Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
" ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA " 375
THE "ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA" (Vols. I
and II) AND THE TEXTUAL TRADITION
OF HEBREW PROPER NAMES.
Two of the four volumes of which the Encyclopaedia
Biblica is to consist have now appeared, and it is already-
apparent that this great work will be much more than
a mere survey and summary of the work of scholars and
investigators. It is full of original suggestions, and con-
tributes greatly in many departments to the advance of
Biblical study. To judge from some of the reviews this
is accounted in certain circles a vice rather than a virtue :
in such a work originality appears to be unwelcome
because it is unexpected. One thing — though by no means
a grudging reception — this characteristic of the new work
certainly seems to call for, and that is to draw attention
to, and where necessary to criticize, what is here freshly
said or mooted lest it should be unused, or for lack of
criticism become misused.
In the present article I confine myself to a single subject,
and to a large extent to a single aspect even of that ; I intend
to indicate the nature of the contributions made in these
volumes — often in obscure articles and out-of-the-way
sections — to the study of Hebrew Proper Names, and
more especially to consider the question of the textual
tradition of those names.
The comprehensive article on " Names * " to which, when
1 One section of this, dealing with Place Karnes, is contributed by
myself: in voL i I have written the article "Ammi, Karnes in." Keither
of these, and consequently none of my own work, is discussed in the
376 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
the work is complete, the reader interested in the subject
will naturally first turn, will appear in a later volume.
But there are several articles of a general character, more
or less directly and intimately connected with the subject,
in the first two volumes, and especially in the second
a large number of brief articles the importance of which
is out of all proportion to their size. Were it but for
these alone the Encyclopaedia Biblica must henceforth
be constantly in the hands of all serious students of the
subject, for they will find that the knowledge acquired in
the past is here fully and succinctly stated ; and that no
previous work has so systematically broken fresh ground
in the discussion especially of the textual validity but also
of the philological, historical, and religious significance of
the proper names of the Old Testament.
The following series of articles deals with the particularly
interesting groups of names compounded with an element
denoting kinship — Abi, Ammi, Dod, Hamu or Hami.
In Abi Professor Cheyne discusses somewhat fully both
the philological and religious problems presented by the
names containing that element. He independently supports
the view which I have elsewhere * defended at length, that
names of the type Abiel are sentences, and that the " i " is
not pronominal. In the second section of the article he
discusses the question which part of the name is predicative,
and concludes that it is the term of kinship when the other
term is divine ; but that in such a name as Abiram, Abi is
the subject, and ram (exalted) the predicate. Here again
I find Professor Cheyne in agreement with myself 2 as
against, for example, Professor Moore. In the last two
sections Professor Cheyne discusses the religious significance
of these names, and rightly criticizes Professor Hommel's
1 Studies in Hebrew Proper Names (1896), pp. 75-86. This work will be
cited henceforth throughout the article as H. P. N.
3 Ibid. 140 ; cf. 137, n. 3, and see the interpretation of the names
Ahikam, Adonikam, Adoniram, in the Encyc. Bibl. Note also the Phoen.
DplN cited under Ahikam,
THE "ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA 377
undiscriminating use of the parallel Babylonian names on
the ground that proof of a tendency among the Babylonians
is no sufficient proof that the same tendency existed among
Professor Cheyne also writes the article on Bod, Mr. Hogg
that on Hamu : but whereas Mr. Hogg explains Hamu,
which occurs at most in one or two names, as a term of
kindred, Professor Cheyne decides that Dod, whieh is a
rather more frequent though still rare component of names,
is not a term of kindred. The two articles should have
been correlated; the decision in the one case can hardly
be altogether unaffected by that in the other. I decided
myself x that in both cases the balance of evidence, which
was too incomplete and ambiguous to be decisive, was
in favour of the interpretation as a term of kindred.
No fresh evidence is yet forthcoming 2 , and to Professor
Cheyne the balance seems the other way ; he expressly
indicates that this judgment is provisional. Certainly
in itself it does not favour his view that he has to inter-
pret the at least superficially similar names Eldad and
Dodiyyah (see s.v. Bodavak), in two different ways, viz.
Dad is God, and Yah is a divine patron. In the article
Hamuel it should have been noted that the single m of
the Greek text is quite indecisive evidence as against
the double m of the Massoretic text, and that for the
reason given in H. P. N., 323. In Hamul the reading 7Xl»n
(Hamuel) of the Samaritan text might with advantage
have been cited. Under Abner Lagarde's view that
Ab=Aben=son, is referred to, but the full argument 3
against it is not indicated.
One of the chief difficulties in utilizing the evidence
of Hebrew Proper Names to the full, lies in the numerous
ambiguities and uncertainties of the lists in the opening
1 H. P. N., 60 ff.
* But in modification of what is said in H. P. N., 61, against Tl = to love,
the Assyrian dddu, as cited in the article, should be noted.
3 See H. P. N., 23.
VOL. XIII. C
378 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
section of the books of Chronicles. It is a long while now
since Wellhausen 1 showed what valuable historical matter
lay concealed there ; several of the articles in the Encyclo-
paedia Biblica contain bold and instructive attempts to
unsolve the riddles of those chapters, or at least to read
the riddles aright ; chief amongst such articles may be
mentioned those by Mr. Hogg on the various tribes (e.g.
Asher,Benjamin,Ephraim),some ofwhich have been preceded
by thorough studies in the recent volumes of this Review,
and Mr. Stanley Cook's illuminating article on Genealogies.
But I turn now to the shorter articles. Every student
is laid under deep obligation to the editors for the
fullness — a fullness quite unrivalled in any work of the
kind before — with which they have given the Greek forms
of the names. Many have no doubt found Stade and
Siegfried's Hebrew Dictionary useful for the very reason
that the Greek equivalents are regularly given under the
proper names ; yet even there it is as a rule only the usual
equivalents that are cited. In the Encyclopaedia Biblica,
we find not only the regular forms in the different
Uncial MSS., and the Lucianic recension, but curious
variants and manifest corruptions. Thus to cite one or
two instances : Jaaziel (.WJf . . . o^etr\\ [B a], lrjovX [A],
leir]X [L]) ; Jabez (TW\ Iya/Q'/s, TafJ.es [B], layfir\<s, Tapr)s [A],
Ia/3»]s, Ia/3?/\, Ia/3e[t]s [L]) ; Japhlet (&.?S- . . . Id>a/x?jA, A<pa\rix,
la<j>a\r)\ [B], Ia(j>akr]T [A], -(fyXer [L]). It is most con-
venient and full of instruction, to have the forms thus
brought together; one can thus see at a glance the kind
of errors that arose, and judge of the value of the testi-
mony of the Greek text in particular instances.
The feature of the work just alluded to is all the more
in place, since the attitude of the writers of the various
articles 2 to the Hebrew text is sceptical, and the emenda-
tions suggested are radical. The extent and nature of
1 In his De Gentibus et Familiis Iudaeis (1870).
2 A large number of the articles in question are signed T. K. C[heyne] ;
a large number are unsigned.
THE "ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA
the corruptions to which, according to these suggestions,
Hebrew proper names have been subject, either in the
transmission of the text or in popular use before they were
committed to writing, may be indicated by the following
illustrations; the instances cited, it must be understood,
are the merest selection from an immensely larger number
to be found even in these first two volumes of the work.
Names occurring but once in the Old Testament are marked
with a f . The emendations will be found under the several
articles except where a number is given ; this refers to the
column where the suggestion is made.
(Je) Kabzeel iwiap^)
> Hasadiah inon
Halusah HS?n 2649
Kabzeel = Jehallesel
r is an ancient
( popular corruption of
Israel bvr\W> 1
Jezreel bxyw /•
Issachar naw J
I Ahihalas pSwnN
Abraham DirOK 2365 f
( is a coriup- } T ,
1 . / ( Jehu wn»
I tion 01 J
•"> 23 1 1
tKeren Happuch "pan pp
Ezion Geber -\2i pxy
Reah Tappuhim nvnan m
Nesib Edom DIN yvs
Ir Kasiu V5tp "Vy
C C 3
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
I is a corrup-
i tion of
- En Harod Tin }»J?
