Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

One mainstream scholarly view is that the assertion in the Patriarchal 
narratives that the Patriarchs were buried at XBRWN is false, because XBRN 
[note 
the different spelling] is associated with the mountainous city of King 
David [20 miles south of Jerusalem]:
 
“Outside Genesis there is no other biblical passage referring to the 
existence of a double-cave in Hebron as the Patriarchal burial place. The 
silence 
of the sources is not a strong argument, but for example readers of 1 
Maccabees could expect the allusion of the Patriarchs’ burial place, when one 
reads in 1 Macc. 5:65 about the conquest and destruction (sic!) of the town. 
Hebron in the Bible is consequently associated with David, his family, 
Anakites, and descendents of Caleb. References to Hebron in connexion to the 
patriarchs’ are totally lacking.”  Lukasz Niesiolowski-Spanò, “Two 
Aetiological 
Narratives in Genesis and Their Dates”, in Studia Judaica 9: 2006 nr 2(18), 
at 
p. 378.  _http://www.studiajudaica.pl/sj18nies.pdf_ 
(http://www.studiajudaica.pl/sj18nies.pdf) 
 
It’s true that no Biblical author ever links David to Abraham regarding 
Hebron.  In particular, no Biblical author ever claims that David founded his 
capital city of Hebron at the same place where the Patriarchs of old had 
sojourned.  Why?  Is that because Genesis is in error?  Or is that because 
the 
Patriarchs’ XBR-W-N is a completely different place than King David’s city 
of XBRN?
 
Historically, we know that in the 1st millennium BCE, the name of the 
mountainous city south of Jerusalem was spelled XBRN, with no interior vav.  
A 
site devoted to the LMLK seals, which date to about 700 BCE, notes:  “Hebrew 
letters on the seals:  Het-Bet-Resh-Nun.  Note:  Although all of the LMLK 
HBRN seals were scriptio defectiva, all of the Old Testament usages of Hebron 
were plene (Het-Bet-Resh-Vau-Nun) except…Numbers 3:27, Numbers 26:58, 2Samuel 
2:1…, which are…scriptio defective.”  
_http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_hbrn.htm_ 
(http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_hbrn.htm)   This post challenges 
the received wisdom that XBRWN in Genesis is an updated, later spelling of 
an older XBRN spelling for the mountainous city south of Jerusalem.
 
Consider the following alternative possibility.  In the beginning, in 
pre-exilic times, the lush valley (per Genesis 37: 14) where the Patriarchs 
sojourned was spelled XBR-W-N, whereas the mountainous city 20 miles south of 
Jerusalem, where King David established his first capital, was a different 
place with a different spelling:  XBRN.  Post-exilic scribes were not at 
liberty 
to remove the interior vav in XBRWN in Genesis.  But by contrast, nothing 
prevented a post-exilic scribe from adding in an interior vav to XBRN in the 
later books in the Bible, supposedly as a mere spelling update, thereby 
turning XBRN into XBRWN.  Thus, on a retroactive basis as of post-exilic 
times, 
the post-exilic scribes deftly created a much-desired linguistic link 
between Abraham and David, even though no Biblical author ever explicitly 
asserts 
any such link.  It all makes sense  i-f  Genesis, from day #1, spelled the 
place where the Patriarchs sojourned as XBRWN.
 
Is XBR + W + N a foreign loanword, dating back to the Late Bronze Age?  Is 
that -W- a genitive case marker that was there from day #1, rather than 
being a later-added vowel indicator?  If some proper names in the Patriarchal 
narratives are really old, then we may have something to learn from the 
non-west Semitic names of the majority of princelings who ruled cities 
throughout 
Canaan in the mid-14th century BCE, especially when one considers that a 
standard way of making a word into a geographical place name in that language 
was to add a genitive case marker -- W.  When scholars attack the Patriarchal 
narratives, it makes sense for us to ask if, linguistically, those scholars 
know of what they speak.  Scholars have never given a coherent account of 
why XBR-W-N in Genesis features an interior vav.  Why would 1st millennium 
BCE scribes update the spelling of the ancient place where the Patriarchs had 
sojourned?  One key to re-establishing the historical credibility of the 
Patriarchal narratives is to focus on what the scholars ignore:  the interior 
vav in XBR-W-N in Genesis. 
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston,  Illinois