Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew.pdf

Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study by Jeaneane D. Fowler Review by: Scott C. Layton Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 1993), pp. 66-69 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/545986 . Accessed: 19/05/2013 20:04 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 204.152.149.5 on Sun, 19 May 2013 20:04:30 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

66

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

VOL.

52 No. 1

The vast diversity of Late Judaism, highlighted by all, but especially by Cohn on pagan and Christian notices of the synagogue and WALTERE. RAST Foerster on art and architecture, begins to meld into a more synthetic picture of a rich, vibrant, Valparaiso University localized, and pious life of Jews in Late Antiquity (cf. pp. 144, 133-34, 22, etc.). The signal The Synagogue in Late Antiquity. Edited by importance of the late third- and early fourthcenturies for the history of earlier and subseThe American LEE I. LEVINE.Philadelphia: Schools of Oriental Research, 1987. $15.95 quent Judaisms begins to emerge (e.g., pp. 107, 164, 129-30). (paperback). The volume contains a series of illustrations There has been an explosion of archaeological and textual research over the last twenty (pp. 189-218), including the most readable pubyears which has seriously compromised the lished plan of the second century broadhousemonolithic portraits of Diaspora and Palestin- type synagogue excavated at en-Nabratein (9.9, ian Judaism enshrined in the last generation's p. 196). Scholars will want to raise some questions at scholarship. The study of Judaism in GrecoRoman antiquity stands in need of some new a few points. One wonders how Tsafrir (pp. 148, syntheses that make use of the materials now at 153) can hold his confidence in a late dating for our disposal. This volume genuinely advances the broadhouse-type (and in architecturaldating our discussions toward just such syntheses. Lee of synagogues) when the contrary evidence apLevine has pulled together a crisp series of pears in this very volume. One also wonders chapters that are required reading for anyone when Foerster will turn loose of the older scholworking in the religious or art-historical fields arship's description of late antique carving as "a of Late Antiquity. general decline in the quality" and "inferior" Contributors to the volume are scholars at (p. 143) and embrace fully his own more accuthe forefront of research in their respective ar- rate description of these buildings as a "local, eas and include: Lee I. Levine, Laurence H. original, and eclectic Jewish creation" (p. 144). Schiffman, A. T. Kraabel, Joseph Gutmann, Similarly difficult to understandis why Foerster Reuven Kimelman, Morton Smith, Avigdor continues to class a lintel from Dabbura which Shinan, J. Yahalom, Eric M. Meyers, Gideon mentions it is a beit midrash (p. 141) as evidence Foerster, Yoram Tsafrir, Shaye J. D. Cohen, of a synagogue there. Eitherhe continues to think the synagogue functioned as a beit midrash, or and Bezadel Narkiss. All of the authors share an extraordinary he reflects a much older scholarly tradition sensitivity to the contributions made to their which classified all Jewish public buildings subjects by both the Roman/Byzantine setting found as "synagogues." and the distinctive traditions of Judaism. Many of these articles are "state of the art"DENNISE. GROH Levine's on the Second Temple Synagogue, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary Meyers's on Galilean synagogue studies, GutEvanston, Illinois mann's on the Dura wall paintings, Schiffman's on the contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to Jewish liturgical origins. Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient HeSeveral articles allow us to peer into the synbrew: A Comparative Study. By JEANEANE D. FOWLER.Journal for the Study of the Old agogue at worship to see its manifold scriptural and poetic forms andrites-Yahalom's on Piyyut, Testament, Supplement Series 49. Sheffield: Kimelman'son the Shema, Smith'son the Yosher. JSOT Press, 1988. Pp. 410. Almost all of the articles, like Kraabel's on the The book under review is based on a disserDiaspora synagogues, argue a thesis, which re- tation submitted to the University of Liverpool in 1979. The intention of the study is "to quire longer reviews than I am giving them. to be debated for a long time to come, and this book will play an essential role in the debates.


JANUARY1993

BOOKREVIEWS

examine Hebrew personal names with a view to determining what concepts of God are revealed within those names and to what extent such concepts may be distinct from those displayed in other ancient Semitic onomastica" (p. 18). At issue is a hypothesis advanced some years ago by A. Caquot,' who argued that one can speak of a general Semitic piety that finds expression in Semitic theophoric personal names (hereafter PN(N)), be they Palmyrene, Hebrew, or other. On one side of the comparison, the author assembles Hebrew theophoric PNN gleaned from the Hebrew Bible and epigraphic sources, and even foreign names borne by Hebrew persons; on the other side, are theophoric PNN attested in the onomastica of various Semitic languages-Ugaritic, Phoenician, Amorite, Aramaic, Old Akkadian, Akkadian, and Palmyrene. After a short introductory chapter, the author presents a structural and semantic analysis of Hebrew theophoric PNN in chap. 2-the longest chapter in the book-and in chap. 3, a summary of the concept of deity as revealed in those names. In chap. 4, she compares the concept of deity revealed in the Hebrew onomasticon with PNN gleaned from the other Semitic onomastica mentioned above. After a summary synthesizing the results obtained from this comparison (chap. 5), the book concludes with a series of four appendixes. The first two appendixes discuss Jewish names in Neo-/Late-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian texts, and in the Elephantine papyri respectively, and argues that these names should be excluded from consideration due to the difficulty in differentiating between Aramaeans and Jews. Appendix 3 presents a comprehensive list of biblical and extrabiblical Hebrew theophoric PNN with brief grammatical analysis, arranged according to the root of the non-theophoric element. In the fourth appendix, Hebrew PNN are classified according to form and date, with the data presented in twenty tables that list the distribution and date of theophoric PNN and various theophoric elements (e.g., 'b, 'h, mlk, swr, etc.). 'A. Caquot, "Sur l'onomastique religieuse de Palmyre," Syria 39 (1962): 231-56, esp. 256.

67

Since the publication of M. Noth's Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (Stuttgart, 1928; Hildesheim, 1980), the field of biblical onomastics has, for the most part, lain fallow. The amount of comparative material that has come to light since Noth's classic work is immense, and the study of the biblical onomasticon in light of this material is a major desideratum. In this context, any study of a sector of the biblical onomasticon is welcome. Fowler's book has a number of strengths, of which I would single out appendixes 3 and 4 and the series of lists throughout the fourth chapter, which display in tabular form the similarities between the Hebrew onomasticon and that of other Semitic peoples. The study of abbreviated names is of particular interest (pp. 149-69), and the caveat against reconstructing an "original" full form from a short form is well taken. That there are certain differences between the Hebrew onomasticon and that of other Semitic peoples appears, on the whole, to be a valid conclusion. The book is beset by numerous problems, however. First, the study is not focused tightly enough. The comparison of the Hebrew onomasticon with seven other Semitic onomastica is far too broad a topic when one considers the vast amount of material and the difficulties inherent in such a comparison. Certain parts of the study could have been omitted altogether. For instance, the comparison of Hebrew PNN with Old Akkadian and Akkadian PNN is scarcely relevant since, as the author herself recognizes, Akkadian PNN are "far more structurally complex" (p. 237). Given the geographical, chronological, and linguistic differences between Hebrew and Akkadian, the discovery that there are indeed significant differences between their onomastica is a foregone conclusion. The list of concepts attested in Semitic onomastica that do not occur in the Hebrew onomasticon (pp. 279-313) is consequently dominated by Akkadian entries, and thus the number of differences is artificially high. It would have been far more meaningful to compare the Hebrew onomasticon with that of neighboring peoples, such as the Ammonites, who were closer to the Israelites in terms of


68

JOURNALOF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

time, space, and language. Such a comparison would reveal a high degree of overlap between the two onomastica. Second, with regard to the interpretation of the PNN, it may be noted that the author did not avail herself of all the pertinent resources. She seems unaware of important discussions on the interpretation of Hebrew PNN2 as well as relevant extrabiblical attestations of the names or elements thereof. Consequently, she opts for her own idiosyncratic interpretations without refuting previous interpretationsor, for that matter, sufficiently establishing her own. The net result of these misinterpretations is not inconsiderable; if we assume that one can reconstruct the Hebrew concept of God from theophoric names, then an erroneous interpretation of a PN distorts the overall picture. I will discuss some of the problematic interpretations and their implications, but space limitations necessarily restrict the number of items that can be treated. Third, the author never adequately defines which names are to be included in her corpus. She claims to include all PNN in the Old Testament that contain a theophoric element (and abbreviated forms thereof) and to exclude the names of foreigners but not foreign names borne by Hebrews (p. 18). Why are the PNN Abr(ah)am and Jacob discussed, but not the PN Isaac? I find no reference to the Hebrew theophoric PN Ishhod, borne by a Mannasite (1 Chron. 7:18) or to the Yahwistic PN Ahyo.3 What about Mephiboshet, mentioned on p. 59 but not discussed? The PN Metushael is mentioned on p. 115; why is there no discussion of the PN Metushelah? The inclusion of nonHebrew PNN and the omission of some Hebrew PNN is confusing and results in a considerable amount of distortion in any attempt to 2 The only scholarin our time to devote a major portionof his researchto HebrewPNNis J. J. Stamm. Most of his studiesare convenientlyavailablein one volume (Beitrdge zur hebrdischen und altorientalischen Namenkunde, OBO 30 [Freiburg and Gbttin-

