Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Andronic Khandjani <andronicusmy AT gmail.com>]

Thank you for the answer but there are a lot of male relatives of Abraham
cited who did not play any direct role. It only implies that the author
would remind to the first readers or hearers that they have connection with
other tribes that we may not know.

About the teraphim we have to remember that there a difference between the
"sin of Jeroboam" and the idolatry of Ahab. According the theology of the
Bible, Ahab was introducing the baalism but Jeroboam and Jehu use to worship
in the wrong way. Teraphim was considered as less dangerous than the worship
of a foreign god. There are some basic agreement between Eliezer(?), Jacob,
Laban and Bethuel about the main God.

Jacob will tend explicitly to a very strict monotheism closing the cycle of
 the 3 main patriarchs. If Abraham may speak about gods to the kings, Jacob
will avoid any common reference of God with his own uncle. With Jacob the
monotheism become completely exclusivist:"*Then Jacob said unto his
household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are
among you, and be clean, and change your garments"*

Jacob is the man of the rupture: rupture with his Aramean roots, rupture
with the Aramean syncretism. Jacob had a message and he felt enough strong
with his 12 sons and other Aramean-Hebrews to accept non Hebrew women in his
clan  that he would convert.

Firouz Khandjani

Pleven, Bulgaria






2011/10/28 <JimStinehart AT aol.com>

> **
>
> Firouz Khandjani wrote:  “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.”****
>
> ** **
>
> Are there non-tribal religious reasons why (i) Abraham prohibits Isaac from 
> marrying BNWT KN(N, (ii) Isaac similarly prohibits Jacob from marrying any 
> “daughter of **Canaan**”, yet (iii) both Judah and Simeon in the next 
> generation marry Canaanite women?****
>
> ** **
>
> As to the religious [non-tribal] issue, the BNWT KN(N who were ethnic 
> Canaanites, and the BNWT KN(N who were ethnic Hurrians born in Canaan, and 
> Milcah, and Milcah’s sister Iscah and, while out in eastern Syria at 
> Harran, Milcah’s descendant Rebekah as well, were all probably pagans.  We 
> know for certain that Rebekah’s brother Laban has teraphim.  Those idols 
> were so important to Laban that they were one of the reasons why Laban 
> chases a fleeing Jacob all the way from eastern **Syria** to **Gilead**.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thus from a non-tribal, religious perspective, all these women seem to be 
> about the same:  they’re all pagans, and they likely all worship idols.  
> Why then must Isaac and Jacob marry a descendant of Milcah, whereas they 
> are prohibited from marrying BNWT KN(N?  And why does that prohibition 
> disappear in the generation of Jacob’s sons?  In my opinion, the answer has 
> almost nothing to do with either religion or geography.  Rather, tribal 
> considerations are the governing factor here.****
>
> ** **
>
> One good way to determine the essential difference between Milcah [whose 
> descendants Isaac and Jacob must marry] and the BNWT KN(N/daughters of 
> **Canaan** [whom Isaac and Jacob dare not marry, but whom Judah and Simeon 
> marry] is to consider Milcah’s sister Iscah.  Genesis 11: 29 says that 
> Milcah and Iscah were the daughters of Abraham’s oldest brother, 
> ****Haran****, and that Milcah married Abraham’s middle brother, Nahor.****
>
> ** **
>
> Like Milcah, and unlike BNWT KN(N, Iscah and her female descendants live in 
> eastern **Syria**, at **Harran**.  But is that geographical consideration 
> the key to understanding the surprising prominence of Milcah [as opposed to 
> Iscah] in the text?****
>
> ** **
>
> Here is the scholarly analysis of Iscah:****
>
> ** **
>
> “‘Iscah’ is mentioned only here.  The etymology and meaning of her name are 
> unknown.  Suggestions that Iscah is an alternative name for Sarah or that 
> she was **Lot**’s wife are purely speculative.”  Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 
> 1-15” (1987), p. 273.****
>
> ** **
>
> “[W]hat reason could there be for the inclusion of Iscah, other than the 
> fact that such a tradition had been handed down to J, who had no choice but 
> to record it?”  E.A. Speiser, “Genesis” (1962), p. 79.****
>
> ** **
>
> But if we think of what it takes to create the ideal tribe, then we can 
> understand the role that Iscah plays in the tribal history of the Hebrews 
> that is set forth in the Patriarchal narratives.   The key is to contrast 
> Iscah with Milcah.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> A female descendant of Iscah would not be the ideal bride for Isaac.  
> Iscah, like Milcah, lives in eastern ****Syria****, but that geographical 
> consideration is of marginal importance.  No, what’s of key importance, and 
> distinguishes these two daughters of Haran from each other, is that only 
> Milcah’s descendants are descendants of both of Abraham’s two older 
> brothers.  Milcah is ****Haran****’s daughter, and Milcah is also the main 
> wife of Nahor.  Thus a female descendant of Milcah is the ideal bride for 
> Isaac, because it includes both of the other two branches of the family as 
> sharing in Abraham’s divine inheritance of **Canaan**.  By marrying a 
> female descendant of Milcah, rather than a female descendant of Iscah, 
> Isaac thereby includes a line of descendants from both of Abraham’s two 
> brothers in the inheritance of **Canaan**.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Such marriage creates three horizontal common male heirs for the new tribe 
> of Hebrews that is being formed.  Every Hebrew (that is, as to males, the 
> male descendants of Jacob) will have Abraham, Nahor and ****Haran**** as 
> three horizontal common male ancestors.  In conjunction with the Hebrew 
> tribe later having three high-profile vertical common male ancestors -- 
> Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- an ideal tribe is being formed, based on ideal 
> ancestral bloodlines.****
>
> ** **
>
> Iscah’s role in the Patriarchal narratives is to clarify Milcah’s role as 
> to ancestral bloodlines for the new Hebrew tribe that is being formed.  The 
> fact that Milcah’s female descendant Rebekah lives in Harran in eastern 
> ****Syria**** is of little importance.  What is of critical importance is 
> not the geography, but rather the ideal ancestral bloodlines of the newly 
> forming Hebrew tribe.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Only by marrying a female descendant of Milcah [as opposed to a female 
> descendant of Iscah] does Isaac’s marriage bring in both of Abraham’s two 
> brothers as sharing in Abraham’s divine inheritance of **Canaan**.  That’s 
> one key step in forming the ideal tribe.****
>
> ** **
>
> The problem with the BNWT KN(N is not they’re from **Canaan** or that most 
> of them are ethnic Canaanites, much less that they are pagans who worship 
> idols.  No, the problem with the “daughters of **Canaan**” is that they 
> cannot help Abraham or Isaac create a new tribe, the Hebrews, with ideal 
> ancestral bloodlines.  Neither can Iscah.  It’s got to be Milcah’s line of 
> descendants, because only Milcah’s descendants represent both of Abraham’s 
> brothers, thereby allowing certain descendants of all three sons of Terakh 
> to share Abraham’s divine inheritance of **Canaan**.  Nothing but a 
> descendant of Milcah will do as the ideal bride for Isaac and Jacob, 
> despite the prominence of teraphim out in eastern Syria, given that the 
> Patriarchs are bound and determined to create the ideal tribe [based on 
> ideal ancestral bloodlines], which they deftly proceed to do.****
>
> ** **
>
> Jim Stinehart****
>
> ****Evanston**, **Illinois********
>
>