Isaac Fried: The name “Jacob” (i) does not have YH, and (ii) is not awest Semitic name ending in -YH that honors YHWH. Beginning with I Kings, there are dozens anddozens of west Semitic names ending in -YH that honor YHWH. By stark contrast, prior to II Samuel thereis not a single individual character’s name that is a west Semitic name endingin -YH that honors YHWH. Who or whatcaused that sea change in II Samuel? Mycontention, contra the scholars, is that King David is given the great Biblicalhonor of being the first person to give one or more of his sons a west Semiticname ending in -YH that honors YHWH. But scholars see the name of King David’s scribe atJerusalem, $RYH at II Samuel 8: 17, as being a west Semitic name ending with -YHthat honors YHWH. Yet scholars generallyagree that the name )WRYH [misleadingly transliterated by KJV as “Uriah”] at IISamuel 11: 3 is not a west Semitic name ending in -YH that honors YHWH. $RYH and )WRYH lived at the same place in thesame time. Shouldn’t their names beconceptualized as follows? $R -Y [-H]; )W-R -Y [-H]. You don’t think the fathers of $RYH and )WRYH had honored YHWH, doyou? You don’t think that either $RYH or)WRYH at birth was a Hebrew, do you? Aren’t these foreigners who were absorbed by the ever-expanding Hebrewsunder mighty King David? King Davidinherited that scribe when he took Jerusalem; King David never had a scribe before he got toJerusalem, as far as we can tell from the Biblical testimony; per Joshua 15: 63, we know that there werestill many non-Hebrews, the Jebusites, living in Jerusalem in King David’s day; and another contemporary of $RYH, and of)WRYH the “Hittite”, is )RWNH the "Jebusite", with all three foreign names havingbeen Semiticized by adding a final -H, which Semiticization shows that thesethree people of foreign ancestry came from families who had been living inJerusalem for many generations. Not everyperson in Canaan had been born a Hebrew with a good Hebrew name. Not. Rather, many such people, who had not been born Hebrews and who did nothave good Hebrew names, were absorbed as a necessary consequence of King David’sexpansionism. Isaac Fried, if you could find it within yourself torecognize that not everyone in the Bible was a Hebrew at birth with a goodHebrew name, then you would see that neither $RYH nor )WRYH in King David’sJerusalem was a Hebrew at birth, and neither of them has a good Hebrewname! They’re foreign names, which havebeen Semiticized by adding a final -H at the end. They are n-o-t good Hebrew names, becausethose two fellows were not Hebrews at birth. Yes, some later Hebrews and Jews after King David’s time were given thename $RYH as a good Hebrew name of a Hebrew: $R-YH. But King David’s scribe,by sharp contrast, was not a Hebrew at birth and does not have a good Hebrewname. His name should, rather, be conceptualizedas being: $R -Y [-H]. The four Hebrew letters arethe same, but given the particular context, it’s a completely different namethan, for example, the $RYH who at II Kings 25: 18 is the Hebrew chief priestof the Temple in Jerusalem, who indeed was a Hebrew at birth who had a goodHebrew name that is a west Semitic name ending in -YH that honors YHWH. Isaac Fried, not every person in Canaan was a Hebrew at birthwith a good Hebrew name. In my opinion, KingDavid’s scribe $RY-H was not a Hebrew at birth and he does not have a Hebrewname. Rather, the final -H in his nameis a Semiticization of a foreign name [just as is the case with hiscontemporaries in King David’s Jerusalem: )WRY-H the “Hittite” and )RWN-H the “Jebusite”]. Accordingly, King David should rightly beaccorded the great honor of being the first person in the Bible who gives oneor more of his sons a west Semitic name ending in -YH that honors YHWH. Persons with foreign names [such as KingDavid’s scribe] should not be accorded that great honor, which rightly belongsto King David. Jim Stinehart Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
