[b-hebrew] daughters jacob never spoke of
willaa at netvision.net.il
Wed Jun 21 18:25:54 EDT 2006
> >Yigal Levin wrote in answer to Sujata:
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "sujata" <shevaroys at yahoo.com>
> >> >Gen 46:15 refers to 33 sons and daughters beside Dinah through
> >> Leah, >but the sons and grandsons listed in Gen 46:8-14 total to 33.
> Is the
> >> > translation "sons and daughters" correct?
> >> > Best,
> >> > sujata
> >> >
> >>Not quite. You are probably using a "politically correct" translation like
> >>NRSV. The Hebrew says: "These are the SONS of Leah which she bore Jacob
> >>in Paddan-aram, and Dinah his daughter, all souls, his sons and his
> >>daughters, thirty-three". Note "and his daughters". Even though the list
> >>does actually list 33, making it clear that no more than Dinah are
> >>counted, it still uses the plual "his daughters" in exactly the same way
> >>as it does in 37:35.
> >>This means one of two things. Either either the plural is used losely,
> >>and daughters" meaning "children", no matter what the actual ratio is, or
> >>there WERE other daughters, which were simply not "counted". Remember,
> >>we're discussing a patriarchal society, in which women did not "count",
> >>unless they were remarkable in their own right (there were such women),
> >>or unless they got their brothers into trouble, as in the case of Dinah.
> >>Since she had already been mentioned, the text continues to count her.
> >Patriarchal? Well, yes and no. We are talking about a CLAN society; the
> >leader is a man, the patriarch, the shepherd of his people. (ANE,
> >remember??) Do note that all the shepherd imagery is not solely because
> >they had sheep!
> >When in Gen. 27:3 Esav comes for the blessing -- that is, the clan
> >-- that Jacob has done a one-up on, Isaac tells him that it's too late;
> >he's already bestowed _everything and everybody (note that _everybody_).
> >Point is, in a clan society, everything and everyone _belongs_ to the clan
> >leader. (To this day, technically, everything and everybody in Saudi is
> >owned by the king.)
> >You certainly are right about not counting women who were
> >"ordinary"... However, in Clan societies, a daughter-in-law is a
> >daughter of the clan leader.
> >Now, back to the quote at Gen: 46:15....
> >"These are the SONS of Leah which she bore Jacob in Paddan-aram, and Dinah
> >his daughter, all souls, his sons and his daughters, thirty-three".
> >Leah did not bear 33 children -- the list calls the grandsons her "sons"
> >but, as number 1 wife, Leah is credited with all the descendants/children
> >-- including unnamed (Shaul, son of a Cana'anite woman) and uncounted
> >daughters by marriage. (I mean, hey, those grandsons weren't cloned!)
> >>I would not object to either interpretation, as long as it fit the context
> >>of the text.
> >The terminology is CLAN terminology. The terminology is part of the
> >context. Sons count; unless a daughter by marriage did something to be
> >noted, she wouldn't be mentioned by name... or counted. Dinah was
> >carried off by force-- but for a Clan society, she's to blame. (Anyone
> >think blaming the victim is modern???)
> >I might add that I have three sons, 7 grandsons, and 2
> >granddaughters. So, seemingly "impossible" ratios (7:2) are quite
> >possible. And, yes, I do consider my daughters by marriage, daughters.
> >Most people do.
> >Back to being an ostrich,
> >Rochelle Altman
More information about the b-hebrew