Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Andronic Khandjani <andronicusmy AT gmail.com>]

Hello,

I think that the concern  of fathers is more religious than tribal. The Law
will forbid the marriage because they could have negative religious impact.
Ezra and Nehemiah will extend the principle to Moabites and Ammonites even
if the House of David had very close bood connections with them.

The situation seemed to have evolved in Jacob's time as it seems his sons
had after Sheshem event some leading position in the country and a lot of
Hebrews followed them there. Joseph would refer to Canaan as the "Land of
Hebrews". Tamar seemed to be submitted to some Hebraic law about adultery.
The  report to Judah "* Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the
harlot"  *suggests
more conservative moral standards.

Firouz Khandjani,

Pleven, Bulgaria

2011/10/27 <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
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>