COLUMBIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

ל�ש�ו�ן נו�פ�ל על ל�ש�ו�ן LANGUAGE FALLING UPON LANGUAGE:

WORDPLAY IN THE BOOKS OF THE EIGHTH-CENTURY PROPHETS

SUBMITTED TO DR. BRENNAN W. BREEDIN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

B539: EIGHTH-CENTURY PROPHETS

BYMATTHEW A. LEEJANUARY 20, 2014

INTRODUCTION

Beginning with the first verse in the Hebrew Bible, one does not have to read but a

couple of words to come across a “play on words,” which is common throughout the biblical text

and makes interesting the message of the biblical author. The author of Gen 1:1 has constructed

the story so that it begins with the same three radicals that form the root of the verb “to

create”: ברא; “In the beginning (אש��ית�ב��ר) God created (ב��ר�א) heaven and earth.1 Continuing in

the book of Genesis, one then reads that God formed man from the dust of the ground in 2:7.

God formed man (א�ד�ם) from the dust of the ground (א�ד�מ�ה). These two examples in Genesis

show that readers will come upon wordplay quite often throughout the biblical text. In Puns and

Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature, Gary Rendsburg

puts it best by saying that these examples in the opening words of the Bible “set the tenor for the

Bible as a whole, for the biblical authors consistently opted for the word play, especially the

alliterative type, whenever the opportunity arose.”2 Now turning to the books of the eighth-

century prophets, one comes across much wordplay in the poetry and prophetic literature of

Isaiah son of Amoz, Hosea, Amos, and Micah.

The early rabbis referred to such types of wordplay, especially types that fell under

paronomasia, as ל ל�ש�ו�ןל ע�ל�ש�ו�ן נו�פ , “language falling upon language.” Paronomasia can be

understood as words having similarity of sound but a dissimilarity of meaning, or words that

sound alike but have different derivations. However, if two etymologies are suggested by a

single word and both can be legitimately understood in the context, it is more properly classified

1 S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOT 70; Bible and Literature Series 17; Sheffield: Almond, 1989; Hebrew original 1979), 203, in Gary A. Rendsburg, ed., “Word Play in the Hebrew Bible: An Eclectic Collection,” in Puns and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2000), 137.

2 Rendsburg, “Word Play,” 137-138.

1

as polysemy.3 There will be other types of wordplay in discussion as we come across them in the

books of the eighth-century prophets. I will be discussing examples from the Song of the

Unfruitful Vineyard and the name Maher-shalal-hash-baz in 8:1 of First Isaiah, the names given

to the kids and the word ר� in Hosea, the vision of the basket of summer fruit in Amos, and א�ש�ו

various names of cities in Micah.

FIRST ISAIAH

Song of the Unfruitful Vineyard

The Song of the Unfruitful Vineyard, sung by the prophet Isaiah in 5:1-7, is perhaps one

of the most dramatic passages in the Hebrew Bible in its language and symbolism. The prophet

sings for his beloved and the beloved’s vineyard, describing how the beloved one tended to the

vineyard. After reading what will happen to the vineyard, one reads that the prophet’s beloved

will “command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it,” revealing that it is Yahweh of whom

Isaiah sings. Thus the conclusion in verse 7 makes apparent that the house of Israel is the

vineyard of Yahweh and the people of Judah his “pleasant planting.” However, what follows

identifies the prophet’s point in this unique song: “he expected justice, but saw bloodshed;

righteousness, but heard a cry!”

The song ends abruptly and the prophet goes no further. Isaiah leaves it to his hearers to

draw the conclusion that Israel and Judah will be subject to the judgment of Yahweh.4 Yahweh

expected justice (ט� ) but heard a cry ,(צ�ד�ק�ה) righteousness ;(מ�ש�פ�ח) but saw bloodshed ,(מ�ש��פ�

Between the words “justice” and “bloodshed,” the roots differ; however, the words .(צ�ע�ק�ה

sound similar and almost rhyme, which is rare in the Hebrew Bible. But between the words

33 Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolokzy, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi, eds., Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (vol. 3; Boston: Brill, 2013), 24.

44 Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), 62.

2

“righteousness” and “cry,” the roots differ with regards to one radical: צדק – to be just,

righteous; צעק – to cry, cry out, call. This type of wordplay, when roots are employed that

differ with respect to only one of the three radicals, is called parasonance.5 For reference, a

classic case of parasonance can be found in Gen 11 when Yahweh punishes Babel (ב��ב#ל) by

confusing (לב��ל) the language of the people.

What is interesting in the prophet’s song is the use and construction of the conclusion to

the song. Yahweh expected justice (positive; upkeeps the covenant between Yahweh and the

people), but saw bloodshed (negative; tears down the covenant between Yahweh and the people).

And, assuming the same verb, Yahweh expected righteousness, but heard a cry. The prophet uses

“expected” to denote covenantal language. For the negative responses, concrete words are used

to describe the severity: but saw bloodshed; but heard a cry. It is important to note number of

times these words are used by the prophet. ט� is used 20 times in First Isaiah and (justice) מ�ש��פ�

10 times. Isaiah and other eighth-century prophets commonly use these (righteousness) צ�ד�ק�ה

words. Interestingly, פ�ח� occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible and it is the prophet Isaiah מ�ש

who uses it to conclude the song. Similarly, while it occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, the

only occurrence of צ�ע�ק�ה in First Isaiah is here, the last word in the Song of the Unfruitful

Vineyard.

Maher-shalal-hash-baz

Following the reassurance and sign of Immanuel that Isaiah gives Ahaz, the prophet is

instructed to take a large tablet and write on it in common characters, “Maher-shalal-hash-baz.”

While the name of the child reaffirms the promise to Ahaz, it also is symbolic and its meaning is

odd. Looking at them individually, one sees that each word makes sense alone. However, as the

Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics states, the combined reading is

55 Khan, Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language, 26.

3

grammatically awkward and lends the expression a helter-skelter feel.6 This is referred to as

farrago, an unclear expression used to employ paronomasia. ר�המ (Maher) and ש��ל�ל (shalal) are

similar in sound; ח�ש� (hash) and זב� (baz) are also similar in sound. Thus Maher-shalal-hash-baz,

meaning, “swift is the booty, speedy is the prey,” is a symbolic name for the child and one of

many uses of farrago in the Hebrew Bible.

HOSEA

Jezreel, Lo-ruhamah, and Lo-ammi

The book of Hosea begins by relating the prophet’s activities to the reigns of Jeroboam

and Uzziah in the eighth-century. Just after that, at the beginning of the book of Hosea, the Lord

said to the prophet, “Go, take for yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom,

for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.” Hosea is commissioned to marry a

wife who is prone to adultery and to have children, which represents Israel’s involvement with

fertility deities and sexual rites. Hosea marries Gomer and has a son, and the Lord says to Hosea,

“Name him Jezreel; for in a little I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I

will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel.” ר�ע#אל� which means, “God ,(Jezreel) יז

sows,” does not have any symbolic significance in this story, except for the geographical site, the

Valley of Jezreel. However, one must note that the Valley of Jezreel was the site of King Jehu’s

massacre of the rest of Ahab’s followers, friends, and priests in 2 Kings and is synonymous with

bloodshed.7

Then in verse 6, Gomer conceived again and bore a daughter. Only with the first child,

Jezreel, does it say that Hosea’s wife bore him a child; therefore, the second and third children

66 Khan, Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language, 28. 77 Thomas Edward McComisky, ed., Hosea, Joel, and Amos (vol. 1 of The Minor

Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary; ed. Thomas Edward McComisky; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 19.

4

are literally children of whoredom. The Lord instructed Hosea to name the daughter Lo-

ruhamah. א ר&ח�מ�ה�ל (Lo-ruhamah) means, “not pitied,” because the Lord no longer pitied the

house of Israel. Yahweh’s lack of pity on the house of Israel was to result in its extinction.

Thomas Edward McComiskey states: “In a striking antithesis Hosea represents the Lord as

saying that he will have mercy on Judah. The reason for this expression of pity for the southern

kingdom is not stated, only the affirmation that they will be delivered by the Lord, not by their

own might.”8 It is apparent then that with the name Lo-ruhamah, which is associated with

prostitution in 2:4, Yahweh had no pity on the people of Israel.

When she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, Gomer conceived and bore a son, and the son was

named Lo-ammi, which means “not my people.” Once י ל�א עמ�� (Lo-ammi) is named, Yahweh

says, “For you are not my people and I am not your God.” This striking statement by Yahweh is

anti-covenantal language and reflects the promise given to Abraham (Gen. 17) and the promise

given in its fuller form—“You will be my people” (Exod. 6:7, Lev. 26:12).9 The prophet Hosea

seems to quote Yahweh saying, “I am not your God,” (Heb: “I am not yours”) to ultimately

reflect denial of the loving relationship between husband (Yahweh) and wife (people of Israel).

�ר א�ש�ו

Later in the book of Hosea, one reads about the relentless judgment on Israel. Thus,

Yahweh is speaking and describing why there will be judgment, reminding the people that they

were once slaves in Egypt and, because of Yahweh, were brought out of slavery: “Yet I have

been the Lord your God ever since the land of Egypt.” But the covenant was broken and the

people of Israel “forgot Yahweh,” as verse 6 reads, and then Yahweh presents the stipulations

88 McComiskey, Hosea, Joel, and Amos, 25. 99 McComiskey, Hosea, Joel, and Amos, 27.

5

and what will happen. One reads in verse 7: “So I will become like a lion to them, like a leopard

I will lurk beside the way.” Metaphor and great imagery describes the God of Israel.

