The Transformation of Biblical Proper Names

A
E=
mc 2
This eBook is downloaded from

www.PlentyofeBooks.net
PlentyofeBooks.net is a blog with an aim

of helping people, especially students,
who cannot afford to buy some costly
books from the market.
For more Free eBooks and educational
material visit
Uploaded By
$am$exy98
theBooks
LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/

OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES
418
Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
Editors
Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University
Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge
Founding Editors
David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn
Editorial Board
Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon,
Norman K. Gottwald, Gina Hens-Piazza, John Jarick, Andrew D. H. Mayes,
Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller, Yvonne Sherwood
This page intentionally left blank
THE TRANSFORMATION
OF BIBLICAL PROPER NAMES
Joe Kraovec
Copyright 2010 by Joe Kraovec

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher, T & T Clark
International.
T & T Clark International, 80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038
T & T Clark International, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX
T & T Clark International is a Continuum imprint.
Visit the T & T Clark blog at www.tandtclarkblog.com
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN-13: 978-0-567-45224-5
ISBN-10: 0-567-45224-7
06 07 08 09 10
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
ix
xi
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1
ETYMOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF PROPER NAMES
IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND THE HISTORY
OF THEIR FORMS IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
1. Etymological Explanation of Proper Names
in the Hebrew Bible
2. Etymological Translation of Two Namings of Eve
3. Etymological Translation of the Toponym Babel
4. Etymological Translation of the Place Names
Attah El-roi and Beer-lahai-roi
5. Etymological Translation or Explanation
of the Personal Names Moab and Ben-ammi
6. Etymological Translation of the Place Name Beer-sheba
7. Etymological Translation of the Place Name Adonai-jireh
8. Etymological Translation of the Place Names Esek,
Sitnah, Rehoboth and Bethel
Jegar-Sahadutha, Galeed, Mizpah and Mahanaim
Peniel / Penuel and Succoth
11. Etymological Translation of the Place Names El-bethel
and Allon-bacuth
12. Etymological Translation of the Toponym Abel-mizraim
13. Etymological Translation of the Place Names Marah,
Massah and Meribah
14. Etymological Translation of the Place Names Taberah,
Kibroth-hattaavah and Hormah
15. Etymological Translation of the Place Names Bochim,
Ramath-lehi and En-hakkore
16. Etymological Translation of the Place Names of Ebenezer
and Sela-mahlekoth
4
6
8
11
12
15
16
18
21
22
25
26
28
29
32
35
37
vi
The Transformation of Biblical Proper Names
17. Etymological Translation of the Proper Names

Baal-perazim and Perez-uzzah
18. Etymological Translation of the Toponym Beracah
19. Conclusion Concerning Folk Etymology
in the Hebrew Bible
20. Conclusion Concerning Folk Etymology in Bible Translations
21. LUB and DAL in Relation to the Original,
to the LXX and the Vg, and to the Established Traditions
22. General Conclusion
Chapter 2
TRANSLITERATION OR TRANSLATION
OF PROPER NAMES IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
1. Substitutes for the Divine Personal Name yhwh
or Its Transliteration
2. Substitutes or Transliteration in Construct Expressions
of Divine Names and Appellatives
3. Transliteration or Translation of Terms
Denoting the Underworld
4. The Giants Nephilim and Rephaim
5. The Monstrous Animals Behemoth and Leviathan
6. Symbolic Names of Hoseas Children
7. The Symbolic Name of Isaiahs Second Son
8. Etymological Translation of the Proper Names Philistines
and Goiim
Aram-naharaim and Paddan-aram
Moreh and Moriah
11. Etymological Translation of the Proper Name Machpelah
12. Etymological Translation of the Proper Name Shephelah
13. Supposed Etymology of Harmagedon
Chapter 3
TRANSMISSION OF SEMITIC FORMS OF BIBLICAL PROPER NAMES
IN GREEK AND LATIN LINGUISTIC TRADITIONS
1. Historical and Linguistic Factors of Forms
of Biblical Proper Names
a. The Source Text (Vorlage) of Ancient Translations
b. General Observations on Transliteration Issues
2. Transliteration of Semitic Consonants into Greek
a. The Semi-vocalic Consonants Waw and Yod
b. The Gutturals Aleph, He and eth
c. The Guttural Letter Ayin
39
41
42
44
47
51
55
57
58
61
63
65
67
69
70
71
73
75
76
79
80
84
86
87
89
95
97
97
99
Contents
The Sibilant Letters Samekh, ade and in/in

The Doubling of Single Consonants in Transliteration
into Greek and Latin
f. Single and Double Kaph, Qoph, Pe and Taw
in Transliteration into Greek and Latin
g. Insertion of Consonants and Transcription of the Semitic
Clusters , , and
Transliteration of Semitic Vowel Letters and Vowel Signs
a. The A-sounds in Hebrew/Aramaic and in Transliteration
b. The I- and E-sounds in Hebrew/Aramaic
and in Transliteration
c. The U- and O-sounds in Hebrew/Aramaic
and in Transliteration
d. Transliteration of Hebrew Half-vowels into Greek
and Latin
Transliteration from Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek into Latin
Reasons for the Existence of Variant Forms
a. Variant Forms in the Hebrew Bible
b. Reasons for Variants in the Greek and Latin Bibles
c. The Emergence of Errors in Transcription
and Transmission of the LXX Text
d. The Establishment of a Greek Critical Text
e. The Establishment of a Latin Critical Text
General Conclusions
Comparative Expositions of the Forms
The Design of a Dictionary
d.
e.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Authors
vii
100
101
101
102
103
104
105
106
106
108
118
118
119
121
123
125
129
134
136
140
145
151
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I had no intention of writing a study of this kind when I began dealing
with biblical proper names (back in 1982). However, the idea of compiling a dictionary of the forms of biblical proper names soon formed as
I began to standardize these names for the new Slovenian translation of
the Bible (SSP), a work which was completed and published in 1996.
This study has been directly inuenced by the translation project. At
present, I am responsible for the preparation of the Slovenian Jerusalem
Bible, meaning that observations made in the present study stem from
my broader interest in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin linguistic
traditions. From my research, it has become apparent to me that the
forms of biblical proper names transmitted in the Bibles in these languages are the important background of the forms used in every Bible
translation in the world.
The use of a comparative approach while reviewing recent Slovenian
Bible translations brought about the realization that virtually all translations of the Bible are more or less inconsistent in their standardization
of the forms of biblical proper names. This, it seems, is because translators do not have at their disposal any comparative philological dictionary
focusing specically on proper names. In addition to my work on the
Slovenian Jerusalem Bible, I am engaged with the long-term project of
compiling this much-needed dictionary of biblical proper names.
However, the sheer volume of the comparative material that needs to be
collated and arranged has resulted in the dictionary project taking longer
to reach its nal form than was originally envisaged. Should the
dictionary be completed in the foreseeable future, I would be happy to
have it published by the publisher of the present work.
I wish to record my warmest gratitude to T&T Clark International/
Continuum for accepting this study for publication. I am grateful to
Professor Joseph Plevnik for greatly improving the English style, and
especially to my copy-editor, Dr Duncan Burns, for his careful reading of
the text from beginning to end, for his many valuable suggestions and for
his compilation of the indices.
1
ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations of Bible Translations
ACF
ALB
Aq
ARA
ARC
ASV
BBE
BCI
BFC
BKR
BLS
BRP
BTP
BUR
CEP
CHO
CNS
D31
DAL
DBY
DIO
DRA
DRB
EIN
ELB
ELO
ESV
FBJ
FIN
GNV
IEP
Almeida, Corrigida Fiel: Brazilian Portuguese Version (1753/1819/

1847/1994/1995)
Albanian Version (1994)
Aquila, a Jewish translator of the Old Testament into Greek (between
140 and 150 C.E.)
Almeida, Revista e Atualizada: Brazilian Portuguese Version (1993)
Almeida, Revista e Corrigida: Brazilian Portuguese Version (1969)
American Standard Version (1901)
The Bible in Basic English (1949/1964)
Biblia Catalana: Traducci Interconfessional (1996)
Bible en Franais Courant (1997)
Bible Kralick: Czech Bible (1613)
La Bible de Lematre de Sacy: Port-Royal (165796)
Bblia Sagrada Traduzida em Portugus (1994)
Biblia Tysiaclecia: Polish Bible (1965/1984)
Buber/Rosenzweig: Translation of the Old Testament into German
(192536)
esk Ekumenick Peklad: Czech Bible (1985)
La Bible de Andr Chouraqui: French translation (1985)
Cornilescu: Romanian translation (1921)
Danish Bible (1907/1931)
Dalmatin: The first Slovenian complete Bible translation made by
Jurij Dalmatin and co-operators (1584)
Darby: English Darby Bible (1884/1890)
La Bibbia di Diodati: Italian translation (1641)
The Douay-Rheims American Edition: English translation (1899)
Darby: French Darby translation (1885)
Einheitsbersetzung der Heiligen Schrift: German translation (1980)
Elberfelder Bibel: German translation (1993)
Elberfelder Bibel: German Darby Bible (1905)
English Standard Version (2001)
French Bible de Jrusalem (1973)
Finnish translation: Pyh Raamattu knns (1933/1938)
Geneva English Bible (1599)
Italian Edizione Paolina Bible (199596)
xii
JAP
JPS
KAR
KJV
LBA
LEI
LND
LSG
LUB
LUO
LUT
LUV
LXE
LXX
LXXO
MGK
N30
N38
NAB
NAS
NAU
NBG
NBK
NBN
NEG
NIB
NIV
NJB
NKJV
NLT
NRSV
NRV
NV
R60
R95
RST
RSV
RVA
RVB
RWB
S17
SamPet
SCH

Japelj: The second Slovenian complete Bible translation made by Jurij
Japelj and co-operators (17841802)
Jewish Publication Society Bible: The Holy Scriptures (1917); for a
new JPS translation see TNK
Karoli Bible: Hungarian translation (1993)
King James Version: The Authorized English Bible (1611/1769)
La Biblia de Las Americas: Spanish translation (1986)
Leidse Vertaling: Dutch Revised Leiden Bible (1912/1994)
La Nuova Diodati: Italian Revised Diodati translation (1991)
Louis Segond: French Version (1910)
Luther Bibel: Die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch (Wittenberg 1545)
Luther Bibel: German Revised Luther Bible (1912)
Luther Bibel: German Revised Luther Bible (1984)
Lutherse Vertaling: Dutch Revised Luther Bible (1648/1750/1933/
1994)
LXX English Version by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton (1844, 1851)
Septuagint: Greek Translation of the Old Testament
Origens recension of the LXX: Hexapla
Modern Greek translation (1850)
Norwegian Bible: Bokml (1930)
Norwegian Bible: Nynorsk (1938)
New American Bible (1970, 1986, 1991)
New American Standard Bible (1977)
New American Standard Bible (1971)
Netherlands Bijbelgenootschap Vertaling: Dutch translation (1951)
Nrsk Bibel Konkordant: Norwegian translation (1994)
Norsk Bibel Nynorsk: Norwegian translation (1994)
Nouvelle dition de Genve: French translation (1975)
New International Bible: British Version (1973, 1978, 1984)
New International Version: American Version (1973, 1978, 1984)
New Jerusalem Bible: English version of the Jerusalem Bible (1985)
New King James Version (1982)
New Living Translation of the Holy Bible (1996)
New Revised Standard Version (1989)
La Sacra Bibbia Nuova Riveduta: Italian translation (1994)
Nova Vulgata
Reina Valera Revisada: Spanish translation (1960)
Reina Valera Revisada: Spanish translation (1995)
Russian Synodal Text of the Bible (1917)
Revised Standard Version (1952)
Reina-Valera Actualizada: Spanish translation (1989)
Reina-Valera Bible: Spanish translation (1909)
Revised Webster Bible (1995)
Svenska Bibelselskapet: Swedish translation (1917)
Samaritan Pentateuch
Schlachter Bible: German translation (1951)
Abbreviations
SEB
SPP
SSP
SVV
Sym
SyrHex
Theo
Tg
TgJ
TgN
TgO
TgPsJ
TNK
TOB
UKR
Vg
VL
WEB
WOL
ZBI
xiii
Slovenska ekumenska Biblija: Slovenian Ecumenical Bible (1974)

Slovenski protestantski prevod: Slovenian Protestant Translation by
Antonin Chska (1914)
Slovenski Standardni Prevod: Slovenian Standard Version (1996)
Statenvertaling: Dutch Bible (1637)
Symmachus Ben Joseph: the Jewish translator into Greek (between
190 and 200 C.E.)
Syro-Hexapla
Theodotion: the Jewish translator into Greek (between 180 and 192
C.E.)
Targum; according to the books of the Bible: TgIsa, TgPs, etc.
Targum Jonathan: Aramaic translation of the Prophets
Targum Neofiti: Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch
Targum Onqelos: Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch
Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures; the new JPS translation (1985)
Traduction Oecumnique de la Bible: French translation (1988)
Ukrainian Version of the Bible (1996)
Latin version of the Bible: Vulgata
Vetus Latina: Old Latin translation of the Bible
Webster Bible: English Noah Webster version (1833)
Wolf Biblw: the third Slovenian complete Bible translation (185659)
Zrcher Bibel: German translation (190731)
Bibliographical Abbreviations
BWANT
BZAW
CBQ
FAT
GKC
JBL
MJSt
MSU
OLA
OTS
SBLSCS
SCS
SSLL
StPB
TSAJ
VT
VTSup
WUNT
Beitrge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Forschungen zum Alten Testament
Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by
A. E. Cowley. 2d. ed. Oxford, 1910
Journal of Biblical Literature
Mnsteraner Judaistische Studien
Mitteilungen der Septuaginta-Unternehmens
Orientalia lovaniensia analecta
Old Testament Studies
Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies
Septuagint and Cognate Studies
Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics
Studia post-biblica
Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum
Vetus Testamentum
Supplements to Novum Testamentum
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
INTRODUCTION
Biblical place and personal names are the most conspicuous linguistic
and cultural testimony of the fact that the Bible soon became the primary
source of European civilization and later of world cultures. Through oral
and written transmission of the biblical texts, living religious and cultural
traditions were nourished, and in the broad cultural environment biblical
proper names have been handed down from generation to generation in
Bible translations, in folk literary creations, in the highest standards of
national literature and in linguistic studies on phonology, morphology,
syntax and semantics. In these ways, biblical forms of proper names
were not only preserved but became also a primary source for further
development in the transformation process of phonetic and semantic
traits in accordance with the transformation rules between Hebrew,
Aramaic, Greek, Latin and other European languages.
Any study of the forms of biblical names therefore constitutes an
important though neglected part of investigation into the history of
languages in the conuence of the common European culture. Any study
on the history of forms of biblical names is therefore also a great
methodological challenge. We can expect a rich harvest of linguistic
information only on the basis of an extensive and complete documentation of systematically collected evidence on the development of the
forms in view of continual interdependence within the common European linguistic and cultural heritage. The aim of the present study is to
disclose the variety of ways in which biblical proper names have
appeared in all major European translations of the Bible from ancient
times to the present in order to make manifest both the degree of
innovation and dependence of translations on earlier key translations.
Within the history of Slovenian translations of the Bible, the degree of
dependence of DAL on LUB is of utmost interest for understanding the
cultural history of central Europe. But any hope of reliable conclusion
entails a careful investigation based on a systematic survey of transliteration or translation forms of biblical proper names throughout history.1
1. Compare the views of Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher and Yoel Elitzur on similar
goals in the investigation of biblical place names. Kutscher speaks in Studies in
1
One long-term goal of this writer is the compilation of a historical

dictionary of the forms of biblical names based on European Bible
translations.
Bible translations were selected for inclusion on the basis of their relative importance in the larger scheme of Bible translation history and
development. Major ancient translations are of primary importance. The
Septuagint (hereafter LXX) and other Greek versions, the Targums and
the Vulgate (hereafter Vg) are considered consistently throughout this
study. In all cases, the Samaritan Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls are also
taken into consideration. The LXX and the Vg became key versions for
all later European Christian and, to a lesser extent, for later Jewish Bible
translations. In addition to the LXX and the Vg, the Targums became key
versions for later Jewish literary history. It must be noted that the
phonetic forms of biblical names in Christian versions, in contrast to
Jewish translations, more often depend on the LXX and Vg traditions than
on the Hebrew text. The current forms of biblical names have been
inuenced by the phonetic changes necessitated by their transfer and
transliteration from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek and Latin, and it
was from these sources that other translators later borrowed and incorporated the changes. By way of Bible translation into Greek, Latin and
other ancient languages, many biblical names have passed into general
usage.
A few Renaissance Bible translations, such as LUB and KJV, strongly
inuenced later literary history and became key translations for many
nations. Most modern English Bible translations replicate the forms of
biblical proper names from KJV. On the other hand, numerous Bible
translations of other European languages replicate the forms of biblical
proper names from LUB. Only a survey of a great number of Bible translations can make apparent to what extent ancient and more modern Bible
Galilean Aramaic: Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture;
Translated from the Hebrew Original and Annotated with Additional Notes from the
Authors Handcopy by Michael Sokoloff (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1976),
95, no. 237, about the need for cooperation between linguists and scholars dealing
with the geographical history of Palestine: A serious beginning cannot be made
until there exists a geographical-historical dictionary in which the forms of each
name are listed from antiquity until the present-day from every language, writer and
period. Yoel Elitzur emphasizes the same principle in the Introduction to his study,
Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land: Preservation and History (Jerusalem: The
Hebrew University/Magnes Press; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 7: No
serious study is possible without a systematic survey, as comprehensive as possible,
of all documentations of the name in different sources and periods, listed in order.
Without such a survey, pitfalls abound.
1
Introduction
translations are original or are inuenced in the choice of transliteration

or translation and in the manner of transliterating or translating biblical
proper names. Sometimes it is possible to see that a particular version
reects scholarly rethinking about the Hebrew text; more often, however,
it is evident that translations replicate transliteration forms of a previous
phonetic tradition or follow the translation method of key versions. In the
larger scheme of Bible translation history and the development of the
forms of biblical proper names, it is especially interesting that DAL often
replicates the forms of LUB, thus testifying most clearly to the religious
and cultural afnity between Luther and the rst Slovenian Bible translators. The extent to which DAL depends on the forms of biblical proper
names from LUB is striking.
Chapter 1
ETYMOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF PROPER NAMES

IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND THE HISTORY
OF THEIR FORMS IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
This study deals with the history of translation of those personal and
geographical names in the Hebrew Bible that attract attention by supplying an etymological explanation of how a particular person or place came
to be named. In the Hebrew Bible, there are nearly ninety more or less
formulaic expressions in which information is given on the circumstances involved in the naming of persons, groups, peoples or places, and
what the signicance of their name was. In the scholarly exegesis these
biblical passages are often called folk (popular) etymology. The unique
feature of folk etymology in the Hebrew Bible is the causal connection
between a particular event and the naming of a person or locality. This
kind of explanation of the reasons for naming people and places in a
certain way gives a xed literary pattern: event // naming, or vice versa.
Such patterns are not random, arbitrary or accidental constructions, but
deliberate artistic literary devices. In most cases, etymological explanations of biblical proper names involve a play of words expressing the
essence of the event and of the name derivations in the biblical texts. The
literary structure of folk etymologies calls for equal attention to the
literary quality of the original Hebrew text and to the way of transliterating or translating proper names in ancient and more modern Bible
translations.
Etymological explanation of biblical proper names represents a special
type of aetiological interpretation of the past events and facts. The term
aetiology, which is used in modern interpretation of the Bible, is derived
from the Greek word aita responsibility, cause, motive. The term
refers to those stories or traditions which explain the cause or origin of
an existing phenomenon of nature, a condition, a custom or an institution.
Relatively early biblical traditions contain so-called natural or geological,
1
ethnological and etymological, cultic and sanctuary aetiologies. Etymologies for proper names in the Bible itself are the most obvious examples
of aetiologies. In the historical books of the Hebrew Bible, most
frequently in the book of Genesis, biblical writers often explain explicitly
how the name came about.1 Central is the belief that the name given in
accordance with a specic historical occasion is unique in its origin and
meaning. This intention no doubt had an inuence on the history of the
editing of the texts in question because biblical writers were committed
to literary considerations rather than to linguistic ones when it came to
giving linguistic etymology and the name explanation.
The signicance of quite a number of proper names is often connected
with a particular event. Some biblical proper names seem to be fanciful
substitutions for ancient names whose original etymology is no longer
clear or has been forgotten completely. Many biblical proper names were
altered to reect historical or geographical circumstances. In general, it
is impossible to determine whether a particular aetiology inspired the
tradition of the event narrated or whether it was added to an essentially
historical story. Nevertheless, etymological explanations of proper names
in the Hebrew Bible serve as important evidence of the way some wellknown biblical names were actually understood, however far removed
their interpretation may be from historical fact. Conspicuous aetiological
phrasings are probably formulaic expressions of personal testimony
added to a received tradition, thus conrming the traditions validity.2
1. For a discussion of the problems concerning biblical aetiology, see Johannes

Fichtner, Die etymologische tiologie in den Namensgebungen der geschichtlichen
Bcher des Alten Testaments, VT 6 (1956): 37296; J. Alberto Soggin, Kulttiologische Sagen und Katechese im Hexateuch, VT 10 (1960): 34147; Isac Leo
Seeligmann, Aetiological Elements in Biblical Historiography, Zion 26 (1961):
14169; A. Ibanez Arana, La narracin etiolgica como gnere literario bblico:
Las etiologas etimolgicas del Pentateuco, Scriptorium Victoriense 10 (1963):
16176, 24175; Brevard S. Childs, A Study on the Formula Until This Day,
JBL 82 (1963): 27992; Frank Zimmerman, Folk Etymology of Biblical Names,
Volume du Congrs: Genve (VTSup 15; Leiden: Brill, 1966), 31126; B. O. Long,
The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament (BZAW 108; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1968); idem, Etymological Etiology and the DT Historian, CBQ 31
(1969): 3541; Brevard S. Childs, The Etiological Tale Re-considered, VT 24
(1974): 217; Friedemann W. Golka, The Aetiologies in the Old Testament, VT 26
(1976): 41028; 27 (1977): 3647; Andrzej Strus, NomenOmen. La stylistique
sonore des noms propres dans le Pentateuque (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978);
idem, tymologies des noms propres dans Gen 29,3230, 24: Valeurs littraires et
fonctionnelles, Salesianum 40 (1978): 5772.
2. See Childs, A Study on the Formula Until This Day.
1
Aetiological etymological interpretations of proper names within the

Bible are summarizing literary creations, ones which are often not in
harmony with all the important traditions.
A survey of Bible translations from antiquity to the present time
shows that in connection with proper names, translators were always
faced with an alternative: transliteration or translation. In the larger
framework of Bible translations, fuller attention is paid to those
etymological name derivations that are predominantly translated in
ancient versions of the Bible, even though they are transliterated in most
modern translations. A comparative survey of Bible translations shows
that various circumstances played a role in the decision whether to transliterate or translate a particular proper name. Etymological interpretation
calls by itself for translation of proper names, therefore it is not surprising that some early Bible translators in cases of folk etymology often
preferred to translate the naming of places or persons followed by an
etymological explanation of the naming, instead of transliterating them
all the more so because some proper names that are not explained etymologically in the Hebrew Bible are nevertheless translated in several
ancient versions.
in the Hebrew Bible
The book of Genesis is the richest source of examples in which the
naming of a place or person is followed by an etymological explanation
of the naming, or at least allusion to etymological meaning of the naming:
Eve (3:20), Cain (4:1), Seth (4:25), Noah (5:29), Babel (11:9), Ishmael
(16:11, 15), Attah El-roi (16:13), Beer-lahai-roi (16:14), Adonai-jireh
(22:14), Abram / Abraham (17:5), Sarai / Sarah (17:15), Zoar (19:20
22), Moab (19:37), Ben-ammi (19:38), Isaac (21:36), Beer-sheba
(21:31), Adonai (Jehovah/Yahweh)-jireh (22:14), Esau (25:25), Jacob
(25:26), Edom (25:30), Esek (26:20), Sitnah (26:21), Rehovoth (26:22),
Shibah / Beer-sheba (26:33), Jacob (27:36), Bethel / Luz (28:19), Reuben
(29:32), Simeon (29:33), Levi (29:34), Judah (29:35), Dan (30:6),
Naphtali (30:8), Gad (30:11), Asher (30:13), Issachar (30:18), Zebulun
(30:20), Joseph (30:2324), Jegar-sahadutha (31:47), Galeed (31:48),
Mizpah (31:49), Mahanaim (32:2), Peniel (32:31), Succoth (33:17), Elbethel (35:7), Allon-bacuth (35:8), Ben-oni / Benjamin (35:18), Perez
(38:29), Zerah (38:30), Manasseh (41:51), Ephraim (41:52), Abel-mizraim (50:11). Most of the namings in Genesis belong to the Yahwist
source, some belong to the Elohist source, while only the renaming of
1
Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah at Gen 17:5 and Gen 17:15
belongs to the Priestly source.3
Among the other books of the Pentateuch, only Exodus and Numbers
contain some examples of name-giving together with a more or less
explicit etymological explanation; Exodus: Moses (2:10), Gershom
(2:22; 18:3), Marah (15:23), Massah and Meribah (17:7), Eliezer (18:4);
Numbers: Taberah (11:3), Kibroth-hattaavah (11:34), Meribah (20:13,
24; 27:14), Hormah (21:3). The passages containing these names belong
predominantly to the Yahwist source. In other parts of the Hebrew Bible,
reports of name-giving combined with an etymological explanation of
the meaning of given names are even more scarce; Joshua: Gilgal (5:9),
Achor (7:26); Judges: Hormah (1:17), Bochim (2:45), Gideon / Jerubbaal (6:32), Ramath-lehi (15:17), En-hakkore (15:1819); 1 Samuel:
Samuel (1:20, 27), Ichabod (4:21), Ebenezer (7:12), Sela-mahlekoth
(23:28, without explanation), Nabal (25:25); 2 Samuel: Baal-perazim
(5:20), Perez-uzzah (6:8), Solomon / Jedidiah (12:25); 1 Kings: Cabul
(9:13), Samaria (16:24, after the name Shemer, the owner of the land);
2 Kings: Sela / Joktheel (14:7); Ruth: Naomi / Mara (1:20); 1 Chronicles:
Peleg (1:19); Jabez (4:910), Beriah (7:23), Perez-uzzah (13:11; cf.
2 Sam 6:8); Baal-perazim (14:11; cf. 2 Sam 5:20); 2 Chronicles: Beracah
(20:26).
In the book of Genesis, the names Cain, Seth, Noah, Ishmael, Abram /
Abraham, Sarai / Sarah, Zoar, Moab, Isaac, Esau, Jacob, Edom, Reuben,
Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Perez, Zerah, Manasseh, Ephraim are transliterated in accordance with the orthography of
languages in all translations; the names Eve, Babel, Attah El-roi, Beerlahai-roi, Ben-ammi, Beer-sheba, Adonai(Jehovah/Yahweh)-jireh, Esek,
Sitnah, Rehovoth, Shibah / Beer-sheba, Bethel / Luz, Jegar-sahadutha,
Galeed, Mizpah, Mahanaim, Peniel, Succoth, El-bethel, Allon-bacuth,
Ben-oni / Benjamin, Abel-mizraim are translated, or, at least, combined
with a translation in some versions. In the books of Exodus, Numbers,
Joshua and Judges, all personal names and some place names are transliterated in all translations: Moses, Gershom, Eliezer, Gilgal, Achor,
Gideon / Jerubbaal. Most place names are translated in some ancient versions: Marah, Massah, Meribah, Taberah, Kibroth-hattaavah, Meribah,
Hormah, Bochim, Ramath-lehi, En-hakkore. In the books of Samuel,
Kings, Ruth and Chronicles, all personal names and some place names,
too, are transliterated in all ancient and later versions: Samuel, Ichabod,
3. The delineation of sources employed in the composition of the Pentateuch is
based on general agreement in modern biblical scholarship and does not include
discussion on views when there is no evident need for it.
1
Nabal, Samaria, Sela / Joktheel, Peleg, Jabez, Beriah. However, most

place names are translated (at least partly) in some ancient translations,
as compound names: Eben-ezer, Sela-mahlekoth, Baal-perazim, Perezuzzah, Jedidiah / Solomon, Cabul, Noomi / Mara, Beracah.
It may be noted that nearly all personal names are consistently transliterated. By contrast, almost all place names are translated at least in
some ancient translations. In the following section, the names that are
predominantly translated in ancient Bible translations will be analyzed
individually or in groups according to the order of the books in the
Hebrew canon.4
2. Etymological Translation of Two Namings of Eve
According to the Yahwist narrative of creation (Gen 2:4b25), Adam has
given his wife a generic name (v. 23): This one shall be called Woman
(ih), for out of Man this one was taken (m luqqh-zt). It is
noteworthy that the Samaritan Pentateuch has the expression mh
out of her Man instead of m, a rendering found also in LXX and Tg.
The Targums did not preserve the word-play based on a clear linguistic
interrelation between the descriptive designations of Man and Woman.
TgO chose the words tt woman, wife mibba!lh from her husband, even though the word is in use in Aramaic. This rendering of
TgO may imply that Woman is not taken from any man, but exclusively
from her husband.5 But the phrase mibba!lh from her husband not
only destroys the word-play, but also changes the sense by means of the
pronominal sufx. TgN and TgPsJ have the words itt woman, wife
miggeber from man. The LXX also destroyed the pun by rendering
the text: hat klthsetai gyn hti ek to andrs auts elmphth hat
she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of her husband. Sym retained the word-play by rendering the Hebrew words using
andrs/andrs, and this word pair was also adopted by MGK. Theod
created an original pun by substituting the etymology of the original
words: lpsis a taking (because she was takenelmphthfrom
man). The Vg retained the word-play and the word order of the original:
viragode viro: haec vocabitur virago quoniam de viro sumpta est.6
4. The distribution of names for analysis in various sections of the present study
is based on practical rather than thematic reasons.
5. See Moses Aberbach and Bernard Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis
(Denver: Ktav/Center for Judaic Studies, 1982), 32 n. 23.
6. See the explanation by Jerome and other ancient authors cited by Fridericus
Field, Origenis Hexapla quae supersunt sive Veterum interpretum Graecorum in
totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta (Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), I, 15, no. 31.
1
The striking creation of a pun by Jerome obviously inuenced LUB,

which in turn inuenced some later translations. A comparison between
LUB and DAL clearly proves the dependence of DAL on LUB: Man
wird sie Mennin heissen / darumb / das sie vom Manne genommen ist //
Ona bo Moshiza imenovana, satu, ker je is Mosha vseta. We note that
about one third of later translations have preserved the word-play. The
comparison of JPS and TNK shows that TNK replicates more completely
the word order of the original than JPS. All English translations have the
standard pair Woman/Man; in other languages appropriate word pairs
were created: Menninvom Manne (LUB); Mnninvom Manne (LUO,
LUT, ELO, ELB, SCH); dun nom qui marque lhommede lhomme
(BLS); compagne de lhommede son compagnon (BFC); Varonadel
varn (SRV, R60); varoado varo (ARC, ARA); muatkaz mue
(BKR); Moshizais Mosha (DAL); Moshovkaod mosh (JAP);
monaiz mo (WOL); (M)moinjaiz moa (SPP, SEB, SSP);
muenouz mue (CEP); olovikovojoz olovika (UKR); manninuit
haar man (LEI); haar manninnevan den man (LUV); manninde
man (NBG); haar Manninneuit den man (SVV); maninnaav man
(S17); manninneav mannen (N30, NBK, NBN).
At this point one may ask why most ancient versions did not preserve
the pun of the original to the extent that some Renaissance and more
modern translations did. Is the presence of such pairs of gender
etymology due to the fact that modern languages have a natural vocabulary resource to reproduce the word-play /ih? This question is
enhanced by the fact that ancient translations tend to translate the names
on the basis of their etymological meaning, whereas the Renaissance and
more modern translations transliterate most of them. This state of affairs
explains why preservation of puns in ancient translations generally
occurs more often than in later versions. All the more we may ask why in
this case the state of affairs is opposite, that is, why the naming of Eve is
translated and the pun preserved in so many more modern translations.
The comparison of ancient and later translations shows that the reason
for this exception lies not primarily in natural vocabulary resource but
rather in the striking replication of the pun in Sym and the Vg: andrs/
ap andrs; virago/de viro. The word-play in the Vg is so striking that
many later translators, including Luther, must have been attracted and
inuenced by the possibility of playing on gender etymology, even
though only in English does the natural vocabulary resource coincide
with the general use, whereas translations in other languages testify to
invention that was not adopted by general speakers. The words virago,
Mennin/Mnnin, and so on, are perfect examples of a natural etymologi1
10
cal resource that failed to become a permanent natural vocabulary

resource.7
The story of the Fall (Gen 3:124) is the occasion for giving to the
woman the proper name that has remained with her for all generations.
After the sentence of punishment (3:1419), the woman receives a
personal name (3:20) that expresses her positive nature and destiny in
relation to her primary rolemotherhood: The man named his wife Eve
(awwh), because she was the mother of all living (kol-y). The rst
naming is unambiguous in its etymological explanation and meaning,
while the second one retains a certain syntactic ambiguity, inasmuch as it
could include non-human creatures. The Aramaic word iwyh means
serpent, and this meaning was adopted in one of the rabbinic interpretations of the passage (cf. Genesis Rabbah 20:11; 22:2). The creation
of the name of Eve in Gen 3:20 seems to take into account the fact that
Eve stands at the beginning of a genealogy, followed by a line of descendants. The explanation that the woman was the mother of all living
manifests the magnicent theological perspective of the narrator: in spite
of sin and hardship resulting from the penalty, the woman remains the
symbol of the great miracle and mystery of life. The Hebrew text points
to the linguistic association between the name awwh and the word
ayyh living (adj. fem. sing.), or an archaic noun form meaning living thing. In connection with the rst birth, the naming of the woman by
man expresses the husbands elementary response of joy at motherhood
and life. Yet, in relation with the sentence of punishment after the Fall,
the naming expresses a theological reection on the superiority of Gods
mercy over punishment as manifesting itself in extending life into the
future. The translator of the LXX was impressed by the folk etymology,
and so used word-play rather than rendering the name in translation: Z
hoti hat mtr pntn tn zntn Life, because she was the mother of
all living. At the other occurrence of the name (Gen 4:1), the LXX uses
transliteration, namely, Hean (with an accusative inection), and some
manuscripts have transcription with spiritus lenis: Ean (with an accusative inection).8 Aq transliterated the name as Haa, while Sym has the
translation Zognos. The Vg has the transliteration Hava in both places.
The Greek and Latin forms of transliteration are evidently based on
Hebrew phonetics.
7. It is interesting here to note the explication by Festus s. v. Querquetulanus:
Feminas quas nunc dicimus, antiqui appellabant viras, unde adhuc permanent
virgines et viragines. See Field, Origenis Hexapla quae supersunt, I, 15.
8. See Fridericus Field, Vetus Testamentum Graece juxta LXX Interpretes
(Oxford: Wright, 1859).
1
11
It is all the more surprising, then, that nearly all later translations have
the transliteration of the name: Eve (all English translations, etc.), Eva
(e.g. DAL, LUO, LUT), and so on; there are only a few exceptions: Heua
(LUB); Heuah (GNV); Chawwa, Leben! (BUR); ava-Vivante (CHO).
The fact that DAL did not adopt the form Heua from LUB, even though
the translation itself is reminiscent of LUB, provides compelling reasons
for the assumption that the form Eva was already established in the living tradition in regions of Slovenia in the sixteenth century. The majority
form Eve, Eva and so on, is obviously based on the Greek transcription
form Ea (with spiritus lenis). There is no example of later translations
having translation of the name instead of transliteration. The more the
practice of transliteration prevailed, the less the word-play of the original
came to expression. The play on words is reduced to cases of rendering
names both in transliteration and an added translation (BUR, CHO), or
an explanation of the meaning of the name in a note (NRSV).
3. Etymological Translation of the Toponym Babel
The etymological naming of the city Babel is closely connected with the
structure of the narrative of the Tower of Babel and the confusion of
language in the last Yahwist narrative of the Primeval History at Gen
11:19. This section of the Primeval History shows clear signs of gradual
growth on the basis of an exceptionally signicant primeval issue: the
separation of the realm of God from that of people. The narrator nds in
older material a basis for his criticism of human presumption and for his
explanation of the multiplicity of languages throughout the world. The
narrative contains central ideas on the unity and linguistic uniformity of
humankind, but the text must have gone through a very long process of
literary development until it acquired its present form. Interesting is the
correspondence between the beginning and the end of the narrative:
Now the whole earth had one language and the same words (Gen
11:1); the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there
the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth (Gen
11:9). In between the beginning and the end, there are two parallel parts
manifesting the unity of the narrative: in the rst part people act and
speak: Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in
the heavens (r bamayim), and let us make a name (m), for
ourselves (vv. 24); in the second part God responds with his action
and speaks: Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that
they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go
down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand
1
12
one anothers speech (vv. 58). In conclusion, Gods preventative or

punitive intervention against the audacious will of the people to greatness is brought into connection with the naming of the city Babel (v. 9):
Therefore it was called Babel (bbel), because there the LORD confused
(blal) the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered
them abroad over the face of all the earth.
The naming of the city of Babel is one of the most striking examples
of etymological aetiology relating to the question of how in the Bible a
particular place was given its name. This popular etymology is wrong in
substance, for the name Babel is Sumerian and Babylonian in origin:
Sum. K-dingir, Akk. Bb-ilu gate of the god. The Hebrew verb signifying to confuse, to mix is blal. The slight graphological resemblance
to Babel was therefore enough for the Hebrew author to add to previous
stages of development of the name an aspect referring to the situation
described of the plurality of languages as opposed to the presumed unity
of language at the beginning. This popular etymology is a situation
aetiology explaining why worldwide mutual communication and human
cooperation are impossible. The main purpose of the narrative is to
explain why the primeval state of unity of language was changed into
plurality of language. In accordance with the general theme of the
Primeval History, namely, the escalation of sin, the narrator brings into
the foreground the greatest possible sin: the aspiration of humans to
overstep the limited state of their existence and to force their way into
the realm of the gods or God. Therefore, dispersion of humanity (v. 8)
and confusion of its languages (v. 7) was inevitable. Gods preventative
or punitive intervention is directed primarily at the unity of language in
connection with the specic human enterprise aimed at storming the
heavens.
The city of Babylon is so old and so famous that there is little room
for an alternative transliteration or translation to translators. Nevertheless, the LXX translator found in the biblical etymology a sufcient
reason for translation of the name as Snkhysis confusion, thus creating
a nice word-play: Snkhysis hti eke synkheen Krios Confusion,
because there the Lord confounded Most other ancient and all later
versions retained the original form of the name: Babel.
Attah El-roi and Beer-lahai-roi
The Yahwist story of Hagar at Gen 16 recounts three etymological
namings: Ishmael, Attah El-roi and Beer-lahai-roi. When Hagar found
herself in extreme distress and was eeing with her child from her
1
13
mistress Sarai in the desert, the angel of the Lord appeared and assured
her: You have conceived and shall bear a son; you shall call him
Ishmael (yim!l), for the LORD has given heed (k m! yhwh) to your
afiction (16:11). The narrator and Hagar give etymological variations
of the lost ancient place name and of the well: So she named the LORD
who spoke to her, You are El-roi (atth l r
); for she said, I have
really seen [God] after he saw me. Therefore the well was called Beerlahai-roi (!al-kn qr labbr br laay r); it lies between Kadesh
and Bered (16:1314). We note that in the explanation of the naming of
Ishmael, the narrator substitutes the l with the Tetragrammaton yhwh as
the designation for God. Both designations have the same signicance
for the narrator, but he probably wants to take over a lapidary phrase. In
the naming of God by Hagar, the word ry has been vocalized by the
Masoretes as a noun (r
), suggesting the meaning of the name in the
sense of vision or revelation: You are God of vision. The Samaritan
Pentateuch has in v. 13 the form of the name th l rh, rh being read as a
nite verb or a participle. At the end of the compound name of the well,
the same word has been vocalized as a participle with a sufx of object
(r), suggesting the meaning of the name: well of the one who is alive,
who sees me. The name Beer-lahai-roi appears in two more places in
the same form (Gen 24:62; 25:11).
The translators of the LXX and Vg chose for the rst name transliteration: Ishmael (Ismal / Ismahel); the other two names they rendered
etymologically. For the name Attah El-roi, the LXX has a participial
rendering: S ho Thes ho epidn me You (are) the God who looks on
me; the Vg uses a nite verbal form: Tu Deus qui vidisti me You (are)
the God who has looked on me. For the aetiological narrative !al-kn
qr labbr br laay r Therefore the well was called Beerlahai-roi the LXX has the rendering hneken totou eklesen t
phrar, Phrar hou enpion edon Therefore she called the well, The
well of him whom I have openly seen. The Vg renders differently,
offering propterea appellavit puteum illum puteum Viventis et videntis
me Therefore she called the well, The well of the one who is Alive and
looks on me. It is noteworthy that the LXX and Vg are not consistent in
rendering the same name at Gen 24:62 and 25:11. The LXX has in both
places the rendering t phrar ts horses, whereas the Vg has puteum
cuius nomen est Viventis et videntis at Gen 24:62, and puteum nomine
Viventis et videntis at Gen 25:11.
Later European translations of the Bible without exception render the
name Ishmael using transliteration forms. Most translators translate the
name Attah El-roi, and only in a few is it transliterated entirely or partly.
1
14
In contrast to this name, the name Beer-lahai-roi is usually given using

transliterated form, though it is translated in quite a few versions. English
translation variants for the name Attah El-roi are: Thou God lookest on
me (GNV); Thou God seest me (KJV); Thou art the God who reveals
himself (DBY); Thou art a God that seeth (ASV); Thou art a God of
seeing (JPS, RSV, ESV); You-Are-the-God-Who-Sees (NKJ); Thou art a
God who is seen (BBE); Thou the God who hast seen me (DRA); Thou
God seest me (WEB); Thou art a God who sees (NAS); You are the God
who sees me (NIV, NIB, NAU); Thou art God who seest me (LXE); You
are the God of Vision (NAB); German translation variants are: Du Gott
sihest mich (LUB, LUO); Du bist ein Gott, der mich sieht (LUT, ELB);
Du Gott der Sicht (BUR); Du bist ein Gott, der sich schauen lt (ELO);
Du bist der Gott, der mich sieht (SCH); Slovenian translation variants
are: Ti Bug vidi mene (DAL); Ti si ta Bog, kateri si mene vidil (JAP); Ti
si Bog, kteri si me vidil (WOL), and so on. There are some rare cases of
transliteration or mixed variants: You are El-roi (TNK, NRSV); You are
El Roi (NJB); El-Ro (EIN); Atta-El-ro (LSG, NEG); Atta-El-Roi
(NRV); Tu es El-Ro (BFC); Tu es El Ro (FBJ); Tu sei El-Roi (LND); Ti
si El Roi (SSP); Ti je El-Roi (ALB). The transliterated forms of the name
Beer-lahai-roi are nearly as numerous as the translations. Of interest here
therefore are only those versions in which the name is translated:
Fountain of Life and Vision (BBE); the well of him that liveth and seeth
me (DRA); The well of him whom I have openly seen (LXE); ein brunnen
des Lebendigen, der mich angesehen hat (LUB); ein Brunnen des
Lebendigen, der mich ansieht (LUO); Brunnen des Lebendigen, der
mich sieht (LUT); Brunn des Lebenden Michsehenden (BUR); le puits
de Lacha-ro (LSG, NEG); puits de Laha-Ro, ou puits du Vivant qui
me voit (BFC); Le puits de Laha qui me voit (TOB); il pozzo di LahaiRoi (LND); Pozzo di Lacai-Roi (IEP); Pozo del Viviente que me ve
(SRV); Pozo del Viviente-que-me-ve (R60, R95); poo de Beer-Laai-Ri
(BRP); poo de Laai-Roi (ARC); tu studnic ivho vidoucho mne
(BKR); Studnici ivho, kter m vid (CEP); Studenez tiga shivezhiga,
kateri je na mene pogledal (DAL); studenz tiga shiv zhiga inu mene
videzhiga (JAP); studenec iviga, kteri me je vidil (WOL), and so on.
Very striking are inconsistencies in translating or transliterating the
name Beer-lahai-roi in the three places (Gen 16:14; 24:62; 25:11): the
BBE has Fountain of Life and Vision at Gen 16:14, Beer-lahai-roi at Gen
24:62 and omits the name at Gen 25:11; the DRA has the well of him that
liveth and seeth me at Gen 16:14, the well which is called Of the living
and the seeing at Gen 24:62 and the well named Of the living and seeing
at Gen 25:11; the LXE has The well of him whom I have openly seen at
1
15
Gen 16:14 and the well of the vision at Gen 24:62; 25:11; LUB has ein
brunnen des Lebendingen, der mich angesehen hat at Gen 16:14,
brunnen des Lebendigen und Sehenden at Gen 24:62; 25:11; DAL has
Studenez tiga shivezhiga, kateri je na mene pogledal at Gen 16:14,
Studenez tiga Shivezhiga inu videzhiga at Gen 24:62 and Studenez, tiga
shivezhiga inu videzhiga at Gen 25:11, and so on.
5. Etymological Translation or Explanation
of the Personal Names Moab and Ben-ammi
The section Gen 19:3038 describes the origin of the peoples of Moab
and Ammon, presumably on the basis of some authentic historical
memories. The unmarried and childless daughters of Lot believed a
coming catastrophe to be universal and organized incestuous intercourse
with their own father Lot to ensure descendants for the family threatened
with extinction. The narrative concludes with the explanation of the
names of the sons (vv. 3738): The rstborn bore a son, and named him
Moab (mb); he is the ancestor of the Moabites (h b-mb) to this
day. The younger also bore a son and named him Ben-ammi (benamm); he is the ancestor of the Ammonites to this day (h b bn
!ammn). The explanation of the name Moab reects free etymological
allusion to the word b; the folk etymology is based on spelling of the
name as mb from father (cf. vv. 3234). In spite of intensive modern linguistic investigation, the etymology of the name remains uncertain.
The phrase he is the father/ancestor of the Moabites is probably due to
the desire to create a word-play. On the other hand, the naming of
Ammon brings the kinship to expression by using the word bn; the
narrator says that the younger daughter named him ben-amm son of
my people; she thus alludes to the ancient meaning of the word am:
paternal uncle, paternal relations, clan, kin.
How did ancient translations cope with these namings? The Targums
transliterate the name Moab, but TgPsJ adds an explanation: The elder
bore a son and called his name Moab because she had become pregnant
by her father. The naming of Ammon is translated in all Targums: TgO
and TgN render the name accordingly as bar amm Son of my people;
TgPsJ renders it as br !ymyh Son with him. The LXX renders vv. 3738
with an interpretation that is not found in the Masoretic text (hereafter
MT): And the elder bore a son, and called his name Moab (b),
saying, he is of my father (lgousa, ek to patrs mou). This is the father
of the Moabites to this present day. And the younger also bore a son, and
called his name Amman (Ammn), saying, The son of my family
1
16
(lgousa, hyis gnous mou). This is the father of the Ammanites to this
present day. It is striking that the LXX uses the accepted, well-known
name Ammn (in Hebrew Ammon), instead of transliterating or translating the Hebrew naming ben-amm, and also adds an interpretative
translation for the Hebrew name, hyis (to) gnous mou The son of my
family, on the basis of the meaning of the Hebrew name. In the Vg, the
rst naming is transliterated as Moab, but for the second naming we nd
the name Ammon and an added explanation of the name: et vocavit
nomen eius Ammon id est lius populi mei ipse est pater Ammanitarum
usque hodie. It is evident that the Vg follows the version of the LXX. It
seems likely that the name Amman is an addition in the version of the
LXX, obviously due to the translators desire to foreground the parallelism of two well-known names Moab // Ammon. There are therefore good
reasons for the assumption that the Greek version represents a true
ancient variant of the Hebrew text: mb lmr mb Moab, saying,
from my father // !ammn lmr ben-amm Ammon, saying, the son
of my people.
The later translations BLS, JAP, WOL, DRA, NAB translate Vg
literally. All other versions transliterate the Hebrew form of the name
Ben-ammi according to the orthographic traditions of the individual
languages, with the exception of BKR, which has the form Ben Ammon.
LUB and DAL combine translation and transliteration: das kind Ammi
(LUO: das Kind Ammi); tu dte Ammi; this unique rendering is an
indisputable proof for the dependence of DAL on LUB. JAP and WOL
follow Vg: inu je njegvu ime imenovala Amon, to je, en yn mojga
ludtva // in mu je dala ime Amon, to je, sin mojiga ljudstva. More
modern Slovenian translations have transliteration of the name: Ben-ami
(SPP, SEB); Ben Ami (SSP).
6. Etymological Translation of the Place Name Beer-sheba
The place name Beer-sheba in Hebrew (br eba!, with the pause
ba!) plays on the root b!, meaning to swear, take an oath; it suggests, however, some connection with the Common Semitic numeral
eba! seven. So the name can mean Well of the oath or Well of
seven. Within the Elohist narrative Gen 21:2234, there is a double
aetiological explanation of the name Beer-sheba: the etymological explanation Therefore that place was called Beer-sheba; because there both
of them swore an oath at v. 31 relates the name to the double covenant
between Abimelech and Abraham mentioned at v. 27 and v. 32; according to vv. 2930, Beer-sheba refers to seven ewe lambs who witnessed
1
17
before Abimelech that Abraham dug the well. The rst kind of folk
etymology prevailed and can be found again in the Yahwist narrative
about Isaacs covenant with Abimelech (Gen 26:2633); the concluding
statement relates to Isaac: He called it Shibah (ib!h); therefore the
name of the city is Beer-sheba to this day. The unique form ib!h
means seven; so the name corresponds to the presumed etymology for
the city Beer-sheba. These aetiological interpretations are probably combined with several originally independent local traditions.
Translations reect two kinds of interpretation of the name Beersheba. The Targums retain the Hebrew form, while the LXX translates it
as Phrar orkismo Well of the oath making (Gen 21:31), Phrar
rkou Well of the oath (Gen 26:33; cf. Phrar to rkou at Gen 21:14,
33; 22:19; 28:10; 46:1, 5); Sym transcribes the name as Brsabe at Gen
21:31; the Vg transcribes it as Bersabee in both places. The name Shibah
of Gen 26:33 is translated in LXX as rkos Oath, in Sym as Plsmon
Abundance, in the Vg as the corresponding Latin word in the accusative Abundantiam. The rendering in Sym and the Vg are based on the
reading ib!h plenty, abundance, satiety instead of ib!h oath. The
LXX form Phrar orkismo, which appears only at Gen 21:31, shows that
the translator deliberately emphasizes the act of oath making. All later
translations render the name Beer-sheba (Gen 21:31) in various transliterated forms, whereas the name Shibah (Gen 26:33) is translated in
a few versions: Abundance (DRA); Oath (NLT); Schwur (LUT);
Abondance (BLS); Schiba, Schwur-Sieben (BUR). A comparison of
translation or transliteration forms found in the history of Bible
translation shows that the choice of the form depended on the one hand
on the established national and cultural tradition of the well-known name
Beer-sheba, and on the other hand on the tradition of reading the Hebrew
text. For these reasons we nd in the Vg the form Bersabee, in LUB
BerSaba and in DAL Beereba. Although DAL gives a translation that
supplies an etymological explanation of the name, the marginal notes of
LUB offer a differing (transliterated) form of the name. We note that the
form BerSaba (LUB) is unique within the entire range of European
translations, while the form Beereba is the majority form appearing in
various orthographic forms. This form must have been known in the
living tradition of sixteenth-century Europe. The majority phonetic form
is based on the normal reading of the Hebrew root, whereas the form of
the Vg follows the pause reading of the name in the MT. We may take for
granted that the form in LUB is an unusual orthographic adaptation of
the form Bersabee found in the Vg.
1
18
At Gen 26:33, the difference in the history of vocalizing the Hebrew

word root /b! resulted in difference in translation or transliteration of
the name Shibah; in the LXX we nd translation using the word rkos
Oath, in Sym using the word Plsmon Abundance, in the Vg using
a word of the same meaning, Abundantia; LUB has the transliteration
form Saba, DAL Seba, and so on. A comparison of transliteration forms
found in European Bible translations shows that the phonetic form
Shibah/Shebah/Sebafound in orthographic variantsis the majority
form, whereas the form Saba found in LUB is again unique; revisions of
LUB have different forms: LUO has Seba, LUT has the translation
schwur, EIN has Schiba. The unique reading Saba found in LUB is
explained in a note in the margin: (SEBA) Heisst ein Eid / oder schwur /
oder die flle. This means that the transliterated form Saba is based on
the etymology of the name Beer-sheba and on the pause reading of the
second word, rather than on the normal reading of the noun b!
satiety; so we may assume also here dependence on the form Bersabee
found in the Vg for the name Beer-sheba.
7. Etymological Translation of the Place Name Adonai-jireh
The narrative of the great temptation at Gen 22:119 describes the
reaction of Abraham when God retracted his demand that Abraham
sacrice his only son in the land of Moriah. The narrator mentions that
Abraham found a ram and sacriced it in place of his son Isaac. On this
occasion, he gives an aetiological explanation of the name of the place
where the ram was sacriced: So Abraham called that place Adonaijireh (yhwh yireh); as it is said to this day, On the mount of the LORD it
shall be provided (bhar yhwh yreh) (v. 14). The author is concerned with locating the place theologically rather than geographically
by using a pun which helps to explain a contemporary proverbial saying
or a place name which has disappeared from the narrative. Through
vocalization the MT creates a playful relation between the active and
passive moods of the basic word rh to see. What God sees remains
open to interpretation. The naming of the place alludes to v. 8 where
Abraham explains to Isaac: lhm yireh-l haeh l!lh God will
provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering. The immediate context
and Abrahams statement at v. 8 suggests that Gods seeing is related to
the provision of the substitute ram. Of note, the verb rh is in imperfect
tense both at v. 8 and at v. 14.
The tradition of Aramaic translations at Gen 22:14 reects a greater
shift in the perspective of interpretation. The word-play on the name of
the place is no longer connected with the root rh to see but with the
1
19
root yr to fear, worship. TgO rephrases the verse in order to avoid any
divine nomenclature for the altar: And Abraham worshipped (pla)
and prayed there in that place, and he said, Here before the Lord shall
(future) generations worship (yhn-palan drayy). Therefore it is
said this day, On this mountain did Abraham worship (pl) before the
Lord. In the aetiological explanation of the naming of the place, the
verb is no longer imperfect but perfect in tense, and the indenite reference is made denite in relation to Abraham. TgN and TgPsJ changed
the text even more by extending it into similar versions of Abrahams
prayer, expressing his willingness to sacrice his son on the mountain,
identied with the mountain in Jerusalem. TgPsJs version of Abrahams
prayer is shorter than the one recorded in other Targums; it reads: Abraham gave thanks and prayed there in that place, and said: I beseech, by
the mercy from before you, O Lord! It is manifest before you that there
was no deviousness in my heart, and that I sought to perform your
decree with joy. Therefore, when the children of Isaac my son enter into
a time of distress, remember them, and answer them, and redeem them.
All these generations to come will say, On this mountain Abraham tied
his son Isaac, and there the Shekinah of the Lord was revealed to
him. Versions of this prayer in relation to the Aqedah are recorded in
several midrashic texts.9
The LXX and Vg manifest their peculiarities. The LXX translates the
pun in accordance with the MTs playful change of the verb see from
active to passive: Krios eden hina eposi smeron, en t rei Krios
phth The Lord has seen; that they might say today, In the mount the
Lord was seen. The Hebrew imperfect forms yireh and yreh in v. 14
are here changed into a preterite (aorist) to suggest that the promise in v.
8 was fullled and that God has revealed himself to Abraham on the
mountain. The article in the phrase en t rei in this mountain reects
the popular interpretation identifying the mountain as Mount Zion in
Jerusalem. The Vg places the basic verb rh in the active mood both in
naming of the place and in the explanation of the naming, and so creates
9. See Genesis Rabbah 56:10; Leviticus Rabbah 29:9; Tanuma, Wa-Yera 23
(7879); Tanuma B., Wa-Yera 46 (1,115). On the background and tradition of this
prayer by Abraham, see Roger Le Daut, La nuit pascale: Essai sur la signication
de la Paque juive partir du Targum dExode XII, 42 (Rome: Pontical Biblical
Institute, 1963), 16370; Gza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (2d ed.;
StPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 2068; Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts
and Beliefs, Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975), 5026; R. Hayward, Divine Name
and Presence: The Memra (Totowa, N.J.: Allanheld, Osmun, 1981), 14244; A.
Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (TSAJ
14; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 6773.
1
20
a play of time periods between present / future: Appellavitque nomen loci

illius Dominus videt unde usque hodie dicitur in monte Dominus videbit.
According to this rendering the naming of the place alludes to the event
itself, while its aetiological explanation expresses the commonly accepted
view that Gods providence extends into the future.
Many translators decided to translate both the name of the place as
well as the explanation of the naming. All versions have a translation of
the explanation of why the place was named the way it was, and more
than half of them also provide a translation of the name itself. There is a
greater tendency to do justice to the pun of the original text in versions
translating both the name and the explanation for a name. The explanation is usually translated using the future tense, but sometimes the
present is used. LUB, for instance, achieves a striking play on words by
rendering the verb in the present tense both times, even though Luther
claims in the margin that he followed Jerome: (Sihet) Ebrei dicunt /
Dominus videbitur / Sed nos Hieronymum secuti / Rabinos Grammaticos
cum suis punctis et Cammetz hoc loco negligimus / et sine punctis
dicimus. Der HERR sihet / das ist / Gott sorget fur alles vnd wachet.
Etiamsi sensus ille / Dominus videbitur / sit plus valde / quod Deus
apparet / vbi verbum eius dicetur / quod Rabini Grammatici non intelligunt. The translation of the entire v. 14 is: Und Abraham hies die stet /
Der HERR sihet / Da her man noch heutiges tages sagt / Auff dem Berge
/ da der HERR sihet (cf. LUO, LUT). Translation in DAL is a complete
replication of the translation in LUB; DAL is also the only translation
manifesting dependence on LUB in all elements: Inu Abraham je tuitu
mejtu imenoval: GOSPUD vidi: Satu e he danahni dan pravi: na tej
Gorri, ker GOSPUD vidi.
Other translations retain more or less accurately the mood and the time
forms of the original. Mention may be made especially of BUR because
it keeps the original time periods and the play on words: Abraham rief
den Namen jenes Orts: ER ersieht. Wie man noch heute spricht: Auf
SEINEM Berg wird ersehn. Versions which translate or transliterate the
act of naming provide a considerable range of attitudes to the personal
name of God of Israel. Translations render the Tetragrammaton with
LORD, HERR, SEIGNEUR, and so on. The majority of transliterations,
whether entire or in part, retain the original form of Gods name instead
of substituting it with Adonai and manifest various traditions of spelling:
lehouah-jireh (GNV); Jehovah-jireh (KJV, DBY, ASV, WEB, RWB,
RVA); Adonai-jireh (JPS, TNK); Yahweh-yireh (BBE, NAB); Yahweh
provides (NJB); Jehova wird ersehen (ELO); Jahwe-Jire (Der Herr
sieht) (EIN); Jhovah-Jir (DRB); Jehova-Jir (LSG); Yahv-Jir
1
21
(NEG); Yahv pourvoit (FBJ); Jehovah Jireh (LND, ALB); Iav-Ir

(NRV); Jehov proveer (R60); Jehov proveer (R95); Ieobir
(MGK); Jehova-jire-nek (HUN).
8. Etymological Translation of the Place Names Esek,
Sitnah, Rehoboth and Bethel
Within the same narrative of Isaac (Gen 26:1922), information about
three wells is given:
When Isaacs servants dug in the valley and found there a well of spring
water, the herders of Gerar quarrelled with Isaacs herders, saying, The
water is ours. So he called the well Esek (!eq), because they contended
with him (k hit!aq !imm). Then they dug another well, and they
quarrelled over that one also; so he called it Sitnah (imnh). He moved
from there and dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; so he
called it Rehoboth (rbt), saying, Now the LORD has made room for
us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.
The name Esek (!eq, spelled with a Sin) and the Hithpael of the same
root in the interpretation of how the well was given its name is not
otherwise attested, though from Late Hebrew we know of the spelling
!sq, meaning strife, contention. This spelling was adopted in TgO:
!isq / hit!assq, whereas TgN kept the original Hebrew spelling. The
name imnh, meaning accusation, enmity (a word with the same root
as Satan), is also not found anywhere else. But here no explanation is
given as to why the well was named as it was. The spelling of the
Hebrew original is retained in TgN, whereas in TgO it is replaced by the
spelling simnh (with a Sin). The name Rehoboth is derived from the
well-known root rb, which means to create space, and therefore all
Targums retain the same original spelling. In the LXX, all three names are
rendered in translation: Adika dksan gr autn Injury, for they
injured him; Echthra enmity; Eurychra open, free space. Aq
translated the name Esek as Sykophanta esykophntsan gr autn
Oppression, because they oppressed him; the translator came to this
interpretation only by reading the Hebrew words with in: !eq k
hit!aq. The name Sitnah is rendered by Aq in accordance with the
Hebrew meaning: antikeimn the adversary; by Sym in the same
sense: enantsis opposition, disagreement, discrepancy. The Vg, too,
translates all three names: Calumniam, Inimicitias, Latitudo; the wordplay is preserved only in rendering the name Rehoboth: Itaque vocabit
nomen illius Latitudo dicens nunc dilatavit nos Dominus
1
22
Nearly all later European translations transliterate all three names. In

this case, mention may be made only of LUB and DAL. LUB has transliteration Eseck / Sitna / Rehoboth; DAL has Eek / Sitna / Rehoboth. The
few exceptions of translation are noteworthy: Esek is translated as
Calumny (DRA), Argument (NLT), Zank (LUT), Injustice (BLS),
!ssq Chamaille (CHO), Essec ce qui veut dire Querelle (BFC);
Sitnah is rendered as Enmity (DRA), Opposition (NLT), Streit
(LUT), Sitna (Streit) (EIN), Inimiti (BLS), Sitna Contestation
(BFC), Sitna Dtestation (CHO), Sitn (to je So en) (CEP); Rehoboth
is rendered as Latitude (DRA), Room Enough (NLT), Weiter Raum
(LUT), Rehobot (Weite) (EIN), Largeur (BLS), Reoot Largesses
(CHO), Rehoboth Elargissement (BFC).
The narrative describing Jacobs dream at Bethel (Gen 28:1022)
culminates in the discovery and the naming of a sanctuary. Fleeing from
his brother Esau, Jacob experienced a revelation from God in a dream
during the night. Jacob recognized in the place of his dream the house
of God (bt lhm) (v. 17), and in the narrative concludes by relating
how the place was given its name: He called that place Bethel (bt-l);
but (wlm) the name of the city was Luz (lz) at the rst (v. 19). The
Targums retain the Hebrew spelling of both names, while the LXX translates Bethel correctly as Okos Theo the House of God. However, Luz
is mistakenly connected with the preceding adverb to arrive at the form
Oulamloz. The Vg and all later translations give both names in transliteration. We must not overlook that the strange orthography BethEL is
found both in LUB and DAL, thus testifying to the indisputable reliance
of DAL on LUB. Later Slovenian translations have the forms: Bethel
(JAP), Betel (WOL, SPP, SEB, SSP).
Jegar-Sahadutha, Galeed, Mizpah and Mahanaim
An ancient aetiological tradition of naming places is transmitted within
the framework of the narrative on Labans agreement with Jacob on
boundaries, an agreement which also obliges Jacob to be loyal to Labans
daughters (Gen 31:4354). Here there is an aetiological explanation of
the three place names in connection with an erected landmark and a heap
of stones, landmarks which serve as a witness between both parties:
They took stones, and made a heap; and they ate there by the heap.
Laban called it Jegar-sahadutha (ygar hdt); but Jacob called it
Galeed (gal!d). Laban said, This heap is a witness between you and me
1
23
today. Therefore he called it Galeed (gal!d), and the pillar Mizpah

(hammiph), for he said, The LORD watch (yep) between you and
me (vv. 4649). The rst naming is given in two languages, because
Laban is an Aramaic speaker. Both the Aramaic version of the name,
ygar hdt The heap of witness, and the underlying Hebrew
name, gal!d The heap of witness, are hapax legomena in the Hebrew
Bible, but miph Watchpost is frequently found elsewhere. The name
Galeed is part of folk etymology for the regional name Gilead.
The Bibles translation history provides some interesting points. The
name hammiph Watchpost is rendered in the Samaritan Pentateuch
with the word hammabh Memorial stone. Some scholars assume
in this form the original name of the place, in the Hebrew Bible changed
in some later period to hammiph because of inappropriate cultic and
theological associations. The argument is precarious because the Hebrew
text is obviously built on the word-play between the name hammiph
and the verb yep, from ph keep watch, in the explication of the
meaning of the name. TgO only changes the Hebrew name miph into
the Aramaic skt, a word which has the same meaning. The changes
in TgN and TgPsJ in connection with the rst and the third name are
slightly more substantial. The LXX is again consistent in its translation of
all names. The emphatic state of the compound phrase ygar hdt is
correctly translated as articulated: Bouns ts martyras; the Hebrew
nominal clause gal!d is again translated literally: Bouns mrtys; the
name miph is literally rendered as H rasis. We note that the LXX
follows the MT, not the tradition of the Samaritan Bible, in rendering the
third name. In this connection it is especially noteworthy that the LXX
carries also the Hebrew word-play into the Greek: H rasisepdoi,
the sight, which, said he, May God behold between me and you. The
Vg translates the rst name using the phrase tumulus Testis, the second
one with acervum Testimonii and Galaad id est tumulus Testis, but omits
the third name. How little later translations depend upon the LXX and Vg
is shown again by the fact that almost all later versions use transliteration
and not translation for the Hebrew names. The only notable exceptions
are BLS and LUB; BLS follows Vg; LUB translates the third name as
eine Warte (cf. LUO); this type of translation is also to be found in DAL:
Strasha.
After Jacob was separated from Laban in a foreign country and
approached the Promised Land, he named one place after an encounter
with angels; this event is communicated with extreme brevity at Gen
32:23: Jacob went on his way and the angels of God met him; and
1
24
when Jacob saw them he said, This is Gods camp (manh lhm
zeh)! So he called that place Mahanaim (manyim). Note especially
the contrast between the singular manh in Jacobs exclamation and
the dual form of the place: manyim. Nevertheless, the immediate
correlation of the two forms of the same root clearly shows that the
writer of the aetiological explanation of the place name was concerned
with the literary feature of the word-play. The use of the dual in the
naming of the place is probably based on an independent ancient tradition of the name, one which prevailed due to greater importance of the
name in Israels history. The theological relevance of the tradition about
Jacobs encounter with Gods realm, or Gods camp (manh lhm),
explains why the nal redactor connects this later tradition aetiologically
with the earlier form of the place name in the dual ending meaning Two
camps. A possible reason for inclusion of the dual form of the name
Mahanaim at this place can be found in the account given of how Jacob
divided his possessions into two camps (lin mant) in order to save
at least one half of his possessions in case his brother Esau attacked him
(cf. Gen 32:811). However, Jacobs expression of surprise, manh
lhm zeh! (v. 3), indicates that the name is meant to be singular.
Renderings in the Targums relate various kinds of paraphrastic renderings to the etymological meaning of the name Mahanaim, thus conrming how deeply rooted the dual form of this name was. In contrast to the
Targums, the LXX correctly renders Jacobs expression of surprise using
the singular form, Parembol Theo haut This is the Camp of God,
but the name of the place using a plural, Parembola Camps, Encampments. The Vg uses a plural in both parts of the sentence: castra Dei
sunt haec / Manaim id est Castra. All later versions translate Jacobs
expression of surprise and transliterate the name Mahanaim. It is noteworthy that most translators correctly translated Jacobs expression of
surprise as a singular, with very few translating it as a plural: These are
the camps of God (DRA); Es sind Gottes Heere (LUB, LUO); Letu
u Boshje vojke (DAL). It is evident that LUB is here dependent on
Vg, and DAL on LUB; JAP correctly uses the singular, t je Boshja
vojka, even though this version is generally thought to lean heavily on
the Vg. Some translators follow the practice of the Vg by adding a
translation after the transliteration of the name Mahanaim: Mahanaim,
that is, Camps (DRA); Machanajim, Doppellager (BUR); Mahanajim
(Doppellager) (EIN); Mahanaim, cest--dire le Camp (BLS); Maanam le Deux Camps (CHO); Mahanaim; t je: Kraj te vojke (JAP);
Mahanaim, to je, stanie (WOL).
1
25

Peniel / Penuel and Succoth
The ancient narrative about Jacobs struggle at Penuel (Gen 32:2232),
probably based on a local story, ends with two aetiologies (vv. 31, 33).
The rst aetiology is of interest here because it contains the etymological
explanation of the city Peniel / Penuel east of the Jordan. Jacob asks his
mysterious assailant what his name is. The numinous being does not
reveal his name but blesses Jacob instead (v. 30), thus revealing himself
to be God. Commenting on this miraculous encounter, which saves
Jacobs life, the narrator says (v. 31): So Jacob called the place Peniel
(pnl), saying, For I have seen God face to face (pnm el pnm),
and yet my life is preserved. At v. 32 the name of the place appears in
the archaic form pnl, which is used in several other places (Judg 8:8
9, 17; 1 Kgs 12:25; 1 Chr 4:4; 8:25).10 It is evident therefore that the
narrator uses the unusual form pnl because this form allows for a pun
on the word for face (pnm).
Translations have various different forms of translations and transliterations of the name Peniel / Penuel. TgO and TgPsJ retained the two
spellings of the name, while TgN harmonized them with the one form
Peniel. The LXX translated the spelling Peniel (v. 31) as Edos Theo
The Face of God, Fr. Forme-visible-de-Dieu11 and the spelling Penuel
(v. 32) as Edos to Theo. Aq translated the name in both verses using
prspon ischyro the Face of the Strong One. Sym transliterated the
name in both verses as Phanoul; the Vg transcribed it in both verses as
Phanuhel. All later translations transcribed the name. Nearly one half of
them followed the spelling Peniel for both verses, while the other half
used the spelling Penuel for both verses. A few translations haromonized
the name on the basis of the Greek and Latin spellings of the rst vowel:
Phanuel, Fanuel (DRA, BLS, BKR, BUL, JAP, WOL, SEB). DAL
harmonized the spellings by the contracted form Pniel. It is striking that
only a few translators take into account the difference in Hebrew spellings in their renderings of both verses: Peniel / Penuel, Penel / Penel
(KJV, ASV, NKJ, RSV, WEB, NAS, NAB, NAU, RWB, TNK, ESV,
NRSV, LBA, CEP); Pniel / Pnuel (LUB, DAL, NBK, NBN); Peniel
cest--dire Face-de-Dieu / Penoul (TOB); Pnil Face dl /
Penoul (SHO); Pnil / Penul (NBG); Peniel / Penielin (ALB); Penuel /
Penuelin (FIN); Penilnek / Penil (HUN). The decision to standardize
10. Cf. GKC, 90 k.
11. See Marguerite Harl et al., La Bible dAlexandrie: La Gense (Paris: Cerf,
1994), 244.
1
26
the two divergent spellings calls for a critical assessment. The principle
of unication was adopted, for instance, by the authors of the Loccumer
Richtlinien.12
At the end of the predominantly Yahwist narrative about Jacobs
meeting with Esau (Gen 33) there is an aetiological explanation for the
place name Succoth. After a peaceful separation from his brother, Esau
sets out for Seir. In v. 17 the text reads: But Jacob journeyed to Succoth
(succth), and built himself a house, and made booths for his cattle;
therefore the place is called Succoth (succt). This aetiological formula
of the place mentioned at the end of Jacobs itinerary (Gen 2533)
acquires special signicance because it reects the original form of the
xed settlement and also signals that Jacob and their descendants have
settled permanently in the Promised Land. We note the use of He locale
in the Hebrew, with nal h also used as the accusative of direction in
the rst mention of the place name (succth). This form is retained by
TgN, which at the same time prexes the preposition Lamedh to
(l-skth); some other examples of the retention of the accusative of direction in TgN include l-mrymh to Egypt at Gen 26:2; lwzh to Luz at
Gen 35:6, without the initial preposition Lamedh; mn-gl!dh from
Gilead at Gen 37:25; b-gnh in Goshen at Gen 46:28, all of which
suggest that the author of TgN misunderstood the original purpose of the
He locale. Other Targums use only the preposition Lamedh but not the
nal He locale. All other translators give the name Succoth in transliteration. Sym has the form Sokchth; the Vg has Soccoth. Yet the vast
majority retain the Hebrew form while adapting it to the specic features
of the languages. It is therefore all the more noteworthy that the LXX
translates it three times as Skna tents, booths.
11. Etymological Translation of the Place Names El-bethel
and Allon-bacuth
After settling in Canaan, Jacob returned to Bethel (cf. Gen 35:18, 14
15). The narrator refers to the Yahwist/Elohist Bethel story of Gen
28:1022, thus emphasizing the signicance of the place Bethel. Jacobs
naming of Bethel at Gen 35:15 belongs to another tradition (probably
from the Elohist). At Gen 35:68, two namings are combined:
12. See Klaus Dietrich Fricke and Benedikt Schwank, kumenisches Verzeichnis
der biblischen Eigennamen nach den Loccumer Richtlinien (Stuttgart: Katholische
Bibelanstalt/Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1971, 1981).
1
27
Jacob came to Luz (that is, Bethel), which is in the land of Canaan, he
and all the people who were with him, and there he built an altar and
called the place El-bethel (l bt-l), because there the gods (angels)
were revealed to him (k m nigl lyw hlhm) when he ed from
his brother. And Deborah, Rebekahs nurse, died, and she was buried
under an oak below Bethel. So it was called Allon-bacuth (alln bkt).
The designation of the place Bethel the House of God as El-Bethel

the God of Bethel means that the place has been equated with the God
venerated in Bethel by Jacob and his family. The name Allon-bacuth, on
the other hand, presumably memorializes the mourning rites that accompanied the death of the old nurse who became part of the family of Jacob.
The LXX and Vg ignore renaming the place by adding the word l
before the name Bethel; the LXX transcribes the name as Baithl, even
though the same name is translated as Okos Theo at Gen 28:19. LXXO
has lled the lacuna with the word ischyrs strong, powerful under the
asterisk.13 However, in the Vg the name is transliterated as Bethel at Gen
28:19, translated as Domus Dei at Gen 35:7. The Targums show variations: while TgO retains the complete Hebrew form of the name, TgN
omits the antecedent word l, and TgPsJ uses the paraphrase El who
caused his Shekinah to dwell in Bethel. Most later translations transliterate the complete name, some without considering l. In further
evidence of the dependence of DAL on LUB, we nd the form ElBethEl
copied. Of special interest are some versions using translation or combining translation and transliteration of the name: The God of Beth-el
(GNV); The house of God (DRA); Gottheit von Bet-El (BUR); Gott von
Bet-El (EIN); la Maison de Dieu (BLS); Dieu de Bthel (BFC); Boha
Bt-elu (CEP); hiha Boshja (JAP); hio Bojo (WOL); Betels Gud
(D31).
The aetiological explanation of how the place came to have its name is
given in plural in the original text: k m nigl lyw hlhm
because there the gods (angels) were revealed to him. The use of the
plural for the verb glh indicates that hlhm means divine beings
or angels in this context and probably refers to Jacobs dream of angels
ascending and descending (Gen 28:12). But all the early translations use
the singular of the verb, relating to God: gr epephn auto ho thes for
there God appeared to him (LXX); ibi enim apparuit ei Deus (Vg), and
so on. When we look at the modern translations, we hardly ever nd
renderings using the plural: Denn dort hatten sich die Gottmchte ihm
offenbart (BUR); oui, l les Elohm staient dcouverts lui (CHO).
13. This probably happened under the inuence of Aq, who regularly employs
this word to render the word l, but uses the word Thes for the word lhm.
1
28
The name Allon-bacuth is more often translated in ancient and in

modern translations of the Bible. All Targums use translations, some of
them avoiding the word oak in order to remove any suspicion that
Jacob was associated with a tree that might have been connected with
idolatrous worship: mar bkt the Plain of weeping (TgO); dibblm
bkth (of) the Oak of weeping (TgN). Based on a play on the word
alln oak, taken to be the Greek llos another, TgPsJ has another
weeping. The LXX translates the name with Blanos pnthos Acorn of
weeping. The Vg does not render the oak by extension but in its
proper sense: quercus Fletus. Most later versions transliterate the name
in various orthographic forms, but there are a considerable number of
translations: The oak of weeping (DRA); the Oak of Tears (NJB); the
Oak of Weeping (NLT); Klag(e)eiche (LUB, LUO, SCH); Steineiche
des Weinens (BUR); Trneneiche (EIN); le Chne des pleurs (BLS); de
chne des pleurs (LSG, NEG); le Chne-des-Pleurs (FBJ); Aln Abkout
le Chne du Pleur (SHO); le Chne des Pleurs (TOB); le Chne
des pleurs (BFC); Quercia del pianto (IEP); lAlzina del Plany
(BCI); Hrat tiga klagovanja (DAL); hrat tiga jokanja (JAP); Dob
alovanja (WOL); hrast alovanja (SEB); hrast jokanja (SSP); Posvtn
dub pl e (CEP); Terebint Paczu (BTP); Dubom placha (RST); Duba
na Placha (BUL); eik des geweens noemde (LEI); Klaageik (LUV); Eik
van geween (NBG); Graedeegen (D31); Grtoeken (S17); grts eken
(N30); Grtareika (N38); grate-eiken (NBK); grate-eika (NBN);
Itkutammi (FIN).
12. Etymological Translation of the Toponym Abel-mizraim
The concluding part of chs. 4650 of the book of Genesis ends with the
essentially Yahwistic narrative of Jacobs death in Egypt, the transfer of
Jacobs corpse to the land of Canaan, the solemn celebration of
mourning by the Egyptians and Jacobs burial in the family tomb that
Jacob himself had dug (cf. Gen 49:28b50:26). The narrator comments
on the mourning of the Egyptians at Gen 50:11: When the Canaanite
inhabitants of the land saw the mourning on the threshing oor of Atad,
they said, This is a grievous mourning on the part of the Egyptians.
Therefore the place was named Abel-mizraim (!al-ken qr mh bl
mirayim); it is beyond the Jordan. The naming of the place presents an
oral place tradition based on the word-play of the spellings bl river
bed and bel mourning. The writers intention was clearly not to
change bl into bel, but to nd a mnemotechnical way for recording
1
29
the view that the Egyptians performed a great act of mourning for the
dead Jacob at a location which, in spite of this etymological reinterpretation, retained the original spelling bl in the MT.
The LXX surprises again by translating the name: Pnthos Aigptou
the Mourning of Egypt. Similarly, Vg renders the name with Planctus
Aegypti. Nevertheless, almost all later versions transliterate the name. All
the more surprising is that LUB and TOB have translation of the name:
Der gypter Klage; Deuil-de-lgypte. A translation is also found
in several early Slavonic Bible translations. The rendering th Egypterjeu klagovanje by DAL clearly proves DALs dependence on LUB, for
in both cases the unusual word order is the same. The Croatian version
by Bartol Kai written in 1625 uses Pla od Egipta.
13. Etymological Translation of the Place Names Marah,
Massah and Meribah
Within the itinerary of the Israelites from the Sea of Reeds (Red Sea)
into the wilderness of Shur there is a Yahwist and Elohist story describing how bitter water is made sweet (cf. Exod 15:2227), which includes
an aetiological explanation of why the place Marah was named the way it
was. The narrator explains at Exod 15:23: When they came to Marah,
they could not drink the water of Marah because it was bitter (k mrm
hm). That is why one called its name Marah (!al-kn qr-mh
mrh). Through Gods intervention the water became sweet and this
event gives occasion for revelation of a name or appellative of God himself (Exod 15:26): I, the LORD, am your healer (n yhwh rpek).
We may assume that the waters at Marah had always been bitter and that
their sudden sweetness was a new circumstance and the consequence of
the miracle. In contrast to most other aetiological namings, the name
Marah reects an old, not a new, circumstance, and possibly refers to an
already existing old name, so old and so well known that the experience
of the miracle could not cause any change of the name. The form mrh
seems to be a feminine adjective bitter. The LXX Hellenized the name
by using the form Mrra, but translated it in the aetiological explanation
of the name, using an abstract noun Pikra Bitterness. All other ancient
and modern translations have variants of the transliterated Hebrew form
Marah; RST and MGK follow the LXX form Mrra.
Exodus 17:17 reports the names Massah and Meribaha combination of Yahwist and Elohistand concludes with an aetiological explanation of the double name. Here the rst name is explained with the help
1
30
of the verb nsh to test (in Piel) and the second with the aid of the
verb rb to quarrel: He (Moses) called the place Massah and Meriba
(massh mrbh), because the Israelites quarrelled and tested the LORD
(!al-rb bn yirl w!al nasstm et-yhwh). The names Massah and
Meribah, or in some places only one of the names, are in several places
connected with the testing and complaining traditions (cf. Num 20:13,
24; 27:14; Deut 6:16; 33:8; Pss 81:8; 95:8; 106:3233). Therefore it
seems likely that the aetiology of the name of Massah at Exod 17:7 is a
secondary interpolation into the present Meribah story. This text presents
names and verbs in a chiastic fashion (a-b-b-a); that is to say, the etymology of the rst name corresponds to the second verb, while the second
name and the rst verb are in between. The double etymological wordplay Massah-nsh and Meribah-rb reects the sense of the etymologies
given in the double exclamation of indignation uttered by Moses at Exod
17:2: Why do you quarrel with me (mah-trbn !immd)? Why do you
test the LORD (mah-tnassn et yhwh)? TgN preserved the etymological correspondence in both verses but replaced the stem rb with dn; at
Exod 17:7, the chiastic fashion is retained: nsyywnhdyynwwtyh
dyynwnnswn. In the LXX, the chiastic order is also retained. However,
the names Massah and Meribah are not transcribed but are translated
etymologically on the basis of corresponding verbs at Exod 17: Why do
you revile me (T loidoresth moi), and why do you tempt the Lord (ka
t peirzete Krion)? (v. 2); And he called the name of that place,
Temptation, and Reviling (Peirasms ka Loidrsis), because of the
reviling (di tn loidoran) of the children of Israel, and because they
tempted the Lord (ka di t peirdzein Krion) (v. 7). Among the
commentators in the Middle Ages, the chiastic order of the linguistic
elements of the text was rst noticed by Ibn Ezra. In the Vg, the double
name is, surprisingly, rendered in the form of a single name, Temptatio,
even though in the explanation of how the place came to be given its
name both verbs are taken into account. This version was followed
recently by DRA. All other Renaissance and later translations transliterate both names; some of them place a translation after the transliterated
form of the names.
From the point of view of translation technique, it is noteworthy that
the LXX and Vg translated the names Massah and Meribah in all places in
which they appear, but did not consistently use the same words. In the
original text, the name Meribah forms the phrase m mrbh the waters
of Meribah at Num 20:13, 24; 27:14. The LXX renders the name differently: hdr antilogas (Num 20:13; 27:14); to hdatos ts loidoras
(Num 20:24). The Vg uses aqua(s/e) Contradictionis in all places. At
1
31
Deut 6:16, the speaker admonishes the people by using a word-play on

the name Massah: Do not put the LORD your God to the test (l
tnass), as you tested him at Massah (nstem bammassh). The LXX
follows the original closely in using the same root consistently: You
shall not tempt (ouk ekpeirses) the Lord thy God, as you tempted him in
the Temptation (exepeirsasthe en t Peirasm). The same is true for
the Vg: Non temptabis Dominum Deum tuum sicut temptasti in loco
Temptationis. In the LXX and Vg, the name Massah is rendered using the
same words at Deut 9:22: en t Peirasm; in loco temptationis. The
Hebrew text of Deut 33:8c shows a perfect etymological correspondence
between the verbs and names, but the LXX has the translation: hn
eperasan autn en pera eloidrsan ep hdatos antilogas whom they
tempted in the temptation; they reviled him at the water of strife. The
Vg has the translation: quem probasti in Temptatione et iudicasti ad
aquas Contradictionis. At Ps 95:8 the LXX translated the phrase as at
Meribah, as on the day of Massah as en t parapikrasm (MGK: parorgism) kat tn hmran peirasmo as in the provocation, according to
the day of temptation. The Vg has the translation sicut in contradictione, sicut in die temptationis.
Most later versions transliterate the names at all quoted passages and
only a few have translation: the Water (the waters) of contradiction
(DRA at Num 20:13, 24; 27:14); in the temptation // at the waters of
contradiction (DRA at Deut 33:8); in the place of temptation (DRA at
Deut 6:16); as in the provocation // as in the day of temptation (KJV,
DRA, WEB, RWB at Ps 95:8); as in the rebellion // as in the day of trial
(NKJ at Ps 95:8); das (bei dem, am) Had(d)erwasser (LUB, LUO, LUT
at Num 20:13, 24; 27:14; SCH at Num 20:24; ELO, ELB, SCH at Num
27:14); zu Massa // am Had(d)erwasser (LUB, LUO, LUT, SCH at Deut
33:8); die (bei den) Wasser(n) der Geznke (BUR at Num 20:13, 24;
27:14); wie ihr ihn prftet bei Prfe (BUR at Deut 6:16); den du prftest
bei Prfe // auszanktest ihn ob der Wasser von Geznke (BUR at Deut
33:8); wie bei Geznke // wie am Tag von Prfe (BUR at Ps 95:8);
Streitwasser (EIN at Num 27:14); wie zu Meriba // am Tage der
Versuchung (SCH at Ps 95:8); lEau (les Eaux) de (la) contradiction
(BLS at Num 20:13, 24; 27:14); les eaux de contestation (LSG, NEG at
Num 27:14); au lieu de la tentation (BLS at Deut 6:16); dans la tentation
// aux eaux de contradiction (BLS at Deut 33:8); Massa // aux eaux de
Meriba (DRB at Deut 33:8); au temps du murmure // au jour de la
tentation (BLS at Ps 95:8); acque della contestazione (NRV at Num
27:14); las aguas de la rencilla (SRV, R60, R95 at Num 20:13, 24;
27:14); en Massa // en las agues de la rencilla (SRV at Deut 33:14); com
1
32
na provcao // com no dia da tenta()o (ACF, BRP at Ps 95:8); como

em Merib // como no dia da tentao (ARC at Ps 95:8); ty vody svru
(BKR at Num 20:13; 27:14); Vody svru (CEP at Num 27:14); pi
V/vodch svru (BKR, CEP at Num 20:24); v pokuen // pi vodch
Meribah (BKR at Deut 33:14); jako pi popuzeni // a v den pokuen
(BKR at Ps 95:8); kak v Merive // kak v den iskushenia (RST at Ps
95:8); mov pri Merivi // nemov na pustyni v den sproby (UKR at Ps
95:8); kakto v Meriva // kakto v denia, kogato Me izptakhte v pustiniata
(BUL at Ps 95:8); ta kregarka voda (DAL at Num 20:13; 27:13); pr
Kregarskih vodah (DAL at Num 20:24; Deut 33:8); voda(i) tiga (v)
suprgovorjenja(i) (JAP at Num 20:13, 24; 27:14); na tim kraji t
kuhnjave (JAP at Deut 33:8); v rsdrashnju // na dan t kuhnjve
(JAP at Ps 95:8); het water der twisting (LUV at Num 20:13, 24; 27:14);
te Massa // aan het water der twisting (LUV at Deut 33:14); versengsnek vizei/viznl (HUN at Num 20:13, 24; 27:14).
14. Etymological Translation of the Place Names Taberah,
Kibroth-hattaavah and Hormah
The narrative of Num 11:135 (Yahwist/Elohist) begins with a passage
describing how the Israelites lamented their misfortunes (vv. 13). In this
brief story, mention is made of a burning of divine anger, and it is this
event which gave rise to the place Taberah, meaning Burning (Num
11:13): Then the re of the LORD burned against them (wattib!ar-bm
yhwh), and consumed some outlying parts of the camp. But the
people cried out to Moses; and Moses prayed to the LORD, and the re
abated. So that place was called Taberah (tab!rh), because the re of
the LORD burned against them (k b!rh bm yhwh). The narrator
connects the name Taberah with the events in the narrative of Num 11:1
2, but he does not give any specic reason for the Israelites complaints
or any description of the burning of Gods anger. Moreover, Taberah is
mentioned only once elsewhere in connection with Massah and Kibrothhattaavah (Deut 9:22). These brief mentions are not enough to identify
the location of the place Taberah. Ancient versions tended to use translation rather than transliteration for the name Taberah. TgO preserved the
sense of the place names etymology and the word-play found in the
Hebrew text by combining the verb dlaq to burn, to be illuminated
and the derivation of the noun dleqt burning, re, which is also used
at Deut 9:22 for the same name. The translator chose the alternative,
even though the root b!r is part of the Aramaic vocabulary, showing that
he understood the Hebrew name Taberah purely as a descriptive term. By
1
33
contrast, the word-play disappears in TgO because the translator

preserved the verb from the root b!r both in the description of Gods
punishment at Num 11:1 and in the explanation of the name at Num 11:3
but replaced the simple name Taberah with the compound name bt
yqdth the House of re/conagration, an expression which is also
used at Deut 9:22. The LXX also dropped the word-play by translating the
name Taberah using the cognate descriptive term Empyrisms A
Burning, and by using a verb from another root both for describing
Gods reaction at Num 11:1 and for describing the meaning of the name
Taberah at Num 11:3: ka (hti) exekath en autos pr and (because) a
re was kindled among them. The Vg, on the other hand, restored the
word-play by translating the name Taberah in relation to the cognate
verb: Incensio-accensus (v. 1) succensus (v. 3)ignis. All later translations transliterate the name Taberah using various forms.
The extended narrative of Num 11:135 about how the quails were
provided is concluded by the explanation of how the place was given its
name (v. 34). The people succumbed to a lust for esh and Gods anger
is shown in his destruction of many of them. The popular etymology
includes explanation of the place name by playing on the words for
grave and craving for meat (vv. 3334): And the LORD struck the
people with a very great plague. So that place was called Kibroth
hattaavah (qibrt hattawh), because there they buried the people who
had the craving (k-m qbr et-h!m hammitawwm). The name
qibrt hattawh Graves of craving is a complete word-play on the
verb qbar in the perfect tense to bury and the verb wh in the Hithpael
participle to crave for; both verbs appear in the etymological explanation of the naming of the place. Some ancient translations preserved
the word-play at least in part. TgO preserved the entire word-play, even
though the translator chose the verb l instead of wh: And he called the
name of that place the Graves of requests (qibr dimal) because there
they buried (qbr) the people who requested (dl). The same
form of the name is found also elsewhere in TgO (Num 11:35; 33:16, 17;
Deut 9:22). TgN is even more inconsistent: at Num 11:34 the name is
rendered as qbry lth Graves of the request (also Deut 9:22), but at
Num 11:35 as qbry tmwdth Graves of craving (also Num 33:17; cf.
TgPsJ) assigned to the verb mtmdyn those who had the craving in the
preceding verse (Num 11:34b). At Num 33:16 we nd the form qbry ly
lth Graves of those who made requests. TgPsJ has everywhere except
at Num 33:17 the rendering qybry dmyyly byr Graves of those craving meat. The LXX preserved the word-play only in part by rendering
the verse: And the name of that place was called the Graves of lust
1
34
(mnmata ts epithymas); for there they buried the people that lusted
(thapsan tn lan tn epithymtn). The Vg preserved part of the
word-play in a different combination: Vocatusque est ille locus sepulchra
Concupiscentiae ibi enim sepelierunt populum qui desideraverat. Both
in the LXX and in the Vg the name is consistently rendered by the same
two words. Most later translators transliterated the name with only a
few exceptions: The graves of lust (DRA); Lustgreber (LUB); Lustgrber (LUO, SCH); Lustgrber (LUT); Grber des Gelsts (BUR);
les Spulcres de concupiscence (BLS); Grobi tiga shelenja (DAL);
Pokopaliha tiga poshelenja (JAP); pokop poeljivosti (WOL); Lustgraven (LUV).
In the Yahwist/Elohist passage Num 21:13 there is an etymological
explanation of the name Hormah, identied as a play on the word rem
ban. The Canaanites of the Negeb under the leadership of the king of
Arad fought against Israel. In this context we nd a good example of
popular etymology (vv. 23): Then Israel vowed a vow to the LORD and
said, If you will indeed give this people into my hand, then I will utterly
destroy (wharamt) their towns. The LORD listened to the voice
of Israel, and handed over the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed
(wayyarm) them and their towns. And the name of the place was
called Hormah (ormh). A variant text has been transmitted in the
book of Judges (1:1617). The name Hormah is derived etymologically
from the root rm to destroy, meaning Destruction. All Targums keep
the original Hebrew form of the name; the LXX and the Vg, on the other
hand, translate the name. The LXX keeps the word-play of the original by
translating the Hebrew root rm in all three places using the same Greek
root: anathemati I will devote, themtisen (Israel) devoted,
Anthema Something dedicated, Curse. Elsewhere the LXX transliterates the name as Herm (Num 14:45; Deut 1:44; Josh 12:14; 15:30;
19:4; 1 Sam 30:30; 1 Chr 4:30), the only exception being the variant text
at Judg 1:17, where the name is also translated, but in a way different
from that in the A and B texts of the LXX: exlthreusan they utterly
destroyed Exolthreusis Destruction (A); exlthreusanAnthema (B). The Vg has Herma at Josh 12:14, Harma at Josh 15:30, Arma
at Josh 19:4, Arama at 1 Sam 30:30, Orma at 1 Chr 4:30.
How can the transliteration / translation method of the name Hormah
be explained in the LXX? The fact that the name is translated only in
Num 21:3 and in the variant text of Judg 1:17 suggests that the translators of the LXX saw the same place Hormah in both places. However, we
also nd the view that Hormah is not the name of a city but of a region!
It is the name given to all the proscribed Canaanite settlements in the
1
35
region. The LXX could therefore be correct in rendering the word as

Anathema, which reects the fact that, strictly speaking, Hormah is not
a specic site.14 Most later translations contain transliteration of
Hormah, and there are only a few examples combining transliterated /
translated forms or which use only translation: Horma id est anathema
(Vg at Num 21:3; Judg 1:17); Horma, that is (to say), Anathema (DRA);
Chorma, Bannung (BUR); Horma (Untergansweihe) (EIN); Horma,
cest--dire anathme (BLSI); orma, lInterdite (CHO); Horma, ce qui
signie la Ruine (BFC); Horm (que vol dir extermini) (BCI);
Horma (Nimicire deplin) (CNS); Chorma (to je Klatb propadl)
(CEP); Hrma, to je, prekl tje (JAP); Horma, to je, prekletstvo (WOL).
In most of these cases, the inuence of Vg is evident.
15. Etymological Translation of the Place Names Bochim,
Ramath-lehi and En-hakkore
At the end of the aetiological narrative Judg 2:15, which can stand as an
independent unit (cf. the etymological meaning of the name Allonbacuth at Gen 35:8), there is a popular etymological explanation of the
place name Bochim, which does not appear in any other place. The editor
has used the popular etymology in relation to the divine anger at Israels
indelity to the covenant (vv. 45): When the angel of the LORD spoke
these words to all the Israelites, the people lifted up their voices and wept
(wayyibk). So they named that place Bochim (bkm), and there they
sacriced to the LORD. The denite article is omitted along with the
place name bkm Weepers, yielding a transparent word-play in relation to the verb wayyibk and they wept in v. 4. TgJudg preserved the
original word-play by using bkbkm. The A text of the LXX
preserved the word-play by translating the name in the plural in relation
to the preceding verb: ka klausanKlauthmn; the B text of the LXX
reads similarly: ka klausanKlauthmnes. The Vg keeps the wordplay by adding a word to the translation of the name: et everunt
Flentium sive Lacrimarum. The majority of later translations have
transliteration of the name in various orthographic forms; in LUB we
nd the form Bochim, in DAL Bohim, and so on. A few translations have
translation or a combination of transliteration and translation: The place
of weepers (DRA); Weeping (NLT); Bochim, Weinende (BUR);
Bochim (Ort des Weinens) (EIN); lieu des Pleurants, ou le lieu des
Larmes (BLS); Bokhm, Pleurs (CHO); Bokim, ce qui signie les
14. See Jacob Milgrom, Numbers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1990), 458.
1
36
Pleureurs (BFC); Boquim (ge vol dir els qui ploren) (BCI); Bochim
(Ceice plng) (CNS); Bokm (to je Pla c) (CEP); kraj tih jkajzhih, ali
t h ls (JAP); Kraj plakajo ih ali solz (WOL).
The story of Samsons life at Judg 15:920 includes the topographical
aetiological stories of the place names Ramath-lehi and En-hakkore. The
main aetiological narrative of Judg 15:917 concludes with a word-play
on the name of the town Ramath-lehi (v. 17) in relation to Samsons
success (Heb. rm) in slaying a thousand Philistines using the jawbone
of a donkey: When he had nished speaking, he threw away the jawbone; and that place was called Ramath-lehi (rmat-le). The pericope
of Judg 15:1819 explains the origin of the spring at Lehi and remembers Samsons appeal to God for water and Gods miraculous answer
(v. 19): Therefore it was named En-hakkore (!n haqqr), which is at
Lehi to this day. The etymological meaning of the rst name is the Hill
of the Jawbone, of the second one the Spring of the One who Called.
Translations show a huge variety of different forms. In TgJudg, the rst
name is transliterated, the second one is translated using the paraphrase:
!n dityhbat bilt dimn the spring that was given at the
prayer of Samson. In both codices of the LXX, the rst name is translated in the same way: Anaresis siagnos the Lifting of the Jaw-bone;
in the A text of the LXX the second name is translated as Pg epkltos
siagnos the Well Called after the Jaw-bone, and in the B text as Pg
to epikaloumnou the Well of the Invoker. The Vg combines transliteration and translation for the rst name but uses only translation for the
second one: Ramathlehi quod interpretatur elevatio Maxillae (v. 17);
Fons invocantis de maxilla (v. 19).
The name Lehi is not rendered consistently in the LXX and Vg when
it appears alone; the LXX has: en Lechi (A at Judg 15:9); en Leui
(B at Judg 15:9); hs Siagnos (Judg 15:14); ts siagnos siagnos
(A at Judg 15:19); en Sigagni (B at Judg 15:19); eis Thra (2 Sam
23:11); the Vg has: et in loco qui postea vocatus est Lehi id est Maxilla
eorum (as addition at Judg 15:9); ad locum Maxillae (Judg 15:14); in
maxilla asinide maxilla (Judg 15:19); in statione (2 Sam 23:11). NV
uses the Hebrew form Lehi in every place, obviously following the
example of later translations. The name Ramath-lehi appears in the
Renaissance and in modern translations in various forms of transliteration, translation and in a combination of transliteration and translation:
Ramathlechi, which is interpreted the lifting up of the jawbone (DRA);
Jawbone Hill (NLT); Ramath-Lehi (das ist Kinnbackenhhe) (LUO);
Ramat Lechi, Hoher Kinnbacken (BUR); Ramat Lehi (Kinnbackenhhe)
(EIN); Ramathlchi, cest--dire llvation de la Mchoire (BLS);
Ramat-Li, le Tertre de la Mchoire (CHO); Ramat-Leh (que vol dir
1
37
tur de la maixella) (BCI); Rmat-lech (to je Vina elisti) (BKR);

Ramathlechi, kar e pravi gorivsdignenje t zhelti (JAP); Ramat-Lehi,
kar se potolma i vzdignjenje eljusti (WOL); de hoogte van Lehi (LEI).
In replicating this name we note dependence between LUB and DAL
because both have transliteration in the unusual orthographic form:
RamatLehi.
The name En-hakkore is transliterated in most later translations, with
some important exceptions: The Spring of him that invoked from the
jawbone (DRA); The Spring of the One Who Cried Out (NLT); Enhakkore of Lehi (TNK); des Anrffers brun (LUB); des Anrufers
Brunnen (LUO); Quelle des Rufenden (LUT); Quelle des Rufenden
(ELO, ELB); Quelle des Anrufers (SCH); Ruferquell (BUR); Quelle
des Rufers (EIN); la Fontaine sortie de la mchoire par linvocation
de Dieu (BLS); source de Cor, cest--dire source de celui qui
appelle (BFC); A fonte do que clama (AFC, BRP); A Fonte Do que
Clama (ARC); studnice vzvajcho (BKR); tiga Moliuza tudenez
(DAL); Studenz tiga klizhezhiga is zhelti (JAP); kli ejo iga studenec
iz eljusti (WOL); Pramen volajcho (CEP); Istochnik vzibmshchego
(RST); de bron des roepers (LEI); de put des aanroependen (LUV);
Bron van de reopened (NBG); De fontein des aanroepers (SVV); Den
ropandes (S17); hives forrsnak (HUN). The dependence of DAL on
LUB is evident because both have an unusual (poetic) word order: des
Anrffers brun (LUB) / tiga Moliuza tudenez (DAL).
16. Etymological Translation of the Place Names of Ebenezer
and Sela-mahlekoth
The names Ebenezer and Sela-mahlekoth appear only once in 1 Samuel:
Eben-ezer at 7:12, and Sela-mahlekoth at 23:28. The rst verse is an
aetiological explanation of the name and the victory of Israel against the
Philistines near Mizpah (cf. 1 Sam 7:217), where Samuel judged the
people of Israel. After a miraculous victory Samuel erected a stone
memorial between Mizpah and Jeshanah. According to the popular
explanation of the name at 1 Sam 7:12, he named it Eben-ezer (eben
h!zer); for he said, Thus far the LORD has helped us (!ad-hnnh
!zrn yhwh). The etymological explanation of the meaning of the
name eben h!zer Stone of Help plays on the verb !zar to help.
TgJ translated the Hebrew words into Aramaic, keeping the same
meaning: eben sa!d!ad hk sa!dn yhwh. The LXX combined
transliteration and translation, playing on the verb used to explain
etymological origin of the name: Abenzer lthos to bothoebothsen hmn Krios. The Vg abolished the word-play by using words
1
38
from different roots for the naming of the place and for the explanation
of how the place came to have its name: lapis Adiutoriiauxiliatus est
nobis Dominus. Later translators transliterated the name, with very few
translating it or combining transliteration and translation: The stone of
help (DRA); Eben Eser, Hilfe-Stein (BUR); la Pierre du Secours (BLS);
Pierre de lAide, n-ha-!zr (CHO); Pierre-du-secours (BFC);
Kamen pomzhi (JAP); pomo i (WOL). LUB and DAL, obviously based
on LUB, have the unique transliteration form EbenEzer, writing both
words constituting the name in capitals without a space between them.
Other translations have expected forms in the framework of orthographic
rules in individual languages: Ebenezer (KJV, RSV, NRSV, etc.), Ebenezer (GNV, JPS, TNK, etc.), Eben-Ezer (DRB, LUO, etc.), Eben-Eser
(LUT, EIN, etc.), Eben Ezer (SSP).
The story of Sauls search for David in the wilderness at 1 Sam
23:24b24:1 includes an aetiological narrative that records a popular
etymological explanation of the origin of the name in connection with
one of the rocks in the region. When Saul successfully pursued David the
Philistines invaded the country and a messenger came to Saul, saying
(1 Sam 23:2728): Hurry and come; for the Philistines have made a
raid on the land. So Saul stopped pursuing David, and went against the
Philistines; therefore that place was called the Rock of Divisions (sela!
hammalqt). The plural of the second element of the name is derived
either from the root laq I, to be smooth, slippery, or from the root
laq II, to divide, and is related to the point where Saul and David
struggled with one another. In TgJ the place name is translated using the
phrase kp palgt Rock of Divisions and has an added explanation of
why the place was named as it was: the place where the heart of the
king was divided to go here and there. The LXX translated the name
as Ptra he meristhesa the Divided Rock; the Vg rendered it as
vocaverunt locum illum petram Dividentem.
This Rock of Divisions also divided the Renaissance translations,
with some deciding to transliterate the name (GNV, KJV, LUB) and
others translating it (DIO, BKR). The Renaissance translators strongly
inuenced more modern translators, with slightly more choosing the
option of translation or the combination of transliteration and translation.
NKJ, RSV, NAS, NAU, NLT, ESV and NRSV shifted from transliteration forms in GNV and KJV to a translation on the basis of a questionable correction of the original: Rock of Escape. On the other hand, there
is a shift to new solutions in the Jewish history of Bible translation into
English: JPS has the transliteration form Sela-hammahlekoth on the basis
of GNV and its followers, whereas TNK decided on the translation Rock
1
39
of Separation. We note that LUB and DAL, again obviously under direct
inuence of LUB, have transliteration based on an incorrect reading
of the original: SelaMahelkoth / SelaMahelkot; this transliterated form
appears nowhere else. Other noteworthy transliterated forms are: Selahammahlekoth (GNV, DBY, ASV, JPS), Selahammahlekoth (KJV,
RWB), Sela Hammahlekoth (NIV, NIB), Sela-hammah-lek(c)oth (WEB,
BBE, SRV), Sela-Mahlekoth (das heit Scheidefels) (LUO), Sela-Machlekot (LUT, ELB, LUV), Selach-Hammachlekoth (ELO), Sela-Machlekot
(Fels der Trennnung) (EIN), Sla-Hammakhlekoth (DRB), Sla-Hammachlekoth (LSG, NEG), Sela-Ammalecot (NRV), Sela-hama-lecot
(R60), Sela-hamajlecot (RVA), Sela-Hamalecote (ARC), Sela-Gammakhlekof (RST), Sela-Gammakhlekot (UKR), Selaamalekot (BUL),
Sela-machlekoth (SVV), Sela-Hammalekot (S17), Sela-Hammahlekot
(N30, N38, NBK, NBN). A comparison of translation and transliteration
options and forms shows very clearly the relationship of dependence
between the key versions and others who replicated their solutions.
Baal-perazim and Perez-uzzah
The name of Baal-perazim, near the Valley of Rephaim, is explained
etymologically in the narrative of Davids victory over the Philistines at
2 Sam 5:1725. At v. 20, the text reads: David came to Baal-perazim
(ba!al prm), and David defeated them there (wayyakkm m dwd).
He said, The LORD has burst forth (pra yhwh) against my enemies
before me, like a bursting ood (kpere myim). Therefore that place is
called Baal-perazim (ba!al prm). The word-play is emphasized by
using the root pr twice: the verb pra to burst upon and the noun
pere outburst are used to explain the strange name of the otherwise
unknown place ba!al prm the lord of outbursts. The idea behind
the playful aetiological explanation of the place name within the framework of the image of oodwaters is that God has opened a gap in the
Philistine wall of resistance. The god Baal was clearly venerated at this
place originally, but Davids victory over the Philistines led to a new
view of the place in the light of this event so that the primary role comes
to be given to the God of Israel. The author of TgJ clearly did not have
much literary sense; this is because he abolished the play on three forms
of the same root by translating the text in part by using different words:
And David came into the plain of breaches (bmar prm), and
David struck them down there, and he said: The Lord has broken (tbar
yhwh) my enemies before me like the breaking (ktibbr) of a vessel of
1
40
clay that is lled with water. Therefore he called the name of that place
the plain of breaches (bmar prm). By contrast, the LXX emphasized the play on words by using the same root four times: Epn
diakopn Upper Breaches, dikopsev broke through, diakptetai
breaks through, Epno diakopn Upper Breaches. The Vg and
virtually all other later translations use transliteration. Special attention is
paid to the common transliteration form BaalPrazim in LUB and DAL
because nowhere else do we nd this orthographic and phonetic form; all
other German translations have the form Baal-Perazim. The majority
form in English and other translations is Baal-perazim; exceptions are
the forms: Baalperazim (KJV, RSV, RWB), Baal Perazim (NKJ, NIV,
NIB), Baal Pharisim (DRA), and so on. The unique transliterated form in
LUB and DAL is an indisputable proof that DAL replicated LUB.
The name Perez-uzzah is explained in the narrative describing how the
ark is brought to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:123). In connection with Uzzahs
death, the Deuteronomist editor interpolated the information about the
etymological naming of the unknown site Perez-uzzah, which is located
somewhere on the road between Kiriath-jearim and Jerusalem (v. 8):
David was angry because the LORD had burst forth with an outburst
upon Uzza (pra yhwh pere b!uzzh); so that place is called Perezuzzah (pere !uzzh), to this day. In this skilful play of words, the name
pere !uzzh Breech of Uzzah means Bursting out against Uzzah.
The name was chosen to commemorate a divine warning against human
lack of maintaining an appropriate distance from God. The play of words
is ideal both in the Hebrew text and in the above translation taken from
NRSV. TgJ took into account the word-play contained in the description
of the event: And it was hard for David because the Lord had burst forth
with an outburst upon Uzza (!al ditra! yhwh tir!t b!uzzh). And he
called that place The place in which Uzzah died (atr dmt bh
!uzzh), to this day. In fact, the translator missed the chance to make an
effective literary point. By contrast, the LXX rendered the entire wordplay: And David was dispirited (thmsen) because the Lord had burst
forth an outburst upon Oza (hypr ho dikopsen Krios diakopn en t
Oza); and that place was called the breach of Oza (diakop Oza), until
this day. The choice of words in the LXX must have been as deliberate
as in the original text. The Vg diminished the expressive force of the
original by merging the double words from the same root in the rst part
of the text into one: Contristatus autem est David eo quod percussisset
Dominus Ozam et vocatum est nomen loci illius Percussio Oza usque in
diem hanc. It is striking that the Hebrew play on words of the same root
pra yhwh bpere !uzzh is only rendered properly in NRSV among all
1
41
later translations. Most translators rendered the two words belonging to

the same root with one verb; the name itself is transliterated in every
single case. The transliteration form in LUB and DAL is the same
Perez Vsaand it should be noted that the two words constituting the
name are, exceptionally, not written together. All other German versions
have different transliteration forms: Perez-Usa (LUO, LUT, ELB, EIN),
Perez-Ussa (ELO, SCH). Other Slovenian translations have the translations Ozovu Udarjenje (JAP), udarek Ozov (WOL) and the transliterations Perez Uza (SPP), Feres-Oza (SEB), Perec Uza (SSP).
18. Etymological Translation of the Toponym Beracah
There are only two places of obvious aetiological naming in Chronicles
(1 Chr 4:9; 2 Chr 20:26) and two places containing an explicit statement
about the derivation of names (1 Chr 11:7; 14:11 = 2 Sam 5:20). In
general, the Chronicler prefers an homiletical interpretation of names.
The explanation of how the place Beracah came to be named at 2 Chr
20:26 is part of the lengthy story of Jehoshaphats victory over the eastern coalition of Moab and Ammon (2 Chr 20:130). After the victory,
Judah turned to plundering. At this point, the text reads (2 Chr 20:25
26): They spent three days taking the booty, because of its abundance.
On the fourth day they assembled in the Valley of Beracah (l!meq
brkh), for there they blessed the LORD (k-m brk et-yhwh);
therefore that place has been called the Valley of Beracah (!meq
brkh), to this day. The Valley of Beracah refers to the contemporary
names Khirbet Berekut and the Wadi Berekut, both situated near Tekoa.
It seems most likely that the aetiological explanation of the etymology
of the name at 2 Chr 20:26 points to an earlier source as the basis of the
Chroniclers account. The aetiological explanation of how the name
Beracah came to be given is in harmony with the existing tradition that
the valley was given its name when the people blessed the LORD after
Jehoshaphats victory over the enemy.
Ancient Bible translators preferred translation in rendering the name
of the valley, but in later translations transliteration prevails. The wordplay is often preserved entirely in all its elements. Aramaic words in
TgChr correspond well to the Hebrew original. The LXX consistently
uses only the word from which the name is derived: And it came to pass
on the fourth day they were gathered to the Valley of Blessing (eis tn
aulna ts eulogas, variant form: eis tn koilda); for there they blessed
(ulgsan) the Lord: therefore they called the name of the place the
Valley of Blessing (Koils eulogas), until this day. The Vg has the
1
42
entire word-play: in valle Benedictionisibi benedixerant Domino

vallis Benedictionis. Transliteration of the name in various orthographic
forms dominates in later translations: The/the Valley of Berachah (GNV,
KJV, NKJ, DBY, WEB, RWB); The/the Valley/valley of Beracah (ASV,
JPS, RSV, NAS, NIB, NAB, NAU, NJB, ESV, NRSV); Tal Beraka
(ELO); Tal Beracha (ELB, EIN); la valle de Beraca (LSG, NEG); la
valle de la Beraka (BFC, FBJ); la valle de Berakha (SCO), and so on.
A translation of the name is not found as often but the forms are also
noteworthy: the Valley of Blessing (BBE, NLT, TNK); the valley of
Blessing (DRA); Lobetal (LUB, LUO, LUT, SCH); Segenstal (BUR); la
valle de la bndiction, la valle de la Bndiction (BLS); la valle de
Bndiction, valle de Bndiction (TOB); Valle die Benedizione
(DIO, LND); la vall de la Benedicci (BCI); vale de Bno (ARA);
Hvalni dul (DAL); dolina Hvale / hvale (JAP, WOL); dolina Berha /
Slavilna dolina (SSP); Dolina dobroe en (CEP); dolina blagoslovenija (RST); Dolina(ta) na blagoslovenie(to) (BUL); Lofvallei (LEI);
Lof-dal (LUV); Dal der Lofprijzing (NBG); Lovprisnings-dalen (N30);
Lovprisingsdalen (N38, NBN); Lugina e Bekimit (ALB); hlaadsnak
vlgybe (HUN). It is difcult to overlook the obvious literary feature of
word-play in the original, so the word-play is preserved in many later
translations (BBE, DRA, TNK, LUB, LUO, BUR, LUT, SCH, BLS,
TOB, DIO, LND, DAL, JAP, WOL, CEP, RST, BUL, LEI, LUV, NBG,
N30, N38, NBK, NBN). LUB is particularly noteworthy when it comes
to the preservation of the word-play, because this version inuenced so
many other biblical translations: im Lobetal / denn daselbs lobeten sie
den HERRN / da her heisst die stete Lobetal / bis auff diesen tag. The
version in DAL corresponds to LUB in all elements, thus testifying to
probable dependence on this key version: vHvalnim doli: Sakaj ondy o
ony GOSPVDA hvalili: satu e tuitu mejtu imenuje Hvalni dul, do
danahniga dne. BUR has a translation following even more closely the
original text, both in literary structure and in replicating the root brk: im
Segenstaldort segneten sie IHN, deshalb rief man den Namen des
OrtesSegenstal.
in the Hebrew Bible
Biblical narratives of giving names to persons and places show that the
literary phenomenon of the aetiological derivation of proper names can
be seen to occur in connection with a specic historical event, the naming
of a person, a people or locality as well as the explanation of the reason
for choosing a particular name. The literary structure is reminiscent of
1
43
the characteristic Hebrew tradition of aetiology and folk etymology. All

examples of aetiological explanation of etymology of proper names in
the Hebrew Bible represent a basic literary formula appearing in variants.
Any analysis of aetiological explanation of etymology of biblical proper
names raises questions concerning the origin and the growth of the text,
its historical setting and authorship. The immediate and the broader context of the narratives clearly indicate that a complex history of popular
traditions and literary creations lies behind the present text.
Aetiological explanation of the etymology of biblical proper names is
a literary and stylistic phenomenon. The naming of persons or places and
the explanation for the names is based on literary rather than on linguistic considerations. The etymological explanations of names are therefore
fully in line with fundamental traits of popular literature and poetry. The
term folk etymology can be therefore misleading if it is not understood
within the general framework of literary features. As Moshe Garsiel
states,
The liberty taken by the biblical authors in these explanations has been
termed by some scholars folk etymology. Such a denition misses the
point; the explanations function as a literary device and are designed to
enrich the literary unit. What we see here is by no means a popular and
shallow interpretation based upon a lack of knowledge, but rather a
deliberate deviation from the linguistic rules and norms of the time
applied as a technique by subtle narrators in order to make a point.15
The most striking literary feature of aetiological derivation of proper

names in connection with specic historical events is play on words.
Many aetiological explanations of etymology of biblical proper names
show that some localities came to be given a new name because of a new
circumstance. A particular incident or event described in connection with
the location that was well known at the time of the writer provides an
explanation of the meaning of the name in the light of the new event, an
explanation which might differ from the existing tradition. The creation
of a new story to explain the name is not only a way of laying claim to
the place, but is also an attempt to acknowledge in story form important
historical experiences, beliefs and values of personalities to whom the
foundation or the naming of the place is attributed. Taking a familiar
type of aetiology as an early folk tale to explain a place name, it is
15. See Moshe Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns (trans. Phyllis Hackett; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1991),
1819. See also James Barr, Etymology and the Old Testament, in Language and
Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis (ed. James Barr et al.;
OTS 19; Leiden: Brill, 1974), 128.
1
44
important to note that the explanation of a proper name assumes that the
event described really happened and is a real factor in determining the
meaning of the name. In most cases, aetiological explanation of a place
name is not the primary tradition of the story, but a secondary expansion,
resembling a gloss. Aetiological derivations of proper names creating
word-play occurred at an early period to ll out and expand the primary
tradition.
in Bible Translations
The literary phenomenon of the word-play in the original text presents a
great challenge to translators who wish to render the original Hebrew or
Greek text into languages that are not Semitic. For Semitic languages,
translators who were attentive to the literary quality of the original would
preserve the play on words without difculty. However, word-play is
often preserved even in translations into other languagesthrough
adequate translation of the names and their etymological explanation.
The aetiological derivation of names prompted many ancient translators
to translate the name and follow it by an etymological explanation in
order to replicate the original play on words. Mention may be made of
some well-known personal and geographical names: Eve at Gen 3:20:
Z hoti hat mtr pntn tn zntn Life, because she was the
mother of all living (LXX); the name Babel at Gen 11:9: Snkhysis hti
eke synkheen Krios Confusion, because there the Lord confounded; the name Adonai-jireh at Gen 22:14: Appellavitque nomen
loci illius Dominus videt unde usque hodie dicitur in monte Dominus
videbit (Vg) (note that LUB harmonizes the time period present / future
by using only the present: Und Abraham hies dies stet / Der HERR sihet
/ Da her man noch heutiges tages sagt / Auff dem Berge / da der HERR
sihet [LUB; cf. DAL, LUO, LUT]); the name Esek at Gen 26:20: ka
eklesen t noma to phratos Adika dksan gr autn And they
called the name of the well, Injury, for they injured him (LXX), Sykophanta esykophntsan gr autn Oppression, because they oppressed
him (Aq); the name Rehoboth at Gen 26:22: Itaque vocavit nomen illius
Latitudo dicens nun dilatavit nos Dominus (Vg). Note the beautiful
chiastic structure created by the adequate translation of the names
Massah and Maribah and of corresponding verbs at Exod 17:7: Ka
epnmase t noma to tpou ekenou, Peirasms, ka Loidrsis, di
tn loidoran tn hyin Isral, ka di t peirzein Krion And he
called the name of that place, Temptation, and Reviling, because of the
reviling of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord
1
45
(LXX); the name Taberah at Num 11:3: Vocavitque nomen loci illius
Incensio eo quod succensus fuisset contra eos ignis Domini (Vg). Note
the play on three words of the same root in connection with the name
Hormah: anathemati autnka anethemtisen autnka epeklesan
t noma to tpou ekenou, Anthema I will devote itand devoted
himand they called the name of that place Devotion (LXX); the name
Bochim at Judg 2:45: ka klausan, Ka epnmasan t noma to
tpou ekenou, Klauthmnes and wept. And they named the name of
that place Weepings (LXX B; A has the name in sing.); elevaverunt
vocem suam et everunt et vocatum est nomen loci illius Flentium sive
Lacrimarum (Vg); the Name Baal-perazim at 2 Sam 5:2021: ek tn
Epn diakopndikopse Krioshs diakptetati hdataEpn
diakopn (LXX); the Name Beracah at 2 Chr 20:26: eis tn aulna
ts eulogas eke gr ulgsan tn Krion di toto eklesan t noma
to tpou ekenou Koils eulogas (LXX); in valle Benedictionis etenim
quoniam ibi benedixerant Domino vallis Benedictionis (Vg); im
Lobetal denn daselbs lobeten sie den HERRNLobetal (LUB);
vHvalnim doli: Sakaj ondi o ony GOSPVDA hvalili Hvalni dul
(DAL).
In the periods after the Middle Ages the pun disappeared. This is
because even etymologically explained names were transliterated. In
recent times, however, translations have been created that testify to a
renewed interest in translating the original text accurately by keeping the
word-play. BUR is probably the best example of a determined attempt to
preserve the word-play expressing the naming and the explanation of
how the place was given its name in folk etymologies. However, the
names which are explained etymologically are in most cases given both
in transliterated and translated forms: Der Mensch rief den Namen seines
Weibes: Chawwa, Leben! Denn sie wurde Mutter alles Lebendigen (Gen
3:20; cf. CHO); Darum ruft man ihren Namen Babel, Gemenge, denn
vermengt hat ER dort die Mundart aller Erde (Gen 11:9); Du Gott der
Sicht! Denn sie sprach: Sah auch wirklich ich hier dem Michsehenden
nach? Darum rief man den Brunnen Brunn des Lebenden Michsehenden
(Gen 16:1314); Darum ruft man jenen Ort Ber-Scheba, Brunnen des
Sieben-Schwurs, denn dort haben die beiden geschworen (Gen 21:31; cf.
Gen 26:33); Abraham rief den Namen jenes Orts: ER ersieht. Wie man
noch heute spricht: Auf SEINEM Berg wird ersehn (Gen 22:14); So rief
er den namen des Brunnens Esek, Hader, weil sie mit ihm gehadert
hatten (Gen 26:20); So rief er seinen Namen Rechobot, Weite, denn er
sprach: Geweitet hat ER es uns nun, da wir im Lande fruchttragen (Gen
26:22); Jaakob rief den Namen des Ortes: Pniel, Gottesantlitz, denn: Ich
habe Gott gesehen, Antlitz zu Antlitz (Gen 32:31); es war bitter.
1
46
Darum rief man seinen Namen Mara: Bittre (Exod 15:23); Er rief den
Namen des Orts Masa, Prfe, und Meriba, Geznke, wegen des Zankens
der Shne Jisraels und deswegen, da sie IHN prften (Exod 17:7); Er
rief den Namen des Ortes Tabera, Zndstatt, denn auf sie eingezndet
hatte ein Feuer von IHM (Num 11:3); Man rief den Namen jenes Orts:
Grber des Gelsts, denn dort hatte man das Volk der Lsternen
begraben (Num 11:34); bannenes bannte sie und ihre Stdte und rief
den Namen dieses Orts: Chorma, Bannung (Num 21:23: BUR; cf.
CHO); Sie erhoben, das Volk, ihre Stimme und weinten. Sie riefen den
Namen jenes Ortes: Bochim, Weinende (Judg 2:45); ER hat vor mir
meine Feinde durchbrochen, wie ein Durchbruch der Wasser. Daher rief
man den Namen jenes Orts: Baal Perazim, Meister der Durchbrche
(2 Sam 5:2021); Am vierten Tag sammelten sie sich im Segenstal
denn dort segneten sie IHN, deshalb rief man den Namen des Ortes
Segenstal (2 Chr 20:26). In some versions, a translation of the name is
included in the notes (RSV, NRSV). Combining the transliteration and
translation of a name was introduced only in aetiological derivations of
names, showing that the literary phenomenon of folk etymology must
have been a concern of some translators.
In general, there is no explanation for the fact that names are usually
translated in ancient versions but transliterated in modern ones. Consequently, the NV introduced transliteration in cases when VL and the
original Vg translated the names. Inconsistencies are characteristic also
of the way of transliterating proper names. It becomes ever clearer that
the forms of biblical proper names must be judged against the background of the original text. When it comes to the question of variants in
forms of proper names, the question of the basic text (Vorlage) must be
discussed by considering the greatest possible number of manuscripts.
Similarly the question of the alternative transliteration / translation,
various forms of transliteration, dependence on the original forms and on
cultural history must be taken into consideration, especially when we
investigate the forms of proper names in key translations. Many variants
can be claried only in the light of the basic forms in the original. The
majority of biblical names are not problematic from the point of view of
text criticism, and several of them carry a clear etymological meaning.
The clearer the etymological meaning of a given name is, and the more
it is emphasized by the writer, the stronger the reason for translating
instead of transliterating it. However, an established tradition of a
particular name might have been one well-known reason for keeping the
transliteration of the name. Another reason for transliteration may be
given by an unclear origin and meaning of a particular name. The clearer
a name is, the more likely it is that a translator translates it.
1
47
21. LUB and DAL in Relation to the Original,

to the LXX and the Vg, and to the Established Traditions
At Gen 2:23, we nd the play on words from the same root in the rst
naming of Eve: ih // m. In contrast to most other ancient translations, Vg replicates the pun by the female and male forms of the same
root: virago // de viro. Similar solutions are found in LUB and in DAL:
Mennin // vom Manne; Moshiza // is Mosha. In this case, the source of
dependence in individual translations cannot be established. The second
naming of Eve (Gen 3:20) is based on the play of words awwh // koly in the original, replicated only in the LXX. Nearly all other ancient
and more modern translations transliterate the name Eve and translate the
etymological explanation of this name. LUB shares with the LXX and Vg
transliteration based on Hebrew phonetics: Hea (LXX at Gen 4:1), Hava
(Vg), Heua (LUB), Heuah (GNV). LUB has a gloss explanation in the
margin: (Heua) Hai / heisst Leben / Da her kompt Heua oder Haua /
leben oder lebendige. In contrast to LUB, DAL has the prevailing transliteration form Eva, based on smooth instead of rough breathing of Greek
transliteration: Ea. The survey of Bible translations shows that the form
Eva established itself quite early after the Middle Ages. Even more
unied is the transcription of the famous name Babel (Gen 11:9), the
form used in the same form also in LUB and DAL. Uniformity in writing
popular names reects the uniformity of the oral tradition in a larger
community.
A major problem for translators are rare names that never became part
of common tradition. In such cases dependence on earlier translations is
more or less unavoidable. Such is the case of the place name Attah El-roi
and Beer-lahai-roi (Gen 16:1314). In contrast to the LXX, the Vg replicates the same root rh in both names: Deus qui vidisti me / puteum
Viventis et videntis me; the second name has the same translation also at
Gen 24:62 and 25:11. LUB uses two different verbs at Gen 16:1314
for the same root: Du Gott sihest mich / ein brunnen des Lebendigen,
der mich angesehen hat. DAL has: Ti Bug vidi mene / Studenez tiga
shivezhiga, kateri je na mene pogledal. In this case it is indisputable that
DAL in all elements replicates LUB. At Gen 24:62 and 25:11, dependence of DAL on LUB is less evident because we must also take into consideration the Vg. The Vg has in both places: puteum Viventis et videntis;
LUB has in both places: brunnen des Lebendigen und Sehenden; DAL
has in both places the same translation, but different orthography:
Studenez tiga Shivezhiga inu videzhiga at Gen 24:62; Studenez, tiga
shivezhiga inu videzhiga at Gen 25:11.
1
48
Translation and transliteration forms of the names Ben-ammi, Beersheba and Adonai-jireh conrm the hypothesis that translators normally
replicate translation or transliteration forms of unique and rare names,
whereas in choosing the forms of well-known names they consider the
established tradition of their own culture. The Hebrew form of the
unique name ben-amm Son of my people at Gen 19:38 is accurately
translated in the LXX as hyis to genos mou. The Vg transliterates the
name falsely as Ammon and adds a correct translation: lius populi mei.
LUB and DAL combine translation and transliteration: das kind Ammi;
dte Ammi. Since there are no other versions having such a combination
(except LUO), the dependence of DAL on LUB is indisputable. On the
other hand, the naming of Beer-sheba at Gen 21:31 found different
transliteration forms in the Vg, LUB and DAL: Bersabee; BerSaba;
Beereba. At Gen 26:33, the Vg supposes in the naming of Shibah the
root b! and translates it accordingly as Abundantia; LUB has the transliteration form Saba, DAL Seba. The naming of the unique place name
Adonai-jireh at Gen 22:14 is based on the Hebrew play of words yhwh
yireh / bhar yhwh yreh. The LXX translates the pun by changing the
Hebrew imperfect forms into a preterite: Krios eden / en t rei Krios
phth. The Vg places the basic verb rh in the active mood both in the
naming of the place and in the explanation of the naming to get the
relation present / future: Dominus videt / in monte Dominus videbit. LUB
replicates the play on words by rendering the verb in the present tense
both times: Der HERR sihet / Auff dem Berge / da der HERR sihet. This
unique example of translating both the naming and the explication of the
naming by the present is replicated only in DAL: GOSPUD vidi / Na tej
Gorri, ker GOSPUD vidi. In addition to this symmetry, the DAL makes
the entire verse a copy of LUB.
At Gen 26:1922, we nd an etymological interpretation of the
naming of the places Esek, Sitnah, Rehoboth, and at Gen 28:19, of the
place Bethel. The LXX has a translation of all these names; Vg transliterates only Bethel; LUB has transliteration Eseck / Sitna / Rehovoth /
BethEL; DAL has transliteration Eek / Sitna / Rehoboth / BethEl. On the
whole, it is certain that DAL is directly dependent on LUB. The form
Eek is different because it follows the Slovenian orthography. A review
of European Bible translations shows that the unusual orthography
BethEl is found only in LUB and DAL; from todays point of view, the
correct orthography would be in German Beth-El (cf. LUO) or Bet-El (cf.
EIN) and Bet El in Slovenian; the form Betel came into SSP due to its
established phonetic tradition in Slovenian culture. We note as well that
DAL also took from LUB the formulation of the etymological
explication of the name Esek in the margin of the text.
1
49
The naming of places Jegar-Sahadutha, Galeed and Mizpah at Gen

31:4649, and Mahanaim at Gen 32:23, found varied translation / transliteration solutions. For Jegar-Sahadutha we nd: Bouns ts martyras
(LXX); tumulus Testis (Vg); Jegar Sahadutha (LUB); Iegar Sahaduta
(DAL). For Galeed there is translation everywhere: Bouns mrtys
(LXX); acervum Testimonii / Galaad id est tumulus Testis (Vg); Gilead
(LUB); Gilead (DAL). For Mizpah: H rasis (LXX); omitted (Vg); eine
Warte (LUB; cf. LUO); ena Strasha (DAL). For Mahanaim: Parembol
Theo haut / Parembola (LXX); castra Dei sunt haec / Manaim id est
Castra (Vg); Es sind Gottes Heere / Mahanaim (LUB); Letu o Boshje
vojke / Mahanaim (DAL). The dependence of DAL on LUB is striking
in translating the text comprising the names Galeed and Mizpah: (Daher
heist man jn Gilead) und sey eine Warte (LUB); (Satu je on njega
imenoval Gilead) inu bodi ena Strasha. DAL took from LUB even
parenthesis and the wrong transliteration form Gilead, which is
elsewhere found only in LUO, LEI and SVV; in the form Galaad only in
Vg, SRV, R60, R95, RST, BUL; all other translations replicate various
forms of the original word gal!d. It may be noted that DAL also took
from LUB the explanation of Gilead as Zeugehauffe / kup prizh in the
margin. Even more striking is the fact that the place Mizpah is given in
transliteration forms in all translations; only in the LXX, LUB and DAL
do we nd translation: H rasis / eine Warte / ena Strasha. In the
original, the etymological explanation of the naming of Mahanaim is
preceded by Jacobs exclamation manh lhm zeh This is Gods
camp, in the singular. All translations also opt for the singular, the only
exceptions being Vg, LUB, DAL, DRA and LUO, where the exclamation
is found in the plural.
At Gen 32:31, there is an aetiological explanation for the place name
Peniel having at Gen 32:32 the archaic spelling Penuel. The LXX has for
the spelling Peniel (v. 31) the translation Edos Theo The Face of
God, and for the spelling Penuel (v. 32) Edos to Theo; Aq has for
both spellings the translation prspon ischyro the Face of the Strong
One; Sym has in both verses the transliteration form Phanoul; Vg has
in both verses the transliteration Phanuhel; all later translations have
various transliteration forms, most of them harmonizing both spellings.
We note that only LUB, NBK and NBN have contracted forms of both
spellings: Pniel / Pnuel. Since DAL has one contracted form, Pniel, for
both spellings, we may assume dependence of DAL on LUB in contracting the spelling and on majority tradition in harmonizing both spellings.
The place name Succoth, reported in the aetiological explanation of the
name-giving at Gen 33:17, is transliterated almost in all translations.
1
50
LUB has the orthographic form Suchoth, DAL has the form Suhot, BKR
has Sochot. Since all other translations write the second consonant as
(c)c or (k)k, it is evident that DAL and probably also BKR took the
orthographic form from LUB.
At Gen 35:68, there are two namings of interest, El-bethel and Allonbacuth, and at Gen 50:11, the naming of Abel-mizraim. LUB has for the
name l bt-l the transliteration form ElBethEl, and the translation as
Klageiche (LUO and LUT Klageeiche) for the name alln bkt. DAL
copied the orthographic form ElBethEl and translated the second name as
Hrat tiga klagovanja. Dependence of DAL on LUB is beyond any doubt
in the writing of the rst name because this orthographic form is found
nowhere else; LUO has the form El-Beth-El and LUT the form El-Bethel.
Etymological translation of the second name is found in several translations, therefore the evidence of dependence is limited. The name bl
mirayim is translated in all translations of present interest to us: Pnthos
Aigptou the Mourning of Egypt (LXX); Planctus Aegypti (Vg); Der
gypter Klage (LUB); th Egypterjeu klagovanje (DAL). In this case,
only the word order can be considered as possible evidence of dependence. In the LXX and Vg, the word order is normal; in LUB and DAL,
however, it is unusual or grammatically wrong. The 1625 Croatian
version by Bartol Kai has, for instance, normal word order: Pla od
Egipta. This fact testies that DAL took the phrase from LUB.
The names Marah (Exod 15:23) and Massah / Meribah (Exod 17:7) are
transliterated in most translations, including LUB and DAL. In these two
versions the transliterated form is the same: Mara, Massa and Meriba.
This transliterated form is found in most non-English translations. Much
more evident is dependence of DAL on LUB in replicating the namings
of Taberah (Num 11:3), Kibroth-hattaavah (Num 11:34) and Hormah
(Num 21:3). LUB has the transliterated form Tabeera, translation Lustgreber, and transliterated Harma; DAL replicates LUB, offering Tabeera
/ Grobi tiga shelenja / Harma. Dependence can be taken as a certainty
because the translated form Tabeera does not appear outside of LUB and
the translations that follow it, and the form Harma is found nowhere else.
What can be concluded about the forms of the namings Bochim (Judg
2:5), Ramath-lehi (Judg 15:17), En-hakkore (Judg 15:19), Ebenezer
(1 Sam 7:12), Sela-mahlekoth (1 Sam 23:28), Baal-perazim (2 Sam
5:20), Perez-uzzah (2 Sam 6:8), Beracah (2 Chr 20:26)? LUB has
Bochim / RamatLehi / des Anrffers brun / EbenEzer / SelaMahelkoth /
BaalPrazim / Perez Vsa / Lobetal (lobeten); DAL has Bohim / RamatLehi / tiga Moliuza tudenez / EbenEzer / SelaMahelkot / BaalPrazim /
Perez Vsa / Hvalni dul (hvalili). The common orthography is the most
1
51
conspicuous proof for dependence; the name SelaMahelkot(h) is based

on a mistaken vocalization and therefore corrected in later revisions of
LUB. The two examples of translation in LUB, followed by DAL, could
have been inuenced by the Greek and Latin traditions. In translating
the name Beracah we note also preservation of play on words in both
versions.
This chapter has offered a comparative study of the forms of biblical
proper names in transliteration or translation forms. The study focused
on those examples of etymological explanation of proper names in the
Hebrew Bible, which are usually translated in ancient versions, but transliterated in modern European translations. A large corpus of European
Bible translations from antiquity to the present time is the necessary
background for evaluation of linguistic and ideological reasons for
changing the forms of biblical proper names in a new historical situation.
In contrast to ancient Bible translations, the Renaissance and the more
modern European Bible translations manifest a strong tendency to transliterate both personal and geographical names. The shift from translation
to transliteration praxis continued until the present day, when standard
translations all-but moved away from the tradition of translating biblical
proper names (cf. EIN, NRSV, SSP). The forms of Hebrew proper names
are much more consistent than the forms of transliteration in European
languages. Transliteration variations are a consequence of various possibilities of reading phonetically the Hebrew consonantal text. This fact
explains why already the early translators sometimes rendered the same
Hebrew name forms, occurring in the various biblical books or even
in the same book, differently. Within Greek, Latin and later European
languages it is evident that popular names were much less exposed to
phonetic changes than those that were rare in use. The living tradition
helped to ensure the phonetic stability of the names that came into general use in spite of the difculty of reading phonetically the Hebrew consonantal text at a time when Hebrew was no longer a spoken language.
What are the reasons for the shift from translation tendency in
antiquity to a rather unied transliteration tradition since the Middle
Ages? The main reason is evidently the general tendency of more modern translators to return to the original. But there must be some additional
reasons, conditioned by the attitude to the forms of proper names in
general. There are at least three factors inuencing the manner of transmitting biblical proper names: rst, the universal phenomenon of human
1
52
culture showing that proper names are normally accepted in other languages and cultures in their original forms; secondly, the important role
of living traditions throughout European history; thirdly, special psychological, cultural and historical reasons for translating a particular name
instead of transliterating it. The general tendency of human nature to
transliterate proper names rather than to translate them explains why the
great majority of biblical proper names were transliterated in all translations. Once a name became part of a particular religious and general
cultural tradition, there was an additional reason to transmit it in transliteration form. Once the living religious tradition transcended a particular
linguistic border and became a determinant of cultural development,
biblical proper names became a common good of all nations sharing in
the common religious and cultural tradition. The root of the forms given
in the original is preserved, but the forms changed due to established
phonological, morphological, syntactical and orthographic laws governing individual languages.
We cannot explain with any certainty why in ancient translations a
good many biblical proper names are translated, but we may assume that
this happened mainly because in ancient times the tradition was very
much alive and had not yet begun to apply pressure to unify the forms of
biblical proper names. Since the Middle Ages, the tradition is much more
established and consequently the forms of biblical proper names have
gradually become more unied within the European cultural areas. Some
ancient translations, such as the Targums, LXX and Vg, assumed the
authority of key translations. In the Renaissance period, some new translations soon became key translations, notably, LUB, KJV, and so on. In
this connection we come across the issue of determining the degree to
which later translators relied on the original or on earlier key versions;
indeed, it seems clear that most translators used both the original text and
several Bible translations. Evidence of dependence on key translations is
beyond doubt in cases of common transcriptions of names, common
letter interchange, misreading due to graphical similarity, and so on. In
this respect the dependence of DAL on LUB is particularly striking.
Such dependence shows most clearly that the linguistic development of
transliteration forms of biblical proper names often resulted in the split
between meaning and form, or between the traditions of cultural identity
and inuences of globalization. Many biblical proper names, normally
those rarely used, were therefore in new languages and cultures frozen
entities, and often deviated from the meaningful original form. The
development of transliterated forms of biblical proper names in this
direction is less anachronistic in Jewish translations because the original
Hebrew and Aramaic text continues to be the main basis of Jewish
1
53
religion, including liturgy. JPS and TNK accepted, for instance, transliterated forms of biblical proper names from the general English tradition
(KJV, etc.) together with the tradition of translating the meaning of the
names in notes.
In connection with the etymologically explained proper names in the
Hebrew Bible, it is striking that frequent translation of proper names in
ancient versions is characteristic of geographical names; most personal
names are left untranslated. This phenomenon might be due to the fact
that personal names are individual and therefore intrinsically more
connected with the identity of the person who bears the name than with
their etymological meaning, whereas geographical names are collective in nature and therefore primarily connected with their etymological
meaning. The main characteristics of name-giving throughout the ancient
Near East is the tendency to understand the name as a substitute for the
person; the names shared in the very essence of beings and things. Once
personal names come into general use they are often repeated. Repetition
implies protection of their forms. Geographical names, on the other hand,
are not intrinsically connected with individual beings; the connection
between the name and the place is therefore looser. Place names are in
fact nearer to appellatives than to names proper. The destiny of geographical names is consequently more dependent on the will of invaders
and rulers of places. Another reason for the more frequent translation of
geographical names lies in the fact that biblical personal names soon
became familiar by entering in a living tradition in the Hellenistic world,
whereas most geographical names remained foreign to Hellenistic
translators who did not live within the Holy Land and who therefore felt
free in transmitting their forms.
This explanation is manifest in the behaviour of occupiers of foreign
territories. The more the language of the occupiers differs from the language of the occupied land, the more unavoidable it is that the occupier
will translate place names etymologically or transcribe them phonetically; sometimes they introduce a completely new name. The destiny of
place names in the time of Hellenism and later Arab occupation is illuminating. Non-Semitic Greek and Roman occupiers were more radical
in their changing of names than were Semitic Arabs.16 There are good
16. See Erich Klostermann, Eusebius: Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen (Hildesheim: Olms, 1966); Wilhelm Bore, Die alten Ortsnamen Palstinas
(Leipzig: R. Berger, 1930; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1968); Peter Jordan, Mglichkeiten einer strkeren Bercksichtigung slowenischer Ortsnamen in den heutigen
amtlichen topographischen Karten sterreichs (Berichte und Informationen 6;
Vienna: sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Institut fr Kartographie,
1
54
reasons to assume that geographical names that were internationally

used were transmitted in their original form, whereas those of merely
local importance became easily subject to translation according to their
etymological meaning. A reliable solution to this issue will be possible,
however, only after the various transformations of all biblical proper
names over time have been studied for a comparative dictionary of
biblical proper names based on European Bible translations. Such a
dictionary is a long-term goal of the present research.
1988); Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part 1, Palestine 330
BCE200 CE (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); G. S. P. Freeman-Grenville, Rupert
L. Chapman III and Joan E. Taylor, Palestine in the Fourth Century A.D.: The
Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea (Jerusalem: Carta, 2005); Elitzur, Ancient
Place Names in the Holy Land.
1
Chapter 2
TRANSLITERATION OR TRANSLATION
OF PROPER NAMES IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
Even the earliest translators of the Bible believed that equivalents had
to be found for all the words that appeared in the original text. Notable
exceptions have been proper names as well as Hebrew common nouns for
which no adequate translations could be found: Amen, ephod, Gehenna,
Hallelujah, manna, Pesah, Sabbath, and so on. From the beginning,
Bible translators decided to transliterate almost all proper names, only
occasionally translating them according to their etymological meaning or
cultural determinants. For very special reasons, the main Hebrew name
for God yhwh (Yahweh) was replaced by the general designation LORD.
The method of early translators became an unwritten law for translators
of later versions of the Bible.
There has not, however, been consistency in transliterating rather than
translating proper names in earlier or later translations of the Bible. A
given name may be transliterated in one translation unit, but translated
elsewhere, following no recognizable underlying rule or system. The
forms of biblical names in various versions of Bible translations throughout history mirror more or less the personal preferences of the translators
in rendering proper names or their reliance on preceding versions.
Biblical proper names are transliterated according to the relevant rules
of target languages and cultural traditions. In general, the transliteration
technique is phonetic, depending on the translators knowledge of the
original language and their use of the basic text (Vorlage). Translators
did not apply transliteration techniques consistently in the sense of using
modern scientic transliteration rules. Differences between the structure
of the original language and various forms of proper names in the original or in previous translations explain why the forms of biblical names
are consistent only in cases where a particular letter of the alphabet does
not allow several possibilities; in cases of more than one possibility the
1
56
transliteration forms can vary. Several names have different forms of the
same transliteration.1
The present chapter discusses some well-known appellatives, designations and proper names that are rendered both in transliteration and
translation forms: the Tetragrammaton yhwh (Yahweh) (Gen 2:4; 3:1,
etc.), meaning the personal name of the God of Israel; designations of the
netherworld Abaddon (Job 26:6; 28:22; 31:12; Ps 88:12; Prov 15:11;
27:20; Rev 9:11) and Sheol (Gen 37:35; Ps 6:5; Job 26:6; Prov 15:11;
27:20, etc.); designations of the giants Nephilim (Gen 6:4; Num 13:33)
and Rephaim (Gen 14:5; 15:20, etc.); designations or names of the monstrous beings Behemoth (Job 40:15) and Leviathan (Isa 27:1; Pss 74:14;
104:26; Job 3:8; 40:25); the symbolic names of Hoseas children: Jezreel
(Hos 1:4), (Lo-)Ruhama (Hos 1:6) and (Lo-)Ammi (Hos 1:9); the name
of Isaiahs second son Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isa 8:1, 3), which has a
striking symbolic meaning in the context of Isaiahs pronouncement
of the destruction of Damascus and Samaria; the names of peoples
Philistines (Gen 10:14; Exod 13:17; etc.) and Goiim (Gen 14:1, 9); the
lands Aram-naharaim (Gen 24:10) and Paddan-aram (Gen 25:20); the
toponyms Moreh (Gen 12:6; Deut 11:30; Judg 7:1) and Moriah (Gen
22:2; 2 Chr 3:1); the cave Machpelah (Gen 23:9, 17, 19; 25:9; 49:30;
50:13); and the plain Shephelah (Deut 1:7; Josh 9:1; 10:40; 11:2, 16;
12:8; 15:33; Judg 1:9, etc.). In addition to these examples of alternative
methods of rendering proper names, the way of transliterating the mountain Harmagedon (Rev 16:16), mentioned as the place of the last divine
judgment, is noteworthy. Nearly ninety anthroponyms and toponyms that
are etymologically explained in the Hebrew Bible are treated in the rst
section.
1. The following works were signicant resources used in the composition of this
chapter: Henry St. John Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1987);
Gerhard Lisowsky, Die Transkription der hebrischen Eigennamen des Pentateuch
in der Septuaginta (Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwrde an der
Theologischen Fakultt der Universitt Basel; Basel, 1940); Marguerite Harl et al.,
La Bible dAlexandrie: Traduction du texte grec de la Septante (Paris: Cerf, 1986);
Ran Zadok, The Pre-HellenisticIsraelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography (OLA
28; Leuven: Peeters, 1988); John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of
GenesisDeuteronomy (SBLSCS 35, 30, 44, 46, 39; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press,
199098); Manuel M. Jinbachian, Les techniques de traduction dans la Gense en
Armenien classique (Lisbon: Fundao Calouste Gulbenkian, 1998); Emanuel Tov,
The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 57;
Leiden: Brill, 1999); Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part 1,
Palestine 330 BCE200 CE.
1
2. Transliteration or Translation of Proper Names
57
1. Substitutes for the Divine Personal Name yhwh or Its

Transliteration
In the Hebrew Bible, the specic personal name for the God of Israel is
given using the four consonants, the Tetragrammaton, yhwh, which
appears 6007 times. It is almost certain that the name was originally
pronounced Yahweh. In some early period of Judaism the Tetragrammaton yhwh came to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, leading
to the long-established practice when reading the Hebrew Scriptures in
the synagogue of reading the word dny Lord. The Masoretes added
vowel sounds to the consonantal Hebrew text, and attached to yhwh
vowel signs indicating that the Hebrew word dny Lord or lhm
God should be read in its place.
A survey of Bible translations throughout the centuries reveals that
translators have always been in search of the best solutions for rendering
the Tetragrammaton yhwh. On the one hand, they were bound to the
Jewish tradition of extraordinary reverence for this Divine Name, and on
the other hand they were obliged to overcome a limited range of possibilities when yhwh appears in construct expressions of divine names and
appellatives. The basic dilemma has been whether the Divine Name
should be transliterated or replaced by another word. A similar dilemma
is whether proper names with a supposed etymological meaning and
unusual simple or compound names with a marked symbolic meaning in
relation to created beings should be transliterated or translated. The
translators of LXX used the Greek word Krios Lord, and translators of
VL and Vg used the Latin word Dominus Lord for the Divine Name.
In the late mediaeval period, the form that came to be used was Jehovah,
which is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the
vowels attached to it by the Masoretes for the substitute Adonai.
The Jewish tradition of avoiding saying the Tetragrammaton yhwh out
loud and the translation method of the ancient Greek and Latin translators strongly inuenced later Christian translators of the Bible. While
the Divine Name Yahweh was in all centuries largely used in general
religious and theological literature, Bible translations normally replaced
the proper name Yahweh with the general word Lord, in combination
with other divine names and appellatives sometimes with the word God,
very often written and printed in capital letters LORD/GOD. This is true
for most Renaissance and recent standard versions. All the more striking
are some versions rendering the Divine Name in various transliterated
forms: Jehovah (ASV, DBY), Jehova (ELO), Yahv (FBJ), Jehov
(R60), Jehovah (RVA), ternel (DRB), Eterno (LND).
1
58
2. Substitutes or Transliteration in Construct Expressions

of Divine Names and Appellatives
The Hebrew Bible contains a number of construct expressions, ones
which are compounds of double proper names or designations of God,
sometimes extended with additional appellatives. The established practice of replacing the Tetragrammaton yhwh with the word Lord or God
and other circumstances have obliged translators to search for such
construct expressions, which more or less change the wording of the
original.
First to be mentioned is the phrase dny yhwh bt (Isa 3:15;
10:23, 24; 22:12, etc.). The word dny is the most common Hebrew
designation of the Lord; the Tetragrammaton yhwh is normally replaced
by the word LORD/Lord; the word in plural bt is usually rendered
using the word hosts, and sometimes it is transliterated. The way the
whole phrase is rendered and its orthography clearly reveals the degree
of originality of translators or of their reliance on other versions: yy
lhm bt LORD God of hosts (TgIsa); Krios sabaoth (LXX);
Krios ho Thes tn dynmen (MGK); Dominus Deus exercituum (Vg);
Lord, euen the Lord of hoasts (Isa 3:15 GNV), the Lord God of hostes
(Isa 10:24 GNV), the Lord God of hosts (Isa 22:12 GNV); the Lord GOD
of hosts (KJV, NKJ, RSV, NRSV); the Lord, Jehovah of hosts (ASV,
DBY); the Lord Yahweh Sabaoth (NJB); the Lord, the LORD Almighty
(NIB, NIV, NLT); der H(E)err HERR Zebaoth (LUB, LUO, LUT); der
Herr, ER der Umscharte (BUR); Gott, der Herr der Heere (EIN); le
Seigneur(,) le (D)dieu des armes (BLS); le Seigneur, lternel des
armes (DRB, LSG, NEG); le Seigneur, le Dieu de lunivers (BFC),
Yahv Sabaot (FBJ); le Seigneur Yahv Sabaot (FBJ); le Seigneur DIEU,
le tout-puissant (TOB); il Signore, il Signor degli eserciti (DIO); il
Signore, lEterno degli eserciti (LND); il Signore, il SIGNORE degli
eserciti (NRV); el Seor, Jehov de los ejrcitos (R60); el Seor
Jehovah de los Ejrcitos (RVA); el Seor, DIOS de los ejrcitos (LBA);
o Senhor DEUS dos Exrcitos (ACF, BRP); o SENHOR, o Deus dos
Exrcitos (ARC); o Senhor, o SENHOR dos Exrcitos (ARA); Pn,
Hospodin zstup (BKR); Pan, Bg Zast pw (BTP); Herra, Herra
Sebaot (FIN); Uram, Seregeknek Ura (HUN), and so on. Some of these
renderings were accepted by later versions. DAL adopted from LUB
the combination of translation and transliteration: Gospud GOSPUD
Zebaoth, whereas later Slovenian versions preferred translation of all
the words: Gospd Bg vojsknih trm (JAP); Godpod Bog vojskinih
trum (WOL); Gospod, Bog nad vojskami (SSP).
1
59
Another type of compound proper name for God is found in the

construct expressions l lh yirl (Gen 33:20) and hdn yhwh
lh yirl (Exod 34:23). The expression in Gen 33:20 concludes the
narrative about Abrahams itinerary to Shechem. There he bought the
plot of land on which he had pitched his tent. There he erected an altar
and called it El-Elohe-Israel (wayyiqr l l lh yirl). As a
proper name the expression could be interpreted as El is the God of
Israel, or El, the God of Israel. TgO avoids giving a divine name to
the altar and renders the sentence: He erected an altar there, and worshipped on it before God, the God of Israel. Other Targums have a similar paraphrase, shifting the attention to Abrahams worshipping before
God, the God of Israel. TgN also partly changes the construct divine
name: yyy lh dyrl Yahweh, God of Israel. In the LXX, giving a
divine name to the altar is avoided by disregarding the pronoun l and
by omitting one of two words for God. The Greek rendering is ka
epekalsato tn Then Isral and he called on the God of Israel.
The Vg has the rendering: Et erecto ibi altari invocabit super illud
Fortissimum Deum Israhel. Among the Renaissance translations, GNV
and LUB follow the Vg. GNV renders the divine name given to the altar
as and called it, The mightie God of Israel; LUB has und rieff an den
Namen des starcken Gottes Israel. LUBs rendering is followed by DAL:
inu je klizal na ime tiga mozhniga Israeloviga Boga. BKR has the
rendering: Bh siln, Bh Izraelsk. It is obvious that Luther was inuenced by other passages having the collocation: he invoked (called) the
name of the LORD (Gen 4:26; 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25). The majority of
other Renaissance and later translations transliterate the entire construct
name: Elelohe-Israel (KJV); Elelohe-israel (RSV); El Elohe Israel
(NIV), and so on. Some of them transliterate only the rst word for God:
El, the God of Israel (BBE, NAB); El, Dieu dIsral (FBJ, TOB); El,
Izraelov Bog (SSP), etc. Those who translate the name entirely and
properly have the form: Gott, der Gott Israels (ELO, ELB, EIN); Deus, o
Deus de Israel (ACF, BRP, ARC, ARA); Boga, Boga Izraela (BTP), and
so on. The version BUR has the form: Gottheit Gott Jisraels.
Renderings of the expression hdn yhwh lh yirl (Exod
34:23) manifest more variations: ribbn !olm yy lh dyirl
the Master of the Universe, the Lord God of Israel (TgO; cf. TgPsJ);
TgN has added in the middle the Tetragrammaton; Krios to Theo
Isral (LXX); Krios, Krios to Theo to Isral (MGK); Dominus Dei
Israhel (Vg); the Lord Iehouah God of Israel (GNV); the Lord GOD, the
God of Israel (KJV); the Lord Jehovah, the God of Israel (DBY, ASV);
the LORD God, the God of Israel (RSV, NRSV); the Sovereign LORD, the
1
60
God of Israel (NIV, NIB, NLT, TNK); Lord Yahweh, God of Israel
(NJB); der Herrscher, der HERR und Gott Israels (LUB, LUO); der
Herrscher, der HERR, der Gott Israels (LUT, SCH); dem Herrn IHM
dem Gott Jisraels (BUR); der Herr, der Gott Israels (EIN); der Herr
HERR, der Gott Israels (ELB); le Seigneur tout-puissant, le Dieu
dIsral (BLS); le Seigneur, lternel, (le) Dieu dIsral (DRB, LSG,
NEG); le Seigneur Yahv, Dieu dIsral (FBJ); le Matre, le SEIGNEUR,
Dieu dIsral (TOB); Il Signore, lEterno Signore Iddio dIsrael (DIO);
il Signore, lEterno, il DIO dIsraele (LND); il Signore, DIO, che il
Dio dIsraele (NRV); il Signore, Dio dIsraele (IEP); el Seoreador
Jehov, Dios de Israel (SRV); el Jehov el Seor, Dios de Israel (R60);
el Jehov, el Seor, Dios de Israel (R95); el DIOS; el Seor, Dios de
Israel (LBA); o Senhor DEUS, o Deus de Israel (ACF, BRP); o Senhor
JEOV, Deus de Israel (ARC); Panovnik Hospodin, Boh Izraelsk
(BKR); Pan, Bog Iraela (BTP); GOSPUD, inu Bog Israelski (DAL);
vsigamogozhhni Gospd Israelski Bog (JAP); vsegamogo ni Gospod
Bog Izraelov (WOL); Gospod Bog, Izraelov Bog (SSP), and so on. Other
versions in various languages follow this or other patterns.
Of interest too is the construct expression combining the Divine Name
yhwh in two variants: yh yhwh (Isa 12:2; 26:4) and yh yh (Isa 38:11).
The slight difference in form is the reason for considerable differences in
rendering the rst and the second variant. The form attested in Isa 12:2
and 26:4 is rendered as follows: LORD (TgIsa); Krios (LXX); Krios ho
Thes (MGK); Dominus Deus (Vg); Lord God (GNV); LORD JEHOVAH
(KJV); Jah, Jehovah (DBY); Jehovah, even Jehovah (ASV); YAH, the
LORD (NKJ); LORD GOD (RSV, NRSV, ESV, NLT); the LORD, the
LORD (NIV); Yahweh (NJB); Yah the LORD (TNK); Gott der HERR
(LUB, LUO, LUT); Jah, Jehova (ELO); oh ER, ER (BUR at 12:2); Er,
oh ER (BUR at 26:4); Jah, der HERR (ELB); der HERR, der HERR
(SCH); Seigneur (BLS at 12:2); le Seigneur notre Dieu (BLS at 26:4);
Jah, Jhovah (DRB); lternel, lternel (LSG, NEG); Yahv (FBJ); le
SEIGNEUR (TOB); il Signore Iddio (DIO); lEterno, s, lEterno (LND);
il SIGNORE, il SIGNORE (NRV); JAH Jehov (SRV, R60); Jah, Jehov
(R95); Jehovah (RVA); el SEOR DIOS (LBA); o SENHOR DEUS
(ACF, BRP); o SENHOR Deus (ARA); o SENHOR JEOV (ARC); Bh
Hospodin (BKR); Hospodin, jen Hospodin (CEP); GOSPUD Bug
(DAL); Gospd (Bog) (JAP); Gospod (Bog) (WOL); GOSPOD BOG
(SSP), etc.
The expression yh yh (Isa 38:11) is often rendered differently in
translations: a single LORD (TgIsa); ho Thes (LXX); ho Krios, ho
Krios (MGK); Dominus Dominus (Vg); the Lord, euen the Lord (GNV);
the LORD, even the LORD (KJV); Jah, Jah (DBY); Jehovah, even
1
61
Jehovah (ASV); the LORD, even the LORD (JPS); YAH, The LORD (NKJ);
the LORD (RSV, NRSV); the LORD, the LORD (NAS, NIV, NIB); Yahweh
(NJB); LORD GOD (NLT); Yah, Yah (TNK); der Herr, ja, der Herr
(LUB, LUO); der HERR (LUT); Jehova, Jehova (ELO); oh Ihn, Ihn oh
(BUR); Jah, Jah (ELB); der HERR, der HERR (SCH); le Seigneur mon
Dieu (BLS); Jah, Jah (DRB); lternel, Lternel (LSG, NEG); Yahv
(FBJ); le SEIGNEUR (TOB); il Signore, il Signore (DIO); lEterno, s,
lEterno (LND); il SIGNORE, il SIGNORE (NRV); JAH, JAH
(SRV); a Jah, a Jah (R95); al SEOR, al SEOR (LBA); Jehova
(RVA); ao SENOHOR, o SENHOR (ACF, BRP); ao SENHOR (ARC);
o SENHOR (ARA); Hospodin, Hospodin (BKR, CEP); GOSPUD, ja
GOSPUD (DAL); Gospd Bog (JAP); Gospod Bog (WOL); GOSPOD
BOG (SSP), and so on.
3. Transliteration or Translation of Terms
Denoting the Underworld
There are two Hebrew designations for the realm of the dead, which are
transliterated in some versions as proper names for the location of a
place from which there is no return and translated in some others as
general terms: baddn and l. It is clear that the rst word derives
from the verb bad to destroy, but attempts to unravel the derivation
and etymologies of the second word have not yet been successful. The
connection of both words with the realm of the dead is corroborated by
the parallelism in the sequence Sheol // Abaddon (Job 26:6; Prov 15:11;
27:20). In Prov 15:11 we nd, for instance, the statement: Sheol and
Abaddon lie open before the LORD, how much more human hearts!
Versions in different languages clearly show how translators understood
the meaning of both designations and the function of parallelism, which
is the basic form of Hebrew poetry. In TgProv, both words are retained,
but in LXX and MGK, both words are translated: hdes ka apleia hell
and destruction; the Vg has translation of the same type: infernus et
perditio. Almost all the Renaissance translators decided for the translation option, but some preferred transliteration: hell and destruction
(GNV, KJV); Helle und Verderbnis (LUB); linferno, el luogo della
perditione (DIO); peklo i zatracen (BKR); pakal inu pogublenje (DAL),
and so on. Some more modern versions are consistent in the translation
or transliteration of both designations, while others combine translation
of one and transliteration of the other: Sheol and Abaddon (ASV, RSV,
NRSV, NAS, TNK, ESV); Hell and Destruction (NKJ); hell and
destruction (DRA, WEB, LXE, RWB); Sheol and destruction (DBY);
the nether-world and Destruction (JPS); the underworld and destruction
1
62
(BBE); the nether world and the abyss (NAB); Sheol and Perdition
(NJB); the depths of Death and Destruction (NLT); Death and
Destruction (NIB); Hlle und Abgrund (LUO); Unterwelt und Abgrund
(LUT); Scheol und Abgrund (ELO, ELB); Gruftheit und Verlorenheit
(BUR); Totenreich und Abgrund (SCH); Totenreich und Unterwelt
(EIN); Lenfer et la perdition (BLS); le shol et labme (DRB); le sjour
des morts et labime (LSG, NEG); le Sjour des morts et lAbime (TOB);
Shol et Perdition (FBJ); Sceol e Abaddon (LND); lo Sceol e Abaddon
(LND); il soggiorno dei morti e labisso (NRV); inferi e abisso (IEP);
Pkl, inu pogublnje (JAP); pekel in pogubljenje (WOL); podzemlje in
brezno (SSP), and so on.
This survey of renderings focuses on the rendering of Prov 15:11; a
comparative study of all passages would still enlarge the list considerably, because many versions do not translate the same word consistently
from the original. Two reasons for inconsistency could be a deliberate
decision by translators to create variation, or a lack of control. Inconsistency is a normal phenomenon in translations that are collective works.
The name Abaddon is a subject of special interest in Rev 9:11, a
passage describing the nature of the ruler of pernicious locusts: They
have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit; his name in
Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon. The grammatical form of the name in Hebrew and in Greek is different because the
meaning attached to naming the mountain in the languages is different.
The Hebrew form baddn is a verbal noun based on the root bad to
destroy, and therefore meaning destruction, and in the context designating specically the place of damnation. The Greek form apolln, on
the other hand, is a participle meaning destroyer, thus functioning as a
gloss of the scriptural writer describing the destroying nature of the
angel. Nearly all versions throughout history transliterate the name of the
angel as it is given in Hebrew and Greek. The only exception so far
known using translation is the Italian version IEP: Avevano come re
langelo dellAbisso, il cui nome in ebraico si chiama Distruzione e in
Greco Sterminatore.
In the book of Revelation, the name of the angel destroyer is explicitly
exposed in Hebrew and in Greek. It therefore seems natural that the
name should not be translated but kept in its original forms. The freedom
of translators is much more limited here than in places of the Hebrew
Bible where the names or designations Abaddon and Sheol seem to have
a more general meaning.
63
4. The Giants Nephilim and Rephaim

In Gen 6:4, the writer reports: The Nephilim (hannplm) were on the
earth in those daysand also afterwardwhen the sons of God went in
to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the
heroes (haggibbrm) that were of old, warriors of renown. The
Aramaic tradition of interpretation is not unied: TgO and TgN render
both terms in question using the same word, gibbrayy(h) the mighty
ones, giants, warriors, whereas TgPsJ relates the word hannplm to the
verb npal to fall and takes it to refer to angels who fell from heaven.
Following the tradition of naming individuals who are not named in the
Bible, TgPsJ identies the fallen angels as Shamhazai and Azael, who
were among the leaders of the fallen angels (cf. 1 En. 6:3, 7; 8:1; 9:6, 7;
10:8, 11; see also b. Yoma 67b). The LXX translates the term hannplm
as ggantes, the word also used in Num 13:33 for the same designation
and in Gen 6:4 for the designation haggibbrm. Aq renders hannplm
as the passive participle epipptontes the fallen ones and haggibbrm
as the adjective dynato the mighty ones. Sym uses for both designations of huge creatures the same term hoi baioi the violent ones. The
LXX obviously inuenced later translations. The Vg translates the rst
term as gigantes and the second one as potentes. Among later versions
they often translated both terms, but a considerable number transliterate
the rst term.
The Hebrew plural form rpm, derived from the verb rp / rph
to heal, to release, designates in the Hebrew Bible two categories of
beings and a valley: the dead in the underworld; a group or nation of
giants or warriors; the valley of Rephaim. The designation of the dead is
attested both in the Ras Shamra, Phoenician and Old Testament texts.
Especially illustrative for this meaning is Ps 88:11, where the psalmist
asks God:
Do you work wonders for the dead (lmtm)?
Do the shades (m-rpm) rise up to praise you?
This translation (cf. NRSV, DBY, JPS, RSV, BBE, TNK, ELO, EIN,
etc.) reects modern exegesis based on the poetic structure of the passage
and on the comparative evidence. How far has the JewishChristian
translation tradition played a role? The paraphrase of TgPs renders the
synonymous words as mtayy the dead // gmayy the bodies.
The LXX creates parallelism tos nekros // iatro to the dead // or shall
physicians; the Vg follows the LXX and renders the parallel words as
mortuis // aut medici. Many later versions have the parallelism of the
1
64
same word: the dead // the dead (GNV, KJV, NKJ, NIV, NLT, R60,
R95, ACF, ARC, DAL, etc.). LUB repeats the meaning of the rst term:
unter den Todten // werden die Verstorbene (cf. LUT); DRA and LXE
have the parallelism the dead // physicians, BLS des morts // les
mdecins. We also nd the parallelism the dead // the departed spirits
(NAU). BUR introduce the parallelism an den Toten // Gespenster.
The same parallelism between the two synonyms occurs in Isa 26:14
(cf. v. 19):
The dead (mtm) do not live;
shades (rpm) do not rise
The translation tradition is quite similar: TgIsa introduces the parallelism

mtn the dead // gbrhn their mighty ones; the LXX keeps the
parallelism nekro // iatro (cf. LXE), but the Vg has morientes //
gigantes (cf. DRA). Other later versions did not follow either LXX or Vg;
the parallelism in use is about the same as at Ps 88:11. The Vg rendering
reects the second meaning of the word rpm, attested at Gen 14:5;
15:20; Deut 2:10, 20; 3:11, 13; Josh 2:4; 13:12; 17:15). At Gen 14:56,
the narrator reports about the pre-Israelite peoples of Palestine: In the
fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came
and subdued the Raphaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zusim in Ham, the
Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, and the Horites in the hill country of Seir as
far as El-paran on the edge of the wilderness. According to Deut 2:11,
the Emim, as tall as the Anakim, had once lived in Moab: Like the
Anakim, they are usually reckoned as Rephaim, though the Moabites
call them Emim. According to Deut 2:20, the Ammonites called the
Rephaim by the name Zamzumim. The book of Joshua refers to a
tradition that Og, king of Bashan, was one of the last of the Rephaim,
who lived at Ashtaroth and at Edrei (12:4; cf. Deut 3:11; Josh 13:12).
Israelite popular tradition, ascribing gigantic stature to the Rephaim,
is strongly reected in early Bible translations. Aramaic tradition is
consistent in translating the term rpm as gibbrayy the mighty
ones, giants, warriors at all places. The LXX and Vg, on the other hand,
are not consistent. In the LXX, the translation ggantes appears at Gen
14:5; Josh 12:4; 13:12, whereas the transliteration Raphan is used at
Gen 15:20; Deut 2:11, 20; 3:11, 13. The Vg, on the other hand, has the
translation gigantes at Deut 2:11, 20; 3:11, 13, and the transliteration
Rafaim at Gen 14:5; 15:20; Josh 12:4; 13:12; 17:15. There is a similar
inconsistency in later translations: at Gen 14:5, the great majority have
transliteration of the term rpm. Only a few versions have translation:
the giants (LXE); die Ri(e)sen (LUB, LUO); i giganti (LND); gjigantt
(ALB). At Gen 15:20, all have transliteration except LUB. At Deut 2:11,
1
65
a great majority gives transliteration, while the phrase they are usually
reckoned as Rephaim suggested to some the translation giants (cf.
LUB, BLS). At Deut 2:20; 3:11, 13; Josh 12:4; 13:12; 17:15 transliteration also prevails, though some have preferred the translation giants.
This is true for the Renaissance versions such as GNV, KJV and LUB.
BUR deserves special attention because at Gen 14:5 and 15:20 it has the
transliteration Refaer, while in all other passages the term is translated as
Gespenstische. Concerning those who transliterate the word, it is noteworthy that a considerable number of translations have transliteration of
rpm in minuscule, thus indicating that the word is understood as a
designation rather than the name of a people.
The designation of the broad valley near Jerusalem according to
Rephaim (Josh 15:8; 18:16; 2 Sam 5:18, 22; 23:13; Isa 17:5; 1 Chr
11:15; 14:9) is again connected with surprises. At all places, TgJ has the
xed phrase mar gibbrayy the plain of the giants / the mighty men,
the warriors; the LXX has several variants: ek mrous gs Rhaphan by
the side of the land of Raphain (Josh 15:8); a complete transliteration:
Emekraphan (Josh 18:16); a more or less complete translation: eis tn
koilda tn titnn in the valley of the Titans (2 Sam 5:18); en t
koildi tn titnn in the valley of Titans (2 Sam 5:22); en t koildi
tn Rhaphaem in the valley of Raphaeim (2 Sam 23:13); en t koildi
tn gigntn in the valley of the giants (1 Chr 11:15; 14:9); en
phraggi stere in a rich valley (Isa 17:5). The Vg has: vallis Rafaim
(Josh 15:8; 18:16); in valle Rephaim (2 Sam 5:18, 22; 1 Chr 11:15;
14:19; Isa 17:5); in valle Gigantum (2 Sam 23:13). Later European translations are almost unanimously consistent in rendering the expression
!meq rpm as the valley of Rephaim. The very few exceptions are
all the more notable: the valley of the gi(y)ants at Josh 15:8; 18:16 (most
English versions); the valley of Rephaim (GNV, KJV, BLS, WEB,
RWB); the valley of the giants at 2 Sam 23:13 (DRA); valle de los
gigantes at Josh 15:8 (SRV); la campia de los gigantes at Josh 18:16
(SRV); valle dei giganti at Josh 18:16; 2 Sam 23:13 (LND); das Tal (des
Tals) der Gespenstischen at Josh 15:8; 18:16; and der (im) Gespenstergrund (BUR).
5. The Monstrous Animals Behemoth and Leviathan
The context and parallel passages do not make it clear which monstrous
animals are designated by the names Behemoth (Job 40:15) and Leviathan (Isa 27:1; Pss 74:14; 104:26; Job 3:8; 40:25). The rst name appears
in the context of Gods lesson that he is too great to be understood by Job
or any other human being: Look at Behemoth, which I made just as I
1
66
made you; it eats grass like an ox. Translations offer varied ways of
imaging this: TgJob reads the name of the beast as plural of the word
bhmh beast and renders it as the plural b!rayy grazing animals,
cattle; in the LXX, the name is translated with the plural thra the wild
beasts; Aq and Theo render it as construct plural ktn ocks and
herds, beasts; the Vg has the transliterated form Behemoth. Most later
versions follow the original and the Vg in transliterating the name of the
beast. There are, however, some notable exceptions in translation: Great
Beast (BBE); mighty hippopotamus (NLT); das Flupferd (SCH); das
Urtier (BUR); das Nilpferd (EIN); lhippopotame (LSG, BFC, NEG); le
Bestial (TOB); lippopotamo (NRV); hipoptamo (ARA); Reuzendier
(LEI); nijlpaard (NBG); Nilhesten (D31).
The name Leviathan is assigned various roles in the Bible: in the
apocalyptic announcement of nal judgment at Isa 27:1, it serves as a
symbol for Tyre; God will punish Leviathan the eeing serpent,
Leviathan the twisting serpent; at Ps 74:14, the psalmist professes that
God worked salvation in the earth by crushing the heads of Leviathan;
at Ps 104:26, Leviathan is mentioned as one of the manifold works of
God in the realm of the sea; at Job 3:8, Job curses the night of his birth
by saying: Let those curse it who curse the Sea, those who are skilled to
rouse up Leviathan; and at Job 40:25, Job is reminded of the greatness
of the creatures created by God: Can you draw out Leviathan with a
shhook, or press down its tongue with a cord? Translators into
Aramaic substantially changed the text: TgIsa links the announcement of
punishment upon Leviathan (Tyre) at Isa 27:1 to Roman power at sea
and proclaims that God will punish the king who exalts himself like
Pharaoh the rst king, and the king who prides himself like Sennacherib
the second king; the name Leviathan disappeared totally; at Ps 74:14,
TgPs changes the Hebrew phrase r liwytn the heads of Leviathan
into r gibbr par!h the heads of the heroes of Pharaoh; in the
translation of Ps 104:26, the name liwytn is retained, but at Job 3:8,
TgJob changes the entire sentence: May the prophets curse it who curse
the day of retribution, who are ready when aroused to lead off their
lament; at Job 40:25, the targumist is quite accurate and also retains the
name liwytn.
Non-Semitic translations also have various renderings: in the LXX, the
word Leviathan is translated with the word drkn at all places; the Vg
according to the LXX has the rendering dracon at Pss 74:14 and 104:26,
while at other places the name is transliterated as Leviathan. The great
majority of later versions used transliteration; the exceptions are limited
to Ps 104:26 and to Job 40:25: crocodile (NLT); great beast (BBE);
1
67
dragon (DRA); Walsche (LUO); groe Fische (LUT); der Drache, das
Krokodil (ZBI in Job); das Krokodil (SCH, EIN at Job 40:25); crocodile
(LSG, NEG); dragon (BFC); le Tortueux (TOB in Job); coccodrillo
(NRV); crocodilo (ARA); krokodyl (BTP); krokodil (NBG); Krokodillen
(D31). It is noteworthy that some collective versions are not consistent in
transliterating or translating the same names. TOB, for instance, has
transliteration in Isa 27:1; Pss 74:14; 104:26, and translation in Job 3:8
and 40:25; EIN has translation only in Job 40:25.
6. Symbolic Names of Hoseas Children
In the rst part of Hoseas autobiography we nd Gods command to the
prophet concerning the birth of his three children. After his unfaithful
wife Gomer gave birth to the rst son, the Lord said to him (Hos 1:4):
Name him Jezreel (yizr!el); for in a little while I will punish the house
of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel After she bore a daughter, the Lord
said to him (Hos 1:6): Name her Lo-ruhamah (l rumh), for I will
no longer have pity on the house of Israel or forgive them. After the
birth of his second son, God commanded him (Hos 1:8): Name him Loammi (l !amm), for you are not my people and I am not your God.
The names of Hoseas children are striking for their symbolic meaning in
relation to the people of Israel. The verdict of rejection is emphasized in
two ways: rst, by the Hebrew wording and stylization of the names;
secondly, by explanation following the names in a causal clause. It seems
therefore reasonable for translators to transmit the names using transliteration instead of translating them.
The etymological meaning of the second and third names is obvious,
but the rst name is reminiscent of so-called folk etymology. The name
yizr!el literally means May God sow; a West Canaanite variant is
yizra!-el May El sow. The etymological meaning of the name, known
as the town and valley of Jezreel, is positive. Yet the Valley of Jezreel
was the scene of many crimes and atrocities committed by the Israelite
kings, and these memorable events are the reason for naming Hoseas
son after this place. The mystery of the childs name lay in its ambivalence. Since the name Jezreel already existed as a place name, there was
hardly any serious reason to translate it. The LXX and Vg transliterate it:
Iezral (LXX), Hiezrahel (Vg). On the other hand, in spite of the inner
relationship between naming and the explanation of the names, the LXX
and Vg transmitted the second and the third names using translation:
Ouk-lemn, Ou-las-mou (LXX); Absque misericordia, Non pupulus
meus (Vg). TgHos takes an opposite way: the translator retains the
1
68
original Semitic words of the second and third names, but interprets the
literal meaning of the name Jezreel as a reference to Gods scattering
(literally sowing) of Israel in exile. The paraphrase reads: And the
Lord said to him, Call their name Scattered ones (mbadrayy), for in
yet a little while I will avenge the blood of the idolaters, which Jehu shed
in Jezreel, when he put them to death because they had worshipped
Baal
Later versions testify to the fact that careful thought was given to the
dilemma as to whether to transliterate or to translate the names. Most
Renaissance versions transmitted the symbolic names of Hoseas children using transliteration. LUB has transliteration of the second and third
names in a strange orthography: Jesreel, LoRyhamo, LoAmmi. DAL
shows complete reliance on LUB, for this version even retains Luthers
questionable orthography. When it comes to modern versions, some
follow the ancient and others the Renaissance tradition. The transliteration method was adopted by some modern Catholic and ecumenical
versions, for instance by FBJ, TOB and EIN. A special phenomenon is
transliteration with added translation: Lorucama, cest--dire Sansmisricorde; Loammi, cest--dire Non-mon-peuple (BLS); Jesreel,
Den-Gott-st; Lo-ruchama, Ihr-wird-Erbarmen-nicht; Lo-ammi,
Nicht-mein-Volk (BUR); Lo Rouhama, Non-Matricie; Lo !Ami, MonNon-Peuple (CHO). Some translators preferred just translation of the
names: Not pitied, Not my people (RSV); Without mercy, Not my people
(DRA); No Mercy, Not My People (ESV); Non-amata, Non-popolomio (IEP); Bres milosti, Ne moje ludstvu (JAP); Brez-milosti, Ne-mojeljudstvo (WOL); Nepomilo ena, Ne-moje-ljudstvo (SSP), and so on.
Chapter 2 manifests a total restoration of Gods favour; consequently
the names are changed. At Hos 2:3, God commands: Say (imr) to
your brothers, Ammi (!amm), and to your sisters, Ruhamah (rumh).
The plural address indicates that the radically new name is given to the
whole nation. TgHos substantially paraphrases Gods command to
rename Hoseas children: Prophets! Say to your brothers, My people
(!amm), return to my law and I will have pity on your congregations.
The LXX and Vg translate both names: las mou, lemn; Populus
meus, Misericordiam. The majority of later translations transliterate the
name, but there is a considerable number of versions manifesting more
or less original forms of translation or a combination of transliteration
and translation: mein Volck, Sie sey in gnaden (LUB); (Ammi) ony o moj
folk, ona je vmiloti (DAL); lide mj, milosrdenstv dol (BKR);
Vous tes mon people, Vous avez reu misricorde (BLS); dat zij mijn
volk, dat zij in genade is (LUV); My People, Lovingly Accepted!
1
69
(TNK); Ammi, mon peuple, Rouhama, Bien-aime (TOB); Ammi

(Mein Volk), Ruhama (Erbarmen) (EIN); Mein Volk!, Dir wird Erbarmen! (BUR); Ami, mon peuple!, Rouama, matricie (CHO), and
so on.
7. The Symbolic Name of Isaiahs Second Son
The strikingly symbolic names of Hoseas children recall the naming of
Isaiahs second son (Isa 8:13), with the important difference that the
symbolic meaning of naming Isaiahs son is not coupled with an
announcement of doom for Israel but for Syria and Ephraim. The point is
the expectation that Assyria will have destroyed both Damascus and
Samaria before Isaiahs son is more than about a year old. This emphasizes another difference between the meaning of the names of Hoseas
two children and Isaiahs son: the doom of Israel is not nal (cf. Hos 2
14), whereas the doom of Syria and Ephraim is nal and irreversible. In
Isaiah, doom is attested by the words written on a tablet and by the birth
of the child bearing the name according to Gods determination:
Then the LORD said to me, Take a large tablet and write on it in common
characters, Belonging to Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and have it attested for
me by reliable witnesses, the priest Uriah and Zechariah son of
Jeberechiah. And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a
son. Then the LORD said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; for
before the child knows how to call My father or My mother, the
wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the
king of Assyria.
The signicance of these words is made explicit by the prophet (Isa

8:18): See, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs
and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount
Zion.
The sign-name (l)mahr ll baz is a compound of two synonymous nouns, ll // baz, the verbal adjective mahr and the participle
a, so that the literal translation is the spoil speeds, the prey hastes, as
RSV and NRSV correctly state in margin. At its rst occurrence (Isa 8:1),
the exact wording of the name is introduced by Lamedh inscriptionis,
which indicates hardly more than a mere quotation mark.2 Ancient translators decided to translate the name. TgIsa paraphrases the name slightly
differently at both places: m lmibbaz (bz) lme!d !dh He is
hastening to plunder the spoil and to take away the booty. The translator
2. See GKC, 119 k.
1
70
of the LXX saw in the Lamedh a descriptive function, hence the rendering:
to oxs pronomn poisai skln concerning making a rapid plunder
of the spoils. It is striking that the same Hebrew wording of the name in
its second occurrence (Isa 8:3) is not rendered in the same way in LXX. It
reads kleson t noma auto takhs skleuson oxs pronmeuson
Call his name, Spoil quickly, plunder speedily. Vg also translates the
name differently in both cases: Velociter spolia detrahe Cito praedare;
Adcelera spolia detrahere Festina praedari.
The Renaissance and more modern versions manifest a variety of
translation and transliteration methods. GNV and DIO translate the name
in the rst occurrence and transliterate it in the second: Make speede to
the spoyle: haste to the praye // Mahershalalhash-baz (GNV); Egli
saffretter di spogliare, egli solleciter di predare II Maher salal, Has
baz (DIO). Some have the same wording of translation in both places:
Raubebald, Eilebeute (LUB); Eilebeute-Raubebald! (BUR); Htez-vous
de prendre les dpouilles, prenez vite le butin (BLS); K rychl koisti
pospch loupenk (BKR); Plejni brsu, inu rupaj hitru (DAL). JAP has
a slightly different formulation in both places: Pobri bersh rope, ropaj
hitru // Hti rope pobrati, ropaj hitru. A slight difference also exists in
WOL: Hitro vzemi plen, hitro ropaj // Hitro vzemi plen, in hitro ropaj.
Several versions have transliteration of the name in both places:
Mahershalalhashbaz (KJV, RSV); Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (NKJ, NIV,
NIB); Maher-shalal-hash-baz (DBY, BBE, WEB, NAS, NAB, NRSV).
Some others transliterate the name but add a translation: Lemahr shalal
ash baz, Vite au butin, presse, pille (CHO), and so on. A survey of
other versions shows a similar variety of translation or transliteration and
of corresponding orthography.
8. Etymological Translation of the Proper Names Philistines
and Goiim
The Philistines (Heb. plitm) are mentioned for the rst time at Gen
10:14. The LXX transliterates the name of this people as Phylisti(e)m
within the Heptateuch, whereas outside the Heptateuch this name is
almost exclusively translated as allphyloi those of another tribe,
foreigners. Other translations, including the Targums, are consistent in
transliterating the name. The double practice in dealing with this name
conrms among other linguistic and literary indicators the assumption
that LXX is the work of different authors who lived at different periods
during the last three centuries B.C.E.
1
71
The proper name Goiim appears at Gen 14:1, 9 and Josh 12:23 in the
construct expression melek-gym. The phrase by itself suggests
understanding an indenite meaning king of nations, but the context
requires a proper name for a people or a place Goiim. The Targums treat
the Hebrew place name as a plural noun meaning peoples, nations; the
LXX has an etymological translation basiles (basils) ethnn at Gen
14:1, 9 and transliteration (basila) Gim at Josh 12:23; Sym changes the
name to Pamphylas; Vg has the translation rex (regem) Gentium
(gentium) at all places. Most mediaeval, Renaissance and later versions
do not follow Aramaic, Greek and Latin models but transliterate the word
gym as a proper name. It is all the more surprising that the most inuential Renaissance translations translate the word as a common noun, but
at this point they were not followed by many later versions: the nations
(GNV, KJV, DBY, NKJ, DRA, WEB, RWB); die Heiden (LUB, LUO);
die Vlker (LUT); les (N)nations (BLS, DRB); i nazioni (DIO, LND),
and so on. The BUR version is not consistent: at Gen 14:1, 9, it offers
the transliteration Gojim, and at Josh 12:23 the translation das Stmmegemisch.
Aram-naharaim and Paddan-aram
The Hebrew compounded place name ram nahrayim Aram-of-thetwo-rivers is designated at Gen 24:10 as the city of Nahor and it
appears at Gen 24:10; Deut 23:5; Judg 3:8; Ps 60:2; 1 Chr 19:6. The
place name Paddan-aram the way/plain of Aram seems to be a country
and it appears at Gen 25:20; 28:2, 5, 6, 7; 31:18; 33:18; 35:9, 26; 46:15.
The attitude of translators to these names shows a strong tendency to
interpret in accordance with their supposed etymological meaning. TgO
and TgPsJ have a combination of transliteration and explanation of the
double Hebrew name Aram-naharaim at all places: ram d!al prt
Aram, which is by (on) the Euphrates; TgN reproduces the full form
of the Hebrew double name at Deut 23:4, but at Gen 24:10, it renders literally only the second word Naharaim. On the other hand, the
Targums almost exclusively reproduce the full Hebrew form of the
compound name paddan ram; TgN exceptionally retains only the word
Paddan at Gen 25:20. The LXX introduces the designation Mesopotama
(the land) between rivers for both Hebrew names. At Gen 24:10 and
Deut 23:5, the Greek translator omits the rst word of the double Hebrew
name ram nahrayim, and the second word, meaning the two rivers,
he interprets simply as the land between the Euphrates and Tigris. At
1
72
Judg 3:8, he translates it as Syras potamn the Syria of rivers; at

Ps 60:2, the name is rendered as Mesopotaman Syras; at 1 Chr 19:6 we
nd the same designation in the opposite order Syras Mesopotamas.
The Hebrew double place name paddan ram is rendered in LXX simply
as Mesopotama at Gen 25:20; 28:2, 5; 31:18; elsewhere it is rendered
using the double name Mesopotama(n, s) (ts) Syras. The Vg renders
the name Aram-naharaim as Mesopotamia, except for Ps 60:2 where it
has the compound Syriam Mesopotamiam. The second name is rendered
simply as in Mesopotamiam at Gen 25:5; 31:18; doubly as in (de)
Mesopotamiam Syriae at Gen 28:2, 5, 6; 33:18; 35:9, 26; 46:16; and
simply in Syriam at Gen 28:7.
In the mediaeval, Renaissance and later translations, only a minority
have the transliterated form Aram-naharaim; most translators adopt the
Greek translation form introduced by the LXX, Mesopotamia, and very
few translate the name into their own language: lAram-des-deux-Fleuves
(TOB); paese (Paese) dei due umi (IEP); do aramskho Dvoji (CEP).
Even fewer combine translation and transliteration: Haute-Msopotamie
(BFC); Siria mesopotmica (RVA); Stroomland-Aram (LEI); in (nach,
von) Aram (dem) Zwiestromland (BUR). At Ps 60:2 and 1 Chr 19:6, the
LXX rendering Mesopotaman Syras and that of the Vg Syriam Mesopotamiam obviously prompted many translators to similar combinations:
Syrians of Mesopotamia (DBY); Mesopotamia of Syria (DRA); mit den
Syrer zu Mesopotamia (LUB); mit den Aramern von Mesopotamien
(LUT); mit den Syrern von Mesopotamien (ELO, ELB, SCH); mit den
Aramern Mesopotamiens (EIN); mit dem (beim) Aramer des Zwiestromlandes (BUR); aux Syriens de Msopotamie (LSG, NEG); les
Aramens de Msopotamie (TOB); ai Siri di Mesopotamia (NRV); els
arameus de Naharaim (BCI); stemi Syrerji v Mesopotamij (DAL); de
Syrirs van Mesopotami (LUV); de Arameers van Mesopotami
(NBG); de Syriers van Mesopotamie (SVV). At 1 Chr 19:6, we also nd
unusual translations: from the Aramaeans of Upper Mesopotamia (NJB);
des Syriens de Haute-Msopotamie (BFC); od Aramejc z Dvoj
(CEP). The Hebrew double name paddan ram is transliterated in nearly
all the translations. Very few translators use the Greek translation form
Mesopotamia (LUB, DAL, N30, N38, NBK, NBN, FIN), while some
others use mixed translation forms in their own languages: HauteMsopotamie (BFC); la plaine dAram (TOB); Pdan Syrsk (BKR);
z Rovin aramskh (CEP); die Aramerur (BUR at all places).
73

Moreh and Moriah
Genesis 12:6 speaks of Abrahams itinerary through the land to the
place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh (ln mreh). At Deut 11:30, a
description is given of where the mountains Gerizim and Ebal are to be
found: As you know, they are beyond the Jordan, some distance to the
west, in the land of the Canaanites who live in the Arabah, opposite
Gilgal, beside the oaks of Moreh (el ln mreh). At Judg 7:1, the
narrator says: Jerubbaal (that is, Gideon) and all the troops that were
with him rose early and encamped beside the spring of Harod; and the
camp of Midian was north of them below the hill of Moreh (miggib!at
hammreh), in the valley. In the absence of any other indications for
identication of the place name Moreh, one may assume that the same
place is meant in these three passages. The Hebrew word ln() stands
in the singular at Gen 12:6 and in the plural at Deut 11:30.
The interpretation presented in ancient and modern translations of the
Bible is not uniform. Aramaic versions of the Pentateuch consistently
render ln() as mar, possibly wishing to save Abraham from the
suspicion of tree-worship. At Gen 12:6 and Deut 11:30, TgO has the
formulation mar mreh the plain of Moreh; it seems likely that the
translation counteracts the Samaritan belief in the holiness of a certain
local tree. The LXX translates the kind of tree, at Gen 12:6 and Deut
11:30, in the singular, but interprets the name of the place according to its
supposed etymological meaning: ep tn drn tn hypsln at the high
oak (Gen 12:6) and plson drys ts hypsls by the high oak (Deut
11:30); the translation of Deut 11:30 may well be based on Gen 12:6.
This interpretation of the place name is probably based on an understanding of the word as related to the root rwm to be high, on the assumption that the rst and the third consonants are transposed. The preserved
version of Sym has ts drys Mambr at the oak of Mambre at Gen
12:6; the Vg has ad convallem Inlustrem at Gen 12:6 and iuxta vallem
tendentem et intrantem procul at Deut 11:30. Most later translations have
at Gen 12:6 and Deut 11:30 oak/terebinth/tree of Moreh, some have the
plain of Moreh, but we also nd a rendering according to the Vg: the
noble vale (DRA); die Steineiche des Rechtsweisers (BUR); la valle
illustre (BLS at Gen 12:6), prs dune valle qui stend et savance bien
loin (BLS at Deut 11:30); une colline fort leve (BLS at Judg 7:1).
The phrase miggib!at hammreh at Judg 7:1 has a variety of renderings in translations. TgJudg has an interpretive translation: g!at
dmistaky lmr the hill that faces the plain; the LXX has
1
74
transliteration of both words here: ap Gabath Hamor; LXXO has ap

Gabaathamora. There are numerous manuscript variants: Amr (Cod.
19, 108, SyrHex); ap to bmo to Abr, or Abra, Abor, Amra,
Amor (Cod. 2, 54, 75, 76, etc.); ap to bounno to Amorraou (Cod.
58 in the text); to hypslo (in the margin), and so on. In various manuscripts both terms appear in variants: gaath, gabath, gabaad, gaban,
gaatham; amora, amore, amorai, tou amore, tou abrai, tou aborai, tou
abre, tou abore, amr, abr, tou abr, mra, tou mre, amorrai,
amorrain, tou amorraiou, borra, mraith, tou hupslou, amrai. The
Vg provides a translation: collis Excelsi. In later translations, the phrase
is usually rendered as a combination of translation/transliteration: the hill
of Moreh, dem Hgel Moreh, and so on. Translation of both terms is very
rare: vom Hgel des Weisenden (BUR); Hrib te Strashe (DAL). On the
other hand, a few versions have transliteration of both terms: Gabaathamorai (LXE); Gibeath-hammoreh (NAB); Gibeath-moreh (TNK);
Gib!at-Gammorev (UKR).
The place name Moriah appears in the Hebrew Bible with minor
orthographic differences only in the Elohistic source at Gen 22:2 and
2 Chr 3:1. According to Gen 22:2, God commanded Abraham: Take
your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of
Moriah (wlek-lk el-ere hammriyyh), and offer him there as a
burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you. Any
mountainous region associated with a tradition of human sacrice would
satisfy the conditions of this report. Yet, according to 2 Chr 3:1, Moriah
is the mountain on which God appeared to David and on which the
temple stands in Jerusalem: Solomon began to build the house of the
LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah (bhar hammriyyh), where the
LORD had appeared to his father David, at the place that David had
designated, on the threshing oor of Ornan the Jebusite. Various early
rabbinic sources testify that the gradual association between the vision of
Abraham in the land of Moriah and the temple on Mount Moriah has
suppressed the original name of the mountain of Abrahams trial. It is
even possible that the name Moriah was inserted into Gen 22:2 from
2 Chr 3:1 in a later stage of redaction.
Ancient recensions and versions of Gen 22:2 present different
interpretations: eis tn gn tn hupsln into the high land (LXX); eis
tn gn tn kataphan into the evident, clearly seen land (Aq); ts
optasas into the land of appearance, of manifestation (Sym); in terram
Visionis into the land of Vision (Vg). The rendering by the LXX
probably has the same background understanding as the interpretation of
the toponym Moreh at Gen 12:6 and Deut 11:30, whereas other Greek
1
75
and Latin versions are based on the same tradition as the Samaritan version. The Syriac version reads the name of the people the Amorites
instead of the toponym Moriah. All the Targums identify the mountain
Moriah with the mountain in Jerusalem, where the Temple was built, for
their rendering of Gods command to Abraham at Gen 22:2 is: lk
lar! pln go forth to the land of worship. This anachronistic
shift from the proper name to a common noun testies particularly
clearly how strong was the early rabbinic claim that the land of
Moriah, where Abraham bound Isaac, was Mount Moriah in Jerusalem.
Such an interpretation presupposes that Mount Moriah in Jerusalem was
a cult centre even in the Patriarchal Age. The Samaritan Hebrew
Pentateuch has the form ere hammrh the land of vision; this form
presupposes the root rh to see. It is noteworthy that the Samaritans
claim Mount Gerizim as the mountain of Abrahams trial. In view of the
preference given to the translation method at Gen 22:2, it is surprising
that all the ancient versions have transliteration of the name Moriah at
2 Chr 3:1: Amora (LXX), Moria (Vg). It is equally surprising that nearly
all later translators transliterated the name Moriah at both places; the
only exception found so far is DRA, using the translation the land of
vision only at Gen 22:2.
11. Etymological Translation of the Proper Name Machpelah
The name Machpelah appears only in the book of Genesis, in the
narratives of the P source: 23:9, 17, 19; 25:9; 49:30; 50:13. According to
Gen 23:89, Abraham asked the Hittites, the people of the land: If you
are willing that I should bury my dead out of my sight, hear me, and
entreat for me Ephron son of Zohar, so that he may give me the cave of
Machpelah (m!rat hammakplh), which he owns; it is at the end of
his eld. For the full price let him give it to me in your presence as a
possession for a burying place. At other passages the relation of the
words makplh and deh is variously described in fuller phrases as
deh !eprn er bammakplh the eld of Ephron which is in
Machpelah (Gen 23:17); m!rat dh hammakplh in the cave of
the eld of Machpelah (Gen 23:19; 50:13); bamm!rh er bideh
hammakplh in the cave which is in the eld of Machpelah (Gen
49:30). It is easy to see that the form makplh is a derivative in the
causative participle (the type maqtil) of the root kpl to double, but the
phrases and the context of the above-mentioned passages clearly indicate
that the word hammakplh is used as a place name.
1
76
Ancient translations nevertheless embrace the etymological meaning

of the word. In the LXX the phrase is rendered at all places using t
splaion t diplon the double cave and in the Vg using spelunca
duplex. TgO and TgJ also associate the noun hammakplh with the verb
kpl and at all places use the rendering m!rat kape()lt the double
cave; TgN renders it similarly as m!rat kplh. The common Jewish
tradition of the etymological interpretation of the cave nds an explicit
explication in b. Erubin 53a:
Rab and Samuel differ as to its meaning. One holds that the cave consisted of two chambers one within the other; and the other holds that it
consisted of a lower and upper chamber. According to him who holds that
the chambers were one above the other the term machpelah is well justied, but according to him who holds that it consisted of two chambers
one within the other, what could be the meaning of machpelah?That it
had multiples of couples.
Rashi adopts this explanation of the two possible meanings of the word
mkplh.
In spite of the insistence of the ancient translators that the place name
Machpelah applies to the root meaning of the term, the mediaeval,
Renaissance and modern translators almost unanimously transliterate the
bound phrase the cave (eld) of Machpelah. Exceptions are reduced to
the very literal American translation of Vg of 1899, to LUB and to
Luthers followers: the double cave (DRA); die zwifache H(h)(h)le
(LUB, LUO); la caverne (antre) double (BLS); dvojna I(j)ama (DAL,
JAP, WOF); dubbele spelunk (LUV).
12. Etymological Translation of the Proper Name Shephelah
In the Hebrew Bible, the word plh, a feminine noun form from the
regular adjective form pl low, occurs twenty times in a context
indicating that the term is used as the name or designation of a territory:
Deut 1:7; Josh 9:1; 10:40; 11:2, 16 (twice); 12:8; 15:33; Judg 1:9; 1 Kgs
10:27; Jer 17:26; 32:44; 33:13; Obad 19; Zech 7:7; 1 Chr 27:28; 2 Chr
1:15; 9:27; 26:10; 28:18. The range of its meaning is therefore the low
country, the lower part, the lowland, and it is reminiscent of the Akkadian form apiltu(m), meaning lower, or inner part. The word in this
meaning also appears in 1 Maccabees in Greek forms: Sephl (12:38);
prspon to pedou facing the plain (13:13). This geographical term
always refers to the area between the Philistine plain and the southern
hill country of the Holy Land. The nature of the passages shows that any
interpretation of the meaning of the term in a given text must consider
1
77
not only geographical but also literary and rhetorical criteria. The strong
rhetorical character of most passages makes it difcult to decide with any
certainty between the options of proper name or a general geographical
designation.
Most passages belong to the Deuteronomistic framework of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Jeremiah and Chronicles. In these books the term
Shephelah appears in similar formulaic structures. The general geographical description summarizes declarations of Gods command or
promise that the Promised Land will be given to Israel, or describes a
coalition of the peoples against the Israelites. Geographical terms often
indicate the principal geographical divisions of the Promised Land.
According to Deut 1:7, Moses refers to dening the borders in Gods
command at Mount Horeb: Resume your journey, and go into the hill
country of the Amorites (har hmr) as well as into the neighbouring
regionsthe Arabah, the hill country, the Shephelah, the Negeb, and the
seacoast (b!rbh bhr baplh bannegeb bp hayym)
the land of the Canaanites and the Lebanon, as far as the great river, the
River Euphrates. The geographical description at Josh 9:1 includes only
the southern part of the country by referring to the kings who were in
the hill country and in the lowland (bhr baplh) all along the
coast of the Great Sea toward Lebanon, and who were gathered together
to ght Joshua and Israel. At 10:40, the narrator summarizes the outcome
of the battle: So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the
Negeb and the Shephelah and the slopes (hhr whannegeb whaplh whdt), and all their kings. The general geographical
description of the lands inhabited by Israels adversaries at Josh 11:13,
1617 and 12:8 is similar. According to Judg 1:9, the people of Judah
fought against the Canaanites who lived in the hill country, in the
Negeb, and in the Shephelah (hhr whannegeb whaplh).
Within the conditional promise of Jer 17:2426, the writer reports that
the people shall come from the towns of Judah and the places around
Jerusalem, from the land of Benjamin, from the Shephelah, from the hill
country, and from the Negeb (min-haplh min-hhr min-hannegeb), bringing burnt offering and sacrices. More or less the same
geographical coordination with some changes of order appears in the
promise of Israels restoration at Jer 32:44 and 33:13. Obadiahs
description of Israels nal triumph coordinates the regions of Negeb and
Shephelah (v. 19), and the same coordination appears in Zechariahs condemnation of hypocritical fasting at Zech 7:7. According to 2 Chr 28:18,
the pair is used in the opposite order: The Philistines had made raids
on the cities in the Shephelah and the Negeb of Judah According to
1
78
2 Chr 26:10, Uzziah had large herds, both in the Shephelah and in the
plain (baplh bammr). There are only a few places in which
the name Shephelah stands without coordination with other names or
designations of territory: at Josh 1:33, the term plh stands alone,
designating the district of fourteen towns; at 1 Kgs 10:27 (= 1 Chr 1:15;
2 Chr 9:27), the name Shephelah is used in a metaphorical description of
Solomons great wealth: The king made silver (and gold) as common in
Jerusalem as stones, and he made cedars as numerous as the sycamores
of the Shephelah; at 1 Chr 27:28, the term Shephelah is mentioned in
connection with distribution of lands to civic ofcials.
In view of the nature of the passages treated it is understandable that
there is no unied interpretation of the word plh, whether in the
scholarly literature or in Bible translations throughout history. The
coordination of the term with some other names or designations of
territory shows most clearly whether the term is used as a proper name or
as a general geographical designation. The parallelism with negeb and
!rbh means that both terms are probably meant as proper names. On
the other hand, the parallelism with hhr may constitute a merism, that
is, an expression of totality by using opposite terms. On the whole, the
term is so often clearly used as a proper name that it seems reasonable to
transliterate it as a proper name rather than to translate it in accordance
with its etymology.
The history of Bible translations, however, shows an opposite situation. The term is rarely transliterated; since antiquity, it was usually
translated using a great variety of words and phrases without paying
sufcient attention to coordination of the term with other geographical
terms and to the literary or rhetorical features of the texts. Special
attention may be given to ancient translations: t pedon the plain,
h pedin the plain country (LXX); humiliora, campester, plana (Vg).
The LXX transliterates the term as Sephl at Jer 32:44; Obad 19;
2 Chr 26:10, and the Targums surprisingly offers pelt at all places,
even though some other coordinating Hebrew place names are, often
in contrast to the LXX, changed into designating or descriptive terms:
instead of the proper name negeb there is the common noun drm
south, and !rbh is changed into mr plain, valley. On the
other hand, VUL never transliterates it.
The mediaeval, Renaissance and later translations usually translate the
term: the valley (GNV); the (low) plain(s) (KJV); low country (KJV); the
vale(s) (KJV, DRA, WEB, RWB); the L(l)owland(s) (DBY, ASV, JPS,
NKJ, RSV, NAS, NAU, NJB, ESV, NRSV); the (western) foothills (NIV,
NIB, NAB, NLT); die G(g)rnde (LUB, LUO); das Hgelland (LUT);
1
79
die Nied(e)rung (BUR, ELO, ELB); das Tal (SCH); le pays plat (DRB);
la valle (LSG, NEG); le Bas-Pays (BFC, TOB); il bassopiano (LND);
la regione bassa (NRV); doline, raune, planjave (DAL, JAP, WOL), and
so on. There are few translations in which we nd transliteration of the
name in more or less passages (RSV, EIN, IEP, RVA, BCI, BTP, SSP).
Because of inconsistency within most translations, it is impossible to
offer here a complete and accurate survey of the forms of translation and
transliteration of the term according to all passages. In RSV, for instance,
the term is transliterated as Shephelah ten times (1 Kgs 10:27; 1 Chr
27:28; 2 Chr 1:15; 9:27; 26:10; 28:18; Jer 17:26; 32:44; 33:13; Obad 19)
and translated as lowland ten times (Deut 1:7; Josh 9:1; 10:40; 11:2, 16
[2]; 12:8; 15:33; Judg 1:9; 7:7).
13. Supposed Etymology of Harmagedon
In the context of a scene showing the last struggle of the forces of good
and evil, we nd in Rev 16:16 the name for the place of assembly of the
kings of the world to judge the demonic spirits which come from the
mouths of dragons, beasts and false prophets: And they (the kings)
assembled them at the place that in Hebrew is called Harmagedon. This
name presents a puzzle because the word does not occur anywhere in
Hebrew or Greek sources. Moreover, the manuscripts of this single
passage testify to three alternative readings of the name: Armagedon,
Harmagedon and Maged(d)on. Suggested interpretations to explain the
alternative forms Harmagedon and Armagedon include: har-mgidd
Mount Megiddo, designating Mount Carmel near the city of Megiddo;
har-m!d the mount of assembly, referring to the assembling of pagan
gods (Isa 14:13); har-migd his fruitful mountain, designating Mount
Zion; !ar-mgidd city of Megiddo; ar! mgidd land of Megiddo
(Aramaic and Syriac); and !ar-emdh the city of desire, designating
Jerusalem. To clarify the name, it is necessary to consider the historical
circumstances surrounding the city of Megiddo and the fact that the book
of Revelation abounds in symbolic language. Mount Carmel near
Megiddo was the place of Elijahs contest with the prophets of Baal,
when false prophets were put to the sword. On the other hand, the
apocalyptic literature prefers to present Mount Zion as the place from
which God will proceed in his battle against the forces of evil.
The history of interpretation testies to an equilibrium between the
alternative forms Harmaged(d)on and Armaged(d)on. In various manuscripts and editions of the Greek original, we nd the alternative forms
Harmageddn and Harmagedn. The Vg has the form Hermagedon. The
1
80
Renaissance versions have: Arma-gedon (GNV); Armageddon (KJV);

Harmagedon (LUB); Armagheddon (DIO); Armageddon (BKR);
Harmagedon (DAL). In later versions we nd all these variant forms but
with more variation in spelling: Armagedon (JAP, WOL); Harmagedon
(SSP), and so on. It is interesting that the NRSV changed from using the
form Armageddon (KJV, RSV, etc.) to the form Harmagedon.
The history of the forms of biblical proper names reveals several developmental stages in the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin, as well as in
the Jewish Christian linguistic and cultural tradition in general. An
examination of the extraordinary variation in transliteration or translation
of the original forms of biblical proper names in ancient and more modern Bible translations says much about the understanding and pronunciation of Semitic names by the translators. The series of transformations
of biblical personal and place names in ancient and later translations provides quite reliable evidence of the sources used by translators in their
translation work and of what constitutes their original contribution. It is
reasonable to suppose that at least the forms of the important biblical
proper names were absorbed into ancient Bible translations through the
intermediary of an established ancient Jewish tradition and through
previous translations, no longer available. Generally speaking, nearly all
biblical personal and place names manifest the inuence of linguistic,
literary and cultural traditions on pronunciation of the source form or on
the translation form in another inuential ancient language in a given
land. For the development of the forms of biblical proper names, four
languages are of utmost importance: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin.
The inuence of these languages was naturally different, being affected
by the linguistic, religious and cultural spheres of Europe. The long
history of the original or of translation forms of the biblical names gives
the impression that the majority of translations drew in their target
language through the intermediary of the established living tradition or
through ancient translations. The attitude to the main name of the God of
Israel is the most striking proof of how important the role of tradition
was in transmission of biblical proper names. Various sources testify that
the divine name yhwh (Yahweh) was considered too sacred to be pronounced even before the oldest extant translations of the Bible were
created. This explains why yhwh was substituted by the Greek translators
with the general designation Krios.
1
81
In the Jewish tradition, Jerusalem became the centre of Judaism and of

the world. This fact must be taken into consideration when evaluating the
forms of the biblical names appearing in the Palestinian and Babylonian
Targums, as well as in the Alexandrian Greek translation of the Old
Testament. In spite of their geographical distance, translators obviously
wanted to maintain close contact with the geographical reality of the
Holy Land and with the Palestinian tradition. To be sure, the Jews living
in Alexandria and Babylon must have missed immediate contact with the
Holy Land when a decision about whether and how to transliterate or
translate a particular name needed to be taken. A survey of the forms of
the proper names appearing in ancient Jewish translations of the Bible
proves, however, that achieving conformity in the rendering of proper
names was not the pressing issue that it became in later times. The LXX
in particular surprises in respect of the amount of transliteration/translation used in various sections, as well as regards the forms of transliteration employed. Perhaps such lack of consistency is to be expected
from a version that is named, according to tradition, on the basis of the
seventy translators involved in its preparation. Yet how are we to explain
inconsistency in versions prepared by one individual, as seen for instance
in the Vg and in many later European versions? Such cases force us to
assume that translators were not especially prepared for dealing with the
challenges of biblical names. Most of them were obviously not particularly in favour of their phonetic, morphological and orthographic
standardization. It seems that the pluralism is rooted in reading of the
Scriptures in the synagogues and in homes. Translators received there the
initiative for transliteration or translation and for various forms of transliteration of the names. They did not possess, however, either grammar
or dictionary or concordance.
The mediaeval, Renaissance and more modern European Bible translations were based more or less primarily on the original text, on the LXX
in its various versions, on the Vg and on some earlier translations into
other European languages. Translators who are in favour of a unied
system of translation could easily discover that consistency in using the
forms of the biblical names is much greater in the original than in ancient
translations, and therefore they must have found the inconsistency in
transliteration and translation technique unacceptable. Inconsistency is
confusing especially regarding the phonetics and morphology of wellknown names. A greater attention to the original text in modern times
explains why consistency in transliterating or translating of proper names
in modern versions of the Bible is greater than in ancient translations. It
seems that in ancient times tradition dominated more strongly over the
1
82
biblical text and context than in modern critical times. Only in modern
times did the text and context acquire their proper role. Examples of
radical deviation from tradition and of a return to the source forms is a
modern phenomenon, but the marks of this movement are present
already in the mediaeval and Renaissance translations of the Bible. This
movement does not explain why, since Renaissance times, there was a
greater tendency to transliterate rather than to translate biblical proper
names. Yet this does demonstrate that all the fundamental dilemmas
concern all translations to the same extent. In relation to phonetic forms
of biblical proper names there is, therefore, only a limited justication to
speak of Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions in use of
the forms of biblical proper names.
What are the possibilities of establishing reliance of translators on
previous translations? In general, it is true that translators in the East, in
addition to the original text, paid signicant attention to the LXX, while
in the West the Vg was central. It is well known that numerous European
translators explicitly relied upon recognized ancient and contemporary
translations. The forms of biblical proper names more than other
linguistic and literary elements manifest the degree of dependence
between some translations of the Bible. If in individual cases the model
and the copy show agreement both in the use and rendering of a name,
especially its orthographic form, reliance is obvious. The question of
reliance on previous translations is of special interest. When the content
and the form of a translation or transliteration coincide, it becomes
apparent that a given later translator drew on a former one, who was in
general the model. Coincidences of this kind between LUB, DAL and
some other versions according to LUB clearly prove a very great dependence of DAL and some other European translations on LUB. Even more
striking is the fact that GNV, LUB, TNK and most other Jewish and
Christian Bible translations obviously often drew on the LXX or on the
Vg rather than on the original text. We therefore have good reasons to
speak of a common European cultural tradition in transmission of the
forms of biblical proper names. Plurality concerning the forms of the
biblical names in ancient times and the great inuence of antiquity on the
development of European cultures on all levels are today signicant
factors motivating the attempts to return to the sources and to make valid
the authority of the original text. Justiable exceptions are only the wellknown biblical proper names that have become ingrained in national
cultures (and identities).
Unfortunately, the tendency to harmonize the forms of biblical proper
names with the original text does not proceed consistently enough. It is
noteworthy that TOB was prepared under the inuence of an agreement
1
83
made by the translators, one which sought to bring about the homognit de la traduction. And yet the established rules hardly included
unifying the forms of proper names.3 In recent times, only the German
authors of EIN made the necessary effort to establish phonetic rules for
transliterating the proper names.4 These rules served as a welcome basis
for the standardization of the form of the biblical names in the new SSP.
In the German and Slovenian versions, all the proper names except those
which are part of an established cultural tradition are preserved in their
Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek forms. Any attempt to change the overpowering authority of the phonetics of the well-known biblical proper names
would involve striking out boldly, departing forcefully from the living
language and culture.
3. See Philippe Reymond, Vers une traduction franaise oecumnique de la

Bible, in Hebrische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter
Baumgartner (VTSup 16; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 23143.
4. See Fricke and Schwank, kumenisches Verzeichnis der biblischen Eigennamen nach den Loccumer Richtlinien; Hellmut Haug, ed., Namen und Orte der
Bibel (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2002).
1
Chapter 3
TRANSMISSION OF SEMITIC FORMS

OF BIBLICAL PROPER NAMES
IN GREEK AND LATIN LINGUISTIC TRADITIONS
The rendering of biblical proper names is an issue that relates directly to

the question of how the pre-Masoretic texts of the Hebrew Bible, as well
as their ancient translations, were transmitted and handed down through
history. The presence of variants in the Dead Sea biblical scrolls, which
presumably originated before the Qumran period, conrms the view that
in pre-Masoretic times the Hebrew and Aramaic texts were transmitted
only in popular, unauthorized forms. This view is supported by the
substantial divergences in some cases of the LXX text-forms, such as
Samuel, Jeremiah and Job, a phenomenon which invites the conclusion
that the LXX followed a different, pre-Masoretic Hebrew text. It is all the
more striking that at least the Pentateuch/Torah was sacrosanct and
inviolable before the end of the Old Testaments composition history.
This fact helps us to understand why differences between the Dead Sea
biblical scrolls, the multiplicity of text-forms of unauthorized preMasoretic texts and the standardized MT are hardly visible in the forms
of biblical proper names.1
In the Textus Receptus of the Hebrew Bible, variant readings of the
forms of biblical proper names are so few that the Hebrew and Aramaic
forms of these names must have been basically standardized already
in the early Hellenistic period. From a methodological point of view it
1. Unfortunately, the rst English translation of the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls
does not bring to light evidence concerning the forms of Hebrew names. See Martin
Abegg Jr., Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest
Known Bible: Translated for the First Time into English (New York: HarperCollins,
1999). The text-critical editions of the Hebrew Bible also do not provide complete
information about various forms of individual proper names from the biblical texts
in Hebrew/Aramaic and ancient versions.
1
3. Transmission of Semitic Forms of Biblical Proper Names
85
is therefore of utmost importance to consider with equal care all the

material available, without discriminating between Masoretic forms as
authoritative compared to non-Masoretic evidence of pronunciation. It is
possible that there are phonetic connections and interdependences of the
variously pronounced grammatical forms. There are compelling reasons
for assuming the existence of two or more independent dialects or patterns of pronunciation.
The relative uniformity of biblical proper names in the Hebrew Bible
is remarkable in view of the considerable variety of their forms in various ancient versions. Where does this variety come from? This question
is particularly urgent for the whole history of the transmission of Greek
and Latin forms of biblical proper names, as Greek and Latin much more
strongly shaped European cultural and linguistic traditions than Hebrew
and Aramaic did. Any evaluation of the forms of biblical proper names
in ancient translation languages raises the question of the relationship
between respective original forms and the way they were transcribed or
translated into other languages. The uniformity or the variety of the
forms of biblical proper names are both attributable to several factors, in
the original and in translations: uniform prototypes, different linguistic
backgrounds, the existence of different dialects, phonetic variation in the
course of transmission, multiple textual traditions, the more or less
extensive use of the names in communities constituting living traditions,
active and intentional alterations, the participation of different Bible
translators, and different approaches among the original translators.
Although we may rightly speak of the relative individuality of history
and tradition of each version, the individual forms of biblical proper
names are only to a certain extent the result of historical circumstances
and extant traditions. More important seems to be the individuality of
phonetic systems of the most inuential ancient languages in transmission of the biblical texts, that is, of Hebrew/Aramaic, Greek and
Latin. On the one hand, the Greco-Latin alphabets are inadequate for
rendering some Semitic sounds, insofar as these alphabets do not have
exact equivalents for Semitic gutturals or sibilants. On the other hand,
the pre-Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible caused translators many
phonological problems because originally it did not contain vowel
sounds. The phonetic relationship between the Hebrew/Aramaic and
Greek languages has special implications for the forms of biblical proper
names in the New Testament.
86
1. Historical and Linguistic Factors of Forms

Ancient translators sometimes render differently the same Hebrew name
forms in the various biblical books, or even within the same book. There
are indications that even the most famous translators and interpreters,
such as Flavius Josephus and Jerome, did not always transcribe the same
name the same way. From this fact we may deduce that the Hebrew
parent text of the LXX could not have been part of a uniform tradition.2
Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Vaticanus (B) of the LXX, for
instance, are composed of different portions, each of which belong to
different periods, even though these versions are genetically linked. One
of the most signicant criteria of the works of ancient times is their
mixed type. Compilers, revisers or copyists of ancient translations had
little reason to alter the form of proper names or to remove apparent
discrepancies and inner contradictions of forms. Nevertheless, wellknown biblical names manifest an astounding level of transcription
uniformity. This means that the uniformity in writing popular names may
be attributable to the uniformity of the oral tradition in a small community, or even in the entire Jewish or Christian community, rather than
to the uniformity of the original or active attempts at harmonization. This
2. See especially the recent publications: Folker Siegert, Zwischen Hebrischer
Bibel und Altem Testament: Eine Einfhrung in die Septuaginta (MJSt 9; Mnster:
LIT, 2001); Heinz-Josef Fabry and Ulrich Offerhaus, eds., Im Brennpunkt: Die
Septuaginta: Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel
(BWANT 153; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001); Adrian Schenker, ed., The Earliest
Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the
Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SCS 52; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2003); Siegfried Kreuzer and Jrgen Peter Lesch, eds., Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta: Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen
Bibel, Band 2 (BWANT 161; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004); Isac Leo Seeligmann,
The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies (ed. Robert Hanhart and
Hermann Spieckermann; FAT 40; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); Ivan Z.
Dimitrov, James D. G. Dunn, Ulrich Luz and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, eds., Das Alte
Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht (WUNT 174;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); Alfred Rahlfs, revised by Detlef Fraenkel,
Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, Vol. I.1, Die
berlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum
Graecum: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004); Stuart Weeks, Simon Gathercole and Loren
Stuckenbruck, eds., The Book of Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and
Medieval Traditions: With Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in
Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004).
1
87
fact can best be illustrated by the forms of the names in most general use
among the Jewish and Christian population. It is striking that the names
usually retain the same form throughout the Bible, not just within one or
the other section.3 Consideration of variants is important in any critical
study of the forms of biblical proper names in the original and in ancient
translations. The Hebrew Bible contains signicant variant forms for the
same name or even for the same person. On the other hand, in the New
Testament most names do not show signicant variants. Important to
note is also that well-known proper names are in general practically
xed.
The current forms of biblical proper names have been inuenced by
the phonetic changes necessitated by their transfer and transliteration
from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek and Latin, from which sources
other languages borrowed in their turn. By means of translation into
Greek, Latin and other ancient languages, many biblical proper names
have passed into general usage. On the whole, the frequency of references shows that the pool of names in use in the biblical period was
similarly limited, as it has been in all later periods until today. With
Greek and Latin it is evident that popular names were much less exposed
to phonetic changes than those that were used more rarely. This means
that the unied forms of proper names reect a unied common pronunciation and an orthographic tradition in a living tradition which helped to
maintain phonetic stability in spite of the difculty of reading phonetically the Hebrew consonantal text at a time when Hebrew was no longer
a spoken language.
a. The Source Text (Vorlage) of Ancient Translations
The practice of Bible translation in the ancient Jewish and Christian
communities had arisen as the result of a very real problem, namely, the
fact that Hebrew was no longer understood by the majority of the people.
In Palestinian synagogues it was customary to read the Bible text rst in
Hebrew, followed by an Aramaic translation. A parallel practice was
introduced among the Jews in the Greek-speaking Hellenistic world and
in the early Christian church, except that there the reading of the Hebrew
text was followed by a Greek translation. At the earliest stage Bible
3. Since the goal of this study of phonetic systems is to provide a historical
record of the forms of biblical proper names in the original and in translations, information on the people or places who bore the names is only exceptionally relevant. It
is important to note that family names are basically very rare, since they were
usually not in use in the Hebrew Bible period. The names of months, musical terms
and similar items are not considered in this study.
1
88
translations were oral and of an individual nature. The earliest portions

of Bible translation are therefore necessarily compilations of such earlier
fragments as were accessible to compilers. The process of compilation of
the earliest translations in various places would account for the emergence of text-types with clear-cut differences between them. Though
early translators only occasionally had previous material available, later
compilations reect the attempt at harmonization of various text-types.
Gradually, continuous translations began to be made and came into
common use. The state of Aramaic and Greek Bible translations testies
to the fact that no uniform original Aramaic (Targums), Greek (LXX,
Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) and Latin translations (Vetus Latina,
Latin Vg) reecting a uniform Hebrew tradition can be posited. Differences between the branches of the Aramaic, Greek and Latin traditions
are not so much chronological, due to linguistic change, as dialectal
(reecting a different linguistic background), or methodological (reecting different translation and transcription practice). Transcription or
translation of proper names could be carried out only within the phonetic
system of the respective Indo-European language.
A comparative study of the forms of biblical names in transliteration
or translation shows that the principles that guided Jews in interpreting
the names were changed after the Hebrew Bible period. Relevant are
such questions as: How important were the sounds and the meaning of
the name to translators considerations? To what extent did scribal and
orthographic phenomena internal to Aramaic (as well as Greek and
Latin) inuence the way names are preserved in translations? Which are
the typical indicators and specic forms of Aramization of Hebrew name
forms? How can one explain the fact that only a few specic names are
used in the Bible very frequently? Why were such names much more
stable in form than those which were used less frequently? To what
degree did tradition determine the change in transmitting biblical names
in ancient versions? To what extent and for which purposes were Semitic
and non-Semitic foreign names adopted under Persian rule, after the
arrival of Hellenism in the East and during the Roman occupation of
Palestine with its Latin culture?
The sources of transliterations in Greek and Latin translations of the
Bible date from the third century B.C.E. to the beginning of the fth
century C.E. Most forms of proper names in Greek and Latin translations
reproduce accurately the Hebrew consonants, while some others indicate
increasing corruption in the Greek and Latin spelling in the various
manuscripts. The systems of vocalization used by the translators of the
LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Origen, as well as the translators
1
89
of the Vetus Latina and Vetus Vg, and Jerome give evidence of a pronunciation of the undoubtedly unvocalized Hebrew text, a pronunciation
different from what the Tiberian Masoretes offer us. They used the
Hebrew source text (Vorlage) which antedates by centuries the Masoretic
Textus Receptus, with its Tiberian vocalization. To be sure, the pronunciation of Hebrew had changed substantially between the time of the
writing of the Greek originals and the period of later redactions and the
work done by the Tiberian Masoretes. This fact is only one of the explanations why the forms of proper names are often rendered in forms that
differ from those of the Masora.
The Latin Fathers offered ad-hoc renderings from the Greek Bible.
Works of the Latin Fathers contain ample extracts from Latin Bible versions. This multiple material of fragmentary versions is subsumed under
the name Old Latin or Vetus Latina as a catch-all term used for grouping
any Latin text-form independent of the Vg. Jeromes transliterations
must be based upon originals (Vorlagen) belonging to different periods.
This conclusion is based on philological evidence and is enhanced by
Jeromes occasional clear statements regarding the divergences between
his transliteration and the contemporary pronunciation of corresponding
Hebrew characters of the same word. Jerome himself denitely indicates
various possibilities of pronunciation of the same Hebrew name. In what
follows, the basic principles that govern the transliteration of biblical
names in the major literary works of the time will be provided according
to their main phonological, grammatical and scribal determinants.
b. General Observations on Transliteration Issues
Many phonological and grammatical rules dictate the transliteration of
biblical proper names into Greek and Latin. The absence of some letters
and sounds in Greek and Latin was the main reason for many phonetic
changes in the transfer of the names from Hebrew and Aramaic into
Greek and Latin. The most important sources for the transliteration of
biblical names into Greek are the LXX, the fragments of Greek translations of the Old Testament by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, as
well as the New Testament. Other principal sources are the major literary
works of the time, including: various inscriptions, documents from the
Judean desert, the works by Flavius Josephus,4 rabbinic literature,
Origens Hexapla,5 Vetus Latina, Eusebius book on Hebrew sites and
4. For the use of forms of biblical proper names in the writings by Flavius
Josephus, see Abraham Schalit, Namenwrterbuch zu Flavius Josephus (A Complete
Concordance to Flavius Josephus: Supplement I; Leiden: Brill, 1968).
5. See especially the edition by Field, Origenis Hexapla quae supersunt, I.
1
90
place names,6 the Latin Vg and Jeromes works on place names of the
Holy Land.7 In comparison with the LXX, Josephus tends to follow
ofcial spelling in his orthography. On the other hand, the New Testament sometimes comes close to the LXX and follows the common
pronunciation.
There are some specic phenomena pertinent to the transliteration
from Hebrew into Greek: consonant interchange, vowel interchange,
confusion in the use of a double or single consonant in Greek, misunderstanding of the declension system, transformation of Semitic sufxes, the
6. See the edition by de Lagarde, Onomastica sacra. In this edition the Greek
and Latin texts do not appear parallel but in succession: rst Latin, then Greek. The
editor provides the material with references to biblical and other sources, without
introductory notes and commentary. All the more precious is the rst scientic
edition of the Onomasticon, published by Klostermann, Eusebius: Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen. More recently several translations of the Onomasticon have been published: a Hebrew translation of this work has been published by
Ezra Zion Melamed, The Onomastikon of Eusebius (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 1966). An English translation both of the Greek text by Eusebius and Latin
translation by Jerome was prepared and published by Freeman-Grenville, Chapmann
and Taylor, Palestine in the Fourth Century A.D., with notes and commentary being
published by R. Steven Notley and Zeev Safrai, Eusebius: OnomasticonThe
Place Names of Divine Scripture (Leiden: Brill, 2005). Most studies of the book
have not focused upon its literary aspect, but rather upon the identication of sites.
See also P. Thomsen, Palstina nach dem Onomasticon des Eusebius (Ph.D. diss.,
Tbingen, 1903) (published under the same title in Zeitschrift des Deutschen
Palstina-Vereins 26 [1903]: 97141, 14588); Ezra Zion Melamed, The Onomastikon of Eusebius, Tarbiz 3 (1932): 31427, 393409.
7. Of special interest is Jeromes Latin translation of Eusebius book on the sites
and names of Hebrew places, which has various designations according to the
different manuscripts and printings: Liber de situ et nominibus locorum hebraicorum, Liber de distantiis locorum, Liber locorum oder locorum et nominum. This
Latin version of Eusebius Onomasticon became the main source for the research of
Palestine in the west. The edition by de Lagarde includes this work under the title
Hieronymi de situ et nominibus locorum hebraicorum liber. In addition to the translation of Eusebius book on the sites and names of Hebrew places (prepared in Bethlehem in 388), Jerome himself composed a book of Hebrew names, or Glossary of
Proper Names in the Old Testament. This book has been edited by Paul de Lagarde,
Onomastica Sacra (Hildesheim: Olms, 1966), under the title Hieronymi liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum (pp. 26116). See also S. Hieronymus, Liber
interpretationis hebraicorum nominum, in S. Hieronymi presbyteri opera, Pars I/1
(Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina 72; Turnholt: Prepols, 1959), 57161. A comprehensive study of this work was made by Franz Wutz, Onomastica sacra: Untersuchungen zum Liber interprettationis nominum hebraicorum des Hl. Hieronymus
(Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914).
1
91
declension of gutturals, declining of the prex and scribal error. Spelling

differences between the Hebrew and Greek forms of proper names are
not only due to different general phonetic laws pertinent to these languages, but also to the pronunciation in the time of the LXX being
different in many respects from the time of the Tiberian grammarians.
Transliteration forms of proper names in Greek and Latin indicate how
any given name was pronounced in that particular period. Very often
proper names are rendered in forms that differ from those of the Masora.
Greek codices do not offer uniform text and therefore must be assigned
to different textual types.
For a comparative study of the forms of biblical proper names we
must consider the complete LXX tradition in comparison with other forms
of the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and such sources as the works
of Flavius Josephus, and Eusebius book on the sites and names of
Hebrew places. Redaction of the New Testament material is simple, as
most names do not show signicant variation. Flavius Josephus is of particular importance for a comparative study of the forms of biblical proper
names because his transcriptions, such as the overall use of vowels as
well as the quality of certain vowels, differ from all the recognized
branches of the LXX tradition so often and consistently that it is hardly
possible to conclude that the underlying forms could have been taken
from any LXX MS. Josephan transcriptions are comparable to the New
Testament ones insofar as they must be assumed, as a rule anyway, to
have had uniform prototypes. The book on Hebrew sites and place names
by Eusebius is the most important book for the study of biblical nomenclature in the Roman period. The work as a whole comprises close to one
thousand entries, for slightly more than eight hundred place names. The
scientic edition of this work is based on MS Vatican 1456.
Eusebius book on the sites and names of Hebrew places is based on
the Bible. Right at the beginning, Eusebius mentions the sources and the
methods of his work:
First, I shall render into the Greek language the names of the nations
throughout the world that appear in the divine Scripture with Hebrew
names. Then I shall prepare a list (from the place names) of ancient
Judaea included in the entire Bible, according to the division of the
allotments of the twelve tribes within it. In addition to these things, I shall
etch the image of their renowned ancient metropolisnamely Jerusalemand the temple within it, according to the description of Scripture
with the citation of traditions for the places. Following in sequential order
I shall attach to these prior preparations from your proposal as a useful
(framework) for the entire project, setting out (the ethnic) natures and
regions of the cities and villages presented in divine Scripture in the
1
92

ancestral language, and how they are named by uswhether in like
fashion of the ancients or rendered differently. From all of the divinely
inspired Scripture I will present the names that are sought, setting out
each (entry) in alphabetical order for easy access to the events that have
occurred scattered in the readings (of Scripture).8
In addition to various Greek translations of the Bible, the work of

Eusebius is based on the works of Flavius Josephus, Origen (Hexapla),
his own knowledge and on written sources long since lost. The arrangement of names is, unfortunately, very inconvenient, the names under
each letter being placed in separate groups following the order of the
books of Scripture in which they occur. For instance, under the letter A
we have rst the names in Genesis, then those in Exodus, and so on. The
question is: To what extent and in which aspects did the lost written
sources supply Eusebius with material that is not available in extant
documents?9
How much does this dilemma concern the question of transliteration
of biblical proper names? The question of transliteration increases in
importance especially in view of Jeromes translation of Eusebius book
on the sites and names of Hebrew places because the Latin version of
this work had even greater inuence in the Western world in relation to
the Holy Land and in Latin Bible translations. This translation shows
very clearly that Greek and Latin alphabets are not completely compatible, for Semitic gutturals or sibilants and some vowels are not rendered
using the same sounds in Greek and Latin. When Jerome wrote his book
on Hebrew names and translated Eusebius book on the sites and names
of Hebrew places into Latin, he faced basically the same transliteration
problems as Eusebius himself.
It is a widely accepted view that the transliterations of Jerome must be
based upon originals belonging to different periods. Another view is that
Jeromes contributions are not genuine transliterations of Hebrew name
8. The translation is taken from Notley and Safrai, Eusebius: Onomasticon, 34.
9. Klostermann assumes that the data from lost written sources attest to the real
value of Eusebius book on the sites and names of Hebrew places. In his edition,
Eusebius: Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen, XVI, he describes the
relationship between the preserved and lost sources as follows: Die genannten
Quellen, abgesehen etwa von der Hexapla, knnen wir heute noch direkt benutzen.
Aber der Wert des Buches liegt fr uns eben nicht in diesen Angaben, sondern in
denen, die auf uns jetzt verlorene Quellen, daneben auch auf die eigenen Kenntnisse
des Eusebius zurckgehen. Schon fr die zahlreichen Bemerkungen ber den gegenwrtigen Namen und Zustand mancher biblischen Ortlichkeit wird Eusebius
verlorene schriftliche Quellen benutzt haben, wenn er auch diese nach seiner eigenen
Ortsanschauung unter Umstnden kritisiert hat.
1
93
forms into Latin characters, but rather that they go back to originals in
Greek charactersthat they are merely a Latin transliteration of Greek
texts. At times Jerome explains his own pronunciation of Hebrew, or
rather that of his Jewish teachers. His inconsistency in transliterating
Hebrew proper names and in using examples for his explanations reects
the state of sources available in his time. Concerning the incredible
number of variant forms of biblical proper names, the situation is similar
in the LXX in the whole framework of individual books and of extant
manuscripts. Orthography and phonetics in Hellenistic Greek and in late
Classical Latin are beset with signicant difculty because consonants
and especially vowels were subject to widespread changes, changes
which gradually became apparent in writing. Between 330 B.C.E. and
200 C.E. there was no xed orthography in existence. This situation
might be a much more important reason for the striking inconsistency in
rendering the transliteration of biblical names.
Jerome himself explains his general attitude to the issue of proper
names in the Preface to his book on Hebrew names:
Philo, the most erudite man among the Jews, is declared by Origen to
have done what I am now doing; he set forth a book of Hebrew Names,
classing them under their initial letters, and placing the etymology of each
at the side. This work I originally proposed to translate into Latin. It is
well known in the Greek world, and is to be found in all libraries. But I
found that the copies were so discordant to one another, and the order so
confused, that I judged it to be better to say nothing, rather than to write
what would justly be condemned. A work of this kind, however, appeared
likely to be of use; and my friends Lupulianus and Valerianus urged me
to attempt it, because, as they thought, I had made some progress in the
knowledge of Hebrew. I, therefore, went through all the books of
Scripture in order, and in the restoration which I have now made of the
ancient fabric, I think that I have produced a work which may be found
valuable by Greeks as well as Latins. I here in the Preface beg the reader
to take notice that, if he nds anything omitted in this work, it is reserved
for mention in another. I have at this moment on hand a book of Hebrew
Questions, an undertaking of a new kind such as has never until now been
heard of amongst either the Greeks or the Latins. I say this, not with a
view of arrogantly pufng up my own work, but because I know how
much labour I have spent on it, and wish to provoke those whose knowledge is decient to read it. I recommend all those who wish to possess
both that work and the present one, and also the book of Hebrew Places,
which I am about to publish, to make no account of the Jews and all their
ebullitions of vexation. Moreover, I have added the meaning of the words
and names in the New Testament, so that the fabric might receive its last
touch and might stand complete. I wished also in this to imitate Origen,
whom all but the ignorant acknowledge as the greatest teacher of the
1
94

Churches next to the Apostles; for in this work, which stands among the
nobles monuments of his genius, he endeavoured as a Christian to supply
what Philo, as a Jew, had omitted.10
In order to evaluate this statement by Jerome it is helpful to know that

the work was written in the year 388, two years after Jerome had settled
at Bethlehem. When he had arrived in the Holy Land three years
previously, Jerome set to work to improve his knowledge of Hebrew,
with a view to his translation of the Old Testament, a project that was
begun in 391. The three books written in the year 388the book of
Hebrew Questions, the book on Hebrew Names and his translation of
Eusebius book on the sites and names of Hebrew placesmay be taken
as studies preparatory to the Vg. This fact means that at this stage Jerome
had only a very basic knowledge of Hebrew and perhaps could not
foresee the innumerable problems in connection with the phonetic
relationship between Hebrew/Aramaic, Greek and Latin, let alone make
the system consistent. Unfortunately, the clumsy arrangement of a separate glossary for each book of the Bible, as well as the often uncritical,
sometimes even absurd, meanings given to words and names, diminish
considerably the value of his work on names for todays critical scholarship.11
In this investigation, I would like to outline the basic grammatical
principles that govern the transliteration of biblical names into Greek and
Latin. To make evident equivalents and variants from Greek transliterations, all examples will be given in Hebrew, Greek and Latin forms. I
state that since translators were very free in their transliteration of biblical names, many alternative forms developed in the spelling of names. In
this connection I state that the basic phonetic relationship between
Semitic languages, on the one hand, and non-Semitic languages, such as
Greek and Latin, on the other hand, is so complex that it was hardly
possible to establish a unied tradition in writing the forms of biblical
proper names within the Greek and Latin cultures. Given the fact that the
10. See Lieber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum, edited by de Lagarde,
Onomastica Sacra, 2627. The translation is taken from W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis
and W. G. Martley, The Principal Works of St. Jerome (Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, Second Series, 6, St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works; ed. Philip Schaff
and Henry Wace; originally published in the United States by the Christian
Literature Publishing Company, 1893; repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995),
485.
11. See the statement by Fremantle, Lewis and Martley, The Principal Works of
St. Jerome, XXXI: It is worthless now except as showing the state of knowledge of
the fourth century A. D., and that of the author of the Vulgate.
1
95
Greek and Latin alphabets are inadequate for transliteration, the authors
of Greek and Latin Bibles should be recognized as utter grammatical and
cultural innovators.12
2. Transliteration of Semitic Consonants into Greek
The history of transliteration of Semitic writing symbols is in causal
relationship with the development of the Greek alphabet on Semitic
grounds. Archaeology and classical scholarship generally agree that the
Greek alphabet handed down to us was received from the Phoenicians,
most probably before the twelfth century B.C.E. This is borne out not
only by tradition, but also by the signicant fact that as regards form,
name and order, the two alphabets show a striking correspondence. There
is, however, one important difference between the Phoenician and the
Greek systems. While the former has no signs for vowels, and a great
variety of aspirate and sibilant consonants, the latter, even in the earliest
specimens found, shows an already fully developed vowel system, and
contents itself with one sibilant and one aspirate representative respectively. Thus, the Greeks probably evolved out of the Phoenician consonants Aleph, He, Yod, Ayin, the vowels , , and , and moreover
12. Many important ndings about the phonetic relationship between the
Hebrew/Aramaic, Greek and at at least partly Latin languages are comprised in the
monographs or articles by: Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek;
Franz Wutz, Die Bedeutung der Transkriptionen in der LXX, Biblische Zeitschrift
16 (1924): 194203; idem, Die Transkriptionen von der LXX bis zum Hieronymus
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933); Bore, Die alten Ortsnamen Palstinas; Alexander
Sperber, Hebrew Based upon Greek and Latin Transliterations (Offprint from
Hebrew Union College Annual, Volume XIIXIII; Cincinnati, 193738); Lisowsky,
Die Transskription der hebrischen Eigennamen des Pentateuch in der Septuaginta;
Joseph Ziegler, Transkriptionen in der Ier.-LXXX: Transkription der Eigennamen
(EN), in Beitrge zur Ieremias-Septuaginta (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens VI; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958), 5986; A. Murtonen,
Hebrew in Its West Semitic Setting: A Comparative Survey of Non-Masoretic
Hebrew Dialects and Traditions (SSLL 15; Leiden: Brill, 1986); Zadok, The PreHellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography; Emanuel Tov, Loan-words,
Homophony, and Transliterations in the Septuagint, in The Greek and Hebrew
Bible, 16582, and, in the same volume, Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the
Greek Versions: A Further Characteristic of the Kaige-th Revision?, 50112; Ilan,
Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part 1, Palestine 330 BCE200 CE;
Pietro A. Kaswalder, O.F.M., Onomastica Biblica: Fonti scritte e ricerca archeologica (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2002); Elitzur, Ancient Place Names
in the Holy Land.
1
96
invented as a twenty-third letter.13 In all Semitic languages the alphabets consist solely of consonants, some of which also have a kind of
vocalic power. The Hebrew/Aramaic alphabet has twenty-two signs to
represent consonantal phonemes.
The Greek alphabet in its nal stage of development, on the other
hand, consists of twenty-four Greek signs, of which seven (, , , , ,
, ) are vowels, and the remaining seventeen consonants. The characters , and are not found in the Phoenician alphabet; they are Greek
inventions. Until the fth century B.C.E., there were some differences
between the Attic alphabet, which represents chiey Athens, and the
eastern or Ionian alphabet. The old Attic alphabet contained two different
vowels and two different consonants: instead of the long vowels and ,
other symbols were in use, namely, the symbol E, which stood for ,
and the diphthong , and the symbol O, which stood for , and the
diphthong ; and instead of the consonants
and , the digraphs
( ) and ( ) respectively were in use. Only in the year 403 did the
present composition of the Greek alphabet establish itself also in the
received or Attic alphabet.
The phonemic system of Hebrew and Greek alphabets are not sufcient to distinguish between some signs within their linguistic family
and/or in their phonetic interrelation. Hebrew signs are not sufcient for
distinguishing between some common Semitic symbols, as for instance
between in and in, between Ayin and ayin or between eth and
eth. Vowels were not indicated, except in the sporadic use of the vowel
letters, Waw, Yod and nal He. On the other hand, Greek had no laryngeals and only two sibilants, whereas Hebrew had four laryngeals and
ve sibilants. Consequently, transliteration of proper names is often
perforce inexact.
Greek authors render Semitic consonants with the following Greek
characters: has no consonantal value of its own, but indicates spiritus
levis and serves to carry the respective vowel; = , , ; = usually ,
sometimes (especially at the end of the name); = usually , sometimes , ;
is without consonantal value, like ; = ; = usually ,
sometimes ; = usually rendered as a vowel (often as in the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the name), sometimes transliterated
with ; = usually , sometimes , ; = or ignored; gemination = ,
(LXX), (variants and Origen); = ; = ; = and (at the end
of a name); = and (at the end of a name); = /; = usually not
expressed, sometimes transliterated with ; gemination = , (LXX),
13. See Antonius N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar: Chiey of the Attic
Dialect (Hildesheim: Olms, 1987), 21.
1
97
(variants and Origen); = ; = ; = , (LXX), (variants and

Origen); = usually , sometimes , ; = ; / = /, within a name
occasionally double ; gemination = , (LXX), (Origen); =
usually , sometimes , . It is noteworthy that palatals, dentals and
labials are not clearly distinguishable in pronunciation. The development
of the forms of biblical proper names in European languages represents a
great challenge for clarifyingin greater detail and on the basis of
applicable examplesthe problem of the phonetic value of the letters of
the Semitic, Greek and Latin alphabets.
a. The Semi-vocalic Consonants Waw and Yod
The semi-vocalic consonant Waw sometimes retains its consonantal
character, in Greek transliterated with , and in Latin with v:
(Gen
4:1)!", !#, Vg: Hava;

(Gen 2:11)!$, !%, Vg:
Evilat; (Gen 10:17)!$&, !%&, Vg: Eveus; (Gen 29:34)
'*, Vg: Levi; (Gen 25:25)+,, -., Vg: Esau. Most often
the letter is considered merely as the bearer of the respective preceding
vowel; is usually employed to denote and , and to denote and :
(2 Sam 8:17) /, Vg: Sadoc; (2 Sam 8:17)0/,
Vg: Achitob;

(Ps 88:1)123, Vg: Eman. The transliteration
system from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek and Latin shows that the sound
Yod in some combinations was not considered, for instance in the ending
- and !-: (Exod 16:1) 3, Vg: Sinai; (Gen 11:29) 3,
Vg: Sarai; ! " # (Gen 41:52)+ *, Vg: Ephraim; ! " (Gen
10:6)43, Vg: Mesraim; (Gen 4:1)35, Vg: Cain. Quite
often Yod is transliterated with the letter : " (Gen 35:18)6*,
Vg: Beniamin; $ (Gen 30:25)78 , Vg: Ioseph; " (Num 22:1)
7/, 9/, Vg: Hierichus; " (Gen 32:29)78, Vg:
Israhel; ! " (Exod 15:20)43, Vg: Maria. This state of affairs is
due to the fact that the Greek and Latin alphabets do not distinguish
between the J-sound (consonant) and the I-sound (vowel). The reader
therefore is often induced to pronounce the Greek letter Iota as a consonant rather than a vowel.
b. The Gutturals Aleph, He and eth
The gutturals and
have no consonantal value, but serve only to carry
a vowel sign or to act as a mere orthographic indication of a preceding
vowel. With regard to pronunciation it may be remarked that is the
weakest of the gutturals; it corresponds to the spiritus lenis of the Greeks
and is actually pronounced only in a syllable that is closed in one way or
another. The letter
, on the other hand, corresponds to the spiritus asper
of the Greeks and is pronounced at the end of a syllable and before a
1
98
vowel as a light guttural; at the end of a word it is inaudible. In the Greek

transliteration of Hebrew proper names contained in the Septuagint and
other Bible translations is always considered merely as the bearer of
(Gen 10:27)0:, Vg: Abimahel;
the respective vowel:
" (Gen 10:27)+3, Vg: Helmodad; # " " (1 Chr 4:3)
78, Vg: Iezrahel; " (Gen 32:29)78, Vg: Israhel;
"
(Gen 32:32)translation, Vg: Phanuhel. How can the insertion of an /h/
before the radical be explained? Since this happened only in compound
names, we may assume that the purpose was to indicate that the two
vowels are to be pronounced separately: Bahalmeon, Behelfegor,
Behelsefon, Beselehel, Iamuhel, Israhel, Misahel, Raguhel.14 In transliterated proper names into Greek
is fairly often dropped; rarely is it
rendered by the spiritus asper. In transliteration into Latin this letter is
sometimes retained and rendered as h: !
" (Gen 17:5)0, Vg:
Abraham;
(Exod 4:14)0/, the syncopated form 0/ (A
(Josh 15:8)
Exod 6:26; 7:8; Num 12:10; Sir 45:6), Vg: Aaron; !
%
+;, Vg: Gehennom;
(Hos 1:1)<:, Vg: Osee; !

(Gen
36:22)1=3, Vg: Heman; !#
(1 Chr 7:35)+3, Vg: Helem;

"
(Gen 29:35)7,, 73, Vg: Iuda; '&
" (Exod 17:9)7.,
Vg: Iosue. We may conclude that Jerome transliterates
at times with h
on the basis of Hebrew grammar. An especially conspicuous example of
this kind is the name Abraham as explained by Jerome in his discussion
of the changes in the name forms Abram/Abraham.15
Greek could not convey the guttural sound of the Hebrew letter . In
a number of names it is transliterated with the letter , in Latin with
the letter h; for instance: " (1 Kgs 16:28)03, Vg: Ahab; " #
(Gen 13:18)/, Vg: Hebron. More often the letter is not
expressed at all either in Greek or in Latin, or it is transcribed with a
vowel: ( (Ezra 4:6)0>, Vg: Asuerus; ) (Gen 5:21)
+/, Josephus: ?, 0/, Vg: Enoch; (Josh 11:1)0/,
Vg: Asor; " # (Deut 3:8)0/, Vg: Hermon; (2 Kgs 25:23)
73 (A), 73 (B), in many other biblical places and in Josephus:
14. See Sperber, Hebrew Based upon Greek and Latin Transliterations, 112.
15. See S. Hieronymus, Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos, in S.
Hieronymi presbyteri opera, Pars I/1, 21 (on Gen 17:5): Dicunt autem Hebraei
quod ex nomine suo deus, quod apud illos tetragrammum est, he literam Abrahae et
Sarae addiderit: dicebatur enim primum Abram, quod interpretatur pater excelsus, et
postea uocatus est Abraham, quod transfertur pater multarum: nam quod sequitur,
gentium, non habetur in nomine, sed subauditur. Nec mirandum quare, cum apud
Graecos et nos A litera uideatur addita, nos he literam hebraeam additam dixerimus:
idioma enim linguae illius est, per E quidem scribere, sed per A legere: sicut e
contrario A literam saepe per E pronuntiant.
1
99
73, Vg: Iohanan. A good number of names are transliterated

without considering this sound or with a semi-vowel, indicated with the
spiritus asper: (Hag 1:1)0&, @&, Vg: Aggeus;
(Hab 1:1)0,, @,, Vg: Abacuc;
(Gen 4:1)!",
!#, Vg: Hava;
" (2 Kgs 16:20)+*, Vg: Ezechias;

(1 Sam 1:2)?, A, Vg: Anna;
" (Jer 28:1)0*,
@*, Vg: Ananias.
Medial with a vowel, when it represents a laryngeal rather than a
velar, is variously rendered: as a single or double vowel, with omission
of the sign, and so on. Note, for instance: " " (Gen 46:14 A)
@8,Vg: Iahelel, but in Num 26:26 (22)08, Vg: Ialel; " "
(Gen 46:24)08, Vg: Iasihel, Iessihel (Num 26:46); " (Exod
6:19)4*, Vg: Mooli; " (Num 13:14 [15])B*, Vg: Naabbi;
(Num 21:19)B8, Vg: Nahalihel; " (Exod 6:23)
B/, Vg: Naasson; (Josh 2:1)C3, Josephus C3,
C3, Vg: Raab; " (Num 13:21 [22])C3, Vg: Roob.
c. The Guttural Letter Ayin
Jerome notes in his explanation of the place names Gomorra and Gaza
that the G-sound does not exist in Hebrew, but it is rendered as the vowel
.16 It is true that the strongest sound of is a guttural g, an ancient
consonant which is preserved only in Arabic. In transliteration of this
letter from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek and Latin it may be remarked
that the sound is often not expressed at all, while it is sometimes transliterated with the Greek letter and Latin g, at other times indicated by
the spiritus asper, and in Latin it can occur as some other guttural, for
instance h. This fact allows the conclusion that the spelling of the was
something between the Greek spiritus lenis and the letter .17 The most
probable reasons for transliterating the letter with and g are: the initial
position of the letter , the position of the letter between vowels and
phonetic similarity between Hebrew proper names. Examples include:
(Gen 10:19)D3, Vg: Gaza; (Gen 12:8)0*, Vg: Ai;

(Gen 10:19)D;(), Vg: Gomorra as against * (Gen 10:16)
0&, Vg: Amorreus; # " " (Gen 14:1); (A E),
16. See Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, 67: Gomorra populi
timor siue seditio. Sciendum quod G litteram in hebraico non habet, sed scribitur per
uocalem . Cf. de Lagarde, Onomastica Sacra, 33; see p. 87: Gaza fortitudo, sed
sciendum quod apud Hebraeos non habeat in principio litteram consonantem, uerum
incipiat a uocali ain, et dicatur Aza. Cf. p. 51.
17. Cf. Lisowsky, Die Transcription der hebrischen Eigennamen des Pentateuch in der Septuaginta, 149.
1
100
; (D), Josephus: 3, Vg: Chodorlahomor;

(Gen 13:10), (19:22)E; (13:10), / (19:22), Josephus:
E;, E/, 8, Vg: Segor (in both places);
(Num 1:8)
3, Vg: Suar; " (Gen 11:18)C., Josephus: C,, C.,
" (Gen 36:4)C8, C> (Tob 6:11 in B S),
Vg: Reu;
Josephus: C,, C,, Vg: Rauhel. Jerome explains the
Latin forms Seor/Segor by referring to the transliteration of the Hebrew
vowel with the consonant .18 It is striking that the guttural is excep (1 Chr
tionally transliterated with h in the Latin form of the name !
4:3)123, Vg: Hetam.
d. The Sibilant Letters Samekh, ade and in/in
Due to limitations of the Greek and Latin alphabets, the three Hebrew
letters , and / can be rendered only as one character, namely, /s.
The incompatibility of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin alphabets for
rendering Hebrew sounds results in a situation in which two entirely
different Hebrew/Aramaic proper names are identical in transliteration.
Examples include: " "
" (Gen 10:7) 3 3, Vg:

(Num
Sabatha Sabathaca; (2 Sam 5:7) /, Vg: Sion;
1:6) *, Vg: Surisaddi;
+" (2 Sam 5:14) /, Vg:
Salomon. Jerome remarks on this phenomenon in his introduction to
those explanations coming under the letter S.19 He attempts to explain
the pronunciation of Hebrew sibilants while explaining names or other
words.20 It is obvious that Jerome was unfamiliar with the differentiation
between and .
18. See S. Hieronymus, Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum, 71: Seor
parua uel meridiana Segor parua. Ipsa est quae et supra Seor. Sed sciendum quia
G litteram in medio non habeat, scribaturque apud Hebraeos per uocalem ain. Cf.
de Lagarde, Onomastica Sacra, 37.
19. See Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum, 71: Quod in principio
dixeramus in uocalibus litteris obseruandum eo, quod apud nos una sit interdum
littera et apud Hebraeos uariis uocibus proferatur, hoc nunc quoque in S littera
sciendum est. Siquidem apud Hebraeos tres S sunt litterae: una, quae dicitur samech,
et simpliciter legitur quasi per S nostram litteram describatur: alia sin, in qua stridor
quidam non nostri sermonis interstrepit: tertia sade, quam aures nostrae penitus
reformidant. Sicubi ergo euenerit ut eadem nomina aliter atque aliter interpretentur,
illud in causa est quod diuersis scripta sunt litteris. Cf. de Lagarde, Onomastica
Sacra, 3637.
20. See S. Hieronymi presbyteri commentariorum in Isaiam, in S. Hieronymy
presbyteri opera. Pars 2, Commentariorum in Isaiam (Corpus Christianorum: Series
Latina 73; Turnholt: Prepols, 1963), 147: Et pro flore qui Hebraice dicitur neser,
germen transtulerunt Sed sciendum quod hic neser per sade litteram scribatur,
1
101
e. The Doubling of Single Consonants in Transliteration into Greek and

Latin
It seems that the LXX originally transliterated Semitic consonants consistently using single consonants. In some cases, the corresponding
Greek letters , , , , , , , , and/or their Latin equivalents are,
however, incorrectly doubled in some variant readings. This fact shows
that the indicated Greek consonants have some natural tendency toward
duplication. Examples:
" (Judg 4:4)F3, F/,
Josephus: F/, F/, Vg: Debbora; (1 Kgs 4:5)E,
(A), Vg: Zabud;
" (Neh 3:10)73 (S), Vg: Ieiada; (2 Sam
8:17) , (B), Vg: Sadoc;
" (Gen 22:23)C:, Vg:
Rebecca; " # (Josh 13:3)0/, Vg: Accaron; +* (Tob
2:10 B), elsewhere written with single : +* (1 Macc 6:1-A);
" (1 Chr 9:37)4/ (B S), Vg: Macelloth; # # " "
(2 Kgs 15:29)G 3, Vg: Theglathfalassar; ( (Ruth
1:2)B* (A), Vg: Noemi; " (1 Sam 14:51)08, Vg:
Abner;
# " (Gen 41:51)48 (A; several other places),
48 (E; most other places), Vg: Manasse; (Gen 11:31)
03, @3, Josephus: 3, Vg: Aran;
(Gen 17:15) 3,
Vg: Sarra; (Num 33:30)4,, Vg: Moseroth;
"
* (1 Kgs 19:16)
(Judg 11:11)4 3, Vg: Maspha;
+:, -: (A; several other places), +:, -: (B;
most other places), Vg: Heliseus; # (1 Chr 4:11)0/, Vg:
Esthon; (2 Kgs 22:3) 3 (B), 3 (A), Josephus: H,
Vg: Saphan.
f. Single and Double Kaph, Qoph, Pe and Taw in Transliteration into
Greek and Latin
The single consonant is normally transliterated with in Greek and ch
in Latin, both at the beginning of and within a name; the single is transliterated with the letter . The harder sound of gemination was sometimes transcribed using the cluster in Greek and cch in Latin.
Examples include: (Ezra 2:9)E&, Vg: Zaccheus, Zacchee
(2 Macc 10:19; Luke 19:2, 5, 8); (Judg 1:31)0/, Vg: Achcho;
& (Num 34:22)6*, Vg: Bocci. The single is rendered in
almost all instances as in Greek and p or f in Latin. Jerome states that
no equivalent for the Latin character P can be found in the Hebrew
cuius proprietatem et sonum inter z et s Latinus sermo non exprimit. Est enim
stridulus, et strictis dentibus uix linguae impressione profertur; ex qua etiam Sion
urbs scribitur.
1
102
alphabet.21 The harder sound is sometimes rendered as in Greek and

as pp or ff in Latin:
(Exod 2:21) /, Vg: Seffora. The consonant is usually rendered as the Greek and the Latin th. The harder
sound is sometimes rendered as and in Greek and tth in Latin:
" (2 Kgs 24:17)4* (B), 4* (A), 4*,

43, Vg: Matthanias. For some names Lucian is the only one who
renders the geminated letters using the clusters , , .
g. Insertion of Consonants and Transcription of the Semitic Clusters ,
, and
A remarkable feature of Hellenistic Greek is the insertion of consonants
in order to achieve better euphony. There is a tendency to insert the nasal
before the labial and the spirant . Whether the preceding is
inserted or part of the name may cause the change of into : "
(Judg 13:24) / (B A), Vg: Samson. In addition to this phonetic
problem of the consonant , euphony requires insertion of the between
and : " (Gen 13:18)48, Vg: Mambre; " (1 Kgs 16:9)
and " (1 Kgs 16:16)E()*, 0()* (16:16), Vg: Zamri, Amri;
" (Num 32:3)B3, Vg: Nemra; ! " (Exod 6:18)03

(-3), 03, Vg: Amram. Another salient transcription problem is
connected with the clusters , ' and when they appear within names.
The cluster and the cluster ' are transcribed with the Greek letter
and the Latin letter b: " (Judg 12:8, 10)Josephus: 03, LXX:
03 (B), -/, +/ (A), Abessan; ! " (2 Sam 3:3)
Josephus: 03 and 03, LXX: 0/, 03
(1 Macc 11:70; 13:11), Vg: Absalom, Absolom. The cluster represents
a difculty in Greek pronunciation, giving rise to the insertion of the
letter : "# (Ezra 7:1)J (B), J (A), J (S), Vg:
Ezras. The form J was adopted in the Deutero-canonical/Apocryphal books. The insertion of allows for two possible explanations: rst,
euphony, as in other similar cases; second, correspondence of to
Hebrew with the reminiscence of the old pronunciation of = zd. It is
more than clear that Latin phonetics is not affected to the same degree by
the tendency to euphony.
21. See edition Vallarsi, vol. V, p. 724 C: APEDNO. Notandum autem,

quod P literam Hebraeus sermo non habeat, sed pro ipsa utatur PHE, cuius vim
Graecum sonat. In isto tantum loco apud Hebraeos scribatur quidem PHE, sed
legatur P (cited by Sperber, Hebrew Based upon Greek and Latin Transliterations,
131).
1
103
3. Transliteration of Semitic Vowel Letters and Vowel Signs

Only three pure vowel sounds are attested in Semitic languages, a, i, u.
The sounds e and o always arise from an obscuring or contraction of
these three sounds: by modication from
or ; from ; by contraction from ai (properly ay); and sometimes by modication (obscuring) from , and sometimes by contraction from au (properly aw).22 Of
special interest is the partial expression of the vowels by the consonants
,
, and . The symbols and
have established themselves as vowel

,
,

" ,

#,
#
and so
letters to indicate nal vowels: " , ,
on. The previously consonant was retained as a vowel letter to denote
the respective long vowels and , and the symbol to denote and :
, ,

,
and so on. The present state of combining consonants and vowels to denote long vowels has probably resulted from
contraction of the consonant and the preceding a into au and further to
, or of the preceding u into , and from contraction of with a preceding
a into ai and further to , or with a preceding i into .23
Transcription of proper names in Greek and Latin Bible translations
shows most clearly the fact that more than one way of pronouncing
individual grammatical forms was possible and admissible. In order to
escape the danger that the correct pronunciation might ultimately be lost
when Hebrew and Aramaic died out, the Palestinian Jewish grammarians
gradually developed in the sixth and seventh centuries C.E. the vowel
signs or vowel points in order to x pronunciation. In striving to preserve
an older tradition, they invented an exact phonetic system that testied to
a high degree to the faithfulness of the tradition. The Masoretes of
Tiberias were not concerned with any question of quantity, but rather
with xing the received pronunciation as faithfully as possible, by means
of writing the vowels represented by the ordinary punctuation. Some
vowels are represented only by vowel signs or vowel points, others by
vowel letters. Nevertheless, in many cases comparative study of older
traditions based on internal evidence and the analogy of related languages
proves itself to be the rst stage in striving for the real pronunciation of
early Hebrew.
The vowel system of the MT consists of full vowels and half-vowels.
The full vowels are classied according to the three principal vowel
sounds: the A-sound, the I- and E-sounds, and the U- and O-sounds.
Even though the vowel signs or points are numerous, they are yet not
22. See GKC, 7, 1 a.
23. See GKC, 7, 2 e.
1
104
fully adequate to express all the various modications of the vowel

sounds, especially with respect to length and shortness.24 On the other
hand, it is true that the Greek and Latin alphabets are even less adequate
when it comes to expressing all the various modications of the vowel
sounds in transliteration of Hebrew/Aramaic forms of proper names.
Another problem is the lack of uniformity of linguistic traditions and
xed orthographic rules in the Hellenistic and the Greco-Roman periods
when Greek and Latin Bible translations were made and our oldest
uncials were written. As regards the LXX, Cod. B perhaps goes back to
an earlier age than Cod. A, for on the whole B is nearer to the originals in
orthography as well as in text than A; consequently, A occupies a secondary position in comparison with B.
It is generally held that the Semitic and Greek vowel systems are
primarily intended to mark only differences of quality rather than any
question of quantity, such as distinction between long and short vowels.
To transliterate the generally accepted Semitic phonological vowel
system, seven vowels of the Greek alphabet, , , , , , were
available to the Greek scribes. Greek vowels correspond to the clear
majority of those used in the Masoretic vowel system. The Latin transcription of Hebrew/Aramaic proper names is based on the Greek text
and reects therefore the same Hebrew vowel system. The correspondence between the Greek and Latin vowels is as follows: = a; = e;
= e; = e; = i; = o; = u; = y; = o. To make the relationships
between respective languages as clear as possible, individual vowels will
be illustrated with examples from the MT and in Greek and Latin
transliterations.
a. The A-sounds in Hebrew/Aramaic and in Transliteration
In Hebrew/Aramaic, the A-sound is represented by Qame, Pata and
Segol. Qame expresses by nature and origin the essentially long when
followed by the character , and a long , lengthened only by position.
Pata indicates a short a and stands almost exclusively in a closed
syllable with or without the tone. Segol by origin belongs most frequently
to the A-sound class, but sometimes also to the I- and E-sound class. The
vowel signs Qame and Pata each have one equivalent in the Greek
vowel letter : ! (Gen 2:5)03, Vg: Adam; " (Gen 9:18)
3, 3, Vg: Chanaan. An exception is the name (Deut
1:1) in Greek: ';; Vg has the form Laban. In Greek, Pata is sometimes transliterated with e, in Latin not always in the same names:

24. See GKC, 9, a.
1
105
(Gen 4:1)!", Vg: Hava; (Gen 5:29)BK, Vg: Noe; " (Gen
30:8)B *, B *, B *, Vg: Nepthalim. The letter is
used also for the vowel sign Segol where this corresponds to an A-sound,
for instance in the segolate type of names in pausal forms. The interchange between the A- and E-sounds in the segolate noun forms is frequent in general use of nouns, but does not affect the basic form of
proper names. The Hebrew long vowel is often transcribed as the

(Gen 36:22)1=3, Vg:
diphthong 2, and the long vowel as $: !
(Gen 36:23)D8, Vg: Hebal; !
(Gen 14:1)
Heman;
123, Vg: (rex) Aelamitarum; (Num 1:15)123, Vg: Henan;
(Num 16:1)1", Vg: Hon; (Gen 38:4)1$3, Vg: Onam.
b. The I- and E-sounds in Hebrew/Aramaic and in Transliteration
In Hebrew, the I-sound is represented by the vowel sign ireq, which
can be both long and short. It is long according to the origin of the form
(indicated by the consonant Yod), or according to the nature of the
syllable. The short ireq is frequent in sharpened syllables and in
toneless closed syllables. In transliteration into Greek, the short ireq is
rarely transliterated with the vowel : " (Gen 16:11)78, Vg:
Ismahel; (Isa 10:6) 3, Vg: Siloae. ireq is much more
frequently given as and : ! " (Num 22:5)63, Vg: Balaam;
! " (Exod 15:20)43, Vg: Maria; " (Gen 10:8)B/,
Vg: Nemrod;
" (Gen 22:23)C:, Vg: Rebecca. We note that
the LXX writes the vowel for the sharp Hireq: , (1 Chr 9:12)
+8, Vg: Emmer. It is not overly difcult to see a clear reason for the
choice in any particular case. The transcription of proper names in the
LXX shows very clearly that the real pronunciation of early Hebrew is
probably not consistently preserved by the Masoretic tradition. From all
the various modications of the vowel sounds in transliteration into
Greek and Latin it follows that Hebrew vowels were often pronounced
somewhat indistinctly. The long ireq is transliterated into Greek by or
. The vowel has been interchanged ever since the sixth century B.C.E.
with . Sometime in the rst century of the Common Era had ceased
to be a diphthong, and since then and could be used indifferently to
represent long i. The uncial B of LXX in general prefers writing long i as
, whereas the uncial A prefers as representing the sound of long i:
(1 Sam 16:13)F*, F*, Vg: David.
As regards the E-sounds, the Masoretic system distinguishes three
categories: ere with Yod representing the longest , ere without Yod
representing the tone-long , and Segol indicating the short e modied
from original i. In Greek, both types of ere are normally , exceptionally
1
106
or : ,

(Dan 1:6)F8, Vg: Danihel; " (Gen
32:29)78, Vg: Israhel; # (Gen 2:8)+:, Vg: paradisus;
(Gen 29:34)'*, Vg: Levi;
(Gen 29:16)'*, Vg: Lia; "
(Num 22:1)7/, 7/, Vg: Hierichus, Hiericho; sometimes the
vowel sign is transliterated as : " (Gen 13:11)73, Vg: Iordan.
The vowel sign Segol is normally rendered as , exceptionally as
(when followed by the nal He), or (in segolate noun forms): # %
# "
(Gen 14:18)4:, Vg: Melchisedech;
# " (Gen 41:51)
4>, Vg: Manasse; #
# (Gen 4:2)?, Vg: Abel; # (Gen
11:24)G3, Vg: Thare.
c. The U- and O-sounds in Hebrew/Aramaic and in Transliteration
In Hebrew/Aramaic, the U-sound is represented by the vowel signs
ureq , and Qibbu. ureq is written fully or defectively; it stands also
in a sharpened syllable and expresses the long . Qibbu stands in a
toneless closed syllable and a sharpened syllable and expresses the short
a. In transliteration into Greek, the scribes write the diphthong for
both ureq and for Qibbu: - (Jer 32:12)6,, Vg: Baruch;
!&
" (Josh 10:1)98, Vg: Hierusalem. Sometimes the sign
ureq is transliterated with : & " (Gen 30:20)E/, Vg:
Zabulon; / (Gen 10:23)L, Josephus: M", Vg: Us. For Qibbu in
a sharpened syllable the LXX usually writes the vowel o: !0 & (Josh
12:15)N3, Vg: Odollam; ,
&
& (2 Sam 6:3, 8)N3, NH,
Vg: Oza;
& (Exod 6:18)N8, N8, Vg: Ozihel. Sometimes
Qibbu is rendered as the vowel also in a toneless closed syllable:
" &
(2 Kgs 22:14)O, Vg: Olda.
The O-sound has in Hebrew/Aramaic four varieties: the long olem ,
, which is contracted from original aw (=au); the long olem , , which
is obscured from original ; the tone-long olem , which is lengthened
from an original u; and the short olem o, which is modied from a
short u. In transliteration into Greek, olem is rendered as and :
(Judg 1:31)0/, Vg: Achcho; , (Ps 83:8)0/, Vg: Ammon;
(Gen 36:5);, Vg: Core. The short olem is rarely represented
in biblical proper names.
d. Transliteration of Hebrew Half-vowels into Greek and Latin
In addition to full vowels, the Hebrew/Aramaic Bible also has halfvowels. The following grammarians explanation should aid understanding of the problem of transliteration:
The punctuation makes use of these to represent extremely slight sounds
which are to be regarded as remains of fuller and more distinct vowels
from an earlier period of the language. They generally take the place of
1
107
vowels originally short standing in open syllables. Such short vowels,

though preserved in the kindred languages, are not tolerated by the
present system of pointing in Hebrew, but either undergo a lengthening or
are weakened to Shwa. Under some circumstances, however, the original
short vowel may reappear.
To these belongs rst of all the sign , which indicates an extremely
short, slight, and (as regards pronunciation) indeterminate vowel sound,
something like an obscure half (e). It is called ew, which may be either
simple ew (ew simplex) as distinguished from the compound, or vocal
ew (ew mobile) as distinguished from ew quiescens, which is silent
and stands as a mere syllable divider under the consonant which closes
the syllable.25
An addition to short vowels, the ewa determines more accurately the

pronunciation corresponding to the three vowel classes, called atephPata, ateph-Segol and ateph-Qame.
Transliteration of proper names into Greek is the best indication of
how indeterminate the sounds of half-vowels are. It is obvious that the
guttural consonants play an important role in the process of transliteration from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek and Latin. In the LXX, the ew is
" (Josh 10:1)98, Vg:
expressed by the full vowel : !&0
Hierusalem. We nd also the diphthong for the Masoretic half-vowel:
" (Gen 2:14)!$ 3, Vg: Eufrates. Quite frequently, the ewa is
transliterated as the vowel : ! " (Num 22:5)63, Vg: Balaam;
" (Gen 17:19)73, Vg: Isaac;
# " (Gen 5:22)43,
" (1 Sam 1:20) 8, Vg: Samuhel. Another
Vg: Mathusalam;
Greek vowel standing in the place of the Masoretic ew mobile is :
! " " (Gen 10:14)*. Vg: Philisthim. The most striking way
of pronouncing the Hebrew/Aramaic sound of ewa mobile is to
assimilate its indeterminate sound to the following principal vowel: ! "
(Gen 10:19) ;, Vg: Sodoma; " (Num 13:21)C/ (A),
C3 (B), Vg: Roob;
" (2 Sam 5:14) /, elsewhere also
/, Vg: Salomon. The three atephs are usually transliterated in
line with the Masoretic punctuation: (1 Sam 25:3)0*,
# * (Gen 15:2)+:, -:, Vg: Eliezer. SomeVg: Abigail; #
times the transliteration creates different vowels, possibly more in
accordance with the original phonetics:
(Gen 4:22)B3, Vg:
Noemma; ( (Ruth 1:2)B*, Vg: Noemi; * (Gen 10:16)
0PQ&, Vg: Amorreus. For pronunciation reasons, the Masoretic
half-vowels, together with the associated guttural consonants, are often
dropped:
(Gen 4:14)0/, Vg: Aaron; (Gen 25:26)
7/, Vg: Iacob; " (Gen 12:6)&, Vg: Chananeus; "
25. See GKC, 10, ab.
1
108
(Gen 46:10)*, Vg: Chananitis;

( ,

( (Ezek 23:4)
N3, N3, Vg: Oolla, Ooliba.
As mentioned before, Jeromes transliterations must be based upon
Vorlagen (originals) belonging to different periods. This conclusion is
based on philological evidence and enhanced by Jeromes occasional
plain statements of the divergences between his transliteration and the
contemporary pronunciation of corresponding Hebrew characters of the
same word.
4. Transliteration from Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek into Latin
It was natural that authors of Latin Bible translations considered linguistic and cultural factors in the transliteration process for biblical proper
namesthat is, for Latin, Greek and Semitic phonetic symbols and their
sounds and the established Hellenistic tradition of spelling biblical
names. Phonetic peculiarities include the following: historical development of languages; dialectal characteristics of languages; different
sources as regards the original text (Vorlage); the lack of vocalic system
in Semitic languages in antiquity; the range of use of biblical names
among the people. Any comparison between the Semitic Vorlage and
Greek and Latin transliteration of biblical proper names shows that both
Greek and Latin translators sometimes render the same Semitic name
forms, occurring in the various biblical books or even in the same book,
differently. This can only be because their Vorlagen could not have
belonged to a uniform tradition. A more logical reason is that these
variations were no doubt caused by the fact that the consonantal system
of Semitic languages lacked vocalic determination, meaning there was
more than one possibility for transliterating a particular consonant into
Greek or Latin, and so on. In the transmission of the Hebrew/Aramaic
text the application of xed laws to all cases was intended, but, unless all
errors and confusion somehow crept in afterwards, these laws were not
consistently carried out in the further transmission of the text. Moreover,
much remained uncertain even in texts in which vowel letters were
plentiful. The tradition of spelling biblical proper names was surely a
guide to the correct reading, yet there were also cases where, of the many
possible ways of pronouncing a name, more than one appeared admissible even within the context of existing traditions.26 This fact is best
proven by Jeromes exactness in transliterating into Latin the biblical
proper names from Eusebius Greek book on the locations and names of
Hebrew places, and by his obvious inexactness or inconsistency in
26. See GKC, 7, 2 g.
1
109
transliterating the same names from Hebrew into Latin in his Bible
translation.
Greek Bible translations are much older than Latin ones, and they
were made by Jews who shared a living Semitic phonetic and cultural
tradition. In post-biblical times, it was customary in the synagogue to
read the Bible text rst in Hebrew, followed by translation in vernacular
languages; in Palestinian synagogues this meant Aramaic, but in Egypt
and in many other parts of the Hellenistic political and cultural empire
the vernacular was Hellenistic Greek. This is due to the fact that the
listeners were not able to comprehend Hebrew. Before there were continuous translations in common use, the early Christian Church followed
the Jewish practice. The individualistic translators were not ad hoc
creations in a strict sense, because translators had been accustomed to
listening to oral traditions and to reading earlier fragments as were
known to them. The process of joining Semitic linguistic and cultural
heritage resulted in many new works; besides the LXX, there were the
Greek apocryphal writings. Since Latin translations were made in much
later periods, mainly without much contact with the Semitic living
traditions, the priority of Greek transcriptions vis--vis Latin ones is
beyond any dispute. Any good translation is an interplay of language,
philosophy and tradition in a fusion of the source and target languages.
It was the awareness of this fact that induced Jerome to study intensively the Greek and Hebrew languages, as well as Jewish traditions. In
382 C.E. Jerome was commissioned in Rome by Pope Damascus to
revise the current Old Latin version of Psalms and the New Testament on
the basis of the readings found in the Greek. Jerome decided to go back
to the Greek that existed before the Latin and to revise the Latin accordingly. He further began the collation of the various texts of the LXX, a
process which involved a comparison of Origens Hexapla. The Preface
to the revised version of the New Testament, addressed to Pope Damasus
(383), is of great critical value. The explication of Jeromes general attitude to the original is essential for our evaluation of the forms of biblical
proper names in the Vg in comparison with Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek
forms. For this reason, the most relevant sections from the Preface may
be quoted here:
You urge me to revise the old Latin version, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of the Scriptures which are now scattered throughout
the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you
would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original. The
labour is one of love, but at the same time both perilous and presumptuous; for in judging others I must be content to be judged by all; and how
can I dare to change the language of the world in its hoary old age, and
1
110

carry it back to the early days of its infancy? For if we are to pin our
faith to the Latin texts, it is for our opponents to tell us which; for there
are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies. If, on the other
hand, we are to glean the truth from a comparison of many, why not go
back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by
inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of condent but
ignorant critics, and, further, all that has been inserted or changed by
copyists more asleep than awake? I am now speaking of the New
Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception
of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the rst to commit to
writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judaea in
Hebrew characters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it
is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into
different channels we must go back to the fountainhead I therefore
promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be taken
in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, as they have been
revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have
been used. But to avoid any great divergences from the Latin which we
are accustomed to read, I have used my pen with some restraint, and
while I have corrected only such passages as seemed to convey a different
meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as they are.27
As mentioned already, in the year 386 Jerome had settled at Bethlehem,

where he set to work to improve his knowledge of Hebrew, with a view
to his translation of the Old Testament, which would begin in 391. In
388, Jerome wrote three books on biblical proper names, all of them
taken as records of studies preparatory to the translation of the Bible.
First to be mentioned is the Book on the Names of Hebrew Places,
mainly translated from Eusebius.28 The origin and scope of this book are
described in the Preface itself. The other two books are: Hebraicae
quaestiones in libro Geneseos and Liber interpetartionis hebraicorum
nominum.29 In the Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions, we already
27. The translation is taken from Frementle, Lewis and Martley, The Principal
Works of St. Jerome, 48788. The principal texts for demonstrating Jeromes
translation attitude are also collected in Roland H. Worth, Jr., Bible Translations: A
History through Source Documents. Vol. 2, Jeromes Vulgate (Jefferson, N.C:
McFarland, 1992), 2741.
28. For the Greek text by Eusebius and the Latin text by Jerome, see Klostermann, Eusebius: Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen. An English translation is provided by Freeman-Grenville and published under the title: Palestine in
the Fourth Century A.D.: The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea; this edition
has also an Index by Rupert L. Chapman III and an Introduction by Joan E. Taylor.
See also the edition by de Lagarde, Onomastica Sacra.
29. See the edition S. Hieronymi presbyteri opera, Pars I/1, and de Lagarde,
Onomastica Sacra.
1
111
nd a clear expression of his conviction that since even the LXX is but a
translation of Hebrew, greater accuracy could be assured by reliance
upon the Hebrew itself:
It will be my simple aim, therefore, rst, to point out the mistakes of those
who suspect some fault in the Hebrew Scriptures, and, secondly, to correct
the faults, which evidently teem in the Greek and Latin copies, by a
reference to the original authority; and, further, to explain the etymology
of things, names, and countries, when it is not apparent from the sound of
the Latin words, by giving a paraphrase in the vulgar tongue. To enable
the student more easily to take note of these emendations, I propose, in the
rst place, to set out the true reading itself (ipsa testimonia), as I am now
able to do, and then, by bringing the later readings into comparison with it,
to indicate what has been omitted or added or altered.30
Towards the end of the Preface, as well as in some other places,

Jerome outlines his attitude towards the original text hebraica veritas.31
In the Preface to the Commentary on Ecclesiastes (388 C.E.), we also nd
his explication that he translated directly from the Hebrew. In 388,
Jerome also published his translation of the Chronicles. Here he points
out the advantages that he, living in Palestine, enjoyed, obtaining correct
information on matters illustrative of Scripture, especially regarding the
names of places. In the Preface to the books of Samuel and Kings (391
C.E.), Jerome gives an exposition of the principles adopted in all his
translations from the Hebrew:
That the Hebrews have twenty-two letters is testied by the Syrian and
Chaldean languages which are nearly related to the Hebrew, for they have
twenty-two elementary sounds which are pronounced the same way but
are differently written. The Samaritans also employ just the same number
of letters in their copies of the Pentateuch of Moses, and differ only in the
shape and outline of the letters This preface to the Scriptures may serve
as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew
into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list
must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore,
which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the
Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the
canon. The rst book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second
is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. Seeing that all this is so, I
beseech you, my reader, not to think that my labours are in any sense
intended to disparage the old translators. For the service of the tabernacle
of God each one offers what he can: some gold and silver and precious
stones, others linen and blue and purple and scarlet; we shall do well if we
30. See Fremantle, Lewis and Martley, The Principal Works of St. Jerome, 486.
31. See ibid., Letters 80, 486 and 494.
1
112

offer skins and goats hair. And yet the Apostle pronounces our more
contemptible parts more necessary than others. Accordingly, the beauty of
the tabernacle as a whole and in its several kinds (and the ornaments of the
church present and future) was covered with skins and goats-hair cloths,
and the heat of the sun and the injurious rain were warded off by those
things which are of less account. First read, then, my Samuel and Kings;
mine, I say, mine. For whatever by diligent translation and by anxious
emendation we have learnt and made our own, is ours. And when you
understand that whereof you were before ignorant, either, if you are
grateful, reckon me a translator, or, if ungrateful, a paraphraser, albeit I am
not in the least conscious of having deviated from the Hebrew original.32
Jerome was, in the main, accurate in correcting the LXX and other Greek
versions using the Hebrew and in occupying himself with a defence of
his translation. He was, however, not aware (as has since been made
clear) that there are various readings in the Hebrew itself, and that these
may sometimes be corrected using the LXX, which was made from the
older manuscripts. Jerome translated the whole of the Old Testament also
from the LXX,33 but most of it was lost during his lifetime.34
Jeromes own testimony about his attitude to the original text justies
experts admiration of his work. It is true that Jeromes translation of the
Hebrew Bible preserves in Latin the shape and features of the Hebrew
and the Greek languages.35 This invites the conclusion that the only
manner of deciding between various forms of biblical proper names
attested in Greek and Latin traditions was to go back to the Hebrew
original, even though Jeromes statements do not include discussion
about the problem of the forms of proper names. Most of his comments
on phonetic issues are spread throughout his translation of Eusebius
book on the sites and names of Hebrew places, in his own book of
Hebrew names, in the book of Hebrew Questions on Genesis and in certain other Prefaces and commentaries. However, Jerome does not deal
with text-critical questions as regards the original Hebrew/Aramaic and
Greek texts and Greek translations. Also characteristic of his work is that
he does not discuss the role of tradition in the transmission of biblical
32. For the translation, see ibid., 48990.

