Hi Jim, When I saw this subject from the OP, I thought you would jump in...
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:54:11 -0400 (EDT), [email protected] wrote: > > UriHurwitz set forth a nice explanation of the birth name “Abram”, > but made noattempt to explain the divinely-changed name “Abraham”: > )B R HM. Prof. Yigal Levin then wrote in response: “Uri, While this > isprobably true for the name Abram, how do you explain the He in > Abraham? Doesthe word "raham" have any meaning?” > > But that is not the rightquestion. Rather, the right question toask > is: How do you explain the resh/R inthe name “Abraham”? )B means > “father”,and per Genesis 17: 5, in this divinely-changed name )B is > a rare reference toa human father, rather than here being a > theophoric. -HM is also self-explanatory per Genesis 17:5, as it > refers to a “multitude”. Infact, Genesis 17: 5 explains the > divinely-changed name “Abraham” perfectly, i-f and only i-f the > resh/R in the middle ofthat name is a theophoric. If resh/R inthe > middle of the name )B R HM is a generic reference to the divine, > thenGenesis 17: 5 has this name exactly right and is essentially > self-explanatory: “human father, per the divine Will, of > amultitude”. > > In my controversial opinion,a Hebrew author who is capable of > portraying heroic Joseph as adopting Egyptianclothes, speaking > fluent Egyptian, marrying an Egyptian wife who is thedaughter of an > Egyptian priest of Ra from On, whose Egyptian master also has aname > that honors Ra [spelled resh/R], and who as Pharaoh’s vizier > confiscates agreat deal of valuable land along the Nile River for > Pharaoh at firesaleprices, is capable of using resh/R as a generic > theophoric in Abraham’sdivinely-changed name. Just like theportrait > of Joseph in Egypt, it makes us all nervous as the Egyptian > connectionis far too strong for our liking today, but that’s the way > it was in thePatriarchal Age. > > Genesis 17: 5 is self-explanatoryas to the meaning of )B R HM, once > one realizes that the interior resh/R thereis used as a generic > theophoric. I seem to recall that we had a disagreement on this point in another thread some time ago... I can't quite recall what I wrote in that former exchange, but I think my current objections are: 1) Phonological a) Vocalization: Whereas the common English transcription of this Egyption god is "Ra", this transcription is conventional, to make the purely consonantal Egyption spelling <r`> pronounceable. The Coptic spelling is ΡΗ (i.e., [re:] or [re]), and a much earlier (18th dynasty) cuneiform transcription suggests a vocalization /ri`a/ [riʕa]. This doesn't fit particularly well with the Hebrew [ra] in "Abraham". b) Consonants: Despite point (a) above, the more serious objection (in my view) is the complete loss of the consonant /`/ in Hebrew. I really would expect to see this reflected in a `ayin in Hebrew. The fact that the Hebrew form does *not* have a רע/r` sequence but only a ר/r causes me to doubt the connexion. 2) Non-phonological: - I'm not aware of any evidence that "Ra"/"Re" was used used in a generic sense to indicate "God", but only as the name of a specific god (though later identified with another specific god "Ammon"). -- Will Parsons μη φαινεσθαι, αλλ' ειναι. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
