Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

The Hebrew alphabet has no vowels.  In the defective spelling of the oldest 
Biblical Hebrew (prior to the 1st millennium BCE), it is likely that no 
vowel indicators were used either.  Most proper names in early parts of the 
Bible have no vowel indicators, having no interior yod or vav.  But there are 
some notable exceptions.  Is that of great significance?
 
Consider first that in the beginning, before interior vavs or yods were 
added, it is likely that:  (1)  Genesis 6: 3 had (LM, meaning “eternal”;  (2) 
Genesis 21: 33 had )L (LM, meaning “Lord Eternal” as a grand title for 
YHWH;  and (3) Genesis 14: 1 had MLK (LM as Chedorlaomer’s kingly title, 
whose 
meaning is uncertain, but possibly could have been “King Eternal”.  To 1st 
millennium BCE scribes, Genesis 14: 1 looked potentially blasphemous.  Why 
should Chedorlaomer, an enemy of Abraham and Lot, have a title, namely MLK 
(LM, that looked suspiciously like beloved YHWH’s grand epithet, )L (LM?   
For 
the rational reason of ruling out that potential blasphemy (not randomly!), 
1st millennium BCE scribes changed two of those three references under the 
pretense of updating defective spelling to full spelling.  (1)  Genesis 6: 3 
was left as (LM, meaning “eternal”, not needing to be changed;  (2) an 
internal vav was added to Genesis 21: 33, making YHWH’s title )L (WLM, 
thereby 
confirming/re-confirming that the meaning was “Lord Eternal”;  and (3) most 
importantly, an internal yod was added to Genesis 14: 1, making Chedorlaomer’
s title MLK (YLM, thereby neatly precluding a meaning of “King Eternal” 
[which was the whole point of adding an interior vav at Genesis 21: 33 and 
adding an interior yod at Genesis 14: 1 in the first place].  [Interestingly, 
the last word of Jeremiah 49: 36 reads (WLM, but this is often viewed as 
being a mistake for an intended (YLM.]
 
The key points I am starting to make here are as follows.
 
1.  When 1st millennium BCE scribes put an interior vav or yod into a 
proper name in an old part of the Bible, in my opinion that was not done 
randomly, but rather had a rational, discernible purpose.  The clearest case 
was 
when post-exilic scribes thought that they were thereby deftly avoiding a 
potential blasphemy.
 
2.  We should examine the original version of these proper names, deleting 
the interior vavs and yods, to discover what the pre-exilic authors actually 
intended.
 
3.  Yet of equal importance (though this further point has not been 
illustrated on this thread yet), if an interior vav in a proper name in an 
old part 
of the Bible has no discernible purpose, then it likely was there from day 
#1, and may have absolutely nothing to do with updating defective spelling 
to full-spelling, in which case the interior vav/W may be a true ancient 
consonant for all purposes.
 
The broader point is that if we closely examine every proper name in an old 
part of the Bible that has an interior vav or yod and ask why that is the 
case, we may be able to make great discoveries.  Here, the original version 
of Chedorlaomer’s kingly title [without the later-added interior yod], namely 
MLK (LM, is of great help in figuring out who King Chedorlaomer is 
historically, because the six-letter kingly title MLK (LM is historically 
attested 
(at Ugarit) in the Late Bronze Age.
 
One important linguistic key to understanding the Patriarchal narratives is 
to focus on the interior vavs and yods in proper names in the text. 
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois