Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>]

Dear Jim,

[Jim said]
Why does the Bible give us elaborate, explicit etymologies of the names of
Jacob’s 11 oldest sons?

No such explicit etymologies are set forth for the name of Jacob’s youngest
son, Benjamin, or for the name of Abraham’s proper male heir, Isaac.

[Bryant says]
First, the text gives the reason for the etymologies.

Second, Isaac's etymology is explained in the text. See Genesis 17:18-19;
18:9-15;21:1-7, "He laughs;" so also the etymologies of Jacob and Esau. 
Whether
one accepts or rejects what the texts say is another issue.

For the most part, the etymologies are there to explain why the individual is 
so
named. It is a "pun;" it is part of the story. BTW, In some instances, Nabal
(fool) in I Samuel, comes to mind. Nabal, as a noun, is also used in Pss 14:1 
&
53:1(vs. 2 MT). Isaac's name is part of the story because of the unbelief of
Abraham and Sarah. It proves God's sovereignty and faithfulness to the promise
and covenant made to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-4; 15:9-21). Isaac was Abraham's
promised son, not Ishmael (Genesis 17:17-22). It is this promise, this 
covenant
that is highlighted in Galatians.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:49 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Why Etymologies for Jacob's 11 Oldest Sons?


>
> Why does the Bible give us elaborate, explicit etymologies of the names of
> Jacob’s 11 oldest sons?
>
> No such explicit etymologies are set forth for the name of Jacob’s youngest
> son, Benjamin, or for the name of Abraham’s proper male heir, Isaac.
>
> Perhaps at the outset we should take a quick glance at a scholarly
> explanation of Biblical etymologies of the names of Jacob’s oldest 11 sons:
>
> “We must, however, imagine that not the least of the charms of this passage
> for the ancient reader consisted in the renewed suspense about how the next
> name (long familiar, of course) would be interpreted by the narrator.  So
> these are not, therefore, etymologies in the strict sense of the word and do
> not claim to be.  Rather, they are free allusions to which the narrator is
> inspired by the names and which the hearers receive as ingenious.”  Prof.
> Gerhard von Rad, “Genesis” (1972), p. 294.
>
> Prof. von Rad does not seem to realize that it’s not the narrator who
> presents these etymologies of the names of Jacob’s oldest 11 sons.  No, the
> author has Leah and Rachel tell us what they think of these names.
>
> And are scholars correct in assuming, without discussion, that these 11
> names are far, far older than the received text of chapters 29 and 30 of
> Genesis?  If these names, as opposed to the text, are truly ancient [which I
> believe is the way scholars view the matter, though that’s certainly not my
> view], then why would there be an interior vav/W in the name $M(WN 
> [“Simeon”]?
> Is that plene spelling of a west Semitic ending?  If so, why would plene
> spelling of a west Semitic ending be the hallmark of a truly ancient name?
> ZBLWN [“Zebulun”] looks suspicious, too.  For example, Genesis 49: 13 has
> CYD-N, which is defective, old-style spelling of a west Semitic ending,
whereas
> later books in the Bible update the name Sidon to plene spelling as CYD-WN.
> Why are the supposedly ancient names $M(WN and ZBLWN the reverse of that
> phenomenon as to the presence or absence of an interior vav/W?
>
> Speaking of endings, rather than $M(WN originally being pronounced as a
> two-syllable name, isn’t it more likely that $M(WN was originally pronounced
as
> a four-syllable name:  $M-(-W-N?  Why does BDB, a conservative, mainstream
> lexicon, make the following very odd remarks about this name [citing
> non-biblical sources]?  “…meaning doubtful…said to mean offspring of hyena 
> and
wolf
> ….”  Doesn’t that seem more like “ingenious”, “charm”[-less] midrash
> than Leah’s rather pedestrian explanation of this name?
>
> Speaking of ZBLWN, Prof. Speiser doesn’t think much of Leah’s explanation:
>
> “Heb. stem zbl…has traditionallly been interpreted as ‘to dwell’, which
> lacks etymological justification, and cannot be forced in any case to yield 
> ‘
> will dwell with me’ on syntactical grounds.  …But the required link is
> supplied by Akk. zubullu ‘bridegroom’s gift’, which is construed with the
> cognate verb zabalu;…it supplies a natural semantic basis;  it automatically
> accounts for the form (zubullu Zebulun)….”  “Genesis” (1962), p. 231.
>
> But if one starts down that path, ignoring the Biblical explanation and
> looking to Akkadian to explain the interior vav/W in ZBLWN, then how would 
> one
> explain the interior vav/W in $M(WN?  What about Levi’s son GR$WN [“Gershon”
> ], and Zebulun’s son )LWN [“Elon”]?  How can ancient proper names
> allegedly be rife with plene spelling?  As to west Semitic common words, 
> there
is
> less plene spelling in the Patriarchal narratives than elsewhere in the 
> Bible,
> whereas regarding proper names of individuals, the Patriarchal narratives
> feature eight personal names that end with -WN, whereas such names of
> individuals [featuring that interior vav/W] are rare elsewhere in the Bible.
>
> Are scholars right to assume that “the narrator” is doing “ingenious”
> midrash on truly ancient names that may pre-date the narrator by centuries?
> And are scholars right to ignore the fact that the text presents these
> etymologies as being told by Leah and Rachel?  Why is there no such
 “ingenious”
> midrash for the names Isaac and Benjamin, if the narrator was oddly addicted
> to providing such “charms…for the ancient reader”?
>
> Shouldn’t we ask the following question [a question that I myself have
> never seen raised in the scholarly literature]?   W-h-y  is it critically
> important for chapters 29 and 30 of Genesis to portray  L-e-a-h  and
R-a-c-h-e-l
> as setting forth elaborate, explicit etymologies for the names of all 11 of
> Jacob’s oldest sons?
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007 
3:19
PM