Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Does Genesis 13: 18 Have an Archaic, Non-Standard Spelling of "Aijalon"?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Does Genesis 13: 18 Have an Archaic, Non-Standard Spelling of "Aijalon"?
  • Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:56:14 EDT


Does Genesis 13: 18 Have an Archaic, Non-Standard Spelling of “Aijalon”?

At Genesis 12: 6, Abraham comes to )LWN, which is spelled with a vav/W, near
Shechem. In the very next chapter of Genesis, at Genesis 13: 18, Abrahams
comes to )LNY, spelled without a vav/W, after splitting from Lot at Beth-el.
Since the spellings of these two words, which appear in fairly close
succession,
are different, we should investigate the possibility that, contrary to
conventional wisdom, these two words may be two entirely different words,
instead of
)LNY simply being the plural of )LWN, with )LNY having unaccountably dropped
the vav/W.

In focusing on the presence or absence of a vav/W, we now note that the
precise four Hebrew letters aleph-lamed-nun-yod/)LNY appear only three times
in the
Hebrew Bible, always in the identical context, in the Patriarchal narratives
at Genesis 13: 18; 14: 13; 18: 1. (Note the absence of a vav/W.) Scholars
have heretofore viewed )LNY as being an orthographic variant of the
five-letter word )LWNY at Deuteronomy 11: 30 (which is used in a similar,
though not
identical, context), which contains a vav/W, and as being the plural version
of
the four-letter word )LWN, which also contains a vav/W, a combination that
appears five times in the Bible, at Genesis 12: 6; Deuteronomy 11: 30;
Judges 4:
11; Judges 9: 6, 37; and I Samuel 10: 2. Scholars view all these words as
meaning, either in the singular or in the plural, “oak tree” or “terebinth”.
This post, however, will explore a different theory of the case. The
spellings are different, so we should not simply assume, without
investigation, that
the unique )LNY at Genesis 13: 18; 14: 13; and 18: 1 is the same word as in
the other cases.

Now let’s consider the textual context. A meaning of “oak tree” makes
perfect sense at Genesis 12: 6, where Abraham likely considered that
particular
tree near Shechem to have a special significance, perhaps signifying
Abraham’s
arrival in central Canaan. But by contrast, a meaning of “oak trees” or “a
grove of oak trees” has a very odd ring about it in the context of Genesis
13:
18; 14: 13; and 18: 1. Reflecting this very odd context, the KJV
creatively,
and uniquely among all translations of which I am aware, translates )LNY at
Genesis 13: 18 as “plain”! A “plain” is the exact opposite of “a grove of
oak
trees”, and does not seem to be a defensible translation here at all. Yet
having said that, it would make more sense for Abraham, having just split
from
Lot at Beth-el, to go to a plain, rather than to take his huge flock of sheep
and goats to a place that is characterized by “a grove of oak trees”. There
is no reason to think that a place with a grove of oak trees would be a
suitable place for Abraham’s huge flock of sheep and goats. Yet that very
same,
specific phrase is repeated three times, at Genesis 13: 18; 14: 13; and 18:
1,
as if it were something of particular importance. Something seems askew
here.
Let’s try a new approach to this old conundrum.

It is possible that the )LNY in the received text, which is unique to Genesis
13: 18; 14: 13 and 18: 1, may be an archaic, non-standard spelling of “
Aijalon” (meaning the ancient city named Aijalon, not the nearby valley,
which was
not at that time called the Aijalon Valley). Beginning with Joshua 21: 24,
the standard spelling of “Aijalon” is )YLWN. Let’s compare that with the
)LNY
in the received text of Genesis 13: 18.

As noted above, the absence of the vav at Genesis 13: 18 is significant in
the context of being a different spelling than the other versions of what has
heretofore been considered to be the same word, especially the presence of
the
vav at Genesis 12: 6, the chapter that precedes Genesis 13: 18. Yet the
absence of that vav is of very little significance in comparing this word at
Genesis
13: 18 to the standard spelling of “Aijalon” in other books in the Bible.
The vav in the standard spelling of “Aijalon” is a mere vowel indicator,
being
part of the standard –WN suffix that, as a noun indicator, is so very common
in geographical place names. I Samuel 14: 31 shows that such vav can be
omitted. Secondly, the final yod at Genesis 13: 18 has long been viewed as
being a
plural indicator. But if this is a truly ancient geographical place name,
that ending vowel could instead be viewed as having been an archaic case
ending
(that would as a matter of course be dropped in later books in the Bible,
such
as Joshua, which were composed many centuries after the use of such case
endings had ceased).

Thus if we are asking if this may be an archaic, non-standard spelling of “
Aijalon”, the only really important linguistic question here is why the )LNY
at
Genesis 13: 18 has no yod after the aleph. If that word originally had a
yod,
then )YLNY (after restoring the missing yod) would certainly look like an
archaic spelling of “Aijalon”. If so, then what Genesis 13: 18 is really
saying
is that Abraham “dwelt near (the city of) Aijalon of the Amorites, that is,
(in the valley of) Hebron”.

