I did not get much information regarding the historical interpretations that I was seeking, so I chose to do some research myself.
Itemization of Historical Interpretations
NOTE: I have not discovered anything that directly warrants a support for my conjectures about "Canaanitish woman" being a reference to acting like a prostitute.1
What I have found is that there appear to be primarily three types of interpretations:
- That Simeon married (or at least had procreative relations with) a Canaanite woman. The purpose of "Canaanite woman" being noted is generally believed to imply that the other brothers had not had such relations (Judah is noted as another exception however).
2
- That Simeon married his sister Dinah, who he helped make a widow by killing her Canaanite husband Shechem, and Shaul was the product of this incestuous union. The purpose of "Canaanite woman" here is to allude obliquely to Dinah, possibly to avoid noting directly the incest, while truthfully noting she had been married to a Canaanite.
3
- That Simeon adopted a Canaanite boy into his family. This was articulated in two different ways:
- (a) merely as a straight adoption notation, the Canaanite woman being unknown, but her son was Shaul and his descendants of Canaanite stock
4
- (b) as a variant to the #2 story, Shaul is Dinah's son by Shechem, who is adopted by Simeon as part of his helping her since she is now a widow (and possibly remained so) by the actions he had done (see section below for source information).
#1: Intended to Call Simeon out as having a child by a Canaanite?
#1 is a common idea, as evidenced by the many commentaries that note it. But it suffers from not explaining well the barrage of points against it made in my original question as well as one other point noted here:
- Judah married a Canaanite and fathered sons by her (however, they all died).
- Most, if not nearly all the other brothers most likely married Canaanite women also (per the points noted in the question). Joseph married and Egyptian (Gen 41:45; though if one traces it out, some Jewish scholars consider her to be Dinah!), but otherwise, little is known of the wives beyond the hints noted.
- Most significant, Tamar (Gen 38:6) was highly likely a Canaanite as well, meaning that the surviving line of Judah is of Canaanite motherly descent, and yet this does not get mentioned in Genesis 46.
5
#2: Intended to Convey Shaul is product of Incest?
The author of Genesis had no issues elsewhere in conveying more explicitly incest relations, even in the line of Israel with Abraham:
- Lot with his daughters (Gen 19:30-38), which produced Moab (though the author of Genesis would not know the full significance of that in relation to Ruth in the line of David).
- Abraham with his half-sister Sarai (Gen 20:12).
This casts some doubt on using the term as a euphemism to simply hide Dinah's identity for purposes of this son's mother. However, the idea that it is a term to refer to Dinah shows the potential for such an identification in Jewish thought—i.e., that because Dinah was "possessed" by ("copulated" with) a Canaanite, and likely actually married him, that the term "Canaanitess" can be applied to her. She became one of the Canaanites by marrying one.6
#3(a) and (b): Intended to Convey Shaul is not of Simeon's Bloodline?
As to (a), that has little attestation and it does not make much sense that Simeon adopted a Canaanite tribe.
But (b) has a number of streams of evidence that converge to make a reasonably strong case for Shaul's parentage as a whole (to both a different father and mother) being the intention of the addition of the qualifying phrase "son of a Canaanite woman," indicating the adoptive status as a son of Simeon.
One source explicitly notes this relationship, the Jewish Encyclopedia, which entry states of "Rabbinical Literature" (accessed 2/6/2016; bold added):
When she [Dinah] died, Simeon buried her in the land of Canann [sic; the scanned version has the proper spelling of Canaan]. She is
therefore referred to as "the Canaanitish woman" (Gen. xlvi. 10).
Shaul (ib.) was her son by Shechem (Gen. R. l.c. [in context, location cited note refers to Gen. R. lxxx.]).
Such a view is also expressed in part of the Wikipedia article on Dinah:
Simeon's children include "Saul, the son of the Canaanite woman."3
The medieval French rabbi Rashi hypothesized that this Saul was
Dinah's son by Shechem.3 He suggests that after the brothers killed
all the men in the city, including Shechem and his father, Dinah
refused to leave the palace unless Simeon agreed to marry her3 and
remove her shame (according to Nachmanides, she only lived in his
house and did not have sex with him). Therefore, Dinah's son is
counted among Simeon's progeny, and he received a portion of land in
Israel in the time of Joshua.
The superscript 3 notes are all to "Bereishit - Chapter 46 - Genesis at chabad.org"
The challenge, however, is whether the sources that either of those sources list actually backs up their statement about Rabbinical views. The commentary by Rashi (1st Hebrew ed., A.D. 1475) on the chabad.org site states the following (the same quote given by the answer in support of the n.3
possiblity):
the son of the Canaanitess: The son of Dinah, who had been possessed
by a Canaanite. When they killed Shechem, Dinah did not want to leave
until Simeon swore to her that he would marry her - [Gen. Rabbah
(80:11)]
Apparently some have inferred from his statement that "The son of Dinah, who had been possessed by a Canaanite" refers to Shaul being fathered by Shechem through that possession, and the marriage reference was for Simeon to support Dinah as a widow with a son (making Simeon to be Shaul's stepfather). Others have inferred that the son came from Dinah through the marriage to Simeon, (as my #2 and n.3
). If there is any truth to this tradition of relationship between Simeon and Dinah, it would seem more likely that Simeon cared for his sister and her son from Shechem (whether Simeon and Dinah married or not) as a help for having made her a widow; and less likely that Simeon incestuously procreated with her because of the incident.
Rashi is a bit vague as to the fathering of Shaul. The commentary of the Bereishit Rabbah on 80:11 gives the opinion of Rabbi Nechemia (translation again helped by this answer) in support of the Dinah/Shechem relation:
שנבעלה מחוי, שהוא בכלל כנענים [= she copulated with a Hivite, who are considered Canaanites (see Gen 10:15 and 17)]
The date of the Genesis Rabbah is not certain, apparently sometime as early as 4th c. A.D., but with possible later additions. Still, this constitutes the earliest expression I am aware of as viewing the woman (Dinah, here) as a Canaanitess because of her copulating with a Canaanite. Rashi uses "possessed" (שנבעלה), which indicates aligning himself with Nechemia's view of Dinah/Shechem parentage.
The opinions noted are not explicit still as to who the father of Shaul may be, but the emphasis on the sexual relation Dinah had with Shechem is why some might infer that the meaning is to express Shaul is Shechem's son by Dinah, who is now considered a Canaanitess. A later explicit statement of such possibility comes from Rabbi Hirsch in his commentary on this passage in Genesis (ca. 1867-1878), copied from the Hebrew and translation given in this answer (emphasis added):
ושאול בן הכנענית. אם "כנענית" זו היא דינה, שנישאה לשמעון (עי' בראשית רבה פ, י), הרי אפשר ששאול איננו בן שמעון, אלא הבן שיולד לדינה משכם; אם כך, הרי גם בן זה לא התנכר למשפחת יעקב. היא נקראת "כנענית", שכן בנה - מבחינה גופנית - היה בן של כנעני. נמצא אפוא שכבר אז נהג הכלל, כי בהתחבר בת יעקב עם כנעני - הולד הולך אחר האם (עי' יבמות מה ע"ב).
If the "Canaanite" here is Dinah, who married Shimon (see Bereshit Raba 80, 10), it is possible that Shaul isn't Shimon's son, but rather a son born to Dinah from Shechem. If so, even this son did not estrange himself from Jacob's family. She is called "Canaanite" because her son, biologically, was the son of a Canaanite (man). Therefore we can conclude that even then, when a daughter of Jacob marries a Canaanite, the newborn's identity is considered based on his/her mother (see Yevamot 45b).
I disagree with Hirsch's final point, that identity is typically based off the mother rather than the father in Hebrew genealogy. If the Gen 46:10 is relaying this type of situation of Shaul being Shechem/Dinah's son, it seems to be making explicit that Shaul is considered a son of Israel because of Simeon's adopting of Shaul, since it is Simeon's family he is associate to.
Conclusion
That something significant is being noted in Gen 46:10 is clear. Given the points noted against #1, #2, and #3(a), the most likely significance appear to me to be that Shaul was adopted and cared for by Simeon, being the son born of Dinah, perceived now as a Canaanitess; a son born after the incident with Shechem, but in which Shechem is the true biological father.
This idea has one further line of evidence and implication that is of primary significance, but which I will follow in an answer to another question.
NOTES
1
If the phrase was an intended euphemization, there is no other support for that to match my conjecture. There is some support for it to be a different figurative use. According to the Rabbi Yehuda's comment from the Genesis (or Bereshit) Rabbah 80:11 (help in translating found in this answer):
שעשה כמעשה כנענים [= He has acted like the Canaanites]
So the opinion is saying "son of a Canaanite woman" is referring simply to Shaul himself as acting like a Canaanite, which would be a figurative use as a derogatory statement via pure metaphor; i.e., that Shaul's mother was not really a Canaanite (so figurative use), but he acted as if he came from the Canaanites.
I point this out only to indicate that Jewish thought has conceived of the term as being figurative of an individual. Which means theoretically it could be conceived as figurative of the mother, rather than as Rabbi Yehuda's opinion, figurative of the son.
But such figurative uses, by their nature, can be unique uses of language to soften one's wording in a given context (so euphemization) or express a connection that might only be clear to the original audience that knows the true circumstances of the situation. So even though there is still a trace of possibility for my conjecture that the mother "acted like a Canaanitess" metaphorically, my principles of interpretation do not warrant pushing such beyond merely mentioning it still as possible. More research has lead me to no longer need to explore that route further.
2
Of marriage to a Canaanite, this is promoted in the following quotes from commentaries on Gen 46:10 (any emphases are in original).
John Calvin, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, vol. 2, trans. and ed. John King (orig. French ed., 1554; trans. ed., 1847; repr., Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 329:
When Moses declares that Shaul, one of the sons of Simeon, was born of a Canaanitish woman, while he does not even mention the mothers of the other sons, his intention, I doubt not, is to fix a mark of dishonour on his race. For the holy Fathers were on their guard, not to mix in marriage with that nation, from which they were separated by the decree of heaven.
Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole's Commentary (orig. ca. 1685) http://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/genesis/46.htm (accessed 2/4/2016)
The son of a Canaanitish woman; which is here mentioned as a brand upon him, and as an intimation that the rest of them, except Judah, married to persons of a better race.
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament [online link not the version referenced], vol. 1 (orig. German, 1861; English ed., 1866; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 238:
It is merely casually that one of the sons of Simeon is called the son of a Canaanitish woman (v. 10); from which it may be inferred that it was quite an exceptional thing for the sons of Jacob to take their wives from among the Canaanites, and that as a rule they were chosen from their paternal relations in Mesopotamia; besides whom, there were also their other relations, the families of Ishmael, Keturah, and Edom.
John Peter Lange A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Genesis, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Tayler Lewis and A. Gosman (orig. German ed., 1864; trans. ed., 1868; repr., Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 631:
The fact that a son of Simeon is specially mentioned as the son of a Canaanitish woman, shows that it was the rule in Jacob’s house to avoid Canaanitish marriages, though the “Ishmaelitish, Keturian, and Edomitic relationship still stood open to them.” Keil. The ancient connection, however, with Mesopotamia, Laban had impaired, if not entirely interrupted.
Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament (orig. 1884), http://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/genesis/46.htm (accessed 2/4/2016):
"Son of a Kenaanitess." This implies that intermarriage with the Kenaanites was the exception to the rule in the family of Jacob. Wives might have been obtained from Hebrew, Aramaic, or at all events Shemite tribes who were living in their vicinity
H. D. M Spence-Jones, ed., Genesis [online link not the version referenced], The Pulpit Commentary (London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 502:
Shaul,—“Asked for” (Gesenius)—the son of a Canaanitish woman. The wives of the other sons, except Judah, were probably from Mesopotamia
K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 830:
Simeon followed the objectionable practice of Judah by marrying a
Canaanite who bore the last-listed son.
3
Of marriage to Dinah, see this answer here, where it notes Midrash Bereshit Rabba (80:11) takes them to have married and Shaul to therefore be the son of that marriage. But see n.4 below for an alternate interpretation.
4
Of adopting from some unknown Canaanite woman, I only found one vague reference in one source, the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges notes on v.10 (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/genesis/46.htm; accessed 2/4/2016)
the son of a Canaanitish woman] A note recording the tradition of a well-known case, in which the tribe of Simeon had assimilated a Canaanite clan.
5
Allen C. Myers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987) states of her:
A Canaanite woman who became the wife of Judah’s eldest son, Er.
No other dictionaries make that statement, and Scripture is not explicitly clear what her ancestry is; but circumstantial evidence does point to her being Canaanite also:
- Judah had taken a Canaanite woman to wife (Gen 38:2), so it would not be exceptional that he got a Canaanite for his son Er (Gen 38:6).
- She lived near enough to Timnah, well within Canaan, to go there alone to meet Judah (Gen 38:13-14).
- The book of Ruth hints that Tamar may be exceptional in a way parallel to Ruth (who was a non-Israelite, a Moabitess), as the people put a blessing on Boaz by referencing Tamar's relation to Judah (Ruth 4:12).
Some have recognized her being Canaanite as vital to the point of Genesis 38. Steven D. Mathewson, “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 38,” Bibliotheca Sacra 146 (1989), p.390:
This chapter [Genesis 38] teaches that Yahweh would accomplish His purpose, even if He had to use a Canaanite woman to do it.
Mathewson is citing for support of his statement this quote that comes from W. Gunther Plaut, Genesis, (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1974), p. 376:
"In this story, Tamar is His unlikely tool. She is a Canaanite, a daughter of the very people against whom Abraham had warned and whom the children of Israel would later displace."
Keil and Delitzsch say Tamar was "probably a Canaanite" in Commentary on the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), Gen 38:6ff.
6
A somewhat parallel passage to this idea is Lev 24:10-12 (NKJV):
10 Now the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and this Israelite woman’s son and a man of Israel fought each other in the camp. 11 And the Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the name of the LORD and cursed; and so they brought him to Moses. (His mother’s name was Shelomith the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.) 12 Then they put him in custody, that the mind of the LORD might be shown to them.
Here, the woman has retained being called "an Israelite," so does this argue against Dinah being called a Canaanitess for her possible relation to Shechem? No, not necessarily, for two reasons:
- Egyptians were not a people Israel was to avoid, so it could be that such an association as Lev 24 notes did not "cut" her off from Israel in the normal way it might have.
- It seems likely Dinah married Shechem (see my comments here), whereas here in Leviticus, it is unclear if this was a marriage relation to an Egyptian or not. The father, other than mentioned as the father, does not seem present in this case, so he may have remained in Egypt. Thus it may be that marriage at the time of the Exodus was what makes an Israelite woman become a Canaanite (or a member of whatever people).