Why the two paragogic nuns in 1 Sam 2:22?

[Jemoh66]

Here's a nice article I found on the paragogic nun.

http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q ... -1-sam-222

[Isaac Fried]

The ending וּן UN in יעשוּן and ישכבוּן is, in my opinion, merely the PP 'they', related to הם HEM, and הן HEN. It is a remnant of a variant Hebrew grammatical structure relating the act to the actors. There is nothing "paragogic" about this nun.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

It's possible since linguists see the precursor of HEM as *h/šum( ũ ) (Proto Semitic). But this would only explain its etymology. The article deals with usage not etymology. It is fair to look at the usage and see why it occurs in particular contexts. If a pattern emerges, we establish how a speaker used it, whether it is paragogic or not.

[kwrandolph]

Good question.

I have noticed them, but as of yet not studied them. Is there a list of all the paragogic nuns in Tanakh? If so, is it available?

I’m of the opinion that when such forms are found, that they have a lexical reason for existing. Does anyone have any lexical reason for the paragogic nun?

They are found from early to late, from Genesis through Malachi in listing Torah through Prophets.

A bit of trivia: both Isaiah 13:8 and Job 13:8 have two paragogic nuns each.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

Considering the size of both of those books, two occurrences each speaks of something that is quite rare then. Interesting!

[S_Walch]

I can't remember the verses, but I recall reading something on the paragogic nun (PN), and how the parallel verses in Chronicles from Kings, those with a paragogic nun in Kings wind up having them omitted in Chronicles. Not sure if that was a development so that the PN fell out of common use, or it's use was forgotten and so the Chronicler didn't use them.

I'll have to find out where it was I read that.

[Jemoh66]

S_Walch,

If that's the case, it would be a fun brain teaser. I believe the chronicler had the Book of Kings at his disposal. If so, wouldn't it be fair to assume he was quoting Kings. And if that's the case, then it would mean his copy of Kings did not have the nun's. So it is possible the nun's are either a different mss lineage, or that the nun's are a scribal addition.

[S_Walch]

S_Walch,

If that's the case, it would be a fun brain teaser. I believe the chronicler had the Book of Kings at his disposal. If so, wouldn't it be fair to assume he was quoting Kings. And if that's the case, then it would mean his copy of Kings did not have the nun's. So it is possible the nun's are either a different mss lineage, or that the nun's are a scribal addition.

It could be a different MSS lineage, or the Chronicler was updating the language to fit the Hebrew as it was written in his time. We do it all the time with old English books (I mean, no one reads William Tyndales' The Obedience of a Christian Man in the original spelling, for example).

We do actually have an understanding that the Chronicler was using a version of Samuel as seen in the Qumran Manuscript 1QSama, compared that that seen in the Masoretic Hebrew.

I have two examples of the parallel Kings/Chronicles with paragogic nun's missing:

1 Kings 8:38
כל־תפלה כל־תחנה אשר תהיה לכל־האדם לכל עמך ישראל אשר ידעון איש נגע לבבו ופרש כפיו אל־הבית הזה׃

2 Chron 6:29
כל־תפלה כל־תחנה אשר יהיה לכל־האדם ולכל עמך ישראל אשר ידעו איש נגעו ומכאבו ופרש כפיו אל־הבית הזה׃

1 Kings 8:43
אתה תשמע השמים מכון שבתך ועשית ככל אשר־יקרא אליך הנכרי למען ידעון כל־עמי הארץ את־שמך ליראה אתך כעמך ישראל ולדעת כי־שמך נקרא על־הבית הזה אשר בניתי׃

2 Chronicles 6:33
ואתה תשמע מן־השמים ממכון שבתך ועשית ככל אשר־יקרא אליך הנכרי למען ידעו כל־עמי הארץ את־שמך וליראה אתך כעמך ישראל ולדעת כי־שמך נקרא על־הבית הזה אשר בניתי׃

[Isaac Fried]

I see no deliberate, functional, usage in these forms, only unintentional marks left, over time, by different editors/copyists/punctuators heeding different grammatical traditions, in this case הוּם and הוּן versus הֵם and הֵן. Or, possibly, a sudden poetical flare falling back to quaint old-fashioned forms. The form יִשְכְּבוּן = היא-שכב-אוּן opens with the personal pronoun היא that calls for a closing qualifier, here וּן, for the many --- the two sons of Eli (which explains the miracle of the many successful pregnancies of "barren" women following a devotional visit to Shiloh.)
I know that it is difficult for some to accept a "just like that" argument in a sacred text, or the thought that somebody may have whimsically altered the text.
Such grammatical ambivalence is manifested in the piel form שִבֵּר of Ex. 9:25 versus the simpler, equally good, qal form שָבַר.

Isaac Fried, Boston University