To Be or Not to Be, That Is the

Question: Yhwh and Ea

ANNEMARIE KITZ
New Berlin, Wl 53151

To Richard J. Clifford, S.J.

Teacher, Mentor, Friend

Abstract: Over one hundred years have past since Paul Haupt first proposed that the
divine name Yhwh is an imperfect hiphil verbal form from the root *‫י‬Ihwy (“to be”)
that means “he causes to be > he creates.” In this article, I propose that the Semitic
concept of a *‫י‬Ihwy deity, a deity’s whose name is formed from this root, began in the
East when Enki, the Sumerian god of subterranean waters, acquired the Semitic name
Ea. To this day Ea, written e2-a, is conjectured to derive from the Proto-Semitic root
hyy (“to live”), a hypothesis founded on an old reading of the cuneiform sign e2 and
its associative vocalic values that were, at the time, based on later Akkadian dialects.
It is now known, however, that, prior to the Ur III period, e2 was read 03‫ כ‬and reflects
/ha/. With this refinement in hand it is now possible to show that Ea’s name was pro-
nounced either ¡hayal and/or Ihawayl, a third person masculine singular Stative or
predicative construction of VhyyIhwy. It means “he is/exists.” It is feasible, therefore,
that the earliest articulation of the West’s *‫י‬Ihwy deity was lyahwayl, an imperfect
yaqtal G‫־‬stem. Although this means that lyahwë(h)l qua hiphil is a later development,
the subsequent shift to a causative marks a fundamental theological change in the
evolution of the Semitic perception of a *‫י‬Ihwy deity’s true nature.

Key Words: Enki · Ea · Yhwh · *V/nvy · Eblaite · East Semitic · West Semitic

For well over a century, biblical scholars have been satisfied with the
conclusion that the divine name YTiwh derives from *‫י‬Ihwy (“to be”). The general
consensus that it reflects a form of the imperfect hiphil, an argument articulated
clearly and defended by William Foxwell Albright, rightfully remains intact. The
issue of its geographic origin, however, is still somewhat fluid. Since scholars have
contended that VAwA is primarily a West Semitic root, it is not surprising that the

191
 192 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 80,2018

focus has been to evaluate the divine name in the context of West Semitic texts.1 2
Albright, as can be expected, was careful. He drew attention to other verbs that
mean “cause to be”: Egyptian shpr.f “Canannite” yakin, and Akkadian usabsi?
Although the roots are united in meaning, none of them may be linked to *ΛIhwy.
It was Frank Moore Cross, Albright’s student, who looked to the East and expanded
Albright’s initial list of Amorite personal names to affirm the existence of the
imperfect hiphil stem behind the divine name Yhwh.3 Since the syllabic, cuneiform
writing system provided the all-important vowels lacking in consonantal Hebrew,
this proved enormously helpful in strengthening his point that Yhwh is an imper-
feet causative of *Vhwy.
The picture grew even sharper when H. B. Huffinon published his seminal
work Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. Herein he noted that the deriva-
tion of ya-wi from *ΛIhwy would allow the G-stem forms yahwä/yahway and
yahwl/yahwiy. At the same time, Huffmon acknowledged that yahwi/yahwiy
“could favor the causative,” but such an understanding inevitably leans on “seman-
tic grounds alone.”4
In 1972, J. J. M. Roberts published his 1969 dissertation entitled The Earliest
Semitic Pantheon: A Study of the Semitic Deities Attested in Mesopotamia before
Ur III. In it he pointed out that the name of Ea, the deity of underground freshwater,
is written in cuneiform as e2-a.5 He noted, according to Ignace J. Gelb, that the
phonetic value of the e2 sign was 03‫ כ‬during the Old Akkadian (Sargonic) period,
ca. 2340-2200, which suggests that it could only reflect a *h [H], a voiceless pha-
ryngeal fricative.6 He therefore tentatively proposed that the root that lay behind
Ea’s name could be *^Ihyy (“to live”). In spite of the fact that Gelb adjusted his
assessments regarding 23>‫ י‬to include *h [h], a voiceless laryngeal fricative, the
notion that Ea’s name is etymologically related to *^Ihyy has withstood the test of
time.7
The present investigation will review the possibility that the divine names of

1 Karl-Heinz Bernhardt,“‫ היה‬häyähf TDOT 3:36970‫־‬, here 369.

2 W. F. Albright, review of L ,épithète divine Jahvé Seba ’ôt: Étude philologique, historique et
exégétique, by B. N. Wambacq, O. Praem., JBL 67 (1948) 37781‫־‬, here 380.
3Frank Moore Cross, “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs,” HTR 55 (1962) 22559‫־‬, here
252.
4H. B. Huffinon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965) 7273‫־‬.
5 J. J. M. Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon: A Study of the Semitic Deities Attested in
Mesopotamia before Ur III (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972) 20.
6Ignace J. Gelb, Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar (2nd rev. ed.; Materials for the Assyrian
Dictionary 2; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) 8889‫־‬, sign no. 174.
7 Ignace J. Gelb, “Ebla and the Kish Civilization,” in La Lingua di Ebla: Atti del convegno
intemazionale (Napoli, 21-23 aprile 1980) (ed. Luigi Cagni; Series Minor 14; Naples: Istituto
Universitario Orientale, Seminario di studi asiatici, 1981) 973‫־‬, here 20.
 YHWH AND EA 193

Yhwh and Ea are both derived from the same root *‫י‬ihwy (“to be”). The principal
focus will be on the character of the initial phoneme—is it h or hi In order to
unravel this well-knotted issue, first I offer a brief review of the Sumerian deity
Enki and his Semitic articulation as Ea. This is followed by an examination of
*Vhwy and *‫י‬Ihyy as well as their derivative relationship to Yhwh and Ea. With
regard to this, I cautiously present verb forms based on these roots as they appear
in Eblaite texts. Finally, I review afresh the existence of a A [h] in Sumerian through
orthographic variations of e2 and e2‫־‬gal, whence hêkâl comes, in order to confirm
that the Sumerian word for “house” is pronounced lhayl. The Semites incorporated
this enunciation into the name of their deity Ea, written as e2-a for 0‫נ‬03‫ ־‬and
articulated as lha-yl, that in their language meant “he is/exists.”8
Should there be an etymological link between Yhwh and Ea then we may be
advised to look to the East for the origin of the concept of a deity whose identity
is based on *ΛIhwy. On the one hand this possibility does not propose Yhwh and
Ea are, on a cultural level, one and the same god. They are not. On the other hand,
the data suggest Ea reflects the East Semitic articulation of a “hwy” deity while
Yhwh is its West Semitic counterpart. Therefore, on a theological level, the ety-
mology of Ea and Yhwh, in fact, expresses the inherent character of but one deity.

I. Ea

First, let us briefly examine how Enki came to be Ea. One of the first refer-
enees to Enki occurs in a personal name from the ancient southern city of Shurup-
pak located in Fara, Iraq. It reads ur dEN-K1, perhaps “dog of Enki,” and dates to
the Early Dynastic (ED) Ilia period (ca. 2600-2500).9 The name itself is an epithet
meaning “Lord Earth” or, when spelled dEN‫־‬K1‫־‬KE4 or dEN-K1-KA, “Lord ofthe Earth.”
Enki’s Semitic name Ea may be found in the ED Ilia personal name 3¿73(ε2)-
a-NUN, “Ea the Prince” or “Ea is the Prince,” wherein e2 is read as 5a3.10 The term
has a composite configuration consisting of phonemic and logographic signs.
Thus, e2-a is a phonetic spelling attached to the Sumerian logogram nun (“prince”),
the phonetic pronunciation of which, should it be different from nun, is still

8 Aside from lhayl, Sumerologists propose two other possible spellings for “house,” lahl or /
hahl. The current trend supports lhayl.
9Giuseppe Visicato and Aage Westenholz, “Some Unpublished Sale Contracts from Fara,”
in Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati alia memoria di Luigi Cagni (ed. Simonetta Graziani; 4
vols.; Series Minor 61 ; Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 2000) 2:110733‫־‬, here 111920‫־‬, text
5, tablet [YBC 12305], rev., i, 5.
10 Raymond R. Jestin, Tablettes sumériennes de Shuruppak conservées au Musée de Stamboul
(Paris: E. de Boccard, 1937) copy: texts 9+127, tablet [1st S 9 + 127], rev., iv, 7. Photograph: CDLI
[Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative, http://cdli.ucla.edu/] no. PO10706. For e2 = 3‫ג<נ‬, see discussion
below.
 194 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 80,2018

shrouded in mystery. At this early date, the e2 sign has a phonetic value of 33>‫ כ‬that
can indicate a syllable containing either the voiceless laryngeal fricative h lhal [h],
or, as usually presumed, the voiceless pharyngeal fricative h lhal [H]. A second
ED Ilia name recorded in a text from Abu Salablkh 3a3(E2)-a-K1-BURu4-G1muSen,
“hawk of Ea‫־‬K1,” may reflect the same configuration found above: phonemic
3a3(E2)-a conjoined to the logographic κι.11 In this case, the latter sign κι would not
function as a Sumerian determinative for “place.” Rather it would correspond to
the second element in en‫־‬ki.
Two other names from Ebla (ca. 2350-2250) are especially significant. They
read lu2 dEN‫־‬K112 and nu :>α3(Ε2)‫־‬α‫־‬κι.13 The first logographic elements in both names
are equivalent, as nu is merely an older by-form of lu2 (“man”) in Sumerian. This
suggests an orthographic coordination between en-ki and 3<23(Ε2)-α-κι.
Additional evidence for this orthography of Ea’s name can be found in the
Early Old Akkadian (ca. 2340-2200) attestation of ur dEN-K1 in a text from Adab.14
The single term constituting the entire line that immediately follows is interesting.
Giuseppe Visicato and Aage Westenholz transcribed it as é-Α-κι and questioned
whether it should be read as a toponym in this case. If it is not a toponym, then the
term may function as a gloss for dEN‫־‬K1 in the preceding line. When this is cast
beside the Eblaite name 3α-α-κι,15 one may consider the Adab spelling, 3α3(Ε2)-α‫־‬κι,
a Semitic gloss for the en of en-ki’s Sumerian name in the preceding line. It would
mean something akin to “Ea (of the) Earth.”
This proposes that the transition from Enki to Ea was achieved through the
formation of an orthographic “bridge term” that combined the Semitic name Ea with
the Sumerian κι logogram, yielding a process of dEN‫־‬K1 > 503(Ε2)‫־‬α‫־‬κι > >a3(E2)-a.
Another Eblaite name is even more illuminating. It reads d3a2-a-K1 with the deter-
minative confirming his divine status.16 Should this be an accurate understanding
of the data, it confirms that Ea is not a translation of Sumerian en (“lord”) but is a
Semitic interpretation of the deity’s name, specifically reflecting Semitic sensi-
bilities.

11 Robert D. Biggs, Inscriptions from Tell Abü Çalâbïkh (OIP 99; Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1974) copy: plate 13, text 28, tablet [AbS‫־‬T 242], rev., i, case 2.
12EDA [Ebla Digital Archives]: ARET [Archivi reali di Ebla] 9, 107, obv., v, 1. CDLI no.
P240694.
13 EDA: ARET 13, text 14 + unpublished fragment, rev., i, 1. Photograph: CDLI no. P243647.
14 Giuseppe Visicato and Aage Westenholz, Early Dynastic and Early Sargonic Tablets from
Adab in the Cornell University Collections (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumer-
ology 11; Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2010) transcription only: 49, text 150, tablet [CUNES 48-04-080],
obv., ii, 3-4 respectively; Toponyms: 122, “é-Α.κι (place7).”
15EDA: ARET 13, text 1, rev., ii, 6. Photograph: CDLI no. P241484.
16 EDA: ARET 3, text 464, rev., iv, 7‫׳‬. CDLI no. P242023.
 YHWH AND EA 195

II. Initial h- in the Semitic root *ΛIhwy

A. The Name Yhwh and the Root *‫¡י‬hwy in West Semitic

Anyone who has studied Hebrew is familiar with Proto-Semitic. Even though
it is a hypothetical construct of the ancestral language conjectured to stand behind
all Semitic languages, both ancient and modem, it has proved to be an invaluable
aid in the analysis and classification of Semitic roots. With the decipherment of
cuneiform and the identification of the Akkadian language, two basic trajectories
of the family tree developed: West Semitic and East Semitic. Further distinctions
acknowledge a tripartite division: East Semitic (Akkadian and Eblaite), Central
Semitic (Northwest Semitic: Ugaritic, Aramaic, Hebrew, Phoenician, and Arabic),
and South Semitic (South Arabian and Ethiopie Semitic languages). Recently,
scholars have proposed several refinements regarding the “Proto languages,” the
most important being the concept of Proto-West Semitic and Proto-East Semitic.17
For the purposes of the present discussion, the general notion of Proto-Semitic
V/zwy will be the principal focus.

B. The Spelling and Pronunciation of Yhwh

Modem inaugural investigations concerning the orthography and pronuncia-
tion of the divine name all begin with the formula found in Exod 3:14, which
entered the MT as‫כ‬ehyeh‫כ‬oser‫כ‬ehyeh. Scholarly discomfort with the awkwardness
of the phrase, inspired Paul Haupt to suggest that the original spelling of the phrase
was “âhyê äsär ihyê or âhwê äsär ihwë” and that imperfect hiphils of the root hwhl
hyy (“to be”) stood behind ahwêlàhyê. Its meaning was “Ich rufe ins Dasein, was
da ist.”18
Albright refined Haupt’s rather cumbersome translation to something a bit
more manageable. His reconstruction of the formula was “ahyéh àseryihyéh.” He
translated the phrase as “I cause to be what comes into existence.”19 This allows
Yahwéh to be the phonetic spelling of the divine name meaning “‘The one who
brings into existence’ that means, to all intents and purposes, ‘creator.’”20

17 John Huehnergard, “New Directions in the Study of Semitic Languages,” in The Study of
the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-first Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Confer-
ence (ed. Jerrold S. Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 25172‫־‬,
here 26061‫־‬.
18Paul Haupt, “DerName Jahwe,” OLZ12 (1909) 21114‫־‬, here 211.
19 W. F. Albright, “Contributions to Biblical Archaeology and Philology,” JBL 43 (1924) 363‫־‬
93, here 376.
20Ibid., 375.
 196 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 80,2018

In a later review, Albright provided a very detailed description of the historical

development of the orthography associated with the divine name as it appears in
another formula, ‫יהוה צבאות‬. Standing firm on the Barth-Ginsberg law,21 he pre-
sented his argument as follows.
It cannot have been qal because the stative-intransitive was vocalized *yï(ë)hwàyû
(indicative) or yïhway > yïhyê > yihyê (jussive); cf. archaizing Hebrew forms such as
yibkâyûn, “they weep,” ye3tayun, “they come,” yehmayûn, “they roar.” There is thus
no rational escape from the interpretation of Yahwê as meaning “He causes to Come
into Existence,” exactly like contemporary Accadian usabsï and Egyptian shpr.j,\ or
like slightly later Canaanite (Phoenician) yakin. The early jussive of the causative
*yahwi, later yáhü, means simply, “let him bring into existence,” and was so used in
early Northwest-Semitic personal names.22

There is very little one can add to this careful explanation except to note that usabsi
is a perfective, preterite punctual form while yahwê is an imperfective, present
durative, for which the corresponding Akkadian term is usabsa.

C. West Semitic *Vhwy

Since the root hwy appears in neither Ugaritic nor Phoenician texts, the earli-
est epigraphic attestation of the verb in Hebrew is found in the first line of the
eighth-century Siloam tunnel inscription. This suggests, for the moment, that the
root was not an early entrant in Northwest Semitic. Therefore, the earliest cor-
roboration of the root occurs in East Semitic texts, specifically in the Amorite
personal names recorded on eighteenth-century b.c.e. Mari tablets. These refer-
enees aided the identification of the stem and provided some guidance as to its
orthography. Cross, as noted above, drew on the names to bring insight into his
proposal that Yhwh means “he creates.”23 He recommended the following caus-
ative verbal forms of ‫י‬Ihwy/hyy.

Causative Imperfect Causative Jussive

Ill-y yaqliyu yaqïî
II-w and III-y *yahwiyu >yahwï yahû > yahü 24

The Amorite personal names, however, are spelled with the Akkadian phoneme
h [x] a voiceless velar fricative. Cross rightly acknowledged that the forms could

