Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 8:21 PM, James Christian wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the claim has been made that Genesis 30:20-30 are late additions to the
> Torah. Internal evidence would seem to suggest against this hypothesis.
> Consider Genesis 30:24

Genesis 36:24.

> And these are the sons of Zib´e·on: A´iah and A´nah. This is the A´nah who
> found the hot springs in the wilderness while he was tending the asses for
> Zib´e·on his father.

Let us consider first the possibility that the text really does read
"hot springs."
In this case the most interesting issue that comes up is the fact that the
person's name is (nh.  There are several roots of Ayin-Nun that have to do
with fertility:

Ayin Nun Heh - Fertility, from which probably comes the name of the goddess 
(nt,
and perhaps also the word (t - season, time.
Ayin Nun Nun - Raincloud
Ayin Yodh Nun - Spring.

So, this could be compared to the story of Brook, who found the streams.  The
etiology is an interpretation of the name, explaining to us why she was called
that.    From an objective point of view, we would consider it likely that the
legend regarding the streams did not speak of a particular person called 
Brook,
but that it was simply a legend about finding streams, and the hero's name is
just a "placeholder" having no real hero to describe.

So, the author tied the name of the figure here in the story to a well known
legend about a guy named "spring" who found the "hot springs."   He doesn't
really know the guy.  The story also doesn't necessarily describe an Edomite
called "Spring."  Since the name is generic, perhaps the nationality is too.  
It
was a general story known in the area, in Edom, as well as in Judea, about a
person called "Spring" who found the "springs" in the desert.  Now the legend
develops by telling us the nationality of the person and holding it to
a particular
figure in a genealogy.

If we do insist that the nationality is Edomite, then we would have to tie it 
in
to a place in history when Edomites were under Judean influence.  This is no
earlier than the First Millenium and also could be as late as the
2nd-1st centuries
BCE.

Now, before we go on, the Samaritan Pentateuch was mentioned as giving
evidence the the Pentateuch was confirmed prior to the split of the kingdoms:

> Another item in our critical apparatus is this George. The agreement we see
> that this statement is also in the Samaritan Pentateuch suggests this to
> have been a confirmed part of the Torah at least before the split of the
> kingdoms.

Before we explore this amazing agreement, it is important to point out that
the spelling of the Pentateuch definitely does not predate the 6th century 
BCE.
Furthermore the Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the Jewish Pentateuch
on issues of spelling (the spelling is actually more developed in the 
Samaritan,
generally speaking), so we would have to conclude that the agreement and
mutual confirmation of the Pentateuch by both communities happened
sometime not before the 6th century BCE.  A likely time would be the 3rd
century BCE, for various reasons.  From the 2nd century BCE on it is unlikely
because that is when we see a Judaean "religion" arise alongside a Samaritan
"religion."  (I sometimes wonder if along these lines, there was also
a "Nazarene"
religion developing at this time).

Now, to the agreement.  The Samaritan Pentateuch describes:
ואלה בני צבעון איה וענה הוא ענה אשר מצא את האימים במדבר ברעתו את
החמורים לצבעון אביו.

The Samaritan reads "Emim" rather than the Masoretic "Yemim".  But the
Samaritan version does have a reflex in Jewish tradition.  Onqelos translates
the word as גבריא -- suggesting that he too read אימים.  This word appears in
the Bible as "frightful spirits/images/idols" that were worshipped in Jer 
50:38
and as a word describing Giants (in Hebrew also Gibborim, in Aramaic
גבריא), in Deut 2:10.

The Talmud -- Pesahim 54a -- quotes Rabban Shimon Ben Gamaliel as
identifying the term with the mule.  Rashi adds "And why are they called
ימים?  Because they strike terror (אימתן) upon the public."  This is similar
to a Midrash of Genesis Rabbah on Genesis 6:4 which notes )emim is
another word for Nephilim, "that whoever saw them was struck with
fright."  Rashi is apparently basing himself on a Midrash that used this
concept on Genesis 36:24 instead, basing itself on a Jewish version that
read )emim.

The Masoretic version reads Yemim, and one possibility for this vocalization 
is
that this vocalization originally goes back to the spelling )emim
(sort of a Qari
that was lost as a separate tradition).

Perhaps even "hot springs" points to )emim since a word for "hot water" was
"xamim."  In the early centuries CE, the Het weakened so that it sounded like
an Alef, so perhaps this is where the )emim = "hot springs" came from.  The
translation "hot springs" is found according to HALOT only in the Vulgate and
the Peshitta, translated by the time the Het already weakened.

There are therefore several Jewish traditions (Onqelos, Talmud/Rashi, 
Masoretic
reading) that support the Samaritan reading on the Jewish side, and which in
my view suggest that )emim is the original reading.

In any case it is clear something strange is going on because only 10 verses
earlier this (anah was a girl.

Yitzhak Sapir