Martha: A Name Lost In Translation
An Etymological Defense for a Misinterpreted Character
Before I begin, I must confess: I am not a scholar of linguistics, nor do I claim formal training in biblical languages. What I am, however, is curious — deeply so. And, perhaps more than anything, I am swift to come to the defense of a name misread, especially when that name is my own.
The name Martha has long been interpreted through lenses that often serve a theological bias rather than a faithful rendering of language or context. Such a bias, as per the extent I have read, is drawn from Thayer’s Greek Definition of the name, that is “She was rebellious”. Thayer, however, seems to be the only one amongst other prominent dictionaries that subscribes to this lexical definition of the word, and as such, I began to question the credibility of this translation.
Thayer’s definition of the word (Strong’s Number G3136) is based on an etymological tracing of the word from the hebrew root “mar” (see Ruth 1:20) meaning “bitter”, from the same root making up the word “marah” (see numbers 20:24) to mean “rebelliousness”. Thayer goes on to do the same for Mary (G3137) by defining the name as “Rebellion”. On the definition of Mary as rebellion, it still does not hold much water. Thayer draws it from “Mariam” which is inferred from “Merîy” which is inferred to stem from “Marah” meaning “rebellion”. I would counter this definition, however, on the chance that Mariam borrowed from the Egyptian word ‘mery’ to mean ‘beloved’ rather than ‘marah’. I say this in consideration of Mariam being a Hebrew in the dispensations of Hebrew slavery by the egyptians. There’s an equal, if not greater chance of Mariam being a Hebrew equivalent of mery. However, contentions for Mary aside, assuming truly it is as translated by Thayer, then it is also possible that Thayer extended this etymological root of Mary to Martha by association — hence, the definition of martha as “She was rebellious”.
The definition of martha, as translated by the BDB, Strongs, ISBE & TNDT dictionaries, contests this definition however. Whereas Thayer draws the etymology of the word from the hebrew, the other dictionaries draw the word from aramaic “Mar(t)” which means “lord/master” (See Dan 4:19). When turned into its feminine form, the word becomes “marta” which means “lady/mistress”. Antithetically to it, the word hebrew word “mar” in its feminine form is “marah”. Of the two, and considering culturally the language spoken at the time of the new testament, the most probable root of the word is the aramaic “Mar(t)” as agreed upon by the BDB, Strongs, ISBE & TNDT dictionary authors.
So what does this actually mean for Martha as a person, and not just the name? In the play romeo & juliet, Juliet muses:
“what’s in a name? what we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.
Shakespeare infers that a name is not becoming of a person, but that the person would still remain equally the same if called by a different name.
Get the archivist, martha’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
I would disagree. Here is where I make my apology for the character of Martha. A solid interpretation of the scriptures Genesis 1:1–3, John 1:1–2 and Hebrews 11:3, would tell you that words are more powerful than they appear to be; After all, all of creation was powered by the spoken word. I believe the same is possible for a name, which is in itself a word. Our lives at one point, like the universe, were framed by the names we were given.
Martha, the lady, the mistress, the female head of the household, having been called that all her life, is naturally pre-dispositioned toward viewing life through the lens of a hostess; This is characteristic in Martha receiving Jesus into their home (Luke 10:38) rather than Mary, her sister. Martha immediately begins her service of hospitality as he teaches, meanwhile her sister Mary sits down to listen. This leads to a moment of contention in which Martha asks the Lord if He cares for, and if He does, why He allows her sister to make no contribution meanwhile she is solely burned with the role of hosting.
When you address the scripture firstly from a catographer’s lens rather than an eisegetical bias to frame the characters in one such way, Martha’s perspective seems quite honest rather than disingenuously rebellious.
The idea of rebellion is to resist control or authority. It infers that the person rebelling is knowledgeable of the rightful submission, and still chooses to go against it. That is not what Martha is doing in this scene with Jesus. She believes, due to the role of women in the society around them, that she is doing the right thing by being hospitable to Jesus. In fact, she strongly believes Mary is the one being rebellious in this scene, by going against the duty she ought to do, which is why she complains. This is Martha’s perspective because she views it from the frame of her name, her character, “the lady of the house”.
In Hebrew, the word for name is “shem”. Shem talks about more than just a word. Shem talks about the character, the power, the personality of a person. Every time Martha was called that name by family, friends, relatives, and her own self, she was cementing her character as someone who takes responsibility of a household, she cemented her power as one who was graced with hospitability, and her personality as one who leads and serves others; And this affirmation framed her lens as a home owner and a homemaker.
If the case for Martha was that her name meant rebellious, her actions towards Jesus would have been the opposite of welcoming. In fact, she would have been actively resistant to His authority, His power and His message. But rather Martha follows Jesus alongside her sister Mary. Even when she finds it difficult to believe him (John 11) she doesn’t resist Him.
The apology for Martha is a defense of her name and an explanation of her actions, but not a justification of them. The case for Martha is an interesting one because above her actions, the motive behind them is one that is common to all believers. We have all at some point been framed by the names that we have been called, good and bad. When Jesus corrects Martha, He does not diminish what she has been made, instead, He points her towards looking at things above, rather than things below. Jesus shifts her lens from the looking-glass of hostess to that of being a disciple.
We were never supposed to self-made or people made, because we were created in the image and likeness of God. Our character, authority, personality, power — our shem, is supposed to be defined by God not by man.
So just like Martha was told to sit down and listen, we too must reframe ourselves and our words, by sitting down to listen to the words of Jesus.
