The HB's struggle with the enigmatic name יצחק

[Isaac Fried]

Read as a word, it means 'he will laugh', with undertones of mockery or derision. The act is from the root צחק CXQ, a relative of דחק DXQ, 'push', as in Judges 2:18, where it is translated by the KJV as 'vex', and in Joel 2:8, where it is rendered 'thrust, jostle', and thus, laughing is described as the thrusting of bursts of the spontaneous sound of gaiety.

Usage of the verb is confined almost entirely to latter part of the book of Genesis surrounding the birth of Isaac. It is an affliction of Abraham's household and starts with 17:17 ויפל אברהם על פניו, ויצחק ויאמר בלבו הלבן מאה שנה יולד ואם שרה הבת תשעים שנה תלד KJV: "Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?" A curious reaction to God's serious and explicit promise.
Then, one chapter further it is Sarah's turn to "laugh". In Gen. 18:12 we read ותצחק שרה בקרבה לאמר אחרי בלתי היתה לי עדנה ואדני זקן KJV: "Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?", leading to this bizarre and petty argument between the stern master of the universe, and the mirthful Sarah:
ויאמר יהוה אל אברהם  למה זה צחקה שרה לאמר האף אמנם אלד ואני זקנתי היפלא מיהוה דבר למועד אשוב אליך כעת חיה ולשרה בן ותכחש שרה לאמר לא צחקתי כי יראה ויאמר לא כי צחקת 
KJV: "And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh."

But the HB is still vexed by this act צחק and the name יצחק suspecting that there is more to it than an innocent chuckle, and that it may involve the action of the hands as in דחק and it brings it up again in a different context in Gen. 21:9 ותרא שרה את בן הגר המצרית אשר ילדה לאברהם מצחק leaving מצחק to our imagination. The great Hebrew interpreter Rashi comments on it that it may refer to some really nefarious behavior.

Later on, the HB edges closer to the point, and applies it twice to the intimate interaction between man and woman. First in Gen. 26:8 וישקף אבימלך מלך פלשתים בעד החלון וירא והנה יצחק מצחק את רבקה אשתו where מצחק is translated as 'sporting, caressing". Then in Gen. 39:14 about the incident of Joseph an his master's wife ראו הביא לנו איש עברי לצחק בנו בא אלי לשכב עמי

After that this basic human act צחק CAXAQ practically disappears from the HB.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Dear Isaac:

Please tell us the e-x-a-c-t meaning, in Hebrew, of the name “Isaac”. My gosh, Isaac, your analysis of the Hebrew verb “to laugh” is so naughty that I expect you may have the entire b-hebrew list blushing with your next post.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Isaac Fried]

In Ps. 105:9 the name appears as ישחק YI$XAQ with a sin or a shin. I suspect that this is the original name. It is theophoric, and is the combination איש-חק or איש-שחק His older brother's name has also איש in it, to wit: איש-מ-אל YI$-MA-EL.

Later editors possibly changed it to יצחק and concocted around this name the tale of the cackling golden-agers.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Isaac Fried:

1. The archaic spelling of “to laugh” is with a ssade/C, whereas the regular, non-archaic spelling is with a sin/s. The copy-editors could not update the spelling of “to laugh” in the Patriarchal narratives because that would have broken the link to the name “Isaac”, which is spelled with a ssade/C. Later books in the Bible, such as Jeremiah, not only spell “to laugh” with a sin, but they also spell the name “Isaac” with a sin as well -- updating the spelling of both the common word and the proper name. I don’t know why you would say as to that: “I suspect that this is the original name.” Not. The original spelling of “Isaac” is with a ssade/C, per the archaic spelling of “to laugh” with a ssade/C.

2. Consequently, I cannot accept the following blasphemous suggestion of yours: “Later editors possibly changed it to יצחק and concocted around this name the tale of the cackling golden-agers.” Rather, “Isaac” spelled with a ssade/C is the original, archaic spelling. Moreover, “the tale of the cackling golden-agers” is original, and was not “concocted” later.

3. In the name “Ishma-El”, which is a fine west Semitic name with no Hurrian meaning, wouldn’t you agree that the sole theophoric is “El”? Perhaps I’m missing your point there.

4. Now we look at the strange name “Isaac”, which in west Semitic seems to be missing its theophoric. Scholars say that the long form version would have been: “Isaac-El”.

But you seem to be seeing an express theophoric in there, when you add at the beginning a prosthetic aleph/’. You oddly do the same thing for the name “Ishmael”.
Please explain your theory of what the name “Isaac” means. If you’re saying that it has an express theophoric in Hebrew (not an implied Amorite theophoric per the scholarly analysis), please explain that.

5. In Hurrian, the name “Isaac” has a very fine meaning: “He Sits in High Position Next to God”. (Note in that connection that the birth name of Isaac’s mother is impossible in any west Semitic language, while making perfect sense in Hurrian.) For the name “Isaac” to work in Hurrian, we need precisely four Hebrew letters (though, to be honest, almost any sibilant could work, rather than ssade/C being specifically required): yod/Y – sibilant – heth/X – qof/Q [or kaf/K would also work]. But if you add an aleph/’ at the beginning, that ruins the Hurrian analysis. Where Hebrew yod/Y is used to render the Hurrian true vowel A as its own separate syllable: YCXQ [“Isaac”] is the expected Hebrew rendering of a-a$-xu-qi in Hurrian, which as noted above has a suitably fine meaning for the name of Patriarch #2: “He Sits in High Position Next to God”.

* * *

Please explain your theory of what the name “Isaac” means, especially regarding how you are seeing, by adding a prosthetic aleph/’ at the beginning, an express theophoric in Hebrew. “Isaac” is a mysterious name which, like the names “Sarai”, “Abraham” and “Esau”, is never attested in west Semitic non-biblically in the ancient world.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Isaac Fried]

1. The theophoric part in ישחק is איש as in so many other names, including שדי $ADAYI containing איש and עד
Methinks that the Semitic אש E$ or איש IY$ is present also in the English 'East'.

2. It is not clear to me what you consider as the "original" text.

3. I have to ignore any of your references to "Hurrian".

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Dear Isaac:

Why are you being so coy on this thread?

Please tell us what you see as being the e-x-a-c-t meaning of the name “Isaac”.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Isaac Fried]

Jim,
I am afraid you misunderstood my words. The name יצחק (that I myself carry upon me for a good number of years now, as did my grandfather before me) is not a word, certainly not of any grammatical structure, and has, in my opinion, nothing to do with 'laughing, pushing around, horse playing'. No mother in her right mind would call her son "he will laugh" (and the same goes for ראובן "look-a-son!").

It is surely a puzzling name. One may naively construe the name ABRAM as AB-RAM, 'exalted father', and interpret Sarah as 'the princess', but what to do with an YICXAQ? There was no alphabetic writing at the time of ABRAHAM (if I am not wrong the act כתב KATAB 'write' appears not even once in the entire book of Genesis. I am also aware of your theory about the "original" 'cuneiform' rendering of the patriarchal story, but I must ignore it as I know nothing about this system of markings) and later writers of the story did their own dogmatic manipulations to expunge the early names of any pagan recalls.

They entered an ע into the name ישמעאל and wrote ישחק with a צ justifying it with an elaborate story about the impulsive giggling of a pair of old timers hearing that they are about to have a son.

In my opinion, the component יש of יש-חק is איש IY$ (recall the והנה שלשה אנשים נצבים עליו). It is a common theophoric reference, and is present in the names ישמעאל, ישראל, שמשון, שמעון, שמואל, ישי and many many more. The other part of the name is possibly שחק $AXAQ, 'heaven, sky', as in Deut. 33:26.

In any event, I think it is a good time to leave this issue and move on.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Isaac Fried:

1. You wrote: “No mother in her right mind would call her son ‘he will laugh’.”

(a) Agreed. That’s why there is no west Semitic name “Isaac” attested outside of the Bible in the ancient world.

(b) But per chapter 17 of Genesis it was not Sarah who chose that name; it was YHWH. Would you agree that YHWH knew languages other than Hebrew? Or is that a forbidden thought?

Chapter 17 of Genesis does not tell us what the name “Isaac” means, nor does it say that “Isaac” is a west Semitic name.

2. You wrote: “[L]ater writers of the story did their own dogmatic manipulations to expunge the early names of any pagan recalls.”

This is perhaps our main source of disagreement. The first Hebrew was the author of the Patriarchal narratives, and he selected and/or created all of the names in the Patriarchal narratives. He made sure that most names had no “pagan recalls”, and in particular that names of Hebrews were not pagan-based. So there was no reason for later editors to change any names in the Patriarchal narratives to get rid of “pagan recalls”.

3. You wrote: “They entered an ע into the name ישמעאל and wrote ישחק with a צ justifying it with an elaborate story about the impulsive giggling of a pair of old timers hearing that they are about to have a son.”

(a) I don’t understand your theory that an ayin/‘ had to be added to the name “Ishmael”. Per Genesis 16: 11, Y$M‘-’L is based on the verb $M‘. The ayin/‘ is there from the beginning, and does not need to be added.

(b) Why would an editor change the spelling of “Isaac” in order to come up with “an elaborate story about the impulsive giggling of a pair of old timers hearing that they are about to have a son”?

Those explanations don’t ring true to me.

4. The name “Sarai” is impossible in west Semitic. The name “Esau” makes no sense in west Semitic. The name “Isaac” seems tortured in west Semitic.

Don’t you think that both YHWH, and the first Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives, knew languages other than Hebrew?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Isaac Fried]

Jim,
Your argument is much clearer to me now. Thank you for its conciseness. But:
1 (a) The fact that the name יצחק is not "attested" in the ancient world outside the HB means nothing. Ancient parents were very inventive in producing, on the spur-of-the-moment, a novel, original and significant name for a newly born child. Biblical names do not repeat; there is only one Isaac, and only one Abraham.
1 (b) I am sorry, but I really refuse to listen to any "Hurrian".

3 (a) I suspect that the letter ע was inserted into the name ישמאל precisely to mislead us into seeing שמע 'hear'. And what about the initial י YI- in his name, what is this?

3 (b) However you look at it, the constant reference to the "laughing" of Abraham and Sarah appears forced and contrived. It is obvious that the editor of the patriarchal narrative is at total loss as to the meaning of the name יצחק while, at the same time, being sure that there must be something significant coded in it.

4 The combination SR may be the word שר SAR, or it may be the combination אש + אור The couplet SR is also present in the names אשר A$ER, עשתורת A$TORET, and אסתר ESTER. The ending -AY is, methinks, an ancient plural form, as in the sacred אדוני ADON-AY and שדי $AD-AY.
The name עשו seems to make no sense (and who says a name needs to make sense) because it is the obviously devious editorial twisting of איש-אב IY$-AB. An א is trickily turned into an ע and a ב into a ו, to confound the eye while still placating the ear.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Isaac Fried:

1. You wrote: “The fact that the name יצחק is not "attested" in the ancient world outside the HB means nothing. Ancient parents were very inventive in producing, on the spur-of-the-moment, a novel, original and significant name for a newly born child.”

That type of analysis would apply to the name “Esau”, which is a birthing name. But that analysis does not apply to the name “Isaac”, as YHWH is portrayed as coming up with that name, rather than it being a birthing name.

The name “Isaac” should have a profound meaning. And it does, just not in west Semitic. (“Esau” has no meaning in west Semitic, but rather is a non-Semitic name that means “Dark Red Ebony”.)

2. You wrote: “Biblical names do not repeat; there is only one Isaac, and only one Abraham.”

Most Biblical names do repeat. You have picked out two Biblical names that don’t repeat because they are not exclusively west Semitic.

3. You wrote: “I am sorry, but I really refuse to listen to any ‘Hurrian’.”

Hello, hello? Well then who, pray tell, are the Horites, the Hivites, the Hittites, the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Perizzites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites? They’re all Hurrians! The Hurrians were an integral part of the world of the Patriarchs. Note that at least three of the four Matriarchs (Rebekah, Leah, Rachel) come from eastern Syria, which is the heartland of the Hurrians, so the necessary implication is that their mothers (though not their fathers) were Hurrians.

Isaac Fried, I don’t quite understand the virulent distaste that you and university scholars seem to have for Hurrians. The Hurrians never did anything wrong to the Hebrews!!! The Hurrians were high-class, educated, sophisticated people who, because of economic hard times, were more than willing to have their daughters marry Hebrews. What’s so bad about that? Compared to the Philistines, the Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians and the Babylonians, all of whom opposed the Hebrews, the Hurrians look pretty darn good to me. If Rebekah blurted out a Hurrian name (per her Hurrian mother) meaning (in Hurrian) “Dark Red Ebony” when Esau was born with “dark red ebony” hair color, what’s wrong with that? Besides, that deftly foreshadows that, per chapter 36 of Genesis, Esau is fated to prosper with his Hurrian in-laws in the northern Transjordan, rather than inheriting any part of Canaan proper. Note how e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g makes perfect sense, on all levels, if one is willing to defy university scholars and a-s-k if “Esau” may be a Hurrian name.

4. You wrote: “I suspect that the letter ע was inserted into the name ישמאל precisely to mislead us into seeing שמע 'hear'.”

Why is there anything suspicious about the name “Ishmael”? It’s an exclusively Hebrew name, and Genesis 16: 11 tells us exactly what it means. Although Hagar had been living in Egypt, she likely was a Canaanite (whose Canaanite parents had fled to Egypt in desperation) who spoke Canaanite/pre-Hebrew, not an ethnic Egyptian. So west Semitic is the only language that would make sense to Hagar for the name of her child.

5. You wrote: “However you look at it, the constant reference to the "laughing" of Abraham and Sarah appears forced and contrived. It is obvious that the editor of the patriarchal narrative is at total loss as to the meaning of the name יצחק while, at the same time, being sure that there must be something significant coded in it.”

There is more clever punning in the Patriarchal narratives than in all the rest of the books of the Bible combined. The early Hebrew author simply cannot resist making pun after pun after nifty pun on “Isaac”, per its secondary meaning of “laugh”. But the Hebrew author knows the profound, primary, non-Semitic meaning of the name “Isaac”.

6. As to Sarah’s birth name “Sarai”, you wrote: “The ending -AY is, methinks, an ancient plural form, as in the sacred אדוני ADON-AY and שדי $AD-AY.”

Yes, the name of a deity can have such an archaic ending. But no human female in the entirety of the ancient world has such an archaic ending for a west Semitic name. “Sarai” is not a Semitic name. Neither of Sarah’s birth parents were Semitic. Terah, a Semite, adopted Sarai for the purpose of having her marry Terah’s son Abram.
That’s why Terah thought of her as a daughter-in-law (Genesis 11: 31), not as a daughter. That also means, you see, that Sarai/Sarah would of course well understand the non-Semitic, primary, profound meaning of the name divinely-bestowed by YHWH upon her only son: “Isaac”. See how everything makes perfect sense? It’s just a question of realizing that the names “Sarai” and “Esau” are exclusively non-Semitic names, and the name “Isaac” is primarily a non-Semitic name.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois