B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Defective Spelling of “Tyre” in the Bible

A. In Late 7th Century BCE

In the late 7th century BCE, Jewish scribes in Jerusalem spelled “Tyre” either CR or CWR [where I am using C to render ssade]. We see CR for example at Joshua 19: 29, and CWR for example at I Kings 5: 1.

This was probably a 2-syllable name, likely pronounced tsu-ri. As such, the expected defective spelling of tsu-ri was naturally CR, and the expected, optional plene spelling of tsu-ri was naturally CWR. Note that the interior vav/W in the plene spelling variant CWR was part of a CV [consonant-vowel] syllable: tsu = CW. By contrast, the second syllable recorded only the consonant in that CV second syllable: ri = R. There’s nothing unexpected or amiss about any of that.

Yes, everything was cut and dried as to the spelling and pronunciation of “Tyre” in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem. But that’s not how it was 700 years earlier!

B. In the Mid-14th Century BCE/Late Bronze Age/Patriarchal Age

“Tyre” appears many times in the Amarna Letters, written by many different authors, and there’s only one spelling: cur-ri.

(1) Issue #1: How Many Syllables?

There were 2 cuneiform signs in the Amarna Letters rendering of “Tyre”, but very likely 3 syllables. The first cuneiform sign was a 3-letter sign, cur; it likely represented 2 syllables, perhaps pronounced so-ur. The second cuneiform sign was a 2-letter sign, and represented a classic CV single syllable: ri.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, citing an old scholarly source, puts it this way:

“Tyre is mentioned under the name of Sour-ri in the tablets of El-Amarna, between 1385 and 1368 B.C. (Revue Biblique, 1908, 511).” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15109a.htm

Let me modify that English/French rendering of “Sour-ri” slightly, in order to emphasize that the first cuneiform sign was 2 syllables:

so-ur -- ri

(2) Issue #2: What Sibilant Applies?

In the Late Bronze Age, ssade was probably pronounced as an emphatic sin.

In this post, I don’t want to spend much time on the sibilant [which controversial issue can perhaps be addressed in a later post]. For now, we will just note that the sibilant likely was pronounced as an emphatic sin, not as ts as in a 7th century BCE ssade. Accordingly, it is possible that a scribe might write down sin/s as the sibilant [where I am using lower case s to render sin], instead of writing down C/ssade as the sibilant. If we go by sound, rather than by linguistic etymology, a sin/s was closer to the applicable Late Bronze Age sibilant sound than would be a 7th century BCE ssade/C/ts.

(3) Issue #3: What Is the Expected Late Bronze Age Defective Spelling of “Tyre”?

By sound, “Tyre” in the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Age was the following 3-syllable foreign name: so-ur --ri. We know from dozens of foreign names in the Patriarchal narratives that for purposes of Hebrew language orthography, where a foreign writing had the same consonant twice without any intervening vowel, Hebrew orthographic convention invariably required the f-i-r-s-t one of that doubled consonant to be dropped; that often had the effect [as here] of creating a vowel-only separate syllable. So on a routine basis, so-ur -- ri was viewed for Hebrew spelling purposes as if it were so-u-ri. Note the 3 syllables, with the middle syllable being a vowel-only syllable: U.

Therefore, the expected d-e-f-e-c-t-i-v-e spelling of “Tyre” : so-ur - ri : so-u-ri in the Late Bronze Age was [assuming that the scribe decided to use sin/s for the sibilant rather than ssade/C, as briefly discussed above]:

s-W-R

One needs 3 Hebrew letters [s-W-R] to convey the 3 syllables in the Late Bronze Age pronunciation of “Tyre”. Note that this is n-o-t plene spelling! The vav/W is a vowel, not a consonant, but it’s not part of a CV single syllable [as would be the case for plene spelling]. Rather, the vav/W as a vowel is here rendering the vowel-only second syllable. [In the Late Bronze Age, it was nice to have that option, when only defective spelling was used. Once plene spelling became commonplace, it thereafter became essentially impossible to render a foreign vowel-only interior syllable in Hebrew writing. In a sense, more was therefore lost than gained in going from defective spelling to plene spelling!]

(4) Issue #4: Is Abraham Portrayed as Going to Tyre in Northwest Galilee at Genesis 20: 1?

Genesis 20: 1 has the expected Late Bronze Age spelling of “Tyre” [if the sibilant that was chosen for the emphatic sin at the beginning of “Tyre” was sin/s, rather than ssade/C]: s-W-R. That is n-o-t plene spelling. No, it’s the expected Amarna Age defective spelling of the 3-syllable foreign name “Tyre” : so-ur - ri : so-u-ri, which is s-W-R.

Yes, Genesis 20: 1 raises many other exciting geographical issues as well. GRR is the Late Bronze Age version of “Galilee” : GLYL. QD$ is the historically-attested Qadesh in eastern Upper Galilee. And H-NGB is [Adamah-]H-NGB, being a city in eastern Lower Galilee, which in the Late Bronze Age was routinely called simply H-NGB or even just NGB.

But in this thread, I want to focus on the s-W-R that we see at Genesis 20: 1. Subject to the question of which sibilant we should expect [ssade or sin, where the sound was emphatic sin], the expected Amarna Age defective spelling of “Tyre” : so-ur - ri : so-u-ri as a 3-syllable foreign name was precisely what we see at Genesis 20: 1: s-W-R.

It is my considered opinion that when Abraham and Isaac were in Canaan but were not in south-central Canaan, the place where they sojourned was in western Upper Galilee, near “Tyre” : so-ur - ri : so-u-ri, which at Genesis 20: 1 is spelled, using defective spelling for this 3-syllable foreign name in the Late Bronze Age: s-W-R.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

God commanded Abram
לך לך מארצך וממולדתך ומבית אביך אל-הארץ אשר אראך
to lead him to the focus of the locus of a special divine experience. Was this place the suburbs of Tyre? The answer to this is, methinks, a resounding no, the "interchangeability" of the Hebrew letters $ and C notwithstanding.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac Fried:

You wrote: “God commanded Abram
לך לך מארצך וממולדתך ומבית אביך אל-הארץ אשר אראך
to lead him to the focus of the locus of a special divine experience. Was this place the suburbs of Tyre? The answer to this is, methinks, a resounding no, the "interchangeability" of the Hebrew letters $ and C notwithstanding.”

Yes, 25 shanah earlier (where shanah has the archaic meaning of “the turn of the year”, thus representing a 6-month period), YHWH had said to Abram when Abram was temporarily in Hurrianland/XRN in eastern Syria: “Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee.” Genesis 12: 1

And where did YHWH rightly guide Abram to go at that time? To the wondrous northeast corner of the Ayalon Valley, where the defective spelling of “Ayalon” is ’LN, which appears [prior to yod/Y as a xireq compaginis/dash] at Genesis 13: 18, 14: 13 and 18: 1, and with the northeast corner of the Ayalon Valley being the opposite of “east” of Bethel per Genesis 13: 9, 11. Remember that all three Patriarchs experience such a terrible drought-famine in Canaan [with Canaan being drought-prone throughout the Patriarchal Age] that all three Patriarchs contemplate escaping the famine in Canaan by going to Egypt, which Abram and Jacob in fact do [whereas Isaac by contrast goes to GRR]. Those frequent droughts had temporarily rendered the northeast Ayalon Valley unfit for viticulture, and as a result the northern half of the Ayalon Valley had lost 90% of its former Middle Bronze Age population; the northeast Ayalon Valley, only in the Late Bronze Age/Patriarchal Age, had temporarily reverted to being mere pastureland. YHWH of course knew all this, so YHWH knew that the p-e-r-f-e-c-t place for the tent-dwelling first Hebrews to tend sheep was the temporarily abandoned fine pastureland of the northeast Ayalon Valley. YHWH directed Abram to a much finer place in south-central Canaan than the traditional, erroneous view that the Patriarchs had to struggle to make a living in the harsh terrain near the top of the highest hill/mountain in southern Canaan, at the site of King David’s future first capital city [which shares the same name, “Hebron”, as where the Patriarchs sojourn, but it’s a completely different part of southern Canaan]. The Patriarchs' "Hebron", so unlike King David's "Hebron", never is associated in Genesis with HR/hill/mountain or 'LH/up, but rather at Genesis 37: 14 is expressly stated to be a broad, true valley/'MQ.

So Yes, given the particular circumstances of the time [where Canaan was often subject to drought conditions], YHWH directed Abram to the i-d-e-a-l place in south-central Canaan for tending sheep: the northeast Ayalon Valley, which at that time was temporarily vacant and had reverted to pastureland, due to drought conditions.

So far, so good?

But now reconsider the traditional view of where Abraham is said to go at Genesis 20: 1, when Abraham has just been told for the second time that in less than 12 months, Sarah will finally bear Abraham the son as heir that Abraham and Sarah have been waiting for now for 30 long years [60 shanah, using the archaic meaning of shanah]. The traditional view holds, impossibly, that Abraham at that point unaccountably commences to sojourn in the Negev Desert and the Sinai Desert! No way! The good land of Canaan was subject to drought at that time, so can you imagine how truly desolate the Negev Desert and the Sinai Desert were in the Patriarchal Age? It makes no sense whatsoever for Abraham to decide to sojourn in two unlivable deserts right when he has just been promised twice, by YHWH, that Isaac will be born in less than 12 months from now. No, the logical place to go was lush Upper Galilee, far from the drought conditions that frequently plagued southern and central Canaan. s-W-R = so-u-ri = so-ur -- ri = "Tyre", not the eastern border of Egypt just west of the desolate Sinai Desert. Yes, Abraham and Sarah have to temporarily interact with Abimelek in the “suburbs of Tyre” for one unpleasant night, as their final divine testing prior to Isaac’s birth. Historically, in the “Year 13” referenced at Genesis 14: 4, what was the historical name of the princeling ruler of Tyre? “Abimelek”!!! It all checks out historically.

But umpteen centuries later, Ezra, who was gallantly trying to save Judaism from going extinct under extremely trying circumstances, was having none of that. By Ezra’s time, the Hebrews/Jews were reduced to living in Jerusalem and the surrounding area, with Upper Galilee having been long lost [originally to the conquering Assyrians] many centuries ago. So why view one’s forbears as having sojourned in the long-lost land of Upper Galilee? From Ezra’s desperate point of view, it made sense to re-interpret the text [but without, thankfully, changing at all what the text actually says] to claim that Genesis 20: 1 allegedly portrays Abraham as unaccountably starting to sojourn in two inhospitable deserts, just south of Ezra’s state of Judah, and then Abram stayed at GRR. GRR is not attested by that name anywhere in southern Canaan, but GRR was fancifully now re-interpreted by Ezra as allegedly being somewhere in the general vicinity of Gaza, on the southern edge of Ezra’s state of Judah. But in fact, GRR is the Late Bronze Age version of the 1st millennium BCE nomenclature GLL/GLYL. The historical name for “Galilee” in the Patriarchal Age is GRR or GR, per item #80 on the mid-15th century BCE Thutmosis III list of places in Canaan [Egyptian KRR = GRR], and per Amarna Letter EA 256: 23 [cuneiform gari = GR].

Per what the received Hebrew text actually says [as opposed to Ezra’s forced mis-interpretation of the text (by the way, I don’t blame Ezra for what he did, given the absolutely necessity of trying to rescue Judaism from extinction under terrible circumstances)], the main “focus of the locus of a special divine experience” for the Patriarchs was the wondrous pastureland of the northeast Ayalon Valley, which had temporarily been abandoned by peasants at the time, as drought conditions were inimical to viticulture in the Patriarchal Age/Late Bronze Age. But a distant secondary “focus of the locus of a special divine experience” was lush western Upper Galilee in the general vicinity of Tyre, having nothing whatsoever to do with the uninhabitable deserts [during the drought-prone Patriarchal Age] of the Negev Desert and the Sinai Desert, contra Ezra’s and the traditional mis-interpretation of Genesis 20: 1.

YHWH masterfully directed Abram/Abraham to go to g-o-o-d land! That’s the northeast Ayalon Valley and western Upper Galilee, not the harsh landscape near the top of the tallest hill/mountain in southern Canaan, and not the uninhabitable [at the time] Negev and Sinai Deserts. G-o-o-d land in Canaan was the “focus of the locus of a special divine experience” for the Patriarchs. Honestly, would you expect anything less from YHWH?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

Did God shlep Abram all the way from northern Iraq, or eastern Turkey, merely to bring him to a grassy patch in the environs of teeming Tyre? I don't think so.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac Fried:

You wrote: “Did God shlep Abram all the way from northern Iraq, or eastern Turkey, merely to bring him to a grassy patch in the environs of teeming Tyre? I don't think so.”

1. Abram was born and raised in Canaan. All of Abram’s ancestors, except his father Terah (see #2 below), lived, died, and were buried in Canaan. That’s why the text says this at Abraham’s death:

“Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died [in Canaan] in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people [in Canaan].” Genesis 25: 8

If all of Abraham’s ancestors had lived, died and been buried in northern Mesopotamia, then Genesis 25: 8 would not say that!

2. Abram’s father Terah, on a one-time-only basis, took his family and armed retainers from his clan way out to Ur to buy lapis lazuli at wholesale. While on the other side of the known world, at Ur, Terah’s firstborn son, Haran, had the misfortune of dying, predeceasing his own father. Terah himself also never makes it back home to Canaan, but rather dies of a broken heart in eastern Syria. By sharp contrast, YHWH takes special care to make sure that Terah’s youngest son, Abram, does not die like firstborn son Haran way out in God-forsaken Ur. Rather, YHWH leads Abram back to Canaan; all of Canaan is divinely granted to Abram and his descendants, and YHWH also promises Abram progeny without end. As to geography, YHWH fittingly reminds Abram:

“And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the [Kassite-country-people], to give thee this land [of Canaan] to inherit it.” Genesis 15: 7

3. Logically, since Abram/Abraham is promised a-l-l of Canaan, it makes sense that instead of sojourning exclusively in southern Canaan, Abraham will need to sojourn both in southern Canaan and in northern Canaan.

(a) The #1 place for the first Hebrews to sojourn was in south-central Canaan, in the wondrous, temporarily vacant pastureland of the northeast Ayalon Valley. Abram fittingly calls that wonderful locale by a Hurrian-based Patriarchal nickname, xa-bu-ru-u-ne : XBRWN [“Hebron”], which means “nirvana” in Hurrian. Please note, per the main theme of this thread, that this is defective spelling. The interior vav/W in XBRWN is a vowel, but it’s the Hurrian true vowel U as its own separate syllable, not a generic vowel indicator in optional plene spelling for a consonant-vowel syllable.

(b) We know that GRR is second-best [not the primary place for the first Hebrews to sojourn], because of that marvelous pun at the end of Genesis 20: 1, where GRR is punned with GR. The message is that GRR [“Galilee”] is only fit for GR/sojourning as a stranger, whereas the first Hebrews’ true home is at xa-bu-ru-u-ne : XBRWN [“Hebron”] in the northeast Ayalon Valley.