We all know that errors regarding interior yods are fairly commonplace in the
copying and re-copying of Hebrew texts, so that could account for the missing
yod here. But more likely in this case is the following scenario, under
which a scribe may have deliberately decided to delete the yod that had
originally
been there.

It is likely that the aleph-yod at the beginning of “Aijalon” may have been
pronounced, at least during some time periods, as a contracted diphthong,
instead of the theoretically more correct, but cumbersome, pronunciation as
two
separate syllables. In fact, the aleph here is almost certainly a prosthetic
aleph, because historically, the only two significant consonants that are
attested on the Thutmosis III list in the mid-15th century BCE for this
town’s name
are yod/Y (used as a true consonant, not as a vowel indicator) and a lamed/L.

(Similarly, the editor of the Amarna Letters references “Yalo” as being one
name for the city of Aijalon in the mid-14th century BCE.) But the Hebrews
(along with many other west Semitic speakers) having added an aleph at the
beginning of this word for ease of pronunciation, it is likely that the
aleph-yod
was pronounced, at least during some time periods, as a single syllable, with
the yod/Y in effect being pronounced as if it were a mere vowel indicator
(though historically, the yod here in fact is not a vowel indicator, but
rather is
a true consonant). Accordingly, a scribe somewhere along the line may have
honestly thought that dropping the yod in the spelling of “Aijalon” would
more
accurately reflect the actual Hebrew pronunciation of “Aijalon”. The yod
would henceforth be implicit, as the scribe doubtless knew that the yod had
historically been there, but the yod would no longer be explicitly set forth
as a
separate letter in the word, with the simplified spelling thereby accurately
reflecting the simplified pronunciation. Thus the )LNY we see in the
received
text of Genesis 13: 18 may at one time have been viewed as being an
acceptable
spelling of the older, more cumbersome (if more historically correct) )YLNY,
meaning the city of “Aijalon”. That is to say, instead of scribal
carelessness, the yod that was originally there may have been deliberately
dropped by a
later scribe for the sake of updating the spelling of this word, to reflect
how
the word was actually being pronounced at the time. Centuries later, it was
decided that in compiling the Bible, the new standard spelling of “Aijalon”,
which naturally dropped the archaic case ending, would for books such as
Joshua use the older (and more historically correct) practice of having an
explicit
yod after the aleph (as well as usually having an explicit vav as well). But
the spelling of the now strange word )LNY in the Patriarchal narratives was
not changed (back). The missing yod remained eternally missing. The meaning
of Genesis 13: 18 had become strange, as )LNY was no longer an acceptable way
to spell “Aijalon”. But after all, there were a fair number of other strange
words with strange spellings like that in the ancient Patriarchal narratives.

Regardless of the precise manner in which the scribal dropping of this yod
came about, in the mid-1st millennium BCE the spelling in the received text
of
Genesis of )LNY was thereafter read/mis-read as being the proper spelling of
the plural of “terebinths” or “oaks”. But all other versions of “oak tree”
or “oak trees” in the Bible have a vav/W, which letter is conspicuously
absent
in the word )LNY we are investigating.

Why would the text be telling us that Abraham came to dwell by a grove of oak
trees called “Mamre”? Isn’t that a strange thing for this ancient text to
say? And why would Genesis 14: 13 and 18: 1 repeat that same very odd
statement? Wouldn’t it be much more logical for the text to be telling us
that
Abraham came to dwell near the city of Aijalon, using an archaic Late Bronze
Age
spelling of “Aijalon”? On various different scenarios, )LNY in the received
text may well be an archaic, non-standard spelling of “Aijalon”.

As a herder of sheep and goats, Abraham would not be interested in a grove of
oak trees. But Abraham would logically be interested in the well-watered
meadowland of the place that we today call the Aijalon Valley. That was not
the
name of that valley in ancient times, but that valley is located near the
town
which, from the 15th century BCE to the present, has indeed always been
called “Aijalon”.

If we are willing to consider that it is possible that one interior yod may,
concerning this one word that appears three times in the Patriarchal
narratives, have been improperly dropped in the received text by a scribe,
whether as
an honest scribal attempt to reflect the actual Hebrew pronunciation of this
word or for whatever other scribal reason, then Genesis 13: 18 can be read as
having originally explicitly referred to Aijalon. The received text uses an
archaic, non-standard spelling of “Aijalon”, that’s all. On this view,
Genesis
13: 18 is indirectly, but surely, referencing the place that we today call
the
Aijalon Valley. The Aijalon Valley is the tract of land [XBR/XBL] that is a
well-watered meadow [)BR/)BL and YBR/YBL], located 17½ miles west of Beth-el,
which is the exact location and type of pastureland where it makes perfect
sense for Abraham to have taken his large flock of sheep and goats upon
splitting
from Lot at Beth-el.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page