Jim: There is something about your e-mail client that prevents the wrap so I will have to work with this just to read it. I will do that but I have been very busy and am merely scanning my e-mail. Give me a while to sort this out.
Jack Jack Kilmon San Antonio, TX From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 1:46 PM To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Interior Yods and Vavs [In case this might have gotten lost in cyberspace, here again is the proposed post that I sent in several days ago.] 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 StinehartEvanston, Illinois _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
