Difference between revisions of "JAROM"

From Book of Mormon Onomasticon
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 6: Line 6:
 
|}
 
|}
  
From the Hebrew ''rām'', “to rise, be exalted,” in the qal 3 m.s. jussive, the PN '''JAROM''' means “let [the Lord] be exalted."<ref>Notice that if this etymology is correct, the Canaanite shift of long, accented “a” becoming long “o” holds true for Nephite. Notice the same name in Ebla, dya-ra-mu
+
From the Hebrew ''rām'', “to rise, be exalted,” in the qal 3 m.s. jussive, the PN '''JAROM''' means “let [the Lord] be exalted." The printer's manuscript PN variant form [[Jarom / Joram Variant|'''JORAM''']]<ref>Royal Skousen, ''ATV'' s:1104, 6:3579, sees this as a scribal error, although the "o"'s and "a"'s in the Original Manuscript are nearly indistinguishable</ref> is from the Hebrew ''yoram'' "Jehovah is exalted."
(Pettinato, *), where the Canaanite shift has not take place.</ref> The printer's manuscript PN variant form [[Jarom / Joram Variant|'''JORAM''']]<ref>Royal Skousen, ''ATV'' s:1104, 6:3579, sees this as a scribal error, although the "o"'s and "a"'s in the Original Manuscript are nearly indistinguishable</ref> is from the Hebrew ''yoram'' "Jehovah is exalted."
 
 
 
See also the Ugaritic PNs yrmʾl (“god is exalted,” or
 
“let god be exalted”), yrmbʿl (“let Baal be exalted”), and the biblical PN Joram, “Jehovah has exalted” (JAT).
 
  
 
Cf. Book of Mormon [[RAMAH]], [[CUMORAH]], [[JEREMIAH]], [[JACOM]], and [[NAHOM]].
 
Cf. Book of Mormon [[RAMAH]], [[CUMORAH]], [[JEREMIAH]], [[JACOM]], and [[NAHOM]].

Revision as of 15:34, 7 October 2011

Lehite PN 1. Nephite scribe and historian, son of ENOS 4th – 5th c. BC (Jarom 1:1, 14; Omni 1:1)

From the Hebrew rām, “to rise, be exalted,” in the qal 3 m.s. jussive, the PN JAROM means “let [the Lord] be exalted." The printer's manuscript PN variant form JORAM[1] is from the Hebrew yoram "Jehovah is exalted."

Cf. Book of Mormon RAMAH, CUMORAH, JEREMIAH, JACOM, and NAHOM.

See also Jarom / Joram Variant

Notes

  1. Royal Skousen, ATV s:1104, 6:3579, sees this as a scribal error, although the "o"'s and "a"'s in the Original Manuscript are nearly indistinguishable