Etiologies in the Bible

The story of biblical etiologies begins with the German scholar Herman Gunkel (1862 – 1932). In 1901, Gunkel published a commentary on Genesis in which he set forth his theories on etiology,¹ from the Greek root aitiologia, roughly translated as “to give a reason for.” Gunkel defined the word “aetiological” (its older spelling) to mean narratives “that are written for a purpose, or to explain something.”² He noted that “Ancient Israel spent much thought upon the origin and the real meaning of races, mountains, wells, sanctuaries, and cities.”³ Gunkel thus proceeded to show how much of Genesis is devoted to explaining the history of some of Israel’s most important institutions and customs. Indeed, Gunkel posited that the instinct for asking such “how things came to be” questions, and the desire to understand them, are innate in man. Ever since they were first identified by Gunkel, the study of etiologies has played a large role in the academic study of the Tanakh.⁴

While the origins of such study can be traced to the secular academy, it is of benefit to those espousing a more traditional approach as well. Knowledge and awareness of etiologies gives us a better understanding of Tanakh, and often reveals deep layers of meaning otherwise hidden.

At the outset, etiologies must be distinguished from a related, yet very much different concept, mentioned in TB Berakhot 7b known as shema garim, “the name causes it,” that a name causes character traits. In Genesis 27:36, for example, Esau exclaims that Jacob was called by that name because of his deceptions, Isn’t he rightly named Jacob? This is the second time he has taken advantage of me. In I Samuel 25:25, Abigail explained to David that her husband was a vulgar man, just as his name implied, For as his name is, so is he: Nabal is his name and churlishness is with him. The Talmud also offers interpretations based on individual names and places.⁵

Such homiletical teachings are not the same as etiologies. The former seek to discern the character of a thing; the latter seek to explain its origins. An etiology comes to answer the fundamental question of why things are the way they are. A homiletical teaching comes after that point, and seems to be based on the premise that one’s name contains a type of self-created prophecy, a destiny brought into reality by the power of suggestion inherent in a name. This is not the idea behind etiologies. Rather, they are another layer of meaning embedded in the text.⁶

In many cases the origins of a given name or place are made explicit and obvious. Many times such etiologies are prefaced or connected with phrases such as al ken (therefore) or ad ha-yom ha-zeh (to this very day). We learn that Noah (rest) was called by that name because his father Lamech expected him to bring respite (or: comfort) from toil (Genesis 5:29). In Genesis 35:8 we are told that the place where Deborah was buried was named Alon Bakhut (“oak of weeping”), because of the crying and mourning over the family nurse. Gilgal (rolling) received its name because of God’s declaration there that I have today rolled away the disgrace of Egypt from the Israelites’ failure to circumcise their children (Josh. 5:9). And in Judges 2:4 we are told that a place was called Bokhim (crying) because the people cried there when God gave them a harsh rebuke. See, for another example, Judges 7:25. We are told of the capture of two Midianite leaders named Oreb and Zev, men who are otherwise completely unknown. Nevertheless, we are told of this event, in the briefest of asides, because it furnishes us with an explanation of how the places Tzur Oreb and Yekav Zev received their names. While unknown to us today, the memory of the event was apparently well-known in ancient times, as it is cited in both Isaiah 10:26 and Psalms 83:12.⁷

However, there are occasions we seem to find two or more etiologies for the name of a person or location. For example, the origin of the city Be’er Sheva. The name can derive from the oath (shvuah) made there between Abraham and Abimelech, as stated in Genesis 21:31. But in 26:33 it is stated that Isaac gave it that name because it was the seventh (sheva) well that he had dug (see Seforno on that verse). The commentators, such as Ibn Ezra, seek ways to reconcile the verses, and they do not have to be seen as conflicting. Rashbam posits that they are simply two different localities.

The name of Isaac is another case of a double etiology. In Genesis 17:17, after being told by God that he would have a son, Abraham laughs to himself at the thought of elderly people like he and Sarah having a child. Only two verses later (17:19) God tells Abraham that he will have a son, and he shall name him Isaac (17:19). Now, Isaac, of course, comes from the root word meaning “laughter”. Thus, the connection of the command to Abraham’s laughter seems clear.

However, later (18:12) in the encounter with the three visitors who announce the future birth of Isaac, Sarah overhears the prediction and laughs, leading to a remonstration from Abraham. Perhaps it is this laughter, then, that is the etiological cause for the name. Moreover, in 21:6, immediately after Isaac is born, Sarah exclaims that anyone who hears of the birth will laugh in amazement at the news. It is thus unclear which episode of laughter underlies the name – Abraham’s laughter before the birth; Sarah’s laughter before the birth; Sarah’s laughter after the birth; or some combination of them all. The Torah could be employing a deliberate literary device which uses the same action (laughter) to show how the birth of Isaac generated diverse and changing emotions.⁸

We also find multiple etiologies for the same expression. In I Samuel 10:12, we are told that the expression, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” derived from an incident where Saul began prophesying, right after he had been crowned king by Samuel. But a different background altogether is given much later in I Samuel 19:24. Saul once again begins prophesying, but this incident occurs after Saul’s daughter Michal is married to David, and his battles with the latter have already begun. In both cases, we are explicitly told that the event in question led to the expression.

In some cases, the double etiology is less explicit. For example, the name Edom for Esau. The Torah tells us Esau, identified with Edom, was called by this name because of the incident in which he traded his birthright for this red stuff (Gen. 25:30). However, he was also described earlier in Genesis 25:25 as being born admoni, reddish, making his name Edom a double etiology to both his hair color and the bowl of pottage.⁹

Other examples of non-explicit double etiologies are found in the names of some of the tribes. The name Issachar implies some sort of reward or payment. Genesis 30:18 states, that Leah said, God has rewarded me (sekhari) for giving my servant to my husband. So she named him Issachar, meaning that Issachar was named such as a reward for Leah giving Zilpah to Jacob. However, in Genesis 30:16 we find that When Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him. ‘You must sleep with me,’ she said. ‘I have hired you (sekhartikha) with my son’s mandrakes.’ The implication here is that it was Leah’s “payment” (of the dudaim) for Jacob that caused the name of the ensuing child to be named Issachar.¹⁰

In other cases two etiologies are implied as the naming takes place, which may indicate that the child’s name is based on two different words. For example, regarding Zebulun, Then Leah said, ‘God has presented me with a precious gift (zibadani zebed tob). This time my husband will treat me with honor (yizbeleni) because I have borne him six sons.’ So she named him Zebulun (Gen. 30:20). These are two completely different statements, meaning “God has given me a gift” and “now my husband will exalt me.” The root of the name can be understood as zebul or zebed, or possibly a play on both.

Similarly, with the naming of Joseph, Rachel said, ‘God has taken away (assaf) my disgrace.’ She named him Joseph, and said, ‘May the LORD add (Yosef) to me another son’ (Gen. 30:23). The source of the name is either that God had “gathered in” Rachel’s shame, or because an “additional” son had been granted her, or a combination of the two.

None of these tribes have a single straightforward etiology found by the other brothers (Naphtali and Asher, possibly, excepted) and each seems to have a double etiology.¹¹

The area of Mahanaim also presents us with what appears to be two different etiologies, even if not stated as such. On the one hand, Genesis 32:2 explicitly states that Jacob encountered angels in that location and, thinking the place to be in the camp of God, called it by that name, When Jacob saw them, he said, ‘This is the camp of God!’ So he named that place Mahanaim. However if this was the source of the name, there would have been no need for Jacob to call the place by the plural – he should have just called it Mahaneh. At the same time, an equally if not more plausible source appears just a few verses later. In Genesis 32:8 Jacob splits the family into two camps, reasoning that if one were attacked, the other would escape. As he remarks in Genesis 32:11, ‘I have become two camps.’ The Torah does not tell us explicitly that this is source of the name Mahanaim, but given the proximity of these two verses to the original etiology presented, we appear to have a case of two different etiologies for the same place.¹²

There are also cases where the etiology of a place is never explicitly stated at all, but rather implied or hinted to. Esau’s territory was called Har Seir (Gen. 36:9). Though never stated explicitly, the name seems to be based on the fact that Esau was an ish seir, as Jacob described him in Genesis 27:11. Har Seir was named for its most prominent citizen, Esau, the ish seir.¹³

The territory of Ishmael was known as Paran (Gen. 21:21). Though more hidden then in the case of Esau, this place may have also been named after its founder or most prominent citizen, Ishmael. In Genesis 16:12 Ishmael is described as pera adam, a wild ass of a man. This unusual appellation sounds very similar to Paran and may be connected to it.¹⁴

Another such hidden etiology concerns an example mentioned above, Gilgal. Gilgal (rolling) received its name because of God’s declaration there that I have today rolled away the disgrace of Egypt from the Israelites’ failure to circumcise their children (Josh. 5:9). However, later in Joshua we learn of another event that took place in Gilgal. Five kings the Israelites had been battling had fled, and were hiding in a cave in Makkeda. Joshua 10:18 tells us the instruction of Joshua, who was stationed in Gilgal, to guard the kings: And Joshua said, ‘Roll large rocks (golu avanim) up to the mouth of the cave, and post some men there to guard it.’ Joshua tells the men to roll rocks in front of the entrance. The narrative continues with a description of what happened to the kings, and concludes that the rocks they had rolled in front of the cave are still there to this day. This appears to be another subtle etiology to explain how a town perhaps called “Rolling Rock” got its name.

Other examples of hidden etiologies may be found, some more likely than others. In Judges 7:3 Gideon was directed to remove all “trembling” (harod) men from the army who would fight Midian. It is thus not by coincidence, and another hidden etiology, that the scene of this incident was in Ein Harod, “Spring of the Trembling” (Judg. 7:1).¹⁵ In II Samuel 21:6, the name of the place where the Gibeonites took revenge on Saul’s children is called Givat Shaul, with no mention or designation as an etiology.

The story of Judah and Tamar may also contain a hidden etiology. Genesis 38:14 tells us that Tamar sat waiting for Judah in Petah Einayim (literally “eye-opening”) disguised as a prostitute. This may be in reference to the fact that in the very same verse we are told that Tamar covered her face with a veil, presumably leaving only an opening for her eyes.¹⁶ In the battle between Jacob and the mysterious man, the name of the river where it occurred is casually mentioned, Yabbok (Gen. 32:23). It seems likely that it got this name because of the ma’avak (struggle) that occurred there. Likewise, without the Torah telling us explicitly, the area of Kadesh (where Moses struck the rock) seems to have received its name from the fact that there God affirmed his sanctity (va-yikdash) (Num. 20:13), or because it was there that Moses and Aharon did not trust Me enough to affirm My sanctity (lehakdisheni) (Num. 20:12).¹⁷

We have seen how etiologies frequently appear in Tanakh. Many times they are identified explicitly. Sometimes two or more etiologies can be found for the same place, and it is up to the reader to understand how the two are related. And then there are cases where the etiology is there, waiting to be discovered, but yet not visible to a simple surface reading. An understanding of these etiologies helps us better understand Tanakh, and opens up new vistas for experiencing the many layers of the Torah.