Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76 47
c) The last group includes names which occur only in Chr. and here they
מקניהו,‏ כונניהו,‏ יעזיהו,‏ יסמכיהו,‏ יחדיהו,‏ בוקיהו קושיהו,‏ example, are long. For
‎63‎‏.עזזיהו,‏ סמכיהו,‏ משלמיהו,‏
In spite of the existence of names with the יה ending it is impossible to deny
the general tendency to use the long ending ‎64‎‏.יהו The difference between
Chr. and Ezr.-Neh. is clearly expressed in a parallel text:
2 Chr. xxxvi 22
לכלות דבר ה׳ בפי ירמיהו 1 Ezr. i 1
לכלות דבר ה׳ מפי ירמיה To sum up: In our discussion of the formation of the impf. cons. and the lengthened
impf. cons. we were able to discern a rigid and uniform method in Chr.,
in contrast to the plurality of forms and absence of method in Ezr.-Neh. In the
question of personal names the picture was reversed. Unequivocal uniformity
is found in Ezr.-Neh. as against diversity and plurality of forms in Chr. Nonetheless,
the underlying principle of all these distinctions is the same: the actual
linguistic reality in all these instances is reflected in Ezr.-Neh. while Chr. stands
alone as an exception and even as opposition to this same reality.
II. Specific Technical Terms
65 התקדש־הטהר 1.
Before discussing the matter as it pertains to Chr. and Ezr.-Neh. some words of
introduction are in order.
‏,טהר meanings. (sanctify) have originally different קדש (purify) and טהר
usually as מן ‏,טהר relates to the state of a person or an object as being clean
קדש nature.66 from some impurity and possessing its true and unadulterated
describes a positive quality added to the basic nature of a person or an object.
However, because the state of cleanliness is an essential condition of holiness
63) Among others: 1 Chr. xxv 4; 1 Chr. xxiv 20; 2 Chr. xxxi 13; 1 Chr. xxiv 26f.; 1 Chr. xv 22; 1 Chr. xvi
18; 1 Chr. xxvi 1; 1 Chr. xxvii 20; 1 Chr. xv 17; 1 Chr. xxvi 7; 1 Chr. xxiv 21.
64) The variety of forms is explained by Kutscher thus: “The Chr. prefers the long form when he
deals with a personality of the first Temple Period and he prefers the short form when it is not so”.
(op. cit., p. 93). As a matter of fact, Chr. is meant to be a history of the first Temple only and the
personalities named are all supposed to belong to that period. Preference for a short form could
not be found here, if the criterion is right, but this is rather doubtful.
65) For all biblical quotations, we have utilized the RSV, except where explicitly stated.
66) Cf. L. E. Toombs, Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, I, p. 641ff.