Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

jim,

>> 1.  But this sentence of yours is wrong:  “it appears that serah is 
>> mentioned three times in genesis and several times in the jewish and 
>> samaritan tradition."

>> $RX is only mentioned once in Genesis, at Genesis 46: 17.  The other two 
>> references to $RX are in Numbers and Chronicles.  Note that Numbers 26: 46 
>> makes the same mistake as scholars do in saying that $RX is Asher’s 
>> “daughter”.  What Genesis 46: 17 actually says, by contrast, is that $RX 
>> is the “sister” of Asher’s sons.

 yes you are correct. i was just quoting incorrectly.

>> The key to understanding both $RX [a name which means “like Sarah”] and 
>> $RY [Sarah’s birth name] is to realize that $RX is not the blood 
daughter of Asher, and $RY is not the blood daughter of Terah.  The text of 
Genesis is telling us what 
is going on, if we pay close attention to what the text says and does not say.

this is already highly speculative, but i accept it as a possibility.

>> 2.  You wrote:  “was serah mentioned in 46:17 in relation to the 
>> rabbinical tradition of her role in making two important 
revalations connected with joseph?”>> The Patriarchal narratives are much 
older than rabbinical Midrash.  $RX plays no 
role whatsoever regarding Joseph in the Patriarchal narratives.  Rather, $RX 
is included at Genesis 46: 
17 in order to confirm that what Terah did for $RY and Terah’s blood son 
Abram 
was right, being essentially identical to what Asher later did for $RX and 
Asher’s blood son Beriah.of course i accept that the patriarchal narratives 
are much older. but it is dangerous to identify 
the OT, and even genesis, with the patriarchal narratives, for three basic 
reasons: (1) possible additions, (2) possible 
omissions, (3) possible alterations. it is quite possible that some of the 
midrashim were based on oral tradition or written documents of 
patriarchal origin which did not find their full expression in the OT. it is 
even possible that some of the

earliest biblical translations/interpretations, like onklos, introduced 
alterations/innovations which influenced 
the masorah in editing the final form of the OT in ways which differ from the 
original text.

your argument on "blood sons" and "no-blood daughters" is still somewhat 
misterious to me. perhaps things are much 
simplre than that.

granted, it is uncommon to find a daughter mentioned in a biblical 
genealogical list - so we have a real issue: why

here? (it is this point, not the word "their sister", which the midrash was 
tying to explain). on the other hand, once the narrator did 
decide to include a daughter, for whatever reason, i see nothing odd in the 
word AXOTAM (their sister). as the name SERAH is not

obviously female to hebrew ears, how else would the narrator indicate it was 
a daughter and not a son?

nir cohen

On Wed, 23 May 2012 17:40:32 -0400 (EDT), JimStinehart wrote
> 
>Nir 
Cohen: Thanks for that nifty cite. 
1.  But this sentence of yours 
is wrong:  “it appears that serah 
is mentioned three times in genesis and several times in the jewish and 
samaritan tradition.” $RX is only mentioned once in 
Genesis, at Genesis 46: 17.  The 
other two references to $RX are in Numbers and Chronicles.  Note that Numbers 
26: 46 makes the same 
mistake as scholars do in saying that $RX is Asher’s “daughter”.  What 
Genesis 46: 17 actually says, by 
contrast, is that $RX is the “sister” of Asher’s 
sons. The key to understanding both $RX [a name which means “like 
Sarah”] and $RY [Sarah’s birth name] is to realize that $RX is not the blood 
daughter of Asher, and $RY is not the blood daughter of Terah.  The text of 
Genesis is telling us what 
is going on, if we pay close attention to what the text says and does not 
say. 2.  You wrote:  “was serah mentioned in 46:17 in 
relation to the rabbinical

>

tradition of her role in making two important revalations connected with

>

joseph?” The Patriarchal narratives are much older than 
rabbinical Midrash.  $RX plays no 
role whatsoever regarding Joseph in the Patriarchal narratives.  Rather, $RX 
is included at Genesis 46: 
17 in order to confirm that what Terah did for $RY and Terah’s blood son 
Abram 
was right, being essentially identical to what Asher later did for $RX and 
Asher’s blood son Beriah. 
3.  You wrote:  “was serah mentioned because of 
inheritance issues…? Yes, the point of $RY being made 
Abram’s “sister”, and of $RX being made Beriah’s “sister”, was 
precisely to ensure that such “sister” would be the man’s sole main wife, 
so that her son or sons would receive the man’s entire 
inheritance. Yes, that’s exactly right.  The Hebrew author mentions this 
situation a second time at 
Genesis 46: 17 in order to confirm that what Terah had done for his blood son 
Abram had been the right thing to do.  
The situation was that $RY was not Terah’s blood daughter, but rather 
Terah always thought of her as being his “daughter-in-law”, per Genesis 11: 
31.  Just like what Asher did for 
$RX and his blood son Beriah.  
Same.  And Yes, in both cases 
it was, as you say, all about “inheritance 
issues”. Jim StinehartEvanston, Illinois

-- 
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)