Reputation
10,361
Next tag badge:
68/100 score
13/20 answers
Badges
1 12 42
Newest
 Benefactor
Impact
~130k people reached

2d
comment Did Peter read Paul's Epistle to the Galatians?
Related question, though definitely distinct: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1950/…
2d
comment Did Peter read Paul's Epistle to the Galatians?
I voted to reopen. I see this question a fully on-topic. It falls directly under the category of "① the history of that biblical text itself" (here, 1 Peter), that is, did the original author know about Galatians or not. It is a historical question about the context of the initial writing of the text, which is part of what is directly on-topic for the site.
Feb
3
comment What is the significance of Gen 46:10 “Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman”?
I'm choosing to award my bounty to you. Though I would have liked more information on "historical interpretations" of the passage, your answer did at least include the ISBE note, and it provided some food for thought.
Feb
2
comment What is the significance of Gen 46:10 “Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman”?
We know from Gen 46 he is one of the group that went to Egypt with Jacob, and he has no sons noted (as Perez does, v.12; see count v.27), and also from Num 26:13, where those coming out of Egypt descended from him are noted. So the text is clear on Shaul going and begetting in Egypt. But the location vs. genealogy with concession of equality is that a Canaanitess could travel to the Euphrates and have given birth there, or Shaul traveled there and become famous there before being king in Edom, so the facts are not mutually exclusive enough to be of significance for the phrase's inclusion.
Feb
1
comment What is the significance of Gen 46:10 “Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman”?
Thanks for clarifying. To summarize against Shaul = King in Edom; Shaul went to Egypt young enough to have no children, but remained to father descendants there. Yet, if I grant an equation, "son of a Canaanitess" does not disqualify him being "of Rehoboth by the river." One associates to a location, the other to genealogy. Shaul could be of Simeon, by Canaanite woman descent, being either born at Rehoboth (wherever it is) or became famous there before ruling in Edom. Without mutual exclusion, the Gen 46 ref. is irrelevant to distinguish from Gen 36, any more than son of Simeon distinguishes.
Feb
1
comment What is the significance of Gen 46:10 “Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman”?
(1) at least be reigning over his own immediate family (which is part of Israel), which family, (2) did not yet exist when they went to Egypt, as no great grandsons or wives of them except from Judah, Hezron and Hamul (Gen 46:12), went, (3) he is father to those in captivity in Egypt, so he did not leave Egypt to rule (Num 26:13). Other points could be made, but it makes no sense to see the reference as Wenham notes as adding any clarity with the Gen 36 reference, since simply being the son of Simeon in the context is enough clarity to not confuse them.
Feb
1
comment What is the significance of Gen 46:10 “Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman”?
+1 for finding a source that has this take on the significance of the passage. However, I find Wenham's conclusion for the reason of the inclusion extremely weak. Shaul in Gen 46 is clearly Shaul, son of Simeon, son of Israel (in context), and so "son of a Canaanite" is at best wholly unnecessary, and more likely completely irrelevant for distinguishing the Gen 36 reference. Clearly the grandson of Israel was not a king in Edom before "any king reigned over the children of Israel" (Gen 36:1), as he would (cont.)
Feb
1
comment What is the significance of Gen 46:10 “Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman”?
@JamesShewey Yes, I mentioned that "the account in Genesis 38 is enough to account for the absence of mention in Genesis 46" for Judah's sons. What is interesting, though, is that Shaul continues to be referenced by this fact in later accounts as well, while the others are not specifically so.
Jan
30
comment What is the significance of Gen 46:10 “Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman”?
I hold a traditional view that Moses essentially wrote Deuteronomy, not a "Deuteronomist," so that is what I refer to. It changes the time frame significantly (as I'm sure you know). And I tend to interpret off both the historical story told in the Bible and the textual history.
Jan
29
comment Why did Abraham bind his son Isaac?
I fight against being too "tangential" all the time in my writing as well... :-) I'll delete that comment in the near future to clean up the comment string, but leave the other comment (which is why I separated the two).
Jan
29
comment Why did Abraham bind his son Isaac?
For me, your "banal" answer is the most appropriate one for the reason of binding and the difference with other sacrifices. A live sacrifice would have a tendency to run away if not so constrained (of course some argue Isaac let himself be bound, but even if he was willing, would he have possibly ran in the heat of the moment...).
Jan
29
comment Why did Abraham bind his son Isaac?
Highly unorthodox practice of putting a footnote within a footnote (i.e. note 3 inside note 1). Perhaps an asterisk, and the comment added below note 1 would be better? Or was this a leftover remnant of when you perhaps were planning to have the note 1 text inside the main body text?
Jan
29
comment What is the significance of Gen 46:10 “Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman”?
While I disagree with both the textual and Israelite history used as the basis for some of this answer, some of the textual observations you offer are interesting and useful (so +1 for that). However, my main question is with respect to "historical interpretations": Do you have sources you can cite that were perhaps the foundation for the ISBE summary of "notoriously impure stock" for Shaul's line? I.E. Jewish or Christian commentators that explore that aspect in their commentaries?
Jan
28
comment What is the significance of Gen 46:10 “Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman”?
There were some comments that led to some revision of the question for clarity that can be found here if anyone is interested.
Jan
27
comment What is the significance of Gen 46:10 “Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman”?
Regarding my (2) possible condition for the reward, I commented about that proposal, but I would desire further information of others who see it as such.
Jan
25
comment What did earrings have to do with idolatry in Gen 35:4?
It is your last speculation, "It is possible that the earrings were singled out because they had a special significance with respect to idolatry, above and beyond all other types of clothing," that is exactly what I am trying to establish as fact and the why of that.
Jan
25
comment What did earrings have to do with idolatry in Gen 35:4?
Well, I did learn from your answer that the "Torah commentators" gleaned the same thing from the text that I did, namely, that some relationship existed between the earrings and idolatry in this instance. Maimonides speculation of engraving of images I speculated as well, but that does not really resolve why earrings as opposed to other jewelry. I would think that bracelets, finger rings, necklaces, etc., might have also been engraved with idolatrous images. Hence my 2nd question, but your conjecture of "earrings" representing "grouped together as 'clothes'" is not very satisfying. Cont.
Jan
16
comment Why distinguish the genders of asses/donkeys in Gen 12:16?
@Susan I wondered the same and have not taken time to lookup
Jan
16
comment Do any scholars argue a textual theory where the NT text was edited to make the autographa?
My defense against closing this question can be found here. However, if it deems to be closed, I do not wish for it to move to C.SE, but simply remain closed here on BH.SE.
Jan
15
comment Do any scholars argue a textual theory where the NT text was edited to make the autographa?
I agree standard "MT View is 'counter-intuitive' to the 'textual update' process," which is why it would be "a competing theory" to that view to support MT through the update process, if such exists as it does for OT process. I would argue, however, being one who holds to the standard MT view, that I do not "simply dismiss anything that predates the Byzantine/Greek," but attempt to engage them on the terms that I believe are more relevant than the mere fact a particular manuscript survived longer in history (which is the opposing "default" of the non-MT camp).