The verb ר� �ר used in verse 7, is the imperfect use of ,א�ש�ו which means, “to watch ,ש�ו

stealthily, lie in wait.” This is of course perfect to describe a lion and seems normal being

prophetic literature. Reading ahead to verse 9, one reads that Yahweh will destroy the people of

Israel and as presented in the prophetic literature, the Assyrians were responsible for the

destruction of Israel in the late eighth-century. By simply adding a dagesh to the verb in verse 7,

the word becomes ר� which is the Hebrew for Assyria. As one reads through the book of ,אש��ו

Hosea, the prophet warns the people of Israel about Assyria. Therefore, while names are

symbolic throughout the Hebrew Bible, the author here cleverly used the verb to describe the

actions of Yahweh that parallels with the proper name Assyria, to foreshadow the destruction of

the northern kingdom.

AMOS

Among the eighth-century prophetic books, Amos may be the one that speaks most of the

end time of the people of Israel. There is very little hope in the prophet’s message. As with

Hosea, the book of Amos recognizes the reign of the Israelite and Judean kings, Jeroboam and

Uzziah. In chapter 8, the first of the last three visions, there is clever wordplay between the

prophet and Yahweh, one that alludes to the destruction of Israel. Yahweh asks the prophet,

“Amos, what do you see?” The prophet replies, “A basket of summer fruit,” to which Yahweh

replies back, “The end has come upon my people Israel; I will never again pass them by.”

This conversation between the prophet and Yahweh is a classic example of paronomasia;

both words are similar in sound (although the roots do not match up) but dissimilar in meaning.

Amos sees יץ � end ,ק�ץ a basket of summer fruit, to which Yahweh informs the prophet that the ,ק�

6

(usually of time), has come for the people of the Israel. The prophet’s vision is a pleasant,

welcoming one; the deity’s response is a hopeless one. This short but powerful interaction shows

that Amos does not have the opportunity to intercede before Yahweh offers the word of decisive

judgment, as David Petersen suggests.1010 By the end of the vision from Yahweh and the

paronomasia one reads, it is apparent that Israel can no longer escape the destruction from

Yahweh.

MICAH

There has been much scholarly work done on Micah 1:10-16, for the wordplay and

meaning between the cities and their predicted doom is fascinating. Hence, the name of the city

foreshadows the doom. Though McComisky asserts an important note: “Bear in mind, however,

that Micah is not a linguist; his jeux de mots depend on sound, not on precise etymologies or

phonemic equivalence.”1111 The phrase “Tell it not in Gath” initiates the sound play in this

section; I will be discussing a select few of these after the phrase.

Beth-leaphrah

The next city named is Beth-leaphrah; as the NRSV reads: “in Beth-leaphrah roll

yourselves in the dust.” פ�ר�הית ל�ע�ב (Beth-leaphrah) sounds like and alludes to its omen, which

is ע�פ�ר (dust). Essentially what Micah is saying is, “In the House of Dust, or House that is

characterized by Dust, roll yourselves in the dust.” As McComisky notes, rolling in dust

symbolized humiliation and defeat (Gen 3:14; Ps. 44:26).1212

Zaanan

1010 David L. Petersen, The Prophetic Literature: An Introduction (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 187.

1111 Thomas Edward McComisky, ed., Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk (vol. 2 of The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary; ed. Thomas Edward McComisky; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 625. jeux de mots (French), play on words, pun.

1212 McComisky, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, 627.

7

Verse 11 presents several examples of paronomasia, or specifically assonance, which is

simply a play on sound. First, one reads, “Pass on, inhabitants of Saphir!” The Hebrew for

“inhabitants” is יו�ש�#ב#ת, which sounds very similar to the word for “shame,” ב�ש�#ת, which one sees

two lines down. Next, the word to call the inhabitants naked is ה� which is similar in sound ,ע#ר�י

with the verb ע�ב�ר�י, “pass on.” Analyzing the mentioning of Zaanan raises many questions since

Zaanan is mentioned nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, thus the location of Zaanan is unknown,

unless “Zenan” is its synonym, which is mentioned in Josh 15:37. McComisky suggests two

approaches to the wordplay in the city name of Zaanan: 1) Zaanan is related to the Hebrew word

for “flocks,” reading, “the inhabitants for Flock Town will no longer go forth in pastoral

gladness with their flocks.” 2) Zaanan is related to word meaning, “to go forth,” which would

then read, “the inhabitants of Going Forth Town do not come forth to battle.”1313 While both of

these suggestions show connection between words, it seems as if the verb “to go forth” (and

Zaanan) are there to stand in contrast with the next city, Beth-ezel.

