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: <pporta AT oham.net>
  • To: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>, <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Name "Simeon"
  • Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 06:59:07 +0100

Isaac,

First, would you be so kind to make the fonts of a part of the mails you send display in a greater size on my screen? I feel the letter body is too small, even if your intention at doing so is to differentiate the authoring of mails.

Then,

1. R(ABON (Psa 37:19), famine, time of hunger, is indeed the fulfilment or RA(AB, hunger. It means hunger (otherwise a somewhat theoretical concept, mainly if one can eat so much as he wants to...) has been or become real, true, really felt by people.

2. The difference between RA(AD (Ex 15:15) and R(ADAH (Isa 33:14) has, to my sense, nothing to do with the issue posted by Jim. These are two versions of the same: one is masculine and the second is feminine. They mean the same. This is a phaenomenon we find in most languages. Surely there are some cases in English.

3. What you write on suffixes (-ON, -IT, -N)... has nothing to do with the issue now in discussion...
4. And finally. You write:
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".



Yes, it is so.



and you write as well:



If so, then you are near agreeing with me that it is a (compound) personal pronoun.



You should explain with the greatest detail this assertion, Isaac.

People on this list -me included-- do not understand this!



The final -ON in Shim'on is a (compound) personal pronoun? Please, explain this in such a manner that all of us become able to understand it!



If you were able to make the listers of b-hebrew understand what you mean by these words then this ambiance or feeling of opposition against your theory --I think the opposition is against your theory and not against your person- would become much lesser!



Perhaps it would be good you give your explanation not in an only mail but acting by steps: distributing your answer into two or three -or even four- mails along...

You must agree that if people do not understand your theory... then people see most of your mails as a hindrance rather than to be welcome...



I heartly suggest you to do so!



Pere Porta

Barcelona (Spain)





----- Original Message ----- From: Isaac Fried
To: <pporta AT oham.net>
Cc: b-hebrew Hebrew
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Name "Simeon"


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




----- Original Message ----- From: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
To: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Name "Simeon"


Jim,

I am afraid that your investigations into the meaning of the names of
the children of Jacob is doomed. You are in fact falling, I believe,
into an etymological trap neatly set up for you by the latter God
fearing editors of the narrative.
It is possible that all these are originally and essentially scared
names of indigenous deities held dear by the foreign born matriarchs
and their maids, and bestowed upon their children. Later editors
defaced the names by the additions of filler consonants and invented
vowels so as to make them sound innately meaningful. The playful and
obviously nonsensical etymologies attached to "explain" the names are
but a subtle message not to take them too seriously.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:12 AM, JimStinehart AT aol.com wrote:

The name of Jacob’s second son is “Simeon”. Here is the relevant
JPS1917
translation regarding the name “Simeon”: “And she [Leah] conceived
again, and
bore a son; and said: 'Because the LORD [YHWH] hath heard that I
am hated,
He hath therefore given me this son also.' And she called his name
Simeon.”
Genesis 29: 33

In my view, there are four key Hebrew words involved here, as follows:

SHIN/SIN-MEM-ayin: shama’/“heard”

SHIN/SIN-NUN-aleph: sana’/“hated” [At Genesis 29: 33, the form of
this
word is SHIN/SIN-NUN-vav-aleph-heh.]

NUN-tav-NUN: nathan/“given” [At Genesis 29: 33, the form of this
word is
yod-tav-NUN.]

SHIN/SIN-MEM-ayin-vav-NUN: “Simeon”

There are three key Hebrew true consonants here: (1) shin/sin, (2)
mem, and
(3) nun, in that order. I myself see three levels of deliberate
puns here,
with the second level pun being by far the most important.
[cut]
_______________________________________________
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