Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Kwon:

 

I will briefly comment on your quotation from Wikipedia, but you would in fact be far better off addressing these questions to Kenneth Greifer.

 

1.  “In Hebrew, the word “feet” is used as a euphemism for the word “genitals.” Very few translators chose to use the word “genitals” in their interpretation, so it's not clear what Zipporah touched with the bloody foreskin.”

 

That’s true.  In the Book of Ruth, Ruth uncovers the “feet” of Boaz all night.  Boaz likes that so very, very much that the very next day he insists on marrying her.

 

2.  “The Hebrew for “bridegroom of blood” written as “hatan damim,” is derived from a Semitic root verb which means “perform marriage.” In the Arabic language this phrase is linked to Hebrew, but means “perform circumcision.” In ancient Akkadian language related to Arabic and Aramaic/Hebrew, this phrase means ‘to protect’.”

 

In my opinion, Arabic and Aramaic have nothing to do with anything here.  I see Zipporah as being an ethnic Hurrian from the Late Bronze Age Hurrian state of Mitanni/MDYN in eastern Syria, who has been following the Kassite way of abhorring circumcision.

 

3.  “Zipporah was a Midian woman. Midian was in the northwestern region of the present day Saudi Arabia where Arabic is spoken. However, in Zipporah‘s day, Akkadian was spoken. Some claims[1] (with no further references in it) that, in the ancient Akkadian
language, casting the foreskin meant “to protect.” So “You are a bridegroom of blood,” can also mean, ‘This blood will protect you’.”

 

See my answer to #2 above.  In my opinion, Arabia, Arabic and Aramaic have nothing to do with Zipporah or anything else here.

 

*       *       *

 

On this thread, Kenneth Greifer is exploring possible non-traditional explanations of this ambiguous story.  He’s the one to consult.

 

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois