Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Who precisely are the “daughters of Canaan”?  At Genesis 24: 3 Abraham 
prohibits Isaac from marrying BNWT H-KN(NY, and at Genesis 28: 1 Isaac 
similarly prohibits Jacob from marrying “daughters of Canaan”/BNWT KN(N.  Why?
 
Note that by contrast, Judah marries a “daughter of a certain Canaanite”
/BT-)Y$ KN(NY (Genesis 38: 2), and that one of Simeon’s wives is a 
Canaanitess/H-KN(NYT (Genesis 46: 10).  Although the wording in all four 
cases is 
slightly different [in part merely reflecting singular vs. plural], the 
meaning 
seems to be the same.
 
Rather than being an ethnic designation, “daughters of Canaan” probably 
refers to any woman born in Canaan, including Hurrian women born in Canaan 
[per Genesis 36: 2-3, where none of the three BNWT KN(N there as Esau’s wives 
has a Canaanite father].
 
The reason why Isaac and Jacob must not marry “daughters of Canaan”, 
whereas it’s perfectly fine for Judah and Simeon to do precisely that, makes 
sense if and only if viewed from a tribal perspective.  The Patriarchal 
narratives set forth an ideal tribal framework for the Hebrews.  It is 
well-known 
that there are three high-profile vertical common male ancestors of all the 
Hebrews [with the Hebrews being Jacob’s 12 sons and their descendants], 
namely 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  But less remarked upon is the fact that there 
are also three horizontal common male ancestors of all the Hebrews as well:  
Abraham, his middle brother Nahor, and his oldest brother Haran.  Abraham’s 
middle brother Nahor married Milcah, a daughter of Abraham’s oldest brother 
Haran.  Genesis 11: 29.  The fact that Milcah married Nahor is stated again, 
along with the new news that Rebekah is one of their descendants, at Genesis 
22: 20-24.  [Abraham learns that news at the time of his father’s death.]  
Then twice more we are told that Milcah married Nahor, with Milcah being 
mentioned prior to Nahor on three straight occasions, in connection with 
noting 
Rebekah’s ideal ancestral bloodlines as Isaac’s betrothed at Genesis 24: 
15 and Genesis 24: 24.  Why does Milcah warrant all this prominent attention? 
 True, Milcah and her descendant Rebekah live in eastern Syria, not in 
Canaan, but is that geographical fact the main thing that distinguishes them 
from the BNWT KN(N?
 
Jacob’s wives Leah and Rachel are daughters of Rebekah’s brother Laban, as 
such being descendants of Milcah and Nahor.  So all three successor 
Matriarchs are blood descendants of both of Abraham’s older brothers.  
Although 
YHWH grants all of Canaan to Abraham, note that Abraham effectively co-opts 
the 
other two branches of his father’s family by including descendants from 
each of the three branches as the inheritors of Canaan.  That way of 
operating, 
which is also followed by Isaac, is blessed by YHWH when YHWH extends his 
wondrous blessings to Jacob [Genesis 28: 13-15, as repeated and confirmed at 
Genesis 35: 9-12].
 
What does the scholarly community have to say about this brilliant tribal 
planning?  “Nahor marries the daughter of his deceased brother Haran.  …
These laconic notices by J presuppose a very ancient tradition precisely 
because 
they seem to be pointless in the present context.”  E.A. Speiser, “Genesis”
 (1962), p. 78.  Pointless?  Are scholars reading the same Biblical text as 
the rest of us are?  Here’s another insightful remark in this connection by 
a leading commentator on Genesis:  “Strange that Milcah’s father is named….
”  Gerhard von Rad, “Genesis” (1972), p. 158.  Strange?  The ideal tribal 
framework would disappear if Milcah’s father were anyone other than Haran, 
because then no descendant of Haran would share in the inheritance of Canaan. 
 Are scholars reading the same Biblical text as the rest of us?
 
The foregoing establishes the ideal exclusive nature of the Hebrew tribe.  
A man is not a member of the Hebrew tribe unless he has both three 
high-profile vertical common male ancestors (the 3 Patriarchs), and three 
horizontal 
common male ancestors as well (Abraham on the paternal side, and Abraham’s 
two brothers on the maternal side).
 
The other aspect of a tribe, however, is that it must encompass a large 
number of people, rather than being a mere extended family or clan.  So 
beginning with the generation of Jacob’s sons, the marriage rules change 
dramatically.  No longer are Hebrew males restricted to marrying a female 
descendant 
of both of Abraham’s older brothers.  In addition to Judah and Simeon 
marrying Canaanite women [as noted above], it is probably by a Hurrian woman 
[Tamar] that Judah sires his twin sons, and Joseph marries an Egyptian woman 
[Genesis 41: 45].  Whereas Jacob’s female descendants must marry Jacob’s male 
descendants [the harsh lesson driven home in the awkward Shechem incident 
regarding Jacob’s daughter Dinah, who is not permitted to marry young 
Shechem], 
Jacob’s male descendants, by contrast, in addition to marrying Jacob’s 
female descendants, are free both to practice polygamy and to marry women who 
are not related to Abraham’s father at all.
 
In my opinion, the phrase “daughters of Canaan”/BNWT KN(N has misled 
analysts.  Abraham and Isaac were not biased against Canaanite women, and the 
focus of that phrase is not really on geography.  Rather, Abraham and Isaac 
were determined to create the ideal tribal bloodlines, and they masterfully 
accomplished that difficult feat.  Rather than having a mere single prominent 
common male ancestor, which is not enough for Ishmael to be in the same tribe 
as Isaac, or having only two prominent vertical common male ancestors, 
which is not enough for Esau to be in the same tribe as Jacob, we see that 
Abraham and Isaac insist on something much grander than that for the new 
tribe of 
the Hebrews.  The Hebrews are a perfect tribe from a tribal standpoint, 
because all the Hebrews [Jacob’s descendants] have both three high-profile 
vertical common male ancestors, and three horizontal common male ancestors as 
well.  Thanks in no small part to Milcah, those horizontal common male 
ancestors include both of Abraham’s brothers.  That’s not “pointless” and 
“strange
”, as scholars would have it.  No, that’s tribal perfection.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois