Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Vav Nun Suffix

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr, if AT math.bu.edu
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Vav Nun Suffix
  • Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:33:31 EST


Dr. Fournet:





1. “There is some absurdity in stating that a name ends with a waw when in
fact


it ends with a vowel, no?”

No, what I’m saying is that the final consonant in these geographical place
names at Nuzi is a consonantal vav. Naturally, in the non-Semitic way,
that final consonant has a following vowel. But in MGD-W and X3RW, which are
west Semitic and Egyptian, the final magnificent consonantal vav stands
alone, without any final written vowel [though presumably in the original
pronunciation, a prosthetic vowel sound would have been implied after the
final
consonantal vav].

2. You wrote: “The root/stem is actually hurwu- possibly archaic and
hurru-


and it cannot be further analyzed.”

Surely you jest. The root/stem is, rather: XR. So in Biblical Hebrew you
get [as this non-Semitic people’s name] XR-Y, which is historically
perfect. On the Israel/Merneptah Stele, you get [as the derogatory Egyptian
name
for Syro-Palestine in the Late Bronze Age] X3-RW, where the 3 is a vowel
sound being dreamed up by the Egyptians for ease of their pronunciation, and
the
final vav/W is a consonant that is a suffix, being the consonantal genitive
case marker that was routinely used in non-Semitic for geographical place
names. The key is to note the presence of the consonantal vav/W after the XR
root/stem of the name.

3. You wrote: “There is no basis for this claim. Kharu is an ethnonym
for Syrian (=Hurrian) people.”

What you assert has “no basis” is in fact the received wisdom of
university scholars. As I quoted Anson Rainey, the #1 Biblical geographer in
the
world: “The fourth line from the top and the third line from the bottom
refer
to Canaan and Kharu (X3-rw = Xa-ru; = Xurru?), the latter being a confirmed
synonym for Canaan during this period.”

4. You wrote: “All this strikes me as completely unsupported and
undocumented in the first place.”

Then please consider the three Biblical names of non-Semitic people in the
Patriarchal narratives that end in -WN, which in non-Semitic would be -we-ni.

(1) CBY-WN at Genesis 36: 2 is not “Zibeon”, but rather is non-Semitic “
Tsibeiyaweni”, that is, Tsi-be-iya-we-ni. The main part of this non-Semitic
name, CBY/ssade bet yod, can be compared directly to Zi-pa-ya at Nuzi (p.
180a of Gelb and Purves, “Nuzi Personal Names”). (i) C/ssade is essentially
indistinguishable from Z/zayin in non-Semitic (as noted on your website);
(ii) B and P are often interchangeable in non-Semitic (per your website);
and (iii) a final -iya in non-Semitic would be expected to have a -Y as its
early Biblical Hebrew defective spelling equivalent [which recorded few
vowels].

The suffix -WN in Hebrew is deliberately designed to be redolent of the
ubiquitous -we-ni- suffix component of the incredibly long non-Semitic
suffixes
that appear in the famous non-Semitic letter at pp. 23-24 of your website.
That -WN/-we-ni suffix was an effective way for the Hebrew author to make
these names “sound non-Semitic” to his early Hebrew audience.

(2) )YL-WN at Genesis 26: 34 and Genesis 36: 2 is not “Elon”, but rather
is non-Semitic “Ayaliweni”, that is, A-ya-li-we-ni. A-i-li is attested as
a name at Nuzi (p. 11a). Alternatively, A-y and A-a are attested as the
initial element in the two-element name Ay-Aba at Nuzi (p. 11a). As to the
non-Semitic name A-y, the yod/Y would be functioning as a true consonant.
[In
my view, a Hebrew yod/Y was probably not used in the original Biblical text
to represent a non-Semitic vowel. Rather, either the Hebrew yod/Y is
functioning as a true consonant, or else it was added centuries later as a
plene
spelling update.] -li is a non-Semitic suffix (see p. 232b). As noted
above, the Hebrew suffix -WN is deliberately designed to “sound non-Semitic”.

(3) (PR-WN at Genesis 23: 8, 10, 13-14, 16-17; 25: 9; 49: 29-30; 50: 13
is not “Ephron”, but rather is non-Semitic “Epiriweni”, that is,
E-pi-ri-we-ni. Since an initial Hebrew ayin is used in Biblical (LM, which
is the
expected spelling of non-Semitic E-la-mi, meaning “Elam”, we know that an
initial Hebrew ayin can represent a non-Semitic true vowel in initial
position. The roots E-pi-ri [from the name Epiri-tu (p. 47b), where -tu is a
suffix
(see p. 268a)] and I-pu-ur [from the name I-pu-ur-ta (p. 72b), where -ta is
a suffix (see p. 260b)], and the names I-ip-pa-ri (p. 71b) and A-pa-ri (p.
22b), are attested at Nuzi.

So why do you say that my analysis of these non-Semitic personal names in
the Patriarchal narratives that have a vav nun suffix is “completely
unsupported and undocumented”? The above three non-Semitic names in the
Biblical
text are the “documentation” you seek. Note how all three Biblical names
effortlessly match to names at Nuzi. And in writing or when speaking, those
Nuzi names would have had added to them a very long string of suffixes, which
very often included, shortly after the basic name, -we-ni- [Biblical -WN],
as an integral part of the long non-Semitic suffix sequence (per pp. 23-24 of
your website).

This Biblical text has pinpoint historical accuracy in reproducing these
non-Semitic names from the Late Bronze Age. No multiple 1st millennium BCE
Hebrew or Jewish authors could possibly have come up with those vintage
mid-14th century BCE non-Semitic names. No way. The Bible is much older and
more
historically accurate than scholars realize. Just focus on the interior
vav in all those vav nun suffixes in the Patriarchal narratives and you’ll
see
it. The interior vav tells the tale.

5. Speaking of Biblical brilliance regarding non-Semitic names, the
classic generic non-Semitic name, recorded in 92 (!) different places at Nuzi
(pp.
64a, 65a,b), is XuT-iYa. [It means “Praise Te$up”, though without
literally using the name of the chief non-Semitic pagan god Te$up.] And how
would
that non-Semitic name, XuT-iYa, appear in early Biblical Hebrew defective
spelling? Yes, that’s right, exactly as we see in the received text at
Genesis 15: 20; 23: 10; 25: 9; 26: 34; 36: 2; 49: 29-30; 50: 13;
namely:
XTY. The Patriarchal narratives literally reek of the world of the mid-14th
century BCE, when Judaism was borne under adverse circumstances, including
much of Canaan being ruled by non-Semitic militaristic princelings who
worshipped Te$up and the goddess Xeba. The scholarly fantasy that this is
all
somehow multiple authors weaving 1st millennium BCE fiction is a non-starter.


Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page