Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Vav Nun Suffix - ONE MORE DAY

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
  • To: leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org, fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr, George.Athas AT moore.edu.au
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Vav Nun Suffix - ONE MORE DAY
  • Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:05:04 -0500


Yigal Levin and George Athas:

It would be greatly appreciated if one of you would be so kind as to set
forth the mainstream theory or theories as to why there’s a vav in the name
of Jacob’s #2 son: $M(-WN. No vowels were recorded in the earliest Hebrew.
So why is that vav there? My own controversial theory is that not only is
that vav a true consonant that was there from day #1 [in the Late Bronze
Age], but also that it’s a non-Semitic consonant, being the standard Hurrian
genitive case marker, which was put there by the original early Hebrew author
so that the ending of this name would “sound non-Semitic”. The text portrays
Leah as always living in Naharim in eastern Syria in the Patriarchal Age, and
Leah as naming her sons. Though Leah’s primary language was west
Semitic/pre-Hebrew [in my opinion], if the text is old and has even a modicum
of historical accuracy, out there in Naharim Leah would have heard Hurrian
suffixes being spoken by her neighbors all day long. Dr. Fournet has
rejected my theory of the case, but has not come up with an alternative
theory to explain the presence of the vav in that name.

What is the standard theory as to this? I have done some looking, but have
found nothing. The only thing I can think of is that some scholars might
claim that a 1st millennium BCE editor added in a lot of vavs as plene
spelling updates, and for some unaccountable reason did more of that kind of
thing regarding vav nun suffixes for common words and personal names in the
Patriarchal narratives than anywhere else in the Bible, including adding vavs
to the Hebrew names $M(-WN, ZBL-WN [though there are two other spellings of
that name in the Bible], GR$-WN and )L-WN. Yet I have not found anyone in
print actually saying that.

If a student of yours asked you why there’s a vav in the ancient name $M(-WN,
what would be the standard reply? The plausibility of my controversial
non-Semitic theory of the case is likely inversely proportional to the
plausibility [or near certainty?] of the standard, all west Semitic theory of
the case. Why is that vav in the name $M(-WN?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page