Re: [ANE-2] Re: [biblical-studies] Questions about a seal like the Rephaihu (ben) Shalem seal
- 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@...>
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
> would be appropriate. Now, how do you figure that the ?el theophoric is
> Why would -yah be more archaic than yahu? The opposite is in fact
> 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.
- 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 ofLet me clarify some points.
> 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.
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-ï¿½, 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"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.
> attached to royal names.
> Perhaps a leading or terminal theophoric was exclusive toAgain.
> class...that's just a conjecture.
> Dr. Albright thought that El and Yhwh may have been merged as anYou mean Hiphil.
> 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 asI 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.
> 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 BCEI don't think Ugaritic has an attestation of the name.
> Syria (probably Ugaritic origins)
> and Egyptian accounts (Amenhotep II,The first attestation related to a Israelite god is only in the Mesha
> 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 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.