the transformation of biblical proper names

8/18/2019 The Transformation of Biblical Proper Names

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-transformation-of-biblical-proper-names 1/169

E = m c 2

1

A

∑

This eBook is downloaded fromwww.PlentyofeBooks.net

PlentyofeBooks.net is a blog with an aimof helping people, especially students,who cannot afford to buy some costly

books from the market.



LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE

OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

418

Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors

Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University

Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors



This page intentionally left blank



THE TR NSFORM TION

OF BIBLIC L PROPER N MES

Jože Krašovec



Copyright © 2010 by Jože Krašovec

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, ortransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying,

recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher, T & T Clark

International.

T & T Clark International, 80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038

T & T Clark International, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX

T & T Clark International is a Continuum imprint.

http://www.tandtclarkblog.com/



CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ix

Abbreviations xi

I NTRODUCTION 1

Chapter 1ETYMOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF PROPER NAMES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND THE HISTORY OF THEIR FORMS IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS 4

1. Etymological Explanation of Proper Namesin the Hebrew Bible 6

2. Etymological Translation of Two Namings of Eve 83. Etymological Translation of the Toponym Babel 114. Etymological Translation of the Place Names



vi The Transformation of Biblical Proper Names

17. Etymological Translation of the Proper NamesBaal-perazim and Perez-uzzah 39

18. Etymological Translation of the Toponym Beracah 4119. Conclusion Concerning Folk Etymology

in the Hebrew Bible 4220. Conclusion Concerning Folk Etymology in Bible Translations 4421. LUB and DAL in Relation to the Original,

to the LXX and the Vg, and to the Established Traditions 4722. General Conclusion 51

Chapter 2TRANSLITERATION OR TRANSLATION OF PROPER NAMES IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS 55

1. Substitutes for the Divine Personal Name yhwh or Its Transliteration 57

2. Substitutes or Transliteration in Construct Expressionsof Divine Names and Appellatives 58

3. Transliteration or Translation of TermsDenoting the Underworld 61

4. The Giants Nephilim and Rephaim 635. The Monstrous Animals Behemoth and Leviathan 656. Symbolic Names of Hosea’s Children 677 Th S b li N f I i h’ S d S 69



Contents vii

d. The Sibilant Letters Samekh, ade and in/Šin 100e. The Doubling of Single Consonants in Transliteration

into Greek and Latin 101f. Single and Double Kaph, Qoph, Pe and Taw

in Transliteration into Greek and Latin 101g. Insertion of Consonants and Transcription of the Semitic

Clusters , ›, and 1023. Transliteration of Semitic Vowel Letters and Vowel Signs

into Greek and Latin 103a. The A-sounds in Hebrew/Aramaic and in Transliteration 104

b. The I- and E-sounds in Hebrew/Aramaicand in Transliteration 105

c. The U- and O-sounds in Hebrew/Aramaic

and in Transliteration 106d. Transliteration of Hebrew Half-vowels into Greek

and Latin 1064. Transliteration from Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek into Latin 1085. Reasons for the Existence of Variant Forms

of Biblical Proper Names 118

a. Variant Forms in the Hebrew Bible 118 b. Reasons for Variants in the Greek and Latin Bibles 119c. The Emergence of Errors in Transcription

d T i i f h LXX T 121



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I had no intention of writing a study of this kind when I began dealing

with biblical proper names (back in 1982). However, the idea of com-

piling a dictionary of the forms of biblical proper names soon formed as

I began to standardize these names for the new Slovenian translation of

the Bible (SSP), a work which was completed and published in 1996.This study has been directly inuenced by the translation project. At

present, I am responsible for the preparation of the Slovenian Jerusalem

Bible, meaning that observations made in the present study stem from

my broader interest in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin linguistic

traditions. From my research, it has become apparent to me that the

forms of biblical proper names transmitted in the Bibles in these lan-

guages are the important background of the forms used in every Bible

t l ti i th ld



ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations of Bible Translations

ACF Almeida, Corrigida Fiel: Brazilian Portuguese Version (1753/1819/1847/1994/1995)

ALB Albanian Version (1994)

Aq Aquila, a Jewish translator of the Old Testament into Greek (between140 and 150 C.E.)ARA Almeida, Revista e Atualizada: Brazilian Portuguese Version (1993)ARC Almeida, Revista e Corrigida: Brazilian Portuguese Version (1969)ASV American Standard Version (1901)BBE The Bible in Basic English (1949/1964)BCI Biblia Catalana: Traducció Interconfessional (1996)

BFC Bible en Français Courant (1997)BKR Bible Kralická: Czech Bible (1613)BLS La Bible de Lemaître de Sacy: Port-Royal (1657–96)



xii The Transformation of Biblical Proper Names

JAP Japelj: The second Slovenian complete Bible translation made by JurijJapelj and co-operators (1784–1802)JPS Jewish Publication Society Bible: The Holy Scriptures (1917); for a

new JPS translation see TNKKAR Karoli Bible: Hungarian translation (1993)KJV King James Version: The Authorized English Bible (1611/1769)LBA La Biblia de Las Americas: Spanish translation (1986)LEI Leidse Vertaling: Dutch Revised Leiden Bible (1912/1994)LND La Nuova Diodati: Italian Revised Diodati translation (1991)LSG Louis Segond: French Version (1910)LUB Luther Bibel: Die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch (Wittenberg 1545)LUO Luther Bibel: German Revised Luther Bible (1912)LUT Luther Bibel: German Revised Luther Bible (1984)

LUV Lutherse Vertaling: Dutch Revised Luther Bible (1648/1750/1933/1994)LXE LXX English Version by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton (1844, 1851)LXX Septuagint: Greek Translation of the Old TestamentLXXO Origen’s recension of the LXX: HexaplaMGK Modern Greek translation (1850) N30 Norwegian Bible: Bokmíl (1930) N38 Norwegian Bible: Nynorsk (1938) NAB New American Bible (1970, 1986, 1991)NAS New American Standard Bible (1977)



Abbreviations xiii

SEB Slovenska ekumenska Biblija: Slovenian Ecumenical Bible (1974)SPP Slovenski protestantski prevod: Slovenian Protestant Translation by

Antonin Cháska (1914)

SSP Slovenski Standardni Prevod: Slovenian Standard Version (1996)

SVV Statenvertaling: Dutch Bible (1637)

Sym Symmachus Ben Joseph: the Jewish translator into Greek (between

190 and 200 C.E.)

SyrHex Syro-Hexapla

Theo Theodotion: the Jewish translator into Greek (between 180 and 192

C.E.)

Tg Targum; according to the books of the Bible: TgIsa, TgPs, etc.

TgJ Targum Jonathan: Aramaic translation of the Prophets

TgN Targum Neofiti: Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch

TgO Targum Onqelos: Aramaic translation of the PentateuchTgPsJ Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch

TNK Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures; the new JPS translation (1985)

TOB Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible: French translation (1988)

UKR Ukrainian Version of the Bible (1996)

Vg Latin version of the Bible: Vulgata

VL Vetus Latina: Old Latin translation of the Bible

WEB Webster Bible: English Noah Webster version (1833)

WOL Wolf Biblw: the third Slovenian complete Bible translation (1856–59)

ZBI Zürcher Bibel: German translation (1907–31)



This page intentionally left blank



I NTRODUCTION

Biblical place and personal names are the most conspicuous linguistic

and cultural testimony of the fact that the Bible soon became the primary

source of European civilization and later of world cultures. Through oral

and written transmission of the biblical texts, living religious and cultural

traditions were nourished, and in the broad cultural environment biblical proper names have been handed down from generation to generation in

Bible translations, in folk literary creations, in the highest standards of

national literature and in linguistic studies on phonology, morphology,

syntax and semantics. In these ways, biblical forms of proper names

were not only preserved but became also a primary source for further

development in the transformation process of phonetic and semantic

traits in accordance with the transformation rules between Hebrew,

A i G k L ti d th E l



2 The Transformation of Biblical Proper Names

One long-term goal of this writer is the compilation of a historicaldictionary of the forms of biblical names based on European Bible

translations.

Bible translations were selected for inclusion on the basis of their rela-

tive importance in the larger scheme of Bible translation history and

development. Major ancient translations are of primary importance. The

Septuagint (hereafter LXX) and other Greek versions, the Targums andthe Vulgate (hereafter Vg) are considered consistently throughout this

study. In all cases, the Samaritan Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls are also

taken into consideration. The LXX and the Vg became key versions for

all later European Christian and, to a lesser extent, for later Jewish Bible

translations. In addition to the LXX and the Vg, the Targums became key

versions for later Jewish literary history. It must be noted that the phonetic forms of biblical names in Christian versions, in contrast to

Jewish translations, more often depend on the LXX and Vg traditions than

on the Hebrew text. The current forms of biblical names have been

inuenced by the phonetic changes necessitated by their transfer and

transliteration from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek and Latin, and it

was from these sources that other translators later borrowed and incor- porated the changes. By way of Bible translation into Greek, Latin and

other ancient languages many biblical names have passed into general



Introduction 3

translations are original or are inuenced in the choice of transliterationor translation and in the manner of transliterating or translating biblical

proper names. Sometimes it is possible to see that a particular version

reects scholarly rethinking about the Hebrew text; more often, however,

it is evident that translations replicate transliteration forms of a previous

phonetic tradition or follow the translation method of key versions. In the

larger scheme of Bible translation history and the development of theforms of biblical proper names, it is especially interesting that DAL often

replicates the forms of LUB, thus testifying most clearly to the religious

and cultural afnity between Luther and the rst Slovenian Bible trans-

lators. The extent to which DAL depends on the forms of biblical proper

names from LUB is striking.




Aetiological etymological interpretations of proper names within theBible are summarizing literary creations, ones which are often not in

harmony with all the important traditions.

A survey of Bible translations from antiquity to the present time

shows that in connection with proper names, translators were always

faced with an alternative: transliteration or translation. In the larger

framework of Bible translations, fuller attention is paid to those etymological name derivations that are predominantly translated in

ancient versions of the Bible, even though they are transliterated in most

modern translations. A comparative survey of Bible translations shows

that various circumstances played a role in the decision whether to trans-

literate or translate a particular proper name. Etymological interpretation

calls by itself for translation of proper names, therefore it is not surprising that some early Bible translators in cases of folk etymology often

preferred to translate the naming of places or persons followed by an

etymological explanation of the naming, instead of transliterating them—

all the more so because some proper names that are not explained ety-

mologically in the Hebrew Bible are nevertheless translated in several

ancient versions.



1. Etymological Explanation of Proper Names 7

Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah at Gen 17:5 and Gen 17:15 belongs to the Priestly source.3

Among the other books of the Pentateuch, only Exodus and Numbers

contain some examples of name-giving together with a more or less

explicit etymological explanation; Exodus: Moses (2:10), Gershom

(2:22; 18:3), Marah (15:23), Massah and Meribah (17:7), Eliezer (18:4);

Numbers: Taberah (11:3), Kibroth-hattaavah (11:34), Meribah (20:13,24; 27:14), Hormah (21:3). The passages containing these names belong

predominantly to the Yahwist source. In other parts of the Hebrew Bible,

reports of name-giving combined with an etymological explanation of

the meaning of given names are even more scarce; Joshua: Gilgal (5:9),

Achor (7:26); Judges: Hormah (1:17), Bochim (2:4–5), Gideon / Jerub-

baal (6:32), Ramath-lehi (15:17), En-hakkore (15:18–19); 1 Samuel:Samuel (1:20, 27), Ichabod (4:21), Ebenezer (7:12), Sela-mahlekoth

(23:28, without explanation), Nabal (25:25); 2 Samuel: Baal-perazim

(5:20), Perez-uzzah (6:8), Solomon / Jedidiah (12:25); 1 Kings: Cabul

(9:13), Samaria (16:24, after the name Shemer, the owner of the land);

2 Kings: Sela / Joktheel (14:7); Ruth: Naomi / Mara (1:20); 1 Chronicles:

Peleg (1:19); Jabez (4:9–10), Beriah (7:23), Perez-uzzah (13:11; cf.2 Sam 6:8); Baal-perazim (14:11; cf. 2 Sam 5:20); 2 Chronicles: Beracah

(20:26)




Nabal, Samaria, Sela / Joktheel, Peleg, Jabez, Beriah. However, most place names are translated (at least partly) in some ancient translations,

as compound names: Eben-ezer, Sela-mahlekoth, Baal-perazim, Perez-

uzzah, Jedidiah / Solomon, Cabul, Noomi / Mara, Beracah.

It may be noted that nearly all personal names are consistently trans-

literated. By contrast, almost all place names are translated at least in

some ancient translations. In the following section, the names that are predominantly translated in ancient Bible translations will be analyzedindividually or in groups according to the order of the books in the

Hebrew canon.4

2. Etymological Translation of Two Namings of Eve

According to the Yahwist narrative of creation (Gen 2:4b–25), Adam has

given his wife a generic name (v. 23): “This one shall be called Woman

( iššh), for out of Man this one was taken (m îš luqqh-z t ).” It is

noteworthy that the Samaritan Pentateuch has the expression m îšh

“out of her Man” instead of m îš , a rendering found also in LXX and Tg.

The Targums did not preserve the word-play based on a clear linguisticinterrelation between the descriptive designations of Man and Woman.

TgO chose the words tt “woman wife” mibbalh “from her hus-




The striking creation of a pun by Jerome obviously inuenced LUB,which in turn inuenced some later translations. A comparison between

LUB and DAL clearly proves the dependence of DAL on LUB: Man

wird sie Mennin heissen / darumb / das sie vom Manne genommen ist //

Ona bo Moshiza imenovana, satu, ker je is Mosha vseta. We note that

about one third of later translations have preserved the word-play. The

comparison of JPS and TNK shows that TNK replicates more completelythe word order of the original than JPS. All English translations have the

standard pair Woman/Man; in other languages appropriate word pairs

were created: Mennin…vom Manne (LUB); Männin…vom Manne (LUO,

LUT, ELO, ELB, SCH); d’un nom qui marque l’homme…de l’homme

(BLS); compagne de l’homme…de son compagnon (BFC); Varona…del

varón (SRV, R60); varoa…do varão (ARC, ARA); mužatka…z muže (BKR); Moshiza…is Mosha (DAL); Moshovka…od moshá (JAP);

možína…iz možá (WOL); (M )možinja…iz moža (SPP, SEB, SSP);

muženou…z muže (CEP); olovikovojo…z olovika (UKR); mannin…uit

haar man (LEI); haar manninne…van den man (LUV); “mannin”…de

man (NBG); haar Manninne…uit den man (SVV); maninna…av man

(S17); manninne…av mannen (N30, NBK, NBN).At this point one may ask why most ancient versions did not preserve

the pun of the original to the extent that some Renaissance and more




It is all the more surprising, then, that nearly all later translations havethe transliteration of the name: Eve (all English translations, etc.), Eva

(e.g. DAL, LUO, LUT), and so on; there are only a few exceptions: Heua

(LUB); Heuah (GNV); Chawwa, Leben! (BUR); ¥ ava-Vivante (CHO).The fact that DAL did not adopt the form Heua from LUB, even though

the translation itself is reminiscent of LUB, provides compelling reasons

for the assumption that the form Eva was already established in the liv-ing tradition in regions of Slovenia in the sixteenth century. The majority

form Eve, Eva and so on, is obviously based on the Greek transcription

form Eúa (with spiritus lenis). There is no example of later translations

having translation of the name instead of transliteration. The more the

practice of transliteration prevailed, the less the word-play of the original

came to expression. The play on words is reduced to cases of renderingnames both in transliteration and an added translation (BUR, CHO), or

an explanation of the meaning of the name in a note (NRSV).

3. Etymological Translation of the Toponym Babel

The etymological naming of the city Babel is closely connected with thestructure of the narrative of the Tower of Babel and the confusion of

language in the last Yahwist narrative of the Primeval History at Gen




one another’s speech…” (vv. 5–8). In conclusion, God’s preventative or punitive intervention against the audacious will of the people to great-

ness is brought into connection with the naming of the city Babel (v. 9):

“Therefore it was called Babel (bbel ), because there the LORD confused(blal ) the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered

them abroad over the face of all the earth.”

The naming of the city of Babel is one of the most striking examplesof etymological aetiology relating to the question of how in the Bible a

particular place was given its name. This popular etymology is wrong in

substance, for the name Babel is Sumerian and Babylonian in origin:

Sum. Ká-dingir , Akk. Bb-ilu “gate of the god.” The Hebrew verb signi-

fying “to confuse, to mix” is blal. The slight graphological resemblance

to Babel was therefore enough for the Hebrew author to add to previousstages of development of the name an aspect referring to the situation

described of the plurality of languages as opposed to the presumed unity

of language at the beginning. This popular etymology is a situation

aetiology explaining why worldwide mutual communication and human

cooperation are impossible. The main purpose of the narrative is to

explain why the primeval state of unity of language was changed into plurality of language. In accordance with the general theme of the

Primeval History namely the escalation of sin the narrator brings into




mistress Sarai in the desert, the angel of the Lord appeared and assuredher: “You have conceived and shall bear a son; you shall call him

Ishmael ( yišml ), for the LORD has given heed (kî šm yhwh) to your

afiction” (16:11). The narrator and Hagar give etymological variations

of the lost ancient place name and of the well: “So she named the LORD

who spoke to her, ‘You are El-roi ( atth l r î )’; for she said, ‘I have

really seen [God] after he saw me.’ Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi (al-kn qr labb r b r laay r î ); it lies between Kadesh

and Bered” (16:13–14). We note that in the explanation of the naming of

Ishmael, the narrator substitutes the l with the Tetragrammaton yhwh as

the designation for God. Both designations have the same signicance

for the narrator, but he probably wants to take over a lapidary phrase. In

the naming of God by Hagar, the word r y has been vocalized by theMasoretes as a noun (r î ), suggesting the meaning of the name in the

sense of vision or revelation: “You are God of vision.” The Samaritan

Pentateuch has in v. 13 the form of the name th l r h, r h being read as a

nite verb or a participle. At the end of the compound name of the well,

the same word has been vocalized as a participle with a sufx of object

(r î ), suggesting the meaning of the name: “well of the one who is alive,who sees me.” The name Beer-lahai-roi appears in two more places in

the same form (Gen 24:62; 25:11)




In contrast to this name, the name Beer-lahai-roi is usually given usingtransliterated form, though it is translated in quite a few versions. English

translation variants for the name Attah El-roi are: Thou God lookest onme (GNV); Thou God seest me (KJV); Thou art the God who revealshimself (DBY); Thou art a God that seeth (ASV); Thou art a God of seeing (JPS, RSV, ESV); You-Are-the-God-Who-Sees (NKJ); Thou art a

God who is seen (BBE); Thou the God who hast seen me (DRA); ThouGod seest me (WEB); Thou art a God who sees (NAS); You are the Godwho sees me (NIV, NIB, NAU); Thou art God who seest me (LXE); Youare the God of Vision (NAB); German translation variants are: Du Gott sihest mich (LUB, LUO); Du bist ein Gott, der mich sieht (LUT, ELB);

Du Gott der Sicht (BUR); Du bist ein Gott, der sich schauen läßt (ELO);

Du bist “der Gott, der mich sieht” (SCH); Slovenian translation variantsare: Ti Bug vidiš mene (DAL); Ti si ta Bog, kateri si mene vidil (JAP); Ti si Bog, kteri si me vidil (WOL), and so on. There are some rare cases of

transliteration or mixed variants: You are El-roi (TNK, NRSV); You are El Roi (NJB); El-Roï (EIN); Atta-El-roï (LSG, NEG); Atta-El-Roi (NRV); Tu es El-Roï (BFC); Tu es El Roï (FBJ); Tu sei El-Roi (LND); Ti

si El Roi (SSP); Ti je El-Roi (ALB). The transliterated forms of the nameBeer-lahai-roi are nearly as numerous as the translations. Of interest here

therefore are only those versions in which the name is translated:




Gen 16:14 and the well of the vision at Gen 24:62; 25:11; LUB has einbrunnen des Lebendingen, der mich angesehen hat at Gen 16:14,

brunnen des Lebendigen und Sehenden at Gen 24:62; 25:11; DAL has

Studenez tiga shivezhiga, kateri je na mene pogledal at Gen 16:14,

Studenez tiga Shivezhiga inu videzhiga at Gen 24:62 and Studenez, tiga

shivezhiga inu videzhiga at Gen 25:11, and so on.

5. Etymological Translation or Explanation

of the Personal Names Moab and Ben-ammi

The section Gen 19:30–38 describes the origin of the peoples of Moab

and Ammon, presumably on the basis of some authentic historical

memories. The unmarried and childless daughters of Lot believed acoming catastrophe to be universal and organized incestuous intercourse

with their own father Lot to ensure descendants for the family threatened

with extinction. The narrative concludes with the explanation of the

names of the sons (vv. 37–38): “The rstborn bore a son, and named him

Moab (mô b); he is the ancestor of the Moabites (hû bî-mô b) to this

day. The younger also bore a son and named him Ben-ammi (ben- ammî ); he is the ancestor of the Ammonites to this day (hû bî bnê

ô ) ” Th l ti f th M b t f t l i l




before Abimelech that Abraham dug the well. The rst kind of folketymology prevailed and can be found again in the Yahwist narrative

about Isaac’s covenant with Abimelech (Gen 26:26–33); the concluding

statement relates to Isaac: “He called it Shibah ( šibh); therefore the

name of the city is Beer-sheba to this day.” The unique form šibh

means “seven”; so the name corresponds to the presumed etymology for

the city Beer-sheba. These aetiological interpretations are probably combined with several originally independent local traditions.

Translations reect two kinds of interpretation of the name Beer-

sheba. The Targums retain the Hebrew form, while the LXX translates it

as Phréar orkismoû “Well of the oath making” (Gen 21:31), Phréarórkou “Well of the oath” (Gen 26:33; cf. Phréar toû órkou at Gen 21:14,

33; 22:19; 28:10; 46:1, 5); Sym transcribes the name as Brsabeé at Gen21:31; the Vg transcribes it as Bersabee in both places. The name Shibah

of Gen 26:33 is translated in LXX as Órkos “Oath,” in Sym as Plsmon

“Abundance,” in the Vg as the corresponding Latin word in the accu-

sative Abundantiam. The rendering in Sym and the Vg are based on the

reading ibh “plenty, abundance, satiety” instead of šibh “oath.” The

LXX form Phréar orkismoû, which appears only at Gen 21:31, shows thatthe translator deliberately emphasizes the act of oath making. All later

translations render the name Beer sheba (Gen 21:31) in various trans




At Gen 26:33, the difference in the history of vocalizing the Hebrewword root š/b resulted in difference in translation or transliteration of

the name Shibah; in the LXX we nd translation using the word Órkos

“Oath,” in Sym using the word Plsmoné “Abundance,” in the Vg using

a word of the same meaning, Abundantia; LUB has the transliteration

form Saba, DAL Seba, and so on. A comparison of transliteration forms

found in European Bible translations shows that the phonetic formShibah/Shebah/Seba —found in orthographic variants—is the majority

form, whereas the form Saba found in LUB is again unique; revisions of

LUB have different forms: LUO has Seba, LUT has the translation

“ schwur ,” EIN has Schiba. The unique reading Saba found in LUB is

explained in a note in the margin: (SEBA) Heisst ein Eid / oder schwur /

oder die fülle. This means that the transliterated form Saba is based onthe etymology of the name Beer-sheba and on the pause reading of the

second word, rather than on the normal reading of the noun b “satiety”; so we may assume also here dependence on the form Bersabee

found in the Vg for the name Beer-sheba.

7. Etymological Translation of the Place Name Adonai-jireh

The narrative of the great temptation at Gen 22:1 19 describes the




root yr “to fear, worship.” TgO rephrases the verse in order to avoid anydivine nomenclature for the altar: “And Abraham worshipped (ûpla)

and prayed there in that place, and he said, ‘Here before the Lord shall

(future) generations worship ( yhôn-pal an drayy ).’ Therefore it is

said this day, ‘On this mountain did Abraham worship ( pl) before the

Lord.’ ” In the aetiological explanation of the naming of the place, the

verb is no longer imperfect but perfect in tense, and the indenite refer-ence is made denite in relation to Abraham. TgN and TgPsJ changed

the text even more by extending it into similar versions of Abraham’s

prayer, expressing his willingness to sacrice his son on the mountain,

identied with the mountain in Jerusalem. TgPsJ’s version of Abraham’s

prayer is shorter than the one recorded in other Targums; it reads: “Abra-

ham gave thanks and prayed there in that place, and said: ‘I beseech, bythe mercy from before you, O Lord! It is manifest before you that there

was no deviousness in my heart, and that I sought to perform your

decree with joy. Therefore, when the children of Isaac my son enter into

a time of distress, remember them, and answer them, and redeem them.

All these generations to come will say, “On this mountain Abraham tied

his son Isaac, and there the Shekinah of the Lord was revealed tohim.” ’ ” Versions of this prayer in relation to the Aqedah are recorded in

several midrashic texts 9




a play of time periods between present / future: Appellavitque nomen lociillius Dominus videt unde usque hodie dicitur in monte Dominus videbit.

According to this rendering the naming of the place alludes to the event

itself, while its aetiological explanation expresses the commonly accepted

view that God’s providence extends into the future.

Many translators decided to translate both the name of the place as

well as the explanation of the naming. All versions have a translation ofthe explanation of why the place was named the way it was, and more

than half of them also provide a translation of the name itself. There is a

greater tendency to do justice to the pun of the original text in versions

translating both the name and the explanation for a name. The expla-

nation is usually translated using the future tense, but sometimes the

present is used. LUB, for instance, achieves a striking play on words byrendering the verb in the present tense both times, even though Luther

claims in the margin that he followed Jerome: (Sihet ) Ebrei dicunt /

Dominus videbitur / Sed nos Hieronymum secuti / Rabinos Grammaticos

cum suis punctis et Cammetz hoc loco negligimus / et sine punctis

dicimus. Der HERR sihet / das ist / Gott sorget fur alles vnd wachet.

Etiamsi sensus ille / Dominus videbitur / sit plus valde / quod Deusapparet / vbi verbum eius dicetur / quod Rabini Grammatici non intelli-

gunt The translation of the entire v 14 is: Und Abraham hies die stet /




(NEG); Yahvé pourvoit (FBJ); Jehovah Jireh (LND, ALB); Iavè-Irè (NRV); Jehová proveerá (R60); “Jehová proveerá” (R95); Ieobàiré

(MGK); Jehova-jire-nek (HUN).

8. Etymological Translation of the Place Names Esek,

Sitnah, Rehoboth and Bethel

Within the same narrative of Isaac (Gen 26:19–22), information about

three wells is given:

When Isaac’s servants dug in the valley and found there a well of spring

water, the herders of Gerar quarrelled with Isaac’s herders, saying, “The

water is ours.” So he called the well Esek (eq), because they contended

with him (kî hit aqû immô). Then they dug another well, and they

quarrelled over that one also; so he called it Sitnah ( i nh). He moved

from there and dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; so he

called it Rehoboth (rbôt ), saying, “Now the LORD has made room for

us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.”

The name Esek (eq, spelled with a Sin) and the Hithpael of the same

root in the interpretation of how the well was given its name is not

otherwise attested, though from Late Hebrew we know of the spelling

i “ if i ” Thi lli d d i T O




Nearly all later European translations transliterate all three names. Inthis case, mention may be made only of LUB and DAL. LUB has trans-

literation Eseck / Sitna / Rehoboth; DAL has Eek / Sitna / Rehoboth. The

few exceptions of translation are noteworthy: Esek is translated as

Calumny (DRA), “Argument” (NLT), “Zank” (LUT), Injustice (BLS),

Éssèq – Chamaille (CHO), Essec – ce qui veut dire “Querelle” (BFC);

Sitnah is rendered as Enmity (DRA), “Opposition” (NLT), “Streit”(LUT), Sitna (Streit ) (EIN), Inimitié (BLS), Sitna – “Contestation”(BFC), Sitna – Détestation (CHO), Sitná (to je Soení ) (CEP); Rehoboth

is rendered as Latitude (DRA), “Room Enough” (NLT), “Weiter Raum”

(LUT), Rehobot (Weite) (EIN), Largeur (BLS), Reoot – Largesses

(CHO), Rehoboth – “Elargissement” (BFC).

The narrative describing Jacob’s dream at Bethel (Gen 28:10–22)culminates in the discovery and the naming of a sanctuary. Fleeing from

his brother Esau, Jacob experienced a revelation from God in a dream

during the night. Jacob recognized in the place of his dream “the house

of God (bêt lhîm)” (v. 17), and in the narrative concludes by relating

how the place was given its name: “He called that place Bethel (bêt- l ); but (w ûlm) the name of the city was Luz (lûz) at the rst” (v. 19). TheTargums retain the Hebrew spelling of both names, while the LXX trans-

lates Bethel correctly as Oîkos Theoû “the House of God ” However Luz




today.’ Therefore he called it Galeed ( gal d ), and the pillar Mizpah(hammi ph), for he said, ‘The LORD watch ( y ep) between you and

me…’ ” (vv. 46–49). The rst naming is given in two languages, because

Laban is an Aramaic speaker. Both the Aramaic version of the name,

ygar hdût “The heap of witness,” and the underlying Hebrew

name, gal d “The heap of witness,” are hapax legomena in the Hebrew

Bible, but mi ph “Watchpost” is frequently found elsewhere. The nameGaleed is part of folk etymology for the regional name Gilead.

The Bible’s translation history provides some interesting points. The

name hammi ph “Watchpost” is rendered in the Samaritan Pentateuch

with the word hammabh “Memorial stone.” Some scholars assume

in this form the original name of the place, in the Hebrew Bible changed

in some later period to hammi ph because of inappropriate cultic andtheological associations. The argument is precarious because the Hebrew

text is obviously built on the word-play between the name hammi ph

and the verb y ep, from ph “keep watch,” in the explication of the

meaning of the name. TgO only changes the Hebrew name mi ph into

the Aramaic skût , a word which has the same meaning. The changes

in TgN and TgPsJ in connection with the rst and the third name areslightly more substantial. The LXX is again consistent in its translation of

all names The emphatic state of the compound phrase ygar hdût is




when Jacob saw them he said, ‘This is God’s camp (manh lhîm zeh)!’ So he called that place Mahanaim (manyim).” Note especially

the contrast between the singular manh in Jacob’s exclamation and

the dual form of the place: manyim. Nevertheless, the immediate

correlation of the two forms of the same root clearly shows that the

writer of the aetiological explanation of the place name was concerned

with the literary feature of the word-play. The use of the dual in thenaming of the place is probably based on an independent ancient tradi-

tion of the name, one which prevailed due to greater importance of the

name in Israel’s history. The theological relevance of the tradition about

Jacob’s encounter with God’s realm, or God’s camp (manh lhîm),

explains why the nal redactor connects this later tradition aetiologically

with the earlier form of the place name in the dual ending meaning “Twocamps.” A possible reason for inclusion of the dual form of the name

Mahanaim at this place can be found in the account given of how Jacob

divided his possessions into two camps (lišnê manôt ) in order to save

at least one half of his possessions in case his brother Esau attacked him

(cf. Gen 32:8–11). However, Jacob’s expression of surprise, manh

lhîm zeh! (v. 3), indicates that the name is meant to be singular.Renderings in the Targums relate various kinds of paraphrastic render-

ings to the etymological meaning of the name Mahanaim thus conrm




10. Etymological Translation of the Place Names Peniel / Penuel and Succoth

The ancient narrative about Jacob’s struggle at Penuel (Gen 32:22–32),

probably based on a local story, ends with two aetiologies (vv. 31, 33).

The rst aetiology is of interest here because it contains the etymological

explanation of the city Peniel / Penuel east of the Jordan. Jacob asks hismysterious assailant what his name is. The numinous being does not

reveal his name but blesses Jacob instead (v. 30), thus revealing himself

to be God. Commenting on this miraculous encounter, which saves

Jacob’s life, the narrator says (v. 31): “So Jacob called the place Peniel

( pnî l ), saying, ‘For I have seen God face to face ( pnîm el pnîm),

and yet my life is preserved.’ ” At v. 32 the name of the place appears inthe archaic form pnû l , which is used in several other places (Judg 8:8–

9, 17; 1 Kgs 12:25; 1 Chr 4:4; 8:25).10 It is evident therefore that the

narrator uses the unusual form pnî l because this form allows for a pun

on the word for “face” ( pnîm).Translations have various different forms of translations and trans-

literations of the name Peniel / Penuel. TgO and TgPsJ retained the twospellings of the name, while TgN harmonized them with the one form

P i l Th LXX t l t d th lli P i l ( 31) Eîd Th û




the two divergent spellings calls for a critical assessment. The principleof unication was adopted, for instance, by the authors of the Loccumer

Richtlinien.12

At the end of the predominantly Yahwist narrative about Jacob’s

meeting with Esau (Gen 33) there is an aetiological explanation for the

place name Succoth. After a peaceful separation from his brother, Esau

sets out for Seir. In v. 17 the text reads: “But Jacob journeyed to Succoth( succth), and built himself a house, and made booths for his cattle;

therefore the place is called Succoth ( succôt ).” This aetiological formula

of the place mentioned at the end of Jacob’s itinerary (Gen 25–33)

acquires special signicance because it reects the original form of the

xed settlement and also signals that Jacob and their descendants have

settled permanently in the Promised Land. We note the use of He locale in the Hebrew, with nal –h also used as the accusative of direction in

the rst mention of the place name ( succth). This form is retained by

TgN, which at the same time prexes the preposition Lamedh “to”

(l-skth); some other examples of the retention of the accusative of direc-

tion in TgN include l-mrymh “to Egypt” at Gen 26:2; lwzh “to Luz” at

Gen 35:6, without the initial preposition Lamedh; mn-gl dh “fromGilead” at Gen 37:25; b-gšnh “in Goshen” at Gen 46:28, all of which

suggest that the author of TgN misunderstood the original purpose of the




Jacob came to Luz (that is, Bethel), which is in the land of Canaan, heand all the people who were with him, and there he built an altar and

called the place El-bethel ( l bêt- l ), because there the gods (angels)

were revealed to him (kî šm niglû lyw h lhîm) when he ed from

his brother. And Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried

under an oak below Bethel. So it was called Allon-bacuth ( allôn bkût ).

The designation of the place Bethel “the House of God” as El-Bethel“the God of Bethel” means that the place has been equated with the God

venerated in Bethel by Jacob and his family. The name Allon-bacuth, on

the other hand, presumably memorializes the mourning rites that accom-

panied the death of the old nurse who became part of the family of Jacob.

The LXX and Vg ignore renaming the place by adding the word l

before the name Bethel; the LXX transcribes the name as Baithél , eventhough the same name is translated as Oîkos Theoû at Gen 28:19. LXXO

has lled the lacuna with the word ischyrós “strong, powerful” under the

asterisk.13 However, in the Vg the name is transliterated as Bethel at Gen

28:19, translated as Domus Dei at Gen 35:7. The Targums show varia-

tions: while TgO retains the complete Hebrew form of the name, TgN

omits the antecedent word l , and TgPsJ uses the paraphrase “El whocaused his Shekinah to dwell in Bethel.” Most later translations trans-

literate the complete name some without considering l In further




The name Allon-bacuth is more often translated in ancient and inmodern translations of the Bible. All Targums use translations, some of

them avoiding the word “oak” in order to remove any suspicion that

Jacob was associated with a tree that might have been connected with

idolatrous worship: mêšar bkît “the Plain of weeping” (TgO); dibblô

bkîth “(of) the Oak of weeping” (TgN). Based on a play on the word

allôn “oak,” taken to be the Greek állos “another,” TgPsJ has “anotherweeping.” The LXX translates the name with Bálanos pénthos “Acorn of

weeping.” The Vg does not render the “oak” by extension but in its

proper sense: quercus Fletus. Most later versions transliterate the name

in various orthographic forms, but there are a considerable number of

translations: The oak of weeping (DRA); the Oak of Tears (NJB); the

“Oak of Weeping” (NLT); Klag(e)eiche (LUB, LUO, SCH); Steineichedes Weinens (BUR); Träneneiche (EIN); le Chêne des pleurs (BLS); de

chêne des pleurs (LSG, NEG); le Chêne-des-Pleurs (FBJ); Alôn Abkout

– le Chêne du Pleur (SHO); “le Chêne des Pleurs” (TOB); “le Chêne

des pleurs” (BFC); “Quercia del pianto” (IEP); l’Alzina del Plany

(BCI); Hrat tiga klagovanja (DAL); hrat tiga jokanja (JAP); Dob

žalovanja (WOL); hrast žalovanja (SEB); hrast jokanja (SSP); Posvátnýdub pláe (CEP); Terebint Paczu (BTP); Dubom placha (RST); Duba

na Placha (BUL); eik des geweens noemde (LEI); Klaageik (LUV); Eik




the view that the Egyptians performed a great act of mourning for thedead Jacob at a location which, in spite of this etymological reinterpreta-

tion, retained the original spelling bl in the MT.

The LXX surprises again by translating the name: Pénthos Aigýptou

“the Mourning of Egypt.” Similarly, Vg renders the name with Planctus Aegypti. Nevertheless, almost all later versions transliterate the name. All

the more surprising is that LUB and TOB have translation of the name:“Der Ägypter Klage”; “Deuil-de-l’Égypte.” A translation is also found

in several early Slavonic Bible translations. The rendering “téh Egypter- jeu klagovanje” by DAL clearly proves DAL’s dependence on LUB, for

in both cases the unusual word order is the same. The Croatian version

by Bartol Kaši written in 1625 uses “Pla od Egipta.”

13. Etymological Translation of the Place Names Marah,Massah and Meribah

Within the itinerary of the Israelites from the Sea of Reeds (Red Sea)

into the wilderness of Shur there is a Yahwist and Elohist story describ-

ing how bitter water is made sweet (cf. Exod 15:22–27), which includesan aetiological explanation of why the place Marah was named the way it

Th t l i t E d 15 23 “Wh th t M h




of the verb nsh “to test” (in Piel) and the second with the aid of theverb rîb “to quarrel”: “He (Moses) called the place Massah and Meriba

(massh ûmrîbh), because the Israelites quarrelled and tested the LORD

(al-rîb bnê yir l wal nasstm et-yhwh).” The names Massah and

Meribah, or in some places only one of the names, are in several places

connected with the testing and complaining traditions (cf. Num 20:13,

24; 27:14; Deut 6:16; 33:8; Pss 81:8; 95:8; 106:32–33). Therefore itseems likely that the aetiology of the name of Massah at Exod 17:7 is a

secondary interpolation into the present Meribah story. This text presents

names and verbs in a chiastic fashion (a-b-b-a); that is to say, the etymol-

ogy of the rst name corresponds to the second verb, while the second

name and the rst verb are in between. The double etymological word-

play Massah-nsh and Meribah-rîb reects the sense of the etymologiesgiven in the double exclamation of indignation uttered by Moses at Exod

17:2: “Why do you quarrel with me (mah-trîbûn immdî )? Why do you

test the LORD (mah-tnassûn et yhwh)?” TgN preserved the etymologi-

cal correspondence in both verses but replaced the stem rîb with dîn; at

Exod 17:7, the chiastic fashion is retained: nsyywnh–dyynwwtyh–

dyynwn–nswn. In the LXX, the chiastic order is also retained. However,the names Massah and Meribah are not transcribed but are translated

etymologically on the basis of corresponding verbs at Exod 17: “Why do




Deut 6:16, the speaker admonishes the people by using a word-play onthe name Massah: “Do not put the LORD your God to the test (l

tnassû), as you tested him at Massah (nsîtem bammassh).” The LXX

follows the original closely in using the same root consistently: “You

shall not tempt (ouk ekpeiráses) the Lord thy God, as you tempted him in

the Temptation (exepeirásasthe en tô Peirasmô).” The same is true for

the Vg: Non temptabis Dominum Deum tuum sicut temptasti in locoTemptationis. In the LXX and Vg, the name Massah is rendered using the

same words at Deut 9:22: en tô Peirasmô; in loco temptationis. The

Hebrew text of Deut 33:8c shows a perfect etymological correspondence

between the verbs and names, but the LXX has the translation: hòn

epeírasan autòn en peíra eloidórsan epì hýdatos antilogías “whom they

tempted in the temptation; they reviled him at the water of strife.” TheVg has the translation: quem probasti in Temptatione et iudicasti ad

aquas Contradictionis. At Ps 95:8 the LXX translated the phrase “as at

Meribah, as on the day of Massah” as en tô parapikrasmô (MGK: paror-

gismô) katà tèn hméran peirasmoû “as in the provocation, according to

the day of temptation.” The Vg has the translation sicut in contradic-

tione, sicut in die temptationis.Most later versions transliterate the names at all quoted passages and

only a few have translation: the Water (the waters) of contradiction




na provcação // com no dia da tentaçã(ä)o (ACF, BRP at Ps 95:8); comoem Meribá // como no dia da tentação (ARC at Ps 95:8); ty vody sváru

(BKR at Num 20:13; 27:14); Vody sváru (CEP at Num 27:14); pi

V/vodách sváru (BKR, CEP at Num 20:24); v pokušení // pi vodách

Meribah (BKR at Deut 33:14); jako pi popuzeni // a v den pokušení

(BKR at Ps 95:8); kak v Merive // kak v den’ iskushenia (RST at Ps

95:8); mov pri Merivi // nemov na pustyni v den’ sproby (UKR at Ps95:8); kakto v Meriva // kakto v denia, kogato Me izptakhte v pustiniata

(BUL at Ps 95:8); ta kregarka voda (DAL at Num 20:13; 27:13); pèr

Kregarskih vodah (DAL at Num 20:24; Deut 33:8); voda(i) tiga (v’)

supèrgovorjenja(i) (JAP at Num 20:13, 24; 27:14); na tim kraji t

kuhnjave (JAP at Deut 33:8); v’ ràsdrashénju // na dan t kuhnjáve

(JAP at Ps 95:8); het water der twisting (LUV at Num 20:13, 24; 27:14);te Massa // aan het water der twisting (LUV at Deut 33:14); ver-

sengésnek vizei/vizénél (HUN at Num 20:13, 24; 27:14).

14. Etymological Translation of the Place Names Taberah,

Kibroth-hattaavah and HormahThe narrative of Num 11:1–35 (Yahwist/Elohist) begins with a passage

d ibi h th I lit l t d th i i f t ( 1 3) I thi




contrast, the word-play disappears in TgO because the translator preserved the verb from the root br both in the description of God’s

punishment at Num 11:1 and in the explanation of the name at Num 11:3

but replaced the simple name Taberah with the compound name bêt

yqêdth “the House of re/conagration,” an expression which is also

used at Deut 9:22. The LXX also dropped the word-play by translating the

name Taberah using the cognate descriptive term Empyrismós “ABurning,” and by using a verb from another root both for describing

God’s reaction at Num 11:1 and for describing the meaning of the name

Taberah at Num 11:3: kaì (hóti) exekaúth en autoîs pr “and (because) a

re was kindled among them.” The Vg, on the other hand, restored the

word-play by translating the name Taberah in relation to the cognate

verb: Incensio-accensus (v. 1) succensus (v. 3)…ignis. All later trans-lations transliterate the name Taberah using various forms.

The extended narrative of Num 11:1–35 about how the quails were

provided is concluded by the explanation of how the place was given its

name (v. 34). The people succumbed to a lust for esh and God’s anger

is shown in his destruction of many of them. The popular etymology

includes explanation of the place name by playing on the words for“grave” and “craving” for meat (vv. 33–34): “And the LORD struck the

people with a very great plague So that place was called Kibroth




(mnémata tês epithymías); for there they buried the people that lusted(éthapsan tòn laòn tòn epithymtén).” The Vg preserved part of the

word-play in a different combination: Vocatusque est ille locus sepulchra

Concupiscentiae ibi enim sepelierunt populum qui desideraverat. Both

in the LXX and in the Vg the name is consistently rendered by the same

two words. Most later translators transliterated the name with only a

few exceptions: The graves of lust (DRA); Lustgreber (LUB); Lust- gräber (LUO, SCH); “Lustgräber” (LUT); Gräber des Gelüsts (BUR);

les Sépulcres de concupiscence (BLS); Grobi tiga shelenja (DAL);

Pokopaliha tiga poshelenja (JAP); pokop poželjivosti (WOL); Lust-

graven (LUV).

In the Yahwist/Elohist passage Num 21:1–3 there is an etymological

explanation of the name Hormah, identied as a play on the word rem “ban.” The Canaanites of the Negeb under the leadership of the king of

Arad fought against Israel. In this context we nd a good example of

popular etymology (vv. 2–3): “Then Israel vowed a vow to the LORD and

said, ‘If you will indeed give this people into my hand, then I will utterly

destroy (wharamtî ) their towns.’ The LORD listened to the voice

of Israel, and handed over the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed(wayyarm) them and their towns. And the name of the place was

called Hormah (ormh) ” A variant text has been transmitted in the




region. The LXX could therefore be correct in rendering the word as‘Anathema,’ which reects the fact that, strictly speaking, Hormah is not

a specic site.”14 Most later translations contain transliteration of

Hormah, and there are only a few examples combining transliterated /

translated forms or which use only translation: Horma id est anathema

(Vg at Num 21:3; Judg 1:17); Horma, that is (to say), Anathema (DRA);

Chorma, Bannung (BUR); Horma (Untergansweihe) (EIN); Horma,c’est-à-dire anathème (BLSI); ¥ orma, l’Interdite (CHO); Horma, ce qui

signie “la Ruine” (BFC); Hormà (que vol dir “extermini”) (BCI);

Horma (Nimicire deplin) (CNS); Chorma (to je Klatb propadlé)

(CEP); Hórma, to je, prekltje (JAP); Horma, to je, prekletstvo (WOL).

In most of these cases, the inuence of Vg is evident.

15. Etymological Translation of the Place Names Bochim,

Ramath-lehi and En-hakkore

At the end of the aetiological narrative Judg 2:1–5, which can stand as an

independent unit (cf. the etymological meaning of the name Allon-

bacuth at Gen 35:8), there is a popular etymological explanation of the place name Bochim, which does not appear in any other place. The editor

h d th l t l i l ti t th di i t I l’




Pleureurs” (BFC); Boquim (ge vol dir “els qui ploren”) (BCI); Bochim(Ceice plîng) (CNS); Bokím (to je Plaící) (CEP); kraj tih jókajózhih, alith óls (JAP); Kraj plakajoih ali solzá (WOL).

The story of Samson’s life at Judg 15:9–20 includes the topographical

aetiological stories of the place names Ramath-lehi and En-hakkore. The

main aetiological narrative of Judg 15:9–17 concludes with a word-play

on the name of the town Ramath-lehi (v. 17) in relation to Samson’ssuccess (Heb. rûm) in slaying a thousand Philistines using the jawbone

of a donkey: “When he had nished speaking, he threw away the jaw-

bone; and that place was called Ramath-lehi (rmat-leî ).” The pericope

of Judg 15:18–19 explains the origin of the spring at Lehi and remem-

bers Samson’s appeal to God for water and God’s miraculous answer

(v. 19): “Therefore it was named En-hakkore (ên haqqôr ), which is atLehi to this day.” The etymological meaning of the rst name is “the Hill

of the Jawbone,” of the second one “the Spring of the One who Called.”

Translations show a huge variety of different forms. In TgJudg, the rst

name is transliterated, the second one is translated using the paraphrase:

ên d ityhîbat bilôt dšimšôn “the spring that was given at the

prayer of Samson.” In both codices of the LXX, the rst name is trans-lated in the same way: Anaíresis siagónos “the Lifting of the Jaw-bone”;

in the A text of the LXX the second name is translated as Pg epíkltos




from different roots for the naming of the place and for the explanationof how the place came to have its name: lapis Adiutorii…auxiliatus estnobis Dominus. Later translators transliterated the name, with very few

translating it or combining transliteration and translation: The stone ofhelp (DRA); Eben Eser, Hilfe-Stein (BUR); la Pierre du Secours (BLS); Pierre de l’Aide, È èn-ha- Ézér (CHO); “Pierre-du-secours” (BFC);

Kamen pomózhi (JAP); pomoi (WOL). LUB and DAL, obviously basedon LUB, have the unique transliteration form EbenEzer , writing both

words constituting the name in capitals without a space between them.

Other translations have expected forms in the framework of orthographic

rules in individual languages: Ebenezer (KJV, RSV, NRSV, etc.), Eben-ezer (GNV, JPS, TNK, etc.), Eben-Ezer (DRB, LUO, etc.), Eben-Eser

(LUT, EIN, etc.), Eben Ezer (SSP).The story of Saul’s search for David in the wilderness at 1 Sam

23:24b–24:1 includes an aetiological narrative that records a popular

etymological explanation of the origin of the name in connection with

one of the rocks in the region. When Saul successfully pursued David the

Philistines invaded the country and a messenger came to Saul, saying

(1 Sam 23:27–28): “ ‘Hurry and come; for the Philistines have made araid on the land.’ So Saul stopped pursuing David, and went against the

Philistines; therefore that place was called the Rock of Divisions (sela




of Separation. We note that LUB and DAL, again obviously under directinuence of LUB, have transliteration based on an incorrect reading

of the original: SelaMahelkoth / SelaMahelkot ; this transliterated form

appears nowhere else. Other noteworthy transliterated forms are: Sela-

hammahlekoth (GNV, DBY, ASV, JPS), Selahammahlekoth (KJV,

RWB), Sela Hammahlekoth (NIV, NIB), Sela-hammah-lek(c)oth (WEB,

BBE, SRV), Sela-Mahlekoth (das heißt Scheidefels) (LUO), Sela-Mach-lekot (LUT, ELB, LUV), Selach-Hammachlekoth (ELO), Sela-Machlekot

(Fels der Trennnung) (EIN), Séla-Hammakhlekoth (DRB), Séla-Ham-

machlekoth (LSG, NEG), Sela-Ammalecot (NRV), Sela-hama-lecot

(R60), Sela-hamajlecot (RVA), Sela-Hamalecote (ARC), Sela-Gam-

makhlekof (RST), Sela-Gammakhlekot (UKR), Selaamalekot (BUL),

Sela-machlekoth (SVV), Sela-Hammalekot (S17), Sela-Hammahlekot (N30, N38, NBK, NBN). A comparison of translation and transliteration

options and forms shows very clearly the relationship of dependence

between the key versions and others who replicated their solutions.

17. Etymological Translation of the Proper Names Baal-perazim and Perez-uzzah

Th f B l i th V ll f R h i i l i d




clay that is lled with water.’ Therefore he called the name of that placethe plain of breaches (bmêšar prîm).” By contrast, the LXX empha-

sized the play on words by using the same root four times: Epán

diakopôn “Upper Breaches,” …diékopsev “broke through,” …diakóptetai

“breaks through,” …Epáno diakopôn “Upper Breaches.” The Vg and

virtually all other later translations use transliteration. Special attention is

paid to the common transliteration form BaalPrazim in LUB and DAL because nowhere else do we nd this orthographic and phonetic form; all

other German translations have the form Baal-Perazim. The majority

form in English and other translations is Baal-perazim; exceptions are

the forms: Baalperazim (KJV, RSV, RWB), Baal Perazim (NKJ, NIV,

NIB), Baal Pharisim (DRA), and so on. The unique transliterated form in

LUB and DAL is an indisputable proof that DAL replicated LUB.The name Perez-uzzah is explained in the narrative describing how the

ark is brought to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1–23). In connection with Uzzah’s

death, the Deuteronomist editor interpolated the information about the

etymological naming of the unknown site Perez-uzzah, which is located

somewhere on the road between Kiriath-jearim and Jerusalem (v. 8):

“David was angry because the LORD had burst forth with an outburstupon Uzza ( pra yhwh pere buzzh); so that place is called Perez-

uzzah (pere uzzh) to this day ” In this skilful play of words the name




later translations. Most translators rendered the two words belonging tothe same root with one verb; the name itself is transliterated in every

single case. The transliteration form in LUB and DAL is the same—

Perez Vsa —and it should be noted that the two words constituting the

name are, exceptionally, not written together. All other German versions

have different transliteration forms: Perez-Usa (LUO, LUT, ELB, EIN),

Perez-Ussa (ELO, SCH). Other Slovenian translations have the transla-tions Ozovu Udarjenje (JAP), udarek Ozov (WOL) and the translitera-

tions Perez Uza (SPP), Feres-Oza (SEB), Perec Uza (SSP).

18. Etymological Translation of the Toponym Beracah

There are only two places of obvious aetiological naming in Chronicles(1 Chr 4:9; 2 Chr 20:26) and two places containing an explicit statement

about the derivation of names (1 Chr 11:7; 14:11 = 2 Sam 5:20). In

general, the Chronicler prefers an homiletical interpretation of names.

The explanation of how the place Beracah came to be named at 2 Chr

20:26 is part of the lengthy story of Jehoshaphat’s victory over the east-

ern coalition of Moab and Ammon (2 Chr 20:1–30). After the victory,Judah turned to plundering. At this point, the text reads (2 Chr 20:25–

26) “Th t th d t ki th b t b f it b d




entire word-play: in valle Benedictionis…ibi benedixerant Domino…vallis Benedictionis. Transliteration of the name in various orthographic

forms dominates in later translations: The/the Valley of Berachah (GNV,

KJV, NKJ, DBY, WEB, RWB); The/the Valley/valley of Beracah (ASV,

JPS, RSV, NAS, NIB, NAB, NAU, NJB, ESV, NRSV); Tal Beraka

(ELO); Tal Beracha (ELB, EIN); la vallée de Beraca (LSG, NEG); la

vallée de la Beraka (BFC, FBJ); la vallée de Berakha (SCO), and so on.A translation of the name is not found as often but the forms are also

noteworthy: the Valley of Blessing (BBE, NLT, TNK); the valley of

Blessing (DRA); Lobetal (LUB, LUO, LUT, SCH); Segenstal (BUR); la

vallée de la bénédiction, la vallée de la Bénédiction (BLS); la vallée de

Bénédiction, “vallée de Bénédiction” (TOB); Valle die Benedizione

(DIO, LND); la vall de la Benedicció (BCI); vale de Bênção (ARA); Hvalni dul (DAL); dolina Hvale / hvale (JAP, WOL); dolina Beráha /

“Slavilna dolina” (SSP); Dolina dobroeení (CEP); dolina blago-

slovenija (RST); Dolina(ta) na blagoslovenie(to) (BUL); Lofvallei (LEI);

Lof-dal (LUV); Dal der Lofprijzing (NBG); Lovprisnings-dalen (N30);

Lovprisingsdalen (N38, NBN); Lugina e Bekimit (ALB); hálaadásnak

völgyébe (HUN). It is difcult to overlook the obvious literary feature ofword-play in the original, so the word-play is preserved in many later

translations (BBE DRA TNK LUB LUO BUR LUT SCH BLS




the characteristic Hebrew tradition of aetiology and folk etymology. Allexamples of aetiological explanation of etymology of proper names in

the Hebrew Bible represent a basic literary formula appearing in variants.

Any analysis of aetiological explanation of etymology of biblical proper

names raises questions concerning the origin and the growth of the text,

its historical setting and authorship. The immediate and the broader con-

text of the narratives clearly indicate that a complex history of populartraditions and literary creations lies behind the present text.

Aetiological explanation of the etymology of biblical proper names is

a literary and stylistic phenomenon. The naming of persons or places and

the explanation for the names is based on literary rather than on linguis-

tic considerations. The etymological explanations of names are therefore

fully in line with fundamental traits of popular literature and poetry. Theterm “folk etymology” can be therefore misleading if it is not understood

within the general framework of literary features. As Moshe Garsiel

states,

The liberty taken by the biblical authors in these explanations has been

termed by some scholars “folk etymology.” Such a denition misses the

point; the explanations function as a literary device and are designed toenrich the literary unit. What we see here is by no means a popular and

shallow interpretation based upon a lack of knowledge but rather a




important to note that the explanation of a proper name assumes that theevent described really happened and is a real factor in determining the

meaning of the name. In most cases, aetiological explanation of a place

name is not the primary tradition of the story, but a secondary expansion,

resembling a gloss. Aetiological derivations of proper names creating

word-play occurred at an early period to ll out and expand the primary

tradition.

20. Conclusion Concerning Folk Etymology

in Bible Translations

The literary phenomenon of the word-play in the original text presents a

great challenge to translators who wish to render the original Hebrew orGreek text into languages that are not Semitic. For Semitic languages,

translators who were attentive to the literary quality of the original would

preserve the play on words without difculty. However, word-play is

often preserved even in translations into other languages—through

adequate translation of the names and their etymological explanation.

The aetiological derivation of names prompted many ancient translatorsto translate the name and follow it by an etymological explanation in

order to replicate the original play on words Mention may be made of




(LXX

); the name Taberah at Num 11:3: Vocavitque nomen loci illius Incensio eo quod succensus fuisset contra eos ignis Domini (Vg). Note

the play on three words of the same root in connection with the name

Hormah: anathematiô autòn…kaì anethemátisen autòn…kaì epekálesan

tò ónoma toû tópou ekeínou, Anáthema “I will devote it…and devoted

him…and they called the name of that place Devotion” (LXX); the name

Bochim at Judg 2:4–5: …kaì éklausan, Kaì epnómasan tò ónoma toûtópou ekeínou, Klauthmônes “…and wept. And they named the name of

that place Weepings” (LXX B; A has the name in sing.); …elevaverunt

vocem suam et everunt et vocatum est nomen loci illius Flentium sive

Lacrimarum (Vg); the Name Baal-perazim at 2 Sam 5:20–21: …ek tôn

Epán diakopôn…diékopse Kýrios…hs diakóptetati hýdata…Epán

diakopôn… (LXX); the Name Beracah at 2 Chr 20:26: …eis tòn aulônatês eulogías ekeî gàr ulógsan tòn Kýrion dià toûto ekálesan tò ónoma

toû tópou ekeínou Koilàs eulogías (LXX); …in valle Benedictionis etenim

quoniam ibi benedixerant Domino vallis Benedictionis (Vg); …im

Lobetal denn daselbs lobeten sie den HERRN…Lobetal (LUB);…v’Hvalnim doli: Sakaj ondi o ony GOSPVDA hvalili Hvalni dul

(DAL).In the periods after the Middle Ages the pun disappeared. This is

because even etymologically explained names were transliterated In




Darum rief man seinen Namen Mara: Bittre (Exod 15:23);

Er rief den

Namen des Orts Masa, Prüfe, und Meriba, Gezänke, wegen des Zankens

der Söhne Jisraels und deswegen, daß sie IHN prüften (Exod 17:7); Er

rief den Namen des Ortes Tabera, Zündstatt, denn auf sie eingezündet

hatte ein Feuer von IHM (Num 11:3); Man rief den Namen jenes Orts:

Gräber des Gelüsts, denn dort hatte man das Volk der Lüsternen

begraben (Num 11:34); bannen…es bannte sie und ihre Städte und riefden Namen dieses Orts: Chorma, Bannung (Num 21:2–3: BUR; cf.

CHO); Sie erhoben, das Volk, ihre Stimme und weinten. Sie riefen den

Namen jenes Ortes: Bochim, Weinende (Judg 2:4–5); ER hat vor mir

meine Feinde durchbrochen, wie ein Durchbruch der Wasser. Daher rief

man den Namen jenes Orts: Baal Perazim, Meister der Durchbrüche

(2 Sam 5:20–21); Am vierten Tag sammelten sie sich im Segenstal –denn dort segneten sie IHN, deshalb rief man den Namen des Ortes

Segenstal (2 Chr 20:26). In some versions, a translation of the name is

included in the notes (RSV, NRSV). Combining the transliteration and

translation of a name was introduced only in aetiological derivations of

names, showing that the literary phenomenon of folk etymology must

have been a concern of some translators.In general, there is no explanation for the fact that names are usually

translated in ancient versions but transliterated in modern ones Conse-




21. LUB and DAL in Relation to the Original,to the LXX and the Vg, and to the Established Traditions

At Gen 2:23, we nd the play on words from the same root in the rst

naming of Eve: iššh // m îš. In contrast to most other ancient trans-

lations, Vg replicates the pun by the female and male forms of the same

root: virago // de viro. Similar solutions are found in LUB and in DAL:Mennin // vom Manne; Moshiza // is Mosha. In this case, the source of

dependence in individual translations cannot be established. The second

naming of Eve (Gen 3:20) is based on the play of words awwh // kol-

y in the original, replicated only in the LXX. Nearly all other ancient

and more modern translations transliterate the name Eve and translate the

etymological explanation of this name. LUB shares with the LXX and Vgtransliteration based on Hebrew phonetics: Heúa (LXX at Gen 4:1), Hava

(Vg), Heua (LUB), Heuah (GNV). LUB has a gloss explanation in the

margin: ( Heua) Hai / heisst Leben / Da her kompt Heua oder Haua /

leben oder lebendige. In contrast to LUB, DAL has the prevailing trans-

literation form Eva, based on smooth instead of rough breathing of Greek

transliteration: Eúa. The survey of Bible translations shows that the form Eva established itself quite early after the Middle Ages. Even more

i d i th t i ti f th f B b l (G 11 9) th




Translation and transliteration forms of the names Ben-ammi, Beer-

sheba and Adonai-jireh conrm the hypothesis that translators normally

replicate translation or transliteration forms of unique and rare names,

whereas in choosing the forms of well-known names they consider the

established tradition of their own culture. The Hebrew form of the

unique name ben- ammî “Son of my people” at Gen 19:38 is accurately

translated in the LXX as hyiòs toû genoús mou. The Vg transliterates thename falsely as Ammon and adds a correct translation: lius populi mei.

LUB and DAL combine translation and transliteration: das kind Ammi;

déte Ammi. Since there are no other versions having such a combination

(except LUO), the dependence of DAL on LUB is indisputable. On the

other hand, the naming of Beer-sheba at Gen 21:31 found different

transliteration forms in the Vg, LUB and DAL: Bersabee; BerSaba; Beereba. At Gen 26:33, the Vg supposes in the naming of Shibah the

root b and translates it accordingly as Abundantia; LUB has the trans-

literation form Saba, DAL Seba. The naming of the unique place name

Adonai-jireh at Gen 22:14 is based on the Hebrew play of words yhwh

yir eh / bhar yhwh yr eh. The LXX translates the pun by changing the

Hebrew imperfect forms into a preterite: Kýrios eîden / en tô órei Kýriosóphth. The Vg places the basic verb r h in the active mood both in the

naming of the place and in the explanation of the naming to get the




The naming of places Jegar-Sahadutha, Galeed and Mizpah at Gen

31:46–49, and Mahanaim at Gen 32:2–3, found varied translation / trans-

literation solutions. For Jegar-Sahadutha we nd: Bounòs tês martyrías

(LXX); tumulus Testis (Vg); Jegar Sahadutha (LUB); Iegar Sahaduta

(DAL). For Galeed there is translation everywhere: Bounòs mártys

(LXX); acervum Testimonii / Galaad id est tumulus Testis (Vg); Gilead

(LUB); Gilead (DAL). For Mizpah: H órasis (LXX); omitted (Vg); eineWarte (LUB; cf. LUO); ena Strasha (DAL). For Mahanaim: Parembol

Theoû haut / Parembolaí (LXX); castra Dei sunt haec / Manaim id est

Castra (Vg); Es sind Gottes Heere / Mahanaim (LUB); Letu o Boshje

vojke / Mahanaim (DAL). The dependence of DAL on LUB is striking

in translating the text comprising the names Galeed and Mizpah: (Daher

heist man jn Gilead) und sey eine Warte (LUB); (Satu je on njegaimenoval Gilead) inu bodi ena Strasha. DAL took from LUB even

parenthesis and the wrong transliteration form Gilead , which is

elsewhere found only in LUO, LEI and SVV; in the form Galaad only in

Vg, SRV, R60, R95, RST, BUL; all other translations replicate various

forms of the original word gal d. It may be noted that DAL also took

from LUB the explanation of Gilead as Zeugehauffe / kup prizh in themargin. Even more striking is the fact that the place Mizpah is given in

transliteration forms in all translations; only in the LXX LUB and DAL




LUB has the orthographic form Suchoth, DAL has the form Suhot , BKR

has Sochot. Since all other translations write the second consonant as

(c)c or (k)k , it is evident that DAL and probably also BKR took the

orthographic form from LUB.

