7

Throughout Genesis most (all?) of the Patriarchs' names have a significance within their respective scenes or narratives. Their names generally describe or are related to their stories.

For example, "Adam" means "Mankind". Jacob means heel grabber or supplanter. So significant are names that they are even changed at times with Jacob being renamed to Israel (Triumphant with God). And Abram (high father) is renamed to Abraham (father of many).

What then is the significance of Noah's name meaning "rest" or "comfort" and how does it relate to the flood narrative?

  • 1
    Will the person who voted to close as "off-topic" please explain. Unless this is a duplicate, or perceived as opinion-based, it seems to be fine. The question is if there is any indication of an internal midrash shem for Noah as there are for other figures in Genesis, or are there indications from other ancient flood myths? – Abu Munir Ibn Ibrahim May 7 '17 at 14:42
  • 1
    @AbuMunirIbnIbrahim: Typically, if you do not include a text or reference, some people feel that it is off topic and will VTC. This was the reason given for this VTC. This isn't a hard and fast rule and we are given some latitude, but not everyone seems to realize that. In this case the text is obviously Gen 6:1-8:22, but as it adds no value to the question, I'm not including it. I expected there would be one or two. – James Shewey May 7 '17 at 20:06
3

In addition to David's excellent answer, source-criticism of Genesis sheds further light on the in-narrative meaning of Noah's name.

While the specific 'JEDP' form of the Documentary Hypothesis has seen a decline in recent years in favor of other models, there is still agreement that one of the main sources behind the text was a well-formed mythological narrative where God is almost exclusively identified as 'Yahweh'. (Under the Documentary Hypothesis, this was the J 'Yahwist' source.) Of the opening chapters of Genesis, this J source includes chapters 2-4, the small block of text regarding Lamech fathering Noah in Genesis 5, and about half of chapters 6-9.

A central theme of these chapters is the relationship between humanity [adam] and the earth [adamah] from which they were created. When the man and the woman eat the forbidden fruit, the man's relationship with the ground is cursed:

Genesis 3.17-19

And to the man he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, “You shall not eat of it”, cursed is the ground [adamah] because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’

This is amplified further when Cain, a worker of the ground, kills his brother Abel:

Genesis 4.10-12

And Yahweh said, ‘What have you done? Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground! And now you are cursed from the ground [adamah], which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.’ Cain said to Yahweh, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear! Today you have driven me away from the soil [adamah]

The narrative continues up to Cain's descendent Lamech, who fathers three sons and a daughter. The sons, Jabal, Jubal, and Tubalcain, are identified as developing culture in three major ways (music, nomadic shepherding, and blacksmithing). Soon after, Lamech fathers a fourth son:

Genesis 5.29

he named him Noah, saying, ‘Out of the ground [adamah] that Yahweh has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands.’

This is then addressed directly, when Noah renders an offering to Yahweh after the flood:

Genesis 8.21

Yahweh said in his heart, ‘I will never again curse the ground [adamah] because of humankind’

Out of Lamech's four sons, Noah's own contribution to cultural development is to work the ground in a new way: vineyard-keeping. This is the 'relief' from the curse, which Lamech predicted would happen through his son.

Genesis

Noah, a man of the soil [adamah], was the first to plant a vineyard.
| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    Good stuff, and glad you got there. It's close to the reading of S.R. Driver's *Book of Genesis (starts at very bottom p. 77, on to next page) which he signals very briefly. I was going to add it earlier today when I was doing some tidying, but ran out of steam! :) – Dɑvïd May 29 '17 at 19:03
6

While OP poses his question in these terms...

What then is the significance of Noah's name meaning "rest" or "comfort" and how does it relate to the flood narrative?

...I will adjust that slightly and work with this (alterations indicated in square brackets):

What then is the [meaning] of Noah's name [...] and [...] does it relate to the flood narrative?

(1) What is the meaning of Noah's name?

While it is natural to associate Noah's name primarily with the Flood Story (Genesis 6-9), this is not the first place to look for the meaning of Noah's name. That comes at the end of Genesis 5:

28 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and became the father of a son. 29 Now he called his name noaḥ, saying, “This one will yənaḥămēnû from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed.” NASB

There are a couple oddities (at least!) here which have long been noted:

  1. there is a mismatch between the name, noaḥ, derived from the root NWḤ (for words meaning "rest"), and the "etymology" associated with it, using the root NḤM—although many English versions will provide "give us rest" for yənaḥămēnû, it properly means (here) "bring comfort";
  2. the bit of commentary associated from Lamech seems to connect most closely with Noah the farmer, in the strange story which follows the flood narrative in Genesis 9:20-29, rather than the flood story.

Regarding #1 (on #2, see below), the mismatch between the name and its gloss by Lamech has long been felt. This could possibly go back to the time of the Septuagint translation, because where the Hebrew has yənaḥămēnû, which typically would be translated by something like "comfort" (in around ~50 cases of the piel for this verb), LXX gives διαναπαύσει, "he will give rest". And this would be the expected translation if the Hebrew had a verb using NWḤ here: the equivalence of NWḤ : *παύω "rest, cease" occurs well over 40x. But this isn't the case for 5:29 — it uses the verb NḤM "comfort" (among other meanings), for which the regular LXX equivalent (>40x) is παρακαλέω, which includes among its meanings "comfort, encourage".

So how to understand this odd explanation of the name in 5:29? The rabbis recognized the problem, and had a number of suggestions, as recorded in Genesis Rabbah XXV.2, kicking off with Rabbi Yohanan:

The name does not correspond to the interpretation [given to it], nor does the interpretation correspond to the name. The text should either have stated, "This same shall give us rest," or, "And he called his name Nachman,...".

So it is clear to the that the meaning of the name has to do with rest, even if Lamech's explanation doesn't — and how they dealt with that conundrum is discussed below.

Franz Delitzsch seems to have changed his mind about whether there was a "linguistic" connection here or not. In the first English edition of his Genesis commentary (1885), he understood Lamech to be explaining Noah's significance, implying that there was no linguistic connection to be expected. He had a significant development in his thought, though, and in the second English edition (1889) he offered a more involved account, appealing to synonyms and suggesting both "phonetic groups" (NWḤ and NḤM) were "both imitative of the sound of breathing again". Not Delitzsch at his finest, I think.

Wenham's explanation has more explanatory power: "As is often the case in the OT, the etymology is not scientific; it is simply associated with the name because of its similar sound." (G. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 [Word, 1987], p. 128.)

Not that Wenham's explanation is convincing here, either. But this does illustrate how the tension in 5:29 has been felt by commentators, and it suffices here to say that the meaning of the name "Noah" is "rest", not "comfort", and that the notion of "comfort" comes from Lamech's explanation of who his son (Noah) would be — but he does not provide a meaning for his son's name.

Does Noah's name relate to the Flood narrative?

Well ... maybe. And at one level, certainly. Most commentators who attend to the Hebrew text point out the several wordplays arising from the N-Ḥ combination, like:

  • the LORD was sorry [wayyinnaem] he made man (6:6);
  • Noah [noa] finds favour [ēn] in God's eyes (6:8);
  • the ark came to rest [wattāna] (8:4);
  • the dove found no resting place [manôa] for her "foot" (8:9);
  • the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma [hannîōaḥ] of the sacrifice (8:21).

(That list drawn from V. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1 - 17 [NICOT; Eerdmans, 1995], p. 258-9 n. 30.)

So at that level, yes, it certainly seems like Noah's name is related to the flood story in this series of puns/wordplays.

But that isn't the meaning of the name (once again!). Here, however, there have been suggestions, too, starting with the rabbis (see Genesis Rabbah):

  • R. Yoḥanan argued that the rebellious creation submitted with the arrival of Noah;
  • Resh Lakish argued that with Noah the unruly waters finally had "rest";
  • R. Leazar argued that the name had to do with the savour of the sacrifice (8:21);
  • R. Jose b. Hanina argued that it had to do with the resting of the Ark (8:4);
  • in later times, Rashi also pointed to the farming innovations associated with Noah (along with some other pertinent comment), so not to do with the flood.

It is striking the way in which a connection to farming is pretty much as prominent in these explanations as one connected to the flood.

The puzzle is by no means settled. In recent years, there has been a great deal of attention to the ANE parallels flood accounts, with the variety of names they use for the flood hero and the account of the flooding itself, with many associations with "rest" to be found. Details conveniently found in:

Summary

The meaning of Noah's name is clear: it means "rest". But its relation to the flood story remains somewhat obscure: while there are many connections betwee the name and the telling of the story in Genesis 6-9 (inclusive of the concluding "farming" episode), picking out any one of those as providing the "correct" association is an uncertain exercise. Stéphanie Anthonioz summarizes the traditional options (p. 188):

  • the deluge and its waters that immerse the earth preventing it from offering some rest;
  • the cause of the deluge in divine regret,
  • and finally, the consequence of the deluge, since only (with his own) saved from a destroyed humanity, Noah not only consoles God, but consoles himself in wine and, one might add, finds his rest there!
| improve this answer | |
-3

Strong's 5146: Proper name, Transliteration - Noach: "rest"

It may be as simple as the contrast between peace, being at rest, as opposed to the unrest, the violence that was in the world resulting from the wickedness of mankind, and that God would not strive with them forever. Gen. 6:3,

"And Jehovah saith, `My Spirit doth not strive in man -- to the age; in their erring they [are] flesh:' and his days have been an hundred and twenty years."

God gave them 120 years to repent before He brought on their destruction. As Noah found favor before God (Gen. 6:8), then Noah's faith in God, his obedience to God's commands would put the "earth" at rest, and ease God's striving with mankind. At least for a while.

| improve this answer | |
  • Perhaps in its original context it meant something close to 'shalom' (peace, amity), as in Noah is the means through which shalom is restored betwen God and man. – Sola Gratia May 27 '17 at 13:39
  • I agree. It is peace between God and mankind that is the point. – Gina May 27 '17 at 14:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.