# Deborah (דברה) – Hebrew, Philistine, or Greek?



## Apollodorus

Deborah (דברה) – Hebrew, Philistine, or Greek?

The biblical name Deborah is said to be derived from Hebrew _dvorá_ (דְבוֹרָה‎), meaning “bee”. But could it be a calque of or otherwise be derived from a non-Hebrew term, e.g., Hittite, Luwian, Philistine, Greek, etc.?


----------



## Apollodorus

The Hebrew Bible, Book of Judges (Shoftim) 4:4-5 states:

“Deborah, a prophetess, the wife (a woman) of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. And she would sit under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, where the Israelites would go up to her for judgment”.

“Deborah” as a personal name doesn’t occur anywhere else and, although it seems phonetically close to Hebrew for “bee”, the text does not say “Deborah means bee” or otherwise connect the person (or her name) with bees. It follows that, though theoretically possible, it doesn’t seem to meet the criteria for a secure etymology. 

This raises the possibility that “Deborah” is a non-Hebrew word which was later interpreted as “bee” due to the apparent phonetic resemblance.


----------



## Abaye

The name Deborah does occur somewhere else.
Deborah (Genesis) - Wikipedia.

The word deborah is not only "seems phonetically close" to "bee", it is exactly the Hebrew word for bee, with cognates in other Semitic languages. Therefore is makes no sense for the bible to say "bee means bee".
דבורה - Wiktionary
דבורה - ויקימילון

(deleted an unnecessary paragraph)


----------



## Apollodorus

Abaye said:


> The name Deborah does occur somewhere else.
> Deborah (Genesis) - Wikipedia.



By "somewhere else" I mean "somewhere outside the Bible". Nothing "dubious" about it at all!

But thanks, anyway. 🙂


----------



## Apollodorus

Incidentally, “Lapidoth” (לפדת), which is rendered as Greek _Lapheidoth_ (Λαφειδώθ) in the Septuagint (LXX) and could be a personal name, toponym, or noun, doesn’t occur anywhere else either and seems to have no known Hebrew etymology.

If we had a plausible etymology for “Lapidoth”, then “Deborah of/from Lapidoth” might turn out to mean something else than “bee”. So, it is a legitimate line of inquiry.


----------



## Apollodorus

The ambiguity at Judges 4:4 seems to start with _isha_ (אשה), which like the Greek equivalent _gynḗ_ (γυνή) can mean “woman” or “wife” (thus, "woman from" or "wife of") and continues with _lapidoth_, which can be the name of a person or place; “Palm of Deborah” can equally be “Palm of Bee”, etc.

In any case, the basic phonetic elements in “Deborah”, i.e., _d-b-r_, make it perfectly possible for this to be a non-Hebrew word which was Hebraised by analogy with the similarly sounding Hebrew for “bee”.


----------



## WadiH

Your argument can be made about practically any personal name.  You haven't provided any reason why _Deborah_ is special in this regard.


----------



## Apollodorus

Well, I disagree. Not every personal name has an etymology that is unsupported by independent sources.

One reason why a non-Hebrew origin for the name “Deborah” is possible or likely, is that at the time of the Deborah narrative (the period prior to the institution of the monarchy, when the Israelites were led by “judges”) the Israelite nation was in a formative phase and particularly susceptible to non-Hebrew influences  <deleted>.

Were “Deborah” as a Hebrew personal name attested in extra-biblical sources, it might be a different matter, but as it isn’t, it seems advisable to see if a possible origin can be found among the non-Hebrew languages that were influential in the region at the time.

Of course, other names could be considered, but I don't see this as a reason to exclude "Deborah".


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> One reason why a non-Hebrew origin for the name “Deborah” is possible or likely, is that at the time of the Deborah narrative (the period prior to the institution of the monarchy, when the Israelites were led by “judges”) the Israelite nation was in a formative phase and particularly susceptible to non-Hebrew influences


This argument seems circular. That formative periods of a culture implies unusually high rates of loaned names is an unsubstantiated theory. Just because the is a residue of doubt about the etymology of a name in itself no indication that the name's obvious etymology would wrong. And by selectively accumulating such cases is in itself also no indication that there is a high rate of spurious etymologies. That would only work if you presupposed the very theory you are trying to substantiate.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> This argument seems circular. That formative periods of a culture implies unusually high rates of loaned names is an unsubstantiated theory.



“Seems” is probably the correct word as neither the “argument” nor the “theory” is mine. 🙂

1. I didn’t say “there were unusually high rates of loaned names”.

2. Even if there had been _zero _loaned names, the name “Deborah” could still be based on a non-Hebrew word.

3. The fact is that the name “Deborah” is not attested anywhere except in the Hebrew Bible and only in connection with one particular person for whom no genealogy or any other background information is available. This has led some scholars to believe that “Deborah” may not have been a name but a word connected with one of the several oral traditions from which the Bible text was compiled and which may have been non-Hebrew.

4. Assuming the historicity of the biblical person bearing the name “Deborah”, if the original component elements were not _d-b-r_ but were phonetically similar, then they may have been _t-b-r_, _d-p-r_, _t-p-r_, etc.

So, essentially, it remains to find a word in the vocabulary of non-Hebrew languages that were influential in the region at the time, that would be consistent (a) with the phonetic elements _d-b-r_ and (b) with the biblical character to whom this name (or title) was attributed.

Likely influences, in addition to languages indigenous to Canaan, include Hittite, Luwian and Philistine. So, there may be several possibilities. Some scholars have suggested a connection with a Cretan tradition that associates bees with prophecy and a cult involving “bee-maidens” (priestesses) and, in particular, the prophetess *Melissa *(Μέλισσα, “Bee”).

Other possibilities suggested by scholars are Hittite _*tapara*_, _*tapariya*_ and Luwian _*tabar*_, “to rule”, which in my view would meet the criteria mentioned above. But other forum members may wish to make alternative suggestions.

See also:

Deborah – Online Etymology Dictionary

D. Vainstub, “Some Points of Contact between the Biblical Deborah War Tradition and Some Greek Mythologies”, _Vetus Testamentum_, 61 (2011), pp. 324-334.

G. Garbini, _I Filistei: gli anagonisti di Israele_, 1997, pp. 178-183.

C. Rabin, “Hittite words in Hebrew”, _Orientalia_, 32 (1963), pp. 113-139.

L. Niesiolowski-Spanò, _Goliath’s Legacy: Philistines and Hebrews in Biblical Times_, 2016, p. 105.


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> Even if there had been _zero _loaned names, the name “Deborah” *could *still be based on a non-Hebrew word.


Sure it *could* be. But *nothing *follows from such a *could* be unless there is either concrete evidence that renders the obvious etymology impossible or at least unlikely or there is concrete evidence from an alternative etymology. This thread hasn't produced any, so what more can be said? Accumulating 100 "could be"s in itself still amounts to nothing as 100x0 is still 0.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> Sure it *could* be.



Precisely. And once you admit, as you have just done, that it could be, you can’t argue that it couldn’t be. It follows that it remains for possibilities to be suggested and for evidence to be provided and considered.


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> you can’t argue that it couldn’t be.


I don't. Just, "could be" in itself doesn't mean much. Virtually anything and its opposite "could be". And I can't see any sign of getting beyond the "could be" stage. Short of further evidence I'd say this wraps things up rather well:


Abaye said:


> The word deborah is not only "seems phonetically close" to "bee", it is exactly the Hebrew word for bee, with cognates in other Semitic languages. Therefore is makes no sense for the bible to say "bee means bee".


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> Just, "could be" in itself doesn't mean much.



Correct. But once we have established that it could be, it remains for possibilities to be suggested and for evidence supporting them to be provided and considered, as already stated. It's standard procedure in scientific or academic research and discussion.


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> and for evidence supporting them to be provided and considered


Well, there hasn't been any so far and running in circles with reiterating "could be"s appears pointless.


----------



## Apollodorus

Well, it's a _very new _thread. Presumably, those who have any constructive suggestions to make, will do so in due course. Plus, there are many more interesting names to analyze and discuss. So, I wouldn't give up in advance just yet if I were you .... 😉


----------