At Gen 35:6–8, there are two namings of interest, El-bethel and Allon-

bacuth, and at Gen 50:11, the naming of Abel-mizraim. LUB has for the

name l bêt- l the transliteration form ElBethEl , and the translation as Klageiche (LUO and LUT Klageeiche) for the name allôn bkût . DAL

copied the orthographic form ElBethEl and translated the second name as

Hrat tiga klagovanja. Dependence of DAL on LUB is beyond any doubt

in the writing of the rst name because this orthographic form is found

nowhere else; LUO has the form El-Beth-El and LUT the form El-Bethel.

Etymological translation of the second name is found in several trans-lations, therefore the evidence of dependence is limited. The name blmirayim is translated in all translations of present interest to us: Pénthos Aigýptou “the Mourning of Egypt” (LXX); Planctus Aegypti (Vg); Der Ägypter Klage (LUB); téh Egypterjeu klagovanje (DAL). In this case,

only the word order can be considered as possible evidence of depend-

ence. In the LXX and Vg, the word order is normal; in LUB and DAL,however, it is unusual or grammatically wrong. The 1625 Croatian

version by Bartol Kaši has for instance normal word order: “Pla od




conspicuous proof for dependence; the name SelaMahelkot(h) is based

on a mistaken vocalization and therefore corrected in later revisions of

LUB. The two examples of translation in LUB, followed by DAL, could

have been inuenced by the Greek and Latin traditions. In translating

the name Beracah we note also preservation of play on words in both

versions.

22. General Conclusion

This chapter has offered a comparative study of the forms of biblical

proper names in transliteration or translation forms. The study focused

on those examples of etymological explanation of proper names in the

Hebrew Bible, which are usually translated in ancient versions, but trans-literated in modern European translations. A large corpus of European

Bible translations from antiquity to the present time is the necessary

background for evaluation of linguistic and ideological reasons for

changing the forms of biblical proper names in a new historical situation.

In contrast to ancient Bible translations, the Renaissance and the more

modern European Bible translations manifest a strong tendency to trans-literate both personal and geographical names. The shift from translation

t t lit ti i ti d til th t d h t d d




religion, including liturgy. JPS and TNK accepted, for instance, translit-erated forms of biblical proper names from the general English tradition(KJV, etc.) together with the tradition of translating the meaning of thenames in notes.

In connection with the etymologically explained proper names in theHebrew Bible, it is striking that frequent translation of proper names in

ancient versions is characteristic of geographical names; most personalnames are left untranslated. This phenomenon might be due to the factthat personal names are individual and therefore intrinsically moreconnected with the identity of the person who bears the name than withtheir etymological meaning, whereas geographical names are “collec-tive” in nature and therefore primarily connected with their etymological

meaning. The main characteristics of name-giving throughout the ancient Near East is the tendency to understand the name as a substitute for the person; the names shared in the very essence of beings and things. Once personal names come into general use they are often repeated. Repetitionimplies protection of their forms. Geographical names, on the other hand,are not intrinsically connected with individual beings; the connection

between the name and the place is therefore looser. Place names are infact nearer to appellatives than to names proper. The destiny of geo-graphical names is consequently more dependent on the will of invaders




reasons to assume that geographical names that were internationally

used were transmitted in their original form, whereas those of merely

local importance became easily subject to translation according to their

etymological meaning. A reliable solution to this issue will be possible,

however, only after the various transformations of all biblical proper

names over time have been studied for a comparative dictionary of

biblical proper names based on European Bible translations. Such adictionary is a long-term goal of the present research.



Chapter 2

TRANSLITERATION OR TRANSLATION

OF PROPER NAMES IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

Even the earliest translators of the Bible believed that equivalents hadto be found for all the words that appeared in the original text. Notable

exceptions have been proper names as well as Hebrew common nouns for

which no adequate translations could be found: Amen, ephod , Gehenna,

Hallelujah, manna, Pesah, Sabbath, and so on. From the beginning,

Bible translators decided to transliterate almost all proper names, only

occasionally translating them according to their etymological meaning orcultural determinants. For very special reasons, the main Hebrew name

f G d h h (Y h h) l d b h l d i i L




transliteration forms can vary. Several names have different forms of the

same transliteration.1

The present chapter discusses some well-known appellatives, desig-

nations and proper names that are rendered both in transliteration and

translation forms: the Tetragrammaton yhwh (Yahweh) (Gen 2:4; 3:1,

etc.), meaning the personal name of the God of Israel; designations of the

netherworld Abaddon (Job 26:6; 28:22; 31:12; Ps 88:12; Prov 15:11;27:20; Rev 9:11) and Sheol (Gen 37:35; Ps 6:5; Job 26:6; Prov 15:11;

27:20, etc.); designations of the giants Nephilim (Gen 6:4; Num 13:33)

and Rephaim (Gen 14:5; 15:20, etc.); designations or names of the mon-

strous beings Behemoth (Job 40:15) and Leviathan (Isa 27:1; Pss 74:14;

104:26; Job 3:8; 40:25); the symbolic names of Hosea’s children: Jezreel

(Hos 1:4), (Lo-)Ruhama (Hos 1:6) and (Lo-)Ammi (Hos 1:9); the nameof Isaiah’s second son Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isa 8:1, 3), which has a

striking symbolic meaning in the context of Isaiah’s pronouncement

of the destruction of Damascus and Samaria; the names of peoples

Philistines (Gen 10:14; Exod 13:17; etc.) and Goiim (Gen 14:1, 9); the

lands Aram-naharaim (Gen 24:10) and Paddan-aram (Gen 25:20); the

toponyms Moreh (Gen 12:6; Deut 11:30; Judg 7:1) and Moriah (Gen22:2; 2 Chr 3:1); the cave Machpelah (Gen 23:9, 17, 19; 25:9; 49:30;

50:13); and the plain Shephelah (Deut 1:7; Josh 9:1; 10:40; 11:2 16;



2. Transliteration or Translation of Proper Names 57

1. Substitutes for the Divine Personal Name yhwh or ItsTransliteration

In the Hebrew Bible, the specic personal name for the God of Israel is

given using the four consonants, the “Tetragrammaton,” yhwh, which

appears 6007 times. It is almost certain that the name was originally

pronounced Yahweh. In some early period of Judaism the Tetragram-maton yhwh came to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, leading

to the long-established practice when reading the Hebrew Scriptures in

the synagogue of reading the word dny “Lord.” The Masoretes added

vowel sounds to the consonantal Hebrew text, and attached to yhwh

vowel signs indicating that the Hebrew word dny “Lord” or lhîm

“God” should be read in its place.A survey of Bible translations throughout the centuries reveals that

translators have always been in search of the best solutions for rendering

the Tetragrammaton yhwh. On the one hand, they were bound to the

Jewish tradition of extraordinary reverence for this Divine Name, and on

the other hand they were obliged to overcome a limited range of possi-

bilities when yhwh appears in construct expressions of divine names andappellatives. The basic dilemma has been whether the Divine Name

h ld b t lit t d l d b th d A i il dil




2. Substitutes or Transliteration in Construct Expressionsof Divine Names and Appellatives

The Hebrew Bible contains a number of construct expressions, ones

which are compounds of double proper names or designations of God,

sometimes extended with additional appellatives. The established prac-

tice of replacing the Tetragrammaton yhwh with the word Lord or Godand other circumstances have obliged translators to search for such

construct expressions, which more or less change the wording of the

original.

First to be mentioned is the phrase dny yhwh b ôt (Isa 3:15;

10:23, 24; 22:12, etc.). The word dny is the most common Hebrew

designation of the Lord; the Tetragrammaton yhwh is normally replaced by the word LORD/Lord; the word in plural b ôt is usually rendered

using the word “hosts,” and sometimes it is transliterated. The way the

whole phrase is rendered and its orthography clearly reveals the degree

of originality of translators or of their reliance on other versions: yy lhîm b ôt “LORD God of hosts” (TgIsa); Kýrios sabaoth (LXX);

Kýrios ho Theòs tôn dynámen (MGK); Dominus Deus exercituum (Vg); Lord, euen the Lord of hoasts (Isa 3:15 GNV), the Lord God of hostes(I 10 24 GNV) th L d G d f h t (I 22 12 GNV) th L d GOD




Another type of compound proper name for God is found in the

construct expressions l lhê yir l (Gen 33:20) and h dn yhwh

lhê yir l (Exod 34:23). The expression in Gen 33:20 concludes the

narrative about Abraham’s itinerary to Shechem. There he bought “the

plot of land on which he had pitched his tent. There he erected an altar

and called it El-Elohe-Israel (wayyiqr lô l lhê yir l ).” As a

proper name the expression could be interpreted as “El is the God ofIsrael,” or “El, the God of Israel.” TgO avoids giving a divine name to

the altar and renders the sentence: “He erected an altar there, and wor-

shipped on it before God, the God of Israel.” Other Targums have a simi-

lar paraphrase, shifting the attention to Abraham’s worshipping before

God, the God of Israel. TgN also partly changes the construct divine

name: yyy lh

dyr

l “Yahweh, God of Israel.” In the LXX, giving a

divine name to the altar is avoided by disregarding the pronoun lô and

by omitting one of two words for God. The Greek rendering is kaì

epekalésato tòn Theòn Israél “and he called on the God of Israel.”

The Vg has the rendering: Et erecto ibi altari invocabit super illud

Fortissimum Deum Israhel. Among the Renaissance translations, GNV

and LUB follow the Vg. GNV renders the divine name given to the altaras …and called it, The mightie God of Israel ; LUB has …und rieff an den

Namen des starcken Gottes Israel LUB’s rendering is followed by DAL:




God of Israel (NIV, NIB, NLT, TNK); Lord Yahweh, God of Israel(NJB); der Herrscher, der HERR und Gott Israels (LUB, LUO); der Herrscher, der HERR, der Gott Israels (LUT, SCH); dem Herrn IHMdem Gott Jisraels (BUR); der Herr, der Gott Israels (EIN); der Herr HERR, der Gott Israels (ELB); le Seigneur tout-puissant, le Dieud’Israël (BLS); le Seigneur, l’Éternel, (le) Dieu d’Israël (DRB, LSG,

NEG); le Seigneur Yahvé, Dieu d’Israël (FBJ); le Maître, le SEIGNEUR, Dieu d’Israël (TOB); Il Signore, l’Eterno Signore Iddio d’Israel (DIO);

il Signore, l’Eterno, il DIO d’Israele (LND); il Signore, DIO, che è il Dio d’Israele (NRV); il Signore, Dio d’Israele (IEP); el Señoreador Jehová, Dios de Israel (SRV); el Jehová el Señor, Dios de Israel (R60);

el Jehová, el Señor, Dios de Israel (R95); el DIOS; el Señor, Dios de

Israel (LBA); o Senhor DEUS, o Deus de Israel (ACF, BRP); o Senhor JEOVÁ, Deus de Israel (ARC); Panovnik Hospodin, Boh Izraelský(BKR); Pan, Bog Iraela (BTP); GOSPUD, inu Bog Israelski (DAL);

vsigamogozhhni Gospód Israelski Bog (JAP); vsegamogoni Gospod Bog Izraelov (WOL); Gospod Bog, Izraelov Bog (SSP), and so on. Other

versions in various languages follow this or other patterns.

Of interest too is the construct expression combining the Divine Name yhwh in two variants: yh yhwh (Isa 12:2; 26:4) and yh yh (Isa 38:11).

The slight difference in form is the reason for considerable differences in




Jehovah (ASV); the LORD , even the LORD (JPS); YAH, The LORD (NKJ);

the LORD (RSV, NRSV); the LORD , the LORD (NAS, NIV, NIB); Yahweh

(NJB); LORD GOD (NLT); Yah, Yah (TNK); der Herr, ja, der Herr (LUB, LUO); der HERR (LUT); Jehova, Jehova (ELO); oh Ihn, Ihn oh

(BUR); Jah, Jah (ELB); der HERR, der HERR (SCH); le Seigneur mon Dieu (BLS); Jah, Jah (DRB); l’Éternel, L’Éternel (LSG, NEG); Yahvé

(FBJ); le SEIGNEUR (TOB); il Signore, il Signore (DIO); l’Eterno, sì,l’Eterno (LND); il SIGNORE, il SIGNORE (NRV); á JAH, á JAH (SRV); a Jah, a Jah (R95); al SEÑOR, al SEÑOR (LBA); Jehova

(RVA); ao SENOHOR, o SENHOR (ACF, BRP); ao SENHOR (ARC);

o SENHOR (ARA); Hospodin, Hospodin (BKR, CEP); GOSPUD, jaGOSPUD (DAL); Gospód Bog (JAP); Gospod Bog (WOL); GOSPOD

BOG (SSP), and so on.

3. Transliteration or Translation of Terms Denoting the Underworld

There are two Hebrew designations for the realm of the dead, which are

transliterated in some versions as proper names for the location of a place from which there is no return and translated in some others as

general terms: baddôn and šôl It is clear that the rst word derives




(BBE); the nether world and the abyss (NAB); Sheol and Perdition

(NJB); the depths of Death and Destruction (NLT); Death and

Destruction (NIB); Hölle und Abgrund (LUO); Unterwelt und Abgrund

(LUT); Scheol und Abgrund (ELO, ELB); Gruftheit und Verlorenheit

(BUR); Totenreich und Abgrund (SCH); Totenreich und Unterwelt

(EIN); L’enfer et la perdition (BLS); le shéol et l’abîme (DRB); le séjour

des morts et l’abime (LSG, NEG);

le Séjour des morts et l’Abime (TOB);Shéol et Perdition (FBJ); Sceol e Abaddon (LND); lo Sceol e Abaddon

(LND); il soggiorno dei morti e l’abisso (NRV); inferi e abisso (IEP);

Pèkèl, inu pogublénje (JAP); pekel in pogubljenje (WOL); podzemlje in

brezno (SSP), and so on.

This survey of renderings focuses on the rendering of Prov 15:11; a

comparative study of all passages would still enlarge the list considerably, because many versions do not translate the same word consistently

from the original. Two reasons for inconsistency could be a deliberate

decision by translators to create variation, or a lack of control. Inconsis-

tency is a normal phenomenon in translations that are collective works.

The name Abaddon is a subject of special interest in Rev 9:11, a

passage describing the nature of the ruler of pernicious locusts: “Theyhave as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit; his name in

Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek he is called Apollyon ” The grammati




4. The Giants Nephilim and Rephaim

In Gen 6:4, the writer reports: “The Nephilim (hannplîm) were on the

earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in

to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the

heroes (haggibbrîm) that were of old, warriors of renown.” The

Aramaic tradition of interpretation is not unied: TgO and TgN render both terms in question using the same word, gibbrayy (h) “the mighty

ones, giants, warriors,” whereas TgPsJ relates the word hannplîm to the

verb npal “to fall” and takes it to refer to angels who fell from heaven.

Following the tradition of naming individuals who are not named in the

Bible, TgPsJ identies the fallen angels as Shamhazai and Azael, who

were among the leaders of the fallen angels (cf. 1 En. 6:3, 7; 8:1; 9:6, 7;10:8, 11; see also b. Yoma 67b). The LXX translates the term hannplîm

as gígantes, the word also used in Num 13:33 for the same designation

and in Gen 6:4 for the designation haggibbrîm. Aq renders hannplîm

as the passive participle epipíptontes “the fallen ones” and haggibbrîm

as the adjective dynatoí “the mighty ones.” Sym uses for both designa-

tions of huge creatures the same term hoi bíaioi “the violent ones.” TheLXX obviously inuenced later translations. The Vg translates the rst

t i t d th d t t A l t i




same word: the dead // the dead (GNV, KJV, NKJ, NIV, NLT, R60,

R95, ACF, ARC, DAL, etc.). LUB repeats the meaning of the rst term:

unter den Todten // werden die Verstorbene (cf. LUT); DRA and LXE

have the parallelism the dead // physicians, BLS des morts // les

médecins. We also nd the parallelism the dead // the departed spirits

(NAU). BUR introduce the parallelism an den Toten // Gespenster.

The same parallelism between the two synonyms occurs in Isa 26:14(cf. v. 19):

The dead (mtîm) do not live;

shades (rp îm) do not rise…

The translation tradition is quite similar: TgIsa introduces the parallelism

mtîn “the dead” // gbrhôn “their mighty ones”; theLXX

keeps the parallelism nekroí // iatroí (cf. LXE), but the Vg has morientes //

gigantes (cf. DRA). Other later versions did not follow either LXX or Vg;

the parallelism in use is about the same as at Ps 88:11. The Vg rendering

reects the second meaning of the word rp îm, attested at Gen 14:5;

15:20; Deut 2:10, 20; 3:11, 13; Josh 2:4; 13:12; 17:15). At Gen 14:5–6,

the narrator reports about the pre-Israelite peoples of Palestine: “In thefourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came

and subdued the Raphaim in Ashteroth-karnaim the Zusim in Ham the




a great majority gives transliteration, while the phrase “they are usually

reckoned as Rephaim” suggested to some the translation “giants” (cf.

LUB, BLS). At Deut 2:20; 3:11, 13; Josh 12:4; 13:12; 17:15 translitera-

tion also prevails, though some have preferred the translation “giants.”

This is true for the Renaissance versions such as GNV, KJV and LUB.

BUR deserves special attention because at Gen 14:5 and 15:20 it has the

transliteration Refaer , while in all other passages the term is translated as

Gespenstische. Concerning those who transliterate the word, it is note-

worthy that a considerable number of translations have transliteration of

rp îm in minuscule, thus indicating that the word is understood as a

designation rather than the name of a people.

The designation of the broad valley near Jerusalem according to

Rephaim (Josh 15:8; 18:16; 2 Sam 5:18, 22; 23:13; Isa 17:5; 1 Chr11:15; 14:9) is again connected with surprises. At all places, TgJ has the

xed phrase mêšar gibbrayy “the plain of the giants / the mighty men,

the warriors”; the LXX has several variants: ek mérous gês Rhaphaïn “by

the side of the land of Raphain” (Josh 15:8); a complete transliteration:

Emekraphaïn (Josh 18:16); a more or less complete translation: eis t n

koiláda tôn titánn “in the valley of the Titans” (2 Sam 5:18); en têkoiládi tôn titánn “in the valley of Titans” (2 Sam 5:22); en tê koiládi

tôn Rhaphaeím “in the valley of Raphaeim” (2 Sam 23:13); en tê koiládi




made you; it eats grass like an ox.” Translations offer varied ways of

imaging this: TgJob reads the name of the beast as plural of the wordbhmh “beast” and renders it as the plural bîrayy “grazing animals,

cattle”; in the LXX, the name is translated with the plural thría “the wild

beasts”; Aq and Theo render it as construct plural kt n “ocks and

herds, beasts”; the Vg has the transliterated form Behemoth. Most later

versions follow the original and the Vg in transliterating the name of the

beast. There are, however, some notable exceptions in translation: Great

Beast (BBE); mighty hippopotamus (NLT); das Flußpferd (SCH); das

Urtier (BUR); das Nilpferd (EIN); l’hippopotame (LSG, BFC, NEG); le

Bestial (TOB); l’ippopotamo (NRV); hipopótamo (ARA); Reuzendier

(LEI); nijlpaard (NBG); Nilhesten (D31).

The name Leviathan is assigned various roles in the Bible: in theapocalyptic announcement of nal judgment at Isa 27:1, it serves as a

symbol for Tyre; God “will punish Leviathan the eeing serpent,

Leviathan the twisting serpent”; at Ps 74:14, the psalmist professes that

God worked salvation in the earth by crushing “the heads of Leviathan”;

at Ps 104:26, Leviathan is mentioned as one of the manifold works of

God in the realm of the sea; at Job 3:8, Job curses the night of his birth by saying: “Let those curse it who curse the Sea, those who are skilled to

rouse up Leviathan”; and at Job 40:25 Job is reminded of the greatness




dragon (DRA); Walsche (LUO); große Fische (LUT); der Drache, das

Krokodil (ZBI in Job); das Krokodil (SCH, EIN at Job 40:25); crocodile

(LSG, NEG); dragon (BFC); le Tortueux (TOB in Job); coccodrillo

(NRV); crocodilo (ARA); krokodyl (BTP); krokodil (NBG); Krokodillen

(D31). It is noteworthy that some collective versions are not consistent in

transliterating or translating the same names. TOB, for instance, has

transliteration in Isa 27:1; Pss 74:14; 104:26, and translation in Job 3:8

and 40:25; EIN has translation only in Job 40:25.

6. Symbolic Names of Hosea’s Children

In the rst part of Hosea’s autobiography we nd God’s command to the

prophet concerning the birth of his three children. After his unfaithfulwife Gomer gave birth to the rst son, the Lord said to him (Hos 1:4):

“Name him Jezreel ( yizre l ); for in a little while I will punish the house

of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel…” After she bore a daughter, the Lord

said to him (Hos 1:6): “Name her Lo-ruhamah (l rumh), for I will

no longer have pity on the house of Israel or forgive them.” After the

birth of his second son, God commanded him (Hos 1:8): “Name him Lo-ammi (l ammî ), for you are not my people and I am not your God.”

Th f H ’ hild t iki f th i b li i i




original Semitic words of the second and third names, but interprets the

literal meaning of the name Jezreel as a reference to God’s scattering

(literally “sowing”) of Israel in exile. The paraphrase reads: “And the

Lord said to him, ‘Call their name Scattered ones (mbadrayy ),’ for in

yet a little while I will avenge the blood of the idolaters, which Jehu shed

in Jezreel, when he put them to death because they had worshipped

Baal…”

Later versions testify to the fact that careful thought was given to the

dilemma as to whether to transliterate or to translate the names. Most

Renaissance versions transmitted the symbolic names of Hosea’s chil-

dren using transliteration. LUB has transliteration of the second and third

names in a strange orthography: Jesreel , LoRyhamo, LoAmmi. DAL

shows complete reliance on LUB, for this version even retains Luther’squestionable orthography. When it comes to modern versions, some

follow the ancient and others the Renaissance tradition. The translitera-

tion method was adopted by some modern Catholic and ecumenical

versions, for instance by FBJ, TOB and EIN. A special phenomenon is

transliteration with added translation: Lorucama, c’est-à-dire Sans-

miséricorde; Loammi, c’est-à-dire Non-mon-peuple (BLS); Jesreel,“Den-Gott-sät”; Lo-ruchama, “Ihr-wird-Erbarmen-nicht”; Lo-ammi,“Nicht mein Volk” (BUR); Lo Rouhama Non Matriciée; Lo Ami Mon




(TNK); “Ammi, mon peuple,” “Rouhama, Bien-aimée” (TOB); Ammi

(Mein Volk), Ruhama (Erbarmen) (EIN); Mein Volk!, Dir wird Erbar-

men! (BUR); “Ami, mon peuple!,” “Rouama, matriciée” (CHO), and

so on.

7. The Symbolic Name of Isaiah’s Second Son

The strikingly symbolic names of Hosea’s children recall the naming of

Isaiah’s second son (Isa 8:1–3), with the important difference that the

symbolic meaning of naming Isaiah’s son is not coupled with an

announcement of doom for Israel but for Syria and Ephraim. The point is

the expectation that Assyria will have destroyed both Damascus and

Samaria before Isaiah’s son is more than about a year old. This empha-sizes another difference between the meaning of the names of Hosea’s

two children and Isaiah’s son: the doom of Israel is not nal (cf. Hos 2–

14), whereas the doom of Syria and Ephraim is nal and irreversible. In

Isaiah, doom is attested by the words written on a tablet and by the birth

of the child bearing the name according to God’s determination:

Then the LORD said to me, Take a large tablet and write on it in common

characters, “Belonging to Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” and have it attested for




The proper name Goiim appears at Gen 14:1, 9 and Josh 12:23 in the

construct expression melek-gôyîm. The phrase by itself suggests

understanding an indenite meaning “king of nations,” but the context

requires a proper name for a people or a place Goiim. The Targums treat

the Hebrew place name as a plural noun meaning “peoples, nations”; the

LXX has an etymological translation basileùs (basilés) ethnôn at Gen

14:1, 9 and transliteration (basiléa) Gim at Josh 12:23; Sym changes the

name to Pamphylías; Vg has the translation rex (regem) Gentium

(gentium) at all places. Most mediaeval, Renaissance and later versions

do not follow Aramaic, Greek and Latin models but transliterate the word

gôyîm as a proper name. It is all the more surprising that the most inu-

ential Renaissance translations translate the word as a common noun, but

at this point they were not followed by many later versions: the nations (GNV, KJV, DBY, NKJ, DRA, WEB, RWB); die Heiden (LUB, LUO);

die Völker (LUT); les (N)nations (BLS, DRB); i nazioni (DIO, LND),

and so on. The BUR version is not consistent: at Gen 14:1, 9, it offers

the transliteration Gojim, and at Josh 12:23 the translation das Stäm-

megemisch.

9. Etymological Translation of the Proper Names




Judg 3:8, he translates it as Syrías potamôn “the Syria of rivers”; at

Ps 60:2, the name is rendered as Mesopotamían Syrías; at 1 Chr 19:6 we

nd the same designation in the opposite order Syrías Mesopotamías.

The Hebrew double place name paddan ram is rendered in LXX simply

as Mesopotamía at Gen 25:20; 28:2, 5; 31:18; elsewhere it is rendered

using the double name Mesopotamía(n, s) (tês) Syrías. The Vg renders

the name Aram-naharaim as Mesopotamia, except for Ps 60:2 where it

has the compound Syriam Mesopotamiam. The second name is rendered

simply as in Mesopotamiam at Gen 25:5; 31:18; doubly as in (de)

Mesopotamiam Syriae at Gen 28:2, 5, 6; 33:18; 35:9, 26; 46:16; and

simply in Syriam at Gen 28:7.

In the mediaeval, Renaissance and later translations, only a minority

have the transliterated form Aram-naharaim; most translators adopt theGreek translation form introduced by the LXX, Mesopotamia, and very

few translate the name into their own language: l’Aram-des-deux-Fleuves

(TOB); paese (Paese) dei due umi (IEP); do aramského Dvojií (CEP).

Even fewer combine translation and transliteration: Haute-Mésopotamie

(BFC); Siria mesopotámica (RVA); Stroomland-Aram (LEI); in (nach,

von) Aram (dem) Zwiestromland (BUR). At Ps 60:2 and 1 Chr 19:6, theLXX rendering Mesopotamían Syrías and that of the Vg Syriam Meso-

potamiam obviously prompted many translators to similar combinations:




10. Etymological Translation of the Proper NamesMoreh and Moriah

Genesis 12:6 speaks of Abraham’s itinerary “through the land to the

place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh ( lôn môreh).” At Deut 11:30, a

description is given of where the mountains Gerizim and Ebal are to be

found: “As you know, they are beyond the Jordan, some distance to thewest, in the land of the Canaanites who live in the Arabah, opposite

Gilgal, beside the oaks of Moreh ( el lônê mreh).” At Judg 7:1, the

narrator says: “Jerubbaal (that is, Gideon) and all the troops that were

with him rose early and encamped beside the spring of Harod; and the

camp of Midian was north of them below the hill of Moreh (miggibat

hammôreh), in the valley.” In the absence of any other indications foridentication of the place name Moreh, one may assume that the same

place is meant in these three passages. The Hebrew word lôn(ê) stands

in the singular at Gen 12:6 and in the plural at Deut 11:30.

The interpretation presented in ancient and modern translations of the

Bible is not uniform. Aramaic versions of the Pentateuch consistently

render lôn(ê) as mêšar , possibly wishing to save Abraham from thesuspicion of tree-worship. At Gen 12:6 and Deut 11:30, TgO has the

f l ti êš ô h “th l i f M h” it lik l th t th




transliteration of both words here: apò Gabaàth Hamorá; LXXO has apò

Gabaathamoraí. There are numerous manuscript variants: Amòr (Cod.

19, 108, SyrHex); apò toû bmoû toû Abòr , or Abraì, Aborè, Amraì,

Amorè (Cod. 2, 54, 75, 76, etc.); apò toû bounnoû toû Amorraíou (Cod.

58 in the text); toû hypsloû (in the margin), and so on. In various manu-

scripts both terms appear in variants: gaath, gabath, gabaad , gaban,

gaatham; amora, amore, amorai, tou amore, tou abrai, tou aborai, tou

abre, tou abore, amr , abr , tou abr , mra, tou mre, amorrai,

amorrain, tou amorraiou, borra, mraith, tou hupslou, amrai. The

Vg provides a translation: collis Excelsi. In later translations, the phrase

is usually rendered as a combination of translation/transliteration: the hill

of Moreh, dem Hügel Moreh, and so on. Translation of both terms is very

rare: vom Hügel des Weisenden (BUR); Hrib te Strashe (DAL). On theother hand, a few versions have transliteration of both terms: Gabaatha-

morai (LXE); Gibeath-hammoreh (NAB); Gibeath-moreh (TNK);

Gibat-Gammorev (UKR).

The place name Moriah appears in the Hebrew Bible with minor

orthographic differences only in the Elohistic source at Gen 22:2 and

2 Chr 3:1. According to Gen 22:2, God commanded Abraham: “Takeyour son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of

Moriah (wlek lk el ere hammriyyh) and offer him there as a




and Latin versions are based on the same tradition as the Samaritan ver-

sion. The Syriac version reads the name of the people the Amorites

instead of the toponym Moriah. All the Targums identify the mountain

Moriah with the mountain in Jerusalem, where the Temple was built, for

their rendering of God’s command to Abraham at Gen 22:2 is: lk

l ar pûl n “go forth to the land of worship.” This anachronistic

shift from the proper name to a common noun testies particularly

clearly how strong was the early rabbinic claim that “the land of

Moriah,” where Abraham bound Isaac, was Mount Moriah in Jerusalem.

Such an interpretation presupposes that Mount Moriah in Jerusalem was

a cult centre even in the Patriarchal Age. The Samaritan Hebrew

Pentateuch has the form ere hammôr h “the land of vision”; this form

presupposes the root r h “to see.” It is noteworthy that the Samaritansclaim Mount Gerizim as the mountain of Abraham’s trial. In view of the

preference given to the translation method at Gen 22:2, it is surprising

that all the ancient versions have transliteration of the name Moriah at

2 Chr 3:1: Amoría (LXX), Moria (Vg). It is equally surprising that nearly

all later translators transliterated the name Moriah at both places; the

only exception found so far is DRA, using the translation the land ofvision only at Gen 22:2.




Ancient translations nevertheless embrace the etymological meaning

of the word. In the LXX the phrase is rendered at all places using tò

spélaion tò diploûn “the double cave” and in the Vg using spelunca

duplex. TgO and TgJ also associate the noun hammakplh with the verb

kpl and at all places use the rendering mrat kape(ê)lt “the double

cave”; TgN renders it similarly as mrat kpêlh. The common Jewish

tradition of the etymological interpretation of the cave nds an explicit

explication in b. Erubin 53a:

Rab and Samuel differ as to its meaning. One holds that the cave con-

sisted of two chambers one within the other; and the other holds that it

consisted of a lower and upper chamber. According to him who holds that

the chambers were one above the other the term machpelah is well justi-

ed, but according to him who holds that it consisted of two chambersone within the other, what could be the meaning of machpelah? —That it

had multiples of couples.

Rashi adopts this explanation of the two possible meanings of the word

mkplh.

In spite of the insistence of the ancient translators that the place name

Machpelah applies to the root meaning of the term, the mediaeval, Renaissance and modern translators almost unanimously transliterate the

b d h “ h ( ld) f h l h ” i d d




not only geographical but also literary and rhetorical criteria. The strong

rhetorical character of most passages makes it difcult to decide with any

certainty between the options of proper name or a general geographical

designation.

Most passages belong to the Deuteronomistic framework of Deuteron-

omy, Joshua, Judges, Jeremiah and Chronicles. In these books the term

Shephelah appears in similar formulaic structures. The general geo-

graphical description summarizes declarations of God’s command or

promise that the Promised Land will be given to Israel, or describes a

coalition of the peoples against the Israelites. Geographical terms often

indicate the principal geographical divisions of the Promised Land.

According to Deut 1:7, Moses refers to dening the borders in God’s

command at Mount Horeb: “Resume your journey, and go into the hillcountry of the Amorites (har h mrî ) as well as into the neighbouring

regions—the Arabah, the hill country, the Shephelah, the Negeb, and the

seacoast (brbh ûbhr ûbaššplh ûbannegeb ûbôp hayym)—

the land of the Canaanites and the Lebanon, as far as the great river, the

River Euphrates.” The geographical description at Josh 9:1 includes only

the southern part of the country by referring to the kings who were “inthe hill country and in the lowland (bhr ûbaššplh) all along the

coast of the Great Sea toward Lebanon ” and who were gathered together




2 Chr 26:10, Uzziah had “large herds, both in the Shephelah and in the

plain (ûbaššplh ûbammîšôr ).” There are only a few places in whichthe name Shephelah stands without coordination with other names or

designations of territory: at Josh 1:33, the term šplh stands alone,

designating the district of fourteen towns; at 1 Kgs 10:27 (= 1 Chr 1:15;

2 Chr 9:27), the name Shephelah is used in a metaphorical description of

Solomon’s great wealth: “The king made silver (and gold) as common in

Jerusalem as stones, and he made cedars as numerous as the sycamores

of the Shephelah”; at 1 Chr 27:28, the term Shephelah is mentioned in

connection with distribution of lands to civic ofcials.

In view of the nature of the passages treated it is understandable that

there is no unied interpretation of the word šplh, whether in the

scholarly literature or in Bible translations throughout history. Thecoordination of the term with some other names or designations of

territory shows most clearly whether the term is used as a proper name or

as a general geographical designation. The parallelism with negeb and

rbh means that both terms are probably meant as proper names. On

the other hand, the parallelism with hhr may constitute a merism, that

is, an expression of totality by using opposite terms. On the whole, theterm is so often clearly used as a proper name that it seems reasonable to

transliterate it as a proper name rather than to translate it in accordance




Renaissance versions have: Arma-gedon (GNV); Armageddon (KJV);

Harmagedon (LUB); Armagheddon (DIO); Armageddon (BKR); Harmagedon (DAL). In later versions we nd all these variant forms but

with more variation in spelling: Armagedon (JAP, WOL); Harmagedon

(SSP), and so on. It is interesting that the NRSV changed from using the

form Armageddon (KJV, RSV, etc.) to the form Harmagedon.

14. General Conclusion

The history of the forms of biblical proper names reveals several devel-

opmental stages in the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin, as well as in

the Jewish Christian linguistic and cultural tradition in general. An

examination of the extraordinary variation in transliteration or translationof the original forms of biblical proper names in ancient and more mod-

ern Bible translations says much about the understanding and pronun-

ciation of Semitic names by the translators. The series of transformations

of biblical personal and place names in ancient and later translations pro-

vides quite reliable evidence of the sources used by translators in their

translation work and of what constitutes their original contribution. It isreasonable to suppose that at least the forms of the important biblical

b b d i t i t Bibl t l ti th h th




biblical text and context than in modern critical times. Only in modern

times did the text and context acquire their proper role. Examples ofradical deviation from tradition and of a return to the source forms is a

modern phenomenon, but the marks of this movement are present

already in the mediaeval and Renaissance translations of the Bible. This

movement does not explain why, since Renaissance times, there was a

greater tendency to transliterate rather than to translate biblical proper

names. Yet this does demonstrate that all the fundamental dilemmas

concern all translations to the same extent. In relation to phonetic forms

of biblical proper names there is, therefore, only a limited justication to

speak of Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions in use of

the forms of biblical proper names.

What are the possibilities of establishing reliance of translators on previous translations? In general, it is true that translators in the East, in

addition to the original text, paid signicant attention to the LXX, while

in the West the Vg was central. It is well known that numerous European

translators explicitly relied upon recognized ancient and contemporary

translations. The forms of biblical proper names more than other

linguistic and literary elements manifest the degree of dependence between some translations of the Bible. If in individual cases the model

and the copy show agreement both in the use and rendering of a name




made by the translators, one which sought to bring about the “homo-

généité de la traduction.” And yet the established rules hardly includedunifying the forms of proper names.3 In recent times, only the German

authors of EIN made the necessary effort to establish phonetic rules for

transliterating the proper names.4 These rules served as a welcome basis

for the standardization of the form of the biblical names in the new SSP.

In the German and Slovenian versions, all the proper names except those

which are part of an established cultural tradition are preserved in their

Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek forms. Any attempt to change the overpower-

ing authority of the phonetics of the well-known biblical proper names

would involve striking out boldly, departing forcefully from the living

language and culture.



Chapter 3

TRANSMISSION OF SEMITIC FORMS

OF BIBLICAL PROPER NAMES

IN GREEK AND LATIN LINGUISTIC TRADITIONS

The rendering of biblical proper names is an issue that relates directly to

the question of how the pre-Masoretic texts of the Hebrew Bible, as well

as their ancient translations, were transmitted and handed down through

history. The presence of variants in the Dead Sea biblical scrolls, which

presumably originated before the Qumran period, conrms the view that

in pre-Masoretic times the Hebrew and Aramaic texts were transmittedonly in popular, unauthorized forms. This view is supported by the



3. Transmission of Semitic Forms of Biblical Proper Names 85

is therefore of utmost importance to consider with equal care all the

material available, without discriminating between Masoretic forms asauthoritative compared to non-Masoretic evidence of pronunciation. It is

possible that there are phonetic connections and interdependences of the

variously pronounced grammatical forms. There are compelling reasons

for assuming the existence of two or more independent dialects or pat-

terns of pronunciation.

The relative uniformity of biblical proper names in the Hebrew Bible

is remarkable in view of the considerable variety of their forms in vari-

ous ancient versions. Where does this variety come from? This question

is particularly urgent for the whole history of the transmission of Greek

and Latin forms of biblical proper names, as Greek and Latin much more

strongly shaped European cultural and linguistic traditions than Hebrewand Aramaic did. Any evaluation of the forms of biblical proper names

in ancient translation languages raises the question of the relationship

between respective original forms and the way they were transcribed or

translated into other languages. The uniformity or the variety of the

forms of biblical proper names are both attributable to several factors, in

the original and in translations: uniform prototypes, different linguistic backgrounds, the existence of different dialects, phonetic variation in the

course of transmission multiple textual traditions the more or less




1. Historical and Linguistic Factors of Formsof Biblical Proper Names

Ancient translators sometimes render differently the same Hebrew name

forms in the various biblical books, or even within the same book. There

are indications that even the most famous translators and interpreters,

such as Flavius Josephus and Jerome, did not always transcribe the same

name the same way. From this fact we may deduce that the Hebrew

parent text of the LXX could not have been part of a uniform tradition.2

Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Vaticanus (B) of the LXX, for

instance, are composed of different portions, each of which belong to

different periods, even though these versions are genetically linked. One

of the most signicant criteria of the works of ancient times is theirmixed type. Compilers, revisers or copyists of ancient translations had

little reason to alter the form of proper names or to remove apparent

discrepancies and inner contradictions of forms. Nevertheless, well-

known biblical names manifest an astounding level of transcription

uniformity. This means that the uniformity in writing popular names may

be attributable to the uniformity of the oral tradition in a small com-munity, or even in the entire Jewish or Christian community, rather than

t th if it f th i i l ti tt t t h i ti Thi




fact can best be illustrated by the forms of the names in most general use

among the Jewish and Christian population. It is striking that the namesusually retain the same form throughout the Bible, not just within one or

the other section.3 Consideration of variants is important in any critical

study of the forms of biblical proper names in the original and in ancient

translations. The Hebrew Bible contains signicant variant forms for the

same name or even for the same person. On the other hand, in the New

Testament most names do not show signicant variants. Important to

note is also that well-known proper names are in general practically

xed.

The current forms of biblical proper names have been inuenced by

the phonetic changes necessitated by their transfer and transliteration

from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek and Latin, from which sources

other languages borrowed in their turn. By means of translation into

Greek, Latin and other ancient languages, many biblical proper names

have passed into general usage. On the whole, the frequency of refer-

ences shows that the pool of names in use in the biblical period was

similarly limited, as it has been in all later periods until today. With

Greek and Latin it is evident that popular names were much less exposedto phonetic changes than those that were used more rarely. This means

that the unied forms of proper names reect a unied common pronun




translations were oral and of an individual nature. The earliest portions

of Bible translation are therefore necessarily compilations of such earlierfragments as were accessible to compilers. The process of compilation of

the earliest translations in various places would account for the emer-

gence of text-types with clear-cut differences between them. Though

early translators only occasionally had previous material available, later

compilations reect the attempt at harmonization of various text-types.

Gradually, continuous translations began to be made and came into

common use. The state of Aramaic and Greek Bible translations testies

to the fact that no uniform original Aramaic (Targums), Greek (LXX,

Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) and Latin translations (Vetus Latina,

Latin Vg) reecting a uniform Hebrew tradition can be posited. Differ-

ences between the branches of the Aramaic, Greek and Latin traditions

are not so much chronological, due to linguistic change, as dialectal

(reecting a different linguistic background), or methodological (reect-

ing different translation and transcription practice). Transcription or

translation of proper names could be carried out only within the phonetic

system of the respective Indo-European language.

A comparative study of the forms of biblical names in transliterationor translation shows that the principles that guided Jews in interpreting

the names were changed after the Hebrew Bible period Relevant are




of the Vetus Latina and Vetus Vg, and Jerome give evidence of a pro-

nunciation of the undoubtedly unvocalized Hebrew text, a pronunciationdifferent from what the Tiberian Masoretes offer us. They used the

Hebrew source text (Vorlage) which antedates by centuries the Masoretic

Textus Receptus, with its Tiberian vocalization. To be sure, the pronunci-

ation of Hebrew had changed substantially between the time of the

writing of the Greek originals and the period of later redactions and the

work done by the Tiberian Masoretes. This fact is only one of the expla-

nations why the forms of proper names are often rendered in forms that

differ from those of the Masora.

The Latin Fathers offered ad-hoc renderings from the Greek Bible.

Works of the Latin Fathers contain ample extracts from Latin Bible ver-

sions. This multiple material of fragmentary versions is subsumed under

the name Old Latin or Vetus Latina as a catch-all term used for grouping

any Latin text-form independent of the Vg. Jerome’s transliterations

must be based upon originals (Vorlagen) belonging to different periods.

This conclusion is based on philological evidence and is enhanced by

Jerome’s occasional clear statements regarding the divergences between

his transliteration and the contemporary pronunciation of correspondingHebrew characters of the same word. Jerome himself denitely indicates

various possibilities of pronunciation of the same Hebrew name In what




place names,6 the Latin Vg and Jerome’s works on place names of the

Holy Land.7 In comparison with the LXX, Josephus tends to followofcial spelling in his orthography. On the other hand, the New Testa-

ment sometimes comes close to the LXX and follows the common

pronunciation.

There are some specic phenomena pertinent to the transliteration

from Hebrew into Greek: consonant interchange, vowel interchange,

confusion in the use of a double or single consonant in Greek, misunder-

standing of the declension system, transformation of Semitic sufxes, the

6. See the edition by de Lagarde, Onomastica sacra. In this edition the Greek

and Latin texts do not appear parallel but in succession: rst Latin, then Greek. The

editor provides the material with references to biblical and other sources, withoutintroductory notes and commentary. All the more precious is the rst scientic

edition of the Onomasticon, published by Klostermann, Eusebius: Das Onomasti-

kon der biblischen Ortsnamen. More recently several translations of the Onomas-

ticon have been published: a Hebrew translation of this work has been published by

Ezra Zion Melamed, The Onomastikon of Eusebius (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration

Society, 1966). An English translation both of the Greek text by Eusebius and Latintranslation by Jerome was prepared and published by Freeman-Grenville, Chapmann

and Taylor, Palestine in the Fourth Century A.D., with notes and commentary being




declension of gutturals, declining of the prex and scribal error. Spelling

differences between the Hebrew and Greek forms of proper names arenot only due to different general phonetic laws pertinent to these lan-

guages, but also to the pronunciation in the time of the LXX being

different in many respects from the time of the Tiberian grammarians.

Transliteration forms of proper names in Greek and Latin indicate how

any given name was pronounced in that particular period. Very often

proper names are rendered in forms that differ from those of the Masora.

Greek codices do not offer uniform text and therefore must be assigned

to different textual types.

For a comparative study of the forms of biblical proper names we

must consider the complete LXX tradition in comparison with other forms

of the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and such sources as the works

of Flavius Josephus, and Eusebius’ book on the sites and names of

Hebrew places. Redaction of the New Testament material is simple, as

most names do not show signicant variation. Flavius Josephus is of par-

ticular importance for a comparative study of the forms of biblical proper

names because his transcriptions, such as the overall use of vowels as

well as the quality of certain vowels, differ from all the recognized branches of the LXX tradition so often and consistently that it is hardly

possible to conclude that the underlying forms could have been taken




ancestral language, and how they are named by us—whether in like

fashion of the ancients or rendered differently. From all of the divinelyinspired Scripture I will present the names that are sought, setting out

each (entry) in alphabetical order for easy access to the events that have

occurred scattered in the readings (of Scripture).8

In addition to various Greek translations of the Bible, the work of

Eusebius is based on the works of Flavius Josephus, Origen (Hexapla),

his own knowledge and on written sources long since lost. The arrange-ment of names is, unfortunately, very inconvenient, the names under

each letter being placed in separate groups following the order of the

books of Scripture in which they occur. For instance, under the letter A

we have rst the names in Genesis, then those in Exodus, and so on. The

question is: To what extent and in which aspects did the lost written

sources supply Eusebius with material that is not available in extant

documents?9

How much does this dilemma concern the question of transliteration

of biblical proper names? The question of transliteration increases in

importance especially in view of Jerome’s translation of Eusebius’ book

on the sites and names of Hebrew places because the Latin version ofthis work had even greater inuence in the Western world in relation to

the Holy Land and in Latin Bible translations This translation shows




Churches next to the Apostles; for in this work, which stands among the

nobles monuments of his genius, he endeavoured as a Christian to supplywhat Philo, as a Jew, had omitted.10

In order to evaluate this statement by Jerome it is helpful to know that

the work was written in the year 388, two years after Jerome had settled

at Bethlehem. When he had arrived in the Holy Land three years

previously, Jerome set to work to improve his knowledge of Hebrew,

with a view to his translation of the Old Testament, a project that was

begun in 391. The three books written in the year 388—the book of

Hebrew Questions, the book on Hebrew Names and his translation of

Eusebius’ book on the sites and names of Hebrew places—may be taken

as studies preparatory to the Vg. This fact means that at this stage Jerome

had only a very basic knowledge of Hebrew and perhaps could notforesee the innumerable problems in connection with the phonetic

relationship between Hebrew/Aramaic, Greek and Latin, let alone make

the system consistent. Unfortunately, the clumsy arrangement of a sepa-

rate glossary for each book of the Bible, as well as the often uncritical,

sometimes even absurd, meanings given to words and names, diminish

considerably the value of his work on names for today’s critical scholar-ship.11

I thi i ti ti I ld lik t tli th b i ti l




Greek and Latin alphabets are inadequate for transliteration, the authors

of Greek and Latin Bibles should be recognized as utter grammatical andcultural innovators.12

2. Transliteration of Semitic Consonants into Greek

The history of transliteration of Semitic writing symbols is in causal

relationship with the development of the Greek alphabet on Semitic

grounds. Archaeology and classical scholarship generally agree that the

Greek alphabet handed down to us was received from the Phoenicians,

most probably before the twelfth century B.C.E. This is borne out not

only by tradition, but also by the signicant fact that as regards form,

name and order, the two alphabets show a striking correspondence. Thereis, however, one important difference between the Phoenician and the

Greek systems. While the former has no signs for vowels, and a great

variety of aspirate and sibilant consonants, the latter, even in the earliest

specimens found, shows an already fully developed vowel system, and

contents itself with one sibilant and one aspirate representative respec-

tively. Thus, the Greeks probably evolved out of the Phoenician conso-nants Aleph, He, Yod , Ayin, the vowels , , and , and moreover

h f f bl l




invented as a twenty-third letter.13 In all Semitic languages the alpha-

bets consist solely of consonants, some of which also have a kind ofvocalic power. The Hebrew/Aramaic alphabet has twenty-two signs to

represent consonantal phonemes.

The Greek alphabet in its nal stage of development, on the other

hand, consists of twenty-four Greek signs, of which seven (, , , , ,

, ) are vowels, and the remaining seventeen consonants. The charac-

ters , and are not found in the Phoenician alphabet; they are Greek

inventions. Until the fth century B.C.E., there were some differences

between the Attic alphabet, which represents chiey Athens, and the

eastern or Ionian alphabet. The old Attic alphabet contained two different

vowels and two different consonants: instead of the long vowels and ,

other symbols were in use, namely, the symbol E, which stood for ,

and the diphthong , and the symbol O, which stood for , and the

diphthong ; and instead of the consonants and , the digraphs

() and () respectively were in use. Only in the year 403 did the

present composition of the Greek alphabet establish itself also in the

received or Attic alphabet.

The phonemic system of Hebrew and Greek alphabets are not suf-cient to distinguish between some signs within their linguistic family

and/or in their phonetic interrelation Hebrew signs are not sufcient for

3 T f S F f B bl l P N 97




(variants and Origen); = ; = ; ˜ = , (LXX), (variants and

Origen); = usually , sometimes , ; = ; ‡/› = /, within a nameoccasionally double ; gemination = , (LXX), (Origen); =

usually , sometimes , . It is noteworthy that palatals, dentals and

labials are not clearly distinguishable in pronunciation. The development

of the forms of biblical proper names in European languages represents a

great challenge for clarifying—in greater detail and on the basis of

applicable examples—the problem of the phonetic value of the letters ofthe Semitic, Greek and Latin alphabets.

a. The Semi-vocalic Consonants Waw and Yod

The semi-vocalic consonant Waw sometimes retains its consonantal

character, in Greek transliterated with , and in Latin with v: Í (Gen

4:1)— , , Vg: Hava; (Gen 2:11)— , , Vg:

Evilat; Í (Gen 10:17)— , , Vg: Eveus; (Gen 29:34)—

, Vg: Levi; ‡ (Gen 25:25)— , , Vg: Esau. Most often

the letter is considered merely as the bearer of the respective preceding

vowel; is usually employed to denote ô and û, and to denote ê and î:

(2 Sam 8:17)— , Vg: Sadoc;

Í (2 Sam 8:17)— ,

Vg: Achitob; (Ps 88:1)— , Vg: Eman. The transliteration

system from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek and Latin shows that the sound

98 Th T f i f Bibli l P N




vowel as a light guttural; at the end of a word it is inaudible. In the Greek

transliteration of Hebrew proper names contained in the Septuagint andother Bible translations is always considered merely as the bearer of

the respective vowel: (Gen 10:27)— , Vg: Abimahel;

(Gen 10:27)— , Vg: Helmodad; (1 Chr 4:3)— , Vg: Iezrahel; ‡ (Gen 32:29)— , Vg: Israhel; Í

(Gen 32:32)—translation, Vg: Phanuhel. How can the insertion of an /h/

before the radical be explained? Since this happened only in compoundnames, we may assume that the purpose was to indicate that the two

vowels are to be pronounced separately: Bahalmeon, Behelfegor,

Behelsefon, Beselehel, Iamuhel, Israhel, Misahel, Raguhel.14 In translit-

erated proper names into Greek is fairly often dropped; rarely is it

rendered by the spiritus asper . In transliteration into Latin this letter is

sometimes retained and rendered as h: (Gen 17:5)— á, Vg:

Abraham; (Exod 4:14)— , the syncopated form (A

Exod 6:26; 7:8; Num 12:10; Sir 45:6), Vg: Aaron; Ú (Josh 15:8)—

, Vg: Gehennom; › (Hos 1:1)— , Vg: Osee; (Gen

36:22)— , Vg: Heman; (1 Chr 7:35)— , Vg: Helem; Í (Gen 29:35)— , , Vg: Iuda;

(Exod 17:9)— ,

Vg: Iosue. We may conclude that Jerome transliterates at times with h

on the basis of Hebrew grammar An especially conspicuous example of



100 Th T f ti f Bibli l P N




(D), Josephus:, Vg: Chodorlahomor;

(Gen 13:10), (19:22)— (13:10), (19:22), Josephus:, , , Vg: Segor (in both places); Í (Num 1:8)—

, Vg: Suar; Í (Gen 11:18)— , Josephus:,,Vg: Reu; Í (Gen 36:4)— , (Tob 6:11 in B S),

Josephus: , , Vg: Rauhel. Jerome explains the

Latin forms Seor/Segor by referring to the transliteration of the Hebrew

vowel with the consonant .18 It is striking that the guttural is excep-tionally transliterated with h in the Latin form of the name (1 Chr

4:3)— , Vg: Hetam.

d. The Sibilant Letters Samekh , ade and in/Šin

Due to limitations of the Greek and Latin alphabets, the three Hebrew

letters , and ‡/› can be rendered only as one character, namely, /s.

The incompatibility of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin alphabets for

rendering Hebrew sounds results in a situation in which two entirely

different Hebrew/Aramaic proper names are identical in transliteration.

Examples include: (Gen 10:7)— … , Vg:

Sabatha … Sabathaca; Ì (2 Sam 5:7)— , Vg: Sion; Ë › Í (Num1:6)— , Vg: Surisaddi; (2 Sam 5:14)— , Vg:

Salomon Jerome remarks on this phenomenon in his introduction to

3 T i i f S iti F f Bibli l P N 101




e. The Doubling of Single Consonants in Transliteration into Greek and

LatinIt seems that the LXX originally transliterated Semitic consonants con-

sistently using single consonants. In some cases, the corresponding

Greek letters , , , , , , , , and/or their Latin equivalents are,

however, incorrectly doubled in some variant readings. This fact shows

that the indicated Greek consonants have some natural tendency toward

duplication. Examples: Ë (Judg 4:4)— , ,Josephus: , , Vg: Debbora; Í (1 Kgs 4:5)—

(A), Vg: Zabud; (Neh 3:10)— (S), Vg: Ieiada; (2 Sam

8:17)— (B), Vg: Sadoc; (Gen 22:23)— , Vg:

Rebecca; (Josh 13:3)— , Vg: Accaron; (Tob

2:10 B), elsewhere written with single : (1 Macc 6:1-A);

(1 Chr 9:37)— (B S), Vg: Macelloth;

(2 Kgs 15:29)— , Vg: Theglathfalassar; (Ruth

1:2)— (A), Vg: Noemi; (1 Sam 14:51)— , Vg:

Abner; · (Gen 41:51)— (A; several other places),

(E; most other places), Vg: Manasse; (Gen 11:31)—

,, Josephus:, Vg: Aran; ‡ (Gen 17:15)— ,Vg: Sarra; (Num 33:30)— , Vg: Moseroth;

(Judg 11:11) Vg: Maspha; › (1 Kgs 19:16)

102 Th T f ti f Bibli l P N




alphabet.21 The harder sound is sometimes rendered as in Greek and

as pp or ff in Latin: (Exod 2:21)— , Vg: Seffora. The con-sonant is usually rendered as the Greek and the Latin th. The harder

sound is sometimes rendered as and in Greek and tth in Latin:

(2 Kgs 24:17)— (B), (A), ,, Vg: Matthanias. For some names Lucian is the only one who

renders the geminated letters using the clusters , , .

g. Insertion of Consonants and Transcription of the Semitic Clusters ,› , and

A remarkable feature of Hellenistic Greek is the insertion of consonants

in order to achieve better euphony. There is a tendency to insert the nasal

before the labial and the spirant . Whether the preceding is

inserted or part of the name may cause the change of into : › ›

(Judg 13:24)— (B A), Vg: Samson. In addition to this phonetic

problem of the consonant , euphony requires insertion of the between

and : (Gen 13:18)— , Vg: Mambre; (1 Kgs 16:9)

and (1 Kgs 16:16)— (),() (16:16), Vg: Zamri, Amri;

(Num 32:3)— , Vg: Nemra; (Exod 6:18)— (-), , Vg: Amram. Another salient transcription problem is

connected with the clusters and when they appear within names

3 Transmission of Semitic Forms of Biblical Proper Names 103




3. Transliteration of Semitic Vowel Letters and Vowel Signsinto Greek and Latin

Only three pure vowel sounds are attested in Semitic languages, a, i, u.

The sounds e and o always arise from an obscuring or contraction of

these three sounds: by modication from or ; from ; ê by con-

traction from ai (properly ay); and ô sometimes by modication (obscur-

ing) from â, and sometimes by contraction from au (properly aw).22 Of

special interest is the partial expression of the vowels by the consonants

, , and . The symbols and have established themselves as vowel

letters to indicate nal vowels: , , Í , ‡, , Ú , › and so

on. The previously consonant was retained as a vowel letter to denote

the respective long vowels ô and û, and the symbol to denote ê and î:

, Í ›, , and so on. The present state of combining con-

sonants and vowels to denote long vowels has probably resulted from

contraction of the consonant and the preceding a into au and further to

ô, or of the preceding u into û, and from contraction of with a preceding

a into ai and further to ê, or with a preceding i into î.23

Transcription of proper names in Greek and Latin Bible translationsshows most clearly the fact that more than one way of pronouncing

i di id l ti l f ibl d d i ibl I d t





fully adequate to express all the various modications of the vowel

sounds, especially with respect to length and shortness.”24 On the otherhand, it is true that the Greek and Latin alphabets are even less adequate

when it comes to expressing all the various modications of the vowel

sounds in transliteration of Hebrew/Aramaic forms of proper names.

Another problem is the lack of uniformity of linguistic traditions and

xed orthographic rules in the Hellenistic and the Greco-Roman periods

when Greek and Latin Bible translations were made and our oldestuncials were written. As regards the LXX, Cod. B perhaps goes back to

an earlier age than Cod. A, for on the whole B is nearer to the originals in

orthography as well as in text than A; consequently, A occupies a secon-

dary position in comparison with B.

It is generally held that the Semitic and Greek vowel systems are

primarily intended to mark only differences of quality rather than any

question of quantity, such as distinction between long and short vowels.

To transliterate the generally accepted Semitic phonological vowel

system, seven vowels of the Greek alphabet— , , , , , , —were

available to the Greek scribes. Greek vowels correspond to the clear

majority of those used in the Masoretic vowel system. The Latin tran-scription of Hebrew/Aramaic proper names is based on the Greek text

and reects therefore the same Hebrew vowel system The correspon





(Gen 4:1)— , Vg: Hava; (Gen 5:29)— , Vg: Noe; (Gen

30:8)— , , , Vg: Nepthalim. The letter isused also for the vowel sign Segol where this corresponds to an A-sound,

for instance in the segolate type of names in pausal forms. The inter-

change between the A- and E-sounds in the segolate noun forms is fre-

quent in general use of nouns, but does not affect the basic form of

proper names. The Hebrew long vowel ê is often transcribed as the

diphthong , and the long vowel ô as : (Gen 36:22)— , Vg:Heman; (Gen 36:23)— , Vg: Hebal; (Gen 14:1)—

, Vg: (rex) Aelamitarum; (Num 1:15)— , Vg: Henan;

(Num 16:1)— , Vg: Hon; (Gen 38:4)— , Vg: Onam.

b. The I- and E-sounds in Hebrew/Aramaic and in Transliteration

In Hebrew, the I-sound is represented by the vowel sign ireq, which

can be both long and short. It is long according to the origin of the form

(indicated by the consonant Yod ), or according to the nature of the

syllable. The short ireq is frequent in sharpened syllables and in

toneless closed syllables. In transliteration into Greek, the shortireq is

rarely transliterated with the vowel : ›

(Gen 16:11)— , Vg:

Ismahel; › (Isa 10:6)— , Vg: Siloae. ireq is much more

frequently given as and : Ê (Num 22:5) Vg: Balaam;





or : Ì Ë, Ë (Dan 1:6)— , Vg: Danihel; ‡ (Gen

32:29)— , Vg: Israhel; (Gen 2:8)— , Vg: paradisus; (Gen 29:34)— , Vg: Levi; (Gen 29:16)— , Vg: Lia;

(Num 22:1)— , , Vg: Hierichus, Hiericho; sometimes thevowel sign is transliterated as : Ë (Gen 13:11)— , Vg: Iordan.

The vowel sign Segol is normally rendered as , exceptionally as

(when followed by the nal He), or (in segolate noun forms): Ô

(Gen 14:18)— , Vg: Melchisedech; · (Gen 41:51)— , Vg: Manasse; (Gen 4:2)— , Vg: Abel; (Gen

11:24)— , Vg: Thare.

c. The U- and O-sounds in Hebrew/Aramaic and in Transliteration

In Hebrew/Aramaic, the U-sound is represented by the vowel signs

Šureq Í, û and Qibbu. Šureq is written fully or defectively; it stands alsoin a sharpened syllable and expresses the long û. Qibbu stands in a

toneless closed syllable and a sharpened syllable and expresses the short

a. In transliteration into Greek, the scribes write the diphthong for

both Šureq and for Qibbu: Í Ê (Jer 32:12)— , Vg: Baruch;

›Í (Josh 10:1)— , Vg: Hierusalem. Sometimes the sign

Šureq is transliterated with : Í (Gen 30:20)— , Vg:

Zabulon; Í (Gen 10:23)— Josephus: Vg: Us For Qibbu in




(Gen 46:10)— , Vg: Chananitis; , (Ezek 23:4)—

, , Vg: Oolla, Ooliba.As mentioned before, Jerome’s transliterations must be based upon

Vorlagen (originals) belonging to different periods. This conclusion is

based on philological evidence and enhanced by Jerome’s occasional

plain statements of the divergences between his transliteration and the

contemporary pronunciation of corresponding Hebrew characters of the

same word.

4. Transliteration from Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek into Latin

It was natural that authors of Latin Bible translations considered linguis-

tic and cultural factors in the transliteration process for biblical proper

names—that is, for Latin, Greek and Semitic phonetic symbols and their

sounds and the established Hellenistic tradition of spelling biblical

names. Phonetic peculiarities include the following: historical devel-

opment of languages; dialectal characteristics of languages; different

sources as regards the original text (Vorlage); the lack of vocalic system

in Semitic languages in antiquity; the range of use of biblical namesamong the people. Any comparison between the Semitic Vorlage and

Greek and Latin transliteration of biblical proper names shows that both





transliterating the same names from Hebrew into Latin in his Bible

translation.Greek Bible translations are much older than Latin ones, and they

were made by Jews who shared a living Semitic phonetic and cultural

tradition. In post-biblical times, it was customary in the synagogue to

read the Bible text rst in Hebrew, followed by translation in vernacular

languages; in Palestinian synagogues this meant Aramaic, but in Egypt

and in many other parts of the Hellenistic political and cultural empirethe vernacular was Hellenistic Greek. This is due to the fact that the

listeners were not able to comprehend Hebrew. Before there were con-

tinuous translations in common use, the early Christian Church followed

the Jewish practice. The individualistic translators were not ad hoc

creations in a strict sense, because translators had been accustomed to

listening to oral traditions and to reading earlier fragments as were

known to them. The process of joining Semitic linguistic and cultural

heritage resulted in many new works; besides the LXX, there were the

Greek apocryphal writings. Since Latin translations were made in much

later periods, mainly without much contact with the Semitic living

traditions, the priority of Greek transcriptions vis-à-vis Latin ones is

beyond any dispute. Any good translation is an interplay of language,

philosophy and tradition in a fusion of the source and target languages





carry it back to the early days of its infancy?… For if we are to pin our

faith to the Latin texts, it is for our opponents to tell us which; for thereare almost as many forms of texts as there are copies. If, on the other

hand, we are to glean the truth from a comparison of many, why not go

back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by

inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of condent but

ignorant critics, and, further, all that has been inserted or changed by

copyists more asleep than awake?… I am now speaking of the New

Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exceptionof the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the rst to commit to

writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judaea in

Hebrew characters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it

is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into

different channels we must go back to the fountainhead… I therefore

promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be takenin the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, as they have been

revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have

been used. But to avoid any great divergences from the Latin which we

are accustomed to read, I have used my pen with some restraint, and

while I have corrected only such passages as seemed to convey a different

meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as they are.27

As mentioned already, in the year 386 Jerome had settled at Bethlehem,

here he set to ork to impro e his kno ledge of Hebre ith a ie





nd a clear expression of his conviction that since even the LXX is but a

translation of Hebrew, greater accuracy could be assured by relianceupon the Hebrew itself:

It will be my simple aim, therefore, rst, to point out the mistakes of those

who suspect some fault in the Hebrew Scriptures, and, secondly, to correct

the faults, which evidently teem in the Greek and Latin copies, by a

reference to the original authority; and, further, to explain the etymology

of things, names, and countries, when it is not apparent from the sound ofthe Latin words, by giving a paraphrase in the vulgar tongue. To enable

the student more easily to take note of these emendations, I propose, in the

rst place, to set out the true reading itself (ipsa testimonia), as I am now

able to do, and then, by bringing the later readings into comparison with it,

to indicate what has been omitted or added or altered.30

Towards the end of the Preface, as well as in some other places,Jerome outlines his attitude towards the original text hebraica veritas.31

In the Preface to the Commentary on Ecclesiastes (388 C.E.), we also nd

his explication that he translated directly from the Hebrew. In 388,

Jerome also published his translation of the Chronicles. Here he points

out the advantages that he, living in Palestine, enjoyed, obtaining correct

information on matters illustrative of Scripture, especially regarding the

names of places In the Preface to the books of Samuel and Kings (391





offer skins and goats’ hair. And yet the Apostle pronounces our more

contemptible parts more necessary than others. Accordingly, the beauty ofthe tabernacle as a whole and in its several kinds (and the ornaments of the

church present and future) was covered with skins and goats-hair cloths,

and the heat of the sun and the injurious rain were warded off by those

things which are of less account. First read, then, my Samuel and Kings;

mine, I say, mine. For whatever by diligent translation and by anxious

emendation we have learnt and made our own, is ours. And when you

understand that whereof you were before ignorant, either, if you aregrateful, reckon me a translator, or, if ungrateful, a paraphraser, albeit I am

not in the least conscious of having deviated from the Hebrew original.32

Jerome was, in the main, accurate in correcting the LXX and other Greek

versions using the Hebrew and in occupying himself with a defence of

his translation. He was, however, not aware (as has since been madeclear) that there are various readings in the Hebrew itself, and that these

may sometimes be corrected using the LXX, which was made from the

older manuscripts. Jerome translated the whole of the Old Testament also

from the LXX,33 but most of it was lost during his lifetime.34

Jerome’s own testimony about his attitude to the original text justies

experts’ admiration of his work. It is true that Jerome’s translation of theHebrew Bible preserves in Latin the shape and features of the Hebrew

d h G k l 3 Thi i i h l i h h l




f f p

proper names. Consequently, our judgment on transliteration of biblical

proper names into Latin depends on various other sources and on comparative study of grammars.

The state of transliteration of biblical proper names in the Vetus Latina

and the Vg shows a much wider variety of transliteration forms than does

the Onomastica Sacra. The state of variants in the Vg is similar, as is the

state of forms of biblical proper names in Greek translations. In the Vg,

we nd variants that are explicable primarily due to the several possibilities of pronouncing Hebrew/Aramaic names, which at that time were

transmitted in the consonantal system. Vetus Latina and Jerome render

Semitic consonants with the following Latin characters: has no conso-

nantal value of its own, but serves to carry the respective vowel; = b; = g; = d; is without consonantal value and therefore ignored, rarely

rendered as h; usually serves to carry the respective vowels o or u,

sometimes having the value of the consonant v (gemination is not con-

sidered); = z, sometimes s; = usually replaced by a vowel (in the

beginning of a name in great majority), sometimes it is rendered as h or

(very rarely) as ch or even c; gemination Ï = tt; = at the beginning of a

word normally t and exceptionally th, in the middle normally th; = i, in

combination with vowels ignored or (in the beginning of a name)

sometimes combined with the added h (see Hieremias Hierusalem);




f f p

the same Hebrew vowel system. The correspondence between the Greek

and Latin vowels is as follows: = a; = e; = e; = e; = i; = o; = u; = y; = o.

The role of tradition is manifest mainly through Latin forms of names

that are well known because their form is much more unied than those

less commonly used. Here the comparison between the Vetus Latina and

the Vg forms of biblical proper names proves illustrative. The Vetus

Latina fragments testify to a similar variety of forms as in the LXX andthe Vg, but not always in the same names. The relationship between

Greek and Latin is as follows: = a; = b; = g; = d; = e; = z, in

classical times probably pronounced like zd, in the Hellenistic and

Greco-Roman periods it had the weaker sound of voiced s; = e; = th,

rarely t; = i, j; = c, ch, in gemination cch (see Macchabeus); = l; =

m; = n; = x; = o; = p, ph; = r; = s; single or geminated = t,rarely th; = y; = ph, rarely p or f; = ch, rarely c (probably based on

Hebrew ); = ps; = o; = u. The correspondence of consonants in

Geek and Latin in the Latin Onomasticon is as follows: = a; = b; =

g; = d; = e; = z; = e; = th; = i, j; = c; = l; = m; = n; = x;

= o; = u; = p; = r; = s; = t; = y; = f; = ch; = ps; = o.

The Greek and Latin alphabets are close enough to each other that the

difculties in transliterating the names from Semitic languages are to a




f f p

The statement by Sperber is both too general and too simplied to

correspond adequately to the facts. It is true that Jerome normallytransliterates Greek forms given by Eusebius faithfully into Latin—even

when the Vg form is different. Some well-known names can illustrate the

situation: (Num 33:35 LXX), (Onomasti-

con), Asiongaber (Vg), Gasiongaber (Onomasticon); -() (Num 33:46 LXX, Onomasticon), Elmondeblathaim (Vg),

Gelmon Deblathaim (Onomasticon); () (Deut 11:29 LXX, Onomasticon), Garizim (Vg), Garizin (Onomasticon), and so on. On the

other hand, Eusebius follows the LXX when writing the name ,and Jerome transliterates it in the Onomasticon as Moyses, while in the

Vg the form Moses is found, exceptions being only Bar 1:20; 2:2, 28.

is transliterated as Chebron, in the Vg almost always Hebron;

(Deut 3:9 LXX), (Onomasticon) is transliterated with

Ermon, but the Vg uses the form Hermon; (Deut 32:49) is

transliterated in with Iericho, the Vg has the form Hiericho;

(Josh 10:1) is transliterated with Ierusalem, the Vg has Hierusalem, and

so on. Jerome uses, however, in the Onomasticon also the forms of

names which are different from those used by Eusebius but identical to

the forms in the Vg: (Gen 12:8) / Bethel; (Gen 10:8–9) /

Nemrod and so on




f f p

In the course of the transmission of MS copies of the LXX, its text

underwent several major changes beyond the usual amount of alterationinevitable in copying by hand. Origen (ca. 213–ca. 270) produced his

sixfold version of the Old Testament, his famous Hexapla. In parallel

columns, at each opening of his book, stood the following different texts:

(a) the Hebrew text, written with only one or two words per line; (b) a

transliteration of the Hebrew into Greek letters; (c) Aquila’s Greek

version; (d) Symmachus’ Greek version; (e) the LXX; (f) Theodotion’sGreek version. The Hexapla was probably never recopied as a whole, but

fragments of this magnum opus are preserved in quotations made by

various Church Fathers. It is all the more probable that this monumental

work must have been accessible to Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–339)

when he wrote the work of Onomasticon. It is well known that Eusebius,

with the assistance of his friend Pamphilus, supplied Constantine theGreat with fty copies of the Greek Bible, containing in the Old Testa-

ment Origen’s fth parallel text, with alternative readings from the other

versions in the margins. When Eusebius wrote the Onomasticon, a work

on biblical place names that laid out the geographical locations of some

600 towns, historical sites, districts, mountains and rivers, connecting

these with contemporary Roman place names, he wanted to create the

sense of a Christian space and time for Roman Palestine In keeping with




f f p

Erasmian school prevailed and substituted a different pronunciation for

some letters in the traditional or modern Greek. The cardinal point ofdispute was the letter , in the “modern Greek” pronounced like i (iota),

but in the Erasmian school like e.39

Due to the consistency of Jerome’s transliteration system in his

translation of Eusebius’ book on the sites and names of Hebrew places

and in his own book of Hebrew names, it is most unusual that Jerome

uses different forms for the same names in his version of the Bible. Thisfact allows the conclusion that this happened because the circumstances

of his Bible translation work were very different. First of all, the Bible is

a huge volume of text and therefore translation work extended to a long

period of work time, allowing for on the one hand a growing knowledge

of grammar, and the use of various Latin, Greek and Latin manuscripts,

and on the other hand contact with living traditions in the Hebrew,Aramaic, Greek, Latin and other traditions. It is obvious that the phonet-

ics of a living tradition inuenced translators into Greek in their reading

of the Hebrew original. The various readings of the Hebrew itself,

dialectal differences, mistakes in reading and transmitting the text, the

lack of established rules in Hebrew orthography, differences in Hebrew/

Aramaic, Greek and Latin phonetics and the established tradition of well-

known names were the reasons for transformation and deformation of




f f

5. Reasons for the Existence of Variant Formsof Biblical Proper Names

In the introduction to the present chapter it was mentioned that in the

Textus Receptus of the Hebrew Bible there are fairly few variant readings

of the forms of biblical proper names. The relative uniformity of biblical

proper names in the Hebrew Bible is remarkable in view of the excessive

variety of their forms in various ancient versions. Uniformity or variantorthography of biblical names are, both in the original and in transla-

tions, attributable to several factors.

a. Variant Forms in the Hebrew Bible

As for the original Hebrew and Aramaic text, the development of the

language implies development of forms of biblical names to a certain

extent. Development of the language implies that names also undergo

various transformations in later times. First of all, we note that alterna-

tive forms developed in the spelling of names. Some names are recorded

using a short and a longer form. For example, during the Second Temple

period, the biblical name

was almost universally spelt

. At a

slightly later date, the abbreviated form was obviously preferred for

thi Diff i ti l i ft i th Bibl th




signs, the grammatical structure of names at least suggests a probable

way of reading the names. An additional aid in establishing the spellingis the tradition of well-known names and the etymological meaning ofmany names.42 Consequently, the readings of the Masoretes are hardlyuntenable. For all these reasons it is clear that any judgment of the formsof biblical proper names in translation must be closely related to theroots of the original text.43 In the light of the original text, it is possible to

establish rst of all the range of phonetic possibilities and the determi-nants of spelling by Hebrew/Aramaic orthography. After judgment onthese grounds is made, the justication of tradition may be considered.

b. Reasons for Variants in the Greek and Latin Bibles

Since translators and scribes were very free in their transliteration of

biblical names, many other transliteration variations are noted. Translit-eration systems and transmission of Greek and Latin forms of biblicalnames are not uniform—consistency has in the main been avoided—and

42. Lisowsky rejects with good arguments the view that neither the text of theLXX nor that of the Hebrew Bible constitutes a sure basis for judging grammaticalforms. On pp. 7–8 of his study Die Transkription der hebräischen Eigennamen des

Pentateuch in der Septuaginta he emphasizes: “ wir möchten einwenden dass es




so alternative forms developed in the spelling of names. Established

tradition is the result of transmission of phonetic transcription of propernames. In general, forms of proper names were transmitted as they were

heard. In view of these criteria, is it possible to discern which forms are

the result of some kind of error? In any evaluation of the forms of names

in Greek, Latin and other translation languages, it is best to begin with

the form of the name in Hebrew or Aramaic. A revision of the forms of

proper names begins with the root form of the original. Any contempo-rary scholarly approach to the forms of biblical names must distinguish

between the genesis of the original text or translations and transmission

of the text throughout history until the present.

Transmission of biblical proper names caused much more variant

readings than did the state of language and culture in the time of the

original text’s genesis and of ancient translations. Over the long courseof Bible tradition history, transmission of biblical proper names must

take into account various transformations of biblical names with the

passage of time, common transcriptions of names, short and longer form

of names, the process of abbreviation of names, common scribal errors,

common name alterations, letter interchange, loss of letters, addition of

unnecessary letters to names, letter displacement, misreading due to

graphical similarity the consistent or inconsistent use of a double or sin-




and inner-Latin matter. Most errors are a consequence of mistaken

reading, hearing and writing. It follows that in evaluation of forms of biblical names that make more than a single appearance it is possible toilluminate the extent of forms to which they are common or frequent;including common or frequent transcriptions of names, common orfrequent scribal errors, common or frequent names alterations, etc.

Many phonological and grammatical rules dictate the transliteration of

biblical names into Greek and Latin; some are inuenced by Semiticscribal practices, and some are internal to Greek or Latin. Within the phonetic transliterations that are possible in principle the survey ofvariants within the whole corpus of manuscripts makes it possible toestablish the level of justication in view of frequency of occurrence:unique reading, family reading, popular reading or majority reading.

Comparison between the forms of proper names contained in mostimportant extant manuscripts, as for instance Codices A and B, is alreadyrevealing in many respects. It is conspicuous that about one third of proper names in Codices A and B are divergent. Moreover, many formsof proper names are divergent even within the same codex with regard toindividual books. Generally speaking, variation of forms depends on therange of possible freedom between a particular strictly unique possibleform and between several transliteration possibilities on orthographic




transmission of proper names support the conclusion that the parent text

must have been an uncial text: becomes , becomes , becomes, and so on. Many errors in spellings of names presuppose an uncial

parent text. In some cases it is obvious that the translator misread some

letters, for instance Daleth for Resh or vice versa. Errors in transmission

show a certain amount of carelessness in copying the underlying parent

text; sometimes transcriptions are carelessly transmitted. Errors in the

spelling of proper names are often found in places in which a particularMS is inexact elsewhere as well.

In the LXX, we nd forms of some names, especially in the book of

Numbers, which are unique and do not adhere to the Hebrew consonantal

constituents. Because of this, the general phenomenon of errors in

transcription and transmission is not a sufcient explanation for their

individual form. It is more likely that in such cases the parent text did notequal the MT. This conclusion is especially solid in view of the fact that

in most inexplicable readings the transliteration in the Vg does corre-

spond at least to Hebrew consonants. The following examples illustrate

the issue:

Í (Exod 6:23) , Vg: Abiu (Num 24:7) , Vg: Agag

( ) h




(Num 33:22, 23) , Vg: Ceelatha

(2 Kgs 23:33) , Josephus: , ,, , Vg: Rebla

Û (Num 33:21, 22) , Vg: Ressa

› (Num 26:32) ,Vg: Semida

Í › (Num 26:39) , Vg: Supham

› (Num 34:24) , Vg: Sephtan

(Num 26:35) , Vg: Tehen

(Num 33:26, 27) , Vg: Thaath (Num 33:27, 28) , Vg: Thare

d. The Establishment of a Greek Critical Text

In the establishment of a critical text two major criteria are available:

non-literary papyri from Alexandria in Egypt written in the third and

second centuries B.C.E., and the text tradition. Non-literary papyri fromEgypt are of relative value when compared with the LXX because they

are less classical with regard to tradition than the LXX text, which is a

literary text of greater conservatism and, correspondingly, has a greater

tendency to more classical forms. The text tradition is at hand mainly

through the oldest uncials—Codex A, Codex B and Codex S—all repre-

senting different text-types. The texts of codices B and A are peculiarlyimportant for the whole of the LXX, because, practically speaking, they




It should be fully clear at the outset what is meant by the printing of a

critical text. It is the presentation by an editor after weighing all the textualevidence at his disposal of the earliest reconstruction of the text possible,

an approximation to the original insofar as that is reasonable. For the text

of the Greek Genesis this means working with materials which are in the

main at least 400 years later than the autographa. Outside of a few

fragments (942 from ca. 50 B.C. consists of only fragments of words too

small to be textually signicant; 814 from ca. A.D. 90 consists of 8

fragmentary verses from ch. 14) the oldest substantial materials are A B911 961 962 all from the late third to the fth centuries. If, as the editor

believes, Genesis was translated in Alexandria in the late third or early

second centuries BC, then the rst half millennium is an almost complete

blank as far as the textual history of Genesis is concerned.

It is of course true that during this period the LXX of Genesis was

translated into Latin and Sahidic as well as quoted by ancient writers. The

reconstruction of an original text through the medium of an early trans-

lation is a chancey process at best, i.e. if we were certain of the original

translation texts. Genesis will demonstrate how uncertain one is of the Old

Latin text, or better said Old Latin “texts.”

In the case of ancient writers we fare no better. First of all, early writers

do not quote texts in the same way as a modern author does. He had no

concordances to consult, he normally relied on memory. Furthermore theywere seldom interested in citing exactly, often citing according to the

h h h l A d h h i i i




from the wider context of the usual controls from the text history of the

LXX as a whole. Many variant readings show great divergence from theoriginal transcription; several of them indicate errors of various types.

Traditions concerning proper names are on the whole more untrust-

worthy the more they represent a late and often corrupt textual tradition.

In the course of establishing the Göttingen critical text, some correc-

tions to the text-critical edition by Alfred Rahlfs have been made because

scholars now have late third- and early fourth-century witnesses to thestate of the text at that time at their disposal. They are thus now able to

evaluate the text of codices A, B and S in a much better perspective than

could be done in Rahlfs’ time. Some corrections concern even well-

known proper names, as for instance the name › (Exod 6:23). The

name is correctly transliterated in A* 426 as , Vg: Elisabe, and

is therefore accepted by the Göttingen critical text. Rahlfs adopted,however, the secondary reading , the result of dittography,

evidently on the basis of the form adopted by B: . The error

of dittography led to the majority reading of . Another exam-

ple of an unfortunate decision by Rahlfs is transliteration of the name

› (Exod 17:14) in the genitive, producing the form , Vg: Iosue,

even though the correct form in genitive is , adopted by editions of

Field and Göttingen Rahlfs explains the decision in the Apparatus:




The great remedy for ignorance of proper signs is knowledge of lan-

guages. And men who speak the Latin tongue, of whom are those I haveundertaken to instruct, need two other languages for the knowledge of

Scripture, Hebrew and Greek, that they may have recourse to the original

texts if the endless diversity of the Latin translators throw them into

doubt. Although, indeed, we often nd Hebrew words untranslated in the

books, as for example, Amen, Halleluia, Racha, Hosanna, and others of

the same kind. Some of these, although they could have been translated,

have been preserved in their original form on account of the more sacredauthority that attaches to it, as for example, Amen and Halleluia. Some of

them, again, are said to be untranslatable into another tongue, of which

the other two I have mentioned are examples. For in some languages

there are words that cannot be translated into the idiom of another

language. And this happens chiey in the case of interjections, which are

words that express rather an emotion of the mind than any part of a

thought we have in our mind. And the two given above are said to be of

this kind, Racha expressing the cry of an angry man, Hosanna that of a

joyful man. But the knowledge of these languages is necessary, not for

the sake of a few words like these which it is very easy to mark and to ask

about, but, as has been said, on account of the diversities among trans-

lators. For the translations of the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can

be counted, but the Latin translators are out of all number. For in the earlydays of the faith every man who happened to get his hands upon a Greek

i d h h h h h d k l d i li l




would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original. The

labour is one of love, but at the same time both perilous and presumptu-ous; for in judging others I must be content to be judged by all; and how

can I dare to change the language of the world in its hoary old age, and

carry it back to the early days of its infancy?… For if we are to pin our

faith to the Latin texts, it is for our opponents to tell us which, for there

are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies. If, on the other

hand, we are to glean the truth from a comparison of many, why not go

back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccu-rate translators, and the blundering alterations of condent but ignorant

critics?… I therfore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only,

which are to be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,

as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts.

Only early ones have been used. But to avoid any great divergences from

the Latin which we are accustomed to read, I have used my pen with

some restraint, and while I have corrected only such passages as seemed

to convey a different meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as they

are.48

In his letter to Pammachius (in the year 395) on the best method of

translation, Jerome advocates great freedom in translating ordinary

books, but he expressly excepts the Scriptures from the operation of hisrules of translation when he writes:




Today we are not able to identify in specic terms the character of the

manuscripts Jerome used, but we may assume that he used several text-types of the extant Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts. For several centuries

Jerome’s translation failed to gain universal approval. Gradually it was

accepted throughout Western Christendom. Yet, in the course of its

transmission scribal corruptions and deliberate conation with copies of

the Old Latin versions resulted in the greatest degree of bewildering

cross-contamination of textual type. This state of affairs is witnessed inthe over ten thousand manuscripts of the Vg known today. Two authentic

editions of the Vg puried Jerome’s text to a certain extent and made it

available in 1590 (by Pope Sixtus V) and in 1592 (by Pope Clement

VIII). In the years between 1889 and 1945 several Anglican scholars

published a critical edition of the New Testament at Oxford. In 1907

Pope Pius X established a commission under the responsibility of theBenedictine scholars to revise the Vg. Genesis appeared in 1926, and

publication of the Old Testament was almost complete in 1995, though

as yet none of the New Testament has been undertaken.51 The most

valuable smaller critical edition of the Vg is the Stuttgart edition.52

Jerome’s Latin Bible left its mark not only in ecclesiastical terminol-

ogy but also in the development of Latin into the Romance languages.

The development of the science of textual criticism in recent times has




codorlaomor, codor-laomor, chodorlagomor, godorlahomor, godorlago-

mor, chodor-labomor, chodorlahomer; variants to v. 5 are: chodor-laomor, codorlahomor, codorlaomor, godorlahomor, godorlagomor,

chodorlahomer, codorlaomer, chodorlagomer; variants to v. 9 are:

chodorlaomor, chodorloamor, codorlahomor, codorlaomor, codorla-

gomor, chodorlahomer, chodorlagomer, cogorlagomor, godorlahomor,

godorlagomor, variants to v. 17 are: chodorlaomor, codorlahomor,

codorlaomor, chodorlahomer, chodorlagomer, cohdorlagomor, cohdorla-gomer, godorlagomor.53 It is evident that scribal corruptions had disg-

ured transliteration of the name in the course of transmission of the text.

The transmission of the LXX text caused a similar cross-contamination

of the basic form , as the Göttingen critical edition of the

LXX testies. A comparison between the majority and variant readings in

the LXX and in the Vg enables us to make an approximate estimation ofthe degree of dependence of the Vg on the LXX as opposed to the original

Hebrew text.

6. General Conclusions

The history of Semitic forms of biblical proper names is as complex as

th hi t f th H b Bibl f th ti f it l t i i




for ancient translations of the Bible into Semitic languages. Targumim,

for instance, display minor phonetic changes to Hebrew forms of propernames. Semitic languages are based on many common phonetic laws,

and therefore the forms of Semitic proper names reect to a greater

extent a remarkable unity in form and content than the forms created in

translations of the Bible into Greek, Latin and languages other than

Semitic.

The Land of Israel became the Holy Land, not only for Jews but alsofor Christians and Muslims. Therefore Jews, Christians and Moslems

have had little reason to alter the forms of geographical names of biblical

origin radically, as for instance the Roman occupiers did when they

introduced totally new names, even for principal locations of the Holy

Land.55 This fact is important in regard to the forms of biblical names in

Greek and Latin. The Greek versions of the Old and New Testamentsdisplay a combination of preservation of and changes to Semitic forms

of biblical proper names. In translations of the Hebrew Bible, a number

of proper names, almost exclusively geographical names, are treated on

the basis of their presumed etymological meaning, with most of them

transliterated in accordance with their Semitic forms. Even a supercial

comparison between Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin forms of bibli-

cal proper names makes it clear that the forms of Hebrew and Aramaic



that Jerome did not always transcribe the Greek spelling into Latin in a

precise manner. In translating the Bible he was bound to the original, toGreek forms, to earlier Latin translations of the Bible and to contem-

porary spelling of biblical names in the Latin Church. In combining these

factors his decisions reect a compromise.

And yet all these facts do not explain why Jerome did not unify the

forms of biblical proper names in his own translation, even though he

prepared a translation of Eusebius’ book on the sites and names ofHebrew places and composed also his own book of Hebrew names. Even

these works do not manifest the will to unify the spelling of proper

names. There are no linguistic grounds in the textual history of the

Hebrew, Greek and Latin Bibles allowing the conclusion that unication

of linguistic systems was at all desired and thus assigned value in the

ancient world. We must bear in mind that all texts were considered moreor less canonical, an essential part of a living tradition. In the ow of

living tradition in the long history of biblical interpretation they under-

went a complicated series of revisions. No part of the original and of

ancient translations was created systematically and in such a timely

manner that would allow for control over and standardization of spelling.

To conclude, it may be stated that the forms of biblical proper names

are much more stable and consistent in the Hebrew Bible than in Greek




7. Comparative Expositions of the Forms

of Biblical Proper Names

The textual history of the LXX and of the Latin Vg is of special impor-

tance within the ancient writings because of their great inuence on the

development of the forms of proper names in all European and later in

World languages. Although the primary purpose of this study is to

present the phonetic relationship between Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek andLatin languages as reected in biblical proper names, such a compara-

tive study must consider all the general rules of textual criticism. John

William Wevers summarizes the situation in the textual history of the

LXX as follows:

…those who read and pondered the LXX did not have the autographon;they had copies, in fact, had copies of copies. It was the MSS which readers

had, not the original text, and these MSS represent later developments of

the text; all these MSS constituted eclectic texts, based on a complicated

and often untraceable textual genealogy. Many of these represent in their

variant readings conscious revisions based on the Hebrew, especially the

hex(aplaric) recension of Origen; others grew out of copyist errors. Refer-

ence is then made in the Notes to many such readings, variants subjec-tively chosen for their interest in showing a different understanding of the



comparative view of the phonetic relationship is especially useful, even

though in some cases the MT differs from that which is implied in theLXX version. In such cases opinions may properly differ as to the identi-

cation of the Greek and the Hebrew forms.

Unfortunately, there is no comparable concordance to the Latin Vg to

which the user may be referred. There is, however, a scientic edition of

the text of the Latin Vg of the Old Testament, comparable with the

Göttingen edition of the LXX (since 1922). This edition of the Vg has been prepared since 1926 by scholars of the order of Saint Benedict

(O.S.B.), the text being based on extant manuscripts of all major families

and of major codices, and the variant forms of proper names are properly

considered in every instance.

The complex phonetic interrelation between the Hebrew/Aramaic,

Greek and Latin languages was until now never treated systematicallyand comparatively on the basis of the main sources of all these languages

in relation to all biblical proper names, neither for purely scholarly

purposes nor for purposes of reference. This fact is all the more deplor-

able given that the forms of biblical proper names within Europe and

elsewhere in the world from antiquity until today manifest certain com-

promises between the phonetic systems of these languages. Conse-quently translators of the Bible in all languages must realize that the




The production of the biblical proper names has required the manual

checking and analysis of every occurrence of each biblical proper namein the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin scriptural witnesses.

When the dictionary is completed, the following structure will be used

for presenting the various data:

The dictionary will list names in alphabetical sequence following the

NRSV’s spelling. In the majority of cases, the NRSV (like most English-

language translations, including the KJV) renders proper names in atransliterated form that accurately reects the original language. In those

cases where a name is translated rather than transliterated, the translated

form of the name is included.

After the lemma entry, which reects each name’s recognized and

standardized English pronunciation (or any other chosen variant), the

regular Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek forms are given in square brackets,with these standard forms in each case being followed (where appro-

priate) by a list of the variant spellings. Latin translations follow the

Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek forms. This format is intended to show

quite clearly whether a given form can be called a “family reading,” a

“popular reading” and or a “majority reading.”

The list of proper names is accompanied by an exhaustive inventory ofbiblical citations (though an exception is made to this rule when a name



Aijalon [Heb. Ì ayylô'n / Ail , Ailím (Judg 12:12),

Ailám (1 Chr 8:13), Aial n (2 Chr 11:10)] {place} Vg Ahialon, Ahilon,Helon, Aialon—Josh 10:12; Judg 1:35; 2 Chr 11:10

Akkub [Heb. Í˜ aqqû'b / Gr. () Ak(k)oúb, Akoúd ,

Akoúm] {male person} Vg Ac(c)ub, Accob, Accubus, Acum, Acuph—Neh 7:45;

11:19; 1 Chr 3:24; 1 Esd 5:28

Alemeth [Heb. le'met / Gr. Galémeth (1 Chr 6:60/45/-B; 9:42),

Galêmeth (1 Chr 6:60/45/-A), Geméeth (1 Chr 7:8),

Galémath (1 Chr 8:36)] {place, male person} Vg Almath, Almathan, Almoth,Alamath—1 Chr 6:45(Vg 60) {place}; 1 Chr 7:8; 8:36; 9:42 {male person}. The

place Alemeth (1 Chr 6:45) has in Josh 21:18 the form Almon

Azarel [Heb. zar 'l , azrî 'l “God helped” / Gr. Ezer l ,() Esr(e)i l , Esdri l , () Oz(e)i l , () Ozr(e)i l ,(e) El(e)i l , Azariá, Ezri l , Azara l ] {all male

persons} Vg Ezrel, Azrihel, Azarel, Azrahel, Ezrahel, Ezrihel—Ezra 10:41; Neh

11:13; 12:36(35); 1 Chr 12:6(7); 25:18; 27:22; 1 Esd 9:34

Azel [Heb. 'l “noble” / Es l ] {male person} Vg Asel, Esel—1 Chr

8:37–38; 9:43–44

Azgad [Heb. Á azg'd “Gad is strong” / Gr. Asgád , Azgád ,

Agetád , Argaí , Astaá, Astád , Astáth] {male

person} Vg Azgad, Ezgad, Arcad, Asath—Ezra 2:12; 8:12; Neh 7:17; 10:16; 1 Esd

5:13; 8:38(41)



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abegg, Martin, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The

Oldest Known Bible: Translated for the First Time into English. New York:HarperCollins, 1999.

Aberbach, Moses, and Bernard Grossfeld. Targum Onkelos to Genesis. Denver: Ktav/Center for Judaic Studies, 1982.

Arana, A. Ibanez. “La narración etiológica como génere literario bíblico: Las etiologíasetimológicas del Pentateuco.” Scriptorium Victoriense 10 (1963): 161–76, 241–75.

Barr, James. “Etymology and the Old Testament.” Pages 1–28 in Language and Meaning:

Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis. Ed. James Barr et al.; OTS 19;Leiden: Brill, 1974.

Bauer, Hans, and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des

Alten Testamentes. Halle: Niemeyer, 1922; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1962.

Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionem ad codicum dem … cura et studiomonachorum abbatiae ponticiae Sancti Hieronymi in urbe ordinis Sancti Benedicti

dit R T i l l tti V ti i Lib i dit i V ti 1926 95

Bibliography 141



Freeman-Grenville, G. S. P., Rupert L. Chapman III and Joan E. Taylor, Palestine in the

Fourth Century A.D.: The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea. Jerusalem: Carta,2005.Fremantle, W. H., G. Lewis and W. G. Martley, The Principal Works of St. Jerome.

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, 6, St. Jerome: Letters and SelectWorks; ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace; originally published in the United States

by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1893; repr. Peabody, Mass.:Hendrickson, 1995.

Fricke, Klaus Dietrich, and Benedikt Schwank. Ökumenisches Verzeichnis der biblischen Eigennamen nach den Loccumer Richtlinien. Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelanstalt/Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1971, 1981.

Garsiel, Moshe. Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns.Trans. Phyllis Hackett; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1991).

Golka, Friedemann W. “The Aetiologies in the Old Testament.” VT 26 (1976): 410–28;27 (1977): 36–47.

Harl, Marguerite et al., La Bible d’Alexandrie: La Genèse. Paris: Cerf, 1994. — La Bible d’Alexandrie: Traduction du texte grec de la Septante. Paris: Cerf, 1986–.Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other

Greek versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). Vol. 2,Supplement . Oxford: Clarendon, 1906; repr. Graz: Akademische Druck- u.Verlagsanstalt, 1954.

Haug, Hellmut, ed. Namen und Orte der Bibel . Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,

2002.Hayward, R. Divine Name and Presence: The Memra. Totowa, N.J.: Allanheld, Osmun,




Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Ed. Raphael Kutscher;

Jerusalem: Jerusalem: The Hebrew University/Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1982. — Studies in Galilean Aramaic: Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture;Translated from the Hebrew Original and Annotated with Additional Notes from the Author’s Handcopy by Michael Sokoloff . Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1976.

Le Déaut, Roger. La nuit pascale: Essai sur la signication de la Paque juive à partir duTargum d’Exode XII , 42. Rome: Pontical Biblical Institute, 1963.

Lipiski, Edward. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar . OLA 80;

Leuven: Peeters, 1997.Lisowsky, Gerhard. Die Transkription der hebräischen Eigennamen des Pentateuch in

der Septuaginta. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde an der

Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Basel; Basel, 1940.

Long, B. O. “Etymological Etiology and the DT Historian.” CBQ 31 (1969): 35–41.

—The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament . BZAW 108; Berlin: de

Gruyter, 1968.

Melamed, Ezra Zion. “The Onomastikon of Eusebius.” Tarbiz 3 (1932): 314–27, 393– 409.

— The Onomastikon of Eusebius. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1966.

Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990.

Murtonen, A. Hebrew in Its West Semitic Setting: A Comparative Survey of Non-Masoretic Hebrew Dialects and Traditions. SSLL 15; Leiden: Brill, 1986.

Noth, Martin. Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen

Namengebung . BWANT 3/10; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928; repr. Hildesheim:Olms, 1966.

Bibliography 143



Shaw, J. F. Augustin: City of God, Christian Doctrine. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,

First Series 2; ed. P. Scharff; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995.Siegert, Folker. Zwischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Testament: Eine Einführung in

die Septuaginta. MJSt 9; Münster: LIT, 2001.Soggin, J. Alberto. “Kultätiologische Sagen und Katechese im Hexateuch.” VT 10 (1960):

341–47.Sperber, Alexander. Hebrew Based upon Greek and Latin Transliterations. Offprint from

Hebrew Union College Annual, Volume XII–XIII; Cincinnati, 1937–38.

Strus, Andrzej. “Étymologies des noms propres dans Gen 29,32–30, 24: Valeurs littéraireset fonctionnelles.” Salesianum 40 (1978): 57–72. —Nomen–Omen. La stylistique sonore des noms propres dans le Pentateuque. Rome:

Biblical Institute Press, 1978.Thackeray, Henry St. John. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek . Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1909; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1987.Thomsen, P. “Palästina nach dem Onomasticon des Eusebius.” Ph.D. diss., Tübingen,

1903 (published under the same title in Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 26 [1903]: 97–141, 145–88).

Tov, Emanuel. The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint . VTSup57; Leiden: Brill, 1999.

—“Loan-words, Homophony, and Transliterations in the Septuagint.” Pages 165–82 inTov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible.

—“Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions: A Further Characteristic of

the Kaige-th Revision?” Pages 501–12 in Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Urbach, Ephraim E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Magnes,




Zadok, Ran. The Pre-Hellenistic–Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography. OLA 28;

Leuven: Peeters, 1988.

Ziegler, Joseph. “Transkriptionen in der Ier.-LXXX: Transkription der Eigennamen

(EN).” Pages 59–86 in Beiträge zur Ieremias-Septuaginta. Mitteilungen des

Septuaginta-Unternehmens VI, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958.

Zimmerman, Frank. “Folk Etymology of Biblical Names.” Pages 311–26 in Volume du

Congrès: Genève. VTSup 15; Leiden: Brill, 1966.



I NDEXES

I NDEX OF R EFERENCES

HEBREW BIBLE/

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis

2:4–25 8

2:4 56

2:5 104

2:8 106

2:11 97

2:14 107

2:23 8, 47

3:1–24 10

3:1 563:14–19 10

10:27 98

11:1–9 11

11:1 11

11:2–4 11

11:5–8 12

11:7 12

11:8 12

11:9 6, 11, 12,

44, 45,

47

11:18 100

11:24 10611:29 97

15:20 56, 64,

65

16 12

16:11 6, 13,

105

16:13–14 13, 45,

47

16:13 6, 13

16:14 6, 14, 15

16:15 6

17:5 6, 7, 98

17:15 6, 7, 10117:19 107




Genesis (cont.)

22:19 1722:23 101, 105

23:8–9 75

23:9 56, 75

23:17 56, 75

23:19 56, 75

24:7 122

24:10 56, 7124:52 14

24:62 13, 15,

47

25–33 26

25:5 72

25:9 56, 7525:11 13–15,

47

25:20 56, 71,

72

25:25 6, 97

25:26 6, 107

25:30 626:2 26

29:34 6, 97,

10629:35 6, 98

30:8 105

30:18 6

30:20 6, 106

30:23–24 6

30:25 97

31:18 71, 7231:43–54 22

31:46–49 23, 49

31:47 6

31:48 6

31:49 6

32:2–3 23, 4932:2 6

32:3 24

32:8–11 24

32:22–32 25

32:29 97, 98,

106

32:31 6, 25, 45,49

38:4 105

38:29 638:30 6

41:51 6, 101,

106

41:52 6, 97

46–50 28

46:1 17

46:5 1746:10 108, 122

46:12 122

46:14 99

46:15 71

46:16 72, 122

46:17 12246:21 122

46:24 99

46:28 26

49:28–50:26 28

49:30 56, 75

50:11 6, 28, 50

50:13 56, 75

Index of References 147



17:14 125

18:3 718:4 7

34:23 59

Numbers

1:6 100

1:8 100

1:14 122

1:15 105

11:1–35 32, 33

11:1–3 32

11:1–2 32

11:1 33

11:3 7, 33, 45,46, 50

11:33–34 33

11:34 7, 33, 46,

50

11:35 33

12:10 98

13:14 99, 122

13:14 LXX 122

26:30 122

26:32 12326:35 123

26:36 122

26:38 122

26:39 123

26:40 122

26:44 LXX 122

26:46 99

27:13 32

27:14 7, 30, 32

27:17 31

32:3 102

33:16 33

33:17 3333:21 123

33:22 123

33:23 123

33:26 123

33:27 123

33:28 123

33:30 101

33:35 115

9:22 31–33

11:29 11511:30 56, 73,

74

23:4 71

23:5 71

32:49 115

33:8 30, 31

33:14 31, 32

Joshua

1:33 78

2:1 99

2:4 64

5:9 77:26 7

9:1 56, 76,

77, 79

10:1 106, 107,

115

10:12 137

10:40 56, 76,

77, 79




Judges

1:9 56, 76,79

1:16–17 34

1:17 7, 34, 35

1:31 101, 106

1:35 137

2:1–5 35

2:4–5 7, 35, 45,

46

2:4 35

2:5 50

3:8 71, 72

4:4 101

6:32 77:1 56, 73

7:7 79

8:8–9 25

8:17 25

11:11 101

12:8 102

12:10 102

12:12 137

23:24–24:1 38

23:27–28 3823:28 7, 37, 50

25:3 107

25:25 7

30:30 34

2 Samuel

3:3 102

5:7 100

5:14 100, 107

5:17–25 39

5:18 65

5:20–21 45, 46

5:20 7, 39, 41,50

5:22 65

6:1–23 40

6:3 106

6:8 7, 40, 50,

106

8:17 97, 101

12:25 7

22:14 106

23:33 123

24:17 102

25:23 98

1 Chronicles

1:15 78

1:19 7

3:24 137

4:3 98, 100

4:4 25

4:9–10 7

4:9 41

4:11 101

4:30 346:45 137

6:60 137

7:8 137

7:23 7

7:35 98

8:13 137

8:25 25

8:36 137

Index of References 149



2 Chronicles

1:15 76, 79

3:1 56, 74,

75

9:27 76, 78,

79

11:10 137

20:1–30 41

20:25–26 41

20:26 7, 41, 45,

46, 50

26:10 76, 78,

79

28:18 76, 77,

79

Ezra

2:9 101

2:12 138

2:15 137

2:33 122

4:6 98

7:1 102

28:22 56

31:12 56

40:15 56, 65

40:25 56, 65–

67

Psalms

6:5 56

60:2 71, 72

74:14 56, 65–

67

81:8 30

83:8 106

88:1 97

88:11 63, 6488:12 56

95:8 30–32

104:26 56, 65–

67

106:32–33 30

Proverbs 15:11 56, 61,

Jeremiah

17:24–26 77

17:26 76, 79

28:1 99

32:12 106

32:44 76–79

33:13 76, 77,

79

Ezekiel

23:4 108

Daniel

1:6 106

Hosea

1:1 98

1:4 56, 67

1:6 56, 67

1:8 67

1:9 56

2–14 69

2:3 68




APOCRYPHA/DEUTERO-

CANONICAL

BOOKS

1 Esdras

5:13 138

5:28 137

8:38 138

8:41 138

9:34 138

Tobit

2:10 101

6:11 100

Sirach

45:6 98

Baruch

1:20 115

2:2 115

2:28 115

1 Maccabees

6:1 10111:70 102

12:38 76

13:11 102

13:13 76

2 Maccabees

10:19 101

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

1 Enoch

6:3 63

6:7 63

8:1 639:6 63

9:7 63

10:8 63

10:11 63

BABYLONIAN TALMUD

Erubin 53a 76

Yoma

67b 63

MIDRASH

Genesis Rabbah

20:11 10

22:2 10

56:10 19

Leviticus Rabbah

29:9 19

Tanhuma, Wa-Yera

23 (78–79) 19

Tanhuma B., Wa-Yera

46 (1,115) 19



I NDEX OF AUTHORS

Abegg, M., Jr. 84

Aberbach, M. 8

Arana, A. I. 5

Barr, J. 43

Bauer, H. 129

BoréeW. 53, 95, 130Brockelmann, C. 129

Chapman, R. S. III 54, 90

Chester, A. 19

Childs, B. S. 5

Dhorme, E. 112Dimitrov, I. Z. 86

Ilan, T. 54, 56, 95

Jannaris, A. N. 96, 117

Jinbachian, M. M. 56

Jordan, P. 53

Kaswalder, P. A. 95Klostermann, E. 53, 90, 92, 110

Kreuzer, S. 86

Kutscher, E. Y. 1, 2, 129

Lagarde, P. de 90, 94, 99, 100, 113

Le Déut, R. 19

Leander, P. 129Lesch, J. P. 86




Safrai, Z. 90, 92, 132

Schalit, A. 89

Schenker, A. 86

Schwank, B. 25, 83

Seeligmann, I. L. 5, 86

Shaw, J. F. 126

Siegert, F. 86

Soggin, J. A. 5

Sperber, A. 95, 98, 102, 114, 132Strus, A. 5

Stuckenbruck, L. 86

Taylor, J. E. 54, 90

Thackeray, H. St. J. 56, 95

Thomsen, P. 90

Tov, E. 56, 95

Ulrich, E. 84

Urbach, E. E. 19

Vermes, G. 19

Weber, R. 128

Weeks, S. 86

Wevers, J. W. 56, 124, 125, 134, 135

Worth, R. H., Jr. 110Wutz, F. 90, 95

Zadok, R. 95, 118

Ziegler, J. 95

Zimmerman, F. 5



We hope you learned what you expected to learn fromthis eBook. Find more such useful books onwww.PlentyofeBooks.net

Books?

Want More

Thank You

http://www.plentyofebooks.net/

http://www.plentyofebooks.net/

the transformation of biblical proper names

Documents