Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

A.  Per the previous posts on this thread:
 
$XR, $XWR and $YXWR, when used as geographical terms in the Bible, all 
probably literally mean “black”, and refer to Egypt, on the basis of the fact 
that 
the Egyptians referred to their country as “Black”/Kemet, proudly referring 
to the fertile “black” earth along the Nile River in Egypt.
 
$WR, as a geographical term in the Bible, is probably a shortened form of 
$XWR, dropping the heth, Samaritan style.  In 5 cases, the Biblical reference 
is 
to Egypt, based once again on the reference to “black”.
 
But going beyond the previous posts, now consider that $WR is a “non-standard”
 version of the Hebrew word for “black”, the heth having been curiously and 
obviously dropped.  So instead of meaning “Black”, as a reference to Egypt, 
the English equivalent of $WR (lacking the heth that should properly be 
there) 
could be viewed as being:  “Blackie”.
 
Why refer to Egypt as “Blackie”, instead of the proper, deferential “Black”
?  To ask the question is to answer it.  On two occasions in the Patriarchal 
narratives (Genesis 16: 7;  25: 18), the author, who is the greatest Hebrew 
wordsmith ever, refuses to refer to Egypt by the deferential, proper name 
“Black”
, and instead creates his own nickname for Egypt, namely “Blackie”, which is 
$WR, having dropped the heth that should be in the word for “black” (either 
$XR or $XWR).
 
This is one key to understanding the Patriarchal narratives.  $WR is a “
non-standard” reference to Egypt, as the author deliberately refuses to be 
deferential to a place as to which the author has complex, ambiguous feelings.
 
B.  There is a third occasion in the Patriarchal narratives (Genesis 20: 1) 
where sin/shin-vav-resh is used as a geographical term.  In unpointed text, 
we 
cannot tell, out of context, whether the first letter is a sin or a shin.  Is 
it $WR or &WR?  In my opinion, a reference to Egypt there would not make 
sense.  (Abraham and his huge flock of sheep and goats would not go to the 
northwest corner of the virtually uninhabitable Sinai Desert near the border 
of Egypt 
[$WR], immediately before Sarah, as just now twice divinely promised, will 
get 
pregnant with Isaac.)   Since a meaning of Egypt would not make good sense 
here, the first letter should not be read as a shin in my controversial view. 
 
If the Patriarchal narratives were originally oral, as is likely, then this 
clever Hebrew wordplay would work even better.  The storyteller would 
pronounce 
the word with a sin.
 
But everyone immediately objects:  Jim, there is no Hebrew common noun 
sin-vav-resh/&WR.  My answer:  That just means that sin-vav-resh/&WR is 
“non-standard
”.  Remember, $WR (with a shin/$) referring to Egypt is “non-standard” 
itself (instead of the proper $XWR, with a heth/X), as the author refuses to 
be 
deferential to Egypt.
 
If sin-vav-resh is not a Hebrew common noun, and is “non-standard”, shouldn’
t we then consider the  s-o-u-n-d  of sin-vav-resh?  Though the spelling 
differs, and is deliberately “non-standard” (in order to avoid being 
deferential, 
as we will see), the  s-o-u-n-d  of sin-vav-resh/&WR is very close to the 
sound of the name of the most famous city-state on planet Earth in the 
Patriarchal 
Age.
 
Everyone says:  Jim, if the author of the Patriarchal narratives meant to 
refer to the most famous city-state in the world, a place the Hebrews often 
hated, the author of the Patriarchal narratives would properly and 
deferentially 
use the proper spelling of its name.  My answer:  No way!  He’s the greatest 
Hebrew wordsmith ever, and he refuses to be deferential.  I well realize that 
the 
rest of the authors of the Bible refer to this rich, powerful island 
city-state by its proper name (and then often as not openly heap venomous 
invective 
upon it).  But the author of the Patriarchal narratives is more subtle.  He 
cannot afford to insult either Egypt or that irritating city-state openly.  
So the 
author of the Patriarchal narratives lays his true feelings between the 
lines, as it were.  Instead of $XWR/“Black”, we get the non-standard 
$WR/“Blackie”
 for Egypt.  And instead of CWR (alternatively spelled CR), we get the 
non-standard &WR.  Yes, it’s a “non-standard” spelling of that city-state’s 
proper 
name.  That’s deliberate, as the author of the Patriarchal narratives refuses 
to be deferential and refer to “a magnificent, impressive ‘rock’, that has 
almost god-like qualities”, which is what CWR means (when spelled properly).  
We see the god-like overtones of CWR/“rock” many times in the Bible, such as 
here:  
 
“The Rock [CWR], His work is perfect;  for all His ways are justice;  a God 
of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is He.” Deuteronomy 32:４
 
The author of the Patriarchal narratives well knew the proper spelling of the 
name of the famous/infamous island city-state:  CWR (or CR).  But he 
deliberately refused to use the proper spelling, refusing to call this place 
by its 
proper name, which had god-like overtones.  Orally, the pronunciation was 
slightly different:  regular S vs. emphatic S, sin vs. ssade.  But that 
slight 
difference in pronunciation, and fairly major difference in spelling, made 
all the 
difference.  It shows the author’s true feelings for the problematic, 
super-wealthy island city-state of CWR/CR/Sur/“Tyre”, who might decide to 
ally with 
the Hebrews and the people of Canaan, but who might just as easily decide, on 
the contrary, to bankroll Canaan’s worst enemy.      
 
C.  The key to understanding the Patriarchal narratives is to understand the 
precise Hebrew words, including “non-standard” words, that are used as 
geographical terms in the text.  If we can get the basic Biblical geography 
right, 
the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives will come shining through.
 
It’s not enough to know  t-h-a-t  $WR is used to refer to Egypt in 5 places 
in the Bible.  Everyone knows that.  We need to further understand that $WR 
is 
a “non-standard” reference to Egypt created by the author of the Patriarchal 
narratives, effectively being “Blackie”, instead of the proper, deferential “
Black” ($XWR, which is the proper, deferential Hebrew equivalent of Egyptian 
Kemet).  Likewise, sin/shin-vav-resh as a geographical term does not 
necessarily start with a shin.  If (pursuant to my suggestion) we read it as 
sin, when a 
reference to Egypt in the particular context would not make good sense, we 
see that on one occasion in the Patriarchal narratives, &WR is being used as 
a “
non-standard” rendering of the proper, deferential CWR.  Both as to Egypt and 
Sur, the author of the Patriarchal narratives knew the proper spelling, and 
deliberately refused to use it.  The greatest Hebrew wordsmith of all time 
refused to be deferential in his heart to either Egypt or Sur/Tyre.  Instead 
of “
Black”/$XWR for Egypt, we get “Blackie”/$WR.  And instead of “Magnificent, 
God-Like Rock”/CWR for Sur/Tyre, we get &WR, a word which has no underlying 
meaning at all (since &WR is not a Hebrew common noun).
 
I understand that other Biblical authors, including authors who hated Egypt 
and Tyre, called these places by respectful, proper names.  But not the 
author 
of the Patriarchal narratives.  He could not afford to insult these places 
openly, as he hoped that they would help the early Hebrews and the people of 
Canaan defend the integrity of Canaan against Canaan’s greatest foreign 
enemy.  
But his true feelings about Egypt and Tyre come out in his refusal to use a 
respectful, proper name for either such place.  Instead we get $WR, which in 
two 
cases means “Blackie”, non-deferentially referencing Egypt, and in one case 
&WR, which has no underlying meaning at all in referencing Sur/Tyre.  In the 
Patriarchal narratives, one  n-e-v-e-r  sees Egypt being called 
“Black”/Kemet:  
$XWR, a respectful reference to the fertile “black”/$XWR earth along the Nile 
River in Egypt.  And in the Patriarchal narratives, one  n-e-v-e-r  sees 
Sur/Tyre being called CWR (or CR), a respectful reference to a magnificent 
“rock” 
with god-like overtones, the name that the ultra-wealthy traders who lived at 
Sur/Tyre called their island city-state, which they proudly viewed as rising 
up out of the water like a magnificent, god-like “rock”/CWR.  No, what one 
sees in the Patriarchal narratives, reflecting the author’s true feelings 
about 
these controversial places, is “Blackie”/$WR, and &WR (with &WR having no 
underlying meaning at all).
 
D.  Spellings of Biblical words often reveal a lot.  When “rock” is a direct 
metaphor for YHWH in the Bible, we consistently see the most deferential 
spelling of this word, which is the “full” spelling:  CWR (not CR).  
Deuteronomy 
32: 4, 15, 18, 30-31;  II Samuel 23: 3  But the name of the irritating island 
city state Sur/Tyre is rarely spelled CWR in the Bible, but rather the “
defective” spelling, CR, is routinely used, because that slightly shortened 
spelling 
is somewhat less deferential.  The author of the Patriarchal narratives, 
however, being the greatest Hebrew wordsmith of all time, went one giant step 
beyond that.  Instead of CWR or CR for Sur/Tyre, in the Patriarchal 
narratives we 
see a deft Patriarchal nickname:  &WR.  That Patriarchal nickname drops all 
deference completely, but yet without openly insulting Sur/Tyre, whom the 
author 
hoped might be persuaded to help protect beloved Canaan from outside invasion.
 
If we pay close attention to CWR vs. CR vs. &WR in the Bible, we can begin to 
understand the historical mindset of the Patriarchal narratives.   
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)