, Descriptions and Identification (ed. Michael O’Donoghue; 6th ed.; Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006), 238-239, 253.
348
de Putter and Karlshausen, Pierres utilisées dans la sculpture et l’architecture de l’Egypte pharaonique,
48; Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals, 116.
349
Aston, Harrell, and Shaw, “Stone,” 46; de Putter and Karlshausen, Pierres utilisées dans la sculpture et
l’architecture de l’Egypte pharaonique, 48; Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 393-394.
350
90
‫“ נ ֶֹפְך‬turquoise”
(Exod 28:18; 39:11; Ezek 27:16; 28:13)
Eg. → Heb.
Eg. mfkȝ.t, mfk.t
Hebrew ‫ נ ֶֹפְך‬occurs four times.351 It appears amidst the list of gemstones of the
high priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:17-20; 39:10-13) and the adornment of the king of
Tyre (Ezek 28:13). Ezekiel 27:16, lastly, mentions ‫ נ ֶֹפְך‬as a traded item.352
Hebrew ‫ נ ֶֹפְך‬is not based on any known Semitic root, and Muchiki and
Lambdin353 identify its source as Egyptian mfkȝ.t, “turquoise,” which occurs as early as
the Old Kingdom.354 A Neo-Assyrian text from the time of Assurbanipal refers to the
Egyptian toponym Pr-ḥtḥr-(nb.t)-mfkȝ.t as aluPi-ḫa-at-ti-ḫu-ru-un-pi-ki,355 providing a clear
351
HALOT 709.The ancient versions exhibit a variety of translations: the Septuagint has ἄνθραξ (“dark
red stone”) in Exod 28:18; 39:11 but χρυσίον (“gold”) in Ezek 28:13; the Vulgate reads carbunculus
(“carbuncle”) everywhere but Ezek 27:16, where it has gemmam (“gems”); the Peshitta has sdydˀ
(“antimony”) in Exod 28:18; 39:11 but qrwsṭlws (“crystal”) in Ezek 28:13; the Targums read ‫זמ ַר ִגדין‬
ַ ‫ִא‬
(“emerald”) in Exod 28:18; 39:11; Ezek 28:13. As indicated by the mention of precious stones and
materials, the occurrences of ‫ פּוְּך‬in 1 Chron 29:2 and Isa 54:11 are probably scribal errors for ‫נ ֶֹפְך‬,
“turquoise”; see Wilhelm Rudolph, Chronikbuc̈her (HAT 21; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1955),
190; Rudolf Kittel, Die Bücher der Chronik und Esra, Nehemia und Esther übersetzt und erklärt (HKAT, I.
Abteilung: Die historichen Bücher 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902), 102-103; Klaus Baltzer,
Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40-55 (trans. Margaret Kohl; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2001), 448, 452; John L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah (AB 20; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968), 138.
352
According to Ezek 27:16, the substance denoted by ‫ נ ֶֹפְך‬was traded between Tyre and either Aram
or Edom. The Masoretic text reads ‫“( ֲא ָרם‬Aram”), a reading supported by the Targums, but following the
Peshitta a number of scholars suggest the reading ‫“( ֱאדוֹם‬Edom”) instead. See Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A
Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (trans. Ronald E. Clements and James D. Martin; 2 vols.;
Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979-1983), 2:47; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel (2 vols.;
NICOT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997-1998), 2:66.
353
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 251; Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old
Testament,” 152.
354
ÄW 1:526-527; 2:1060-1061; GHwÄ 352; WÄS 2:56. Before the New Kingdom this word was spelled
with ȝ as mfkȝ.t (Old Kingdom) or mfȝk.t (Middle Kingdom), but during the New Kingdom, the ȝ was
dropped and it was spelled as mfk.t. The Egyptian substance mfkȝ.t was once thought to be malachite, but
scholars now acknowledge that it rather refers to turquoise (Robert Fuchs, “Turkis,” LÄ 6:789-795;
Aufrère, Univers minéral dans la pensée égyptienne, 2:491-495; Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient
Egyptian Minerals, 106-110).
355
Henri Gauthier, Dictionnaire des noms géographiques contenus dans les textes hiéroglyphiques (7 vols.;
Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale pour la Société royale de géographie d’Égypte, 1925-1931),
2:118.
91
precedent for the writing of this word with Semitic n for Egyptian m.356
Although found in a number of locations today, including the United States and
Iran, the turquoise mines of the Sinai Peninsula have been a significant source of this
mineral since antiquity.357 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 the Late Period.358
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 recent
discoveries at Wadi el-Ḥôl in Egypt, points to the origin of the Semitic alphabet in Egypt
under the influence of Egyptian hieroglyphs.359 The long history of extensive contact
between Egyptian and Semitic peoples and the latter’s involvement in turquoise mining
at Serabit el-Khadim points to the plausibility of this term being borrowed into
Northwest Semitic via Egyptian.
Turquoise was used primarily for jewelry as early as the Predynastic period, a
usage 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.360
356
Testament,” 152. For further discussion, see the Egyptian “Consonant Correspondences” section in the
conclusions chapter.
357
Michael O’Donoghue, “Turquoise,” in Gems: Their Sources, Descriptions and Identification (ed. Michael
O’Donoghue; 6th ed.; Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006), 323-328.
358
Aston, Harrell, and Shaw, “Stone,” 62; Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 404.
359
Gordon J. Hamilton, The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts (CBQMS 40;
Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2006), 269-321.
360
Lorna Lee and Stephen Quirke, “Painting Materials,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology
(eds. Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 111; Aston, Harrell,
and Shaw, “Stone,” 62-63.
92
‫“ נֶ ֶתר‬natron”
(Prov 25:20; Jer 2:22)
Eg. ⇒
⇒ Akk., WSem. (Heb., JA, Syr.)
⇒ Arab.
⇒ Hitt.; Gk., Lat.
Akk. nitiru, nitru; JA ‫ ;נִ ְת ָרא‬Syr. netrā; Arab. naṭūr; Eg. nṯri, ntri; Hitt nitri; Gk. νίτρον,
λίτρον; Lat. nitrum
Hebrew ‫ נֶ ֶתר‬occurs only two times in the Hebrew Bible: Prov 25:30 refers to the
stinging of the substance ‫ נֶ ֶתר‬on a wound, and Jer 2:22 mentions this term in
conjunction with ‫“( בּ ִֹרית‬soap”) used for washing.361

Related terms are found in Semitic (Akkadian, Jewish Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic)362
as well as Indo-European (Hittite, Greek, Latin).363 Egyptian nṯri, first attested during the
Old Kingdom,364 is the origin of all these forms.365 Because the Semitic and non-Semitic
forms all 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 near the end
of the Old Kingdom).366 The i-class vowel in the majority of the cognates points to an
original vocalization of *nitr and similarly indicates a loan before the shift of Egyptian i
361
HALOT 737. The Septuagint leaves Hebrew ‫ נֶ ֶתר‬untranslated in Prov 25:20 but reads νίτρον
(“natron”) in Jer 2:22; the Peshitta reads ytr (“bowstring”) in Prov 25:20 but has ntr (“natron”) in Jer 2:22.
The Targums have the Aramaic form of this word in both occurrences.
362
CAD N/2 299; AHw 798; Jastrow 946; SyrLex 957; Lane 2810.
363
HHw 127; LSJ 1054, 1177; OLD 1182.
364
ÄW 1:684; 2:1411-1412; GHwÄ 471; WÄS 2:366. In later Egyptian, this word became ntri.
365
117; Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 152-153.
366
Testament,” 153. On the merging of Egyptian ṯ and t, see Carsten Peust, Egyptian Phonology: An Introduction
to the Phonology of a Dead Language (Monographien zur ägyptischen Sprache 2; Göttingen: Peust &
Gutschmidt, 1999), 123-125.
93
to a, which occurred in closed accented syllables ca. 1200 CE.367 The a-vowel of Arabic
naṭūr, on the other hand, points to a later borrowing after this vowel shift had
occurred.368
Egyptian evidence identifies this substance with natron, a naturally-occurring
soda consisting of sodium carbonate and bicarbonate.369 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
depositions 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) make note of these
sources of natron in Egypt.370 Natron had many purposes in Egypt, including

purification ceremonies, making incense, cooking, medicine, bleaching linen,
mummification, and the manufacture of glass as well as glaze and other pigments.371
‫“ ַס ִפּיר‬lapis lazuli”
(Exod 24:10; 28:18; 39:11; Job 28:6, 16; Song 5:14; Isa 54:11; Ezek 1:26; 10:1; 28:13; Lam 4:7)
The word ‫ ַס ִפּיר‬occurs eleven times in the Hebrew Bible.372 Despite its similarity
to modern English sapphire, the Hebrew Bible’s descriptions of ‫ ַס ִפּיר‬make it clear that it
367
Testament,” 153. On the shift of i to a, see Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 222-223.
368
369
Aufrère, Univers minéral dans la pensée égyptienne, 2:606-636; Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient
Egyptian Minerals, 193.
370
Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 263-266; Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient
Egyptian Minerals, 193; Alfred Lucas, “The Occurrence of Natron in Ancient Egypt,” JEA 18 (1932): 62-66.
Pliny also claims that smaller sources of natron existed in Media as well as Thrace and Macedonia.
371
Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 267; A.T. Sandison, “The Use of Natron in
Mummification in Ancient Egypt,” JNES 22 (1963): 259-267.
372
HALOT 764; Heinrich Quiring, “Die Edelsteine im Amtsschild des jüdischen Hohenpriesters und die
Herkunft ihrer Namen,” Sudhoffs Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften 38 (1954):
200-202. The Septuagint and Vulgate almost always translate Hebrew ‫ ַס ִפּיר‬as σάπφειρος and sapphirus,
respectively, both meaning “lapis lazuli” or “sapphire.” The Peshitta most often has splˀ (“sapphire”), and
the Targums frequently read ‫“( שׁבזיז‬sapphire”) or ‫“( אבן טב‬good stone”).
94
refers to lapis lazuli, not sapphire.373 Job 28:6 associates the gemstone ‫ ַס ִפּיר‬with gold
dust (‫)ע ְפר ֹת זָ ָהב‬.

ַ This same characterization is also found in the Greek philosopher
Theophrastus’ description of the gemstone σάπφειρος as sprinkled with gold dust (De
Lapidibus 4.23), a portrayal echoed by Pliny (Nat. 37.38-39). These descriptions are
reflective of lapis lazuli, which often has a rich deep blue color speckled with brassy-
yellow spots.374 Identification of this precious stone with lapis lazuli is further
supported by several biblical passages mentioning ‫ ַס ִפּיר‬within 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.”375

Brown, Driver and Briggs as well as Köhler and Baumgartner derive Hebrew
‫ ַס ִפּיר‬from Sanskrit śanipriya,376 but these attempts are problematic.377 As Grintz
argues,378 this word is based on a Semitic root meaning “to be fair, shining” (cf. Hebrew
and Jewish Aramaic ‫ שׁפר‬as well as Arabic safara).379 Notably, this root is found as spr in
second millennium Amorite personal names such as Sapirum and Baḫlisapar.380 Hebrew
‫ ַס ִפּיר‬was most probably borrowed from a Semitic language that utilized an initial s for
373
Sapphire is extremely hard, registering as a nine on the Mohs scale, and therefore it is very
difficult to carve and fashion. For this reason, sapphire was not used as a gemstone in the ancient Near
East until the later part of the first millennium BCE. See Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and
Industries, 82.
374
O’Donoghue, “Lapis Lazuli,” 329.
375
CAD U-W 195-202; AHw 1426-1427. For parallels between Hebrew ‫ ַס ִפּיר‬and Akkadian uqnû, see
William H.C. Propp, Exodus 19-40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2A; New York:
Doubleday, 2006), 296; Othmar Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: eine neue Deutung der
Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4 (SBS 84-85; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1977), 255-260.
376
KEWA 3:295.
377
BDB 705; HALOT 764. Sanskrit śanipriya occurs only in late lexical texts, where it means “precious
to Saturn” via folk etymology (Gyula Wojtilla, “Indian Precious Stones in the Ancient East and West,”
AcOr 27 [1973]: 217). In light of the greater antiquity of Hebrew ‫ ַס ִפּיר‬as well as the limited distribution of
the Sanskrit term to lexical texts, it is highly unlikely that Hebrew borrowed this word from Sanskrit. If
any borrowing has occurred, it is more likely that Sanskrit borrowed from Semitic or Greek (KEWA 3:295).
378
Grintz, “‫מונחים קדומים ב׳תורת כהנים׳‬,” 9.
379
HALOT 1635, 2001; DNWSI 1184; DJBA 1172; SyrLex 1592; MD 472; Lane 1370-1371.
380
Giorgio Buccellati, The Amorites of the Ur III Period (Pubblicazioni del Seminario di semitistica:
Ricerche 1; Naples: Instituto Orientale di Napoli, 1966), 182; Herbert B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in
the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965), 252.
95
this root rather than š. The qattîl nominal pattern is typically used to form actant nouns
or adjectives in biblical Hebrew,381 suggesting that ‫ ַס ִפּיר‬originally meant something like
“fair stone” or “shining stone,” an apt description for a precious stone.
Greek σάπφειρος and Latin sappirus, sapphirus are borrowings from Semitic,
indicated by the irregular consonant cluster πφ in Greek σάπφειρος.382 Jewish Aramaic
‫סמפורין‬, Syriac sappīlā, sappīrā, and Ethiopic sofor, sanper are all loans from Greek.383
spsg, sbsg, spśg, śpśg “a kind of stone”
(KTU 1.17 vi:36; 4.182:8; 4.205:14; 4.459:4)
Hitt. → Akk., Ug.
Akk. zabzabgû; Hitt. zapzagi
Ugaritic spsg occurs several times with several different spellings.384 It is spelled
as spśg in the ˀAqhat Legend, where it refers to a substance placed on the head after
death (KTU 1.17 vi:36); KTU 4.182:8 refers to lapis lazuli-colored śpśg (śpśg ˀiqnˀi) amidst
a list of dyed cloth (ˀallm lbnm, ˀall šmt, and ˀall ˀiqnˀi) and colored stones (abn ṣrp); lastly,
this word occurs in broken contexts as spsg (KTU 4:459:4) and sbsg (KTU 4.205:14).
The multiplicity of spellings for this term, the non-Semitic nominal pattern, the
observation that it is not based on any known Semitic root, and the usage of the
consonant ś—a consonant often indicative of loanwords in Ugaritic385—all point to this
term’s identification as a foreign loan. As noted by Watson,386 the donor term is Hittite
zapzagi,387 which refers to a valuable stone or mineral.388 In several Hittite texts, zapzagi
381
Joshua Fox, Semitic Noun Patterns (HSS 59; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 268-269.
382
EDG 1307; DELG 953; DELL 594.
383
DJPA 383; SyrLex 1030, 1033; CDG 489, 507.
384
DUL 769-770.
385
Josef Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik (AOAT 273; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), 44-47; Stanislav
Segert, “The Last Sign of the Ugaritic Alphabet,” UF 15 (1983): 210-211.
386
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 123.
387
HHw 232.
388
Erich Neu, “Hethitisch zapzagi-,” UF 27 (1995): 395-402.
96
is put on a balance as is elsewhere done with metals or precious stones (KUB 7.37:10-11;
30.19+ i:32; 30.24a+ i:7), and in another text, it is mentioned alongside silver, gold, and
precious stones (KUB 29.8 i:32-33). This term also occurs within ritual contexts: in one
of these texts, it is preceded by the stone determinative NA4 (VBoT 37:3), and in
another, it is mentioned along with the na4AŠ.TUR stone (KUB 15.31 iii:40-41). In both of
these ritual contexts, zapzagi is scattered (anda išḫuwai) as part of the ritual.389
Akkadian zabzagû, attested only once in a Sumero-Akkadian lexical list,390
reflects Hittite zapzagi as well. Less certain, however, is the relationship between Hittite
zapzagi, Ugaritic spsg, and the expression ‫“( ֶכּ ֶסף ִסיגִ ים‬silver of dross”) in Prov 26:23. This
phrase is frequently emended to ‫“( ְכּ ַס ְפ ִסיגִ ים‬like glaze”)391 in light of an assumed

meaning of “glaze” for Ugaritic spsg.392 However, given the usage of Hittite zapzagi with
389
As indicated by the usage of zapzagi in Hittite texts, this word cannot mean “bowl” (contra Harold
H.P. Dressler, “The Lesson of Proverbs 26:23,” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Essays in Memory of
Peter C. Craigie [eds. Lyle M. Eslinger and J. Glen Taylor; JSOTSup 67; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988], 117-125;
Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaqín Sanmartín, “Die anagebliche ug.-he. Parallele spsg ‖
sps(j)g(jm),” UF 8 [1976]: 37-40; Goetze, “Contributions to Hittite Lexicography,” 311-315) or “glaze”
(contra HHw 232; Anna Maria Polvani, La terminologia dei minerali nei testi ittiti [Eothen 3; Florence: Elite,
1988], 118-120). See Neu, “Hethitisch zapzagi-,” 395-402.
390
CAD Z 10; AHw 1502.
391
William McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1970), 603-604; R.B.Y. Scott,
Proverbs-Ecclesiastes (AB 18; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965), 158; G.R. Driver, “Problems in the Hebrew
Text of Proverbs,” Bib 32 (1951): 191; H.L. Ginsberg, “The North-Canaanite Myth of Anath and Aqhat II,”
BASOR 98 (1945): 21; William F. Albright, “A New Hebrew Word for ‘Glaze’ in Proverbs 26:23,” BASOR 98
(1945): 24-25. However, a number of commentators read the Masoretic text without emendation; see
Roland E. Murphy, Proverbs (WBC 22; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 197; Raymond C. Van Leeuwen,
Context and Meaning in Proverbs 25-27 (SBLDS 96; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988), 111; Naphtali H. Tur-
Sinai, ‫( משלי שלמה‬Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1947), 57-59; R. Laird Harris, “A Mention of Pottery Glazing in
Proverbs,” JAOS 60 (1940): 268-269. Notably, the ancient versions understand ‫ ֶכּ ֶסף ִסיגִ ים‬with reference to
silver: the Septuagint reads ἀργύριον διδόμενον μετὰ δόλου (“silver given with deceit”), the Vulgate has
argento sordid (“silver dross”), and the Peshitta has ˀyk sˀmˀ mslyˀ (“like rejected silver”).
392
DUL 769-770; David P. Wright, Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retaliation
Rites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001), 148-152. Claims for the meaning
“glaze” usually involve the following two 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, “North-
Canaanite Myth of Anath and Aqhat II,” 22). However, Arabic ḥurud refers to the plants from which
potash is obtained, not potash itself (Lane 549), and comparison of Ugaritic ḥrd with Arabic ḥurud is
questionable (Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 152; Fred Renfroe, Arabic-Ugaritic Lexical Studies [ALASP 5;
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1992], 118-121). Second, the Neolithic practice of plastering crania is compared
with KTU 1.17 iv:36-37, supposedly establishing a definition of “glaze” for Ugaritic spsg (e.g., Baruch
Margalit, “The ‘Neolithic Connexion’ of the Ugaritic Poem of AQHT,” Paléorient 9, no. 2 [1984]: 93-98).
However, this practice is far removed chronologically from the Ugaritic texts and cannot be used to
establish the definition of Ugaritic spsg, especially since a funerary character of the text is not necessarily
97
reference to a valuable stone or mineral rather than glaze, a clear relationship between
Hittite zapzagi, Ugaritic spsg and the phrase ‫ ֶכּ ֶסף ִסיגִ ים‬in Prov 26:23 remains unproven.393
‫“ ִפּ ְט ָדה‬peridot”
(Exod 28:17; 39:10; Ezek 28:13; Job 28:19)
Nub. → Heb.
Hebrew ‫ ִפּ ְט ָדה‬is highly unusual since biblical Hebrew typically does not tolerate
two consecutive dentals in the same word.394 This and the observation that ‫ ִפּ ְט ָדה‬is not
based on any known Semitic root is strong evidence for a foreign origin. Moreover, Job
28:19 associates ‫ ִפּ ְט ָדה‬with Nubia (‫)פּ ְט ַדת־כּוּשׁ‬,

ִ mentioning it along with ‫כּ ֶתם‬,ֶ a type of
gold connected with Ophir near the Red Sea.395
This connection with northeastern Africa rules out the commonly proposed
Sanskrit etymologies for ‫ ִפּ ְט ָדה‬396 and instead points to a loan from Nubia.397 The lexical
association of Hebrew ‫ ִפּ ְט ָדה‬with Greek τοπάζιον, τόπαζος (in the Septuagint) and Latin
evident (Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 147-153; “The ˀAqhat Legend,” [COS 1.103:347]; Anson F. Rainey,
“Observations on Ugaritic Grammar,” UF 3 [1971]: 154).
393
Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 151.
394
The letters ‫ ט‬and ‫ ד‬occur together in the same word only in the noun ‫“( ָא ָטד‬buckthorn”) and the
verb ‫“( טרד‬to drip”). However, in both of these lexemes the consonants ‫ ט‬and ‫ ד‬are separated by at least
a full vowel.
395
The ancient versions most often translate Hebrew ‫ ִפּ ְט ָדה‬as some type of yellow stone: the
Septuagint (τοπάζιον) and Vulgate (topazius) consistently have “peridot”; the Peshitta has zrgˀ (“topaz”)
in Exod 28:17; 39:10 but qrkdnˀ (“agate”) in Ezek 28:13 and mrgnytˀ (“pearl”) in Job 28:19; the Targums read
‫“( ירקן‬yellow gem”) in Exod 28:17; 39:10; Ezek 28:13 and ‫“( מרגלא ירקא‬yellow pearl”) in Job 28:19.
396
Several scholars point to Sanskrit pīta, “yellow” (EWA 2:137; KEWA 2:292; CDIAL 466), for the origin
of Hebrew ‫;פּ ְט ָדה‬
ִ e.g., BDB 809; Sylvia Powels, “Indische Lehnwörter in der Bibel,” ZAH 5 (1992): 197-198;
Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 133. However, pīta only occurs with reference to a
gemstone in very late Sanskrit texts. Pope derives ‫ ִפּ ְט ָדה‬from Sanskrit tapas, “heat” (KEWA 1:477; CDIAL
322), arguing that because this term can be used with reference to glowing or fire, it is an appropriate
description for a yellow gemstone (Pope, Job, 204). However, tapas is not used in Sanskrit texts with
reference to any gemstone. In any case, neither of these Sanskrit etymologies accounts for the presence
of the ‫ ד‬in the Hebrew term.
397
Cf. Grintz, “‫מונחים קדומים ב׳תורת כהנים׳‬,” 8-9.
98
topazius (in the Vulgate), moreover, provides information on the identification of this
term. Agatharchides of Cnidus (On the Erythaean Sea 5.84), Pliny (Nat. 6.34; 37.32), and
Strabo (Geogr. 16.4.6) all claim that this gem originates with the island of Zabargad (St.
John’s Island) in the Red Sea. Pliny, moreover, notes that the name of this gemstone is
derived from the language of the so-called Troglodytes, a group of people associated
with the African side of the Red Sea coast in antiquity (Nat. 37.32).398 The island of
Zabargad was a primary source of the greenish-yellow mineral peridot in antiquity, and
this gemstone is still found there today.399 Thus, peridot must be the gemstone denoted
by Hebrew ‫ ִפּ ְט ָדה‬as well as the associated Greek and Latin terms.400
‫( ְפּנִ ינִ ים‬Heb.), bnn (Ug.) “pearl”
(Job 28:18; Prov 3:15; 8:11; 20:15; 31:10; Lam 4:7; KTU 4.247:27)
CW
Akk. pinnu; Eg. bnn; Gk. πίνη, πίνα, πίννος; Lat. pina
The word ‫ ְפּנִ ינִ ים‬occurs several times in the Hebrew Bible.401 Many of these
occurrences are in conjunction with foreign items, including products from Nubia such
398
In his discussion of this gemstone, Pliny provides a folk etymology and associates the Troglodyte
origin of this word with Greek τοπάζω, “to aim at, guess” (LSJ 1805).
399
Aston, Harrell, and Shaw, “Stone,” 47; Abdel Aziz A. Hussein, “Mineral Deposits,” in The Geology of
Egypt (ed. Rushdi Said; Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1990), 519-520, 563; Michael O’Donoghue, “Peridot,” in
Gems: Their Sources, Descriptions and Identification (ed. Michael O’Donoghue; 6th ed.; Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann, 2006), 290. Peridot is a silicate mineral that occurs in either iron (FeSiO4) or magnesium
(Mg2SiO4) compositional subvarieties. It is typically an olive-green color, although it can also be yellow-
green or greenish brown; see O’Donoghue, “Peridot,” 289.
400
In antiquity these terms do not seem to have referred to the topaz; this is a later development
that arose by similarity of the modern topaz to the peridot. See Donald B. Hoover, Topaz (Butterworth-
Heinemann Gem Books; Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1992), 3-13; Lauge Koch, “The Name ‘Topaz’ in
Precious Stone Literature,” trans. Frederick H. Pough, Lapidary Journal 18 (1964): 868-871, 873, 876.
401
HALOT 946. The ancient versions vary significantly in their rendering of this term. The Targum
translates it as ‫מרגליין‬, “pearl” in Job 28:18, whereas the Septuagint and Vulgate seem to have instead
read ‫ימה‬
ָ ִ‫“( ְפּנ‬inside”) for this verse. In Proverbs, ‫ ְפּנִ ינִ ים‬is most often rendered as “costly stone” by the
Septuagint (λίθος πολυτελής), Peshitta (kˀpˀ ṭbtˀ), and Targums (‫)כיפי טבאתא‬. Lastly, in Lam 4:7, Hebrew
‫ ְפּנִ ינִ ים‬is translated as ebore antique (“old ivory”) by the Vulgate and srdwn (“carnelian”) by the Peshitta.
99
as peridot and gold (Job 28:18-19) as well as lapis lazuli (Lam 4:7).402 Ugaritic bnn, which
is probably related, occurs only once within a list of items that also includes precious
materials such as lapis lazuli (KTU 4.247:27).403
Hebrew ‫ ְפּנִ ינִ ים‬and Ugaritic bnn are likely associated with several additional
terms: Akkadian pinnu (attested only at Qatna and in Neo-Babylonian texts), “bead”;404
Egyptian bnn, first attested in the New Kingdom with the meaning “pearl”;405 lastly,
Greek πίνη, πίνα, πίννος and Latin pina, which both mean “pearl, shell.”406 The
widespread distribution of this term points to an ancient culture word having to do
with pearls or similar objects.407

People in the ancient Near East harvested pearls from regions such as the
Persian Gulf and Red Sea,408 and this culture word probably originated with one of these
areas.409 There is little extant archaeological evidence for usage of pearls until the
second half of the first millennium BCE in Egypt and Mesopotamia.410
402
Although one might contend that Lam 4:7 points to an identification of this term with red coral
(Corallium rubrum), a commodity used for jewelry in antiquity, this verse merely suggests a red color for
the item denoted by ‫פּנִ ינִ ים‬.
ְ
403
DUL 229. The suggestion that Ugaritic bnn is cognate with Arabic bunnīy or Syrian Arabic benni
(Blachère 853; Barthélemy 64) and denotes a species of carp (Johannes C. de Moor, “Fishes in KTU
4.427:23-29,” UF 28 [1996]: 157) is unlikely.
404
CAD P 384; AHw 864.
405
GHwÄ 270; WÄS 1:460. Takács suggests that Egyptian bnn is associated with a number of terms
meaning “bead” or the like in Central and Western Chadic (EDE 2:227).
406
LSJ 1405; OLD 1380.
407
This term’s widespread distribution in Semitic and non-Semitic argues against a simple derivation
from the root ‫פנה‬, “to turn” (contra BDB 819; Malcom J.A. Horsnell, “‫פּנִ ינִ ים‬,”
ְ NIDOTTE 3:640-641).
408
Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 92; Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Industries, 401.
409
Beekes, on the other hand, suggests that the ν/νν variation of the Greek forms points to a pre-
Hellenic origin (EDG 1193).
410
Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 92-93; Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Industries, 401-402.
100
‫“ ְשׁבוֹ‬a precious stone”
(Exod 28:19; 39:12)
Sum. → Akk. → WSem. (Heb.) → Eg.
Sum. ŠUBA; Akk. šubû; Eg. šby
Hebrew ‫ ְשׁבוֹ‬occurs only twice in the Hebrew Bible within the description of the
high priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:19; 39:12).411 The unusual morphology of ‫שׁבוֹ‬,
ְ
particularly the final vowel, points to a non-Semitic loanword. The source is Sumerian
ŠUBA,412 in turn the origin of Akkadian šubû.413 Via Akkadian, this word entered biblical
Hebrew.414 Thus, Hebrew ‫ ְשׁבוֹ‬is a transmitted loan. West Semitic is the origin of
Egyptian šby, first attested during the New Kingdom (P. Ch. Beatty IV:7, 12) and written
with group writing (šu5=ba=ya).415
The ancient versions disagree on the identification of Hebrew ‫שׁבוֹ‬.

ְ The
Septuagint (ἀχάτης), Vulgate (achates), and Peshitta (qrkdnˀ) take it as referring to agate,
but Targum Onqelos interprets it as turquoise (‫)טרקיא‬. Other ancient texts provide little
help in identifying this stone, since their references to this gemstone could fit any
number of precious stones. Akkadian texts note that this gemstone was used for
medicinal and ritual purposes as well as for making cylinder seals and signet rings, and
its occurrences in Egyptian point to usage for seals.416
411
HALOT 1383.
412
PSD.
413
CAD Š/III 185; AHw 1258. On the Sumerian origin of Akkadian šubû, cf. Liebermann, Sumerian
Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian, 465-466.
414
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 136-137; Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old
Testament, 155.
415
GHwÄ 879; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 275-276; Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient
Egyptian Minerals, 183.
416
CAD Š/III 185-187; Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals, 183.
101
‫“ ָשׁ ִמיר‬adamant, corundum”
(Jer 17:1; Ezek 3:9; Zech 7:12)
Hebrew ‫ ָשׁ ִמיר‬occurs only three times in the Bible, and in each instance the
context indicates that ‫ ָשׁ ִמיר‬is a very hard stone.417 Classical authors such as Dioscorides
(Mat. med. 5.147) note the stone σμύρις418 (the Greek form of this word, borrowed from
West Semitic419) was used for polishing gems, indicating that ‫ ָשׁ ִמיר‬refers to a form of
corundum such as emery.420
Köhler and Baumgartner421 suggest that ‫ ָשׁ ִמיר‬is derived from New Kingdom
Egyptian ismr, “corundum.”422 However, this term must be a loan from another
language into Egyptian since ismr refers to a mineral imported from Syria or Nubia
when it occurs in Egyptian texts.423 The Akkadian term for “corundum,” šammu,424
appears in administrative texts from Mari in connection with the Suteans and points to
the existence of emery in the Syrian steppe.425 Since Egyptian and Akkadian texts both
refer to emery as a product of Syria, and since Syria was a source of emery in
417
HALOT 1562-1563. The Septuagint does not translate this term in any of its three occurrences, but
the Vulgate reads it as adamas (“adamant”) and the Peshitta and Targums use the Aramaic form of this
word.
418
LSJ 1620.
419
DELG 993; DELL 630.
420
HALOT 1562-1563. Hebrew ‫ ָשׁ ִמיר‬cannot denote the diamond because the diamond’s earliest
attested usage in ancient Mesopotamia is the Roman period (Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and
Industries, 82).
421
HALOT 1562-1563. Thompson considers Hebrew ‫ ָשׁ ִמיר‬cognate with the 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 than asḫaru (Thompson, Dictionary of Assyrian
Chemistry and Geology, 52). However, aside from the desire to find cognates for ašmuru in Hebrew ‫ ָשׁ ִמיר‬and
Egyptian ismr, Thompson gives no reasonable justification for reading the sign group AS.ḪAR as both
asḫaru and ašmuru. The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary and von Soden read only one term, asḫaru (CAD A/2
330; AHw 73).
422
GHwÄ 116; WÄS 1:132; 4:139. In the Ptolemaic period, this term was written as smr rather than ismr.
423
Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals, 163-165.
424
CAD Š 315-321; AHw 1156-1157.
425
W. Heimpel, Leonard Gorelick, and A. John Gwinnett, “Philological and Archaeological Evidence
for the Use of Emery in the Bronze Age Near East,” JCS 40 (1988): 198-201. In the Mari Akkadian texts,
emery is mentioned along with lead, which is paralleled by the mention of Egyptian ismr alongside of
lead and further supports a common referent of Akkadian šammu and Egyptian ismr.
102
antiquity,426 this term must originate from this region rather than Egypt. It is probable
that, given its reputation as a hard stone, the term for emery was derived from the
common West Semitic root šmr, “to guard, keep” (cf. Hebrew ‫שׁמר‬427). The form of ‫ָשׁ ִמיר‬
reflects the passive participle form common to Aramaic dialects (qātīl), “guarded” being
an appropriate description for a hard stone.
‫“ ֶשׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬ivory”
(1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chron 9:21)
Nubian → Heb.
Eg. ȝbw
The term ‫ ֶשׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬occurs only twice in the Hebrew Bible (1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chron
9:21).428 In both passages it denotes a foreign item of trade, implying that it is a foreign
loan. Both passages, moreover, mention ‫ ֶשׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬alongside two foreign loans, ‫קוֹף‬
(“monkey”) and ‫( ֻתּ ִכּי‬probably “ape”), as products that were imported by Solomon,
strengthening its identification as a loanword.
The term ‫ ֶשׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬is a hybrid loan consisting of two components, one native and
one foreign: Hebrew ‫“( ֵשׁן‬tooth”) and a foreign lexeme meaning “elephant.”429 Since the
inhabitants of ancient Palestine obtained ivory from Africa,430 and since the other
426
Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 82; Heimpel, Gorelick, and Gwinnett,
“Philological and Archaeological Evidence for the Use of Emery,” 204. Other sources include the Aegean
and possibly Turkey.
427
HALOT 1581-1584.
428
HALOT 1602. With the exception of the Septuagint of 1 Kgs 10:22, which reads the clause ‫ֶשׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬
‫ וְ ק ִֹפים וְ ֻת ִכּיִּ ים‬as λίθων τορευτῶν καὶ πελεκητῶν (“worked and hewn stone”), the ancient versions read
“teeth of elephants”: the Septuagint has ὀδόντων ἐλεφαντίνων in 2 Chron 9:21, the Vulgate has dentes
elefantorum, and the Targum reads ‫ ַשׁן ְד ִפיל‬. Given these readings, it is unnecessary to emend the text to ‫ֵשׁן‬
‫ וְ ָה ְבנִ ים‬based on Ezek 27:15.
429
Thus, Hebrew ‫ ֶשׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬is formed analogously to the Akkadian term for ivory, šinni pīri, which is a
compound of the Akkadian words for “tooth,” šinnu (CAD Š/III 48-53; AHw 1243), and “elephant,” pīru (CAD
P 418-420; AHw 867).
430
Annie Caubet, “Animals in Syro-Palestinian Art,” in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near
103
products mentioned in 1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chron 9:21 seem to be from Africa,431 the donor
term must be from Africa.432 As suggested by Ellenbogen,433 a possible candidate is
Egyptian ȝbw, “elephant,” first attested in the Old Kingdom.434 However, Muchiki notes
the unusual correspondence between Hebrew ‫ ה‬and Egyptian ȝ and postulates that both
Hebrew and Egyptian borrowed this lexeme meaning “elephant” from a third source.435
This indicates that a native African language such as Nubian was the donor language,
especially since Nubia and Punt were Egypt’s sources of ivory.436
Elephant as well as hippopotamus tusks provided the primary sources of ivory
in the ancient Near East.437 There were two main species of elephants in antiquity, Asian
(Elephas maximus) and African (Loxodonta africana).438 The Asian elephant became largely
extinct in Western Asia in the later part of the first millennium BCE, and by the middle
of the third millennium BCE, the African elephant no longer inhabited Egypt, although
it continued to be found in parts of northern Africa.439 Africa provided Egypt,
Mesopotamia, and the Levant with ivory, and Egyptian texts mention Nubia and Punt as
the source of this ivory.440 Because the Phoenicians were in contact with North Africa
East (ed. Billie Jean Collins; HO 64; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 232-333; Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and
Industries, 116-119.
431
Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 10; New York:
Doubleday, 2000), 319-320; Volkmar Fritz, 1 and 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary (trans. Anselm C.
Hagedorn; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 125.
432
Hebrew ‫ ֶשׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬cannot be derived from Sanskrit íbha, allegedly meaning “elephant.” The word
íbha is not attested in Sanskrit with the meaning “elephant” until the post-Vedic period, and even then
“elephant” is not the typical meaning of the word (EWA 1:194; KEWA 1:90, 3:644).
433
Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 162.
434
ÄW 1:5; 2:12; GHwÄ 6; WÄS 1:7.
435
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 257. It is possible, however, that this irregular
correspondence simply reflects the composite nature of ‫שׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬. ֶ
436
Olga Krzyszkowska and Robert Morkot, “Ivory and Related Materials,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials
and Technology (eds. Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 320-
327; Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 32-33.
437
438
The “Syrian elephant” is probably best explained as a relicit population of the Asian elephant
because it is depicted identically to the Asian elephant in ancient Near Eastern representations. See Allan
S. Gilbert, “The Native Fauna of the Ancient Near East,” in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near
East (ed. Billie Jean Collins; HO 64; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 26, 55; Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and
Industries, 117.
439
440
Krzyszkowska and Morkot, “Ivory and Related Materials,” 320-327; Lucas, Ancient Egyptian
104
and the Egyptian Delta during the first millennium BCE, they were often the mediators
of the ivory trade.441
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 BCE saw a resurgence in ivory-
working, and ivories have been discovered at a number of different locations, including
Nimrud and Khorsabad in Assyria, Zincirli, Carchemish, and Arslan Tash in Syria, and
Samaria in Palestine.442
ṯrml “alabaster”
(KTU 1.14 iii:44; vi:30)
Hurr. → Ug.
Ugaritic ṯrml occurs only in the Kirta Epic with reference to Ḥurraya’s eyes: it
appears in the twice-repeated expression ˁpˁph sp ṯrml (“her eyes are like bowls of
ṯrml”).443 This word has no clear Semitic etymology, and its quadriliteral nominal
pattern strongly suggests a foreign loan.444
The Hurrian feminine name Šarmallla or Šarumelli445 shows up twice in the
Materials and Industries, 32-33; Aufrère, Univers minéral dans la pensée égyptienne, 2:596.
441
Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 116; Irene J. Winter, “Phoenician and North
Syrian Ivory Carving in Historical Context: Questions of Style and Distribution,” Iraq 38 (1976): 1-22;
Richard D. Barnett, “Phoenicia and the Ivory Trade,” Arch 9, no. 2 (1956): 87-97.
442
Harold A. Liebowitz, “Ivory,” ABD 3:584-587; Georgina Herrmann and Alan R. Millard, “Who Used
Ivories in the Early First Millennium BC?” in Culture through Objects: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour
of P.R.S. Moorey (eds. Timothy Potts, et al.; Oxford: Griffith Institute, 2003), 377-402; Caubet, “Animals in
Syro-Palestinian Art,” 233-234.
443
DUL 932.
444
Proposed Semitic derivations (cf. Wilfred G.E. Watson, review of Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Mitos y
leyendas de Canaan según la tradición de Ugarit, Or 55 (1986): 196) are unconvincing.
445
LKI 300; I.J. Gelb, Pierre M. Purves, and Allan A. MacRae, Nuzi Personal Names (OIP 57; Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1943), 125.
105
Akkadian texts from Ugarit (RS 16.250:5; 19.99:9ʹ). This name is also attested several
times in the Nuzi texts (SMN 2597; 2663).446 Ugaritic ṯrml corresponds phonologically to
this name and therefore is most likely Hurrian.447 A Hurrian origin is further supported
by mention of ṯrml in conjunction with sp, which (as noted under the corresponding
entry) is a Hurrian loan.
The substance denoted by ṯrml must be a precious stone or material because it
occurs parallel to ˀiqnˀu. Two factors suggest that ṯrml means “alabaster.” First,
Akkadian gišnugallu, “alabaster,”448 frequently appears along with uqnû,449 paralleling
the word pair ˀiqnˀu/ṯrml in the Kirta Epic. As Watson notes, this indicates that Ugaritic
ṯrml has the same meaning as Akkadian gišnugallu, namely, “alabaster.”450 Second, the
Kirta Epic’s comparison of eyes with ṯrml implies a white, translucent substance;
notably alabaster is white as well as translucent.451
‫“ ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬Spanish topaz, fool’s gold (?)”
(Exod 28:20; 39:13; Ezek 1:16; 10:9; 28:13; Dan 10:6; Song 5:14)
Tartessian → Heb.
In addition to occurring within the description of the high priest’s breastplate
(Exod 28:17; 39:10) and the adornment of the king of Tyre (Ezek 28:13), this lexeme also
occurs within the context of theophanies (Ezek 1:16; 10:9; Dan 10:6) and a description of
446
Ernest René Lacheman, Family Law Documents, vol. 8 of Excavations at Nuzi Conducted by the Semitic
Museum and the Fogg Art Museum of Harvard University, with the Cooperation of the American School of Oriental
Research at Bagdad (8 vols. Harvard Semitic Series 15. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962),
pl. 74-75, 140-141.
447
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 135; Johannes C. de Moor and Klaas Spronk, “Problematical
Passages in the Legend of Kirtu (I),” UF 14 (1982): 169.
448
CAD G 104-106; AHw 293.
449
CAD G 106.
450
Watson, review of del Olmo Lete, 196.
451
Michael O’Donoghue, “Less Common Species,” in Gems: Their Sources, Descriptions and Identification
(ed. Michael O’Donoghue; 6th ed.; Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006), 377-378. A somewhat similar
comparison between eyes and whiteness occurs in Song 5:12, which compares the eyes of the woman’s
beloved to milk (‫ל־א ִפ ֵיקי ָמיִ ם ר ֲֹחצוֹת ֶבּ ָח ָלב ֵעינָ יו ְכּיוֹנִ ים‬
ֲ ‫)ע‬.
ַ
106
the Shulamite’s lover (Song 5:14).452 The precious stone ‫ ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬is connected with the
much-discussed toponym Tarshish, its geographical source.453
ַ 454 but all these

Scholars propose many different etymologies for ‫תּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬,
suggestions are problematic and do not take into consideration the likely location of
Tarshish in Spain. Tarshish, called Tartessos in classical sources, is probably to be
identified with a site in Spain.455 Epigraphic sources, such as the Nora Stone inscription
(KAI 46) and one of King Esarhaddon’s inscriptions (RINAP 4.60:10ʹ-11ʹ)456 support this
identification.457 Archaeological evidence points to the significance of Tartessos for
452
HALOT 1797-1798.
453
HALOT 1798; Edward Lipiński, “‫ ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬taršîš,” TDOT 15:791; David W. Baker, “Tarshish (Place),” ABD
6:332. The toponym Tarshish occurs a number of times in the Hebrew Bible: Gen 10:4; 1 Kgs 10:22; 1
Chron 1:7; 2 Chron 9:21; 20:36-37; Ps 48:8; 72:10; Isa 2:16; 23:1, 6, 10, 14; 66:19; Jer 10:9; Ezek 27:12, 25; 38:13;
Jon 1:3; 4:2.
454
The following is just a small sampling of the most-commonly cited etymologies. Albright argues
that ‫ ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬is Semitic, being a taqtîl-pattern noun from a root cognate with Akkadian rašāšu (CAD R 191;
AHw 960-961), which he contends means “to smelt” (William F. Albright, “New Light on the Early History
of Phoenician Colonization,” BASOR 83 [1941]: 21-22; idem, “The Role of the Canaanites in the History of
Civilization,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright [ed. George
Ernest Wright; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961], 346-347); Gesenius relates ‫ ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬to the Arabic verb
rašša, rašaša (Lane 1087), “to spray” or “to spurt” (Wilhelm Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguae
Hebraeae et Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti [2d ed.; 3 vols.; Leipzig: F.C.G. Vogel, 1835-1858], 3:1315-1316);
Gordon compares Homer’s description of the sea as οἶνοψ, or “wine-colored” (LSJ 1208; cf. Il. 23.316; Od.
2.421, 5.132), proposing a derivation from the allegedly Afro-Asiatic noun ‫תּירוֹשׁ‬, ִ “wine” (HALOT 1727-
1728) (Cyrus H. Gordon, “The Wine-Dark Sea,” JNES 37 [1978]: 51-52); Hoenig equates Hebrew ‫ ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬and
Greek θάλασσα, “sea” (LSJ 781-782), supposing an interchange of the liquids r and l (Sidney B. Hoenig,
“Tarshish,” JQR 69 [1979]: 181-182); Görg considers ‫ ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬symbolic of a distant land, proposing an
etymology in which the Egyptian words ḏr, “end, border” (ÄW 1:1505; 2:2846-2847; GHwÄ 1085; WÄS 5:585-
589) and šs, which he alleges means “valuable” (neither Ägyptisches Wörterbuch nor Wörterbuch der
ägyptischen Sprache lists šs with this meaning), forming the composite ḏršš, “distant land of treasures”
(Manfred Görg, “Ophir, Tarschish und Atlantis: Einige Gedanken zur symbolischen Topographie,” BN 15
[1981]: 81-82); Torr and Barnett postulate a derivation from Greek τάρσος (LSJ 1759), which can
sometimes refer to a row of oars (Cecil Torr, Ancient Ships [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895],
2-3; Richard D. Barnett, “Early Shipping in the Near East,” Antiquity 32 [1958]: 226-227).
455
F. González de Canales, L. Serrano, and J. Llompart, “Tarshish and the United Monarchy of Israel,”
Ancient Near Eastern Studies 47 (2010): 137-164; López-Ruiz, “Tarshish and Tartessos Revisited,” 255-280;
Lipiński, Itineraria Phoenicia, 225-265; Tyloch, “Problème de Taršîš à la lumière de la philologie et
l’exégèse,” 2:46-51. Proposals that Tarshish was located in Sardinia, Carthage in Africa, or Tarsus in
Anatolia are unconvincing philologically as well as historically.
456
Leichty, Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, 135. In his edition of this text, Leichty unfortunately
mistranslates Akkadian Tarsisi (kurTar-si-si) as Tarsus.
457
López-Ruiz, “Tarshish and Tartessos Revisited,” 260-261; cf. Barry J. Beitzel, “Was There a Joint
Nautical Venture on the Mediterranean Sea by Tyrian Phoenicians and Early Israelites?” BASOR 360
(2010): 38-42.
107
silver mining and smelting in antiquity, a fact noted by classical authors (Strabo, Geogr.
3.2.11).458 Such a description is consistent with the association of ships of Tarshish, as
well as Tarshish itself, with metal in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Jer 10:9; Ezek 27:12).
In light of Tarshish’s location in Spain, Hebrew ‫ ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬must be an adaptation of
an indigenous Iberian toponym. The existence of the root trt/trs in toponyms of the
southern Iberian Peninsula supports this etymology.459 The Greek term for Tartessos
was Ταρτησσός, which closely resembles ‫תּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬.

ַ In Latin sources, Polybius mentions the
Thersitae (Histories, 3.33.10) in connection with Spain, and other Roman authors refer to
the Turdetani and Turduli, peoples native to southern Iberia (e.g., Strabo, Geogr.
3.1.6).460 The lack of distinction between voiced and voiceless stops in ancient Iberian
explains the alternation between t and d in the Greco-Roman sources (τ in Greek and d
in Latin);461 the Semitic sources, on the other hand, utilize a sibilant in their rendering
of this toponym (‫ ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬in Hebrew and Tarsisi in Akkadian). The alternation between t,
d, s, and š thus points to different articulations of an indigenous phoneme, perhaps an
interdental sibilant.462 The suffixed ending, moreover, probably reflects several
toponyms with a similar ending recorded in Iberian coin legends (e.g., Aŕatis, Bilbilis,
Oŕośis, Otatiiś, Segobris).463
Although the lexical origin of ‫ ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬is clear, the identity of this gemstone is
uncertain. The ancient versions exhibit a variety of translations, although they seem to
point to identification with a yellow-green stone. In the description of the high priest’s
458
Jesús Fernández Jurado, “The Tartessian Economy: Mining and Metallurgy,” in The Phoenicians in
Spain: An Archaeological Review of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B.C.E. (ed. Marilyn R. Bierling; trans. Marilyn R.
Bierling; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 241-262.
459
López-Ruiz, “Tarshish and Tartessos Revisited,” 262.
460
Eduardo Ferrer Albelda and F. J García Fernández, “Turdetania y turdetanos: Contribución a una
problemática historiográfica y arqueológica,” Mainake 24 (2002): 133-151.
461
López-Ruiz, “Tarshish and Tartessos Revisited,” 263; Jürgen Untermann, “Los vecinos de la lengua
ibérica: Galos, ligures, tartesios, vascones,” in Memoria: Seminarios de Filología e Historia, CSIC (ed. Sofía
Torallas Tovar; Madrid: Instituo de Filologia, 2003), 21-26.
462
López-Ruiz, “Tarshish and Tartessos Revisited,” 262-263; Lipiński, TDOT 15:792.
463
Lipiński, Itineraria Phoenicia, 248. Thus, it only coincidentally matches the –εσ(σ)ος ending
characteristic of pre-Hellenic toponyms, such as Lemessos, Knossos, Parnassos, Halikarnassos, or
Sagalassos (López-Ruiz, “Tarshish and Tartessos Revisited,” 262; Lipiński, TDOT 15:792).
108
breastplate (Exod 28:20; 36:20), the Septuagint renders ‫ ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬as χρυσόλιθος
(“chrysolite”).464 Josephus (B.J. 5.234; A.J. 3.168) and the Vulgate both follow this
rendering on several occasions (Exod 28:20; 39:13; Ezek 10:9; 28:13; Dan 10:6). Similarly,
Targums Onqelos (Exod 28:20; 39:13) and Jonathan (Ezek 28:13), translate ‫ ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬as ‫כרום‬
‫“( ימא‬yellow-green gem”), which may also suggest a gemstone colored similarly to
Spanish topaz. The testimony of the ancient versions is significant in light of the fact
that Spain was known for deposits of chrysolite in antiquity (Pliny, Nat. 37.43).465
Another good possibility for the identity of ‫ ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬is iron disulphide or “fool’s gold,”
which is well-documented at Riotinto and other mines of the Iberian Pyrite Belt.466
Miscellanea
‫“ ַבּד‬pole”
(Exod 25:13; passim)
Eg. → Heb.
Eg. bḏȝ (“rod, mast”)
Hebrew ‫ ַבּד‬occurs with the meaning “pole” a total of 40 times.467 Nearly all these
occurrences are found within the description of the Israelite sanctuary: in these
instances, it refers to poles for carrying the ark of the covenant (e.g., Exod 25:13-15),
464
Elsewhere, the Septuagint transliterates it (Ezek 1:16; Song 5:14; Dan 10:6) or translates it as
ἄνθραξ (“dark red stone”) in Ezek 10:9; 28:13.
465
HALOT 1798; Quiring, “Edelsteine im Amtsschild des jüdischen Hohenpriesters,” 206-208. 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 (Emilio Galan and Garcia Guinea, “Precious and Semi-
Precious Stones of Spain,” in Non-Metallic Mineral Ores [vol. 15 of Proceedings of the 27th International
Geological Congress, Moscow 4-14 August 1984; 23 vols.; Utrecht: VNU Science Press, 1984], 360-362).
466
de Canales, Serrano, and Llompart, “Tarshish and the United Monarchy of Israel,” 140.
467
HALOT 109. See Exod 25:13-15, 27-28; 27:6-7; 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 Chr. 5:8-9; Job 17:16; Ezek 17:6; 19:14.
109
altar (e.g., Exod 27:6-7), and the table for bread (e.g., Exod 25:27-28). The only
exceptions are Job 17:16, in which ‫ ַבּד‬denotes a bar holding shut Sheol’s gates, and Ezek
17:6; 19:14, in which ‫ ַבּד‬denotes the pole-shaped shoot or sprout of a plant.
Hebrew ‫בּד‬,ַ “pole,” has no Semitic cognates and no clear Semitic etymology.468
An Egyptian origin is likely in light of this term’s almost exclusive usage within the
context of the Israelite tabernacle.469 Egyptian bḏȝ, which denotes a pole or rod-shaped
object (as discussed under the entry of Hebrew ‫“ ַבּד‬linen”) provides a fitting donor
term.
‫( ִכּנּוֹר‬Heb.), ‫( כנר‬OAram.), knr (Ug.) “harp, lyre”
(Gen 4:21; passim; KAI 222A:29; KTU 1.19 i:8; 1.101:17; 1.108:4)
CW
Ebla. kinnaru; Akk. kinnāru; JA ‫ ִ;כּינָּ ָרא‬JA, CPA ‫ ;כינר‬Syr. kennāra; Mand. kinar, kinara; Arab.
kinnārat, kannārat; Hatt. zinar, zinir; Hitt. kinirtalla (“lyre player”); Hurr. kinarai;
Hurro-Akk. kinnaruḫuli (“lyre player”); Eg. kniwnr; Gk. κινύρα; Sans. kiṁnarā; Arm.
k’nar
In Northwest Semitic of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, this word meaning
“lyre” occurs in biblical Hebrew, Old Aramaic, and Ugaritic. Hebrew ‫ ִכּנּוֹר‬occurs forty-
two times in a variety of contexts,470 Old Aramaic ‫ כנר‬appears once in the Sefire Treaty
inscription (KAI 222A:29),471 and Ugaritic knr occurs exclusively in mythological texts
468
Köhler and Baumgartner as well as Brown, Driver, and Briggs implausibly associate Hebrew ‫בּד‬,ַ
“pole,” with the root ‫בדד‬, “to be alone, separate” (HALOT 109; BDB 94). Jewish Aramaic ‫בּ ָדּא‬,ַ used to refer
to poles in the Israelite sanctuary, is a derivative of Hebrew (Jastrow 138). Arabic badd, cited by Köhler
and Baumgartner with the meaning “beam” (HALOT 109), does not occur in the Arabic lexica of Lane,
Freytag, and Wehr.
469
For the Egyptian literary context of the tabernacle, see the entry for Hebrew ‫פּח‬. ַ
470
HALOT 484. See Gen 4:21; 31:27; 1 Sam 10:5; 16:16, 23; 2 Sam 6:5; 1 Kgs 10:12; 1 Chron 13:8; 15:16, 21,
28; 16:5; 25:1, 3, 6; 2 Chron 5:12; 9:11; 20:28; 29:25; Neh 12:27; Job 21:12; 30:31; Ps 33:2; 43:4; 49:5; 57:9; 71:22;
81:3; 92:4; Ps 98:5 (2x); 108:3; 137:2; 147:7; 149:3; 150:3; Isa 5:12; 16:11; 23:16; 24:8; 30:32; Ezek 26:13.
471
DNWSI 520.
110
(KTU 1.19 i:8; 1.101:17; 1.108:4).472
This term had a very wide distribution in the ancient world, but most of the
occurrences are found to the north. The earliest attestations are from the third
millennium, namely Ebla kinnāru473 and Hattic zinar, zinir (which reflects
palatalization).474 Other related terms, once again found primarily in the north, include
Mari Akkadian kinnāru,475 Alalakh Akkadian kinnāruḫuli, “lyre player” (kinnāru plus the
Hurrian nomen agentis ending, -ḫuli),476 Hittite kinirtalla, “lyre player” (kinir plus the
Hitite nomen agentis ending –talla),477 Hurrian kinarai,478 and Emar Akkadian kinnāru.479
Notably, this word is also attested in Sanskrit as kiṁnarā, a stringed instrument
associated with the half-human mythological creature kiṁnara.480 Later forms of this
word can be found in Semitic (Jewish and Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Syriac,
Mandaic, Arabic);481 Egyptian kniwr482 and Greek κινύρα 483 are derivatives from West
Semitic, and Armenian k’nar is probably also a loan from Semitic.484
472
DUL 450-451. The word knr also occurs as a deity name in Ugaritic pantheon lists (KTU 1.47:32;
1.118:31) and sacrificial lists (KTU 1.148:9). The word kinnāru occurs in the Akkadian from Ugarit as a
deity name (RS 20.024:31).
473
Giovanni Pettinato, Testi lessicali bilingui della biblioteca L. 2769 (Materiali epigrafici di Ebla 4; Naples:
Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, 1982), 264 (#572); Manfred Krebernik, “Zu Syllabar und
Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla: Teil 2 (Glossar),” ZA 73 (1983): 21.
474
HWHT 941-942. This Hattic word is attested in the compounds ḫunzinar, “large lyre,” and ippizinar,
“small lyre.” The Hattic palatalized form, moreover, is the likely origin of zannaru, used with reference to
a lyre (CAD Z 46; AHw 1510) and Armenian ǰnar, “lute” (HAB 4:129); see Vjačeslav V. Ivanov, “An Ancient
Name for the Lyre,” ArOr 67 (1999): 587. Ivanov suggests that the Hattic forms may have originated from
a Proto-Luwian form of this word (in turn derived from a migratory term) no later than the end of the
third millennium BCE (Ivanov, “Ancient Name for the Lyre,” 588-589).
475
CAD K 387; AHw 480.
476
GLH 148; Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, “Der soziale Struktur von Alalaḫ und Ugarit,” WO 3
(1964-1966): 192.
477
HHw 87.
478
Volkert Haas, Die Serien itkaḫi und itkalzi des AZU-Priesters, Rituale für Tašmišarri und Tatuḫepa sowie
weitere Text emit Bezug auf Tašmišarri (Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler, I. Abteilung: Die Texte
aus Bogazköy 1; Rome: Multigrafica editrice, 1984), 271.
479
Pentiuc, West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar, 98.
480
KEWA 1:209.
481
DJPA 256; DJBA 575; LSp 95; SyrLex 636; MD 214; WKAS K 379.
482
GHwÄ 955; WÄS 5:132; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 324.
483
LSJ 953; EDG 701; DELG 513; Masson, Les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, 69.
484
HAB 4:582. It is possible, however, that Armenian k’nar is a loan from Iranian; see Giancarlo
Bolognesi, “Langues en contact: syriaque, iranien, arménien,” in Studia etymologica Indoeuropaea: memoriae
A.J. van Windekens (1915-1989) dicata (ed. Lambert Isabaert; OLA 45; Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek,
111
This ancient culture word must have originated in northern Syria or Anatolia,
for the majority of the earliest (i.e., third millennium BCE) depictions of this lyre come
from sites such as Carchemish, Urkesh, and Oylum Höyük in Anatolia.485 This explains
the term’s primary distribution to the north. 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.486
‫“ פּוְּך‬kohl, eye paint”
(2 Kgs 9:30; 1 Chron 29:2; Isa 54:11; Jer 4:30)
Gk. ⇒
⇒ Heb.
⇒ Lat.
Gk. φῦκος; Lat. fucus
Hebrew ‫ פּוְּך‬appears twice with reference to eye paint.487 In the first instance,
Jezebel puts ‫ פּוְּך‬on 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 refers to Judah enlarging her eyes with ‫( פּוְּך‬Jer 4:30). The occurrences of
‫ פּוְּך‬in 1 Chron 29:2 and Isa 54:11 are probably errors for ‫נ ֶֹפְך‬, “turquoise,” as indicated
1991), 41-43.
485
Bo Lawergren, “Distinctions among Canaanite, Philistine, and Israelite Lyres, and Their Global
Lyrical Contexts,” BASOR 309 (1998): 43-47, 58-59.
486
Lawergren, “Distinctions among Canaanite, Philistine, and Israelite Lyres,” 43-47. As Lawergren
notes, plectra are small and hard to represent, hence their lack of representation in ancient depictions.
487
HALOT 918. This word is also the basis of the name of one of Job’s daughters, ‫( ֶק ֶרן ַהפּוְּך‬Job 42:14).
The Septuagint utilizes the verb στιμίζω (“to paint the eyelids”) in 2 Kgs 9:30 but στίβι (“eye paint”) in Jer
4:30; the Vulgate reads stibium (“kohl, eye paint”) in both instances; the Peshitta and Targums have ṣdydˀ
and ‫צדידא‬, both meaning “eye-paint, antimony.”
112
by the mention of precious stones and materials in both of these verses.488
Hebrew ‫ פּוְּך‬is not the typical Semitic word meaning “eye paint”489 and no
cognates exist elsewhere in Semitic, strongly suggesting that ‫ פּוְּך‬is a foreign loan.490
The probable donor term is Greek φῦκος (also the source of Latin fucus), which means
“seaweed, red algae” but also refers to a red rouge extracted from seaweed that was
used as a cosmetic (Dioscorides Mat. med. 4.99; cf. Pseudo-Lucian Am. 41; Theocritus
Poeta Bucolicus 15.16; Propertius 2.18B.31-32).491 Given her Phoenician royal descent (cf.
1 Kgs 16:31), Jezebel would have had access to luxury products acquired through
Phoenician trade, and is likely that Greek eye paint was one of those products.
‫“ ַפּח‬trap, bird trap”
(Josh 23:13; passim)
Eg. → WSem. (Heb., JA, CPA, Syr., Arab.)
JA ‫פּ ָחא‬,
ַ ‫פאחא‬, ‫ ;פח‬CPA ‫ ;פח‬Syr. paḥḥā; Arab. faḫḫ; Eg. pḫȝ, pḫ
The word ‫ ַפּח‬occurs with the meaning “trap” twenty-four times in the Hebrew
Bible.492 Several times it specifically refers to a trap for snaring birds (Ps 91:3; 124:7;
488
Rudolph, Chronikbuc̈her, 190; Kittel, Bücher der Chronik und Esra, Nehemia und Esther, 102-103; Baltzer,
Deutero-Isaiah, 448, 452; McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 138. The Septuagint renders ‫ פּוְּך‬as λίθος πολυτελής
(“expensive stone”) in 1 Chron 29:2 and ἄνθραξ (“charcoal, dark red stone”) in Isa 54:11.
489
The common Semitic word for “eye paint” is reflected in terms such as Akkadian guḫlu (CAD G 125;
AHw 296) and Arabic kuḥl (Lane 2999; WKAS K 73-74). The nominal form does not occur in biblical Hebrew,
but the denominative verb ‫ כחל‬occurs once in Ezek 23:40.
490
There is no clear evidence that ‫ פּוְּך‬is derived from the roots ‫ פוך‬or ‫( פכך‬both meaning “to crush”
and unattested in biblical Hebrew), contra HALOT 918; Roland Gradwohl, Die Farben im Alten Testament: eine
terminologische Studie (BZAW 83; Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1963). Lambdin derives ‫ פּוְּך‬from Egyptian *fkȝ.t,
*fȝk.t, *fk.t, a hypothetical shortened form of mfkȝ.t, “turquoise” (Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the
Old Testament,” 152), but there is no evidence that powdered turquoise was ever used as a cosmetic
pigment in ancient Egypt (Lee and Quirke, “Painting Materials,” 111; Aston, Harrell, and Shaw, “Stone,”
62) and this term is never actually attested in Egyptian texts, although the adjectival form fkȝti (“made of
turquoise”) without initial m is attested (ÄW 1:489; 2:968; GHwÄ 326).
491
LSJ 1959-1960; OLD 741; Christian Hünemörder, “Fucus,” DNP 4:687. Greek φῦκος is not a loan from
West Semitic (DELG 1186; contra EDG 1594-1595).
492
HALOT 921. See Josh 23:13; Job 18:9; 22:10; Ps 69:23; 91:3; 119:110; 124:7 (2x); 140:6; 141:9; 142:4; Prov
7:23; 22:5; Eccl 9:12; Isa 8:14; 24:17-18; Jer 18:22; 48:43-44; Hos 5:1; 9:8; Amos 3:5 (2x). The Masoretic text
113
Prov 7:23; Eccl 9:12; Hos 9:8; Amos 3:5).
There is no known Semitic root on which this word could be based;493 cognates
do exist in other Semitic languages (Jewish and Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Syriac,
and Arabic)494 but are not attested until much later than biblical Hebrew. Accordingly,
Lambdin and Muchiki point to Egyptian pḫȝ, pḫ, “bird trap,”495 as the origin of Hebrew
ַ 496 The fowler’s trade in ancient Egypt was very popular and cultural contact
‫פּח‬.
between Egypt and Palestine is well-attested, supporting the plausibility that Hebrew
speakers adopted this term.
Egypt was a major migratory flyway for birds, making them very plentiful 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
related in Egyptian texts such as “The Pleasures of Fishing and Fowling”497 and “The
Discourse of the Fowler.”498 Not surprisingly, Egypt’s reputation for fowling was well-
known in antiquity.499
reads ‫ ַפּ ִחים ֵאשׁ‬in Ps 11:6, but this should be emended to read ‫ ַפּ ֲח ֵמי ֵאשׁ‬or something similar (BHS; Hans-
Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59 [trans. Hilton C. Oswald; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 201).
493
The verb ‫ פחח‬in Isa 42:22 is denominative (HALOT 924).
494
DJPA 427; DJBA 895; LSp 155; SyrLex 1177; Lane 2348.
495
GHwÄ 308; WÄS 1:543. The Demotic and Coptic forms of this word are pḫ and Sⲡⲁϣ, Bⲫⲁϣ
respectively (DG 139; Crum 277; CED 130).
496
Testament,” 153.
497
Ricardo Augusto Caminos, Literary Fragments in the Hieratic Script (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1956),
1-21.
498
R.B. Parkinson, “The Discourse of the Fowler: Papyrus Butler Verso (P. BM EA 10274),” JEA 90 (2004):
81-111.
499
Karl Martin, “Vogelfang, -jagd, -netz, -steller,” LÄ 6:1051-1053; Patrick F. Houlihan, “Poultry,” The
Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (ed. Donald B. Redford; 3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001),
3:59.
114
‫( ֶק ֶרן‬Heb.), qrn (Ug.) “horn”
(Gen 22:13; passim; KTU 1.3 iv:27, passim)
IE → Akk., WSem. (Ug., Heb., Pun., JA, Palm., Syr., Arab., Eth.)
Akk. qarnu; Amor. qarn; Pun. ‫ ;קרן‬JA ‫ק ְרנָ א‬,ַ ‫ ;קרן‬Palm. ‫ ;קרן‬Syr. qarnā; Mand. qarna; Arab.
qarn; Eth. qarn
The word ‫ ֶק ֶרן‬occurs 79 times in the Hebrew Bible. It most often means “horn,”
whether of an animal (e.g., Gen 22:13; Deut 33:17) or of an altar (e.g., Exod 27:2; Lev
4:7).500 Ugaritic qrn has a similar semantic range: it can denote an animal’s horns (e.g.,
KTU 1.103+1.145:11) or a horn-shaped object, such as a crescent moon (e.g., KTU 1.18
iv:10).501
This word exists in a number of Semitic languages, including Akkadian, Amorite,
Punic, various dialects of Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic.502 Despite its wide
attestation in Semitic, however, this term is not native to Semitic. The Semitic forms
can all be traced back to Indo-European *k̂hr̥-n, “horn” (cf. Greek κέρας and Latin
cornu).503 The Semitic word must be of Indo-European origin and not vice versa since
the Indo-European form is clearly derived from the form *k̂her, “top, head.”504
Horn and antler were utilized throughout the ancient world for making tools
and other objects but were particularly characteristic of Indo-European culture.505 In
500
HALOT 1144-1146. See Gen 22:13; Exod 27:2 (2x); 29:12; 30:2-3, 10; 34:29-30, 35; 37:25-26; 38:2 (2x);
Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34; 8:15; 9:9; 16:18; Deut 33:17 (2x); Josh 6:5; 1 Sam 2:1, 10; 16:1, 13; 2 Sam 22:3; 1 Kgs
1:39, 50-51; 2:28; 22:11; 1 Chron 25:5; 2 Chron 18:10; Job 16:15; Ps 18:3; 22:22; 69:32; 75:5-6, 11 (2x); 89:18, 25;
92:11; 112:9; 118:27; 132:17; 148:14; Isa 5:1; Jer 17:1; 48:25; Lam 2:3, 17; Ezek 27:15; 29:21; 34:21; 43:15, 20;
Dan 8:3 (2x), 5-9, 20-21; Amos 3:14; Mic 4:13; Hab 3:4; Zech 2:1-2, 4 (3x).
501
DUL 710-711. See KTU 1.3 iv:27; 1.10 ii:21-22; 1.12 i:30; ii:39; 1.17 vi:14, 22; 1.18 iv:9-10; 1.92:32;
1.101:6; 1.103+1.145:11, 25; 1.114:20; 2.72:30; 4.17:9-14, 17; 5.23:2. Mention of Qrn in 4.113:8 is a proper
name.
502
CAD Q 134-140; AHw 904; Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts,; DNWSI 1034; DJPA 506;
DJBA 1044-1045; SyrLex 1412-1413; MD 403; Lane 2987-2988; CDG 442.
503
LSJ 941; OLD 446.
504
On *k̂hr̥-n and *k̂her in Indo-European, see Alan J. Nussbaum, Head and Horn in Indo-European (Studies
in Indo-European Language and Culture, New Series 2; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986).
505
Douglas Q. Adams, “Horn,” Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture 272-273. For evidence of usage of
horn and antler in the ancient Near East, see Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 111-
115
light of the wide distribution of this term in Semitic, this word constitutes a very early
borrowing from Indo-European into Semitic, probably during the fourth or third
millennium BCE. During this time, Indo-European and Semitic speakers exchanged a
number of cultural terms, particularly words related to domesticated animals,
cultivated plants, tools, and numerals.506
‫“ ֶר ֶסן‬bridle, rein”
(Isa 30:28; Ps 32:9; Job 30:11; 41:5)
Indo-Iranian ⇒
⇒ Ind. (Sans., Prak, Pāli) → WSem. (Heb., JA, Arab.)
⇒ Iran. (Pahl.; NPers. Oss.) → Arm.
JA ‫ ִ;ר ְסנָ א‬Arab. rasan; Sans. raśanā; Prāk. rasaṇā; Pāli rasanā; Pahl. rasan; NPers. resen; Oss.
raetaen; Arm. erasan
The term ‫ר ֶסן‬,ֶ meaning “bridle, rein,” occurs four times in the Masoretic text
(Isa 30:28; Ps 31:9; Job 30:11; 41:5).507 Outside of biblical Hebrew this word occurs only in
late Semitic.508 Related Indo-Iranian forms include Sanskrit (raśanā), Pāli (rasanā),
Prākrit (rasaṇā), and Pahlavi (rasan) as well as later Iranian dialects such as Ossetic
(raetaen) and New Persian (rasn).509
112; Krzyszkowska and Morkot, “Ivory and Related Materials,” 327-328.

506
Gamkrelidze and Ivanonv, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, 1:772-773.
507
Following several commentators and the rendering of the Septuagint (πτύξιν θώρακος αὐτοῦ), it
is probably necessary to emend the phrase ‫“( ְבּ ֶכ ֶפל ִר ְסנוֹ‬its double bridle”) in Job 41:5 to ‫“( ְבּ ֶכ ֶפל ִס ְרי ֹנו‬its
double coat of mail”). See Hartley, Job, 527; Gordis, Book of Job, 486; Pope, Job, 335.
508
The form ‫ ִר ְסנָ א‬is relatively rare in Jewish Aramaic, occurring only in late Jewish literary
(Targumic) Aramaic (Jastrow 1484). Arabic rasan (Lane 1086) is a loan from Persian (Asbaghi, Persische
Lehnwörter im Arabischen, 136). Akkadian rissittu (plural risnētu) has a wide semantic range and, although it
occurs earlier with other meanings, it is used with reference to manufactured leather items only in a few
Neo-Babylonian letters and does not specifically refer to bridles or reins (CAD R 375-376; AHw 988-989). It
seems to be derived instead from the verb rasānu, “to soak” (CAD R 179-181; AHw 959), and its similarity to
Hebrew ‫ ֶר ֶסן‬is thus only coincidental.
509
EWA 2:440-41; KEWA 3:47; CDIAL 616; CPD 71; CPED 576; NPED 1:935; Paul Horn, Grundriss der
neupersischen Etymologie (Sammlung indogermanischer Wörterbücher 4. Strassburg: K.J. Trübner, 1893),
116
Two factors demonstrate that this word is native to Indo-Iranian rather than
Semitic.510 First, this word was loaned very early from Iranian into the Finno-Ugric
languages. This borrowing occurred soon after the split of Iranian from Indic, which
occurred no later than the end of the fourth millennium BCE, attesting to the great
antiquity of this term in Indo-Iranian.511 Second, the Indo-Iranian forms are clearly
derived from the Indo-European root *rei̯g, *rei̯g̑ (“to bind”),512 whereas the Semitic
cognates have no known root on which they are based. Because the meaning “rein,
bridle” most commonly occurs in Indic, whereas the meaning “rope” or the like most
commonly occurs in Iranian, Hebrew ‫ ֶר ֶסן‬was presumably borrowed from Indic rather
than Iranian.
Another early Indo-Iranian loanword related to hippology is the common
Semitic noun ss, commonly acknowledged to be Indo-European in origin.513 As with

Hebrew ‫סוּס‬, the Hebrew consonant ‫ ס‬is the reflex of the Indo-Iranian sibilant s.514As
Podolsky has suggested, this term was probably introduced into West Semitic at an
137; ORS 355; IESOI 2:382-83. The Iranian forms are the source of Armenian erasan (HAB 2:40-41;
Hübschmann, Armenische Grammatik, 148).
510
Baruch Podolsky, “Notes on Hebrew Etymology,” in Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures
of the Ancient Near East (eds. Shlomo Izreˀel, et al.; Israel Oriental Studies 18; Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1998), 203-204; Chaim Rabin, “‫ ”הקרוב מלים בעברית המקראית מלשון האינדו־ארים שבמזרח‬in ‫ספר‬
‫ מוגשים לו בהגיעו לשיבה‬,‫ לשון ותולדות ישראל‬,‫ ארכיאולוגיה‬,‫ מחקרים במקרא‬:‫( שמואל ייבין‬eds. Shmuel Abramski,
et al.; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1970), 472.
511
The early form of this word in Finno-Permian is reconstructed as *reśmä. See Jorma Koivulehto,
“The Earliest Contacts between Indo-European and Uralic Speakers in the Light of Lexical Loans,” in Early
Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations: Papers Presented at an
International Symposium Held at the Tvärminne Research Station of the University of Helsinki, 8-10 January, 1999
(eds. Christian Carpelan, et al.; Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 242; Helsinki, Finland:
Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 2001), 250; Gamkrelidze and Ivanonv, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans,
1:815; FUV 136.
512
LIV 503; IEW 1:863.
513
The Proto-Indo-European term for “horse,” reconstructed as *eḱhw-os, is the source of the various
terms for “horse” in Indo-European (cf. Sanskrit áśva; Greek ἵππος; Latin equus [KEWA 1:62; CDIAL 40; LSJ
835; OLD 614-615]) and Semitic (cf. Akkadian sīsû; Ugaritic ssw, śśw; Hebrew ‫ ;סוּס‬Phoenician ‫[ סס‬CAD S 328-
334; AHw 1051-1052; DUL 772-773; HALOT 746; DNWSI 795]) and Egyptian (ssm.t [GHwÄ 824; WÄS 4:276-277]).
See Gamkrelidze and Ivanonv, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, 1:463-464, 478-479.
514
Haiim B. Rosén, “*ekwos et l’‘hippologie’ canaanéene: réflexions étymologiques,” in Studia
etymologica Indoeuropaea: memoriae A.J. van Windekens (1915-1989) dicata (ed. Lambert Isabaert; OLA 45;
Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1991), 233-234.
117
early stage along with other technology and terminology related to hippology.515
‫( ַתּנּוּר‬Heb.), ‫( תנור‬OAram.) “a type of oven”
(Gen 15:17; Exod 7:28; Lev 2:4; 7:9; 11:35; 26:26; Neh 3:11; 12:38; Ps 21:10; Isa 31:9; Lam
5:10; Hos 7:4, 6-7; Mal 3:19; KAI 309:22)
CW
Sum. DURUNA, DILINA; Akk. tinūru; Pun. ‫ ;תנר‬JA ‫נּוּרא‬ ַ JA, CPA ‫ ;תנור‬Syr. tannūrāˀ; Mand.
ָ ‫;תּ‬
tanur, tanura; Arab. tannūr; Eg. trr; Urdu tanūr, tannūr, tandūr; Pahl. tanūr; NPers.
tanūr; Turkish tandır; Arm. t’onir; Georg. tonari, tone, torne
In Northwest Semitic of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, this term occurs only in
biblical Hebrew and Old Aramaic.516 Biblical Hebrew ‫ ַתּנּוּר‬denotes 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).517 Similarly,
Old Aramaic ‫ תנור‬appears in the Tel Fakherye Statue inscription with reference to an
oven for baking bread (KAI 309:22).518
This term occurs elsewhere in both Semitic and non-Semitic. In Semitic it
appears in Akkadian, Punic, various dialects of Aramaic, and Arabic.519 Related non-
Semitic terms include Sumerian DURUNA, DILINA520 and Egyptian trr521 as well as
515
Podolsky, “Notes on Hebrew Etymology,” 203-204. For a summary of the usage of horse gear in the
ancient Near East, see M.A. Littauer, “Bits and Pieces,” in Selected Writings on Chariots and Other Early
Vehicles, Riding and Harness (ed. Peter Raulwing; Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 6; Leiden:
Brill, 2002), 487-504; Gail Brownrigg, “Horse Control and the Bit,” in Horses and Humans: The Evolution of
Human-Equine Relationships (eds. Sandra L. Olsen, et al.; BAR International Series 1560; Oxford:
Archaeopress, 2006), 165-171.
516
Despite the contention of Sanmartín (Joaqín Sanmartín, “Glossen zum ugaritischen Lexikon (III),”
UF 11 [1979]: 728), it is unlikely that Ugaritic tnrr, which appears in KTU 1.119:9, means “oven.” It should
be spelled as tnr, not tnrr, and tnrr is best interpreted as a form of the verb nr (“to shine”); see DUL 642.
517
HALOT 1763; James L. Kelso, The Ceramic Vocabulary of the Old Testament (BASORSup 5-6; New Haven,
Conn.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1948), 31-32.
518
DNWSI 1224. The usage of ‫ תנור‬here closely parallels that of Lev 26:26; see Stephen A. Kaufman,
“Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh,” Maarav 3 (1982): 170.
519
CAD T 420-421; AHw 1360; DJPA 585; DJBA 1217; LSp 222; SyrLex 1654; MD 480; Lane 318-319.
520
PSD. The variety of forms in Sumerian, some of which are spelled according to the Semitic forms,
must be a loan from Akkadian or from the non-Semitic source of Akkadian tinūru (Miguel Civil, “Notes on
Sumerian Lexicography, II,” JCS 25 [1973]: 172-175). The rare, late Sumerian lexical list forms TI.NU.UR
118
various forms from the Indo-Iranian languages (Urdu, Pahlavi, New Persian), Turkish,
Armenian, and Georgian.522 Each of these forms means “oven,” specifically an oven for
baking bread that is similar to the modern tandoor.523
Greppin contends that Semitic is the source of the Indo-Iranian and Caucasian
forms,524 but this term lacks a plausible Semitic etymology and recognizable Semitic
noun pattern.525 This ancient culture word must have originated with the people who
first utilized the oven denoted by this term. The earliest archaeological evidence for
this specific type of oven is found in the Harappan civilization of the Indus Valley:
tandoor ovens have been discovered at the Period I settlement at Kalibangan and at the
Period B settlement at Balakot (both early third millennium BCE).526 If this type of oven
is indeed an innovation of Harappan culture as may be the case,527 this ancient culture
word is probably Harappan in origin.
and TU.NU.UR are artificial creations by scribes (Kaufman, Akkadian Influences, 108).
521
GHwÄ 1007; WÄS 5:318. Egyptian trr is a clear New Kingdom borrowing from West Semitic; the
usage of Egyptian r for Semitic n is due to assimilation (Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts,#359).
522
AIW 638; CPD 82; NPED 1:489; CPED 331; DUCHE 339-340; ETCD 1278; HAB 2:196; CGED 724. Punjabi
tandúri, “flatbread” (PRS 581), comes from the name of the oven in which it is made.
523
On the usage of the tandoor oven in the ancient Near East, see Jean Bottéro, The Oldest Cuisine in the
World: Cooking in Mesopotamia (trans. Teresa Lavender Fagan; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004),
47-50.
524
John A.C. Greppin, “The Survival of Ancient Anatolian and Mespotamian Vocabulary until the
Present,” JNES 50 (1991): 204.
525
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 150; cf. Kaufman, Akkadian Influences, 108; Arthur
Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’ān (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1938), 92-95. Jeffrey suggests that,
rather than trying to trace borrowings from Semitic to Indo-Iranian or vice versa, this word was
borrowed into both Semitic and Indo-Iranian from a third, separate source.
526
Jagat Pati Joshi, “Structures,” in Excavations at Kalibangan: The Early Harappans (1960-1969) (eds. B.B.
Lal, et al.; Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India 98; New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India,
2003), 51-54, 73-76; George F. Dales, “Excavations at Balakot, Pakistan, 1973,” Journal of Field Archaeology 1
(1974): 6.
527
Jagat Pati Joshi, “Summary of Results,” in Excavations at Kalibangan: The Early Harappans (1960-1969)
(eds. B.B. Lal, et al.; Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India 98; New Delhi: Archaeological Survey
of India, 2003), 20; D.P. Agrawal, The Indus Civilization: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (New Delhi: Aryan
Books International, 2007), 97.
119
Plants and Plant Products
‫“ ַאגְ מוֹן‬reed, rush”
(Job 40:26; 41:12; Isa 9:13; 19:15; 58:5)
Sum. → Akk. → WSem. (Heb., IA, JA, Syr., Mand., Arab.)
Sum. AGAM; Akk. agammu; IA, JA ‫ ;אגמא‬Syr. ˀegmā; Mand. agma, agama; Arab. aǧama
Hebrew ‫ ַאגְ מוֹן‬occurs only several times in the Hebrew Bible.528 It is derived from
Hebrew ‫אגַ ם‬,

ֲ “pool, reed lagoon,” which has cognates elsewhere in Semitic (Akkadian,
Aramaic, Syriac, Mandaic, and Arabic).529 By virtue of its association with reed plants,
the individualizing suffix ‫וֹן‬- was added to ‫ ֲאגַ ם‬to denote a reed rather than the water or
terrain in which this type of plant is found.530
This term is non-Semitic despite its widespread distribution in Semitic.531
Akkadian agammu, with which Hebrew ‫ ֲאגַ ם‬is cognate, is derived from Sumerian
AGAM.532 Akkadian agammu contains a doubled m, indicative of non-Semitic loans into
Akkadian.533 Akkadian subsequently loaned this Sumerian word into West Semitic,
meaning that ‫ ֲאגַ ם‬is a transmitted loan. Thus, Hebrew ‫ ַאגְ מוֹן‬can be traced back to a term
ֲ 534
of Sumerian origin by virtue of its derivation from ‫אגַ ם‬.
Hebrew ‫ ַאגְ מוֹן‬can denote a number of different reed plants rather than one
528
HALOT 11. Following the Septuagint (πυρὶ ἀνθράκων) and Peshitta (ˀyk dwrtˀ dqds dmštgr), the
occurrence of ‫ ַאגְ מוֹן‬in Job 41:12 should perhaps be emended to ‫“( אֹגֵ ם‬boiling”). However, not all
commentators see the need for this emendation; cf. Hartley, Job, 528; Gordis, Book of Job, 486; Pope, Job,
342-343.
529
HALOT 11; CAD A/1 142; AHw 15; DNWSI 9; DJPA 34; DJBA 79; SyrLex 7; MD 5; Lane 26.
530
Bauer and Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes, 500 (§61qϑ).
531
Kaufman, Akkadian Influences, 33.
532
PSD; CAD A/1 142; AHw 15; Liebermann, Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian, 140.
533
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 20-21. The plural absolute form ‫ ֲאגַ ִמּים‬in biblical
Hebrew (Exod 8:1; Isa 42:15; Jer 51:32) preserves the doubling of the final consonant, although the pataḥ
vowel of the singular absolute form also points to a doubled final consonant.
534
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 20; Edward Lipiński, “Emprunts suméro-
akkadiens en hébreu biblique,” ZAH 1 (2001): 62; Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 6-7.
120
specific species. It is associated with a flat-leafed plant ‫“( ִכּ ָפּה‬palm leaf”) on two
occasions (Isa 9:13; 19:15), and elsewhere refers to a sharp reed strong enough to be
used like a hook (Job 40:26). Identification with any number of rush-like plants is
possible based on these general descriptions. Prevalent reed species in antiquity
include the common reed (Phragmites australis) and the giant reed (Arundo donax), and
rush species include any species within the genus Juncus.535 The inhabitants of the
ancient Near East used reeds for a number of purposes, most notably building
(particularly in constructing roofs) and the making of mats and baskets.536
ˀadr “a type of wood”
(KTU 4.158.8)
Ugaritic ˀadr occurs only once in a Ugaritic list of trees and vegetables (KTU
4.158.8).537 Semitic cognates to Ugaritic ˀadr exist in Akkadian (adāru) as well as Jewish
ַ and Syriac (ˀādrā).538 Despite attempts at identification, this tree’s
Aramaic (‫)א ָדּ ָרא‬
precise identity is uncertain; this word, moreover, seems to have changed referents
over time.539
Watson lists Ugaritic ˀadr as a possible loan from Sumerian but then wonders if
it may not be Sumerian in origin.540 The latter view is correct. Akkadian ildakku, a loan
535
Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 361-362; F. Nigel Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia
of Bible Plants: Flowers and Trees, Fruits and Vegetables, Ecology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1992), 70-71.
536
Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 361-362; Willemina Z. Wendrich, “Basketry,”
in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (eds. Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000), 255; Gillian Vogelsang-Eastwood, “Textiles,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Technology (eds. Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 269;
Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 48, 131, 149.
537
DUL 21.
538
CAD A/1 102-103; AHw 11; DJBA 82; SyrLex 11.
539
Akkadian ˀadāru is sometimes identified as poplar for several reasons: this tree was native and
common to southern Mesopotamia, its wood was not considered particularly valuable, and its fruit is
never mentioned; see CAD I-J 71; J. Nicholas Postgate, “Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts,” Bulletin
on Sumerian Agriculture 6 (1991): 179. Jewish Aramaic ‫ ַא ָדּ ָרא‬associates this tree with cedar and similar
woods, perhaps due to a seeming association with the Semitic root ˀdr, “to be mighty, great” (DRS 10).
540
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 145. Watson attributes the idea that Ugaritic ˀadr is Sumerian to
121
from Sumerian with the same meaning, was eventually replaced by the term adāru in
Akkadian.541 Akkadian adāru is not Sumerian, but the native Akkadian term for this tree:
Akkadian adāru is the normal Akkadian reading for the logogram gišA.AM = ILDAG,542 and
neither the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary nor von Soden cites adāru as a Sumerian loan.543
Thus, Ugaritic ˀadr is Semitic rather than foreign in origin.
ֲ ‫“ ֲא ָה ִלים‬agarwood, aloewood”
‫א ָהלוֹת‬,
(Num 24:6; Ps 45:9; Prov 7:17; Song 4:14)
Drav. (Tamil, Mal.) → Ind. (Sans.) ⇒
⇒ WSem. (Heb., JA, CPA, Mand.) → Gk., Lat. → JA
⇒ Syr. → Arab., Eth.; NPers.
JA ‫ ;אילווא‬CPA ˁalwā; Syr. ˀelwā, ˁalway; Mand. ˁluaia; Arab. ˀuluwwa, ˀalwa, luwwa; Eth.
ˁalwā, ˁālwā; Gk. ἀλόη; Lat. aloe; Sans. agaru, aguru; NPers. alwā, ilwā; Tamil akil; Mal.
akil
This word shows up only four times in the Hebrew Bible, twice in the form
‫( ֲא ָהלוֹת‬Ps 45:9; Song 4:14) and twice in the form ‫( ֲא ָה ִלים‬Num 24:6; Prov 7:17).544 Its
occurrences are found among foreign luxury items: Psalm 45:9 mentions this word
along with the non-Semitic loan ‫יעה‬

ָ ‫“( ְק ִצ‬cassia-like plant”), Song 4:14 lists it amidst the
de Moor, but de Moor makes no such claim in the reference Watson provides (Johannes C. de Moor,
“Frustula Ugaritica,” JNES 24 [1965]: 362).
541
CAD I-J 70-71; AHw 371.
542
Postgate, “Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts,” 179. Liebermann lists his word in his
compilation of Sumerian loanwords into Old Babylonian Akkadian (Liebermann, Sumerian Loanwords in
Old-Babylonian Akkadian, 136), but what he reads as Sumerian ADAR should be read as ILDAG (PSD).
543
CAD A/1 102-103; AHw 11.
544
HALOT 19. The ancient versions took ‫ ֲא ָהלוֹת‬as meaning “aloe” with several exceptions: the
Septuagint reads στακτὴ (“trickling”) in Ps 45:9 and οἶκόν (“dwelling”) in Prov 7:17, the Vulgate reads
gutta (“drop”) in Ps 45:9, and the Peshitta reads ˀsṭqṭˀ (“myrrh oil”) and kwrkmˀ (“saffron”) in Prov 7:17. In
light of the parallelism with ‫“( ֲא ָרזִ ים‬cedars”), ‫ ֲא ָה ִלים‬in Num 24:6 should probably be emended to ‫ ֵא ִלים‬or
‫( ַאלּוֹנים‬cf. BHS); the ancient versions unanimously understood this as a reference to tents, having read
‫א ָֹה ִלים‬.
122
Indo-Iranian loans ‫“( נֵ ְר ְדּ‬nard”) and ‫“( ַכּ ְרכֹּם‬saffron”), and Prov 7:17 groups it with the
foreign loan ‫“( ִקנָּ מוֹן‬cinnamon-like spice”).
As argued by Ellenbogen and Powels,545 the donor term for Hebrew ‫ ֲא ָהלוֹת‬is
Sanskrit agaru, aguru, “agarwood.”546 These Indic terms are, in turn, derived from
Dravidian (cf. Tamil and Malayalam akil).547 The velar of the Dravidian and Indic forms,
which alternates between g and k, became a weakened glottal when borrowed into
Hebrew.548 From West Semitic, this term found its way into Greek in the form ἀλόη,549
the basis for Latin aloe as well as Jewish Aramaic ‫אלווס‬.550 Through Syriac this term
entered Arabic (ˀuluwwa, ˀalwa, luwwa) and Persian (alwā, ilwā) as well as Ethiopic (ˁalwā,
ˁālwā).551
The semantic development of this word is complex and, like several other plant
names in antiquity,552 exhibits a change in referent. The Dravidian and Indic forms of
this word clearly refer to agarwood, also known as aloewood (Aquilaria malaccensis or
Aquilaria agallocha), rather than the true aloe (Aloe vera).553 The former is a tall tree
characterized by dark resinous heartwood and known for its aromatic properties,
whereas the latter is a short, succulent plant known for its medicinal properties;
agarwood, moreover, is native to East Asia, but true aloe is native to southern Arabia
and northern Africa. The aromatic nature of ‫ ֲא ָהלוֹת‬in the Hebrew Bible indicates that
its referent is Aquillaria agallocha rather than Aloe vera,554 to be expected since ‫ ֲא ָהלוֹת‬was
545
Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 19-20; Powels, “Indische Lehnwörter in der Bibel,”
186-188.
546
CDIAL 3; KEWA 1:17-18; cf. also Prākrit agaru, agaluya, Pāli agalu, aggalu, akalu, and Hindi agar, agur.
547
DED 4; cf. also Kannaḍa agil and Tulu agilu.
548
John A.C. Greppin, “The Various Aloës in Ancient Times,” Journal of Indo-European Studies 16 (1988):
35. This pattern of weakening a velar stop to a glottal is a common linguistic phenomenon (cf. Latin
centum and English hundred).
549
LSJ 72. Classicists typically consider Greek ἀλόη as an eastern loanword of unknown origin (EDG
73; DELG 61).
550
OLD 106; DJPA 59.
551
Lane 2651; CDG 62; CPED 195.
552
Cf. F. Nigel Hepper, “On the Transference of Ancient Plant Names,” PEQ 109 (1977): 129-130.
553
DED 4; CDIAL 3; KEWA 1:17-18.
554
Jehuda Feliks, ‫ צמחי התנ״ך וחז״ל( עצי בשמים יער ונוי‬2; Jerusalem: Reuven Mass, 1997), 29-32; Greppin,
“Various Aloës in Ancient Times,” 39; Michael Zohary, Plants of the Bible: A Complete Handbook to All the
123
borrowed from Indic. Greek ἀλόη, Latin aloe, and most of the later Semitic derivatives,
on the other hand, denote true aloe rather than agarwood, meaning that a semantic
shift later occurred.555
‫( ָ֫אחוּ‬Heb.), ˀaḫ (Ug.), ‫( אחו‬OAram.) “sedge, reed; marsh, meadow”
(Gen 41:2, 18; Job 8:11; KTU 1.10 ii:9, 12; KAI 222A:29, 32)
Eg. → WSem. (Ug., Heb., OAram.)
Eg. ȝḫy, ȝḫ
This term occurs several times in biblical Hebrew, Ugaritic, and Old Aramaic.
Hebrew ‫ ָ֫אחוּ‬shows up twice within the Joseph cycle, denoting the reed plants growing
along the banks of the Nile in Pharaoh’s dream (Gen 41:2, 18). It appears once in the
book of Job, where it is parallel with ‫“( ֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬rush, reed”), an Egyptian loanword (Job
8:11).556 In Old Aramaic this word appears twice in the Sefire Treaty inscription within
the context of Bar-Gaˀyah’s curse upon his treaty partner, Matiˁel, with the general
meaning “grass, vegetation” (KAI 222A:29, 32).557 Lastly, this term occurs in Ugaritic as
ˀaḫ with reference to an area where Baal goes hunting (KTU 1:10 ii:9, 12).558
Plants with 200 Full-Color Plates Taken in the Natural Habitat (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982),
204.
555
Notably, Dioscurides treats agarwood (ἀγάλοχον) separately from the true aloe (ἀλόη) in Mat. med.
1.22; 3.22.
556
HALOT 30-31. The term may also occur in Hos 13:15 if the phrase ‫“( הוּא ֵבּן ַא ִחים יַ ְפ ִריא‬he flourishes
among the brothers”) is to be emended to ‫“( הוּא ֵבּן ָאחוּ ַמ ְפ ִריא‬he flourishes among the reeds”) (cf. Hans
Walter Wolff, Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea [trans. Gary Stansell; Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974], 222), but many commentators do not see the need to emend the text;
see Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB 24; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980), 640-641; Thomas Edward McComiskey, “Hosea,”
in Hosea, Joel, and Amos (vol. 1 of The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary; ed. Thomas
Edward McComiskey; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1992), 225-227.
557
DNWSI 35.
558
DUL 36. Some lexicographers (cf. DUL 36) contend that Ugaritic ˀaḫ is a word meaning “shore” that
is cognate with Akkadian aḫu (CAD A/1 205-210; AHw 21-22). This is possible, because unlike Hebrew ‫ָ֫אחוּ‬
and Old Aramaic ‫אחו‬, Ugaritic ˀaḫ has no final w that conclusively rules out an Akkadian loan. Despite
contextual parallels used to establish the meaning “shore” (cf. William F. Albright, Archaeology and the
Religion of Israel [5th ed.; Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University, 1968], 195), Akkadian aḫu primarily
124
This word’s meaning in Ugaritic and Old Aramaic is fairly general, but its usage
in the Hebrew Bible—particularly Gen 41:2, 18—specifically points to an Egyptian loan.
Lamdin and Muchiki559 suggest this word is a loan from Egyptian ȝḫy, ȝḫ, which is
attested beginning with the New Kingdom and means “grass, reed.”560 As Muchiki and
Lambdin note, the retention of the final waw in the Hebrew and Aramaic forms
indicates an early borrowing into Northwest Semitic when the Egyptian masculine
plural case ending -w was still pronounced;561 the final w simultaneously excludes a loan
from Akkadian.562
The evidence does not permit identification with a particular plant species. This
word took on a general meaning in some of the Semitic languages (Ugaritic and Old
Aramaic), but its Egyptian origin indicates that it originally denoted an Egyptian
marshplant, perhaps a species within the genus Juncus.563 The Hebrew Bible preserves
this original meaning; in this regard, its usage in Gen 41:2, 18 with reference to reeds
growing along the Nile is consistent with the Egyptian coloring of the Joseph cycle.564
means “side,” “shore” being a semantic extension of this basic definition. A grassland or marshland,
moreover, seems a more appropriate place to hunt than the shoreline.
559
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 165, 238, 280-281; Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words
in the Old Testament,” 146. Muchiki alleges that the Egyptian origin of ‫ ָ֫אחוּ‬demonstrates correspondence
between Hebrew ‫ א‬and Egyptian ȝ. On this alleged correspondence, see the Egyptian “Consonant
560
GHwÄ 13; WÄS 1:18; Wilhelm Spiegelberg, “Die Gruppe ’ȝḫ(j),” Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie
et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 24 (1902): 180-182. Egyptian ȝḫ(y) originated from the verb wȝḫy,
“to be flooded, be green” (ÄW 1:305; 2:602; GHwÄ 188; WÄS 1:258-259), which is not surprising since the
annual inundation of the Nile was an important water source for Egypt’s vegetation.
561
Testament,” 146.
562
Contra Giovanni Mazzini, “The Function of the Term ˀāḥû in Genesis XLI 2, 18,” SEL 21 (2004): 84.
Hebrew ‫ ָ֫אחוּ‬was transliterated by the Septuagint as ἄχει, in turn the source of Coptic Sⲁϩⲣ, Sⲁϩⲣⲉ, Bⲁϧⲓ
and Bⲁⲭⲓ (LSJ 295; GELS 109; Crum 25; CED 17).
563
Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants, 71.
564
Mazzini, “Function of the Term ˀāḥû,” 83-87.
125
‫א ְל ֻמגִּ ים‬, ִ ‫( ַא ְל‬Heb.), ˀalmg (Ug.) “a type of wood”
ַ ‫גּוּמּים‬
(1 Kgs 10:11-12; 2 Chron 2:7; 9:10-11; KTU 4.91:8)
CW
Sum. ELAMMAKUM; Akk. elammaku, elammaggu; JA ‫ַא ְלמוּגַּ יָּ א‬
The word ‫א ְל ֻמגִּ ים‬,

ַ which refers to an unknown species of wood, occurs several
times in the Hebrew Bible within the context of Hiram’s provision of materials for
Solomon’s building activities.565 It is spelled as ‫ ַא ְל ֻמגִּ ים‬in 1 Kgs 10:11-12, but in 2 Chron
2:7; 9:10-11 it has undergone metathesis and occurs as ‫גּוּמּים‬ ַ According to 2 Chron 2:7
ִ ‫א ְל‬.
ִ ‫“( ְבּ‬juniper”).566
this wood comes from the Levant along with ‫“( ֲא ָרזִ ים‬cedar”) and ‫רוֹשׁים‬
Ugaritic ˀalgm is mentioned only once along with the wood tˀišr (perhaps “cypress” or
“boxwood”) and other items of trade (KTU 4.91:8).567
This word also appears in Akkadian as elammakku beginning with the Old
Babylonian period.568 Tušratta gives this wood as a gift in the Amarna letters (EA 22 iv:6,
34; 25 iv:30, 63-64) and it is utilized for furniture at Nuzi, where it is spelled elammaḫḫi
(e.g., SMN 1428:8, 15).569 As noted above, 2 Chron 2:7 associates this wood with northern
Syria; similarly, Yaḫdun-lim is said to have obtained this wood from northern Syria in
565
HALOT 57-58. The ancient versions understood ‫ ַא ְל ֻמגִּ ים‬as a type of wood: the Septuagint reads ξύλα
ἀπελέκητα (“unhewn timber”) in 1 Kgs 10:11-12 and πεύκινα or ξύλα πεύκινα (“pine”) in 2 Chron 2:7;
9:10-11, the Peshitta has qysˀ dqswtˀ (“precious wood”) as well as ˀškrˀ (“boxtree”) 2 Chron 2:7; 9:10, and
the Targum reads ‫ אלמוגיא‬in 1 Kgs 10:11-12; 2 Chron 9:10-11 and ‫ אלגומיא‬in 2 Chron 2:7. Köhler and
Baumgartner propose that the mention of ‫ ַא ְרגָּ ָמן‬in Song 3:10 is an error for ‫( ַא ְל ֻמגִּ ים‬HALOT 57), but many
commentators interpret the text without emendation; see Othmar Keel, The Song of Songs: A Continental
Commentary (trans. Frederick J. Gaiser; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 130; Roland E. Murphy, The
Song of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or the Song of Songs (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1990), 149; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7C;
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977), 444.
566
First Kings 10:11 states that this wood came from Ophir, but this description is not present in the
parallel account of 2 Chron 9:10-11 or the Septuagint. Accordingly, many commentators agree that the
second ‫אוֹפיר‬
ִ ‫ ֵמ‬is a dittographic error and should be omitted; see Cogan, 1 Kings, 313; John Gray, I and II
Kings: A Commentary (2d ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 258.
567
DUL 57.
568
CAD 75-76; AHw 196. Sumerian ELAMMAKUM (PSD) is a loan from Akkadian.
569
Ernest René Lacheman, “Nuziana II,” RA 36 (1939): 147.
126
his Foundation Inscription (col. ii, line 17).570 All these observations indicate that this
ancient culture word originated from northern Syria.571
Although its identity is uncertain, it is clear that—like other timber from
Anatolia and northern Syria—this wood was considered precious in antiquity: the
biblical evidence notes its worth for constructing Solomon’s temple, and Akkadian
texts likewise point to its particular value as timber.572
‫( ְבּ ֫ד ֹ ַלח‬Heb.), ‫( בדלח‬Phoen.) “bdellium”
(Gen 2:12; Num 11:7; KAI 280:1)
Havilite → Akk., WSem. (Heb., JA); Gk., Lat.
Akk. budulḫu, bidurḫu, buddarḫu; JA ‫ ;בדלח‬Gk. βδέλλιον, βδολχόν, βδέλλα, μάλδεκον; Lat.
bdellium, maldacon
Hebrew ‫ ְבּ ֫ד ֹ ַלח‬occurs 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).573 Cassuto and others suggest that ‫ ְבּ ֫ד ֹ ַלח‬refers to a precious stone, following
the Septuagint and this term’s mention along with ‫“( זָ ָהב‬gold”) and ‫“( ֶא ֶבן ַהשּׁ ַֹהם‬onyx
stone”) in Gen 2:12.574 However, ‫ בדלח‬is mentioned along with ‫“( מר‬myrrh”) in a sixth-
570
Georges Dossin, “L’inscription de fondation de Iaḫdun-Lim, roi de Mari,” Syria 32 (1955): 14.
571
The traditional rendering “sandalwood,” based on a hypothetical etymology from Sanskrit valguka
(KEWA 3:165), cannot be correct. Sanskrit valguka only occurs with the meaning “sandalwood” in a very
late lexicon, the Śabdakalpadruma. The typical word for “sandalwood” in Sanskrit is candana (KEWA
1:373; CDIAL 252), and aside from the Śabdakalpadruma there is no evidence for valguka ever having the
meaning “sandalwood”; Sanskrit valguka was given this rare meaning by a lexicographer. See Jonas C.
Greenfield and Manfred Mayrhofer, “The ˀalgummīm/ˀalmuggīm-Problem Reexamined,” in Hebräische
Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner (eds. Benedikt Hartmann, et al.; VTSup
16; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 83-89.
572
HALOT 57-58; CAD E 75-76; AHw 196; Postgate, “Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts,” 182.
573
HALOT 110. The Septuagint renders ‫ ְבּ ֫ד ֹ ַלח‬as ἄνθραξ (“dark red stone”) in Gen 2:12 and κρύσταλλος
(“rock crystal) in Num 11:7. On the other hand, the Vulgate reads bdellium, and the Peshitta and Targum
merely give the Aramaic form of this word.
574
E.g., Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (trans. Israel Abrahams; 2 vols.;
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961-1964), 1:120. The Septuagint’s understanding found its way into later
Jewish interpretation: Saˁadiah Gaon, Jonah Ibn Janaḥ, and Ibn Ezra claim that ‫ ְבּ ֫ד ֹ ַלח‬denotes pearls, and
127
fifth century BCE Phoenician text (KAI 280:1), making the meaning “bdellium” (an
aromatic gum resin) much more likely.575 Moreover, related terms in Semitic (Akkadian
budulḫu, bidurḫu, buddarḫu and Jewish Aramaic ‫ )בדלח‬as well as Indo-European (Greek
βδέλλιον, βδολχόν, βδέλλα, μάλδεκον and Latin bdellium, maldacon) demonstrate that it
refers to bdellium, not a precious stone.576
In light of its non-Semitic morphology, ‫ ְבּ ֫ד ֹ ַלח‬is most certainly a foreign loan. It
must be derived from a local “Haviliate” term for gum resin given its association with
Havilah, a region in southwestern Arabia or northeastern Africa,577 in Gen 2:11-12.578 It
is possible that Northwest Semitic directly loaned this term to Greek and Latin,579 but
the numerous variant forms in the latter suggest a loan from the region of Havilah
rather than Northwest Semitic.
Bdellium is an aromatic gum or resin derived from flowering plants of the genus
Commiphora. It was not always distinguished from myrrh in antquity but most often
denotes gum-resins of Commiphora more strongly scented than ordinary myrrh.580 The
Egyptians are known to have obtained Commiphora from Africa, particularly Punt, as
well as Arabia.581 Dioscorides similarly says that bdellium comes from the sap of an
Rashi comments that ‫ ְבּ ֫ד ֹ ַלח‬designates a precious stone in Num 11:7.

575
DNWSI 145; Wolfgang Röllig, “Eine neue phönizische Inschrift aus Byblos,” in Neue Ephemeris für
Semitische Epigraphik (3 vols.; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972-1978), 2:4.
576
CAD 305-306; AHw 136; DJPA 85; Jastrow 139; LSJ 312, 1077; OLD 227, 1066.
577
Walter W. Müller, “Havilah (Place),” ABD 3:82.
578
Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 47. Frequent attempts to connect Hebrew ‫ ְבּ ֫ד ֹ ַלח‬with
Sanskrit are pure speculation. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 95) posit a connection with Sanskrit
udūkhala, which more often occurs in the form ulū́khala (KEWA 1:111; CDIAL 110-111; SEDEPA 186, 218).
However, this Sanskrit word typically means “mortar” and refers to bdellium only in lexical texts. Feliks
and Löw propose a derivation from Sanskrit madālaka (Feliks, ‫עצי בשמים יער ונוי‬, 33; Immanuel Löw, Die
Flora der Juden [4 vols.; Veröffentlichungen der Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation 2-4, 6; Leipzig: R.
Löwit, 1924-1934], 1:304). However, the word madālaka is not even attested in Sanskrit, and the word with
which Sanskrit madālaka is allegedly connected, madāra, means “thorn-apple” and is attested only in
Sanskrit lexical texts (KEWA 2:568-569).
579
EDG 208; DELG 163; LEW 1:99.
580
Nigel St. J. Groom, Frankincense and Myrrh: A Study of the Arabian Incense Trade (Arab Background
Series; London: Longman, 1981), 123-124.
581
Margaret Serpico and Raymond White, “Resins, Amber and Bitumen,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials
and Technology (eds. Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 439-
442.
128
Arabian tree (Mat. med. 1.67).582 These ancient sources for bdellium are precisely within
the region of ancient Havilah. Classical authors relate bdellium’s usage for incense and
perfumes as well as medicinal purposes;583 the ancient Egyptians also utilized it for
embalmbing and mumification.584
‫“ ְבּרוֹשׁ‬a type of juniper”
(1 Kgs 5:22, 24; passim)
CW
Ebla. barāsum; Akk. burāšu; JA ‫ברת‬, ‫ברות‬, ‫בּ ָר ָתא‬,ְ ‫ ;בראתא‬Syr. brōtā; Gk. βράθυ, βόρατον;
Lat. bratus
Hebrew ‫ ְבּרוֹשׁ‬occurs a number of times, most frequently referring to juniper
timber imported from Lebanon.585 The form ‫בּרוֹת‬,ְ with a final dental rather than a
sibilant, occurs in Song 1:17. Outside biblical Hebrew, this word is found as Eblaite
barāsum, Akkadian burāšu, JA ‫ברת‬, ‫ברות‬, ‫בּ ָר ָתא‬,ְ ‫בראתא‬, Syriac brōtā, Greek βράθυ,
βόρατον,586 and Latin bratus as well as iuniperus.587
Biblical Hebrew’s portrayal of ‫ ְבּרוֹשׁ‬as a non-native, imported commodity
indicates a foreign loan. Akkadian texts similarly use the word burāšu to denote a non-
582
Other classical authors attribute it to other regions, such as Bactria (Pliny, Nat. 12.19) or western
India (Peripl. M. Rubr. 37, 39, 48-49).
583
Paul Faure, Parfumes et aromates de l’antiquité (Nouvelles études historiques; Paris: Fayard, 1987),
71-73.
584
Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 322-323.
585
1 Kgs 5:22, 24; 6:15, 34; 9:11; 2 Kgs 19:23; 2 Chron 2:7; 3:5; Ps 104:17; Isa 14:8; 37:24; 41:19; 55:13;
60:13; Ezek 27:5; 31:8; Hos 14:9; Nah 2:4; Zech 11:2. This term occurs as ‫בּרוֹת‬,ְ with a final dental rather
than sibilant, in Song 1:17. The occurrence of ‫ ְבּרוֹשׁ‬in 2 Sam 6:5 should probably be emended to ‫וּב ִשׁ ִירים‬ ְ in
accordance with its parallel in 1 Chron 13:8 and the Septuagint; see P. Kyle. Jr. McCarter, II Samuel: A New
Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB 9; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984), 164.
586
Dioscorides equates βόρατον with βράθυ in his discussion of this tree (Mat. med. 1.76).
587
Pettinato, Testi lessicali bilingui della biblioteca L. 2769, 241 (#374); Krebernik, “Lexikalischen Texte
aus Ebla: Teil 2 (Glossar),” 14; CAD B 326-327; AHw 139; DJPA 112; DJBA 250; SyrLex 187; LSJ 328, 322; OLD 241,
983.
129
native tree found in the Amanus region of southern Turkey (e.g., IM 55644 iv:18)588 and
Urartu (e.g., TCL 3 iii:280).589 Accordingly, this ancient culture word meaning “juniper,”
which is perhaps originally a Pre-Hellenic word,590 must have originated in one of these
northern regions where this tree was found.591
The juniper is a coniferous tree with purple-colored berry fruit and a strong
fragrance stemming from the tree’s resin.592 Available species include Juniperus excels,
Juniperus phoenicea, and Juniperus drupacea, which are primarily found in the
Mediterranean region as well as high-altitude areas throughout the northern part of
the ancient Near East such as modern Turkey and Iran.593 The ancients most commonly
used juniper for timber in antiquity: Akkadian texts describe its usage for columns, roof
construction, and interior work,594 and its value for construction is reflected in its usage
for building Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 5:22, 24; 6:15, 34; 9:11; Chron 2:7; 3:5).
588
Ernst Michel, “Die Assur-Texte Salmanassars III. (858-824): 6. Fortsetzung,” WO 2 (1954-1959): 40.
589
Thureau-Dangin, Huitième campagne de Sargon, 44-45.
590
EDG 234-235.
591
Mankowski tries to derive Akkadian burāšu from Northwest Semitic and Eblaite barāsum from
Akkadian (Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 48-49), but this culture word’s wide
distribution and varying forms make such a loan hypothesis speculative.
592
Robert P. Adams, Junipers of the World: The Genus Juniperus (Vancouver, B.C.: Trafford Publishing,
2004), 1-8.
593
Adams, Junipers of the World, 105, 108, 146-147; Rowena Gale and David Frederick Cutler, Plants in
Archaeology: Identification Manual of Vegetative Plant Materials Used in Europe and the Southern Mediterranean to
c. 1500 (Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens, 2000), 382; Fritz Hans Schweingruber, Anatomie europäischer Hölzer: ein
Atlas zur Bestimmung europäischer Baum-, Strauch-, und Zwergstrauchhölzer (Bern: Verlag Paul Haupt, 1990),
140-143; Russell Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1982), 47.
594
CAD B 327; Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, -355-358; Meiggs, Trees and Timber
in the Ancient Mediterranean World, 417-420.
130
‫“ ֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬reed, rush”
(Exod 2:3; Job 8:11; Isa 18:2; 35:7)
Eg. → Heb., IA, Eth.
IA ‫ ;גמא‬Eth. gōmˁē; Eg. qmȝ, qm, gmy
The word ‫ ֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬, “reed, rush,” occurs only four times in biblical Hebrew. In all but
one of these four occurrences (Isa 35:7), it occurs within an Egyptian context: Exod 2:3
mentions it with reference to the basket of Egyptian reeds in which Moses was placed;
it is parallel with the Egyptian loan ‫“( ָ֫אחוּ‬rush, reed”) in Job 8:11; lastly, Isa 18:12 notes
its usage in making Egyptian boats.595 Although it does not occur elsewhere in Hebrew
prior to the time of the exile, this term does appear later in the Aramaic Elephantine
papyri.596
The clear connection of Hebrew ‫ ֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬with Egypt points to an Egyptian loan.597
Lambdin and Ellenbogen598 suggest qmȝ, “rush, reed” (attested beginning with the
Twenty-First Dynasty)599 as the Egyptian donor word. This word came to have the form
gmy during the New Kingdom.600 Notably, Egyptian texts describe the use of qmȝ to
make mats as well as baskets,601 which is congruent with the usage of this reed to make
a basket for the baby Moses in Exod 2:3.
595
HALOT 196. The ancient versions all translate this term in accordance with the meaning “reed,
rush,” except for the Septuagint of Exod 2:3, which leaves Hebrew ‫ ֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬untranslated and merely
transliterates the accompanying word ‫ ֵתּ ָבה‬as θῖβιν.
596
DNWSI 225.
597
This rules out any derivation from the root ‫גמא‬, “to swallow” (HALOT 196), contra BDB 167.
598
Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 149; Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old
Testament, 56. For discussion of the final ‫ א‬of ‫ ֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬, see the Egyptian “Consonant Correspondences” section
in the conclusions chapter.
599
GHwÄ 925; WÄS 5:37. The Demotic and Coptic forms of this word are qm and ⲕⲁⲙ, respectively (DG
537; Crum 108; CED 57).
600
GHwÄ 970; WÄS 5:170. Muchiki (Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 241-242) argues that
Hebrew ‫ ֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬was borrowed from gmy rather than qmȝ.
601
WÄS 5:37.
131
‫“ גּ ֶֹפר‬cypress (?)”
(Gen 6:14)
Pre-Hellenic → Heb.; Gk., Lat.
Gk. κυπάρισσος; Lat. cupressus
The hapax ‫ גּ ֶֹפר‬occurs in Genesis 6:14, which describes God’s command to Noah
to make an ark out of ‫ע ֵצי־ג ֶֹפר‬.

ֲ It is clear from the usage of ‫“( ֵעץ‬tree, wood”) that ‫גּ ֶֹפר‬
refers to a type of wood, but its identification is uncertain.602 The ancient versions vary
in their understanding of this term. The Septuagint (ξύλων τετραγώνων) and Vulgate
(lignis laevigatis) take it as a reference to the way the wood was worked; on the other
hand, the Peshitta translates it as ˁrqˀ, “box-wood,” and Targum Onqelos (‫)ק ְקרוֹס‬
ַ and
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (‫)ק ְדרוֹם‬

ַ take it as denoting cedar.
The seventeenth century French biblical scholar Samuel Bochart603 long ago
postulated a connection between Hebrew ‫ גּ ֶֹפר‬and Greek κυπάρισσος and Latin
cupressus, “cypress.”604 The ending -ισσος/-essus of the Greek and Latin forms reflects a
pre-Hellenic term,605 also the probable source of Hebrew ‫גּ ֶֹפר‬.606 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 similarly notes that cypress was used to
construct warships (De re militari 4.34).
602
HALOT 200.
603
Samuel Bochart, Geographia sacra, cujus pars prior Phaleg de dispersione gentium et terrarum divisione
facta in aedificatione turris Babel; pars posterior Chanaan de coloniis et sermone Phœnicum agit; cum tabulis
chorographicis et indice sextuplici (Frankfurt am Main: Impensis Johannis Davidis Zunneri, 1681), 25.
604
LSJ 1011; OLD 473.
605
EDG 803-804; DELL 159; LEW 1:313.
606
EDG 803-804; Edzard J. Furnée, Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen, mit
einem Appendix über den Vokalismus (Janua Linguarum Series Practica 150; The Hague: Mouton, 1972), 159-
160. Murphy (C.C.R. Murphy, “What Is Gopher Wood?” Asiatic Review 42 [1946]: 79-81) compares Hebrew
‫ גּ ֶֹפר‬with Akkadian gibarû, gibarbarrû, “reed,” in turn a loan from Sumerian (CAD G 64; AHw 287). However,
Akkadian gibarû is only attested in lexical lists, an unlikely source of Hebrew ‫גּ ֶֹפר‬.
132
dǵṯ “incense-resin”
(KTU 1.19 iv:23-24, 30-31; 1.23:15)
Hitt. → Ug.
Hitt. tuḫḫuessar
The word dǵt occurs several times within cultic contexts in Ugaritic literature.607
It appears in the ˀAqhat legend, where it denotes a substance that Daniˀilu offers up to
the gods as part of the mourning process for his son. It is qualified by the gentilic
Hrnmy, “Harnamite” (KTU 1.19 iv:24, 31), but is mentioned again without any adjectives
in the cola directly preceding (KTU 1.19 iv:23, 30). It also appears once in the “Birth of
the Goodly Gods,” where the text’s cultic instructions require the usage of the
substance dǵṯ over a cauldron (KTU 1.23:15).
Hoffner posits that Ugaritic dǵṯ is Hittite in origin.608 The donor term is Hittite
tuḫḫueššar, a resin used for incense.609 Related terms in Hittite include the verb tuḫḫai
(“to gasp, wheeze”) and the noun tuḫḫiyatt (“gasping, wheezing”).610 These Hittite terms
are, in turn, based on the productive Indo-European root *dhueH.611 Derivatives of this
root include Sansrkit dhūmá (“smoke”), Latin fumus (“smoke”), and a number of Greek
words, such as θυμιάω (“to make smoke”) and θύω (“to make an offering, make an
incense offering”) as well as the noun θύος (“burnt offering, fragrant offering”).612
Notably, Greek frequently connects these terms with sacrifice and other cultic actions
just as is done in the Ugaritic literature.
607
DUL 268.
608
Hoffner, “Anatolian Cult Term in Ugaritic,” 64-68.
609
HHw 202. The final –r of abstracts ending in –eššar and –atar is often omitted in writing and was
probably also sometimes omitted in speech. Hittite tuḫḫueššar is more likely to be the donor form of
Ugaritic dǵṯ than Hittite tuḫḫuwai, tuḫḫui, “smoke” (HHw 202) because one would not expect borrowing of
the nominative form tuḫḫuiš. See Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., “Hittite Tarpiš and Hebrew Terāphîm,” JNES 27
(1968): 66.
610
HHw 201.
611
LIV 149-150; IEW 1:261-267.
612
KEWA 2:109; CDIAL 392; LSJ 809, 811, 813; OLD 745. Linear B tu-wo is an earlier form of Greek θύος
(DM 2:382).
133
dprn “a type of juniper”
(KTU 1.72:28; 4.158:20; 4.175:9; 4.244:13)
Hurr. ⇒
⇒ Akk. → Sum.; WSem. (Ug., Syr.)
⇒ Hitt.
Sum. DUBRAN; Akk. duprānu, daprānu, daparānu; Syr. daprānā; Hitt. tabri; Hurr. tabri
Ugaritic dprn, “juniper,” 613 occurs in a poorly-preserved portion of the Ugaritic
hippiatric texts, where it is listed as a remedy for when a horse roars (KTU 1.72:28).
Outside of the hippiatric texts, this word appears three times. The product dprn is listed
alongside of other commodities in KTU 4.158:20.614 Elsewhere, dprn appears as the

component of a toponym: Gt Dprnm (“Estate of the Junipers”) occurs in KTU 4.175:9 and
Zl Dprn (“Shade of the Junipers) occurs in KTU 4.244:13.
Semitic cognates include Akkadian duprānu, daprānu, daparānu and Syriac
daprānā.615 This word also exists in non-Semitic. Sumerian DUBRAN616 is most probably a
loan from Akkadian;617 Hurrian tabri618 appears in Hurro-Hittite texts with reference to
cedar (e.g., KUB 32.26 iii:10; KBo 20.129 iii:7) as well as pieces of furniture made from
the same wood (e.g., KUB 25.48 iii:9), and the form tuprānu is attested in the texts from
Nuzi (e.g., SMN 484:6).619 The species of juniper that this word denotes is different than
613
DUL 277.
614
Another important product from the hippiatric texts, ˁrgz (“a type of plant”), is mentioned within
this same context (KTU 4.158:22).
615
CAD D 189-190; AHw 162; SyrLex 316. This word also occurs in Qumran Aramaic as ‫( דפרנא‬4QLevif ar
5-6 i:4) and in the late Jewish Aramaic version of this same text (CTLevi ar Bodleian c 16).
616
PSD.
617
Jay D. Falk, “The Plants of Mari and Ugarit with Special Reference to the Hebrew Bible” (Ph.D.
diss., Dropsie College, 1966), 34; R. Campbell Thompson, A Dictionary of Assyrian Botany (London: British
Academy, 1949), 279.
618
LKI 344; GLH 247; HHw 188.
619
Robert H. Pfeiffer and Ernest René Lacheman, Miscellaneous Texts from Nuzi: Part I (vol. 4 of
Excavations at Nuzi Conducted by the Semitic Museum and the Fogg Art Museum of Harvard University, with the
Cooperation of the American School of Oriental Research at Bagdad; 8 vols.; Harvard Semitic Series 13;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1942), 93.
134
(although very similar to) the species denoted by Hebrew ‫ ְבּרוֹשׁ‬and Akkadian burāšu
because the latter and duprānu are mentioned together but as different trees in several
Akkadian texts.620
Despite its prevelance in Semitic, this word does not seem to be native and is a
foreign loan. A letter from the king of Carchemish to the king of Ugarit requests that
timber of this type be sent to him, indicating that it grew in northern Syria (RS
17.385:10). Akkadian texts from the first millennium likewise utilize the term daprānu
to denote a species of juniper native to the Amanus region of southeastern Turkey and
northern Syria (e.g., RIMA 2.A.0.101.1 iii:89; 2.A.0.101.50:27).621 Thus, the tree denoted by
this term must have been native to the north,622 and this word must have been
borrowed from the same region. Accordingly, Haas and Wilhelm plausibly derive this
word from Hurrian.623 The addition of the final –n is presumably an Akkadian
development, through which it entered the Sumerian as well as West Semitic forms.624
620
Postgate, “Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts,” 181.
621
Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I, 219, 320.
622
Postgate, “Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts,” 181; Falk, “Plants of Mari and Ugarit,” 34-36.
623
Volkert Haas and Gernot Wilhelm, “Zum hurritschen Lexikon II,” Or 43 (1974): 89.
624
The ending –ānu found in the Akkadian forms could be the Akkadian ending –ānu, commonly
suffixed to plant terms, or an “Akkadianization” of the Hurrian deictic suffix –anni. See Haas and
Wilhelm, “Hurritschen Lexikon II,” 89.
135
‫( ָה ְבנִ ים‬Heb.), hbn (Ug.) “Egyptian ebony, African blackwood”
(Ezek 27:15; KTU 4.402:6)
Eg. ⇒
⇒ WSem. (Ug., Heb.)
⇒ Gk., Lat. → Pahl. → Syr., Arab., Eth.
Syr. ˀabnūsā;625 Arab. ˀabnūs; Eth. ˀabnus; Eg. hbny, hbn; Gk. ἔβενος; Lat. hebenus, ebenus;
Pahl. abnūs
Hebrew ‫ ָה ְבנִ ים‬occurs only once with reference to a traded commodity (Ezek
27:15).626 Its plural form and atypical vocalization pattern627 point to a foreign loan, as
does its mention amidst imported items. Ugaritic hbn also occurs only once in line 6 of
KTU 4.402:6, a list of luxury goods including wood, foodstuffs, and other items.628
As argued by Muchiki, Ellenbogen, and Lambdin,629 Hebrew ‫ ָה ְבנִ ים‬and Ugaritic
hbn are loans from Egyptian hbny, hbn, “ebony,” which occurs as early as the Old
Kingdom.630 The u-class vowel of Hebrew ‫ ָה ְבנִ ים‬permits the reconstruction *hubney for
this word in Egyptian and indicates (along with its attestation in Late Bronze Age
Ugaritic) that this word was borrowed into Hebrew prior to ca. 1200 BCE, when u
became e in closed accented syllables.631 The usage of an i-class vowel in Greek ἔβενος632
625
The precise vocalization of this term in Syriac is uncertain.
626
HALOT 237. With the exception of the Vulgate, which reads ebenus, the ancient versions have
mistranslated this term: the Septuagint has τοῖς εἰσαγομένοις (“to those who come”), the Peshitta reads
lbwntˀ (“frankincense”), and the Targum has ‫“( טוסין‬peacocks”).
627
Cf. Bauer and Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes, 571
(§72u).
628
DUL 333.
629
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 243, 281-282; Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old
Testament, 63; Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 149.
630
ÄW 1:748; 2:1562; GHwÄ 523; WÄS 2:487. Egyptian texts imply that this term is not native to
Egyptian, noting 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. In light of this association, Egyptian hbny, hbn is most probably a loan from a language such as
Nubian.
631
Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 149.
632
LSJ 466-467.
136
and Latin hebenus, ebenus633 indicates that Indo-European borrowed this word directly
from Egyptian after the shift of u to e.634 Pahlavi borrowed this term from Greek and
subsequently loaned it to Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic.635
Ebony in ancient Egypt was a different species than modern ebony (Diospyros
ebenum, native to East Asia, and Diospyros 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.636 Egyptian ebony was a luxury item that was
primarily used for furniture in antiquity. Small ebony objects such as tables have been
discovered in Egyptian tombs from the First Dynasty. During the New Kingdom, this
wood was utilized for figurines (including shabti figurines), statuettes, and door
paneling in addition to furniture.637 The Late Bronze Age was characterized by

widespread trading of ebony obtained from Africa.638 Ebony continued to be in great
demand during the first millennium, and it was a frequent item of tribute from
conquered lands. Ebony was commonly used along with ivory (cf. Ezek 27:15) as veneer
and inlay for the ornamentation of furniture, boxes, and other objects.639
633
OLD 788.
634
Fournet, “Emprunts du grec à l’égyptien,” 59; contra EDG 368; DELG 294-295; DELL 190; LEW 1:387.
635
SyrLex 4-5; Lane 10; CDG 4; CPD 4.
636
Rowena Gale et al., “Wood,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (eds. Paul T. Nicholson and
Ian Shaw; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 338; Hepper, “Transference of Ancient Plant
Names,” 129-130. The referent “ebony” was only later transferred to the species Diospyros ebenum and
Diospyros dendo, there being no evidence for these latter species’ presence in ancient Egypt.
637
Gale et al., “Wood,” 338-339; Christian de Vartavan, Codex of Ancient Egyptian Plant Remains (Triade
Exploration’s Opus Magum Series in the Field of Egyptology 1; London: Triade Exploration, 1997), 103;
Renate Germer, Flora des pharaonischen Ägypten (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo 14;
Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern, 1985), 97-98; Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 434-435.
638
Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 352-353; Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the
Ancient Mediterranean World, 282-284; Cemal M. Pulak, “The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview,”
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27 (1998): 203. For example, logs of African black wood were
present on the Ulu Burun ship; Amenhotep III sent ebony beds, footstools, and chairs to the kings of
Babylonia and Arazwa (EA 5:20-25, 28-30; 31:36-37); and the Mycenaean Pylos tablets record ebony
furniture inlaid with ivory as part of the palace inventory (PY Ta 707:1-3; 708:1-3; 713:3; 715:1).
639
Gale et al., “Wood,” 339; Germer, Flora des pharaonischen Ägypten, 97-98; Meiggs, Trees and Timber in
the Ancient Mediterranean World, 284-285; Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 435-436.
137
ḥḏrt “lettuce”
(KTU 1.71:12; 1.72:19; 1.85:14, 27)
Sum. → Akk. → WSem. (Ug., MHeb.)
Sum. ḪIZsar; MHeb. ‫ֲחזֶ ֶרת‬
Ugaritic ḥḏrt occurs four times in the Ugaritic hippiatric texts (KTU 1.71:12;
1.72:19; 1.85:14, 27).640 In each of these instances, ḥḏrt is preceded by the word pr,
“fruit.” From these occurrences it is clear that Ugaritic ḥḏrt refers to a botanical
ingredient utilized in hippiatric pharmacopeia.
Ugaritic ḥḏrt reflects an ancient word meaning “lettuce.”641 The only other
attested Semitic form is the much later rabbinic Hebrew ‫חזֶ ֶרת‬.ֲ 642 It ultimately goes back
to Sumerian ḪIZsar, composed of the element ḪIZ (connected with Akkadian ḫassu,643 an
ancient culture word)644 and the post-determinative SAR, used with plants.645 Early West
Semitic borrowed Sumerian ḪIZ (probably via Akkadian) along with its post-
determinative as ḥḏrt, considering it a feminine noun. Notably, the Talmud associates
‫ ֲחזֶ ֶרת‬and ‫ח ָסא‬,ָ 646 the Aramaic form of Akkadian ḫassu (b. Pesaḥ. 39a).
One might object that ḥḏrt cannot mean “lettuce” because lettuce does not have
fruit, but pr occurs elsewhere in the Ugaritic hippiatric texts as a term that precedes
remedy components without any clear connection with fruit (e.g., KTU 1.85:24, 26;
1.97:12). Such a usage is parallel to the usage of Akkadian inbu, “fruit,” which often
640
DUL 357.
641
Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee, A Manual of Ugaritic (Linguistic Studies in Ancient West
Semitic 3; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 225, 315; Chaim Cohen and Daniel Sivan, The Ugaritic
Hippiatric Texts: A Critical Edition (American Oriental Series Essays 8; New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental
Society, 1983), 28-29; Falk, “Plants of Mari and Ugarit,” 178-179. Sanmartín’s contention (Sanmartín,
“Textos hipiátrocos de Ugarit y el discurso del método,” 234) that Ugaritic ḥḏrt is derived from Hurrian
ḫenzūru, ḫinzūru, “apple” (LKI 158-159; GLH 106-107; CAD Ḫ 170; AHw 347) is problematic semantically.
642
Jastrow 447.
643
CAD Ḫ 128; AHw 331.
644
See the entry for Ugaritic ḫswn, ḫśwn.
645
PSD.
646
Jastrow 485-486.
138
precedes remedy components in Akkadian medical texts as well as drug and plant
lists.647
ḫndrṯ “Ḫundurashite plant”
(KTU 1.71:7; 1.72:9; 1.85:7; 4.34:5-6)
Ḫundurashite → Ug.
Ugaritic ḫndrṯ occurs only a few times. It primarily occurs in the Ugaritic
hippiatric texts, where along with ṯqd mr (“bitter almond”) it is prescribed as a part of a
remedy for a sick horse (KTU 1.71:7; 1.72:9; 1.85:7). Additionally, it occurs twice within a
fragmentary list of miscellaneous items (KTU 4.34:5-6).
Pardee648 postulates a connection between Ugaritic ḫndrṯ and the toponym mê

Ḫunduraši, “the waters of Ḫunduraši” (A.MEŠ Ḫu-un-du-ra-ši), that is mentioned in a
treaty between Muršili II and Niqmepaˁ (RS 17.62+237:3). He argues that Ugaritic ḫndrṯ
refers to a plant characteristic of a marshy area or lake region in northern Syria, which
is where this toponym is located.649 This loan hypothesis is likely in light of the
observation that a good number of Ugaritic plant names in northern Syria were utilized
as toponyms.650
647
CAD I-J 145-146; Cohen, “Ugaritic Hippiatric Texts,” 129.
648
Dennis Pardee, Les textes hippiatriques (Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations 53; Paris: Éditions
Recherche sur les civilisations, 1985), 55. Haas and Thiel as well as Sanmartín (Volkert Haas and H.J.
Thiel, “Ein Beitrag zum hurritischen Wörterbuch,” UF 11 [1979]: 351; Sanmartín, “Textos hipiátrocos de
Ugarit y el discurso del método,” 232) contend that Ugaritic ḫndrṯ is a loan from Hurrian ḫenzūru, ḫinzūru,
probably meaning “apple” (LKI 158-159; GLH 106-107; CAD Ḫ 170; AHw 347). However, this is problematic
phonologically, and the Ugaritic toponym Ḫenzuriya (derived from ḫenzūru) demonstrates that this word
is spelled with z rather than d and was considered separate from the toponym Ḫunduraši. Gordon (UT 66,
403 [§§8.75; 19.976]) proposes the definition “grain” for Ugaritic ḫndrṯ and compares Greek χόνδρος,
“granule, spelt” (LSJ 1997). Hoffner, however, objects to this connection, noting dissimilarity of
pronunciation in early Greek χ and Semitic ḫ (Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., Alimenta Hethaeorum: Food Production in
Hittite Asia Minor [AOS 55; New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1974], 70).
649
W.H. van Soldt, “Studies in the Topography of Ugarit (2),” UF 29 (1997): 688-689.
650
Michael C. Astour, “Ancient North Syrian Toponyms Derived from Plant Names,” in The Bible
World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon (eds. Gary A. Rendsburg, et al.; New York: Ktav, 1980), 1-8.
139
ḫswn, ḫśwn “leafy vegetable”
(KTU 4.4:9; 4.14:3, 11; 4.60:2; 4.786:9)
CW
Sum. ḪIZsar; Akk. azannu, ḫazannu; ḫassu, ḫašânu, ḫašiānu; JA ‫חס‬, ‫ח ָסּא‬,ַ ‫ ָ;ח ָשׁא‬Syriac ḥasseṯā,
ḥašā; Arab. ḫass; Eg. ḫṯn; Hitt. ḫazzuwani
Ugaritic ḫswn occurs several times in the Ugaritic texts.651 In KTU 4.14:3, ḫswn is
mentioned amidst a number of foodstuffs, including nbt (“honey”), sbbyn (“black
cumin”), and ššmn (“sesame”); it is spelled as ḫśwn later in the same text (line 11).
Ugaritic ḫswn occurs within similar contexts in KTU 4.60:2; 4.786:9 as well as RS
94.2600:13, where it is described as ḫrb (“dried”). Lastly, it is listed amidst a variety of
textiles in KTU 4.4:9. Nearly all of these contexts indicate that Ugaritic ḫswn refers to a
foodstuff, but its exact referent is unclear.652

The alternation between s and ś indicates that this word is not native to Ugaritic
since usage of the phoneme ś in Ugaritic can be indicative of foreign loans.653 Related
Semitic and non-Semitic terms include Sumerian ḪIZsar and Akkadian ḫassu (usually
translated as “lettuce” or some type of vegetable),654 Akkadian ḫašânu, ḫašiānu (a plant
term perhaps meaning “thyme” connected with Akkadian ḫašû of the same meaning),655
Akkadian azannu, ḫazannu (usually translated as “garlic”),656 Hittite ḫazzuwani (a
vegetable foodstuff),657 and Egyptian ḫṯn (probably “lettuce” or “garlic”), attested only
in group writing from the New Kingdom (ḫi=ṯi2=na).658 The glide w that appears in the
651
DUL 411. Ugaritic Ḫswn is also used as a personal name several times (KTU 4.44.26; 4.232.32).
652
Ugaritic ḫswn is also used as a personal name several times (KTU 4.44.26; 4.232.32).
653
Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, 44-47; Segert, “Last Sign of the Ugaritic Alphabet,” 210-211.
654
PSD; CAD Ḫ 128; AHw 331. Later forms of these words include Jewish Aramaic ‫חס‬, ‫ח ָסּא‬,ַ Syriac
ḥassetā, and Arabic ḫass (DJPA 209; DJBA 474; SyrLex 480; Lane 736).
655
CAD Ḫ 138, 144-145; AHw 335. Later cognates of Akkadian ḫašû include Jewish Aramaic ‫ ָח ָשׁא‬and
Syriac ḫaššā (DJBA 485-486; SyrLex 497).
656
CAD A/2 526; CAD Ḫ 165; AHw 92, 338.
657
HHw 54.
658
GHwÄ 677; WÄS 3:354; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 253-254.
140
Ugaritic and Hittite forms is unusual,659 and the wide variety of spellings exhibited
reflects an ancient culture word denoting a leafy vegetable.660
‫( ַכּמֹּן‬Heb.), kmn (Ug.) “cumin”
(Isa 28:25, 27; KTU 4.14:9)
CW
Sum. GAMUN; Akk. kamūnu, kamannu; Phoen. ‫ ; כמן‬JA, CPA ‫כמון‬, ‫ ַ;כּמוֹנָ א‬Syr. kammūnā;
Mand. kamuna; Arab. kammūn; Eth. kemmin, kammin, kāmmin, kammun, kammen; Hitt.
kappani; Lin. A ku-mi-na; Lin. B ku-mi-no; Gk. κὺμινον; Lat. cuminum
Hebrew ‫ ַכּמֹּן‬occurs only in Isa 28:25, 27. It is parallel to ‫“( ֶק ַצח‬dill”) in both cases,
indicating that ‫ ַכּמֹּן‬refers to a spice.661 This word occurs elsewhere in Northwest Semitic
in a fourth-third centuries BCE Phoenician text (KAI 51 verso 7).662 Lastly, Ugaritic kmn
occurs in line 9 of KTU amidst foodstuffs, where it directly precedes mention of sbbyn
(“black cumin”).663 The plant denoted by these terms is probably the species Cuminum
cyminum, or cumin.664
Additional Semitic forms of this word can be found in Akkadian, various dialects
659
Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., “Hittite and Ugaritic Words for “Lettuce”,” JCS 25 (1973): 234.
660
Watson claims that Ugaritic ḫswn specifically means “garlic” or “onion” (Wilfred G.E. Watson, “A
Botanical Snapshot of Ugarit: Trees, Fruit, Plants and Herbs in the Cuneiform Texts,” AuOr 22 [2004]: 127;
cf. Walter Farber, “Altassyrisch addaḫšū und ḫazuannū, oder Safran, Fenchel, Zweibeln und Salat,” ZA 81
[1991]: 234-242; Marten Stol, “Garlic, Onion, Leek,” Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 3 [1987]: 58-59).
However, one cannot be dogmatic on the issue. The ancients were not botanical specialists, and
accordingly this ancient culture word can denote a number of similar-looking leafy vegetables rather
than one specific species. Powell contends that Sumerian ḪIZsar and Akkadian ḫassu probably mean
“lettuce” but notes that leafy vegetables or the leafy tops of other vegetables (such as garlics, leeks, and
onions) can be denoted by this term (Marvin A. Powell, “Obst und Gemüse: A. I. Mesopotamien,” RlA
10:19).
661
HALOT 481. This word occurs once in Isa 28:25 but twice in Isa 28:27. The Septuagint (κύμινον),
Vulgate (cyminum), and Targum Jonathan (‫)כמוּנָ א‬ ַ all understand Hebrew ‫ ַכּמֹּן‬as meaning “cumin.”
662
DNWSI 515.
663
DUL 446.
664
Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 88; Falk, “Plants of Mari and Ugarit,” 185-186; Harold N. Moldenke and
Alma L. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible (Waltham, Mass.: Chronica Botanica Company, 1952), 89; Löw, Flora
der Juden, 3:345-347.
141
of Aramaic (Jewish and Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Syriac, Mandaic), Arabic, and
Ethiopic.665 However, the existence of a number of non-Semitic terms point to an
ancient culture word: Sumerian GAMUN and KUMUL, Hittite kappani, Linear A ku-mi-na
and B ku-mi-no, Greek κὺμινον, and Latin cuminum.666 The species Cuminum cyminum is
not native to the ancient Near East, instead having originated in the eastern
Mediterranean region.667 This culture word term must have therefore come from the
same area.668 Via Indo-European this word is preserved in a number of modern
languages, including French (cumin), German (Kümmel), and English (cumin).669
Remains from a variety of sites, such as Tell ed-Der in Syria, attest to the
introduction and cultivation of this plant in the ancient Near East as early as the second
millennium BCE.670 Its cultivation in ancient Palestine by the Iron Age is demonstrated
by its mention as an agricultural product in Isa 28:25, 27.671 Cumin is first attested in
Egypt at Deir el-Medina during the Eighteenth Dynasty.672 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.673
665
CAD K 131-132; AHw 434; DJPA 262; DJBA 586; LSp 94; SyrLex 630; MD 197; WKAS K 365; CDG 285.
666
PSD; HHw 79; DM 1:401; LSJ 1009; OLD 470; Carlo Consani, Testi minoici trascritti con interpretazione e
glossario (Incunabula Graeca 100; Rome: Istituto per gli studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici, 1999), 278.
667
Barbara Pickersgill, “Spices,” in The Cultural History of Plants (eds. Ghillean T. Prance and Mark
Nesbitt; London: Routledge, 2005), 162; Zohary and Hopf, Domestication of Plants in the Old World, 206.
668
The element ιν of κὺμινον may specifically point to a pre-Hellenic origin; see EDG 802-803; C.J.
Ruijgh, review of Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots, Tome IV-
2: Φ-Ω et index. Lingua (1982): 209. This would be consistent with what is known of the botanical origin of
Cuminum cyminum.
669
Latin cumin is a loan from Greek (DELL 156), and the Ethiopic forms are a loan from Greek via
Arabic (CDG 285; Wolf Leslau, Arabic Loanwords in Ethiopian Semitic [Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1990],
14).
670
Zohary and Hopf, Domestication of Plants in the Old World, 206.
671
Oded Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 98.
672
Mary Anne Murray, “Fruits, Vegetables, Pulses and Condiments,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Technology (eds. Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 644; de
Vartavan, Codex of Ancient Egyptian Plant Remains, 89-90.
673
Pickersgill, “Spices,” 162; Zohary and Hopf, Domestication of Plants in the Old World, 206.
142
‫“ סוּף‬papyrus, reed”
(Exod 2:3, 5; passim)
Eg. → WSem. (Heb., JA, CPA)
JA ‫ ;סוּף‬Mand. sup; Eg. ṯwfy
Hebrew ‫ סוּף‬occurs frequently in the Hebrew Bible, primarily in the toponym ‫יַם‬
‫סוּף‬, or the “Reed Sea.”674 It occurs elsewhere with reference to the reeds along the river
bank where Moses was placed (Exod 2:3, 5) or to the rushes of the Nile (Isa 19:6). With
the exception of Jon 2:6, where ‫ סוּף‬more generally means “seaweed,” this term always
occurs within an Egyptian context in the Hebrew Bible.675

Given this usage, Hebrew ‫ סוּף‬is connected with Egyptian ṯwfy, a word meaning
“papyrus, reed” that is attested beginning with the New Kingdom.676 Similar to Hebrew
‫יַם סוּף‬, Egyptian ṯwfy occurs commonly in the collocation pȝ ṯwfy, a toponym frequently
mentioned in Egyptian texts.677
Lambdin and Erman propose that Egyptian ṯwfy is a loan from Hebrew ‫סוּף‬,678 but
674
Exod 10:19; 15:4, 22; 23:31; Num 14:25; 21:4; 31:10-11; Deut 1:40; 2:11; 11:4; Josh 2:10; 4:23; 24:6; Judg
11:16; 1 Kgs 9:26; Neh 9:9; Ps 106:7, 9, 22; 136:13, 15; Jer 49:21.
675
HALOT 747.
676
GHwÄ 1023; WÄS 5:359. In Demotic, the form of this word became ḏwf, and Coptic preserves it as
S
ϫⲟⲟⲩϥ, Bϭⲟⲙϥ, Bϭⲟⲙⲛϥ (DG 676; Crum 795; CED 322).
677
Baato and Vervenne reject an identification of Hebrew ‫ יַ ם סוּף‬and Egyptian pȝ ṯwfy; see Bernard F.
Batto, “The Reed Sea: Requiescat in Pace,” JBL 102 (1983): 27-35; Marc Vervenne, “The Lexeme ‫( סוף‬sûph)
and the Phrase ‫( ים סוף‬yam sûph): A Brief Reflection on the Etymology and Semantics of a Key Word in the
Hebrew Exodus Tradition,” in Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. Lipiński
(eds. Karel Van Lerberghe and Antoon Schoors; OLA 65; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1995), 403-429.
However, pȝ ṯwfy should probably be located in the northeastern Delta el-Ballah Lake system, which
coheres well with the location of the ‫ יַ ם סוּף‬according to the Hebrew Bible (Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in
Sinai, 85-89; Manfred Bietak, “Schilfmeer,” LÄ 5:629-634). Thus, there is no convincing reason to
disassociate these two Hebrew and Egyptian toponyms (Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 82-83).
678
Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 153; Adolf Erman, “Das Verhältniss
Aegyptischen zu den semitischen Sprachen,” ZDMG 46 (1892): 122. Ward contends that a hypothetical
Semitic root sp, “to reach, arrive at” is related to Hebrew ‫סף‬,
ַ “bowl” (HALOT 762-763), and developed
semantically into Hebrew ‫ סוּף‬as well as Egyptian ṯwfy (William A. Ward, “The Semitic Biconsonantal Root
sp and the Common Origin of Egyptian čwf and Hebrew sûp: ‘Marsh(-Plant),’” VT 24 [1974]: 343-349).
Copisarow offers a similar etymology, connecting these terms with Hebrew ‫סוֹף‬, “end” (HALOT 747)
143
this is unlikely. First, Egyptian ṯwfy is written consonantally, not syllabically, as
demonstrated by the Coptic form sϫⲟⲟⲩϥ.679 There is no indication through the use of
group writing or otherwise that this term was considered a Semitic loan by the
Egyptians.680 Second, the biblical usage of this term suggests that it is Egyptian: one
would expect a word designating Egyptian reeds or an Egyptian toponym to be
Egyptian in origin.681
This term also entered Aramaic, being found as ‫ סוּף‬in Jewish Aramaic and sup in
Mandaic.682 Arabic ṣūf, which typically means “wool,” is used in a rare Arabic lexicon to
denote reeds of the sea.683 This unusual usage of ṣūf in the expression ṣūfu al-baḥri is
probably due to influence of Coptic ϫⲟⲟⲩϥ.684
ˁrgz “a type of plant”
(KTU 1.20 i:8; 1.24:43; 1.71:5, 10; 1.72:7, 14; 1.85:5, 10; 4.158.22)
CW
Ugaritic ˁrgz appears along with the unidentified plants mǵmǵ (KTU 1.71:5;
1.72:7; 1.85:5) and qlql (KTU 1.71:10; 1.72:14; 1.85:10). It also occurs once in an economic
list, where it is mentioned along with dprn (“juniper”) in KTU 4.158:22.685 In the
(Maurice Copisarow, “The Ancient Egyptian, Greek and Hebrew Concept of the Red Sea,” VT 12 [1962]: 10-
13). However, despite the analogies of semantic evolution that Ward and Copisarow provide, their
etymologies are speculative and without any secure basis.
679
Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 153; Albright, Vocalization of the Egyptian
Syllabic Orthography, 65.
680
Contra Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 252. Notably, this word is not listed as a
Semitic loan into Egyptian by Hoch.
681
Correspondence of Hebrew ‫ ס‬and Egyptian ṯ is the norm in loans from West Semitic into Egyptian
beginning with the Middle Kingdom (Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 407-408). There is thus no
reason to reject an Egyptian origin for Hebrew ‫ סוּף‬on the basis of this correspondence, contra Muchiki,
Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 252. For additional discussion, see the Egyptian “Consonant
682
Jastrow 967; MD 323.
683
Lane 1748.
684
685
This term also occurs as a toponym in Ugaritic economic texts (KTU 4.68:41; 4.94:15; 4.302:4;
144
mythological texts, Ugaritic ˁrgz appears in the fragmentary text KTU 1.20 i:8 as well as
the Nikkal Marriage Hymn, where the Kothirāt are said to go down among the ˁrgzm
(KTU 1.24:43). Based on these few occurrences, it is not possible to precisely identify
the referent of ˁrgz, although it is clear that it denotes a type of plant.686
Pope, Dahood, and Dietrich and Loretz contend that Hebrew ‫אגוֹז‬,
ֱ “walnut,”
attested only in Song 6:11, is connected with Ugaritic ˁrgz.687 They claim that usage of
the verb ‫ ירד‬with reference to ‫ ֱאגוֹז‬in Song 6:11 provides a verbal parallel to KTU 1.24:23,
which uses the verb yrd with reference to ˁrgz. However, the usage of this verb in both
texts is hardly enough basis for associating the two terms, especially since it is such a
common verb. Additionally, there is a potential phonological problem: Hebrew ‫ֱאגוֹז‬
begins with ‫א‬, but Ugaritic ˁrgz begins with ˁ and contains an r absent in the Hebrew
form.688 It is certainly not impossible to overcome this difficulty,689 but this suggests
that ‫ ֱאגוֹז‬and ˁrgz may not be related, especially since there is no clear indication that
ˁrgz means “walnut” and since the parallels between Song 6:11 and KTU 1.24:23 are
superficial. The evidence for a connection between ‫ ֱאגוֹז‬and ˁrgz, therefore, is thin.
Hebrew ‫ ֱאגוֹז‬and later Semitic forms may be Persian loans,690 but an Iranian
4.365:36; 4.621:16; 4.684:4; 4.693:45; 4.750:2).

686
DUL 182.
687
Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, “Ug. bṣql ˁrgz und heb. b ṣqlnw (II Reg 4,42), ˀgwz,” UF 18
(1986): 118-120; Pope, Song of Songs, 574-579; Mitchell Dahood, “Ugaritic Lexicography,” in Écriture sainte,
Ancien Orient (vol. 1 of Mélanges Eugène Tisserant; 7 vols.; Studi e testi 231; Vatican City: Biblioteca
apostolica vaticana, 1964), 98; Mitchell Dahood, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography I,” Bib 44 (1963): 292.
688
Pardee, Textes hippiatriques, 54; Cohen and Sivan, Ugaritic Hippiatric Texts, 20; Stanley Gevirtz,
“Formative ‫ ע‬in Biblical Hebrew,” ‫ ספר צבי מ׳ אורלינסקי‬:‫ מחקרים בידיעת הארץ ועתיקותה‬:‫( ארץ ישראל‬eds.
Baruch A. Levine and Abraham Malamat; ErIsr 16; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982), 59*-60*.
689
It is conceivable, for example, that if the Indo-European language from which the word came still
had a laryngeal that the ˁ would appear in Ugaritic but would appear as ˀ later on. Pope, on the other
hand, explains the ˁ by comparing various plant and animal terms in Semitic that begin with ˁ and
explains the presence of the r by pointing to later nasalized forms of this word (e.g., Armenian ǝngoiz and
Ossetic ængūz), arguing that the r of Ugaritic ˁrgz reflects the n of these forms (Pope, Song of Songs, 574-
575).
690
Hebrew ‫ ֱאגוֹז‬and its related Semitic forms (Jewish Aramaic ‫גוז‬, ‫א ְמגּוֹזָ א‬,
ַ Syriac gawztā, gawzā,
Mandaic anguza, Arabic ǧawz, Ethiopic gawz [DJPA 122; DJBA 138; SyrLex 213; MD 25; Lane 485; CDG 207]) can
be compared with Pahlavi gōz, New Persian gawz, and Ossetic ængūz (CPD 37; NPED 1:568; CPED 1102; ORS
113; IESOI 1:160-161). This ancient word meaning “walnut” perhaps originates with Iranian *(a)gaza,
derived from the Iranian verb *gauz, “to hide.” This root provides a fitting description for a nut, which
145
etymology for Late Bronze Age Ugaritic is very dubious. If Ugaritic ˁrgz does refer to a
kind of nut, it must be a culture word from the homeland of that nut.691
‫“ ָע ָרה‬reed”
(Isa 19:7)
Eg. → Heb.
Eg. ˁr, ˁr.t
Hebrew ‫ע ָרה‬,
ָ a hapax legomenon, occurs in Isa 19:7 within the context of an oracle
concerning Egypt (Isa 19:1-15).692 The context indicates that this term denotes a plant
growing on the bank of the Nile, a deduction supported by the Septuagint’s translation
of “green rushes” (τὸ ἄχι τὸ χλωρὸν).693
The rarity of this word and the absence of any cognates elsewhere in Semitic
indicate that it may be a foreign loan. Hebrew ‫ ָע ָרה‬is an Egyptian loan as suggested by
the broader context (an oracle concerning Egypt) and presence of other Egyptian loans
can naturally be thought of as hidden inside its shell (Dzhoĭ Iosifovna Èdelʹman and Georgiĭ Andreevich
Klimov, “Из истории одной древнепереднеазиатской лексической изоглоссы,” Ирано-афразийские
языковые контакты [ed. Grigoriĭ Shamilevich Sharbatov; Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo Akademii nauk SSSR,
1987], 163-164; I.M. Steblin-Kamenskiĭ, Очерки по истории лексики памирских языков: названия
кулътурных растений [Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo “Nauka,” 1982], 110). An Iranian derivation is consistent
with the known origin of the walnut (Juglans regia): archaeobotanical evidence points to northeastern
Turkey, the Caucasus, and northern Iran as the earliest regions of the walnut’s domestication (Zohary
and Hopf, Domestication of Plants in the Old World, 188-189).
691
Virolleaud and del Olmo Lete (Charles Virolleaud, “Les noms de plantes dans les textes
alphabétiques-semitiques de Ras-Shamra,” Comptes rendus du Groupe linguistique d’études chamito-sémitiques
3 [1937]: 24; Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas de Canaan según la tradición de Ugarit [Fuentes de la
ciencia bíblica 1; Madrid: Ediciones Cristianidad, 1981], 604) both compare Ugaritic ˁrgz with Arabic
ˁurǧudu, “date cluster” (Lane 1997). This etymology, however, does not exhibit the expected consonant
correspondences if this word were Semitic.
692
HALOT 882. The Septuagint translates ‫ ָערוֹת‬as ἄχι, the same term used elsewhere to translate the
Egyptian loan ‫ ָ֫אחוּ‬in Gen 41:2, 18 (LSJ 295; GELS 109). The Vulgate (nudabitur) instead understands ‫ ָערוֹת‬as
derived from the root ‫ערה‬, “to be bare, naked.” The Peshitta has lwˁ (“jaw”) in place of ‫ערוֹת‬,
ָ and Targum
Jonathan reads the whole clause as ‫הרה‬ ֵ ‫יִ ַיבשׁ‬, “the juice of the river will dry up.”
ָ ֲ‫רוּביה ְדנ‬
693
T.W. Thacker, “A Note on ‫( ָערוֹת‬Is. xix 7),” JTS 34 (1933): 164.
146
(‫יְ אֹר‬, “the Nile,” and ‫סוּף‬, “reed”).694 Possible donor terms are Egyptian ˁr, “rush, reed
pen” (which occurs as early as the Old Kingdom) and Egyptian ˁr.t, which means
“papyrus scroll, leather scroll” and is attested with the meaning “reed, stalk” beginning
with the Greek period.695 Egyptian ˁr.t best corresponds morphologically with Hebrew
ָ but this oracle in Isaiah is dated to the late eighth century BCE.696 Thus, it must be
‫ע ָרה‬,
assumed that either the feminine form ˁr.t existed with the meaning “rush, reed”
earlier than is attested in Egyptian texts or that the form ˁr was adopted as a feminine
noun by Hebrew speakers.697
Because this term is found within a prophetic oracle against a foreign nation, it
is possible that its presence in this passage reflects addressee-switching. Addressee
switching (the embedding of foreign language elements in the prophetic addresses to
foreign nations) is a common phenomenon in the Hebrew Bible698 and, moreover, a

typical feature of First Isaiah.699 While it can be difficult to distinguish code-switching
and lexical borrowing, loanwords can often be distinguished by phonological and
morphological adaptation as well as the frequency of expressing a concept by a foreign
word.700 Usage of this term in the plural indicates at least basic morphological
adaptation, and there are two other terms for reeds or rushes in the Hebrew Bible (‫אחוּ‬,
ָ֫
‫ ) ֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬that have been borrowed from Egyptian. Thus, this term constitutes an actual
694
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 252-253; Thacker, “A Note on ‫ערוֹת‬,”
ָ 163-165. Brown,
Driver, and Briggs derive ‫ ָע ָרה‬from the root ‫ערה‬, “to be bare, naked” (HALOT 881-882), and take it as a
nominal form meaning “bare place” (BDB 788). However, this does not adequately fit the context.
Attempts to emend the text (e.g., Joseph Reider, “Etymological Studies in Biblical Hebrew,” VT 2 [1952]:
115-116) or propose a new Hebrew root ‫ ערה‬meaning “to be green” (e.g., Paolo Sacchi, “Nota a Is. 19,7,”
Revista biblica italiana 13 [1965]: 169-170) are unnecessary.
695
ÄW 1:279-280; 2:544; GHwÄ 161; WÄS 1:208.
696
Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39, 314.
697
698
Gary A. Rendsburg, “Linguistic Variation and the ‘Foreign’ Factor in the Hebrew Bible,” IOS 15
(1996): 184-188.
699
Chaim Rabin, “An Arabic Phrase in Isaiah,” in Studi sull’Oriente e la Bibbia: Offerti al P. Giovanni Rinaldi
nel 60o compleanno da allievi, colleghi, amici (Genoa: Studio e vita, 1967), 304-305.
700
Martin Haspelmath, “Lexical Borrowing: Concepts and Issues,” in Loanwords in the World’s
Languages: A Comparative Handbook (eds. Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
2009), 40-41.
147
Egyptian loan into Hebrew, although the usage of this Egyptian term in an oracle
against Egypt effectively functions in the same manner as addressee-switching.
‫“ ֶצ ֱא ִלים‬bramble bush, thorny plant”
(Job 40:21-22)
Hebrew ‫ ֶצ ֱא ִלים‬occurs only in Job, where it is used twice to describe a plant that
provides shade for the creature Behemoth (Job 40:21-22). Following Humbert701, Köhler
and Baumgarner702 suggest that this term is derived from Egyptian ḏȝr.t, “carob,”703 and
Coptic Bϫⲁⲗ, “branch.”704 However, this derivation is flawed on at least three counts.
First, Egyptian ḏȝr.t means “carob,”705 which does not fit the context of Job 40:21-22
well. The meaning of Coptic Bϫⲁⲗ fits the context somewhat better, but Bϫⲁⲗ is
connected with Egyptian ḏnr, (“branch”) not ḏȝr.t,706 and Egyptian ḏnr is not a plausible
donor term for Hebrew ‫ ֶצ ֱא ִלים‬on phonological grounds. Second, the correspondence of
Egyptian ȝ and Hebrew ‫ א‬is atypical.707 Third, there is no good reason to think that this
word is non-Semitic, since good cognates occur in Semitic (e.g., Syriac ˁālāˀ708). The
varying initial consonant permit reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic form *ḍˀl.709
Hebrew ‫ ֶצ ֱא ִלים‬probably refers to a thorny plant such as Zizyphus lotus or Zizyphus
701
Paul Humbert, “En marge du dictionnaire hébraïque,” ZAW 21 (1950): 206.
702
HALOT 992; cf. James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (2d ed.; Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 105; G.R. Driver, “Mythical Monsters in the Old Testament,” in Studi
orientalistici in onore di Giorgio Levi Della Vida (Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto per l’Oriente 52; Rome: Istituto per
l’oriente, 1956), 237.
703
ÄW 2:821; GHwÄ 1070; WÄS 5:526.
704
Crum 765; CED 312.
705
ÄW 2:821; GHwÄ 1070; Lothar Störk, “Johannisbrotbaum,” LÄ 3:268-69.
706
CED 312.
707
In Egyptian, ȝ sounded more like the liquids r or l than a glottal stop (James P. Allen, Middle
Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs [2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2010], 15; Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 127-128).
708
SyrLex 1054.
709
Joshua Blau, “Marginalia Semitica I,” in Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics (Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1998), 189-192.
148
zizyphus.710
‫“ ִק ָדּה‬a cassia-like plant”
(Exod 30:24; Ezek 27:19)
Hebrew ‫ ִק ָדּה‬occurs only twice.711 Exodus 30:24 associates it with several
aromatics, including the foreign product ‫קנָּ מוֹן‬,

ִ a cinnamon-like spice. In Ezek 27:19,
‫ ִק ָדּה‬is mentioned within a list of items imported from various locales.
In light of these trade-related contexts, Köhler and Baumgartner suggest that
‫ ִק ָדּה‬is a foreign loanword.712 This loan hypothesis presumably stems from the common
identification of ‫ ִק ָדּה‬with cassia (Cinnamomum cassia), a cinnamon plant native to East
Asia.713 However, one cannot assume that the name of a plant has been applied
throughout the centuries to the same plant species.714 There is no archaeological
evidence for the existence of Cinnamomum cassia or any other East Asian cinnamon
species in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean before the late classical period;
moreover, classical authors are nearly univocal in attributing cinnamon and cassia to
Ethiopia (e.g., Pliny, Nat. 12.42) or Arabia (e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 3.110-111; Dioscorides,
Mat. med. 1.13-14), and 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. 12.42-43).715
710
Pope, Job, 326; Löw, Flora der Juden, 3:134-136.
711
HALOT 1065. The Septuagint translates Hebrew ‫ ִק ָדּה‬as ἶρις “iris,” in Exod 30:24 but does not render
it in Ezek 27:19. In Exod 30:24 and Ezek 27:19, respectively, the Vulgate renders it as cassiae (“cassia”) and
stacte (“incense”), the Peshitta has qsyˀ (“cassia”) and qysˀ (“wood”), and the Targum has
‫“(קציעתא‬cassia”) and ‫( קידא‬the Aramaic form of this word).
712
HALOT 1065.
713
Feliks, ‫עצי בשמים יער ונוי‬, 108-109; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 203; Moldenke and Moldenke, Plants of
the Bible, 75; Löw, Flora der Juden, 2:113-114. Because they argue that ‫ ִק ָדּה‬and ‫יעה‬
ָ ‫ ְק ִצ‬both refer to
Cinnamomum cassia, Feliks and Löw understand ‫ ִק ָדּה‬to refer to a different part of the Cinnamomum cassia
plant than ‫יעה‬ָ ‫ק ִצ‬.
ְ
714
Hepper, “Transference of Ancient Plant Names,” 129-130.
715
Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1987),
253-263; Groom, Frankincense and Myrrh, 84-85; Manfred G. Raschke, “New Studies in Roman Commerce
149
Egyptian qd.t, attested as early as the Eighteenth Dynasty with reference to a
type of incense or perfume,716 must be derived from Semitic since it occurs in contexts
that indicate it was imported from the Levant.717 West Semitic is the likely origin of
Greek κιττώ, which Dioscorides describes as a type of cassia (Mat. med. 1.13).718 There is
thus no reason to think that Hebrew ‫ ִק ָדּה‬is a foreign loan.719
‫“ ִק ָיקיוֹן‬castor-oil plant”
(Jon 4:6-7, 9-10)
Eg. ⇒
⇒ WSem. (Heb.)
⇒ Gk.
Eg. kȝkȝ, kyky; Gk. κίκι
Hebrew ‫ ִק ָיקיוֹן‬occurs only in the book of Jonah, where it denotes the plant that
provides Jonah with shade (Jon 4:6-7, 9-10).720 This word has a long history of
interpretation,721 but the majority of recent scholars identify ‫ ִק ָיקיוֹן‬with the castor-oil
with the East,” ANRW 9.2.652-655; Hepper, “Transference of Ancient Plant Names,” 129-130; Richard
Hennig, “κιννάμον und κινναμωφόρος in der antiken Literatur,” Klio 32 (1939): 325-330; Berthold Laufer,
Sino-Iranica: Chinese Contributions to the History of Civilization in Ancient Iran, with Special Reference to the
History of Cultivated Plants and Products (Field Museum of Natural History: Anthropological Series 15/3;
Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History, 1919), 541-543.
716
GHwÄ 938; WÄS 5:79; Victor Loret, La flore pharaonique d’après les documents hiéroglyphiques et les
spécimens découverts dans les tombes (2d ed.; Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1892), 51, 144. The alternate form qdy is
attested slightly later.
717
WÄS 5:79.
718
DELG 515; Masson, Les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, 48-50.
719
There is thus no basis for etymologies like that of Powels (Powels, “Indische Lehnwörter in der
Bibel,” 191), who contends that Hebrew ‫ ִק ָדּה‬was loaned from Sanskrit kunda, perhaps meaning “jasmine”
(KEWA 1:230). Powels’ etymology assumes a connection with Sanskrit kunduru, “frankincense” (KEWA
3:675-676), but a connection between Sanskrit kunda and Sanskrit kunduru remains to be proven.
720
HALOT 1099. The Septuagint (κολόκυνθα), Vulgate (cucurbita), and Peshitta (qrˀˀ) all took this plant
as a type of gourd, whereas Targum Jonathan transliterates this term.
721
For a detailed history of interpretation of this term, see Bernard P. Robinson, “Jonah’s Qiqayon
Plant,” ZAW 97 (1985): 390-396.
150
plant (Ricinus communis).722 This plant was originally native to east Africa but later
spread throughout the Mediterranean, Middle East, and India.
This identification is supported by the likelihood that Hebrew ‫ ִק ָיקיוֹן‬is derived
from Egyptian kȝkȝ, kyky, which is attested beginning with the Middle Kingdom and
clearly denotes the castor-oil plant.723 The individualizing suffix ‫וֹן‬-, a common ending of
ַ “rush, reed”),724 is a subsequent development. Greek κίκι,

Hebrew plant terms (cf. ‫אגְ מוֹן‬,
described and glossed by classical writers as the castor-oil plant (cf. Herodotus, Hist.
2.94; Dioscorides, Mat. med. 4.161; Pliny, Nat. 15.7),725 is also a loan from Egyptian.726 The
castor-oil plant is known for its relatively rapid growth and large palmate leaves, which
is consistent with the biblical account’s portrayal of this plant as quick-growing and
able to provide shade.727
722
HALOT 1099; Feliks, ‫עצי בשמים יער ונוי‬, 228-230; Joyce G. Baldwin, “Jonah,” in Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,
Nahum, and Habakkuk (vol. 2 of The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary; ed. Thomas
Edward McComiskey; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1993), 586; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 193; Leslie
C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (NICOT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1976), 232;
Moldenke and Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, 203-204; Löw, Flora der Juden, 1:608-611.
723
ÄW 2:2565; GHwÄ 948; WÄS 5:109; Renate Germer, “Rizinus,” LÄ 5:285; D. Brent Sandy, The
Production and Use of Vegetable Oils in Ptolemaic Egypt (Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 6;
Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989), 35-54. Beginning with the Nineteenth Dynasty, this word is attested as
kyky.
724
HALOT 11.
725
LSJ 951. On κίκι in classical sources, see Robinson, “Jonah’s Qiqayon Plant,” 400-401.
726
EDG 695; DELG 510; Fournet, “Emprunts du grec à l’égyptien,” 61. Possibly also related is Akkadian
kukkānītu, which appears in Standard and Neo-Babylonian texts with reference to a medicinal plant (CAD
K 498; AHw 500). However, the correspondence between Akkadian k and Hebrew ‫ ק‬is unusual. The Chicago
Assyrian Dictionary contends that kukkānītu means “kukku-like plant,” Akkadian kukku being a type of
bread or cake with a characteristic shape (CAD K 498; AHw 500).
727
Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 193; Moldenke and Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, 203-204. 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.
151
‫“ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬a cinnamon-like plant”
(Exod 30:23; Prov 7:17; Song 4:14)
Gk. → WSem. (Heb, JA, Syr.); Lat.
JA ‫ ;קנמון‬Syr. qēwnāmōn; Gk. κιννάμωμον, κίνναμον; Lat. cinnamomum, cinnamum
Hebrew ‫ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible.728 In each of these
occurrences ‫ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬denotes a spice with aromatic properties (Exod 30:23; Prov 7:17; Song
4:14). Notably, two of these occurrences are within lists of foreign luxury items: Prov
7:17 associates it with the non-Semitic loan ‫“( ֲא ָה ִלים‬aloewood”), and Song 4:14 also
groups it with ‫( ֲא ָהלוֹת‬also “aloewood”) as well as the foreign loans ‫“( נֵ ְר ְדּ‬nard”) and
‫“( ַכּ ְרכֹּם‬saffron”).
There is no productive root qnm in Semitic that would lend itself to usage for a
cinnamon-like spice,729 and it is not possible to derive ‫ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬from the common Semitic
ָ 730 so Hebrew ‫ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬must be a foreign term.731 Indeed,
word for “reed” (cf. Hebrew ‫)קנֶ ה‬,
728
HALOT 1114. The ancient versions all render Hebrew ‫ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬with their common term for
“cinnamon” (Greek κιννάμωμον, Latin cinnamomum, Syriac qwnmwn, and Jewish Aramaic ‫)קנמון‬.
729
Long ago, Cooley rejected any possible comparisons with Arabic qanima, “to stink, be rancid”
(Freytag 3:508); see W. Desborough Cooley, “On the Regio Cinnamomifera of the Ancients,” Journal of the
Royal Geographical Society of London 19 (1849): 168.
730
HALOT 1113. De Romanis (Federico de Romanis, Cassia, cinnamomo, ossidiana: uomini e merci tra
Oceano indiano e Mediterraneo [Saggi di storia antica 9; Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1996], 103-108)
derives Hebrew ‫ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬from this word, supposing it is natural to think of cinnamon as a reed- or cane-like
spice (cf. French cannelle). He argues that the –‫ מוֹן‬ending is not a suffix, but the proper name of the
Minaeans, a first millennium BCE Arabian tribe of ancient Yemen known for its involvement in the spice
trade. However, this explanation does not adequately account for the ˁ in the Minaeans’ name (cf.
Hebrew ‫ ְמעוּנִ ים‬and Old South Arabian Mˁwn [HALOT 610; Carlo Conti Rossini, Chrestomathia Arabica
meridionalis: epigraphica edita et glossario instructa (Pubblicazioni dell’Instituto per l’Oriente; Rome: Istituto
per l’oriente, 1931), 179-180]).
731
The common view that ‫ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬originates from an East Asian language (e.g., Feliks, ‫עצי בשמים יער ונוי‬,
101-106; Powels, “Indische Lehnwörter in der Bibel,” 190-192; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 202; Löw, Flora der
Juden, 2:107-113) cannot be correct because there is no evidence for the identification of ‫ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬with true
cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum) and the existence of true cinnamon in the ancient Near East before
the late classical period (see the discussion of Hebrew ‫)ק ָדּה‬. ִ Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 890) compare
‫ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬with Malay kayu manis (“cinnamon,” literally “sweet tree” or “sweet wood” [MED 520]), but there are
significant phonological differences between the Hebrew and Malay forms.
152
this word is more easily accounted for in Greek than it is in Semitic. The Greek word for
“cinnamon” is κιννάμωμον,732 a clear compound word: the first component is κίννα,
perhaps meaning “red,”733 and the second is ἄμωμον, “spice plant.”734 The latter is a
productive element for forming spice terms in Greek and is also found in the word
καρδάμωμον “cardamom.”735 Despite Herodotus’ claim that Greek κιννάμωμον was
borrowed from Phoenician (Hist. 3.111),736 the above etymology points to a loan in the
opposite direction (from Greek to West Semitic): Greek κιννάμωμον can easily be
explained as a compound word consisting of two distinct components, but Hebrew ‫ִקנָּ מוֹן‬
is not immediately analyzable in such a way. Hebrew ‫ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬is most probably a Semitic
simplification of κιννάμωμον since the shorter form κίνναμον is not attested in Greek
until much later than the attestation of ‫ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬in the Hebrew Bible, even at its latest
possible date of composition.737

Like Greek κιννάμωμον, Hebrew ‫ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬does not mean “cinnamon” but
“cinnamon-like plant.” Classical authors specifically state that this plant comes from
Ethiopia (e.g., Pliny, Nat. 12.42) and Arabia (e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 3.111; Dioscorides, Mat.
732
LSJ 953.
733
This element is present in Greek κιννάβαρι (also attested as τιγγάβαρι), which refers to the
reddish mineral mercury sulfide (cinnabar) as well as the red dye vermilion (LSJ 953, 1789); Greek
κιννάβαρι is a foreign loan that can be traced back to Old Persian sinkabru, “red stone” (Roland G. Kent,
Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon [2d ed.; AOS 33; New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1953],
209) (EDG 700; DELG 512-513). The same element κίννα can be found in other Indo-Iranian terms: e.g.,
Sanskrit śṛṅgavera, Pāli siṅgivera, and New Persian zanǰabīl (“ginger”) as well as Parthian žang and New
Persian zangār (“rust”) (KEWA 3:370; DMMPP 199; NPED 1:1025, 1021; CPED 624, 626). The obvious common
feature of all these words is that they relate to the color red.
734
LSJ 96. Classicists consider ἄμωμον a foreign term because classical sources attribute it to a wide
number of regions, including Arabia, Armenia, Pontus, Media, and India (Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 9.7.2;
Pliny, Nat. 12.28; Dioscorides Mat. med. 1.15); see EDG 96; DELG 78; Christian Hünemörder, “Amomon,” DNP
1:605; Masson, Les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, 50. Moreover, the element –αμο/-μο is often
found in Greek plant names, particularly those of foreign origin (Pierre Chantraine, La formation des noms
en grec ancien [Collection linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris 38; Paris: E.
Champion, 1933], 133).
735
LSJ 877.
736
According to Herodotus, large birds in Arabia bring dry cinnamon sticks from an unknown
location and use the cinnamon sticks to construct their nests (Hist. 3.111). This fanciful story is rejected
by Pliny (Nat. 10.50; 12.42).
737
The form κιννάμωμον is first attested in the fifth century BCE, but the shorter form κίνναμον
does not occur in Greek until the first century CE.
153
med. 1.13-14). In addition to loaning this word into West Semitic, Greek also gave it to
Latin.738 Via Greek and Latin, this word entered a number of modern languages,
including modern English (cinnamon) and German (Zimt).
ָ ‫“ ְק ִצ‬a cassia-like plant”

