Chavoux Luyt: You wrote: “But if these names [in the Patriarchalnarratives, such as “Esau”, “Leah” and “Rachel”] were not made up, but ratherwere the actual names of the people concerned, there is simply NO REASON whytheir names should have any correspondence to their actual behaviour orcharacter (unless it is a "nickname" like "Yeruba'al" forGideon in Judges; or "Yisrael" for Ya'akov in Genesis.” But consider what the text s-a-y-s about the “names of the people concerned” in the Patriarchalnarratives. According to the text: 1. God says that the name “Abraham” means that Abram will be the father,per the divine Will, of many nations. Genesis 17: 5-6. That comes true,with such name as such closely relating to Abraham’s “actual behaviour orcharacter”. [By the way, I disagree withthe scholarly contention that the author of Genesis 17: 5-6 allegedly didn’tknow what the name “Abraham” really means. I likewise disagree with the frequent scholarly contention thatallegedly many of the personal names in the Patriarchal narratives came first,and then only centuries later did a different author try to come up with somesort of meaning that might fit these long pre-existing names, with such laterauthor often as not failing to grasp what allegedly the “real” meaning of thesevarious names is.] 2. God says that the name “Sarah” means that $RY [“Sarai”] will be themother of a line of kings. Genesis 17: -16. And that comes true as well [as Sarah bearsfuture Patriarch Isaac, who in turn will sire future Patriarch Jacob/“Israel”],with this name thereby closely relating to Sarah’s “actual behaviour orcharacter”. 3. God tells a pregnant, distraught Hagar at a well in the wilderness thather son will have far-flung progeny, and that he is to be called Ishma-El, withsuch name being strongly implied to have been chosen by God because God [El]has heard [ishma] Hagar’s cry. Genesis16: 11. Abram complies with the divinenaming at Genesis 16: 15, and then at 17: 20 God says to Abraham that God/Elhas heard/ishma Abraham’s plea on behalf of Ishame-El, which is once again adivine play on the Hebrew meaning of the name “Ishma-El”. The correspondence with this character’s“actual behavior” is reinforced when at Genesis 21: 17, God [El] again hears[ishma] the cry of Ishma-El in the desert, and directs a distraught Hagar to alife-saving well in the wilderness. “Ishma-El” is the only name of Hagar’s son, so I don’t think you canconstrue it as being a “nickname”, can you? And in spades, it closely relates to Ishmael’s “actual behaviour orcharacter” in the narrative. 4. God tells Abraham and Sarah to call the son that old Sarah will bear“Isaac” [using the conventional English transliteration], which in Hebrew means“he laughs”, right after Abraham has laughed [isaac] at Genesis 17: 17 at thethought that old Sarah might still be able to bear a child. Genesis 17: 19. That meaning of the name “Isaac” is then reinforcedseveral times thereafter: (i) Sarahlater still “laughs”/isaac at the thought that God can make her fertile whenshe and Abraham are so very old; (ii)Sarah “laughs”/isaac with joy at Isaac’s birth; and (iii) when Ishmael laughs/plays/isaac with Isaac at Isaac’s weaningparty, Sarah orders Abraham to exile Ishmael. [By the way, the Hurrian meaning of the name “Isaac” is much granderthan the Hebrew meaning, and well befits a Patriarch.] 5. Genesis 25: 25 tells us that Rebekah’s firstborn son was called “Esau”because he was “red” and “hairy” at his birth. Because of all his dark red hair, we can deduce that Esau looked like“dark red ebony” at his birth. Scholarsare baffled by the name “Esau”, since such name has no west Semiticmeaning. But Rebekah was born and grewto adulthood in Bronze Age eastern Syria in the Hurrian heartland, andRebekah’s mother likely was a Hurrian in Bronze Age eastern Syria. So in fact it makes perfect sense thatRebekah would give her firstborn son, who looked like “dark red ebony” at hisbirth because of all his dark red hair, the name “Esau”, since esau means “[darkred] ebony” in Hurrian, which historically likely was Rebekah’s native language. The fact that the name “Esau” has nowest Semitic meaning foreshadows that Esau will have no claim to theinheritance of Canaan. That same dynamicapplies to the name “Lot”: it has no aptHebrew meaning, but rather only makes sense in Hurrian, which like the name“Esau” deftly foreshadows that Lot, like Esau, will have no claim to theinheritance of Canaan. 6. Genesis 25: 26 tells us that Rebekah’s younger twin son was given thename “Jacob” because at his birth Jacob was grabbing at the “heel” of his oldertwin brother Esau. The name “Jacob” is,on one level, an obvious play on the Hebrew common word that means “heel”. This Hebrew meaning of the name “Jacob” has aclose “correspondence to the… actual behaviour [and] character” of Jacob in thenarrative, as Jacob will famously and audaciously impersonate his older twinbrother Esau in order to get their father Isaac’s great blessing. In conjunction with the Hurrian meaning ofthe name “Jacob”, that nicely foreshadows that the entire inheritance of Canaanwill pass to Jacob, not to Esau. [I won’tdiscuss the name “Israel” here or how the text characterizes the meaning ofthat name in the context of Jacob’s actions in the narrative, since you see “Israel”as being merely a nickname.] 7. For each one of Jacob’s 12 sons [who will become the 12 tribes ofIsrael], the text tells us how the mother interpreted the son’s name as afanciful comment on her own feelings and situation at the son’s birth. For most, and perhaps all, of these 12 sons,we the audience are supposed to understand a more obvious meaning of the names thatapplies as well. Thus as to Jacob’sfirstborn son, borne by Leah, the name “Reuben” obviously means in Hebrew [veryfittingly for a firstborn son]: “Look! A son.” Leah then creativelycomes up with a way for the consonants in that name to reflect her “sorrow” atstill not being greatly loved by her husband Jacob, so that the name “Reuben”is fancifully construed by Leah as implying “God has seen my sorrow”. Note that Jacob’s last/12th son islater given a name by Rachel that actually means “son of my sorrow”, neatlyparalleling Leah’s fanciful interpretation of a possible meaning of the name“Reuben”. But Jacob changes his 12thson’s name as Rachel dies in childbirth, calling him “Benjamin”. The name “son of my right hand”/Benjaminaccurately foreshadows that Benjamin will become Jacob’s favorite son, whomJacob for years heavily favors at the expense of most all of Jacob’s othersons, including all sons borne by Leah. For most, if not all 12, of Jacob’s sons [the future 12 tribes ofIsrael], the text presents their names as “hav[ing a] correspondence to theiractual behaviour or character” and/or as telling us something important abouttheir mother’s situation at their birth. * * * Which then brings us to the names“Leah” and “Rachel”. Scholars say thatthose names mean “Cow” and “Ewe”. Buthistorically, no human women were called “Cow” or “Ewe” in the ancient world,to the best of my knowledge. Scholarsdon’t claim that these are historically-attested names. You imply that in your view most of thepersonal names in the Patriarchal narratives are “the actual names of thepeople concerned”, but note that most of such names are never attested outsideof the Bible in the ancient world. Forexample, outside of the Bible no one is known to have had the name “Abraham” or“Isaac” or “Ishmael” in the ancient world. Yes, Abraham’s birth name, “Abram”, is very well attested in the ancientworld outside of the Bible, but as to west Semitic personal names in thePatriarchal narratives, that is the exception, not the rule. Sarah’s birth name, $RY, is never attestedoutside of the Bible as the west Semitic name of a human woman. [I see it as being the attested Hurrian name $a-ru-ya.] With the names “Leah” and “Rachel” seeminglynot being historical names that were passively picked up from non-biblicalsources by a Hebrew author, but rather appearing to be names that a Hebrewauthor has himself created [perhaps on the basis of divine revelation,depending on how one looks at it], one would therefore expect the names “Leah”and “Rachel” to have etymologies and meanings that “have a…correspondence totheir actual behaviour or character”, just as do the first 7 names [includingthe names of all of Jacob’s sons] listed above. One main problem with the scholarlyview of the names “Leah” and “Rachel” is that Leah and Rachel are not “cattle”,nor are they treated as such. Ratherthan being passive and docile like a “cow” or “ewe”, each of Leah and Rebekahis assertive and aggressive to a fault. We should rightly expect both names, “Leah” and “Rachel”, to have both aHebrew and a Hurrian etymology and meaning that “have a…correspondence to theiractual behaviour or character” in the narrative. My post focused on the Hebrew meaning of“Rachel”/RXL, which I interpret as being RX -L, being short for RX -)L, sinceL/lamed in final position is often thought, as I documented, to function as atheophoric. On that view, “Rachel”/RXLas RX -)L means “Millstone of God”, which name foreshadows that Rachel will diein childbirth, will not be buried at the Patriarchs’ Hebron, and will not havea son of hers chosen by her husband Jacob/“Israel” to be his successor, whichgreat honor instead ends up going to a son of sister Leah: Judah. Considering what the text says aboutmany other personal names in the Patriarchal narratives, I think that we shouldrightly expect the names “Rachel” and “Leah” to “have a…correspondence to theiractual behaviour or character”. Ifthat’s the case for the first 7 names listed above [including the names of all12 of Jacob’s sons], why shouldn’t it be the case for the names “Rachel” and“Leah” as well? The intended meaning ofthe name “Rachel” is n-o-t “Ewe”, but rather is a fitting comment on howtraumatic Rachel’s life will be. JimStinehart Evanston,Illinois
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
