Reference to Hekaptaḥ in The Triumphal Stele of Pi(ʻankh)y

The following comes from:

 

N. C. Grimal, La stèle triomphale de Pi(ʻankh)y au Musée du Caire, JE 48862 et 47086-47089 (Études Sur La Propagande Royale Égyptienne; Cairo: Institut Français D'archéologie Orientale, 1981)

 

The following is the relevant image from p. 107:

 

 

Here is the discussion of the above; note the reference to Hekaptaḥ:

 

Vinrent alors le roi Aouapet, en compagnie du chef des Ma' Akanosh, du prince héritier Pétisis et de tous les comtes du Nord, chargés de tributs, pour contempler la splendeur de Sa Majesté.

 

Alors on assigna les trésors et les greniers de Memphis au domaine d'Amon, de Ptah et à l'Ennéade de ḥeķaptaḥ. (p. 106)

 

Then King Aouapet came, accompanied by the chief of the Ma' Akanosh, the crown prince Pétisis and all the counts of the North, bearing tributes, to behold the splendour of His Majesty.

 

Then the treasuries and granaries of Memphis were assigned to the domain of Amon, to Ptah, and to the Ennead of ḥeķaptaḥ

 

Conclusion de la prise de Memphis : v. supra, n. 208-10 et 382. — Sur la construction, v. Priese, ZÄS, 98 (1972), p. 104 [20]. On remarquera le partage des « dépouilles » entre Amon, Ptah et les dieux de Hékaptaḥ ; peut-être ne s’agit-il pas ici d’Amon de Thèbes : v. J. Vercoutter, ibid. ; supra, n. 389. (Ibid., 129 n. 396)

 

 

Conclusion of the capture of Memphis: see supra, nos. 208–10 and 382. — On the construction, see Priese, ZÄS, 98 (1972), p. 104 [20]. One will note the division of the “spoils” between Amon, Ptah, and the gods of Hékaptaḥ; perhaps this is not a reference here to Amon of Thebes: see J. Vercoutter, ibid.; supra, no. 389.

 

Martin McNamara on the Korban Rule in Mark 7/Matthew 15 and Jewish Sources

  

ii. Korban—(korban ho estin dōron)

 

In Mark’s Gospel after rejecting the position of the Pharisees and some scribes from Jerusalem regarding their tradition on hand-washing, Jesus goes on to condemn “them” (Pharisees and some scribes?) on another of their traditions, qorban. The text of Mark 7:9–12 reads: “Then he said to them: ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandments of God in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said: “Honour your father and your mother”; and “Whoever speaks evil of father or other must surely die.” But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have from me is Corban” (that is, an offering to God) (korban ho estin dōron—) then you no longer permit him to do anything for a father or mother.’ ”

 

It is noteworthy that Mark gives both the Hebrew/Aramaic word qorban and its Greek rendering: “Anything which I have which might be used for your benefit is Corban, that is a gift” (Mark 7:11; NRSV), where dōron is given as a gloss on the Hebrew/Aramaic word qorban. The fact that Mark retains the Semitic as well as the Greek explanation might indicate that the combined Semitic/Greek formula may have been current in first-century Palestine. That this was so seems to have been borne out by Josephus who also gives both (Antiquities 4,4,4, § 73): “Such also as dedicate themselves to God as a corban, which denotes what the Greeks call a gift (dōron).…” Again in Against Apion 1,167 where he mentions that the Greek writer Theophrastus among oaths used by foreign (non-Greek) peoples mentions “korban; which oath,” Josephus remarks, “will be found in no other nation except the Jews, and, translated from the Hebrew, one may interpret it as meaning ‘God’s gift’ (dōron theou).” (See also Josephus, Antiquities 4, 73: “… a korban to God—meaning what Greeks would call ‘a gift’ [dōron].”) The Greek Septuagint renders the Hebrew qorban as dōron without retaining the Hebrew term. It is worth noting that the Greek term dōron exists as a loan word in Aramaic (particularly in the Palestinian Targums), sometimes as a rendering of the term mnhh (minḥah) of the Hebrew text, but more often in free paraphrase. It can alternate with the Aramaic qrbnh as a rendering of the Hebrew minḥah, with or without cultic connotations. Thus in a free paraphrase in Tg Pal Genesis 4, both in Targum Neofiti and in the other Palestinian Targum texts.

