JOSH: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Lehite | |'''[[:Category:Lehite GN|Lehite GN]]'' | ||
|1. | |1. | ||
|City, ca. 30 AD ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/9/10#10 3 Nephi 9:10]) | |City, ca. 30 AD ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/9/10#10 3 Nephi 9:10]) | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |'''[[:Category:Lehite PN|Lehite PN]]''' | ||
|2. | |2. | ||
|General, 4th c. AD ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/morm/6/14#14 Mormon 6:14]) | |General, 4th c. AD ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/morm/6/14#14 Mormon 6:14]) | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
hypocoristicon (For the same reason, it is improper to see John as a derivation of Jonathan). | hypocoristicon (For the same reason, it is improper to see John as a derivation of Jonathan). | ||
[[Category:Names]] | [[Category:Names]][[Category:Lehite GN]][[Category:Lehite PN]] | ||
Revision as of 07:19, 20 May 2011
| 'Lehite GN | 1. | City, ca. 30 AD (3 Nephi 9:10) |
| Lehite PN | 2. | General, 4th c. AD (Mormon 6:14) |
It is possible to derive this name from a shortened form of a root such as yšʿ (cf. the PN Josiah with the theophoric element on the end of this root) (RFS). The name may be related to a form of the biblical PN Joshah (1 Chronicles 4:34).
It is highly unlikely that this PN is a hypocoristicon of a PN such as Jehoshaphat. Hypocoristica do not function in this manner, i.e., where the theophoric element is retained but the parts of the root in the verbal form are dropped (JAT).
Perhaps the root is related to the Hebrew PN yʾwš found on some of the ostraca from Lachish, KAI 192, yʾwš (Hugh Nibley, “The Lachish Letters: Documents From Lehi’s Day,” Ensign, Dec. 1981, 51a, [Lachish “Yaush” equals “Jaush” equals “Josh.”). Other possibilities include the Hebrew particle yeš, “there is, it exists” (JAT), and maybe a misspelling of the biblical PN Joash.
While in English this would be seen to be an abbreviation of Joshua, Hebrew does not operate this way. This is because while the jo- portion of the English is the theophoric element for Jehovah, the -sh portion is only part of the second word in the Hebrew name. This is the same argument used above to disparage reading the PN as a hypocoristicon (For the same reason, it is improper to see John as a derivation of Jonathan).
