Meaning of "Israel"

The main place for discussion the Hebrew Bible, its language and message.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Saboi
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:06 pm

Re: Meaning of "Israel"

Postby Saboi » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:42 am

James Stinehart wrote:Saboi:

You wrote: “You mean the "Ra" in the transliteration "Abraham" but in Hebrew, the name is spelled אברם or the accented form אברהם, the Greek forms are εὕρημα and εὕρεμα, the "A" probably from Dorian, εὕραμα/אברם.”

1. “Abraham” / ab – ra – ham / אברהם is n-o-t an “accented form” of “Abram” / ab – rm / אברם. Rather, as a divinely-changed name, “Abraham” / ab – ra – ham / אברהם must have a different, and much grander, meaning than the man’s birth name. It does! Per Genesis 17: 5, ab – ra – ham means “[Human] Father, by Divine [Grant], of a Multitude [of Nations]”.

ab

Although in a proper name ab usually means “divine Father”, i.e. God, here the early Hebrew author uses ab with its normal meaning as a Hebrew common word: “human father”.

-ra-

We know from the last Hebrew letter in the Biblical Egyptian name “Potiphar” that Hebrew resh / R, standing alone, can render Ra or ra. In the name “Potiphar” (Joseph’s Egyptian master who, historically, changed his name to honor pharaoh Akhenaten’s preferred god Ra), it’s Ra: the Egyptian sun-god. But in the three divinely-changed names, ab – ra – ham; sA – ra -H; is – ra – el, the -ra- in the middle is ra, an Egyptian-based generic theophoric that references the divine in general, not the Egyptian sun-god in particular. The Hebrews never worshipped a sun-god, that’s for sure. -ra- is featured prominently in the middle of all three divinely-changed names as an attempt by the early Hebrew author in Year 13 to extend a linguistic bridge to pharaoh Akhenaten, with the hope that Akhenaten would save the early tent-dwelling Hebrews from the “iniquitous Amorite”, Yapaḫu. (See for example Amarna Letter EA 298.)

ham

Genesis 17: 5 clarifies that ham is short for hamown (“multitude”), which in turn is short for hamown goim (“multitude of nations”).

University scholars err in asserting that “Abraham” is merely a dialectal variant of “Abram”, having the identical meaning in both cases. Not! As a divinely-changed name, “Abraham” must have a different, and much grander, meaning than the birth name “Abram”.

University scholars are unable to accept the straightforward and correct explanation of the name “Abraham” that is set forth at Genesis 17: 5, because to do so would effectively date the name “Abraham” all the long way back to Year 13 [see Genesis 14: 4] of the Amarna Age in the mid-14th century BCE Late Bronze Age. That is the one year in 5,000 years of human history when it would make sense for a Hebrew author to attempt to create a linguistic bridge to Ra-loving pharaoh Akhenaten, by placing ra (not Ra) in the middle of all three divinely-changed names: ab – ra – ham; sA – ra -H; is – ra – el.

2. As to your Greek analyses, the Greeks knew nothing whatsoever about the name “Abraham”, which pre-dates the Greek presence in Canaan by 1,000 years.

The Greeks indeed knew absolutely nothing about the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives. In particular, the Greeks in the late 1st millennium BCE did not know:

(i) The name of the princeling ruler near Beersheba of Upper Galilee, where Abraham and Isaac dig a series of wells in chapters 20-21, 26-28 of Genesis (not Beersheba of the Negev Desert, which does not fit the Biblical description of Abraham’s and Isaac’s Beersheba at all), in Year 13 was Abimelek, and his primary concern (both Biblically and in the Amarna Letters) was contested access to valuable water wells.

(ii) The names of the Hurrians’ two divine bulls were “Seir” and “Ḫurri”, and the only time when “Seir” is attested non-Biblically as a geographical place name is in the Late Bronze Age hey-day of the Hurrians, with “Seir” in that historical context always referencing the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan (just north of the Jabbok River, per Genesis 32: 22).

(iii) The Jezreel Valley where, per Genesis 13: 9-10, Lot goes upon separating from his uncle Abram, was convulsed by a dangerous rebellion in Year 13 (the most important event in Canaan proper that is chronicled by the Amarna Letters), with the historical crushing of that threatening rebellion being portrayed in the Patriarchal narratives, using artistic license, as being the mother of all east winds, featuring divinely-sent fire and brimstone.

The Greeks knew n-o-t-h-i-n-g about the world of Year 13, which pre-dates the presence of Greeks in Canaan by 1,000 years. Likewise, the Jews in mid-1st millennium BCE Jerusalem also knew n-o-t-h-i-n-g about the world of Year 13, which is the Patriarchal Age and pre-dates them by 700 years.

Rather, the divinely-changed name “Abraham” was created by an early tent-dwelling H-e-b-r-e-w author, and the meaning of this name is e-x-a-c-t-l-y what is stated at Genesis 17: 5. That includes the interior -ra- being a generic, Egyptian-based theophoric which, as explained above, was intended as a linguistic bridge to pharaoh Akhenaten in Year 13.

This is all H-e-b-r-e-w , nothing else. There’s nothing Greek or Jewish about the Patriarchal narratives (excluding the 1% of the Hebrew text that consists of openly-disclosed, later-added “glosses”, which were added by a Jewish editor in 7th century BCE Jerusalem).

Forget Greek. Think Hebrew and Year 13.

Jim Stinehart


Hebrew is not a bronze age or an Egyptian language, it's the Phoenician language, the Persian Empire adopted Phoenician as its official language of trade that became Imperial Aramaic, that is why Hebrew is written that way it is. אבג, that differs from the traditional Phoenician script, the entire Old Testament is written in that script and the language throughout the Hebrew scripture is consistent to a specific time period.

The change between שרי & שרה is pure dialects, the author of Genesis was aware that the original dialect of the emigrants assimilated
with the local dialect of Phoenician or Aramaic. שרי means "mistress" (κυρίᾳ) that changed too שרה (κύρα).

Genesis 16:8 - שרי גברתי
Jeremiah 13:18 - גבירה
Esther 1:8 - שרות

-interchange-
אברם אברהם
שרה שרי
שרין שניר
ארבע חברון
בלע צער
אפרתה לחם
שדי יהוה
רעואל יתרו
שבע שוע
חצרון חצור
סנה דבר
אביחיל אחינדב
כנען קין
בעל יער
יבוסי רושלם
Lee Mcgee

Mark Lightman
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:33 pm

Re: Meaning of "Israel"

Postby Mark Lightman » Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:50 pm

Saboi wrote:...in Hebrew, the name is spelled אברם or the accented form אברהם, the Greek forms are εὕρημα and εὕρεμα, the "A" probably from Dorian, εὕραμα/אברם.

It is just coincidence, but...
Rom 4:1: Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν εὑρηκέναι κατὰ σάρκα;

...or, if you prefer, not just coincidence but nothing less than coincidence.
Mark Lightman

James Stinehart

Re: Meaning of "Israel"

Postby James Stinehart » Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:15 pm

Saboi:

1. You wrote: “Hebrew is not a bronze age or an Egyptian language, it's the Phoenician language, the Persian Empire adopted Phoenician as its official language of trade that became Imperial Aramaic, that is why Hebrew is written that way it is. אבג, that differs from the traditional Phoenician script, the entire Old Testament is written in that script and the language throughout the Hebrew scripture is consistent to a specific time period.”

(a) In the Amarna Age, the first Hebrews spoke a slight variant of Canaanite, which we could well call pre-Hebrew or early Hebrew. We know this, because most all of the many Canaanite glosses in the Amarna Letters have a direct parallel with Hebrew words:

“The Semitic dialect in which [the Amarna] letters are written…is, in some important details [regarding grammar and Canaanite glosses], closely related to the Hebrew of the Old Testament….” Sir Ernest Alfred Wallis Budge, “The Tell el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum” (1892), p. xiii.

(b) The early Hebrews liked the magnificent Patriarchal narratives so much that instead of allowing it to remain only an oral composition, shortly after Akhenaten’s death they hired a scribe for the occasion to record the Patriarchal narratives in cuneiform writing. Rather than using Akkadian vocabulary and Canaanite grammar as do the Amarna Letters, Canaanite / pre-Hebrew vocabulary and Canaanite grammar were used by the scribe.

(c) Although cuneiform writing had been ubiquitous in Amarna Age Canaan, it soon dropped out of sight in Canaan thereafter. The Hebrews kept the mysterious clay tablets that had the Patriarchal narratives written in cuneiform for centuries, but they were now seldom if ever read.

(d) Then in King Josiah’s day, the Patriarchal narratives, written in cuneiform on clay tablets, were found in the 7th century BCE in the Temple of Jerusalem. The only person in Jerusalem who could read cuneiform (which was no longer in use locally in Canaan) was the chief scribe, who had to use cuneiform in communicating with Assyria and Babylonia. King Josiah had the Patriarchal narratives transformed from cuneiform into alphabetical Hebrew writing, using the conventions of 7th century BCE Jerusalem as to grammar and the spelling of common words (very similar to II Kings, as to grammar and spelling). Though the grammar and spelling of common words was updated, the substantive content was not changed, subject to one huge exception. King Josiah’s scribe was not permitted to delete or overtly change a single word in the text, b-u-t the scribe was allowed to add “glosses”, comparable to modern footnotes, where the scribe put in his own new guesses as to where various geographical sites were located, always choosing to institute, retroactively, an ultra-southerly reorientation of the geography underlying the Patriarchal narratives. Whereas there had been no dislike of northern Canaan whatsoever when the Patriarchal narratives were composed in Year 13 in the Amarna Age, King Josiah’s scribe, by stark contrast, hated Israel for having failed to protect Canaan (and especially beloved Judah in southern Canaan) from the invading Assyrians. So most of the openly-disclosed “glosses”, which constitute about 1% of the received text, are geographically-oriented, and import into the text, retroactively and falsely, an ultra-southerly geography that never applied to the Patriarchal narratives in the Late Bronze Age.

Today, we can recover the original version of the Patriarchal narratives by simply giving zero weight to the substantive content of the 1% of the received text that constitutes “glosses”, especially the openly-disclosed “glosses”. Thus, for example, it is clear that Lot’s Sodom is located in the lush Jezreel Valley north of Bethel, in the heart of the later state of Israel, if one (i) looks at Genesis 13: 9-10, which is not a “gloss”, and (ii) ignores the openly-disclosed “glosses” in the last two sentences of chapter 19 of Genesis, which falsely say that Lot’s descendants are the people of Moab “unto this very day” [i.e., unto the 7th century BCE] and the people of Ammon “unto this very day” [i.e., unto the 7th century BCE]. The names “Moab” and “Ammon” did not exist in the Late Bronze Age. The two phrases “unto this very day” make these two verses the most obvious openly-disclosed “glosses” in the entire Bible, and their substantive content should be ignored entirely. Lot’s Sodom has no connection to Moab, Ammon, or the Dead Sea.

Unfortunately, mainstream university scholars have everything backwards. When faced with an openly-disclosed “gloss” like the last two sentences of chapter 19 of Genesis, they suddenly become Biblical Inerrantists. No university scholar has ever a-s-k-e-d whether the original version of the Patriarchal narratives did or did not place Lot’s descendants in Moab and Ammon, near the southern end of the Dead Sea. Yet meanwhile, as to the 99% of the received text that is not “glosses”, mainstream university scholars have become almost indistinguishable from Biblical Minimalists. They cavalierly throw out the substantive content of Genesis 13: 9-10 as to the geographical location of Lot’s Sodom, on the bizarre basis of “hate Israel, hate Israel, hate Israel”. University scholars worldwide insist that Lot could not possibly be portrayed as going north from Bethel (despite what Genesis 13: 9-10 clearly says), because that would take Abram’s nephew into what in later centuries became the heart of Israel, and (scholars contend) the Patriarchal narratives are allegedly pure fiction ginned up in mid-1st millennium BCE by Israel-hating Jews.

So in a way, mainstream university scholars deserve what they get when they appear almost defenseless against the outrageous charge by Biblical Minimalists that the entire Hebrew Bible is merely warmed-over Greek philosophy, which is entirely Greek in conception, with no Hebrew influence at all and not much Jewish influence either. No matter how ridiculous most of us consider that Biblical Minimalist position to be, the fact of the matter is that once mainstream university scholars are more than willing to cavalierly ignore any historical element in the substantive content of the 99% of the received text of the Patriarchal narratives that is not “glosses”, while taking a Biblical Inerrantist approach to the substantively-false 1% of the received text that is “glosses”, mainstream university scholars end up having little defense against the Biblical Minimalist claim that the entire Hebrew Bible is merely warmed over Greek philosophy. No, mainstream university scholars don’t accept the Biblical Minimalist view, but they sure struggle mightily in trying to oppose it.