 

The term korban (qrbn) is found in an inscription in a first-century Jewish ossuary, which reads: “All that one may find to his profit in this ossuary is an offering (qrbn) to God from him who is within.” The Gospel text, however, occurring in the context of a rabbinic discussion is to be understood against the background of rabbinic tradition rather than that of a Jewish ossuary, even if this is roughly contemporary with the Gospel texts. With regard to the Jewish practice of qorban (Mark 7:11) one may note the related texts in the Mishnah, the date and relevance of which for New Testament studies are to be evaluated. That taking oaths or vows by use of the term qorban was part of Jewish piety is clear from the Mishnah tractate Nedarim (“Vows”) where the practice is legislated for. Variants of the term were Konam, Konah or Konas. “If a man says to his fellow, Konam or Konah or Konas, these are substitutes for Korban, an Offering” (m. Ned. 1:2), that is, as a note in Danby’s English translation says: “A thing forbidden to him for common use as a Temple offering.” We have a formula similar to Mark 7:11 in m. Nedarim 8:7: “Konam (= Korban) be the benefit thou hast of me.…” The question as to whether a vow could be dispensed by the sages by reason of “the honour due to father and mother” was also discussed in the Mishnah (m. Nedarim 9:1)

 

These Mishnah texts illustrate the Jewish institution of qorban, and thus serve as a background to the Gospel texts. However, there is little or no evidence for the precise form of the practice censured by Jesus. It may be that it was known to characterise at least some groups of Pharisees or scribes. (Martin McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament [2d ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010], 229-31)

 

Robert Alter on 1 Samuel 15:29

Alter renders 1 Sam 15:29 (recording the words of Saul) thusly:

 

And, what’s more, Israel’s Eternal does not deceive and does not repent, for He is no human to repent.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:238)

 

Commenting how Saul was in error, Alter noted the following:

 

Israel’s Eternal does not deceive and does not repent. Samuel’s use of the verb “repent” strikes a peculiar dissonance. We in fact have been told that God repented that He made Saul king. What Samuel says here is that God will not change His mind about changing His mind. But might not this verbal contradiction cast some doubt on Samuel’s reliability as a source for what God does and doesn’t want? There even remains a shadow of a doubt as to whether the election of Saul in the first place was God’s, or whether it was merely Samuel’s all-too-human mistake. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:238)

 

Note on 1 Samuel 15:9 and "Fatlings"

  

But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly. (1 Sam 15:9)

 

The Hebrew reads:

 

‎ וַיַּחְמֹל֩ שָׁא֙וּל וְהָעָ֜ם עַל־אֲגָ֗ג וְעַל־מֵיטַ֣ב הַצֹּאן֩ וְהַבָּקָ֙ר וְהַמִּשְׁנִ֤ים וְעַל־הַכָּרִים֙ וְעַל־כָּל־הַטּ֔וֹב וְלֹ֥א אָב֖וּ הַחֲרִימָ֑ם וְכָל־הַמְּלָאכָ֛ה נְמִבְזָ֥ה וְנָמֵ֖ס אֹתָ֥הּ הֶחֱרִֽימוּ

 

the fat ones. The Masoretic Text has mishnim (two-year-olds?), but, in a reversal of consonants, the Syriac and the Targum reflect shmenim, fat ones. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:235)

 

Ernest De Witt Burton on Galatians 3:27 and Paul's Theology of Water Baptism

  

27. ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε· “For as many of you as were baptised unto Christ did put on Christ.” The fact that the verbs are in the second person, requires the insertion of the words “of you” into the translation, though they are not in the Greek. But it must not be supposed that ὅσοι includes only a part of the πάντες; for this would be itself in effect to contradict the preceding v. By ἐβαπτίσθητε the apostle undoubtedly refers to Christian baptism, immersion in water. See Th. s. v. II; Preusch. s. v.; M. and M. Voc. s. v. This is the uniform meaning and application of the term in Paul (1 Cor. 1:13–17; 12:13; 15:29; Rom. 6:3), with the single exception of 1 Cor. 10:2, where he speaks of the baptism of the Israelites into Moses in the cloud and in the sea as a thing of similar character and significance with Christian baptism. Nowhere does he use the term in a figurative sense as in Mk. 1:8b; 10:38, 39; Jn. 1:33b; Acts 1:5b. εἰς Χριστόν is probably to be taken here and in Rom. 6:3 in the sense “with reference to Christ” (on this use of εἰς see Th. B II 2 a), and as equivalent to εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Χριστοῦ. See more fully in fine print below. “To put on Christ” is to become as Christ, to have his standing; in this context to become objects of the divine favour, sons of God, as he is the Son of God. Cf. 4:6, 7. By the whole sentence the apostle reminds his readers that they, who have been baptised, in confession of their acceptance of Christ, already possess all that it is claimed that circumcision and works of law could give them, viz., the divine favour, a relation to God like that which Christ sustains to God. It is a substantiation (γάρ) of the assertion of v. 26, that they are sons of God, drawn from an interpretation of the significance of their baptism.

 

The idiom ἐνδύεσθαι with a personal object is found in late Greek writers. Thus in Dion. Hal. Antiq. 11. 5:2, τὸν Ταρκύνιον ἐκεῖνον ἐνδυόμενοι, “playing the part of that Tarquinius”; Libanius, Ep. 968 (350 a. d.), ῥίψας τὸν στρατιώτην ἐνέδυ τὸν σοφιστήν: “He laid aside the character of the soldier, and put on that of the sophist.” It occurs once in the Lxx with a somewhat different force: Isa. 49:18: πάντας αὐτοὺς ὡς κόσμον ἐνδύσῃ, καὶ περιθήσεις αὐτοὺς ὡς κόσμον, ὡς νύμφη, and several times in N. T.: Rom. 13:14: ἀλλὰ ἐνδύσασθε τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. Col. 3:9–10, ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον. Eph. 4:22–24, ἀποθέσθαι … τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον … καὶ ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον. The related figure of clothing one’s self with strength, righteousness, glory, salvation, occurs frequently in O. T.: Prov. 31:25; Job 8:22; 29:14; 39:19; Ps. 92:1; 103(104):1; 131(132):9, 16, 18; Isa. 51:9; 52:1; 61:10; 1 Mac. 1:28; and a similar figure with a variety of objective limitations in N. T.: Rom. 13:12: ἐνδυσώμεθα τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός. 1 Cor. 15:53: ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν … ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν. 15:54: ἐνδύσηται ἀθανασίαν. Eph. 6:11: ἐνδύσασθε τὴν πανοπλίαν τοῦ θεοῦ. 6:14, ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν θώρακα τῆς δικαιοσύνης. Col. 3:12: ἐνδύσασθε … σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ. 1 Th. 5:8, ἐνδυσάμενοι θώρακα πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης. These passages show that the idiom conveyed no suggestion of putting on a mask, but referred to an act in which one entered into actual relations. Used with an impersonal object, it means “to acquire,” “to make a part of one’s character or possessions” (1 Thes. 5:8; 1 Cor. 15:53, 54; Rom. 13:12; Col. 3:12); with a personal object it signifies “to take on the character or standing” of the person referred to, “to become,” or “to become as.” See Rom. 13:14; Col. 3:10; note in each case the adjacent example of the impersonal object and cf. the exx. from Dion. Hal. (where the context makes it clear that τὸν Ταρ. ἐκ. ἐνδυόμενοι means “acting the part of Tarquinius,” “standing in his shoes,”) and Libanius. This meaning is appropriate to the present passage. The fact that the Galatians have put on Christ is cited as proof that they are sons of God as Christ is the Son of God.

