Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Names of god

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ian Charles Hutchesson <MC2499 AT mclink.it>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Names of god
  • Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:45:04 +0200 (CEST)


Uri wrote:

> As for whether or not Yahweh was the only one
> already in Iron age times, one may consider the Mesha stele,
> where he is mentioned alone,

But then so is Chemosh... Perhaps Mesha's lot were also monotheistic!

> or the many hundreds of theophoric names preserved
> in extra -biblical bullae or seals. In the latter the ratio of
> yahweh to other gods is preponderant, roughly nine to
> one.

Perhaps you could also argue that the Egyptians didn't worship Osiris, as
there are almost no theophoric names which contain his name. Or Anubis or Nut
or Bes. Very few had Seth in their names either, though people didn't stop
believing in him.

This kind of thinking presupposes what you can't know about the people who
gave the names.

Incidentally, how many women's names have been preserved to carry goddess's
names? As all the names you have are male to my knowledge, you wouldn't
expect a female deity to be mentioned.

> Yes, what about the asherah as evidenced in two extra- biblical
> cases? Opinions, as you know ,are divided here because
> of the pronominal suffix.

But who is it that has problems with the suffix? Are we talking about the
infixed taw (which is natural with feminine nouns, even names which have lost
the feminine marker)? Or just the fact that it is *his* Asherah? Does this
pronominal suffix change the fact that yhwh has a consort? How would you
reinterpret yhwh and his asherah?

> The syncretism in Elephantine

Syncretism? What makes you think that?

> is a totally seperate case in a distant
> geographical location, where obviously not all Jews were
> monotheists.

Were any?

> As for Mot and other colleagues in biblical poetry - I think
> one should keep in mind that we are dealing here with
> poetry which abounds with metaphors, as does some
> prose.

After too long reading a text in a particular manner, one has difficulty
reading it any other way, especially when it is clear that later editors of
the text have reworked elements of it, a simple example is in Kings where
names like Ishbaal end up Ishbosheth.

Metaphor gets used a little too often to explain uncomfortable things.

If you want to read Mot as simply a metaphor, you then have to extend that
metaphor to theophoric names as well, for there are a few of them referring
the metaphor.

> When one reads, for example, the biblical
> expression h(.)ara appo ,nobody takes it literally as 'his nose
> became hot', but rather understands it as 'he became angry'.

When I get home I'll try to find a few less funny "metaphors".

> Of course, some
> consider Mot et all when mentioned in biblical texts as gods.
> Not easy to prove, one way or the other.

So we can happily forget about it. The carpet hides a lot of things.


Ian






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page