21 The phonological rule behind the Barth-Ginsberg law maintains that the prefix vowel of the
imperfect(ive) inflection of the verb in the G/qal stem is contingent on the theme vowel particular
to the verbal base. When the theme vowel is /i/ or /u/, the prefix vowel is /a/. However, should the
theme vowel be /a/, then the prefix vowel is /iL
22 Albright, review of L ,épithète divine Jahvé Seba30ti by Wambacq, 380.
23 Cross, “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs,” 253 n. 123.
24 Ibid., 253 n. 122. See also Albright, review ofL’épithète divine Jahvé Seba3ôt, by Wambacq,
379.
 YHWH AND EA 197

reflect two West Semitic spellings; one with the h pronounced [h], the voiceless
laryngeal fricative, and the other with h [H], the voiceless pharyngeal fricative.
Below are two of Cross’s examples.25

ia-ah-wi-digir26 27 lyahwï-HlI lyahwï-HlI

ia-ah-wi-na-si22 /yahwï-nasi/ lyahwï-nasil
Cross tacitly acknowledges that the written verbal forms of each personal name
could reflect terms derived from *‫י‬Ihwy or *V/zwy. Strictly speaking, yahwï would
mean “he causes to be > creator” and yahwï “he causes to live > enlivener.”
Cross developed his forms based on the assumption that the Barth-Ginsberg
law was operative in Amorite. Huffinon, however, noted that the law did not apply
in Amorite.28 Thus, there is no evidence for the change from a yaqtal to a yiqtal in
the G‫־‬stem verb forms, as evidenced in such Amorite personal names as ya-am-
ra-as-digir and ya-ap-la-ah-mùiR, both of which appear to be *yapras forms, as
the roots are East Semitic.29 This means that the verbal forms of *yahwiyu >yahwï
could be either a G-stem or H‫־‬stem.30
With the focus so strictly relegated to West Semitic, subsequent dictionary
entries on the root offer a diversity of historical origins. Therefore, hyh, a form
limited to the Hebrew Bible, is the precursor to the later hwh9 found in Aramaic.
This leads to the conclusion that “the root is peculiar to the Aramaic-Hebrew
branch of Semitic.”31 Both V/zyA and VAwA are connected to Akkadian ewû/emû in
the respective HALOT entries. The form is then judiciously distinguished from
Aramaic hwh, which is considered, in the Hebrew Bible, an Aramaism.32 Its rela-
tionship to Akkadian ewû/emû is implied to be the result of a borrowing from
Aramaic into East Semitic.33 Eventually the acknowledgment of a Proto-Semitic
root *hwy began to appear in connection with hyh.34 Even so, the sense that *‫י‬Ihwy

25 Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History ofthe Religion
ofIsrael (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973) 62.
26 ARM 7,215, obv., 5. Copy only, CDU no. P341414.
27 ARM 7,200, 8.
28 Huffinon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts, 64.
29 ARM 7, 139, obv., 8. Copy only, CDLI no. P341342. Note also the variation ya-a[m]-ra-
5z2-digir, ARM 9,241, rev., 4(17). Copy only, CDLI no. P341881 ; Maurice Birot,“Textes économi-

ques de Mari (III),” RA 49 (1955) 1431‫־‬, copy: p. 17, tablet AB, obv., iv, 59.
30 Huffinon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts, 7273‫־‬.
31 Karl-Heinz Bernhardt,“‫ ה!יה‬häyähf TDOT 3:369.
32 Max Wagner, Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttestamentlichen
Hebräisch (BZAW 96; Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1966) 71, no. 72.
^ HALOT s.v.mn.
34 David Cohen, Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestées dans les langues sémitiques
(Leuven: Peeters, 1995) fase. 5,386.
 198 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 80,2018

is West Semitic, as reinforced by the Amorite personal names, assists in the belief
that it is fundamentally a Proto-West-Semitic root.35

D. The Name ofEa and the Root *>Ihwy in East Semitic

At the time Roberts published his book (1972), the term “Old Akkadian”
(formally referenced as Sargonic), as defined by Gelb, covered a broad range of
texts that dated from ca. 2500 to 2220. Today many more early East Semitic texts
are now available to us. With this new bounty, a more detailed and sophisticated
understanding of the initial development of the Akkadian language has come to
light. It is now known that Old Babylonian (OB) had an earlier phase, Early Old
Babylonian (EOB; ca. 2000-1900), and that Old Babylonian (ca. 1900-1600)
itself represents a later stage in the overall development of that dialect. As such
EOB and OB reflect certain phonological spellings that were not indicative of
earlier, phonemic cuneiform sign values found during the Early Dynastic Ilia and
Illb (ca. 2600-2340), Old Akkadian (ca. 2340-2200), and Lagas II (ca. 2200-2100
B.c.E.) periods. Of prime significance is, of course, Eblaite (ca. 2350-2250). The
robust number of the Ebla texts provides an in-depth witness to one of the earliest
stages in the development of the Semitic language group.

E. The Spelling and Pronunciation ofEa

Roberts identified many personal names containing the theophoric element
Ea. One, for example, was the fully Semitic e2-a-be-li2, which appears in an admin-
istrative text written in Old Akkadian (ca. 2340-2200) and found in Sippar-
Yahrurum.36 This, he recommended, should be normalized “>Ay(y)a-bëlï, 5Ay(y)
a-is-My-Lord.”37 Another, even earlier Semitic personal name transcribed as
su-e2-a also appears in this corpus and probably dates to the ED Illb period. He
translated it as “He-Of-:>Ay(y)a.”38
When Miguel Civil edited a bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian text presently
referred to as “Enlil and Sud,” he made an important observation regarding Ea in
conjunction with the name of a lesser-known deity Haia: “Originally, the name

35 Samuel Amsler, “‫ היה‬hyh to be,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (ed. Ernst
Jenni; 3 vols.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997) 1:35965‫־‬, here 359.
36 Leonard W. King, CT [Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum] I,
copy: plate 1, text c, tablet [BM 80453] assc. no. [BU 91-5-9,590], obv., 4,4b. CDLI no. P212954.
37 Roberts, Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 19.
38 Daniel David Luckenbill, Inscriptions fromAdab (OIP 14; Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1930) copy: plate 7, text 23, vase fragment [A483]. See also the Old Akkadian variant spelling
su-e3-a (Trevor Donald, Manchester Cuneiform Studies 9 [1964]) copy: text 243, tablet [WML
52.22.243], rev., 4. Photograph: CDLI no. P-13. Cf. the name of the well-known, Ur III merchant
in-ta-e3-a, who worked in Puzris-Dagan, a major distribution center of the time.
 YHWH AND EA 199

may have been a variant spelling of é-a and therefore identical with Enki, but Haia
and Ea are already considered two different deities in the early OB period.”39
Unfortunately the parallel Akkadian rendering of the name has not survived in this
text. Thus, the restoration of the Sumerian with an h offers no information regard-
ing the specific character of the Semitic phoneme. Wilfred G. Lambert supported
Roberts’s and Civil’s views but chose to write the name as Haya, implying that we
are indeed dealing with Ihl [h].40
Most recently, Michael R Streck posits that Ea is a noun and the -a in Ea9s
Eblaite name reflects a status absolutus ending comparable to Gelb’s “predicate
state” in -a and Manfred Krebemik’s “case-ending /-a/ in a predicative sense.”41

F Ea in Eblaite
To clarify these readings further, let us turn to some unique features of Eblaite.
As is well known, later Akkadian merges five Proto-Semitic plosive and fricative
consonants, the glottal laryngeal plosive ‫]?[ כ‬, the voiceless laryngeal fricative h
[h], the voiceless pharyngeal fricative h [H], the voiced pharyngeal fricativec [Ç],
the voiced velar fricative g [γ], and occasionally the phonemes w [w] and y [y].
All are indicated by /V, and designated respectively ?! through 7‫כ‬. Only the voiceless
velar fricative h [x] is orthographically distinguished.
Krebemik noted that Eblaite, unlike Akkadian, unexpectedly inclines to
merge the glottal laryngeal‫ ]?[ י‬with the voiced pharyngealc [Ç] and the laryngeal
h [h] with the pharyngeal h [H].42 Of principal importance is the fact that textual
data show that‫ כ‬N [?] andc N [Ç] are written with either an a for /W or / ca/ and ni
only for ba5l. In contrast, the voiceless pharyngeal fricative h Ihl [H] could be
written with a, e2 (3‫ )ג<כ‬or ni (3ax), while h Ihl [h] used either a or e2 (3a3) 43 For the
current matter at hand, the principal focus of the following examination will be on
the orthography associated with the phonemes h Ihl [h] and h Ihl [H].
Two Eblaite personal names in particular come to the fore: i^a-ba-nu lyihya-
banu/44 and
45 ti-*a3(E2)-ba-nu /tihya-banul45 Both names are the typical verb-subject

39 Miguel Civil, “Enlil and Ninlil: The Marriage of Sud,” JA OS 103 (1983) 4366‫־‬, here 44.
40 Wilfred G. Lambert, “Notes on a Work of the Most Ancient Semitic Literature,” JCS 41
(1989) 133‫־‬, here 3.
41 Michael P. Streck, “Remarks on Two Recent Studies on Amorite,” UF 44 (2013) 30927‫־‬,
here 312; Gelb, “Ebla and the Kish Civilization,” 32; Manfred Krebemik, “Prefixed Verbal Forms
in Personal Names from Ebla,” in Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving (ed. Alfonso
Archi; Archivi Reali di Ebla 1; Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, 1988) 4569‫־‬, here 45.
42 Manfred Krebemik, “Zur Entwicklung der Keilschrift im III. Jahrtausend anhand der Texte
aus Ebla: Ein Vergleich zwischen altakkadischem und eblaitischem Schriftsystem,” AfO 32 (1985)
5359‫־‬, here 57.
43Ibid., 58.
44 EDA: ARET 5,1, obv., iv, 8. Copy only, CDLI no. P241222.
45 EDA: ARET 11,1, rev., v, 10.
 200 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 80,2018

formation and are composed of two elements of the same two roots, λIhwy (“be,
exist”) and ‫י‬Jbny (“build, create”), meaning “The creator was present” or “He was
present who creates.”46 Although the two names have the same meaning, they are
spelled differently and therefore offer insight into the correspondence between the
a sign transcribed as Pal and the e2 sign transcribed as Pa3l. In this instance the
signs can only indicate the spelling Ihal. The correlation between 3a(E2)‫־‬a-lum47 48
and >a-a-lum4s provides evidence that Ea’s name could be spelled with either 3a or
^3(e2)· Here the written form Ihaya-luml is an effort to reflect haya(y)-Hlum
wherein the -y and H- [?i] have been graphically merged. The name means “Ea is
god.49‫״‬
Two lines from three different copies of the same text demonstrate the variant
spellings of Ea in personal names.

3a3(E2)‫־‬da-mi-gu2 >a2-da-mi-gu2 [d] en-κι- [^]a-mi-g^

/‫־‬//‫־‬d5a3(E2)50 Z-/7'‫־‬dEN-KI51 /-//‫־‬dEN‫־‬KI52

Maria V. Tonietti took note of the equivalency that i-ti-d*a2 and z-ri‫־‬dEN-K1, “Ea/Enki
gave,” presents. They not only corroborate that 3α3(ε2) corresponds to Sumerian
dEN‫־־‬K1, but she also observed that Ea’s name can be reduced to but one cuneiform
sign, e2, signifying a single syllable 3»‫ כ‬ha [Ha], Ihay/P With the addition of
another text having the same sequence of names, it is now possible to corroborate
an identical correspondence among ^ayda-mi-gu2, 'a2-da-mi-gu2, and [d]EN‫־‬K1‫[־‬d]
a-mi-gu2 where it is clear that the Sumerian digir determinative indicating divinity
is optional.54 When the data are taken as a whole, they suggest that the signs a, a2

46 Thus, ba-nu Ibânûl could well be a nominative masculine singular active participle. See
Pelio Fronzaroli, “II culto dei rei defunti in ARET 3.178,” in Miscellanea Eblaitica 2 (Quademi di
Semitistica 16; Florence: Dipartimento di Lingüistica Université di Firenze, 1988) 1-33, here 9. See
below for a discussion on the spelling of the roots *'Ihyy and *‫י‬Ihwy:
47 EDA: ARET 15, 20, rev., iii, 2.
48 EDA: ARET 15, 51, rev., ii, 2‫׳‬.
49 See further below. Another example ofthis correspondence occurs in the following personal
name wherein the first element is a verb derived from Vhwy: a-:>a3(E2)-lu (EDA: ARET 15,40, obv.,
ii, 7) and a-^a-lu (EDA: ARET 3,459, rev., ii, 18) fyaha(y)-lu/ < yahay-'ilu perhaps meaning “god
was present.”
50 EDA: ARET 3,498, rev., ii, 2 -3 ‫׳‬.
51 EDA: ARET 3,468, obv., iii, 1-2.
52 EDA: ARET 12, 18, obv.?, i, 2 -3 ‫׳‬.
53 Maria V. Tonietti, “É = BÏTUM or M? About Ea in Early Dynastic Sources,” in Semitic and
Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2003) 666-79, here 668-69. She also observes, “À of the administrative text could
be a defective spelling for /hayya/ or a spelling for the form /hay(y)/.”
54 The spelling‫נ‬arda-mi-gu appears in EDA: ARET 1, 8, rev., vii, 20 and EDA: ARET 7, 81,
obv., i, 3. But also note the Old Akkadian name \z3(E2)-a-da-mi-iq on a seal (Louis Delaporte, Musée
du Louvre, Catalogue des cylindres orientaux, cachets et pierres gravées de style oriental, vol. 2,
Acquisitions [Paris: Hachette, 1923] 103, A 87).
 YHWH AND EA 201

and e2 all indicate respectively the spellings 5a, 3a2 and 3‫ זג<כ‬of the same syllable in
Ea’s name. Unlike the a and e2 signs that can be either lhal [ha] or lhal [Ha], in
this context a2 might reflect but one value, the elusive ha, /ha/.55
When this principle is applied to personal names, Ea’s name comes to light.
For instance, i-ti-a-a could reflect Ea’s name written as >a-a9 producing lyiti-hayl,
“Ea gave,”56 and tisana-a Itisa-hayl, “Ea helped.”57

G. East Semitic *'¡hwy

As our familiarity with Eblaite has improved, so has the recognition of the
existence of Vhwy. Hans-Peter Müller was the first to suggest the presence of 'Ihyy
qua ‫י‬ihyï (“to be”) in the Ebla archive.58 He isolated two verbal forms of this root.
One is found in the personal names i->a- /(y)ih(y)a/ and ti-'a- lti(h)yal meaning “er
ist, erwies sich wirksam.”59 A second form is to be found in the parallel terms
“ax(N1)‫־‬a‫־‬w2 ma-a and a-a-u2 mi = a-tuku, ‘water exists.’”60
By 1988, noted Ebla scholar Manfred Krebemik likewise recognized the
Eblaite verb “to be.” For him the medial w/y shift posed no difficulty or impedí-
ment. He identified four personal names for their verbal forms. Two have /y/-
prefix forms /(‫־‬/')‫ ־‬and i-a- and two the t- prefix, ti-a- and ti-. Of special importance
however, is his insistence that one must distinguish the /(‫־‬/)‫ ־‬and ti- forms that
articulate ^Ihyy (“live”) and the i-a- and ti-a forms that reflect ΛIhwy, or its ortho-
graphic variant ^hyy (“be”).61 The distinction is found in the orthography of the
personal names ti-da-mu and i-da-mu (“Damu lived”) and ti-a-da-mu and i-a-da-

55 See further below.

56 EDA: ARET 13, 9, rev., v, 4. See also the ED Illb name: i-ti-a3(e2) (Sippar, C7T, la, obv.,
4). There are also two other Old Akkadian personal names: i-di3-a3(E2)-a (Materials for the Assyrian
Dictionary 5,74 obv., 8. Photograph, CDLI no. P215397) and i-ti-a3(E2)-a (Manistusu obelisk, Susa,
OIP 104/1,40, p. 130, Cj/iv, 7. Surface C, ix, 23, CDLI no. P213189).
57 EDA: ARET 13,1, rev., iv, 3. The ti- generally indicates the third person feminine singular.
When it references a masculine deity, however, as it does here, it is interpreted as a third person
masculine singular.
58Hans-Peter Müller, “Der Jahwename und seine Deutung: Ex 3,14 im Licht der Text-
Publikationen aus Ebla,” Bib 62 (1981) 305-27, here 310-11.
59 The latter form Müller identifies as a third person masculine singular, “Neue Erwägungen
zum Eblaitischen Verbalsystem,” in II Bilingüismo a Ebla (Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale,
1984) 167-204, here 184-85. For support, in n. 71 he cites Dietz Otto Edzard, Verwaltungstexte
verschiedenen Inhalts aus dem Archiv L.2769 (Archivi reali di Ebla 2; Rome: Missione Archeologica
Italiana in Siria, 1981 ) 106,110.
60Müller initially recognized it as an infinitive (“Neue Erwägungen zum Eblaitischen
Verbalsystem,” 195). If true, this would disprove Edzard’s contention that 5a^Ni) can only refer to
h [H]. See further below.
61 Manfred Krebemik, Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte: Eine Zwischenbilanz (Berliner
Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 7; Berlin: Reimer, 1988) 34.
 202 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 80,2018

mu (“Damu was present”).62 Later Joseph M. Pagan listed the following Eblaite
verbal forms: “tihwä, ‘she exists’\yahwä ‘he exists,;yihwä ‘he exists.’”63
According to Krebemik’s criteria, it is possible to discern other verbal '¡hwy/
hyy forms. I will list only a few of the most significant according to some of their
possible forms.64

Stative {paras)65 *λIhyy

>a-a66 /haya/ “he exists” PN

’a2 /hay/ “he exists” DN?
dla2-a /haya/ “he exists” DN
<v 7 lhayl > /hat
’a3-«968 69 70 71 lhayl
“he exists”
“he exists”
DN
DN

*‫י‬
ihwy
,a-wcfi9 Ihawal “he exists” PN
,ayWd-Ug0 /haway/ “he exists” DN?

Preterite (Perfective) G-Stem (yiprus) *‫¡י‬hyy

i-’a-da-mu !yihyai71 “he was present” “Damu was present” ?

62 EDA: ARET 12,945, obv?, ii‫׳‬, 2‫׳‬, ARET 3, 542, obv., i, 2‫ ;׳‬ARET 16,27, rev., i, 2; ARET
9,44, rev., ix, 9, respectively.
63 Joseph Martin Pagan, A Morphological and Lexical Study ofPersonal Names in the Ebla
Texts (Archivi reali de Ebla Studi 3; Rome: Missione Archaeologica Italiana in Siria, 1998) 118.
64 The terminology used to describe the Eblaite finite verb forms has been developed by
Manfred Krebemik and Dietz Otto Edzard. For their descriptions, see Krebemik, “The Linguistic
Classification of Eblaite: Methods, Problems and Results,” in Study ofthe Ancient Near East in the
Twenty-first Century (ed. Cooper and Schwartz), 23349‫־‬, here 244; and Edzard, “Das Ebla-
Akkadische als Teil des Altakkadischen Dialektkontinuums,” in The Akkadian Language in Its
Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian ofthe Third and Second Millennium BC (ed. G. Deutscher
and N. J. C. Kouwenberg; Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden
106; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2006) 7683‫־‬, here 7980‫־‬.
65 For more on the historical development of this “predicative construction” in Akkadian, see
N. J. C. Kouwenberg, “Nouns as Verbs: The Verbal Nature of the Akkadian Stative,” Or 69 (2000)
21‫־‬71.
66 EDA: ARET 15,22, rev., iv, 15.
67 EDA: ARET 3,498, rev., ii, 3.
68 EDA: ARET 12,188, obv.?, ii, 4‫׳‬
69 MEE (Materiali epigrafici de Ebla) 12, 7, obv., v, 1.
70EDA: ARET 16, 17, rev., ii, 1.
71This presumes that, as the first person singular and third person masculine singular preterite
G‫־‬stem forms of III-w verbs both end in lui in Akkadian, we may postulate that the first person
singular and third person masculine singular preterite G‫־‬stem in Eblaite will likewise end with the
 YHWH AND EA 203

ti-’a-da-mu72 Itihyal “s/he was present” “Damu was present” PN

ti-'ay73 Itihyal “s/he was present” PN

*‫י‬Ihwy G-Stem (yapras)

°a-wa-i-sa[r]14 lyahwal “Isar was present” PN

Present (Imperfective) G-stem (yaparras) *‫ץ‬Ihyy

a-'ayà15 lahayyaP6 “I exist” lyahayyal “he exists” ?

*ΛIhwy

a-*a3-wa-dn77 /yahawwa/ “Isar exists” PN

V-^-wtf-a78 /ahawway/ “I exist” lyahawwayl “he exists” ?

Present S-Stem (yusapras) *VAwy

rw31-iúf-wfl79 lyusahwal “he causes to be” PN

Four points are of special note. As the careful reader will have noticed, Eblaite
1117‫ ־‬first and third person singular verb forms have lal theme-vowels.80 As is
characteristic of Eblaite orthography, syllable final glides, in this case the -y, are
not typically written.81 Thus, the Stative third person masculine singular can be
written (paras) Ihayal or lhayl and lhawal or !hawayL At the same time, the orthog-
raphy preserves both prefix elements, ya- and yi-, of the third person masculine

same vowel, in this case lal indicating an /a/ theme-vowel verbal form. For other examples, see n.
82 below.
72 EDA: ARET 15,12, obv., xii, 5.
73 ti-'ayba-nu: EDA: ARET 11,1, rev., v, 10.
74 a-wa-i-sa[r]: EDA: ARET 12, 125, obv.?, Γ, 4‫׳‬.
75 EDA: ARET 16, 27, rev., iii, 11.
76 This form presumes that, as both the first person singular and third person singular preterite
G‫־‬stem III-y have /// theme-vowel forms in Akkadian, we may postulate that both the first person
singular and third singular preterite G-stem forms will likewise reflect an lal due to its /a/ theme-
vowel character.
77 a-^a-wa-i-sar. MEE 12,19, rev., ii, 2‫׳‬
78 EDA: ARET 13,13, rev., iv, 8. See also ARET 7,156, obv., i, 6.
79 EDA: ARET 12, 146, rev., iii, 2‫׳‬.
80 Other examples of the third person masculine singular are rabû lyirbal; redû lyirdal (cf. Ur
III irda [TMH NF 1-2, 275, obv. 1]); sabû lyisbal, and sarû lyisral. The -HI theme-vowel is also
attested (R Fronzaroli, “Fonti di Lessico nei Testi di Ebla,” Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino
Oriente Antico 12 [1995] 51-64, here 55-56).
81 Krebemik, Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte, 7, 15.
 204 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 80,2018

singular in the G‫־‬Stem preterite: lyahwal (yapras) and lyihyal (yipras). The older
form has the ya- prefix.82 Eblaite spelling also witnesses two forms of the same
root. It is not possible to say which form may be older. Since Eblaite attests II
y/w roots with strong medial Iwl and /y/9 as vu3]-sa-wa lyusahwal and us-ga-i-na
lyuskayyinal demonstrate, it appears that *Vhwy and *ΛIhyy may have equal
chronological standing.83

H. Old Akkadian ha and ha

Rebecca Hasselbach’s insightful work on Old Akkadian articulates best a
refined understanding of Akkadian laryngeals, glottals, and pharyngeals. Most
significant is her statement that three signs can indicate *ha: a, a2 and e2(a3). As
shown above, these are the same three signs that can indicate *ha in Eblaite. This,
of course is not surprising, because Eblaite and Old Akkadian are contemporane-
ous. Nevertheless, this correspondence cannot be dismissed out of hand as a mere
coincidence.
With regard to the orthography and pronunciation of “syllable initial /A/,” she
observes:
The use of three different signs for the original syllable *ha might best be explained
by the manner of the articulation of the phoneme /h/. N is a voiceless glottal stop,
while /h/ is a voiceless pharyngeal fricative. The sound [h], a voiceless glottal frica-
five, has characteristics in common with both of them, that is, fhJ lies in between the
glottal stop /V and pharyngeal fricative /h/ regarding its pronunciation. This fact can
explain the use of/3/‫־‬signs and the signs usually employed for /hi for the representation
of this phoneme.84

She also remarks that syllable initial /A/ is “in most cases” signified by the e2 sign
and is transcribed as 3a3 for /Aa/.85 The single exception is the root *VAw(w)
(“speak”), where 3¿/3(e2) = lhal such as ‫נ‬a3-wa-a-ti lhawatil (“my word”) and 3‫ג<נ‬-
wa-tim Ihawatiml (“issue, matter”).86 One cannot help wondering whether a root
of this type coupled with the presence of a strong medial Iwl or lyl contributed to
this particular orthographic development. Also important is the inscription on a
statue from the reign of Naram-Suen of Akkad (ca. 2190-2154) that carefully
distinguishes between a2 lhal [ha] and a /3a/ [?a] in the terms a2-ni-u3-ut IhannHutl
(“these”) and dar-a-mu-su4 Itar^amsul (“she loved him”).87

82 Krebemik, “Linguistic Classification of Eblaite,” 244.

83 EDA: ARET 13, 1, obv., v, 12.
84Rebecca Hasselbach, Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the
Syllabic Texts (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005) 79.
85 Ibid., 81.
86 Ibid., 79, 81, 265. See also comments by Jan Keetman, “Schrift und Phoneme im Reichs-
akkadischen,” JCS 60 (2008) 101-15, here 105.
87 Abdul-Hadi Al-Fouadi, “The Bassetki Statue with an Old Akkadian Royal Inscription of
 YHWH AND EA 205

III. The Root *Vhyy

A. West Semitic *‫¡י‬hyy

J. J. M. Roberts normalized e2-ü as >Ay(y)a with a conscious view toward West

Semitic *‫י‬Ihwy. This root, with its initial voiceless pharyngeal fricative [H],
presents an interesting variety of attestations in Semitic: Ugaritic hyy/hwy (“live”),
hiyyüma < *hayyüma (n. “lives”); Hebrew häyäh (“live”), hayyäh (“life”); Phoeni-
cian hwy (“live”), hy (“life”); Aramaic hayâ/hayî (“live”); Sabean hwy, hyw, hyy
(“live”), hywt (“life”); Syriac heyä (“live”), hayyë (“life”); Classical Ethiopie
haywa (“live”), hëywat (“life”); Classical Arabic hayya (“live”); Modem Arabic
hayiya, hayya (“live”), hayäh (“life”), but note inf. n. hayawefn, which proposes
two forms hyy and hyw.
According to the above, it is quite clear that hyy is at home in the West Semitic
language group. Thus, one may identify hwy as a Proto-West Semitic root *‫י‬Ihwy.
With Ugaritic texts witnessing to its earliest attestation, we find it embedded spe-
cifically among the Northwest Semitic cluster of Phoenician, Hebrew, and Ara-
maic. As such, while it may be part of the Proto-Semitic common core of roots,
the currently available evidence suggests that ca. 1300-1190 represents the earliest
period to which the written use of hwy/hyy can be dated.

