Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yigal:

One of the things I noticed about Biblical Hebrew, especially pre-Babylonian
Exile Biblical Hebrew, is that often the authors did not state the obvious,
rather used a rather round about way to express ideas. I have mentioned a
few times that אבד literally means to become or be lost. It is also used as
a euphemism for dying, but it does not mean dying. Later pre-Babylonian
Exile Hebrew used round about expressions far more than earlier Hebrew, but
where it is almost totally absent is in post-Babylonian Exile writings.

(As a lexicographer, I notice that other lexicographers often do not
recognize this practice of round about speech, and so give words straight
forward meanings for each semantic field, often leaving words almost
undefined because they have so many meanings. I think that sometimes leads
to misunderstandings.)

In order to understand these writings, it is often necessary to bring in
unspoken cultural or other expectations that fills that gaps between what is
written. In this story, one of those cultural expectations is that the
better wife is the one who gives sons to her man. In this story, poor Leah
was shunned, the unwanted wife, having to bear the shame and humiliation of
seeing her sister getting all the attention and love, leaving her with the
dregs. Don’t think it didn’t hurt. It did, badly. As the first wife, she
should have the honor of being the first. Instead, … what’s more to say?

What we see in Genesis 29:32 is Leah’s acknowledgement that she has suffered
the humiliation of being the unwanted wife, yet she has born a son. What she
hoped for was that the presence of that son would bring the love and honor
that that son should bring. Her sister was barren. Yet Leah popped out over
half of Jacob’s children. She named him “See, a son” to point out that she
was the more important wife, not only because she was the first, but also
because she was bearing children. Yet she recognized that God had seen her
humiliation, and that’s why she was fertile and her sister barren.

Once one takes into account the cultural expectations, the connection
between God seeing Leah’s humiliation and naming her first born “See, a son”
becomes obvious. At least to me.

There is no etymological link between God seeing Leah’s humiliation and the
naming of her son. Rather it is a cultural link. (Which brings up another
complaint I have against most of my fellow lexicographers, is that outside
of languages and linguistics, they are often rather clueless. I shouldn’t
have been surprised that I am the only one on this list who has actually
done blacksmithing, along with welding, metal machine shop, carpentry,
plumbing, farming, etc. I have a scythe for cutting the weeds around the
house and know how to use it. I still have an abacus and slide rule, and
taught my engineer son how to use them. They are a little better in the
cultural sphere, but even there sometimes way off base, as in this example
of looking for an etymological connection when the connection was cultural.
Having had all these experiences, as well as living in other cultures, does
affect my understanding of words in their contexts.)

The connection between God listening to Hannah’s prayer and placing the son
is also cultural, not linguistic, but it is more obvious. Yet I have seen
arguments torturing the name to make it mean “God listens”, desperately
attempting to get that etymological connection that isn’t there.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:

> That's just the point. Gen. 29:32 says that Leah named him Reuben, saying
> "because God saw my misery, and now my man will love me". The "ra'ah"
> ("saw") indicates that there is supposedly an etymological connection
> between this sentence and the child's name, buy it's obviously not
> one-for-one. What the text does NOT give is the obvious "she called him
> Reuben saying: see - a boy!"
>
> Yigal Levin
>
>