Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] to jim, isaac on patriarchal names

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] to jim, isaac on patriarchal names
  • Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:44:14 -0200

to isaac, jim,

------------------------

to isaac:

1. as usual, you start with modern, urban, degraded hebrew:
zevel=garbage, manure, then you reach the conclusion that zebwlwn's
parents would never give their son this name. but the root zbl has very
positive connotations in ancient, rural hebrew (never as garbage), including
the name of a queen (not sharing the same good connotations, i'm afraid);
connotations which i am sure you can locate more easily than i would.

i suspect ZBLWN (ZVUL=prime? best-of?) can be thought of as analogous
to NPTLY (NOFET=nectar).

2. [picking up your line on the most original of biblical names (yours!),
and perhaps in line with jim's remarks]:
some names like isaac, jacob, benjamin, YSSKR etc] pose a problem to the
skeptics because they basically have only one valid etymology: the
biblical one. but the skeptics would still maintain that the etymology
could be correct even though the family story around it is all made up.

n.c.
------------------------------

to jim:

3. we cannot ignore the fact that the sons of israel were arranged in 12
well defined tribes, perhaps already in the early, clearly in the
classical period, a fact repeated hundreds of times in the text.
denying this would require extensive rewriting of the bible. [though
clearly a skeptic like us may not accept the story of a 12 member
patriarchal family as factual.]

an immediate corollary of this would be that the names of these tribes should
go a LOOOOOOOng way back, much earlier than the biblical narrator.

4. as to the plene, i think its biblical use is quite pragmatic. mostly,
it is avoided only if one COULD (KNOWING BH!) safely complete it from the
text. in the case of a final -WN, the waw is essential and could hardly be
omitted here, nor is it omitted elsewhere:

AYLWN, MXLWN, KLYWN, QDRWN, GV(WN, LBNWN, GD(WN, (PRWN etc etc etc.

(i am not sure about )RNWN). nor is it normally omitted on lexical words
ending with WN.


nir cohen

P.S. ZBLWN does actually miss a waw (on the B).






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page