So right after the great divine promises at Genesis 12: 1-3, the place in Canaan where YHWH directs Abram to go is the northeast Ayalon Valley, which at that time [Year 13, per Genesis 14: 4] was the very best place on earth for tent-dwelling herders of sheep. It was great pastureland, and it was vacant! Note that e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g makes historical sense in the context of Year 13 in the mid-14th century BCE. There had been so much drought that 90% of the Middle Bronze Age population of the northern Ayalon Valley had vanished [whereas the city of Gezer in the southwest Ayalon Valley was bigger than ever].

4. Now consider the specific circumstances under which Abraham went up north to s-W-R : so-u-ri : so-ur -- ri [“Tyre”] on the far northwest corner of Upper GRR [“Galilee”]. When Abram and Lot split up at Genesis 13: 11, Lot had [provisionally] arrogated to himself, as the representative of the senior branch of the family [since Lot’s father was Abram’s older brother], the northern 2/3 of Canaan, while Abram was temporarily relegated to only the southern 1/3 of Canaan; the representative of Terah’s firstborn son is selfishly claiming a double share! But of course the divine plan was that Abram would be vouchsafed a-l-l of Canaan, including northern Canaan, that is, all of Galilee : GRR. So when YHWH later reduces Lot to living in a cave, Abraham then immediately perfects Abraham’s claim to a-l-l of Canaan by proceeding north up the Jordan River Valley, through eastern Lower Galilee and eastern Upper Galilee, and then all the long way northwest to s-W-R : so-u-ri : so-ur -- ri [“Tyre”], on the far northwest corner of Upper GRR [“Galilee”].

5. I agree with you that the Patriarchs’ “Hebron” is a finer place, and a much more sacred place, than “Tyre”. Yes. B-u-t , in order for Abraham to be able to perfect his divinely-granted claim to a-l-l of Canaan, Abraham was required to travel all the long way up north to the far northwest corner of Upper Galilee. You enjoy denigrating “a grassy patch in the environs of teeming Tyre”. But if one is going to perfect one’s claim to a-l-l of Canaan, one cannot spend all of one’s time in the lovely northeast Ayalon Valley [near Jerusalem], even though it truly was “nirvana” : xa-bu-ru-u-ne : XBRWN [“Hebron”] for tent-dwelling herders of sheep. No, one must travel the entire length of Canaan, including in particular staking one’s rightful claim to all of Galilee, even as far north and west as the far northwest corner of Upper Galilee, which is the site of Tyre.

This claim to a-l-l of Canaan is then further solidified by the other two Patriarchs. (i) Isaac was born up north in GRR, then moved with his father back to “Hebron”, and then as an adult Isaac went to GRR, instead of to Egypt, to avoid famine in south-central Canaan, before returning to die at the Patriarchs’ “Hebron”. (ii) Jacob was born and raised in GRR. After then spending 20 long years way out east in eastern Syria, Jacob finally returned home to “Hebron” in south-central Canaan, prior to the death there of his father Isaac.

You see, the Patriarchal narratives are carefully crafted to establish the first Hebrews’ divine claim to a-l-l of Canaan. I can tell that you like southern hill country and Jerusalem much more than you like “a grassy patch in the environs of teeming Tyre”. But nevertheless, I think you may be able to appreciate the great importance of the Patriarchs firmly establishing their claim to a-l-l of Canaan, including the far northwest corner of GRR : Galilee, where Tyre was located.

The Patriarchal narratives are unbelievably brilliant, and have great historical accuracy in a Year 13 historical context, if only we could get the underlying geography right! s-W-R : so-u-ri : so-ur -- ri at Genesis 20: 1 is “Tyre”, located on the far northwest corner of Upper GRR [“Galilee”]. Abraham had to go north all the long way up there in order to perfect the first Hebrews’ divine claim to a-l-l of Canaan.

Umpteen centuries later, Ezra was, out of necessity, only concerned with Judah. But the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives, by sharp contrast, do not focus on the future state of Judah at all, but rather establish the first Hebrews’ divine claim to a-l-l of Canaan. Including Tyre!

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois