X, X ben Y, ben Y:
Personal Names in Hebrew Narrative Style
Published in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 240-62
open footnotes 1. The X ben Y Form
Abner is sometimes called Abner, sometimes Abner b. Ner; Jeroboam appears both as Jeroboam and as Jeroboam b. Nebat; Gideon is usually Gideon or Jerubbaal, except for three places where he is called Jerubbaal b. Joash. Shimei is four times Shimei b. Gera, and fourteen times simply Shimei, but Sheba is invariably Sheba b. Bichri on the eight occasions he is mentioned by name. Similar variations occur in the names of other personages in the historical books. Judging by the lack of attention this phenomenon receives in the commentaries one must assume that the choice of the name-forms 'X' or 'X ben Y' is generally thought to be arbitrary.
This view may be questioned, however. While it is impossible to be certain that one has correctly identiÞed the reason for the use of one of the name-forms in a particular passage, it will become clear from the present study that a number of factors that inþuence the narrator's choice of name-form may be distinguished. That is, when both 'X' and 'X ben Y' are in use for an individual, it can be observed that the long form 'X ben Y' is used:
a. for clarity, to distinguish, e.g., X ben Y from X ben Z
b. for reasons of narrative form
(i) to introduce a new character into a narrative/1/
(ii) to introduce a new scene in which the character appears
(iii) when a speaker mentions a character for the Þrst time (an extension of [i] and [ii])
(iv) in initial or concluding summaries
c. for formality
(i) in legal formulations
(ii) in prophetic oracles
(iii) in other formal and ofÞcial phrases
(iv) in stereotyped formulas, e.g. royal synchronisms
d. for contextual signiÞcance
(i) where the relationship (of X to Y) is meaningful in the context
(ii) where the name Y has some signiÞcance for the narrative.
Each of these offers a quite natural occasion for the use of the long form, and most could be readily paralleled in modern English usage. What is noteworthy is that the use of the 'X ben Y' form can be reduced to so small a set of contexts. It is of course obvious that a clear distinction between the uses mentioned above cannot always be maintained: thus it could well be argued that the 'X ben Y' form in legal formulations is motivated by a need for clarity rather than for formality, but the analysis will, it is hoped, prove useful practically.
It needs to be remarked that the long form 'X ben Y' is not always employed when one of the situations analysed above arises; one can only hope to show why 'X ben Y' is used when it is used, and one cannot usually speculate about why it is not used.
The reasons for the use of one name-form rather than the other become clear primarily through an examination of names in their setting, so it is proposed to trace certain names throughout the narratives in which they occur. The names studied are arranged in the order of their Þrst occurrence in the Bible.
Ehud. The use of the 'X ben Y' (hereafter 'XbY') form in Ehud's case is a simple example of type b i. In Judg. 3.15 'Yahweh raised up a deliverer, Ehud b. Gera, a Benjaminite', the hero of the narrative is Þrst introduced with the long name-form. Thereafter throughout the story he appears simply as Ehud (vv. 16, 18, 20, etc.).
Barak at his Þrst mention is 'Barak b. Abinoam' (Judg. 4.6), while his town and tribal afÞliation are also noted, though integrally with the narrative ('Deborah called Barak b. Abinoam from Kadesh Naphtali') rather than, as is more usual, merely appended to the name (cf. Ehud). Throughout the narrative we have 'Barak' simply, except in one place (v. 12): 'And they (indeÞnite) told Sisera: Barak b. Abinoam has gone up to Mount Tabor'. This sudden reversal to the 'XbY' form is not arbitrary but can be explained as a vivid trick of style whereby the narrator reproduces not only the direct speech of the spies of Sisera but even the name-form they would have used (assuming they spoke Hebrew), for from their perspective Barak is a new character in the action. So this is type b iii./2/
In v. 1 the heading of the poetic version of the battle introduces a new scene: after the battle Deborah and 'Barak b. Abinoam' (type b ii) sang. In the poem itself Barak is simply 'Barak', except in v. 12 where 'son of Abinoam' ('ben Y' form, see below) is a parallel to 'Barak'.
Gideon is usually referred to as Gideon or Jerubbaal (the variation between the two X-form names does not concern us here), but in Þve places the 'XbY' form is used. He is not introduced with the 'XbY' form, since the opening sentence of the Gideon story proper (Judg. 6.11) happens to mention Gideon's father Joash Þrst, and so it would be unnecessary to say 'Gideon b. Joash'. Still, a surrogate for the 'XbY' form, namely 'X his son', is used. The long form 'XbY' Þrst appears in Judg. 6.29, where the men of the town, having investigated the crime of the deposed Baal altar, say 'Gideon b. Joash has done this thing'. This may be the vivid narrative technique of perspective reporting (type b iii); it is the Þrst time the men of the town mention Gideon. But in view of the legal phrasing of the sentence 'has done this thing',/3/ we may suppose that the long form is used for formality's sake (type c i).
In 7.14 the Midianite's dream of the barley loaf is interpreted by his comrade: 'This is nothing else but the sword of Gideon b. Joash, a man of Israel'. The narrative type b iii is the most obvious explanation, but there is also an element of formality present (cf. type c iii), as the phrase 'a man of Israel' also shows.
8.13 'Then Gideon b. Joash returned from the battle by the ascent of Heres'. This is certainly not an introduction to Gideon, but it does mark a new phase or scene in the narrative (type b ii). The 'XbY' form adds no new information but acted as a paragraph divider in a long chain of waw consecutives.
8.29 'Jerubbaal b. Joash went and dwelt in his own house' may be viewed as either a concluding formula (type b iv) or as initiating a new paragraph (b ii).
8.32 'Gideon b. Joash died . . . and was buried in the tomb of Joash his father'. The 'XbY' form is otiose in view of 'Joash his father' in the same sentence, but may be explained as a concluding formula (type b iv; cf. 3.11 'Then Othniel b. Kenaz died'; 12.15 'Then Abdon b. Hillel the Pirathonite died').
Abimelech is a much simpler case. He is introduced in Judg. 9.1 as 'Abimelech b. Jerubbaal' (type b i), and thereafter is simply 'Abimelech' (36 times) except for one place where he is referred to as 'the son of Jerubbaal' (v. 28), the 'ben Y' form about which more will be said later.
The case of Gaal b. Ebed, the opponent of Abimelech, is an interesting one. Not only is he introduced as Gaal b. Ebed (Judg. 9.26), but the narrative continues with the 'XbY' form.
9.28 'And Gaal b. Ebed said: Who is Abimelech?'
9.30 'When Zebul the ruler of the city heard the words of Gaal b. Ebed his anger was kindled'. Here, even in an oblique case, where the sentence focuses attention on another character, Gaal is given the full form.
9.31 'He sent messengers to Abimelech . . . saying, Behold, Gaal b. Ebed and his kinsmen have come to Shechem'. This could be type b iii, but a comprehensive explanation of all the occurrences is preferable.
9.35 'And Gaal b. Ebed went out and stood in the entrance of the gate of the city'. This could perhaps be an example of type b ii, but we could hardly claim there has been a signiÞcant change of scene.
Hereafter, however, in 9.36, 37, 39, 41, it is surprising that only the short form Gaal is used.
It may be that the reason for the repeated use of the full form is that the name of this villain is regarded as signiÞcant (type d ii): it is ironical, perhaps the narrator implies, that a Gaal b. Ebed (? 'loathing, son of a slave'), should be sneering, 'Who is Abimelech?' when Abimelech has the dignity of a son of an Israelite judge who is virtually a king in his own right (8.29-30). Gaal b. Ebed may in fact be a deliberate perversion/4/ of a quite unexceptionable name Goal/5/ b. Obed./6/ If this explanation of the continuation of the long name-form is correct, the eventual abandonment of it in favour of the short form must be accounted for by the quickening pace of the narrative.
Michal. The name-forms used for Michal, daughter of Saul and wife of David, are particularly instructive:
1 Sam. 14.49 'The names of (Saul's) two daughters were these: Merab the Þrst-born and Michal the younger' (genealogical, contextually clariÞed, hence 'X' form).
18.20 'Michal daughter of Saul loved David'. This is doubly signiÞcant: on the one hand, David has been cheated of Merab, the elder daughter (v. 19), but now looks likely to succeed with the other daughter of Saul; and on the other hand, ch. 18 has been concerned with Saul's growing disenchantment with David, and in that setting it is dramatically promising that David falls in love with-the daughter of Saul. So this is type d i.
18.27 'Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife'; to 'Michal' there is added the determinative 'his daughter' because the relationship is signiÞcant. 'Daughter of Saul' is obviously impossible because 'Saul' already appears in the sentence.
18.28 'Saul saw and knew that Yahweh was with David, and that the daughter of Saul loved him, and Saul became yet more afraid of David'. 'Daughter of Saul' in a sentence of which 'Saul' is the subject would appear to annul the last observation made on the previous verse. But it is virtually certain that lwavAtb lkymw is here an orthographical error for larcyAlk ykw,/7/ for the mt presents the following difÞculties: Saul already knew that Michal loved David (v. 20), and Michal has done nothing more to prove her love for him (though it could be argued that David's double bride-price proved his love for her), so nothing can be inferred from the emphatic 'saw and knew' ([dyw aryw); why should Michal's love for David make Saul afraid of David? It could have been a further ground for his hating him, but Saul obviously fears a threat to his throne. Verse 28 emended in fact summarizes the material of ch. 18 in reverse order: 'Yahweh was with David' recapitulates v. 14 (and perhaps also David's success with the Philistines, v. 27), while 'all Israel loved him' recapitulates vv. 6-8.
19.11 'Saul sent messengers to David's house to watch him that he might kill him in the morning. But Michal, David's wife, told him . . . ' Here at the beginning of a new episode Michal is introduced in the form usual for mentioning a married woman: 'X wife of Y' (cf. e.g. 'Deborah wife of Lappidoth', Judg. 4.4; 'Abigail, wife of Nabal', 1 Sam. 25.14). Thus we have an analogy to type b ii. However, it may be signiÞcant in the light of 2 Sam. 6, to be discussed below, that when Michal is attempting to defend David from Saul she is called 'wife of David' (thus possibly a further example of d i. In any case, the narrative 19.11-17 continues with just 'Michal'.
25.44 'Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife, to Palti b. Laish'. The relationships indicated by both long forms (which are functionally equivalent to 'XbY') are relevant to the story (type d i).
2 Sam. 3.13, 14 David agrees to make a covenant with Abner on condition that Abner brings 'Michal daughter of Saul' with him. David then sends messengers to Ishbosheth to say: 'Give me my wife Michal'. Why does he call her 'daughter of Saul' when speaking to Abner (through his messengers), but 'my wife' when speaking to Ishbosheth? For these reasons: he has no quarrel to pick with Abner and so avoids the technical legal question of whether Michal is the wife of David or Paltiel. It is a purely business arrangement between David and Abner, so David uses a neutral, and not an emotive, term for Michal. That may be sufÞcient explanation of the fact that he does not refer to her as 'my wife', but it may be asked: why does he call her 'daughter of Saul'? Surely Abner does not need to have spelled out for him who the Michal is whom David has an interest in! She is after all Abner's cousin's (or nephew's) daughter. The long form is not for clarity (type a). Conceivably, the sentence has the formality of a legal contract (type c i), or, perhaps, this is a simple case of the use of the long form when a person is Þrst mentioned in conversation (b iii). But most probably this is a further instance of type d i: David will know that Abner has turned his back on Ishbosheth for good when he brings with him Saul's daughter; that will prove that Abner assents to David succeeding to Saul's throne.
In v. 14, on the other hand, David is saying in effect to Ishbosheth: she is my wife, not Paltiel's, and the responsibility for her being now with Paltiel is yours, since you are son and heir of your father who gave her to Paltiel (1 Sam. 25.44). (This explains, incidentally, why Ishbosheth is here called 'Ishbosheth son of Saul' [type d i] while elsewhere in the chapter he is simply 'Ishbosheth' [vv. 7, 8, 11, 15].) 'Michal daughter of Saul' would be ludicrous in this context, and 'Michal' alone would not beg the question so emphatically as David's well-chosen phrase does.
6.16 'Michal the daughter of Saul saw King David leaping and dancing before Yahweh, and she despised him in her heart'.
6.20 'David returned to bless his household, and Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said: How the king of Israel honoured himself today . . . !'
6.21 'And David said to Michal: It was before Yahweh . . . '
6.23 'And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death'.
Here the normal pattern of name use is broken in two ways: Þrst, Michal is called 'daughter of Saul' rather than 'wife of David', which one would expect for a married woman, especially since the episode concerns an altercation between man and wife; and secondly, the 'XbY' form is used three times, contrary to the usual practice of beginning a narrative with 'XbY' and continuing with 'X'. The reason for both these abnormalities is clear: Michal is not behaving as David's wife (contrast 1 Sam. 19) but as his opponent: she is acting like a true daughter of Saul,/8/ and the narrator has spelled this out by writing 'Michal daughter of Saul' in the two places where her criticism of David is expressed (vv. 16, 20). Verse 23 presumably means 'Here is the punishment for an opponent of David the divinely chosen king', and perhaps also: 'So David fails to legitimize his succession to Saul's throne through Michal'.
If it is correct that Michal's relationship with Saul is being emphasized by the use of the 'XbY' form (type d i), one may well wonder why it is not employed also in v. 21. The answer can only be that purely literary factors outweigh the signiÞcative value of 'XbY', for example, one may sense that the narrative here gathers pace, which the long form would slow down, or perhaps preferably that attention now focuses on David, who is the subject of the sentence, and that it is therefore beside the point to stress the role that Michal is playing.
21.8 The reference here to Michal daughter of Saul as having borne Þve sons is almost universally agreed to be an error (cf. 6.23) for Merab (so lxxL)./9/ Abner. Abner is Þrst met with at 1 Sam. 14.50, in a passage concerning the relatives of Saul: 'The name of his army commander was Abner b. Ner, Saul's uncle'. This is not a narrative passage but an archival-type list where the details of relationship are signiÞcant. It is analogous to type d i in narrative style.
Abner is not introduced with the 'XbY' form when he Þrst appears in the narrative at 17.55, presumably because it is not he but Saul and David who are the protagonists there, and because Abner is more appropriately described in the context as 'army commander'.
In the narratives in which Abner is involved he is of course usually just 'Abner', but the eight places where he is 'Abner b. Ner' require explanation.
In ch. 26, Abner, though a Þgure of subordinate interest to David and Saul, steps further into the foreground, and engages in an altercation with David. So in this episode it is not strange that Abner is Þrst spoken of as 'Abner b. Ner' (v. 5) (type b ii).
26.14 is odd: 'David called to the army and to Abner b. Ner, saying, Will you not answer, Abner?' This is hardly a new episode (type b ii). But if we reconstruct the scene, it is immediately obvious that 'Will you not answer, Abner?' cannot be the opening gambit of the conversation! David will have already called rnAb rnba anA[mv/10/ or rnAb rnba hz htah/11/ or some such thing, the full 'XbY' name-form being appropriate when addressing a person for the Þrst time (cf. type b iii). But to speed up the story, the narrator embodies David's Þrst question in his narrative, along with the name-form that would have been employed in direct speech./12/ It is to be noted incidentally that this compression, which may have occurred at the time of writing down a longer oral text, results in an awkward juxtaposition ('David called to the people and to Abner b. Ner'-? at the same time) which some versions have been uneasy with and have attempted to smooth out by inserting another verb./13/
At 2 Sam. 2.8 the 'XbY' form is easily explicable as introducing a new episode (type b ii); note the position of abxArc rnAb rnba before the verb, serving the same function.
2.12, though not far from v. 8, plainly introduces a new pericope (vv. 10-11, a chronological note, breaks up the narrative), which is marked by the 'XbY' form for both Abner and Ishbosheth (type b ii).
Through 2 Sam. 2p;3 Abner is consistently 'Abner', until 3.23 'It was told to Joab, Abner b. Ner has come to the king', a clear example of type b iii.
In 3.25 our analysis brings to light an interesting nuance. Joab reproaches David for having welcomed Abner: 'What have you done? Behold Abner has come to you . . . You know that Abner b. Ner came to deceive you . . . ' Why does Joab Þrst call him 'Abner', and then 'Abner b. Ner'? Plainly for no purely formal reason (types b, c). Rather, 'Abner b. Ner' in this context draws attention to the relationship of son to father (type d i). Joab means, 'You ought to realize that a relative (uncle or cousin) of Saul must be an opponent of yours'. He has Þrst spoken of Abner, the man who is in his own right both David's and Joab's enemy (2 Sam. 2.12-32), and he is astounded that David has not held him captive: 'Why (hzAhml, emphatic accusatory/14/ particle) have you let him go?'/15/ 'He has got clean away!' (neb). But secondly, he reinforces his reproach with 'Surely you know who Abner is! He is a kinsman of Saul. You can only expect treachery from that quarter'. The mt ab °ttpl yk rnAb rnbaAta t[dy should indeed be translated with neb 'You know Abner son of Ner: he came meaning to deceive you', rather than with rsv 'You know that Abner the son of Ner came to deceive you'.
Abner's death is then narrated, the 'X' form being used twice, whereupon David says:
3.28 'I and my kingdom are innocent of the blood of Abner b. Ner'. This sounds like a formal or legal phrase (type c i) in which the use of the full name-form lends weight to the exculpation.
Finally, after several uses of the 'X' form in the narrative of Abner's burial, we Þnd
3.37 'And all the people and all Israel knew on that day that it had not been the king's will (°lmhm) to slay Abner b. Ner'. It is hard to pinpoint the reason for the 'XbY' form here, but at this resting-point of the narrative where the burial of the warrior and the mourning until sunset halts the þow of events and the attention is turned backwards to the question of responsibility before focusing again on David in the circle of his intimates, the formality of 'Abner son of Ner' is entirely appropriate (? type b iv, c iii).
Mephibosheth. Mephibosheth's name at its Þrst occurrence (2 Sam. 4.4) needs no 'XbY' form since the one-verse episode begins 'Jonathan b. Saul had a son . . . ' and concludes 'and his name was Mephibosheth'.
In ch. 9, the story of David's kindness, Mephibosheth is introduced as 'Mephibosheth b. Jonathan b. Saul' (v. 6) since he is the one person 'left of the house of Saul' to whom David can 'shown kindness for Jonathan's sake' (v. 1). The ancestry of Mephibosheth is fundamental to the narrative, so naturally the long form (here actually 'XbYbZ') is used (type d i). In the rest of the story Mephibosheth is regularly called by the 'X' form.
Mephibosheth is referred to in ch. 16, but there it is 'Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth' who is the protagonist, and for that reason, it seems, Mephibosheth is not introduced with the 'XbY' form (16.1, 4)./16/
In ch. 19 there is another Mephibosheth episode, which begins (v. 24; mt 25) not only with the full 'XbY' form (type b ii), but also with the subject preceding the verb./17/ As usual, we Þnd the 'X' form elsewhere in the narrative (19.25, 30; mt 26, 31).
The Þnal reference to Mephibosheth, though it occurs in a summarizing sentence (21.7) is not an example of type b iv, but plainly of d i: 'The king spared Mephibosheth b. Jonathan b. Saul because of the oath . . . between David and Jonathan b. Saul'.
Shimei In only four of the eighteen places where Shimei is mentioned is the 'XbY' form used of him. Three of the four cases are easily explained; in
2 Sam. 16.5 Shimei is Þrst met with and introduced as 'a man from the phratry (hjpvm) to which the house of Saul belonged, and his name was Shimei b. Gera'. In the continuation of the episode, he is just 'Shimei' (vv. 7, 13).
In 19.16 (mt 17), in a new episode (type b ii), he is Þrst introduced as 'Shimei b. Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim', emphasizing that this eager monarchist is none other than the stone-throwing reviler of ch. 16.
Again, in 1 Kgs 2.8, Shimei is introduced into David's farewell speech as 'Shimei b. Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim', in the very formal context of a king's injunctions to his successor (type c i or iii); cf. the use of 'XbY' forms in v. 5 (Joab b. Zeruiah, Abner b. Ner, Amasa b. Jether).
Only in 2 Sam. 19.18 (mt 19) is there an apparent exception to our rules; here, only two verses after the 'XbY' form has been used, Shimei is again called 'Shimei b. Gera'. Remarkably, however, at this point the subject is placed before the verb, probably to mark the reversion/18/ to the story of Shimei after the parenthetical reference to Ziba (vv. 17b-18a; mt 18ab-19a), and the function of the full 'XbY' name-form can be explained similarly as indicating the refocusing of attention on Shimei (type b ii).
Sheba. The episode of Sheba b. Bichri's revolt against David is conÞned to one chapter (2 Sam. 20), but contrary to the normal narrative usage of 'XbY' followed by 'X', in this chapter Sheba is invariably called Sheba b. Bichri (8 times). This persistence of the 'XbY' form throughout a short self-contained narrative cannot be explained as required by a need for clarity (type a); the name Sheba is otherwise met with in the Old Testament only in one place (1 Chron. 5.13) as a Gadite clan name. By working through the range of possibilities analysed above, it becomes apparent that an explanation should be sought within type d, that is, that the name Bichri has contextual signiÞcance.
We may consider Þrst whether some play is being made with the popular (?) etymology of the clan name Bichri (type d ii). It sounds related to rkb 'young camel',/19/ with fem. hrkb (Jer. 2.23; Isa. 60.6), and the implication could perhaps be that Sheba is a true son of a rkb, stubborn, rebellious, and self-willed. It may be more than coincidental that in Isa. 60.6 Sheba is referred to as a region of camels (rkb). Of course there is no real connection between the place name abv and the personal name [bv, but it is not impossible that a link between the refractory Sheba son of rkb and a well-known home of the rkb was intended by the story-teller, who referred invariably to 'Sheba b. Bichri' in order to reinforce his view of Sheba's character, which he blackens at the very beginning with the epithet 'son of Belial'/20/ (20.1). An alternative explanation of the repeated 'XbY' form is of type d i, viz. that it is signiÞcant for the narrative that David's opponent is of the Bichri clan, and the narrator does not allow us to forget how signiÞcant Sheba's kinship afÞnity is. Already in 1896 J. Marquart/21/ suggested that Saul himself came from the Benjaminite family of rkb, so that Sheba's rebellion may be understood as the last attempt by the Bichrite clan to regain the lost kingship./22/ If this was so, it is easy to see why the narrator stresses that it is a Bichrite who opposes David. Such a suggestion of course assumes that the narrator's audience could be expected to know that Saul was a Bichrite, which is an assumption that is difÞcult to test. Though both these explanations may fail to be entirely convincing through lack of evidence, it can still be argued that some such explanation is preferable to assuming that the narrator's choice of the 'XbY' form is completely arbitrary.
Jeroboam is Þrst introduced, formally, in 1 Kgs 11.26 as 'Jeroboam b. Nebat, an Ephrathite from Zaredah' (type b i). Thereafter throughout the episode of Jeroboam's revolt (1 Kgs 11) he is called 'Jeroboam' simply. The next scene, the rejection of Rehoboam at Shechem, begins with 'Jeroboam b. Nebat' (type b ii) (12.2), but then continues down to the death of Jeroboam (14.20) using simply 'Jeroboam'. There is only one exception, at
12.15 'The king did not hearken to the people; for it was a turn of events brought about by Yahweh that he might fulÞl his word, which Yahweh spoke by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam b. Nebat'. Here we may have an instance of the 'XbY' form used in a summary (type b iv) to found off a narrative. The context of prophetic discourse in which the name occurs, however, suggests the possibility that the formal style of prophetic utterance (type c ii) has had an inþuence here; it is true that 'XbY' does not here actually occur within an oracle, but the solemnity which makes it appropriate to speak of 'Ahijah the Shilonite' (cf. 11.29 'the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite'; 11.30, 31 'Ahijah') may also account for the full form 'Jeroboam b. Nebat'./23/ In any case, it should be observed that this exception to the general rule that we have established ('XbY' at the beginning, 'X' in the continuation) is to be accounted for as editorial and not really narrative.
Jeroboam is mentioned after his death almost as often as before it. In
15.1 'In the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam b. Nebat', the long name-form typical of synchronisms (type c iv) occurs, and thereafter down to 16.19 the plain 'Jeroboam' is found (even in the synchronism at 15.9), except for
16.2 'I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam b. Nebat', where the formal prophetic style is used (type c ii)./24/
The name-forms used for Jeroboam in the Deuteronomic judgments of the Israelite kings are particularly interesting. So long as we are within a generation of Jeroboam, we read simply of 'Jeroboam':
15.30 Baasha destroyed the house of Jeroboam; 'it was for the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned and which he made Israel to sin'.
15.34 Baasha 'walked in the way of Jeroboam (lxx + b. Nebat) and in his sin which he made Israel to sin'.
15.7 The word of Yahweh came against Baasha 'for being like the house of Jeroboam'.
16.19 Zimri died 'because of his sins . . ., walking in the way of Jeroboam,/25/ and because of his sin which he committed in making Israel to sin'.
It is only when we come to Omri that the full 'XbY' form is used of Jeroboam in these assessments:
16.25-26 'And Omri did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and he did evil more than all who had preceded him. And he walked in all the way of Jeroboam b. Nebat and in his sin which he made Israel sin'. It may be argued that it is not coincidental that just at the point where the Deuteronomic narrator wishes to stress the superlative enormity of a king's sin ('more than all who had preceded him'; 'all the way of Jeroboam') he uses the 'XbY' form. Is this use then perhaps not principally an instance of type b iv (concluding summary), but used to convey, along with the other emphatic words in the summary, the intensity of the narrator's distaste for Omri (type c iii)? However we explain it, the long form now persists throughout all the summaries of Israelite kings, for example:
16.30-31 'And Ahab b. Omri [type b iv, initial summary]/26/ did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh more than all who had preceded him. And as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam b. Nebat, he took as wife Jezebel . . . '
22.52 Ahaziah 'did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh and walked . . . In the way of Jeroboam b. Nebat who made Israel to sin'. Similarly 2 Kgs 3.3; 10.29; 12.2, 11; 14.24; 15.9, 18, 24, 28. By the time we reach 2 Kgs 13 we meet with another Jeroboam, Jeroboam II, b. Joash; and in later references the speciÞcation of patronym in the case of Jeroboam b. Nebat is plainly necessary to distinguish him from his later namesake. Nevertheless, it does not seem that the necessity to distinguish XbY from XbZ (type a) is the primary reason for the use of the long form in these passages since it is already used well before there is any danger of confusion with Jeroboam II. Of course the narrator stood closer in time to Jeroboam II than to Jeroboam I, but apparently it was not his perspective that determined which form he used, for he could use the short form in his summaries of Baasha and Zimri.
Once the long form 'Jeroboam b. Nebat' sets in at 1 Kgs 16.26, the short form appears only when Jeroboam needs to be mentioned in close proximity to a use of 'Jeroboam b. Nebat'. Thus in 10.31, following 10.29; 13.6, following 13.2;/27/ 17.21b, 22, following 17.21a. Otherwise the 'XbY' form is used, both in prophetic oracles:
1 Kgs 21.22 'I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam b. Nebat and like the house of Baasha b. Ahijah' (type c ii); and similarly 2 Kgs 9.9.
and in narrative references:
2 Kgs 17.21 'When he had torn Israel from the house of David they made Jeroboam b. Nebat king' (Jeroboam not previously mentioned in this historical précis, so type b i; thereafter, in vv. 21b, 22 he is just 'Jeroboam').
23.15 'Moreover the altar at Bethel, the high place built by Jeroboam b. Nebat who made Israel to sin, also that altar and the high place [Josiah] pulled down'. Since this is in the period after Jeroboam II, the particular Jeroboam in question must be speciÞed (type a); though the addition of the words 'who made Israel to sin', which are not necessary to the sense here, makes one wonder whether the whole phrase 'Jeroboam b. Nebat who made Israel to sin' is not simply a stock phrase, in which case the 'XbY' form would have to be explained as derivative from type b iv (summary).
The following table provides an index to passages discussed as well as an indication of the relative frequency of the types of reason for the use of the 'XbY' form.
Type
a ? 2 Kgs 13; ? 23.15 (Jeroboam)
b (i) Judg. 3.15 (Ehud); 4.6 (Barak); 9.9 (Abimelech); 9.26 (Gaal); 2 Sam. 16.5 (Shimei); 1 Kgs 11.26; 2 Kgs 17.21 (Jeroboam)
(ii) Judg. 5.1 (Barak); 8.13, ? 29 (Gideon); cf. 1 Sam. 19.11 (Michal); 2 Sam. 19.16, 18 (Shimei); 1 Kgs 12.2 (Jeroboam); 1 Sam. 26.5; 2 Sam. 2.8, 12 (Abner); 19.24 (Mephibosheth)
(iii) Judg. 4.6 (Barak); ? 6.29; 7.14 (Gideon); ? 9.35 (Gaal); ? 2 Sam. 3.13 (Michal); cf. 1 Sam. 26.14; 2 Sam. 3.23 (Abner)
(iv) Judg. 8.29, 32 (Gideon); ? 9.31 (Gaal); ? 1 Kgs 12.15; 16.25-26; ? 23.15 (Jeroboam); 16.30-31 (Ahab sub Jeroboam); ? 2 Sam. 3.37 (Abner)
c (i) Judg. 6.29, 32 (Gideon); 2 Sam. 3.13 (Michal); 3.28 (Abner); ? 1 Kgs 2.8 (Shimei)
(ii) ? 1 Kgs 12.15; 16.2; 21.22 (Jeroboam)
(iii) ? 1 Kgs 2.8 (Shimei); ? 16.25-26 (Jeroboam); ? 2 Sam. 3.37 (Abner)
(iv) 1 Kgs 15.1 (Jeroboam)
d (i) 1 Sam. 18.20; cf. 25.44; 2 Sam. 3.13; 6.16, 20, 23 (Michal); 3.14 (Ishbosheth sub Michal); ? 20 (Sheba); cf. 1 Sam. 14.50; 2 Sam. 3.25 (Abner); 2 Sam. 9.6; 21.7 (Mephibosheth)
(ii) Judg. 9.28, 30, 31, 35 (Gaal); ? 2 Sam. 20 (Sheba)
2. The ben Y Form
The function of the 'ben Y' name-form, in which the person is referred to only as the son of his father (or mother), has already been remarked upon by a number of authors, but it is still not universally recognized. The Oxford Lexicon/28/ notes the use of b without a personal name, 'often with implication of contempt', in 17 places, without specifying in which passages the 'ben Y' form is used contemptuously. The lexicon of Siegfried and Stade referred to Isa. 7.4-6; 8.6 as instances of a 'disparaging' (herabsetzend) sense of b with father's name alone,/29/ while J. Fuerst spoke of the omission in prose of the proper name before b due to 'disinclination to the name itself' (1 Sam. 10.11; 20.27, 31; 22.7, 8, 9; 25.10)./30/ Koehler notes the 'derogatory' (geringschätzig) idiom 'son of Y', instead of a personal name, adducing 1 Sam. 20.30-31 as an illustration./31/ Irene Lande/32/ also has seen the omission of the proper name of a person as an insulting form of speech, and has pointed to 1 Sam. 20.27, 30, 31; 22.7, 8, 12, 13; 25.10; 2 Sam. 3.39; 19.23; 1 Kgs 14.6 as examples. But modern commentaries on the books of Samuel,/33/ within which most of the examples of 'bY' occur, make no reference to this idiom, and even the observant Budde notes it only in connection with 1 Sam. 20.27, 30-31; and even so his explication is capable of some reÞnement./34/
To establish the 'derogatory' nuance of the 'bY' form, it is necessary to show that it is pertinent on all the occasions when this name-form occurs. The clearest examples would seem to be:
1 Sam. 20.27 Saul: 'Why has b. Jesse not come to the meal?'
20.30-31 Saul to Jonathan: 'You have made friends with (neb)/35/ b. Jesse . . . As long as b. Jesse lives . . . neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.'
22.7-8 Saul to Benjaminites: 'Will b. Jesse give you all Þelds and vineyards? . . . No one informs me when my son makes a pact with b. Jesse.'
22.9 Doeg to Saul: 'I saw b. Jesse coming to Nob'.
22.12-13 Saul to Ahimelech: 'Hear now, b. Ahitub/36/ . . . why have you and b. Jesse conspired against me?'
Isa. 7.4-5, 9 'Do not fear . . . the anger of Rezin and Aram and b. Remaliah . . . Aram with Ephraim and b. Remaliah have devised evil/37/ . . . The head of Samaria is b. Remaliah.'
7.6 'Let us set up as king in the midst [of Jerusalem] b. Tabeel'.
8.6/38/ 'This people . . . rejoices (?) in Rezin and b. Remaliah'./39/
There is an exegetical tradition among commentators on Isaiah to remark on the contemptuous note in the names 'b. Remaliah', 'b. Tabeel',/40/ but it remains uncertain whether this name-form is contemptuous because the person is a homo novus, who does not care to have it recalled that his father was a nobody,/41/ or because it is implied that the son is himself a nobody, so unmemorable and insigniÞcant that he deserves to be mentioned only because he is the son of his father./42/ The latter is more probable in the light of Saul's use of the 'bY' form when addressing David: it is not that Saul despises Jesse (who is after all the grandson of the wealthy landowner Boaz; Ruth 4.17, 22; 1 Chron. 2.12), but that he regards David as a mere stripling, not yet a 'name' in his own right. David has Þrst become known to Saul, not as David, but as 'b. Jesse': in 1 Sam. 17 Saul asks not for the name of the giant-killer, but for the name of his father (r[nh hzAymAb, v. 55; cf. vv. 56, 58). Thereafter, the narrator seems to be saying, Saul Þnds it hard to accept that David is something more than a r[n, a mere 'ben Y'. Saul is prepared to call David 'my son David' when David has him at his mercy (1 Sam. 24.16 [mt 17]; 26.17, 21, 25), and refers to 'David' when he is playing the part of the magnanimous father-in-law (18.22, 25), and when he is hunting David but not yet openly (19.22), and of course when he is addressing Jesse (16.19, 22), but elsewhere David is for Saul merely the 'son of Jesse'./43/ Doeg (22.9) simply echoes the attitude of Saul.
In the light of Saul's use of 'bY' in reference to David, we may suggest that while there is nothing derogatory in calling or referring to a young man as 'bY' (Saul is not being depreciatory or even patronizing in 17.55-58, and in 20.27 he is not being derogatory), it is derogatory to call a man who is important in his own right merely by the name of his father. Thus to call the priest Ahimelech, who is old enough to have a grown son (22.20), simply 'b. Ahitub' (22.12) is plainly offensive, as it is to refer to a king of Israel as simply 'b. Remaliah' (Isa. 7.4-5, 9).
This leaves for consideration some rather more difÞcult passages.
1 Sam. 10.11 'When all who knew him before saw how [Saul] prophesied, they said . . . What has happened to b. Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?' Whatever the precise sense of the last sentence,/44/ plainly the men of Gibeah were at the least disapproving of Saul's prophesying. But it would be incorrect to see the name-form 'b. Kish' as a token of their disparagement; it is simply that the citizens of a town know a young man primarily as the son of his father.
Similarly, a married woman is known primarily as the wife of her husband; thus it is doubtless not offensive/45/ when Ahijah says to the wife of Jeroboam:
1 Kgs 14.6 'Come in, wife of Jeroboam'. Although the prophet has a painful message for her, he is no more disparaging towards her than is the narrator who also uses 'wife of Jeroboam' (vv. 2, 4, 17; cf. 5).
Judg. 5.12 'Arise, Barak, parade/46/ your captives, O son of Abinoam'. The 'bY' form in poetry is readily explained as due to the break-up of the stereotype 'XbY',/47/ and even in a context of disparagement of the person referred to the same explanation should be adopted. So, in
2 Sam. 20.1 'We have no portion in David, we have no inheritance in b. Jesse' (parallels in 1 Kgs 12.16; 2 Chron. 10.16), the 'bY' form in itself is not depreciatory./48/ This is conÞrmed by
1 Chron. 12.18 (mt 19) 'We are yours, O David, and with you, b. Jesse', where the same break-up occurs in a favourable context. This poetic device makes us hesitate when confronted by
1 Sam. 25.10 Nabal to David's messengers: 'Who is David, and who is b. Jesse?'. Nabal is as disparaging as possible about David ('There are many servants nowadays who are breaking away from their masters'), but we can hardly claim that the 'bY' name-form strengthens his expression of contempt. It seems rather that the break-up of stereotype phrases is a (prose) rhetorical device as well as a poetic device. What then of
Judg. 9.28 Gaal b. Ebed to the men of Shechem: 'Who is Abimelech, and who is Shechem that we should serve him? Is he not the son of Jerubbaal and Zebul his deputy?'/49/ This text is hardly intelligible as it stands, and the most recent attempt to restore it is unconvincing./50/ But it is clear that 'Abimelech' and 'b. Jerubbaal' are parallel, so we have here a further example of the break-up of the stereotyped name-form as a rhetorical device. Further, if we are to follow lxxA, B and restore b before µkv in the Þrst clause, the name Zebul b. Shechem also is broken up, but in reverse order. In neither case, though the speaker has no time for either of them, does the 'bY' form in itself express his distaste.
It is hard to say whether the use of the 'bY' name-form may explain the textual oddity in
2 Sam. 4.1-2 'And b. Saul heard that Abner was dead . . . and b. Saul had/51/ two captains of raiding bands'. Although purely orthographical explanations for the omission of the name of Ishbosheth (tvbAvya or l[bva/52/) are unconvincing, and a deliberate excision of the offensive name is to be presumed, it is uncertain whether the resultant 'bY' form in itself was intended to express contempt. Certainly the 'bY' form in vv. 1-2 can hardly be original/53/ because of the ambiguity that would have been created with the immediately following reference to 'Jonathan b. Saul' (v. 4).
Finally the nuance of µdaAb in Ezekiel (2.1; etc.) may be illumined from our study: the phrase is not contemptuous, but it does indicate the comparative insigniÞcance of the one who is addressed not by his proper name, but only by the name of his 'father'. As well as being 'mere man' as contrasted with God, it is implied that the prophet is also in himself an unremarkable example of humanity./54/
/