* * *

Your comments as to the Phoenician and Aramaic influences regarding how the Hebrew letters are written orthographically are irrelevant. The grammar and spelling of the Patriarchal narratives follow the 7th century BCE Jerusalem conventions of II Kings; the entire Hebrew Bible, including all of Genesis, is now written in standard (Aramaic) script; but what counts is that the substantive content of 99% of the last 40 chapters of Genesis is coming to us straight out of the world of Year 13 in the Amarna Age / 14th century BCE, having no Greek or Jewish content at all, but rather being (except for the “glosses”) H-e-b-r-e-w , all the way in every way.

2. You wrote: “The change between שרי & שרה is pure dialects, the author of Genesis was aware that the original dialect of the emigrants assimilated with the local dialect of Phoenician or Aramaic. שרי means "mistress" (κυρίᾳ) that changed too שרה (κύρα).”

Totally wrong, on all counts. Saboi, there’s no Greek in the Patriarchal narratives.

(a) Sarah’s Birth Name

In the entirety of the ancient world, there is no west Semitic human female’s name “Sarai” / SR -Y or ŠR -Y / שרי attested. Indeed, no west Semitic human female’s name of that general type (west Semitic root, plus yod / Y archaic feminine ending) is attested. That archaic west Semitic feminine ending is only found, rather, on feminine common nouns at Ugarit, and in the names of divine beings (which retain archaic elements) -- never on an attested west Semitic human female’s name. Since “Sarai” is not a west Semitic human female’s name, on what basis do you speculate that this name means “Mistress”?

But since Akhenaten’s mother (Queen Tiye) was born an ethnic Hurrian, we should ask if Isaac’s mother (Abraham’s wife) will be portrayed in the Year 13 composition of the Patriarchal narratives as likewise being born an ethnic Hurrian. If so, then Abraham’s father Terakh (but not Terakh’s wife) adopted Sarai pursuant to a Hurrian custom well-documented at the Hurrian province of Nuzi, so that Sarai is Abram’s half-sister by adoption (per Genesis 20: 12).

The attested Hurrian name Šar-ri -ya appears at p. 302 of N. Nozadze, “Vocabulary of the Hurrian Language” (2007) (which is the standard Hurrian dictionary). This Hurrian name means: “God [is] King”. That is a plain vanilla name in the ancient world as to its meaning (similar, in that important regard, to Abraham’s birth name “Abram”). The expected Biblical Hebrew defective spelling of the attested Hurrian name Šar-ri -ya [where the first of doubled consonants in a foreign name is always dropped] is exactly what we see in the received text as Sarah’s birth name: ŠR -Y / שרי.

Sarah’s birth name is not a west Semitic name and does not mean “Mistress” (or “Princess”, etc.). Since sin and shin are not distinguished in Hebrew orthography, and since sin and shin can in any event function as natural puns, in evaluating the sibilant both in Sarah’s birth name and in her divinely-changed name, we must consider each of sin and shin. Shin / Š is the applicable sibilant in Sarah’s (Hurrian) birth name.

(b) Sarah’s Divinely-Changed Name

A divinely-changed name must, logically, be different than, and much grander than, the person’s birth name. “Sarah” / שרה / sA – ra -H is not a west Semitic name meaning “Princess”. For one thing, Sarah is definitely not a princess, as under no reading of the text is she the daughter of a king (which is the meaning of being a “princess”).

Genesis 17: 16 tells us that the grand meaning of Sarah’s divinely-changed name is (per KJV): “I will bless her…; kings of people shall be of her” or, slightly-simplified so that it can be rendered as a short name: “Divinely-Blessed Kings [shall be of] Her”.

The best-known kingly title in the ancient world was sA – ra, being each pharaoh’s most prized title. Although ultra-literally meaning “Son of the Egyptian Sun-God Ra”, the effective meaning of the pharaonic kingly title sA – ra was: “divinely-blessed king”. The Hebrew spelling of these two Egyptian words is confirmed by the Hebrew spelling of the Biblical Egyptian name “Potiphar”, where pA is rendered by peh / P alone, so that sA can be expected to be rendered by sin / S alone, and ra as the final element in the name is rendered by resh / R alone. So the Egyptian words sA – ra come out as SR / שר in Hebrew, to which is then added the standard Hebrew feminine suffix, -H, meaning “her” (in Hebrew), resulting in שרה / sA – ra -H.

Thus the meaning of “Sarah” / שרה / sA – ra -H is e-x-a-c-t-l-y what Genesis 17: 16 says the meaning of this grand divinely-changed name is: “Divinely-Blessed Kings [shall be of] Her”. The reason why the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives chose to put -ra- in the middle of all three divinely-changed names -- ab – ra – ham; sA – ra -H; is – ra – el -- is because in Year 13 (see Genesis 14: 4), the early Hebrew author was trying to create a linguistic bridge to the Ra-loving pharaoh Akhenaten, by using ra (not Ra) as an Egyptian-based generic theophoric.

Neither Sarah’s birth name, nor her divinely-changed name, means “Mistress” or “Princess”. Moreover, her divinely-changed name is, not surprisingly, much grander than her plain vanilla birth name. And that’s precisely what Genesis 17: 15-16 accurately tells us.

* * *

Saboi, the Greeks knew nothing, and cared less, about the world of Year 13 in Canaan in the Amarna Age / mid-14th century BCE / Late Bronze Age. Nor did the Jews in mid-1st millennium BCE Jerusalem. Rather, the Patriarchal narratives are H-e-b-r-e-w all the way, in every way.

Jim Stinehart

James Stinehart

Re: Meaning of "Israel"

Postby James Stinehart » Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:29 pm

Now let’s combine Isaac Fried’s analysis of the “Is” element in the name “Israel”, with my analysis of the “ra” element in the name “Israel”, and everyone’s (correct) analysis of the “el” element in “Israel”, to come up with an exciting new intended alternative meaning of “Israel”, namely: “Man of God” (and/or “Mankind of God”).

1. First Two Letters in “Israel” = [’]YŠ, Meaning “Man”

As a frequently-used Hebrew common word, ’YŠ / איש means “man” (and/or “mankind”). (See for example Genesis 19: 8, where in context the meaning there of ’YŠ / איש is solely “man”.)

Per Isaac Fried, in a proper name (where common words are routinely shortened), the first two Hebrew letters in “Israel”, namely יש, can be viewed as being a shortened version of the following three Hebrew letters, namely איש. On that basis, the “Is” element (using KJV English spelling) in the name “Israel” means “man” (and/or “mankind”).

The first two letters are conceptualized, on this alternative view of “Israel”, as being YŠ (not YS, as in the conventional understanding of “Israel”; shin and sin are not distinguished in unpointed Hebrew writing, and these two forms of sibilant are natural puns in any event). YŠ is then further conceptualized as being [’]YŠ, with the initial prosthetic aleph viewed as being optional (for a proper name) and dropped. Thus conceptually, the name “Israel” begins (on this view) with ’YŠ. Accordingly, the “Is” element in the name “Israel”, though normally thought of as being Y- S (Y- as a verbal prefix meaning “he” in imperfect tense, followed by sin as the first element in the obscure verb SR[H]), can alternatively be viewed as being a shortened form of ’YŠ / איש, which is the Hebrew common word for “man” or “mankind”. The Hebrew author of Genesis 35: 28 may want us to consider b-o-t-h of these possibilities, with one not ruling out the other, if alternate meanings are intentional here.

So far, so good.

2. -ra- and -el in the Name “Is-ra-el”: Generic Theophorics, Egyptian and Canaanite, for the Divine

In English, unlike in the ancient languages themselves, we can use capital vs. lower case letters to distinguish whether -ra- and -el in the name “Israel” are being used to reference specific Egyptian and Canaanite polytheistic gods (which would be blasphemous) -- Ra and El -- or, rather, are being used as generic theophorical references to the divine, whether Egyptian-based or Canaanite-based (which is not necessarily blasphemous at all) -- ra and el.

(a) -el as a Generic, Canaanite-Based Theophoric

With a capital letter, “El” is a polytheistic Canaanite father god, who is so often having great difficulty in fending off the upstart younger generation god Baal. Jacob’s divinely-changed name “Israel” cannot honor the polytheistic Canaanite father god El.

But with a lower case letter, “el” is a generic, Canaanite-based theophoric that in Hebrew can reference the divine, including being a generalized reference to the Hebrews’ own deity, YHWH.