Salecah or Salhad
rabo or irbo 1947
Endor (in i S.
xxviii. 5-25) nil pj?
fEn-Haddah Din pS
The merest glance down the foregoing list can hardly fail
to raise the question, Can we be sure in any case that the
Old Testament has preserved for us the original form of
a name ? that, even if the form still stands as it was first
written down, it is not a form that had previously been
corrupted in popular use ? If the most familiar and most
frequently recurring names, like those of the patriarchs, or
of places so frequently mentioned as Ziklag, are corruptions,
what ancient names are likely to have survived in their
original forms ? And then the further question arises, If
the writers of the articles are justified in their scepticism of
the traditional forms, what value attaches to the alternatives
they suggest ; what kind of evidence for their emendations
is available ?
The Encyclopaedia Biblica thus raises a most important
question which hitherto has scarcely been sufficiently faced.
What is the extent of corruption to which proper names
have been subjected in their transmission ? With what
degree of assurance can we in specific cases accept the
traditional as the original form, or surmise the original
now only represented by a corrupt traditional form ?
I will bring my criticism of details under suggestions for
an answer to these questions.
In the first place, it has long been generally recognized
that the proper names of the Old Testament have suffered
in part from intentional, in part from unintentional or
accidental corruption. The best known and clearest in-
stance of intentional corruption consists in the substitution
THE "ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA" 381
of bosheth (shame) for Baal in names originally containing
the latter element 1 . This particular corruption is not to be
attributed to an early class of editors or scribes, for whereas
in the Hebrew text of Samuel the corrupt form regularly
appears, in the Greek text of Samuel sometimes, and in the
Hebrew text of Chronicles regularly, the original form with
Baal is preserved. These considerations weigh against the
at first sight attractive suggestion adopted after Klostermann
and Marquart that the difficult form Jeroboam is merely
an intentionally corrupted form of Jerubbaal. The name
occurs so frequently that we should have expected, as in the
case of other compounds with Baal, that the form with Baal
would appear occasionally either in the Greek text of
Kings or the Hebrew text of Hosea or Chronicles. Yet it
probably never appears at all, for in view of the variants of
the Greek MSS. we cannot be sure that we have a solitary
example in the Iepo/3aa\ (al. Ie/>o/3oajoi) of Hos. x. 14. On
the other hand, that Manasseh's mother (2 Kings xxi. 1)
was Hephzibaal is probable enough. The controlling
evidence of Chronicles is in this instance lacking.
But by far the more numerous corruptions of names have
been unintentional and accidental.
These accidental corruptions have unquestionably been
very numerous, as any one who will compare the parallel
lists of the Hebrew text, or the Hebrew with the Greek
text of e. g. 1 Chron. i-ix, must immediately become con-
vinced. So numerous are they that it should be freely
granted that a name of strange form or in any way suspi-
cious that occurs but once in the Old Testament should
only be accepted in the most provisional way and used with
the extreme of caution in argument. And this even if the
versions support the Hebrew text ; for their agreement only
carries back the evidence for the form at the highest, and then
only in the case of names in the Pentateuch to + 350 b. c.
Hitherto there has prevailed a far too general credulity in
1 Cf. JET. P. N., 121, where in n. 1 I ought also to have referred to Vatke,
Bel. des A. T., 675, n. 3.
382 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
accepting the traditional forms of names, and the scepticism
of the Encyclopaedia Biblica is a wholesome corrective.
But the more frequently a name occurs, the more im-
probable is it that it has suffered accidental corruption in
the transmission of the document in which it occurs. To
take an example. On the ground of the improbability of
the form, Professor Cheyne denies the existence of the name
Bezalel (^2*3, generally explained as "in the shadow of
God "), and proposes as the original form Hillesel. Now
the only form in which the suggestion can be admitted in
the light of the facts and the theory of probabilities, even for
a moment, is that we suppose the corruption to have arisen
as far back as the source from which P, in whom the name
of the builder of the tabernacle is first mentioned, derived
his information, or in the act of copying from that source.
For the facts are these — this Bezalel is mentioned six times
in Exod. xxxi-xxxiv, and twice in Chronicles (1 Chron. ii. 30,
2 Chron. i. 5). Now a scribe may well have copied
Hillesel as Bezalel with the double mistake (b for h and s
and 1 transposed) once, he would not accidentally have
made the same double mistake six times. No doubt then
Professor Cheyne means us to understand that the mistake
occurred in the transmission of P's source rather than of our
present text of Exodus. That he does not say so is unfor-
tunate, for it is well in considering a conjecture to see at
once what is involved in it, and exceedingly important to con-
sider at what period a supposed corruption of the text may
have originated. The general principle that names suffered
corruption in the early history of their transmission stated
elsewhere (col. 1586, n. 3) certainly ought to be admitted ;
but does it satisfactorily account for all the facts connected
with the name Bezalel ? Bezalel also appears as the name
of a contemporary of Ezra (Ezra x. 20). Now it is improb-
able that another scribe would have made just the same
mistake, for it is by no means the most obvious error or the
one most likely to occur in copying Hillesel. But unless
this were so we are carried back to the name in actual
THE "ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA " 383
use. How are we to account for it ? Did the father of the
child hunt up some musty document, and finding the name
there confer it on his child 1 This is just possible 1 , but
hardly probable. On the whole, then, I must consider
Professor Cheyne's case against Bezalel not made out,
and his suggestion that it is a corruption of Hillesel
improbable 2 . It follows that the argument against Beso-
deiah falls to the ground, though if it stood an entirely
isolated instance of its type, this name, which occurs but
once, might not unreasonably be suspected.
The following appears to me a sound canon of criticism :
When a name occurs several times, and has not been sub-
ject to intentional corruption, the genuineness of the
form is not to be questioned unless reasonable cause can be
shown for supposing that its transmission has been at one
stage solely by means of a document in which the name
occurred but once or twice (or in which at least it did not
occur several times). In many cases it is by no means
obvious that such a canon has been respected by those who
in the Encyclopaedia Biblica have explained traditional
forms as due to accidental corruption.
One of the cases in which it is most difficult to believe
that a name can be explained as a mere transcriptional
error is Elioenai ( , J' , yi(n)^N). This name occurs some ten
times in Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, and of some seven
or eight different persons ; and yet it is suggested that it is
merely a mis- written Elishama (yw6tf). In spite of its
strange form 3 , which has few parallels, the name Elioenai
1 Cf. S. P. N., 7 f.
2 Probably the number of cases in which it is suggested the element
y'jn in proper names has suffered corruption (see list above) has been
overdone. That the simple name pn is verbal not segholate as in the
Massoretic Text is probable (see s. v. Helbz) ; G- transliterates xaAAj/s (with
double \ and rj), not x aKes , which would represent the segholate form.
I think it not improbable that b&shn lies concealed in the somewhat
obviously corrupt ^iBfen, and in any case Professor Cheyne's explanation
of the last part of the form seems sound.
3 Cf. H. P. N., 158.
384 THE JEWISH QUABTEBLY BEVIEW
must be admitted as genuine. The truth is, after the Exile,
possibly under Babylonian influence, there appears to have
been for a time a tendency to try forms of names unfamiliar
to the earlier Hebrews 1 . To one of these unusual types
belong Bezalel and Besodeiah just discussed; to another
Eliphelehu (in?a*?K), to which, curiously enough, the
Encyclopaedia Biblica takes no exception ; to yet another
n\nt?n, if we accept the pointing suggested under Hashab-
niah and the emendation of the name Hashbadana 2 . Some
of these late names are referred to early personages by the
Chronicler who, when at a loss, was more often content to
supply himself with names current in his own day than to
frame for himself " uncommon names in the interest of
edification 3 ."
The canon just formulated involves a corollary, viz. no
element in a proper name is to be suspected ivhick occurs
in several different names. The only instance in which
this is violated, so far as I have observed in the Encyclopaedia
Biblica, is not a violent one, since the element occurs in
only two names. Nevertheless, the occurrence of the
element 70 (dew) in the two corresponding names, Abital
and Hamutal, appears to me a far stronger reason for
maintaining the genuineness of the tradition of these names
than the reasons adduced for supposing it to be a corruption
of 30. Indeed, one of these reasons is truly astonishing.
What has the resemblance of 3 and 7 in the Palmyrene
characters to do with the matter ? Is there any reason for
supposing that the early Hebrew script resembled the
1 Cf. H. P. N., 220 ff.
2 Mr. Cooke's explanation of this suspicious name (indifferently sup-
ported by the Versions), as due to dittography of surrounding names,
is highly probable.
3 Professor Cheyne thinks that the names in i Ohron. xxv. 4ft, which
have most frequently been cited as instances of the latter method, can
be attributed to textual corruption (col. 2015). It is difficult to believe
that design had nothing to do with these curious names, though it may
have been the design of a scribe (operating on half-illegible names) rather
than that of the author.
THE "ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA " 385
Palinyrene 1 The error, if error there be, must have arisen
early, when it is far more probable that Hebrew writing
resembled that of the Moabite stone and early Hebrew seals
in which 3 and b are not particularly similar. Then, again,
why is it " very improbable " that a name should be com-
pounded with bu 1 Is the statement " the father is dew "
(cf. Hos. xiv. 5) more improbable than " the brother is
dawning light " (Ahishahar ; Abishahar is suggested as an
emendation for Abishur)?
In the preceding paragraphs I have given illustrations
of what appears to me failure to appreciate the weight
of evidence in favour of the traditional forms of names.
I may now refer to one or two instances of insufficiency in
the force of positive arguments brought forward against
particular names. Jahmai ("'BIT) is questioned on the ground
that the root non " does not appear to be used in Hebrew."
But, as Gesenius long ago pointed out 1 , the proper names
not infrequently contain roots which do not happen to
occur in the extant Hebrew literature, though they are
well enough known to us from the cognate languages.
His list may need revision, but Hoglah may be cited as
a good instance; the Encyclopaedia Biblica, indeed,
questions the genuineness of the form in the case of Zelo-
phehad's daughter, but allows it to stand in Beth-Hoglah.
1 will add the case of the root "Of: this occurs in quite
a number of names, but otherwise survives in the Old
Testament in a single phrase alone — in the explanation of
the name Zebulon (210 13f TIN DTii'N "0*ur). Again, previous
failure to explain the form of a name is not in all cases
decisive argument against it ; the form Jemima (now) may
be difficult ; Professor Cheyne's suggestion here (Temimah
TO^n) is very simple and easy, for in the earlier script
D resembled ' much more closely than in the square, and
the two letters were, as a matter of fact, frequently confused ;
but I question whether he has sufficient ground for abandon-
1 Gesck. d. hebr. Sprache u. Schrijl, 48 f.
386 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
ing the text, or, at least, whether his emendation is more
probably original than the traditional form. I have already
referred to the insufficiency of the argument against
Bezalel and Besodeiah on the ground of the manner of
I have so far been criticizing the rejection of traditional
forms of names and indicating the limits within which,
and the grounds on which, we may accept the text of the
Old Testament names. I turn now to the positive side of
the matter — the character of the emendations proposed.
There are unquestionably a great number of corrupt names
in the Old Testament, and a great number which, if not
obviously corrupt, are still far from being certainly correct.
The writers in the Encyclopaedia Biblica have in these
cases resorted to emendations with unexampled frequency
and boldness. The forms they suggest are of course always
possible ; but the question is, Are they in the particular
cases more than the merest possibilities ? Have they as
much probability as the form in the text? Have they
more probability than several others that could be
Once again, actual evidence which has hitherto been
insufficiently regarded undoubtedly brings us face to face
with hard and rude fact. We are compelled (by an examina-
tion, as before, of e. g. 1 Chron. i-ix, with parallel lists and
the Greek Version) to admit that any combination of letters
might on occasion become, in the course of transcription, any
other combination. So long as we have evidence, whether
derived from versions or parallel lists, to support emenda-
tions, very extensive changes in names may be justified as
the result of transcriptional accident. Further, it may be
granted that many similar corruptions took place before
our earliest versions. But what follows % A great proba-
bility that many forms in the Hebrew text, though
supported by the versions, are mere textual corruptions.
Manifestly, then, considerable scepticism with regard to
any form not established by the canon stated above, nor
THE "ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA " 387
supported by the contemporary evidence of inscriptions, is
perfectly reasonable. A conjectural form may consequently
often possess much more probability of being the original
than does the form in the text. But in order that the
conjectural form may possess any high degree of proba-
bility on textual grounds, it must differ from the form in
the text, owing to reasons which can be shown to have
been frequent causes of accidental corruption. To take
a simple instance, in any case, where din (Aram) now stands
in the Hebrew text, it is equally probable, on textual
grounds, that the original reading was DIN (Edom), for the
two letters 1 and *) are so similar as to be almost identical,
and were, as a matter of fact, constantly confused. If there
is the slightest reason in the context for reading Edom
instead of Aram, or vice versa, textual considerations render
the emendation highly probable. But it is conceivable that
DIN might on occasion arise by faulty copying of 2ND ;
3 and D are frequently confused, so that 2ND might easily be
copied DND; sometimes letters are transposed in copying,
and 2ND might become DDK, and then if the first D happened
to be a little faultily written, this might become D"iN. All
this is possible : and if there were overwhelming reasons in
the context for reading Moab instead of Aram, and nothing
but Moab, we might admit the emendation as probable, and
the error as due to pure transcriptional accident. But in
this case it could not be urged that the emendation was
supported by textual considerations ; the changes involved
are occasional, not frequent, and consequently in the
particular instance possible, not probable. Moreover, if
Aram were contextually possible, it would be textually
more probable ; and unless Moab were contextually the
only possible reading, it would be very uncertain, since
several other readings might be textually as probable.
Now, many of the emendations and alterations suggested
in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, which presuppose textual
corruption just as little likely as that of Moab into Aram,
rest in the main quite clearly on historical, geographical, or
388 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
mythological considerations. With these in the present
article I have nothing to do. But there are frequently
added notes which may, and in some cases cannot but, be
taken as suggesting that the emendations proposed are
I must content myself with referring to one or two
details. Granting that the suspicions raised against ?K?¥3
be justified, what value does the emendation proposed
possess? As it appears to me, practically none. Trans-
positions doubtless took place, and n and 3 may no doubt
occasionally have been confused, though in the older
Hebrew alphabets they are not similar. Consequently,
?NV?n might have been accidentally copied ?NP¥3; but,
then, several other names might equally well be the
original, and if we are to guess, why not guess PNPXN (cf.
rPPSN), which involves much less change ; or if we are to
call the Phoenician to our aid, why not jmb'i (cf. the Phoe-
nician proper names rbt, rb°hy2, r&MfitW)? But when
several emendations are equally probable, any particular
name furnished by one of the alternative emendations is
of very uncertain reality.
Sometimes the emendations suggested appear at first
sight to have more textual probability than they really
possess. Professor Cheyne's suggestion that Hena (Jttn) is
a mere mis- writing of Avvah (nij>) is a happy one. He is
possibly right in thinking Avvah a corruption of Gaza
(nty) ; but, if so, the corruption was an early one, and in
the early alphabet the letters 1 and T resembled one another
much less closely than in the square characters. The pro-
posed corruption was then possibly accidental, since any
letter at times was confused with any other letter ; but
it is not textually probable, since at the time when the error
was made the letters confused were dissimilar.
If emendation is to be anything more than the product
of the ingenuity of the individual scholar, it must be
controlled by considerations of probability which may con-
stitute something at least approaching an objective standard.
THE "ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA" 389
Where the versions are available, they constitute such
a standard ; the value of the evidence may be differently
regarded, but evidence exists. But in a large number of
cases the versions are not available. How far is it possible,
then, to subject emendations to a standard of textual
probability 1 Just so far as it is possible to establish the
frequency of specific confusions. This has been done to
a considerable extent for the period when the Greek version
was made ; it has been shown that certain letters are, as
a matter of fact, subject to much more frequent confusion
than others. But at that period it is probable that the
Hebrew text was written in an early form of the square
character 1 . Can the same thing be done for the period
when the text was written in the " unmodified archaic
character " in which the letters that most closely resemble
one another are not in all cases the same as in the square
alphabet ? Possibly something, if a collection were made
of variations in parallel lists as between forms which are
the same in the Hebrew and Greek texts. The corruptions
in most of these cases probably date back beyond the
Greek version. Now, there are scattered about through
the Encyclopaedia Biblica notes 2 on the confusion of
letters which assume confusions that have not generally
been admitted as frequent. On what are these assumptions
based? On such an induction as I have suggested? Or
on emendations proposed in the work? In either case
it is to be desired that the evidence should be given 3 .
If the inductions are based on the emendations, then it
can only have weight in so far as they are drawn from
emendations which commend themselves independently
1 See e. g. Driver, Samuel, p. Ixv.
2 e. g. " o is very frequently miswritten for >3, " col. 1950, top. " sppn . . .
comes from bxom by ordinary corruption and transposition," 1976, top.
vv, 1274 ; t=2, 1961, top.
3 There is no indication in any of the notes alluded to that this evidence
will be given in later volumes of the work. Perhaps it is not too late to
express the hope that it may.
390 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
of textual considerations. We need to have the evidence
arranged and tested, for certainly in some cases emenda-
tions, far from certain, and indeed, as far as can be
judged from the evidence actually given, extremely
hazardous, are made the basis for further changes.
For example, it is proposed 1 to reject the names Kabzeel,
Jekabzeel, admitted to be " in themselves likely forms," as
corruptions of Hillesel, Jehallesel, on the ground that the
conjecture involved would be " not very much less probable
than the restoration of Halusah for Ziklag"! And these
hypothetical compounds with hilles lead to the suggestion
that Isaac goes back to the primitive form Ahi-halas.
I will not discuss the probability of the various con-
jectures as to popular corruptions, such as that just cited,
or the proposal that Jacob is a worn-down form of
Abi-cabod. They are not to be judged by textual con-
siderations, though criticisms similar to those offered above
seem pertinent here. The objections to the originality of
the forms Isaac and Jacob (piTO' and apjP) are insufficient ;
the forms are not in themselves impossible — quite the
reverse. Then, again, we have no well-established laws of
the oral corruption of names, though the modern forms
of some ancient Palestinian forms may warn us that
Hebrew, like other names, might become much transformed
in the course of centuries. Here, then, everything depends
on the sufficiency of the historical, mythological, or similar
argument for the originality of the proposed form.
I merely allude to this class of proposed corruption in
order to emphasize the necessity for greater clearness than
is often to be found in the articles as to the character
and age of the supposed corruption. Four stages or
periods at which names in our Hebrew Bibles may have
suffered corruption may be distinguished. Corruption may
have taken place (i) before the name was committed to
writing ; or (2) while the text was written in the archaic
1 s. v. Kabzeel.
THE " ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA 391
characters ; or (3) after the text had come to be written
in primitive square type, but before the date of the Greek
version ; or (4) after the date of the Greek version. Only
in the case of corruptions of the fourth period can we
expect variants in the Greek version ; in the case of earlier
corruptions, we can only fully judge of the probability of
a proposed emendation when we have first clearly con-
sidered the period to which it is proposed to refer the
In any fruitful inquiry into a subject, we need to start
with the surest and best evidence. In casting doubt on
much that has generally passed for good in the case of
Hebrew names, the writers in the Encyclopaedia Biblica
have rendered great service. It is doubtful whether the
majority of their emendations are such as to afford us fresh
evidence of the kind or to constitute a safe starting-point
for further investigation, though they are often highly
suggestive and in some cases exceedingly probable.
The nature of my criticism has led me to refer mainly
to points of difference and to methods that appear open
to improvement. But I cannot bring it to a conclusion
without recording afresh my sense of the value of the
brief articles and the parts of the longer articles which
deal with the form and meaning of the proper names.
Thought has played freshly on the innumerable details,
many of which have little opportunity of being syste-
matically reviewed except in such a work as the present,
and even in such works are too often neglected or most
perfunctorily dealt with. And the details themselves,
though they appear to lie off the more frequently trodden
paths of Biblical studies, are not infrequently shown to be
a serious help or hindrance to progress along those paths.
G. Buchanan Gray.
Mansfield College, Oxford.