Seeing another layer to these puns
Marvin Sweeney shows readers in this post that the names of the individuals in Genesis 25-35 reflect both geographical and cultural realities that existed and were understood anciently by the hearers of these stories. Later when these stories were textualized, many of these names had geographical significance to the readers of this scripture. There is much more happening in Genesis than modern readers realize!
Following is an excerpt from Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Legacy of Josiah in Isaiah 40-55” in Desert Will Bloom: Poetic Visions in Isaiah, edited by A. Joseph Everson, and Hyun Chul Paul Kim, Society of Biblical Literature, 2009, p. 113-120. You can access a PDF version of the chapter here.
Interpreters largely see the Jacob traditions in Gen 25:19– 35:29 as the product of a combined JE and P tradition that reflects upon Jacob and his wives as foundational figures in the early history of Israel, but it is also important to recognize that the Jacob traditions also give expression to the political and historical realities of much later times.
Indeed, the basic narrative structure of the Jacob traditions, including both Jacob’s conflicts with his brother Esau and his relationship with his wives Rachel and Leah and their father Laban appear to have been composed as a reflection on northern Israel’s relationships with Edom and Aram during the ninth century B.C.E. The Jacob narrative emphasizes that the key male figures, Jacob, Esau, and Laban, are eponymous ancestors for the nations Israel (Gen 32:28; 35:10); Edom (Gen 25:30); and Aram (Gen 31:47) respectively. Furthermore, the emphasis on puns to illustrate the meanings of the names of the key male figures in the narratives, including Jacob, Esau, and Laban as well as Jacob’s twelve sons, highlights the geographical and political concerns underlying this narrative insofar as the puns also identify boundaries between Israel, Edom, and Aram and the twelve tribal and geographical components of the kingdom of Israel.
Thus, the description in Gen 27:11 of Jacob as a “smooth” (Hebrew, hālāq) man and Esau as a “hairy” (Hebrew, śā‘îr ) man recalls the place names Mt. Halak and Mt. Seir in Josh 11:17 that mark the boundaries between Israel and Edom. Esau’s willingness to trade his birthright to Jacob for some lentils, described in Gen 25:30 in Hebrew as hā’ādōm, “red stuff,” and his description in Gen 25:25 as a “ruddy” (Hebrew, ’ādmônî ) and a “hairy” (Hebrew, kě’adderet śē‘ār , lit., “like a hairy mantle”) likewise reinforces Esau’s identification with Edom (Hebrew,’ědôm) and Seir (Hebrew, śē‘îr ). The name Laban, Hebrew, lābān , means “white,” which is associated with the Valley of Lebanon (hallěbānôn) that defines the boundaries between Aram, Phoenicia, and Israel in Josh 11:17. Likewise the Hebrew reference gal‘ēd, “heap of witness,” in Gen 31:47 to the pillar set up by Jacob and Laban as a boundary marker between their respective territories recalls the location Baal Gad (Hebrew, ba‘al gād ) which also marks the boundary between Israel and Aram in Josh 11:17 and the tribe of Gad that inhabits the region together with the half tribe of Manasseh.
The various puns employed to interpret the names of Jacob’s sons highlight the tribal units that constitute ancient Israel. The name of Reuben (rě’ûbēn), first-born son to Jacob and Leah means, “Yhwh has seen (rā’â) my affliction” and “now my husband will love me (ye’ěhābanî )” according to Gen 29:32; Simeon (šim‘ôn) is so-named “because Yhwh heard (šāma‘) that I was unloved” in Gen 29:33; Levi (lēwî) is named because “this time my husband will become attached (yillāweh) to me” in Gen 29:34; and Judah (yěhûdâ) is named because “this time I will praise (’ôdeh) Yhwh.” When Bilhah gives birth to Dan, Rachel states, “G-d has vindicated me (dānannî)” in Gen 30:6, and when Naphtali is born, Rachel states, “a divine/fateful contest I waged (naptûlê ’ělōqîm niptaltî) with my sister” in Gen 30:8. When Zilpah gives birth to Gad (gād), Leah states, “What luck (bā’ gād)!” in Gen 30:11, and when Asher (’āšēr) is born, Leah states, “What fortune (bě’āšrî)!” in Gen 30:12. When Leah gives birth to Issachar (yiśśāśkār), she exclaims, “G-d has given me my reward (śěkārî)” in Gen 30:18 (cf. Gen 30:16), and when Zebulun (zěbulûn) is born, Leah states, “G-d has given me a choice gift (zebed); this time my husband will exalt me (yizbělēnî)” in Gen 30:20. No pun is uttered when Leah’s daughter Dinah is born in Gen 30:21. When Joseph (yôsēp) is born, his mother Rachel states, “G-d has taken away/gathered (’āsap ) my disgrace” and “May Yhwh add ( yôsēp ) another son for me” in Gen 30:23– 24. When Rachel dies while giving birth to Benjamin (binyāmîn), Jacob names him “son of the right hand (binyāmîn)” in Gen 35:18 to indicate his exalted status.
The locations of major events during Jacob’s return to Israel from Aram to face his brother Esau also evoke puns, which point to Israel’s presence on the east bank of the Jordan River. When Jacob departs from Aram and sees angels of G-d in Gen 32:1– 3, he exclaims, “This is G-d’s camp (mahănēh).” Jacob divides his family into two camps (šěnê mahănôt) in Gen 32:8– 9, 11 to better protect his family should Esau decide to attack. Both of these puns explain the city name Mahanaim, whose precise location is unknown although it was located along the River Jabbok in the tribal territory of Gad or Manasseh. When Jacob wrestles with the “man of G-d” at Penuel by the River Jabbok, several puns indicate the region. The verb wayyē’ābēq, “and he wrestled” in Gen 32:24 indicates the name of the River Jabbok (yabbōq). The place name Peniel/Penuel (pěnî’ēl/pěnû’ēl) is named because of Jacob’s statement, “I have seen a divine being (’ělōqîm , lit., “god”) face to face (pānîm ’el pānîm)” in Gen 32:31– 32. The River Jabbok served as the boundary between Gad and Manasseh in the Trans-Jordan, and Penuel served as an important administrative center for the northern kingdom of Israel shortly after its founding by Jeroboam (1 Kgs 12:25). The man of G-d explains Jacob’s change of name to Israel (yiśrā’ēl) in Gen 32:29 with the statement, “for you have striven (śārîtā) with divine and human beings and prevailed.” Finally, Jacob journeys to the city of Sukkot (sukkōt) to make stalls (sukkōt) for his cattle. Sukkot was also situated near the junction of the River Jabbok with the Jordan River in the Trans-Jordan.
Although the puns employed in the Jacob narrative may serve in part as entertainment, their geo-political functions must not be overlooked. The puns ascribed to the twelve sons of Jacob define the twelve tribal units that make up the united people of Israel throughout early Israelite tradition. The puns associated with the Trans-Jordanian region are particularly important because they point to locations associated with the tribes of Gad, Manasseh, and perhaps Reuben early in Israel’s history as well. Altogether, the puns point to an ideal twelve tribe structure of Israel that fills the land west and east of the Jordan in accordance with the ideal tribal allotments of Josh 13– 23 and Num 34. But the contents of the narrative, particularly the interrelationships between Jacob, Esau, and Laban must also be taken into account. Insofar as these figures serve as eponymous ancestors for Israel, Edom, and Aram, the interrelationships— or more properly conflicts— between these characters must be considered in relation to the interrelationships and conflicts between their corresponding nations must also be considered. Biblical sources in 1 Kgs 16– 2 Kgs 14 indicate that Israel was reunited in the ninth century B.C.E. under the reign of the Omride dynasty of northern Israel, which counted Judah and Edom among its vassals. Nevertheless, this was a period of conflict in which Israel was attacked by Aram in the Trans-Jordan during the reigns of the Omride monarchs Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, and conflict with Aram continued during the reigns of the Jehide monarchs Jehu, Joash, and Jehoahaz as well. Ahab was able to strike a treaty with the Aramean King Ben Hadad following an aborted Aramean invasion of Israel at Aphek east of the Sea of Galilee in 1 Kgs 20:26– 34. Nevertheless, Ahab was killed in battle with the Arameans at Ramot Gilead, located in the Trans-Jordan. With the death of Ahab, the overthrow of his son Jehoram by his general Jehu while the conflict continued at Ramot Gilead, and finally Jehu containment by the Arameans following his revolt, it appears that Israel lost the Trans-Jordan to the Arameans until it was regained by Jehoahaz. There was also conflict with Edom during this period, which broke away from King Jehoram of Judah, himself a vassal of the Omride King Jehoram at this time, according to 2 Kgs 8:20– 24. Although Israelite control of the Trans-Jordan was reestablished by the reign of King Jeroboam of Israel, there is no indication that Edom was ever recovered by either Israel or Judah.
The conflicts between Jacob and Esau and between Jacob and Laban in the Genesis narrative appear to reflect the historical events of the ninth century B.C.E. Israel entered into conflict with Aram in the Trans-Jordan and ultimately settled its boundaries with Aram, first in the time of Ahab and later by the time of Jeroboam. Likewise, Edom began as a vassal of Israel/Judah during this period but ultimately broke away from Israel/Judah, likely due to the reverses that Israel suffered against the Arameans.
These considerations indicate that the Jacob narrative was composed at least in its basic form at some point following the ninth century B.C.E., perhaps in the eighth century B.C.E. when northern Israel had restored its boundaries under Jeroboam and had the opportunity to reflect on its history. But if the basic narrative was composed at such an early date, interpreters must also reflect on the impact it would have had on readers in later periods, particularly following the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722/1 B.C.E. when the narrative would have been brought south and read by Judeans. The narratives concerning Jacob’s/Israel’s exiles and reverses on the one hand and his return and restoration to the land of Israel on the other would have played an important role in Judean attempts to reunite Israel and Judah and to restore Davidic authority over the north, either during the reign of Hezekiah whose revolt against Assyria failed so spectacularly or during the reign of Josiah whose efforts to reunite the nation in the aftermath of the collapse of the Assyrian Empire were cut short by his early death at Megiddo at the hands of Pharaoh Necho of Egypt. In the late-monarchic period, the Jacob traditions of Jacob’s own exile and return to the land would have given expression to Israel’s defeat and exile at the hands of the Assyrians and the prospects for Israel’s restoration and reunification with Judah in the aftermath of Assyria’s downfall. Such a narrative could well have played a role in motivating attempts by either Hezekiah or Josiah to reunite Israel and Judah and to restore Davidic authority over the north.
Interpreters will never be able to know the precise form of the Jacob traditions in the late-monarchic period or even the degree to which they influenced Hezekiah or Josiah, but Jer 30– 31, which portray the return of Israel to Zion and the reunification of north and south provides some clues concerning the impact of this tradition in the book of Jeremiah.
The present form of Jer 30– 31 clearly presupposes the Babylonian exile insofar as it posits that both Israel and Judah together must be restored in the aftermath of exile and disaster. 15 Such perspectives appear at the outset of the oracular block in Jer 30:3– 4, which portray Yhwh’s promise to restore the fortunes of both Israel and Judah and return them to the land promised by Yhwh to their ancestors. They appear in several other subunits of this text as well. Jeremiah 31:27– 30 declares that the time to uproot, to pull down, to destroy, and to bring disaster to both Israel and Judah is over and that the time to build and to plant has come. Jeremiah 31:31– 34 declares that Yhwh will make a new covenant with Israel and Judah— unlike the former covenant with the ancestor that the people broke— in which Yhwh will put divine Torah in the hearts of the people so that Yhwh will be their G-d once again. Finally, Jer 31:38– 40 envisions the restoration of the city of Jerusalem as a result of Yhwh’s promises never again to uproot or overthrow the people.
It is striking that each of these passages concerned with the restoration and return of both Israel and Judah is introduced by a common formula, hinnēh yāmîm bā’îm, “behold the days are coming,” whereas the other primary formula throughout the passage is the so-called prophetic messenger formula, kōh ’āmar yhwh, “thus says Yhwh,” which introduces the other prophetic oracular speeches that constitute this unit in Jer 30:1– 2; 30:5– 11; 30:12– 17; 30:18– 31:1; 31:2– 6; 31:7– 14; 31:15; 31:16– 22; 31:23– 26; 31:35– 36; and 31:37. Indeed, if the oracles introduced by the hinnēh yāmîm bā’îm formula are removed from the passage, the remaining oracles introduced by the kōh ’āmar yhwh formula display a sequence of oracles that are concerned not with the restoration and return from exile of both Israel and Judah but only with the restoration and return of Israel/Jacob to Zion.
Jeremiah 30:1– 2 serves as an introduction to the unit insofar as it presents simply Yhwh’s command to the prophet to write down the following oracles. Jeremiah 30:5– 11 portrays a time of trouble for Jacob, a common designation for northern Israel, and Jacob’s anticipated return to its G-d and David, the king that Yhwh will raise for them. The oracle also addresses Jacob as “servant Jacob” in v. 10, a common designation in Second Isaiah. Jeremiah 30:12– 17 promises healing from wounds to an addressee who is unclear until after the closing oracular formula of v. 17a. Although Zion emerges as the addressee in v. 17b, its placement after the closing oracular formula suggests later interpretation of a text addressed to another figure. Jeremiah 30:18– 31:1 promises the restoration of the fortunes of Jacob’s tents and the restoration of the covenant relationship with the classic formula, “You shall be my people, and I will be your G-d,” again applied to the clans of Israel in Jer 31:1. Jeremiah 31:2– 6 recalls the wilderness traditions when Israel became Yhwh’s bride (cf. Hos 2; Jer 2) to address Israel as “maiden Israel” in v. 4. The passage also portrays the planting of the hills of Samaria and the proclamation from the heights of Ephraim that the people should go up to Zion to appear before Yhwh. Jeremiah 31:7– 14 employs characteristic language applied to northern Israel, such as the call for Jacob’s rejoicing, the return of the remnant of Israel, Ephraim the first born of Yhwh, to portray Yhwh’s gathering Israel from the ends of the earth and Yhwh’s ransoming of Jacob so that they will rejoice on the heights of Zion. Jeremiah 1:15 portrays Rachel, the avowed bride of Jacob and mother of Joseph and Benjamin, weeping for her lost children. Joseph, of course, is the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, the two key tribes of northern Israel, and Benjamin is the tribe of Saul, the first king of the north. Jeremiah 31:16– 22 calls upon Ephraim to cease weeping and for Maiden Israel to return. Jeremiah 31:23– 26 envisions the time the actions of the G-d of Israel will be recognized in the land of Judah and its towns; again, an apparent supplement in v. 26 envisions the habitation of Judah’s land and towns. Jeremiah 31:35– 36 portrays Yhwh’s promise to the offspring of Israel that they will always be a nation. Finally, Jer 31:37 reiterates Yhwh’s promise to the offspring of Israel in relation to the permanence of heaven and earth.
Altogether, this survey of the oracles introduced by the prophetic messenger formula presents a portrayal of Yhwh’s promises of restoration to Israel, Jacob, Maiden Israel, Rachel, and Ephraim, all references to the northern kingdom of Israel, that they will be restored and returned to Yhwh at Zion and to David, the founder of the Judean dynasty. Oracles introduced with the formula, “behold the days are coming,” address the restoration of both Israel and Judah, and several instances indicate that an Israelite oracle has been supplemented so that it refers to Jerusalem or Judah. Such a phenomenon indicates that an early cycle of oracles concerned with the restoration of northern Israel to Zion has been reworked so that the edited cycle calls for the restoration of both Israel and Judah. The settings for each of the two stages in the composition of this text are clear; the concern with the restoration of Israel to Zion was a primary concern of the reform of King Josiah who ought to restore Davidic rule over the north in the aftermath of the fall of Assyria in the late seventh century B.C.E., and the concern with the restoration of both Israel and Judah presupposes the Babylonian destruction and exile of Jerusalem and Judah. Insofar as the superscription of the book of Jeremiah maintains that the prophet began his career in the thirteenth year of King Josiah and that it extended to the eleventh year of Zedekiah, that is, the year of Jerusalem’s destruction, it appears that the prophet composed the earlier cycle in support of Josiah’s efforts to reunite Israel and to restore Davidic rule over the north but later updated the cycle to account for the reverses suffered by Judah, culminating in the Babylonian exile, following the death of Josiah.
But the oracular sequence also demonstrates the degree to which the figure of Jacob, initially as representative of the northern kingdom of Israel and subsequently as representative for both Israel and Judah together, was viewed as a paradigm for Israel’s exile and restoration in the book of Jeremiah during the late-monarchic and early-exilic period. It likewise demonstrates the first efforts to associate Jacob with the marriage tradition that identifies Israel as Yhwh’s bride in the wilderness (Hos 2; Jer 2), insofar as it employs Rachel, Jacob’s favored wife as a symbol for Israel’s mourning in Jer 31:15 and immediately shifts to a portrayal of Ephraim’s lamenting and Maiden Israel’s return to Zion in the following oracle in Jer 31:16– 22. Insofar as Jer 30– 31 employs some characteristic phraseology and concerns of Second Isaiah, for example, “have no fear, my servant Jacob” (Jer 30:10); “the anger of Yhwh shall not turn back until it has completed His purposes; in the days to come you shall perceive it” (Jer 30:24); “I will bring them in from the northland, gather them from the ends of the earth— the blind and the lame among them (Jer 31:8); “I will lead them to streams of water, by a level road where they will not stumble” (Jer 31:9); “hear the word of Yhwh, O nations, and tell it in the isles afar, say, He who scattered Israel will gather them” (Jer 31:10); “for Yhwh will ransom Jacob, redeem him from one too strong for him” (Jer 31:11); and “thus says Yhwh, who established the sun for light by day, the laws of moon and stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea into roaring waves, who name is Yhwh of Hosts” (Jer 31:35). From these parallels, it appears that Jer 30–31 provided an important basis for the oracles of Second Isaiah to develop the themes of Yhwh’s redemption of Israel, Israel’s return to Zion, and at least some of basis for the portrayal of Bat Zion as Yhwh’s restored bride.
Like the Jacob traditions of Gen 25–35, the portrayal of Israel as the bride of Yhwh in the wilderness has deep roots in northern Israelite tradition, particularly in the work of the prophets, Hosea and Jeremiah. Both have affinities with the north, Hosea because of his concerns with the Jehide dynasty of northern Israel and Jeremiah because he is from Anathoth in the land of Benjamin. Both envision the wilderness period as an ideal period in which Yhwh and Israel were betrothed, much like Jacob and Rachel in Haran, but both portray Israel’s subsequent abandonment of Yhwh for other lovers. Such a portrayal differs from the wilderness traditions of the Pentateuch which portray Israel’s murmuring against Yhwh from the outset. In both Hosea and Jeremiah, the marriage tradition is employed to critique northern Israel in relation to the concerns of the time in which each book is written and read, Hosea in relation to the last years of northern Israel and again in the time of Josiah, and Jeremiah in the time of Josiah and afterwards. (Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Legacy of Josiah in Isaiah 40-55” in Desert Will Bloom: Poetic Visions in Isaiah, edited by A. Joseph Everson, and Hyun Chul Paul Kim, Society of Biblical Literature, 2009, p. 113-120.)
Further Study
How did Nephi use a pun on his own name?
How does the Book of Mormon use a Hebrew pun on Noah’s name?
Matthew L. Bowen, “And He Was a Young Man: The Literary Preservation of Alma’s Autobiographical Wordplay,” Insights 30/4 (2010): 2–4.
Matthew L. Bowen, “Becoming Sons and Daughters at God’s Right Hand: King Benjamin’s Rhetorical Wordplay on His Own Name.” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 21/2 (2012): 2–13.
Matthew L. Bowen, “Most Desirable Above All Things”: Onomastic Play on Mary and Mormon in the Book of Mormon. Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13 (2015): 27-61.
Matthew L. Bowen, Onomastic Wordplay on Joseph and Benjamin and Gezera Shawa in the Book of Mormon. Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 255-273.
Punning Around – Jacob and Laban’s Double Talk in Genesis
Robert F. Smith, Puns, Paronomasia, and word-play in the Book of Mormon.