Suspicious Aleph in Initial Position
Both for common words and proper names in the Bible, aleph in initial position is inherently suspicious. Why? Because aleph in initial position can mean one of three things: (i) it’s just an aleph; (ii) it implies aleph-yod; or (iii) it implies aleph-vav.
There are two competing theories as to explaining this phenomenon. Theory #1 holds that in the beginning, the purest form of defective spelling applied to Hebrew writing, in which no vowels were ever rendered, only consonants. So the only way to record a word or name that began with an initial vowel sound was to write down the consonant aleph. That initial aleph was prosthetic and silent, and could indicate the vowel sound A or E or I or O or U. However, in most cases in the Bible, though not all cases, this purest defective spelling is not used, but rather the following more descriptive approach is used: initial aleph alone = A; initial aleph-yod = E or I; and initial aleph-vav = O or U. Nevertheless, when one sees initial aleph in the received text, there is always the possibility that this may reflect the old, purest defective spelling format, in which case initial aleph might imply either aleph-yod or aleph-vav. Theory #2 is a simpler explanation, and tends to reverse the view of what is older and what is later. This theory holds that if a word or name begins with aleph-yod or aleph-vav in long-form, then there may be the option of using a shortened form that merely records aleph alone in initial position.
In this initial post, I will restrict myself to giving non-controversial examples that prove that initial aleph in Biblical Hebrew can sometimes imply aleph-yod or aleph-vav. Then in later posts perhaps we can use this “suspicious initial aleph” concept to solve some 3,000-year-old Biblical mysteries.
1. Initial Aleph Can Mean Just an Aleph
One of the best-known Hebrew common words is ’B : אב [aleph-bet]. In that case, initial aleph is just an aleph, with no following yod or vav being implied.
[Three well-known proper names in Genesis that start with this word, featuring initial aleph, are Abram, Abraham, and Abimelek. As a common word, ’B usually means “father”. By contrast, in a proper name ’B usually, but not always, is a theophoric that means “divine Father”.]
2. Initial Aleph Can Imply Aleph-Yod
There are two Hebrew common words that mean [or can mean] “oak tree” (or “oak, terebinth, strong tree, great tree”, etc.):
(a) ’YL : איל [this meaning may apply at Genesis 14: 6; all other instances are in the plural, Isaiah 1: 29; 61: 3; Ezekiel 31: 14; however, this word usually means “ram” in the Bible, though on occasion it can mean “the mighty” or “post”; the focus is always on something that is “strong”]. The aleph in initial position is immediately followed by an express yod.
(b) ’LH : אלה [e.g., Genesis 35: 4], where no yod follows the initial aleph.
It is generally assumed that these two words are very closely related to each other. On Theory #1, the latter word is the older form, using a purer form of defective spelling, whereas the former word has later added an express aleph to clarify which vowel sound is being expressed. By contrast, on Theory #2 the latter word, which has no express yod, and is the much more frequently-used word for “oak tree”, derives from the former word, which has an express yod. The latter word has simply dropped the optional yod, with such yod then being merely implied as coming after the initial aleph [and also a standard -H ending has been added]. Regardless of one’s theory of the case, the point here is that a common word that begins with initial aleph may actually imply aleph-yod.
Similarly, the man’s name “Elon” is spelled in two different ways in consecutive verses at Judges 12: 11-12. The first spelling of this man’s name, at Judges 12: 11, which expressly has yod after the initial aleph, seems to be the long-form, proper version: ’YLWN : אילון. The very next verse, however, drops that yod, and simply has aleph alone at the beginning, in what appears to be a shortened form of this man’s personal name: ’LWN : אלון. That second verse also tells us that “Elon” is from Ayalon; note that the geographical place name “Ayalon” is spelled in the identical manner as the man’s name “Elon” is spelled in the p-r-i-o-r verse: ’YLWN : אילון. Although various interpretations are possible, the simplest, and perhaps best, explanation is that this man’s name is “Mr. Ayalon”; his name is shown in slightly shortened form in the second verse, where the yod is merely implied after the suspicious initial aleph, instead of being express. [That yod is express both in the full-form spelling of that man’s name in the prior verse, and regarding the geographical place name “Ayalon” in the second verse.]
Thus we see that initial aleph, both in a common word and in a proper name, can at times imply aleph-yod. We begin to see why I refer to aleph in initial position as being a “suspicious aleph”.
3. Initial Aleph Can Imply Aleph-Vav
The Biblical Egyptian name “Asenath” [Genesis 41: 45] is spelled ’SNT : אסנת [aleph-samekh-nun-teth]. The two leading scholarly explanations of that name both hold, in effect, that the initial aleph there implies aleph-vav. Both such scholarly theories expressly assert that the first element of this name is the Egyptian word iw, spelled Egyptian aleph-Egyptian W [in Egyptian meaning “is”, implying “belonging to”, and being pronounced long U, with Egyptian W functioning as a vowel]. Absent implying a Hebrew vav here after the initial Hebrew aleph, there’s no way that Hebrew aleph alone [with no implied following Hebrew vav] could be rendering the Egyptian word iw [whose second letter is Egyptian W, functioning as a vowel]. [I myself do not agree with most aspects of those scholarly theories of that name. But I do agree with the very narrow point set forth above: Hebrew aleph in initial position may, possibly, imply aleph-vav.]
To note, but not resolve here, a controversial possible application of that rule, it is possible that the ’DWM : אדום that we see in the Patriarchal narratives [e.g. Genesis 25: 30], transliterated as “Edom”, may be a mis-transliteration of “Udumu”. That is the case if a vav is implied after the initial aleph in ’DWM : אדום in the Patriarchal narratives, so that the implied full-form spelling of that geographical place name is then: ’WDWM : אודום. If so, then that reference in the Patriarchal narratives is to Udumu in the northern Transjordan. Yet in later books of the Bible [e.g. Numbers 33: 7], those same four Hebrew letters in the received text, ’DWM : אדום, may nevertheless have the traditional meaning of ’Aduma, with no vav/W being implied. That would fit the traditional location of “Edom”: the area southeast of the Dead Sea. You see, that big controversy all depends on whether, and when, one implies a vav after the initial aleph.
It is my contention that if we focus carefully on the suspicious initial aleph in these Hebrew common words and proper names in Genesis, we may be able to solve all manner of 3,000-year-old Biblical mysteries. Just remember, aleph in initial position is inherently suspicious!
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Suspicious Aleph in Initial Position
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Suspicious Aleph in Initial Position
Where Is “Edom”?
“Edom” : אדום : ’DWM is frequently referenced in the Patriarchal narratives. At Genesis 25: 30 in particular, Esau is linked to ’DWM. What is the historical reference that was intended by these references to ’DWM? Or to put the same basic question a different way, what is the geographical location of ’DWM [“Edom”] in the Patriarchal narratives?
The traditional view of how “Edom” : אדום : ’DWM is understood in later books of the Bible may be correct, but only as to such later books. אדום : ’DWM may in later books of the Bible be ’Aduma, an Egyptian name from the 13th century BCE that may refer to the traditional location of Edom: southeast of the Dead Sea. For later books in the Bible, the Hebrew aleph here may be aleph alone, as in the above Egyptian name ’Aduma. However, given that an initial aleph is inherently “suspicious”, and may possibly imply aleph-vav, let’s discuss whether “Edom” : אדום : ’DWM in the Patriarchal narratives may have a quite different meaning than those four Hebrew letters do in later books in the Bible. Although the Hebrew letters are the same, perhaps a very different part of the Transjordan is being referenced in the Patriarchal narratives by those four Hebrew letters.
As we will see, in the historical time period of the Patriarchal Age, namely the mid-14th century BCE in the Late Bronze Age, before there are any historical references to ’Aduma in the southernmost Transjordan, there are references to ú-du-mu and udm in the northern Transjordan. At Genesis 32: 1-4 Jacob is in Gilead, just north of the Jabbok River at Mahanaim, still quite far east of the Jordan River, and is now traveling straight west toward Canaan, coming to an area east of the Jordan River and southeast of the Sea of Galilee [at Penuel], when Jacob cannot avoid running into his older half-brother Esau of “Edom”. [Scholars have suggested alternate locations for Mahanaim; I go with the view that Mahanaim is east of Penuel. http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ ... ilead.html] Accordingly, Esau’s “Edom” must logically be in the northern Transjordan, in northwest Gilead near the Jordan River and southeast of the Sea of Galilee, with the southeast tip of Esau’s “Edom” being at Penuel. Esau’s “Edom” cannot logically be southeast of the Dead Sea, as ordinarily supposed, or else chapter 32 of Genesis is senseless geographically. But everything would work perfectly, geographically speaking, if Esau’s “Edom” is ú-du-mu/udm, which in the Late Bronze Age was located in the northern Transjordan, near the Jordan River and southeast of the Sea of Galilee. Note also that Esau comes from the northwest, traveling southeast, to meet Jacob at the Jabbok River. There are rugged mountains northwest of Mahanaim and north of Penuel [per the above-referenced map], so Jacob, in returning to Canaan from eastern Syria, has logically first proceeded southwest to Mahanaim on the Jabbok River, and then is planning to travel straight west along the Jabbok River, past Penuel to the Jordan River and Canaan proper. Esau, meanwhile, will travel straight south along the eastern bank of the Jordan River, and then will turn left and proceed straight east along the north bank of the Jabbok River. Given the rugged geography directly north of Penuel, it is necessary for Jacob to travel from the northeast, and Esau to travel from the northwest, with direct east-west travel only being possible at the Jabbok River.
Jacob has first placed his family and possessions south of the Jabbok River, in relative safety, knowing that Esau will be arriving from the northwest and traveling east along the northern bank of the Jabbok River. Then Jacob himself famously re-crosses the Jabbok River [going north] and spends the night all alone, in the more dangerous locale on the n-o-r-t-h bank of the Jabbok River, at Genesis 32: 23-25. Then in the morning [it is necessarily implied that] Jacob re-crosses the Jabbok River yet again, this time going south, because it is there [on the southern bank of the Jabbok River, just south of Penuel] that Jacob and his family will meet Esau, who comes from the north; that is, Esau comes from an “Edom” that is in the northern Transjordan, near the Jordan River and southeast of the Sea of Galilee. The geography of chapter 32 of Genesis is actually quite clear and unequivocal, if we are willing to a-s-k if Esau’s “Edom” may be located southeast of the Sea of Galilee, even though those same four Hebrew letters אדום : ’DWM are used in later books of the Bible to reference an area southeast of the Dead Sea, in the southernmost Transjordan.
In order to determine whether Hebrew aleph/’, standing alone in initial position, might [albeit somewhat unexpectedly] render long U, so that Biblical ’DWM in the Patriarchal narratives [Esau’s “Edom”] may be referencing Late Bronze Age ú-du-mu and udm in the northern Transjordan, we need first to review the three rules of Hebrew grammar regarding how to record long U in initial position in alphabetical Hebrew writing:
(i) The most common way in the Bible to write long U in initial position in Hebrew is by the two letters aleph-vav/’W. The aleph is prosthetic and silent, yet is necessary in order to show that the vav/W is being used there as a vowel [having the sound of long U], not as a consonant.
(ii) Long U can n-e-v-e-r be rendered in initial position by vav/W alone. Why? Because vav/W in initial position is a-l-w-a-y-s consonantal vav/W. That’s the reason for rule #i above: in order to generate the long U sound in initial position, the vav/W must be preceded by a silent, prosthetic aleph/’.
(iii) However, aleph/’ alone in initial position might render the long U sound. On Theory #1, writing initial aleph alone for the long U sound is the older, purest form of defective spelling. On Theory #2, ’W could have been written down in shortened form as merely ’, so that aleph/’ alone, in initial position, would then render the long U sound. These mere “possibilities” may indeed change to becoming “probable”, if needed [as we shall now see] to force a clever pun in writing.
Now consider the clever, forced pun in writing at Genesis 25: 30 on the Biblical Hebrew common word ’DM, which as a verb means “to be red”, and which at Genesis 25: 30 is probably an adjective functioning as a noun, meaning “red”. An adjective that is spelled ’DM is a nice pun on a proper name that in the Patriarchal narratives, beginning at Genesis 25: 30, is spelled ’DWM.
It can be deduced that the Hebrew author wanted to force the following pun at Genesis 25: 30 [being an important pun that is also frequently referenced thereafter in the Patriarchal narratives]: the Hebrew common word ’DM, meaning “red”, will be a clever pun in writing on a proper name that might normally, and properly [or at least in long-form], be spelled ’WDWM. But in order to make that pun in writing, the Biblical author forcibly shortened the ’W at the beginning of that proper name to simply aleph/’, standing alone [or alternatively chose an older form of that name that used more purely defective spelling]. In such shortened form, the proper name ’DWM now works beautifully in writing as a pun on the common word ’DM, whereas ’WDWM [which may well, as discussed immediately below, be the more expected spelling of this proper name], by contrast, would not work nearly so nicely as a pun on ’DM.
At Amarna Letter EA 256: 24 [written in or about Year 13], we see ú-du-mu, which may likely be the same place in the northern Transjordan as we see referenced in the Late Bronze Age Ugaritic King Keret myth as udm. Note the long U in initial position in ú-du-mu and udm. Many scholars have noted that phonetically, ’DWM [“Edom”] in Biblical Hebrew may be related to Ugaritic Udum/udm: “The identification of Ugaritic Udum (spelled udm) with Edom…. Phonetically the two can be identified….” “Berytus: Archaeological Studies: Volumes 25-27”, The American University of Beirut, p. 34 (1977). Thus it is recognized that on occasion, Hebrew aleph/’, standing alone in initial position, may be shorthand for Hebrew aleph-vav/’W, even though those two letters [not aleph/’ alone] are the more expected way in Biblical Hebrew to render the sound of long U in initial position. [As noted in my first post on this thread, the leading scholarly views of the Biblical name “Asenath” likewise see Hebrew aleph/’ in initial position there as implying aleph-vav/’W, being the Egyptian word iw.]
“Edom” : אדום : ’DWM in the Patriarchal narratives [though not in later books of the Bible] is, in my opinion, short for אודום : ’WDWM. It is referencing the Late Bronze Age name for a place in the northern Transjordan that was referred to historically in the 14th century BCE as either ú-du-mu or udm. The aleph/’ at the beginning of “Edom” : אדום : ’DWM is short for ’W : aleph-vav. As such, “Edom” : ’DWM in the Patriarchal narratives is historical Udumu [whose more expected, long-form spelling in Biblical Hebrew would be ’WDWM], in the Late Bronze Age northern Transjordan. This somewhat unexpected, shortened spelling, אדום : ’DWM, with no vav/W after the initial aleph/’, was used in the Patriarchal narratives in order to make a clever pun on ’DM : אדם: “red”, where at Genesis 25: 30 Esau is famously portrayed as gulping down “the red the red” : H-’DM H-’DM.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
“Edom” : אדום : ’DWM is frequently referenced in the Patriarchal narratives. At Genesis 25: 30 in particular, Esau is linked to ’DWM. What is the historical reference that was intended by these references to ’DWM? Or to put the same basic question a different way, what is the geographical location of ’DWM [“Edom”] in the Patriarchal narratives?
The traditional view of how “Edom” : אדום : ’DWM is understood in later books of the Bible may be correct, but only as to such later books. אדום : ’DWM may in later books of the Bible be ’Aduma, an Egyptian name from the 13th century BCE that may refer to the traditional location of Edom: southeast of the Dead Sea. For later books in the Bible, the Hebrew aleph here may be aleph alone, as in the above Egyptian name ’Aduma. However, given that an initial aleph is inherently “suspicious”, and may possibly imply aleph-vav, let’s discuss whether “Edom” : אדום : ’DWM in the Patriarchal narratives may have a quite different meaning than those four Hebrew letters do in later books in the Bible. Although the Hebrew letters are the same, perhaps a very different part of the Transjordan is being referenced in the Patriarchal narratives by those four Hebrew letters.
As we will see, in the historical time period of the Patriarchal Age, namely the mid-14th century BCE in the Late Bronze Age, before there are any historical references to ’Aduma in the southernmost Transjordan, there are references to ú-du-mu and udm in the northern Transjordan. At Genesis 32: 1-4 Jacob is in Gilead, just north of the Jabbok River at Mahanaim, still quite far east of the Jordan River, and is now traveling straight west toward Canaan, coming to an area east of the Jordan River and southeast of the Sea of Galilee [at Penuel], when Jacob cannot avoid running into his older half-brother Esau of “Edom”. [Scholars have suggested alternate locations for Mahanaim; I go with the view that Mahanaim is east of Penuel. http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ ... ilead.html] Accordingly, Esau’s “Edom” must logically be in the northern Transjordan, in northwest Gilead near the Jordan River and southeast of the Sea of Galilee, with the southeast tip of Esau’s “Edom” being at Penuel. Esau’s “Edom” cannot logically be southeast of the Dead Sea, as ordinarily supposed, or else chapter 32 of Genesis is senseless geographically. But everything would work perfectly, geographically speaking, if Esau’s “Edom” is ú-du-mu/udm, which in the Late Bronze Age was located in the northern Transjordan, near the Jordan River and southeast of the Sea of Galilee. Note also that Esau comes from the northwest, traveling southeast, to meet Jacob at the Jabbok River. There are rugged mountains northwest of Mahanaim and north of Penuel [per the above-referenced map], so Jacob, in returning to Canaan from eastern Syria, has logically first proceeded southwest to Mahanaim on the Jabbok River, and then is planning to travel straight west along the Jabbok River, past Penuel to the Jordan River and Canaan proper. Esau, meanwhile, will travel straight south along the eastern bank of the Jordan River, and then will turn left and proceed straight east along the north bank of the Jabbok River. Given the rugged geography directly north of Penuel, it is necessary for Jacob to travel from the northeast, and Esau to travel from the northwest, with direct east-west travel only being possible at the Jabbok River.
Jacob has first placed his family and possessions south of the Jabbok River, in relative safety, knowing that Esau will be arriving from the northwest and traveling east along the northern bank of the Jabbok River. Then Jacob himself famously re-crosses the Jabbok River [going north] and spends the night all alone, in the more dangerous locale on the n-o-r-t-h bank of the Jabbok River, at Genesis 32: 23-25. Then in the morning [it is necessarily implied that] Jacob re-crosses the Jabbok River yet again, this time going south, because it is there [on the southern bank of the Jabbok River, just south of Penuel] that Jacob and his family will meet Esau, who comes from the north; that is, Esau comes from an “Edom” that is in the northern Transjordan, near the Jordan River and southeast of the Sea of Galilee. The geography of chapter 32 of Genesis is actually quite clear and unequivocal, if we are willing to a-s-k if Esau’s “Edom” may be located southeast of the Sea of Galilee, even though those same four Hebrew letters אדום : ’DWM are used in later books of the Bible to reference an area southeast of the Dead Sea, in the southernmost Transjordan.
In order to determine whether Hebrew aleph/’, standing alone in initial position, might [albeit somewhat unexpectedly] render long U, so that Biblical ’DWM in the Patriarchal narratives [Esau’s “Edom”] may be referencing Late Bronze Age ú-du-mu and udm in the northern Transjordan, we need first to review the three rules of Hebrew grammar regarding how to record long U in initial position in alphabetical Hebrew writing:
(i) The most common way in the Bible to write long U in initial position in Hebrew is by the two letters aleph-vav/’W. The aleph is prosthetic and silent, yet is necessary in order to show that the vav/W is being used there as a vowel [having the sound of long U], not as a consonant.
(ii) Long U can n-e-v-e-r be rendered in initial position by vav/W alone. Why? Because vav/W in initial position is a-l-w-a-y-s consonantal vav/W. That’s the reason for rule #i above: in order to generate the long U sound in initial position, the vav/W must be preceded by a silent, prosthetic aleph/’.
(iii) However, aleph/’ alone in initial position might render the long U sound. On Theory #1, writing initial aleph alone for the long U sound is the older, purest form of defective spelling. On Theory #2, ’W could have been written down in shortened form as merely ’, so that aleph/’ alone, in initial position, would then render the long U sound. These mere “possibilities” may indeed change to becoming “probable”, if needed [as we shall now see] to force a clever pun in writing.
Now consider the clever, forced pun in writing at Genesis 25: 30 on the Biblical Hebrew common word ’DM, which as a verb means “to be red”, and which at Genesis 25: 30 is probably an adjective functioning as a noun, meaning “red”. An adjective that is spelled ’DM is a nice pun on a proper name that in the Patriarchal narratives, beginning at Genesis 25: 30, is spelled ’DWM.
It can be deduced that the Hebrew author wanted to force the following pun at Genesis 25: 30 [being an important pun that is also frequently referenced thereafter in the Patriarchal narratives]: the Hebrew common word ’DM, meaning “red”, will be a clever pun in writing on a proper name that might normally, and properly [or at least in long-form], be spelled ’WDWM. But in order to make that pun in writing, the Biblical author forcibly shortened the ’W at the beginning of that proper name to simply aleph/’, standing alone [or alternatively chose an older form of that name that used more purely defective spelling]. In such shortened form, the proper name ’DWM now works beautifully in writing as a pun on the common word ’DM, whereas ’WDWM [which may well, as discussed immediately below, be the more expected spelling of this proper name], by contrast, would not work nearly so nicely as a pun on ’DM.
At Amarna Letter EA 256: 24 [written in or about Year 13], we see ú-du-mu, which may likely be the same place in the northern Transjordan as we see referenced in the Late Bronze Age Ugaritic King Keret myth as udm. Note the long U in initial position in ú-du-mu and udm. Many scholars have noted that phonetically, ’DWM [“Edom”] in Biblical Hebrew may be related to Ugaritic Udum/udm: “The identification of Ugaritic Udum (spelled udm) with Edom…. Phonetically the two can be identified….” “Berytus: Archaeological Studies: Volumes 25-27”, The American University of Beirut, p. 34 (1977). Thus it is recognized that on occasion, Hebrew aleph/’, standing alone in initial position, may be shorthand for Hebrew aleph-vav/’W, even though those two letters [not aleph/’ alone] are the more expected way in Biblical Hebrew to render the sound of long U in initial position. [As noted in my first post on this thread, the leading scholarly views of the Biblical name “Asenath” likewise see Hebrew aleph/’ in initial position there as implying aleph-vav/’W, being the Egyptian word iw.]
“Edom” : אדום : ’DWM in the Patriarchal narratives [though not in later books of the Bible] is, in my opinion, short for אודום : ’WDWM. It is referencing the Late Bronze Age name for a place in the northern Transjordan that was referred to historically in the 14th century BCE as either ú-du-mu or udm. The aleph/’ at the beginning of “Edom” : אדום : ’DWM is short for ’W : aleph-vav. As such, “Edom” : ’DWM in the Patriarchal narratives is historical Udumu [whose more expected, long-form spelling in Biblical Hebrew would be ’WDWM], in the Late Bronze Age northern Transjordan. This somewhat unexpected, shortened spelling, אדום : ’DWM, with no vav/W after the initial aleph/’, was used in the Patriarchal narratives in order to make a clever pun on ’DM : אדם: “red”, where at Genesis 25: 30 Esau is famously portrayed as gulping down “the red the red” : H-’DM H-’DM.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: Suspicious Aleph in Initial Position
1. I would relate EDOM to SDOM, but would discount their relationship to 'red'.
2. The words יעל אל איל אלה אלון עלי עלה עול עליל עלילה ליל לול are all of the Hebrew uni-literal root L, 'tall' lofty'.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
2. The words יעל אל איל אלה אלון עלי עלה עול עליל עלילה ליל לול are all of the Hebrew uni-literal root L, 'tall' lofty'.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Suspicious Aleph in Initial Position
Isaac Fried:
You wrote: “The words יעל אל איל אלה אלון עלי עלה עול עליל עלילה ליל לול are all of the Hebrew uni-literal root L, 'tall' lofty'.”
O.K., but then here is the $64,000 question. Do you agree with my contention that all four of the following are merely different spellings of the s-a-m-e name, “Ayalon”?
(i) ’YLWN : אילון . [Interior yod and interior vav.] This is by far the most common Biblical spelling, seen for example at Joshua 10: 12 and near the end of Judges 12: 12.
(ii) ’YLN : אילן . [Interior yod, but no interior vav.] This is attested one time in the Bible, in the phrase “to Ayalon”, which at I Samuel 14: 31 is spelled: ’YLN-H.
(iii) ’LWN : אלון . [No interior yod, but interior vav.] This is attested one time in the Bible, when the man’s name “Mr. Ayalon” is spelled this way at the beginning of Judges 12: 12, even though such man’s name had been spelled with both an interior yod and an interior vav [the standard spelling] in the immediately preceding verse, Judges 12: 11.
If ’YLWN can alternatively be spelled ’YLN without an interior vav/W, or ’LWN without an interior yod/Y, then isn’t it logical to think that it could be spelled without either an interior yod/Y or an interior vav/W, especially in the oldest part of the Bible?
(iv) ’LN : אלן . [No interior yod and no interior vav.] If this means “Ayalon”, as I think it does, then it is attested three times in the Patriarchal narratives, where it is then immediately followed first by a yod/Y, being a xireq compaginis functioning as a dash, and then MMR’, being the Patriarchal nickname of the ruling princeling in the area, Mamre, when Abram first came there in chapters 13 and 14 of Genesis. Genesis 13: 18, 14: 13 and 18: 1 all have: ’LN -Y- MMR’. In my opinion, that phrase means “Mamre’s Ayalon”, that is, the northeast Ayalon Valley, which was the opposite of “east” of Bethel per Genesis 13: 9, 11, in the time of Mamre [which, per Genesis 14: 4, was “Year 13”]. If so, then the Patriarchs’ “Hebron”/XBRWN was located in the northeast Ayalon Valley, not near the top of the highest hill in southern Canaan as ordinarily supposed.
The text’s description of the Patriarchs’ Hebron fully supports this linguistic analysis. Genesis 37: 14 specifically calls such place a “valley”/‘MQ. No one in the Patriarchal narratives is ever said to go “up”/‘LH to the Patriarchs’ “Hebron”. The word “hill”/HR is never associated with such place in Genesis either. In a word, the entire text of the Patriarchal narratives is telling us that, contra the conventional view, the first Hebrews sojourned in the fine pastureland of the nearly-deserted northeast Ayalon Valley in Year 13 [per Genesis 14: 4] in the Late Bronze Age, rather than sojourning in the rugged area near the top of the tallest hill in southern Canaan, at [or near] the site of King David’s later city of Hebron.
Non-Biblical history also supports this analysis, in spades. Focusing here only on historical linguistics [in order to keep this post short], in Year 14 the scribe of the Hurrian ruler, IR-Heba, of nearby Jerusalem wrote “Ayalon” with the following three cuneiform signs at Amarna Letter EA 287: 57: ia-lu-na. If that is the same scribe that the first Hebrews later hired to record the Patriarchal narratives in writing on about 50 clay cuneiform tablets, then the original cuneiform spelling of “Ayalon” in Genesis was ia-lu-na. Accordingly, 700 years later we might then well expect a Jewish scribe in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem to record that name with three Hebrew letters [comparable to the three cuneiform signs] in alphabetical Hebrew writing as: ’-L-N.
Initial aleph can imply aleph-yod, and an interior vav is merely optional plene spelling, so ’LN is simply a short-form spelling of ’YLWN.
Wouldn’t you agree that all four of the above items are merely different spellings of the s-a-m-e name?
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “The words יעל אל איל אלה אלון עלי עלה עול עליל עלילה ליל לול are all of the Hebrew uni-literal root L, 'tall' lofty'.”
O.K., but then here is the $64,000 question. Do you agree with my contention that all four of the following are merely different spellings of the s-a-m-e name, “Ayalon”?
(i) ’YLWN : אילון . [Interior yod and interior vav.] This is by far the most common Biblical spelling, seen for example at Joshua 10: 12 and near the end of Judges 12: 12.
(ii) ’YLN : אילן . [Interior yod, but no interior vav.] This is attested one time in the Bible, in the phrase “to Ayalon”, which at I Samuel 14: 31 is spelled: ’YLN-H.
(iii) ’LWN : אלון . [No interior yod, but interior vav.] This is attested one time in the Bible, when the man’s name “Mr. Ayalon” is spelled this way at the beginning of Judges 12: 12, even though such man’s name had been spelled with both an interior yod and an interior vav [the standard spelling] in the immediately preceding verse, Judges 12: 11.
If ’YLWN can alternatively be spelled ’YLN without an interior vav/W, or ’LWN without an interior yod/Y, then isn’t it logical to think that it could be spelled without either an interior yod/Y or an interior vav/W, especially in the oldest part of the Bible?
(iv) ’LN : אלן . [No interior yod and no interior vav.] If this means “Ayalon”, as I think it does, then it is attested three times in the Patriarchal narratives, where it is then immediately followed first by a yod/Y, being a xireq compaginis functioning as a dash, and then MMR’, being the Patriarchal nickname of the ruling princeling in the area, Mamre, when Abram first came there in chapters 13 and 14 of Genesis. Genesis 13: 18, 14: 13 and 18: 1 all have: ’LN -Y- MMR’. In my opinion, that phrase means “Mamre’s Ayalon”, that is, the northeast Ayalon Valley, which was the opposite of “east” of Bethel per Genesis 13: 9, 11, in the time of Mamre [which, per Genesis 14: 4, was “Year 13”]. If so, then the Patriarchs’ “Hebron”/XBRWN was located in the northeast Ayalon Valley, not near the top of the highest hill in southern Canaan as ordinarily supposed.
The text’s description of the Patriarchs’ Hebron fully supports this linguistic analysis. Genesis 37: 14 specifically calls such place a “valley”/‘MQ. No one in the Patriarchal narratives is ever said to go “up”/‘LH to the Patriarchs’ “Hebron”. The word “hill”/HR is never associated with such place in Genesis either. In a word, the entire text of the Patriarchal narratives is telling us that, contra the conventional view, the first Hebrews sojourned in the fine pastureland of the nearly-deserted northeast Ayalon Valley in Year 13 [per Genesis 14: 4] in the Late Bronze Age, rather than sojourning in the rugged area near the top of the tallest hill in southern Canaan, at [or near] the site of King David’s later city of Hebron.
Non-Biblical history also supports this analysis, in spades. Focusing here only on historical linguistics [in order to keep this post short], in Year 14 the scribe of the Hurrian ruler, IR-Heba, of nearby Jerusalem wrote “Ayalon” with the following three cuneiform signs at Amarna Letter EA 287: 57: ia-lu-na. If that is the same scribe that the first Hebrews later hired to record the Patriarchal narratives in writing on about 50 clay cuneiform tablets, then the original cuneiform spelling of “Ayalon” in Genesis was ia-lu-na. Accordingly, 700 years later we might then well expect a Jewish scribe in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem to record that name with three Hebrew letters [comparable to the three cuneiform signs] in alphabetical Hebrew writing as: ’-L-N.
Initial aleph can imply aleph-yod, and an interior vav is merely optional plene spelling, so ’LN is simply a short-form spelling of ’YLWN.
Wouldn’t you agree that all four of the above items are merely different spellings of the s-a-m-e name?
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: Suspicious Aleph in Initial Position
You said: "and an interior vav is merely optional plene spelling, so ’LN is simply a short-form spelling of ’YLWN." I agree with you that the interior yod and vav are possibly later scribal additions, put in as a first step (as is the dagesh) towards the full pointing.
The names were written from hearing, and variations occur. Even today some people read the cere as EY.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
"
The names were written from hearing, and variations occur. Even today some people read the cere as EY.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
"
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: Suspicious Aleph in Initial Position
I don't know where you got the "IR-Heba", but it appears to me that HEBA is a variant of the port city name XEIPA, on mount Carmel in northern Israel. Otherwise, XEIPA = KEIPA, the city on the כף KEP, 'hill', or GEB (see Job 30:6.)
Recall the full name of saint Peter: Simon Peter, Cephas (Greek: Κηφᾶς), where both Cephas and Kepha is Hebrew 'rock, hill', related to the כפה KIPA, 'tree-top, cupola, dome', as in Job 15:32.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
Recall the full name of saint Peter: Simon Peter, Cephas (Greek: Κηφᾶς), where both Cephas and Kepha is Hebrew 'rock, hill', related to the כפה KIPA, 'tree-top, cupola, dome', as in Job 15:32.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Suspicious Aleph in Initial Position
Isaac Fried:
1. You wrote: “I agree with you that the interior yod and vav are possibly later scribal additions, put in as a first step (as is the dagesh) towards the full pointing.”
Yes! Accordingly, (i) ’LN could well be a short-form rendering of the plene spelling, ’YLWN, which eventually became the standard Biblical spelling of “Ayalon”; and therefore it logically follows that (ii) ’LN -Y- MMR’, at Genesis 13: 18, 14: 13 and 18: 1, may well mean: “Ayalon -- Mamre”, that is, the Ayalon Valley in the time of Mamre the Amorite. T-h-a-t is where and when the Patriarchs are portrayed as sojourning at the Patriarchs’ “Hebron” in Genesis, being a fairly short distance northwest of Jerusalem.
2. You wrote: “I don't know where you got the ‘IR-Heba’.”
IR-Heba is the Hurrian princeling ruler of Jerusalem who wrote several Amarna Letters in Year 14, and who may have been the ruler of Jerusalem during the Patriarchal Age. Regarding Jerusalem having a Hurrian princeling ruler in Year 14, note that the Hurrians up north in central Syria were totally defeated in Year 14 by the Hittites in the Second Syrian War, and shortly after that a 6-year war by the fearsome Hittites against the Hurrian homeland in eastern Syria utterly destroyed the Hurrians as a viable political force forever. In effect, the Hurrians fell off a cliff beginning in Year 14. After having dominated the ruling class of Canaan for two generations (as we know from the Amarna Letters), the Hurrians were suddenly yesterday’s people, no longer having any clout at all, within a very few years after Year 13. As such, it would be no surprise if IR-Heba’s former scribe in Jerusalem might have soon found himself out of work, to the point that such scribe may have begged tent-dwellers near Jerusalem, such as the first Hebrews sojourning in the northeast Ayalon Valley at ’LN -Y- MMR’ not far from Jerusalem, to give him some work, in the form of recording their best stories in writing on cuneiform clay tablets.
Whether IR-Heba’s former scribe, a few years after Year 13, is or is not relevant to when the Patriarchal narratives were recorded in cuneiform writing depends to a great extent on how one interprets what may be an explicit reference to “Year 13” in the second half of Genesis 14: 4. All the English translations are wrong, as they add the word “in”, which is definitely n-o-t in the Hebrew text, to come up with the following mis-translation: “...and in the 13th year they rebelled.”.
Grammatically, it would seem that only the following two analyses of this phrase are possible: (i) “...and Year 13 they rebelled”; or (ii) “...and 13 years they rebelled”. The latter, although working grammatically, does not make common sense, as surely the rebellion being referenced did not last 13 years. No, the second half of Genesis 14: 4 is, in my opinion, flat out telling us that the rebellion occurred in “Year 13”, which is the o-n-l-y date in 5,000 years of human history that will work historically as the immediate run-up to the Second Syrian War in Year 14.
Knowing Biblical Hebrew as well as you do, how do you interpret the second half of Genesis 14: 4?
וּשְׁלֹשׁ־עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה מָרָֽדוּ : W $L$-‘%RH $NH MRDW.
Or to put the same basic question a slightly different way, in your considered opinion, what would the Hebrew author of Genesis 14: 4 have written there if his intention were to say: “And Year 13 they rebelled”?
For what it’s worth, here’s the Google translation into modern Israeli Hebrew of “Year Thirteen": עשרה שלוש השנה : ‘%RH $LW$ H-$NH. The word order of “three” and “ten” [which together make 13] is reversed, and plene spelling is used for “three”, with an interior vav/W, vs. Genesis 14: 4; those two differences are immaterial. The only difference of any possible significance is that in modern Israeli Hebrew, he/H, meaning “the”, precedes “year”, whereas there is no he/H there at Genesis 14: 4. That means that the modern version could not be interpreted as “13 years”, but it does not preclude Genesis 14: 4 from meaning “Year 13”, as far as I can see.
At Genesis 14: 5, bet/B is explicitly used to mean “in”. Whereas Genesis 14: 5 says either “And in Year 14” or “And in the 14th year….”, I see the second half of Genesis 14: 4 as saying “…and Year 13 they rebelled” [because “and 13 years they rebelled”, though grammatically possible, is not a sensible meaning]. The wording of Genesis 14: 5 is clear that the meaning cannot be “And 14 years”, because the word “in”/bet/B precludes that reading. The difference in format between Genesis 14: 4 and 14: 5 may reflect the fact that the rebellion (14: 4) took a whole year to take shape, as for many months during Year 13 it was not clear who would join the rebellion, so the word “in”/B/bet doesn’t fit there; whereas suddenly, “in” Year 14, the Hittites invaded (14: 5) and quickly conquered all of central Syria.
Am I misunderstanding the Biblical Hebrew grammar of Genesis 14: 4? What legitimate interpretation or interpretations of the second half of Genesis 14: 4 do you see? Can the second half of Genesis 14: 4 mean “…and Year 13 they rebelled”?
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
1. You wrote: “I agree with you that the interior yod and vav are possibly later scribal additions, put in as a first step (as is the dagesh) towards the full pointing.”
Yes! Accordingly, (i) ’LN could well be a short-form rendering of the plene spelling, ’YLWN, which eventually became the standard Biblical spelling of “Ayalon”; and therefore it logically follows that (ii) ’LN -Y- MMR’, at Genesis 13: 18, 14: 13 and 18: 1, may well mean: “Ayalon -- Mamre”, that is, the Ayalon Valley in the time of Mamre the Amorite. T-h-a-t is where and when the Patriarchs are portrayed as sojourning at the Patriarchs’ “Hebron” in Genesis, being a fairly short distance northwest of Jerusalem.
2. You wrote: “I don't know where you got the ‘IR-Heba’.”
IR-Heba is the Hurrian princeling ruler of Jerusalem who wrote several Amarna Letters in Year 14, and who may have been the ruler of Jerusalem during the Patriarchal Age. Regarding Jerusalem having a Hurrian princeling ruler in Year 14, note that the Hurrians up north in central Syria were totally defeated in Year 14 by the Hittites in the Second Syrian War, and shortly after that a 6-year war by the fearsome Hittites against the Hurrian homeland in eastern Syria utterly destroyed the Hurrians as a viable political force forever. In effect, the Hurrians fell off a cliff beginning in Year 14. After having dominated the ruling class of Canaan for two generations (as we know from the Amarna Letters), the Hurrians were suddenly yesterday’s people, no longer having any clout at all, within a very few years after Year 13. As such, it would be no surprise if IR-Heba’s former scribe in Jerusalem might have soon found himself out of work, to the point that such scribe may have begged tent-dwellers near Jerusalem, such as the first Hebrews sojourning in the northeast Ayalon Valley at ’LN -Y- MMR’ not far from Jerusalem, to give him some work, in the form of recording their best stories in writing on cuneiform clay tablets.
Whether IR-Heba’s former scribe, a few years after Year 13, is or is not relevant to when the Patriarchal narratives were recorded in cuneiform writing depends to a great extent on how one interprets what may be an explicit reference to “Year 13” in the second half of Genesis 14: 4. All the English translations are wrong, as they add the word “in”, which is definitely n-o-t in the Hebrew text, to come up with the following mis-translation: “...and in the 13th year they rebelled.”.
Grammatically, it would seem that only the following two analyses of this phrase are possible: (i) “...and Year 13 they rebelled”; or (ii) “...and 13 years they rebelled”. The latter, although working grammatically, does not make common sense, as surely the rebellion being referenced did not last 13 years. No, the second half of Genesis 14: 4 is, in my opinion, flat out telling us that the rebellion occurred in “Year 13”, which is the o-n-l-y date in 5,000 years of human history that will work historically as the immediate run-up to the Second Syrian War in Year 14.
Knowing Biblical Hebrew as well as you do, how do you interpret the second half of Genesis 14: 4?
וּשְׁלֹשׁ־עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה מָרָֽדוּ : W $L$-‘%RH $NH MRDW.
Or to put the same basic question a slightly different way, in your considered opinion, what would the Hebrew author of Genesis 14: 4 have written there if his intention were to say: “And Year 13 they rebelled”?
For what it’s worth, here’s the Google translation into modern Israeli Hebrew of “Year Thirteen": עשרה שלוש השנה : ‘%RH $LW$ H-$NH. The word order of “three” and “ten” [which together make 13] is reversed, and plene spelling is used for “three”, with an interior vav/W, vs. Genesis 14: 4; those two differences are immaterial. The only difference of any possible significance is that in modern Israeli Hebrew, he/H, meaning “the”, precedes “year”, whereas there is no he/H there at Genesis 14: 4. That means that the modern version could not be interpreted as “13 years”, but it does not preclude Genesis 14: 4 from meaning “Year 13”, as far as I can see.
At Genesis 14: 5, bet/B is explicitly used to mean “in”. Whereas Genesis 14: 5 says either “And in Year 14” or “And in the 14th year….”, I see the second half of Genesis 14: 4 as saying “…and Year 13 they rebelled” [because “and 13 years they rebelled”, though grammatically possible, is not a sensible meaning]. The wording of Genesis 14: 5 is clear that the meaning cannot be “And 14 years”, because the word “in”/bet/B precludes that reading. The difference in format between Genesis 14: 4 and 14: 5 may reflect the fact that the rebellion (14: 4) took a whole year to take shape, as for many months during Year 13 it was not clear who would join the rebellion, so the word “in”/B/bet doesn’t fit there; whereas suddenly, “in” Year 14, the Hittites invaded (14: 5) and quickly conquered all of central Syria.
Am I misunderstanding the Biblical Hebrew grammar of Genesis 14: 4? What legitimate interpretation or interpretations of the second half of Genesis 14: 4 do you see? Can the second half of Genesis 14: 4 mean “…and Year 13 they rebelled”?
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois