Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] daughters jacob never spoke of

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rochelle Altman <willaa AT netvision.net.il>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] daughters jacob never spoke of
  • Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 23:11:33 +0200


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
>
YL:
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, "sons
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.

RA:
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 leadership
-- 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!)

YL:

I would not object to either interpretation, as long as it fit the context
of the text.

Yigal

RA:
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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page