Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rochelle Altman <willaa AT netvision.net.il>]

> 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