‫יעה‬
(Ps 45:9)
Eg. → WSem. (Heb.) → Gk., Lat.
Eg. šsȝ.t, ẖsȝy.t; Gk. κασία, κασσία; Lat. cassia
The observation that Hebrew ‫יעה‬ ְ a hapax legomenon,739 occurs along with the
ָ ‫ק ִצ‬,
foreign term ‫“( ֲא ָהלוֹת‬aloe wood”) in Ps 45:9 is the only clue that it may be a non-
Semitic loanword.740 Hebrew ‫יעה‬

ָ ‫ ְק ִצ‬is commonly identified741 with Cinnamomum cassia, a
species native to East Asia cultivated especially in southeastern China.742 However, as
noted in the discussions of Hebrew ‫ ִק ָדּה‬and ‫קנָּ מוֹן‬,

ִ there is no evidence for the existence
of Cinnamomum cassia in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean before the late
classical period. Hebrew ‫יעה‬

ָ ‫ ְק ִצ‬does not denote true cassia, and the common attempt to
ָ ‫ ְק ִצ‬from Chinese is completely speculative.743

derive ‫יעה‬
738
DELL 122.
739
There is no need to omit this term for metrical purposes, contra Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 452.
740
The ancient versions all render Hebrew ‫יעה‬ָ ‫ ְק ִצ‬as “cassia” (Greek κασία, Latin cassia, Syriac qsyˀ,
and Jewish Aramaic ‫)קציעתא‬. This word is also used as a proper name for one of Job’s daughters (Job
42:14).
741
Feliks, ‫עצי בשמים יער ונוי‬, 107-108; Powels, “Indische Lehnwörter in der Bibel,” 190-192; Zohary,
Plants of the Bible, 203; Löw, Flora der Juden, 2:113-114.
742
P.N. Ravindran et al., “Botany and Crop Improvement of Cinnamon and Cassia,” in Cinnamon and
Cassia: The Genus Cinnamomum (eds. P.N. Ravindran, et al.; Medicinal and Aromatic Plants: Industrial
Profiles 36; Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2004), 16-191.
743
E.g., Feliks, ‫עצי בשמים יער ונוי‬, 107-108; Powels, “Indische Lehnwörter in der Bibel,” 190-192; Löw,
Flora der Juden, 2:113-114. Although the common Chinese word for “cassia,” guì (桂), is attested quite early
(the second half of the first millennium BCE), the combinations guìzĭ (桂子) and guìzhī (桂枝) are not
attested until much later (the eleventh and fourteenth centuries CE, respectively). Neither of these seem
to have become common terms for “cassia” (Zhufeng Luo, ed., 漢語大詞典 (13 vols; Shanghai: Shanghai
ci shu chu ban she: Fa xing Shanghai ci shu chu ban she fa xing suo, 1986-1994), 4:955-957). The late
attestation of these two terms makes any connection with Hebrew ‫יעה‬ ָ ‫ ְק ִצ‬unlikely. Assuming that guìzĭ
154
The text’s mention of myrrh, ivory, and Ophir (Ps 45:9-10) indicates a northern
African source for this word. Hebrew ‫יעה‬

ָ ‫ ְק ִצ‬is probably connected with Egyptian ẖsȝy.t,
an oil or resin obtained from a flowering plant.744 Imported from Nubia and Punt, this
product was used as an aromatic and for medicinal purposes.745 The phonological
correspondence between Egyptian ẖsȝy.t and Hebrew ‫יעה‬

ָ ‫ ְק ִצ‬is unusual, and ‫יעה‬
ָ ‫ ְק ִצ‬has
probably been “semitized” to connect it with the root ‫קצע‬, “to scrape, cut off.”746
Greek κασία, κασσία and Latin cassia are loans from West Semitic.747 Similar to
Egyptian ẖsȝy.t and Hebrew ‫יעה‬ ְ classical authors’ descriptions of these plants refer
ָ ‫ק ִצ‬,
to oil-producing aromatic plants, but not true cassia (Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 9.5.1-3;
Pliny, Nat. 12.43).
and guìzhī did exist earlier, phonological reconstruction of their hypothetical earlier forms (*kwes-tseʔ
and *kwes-ke, respectively) at least rules out a connection between the latter and Hebrew ‫יעה‬ ָ ‫( ְק ִצ‬Zev
Joseph Handel, personal communication, November 22 and 29, 2010).
744
ÄW 2:1838; GHwÄ 696; WÄS 3:400; Renate Germer, Handbuch der Altägyptischen Heilpflanzen
(Philippika 21; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2008), 105-106; Hildegard von Deines and Hermann
Grapow, Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Drogennamen (vol. 6 of Grundriss der Medizin der alten Ägypter; 9 vols.;
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1959), 417-418.
745
During the Old Kingdom this word’s form was šsȝ.t, but with the change of š to ẖ it became ẖsȝy.t
by the time of the Middle Kingdom. This term further developed into New Kingdom Egyptian ḫȝsy.t and
ḫsȝy.t, which came to refer to a berry-producing plant rather than a plant oil or resin (ÄW 1:1316; GHwÄ
628, 668, 901; WÄS 3:234, 332; 4:543). The change of š to ẖ rules out any possible connection with Sumerian
GAZI and Akkadian kasû, which occur with an initial velar earlier (as early as the third millennium BCE)
than the first Old Kingdom attestation of Egyptian šsȝy.t (contra Lipiński, “Emprunts suméro-akkadiens en
hébreu biblique,” 72). Sumerian GAZI and Akkadian kasû, in any case, should be identified with mustard
or licorice, not a cassia-like plant (PSD; CAD K 248-250; AHw 455; Powell, “Obst und Gemüse,” 10:20).
746
Cf. G.R. Driver, “Technical Terms in the Pentateuch,” WO 2 (1956): 261-262.
747
EDG 653; DELG 483; DELL 103; Masson, Les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, 48-50. De Romanis
offers the less-likely hypothesis that Greek borrowed this term directly from Egyptian (de Romanis,
Cassia, cinnamomo, ossidiana, 44-45).
155
‫( ִרמּוֹן‬Heb.), lrmn (Ug.) “pomegranate”
(Exod 28:33-34; passim; KTU 1.23:50, 55; 4.751:11)
CW
Sum. NURMA; Akk. lurmû, lurinnu, lurindu, lurimtu, lurimāˀu, nurmû, nurumu, nurmânu,
nurimdu; IA ‫ ;רמן‬JA ‫רמּוֹן‬,ֶ ‫רוּמּנָ א‬,

ָ ‫ ;רומאנא‬JA, CPA ‫ ;רימון‬Syr. rummānā; Mand. rumana;
Arab. rummān; Eth. rōmān; Hitt. nurati; Hurr. nuranti
The term ‫ ִרמּוֹן‬occurs numerous times in the Hebrew Bible.748 It commonly
appears with reference to pomegranate fruit or pomegranate trees (Num 13:23; 20:5;
Deut 8:8; 1 Sam 14:2; Song 4:3, 13; 6:7, 11; 7:13; 8:2; Joel 1:12; Hag 2:19) 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; 2 Chron 3:16; 4:13;
Jer 52:22-23).749 Ugaritic lrmn appears less frequently: it occurs twice in a comparison of
the lips of El’s wives with pomegranates (KTU 1.23:50, 55) and once in an economic list,
where it is mentioned along with dblt (“figs”) and ṣmqm (“raisins”) in KTU 4:751:11.750
This ancient term has numerous forms in many different languages: Sumerian
NURMA,751 Akkadian lurmû and related forms,752 Egyptian inhmn, nhm,753 Hittite nurati,754
748
HALOT 1241-1242. Following other Hebrew manuscripts of 1 Kgs 7:18, many scholars propose that
‫ ָה ִרמּוֹנִ ים‬of this verse be transposed with ‫מּוּדים‬
ִ ‫( ָה ַע‬e.g., BHS; Cogan, 1 Kings, 263; Martin Jan Mulder, 1 Kings
1-11 [trans. John Vriend; vol. 1 of 1 Kings; 2 vols.; Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Leuven:
Peeters, 1998], 311-312; Gray, I and II Kings, 184; Martin Noth, Könige [BKAT 9/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1968], 141, 143). Görg, on the other hand, proposes a connection between ‫ ָה ִרמּוֹנִ ים‬of
1 Kgs 7:18 and Egyptian rmn, “beam, column” (ÄW 1:709; 2:1473; GHwÄ 496; WÄS 2:419-420), suggesting
that in this instance ‫ ָה ִרמּוֹנִ ים‬means “pillars” or “columns” (Manfred Görg, “Zur Dekoration der
Tempelsäulen,” BN 13 [1980]: 20-21). This may be possible, but the simplest solution is to assume
emendation as the extant manuscript evidence indicates.
749
Hebrew ‫ ִרמּוֹן‬also occurs as a toponym (Josh 21:35; Num 33:19-20; Judg 20:45, 47; 21:13; 1 Chron
6:62; Zech 14:10) and a personal name (2 Sam 4:2, 5, 9).
750
DUL 504.
751
PSD.
752
CAD L 255-256; AHw 564-565; CAD N/2 345-347; AHw 804-805. Akkadian nurumu is found at Nuzi
(CAD N/2 345-347; AHw 804-805), Akkadian nurimdu is attested in Amarna Akkadian (CAD N/2 344; AHw
156
Hurrian nuranti,755 and as various forms in later Semitic (Aramaic, Arabic, and
Ethiopic).756 Its wide distribution and lack of a plausible Semitic etymology indicates a
non-Semitic origin. The pomegranate was first domesticated in the southern Caspian
belt757 and this culture word originated in this same region.758
Cultivation of the pomegranate spread westward as early as the third
millennium. Some of the earliest attested archaeobotanical remains in the ancient East
are from Ebla in Syria759 and Early Bronze Age Jericho, Tell Hesi, and Arad in
Palestine.760 Second millennium finds include pomegranate remains in Egypt (Tel el-
Dabˁa, Amarna),761 the Aegean (Sultan Tekke in Cyprus and Tiryns in mainland
Greece),762 and the Late Bronze Age Uluburun ship, whose extant cargo contains
804), and Akkadian nurmânu, which refers to a decorative bead in the shape of a pomegranate, occurs at
Qatna (CAD N/2 344-345; AHw 804).
753
GHwÄ 89, 443; WÄS 1:98; 2:286. Egyptian inhmn, nhm, attested beginning with the New Kingdom, is
a loan from West Semitic and has many different spellings: ˀan=-n=ra=ha=man2, ˀan=-n=ha=man2, ˀan=-n=-
r=h=man2, ˀan2=h=ma=ni, ˀ=n=h=man, ˀan=-n=ha=-r=man2, ˀan=-n=ra=man2, ˀan=-n=man2, n=hi=man2, n=ha=man2,
n=hi=n=man2, and h=na=man2 (Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 24-25). Late forms include Demotic hrnt
and Coptic Sϩϵϼⲙⲁⲛ, Aⲗⲉϩⲙⲁⲛ, Bϵϼⲙⲁⲛ (DG 280; Crum 703; CED 293).
754
CHD L-N 475; HHw 128.
755
LKI 265; GLH 188.
756
DNWSI 1078; DJPA 525; DJBA 1066; SyrLex 1451; LSp 195; MD 430; Lane 1161; CDG 471. The Arabic and
Ethiopic forms originated with Aramaic (Theodor Nöldeke, Neue beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft
[Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1910], 42; Siegmund Fränkel, Die Aramäischen Fremdwörter im Arabischen
[Leiden: Brill, 1886], 142).
757
Zohary and Hopf, Domestication of Plants in the Old World, 170-171; Gale and Cutler, Plants in
Archaeology, 201; Daniel Zohary and Pinhas Spiegel-Roy, “Beginnings of Fruit Growing in the Old World,”
Science 187 (1975): 324.
758
It is possible that this term is native to Iranian (cf. Pahlavi and New Persian anār [CPD 9; CPED 103;
NPED 1:147]) as suggested by Oskar Kaelin, “Produkte und Lehnwörter: Das Beispiel des Granatapfels,” in
Das Ägyptische und die Sprachen Vorderasiens, Nordafrikas und der Ägäis: Akten des Basler Kolloquiums zum
ägyptisch-nichtsemitischen Sprachkontakt, Basel 9.-11. Juli 2003 (ed. Thomas Schneider; AOAT 310; Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 2004), 114; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 25; Laufer, Sino-Iranica, 284-285. However,
the donor language could be any ancient language spoken in the region south of the Caspian Sea.
759
Cheryl A. Ward, “Pomegranates in Eastern Mediterranean Contexts during the Late Bronze Age,”
World Archaeology 34 (2003): 535; Claudia Wachter-Sarkady, “Ebla e le condizioni materiali della
produzione agricola nell’antico Oriente,” in Ebla: alle origini della civiltà urbana: trent’anni di scavi in Siria
dell’Università di Roma “La Sapienza” (eds. Paolo Matthiae, et al.; Milan: Electa, 1995), 251.
760
Ward, “Pomegranates in Eastern Mediterranean Contexts,” 535; Zohary and Hopf, Domestication of
Plants in the Old World, 171.
761
Murray, “Fruits, Vegetables, Pulses and Condiments,” 625; F. Nigel Hepper, Pharaoh’s Flowers: The
Botanical Treasures of Tutankhamun (2d ed.; Chicago: KWS Publishers, 2009), 64; de Vartavan, Codex of
Ancient Egyptian Plant Remains, 218-219.
762
Ward, “Pomegranates in Eastern Mediterranean Contexts,” 535; Zohary and Hopf, Domestication of
Plants in the Old World, 171; Helmut J. Kroll, “Kulturpflanzen von Tiryns,” Archäologischer Anzeiger 32 (1982):
157
thousands of pomegranate seeds and fruit segments.763 Levantine finds from the Iron II
period include Tel Qiri, Tell Halif, and Ashkelon.764
Iconic depictions of pomegranates—particularly pomegranate-shaped jewelry,
pomegranate bas reliefs, and pomegranate-shaped pottery vessels—are likewise very
common.765 Numerous examples are attested from Mesopotamia (Uruk, Susa, Ashur),
Egypt (Thebes, Karnak, Abydos), the Levant (Ugarit, Hama, Lachish, Megidddo), Cyprus
(Enkomi, Larnaca, Kourion, Kition) and the Aegean (Knossos, Phaistos, Mycenae,
Athens) prior to the Iron Age.766 Archaeologists have discovered a number of ceramic
pomegranates in Iron Age Philistine sites, many of them in cultic contexts (Tel Miqne-
Ekron, Tell Qasile, Ashdod).767 The Israelite usage 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.768
470-475, 481-482; Hakon Hjelmqvist, “Some Economic Plants and Weeds from the Bronze Age of Cyprus,”
in Hala Sultan Tekke V: Excavations in Area 22: 1977-1973 and 1975-1978 (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology
45/5; Gothenburg: Paul Åströms Förlag, 1979), 112.
763
Ward, “Pomegranates in Eastern Mediterranean Contexts,” 537-538; Pulak, “Uluburun
Shipwreck,” 210.
764
Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 117; E.A. Weiss and Mordechai Kislev, “Weeds and Seeds:
What Archaeobotany Can Teach Us,” BAR 30, no. 6 (2004): 35.
765
Friedrich Muthmann, Der Granatapfel: Symbol des Lebens in der Alten Welt (Schriften der Abegg-
Stiftung Bern 6; Freiburg: Office du livre, 1982), 13-71.
766
Ward, “Pomegranates in Eastern Mediterranean Contexts,” 533-534; Börker-Klähn, “Granatapfel:
A. Archäologisch,” 3:617-624.
767
Trude Dothan and David Ben-Shlomo, “Ceramic Pomegranates and Their Relationship to Iron Age
Cult,” in ‘Up to the Gates of Ekron’: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of
Seymour Gitin (eds. Sidnie White Crawford, et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2007), 4-12.
768
Martin Jan Mulder, “‫ ִרמּוֹן‬rimmôn,” TDOT 13:507-508.
158
‫שׁוּשׁן‬,
ַ ‫שׁוֹשׁן‬
ַ “water lily, Egyptian lotus”
(1 Kgs 7:19, 22, 26; 2 Chron 4:5; Ps 45:1; 60:1; 69:1; 80:1; Song 2:1-2, 16; 4:5; 5:13; 6:2-3; 7:3;
Hos 14:6)
Eg. → Akk., WSem. (Heb., IA, JA, CPA, Syr.) → Gk., Lat.; Pahl., NPers. → JA, Syr., Arab.
Akk. šišnu; IA ‫ ;שושן‬JA ‫;סוֹסן‬

ַ JA, CPA ‫ ;שושנה‬Syr. sawsan, šawšantā; Arab. sausan; Eg. sššn,
sšn, ššn; Gk. σοῦσον; Lat. susinus; Pahl. sōsan, NPers. sūsan
Hebrew ‫שׁוּשׁן‬
ַ occurs numerous times in the Hebrew Bible but with several
different meanings.769 It can refer to a flower (Song 2:1-2, 16; 4:5; 5:13; 6:2-3; 7:3; Hos 4:6)
as well as a flower-shaped design found on architectural components or other objects
in the temple (1 Kgs 7:19, 22, 26; 2 Chron 4:5). 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).
Muchiki, Ellenbogen, and Lambdin770 note that Hebrew ‫שׁוּשׁן‬

ַ is a loan from
Egyptian sššn, “water lily,” first attested during the Old Kingdom.771 During the Middle
Kingdom the two middle consonants merged, producing the form sšn, and assimilation
of sibilants also occurred. After these phonological changes during the Middle
Kingdom, both the assimilated (ššn) and non-assimilated (sšn) forms continued to be
used. Hebrew speakers could have borrowed the assimilated form ššn at an early
period,772 but they could also have borrowed the non-assimilated form, after which
769
HALOT 1454-1455.
770
159; Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 154. Attempts to derive this noun from
Semitic, such as the suggestion that ‫שׁוּשׁן‬
ַ is a reduplicated form of ‫שׁשׁ‬,
ֵ “six” (cf. Löw, Flora der Juden,
2:165-166), are unconvincing.
771
ÄW 1:1239; 2:2357; GHwÄ 834; WÄS 3:485-486. The Demotic and Coptic forms are sšn and Bϣⲱϣⲉⲛ,
respectively (DG 464; Crum 608; CED 260). In addition denoting a flower, Egyptian sššn is also used as a
personal name.
772
Contra Alan H. Gardiner, “The Egyptian Origin of Some English Personal Names,” JAOS 56 (1936):
189-190; Erman, “Verhältniss Aegyptischen zu den semitischen Sprachen,” 117.
159
assimilation occurred internally within Hebrew.773 This term was loaned from West
Semitic774 into Greek and Latin775 as well as Persian, from which it was reborrowed into
Semitic (Jewish Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic).776
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
(Nymphaea caerulea and Nymphaea lotus, respectively) were both native to the Nile River
in antiquity.777 The Egyptian lotus was known for its narcotic properties778 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 are also commonly portrayed on tombs and coffins due to this
plant’s association with rebirth in the afterlife.779 Water lilies, moreover, were
incorporated into architecture, palmette designs, and objects such as lamps like the one
found in Tutankhamun’s tomb.780 It is 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 Chron 4:5).781
773
Kenneth A. Kitchen, “Lotuses and Lotuses, or...Poor Susan’s Older Than We Thought,” Varia
Aegyptiaca 3 (1987): 29-31. A similar phenomenon occurred with Hebrew ‫שׁשׁ‬, ֵ “Egyptian linen,” (HALOT
1663-1664) as well as ‫שׁשׁ‬, ַ “alabaster” (HALOT 1663); see Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and
ֵ ‫שׁיִ שׁ‬,
Loanwords, 256-258. For further discussion, see the Egyptian “Consonant Correspondences” section in the
774
Additional Semitic forms can be found in Akkadian, Imperial as well as Jewish and Christian
Palestinian Aramaic, and Syriac (CAD Š/3 126; AHw 1250; DNWSI 1197; DJPA 543; LSp 204; SyrLex 1539).
775
EDG 1373; DELG 995; Masson, Les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, 58-59. The Greek and Latin
forms, moreover, are the source of the modern English name Susan.
776
DJBA 794; SyrLex 986; Lane 1466; CPD 75; NPED 2:134; CPED 709; Asbaghi, Persische Lehnwörter im
Arabischen, 169; Claudia A. Ciancaglini, Iranian Loanwords in Syriac (Beiträge zur Iranistik 28; Wiesbaden:
Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2008), 20.
777
Perry D. Slocum, Waterlilies and Lotuses: Species, Cultivars, and New Hybrids (Portland, Ore.: Timber
Press, 2005), 85, 99.
778
W. Benson Harer, Jr., “Pharmacological and Biological Properties of the Egyptian Lotus,” Journal of
the American Research Center in Egypt 22 (1985): 49-54.
779
W. Benson Harer, Jr., “Lotus,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (ed. Donald B. Redford; 3
vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 2:304-305; Emma Brunner-Traut, “Lotos,” LÄ 3:1091-1096.
780
Hepper, Pharaoh’s Flowers, 11-12.
781
Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants, 182.
160
‫( ְשׁ ֵח ֶלת‬Heb.), ‫( שחלי‬OAram.), šḥlt (Ug.) “cress”
(Exod 30:34; KTU 4.14:4, 16; 4.786:12; KAI 222A:36)
CW
Sum. ZAḪILI; Akk. saḫlû, šeḫlātu; JA ‫תחלין‬, ‫ ;תחלתא‬Syr. taḥlā; Arab. salīḫat (“perfume,
odiferous substance”); Hitt. zaḫḫeli
This word meaning “cress” occurs as ‫ ְשׁ ֵח ֶלת‬in biblical Hebrew, ‫ שחלי‬in Old
Aramaic, and šḥlt in Ugaritic. It is a hapax in biblical Hebrew, listed as one of the
components for the tabernacle’s incense (Exod 30:34).782 In Old Aramaic, the Sefire
Treaty mentions ‫ שחלי‬in its curse section, invoking Hadad to sow cress along with salt
in the unfaithful party’s land (KAI 222A:36).783 Lastly, in Ugaritic šḥlt is utilized three
times in economic texts: two of the occurrences refer to a lṭk-measure of this item (4:14,
16), and the other occurrence refers to a prs-measure of this item (KTU 4.786:12).784
Related forms show up in a number of different languages: Sumerian ZAḪILI,
Akkadian saḫlû, šeḫlātu,785 Jewish Aramaic ‫תחלין‬, ‫תחלתא‬, Syriac taḥlā, Arabic salīḫat, and
Hittite zaḫḫeli.786 These all refer to a fragrant plant, most likely cress.787 The West
Semitic forms cannot be a loan from Akkadian due to the lack of correspondence
between Akkadian s and West Semitic ṯ;788 also atypical is the correspondence of
782
HALOT 1462; Kjeld Nielsen, Incense in Ancient Israel (VTSup 38; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 65-66. The
Septuagint translates Hebrew ‫ ְשׁ ֵח ֶלת‬as ὄνυξ (“onyx”) whereas the Peshitta and Targum Onqelos translate
it as ṭprˀ and ‫“( טופרא‬nail”), perhaps by association with rabbinic Hebrew ‫צפּ ֶֹרן‬,ִ used to denote a type of
spice (cf. Jastrow 1296).
783
DNWSI 1121.
784
DUL 812; Falk, “Plants of Mari and Ugarit,” 204-206.
785
Akkadian šeḫlātu, which occurs only in the texts from Mari (CAD Š/2 264; AHw 1209), is a clear loan
from West Semitic as indicated by the initial š and feminine ending.
786
CAD S 62-65; AHw 1009-1010; DJPA 579; DJBA 1202; SyrLex 1638; Lane 1404; HHw 229. An additional,
related form in later Aramaic is ‫תחלוסין‬, created by the addition of the diminutive ending to ‫( תחלין‬DJPA
579). Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 1462) also compare Arabic suḥālat, “grain husks, filings” (Lane
1320), but this is questionable.
787
Marten Stol, “Cress and Its Mustard,” JEOL 28 (1983-1984): 24-29.
788
161
Akkadian ḫ with Ugaritic ḥ (rather than ḫ).789 The unusual consonantal correspondences
and this term’s widespread distribution without certain origin characterize it as an
ancient culture word.
‫“ ִשׁ ָטּה‬acacia, acacia wood”
(Exod 25:5, passim; Deut 10:3; Isa 41:19)
Eg. → Akk., WSem. (Heb., JA)
Akk. šamṭu, samṭu; JA ‫ ;שיטה‬Eg. šnḏ.t, šnd.t, šnt.t, šnt
Hebrew ‫ ִשׁ ָטּה‬occurs almost exclusively in the book of Exodus, where it appears
twenty-six times with reference to a type of wood used for the construction of the
tabernacle and ark of the covenant.790 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 wilderness (‫)בּ ֲע ָר ָבה‬.

ָ
Although this word appears in Akkadian and Jewish Aramaic,791 it does not seem
to be native to Semitic. Akkadian šamṭu, samṭu is connected with Meluḫḫa, located in
Africa at least during the first millennium BCE,792 in a plant list from Ashurbanipal’s
library (K 267+6069 v/vi:22).793 The Hebrew Bible’s nearly exclusive association of ‫ִשׁ ָטּה‬
789
Falk, “Plants of Mari and Ugarit,” 205.
790
HALOT 1473-1474. See Exod 25:5, 10, 13, 23, 38; 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. The ancient versions did not know the precise meaning of this word. The
Septuagint translates Hebrew ‫ ִשׁ ָטּה‬as ξύλα ἄσηπτα (“incorruptible wood”) in Exodus and Deut 10:3 but
uses πύξον (“box-tree”) in Isa 41:19; somewhat similarly, the Vulgate transliterates ‫ ִשׁ ָטּה‬as setim in
Exodus and Deut 10:3 but renders it as spinam (perhaps “sloe-tree”) in Isaiah. The Peshitta utilizes ˀškrˁˀ
(“box-tree”), and the Targums use ‫ שטין‬throughout.
791
CAD Š/1 339; AHw 1159; DJPA 547.
792
Although Meluḫḫa was perhaps located east of Mesopotamia during Sumerian times (cf. W.
Heimpel, “Meluḫḫa,” RlA 8:53-55), first millennium references to this region from the time of Esarhaddon
associate it with Egypt; e.g., RINAP 4.16:4; 4.34.7ʹ, 15ʹ; 4.48:29; 4.84:5; 4.85:6; 4.86:3 (Leichty, Royal
Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, 64, 87, 105, 167-169).
793
CT 14, pl. 21. For discussion of this portion of the text, see Thompson, Dictionary of Assyrian Botany,
180-184.
162
with the tabernacle’s construction similarly points to an Egyptian origin.794 As argued
by Muchiki, Ellenbogen, and Lambdin,795 the donor term is Egyptian šnḏ.t, “acacia
wood,” which occurs in both masculine and feminine forms and appears as early as the
Old Kingdom in the Pyramid Texts. By the Middle Kingdom, the form of this word
became šnd.t, and by the New Kingdom it was written as šnt.t.796 Notably, nasal
assimilation occurs only in biblical Hebrew, not in any of the other Semitic languages
or Egyptian.
Plants in the Acacia genus are characterized by finely pinnate leaves and white
or yellow flowers; many of the species are thorny. Although numerous species exist,
among the most common in Egypt were Acacia raddiana, Acacia tortilis, Acacia nilotica,
and Acacia albida.797 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.
Following Feliks,798 Zevit argues that Hebrew ‫ ִשׁ ָטּה‬must denote Acacia albida on
the basis of two assumptions. First, Zevit contends that ‫ ע ְֹמ ִדים‬in Exodus 26:15 (‫ית‬
ָ ‫וְ ָע ִ ֥שׂ‬
‫ת־ה ְקּ ָר ִ ֖שׁים ַל ִמּ ְשׁ ָ ֑כּן ֲע ֵ ֥צי ִשׁ ִ ֖טּים ע ְֹמ ִ ֽדים‬ ֶ modifies ‫ ִשׁ ִטּים‬rather than ‫ ַה ְקּ ָר ִשׁים‬. Second, he argues
ַ ‫)א‬
that the ten-cubit high frames mentioned in this same passage require a tall species of
acacia, namely Acacia albida. Zevit points out that Acacia 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.799 However, one
794
For the Egyptian literary context of the tabernacle, see the entry for Hebrew ‫פּח‬.
ַ
795
796
ÄW 1:1314; 2:2477-2478; GHwÄ 898-899; WÄS 4:520-521. The form of this word in Demotic is šnt.t,
and the Coptic form is Sϣⲟⲛⲧⲉ, Sϣⲁⲛⲧⲉ, Bϣⲟⲛϯ (DG 516; Crum 573; CED 247). Because Hebrew uses ‫ט‬, and
because Hebrew ‫ ט‬otherwise reflects Egyptian d, it is likely that Hebrew borrowed the form šnd.t. This
indicates that Hebrew borrowed this Egyptian term sometime during the Middle Kingdom.
797
de Vartavan, Codex of Ancient Egyptian Plant Remains, 24-32.
798
Jehuda Feliks, “‫ עצי שטים ומן‬,‫סנה‬,” in ‫( סיני‬eds. Gedalyahu Gevirtsman, et al.; ‫ מחקרים ופרסומים‬:‫ארץ‬
‫ ;בגיאוגרפיה‬Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1987), 1:533-534.
799
Ziony Zevit, “Timber for the Tabernacle: Text, Tradition, and Realia,” ‫ מחקרים בידיעת‬:‫ארץ ישראל‬
163
cannot assume that this term exclusively denotes the species Acacia albida. It is likely
that this word refers to several different types of acacia, not just one particular species.
There is therefore no need to conclude, as Zevit does, that the usage of the term ‫ ִשׁ ָטּה‬in
Exodus is the product of a late, uninformed writer.800
ššmn “sesame”
(KTU 4.14:4, 10; 4.60:8; 4.594:4; 4.707:6)
CW
Akk. šamaššammū; Phoen. ‫ ;ששמן‬IA ‫ ;שמשם‬JA ‫;שׁוּשּׁ ָמא‬

ְ Syr. šuššamā; Mand. šušma; Arab.
simsim; Eg. šmšm.t; Copt. ⲥⲓⲙⲥⲓⲙ; Hitt. šapšama; Hurr. šumišumi; Lin. A su-sa-me; Lin. B
sa-sa-ma; Gk. σησάμη, σήσαμον; Lat. sesama
In Northwest Semitic of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages this term occurs only in
Ugaritic, in which ššmn, “sesame,” appears five times in economic texts.801 It is listed
among spices such as sbbyn (“black cumin”) in KTU 4.14:4, 10, and in KTU 4.60:8 it is
listed amongst foodstuffs such as šˁrm (“barley”) and dblt (“figs”).802
This term also occurs in a wide number of languages with the meaning
“sesame”: Akkadian, Jewish Aramaic, Syriac, Mandaic, Arabic, Egyptian, Hittite,
Hurrian, Linear A, Linear B, Greek, and Latin.803 It is clear that this term is quite old and
widespread, being attested as early as Old Akkadian in Semitic and the Old Kingdom
‫ ספר אברהם בירן‬:‫( הארץ ועתיקותה‬eds. Ephraim Stern and Thomas E. Levy; Eretz-Israel 24; Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 1992), *138-*142.
800
Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 209-211.
801
DUL 847-848.
802
The word ššmn also occurs in several fragmentary texts (KTU 4.594, 4.707:6) where the precise
context is difficult to determine. In later Northwest Semitic, this word occurs as ‫ ששמן‬in a fourth-third
century BCE fragmentary Phoenician papyrus from Egypt (KAI 51:7) and as ‫ שמשם‬in Imperial Aramaic
(DNWSI 1169, 1197).
803
CAD Š/1 301-307; AHw 1155; DJBA 1126; SyrLex 1538; MD 458; Lane 1420; ÄW 1:1307; 2:2467; GHwÄ
891; WÄS 4:488; CHD Š 207; HHw 161; GLH 242; Consani, Testi minoici trascritti con interpretazione e glossario,
297; DM 2:284; Isabelle Erard-Cerceau, “Végétaux, parfums, et parfumeurs à l’époque mycénienne,” Studi
micenei ed egeo-anatolici 28 (1990): 267-268; LSJ 1594-1595; OLD 1748.
164
Pyramid texts in Egyptian. The early, widespread distribution of this word in both
Semitic and non-Semitic indicates an ancient culture word.804 The Ugaritic, Hittite, and
Hurrian forms seem to be loans from Akkadian,805 Coptic ⲥⲓⲙⲥⲓⲙ is a loan from Arabic,806
and the Mediterranean forms may be derived from Semitic.807
In 1966 Helbaek suggested that Akkadian šamaššammū means “linseed” rather
than “sesame” because no archaeological remains for sesame (Sesamum indicum, also
known as Sesamum orientale)808 had been discovered in the ancient Near East.809
However, remains of this species from as early as the mid-third millennium BCE have
since been discovered at sites such as Abu Salabikh in Mesopotamia.810 Other important
finds include thirteenth century BCE samples from Tell Sabi Abyad and Tell Schech
Hamad in northern Syria811 as well as samples from the first half of the first millennium
804
In Sumerian, the name of the sesame plant is GIŠ.Ì, “plant of oil”; less commonly, this word is
written ŠE.GIŠ.Ì, “grain of the plant of oil” (PSD). Von Soden and Kraus propose that Akkadian
šamaššammū can be explained as a composite word consisting of šaman šammi, “plant oil,” by analogy
with Sumerian GIŠ.Ì (AHw 1155; F.R. Kraus, “Sesam im Alten Mesopotamien,” JAOS 88 (1968): 114-115).
This is possible, but more likely Akkadian šamaššammū was associated with the phrase šaman šammi by
popular folk etymology.
805
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 109; HEG 2:851; GLH 242. The change of the consonant cluster ms
to ps, observed in Hittite šapšama , is a characteristic feature of Hittite phonology (HEG 2:851; Emmanuel
Laroche, “Observations sur la chronologie de l’ionien ā > ē,” in Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie
grecques offerts à Pierre Chantraine (ed. Alfred Ernout; Études et commentaires 79; Paris: Klincksieck, 1972),
83).
806
Crum 340; CED 153. Additional forms of Coptic ⲥⲓⲙⲥⲓⲙ include ⲥⲙⲥⲓⲙ, ⲥⲙⲥⲙ, and ⲥⲉⲙⲥⲏⲙ.
807
EDG 1325; DELG 965; DELL 621; LEW 2:527; Masson, Les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, 57-58.
Greek and Latin are the source of this term in a number of modern languages (e.g., French sésame,
German Sesam, and English sesame).
808
Sesame was first domesticated in the Indus Valley, where it was cultivated during the mid- to late-
third millennium BCE. From India it spread westward, entering Mesopotamia during the third
millennium BCE and later reaching Egypt as well as the Levant. See Dorothea Bedigian, “Evolution of
Sesame Revisited: Domestication, Diversity, and Prospects,” Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 50 (2003):
779-787; Zohary and Hopf, Domestication of Plants in the Old World, 140-141.
809
Hans Helbaek, “The Plant Remains from Nimrud,” in Nimrud and Its Remains (3 vols.; London:
Collins, 1966), 618. This argumentation was subsequently followed by the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD
Š/1 306-307) as well as Hepper, “Transference of Ancient Plant Names,” 130.
810
Dorothea Bedigian, “History and Lore of Sesame in Southwest Asia,” Economic Botany 58 (2004):
332; M.P. Charles, “Botanical Remains,” in The 6G Ash-Tip and Its Contents: Cultic Administrative Discard from
the Temple? (ed. Anthony Green; vol. 4/1 of Abu Salabikh Excavations; ed. J. Nicholas Postgate; 4 vols.;
London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1993), 204.
811
Bedigian, “History and Lore of Sesame in Southwest Asia,” 332; Wilem Van Zeist, “Third to First
Millennium B.C. Plant Cultivation on the Khabur, North-Eastern Syria,” Palaeohistoria 41/42 (1999-2000):
124; Wilem Van Zeist, “Evidence for Agricultural Change in the Balikh Basin, Northern Syria,” in The
Prehistory of Food: Appetites for Change (eds. Chris Gosden and Jon G. Hather; One World Archaeology 32;
165
BCE from Bastam and Teishabaini (modern Karmir Blur) in Urartu.812 Remains of sesame
seeds from Egypt include those from King Tutankhamen’s tomb (fourteenth century
BCE).813 Through analysis of the pertinent textual and archaeological evidence, which
demonstrates the presence of Sesamum indicum in the ancient Near East, Powell and
Bedigian cogently argue that Akkadian šamaššammū and its cognates indeed denote
“sesame” rather than “linseed.”814
‫( ְתּ ַאשּׁוּר‬Heb.), tˀišr (Ug.) “cypress, boxwood (?)”
(Isa 41:19; 60:13; KTU 1.92:26; 4.91:7; 4.158:4; 4.402:3; 4.780:15)
Hitt. → WSem. (Ug., Heb.)
Hitt. tieššar
The word ‫ ְתּ ַאשּׁוּר‬occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible, both times in lists of trees
(Isa 41:19; 60:13).815 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
London: Routledge, 1999), 364-365; Wilem Van Zeist, “Some Notes on Second Millennium B.C. Plant
Cultivation in the Syrian Jazira,” in Cinquante-deux reflexions sur le proche-orient ancien offertes en hommage à
Léon De Meyer (eds. Hermann Gasche, et al.; Mesopotamian History and Environment: Occasional
Publications 2; Leuven: Peeters, 1994), 546.
812
Bedigian, “History and Lore of Sesame in Southwest Asia,” 333; Maria Hopf and Ulrich Willerding,
“Pflanzenreste,” in Ausgrabungen in den Urartäischen Anlagen 1977-1978 (ed. Wolfram Kleiss; vol. 2 of Bastam;
2 vols.; Teheraner Forschungen 5; Berlin: Mann Verlag, 1989), 274-277, 295-297, 314-315, 317.
813
Hepper, Pharaoh’s Flowers, 27-28; Bedigian, “History and Lore of Sesame in Southwest Asia,” 334;
Margaret Serpico and Raymond White, “Oil, Fat, and Wax,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology
(eds. Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 397-398; de
Vartavan, Codex of Ancient Egyptian Plant Remains, 237-238.
814
Marvin A. Powell, “Epistemology and Sumerian Agriculture: The Strange Case of Sesame and
Linseed,” AuOr 9 (1991): 155-164; Dorothea Bedigian, “Is še-giš-ì Sesame or Flax?” Bulletin on Sumerian
Agriculture 2 (1985): 159-178.
815
HALOT 1677. This word probably also occurs in Ezek 27:6, assuming that ‫ת־א ֻשׁ ִרים‬ ֲ ‫ ַבּ‬should be
emended to ‫( ִבּ ְת ַא ֻשּׁ ִרים‬Block, Book of Ezekiel, 2:56; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (AB 22A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 545, 549-550; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2:44,
141-142, 149). Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 1677) suggest that ‫ ַאשּׁוּר‬in Ezek 31:3 should be emended
to ‫תּ ַאשּׁוּר‬,
ְ but this is speculative and Block and Greenberg read the text without emendation (Block, Book
of Ezekiel, 2:181, 184-185; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37, 637).
166
ancient versions.816 Ugaritic tˀišr also occurs only five times, primarily in economic lists
(KTU 1.92:26; 4.91:7; 4.158:4; 4.402:3; 4.780:15).817 As with Hebrew ‫תּ ַאשּׁוּר‬,

ְ Ugaritic tˀišr
refers to a type of tree, but its contexts do not enable easy identification with a specific
tree. Possible candidates for this word in Hebrew and Ugaritic include the cypress or
boxwood, but its exact identity remains uncertain.818
The absence of any clear Semitic cognate outside Hebrew and Ugaritic, the
difficulty of basing this word on a known Semitic root,819 and this word’s unusual
morphology pattern all indicate a foreign loan. As suggested by Rabin and de Moor,820
the donor term is Hittite tieššar, “forest.”821 Northwest Semitic speakers presumably
adapted this more general term to denote a particular tree characteristic of forests in
Anatolia when they borrowed this term.
816
The Septuagint omits ‫ ְתּ ַאשּׁוּר‬in Isa 41:19 but translates it as κέδρος (“cedar”) in Isa 60:13, and the
Vulgate uses buxum (“boxwood”) in Isa 41:19 but pinus (“pine”) in Isa 60:13. The Targums and Peshitta are
consistent in their usage ‫ אשכרע‬of and šrwynˀ, respectively.
817
DUL 855-856.
818
HALOT 1677; DUL 855-856; Hepper, Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants, 31, 34; Löw, Flora der Juden,
1:316-319.
819
Brown, Driver, and Briggs derive this term from the root ‫אשׁר‬, which they claim means “to go
straight,” and argue that Hebrew ‫ ְתּ ַאשּׁוּר‬describes an upright tree (BDB 81). However, Hebrew ‫ אשׁר‬is
attested in Ugaritic as ˀṯr, not ˀšr, demonstrating that both derive from *ˀṯr. If the Ugaritic form was
derived from this root, it should be written as *tˀiṯr, not tˀišr. Feliks, on the other hand, derives Hebrew
‫ ְתּ ַאשּׁוּר‬from the root ‫ישׁר‬, “to be straight” (Feliks, ‫עצי בשמים יער ונוי‬, 244). This avoids the root problem
since this verb is yšr in both Hebrew and Ugaritic but creates an unusual taˀqattul-pattern noun with an
inexplicably omitted first root letter.
820
de Moor, “Frustula Ugaritica,” 362; Chaim Rabin, “‫מלים חיתוית בעברית‬,” in ‫ מוגש לכבוד‬:‫ספר סגל‬
‫( הפרופ׳ משה צבי סגל על־ידי חבריו ותלמדיו‬eds. Jehoshua M. Grintz and Jacob Liver; Publications of the Israel
Society for Biblical Research 17. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1964), 177.
821
HHw 197. This word is also written logographically as gišTIR and gišTIR.sar.
167
Religion and Cult
ztr “votive stele”
(KTU 1.17 i:27, 45; ii:1, 17)
Hitt. → Ug.
Hitt. šittar
Ugaritic ztr appears only in the ˀAqhat Legend. Each time it occurs, it is parallel
to skn, “stele.” The latter, a West Semitic word, occurs in Akkadian texts from Emar and
Mari with reference to stele for different deities.822 Based on the parallelism with skn, ztr
must also denote a stele used in the cult.823
Proposed Semitic etymologies for ztr are unconvincing in light of its meaning
“stele,”824 pointing to a non-Semitic origin. Tsevat argues that Ugaritic ztr is borrowed
from Hittite sittar, “solar disc, votive disc.”825 In Hittite texts, the object denoted by
sittar can be made out of metal (such as gold, silver, or bronze) and is associated with a
deity or divine statute (cf. KUB 17.21 ii:14; 29.4 i:11, 13, 22). Tsevat notes that sun discs
are often represented on stelae from the ancient Near East; moreover, he specifically
points to the discovery of a stele, found on an altar at Ras Shamra, with a four-rayed
sun disc on it. The archaeological attestation of these stelae provides a fitting parallel
822
DUL 759; Pentiuc, West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar, 156-159; Jean-Marie
Durand, “Le culte des bétyles en Syrie,” in Miscellanea Babylonica: mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot (eds. Jean-
Marie Durand and Jean Robert Kupper; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1985), 81-84.
823
DUL 1001-1002; Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 53-54; Theodore J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel
and Ugarit (HSM 39; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989), 59-60.
824
See Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 53-54; Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 59-60 for critiques of Semitic
etymologies that have been suggested.
825
HHw 172. The argument has been made that sittar does not mean “solar disc, votive disc,” but
“spear, spearhead” (Frank Starke, Untersuchung zur Stammbildung des keilschrift-luwischen Nomens [Studien
zu den Boğazköy-Texten 31; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1990], 408-416). However, this speculative
suggestion is largely based on etymological considerations and insufficient Hierglyphic Luwian evidence.
I am very grateful to Harry Hoffner, Theo van den Hout, and Richard Beal for making the not-yet-
published Chicago Hittite Dictionary entry for Hittite sittar available to me.
168
to the stele indicated by ztr.826 As indicated by the context of this portion of the ˀAqhat
Legend, this votive stele probably functioned within Ugarit’s ancestor cult similar to
the way in which standing stones and stelae were set up in Anatolia and the Levant to
mark a deity’s presence.827 This is supported by Hittite texts’ usage of sittar with
reference to an object of importance for the Hittite family cult, which a son inherited
from his father or grandfather (KUB 38.37 Rs. iii:8ʹ-15ʹ).828
‫“ ח ֶֹשׁן‬breastpiece, pectoral”
(Exod 25:7; passim)
The word ‫ח ֶֹשׁן‬, “breastpiece,” occurs 25 times in the Hebrew Bible, exclusively in
Pentateuchal texts related to the high priest’s garments.829 It was approximately nine
inches square and folded (Exod 28:15-16), and on it were mounted twelve precious
stones engraved with the names of Israel’s tribes (Exod 28:17-21). It was, moreover,
attached to the ephod by three sets of rings, two chains of gold, two settings of gold
filigree, and a blue cord (Exod 28:22-28). According to Exod 28:30 and Lev 8:8, the
oracular Urim and Thummim were placed in the breastpiece.
In light of possible parallels between the high priest’s breastpice and ancient
826
Matitiahu Tsevat, “Traces of Hittite at the Begining of the Ugaritic Epic of Aqht,” UF 3 (1971): 352.
On the discovery of this stele at Ras Shamra, see Claude F.A. Schaeffer, “Les fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et
de Ras-Shamra, troisième campagne (printemps 1931): rapport sommaire,” Syria 13 (1932): 22.
827
Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 49-55; Karel van der Toorn, “Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in
Ugaritic Texts and the Bible” (review of Klaas Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near
East), BO 48 (1991): 44;Johannes C. de Moor, “Standing Stones and Ancestor Worship,” UF 27 (1995): 1-20;
Durand, “Culte des bétyles en Syrie,” 79-84.
828
de Moor, “Standing Stones,” 8. On the usage of sittar in the Hittite family cult, cf. Volkert Haas,
Geschichte der hethitischen Religion (HO 15; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 424-425.
829
HALOT 362. See Exod 25:7; 28:4, 15, 22, 23 (2x), 24, 26, 28 (2x), 29-30; 29:5; 35:9, 27; 39:8-9, 15-17, 19,
21 (2x); Lev 8:8 (2x). The Septuagint has ποδήρης (“long robe,” literally “reaching to the feet”) in Exod
25:7; 35:9 and περιστήθιον (“breastband”) in Exod 28:4 but elsewhere has λογεῖον (“oracle”); the
Vulgate’s rendition of rationale (“rational”) is probably based on the last of these Septuagintal renderings.
The Peshitta utilizes prysˀ (“covering”) as well as ḥwsyˀ (“covering, propitiation”), and lastly the Targums
use the Aramaic form of this word.
169
Egyptian pectorals,830 Görg postulates an Egyptian derivation, connecting ‫ ח ֶֹשׁן‬with the
unattested Egyptian phrase ḫw (n) šnˁ, “protection of the chest.”831 However, this
etymology is problematic because the final ˁ is entirely absent in the Hebrew forms and
because this phrase is never utilized in Egyptian to denote a breastpiece.832 Köhler and
Baumgartner provide a perfectly suitable etymology by pointing to Arabic ḥasuna, “to
be pleasing, beautiful,”833 since the breastpiece was a decorative item worn by the
priests.834 Thus, there is no need to postulate a foreign origin for Hebrew ‫ח ֶֹשׁן‬.
‫טוֹטפֹת‬,
ָ ‫“ ט ָֹטפֹת‬phylactery, headband”
(Exod 13:16; Deut 6:8; 11:18)
The word ‫טוֹטפֹת‬

ָ occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible, each time in the
Pentateuch: God commands the Israelites to place the item denoted by ‫טוֹטפֹת‬
ָ between
their eyes (Exod 13:16; Deut 6:8; 11:18).835 The context of these passages and the usage of
ָ along with ‫אוֹת‬, “sign, distinguishing mark,” indicates that the ‫טוֹטפֹת‬
‫טוֹטפֹת‬ ָ functioned
as an emblematic reminder of God’s commandments. This conclusion is supported by
the related passage Exod 13:9, in which ‫ זִ ָכּרוֹן‬is used in place of ‫טוֹטפֹת‬.
ָ
This word is unique to biblical Hebrew,836 and accordingly some scholars have
830
For possible Egyptian analogues, see Cornelis Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of
Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 73-76.
831
Manfred Görg, “Der Brustschmuck des Hohenpriesters,” BN 15 (1981): 32-34,
832
Görg attempts to burke this problem exchanging šnˁ for šn, “royal ring,” a motif appearing on
Egyptian pectorals, but this constitutes an even more unlikely donor term for Hebrew ‫ ח ֶֹשׁן‬semantically.
833
Lane 570. Notably, this verb can refer to the act of adorning one’s personal appearance.
834
HALOT 362. Köhler and Baumgartner also compare Hebrew ‫ ח ֶֹשׁן‬with Arabic ǧawšan, “chest, coat of
mail” (Lane 487) and Jewish Aramaic ‫חסן‬, “to take possession, inherit” (DJBA 475). However, these
derivations face unexpected consonant correspondences.
835
HALOT 373. The Septuagint understands ‫טוֹטפֹת‬
ָ with reference to motion, translating it as
ἀσάλευτος (“immovable”); the Vulgate has a similar interpretation, utilizing forms of the verbs adpendo
(“to weigh, suspend”) in Exod 13:16, moveo in Deut 6:8 (“to shake, set in motion”), and conloco (“to put,
set”) in Deut 11:18. The Peshitta reads dwkrnˀ (“remembrance”) in Exod 13:16 but rwšmˀ (“mark”) in Deut
6:8; 11:18. Lastly, Targums Onqelos and Pseduo-Jonathan read ‫“( תפלין‬phylacteries”).
836
Jewish Aramaic ‫טוֹט ְפ ָתּא‬
ַ is a clear loan from Hebrew (DJBA 496); likewise, the sole occurrence of
170
proposed an Egyptian origin for ‫טוֹטפֹת‬.
ָ However, these loan hypotheses are
problematic,837 and ‫טוֹטפֹת‬

ָ is best explained as Semitic. Following many manuscripts of
the Samaritan Targum, one option is to derive ‫טוֹטפֹת‬

ָ from a reduplicated form of
*ṭippah, “drop” (cf. rabbinic Hebrew ‫יפּה‬

ָ ‫ט‬, ִ 838 assuming that the ‫טוֹטפֹת‬
ִ ‫)ט ָפּה‬, ָ denotes a
drop-like ornament or tatoo marks (i.e., ink drops or drop-like puncture marks).839
Reduplication of the base *ṭap would have produced ṭapṭap, which would have become
*ṭoṭap. A second, perhaps more likely, possibility is that ‫טוֹטפֹת‬

ָ is a reduplicated form of
a root cognate with Arabic ṭāfa, “to go around, encircle, encompass.”840 The first labial
softened to w via a phonological change parallel to that which took place in Hebrew
ָ “star,” which was originally a reduplicated form (*kabkab → *kawkab → kōkab).841

‫כּוֹכב‬,
Such a derivation is consistent with the traditional understanding of ‫טוֹטפֹת‬
ָ as
“headband” as well as third to first millennium depictions of Levantine peoples
wearing headbands and head fillets.842
this word in Mandaic ṭuṭipta occurs within a context referring to Jews and must be a loan from Hebrew or
Aramaic (MD 177).
837
Grintz postulates a derivation from Egyptian ḏdf, which can mean “to bristle” with reference to
hair (ÄW 2:2892; GHwÄ 1095; WÄS 5:634), contending that this matches the halakhic requirement of
placing tefillah at the hairline (Grintz, “‫מונחים קדומים ב׳תורת כהנים׳‬,” 18-19). Grimme points to Egyptian
ḏdf.t, which means “snake” (ÄW 2:2892; GHwÄ 1095; WÄS 5:633-634); because ḏdf.t can sometimes denote
the uraeus snake worn as a headdress, he contends that it is the origin of Hebrew ‫טוֹטפֹת‬ָ (Hubert Grimme,
“Hebr. ‫ טטפת‬und ‫טת‬, zwei Lehnwörter aus dem Ägyptischen,” OLZ 41 [1938]: 148-152; cf. Manfred Görg,
“ṭ(w)ṭpt: eine fast vergessene Deutung,” BN 8 [1979]: 11-13). Speiser, on the other hand, proposes a
Semitic etymology, postulating a hypothetical Akkadian word *taptappu denoting an apotropaic figurine
(E.A. Speiser, “ṭwṭpt,” JQR 48 [1957]: 208-217). Each of these loan hypothesis is completely speculative.
838
Jastrow 533.
839
E.S. Hartum, “‫ טטפת‬,‫טוטפת‬,” ‫ אוצר הידיעות על המקרא ותקופתו‬:‫( אנציקלופדיה מקראית‬9 vols.;
Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1958), 3:376; Abraham Epstein, ‫( כתבי ר׳ אברהם עפשטיין‬ed. Abraham Meir
Habermann; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1950-1957), 1:175-181; cf. Jeffrey H. Tigay, “On the
Meaning of ṭ(w)ṭpt,” JBL (1982): 322-323, 331.
840
Lane 1892-1894.
841
Bauer and Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes, 482 (§461fδ).
The reduplicated form is attested without softening of the labial in Ugaritic and Amorite as kbkb (DUL
427-428; Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts, 220).
842
Tigay, “Meaning of ṭ(w)ṭpt,” 324-330.
171
‫“ ַכּף‬incense pan”
(Exod 25:29; 37:16; Num 4:7; 7:14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44, 50, 56, 62, 68, 74, 80, 86 [3x]; 1 Kgs
5:50; 2 Kgs 25:14; Jer 52:18-19)
Hebrew ‫ ַכּף‬occurs 197 times with reference to the palm of the hand.843 In several
instances, however, ‫ ַכּף‬specifically refers to an incense pan utilized within the Israelite
sanctuary (Exod 25:29; 37:16; Num 4:7; 7:14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44, 50, 56, 62, 68, 74, 80, 86; 1
Kgs 5:50; 2 Kgs 25:14; Jer 52:18-19). Based on the phonological similarity between
Hebrew ‫ ַכּף‬and Egyptian kȝp, “to burn incense,”844 as well as possible archaeological
parallels with Egyptian incense censers, Hoffmeier proposes a connection between ‫ַכּף‬
and kȝp.845 However, Semitic parallels also exist. Ugaritic kp occurs once with reference
to the pan of a scale (kp mznm) in KTU 1.24:35,846 and this word occurs in Aramaic
(Imperial Aramaic ‫כף‬, Jewish Aramaic ‫כּף‬,ַ and Syriac kappā) with reference to a dish or
the pan of a scale.847 The meaning “incense pan” for ‫ ַכּף‬reflects the palm-shaped nature
of the vessel,848 and there is no need to postulate an Egyptian origin.
‫“ ַכּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬instrument for ritual purification”
Hebrew ‫ ַכּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬occurs 27 times, each time with reference to an item for the
Israelite sanctuary.849 The ‫ ַכּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬was placed above the ark of the covenant (Exod 25:21;
843
HALOT 491-492.
844
845
ÄW 1:1354; 2:2561; GHwÄ 946; WÄS 5:103. The derived noun kȝp can refer to a dish for burning
incense.
846
DUL 452.
847
DNWSI 528-529; DJPA 266; SyrLex 641-642.
848
Kelso, Ceramic Vocabulary of the Old Testament, 22. Hebrew ‫ ַכּף‬elsewhere refers to palm-shaped
objects, including door handles (Song 5:5), the hollow of the hip socket (Gen 32:16), and the hollow of a
sling (1 Sam 25:29).
849
HALOT 495. All but one of the occurrences are in the Pentateuch: Exod 25:17-19, 20 (2x), 21-22;
172
26:34) and was the place where God encountered Moses and the priests (Exod 25:22;
30:6; Lev 16:2; Num 7:89). The ‫ ַכּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬may have served as a covering for the ark but was
nevertheless often considered separate from the ark.850
Because the ‫ ַכּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬was the place of the divine presence, which elsewhere is
associated with God’s footstool (cf. 1 Chron 28:2; Ps 99:5; 132:7; Isa 66:1), Görg851
proposes a derivation from the Egyptian phrase kp n rdwy, “throne base.”852 This loan
hypothesis is somewhat attractive semantically but implausibly assumes that Hebrew
speakers adopted a contracted form of this phrase and thought the d was the Hebrew
feminine ending.853 In any case, a perfectly good Semitic etymology for ‫ ַכּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬exists.
Hebrew ‫ ַכּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬is derived from the verb ‫כפר‬, which means “to make atonement” in the
Piel stem.854 This verb is cognate with Akkadian kapāru, “to smear, wipe off,” and, by
extension, “to purify ritually.”855 The connection between the ‫ ַכּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬and atonement is
evident in the Pentateuch’s prescriptions for the Day of Atonement, which specifically
describe the ‫’כּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬s

ַ function: blood was to be sprinkled on the ‫כּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬,ַ thereby purifying
26:34; 30:6; 31:7; 35:12; 37:6-8, 9 (2x); 39:35; 40:20; Lev 16:2 (2x), 13, 14 (2x), 15 (2x); Num 7:89; 1 Chron
28:11. The Septuagint frequently translates Hebrew ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬as ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα (“propitiatory lid”), the
Vulgate often has propitiatorius (“atoning, propitiating”), the Peshitta has ḥwsy (“reconciliation,
covering”) everywhere but 1 Chron 28:11, and the Targum uses the Aramaic form of this word.
850
Propp, Exodus 19-40, 385-386; Cornelis Houtman, Exodus (trans. Sierd Woudstra; 4 vols.; Historical
Commentary on the Old Testament; Leuven: Peeters, 1993-2002), 3:380-382; Jean-Michel de Tarragon, “La
kapporet est-elle une fiction ou un element du culte tardif?” RB 88 (1981): 5-12; Menaḥem Haran, Temples
and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of
the Priestly School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 247-251. Several ancient traditions understand ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬as
a lid for the ark of the covenant. 4QtgLev 1:6 interprets it in this way, utilizing the term ‫כסיא‬, “covering.”
As noted above, the Septuagint frequently utilizes the double rendering ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα,
understanding it as a lid as well as an item for making atonement.
851
Manfred Görg, “Eine neue Deutung für kăpporæt,” ZAW 89 (1977): 115-118;Manfred Görg,
“Nachtrag zu ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬,”
ַ BN 5 (1978): 12.
852
GHwÄ 951.
853
Also unlikely is the hypothesis (Jehoshua M. Grintz, “(‫מונחים קדומים בתורת כהנים )המשך‬.” Leš 39
[1974-1975]: 163-67) that Hebrew ‫ ַכּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬is a metathesized form of Egyptian kȝp, kȝp.t, “roof” (ÄW 2:2561-
2562; GHwÄ 946; WÄS 5:104).
854
HALOT 493-494.
855
CAD K 178-180; AHw 442-443. This root is also connected with Arabic kafara, “to cover” (Lane 2620-
2621; WKAS K 261-264), although this does not demonstrate that Hebrew ‫ ַכּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬means “covering” or “lid”
because the acts of covering, wiping, and atoning can all be easily connected semantically.
173
the people of sin (Lev 16:14-15). This fits perfectly well with a derivation ‫כפר‬, and
therefore there is little reason to think that Hebrew ‫ ַכּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬is non-Semitic in origin.
‫“ ַמ ְח ָתּה‬censer”
Hebrew ‫ ַמ ְח ָתּה‬occurs some 22 times with reference to an item for the Israelite
sanctuary.856 It accompanied the sanctuary’s menorah (Exod 25:38) as well as the altar
(Exod 27:3). Several of its occurrences demonstrate that it denotes an object for
carrying fire, such as a firepan or censer (e.g., Lev 10:1; 16:12; Num 16:18; 17:11).
Hoffmeier857 suggests a connection between ‫ ַמ ְח ָתּה‬and Egyptian ḫt, which can

mean “fire.”858 However, a perfectly good Semitic etymology exists for this word: as
noted by Köhler and Baumgartner, Hebrew ‫ ַמ ְח ָתּה‬is derived from the root ‫חתה‬, which
means “to rake burning coals, sweep away ashes.”859 In each of the instances in which
‫ חתה‬occurs in the Hebrew Bible, it appears in conjunction with the act of raking coals
or sweeping away ashes (Ps 52:7; Prov 6:27; 25:22; Isa 30:14). This verb is attested
elsewhere in rabbinic Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic ‫חתי‬, “to rake coals,” as well as
Ethiopic ḫatawa, “to burn, be kindled.”860 Thus, there is no reason to derive Hebrew
‫ ַמ ְח ָתּה‬from Egyptian.
856
HALOT 572-573. See Exod 25:38; 27:3; 37:23; 38:3; Lev 10:1; 16:12; Num 4:9, 14; 16:6, 17 (4x), 18; 17:2-
4, 11; 1 Kgs 7:50; 2 Kgs 25:15; 2 Chron 4:22; Jer 52:19.
857
Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 216.
858
CDME 182. Neither Ägyptisches Wörterbuch nor Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache lists Egyptian ḫt,
“fire,” as a distinct lexeme.
859
HALOT 363.
860
Jastrow 512; DJBA 489; CDG 268.
174
‫“ ִמ ְכ ָבּר‬altar grate, altar grating”
(Exod 27:4; 35:16; 38:4-5, 30, 39)
Hebrew ‫ ִמ ְכ ָבּר‬occurs only six times in the book of Exodus as an item that
accompanies the sanctuary’s altar (Exod 27:4; 35:16; 38:4-5, 30, 39).861 It is glossed as
ֶ ְ‫“( ֶר ֶשׁת נ‬bronze grid-work”) in Exod 27:4; 38:4, demonstrating that it refers to
‫חשׁת ַמ ֲע ֵשׂה‬
a grating for the sacrificial altar.862
Görg proposes that ‫ ִמ ְכ ָבּר‬is an Egyptian loan.863 However, Görg’s loan hypothesis
is untenable864 and a perfectly good Semitic etymology exists for this word. Köhler and
Baumgartner865 derive ‫ ִמ ְכ ָבּר‬from the root ‫כבר‬, “to weave,”866 the basis for the nouns
‫כּ ִביר‬,ָ “woven blanket” (1 Sam 19:13, 16) and ‫ ַמ ְכ ֵבּר‬of similar meaning (2 Kgs 8:15) as well
as ‫כּ ָב ָרה‬,ְ “sieve” (Amos 9:9).867 This derivation is consistent with the biblical text’s
comparison of ‫ ִמ ְכ ָבּר‬with a net (‫ ֶ)ר ֶשׁת‬in Exod 27:4; 38:4. Thus, there is no reason to
861
HALOT 579. The Septuagint translates ‫ ִמ ְכ ָבּר‬in Exod 27:4 as ἐσχάρα (“grate, grating; hearth”) but
παράθεμα (“grating”) in Exod 38:4-5, 30; this term is omitted by the Septuagint in Exod 35:16; 39:39. The
Vulgate reads craticula (“grill, grating”) in Exod 27:4; 35:16; 38:4, 30, 39 (in Exod 38:5 the Vulgate does not
render this word as in the Hebrew). The Peshitta utilizes qrql (“grating”) in Exod 27:4; 38:4, 30; 39:39 but
bss (“base”) in Exod 35:16; 38:5. Targums Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti use ‫ קלקל‬whereas Targum Onqelos
uses ‫סרדא‬.
862
Because the text does not sufficiently explain the purpose of this grating, scholars disagree on
whether it was set inside the altar (e.g., John I. Durham, Exodus [WBC 3; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987], 375-376;
R.A. Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary [TOTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1973], 196-197) or was
located outside it (e.g., Propp, Exodus 19-40, 422; Houtman, Exodus, 3:444-446).
863
Manfred Görg, “Methodological Remarks on Comparative Studies of Egyptian and Biblical Words
and Phrases,” in Pharaonic Egypt: The Bible and Christianity (ed. Sarah Israelit-Groll; Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1985), 61; cf. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 215.
864
According to Görg, Hebrew ‫ ַמ ְכ ֵבּר‬is a compound loan from the unattested Egyptian compound
phrase mk biȝ rwḏ which he contends means “strong bronze covering.” He contends that the final ḏ
(which would have become ‫ ת‬in Hebrew) was interpreted as the feminine plural ending rather than part
of the word, hence its lack of representation in Hebrew ‫מ ְכ ָבּר‬.
ִ However, Egyptian mk does not mean
“covering” as Görg claims; the Egyptian word mk that Görg refers to (Elmar Edel, “Zwei Originalbriefe der
Königsmutter Tūja in Keilschrift,” Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 1 [1974]: 122-123, 144-145) occurs
relatively rarely only in Boghazköy Akkadian and denotes a quality of textiles (CAD M/2 66). Neither
Ägyptisches Wörterbuch nor Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache lists Egyptian mk, “covering,” as a distinct
lexeme.
865
HALOT 579.
866
HALOT 459.
867
HALOT 459, 579.
175
postulate an Egyptian origin for Hebrew ‫מ ְכ ָבּר‬.
ִ
‫“ ְתּ ָר ִפים‬teraphim, divinatory figurines”
(Gen 31:19, 34-35; Judg 17:5; 18:14, 17-18, 20; 1 Sam 15:23; 19:13, 16; 2 Kgs 23:24; Ezek
21:26; Hos 3:4; Zech 10:2)
Hitt. → Heb.
Hitt. tarpi
The word ‫ ְתּ ָר ִפים‬occurs only fifteen times in the Hebrew Bible.868 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) whereas in 1 Samuel it is life-size (1 Sam
19:13, 16). The teraphim’s function, moreover, is cultic: the teraphim 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,869 which is good evidence that it might be
a foreign loan.870 Hoffner plausibly proposes a derivation from Hittite tarpi. In Hittite
lexical texts tarpi is equated with Akkadian šēdu, “spirit, demon,”871 and other contexts
in which tarpi occurs further demonstrate that this word refers to a chthonic spirit,
whether beneficial or malevolent.872 Hebrew speakers probably borrowed Hittite tarpi
(without the nominative case ending –š) as a segolate noun, and when epenthesis later
868
HALOT 1794-1796. The ancient versions associated Hebrew ‫ ְתּ ָר ִפים‬with a divine image: the
Septuagint most commonly transliterates it but sometimes also translates it as εἴδωλον (“image, idol”) or
γλυπτός (“carved image”); the Vulgate normally uses idolaum (“image, idol”); the Peshitta often uses ṣlmˀ
(“image”); the Targums typically use ‫“( צלם‬image”) or ‫“( צלמן‬image, statue”) as well as ‫“( דמאין‬figurines,
idols”).
869
As Albright noted long ago, the word ttrp in Ugaritic (KTU 1.5 i:4) does not mean “teraphim”
(William F. Albright, “Are the Ephod and the Teraphim Mentioned in Ugaritic Literature?” BASOR 83
(1941): 39-42).
870
Proposed Semitic derivations, the most common of which takes ‫ ְתּ ָר ִפים‬from ‫“( רפא‬to heal”), are
convincingly refuted in Hoffner, “Hittite Tarpiš and Hebrew Terāphîm,” 61-63.
871
CAD Š/2 256-259; AHw 1208.
872
HHw 192.
176
ְ 873
occurred the form would have become *terep, hence the plural form ‫תּ ָר ִפים‬.
In light of the biblical data and comparative evidence, it seems that the
teraphim were 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 eṭemu 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).874
Scribal Technology
‫“ ְדּיוֹ‬ink”
(Jer 36:18)
Eg. → WSem. (Heb., JA, Syr., Mand.)
JA ‫יוֹתא‬
ָ ‫דּ‬,ְ ‫ ;דיוטא‬Syr. dayawātā; Mand. diuta; Eg. ry.t
Hebrew ‫ ְדּיוֹ‬is 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
ַ 875
a scroll with ink (‫)בּ ְדּיוֹ‬.
Both Schneider and Quack876 note that Hebrew ‫ ְדּיוֹ‬is a loan from Egyptian ry.t,
873
Hoffner, “Hittite Tarpiš and Hebrew Terāphîm,” 63-68. As Hoffner notes, a comparison between
Hittite tarpi and Hebrew ‫ ְתּ ָר ִפים‬was first made orally by Benno Landsberger at the annual meeting of the
American Oriental Society in Chicago, 1965. Some scholars have raised objections to this loan hypothesis,
contending unconvincingly that Hittite tarpi does not provide a suitable donor term semantically, e.g.,
Hedwige Rouillard and Josef Tropper, “Trpym, rituels de guérison et culte des ancêtres d’après 1 Samuel
XIX 11-17 et les textes parallèles d’Assur et de Nuzi,” VT 37 (1987): 360-361; Folke Josephson, “Anatolien
tarpa/i-, etc.,” in Florilegium anatolicum: mélanges offerts à Emmanuel Laroche (Paris: De Boccard, 1979), 181.
874
Theodore J. Lewis, “Teraphim ‫תרפים‬,” DDD2 844-850; Karel van der Toorn, “The Nature of the
Biblical Teraphim in the Light of Cuneiform Evidence,” CBQ 52 (1990): 203-222.
875
HALOT 220. The Vulgate renders ‫ ְדּיוֹ‬with atrmentum (“ink”), and the Peshitta and Targum use the
Aramaic form of the word. The Septuagint, on the other hand, omits it.
876
Joachim Friedrich Quack, review of Yoshiyuki Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in
177
“ink.”877 During some periods (the Middle and New Kingdoms), Egyptian r had a dental-
like pronunciation.878 Egyptian ry.t was thus loaned relatively early into West Semitic.
Its borrowing by Hebrew speakers reflects adoption of Egyptian scribal terminology
(e.g., ‫חוֹתם‬
ָ and ‫ט ַ֫בּ ַעת‬,
ַ both meaning “seal, signet-ring,” as well as ‫ק ֶסת‬,ֶ “scribe’s
palette”). Jewish Aramaic, Syriac, and Mandaic also reflect the entry of this Egyptian
term into West Semitic.879
The Egyptians regularly used black ink for pen-written material, and red ink
was also utilized along with black ink 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).880 This type
of iron-based ink is probably what was used to write the Lachish Letters, whose ink
contains chemical traces of iron.881
North-West Semitic, RBL (April 24, 2000), 4 (online: http://www.bookreviews.org); Thomas Schneider,
review of Yoshiyuki Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic, JQR 92 (2001): 162;
cf. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 430. Lambdin suggests that ‫ ְדּיוֹ‬is an orthographical error for ‫ְריוֹ‬
(Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 149). However, Muchiki notes that if Hebrew ‫ְדּיוֹ‬
originated as a scribal error for ‫ריוֹ‬,ְ one would have to assume that the Jewish Aramaic, Mandaic, and
Syriac forms—which have an initial d rather than r—all originated from a Hebrew manuscript with this
error (Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 242).
877
ÄW 2:1455; GHwÄ 489; WÄS 2:399.
878
Thomas Schneider, “Zur Herkunft der ägyptischen Bezeichnung wrry.t ‘Wagen’: ein Indiz für den
Lautwert von <r> vor Beginn des Neuen Reiches,” Göttinger Miszellen 173 (1999): 155-158; Joachim
Friedrich Quack, “Eine Erwähnung des Reiches von Aleppo in den Ächtungstexten?” Göttinger Miszellen
130 (1992): 76-77; Otto Rössler, “Das ältere ägyptische Umschreibungssystem für Frendnamen und seine
sprachwissenschaftlischen Lehren,” in Neue afrikanische Studien (ed. Johannes Lukas; Hamburger Beiträge
zur Afrika-Kunde 5; Hamburg: Deutsches Institut für Afrika-Forschung, 1966), 220-223, 227. For further
discussion, see the Egyptian “Consonant Correspondences” section in the conclusions chapter.
879
DJBA 328; SyrLex 294; MD 107.
880
Bridget Leach and John Tait, “Papyrus,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (ed. Donald B.
Redford; 3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 3:238-239.
881
Alkin Lewis, “Tests upon the Ink of the Letters,” in The Lachish Letters (vol. 1 of Lachish (Tell ed-
Duweir); 4 vols.; Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East Publications 1;
London: Oxford University Press, 1938), 194-195; Lewis, “Report on the Lachish Letters,” 188-193.
178
‫חוֹתם‬,
ָ ‫( ח ֶֹ֫ת ֶמת‬Heb.), ‫( חתם‬Phoen.) “seal, signet ring”
(Gen 38:18; Exod 28:11, 21, 36; 39:6, 14, 30; 1 Kgs 21:8; Job 38:14; 41:7; Song 8:6 [2x]; Jer
22:23; Hag 2:23; RES 928:3; Avigad-Sass 721:1; 805:1; 847:1; KAI 51 Vs. 9-10 [2x])
Eg. → WSem. (Heb., Phoen., IA, JA, Syr., Mand., Arab.)
IA ‫חתם‬, JA ‫ ָ;ח ְת ָמא‬Syr. ḥātmā; Mand. ḫatma; Arab. ḫātm; Eg. ḫtm, ḫtm.t
The word ‫חוֹתם‬

ָ occurs fourteen 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).882 Elsewhere, ‫ חתם‬occurs on a number of West Semitic seals
(RES 928:3; Avigad-Sass 721:1; 805:1; 847:1) and in a fourth-third century BCE Phoenician
papyrus from Egypt (KAI 51 Vs. 9-10).883
This word is common to Semitic, with cognates in Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, and
Ethiopic.884 Its attestation, however, is limited to West Semitic: Akkadian instead uses
the word kunukku for “seal.”885 Muchiki, Ellenbogen, and Lambdin886 argue that Hebrew
ָ and its West Semitic cognates are from Egyptian ḫtm, “seal,” attested beginning
‫חוֹתם‬
with the Old Kingdom.887 In light of this word’s widespread nature and the presence of
denominative verbal forms in Semitic (cf. Hebrew ‫חתם‬, “to seal”),888 this word must
have been borrowed relatively early. The a-vowel of several of the Semitic forms also
points to an early borrowing because ā would have shifted to o in Egyptian ca. 1200
882
HALOT 300. The feminine form ‫ ח ֶֹ֫ת ֶמת‬occurs in Gen 38:25 (HALOT 364).
883
DNWSI 413-414. In addition to these occurrences, the word ‫ חתם‬appears in an unprovenanced
Phoenician inscription from southern Anatolia (André Dupont-Sommer, “Deux nouvelles inscriptions
sémitiques trouvées en Cilicie,” Jahrbuch für kleinasiatische Forschung 1 [1950-1951]: 44) and several
Ammonite seals, the latter perhaps being forgeries (CAI 55:1; 57:1; 61:1).
884
DNWSI 413-414; DJBA 490; SyrLex 505; MD 128; Lane 702.
885
CAD K 543-548; AHw 507-508.
886
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 45, 246; Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old
Testament, 74; Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 151.
887
ÄW 1:986; 2:1956; GHwÄ 674; WÄS 3:350. The feminine form ḫtm.t occurs beginning with the New
Kingdom. The Demotic form is ḫtm (DG 372).
888
HALOT 364.
179
BCE.889 Ancient Egypt had a well-known and active scribal tradition,890 and, due to its
long history of contact with the Levant, could have loaned this word at any number of
points prior to ca. 1200 BCE.
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 or roomers were preserved intact. However, seals were also used
as protective amulets, funerary labels, and personal ornaments, sometimes to the
exclusion of their sealing function.891
‫( ַט ַ֫בּ ַעת‬Heb.), ‫( טבעת‬Phoen.) “seal, signet ring”
(Gen 41:42; passim; KAI 51 Vs. 10)
Eg. → WSem. (Heb., Phoen., JA, Syr.) → Arab.
JA ‫טבע‬, ‫“( ִט ְיב ָעא‬stamp, weight”); Syr. ṭabˁā (“stamp, seal, weight”); Arab. ṭābāˁ; Eg. ḏbˁ.t
Hebrew ‫ ַט ַ֫בּ ַעת‬occurs commonly, appearing fifty times.892 The book of Exodus
contains the majority of these, using ‫ ַט ַ֫בּ ַעת‬to denote the metal rings for the
889
Testament,” 151.
890
Cf. Patrizia Piacentini, “Scribes,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (ed. Donald B. Redford; 3
vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 3:187-192.
891
Steven Blake Shubert, “Seals and Sealings,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (ed. Donald B.
Redford; 3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 3:252-257; Peter Kaplony, “Siegelung,” LÄ 5:933-
937.
892
HALOT 369. See Gen 41:42; Exod 25:12 (3x), 14-15, 26 (2x), 27; 26:24, 29; 27:4, 7; 28:23 (2x), 24, 26-27,
28 (3x); 30:4; 35:22; 36:29, 34; 37:3 (3x), 5, 13 (2x), 14, 27; 38:5, 7; 39:16 (2x), 17, 19-20, 21 (2x); Num 31:50;
Esth 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8 (2x), 10; Isa 3:21.
180
tabernacle’s accoutrements (Exod 25:12, passim). But, ‫ ַט ַ֫בּ ַעת‬also appears several times
with reference to royal signet rings (Gen 41:42; Esth 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8 [2x]) or to rings worn
as jewelry (Exod 35:22; Num 31:50; Isa 3:21). The term ‫ טבעת‬occurs once in Phoenician,
appearing along with ‫“( חתם‬seal, signet ring”) in a fourth-third century BCE papyrus
from Egypt (KAI 51 Vs. 10).893
Muchiki, Ellenbogen, and Lambdin894 argue that Hebrew ‫ ַט ַ֫בּ ַעת‬is a loan from
Egyptian ḏbˁ.t, “seal, signet ring,” attested since the Old Kingdom.895 The observation
that both the Hebrew and Phoenician forms retain the final –t, which was lost in
Egyptian by the Amarna period, indicates that West Semitic borrowed this term prior
to that period.896 Other West Semitic forms include Jewish Aramaic ‫טבע‬, ‫ ִט ְיב ָעא‬and
Syriac ṭabˁā, the source of Arabic ṭabāˁ.897
Like ‫חוֹתם‬,
ָ the existence of ‫ ַט ַ֫בּ ַעת‬in biblical Hebrew reflects the impact of
Egyptian scribal culture on ancient Israel, perhaps during the Late Bronze Age when
Egypt exerted an imperialistic presence in Canaan.
893
DNWSI 420.
894
895
ÄW 1:1502; 2:2836-2837; GHwÄ 1079; WÄS 5:566. This word occurs in Demotic as tbˁ and Coptic as
ⲧⲃⲃⲉ (DG 623; Crum 398; CED 181).
896
Testament,” 151. Rössler (Otto Rössler, “Das Ägyptische als semitische Sprache,” in Christentum am Roten
Meer (eds. Franz Altheim and Ruth Stiehl; 2 vols.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971), 304-305) notes the
connection between this term and Egyptian ḏbˁ (ÄW 1:1501; 2:2384-2386; GHwÄ 1079; WÄS 5:562-565) as
well as the common Semitic noun ˀṣbˁ (cf. Hebrew ‫[ ֶא ְצ ַבּע‬HALOT 81]), both meaning “finger.”
897
DJPA 220; DJBA 500-501; SyrLex 500; Lane 1824; Fränkel, Aramäischen Fremdwörter im Arabischen, 192-
194. Akkadian 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 Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 75;
181
Textiles and Clothing
‫“ ַא ְבנֵ ט‬sash, wrap”
(Exod 28:4, 39-40; 29:9; 39:29; Lev 8:7, 13; 16:4; Isa 22:21)
Eg. → Heb.; Gk.
Eg. bnd (“to wrap, envelop”), bndw (“sash, wrap”); Gk. βὺνητος
Hebrew ‫ ַא ְבנֵ ט‬occurs a number of times: it primarily appears 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 reference to the clothing of a non-religious official in Isa 22:21. From these
contexts, it is clear that ‫ ַא ְבנֵ ט‬denotes a type of garment.898

The atypical morphology of Hebrew ‫ ַא ְבנֵ ט‬suggests a non-Semitic loan, as does
the lack of a known Semitic root on which this term could be based.899 Based on its
frequent appearances in the wilderness wandering and tabernacle narratives, which
have a clear Egyptian literary context,900 Muchiki and Lambdin901 derive Hebrew from
Egyptian bnd, “to wrap, envelop,” and its related nominal form, bndw, “sash, wrap.”902
These Egyptian words are attested with group writing,903 but there is no convincing
reason to think that these forms entered Egyptian via Semitic.904 The late attestation of
898
HALOT 8-9. The Septuagint translates Hebrew ‫ ַא ְבנֵ ט‬as ζώνη (“belt, girdle”) and the Vulgate
renders it as balteus (“belt”) with the exception of cingulum (“belt”) in Exod 39:29. The Peshitta reads
hmynˀ (“belt”), and Targums Onqelos and Neofiti similarly read ‫“( המין‬belt”).
899
Brown, Driver, and Briggs as well as Lutz derive Hebrew ‫ ַא ְבנֵ ט‬from a hypothetical root *bnṭ (BDB
126; Henry Frederick Lutz, “The Meaning of Babylonian bittu,” JAOS 42 (1922): 206-207), but there is no
evidence for this root’s existence. Similarly, Cohen’s citation of a Semitic root *bnṭ (DRS 71) rests solely on
the assumption that it is the basis of Hebrew ‫א ְבנֵ ט‬.
ַ
900
901
Testament,” 146.
902
GHwÄ 272; WÄS 1:465.
903
904
EDE 2:237-241. It is possible that the Egyptians’ usage of group writing reflects a derivation from
the Indo-European root *bhendh, “to bind” (LIV 75; IEW 1:127; cf. Carleton T. Hodge, “Lislakh IV: Hindo-
Hittite Haitch,” in The Fifth LACUS Forum: 1978 [eds. Wolfgang Wölck and Paul L. Garvin; Columbia, S.C.:
182
Greek βὺνητος, specifically used with reference to an Egyptian garment (Herodianus,
Grammaticus 1.219.19; Arcadius, De accentibus 93.16),905 points to the existence of an
Egyptian textile known by this name and supports this loan hypothesis.
The garment denoted by Egyptian bndw was probably a rectangular-shaped
piece of cloth that was wrapped around the wearer.906 The ancient Egyptians wore a
variety of sashes and wraps such as this, ranging from simple to elaborate.907 According
to Exod 28:39, the sash denoted by ‫ ַא ְבנֵ ט‬was 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.908
ˀaz “textile edging”
(KTU 4.205:6)
Hurr. → Ug.
Hurr. aššiyanni
Ugaritic ˀaz occurs only once. It appears in KTU 4.205, a list of items—primarily
garments—along with mrdt, “multicolored fabric” (line 6). Similarly, the line directly
preceding mention of ˀaz refers to lbš psm rq (probably “fine gauze clothing”) and line 7
mentions pld šˁrt (“wool cloth”). Despite its limited appearance, it is clear that Ugaritic
Hornbeam Press, 1979], 498, 500), although Egyptian bnd and bndw may be an example of a native
Egyptian term written with group writing (cf. William A. Ward, “A New Look at Semitic Personal Names
and Loanwords in Egyptian,” ChrEg 71 [1996]: 27).
905
LSJ 333.
906
Dimitri Meeks, “Les emprunts égyptiens aux langues sémitiques durant le Nouvel Empire et la
troisième période intermédiaire: les aléas du comparatisme” (review of James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in
Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period), BO 54 (1997): 41.
907
Vogelsang-Eastwood, “Textiles,” 286-288.
908
Gillian Vogelsang-Eastwood, Pharaonic Egyptian Clothing (Studies in Textile and Costume History 2;
Leiden: Brill, 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.
183
ˀaz is a textile term.909
Ribichini and Xella910 compare this term with Akkadian aššianni, a Hurrian word
for embroidery or textile edging.911 The word aššianni occurs in the Akkadian texts from
Nuzi, and its Hurrian nature is further confirmed by its appearance as a gift of the
Hurrian king Tušratta in the Amanra letters (EA 22 ii:39). When adopting this word,
Ugaritic speakers omitted the Hurrian deictic element –anni, presumably adopting a
form such as aššiyi.912
‫“ ֵאטוּן‬fine linen”
(Prov 7:16)
Eg. → WSem. (Heb.) → Gk.
Eg. idmy, idmi.t; Gk. ὀθόνη
Hebrew ‫ ֵאטוּן‬occurs only in Prov 7:16, which describes a prostitute’s bed as
decked with multicolored coverings (‫)ח ֻטבוֹת‬

ֲ and ‫ ֵאטוּן‬from Egypt. The parallelism with
‫ ֲח ֻטבוֹת‬indicates that ‫ ֵאטוּן‬is a type of cloth.913 Because ‫ ֵאטוּן‬is explicitly described as a

type of cloth from Egypt, this word must be 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 ‫“( ִקנָּ מוֹן‬cinnamon-like spice”) and
909
DUL 136.
910
Sergio Ribichini and Paolo Xella, La terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit (Collezione di studi fenici
20; Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle richerche, 1985), 27.
911
LKI 99; GLH 61; LHL 1:131; CAD A/2 465; AHw 84; Jeanette Fincke, “ḫušuḫḫe ‘(Zier-)Gürtel,’” in Richard
F.S. Starr Memorial Volume (eds. David I. Owen and Gernot Wilhelm; Studies on the Civilization and Culture
of Nuzi and the Hurrians 8; Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1996), 356-357.
912
Heltzer argues that Ugaritic ˀaz is also connected with Linear B a-ze-ti-ra, used in Mycenaean texts
to designate female fabric workers (Michael Heltzer, review of Sergio Ribichini and Paolo Xella, La
terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit, UF 19 [1987]: 447). This is possible, although the meaning of a-ze-ti-
ra and its relationship to a-ke-ti-ra2 (possibly connected with Greek ἀσκέω, “to work, fashion, adorn” [LSJ
257]) is debated (DM 42-43).
913
HALOT 37. Supporting this definition, the Septuagint translates Hebrew ‫ ֵאטוּן‬as ἀμφιτάπη
(“double-sided rug”), the Vulgate reads tapetibus pictis (“painted tapestry”), and the Peshitta and
Targums have qrmˀ and ‫קרמא‬, “fine cloth”.
184
‫“( ֲא ָה ִלים‬aloewood”) in the very next verse (Prov 7:17).
Lambdin and Muchiki914 identify the donor term as Egyptian idmy, a word
meaning “red linen” attested as early as the Old Kingdom.915 Lambdin reconstructs the
form of this word as *edāmey, which would have become *edōmey after the shift of ā to ō
ֵ 916 Notably,
in accented syllables (ca. 1200 BCE), hence the long ū-vowel of Hebrew ‫אטוּן‬.
Hebrew ‫ ֵאטוּן‬exhibits dissimilation of m to n. The ν of the related Greek term ὀθόνη917
reflects Hebrew ‫ ֵאטוּן‬rather than Egyptian idmy, showing that Greek borrowed this
word from West Semitic.
ˀall “cloak”
(KTU 1.6 ii:11; 1.12 ii:47; 1.19 i:37, 48; 4.168:9; 4.182:4-6)
Hurr. → Ug.
Hurr. alali
Ugaritic ˀall occurs both in mythological and economic texts.918 It appears in the
Baal Cycle (KTU 1.6 ii:11) and another mythological text (KTU 1.12 ii:47), both times
parallel to lpš (“clothing”). In the ˀAqhat Legend, it twice denotes an item of Daniˀilu,
being parallel to kst (“cloak”) (KTU 1.19 i:37, 48). Lastly, Ugaritic ˀall is mentioned four
times919 in economic texts among other textiles and garments (KTU 4.168:9; 4:182:4-6).
This garment could be a number of different colors, including white (lbn), red (šmt), and
blue (ˀiqnu) (KTU 4.182:4-6).
914
Testament,” 147.
915
ÄW 1:2442:455; GHwÄ 130; WÄS 1:153. A feminine form, idmy.t, also exists (ÄW 1:245; 2:455; GHwÄ
130; WÄS 1:153). In Demotic, this term became itmi, itm.t (DG 47).
916
Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 147. On the change of u to e in Egyptian,
see Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 222-223.
917
LSJ 1200.
918
DUL 56.
919
It is possible that ˀall is also mentioned in KTU 4.182:21, but the tablet is fragmentary and the end
of the line is broken.
185
As noted by Vita and Dietrich,920 Ugaritic ˀall derives from Hurrian alāli.921 The
latter occurs in a Hurrian-Hittite bilingual in which the deity Tešub is clothed with this
garment (KBo 32.15 i:12ʹ). This text gives the Hittite lexical equivalent of Hurrian alāli as
kušiši, a festive garment worn by kings.922 Ugaritic texts likewise indicate that this was a
special garment reserved for rulers and deities: it is worn by Mot (KTU 1.6 ii:11) and
Daniˀilu (KTU 1.19 i:37, 48). In light of this term’s Hurrian origin, it is significant that
this garment is offered to the Hurrian goddess Išḫara on one occasion in the Ugaritic
literature (KTU 4.168:9).923
‫( ֵאפֹד‬Heb.), ˀipd (Ug.) “ephod”
(Exod 25:7; passim; KTU 1.5 v:24; 1.136:1, 10; 4.707:11, 13, 22; 4.780:1-4, 7)
Eg. ⇒
⇒ Ebla.; WSem. (Heb., Ug., Syr.)
⇒ Akk. → Hitt.
Ebla ˀipdum; Akk. epattu (pl. epadātu); Syr. ˀapūdā, pedtā; Hitt. ipantu; Eg. ifd
Hebrew ‫ ֵאפֹד‬occurs frequently in the Bible, almost exclusively with reference to
a garment worn by priests.924 In several instances, however, ‫ ֵאפֹד‬refers to a non-
920
Juan-Pablo Vita, “Textile Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts,” in Textile Terminologies in the Ancient
Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC (eds. Cécile Michel and Marie-Louise B.
Nosch; Ancient Textiles Series 8; Oxford: Oxbow, 2010), 328; Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, “Die
hurro-ugaritische Textilbezeichnung all,” UF 22 (1990): 49-50.
921
LHL 55; HHw 13. Contra del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín (DUL 56), Ugaritic ˀall is probably not
connected with Akkadian allānu (a term for a garment that appears only once in Middle Assyrian [CAD
A/1 356; AHw 37]), due to the differences in spelling.
922
Erich Neu, Das Hurritische: eine altorientalische Sprache in neuem Licht (Abhandlungen der Geistes-
und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 3; Mainz am Rhein: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur,
1988), 16-17; Neu, Hurritische Epos der Freilassung, 314.
923
924
HALOT 77. See Exod 25:7; 28:4, 6, 12, 15, 25-26, 27 (2x), 28 (3x); 29:5 (3x); 35:9, 27; 39:2, 7-8, 18-19, 20
(2x), 21 (3x), 22; Lev 8:7 (2x); 1 Sam 2:28; 14:3; 21:10; 22:18; 23:6, 9; 30:7 (2x). Of these occurrences, the
Septuagint commonly translates ‫ ֵאפֹד‬as ἐπωμίς, the part of a woman’s tunic that was fastened on the
shoulder by brooches or shoulder straps; in only one case (Exod 28:31), the Septuagint instead reads
ποδήρης (“full-length robe”). The Peshitta utilizes the Syriac form of this word, pdṯˀ, when referring to
186
sanctioned form of this garment, such as the ones utilized by Gideon (Judg 8:27), the
priest Micah (Judg 17:5; 18:14, 17-18, 20), or the Israelites (Hos 3:4).925 Samuel wore this
garment when he ministered before God at Shiloh (1 Sam. 2:18), and David wore an
ephod when he danced before the ark (2 Sam 6:14; 1 Chron 15:27). Several of these
passages note the ephod’s usage for divinatory purposes (1 Sam 23:6, 9; 30:7) and others
similarly link the ephod with the ‫תּ ָר ִפים‬,

ְ divinatory ancestor figurines (Judg 17:5; 18:14,
17-18, 20; Hos 3:4).
Ugaritic ˀipd also occurs a number of times.926 The contexts in which it appears,
like those of Hebrew ‫אפֹד‬,

ֵ demonstrate that ˀipd refers to clothing. It occurs at least
once in the Baal Cycle927 in conjunction with the verb lbš (KTU 1.5 v:24). Ugaritic ˀipd
appears twice, moreover, in the ritual text 1.136 with reference to a garment (lines 1,
10). Lastly, ˀipd occurs eight times in economic texts that record the delivery of various
items, including textiles (KTU 4.707:11, 13, 22; 4.780:1-4, 7).928
Related terms exist in Semitic as well as non-Semitic. Akkadian epattu (plural
epadātu) occurs exclusively in Old Assyrian texts and denotes a luxury garment
the priestly ‫אפֹד‬.

ֵ The feminine form of ‫אפֹד‬, ֲ occurs three times in the Hebrew Bible with the more
ֵ ‫א ֻפ ָדּה‬,
generic meaning “covering” or “overlay”: in Exod 28:8; 39:5, ‫ ֲא ֻפ ָדּה‬appears with reference to the priestly
garments, and in Isa 30:22, ‫ ֲא ֻפ ָדּה‬is parallel to ‫צפּוּי‬,ִ “plating.” The denominative verb ‫אפד‬, “to clothe,
gird,” appears twice (Exod 29:5; Lev 8:7) Lastly, ‫ ֵאפֹד‬is utilized as a personal name on one occasion (Num
34:23).
925
There is no persuasive reason to think that in these cases ‫ ֵאפֹד‬means “cultic image”; see Van Dam,
Urim and Thummim, 146-148; Adriaan Kruyswijk, “Geen gesneden beeld...” (Franeker: T. Wever, 1962), 116-
120.
926
DUL 89; Ribichini and Xella, Terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit, 31-32. The dual form of this
word is ˀipdm, and its plural form is ˀiptt; see Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, 140, 183; Mitchell Dahood,
“Eblaite, Ugaritic, and Hebrew Lexical Notes,” UF 11 (1979): 143.
927
Elsewhere in the Baal Cycle, many propose that ˀipdk means “your ephod” in KTU 1.5 i:5, 31; see
“The Baˁlu Myth,” translated by Dennis Pardee (COS265); Frank Moore Cross, Jr., Canaanite Myth and
Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973),
119; Marvin H. Pope, review of Baruch Margalit, A Matter of “Life” and “Death”: A Study of the Baal-Mot Epic
(CTA 4-5-6), UF 13 (1981): 319; Albright, “Ephod and the Teraphim,” 40. While this reading is likely, the
text is difficult.
928
In addition to these occurrences, ˀipd may appear in several fragmentary contexts: KTU 1.5 v:2;
1.48:6; 1.136:2; 4.275:3; 4.594:5.
187
imported from Anatolia to Assyria.929 Much later in Syriac (probably via Hebrew), this
word occurs as ˀāpūdā and pedtā.930 Non-Semitic forms include Eblaite ˀipdum (written as
ib-tum and lexically equated with ŠU.DAG),931 Hittite ipantu (which only occurs twice),932
and Egyptian ifd, first attested in the Old Kingdom.933
It is unlikely that Hebrew ‫ ֵאפֹד‬and Ugaritic ˀipd are based on a Semitic root ˀpd,
“to clothe, gird” since there are very few occurrences of such a verb in Semitic; the
verbal forms are almost certainly denominative.934 With the exception of Egyptian ifd,
moreover, all the forms of this word occur relatively rarely. Hebrew ‫ ֵאפֹד‬and Ugaritic
ˀipd, therefore, are probably derived from Egyptian ifd.935 Unlike all the other forms of
this word that have no clear etymology, Egyptian ifd is derived from the verb ifd, “to
quadruple,” and the noun ifd, “square;”936 accordingly, ifd generally denotes
rectangular-shaped textiles such as garments or bed sheets.937 Egyptian ifd is also found
ֵ usage for the priestly garments.938

in conjunction with nṯr (“god”), paralleling ‫’אפֹד‬s
According to the description provided in Exod 28:5-14; 39:2-7, the priestly ephod
was a sleeveless garment with two shoulder straps and a band used to gird above the
929
CAD E 183; AHw 222. This garment is frequently associated with the city of Talḫat in northern
Mesopotamia in Old Assyrian texts; see Cécile Michel and Klass R. Veenhof, “The Textiles Traded by the
Assyrians in Anatolia (19th-18th Centuries BC),” in Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and
Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC (eds. Cécile Michel and Marie-Louise B. Nosch; Ancient
Textiles Series 8; Oxford: Oxbow, 2010), 232; Klass R. Veenhof, Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and Its
Terminology (Studia et documenta ad iura Orientis antiqui pertinentia 10; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 128-129.
930
SyrLex 82, 1157.
931
Giovanni Conti, Il sillabario della quarta fonte della lista lessicale bilingue Eblaita (vol. 2 of Miscellanea
Eblaitica; ed. Pelio Fronzaroli; 4 vols.; Quaderni di semitistica 17; Florence: Università di Firenze,
Dipartimento di Linguistica, 1990), 145; Pettinato, Testi lessicali bilingui della biblioteca L. 2769, 257 (#513).
932
Hittite ipantu occurs only in the Song of Kumbari (line 26) and in KBo 29.211 iv:6; see Harry A.
Hoffner, Jr., “Hittite Equivalents of Old Assyrian kumrum and epattum,” WZKM 86 (1996): 154-156.
933
ÄW 1:70; 2:171; GHwÄ 45-46; WÄS 1:71.
934
Contra DRS 28; Vita, “Textile Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts,” 328.
935
Jehoshua M. Grintz, “‫מונחים קדומים ב׳תורת כהנים׳‬,” Leš 39 (1974-1975): 10-13; Ingolf Friedrich, Ephod
und Choschen im Lichte des Alten Orients (Wiener Beitäge zur Theologie 20; Vienna: Herder, 1968), 31-33;
John A. Tvedtnes, “Egyptian Etymologies for Biblical Cultic Paraphernalia,” in Egyptological Studies (ed.
Sarah Israelit-Groll; ScrHier 28; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1982), 218; Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic,
136-137.
936
ÄW 2:171; GHwÄ 45; WÄS 1:71.
937
Jac J. Janssen, Daily Dress at Deir el-Medîna: Words for Clothing (Egyptology 8; London: Goldon House
Publications, 2008), 21-23.
938
Friedrich, Ephod und Choschen, 32.
188
waist; it was woven from gold, blue, purple, and scarlet materials. In Mesopotamia
elaborate golden garments were ritually draped over cultic images,939 securing the
deity’s presence among worshippers, and the priestly ephod of the Hebrew Bible served
an analogous purpose of symbolizing God’s presence.940 Several garments strikingly
similar to the priestly ephod are attested in New Kingdom Egypt.941 The strong affinity
of these Egyptian examples with the biblical ephod supports an Egyptian origin for
Hebrew ‫אפֹד‬.
ֵ
‫( ַא ְרגָּ ָמן‬Heb.), ˀargmn, ˀirgmn (Ug.) “purple, purple cloth; tribute”
(Exod 25:4; passim; KTU 1.2 i:37; passim)
CW
Akk. argamannu; BA ‫;א ְרגְּ וָ ן‬

ַ JA ‫א ְרגְּ וָ ון‬, ַ Palm. ‫ ;ארגונא‬CPA ‫ ;ארגון‬Hitt. arkamma,
ַ ‫;א ְרגְּ וָ ונָ א‬
arkamman; Luw. arkammana
Hebrew ‫ ַא ְרגָּ ָמן‬appears many times in the Hebrew Bible, most frequently in
conjunction with ‫“( ְתּ ֵכ ֶלת‬blue”) when describing the fabrics of the tabernacle or the
garments of the priests.942 In most of its remaining occurrences, ‫ ַא ְרגָּ ָמן‬refers to a valued
commodity or a luxurious textile.943 The spelling ‫ ַא ְרגְּ וָ ן‬in 2 Chron 2:6 is due to Aramaic
influence,944 and this same spelling is also attested in biblical Aramaic (Dan 5:7, 16,
29).945 Ugaritic ˀargmn also occurs a number of times,946 but with the meaning “tribute”
939
A. Leo Oppenheim, “The Golden Garments of the Gods,” JNES 8 (1949): 172-193.
940
Carol L. Meyers, “Ephod (Object),” ABD 2:550.
941
Van Dam, Urim and Thummim, 76-80; Friedrich, Ephod und Choschen, 37-40.
942
Exod 25:4, 26:1, 31, 26; 27:16; 28:5-6, 7, 15, 33; 35:6, 23, 25, 35; 36:8, 35, 37; 38:18, 23; 39:1-3, 5, 8, 24,
29.
943
Num 4:13; Judg 8:26; 2 Chron 2:6, 13; 3:14; Esth 1:6; 8:15; Prov 31:22; Song 3:10; 7:6; Jer 10:9; Ezek
27:7, 16. Köhler and Baumgartner propose that the occurrence of ‫ ַא ְרגָּ ָמן‬in Song 3:10 is an error for ‫ַא ְל ֻמגִּ ים‬
(HALOT 57), but many commentators read the text without emendation; see Keel, Song of Songs, 130;
Murphy, Song of Songs, 149; Pope, Song of Songs, 444.
944
Max Wagner, Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttestamentlichen Hebräisch
(BZAW 96; Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1966), 228-229.
945
HALOT 1823.
189
or “offering”: it frequently denotes an item offered as tribute to the Hittite court but
can also designate general tribute or a ritual offering.947
Related terms exist in both Semitic and non-Semitic. In Standard Babylonian as
well as Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Akkadian, argamannu means “purple cloth”948
as in biblical Hebrew and its later cognates in Aramaic (Jewish, Palmyrene, and
Christian Palestinian).949 In Bogazköy Akkadian, on the other hand, argamannu means
“tribute” as in Ugaritic.950 Along with Hebrew ‫ ַא ְרגָּ ָמן‬and Ugaritic ˀargmn, these terms
can be traced back to Luwian arkamman and Hittite arkamma, arkamman, both meaning
“tribute.”951 The precise origin of both of these Late Bronze Age forms is uncertain,952
but this term’s distribution is generally consistent with growing evidence for the
purple dye industry’s origin in the Aegean and Anatolia.953

946
KTU 1.2 i:37; 1.41:4; 1.87:5; 2.36:6; 2.37:2, 8, 10; 3.1:18, 24; 4.43:3; 4.181:1; 4.261:1; 4.369:1; 4.390:12;
4.610:1. In several cases, this word is spelled as ˀirgmn rather than ˀargmn (KTU 4.181:1; 4.390:12).
947
DUL 100-101. In addition to these occurrences, which seem to require the meaning “tribute”
rather than “purple cloth,” the definition “tribute” is established by the parallel usage of Akkadian
mandattu and Ugaritic ˀargmn in RS 17.227:20 and KTU 3.1.18, respectively; see Gary N. Knoppers, “Treaty,
Tribute List, or Diplomatic Letter: KTU 3.1 Reexamined,” BASOR 289 (1993): 86. Unlike biblical Hebrew,
there are no clear cases in which ˀargmn means “purple cloth” in Ugaritic; see W.H. van Soldt, “Fabrics
and Dyes at Ugarit,” UF 22 (1990): 344-345; Joaqín Sanmartín, “riš argmn in den ug. Ritualen,” UF 10 (1978):
455-456; Dennis Pardee, “The Ugaritic Text 147(90),” UF 6 (1974): 277-278; Manfried Dietrich and Oswald
Loretz, “Der Vertrag zwischen Šuppiluliuma und Niqmandu: Eine philologische und kulturhistorische
Studie,” WO 3 (1964-1966): 218-219.
948
CAD A/2 253; AHw 67. Mankowski notes that there is no persuasive evidence that this term entered
Hebrew via Akkadian (Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 38).
949
DJPA 73; DJBA 164; DNWSI 103; LSp 17. Kaufman notes that the Aramaic form is a loan from
Babylonian Akkadian, with intervocalic m shifting to w; on the other hand, Mandaic ˀrgbˀ (“money”)
cannot be related in light of phonetic and semantic problems (Kaufman, Akkadian Influences, 35-36).
950
CAD A/2 253; AHw 67.
951
DLL 31; CLL 28; HHw 24.
952
Several scholars postulate that Hittite arkamma, arkamman came from Luwian arkammana; e.g.,
Pelio Fronzaroli, “Rapporti lessicali dell’ittita con le lingue semitische,” Archivio glottologico italiano 41
(1956): 34; Maria Luisa Mayer, “Ricerche sul problema dei rapporti fra lingue indoeuropee e lingue
semitiche,” Acme: annali della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università degli studi di Milano 13 (1960): 87.
Others suggest that both the Hittite and Luwian terms came from an unidentified source; e.g., HW 303-
304; DLL 31; Hans G. Güterbock, “Notes on Luwian Studies (à propos B. Rosenkranz’ Book Beiträge zur
Erforschung des Luvischen),” Or 25 (1956): 120, 131. Mayrhofer proposes a derivation from Indo-Iranian
(KEWA 1:50). There is no basis for associating Hittite arkamma, arkamman and Luwian arkammana with
Akkadian ragāmu, “to call, summon” (CAD R 62-67; AHw 941-942) or Greek ἀργεμώνη, “wind-rose,” a red
plant (LSJ 255).
953
Itamar Singer, “Purple-Dyers in Lazpa,” in Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks, and Their Neighbours:
Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction, September 17-19, 2004, Emory University,
Atlanta, GA (eds. Billie Jean Collins, et al.; Oxford: Oxbow, 2008), 21-43; Robert R. Stieglitz, “The Minoan
Origin of Tyrian Purple,” BA 57 (1994): 46-54; David S. Reese, “Palaikastro Shells and Bronze Age Purple-
190
ˀušpǵt “a type of garment”
(KTU 1.43:4; 1.92:26; 1.148:21)
Hurr. → Akk.; Ug.
Akk. ušpaḫḫu, uspaḫḫu
Ugaritic ˀušpǵt occurs only three times with reference to a type of garment.954
KTU 1.43:4 mentions this word within a list of ritual gifts and sacrifices, where it is
associated with lbš (“clothing”) as well as ktn (“tunic”). Similarly, this word appears
parallel to mḥtrt pṯtm (“garment of linen”) in KTU 1.92:26.955 Lastly, Ugaritic ˀušpǵt
occurs in line 21 of KTU 1.148, a list of items whose nearby context includes the
garments mšlt and ḫpn (line 19).956
This word’s atypical morphology points to a foreign loan.957 As noted by Vita and
Ribichini,958 the donor term is the presently unattested Hurrian form *ušpaḫḫi. This
garment term, which contains the Hurrian adjectival suffix -ḫḫi, is attested in Akkadian
texts from Nuzi and Mari as ušpaḫḫu, uspaḫḫu.959 It is preceeded by the logogram EŠ2,
Dye Production in the Mediterranean Basin,” Annual of the British School at Athens 82 (1987): 201-206. The
Phoenician’s well-known role in the purple-dye industry (cf. Pliny, Nat. 9.60) preserved and continued
this Late Bronze Age luxury industry, but the Phoenicians did not invent it.
954
DUL 118.
955
Here it occurs in the collocation ˀušpǵt tˀišr, perhaps referring to an armor-like garment plated
with cypress-wood if the reading tˀišr is correct.
956
The section of KTU 1.148 in which Ugaritic ˀušpǵt occurs is directly preceded by a section in
Hurrian (lines 13-17); on the Hurrian nature of the latter section see Dennis Pardee, “RS 24.643: Texte et
structure,” Syria 69 (1992): 163-164.
957
De Moor contends that this word is Semitic, connecting it with the Semitic root špǵ/šbǵ, “to be
ample” (cf. Hebrew and Aramaic ‫ שׁפע‬and Arabic sabaġa [HALOT 1634; DJPA 564; Lane 1298]). This verbal
root is the basis for Jewish Aramaic ‫יפּוּע‬
ַ ‫שׁ‬, ִ which can mean “overhanging piece of cloth” (Jastrow 1566).
However, this Semitic root does not inherently relate to clothing; when it does occur with reference to
garments it only does so by virtue of their being long (cf. Arabic sābiġ, which can mean “long coat of
mail” [Lane 1298-1299]). While this term provides a much later precedent for this Semitic root’s
application to clothing, one cannot assume that this same sematic development took place earlier in
Ugaritic.
958
Vita, “Textile Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts,” 328; Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 126;
Ribichini and Xella, Terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit, 33-34; Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz,
“Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (IV),” UF 3 (1971): 372.
959
CAD U-W 303; AHw 1438, 1441; Jean-Marie Durand, La nomenclature des habits et des textiles dans les
textes de Mari (Matériaux pour le Dictionnaire de babylonien de Paris 1; Paris: CNRS, 2009), 186.
191
indicating that the garment denoted by this term was manufactured from a specific
type of thread.
‫“ ַבּד‬linen”
Hebrew ‫ ַבּד‬occurs with the meaning “linen” primarily within the context of
priestly or cultic garments: it appears, for example, in conjunction with the terms ‫ֵאפֹד‬
(“ephod”) (1 Sam 2:18; 22:18; 2 Sam 6:14; 1 Chron 15:27) as well as ‫“( ְכּתֹנֶ ת‬tunic”) (Lev
16:4). Similarly, it 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).960
Grintz961 postulates that Hebrew ‫ ַבּד‬comes from Egyptian bḏȝ, a relatively rare
word found in the Second Intermediate Period Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus denoting
a stiff linen material utilized for a splint (bḏȝ n ḥbsw) (5,13). This Egyptian word appears
elsewhere with the meaning “mast”: it shows up in the Coffin Texts (5,132a-b [Spell
398]; 5,190e [Spell 404]; 5,205f [Spell 405]; 6,12d [Spell 473]; 6,38x [Spell 479]) as well as
the Book of the Dead (99,20 Aa) with reference to the masthead or spar of a ship. In
some of these cases (Coffin Texts 5,132a-b [Spell 398]; Book of the Dead 99,20 Aa), the
mast of the ship is compared with Osiris’ phallus, reflecting the rod-like nature of this
word’s referent.962 As Breasted argues, the occurrences of bḏȝ with the meaning “mast”
are connected with the usage of bḏȝ in the Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus (despite their
960
HALOT 109. See Exod 28:42; 39:28; Lev 6:3 (2x); 16:4 (4x), 23, 32; 1 Sam 2:18; 22:18; 2 Sam 6:14; 1
Chron 15:27; Ezek 9:2-3, 11; Dan 10:5; 12:6-7. The Septuagint frequently uses λινοῦς, “made from linen,”
to render Hebrew ‫( ַבּד‬Exod 28:42; Lev 6:3; 16:4, 23, 32), although it also uses βύσσινος of the same
meaning (Exod 39:28; 1 Chron 15:27; Dan 10:5; 12:6-7). With the exception of Dan 10:5; 12:6-7, which has
ˀyqr (“honor”), the Peshitta consistently utilizes bwṣ, “fine linen.” The Targums also use ‫ בוץ‬or ‫בוצא‬
everywhere except for Ezekiel and Daniel; the Aramaic form of this word appears in Dan 10:5; 12:6-7.
961
Grintz, “‫מונחים קדומים ב׳תורת כהנים׳‬,” 14-15.
962
ÄW 2:830; GHwÄ 284; WÄS 1:488.
192
different determinatives) by virtue of their reference to a stiff, rod-like object.963
Egyptian bḏȝ therefore probably denotes a pole-like object, not linen, and does not
provide an appropriate donor term for Hebrew ‫בּד‬.ַ
‫( בּוּץ‬Heb.), ‫( בץ‬Phoen.) “linen, fine fabric”
(1 Chron 4:21; 15:27; 2 Chron 2:13; 3:14; 5:12; Est 1:6; 8:15; Ezek 27:16; KAI 24:12-13; 76A:6)
This word, which means “linen, fine fabric” occurs in the Standard Phoenician
Kulamuwa Orthostat Inscription (ca. 825 BCE).964 In this text (ΚΑΙ 24:12-13), the term ‫בץ‬
refers to a garment considered more valuable than a ‫“( כתן‬tunic”). This term also
occurs several times in postexilic biblical Hebrew with reference to fine clothing (1
Chron 15:27; 2 Chron 5:12) and material used for Persian palace curtain cords (Est 1:6).965
The Akkadian cognate būṣu appears in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian.966
The commonly suggested Egyptian967 and Sanskrit968 etymologies for this term
963
James Henry Breasted, The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus (2 vols.; OIP 3-4; Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1930), 1:239; cf. CDME 86. In addition to occurring with a narrow, elongated rectangle
determinative in the Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus—probably reflecting the rod-like shape of the
referent—Egyptian bḏȝ occurs in the Coffin Texts and the Book of the Dead with the wood determinative
(𓆱) as well as the plant determinative (𓆰). Some Egyptian lexicographers therefore contend that bḏȝ has
several different meanings: while acknowledging the meaning of bḏȝ as “mast,” Hannig claims that bḏȝ
with the plant determinative means “fabric” (ÄW 2:830; GHwÄ 284) and van der Molen argues it means
“grass” (HDECT 126). However, the occurrences of bḏȝ with the wood determinative are practically
identical to the occurrences with the plant determinative—all refer to a part of a ship—indicating that,
despite their different determinatives, there is no reason to separate these terms semantically. See
Breasted, Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, 1:239.
964
DNWSI 185. This term occurs once later in Punic with the plene spelling ‫ בוץ‬in KAI 76A:6.
965
HALOT 115-116.
966
CAD B 350; AHw 413.
967
Spiegelberg (Wilhelm Spiegelberg, “Ägyptische Lehnwõrter in der ältesten griechischen Sprache,”
Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen 41 (1907): 128-129) suggests
that this term was borrowed from Egyptian wȝḏ(.t) (“green fabric”), attested as early as the Old Kingdom
(ÄW 1:314; 2:609; GHwÄ 190; WÄS 1:268). However, the correspondence between Egyptian w and Hebrew ‫ב‬
is unattested in initial position, and if this word was loaned from Egyptian, the vowel would have been an
a-vowel, producing the forms *‫ בוֹץ‬in Hebrew and *bāṣu in Akkadian. Likewise, Albright’s oral suggestion
(Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 148) that Hebrew ‫ בּוּץ‬is derived from Egyptian
bḏȝ is unlikely because bḏȝ refers to a rod-like object, not linen (see the entry of Hebrew ‫)בּד‬.
ַ
968
Powels and Rabin (Powels, “Indische Lehnwörter in der Bibel,” 188-189; Chaim Rabin, “Loanword
Evidence in Biblical Hebrew for Trade between Tamil Nad and Palestine in First Millenium B.C.,” in
193
cannot be correct. It must be Semitic given the absence of any clear cognates in other
languages969 and its widespread distribution in Semitic, and it is most certainly from a
Semitic root meaning “to be white.”970 Scholars such as Knobloch have objected that if
this word were derived from Proto-Semitic *bwð, the Aramaic cognates would have ‫ ע‬or
‫ ק‬rather than ‫צ‬,971 but this objection assumes that the Akkadian, Hebrew, and Aramaic
terms all descended separately from Proto-Semitic. Aramaic probably borrowed this
term from Akkadian or Hebrew, thereby explaining the usage of ‫צ‬.
Greek βὺσσος and Latin byssus972 are loans from West Semitic, perhaps via
Phoenician; the double σ or s is the common reflex of the consonant ‫ צ‬in West
Semitic.973 Ethiopic bisōs974 is a loan back into Semitic from Greek.975
Proceedings of the Second International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies (ed. R.E. Asher; 3 vols.; Madras:
International Association of Tamil Research, 1971), 1:436) compare Sanskrit picu, paṅji, and piṅjā, “cotton
(KEWA 2:269-70; CDIAL 433, 61). Although it is true that India was a place of cotton’s origin in antiquity
(E.J.W. Barber, Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special
Reference to the Aegean (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991), 32-33), Hebrew speakers would
have had no opportunity or reason for borrowing this term from Sanskrit. Aside from their general
phonetic similarity, there is no substantial connection between Sanskrit picu, paṅji, or piṅjā and Hebrew
‫ בּוּץ‬and its Semitic cognates.
969
This term does occur in Armenian as behēz, behez, but the much later attestation of this term in
Armenian does not provide proof that this word is Indo-European in origin, especially since the origin of
this term in Armenian is in doubt (HAB 1:437-438; Hübschmann, Armenische Grammatik, 392).
970
Athalya Brenner, “‘White’ Textiles in Biblical Hebrew and in Mishnaic Hebrew,” HAR 4 (1980): 40.
On this root in Semitic, see DRS 63 (cf. Akkadian peṣû and Arabic bayaḍa, “to be white” [CAD P 334-335;
AHw 857-858; Lane 282], as well as Hebrew ‫יצה‬ ָ ‫ ֵבּ‬and Aramaic ‫יע ָתא‬
ֲ ‫בּ‬,ֵ “egg” [HALOT 123; DJBA 204-205]).
971
Frederick W. Knobloch, “Linen and the Linguistic Dating of P,” in Mishneh Todah: Studies in
Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay (eds. Nili S. Fox, et al.; Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 462-463.
972
LSJ 334; OLD 246.
973
EDG 249; DELG 193; DELL 79; Masson, Les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, 20-22.
974
CDG 110.
975
Karl Vollers, “Beiträge zur Kenntnis der lebenden arabischen Sprache in Aegypten,” ZDMG 51
(1897): 295.
194
blḫdr “spun cloth”
(KTU 4.46)
Hurr. → Ug.
Hurr. pilaḫa
Ugaritic blḫdr occurs only once: it appears in line 6 of KTU 4.4 amidst several
different textiles. It is apparent in light of this context that blḫdr denotes a textile.976 Its
unusual nominal pattern points to a foreign loan. As Vita, Ribichini, and Sanmartín
contend,977 Ugaritic blḫdr most probably comes from a presently unattested Hurrian
compound term *pilaḫtari. This compound word’s elements are Hurrian pilaḫa, a
Hurrianized form of the common Semitic noun plk, “spindle”978 attested only in Nuzi
Akkadian,979 and the Hurrian suffixes –t (which typically becomes d in Ugaritic in
intervocalic positions)980 and -are. Via Hurrian, this word was reborrowed back into
Semitic as Ugaritic bldḫr. Thus, Ugaritic blḫdr is a transmitted loan.
As noted in the entry on Hebrew ‫ ֶפּ ֶלְך‬and its Northwest Semitic cognates, this
common Semitic noun comes from an ancient culture word meaning “spindle.” Because
blḫdr comes from this word meaning “spindle,” it denotes a garment made from
material spun with spindles (as opposed to a distaff).
976
DUL 222-223.
977
Vita, “Textile Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts,” 328; Ribichini and Xella, Terminologia dei tessili
nei testi di Ugarit, 34; Joaqín Sanmartín, “Glossen zum ugaritischen Lexikon (IV),” UF 12 (1980): 335.
978
Cf. Akkadian pilakku, pilaqqu, Hebrew ‫פּ ֶלְך‬,
ֶ Ugaritic plk, and Phoenician ‫( פלך‬CAD P 371-373; AHw
863; HALOT 933; DUL 671; DNWSI 915-916).
979
CAD P 371; AHw 863; Mayer, Nuzi-Studien I, 36. Mayer argues that Nuzi Akkadian pilaḫau is a
Hurrianized form of Akkadian pilakku, pilaqqu, but both the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary and von Soden
leave pilaḫau undefined.
980
Bush, “Grammar of the Hurrian Language,” 51; E.A. Speiser, Introduction to Hurrian (AASOR 20; New
Haven, Conn.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941), 40-41.
195
‫“ ִחתּוּל‬wool”
(Ezek 30:21)
Hitt. → Heb.
Hitt. ḫuttulli
Hebrew ‫ ִחתּוּל‬occurs only in Ezek 30:21 with reference to a material used for
treating a wound.981 The feminine form ‫ ֲח ֻת ָלּה‬also occurs in Job 38:9 with reference to a
textile or textile material,982 and the verb ‫ חתל‬appears twice in Ezek 16:4 (once in the
Pual stem and once in the Hophal stem) with the meaning “to swathe.”983 Del Olmo Lete
and Sanmartín984 connect Ugaritic ḥtl with Hebrew ‫חתּוּל‬,ִ but a relationship between the
two is uncertain given the difficult nature of the text in which ḥtl occurs.985
Rabin986 notes that the usage of ‫ ִחתּוּל‬in Ezek 30:21 implies a soft material such as
ָ similarly refers to a soft material used for packing.987

wool; in rabbinic Hebrew, ‫חוֹתל‬
Accordingly, Rabin proposes that Hebrew ‫ ִחתּוּל‬comes from Hittite ḫuttulli, “wool
981
HALOT 363. The Septuagint has μάλαγμα (“emollient”); the Vulgate translates the Hebrew phrase
‫ ָלשׂוּם ִחתּוּל‬twice, using pannus (“cloth, garment”) as well as linteolum (“linen cloth”); the Peshitta uses
mlgmˀ (“salve”); the Targum makes Pharaoh the subject of the verse and does not provide a direct
translation of this word.
982
HALOT 364. In Job 38:9, ‫ ֲח ֻת ָלּה‬is parallel with ‫“( ְלבוּשׁ‬garment, clothing”). The Septuagint does not
translate ‫ ֲח ֻת ָלּה‬with a noun, instead using the verb σπαργανόω (“to wrap in swaddling clothes”); the
Vulgate uses panni infantiae (“swaddling clothes”); the Peshitta uses krktˀ (“wrapping”); lastly, the Targum
has ‫“( ליפופי‬swaddling clothes”).
983
HALOT 364.
984
DUL 376.
985
Ugaritic ḥtl occurs only in KTU 1.12 i:19 in conjunction with the terms ksˀan and ḥdg, both of
unknown meaning. Ugaritic ksˀan is commonly associated with ksˀu (“seat, throne” [DUL 460-461]) and
defined as “chair” (DUL 461); ḥdg is commonly associated with Arabic ḥidǧ (“saddle” [Lane 530]) and also
defined as “chair” (DUL 354). Whether or not these definitions for ksˀan and ḥdg are correct, they provide
little help in defining Ugaritic ḥtl. Aside from general phonological similarity and the context of KTU 1.12
i:19, which relates to giving birth and may therefore relate to usage of ‫ חתל‬in Ezek 16:4, there is no good
reason to connect Hebrew ‫ ִחתּוּל‬and Ugaritic ḥtl. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín also associate Ugaritic ḥtl
with Old Assyrian ḫatlunu, but the meaning of this term is uncertain and does not necessarily denote a
garment as they suggest (CAD Ḥ 150; AHw 336).
986
Rabin, “Hittite Words in Hebrew,” 120-121.
987
Jastrow 441.
196
strand, wool-tuft.”988 This loan hypothesis fits the data well: the phonological
correspondence between the Hebrew and Hittite forms is perfect, and the attestation of
‫ חתל‬in the Pual (Ezek 16:4) shows that this verb is denominative.989
ḫndlt “linen wrap, linen bandage”
(KTU 4.182:17)
Hitt. → Ug.
Hitt. ḫandala
Ugaritic ḫndlt occurs only once in the alphabetic texts: it appears in line 17 of
KTU 4.182, a list of various items including garments, textiles, and dyes. Its occurrence
in this list demonstrates that ḫndlt refers to a type of fabric.990 This term also appears in
the syllabic texts from Ugarit (RS 20.19:10).
This term’s quadriliteral form and lack of a Semitic etymology point to a foreign
loan. As proposed by Ribichini and Xella,991 Ugaritic ḫndlt originates with Hittite
ḫandala, which occurs with the logogram SIG2 and means “linen wrap, linen bandage.”992
Ugaritic speakers adopted this term as a feminine noun, hence the final –t of the
Ugaritic form.
988
HHw 63.
989
Evidence for a root ḥtl, “to wrap,” in Semitic is dubious (DRS 940-941). The only possible cognate is
South Arabian (Shehri) ḥtɘl, “to envelop” (JL 119). The word ‫ חתיל‬appears in Imperial Aramaic with the
possible definition “string” but it only occurs once and its meaning is debated (DNWSI 413).
990
DUL 398.
991
Ribichini and Xella, Terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit, 38-39.
992
HHw 43. When occurring with the logogram SAR, ḫandala refers to a vegetable, perhaps associated
with this cloth by virtue of its color.
197
kdwṯ, kndwṯ, kndpnṯ “neck scarf”
(KTU 4.4:3; KTU 4.152:6, 11; 4.205:19; 4.270:3; 4.337:24; 4.341:10)
Hurr. → Akk., Ug.
Akk. kindabašše
Ugaritic kdwṯ occurs several times in economic texts (KTU 4.152:6, 11; 4.205:19;
4.270:3; 4.337:24; 4.341:10), each time amidst other textiles and fabrics such as pld
(“cloth”), ḫpn (“garment”), lbš (“clothing”), pǵdr (“cover blanket, spread”), and ṯprt (“a
garment”). Ugaritic kdwṯ also occurs with an n as kndwṯ in KTU 4.4:2, where kndwm
should probably be emended to kndwṯm.993 The contexts in which both forms occur
make it clear that Ugaritic kdwṯ, kndwṯ denotes a garment.994
The multiple spellings of this term strongly indicates a foreign loan, and the
final ṯ specifically points to an Anatolian loanword. Ugaritic kdwṯ, kndwṯ is probably
borrowed from a form such as *kundifašše, formed from the Hurrian noun kudni, “neck,
throat,”995 and the Hurrian suffix –šše. Association of this item with the throat is clear
from KTU 4.337:24, which specifically lists it as a garment for the throat (kdwṯ l grgyn).
Notably similar to Ugaritic kdwṯ, kndwṯ is Ugaritic kndpnṯ, which occurs only in
KTU 4.4:3 with reference to a type of clothing.996 As suggested by Durand,997 kndpnṯ is a
variant form of kdwṯ, kndwṯ that exhibits interchange of w and p.998 Also related is
Middle Assyrian kindabašše, which occurs with reference to a garment used to cover
part of women’s bodies in the harem.999 Given its derivation from Hurrian kundi, both
993
Josef Tropper, “Beiträge zur ugaritischen Lexikographie,” UF 29 (1997): 664-665; Dennis Pardee,
“Trois comptes ougaritques: RS 15.062, RS 18.024, RIH 78/02,” Syria 77 (2000): 53.
994
DUL 432.
995
Ilse Wegner, “Die hurritischen Körperteilbezeichnungen,” ZA 85 (1995): 120-121.
996
DUL 449.
997
Jean-Marie Durand, review of Sergio Ribichini and Paolo Xella, La terminologia dei tessili nei testi di
Ugarit, MARI 6 (1990): 662.
998
Watson’s suggestion (Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 129) that kndw is an intermediate form
between kdwṯ and kndpnṯ is unconvincing.
999
CAD K 384; AHw 480.
198
Ugaritic kndpnṯ and Akkadian kindabašše denote a garment that covered the throat and
upper body, perhaps a neck scarf.1000
ֹ ֫ ‫( ֻכּ‬Heb.), ‫( כתן‬Phoen.), ktn (Ug.) “tunic, shirt”

‫תּנֶ ת‬
(Gen 3:21; passim; KAI 24:12; KTU 1.43:4, passim)
CW
Sum. GADA; Akk. kitû, kitinnû, kidinnû, kutānu; IA ‫ ;כתן‬JA ‫כּיתּוּנָ א‬,ִ ‫יתּנָ א‬
ָ ‫כּ‬,ִ ‫כיתאנא‬, ‫יתא‬
ָ ִ‫כּיתּוֹנ‬,ִ
‫יתא‬ ָ ‫כּ‬,ִ ‫כּתּוּן‬,ִ ‫ ;כתונה‬Syr. kettānā, ketnā, ketānītā; Mand. kitana, kituna; Arab. kattān;
ָ ִ‫יתּנ‬
Eth. ketān; Lin. B. ki-to; Gk. χιτών, κιθών, κιτών; Lat. tunica
Hebrew ‫תּנֶ ת‬
ֹ ֫ ‫ ֻכּ‬occurs commonly in the Hebrew Bible, primarily with reference to
priestly garments.1001 However, it also denotes Joseph’s special tunic given to him by his
father1002 and frequently occurs as a generic term for an outer garment.1003 Phoenician
‫ כתן‬appears once in the Kulamuwa Orthostat Inscription along with the term ‫“( בץ‬fine
linen”) (KAI 24:12).1004 Lastly, this word appears frequently in alphabetic Ugaritic as ktn,
most commonly in legal and economic texts, with reference to linen.1005 Unlike Hebrew
ֹ ֫ ‫כּ‬,ֻ Ugaritic ktn seems to denote a linen material used for making garments rather
‫תּנֶ ת‬
than a garment.1006
1000
Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Ribichini and Xella, and Dietrich and Loretz all propose that
Ugaritic kndpnṯ specifically denotes a woman’s garment such as a bikini (DUL 449; Ribichini and Xella,
Terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit, 41; Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, “Die ug.
Gewandbezeichnungen pǵndr, knd, kndpnṯ,” UF 9 (1977): 340). However, as Pardee notes, the evidence is
not sufficient to support this conclusion (Pardee, “Trois comptes ougaritques,” 53). It is possible that this
term’s meaning changed slightly over the course of transmission; that there was at least some semantic
difference between Ugaritic kndwṯ and kndpnṯ is evident from the juxtaposition of kndwṯ and kndpnṯ in
KTU 4.4:2-3.
1001
Exod 28:4, 39-40; 29:5, 8; 39:27; 40:14; Lev 8:7, 13; 10:5; 16:4; Ezra 2:69; Neh 7:69, 71.
1002
Gen 37:3, 23, 31, 32 [2x], 33.
1003
Gen 3:21; 2 Sam 13:18-19; Isa 22:21; Job 30:18; Song 5:3.
1004
DNWSI 547-548.
1005
KTU 1.43:4; 2:79:10; 3.1:21, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37; 4.132:2, 4, 6; 4.203:7; 4.206:1; 4.284:1; 4.337:18;
4.363:1; 4.402:4; 4.738:3; 4.771:2; 4.779:7. This term also occurs frequently in Ugaritic Akkadian.
1006
van Soldt, “Fabrics and Dyes at Ugarit,” 332.
199
Semitic cognates can be found in Akkadian,1007 Aramaic (Imperial and Jewish),
Syriac, Mandaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic.1008 Greek χιτών, κιθών, κιτών1009 and Latin tunica
(exhibiting consonantal transposition)1010 are also related. Notably, the earlier form of
Greek χιτών in Linear B, ki-to, displays appearance of the n in certain declensions (ki-to-
ne, the nominative plural form, and ki-to-na, either the accusative singular or accusative
plural form).1011 Classicists typically consider the Greek and Latin forms loans from
Semitic,1012 but the multiple spellings of the Greek forms and regional distribution of
these terms may reflect an Anatolian connection.1013
Also associated are Akkadian kitû, “linen, flax,”1014 and Sumerian GADA of the
same meaning.1015 Although Akkadian kitû and Sumerian GADA are related to one
another, it is unclear whether Akkadian kitû came from Sumerian GADA or vice versa;
quite plausibly, both constitute different developments of the same word. The West
Semitic terms mentioned in the preceding paragraph are not unquestionably derived
from Akkadian,1016 despite Zimmern’s contention.1017
1007
Oppenheim disassociates the Northwest Semitic forms from Akkadian kutānu, which occurs only
in Old Assyrian and at Mari and denotes a wool fabric of a specific size and weave (CAD K 607-608; AHw
930). He objects that whereas the Akkadian kutānu refers to wool, the other terms refer to linen, and
linen is not attested in the Old Assyrian texts (A. Leo Oppenheim, “Essay on Overland Trade in the First
Millennium B.C.,” JCS 21 [1967]: 251). However, linen is attested in the Old Assyrian texts (Michel and
Veenhof, “Textiles Traded by the Assyrians in Anatolia,” 216-218), and despite differences in referrent,
there is no reason to separate Akkadian kutānu from the above forms (Michel and Veenhof, “Textiles
Traded by the Assyrians in Anatolia,” 211-212; F. Charles Fensham, “A Cappadocian Parallel to Hebrew
kutōnet,” VT 12 (1962): 196-198).
1008
CAD K 607-608; AHw 405, 930; DNWSI 547-548; DJPA 579; DJBA 272; SyrLex 663; MD 216; CDG 298.
Akkadian kitinnû, kidinnû, “linen” (CAD K 465-466; AHw 473) is not attested until the Neo-Babylonian
period and is probably a loan from West Semitic via Aramaic; see Kaufman, Akkadian Influences, 28.
1009
LSJ 1993.
1010
OLD 1990.
1011
DM 1:368; Michael Ventris and John Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (2d ed.; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1973), 554-555. Best also finds this word as qi-tu-ne in the Linear A tablets
from Hagia Triada (Haghia Triada 7b.1; 117b.1), and del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín accordingly list qi-tu-ne
as related to Ugaritic ktn (DUL 468; Jan G.P. Best, “Six Contributions to the Decipherment of Linear A,” UF
5 [1973]: 57-58). However, this interpretation of qi-tu-ne is incorrect: this group of signs instead seems to
be a name or title; see Consani, Testi minoici trascritti con interpretazione e glossario,.
1012
DELG 1216; Masson, Les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, 27-29.
1013
EDG 1635; Furnée, Wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen, 136.
1014
CAD K 473-475; AHw 495.
1015
PSD.
1016
200
All the above terms reflect and ancient culture word with two basic forms: one
set with a final n (West Semitic, Old Assyrian, Greek, and Latin) and one without
(standard Akkadian and Sumerian). The former is distributed in the west, primarily
centered around the region of Anatolia, whereas the latter is distributed in the east.
ֵ֫ ‫“ ָמזִ ַיח‬belt, waistband”

‫מזַ ח‬,
(Ps 109:19; Job 12:21)
This term occurs only twice in biblical Hebrew, once in the form ‫( ֵ֫מזַ ח‬Ps 109:19)
and once in the form ‫( ָמזִ ַיח‬Job 12:21). The context of Job 12:21 is not clear enough to
establish its meaning, but clearer information is supplied by Ps 109:19. Here, its usage
with the verb ‫חגר‬, “to wrap, gird” and its parallelism with ‫“( ְתּ ִהי־לוֹ ְכּ ֶבגֶ ד יַ ְע ֶטה‬may it be
like a garment that he wraps around himself”) indicate that ‫ ֵ֫מזַ ח‬refers a belt or
waistband wrapped around the body.1018

Brown, Driver, and Briggs as well as Köhler and Baumgartner1019 contend that
Hebrew ‫ ֵ֫מזַ ח‬is a loan from Egyptian mḏḥ. This word, also written as mdḥ, occurs in
Egyptian as early as the Old Kingdom and means “headband, fillet.”1020 However, Gunn
and Muchiki reject this loan hypothesis on several grounds. First, Egyptian mḏḥ means
“headband” rather than “belt” and does not provide a fitting semantic parallel to
1017
Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwörter, 37.
1018
HALOT 565. The ancient versions support the definition “belt” in Ps 109:19: the Septuagint has
ζώνη, the Peshitta reads ˀsr ḥṣˀ, and the Targum has ‫קמור‬. The Septuagint and Peshitta do not translate
this term in their rendering of Job 12:21, but the Targum indirectly supports the meaning “belt” through
its usage of the verb ‫חלש‬.
1019
BDB 561; HALOT 565.
1020
ÄW 1:580; 2:1172; GHwÄ 404; WÄS 2:189-190. The Demotic form of this word is mḏẖ (DG 195). There
is no need to separate the occurrences of mḏḥ in the expression ṯs mḏḥ (“to put on the girdle” [i.e., “to
attain puberty”]) from the occurrences of mḏḥ elsewhere; both mean “headband” (Gustave Lefebvre and
Battiscombe Gunn, “A Note on Brit. Mus. 828 (Stela of Simontu),” JEA 25 [1939]: 218-219; Alan H. Gardiner,
Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs [3d ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1957], 505).
201
ֵ֫ Second, Egyptian ḏ should not be represented by Hebrew ‫ז‬.1021 An
Hebrew ‫מזַ ח‬.
additional phonological problem is presented by Coptic Sⲙⲟϫϩ, Aⲙⲁϫϩ, Bⲙⲟϫϩ,1022
which suggests the vocalization *maḏḥ and cannot easily be reconciled with the Semitic
forms.1023
Hebrew ‫ ֵ֫מזַ ח‬is instead derived from Akkadian mēzeḫu, “scarf, belt.”1024 The latter
comes from the verb ezēḫu, a common Akkadian verb meaning “to gird” that occurs as
early as the Old Babylonian period.1025 Thus, despite any apparent similarity, Hebrew
‫ ֵ֫מזַ ח‬is Semitic rather than Egyptian in origin.
‫( ֶמ ִשׁי‬Heb.), mṯyn (Ug.) “a garment”
(Ezek 16:10, 13; KTU 4.146:5)
Hitt. ⇒
⇒ Hurr.
⇒ Eg. → Heb.
Eg. msy; Hittite maššiya
Ugaritic mṯyn occurs only once in the alphabetic texts, where it appears in a list
of other garments (KTU 4:146:5).1026 It also occurs several times in the Akkadian texts
1021
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 249; Lefebvre and Gunn, “Note on Brit. Mus. 828,”
218-219.
1022
Crum 213-214; CED 101.
1023
Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 152; Joachim Friedrich Quack, “Zu den
vorarabischen semitischen Lehnwörtern in Koptischen,” in Studia Semitica et Semitohamitica: Festschrift für
Rainer Voigt anlässlich seines 60. Geburtstages am 17. Januar 2004 (eds. Bogdan Burtea, et al.; AOAT 317;
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005), 314. As Takács notes, it is not possible to derive these Coptic forms from
Semitic (EDE 3:864).
1024
CAD M/2 46; AHw 650. This noun is attested as early as Standard Babylonian Akkadian; that
mēzeḫu is more typical of East than West Semitic is indicated by its position in the second column of the
Middle Babylonian Malku-šarru lexical list (viii:70). One cannot derive Akkadian mēzeḫu from Egyptian
mḏḥ as Zimmern does (Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwörter, 38), for this loan hypothesis does not solve the
irregular correspondence of Semitic z and Egyptian ḏ and ignores the obvious derivation of mēzeḫu from
the verb ezēḫu.
1025
CAD E 426-427; AHw 269.
1026
DUL 606-607.
202
from Ugarit as maššiyannu (RS 17.148 A:7; 25.131:11).1027 This term appears in later
biblical Hebrew as ‫מ ִשׁי‬:

ֶ it occurs twice in Ezekiel with reference to God’s provision of
fine clothing for Judah (Ezek 16:10, 13).1028
These terms are connected with Egyptian msy (first attested in the New
Kingdom)1029 and Hittite maššiya.1030 Both of these terms denote a type of garment.
There are relatively few attestations of this word in Egyptian and all of them are from
later texts, suggesting that msy is not native to Egyptian. The more frequent attestation
of this word in Hittite, on the other hand, indicates that it is native to Hittite and was
loaned to Egyptian from Hittite.
Ugaritic mṯyn has a final n that reflects the Hurrian deictic element –anni (hence
the form maššiyannu in Ugaritic Akkadian) and is therefore derived from Hurrian,
which presumably adopted this word from Hittite.1031 Hebrew ‫מ ִשׁי‬,

ֶ on the other hand,
lacks the final –n and is probably derived from either Hittite or Egyptian. Two factors
indicate that Egyptian, not Hittite, is the source of Hebrew ‫מ ִשׁי‬.

ֶ First, in Ezek 16:10, 13
‫ ֶמ ִשׁי‬appears in conjunction with ‫שׁש‬,

ֵ an Egyptian loan into biblical Hebrew. Second, the
surrounding context alludes to the exodus account by mentioning God’s covenant with
Israel (Ezek 16:8).1032 Thus, it is likely that Hebrew ‫ ֶמ ִשׁי‬is a loan from Egyptian msy.1033
1027
CAD M/1 389; AHw 629.
1028
HALOT 645. The ancient versions translated ‫ ֶמ ִשׁי‬in several different ways: the Septuagint renders
it as τρίχαπτος (“woven hair”), the Vulgate has subtilia (“fine”) in Ezek 16:10 and polymitus (“colorfully
woven”) in Ezek 16:13, the Peshitta has ḥlˀ (“covering, cloth”) in Ezek 16:10 and tkltˀ (“purple fabric”) in
Ezek 16:13, and the Targum has ‫“( ִצ ְב ָענִ ין‬dyed material”).
1029
GHwÄ 384; WÄS 2:143. Hannig as well as Erman and Grapow both compare Egyptian msy with
Egyptian mss, attested beginning with the Eighteenth Dynasty (GHwÄ 386; WÄS 2:149). However, this
connection is not necessarily evident (cf. EDE 3:581-582).
1030
HHw 114; CHD 205-206.
1031
Durand, review of Ribichini and Xella, 663.
1032
Cf. Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 22; New
York: Doubleday, 1983), 277-278.
1033
Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 109. Muchiki objects to this loan hypothesis on the
basis that it postulates an irregular correspondence between Hebrew ‫ שׁ‬and Egyptian s (Muchiki, Egyptian
Proper Names and Loanwords, 250). However, even though Hebrew ‫ שׁ‬normally reflects Egyptian š, there is
no convincing evidence that Hebrew ‫ שׁ‬and Egyptian s could not correspond. For further discussion of
the allegedly problematic correspondence between Hebrew ‫ שׁ‬and Egyptian s, see the Egyptian
203
‫“ ָס ִדין‬fine cloth, fine garment”
(Judg 14:12-13; Isa 3:23; Prov 31:24)
Hurr. → Akk., WSem. (Heb., JA, CPA, Syr.); Eg.; Gk., Lat.
Akk. saddinnu, šaddinnu; JA ‫ ְ;ס ִדינָ א‬JA, CPA ‫ ;סדין‬Syr. seddōnā; Eg. šnḏyt; Gk. σινδών; Lat.
sindon
The term ‫ ָס ִדין‬occurs four times in biblical Hebrew, each time with clear
reference to clothing.1034 It is mentioned 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. Here it
occurs in conjunction with ‫“( ֲח ִלפֹת ְבּגָ ִדים‬changes of garments”). It appears as a luxury
item along with ‫“( גִּ ְלי ֹנִ ים‬fine garments”), ‫“( ְצנִ יפוֹת‬headbands”) and ‫“( ְר ִד ִידים‬shawls”) in
Isa 3:23. Lastly, in Prov 31:24 ‫ ָס ִדין‬is one of the specialty garments made by the
industrious woman (‫ת־חיִ ל‬ ֵ of Prov 31:10-31.

ַ ‫)א ֶשׁ‬
Hebrew ‫ ָס ִדין‬is connected with a number of similar terms in Semitic and non-
Semitic.1035 Semitic forms include Akkadian saddinnu, šaddinnu (attested in Nuzi,

Amarna, and Neo-Assyrian Akkadian) as well as Aramaic ‫ סדין‬and ‫ ְס ִדינָ א‬and Syriac
seddōnā.1036 Related words in non-Semitic include Egyptian šnḏyt (occurring as early as
the Old Kingdom), Greek σινδών, and Latin sindon.1037 Several factors are indicative of a
“Consonant Correspondences” section in the conclusions chapter.

1034
HALOT 743-744. The Septuagint renders ‫ ָס ִדין‬by its Greek form, σινδών, in Judg 14:12-13; Prov
31:24 but uses ὑακίνθινος (“blue-colored cloth”) in Isa 3:23; the Vulgate utilizes the Latin form, sindon,
throughout. The Peshitta reads ˀpqrsyn (“sheets”) in Judg 14:12-13, ktn (“linen garment”) in Prov 31:24,
and tklytˀ (“blue garments”) in Isa 3:23. Lastly, the Targum has ‫“( ִפּ ְל ְדּ ִסין‬wraps”) in Judg 14:12-13, ‫ַק ְר ְט ָסא‬
(“garment”) in Isa 3:23, and ‫“( ְפּ ֵתגָ א‬garment of mixed cloth”) in Prov 31:24.
1035
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 104 connects Hebrew ‫ ָס ִדין‬with Ugaritic sdn, which refers to a
harness or other items for horses (DUL 753), but Ugaritic sdn is instead related to Sumerian SUDIN and
Akkadian suttinnu, šuttinnu, which denote a part of a chariot (PSD; CAD S 419-420).
1036
CAD S 17; AHw 1001, 1123; DJPA 368; DJBA 788; LSp 138; SyrLex 970. Fränkel (Fränkel, Aramäischen
Fremdwörter im Arabischen, 48) denies a connection between the Aramaic terms and Arabic sadīn, which
can mean “fat” or “blood” or “wool” (Lane 1335).
1037
ÄW 1:1314-1315; 2:2478; GHwÄ 899; WÄS 4:522; LSJ 1600; OLD 1768. The Demotic form of Egyptian
šnḏyt is šnt and the Coptic form is S,Oϣⲛⲧⲱ, Bϣⲉⲛ (DG 516; Crum 573; CED 247).
204
non-Semitic word: the varying spellings, particularly the different representations of
the initial sibilant and the presence or absence of an n; the doubled final consonant of
Akkadian saddinnu, šaddinnu; and the lack of an apparent Semitic etymology.
As Kaufman notes, the –innu (as opposed to –ennu, -ēnu) ending indicates a
northern origin.1038 This term’s earliest attestation in Akkadian is in the second
millennium Nuzi texts, where it denotes a piece of apparel of specific shape and
function.1039 In the Amarna letters, moreover, this garment is specifically mentioned as
a gift of Tušratta, king of Mitanni (EA 22 i:44). The distribution and usage of this word,
therefore, point to a probable Hurrian origin; the Hurrian donor term is presumably
*satinni. As indicated by the Neo-Assyrian spelling with š, Hebrew ‫ ָס ִדין‬is a loan from
Hurrian, not Akkadian.1040
ǵprt “cloak, outer garment”
(KTU 4.182:7, 24)
Ugaritic ǵprt appears twice, both times in KTU 4.182, a list of garment and textile
offerings. Based on its two occurrences in this context, it is clear that Ugaritic ǵprt
denotes a type of garment such as a cloak.1041
Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín as well as Ribichini1042 propose that Ugaritic ǵprt is
Hittite in origin, comparing Hittite ḫuppar, ḫupar, “cloth, fabric.”1043 However, the
similarity between Ugaritic ǵprt and Hittite ḫuppar is probably only coincidental.
Ugaritic ǵprt has a number of clear cognates in Semitic and is almost certainly Semitic
1038
Kaufman, Akkadian Influences, 94-95; cf. Jan Gerrit Dercksen, “On Anatolian Loanwords in
Akkadian Texts from Kültepe,” ZA 91 (2007): 31-32, 39-42.
1039
Oppenheim, “Essay on Overland Trade in the First Millennium B.C.,” 249.
1040
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 109-110; contra Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the
Old Testament, 121; Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwörter, 36-37.
1041
DUL 323.
1042
DUL 323; Ribichini and Xella, Terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit, 57.
1043
HHw 60. Hittite ḫuppar is a nominal form of the verb ḫuppai, ḫuppiya, “to mix, assemble together,
weave” (HHw 90), and the final –r is a case ending.
205
in origin.1044 Akkadian apāru, epēru, “to wrap, cover” appears as early as the Old
Babylonian period.1045 Later Semitic cognates include rabbinic Hebrew ‫פוֹרת‬ ַ Jewish
ֶ ‫מ ֲע‬,
Aramaic ‫מעפרה‬, Syriac mafrā as well as ˁafrā, and Arabic ǵuffārā, all of these used with
reference to some kind of wrapped garment or cloak.1046 These forms enable the
reconstruction of a root *ǵpr in early Semitic, from which the East Semitic
(Akkadian)1047 and West Semitic (Ugaritic, Jewish Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic)1048 forms
arose.1049
‫“ ְפּ ֵאר‬headwrap, turban”
(Exod 39:28; Isa 3:20; 61:3, 10; Ezek 24:17, 23; 44:18)
Eg. → Heb.
Eg. pry, pyr
ְ “turban, headwrap,” occurs seven times in the Hebrew Bible.1050 It

The term ‫פּ ֵאר‬,
often appears in the prophetic books as a status symbol, often representative of joy
when contrasted with mourning (Isa 3:20; 61:3, 10; Ezek 24:17, 23). Hebrew ‫ ְפּ ֵאר‬also
occurs twice with reference to the head covering of the priests (Exod 39:28; Ezek 44:18).
Köhler and Baumgartner1051 derive Hebrew ‫ ְפּ ֵאר‬from Egyptian pry, also written
1044
Greenfield, “Ugaritic Lexicographical Notes,” 90-91.
1045
CAD A/2 166-168; AHw 57.
1046
Jastrow 818; DJPA 323; SyrLex 803, 1124; Lane 2274.
1047
As indicated by the initial ‫ א‬rather than ‫ע‬, Hebrew ‫( ֲא ֵפר‬which means “band” and occurs only in 1
Kgs 20:38, 41) must be a loan from Akkadian.
1048
The term epartu (CAD E 183; AHw 222) is given as the West Semitic equivalent of of Akkadian
naḫlaptu, “wrap, outer garment” (CAD N/1 138-140; AHw 222), in the Middle Babylonian synonym list
Malku-šarru (vi:103) (Ivan Hrůša, Die akkadische Synonymenliste malku = šarru: eine Textedition mit Übersetzung
und Kommentar (AOAT 50; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010), 128-129).
1049
Greenfield, “Ugaritic Lexicographical Notes,” 91.
1050
HALOT 908-909. The ancient versions frequently use a variety of terms denoting a type of
headdress: the Septuagint has μίτρα, “turban” (Exod 39:28; Isa 61:10), as well as κίδαρις, “headdress”
(Ezek 44:18); the Peshitta has mṣnptˀ, “turban” (Ezek 44:18); the Targums read ‫קובע‬, “headcovering” (Exod
39:28; Ezek 44:18), ‫כליל‬, “crown” (Isa 3:20; 61:3), and ‫טוטפה‬, “phylactery” (Ezek 24:17, 23).
1051
HALOT 908.
206
as pyr. This Egyptian term, which appears beginning with the New Kingdom, commonly
denotes strips of cloth or wrappings such as bandages for mummies (as in the Book of
the Dead).1052 This loan hypothesis is likely in light of this word’s atypical morphology,
the lack of any known Semitic cognates, and the Egyptian context of the tabernacle1053
within which Hebrew ‫ ְפּ ֵאר‬appears (Exod 39:28).
Despite its Egyptian origin, ‫ ְפּ ֵאר‬was also associated with the root ‫פאר‬, “to
glorify, honor.”1054 The book of Isaiah in particular capitalizes on the phonological
similarity between ‫ ְפּ ֵאר‬and the root ‫פאר‬.1055
pǵdr, pǵndr “cover blanket, spread”
(KTU 4.4:1-2; 4.270:10)
Hurr. → Akk., Ug.
Akk. paḫantarru; Hurr. paḫandari
Ugaritic pǵdr occurs only two times in the alphabetic Ugaritic texts, both times
within lists of garments.1056 It appears as pǵndr among textiles such as kndpnṯ (“neck
scarf”) and blḫdr (“spun cloth”) in KTU 4.4:1-2,1057 and in KTU 4.270 it occurs as pǵdr
1052
GHwÄ 290, 304; WÄS 1:531; Janssen, Daily Dress at Deir el-Medîna, 29-31.
1053
ַ
1054
Several modern lexicographers, in fact, derive Hebrew ‫ ְפּ ֵאר‬from the root ‫( פאר‬e.g., BDB 802; Jutta
Hausmann, “‫ פאר‬pˀr; ‫ תִּ ְפא ֶֶרת‬tipˀereṯ; ‫ ְפּאֵר‬peˀēr,” TDOT 11:464; C, John Collins, “‫פאר‬,” NIDOTTE 3:574). This
root is the basis for ‫תּ ְפ ֶא ֶרת‬,
ִ used with reference to jewelry, ornaments, and clothing in the Hebrew Bible
(HALOT 1772-1773).
1055
Note, for example, the usage of ‫ ְפּ ֵאר‬in conjunction with the verb ‫ פאר‬in Isa 61:3, as well as the
wordplay this creates with ‫א ֶפר‬,
ֵ “dust” (John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah [2 vols.; NICOT; Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986-1998], 2:567). Although the ancient versions frequently take ‫ ְפּ ֵאר‬as a turban or
headdress, they also connect it with the verb ‫ פאר‬in a number of instances. The Septuagint translates
‫ ְפּ ֵאר‬in Isa 3:20 as τὴν σύνθεσιν τοῦ κόσμου τῆς δόξης (“clothing of the glorious order”) and uses δόξα
(“glory”) in Isa 61:3. Similarly, the Peshitta translates ‫ ְפּ ֵאר‬as šwbḥˀ dklwˀ dbwṣˀ (“praise of linen crown”) in
Exod 39:28 and šbḥˀ (“praise”) and šbyḥˀ (“praised”) in Isa 61:3, 10.
1056
DUL 666. In Ugaritic Akkadian, this term appears as pa-ḫa-tar-ru with the logogram TUG2 in a list
of garments (RS 15.135:9); see Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription, 169.
1057
This word is actually written as pǵn . drm, but it is clear that the word divider is a scribal error and
207
(with the n having assimilated) in conjunction with some of these same textiles as well
as others such as pṯt (“linen”).
The quadriliteral structure of this word and its multiple spellings point to a non-
Semitic loan. As recognized by Dietrich and Loretz as well as Ribichini and Xella,1058
Ugaritic pǵdr is a loan from Hurrian paḫandari, a type of garment.1059 This Hurrian term
is found as paḫantarru in a number of Akkadian dialects, most of them peripheral (Emar,
Middle Babylonian, Alalakh, and Nuzi).1060 In many of these instances, paḫantarru refers
to a spread or blanket for furniture, including beds and couches. Thus, Ugaritic pǵdr
denotes a similar type of textile.
‫“ ַשׁ ַע ְטנֵ ז‬mixed cloth”
(Lev 19:19; Deut 22:11)
Hebrew ‫ ַשׁ ַע ְטנֵ ז‬occurs only in Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:11. Both times it appears in
conjunction with laws that prohibit mixing different animal or plant species, such as
not plowing with both an ox and a donkey or sowing two different types of seed in the
same field. Leviticus 19:19 qualifies ‫ ַשׁ ַע ְטנֵ ז‬as ‫“( ִכּ ְל ַאיִם‬of two kinds”), and Deut 22:11 adds
ִ ‫“( ֶצ ֶמר‬wool and linen together”). The Septuagint translates as κίβδηλος,

‫וּפ ְשׁ ִתּים יַ ְח ָדּו‬
“adulterated,” and the Peshitta similarly uses ptykyn, “mixed.”1061 The contexts in which
Hebrew ‫ ַשׁ ַע ְטנֵ ז‬occurs and the ancient versions, then, demonstrate that it refers to a
the text should be read as pǵndrm.

1058
Dietrich and Loretz, “Ug. Gewandbezeichnungen pǵndr, knd, kndpnṯ,” 340; Ribichini and Xella,
Terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit, 61. Heltzer (Heltzer, review of Ribichin and Xella, 447) also points
to Linear B pe-ki-ti-ra2 (DM 2:97), the equivalent of Greek πέκτρια, “female comber” (LSJ 1356). However,
this noun is associated with Greek πέκω, “to comb, shear,” (LSJ 1356) and the liquid ρ is only present
because of the feminine nomen agentis ending –τρια. The usage of Linear B k, moreover, to represent
Hurrian ḫ or Ugaritic ǵ is phonologically unusual. Its seeming similarity to Hurrian paḫantarru and
Ugaritic pǵdr, therefore, is only coincidental.
1059
GLH 192.
1060
CAD P 20-21; AHw 810.
1061
Hebrew ‫ ַשׁ ַע ְטנֵ ז‬is missing from the Vulgate, and the Targums simply transliterate it (‫)שעטניזא‬.
208
type of mixed cloth.1062
Scholars have proposed several different Egyptian etymologies to produce the
definition “mixed cloth.” Brown, Driver, and Briggs1063 suggest that ‫ ַשׁ ַע ְטנֵ ז‬is a
combination of two Egyptian words, comparing Coptic ϣⲱⲱⲧ, “to cut,”1064 and Coptic
ⲛⲟⲩϫ, “false.”1065 Görg1066 proposes a similar loan hypothesis but suggests the first
component is derived from sḫt, “to weave,”1067 or sˁḏȝ, “to commit wrong, falsify.”1068
However, as Muchiki notes, these loan hypotheses do not adequately explain the
absence of the ˁ in the second element of ‫שׁ ַע ְטנֵ ז‬,

ַ nor are each of the components
actually found in Egyptian texts.1069 Lambdin and Helck1070 instead propose a derivation
from the unattested term *šˁd-nḏ, composed of Egyptian šˁd, “to cut,”1071 and nḏ,
“thread.”1072 However, as Muchiki once again notes, there is no positive evidence for
this loan hypothesis, and the meaning “cut thread” does not seem to fit the contexts in
which Hebrew ‫ ַשׁ ַע ְטנֵ ז‬occurs.1073
An Egyptian etymology remains elusive, and Kaufman1074 more plausibly
suggests that this word is a portmanteau derived from the Semitic words for “sheep,”
šˀt (cf. Hebrew ‫ ֶשׂה‬and Old Aramaic ‫שאה‬1075), and “goat,” ˁnz (cf. Hebrew ‫ ֵעז‬and Akkadian
enzu, ezzu1076). When combined, the ‫ ת‬became emphatic in the presence of the ‫ע‬. This
derivation fits the contexts of Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:11 well, for it is precisely the
1062
HALOT 1610-1611.
1063
BDB 1043.
1064
Crum 590-594; CED 254. Cf. Egyptian šˁd, šˁḏ (ÄW 1:1286-1287; 2:2429; GHwÄ 873-874; WÄS 4:422).
1065
Crum 246-247; CED 118.
1066
Manfred Görg, “Eine rätselhafte Textilbezeichung im Alten Testament,” BN 12 (1980): 13-17.
1067
ÄW 1:1211; 2:2324; GHwÄ 813; WÄS 4:263.
1068
GHwÄ 728; WÄS 4:57.
1069
1070
Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” 155; Wolfgang Helck, “Ṯkw und die
Ramses-Stadt,” VT 15 (1965): 46. Lambdin initially offered this loan hypothesis at Albright’s oral
suggestion.
1071
GHwÄ 873-874; WÄS 4:422.
1072
ÄW 2:1419; GHwÄ 474; WÄS 2:376.
1073
1074
Stephen A. Kaufman, personal communication, December 5, 2009.
1075
HALOT 1310-1311; DNWSI 1094-1095.
1076
HALOT 804-805; CAD E 180-183; AHw 221-222.
209
mixing of animal and plant species that is at issue in these two verses. Thus, despite its
unusual form, Hebrew ‫ ַשׁ ַע ְטנֵ ז‬is Semitic rather than Egyptian in origin.
‫“ ֵשׁשׁ‬Egyptian linen”
(Gen 41:42; Exod 25:4; 26:1, passim; Prov 31:22; Ezek 16:10, 13 [2x]; 27:7)
Eg. → Heb.
Eg. šs
Most, if not all, of the occurrences of ‫ ֵשׁשׁ‬in the Hebrew Bible are connected
with Egypt.1077 In Genesis 41:42, ‫ ֵשׁשׁ‬is used with reference to the garments in which
Pharaoh clothed Joseph, and in Ezek 27:7, it explicitly refers to Egyptian material used
for the sail of a ship. It occurs frequently (thirty-three times), moreover, within the
description of the tabernacle (Exod 25-31; 35-40). Only two of its occurrences in biblical
Hebrew, Prov 31:22 and Ezek 16:10, are not clearly associated with Egypt, but even
these occurrences have an Egyptian literary context.1078
As recognized by Muchiki and Ellenbogen,1079 Hebrew ‫ ֵשׁשׁ‬is a loan from
Egyptian šs, which is attested from the Middle Kingdom onward.1080 As with Hebrew
‫שׁוּשׁן‬,
ַ it is uncertain whether assimilation of sibilants occurred prior to or after this
word’s adoption into Hebrew, although there is no assimilated form attested in
Egyptian.1081 Egypt was well-known for its distinctive way of working linen in antiquity
1077
HALOT 1663-1664.
1078
ַ Ezekiel 16:8-10,
which describes God entering into a covenant with Israel, reflects the account of the exodus, and Prov
31:10-31 may have an Egyptian background as well. See Knobloch, “Linen and the Linguistic Dating of P,”
462.
1079
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 257-258; Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old
Testament, 164.
1080
GHwÄ 901; WÄS 4:539-540.
1081
For further discussion, see the Egyptian “Consonant Correspondences” section in the
210
(cf. Herotodus, Hist. 2.105), which produced a unique and valued fabric.1082 It is therefore
not surprising that Hebrew speakers adopted this Egyptian term for this particular
commodity.
In an influential study, Hurvitz analyzes the usage of ‫ ֵשׁש‬and ‫ בּוּץ‬in the Hebrew
Bible. He argues that, because ‫ בּוּץ‬is purportedly not attested in biblical Hebrew before
the sixth century BCE and because ‫ בּוּץ‬is seemingly the semantic equivalent of ‫שׁש‬,
ֵ the
exclusive usage of ‫ ֵשׁש‬in the description of the tabernacle (Exod 25-31; 35-40), typically
attributed to the priestly source, points to this source’s antiquity.1083 However, as noted
above, nearly all of the biblical usages of ‫ ֵשׁש‬have an Egyptian connection. The same
ֵ 1084
cannot be said of ‫בּוּץ‬, on the other hand, which is not the lexical equivalent of ‫שׁש‬.
Thus, the presence of ‫ ֵשׁש‬instead of ‫ בּוּץ‬in Exodus’ description of the tabernacle has no
bearing on the priestly source or the date of its composition.
tbk “a type of leather”
(KTU 4.167:16)
Hurr. → Akk.; Ug.
Akk. tubku
Ugaritic tbk occurs only in line 16 of KTU 4.167, a text recording the delivery of
chariots and their accompanying military equipment to the palace.1085 It appears in the
genitive construction msg d tbk, “leather of tbk,” indicating that tbk denotes a specific
1082
Vogelsang-Eastwood, “Textiles,” 268-276. As depicted in Egyptian tombs, flax seeds were sowed
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 it was full grown. After drying and further preparation,
linen thread was produced by spinning.
1083
Avi Hurvitz, “The Usage of ‫ שש‬and ‫ בוץ‬in the Bible and Its Implication for the Date of P,” HTR 60
(1967): 117-21.
1084
Knobloch, “Linen and the Linguistic Dating of P,” 460-469. In fact, Ezek 27:7 mentions ‫ ֵשׁש‬with
reference to Egypt, but ‫ בּוּץ‬is mentioned in connection with the Levant elsewhere in the same chapter
(Ezek 27:16).
1085
DUL 858.
211
type of leather.
This word has no known Semitic cognates, indicating a foreign loan. Its
association with msg, which is cognate with Akkadian mašku but is spelled with s rather
than š and g rather than k, suggests a loan from Hurrian. As noted by Sanmartín and
Watson,1086 the word tubku occurs in Nuzi Akkadian with reference to a type of
leather1087 and indicates the existence of Hurrian *tubki, the probable donor term for
Ugaritic tbk. This loan hypothesis is supported by attestation of the phrase maškimeš
tubku at Nuzi (e.g., SMN 342:1),1088 a phrase that closely parallels the expression msg d
tbk in KTU 4.167:15-16.
‫“ ַתּ ְח ָרא‬leather vest”
(Exod 28:32; 39:23)
Eg. → WSem. (Heb.) → Eg.
Eg. dḥr, tḫr
Hebrew ‫ ַתּ ְח ָרא‬occurs twice within the description of the high priest’s ephod
(Exod 28:32; 39:23). In both instances, it appears in the expression ‫“( ְכּ ִפי ַת ְח ָרא‬like the
opening of a ‫)”תּ ְח ָרא‬,

ַ which compares the well-stitched opening of the item ‫ ַתּ ְח ָרא‬to the
head opening for the high priest’s garment.1089 The ancient versions did not know how
to understand this term: the Septuagint and Vulgate do not specifically translate this
term but instead emphasize the well-woven nature of the material, the Peshitta reads
1086
Joaqín Sanmartín, “Glossen zum ugaritischen Lexikon (VI),” UF 21 (1989): 342; Watson, Lexical
Studies in Ugaritic, 133-134. Aartun’s etymology and translation of tbk as “cape, cloak” (Aartun, Studien zur
ugaritischen Lexikographie, 1:159-160) does not adequately fit the context.
1087
CAD T 446; AHw 1365.
1088
Pfeiffer and Lacheman, Miscellaneous Texts: Part I, 59.
1089
HALOT 1720. It is unlikely that ‫ ַתּ ְח ָרא‬means “anus,” being derived from an assumed root *‫“( חרא‬to
defecate”), as Tur-Sinai suggests (Naphtali H. Tur-Sinai, ‫ בעיות יסוד במדע הלשון ובמקורותיה‬:‫הלשון והספר‬
‫[ בספרות‬3 vols; Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1950-1955], 2:219-223).
212
syrs (“threads”), Targum Onqelos has “coat of mail” (‫)שירין‬,1090 and Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan has “ring” (‫)שיריא‬.
The morphological shape of Hebrew ‫ ַתּ ְח ָרא‬is unusual and it is not based on any
known Semitic root, indicating a foreign loan. Müller1091 plausibly derives ‫ ַתּ ְח ָרא‬from
Egyptian dḥr, “leather, animal hide.”1092 The Egyptians, in turn, subsequently borrowed
this word back from West Semitic as tḫr, applying it to the leather paneling of a
carriage.1093 This establishes a terminus ante quem of ca. 1200 BCE for the borrowing of
Egyptian dḥr by biblical Hebrew since Egyptian tḫr is first attested in the late
Nineteenth Dynasty Anastasi Papyrus IV (16,9).
In light of its connection with Egyptian dḥr, Hoffmeier proposes that Hebrew
‫ ַתּ ְח ָרא‬refers to a well-stitched leather vest.1094 He compares it 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 sown.1095 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 BCE), which depicts this type of armor on Canaanite charioteers.1096
1090
The Samaritan text indirectly supports this reading by rendering ‫ ִשׁ ְריוֹן‬in 1 Sam 17:38 as ‫ ;תחרא‬see
Jeffrey M. Cohen, “A Samaritan Authentication of the Rabbinic Interpretation of kephî taḥrāˀ,” VT 24
(1974): 363-365.
1091
W. Max Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern (Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1893),
109; cf. Tvedtnes, “Egyptian Etymologies for Biblical Cultic Paraphernalia,” 218. Lambin and Muchiki
object to the atypical correspondence of Hebrew ‫ ת‬and Egyptian d (Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in
the Old Testament,” 155; Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 258), but there are a few attested
examples of this correspondence in first millennium BCE Aramaic (Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and
Loanwords, 190-191). Notably, in all of these cases, the correspondence between Egyptian d and Semitic t
is found in either initial or final position, as is the case with Hebrew ‫תּ ְח ָרא‬.
ַ Likewise, Semitic d is normally
represented by Egyptian d but occasionally by Egyptian t (Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 406). For
additional discussion, see the Egyptian “Consonant Correspondences” section in the conclusions chapter.
1092
ÄW 1:1480; 2:2797; GHwÄ 1058; WÄS 5:481-482.
1093
GHwÄ 1010; WÄS 5:328; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 363.
1094
1095
James K. Hoffmeier, “Military: Materiel,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (ed. Donald B.
Redford; 3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 2:410.
1096
Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 217; Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the
New JPS Translation (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 182.
213
‫“ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬stretched leather”
(Exod 25:5; passim)
Eg. → Heb.
Eg. ṯḥs (“to stretch leather”)
The word ‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬occurs 14 times in the Hebrew Bible.1097 All its occurrences are
found in the description of the tabernacle with the exception of Ezek 16:10, where God
is said to put sandals of ‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬on Israel’s feet. In nearly all of its occurrences, moreover,
‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬occurs in construct with ‫“( עוֹר‬skin, hide”); only twice does it occur apart from ‫עוֹר‬
(Num 4:25; Ezek 16:10).
Lexicographers and commentators have proposed several different etymologies
ַ 1098 However, two factors point to a probable Egyptian origin. First, this word
for ‫תּ ַחשׁ‬.
1097
HALOT 1720-1721. See Exod 25:5; 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:19; 39:34; Num 4:6, 8, 10-12, 14, 25; Ezek 16:10.
The ancient versions understood ‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬with reference to a color. The Septuagint has ὑακίνθινος (“dark
red, dark blue”), and the Vulgate similarly reads ianthinus (“dark red, dark blue”). The Peshitta and
Targums render ‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬as ssgwnˀ and ‫ססגון‬, respectively, both meaning “vermillion.”
1098
For a survey, see Stephanie Dalley, “Hebrew taḥaš, Akkadian duḫšu, Faience and Beadwork,” JSS 45
(2000): 1-5. Cross contends that Hebrew ‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬comes from Arabic tuḫas, duḫas, “dugong, dolphin” (Freytag
1:186), claiming that the usage of dolphin skins for the Israelite tabernacle stems from El’s watery abode
(Frank Moore Cross, Jr., “The Priestly Tabernacle in the Light of Recent Research,” in The Temple in
Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives, Based on a Symposium Held at Brigham Young University in
March 1981 [ed. Truman G. Madsen; Religious Studies Monograph Series 9; Provo, Idaho: Brigham Young
University, 1984], 95-96). Robinson similarly points to the modern Bedouin practice of making sandals
from the thick skin of a fish caught in the Red Sea, suggesting that fish skin would have been a suitable
material for constructing the tabernacle (Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the
Adjacent Regions: A Journal of Travels in the Year 1938 [2d ed.; 2 vols.; Boston, Mass.: Crocker & Brewster,
1860], 1:116). However, dolphins are never mentioned in connection with El’s dwelling in the Ugaritic
texts, and, it is highly unlikely that the ancient Israelites would have had access to—much less utilized—
dolphin skins.
Dalley, on the other hand, proposes a connection between Hebrew ‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬and Akkadian duḫšû, dušû
(CAD D 200-202; AHw 179), which she contends refers to faience and beadwork attached to leather as well
as other materials (Dalley, “Hebrew taḥaš, Akkadian duḫšu,” 1-19). However, there are several problems
with this loan hypothesis. First, the cuneiform evidence best supports the traditional definition of dušḫû
as a stone, which by virtue of its color was also used as a color term (the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary does
not adopt Dalley’s definition in its entries for tuḫšiwe or tuḫšiwuḫḫe). Second, Dalley’s assumption of
transmission from Hurrian to Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hebrew is hypothetical (not to mention overly
complex), especially since Hurrian tuḫšiwe is best explained as a loan from Akkadian or Sumerian, not
vice versa (CAD T 455). Third, this loan hypothesis does not adequately explain why the final dipthong is
not represented in Hebrew ‫תּ ַחשׁ‬. ַ The possible lack of its orthographic representation at Mari does not
prove that people from Mari borrowed Hurrian tuḫšiwe as *tuḫši without the genitive ending, causing the
214
occurs nearly exclusively within descriptions of the tabernacle, set within an Egyptian
context.1099 Second, the sole occurrence of ‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬outside descriptions of the tabernacle,
namely Ezek 16:10, alludes to the exodus by mentioning God’s covenant with Israel
(Ezek 16:8).1100 In this text ‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬occurs along with two Egyptian loanwords, ‫ֵשׁשׁ‬
(“Egyptian linen”) and ‫“( ֶמ ִשׁי‬a garment”). In light of the Egyptian contexts in which
‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬occurs, it is most certainly a loan from Egyptian.1101
As noted by Görg and Bondi,1102 ‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬is derived from Egyptian ṯḥs, a verb
meaning “to stretch leather.”1103 This word first appears during the Old Kingdom and
refers to the act of stretching leather for wooden frames as well as sandals, precisely
the same way that ‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬is utilized in the Hebrew Bible. It is thus plausible that an
unattested nominal form of this word meaning “stretched leather” was adopted by
Hebrew speakers as ‫תּ ַחשׁ‬.

