The Cuneiform inscriptions and the Old Testament; - The Search For ...

94 THE CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS AND TEE 0. T.
contrary , the proper names of the Kanaanlte Hethites are
thoroughly Hebrew in form (e. g. Ephron, Elon, Achimelech,
Uria, Basmath, Ada &c., see Gen. XXIII. 10; XXVI.
34; XXXVI. 2; 1 Sam. XXVI. 6; 2 Sam. XL 3 &c.),
the logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that these
Kanaanitish Hethites , unless we assume that they were
no Hebraized, had absolutely no connection* with the Syrian
Hethites, the Assyrian Chattaeans. The similarity in name
of these two essentially distinct nations is to be explained
do not look at all Semitic and certainly are far removed from the type
of proper names known to us from the Bible as Kanaanite-Hethite.
Delitzsch indeed (Paradies p. 270) holds that we should connect Sangar
with "1^153^ and Pisiri(s) should remind us of ^^'P) and DHJ''? (^^®
on his view footnote * below). But what I have stated holds true also
of names such as Ahuni of Beth-Adin, Mut(t)allu of Gamgum and
of others in which one might be disposed at least to attempt a Semitic
derivation. It is unnecessary to observe that we have no right whatever
to draw any ethnologic inference from the occurrence among the
Cheta of migrating cults like those of Baal and Astarte.
* Delitzsch (Paradies VII) holds a contrary opinion. He regards
Aram as limited to the region on the left of the Euphrates and con-
siders not only the actually Kanaanite Hamath but also Damaskus as
Kanaanite together with the states of the Chatti lying between the
Euphrates and the Orontes. In the case of Damascus, however, objec-
tion might certainly be raised to this view on the ground of the
Aramaic name H adad-'-id-r i ('ITynnn ^ Kanaan. "ll^TlHi Keil-
insch. u. Gesch. p. 539) proved from the cuneiform inscription to be
as early as the 9*1> century, and likewise on the ground of the name
Mari' (root {