THREAD: 'Shins' in PNs and MPs

There's a long section at the beginning of 1 Chronicles that contains a wealth of genealogies and names. Sometimes it can feel tedious reading these, but great payoffs are to be found by studying these passages in detail.
In this thread, I'd like to highlight interesting etymological aspects of select names (PNs) and their Masoretic notes (MPs). The details are often fascinating, and sometimes quite significant.
The beginning of chapter 7 features a familiar name: Issachar (יִשָׂשכָ֗ר). You may have remembered that this name belongs with one of a select few words (along with the Tetragrammaton, the third person pronouns in the Pentateuch, and the word for Jerusalem).
These all feature the so-called qere perpetuum (also a very fancy term). These are true ketiv/qere variants which are ubiquitous in the text and therefore are not mentioned in the Masorah Parva. In this case, ‘Issachar’ is always to be read יִשָּׂכָר.
The name, as you will recall, was given in Genesis 30:18:

“Leah said, ‘God has given me my wages (שְׂכָרִ֔י) because I gave my servant to my husband.’ So she called his name Issachar (יִשָּׂשכָֽר).”
It’s a bit unclear what the exact etymology of this form is. Some scholars have seen in the ketiv either אִישׁ ‘man (who is hired)’ or יֵשׁ ‘there are (wages)’.
Alternatively this could be an old yiqtol form, possibly to a causative š-stem (which is connected historically to the more familiar hiphil stems).
Sometimes the Masorah Parva notes provide fascinating tidbits about various names. The penultimate note at 1 Chronicles 7:35 (for the name שֵׁלֶשׁ) states the following:

MP (1 Chron 7;35): לׄ שם אנש
‘Hapax legomenon for a man’s name’
The form of the name שֵׁלֶשׁ is a transparent i-class segolate (*šilš-u-). As for an etymology, HALOT notes a possible comparison with Arabic salis ‘obedient, pliable’, in which case the root would be *s-l-s.
However, another, more obvious option (preferred by Noth) is a connection with the numeral ‘three’ (e.g., something like ‘third child born’). The Masoretes appear to have been interested in this name possibly because they noticed how similar it looked to the numeral ‘three’.
The Proto-Semitic word reconstructed for שָׁלוֹשׁ is *ṯalāṯum—quite a different looking name. The sound developments to Hebrew, however, are entirely regular.
• *ṯ (which sounded like the ‘th’ in ‘think) developed into š in Ancient Hebrew (it is retained in some other Semitic languages, like Ugaritic ṯlṯ and Arabic thalāthun)

• Short *a was lengthened in an open syllable to ā
• Long *ā underwent the famous Canaanite shift and became ō.

• Final ‘mimation’ was first lost, after which the exposed short case vowel *u was also dropped.
Finally, for good measure, I’d like to add a name (חֹדֶשׁ) in chapter 8, with a similar Masoretic note:

MP (1 Chron 8:9): ׄלׄ שם אית
‘Hapax legomenon for a woman’s name’

The Masoretic abbreviation איתׄ is short for the Aramaic word איתתא ‘woman, wife’.
The etymological link between our familiar אִשָּׁה and the Aramaic cognate happens to involve the same sound reconstructed for the numeral ‘three’. Proto-Semitic *ʔanṯatum ‘woman, wife’ first became *ʔaṯṯatum by assimilation.
We know there was originally a *n because of the corresponding plurals אֲנָשִׁים and נָשִׁים. Incidentally, however, the semantically related word אֱנוֹשׁ (which we saw in the previous MP note) is etymologically unrelated to these forms.
This is clear since other cognate languages reveal that it had an original sibilant. By now you may have figured out that *s and *ṯ both fell together in Hebrew to become שׁ.
As a consequence, we require other Semitic languages in order to determine which Proto-Semitic consonant to reconstruct for each occurrence of Hebrew shin.

The regular reflex of Proto-Semitic *ṯ in Aramaic is tau (ת), hence Aramaic איתתא 'woman' < *ʔaṯṯat-.
A bit more on the name חֹדֶשׁ. This name, similar to the previous one (שֵׁלֶשׁ), was likely interesting to the Masoretes because of its outward similarity to the word חֹדֶשׁ ‘month, new moon’. In the context of the verse, it is clearly a woman’s name.
A plausible naming scenario is easy to find: the baby was likely born at the time of the new moon.

An etymologically identical name occurs in the Ugaritic corpus. One such occurrence is in KTU 2.281, which is a long list of personal names, as in our Chronicles passage.
The tablet features a certain bn . ḥdṯ ‘son of Ḥudṯu’ (highlighted in red)

And, as you may have guessed by now, the Proto-Semitic reflex of the shin in the חדשׁ ‘new’ root is *ṯ!


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Kaspars Ozolins

Kaspars Ozolins Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @lettlander

3 Sep
THREAD: Psalm 119 and the Hebrew Alphabet

Psalm 119 is famously the longest chapter in the Hebrew Bible and a beautiful acrostic featuring each of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet (8 verses x 22 = 176 verses in total).
In the Great Psalms Scroll (11Q5) each 'stanza' is set apart with an extra ruled line. Notice the paleo Hebrew script used to write the divine name YHWH in the top left of the image.
Beginning Hebrew students are taught early on that, although there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet, one of the letters, namely ש, has two values (called 'śîn' and 'šîn'), distinguished by the Masoretes with a single dot (שׂ and שׁ, respectively).
Read 24 tweets
1 Jun

Greek personal pronouns and the phonological triumph of iotacism in Greek
The peculiar phenomenon in Greek historical phonology called "iotacism" is the centuries-long process whereby the following Greek phonemes eventually merged into a single sound:

ι, ει, η, υ, υι, οι > /i/
This facet of modern Greek phonology is also a big factor in its being discouraged as a method of pronunciation of ancient Greek (a method that modern Greek speakers employ, as do I).

Why? Many critical words in Ancient Greek end up sounding identical with modern pronunciation.
Read 11 tweets
23 May
THREAD: Masoretic Scribal Mnemonics

There are thousands of scribal notes in the great Masoretic codices produced a thousand years ago. How in the world was a scribe to perform statistical counts prior to the advent of computers and Bible software?
As an example, Judges 17:1 records that the pausal form of the word 'Ephraim' אפרים occurs four times in the entire Hebrew Bible. Pausal forms in the Hebrew Bible were often accompanied by a slightly different pronunciation, indicating a syntactic 'pause' in the thought flow.
In the case of 'Ephraim', this amounts to a difference of one vowel (or, a single stroke: qāmeṣ on the left below vs. pataḥ on the right). There are no fewer than 180 occurrences of the word 'Ephraim' in the Bible.
Read 8 tweets
31 Dec 19
It is well-known that the Masoretes worked in the latter centuries of the first millennium to produce (among other things) a system of accents to indicate syntactic/logical disjunction in the text of the Hebrew Bible.

But how far back does this tradition itself go? A thread...
Students of the Hebrew Bible usually ignore the many extraneous little accents in the text beside the nequddot (vowel signs), and indeed, much of the system is arcane and complicated. But a few accents are quite important for exegesis, and can often assist in reading Hebrew.
An overview/review of significant accents:

• silluq + soph pasuq: This most important pair of signs is used to divide the text into verses. A vertical line (silluq) is placed under the accented syllable of the last word in the verse, accompanied by two dots (soph pasuq).
Read 18 tweets
30 Oct 19
Some brief thoughts on @DrPJWilliams' recent @UnbelievableJB debate with @BartEhrman.

I've listened to the debate two times now, and found it to be quite fascinating. Both debate partners were eloquent and their differences were clearly laid out.
• On methodological approaches:

Ehrman took Pete to task on the issue of theological presuppositions. The issue is the question of ultimate authorities. On what basis should the Scriptures be believed? If they are from God, then they ought to be trusted on their own authority.
Modern critical scholarship attempts to do history with documents that purport to come from God, yet in the name of objectivity, tries to ignore this epistemological elephant in the room. It's worth quoting at length the Westminster Standards on this point.
Read 17 tweets
3 Oct 19
THREAD: The surprising amount of historical content contained in the Bible.

Christians and Jews are famously ‘people of the Book’, namely the Bible. Of course, many nations and religions possess their own epic texts, which are often quite lengthy in their own right.
It can be an interesting exercise to compare these in terms of absolute length.

According to an Accordance Bible Software search, the Hebrew Bible (BHS) contains 425,185 words in total. For the New Testament, the @Tyndale_House Greek New Testament contains 138,213 words.
How do these 563,398 words compare to other ancient literature?

• The Epic of Gilgamesh (Babylonian; 2nd millennium B.C.): approx. 13 thousand words (English translation)
• The Iliad (ancient Greek; 8th century B.C.): 128,687 words
Read 27 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!