ַ Egyptian ṯ and t frequently merged after the Old Kingdom and
became allophones by the New Kingdom,1104 hence the usage of Hebrew ‫ ת‬for Egyptian
ṯ; by the Late period, this word was written as tḥs rather than ṯḥs.1105
The ancient Egyptians made leather primarily from the skins of calves, goats,
and sheep. Skins that had been stripped of hair and flesh were soaked in tanning
diphthong to disappear. Fourth, although Akkadian u in closed syllables did sometimes sound closer to a
than o to Hebrew speakers (Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 160-161), this does not
necessarily account for the difference in vocalization between Hebrew ‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬and the other forms. Lastly,
Dalley never proves—she simply assumes—that a connection exists between Hebrew ‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬and the other
forms.
1099
1100
Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 277-278.
1101
For discussion of the allegedly problematic correspondence between Hebrew ‫ שׁ‬and Egyptian s,
see the Egyptian “Consonant Correspondences” section in the conclusions chapter.
1102
Manfred Görg, “Das Lexem taḥaš: Herkunft und Bedeutung,” BN 109 (2001): 5-9; J.H. Bondi,
“Gegenseitige Kultureinflüsse der Ägypter und Semiten,” in Aegyptiaca: Festschrift für Georg Ebers zum 1.
März 1897 (Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1897), 1-7; cf. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 212-213. Cross originally
held to this loan hypothesis (Frank Moore Cross, Jr., “The Tabernacle: A Study from an Archaeological
and Historical Approach,” BA 10 (1947): 62); he only later changed his mind and associated ‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬with
Arabic tuḫas, duḫas (see above).
1103
ÄW 1:1456; 2:2750; GHwÄ 1034; WÄS 5:396.
1104
Allen, Middle Egyptian, 20; Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 123-125.
1105
WÄS 5:396.
215
solution made from oils and tawed with alum. Leather was then made into items such
as sandals, thongs for rope or cord, furniture joints, clothing, equipment for military
personnel, and chariot coverings.1106
tǵpṯ “a type of material”
(KTU 4.183 ii:10; 4.370:13; 4.609:36)
Hurr. → Akk., Ug.
Akk. taḫapšu
Ugaritic tǵpṯ appears only three times.1107 In KTU 4.183 ii:10, it occurs in the
expression [b]ˁl tǵpṯm and is followed by the personal name Krwn. It appears at the
beginning of a new section of the tablet, as indicated by the line added by the scribe;
because each section of KTU 4.183 starts with an occupation, it is evident that bˁl tǵpṯm
must be supervisors over, or manufacturers of, the product tǵpṯ.1108 The same
expression occurs in KTU 4.370:13; 4.609:36. In the latter attestation, it is associated
with the names Krwn, ˀIlšn, and ˀAgyn.
The non-Semitic morphology of this word indicates a foreign loan, and the
association of the item denoted by tǵpṯ with the worker Krwn—probably a Hurrian
name—specifically points to a Hurrian origin.1109 As noted by Watson and Ribichini,1110
1106
Denys A. Stocks, “Leather,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (ed. Donald B. Redford; 3 vols.;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 2:282-284; Carol Van Driel-Murray, “Leatherwork and Skin
Products,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (eds. Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000), 299-319; Rosemarie Drenkhahn, Die Handwerker und ihre Tätigkeiten im
alten Ägypten (ÄgAbh 31; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976), 7-17; Rosemarie Drenkhahn, “Leder, -arbeiter, -
bearbeitung,” LÄ 3:958-960.
1107
DUL 863.
1108
Dennis Pardee, “Les hommes du roi propriétaires de champs les textes ougaritiques RS 15.16 et RS
19.016,” Sem 49 (1999): 24-26, 29-30.
1109
Another significant Hurrian connection is the mention of the personal name Tǵpṯn in the Hurrian
hymn KTU 1.42 (line 49); this name also seems to occur in line 3 of KTU 4.57, a fragmentary list of
personal names.
1110
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 134; Ribichini and Xella, Terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit,
68.
216
Ugaritic tǵpṯ is most probably a loan from Hurrian taḫapši, which has its earliest
appearances in peripheral Akkadian dialects (Alalakh, Nuzi).1111 The item denoted by
this term could be used as a blanket or spread for covering horses, furniture, and divine
images. Akkadian taḫapšu sometimes occurs as a qualifier of other textiles, so it must
designate a particular textile material.1112
Tools
‫“ גַּ ְרזֶ ן‬axe, pickaxe”
(Deut 19:5; 20:19; 1 Kgs 6:7; Isa 10:15; KAI 189:2, 4 [2x])
CW
Sum. ḪAZIN; Akk. ḫaṣṣinnu; JA ‫ ֲ;ח ֶצינָ א‬Syr. ḥaṣṣinā; Eth. ḫaṣīn; Gk. ἀξίνη; Lat. ascia; Arm.
kac’in
The term ‫ גַּ ְרזֶ ן‬occurs four times in biblical Hebrew, each time with the meaning
“axe” (Deut 19:5; 20:19; 1 Kgs 6:7; Isa 10:15).1113 This word also appears three times in the
Siloam Tunnel inscription with reference to a tool utilized by the workers to hew the
tunnel (KAI 189:2, 4 [2x]).1114
This word may appear to be derived from the Semitic root grz/gzr “to cut,
divide”1115 (cf. Hebrew ‫גרז‬/‫)גזר‬,1116 but it reflects a non-Semitic word. Its nominal pattern
is rare in Semitic1117 and elsewhere used for foreign loans such as ‫“( ַבּ ְרזֶ ל‬iron”).1118 If this
1111
LKI 347; GLH 250-251; CAD T 40-41; AHw 1301.
1112
According to Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum, “lúsāpiˀu/sepû: eine akkadische Bezeichnung aus dem
Bereich der Textilherstellung,” in Munuscula Mesopotamica: Festschrift für Johannes Renger (eds. Barbara
Böck, et al.; AOAT 267; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1999), 85-87, Akkadian taḫapšu may specifically mean
“felt.” However, the evidence does not seem conclusive enough to draw this conclusion.
1113
HALOT 202-203.
1114
DNWSI 234.
1115
DRS 111-112, 184-185.
1116
HALOT 187, 202.
1117
Bauer and Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes, 503-504
(§561iι-lι).
217
word were Semitic, moreover, one would expect a form following the typical nominal
pattern for a tool; such a form, ‫“( ַמגְ זֵ ָרה‬axe”),1119 is already attested in biblical Hebrew.
Accordingly, Köhler and Baumgartner1120 connect Hebrew ‫ גַּ ְרזֶ ן‬with Akkadian
ḫaṣṣinnu,1121 an ancient culture word that is ultimately the origin of modern English
axe.1122 The final –innu ending of Akkadian ḫaṣṣinnu points to a culture word that
originated from a language spoken in ancient Anatolia (Hittite, Luwian, Hurrian, or
Hattic).1123 Hebrew speakers “semitized” this word to make it look more like a native
Semitic form, hence its seeming association with the root ‫גרז‬/‫גזר‬.
ḫṯr “winnowing fan, winnowing basket”
(KTU 1.6 ii:32; 4.85:2)
Ugaritic ḫṯr appears once in the Baal Cycle within the description of Anat’s
punishment of Mot for killing Baal. It occurs in the expression b ḫṯr tdry, “with a ḫṯr she
winnows him” (KTU 1.6 ii:32). Ugaritic ḫṯr also appears in an economic text, where it is
listed among an individual’s possessions (KTU 4.385:2).1124

Watson compares Ugaritic ḫṯr with Hurrian ḫašeri, “weapon,”1125 contending that
this strengthens the parallelism of the two lines found in KTU 1.6 ii:31-33.1126 However,
this loan hypothesis is flawed on several counts. First, the parallelism found in the
description of Anat’s punishment of Mot is not synonymous; different actions building
1118
HALOT 155-156.
1119
HALOT 544-545.
1120
HALOT 202-203.
1121
CAD Ḫ 133-134; AHw 332.
1122
Kaufman, Akkadian Influences, 54. Terms related to Akkadian ḫaṣṣinnu include Sumerian ḪAZIN,
Jewish Aramaic ‫ח ֶצינָ א‬,ֲ Syriac ḥaṣṣinā, Ethiopic ḫaṣīn, Greek ἀξίνη, Latin ascia, and Armenian kac’in (PSD;
DJBA 479; SyrLex 483; CDG 267; LSJ 170; OLD 180; HAB 2:560-561).
1123
Dercksen, “Anatolian Loanwords in Akkadian Texts from Kültepe,” 31-32, 39-42.
1124
DUL 416.
1125
GLH 96; Haas and Thiel, “Beitrag zum hurritischen Wörterbuch,” 342.
1126
218
on the previous one are described in each poetic colon.1127 Second, although different
actions are described in this pericope, all relate to the imagery of grain processing;1128
therefore, mention of a dagger would be out of place. Third, given the usage of the verb
dry, “to winnow,” in conjunction with ḫṯr, it is much more likely that Ugaritic ḫṯr is
derived from a Semitic noun meaning “winnowing fan, winnowing basket” (cf. Jewish
Aramaic ‫חשׁר‬, “to sift, sieve”1129).1130 Thus, there is no reason to derive Ugaritic ḫṯr from
Hurrian.
‫“ ֵכּ ָילף‬axe, pick”
(Ps 74:6)
CW
Akk. kalappu, kalabbu, kullupinnu; JA ‫ ;כולב‬Syr. kolbā; Mand. kulab; Hitti. kullubi
Hebrew ‫ ֵכּ ָילף‬appears only in Ps 74:6, where it is mentioned along with ‫ַכּ ִשּׁיל‬
(perhaps “axe” or “hammer”) and the verb ‫“( הלם‬to hit, strike”). This usage indicates
that ‫ ֵכּ ָילף‬denotes an implement for striking such as an axe or pick.1131
1127
Nicolas Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit (2d ed.; The Biblical Seminar 53; London: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2003), 135.
1128
“The Baˁlu Myth,” (COS 1.86:270); John Healey, “Burning the Corn: New Light on the Killing of
Mōtu,” Or 52 (1983): 248-251.
1129
DJPA 217.
1130
John Healey, “Swords and Plowshares: Some Ugaritic Terminology,” UF 15 (1983): 51. Usage of
winnowing fans and baskets in the ancient Near East is evident from descriptions in ancient texts and
Egyptian tomb scenes as well as modern ethnographic studies (Mary Anne Murray, “Cereal Production
and Processing,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (eds. Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 525-526; Gordon Hillman, “Traditional Husbandry and
Processing of Archaic Cereals in Recent Times: The Operations, Products, and Equipment which Might
Feature in Sumerian Texts: Part I: The Glume Wheats,” Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1 (1984): 124-125;
Gustaf Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina (7 vols.; Schriften der Deutschen Palästina-Instituts 3, 5-10;
Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1928-1942), 3:116-139).
1131
HALOT 472. The Septuagint, Vulgate, Peshitta, and Targum read πέλεκυς (“axe”), ascia (“axe”), plqˀ
(“axe”), and ‫“( מפסלה דיוסטר‬two-sided axe”), respectively. Based on Ps 74:6, which describes the
Babylonians’ destruction of the temple, it is likely that ‫ ֵכּ ָליו‬in Jeremiah 22:7—a description of the
Babylonian’s destruction of the palace—should be emended to ‫( ֵכּ ַלפּוֹ‬Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in
Biblical Hebrew, 66-67). The Septuagint and Peshitta both read “his axe,” rendering ‫ ֵכּ ָליו‬as τὸν πέλεκυν
219
Hebrew ‫ ֵכּ ָילף‬is related to Akkadian kalappu, kalabbu, kullupinnu which likewise
refers to a tool such as an axe.1132 Also connected is Hittite kullupi, which occurs in
conjunction with agricultural implements for digging.1133 The final double consonant of
the Akkadian and Hebrew forms, the attestation of this word in Hittite, and its
peripheral distribution in Akkadian (Old Assyrian, Nuzi, Middle Assyrian) all point to an
ancient cultureword originating in the north.1134 The final –innu ending of the Old
Assyrian form, moreover, indicates that it specifically originated from a language
spoken in second millennium Anatolia (Hittite, Luwian, Hurrian, or Hattic).1135
‫“ ִכּישׁוֹר‬spindle”
(Prov 31:19)
Sum. → Akk. → Heb.
Hebrew ‫ ִכּישׁוֹר‬is a hapax that occurs in Prov 31:19 within the description of the
capable woman (‫ת־חיִ ל‬ ֵ Most of the ancient versions interpret ‫ ִכּישׁוֹר‬as an abstract
ַ ‫)א ֶשׁ‬.
concept: the Septuagint reads τὰ συμφέροντα (“profitable things”), the Vulgate has
fortia (“valiant deeds”), and the Peshitta has kšyrwtˀ (“skill”).1136 Nevertheless, the
parallelism with ‫“( ֶפּ ֶלְך‬spindle”) strongly suggests the definition “spindle.”1137
Köhler and Baumgartner follow Cornelius’ hypothesis that Hebrew ‫ ִכּישׁוֹר‬can be
αὐτοῦ and nrgh, respectively; the Vulgate and Targum both read “his weapon,” translating ‫ ֵכּ ָליו‬as arma
eius and ‫זיניה‬, respectively.
1132
CAD K 66; AHw 424. Additional, much later Semitic forms can be found in Jewish Aramaic,
Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Syriac, and Mandaic (DJPA 253; LSp 93; SyrLex 607; MD 207).
1133
HHw 93.
1134
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 66; Kaufman, Akkadian Influences, 61; cf. Rabin,
“Hittite Words in Hebrew,” 124. The West Semitic forms cannot be a loan from Akkadian in light of the
difference in vocalization, contra HALOT 472; Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwörter, 12.
1135
Dercksen, “Anatolian Loanwords in Akkadian Texts from Kültepe,” 34.
1136
The Targum to Proverbs, which reads ‫כוּשׁ ָרא‬,
ְ is ambiguous because this word means both
“distaff” and “success” in Jewish Aramaic.
1137
Albert M. Wolters, “The Meaning of kîšôr (Prov 31:19),” HUCA 65 (1994): 95-96.
220
traced back to a hypothetical Sumerian *gišSUR, “spinning instrument.”1138 This
derivation nicely matches the parallelism with ‫ ֶפּ ֶלְך‬and provides a suitable donor term
semantically.1139 The word *gišSUR is never actually attested in Sumerian, but SUR is the
common Sumerian verb meaning “to spin, twist”1140 and it is certainly plausible that the
word *gišSUR did exist in Sumerian. This word must have passed from Sumerian to
Hebrew via an intermediary, namely Akkadian, since Hebrew could not have borrowed
this word directly from Sumerian on chronological grounds.1141
As Wolters contends, the widespread presence of spindles in the archaeological
record1142—contrasted with the general lack of evidence for the distaff’s usage in
Mesopotamia and Egypt prior to the classical period1143—indicates that ‫ ִכּישׁוֹר‬should be
translated as “spindle” rather than “distaff” (contra NRSV, JPS).1144
1138
HALOT 473; William F. Albright, Die Religion Israels im Lichte der archälogischen Ausgrabungen :
Autorisierte Übersetzung mit Nachträgen des Verfassers (trans. Frederich Cornelius; Munich: E. Reinhardt,
1956), 242. This loan hypothesis, unique to Cornelius’ translation, is not found in any of the English
editions of Albright’s Archaeology and the Religion of Israel.
1139
Other etymologies have been proposed, but none are convincing. Some scholars suggest a
derivation from the common Semitic root kšr, “to prosper, be skilled” (cf. Hebrew ‫ ;)כשׁר‬e.g., William F.
Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1968), 136; Wolters, “Meaning of kîšôr (Prov 31:19),” 104. However, this does not adequately
account for the parallelism with ‫פּ ֶלְך‬. ֶ Others identify the lexical origin of Hebrew ‫ ִכּישׁוֹר‬as Sumerian
KI.SUR, “spinning place”; e.g., Edmond Boissier, “A Sumerian Word in the Bible,” Proceedings of the Society
of Biblical Archaeology 35 (1913): 159-160; Simon Konrad Landersdorfer, Sumerisches Sprachgut im Alten
Testament: eine biblisch-lexikalische Studie (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament 21; Leipzig: J.C.
Hinrichs, 1916), 45. This provides a better but nevertheless inadequate semantic comparison.
1140
PSD.
1141
Gary A. Rendsburg, “Double Polysemy in Proverbs 31:19,” in Humanism, Culture, and Language in the
Near East: Studies in Honor of Georg Krotkoff (eds. Asma Afsaruddin and A.H. Mathias Zahniser; Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 269-270.
1142
Barber, Prehistoric Textiles, 51-65.
1143
Barber, Prehistoric Textiles, 69-70. In Mesopotamia and Egypt there is little, if any, evidence for
usage of distaffs in both the archaeological record and illustrations of weaving scenes. In both regions,
the spindle rather than the distaff is the preferred method of spinning (Barber, Prehistoric Textiles, 56-59;
Vogelsang-Eastwood, “Textiles,” 271-274).
1144
Wolters, “Meaning of kîšôr (Prov 31:19),” 97-100.
221
‫“ ַל ִפּיד‬torch; lightning”
(Gen 15:17; Exod 20:18; Judg 7:16, 20; 15:4 [2x], 5; Job 41:11; Isa 62:1; Ezek 1:13; Dan 10:6;
Nah 2:5; Zech 12:6)
Gk. → Heb.
Gk. λαμπάς (gen. λαμπάδος)
The term ‫ ַל ִפּיד‬occurs thirteen 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). In
Exod 20:18, however, ‫ ַל ִפּיד‬metaphorically means “lightning,” and in several other
instances ‫ ַל ִפּיד‬is associated with lightning (Job 41:11; Ezek 1:13; Dan 10:6; Nah 2:5).1145
Hebrew ‫ ַל ִפּיד‬has no Semitic cognates1146 and there is no known Semitic root on
which it could be based. This suggests a non-Semitic origin, and the donor term is
Greek λαμπάς.1147 This word means “torch” in Greek but can also denote celestial
phenomena resembling burning torches such as comets or lightning, exactly like
Hebrew ‫ל ִפּיד‬.ַ 1148
1145
HALOT 533. The word ‫ ַל ִפּיד‬in Job 12:5 is best understood as the preposition ‫ ל‬plus the word ‫פּיד‬,
ִ
meaning “misfortune”; see Gordis, Book of Job, 136; Pope, Job, 90.
1146
Jewish and Christian Aramaic ‫ למפד‬as well as Syriac lampēdā and Ethiopic lanp̣as are later forms
derived from Hebrew ‫ ַל ִפּיד‬and Greek λαμπάς (DJPA 284; LSp 104; SyrLex 692; CDG 316).
1147
LSJ 1027. Greek λαμπάς comes from the Indo-European root *leh2p, “to glow, shine” (LIV 402; IEW
1:652-653); see EDG 829-830; DELG 592-593).
1148
Stanislav Segert, “Zur Etymologie von lappīd ‘Fackel,” ZAW 74 (1962): 324; Cyrus H. Gordon,
“Homer and Bible: The Origin and Character of East Mediterranean Literature,” HUCA 26 (1955): 61. Other
etymologies are unconvincing. Zimmern derives Hebrew ‫ ַל ִפּיד‬from Akkadian dipāru, “torch” (CAD D 156-
157; AHw 172), assuming interchange of r and l and transposition of consonants and vowels (Zimmern,
Akkadische Fremdwörter, 36), but this is speculative. Rabin assumes a hypothetical instrumental form lappit
of Hittite lappiya, “embers, kindling” (CHD 44-45; HHw 102) as the donor term (Rabin, “Hittite Words in
Hebrew,” 128-129). However, the form lappit is hypothetical and unattested; moreover, it is not clear that
nouns of the common gender in –iya form their instrumentals by monophthongization of the -iya to –i.
Hebrew speakers would probably not borrow a word in the instrumental case; Hittite words in Northwest
Semitic typically display the accusative case ending or no case ending at all. See Hoffner, “Hittite Tarpiš
and Hebrew Terāphîm,” 66.
222
‫“ ַמזְ ֵלג‬fork”
(Exod 27:3; 38:3; Num 4:14; 1 Sam 2:13-14; 1 Chron 28:17; 2 Chron 4:16)
Hebrew ‫ ַמזְ ֵלג‬occurs seven times, exclusively within the context of the cult: it
appears five times with reference to a utensil for the tabernacle or temple (Exod 27:3;
38:3; Num 4:14; 1 Chron 28:17; 2 Chron 4:16) and twice with reference to a three-
pronged (‫ֹלשׁ־ה ִשּׁנַּ יִם‬

ַ ‫ ) ְשׁ‬fork that the priests would use to remove boiling meat for the
sacrifice (1 Sam 2:13-14).1149
Outside the Hebrew Bible, this word is only attested in Eblaite, Akkadian, and
Egyptian: Eblaite mazarigu refers to an implement of some kind;1150 Akkadian mazlagu,

which appears only during the Old Assyrian period, denotes a fork or hook;1151 lastly,
Egyptian mrqḏn (written syllabically and exhibiting metathesis), a New Kingdom loan
from Semitic, denotes a metal household instrument.1152 Mankowski contends that
these different forms reflect an ancient culture word,1153 but this word’s morphology
ַ “key”).1154 This noun

matches that of Hebrew nouns for instruments or tools (e.g., ‫מ ְפ ֵתּ ַח‬,
is probably derived from a Semitic root zlg, a metathesized form of the common Semitic
1149
HALOT 565. The Septuagint translates ‫ ַמזְ ֵלג‬as κρεάγρα (“flesh hook, fork for meat”); the Vulgate
has fuscinula (“three-pronged fork, flesh hook”) everywhere but 2 Chron 4:16, where it has creagra (“flesh
hook”); the Peshitta also has mšlyˀ everywhere but 2 Chron 4:16, which the Peshitta does not contain;
lastly, the Targum has ‫“( צנורה‬fork”) in Exod 27:3; 38:3; Num 4:14; 2 Chron 4:16 but ‫משלי‬, ‫“( משליא‬fork”) in
1 Sam 2:13-14; 1 Chron 28:17.
1150
Pettinato, Testi lessicali bilingui della biblioteca L. 2769, 245 (#407); Frederick Mario Fales,
“Formations with m-Prefix in the Bilingual Vocabularies,” in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla: Akten der
Internationalen Tagung Heidelberg, 4.-7. November 1986 (eds. Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Hauptmann;
Heidelberger Studien zum alten Orient 2; Heidelberg: Heidelberg Orientverlag, 1988), 207. Conti,
however, questions a connection between Eblaite mazarigu and Hebrew ‫ ַמזְ ֵלג‬based on the usage of the
sign rí for li (Conti, Miscellanea Eblaitica, 129).
1151
CAD M/1 438; AHw 637. According to Julius Lewy, “Studies in Old Assyrian Grammar and
Lexicography,” Or 19 (1930): 15-16, this implement normally had one tooth or barb, hence the
qualification ‫ֹלשׁ־ה ִשּׁנַּ יִם‬
ַ ‫ ְשׁ‬in 1 Sam 2:13.
1152
GHwÄ 370; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 143-144.
1153
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 88-89. Mankowski also connects Arabic mizlāḫ,
mizlāǧ, which refers to a latch or sliding bolt (Lane 1244), but this is speculative. Lane more probably
derives Arabic mizlaḫ, mizlaǧ from the verb zalaǧa, “to glide, move quickly” (Lane 1243).
1154
HALOT 619.
223
root grz/gzr “to cut, divide”1155 (cf. Hebrew ‫גרז‬/‫)גזר‬1156 that exhibits interchange of the
liquids r and l.1157 Thus, there is no good reason to think that ‫ ַמזְ ֵלג‬is non-Semitic.
‫( ַמ ֶטּה‬Heb.), ‫( מטה‬Deir ˁAlla), mṭ (Ug.) “staff”
(Gen 38:18, 25; passim; KTU 1.2 i:9, 41; 1.3 ii:15; 1.19 iii:49, 56; iv:7; 1.23:37, 40, 44, 47; KAI
312:9)
Hebrew ‫ ַמ ֶטּה‬is extremely common, occurring some 252 times. It means “staff”
but by extension can also mean “tribe.”1158 The word ‫ מטה‬occurs with the same
meaning in the Deir ˁAlla Plaster Texts (KAI 312:9).1159 Ugaritic mṭ appears in the
mythological texts with clear reference to a staff; in several instances from the “The
Birth of the Goodly Gods,” for example, mṭ is parallel with ḫt, “staff” (KTU 1.23:37, 40,
44, 47).1160
Janssen derives Hebrew ‫ ַמ ֶטּה‬from Egyptian mdw (first attested during the Old
Kingdom)1161 because of the frequent usage of ‫ ַמ ֶטּה‬and in the narratives of the exodus
and wilderness wanderings.1162 However, ‫ ַמ ֶטּה‬matches the nominal pattern of final-‫ה‬
verbs in biblical Hebrew, and Hebrew lexicographers1163 typically derive it from from
the root ‫נטה‬, “to stretch out, extend.”1164 There are additional problems with this loan
1155
DRS 111-112, 184-185.
1156
HALOT 187, 202.
1157
Cf. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 143. On the root zlg in Semitic, see DRS 733-734.
1158
HALOT 573.
1159
DNWSI 617.
1160
DUL 602.
1161
ÄW 1:575; 2:1159-1160; GHwÄ 399; WÄS 2:178.
1162
Jozef M.A. Janssen, “A travers les publications égyptologiques récentes concerant l’Ancien
testament,” in L’Ancien testament et l’Orient: études présentées aux VIes Journées bibliques de Louvain (11-13
septembre 1954) (ALBO 1; Leuven: Publications universitaires, 1957), 40. Hebrew ‫ ַמ ֶטּה‬denotes the staves
with which Moses and Aaron performed miracles as well as the staves of the Egyptian magicians (e.g.,
Exod 4:17; 7:9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19-20).
1163
E.g., HALOT 573; Bauer and Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten
Testamentes, 491 (§461nζ).
1164
HALOT 692-693.
224
hypothesis: the alleged correspondence between Hebrew ‫ ה‬and Egyptian w,1165 the
attestation of this word at Deir ˁAlla and Ugarit without any connection with Egypt, and
lastly, the existence of Eblaite madu (lexically equated with GIŠ.RU),1166 which indicates
that this is a Semitic, not Egyptian, word. Thus, there is no reason to think that Hebrew
‫ ַמ ֶטּה‬is Egyptian.
‫“ ָמ ִטיל‬long bar”
(Job 40:18)
Hebrew ‫ ָמ ִטיל‬is a hapax that occurs in the book of Job’s description of Behemoth:
the text states that this creature’s bones are ‫( ִכּ ְמ ִטיל ַבּ ְרזֶ ל‬Job 40:18).1167 This expression is
parallel to ‫חוּשׁה‬ ֲ probably meaning “tubes of bronze,” and one therefore expects
ָ ְ‫א ִפ ֵיקי נ‬,
‫ ָמ ִטיל‬to mean something like “pole, bar.”
Several scholars propose connections with Hittite muwatalla, muwatalli (“awe-
inspiring, terrifying”)1168 and Greek μέταλλον (“mine, quarry”),1169 but these loan
hypotheses are problematic1170 and miss the point that suitable cognates for ‫ ָמ ִטיל‬exist:
Arabic maṭala (“to draw out, prolong” and by extension “to hammer, forge”) and maṭlūl
1165
1166
Pettinato, Testi lessicali bilingui della biblioteca L. 2769, 12 (#413); Brigitte Groneberg, “GIŠ.RU =
eblaitisch ma-du-um,” RA 82 (1988): 71-73; Fales, “Formations with m-Prefix,” 207.
1167
HALOT 574. The Septuagint has σίδηρος χυτός (“cast iron”), the Vulgate reads lamina ferreae (“thin
piece of iron”), the Peshitta has przlˀ (“iron”) and the Targum uses the Aramaic form of this word along
with ‫“( ַפּ ְרזֶ ל‬iron”).
1168
CHD 316-317; HHw 121. As the Chicago Hittite Dictionary notes, the use of the ideograms NIR.GÁL
and perhaps KA.ZAL (both equivalent to Akkadian muttallu, “noble” [CAD M/2 306-307; AHw 690]) may be
based on the phonetic similarity of the Hittite and Akkadian terms and need not imply any connection.
Hittite muwatalla, muwatalli has a clear Hittite origin (HEG 2:243-244; HED 6:196-200) and Akkadian muttallu
occurs early on in Old Babylonian, so the two are probably not connected.
1169
LSJ 1114.
1170
Rabin, “Hittite Words in Hebrew,” 131-132 derives ‫ ָמ ִטיל‬from Hittite muwatalla, muwatalli,
postulating that ‫ ָמ ִטיל‬is an adjective—not a noun—in construct with ‫בּ ְרזֶ ל‬.ַ While this is possible, this is
unlikely grammatically. Köhler and Baumgartner (HALOT 574) derive ‫ ָמ ִטיל‬from Greek μέταλλον, but the
latter probably has a pre-Hellenic origin, having been derived from a technical mining term (EDG 937;
DELG 664). Aside from these problems, neither loan hypothesis is persuasive semantically.
225
(“sword, long metal object”).1171 Commentators associate Hebrew ‫ ָמ ִטיל‬with these
terms,1172 especially since there is nothing contextually that would suggest a Hittite or
Greek derivation.
‫( ַמ ֻפּ ַח‬Heb.), mpḫ (Ug.) “bellows”
(Jer 6:29; KTU 1.4 i:23)
Hebrew ‫מ ֻפּ ַח‬,
ַ “bellows,” occurs only once within the context of refining metal
(Jer 6:29).1173 Likewise, mpḫ only occurs once in Ugaritic with reference to smelting
(KTU 1.4 i:23).1174
Conti and Watson1175 associate this word with Egyptian mfḫ, “to sieve, sieve
grain.”1176 However, this comparison is unlikely semantically,1177 and a perfectly good
Semitic etymology for Hebrew ‫ ַמ ֻפּ ַח‬and Ugaritic mpḫ exists: they are derived from the
Semitic root npḫ, “to blow, light a fire” (cf. Hebrew ‫ נפח‬and Akkadian napāḫu),1178 with
assimilation of the n (hence the dagesh in the second letter of Hebrew ‫)מ ֻפּ ַח‬.
ַ Thus, this
word is not an Egyptian loan.
1171
Lane 3021.
1172
E.g., Pope, Job, 324; Marvin H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts (VTSup 2; Leiden: Brill, 1955), 62; Gordis,
Book of Job, 477; John Gray, The Book of Job (ed. David J.A. Clines; Texts of the Hebrew Bible 1; Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010), 493
1173
HALOT 617. The Septuagint and Vulgate read φυσητήρ and sufflatorium, respectively (both
meaning “bellows”); the Peshitta uses the Aramaic form of this word; lastly, the Targum has ‫משב‬,
“blowing, bellows.” There is no need to emend ‫“( ֶפּ ָחם‬charcoal”) in Prov 26:21 to ‫( ַמ ֻפּ ַח‬Michael V. Fox,
Proverbs 10-31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 18B; New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press, 2009), 799; contra HALOT 617).
1174
DUL 566.
1175
Giovanni Conti, Rapporti tra egiziano e semitico nel lessico egiziano dell’agricoltura (Quaderni di
semitistica 6; Florence: Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali, Università di Firenze, 1978), 92-98;
1176
ÄW 1:526; GHwÄ 352; WÄS 2:55.
1177
Cf. EDE 2:207.
1178
HALOT 708; CAD N/1 263-270; AHw 732-733. Possibly also related is Akkadian munappiḫtu, which
occurs once in an Old Babylonian lexical list and may mean “bellows” (CAD M/2 199; AHw 672). If this is
the case, this provides an example of this term with unassimilated n and further supports a connection
with the Semitic root npḫ.
226
‫( ֶפּ ֶלְך‬Heb.), ‫( פלך‬Phoen.), plk (Ug.) “spindle”
(2 Sam 3:29; Prov 31:19; KTU 1.4 ii:3-4; KAI 26 A ii:6)
CW
Sum. BALAK; Ebla. piˀakku; Akk. pilakku, pilaqqu; JA ‫ִפּ ְיל ָכּא‬
The word ‫ ֶפּ ֶלְך‬occurs only twice in the Hebrew Bible.1179 In Prov 31:19, ‫ֶפּ ֶלְך‬
appears parallel to ‫“( ִכּישׁוֹר‬spindle”) within the description of the industrious woman
(‫ת־חיִ ל‬ ֵ Although debated, the occurrence of ‫ ֶפּ ֶלְך‬in 2 Sam 3:29 also seems to have
ַ ‫)א ֶשׁ‬.
the meaning “spindle.”1180 Phoenician ‫פלך‬1181 occurs once in the ˀAzatiwada Inscription
from Karatepe with the meaning “spindle” (KAI 26 A ii:6).1182 Lastly, Ugaritic plk appears
twice in the Baal Cycle, both times with reference to an item utilized by the goddess
ˀAthirat (KTU 1.4 ii:3-4). As in the above instances, it means “spindle.”1183
Related terms outside of Northwest Semitic include Sumerian BALAK,1184 Eblaite
piˀakku (written as bi2-a-gu and lexically equated with GIŠ.BALAK),1185 Akkadian pilakku,
1179
HALOT 933. The Septuagint reads σκυτάλη (“staff, crutch”) in 2 Sam 3:29 and ἄτρακτος (“spindle”)
in Prov 31:19; the Vulgate reads fusus (“spindle”) in both verses; the Peshitta reads mwˁzl ˀ (“spindle”) in
both cases; the Targum reads ‫ אגר‬in 2 Sam 3:29, an error for ‫“( אגד‬staff”) and ‫“( מעזלתא‬spindle”) in Prov
31:19.
1180
André Caquot and Philippe de Robert, Les livres de Samuel (CAT 6; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1994),
391; McCarter, II Samuel, 118. Hollaway suggests that Joab’s household will be condemned to corvée-labor,
deriving ‫ ֶפּ ֶלְך‬in 2 Sam 3:29 from Akkadian pilku, “work-duty, corvée” (Steven W. Holloway, “Distaff,
Crutch or Chain Gang? The Curse of the House of Joab in 2 Samuel iii 29,” VT 37 [1987]: 370-375).
However, this suggestion is refuted cogently by Scott C. Layton, “A Chain Gang in 2 Samuel iii 29? A
Rejoinder,” VT 39 [1989]: 81-86. Within the context of 2 Sam 3:29, the expression ‫ ַמ ֲחזִ יק ַבּ ֶפּ ֶלְך‬is best
interpreted as a curse rendering Joab effeminate and without descendants (Meir Malul, “David’s Curse of
Joab (2 Sam 3:29) and the Social Significance of mḥzyq bplk,” AuOr 10 [1992]: 49-67).
1181
DNWSI 915-916.
1182
Younger, “Phoenician Inscription of Azatiwada,” 32-33. This interpretation is supported by the
presence of the hieroglyph for “spindle” (FUSUS) in the Luwian version of this bilingual text (§35.186);
see John David Hawkins and Halet Çambel, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions (2 vols.; Studies in
Indo-European Language and Culture, New Series 8; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999-2000), 1:53, 62-63.
1183
DUL 671-672; Mark S. Smith and Wayne T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle (3 vols.; VTSup 55, 114;
Leiden: Brill, 1994-), 440-441. This word also occurs once in the syllabic texts from Ugarit (RS 20.123 +
180A + 180α + 185A, B + 190A + 197E + 426C, E + 21.07B ii:22ʹ); see Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in
Syllabic Transcription, 168; W.H. van Soldt, Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar (AOAT 40;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 306.
1184
PSD.
1185
Conti, Miscellanea Eblaitica, 133-134; Pettinato, Testi lessicali bilingui della biblioteca L. 2769, 251 (#459);
227
pilaqqu,1186 and Jewish Aramaic ‫פּ ְיל ָכּא‬,
ִ 1187 all meaning “spindle.” Although Köhler and
Baumgartner1188 derive this term from Arabic falaka, “to be round,” the multiple
manifestations of this term indicate that it is an ancient culture word.
Notably, this term is associated with women in the majority of its occurrences
in Northwest Semitic (Prov 31:19; KAI 26 A ii:6; KTU 1.4 ii:3-4), reflecting antiquity’s
association of spinning and weaving with women.1189 Women are attributed the role of
spinning in Exod 35:25-26; the book of Tobit says that weaving cloth is the type of work
that women do (Tobit 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);1190 administrative texts from
Mari refer to female weavers in the palaces (ARM 9.24 iv:18; 25:38; 27 v:43; 13.21 rev. 9ʹ-
16ʹ).1191 Ancient Near Eastern iconography likewise depicts women with spindles or
other weaving instruments.1192 The abundant remains of spindles and spindle-whorls
from the ancient Near East and Mediterranean point to their common usage for
spinning cloth in antiquity.1193
Krebernik, “Lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla: Teil 2 (Glossar),” 16.

1186
CAD P 371-373; AHw 863. Akkadian pilakku, pilaqqu, which is attested in a number of different time
periods and locales (Old Babylonian, Bogazköy, Amarna, Standard Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian, Neo-
Babylonian), may be a loan from Sumerian BALAK, although its precise origin is uncertain. The double-
final consonant found in pilakku, pilaqqu is typical of foreign loans into Akkadian.
1187
DJBA 900-901.
1188
HALOT 933.
1189
1190
Douglas Frayne, Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods
3/2; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 304.
1191
Maurice Birot, Textes administratifs de la salle 5 due Palais (2 vols.; ARM 9, 12; Paris: Imprimerie
Nationale, 1960-1964), 18, 21, 28; Georges Dossin et al., Textes divers (ARM 13; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1964),
40.
1192
James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament (2d ed.; Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969), 42-43 (nos. 142-144).
1193
228
Vessels
‫( ַאגָּ ן‬Heb.), ‫( אגן‬Phoen.), ˀagn (Ug.) “basin”
(Exod 24:6; Isa 22:24; Song 7:3; Arad[6]2:10; KTU 1.23:15, 31, 36; KTU 6.70:1)
Hurr. ⇒ Akk.; WSem. (Ug., Heb., Phoen., IA, JA, Syr., Mand., Arab., Eth.); Eg.; Hitt.
Akk. agannu (pl. agannātu); Phoen. ‫ ;אגן‬IA, JA, CPA ‫ ;אגן‬JA ‫אגָּ נָ א‬,
ַ ‫ ;אגאנא‬Syr. ˀagāna; Mand.
agana; Arab. ˀiǧǧanat; Eth. ˁaygan; Eg. ikn; Hitt. aganni
The term ‫ ַאגָּ ן‬occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible, each time referring to
a vessel (Exod 24:6; Isa 22:24; Song 7:3).1194 In inscriptional Hebrew, moreover, this word
is attested in an early sixth century ostracon from Tel Arad (Arad[6]2:10).1195 Phoenician
‫ אגן‬occurs several times, but only in Persian and Hellenistic period inscriptions.1196
Lastly, Ugaritic ˀagn refers to a cultic basin in the mythological text “The Birth of the
Goodly Gods” (KTU 1.23:15, 31, 36).1197 A votive inscription from Sarepta written on a jug
handle, ˀagn z pˁl yd[…] (“basin that […] made”), confirms the referent of ˀagn as a
manufactured item (KTU 6.70:1).
Akkadian agannu, a clear cognate, appears primarily in peripheral dialects such
as Qatna, Nuzi, and Amarna.1198 Additional Semitic forms exist in Aramaic, Arabic, and
Ethiopic.1199 In non-Semitic, this word occurs as Hittite aganni1200 (a loan from Hurrian
1194
HALOT 11. The Septuagint and Vulgate render ‫ ַאגָּ ן‬as κρατήρ (“bowl”) and cratera (“bowl”),
respectively. The Peshitta utilizes lqnˀ (“platter”) in Exod 24:6, mˀnˀ in Isa 22:24, and ˀgnˀ in Song 7:3; the
Targum reads ‫“( מזרקא‬bowl”) in Exod 24:6 but uses the Aramaic form of this word (‫ )ארגנא‬in Song 7:3 and
leaves it untranslated in Isa 22:24.
1195
Renz and Röllig, Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, 1:357.
1196
DNWSI 9.
1197
DUL 26. Although some interpret Ugaritic ˀagn here as meaning “fire” (cf. Latin ignis [OLD 823]),
the meaning “basin” best fits the context; see Mark S. Smith, The Rituals and Myths of the Feast of the Goodly
Gods of KTU/CAT 1.23: Royal Constructions of Opposition, Intersection, Integration, and Domination (SBLRBS 51;
Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 57.
1198
CAD A/1 142-143; AHw 15.
1199
DNWSI 9-10; DJPA 34; DJBA 79; LSp 2; SyrLex 7-8; MD 5; Lane 26; CDG 79.
1200
HHw 13.
229
aganni1201)1202 and New Kingdom Egyptian ikn (written as ˀ=ku=na and ˀ=k=nu), a foreign
loan.1203 Notably, in at least one case Egyptian texts associate this term with northern
Syria: ˀkn ˁȝ m bȝk n Ḫȝrw (“a large basin of Syrian manufacture”) (Urk. IV 665,16).
The geographical association of this item with northern Syria, this word’s
attestation in Nuzi Akkadian, and the final –n together point to a Hurrian origin.
Hurrian aganni is derived from the Hurrian verb ag, “to carry,”1204 and the deictic
element –anni.1205 The Hebrew and Aramaic forms, which exhibit gemination of the
second root consonant but not the third, are loans from this source rather than
Akkadian.1206
The archaeological and epigraphic data indicate that the vessel denoted by this
term was a squat, ring-based bowl with a large mouth and two handles, similar to the
krater.1207 A Late Bronze Age stone bowl fragment (8.4 x 8.1 x 7.25 cm) from Hazor
contains a dedicatory inscription of this type of vessel, specifically mentioning it by
name (Hazor 13).1208 The above-mentioned alphabetic Ugaritic text from Sarepta (KTU
6.70:1), also a dedicatory inscription, is inscribed on a wide krater handle.1209 Nine stone
krater-like vessels from the much-later Palmyrene sanctuary at Khirbet Semrîn
1201
LKI 62; LHL 1:34; GLH 37.
1202
HEG 1:10; HED 1-2:24.
1203
GHwÄ 121; WÄS 1:140; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 41-42. The representation of ikn by
group writing and its rarity clearly reflect a loan from Semitic into Egyptian, contra Ward, “Semitic
Personal Names and Loanwords in Egyptian,” 27; Thomas O. Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in Tell El
Amarna Letter No. 14,” Or 22 (1953): 363. As Hoch notes, this word is probably not related to the older
Egyptian ikn, “cup,” derived from the verb ikn, “to draw water” (ÄW 2:422; GHwÄ 121; WÄS 1:139). Hannig,
however, connects the older ikn with Akkadian agannu and Hittite aganni (GHwÄ 121).
1204
LKI 55-56; GLH 36; LHL 1:29-36.
1205
LHL 1:34.
1206
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 22; Kaufman, Akkadian Influences, 33. Possibly
also related is Greek ἄγγος, “vessel” (LSJ 7; cf. EDG 10; DELG 8).
1207
Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo, “Noms de vases en phénicien,” Sem 38 (1990): 21-23; Kelso, Ceramic
Vocabulary of the Old Testament, 15-16; A.M. Honeyman, “The Pottery Vessels of the Old Testament,” PEQ 71
(1939): 78-79.
1208
Horowitz, Oshima, and Sanders, Cuneiform in Canaan, 85-86.
1209
James B. Pritchard, Sarepta: A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age: Excavations of the University Museum
of the University of Pennsylvania, 1970-72 (Museum Monographs; Philadelphia: University Museum,
University of Pennsylvania, 1975), 102-104; Edward L. Greenstein, “A Phoenician Inscription in Ugaritic
Script?” JANES 8 (1976): 49-57.
230
inscribed with dedicatory formulae label the vessels by this term; the only intact vessel
discovered at the sanctuary was 49 cm in height and had an inside diameter of 56 cm.1210
‫“ ַאח‬brazier”
(Jer 36:22, 23 [2x])
Eg. → Heb.
Eg. ˁḫ
The word ‫אח‬,

ַ “brazier,” appears only three times in the Hebrew Bible. It occurs
in the narrative which recounts Jehoakim burning the scroll containing Jeremiah’s
prophecies (Jer 36:20-26).1211 Its limited appearance and the lack of a known related
Semitic root suggest a non-Semitic origin, and Muchiki, Ellenbogen, and Lambdin
recognize that Hebrew ‫ ַאח‬is a foreign loan.1212
The donor term is Egyptian ˁḫ, “brazier,” which specifically denotes a brazier
used for burnt offerings and burning incense. It first appears in the Old Kingdom.1213
The usage of Hebrew ‫ א‬for Egyptian ˁ is not a problem because Egyptian ˁ can
dissimilate to i in the presence of ḫ,1214 and it is likely that the same dissimilation took
place when biblical Hebrew adopted this word.1215
The brazier denoted by Hebrew ‫ ַאח‬was probably made of metal (as opposed to
1210
J.T. Milik, Dédicaces faites par des dieux (Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr) et des thiases sémitiques à l’époque romaine
(Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 92; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1972), 108-111.
1211
HALOT 29. In both instances, the Septuagint renders ‫ ַאח‬as ἐσχάρα (“hearth, fireplace”) and the
Vulgate renders it as arula (“small altar”). The Peshitta and Targum utilize nwrˀ (“fire”) and ‫“( נורא‬fire”)
in Jer 36:22 but qmynˀ (“brazier, fire place”) and ‫“( גומרא‬burning coals”) in Jer 36:23, respectively.
1212
1213
ÄW 1:288; 2:564; GHwÄ 170; WÄS 1:223. The Demotic form is ˁḫ, and the Coptic form is ⲁϣ (DG 69;
Crum 22; CED 15).
1214
Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 104; Jürgen Ossing, “Zum Lautwechsel 𓇋 ↔ 𓂢 unter Einfluss von 𓐍,”
Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 8 (1980): 217-225.
1215
231
ceramic) because it was the property of the king. As indicated by the Egyptian origin of
Hebrew ‫אח‬,
ַ moreover, this particular brazier must have been imported from Egypt or
manufactured according to Egyptian design.1216 The Egyptian pharaoh Necho II installed
Jehoiakim, whose birth name was Eliakim, as king of Judah (cf. 2 Kgs 23:31-37); it is not
surprising that an Egyptian brazier was utilized in the royal Judahite court given
Egypt’s influence over Judah during the late monarchy.
ˀirp “wine vessel”
(KTU 4.123:20)
Eg. → Ug.
Eg. irp
Ugaritic ˀirp occurs only in KTU 4.123, an economic text listing various
commodities. Based on its association with trq (“container”) in the same line (line 20) as
well as mention of other vessels in the surrounding lines, it is clear that ˀirp denotes a
container.1217
The rare attestation and lack of a known Semitic cognate indicate a foreign
loan.1218 Gordon1219 postulates a connection with Egyptian irp, “wine,” which occurs as
early as the Old Kingdom.1220 Egyptian irp provides a fitting donor term for this rare
Ugaritic word, which was applied to a vessel for wine by metonymy.1221

1216
Kelso, Ceramic Vocabulary of the Old Testament, 46.
1217
DUL 105.
1218
Following del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Watson associates Ugaritic ˀirp with Hittite eripi (DUL 105;
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 119). However, Hittite eripi does not mean “(cedar) container” as they
contend, but “cedar, cedar beam” (HHw 36). Due to the different semantic referents of Ugaritic ˀirp and
Hittite eripi, the former cannot be a loan from the latter.
1219
UT 366 (§371); cf. Conti, Rapporti tra egiziano e semitico, 139-143.
1220
ÄW 1:191-198; 2:377-380; GHwÄ 105; WÄS 1:115. The Demotic form is irp, and the Coptic form is ⲏⲣⲡ
(DG 39; Crum 66-67; CED 42). In Old Nubian, this word occurs as orp (OND 128).
1221
Muchiki objects to this loan hypothesis on the basis that Egyptian irp does not mean “wine jug,”
but simply “wine” (Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 281). However, Egyptian irp commonly
occurs with a vessel determinative, and it is plausible that it came to be taken as “wine jug” by
metonymy. The related term irpy.t occurs with the meaning “wine jug” (ÄW 2:380; GHwÄ 105).
232
bk “jar, drinking bowl”
(KTU 1.3 i:12; 1.45:10)
Gk. → Ug.
Gk. βῖκος
Ugaritic bk appears only twice, both times in mythological texts.1222 In the Baal
Cycle, bk occurs within the context of Baal’s feast amidst mention of various drinking
vessels and is parallel to rˀidn (“rhyton”) (KTU 1.3 i:12). The text of KTU 1.45 is
fragmentary, but the verb šdy (“to pour”) occurs in the line preceding mention of bk,
and bk occurs in the expression bk mlˀa (“a filled bk” or “he filled a bk”), indicating once
again that bk denotes a vessel.
Zamora and Lipiński1223 postulate that Ugaritic bk is a loan from Greek βῖκος,
“jar, drinking bowl.”1224 This loan hypothesis is possible, especially given the Aegean-
like nature of Baal’s feast in KTU 1.3 i:1-281225 and the parallelism with rˀidn, a loan from
Greek (as discussed under its entry). However, the possibility that this word is
onomatopoeic, expressing the sound of liquid gurgling, cannot be completely ruled out
ַ “vial” and ‫בּ ְק ֻבּק‬,ַ “jug, bottle” 1226).

(cf. Hebrew ‫פְּך‬,
1222
DUL 219.
1223
Zamora, Vid y el vino en Ugarit, 524; Edward Lipiński, “Banquet en l’honneur de Baal: CTA 3 (V AB),
A, 4-22,” UF 2 (1970): 81; cf. Mark S. Smith and Wayne T. Pitard, Introduction with Text, Translation and
Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3-1.4 (vol. 2 of The Ugaritic Baal Cycle; 3 vols.; VTSup 114; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 108.
1224
LSJ 315.
1225
Cf. Oswald Loretz, “Die Gefäße Rdmns für ein Marziḥu-Gelage zu Ehren Baals und der
Nestorbecher der Ilias: Zu mykenisch-ugaritischen Beziehungen nach KTU 1.3 I 10-15a,” in Ex
Mesopotamia et Syria Lux: Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (eds. Oswald Loretz, et al.;
AOAT 281; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002), 299-323.
1226
HALOT 149, 926.
233
‫“ גָּ ִב ַיע‬cup; cup-shaped candleholder”
(Gen 44:2 [2x], 12, 16-17; Exod 25:31, 33 [2x], 34; 37:17, 19 [2x], 20; Jer 35:5)
Eg. → Heb.
Eg. qbḥw, qbḥy.t
The term ‫ גָּ ִב ַיע‬occurs fourteen times in the Hebrew Bible, and its distribution is
limited to three contexts. The first is the Joseph cycle, in which ‫ גָּ ִב ַיע‬appears with
reference to Joseph’s cup for divination (Gen 44:2 [2x], 12, 16-17). In the second, ‫גָּ ִב ַיע‬
occurs with reference to the cup-shaped candleholders of the tabernacle’s lampstand
(Exod 25:31, 33 [2x], 34; 37:17, 19 [2x]). Lastly, ‫ גָּ ִב ַיע‬occurs once in the book of Jeremiah
along with ‫“( כּוֹס‬cup”), denoting a vessel filled with wine (Jer 35:5).1227
Based on the Egyptian setting of the Joseph cycle as well as the Egyptian literary
context of the tabernacle,1228 Köhler and Baumgartner1229 suggest that Hebrew ‫ גָּ ִב ַיע‬is
derived from Egyptian qbḥw, “libation cup.” Egyptian qbḥw, which also occurs in the
feminine as qbḥy.t, first appears during the Old Kingdom.1230 This provides a suitable
and plausible donor term for Hebrew ‫גָּ ִב ַיע‬.1231
Notably, the Babylonian Talmud preserves a tradition associating Hebrew ‫גָּ ִב ַיע‬
with Egypt, comparing the menorah’s cup-shaped candleholders with cups from
Alexandria in Egypt (‫( )גביעין למה הן דומין כמין כוסות אלכסנדריים‬b. Menaḥ. 28b).1232 This
term’s adoption from Egypt reflects Egyptian influence on the construction of the
1227
HALOT 173.
1228
1229
HALOT 173; Ludwig Köhler, “Hebräische Etymologien,” JBL 1940 (1940): 36.
1230
ÄW 1:1330; 2:2513; GHwÄ 922-923; WÄS 5:30.
1231
On the correspondence of Hebrew ‫ ע‬and Egyptian ḥ, see the Egyptian “Consonant
Correspondences” section in the conclusions chapter. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB 149) derive Hebrew
‫ גָּ ִב ַיע‬from the root ‫גבע‬, “to be high” (HALOT 174) the basis for the noun ‫גִּ ְב ָעה‬, “hill” (HALOT 174), as well as
several toponyms (e.g., Geba [‫ ]גֶּ ַבע‬and Gibeon [‫)]גִּ ְבעֹן‬, but this does not adequately account for the
meaning of the term ‫גָּ ִב ַיע‬.
1232
Carol L. Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult
(American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 2; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976), 38.
234
tabernacle’s lampstand.1233
‫“ ֶח ֶרשׂ‬earthenware vessel; potsherd”
(Lev 6:21; passim)
Hitt. → WSem. (Heb., Pun., Arab.)
Hitt. ḫarši; Pun. ‫ ;חרשׂ‬Arab. ḫars
The word ‫ ֶח ֶרשׂ‬occurs 17 times in the Hebrew Bible.1234 It can refer to either a
pottery vessel (Lev 6:21) or a sherd from that vessel (Job 2:8; Ezek 23:24).1235 The vessel
denoted by ‫ ֶח ֶרשׂ‬was 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, ‫ ַשׁ ַער ַ ֽה ַח ְרסוֹת‬or the “Gate of Potsherds” (Jer 19:2), contains an
alternate form of this word, namely ‫ח ֶרס‬,ֶ with ‫ ס‬instead of ‫שׂ‬.1236
Aside from Punic ‫חרשׂ‬, “sherd” (written as chirs [Plautus, Poen. 937] as well as ers
[Plautus, Poen. 947]),1237 and Arabic ḫars, “wine-jar,”1238 this word is only attested in
biblical Hebrew. This limited distribution points to a foreign loan.1239 Rabin1240
1233
Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 214-215; Meyers, Tabernacle Menorah, 39.
1234
HALOT 357. See Lev 6:21; 11:33; 14:5, 50; 15:12; Num 5:17; Job 2:8; 41:22; Ps 22:16; Prov 26:23; Isa
30:14; 45:9 (2x); Jer 19:1; 32:14; Lam 4:2; Ezek 23:34. The Septuagint frequently translates ‫ ֶח ֶרשׂ‬as ὄστρακον
(“earthenware vessel, potsherd”) or ὀστράκινος (“made of earthenware”); the Vulgate most often uses
testa (“earthenware vessel, potsherd”) or fictile (“made of earthenware”); the Peshitta often uses pḥrˀ
(“clay”); the Targums frequently use ‫“ חסף‬clay.”
1235
In this way, the semantic range of Hebrew ‫ ֶח ֶרשׂ‬is similar to that of Greek ὄστρακον and Latin
testa, both meaning “earthenware vessel” as well as “potsherd” (LSJ 1264; OLD 1931).
1236
The alternation between ‫ שׂ‬and ‫ ס‬need not be taken as an indication for a non-Semitic borrowing,
since ‫ שׂ‬often appears as ‫ ס‬in later biblical Hebrew (Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 14).
1237
DNWSI 409.
1238
Lane 722.
1239
Köhler and Baumgartner as well as Brown, Driver, and Briggs (HALOT 357; BDB 360; cf. DRS 926)
associate Hebrew ‫ ֶח ֶרשׂ‬with Arabic ḫaraša, “to scratch” (Lane 722). However, this is speculative and
semantically unconvincing.
1240
Rabin, “Hittite Words in Hebrew,” 118-120.
235
postulates a loan from Hittite ḫarši, “bowl, jar.”1241 Most Hittite pottery is plain ware
with simple, standardized shapes, cursory finishes, and no decoration.1242 The simplicity
of Hittite pottery may be behind the low value of the vessel denoted by ‫ח ֶרשׂ‬.ֶ
ḫbrṯ “pot”
(KTU 1.4 ii:9)
Hurr. → Akk., Ug.; Hitt.
Akk. ḫuprušḫu, ḫurpušḫu; Hitt. ḫupurušḫi, ḫuprušḫi; Hurr. ḫubrušḫi
Ugaritic ḫptr appears only in the Baal Cycle. When preparing for El’s arrival,
ˀAṯirat places the item denoted by ḫbrṯ over the top of some coals (l zr pḥmm). It is
logical, therefore, to assume that ḫbrṯ refers to a vessel that could be used in cooking.1243
This term is characterized by a non-Semitic morphology and has no Semitic
cognates, so a foreign loan is likely. Mention of the term ḫbrṯḫnd in line 15 of KTU 1.125,
a Hurrian list of sacrifices and offerings, specifically points to a Hurrian loan. As
recognized by Pope,1244 the donor term is Hurrian ḫubrušḫi, “incense burner”1245 (minus
the -ḫi).1246 This Hurrian term is attested in Akkadian texts from Alalakh and Nuzi and
refers to a pot or container; in some texts it is associated with the cult and offering
1241
HHw 49.
1242
Ulf-Dietrich Schoop, “Hittite Pottery: A Summary,” in Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology
(eds. Hermann Genz and Dirk Paul Mielke; Colloquia antiqua; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 241; Robert C.
Henrickson, “Hittite Pottery and Potters: The View from Late Bronze Age Gordion,” BA 58 (1995): 82;
Andreas Müller-Karpe, Hethitische Töpferei der Oberstadt von Hattusa: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis spät-
grossreichzeitlicher Keramik und Töpferbetreibe unter Zugrundelegung der Grabungsergebnisse von 1978-82 in
Boǧazköy (Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 10; Marburg: Hitzeroth Verlag, 1988).
1243
DUL 385.
1244
Marvin H. Pope, “The Scene on the Drinking Mug from Ugarit,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of
William Foxwell Albright (ed. Hans Goedicke; Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971), 399; cf.
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 120, 128; Fronzaroli, “Rapporti lessicali dell’ittita con le lingue
semitische,” 35.
1245
LKI 162 ; GLH 109; Gernot Wilhelm, “Ḫubrušḫi,” RlA 4:478.
1246
Hurrian ḫubrušḫi is derived from the word ḫubri, ḫuburi (of unknown meaning) and the suffix -
ušḫi. The Hurrian root complement –uš is commonly found as-ušḫi in terms for objects, particularly
vessels (Bush, “Grammar of the Hurrian Language,” 112).
236
incense.1247 This Hurrian word is also found in Hittite texts as ḫupurušḫi, ḫuprušḫi.1248
Pope argues that this vessel may be depicted on a drinking mug from Ras
Shamra; the scene depicts a seated, bearded figure with a large pot on a stand in front
of him and a standing figure on the other side of the pot.1249 This identification is
somewhat speculative but, if correct, may provide a depiction of the pot denoted by
ḫbrṯ.1250
ḫptr “pot”
(KTU 1.4 ii:8)
Hurr. → Akk; Ug.
Hurr. ḫuppataru, ḫuppatru
Ugaritic ḫptr occurs only in the Baal Cycle within the context of ˀAṯirat’s
preparations for El’s arrival. ˀAṯirat places this item on a fire (l ˀišt), indicating a type of
vessel for cooking (KTU 1.4 ii:8).1251

This word’s non-Semitic morphology indicates a foreign loan. The parallelism
with ḫbrṯ in the following line (line 9), a Hurrian vessel term, specifically suggests a
Hurrian loan. As recognized by Pope,1252 the Hurrian donor term is found in Akkadian
texts from Qatna and Nuzi as ḫuppataru, ḫuppatru.1253
It is clear from its few extant occurrences that ḫuppataru denotes a type of
vessel, but the evidence does not permit a more specific identification. As noted in the
1247
CAD Ḫ 241; AHw 357.
1248
HHw 61. On the cultic usage of this term in Hittite, see Annelies Kammenhuber, “Hethitische
Opfertexte mit anaḫi, aḫrušḫi und ḫuprušḫi und hurrischen Sprüchen. Teil I,” Or 55 (1986): 105-130;
Annelies Kammenhuber, “Hethitische Opfertexte mit anaḫi, aḫrušḫi und ḫuprušḫi und hurrischen
Sprüchen. Teil II,” Or 55 (1986): 390-423.
1249
Pope, “Scene on the Drinking Mug,” 399-400.
1250
Smith and Pitard, KTU/CAT 1.3-1.4, 445.
1251
DUL 401.
1252
Pope, “Scene on the Drinking Mug,” 399; cf. Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 129.
1253
CAD Ḫ 238; AHw 356.
237
discussion of Ugaritic ḫbrṯ, Pope identifies this vessel with a large pot depicted on a
drinking mug from Ugarit.1254
ḫršḫ “incense bowl”
(KTU 1.105:2; 4.341:19)
Hurr. → Akk., Ug.; Hitt.
Akk. aḫrušḫu; Hitt. aḫrušhi; Hurr. aḫrušḫi
Ugaritic ḫršḫ appears only twice.1255 One occurrence is in the ritual text KTU
1.105, a monthly sacrificial liturgy. In line 2 of this text, the item denoted by ḫršḫ is
offered along with a sheep in a deity’s sacrificial pit. The second occurrence is in an
economic list, in which ḫršḫ appears along with a diverse assortment of goods. Neither
of these contexts are particularly clear enough to permit identification, although the
first indicates that the item denoted by ḫršḫ was used in the cult.
The atypical morphology and lack of a known Semitic root on which ḫršḫ could
be based point to a foreign loan. Usage of the word ˀaǵrṯḫnd in line 14 of KTU 1.125, a
Hurrian list of sacrifices and offerings, points to a Hurrian loan. As noted by Watson,1256
Ugaritic ḫršḫ is a loan from Hurrian aḫrušḫi, attested both in Hittite and Akkadian
(Alalakh, Boghazköy).1257 Hurrian aḫrušḫi consists of aḫri, “incense,”1258 and the Hurrian
suffix -ušḫi; this etymology is supported by usage of aḫrušḫi in conjunction with incense
in various texts.1259 A cultic association is also consistent with the usage of ḫršḫ in KTU
1.105:16, in which this item is given as an offering.
1254
Pope, “Scene on the Drinking Mug,” 399-400.
1255
DUL 408.
1256
1257
LKI 62-63; GLH 38; CAD A/1 194-195; HHw 12.
1258
LKI 62; GLH 37-38.
1259
GLH 38; Volkert Haas, Die hurritischen Ritualtermini in hethitischem Kontext (Corpus der hurritischen
Sprachdenkmäler, I. Abteilung: Die Texte aus Bogazköy 9; Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle richerche,
1998), 208; Kammenhuber, “Hethitische Opfertexte,” 105-130; Kammenhuber, “Hethitische Opfertexte,
Teil II,” 390-423
238
‫“ ֶ ֫ ֽטנֶ א‬basket”
(Deut 26:2, 4; 28:5, 17)
Eg. → Heb.
Eg. dni.t
Hebrew ‫ ֶ ֫ ֽטנֶ א‬only appears in the book of Deuteronomy, where it occurs four
times with reference to a basket for produce (Deut 26:2, 4; 28:5, 17).1260 The observation
that this word is limited to biblical Hebrew1261 and the lack of a known Semitic root on
which it could be based indicate a non-Semitic loan. Accordingly, Muchiki, Ellenbogen,
and Lambdin suggest Egyptian dni.t as the appropriate donor term.1262 Egyptian dni.t
first occurs in the Old Kingdom and denotes a basket for produce as well as other
items,1263 which is precisely the meaning of ‫ ֶ ֫ ֽטנֶ א‬in biblical Hebrew.
1260
HALOT 377. Nearly all the ancient versions render the occurrences of ‫ ֶ ֫ ֽטנֶ א‬in Deut 26:2, 4
differently than those of Deut 28:5, 17: the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Peshitta read κάρταλλος (“basket
with a painted bottom”), cartallus (“basket”), and msntˀ (“basket”) in the former but read ἀποθήκη
(“storehouse, barn”), horreum (“storehouse, barn”), and sl (“basket”), in the latter, respectively. The
Targum utilizes ‫“( סל‬basket”) throughout.
1261
This word may occur in Phoenician as ‫ טנא‬in KAI 37A:10, but its attestation is debated and dubious
(DNWSI 426). Schneider contends that Jewish Aramaic ‫צנָּ א‬,ַ (DJBA 967) is cognate to Hebrew ‫ ֶ ֫ ֽטנֶ א‬and that
‫ ֶ ֫ ֽטנֶ א‬is therefore not an Egyptian loan (Schneider, review of Muchiki, 162). However, as the initial
consonant indicates, the former cannot be cognate with Hebrew ‫טנֶ א‬:
ֽ ֫ ֶ Sokoloff (DJBA 967) compares
Jewish Aramaic ‫ ַצנָּ א‬with Akkadian ṣēnu, “laden,” an adjective used of a basket (CAD Ṣ 128; AHw 1090).
1262
1263
ÄW 1:1478; 2:2791; GHwÄ 1054; WÄS 5:467. The Egyptian form is perhaps of African origin as
indicated by attestation of related forms in Central Chadic (HSED 163).
239
‫( ַכּד‬Heb.), kd (Ug.) “large jar”
(Gen 24:14-18, 20, 43, 45-46; passim; KTU 1.3 i:16; passim)
CW
Akk. kandu; JA ‫כד‬, ‫ ַ;כּ ָדּא‬Syr. kaddānā; Gk. κάδος; Syll. Cypr. ka-to-se; Lat. cadus
The word ‫ ַכּד‬occurs a total of eighteen times in the Hebrew Bible. Its
predominant usage is with reference 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).
Several of this term’s other occurrences likewise indicate a large vessel (1 Kgs 18:34),
including one used for storage purposes (1 Kgs 17:12, 14, 16).1264 Ugaritic kd is even more
common, occuring frequently in administrative texts. Like Hebrew ‫כּד‬,ַ it denotes a
large vessel used for storing or transporting liquids (often wine or oil) and
foodstuffs.1265
This term is almost entirely limited to West Semitic, occurring also in Punic,
Imperial Aramaic, Jewish Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic;1266 Akkadian kandu is a late loan
from West Semitic.1267 In non-Semitic, this word appears in both Greek and Latin as
κάδος and cadus, respectively, and syllabic Cypriot (ka-to-se).1268 The western
distribution points to a Mediterranean origin for this ancient culture word, and it is
possible that Greek κάδος reflects a western, pre-Hellenic source.1269 This same source is
1264
HALOT 460. Other occurrences in biblical Hebrew include Judg 7:16 (2x), 19-20; Ecc 12:6.
1265
DUL 429-430. Occurrences include: KTU 1.3 i:16; 1.16 i:54; 1.41:23; 1.87:24; 1.91:26-27, 29-30;
1.112:12; 1.136:9; 4.14:2 (2x), 8 (2x), 15 (2x); 4.41:3-4, 7-9, 11-12; 4.42:3; 4.131:3; 4.149:1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 13, 19;
4.160:2; 4.213:2, 16-17; 4.216:5-7, 9-12; 4.219:5-9; 4.221:5; 4.225:15; 4.230:2-9; 4.244:25; 4.246:4; 4.269:27 (2x),
28 (2x), 34-35; 4.274:7; 4.279:1 (2x), 3-5; 4.283:4-5, 7-9, 11; 4.284:6-8; 4.285:5, 7-8; 4.290:3; 4.313:1-3, 5-11, 13-
17, 19-20, 23-25; 4.400:5; 4.429:1-5; 4.454:2; 4.558:3, 8; 4.562:1-4; 4.710:3, 11-12; 4.715:3, 6, 8-11, 24-26;
4.716:1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17; 4.717:1, 4; 4.761:8-11; 4.778:5, 7; 4.780:5, 8, 10, 13, 16; 4.782:7, 11; 6.11:1.
1266
DNWSI 487-488; DJPA 250; DJBA 553; SyrLex 600. This term also occurs in a fragmentary seventh-
century BCE Phoenician inscription from Ialysus, Rhodes (DNWSI 487).
1267
CAD K 148-149; AHw 436.
1268
LSJ 848; OLD 249; Olivier Masson, Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques: recuiel critique et commenté
(Études chypriotes 1; Paris: De Boccard, 1961), 316-318.
1269
EDG 614; Francesco Aspesi, “Gr. καδος nella comparazione linguistica,” Acme: annali della Facoltà di
lettere e filosofia dell’Università degli studi di Milano 36 (1983): 51-59; contra Masson, Les plus anciens emprunts
sémitiques en grec, 42-44. It is possible that Linear B ka-ti preserves another form of this Mediterranean
240
the probable origin of the West Semitic forms.1270
kw “vessel”
(KTU 2.47:17; 4.691:6)
Eg. → Ug.
Eg. kb
Ugaritic kw appears only two times, both times with reference to a vessel or
container.1271 It occurs once in a letter from Yadīnu to the king of Ugarit, in which the
border troops are said to have seized one kw-container of grain (KTU 2.47:13). In KTU
4.691, a list of various products, kw appears with reference to a container or measure of
wine (line 6).
The final –w of this word is unusual, indicating a foreign loan.1272 As noted by
Sanmartín,1273 the probable donor term is Egyptian kb, “vessel,” attested beginning with
the New Kingdom.1274 Egyptian kb is also attested in the Amarna letters as kūbu.1275 In
culture word, although it has also been related to Greek κηϑίς because κάδος should have been written as
ka-di (DM 1:331).
1270
There is no evidence for a Dravidian origin, contra Podolsky, “Notes on Hebrew Etymology,” 199-
200 (cf. Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 148). Podolsky compares Dravidian forms such as Tamil kiṇṭi
(DED 142) and claims that this West Semitic word originated with Dravidian. He points, moreover, to
Akkadian kandu (CAD K 148-149; AHw 436), suggesting that the n reflects the nasalized Dravidian forms.
However, Akkadian kandu cannot reflect the nasalization found in Dravidian because kandu is a loan from
West Semitic, which does not display any nasalization. Moreover, there is a semantic discrepancy
between this term’s meaning in Semitic and Dravidian: in Semitic, this vessel is a large, storage vessel
(most frequently for water or wine), and in Dravidian, this vessel is a small drinking vessel or goblet.
There is nothing distinctive about this vessel that indicates a Dravidian origin, and it is unlikely that
Semitic peoples had contact with Dravidian speakers during the second millennium to borrow this term.
1271
DUL 473.
1272
There is no reason to take the w as a mater lectionis and associate this term with Akkadian kūtu,
which notably lacks the glottal stop (cf. Emar Akkadian kuˀû). See Dennis Pardee, review of Josef Tropper,
Ugaritische Grammatik, AfO 50 (2003-2004): 40 (online: http://www.univie.ac.at/orientalistik/).
1273
Joaqín Sanmartín, “Glossen zum ugaritischen Lexikon,” SEL 5 (1988): 179; Joaqín Sanmartín,
“Notas de lexicografia ugaritica,” UF 20 (1988): 272. Dietrich and Loretz compare the alleged Eqyptian
form qw, citing Helck (Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, “Die ugaritischen Gefässbezeichnungen ridn
und kw,” UF 19 (1987): 31-32), but this loan hypothesis cannot be correct: qw is unattested in Egyptian,
contra Wolfgang Helck, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (2d ed.; ÄgAbh
5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1971), 402.
1274
GHwÄ 950; WÄS 5:117.
241
some cases, such as when a u-class vowel is present, the labial b can become w.1276
Egyptian kb, moreover, is written syllabically with final w. These two considerations
adequately explain the final w (rather than b) of Ugaritic kw.1277
‫( כּוֹס‬Heb.), ‫( כס‬Phoen.), ks (Ug.) “cup”
(Gen 40:11, passim; KAI 291; KTU 1.1 iv:9; passim)
CW
Sum. KU.ZI, GÚ.ZI, KA.ZI; Akk. kāsu; IA, Hatra ‫כס‬, ‫ ;כסא‬JA ‫כּ ָסא‬,ָ ‫כּוֹסא‬,
ָ ‫ ;כס‬Syr. kāsāˀ; Mand.
kasa; Arab. kaˀs; Eg. kṯ; Hitt. gazi, gazzi; Hurr. kazzi
Hebrew ‫כּוֹס‬, Phoenician, ‫כס‬, and Ugaritic ks occur frequently in Northwest
Semitic,1278 and their common usage demonstrates the meaning “cup” or a similar
drinking vessel.1279 Elsewhere in the Semitic languages, this word appears in Akkadian,
various dialects of Aramaic, and Arabic.1280 The earliest occurrences in Akkadian are
notably in peripheral dialects such as Old Assyrian, Bogazköy, Alalakh, Mari, and Nuzi.
The primary distribution of this culture word in the west points to an origin in
that direction. Despite Köhler and Baumgartner’s claim that Hebrew ‫ כּוֹס‬is derived from
1275
CAD K 488; AHw 498; Zipora Cochavi-Rainey and Christine Lilyquist, Royal Gifts in the Late Bronze
Age: Fourteenth to Thirteenth Centuries B.C.E.: Selected Texts Recording Gifts to Royal Personages (Beer-Sheva
Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East 13; Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the
Negev Press, 1999), 220. Although written syllabically and not attested prior to the New Kingdom, the
way this word is utilized in the Amarna letters confirms its Egyptian origin.
1276
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 319; cf. Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 135.
1277
For discussion, see the Egyptian “Consonant Correspondences” section in the conclusions
chapter.
1278
Hebrew ‫ כּוֹס‬occurs in Gen 40:11 (3x), 13, 21; 2 Sam 12:3; 1 Kgs 7:26; 2 Chron 4:5; Ps 11:6; 16:5; 23:5;
75:9; 116:13; Prov 23:31; Isa 51:17 (2x), 22 (2x); Jer 16:7; 25:15, 17, 28; 35:5; 49:12; 51:7; Lam 4:21; Ezek 23:31-
32, 33 (2x); Hab. 2:16. Phoenician ‫ כס‬occurs during the early-tenth century BCE in the Tekke Bowl
inscription from Crete (KAI 291). Ugaritic ks occurs in KTU 1.1 iv:9; 1.3 i:10, 13; v:34; 1.4 iii:16, 44; iv:37, 46;
vi:59; 1.5 i:21; iv:16-17; 1.12 ii:28; 1.15 ii:16; 1.16 v:39; 1.17 vi:5 (2x), 15; 1.19 iv:54-55; 1.41:19; 1.87:20; 1.96:5;
1.133:9; 3.1:20, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37; 4.280:14; 4.385:2; 5.9 i:15. The spelling ks̱ appears on a Late Bronze Age
bowl inscription from Tekke in Crete (KTU 6.68:1) and the plural form ks̱t appears in KTU 4.710:13.
1279
HALOT 466; DNWSI 521; DUL 459-460.
1280
CAD K 253-256; AHw 454-455; DNWSI 521; DJPA 264-265; DJBA 590; SyrLex 638; MD 199; Lane 2581-
2582. Arabic kaˀs is a loan from Aramaic (Fränkel, Aramäischen Fremdwörter im Arabischen, 171).
242
Akkadian,1281 there are no phonological indications that this is the case.1282 Hittite gazi,
gazzi1283 is a loan from Hurrian kazzi,1284 in turn probably a loan from Akkadian;1285 in
light of its multiple spellings, Sumerian KU.ZI is probably a loan from Akkadian;1286
Egyptian kṯ, which first appears in the Nineteenth Dynasty, is a clear loan from West
Semitic.1287
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; 2 Chron 9:20;
KTU 3.1:27), but ceramic types of this vessel also existed.1288
‫“ ִכּיּוֹר‬metal cauldron”
(Exod 30:18, 28; 31:9; 35:16; 38:8; 39:39; 40:7, 11, 30; Lev 8:11; 1 Sam 2:14; 1 Kgs 7:30, 38
[4x], 40, 43; 2 Kgs 16:17; 2 Chron 4:6, 14; 6:13; Zech 12:6)
Urar. → Akk. → Heb.
Akk. kiūru; Urar. kiri
The term ‫ ִכּיּוֹר‬appears a total of twenty-three times in the Hebrew Bible. It most
frequently 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) and temple
1281
HALOT 466.
1282
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 63; Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 90.
1283
HHw 85.
1284
GLH 140.
1285
HED 4:141-142; HEG 1:549-550; Neu, Hurritische, 29.
1286
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 63; Dietrich and Loretz, “Vertrag zwischen
Šuppiluliuma und Niqmandu,” 237. On the variety of spellings for this term in Sumerian, see Piotr
Steinkeller and J. Nicholas Postgate, Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum,
Baghdad (Mesopotamian Civilizations 4; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 39.
1287
GHwÄ 962; WÄS 5:148; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 338-339. According to Hoch, the
association of Egyptian kṯ with Coptic Bⲕⲁϫⲓ (Crum 134; CED 69) is unfounded.
1288
Amadasi Guzzo, “Noms de vases en phénicien,” 16-17; Kelso, Ceramic Vocabulary of the Old
Testament, 19-20; Honeyman, “Pottery Vessels of the Old Testament,” 82.
243
(1 Kgs 7:30, 38 [4x], 43; 2 Kgs 16:17; 2 Chron 4:6, 14; 6:13).1289
As recognized by Friedrich,1290 this word is ultimately derived from Urartian kiri,
“metal cauldron.” In Neo-Assyrian texts from the time of Sargon II, Akkadian kiūru1291
specifically denotes a metal cauldron taken from Urartu as plunder (TCL 3 iii:362-363,
380, 395-396).1292 The phonetic and semantic resemblance between Akkadian kiūru and
Hebrew ‫ ִכּיּוֹר‬is too close to be coincidental, and the latter is most certainly a loan from
the former.1293 The region of Urartu was well-known for its bronze metal-working in
antiquity,1294 so it is no surprise that Semitic speakers borrowed this term for a specific
type of metal cauldron. The particular vessel denoted by Hebrew ‫ ִכּיּוֹר‬must have been
imported from Urartu, or, alternatively, made according to the Urartian tradition.
kpsln “container, bowl”
(KTU 4.274:1, 6; 4.786:7)
CW
Ugaritic kpsln occurs only three times.1295 Two of its occurrences are in KTU
4.274, a text that records sales of wine to the palace. Its mention along with twelve
measures of wine (ṯn ˁšr yn l [kp]sln) in line 1 indicates that kpsln denotes a container for
1289
HALOT 472; Kelso, Ceramic Vocabulary of the Old Testament, 20; Honeyman, “Pottery Vessels of the
Old Testament,” 82.
1290
Johannes Friedrich, “Zum urartäischen Lexikon,” ArOr 4 (1932): 66-70.
1291
CAD K 476; AHw 496.
1292
Thureau-Dangin, Huitième campagne de Sargon, 56-57, 60-63. Albright contends that Urartian kiuri
originates with Sumerian KI.UR3, “foundation platform,” for two reasons: first, Akkadian kiūru is written
both syllabically (ki-ú-ri) and logographically (KI.ÙR); second, Hebrew ‫ ִכּיּוֹר‬appears with reference to a
platform that Solomon stands on in 2 Chron 6:13 (Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 152-154,
216). However, as Albright himself notes, there are Late Bronze Age depictions of deities from Ugarit and
Egypt standing on upside-down cauldrons, a possible background for 2 Chron 6:13. Moreover, the
association of kiūru with Urartu in Akkadian texts is clear, and Sumerian KI.ÙR should instead be
connected with Urartian qiura, equated with Akkadian erṣetu in bilingual texts (CAD K 476; AHw 496;
Friedrich, “Zum urartäischen Lexikon,” 66-70).
1293
1294
Ursula Seidl, Bronzekunst Urartus (Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern, 2004).
1295
DUL 453.
244
liquids. Similarly, kpsln appears in KTU 4.786 along with various other measures or
containers, such as dd (“pot”), kt (“pitcher”), and kd (“large jar”). It is thus clear that
Ugaritic kpsln denotes a vessel.
The non-Semitic morphology and lack of a known Semitic root on which this
term could be based indicates a foreign loan. The ultimate origin of this culture word is
uncertain, but it contains the element kp common to several other ancient Near Eastern
vessel terms (e.g., Akkadian kappu and Hittite kappi1296 and Nuzi Akkadian
kapparinnu1297).1298
krln “container, basket”
(KTU 4.780:14)
Sum. → Akk. → Ug.
Sum. GÌR.LAM; Akk. kirlammu, kirlimmu, kiralinu
Ugaritic krln occurs only once in the alphabetic texts in an economic text amidst
a number of goods (KTU 4.780:14).1299 The immediate context of the tablet (cf. especially
KTU 4.780:13, 16) mentions various amounts of oil in conjunction with kd (“large jar”).
Ugaritic krln appears in the expression ṯn krlnn šmn ṯb (“two krln of fine oil”) and thus
denotes a vessel or container.
The non-Semitic morphology of this word points to a foreign loan. Watson1300
proposes that the donor term is Akkadian kirlammu, kirlimmu, kiralinu.1301 The form
1296
CAD K 188-189; AHw 444; HHw 79. The earliest occurrences of kappu in Akkadian are in peripheral
dialects (Mari, Amarna, Nuzi).
1297
CAD K 185; AHw 444.
1298
This element may, in turn, be associated with the Hurrian root kapp, “to fill.” On this root in
Hurrian, see Gernot Wilhelm, “Hurritische Lexikographie und Grammatik: Die hurritisch-hethitische
Bilingue aus Boğazköy” (review of Heinrich Otten and Christel Rüster, Die hurritisch-hethitische Bilingue aus
der Oberstadt), Or 61 (1992): 131.
1299
DUL 455.
1300
1301
CAD K 408; AHw 468.
245
kirlammu appears only in lexical texts (Ḫḫ x:150),1302 the form kirlammu is attested at
Mari (ARM 27.152:13, rev. 7ʹ),1303 and the form kiralinu is attested in Ugaritic Akkadian
(RS 19.24:6).1304 All these Akkadian forms, in turn, reflect a loan from Sumerian
GÌR.LAM, which occurs in Ur III texts with reference to a basket for storing fruit.1305
Thus, Ugaritic krln is a transmitted loan, having passed from Sumerian to Ugaritic via
Akkadian.
krsˀu, krśˀu, qrsˀu, krsn, krśn “skin, hide; skinbag”
(KTU 4.123:13; 4.225:16-17; 4.279:3; 4.705:3, 8; 5.22:23; RS 94.2600:14; RS 94.2392+:4, 12)
CW
Akk. kursānu, kursinnu, gusānu, gusānu, kušānu, gusannu; Eg. krs; Hitt. kurša; Gk. βύρσα;
Lat. bursa
Ugaritic krsˀu appears only seven times, but five distinct spellings can be found
among these occurrences: krsˀu (KTU 4.225:17),1306 krśˀu (KTU 4.225:16), qrsˀu (KTU
4.705:3, 8), krsn (KTU 4.123:13; 4.279:3),1307 and krśn (KTU 5.22:23). Notably, on one
occasion two different spellings (krsˀu and krśˀu) appear even within the same text, KTU
4.225. This word’s association with vessels such as kd (“large jar”) (KTU 4.225:15;
4.279:3) as well as liquids such as yn (“wine”) (KTU 4.225:13; 4.279:3) indicate that it
denotes a type of container.1308
1302
MSL 7:111.
1303
Maurice Birot, Correspondance des gouverneurs de Qattunân (ARM 27; Paris: Editions Recherche sur
les civilisations, 1993), 255-256.
1304
Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription, 191.
1305
PSD.
1306
There is no good reason to interpret krsˀi in KTU 4.225:17 as a toponym, contra Kevin M.
McGeough, Ugaritic Economic Tablets: Text, Translation and Notes (ed. Mark S. Smith; Ancient Near Eastern
Studies Supplement Series 32; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 167.
1307
Based on the structure of the text, some have argued that the word krsnm in KTU 4.123:13 is a
personal name (DUL 457-458; McGeough, Ugaritic Economic Tablets, 379); however, the text is fragmentary
and records various commodities and vessels, so it is plausible that krsnm instead refers to vessels.
1308
DUL 457-458, 711. The usage of qrsˀu in KTU 4.705:3, 8 in conjunction with šˁrt (“wool”), on the
other hand, might suggest that this word refers to a textile material. This apparent dilemma is solved by
246
The wide variety of spellings and the lack of a known Semitic root on which this
word could be based make a foreign loan virtually certain. The northern distribution of
Akkadian cognates, which are primarily found in peripheral dialects (Old Assyrian
kursānu, kursinnu; Chagar Bazar gusānu; Mari gusānu; Alalakh kušānu; Nuzi gusannu),1309
as well as the final –n of these same cognates point to a culture word of Anatolian
origin. In Hittite this word appears as kurša, “skin, hide, skinbag,”1310 with the leather
determinative (KUŠ), showing that this item was often made of leather; however, it
could also be made of cloth or other materials. It was particularly associated with the
hunt and related rituals.1311

This Anatolian word culture word1312 is the source of several additional lexemes,
including New Kingdom Egyptian krs, “sack,”1313 written with group writing,1314 and
Greek βύρσα, “skin, hide, wineskin.”1315 This word has even found its way into a number
of modern languages, including French bourse (via Latin bursa, borrowed from Greek
βύρσα)1316 and modern English purse.1317
supposing that this denotes a skin or hide as well as a skin-bag made of skin used as a container.
1309
CAD G 142-143; K 567; AHw 299, 1557.
1310
HHw 95.
1311
Hans G. Güterbock, “Hittite kursa ‘Hunting Bag,’” in Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene
J. Kantor (eds. Albert Leonard, Jr. and Bruce Beyer Williams; Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 47;
Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1989), 113-123.
1312
HED 4:274.
1313
GHwÄ 957; WÄS 5:135.
1314
1315
LSJ 333. On the Hittite origin of Greek βύρσα, see HED 4:274 and cf. EDG 249; Gamkrelidze and
Ivanonv, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, 1:798.
1316
DELL 79.
1317
Probably also related are a number of Semitic terms meaning “stomach, belly” as well as “leather
sack”: Akkadian karšu, first attested in Old Assyrian; biblical Hebrew ‫כּ ֵרשׂ‬,ָ attested only in Jer 51:34;
Jewish Aramaic ‫כרס‬, ‫כּ ְר ָסא‬,ַ ‫יסא‬
ָ ‫ ְ;כּ ֵר‬Syriac karsā; Arabic kirš; and Ethiopic karś (CAD K 223-225; AHw 450-451;
HALOT 500; DJPA 270; DJBA 603-604; SyrLex 655-656; Lane 2606-2607; CDG 294).
247
krpn “cup, goblet”
(KTU 1.1 iv:10; 1.3 i:11, 14; 1.4 iii:43; iv:37; vi:58; 1.5 iv:15, 18; 1.15 ii:17; 1.16 v:40; 1.17
vi:6)
CW
Akk. karpu, karpattu
Ugaritic krpn occurs a number of times, exclusively in mythological texts. Its
parallelism with ks (“cup”) in each of its occurrences demonstrates that it denotes a
type of drinking vessel such as a cup or goblet (KTU 1.1 iv:10; 1.3:11, 14; 1.4 iii:43; iv:37;
1.5 iv:15, 18; 1.15 ii:17).1318