B. East Semitic *Vhyy

This now brings us to Eblaite and the existence of *^hyy in its texts. Today
all agree that Eblaite is an East Semitic language.88 The root’s relationship to Ea
has a somewhat checkered past. At first Krebernik qualified his proposal as
“h-y-y(?) *803:9»-‫( סנ‬dEN.K1).”89 A year later he was more confident: “*803: dEN.K1
= à-u9 /hayyu(m)/” even though he noted that 3‫ ג<נ‬could stand for h/h and u9 for
hlhly.90 Amalia Catagnoti understood ¿-ίΐ-'α3-[αΊ] as “Yaddin-Haya: ‘Haya-

Narim-Sin of Agade (BC 2291-2255),” Sumer 32 (1976) 63-75, tablet [IM 77823], i, 12. For the
reading a2-ni-u3-ut in iii, 20, see Walter Färber, “Die Vergöttlichung Naräm-Sins,” Or 52 (1983)
6772‫־‬, here 7172‫־‬, iii, 20. Photograph and copy: CDLI no. P216558.
88 Whether Eblaite is a language unique unto itself or an early form of Akkadian is still
debated. See, e.g., John Huehnergard, “Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian,” in Akkadian Language
in Its Semitic Context (ed. Deutscher and Kouwenberg), 1-18; Michael P. Streck, “Eblaite and Old
Akkadian,” in The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook (ed. Stefan Weninger; Handbooks
of Linguistics and Communication Science 36; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011) 340-59.
89 Manfred Krebernik, “Zu Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla: Teil
1, ” ZA 72 (1982) 178-236, here 221.
90Manfred Krebernik, “Zu Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla: Teil
2, ” ZA 73 (1983) 1-47, here 31.
 206 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 80,2018

Given. ’”91 In 2009, Mark Weeden declared, “Almost universal agreement has been
found for the supposition that the name written É-A was pronounced Hayyä in the
third millennium.”92
Bearing on this issue are the values of the cuneiform ni sign in Eblaite. To
this day it is still revealing its many mysteries. Presently, most accept the follow-
ing dominant values for ni, 5a5 /W [?a],lhal [Ha], i3 Μ [I], and ni Inil [ni]. In
this case the value ni = ’a* lhal [Ha] is significant because it principally does not
designate any phoneme except //z/.93 Two other signs a = 3a and e2 = 3‫ זג<כ‬can be
either lhal or lhal.
Edzard identified two words derived from this root. The first he carefully qual-
ified with a question mark (?): ‘“Ich werde leben (?),54 ‫נ‬, α-'α3-α = ^ahayya] (?),”
(yiparras) an imperfective present G-stem.94 The other is “>ax(m)-i \jahya\ ‘ich
habe gelebt,’” (yiprus) a perfective/preterite G‫־‬stem.95
Below I list the attestations of ^Ihyy that scholars have offered as evidence for
its presence in Ebla. There are a few verbal forms as well as some personal names
with ni qua °ax that may illustrate the divine name of the grain deity Haya as a
Stative (paras) form of the verb, “he lives.”

Stative (paras) *Vhwy

‫נ‬ax(N1)-wa96 Ihawal “he lives” ?

Stative (paras) *ΛIhyy

>ax(m)-a àna-im97 98lhaya-dNaiml “Naim lives” PN

Preterite G‫־‬stem *‫ג‬Ihyy (yipras)

1-(i)-áda-mu9* lyihya-ádamul “Damu was living” PN

91 Amalia Catagnoti, “The III Millennium Personal Names from the Habur Triangle in the
Ebla, Brak and Mozan Texts,” in About Subartu: Studies Devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, vol. 2,
Culture, Society, Image (ed. Marc Lebeau; Subartu 4.2; Tumhout: Brepols, 1998) 4166‫־‬, here 4950‫;־‬
Tonietti, “É = BÏTUM or M?,668 ‫״‬.
92 Mark Weeden, “The Akkadian Words for ‘Grain’ and the God Haya,” W019 (2009) 77107 ‫־‬,
here 98. See also Alfonso Archi, “The God Hay(y)a (Ea/Enki) at Ebla,” in Opening the Tablet Box:
Near Eastern Studies in Honor ofBenjamin R. Foster (ed. Sarah C. Melville and Alice L. Slotsky;
CHANE 42; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 1536‫־‬, here 15.
93 Dietz Otto Edzard, “Der Text TM.75.G 1444,” Studi Eblaiti 4 (1981) 3559‫־‬, here 47; ii,
1.; Lucio Milano, “NI = ’ax nel Sillabario di Ebla,” Studi Eblaiti 7 (1984) 21325‫־‬.
94Edzard, “Der Text TM.75.G 1444,” 43, xiii, (25), 11; Müller, “Neu Erwägungen zum
Eblaitischen,” 185.
95 Edzard, “Der Text TM.75.G 1444,” 44, xv, (31), 15 and p. 54.
96 EDA: ARET 12, 923, obv., i1 ,‫׳‬.
97EDA: ARET 15,42, rev., xiii, 19.
98 EDA: ARET 3, 542, obv., i, 2‫׳‬.
 YHWH AND EA 207

Haya
>ax(m)-a-ra-bu3" Ihaya-rabul “he lives” “Haya is great” PN
i-du->ax(m)-aw0 lyidu-hayal “he lives” “Strength is Haya”99
101 100
PN

Not surprisingly we learn that the root has two forms, hwy and hyy, that mirror hyy
and hwy. Another prospect also presents itself. Just as ni = 3ax principally enjoyed
the single value lhal [Ha], it may be possible that at Ebla a2 stands uniquely for °a2
lhal [ha], the voiceless laryngeal fricative. Given this, we are left with two options
regarding hyy: (1) the root is not exclusively West Semitic, as Eblaite is East
Semitic; or (2) the root is a West Semitic root in play in an East Semitic setting.
Even so, the Eblaite materials strongly suggest that both ^hwyNhyy and VhwyHhyy
are Proto-Semitic roots.

IV. The Sumerian Voiceless Laryngeal Fricative h [h]

Here I will review the historical orthography of lhayl in Sumerian, beginning
with the representations of the initial h-, followed by an assessment of the final -y
leading to the subsequent contraction of the -ay diphthong. That East Semitic
inherited the graphemic representation of lhal as a, a2 and e2 from the phonemic
value of Sumerian a, a2 and e2 is shown through an appraisal of the orthographies
associated with e2 and e2-gal > hêkàl.
We have now come to the Sumerian issue and the question of whether the
voiceless laryngeal fricative h [h] can be detected anywhere in the language. This
has immediate bearing on the subject at hand due to the fact that Ea’s name is
consistently spelled with an e2 sign that, as noted above, is to be read as °a3. When
taken as a logographic cuneiform sign, e2 means “house,” and its pronunciation is
conjectured to be lhayl. An examination of how one may substantiate this enun-
ciation should prove illuminating.
It is presently held that Sumerian did not articulate the phoneme h [H], the
voiceless pharyngeal fricative. H [x], the voiceless velar fricative, however, is
detected in hur-sag (“mountain”), which was borrowed into Akkadian as hursänu.
Sumerologists are now arguing for the presence of h [h], thereby opening the door,
ever so slightly, for the possibility that the meaning of the Semitic name of Ea may
have been influenced by the reading and pronunciation of Sumerian e2 sign as 3a3,
yielding lhayl.102

99 EDA: ARET 12,43, obv., in , 5‫׳‬.

100 ARET 4,22, rev., ix, 6. Photograph, CDU no. P241441.
101 It is possible that Haya refers to the spouse of Nissaba, the Sumerian grain goddess.
102 Those in favor of a Sumerian /h/ are Pascal Attinger, Eléments de linguistique sumérienne:
La construction de dunleldi “dire ” (OBO Sonderband; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993)
211 ; Dietz Otto Edzard, Sumerian Grammar (HO 71 ; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 19-20; idem, “Enlil, Vater
 208 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 80,2018

A. Sumerian e2 and the Voiceless Laryngeal Fricative h [h]

Sumerologists currently distinguish three stages of Sumerian: Archaic Sumeri-
an, Old Sumerian, and Neo-Sumerian. Archaic Sumerian begins in the Uruk III
period ca. 3200 and extends to about the end of the Early Dynastic Ilia period
ca. 2600. Old Sumerian is attested in texts from the Early Dynastic Illb period to
the beginning of the Old Akkadian period, that is, ca. 2600-2300. Neo-Sumerian
broadly characterizes the language that overlaps with Old Akkadian up to and
including Ur III texts and covers a period from roughly 2300 to 2000.

