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