The lack of a known Semitic root on which this term could be based points to a
foreign loan. Related to Ugaritic krpn is Akkadian karpu, karpattu, which occurs early in
many different dialects, many peripheral (Old Akkadian, Old Assyrian, Old Babylonian,
Alalakh, Elam, Mari, Middle Babylonian, Amarna, Ras Shamra, Neo-Assyrian, Neo-
Babylonian).1319 The origin of this ancient culture word meaning “cup, goblet” is
uncertain, but the final –n of Ugaritic krpn suggests that a northern (i.e., Hurrian or
Anatolian) form of this word was the source of at least the Ugaritic form.1320
1318
DUL 456-457.
1319
CAD K 221, 219-221; AHw 449-450. It is possible that the Linear A term word ka-ro-pa3 (attested only
as a superscript to the vessel *416VAS in Haghia Triada 31:3) also reflects this word (Robert R. Stieglitz,
“Minoan Vessel Names,” Kadmos 10 [1971]: 110). More plausibly, however, ka-ro-pa3 denotes the contents
of the vessel or its function (Consani, Testi minoici trascritti con interpretazione e glossario, 64-65, 274).
1320
It is implausible that all these forms are derived from Nuzi Akkadian kapparnu (CAD K 185; AHw
444): the vocalization and morphology differs and one would have to assume, moreover, that a
metathesized hypothetical form was the ancestor of all the other forms. Watson’s comparison (Watson,
Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 130) with Hurrian ḫuruffe, “rhyton” (GLH 115; Wilhelm, “Hurritische
Lexikographie und Grammatik,” 130), is likewise implausible on phonological grounds.
248
‫( ַסף‬Heb.), ‫( סף‬Phoen.), sp (Ug.) “bowl, basin”
(Exod 12:22 [2x]; 2 Sam 17:28; 1 Kgs 7:50; 2 Kgs 12:14; Jer 52:19; Zech 12:2; RES 1204:1, 5-6;
KTU 1.14 iii:44; vi:30; 4.34:2-9; 4.44:22-25, 27, 29, 30-32; 4.56:1-4, 6, 7-11-14)
Hurr. ⇒
⇒ Hitt.; Gk.
⇒ Akk. → Sum.
⇒ WSem. (Ug., Heb., Phoen.) → Eg.
Sum. SAB; Akk. sappu, šappu, sappatu, šappatu, šabbatu, and šapputu; Pun. ‫ ;סף‬Eg. sp.t; Hitt.
zuppa; Hurr. sabi; Gk. σιπύη, σιπύα
The term ‫ ַסף‬occurs seven times in the Hebrew Bible.1321 It appears primarily
within the context of the cult, whether related to celebration of the first Passover (Exod
12:22) or the vessels of the temple (1 Kgs 7:50; 2 Kgs 12:14; Jer 52:19). In its two other
occurrences, it appears with the general meaning “bowl, basin” without any cultic
associations (2 Sam 17:28; Zech 12:2). In late (third century BCE) Phoenician, this word
appears as ‫ סף‬in a single text (RES 1204:1, 5-6).1322 Lastly, in Ugaritic this term also
occurs a number of times with the meaning “bowl, basin,” in mythological (KTU 1.14
iii:44; vi:30) as well as economic texts (4.34:2-9; 4.44:22-25, 27, 29, 30-32; 4.56:1-4, 6, 7-11-
14).1323
Related terms can be found in both Semitic and non-Semitic: Sumerian SAB,
Akkadian sappu, šappu,1324 Punic ‫סף‬, Egyptian sp.t, Hittite zuppa, and Greek σιπύη,
1321
HALOT 762. It is possible that ‫ ַסף‬also occurs in Hab 2:15 if ‫ ְמ ַס ֵפּ ַח ֲח ָמ ְתָך‬is to be emended to ‫ִמ ַסּף‬
‫ ֲ;ח ָמ ְתָך‬see Francis I. Andersen, Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25; New
York: Doubleday, 2001), 248.
1322
DNWSI 796.
1323
DUL 765-766.
1324
Additional forms include sappatu, šappatu, šabbatu, and šapputu. These forms are attested in Old
Babylonian, Alalakh, Middle Assyrian, Standard Babylonian, and Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian
dialects. Akkadian šappu is attested in Old Babylonian, and Akkadian sappu is found in Old Assyrian, Old
Babylonian, and Middle Babylonian.
249
σιπύα.1325 Despite the wide geographical distribution and phonological representation
of this word, a number of clues point to a northern origin.1326 First, in several Ugaritic
texts sp is specifically associated with Anatolian proper names (e.g., Prwsdy [KTU
4.44:24], Klnmw [KTU 4.44:25], Tgyn [KTU 4.44:29], KTU 4.56:2, 8-11). Second, the oldest
forms of this word in Akkadian are found in peripheral dialects such as Old Assyrian
and Alalakh. Third, the forms of this word in Greek are not loans from Semitic, but from
an Anatolian source.1327
The Hurrian noun sabi, “bowl, basin,” attested at Nuzi,1328 is the probable donor
term. From Hurrian, this word spread to a number of Mediterranean languages (Hittite,
Greek) as well as Semitic. Sumerian SAB, first attested in the Old Babylonian period, is a
loan from Akkadian,1329 and Egyptian sp.t, first attested in the New Kingdom, is a loan
from West Semitic.1330 As discussed below, the derived Hurrian noun sabli (sabi with the
root complement –l attached) is the origin of Hebrew ‫ ֵס ֶפל‬and Ugaritic spl.
1325
PSD; CAD S 166; CAD Š/1 477-480; AHw 1027, 1175; DNWSI 796; GHwÄ 746; WÄS 4:100; HHw 236; LSJ
1600.
1326
Proposed Semitic etymologies (e.g., Alexander Militarev, “Akkadian-Egyptian Lexical Matches,”
in Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg [ed. Cynthia L. Miller; Studies in
Ancient Oriental Civilization 60; Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2007], 155; Ward, “Semitic Biconsonantal
Root sp,” 344-346) are unconvincing and do not take into account the evidence for this term’s Anatolian
origin.
1327
EDG 1335; Furnée, Wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen, 177; contra Masson,
Les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, 44-45. It is possible that the Linear A term su-pu (attested only
as a superscript to the vessel *415VAS in Haghia Triada 31:2) also reflects this word (Stieglitz, “Minoan
Vessel Names,” 110). More plausibly, however, su-pu denotes the contents of the vessel or its function
(Consani, Testi minoici trascritti con interpretazione e glossario, 64-65, 302).
1328
Gernot Wilhelm, “sabli ‘(Metall-)Schale, Schüssel’ auch Nuzi,” in Richard F.S. Starr Memorial Volume
(eds. David I. Owen and Gernot Wilhelm; Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians
8; Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1996), 356.
1329
Liebermann, Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian, 442-443.
1330
Militarev, “Akkadian-Egyptian Lexical Matches,” 155; William A. Ward, “Comparative Studies in
Egyptian and Ugaritic,” JNES 20 (1961): 40.
250
‫( ֵס ֶפל‬Heb.), spl (Ug.) “bowl”
(Judg 5:25; 6:38; KTU 1.104:8; 4.123:17; 4.385:3)
Hurr. → Akk.; WSem. (Ug., Heb., JA, CPA)
Akk. saplu; JA ‫ס ְפ ָלא‬,ִ ‫ספל‬, ‫ ;סיפל‬Hurr. sabli
Hebrew ‫ ֵס ֶפל‬occurs only twice, both times in the book of Judges. The first
instance is in the Song of Deborah, in which 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).1331 Ugaritic spl appears three times in the
alphabetic texts: although its meaning is not clear from the contexts of KTU 1.104:8 and
KTU 4.385:3, in KTU 4.123:17 spl occurs in conjunction with vessel terms such as mmskn
(a cup for mixed liquids, such as wine) and mqrt (“container, pot”). Like Hebrew ‫ס ֶפל‬,ֵ
Ugaritic spl thus denotes a vessel or container.1332
Although this word also appears elsewhere in the Semitic languages, such as
Akkadian and Aramaic,1333 various clues point to its non-Semitic in origin. First, both
occurrences of Hebrew ‫ ֵס ֶפל‬are associated with the north: Sisera was the commander of
Hazor’s army, a city with clear northern (i.e., Syrian) connections, and Gideon was from
the northern tribe of Manasseh. Second, in KTU 4.385:3 spl is listed among the items
owned by an individual named Krw (cf. KTU 4.385:1), a Hurrian name. Third, some of
the earliest occurrences of saplu in Akkadian are in peripheral dialects (e.g., Amarna
1331
HALOT 764. The Septuagint reads λεκάνη, λακάνη (“dish, pot”) in both instances; the Vulgate,
Peshitta, and Targum read phiala (“shallow cup, bowl”), ksˀ (“cup”), and ‫ ִפּיֵ ֵלי‬in Judg 5:25 but concha
(“shell-shaped bowl”), lqnˀ (“platter, basin”), and ‫ ִל ְקנָ א‬in Judg 6:38, respectively.
1332
DUL 766. This word also occurs several times as saplu in Ugaritic Akkadian (RS 8.145:9; 16.239:24;
16.253 rev. 9ʹ; 17.378A:12ʹ; 20.235:5; 21.199:8).
1333
CAD S 165; AHw 1027; Jastrow 1014; DJPA 386; LSp 138. This word may also have entered Egyptian
as ṯpr and ṯrb (with metathesis) via West Semitic (GHwÄ 1032; WÄS 5:387; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian
Texts, 364, 367-368). It is possible, moreover, that the Linear A term su-pa3-ra (attested only as a
superscript to the vessel *402VAS in Haghia Triada 31:5) also reflects this word (Stieglitz, “Minoan Vessel
Names,” 111); however, more plausibly su-pa3-ra denotes the contents of the vessel or its function
(Consani, Testi minoici trascritti con interpretazione e glossario, 64-65, 302).
251
and Alalakh). In the Amarna letters this item is specifically mentioned as an item of
tribute from Tušratta, king of Mittani (EA 22 iv:21), and in the Neo-Assyrian Kurkh
Monolith inscription this item is received as booty from the peoples of Nairi, who lived
in the northern region of Nihriya (BM 118883 rev. 40).1334
All the evidence thus points a foreign—specifically Hurrian—origin for this term
that was primarily used within the sphere of Hurrian influence (i.e., Syria and
Anatolia). The appropriate donor term is Hurrian sabli, formed from the noun sabi (the
basis for Hebrew ‫ ַסף‬and Ugaritic sp, as noted in the corresponding entry) and the
Hurrian nominal complement –l. Hurrian sabli most commonly describes a metal rather
than ceramic bowl,1335 and Hebrew and Ugaritic spl must have denoted a similar type of
vessel.
‫( ֻק ַבּ ַעת‬Heb.), ‫( קבע‬Phoen.), qbˁt (Ug.) “cup”
(Isa 51:17, 22; Larn. Lap. 3:4; KTU 1.6 iv:18; 1.16 iii:16; 1.19 iv:54. 56)
Hebrew ‫ ֻק ַבּ ַעת‬appears only in Isaiah, both times within the context of God’s
wrath and judgment (Isa 51:17, 22). As indicated by its usage in conjunction with ‫כּוֹס‬
(“cup), this term denotes a drinking vessel.1336 The word ‫ קבע‬appears, moreover, in the
fourth century BCE Phoenician dedicatory inscription from Larnax in Cyprus with clear
reference to a cup (line 4).1337 Lastly, the term qbˁt appears four times in the Ugaritic
mythological texts (KTU 1.6 iv:18; 1.16 iii:16; 1.19 iv:54. 56). Similar to Hebrew ‫ק ַבּ ַעת‬,ֻ
1334
Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I, 261.
1335
GLH 210; Wilhelm, “sabli ‘(Metall-)Schale, Schüssel,’” 355-356.
1336
HALOT 1062. The Septuagint reads κόνδυ (“drinking cup”), the Vulgate has calix (“cup, chalice”),
the Peshitta has ksˀ (“cup”), and the Targum reads ‫“( פיל‬flat bowl”).
1337
DNWSI 983; A.M. Honeyman, “Larnax tēs Lapethou―A Third Phoenician Inscription,” Mus 51
(1938): 292. The term ‫ קבע‬may also occur in an Achaemenid dedicatory inscription; the bowl on which
the inscription is written is unprovenanced but said to have originated in Lebanon. It is also possible that
the reading ‫ ק]ס[ם‬in CIS I, 45 is to be restored as ‫ק]בע[ם‬. See Nahman Avigad and Jonas C. Greenfield, “A
Bronze phialē with a Phoenician Dedicatory Inscription,” IEJ 32 (1982): 120-124.
252
Ugaritic qbˁt occurs in conjunction with ks (“cup”) (KTU 1.19 iv:54, 56).
Köhler and Baumgartner1338 suggest a possible connection between this term
and Egyptian qbḥw, “libation cup,” which first appears during the Old Kingdom.1339
However, there is nothing particularly Egyptian about this term’s usage in Northwest
Semitic, and other perfectly good Semitic cognates exist (e.g., Akkadian qabūtu and
Imperial Aramaic ‫)קבע‬.1340 Thus, there is no convincing reason to think that Hebrew
‫ ֻק ַבּ ַעת‬might be borrowed from Egyptian; it is most likely Semitic.
‫( ַק ַלּ ַחת‬Heb.), qlḫt (Ug.) “pot, cooking pot”
(1 Sam 2:14; Mic 3:3; KTU 5.22:16)
Eg. → WSem. (Ug., Heb.) ⇒
⇒ Hurr. → Ug.
Eg. qrḥ.t; Hurr. kelḫi
Hebrew ‫ ַק ַלּ ַחת‬is a dis legomena: 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 occurs with reference to a
pot used to cook meat.1341 Although it is clear that Hebrew ‫ ַק ַלּ ַחת‬denotes a cooking pot
of some sort, it is impossible to identify it further with a specific member of the cooking
pot family.1342 Ugaritic qlḫt appears only once, in a scribal exercise (KTU 5.22:16).1343
The rarity with which this term occurs points to a possible foreign origin, as
1338
HALOT 1062; Köhler, “Hebräische Etymologien,” 36.
1339
ÄW 1:1330; 2:2513; GHwÄ 922-923; WÄS 5:30. Egyptian qbḥw also occurs in the feminine form qbḥy.t.
1340
CAD Q 43-44; AHw 890; DNWSI 983. West Semitic is the origin of Emarite qubbaˁu; see Pentiuc, West
Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar, 150; Ran Zadok, “Notes on the West Semitic Material
from Emar,” AION 51 (1991): 118.
1341
HALOT 1102. The Septuagint does not provide a word-for-word equivalence in 1 Sam 2:14,
providing three vessel terms instead of four, and reads χύτρα (“earthen pot”) in Mic 3:3; the Peshitta
reads qrdlˀ (“pot”) in 1 Sam 2:14 and qdrˀ (“cooking pot”) in Mic 3:3. The Vulgate and Targum read olla
(“pot, jar”) and ‫“( ִק ְד ָרא‬pot”), respectively, in both instances.
1342
Kelso, Ceramic Vocabulary of the Old Testament, 31; Honeyman, “Pottery Vessels of the Old
Testament,” 90.
1343
DUL 701.
253
does the lack of a known Semitic root on which it could be based.1344 Watson, Muchiki,
Ellenbogen, and Lambdin1345 argue that the source is Egyptian qrḥ.t, “pot, bowl,” first
attested during the Old Kingdom.1346 The doubling of the second radical in Hebrew ‫ַק ַלּ ַחת‬
probably constitutes an attempt to mimic the pattern found in Semitic vessel terms
such as ‫“( ַצ ֫ ַלּ ַחת‬bowl, dish”), ‫“( ַצ ֫ ַפּ ַחת‬pilgrim flask”), and ‫“( ֻק ַבּ ַעת‬cup, goblet”).1347
Because Hebrew and Ugaritic both have the feminine ending –t and because final –t was
lost in Egyptian by the New Kingdom, this word must have entered Northwest Semitic
early on, probably during the early second millennium BCE.1348
Hurrian adopted Ugaritic qlḫt as kelḫi,1349 and from Hurrian this word was
borrowed back into Ugaritic as klǵd. The term klǵd appears only once in a Ugaritic-
Hurrian ritual hymn prescribing sacrifices to El (KTU 1.128:11).1350
rˀidn “rhyton”
(KTU 1.3 i:12)
Gk. → Ug.
Gk. ῥυτόν
Ugaritic rˀidn occurs only once: it appears in the Baal Cycle within the context of
1344
De Moor’s proposal (Johannes C. de Moor, “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra
II,” UF 2 [1970]: 317) that Hebrew ‫ ַק ַלּ ַחת‬and Ugaritic qlḫt are connected with Akkadian qullû, qullītu
(“roasted”) is unpersuasive.
1345
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 143; Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 254-255, 282-
283; Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 149; Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old
Testament,” 154. For the usage of Ugaritic ḫ for Egyptian ḥ, see the Egyptian “Consonant
1346
ÄW 1:1339; 2:2528; GHwÄ 932; WÄS 5:62-63.
1347
HALOT 1027, 1048, 1062.
1348
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 254-255. Coptic S,Aϭⲁⲗⲁϩⲧ, Sⲕⲁⲗⲁϩⲧ, which also
preserves the final –t, thus cannot be a direct descendant of Egyptian qrḥt; this Coptic form is a direct
descendant of Egyptian krḥt, a New Kingdom borrowing from West Semitic (Crum 813; CED 329; Hoch,
Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 331-332).
1349
LKI 209; GLH 142.
1350
Watson, Lexical Studies in Ugaritic, 143Dijkstra, 1993 #7389.
254
a feast (KTU 1.3 i:12). Despite its single occurrence, it is clear from its association in
with a number of other vessel terms, such as ks (“cup”), krpn (“cup, goblet”), and bk
(“jar, wine jar”), that rˀidn denotes a drinking vessel (KTU 1.13 i:10-15).1351
The morphology of this term is non-Semitic and there is no known Semitic root
on which this term could be based, indicating a foreign loan. The feast described in KTU
1.3 i:1-28 shares a number of similarities with Aegean banquet scenes, which suggests
an origin from this region.1352 As suggested by Loretz and Korpel,1353 the probable origin
of Ugaritic rˀidn is Greek ῥυτόν, “rhyton.”1354 In antiquity the rhyton was a conical
vessel, often decorated with pictoral motifs, for drinking wine or for pouring libations;
it was particularly common in the Aegean.1355 Rhytons imported from the Aegean have
been discovered at Ugarit,1356 supporting the plausibility of a Greek origin for Ugaritic
rˀidn.
1351
DUL 723. Given the absence of a word divider and colometric considerations, it is unlikely that the
letters rˀidn should be taken as two words, rˀi dn (cf. Smith and Pitard, KTU/CAT 1.3-1.4, 108-109). KTU’s
reading of rˀidn as a deity name in KTU 1.41:36 is entirely conjectural (cf. Dennis Pardee, Les textes rituels
[2 vols.; Publications de la Mission archéologique française de Ras Shamra-Ougarit 12; Paris: Éditions
Recherche sur les civilisations, 2000], 1:188-189).
1352
Cf. Loretz, “Gefäße Rdmns für ein Marziḥu-Gelage,” 299-323.
1353
Loretz, “Gefäße Rdmns für ein Marziḥu-Gelage,” 318-319; Marjo C.A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds:
Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur 8; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag,
1990), 401.
1354
LSJ 1578.
1355
Robert B. Koehl, Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta (Prehistory Monographs 19; Philadelphia: INSTAP
Academic Press, 2006), 351-370; Robert B. Koehl, “The Functions of Aegean Bronze Age Rytha,” in
Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age: Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish
Institute in Athens, 12-13 May, 1980 (eds. Robin Hägg and Nanno Marinatos; Skrifter utgivna av Svenska
institutet i Athen, 4o 28; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1981), 179-188; M.G. Kanowski, Containers of Classical
Greece: A Handbook of Shapes (St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1984), 130-134.
1356
Nicolle Hirschfeld, “The Catalogue,” in Céramiques mycéniennes d’Ougarit (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 13;
Paris: ERC-ADPF, 2000), 124-129. Nearly all the rhytons found at Ugarit were manufactured in Cyprus,
Mycenae, or Crete, although local workshops sometimes produced rhytons identical to the foreign
prototypes (Marguerite Yon, The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006),
151).
255
‫“ ֵתּ ָבה‬ark; basket”
(Gen 6:14, passim; Exod 2:3, 5)
Eg., → Heb. → JA; Gk.
JA ‫יבוּתא‬
ָ ‫תּ‬, ֵ Eg. ḏbȝ.t; Gk. θῖβις
ֵ ‫;תּיבוּ‬
Hebrew ‫ ֵתּ ָבה‬occurs a total of twenty-eight times, but these instances are limited
to two usages.1357 The word ‫ ֵתּ ָבה‬is most commonly used (twenty-six times)1358 for the
ark that Noah builds to escape the flood. Elsewhere, ‫ ֵתּ ָבה‬appears twice with reference
to the basket in which Moses was placed (Exod 2:3, 5).
In this second set of occurrences, this basket was made out of ‫“( ֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬reed, rush”),
an Egyptian loan. Given this observation and the lack of a known Semitic root on which
Hebrew ‫ ֵתּ ָבה‬could be based, ‫ ֵתּ ָבה‬is an Egyptian loan. Muchiki1359 plausibly suggets

Egyptian ḏbȝ.t as the donor term. This word appears with the meaning “shrine, room;
coffin, box” beginning with the Old Kingdom.1360 Egyptian ḏbȝ.t is written with initial d
as well as t in addition to ḏ, so there is no problem concerning the initial consonant
correspondence.1361 Via Hebrew, this term entered Jewish Aramaic and Greek.1362
As noted above, the usage of an Egyptian loan in Exod 2:3, 5 fits well with the
Egyptian context. The appearance of ‫ ֵתּ ָבה‬in the flood narrative, however, is
unexpected since there is no clear Egyptian context.1363 The usage of ‫ ֵתּ ָבה‬in Genesis
1357
HALOT 1677-1678. In Genesis, the Septuagint and Vulgate translate Hebrew ‫ ֵתּ ָבה‬as κιβωτός and
arca, respectively; in Exodus, θῖβις and fiscella are used, respectively. The Peshitta utilizes qbwtˀ, “box,
ark” and the Targums use the Aramaic forms of this word.
1358
Gen 6:14 (2x), 15, 16 (2x), 18-19; 7:1, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17-18, 23; 8:1, 4, 6, 9 (2x), 10, 13, 16, 19; 9:10, 18.
1359
1360
ÄW 1:1500; 2:2774, 2834; GHwÄ 993, 1046, 1078; WÄS 5:261, 434, 561. The Demotic and Coptic forms
are tbyt, tybt and ⲧⲁⲓⲃⲉ, ⲧⲏⲏⲃⲉ, ⲧⲏⲃⲉ, respectively (DG 622; Crum 397; CED 180).
1361
1362
DJPA 580; DJBA 1203; LSJ 801; GELS 330; EDG 548-549; DELG 420; Masson, Les plus anciens emprunts
sémitiques en grec, 76.
1363
This does not mean, however, that ‫ ֵתּ ָבה‬cannot be an Egyptian loan; contra Chaim Cohen, “Hebrew
tbh: Proposed Etymologies,” JANES 4 (1972): 36-51. Just because Egyptian ḏbȝ.t is never used with
reference to boats does not mean that it could not be, especially given the literary parallels between the
narratives on the flood and birth of Noah.
256
probably stems from the strong thematic links between the flood narrative and the
narrative of Moses’ birth: in both cases, the item denoted by ‫ ֵתּ ָבה‬is the means of
deliverance of the narrative’s hero.1364
1364
Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 138; Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (trans. Israel
Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967), 18-19. Propp notes similarities between the Mesopotamian
legend of Atra-ḫasis and Exod 2:1-10, further strengthening the thematic connections between the
narratives of the flood and Moses’ birth (William H.C. Propp, Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary [AB 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999], 159-160).
257
Chapter 5
Conclusions
Approximately 155 loan hypotheses for Northwest Semitic terms alleged to be
foreign loans or culture words were discussed in the previous chapter. The present
chapter offers general conclusions on the data concerning linguistic and historical
contact and examines some possible directions for further research.
Linguistic Contact1
Consonant Correspondences
Consonantal correspondences are discussed below according to language or
language family (Egyptian, Hittite and Luwian, Hurrian, Greek, and Indo-Iranian). The
consonants are primarily arranged by manner of articulation.
1
There is no linguistic discussion below of Sumerian words that have found their way into
Northwest Semitic for the simple reason that Northwest Semitic did not borrow these words directly
from Sumerian: all attested words of this category reflect words that have entered Northwest Semitic
from Sumerian via Akkadian. Similarly, loans transmitted via languages other than Sumerian will not be
discussed. There is no discussion, moreover, of words from donor languages for which little or nothing is
known (e.g., ancient Nubian, Pre-Hellenic, “Havilite,” “Ophirite,” “Hundurašite,” or Iberian), of words
that originated with general language families (e.g., Indo-European), or of culture words. Lastly, words
that have been “semitized” or folk etymologized are not considered here because such phenomena
cannot reveal genuine consonant correspondences.
258
‫‪Egyptian‬‬
‫‪Egyptian:‬‬ ‫‪Hebrew:‬‬ ‫‪Ugaritic:‬‬ ‫‪Phoenician:‬‬ ‫‪Old Aramaic:‬‬
‫‪ȝ‬‬ ‫‪0̸1‬‬
‫‪i‬‬ ‫‪ˀ,2 0̸3‬‬ ‫‪ˀ4‬‬
‫‪y‬‬ ‫‪y,5 0̸6‬‬
‫‪ˁ‬‬ ‫‪ˁ,7 ˀ8‬‬ ‫‪ˁ9‬‬
‫‪w‬‬ ‫‪w,10 0̸11‬‬ ‫‪0̸12‬‬ ‫‪w13‬‬
‫‪b‬‬ ‫‪b14‬‬ ‫‪b, w16‬‬
‫‪15‬‬
‫‪b‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫‪p‬‬ ‫‪p18‬‬ ‫‪p19‬‬

‫‪f‬‬ ‫‪p20‬‬ ‫‪p21‬‬
‫‪m‬‬ ‫‪m,22 n23‬‬ ‫‪m24‬‬
‫‪n‬‬ ‫‪n,25 l26‬‬ ‫‪n27‬‬
‫‪28 29 30‬‬
‫‪r‬‬ ‫‪r, l, d‬‬ ‫‪r,31 l32‬‬
‫‪h‬‬ ‫‪h33‬‬ ‫‪h34‬‬
‫‪ḥ‬‬ ‫‪ḥ,35 ˁ36‬‬ ‫‪ḫ37‬‬
‫‪ḫ‬‬ ‫‪ḥ38‬‬ ‫‪ḫ39‬‬ ‫‪ḥ40‬‬ ‫‪ḥ41‬‬
‫‪ẖ‬‬
‫‪z/s‬‬ ‫‪š42‬‬
‫‪š‬‬ ‫‪š43‬‬
‫‪q‬‬ ‫‪q,44 g45‬‬ ‫‪q46‬‬
‫‪k‬‬ ‫‪k,47 q48‬‬ ‫‪k49‬‬
‫‪g‬‬
‫‪t‬‬ ‫‪t50‬‬ ‫‪t51‬‬
‫‪ṯ‬‬ ‫‪s52‬‬
‫‪d‬‬ ‫‪ṭ,53 d,54 t55‬‬ ‫‪d56‬‬ ‫‪ṭ57‬‬
‫‪ḏ‬‬
‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬

‫‪,‬פּח ַ‪,‬בּד‬
‫ֵתּ ָבה ַ‬ ‫‪,‬אטוּן‬
‫‪,‬אפֹד ֵ‬
‫ֶ ֫ ֽטנֶ א ֵ‬ ‫‪,‬אטוּן‬
‫נֶ ֶתר ֵ‬ ‫‪ˀirp, ˀipd‬‬ ‫‪,‬מ ִשׁי ‪,‬ח ִֹרי ְ‪,‬דּיוֹ ‪,‬גָּ ִב ַיע‬
‫ִק ָיקיוֹן ֶ‬ ‫ְפּ ֵאר ‪,‬סוּף‬
‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪,‬ט ַ֫בּ ַעת‬
‫ָע ָרה ַ‬ ‫ַאח‬ ‫טבעת‬ ‫‪,‬אחוּ‬
‫סוּף ָ֫‬ ‫ַא ְבנֵ ט‬ ‫‪ˀaḫ‬‬ ‫אחו‬ ‫ָ‪,‬ה ְבנִ ים ‪,‬גָּ ִב ַיע ‪֫ ,‬בֹּ ַחן ַ‪,‬בּד ַ‬
‫‪,‬א ְבנֵ ט‬
‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫‪,‬ט ַ֫בּ ַעת‬
‫ֵתּ ָבה ַ‬ ‫‪hbn‬‬ ‫‪kw‬‬ ‫טבעת‬ ‫‪,‬פּח‬
‫ְפּ ֵאר ַ‬ ‫‪ˀirp‬‬ ‫סוּף ‪,‬נ ֶֹפְך ֵ‬
‫‪,‬אפֹד‬ ‫‪ˀipd‬‬ ‫‪,‬א ְח ָל ָמה‬
‫ַ‬
‫‪23‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫ֶמ ִשׁי ֶ‪,‬ל ֶשׁם ‪֫ ,‬גּ ֹ ֶמא‬ ‫שׁוּשׁן ‪,‬נ ֶֹפְך ֵ‬
‫‪,‬אטוּן‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫חתם‬ ‫‪,‬טנֶ א ָ‪,‬ה ְבנִ ים ‪֫ ,‬בֹּ ַחן ַ‬
‫‪,‬א ְבנֵ ט‬ ‫שׁוּשׁן ‪,‬נֶ ֶתר ֶ ֫ ֽ‬
‫ַ‬ ‫‪,‬א ְח ָל ָמה‬
‫ֶל ֶשׁם ַ‬
‫‪27‬‬ ‫‪28‬‬ ‫‪29‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫‪31‬‬ ‫‪32‬‬ ‫‪33‬‬ ‫‪34‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪hbn‬‬ ‫‪,‬ע ָרה ‪,‬נֶ ֶתר ‪,‬ח ִֹרי‬
‫‪,‬פּ ֵאר ָ‬
‫ַתּ ְח ָרא ְ‬ ‫ַק ַלּ ַחת‬ ‫ְדּיוֹ‬ ‫‪ˀirp‬‬ ‫‪qlḫt‬‬ ‫ָה ְבנִ ים‬ ‫‪hbn‬‬ ‫‪,‬ח ִֹרי‬
‫‪36‬‬ ‫‪37‬‬ ‫‪38‬‬ ‫‪39‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬ ‫‪41‬‬
‫‪,‬תּ ְח ָרא ַ‪,‬ק ַלּ ַחת‬
‫ַתּ ַחשׁ ַ‬ ‫גָּ ִב ַיע‬ ‫‪qlḫt‬‬ ‫‪,‬א ְח ָל ָמה‬
‫‪,‬אח ַ‬ ‫‪,‬חוֹתם ‪֫ ,‬בֹּ ַחן ָ֫‬
‫‪,‬אחוּ ַ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ַפּח‬ ‫‪ˀaḫ‬‬ ‫חתם‬ ‫אחו‬
‫‪42‬‬ ‫‪43‬‬ ‫‪44‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬ ‫‪46‬‬ ‫‪47‬‬ ‫‪48‬‬ ‫‪49‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬
‫‪,‬מ ִשׁי‬
‫ַתּ ַחשׁ ֶ‬ ‫ִשׁ ָטּה ֶ‪,‬ל ֶשׁם‬ ‫ַק ַלּ ַחת‬ ‫֫גּ ֹ ֶמא ‪,‬גָּ ִב ַיע‬ ‫‪qlḫt‬‬ ‫נ ֶֹפְך‬ ‫ִק ָיקיוֹן‬ ‫‪kw‬‬ ‫‪,‬חוֹתם‬
‫ָ‬ ‫‪,‬נֶ ֶתר‬
‫‪51‬‬ ‫‪52‬‬ ‫‪53‬‬ ‫‪54‬‬ ‫‪55‬‬ ‫‪56‬‬
‫‪,‬תּ ַחשׁ‬
‫ֵתּ ָבה ַ‬ ‫חתם‬ ‫סוּף‬ ‫‪,‬א ְבנֵ ט‬
‫‪,‬אטוּן ַ‬
‫‪,‬ט ַ֫בּ ַעת ֵ‬
‫‪,‬טנֶ א ַ‬
‫ִשׁ ָטּה ֶ ֫ ֽ‬ ‫‪,‬אפֹד‬
‫ַבּד ֵ‬ ‫ַתּ ְח ָרא‬ ‫‪ˀipd‬‬
‫‪57‬‬
‫טבעת‬
‫‪Stops‬‬
‫‪Egyptian b and p is represented in Northwest Semitic as b and p, respectively.‬‬
‫‪The only exception is Ugaritic kw (borrowed from Egyptian kb), which utilizes w for‬‬
‫‪259‬‬
Egyptian b. Although unusual, this can be attributed to the occasional shift of Egyptian
b to w.2
The Egyptian d and t opposition is not fully understood.3 Northwest Semitic
regularly represents the Egyptian dental t as t.4 Egyptian d exhibits some variation in
the present corpus: it most often it appears as ṭ, but in isolated cases it occurs as d or t.5
Similar variation occurs in Egyptian representations of West Semitic, in which West
Semitic d and ṭ can be rendered by either Egyptian d or t.6
Like the dentals, the Egyptian q, k, and g opposition is not fully understood.7
Northwest Semitic renders Egyptian q as both q and g. With the exception of Hebrew
ִ in which Egyptian k appears as q, Egyptian k occurs as k. Egyptian g does not

‫ק ָיקיוֹן‬,
occur in the present corpus.
The Egyptian palatal ḏ8 is unattested in the present corpus, although it is known

from elsewhere that Northwest Semitic utilizes ṣ to represent this Egyptian consonant.9
The only evidence in the present corpus for the Egyptian palatal ṯ10 is Hebrew ‫סוּף‬,
2
Carsten Peust, Egyptian Phonology: An Introduction to the Phonology of a Dead Language (Monographien
zur ägyptischen Sprache 2; Göttingen: Peust & Gutschmidt, 1999), 135.
3
Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 79-84; James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and
Third Intermediate Period (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), 427.
4
Hebrew ‫ נֶ ֶתר‬and ‫ ַתּ ַחשׁ‬reflect Egyptian palatal fronting, a phonological phenomenon in which ḏ
merged with d and ṯ merged with t around the end of the Old Kingdom (Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 123-
125). Hebrew must have borrowed these two words after palatal fronting occurred and ṯ had changed to
t.
5
Hebrew ‫ ַבּד‬also reflects a case of Egyptian palatal fronting. Biblical Hebrew must have borrowed ‫ַבּד‬
after palatal fronting occurred and ḏ had changed to d.
6
7
Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 107-114; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 428-429.
8
Traditionally, Egyptologists have transliterated the hieroglyph 𓆓 as ḏ. However, this can imply this
phoneme is a voiced interdental, which is not the case. Some Egyptologists therefore prefer to
transliterate 𓆓 as č̣.
9
Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 317. For example, Hebrew ‫צ ַֹען‬, “Tanis” (from Egyptian Ḏˁn.t) and
‫צי‬,ִ “ship” (from Egyptian ḏ(ȝ)y), the Phoenician personal name ‫( חרוץ‬from Egyptian Ḥr-wḏ(ȝ)), and
Aramaic ‫פסחמצנותי‬, “scribe of the god’s book(s)” (from Egyptian p(ȝ)-sẖ-mḏ(ȝ).t-nṯ(r)).
10
Traditionally, Egyptologists have transliterated the hieroglyph 𓍿 as ṯ. However, this can lead to
confusion with the Semitic phoneme ṯ, which is pronounced entirely differently, and some Egyptologists
therefore prefer to transliterate 𓍿 as č.
260
indicating that Hebrew s was used to represent Egyptian ṯ. This correspondence
regularly occurs in loans from West Semitic to Egyptian during the New Kingdom.11
However, as is evident from data not part of the present corpus, Egyptian ṯ had a
variety of representations elsewhere in Semitic: ṣ (Phoenician), š (Aramaic), and z
(Amarna Akkadian).12 This cautions against making strong conclusions concerning the
nature of Egyptian ṯ and its Semitic representations: there is no simple, one-to-one
correspondence between Egyptian and Semitic for this phoneme.13
Egyptian i14 is represented by Northwest Semitic ˀ.15 In the present corpus, this
correspondence occurs twice in initial position and once final position. However, final i
is left unrepresented in the cases of Hebrew ‫ ֵאטוּן‬and ‫נֶ ֶתר‬. There is no clear pattern as to
when final i is preserved or elided.
Fricatives
The Egyptian fricative f is rendered as Northwest Semitic p. Notably, New
Kingdom borrowings from West Semitic occasionally render p as f in Egyptian;
graphical variation between p and f, moreover, occurs in Late Egyptian.16
11
12
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 317. For example, the Phoenician personal names
‫( צחפמו‬from Egyptian Ṯ(ȝy)-ḥp-imw) and ‫( צכנסמו‬from Egyptian Ṯ(ȝy)-ḫns(w)-inw), the Aramaic personal
names ‫( פסמשך‬from Egyptian Psmṯk) and ‫שחפימו‬, ‫( שחפמו‬from Egyptian Ṯ(ȝy)-ḥp-imw), and Amarna
Akkadian zabnakū, “kȝ-vessel” (from Egyptian ṯ(ȝ)b-n-k(ȝ)). Rainey reads this last word as sabnakū (Anson F.
Rainey, review of Yoshiyuki Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic, JAOS 121
[2001]: 491), but the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary and von Soden read it as zabnakū (CAD Z 9; AHw 1501).
13
There is no evidence that Hebrew ‫ ס‬was pronounced like Egyptian ṯ during the second millennium
BCE but like s during the first millennium (contra Rainey, review of Muchiki, 491). In light of evidence
from Assyrian Akkadian and Arabic, it is more likely that West Semitic s was originally pronounced as š
and that it exchanged phonetic values with š, similar to what happened in Babylonian Akkadian (Stephen
A. Kaufman, personal communication, October 27, 2011).
14
Egyptian i is classified as a stop here only for the sake of convenience, for its characterization as a
glottal stop is debated, and it may very well have been a glide. This phoneme’s phonological
development is complex, and by the time of the New Kingdom, Egyptian ȝ and i had merged, sometimes
taking on the role of the glide y or a glottal stop. See Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 49-50, 97, 142-151.
15
This correspondence is regularly attested in West Semitic words borrowed into Egyptian during
the New Kingdom (Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 413).
16
Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 133; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 401, 430.
261
In the present corpus, the Egyptian sibilant z/s17 appears in Northwest Semitic as
ַ 18 Muchiki objects to this correspondence,

š in the cases of Hebrew ‫ ֶמ ִשׁי‬and ‫תּ ַחשׁ‬.
contending that Egyptian s always appears in Hebrew as s.19 While it is true that in most
cases Egyptian s is represented in Northwest Semitic as s,20 this is not always the case.21
Amarna Akkadian renders Egyptian s as both s and š.22 Similarly, New Kingdom Egyptian
borrowings from West Semitic frequently use Egyptian š to render Semitic š, but they
also sometimes use s.23 Given the difficult nature of sibilants in general as well as the
possibility of dialectal variation, one may note predictable correspondences but should
refrain from making absolute statements concerning their reflexes.24

Egyptian š25 appears clearly as Northwest Semitic š in the present corpus only in
ִ 26 Other data from Egyptian terms and personal names

the cases of ‫ ֶל ֶשׁם‬and ‫שׁ ָטּה‬.
17
Egyptian z/s is the sound represented by the hieroglyphs (commonly transliterated as s or z) and
(commonly transliterated as s or ś) which became allographs by the Middle Kingdom (Peust, Egyptian
Phonology, 125-126). No distinction between z and s is made in this study.
18
The cases of ‫שׁוּשׁן‬
ַ and ‫ ֵשׁשׁ‬are unfortunately ambiguous because it is uncertain when sibilant
assimilation occurred. These words could have entered Hebrew from an already assimilated Egyptian
form or could have experienced sibilant assimilation after (or during) their adoption into Hebrew.
19
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 266-267. Muchiki never offers any concrete proof for
this argument because he rules out any potential loans demonstrating this correspondence by claiming
that Hebrew ‫ שׁ‬cannot represent Egyptian s.
20
For example, Hebrew ‫ק ֶסת‬,ֶ “scribal palette” (from Egyptian gsti), Hebrew personal name ‫ִפּינְ ָחס‬
(from Egyptian P(ȝ)-nḥs(y)), and the Hebrew place name ‫ר ְע ְמ ֵסס‬,ַ ‫( ַר ַע ְמ ֵסס‬from Egptian (Pr)-rˁmss).
21
Cf. Wolfgang Helck, “Ṯkw und die Ramses-Stadt,” VT 15 (1965): 42-47; J. Gwyn Griffiths, “The
Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses,” JNES 12 (1953): 227-231.
22
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 310. For Egyptian s and Amarna Akkadian š, cf. the
personal names Amanmašša (from Egyptian Imn-ms [EA 113:36, 43; 114:51]) and Taḫmašši (from Egyptian
(P)tḥ-ms(w) [EA 303:20]) as well as the noun daši, “jar” (from Egyptian ds); for Egyptian s and Amarna
Akkadian s, cf. the nouns pusbiu, “door” (from Egyptian p(3)-sbȝ) and tasbu, “stool” (from Egyptian t(ȝ)-
isb.t).
23
24
Following Albright and others, Quack contends that Egyptian s regularly equaled Hebrew ‫ שׁ‬during
the second millennium BCE whereas Egyptian s regularly equaled Hebrew ‫ ס‬during the first millennium
BCE (Joachim Friedrich Quack, review of Yoshiyuki Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-
West Semitic, RBL [April 24, 2000], online: http://www.bookreviews.org). However, this view is based on
unproven presuppositions concerning when certain proper names in the biblical text should be dated as
well as unfounded assumptions on the changing pronunciation of Hebrew ‫ס‬.
25
Egyptian š arose from palatalization of the consonant ẖ (Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 115-117). Hence,
it is not a sibilant proper.
26
As noted above, the cases of ‫שׁוּשׁן‬
ַ and ‫ ֵשׁשׁ‬are ambiguous because it is uncertain when sibilant
assimilation occurred.
262
adopted into Northwest Semitic supports this correspondence,27 as does the above-
mentioned rendering of West Semitic š by Egyptian š during the New Kingdom.28
There are no clear correspondences of Egyptian ẖ in the present corpus.29
However, evidence from Phoenician and Aramaic not considered in the corpus
indicates that Egyptian ẖ could be represented as k or ḥ in Northwest Semitic.30
The Egyptian uvular ḫ appears as Northwest Semitic ḫ whenever possible.31
Because the phonemes ḥ and ḫ merged in biblical Hebrew, all occurrences of Egyptian ḫ
in Hebrew utilize ‫ח‬.
Egyptian ḥ, a voiceless pharyngeal fricative,32 corresponds to Northwest Semitic

ḥ in all but one instance: in the case of Hebrew ‫גָּ ִב ַיע‬, ˁ renders Egyptian ḥ. Both Egyptian
ḥ and ˁ were articulated as pharyngeals and these two consonants shared a close
relationship;33 moreover, Egyptian ˁ sometimes represents West Semitic ḥ in New
Kingdom loans into Egyptian.34
27
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 315. For example, the Hebrew personal names ‫כּוּשׁ‬
(from Egyptian Kš), ‫( ַפּ ְשׁחוּר‬from Egyptian P(s)š-ḥr or P(ȝ)-šri-(n)-ḥr), and ‫ישׁק‬
ַ ‫( ִשׁ‬from Egyptian Šš(n)q).
28
29
The only possible correspondence is found in Hebrew ‫יעה‬ ְ However, as noted in this word’s
ָ ‫ק ִצ‬.
entry, if ‫יעה‬
ָ ‫ ְק ִצ‬is an Egyptian loan it probably reflects “semitization” and hence does not provide
evidence for the representation of Egyptian ẖ in Northwest Semitic.
30
Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 117; Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 316. The evidence is
somewhat sparse but includes the Phoenician divine name ‫ חרפכרט‬and the Aramaic personal name
‫( פטחרפחרט‬from Egyptian Ḥr-p(ȝ)-ẖrd and P(ȝ)-d(i)-Ḥr-p(ȝ)-ẖrd, respectively) as well as the Aramaic
personal names ‫( אסחנום‬from Egyptian (N)s-ẖnm(w)) and ‫( תחרת‬from Egyptian T(ȝ)-ẖrd.t).
31
In the present corpus, only Ugaritic ˀaḫ attests to this correspondence. The case of Ugaritic qlḫt
does not contradict this rule because KTU 5.22, the only occurrence of qlḫt in Ugaritic, frequently
replaces ḥ with ḫ (e.g., mptḫ for mptḥ and qmḫ for qmḥ); see Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords,
283.
32
Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 98.
33
Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 98, 103-105.
34
Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 413. Correspondence of Egyptian ḥ with Semitic ˁ can
sometimes indicate a common Afroasiatic word (Thomas Schneider, review of Yoshiyuki Muchiki,
Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic, JQR 92 [2001]: 162), but the Egyptian context in
which ‫ גָּ ִב ַיע‬occurs points to an Egyptian loan. Another possible example of Egyptian ḥ appearing as ˁ is
Hebrew ‫ס ְל ָעם‬,
ָ probably borrowed from Egyptian snḥm, “locust” (cf. Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and
Loanwords, 252).
263
Egyptian ˁ, a voiced pharyngeal fricative,35 corresponds to Northwest Semitic ˁ.
The only exception occurs in the case of Hebrew ‫אח‬,

ַ borrowed from Egyptian ˁḫ.
Egyptian ˁ sometimes changes to ȝ in the presence of ḫ, adequately explaining the
relationship between ˁ and ˀ in this case.36
Egyptian h rarely appears in the present corpus, being found only in the cases of
Hebrew ‫ ָה ְבנִ ים‬and Ugaritic hbn. However, the correspondence of Egyptian h and
Northwest Semitic h is attested outside the present corpus in loans from Egyptian to
West Semitic and vice versa.37
Nasals and Liquids
Egyptian ȝ is a liquid, not a glottal stop.38 The two cases in which Egyptian ȝ
seemingly corresponds to Hebrew ‫( א‬Hebrew ‫אחוּ‬,
ָ֫ ‫ ) ֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬reflect usage of ˀ to mark a
vowel, not consonantal correspondence.39 Elsewhere, Egyptian ȝ is simply elided in both
medial and final positions. These examples can be attributed to the fact that ȝ was
dropped from many words or replaced by y or a glottal stop after the Middle Kingdom.40
Egyptian m occurs in the present corpus as Northwest Semitic m. However,
there is one exception: in the case of Hebrew ‫ ֵאטוּן‬and ‫נ ֶֹפְך‬, Northwest Semitic n
35
Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 99-106.
36
Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 104; Jürgen Ossing, “Zum Lautwechsel 𓇋 ↔ 𓂢 unter Einfluss von 𓐍,”
Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 8 (1980): 217-225. Notably, Semitic ˀḫ and ˀḫt (“brother” and “sister,”
respectively [DRS 15]) occur with initial ˁ in Egyptian (William F. Albright, “Northwest-Semitic Names in a
List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C.,” JAOS 74 [1954]: 228-229).
37
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 316; Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 413. For
example, Hebrew ‫הין‬,ִ “hin-measure” (borrowed from Egyptian hnw) as well as Egyptian hr, “hill,
mountain” (borrowed from Semitic hr).
38
Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 127-128; James P. Allen, Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and
Culture of Hieroglyphs (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 15; James E. Hoch, Middle
Egyptian Grammar (Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities Publications 15; Mississauga, Ont.:
Benben Publications, 1997), 8.
39
Hebrew ‫ ֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬was borrowed from Egyptian qmȝ, the latter being written as gmy by the time of the
New Kingdom. The final ‫ א‬of the Hebrew term is probably a mater lectionis (Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names
and Loanwords, 256-257). The ‫ א‬of Hebrew ‫( ָ֫אחוּ‬as well as Old Aramaic ‫ אחו‬and Ugaritic ˀaḫ) reflects the
initial vowel of the Egyptian term (Schneider, review of Muchiki, 163). See further below.
40
Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 142-151; Allen, Middle Egyptian, 15.
264
represents Egyptian m, simply reflecting an interchange of nasals.
Egyptian r appears in Northwest Semitic as both r and l, which simply reflects
the pronunciation of this Egyptian consonant.41 The case of Hebrew ‫דּיוֹ‬,ְ in which
Egyptian r appears as Hebrew d, indicates that Egyptian r was pronounced as an apical
singly tapped r.42
Egyptian n, lastly, occurs as Northwest Semitic n.43 In the cases of Hebrew ‫ַא ְח ָל ָמה‬
ֶ however, l represents Egyptian n. This correspondence reflects the fact that

and ‫ל ֶשׁם‬,
the Egyptian consonant n was sometimes pronounced as l.44
Semi-Vowels
Egyptian y regularly corresponds to Northwest Semitic y in medial as well as
final positions. In at least two cases, however, final y is not represented (Hebrew ‫סוּף‬,
ְ Medial and final w is represented as Northwest Semitic w except in the cases of

‫)פּ ֵאר‬.
Hebrew ‫ ַא ְבנֵ ט‬and Ugaritic ˀaḫ, in which it is omitted.
41
Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 127; Allen, Middle Egyptian, 16.
42
Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 406-407, 430. Loans from West Semitic to Egyptian, in which
Semitic d appears as Egyptian r, likewise demonstrate this phonological value.
43
This correspondence is regularly attested in West Semitic words borrowed into Egyptian during
the New Kingdom (Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 407).
44
Allen, Middle Egyptian, 16. Sometimes Egyptian n shifted to l, especially when in the presence of m
(Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 127, 166).
265
Hittite and Luwian
Hittite/Luwian: Hebrew: Ugaritic: Phoenician: Old Aramaic:
b
d d1
g g2
gw
ḫ ḥ3 ǵ,4 ḫ5, ḥ6
k
kw
l l7 l8 l9
m
n n10
11 12
p b, p b, p14
13
b15
r r16 r17 r18
š š,19 ś20 ṯ,21 z22
t t23 t,24 d25
w
y
z z26 s,27 ś,28 ḏ29 z30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ḫndlt spsg, sbsg, spśg, śpśg ‫ח ֶרשׂ‬,
ֶ ‫ִחתּוּל‬ dǵṯ ḫndlt ḥtṯ ‫בּ ְרזֶ ל‬,ַ ‫ִחתּוּל‬ brḏl, ḫndlt
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
‫ברזל‬ ḫndlt ‫ַבּ ְרזֶ ל‬ ‫ְתּ ָר ִפים‬ brḏl, sbsg spsg, spśg, śpśg ‫ברזל‬
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
‫בּ ְרזֶ ל‬,ַ ‫ח ֶרשׂ‬,
ֶ ‫תּ ַאשּׁוּר‬,
ְ ‫ְתּ ָר ִפים‬ brḏl, ztr, tˀišr ‫ברזל‬ ‫ְתּ ַאשּׁוּר‬ ‫ֶח ֶרשׂ‬ dǵṯ, ḥtṯ, tˀišr ztr
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
‫חתּוּל‬,
ִ ‫תּ ַאשּׁוּר‬,
ְ ‫ְתּ ָר ִפים‬ ztr, ḥtṯ, tˀišr dǵṯ ‫ַבּ ְרזֶ ל‬ spsg, sbsg, spśg spśg, śpśg brḏl
30
‫ברזל‬
Stops
Hittite/Luwian possessed four types of voiced and voiceless stops: bilabials (b
and p), dentals (d and t), velars (g and k), and labiovelars (gw and kw).45 The
Hittite/Luwian bilabial b is unattested in the present corpus whereas p appears as
Semitic b and p (seemingly regardless of position, at least in the present corpus); the
dental d appears as d, and the dental t appears as t; the velar g occurs as Semitic g, and
the velar k is unattested in the present corpus. The labiovelars, lastly, are unattested in
the present corpus.
45
Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. and H. Craig Melchert, eds., A Grammar of the Hittite Language (2 vols.;
Languages of the Ancient Near East 1; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 1:36.
266
Affricates
The Hittite/Luwian consonant z seems to denote a voiceless dental affricate,
probably pronounced as ts.46 Northwest Semitic renders this consonant as z (Hebrew,
Phoenician) as well as s, ś, and ḏ (Ugaritic). The consonant’s position does not appear to
affect its representation in the present corpus of Northwest Semitic. However, it should
be noted that s and ś reflect Hittite z whereas z and ḏ reflect Luwian z.
Fricatives
The nature of the Hittite fricative š is uncertain. It may have been pronounced
as a dental-alveolar, an alveo-palatal, a palatal, or some combination of these.47 Hebrew

renders this consonant as š and ś, and Ugaritic renders it as ṯ as well as z. Hittite scribes
regularly represent gemination of this consonant, distinguishing between š and šš,48 but
this plays no apparent role in the way in which Northwest Semitic represents Hittite š
in the present corpus.
Hittite scribes also regularly distinguish between ḫ and ḫḫ in intervocalic
position: Hittite ḫ represents a voiceless velar fricative, whereas ḫḫ seems to represent
a voiced velar fricative.49 Examples from the present corpus preserve this distinction:
when in single, initial position, Hebrew utilizes ḥ and Ugaritic uses ḫ.50 When in double,
medial position, on the other hand, Ugaritic uses ǵ.
46
Hoffner and Melchert, Grammar of the Hittite Language, 1:37-38. Hittite scribes utilize Akkadian z to
represent this Hittite consonant.
47
Hoffner and Melchert, Grammar of the Hittite Language, 1:38. Hittite scribes were left with Akkadian š
to represent this consonant because they used z for the dental affricate, but this says nothing about the
quality of this sound in Hittite.
48
Hoffner and Melchert, Grammar of the Hittite Language, 1:39.
49
Hoffner and Melchert, Grammar of the Hittite Language, 1:39. However, it could also represent a
pharyngeal fricative.
50
The case of Ugaritic ḥtṯ, in which Ugaritic ḥ renders Hittite ḫ, is somewhat unusual, but it is
perhaps significant that Hittite ḫattuš (the source of Ugaritic ḥtṯ) is in turn a loan from Hattic.
267
Nasals and Liquids
The Hittite nasal m is unrepresented in the present corpus. The one example of
Hittite n is rendered as Semitic n. The Hittite liquids l and r are represented as Semitic l
and r, respectively. Hittite scribes regularly distinguish between single and double
nasal and liquid consonants,51 but all the representations in the present corpus are of
non-geminated consonants.
Semi-Vowels
The Hittite semi-vowels w and y are unattested in the present corpus.
Hurrian
Hurrian: Hebrew: Ugaritic: Phoenician: Old Aramaic:
f b1 w,2 p3
ḫ ˁ4 ḫ,5 ǵ6
k k,7 g,8 q9 k,10 g11 g12
l l13
m m14
n n15 n16
p p17 p,18 b19
r r20 r21
22 23 24 25 26 27
š š, s ṯ, š, s, z s28
t d29 t,30 d31
w
y y32 y,33 0̸34
z
1 2 3 4 5 6
‫כּוֹבע‬
ַ֫ kdwṯ, kndwṯ kndpnṯ ‫כּוֹבע‬,
ַ blḫdr, ḫbrṯ, ḫptr, ḫršḫ, nḫt ˀušpǵt, mndǵ, pǵdr,
7 8 9 10 11 12
pǵndr, tǵpṯ ‫כּוֹבע‬,
ַ֫ ‫ִכּידוֹן‬ ‫ַאגָּ ן‬ ‫קוֹבע‬
ַ kdwṯ, kndwṯ, kndpnṯ, kld, ktp¸ tbk ˀagn, grbz ‫אגן‬
13 14 15 16 17
ˀall, blḫdr, kld, ṯrml mndǵ, mṯyn, ṯrml ‫כּידוֹן‬,ִ ‫ס ִדין‬,
ָ ‫ס ְריוֹן‬,
ִ ‫ִשׁ ְריוֹן‬ mndǵ, mṯyn, nḫt, ṯryn
18 19 20 21
‫א ְשׁ ָפּה‬,
ַ ‫סף‬ ˀušpǵt, ˀuṯpt, ḫptr, ktp, pǵdr, pǵndr, tǵpṯ blḫdr, grbz, ḫbrṯ, tbk ‫ס ְריוֹן‬,
ִ ‫ִשׁ ְריוֹן‬
22 23 24
blḫdr, grbz, ḫbrṯ, ḫptr, ḫršḫ, pǵdr, pǵndr, ṯryn, ṯrml ‫א ְשׁ ָפּה‬,
ַ ‫ִשׁ ְריוֹן‬ ‫ס ִדין‬,
ָ ‫סף‬,
ַ ‫ס ֶפל‬,
ֵ ‫ִס ְריוֹן‬ ˀuṯpt,
25 26 27 28 29
ḫbrṯ, kdwṯ, kndwṯ, kndpnṯ, mṯyn, ṯryn, ṯrml, tǵpṯ ˀušpǵt, ḫršḫ sp, spl ˀaz, grbz ‫סף‬
30 31 32
‫כּידוֹן‬,ִ ‫ָס ִדין‬ ḫptr, ktp, nḫt, tbk, tǵpṯ blḫdr, kdwṯ, kndwṯ, kndpnṯ, kld, mndǵ, pǵdr, pǵndr
33 34
‫ס ְריוֹן‬,
ִ ‫ִשׁ ְריוֹן‬ mṯyn, ṯryn ˀaz
51
Hoffner and Melchert, Grammar of the Hittite Language, 1:39.
268
Hurrian is characterized by consonant pairing for all non-sonorant consonants,
and the distribution of voiced or unvoiced consonants follows a positional pattern. A
single consonant is unvoiced and short whereas a double consonant is also unvoiced
but long. In certain positions—intervocalic position, position next to a sonorant, and
final position—a single consonant can become a voiced allophone.52 Due to Hurrian’s
lack of a voiced-voiceless distinction apart from position, one finds a variety of ways
that the Hurrian non-sonorant consonants appear in Northwest Semitic.
Stops
The velar k appears most commonly as k in initial positions and g in medial
intervocalic positions,53 but it appears once as q in initial position, once as g in initial

position, and once as k in medial position. At least one case exhibits variance of the
velar’s representation within the same language (Hebrew ‫כּוֹבע‬,

ַ֫ ‫)קוֹבע‬.
ַ The labial p
appears as both p and b in initial and medial positions. In several instances, medial p
reflects gemination (Ugaritic ḫptr, ktp).54 Lastly, the dental t appears as t in medial
position and as d in medial position.55
Affricates
The Hurrian affricate z does not appear in the present corpus.
Fricatives
The precise nature of the Hurrian fricative š is uncertain, in part because of its
52
Ilse Wegner, Einführung in die hurritische Sprache (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000), 39-41; Gernot
Wilhelm, “Hurrian,” in The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor (ed. Roger D. Woodard; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2008), 84.
53
Cf. Frederic William Bush, “A Grammar of the Hurrian Language” (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University,
1964), 51.
54
Cf. Bush, “Grammar of the Hurrian Language,” 50-51.
55
Cf. Bush, “Grammar of the Hurrian Language,” 51.
269
varying representations in cuneiform.56 In Northwest Semitic it also appears in a
number of different ways in initial, medial, and final position: ṯ and š, s, and z. At least
one case exhibits variance within the same language (Hebrew ‫ס ְריוֹן‬,ִ ‫)שׁ ְריוֹן‬.
ִ
The Hurrian velar fricative ḫ appears in several different ways in the present
corpus. Initial ḫ and double intervocalic ḫḫ appear as ḫ, whereas single intervocalic ḫ
appears as ˁ (Hebrew) and ǵ (Ugaritic).57
The labial fricative constitutes a third labial range in addition to the labial stop p
and the semi-vowel w. Its existence in Hurrian is demonstrated by alternation between
b/p and w in writing.58 There are only two representations of the labial fricative in the
present corpus: Hebrew ‫כּוֹבע‬, ַ and Ugaritic kdwṯ, kndwṯ, kndpnṯ.59
Nasals and Liquids
The Hurrian nasals m and n appear as m and n, respectively, in initial, medial,
and final positions. The Hurrian liquids l and r are regularly represented in the present
corpus as l and r, respectively. Hurrian l and r are rare in pre-vocalic position but
commonly occur in post-vocalic position,60 and all the examples from the present
corpus (with the exception of Ugaritic ḫršḫ) fall into the latter category.
56
Wilhelm, “Hurrian,” 85. Bush and Wilhelm contend that Hurrian possessed a sibilant phoneme s in
addition to š and z (Bush, “Grammar of the Hurrian Language,” 57-61; Wilhelm, “Hurrian,” 84-85).
Wegner and Diakonoff, however, do not list s as a distinct phoneme in light of the uncertain evidence
(Wegner, Einführung in die hurritische Sprache, 40; I.M. Diakonoff, Hurrisch und Urartäisch [trans. Karl
Sdrembek; Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft: Beiheft 6; Munich: R. Kitzinger], 52-53).
Accordingly, no consonant s is presumed here.
57
Cf. Bush, “Grammar of the Hurrian Language,” 78-79.
58
Bush, “Grammar of the Hurrian Language,” 72-73.
59
Even though there is only one attested form in Hurrian (kuwaḫi), Hebrew ‫כּוֹבע‬, ַ presumably
reflects a labial fricative because the Hurrian, Hittite, and Hebrew forms alternate between w, p, and b,
respectively. The alternation between w and p in Ugaritic kdwṯ, kndwṯ, kndpnṯ likewise points to the
existence of the labial fricative.
60
Bush, “Grammar of the Hurrian Language,” 81.
270
Semi-Vowels
The Hurrian semi-vowel w is unattested in the present corpus. The semi-vowel y
appears in Northwest Semitic as y in initial and medial position. In the case of Ugaritic
ˀaz the consonant y is omitted, probably due its final position.61
Greek
There are few examples of Greek loans into Northwest Semitic for this corpus.
Concerning the stops, the Greek labials β and π correspond to Semitic b and p,
respectively;62 the dental τ corresponds to Semitic d;63 the Greek velar κ twice
corresponds to Semitic k64 and once appears as Semitic q;65 Greek φ corresponds to
Semitic p.66 The Greek nasals μ and ν appear as Semitic m and n, respectively.67 Lastly,
the liquids λ and ρ correspond to Semitic l and r, respectively.68
The consonant cluster rˀi in Ugaritic rˀidn, borrowed from Greek ῥυτόν, is
somewhat unusual. The usage of the ˀ may constitute a mater lectionis or may reflect
Semitic speakers’ attempts to replicate the rough breathing associated with the liquid.69
Indo-Iranian
Similar to the preceding section, there are few examples of Indo-Iranian loans in
Northwest Semitic for the present corpus. The only Indic loans are Hebrew ‫א ָהלוֹת‬,
ֲ
61
The deictic particle -anni has been omitted, leaving y in final position.
62
Hebrew ‫ ; ַל ִפּיד‬Ugaritic bk.
63
Ugaritic rˀidn.
64
Hebrew ‫ ;פּוְּך‬Ugaritic bk.
65
Hebrew ‫קנָּ מוֹן‬.
ִ
66
Hebrew ‫פּוְּך‬.
67
Hebrew ‫;קנָּ מוֹן‬
ִ Ugaritic rˀidn. In the case of Hebrew ‫ל ִפּיד‬,ַ the nasal μ has assimilated.
68
Hebrew ‫ ַ;ל ִפּיד‬Ugaritic rˀidn.
69
Generally speaking, Ugaritic ˀi is used to indicate ˀ followed by an i-class vowel or a syllable-final ˀ.
However, there are exceptions to this rule. See Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee, A Manual of Ugaritic
(Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 3; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 23-24.
271
‫ ֲא ָה ִלים‬and ‫ר ֶסן‬.ֶ The Indic velar g/k70 appears in weakened form as the laryngeal h; such a
phenomenon is relatively common in linguistics (e.g., Grimm’s Law71). The Indic sibilant
s/ś72 appears as Semitic s. The Indic liquid r/l73 appears as Semitic l and r; lastly, the Indic
nasal n appears as Semitic n. There are no Iranian loans in the present corpus.
Conclusions
Generally speaking, there are predictable consonantal correspondences
between Northwest Semitic and the above languages. 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.74 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 should be expected.
As just noted, chronology constitutes one possible explanation for varying
70
The velar alternates between g and k in extant Indic forms: Sanskrit agaru, aguru, Prākrit agaru,
agaluya, Pāli agalu, aggalu, akalu, and Hindi agar, agur.
71
Cf., for example, Latin centum and English hundred.
72
The sibilant alternates between s and ś in extant Indic forms: Sanskrit raśanā, Prakit rasaṇā, Pāli and
rasanā.
73
For Hebrew ‫א ָהלוֹת‬, ֲ the liquid alternates between r and l in extant Indic forms meaning
ֲ ‫א ָה ִלים‬,
“agarwood, aloewood”: Sanskrit agaru, aguru, Prākrit agaru, agaluya, Pāli agalu, aggalu, akalu, and Hindi
agar, agur. For Hebrew ‫ר ֶסן‬,ֶ the liquid r consistently appears as r: Sanskrit raśanā, Prakit rasaṇā, Pāli and
rasanā.
74
Lyle Campbell, Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (2d ed.; Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004), 67-68; Hans
Henrich Hock and Brian D. Joseph, Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship: An
Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics (2d ed.; Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs
218; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009), 248-249.
272
consonantal correspondences. Unfortunately, the linguistic data of the present corpus
only indicate when a word entered Northwest Semitic for very few terms, and in these
cases the established date is only a general terminus ante quem (Hebrew ‫אטוּן‬,
ֵ ‫ה ְבנִ ים‬,ָ ‫חוֹ ָתם‬,
‫ט ַ֫בּ ַעת‬,
ַ ‫ק ַלּ ַחת‬,ַ ‫שׁ ָטּה‬, ַ Phoenician ‫חתם‬, ‫ ;טבעת‬Ugaritic hbn, qlḫt). Due to the lack of
ִ ‫;תּ ְח ָרא‬
clear evidence for when most of the words are borrowed and the possibility of other
explanations for varying consonantal correspondences (e.g., dialect or orthography), it
is not possible to determine how consonantal correspondences may have changed over
time.
Phonological and Morphological Adoption and Innovation

General trends regarding phonological and morphological adoption and
innovation are discussed below.
Glottal Stop as Vowel Marker
In a number of instances, Semitic ˀ clearly marks a vowel at the beginning of the
word (e.g., Hebrew ‫א ָהלוֹת‬, ֲ Ugaritic ˀall). This does not indicate any kind of
ֲ ‫;א ָה ִלים‬
consonantal correspondence and simply reflects the presence of an initial vowel. In
other cases, the existence of an initial vowel is unattested in the donor term but is
presumably present based on the existence of a prothetic ˀ (Hebrew ‫א ְבנֵ ט‬,

ַ ‫;א ְח ָל ָמה‬
ַ
Ugaritic ˀiqnˀu).75 In at least one instance (Ugaritic ḫršḫ), the initial vowel is left
unrepresented.
Terms with medial or final ˀ likewise reflect a vowel rather than representing a
foreign consonant (Hebrew ‫ ֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬, ‫פּ ֵאר‬, ַ The medial ˀ of Hebrew ‫ ְתּ ַאשּׁוּר‬and Ugaritic
ְ ‫)תּ ְח ָרא‬.
tˀišr also functions as a vowel marker, reflecting the Hittite diphthong ie.
75
However, in the case of ˀiqnˀu the prothetic ˀ could be explained as an attempt to semitize a foreign
word by making it conform to the ˀqtl-nominal pattern, a pattern used for color terms in several Semitic
languages.
273
Segolate-Pattern Nouns
If a donor term had no vowel between the second and third consonants (CvCC-),
Northwest Semitic speakers most often adapted it as a segolate-pattern noun (e.g.,
Hebrew ‫)ח ֶרשׂ‬.

ֶ In at least one case, the segolate-form of the noun is preserved in the
plural form (Hebrew ‫)תּ ָר ִפים‬.

ְ
Gemination
Gemination is generally represented as such by the recipient language (e.g.,
Hebrew ‫חתּוּל‬,ִ ‫)קנָּ מוֹן‬.

ִ However, not all of the donor languages examined (e.g., Egyptian)
and not all of the recipient languages examined (e.g., Ugaritic) orthographically
represent gemination, so it is not always possible to tell if gemination is represented.
Nasal Assimilation and Dissimilation
Assimilation of the nasals m or n is attested in several terms (Hebrew ‫שׁ ָטּה‬,

ִ ‫ַ;ל ִפּיד‬
Ugaritic pǵdr, pǵndr). Assimilation is not always represented consistently, however, as
the example of Ugaritic pǵdr, pǵndr demonstrates.
In at least one case, dissimilation is evident: the second n of Ugaritic kndpnṯ
presumably reflects dissimilation of the Hurrian suffix –šše. Dissimilation does not
occur, however, in the related forms kdwṯ and kndwṯ.
Case Endings
Words are almost always borrowed using the most commonly used form in the
borrowing language. This includes the case ending as well as the nominal stem. It is to
be expected, therefore, that the majority of loanwords preserve the case endings of the
donor language.
The most commonly used case in Indo-European is the accusative case, which
indicates a direct object of a transitive verb but can also function adverbially. Nearly all
274
of the Hittite loans in the present corpus are from Hittite neuter nouns in stems (i.e., i-,
r-, and r/n-stems) that use -0̸ to mark the nominative-accusative case.76 The few Greek
loans in the present corpus are ambiguous and may or may not present the accusative
ending.77 Likewise, it is difficult to evaluate the presence or absence of case endings of
the few Indo-Iranian loans in the present corpus because only the general language
family (Indic or Iranian) rather than specific language (e.g., Sanskrit or Old Persian) is
certain.78
In Hurrian, the most commonly used case is the absolutive, used as the subject
of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb. The Hurrian loans considered
in this corpus contain no special marker, reflecting the absolutive singular marker -0̸.
Egyptian only marks its nouns for gender and number. The majority of Egyptian
loans, not surprisingly, are from the singular form of the donor term and preserve the
Egyptian masculine singular (-0̸) or feminine singular endings (-t). Hebrew ‫ ָ֫אחוּ‬and
Aramaic ‫אחו‬, borrowed from Egyptian ȝḫ, presumably preserve the Egyptian masculine
76
The exceptions are ḥtṯ (a frozen form borrowed from Hattic via Hittite ḫattuš) and ḫndlt (a
feminized form of Hittite ḫandala). Because Hittite ḫattuš is a frozen form and because the final –t of ḫndlt
effectively hides the case ending, it is understandable why the accusative case ending is not represented
in these cases. In the case of Ugaritic dǵṯ, borrowed from Hittite tuḫḫueššar, the final –r is probably
omitted because the final –r of abstracts ending in –eššar and –atar is often omitted in writing and was
probably also sometimes omitted in speech. Alternatively, it is possible that Hittite tuḫḫuiš (the
nominative form of Hittite tuḫḫuwai, tuḫḫui) is the donor term and that Ugaritic dǵṯ has been borrowed
from a nominative (rather than accusative) form.
77
The final –n of two of the Northwest Semitic forms (Hebrew ‫;קנָּ מוֹן‬
ִ Ugaritic rˀidn) is ambiguous and
could represent the second declension nominative singular or accusative singular endings (both –ον) or
the second declension genitive plural ending (-ῶν). The lack of any marker for Hebrew ‫ ַל ִפּיד‬and ‫ פּוְּך‬is
likewise ambiguous: it could reflect the third declension accusative singular ending (either –α or -0̸), but
it could also reflect the dative singular (–ι), nominative plural or accusative plural (–α), or no case ending
at all. Ugaritic bk does not preserve the expected accusative ending –ον (cf. Greek βῖκος). This may be
due to Northwest Semitic speakers’ desire to make this word appear onomatopoeic; alternatively,
perhaps bk is entirely onomatopoeic and not a loan from Greek at all (see the entry for Ugaritic bk).
78
Historically, Proto-Indo-European had two genders: animate and inanimate. The former eventually
split into two (masculine and feminine) and the latter became the neuter gender. All three of these are
present in the Indo-Iranian languages. Generally speaking, Indo-Iranian accusative nouns are marked
with –m (masculine or feminine nouns) or -0̸ (neuter nouns). It is conceivable that the terms for realia in
the present corpus, being inanimate objects, were borrowed from neuter (i.e., inanimate) Indo-Iranian
nouns marked with 0̸. However, this is impossible to prove given the present evidence.
275
plural ending –w.79
In conclusion, many of the donor terms lack any distinctive final marker
indicative of case. This could be interpreted as evidence that Northwest Semitic
speakers did not adopt case endings along with the nominal stem. However, given
expected practices of linguistic borrowing as well as the occasional clear evidence for
the adoption of case endings in the present corpus, it would seem that Northwest
Semitic speakers largely did adopt case endings along with the nominal stem.
Unfortunately, because we do not know the precise relationship between spoken forms
and written forms in most instances, certainty on this issue is obscured.
The Feminine Singular Ending
At least two words were adopted as feminine nouns even though there was no
explicit marker (e.g., final –t) to cause Northwest Semitic speakers to think it was
feminine (Ugaritic ˀušpǵt, ḫndlt). Hebrew ‫ ָע ָרה‬could also fall into this category, if indeed
it is a loan from Egyptian ˁr, although it is also possible that the donor term is ˁr.t and is
simply not attested earlier.
The presence of the feminine ending –t in Egyptian loans points to a borrowing
prior to the mid-second millennium BCE. Cuneiform evidence indicates that the final –t
had been lost in Egyptian prior to this time,80 so words that preserve this ending
(Hebrew ‫ ַט ַ֫בּ ַעת‬and Phoenician ‫ ;טבעת‬Hebrew ‫ ַק ַלּ ַחת‬and Ugaritic qlḫt) must have been
borrowed before the feminine ending was dropped in Egyptian. Moreover, unless the
79
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 238; Thomas O. Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in
the Old Testament,” JAOS 73 (1953): 146. Notably, Ugaritic ˀaḫ does not preserve the final –w.
80
Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords, 270-271. Unfortunately, no specific study on the loss
of the feminine ending –t in Egyptian exists. This phenomenon occurs already during the Old Kingdom,
primarily with the adjective nb in place of nbt after feminine nouns. By the Middle Kingdom, this had
extended to feminine nouns as well, although the ending was retained in nouns with pronominal
suffixes. See Alan H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs (3d ed.;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957), 34. The loss of the ending probably indicates that the vowel
preceding it was more a sign of the feminine than the t (James P. Allen, personal communication,
December 12, 2011).
276
feminine ending was simply ignored, Egyptian words without final –t must reflect a
later borrowing after the ending was dropped. Most of these lack representation of the
feminine ending (Hebrew ‫גָּ ִב ַיע‬, ‫דּיוֹ‬,ְ ‫ח ִֹרי‬, ‫טנֶ א‬,

ֽ ֫ ֶ ‫ל ֶשׁם‬,ֶ ‫)נ ֶֹפְך‬, whereas others represent it with
the native feminine ending, which probably simply reflects a final a-vowel (Hebrew
‫א ְח ָל ָמה‬,
ַ ‫שׁ ָטּה‬, ֵ 81
ִ ‫)תּ ָבה‬.
Deictic Particles
Northwest Semitic speakers sometimes borrowed the Hurrian deictic particle –
ַ Ugaritic ˀagn; Phoenician ‫)אגן‬.82

anni along with Hurrian words (e.g., Hebrew ‫;אגָּ ן‬
However, the deictic –anni is not always present, because it was not part of the word
itself.
Semitic Endings
In at least one instance, Northwest Semitic speakers added the individualizing
suffix –ān/-ōn when borrowing a word for plant terminology (Hebrew ‫;ק ָיקיוֹן‬
ִ cf. Hebrew
‫ ַאגְ מוֹן‬and Ugaritic dprn).
Plural Forms
Hebrew speakers sometimes borrowed a word in the plural form, presumably
understanding it as a plurale tantum. Notably, this phenomenon only occurs in biblical
Hebrew, at least in the present corpus (‫ ֲא ָהלוֹת‬and ‫א ָה ִלים‬,

ֲ ‫א ְל ֻמגִּ ים‬, ְ 83
ַ ‫ה ְבנִ ים‬,ָ ‫)תּ ָר ִפים‬.
81
Hebrew ‫ ָע ָרה‬could fall into either category, depending on whether it is a loan from Egyptian ˁr or
ˁr.t.
82
In such cases, the deictic –anni also typically appears in cuneiform representations of the word. In
at least one case, however, the deictic –anni is omitted (Ugaritic ˀaz) when it appears in Akkadian
(aššianni).
83
Notably, two of these same terms occur elsewhere in Northwest Semitic in the singular, not plural,
form (Ugaritic ˀalmg, hbn).
277
Conclusions
In most cases, Northwest Semitic speakers adopted the vocalization pattern of
the donor term with few changes;84 Northwest Semitic speakers also frequently adapted
the morphological pattern of the donor term with few changes. Seeming
inconsistencies (e.g., assimilation and dissimilation) may be attributed to any number
of factors, such as chronology, dialect, or differing orthographical practices. As with
consonant correspondences, no clear pattern of diachronic development vis-à-vis
adaptation and innovation emerges in the present corpus.
Historical Contact
The semantic content of the present corpus’ loanwords reveals much about
historical and cultural contact between Northwest Semitic speakers and other regions
of the ancient world. As discussed previously (Chapter 2), loanwords for realia are most
often introduced along with the material culture they represent. Based on the types of
words borrowed and what languages and regions they originate from, one can also
draw general conclusions on what aspects of material culture were typically borrowed
from different regions in the ancient Near East. The discussion in this section
summarizes this data according to region. Readers may also refer to Appendix C
(“Geographical Origins of Realia”) for a map depicting the origin of many of the terms
discussed below.
Egypt
Egypt was known for its precious materials, particularly gemstones, ivory,
African blackwood, and gold. This is evident from the adoption of numerous terms for
these precious materials (Hebrew ‫א ְח ָל ָמה‬,

ַ ‫ ָה ְבנִ ים‬, ‫כּ ֶתם‬,ֶ ‫ל ֶשׁם‬,ֶ ‫נ ֶֹפְך‬, ‫;שׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬
ֶ Ugaritic hbn) as
84
Of course, secondary phonological developments sometimes occurred after borrowing (e.g.,
Canaanite shift), producing different vocalization patterns.
278
well as gold-working technology (Hebrew ‫)פּח‬.
ַ Egypt loaned several terms for reeds and
rushes (Hebrew ‫אחוּ‬,

ָ֫ ‫ ֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬, ‫סוּף‬, ‫;ע ָרה‬
ָ Ugaritic ˀaḫ; Aramaic ‫)אחו‬. Egypt, moreover,
influenced several regions—particularly Palestine—in scribal technology (Hebrew ‫דּיוֹ‬,ְ
‫חוֹתם‬,
ָ ַ Phoenician ‫חתם‬, ‫)טבעת‬. A number of terms related to textiles and textile
‫;ט ַ֫בּ ַעת‬
production also originated from this region (Hebrew ‫א ְבנֵ ט‬,

ַ ‫אפֹד‬,
ֵ ‫מ ִשׁי‬,
ֶ ‫שׁשׁ‬,
ֵ ‫תּ ְח ָרא‬,
ַ ‫)תּ ַחשׁ‬.
ַ
Lastly, Egypt donated several terms for vessels to Northwest Semitic speakers (Hebrew
‫אח‬, ֽ ֫ ֶ ‫ ַ;ק ַלּ ַחת‬Ugaritic ˀirp, kw, qlḫt).

