HuGH MAcMILLAN.
NAIOTH (ni) Ker@é; Kt. nv, i.e. probably ny} Nau*yath (like ny Zar‘phath, n232 Dab‘rath, ete.: see Driver on 185 1918], though ΠῚ} and πὴ} would both be possible: LXX Avaé [5 times after ἐν, a v having evidently dropped out in transcription, ef. Jg 16* ἐν Αλσωρηχ for pre >naa), cod. A Ναυιωθ. No root 7 is known: the form Naw*yath is thus much more probable than Naioth).—The name of a locality in Ramah, mentioned 1 § 1918. 19. 22 23. 23 201, in which David and Samuel took refuge, when the former was pursued by Saul. This is really all that can be said about it: what the nature of the locality was, is entirely uncertain. It is an old explanation, not out of harmony with the context, that the term denotes the home, or cenobium, of the prophets (ef. Targ. 25d m2 ‘house of instruction,’ or school): but the philo- logical basis of this interpretation is very in- secure ; for 1); (of which ny; might be a fem. form) does not mean ‘habitation’ in general, but denotes in particular an abode of shepherds or sheep (see esp. 2S 78; and ef. Is 65!, Jer 3312), or a country habitation, or domain (Job 5%, Is 3918. Jer 1035 25: etc.), and is only applied figuratively to other kinds of abode, in poetry (Ex 15, Is 33”, Jer 507), or elevated prose (2S 15%): hence it is doubtful whether a word closely allied to this would have been chosen to denote a residence of prophets in a village or town. The absence of the art., not merely in the vocalized text (1S 1918 ete.), but in the consonantal text (201), is also an objection to its being supposed to have had an appellative sense. Under the circumstances, we must be satisfied to know that Nau*yath was the name of a locality in Ramah : the original signification of the name, and also the nature of the place denoted by it, are both uncertain. (Ewald’s attempted justification of the rendering school, Hist. iii. 49 f., is far too conjectural to be prob- able : see Driver on 1 S 1918), S. R. Driver.
NAME in EV corresponds to the Heb. ov, Aram. ov, and Gr. ὄνομα. The Hebrew word is of very ancient and obscure origin. Redslob (ZDMG, 1872, pp. 751-756), tracing it to the root imw (= aw=‘to be high’), argues that its funda-
mental sense is Aeight, and hence (1) a monument
NAME
(Gn 114, 28 1015, Is 6518) or mausoleum (Is 565), (9) excellence, majesty. e.g. Ps 54); and that ‘nae’ in the sense of a mere token of distinction rep.e- sents the last stage in the impoverishment of the original idea. Others (e.g. Lagarde, Bildung der Nomina, p. 160; W. R. Smith, Kinship, p. 213) connect it with the root wsm, which gives sign or token as the original meaning. In view of this uncertainty, it will be wise not to base too much in our discussion of the term on the etymology. The Greek term as used in NT has many mgan- ings that are foreign to classical usage, but are due to the direct or indirect influence of the Hebrew term.
In discussing the present subject we have to consider, firstly, the significance of the term and the ideas expressed by it; and, secondly, the vari- ous customs connected with the giving of names.
I. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TERM.—4. In in. numerable passages alike in OT and NT the term is used as by ourselves in reference to words by which persons, places, or objects are designated and dis- tinguished from others. It is also by a familiar transference of meaning that it comes to mean reputation or fame; see e.g. 1S 18%, 2S 79. 2318, and in consequence oY is sometimes translated in EV by ‘renown’ Gn 64, Nu 16, or ‘famous’ 1 Ch 5%, Ru 4" (cf. Job 308 ‘base’=Heb. ον »b2=lit. nameless) ; it may even by itself and unqualified mean a good reputation, Lae Pr 22 Ee 7}, Sir 41; or, on the other hand, a false reputation, Rev 34. But the more peculiar senses of the term are due to the close relation that was supposed to exist between the name and the personality. It is a widely-spread belief among primitive and less developed peoples that one who knows a person’s name has power over the bearer of the name ; hence the reluctance to give a stranger one’s name. It was but a modification of such belief that made the Hebrew frequently use ‘name’ as almost an equivalent of the ‘ per- sonality’ or ‘character’ or nature of the person or thing named; and consequently, when a writer wishes to express forcibly the nature of a person or place, he says he will be called so-and-so, or his name will be so-and-so. Thus when in the future Jerusalem is purged from injustice she will be called ‘the city of righteousness’ (Is 136); when J” returns to the deserted city after the Exile, its name will be ‘ J” is there’ (Ezk 48%). The nature
of Egypt is summed up in the name that is given her, ‘Rahab that sitteth still’; and the meaning
of Is 9° is that the child will actually be all that the name ‘ wonderful,’ ete., implies ; ef. further Pr 21%, Is 6315, and probably Is 62% 65". Again, the Greek ὀνόματα is actually rendered by ‘ persons’ in Ac 15, Rev 1113, where the sense closely resembles that of the original term in Nu 1? 26", Rev 34, in which cases EV adopts ‘names’ as its rendering. For instances from Gr. papyri see Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, 24 f.