Beth-ezel

ב��ית ה�א�צ#ל (Beth-ezel) probably derives from the verb לא�צ, which means, “to lay aside,

reserve, withdraw.” Thus one could read, “House of the Taking Away/Withdrawing.” This fits,

since the NRSV reads: “Beth-ezel is wailing and shall remove its support from you.” Standing in

contrast with Zaanan who did not come forth to help the inhabitants of Shaphir, the House of the

Taking Away offers no place to take a stand and will remove its support.

Lachish

Verse 13 presents irony through the paronomasia with the word for “steeds” and the city

Lachish. The word for steeds is כ#ש� � making it, “to the ,ל� only the Hebrew adds the preposition ,ר�

steeds.” The steeds were swift riding horses, which is contrasted to ס� the word for chariot ,סו

1313 McComisky, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, 628.

8

horses, to which the war chariot were usually hitched (Mic 5:9). McComisky gives his take on

the pungent irony: “Harness your war chariots to your swift horses for the fastest evacuation

possible. By means of neck harnesses two or four horses abreast were bound to a chariot.”1414

Moresheth-gath

“It was the beginning of sin to daughter Zion, for in you were found the transgressions of

Israel.” Then in verse 14, Micah mentions giving parting gifts to Moresheth-gath, which, as 1:1

reads, is the hometown of Micah. The “you” in verse 14 is referring to daughter Zion from the

last verse. To better understand the meaning of this instruction, one must look closely at the word

meaning “parting gifts.” ח�ים� �ו is the word meaning, “sending away, parting gifts” and it ש��ל

connotes one of two things: 1) the dismissal of a wife to her father’s house, which can be found

in Exod. 18:2, or 2) the dismissal gift of the father of a bride to the groom. Looking at the verse

carefully, it seems as if Moresheth-gath is playing the role of bride. Thus after the wordplay,

Zion must give a gift along with the bride (Moresheth-gath).

Achzib

Lastly, the prophet follows the instruction to give parting gifts to Moresheth-gath by

stating that the house of Achzib shall be a deception to the kings of Israel. Interestingly, the word

�ב ב which is similar in sound, means, “deceptive, disappointing,” coming from the verb ,אכ�ז ��ז ,כ

meaning, “to lie, be a liar.” As he is pronouncing judgment, Micah is also saying that Achzib

will deceive the expectations of Israel’s rulers of financial gain from its workshops brought about

by its fall to the Assyrians and their deportation of its productive inhabitants.1515 Nonetheless, as

many of the place-names have foretold the predicted doom by the prophet, here, too, the house of

Achzib will be nothing but a deception to the kings of Israel.

1414 McComisky, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, 630.1515 McComisky, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, 631. It is argued here that

“Houses of Achzib” is better translated as “Workshops of Achzib,” like in Jer. 18:2.

9

CONCLUSION

Returning to the opening examples from Genesis, one may conclude that wordplay in the

biblical text plays a particular role, a role that serves the prophet’s (or author’s) purpose in a

given message. For the author to describe the origin of the heavens and earth with the same

Hebrew root is a literary tool that connects the words within the overall verse. In a similar way,

,shows a literary connection in the real meaning of the text א�ד�מ�ה being formed from the א�ד�ם

which was ultimately the biblical authors’ goal. While finding wordplay throughout the biblical

text is fascinating, it also shows, I believe, the real significance of the message that encompasses

the text.

Moreover, ל ל�ש�ו�ןל ע�ל�ש�ו�ן נו�פ sheds new light on the text in the Hebrew Bible for the

eighth-century prophets. “Language falling upon language,” especially in the prophetic literature,

is perhaps what really illuminates the meaning of the prophet’s words or the written text. For

Isaiah, it was emphasizing the wrongdoings of the people of Israel in the Song of the Unfruitful

Vineyard and reaffirming Yahweh’s promise to Ahaz with the ambiguous name. In Hosea, one

reads about Yahweh’s dramatic act through the names of the children and the meaning of the

word similar to “Assyria.” The vision Amos had of a basket of summer fruit is reversed when

Yahweh pronounces the end of the people of Israel, for the message of Amos is one of little

hope. And finally, the prophet Micah predicts the doom of the cities of Judah, while the doom

itself is foreshadowed in the name of the city. Thus one can see that wordplay throughout the

biblical text is not only fascinating, but also is important to the original text itself. Language

falling upon language, whether between the sound of two words or meaning (or both), reveals

and illuminates the intent of the biblical authors in the Hebrew Bible.

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.

Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972.

Khan, Geoffrey, Shmuel Bolokzy, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi, eds. Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Vol. 3. Boston: Brill, 2013.

11

McComisky, Thomas Edward, eds. The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.

Petersen, David L. The Prophetic Literature: An Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

Rendsburg, Gary A. “Word Play in the Hebrew Bible: An Eclectic Collection.” Pages 137-162 in Scott B. Noegel, ed. Puns and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2000.

12