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: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:03:24 -0500


Dr. Fournet:


. You wrote: “Hurrian initial z was a voiceless affricate, it should
therefore be rendered as tsamekh which was also a voiceless affricate at that
time.”

But that is not borne out by the historical record, where it is Hurrian Z and
ssade/C [not tsamekh] that are closely related. Gelb notes at p. 6 of “Nuzi
Personal Names” that Z is not distinguished from C/ssade for alphabetic
purposes in his listing of the Nuzi names, and then adds: “Etymological
C/ssade is normally expressed by z-containing syllables…; but they are
alphabeted not with or near s [%/sin, nor near or with $/shin either, and
there is no tsamekh/S] but with z because of the interchange of C/ssade and z
values.”

2. You wrote: ““KUR [country] Mi-zi- ir- ri- e- wə-ni-eš” This is the
ergative case (eS) of the syntagm "the one (-ni-) of (-wə-) Egypt (Mi-zi- ir-
ri- e-)", obviously referring to the Egyptian Ruler.”

Now we’re finally getting somewhere! Leaving off the ergative case ending,
let’s see how that same non-Semitic suffix, -we-ni/-WN, works in the name of
Leah’s #2 son, who was born near where that famous letter came from, and
whose mother, who named him, had to that point never lived anywhere else:
$M(-WN. “The one of understanding.” Nice! How’s that for a Hebrew name
[with the Hebrew root $M, in the form of $M(], with non-Semitic
characteristics? [Leah gives a creative spin on this, focusing solely on the
west Semitic root of the name, in saying it means that YHWH has “heard and
understood” her.] Or how about the name of Leah’s son #6: ZBL-WN? “The one
of dwelling with (my other sons, all of whom are dwelling here in eastern
Syria/Naharim).” Hebrew -WN is non-Semitic -we-ni-. Since Leah in Naharim
is portrayed as coming up with these names, why wouldn’t the endings have a
non-Semitic sound? [Once again, Leah puts a spin solely on the west Semitic
root of this name, saying it means that Jacob will “dwell with” her.] Or if
you don’t like your own phrase “the one of” as the meaning of the Biblical
Hebrew vav nun/-we-ni-/-WN suffix in these names that Leah in Naharim came up
with, what then would you propose as an alternative meaning of this vav
nun/-we-ni-/-WN suffix in the names of these two sons of Jacob?

3. You wrote: “The phonetic reality between simple graphemes -t- and -d- is
[d].

hich is what real speakers would hear and render as -d-“

Do you really think that these 25 non-Semitic names were told around
campfires for umpteen generations? No, they obviously were written down in
the mid-14th century BCE, and never altered thereafter. The person who wrote
down these names knew that XuT-iYa was often written with a T, not a D, so
that’s the Biblical written rendering. Even if you were right that the
pronunciation was D, not T, it’s the written record that counts.

4. You wrote: “What are the *philological* reasons to think or to doubt
that Abraham should be born in this period rather than before?”

Prior to the 14th century BCE, there were no non-Semitic princelings in
Canaan, so there would have been no reason to record 25 non-Semitic names in
the Patriarchal narratives. Once you see 25 out of 25 non-Semitic names
spelled with letter-for-letter accuracy, that sets the composition date as
being the only time period in which non-Semitic maryannu held sway over many
cities throughout Canaan (including Jerusalem and Hebron): the mid-14th
century BCE -- not earlier, and not later.

5. You wrote: “[L]ooking at the genealogies transmitted from David backward
to Sem….It makes your Battle of Kings contemporary of Tidal = possibly
Tudaliya (II) ca. 1430 to 1400 BC.”

If we can keep the discussion on the linguistic level, you are of course
aware of the super-spectacular match between Biblical TD(L and the Hittite
kingly name “Tudhaliya”, where as confirmed by Ugaritic alphabetic writing,
that killer Hittite voiced velar fricative is accurately rendered in the
Biblical text as ghayin. Very nice. But on the historical side, no Hittite
king named “Tudhaliya” ever did any of the things recorded at Genesis 14:
1-11. No, all of those things were done by the Hittite king who nefariously
gained the Hittite throne by murdering his older brother named -- Tudhaliya!
In a mid-14th century BCE historical context, near the end of the Amarna Age,
the Biblical text is 100% accurate in stating that the league of rebellious
Hurrian princelings formed in Year 13, and that the Hittite-led coalition of
four attacking rulers crushed that rebellion in Year 14. We’ve got exact
year numbers in the Biblical text, and a letter-for-letter rendering of the
ideal, if pejorative, nickname for mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma.

The key linguistic fact is that 25 non-Semitic names in the Patriarchal
narratives have letter-for-letter spelling accuracy. And that’s why common
words and personal names having a -we-ni-/-WN/vav nun suffix are concentrated
in the last 40 chapters of Genesis. The only time period in 5,000 years of
human history when the Patriarchal narratives could have been composed is the
mid-14th century BCE. That glorious vav nun suffix, with the accent on the
interior vav, is itself one of the main “*philological* reasons to think…that
Abraham should be born in this period [the mid-14th century BCE]”. And the
same goes for Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Judah as well: the entire text is
coming out of, and reflects, the handful of critical years in the mid-14th
century BCE that witnessed the difficult birth of Judaism, in the face of
non-Semitic militaristic princelings from Naharim in eastern Syria holding
sway over much of Canaan. Think vav nun/-we-ni-/-WN suffix, and 25 Semitic
names in the text with letter-for-letter spelling accuracy, and you’ll come
to the same super-exciting conclusion as I have. The Patriarchal narratives
are much older, and more historically accurate, than university scholars
realize. The philological case is clear. The vav nun suffix tells all.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page