Jim:
> Jonathan E. Mohler: > > > > 1. You wrote: “Pharaoh's daughter is named בתיה, the daughter of Yah. > Albeit, this is not recorded in Exodus, but in 1Chronicles. Obviously, the > Hebrews gave her that name. This is an indication that, on the one hand, she > was accepted into the fold of Israel, and on the other hand, that she had > made Yah her God.” > > > You may well be right about that. That’s an interesting name at I Chronicles > 4: 18. Unlike the authentic Egyptian names of Egyptians in the Patriarchal > narratives, BTYH looks like a Hebrew name being given to an Egyptian in > Chronicles. > You write as though it is strange for a foreigner to carry a Hebrew name. Going by a new name based on a significant event, especially conversion, is widespread, historically, as well as in our day. I ministered for 12 years in Kenya. Christian Kenyans go by their so-called christian name (not always a Biblical name on account of Catholic influence), even though one can freely call them by their tribal name. The daughter of Pharaoh is mentioned more than a half-dozen times in Exodus, and she is never named. Then in Chronicles she is named. The textual evidence here points to her conversion and acceptance. That the writer chooses to mention her by name seems quite important to me. > 2. You wrote: “This is most likely the case with אוריה, )uri-YH the > Hittite. He has made Yah his god, having married Bath-Sheva, and has sworn > allegiance to David. Both of these names suggest conversion to Yahweh and > assimilation into the Hebrew nation.” > > > I have to disagree with you there, and go with the scholarly view. The final > -H in the name “Uriah” is generally viewed as being a Semiticization of a > non-Hebrew name, as with the names Araunah and, in my opinion, Seraiah, who > are contemporaries in the Hurrian/Jebusite-dominated Jerusalem of King David > in II Samuel. Uriah is said to be a Xuti-ya/XTY [“Hittite”], which is one of > the most frequently attested Hurrian names at Nuzi, and means “Praise the > Divine” or “Praise Teshup”. Thus every indication is that King David is > dealing with people of Hurrian ancestry in Jerusalem [as one would expect > from Joshua 15: 63], who have Semiticized Hurrian names. > This is fascinating. The theory is cogent. But I thought the circumstantial evidence, namely, his being a loyal officer in David's army, his marriage to Bathsheba, and his character and behavior, seemed to support a name-change. Both theories are totally inferential since we don't have the record of how he got the name. Maybe a third theory could be that his birth name was indeed the Hurrian name, and with conversion, adding the hey made a convenient wordplay, both Semiticizing and giving a testimonial. Locals of any decent would not have missed the wordplay. From "praise the divine" to "Yah is my light". This theory would fit quite comfortably with the BH worldview. > Leaving off that final -H, we have )WRY, or )WR -Y, which is the expected > Hebrew rendering of the Hurrian name Ev-ri -ya. That name means “The Divine > Is Lord” or “Teshup Is Lord”. Both )WR -Y, before adding the Semiticizing > final -H, and XT -Y work perfectly in Hurrian. In both cases, the standard > Hurrian theophoric suffix, -ya, is represented by Hebrew yod/Y. By contrast, > neither such name works well in Hebrew. > I find it very suspect to treat the waw as a "v" this early in BH. Also, its position in the syllable suggests a shureq or a holem waw. C(א)V(ו)C(ר)-YH. ּBut I still think your theory is cogent. I may be wrong, but most scholars (as opposed to rabbinic circles) argue for a waw at this stage of BH, not a vav. > Not all people in Canaan were born Hebrews with good Hebrew names. Even > persons who joined with the Hebrews, and were good people who were much > appreciated by the Hebrews, were not necessarily born Hebrews with good > Hebrew names. Per Joshua 15: 63 we know that King David must have had to > deal with several important non-Hebrew people in Jerusalem of > Hurrian/Jebusite ancestry. These people, each of whom has a Semiticized > Hurrian name, turn out to be: Uriah, Seraiah, and Araunah. I am not really following you here. We are admitting that they are not born Hebrews. BTYH (MT) is Egyptian, and )URYH is a Hittite. This is not the issue. The issue is whether their name is a Semiticized birth name or a conversion name. Here I use "conversion" loosely. I don't think he would have been called a Hittite had he gone through proselytization. > > If there had been no Hurrian remnant in Jerusalem, with Joshua 15: 63 either > being factually incorrect or not intending to refer to Hurrians, then there’s > no way that later books in the Bible could come up with, as they invariably > do, bona fide Hurrian names for Kenizzites, Kenites, Hittites, and Jebusites. > All four of those names are colorful Patriarchal nicknames for the Hurrians, > based on attested Hurrian personal names at the Hurrian province of Nuzi in > Late Bronze Age eastern Syria. > It is possible that many or some of these names are in fact as you contend. I am just arguing for the possibility of a conversion name in the case of Uriah. I think it is obvious in the case of Pharaoh's daughter, wife of Mared. > One important, if underrated, theme in the Bible is that the Hebrews had to > contend with many non-Hebrew people. Not only enemies, but also non-Hebrew > people living in Canaan who threw in their lot with the Hebrews, but who had > not been born Hebrews with good Hebrew names. > > > Jim Stinehart > Evanston, Illinois > Jonathan E. Mohler
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