gen, 1980]);yet his manystudieson HebrewPNNare totallyignoredin the bookunderreview. 3 On p. 37, it is statedthat"the suffixyw is only attestedin extra-biblicalnames and is used exclusively in the Samariaostraca."This statementis incorrecton bothaccounts.

VOL.

52 No. I

reconstuct a distinctly Hebrew concept of God from PNN. While it is not always possible to distinguish Hebrew names from other West Semitic names, unless one starts with a linguistic definition of what constitutes a Hebrew PN, the endeavor will be undermined from the start. The following is a list of specific comments, which could easily be multiplied. Pp. 76 (and 153): omittedfromthe discussionof the PN Hezekiaharethe Neo-Assyriantranscriptions of the name,all of which provethat the initial elementis verbalratherthannominal,andthe insightful remarksof E. Y. Kutscher,4who accountedfor the Masoreticpointingof the name and noted that the formof the namewith the y- prefixis late. P. 88: the namefClyhwis an error.If one checks the referencecited,5one findsthe reading "'l. P. 106: the readingg'lhw (V, 110) is a typographical errorin Vattioni'slist. It shouldreadg'lyhw. P. 113: in the discussionof the names derived fromtheroots'rhPwr,by a processof eliminationthe authorconcludesthatthe root'wr is the only rootleft for the derivationof the extrabiblicalHebrewPNN Dryhwan 3ryw.However,she statesthatthe meaning of these namescannotbe determinedwith accuracy, since "one would.., .expect the wdwto be retained for a nominalform'light'or 'flame'."This statement reflectsan inadequateunderstanding of the frequency and distributionof matres lectionis in extrabiblical HebrewPNN.WhereasbiblicalHebrewPNNcontaining the root-wr areconsistentlywrittenplene, in the IronAge, extrabiblicalHebrewPNN containingthis rootarepredominantly writtendefectively.6 P. 115: the most straightforward of interpretation the PN bityahis "daughterof Yah"(the change*bat > bit can be accountedfor by attenuation), regardless of whetherthe name-beareris a "daughterof Pharaoh"(1 Chron.4:18). She may have convertedto Yahwism and thus adopted a Yahwistic name. Whetherthis was so or not, the Yahwistictheophore in this nameis unmistakable. This HebrewPN indicates thatfemininegenitiveelementsare not foreign to the Hebrewonomasticon(pacep. 298). 4 The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isaa) (Leiden, 1974), pp. 104-6. 5 N. Avigad,IEJ4 (1954):236. 6 The element 'r- occurs in approximately ten Hebrew PNN from the Iron Age; only in Arad 31.2 is the

name writtenplene ('wryhw).Thereis no reasonto suspectthat the 'r- elementis derivedfrom a root

other than 'wr; compare, for example, the Hebrew PN DrDwith the Ammonite PN -wr-.


JANUARY 1993

BOOK REVIEWS

P. 121: the author suggests that the initial element of the PN bCd'l be analyzed as preposition b + noun Cd,meaning "in the testimony/witness of El." But the element bcd often occurs in second position, e.g., 'Ibcdy on a Phoenician seal.7 Therefore, the PN is best interpreted as meaning "God/El is for me," containing the preposition bcd. P. 121: the PN Yemuel almost certainly means "Yammu is god." The preference for this reading rather than for Nemuel is supported by two extrabiblical occurrences of the same name, one in the Ugaritic texts (ym'il) and the other in the Egyptian execration texts (jd-m-i-I-u).8 The sea god Yammu is attested elsewhere in PNN-note especially the Ugaritic PN Cbdym, "servant of Yamm(i/u)." The medial -a- vowel in Yemuel, which is also found in other names discussed in the book under review, is a nominative case vowel, an archaic morpheme occasionally retained in PNN.9 P. 146: the reading 'hymh on Vattioni seal no. 366 is an error on the part of the author. In Vattioni's list one finds the correct reading 'h'mh. A considerable amount of evidence suggests that names of this type are best translated as "(his?) mother's brother." P. 147: the reading 'tPb is another typographical error in Vattioni's list. The correct reading of the name is but it should be excluded from consideration since .h'b,the seal is of Ammonite origin.'0 P. 156: the name ytm on Vattioni seal no. 131 cannot possibly be translated "Y is perfect." Not only is the Yahwistic theophore yo- never spelled defectively in PNN from the Iron Age (the seal dates to the eighth century B.C.E.),but also this seal has long been recognized as Edomite."l P. 165: the Hebrew PN yedfddhneed not be understood as a short form of yedtdyah. Admittedly, the ah suffix on a name may be understood as a shortening of the theophore -ydh. However, if the namebearer is female, as is the case here (2 Kings 22:1), and if the name consists of a verbal adjective or noun 7Cited by N. Avigad, Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah: Remnants of a Burnt Archive (Jerusalem, 1986), p. 46. See also A. Lemaire, Semitica 28 (1978): 11-12. 8 See respectively F. Gr6ndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Rome, 1967), pp. 96, 144; and W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. and 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Wiesbaden, 1962), p. 52. 9 See my Archaic Features of Canaanite Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible, Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 47 (Atlanta, 1990), pp. 37-105. 0R. Hestrin and M. Dayagi-Mendels, Inscribed Seals (Jerusalem, 1979), p. 133. 11J. Naveh, IEJ 22 (1972): 188; A. Lemaire, Levant 7 (1975): 18, n. 8.

69

descriptive of the name-bearer, then it is likely that the -dh suffix is the feminine morpheme. P. 190: the author contends that names which ask the question "Where is the deity?" have no counterpart among Hebrew names. In this context, the Hebrew PN Ichabod "Where is the Glory?" as well as several other PNN (for example, Job; 'iyyob < *Dayya-abu, "Where is the (divine) Father?") warrant discussion. P. 211: the statement that "the Heb. onomasticon contains no evidence of a 'maternal uncle', in names, attested in Amor. 1i3"is incorrect. The Hebrew PN hlyw, "Yw is (a/the) maternal uncle" is inscribed on a stone vessel discovered at Kuntillet CAjrud. 12 P. 250: the statement that "no Hebrew name portrays the deity as an avenger" stands in need of correction (see also p. 310). We seem to have the name nqm inscribed on three jar-handles from Jerusalem, Tell en-Nasbeh, and Ramat Rahel.13 It may be that traces of an -aleph are discernible on the jar-handle from Tell en-Nasbeh, suggesting a restoration nqmr"'[1], "God/El is my vengeance." Names formed from the root nqm are found in Ugaritic and Phoenician; thus the existence of the root nqm in Hebrew PNN should occasion no surprise. P. 303: while it may be true that Hebrew PNN do not describe the deity as a garden or orchard (Akk. kiri; Ugar. gnn), nevertheless a semantically equivalent term does occur in Hebrew PNN: kerem, "vineyard." Note that the Hebrew PN karmf, "(Deity name) is my vineyard,"14 is attested in the Hebrew Bible, on two Hebrew bullae, and a stamped jarhandle from Lachish.15 ScoTT C. LAYTON

Houston, Texas 12Z. Meshel, Kuntillet CAjrud:A Religious Centre from the Time of the Judaean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai (Jerusalem, 1978). 13J. Prignaud, RB 77 (1970): 50-59; J. Naveh, TA 6 (1979): 185. 14Names of the structuralpattern common noun + first common singular pronominal suffix + deity name, with the deity name unexpressed, are very common among West Semitic PNN. 15For references, see Avigad, Hebrew Bullae, p. 60.

A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. By C. L. SEOW. Nashville: Abingdon, 1987. Pp. xii +

308.

Whenever a new grammarof a language with a long tradition of study appears, one asks


Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew.pdf

Recommend Documents