Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew (4).pdf

7/28/2019 Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew (4).pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theophoric-personal-names-in-ancient-hebrew-4pdf 1/4





BOOK LIST 247

J. H. Tigay, You ShallHave No OtherGods .. [Atlanta, 1986], and S. I. L. Norin,Sein Name allein ist hoch ... [Malm6, 1986]-see VT 37 [1987], pp. 379,509-10-appeared too late to be included), and indexes ofHebrew names, "name-

elements" in Ugaritic, Phoenician, Amorite, Aramaic, Old Accadian, Accadianand Palmyrene, and theophoricnames in Ammonite, Edomite and Moabite.

There is plainlymuch in this book that is useful, especially the collection anddiscussion of material. One is, however, surprised at some omissions. Why, for

example, is no account taken of proper names from inscriptionsat Kuntillet

CAjrud?Thus, 'mrywhould have been mentioned in connexion with 'amarydh(u)(pp. 93-4, 163, 337), andywcshwiththe appearance of the same name on a seal

(pp. 92, 111, 356).Further,some interpretations f the evidence are open to question. While it is

indeed debatable whethertheelement bacal n Israelite names means "lord" or isa reference o the

god Baal,Fowler

perhapstoo

easilyconcludes that the former

is the correct nterpretation.Moreover, her discussion (pp. 58-9) ofJerubbaal-where she does believe that there is a referenceto Baal-states that "yerubbaCalwas a name given to Gideon as the resultof an action againstBaal", but fails toconsider the possibly secondary nature ofthe informationgiven inJudg. vi 30-2.

Against theview that thepersonal name anadtot1 Chron. vii 8) contains the nameof the goddess Anath, Fowler simply asserts that a grandson of Benjamin "israther oo earlyto assume syncretisticdeas fromCanaanite religiousthought" (p.66). But that is to make a big assumption about the date of the information n 1Chron. vii 8, and about the dissemination of the cult ofAnath.

It is also possible to question some ofthetheological nferencesdrawnbyFowler

fromthe absence ofcertain ideas from sraelite proper names. For example, shedetects a theological significance in the fact that "Unattested, too, in Hebrewnames, is any identification f the Hebrew deitywith astronomicalphenomena",among which she includes the sun (p. 314). But she does not discuss themeaningofsemesmagenyhwhn Ps. lxxxiv12 (where, admittedly, ome think hats'emesoesnot mean "sun"), and Yahweh is compared to the sun in Isa. lx 19-20. An idea

may be presenteven if t is not expressed in a proper name. Thus, p. 303 notesthat Hebrew propernames do not describe God as a shepherd,unlike some namesin other Semitic languages. Yet the idea is found in the O.T. (Ps. xxiii 1, lxxx 2,etc.). Fowler wiselydoes not draw any conclusion fromthis omission in propernames, but one wonders how strongthe argument fromsilence is in othercases.

There are weaknesses in thediscussion ofa number of words. For instance,pp.101-2 deny that "to care about, take care of" is attested as a meaning ofydc intheO.T., but do not consider thepossibility hat such a meaning is found n Prov.xii 10, xxix 7 (cp. TheNew EnglishBible). The treatmentof roots containing sinand shin s also sometimes at fault. P. 79 discusses Welisebacnd, afternoting theview that it means "El is an oath", says that it "more probably" means "El isfullnessor good fortune". That, however, would require the root sbc,not sbc. P.92 discusses Csh, to make", and accuses P. Bordreuil and A. Lemaire of "confu-sion" in suggestingthat a name meaning "YHWH a fait" on a seal should betransliteratedCsyhwatherthan Csyhwcp. also the discussion ofyCson p. 156).Fowler appears to be unaware ofthe conventionwherebys is used to transliterate

either s or s in inscriptions, in which, of course, the two letters cannot bedistinguishedby their form. In considering cognates ofArabic 'asa, "to heal",Fowler rightly inks it withUgaritic 'sy, "to heal", Aramaic -dsa-, "physician",and Accadian asu',"to heal" (pp. 159, 186, 291, 337), and Amorite s' (p. 205).The Ugaritic and Aramaic evidence makes it plain that, iftherewas a Hebrew

cognate, it had samekhs the sibilant. Yet pp. 112, 160 suggestthe possibilityofa connexionbetweenthis Arabic root and theHebrew root sh/ws] nd the Hebrew

This content downloaded from 204.152.149.5 on Sun, 19 May 2013 20:03:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





248 BOOK LIST

name 'P on a seal, and Fowler shows no sign of awareness that thissuggestionis

incompatiblewith her other view.

Finally,mentionmust be made of Fowler's criticismsofG. B.

Gray, especiallysince theyoccupy a prominentplace near thebeginningof thebook. On pp. 21-9,Fowler finds serious faultwithtables presentedby Gray, Studies n HebrewProperNames(London, 1896-Fowler wronglyascribes it to 1886 on p. 21, but gets the

year right n p. 385), pp. 160-2. Table 1 gives the "number of names [compound-ed withyh- or -yh]firstreferredby approximately contemporary iterature to"several different eriods of Israelite history, nd table 2 gives the figuresreferredto, not just by "approximately contemporary literature", but by "any O.T.writer" (i.e. including the Chronicler). Fowler accuses the two tables of being"hopelessly at variance", and claims that"the statistics .. are more of an embar-rassment to Gray's mathematics than to the Chronicler's lack of authentic

nomenclature" (p. 23). The fault appears, however, to be due not to Gray'smathematics but to Fowler's failure to correlate thefigures n tables 1 and 2 withthe detailed evidence set out by Gray in Appendix III (pp. 314-22). Let us takethe evidence for the early part ofPeriod III ("The Period of the Later Kings" asfar as the 8th centuryB.C.). Table 1 records that 8 names withyh-and 18 with

-yh, .e. a total of 26, are ascribed to this period. Table 2 records4 withyh-and13 with -yh, total of 17. Fowler comments on the total of 17 in table 2: "Weshould expect at least the 26 from the evidence of the restof the Old Testamentliterature" (p. 23). She has overlooked thefact that the addition of the names inthe Chronicler's writingsmoves some names fromthisperiod to earlier ones aswell as adding some names. A study of Gray, pp. 315-17 reveals the changes.

First,4 names beginning withyh-are moved fromthisperiod to Period II: yhw),yhwzbd,yhwrm, nd yw'h is presumably identified withywh'; that leaves 4 yh-names in table 2. Secondly, 4 -yhnames are moved to Period I: msyh, mryh,hlqyh,Czryh;nd 6 to Period II: [y]brkyh,dlyh,kryh,ysCyh,wbdyh,mcyh. hus 10 namesare moved from he 18 in table 1. On theotherhand, 5 names are added to table2: dwdyh,wbdnyh,twbyh, smkyh, msyh.8-10 + 5 = 13. Gray's mathematicsiscorrect.

Similarly,Fowler finds fault with tables 3 and 4, which list "Hebrew personsbearing a yh name and mentioned", respectively,"in approximately contem-

porary literature" and "only n Chronicles". For example, according to Fowler,"Gray's mistake ies in Table 4, Period IV ["The Post-ExilicPeriod"], wherehe

has indicated a total of 197 individuals to whom theChronicler alone assigns ayhcompound name. Yet in fact,veryfewpost-Exilic names are found in the booksofChronicles (only 37 personsin all), for his s a periodwith which the Chronicleris not predominantlyconcerned. It would seem that for some unknown reason,Gray has repeated the statisticsforTable 3, Period IV" (p. 25). Once again, a

studyofGray's Appendix 11.3 A on pp. 281-4, and B on pp. 284-300, reveals theevidence for his tables. If Fowler had taken theAppendix into consideration,shewould have seen thatGray treats Ezra-Nehemiah as the work of the Chronicler.

Gray was a finescholar, and it is regrettable o read such far-reaching riticismsmade by someone who shows no sign of having checked his tables against theevidence which he provides and on which he has based them.

While Fowler's book contains much that is useful, it is open to some seriouscriticisms, nd it cannot be recommended without reservation.A new, thoroughlyrevised edition is needed. [J. A. E.]

D. C. FREDERICKS,Qoheleth's anguage.Re-Evaluatingts Nature ndDate. An-cient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 3. i + 301 pp. The Edwin Mellen Press,Lewiston and Queenston, 1988. This volume, reproduced from typescript,challenges the consensus view thatQoheleth is to be dated between the 2nd and

This content downloaded from 204.152.149.5 on Sun, 19 May 2013 20:03:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions




Documents

Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew (4).pdf