ַ ‫גָּ ִב ַיע‬, ‫טנֶ א‬,
Biblical Hebrew contains a much higher percentage of Egyptian loans than does
any other Northwest Semitic language of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. This is not
surprising in light of the geographical proximity of Egypt and Palestine and the close
relationships that existed between these two regions in antiquity (see Chapter 3).
Notably, many of these loans are found within the Joseph cycle or in texts pertaining to
the exodus and wilderness wanderings, particularly texts concerning the Israelite
tabernacle and its cult (Hebrew ‫א ְבנֵ ט‬,

ַ ‫אח‬,
ַ ‫א ְח ָל ָמה‬,
ַ ‫אפֹד‬, ֽ ֫ ֶ ‫ל ֶשׁם‬,ֶ ‫נ ֶֹפְך‬, ‫סוּף‬,
ֵ ‫בּד‬,ַ ‫גָּ ִב ַיע‬, ‫ח ִֹרי‬, ‫טנֶ א‬,
‫פּ ֵאר‬,
ְ ‫פּח‬,
ַ ‫שׁ ָטּה‬,
ִ ‫שׁשׁ‬,
ֵ ‫תּ ָבה‬,
ֵ ‫תּ ְח ָרא‬, ַ These portions of the biblical text have an
ַ ‫)תּ ַחשׁ‬.
Egyptian literary context,85 and along with other parallels, the linguistic data reflect
Egyptian influence on the Joseph cycle and wilderness traditions.86 Unfortunately, the
linguistic data provide no clues as to when specifically these terms entered biblical
Hebrew. However, it remains clear that the Joseph cycle and wilderness traditions have
drawn heavily from Egypt in terms of their vocabulary.
85
As noted earlier, the wilderness wandering narratives follow the narrative of the exodus, which
concerns the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt. Regardless of the historicity of the exodus and wilderness
wanderings, this places the wilderness wanderings and construction of the tabernacle within a setting
closely associated with Egypt. The materials of the tabernacle presumably originate (again, from a
literary perspective, regardless of issues of historicity) from the Israelites’ plundering of the Egyptians
(cf. Exod 11:2; 12:35-36), creating yet another literary link between this portion of the Pentateuch and
Egypt.
86
James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1996), 83-95; James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of
the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 209-234.
279
Anatolia and Mitanni
Anatolia and Mitanni were particularly known for strong timber (Hebrew
ַ ‫בּרוֹשׁ‬,ְ ‫גּ ֶֹפר‬, ‫;תּ ַאשּׁוּר‬

‫א ְל ֻמגִּ ים‬, ְ Ugaritic ˀalmg, dprn, tˀišr) as well as metals such as iron
(Hebrew ‫ ַ;בּ ְרזֶ ל‬Phoenician ‫ )ברזל‬and silver (Ugaritic ḥtṯ) in antiquity. These regions also
donated a number of terms for manufactured items. Many terms for military
equipment, especially those associated with the Hurrians (Hebrew ‫א ְשׁ ָפּה‬,

ַ ‫כּידוֹן‬,ִ ‫כּוֹבע‬,
ַ֫
‫קוֹבע‬,
ַ ִ ‫ ִ;ס ְריוֹן‬Ugaritic ˀuṯpt, grbz, kld, ktp, ṯryn), derive from this region. These
‫שׁ ְריוֹן‬,
regions also contributed a notable number of vessel (Hebrew ‫אגָּ ן‬,

ַ ‫סף‬,ַ ‫ ֵ;ס ֶפל‬Ugaritic ˀagn,
ḫbrṯ, ḫptr, ḫršḫ, sp, spl; Phoenician ‫אגן‬, ‫ )סף‬and textile terms (Hebrew ‫ ָ;ס ִדין‬Ugaritic ˀaz,
ˀall, ˀušpǵt, blḫdr, kdwṯ, kndwṯ, kndpnṯ, pǵdr, pǵndr, tbk, tǵpṯ) to Northwest Semitic—
particularly Ugaritic—speakers. Lastly, the Hittites lent several words related to
religion and cult (Hebrew ‫;תּ ָר ִפים‬

ְ Ugaritic dǵṯ, ztr).
Not surprisingly, Ugaritic contains a much higher percentage of Hittite and
Hurrian loans than biblical Hebrew. This is largely due to the geographical proximity of
Ugarit to the territory occupied by the Hittites and Hurrians. As discussed earlier
(Chapter 3), close contacts between these peoples existed in antiquity. The linguistic
data, therefore, supports the historical data in this regard. However, there is a
noteworthy number of Hittite and Hurrian words in biblical Hebrew and Phoenician,
indicating that at least casual contacts existed in earlier periods.
The Aegean
There are only five examples of Greek loanwords in the present corpus: Ugaritic
bk, Hebrew ‫ל ִפּיד‬,ַ Hebrew ‫פּוְּך‬, Hebrew ‫קנָּ מוֹן‬,

ִ and Ugaritic rˀidn. Unfortunately, because
of the small number of Greek loans in the present corpus, it is difficult to tell what
types of products were traded with Greece.
The limited number of Greek loanwords in the present corpus, moreover, does
not permit many conclusions regarding contact between Greece and the Levant.
280
However, it is clear that early contact between these two regions did exist, and the
presence of Greek loans in Ugaritic demonstrate that one cannot assume a priori that a
Northwest Semitic text must be late simply because it contains a word borrowed from
Greek.87 Semitic peoples had many contacts with the Aegean as early as the Middle
Bronze Age, as discussed previously (Chapter 3). During this period, moreover, many
Semitic words entered Greek,88 so there is no reason to think that borrowing did not
occur in the opposite direction. Contact between the Aegean and the Levant may have
diminished after the Late Bronze Age, but it did not cease entirely, leaving various
opportunities for linguistic and historical contact.
Iran and East Asia

This study has demonstrated that many terms commonly argued to be
borrowed from Indo-Iranian languages such as Sanskrit are, in fact, Semitic or
borrowed from a more proximate geographical source. There are only two Indo-Iranian
loanwords in the present corpus: Hebrew ‫א ָהלוֹת‬,

ֲ ‫ ֲא ָה ִלים‬and Hebrew ‫ר ֶסן‬.ֶ Unfortunately,
it is difficult to know what types of products originated with Iran and East Asia given
the small number of Indo-Iranian loans in the present corpus.
This lack of Indo-Iranian loanwords can be contrasted with an abundance of
Indo-Iranian loanwords in Northwest Semitic texts from the Persian period onward.
This points to a greater level of contact between Northwest Semitic speakers and the
east after the Iron II period, which is to be expected given the rise of the Persian empire
during this time.
As was the case with Greek loans, this does not mean that there was no contact
between Northwest Semitic and Indo-Iranian speakers prior to the Persian period.
87
Cf. Ian Young and Robert Rezetko, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2 vols.; BibleWorld; Oakland,
Conn.: Equinox, 2008), 1:286-289.
88
Émilia Masson, “Greek and Semitic Languages: Early Contacts,” trans. Chris Markham in A History of
Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity (ed. Anastasios-Phoivos Christidis; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007), 733-737.
281
There are no clear linguistic indications, moreover, that the two Indo-Iranian
loanwords in the present corpus (Hebrew ‫ ֲא ָהלוֹת‬and ‫א ָה ִלים‬,

ֲ ‫ ֶ)ר ֶסן‬were borrowed after
the Iron II period. Accordingly, it is wrong to assume that a Northwest Semitic text
must date to the Persian period just because an Indo-Iranian word appears in the text.89
Opportunities for Further Research
The present study provides an open door to a wide array of opportunities for
future research.
First, scholars can utilize this study’s data for better translating and
interpreting the Northwest Semitic texts in which these foreign loanwords occur. At
the most basic level, this study offers more accurate translations for some of the
investigated terminology. The results of this study, moreover, have farther-reaching
implications for interpretation. Scholars could further investigate issues such as the
cultural associations of particular words and the impact that such associations have for
understanding the texts in which they occur.
Second, by building on the methodology of this study scholars can further
investigate additional foreign loanwords in the Semitic languages. The present corpus
could be expanded to incorporate additional terms in Northwest Semitic less
commonly discussed in the literature as well as new ones not yet identified. Personal
names or non-realia terminology could also be incorporated, providing more data for
phonological correspondences as well as evidence for historical contact. By adapting
this study scholars could also investigate the presence of foreign loanwords in other
Semitic languages such as Akkadian or Arabic, for example.
Third, the present study provides a significant starting point for those who wish
to examine particular aspects of historical contact between Northwest Semitic speakers
89
Cf. Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, 1:296-298.
282
and other cultures. Noting what regions were in contact and what products tended to
come from a particular region, historians and archaeologists could compare their finds
with the linguistic data.
Lastly, the present study has use for specialists of the non-Semitic languages
examined, especially Egyptian, Hittite, and Hurrian. Not much is known about the
phonology of these languages when compared with what is known of Northwest
Semitic. In many cases, the phonological correspondences discussed in this study
reveal more about the phonemes of Egyptian, Hittite, and Hurrian than those of
Northwest Semitic. The data collected, therefore, should provide specialists with a
better understanding of these non-Semitic languages’ phonology.
Conclusion
The present study sought to examine terminology for realia in the corpus of
Northwest Semitic during the latter Late Bronze Age and the Iron I and Iron II periods
(ca. 1400-600 BCE). The phonology, typology, and general distribution patterns of these
words were investigated through compilation of an annotated lexicon of loan
hypotheses, the bulk of this study. These data provide valuable insight into linguistic
and historical contact in the ancient Near East. However, much research in the field of
Semitic language contact remains to be done. Hopefully, some will rise to this task and
continue to enhance our knowledge of Semitic texts and the world in which they were
written.
283
Appendix A
Glossary of Linguistic Terminology and Languages
This appendix provides definitions for the linguistic terminology and languages
referred to in this study.
Afroasiatic languages: a language family utilized by inhabitants of Africa and Asia; it

includes the Egyptian, Semitic, Berber, Cushitic, and Chadic languages
Akkadian: an East Semitic language utilized by the Assyrians and Babylonians of

ancient Mesopotamia during the third through first millennia BCE
Ammonite: a Northwest Semitic language utilized by the people of Ammon in the

Transjordan during the first millennium BCE
Amorite: a Northwest Semitic language utilized in the ancient Levant; at present it is

only attested in the form of non-Akkadian personal names recorded by Akkadian
scribes during periods of Amorite rule in Mesopotamia
Arabic: a Central Semitic language primarily utilized by the inhabitants of northern and
central Arabia
Aramaic: a Northwest Semitic language originally utilized by Aramaean tribes in Syria

beginning with the first millennium BCE
Armenian: an independent Indo-European language utilized by the inhabitants of what

is now modern Armenia and first attested in the mid-first millennium CE
Bactrian: an East Middle Iranian language utilized in the region of ancient Bactria, what
is now part of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan in the modern Middle East
Biblical Aramaic: an Aramaic dialect used by Jews to record portions of the books of
Ezra and Daniel in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible
calque (loan translation): a lexeme that translates the word-for-word meaning (but not
the phonetic form) of a term from another language
Caucasian languages: a language family utilized by the inhabitants of the Caucasus

region; it includes the Kartvelian (e.g., Georgian and Svan), Northwest Caucasian (e.g.,
Kabardian), and Northeastern Caucasian (e.g., Chechen, Avar, and Lezgian) languages
Central Semitic: a branch of the West Semitic group of languages that includes
Northwest Semitic (Ugaritic, Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic), Old South Arabian, and
Arabic
284
Chadic languages: an African language family of languages primarily utilized by the
inhabitants of western Africa
Christian Palestinian Aramaic: a western dialect of Aramaic utilized by Aramaic-

speaking Christians in the land of Palestine during the first millennium CE
code-switching: the alternation between two languages in the same discourse by

bilingual speakers
Coptic: a Late Egyptian language primarily utilized by Christian Egypt beginning ca. 300
CE; it was superseded in Egypt by Arabic from the ninth century CE onward but
continues to be used as the liturgical language of the Coptic church in Egypt
culture word (Kulturwort or Wanderwort): a lexical item for which no ultimate lexical
provenance, or even the direction and process of its borrowing between languages, can
be assigned
Demotic: a Late Egyptian language primarily utilized in the administration and

literature of ancient Egypt ca. 800 BCE-600 CE
direct loanword: a lexeme directly borrowed from one language into another (L1→L2)
donor language: the language that is the source of a borrowed lexeme, sometimes
designated as L1
Dravidian languages: a language family primarily utilized in southern India and

attested from the first millennium BCE into the present; it includes languages such as
Tamil, Malayalam, Kannaḍa, and Telegu
Eblaite: an East Semitic language utilized by the inhabitants of ancient Ebla (Tel
Mardikh), located in northwestern Syria, during the third millennium BCE
East Semitic: a branch of the Semitic languages, distinct from West Semitic, that
includes Akkadian and Eblaite
Edomite: a Northwest Semitic language utilized by the people of Edom in the

Egyptian: an Afroasiatic language utilized by the inhabitants of ancient Egypt beginning

with the fourth millennium BCE
Ethiopic (Geˁez): a Central Semitic language utilized in ancient Ethiopia beginning ca.
500 BCE and later adopted by the Kingdom of Aksum during the first millennium CE
foreign loan: see non-Semitic loan
285
foreign word (Fremdwort): a non-native lexeme that is not fully adapted into the
recipient language’s system and hence remains recognizable as a loanword to native
speakers
Fremdwort: see foreign word
Geˁez: see Ethiopic
Georgian: a Kartvellian (South Caucasian) language utilized primarily in the region of

Georgia and first attested in the mid-first millennium CE
Greek: an Indo-European language of the centum-branch primarily utilized by the

ancient inhabitants of the Greek mainland, Crete, and the Aegean islands (e.g., Lesbos,
Cos, Rhodes) and first attested beginning with the second millennium BCE
Harappan: a presently undeciphered language utilized by the inhabitants of the Indus

Valley civilization in northwestern India during the third and second millennia BCE;
because it is undeciphered its language affiliates are uncertain
Hattic: a non-Indo-European language utilized by the indigenous inhabitants of

Anatolia during the third and second millennia BCE
Havilite: a presently unattested, native language of the inhabitants of Havilah, located

in southwestern Arabia or northeastern Africa; because it is unattested its language
affiliates are uncertain
Hebrew: a Northwest Semitic language utilized by the people of ancient Israel and
Judah; it appears in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible (biblical Hebrew) and
various inscriptions of the first millennium BCE (inscriptional Hebrew)
Hittite: an Indo-European language utilized by the Hittites in central Anatolia during

the second millennium BCE
Hurrian: a language primarily utilized by the Hurrians in northern Mespotamia and

Syria during the second millennium BCE; its only known cognate language is Urartian
Imperial Aramaic (Official Aramaic): an Aramaic dialect utilized as an adminstrative

language by the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires during the first millennium
BCE
Indic: a sub-branch of the Indo-Iranian languages, in turn a branch of Indo-European; it

includes Old Indic (e.g., Sanskrit), Middle Indic (e.g., Prākrit, Pāli), and modern Indic
(e.g., Hindi, Punjabi, and Urdu) languages
286
Indo-European languages: a language family utilized primarily by the inhabitants of
Europe; it includes the Hitite and Luwian, Greek, Italic, Indo-Iranian, and Armenian
languages
Indo-Iranian languages: a branch of the Indo-European langages; it includes the Indic

and Iranian sub-branches
intra-Semitic loan: a loan borrowed from one Semitic language into another Semitic
language
Iranian: a sub-branch of the Indo-Iranian languages, in turn a branch of Indo-European;

it includes Old Iranian (e.g., Old Persian, Avestan), Middle Iranian (e.g., Bactrian,
Pahlavi, Parthian, and Sogdian), and modern Iranian (e.g., Pahsto, Ossetic) languages
Jewish Aramaic: an Aramaic dialect utilized by Jews of the land of Palestine (Jewish
Palestinian Aramaic) and the diaspora (Jewish Babylonian Aramaic) during the late first
millennium BCE and the first millennium CE
Jibbali: see Shehri
Kannaḍa: a South Dravidian language primarily utilized by the inhabitants of ancient

southern India
Kartvellian languages: a southern branch of the Caucasian languages that includes

Georgian, Laz, and Svan
Kulturwort: see culture word
Latin: an Indo-European language of the centum-branch primarily utilized by the

inhabitants of ancient Italy and first attested in the first millennium BCE
Linear A: a presently undeciphered language primarily utilized by the Minoans of

ancient Crete during the early second millennium BCE; because it is undeciphered its
language affiliates are uncertain
Linear B: an early Greek language utilized by the Mycenaeans during the second
millennium BCE
loan translation: see calque
loanword: a lexeme borrowed from another language
Luwian: an Indo-European language primarily utilized in southern and southwestern

Anatolia during the second and first millennia BCE
287
Malay: a modern Austronesian language primarily utilized by the inhabitants of
Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, and Singapore
Malayalam: a South Dravidian language primarily utilized by the inhabitants of ancient

southern India
Mandaic: an eastern dialect of Aramaic utilized by adherents to the Mandaean religion

(a Gnostic sect) during the first millennium CE
Moabite: a Northwest Semitic language utilized by the people of Moab in the

New Persian: a modern West Iranian language primarily utilized by the inhabitants of
Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan
non-Semitic loan (foreign loan): a loan borrowed from a non-Semitic language into a
Semitic language
Northwest Semitic: a branch of West Semitic that includes Ugaritic, Hebrew,

Phoenician, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, and Aramaic
Nubian: a presently unattested, native language of the inhabitants of ancient Nubia in

northeastern Africa; its relationship to the later attested languages of Meroitic (ca. 300
BCE-400 CE), Old Nubian (ca. 700-1500 CE), and other north African languages is
uncertain
Official Aramaic: see Imperial Aramaic
Old Aramaic: a dialect of Aramaic utilized by various Aramaean city-states during the
early part of the first millennium BCE
Old Persian: an Old Iranian language utilized by the ancient western Iranian peoples of
Fārs and attested only in royal cuneiform inscriptions ca. 520-330 BCE
Old South Arabian: a Central Semitic language, divided into four main dialects (Sabaic,
Minaic, Qatabanic, and Hadramitic), utilized by the inhabitants of southwestern Arabia
Ophirite: a presently unattested, native language of the inhabitants of Ophir, a region

located near the southern shore of the Red Sea; because it is unattested its language
affiliates are uncertain
Ossetic: a modern East Iranian language primarily utilized in the central part of the
Caucasus region
Pahlavi: a West Middle Iranian collection of languages attested primarily in the Book
Pahlavi
288
Pāli: a dialect of Prākrit primarily utilized in early Buddhist documents
Palmyrene Aramaic: a western dialect of Aramaic utilized by the inhabitants of Palmyra

in northern Syria during the early first millennium CE
Parthian: a West Middle Iranian language utilized in Parthia, a region located in the
northeastern part of ancient Persia, ca. 300 BCE-300 CE
Phoenician: a Northwest Semitic language utilized by the people of ancient Phoenicia

and their colonies during the first millennium BCE
Prākrit: a Middle Indic collection of languages primarily attested in literary and

religious texts beginning with the latter part of the first millennium BCE
Pre-Hellenic: a language presumably utilized in Greece before the arrival of Indo-

European speakers; at present it is only attested in the form of personal names,
toponyms, and substrate words
Proto-Semitic: the proto-language of the Semitic languages; its separation from

Afroasiatic must have occurred before the third millennium BCE
Punic: a dialect of the Phoenician colony of Carthage, first attested during the sixth
century BCE
Punjabi: a modern Indic language utilized by the inhabitants of northwestern India and
northeastern Pakistan
Rabbinic Hebrew: a first millennium CE form of Hebrew utilized primarily in Jewish

religious texts such as the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Talmud
recipient language: the language into which a loanword is borrowed, sometimes

designated as L2
Sanskrit: an Old Indic language primarily attested in religious texts such as the Vedas,
which date as far back as ca. 1500 BCE
secondary-creation loanword: a lexeme that is reborrowed into the language from

which it originated (L1→L2→L1)
Shehri (Jibbali): a modern Central Semitic language utilized in the southwestern part of
modern Oman
single-word switch: a single lexeme that reflects the usage of an alternate language in a
discourse by a bilingual speaker
289
Sogdian: an East Middle Iranian language utilized in ancient Sogdiana, located in
modern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan
Sumerian: a language isolate primarily utilized by the kingdom of Sumer in southern

Mesopotamia during the late fourth to early second millennia BCE
Svan: a Kartvellian (South Caucasian) language utilized primarily in western Georgia
Syllabic Cypriot: a dialect of Greek, written with a syllabary graphically based on the
Cypro-Minoan script, utilized by Greek settlers in Cyprus during the first millennium
BCE
Syriac: an eastern dialect of Aramaic utilized during the first millennium CE
Tamil: a South Dravidian language primarily utilized by the inhabitants of southern

India and first attested during the late first millennium BCE
Tartessian: a presently undeciphered language primarily utilized by the inhabitants of

southern Iberia near Huelva during the first millennium BCE; because it is
undeciphered its language affiliates are uncertain
transmitted loanword: a lexeme transmitted between two languages via another

language (L1→L2→L3)
Tulu: a South Dravidian language primarily utilized by the inhabitants of ancient

southern India
Turkish: a language from the Turkic language family primarily utilized by the
inhabitants of the region of Turkey and first attested in the latter part of the first
millennium CE
Ugaritic: a Northwest Semitic language utilized by the inhabitants of Ugarit in northern

Syria during the second millennium BCE
Urartian: a language primarily utilized by the kingdom of Urartu along the upper Zab
Valley and around Lake Van during the early first millennium BCE; its only known
cognate language is Hurrian
Urdu: a modern Indic language utilized primarily in Pakistan and some parts of India
Wanderwort: see culture word
West Semitic: a Semitic family of languages, distinct from East Semitic, that includes
the Central Semitic (Ugaritic, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Old South Arabian, Arabic),
Ethiopic (Geˁez), and Modern South Arabian languages
290
Appendix B
Indices
The following two indexes summarize the basic data for the loanwords analyzed in this
study. The first, “Index of Loanwords,” provides a list of the loanwords discussed in this
study along with their corresponding donor language,1578 donor term, definition, and
page reference. The second, “Reverse Index of Loanwords,” provides a reverse index of
the loanwords discussed in this study arranged by the donor language.
1578
“N/A” denotes that there is no donor term because the word is Semitic rather than non-Semitic.
“?” indicates an uncertain donor term for one of several possible reasons: 1) the word is a culture word
and no known donor term exists, 2) only the general donor language family (e.g., Indic) and not the
specific donor language (e.g., Sanskrit) from which the word originated is known, or 3) the donor term
exists in a presently unattested or little understood language (e.g., Pre-Hellenic or “Havilite”).
291
Index of Loanwords
Page
Loanword: Donor Language/Family: Donor Term: Definition:
Reference:
‫ַא ְבנֵ ט‬ Egyptian bndw “sash, wrap” pp. 182-183
‫ַאגְ מוֹן‬ Sumerian (via Akkadian) AGAM “reed, rush” pp. 120-121
ַ ‫אגן‬, ˀagn
‫אגָּ ן‬, Hurrian aganni “basin” pp. 229-231
ˀadr Semitic N/A “a type of wood” pp. 121-122
‫א ָהלוֹת‬,
ֲ ‫ֲא ָה ִלים‬ Indic ? “agarwood, aloewood” pp. 122-124
ˀaz Hurrian aššiyi “textile edging” pp. 183-184
‫ַאח‬ Egyptian ˁḫ “brazier” pp. 231-232
ָ֫ ˀaḫ, ‫אחו‬
‫אחוּ‬, Egyptian ȝḫy, 3ḫ “sedge, reed; marsh, meadow” pp. 124-125
‫ַא ְח ָל ָמה‬ Egyptian ḫnm.t “red jasper” pp. 77-78
‫ֵאטוּן‬ Egyptian idmi.t “fine linen” pp. 184-185
ֶ ˀalgbṯ
‫א ְלגָּ ִבישׁ‬, CW ? “a dark-colored stone” pp. 78-80
ˀall Hurrian alali “cloak” pp. 185-186
‫ַא ְל ֻמגִּ ים‬ CW ? “a type of wood” pp. 126-127
‫ֲאנָ ְך‬ CW ? “tin, lead” pp. 53-55
ֵ ˀipd
‫אפֹד‬, Egyptian ifd “ephod” pp. 186-189
ˀiqnˀu, qnˀu CW ? “lapis lazuli” pp. 80-82
ַ ˀargmn, ˀirgmn
‫א ְרגָּ ָמן‬, CW ? “purple, purple cloth; tribute” pp. 189-190
ˀirp Egyptian irp “wine vessel” p. 232
ˀušpǵt Hurrian *ušpaḫḫi “a type of garment” pp. 191-192
ַ ˀuṯpt
‫א ְשׁ ָפּה‬, Hurrian išpati, išpanti “quiver” pp. 65-66
292
Page
Reference:
‫ַבּד‬ Semitic N/A “linen” pp. 192-193
‫ַבּד‬ Egyptian bḏȝ “pole” pp. 109-110
‫ְבּ ִדיל‬ Semitic N/A “tin” pp. 55-56
‫בּ ֫ד ֹ ַלח‬,ְ ‫בדלח‬ Havilite ? “bdellium” pp. 127-129
‫בּוּץ‬, ‫בץ‬ Semitic N/A “linen, fine fabric” pp. 193-194
‫֫בֹּ ַחן‬ Egyptian bḫn “greywacke” pp. 82-84
bk Greek βῖκος “jar, drinking bowl” p. 233
blḫdr Hurrian *pilaḫtare “spun cloth” p. 195
‫ְבּרוֹשׁ‬ CW ? “a type of juniper” pp. 129-130
‫בּ ְרזֶ ל‬,ַ ‫ברזל‬, brḏl Luwian *parzili “iron” pp. 56-58
‫בּ ֶ ֫ר ֶקת‬,ָ ‫ָ ֽבּ ְר ַקת‬ Semitic N/A “a shiny gem” pp. 84-85
‫גָּ ִב ַיע‬ Egyptian qbḥw, qbḥy.t “cup; cup-shaped candleholder” pp. 234-235
‫֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬ Egyptian qmȝ, qm, gmy “reed, rush” p. 131
‫גּ ֶֹפר‬ Pre-Hellenic ? “cypress (?)” p. 132
‫גָּ ְפ ִרית‬ Semitic N/A “sulfur, brimstone” pp. 85-87
‫גִּ ר‬ Semitic N/A “limestone, chalk” pp. 87-88
grbz Hurrian gurbiši “helmet” pp. 66-67
‫גַּ ְרזֶ ן‬ CW ? “axe, pickaxe” pp. 217-218
‫ְדּיוֹ‬ Egyptian ry.t “ink” pp. 177-178
dǵ Sumerian (via Akkadian) DUḪ “bran; draff, marc” pp. 37-38
dǵṯ Hittite tuḫḫeššar “incense-resin” p. 133
293
Page
Reference:
dprn Hurrian (via Akkadian) tabri “a type of juniper” pp. 134-135
‫ה ְבנִ ים‬,ָ hbn Egyptian hbn “Egyptian ebony, African blackwood” pp. 136-137
‫הד ֹם‬,ֲ hdm CW ? “footstool” pp. 46-48
ztr Hittite šittar “votive stele” pp. 168-169
ḥḏrt Sumerian (via Akkadian) ḪIZsar “lettuce” pp. 138-139
‫חוֹתם‬,
ָ ‫ח ֶֹ֫ת ֶמת‬, ‫חתם‬ Egyptian ḫtm, ḫtm.t “seal, signet ring” pp. 179-180
‫ֲחנִ ית‬ Semitic N/A “spear” pp. 67-68
‫ח ִֹרי‬ Egyptian ḥr.t, ḥry.t “cake” pp. 38-39
‫ֶח ֶרשׂ‬ Hittite ḫarši “earthenware vessel, potsherd” pp. 235-236
‫ח ֶֹשׁן‬ Semitic N/A “breastpiece, pectoral” pp. 169-170
‫ִחתּוּל‬ Hittite ḫuttulli “wool” pp. 196-197
ḥtṯ Hattic (via Hittite) ḫatt “silver” pp. 58-60
ḫbrṯ Hurrian ḫubruši “pot” pp. 236-237
ḫndlt Hittite ḫandala “linen wrap, linen bandage” p. 197
ḫndrṯ Ḫundrashite ? “Ḫundrashite plant” p. 139
ḫswn, ḫśwn CW ? “leafy vegetable” pp. 140-141
ḫptr Hurrian ḫuppataru, ḫuppatru “pot” pp. 237-238
ḫršḫ Hurrian aḫrušḫi “incense bowl” p. 238
ḫṯr Semitic N/A “winnowing fan, winnowing basket” pp. 218-219
‫ַט ַ֫בּ ַעת‬ Egyptian ḏbˁ.t “seal, signet ring” pp. 180-181
‫טוֹטפֹת‬,
ָ ‫ט ָֹטפֹת‬ Semitic N/A “phylactery, headband” pp. 170-171
294
Page
Reference:
‫ֶ ֫ ֽטנֶ א‬ Egyptian dni.t “basket” p. 239
‫יַ יִ ן‬ CW ? “wine” pp. 39-41
‫ָי ְֽשׁ ֵפה‬ Hurrian yašpi “jasper” pp. 88-89
‫ַכּד‬ CW ? “large jar” pp. 240-241
kdwṯ, kndwṯ, kndpnṯ Hurrian *kundifašše “neck scarf” pp. 198-199
kw Egyptian kb “vessel” pp. 241-242
‫כּוֹבע‬,
ַ Hurrian kuwaḫi “helmet” pp. 68-70
‫כּוֹס‬, ‫כס‬, ks CW ? “cup” pp. 242-243
kḥṯ CW ? “seat, throne” pp. 48-50
‫ִכּידוֹן‬ Hurrian kadinni “sword” pp. 70-71
‫ִכּיּוֹר‬ Urartian (via Akkadian) kiri “metal cauldron” pp. 243-244
‫ֵכּ ָילף‬ CW ? “axe, pick” pp. 219-220
giš
‫ִכּישׁוֹר‬ Sumerian (via Akkadian) * SUR “spindle” pp. 220-221
kld Hurrian *keldi “bow” pp. 71-72
‫כּמֹּן‬,ַ kmn CW ? “cumin” pp. 141-142
‫כּנּוֹר‬,ִ ‫כנר‬, knr CW ? “harp, lyre” pp. 110-112
‫כּ ֵסּא‬,ִ ‫כסא‬, ‫כרסא‬, ksˀu, kśˀu CW ? “seat, throne” pp. 50-51
‫ַכּף‬ Semitic N/A “incense pan” p. 172
kpsln CW ? “container, bowl” pp. 244-245
‫ַכּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬ Semitic N/A “instrument for ritual purification” pp. 172-174
krln Sumerian (via Akkadian) GÌR.LAM “container, basket” pp. 245-246
295
Page
Reference:
krsˀu, krśˀu, qrsˀu, krsn, krśn CW ? “skin, hide; skinbag” pp. 246-247
krpn CW ? “cup, goblet” p. 248
‫ֶכּ ֶתם‬ Ophirite ? “gold” pp. 60-62
ֹ ֫ ‫כּ‬,ֻ ‫כתן‬, ktn
‫תּנֶ ת‬ CW ? “tunic, shirt” pp. 199-201
ktp Hurrian kadabi “mace” pp. 72-73
‫ַל ִפּיד‬ Greek λαμπάς “torch; lightning” p. 222
‫ֶל ֶשׁם‬ Egyptian nšm.t “feldspar, amazonite” pp. 89-90
‫מזַ ח‬,
ֵ֫ ‫ָמזִ ַיח‬ Semitic N/A “belt, waistband” pp. 201-202
‫ַמזְ ֵלג‬ Semitic N/A “fork” pp. 223-224
‫ַמ ְח ָתּה‬ Semitic N/A “censer” p. 174
ַ ‫מטה‬, mṭ
‫מ ֶטּה‬, Semitic N/A “staff” pp. 224-225
‫ָמ ִטיל‬ Semitic N/A “long bar” pp. 225-226
‫ִמ ְכ ָבּר‬ Semitic N/A “altar grate, altar grating” pp. 175-176
mndǵ Hurrian *munduḫi “groats” p. 42
ַ mpḫ
‫מ ֻפּ ַח‬, Semitic N/A “bellows” p. 226
mrṯ CW ? “wine” pp. 43-44
Egyptian (Hebrew ‫)מ ִשׁי‬
ֶ msy (Hebrew ‫)מ ִשׁי‬
ֶ
ֶ mṯyn
‫מ ִשׁי‬, “a garment” pp. 202-203
Hurrian (Ugaritic mṯyn) maššiyanni (Ugaritic mṯyn)
nˀit CW ? “axe” pp. 74-75
nḫt Hurrian naḫḫidi “seat” p. 52
‫נ ֶֹפְך‬ Egyptian mfkȝ.t, mfk.t “turquoise” pp. 91-92
296
Page
Reference:
‫נ ֶֹפת‬, nbt Semitic N/A “bee honey” p. 44
‫נֶ ֶתר‬ Egyptian nṯri, ntri “natron” pp. 93-94
‫ָס ִדין‬ Hurrian satinni “fine cloth, fine garment” pp. 204-205
‫סוּף‬ Egyptian ṯwfy “papyrus, reed” pp. 143-144
ַ ‫סף‬, sp
‫סף‬, Hurrian sabi “bowl, basin” pp. 249-250
‫ַס ִפּיר‬ Semitic N/A “lapis lazuli” pp. 94-96
ֵ sbl
‫ס ֶפל‬, Hurrian sable “bowl” pp. 251-252
spsg, sbsg, spśg, śpśg Hittite zapzagi “a kind of stone” pp. 96-98
‫ע ֶֹפ ֶרת‬ CW ? “lead” pp. 62-63
ˁrgz CW ? “a type of plant” pp. 144-146
‫ָע ָרה‬ Egyptian ˁr, ˁr.t “reed” pp. 146-148
ǵprt Semitic N/A “cloak, outer garment” pp. 205-206
‫ְפּ ֵאר‬ Egyptian pry, pyr “headwrap, turban” pp. 206-207
‫פּוְּך‬ Greek φῦκος “kohl, eye paint” pp. 112-113
‫ַפּח‬ Egyptian pḫȝ, pḫ “trap, bird trap” pp. 113-114
‫ַפּח‬ Egyptian pḫȝ “metal plating, metal foil” pp. 63-64
‫ִפּ ְט ָדה‬ Nubian ? “peridot” pp. 98-99
ֶ ‫פלך‬, plk
‫פּ ֶלְך‬, CW ? “spindle” pp. 227-228
ְ bnn
‫פּנִ ינִ ים‬, CW ? “pearl” pp. 99-100
pǵdr, pǵndr Hurrian paḫandari “cover blanket, spread” pp. 207-208
‫ֶצ ֱא ִלים‬ Semitic N/A “bramble bush, thorny plant” pp. 148-149
297
Page
Reference:
‫ק ַבּ ַעת‬,ֻ ‫קבע‬, qbˁt Semitic N/A “cup” pp. 252-253
‫ִק ָדּה‬ Semitic N/A “a cassia-like plant” pp. 149-150
‫ִק ָיקיוֹן‬ Egyptian kȝkȝ, kyky “castor-oil plant” pp. 150-151
‫ק ַלּ ַחת‬,ַ qlḫt Egyptian qrḥ.t “pot, cooking pot” pp. 253-254
‫ִקנָּ מוֹן‬ Greek κιννάμωμον, κίνναμον “a cinnamon-like plant” pp. 152-154
‫יעה‬
ָ ‫ְק ִצ‬ Egyptian šsȝ.t, ẖsȝy.t “a cassia-like plant” pp. 154-155
‫ֶק ֶרן‬ Indo-European ? “horn” pp. 115-116
rˀidn Greek ῥυτόν “rhyton” pp. 254-255
‫רמּוֹן‬,ִ lrmn CW ? “pomegranate” pp. 156-158
‫ֶר ֶסן‬ Iranian ? “bridle, rein” pp. 116-118
‫ְשׁבוֹ‬ Sumerian (via Akkadian) ŠUBA “a precious stone” p. 101
‫שׁוּשׁן‬,
ַ Egyptian sššn, sšn, ššn “water lily, Egyptian lotus” pp. 159-160
ְ ‫שחלי‬, šḥlt
‫שׁ ֵח ֶלת‬, CW ? “cress” pp. 161-162
‫ִשׁ ָטּה‬ Egyptian šnḏ.t, šnd.t, šnt.t, šnt “acacia, acacia wood” pp. 162-164
‫ָשׁ ִמיר‬ Semitic N/A “adamant, corundum” pp. 102-103
‫ֶשׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬ Nubian ? “ivory” pp. 103-105
‫ַשׁ ַע ְטנֵ ז‬ Semitic N/A “mixed cloth” pp. 208-210
‫שׁ ְריוֹן‬, ִ ṯryn
ִ ‫ס ְריוֹן‬, Hurrian šariyanni “scale armor, mail” pp. 75-76
‫ֵשׁשׁ‬ Egyptian šs “Egyptian linen” pp. 210-211
ššmn CW ? “sesame” pp. 164-166
ṯrml Hurrian *šarmallla, šarumelli “alabaster” pp. 105-106
298
Page
Reference:
ְ tˀišr
‫תּ ַאשּׁוּר‬, Hittite tieššar “cypress, boxwood (?)” pp. 166-167
‫ֵתּ ָבה‬ Egyptian ḏbȝ.t “ark; basket” pp. 256-257
tbk Hurrian *tubki “a type of leather” pp. 211-212
‫ַתּ ְח ָרא‬ Egyptian dḥr “leather vest” pp. 212-213
‫ַתּ ַחשׁ‬ Egyptian ṯḥs “stretched leather” pp. 214-216
ִ ‫תרש‬, trṯ
‫תּירוֹשׁ‬, CW ? “grape; new wine” pp. 45-46
‫תּנּוּר‬,
ַ ‫תנור‬ CW ? “a type of oven” pp. 118-119
tǵpṯ Hurrian taḫḫapši “a type of material” pp. 216-217
‫ְתּ ָר ִפים‬ Hittite tarpi “teraphim, divinatory figurines” pp. 176-177
‫ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬ Tartessian ? “Spanish topaz, fool’s gold (?)” pp. 106-109
Reverse Index of Loanwords
Page
Donor Language/Family: Loanword: Donor Term: Definition:
Reference:
CW ֶ ˀalgbṯ
‫א ְלגָּ ִבישׁ‬, ? “a dark-colored stone” pp. 78-80
CW ‫ַא ְל ֻמגִּ ים‬ ? “a type of wood” pp. 126-127
CW ‫ֲאנָ ְך‬ ? “tin, lead” pp. 53-55
CW ˀiqnˀu, qnˀu ? “lapis lazuli” pp. 80-82
CW ַ ˀargmn, ˀirgmn
‫א ְרגָּ ָמן‬, ? “purple, purple cloth; tribute” pp. 189-190
CW ‫ְבּרוֹשׁ‬ ? “a type of juniper” pp. 129-130
CW ‫גַּ ְרזֶ ן‬ ? “axe, pickaxe” pp. 217-218
299
Page
Reference:
CW ‫הד ֹם‬,ֲ hdm ? “footstool” pp. 46-48
CW ḫswn, ḫśwn ? “leafy vegetable” pp. 140-141
CW ‫יַ יִ ן‬ ? “wine” pp. 39-41
CW ‫ַכּד‬ ? “large jar” pp. 240-241
CW ‫כּוֹס‬, ‫כס‬, ks ? “cup” pp. 242-243
CW kḥṯ ? “seat, throne” pp. 48-50
CW ‫ֵכּ ָילף‬ ? “axe, pick” pp. 219-220
CW ‫כּמֹּן‬,ַ kmn ? “cumin” pp. 141-142
CW ‫כּנּוֹר‬,ִ ‫כנר‬, knr ? “harp, lyre” pp. 110-112
CW ‫כּ ֵסּא‬,ִ ‫כסא‬, ‫כרסא‬, ksˀu, kśˀu ? “seat, throne” pp. 50-51
CW kpsln ? “container, bowl” pp. 244-245
CW krsˀu, krśˀu, qrsˀu, krsn, krśn ? “skin, hide; skinbag” pp. 246-247
CW krpn ? “cup, goblet” p. 248
CW ֹ ֫ ‫כּ‬,ֻ ‫כתן‬, ktn
‫תּנֶ ת‬ ? “tunic, shirt” pp. 199-201
CW mrṯ ? “wine” pp. 43-44
CW nˀit ? “axe” pp. 74-75
CW ‫ע ֶֹפ ֶרת‬ ? “lead” pp. 62-63
CW ˁrgz ? “a type of plant” pp. 144-146
CW ֶ ‫פלך‬, plk
‫פּ ֶלְך‬, ? “spindle” pp. 227-228
CW ְ bnn
‫פּנִ ינִ ים‬, ? “pearl” pp. 99-100
CW ‫רמּוֹן‬,ִ lrmn ? “pomegranate” pp. 156-158
300
Page
Reference:
CW ְ ‫שחלי‬, šḥlt
‫שׁ ֵח ֶלת‬, ? “cress” pp. 161-162
CW ššmn ? “sesame” pp. 164-166
CW ִ ‫תרש‬, trṯ
‫תּירוֹשׁ‬, ? “grape; new wine” pp. 45-46
CW ‫תּנּוּר‬,
ַ ‫תנור‬ ? “a type of oven” pp. 118-119
Egyptian ‫ַא ְבנֵ ט‬ bndw “sash, wrap” pp. 182-183
Egyptian ‫ַאח‬ ˁḫ “brazier” pp. 231-232
Egyptian ָ֫ ˀaḫ, ‫אחו‬
‫אחוּ‬, ȝḫy, 3ḫ “sedge, reed; marsh, meadow” pp. 124-125
Egyptian ‫ַא ְח ָל ָמה‬ ḫnm.t “red jasper” pp. 77-78
Egyptian ‫ֵאטוּן‬ idmi.t “fine linen” pp. 184-185
Egyptian ֵ ˀipd
‫אפֹד‬, ifd “ephod” pp. 186-189
Egyptian ˀirp irp “wine vessel” p. 232
Egyptian ‫ַבּד‬ bḏȝ “pole” pp. 109-110
Egyptian ‫֫בֹּ ַחן‬ bḫn “greywacke” pp. 82-84
Egyptian ‫גָּ ִב ַיע‬ qbḥw, qbḥy.t “cup; cup-shaped candleholder” pp. 234-235
Egyptian ‫֫גּ ֹ ֶמא‬ qmȝ, qm, gmy “reed, rush” p. 131
Egyptian ‫ְדּיוֹ‬ ry.t “ink” pp. 177-178
Egyptian ‫ה ְבנִ ים‬,ָ hbn hbn “Egyptian ebony, African blackwood” pp. 136-137
Egyptian ‫חוֹתם‬,
ָ ‫ח ֶֹ֫ת ֶמת‬, ‫חתם‬ ḫtm, ḫtm.t “seal, signet ring” pp. 179-180
Egyptian ‫ח ִֹרי‬ ḥr.t, ḥry.t “cake” pp. 38-39
Egyptian ‫ַט ַ֫בּ ַעת‬ ḏbˁ.t “seal, signet ring” pp. 180-181
Egyptian ‫ֶ ֫ ֽטנֶ א‬ dni.t “basket” p. 239
301
Page
Reference:
Egyptian kw kb “vessel” pp. 241-242
Egyptian ‫ֶל ֶשׁם‬ nšm.t “feldspar, amazonite” pp. 89-90
Egyptian ‫ֶמ ִשׁי‬ msy “a garment” pp. 202-203
Egyptian ‫נ ֶֹפְך‬ mfkȝ.t, mfk.t “turquoise” pp. 91-92
Egyptian ‫נֶ ֶתר‬ nṯri, ntri “natron” pp. 93-94
Egyptian ‫סוּף‬ ṯwfy “papyrus, reed” pp. 143-144
Egyptian ‫ָע ָרה‬ ˁr, ˁr.t “reed” pp. 146-148
Egyptian ‫ְפּ ֵאר‬ pry, pyr “headwrap, turban” pp. 206-207
Egyptian ‫ַפּח‬ pḫȝ, pḫ “trap, bird trap” pp. 113-114
Egyptian ‫ַפּח‬ pḫȝ “metal plating, metal foil” pp. 63-64
Egyptian ‫ִק ָיקיוֹן‬ kȝkȝ, kyky “castor-oil plant” pp. 150-151
Egyptian ‫ק ַלּ ַחת‬,ַ qlḫt qrḥ.t “pot, cooking pot” pp. 253-254
Egyptian ‫יעה‬
ָ ‫ְק ִצ‬ šsȝ.t, ẖsȝy.t “a cassia-like plant” pp. 154-155
Egyptian ‫שׁוּשׁן‬,
ַ sššn, sšn, ššn “water lily, Egyptian lotus” pp. 159-160
Egyptian ‫ִשׁ ָטּה‬ šnḏ.t, šnd.t, šnt.t, šnt “acacia, acacia wood” pp. 162-164
Egyptian ‫ֵשׁשׁ‬ šs “Egyptian linen” pp. 210-211
Egyptian ‫ֵתּ ָבה‬ ḏbȝ.t “ark; basket” pp. 256-257
Egyptian ‫ַתּ ְח ָרא‬ dḥr “leather vest” pp. 212-213
Egyptian ‫ַתּ ַחשׁ‬ ṯḥs “stretched leather” pp. 214-216
Greek bk βῖκος “jar, drinking bowl” p. 233
Greek ‫ַל ִפּיד‬ λαμπάς “torch; lightning” p. 222
302
Page
Reference:
Greek ‫פּוְּך‬ φῦκος “kohl, eye paint” pp. 112-113
Greek ‫ִקנָּ מוֹן‬ κιννάμωμον, κίνναμον “a cinnamon-like plant” pp. 152-154
Greek rˀidn ῥυτόν “rhyton” pp. 254-255
Hattic (via Hittite) ḥtṯ ḫatt “silver” pp. 58-60
Havilite ‫בּ ֫ד ֹ ַלח‬,ְ ‫בדלח‬ ? “bdellium” pp. 127-129
Hittite dǵṯ tuḫḫeššar “incense-resin” p. 133
Hittite ztr šittar “votive stele” pp. 168-169
Hittite ‫ֶח ֶרשׂ‬ ḫarši “earthenware vessel, potsherd” pp. 235-236
Hittite ‫ִחתּוּל‬ ḫuttulli “wool” pp. 196-197
Hittite ḫndlt ḫandala “linen wrap, linen bandage” p. 197
Hittite spsg, sbsg, spśg, śpśg zapzagi “a kind of stone” pp. 96-98
Hittite ְ tˀišr
‫תּ ַאשּׁוּר‬, tieššar “cypress, boxwood (?)” pp. 166-167
Hittite ‫ְתּ ָר ִפים‬ tarpi “teraphim, divinatory figurines” pp. 176-177
Ḫundrashite ḫndrṯ ? “Ḫundrashite plant” p. 139
Hurrian ַ ‫אגן‬, ˀagn
‫אגָּ ן‬, aganni “basin” pp. 229-231
Hurrian ˀaz aššiyi “textile edging” pp. 183-184
Hurrian ˀall alali “cloak” pp. 185-186
Hurrian ˀušpǵt *ušpaḫḫi “a type of garment” pp. 191-192
Hurrian ַ ˀuṯpt
‫א ְשׁ ָפּה‬, išpati, išpanti “quiver” pp. 65-66
Hurrian blḫdr *pilaḫtare “spun cloth” p. 195
Hurrian grbz gurbiši “helmet” pp. 66-67
303
Page
Reference:
Hurrian ḫbrṯ ḫubruši “pot” pp. 236-237
Hurrian ḫptr ḫuppataru, ḫuppatru “pot” pp. 237-238
Hurrian ḫršḫ aḫrušḫi “incense bowl” p. 238
Hurrian ‫ָי ְֽשׁ ֵפה‬ yašpi “jasper” pp. 88-89
Hurrian kdwṯ, kndwṯ, kndpnṯ *kundifašše “neck scarf” pp. 198-199
Hurrian ‫כּוֹבע‬,
ַ kuwaḫi “helmet” pp. 68-70
Hurrian ‫ִכּידוֹן‬ kadinni “sword” pp. 70-71
Hurrian kld *keldi “bow” pp. 71-72
Hurrian ktp kadabi “mace” pp. 72-73
Hurrian mndǵ *munduḫi “groats” p. 42
Hurrian mṯyn maššiyanni “a garment” pp. 202-203
Hurrian nḫt naḫḫidi “seat” p. 52
Hurrian ‫ָס ִדין‬ satinni “fine cloth, fine garment” pp. 204-205
Hurrian ַ ‫סף‬, sp
‫סף‬, sabi “bowl, basin” pp. 249-250
Hurrian ֵ sbl
‫ס ֶפל‬, sable “bowl” pp. 251-252
Hurrian pǵdr, pǵndr paḫandari “cover blanket, spread” pp. 207-208
Hurrian ‫שׁ ְריוֹן‬, ִ ṯryn
ִ ‫ס ְריוֹן‬, šariyanni “scale armor, mail” pp. 75-76
Hurrian ṯrml *šarmallla, šarumelli “alabaster” pp. 105-106
Hurrian tbk *tubki “a type of leather” pp. 211-212
Hurrian tǵpṯ taḫḫapši “a type of material” pp. 216-217
Hurrian (via Akkadian) dprn tabri “a type of juniper” pp. 134-135
304
Page
Reference:
Indic ‫א ָהלוֹת‬,
ֲ ‫ֲא ָה ִלים‬ ? “agarwood, aloewood” pp. 122-124
Indo-European ‫ֶק ֶרן‬ ? “horn” pp. 115-116
Iranian ‫ֶר ֶסן‬ ? “bridle, rein” pp. 116-118
Luwian ‫בּ ְרזֶ ל‬,ַ ‫ברזל‬, brḏl *parzili “iron” pp. 56-58
Nubian ‫ִפּ ְט ָדה‬ ? “peridot” pp. 98-99
Nubian ‫ֶשׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬ ? “ivory” pp. 103-105
Ophirite ‫ֶכּ ֶתם‬ ? “gold” pp. 60-62
Pre-Hellenic ‫גּ ֶֹפר‬ ? “cypress (?)” p. 132
Semitic ˀadr N/A “a type of wood” pp. 121-122
Semitic ‫ַבּד‬ N/A “linen” pp. 192-193
Semitic ‫ְבּ ִדיל‬ N/A “tin” pp. 55-56
Semitic ‫בּוּץ‬, ‫בץ‬ N/A “linen, fine fabric” pp. 193-194
Semitic ‫בּ ֶ ֫ר ֶקת‬,ָ ‫ָ ֽבּ ְר ַקת‬ N/A “a shiny gem” pp. 84-85
Semitic ‫גָּ ְפ ִרית‬ N/A “sulfur, brimstone” pp. 85-87
Semitic ‫גִּ ר‬ N/A “limestone, chalk” pp. 87-88
Semitic ‫ֲחנִ ית‬ N/A “spear” pp. 67-68
Semitic ‫ח ֶֹשׁן‬ N/A “breastpiece, pectoral” pp. 169-170
Semitic ḫṯr N/A “winnowing fan, winnowing basket” pp. 218-219
Semitic ‫טוֹטפֹת‬,
ָ ‫ט ָֹטפֹת‬ N/A “phylactery, headband” pp. 170-171
Semitic ‫ַכּף‬ N/A “incense pan” p. 172
Semitic ‫ַכּ ֫ ֹפּ ֶרת‬ N/A “instrument for ritual purification” pp. 172-174
305
Page
Reference:
Semitic ‫מזַ ח‬,
ֵ֫ ‫ָמזִ ַיח‬ N/A “belt, waistband” pp. 201-202
Semitic ‫ַמזְ ֵלג‬ N/A “fork” pp. 223-224
Semitic ‫ַמ ְח ָתּה‬ N/A “censer” p. 174
Semitic ַ ‫מטה‬, mṭ
‫מ ֶטּה‬, N/A “staff” pp. 224-225
Semitic ‫ָמ ִטיל‬ N/A “long bar” pp. 225-226
Semitic ‫ִמ ְכ ָבּר‬ N/A “altar grate, altar grating” pp. 175-176
Semitic ַ mpḫ
‫מ ֻפּ ַח‬, N/A “bellows” p. 226
Semitic ‫נ ֶֹפת‬, nbt N/A “bee honey” p. 44
Semitic ‫ַס ִפּיר‬ N/A “lapis lazuli” pp. 94-96
Semitic ǵprt N/A “cloak, outer garment” pp. 205-206
Semitic ‫ֶצ ֱא ִלים‬ N/A “bramble bush, thorny plant” pp. 148-149
Semitic ‫ק ַבּ ַעת‬,ֻ ‫קבע‬, qbˁt N/A “cup” pp. 252-253
Semitic ‫ִק ָדּה‬ N/A “a cassia-like plant” pp. 149-150
Semitic ‫ָשׁ ִמיר‬ N/A “adamant, corundum” pp. 102-103
Semitic ‫ַשׁ ַע ְטנֵ ז‬ N/A “mixed cloth” pp. 208-210
Sumerian (via Akkadian) ‫ַאגְ מוֹן‬ AGAM “reed, rush” pp. 120-121
Sumerian (via Akkadian) dǵ DUḪ “bran; draff, marc” pp. 37-38
Sumerian (via Akkadian) ḥḏrt ḪIZsar “lettuce” pp. 138-139
Sumerian (via Akkadian) ‫ִכּישׁוֹר‬ *gišSUR “spindle” pp. 220-221
Sumerian (via Akkadian) krln GÌR.LAM “container, basket” pp. 245-246
Sumerian (via Akkadian) ‫ְשׁבוֹ‬ ŠUBA “a precious stone” p. 101
306
Page
Reference:
Tartessian ‫ַתּ ְר ִשׁישׁ‬ ? “Spanish topaz, fool’s gold (?)” pp. 106-109
Urartian (via Akkadian) ‫ִכּיּוֹר‬ kiri “metal cauldron” pp. 243-244
307
Appendix C
Geographical Origins of Realia
The map on the following page depicts the geographical origins of the realia
discussed in this study. Not every term is represented, particularly words with
uncertain linguistic origin (i.e., culture words) and words with a relatively general
referent. The realia are grouped and color-coded according to category: Food and
Drink, Furniture, Metals and Metallurgy, Military Technology, Minerals and Organic
Materials, Miscellanea, Plants and Plant Products, Religion and Cult, Scribal
Technology, Textiles and Clothing, Tools, and Vessels.
308
309
Bibliography
Aartun, Kjell. Studien zur ugaritischen Lexikographie: mit kultur- und religionsgeschichtlichen
Parallelen. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991-2006.
Abaev, Vasiliĭ Ivanovich. Историко-зтимологический словарЬ осетинского языка. 3 vols.

Leningrad: Izdatelʹstvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1958-1979.
Ačaṛian, Hračʻeay H. Հայերեն արմատական բառարան. 2d ed. 4 vols. Հայագիտական

ուսումնասիրությունների մատենաշար. Yerevan: Erevani Hamalsarani
Hratarakchowtʹyown, 1971-1979.
Adams, Douglas Q. “Horn.” Pages 272-273 of Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Edited by

J.P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams. London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1997.
Adams, Robert P. Junipers of the World: The Genus Juniperus. Vancouver, B.C.: Trafford
Publishing, 2004.
Agrawal, D.P. The Indus Civilization: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. New Delhi: Aryan Books
International, 2007.
Albright, William F. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. 5th ed. Old Testament Library.
Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University, 1968.
_____. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths. Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968.
_____. “The Role of the Canaanites in the History of Civilization.” Pages 328-362 in The Bible
and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by George
Ernest Wright. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961.
_____. Die Religion Israels im Lichte der archälogischen Ausgrabungen : Autorisierte Übersetzung
mit Nachträgen des Verfassers. Translated by Frederich Cornelius. Munich: E.
Reinhardt, 1956.
_____. “Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century
B.C.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1954): 222-233.
_____. “A New Hebrew Word for ‘Glaze’ in Proverbs 26:23.” Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 98 (1945): 24-25.
_____. “Are the Ephod and the Teraphim Mentioned in Ugaritic Literature?” Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 83 (1941): 39-42.
_____. “New Light on the Early History of Phoenician Colonization.” Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 83 (1941): 14-22.
310
_____. The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography. American Oriental Series 5. New
Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1934.
Allen, James P. Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs. 2d
ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Allen, Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. New International Commentary on
the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1976.
Amadasi Guzzo, Maria Giulia. “Noms de vases en phénicien.” Semitica 38 (1990): 15-25.
Andersen, Francis I. Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor
Bible 25. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman. Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. Anchor Bible 24. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980.
Appel, René and Pieter Muysken. Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold,
1987.
Archi, Alfonso. “Minima Eblaitica 22: The Symbolism of the Axe (niˀtum) in the Oath.”
Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires (2005): 74-75.
_____. Testi amministrativi: registrazioni di metalli e tessuti (Archivio L. 2769). Archivi reali di
Ebla testi 7. Rome: Missione archaeologica italiana in Siria, 1988.
Arnaud, Daniel. Recherches au pays d’Aštata. 4 vols. Emar 6. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les
civilisations, 1985-1987.
Artzi, Pinḥas. “On the Cuneiform Background of the Northwest-Semitic Form of the Word
brḏl, b(a)rz(e)l, ‘Iron’.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 28 (1969): 268-270.
Asbaghi, Asya. Persische Lehnwörter im Arabischen. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1988.
Aspesi, Francesco. “The Lexical Item nft of an Old Egyptian Inscription.” Pages 3-12 in
Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies in Memoriam W. Vycichl. Edited by
Gábor Takács. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 39. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
_____. “Gr. καδος nella comparazione linguistica.” Acme: annali della Facoltà di lettere e
filosofia dell’Università degli studi di Milano 36 (1983): 51-59.
Aston, Barbara G., James A. Harrell, and Ian Shaw. “Stone.” Pages 5-77 in Ancient Egyptian
Materials and Technology. Edited by Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Astour, Michael C. “Ancient North Syrian Toponyms Derived from Plant Names.” Pages 1-8
in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon. Edited by Gary A. Rendsburg,
Ruth Adler, Milton Arfa, and Nathan H. Winter. New York: Ktav, 1980.
311
Aufrecht, Walter E. A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies
4. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.
Aufrère, Sydney. L’univers minéral dans la pensée égyptienne. 2 vols. Bibliothèque d’étude 105.
Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1991.
Aura Jorro, Francisco and Francisco Rodríguez Adrados, eds. Diccionario micénico. 2 vols.
Diccionario griego-español 1. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Cientifícas, Instituto de Filología, 1985-1993.
Avigad, Nahman and Jonas C. Greenfield. “A Bronze phialē with a Phoenician Dedicatory
Inscription.” Israel Exploration Journal 32 (1982): 118-128.
Avigad, Nahman and Benjamin Sass. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Publications of the
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences
and Humanities, 1997.
Baker, David W. “Ophir (Place).” Pages 26-27 in vol. 5 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited
by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
_____. “Tarshish (Place).” Pages 331-333 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by
David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Baldwin, Joyce G. “Jonah.” Pages 543-590 in Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk. Vol.
2 of The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary. Edited by Thomas
Edward McComiskey. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1993.
Baltzer, Klaus. Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40-55. Translated by Margaret Kohl.

Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.
Barber, E.J.W. Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with
Special Reference to the Aegean. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991.
Barnett, Richard D. “Early Shipping in the Near East.” Antiquity 32 (1958): 220-230.
_____. “Phoenicia and the Ivory Trade.” Archaeology 9, no. 2 (1956): 87-97.
Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. 2d ed. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1987.
Barth, Jakob. Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen: mit einem Wörter- und
Sachverzeichnis. 2d ed. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1894.
Barthélemy, Adrien. Dictionnaire arabe-français: dialectes de Syrie: Alep, Damas, Liban, Jérusalem.
Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1935-1954.
Bartholomae, Christian. Altiranisches Wörterbuch. 2d ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1961.
312
Bass, George F. “Cape Gelidonya and Bronze Age Maritime Trade.” Pages 29-37 in Orient and
Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday.
Edited by Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 22. Kevelaer: Verlag
Butzon & Bercker, 1973.
Batto, Bernard F. “The Reed Sea: Requiescat in Pace.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983):
27-35.
Bauer, Hans and Pontus Leander. Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten
Testamentes: Einleitung, Schriftlehre, Laut- und Formenlehre. Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1922.
Bedigian, Dorothea. “History and Lore of Sesame in Southwest Asia.” Economic Botany 58
(2004): 329-353.
_____. “Evolution of Sesame Revisited: Domestication, Diversity, and Prospects.” Genetic

Resources and Crop Evolution 50 (2003): 779-787.
_____. “Is še-giš-ì Sesame or Flax?” Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 2 (1985): 159-178.
Beekes, Robert S.P. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden Indo-European Etymological

Dictionary Series 10. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
_____. “On Indo-European ‘Wine’.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 48 (1987): 21-26.
Beitzel, Barry J. “Was There a Joint Nautical Venture on the Mediterranean Sea by Tyrian
Phoenicians and Early Israelites?” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
360 (2010): 37-66.
Best, Jan G.P. “Six Contributions to the Decipherment of Linear A.” Ugarit-Forschungen 5
(1973): 53-59.
Betz, Werner. Deutsch und Lateinisch: die Lehnbildungen der althochdeutschen Benediktinerregel.
Bonn: H. Bouvier, 1949.
Biella, Joan Copeland. Dictionary of Old South Arabic: Sabaean Dialect. Harvard Semitic Studies
25. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982.
Bienkowski, Piotr. “Aegean.” Pages 5-6 of Dictionary of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Piotr
Bienkowski and Alan R. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
2000.
Bietak, Manfred. “Schilfmeer.” Pages 629-634 in vol. 5 of Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Edited by
Wolfgang Helck, Eberhard Otto, and Wolfhart Westendorf. 7 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz, 1972-1992.
Birot, Maurice. Correspondance des gouverneurs de Qattunân. Archives royales de Mari 27.
Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1993.
313
_____. Textes administratifs de la salle 5 due Palais. 2 vols. Archives royales de Mari 9, 12. Paris:
Imprimerie Nationale, 1960-1964.
Blachère, Régis, Moustafa Chouémi, and Claude Denizeau. Dictionnaire arabe-franc̜ais-anglais

(langue classique et moderne): Arabic/French/English Dictionary. 4 vols. Paris:
Maisonneuve et Larose, 1967-1988.
Blau, Joshua. “Marginalia Semitica I.” Pages 185-220 in Topics in Hebrew and Semitic
Linguistics. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998.
Blažek, Václav. Review of Paul V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew. Archiv
Orientální 71 (2003): 557-563.
_____. Review of Alexander Militarev and Leonid Kogan, Semitic Etymological Dictionary.
Archiv Orientální 69 (2001): 496-510.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor
Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel. 2 vols. New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997-1998.
Bochart, Samuel. Geographia sacra, cujus pars prior Phaleg de dispersione gentium et terrarum
divisione facta in aedificatione turris Babel; pars posterior Chanaan de coloniis et sermone
Phœnicum agit; cum tabulis chorographicis et indice sextuplici. Frankfurt am Main:
Impensis Johannis Davidis Zunneri, 1681.
Boissier, Edmond. “A Sumerian Word in the Bible.” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology 35 (1913): 159-160.
Bolognesi, Giancarlo. “Langues en contact: syriaque, iranien, arménien.” Pages 39-46 in

Studia etymologica Indoeuropaea: memoriae A.J. van Windekens (1915-1989) dicata. Edited
by Lambert Isabaert. Orientalia lovaniensia analecta 45. Leuven: Departement
Oriëntalistiek, 1991.
Bondi, J.H. “Gegenseitige Kultureinflüsse der Ägypter und Semiten.” Pages 1-7 in
Aegyptiaca: Festschrift für Georg Ebers zum 1. März 1897. Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1897.
Bonechi, Marco. “A Tool at Ebla, Mari and Ugarit.” Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica 9
(1998-1999): 277-282.
Bordreuil, Pierre and Dennis Pardee. A Manual of Ugaritic. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West
Semitic 3. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
_____. “Le combat de Baˁlu avec Yammu d’après les textes ougaritiques.” MARI 7 (1993): 63-
70.
314
Börker-Klähn, Jutta. “Granatapfel: A. Archäologisch.” Pages 616-630 in vol. 3 of Reallexikon
der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archaologie. Edited by Ernst F. Weidner and
Wolfram von Soden. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1957-1971.
Borowski, Oded. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987.
Bottéro, Jean. The Oldest Cuisine in the World: Cooking in Mesopotamia. Translated by Teresa
Lavender Fagan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. Theological

Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, David E. Green,
Douglas W. Stott, and John T. Willis. 15 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974-
2006.
Boyd, Jesse L., III. “A Collection and Examination of the Ugaritic Vocabulary Contained in
the Akkadian Texts from Ras Shamra.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1975.
Brandenstein, C.G. von. “Zum churrischen Lexikon.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 46 (1940): 83-
115.
Breasted, James Henry. The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus. 2 vols. Oriental Institute
Publications 3-4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930.
Brenner, Athalya. “‘White’ Textiles in Biblical Hebrew and in Mishnaic Hebrew.” Hebrew
Annual Review 4 (1980): 39-44.
Brown, John Pairman. Israel and Hellas. 3 vols. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 231, 276, 299. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995-2001.
_____. “Literary Context of the Common Hebrew-Greek Vocabulary.” Journal of Semitic

Studies 13 (1968): 163-191.
Brown, Stuart C. “Lapis Lazuli and Its Sources in Ancient West Asia.” Bulletin of the Canadian
Society for Mesopotamian Studies 22 (1991): 5-13.
Browne, Gerald M. Old Nubian Dictionary. Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 556.
Leuven: Peeters, 1996.
Brownrigg, Gail. “Horse Control and the Bit.” Pages 165-171 in Horses and Humans: The
Evolution of Human-Equine Relationships. Edited by Sandra L. Olsen, Susan Grant, Alice
M. Choyke, and László Bartosiewicz. BAR International Series 1560. Oxford:
Archaeopress, 2006.
Buccellati, Giorgio. The Amorites of the Ur III Period. Pubblicazioni del Seminario di
semitistica: Ricerche 1. Naples: Instituto Orientale di Napoli, 1966.
Burrow, Thomas and M.B. Emeneau. A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. 2d ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1984.
315
Burstein, Stanley Mayer. “Greek Contact with Egypt and the Levant: ca. 1600-500 BC: An
Overview.” The Ancient World 27 (1996): 20-28.
Bush, Frederic William. “A Grammar of the Hurrian Language.” Ph.D. diss., Brandeis
University, 1964.
Byrne, Ryan. Review of Paul V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew. Review of
Biblical Literature (2002). Online: http://www.bookreviews.org.
Caminos, Ricardo Augusto. Literary Fragments in the Hieratic Script. Oxford: Griffith Institute,
1956.
Campbell, Lyle. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. 2d ed. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004.
Canales, F. de, González, L. Serrano, and J. Llompart. “Tarshish and the United Monarchy of
Israel.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 47 (2010): 137-164.
Cancik-Kirschbaum, Eva. “lúsāpiˀu/sepû: eine akkadische Bezeichnung aus dem Bereich der
Textilherstellung.” Pages 79-93 in Munuscula Mesopotamica: Festschrift für Johannes
Renger. Edited by Barbara Böck, Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum, and Thomas Richter. Alter
Orient und Altes Testament 267. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1999.
Çankaya, Birsen. English-Turkish/Turkish-English Comprehensive Dictionary. London: Milet,

1998.
Caquot, André and Anne-Sophie Dalix. “Une texte mythico-magique.” Pages 393-405 in
Études ougaritiques: travaux 1985-1995. Edited by Marguerite Yon and Daniel Arnaud.
Ras Shamra-Ougarit 14. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 2001.
Caquot, André and Philippe de Robert. Les livres de Samuel. Commentaire de l’Ancien
Testament 6. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1994.
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel Abrahams.

Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967.
_____. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Translated by Israel Abrahams. 2 vols. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1961-1964.
Castellino, George. “Rituals and Prayers against ‘Appearing Ghosts’.” Orientalia 24 (1955):
240-274.
Cathcart, Kevin J. “Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew and the Dating of Biblical Texts.” Pages
45-57 in Studia Semitica: The Journal of Semitic Studies Jubilee Volume. Edited by Philip S.
Alexander, George J. Brooke, Andreas Christmann, John F. Healey, and Philip C.
Sadgrove. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 16. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2005.
316
Caubet, Annie. “Animals in Syro-Palestinian Art.” Pages 211-234 in A History of the Animal
World in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Billie Jean Collins. Handbook of Oriental
Studies, Section One: The Near and Middle East 64. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Černý, Jaroslav. Coptic Etymological Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Chantraine, Pierre. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots. 2d ed.
Librairie Klincksieck: Série linguistique 20. Paris: Klincksieck, 2009.
_____. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Collection linguistique publiée par la Société de
Linguistique de Paris 38. Paris: E. Champion, 1933.
Charles, M.P. “Botanical Remains.” Pages 203-207 in The 6G Ash-Tip and Its Contents: Cultic
Administrative Discard from the Temple? Edited by Anthony Green. Vol. 4/1 of Abu
Salabikh Excavations. Edited by J. Nicholas Postgate. 4 vols. London: British School of
Archaeology in Iraq, 1993.
Chiera, Edward. Mixed Texts. Vol. 5 of Joint Expedition with the Iraq Museum at Nuzi. 6 vols.
American Schools of Oriental Research: Publications of the Baghdad School, Texts 5.
Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1934.
Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12. Word Biblical Commentary 6B. Nashville:

Thomas Nelson, 2002.
Ciancaglini, Claudia A. Iranian Loanwords in Syriac. Beiträge zur Iranistik 28. Wiesbaden:
Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2008.
Civil, Miguel. The Early Dynastic Practical Vocabulary A (Archaic HAR-ra A). Archivi reali di Ebla
studi 4. Rome: Missione archaeologica italiana in Siria, 2008.
_____. “From Enki’s Headaches to Phonology.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32 (1973): 57-
61.
_____. “Notes on Sumerian Lexicography, II.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 25 (1973): 171-177.
Clemens, David M. Review of Paul V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew.

Journal of Near Eastern Studies 62 (2003): 290-294.
Cochavi-Rainey, Zipora and Christine Lilyquist. Royal Gifts in the Late Bronze Age: Fourteenth to
Thirteenth Centuries B.C.E.: Selected Texts Recording Gifts to Royal Personages. Beer-Sheva
Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East 13. Beer-Sheva: Ben-
Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1999.
Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible
10. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Cohen, Chaim. “The Ugaritic Hippiatric Texts: Revised Composite Text, Translation, and
Commentary.” Ugarit-Forschungen 28 (1996): 105-153.
317
_____. “Hebrew tbh: Proposed Etymologies.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 4
(1972): 36-51.
Cohen, Chaim and Daniel Sivan. The Ugaritic Hippiatric Texts: A Critical Edition. American
Oriental Series Essays 8. New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1983.
Cohen, David, François Bron, and Antoine Lonnet, eds. Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou
attestées dans les langues sémitiques. 9 vols. Leuven: Peeters, 1994-.
Cohen, Jeffrey M. “A Samaritan Authentication of the Rabbinic Interpretation of kephî

taḥrāˀ.” Vetus Testamentum 24 (1974): 361-366.
Cole, R.A. Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries.
Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1973.
Collinder, Björn. Fenno-Ugric Vocabulary: Etymological Dictionary of the Uralic Languages.

Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1955.
Collins, Billie Jean. The Hittites and Their World. Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology
and Biblical Studies 7. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.
Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1993.
Consani, Carlo. Testi minoici trascritti con interpretazione e glossario. Incunabula Graeca 100.
Rome: Istituto per gli studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici, 1999.
Conti, Giovanni. Il sillabario della quarta fonte della lista lessicale bilingue Eblaita. Vol. 2 of
Miscellanea Eblaitica. Edited by Pelio Fronzaroli. 4 vols. Quaderni di semitistica 17.
Florence: Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Linguistica, 1990.
_____. Rapporti tra egiziano e semitico nel lessico egiziano dell’agricoltura. Quaderni di semitistica
6. Florence: Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali, Università di Firenze, 1978.
Conti Rossini, Carlo. Chrestomathia Arabica meridionalis: epigraphica edita et glossario instructa.
Pubblicazioni dell’Instituto per l’Oriente. Rome: Istituto per l’oriente, 1931.
Cooley, W. Desborough. “On the Regio Cinnamomifera of the Ancients.” Journal of the Royal
Geographical Society of London 19 (1849): 166-191.
Cooper, Alan. “The Meaning of Amos’s Third Vision (Amos 7:7-9).” Pages 13-21 in Tehillah le-
Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Edited by Mordechai
Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Copisarow, Maurice. “The Ancient Egyptian, Greek and Hebrew Concept of the Red Sea.”
Vetus Testamentum 12 (1962): 1-13.
318
Crone, Patricia. Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1987.
Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of
Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997.
_____. “The Priestly Tabernacle in the Light of Recent Research.” Pages 91-105 in The
Temple in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives, Based on a Symposium Held
at Brigham Young University in March 1981. Edited by Truman G. Madsen. Religious
Studies Monograph Series 9. Provo, Idaho: Brigham Young University, 1984.
_____. “A Recently Published Phoenician Inscription of the Persian Period from Byblos.”
Israel Exploration Journal 29 (1979): 40-44.
_____. “Jar Inscriptions from Shiqmona.” Israel Exploration Journal 18 (1968): 226-233.
_____. “The Tabernacle: A Study from an Archaeological and Historical Approach.” Biblical
Archaeologist 10 (1947): 45-68.
Crum, W.E. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939.
Curtis, John. “Assyrian Furniture: The Archaeological Evidence.” Pages 167-180 in The
Furniture of Western Asia, Ancient and Traditional: Papers of the Conference Held at the
Institute of Archaeology, University College London, June 28 to 30, 1993. Edited by Georgina
Herrmann. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 1996.
D’Agostino, Franco. “Il termine ‘ḫa-rí’ nella documentazione di Ebla: antroponimo o

professione? (note di lessicografia eblaita).” Rivista degli studi orientali 70 (1997): 15-
21.
Dahood, Mitchell. “Eblaite ha-rí and Genesis ḥōrî.” Biblische Notizen 13 (1980): 14-16.
_____. “Eblaite, Ugaritic, and Hebrew Lexical Notes.” Ugarit-Forschungen 11 (1979): 141-146.
_____. “Ugaritic Lexicography.” Pages 81-104 in Écriture sainte, Ancien Orient. Vol. 1 of
Mélanges Eugène Tisserant. 7 vols. Studi e testi 231. Vatican City: Biblioteca apostolica
vaticana, 1964.
_____. “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography I.” Biblica 44 (1963): 289-303.
Dales, George F. “Excavations at Balakot, Pakistan, 1973.” Journal of Field Archaeology 1

(1974): 3-22.
Dalley, Stephanie. “Hebrew taḥaš, Akkadian duḫšu, Faience and Beadwork.” Journal of Semitic
Studies 45 (2000): 1-19.
Dalman, Gustaf. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. 7 vols. Schriften der Deutschen Palästina-
Instituts 3, 5-10. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1928-1942.
319
De Martino, Stefano and Mauro Giorgieri. Literatur zum Hurritischen Lexikon. Eothen.
Florence: Logisma editore, 2008-present.
Deines, Hildegard von and Hermann Grapow. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Drogennamen. Vol. 6
of Grundriss der Medizin der alten Ägypter. 9 vols. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1959.
Dercksen, Jan Gerrit. “On Anatolian Loanwords in Akkadian Texts from Kültepe.” Zeitschrift
für Assyriologie 91 (2007): 26-46.
Deutsch, Robert and Michael Heltzer. Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions. Tel Aviv:
Archaeological Center Publication, 1994.
Dezső, Tamás. “Scale Armour of the 2nd Millennium B.C.” Pages 195-216 in A Tribute to
Excellence: Studies Offered in Honor of Erno Gaál, Ulrich Luft, László Török. Edited by
Tamás A. Bács. Studia Aegyptiaca 17. Budapest: Université Eötvös Lorand de
Budapest, 2002.
Diakonoff, I.M. Hurrisch und Urartäisch. Translated by Karl Sdrembek. Münchener Studien
zur Sprachwissenschaft: Beiheft 6. Munich: R. Kitzinger, 1971.
Diakonoff, I.M. and Leonid Kogan. “Addenda et Corrigenda to Hamito‐Semitic Etymological

Dictionary by V. Orel and O. Stolbova” (review of Vladimir E. Orel and Olga V.
Stolbova, Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary). Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesselschaft 146 (1996): 25-38.
Diakonoff, I.M. and S.A. Starostin. Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language.

Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 12. Munich: R. Kitzinger, 1986.
Dietrich, Manfried and Oswald Loretz. “Die hurro-ugaritische Textilbezeichnung all.”

Ugarit-Forschungen 22 (1990): 49-50.
_____. “Die ugaritischen Gefässbezeichnungen ridn und kw.” Ugarit-Forschungen 19 (1987):

27-32.
_____. “Ug. bṣql ˁrgz und heb. b ṣqlnw (II Reg 4,42), ˀgwz.” Ugarit-Forschungen 18 (1986): 115-
120.
_____. “Ug. kld ‘Bogen’ und arkd ‘Wurfholz, Lanze(?)’ in KTU 4.277.” Ugarit-Forschungen 10
(1978): 429.
_____. “Die ug. Gewandbezeichnungen pǵndr, knd, kndpnṯ.” Ugarit-Forschungen 9 (1977): 340.
_____. “Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (IV).” Ugarit-Forschungen 3 (1971): 372.
_____. “Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (I).” Bibliotheca Orientalis 23 (1966): 127-133.
_____. “Der soziale Struktur von Alalaḫ und Ugarit.” Die Welt des Orients 3 (1964-1966): 188-
205.
320
_____. “Der Vertrag zwischen Šuppiluliuma und Niqmandu: Eine philologische und
kulturhistorische Studie.” Die Welt des Orients 3 (1964-1966): 206-245.
Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaqín Sanmartín. “Die anagebliche ug.-he. Parallele
spsg ‖ sps(j)g(jm).” Ugarit-Forschungen 8 (1976): 37-40.
Dijkstra, Meindert. “Marginalia to the Ugaritic Letters in KTU (II).” Ugarit-Forschungen 21

(1989): 141-152.
_____. “Marginalia to the Ugaritic Letters in KTU (I).” Ugarit-Forschungen 19 (1987): 37-48.
Dossin, Georges. “L’inscription de fondation de Iaḫdun-Lim, roi de Mari.” Syria 32 (1955): 1-

28.
_____. “Les archives économiques du palais de Mari.” Syria 20 (1939): 97-113.
Dossin, Georges, Jean Bottéro, Maurice Birot, M. Lurton Burke, Jean Robert Kupper, and
André Finet. Textes divers. Archives royales de Mari 13. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1964.
Dothan, Trude and David Ben-Shlomo. “Ceramic Pomegranates and Their Relationship to
Iron Age Cult.” Pages 3-16 in ‘Up to the Gates of Ekron’: Essays on the Archaeology and
History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin. Edited by Sidnie White
Crawford, Amnon Ben-Tor, and William G. Dever. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 2007.
Dozy, Reinhart Pieter Anne. Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1881.
Drenkhahn, Rosemarie. Die Handwerker und ihre Tätigkeiten im alten Ägypten. Ägyptologische
Abhandlungen 31. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976.
_____. “Leder, -arbeiter, -bearbeitung.” Pages 958-960 in vol. 3 of Lexikon der Ägyptologie.
Edited by Wolfgang Helck, Eberhard Otto, and Wolfhart Westendorf. 7 vols.
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972-1992.
Dressler, Harold H.P. “The Lesson of Proverbs 26:23.” Pages 117-125 in Ascribe to the Lord:
Biblical and Other Essays in Memory of Peter C. Craigie. Edited by Lyle M. Eslinger and J.
Glen Taylor. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 67.
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988.
Driver, G.R. Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957.
_____. “Mythical Monsters in the Old Testament.” Pages 234-249 in vol. 1 of Studi
orientalistici in onore di Giorgio Levi Della Vida. Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto per l’Oriente
52. Rome: Istituto per l’oriente, 1956.
_____. “Technical Terms in the Pentateuch.” Die Welt des Orients 2 (1956): 254-263.
_____. “Babylonian and Hebrew Notes.” Die Welt des Orients 2 (1954): 19-26.
321
_____. “Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs.” Biblica 32 (1951): 173-197.
Drower, E.S. and Rudolf Macuch. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.
Dupont-Sommer, André. “Deux nouvelles inscriptions sémitiques trouvées en Cilicie.”

Jahrbuch für kleinasiatische Forschung 1 (1950-1951): 43-47.
Durand, Jean-Marie. La nomenclature des habits et des textiles dans les textes de Mari. Matériaux
pour le Dictionnaire de babylonien de Paris 1. Paris: CNRS, 2009.
_____. Review of Sergio Ribichini and Paolo Xella, La terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit.
MARI 6 (1990): 659-664.
_____. “Le culte des bétyles en Syrie.” Pages 79-84 in Miscellanea Babylonica: mélanges offerts à
Maurice Birot. Edited by Jean-Marie Durand and Jean Robert Kupper. Paris: Editions
Recherche sur les civilisations, 1985.
_____. “A propos du nom de la hache à Mari.” MARI 3 (1984): 279.
_____. Textes administratifs des salles 134 et 160 du palais de Mari: transcrits, traduits et commentés.
Archives royales de Mari 21. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1983.
Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary 3. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987.
During-Caspers, E.C.L. “Harappan Trade in the Arabian Gulf in the Third Millennium B.C.”
Mesoptamia 7 (1972): 167-191.
Durkin-Meisterens, Desmond. Dictionary of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian. Vol. 3/1
of Dictionary of Manichaean Texts. 3 vols. Corpus fontium manichaeorum: Subsidia 2.
Turnhout: Brepols, 2004.
Edel, Elmar. “Zwei Originalbriefe der Königsmutter Tūja in Keilschrift.” Studien zur
altägyptischen Kultur 1 (1974): 105-146.
Èdelʹman, Dzhoĭ Iosifovna and Georgiĭ Andreevich Klimov. “Из истории одной
древнепереднеазиатской лексической изоглоссы.” Pages 162-169 in Ирано-
афразийские языковые контакт . Edited by Grigoriĭ Shamilevich Sharbatov.
Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1987.
Edzard, Lutz. Polygenesis, Convergence, and Entropy: An Alternative Model of Linguistic Evolution
Applied to Semitic Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998.
Ellenbogen, Maximilian. Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and Etymology.
London: Luzac, 1962.
Epstein, Abraham. ‫כתבי ר׳ אברהם עפשטיין‬. Edited by Abraham Meir Habermann. 2 vols.
Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1950-1957.
322
Erard-Cerceau, Isabelle. “Végétaux, parfums, et parfumeurs à l'époque mycénienne.” Studi
micenei ed egeo-anatolici 28 (1990): 251-285.
Erichsen, Wolja. Demotisches Glossar. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1954.
Erman, Adolf. “Das Verhältniss Aegyptischen zu den semitischen Sprachen.” Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesselschaft 46 (1892): 93-129.
Ernout, Alfred, Antoine Meillet, and Jacques André. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue
latine: histoire des mots 5th ed. Paris: Klincksieck, 2001.
Eskhult, Mats. “The Importance of Loanwords for Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts.” Pages 8-23
in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Edited by Ian Young. Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 369. London: T&T Clark, 2003.
Fales, Frederick Mario. “Formations with m-Prefix in the Bilingual Vocabularies.” Pages
205-209 in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla: Akten der Internationalen Tagung
Heidelberg, 4.-7. November 1986. Edited by Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Hauptmann.
Heidelberger Studien zum alten Orient 2. Heidelberg: Heidelberg Orientverlag, 1988.
Falk, Jay D. “The Plants of Mari and Ugarit with Special Reference to the Hebrew Bible.”
Ph.D. diss., Dropsie College, 1966.
Farber, Walter. “Altassyrisch addaḫšū und ḫazuannū, oder Safran, Fenchel, Zweibeln und
Salat.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 81 (1991): 234-242.
Faure, Paul. Parfumes et aromates de l’antiquité. Nouvelles études historiques. Paris: Fayard,
1987.
Feliks, Jehuda. ‫עצי בשמים יער ונוי‬. ‫ צמחי התנ״ך וחז״ל‬2. Jerusalem: Reuven Mass, 1997.
_____. “‫ עצי שטים ומן‬,‫סנה‬.” Pages 533-535 in ‫ גיאוגרפיה פיסית‬:‫סיני‬. Edited by Gedalyahu
Gevirtsman, Avshalom Shemueli, Yehuda Gradus, Itzhaq Beit-Arieh, and Menasheh
Har-El. Vol. 1 of ‫סיני‬. 2 vols. ‫ מחקרים ופרסומים בגיאוגרפיה‬:‫ארץ‬. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv
University, 1987.
Fensham, F. Charles. “A Cappadocian Parallel to Hebrew kutōnet.” Vetus Testamentum 12

(1962): 196-198.
Ferrer Albelda, Eduardo and F. J García Fernández. “Turdetania y turdetanos: Contribución

a una problemática historiográfica y arqueológica.” Mainake 24 (2002): 133-151.
Fincke, Jeanette. “ḫušuḫḫe ‘(Zier-)Gürtel’.” Pages 356-357 in Richard F.S. Starr Memorial
Volume. Edited by David I. Owen and Gernot Wilhelm. Studies on the Civilization and
Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 8. Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1996.
323
Finkelstein, Israel. “The Philistines in the Bible: A Late-Monarchic Perspective.” Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament 27 (2002): 131-167.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire. 2d ed. Biblica et Orientalia 19. Rome:
Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1995.
Fournet, Jean-Luc. “Les emprunts du grec à l’égyptien.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de

Paris 84 (1989): 55-80.
Fox, Joshua. Semitic Noun Patterns. Harvard Semitic Studies 59. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1996.
Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 10-31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor
Bible 18B. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009.
Fox, Nili S. In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah. Monographs of the
Hebrew Union College 23. Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 2000.
Fränkel, Siegmund. Die Aramäischen Fremdwörter im Arabischen. Leiden: Brill, 1886.
Frayne, Douglas. Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early
Periods 3/2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.
Freytag, G.W. Lexicon arabico-latinum. 4 vols. Halle: C.A. Schwetschke, 1830-1837.
Friedrich, Ingolf. Ephod und Choschen im Lichte des Alten Orients. Wiener Beitäge zur Theologie
20. Vienna: Herder, 1968.
Friedrich, Johannes. “Ein churritisches Wort.” Archiv für Orientforschung 16 (1952-1953): 66.
_____. “Churritisch-Ugaritisches und Churritisch-Luwisches.” Archiv für Orientforschung 14

(1944): 329-333.
_____. “Hethitisch-Ugaritisches.” Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesselschaft 96

(1942): 471-494.
_____. “Zum urartäischen Lexikon.” Archiv Orientální 4 (1932): 55-70.
Friedrich, Johannes, Annelies Kammenhuber, and Inge Hoffman. Hethitisches Wörterbuch. 2d

ed. Indogermanische Bibliothek, 2 Reihe: Wörterbücher. Heidelberg: C. Winter,
1975-present.
Friedrich, Johannes and Wolfgang Röllig. Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik. Edited by Maria

Giulia Amadasi Guzzo. 3d ed. Analecta Orientalia 55. Rome: Editrice Pontificio
Istituto Biblico, 1999.
Fritz, Volkmar. 1 and 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Anselm C. Hagedorn.

Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
324
Fronzaroli, Pelio. “A Pharmaceutical Text at Ebla (TM.75.G.1623).” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
88 (1998): 225-239.
Fronzaroli, Pelio. Testi di cancelleria: i rapporti con le città (archivio L. 2769). Archivi reali di Ebla
testi 13. Rome: Missione archaeologica italiana in Siria, 2003.
_____. “Osservazioni sul lessico delle bevande dei testi di Ebla.” Pages 121-127 in Drinking in
Ancient Societies: History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East: Papers of a
Symposium Held in Rome, May 17-19, 1990. Edited by Lucio Milano. History of the
Ancient Near East Monographs 6. Padova, Italy: Sargon, 1994.
_____. “Rapporti lessicali dell’ittita con le lingue semitische.” Archivio glottologico italiano 41
(1956): 32-45.
Fuchs, Robert. “Turkis.” Pages 789-795 in vol. 6 of Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Edited by
Furnée, Edzard J. Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen, mit einem
Appendix über den Vokalismus. Janua Linguarum Series Practica 150. The Hague:
Mouton, 1972.
Galan, Emilio and Garcia Guinea. “Precious and Semi-Precious Stones of Spain.” Pages 355-
375 in Non-Metallic Mineral Ores. Vol. 15 of Proceedings of the 27th International
Geological Congress, Moscow 4-14 August 1984. 23 vols. Utrecht: VNU Science Press,
1984.
Gale, Rowena and David Frederick Cutler. Plants in Archaeology: Identification Manual of
Vegetative Plant Materials Used in Europe and the Southern Mediterranean to c. 1500. Kew:
Royal Botanic Gardens, 2000.
Gale, Rowena, Peter E. Gasson, F. Nigel Hepper, and Geoffrey Killen. “Wood.” Pages 334-371
in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Edited by Paul T. Nicholson and Ian
Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Vjačeslav V. Ivanonv. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A

Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture. Edited by
Werner Winter. Translated by Johanna Nichols. 2 vols. Trends in Linguistics: Studies
and Monographs 80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994-1995.
Garbe, Richard. Die indischen Mineralien: ihre Namen und die ihnen zugeschriebenen Kräfte:
Narahari’s Râǵanighaṇṭu Varga XIII. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1882.
Gardiner, Alan H. Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. 3d ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.
_____. “The Egyptian Origin of Some English Personal Names.” Journal of the American
Oriental Society 56 (1936): 189-197.
325
Gauthier, Henri. Dictionnaire des noms géographiques contenus dans les textes hiéroglyphiques. 7
vols. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale pour la Société royale de
géographie d’Égypte, 1925-1931.
Gelb, I.J., Pierre M. Purves, and Allan A. MacRae. Nuzi Personal Names. Oriental Institute
Publications 57. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943.
Genz, Hermann. “Foreign Contacts of the Hittites.” Pages 301-331 in Insights into Hittite
History and Archaeology. Edited by Hermann Genz and Dirk Paul Mielke. Colloquia
antiqua. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.
Germer, Renate. Handbuch der Altägyptischen Heilpflanzen. Philippika 21. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz, 2008.
_____. Flora des pharaonischen Ägypten. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo
14. Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern, 1985.
_____. “Rizinus.” Page 285 in vol. 5 of Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Edited by Wolfgang Helck,
Eberhard Otto, and Wolfhart Westendorf. 7 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,
1972-1992.
Gesenius, Wilhelm. Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguae Hebraeae et Chaldaeae Veteris

Testamenti. 2d ed. 3 vols. Leipzig: F.C.G. Vogel, 1835-1858.
Gevirtz, Stanley. “Formative ‫ ע‬in Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 57*-66* in ‫ מחקרים‬:‫ארץ ישראל‬
‫ ספר צבי מ׳ אורלינסקי‬:‫בידיעת הארץ ועתיקותה‬. Edited by Baruch A. Levine and Abraham
Malamat. Eretz-Israel 16. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982.
Gharib, Badr oz-Zamān. Sogdian Dictionary: Sogdian-Persian-English. Tehran: Farhangan

Publications, 1995.
Gilbert, Allan S. “The Native Fauna of the Ancient Near East.” Pages 3-75 in A History of the
Animal World in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Billie Jean Collins. Handbook of
Oriental Studies, Section One: The Near and Middle East 64. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Ginsberg, H.L. “The North-Canaanite Myth of Anath and Aqhat II.” Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 98 (1945): 15-23.
Glare, P.G.W. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.
Goetze, Albrecht. “Contributions to Hittite Lexicography.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 1

(1947): 307-320.
Gordis, Robert. The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies. Moreshet 2.
New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978.
Gordon, Cyrus H. “The Wine-Dark Sea.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 37 (1978): 51-52.
326
_____. “Homer and Bible: The Origin and Character of East Mediterranean Literature.”
Hebrew Union College Annual 26 (1955): 43-108.
Görg, Manfred. “Das Lexem taḥaš: Herkunft und Bedeutung.” Biblische Notizen 109 (2001): 5-
9.
_____. “Methodological Remarks on Comparative Studies of Egyptian and Biblical Words

and Phrases.” Pages 57-64 in Pharaonic Egypt: The Bible and Christianity. Edited by
Sarah Israelit-Groll. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985.
_____. “Der Brustschmuck des Hohenpriesters.” Biblische Notizen 15 (1981): 32-34.
_____. “Ophir, Tarschish und Atlantis: Einige Gedanken zur symbolischen Topographie.”
Biblische Notizen 15 (1981): 76-86.
_____. “Zur Dekoration der Tempelsäulen.” Biblische Notizen 13 (1980): 17-21.
_____. “Ein eblaitisches Wort in der Josepherzählung?” Biblische Notizen 13 (1980): 29-31.
_____. “Eine rätselhafte Textilbezeichung im Alten Testament.” Biblische Notizen 12 (1980):

13-17.
_____. “Ein semitisch-ostmediterranes Kulturwort im Alten Testament.” Biblische Notizen 8

(1979): 7-10.
_____. “ṭ(w)ṭpt: eine fast vergessene Deutung.” Biblische Notizen 8 (1979): 11-13.
_____. “Nachtrag zu ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬.”

ַ Biblische Notizen 5 (1978): 12.
_____. “Eine neue Deutung für kăpporæt.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89
(1977): 115-118.
Gradwohl, Roland. Die Farben im Alten Testament: eine terminologische Studie. Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 83. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann,
1963.
Gray, John. The Book of Job. Edited by David J.A. Clines. Texts of the Hebrew Bible 1. Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010.
_____. I and II Kings: A Commentary. 2d ed. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1970.
Grayson, A. Kirk. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114-859 BC). The Royal
Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods 2. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1991.
327
Greenberg, Joseph H. Review of Vladimir E. Orel and Olga V. Stolbova, Hamito-Semitic
Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction. Anthropological Linguistics 38
(1996): 550-556.
Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor
_____. Ezekiel 21-37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22A.
New York: Doubleday, 1997.
Greenfield, Jonas C. “Ugaritic Lexicographical Notes.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21 (1967):

89-93.
Greenfield, Jonas C. and Manfred Mayrhofer. “The ˀalgummīm/ˀalmuggīm-Problem

Reexamined.” Pages 83-89 in Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag
von Walter Baumgartner. Edited by Benedikt Hartmann, Ernst Jenni, E.Y. Kutscher,
Victor Maag, I.L. Seeligmann, and Rudolf Smend. Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967.
Greenstein, Edward L. “A Phoenician Inscription in Ugaritic Script?” Journal of the Ancient

Near Eastern Society 8 (1976): 49-57.
Greppin, John A.C. “Arm. գիէի gini, Grg. ლვინო γvino ‘Wine’.” Annual of Armenian Linguistics
19 (1998): 65-69.
_____. “The Survival of Ancient Anatolian and Mespotamian Vocabulary until the Present.”
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50 (1991): 203-207.
_____. “The Various Aloes in Ancient Times.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 16 (1988): 33-
48.
Griffiths, J. Gwyn. “The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses.” Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 12 (1953): 225-231.
Grimme, Hubert. “Hebr. ‫ טטפת‬und ‫טת‬, zwei Lehnwörter aus dem Ägyptischen.”
Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 41 (1938): 148-152.
Grintz, Jehoshua M. “‫מונחים קדומים ב׳תורת כהנים׳‬.” Lešonénu 39 (1974-1975): 5-20.
_____. “(‫מונחים קדומים בתורת כהנים )המשך‬.” Lešonénu 39 (1974-1975): 163-181.
Groneberg, Brigitte. “GIŠ.RU = eblaitisch ma-du-um.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie

orientale 82 (1988): 71-73.
Groom, Nigel St. J. Frankincense and Myrrh: A Study of the Arabian Incense Trade. Arab
Background Series. London: Longman, 1981.
328
Gudjedjiani, Chato and Letas Palmaitis. Svan-English Dictionary. Edited by B. George Hewitt.
Anatolian and Caucasian Studies. Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan Books, 1985.
Gundlach, Rolf. “Grauwacke.” Page 894 in vol. 2 of Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Edited by
Guriev, T.A. Осетинско-русский словар. 5th ed. Vladikavkaz: “Alaniia”, 2004.
Güterbock, Hans G. “Hittite kursa ‘Hunting Bag’.” Pages 113-123 in Essays in Ancient
Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor. Edited by Albert Leonard, Jr. and Bruce Beyer
Williams. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 47. Chicago: Oriental Institute,
1989.
_____. “Notes on Luwian Studies (à propos B. Rosenkranz’ Book Beiträge zur Erforschung des
Luvischen).” Orientalia 25 (1956): 113-140.
Güterbock, Hans G., Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., and Theo P.J. van den Hout, eds. The Hittite
Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental
Institute, 1980-present.
Haas, Volkert. Die hurritischen Ritualtermini in hethitischem Kontext. Corpus der hurritischen
Sprachdenkmäler, I. Abteilung: Die Texte aus Bogazköy 9. Rome: Consiglio nazionale
delle richerche, 1998.
_____. Geschichte der hethitischen Religion. Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One: The
Near and Middle East 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
_____. Die Serien itkaḫi und itkalzi des AZU-Priesters, Rituale für Tašmišarri und Tatuḫepa sowie
weitere Text emit Bezug auf Tašmišarri. Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler, I.
Abteilung: Die Texte aus Bogazköy 1. Rome: Multigrafica editrice, 1984.
Haas, Volkert and H.J. Thiel. “Ein Beitrag zum hurritischen Wörterbuch.” Ugarit-
Forschungen 11 (1979): 337-352.
Haas, Volkert and Gernot Wilhelm. “Zum hurritschen Lexikon II.” Orientalia 43 (1974): 87-
93.
Hagedorn, Anselm C. “‘Who Would Invite a Stranger from Abroad?’ The Presence of Greeks
in Palestine in Old Testament Times.” Pages 68-93 in The Old Testament in Its World:
Papers Read at the Winter Meeting, January 2003, the Society for Old Testament Study and at
the Joint Meeting, July 2003, the Society for Old Testament Study and het Oudtestamentisch
Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België. Edited by Robert P. Gordon and Johannes C. de
Moor. Oudtestamentische Studiën 52. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Hallo, William W. and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden:
Brill, 1997-2002.
329
Hamilton, Gordon J. The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts. Catholic
Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 40. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical
Association of America, 2006.
Hannig, Rainer. Ägyptisches Wörterbuch. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt. Mainz,

Germany: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2003-present.
_____. Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch–Deutsch (2800 bis 950 v. Chr.): die Sprache der Pharaonen.
5th ed. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 64. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von
Zabern, 2009.
_____. “Jaspis.” Page 246 in vol. 3 of Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Edited by Wolfgang Helck,
Eberhard Otto, and Wolfhart Westendorf. 7 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,
1972-1992.
Haran, Menaḥem. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of
Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1978.
Harer, W. Benson, Jr. “Lotus.” Pages 304-305 in vol. 2 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient
Egypt. Edited by Donald B. Redford. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
_____. “Pharmacological and Biological Properties of the Egyptian Lotus.” Journal of the
American Research Center in Egypt 22 (1985): 49-54.
Harrell, James A. “Ancient Egyptian Origins of Some Common Rock Names.” Journal of
Geological Education 43 (1995): 30-34.
Harris, John Richard. Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals. Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin: Institut für Orientforschung, Veröffentlichung 54. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1961.
Harris, R. Laird. “A Mention of Pottery Glazing in Proverbs.” Journal of the American Oriental
Society 60 (1940): 268-269.
Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. New International Commentary on the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988.
Hartum, E.S. “‫ טטפת‬,‫טוטפת‬.” Page 376 in vol. 3 of ‫ אוצר הידיעות על‬:‫אנציקלופדיה מקראית‬
‫המקרא ותקופתו‬. 9 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1958.
Haspelmath, Martin. “Lexical Borrowing: Concepts and Issues.” Pages 35-54 in Loanwords in
the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook. Edited by Martin Haspelmath and Uri
Tadmor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009.
Haspelmath, Martin and Uri Tadmor. “The Loanword Typology Project and the World
Loanword Database.” Pages 1-34 in Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative
330
Handbook. Edited by Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
2009.
Haugen, Einar. “The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing.” Language 26 (1950): 210-231.
Hawkins, John David. Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Vol. 1 of Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian
Inscriptions. 2 vols. Studies in Indo-European Language and Culture, New Series 8.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999.
Hawkins, John David and Halet Çambel. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. 2 vols.
Studies in Indo-European Language and Culture, New Series 8. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1999-2000.
Hayyim, Sulayman. New Persian-English Dictionary: Complete and Modern. 2 vols. Tehran:
Librarie-imprimerie Béroukhim, 1934-1936.
Healey, John. “Burning the Corn: New Light on the Killing of Mōtu.” Orientalia 52 (1983):
248-251.
_____. “Swords and Plowshares: Some Ugaritic Terminology.” Ugarit-Forschungen 15 (1983):

47-52.
Healy, John F. Pliny the Elder on Science and Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Heimpel, W. “Meluḫḫa.” Pages 53-55 in vol. 8 of Reallexikon der Assyriologie und

Vorderasiatischen Archaologie. Edited by Dietz Otto Edzard. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1993-1997.
Heimpel, W., Leonard Gorelick, and A. John Gwinnett. “Philological and Archaeological
Evidence for the Use of Emery in the Bronze Age Near East.” Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 40 (1988): 195-210.
Helbaek, Hans. “The Plant Remains from Nimrud.” Pages 613-620 in vol. 2 of Nimrud and Its
Remains. 3 vols. London: Collins, 1966.
Helck, Wolfgang. “Akazie.” Page 113 in vol. 1 of Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Edited by Wolfgang
Helck, Eberhard Otto, and Wolfhart Westendorf. 7 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto
_____. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2d ed.

Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1971.
_____. “Ṯkw und die Ramses-Stadt.” Vetus Testamentum 15 (1965): 35-48.
Heltzer, Michael. “Akkadian katinnu and Hebrew kīdōn, ‘Sword’.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies
41 (1989): 65-68.
331
_____. Review of Sergio Ribichini and Paolo Xella, La terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit.
Hennig, Richard. “κιννάμον und κινναμωφόρος in der antiken Literatur.” Klio 32 (1939):
325-330.
Henrickson, Robert C. “Hittite Pottery and Potters: The View from Late Bronze Age
Gordion.” Biblical Archaeologist 58 (1995): 82-90.
Hepper, F. Nigel. Pharaoh’s Flowers: The Botanical Treasures of Tutankhamun. 2d ed. Chicago:
KWS Publishers, 2009.
_____. Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants: Flowers and Trees, Fruits and Vegetables, Ecology. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1992.
_____. “On the Transference of Ancient Plant Names.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 109
(1977): 129-130.
Herrmann, Georgina and Alan R. Millard. “Who Used Ivories in the Early First Millennium
BC?” Pages 377-402 in Culture through Objects: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of
P.R.S. Moorey. Edited by Timothy Potts, Michael Roaf, and Diana L. Stein. Oxford:
Griffith Institute, 2003.
Hess, Richard S. “Hurrians and Other Inhabitants of Late Bronze Age Palestine.” Levant 29
(1997): 153-156.
Hillman, Gordon. “Traditional Husbandry and Processing of Archaic Cereals in Recent

Times: The Operations, Products, and Equipment which Might Feature in Sumerian
Texts: Part I: The Glume Wheats.” Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1 (1984): 114-152.
Hirsch, Hans. “Die Inscrhiften der Könige von Agade.” Archiv für Orientforschung 20 (1963): 1-
82.
Hirschfeld, Nicolle. “The Catalogue.” Pages 75-161 in Céramiques mycéniennes d’Ougarit. Ras
Shamra-Ougarit 13. Paris: ERC-ADPF, 2000.
Hjelmqvist, Hakon. “Some Economic Plants and Weeds from the Bronze Age of Cyprus.”
Pages 110-133 in Hala Sultan Tekke V: Excavations in Area 22: 1977-1973 and 1975-1978.
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 45/5. Gothenburg: Paul Åströms Förlag, 1979.
Hoch, James E. Middle Egyptian Grammar. Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities
Publications 15. Mississauga, Ont.: Benben Publications, 1997.
_____. Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Hock, Hans Henrich. Principles of Historical Linguistics. 2d ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
1991.
332
Hock, Hans Henrich and Brian D. Joseph. Language History, Language Change, and Language
Relationship: An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. 2d ed. Trends in
Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 218. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009.
Hodge, Carleton T. “Lislakh IV: Hindo-Hittite Haitch.” Pages 497-502 in The Fifth LACUS
Forum: 1978. Edited by Wolfgang Wölck and Paul L. Garvin. Columbia, S.C.: Hornbeam
Press, 1979.
Hoenig, Sidney B. “Tarshish.” Jewish Quarterly Review 69 (1979): 181-182.
Hoffmeier, James K. Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness
Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
_____. “Military: Materiel.” Pages 407-412 in vol. 2 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt.
Edited by Donald B. Redford. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
_____. “Egyptians.” Pages 251-290 in Peoples of the Old Testament World. Edited by Alfred J.
Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker,
1998.
_____. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. Oxford: Oxford
Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. “Hittite Equivalents of Old Assyrian kumrum and epattum.” Wiener
Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 86 (1996): 151-156.
_____. Alimenta Hethaeorum: Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor. American Oriental Series 55.
New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1974.
_____. “Hittite and Ugaritic Words for “Lettuce”.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 25 (1973): 234.
_____. “The Hittites and Hurrians.” Pages 197-228 in Peoples of Old Testament Times. Edited by
Donald J. Wiseman. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.
_____. “Hittite Tarpiš and Hebrew Terāphîm.”Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27 (1968): 61-68.
_____. “A Hittite Text in Epic Style about Merchants.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 22 (1968):
34-45.
_____. “An Anatolian Cult Term in Ugaritic.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 23 (1964): 66-68.
Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. and H. Craig Melchert, eds. A Grammar of the Hittite Language. 2 vols.
Languages of the Ancient Near East 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008.
Holladay, William L. Jeremiah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. 2 vols.
Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986-1989.
333
Holloway, Steven W. “Distaff, Crutch or Chain Gang? The Curse of the House of Joab in 2
Samuel iii 29.” Vetus Testamentum 37 (1987): 370-375.
Honeyman, A.M. “The Pottery Vessels of the Old Testament.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly
71 (1939): 76-90.
_____. “Larnax tēs Lapethou―A Third Phoenician Inscription.” Le Muséon 51 (1938): 285-
298.
Hoover, Donald B. Topaz. Butterworth-Heinemann Gem Books. Oxford: Butterworth-

Heinemann, 1992.
Hopf, Maria and Ulrich Willerding. “Pflanzenreste.” Pages 263-318 in Ausgrabungen in den
Urartäischen Anlagen 1977-1978. Edited by Wolfram Kleiss. Vol. 2 of Bastam. 2 vols.
Teheraner Forschungen 5. Berlin: Mann Verlag, 1989.
Horn, Paul. Grundriss der neupersischen Etymologie. Sammlung indogermanischer

Wörterbücher 4. Strassburg: K.J. Trübner, 1893.
Horowitz, Wayne, Takayoshi Oshima, and Seth L. Sanders. Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform
Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,
2006.
Houlihan, Patrick F. “Poultry.” Pages 59-61 in vol. 3 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient
Houtman, Cornelis. Exodus. Translated by Sierd Woudstra. 4 vols. Historical Commentary on

the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 1993-2002.
Hrůša, Ivan. Die akkadische Synonymenliste malku = šarru: eine Textedition mit Übersetzung und
Kommentar. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 50. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010.
Hübschmann, Heinrich. Armenische Grammatik. Bibliothek indogermanischer Grammatiken

6. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1897.
Huehnergard, John. Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. 2d ed. Harvard Semitic

Studies 32. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 2008.
Huffmon, Herbert B. Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study.
Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965.
Humbert, Paul. “En marge du dictionnaire hébraïque.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 21 (1950): 199-207.
Hünemörder, Christian. “Amomon.” Page 605 in vol. 1 of Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der
Antike. Edited by Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. 16 vols. Stuttgart: J.B.
Metzler, 1996-2003.
334
_____. “Fucus.” Page 687 in vol. 4 of Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike. Edited by Hubert
Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. 16 vols. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 1996-2003.
Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor. Review of Paul V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical

Hebrew. Journal of the American Oriental Society 122 (2002): 136-138.
Hurvitz, Avi. “The Usage of ‫ שש‬and ‫ בוץ‬in the Bible and Its Implication for the Date of P.”
Harvard Theological Review 60 (1967): 117-121.
Hussein, Abdel Aziz A. “Mineral Deposits.” Pages 511-566 in The Geology of Egypt. Edited by
Rushdi Said. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1990.
Ivanov, Vjačeslav V. “An Ancient Name for the Lyre.” Archiv Orientální 67 (1999): 585-600.
Jackson, Brian. “Feldspar Group.” Pages 238-283 in Gems: Their Sources, Descriptions and
Identification. Edited by Michael O’Donoghue. 6th ed. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann, 2006.
James, T.G.H. “Gold Technology in Ancient Egypt.” Gold Bulletin 5, no. 2 (1972): 38-42.
Janssen, Jac J. Daily Dress at Deir el-Medîna: Words for Clothing. Egyptology 8. London: Goldon
House Publications, 2008.
Janssen, Jozef M.A. “A travers les publications égyptologiques récentes concerant l’Ancien
testament.” Pages 29-63 in L’Ancien testament et l’Orient: études présentées aux VIes
Journées bibliques de Louvain (11-13 septembre 1954). Orientalia et biblica lovaniensia 1.
Leuven: Publications universitaires, 1957.
Jeffery, Arthur. The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’ān. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1938.
Johnstone, T.M. Jībbali Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Josephson, Folke. “Anatolien tarpa/i-, etc.” Pages 177-184 in Florilegium anatolicum: mélanges
offerts à Emmanuel Laroche. Paris: De Boccard, 1979.
Joshi, Jagat Pati. “Structures.” Pages 51-93 in Excavations at Kalibangan: The Early Harappans
(1960-1969). Edited by B.B. Lal, Jagat Pati Joshi, B.K. Thapar, and Madhu Bala. Memoirs
of the Archaeological Survey of India 98. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India,
2003.
_____. “Summary of Results.” Pages 15-24 in Excavations at Kalibangan: The Early Harappans
(1960-1969). Edited by B.B. Lal, Jagat Pati Joshi, B.K. Thapar, and Madhu Bala. Memoirs
of the Archaeological Survey of India 98. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India,
2003.
Jurado, Jesús Fernández. “The Tartessian Economy: Mining and Metallurgy.” Pages 241-262
in The Phoenicians in Spain: An Archaeological Review of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B.C.E.
335
Edited by Marilyn R. Bierling. Translated by Marilyn R. Bierling. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 2002.
Kaelin, Oskar. “Produkte und Lehnwörter: Das Beispiel des Granatapfels.” Pages 91-128 in
Das Ägyptische und die Sprachen Vorderasiens, Nordafrikas und der Ägäis: Akten des Basler
Kolloquiums zum ägyptisch-nichtsemitischen Sprachkontakt, Basel 9.-11. Juli 2003. Edited by
Thomas Schneider. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 310. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag,
2004.
Kammenhuber, Annelies. “Hethitische Opfertexte mit anaḫi, aḫrušḫi und ḫuprušḫi und
hurrischen Sprüchen. Teil I.” Orientalia 55 (1986): 105-130.
_____. “Hethitische Opfertexte mit anaḫi, aḫrušḫi und ḫuprušḫi und hurrischen Sprüchen.
Teil II.” Orientalia 55 (1986): 390-423.
_____. Die Arier im vorderen Orient. Indogermanische Bibliothek, 3 Reihe: Untersuchungen.

Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1968.
Kanowski, M.G. Containers of Classical Greece: A Handbook of Shapes. St. Lucia: University of
Queensland Press, 1984.
Kaplony, Peter. “Siegelung.” Pages 933-937 in vol. 5 of Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Edited by
Kaufman, Stephen A. “The Phoenician Inscription of the Incirli Trilingual: A Tentative

Reconstruction and Translation.” Maarav 14, no. 2 (2007): 7-26.
_____. “Languages in Contact: The Ancient Near East.” Pages 297-306 in Semitic Linguistics:
The State of the Art at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Shlomo Izreˀel.
Israel Oriental Studies 20. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002.
_____. “Aramaic.” Pages 114-130 in The Semitic Languages. Edited by Robert Hetzron. New
York: Routledge, 1997.
_____. “The Classification of the North West Semitic Dialects of the Biblical Period and
Some Implications Thereof.” Pages 41-57 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of
Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, 4-12 August, 1985: Division D: Panel Sessions, Hebrew and Aramaic
Languages. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988.
_____. “Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh.” Maarav 3

(1982): 137-175.
_____. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Assyriological Studies 19. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1974.
336
Kaye, Alan S. Review of Vladimir E. Orel and Olga V. Stolbova, Hamito-Semitic Etymological
Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies, University of London 60 (1997): 365-367.
Kazimirski, Albert de Biberstein. Dictionnaire arabe-français. 2 vols. Paris: G.P. Maisonneuve,

1960.
Keel, Othmar. The Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Frederick J. Gaiser.
Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.
_____. Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1
und 10 und Sach 4. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 84-85. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1977.
Kelso, James L. The Ceramic Vocabulary of the Old Testament. Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research Supplement Studies 5-6. New Haven, Conn.: American Schools
of Oriental Research, 1948.
Kendall, Timothy. “gurpisu ša awēli: The Helmets of the Warriors at Nuzi.” Pages 201-231 in
In Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 29, 1981. Edited by M.A.
Morrison and David I. Owen. Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the
Hurrians 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981.
Kent, Roland G. Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. 2d ed. American Oriental Series 33. New
Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1953.
Khaĭdakov, Said Magomedovich. Сравнительно-сопоставительный словарь

дагестанских языко . Moscow: Nauka, 1973.
Killen, Geoffrey. Ancient Egyptian Furniture. 2 vols. Modern Egyptology Series. Warminster,
England: Aris & Phillips, 1980-1994.
King, Philip J. “David Defeats Goliath.” Pages 350-357 in ‘Up to the Gates of Ekron’: Essays on the
Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin. Edited by
Sidnie White Crawford, Amnon Ben-Tor, and William G. Dever. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 2007.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. Review of James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New
Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 307 (1997): 89-91.
_____. “Lotuses and Lotuses, or..Poor Susan’s Older Than We Thought.” Varia Aegyptiaca 3
(1987): 29-31.
Kittel, Rudolf. Die Bücher der Chronik und Esra, Nehemia und Esther übersetzt und erklärt.
Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, I. Abteilung: Die historichen Bücher 6.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902.
337
Klemm, Rosemarie and Dietrich D. Klemm. “Chronologischer Abriß der antiken
Goldgewinnung in der Ostwüste Ägyptens.” Mitteilungen der Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts 50 (1994): 189-222.
Klimov, Georgiĭ Andreevich and Madzhid Sharipovich Khalilov. Словарь кавказских

языков: сопоставление основной лексики. Moscow: Izdatelskaia firma
“Vostochnaia lit-ra”, 2003.
Kloekhorst, Alwin. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden Indo-
European Etymological Dictionary Series 5. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Knobloch, Frederick W. “Linen and the Linguistic Dating of P.” Pages 459-474 in Mishneh
Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay.
Edited by Nili S. Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams. Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Knoppers, Gary N. “Treaty, Tribute List, or Diplomatic Letter: KTU 3.1 Reexamined.” Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 289 (1993): 81-94.
Koch, Lauge. “The Name ‘Topaz’ in Precious Stone Literature.” Translated by Frederick H.
Pough. Lapidary Journal 18 (1964): 868-871, 873, 876.
Köcher, Franz. Keilschriftexte aus Assur 2. Vol. 2 of Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten
und Untersuchungen. 7 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1963.
Koehl, Robert B. “Aegean Interactions with the Near East and Egypt during the Late Bronze
Age.” Pages 270-272 in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second
Millennium B.C. Edited by Joan Aruz, Kim Benzel, and Jean M. Evans. New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008.
_____. “Minoan Kamares Ware in the Levant.” Page 59 in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and
Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. Edited by Joan Aruz, Kim Benzel, and Jean M.
Evans. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008.
_____. Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta. Prehistory Monographs 19. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic
Press, 2006.
_____. “The Functions of Aegean Bronze Age Rytha.” Pages 179-188 in Sanctuaries and Cults
in the Aegean Bronze Age: Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish
Institute in Athens, 12-13 May, 1980. Edited by Robin Hägg and Nanno Marinatos.
Skrifter utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen 28. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1981.
Kogan, Leonid. “Addenda et Corrigenda to the Hamito‐Semitic Etymological Dictionary (HSED)

by V. Orel and O. Stolbova (II)” (review of Vladimir E. Orel and Olga V. Stolbova,
Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary). Journal of Semitic Studies 47 (2002): 183-202.
Köhler, Ludwig. “Alttestamentliche Wortforschung: Bedīl und *bedīlīm.” Theologische

Zeitschrift 3 (1947): 155-156.
338
_____. “Alttestamentliche Wortforschung: Zwei Fachwörter der Bausprache in Jesaja 28,
16.” Theologische Zeitschrift 3 (1947): 390-393.
_____. “Hebräische Etymologien.” Journal of Biblical Literature 1940 (1940): 35-40.
Koivulehto, Jorma. “The Earliest Contacts between Indo-European and Uralic Speakers in
the Light of Lexical Loans.” Pages 235-263 in Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-
European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations: Papers Presented at an
International Symposium Held at the Tvärminne Research Station of the University of
Helsinki, 8-10 January, 1999. Edited by Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola, and Petteri
Koskikallio. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 242. Helsinki, Finland:
Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 2001.
Kopf, Lothar. “The Treatment of Foreign Words in Medieval Arabic Lexicology.” Pages 247-
261 in Studies in Arabic and Hebrew Lexicography. Edited by Moshe H. Goshen-
Gottstein. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1976.
Korpel, Marjo C.A. A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Ugaritisch-
Biblische Literatur 8. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990.
Kortlandt, F.H.H. Review of Vladimir E. Orel and Olga V. Stolbova, Hamito-Semitic

Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction. Journal of African Languages and
Linguistics 20 (1999): 198-203.
Kraus, F.R. “Sesam im Alten Mesopotamien.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968):
112-119.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1-59. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Continental

Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
Krebernik, Manfred. “Zu Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla: Teil 2
(Glossar).” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 73 (1983): 1-47.
Kroll, Helmut J. “Kulturpflanzen von Tiryns.” Archäologischer Anzeiger 32 (1982): 467-485.
Kronasser, Heinz. Etymologie der hethitischen Sprache. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,
1962-1966.
Kruyswijk, Adriaan. “Geen gesneden beeld..”. Franeker: T. Wever, 1962.
Krzyszkowska, Olga and Robert Morkot. “Ivory and Related Materials.” Pages 320-331 in
Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Edited by Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Kubba, Shamil A.A. Mesopotamian Furniture: From the Mesolithic to the Neo-Assyrian Period (ca.
10,000 B.C.-600 B.C.). BAR International Series 1566. Oxford: Hedges, 2006.
339
Kuhrt, Amélie. The Ancient Near East, c. 3000-330 BC. 2 vols. Routledge History of the Ancient
World. London: Routledge, 1997.
Kutscher, E.Y. A History of the Hebrew Language. Edited by Raphael Kutscher. 2d corrected ed.
Lacheman, Ernest René. Family Law Documents. Vol. 8 of Excavations at Nuzi Conducted by the
Semitic Museum and the Fogg Art Museum of Harvard University, with the Cooperation of
the American School of Oriental Research at Bagdad. 8 vols. Harvard Semitic Series 15.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962.
_____. The Administrative Archives. Vol. 6 of Excavations at Nuzi Conducted by the Semitic
Museum and the Fogg Art Museum of Harvard University, with the Cooperation of the
American School of Oriental Research at Bagdad. 8 vols. Harvard Semitic Series 15.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1955.
_____. Miscellaneous Texts from Nuzi: Part II: The Palace and Temple Archives. Vol. 5 of
Excavations at Nuzi Conducted by the Semitic Museum and the Fogg Art Museum of Harvard
University, with the Cooperation of the American School of Oriental Research at Bagdad. 8
vols. Harvard Semitic Series 14. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1950.
_____. “Nuziana II.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 36 (1939): 113-219.
Lagarde, Paul de. Uebersicht über die im Aramäischen, Arabischen und Hebräischen übliche
Bildung der Nomina. Göttingen: Dietrichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1889.
_____. Symmicta. 2 vols. Göttingen: Dietrichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1877-1880.
_____. Semitica. 2 vols. Göttingen: Dietrichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1878-1879.
Lambdin, Thomas O. “Egyptian Loan Words in Tell El Amarna Letter No. 14.” Orientalia 22
(1953): 362-369.
_____. “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament.” Journal of the American Oriental Society
73 (1953): 145-155.
_____. “Egyptian Loanwords and Transcriptions in the Ancient Semitic Languages.” Ph.D.
diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1952.
Landersdorfer, Simon Konrad. Sumerisches Sprachgut im Alten Testament: eine biblisch-

lexikalische Studie. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament 21. Leipzig: J.C.
Hinrichs, 1916.
Landsberger, Benno. “Tin and Lead: The Adventures of Two Vocables.” Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 24 (1965): 285-296.
Laroche, Emmanuel. Glossaire de la langue hourrite. 2 vols. Revue hittite et asianique 34-35.
Paris: Klincksieck, 1978-1979.
340
_____. “Observations sur la chronologie de l’ionien ā > ē.” Pages 83-91 in Mélanges de
linguistique et de philologie grecques offerts à Pierre Chantraine. Edited by Alfred Ernout.
Études et commentaires 79. Paris: Klincksieck, 1972.
_____. Dictionnaire de la langue louvite. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique de l’Institut

français d’archéologie d’Istanbul. Paris: A. Maisonneuve, 1959.
_____. Les hiéroglyphes hittites: l’écriture. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche
scientifique, 1960.
Laufer, Berthold. Sino-Iranica: Chinese Contributions to the History of Civilization in Ancient Iran,
with Special Reference to the History of Cultivated Plants and Products. Field Museum of
Natural History: Anthropological Series 15/3. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural
History, 1919.
Lawergren, Bo. “Distinctions among Canaanite, Philistine, and Israelite Lyres, and Their
Global Lyrical Contexts.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 309
(1998): 41-68.
Layton, Scott C. “A Chain Gang in 2 Samuel iii 29? A Rejoinder.” Vetus Testamentum 39
(1989): 81-86.
Leach, Bridget and John Tait. “Papyrus.” Pages 22-24 in vol. 3 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of
Ancient Egypt. Edited by Donald B. Redford. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001.
Lee, Lorna and Stephen Quirke. “Painting Materials.” Pages 104-120 in Ancient Egyptian
Lefebvre, Gustave and Battiscombe Gunn. “A Note on Brit. Mus. 828 (Stela of Simontu).”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 25 (1939): 218-219.
Leichty, Erle. The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC). The Royal
Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Leslau, Wolf. Arabic Loanwords in Ethiopian Semitic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1990.
_____. Comparative Dictionary of Geˁez (Classical Ethiopic): Geˁez-English/English-Geˁez with an

Index of the Semitic Roots. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987.
Levene, Dan and Beno Rothenberg. “Tin and Tin-Lead Alloys in Hebrew and Jewish
Aramaic.” Pages 100-112 in Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P.
Weitzman. Edited by Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 333. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2001.
341
Lewis, Alkin. “Report on the Lachish Letters with Remarks upon the Use of Iron Inks in
Antiquity.” Pages 188-193 in The Lachish Letters. Vol. 1 of Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir). 4
vols. Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East
Publications 1. London: Oxford University Press, 1938.
_____. “Tests upon the Ink of the Letters.” Pages 194-195 in The Lachish Letters. Vol. 1 of
Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir). 4 vols. Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research
Expedition to the Near East Publications 1. London: Oxford University Press, 1938.
Lewis, Theodore J. “Teraphim ‫תרפים‬.” Pages 844-850 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the
Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. 2d
ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
_____. Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. Harvard Semitic Monographs 39. Atlanta,
Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989.
Lewy, Julius. “Studies in Old Assyrian Grammar and Lexicography.” Orientalia 19 (1930): 1-
36.
Liebermann, Stephen J. The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian: Prolegomena and

Evidence. Harvard Semitic Studies 22. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977.
Liebowitz, Harold A. “Ivory.” Pages 584-587 in vol. 3 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by
David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Lipiński, Edward. Itineraria Phoenicia. Studia Phoenicia 18. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2004.
_____. “Emprunts suméro-akkadiens en hébreu biblique.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 1

(2001): 61-73.
_____. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 2d ed. Orientalia lovaniensia

analecta 80. Leuven: Peeters, 2001.
_____. “Banquet en l’honneur de Baal: CTA 3 (V AB), A, 4-22.” Ugarit-Forschungen 2 (1970):

75-88.
Littauer, M.A. “Bits and Pieces.” Pages 487-504 in Selected Writings on Chariots and Other Early
Vehicles, Riding and Harness. Edited by Peter Raulwing. Culture and History of the
Ancient Near East 6. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Liverani, Mario. International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600-1100 B.C. Studies in
Diplomacy. New York: Palgrave, 2001.
López-Ruiz, Carolina. “Tarshish and Tartessos Revisited: Textual Problems and Historical
Implications.” Pages 255-280 in Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek,
and Indigenous Relations. Edited by Michael Dietler and Carolina López-Ruiz. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2009.
342
Loret, Victor. La flore pharaonique d’après les documents hiéroglyphiques et les spécimens
découverts dans les tombes. 2d ed. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1892.
Loretz, Oswald. “Die Gefäße Rdmns für ein Marziḥu-Gelage zu Ehren Baals und der
Nestorbecher der Ilias: Zu mykenisch-ugaritischen Beziehungen nach KTU 1.3 I 10-
15a.” Pages 299-323 in Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux: Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu
seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Oswald Loretz, Kai A. Metzler, and Hanspeter
Schaudig. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 281. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002.
_____. “Hebräisch tjrwš und jrš in Mic 6,15 und Hi 20,15.” Ugarit-Forschungen 9 (1977): 353-
354.
Löw, Immanuel. Die Flora der Juden. 4 vols. Veröffentlichungen der Alexander Kohut
Memorial Foundation 2-4, 6. Leipzig: R. Löwit, 1924-1934.
Lucas, Alfred. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. Edited by John Richard Harris. 4th ed.
London: E. Arnold, 1962.
_____. “The Occurrence of Natron in Ancient Egypt.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 18

(1932): 62-66.
Lucas, Alfred and Alan Rowe. “The Ancient Egyptian Bekhen-Stone.” Annales du service des
antiquités de l’Égypte 38 (1938): 127-156.
Luckenbill, D.D. “A Study of the Temple Documents from the Cassite Period.” American
Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 23 (1907): 280-322.
Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor
Bible 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
Luo, Zhufeng, ed. 漢語大詞典. 13 vols. Shanghai: Shanghai ci shu chu ban she: Fa xing
Shanghai ci shu chu ban she fa xing suo, 1986-1994.
Lutz, Henry Frederick. “The Meaning of Babylonian bittu.” Journal of the American Oriental
Society 42 (1922): 206-207.
MacKenzie, D.N. The Buddhist Sogdian Texts of the British Library. Acta Iranica: Troisième série,
Textes et mémories 3. Tehran: Bibliothèque Pahlavi, 1976.
_____. A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Malul, Meir. “David’s Curse of Joab (2 Sam 3:29) and the Social Significance of mḥzyq bplk.”
Aula Orientalis 10 (1992): 49-67.
Maman, Aharon. Comparative Semitic Philology in the Middle Ages: From Saˁadiah Gaon to Ibn
Barūn (10th-12th C.). Translated by David Lyons. Studies in Semitic Languages and
Linguistics 40. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
343
Mankowski, Paul V. Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew. Harvard Semitic Studies 47.
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
Margalit, Baruch. “The ‘Neolithic Connexion’ of the Ugaritic Poem of AQHT.” Paléorient 9,
no. 2 (1984): 93-98.
Margueron, Jean-Claude. “Ugarit: Gateway to the Mediterranean.” Pages 236-238 in Beyond

Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. Edited by Joan Aruz,
Kim Benzel, and Jean M. Evans. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008.
Markowitz, Yvonne J. and Peter Lacovara. “Gold.” Pages 36-38 in vol. 2 of The Oxford
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Edited by Donald B. Redford. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford
Martin, Karl. “Vogelfang, -jagd, -netz, -steller.” Pages 1051-1053 in vol. 6 of Lexikon der
Ägyptologie. Edited by Wolfgang Helck, Eberhard Otto, and Wolfhart Westendorf. 7
vols. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972-1992.
Masson, Émilia. “Greek and Semitic Languages: Early Contacts.” Translated by Chris
Markham. Pages 733-737 in A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late
Antiquity. Edited by Anastasios-Phoivos Christidis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2007.
_____. Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec. Études et commentaires 67.
Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1967.
Masson, Olivier. Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques: recuiel critique et commenté. Études
chypriotes 1. Paris: De Boccard, 1961.
Maxwell-Hyslop, K.R. “Assyrian Sources of Iron: A Preliminary Survey of the Historical and
Geographical Evidence.” Iraq 36 (1974): 139-154.
Mayer, Maria Luisa. “Ricerche sul problema dei rapporti fra lingue indoeuropee e lingue
semitiche.” Acme: annali della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università degli studi di
Milano 13 (1960): 77-100.
Mayer, Walter. Nuzi-Studien I: die Archive des Palastes und die Prosopographie der Berufe. Alter
Orient und Altes Testament 205. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1978.
Mayrhofer, Manfred. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. 3 vols. Indogermanische

Bibliothek, 2 Reihe: Wörterbücher. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1986-2001.
_____. Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen. 4 vols. Indogermanische

Bibliothek, 2 Reihe: Wörterbücher. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1956-1980.
_____. Die Indo-Arier im Alten Vorderasien. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966.
_____. “Indogermanistische Randglossen zu ‘Kluge-Mitzka’.” Die Sprache 7 (1955): 177-189.
344
Mazar, Benjamin. “Two Hebrew Ostraca from Tell Qasîle.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 10
(1951): 265-267.
Mazzini, Giovanni. “The Function of the Term ˀāḥû in Genesis XLI 2, 18.” Studi epigrafici e
linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico 21 (2004): 83-87.
McCarter, P. Kyle. Jr. II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary.
Anchor Bible 9. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984.
McComiskey, Thomas Edward. “Hosea.” Pages 1-237 in Hosea, Joel, and Amos. Vol. 1 of The
Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary. Edited by Thomas Edward
McComiskey. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1992.
McConchie, Matasha. Iron Technology and Ironmaking Communities of the First Millennium BC.
Vol. 5 of Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier. Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Supplement Series 13. Leuven: Peeters, 2004.
McGeough, Kevin M. Ugaritic Economic Tablets: Text, Translation and Notes. Edited by Mark S.
Smith. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 32. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.
McKane, William. Proverbs: A New Approach. Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press,
1970.
McKenzie, John L. Second Isaiah. Anchor Bible 20. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968.
Meeks, Dimitri. “Les emprunts égyptiens aux langues sémitiques durant le Nouvel Empire
et la troisième période intermédiaire: les aléas du comparatisme” (review of James
E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate
Period). Bibliotheca Orientalis 54 (1997): 32-61.
Meiggs, Russell. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1982.
Meissner, Bruno. “Woher haben die Assyrer Silber bezogen?” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
15 (1912): 145-149.
Melchert, H. Craig. Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon. Lexica Anatolica 2. Chapel Hill, N.C.: H. Craig
Melchert, 1993.
Metzger, Martin. Königsthron und Gottesthron: Thronformen und Throndarstellungen in Ägypten

und im Vorderen Orient im dritten und zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christus und deren
Bedeutung für das Verständnis von Aussagen über den Thron im Alten Testament. 2 vols.
Alter Orient und Altes Testament 15. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1985.
Meyers, Carol L. “Ephod (Object).” Page 550 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by
David Noel Freedman. 5 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
345
_____. The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult. American
Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 2. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press,
1976.
Michel, Cécile and Klass R. Veenhof. “The Textiles Traded by the Assyrians in Anatolia
(19th-18th Centuries BC).” Pages 210-271 in Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near
East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC. Edited by Cécile Michel
and Marie-Louise B. Nosch. Ancient Textiles Series 8. Oxford: Oxbow, 2010.
Michel, Ernst. “Die Assur-Texte Salmanassars III. (858-824): 6. Fortsetzung.” Die Welt des
Orients 2 (1954-1959): 27-45.
Milik, J.T. Dédicaces faites par des dieux (Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr) et des thiases sémitiques à l'époque
romaine. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 92. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1972.
Militarev, Alexander. “Akkadian-Egyptian Lexical Matches.” Pages 139-145 in Studies in

Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller.
Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 60. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2007.
Millard, Alan R. “The Armor of Goliath.” Pages 337-343 in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays
in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Edited by J. David Schloen. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Mittermayer, Catherine. Enmerkara und der Herr von Arata: eine ungleicher Wettstreit. Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis 239. Freiburg: Academic Press, 2009.
Moldenke, Harold N. and Alma L. Moldenke. Plants of the Bible. Waltham, Mass.: Chronica
Botanica Company, 1952.
Molen, Rami van der. A Hieroglyphic Dictionary of Egyptian Coffin Texts. Probleme der
Ägyptologie 15. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Monier-Williams, Monier. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically

Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. 2d ed. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1899.
Moor, Johannes C. de. “Fishes in KTU 4.427:23-29.” Ugarit-Forschungen 28 (1996): 155-157.
_____. “Standing Stones and Ancestor Worship.” Ugarit-Forschungen 27 (1995): 1-20.
_____. “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra II.” Ugarit-Forschungen 2
(1970): 303-327.
_____. “Frustula Ugaritica.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24 (1965): 355-364.
Moor, Johannes C. de and Klaas Spronk. “Problematical Passages in the Legend of Kirtu (I).”
346
Moore, D.T. and W.A. Oddy. “Touchstones: Some Aspects of Their Nomenclature,
Petrography and Provenance.” Journal of Archaeological Science 12 (1985): 59-80.
Moorey, P.R.S. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence. 2d
ed. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999.
Morrison, Martha A. “Hurrians.” Pages 335-338 in vol. 3 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited
by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Muchiki, Yoshiyuki. Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic. Society of
Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 173. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature,
1999.
Muhly, James D., Robert Maddin, Tamara Stech, and Engin Özgen. “Iron in Anatolia and the
Nature of the Hittite Iron Industry.” Anatolian Studies 35 (1985): 67-84.
Mulder, Martin Jan. 1 Kings 1-11. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 1 of 1 Kings. 2 vols.
Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.
Müller, Matthias. Review of James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom
and Third Intermediate Period. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 97 (2002): 29-43.
Müller-Karpe, Andreas. Hethitische Töpferei der Oberstadt von Hattusa: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis
spät-grossreichzeitlicher Keramik und Töpferbetreibe unter Zugrundelegung der
Grabungsergebnisse von 1978-82 in Boǧazköy. Marburger Studien zur Vor- und
Frühgeschichte 10. Marburg: Hitzeroth Verlag, 1988.
Müller, W. Max. Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern. Leipzig: W. Engelmann,
1893.
Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009.
Murphy, C.C.R. “What Is Gopher Wood?” Asiatic Review 42 (1946): 79-81.
Murphy, Roland E. Proverbs. Word Biblical Commentary 22. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.
_____. The Song of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or the Song of Songs. Hermeneia.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
Murray, Mary Anne. “Cereal Production and Processing.” Pages 505-536 in Ancient Egyptian
_____. “Fruits, Vegetables, Pulses and Condiments.” Pages 609-655 in Ancient Egyptian
347
Muthmann, Friedrich. Der Granatapfel: Symbol des Lebens in der Alten Welt. Schriften der
Abegg-Stiftung Bern 6. Freiburg: Office du livre, 1982.
Naˀaman, Nadav. “Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine.” Levant 26
(1994): 175-187.
_____. “Population Changes in Palestine Following Assyrian Deportations.” Tel Aviv 20

(1993): 104-124.
Naˀaman, Nadav and Ran Zadok. “Sargon II’s Deportations to Israel and Philistia (716-708
B.C.).” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 40 (1988): 36-46.
Naeh, Shlomo and M.P. Weitzmann. “Tīrōš: Wine or Grape? A Case of Metonymy.” Vetus
Testamentum 44 (1994): 115-120.
Naveh, Joseph. “Unpublished Phoenician Inscriptions from Palestine.” Israel Exploration

Journal 37 (1987): 25-30.
Neu, Erich. Das hurritische Epos der Freilassung: Untersuchungen zu einem hurritisch-hethitischen
Textensemble aus Ḫattuša. Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 32. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1996.
_____. “Hethitisch zapzagi-.” Ugarit-Forschungen 27 (1995): 395-402.
_____. “Zur Herkunft des Inselnamens Kypros.” Glotta 73 (1995): 1-7.
_____. Das Hurritische: eine altorientalische Sprache in neuem Licht. Abhandlungen der Geistes-
und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 3. Mainz am Rhein: Akademie der
Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1988.
Nielsen, Kjeld. Incense in Ancient Israel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 38. Leiden: Brill,
1986.
Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich. “Archaic Greeks in the Orient: Textual and Archaeological

Evidence.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 322 (2001): 11-32.
Nöldeke, Theodor. Neue beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strassburg: Karl J.

Trübner, 1910.
_____. Review of Paul de Lagarde, Semitica. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen

Gesselschaft 32 (1878): 401-410.
Noth, Martin. Könige. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament 9/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener Verlag, 1968.
Nozadze, N.A. Лексика хурритского языка. Studies of the Society of Assyriologists,

Bibliologists, and Caucasiologists 1. Tbilisi: Society of Assyriologists, Bibliologists,
and Caucasiologists, 2007.
348
Nussbaum, Alan J. Head and Horn in Indo-European. Studies in Indo-European Language and
Culture, New Series 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986.
O’Connor, David. “Egypt, the Levant, and the Aegean from the Hyksos Period to the Rise of
the New Kingdom.” Pages 108-110 in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the
Second Millennium B.C. Edited by Joan Aruz, Kim Benzel, and Jean M. Evans. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008.
O’Donoghue, Michael. “Lapis Lazuli.” Pages 329-331 in Gems: Their Sources, Descriptions and
Heinemann, 2006.
_____. “Less Common Species.” Pages 376-469 in Gems: Their Sources, Descriptions and
Heinemann, 2006.
_____. “Peridot.” Pages 289-291 in Gems: Their Sources, Descriptions and Identification. Edited
by Michael O’Donoghue. 6th ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006.
_____. “Quartz.” Pages 295-313 in Gems: Their Sources, Descriptions and Identification. Edited by
Michael O’Donoghue. 6th ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006.
_____. “Turquoise.” Pages 323-328 in Gems: Their Sources, Descriptions and Identification. Edited
by Michael O’Donoghue. 6th ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006.
Oberhuber, Karl. “Kontaktwirkungen der Symbiose Sumerisch-Akkadisch: Bemerkungen

zum akkadischen Lehngut im Sumerischen.” Pages 257-261 in Al-Hudhud: Festschrift
Maria Höfner zum 80. Geburtstag. Edited by Roswitha G. Stiegner. Graz: Karl-Franzens-
Universität, 1981.
Oded, Bustanay. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden:
Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1979.
Ogden, Jack. “Metals.” Pages 148-176 in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Edited by
Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Oksaar, Els. “The History of Contact Linguistics as a Discipline.” Pages 1-12 in vol. 1 of
Kontaktlinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Edited by
Hans Goebel, Peter H. Nelde, Zdenek Stary, and Wolfgang Wölck. 2 vols. Handbücher
zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 12. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996.
Olmo, H.P. “The Origin and Domestication of the Vinifera Grape.” Pages 31-43 in The Origins
and Ancient History of Wine. Edited by Patrick E. McGovern, Stuart J. Fleming, and
Solomon H. Katz. Food and Nutrition in History and Anthropology 11. Amsterdam:
Gordon and Breach Publishers, 1996.
Olmo Lete, Gregorio del. Mitos y leyendas de Canaan según la tradición de Ugarit. Fuentes de la
ciencia bíblica 1. Madrid: Ediciones Cristianidad, 1981.
349
Olmo Lete, Gregorio del and Joaqín Sanmartín. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the
Alphabetic Tradition. Translated by Wilfred G.E. Watson. 2d ed. 2 vols. Handbook of
Oriental Studies, Section One: The Near and Middle East 67. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Oppenheim, A. Leo. “Essay on Overland Trade in the First Millennium B.C.” Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 21 (1967): 236-254.
_____. “The Golden Garments of the Gods.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8 (1949): 172-193.
Orel, Vladimir E. and Olga V. Stolbova. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a
Reconstruction. Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One: The Near and Middle
East. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Ossing, Jürgen. “Zum Lautwechsel 𓇋 ↔ 𓂢 unter Einfluss von 𓐍.” Studien zur altägyptischen
Kultur 8 (1980): 217-225.
_____. “Lautsystem.” Pages 944-949 in vol. 3 of Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Edited by Wolfgang
Helck, Eberhard Otto, and Wolfhart Westendorf. 7 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto
Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah. 2 vols. New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986-1998.
Pardee, Dennis. Review of Josef Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik. Archiv für Orientforschung 50
(2003-2004): 1-404. Online: http://www.univie.ac.at/orientalistik/.
_____. Les textes rituels. 2 vols. Publications de la Mission archéologique française de Ras
Shamra-Ougarit 12. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 2000.
_____. “Trois comptes ougaritques: RS 15.062, RS 18.024, RIH 78/02.” Syria 77 (2000): 23-67.
_____. “Les hommes du roi propriétaires de champs les textes ougaritiques RS 15.16 et RS
19.016.” Semitica 49 (1999): 19-64.
_____. “RS 24.643: Texte et structure.” Syria 69 (1992): 153-170.
_____. Les textes hippiatriques. Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations 53. Paris: Editions
Recherche sur les civilisations, 1985.
_____. “Ugaritic: The Letter of Puduḫepa: The Text.” Archiv für Orientforschung 29/30 (1983-
1984): 321-329.
_____. Review of Stephen A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Journal of Near
_____. “The Ugaritic Text 147(90).” Ugarit-Forschungen 6 (1974): 275-282.
350
Parkinson, R.B. “The Discourse of the Fowler: Papyrus Butler Verso (P. BM EA 10274).” Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology 90 (2004): 81-111.
Paul, Shalom M. Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1991.
Payne, Annick. Hieroglyphic Luwian. 2d ed. Elementa Linguarum Orientis 3. Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz, 2010.
Pentiuc, Eugen J. West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar. Harvard Semitic
Studies 49. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001.
Pettinato, Giovanni. Testi lessicali bilingui della biblioteca L. 2769. Materiali epigrafici di Ebla 4.
Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, 1982.
_____. “Il commercio con l’estero della Mesopotamia meridionale nel III mil. av.C. alla luce
delle fonti letterarie e lessicale sumerische.” Mesoptamia 7 (1972): 43-166.
Peust, Carsten. Egyptian Phonology: An Introduction to the Phonology of a Dead Language.

Monographien zur ägyptischen Sprache 2. Göttingen: Peust & Gutschmidt, 1999.
Pfeiffer, Robert H. and Ernest René Lacheman. Miscellaneous Texts from Nuzi: Part I. Vol. 4 of
Excavations at Nuzi Conducted by the Semitic Museum and the Fogg Art Museum of Harvard
University, with the Cooperation of the American School of Oriental Research at Bagdad. 8
vols. Harvard Semitic Series 13. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1942.
Piacentini, Patrizia. “Scribes.” Pages 187-192 in vol. 3 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient
Pickersgill, Barbara. “Spices.” Pages 153-172 in The Cultural History of Plants. Edited by
Ghillean T. Prance and Mark Nesbitt. London: Routledge, 2005.
Platts, John T. A Dictionary of Urdū, Classical Hindī, and English. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1965.
Podolsky, Baruch. “Notes on Hebrew Etymology.” Pages 199-205 in Past Links: Studies in the
Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Shlomo Izreˀel, Itamar
Singer, and Ran Zadok. Israel Oriental Studies 18. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
1998.
Pokorny, Julius. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. Bern: A. Francke Verlag,

1959-1969.
Polvani, Anna Maria. La terminologia dei minerali nei testi ittiti. Eothen 3. Florence: Elite, 1988.
Pope, Marvin H. Review of Baruch Margalit, A Matter of “Life” and “Death”: A Study of the Baal-
Mot Epic (CTA 4-5-6). Ugarit-Forschungen 13 (1981): 316-321.
351
_____. Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 7C.
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977.
_____. “The Scene on the Drinking Mug from Ugarit.” Pages 393-405 in Near Eastern Studies
in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by Hans Goedicke. Baltimore, Md.: The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1971.
_____. Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Anchor Bible 15. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1965.
_____. El in the Ugaritic Texts. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 2. Leiden: Brill, 1955.
Postgate, J. Nicholas. “Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts.” Bulletin on Sumerian
Agriculture 6 (1991): 171-176.
Potts, Daniel T. “Distant Shores: Ancient Near Eastern Trade with South Asia and Northeast
Africa.” Pages 1451-1463 in vol. 3 of Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by
Jack M. Sasson. 4 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995.
Powell, Marvin A. “Obst und Gemüse: A. I. Mesopotamien.” Pages 13-22 in vol. 10 of

Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archaologie. Edited by Dietz Otto
Edzard. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003-2005.
_____. “Wine and the Vine in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Cuneiform Evidence.” Pages 97-
122 in The Origins and Ancient History of Wine. Edited by Patrick E. McGovern, Stuart J.
Fleming, and Solomon H. Katz. Food and Nutrition in History and Anthropology 11.
Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Publishers, 1996.
_____. “Epistemology and Sumerian Agriculture: The Strange Case of Sesame and Linseed.”
Aula Orientalis 9 (1991): 155-164.
Powels, Sylvia. “Indische Lehnwörter in der Bibel.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 5 (1992): 186-
200.
Pritchard, James B. Sarepta: A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age: Excavations of the University
Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1970-72. Museum Monographs. Philadelphia:
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1975.
_____. The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. 2d ed. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1969.
Propp, William H.C. Exodus 19-40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor
Bible 2A. New York: Doubleday, 2006.
_____. Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 2. New
York: Doubleday, 1999.
352
Puech, Émile. “Remarques sur quelques inscriptions phéniciennes de Chypre.” Semitica 29
(1979): 19-43.
Puhvel, Jaan. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Trends in Linguistics: Documentation. Berlin:

Mouton, 1984-present.
Pulak, Cemal M. “The Uluburun Shipwreck and Late Bronze Age Trade.” Pages 288-310 in
Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. Edited by Joan
Aruz, Kim Benzel, and Jean M. Evans. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008.
_____ . “The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology

27 (1998): 188-224.
de Putter, Thierry and Christina Karlshausen. Les pierres utilisées dans la sculpture et
l’architecture de l’Egypte pharaonique: guide pratique illustré. Etude Connaissance de
l’Egypte ancienne 4. Brussels, Belgium: Connaissance de l’Egypte ancienne, 1992.
Quack, Joachim Friedrich. “Zu den vorarabischen semitischen Lehnwörtern in Koptischen.”

Pages 307-338 in Studia Semitica et Semitohamitica: Festschrift für Rainer Voigt anlässlich
seines 60. Geburtstages am 17. Januar 2004. Edited by Bogdan Burtea, Josef Tropper, and
Helen Younansardaroud. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 317. Münster: Ugarit-
Verlag, 2005.
_____. Review of Yoshiyuki Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West
Semitic. Review of Biblical Literature (April 24, 2000). Online:
http://www.bookreviews.org.
_____. Review of James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third
Intermediate Period. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesselschaft 146 (1996):
507-515.
_____. “Eine Erwähnung des Reiches von Aleppo in den Ächtungstexten?” Göttinger
Miszellen 130 (1992): 75-78.
Quiring, Heinrich. “Die Edelsteine im Amtsschild des jüdischen Hohenpriesters und die
Herkunft ihrer Namen.” Sudhoffs Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin und der
Naturwissenschaften 38 (1954): 193-213.
_____. “Der Probierstein.” Forschungen und Fortschritte 25 (1949): 238-239.
Rabin, Chaim. “Lexical Borrowings in Biblical Hebrew from Indian Languages as Carriers of
Ideas and Technical Concepts.” Pages 25-32 in Between Jerusalem and Benares:
Comparative Studies in Judaism and Hinduism. Edited by Hananya Goodman. Albany,
N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1994.
_____. “Loanword Evidence in Biblical Hebrew for Trade between Tamil Nad and Palestine
in First Millenium B.C.” Pages 432-440 in vol. 1 of Proceedings of the Second
353
International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies. Edited by R.E. Asher. 3 vols. Madras:
International Association of Tamil Research, 1971.
_____. “‫מלים בעברית המקראית מלשון האינדו־ארים שבמזרח הקרוב‬.” Pages 462-497 in ‫ספר שמואל‬
‫ מוגשים לו בהגיעו לשיבה‬,‫ לשון ותולדות ישראל‬,‫ ארכיאולוגיה‬,‫ מחקרים במקרא‬:‫ייבין‬. Edited
by Shmuel Abramski, Yohanan Aharoni, Haim Gevaryahu, and Ben-Zion Luria.
Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1970.
_____. “An Arabic Phrase in Isaiah.” Pages 303-309 in Studi sull’Oriente e la Bibbia: Offerti al P.
Giovanni Rinaldi nel 60o compleanno da allievi, colleghi, amici. Genoa: Studio e vita, 1967.
_____. “‫מלים חיתוית בעברית‬.” Pages 151-179 in ‫ מוגש לכבוד הפרופ׳ משה צבי סגל על־ידי‬:‫ספר סגל‬
‫חבריו ותלמדיו‬. Edited by Jehoshua M. Grintz and Jacob Liver. Publications of the
Israel Society for Biblical Research 17. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1964.
_____. “Hittite Words in Hebrew.” Orientalia 32 (1963): 113-139.
_____. “‫מלים זרות‬.” Pages 1070-1080 in vol. 4 of ‫ אוצר הידיעות על המקרא‬:‫אנציקלופדיה מקראית‬
‫ותקופתו‬. 9 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1962.
Rabinovich, I.S. and I.D. Serebriakov. Панджабско-русский словарь. Moscow:

Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelʹstvo Inostrannykh i Natsionalʹnykh Slovarei, 1961.
Rainey, Anson F. Review of Yoshiyuki Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in
North-West Semitic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 121 (2001): 490-491.
_____. “Observations on Ugaritic Grammar.” Ugarit-Forschungen 3 (1971): 151-172.
Raschke, Manfred G. “New Studies in Roman Commerce with the East.” Pages 604-1361 in
Politische Geschichte (Provinzen und Randvölker: Rom und der Ferne Osten). Vol. 9/2 of
Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der
neueren Forschung: Teil II: Principat. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang
Haase. 37 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978.
Ratnagar, Shereen. Trading Encounters: From the Euphrates to the Indus in the Bronze Age. 2d ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Ravindran, P.N., M. Shylaja, K. Nirmal Babu, and B. Krishnamoorthy. “Botany and Crop
Improvement of Cinnamon and Cassia.” Pages 14-79 in Cinnamon and Cassia: The
Genus Cinnamomum. Edited by P.N. Ravindran, K. Nirmal Babu, and M. Shylaja.
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants: Industrial Profiles 36. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press,
2004.
Rayfield, Donald. A Comprehensive Georgian-English Dictionary. 2 vols. London: Garnett Press,

2006.
354
Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
Reese, David S. “Palaikastro Shells and Bronze Age Purple-Dye Production in the
Mediterranean Basin.” Annual of the British School at Athens 82 (1987): 201-206.
Reider, Joseph. “Etymological Studies in Biblical Hebrew.” Vetus Testamentum 2 (1952): 113-
130.
Reiner, Erica. “Lipšur Litanies.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15 (1956): 129-149.
Reiter, Karin. Die Metalle im Alten Orient: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung altbabylonischer
Quellen. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 249. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1997.
Rendsburg, Gary A. “Double Polysemy in Proverbs 31:19.” Pages 267-274 in Humanism,

Culture, and Language in the Near East: Studies in Honor of Georg Krotkoff. Edited by Asma
Afsaruddin and A.H. Mathias Zahniser. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
_____. “Linguistic Variation and the ‘Foreign’ Factor in the Hebrew Bible.” Israel Oriental
Studies 15 (1996): 177-190.
_____. “Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts” (review of James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in
Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period). Journal of the American
Oriental Society 116 (1996): 508-511.
Renfroe, Fred. Arabic-Ugaritic Lexical Studies. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-

Palastinas und Mesopotamiens 5. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1992.
Renz, Johannes and Wolfgang Röllig. Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik. 3 vols.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995.
Ribichini, Sergio and Paolo Xella. La terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit. Collezione di
studi fenici 20. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle richerche, 1985.
Richardson, M.E.J. Review of Paul V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew.

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 65 (2002): 567-
569.
Rix, Helmut and Martin Kümmel, eds. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: die Wurzeln und
ihre Primärstammbildungen. 2d ed. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 2001.
Roberts, J.J.M. “Yahweh’s Foundation in Zion (Isa 28:16).” Journal of Biblical Literature 106
(1987): 27-45.
Robinson, Bernard P. “Jonah’s Qiqayon Plant.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
97 (1985): 390-403.
355
Robinson, Edward. Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the Adjacent Regions: A Journal of
Travels in the Year 1938. 2d ed. 2 vols. Boston, Mass.: Crocker & Brewster, 1860.
Röllig, Wolfgang. “Lapislazuli: A. Philologisch.” Pages 488-489 in vol. 6 of Reallexikon der

Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archaologie. Edited by Dietz Otto Edzard. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1980-1983.
_____. “Eine neue phönizische Inschrift aus Byblos.” Pages 1-15 in vol. 2 of Neue Ephemeris
für Semitische Epigraphik. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972-1978.
Romanis, Federico de. Cassia, cinnamomo, ossidiana: uomini e merci tra Oceano indiano e
Mediterraneo. Saggi di storia antica 9. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1996.
Rosén, Haiim B. “*ekwos et l’‘hippologie’ canaanéene: réflexions étymologiques.” Pages 233-

237 in Studia etymologica Indoeuropaea: memoriae A.J. van Windekens (1915-1989) dicata.
Edited by Lambert Isabaert. Orientalia lovaniensia analecta 45. Leuven:
Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1991.
Rössler, Otto. “Das Ägyptische als semitische Sprache.” Pages 263-326 in vol. 1 of
Christentum am Roten Meer. Edited by Franz Altheim and Ruth Stiehl. 2 vols. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1971.
_____. “Das ältere ägyptische Umschreibungssystem für Frendnamen und seine

sprachwissenschaftlischen Lehren.” Page 227 in Neue afrikanische Studien. Edited by
Johannes Lukas. Hamburger Beiträge zur Afrika-Kunde 5. Hamburg: Deutsches
Institut für Afrika-Forschung, 1966.
Rouillard, Hedwige and Josef Tropper. “Trpym, rituels de guérison et culte des ancêtres
d’après 1 Samuel XIX 11-17 et les textes parallèles d’Assur et de Nuzi.” Vetus
Testamentum 37 (1987): 340-361.
Rudolph, Wilhelm. Chronikbuc̈her. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 21. Tübingen: J.C.B.
Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1955.
Ruijgh, C.J. Review of Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire
des mots, Tome IV-2: Φ-Ω et index. Lingua (1982): 202-210.
Sacchi, Paolo. “Nota a Is. 19,7.” Revista biblica italiana 13 (1965): 169-170.
Salonen, Armas. Die Möbel des alten Mesopotamien nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen: Eine
lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Suomalaisen tiedeakatemian
toimituksia, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Sarja B 127. Helsinki,
Finland: Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia, 1963.
_____. “Alte Substrat- und Kulturwörter im Arabischen.” Studia Orientalia 17, no. 2 (1952): 1-
12.
356
Salvini, Mirjo. “Betrachtungen zum hurritisch-urartätischen Verbum.” Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie 81 (1991): 120-132.
Sandison, A.T. “The Use of Natron in Mummification in Ancient Egypt.” Journal of Near
Sandy, D. Brent. The Production and Use of Vegetable Oils in Ptolemaic Egypt. Bulletin of the
American Society of Papyrologists 6. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989.
Sanmartín, Joaqín. “Glossen zum ugaritischen Lexikon.” Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino
Oriente antico 5 (1988): 171-180.
_____. “Glossen zum ugaritischen Lexikon (VI).” Ugarit-Forschungen 21 (1989): 335-348.
_____. “Notas de lexicografia ugaritica.” Ugarit-Forschungen 20 (1988): 265-275.
_____. “Textos hipiátrocos de Ugarit y el discurso del método.” Aula Orientalis 6 (1988): 227-
235.
_____. “Glossen zum ugaritischen Lexikon (IV).” Ugarit-Forschungen 12 (1980): 335-339.
_____. “Glossen zum ugaritischen Lexikon (III).” Ugarit-Forschungen 11 (1979): 724-728.
_____. “riš argmn in den ug. Ritualen.” Ugarit-Forschungen 10 (1978): 455-456.
Sapir, Edward. “Hebrew ‘Helmet,’ a Loanword, and Its Bearing on Indo-European

Phonology.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 57 (1937): 73-77.
Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. JPS Torah
Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991.
Schaeffer, Claude F.A. “Les fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras-Shamra, troisième

campagne (printemps 1931): rapport sommaire.” Syria 13 (1932): 1-27.
Scheftelowitz, Isidor. Arisches im Alten Testament: Eine sprachwissenschaftliche und

kulturhistorische untersuchung. 2 vols. Berlin: S. Calvary & Co., 1901-1903.
Scheil, Vincent. Inscriptions des Achéménides a Suse. Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique

de Perse 21. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1929.
Schneider, Thomas. Review of Yoshiyuki Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in
North-West Semitic. Jewish Quarterly Review 92 (2001): 155-163.
_____. “Zur Herkunft der ägyptischen Bezeichnung wrry.t ‘Wagen’: ein Indiz für den
Lautwert von <r> vor Beginn des Neuen Reiches.” Göttinger Miszellen 173 (1999): 155-
158.
357
_____. Review of James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third
Intermediate Period. Orientalia 65 (1996): 174-177.
Schneider-Ludorff, Helga. “Das Mobiliar nach den Texten von Nuzi.” Pages 115-149 in
General Studies and Excavations at Nuzi 10/3. Edited by David I. Owen and Gernot
Wilhelm. Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 12.
Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2002.
Schoop, Ulf-Dietrich. “Hittite Pottery: A Summary.” Pages 241-273 in Insights into Hittite
History and Archaeology. Edited by Hermann Genz and Dirk Paul Mielke. Colloquia
antiqua. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.
Schulthess, Friedrich. Lexicon Syropalaestinum. 1903.
Schweingruber, Fritz Hans. Anatomie europäischer Hölzer: ein Atlas zur Bestimmung europäischer
Baum-, Strauch-, und Zwergstrauchhölzer. Bern: Verlag Paul Haupt, 1990.
Scott, R.B.Y. Proverbs-Ecclesiastes. Anchor Bible 18. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965.
Segert, Stanislav. “The Last Sign of the Ugaritic Alphabet.” Ugarit-Forschungen 15 (1983):
201-218.
_____. A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1976.
_____. “Zur Etymologie von lappīd ‘Fackel’.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 74
(1962): 323-324.
_____. “Aramäische Studien I. Die neuen Editionen von Brooklyn Papyri und Aršāms Briefe
in ihrer Bedeutung für die Bibelwissenschaft.” Archiv Orientální 24 (1956): 383-403.
Seidl, Ursula. Bronzekunst Urartus. Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern, 2004.
Serpico, Margaret and Raymond White. “Oil, Fat, and Wax.” Pages 390-429 in Ancient
Egyptian Materials and Technology. Edited by Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw.
Serpico, Margaret and Raymond White. “Resins, Amber and Bitumen.” Pages 430-474 in
Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Edited by Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw.
Sethe, Kurt. “Die Bau- und Denkmalsteine der alten Ägypter und ihre Namen.”
Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 8 (1933): 864-
912.
Sevortian, Ė.V. and A.V. Dybo. Этимологический словарь тюркских языков. Moscow:
Nauka, 1974-present.
358
Shubert, Steven Blake. “Seals and Sealings.” Pages 252-257 in vol. 3 of The Oxford
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Edited by Donald B. Redford. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford
Singer, Itamar. “Purple-Dyers in Lazpa.” Pages 21-43 in Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks,
and Their Neighbours: Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural
Interaction, September 17-19, 2004, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Edited by Billie Jean
Collins, Mary R. Bachvarova, and Ian C. Rutherford. Oxford: Oxbow, 2008.
_____. “A Political History of Ugarit.” Pages 603-733 in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Edited by
Wilfred G.E. Watson and Nicolas Wyatt. Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One:
The Near and Middle East 39. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Sinkankas, John. Emerald and Other Beryls. Radnor, Pa.: Chilton Book Company, 1981.
Sjöberg, Åke W. and Steve Tinney, eds., The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of
the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology), Online:
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/index.html.
Slocum, Perry D. Waterlilies and Lotuses: Species, Cultivars, and New Hybrids. Portland, Ore.:
Timber Press, 2005.
Smith, Mark S. The Rituals and Myths of the Feast of the Goodly Gods of KTU/CAT 1.23: Royal
Constructions of Opposition, Intersection, Integration, and Domination. Society of Biblical
Literature Resources for Biblical Study 51. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature,
2006.
Smith, Mark S. and Wayne T. Pitard. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. 3 vols. Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum 55, 114. Leiden: Brill, 1994-present.
Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and
Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
_____ A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Publications
of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins
_____. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. 2d ed. Dictionaries of
the Talmud, Midrash, and Targum 2. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2002.
Soldt, W.H van. Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar. Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 40. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991.
_____. “Studies in the Topography of Ugarit (2).” Ugarit-Forschungen 29 (1997): 683-703.
_____. “Fabrics and Dyes at Ugarit.” Ugarit-Forschungen 22 (1990): 321-357.
359
Soysal, Oğuz. Hattischer Wortschatz in hethitischer Textüberlieferung. Handbook of Oriental
Studies, Section One: The Near and Middle East 74. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Speiser, E.A. “ṭwṭpt.” Jewish Quarterly Review 48 (1957): 208-217.
_____. “On Some Articles of Armor and Their Names.” Journal of the American Oriental Society
70 (1950): 47-49.
_____. Introduction to Hurrian. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 20. New
Haven, Conn.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941.
Spiegelberg, Wilhelm. “Ägyptische Lehnwõrter in der ältesten griechischen Sprache.”

Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen 41
(1907): 127-132.
_____. “Die Gruppe ’ȝḫ(j).” Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes
et assyriennes 24 (1902): 180-182.
Starke, Frank. Untersuchung zur Stammbildung des keilschrift-luwischen Nomens. Studien zu den
Boğazköy-Texten 31. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1990.
Starostin, S.A. and Sergeĭ L. Nikolayev. A North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary. Edited by
S.A. Starostin. Moscow: Asterisk Publishers, 1994.
Steblin-Kamenskiĭ, I.M. Очерки по истории лексики памирских языков: названия

кулътурных растений. Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo “Nauka”, 1982.
Steiner, Gerd. “Akkadische Lexeme im Sumerischen.” Pages 630-647 in Semitic and

Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues. Edited by
Paolo Marrassini. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003.
Steingass, Francis Joseph. A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary, Including the Arabic

Words and Phrases to Be Met with in Persian Literature. London: Routledge & K. Paul,
1892.
Steinkeller, Piotr and J. Nicholas Postgate. Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in
the Iraq Museum, Baghdad. Mesopotamian Civilizations 4. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Steibing, William H., Jr. Ancient Near Eastern History and Culture. 2d ed. New York: Pearson
Education, 2009.
Stieglitz, Robert R. “The Minoan Origin of Tyrian Purple.” Biblical Archaeologist 57 (1994): 46-
54.
_____. “Minoan Vessel Names.” Kadmos 10 (1971): 110-112.
360
Stocks, Denys A. “Leather.” Pages 282-284 in vol. 2 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt.
Edited by Donald B. Redford. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Stol, Marten. Review of Alexander Militarev and Leonid Kogan, Semitic Etymological
Dictionary. Bibliotheca Orientalis 64 (2007): 332-335.
_____. “Garlic, Onion, Leek.” Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 3 (1987): 57-80.
_____. Review of Chaim Cohen and Daniel Sivan, The Ugaritic Hippiatric Texts: A Critical
Edition. Bibliotheca Orientalis 43 (1986): 172-174.
_____. “Cress and Its Mustard.” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap Ex
Oriente Lux 28 (1983-1984): 24-32.
_____. “Zur altmesopotamischen Bierbereitung.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 28 (1971): 167-171.
Störk, Lothar. “Johannisbrotbaum.” Pages 268-269 in vol. 3 of Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Edited
by Wolfgang Helck, Eberhard Otto, and Wolfhart Westendorf. 7 vols. Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz, 1972-1992.
Symington, Dorit. “Hittite and Neo-Hittite Furniture.” Pages 111-138 in The Furniture of
Western Asia, Ancient and Traditional: Papers of the Conference Held at the Institute of
Archaeology, University College London, June 28 to 30, 1993. Edited by Georgina
Herrmann. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 1996.
Szemerényi, Oswald. “The Origins of the Greek Lexicon: Ex Oriente Lux.” Journal of Hellenic
Studies 94 (1974): 144-157.
_____. “Etyma Graeca I.” Die Sprache 11 (1965): 1-24.
Tadmor, Uri. “Loanwords in the World’s Languages: Findings and Results.” Pages 55-75 in
Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook. Edited by Martin
Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009.
Takács, Gábor. Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One:
The Near and Middle East. Leiden: Brill, 1999-present.
_____. Review of Vladimir E. Orel and Olga V. Stolbova, Hamito-Semitic Etymological

Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 49 (1997): 108-117.
Tarragon, Jean-Michel de. “La kapporet est-elle une fiction ou un element du culte tardif?”
Revue biblique 88 (1981): 5-12.
Thacker, T.W. “A Note on ‫( ָערוֹת‬Is. xix 7).” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1933): 163-165.
Theis, Johannes. Sumerisches im Alten Testament. Trier: Paulinus-Druekerei, 1912.
Thompson, R. Campbell. A Dictionary of Assyrian Botany. London: British Academy, 1949.
361
_____. A Dictionary of Assyrian Chemistry and Geology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936.
Thureau-Dangin, François. Une relation de la huitième campagne de Sargon (714 av. J.-C.). Textes
cunéiformes 3. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1912.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. JPS
Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996.
_____. “On the Meaning of ṭ(w)ṭpt.” Journal of Biblical Literature (1982): 321-331.
Tischler, Johann. Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Edited by Günter Neumann. Innsbrucker

Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 20. Innsbruck, Austria: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 1983-present.
_____. Hethitisches Handwörterbuch. 2d ed. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 128.

Innsbruck, Austria: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck,
2008.
Toorn, Karel van der. “Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in Ugaritic Texts and the
Bible” (review of Klaas Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near
East). Bibliotheca Orientalis 48 (1991): 39-66.
_____. “The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of Cuneiform Evidence.” Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990): 203-222.
Torr, Cecil. Ancient Ships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895.
Tropper, Josef. Ugaritische Grammatik. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 273. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 2000.
_____. “Beiträge zur ugaritischen Lexikographie.” Ugarit-Forschungen 29 (1997): 661-668.
Tsevat, Matitiahu. “Traces of Hittite at the Begining of the Ugaritic Epic of Aqht.” Ugarit-
Forschungen 3 (1971): 351-352.
Tur-Sinai, Naphtali H. ‫ בעיות יסוד במדע הלשון ובמקורותיה בספרות‬:‫הלשון והספר‬. 3 vols.
Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1950-1955.
_____. ‫משלי שלמה‬. Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1947.
Turner, Ralph Lilley. A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. London: Oxford,
1962-1966.
Tvedtnes, John A. “Egyptian Etymologies for Biblical Cultic Paraphernalia.” Pages 215-221
in Egyptological Studies. Edited by Sarah Israelit-Groll. Scripta Hierosolymitana 28.
362
Tyloch, Witold. “Le problème de Taršîš à la lumière de la philologie et l’exégèse.” Pages 46-
51 in vol. 2 of Actes du deuxième Congrès international d’études des cultures de la
Méditerranée occidentale, Malta 1976. Edited by Micheline Galley. 2 vols. Algiers:
Société nationale d’édition et de diffusion, 1978.
Untermann, Jürgen. “Los vecinos de la lengua ibérica: Galos, ligures, tartesios, vascones.”
Pages 9-46 in Memoria: Seminarios de Filología e Historia, CSIC. Edited by Sofía Torallas
Tovar. Madrid: Instituo de Filologia, 2003.
Vaan, Michiel de. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden Indo-
European Etymological Dictionary Series 7. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Van Dam, Cornelis. The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel. Winona
Van Driel-Murray, Carol. “Leatherwork and Skin Products.” Pages 299-319 in Ancient
Egyptian Materials and Technology. Edited by Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw.
Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. Context and Meaning in Proverbs 25-27. Society of Biblical
Literature Dissertation Series 96. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988.
Van Selms, A. “The Etymology of yayin, ‘Wine’.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 3
(1974): 76-84.
Van Zeist, Wilem. “Third to First Millennium B.C. Plant Cultivation on the Khabur, North-
Eastern Syria.” Palaeohistoria 41/42 (1999-2000): 111-125.
Van Zeist, Wilem. “Evidence for Agricultural Change in the Balikh Basin, Northern Syria.”
Pages 350-373 in The Prehistory of Food: Appetites for Change. Edited by Chris Gosden
and Jon G. Hather. One World Archaeology 32. London: Routledge, 1999.
_____. “Some Notes on Second Millennium B.C. Plant Cultivation in the Syrian Jazira.”
Pages 541-553 in Cinquante-deux reflexions sur le proche-orient ancien offertes en
hommage à Léon De Meyer. Edited by Hermann Gasche, Michel Tanret, Caroline
Janssen, and A. Degraeve. Mesopotamian History and Environment: Occasional
Publications 2. Leuven: Peeters, 1994.
VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997.
Vartavan, Christian de. Codex of Ancient Egyptian Plant Remains. Triade Exploration’s Opus
Magum Series in the Field of Egyptology 1. London: Triade Exploration, 1997.
Veenhof, Klass R. “Kanesh: An Assyrian Colony in Anatolia.” Pages 859-871 in vol. 2 of

Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. 4 vols. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995.
363
_____. Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and Its Terminology. Studia et documenta ad iura Orientis
antiqui pertinentia 10. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Ventris, Michael and John Chadwick. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. 2d ed. Cambridge:
Vernes, Maurice. Les emprunts de la Bible hébraïque au grec et au latin. Bibliothèque de l’École
des hautes études: Sciences religieuses 29. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1914.
Vervenne, Marc. “The Lexeme ‫( סוף‬sûph) and the Phrase ‫( ים סוף‬yam sûph): A Brief
Reflection on the Etymology and Semantics of a Key Word in the Hebrew Exodus
Tradition.” Pages 403-429 in Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East:
Festschrift E. Lipiński. Edited by Karel Van Lerberghe and Antoon Schoors. Orientalia
lovaniensia analecta 65. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1995.
Virolleaud, Charles. “Les noms de plantes dans les textes alphabétiques-semitiques de Ras-
Shamra.” Comptes rendus du Groupe linguistique d’études chamito-sémitiques 3 (1937):
22-24.
Vita, Juan-Pablo. “Textile Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts.” Pages 323-337 in Textile
Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First
Millennia BC. Edited by Cécile Michel and Marie-Louise B. Nosch. Ancient Textiles
Series 8. Oxford: Oxbow, 2010.
_____. “La herramienta katinnu en el texto de Ugarit RS 19.23.” Sefarad 56 (1996): 439-444.
Vita, Juan-Pablo and Wilfred G.E. Watson. “Are the Akk. Terms katappu (Ug. ktp) and katinnu
Hurrian in Origin?” Altorientalische Forschungen 29 (2002): 146-149.
Vittmann, Günter. Review of James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New
Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes
87 (1997): 277-288.
Vogelsang-Eastwood, Gillian. “Textiles.” Pages 268-298 in Ancient Egyptian Materials and

Technology. Edited by Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge
_____. Pharaonic Egyptian Clothing. Studies in Textile and Costume History 2. Leiden: Brill,
1993.
Voigt, Rainer Maria. “Die sog. Schreibfehler im Altaramäischen und ein bislang
unerkannter Lautwandel.” Orientalia Suecana 40 (1991): 236-245.
Vollers, Karl. “Beiträge zur Kenntnis der lebenden arabischen Sprache in Aegypten.”
Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesselschaft 51 (1897): 291-326.
Wachter-Sarkady, Claudia. “Ebla e le condizioni materiali della produzione agricola

nell’antico Oriente.” Pages 242-251 in Ebla: alle origini della civiltà urbana: trent’anni di
364
scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma “La Sapienza”. Edited by Paolo Matthiae, Frances
Pinnock, and Gabriella Scandone Matthiae. Milan: Electa, 1995.
Wagner, Max. Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttestamentlichen

Hebräisch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 96. Berlin:
Alfred Töpelmann, 1966.
Waldbaum, Jane C. “The Coming of Iron in the Eastern Mediterranean.” Pages 27-57 in The
Archaeometallurgy of the Asian Old World. Edited by Vincent C. Pigott. University
Museum Monographs 89. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of
Pennsylvania, 1999.
_____. “Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East? Problems in the Definition and
Recognition of Presence.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 305
(1997): 1-17.
_____. “Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Levant, ca. 1000-600 B.C.: The Eastern
Perspective.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 293 (1994): 53-66.
Walde, Alois. Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Edited by Johann Baptist Hofmann. 3d

ed. 2 vols. Indogermanische Bibliothek 1. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1938-1956.
Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona
Ward, Cheryl A. “Pomegranates in Eastern Mediterranean Contexts during the Late Bronze
Age.” World Archaeology 34 (2003): 529-541.
Ward, William A. “A New Look at Semitic Personal Names and Loanwords in Egyptian.”
Chronique d’Égypte 71 (1996): 17-47.
_____. “Egyptian Relations with Canaan.” Pages 399-408 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible
Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 5 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
_____. “The Semitic Biconsonantal Root sp and the Common Origin of Egyptian čwf and
Hebrew sûp: ‘Marsh(-Plant)’.” Vetus Testamentum 24 (1974): 339-349.
_____. “Comparative Studies in Egyptian and Ugaritic.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 20
(1961): 31-40.
Watson, Wilfred G.E. Lexical Studies in Ugaritic. Aula orientalis Supplementa 19. Sabadell,
Barcelona: Editorial AUSA, 2007.
_____. “Loanwords in Semitic.” Aula Orientalis 23 (2005): 191-198.
_____. “A Botanical Snapshot of Ugarit: Trees, Fruit, Plants and Herbs in the Cuneiform
Texts.” Aula Orientalis 22 (2004): 107-155.
365
_____. Review of Yoshiyuki Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West
Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies 47 (2002): 117-119.
_____. “Non-Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon (5).” Ugarit-Forschungen 32 (2000): 567-
575.
799.
760.
719.
_____. “Non-Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon.” Ugarit-Forschungen 27 (1995): 533-558.
_____. Review of Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas de Canaan según la tradición de
Ugarit. Orientalia 55 (1986): 194-197.
Watts, James W. Isaiah 1-33. Word Biblical Commentary 24. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985.
Wegner, Ilse. Einführung in die hurritische Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000.
_____. “Die hurritischen Körperteilbezeichnungen.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 85 (1995): 116-

126.
Weinrich, Uriel. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. Publications of the Linguistic
Circle of New York 1. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York, 1953.
Weiss, E.A. and Mordechai Kislev. “Weeds and Seeds: What Archaeobotany Can Teach Us.”
Biblical Archaeology Review 30, no. 6 (2004): 32-37.
Wendrich, Willemina Z. “Basketry.” Pages 254-267 in Ancient Egyptian Materials and

Technology. Edited by Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge
Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 28-39: A Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Continental

Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.
Wilhelm, Gernot. “Hurrian.” Pages 81-104 in The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor. Edited by
Roger D. Woodard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
_____. “sabli ‘(Metall-)Schale, Schüssel’ auch Nuzi.” Pages 355-356 in Richard F.S. Starr
Memorial Volume. Edited by David I. Owen and Gernot Wilhelm. Studies on the
Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 8. Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1996.
366
_____. Ein Ritual des AZU-Priesters. Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler, I. Abteilung:
Die Texte aus Bogazköy 1. Rome: Bonsignori, 1995.
_____. “Hurritische Lexikographie und Grammatik: Die hurritisch-hethitische Bilingue aus

Boğazköy” (review of Heinrich Otten and Christel Rüster, Die hurritisch-hethitische
Bilingue aus der Oberstadt). Orientalia 61 (1992): 122-141.
_____. The Hurrians. Translated by Jennifer Barnes. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips,
1989.
_____. “Ḫubrušḫi.” Page 478 in vol. 4 of Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen
Archaologie. Edited by Dietz Otto Edzard. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972-1975.
Wilkinson, R.J. A Malay-English Dictionary, Romanised. 2 vols. London: Macmillan, 1959.
Wilson, Robert Dick. “Foreign Words in the Old Testament as an Evidence of Historicity.”
Princeton Theological Review 26 (1928): 177-247.
Winford, Donald. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Language in Society. Oxford:

Blackwell, 2003.
Winter, Irene J. “Phoenician and North Syrian Ivory Carving in Historical Context:
Questions of Style and Distribution.” Iraq 38 (1976): 1-22.
Wiseman, Donald J. Review of Stephen A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic.

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 40 (1977): 144.
_____. The Alalakh Tablets. Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at
Ankara 2. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1953.
Wojtilla, Gyula. “Indian Precious Stones in the Ancient East and West.” Acta Orientalia 27
(1973): 211-224.
Wolff, Hans Walter. Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea. Translated by Gary
Stansell. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.
Wolters, Albert M. “The Meaning of kîšôr (Prov 31:19).” Hebrew Union College Annual 65
(1994): 91-104.
Wright, David P. Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in
the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001.
Wutz, Franz. Onomastica sacra: Untersuchungen zum Liber interpretationis nominum hebraicorum
des hl. Hieronymus. 2 vols. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
altchristlichen Literatur 41. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1914-1915.
Wyatt, Nicolas. Religious Texts from Ugarit. 2d ed. The Biblical Seminar 53. London: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2003.
367
Yadin, Yigael. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. Translated
by Bayta Rabin and Chaim Rabin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962.
Yahuda, A.S. “Hebrew Words of Egyptian Origin.” Journal of Biblical Literature 66 (1947): 83-
90.
Yalçın, Ünsal. “Early Iron Metallurgy in Anatolia.” Anatolian Studies 49 (1999): 177-187.
Yener, K. Aslıhan. “The Archaeometry of Silver in Anatolia: The Bolkardaǧ Mining District.”
American Journal of Archaeology 90 (1986): 469-472.
_____. “The Production, Exchange and Utilization of Silver and Lead Metals in Ancient
Anatolia.” Anatolica 10 (1983): 1-15.
Yener, K. Aslıhan, Edward V. Sayre, Emile C. Joel, Hadi Özbal, I.L. Barnes, and Robert H.
Brill. “Stable Lead Isotope Studies of Central Taurus Ore Sources and Related
Artifacts from Eastern Mediterranean Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Sites.” Journal of
Archaeological Science 18 (1991): 541-577.
Yon, Marguerite. The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006.
Young, Ian, ed. Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament Supplement Series 369. London: T&T Clark, 2003.
Young, Ian. Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 5. Tübingen:
J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993.
Young, Ian and Robert Rezetko. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. 2 vols. BibleWorld. Oakland,
Conn.: Equinox, 2008.
Young, T. Cuyler, Jr. “Persians.” Pages 295-300 in vol. 4 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of
Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. 5 vols. Oxford: Oxford
Younger, K. Lawson, Jr. “The Phoenician Inscription of Azatiwada: An Integrated Reading.”

Journal of Semitic Studies 48 (1998): 11-47.
Zadok, Ran. “Notes on the West Semitic Material from Emar.” Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di
Napoli 51 (1991): 113-137.
Zamora, José-Ángel. La vid y el vino en Ugarit. Banco de datos filológicos semíticos

noroccidentales: Monografías 6. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Cientifícas, 2000.
Zevit, Ziony. “Timber for the Tabernacle: Text, Tradition, and Realia.” Pages 136*-143* in
‫ ספר אברהם בירן‬:‫ מחקרים בידיעת הארץ ועתיקותה‬:‫ארץ ישראל‬. Edited by Ephraim Stern
and Thomas E. Levy. Eretz-Israel 24. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1992.
368
Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Translated by
Ronald E. Clements and James D. Martin. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1979-1983.
Zimmern, Heinrich. Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonische Kultureinfluss. 2d ed.
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1917.
Zohary, Daniel. “The Domestication of the Grapevine Vitis Vinifera L. in the Near East.”
Pages 23-30 in The Origins and Ancient History of Wine. Edited by Patrick E. McGovern,
Stuart J. Fleming, and Solomon H. Katz. Food and Nutrition in History and
Anthropology 11. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Publishers, 1996.
Zohary, Daniel and Maria Hopf. Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread
of Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley. 3d ed. Oxford: Oxford
Zohary, Daniel and Pinhas Spiegel-Roy. “Beginnings of Fruit Growing in the Old World.”
Science 187 (1975): 319-327.
Zohary, Michael. Plants of the Bible: A Complete Handbook to All the Plants with 200 Full-Color
Plates Taken in the Natural Habitat. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Zorn, Jeffrey R. “Reconsidering Goliath: An Iron Age I Philistine Chariot Warrior.” Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 360 (2010): 1-22.
369

Foreign Loanwords and Kulturwoerter in Northwest Semitic (1400-600 B.C.E.)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foreign Loanwords and Kulturwoerter in Northwest Semitic (1400-600 B.C.E.)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foreign Loanwords and Kulturwörter in Northwest Semitic (1400-600 B.C.E.

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

concluded given the available evidence.

The library staff at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion played a

Laura Gutmark helped me refine my translation of several modern Hebrew works.

a number of different individuals regarding different aspects of my research: James

grateful to each of these individuals for their help.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their support in my educational

not have been possible.

take full responsibility for whatever shortcomings may be found herein.

This dissertation is an examination of terminology for realia in the corpus of

first formulates a methodology for identifying and analyzing non-Semitic loanwords

phonology, typology, and general distribution patterns of these words through

compilation of an annotated lexicon of loan hypotheses. In doing so, it offers a number

AIW Bartholomae, Christian. Altiranisches Wörterbuch. 2d ed. Berlin: Walter de

Chapter 1: Introduction and Review of Scholarship…………………………………………… 1

Chapter 2: Terminology and Methodology…………………………………………………………. 10

Chapter 3: Survey of Historical Contact……………………………………………………………… 22

Chapter 4: Analysis of Loan Hypotheses…………………………………………………………….. 34

Food and Drink………………………………………………………………………………………… 37

Metals and Metallurgy…………………………………………………………………………….. 53

Minerals and Organic Materials……………………………………………………………… 77

Plants and Plant Products……………………………………………………………………….. 120

Religion and Cult…………………………………………………………………………………….. 168

Scribal Technology………………………………………………………………………………….. 177

Textiles and Clothing………………………………………………………………………………. 182

Chapter 5: Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………… 258

Appendix A: Glossary of Linguistic Terminology and Languages………………………. 284

Appendix B: Indices……………………………………………………………………………………………. 291

Appendix C: Geographical Origins of Realia………………………………………………………. 308

different languages of the world.

The situation is no different in the Semitic languages, in which a number of

analyzing non-Semitic loanwords and culture words in Northwest Semitic texts. By

compiling an annotated lexicon of loan hypotheses, this dissertation will investigate

the data regarding linguistic and cultural contact.

Review of Prior Scholarship

General Scholarship on Loanwords

linguistic interaction, is surveyed by Els Oksaar.4 Linguistic borrowing, or the adoption

many languages, a significant amount of research on linguistic borrowing deals with

philosopher Cratylus on etymology (Crat. 390e-427d), Plato portrays Socrates as arguing

Much later, medieval Arabic lexicographers were interested in lexical

borrowing, which was a common phenomenon in Arabic as early as the pre-Islamic

countries. Delimitation of words as Arabic or non-Arabic was undertaken by one of the

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.5

recognized the presence of loanwords in Hebrew, they never formulated clear

as a linguistic phenomenon in antiquity and remained a topic of study into the

methodology that is in use today.

The importance of lexical borrowing for linguistics is evident in its prevalence

in the scholarly literature. Many modern textbooks on historical linguistics or language

contact include a section on lexical borrowing.10 Moreover, to date numerous

Scholarship on Non-Semitic Loanwords in Northwest Semitic

Despite the widespread application of contact linguistics to investigations of

foreign loanwords in modern languages, much remains to be done by Semitic scholars

in this regard. Key studies by Kaufman12 and Mankowski13 provide a solid

methodological approach to investigating loanwords in the Semitic languages.14

a comprehensive and systematic investigation of non-Semitic loanwords in the Semitic

loanwords in the Semitic languages.16

biblical Hebrew. Important publications include two works on Sumerian loanwords by

Johannes Theis18 and Simon Konrad Landersdorfer,19 research on Egyptian loanwords