B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

I suspect that the ending AY in אדוני ADONAY is an ancient plural marker היא-היא 'he-he'. It is also to be found, methinks, in the theophpric (as most biblical names are) יִשַׁי = איש-היא-היא, as in 1Sam. 16:1. Also in the חַלּוֹנֵי XALONEY, 'windows', of 1Kings 6:4
וַיַּעַשׂ לַבָּיִת חַלּוֹנֵי שְׁקֻפִים אֲטֻמִים
KJV: "And for the house he made windows of narrow lights."
After all, אלוה-הם = אלוהים is also reverentially plural.

The tsere (two close horizontal dots) under the N of חַלּוֹנֵי is possible a compromise notation, for an alternative reading tradition of a patax (a short horizontal segment.)

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Consider also the name אחיהו AX-YHW vocalized אֲחִיָּהוּ = אח-היא-יה-הוּא as in 1Kings 14:5.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

From what I understand, Plato was the towering philosophical figure in the ancient Greco-Roman world. He also seems to be a kind of closet Jew, apparently being heavily influenced by the prophet Jeremiah. And he taught that it was impossible that God should have a name, and if he did have a name, it would not be wise or safe to use it. Might this be the impetus that led to the abandonment of the name among Hellenized Jews and Christians?

Ruminator wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:38 am From what I understand, Plato was the towering philosophical figure in the ancient Greco-Roman world. He also seems to be a kind of closet Jew, apparently being heavily influenced by the prophet Jeremiah. And he taught that it was impossible that God should have a name, and if he did have a name, it would not be wise or safe to use it. Might this be the impetus that led to the abandonment of the name among Hellenized Jews and Christians?

It wasn’t the Hellenized that stopped pronouncing the name, though. Though it is interesting, I don’t think this had any influence on Jewish practice. IIRC, Nehemia Gordon suggests (insists?) that it was in response to the Hellenizing forces that the name ceased to be used. Do you know where we could find evidence for or against this?

Jason Hare wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:07 am It wasn’t the Hellenized that stopped pronouncing the name, though. Though it is interesting, I don’t think this had any influence on Jewish practice. IIRC, Nehemia Gordon suggests (insists?) that it was in response to the Hellenizing forces that the name ceased to be used. Do you know where we could find evidence for or against this?

I don’t know of any historical reference that can answer your question. However, I have studied the differences between Biblical and Hellenized philosophy, and can recognize that Hellenization had made deep inroads among first century AD Jews. What little I’ve seen of the Sadducees suggests that they may have been Hellenized. Philo is widely recognized as a Hellenized Jew. So while we cannot discount that Hellenization had an influence in this practice, at the same time can we say that it had no influence? The lack of surviving records makes it hard to answer this question.

Karl W. Randolph.

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:17 pm I don’t know of any historical reference that can answer your question. However, I have studied the differences between Biblical and Hellenized philosophy, and can recognize that Hellenization had made deep inroads among first century AD Jews. What little I’ve seen of the Sadducees suggests that they may have been Hellenized. Philo is widely recognized as a Hellenized Jew. So while we cannot discount that Hellenization had an influence in this practice, at the same time can we say that it had no influence? The lack of surviving records makes it hard to answer this question.

Gordon specifically mentions the Scholion on Megillat Ta’anit, which speaks about events from the period of the Hasmoneans. Have you heard of it and what it says?

The text of the Megillah, which is dated to the end of the Second Temple Period, can be found here. The relevant area that Gordon mentions is here (I’ve added the vowel points, though I’m not sure about עשאהו—which I think means עָשָׂ֫הוּ, though it would seem to me to make better sense as עָשׂ֫וּהוּ):
The underlined portion makes it seem that the Greeks forbade the speaking of God’s name on the Jewish people—at least, in the way that Gordon translates it. I think it seems to be a resultant clause, saying that they didn’t mention God’s name as a result of what was happening. I don’t take היו as an imperative (הֱיוּ) but as a perfect (הָיוּ). If it were an imperative, I would expect אַל instead of לֹא. Then again, maybe it’s intended to have a לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה sense, like the Ten Commandments (לֹא תִגְנֹב rather than אַל תִּגְנֹב).

Do you understand the passage given here? What would you make of its relevance to the question?