Click here to load reader

Reseph and Yhwh Sebaot

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of Reseph and Yhwh Sebaot

Resheph and yhwh bt Author(s): John H. Choi Reviewed work(s): Source: Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 54, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 17-28 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: . Accessed: 03/01/2012 15:22Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . 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]

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vetus Testamentum.


Occurrences of proper names which seem to be in the construct state, thus making them doubly determinate, pose an interestingdilemma in the analysis of ANE inscriptions, and the potential for religious information that they provide.' On the one hand, they are fascinating in clarifying the understanding of ancient deities and their various manifestations. On the other hand, they are problematic, as much scholarship holds that proper nouns cannot be modified by a genitive in Hebrew and related languages.2 J.A. Emerton, in an excellent analysis and review, shows that a doubly determined proper noun is not problematic, since the genitive phrase functions to identify a local manifestation or variation of a deity.3Thus, there are many examples of the name Baal in the construct

I would like to thank Dr. Bill T. Arnold for his invaluable guidance and suggestions. Any errors are solely mine. The designation "doubly determinate" refers to a proper noun, which is inherently determinate, which takes an additional determining element in the form of a determinate or indeterminate genitive. In addition to the construct state, the double determination of proper nouns can also be achieved through addition of a pronominal suffix (See G.R. Driver, "Reflection on Recent Articles," JBL 73 [1954], p. 125; L. Delekat, "Yaho-Yahwae und die alttestamentlichen Gottesnamenkorrekturen," in Tradition und Glaube.Das ffrhe Christentum in seinerUmwelt.Festgabe fir KG. Kuhn [ed. G. Jeremias; Gottingen, 1971], pp. 66-67; and M. Rose, Jahwe: Zum Streitum den alttestamentlichen Gottesnamen [Zurich, 1978], pp. 28-29). It has been noted, however, that the proper name + pronominal suffix is quite distinct from, and should not be used in comparison with, a proper noun potentially in the construct state (see M. Tsevat, "Studies in the Book of Samuel IV," HUCA 36 [1965], pp. 49-58). 2 See E. HebrewGrammar Kautzsch, ed. Gesenius' (trans. A.E. Cowley; Oxford, 1910), of Biblical Hebrew(Subsidia biblica p. 402, and P. Jouon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar 14/1-2; Rome, 1993), pp. 481, 505. Both essentially state that a proper noun cannot be made further determinate via modification by a determinate or indeterminate genitive. 3 This is in contrast to the possibility that there are several different deities sharing the same name. J.A. Emerton, "New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet 'Ajrud," ZAW 94 (1982), pp. 12-13. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - VetusTestamentum LIV,1



state, modified by a place name, or a common noun indicating a general locale or region, serving to identify the "local Baal."4 This type of relationship is not limited to Semitic place names.5 Similar constructions occur with the proper names Anat, who is identified as 'nt spn in KTU 1.109, and Atirat, identified as 'trt srm (Atirat of the Tyrians) in KTU 1.14. This same distinction may be in mind, then, in the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions, which refer toyhwh of Teman and yhwh of Samaria.6 I turn now to the more complicated Biblical Hebrew phrase yhwh sebad't.Because this phrase does not contain a place name, it does not fit neatly into the model established above. Some have sought to resolve this by positing an ellipsis. Gesenius suggests that an actual construct noun 'Ihyhas elided from this phrase, so that what is preserved in the MT is not a genuine construct chain, but merely an elliptical clause that marks the remnants of an older phrase.7 This view is unlikely,

4 Examples include b'l ugrtin KTU 1.65; b'l hkptin KTU 1.17 V:20, 30; b'l spn in KTU 1.39; KTU 1.46; KTU 1.16 (G. Young, Concordance of Ugaritic[Rome, 1956], Literature of Ugaritic pp. 35-36; R. Whitaker, A Concordance [Cambridge, MA, 1972], pp. 141-146; M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, J. Sanmartin, The Cuneiform Alphabetic TextsfromUgarit, Ras Ibn Hani and OtherPlaces [Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palastinas und Mesopotamiens 8; Miinster, 1995]). Biblical examples include b'l p'wr in Num. xxv 3; Deut. iv 3; Ps. cvi 28 and b'l spn in Ex. xiv 2, 3; Num. xxxiii 7. These constructions likely function in a similar manner to the construct phrase gb't s'wl (1 Sam xi 4; xv 34), where the term Gibea occurs in the construct to distinguish the "Gibea of Saul" from other towns or regions named Gibea, such as "Gibea of Benjamin" in 1 Sam. xiii 15 (Emerton, "New Light," pp. 4, 7). There are also instances, both in the Hebrew Bible and the extra-biblical inscriptions, wherein Baal is associated not with a place name, but with a common noun (perhaps b'l spn, as noted in the Ugaritic example mentioned above; b' smmin the Karatepe Inscription [KAI 26, Aiii:18]; b'l knpin KTU 1.46; b'l sdq in KTU 7.63; b'l byt in Judg. viii 33, and ix 4; b'l zbwb in 2 Kgs. i 2, 3, 6, 16). There is little syntactical difficulty surrounding these terms, however, since b'l can function as a proper name, or as a common noun, meaning "lord" or "master." Thus, many of these phrases may not be the appellation of a deity, but simply an epithet which describes the nature of a deity. 5 The Phoenician Karatepe Inscription (KAI 26) contains the phrase b'l krnrtys (Column II, line 19; Column III, line 4) a non-Semitic place name, which possibly reflects a merger between Baal and a Western Asian deity. 6 J. Renz and W. deralthebrdischen vol. I (Darmstadt, 1995), Epigraphik Rollig, Handbuch I: pp. 56-64. 7 Kautzsch, Gesenius' HebrewGrammar, p. 402. According to this view, other potential construct chains involving a proper noun as nomens involve an ellipsis of the regens actual construct noun. Thus, in the biblical phrase 'wr ksdym,the word yr has elided. It has been proposed that similar Semitic constructions, such as 'strtqrnym and 'strt'pp involve an ellipsis, as well (W.W. Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun: eine Untersuchung zur des Glaubens an Auferstehungsgotter und an Heilgotter Geschichte [Leipzig, 1911], p. 275).



however, since the shorter phrase is much more common throughout the Hebrew Bible, suggesting that it was used prior to the longer phrase.8 Other alternatives, based on parallels with the Baal phrases noted above, which suggest that yhwh functions not as a proper noun but as a common noun,9 have fallen by the wayside, as well. An argument could be made that, within this phrase, yhwh is not doubly determined because it originated as a verb. F.M. Cross suggests that the phrase is a derivative of the verbal clause du yahwi sabaot, "he who creates the heavenly armies."'l This view, however, is clearly dependent on the theory that yhwh is the causative imperfect of hwh. In spite of the above evidence, then, the likelihood that yhwh seba'ot, is an actual construct phrase, with the doubly determined proper name yhwh, is strengthened by the nearly identical Ugaritic phrase rsp sb'i." Earlier, Emerton noted that this phrase may be easily compared to yhwh seba'ot,but simply leaves the matter without expansion.'2 A further look into the use of rsp in similar genitive constructions may be quite significant in understanding the nature of the phrase yhwh seba'ot. occurs in a variety of inscriptions, ranging from rsp,vocalized resep,'3 Egypt, to Ugarit, to Cyprus. The image of the deity is frequent in Egyptian artwork from the Late Bronze and Iron I Ages. rsp occurs as a theophoric element in a variety of personal names, the earliest

8 Emerton, "New Light," p. 4. See also F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and HebrewEpic (Cambridge, MA, 1973), pp. 69-70, where he suggests that 'Ihy has been added as a lectio facilior to ease the difficulty in yhwh sebad't. 9 B.N. et exegetique historique Jahve Seba'ot:Etudephilologique, Wambacq, L'pithite divine (Paris, 1947), p. 100. 10 Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 70. 11 KTU 1.91. Line 15 reads b gb rsp sb'i. Two translations of KTU 1.105 line 21 (tzg bgb spn) illustrate the uncertainty in the rendering of gb. One possible translation is "cloud;" thus, the entire phrase would read "a sound from the cloud"(see HALOT, Vol. 2 p. 773 and L. Fisher [ed.], Ras Shamra Parallels vol. II [Analecta Orientalia Commentationes Scientificae De Rebus Orientis Antiqui 50; ed. D. Smith and S. Rummel; Rome, 1975], p. 142). The other possibility is proposed by J. de Moor, who renders gb as "pit," and thus reads the same line from KTU 1.105 as "sacrificial meat in the pit," referring to "the place where offerings were served to various deities" ("Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra II," UF 2 [1970], pp. 318, 320). 12 Emerton, "New Light," p. 9. 13 Fulco notes that the majority of the evidence suggests that the most ancient vocalization of the name was raspu,which was adapted to resep,as vocalized in the MT GodRESEP. [American Oriental Series, Essay 8; ed. E. Bender; (W.J. Fulco, The Canaanite New Haven, 1976], p. 64; see also M. Schretter, Alter Orientund Hellas [Innsbriick, 1974], pp. 111-116).




Search related