Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] The Name "Simeon"

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: "<pporta AT oham.net>" <pporta AT oham.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Name "Simeon"
  • Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:18:36 -0500

Pere,

You are saying:

"The end syllable -ON is a quite usual end in biblical Hebrew and in today
Israeli Hebrew as well. It is that of several masculine nouns that usually
mean the fulfilment of the key concept of the word they come from."

But, do you find any difference between RA(AB, 'hunger', as say in Genesis 12:10, and R(AB-ON of Psalms 37:19? Or for that matter, RA (AD, 'trembling', of Exodus 15:15 and R(ADAH of Isaiah 33:14?
It is my understanding that what you mean in "the fulfilment of the key concept of the word they come from" is that it turns a root into a noun or a "thing". If so, then you are near agreeing with me that it is a (compound) personal pronoun.
in spoken Hebrew the "suffix" -ON is also occasionally used to suggest lesser size, for example GAG, 'roof', GAGON, 'a roofling, a rack', as over the entrance to the house or the car port. Also the "suffix" -IT [in my opinion the compound HI)-AT. Females are smaller than males?] is occasionally used for this purpose, for instance, KOS, 'drinking glass', KOS-IT, 'small liquor glass', as in We lifted a KOSIT for the new year.
The "suffix" -AN is reference to an agent [as the English -er is] as in GAN-AN, 'gardner'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Dec 7, 2007, at 12:36 AM, <pporta AT oham.net> <pporta AT oham.net> wrote:

Dear Jim,

With a quite constructive mind and with no intention of denying you may be
right in some sense, I would argue this against your analysis:

1. The word "Shim'on" lacks the aleph of "sana'", to hate. It consists only
of the very consonants of "shama'", to hear, plus a final -ON.
If you theory is true and sure... should not this aleph be part of the name
"Shim'on"?

2. The end syllable -ON is a quite usual end in biblical Hebrew and in today
Israeli Hebrew as well. It is that of several masculine nouns that usually
mean the fulfilment of the key concept of the word they come from. In no way
I see it is the N of "saNa'", to hate
_________

Now, in a little more detail:

About 1. How do you explain that the aleph of "sana'", to hate, does not
appear in the name "Shim'on"?
About 2.
a. YitrON, profit, outcome (Ecc 2:11), of "yatar" (this form not found in
the Bible but many other forms of this verb are found...), to remain over.
b. (K')pitrON, (as) interpretation (Gn 40:5), of "patar" (Gn 40:22), to
interpret
c. (w')xesrON, (and) lacking (Ecc 1:15), of "xaser", to lack (1Ki 17:16)
d. zikarON, memorial (Ex 17:14), of "zakhar", to remember (Ec 9:15)
And in modern Hebrew:
e. shiltON, government
f. gizrON, etimology
g. kisharON, skill....
h. and....... many others.

What can you say as a replay to these main two points that defy your
analysis?

Pere Porta
Barcelona (Spain)

Most of this clever Hebrew wordplay is missed if one simply says, as do
the
scholarly books I have consulted, that “Simeon” is a play on the word
shama’/“
heard”. Yes, that is in part true, but it misses the most exciting
aspects
of what the author is doing with the name “Simeon” here. S-M- N/“Simeon”
reflects both S-M/shama’/“heard” and S-N/sana’/“hated”. S-M + S-N =
S-M-N.
The word “heard”, standing alone, tells us almost nothing about Simeon.
But
the words “heard, hated” deftly summarize Simeon’s future life. Simeon
HEARD
that his full-sister Dinah had been with young Shechem, and Simeon HATED
the
men of Shechem for that. Simeon HEARD Joseph’s dreams, which seemed to
foretell
that Joseph would rule over his older half-brothers, and Simeon HATED
Joseph
for that. In both cases, it is precisely Simeon who is the ringleader in
killing the men of Shechem, and in almost murdering young Joseph. “Heard,
hated.”

As we are beginning to see, the sophisticated multiple puns on the names
of
Jacob’s 12 sons deftly foreshadow what these sons then do in the rest of
the
text.

The key here is to focus on the true Hebrew consonants, and the precise
order
of these key consonants. It is also important to realize that sometimes
similar, rather than identical, consonants are used in the punning done by
the
author of the Patriarchal narratives.

To view “Simeon” as merely being a play on the word shama’/“heard”,
nothing
else, is to miss much of the brilliant Hebrew wordplay in the Patriarchal
narratives. ShaMa’ + SaNa’ = SiMeoN. S-M + S-N = S-M-N. It’s right
there, if
we will simply look at the key consonants that appear, and the precise
order
in which they appear, in the text of Genesis 29: 33. That’s the way the
author
of the Patriarchal narratives does puns. It’s a vital key to
understanding
what the author is trying to tell us in the Patriarchal narratives.

Jim Stinehart


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page