33. See his Apology, Book II, Chapter 24.
34. This fact is known from various sources.
35. See the statement by Edouard Dhorme given in the Introduction to the La
Bible: Ancien Testament (Paris: Gallimard, 1956), xxv: Tous ceux qui ont confront
le text de Jrme avec loriginal hbreu rendent hommage la dlit et la vigueur
de cette traduction, qui cherche sauvegarder en latin la physionomie de la langue
hbraque.
1
113
proper names. Consequently, our judgment on transliteration of biblical

proper names into Latin depends on various other sources and on comparative study of grammars.
The state of transliteration of biblical proper names in the Vetus Latina
and the Vg shows a much wider variety of transliteration forms than does
the Onomastica Sacra. The state of variants in the Vg is similar, as is the
state of forms of biblical proper names in Greek translations. In the Vg,
we nd variants that are explicable primarily due to the several possibilities of pronouncing Hebrew/Aramaic names, which at that time were
transmitted in the consonantal system. Vetus Latina and Jerome render
Semitic consonants with the following Latin characters: has no consonantal value of its own, but serves to carry the respective vowel; = b;
= g; = d;
is without consonantal value and therefore ignored, rarely
rendered as h; usually serves to carry the respective vowels o or u,
sometimes having the value of the consonant v (gemination is not considered); = z, sometimes s; = usually replaced by a vowel (in the
beginning of a name in great majority), sometimes it is rendered as h or
(very rarely) as ch or even c; gemination = tt; = at the beginning of a
word normally t and exceptionally th, in the middle normally th; = i, in
combination with vowels ignored or (in the beginning of a name)
sometimes combined with the added h (see Hieremias, Hierusalem);
gemination = cch; /) = ch, sometimes c (see Carmelus); = l; /! = m
and n (at the end of a name) / = n and m (at the end of a name); = s;
= usually not expressed, sometimes transliterated with g or h; gemination
= pph; /$ = ph, sometimes p and f (especially when it stands between
vowels); // = s; gemination = cc; = c, sometimes ch; = r; / = s,
within a name occasionally double s; gemination = usually tth, sometimes thth; = usually th, sometimes t. In this connection mention may
be made of Jeromes statement that he did not introduce the letter q into
the transliteration system of biblical names because it is a specic Latin
letter, not in use in Hebrew and Greek.36
In Latin, Semitic clusters are not transformed by the tendency toward
euphony to the same extent as in Greek. There are a few changes: = ss
in the name Iessihel (Num 26:26); the insertion of a b between m and r in
the name Mambre (Gen 13:18). The Latin transcription of Hebrew/
Aramaic proper names is based on the Greek text and therefore reects
36. See Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum, 29:25: Q litteram, quam

neque Graceci resonant nec Hebraei, exceptis Latinis nulla alia lingua habet. Unde et
a nobis hic penitus praetermissa est. See S. Hieronymi presbyteri opera, Pars I/1,
96; de Lagarde; Onomastica Sacra, 59.
1
114
the same Hebrew vowel system. The correspondence between the Greek
and Latin vowels is as follows: = a; = e; = e; = e; = i; = o;
= u; = y; = o.
The role of tradition is manifest mainly through Latin forms of names
that are well known because their form is much more unied than those
less commonly used. Here the comparison between the Vetus Latina and
the Vg forms of biblical proper names proves illustrative. The Vetus
Latina fragments testify to a similar variety of forms as in the LXX and
the Vg, but not always in the same names. The relationship between
Greek and Latin is as follows: = a; = b; = g; = d; = e; = z, in
classical times probably pronounced like zd, in the Hellenistic and
Greco-Roman periods it had the weaker sound of voiced s; = e; = th,
rarely t; = i, j; = c, ch, in gemination cch (see Macchabeus); = l; =
m; = n;
= x; = o; = p, ph; = r; = s; single or geminated = t,
rarely th; = y; = ph, rarely p or f; = ch, rarely c (probably based on
Hebrew ); = ps; = o; = u. The correspondence of consonants in
Geek and Latin in the Latin Onomasticon is as follows: = a; = b; =
g; = d; = e; = z; = e; = th; = i, j; = c; = l; = m; = n;
= x;
= o; = u; = p; = r; = s; = t; = y; = f; = ch; = ps; = o.
The Greek and Latin alphabets are close enough to each other that the
difculties in transliterating the names from Semitic languages are to a
great extent the same in both languages. However, the pronunciation of
ancient Greek also has its own characteristics as compared with presentday Greek, and this fact is reected in the history of transliteration of
certain Greek consonants, vowels and diphthongs into Latin. The basic
close relationship between Greek and Latin phonetics is most clearly
manifested in Jeromes translation of Eusebius book on the sites and
names of Hebrew places from Greek into Latin. According to Sperber,
In spite of the fact that the pronunciation of Hebrew had changed materially between the time of the writing of the Greek originals and the period
of Jerome, and despite the fact that Jerome himself was fully aware of the
incongruities between the transliteration and the contemporary pronunciation of Hebrew, he made no attempt to avoid these discrepancies by means
of corrections, but rather reproduced his originals faithfully and limited
himself to mere glosses.37
On another occasion, Sperber claims: Jerome has permitted himself

only one major deviation from the normal Greek spelling; that is between
two vowels immediately following one another he inserted an h to
indicate that they are to be pronounced separately.38
37. See Sperber, Hebrew Based upon Greek and Latin Transliterations, 112.
38. Ibid.
1
115
The statement by Sperber is both too general and too simplied to

correspond adequately to the facts. It is true that Jerome normally
transliterates Greek forms given by Eusebius faithfully into Latineven
when the Vg form is different. Some well-known names can illustrate the
situation: DR D3 (Num 33:35 LXX), DR D: (Onomasticon), Asiongaber (Vg), Gasiongaber (Onomasticon); DR F()* (Num 33:46 LXX, Onomasticon), Elmondeblathaim (Vg),
Gelmon Deblathaim (Onomasticon); D()* (Deut 11:29 LXX,
Onomasticon), Garizim (Vg), Garizin (Onomasticon), and so on. On the
other hand, Eusebius follows the LXX when writing the name 4S>,
and Jerome transliterates it in the Onomasticon as Moyses, while in the
Vg the form Moses is found, exceptions being only Bar 1:20; 2:2, 28.
/ is transliterated as Chebron, in the Vg almost always Hebron;
0/ (Deut 3:9 LXX), -/ (Onomasticon) is transliterated with
Ermon, but the Vg uses the form Hermon; 9/ (Deut 32:49) is
transliterated in with Iericho, the Vg has the form Hiericho; 98
(Josh 10:1) is transliterated with Ierusalem, the Vg has Hierusalem, and
so on. Jerome uses, however, in the Onomasticon also the forms of
names which are different from those used by Eusebius but identical to
the forms in the Vg: 68 (Gen 12:8) / Bethel; B/ (Gen 10:89) /
Nemrod, and so on.
How can this phenomenon be explained? The most plausible explanation is the assumption that in the time of Jerome Latin forms of biblical
proper names were even less unied than the Greek forms, because the
Latin cultural world was not unilaterally inuenced by Greek traditions.
Latin was open to various other Oriental traditions, and consequently it
was more open to the Hebrew/Aramaic original than the Hellenistic
world. Jerome is the best proof of this. Seeing the innumerable Latin
manuscripts testifying to innumerable traditions, he decided not only to
harmonize his translation with the LXX and the Greek original of the
New Testament, but rst of all with the Hebrew/Aramaic original. This
explains why the forms of biblical proper names in the Vg so often
follow the Hebrew/Aramaic forms rather than the LXX forms, and why
Jerome deviates from Greek forms even in translation of Eusebius forms
found in the book on the sites and names of Hebrew places. This openness to the original is characteristic also of later Western Bible translations, in contrast to the East where the LXX was not only the key
translation but also the primary source comparable with the Hebrew/
Aramaic original.
116
In the course of the transmission of MS copies of the LXX, its text

underwent several major changes beyond the usual amount of alteration
inevitable in copying by hand. Origen (ca. 213ca. 270) produced his
sixfold version of the Old Testament, his famous Hexapla. In parallel
columns, at each opening of his book, stood the following different texts:
(a) the Hebrew text, written with only one or two words per line; (b) a
transliteration of the Hebrew into Greek letters; (c) Aquilas Greek
version; (d) Symmachus Greek version; (e) the LXX; (f) Theodotions
Greek version. The Hexapla was probably never recopied as a whole, but
fragments of this magnum opus are preserved in quotations made by
various Church Fathers. It is all the more probable that this monumental
work must have been accessible to Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260339)
when he wrote the work of Onomasticon. It is well known that Eusebius,
with the assistance of his friend Pamphilus, supplied Constantine the
Great with fty copies of the Greek Bible, containing in the Old Testament Origens fth parallel text, with alternative readings from the other
versions in the margins. When Eusebius wrote the Onomasticon, a work
on biblical place names that laid out the geographical locations of some
600 towns, historical sites, districts, mountains and rivers, connecting
these with contemporary Roman place names, he wanted to create the
sense of a Christian space and time for Roman Palestine. In keeping with
his practice of incorporating in his Church history all the early Christian
traditions he could nd, it is natural that the book on the sites and names
of Hebrew places is a compilation of the various forms of biblical proper
names Eusebius encountered in his own time. A comparison of the forms
of biblical proper names found in the Septuagint and in the book on the
sites and names of Hebrew places shows that Eusebius normally follows
LXX forms in his book. This is expected because the LXX had already
been for centuries a model of Greek forms of biblical names. Nevertheless, Eusebius uses in the book on the sites and names of Hebrew places
forms of names that are different from those found in the LXXfor
instance 03, in the LXX 03 (Gen 10:10). This fact shows that
Eusebius was dependent also on the Hebrew/Aramaic original and the
living Greek traditions.
Before and throughout the Middle Ages, the pronunciation of ancient
Greek was understood in the manner of the contemporary Greeks.
Towards the beginning of the sixteenth century, objections to modern
Greek phonetics were raised as a result of comparative studies of ancient
languages, especially on the basis of ancient Latin transcription of Greek
letters. Greek scholars were divided into two opposite camps, the one led
by Desiderius Erasmus and the other by Johannes Reuchlin. The new or
1
117
Erasmian school prevailed and substituted a different pronunciation for

some letters in the traditional or modern Greek. The cardinal point of
dispute was the letter , in the modern Greek pronounced like i (iota),
but in the Erasmian school like e.39
Due to the consistency of Jeromes transliteration system in his
translation of Eusebius book on the sites and names of Hebrew places
and in his own book of Hebrew names, it is most unusual that Jerome
uses different forms for the same names in his version of the Bible. This
fact allows the conclusion that this happened because the circumstances
of his Bible translation work were very different. First of all, the Bible is
a huge volume of text and therefore translation work extended to a long
period of work time, allowing for on the one hand a growing knowledge
of grammar, and the use of various Latin, Greek and Latin manuscripts,
and on the other hand contact with living traditions in the Hebrew,
Aramaic, Greek, Latin and other traditions. It is obvious that the phonetics of a living tradition inuenced translators into Greek in their reading
of the Hebrew original. The various readings of the Hebrew itself,
dialectal differences, mistakes in reading and transmitting the text, the
lack of established rules in Hebrew orthography, differences in Hebrew/
Aramaic, Greek and Latin phonetics and the established tradition of wellknown names were the reasons for transformation and deformation of
many proper names in the Vg. The most striking feature of the forms of
biblical proper names in the Vg is the fact of variants of the same names
even within the same books. It is evident that Jerome did not have any
intention of unifying the forms of proper names.
A special phenomenon of dealing with biblical proper names is
frequent etymological translation of proper names instead of transliterating them. There are cases where Jerome translates proper names as
though they were common names, and sometimes he introduces brief
explanatory glosses.40 Since this is a common feature of ancient Bible
translationsin contrast to the period since the Middle Ageswe may
assume a great deal of dependence on the LXX in such cases.
39. For the question of the history of Greek pronunciation, see especially
Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, par. 2489, pp. 3170.
40. Cf. the note on this issue by Pietro Rossano, From the Vulgate to the New
Vulgate, in Translation of Scripture: Proceedings of a Conference at the Annenberg Research Institute, May 1516, 1989A Jewish Quarterly Review Supplement:
1990 (ed. David M. Goldenberg; Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Research Institute,
1990), 193202 (19798).
1
118
5. Reasons for the Existence of Variant Forms

In the introduction to the present chapter it was mentioned that in the
Textus Receptus of the Hebrew Bible there are fairly few variant readings
of the forms of biblical proper names. The relative uniformity of biblical
proper names in the Hebrew Bible is remarkable in view of the excessive
variety of their forms in various ancient versions. Uniformity or variant
orthography of biblical names are, both in the original and in translations, attributable to several factors.
a. Variant Forms in the Hebrew Bible
As for the original Hebrew and Aramaic text, the development of the
language implies development of forms of biblical names to a certain
extent. Development of the language implies that names also undergo
various transformations in later times. First of all, we note that alternative forms developed in the spelling of names. Some names are recorded
using a short and a longer form. For example, during the Second Temple
period, the biblical name $ was almost universally spelt $
. At a
slightly later date, the abbreviated form was obviously preferred for
this name. Differences are inconsequential, since often in the Bible the
two forms are used for the same name. One of the reasons for this was
the existence of two or more independent pronunciations or dialects.
Transliteration of the forms of biblical proper names in ancient translations in languages other than Semitic, on the other hand, testify especially clearly to the fact that the main reasons for variant readings in
these works are primarily attributable to the different phonetic systems of
non-Semitic languages.
The reasons for variants of biblical proper names in the Hebrew Bible
can be classied into ve major groups: orthographical, phonological,
morphological, semantic and theological.41 The most salient feature is the
existence of two or more different names for the same person or place.
Variants in the Hebrew Bible have a long history and call for a comprehensive comparative study. In the framework of the present study it is
sufcient to state that Hebrew and Aramaic variants are constitutive parts
of the Textus Receptus. Equally important is the fact that, aside from the
evident errors that appear in various manuscripts, their spelling is in
general well established and for the most part does not cause major
problems. Even though the pre-Masoretic text is not provided with vowel
41. Cf. Zadok, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography,
especially pp. 612.
1
119
signs, the grammatical structure of names at least suggests a probable

way of reading the names. An additional aid in establishing the spelling
is the tradition of well-known names and the etymological meaning of
many names.42 Consequently, the readings of the Masoretes are hardly
untenable. For all these reasons it is clear that any judgment of the forms
of biblical proper names in translation must be closely related to the
roots of the original text.43 In the light of the original text, it is possible to
establish rst of all the range of phonetic possibilities and the determinants of spelling by Hebrew/Aramaic orthography. After judgment on
these grounds is made, the justication of tradition may be considered.
b. Reasons for Variants in the Greek and Latin Bibles
Since translators and scribes were very free in their transliteration of
biblical names, many other transliteration variations are noted. Transliteration systems and transmission of Greek and Latin forms of biblical
names are not uniformconsistency has in the main been avoidedand
42. Lisowsky rejects with good arguments the view that neither the text of the
nor that of the Hebrew Bible constitutes a sure basis for judging grammatical
forms. On pp. 78 of his study Die Transkription der hebrischen Eigennamen des
Pentateuch in der Septuaginta, he emphasizes: wir mchten einwenden, dass es
nicht darum geht, unmittelbar zum ursprnglichen Septuagintatext vorzustossen,
sondern zunchst darum, den Tatbestand der vorhandenen Handschriften herauszuarbeiten. Den Zweifeln am hebrischen Text kann methodisch begegnet werden. Es
gibt nmlich unter den hebrischen Eigennamen eine grosse zahl solcher, deren
Lesung vollkommen feststeht. Oder wer wollte etwa eine Schreibung wie
" auch
nur im entferntesten anzweifeln? Zu den Eigennamen, die durch ihr huges
Vorkommen gesichert sind, gesellen sich solche, die etymologisch vollkommen
durchsichtig sind, wie etwa -# # .
On p. 121, Lisowsky explains his methodology
in establishing the forms of biblical names appearing in the Pentateuch of the LXX:
Es handelt sich um fast den achten Teil des ganzen Stoffes, sodass mit seiner
Behandlung die Gewhr einer tragfhigen Grundlage gegeben ist. Da die hebrische
Form vllig gesichert ist, kann sich die Aufmerksamkeit geradeswegs auf die
griechische Transskription, und zwar wie sie in B(A) vorliegt, richten.
43. This nding implies a methodological approach in any research of biblical
proper names. Martin Noth states in his work Die israelitischen Personennamen im
Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (BWANT 3/10; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966), 56: Sodann ist es nicht berssig,
die Forderung philologischer Sauberkeit bei der Namendeutung auszusprechen. Eine
genaue Einsicht in die grammatische und syntaktische Struktur eines Namens und
eine philologisch einwandfreie bersetzung sind die unerlssliche Voraussetzung
fr seine Deutung, und diese wieder sind fr den Einzelfall nur zu gewinnen durch
die Einreihung in grere Zusammenhnge. Ich habe darum eine ausfhrliche
Untersuchung ber die grammatische Struktur der semitischen Personennamen auf
mglichst breiter Grundlage vorausgeschickt.
LXX
120
so alternative forms developed in the spelling of names. Established

tradition is the result of transmission of phonetic transcription of proper
names. In general, forms of proper names were transmitted as they were
heard. In view of these criteria, is it possible to discern which forms are
the result of some kind of error? In any evaluation of the forms of names
in Greek, Latin and other translation languages, it is best to begin with
the form of the name in Hebrew or Aramaic. A revision of the forms of
proper names begins with the root form of the original. Any contemporary scholarly approach to the forms of biblical names must distinguish
between the genesis of the original text or translations and transmission
of the text throughout history until the present.
Transmission of biblical proper names caused much more variant
readings than did the state of language and culture in the time of the
original texts genesis and of ancient translations. Over the long course
of Bible tradition history, transmission of biblical proper names must
take into account various transformations of biblical names with the
passage of time, common transcriptions of names, short and longer form
of names, the process of abbreviation of names, common scribal errors,
common name alterations, letter interchange, loss of letters, addition of
unnecessary letters to names, letter displacement, misreading due to
graphical similarity, the consistent or inconsistent use of a double or single consonant, and so on. The aim of modern textual criticism is therefore to establish in the textual history of the Bible categories of readings
between minimal and maximal reliability in gradation from unique
reading to family reading, popular reading or majority reading. Such
judgments can be made only on the basis of a detailed philological analysis of all extant manuscripts from all historical periods.
In regard to the text-forms of Greek and Latin Bibles we note rst of
all that there is an almost embarrassing number of phonetic variant
readings of proper names. A survey of variant readings of proper names
in ancient Greek and Latin Bible translations as seen in various manuscripts allows one to trace the boundary between phonetic transliterations
that are justied within Semitic, Greek and Latin linguistic rules and
between various forms which transgress linguistic rules. Such cases are
considered errors in transmission of the text. Since the phonetic system
of Semitic languages in antiquity was not yet established, errors are much
more easily traceable and discernable in instances where consonants
were erroneously transliterated, as opposed to cases of vowel spelling.
In this connection mention may be made of inconsistent transliteration
practice in dealing with duplicated consonants and with the sign . The
rmer the Hebrew and Aramaic forms established by etymological and
grammatical data, the clearer it becomes that variants are an inner-Greek
1
121
and inner-Latin matter. Most errors are a consequence of mistaken

reading, hearing and writing. It follows that in evaluation of forms of
biblical names that make more than a single appearance it is possible to
illuminate the extent of forms to which they are common or frequent;
including common or frequent transcriptions of names, common or
frequent scribal errors, common or frequent names alterations, etc.
Many phonological and grammatical rules dictate the transliteration of
biblical names into Greek and Latin; some are inuenced by Semitic
scribal practices, and some are internal to Greek or Latin. Within the
phonetic transliterations that are possible in principle the survey of
variants within the whole corpus of manuscripts makes it possible to
establish the level of justication in view of frequency of occurrence:
unique reading, family reading, popular reading or majority reading.
Comparison between the forms of proper names contained in most
important extant manuscripts, as for instance Codices A and B, is already
revealing in many respects. It is conspicuous that about one third of
proper names in Codices A and B are divergent. Moreover, many forms
of proper names are divergent even within the same codex with regard to
individual books. Generally speaking, variation of forms depends on the
range of possible freedom between a particular strictly unique possible
form and between several transliteration possibilities on orthographic
and phonetic grounds. In ancient times, the transliteration system was in
no way consistent in the modern sense of the term.44 It is obvious that no
ancient translation was based on a unied and planned transliteration
system.
c. The Emergence of Errors in Transcription and Transmission of the
LXX Text
The LXX contains rare or unique readings of proper names. Some forms
of proper names bear witness to the separate family character. After
evaluating various justiable phonetic reasons for divergent readings, the
wrong spellings of proper names come more clearly into focus. Some
aberrant forms are palaeographically explicable, and others can be
explained phonologically. A number of errors in transcription and
44. See the statement by Lisowsky, Die Transkription der hebrischen Eigennamen des Pentateuch in der Septuaginta, 134: Zusammenfassend lsst sich also
sagen, dass das Bild, wie es B bietet, erkennen lsst, dass der griechische bersetzer
das griechische Alphabet zu Transcriptionen unbekmmert herangezogen hat,
konsequent verfahrend da, wo der griechische Lautstand schliesslich keine andere
Wahl liess, schwankend da, wo Freiheiten mglich waren. This statement is valid
also in view of other witnesses of ancient text.
1
122
transmission of proper names support the conclusion that the parent text
must have been an uncial text: 1 becomes ', T becomes B, ' becomes
F, and so on. Many errors in spellings of names presuppose an uncial
parent text. In some cases it is obvious that the translator misread some
letters, for instance Daleth for Resh or vice versa. Errors in transmission
show a certain amount of carelessness in copying the underlying parent
text; sometimes transcriptions are carelessly transmitted. Errors in the
spelling of proper names are often found in places in which a particular
MS is inexact elsewhere as well.
In the LXX, we nd forms of some names, especially in the book of
Numbers, which are unique and do not adhere to the Hebrew consonantal
constituents. Because of this, the general phenomenon of errors in
transcription and transmission is not a sufcient explanation for their
individual form. It is more likely that in such cases the parent text did not
equal the MT. This conclusion is especially solid in view of the fact that
in most inexplicable readings the transliteration in the Vg does correspond at least to Hebrew consonants. The following examples illustrate
the issue:

(Exod 6:23)
(Num 24:7)

(Gen 46:10)

(Num 34:27)
#
# (Num 26:30)
" " (Num 26:40 [44])
" (Gen 46:21; Num 26:38)
" (1 Sam 5:1)

" (Num 13:15 [14])

" (Num 1:14)

(Num 21:14)
" (Num 13:14 [15])
-
(Est 4:5)
(Gen 46:12)
(Ezra 2:33 B; Neh 11:34)
" (Gen 46:17; Num 26:44)
(Num 21:18, 19)

(!
)
(Num 21:11)
(Num 34:26)
(Gen 46:16)
(Num 26:36 [40])
(Num 33:42, 43)
" (Num 34:8)

1
0,, Vg: Abiu

D/, Vg: Agag
?, 0, Josephus: ,, 73,
Vg: Ahod
0/, Vg: Ahiud
0:, Vg: Hiezer
03 (in Gen 46:21 03), Vg: Hered, Ared
08, 08, Vg: Asbel, Azbel
?, Vg: Azotus
D8, Vg: Guhel
C8, Vg: Duhel
E;, Vg: sicut fecit
7*, Vg: Vaphsi
@&, Josephus: 03, Vg: Athac
78, 98, Josephus: ?(),
73, Vg: Amul
@/, @/, Josephus: ?(), Vg: Adid
73, 7*,Vg: Iamne, Iemna
43, Vg: Matthana
0*, Vg: Hieabarim
N3, Vg: Ozan
0*, Josephus: 08, 0*, 08,
U, Vg: Heri
+:, Vg: Heran
/, Vg: Phinon
3, Vg: Sedada

" (Num 33:22, 23)
" (2 Kgs 23:33)
(Num 33:21, 22)

" (Num 26:32)
!
" (Num 26:39)
" (Num 34:24)
(Num 26:35)
(Num 33:26, 27)
(Num 33:27, 28)
123
43, Vg: Ceelatha

F3, Josephus: 03, 03,
03, C3, Vg: Rebla
F3, Vg: Ressa
:,Vg: Semida
3, Vg: Supham
3, Vg: Sephtan
V3, Vg: Tehen
3, Vg: Thaath
V3, Vg: Thare
d. The Establishment of a Greek Critical Text

In the establishment of a critical text two major criteria are available:
non-literary papyri from Alexandria in Egypt written in the third and
second centuries B.C.E., and the text tradition. Non-literary papyri from
Egypt are of relative value when compared with the LXX because they
are less classical with regard to tradition than the LXX text, which is a
literary text of greater conservatism and, correspondingly, has a greater
tendency to more classical forms. The text tradition is at hand mainly
through the oldest uncialsCodex A, Codex B and Codex Sall representing different text-types. The texts of codices B and A are peculiarly
important for the whole of the LXX, because, practically speaking, they
constitute our oldest nearly complete manuscript witnesses and represent
two divergent text traditions. This explains the tendency of scholars of
former generations to limit Septuagint citations largely to these two
codices. Thus HatchRedpaths Concordance and the LXX edition by
Alfred Rahlfs are based principally on these two manuscripts.
There are not many unique readings in individual manuscripts, and
most instances are obvious errors due to homeoteleuton, homoiarchon,
haplographs, dittographs, parablepses, intrusions from the context, and
so on. A unique reading means a reading which is found only in B or A
as far as the Greek evidence is concerned. Of signicance therefore are
singular readings, considered as such in instances in which a variant
reading is supported by no more than three Greek witnesses beyond the
text concerned. Broadly speaking, the A text shows more uncommon as
well as exceptional readings than the B text. Some books show that the
texts of B and A are closely related and sometimes they share a common
textual parent for their readings. In some other books they are quite
divergent and can be used against each other, each representing a
different textual development in the fourth and fth centuries.
John William Wevers denes the process to be used in establishing the
critical text in the framework of Genesis, but the denition is basically
valid for the whole of the LXX:
1
124

It should be fully clear at the outset what is meant by the printing of a
critical text. It is the presentation by an editor after weighing all the textual
evidence at his disposal of the earliest reconstruction of the text possible,
an approximation to the original insofar as that is reasonable. For the text
of the Greek Genesis this means working with materials which are in the
main at least 400 years later than the autographa. Outside of a few
fragments (942 from ca. 50 B.C. consists of only fragments of words too
small to be textually signicant; 814 from ca. A.D. 90 consists of 8
fragmentary verses from ch. 14) the oldest substantial materials are A B
911 961 962 all from the late third to the fth centuries. If, as the editor
believes, Genesis was translated in Alexandria in the late third or early
second centuries BC, then the rst half millennium is an almost complete
blank as far as the textual history of Genesis is concerned.
It is of course true that during this period the LXX of Genesis was
translated into Latin and Sahidic as well as quoted by ancient writers. The
reconstruction of an original text through the medium of an early translation is a chancey process at best, i.e. if we were certain of the original
translation texts. Genesis will demonstrate how uncertain one is of the Old
Latin text, or better said Old Latin texts.
In the case of ancient writers we fare no better. First of all, early writers
do not quote texts in the same way as a modern author does. He had no
concordances to consult, he normally relied on memory. Furthermore they
were seldom interested in citing exactly, often citing according to the
sense rather than to the letter. And even when their citations were reasonably accurate we have no assurance that the late MSS. through which these
texts have been mediated have accurately produced these citations as
originally written by the Fathers. On the contrary it is clear that Biblical
citations were often standardized according to the later popular texts.45
Individualistic freedom of translators, copyists, Church Fathers and composers of lectionary over against the biblical text is the main reason for
the growing divergence in textual tradition. The Gttingen Septuagint
has from the beginning disregarded the lectionary manuscripts for its
editions on the understanding that they represent late mixed texts and are
therefore of little value for text critical purposes. The lectionaries have
accordingly not been included in the apparatus of the editionthey were
excluded from consideration.
The variant tradition in the transcription of proper names is one of
the primary issues in establishing the critical text. Problems concerning
transliteration of names in the critical text must be established rst
through the patterns of usage and of transliteration within individual
books as witnessed in individual text traditions, and only secondarily
45. John William Wevers, Text History of the Greek Genesis (Abhandlungen der
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse III/81;
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 186.
1
125
from the wider context of the usual controls from the text history of the
LXX as a whole. Many variant readings show great divergence from the
original transcription; several of them indicate errors of various types.
Traditions concerning proper names are on the whole more untrustworthy the more they represent a late and often corrupt textual tradition.
In the course of establishing the Gttingen critical text, some corrections to the text-critical edition by Alfred Rahlfs have been made because
scholars now have late third- and early fourth-century witnesses to the
state of the text at that time at their disposal. They are thus now able to
evaluate the text of codices A, B and S in a much better perspective than
could be done in Rahlfs time. Some corrections concern even well# * (Exod 6:23). The
known proper names, as for instance the name
name is correctly transliterated in A* 426 as +3, Vg: Elisabe, and
is therefore accepted by the Gttingen critical text. Rahlfs adopted,
however, the secondary reading +3, the result of dittography,
evidently on the basis of the form adopted by B: +3. The error
of dittography led to the majority reading of +3. Another example of an unfortunate decision by Rahlfs is transliteration of the name
&
" (Exod 17:14) in the genitive, producing the form 7&, Vg: Iosue,
even though the correct form in genitive is 7., adopted by editions of
Field and Gttingen. Rahlfs explains the decision in the Apparatus:
ambo mss. inter et uctuant, ego ubique B sequor.46
e. The Establishment of a Latin Critical Text
It appears that the Scriptures were rst translated into Latin in North
Africa sometime during the last quarter of the second century C.E. The
Old Testament renderings did not rest on the original Hebrew text but on
the Greek of the LXX. They are therefore of importance in determining
the pre-Origenian form of the LXX. In the third century C.E. several Old
Latin versions circulated in Europe, including versions current in Italy, in
Gaul and in Spain. Old Latin versions created many divergent renderings
of the same verse; in some verses there were dozens of variant readings.
In view of this situation Augustine states in his work On Christian
Doctrine (Book II, Chapter 11) how important it is to know the original
biblical languages in order to cope with the innite variety of Latin
translations and with untranslatable words:
46. See the explanation by John William Wevers, Text History of the Greek
Exodus (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gttingen, MSU 21,
Philologisch-historische Klasse III/192; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1992), 208.
1
126

The great remedy for ignorance of proper signs is knowledge of languages. And men who speak the Latin tongue, of whom are those I have
undertaken to instruct, need two other languages for the knowledge of
Scripture, Hebrew and Greek, that they may have recourse to the original
texts if the endless diversity of the Latin translators throw them into
doubt. Although, indeed, we often nd Hebrew words untranslated in the
books, as for example, Amen, Halleluia, Racha, Hosanna, and others of
the same kind. Some of these, although they could have been translated,
have been preserved in their original form on account of the more sacred
authority that attaches to it, as for example, Amen and Halleluia. Some of
them, again, are said to be untranslatable into another tongue, of which
the other two I have mentioned are examples. For in some languages
there are words that cannot be translated into the idiom of another
language. And this happens chiey in the case of interjections, which are
words that express rather an emotion of the mind than any part of a
thought we have in our mind. And the two given above are said to be of
this kind, Racha expressing the cry of an angry man, Hosanna that of a
joyful man. But the knowledge of these languages is necessary, not for
the sake of a few words like these which it is very easy to mark and to ask
about, but, as has been said, on account of the diversities among translators. For the translations of the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can
be counted, but the Latin translators are out of all number. For in the early
days of the faith every man who happened to get his hands upon a Greek
manuscript, and who thought he had any knowledge, were it ever so little,
of the two languages, ventured upon the work of translation.47
The limitations, imperfections, scribal corruptions and the lack of

unanimity of Old Latin biblical texts were the reasons why ca. 382 Pope
Damasus commissioned Eusebius Hieronymus, the most capable biblical
scholar then living, to produce an authoritative Latin Bible. When Jerome
took his rst steps towards an authoritative Latin Bibleat Rome
between the years 382 and 385he revised the current Latin version of
the New Testament with the help of the Greek original. He explained his
method of work in a Preface to the translation of the Gospels, addressed
to Pope Damasus, who had consulted Jerome in 383 C.E. on certain
points of scriptural criticism. His intention was to revise the Old Latin
version, and not to make a new version. Jerome writes in the beginning
of his Preface:
You urge me to revise the old Latin version, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of the Scriptures which are now scattered throughout
the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you
47. The translation is taken from J. F. Shaw, Augustin: City of God, Christian
Doctrine (ed. P. Scharff; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series 2; Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995), 53940.
1
127
would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original. The
labour is one of love, but at the same time both perilous and presumptuous; for in judging others I must be content to be judged by all; and how
can I dare to change the language of the world in its hoary old age, and
carry it back to the early days of its infancy? For if we are to pin our
faith to the Latin texts, it is for our opponents to tell us which, for there
are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies. If, on the other
hand, we are to glean the truth from a comparison of many, why not go
back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of condent but ignorant
critics? I therfore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only,
which are to be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts.
Only early ones have been used. But to avoid any great divergences from
the Latin which we are accustomed to read, I have used my pen with
some restraint, and while I have corrected only such passages as seemed
to convey a different meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as they
are.48
In his letter to Pammachius (in the year 395) on the best method of
translation, Jerome advocates great freedom in translating ordinary
books, but he expressly excepts the Scriptures from the operation of his
rules of translation when he writes:
I myself not only admit but freely proclaim that in translating from the
Greek (except in the case of the holy scriptures where even the order of
the words is a mystery) I render sense for sense and not word for word.49
Jerome dedicated much more energy to revision and translation work of

the Old Testament than of the New Testament. In his revision of the
Gospels he altered the current Old Latin versions only when it seemed
necessary. For the Old Testament he prepared rst a revision from the
LXX, then a true translation from the Hebrew original, which he claimed
was the hebraica veritas. The guiding principle of Jeromes treatment of
the Bible was his awareness that he should never swerve needlessly from
the original. In his Preface to the books of Samuel and Kings (in the year
391) he emphasizes: I am not in the least conscious of having deviated
from the Hebrew original.50 This principle of delity to the original text
implies his attitude to textual criticism in general and to the tradition of
transmission of the text. His Latin version of the Bible meant in a certain
sense the establishment of a Latin critical text in his own time.
48. The translation is taken from Frementle, Lewis and Martley, The Principal
Works of St. Jerome, 488.
49. The translation is taken from ibid., 113.
50. The translation is taken from ibid., 490.
1
128
Today we are not able to identify in specic terms the character of the
manuscripts Jerome used, but we may assume that he used several texttypes of the extant Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts. For several centuries
Jeromes translation failed to gain universal approval. Gradually it was
accepted throughout Western Christendom. Yet, in the course of its
transmission scribal corruptions and deliberate conation with copies of
the Old Latin versions resulted in the greatest degree of bewildering
cross-contamination of textual type. This state of affairs is witnessed in
the over ten thousand manuscripts of the Vg known today. Two authentic
editions of the Vg puried Jeromes text to a certain extent and made it
available in 1590 (by Pope Sixtus V) and in 1592 (by Pope Clement
VIII). In the years between 1889 and 1945 several Anglican scholars
published a critical edition of the New Testament at Oxford. In 1907
Pope Pius X established a commission under the responsibility of the
Benedictine scholars to revise the Vg. Genesis appeared in 1926, and
publication of the Old Testament was almost complete in 1995, though
as yet none of the New Testament has been undertaken.51 The most
valuable smaller critical edition of the Vg is the Stuttgart edition.52
Jeromes Latin Bible left its mark not only in ecclesiastical terminology but also in the development of Latin into the Romance languages.
The development of the science of textual criticism in recent times has
resulted in a growing awareness of the importance of the Vg in understanding the early history of the biblical text. In an effort to establish a
critical text, the more than ten thousand Vg manuscripts were collected.
The forms of proper names play a special role in this context. The most
important manuscripts alone show that many names appear in several
variant readings, which are sometimes quite different from the original
Hebrew or Greek form. A few names may illustrate the situation: King
Chedorlaomer of Elam is mentioned in Gen 14 ve times. The accepted
majority reading is Chodorlahomor. There are many variants, some
appearing in all ve verses, some of them are unique to one or the other
verse within the same chapter. Variants to v. 1 are: chodorlaomor, codorlaomor, godorlaomor, codorlagomor, godorlagomor, chodorlahomer,
chodor rex lagomer; variants to v. 4 are: chodorlaomor, codorlahomor,
51. See Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionem ad codicum dem
cura et studio monachorum abbatiae ponticiae Sancti Hieronymi in urbe ordinis
Sancti Benedicti edita (Rome: Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, Libreria editrice
Vaticana, 192695).
52. See Robertus Weber, Bonifatius Fischer and others, Biblia Sacra iuxta
Vulgatam versionem (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969; 2d ed., 1973, 3d
ed., 1983).
1
129
codorlaomor, codor-laomor, chodorlagomor, godorlahomor, godorlagomor, chodor-labomor, chodorlahomer; variants to v. 5 are: chodorlaomor, codorlahomor, codorlaomor, godorlahomor, godorlagomor,
chodorlahomer, codorlaomer, chodorlagomer; variants to v. 9 are:
chodorlaomor, chodorloamor, codorlahomor, codorlaomor, codorlagomor, chodorlahomer, chodorlagomer, cogorlagomor, godorlahomor,
godorlagomor, variants to v. 17 are: chodorlaomor, codorlahomor,
codorlaomor, chodorlahomer, chodorlagomer, cohdorlagomor, cohdorlagomer, godorlagomor.53 It is evident that scribal corruptions had disgured transliteration of the name in the course of transmission of the text.
The transmission of the LXX text caused a similar cross-contamination
of the basic form ;, as the Gttingen critical edition of the
LXX testies. A comparison between the majority and variant readings in
the LXX and in the Vg enables us to make an approximate estimation of
the degree of dependence of the Vg on the LXX as opposed to the original
Hebrew text.
6. General Conclusions
The history of Semitic forms of biblical proper names is as complex as
the history of the Hebrew Bible from the time of its oral transmission
until the establishment of a unied system of the MT. We note that the
forms of proper names in the MT do not manifest major variations in
pronunciation. Historical records of differences between the forms of
proper names are not so much chronological, due to linguistic change, as
dialectal, reecting a different linguistic background. Consistency in
transmission of Hebrew and Aramaic forms of proper names reects the
nature of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages and the unbroken use of
proper names in the secular and religious traditions.54 The same is true
53. See D. Henricus Quentin, Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionem ad
codicum dem. Vol. 1, Genesis (Rome: Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, 1926), 19397.
54. Among many special studies and grammars some synthetic monographs
explain in general and in detail the historical phenomenon of the Hebrew and
Aramaic languages; see: Carl Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, Vols. 12 (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1908; repr.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1966); Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik
der hebrischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes (Halle: Niemeyer, 1922; repr.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1962); Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew
Language (ed. Raphael Kutscher; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University/Magnes;
Leiden: Brill, 1982); Edward Lipiski, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar (OLA 80; Leuven: Peeters, 1997).
1
130
for ancient translations of the Bible into Semitic languages. Targumim,

for instance, display minor phonetic changes to Hebrew forms of proper
names. Semitic languages are based on many common phonetic laws,
and therefore the forms of Semitic proper names reect to a greater
extent a remarkable unity in form and content than the forms created in
translations of the Bible into Greek, Latin and languages other than
Semitic.
The Land of Israel became the Holy Land, not only for Jews but also
for Christians and Muslims. Therefore Jews, Christians and Moslems
have had little reason to alter the forms of geographical names of biblical
origin radically, as for instance the Roman occupiers did when they
introduced totally new names, even for principal locations of the Holy
Land.55 This fact is important in regard to the forms of biblical names in
Greek and Latin. The Greek versions of the Old and New Testaments
display a combination of preservation of and changes to Semitic forms
of biblical proper names. In translations of the Hebrew Bible, a number
of proper names, almost exclusively geographical names, are treated on
the basis of their presumed etymological meaning, with most of them
transliterated in accordance with their Semitic forms. Even a supercial
comparison between Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin forms of biblical proper names makes it clear that the forms of Hebrew and Aramaic
proper names are much more unied and consistent than the forms of
proper names in Greek and Latin translations. In addition to this, the
Deutero-canonical/Apocryphal books of the Old Testament and the New
Testament contain a number of proper names appearing in their Hellenized forms, as a result of the established cultural tradition of Greek and
Roman rulers.
The complex phonetic relationship between Semitic, Greek and Latin
forms of biblical proper names raises various questions concerning the
plurality of forms in the Greek and Latin traditions. Many scholars
conclude that the sources used by Greek and Latin translators could not
have been part of a uniform tradition. This conclusion is convincing in
view of variant forms of biblical names having an indisputable geographical and historical stamp, but not in cases of the nearly innumerable
variant readings of the same name occurring in the same manuscript, in
various biblical books, or even in the same book. At this point the most
55. Bore states in his study Die alten Ortsnamen Palstinas, 12223, that there
is striking unity in designation of places in all parts of the Palestine throughout
history in spite of change of rulers. However, no explanation for this fact is provided
in view of the unique status of the Holy Land.
1
131
important nding of a comparative study of the forms of biblical names

throughout history contained in the Hebrew Bible and in Greek and Latin
translations is the signicant fact that well-known names are practically
without variant; they usually retain the same form throughout the Bible.
On the other hand, most rare names appear in numerous variant readings.
This fact allows the conclusion that well-known names were part of an
established vivid tradition, and therefore an unwritten law, both in
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and other cultural environments. They
became part of a common and international cultural history. In light of
this, the less well-known names come to pose the greatest challenge to
all translators throughout history for three main reasons: rst, rare names
could not become part of an established traditionnot even in a local
dimension, let alone internationally; secondly, the Hebrew and Aramaic
texts had been not yet furnished with vowels, meaning that the pronunciation of original forms of names was not sustained by a vivid tradition,
since only in rare circles were Hebrew and Aramaic spoken languages;
thirdly, the Greek and Latin alphabets are inadequate for the transliteration of Semitic charactersin fact, no non-Semitic alphabet is fully
adequate for translation of Semitic names.
Any estimate of the reasons for differences between the forms of
proper names in the original and in translations is valid only if they are
considered in their totality. Phonetic variation in rendering the form of
the same names in various books and even in the same book is so great
both in the LXX and in the Vg that several causal circumstances must be
assumed: rst, lack of some consonants characteristic of the Semitic
consonantal system; secondly, lack of a vowel system in the manuscripts
used by ancient translators; thirdly, lack of a unied and established
tradition in pronunciation of most biblical proper names; fourthly, lack of
an authoritative list or dictionary of biblical proper names; fthly, lack of
the will to unify the system of the forms of proper names in translations.
Transcription of vowels is not easily predictable, even with well-known
names whose vocalism is well established. The contemporary use of
well-known names was therefore of great help to translators. In the case
of unusual or unique names it is probable that variant traditions existed.
An extraordinary variation in the names surely demonstrates lack of
unity in the early Semitic texts and several divergent developments
within the Greek traditions.
Eusebius expositions and identications of biblical names are a typical example of contact with a vivid tradition. It is to be noted that
Eusebius focus is explicitly on geographical names, and that he deals
only incidentally with personal names. It is evident that his exposition,
1
132
identication and explanation of names is not based on an archaeological, topographical or regional, but on a phonetic type of identication.
This means that he relies on the similarity of names in Hebrew or Greek.
Most of the phonetic identications are based upon Hebrew tradition.
There are hardly any identications based on the Greek name in the
instances in which this differs from the Hebrew. We nd a useful description of phonetic identication of names in the triglott edition of Eusebius
work:
The phonetic identication utilizes the similarity between the name as it
appears in the sources and as it is preserved in the spoken tradition of the
region. The nal method is a good one, and is based on the fact that
because of settlement continuity in the Land of Israel, and the linguistic
proximity between languages prevalent among its inhabitants, the original
names have been preserved with variations only in pronunciation. Many
identications are based to this day solely on phonetic grounds. Nonetheless, scholars are aware of the need to nd regional and archaeological
support for any proposed identication. A phonetic identication which
does not correspond to the regional data cannot be accepted, and many
suggested identications have been rejected for this reason. From the
early study of the Land of Israel to the beginnings of modern scholarship,
identications were based almost exclusively on phonetic similarity. This
is true of many travellers and pilgrims, the rst scholars, and even is the
case for the Onomasticon.56
Eusebius identies names on the basis of name similarity, even when

there is no topographical justication for the proposal. Though many of
the identications provided by him are correct, sometimes his preferring
to search for phonetic identication leads him to erroneous conclusions.
Jerome was quite aware of the incompatibility of the Latin and Greek
alphabets for rendering Hebrew sounds, insofar as the Greco-Latin
alphabets have for one thing no exact equivalents for Semitic gutturals or
sibilants.57 We are led to the conclusion that Jerome transliterated names
according to his own judgment, probably after having consulted the
Hebrew text. We may assume that Jerome was fully aware of the incongruities between the transliteration of proper names in the Greek Bible
and the contemporary pronunciation of Hebrew. In translating Eusebius
book on the sites and names of Hebrew places he made no attempt to
avoid these discrepancies by means of corrections, but rather reproduced
his originals faithfully and limited himself to mere glosses.58 We note
56. See Notley and Safrai, Eusebius: Onomasticon, xxxiii.
57. Cf. Sperber, Hebrew Based upon Greek and Latin Transliterations, 113.
58. Cf. ibid., 110.
1
133
that Jerome did not always transcribe the Greek spelling into Latin in a
precise manner. In translating the Bible he was bound to the original, to
Greek forms, to earlier Latin translations of the Bible and to contemporary spelling of biblical names in the Latin Church. In combining these
factors his decisions reect a compromise.
And yet all these facts do not explain why Jerome did not unify the
forms of biblical proper names in his own translation, even though he
prepared a translation of Eusebius book on the sites and names of
Hebrew places and composed also his own book of Hebrew names. Even
these works do not manifest the will to unify the spelling of proper
names. There are no linguistic grounds in the textual history of the
Hebrew, Greek and Latin Bibles allowing the conclusion that unication
of linguistic systems was at all desired and thus assigned value in the
ancient world. We must bear in mind that all texts were considered more
or less canonical, an essential part of a living tradition. In the ow of
living tradition in the long history of biblical interpretation they underwent a complicated series of revisions. No part of the original and of
ancient translations was created systematically and in such a timely
manner that would allow for control over and standardization of spelling.
To conclude, it may be stated that the forms of biblical proper names
are much more stable and consistent in the Hebrew Bible than in Greek,
Latin and other ancient Bible translations. A similar extent of an
inexhaustible wealth of variant pronunciation of the same proper names
in Greek and Latin translations supports the conclusion that Greek and
Latin translators and copyists were, in general, not uent in Hebrew and
therefore did not have sufcient support in a living Hebrew phonetic
context. This affects personal names of rare use to a far greater extent
than geographical names, whose forms are expressed in the oral tradition
by a larger circle of the population. Translators and copyists could not
easily reach any uniform phonetic system in their work because of the
consonantal Hebrew text, which itself allows variations in spelling the
original name forms. Copyist errors are the secondary source of variant
readings.
It is natural to assume that in their expositions of names, Flavius
Josephus, Eusebius and Jerome made use not only of the Hebrew and
Greek Bibles for forms of biblical names, but also of Jewish literature.
Based on this, we may safely conclude that their chosen forms may
reect a variant spelling of majority support within a particular vivid
tradition.
134
7. Comparative Expositions of the Forms

The textual history of the LXX and of the Latin Vg is of special importance within the ancient writings because of their great inuence on the
development of the forms of proper names in all European and later in
World languages. Although the primary purpose of this study is to
present the phonetic relationship between Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and
Latin languages as reected in biblical proper names, such a comparative study must consider all the general rules of textual criticism. John
William Wevers summarizes the situation in the textual history of the
LXX as follows:
those who read and pondered the LXX did not have the autographon;
they had copies, in fact, had copies of copies. It was the MSS which readers
had, not the original text, and these MSS represent later developments of
the text; all these MSS constituted eclectic texts, based on a complicated
and often untraceable textual genealogy. Many of these represent in their
variant readings conscious revisions based on the Hebrew, especially the
hex(aplaric) recension of Origen; others grew out of copyist errors. Reference is then made in the Notes to many such readings, variants subjectively chosen for their interest in showing a different understanding of the
text, or demonstrating how variant readings have developed, or simply for
their popular support.59
Wevers comes closest to phonetic grounds of the history of forms of

biblical proper names when he presents the issue of variant readings. The
rst presupposition in any endeavour to discern good reasons for choosing a particular variant reading is the use of the complete textual history
of the LXX, now available in the large apparatus of the Gttingen edition
of the LXX. It seems reasonable to disregard scattered support and to
concentrate on the support offered by textual families. On this ground
Wevers denes the grades of support for a particular reading:
A variant may be identied as a one, two or three family variant. Thus a
b f s reading means that the reading is supported by all or most MSS of the
b f and s families; it may also have scattered support from other MSS or
from the versions, but that is disregarded. When such readings are identied as e.g. a b reading this means that the reading has been judged to be a
b family reading. But should more than three families support a reading it
59. See Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, xix. This statement is
repeated in his Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, xvii. The content is further
summarized also in later publications of his Notes.
1
135
is simply called a popular reading, whereas if the support includes over

half of all witnesses, i.e. of MSS and versions, it is called a very popular or
a majority reading.60
This principle is, to a certain degree, applied and discernible in the exposition of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek forms of biblical proper names in
view of the phonetic relationship between the three languages as presented in the complete Concordance to the Septuagint version of the Old
Testament, to the Greek text of the Deutero-canonical/Apocryphal books,
and to the remains of the other versions which formed part of Origens
Hexapla.61 The Concordance is based on the Codex Alexandrinus (A),
the Codex Vaticanus (B), the Codex Sinaiticus (S) and the Sixtine
Edition of 1587.
The issue of the second fasciculus of the supplemental volume of the
Oxford Concordance indicates what is to be found in the supplement:
In the rst fasciculus a Concordance to the Greek proper names is given.
This is to all intents and purposes a complete Index to all the Greek forms
to be found in the smaller Cambridge edition of the Septuagint edited by
Professor Swete, and also to all the forms to be found in the fragments of
the other Greek versions as published in Fields edition of the Hexapla,
together with those that have been from time to time discovered on papyri
and in other directions, e.g. in Burkitts two fragments of the Books of
Kingdoms. The distinct Greek forms which are to be found in Lagardes
edition of a part of the Lucianic text are also noticed. A few Syriac variations are also given as specimens to stimulate research in that direction.
Any differences of the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, and forms of
proper names used by Josephus, according to the Index in Nieses edition,
are also noted. In addition to all this an exhaustive list of forms in certain
editions of fragments of the Old Latin version is also given. A list of
these editions is to be found in the list of abbreviations Attempts have
been made in many cases to indicate how the variations have arisen.
In this framework of textual history we may ponder and value identication of the variant readings, followed by the LXX version. In order to
enlarge the ground of comparative judgment the Concordance provides
the Hebrew equivalent of every Greek word in each passage in which it
occurs; in the Supplement, which contains exposition of proper names,
we nd the Hebrew equivalent of every Greek form of names. This
60. See Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, xxi; see also his Notes on
the Greek Text of Genesis, xix.
61. See Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint
and the Other Greek versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal
Books). Vol. 2, Supplement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1906; repr. Graz: Akademische
Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1954), 1162.
1
136
comparative view of the phonetic relationship is especially useful, even

though in some cases the MT differs from that which is implied in the
LXX version. In such cases opinions may properly differ as to the identication of the Greek and the Hebrew forms.
Unfortunately, there is no comparable concordance to the Latin Vg to
which the user may be referred. There is, however, a scientic edition of
the text of the Latin Vg of the Old Testament, comparable with the
Gttingen edition of the LXX (since 1922). This edition of the Vg has
been prepared since 1926 by scholars of the order of Saint Benedict
(O.S.B.), the text being based on extant manuscripts of all major families
and of major codices, and the variant forms of proper names are properly
considered in every instance.
The complex phonetic interrelation between the Hebrew/Aramaic,
Greek and Latin languages was until now never treated systematically
and comparatively on the basis of the main sources of all these languages
in relation to all biblical proper names, neither for purely scholarly
purposes nor for purposes of reference. This fact is all the more deplorable given that the forms of biblical proper names within Europe and
elsewhere in the world from antiquity until today manifest certain compromises between the phonetic systems of these languages. Consequently, translators of the Bible in all languages must realize that the
standardization of the forms of biblical proper names is the greatest
challenge of their endeavour to produce an appropriate new translation of
the Bible. As the responsible person for the preparation of the new
Slovenian standard version of the Bible, I have also realized that the
selection of a particular form among often many extant variant forms of
proper names was the greatest challenge of the project.
8. The Design of a Dictionary
The endeavour to standardize the forms of biblical proper names for the
new Slovenian translation of the Bible convinced me that it is worthwhile to compose a comparative dictionary of the forms of biblical
proper names for all the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin forms to be
found in the Hebrew Bible, the LXX and the Vg. Having undertaken this
challenge, it soon became apparent that such a work should take into
account not only the accepted forms used in most standard Europeanlanguage versions of the Bible, but also all variant forms found elsewhere
within the three ancient Bible traditons. The primary objective became
the compilation of an exhaustive index of all extant forms of personal
and place names found in the recent scientic editions of the Bible in
these languages.
1
137
The production of the biblical proper names has required the manual
checking and analysis of every occurrence of each biblical proper name
in the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin scriptural witnesses.
When the dictionary is completed, the following structure will be used
for presenting the various data:
The dictionary will list names in alphabetical sequence following the
NRSVs spelling. In the majority of cases, the NRSV (like most Englishlanguage translations, including the KJV) renders proper names in a
transliterated form that accurately reects the original language. In those
cases where a name is translated rather than transliterated, the translated
form of the name is included.
After the lemma entry, which reects each names recognized and
standardized English pronunciation (or any other chosen variant), the
regular Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek forms are given in square brackets,
with these standard forms in each case being followed (where appropriate) by a list of the variant spellings. Latin translations follow the
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek forms. This format is intended to show
quite clearly whether a given form can be called a family reading, a
popular reading and or a majority reading.
The list of proper names is accompanied by an exhaustive inventory of
biblical citations (though an exception is made to this rule when a name
is particularly common). Old Testament books are listed according to
the canonical sequence of the Hebrew tradition, with the Apocryphal/
Deutero-canonical books being listed in their traditional order. Biblical
references for each entry follow the numeration of the critical edition of
the original text, meaning that the arbitrary numeration systems used
in such translations as the KJV, the RSV and the NRSV need to be
corrected in relation to the original. In those cases where a difference
in numeration exists between the original and the LXX and Vg versions,
the corresponding reference from the version is given in parentheses after
the reference from the original.
With names appearing in alphabetical order, and with a list of biblical
references (Hebrew Bible, New Testament and Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books) supplied, the analytical feature of the dictionary is
the presentation of the literal (etymological) meaning(s) of the names. In
addition, wherever possible or necessary, the identity of given person or
place is claried. This is done in order to distinguish between persons or
places bearing the same name. If the proper name in the original language is comprised of two or more words, the English rendering is
hyphenated in the headings, indicating the word division of the original
language. Accents are used in the transliteration of all Hebrew, Aramaic
1
138
and Greek forms, while variant readings of Greek names are, due to a
lack of certainty, listed without accents or breathing marks. Variant traditions appearing in the Hebrew text (Ketib and Qere) are also included.
A number of names appear in more than one form in the original
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts, as well as in the ancient translations
(i.e. LXX and Vg). It has therefore been necessary to check the various
forms of the name in all places where they appear. In those cases where a
name appears in the accepted text in two or more forms, a corresponding
reference is given for each variant in brackets. When compiling names
from the LXX and the Vg it seems especially important to consider
variants in the accepted text alongside variants appearing in the critical
apparatus of the corresponding edition. In addition to the present standard edition of the LXX by Rahlfs (1935 and reprints), the following
editions are central for checking names and their variants: Field, Vetus
Testamentum Graece juxta LXX Interpretes (1859); Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive Veterum Interpretum Graecorum in totum
Vetus Testamentum fragmenta (1875 [repr. 1964]); Brooke and McLean,
The Old Testament in Greek (1906); Wevers et al., Septuaginta: Vetus
Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis
editum (1922); Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionem ad
codicum dem (192695); Weber, Fischer and others, Biblia Sacra
iuxta Vulgatam versionem (1969 and reprints).
In order to make the dictionary useful to those with an interest in
cultural history, accurate transliteration of the original orthographical
form is given.
The transliterated forms of Hebrew and Aramaic names feature an
apostrophe (') after the accentuated syllable to facilitate a comparison by
the reader of the system of accentuation used in Hebrew, Aramaic and
Greek. In the transliteration of Greek names, the long vowels ta and
mega are indicated ( and ), as are all three types of accent: acute (
/ / / / / / ), circumex ( / / / ), grave
( / ). Greek upsilon is generally transliterated as the letter y
(for instance: Syra, Dionsios, drs), while in diphthongs it is rendered
as the letter u (for instance: Zabouln, Etychos, Epikoreios, phoinikos, Emmaos).
Lastly, a few examples will serve to illustrate the arrangement of my
dictionary:
Adin [Heb. !d'n voluptuous / Gr. 0* Adn, 0, Adino] {male
person} Vg Adin, Adden, AdinuEzra 2:15; Neh 7:20; 10:16
Ahohite [Heb. ', ' / Gr. 0* Ats (2 Sam 23:28), W
0()* ho Acho(ch) (1 Chr 11:12, 29), W +* ho Echoch (1 Chr 27:4)] Vg
Aohites, Ahoites, Ahohites2 Sam 23:28; 1 Chr 11:12, 29; 27:4
1
139
Aijalon [Heb. ayyl'n / 12/ Ail, 12* Ailm (Judg 12:12), 123
Ailm (1 Chr 8:13), 12/ Aialn (2 Chr 11:10)] {place} Vg Ahialon, Ahilon,
Helon, AialonJosh 10:12; Judg 1:35; 2 Chr 11:10
Akkub [Heb. !aqq'b / Gr. 0(), Ak(k)ob, 0, Akod, 0,
Akom] {male person} Vg Ac(c)ub, Accob, Accubus, Acum, AcuphNeh 7:45;
11:19; 1 Chr 3:24; 1 Esd 5:28
Alemeth [Heb. # # !le'met / Gr. D: Galmeth (1 Chr 6:60/45/-B; 9:42),
D> Galmeth (1 Chr 6:60/45/-A), D: Gemeth (1 Chr 7:8), D:
Galmath (1 Chr 8:36)] {place, male person} Vg Almath, Almathan, Almoth,
Alamath1 Chr 6:45(Vg 60) {place}; 1 Chr 7:8; 8:36; 9:42 {male person}. The
place Alemeth (1 Chr 6:45) has in Josh 21:18 the form Almon
Azarel [Heb. " !zar'l,
" !azr'l God helped / Gr. +8 Ezerl,
+()8 Esr(e)il, +8 Esdril, N()8 Oz(e)il, N()8 Ozr(e)il,
+(e)8 El(e)il, 03 Azari, +8 Ezril, 08 Azaral] {all male
persons} Vg Ezrel, Azrihel, Azarel, Azrahel, Ezrahel, EzrihelEzra 10:41; Neh
11:13; 12:36(35); 1 Chr 12:6(7); 25:18; 27:22; 1 Esd 9:34
Azel [Heb. 'l noble / +8 Esl] {male person} Vg Asel, Esel1 Chr
8:3738; 9:4344
Azgad [Heb. " !azg'd Gad is strong / Gr. 03 Asgd, 03 Azgd,
03 Agetd, 0* Arga, 03 Asta, 03 Astd, 03 Astth] {male
person} Vg Azgad, Ezgad, Arcad, AsathEzra 2:12; 8:12; Neh 7:17; 10:16; 1 Esd
5:13; 8:38(41)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abegg, Martin, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The
Oldest Known Bible: Translated for the First Time into English. New York:
HarperCollins, 1999.
Aberbach, Moses, and Bernard Grossfeld. Targum Onkelos to Genesis. Denver: Ktav/
Center for Judaic Studies, 1982.
Arana, A. Ibanez. La narracin etiolgica como gnere literario bblico: Las etiologas
etimolgicas del Pentateuco. Scriptorium Victoriense 10 (1963): 16176, 24175.
Barr, James. Etymology and the Old Testament. Pages 128 in Language and Meaning:
Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis. Ed. James Barr et al.; OTS 19;
Leiden: Brill, 1974.
Bauer, Hans, and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebrischen Sprache des
Alten Testamentes. Halle: Niemeyer, 1922; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1962.
Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionem ad codicum dem cura et studio
monachorum abbatiae ponticiae Sancti Hieronymi in urbe ordinis Sancti Benedicti
edita. Rome: Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, Libreria editrice Vaticana, 192695.
Bore, Wilhelm. Die alten Ortsnamen Palstinas. Leipzig: R. Berger, 1930; repr.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1968.
Brockelmann, Carl. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen,
vols. 12. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1908; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966.
Chester, A. Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim. TSAJ 14;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986.
Childs, Brevard S. The Etiological Tale Re-considered. VT 24 (1974): 217.
A Study on the Formula Until This Day. JBL 82 (1963): 27992.
de Lagarde, Paul, ed. Onomastica Sacra. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966.
Dhorme, Edouard. La Bible: Ancien Testament. Paris: Gallimard, 1956.
Dimitrov, Ivan Z., James D. G. Dunn, Ulrich Luz and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, eds. Das
Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht. WUNT 174;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Elitzur, Yoel. Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land: Preservation and History.
Jerusalem: The Hebrew University/Magnes; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004.
Fabry, Heinz-Josef, and Ulrich Offerhaus, eds. Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta: Studien
zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel. BWANT 153; Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 2001.
Fichtner, Johannes. Die etymologische tiologie in den Namensgebungen der
geschichtlichen Bcher des Alten Testaments. VT 6 (1956): 37296.
Field, Fridericus. Origenis Hexapla quae supersunt sive Veterum interpretum Graecorum
in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta. Hildesheim: Olms, 1964.
Vetus Testamentum Graece juxta LXX Interpretes. Oxford: Wright, 1859.
1
Bibliography
141
Freeman-Grenville, G. S. P., Rupert L. Chapman III and Joan E. Taylor, Palestine in the
Fourth Century A.D.: The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea. Jerusalem: Carta,
2005.
Fremantle, W. H., G. Lewis and W. G. Martley, The Principal Works of St. Jerome.
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, 6, St. Jerome: Letters and Select
Works; ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace; originally published in the United States
by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1893; repr. Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1995.
Fricke, Klaus Dietrich, and Benedikt Schwank. kumenisches Verzeichnis der biblischen
Eigennamen nach den Loccumer Richtlinien. Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelanstalt/
Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1971, 1981.
Garsiel, Moshe. Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns.
Trans. Phyllis Hackett; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1991).
Golka, Friedemann W. The Aetiologies in the Old Testament. VT 26 (1976): 41028;
27 (1977): 3647.
Harl, Marguerite et al., La Bible dAlexandrie: La Gense. Paris: Cerf, 1994.
La Bible dAlexandrie: Traduction du texte grec de la Septante. Paris: Cerf, 1986.
Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other
Greek versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). Vol. 2,
Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906; repr. Graz: Akademische Druck- u.
Verlagsanstalt, 1954.
Haug, Hellmut, ed. Namen und Orte der Bibel. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
2002.
Hayward, R. Divine Name and Presence: The Memra. Totowa, N.J.: Allanheld, Osmun,
1981.
Hieronymus, S. Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum, in S. Hieronymi presbyteri
opera. Pars I/1, Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina 72; Turnholt: Prepols, 1959.
S. Hieronymi presbyteri commentariorum in Isaiam, in S. Hieronymy presbyteri opera.
Pars 2, Commentariorum in Isaiam. Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina 73;
Turnholt: Prepols, 1963.
Ilan, Tal. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part 1, Palestine 330 BCE200 CE.
TSAJ 91; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.
Jannaris, Antonius N. An Historical Greek Grammar: Chiey of the Attic Dialect.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1987.
Jinbachian, Manuel M. Les techniques de traduction dans la Gense en Armenien
classique. Lisbon: Fundao Calouste Gulbenkian, 1998.
Jordan, Peter. Mglichkeiten einer strkeren Bercksichtigung slowenischer Ortsnamen in
den heutigen amtlichen topographischen Karten sterreichs. Berichte und
Informationen 6; Vienna: sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Institut fr
Kartographie, 1988.
Kaswalder, Pietro A., O.F.M. Onomastica Biblica: Fonti scritte e ricerca archeologica.
Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2002.
Klostermann, Erich. Eusebius: Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen. Hildesheim:
Olms, 1966.
Kreuzer, Siegfried, and Jrgen Peter Lesch, eds. Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta: Studien
zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel, Band 2. BWANT 161;
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004.
1
142
Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Ed. Raphael Kutscher;
Jerusalem: Jerusalem: The Hebrew University/Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1982.
Studies in Galilean Aramaic: Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture;
Translated from the Hebrew Original and Annotated with Additional Notes from the
Authors Handcopy by Michael Sokoloff. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1976.
Le Daut, Roger. La nuit pascale: Essai sur la signication de la Paque juive partir du
Targum dExode XII, 42. Rome: Pontical Biblical Institute, 1963.
Lipiski, Edward. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. OLA 80;
Leuven: Peeters, 1997.
Lisowsky, Gerhard. Die Transkription der hebrischen Eigennamen des Pentateuch in
der Septuaginta. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwrde an der
Theologischen Fakultt der Universitt Basel; Basel, 1940.
Long, B. O. Etymological Etiology and the DT Historian. CBQ 31 (1969): 3541.
The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament. BZAW 108; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1968.
Melamed, Ezra Zion. The Onomastikon of Eusebius. Tarbiz 3 (1932): 31427, 393
409.
The Onomastikon of Eusebius. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1966.
Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990.
Murtonen, A. Hebrew in Its West Semitic Setting: A Comparative Survey of NonMasoretic Hebrew Dialects and Traditions. SSLL 15; Leiden: Brill, 1986.
Noth, Martin. Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen
Namengebung. BWANT 3/10; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928; repr. Hildesheim:
Olms, 1966.
Notley, R. Steven, and Zeev Safrai. Eusebius: OnomasticonThe Place Names of Divine
Scripture. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Quentin, D. Henricus. Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionem ad codicum dem.
Vol. 1, Genesis. Rome: Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, 1926.
Rahlfs, Alfred (revised by Detlef Fraenkel). Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften
des Alten Testaments, Vol. I.1, Die berlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert.
Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum
Gottingensis editum; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
Reymond, Philippe. Vers une traduction franaise oecumnique de la Bible. Pages
23143 in Hebrische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter
Baumgartner. VTSup 16; Leiden: Brill, 1967.
Rossano, Pietro. From the Vulgate to the New Vulgate. Pages 193202 Translation of
Scripture: Proceedings of a Conference at the Annenberg Research Institute, May
1516, 1989A Jewish Quarterly Review Supplement: 1990. Ed. David M.
Goldenberg; Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Research Institute, 1990.
Schalit, Abraham. Namenwrterbuch zu Flavius Josephus. A Complete Concordance to
Flavius Josephus: Supplement I; Leiden: Brill, 1968.
Schenker, Adrian, ed. The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between
the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. SCS 52;
Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Seeligmann, Isac Leo. Aetiological Elements in Biblical Historiography. Zion 26
(1961): 14169.
The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies. Ed. Robert Hanhart and
Hermann Spieckermann; FAT 40; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
1
Bibliography
143
Shaw, J. F. Augustin: City of God, Christian Doctrine. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
First Series 2; ed. P. Scharff; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995.
Siegert, Folker. Zwischen Hebrischer Bibel und Altem Testament: Eine Einfhrung in
die Septuaginta. MJSt 9; Mnster: LIT, 2001.
Soggin, J. Alberto. Kulttiologische Sagen und Katechese im Hexateuch. VT 10 (1960):
34147.
Sperber, Alexander. Hebrew Based upon Greek and Latin Transliterations. Offprint from
Hebrew Union College Annual, Volume XIIXIII; Cincinnati, 193738.
Strus, Andrzej. tymologies des noms propres dans Gen 29,3230, 24: Valeurs littraires
et fonctionnelles. Salesianum 40 (1978): 5772.
NomenOmen. La stylistique sonore des noms propres dans le Pentateuque. Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1978.
Thackeray, Henry St. John. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1909; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1987.
Thomsen, P. Palstina nach dem Onomasticon des Eusebius. Ph.D. diss., Tbingen,
1903 (published under the same title in Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palstina-Vereins
26 [1903]: 97141, 14588).
Tov, Emanuel. The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. VTSup
57; Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Loan-words, Homophony, and Transliterations in the Septuagint. Pages 16582 in
Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible.
Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions: A Further Characteristic of
the Kaige-th Revision? Pages 50112 in Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible.
Urbach, Ephraim E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Magnes,
1975.
Vermes, Gza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. 2d ed.; StPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1973.
Weber, Robertus, Bonifatius Fischer and others, Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969; 2d ed., 1973, 3d ed., 1983.
Weeks, Stuart, Simon Gathercole and Loren Stuckenbruck, eds. The Book of Tobit: Texts
from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions: With Synopsis, Concordances,
and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2004.
Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of GenesisDeuteronomy. SBLSCS 35,
30, 44, 46, 39; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 199098.
Text History of the Greek Exodus. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Gttingen, MSU 21, Philologisch-historische Klasse III/192; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.
Text History of the Greek Genesis. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Gttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse III/81; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1974.
Worth, Roland H., Jr., Bible Translations: A History through Source Documents. Vol. 2,
Jeromes Vulgate. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland, 1992.
Wutz, Franz. Die Bedeutung der Transkriptionen in der LXX. Biblische Zeitschrift 16
(1924): 194203.
Die Transkriptionen von der LXX bis zum Hieronymus. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933.
Onomastica sacra: Untersuchungen zum Liber interprettationis nominum hebraicorum
des Hl. Hieronymus. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914.
1
144
Zadok, Ran. The Pre-HellenisticIsraelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography. OLA 28;

Leuven: Peeters, 1988.
Ziegler, Joseph. Transkriptionen in der Ier.-LXXX: Transkription der Eigennamen
(EN). Pages 5986 in Beitrge zur Ieremias-Septuaginta. Mitteilungen des
Septuaginta-Unternehmens VI, Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958.
Zimmerman, Frank. Folk Etymology of Biblical Names. Pages 31126 in Volume du
Congrs: Genve. VTSup 15; Leiden: Brill, 1966.
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
HEBREW BIBLE/
OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis
2:425
2:4
2:5
2:8
2:11
2:14
2:23
3:124
3:1
3:1419
3:20
4:1
4:2
4:14
4:22
4:25
4:26
5:21
5:29
6:4
9:18
10:6
10:7
10:89
10:8
10:10
10:14
10:16
10:17
10:19
10:23
8
56
104
106
97
107
8, 47
10
56
10
6, 10, 44,
45, 47
6, 10, 97,
99, 105
106
107
107
6
59
98
6, 105
56, 63
104
97
100
115
105
116
56, 107
99, 107
97
99, 107
106
10:27
11:19
11:1
11:24
11:58
11:7
11:8
11:9
11:18
11:24
11:29
11:31
12:6
12:8
13:4
13:10
13:11
13:18
14
14:1
14:4
14:56
14:5
14:9
14:17
14:18
15:2
98
11
11
11
12
12
12
6, 11, 12,
44, 45,
47
100
106
97
101
56, 73,
74, 107
59, 99,
115
59
100
106
98, 102,
113
128
56, 71,
99, 105,
128
128
64
56, 64,
65, 129
56, 71,
129
129
106
107
15:20
16
16:11
16:1314
16:13
16:14
16:15
17:5
17:15
17:19
19:2022
19:22
19:3038
19:3234
19:3738
19:37
19:38
21:36
21:14
21:2234
21:27
21:2930
21:31
21:32
21:33
22:119
22:2
22:8
22:14
56, 64,
65
12
6, 13,
105
13, 45,
47
6, 13
6, 14, 15
6
6, 7, 98
6, 7, 101
107
6
100
15
15
15
6
6, 48
6
17
16
16
16
6, 17, 45,
48
16
17, 59
18
56, 74,
75
18, 19
6, 1820,
44, 45,
48
146
Genesis (cont.)
22:19
17
22:23
101, 105
23:89
75
23:9
56, 75
23:17
56, 75
23:19
56, 75
24:7
122
24:10
56, 71
24:52
14
24:62
13, 15,
47
2533
26
25:5
72
25:9
56, 75
25:11
1315,
47
25:20
56, 71,
72
25:25
6, 97
25:26
6, 107
25:30
6
26:2
26
26:1922
21, 48
26:20
6, 44, 45
26:21
6
26:22
6, 44, 45
26:25
59
26:2633
17
26:33
6, 17, 18,
45, 48
27:36
6
28:2
71, 72
28:5
71, 72
28:6
71, 72
28:7
71, 72
28:1022
22, 26
28:10
17
28:12
27
28:17
22
28:19
6, 22, 27,
48
29:16
106
29:32
6
29:33
6
29:34
29:35
30:8
30:18
30:20
30:2324
30:25
31:18
31:4354
31:4649
31:47
31:48
31:49
32:23
32:2
32:3
32:811
32:2232
32:29
32:31
32:32
32:33
33
33:17
33:18
33:20
35:18
35:68
35:6
35:7
35:8
35:9
35:1415
35:15
35:18
35:26
36:4
36:5
36:22
36:23
37:25
37:35
6, 97,
106
6, 98
105
6
6, 106
6
97
71, 72
22
23, 49
6
6
6
23, 49
6
24
24
25
97, 98,
106
6, 25, 45,
49
25, 49,
98
25
26
26, 49
71
59
26
26, 50
26
27
35
71, 72
26
26
6, 97
71, 72
100
106
98, 105
105
26
56
38:4
38:29
38:30
41:51
41:52
4650
46:1
46:5
46:10
46:12
46:14
46:15
46:16
46:17
46:21
46:24
46:28
49:2850:26
49:30
50:11
50:13
Exodus
2:10
2:21
2:22
4:14
6:18
6:19
6:23
6:26
7:8
13:17
15:20
15:2227
15:23
15:26
16:1
17
17:17
17:2
17:7
17:9
105
6
6
6, 101,
106
6, 97
28
17
17
108, 122
122
99
71
72, 122
122
122
99
26
28
56, 75
6, 28, 50
56, 75
7
102
7
98
102, 106
99
99, 122
98
98
56
97
29
7, 29, 46,
50
29
97
30
29
30
7, 30, 44,
46, 50
98
Index of References
17:14
18:3
18:4
34:23
Numbers
1:6
1:8
1:14
1:15
11:135
11:13
11:12
11:1
11:3
11:3334
11:34
11:35
12:10
13:14
13:14 LXX
13:15
13:15 LXX
13:21
13:22 LXX
13:33
14:45
15:20
16:1
20:13
20:24
21:13
21:23
21:3
21:11
21:14
21:18
21:19
22:1
22:5
24:7
26:26
125
7
7
59
100
100
122
105
32, 33
32
32
33
7, 33, 45,
46, 50
33
7, 33, 46,
50
33
98
99, 122
122
99, 122
99, 122
99, 107
99
56, 63
34
105
105
7, 3032
7, 3032
34
34, 46
7, 34, 35,
50
122
122
122
99, 122
97, 106
105, 107
122
99, 113
26:30
26:32
26:35
26:36
26:38
26:39
26:40
26:44 LXX
26:46
27:13
27:14
27:17
32:3
33:16
33:17
33:21
33:22
33:23
33:26
33:27
33:28
33:30
33:35
33:42
33:43
33:46
34:8
34:22
34:24
34:26
34:27
122
123
123
122
122
123
122
122
99
32
7, 30, 32
31
102
33
33
123
123
123
123
123
123
101
115
122
122
115
122
101
123
122
122
Deuteronomy
1:1
104
1:7
56, 76,
77, 79
1:44
34
2:10
64
2:11
64
2:20
64, 65
3:8
98
3:9
115
3:11
64, 65
3:13
64, 65
6:16
30, 31
147
9:22
11:29
11:30
23:4
23:5
32:49
33:8
33:14
Joshua
1:33
2:1
2:4
5:9
7:26
9:1
10:1
10:12
10:40
11:13
11:1
11:2
11:1617
11:16
12:4
12:8
12:14
12:15
12:23
13:3
13:12
15:8
15:30
15:33
17:15
18:16
19:4
3133
115
56, 73,
74
71
71
115
30, 31
31, 32
78
99
64
7
7
56, 76,
77, 79
106, 107,
115
137
56, 76,
77, 79
77
98
56, 76,
79
77
56, 76,
79
64, 65
56, 76,
77, 79
34
106
71
101
64, 65
65, 98
34
56, 76,
79
64, 65
65
34
148
Judges
1:9
2:4
2:5
3:8
4:4
6:32
7:1
7:7
8:89
8:17
11:11
12:8
12:10
12:12
13:24
15:920
15:917
15:9
15:14
15:17
15:1819
15:19
56, 76,
79
34
7, 34, 35
101, 106
137
35
7, 35, 45,
46
35
50
71, 72
101
7
56, 73
79
25
25
101
102
102
137
102
36
36
36
36
7, 36, 50
7, 36
36, 50
Ruth
1:2
101, 107
1 Samuel
1:2
1:20
1:27
4:21
5:1
7:217
7:12
14:51
16:13
99
7
7
7
122
37
7, 37, 50
101
105
1:1617
1:17
1:31
1:35
2:15
2:45
23:2424:1
23:2728
23:28
25:3
25:25
30:30
2 Samuel
3:3
5:7
5:14
5:1725
5:18
5:2021
5:20
5:22
6:123
6:3
6:8
8:17
12:25
23:11
23:13
23:28
1 Kings
4:5
9:13
10:27
38
38
7, 37, 50
107
7
34
102
100
100, 107
39
65
45, 46
7, 39, 41,
50
65
40
106
7, 40, 50,
106
97, 101
7
36
65
137
12:25
16:9
16:16
16:24
16:28
19:16
101
7
76, 78,
79
25
102
102
7
98
101
2 Kings
1:20
14:7
15:29
16:20
22:3
7
7
101
99
101
22:14
23:33
24:17
25:23
106
123
102
98
1 Chronicles
1:15
1:19
3:24
4:3
4:4
4:910
4:9
4:11
4:30
6:45
6:60
7:8
7:23
7:35
8:13
8:25
8:36
8:3738
9
9:12
9:37
9:42
9:4344
11:7
11:12
11:15
11:29
12:6
12:7
13:11
14:9
14:11
14:19
19:6
25:18
27:4
27:22
27:28
78
7
137
98, 100
25
7
41
101
34
137
137
137
7
98
137
25
137
138
137
105
101
137
138
41
137
65
137
138
138
7
65
7, 41
65
71, 72
138
137
138
76, 79
Index of References
2 Chronicles
1:15
3:1
9:27
11:10
20:130
20:2526
20:26
26:10
28:18
Ezra
2:9
2:12
2:15
2:33
4:6
7:1
8:12
10:41
76, 79
56, 74,
75
76, 78,
79
137
41
41
7, 41, 45,
46, 50
76, 78,
79
76, 77,
79
101
138
137
122
98
102
138
138
Nehemiah
3:10
7:17
7:20
7:45
10:16
11:13
11:19
11:34
12:35
12:36
101
138
137
137
137, 138
138
137
122
138
138
Esther
4:5
122
Job
3:8
26:6
56, 65
67
56, 61
28:22
31:12
40:15
40:25
Psalms
6:5
60:2
74:14
81:8
83:8
88:1
88:11
88:12
95:8
104:26
106:3233
Proverbs
15:11
27:20
Isaiah
3:15
8:13
8:1
8:3
8:18
10:6
10:23
10:24
12:2
14:13
17:5
22:12
26:4
26:14
26:19
27:1
38:11
56
56
56, 65
56, 65
67
56
71, 72
56, 65
67
30
106
97
63, 64
56
3032
56, 65
67
30
56, 61,
62
56, 61
58
69
56, 69
56, 70
69
105
58
58
60
79
65
58
60
64
64
56, 65
67
60
149
Jeremiah
17:2426
17:26
28:1
32:12
32:44
33:13
77
76, 79
99
106
7679
76, 77,
79
Ezekiel
23:4
108
Daniel
1:6
106
Hosea
1:1
1:4
1:6
1:8
1:9
214
2:3
98
56, 67
56, 67
67
56
69
68
Obadiah
19
7679
Habakkuk
1:1
99
Haggai
1:1
99
Zechariah
7:7
76, 77
NEW TESTAMENT
Luke
19:2
101
19:5
101
19:8
101
Revelation
9:11
16:16
56, 62
56, 79
150
APOCRYPHA/DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS
1 Esdras
5:13
138
5:28
137
8:38
138
8:41
138
9:34
138
Tobit
2:10
6:11
101
100
Sirach
45:6
98
Baruch
1:20
2:2
2:28
115
115
115
1 Maccabees
6:1
11:70
12:38
13:11
13:13
101
102
76
102
76
2 Maccabees
10:19
101
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
1 Enoch
6:3
63
6:7
63
8:1
63
9:6
63
9:7
63
10:8
63
10:11
63
BABYLONIAN TALMUD
Erubin
53a
76
Yoma
67b
63
MIDRASH
Genesis Rabbah
20:11
10
22:2
10
56:10
19
Leviticus Rabbah
29:9
19
Tanhuma, Wa-Yera
23 (7879)
19
Tanhuma B., Wa-Yera
46 (1,115)
19
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Abegg, M., Jr. 84
Aberbach, M. 8
Arana, A. I. 5
Barr, J. 43
Bauer, H. 129
BoreW. 53, 95, 130
Brockelmann, C. 129
Chapman, R. S. III 54, 90
Chester, A. 19
Childs, B. S. 5
Dhorme, E. 112
Dimitrov, I. Z. 86
Dunn, J. D. G. 86
Elitzur, Y. 2, 95
Fabry, H.-J. 86
Fichtner, J. 5
Field, F. 8, 10, 89
Fischer, B. 128
Flint, P. 84
Freeman-Grenville, G. S. P. 54, 90, 110
Fremantle, W. H. 94, 11012, 127
Fricke, K. D. 25, 83
Garsiel, M. 43
Gathercole, S. 86
Golka, F. W. 5
Grossfeld, B. 8
Ilan, T. 54, 56, 95

Jannaris, A. N. 96, 117
Jinbachian, M. M. 56
Jordan, P. 53
Kaswalder, P. A. 95
Klostermann, E. 53, 90, 92, 110
Kreuzer, S. 86
Kutscher, E. Y. 1, 2, 129
Lagarde, P. de 90, 94, 99, 100, 113
Le Dut, R. 19
Leander, P. 129
Lesch, J. P. 86
Lewis, G. 94, 11012, 127
Lipiki, E. 129
Lisowsky, G. 56, 95, 99, 119, 121
Long, B. O. 5
Luz, U. 86
Martley, W. G. 94, 11012, 127
Melamed, E. Z. 90
Milgrom, J. 35
Murtonen, A. 95
Niebuhr, K.-H. 86
Noth, M. 119
Notley, R. S. 90, 92, 132
Offerhaus, U. 86
Quentin, D. H. 129
Harl, M. 24, 56
Hatch, E. 135
Haug, H. 83
Hayward, R. 19
Hieronymus, S. 90, 98, 100
Rahlfs, A. 86
Redpath, H. A. 135
Reymond, P. 83
Rossano, P. 117
152
Safrai, Z. 90, 92, 132

Schalit, A. 89
Schenker, A. 86
Schwank, B. 25, 83
Seeligmann, I. L. 5, 86
Shaw, J. F. 126
Siegert, F. 86
Soggin, J. A. 5
Sperber, A. 95, 98, 102, 114, 132
Strus, A. 5
Stuckenbruck, L. 86
Taylor, J. E. 54, 90
Thackeray, H. St. J. 56, 95
Thomsen, P. 90
Tov, E. 56, 95
Ulrich, E. 84
Urbach, E. E. 19
Vermes, G. 19
Weber, R. 128
Weeks, S. 86
Wevers, J. W. 56, 124, 125, 134, 135
Worth, R. H., Jr. 110
Wutz, F. 90, 95
Zadok, R. 95, 118
Ziegler, J. 95
Zimmerman, F. 5
Thank You
Want More
Books?
We hope you learned what you expected to learn from
this eBook. Find more such useful books on
Learn more and make your parents proud :)

Regards

The Transformation of Biblical Proper Names

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The Transformation of Biblical Proper Names

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A

This eBook is downloaded from

PlentyofeBooks.net is a blog with an aim

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/

This page intentionally left blank

Copyright 2010 by Joe Kraovec

Visit the T & T Clark blog at www.tandtclarkblog.com