All agree that in the name “Israel”, the final -el is in effect with a lower case letter, being a generic, Canaanite-based theophoric that in Hebrew can reference the divine, including as a generalized reference to the Hebrews’ own deity, YHWH.

So far, so good, with no blasphemy in sight (yet).

(b) -ra- as a Generic, Egyptian-Based Theophoric

With a capital letter, “Ra” is a polytheistic Egyptian sun-god. The Hebrews never worshipped a sun-god. So Jacob’s divinely-changed name “Israel” cannot honor the Egyptian sun-god Ra, that’s for sure.

But with a lower case letter, “ra” can function as a generic, Egyptian-based theophoric that can be used to reference the divine generally.

To prove this key point, consider that almost all pharaohs regarded “sA ra” as their grandest and most important kingly title, even though few pharaohs worshipped Ra as their main god, and many pharaohs paid little attention to the Egyptian sun-god Ra. Thus although an ultra-literal reading of “sA ra” is “sun of the Egyptian sun-god Ra”, the implied meaning of this pharaonic title usually just meant: “son of the divine” or “son of god” or "divinely-blessed king". Pharaoh was viewed as being divine in some sense, but very often there was very little emphasis on the Egyptian sun-god Ra in particular.

In the name “Israel”, the prominent -ra- in the middle is in effect with a lower case letter, being a generic, Egyptian-based theophoric that can reference the divine generally. (Per the last letter in the Biblical Egyptian name “Potiphar”, we know that Hebrew resh / R, standing alone, can render ra or Ra.)

3. Meaning of “Is – ra – el” in This Alternative

Based on the foregoing, the name “Is – ra – el” can be viewed as meaning:

“Man [of] God”

or, “Man of God/God”

or (very clumsily), “Man of God (whether referenced by an Egyptian-based generic theophoric, and/or by a Canaanite-based generic theophoric)”.

Jacob's descendants (Hebrews and Jews) are "Israel" / is - ra - el / "Mankind of Israel".

Nice!

4. W-h-y -ra- Is in the Middle of All Three Divinely-Changed Names (Including “Is – ra – el”)

In previous posts, I have noted that -ra- prominently appears in the middle of all three divinely-changed names: ab – ra – ham; sA – ra -H; is – ra – el. Why is this so?

The reason is that the early tent-dwelling Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives, who created these divinely-changed names in Year 13 [see Genesis 14: 4] in the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Age, was trying to create a linguistic bridge to the most powerful king in the Middle East at that time. Pharaoh Akhenaten famously honored the Egyptian sun-god Ra. (By Year 13, “Ra” had supplanted “Aten” as Akhenaten’s preferred nomenclature for the Egyptian sun-god, as we know from the pattern of the names Akhenaten chose for his daughters.)

By using -ra- as a generic, Egyptian-based theophoric in all three divinely-changed names of the Hebrew Patriarchs #1 and #3 and Hebrew Matriarch #1 -- ab – ra – ham; sA – ra -H; is – ra – el -- the early Hebrew author was trying to get Akhenaten to empathize with the only other semi-monotheists in the world: the first Hebrews. The good Amorite princeling ruler (historical Milkilu the Amorite, Biblical Mamre the Amorite) of the Patriarchs’ beloved rural northern Ayalon Valley (the Patriarchs’ “Hebron”) unfortunately died in early Year 13, and he was succeeded by his son, the “iniquitous Amorite”, Yapaḫu, who threatened to drive the Hebrews out of their beloved valley. The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives composed the Patriarchal narratives as an attempt to persuade Akhenaten to help the Hebrews out in their hour of need in Year 13, by removing the new princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley that Akhenaten had just recently installed. (Historically, and ironically, by the time the early Hebrew author was finishing up his magnificent composition in Year 14, Yapaḫu in effect abdicated from his precarious position in the Ayalon Valley, thereby removing the need for the early Hebrew author to try to get Akhenaten to listen to an oral telling of the Patriarchal narratives.)

In Year 13, and in no other time in human history, it made sense for an early Hebrew author to use -ra- as an Egyptian-based generic theophoric in all three divinely-changed names of Hebrew Patriarchs #1 and #3 and Hebrew Matriarch #1 -- ab – ra – ham; sA – ra -H; is – ra – el -- as an attempted linguistic bridge to Ra-worshiping pharaoh Akhenaten.

Jim Stinehart

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Meaning of "Israel"

Postby Isaac Fried » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:37 pm

Here are two interesting names with רם RAM, 'lofty, elevated'.
יְהוֹרָם = יה-הוּא-רם of 1Kings 22:51
and
אֲדוֹנִירָם = אדוֹן-היא-רם of 1Kings 4:6

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Saboi
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:06 pm

Re: Meaning of "Israel"

Postby Saboi » Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:59 am

Mark Lightman wrote:
Saboi wrote:...in Hebrew, the name is spelled אברם or the accented form אברהם, the Greek forms are εὕρημα and εὕρεμα, the "A" probably from Dorian, εὕραμα/אברם.

It is just coincidence, but...
Rom 4:1: Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν εὑρηκέναι κατὰ σάρκα;

...or, if you prefer, not just coincidence but nothing less than coincidence.


There is another occurrence in the Book of Maccabees.

1 Maccabees 12:21
εὑρέθη ἐν γραφῇ περί τε τῶν Σπαρτιατῶν καὶ Ιουδαίων ὅτι εἰσὶν ἀδελφοὶ καὶ ὅτι εἰσὶν ἐκ γένους Αβρααμ

Roman 4:1
Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν εὑρηκέναι κατὰ σάρκα

Josephus
ἐντυχόντες γραφῇ τινι εὕρομεν, ὡς ἐξ ἑνὸς εἶεν γένους Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι καὶ ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Ἄβραμον οἰκειότητος.

The Jewish authors of these later works knew what the name meant and the pronunciation of εὑ-
resemble -אב. êu̯/ → /eβ/ → /ev/, this is further affirmed with other compounds.

Abinoam (אבינעם) - εὔνοον "Well disposed, friendly" (Eunomus)
Abimelech (אבימלך) - εὔαρχος "governing well"
Abiathar (אביתר) - εὐίατος "easy to heal"
Absalom (אבשלום) - εὐγάληνος "very calm"
Abishur (אבישור) - εὔδωρος "generous"
Abinadab (אבינדב) - εὐδύνατος "Well able, ablest-bodied"
Abrek (אברך) - εὐλογῶ "reasonable, sensible" (Gen 41:43)

Interchange occurs in the New Testament.
- John 11:16 - Thomas, which is called Didymus"

The original name here is Nethaneel (נתנאל) or Elnathan (אלנתן) "given by god" synonym with θεόδοτος & θεόσδοτος. נתינים/δεδομένοι cf. δίδωμι which interchanges with τίθημι in Hebrew. נתתי/τίθημι (Gen 9:13), נתתי/δίδωμι (Gen 23:11). נתינים/δεδομένοι "slave of a temple, votive offering (1 chronicles 9:2),There was no twin.
Lee Mcgee

Saboi
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:06 pm

Re: Meaning of "Israel"

Postby Saboi » Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:25 am

James Stinehart wrote:Saboi:
Sarah’s birth name is not a west Semitic name and does not mean “Mistress” (or “Princess”, etc.). Since sin and shin are not distinguished in Hebrew orthography, and since sin and shin can in any event function as natural puns, in evaluating the sibilant both in Sarah’s birth name and in her divinely-changed name, we must consider each of sin and shin. Shin / Š is the applicable sibilant in Sarah’s (Hurrian) birth name.
t


Exodus 2:14- Prince (שר)
Lam 1:1 - Princess (שרת)

A search through Homer, i found κρέουσα "Princess" later spelled κρείουσα,
κρεί- and κρέ- match שרה & שרי

Genesis 16:8 - שרי גברת־י

The Septuagint translates גברת into κυρίας (υ → β), its common for the κ to drop from vocalization changing the
the sound of υ (→ β → μ) hence מרא (Dan 5:23, 2:47) cf. κῦρος, Maria.

pseudo Egyptian words-
Potiphar (פוטי פרע) - φρουρός του αἰγυπτίου "Watcher of Egypt" (ἔμφορος, ἔφορος)
כהן אן - διάκονος του ζανός (Gen 41:45)
צפנת פענח - δαφνηφάγος "bay-eating, inspired"
סוף - στύπος, στιβάς cf. זנב
Pharaoh -ἔφορος
Asenath - ἀθηνᾶς
Lee Mcgee

User avatar
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Meaning of "Israel"

Postby Kirk Lowery » Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:41 am

Okay, guys, this thread is wandering off of biblical Hebrew again. Let's end this discussion.
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests