This study presents a quantitative analysis of the distribution of major theophoric elements within a corpus of 250 biblical personal names and toponyms extracted from a systematically compiled onomastic database. The corpus consists of all identifiable theophoric onomastic units attested in the Serbian Daničić–Karadžić biblical tradition and includes names preserving the divine elements Yah/Yahu, El, Adon, and Shaddai. Each entry was examined through its biblical attestation and classified according to its principal theophoric component. The statistical analysis identifies 127 Yahwistic formations (50.80%), 115 El-based formations (46.00%), five Adon-based formations (2.00%), two Shaddai-based formations (0.80%), and one residual case (0.40%). The results demonstrate the predominance of Yahwistic name formations while simultaneously revealing the remarkable persistence of El-based names, which constitute nearly half of the entire corpus. The relatively small numerical difference between the two principal categories suggests the continued coexistence of multiple theophoric naming traditions within biblical onomastics. Unlike studies that employ anthroponymic evidence to reconstruct the history of Israelite religion, the present investigation adopts a strictly descriptive and corpus-based approach. Its primary objective is to establish statistically verifiable proportions among major theophoric elements within a clearly defined dataset. The findings contribute to biblical onomastics, Hebrew linguistics, and the study of religious terminology preserved in biblical personal names and toponyms, while providing a quantitative foundation for future diachronic and comparative research. Keywords Biblical Onomastics; Hebrew Personal names and toponyms; Theophoric Names; Yahweh; El; Hebrew Bible; Anthroponymy; Biblical Hebrew Keywords Biblical Onomastics; Hebrew Personal Names; Theophoric Names; Yahweh; El; Hebrew Bible; Anthroponymy; Biblical Hebrew
Željko Stanojević (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: