Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

George Athas wrote:  “Can I suggest, Jim, that you get yourself a copy of:
Joseph Malone, Tiberian Hebrew Phonology (Eisenbrauns 1993).  In fact, anyone 
interested in Hebrew phonology will find this work quite useful.  You can get 
yourself a copy direct from Eisenbrauns online.”
 
1.  George, what pages in that book discuss the interior vav in proper names 
in old parts of the Bible?  In looking through that book’s Table of Contents 
on-line, I do not see that subject being covered.  Does that book set forth a 
specific view as to why there is an interior vav in XBRWN in the Patriarchal 
narratives?  If so, at what page?
 
2.  A book on Tiberian Hebrew phonology would presumably focus on how the 
Masoretes in the Middle Ages interpreted the sounds of Biblical Hebrew.  Why 
would one expect such a book to tell us whether or not the interior vav in 
XBRWN is a Hurrian genitive case marker?  
 
3.  I found a standard reference to Malone’s classic work here:  “Opacity in 
Tiberian Hebrew: Morphology, Not Phonology*”, by Antony D. Green
http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/fileadmin/material/ZASPiL_Volltexte/zp37/zaspil37-green.pdf
 
It states at p. 41:  “Tiberian Hebrew (Brown et al. 1906, Gesenius 1910, 
Hetzron 1987, Malone 1993, Khan 1997, Steiner 1997, Churchyard 1999) is the 
language in which
almost the entire Old Testament is written.  The term “Tiberian” refers not 
the
region in which the language was spoken, but the region where the scholars
(called Masoretes) lived who devised the pointing system that eventually 
became
standard.  It is important to be aware that all information about vowels,
stress, and spirantization is indicated by this Tiberian pointing system and 
that
Hebrew had died out as a language of everyday communication several centuries
before the pointing system was invented.  Thus virtually everything that
modern linguists assume about the structure of TH depends on information 
provided
by people who were native speakers of Aramaic, not Hebrew.”
 
Why would native speakers of Aramaic in the Middle Ages be expected to know 
whether or not the interior vav in XBRWN is a Hurrian genitive case marker?  
In particular, I myself do not see that interior vav as being, in any way, 
shape or form, a vowel.  A book on Tiberian Hebrew phonology would presumably 
tell us how an interior vav was pronounced in the Bible, focusing on (and 
critiquing) the views of the Masoretes in the Middle Ages as to that subject. 
 Why is that relevant to this thread?  This thread is asking why there is an 
interior vav in XBRWN in Genesis, and is not concerned with how the Masoretes 
in the Middle Ages thought such interior vav should be pronounced.
 
4.  Genesis 11: 31-32 sets forth the city name Harran as XRN, with no 
interior vav or interior yod, and being the classic defective spelling of 
early Biblical Hebrew.  Why isn’t the place where the Patriarchs most often 
sojourn similarly rendered, in early Biblical Hebrew defective spelling, as 
XBRN?  We know the spelling XBRN from all those LMLK seals that date to about 
700 BCE. Genesis 12: 5 has KN(N, with no interior vav or interior yod.  )YL 
P)RN at Genesis 14: 6 has no interior vav or interior yod.  It’s obvious that 
a final -N in a geographical place name in the Patriarchal narratives often 
does not attract a preceding interior vav or yod.  Why does XBRWN have an 
interior vav before the final -N, whereas XRN, KN(N, and )YL P)RN do not?  
Does Malone have a specific theory as to why that is the case?  (If so, I 
would be very, very interested in that.)
 
What I think Malone’s book does is to tell us when we should expect what 
kinds of vowel sounds (in the medieval Masoretic view of Biblical Hebrew).  
Thus Malone’s book is sure to contain very extended discussions of topics 
like the following:  “Malone (1993: 93–94) proposes the rule of segolate 
epenthesis shown in (10), which inserts the vowel [ɛ] into a word-final 
consonant cluster.  (10) Segolate epenthesis (Malone 1993: 93–94)  ∅ → ɛ / C 
__ C #  [ɛ] is inserted into a word-final consonant cluster” .   Green at p. 
43.  I just don’t see how the Masoretic theory of implying and pronouncing 
Hebrew vowels has much relevance, one way or the other, to this thread.  The 
question in this thread is why there is an interior vav in XBRWN in Genesis, 
not how such interior vav should be pronounced.  
 
5.  Does Malone’s book, or any other scholarly publication, set forth a 
specific theory as to why there is an interior vav in XBRWN in Genesis in 
particular?  My understanding is that no such specific scholarly theory 
exists.  Rather, there is only the ultra-generic consideration that many 
interior vavs were added into the Bible in the 1st millennium BCE, especially 
in post-exilic times, and that although one might not have expected XBRN in 
Genesis to have been updated to XBRWN as plene spelling (since it is a proper 
name, not a common word, and it appears in a very old part of the Bible), 
that plene spelling update in fact happened (according to the scholarly view, 
with which I respectfully disagree), so that the original XBRN was updated to 
XBRWN, for reasons unknown.  George, is there a scholarly theory out there 
that is more specific and sophisticated than that as to the interior vav in 
XBRWN in Genesis?  If Malone’s book sets forth such a theory (as opposed to 
merely telling us the medieval Masoretic theory for how to pronounce that 
interior vav in the received text), then I will definitely buy the book.  But 
you would need to tell me what page numbers in the book contain such a 
theory, and then by looking at the Table of Contents I should be able to tell 
in what context Malone is commenting about this phenomenon.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois