Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

I've got to be honest with you here Yitzhak, you've totally lost me. The
genealogy is a Horite genealogy not an Edomite one. The girl 10 verses
earlier is his daughter (Oholibamah) not Anah himself. In the Horite
genealogy it is mentioned that Anah had a daughter Oholibamah while it is
usual to only list sons. This is evidently to link Anah in some way related
to Esau through one of his wives. Anah, as I understand the text, was one of
Esau's father in laws.

Anyway, just what you were trying to suggest with your lengthy discussion of
the Samaritan version is still completely beyond me. You make some vague
mention of the Nephilim but failed to provide an alternative reading that
would make sense.

James Christian

On 16 May 2010 00:17, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>