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) _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