 

The preposition εἰς with βαπτίζω signifies (a) literally and spatially “into,” followed by the element into which one is plunged: Mk. 1:9; cf. 1:8 a; (b) “unto” in the telic sense, “in order to obtain”: Acts 2:38; (c) followed by ὄνομα, “with respect to,” specifically, “with mention or confession of”: 1 Cor. 1:13, 15; Mt. 28:19; Acts 8:16; 19:5; with similar force but without the use of ὄνομα: Acts 19:3. It was formerly much discussed whether here and in Rom. 6:3 the meaning is the same as in 1 Cor. 1:13, 15, etc., or whether εἰς signifies “into fellowship with,” Th. (cf. βαπτίζω, II b. aa) Ell., S. and H. on Rom., et al. hold; Sief. combines the two views. As between the two the former is to be preferred, for, though the conception of fellowship with Christ in his death is expressed in the context of Rom. 6:3, neither general usage of the phrase nor that passage in particular warrant interpreting βαπτίζω εἰς as having other than its usual meaning, “to baptise with reference to.” But if this is the case with Rom. 6:3, then usage brings to the present passage no warrant for finding in it any other than the regular meaning of the phrase, and the context furnishing none, there is no ground for discovering it here. More recent discussion, however, has turned upon the question whether in both groups of passages (1 Cor. 1:13, 15; Acts 8:16; 19:5, as well as Rom. 6:3 and here) there is a reference to the use of the name in baptism with supposed magical effect, as in the mystery religions. See Preusch. s. v. βαπτίζω and literature there referred to, esp. Heitmüller, Taufe und Abendmahl; also Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 383–391; Case, The Evolution of Early Christianity, pp. 347 f. For the purposes of this commentary it must suffice to point out the following outstanding facts affecting the interpretation of Paul’s thought: (a) The use of βαπτίζω εἰς τὸ ὄνομα was in all probability derived from the usage of the mystery religions, and to one familiar with that usage would suggest the ideas associated with such phraseology. (b) The apostle constantly lays emphasis on faith and the Spirit of God (see, e. g., 5:6, 16, 18, 22) as the characteristic factors of the Christian experience. It would seem that if, denying all spiritual value to such a physical rite as circumcision, he ascribed effective force to baptism, his arguments should have turned, as they nowhere do, on the superiority of baptism to circumcision. (c) 1 Cor. 10:1–12 makes it probable that the Corinthians were putting upon their Christian baptism the interpretation suggested by the mystery religions, viz., that it secured their salvation. Against this view Paul protests, using the case of the Israelites passing through the Red Sea, which he calls a baptism into Moses, to show that baptism without righteousness does not render one acceptable to God. This may, of course, signify only that he conceived that the effect of baptism was not necessarily permanent, or that to baptism it is necessary to add a righteous life. But it is most naturally interpreted as a protest against precisely that doctrine of the magical efficiency of physical rites which the mystery religions had made current. If this is the case and if the thought of the apostle here is consistent with that in 1 Cor. 10, the relation between the fact referred to in the relative clause and that of the principal clause is not (as in 3:7; Rom. 8:14) causal, but that of symbol and symbolised fact. The requirement of the passage that there shall be a natural connection of thought both between this v. and the preceding, and between the two clauses of this, is met by supposing (1) that the exceptional mention of baptism in this passage (as, e. g., instead of faith) was suggested by its relation as the initiatory Christian rite to circumcision (cf. Col. 2:11, 12) which the Galatians were being urged to accept, and (2) that there was something in the act of baptism as thought of by the apostle which suggested the figure of being clothed with Christ. This may have been that in baptism one was, as it were, clothed with the water, or, possibly, that the initiate was accustomed to wear a special garment. To such a relation in thought between fact and outward symbol there can be, despite Lake’s statement that such a thought was almost unknown to the ancients, no serious objection in view of Gal. 2:20; Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 11:26. If, indeed, the relation is causal, the apostle must have changed his conception of the matter between the writing of Gal. and 1 Cor., or he conceived of the rite as having no necessarily permanent effect and its value as conditioned upon the maintenance of a morally pure life. (Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [International Critical Commentary; New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1920], 203-6)

 

W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison on Peter Being Called "Satan" on Matthew 16:23 (cf. Matthew 4:10)

  

On ‘Satan’ see on 4:10. One needs to draw a distinction between playing the rôle of Satan and being possessed by Satan. Peter is doing the former; see Best, pp. 28–33. Contrast Elious in T. Job 41–2: he is ‘filled with Satan’ and the one speaking in him is ‘not man but beast’. (The occasional attempt in church history (note e.g. Sanc. Pachomi Vit. Gr. 57) to understand Jesus’ words as addressed to Satan instead of Peter should be dismissed as apologetics.)

