Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ANE-2] Re: [biblical-studies] Questions about a seal like the Rephaihu (ben) Shalem seal

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: Yitzhak Sapir To: Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: [biblical-studies]
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 3 7:00 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir@...>
      To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 6:00 PM
      Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: [biblical-studies] Questions about a seal like the
      Rephaihu (ben) Shalem seal


      > On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Jack Kilmon wrote:
      >> Wow, Victor. You miss breakfast or something? I consider the -el
      >> theophoric more Canaanite and older. No, all yhw theophorics, prefixed
      >> or
      >> suffixed, did not replace all -el theophorics which remained
      >> traditionally.
      >> A PH to me is not a peh, its a peh-heh. I didn't check out the usage in
      >> Chronicles and I really don't see too much Masoretic pointing in Iron II
      >> epigraphy.
      >
      > I don't see it so it's not there? In any case, p, k, and t were
      > probably aspirated
      > from very early times. There was no non-aspirated p in Hebrew and in a
      > Hebrew
      > article, Richard Steiner suggests that non-aspirated p was borrowed into
      > Hebrew
      > as emphatic p during the Persian-Greek periods. This itself seems to
      > suggest
      > that already then the regular phonemes were aspirated.
      >
      > Personally, I think a pronunciation more along the lines of
      > "Rapi?u-Yahuwa"
      > would be appropriate. Now, how do you figure that the ?el theophoric is
      > older?
      > Why would -yah be more archaic than yahu? The opposite is in fact
      > probably
      > the case. And while ?el probably has older roots, that doesn't make it
      > archaic.
      > It was possibly viewed as a title for Y and therefore continued to be
      > used.
      > Look at the Tel Dan inscription -- which has yhw theophorics. When is
      > the first
      > attestation of -yh? In any case, given that yhw-names are known from the
      > 9th century onwards, and that Y is already known in the Mesha inscription,
      > I
      > don't think it is reasonable to be able to determine that ?el marks a
      > more older
      > seal than -yhw unless pre-9th century periods are a possibility, and
      > they're not.
      >
      > Yitzhak Sapir

      There appears to have been some form of orthographic rule for the use of
      theophorics in NW Semitic names where the leading theophoric is "Yeho" as in
      Yehoichim, Yehosaphat, Yehoshua, etc and the terminal theophoric as YAH or
      YAHU as in Yeshayahu (Isaiah), Yirimyahu (Jeremiah), Refayahu, etc. In the
      very earliest use of theophorics they may have been attached to royal names.
      Perhaps a leading or terminal theophoric was exclusive to class...that's
      just a conjecture.
      Dr. Albright thought that El and Yhwh may have been merged as an
      hypocoristicon. The Qal of Aramaic hwh taken from a TITLE phrase as a
      hypocoristicon of EL, A title like "El causes something to come into
      being". Aramaic imperfect 3rd sing. from HWH. That is why I thought EL as
      an older theophoric than YAHU but it is my God given right and priviledge to
      be wrong like everyone else. :)

      You may be right that Yahweh is the earliest usage going back to 1400 BCE
      Syria (probably Ugaritic origins) and Egyptian accounts (Amenhotep II,
      Raamses) of the Shasu who may have been nomadic "pre-Israelites." The next
      use in epigraphy that comes to mind is line 18 of the Mesha stele.

      Jack

      Jack Kilmon
      San Antonio, TX
    • Peter T. Daniels
      What s the difference between Yeho and Yahu ? Both are YHW. Yitzhak may have been noting a difference in occurrence between YH and YHW, which is not the
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 3 7:30 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        What's the difference between "Yeho" and "Yahu"? Both are YHW.

        Yitzhak may have been noting a difference in occurrence between YH and YHW, which is not the same thing at all.
        --
        Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...

        ----- Original Message ----
        From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, March 3, 2008 10:00:01 AM
        Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: [biblical-studies] Questions about a seal like the Rephaihu (ben) Shalem seal

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir@ gmail.com>

        > Personally, I think a pronunciation more along the lines of
        > "Rapi?u-Yahuwa"
        > would be appropriate. Now, how do you figure that the ?el theophoric is
        > older?
        > Why would -yah be more archaic than yahu? The opposite is in fact
        > probably
        > the case.

        There appears to have been some form of orthographic rule for the use of
        theophorics in NW Semitic names where the leading theophoric is "Yeho" as in
        Yehoichim, Yehosaphat, Yehoshua, etc and the terminal theophoric as YAH or
        YAHU as in Yeshayahu (Isaiah), Yirimyahu (Jeremiah), Refayahu, etc. In the
        very earliest use of theophorics they may have been attached to royal names.
        Perhaps a leading or terminal theophoric was exclusive to class...that' s
        just a conjecture.
      • Yitzhak Sapir
        ... Let me clarify some points. The Tiberian pronunciation was along the lines of Yoho:$ua(. What you have above is a modernized reading of the Tiberian
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 3 4:56 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Jack Kilmon wrote:

          > There appears to have been some form of orthographic rule for the use of
          > theophorics in NW Semitic names where the leading theophoric is "Yeho" as in
          > Yehoichim, Yehosaphat, Yehoshua, etc and the terminal theophoric as YAH or
          > YAHU as in Yeshayahu (Isaiah), Yirimyahu (Jeremiah), Refayahu, etc.

          Let me clarify some points.
          The Tiberian pronunciation was along the lines of Yoho:$ua(. What you have above is a modernized reading of the Tiberian pronounciation. The ancient pronounciation was older and possibly different. For example, Hezekiah's name is vocalized as ha-za-qi-(i)a-�, which looks almost like the modern vocalization. But perhaps it represents -yahwu, the -u being a case marker). Particularly, it seems to me that *yahwu could explain the development of both yaho:- and -yahu: in the Biblical names, and it is also a normative qatl form. In any case, -yah as you find for example in the name Hezekiah is actually the later vocalization of the name as found in later books such as Chronicles (and spelled differently too, yh instead of yhw). yhw must be considered more archaic both in light of the usage in the Bible and in light of the fact that all names in epigraphic sources that we find prior to the Babylonian conquest have yhw.

          > In the very earliest use of theophorics they may have been
          > attached to royal names.

          "may" is always a nice word, but "evidence" is a better word. Without evidence, I wouldn't even call this a conjecture. It is a thought, an idea. Some support must be adduced.

          > Perhaps a leading or terminal theophoric was exclusive to
          > class...that's just a conjecture.

          Again.

          > Dr. Albright thought that El and Yhwh may have been merged as an
          > hypocoristicon. The Qal of Aramaic hwh taken from a TITLE phrase
          > as a

          You mean Hiphil.

          > hypocoristicon of EL, A title like "El causes something to come into
          ^^^^^^^
          > being". Aramaic imperfect 3rd sing. from HWH. That is why I thought EL as
          > an older theophoric than YAHU but it is my God given right and priviledge to
          > be wrong like everyone else. :)

          I think this idea has very little support. We don't even find sufficient early evidence for the root of such a verb. Furthermore, hwh is never attested in the Hiphil.

          > You may be right that Yahweh is the earliest usage going back to 1400 BCE
          > Syria (probably Ugaritic origins)

          I don't think Ugaritic has an attestation of the name.

          > and Egyptian accounts (Amenhotep II,
          > Raamses) of the Shasu who may have been nomadic "pre-Israelites." The next
          > use in epigraphy that comes to mind is line 18 of the Mesha stele.

          The first attestation related to a Israelite god is only in the Mesha
          inscription.
          The Shasu mention records a place, which is very interesting in its own, but it is not a god. Assuming the Shasu were pre-Israelites is also without much evidence (although it could be argued that their descendants along with other groups coalesced into Judaeans, I guess). Moreover, assuming that their beliefs were monotheistic is without evidence. I mean, all we have is the mention of a place here.

          Other than that I suggest you reread the last point I made because I think you are talking about something totally different than what I wrote. Also, you are speaking of replacement of names and such, but this assumes some kind of history of religious beliefs for which we have no evidence, only interpretations of much later Biblical narratives.

          Yitzhak Sapir
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.