Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Norman Cohn <normanncohn AT yahoo.com.br>]

Hi, Kenneth!

 

Many reputable translators have commented on the difficulty of translating this passage, especially because it's hard to know to whom the personal pronouns are refering too, and Moses name is not explicity mentioned. 

 

Then we have the usual issues of euphemism. Some scholars think that the biblical writers at times used "feet" as an euphemism for the male intimate parts (Is. 6,2; 7,2), If that's the case in this passage, it could be that Zipporah, in a desperate attempt to save his husband's life, was symbolically circumcising Moses by touching the child's foreskin on Moses' intimate parts. 

 

In his translation, Robert Alter thinks that the possibility of euphemism cannot be ruled out, noting, however, that we have no way of knowing whether the passage is referring to Moses, the child's or the Lord's feet. In a footnote, Alter says the traditional explanation - Moses being punished for not having performed the circumcision on his son (s) - is implausible and suggests the following explanation: the passage would be an archaic reminscence of the earliest rationales for the circumcision. Still according to Alter, It could be that earlier in time, the Israelites justified the circumcision not by the idea of a covenant between God and human beings, but by the belief that this ritual was necessary to avoid the attack of a evil deity. Finally, he suggests that the passage corresponds to certain patterns in the biblical and the mythological stories, like the life-threating wandering in the wilderness and the dangerous rite of passage the hero has to undergo before starting his mission.

 

Richard Freedman (Bible with sources revealed - HarperOne) attributes this passage to J.

 

Myself, I can't for the life of me make any sense of this passage. I have to say I find the traditional explanation implausible to say the least, for what does it mean to say that God was "seeking" (!) to kill Moses? That makes little sense to me, but I can certainly be wrong.

 

Although I don't agree with her, I guess Pamela Reis' explanation has an important advantage: it harmonizes Ex. 4: 19-20, 24-26 with the mention that Zipporah had been sent back home (Ex. 18:2).

 

I like your interpretation, but there's the problem that the narrative seems to assume that they were already married when that strange event happened (Ex. 4:20; 2: 21-22).

 

Best regards,

 

Norman Cohm

São Paulo - SP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 To be true, I have no idea what the writer (s) was (were) tryingo to convey there.

De: kenneth greifer <kenneth AT messianicmistakes.com>
Para: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Enviadas: Terça-feira, 8 de Janeiro de 2013 21:07
Assunto: [b-hebrew] Exodus 4:25 bridegroom of blood

I wonder if Zipporah was saying that the baby was a bridegroom of blood to her based on the circumcision and blood on the baby as I explained in my first email. Maybe touching his feet was part of a Midian marriage ritual, not meant literally, but done symbolically on the baby. I don't know what unusual marriage rituals  ancient people did, but that might explain touching his feet. Most commentators say she threw his foreskin at Moses' feet, instead of touching or hitting his feet, but I don't know if the verb actually means that. I haven't seen it in the dictionary translated that way.

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