 

Against Osborne (v), σατανᾶ is not here the equivalent of the evil impulse. Also, while Limbeck (v) might be correct in understanding σατανᾶ to mean not ‘Satan’ but ‘accuser’ or ‘adversary’ (cf. esp. 2 Sam 19:22) as far as Mark or the pre-Markan tradition goes, this cannot be the right interpretation for Matthew. 4:10 is decisive. (W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. [International Critical Commentary; London: T&T Clark International, 2004], 2:663)

 

The following are the relevant notes from Matt 4:10:

 

10. τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς. This formula is redactional (cf. 26:31, 52; 27:13; 28:10). Luke has καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, which lays better claim to reproduce Q (cf. 4:4 = Lk 4:4).

 

ὕπαγε σατανᾶ. This is probably a Matthean addition. The words attribute the devil’s departure (4:11) to the authoritative command of Jesus. They are found again in Mk 8:33 = Mt 16:23. (But ‘behind me’ is left out as inappropriate: the devil does not follow behind Jesus as a disciple.) Matthew likes the imperative of ὑπάγω (Mt: 17; Mk: 12; Lk: 2). Yet possibly ‘Begone, Satan!’ was found in Q. As Luke moved the last temptation to second place, he could not have retained the repudiation.

 

‘Begone, Satan!’ points to more than a verbal link with 16:21–3. In both places Jesus is choosing the path of duty: the end ordained by the Father is to be achieved by the manner ordained by the Father, namely, the cross. And any opposition to this is satanic. To reject the way of the cross is to be on the side of the devil.

 

σατανᾶς (see W. Foerster and K. Schäferdiek, TWNT 7, pp. 151–64) is a name for ὁ διάβολος. It does not certainly appear in the LXX (although note Ecclus 21:27 and Job 1:6 Aq.). In the NT it is found in the four gospels, the Pauline literature, and Revelation. The appellation, which became quite popular around the turn of our era (Jub. 10:11; 23:29; 50:5; 1 En. 54:6; T. Job 3:6; 6:4; 7:1; T. Dan 3:6; 5:6; 6:1), derives from the Hebrew śāṭān (= σατάν), ‘adversary’ (cf. 1 Kgs 11:14, 23). By the time of Jesus the idea of Satan as a fallen angel was firmly implanted in many Jewish minds (cf. Wisd 2:24; Rev 12:7–12; LAE 14–16; 2 En. 29:4–5; Pirqe R. El. 13:14). (W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. [International Critical Commentary; London: T&T Clark International, 2004], 372-73)

 

Notes on "Folk Etymologies" and the Names Jacob, Issachar, and Belial

 On “Jacob”:

 

It should be noted that such interpretations of names in the Bible are not based on philological derivations, that is, on scientific etymology. The name Jacob/Yaakov, for instance, which is understood in Gen. 25 as “Heel-Holder” and in Chapter 27 as “Heel-Sneak,” probably held the original meaning of “may (God) protect.” But the biblical writers were not so much concerned with what a name originally meant as they were with its sound, and with the associations inherent in that sound. Therefore what is important in our example is that “Yaakov” recalls ekev, “heel.” This kind of interpretation is known as “folk etymology” or “popular etymology.” A similar phenomenon appears in the naming of Moses (Ex. 2:10). (Everett Fox, “Translator’s Preface,” in The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy: A New Translation with Introductions, Commentary, and Notes [New York: Word Publishing, 1995], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

 

The Meaning of “Jacob”

 

The biblical narrative provides two folk etymologies for Jacob’s name, connecting it to the Hebrew noun for “heel” (עָקֵב, aqev) in Gen 25:26 and to the Hebrew verb meaning “deceive” (עָקַב, aqav) in Gen 27:36. Although these meanings are seen as appropriate in Jacob’s dealings with Esau and Laban, they are probably the result of wordplay—puns based on the two separate homographic Semitic roots “heel” (עקב, 'qb) and “protect” (עקב, 'qb). The latter root is well attested in Semitic personal names outside the Bible (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18–50, 178–79). The name Jacob (יַעֲקֹב, ya'aqov) is likely an abbreviated (or “hypocoristic”) form of “Jacob-El” (יַעֲקֹב־אֵל, ya'aqov-el), meaning “May El protect [him],” “El will protect [him],” or “El has protected [him]” (Sarna, Genesis, 180; Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18–50, 179). The root “protect” (עקב, 'qb) appears frequently in Semitic theophoric names (that is, names including a deity’s name as one of the elements and usually forming a sentence like יִשְׁמָעֵאל, yishma'el, “God will hear”). Many personal names combining the term “protect” (עקב, 'qb) with a theophoric element are attested at the Jewish colony of Elephantine, including (Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 12.9, 11; 22.20; 26.23, 28; 54:10):

 

•          “House of El has protected” (ביתאל־עקב, byt'l'qb);

•          “Nebo has protected” (נבועקב, nbw'qb); and

•          “Nebo protects” (עקבנבו, 'qbnbw).

 

The biblical name Akkub (עַקּוּב, aqquv), meaning either “protector” or “protected one,” reflects the same root (see Ezra 2:42, 45; Neh 8:7). In light of the difficult circumstances of Jacob’s birth, the possible reading of Jacob-El as “God protected [him]” seems most appropriate (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18–50, 179). The folk etymologies of Gen 25:26; 27:36, are reinterpretations of Jacob’s name based on his demonstrated character as a trickster. (Douglas Mangum, “Jacob, Son of Isaac,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. [Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2016], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

 

On “Issachar” in Gen 30:18:

 

18. Issachar This second explanation connects it with the action of verse 9 and suggests yesh sakhar, “There is a reward,” a phrase found in Jeremiah 31:16(15) and 2 Chronicles 15:7. It is an affirmation of belief in divine Providence. In Genesis 49:14 a third midrash on the name takes it as ʾish sakhar, “a hireling.” Actually, personal names formed from the verb s-k-r are found in the list of Semitic slaves referred to above as well as in several ancient Arabic dialects. The different Hebrew consonantal spelling seems to go back to an archaic causative verbal form yashaskir, “May He (God) grant favor/reward.” (Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis [The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 210)

 

 

On “Belial”:

 

One approach favored by scholars is to analyze bĕliyyaʿal as being made up of Heb bĕlı̂ (a negative) plus one of two roots. The traditional folk etymology found in many lexica renders bĕliyyaʿal as “worthlessness” (bĕlı̂ plus the root yaʿal, “to profit, to be of worth;” cf. Hipʿil). Pedersen (1926:539) found this etymology so agreeable that he asserted “there is no reason to look for other explanations.” Yet folk etymologies may not accurately reflect historically correct etymologies. Compare Heb ṣalmāwet, “darkness,” which was most likely vocalized differently (ṣalmût ʾ ẓlm, “to be dark”) in its original form before the folk etymology “shadow of death” (ṣēl + māwet) arose (Lewis 1989:11–12). The other proposal incorporating Heb bĕlı̂ is to combine it with some form of the Heb root ʿālâ, “to go up.” This proposal has long been suggested by earlier scholars with the implication that “that which does not come up” = “unsuccessful” (cf. Qimḥi bal yaʿăleh ̌bal yaṣlı̂aḥ). The best formulation of this proposed analysis is that of Cross and Freedman (1953:22 n.6) who argue that Heb bĕliyyaʿal = *bal (i) yaʿl (ê), “(place from which) none arises, a euphemism for Hades or Sheol.” Compare Job 7:9 yôrēd s̆ĕʾôl lōʾ yaʿăleh, “he who goes down to Sheol does not come up.” A well-known Akkadian expression for the underworld is māt la t̯ri, “the land of no return.” Hence Cross and Freedman state that “bny blyʿl are simply ‘hellions’.” Compare Boling’s (Judges AB, 276) translation of bĕnê bĕliyyaʿal in Judg 19:22 as “the local hell raisers.” However, Emerton (1987:214–17) correctly cautions against implying that Sheol is the abode of only the wicked. (Theodore J. Lewis, “Belial,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, 6 vols. [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 1:654)