proper names in construct in Hebrew

[Kristin]

I apologize for the ignorant question, but why can't a proper name in Hebrew ever be in construct? I feel like grammatically it should be. For example, "King OF Israel" King is in construct. "David OF Jerusalem" David should be in construct, but it is not since it is just a "proper name" and I don't understand.

 

I would appreciate any clarity anyone is able to provide.

 

Kristin

[Peter Bekins]

I will try to keep this as simple as possible but it is a bit complicated and I think generally misunderstood. Proper nouns obviously can and do occur in a construct phrase, it is just rare and they can be 'explained away' if you desire. The basic idea the rule is trying to preserve is that a proper noun refers uniquely. So if I bring up 'David' in conversation, I assume that the name points you exactly to the person I am talking about. If it doesn't, I have to establish reference first. 'I have this friend, David…’. On this definition, a phrase like 'David of Jerusalem' is a no-no because if David already refers uniquely, then 'of Jerusalem' is redundant.

 

The rare occasion where you would actually need to say 'David of Jerusalem' is in a context where there may be multiple people named David who are relevant, so you need to further disambiguate which one you are talking about. In this case, the 'rule' can still be preserved by coming up with some excuse. So Gesenius 125 h basically argues that if you say 'David of Jerusalem' you really mean 'David, king of Jerusalem' so David isn't technically in the construct. Seems a little fishy to me, but whatever. The closest examples in the HB are phrases involving city names like בְּא֥וּר כַּשְׂדִּֽים 'in Ur of the Chaldeans' (Gen 11:28) or ‏מִבֵּ֥ית לֶ֙חֶם֙ יְהוּדָ֔ה 'from Bethlehem of Judah' (Judg 17:7). Again, Gesenius argues you really mean 'Bethlehem, city of Judah', etc.

 

As an aside, the issue is most famous in relation to the inscription from Kuntillet Ajrud which seems to refer to 'Yahweh and his Asherah' where Asherah is the name of a goddess, presumably worshipped as Yahweh's consort by someone. Some argue this can't be possible because 'his Asherah' with a possessive suffix on a proper name breaks the so-called rule. 

 

Peter

 

 

[Kristin]

37 minutes ago, Peter Bekins said:

The rare occasion where you would actually need to say 'David of Jerusalem' is in a context where there may be multiple people named David who are relevant, so you need to further disambiguate which one you are talking about. In this case, the 'rule' can still be preserved by coming up with some excuse... 

 

As an aside, the issue is most famous in relation to the inscription from Kuntillet Ajrud which seems to refer to 'Yahweh and his Asherah' where Asherah is the name of a goddess, presumably worshipped as Yahweh's consort by someone. Some argue this can't be possible because 'his Asherah' with a possessive suffix on a proper name breaks the so-called rule.

 

Hi Peter,
Thank you for your detailed response. I think "excuse" is a good word for it, as the reason why the construct case is not "allowed" seems to be for more theological reasons than grammatical. For example Dodo of Bethlehem (דֹּד֖וֹ בֵּ֥ית לָֽחֶם) in 2 Sam 23:34 seems to clearly have the name "Dodo" in the construct case, yet it is not admitted as such.

Concerning the Kuntillet Ajrud inscription, it appears that they are saying a name cannot be in construct simply to disprove that other gods were worshiped alongside Yahweh, but we already know that the goddess Asherah was in fact worshiped alongside Yahweh. I see this as clearly shown in passages such as 2 Kgs 21:7. Thus, if an inscription states the same thing, it really wouldn't phase me. To be clear, I fully agree that Asherah was the consort of El the Bull and certainly not of Yahweh. However, just because she was not the consort of Yahweh is not proof that some people did not attempt to make this connection.

Given everything you wrote, it seems to me that it is perfectly fine to translate a proper name as in construct if it sounds natural in the context of the verse. Do you think that sounds reasonable? Or do you think I am making to light of the rule?

I can provide an example of what provoked this post. As you know, the word (אֱלֹהִים) can be translated singular or plural based on the context. In Judg 11:24 the ESV speaks of "Chemosh your god" (כְּמ֥וֹשׁ אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ). Chemosh is not in construct since it is a proper name. Yet if the Moabites were anything they were polytheistic. They certainly did worship Chemosh, but Chemosh was one of a collection of gods they had. I would thus want to translate (כְּמ֥וֹשׁ אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ) as "Chemosh of your gods." So among your gods, Chemosh is of concern.

Thank you again for your response and I would appreciate hearing any thoughts you have.

Sincerely,
Kristin

[Peter Bekins]

I actually think it would be unlikely here that כְּמ֥וֹשׁ אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ is a construct. Based on my explanation above, to read it as a construct would imply that the Moabites needed help disambiguating which Chemosh we are talking about. It is true that there are localized deities. In fact, Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions also seem to make reference to "Yahweh of Teman" and "Yahweh of Samaria". So it is possible that there are different localized manifestations of Chemosh as well. In this case where it is the Moabites' own deity,  though, I don't see how there could be any confusion. It seems much more likely that "Chemosh, your God" is intended to imply a contrast with "Yahweh, our God" as the chief national deities involved in the struggle. 

 

Best,

Peter

[Kristin]

Hi Peter,

Ok, thank you for your thoughts and I think that is a good point.

Thank you again and take care,

Kristin

[Robert Holmstedt]

If I had seen this sooner, I would have explained it how Pete explained it, but probably not as clearly. Good to see you re: Hebrew grammar, Pete!

[Peter Bekins]

Thanks Rob, you made my day! This is my wheelhouse, so I couldn't not answer