B. Orthography of Sumerian Initial h-.

One may state with confidence that Antoine Cavigneaux took the first signifi-
cant step in the search for a Sumerian h. His comment in a brief note on a very late
Babylonian contract that contained an Aramaic translation of a gentleman’s name
is especially helpful.103 He proposed that the Aramaic read “yks? [1m] br zcr” for
the cuneiform Akkadian name that appears in line 3 as le2-an-na-sul2-mu a-su3 sa2
1zu-uh-ru-'u, “Enanna-sulmu, son of Zuhrû.”104 The first element of the cuneiform
name must be read e2‫־‬an‫־‬na, which is, in turn, an attempt to render the Sumerian
word e2-an-na (“his/her house”). The Aramaic interpretation cyk probably repre-
sents an effort to write ayyakku, an Akkadian term that came to mean “shrine” or
“sanctuary.” Based on Cavigneaux’s suggestion, it is now possible to propose an
expanded description of the latter word’s evolution as Akkadkan ayyakku <
*hayyakku < *hayyanku < *hayyanaku < Sumerian e2-an-na-ak, Ihayyanak! =
“into his house.” Here e2 would be pronounced lhayl.

C. Orthographic Variations and Sumerian Final -y.

Three orthographic variations of the phrase e2-an-na illustrate the articulation
of the Sumerian term lhayl·.

der Götter,” in Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli, 17384‫־‬, here 175
and Abraham Hendrik Jagersma, “A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian” (Ph.D. diss., Leiden, 2010)
4849‫־‬. Jan Keetman, however, does not support this position (“Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?” Babel
und Bibel·* [2006] 930‫)־‬.
103 Francis Joannès and André Lemaire, “Contrats babyloniens d’époque achéménide du Bît-
abî Râm avec une épigraphe araméenne,” RA 90 (1996) 4160‫־‬, here 4142‫־‬, photograph: 55, text 1,
figs. 13‫־‬.
104 Antoine Cavigneaux, “é.an.na et le genitive sumérien,” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves
et utilitaires, no. 3 (1998) 75.
 YHWH AND EA 209

N1N-ra-a1 -na‫־‬ke4 < /^ayyanake/ < l-hayyanakel “to the lady’s house”105
e2‫־‬a‫־‬ni < leyyanil <‫י‬ayyani < lhayyanil “his house”106
e2-ia‫־‬na < teyyana! <‫כ‬ayyana < lhayyanal “her house”107

Although these examples are found inOld Babylonian texts and are rather late,
other early orthographic variations help to fill in the picture. For instance, Old
Sumerian orthography also hints at the presence of -y such as e2‫־‬a‫־‬gal108 (“tern-
pie”) and e2‫־‬a‫־‬ni (“his house”). Yet again, all of this strongly suggests the pronun‫־‬
ciation of lhayl for “house.”109

D. Hay and the Contraction of -ay: The a > e Shift

Given the above, a reconstruction of the phonological development that led
to the Ur III value of e2 as e /ë/ is now feasible: lhayl > Pay! > lyâl > lyël > lël. It is
important to emphasize that one need not read this sequentially. It is likely that the
first two steps took place simultaneously. Thus, loss of the initial Ihl > fay/ may
have demanded that the following Iay! likewise contract, leading to the lël value
that e2 came to indicate in the Neo-Sumerian of Ur III texts. On a general level,
this is particularly important because it demonstrates that the later existence of e2
= lël does not automatically require the loss of an initial Ihl in order to account for
the emergence of that lël.

E. e2‫־‬gal

Any investigation into the matter of e2, however, must also consider the
Sumerian logographic, compound noun e2‫־‬gal (“palace/temple”), which joins the
logographic noun e2 sign to the adjective gal (“big”). This term represents one of

105Caston Cros, Nouvelles fouilles de Tello (Paris: Leroux, 1910) copy: p. 203, text [AO
4327], rev., case 3.
106Stephen H. Langdon, Sumerian and Semitic Religious and Historical Texts (Oxford
Editions of Cuneiform Inscriptions 1; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923) copy: plate 1, prism
[Ashm 1922-0161], obv., 6. CDLI no. P368427.
107Heinrich Zimmern, Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit (Vorderasiatische
Schriftdenkmäler 2; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912) copy: plate 46, tablet 48, text [VAT 1437], obv., 6.
Copy only, CDLI no. P342856. Old Babylonian.
108 Vincent Scheil, Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse, vol. 14, Textes élamites-sémitiques:
Cinquième série (Paris: Leroux, 1913) copy: 66, text 6, obv., i, 7. Photograph: CDLI no. P215648.
Old Akkadian.
109 Ernest de Sarzec, Découvertes en Chaldéet vol. 2, Partie épigraphique et planches (Paris:
Leroux, 1884-1912) photograph of stamp on brick: plate 37, text [AO 26687], 7. CDLI no. P231814.
Lagas II.
 210 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 80,2018

the few instances of a Sumerian word borrowed directly into East Semitic, from
which it was drawn into West Semitic. Eblaite and Old Akkadian have a-ka-lum,
and Old Babylonian has e2-ka-lum.n0 The Northwest Semitic terms are quite
familiar. Ugaritic hkl demonstrates that the West Semitic borrowing was an early
occurrence that may have contributed to Hebrew hêkàl and Aramaic hykl3. Pal-
myrene hykl, Syriac hayklö, haiklä, South Semitic Sabean hyklt, and Arabic haykal,
haikal attest to an initial Ihl [h]. The consistency of these spellings confirms the
endurance of a syllable initial Ihl [h] in the various ancient Semitic languages.

F Orthographic Variations of e2‫־‬gal and e2

Several irregular spellings of e2 provide insight into the range of signs used
to write lhayl. An early epithet for Inanna, ^nin‫־‬e2‫־‬gal (“Lady (of the) temple”),
establishes a coordination between e2 and a2. The earliest attestation of this title
occurs in Archaic Sumerian Early Dynastic Ilia and Illb texts as dN1N-E2‫־‬GAL.1‫״‬
Then in the Lagas II period an interesting Old Sumerian variation occurs in which
it is predominantly written dN1N‫־‬A2‫־‬GAL.110112 111
Ur III Neo-Sumerian has a-sa3 e2-gal and a‫§־‬a3 a-gal (“field of a temple”)
and illustrates that e2 and a could substitute for each other even during this later
period.113
Additional information may be garnered from e2‫־‬munus (“women’s
house[hold]” “women’s residential area”). Two other alternate spellings are
attested: a‫־‬munus,114 and a2‫־‬munus.115 With this we have now discovered that

110Eblaite lu2 a-ka-lum is a personal name (EDA: ARET 15, 31, rev., v, 23). For Old
Akkadian, see Théophile James Meek, Excavations at Nuzi, vol. 3, Old Akkadian, Sumerian,
and Cappadocian Texts from Nuzi (HSS 10; Cambridge, ΜΑ: Harvard University Press, 1935) text
172, tablet [IM 50700], rev., 2‫׳‬. CDLI no. P213437.
111 Anton Deimel, Schultexte aus Fora (WVDOG 43; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923) photograph:
plate 2, text 1, tablet [VAT 12760+], obv., i, 21. Copy only, CDLI no. P010566. François M. Allotte
de la Fuÿe, Documents présargoniques (Paris: Leroux, 1912) copy: plate 67, text 176, tablet [DP
176], obv., iv, 6. Photograph and copy, CDLI no. P220826.
112Louis Delaporte, Inventaire de tablettes de Tello conservées au Musée Impérial Ottoman,
vol. 4 (Paris: Leroux, 1912) copy: text 7928, tablet [Ist L 7928], obv., 2. CDLI no. P217889.
113 David I. Owen, “More Neo-Sumerian Texts from American Collections,” JCS 46 (1994)
17-27, transcription only: 17, text 1, obv., 8. CDLI no. P200539; Fatma Yildiz, Hartmut Waetzoldt,
and Hubert Renner, Die Umma-Texte aus den Archäologischen Museen zu Istanbul (2 vols.; Mate-
riali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 14, 16; Rome: Multigrafica Editrice, 1988) vol. 1, text 288,
tablet [Ist UM 288], obv., 3. CDLI no. PI 17968.
114 Anton Deimel, Die Inschriften von Fora, vol. 3, Wirtschaftstexte aus Fora (WVDOG 45;
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924) copy: plate 4, text 6, tablet [VAT 9072] obv., i. 5. Photograph and copy:
CDLI no. P010963. ED Ilia.
115 Léon Legrain, Business Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur (Ur Excavations Texts 3;
 YHWH AND EA 211

Sumerian used the same spectrum of cuneiform signs, a, a2 and E2, that Eblatie and
Old Akkadian used as a /3a/, a2 /3a2/, and e2 /03‫כ‬/ to articulate lhal.

G. The Implications for Semitic Ea

The three ways “house” could be spelled in Sumerian, a-a, a2‫־‬a, or e2-a,
which point to the pronunciation lhayl, suggest that -a indicates the final phoneme
-y. To East Semitic speakers, who already had their own term for “house,” bïtum,
the Sumerian lhayl sounded like the Stative third person masculine singular form
of their verb “be,” *^Ihyy, lhaya(y)l >haya > hay. This is the form found in the
Eblaite name mentioned above, i-ti-^a-a lyiti-hayl (“Ea gave”). Since the root had
an alternate form *‫י‬Ihwy, its corresponding Stative forms, hawa(y) > hawa > haw,
would have been seen as appropriate, alternative spellings.
Likewise worthy of note are the implications that the coordination between
Sumerian a, a2, e2 and Semitic 5 ,‫כ‬0‫ז‬a2, 3<23(e2) in Eblaite and Old Akkadian bring to
the fore. Since Sumerian did indicate the voiceless velar fricative h Ihl [x] but did
not have the h Ihl [H], this leaves h Ihl [h] as the only other voiceless fricative that
a, a2 or e2 could indicate. When the Sumerian values were adopted for Semitic, the
initial borrowing only allowed h Ihl [h], suggesting that the addition of the b Ihl
[H] value was a subsequent Semitic adaptation and expansion. This suggests that
the earliest names up to the Early Dynastic Ilia and Illb periods, 3¿j3(E2)‫־‬a-NUN,
3α3(Ε2)‫־‬α‫־‬κι, and su->a3(E2)-a may have been pronounced Ihay-mml, lhay-κιΙ, and
lsu-hayl9 as h may not have been a phonemic value for 5¿73(e2) during this very early
period of adjustment. Just as the Sumerian a in a3‫־‬a indicates -lyl, so does the
Semitic -a in 3a3(E2)‫־‬a suggest that it too was pronounced lhayl.

V. Conclusion
An examination of Semitic Eblaite and Old Akkadian texts shows an ortho-
graphic continuity with Sumerian, as the same signs could mark the same phone-
mic values of a /3a/, a2 /3a2/ and e2 /3a3/. In Eblaite it is believed that a /5a/, a2 /3a2/,
and e2 /3a3/ could indicate either lhal or lhal. Yet, as pointed out above, the pre-
liminary adoption of the Sumerian phonemic value behind a, a2 and e2, could, in
the beginning, only indicate the laryngeal lhal. If so, this would have impacted the
phonemic value of a, a2 and a3(E2) when Ebla and Old Akkadian scribes began to
adjust the Sumerian cuneiform system to accommodate Semitic. How early and
whether one or all three of the signs, a, a^ and a3, were exploited to indicate the

Philadelphia: British Museum and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1937) copy: plate
CCI, text 1718, tablet [BM 130513], obv., 2. CDLI no. P138044. Ur III.
 212 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 80,2018

Semitic pharyngeal lhal is, for the moment, beyond our reach. Even so, there are
some hints of a principal distinction between a2 Ha2! lhal and ni HaJ lhal in Eblaite.
Contemporaneous Old Akkadian lends support for both a2 and e2 qua lhal.
Most telling, however, is the exclusive use of e2 for *hw(w) (“speak”), allowing
the possibility that all first‫־‬/* roots with strong medial glides, whether Iwl or lyl,
could exploit e2 for this specific purpose during this time. We may recall that
Eblaite preserves strong medial Iwl and lyl, advancing the prospect that initial e2
Pa3l of such roots principally indicates Vhwy or 'Jhyy. Both are Proto-Semitic.
The diffusion of V/*wy, hyy, hyw displays a strong, perhaps restricted West
Semitic affinity. Thus, it is more than likely that V/nyy was never a strong factor in
Old Akkadian, if at all. This leaves Eblaite as the only East Semitic language that
attests the root. While one cannot deny the presence of some West Semitic terms,
such as5a-ma-lik, as opposed to Akkadian‫כ‬a-a-sar, in Ebla texts, this does not give
license to interpret all a Hal, a2 Ha2l and e2 Ha3l as indicators of lhal to the exclusion
of the equally viable and perhaps older alternative lhal.116 This root is principally
Proto-West Semitic.
Thanks to Krebemik’s careful study of Eblaite and its orthography, it is now
possible tentatively to identify the presence of the root *hwy/hyy in several verbal
forms. This sanctions the identification of Ea’s name as a Stative third person
masculine singular verb that could be spelled /haw/, lhawal, Ihawayl, !hayI, lhayal
and lhayayl, meaning “he exists.” Other verbal forms based on this root are also
attested: lyihyal, lyahwal, lyahayyal, lyahawwal and lyahawwayl. That the latter
terms can only reflect Vhwy/hyy is based on other additional written forms that
incorporate /-5a-, ti-*a, a->a or ta-^a, as Krebemik suggested.
Presented on the following page are the representative forms of the third
person masculine singular of V/zwy and Vftyy in Hebrew, Amorite, Eblaite, and
Akkadian. If a morphology is not corroborated for the root, as occurs occasionally
in Akkadian, the form for V/wy (“to surround”) is given instead. The data are
divided according to West and East Semitic forms and the correlations are based
on the forms of the two principal aspects, the Imperfective and Perfective. The
East Semitic Stative is also provided.
The most salient feature that emerges is the pivotal position of Amorite. The
forms*yahway>yahwa and *yahwiy> yahwi represent a challenge with regard to
their stem. Eblaite demonstrates that the G-stem third person masculine singular
perfective of III-y verbs can have an lal or HI theme-vowel form. Thus, we may
say that the former orthography tends toward an earlier East Semitic G-stem of
the perfective III-j;, third person masculine singular as an lal theme-vowel form of
the type found in Eblaite, Old Babylonian, and Old Assyrian. This suggests that
yahway is a G-stem yaqtal (yapras). The latter, yahwiy, would then tend toward

116EDA: ARET 3,145, obv., iii, 5‫׳‬. Photograph: CDLI no. P242333 and ARET 15,42, obv.,
xi, 19, respectively.
 YHWH ANDEA 213

Imperfective

West Semitic H‫־‬stem, 3rd c. sg. East Semitic S-stem, 3rd m. sg.
Hebrew: (yaqtil) Eblaite: (yusapras)
*yahwiy + u > yahw *yusahway > yusahwa
Akkadian: (usapras)
*yusalway > usalwi

West Semitic, G-stem, 3rd m. sg. East Semitic G‫־‬stem, 3rd m. sg.
Hebrew: (yiqtal) Eblaite: (yaparras)
*yihway > yihyeh yahawway > yahawwa
yahayyay > yahayya
Amonte: (yaqtal/yaqtil) Akkadian: {iparras)
*yahway > yahwa *yilawway > ilawwi
*yahwiy > yahwi Babylonian: iwwi
Old Assyrian: ewwa

Perfective of the Stative root

West Semitic, G‫־‬Stem, 3rd m. sg. East Semitic, G‫־‬Stem, 3rd m. sg.
Hebrew: (qatal) Eblaite: (yapraslyipras)
*hayay > hayah *yahway > yahwa
*yihyay > yihya
Akkadian: (iprus)
*yihwiy > iwi/imi
Stative of the root
East Semitic, 3rd m. sg.
Eblaite: (paras)
haway > hawa
hayay > haya
Akkadian: (paris)
*lawiy > lawi

the later East Semitic form that leveled all III-j; roots to M theme-vowel forms
beginning in the Old Akkadian period. This suggests that yahwiy is a G‫־‬stem yaqtil
(yapris).
Today scholars accept that the Barth-Ginsberg law is not a factor in Amorite.
When this is coupled with the doubtful existence of the West Semitic H-stem at
this time, the identification ofyahwa as nothing other than a G‫־‬stem, imperfective
lal theme-vowel yaqtal becomes a likely prospect.
The implication that yahway is an archaic form requires further evaluation
with regard to its general placement in the historical evolution of Semitic III-y
verbs. For Northwest Semitic and, therefore, Biblical Hebrew, the dates of the
initial application of the III-hê mater lectionis for original III-j^ verbs (ca. ninth
century) and the earliest attestation ofthe hiphil (eighth century) become important
chronological tools that can guide us in our quest for the causative form of Vhwy.
 214 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 80,2018

The Semitic concept of a deity who “is/exists” began in the East through the
transformation of en‫־‬ki into Ea, as seen in the evolution dEN‫־‬K1 > >α3(Ε2)-α-κι >
3<z3(e2)-a. It is likely that West Semitic inherited and refined this important notion
of the divine. The Western perception probably began with the G‫־‬stem imperfec-
five yaqtal, yahway. This is the form attested in the Egyptian Shasu texts, the
earliest of which dates to ca. 1388-1351. Even though the hiphil is later, it is clearly
implied in the epithet yahwê sèb&ôt, “he who creates the (heavenly) hosts.” With
the introduction of the causative there is a fundamental shift from a Stative deity
who “is” and generally lacks a distinct beginning to a deity who actively partid-
pates in existence as the ongoing source of all things. This is a deity who is constant
and without end. This will be the subject of a subsequent essay.
 License and Permissible Use Notice

These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) in
accordance with the terms of ATLA's agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of
the materials, as applicable. In some cases, ATLA may be the copyright holder of these materials.

You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the
applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these
materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization
from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States
and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these
materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create
derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder's express prior written permission.

Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or
any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described
above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws.
For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in
these materials, if available, or contact ATLA at products@atla.com.

Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2016 American Theological Library Association.