Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew.pdf

7/28/2019 Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theophoric-personal-names-in-ancient-hebrewpdf 1/5

Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study by Jeaneane D. FowlerReview by: Scott C. LaytonJournal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 1993), pp. 66-69Published 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 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/545986?origin=JSTOR-pdf






http://www.jstor.org/stable/545986?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress



66 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES VOL. 52 No. 1

to be debated for a long time to come, and this

book will play an essential role in the debates.

WALTERE. RAST

Valparaiso University

The Synagogue in Late Antiquity. Edited byLEE I. LEVINE.Philadelphia: The American

Schools of Oriental Research, 1987. $15.95

(paperback).There has been an explosion of archaeologi-

cal and textual research over the last twenty

years which has seriously compromised the

monolithic portraits of Diaspora and Palestin-ian Judaism enshrined in the last generation's

scholarship. The study of Judaism in Greco-

Roman antiquity stands in need of some new

syntheses that make use of the materials now at

our disposal. This volume genuinely advances

our discussions towardjust such syntheses. Lee

Levine has pulled together a crisp series of

chapters that are required reading for anyone

working in the religious or art-historical fields

of Late Antiquity.

Contributors to the volume are scholars atthe forefront of research in their respective ar-

eas and include: Lee I. Levine, Laurence H.

Schiffman, A. T. Kraabel, Joseph Gutmann,Reuven Kimelman, Morton Smith, AvigdorShinan, J. Yahalom, Eric M. Meyers, Gideon

Foerster, Yoram Tsafrir, Shaye J. D. Cohen,and Bezadel Narkiss.

All of the authors share an extraordinary

sensitivity to the contributions made to their

subjects by both the Roman/Byzantine setting

and the distinctive traditions of Judaism. Manyof these articles are "state of the art"-

Levine's on the Second Temple Synagogue,

Meyers's on Galilean synagogue studies, Gut-

mann's on the Dura wall paintings, Schiffman'son the contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls toJewish liturgical origins.

Several articles allow us to peer into the syn-agogue at worship to see its manifold scripturalandpoetic formsandrites-Yahalom's on Piyyut,Kimelman'son theShema,Smith'son the Yosher.

Almost all of the articles, like Kraabel's on theDiaspora synagogues, argue a thesis, which re-

quire longer reviews than I am giving them.

The vast diversity of Late Judaism, high-

lighted by all, but especially by Cohn on paganand Christian notices of the synagogue and

Foersteron art and architecture,begins to meldinto a more synthetic picture of a rich, vibrant,

localized, and pious life of Jews in Late Antiq-

uity (cf. pp. 144, 133-34, 22, etc.). The signal

importance of the late third- and early fourth-

centuries for the history of earlier and subse-

quent Judaismsbegins to emerge (e.g., pp. 107,

164, 129-30).The volume contains a series of illustrations

(pp. 189-218), including the most readablepub-lished plan of the second century broadhouse-

type synagogue excavated at en-Nabratein(9.9,p. 196).

Scholars will want to raise some questions at

a few points. One wonders how Tsafrir(pp. 148,

153) can hold his confidence in a late dating for

the broadhouse-type(andin architecturaldatingof synagogues) when the contraryevidence ap-

pears in this very volume. One also wonders

when Foerster will turnloose of the older schol-

arship's description of late antique carving as "a

general decline in the quality" and "inferior"

(p. 143) and embrace fully his own more accu-rate description of these buildings as a "local,

original, and eclectic Jewish creation"(p. 144).

Similarly difficult to understand s why Foerster

continues to class a lintel from Dabbura which

mentions it is a beit midrash(p. 141) as evidenceof asynagogue there.Either he continues to thinkthe synagogue functioned as a beit midrash, orhe reflects a much older scholarly traditionwhich classified all Jewish public buildingsfound as "synagogues."

DENNISE. GROH

Garrett-Evangelical Theological SeminaryEvanston, Illinois

Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient He-

brew: A Comparative Study. By JEANEANE D.

FOWLER. ournal for the Study of the Old

Testament, Supplement Series 49. Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1988. Pp. 410.

The book under review is based on a disser-tation submitted to the University of Liverpoolin 1979. The intention of the study is "to







JANUARY 993 BOOKREVIEWS 67

examine Hebrew personal names with a view

to determining what concepts of God are re-

vealed within those names and to what extent

such concepts may be distinct from those dis-played 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 personalnames (hereafter PN(N)), be they Palmyrene,Hebrew, or other.

On one side of the comparison, the author

assembles Hebrew theophoric PNN gleanedfrom the Hebrew Bible and epigraphic

sources, and even foreign names borne byHebrew persons; on the other side, are theo-

phoric PNN attested in the onomastica of vari-

ous 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 long-est chapter in the book-and in chap. 3, a sum-

maryof the concept of deity as revealed in those

names. In chap. 4, she compares the concept ofdeity revealed in the Hebrew onomasticon withPNN gleaned from the other Semitic onomas-

tica mentioned above. After a summarysynthe-

sizing the results obtained from this comparison

(chap. 5), the book concludes with a series of

four appendixes. The first two appendixes dis-cuss Jewish names in Neo-/Late-Babylonianand Neo-Assyrian texts, and in the Elephantinepapyrirespectively, and argues that these namesshould be excluded from consideration due to

the difficulty in differentiating between Ara-maeans and Jews. Appendix 3 presents a com-

prehensive list of biblical and extrabiblicalHebrew theophoric PNN with brief grammatical

analysis, arrangedaccording to the root of the

non-theophoric element. In the fourthappendix,Hebrew PNN are classified according to formand date, with the data presented in twentytables that list the distribution and date of

theophoric PNN and various theophoric ele-ments (e.g., 'b, 'h, mlk, swr, etc.).

Since the publication of M. Noth's Die

israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der

gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (Stuttgart,

1928; Hildesheim, 1980), the field of biblicalonomastics has, for the most part, lain fallow.The amount of comparative material that hascome to light since Noth's classic work is im-

mense, and the study of the biblical onomasti-

con in light of this material is a majordesideratum. In this context, any study of asector of the biblical onomasticon is welcome.

Fowler's book has a number of strengths, ofwhich I would single out appendixes 3 and 4

and the series of lists throughout the fourth

chapter, which display in tabularform the sim-ilarities between the Hebrew onomasticon andthat of other Semitic peoples. The study of ab-

breviated names is of particular interest

(pp. 149-69), and the caveat against recon-

structing an "original" full form from a shortform is well taken. That there are certaindifferences between the Hebrew onomasticon

and that of other Semitic peoples appears, onthe whole, to be a valid conclusion.

The book is beset by numerous problems,

however. First, the study is not focused tightlyenough. The comparison of the Hebrew ono-masticon with seven other Semitic onomasticais far too broad a topic when one considers thevast amount of material and the difficulties in-

herent in such a comparison. Certain parts of

the study could have been omitted altogether.For instance, the comparison of Hebrew PNNwith Old Akkadian and Akkadian PNN is

scarcely relevant since, as the author herself

recognizes, Akkadian PNN are "farmore struc-

turally complex" (p. 237). Given the geograph-ical, chronological, and linguistic differencesbetween Hebrew and Akkadian, the discoverythat there are indeed significant differences be-tween their onomastica is a foregone conclu-sion. The list of concepts attested in Semiticonomastica that do not occur in the Hebrewonomasticon (pp. 279-313) is consequentlydominated by Akkadian entries, and thus thenumber of differences is artificially high. Itwould have been far more meaningful to com-

pare the Hebrew onomasticon with that ofneighboring peoples, such as the Ammonites,who were closer to the Israelites in terms of

'A. Caquot, "Sur l'onomastique religieuse de

Palmyre," Syria 39 (1962): 231-56, esp. 256.







68 JOURNALOF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES VOL. 52 No. I

time, space, and language. Such a comparisonwould reveal a high degree of overlap between

the two onomastica.

Second, with regard to the interpretationofthe PNN, it may be noted that the author didnot avail herself of all the pertinent resources.

She seems unaware of important discussions

on the interpretationof Hebrew PNN2 as well

as relevant extrabiblical attestations of the

names or elements thereof. Consequently, she

opts for her own idiosyncratic interpretationswithout refuting previous interpretationsor, for

that matter, sufficiently establishing her own.

The net result of these misinterpretationsis not

inconsiderable; if we assume that one can re-construct the Hebrew concept of God from

theophoric names, then an erroneous interpre-tation of a PN distorts the overall picture. I will

discuss some of the problematic interpretationsand their implications, but space limitations

necessarily restrict the number of items thatcan be treated.

Third, the author never adequately defineswhich names are to be included in her corpus.She claims to include all PNN in the Old Tes-

tament that contain a theophoric element (andabbreviated forms thereof) and to exclude thenames of foreigners but not foreign namesborne by Hebrews (p. 18). Why are the PNN

Abr(ah)am and Jacob discussed, but not the PNIsaac? I find no reference to the Hebrew

theophoric PN Ishhod, borne by a Mannasite

(1 Chron. 7:18) or to the Yahwistic PN Ahyo.3What about Mephiboshet, mentioned on p. 59but not discussed? The PN Metushael is men-tioned on p. 115; why is there no discussion ofthe PN

Metushelah? The inclusion of non-Hebrew PNN and the omission of someHebrew PNN is confusing and results in a con-siderable amount of distortion in any attemptto

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 linguis-tic definition of what constitutes a Hebrew PN,the endeavor will be underminedfrom the start.

The following is a list of specific comments,which could easily be multiplied.

Pp. 76 (and 153):omitted romthe discussionofthe PN Hezekiah re theNeo-Assyrianranscriptionsof the name,all of whichprovethatthe initialele-ment s verbal ather hannominal, ndtheinsightfulremarks f E. Y. Kutscher,4who accounted or theMasoreticpointingof the nameand noted thatthe

formof the namewith they- prefix s late.P. 88: the name Clyhws an error. f one checks

the reference ited,5one finds hereading "'l.P. 106: thereading 'lhw(V, 110)is a typograph-

ical error n Vattioni'sist. It shouldreadg'lyhw.P. 113: in the discussionof the namesderived

from herootsrhPwr,byaprocessof eliminationheauthor oncludeshat he root wr is theonlyroot eftfor the derivation f the extrabiblicalHebrewPNN

Dryhwn3ryw.However, he states hatthemeaningof thesenamescannotbe determinedwithaccuracy,since "onewould.., .expect the wdwto be retained

for a nominal orm light'or 'flame'." hisstatementreflectsaninadequate nderstandingf thefrequencyand distribution f matres ectionis in extrabiblicalHebrewPNN.Whereas iblicalHebrewPNNcontain-

ing theroot-wrareconsistentlywritten lene, in theIronAge, extrabiblicalHebrewPNNcontaininghisroot arepredominantlyrittendefectively.6

P. 115: the moststraightforwardnterpretationfthe PNbityah s "daughterf Yah" thechange*bat> bit can be accounted orby attenuation),egardlessof whether he name-bearers a "daughter f Pha-raoh" 1 Chron.4:18). She may have converted o

Yahwism and thus adopted a Yahwistic name.Whetherhis was so or not,theYahwistic heophorein this name s unmistakable. his HebrewPN indi-catesthatfemininegenitiveelementsarenotforeignto the Hebrew nomasticonpacep. 298).

2The only scholar n our timeto devote a majorportion f hisresearchoHebrewPNN s J. J. Stamm.Most of his studiesareconveniently vailablen onevolume (Beitrdge zur hebrdischen und altoriental-ischen Namenkunde, OBO 30 [Freiburg and Gbttin-

gen, 1980]);yethismany tudiesonHebrewPNNaretotally gnoredn the bookunder eview.

3Onp. 37, it is stated hat"thesuffixyw is only

attested n extra-biblicalnamesand is used exclu-sively in the Samaria straca."This statement s in-correct nbothaccounts.

4 TheLanguage and Linguistic Backgroundof theIsaiah Scroll (1 QIsaa) (Leiden, 1974), pp. 104-6.

5N. Avigad, EJ4 (1954):236.6 The element 'r- occurs in approximatelyten He-

brew PNN from the IronAge; only in Arad31.2 is thename writtenplene ('wryhw).There s no reason o

suspectthatthe 'r- element s derived roma rootother than'wr; compare, for example, the Hebrew PNDrDwith the Ammonite PN -wr-.







JANUARY1993 BOOK REVIEWS 69

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., 'I-

bcdy on a Phoenician seal.7 Therefore, the PN is bestinterpretedas meaning "God/El is for me," contain-

ing the preposition bcd.P. 121: the PN Yemuel almost certainly means

"Yammu is god." The preference for this readingratherthan for Nemuel is supportedby two extrabib-

lical occurrences of the same name, one in the

Ugaritic texts (ym'il) and the other in the Egyptianexecration texts (jd-m-i-I-u).8The 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 anominative case vowel, an archaic morpheme occa-

sionally retained in PNN.9P. 146: the reading 'hymh on Vattioni seal no. 366

is an erroron 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 typeare best translated as "(his?) mother's brother."

P. 147: the reading 'tPb is another typographicalerror in Vattioni's list. The correct reading of the

name is

.h'b,

but it should be excluded from consid-

eration since the seal is of Ammonite origin.'0

P. 156: the nameytm on Vattioni seal no. 131 can-not possibly be translated "Y is perfect." Not only is

the Yahwistic theophore yo- never spelled defec-

tively in PNN from the Iron Age (the seal dates to

the eighth century B.C.E.),but also this seal has longbeen recognized as Edomite."l

P. 165: the Hebrew PN yedfddhneed not be under-

stood as a short form of yedtdyah. Admittedly, the -

ah suffix on a name may be understood as a shorten-

ing of the theophore -ydh. However, if the name-

bearer is female, as is the case here (2 Kings 22:1),and if the name consists of a verbal adjective or noun

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 counter-

part among Hebrew names. In this context, the He-brew PN Ichabod "Where is the Glory?" as well as

several other PNN (for example, Job; 'iyyob <

*Dayya-abu, "Where is the (divine) Father?") war-

rant discussion.

P. 211: the statement that "the Heb. onomasticon

contains no evidence of a 'maternaluncle', in names,attested in Amor. 1i3" s incorrect. The Hebrew PN

hlyw, "Yw is (a/the) maternal uncle" is inscribed on

a stone vessel discovered at Kuntillet CAjrud.2

P. 250: the statement that "no Hebrew name por-

trays the deity as an avenger" stands in need of cor-

rection (see also p. 310). We seem to have the namenqm 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 sur-

prise.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 equiva-lent term does occur in Hebrew PNN: kerem, "vine-

yard." Note that the Hebrew PN karmf, "(Deityname) is my vineyard,"14is attested in the Hebrew

Bible, on two Hebrew bullae, and a stamped jar-handle from Lachish.15

ScoTT C. LAYTON

Houston, Texas

7Cited by N. Avigad, Hebrew Bullae from theTime of Jeremiah: Remnants of a Burnt Archive

(Jerusalem, 1986), p. 46. See also A. Lemaire, Semit-ica 28 (1978): 11-12.

8See respectively F. Gr6ndahl, Die Personenna-men der Texte aus Ugarit (Rome, 1967), pp. 96, 144;and W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Agyptens zuVorderasien im 3. and 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Wies-baden, 1962), p. 52.

9See my Archaic Features of Canaanite PersonalNames in the Hebrew Bible, HarvardSemitic Mono-

graphs, 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.

12Z. Meshel, Kuntillet CAjrud: Religious Centre

from the Timeof the Judaean Monarchy on the Bor-der of Sinai (Jerusalem, 1978).13J. Prignaud,RB 77 (1970): 50-59; J. Naveh, TA

6 (1979): 185.14Names of the structuralpatterncommon noun +

first common singular pronominal suffix + deityname, with the deity name unexpressed, are verycommon among West Semitic PNN.

15Forreferences, see Avigad, HebrewBullae, 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

Documents

Transcript of Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew.pdf