NAMES, PROPER 485
terebinth or oak-tree’), Hadassah (Est 2’ ‘the myrtle’), Keziah (‘cassia’), and perhaps Solomon (ct. Wellh. Js. u. gud. Gesch.* p. 103, n. 1) are other instances. For Arabic instances, cf. Hammer- Purgstall, op. cit. p. 3.
(c) Other early simple names are Barak (‘light- ning’), Lappidoth (‘torches’), Samson (derived from shemesh=‘sun’), Zadok (‘just’), Barzillai (from $3=‘ iron’).
B. ComMPOUND NAMES.—The most numerous of these in OT are the compounds with Yah (= Yahweh); but they are not the earliest. The earliest are compounds with ᾿αδ() (‘father’), ’a/(7) (‘brother’), ‘amm(i) (‘kinsman’), ΕἸ (ἢ) (‘god’). Of these classes compounds with ‘ab, ‘ah, and ‘amm (=‘kinsman’) are not only early, but they seem to have ceased to be formed soon after the time of David, and fell wholly into disuse before the close of the Exile. On the other hand, compounds with ’El, though found in the earliest periods of which we have records, for long furnished fresh forma- tions, and were in frequent use after the Exile. Each of these classes requires some separate dis- cussion.
(a2) Compounds with ab, ah, and amm.—Inter- pretations of particular instances must be sought under une several articles. All that need be at- tempted here is to indicate the different views that have been held as to the relation of the two elements in the compounds, and as to the more precise significance of the term of kinship. In a name like Abinadab, are the two elements related to one another as construct and genitive, or as subject and predicate? In the former case, is the second element the name of the actual son of the person named, or of a quality, so that the whole name is equal to an adjective? In the latter case, is the i of ‘abi (: of '38) a binding vowel, or the Ist personal suffix? In other words, does Abinadab mean ‘father of Nadab,’ or ‘father of generosity’ (i.e. ‘ generous’), or ‘ the father is generous,’ or ‘my father is generous’? Every possible answer has been
iven by one or another at one time or another.
gainst the view that the relation between the two elements is that of construct and genitive, the following objection among others may be urged— (1)’ad, * i ‘amm all denote a male kinsman, but the names compounded with them are used indifferently of men or women; examples of such names of women—Abigal, Abital, Abishag; (2) in some cases the elements appear in reverse order, 6.5. Ahijah and Joah, Flix and Abiel. There is little doubt that the relation is predicative; the names are sentences. It isa much more nicely balanced question to decide whether the ¢ in ‘abi, ‘ahi, 'ammi be the binding vowel or the personal suflix ; but in the judgment of the present writer the evidence inclines in favour of the former alternative.
A further ambiguity attaches to the names com- pounded with'amm. That element has often been rendered ‘people.’ But the parallelism of several of these names with the compounds with 'ad, 'a/ (e.g. Ammiel, Abiel, Hiel), which is even more prominent in Sabsean proper names, the certainty that'amm had the sense of ‘kinsman’ in Semitic, and survivals of this meaning in Hebrew, have led most modern investigators to the conclusion that in several compounds (e.g. Ammiel, Eliam, Amminadab) ‘amm means kinsman. Yet a third view is that'Amm is the proper name of a deity (cf. e.g. Sayce, RP, 2nd series, ii. 123 f.).
In the case of all these names there has beer some difference of opinion as to whether the term of kinship refers to the human kinsman (father, brother, uncle), or whether it is a divine title. Opinion prevails in favour of the second alterna- tive. It seems not unlikely that names of this very early type, which are widely distributed over
484 NAMES, PROPER
the Semitic field, originated in totemistic concep- tions. It is remarkable that they disappear in the course of Hebrew history, though they con- tinued in use to a late period among, e.g., the Phoenicians and Arameans.
(δ) Before dealing with compounds with ’Z/, we may briefly refer to a class of names which appear to ees been adopted for a time by the Hebrews from the Canaanites among whom they settled, but to have been again almost entirely discarded soon after the time of David. These are the compounds with Adon (Adoni-bezel:, Adoni-zedek, Adonijah, Tob-adonijah, and Adonikam); Baal, which has sometimes been mutilated by the scribes into Bosheth=‘ shame’ (e.q. Δ ον δαὶ, Eshbaal) ; Melech (e.g. Abimelech, Elimelech, Malchiah). The main question in the case of these names is whether Baal, Melech, Adon are titles applicable to any rods, and therefore to J”, or proper names of beeen deities. The question is of considerable historical importance; for if it be answered in the latter sense, the names are evidence that Saul and David and Jonathan were worshippers of other gods beside J”; since each of these princes rave names of this class to their children (see
SHBOSHETH, BEELIADA, MEPHIBOSHETH). This view was vigorously maintained by Kuenen, and has recently been revived by Hommel and Ker- ber; but the trend of scholarly judgment has been against it, and, in the opinion of the present writer, with justice. At the same time there can be little question that the ultimate entire dis- appearance of the Baal names and almost entire disuse of the compounds with Melech was due to the idolatrous significance which became attached to these words (cf. Hos 2" [Heb. 187).