Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

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