Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Chavoux Luyt:

You wrote:  “But if these names [in the Patriarchal narratives, such as “Esau”, “Leah” and “Rachel”] were not made up, but rather were the actual names of the people concerned, there is simply NO REASON why their names should have any correspondence to their actual behaviour or character (unless it is a "nickname" like "Yeruba'al" for Gideon 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 Patriarchal narratives.  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 or character”.  [By the way, I disagree with the scholarly contention that the author of Genesis 17: 5-6 allegedly didn’t know what the name “Abraham” really means.  I likewise disagree with the frequent scholarly contention that allegedly 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 some sort of meaning that might fit these long pre-existing names, with such later author often as not failing to grasp what allegedly the “real” meaning of these various names is.]

2.  God says that the name “Sarah” means that $RY [“Sarai”] will be the mother of a line of kings.  Genesis 17: -16.  And that comes true as well [as Sarah bears future Patriarch Isaac, who in turn will sire future Patriarch Jacob/“Israel”], with this name thereby closely relating to Sarah’s “actual behaviour or character”.

3.  God tells a pregnant, distraught Hagar at a well in the wilderness that her son will have far-flung progeny, and that he is to be called Ishma-El, with such name being strongly implied to have been chosen by God because God [El] has heard [ishma] Hagar’s cry.  Genesis 16: 11.  Abram complies with the divine naming at Genesis 16: 15, and then at 17: 20 God says to Abraham that God/El has heard/ishma Abraham’s plea on behalf of Ishame-El, which is once again a divine 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 a life-saving well in the wilderness.  “Ishma-El” is the only name of Hagar’s son, so I don’t think you can construe it as being a “nickname”, can you?  And in spades, it closely relates to Ishmael’s “actual behaviour or character” 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 the thought that old Sarah might still be able to bear a child.  Genesis 17: 19.  That meaning of the name “Isaac” is then reinforced several times thereafter:  (i) Sarah later still “laughs”/isaac at the thought that God can make her fertile when she 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 weaning party, Sarah orders Abraham to exile Ishmael.  [By the way, the Hurrian meaning of the name “Isaac” is much grander than 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.  Scholars are baffled by the name “Esau”, since such name has no west Semitic meaning.  But Rebekah was born and grew to adulthood in Bronze Age eastern Syria in the Hurrian heartland, and Rebekah’s mother likely was a Hurrian in Bronze Age eastern Syria.  So in fact it makes perfect sense that Rebekah would give her firstborn son, who looked like “dark red ebony” at his birth because of all his dark red hair, the name “Esau”, since esau means “[dark red] ebony” in Hurrian, which historically likely was Rebekah’s native language. 

The fact that the name “Esau” has no west Semitic meaning foreshadows that Esau will have no claim to the inheritance of Canaan.  That same dynamic applies to the name “Lot”:  it has no apt Hebrew meaning, but rather only makes sense in Hurrian, which like the name “Esau” deftly foreshadows that Lot, like Esau, will have no claim to the inheritance of Canaan.

6.  Genesis 25: 26 tells us that Rebekah’s younger twin son was given the name “Jacob” because at his birth Jacob was grabbing at the “heel” of his older twin 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 a close “correspondence to the… actual behaviour [and] character” of Jacob in the narrative, as Jacob will famously and audaciously impersonate his older twin brother Esau in order to get their father Isaac’s great blessing.  In conjunction with the Hurrian meaning of the name “Jacob”, that nicely foreshadows that the entire inheritance of Canaan will pass to Jacob, not to Esau.  [I won’t discuss the name “Israel” here or how the text characterizes the meaning of that 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 of Israel], the text tells us how the mother interpreted the son’s name as a fanciful 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 that applies as well.  Thus as to Jacob’s firstborn son, borne by Leah, the name “Reuben” obviously means in Hebrew [very fittingly for a firstborn son]:  “Look!  A son.”  Leah then creatively comes up with a way for the consonants in that name to reflect her “sorrow” at still 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/12^th son is later given a name by Rachel that actually means “son of my sorrow”, neatly paralleling Leah’s fanciful interpretation of a possible meaning of the name “Reuben”.  But Jacob changes his 12^th son’s name as Rachel dies in childbirth, calling him “Benjamin”.  The name “son of my right hand”/Benjamin accurately foreshadows that Benjamin will become Jacob’s favorite son, whom Jacob for years heavily favors at the expense of most all of Jacob’s other sons, including all sons borne by Leah.  For most, if not all 12, of Jacob’s sons [the future 12 tribes of Israel], the text presents their names as “hav[ing a] correspondence to their actual behaviour or character” and/or as telling us something important about their mother’s situation at their birth.

*       *       *

Which then brings us to the names “Leah” and “Rachel”.  Scholars say that those names mean “Cow” and “Ewe”.  But historically, no human women were called “Cow” or “Ewe” in the ancient world, to the best of my knowledge.  Scholars don’t claim that these are historically-attested names.  You imply that in your view most of the personal names in the Patriarchal narratives are “the actual names of the people concerned”, but note that most of such names are never attested outside of the Bible in the ancient world.  For example, 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 ancient world outside of the Bible, but as to west Semitic personal names in the Patriarchal narratives, that is the exception, not the rule.  Sarah’s birth name, $RY, is never attested outside 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” seemingly not being historical names that were passively picked up from non-biblical sources by a Hebrew author, but rather appearing to be names that a Hebrew author 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 to their actual behaviour or character”, just as do the first 7 names [including the names of all of Jacob’s sons] listed above.

One main problem with the scholarly view of the names “Leah” and “Rachel” is that Leah and Rachel are not “cattle”, nor are they treated as such.  Rather than being passive and docile like a “cow” or “ewe”, each of Leah and Rebekah is assertive and aggressive to a fault.  We should rightly expect both names, “Leah” and “Rachel”, to have both a Hebrew and a Hurrian etymology and meaning that “have a…correspondence to their actual 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, since L/lamed in final position is often thought, as I documented, to function as a theophoric.  On that view, “Rachel”/RXL as RX -)L means “Millstone of God”, which name foreshadows that Rachel will die in childbirth, will not be buried at the Patriarchs’ Hebron, and will not have a son of hers chosen by her husband Jacob/“Israel” to be his successor, which great honor instead ends up going to a son of sister Leah:  Judah.

Considering what the text says about many other personal names in the Patriarchal narratives, I think that we should rightly expect the names “Rachel” and “Leah” to “have a…correspondence to their actual behaviour or character”.  If that’s the case for the first 7 names listed above [including the names of all 12 of Jacob’s sons], why shouldn’t it be the case for the names “Rachel” and “Leah” as well?  The intended meaning of the name “Rachel” is  n-o-t  “Ewe”, but rather is a fitting comment on how traumatic Rachel’s life will be.

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois