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: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:25:54 +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