Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Kenneth Greifer:

You raise many good points.

1.  You wrote:  “You said women don't have descendants in the Bible, but in
Genesis 16:10, the angel talks about Hagar's seed. Would you call that
descendants of a woman? There are more quotes like that.”

You make a good point there.  Of course, at Genesis 16: 10 the Hebrew word
is ZR(/“seed”, not BNYM or BNY/“sons”.

When the Patriarchal narratives talk about the “sons” of a named
individual woman, that always refers literally to actual sons, not descendants
generally.  But you are certainly right that Genesis 16: 10 refers to Hagar’s 
“
seed”, where “seed” there means descendants, including Ishmael’s descendants.

My point stands, however, that “thy mother’s sons” refers to Rebekah’s
actual, literal sons, not to Rebekah’s descendants generally.  At least, that’
s the way I view it.  But you are right that a woman in the Patriarchal
narratives can have descendants, where the Hebrew word used is seed/ZR(.  My
statement in my prior post concerning that was overly broad.  What I should
have said, per your comment, is as follows.  BNYM/BNY means literal “sons”
regarding a named individual woman, though BNYM/BNY may mean “descendants”
for a man.  To reference an individual woman’s “descendants” in Biblical
Hebrew, a work like ZR(/“seed” must be used, not BNYM/BNY.

2.  You wrote:  “Also, when was Jacob ruler over Esau like the blessing
said? Do you think Isaac was saying that Esau (or disguised Jacob) would only
rule his actual brothers and not their descendants too?  Later in Gen 27 he
said Esau would break the yoke of his brother off of him, but when did Jacob
have a yoke on him?”

At Genesis 33: 3-7, it is actually Jacob and Jacob’s family who bow to
Esau, not vice versa.  But I did not contend that Isaac had 20/20 foresight.  
In
fact, Isaac is blind in chapter 27 of Genesis.  Since this is not a
formulaic blessing, the substantive content of the blessing let’s us know what
Isaac had been thinking.  Isaac originally wanted, incorrectly, to have his
younger twin son Jacob bow down to Isaac’s favorite son, namely Isaac’s
firstborn son Esau, and for Esau to be the next ruler of the family.  But 
Isaac was
wrong on all counts.  First and foremost, the proper leader of the next
generation of new monotheists was, per divine Will, younger son Jacob, not
Esau.  Rebekah had figured that out correctly, but Isaac had been in the dark
about that.  [Actually, Isaac knows it’s Jacob whom Isaac is blessing.  Isaac
accepts the disguise, because Isaac finally, at long last, realizes that
Rebekah had been right all along as to which son was divinely fated to be the
leader of the next generation of new monotheists.  By shrewdly pretending not
to know it was Jacob, Isaac has a face-saving excuse when Esau soon comes
by and asks why Isaac had not named Isaac’s favorite son, Esau, as the next
leader.]   Moreover, you are right that Jacob never rules over Esau.  Rather,
Esau is left outside of the Covenant!  Just like Ishmael before him, Esau
must leave Canaan, although both Ishmael and Esau have many sons and prosper.

One of the most exciting elements of the Patriarchal narratives is the
presence of these reversals of fortune.  In fact, it happens every generation,
in basically the same way.  Abraham originally wanted YHWH to bless firstborn
son Ishmael, but Sarah was right in later insisting that Ishmael must be
exiled, in favor of Abraham’s younger son (Sarah’s only child), Isaac.  Isaac
wanted firstborn son Esau to be the chosen leader, but Rebekah was right in
insisting that younger twin son Jacob was the right son for that exalted
position.  Jacob originally favored Jacob’s firstborn son by Jacob’s favorite
wife (Rachel), namely Joseph, but eventually Jacob realized (per Leah, as
one can read between the lines in chapter 37 of Genesis, though it’s buried)
that younger son Judah (by Leah) was the right choice to be the sole leader
of the next generation of new monotheists.  Likewise, Amenhotep III unduly
favored his firstborn son Thutmose, but Queen Tiye rightly recognized that
the next ruler, who would be the first monotheist in secular history, must be
their younger son Akhenaten.  All four situations are slightly different,
yet they are all variations on a theme:  the firstborn son gets the shaft,
properly, and the mother of a younger son rightly discerns that it is the
younger son who must be the next sole leader of the new monotheists.  That 
mother
audaciously gets her way, which is proper.  Sarah and Rebekah are overtly
audacious, and are properly revered for that.  Tamar is equally audacious in
the fourth generation.  Leah is not quite as obvious in her actions, but
Leah insists on getting her own way, in her own way, and Leah is properly
revered for that.  There is no ancient literature, including any other 
portion of
the Bible, that features more forceful, audacious women, who are revered
(not reviled) for that, than the Patriarchal narratives.  That is one
important indication that the Patriarchal narratives are much  o-l-d-e-r  
than the
rest of the Bible, and that there’s no way that J, E or P could have authored
the Patriarchal narratives, which feature one audacious, bold, assertive,
revered woman after another, each of whom aggressively overturns her man’s
original plans as to who should be the leader of the next generation of new
monotheists.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************Dinner Made Easy Newsletter - Simple Meal Ideas for Your
Family. Sign Up Now!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221991367x1201443283/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215225819%3B37274678%3Bs%
3Fhttp:%2F%2Frecipes.dinnermadeeasy.com%2F%3FESRC%3D622)