[b-hebrew] benot cenaan

Uzi Silber uzisilber at gmail.com
Tue Nov 1 11:41:56 EDT 2011


1) I like the idea of explaining the delineating of boundaries through
such stories. In fact it has precedents -- take the story of Abraham
and Lot which served to demarcate the boundary -- essentially the
Jordan River -- between the future Israelites on one hand and
Moav/Amon on the other

The dominance idea I believe was put out before, but I dont know by
whom.  As an aside, that none of the main characters in the torah are
eldest sons is purposeful subversiveness.

Uzi Silber

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
<nir at ccet.ufrn.br> wrote:
> jim, firouz,
> that the ancients used in-clan marriage, this is no surprise. even salmon fish
> return to their original breeding place, across the ocean and up the river.
> the few guarany villages along the brazilian coast do it too and the
> grooms-to-be travel large distances (nowadays, by bus...) to marry girls
> from another village.
> this is a necessary strategy for a small group within bigger groups of the
> same species, in order to maintain its ethnic identity. recall laban's
> reply to jacob: i'd better give my daughter to you than to
> another person (...since you are family).
> that the ancients often married incestually (by today's criteria), is
> also not a big surprise. this happens in all small and isolated human
> societies, and part of the same strategy, as well as a necessity at times.
> that jacob's suns did not go to aram to wed, this is also obvious because
> supposedly jacob and laban quarreled and made a pact never to cross each
> other's territory again (another biblical device to demarcate the territory?).
> so, they HAD to marry canaanite girls. therefore i do not see your ethnic
> buildup theory as a fruit of choice but of circumstance.
> nevertheless i accept it as a POSSIBLE strategy by the biblical narrator to
> establish territorial rights. this requires us to assume the narrator faked
> the main facts.
> but then i have a question: if so, why didnt the biblical source invent
> right away that abraham, isaac, jacob were eldest suns (biblically,
> none of them was)? this would be the perfect solution, wouldnt it?
> but it was not done, so we must conclude that some element of truth
> pervades the story.
> this leads me to the following conjecture: the order of sons of an ancestor
> represents, primarily, the relative order of dominance/population of the
> corresponding tribes at the time of recording the history. a possible
> reason for this might be to increase the credibility of the story, or to
> close lacunas in a fading story. i guess that such a conjecture could be
> checked by looking at other cultures, and checked on the first chapters
> of genesis and chronicles.
> nir cohen
>>>>>>>>De: JimStinehart at aol.com
> Para: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Data: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:23:07 -0400 (EDT)
> Assunto: [b-hebrew] Milcah vs. the "Daughters of Canaan"
> ...The reason why Isaac and Jacob must not marry “daughters of Canaan”,
> whereas it’s perfectly fine for Judah and Simeon to do precisely that, makes
> sense if and only if viewed from a tribal perspective...
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebre
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list