"Lehi and his family were Rechabites" - Hugh Nibley

[Rajah Manchou]

In another thread we discussed briefly the similarities between the Book of Mormon and the History of the Rechabites. Both accounts tell of a group of Israelites that were led by God from Jerusalem to an island in the 6th century BC. Since these accounts have been shown to be similar in detail, it occurred to me that we might find some clues in the numerous versions of  Rechabite apocryphal history that could help us identify the intended setting of the Book of Mormon account.

But, you might ask, the Rechabites are not Lehites. So what would it matter?

Well, I came across this interesting statement in the writings of Hugh Nibley:

"Chapter 35 tells us how [Jeremiah] dealt with the Rechabites (they come out earlier in the history of Israel). This tells us that he set them up to the Jews as an example of integrity. The Rechabites were given a permanent position in the temple. Lehi and his family were Rechabites; they joined that particular movement. They were the people who went out into the wilderness and tried to live the gospel in its purity out there." (source)

If this be true, and the Lehites were Rechabites, then the Lehites most likely were led by God to the same island the Rechabites were carried to in the 6th century BC. This island was called Qamara and it was said to be inhabited by the Camarini, an Eden-like civilization documented in the first few centuries of the Christian era. (source) This would be the same period as the Book of Mormon's 200 years of peace when the Lehites lived in the Land of Cumorah as a Zion-like society.
 

Edited February 28, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Lagrange]

I'm inclined to think that the shoe fits. Beyond this however, and I hope Braginsky(?) explores it if he hasn't as yet, I suspect some connection between (possibly involving Nestorians) between Russia's Molokans and "Mormony" and the Christian land in Southeast Asia.  I've got no hard evidence though I suspect you may have drilled into it, possibly via the Mongol invasions, possibly through the Silk Road. 

[The Nehor]

Nibley meant they were Rechabites in the sense that they did what the Rechabites do (go out into the wilderness to live the Law right).

There is no evidence to suggest they joined the actual group.

[Rajah Manchou]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nibley meant they were Rechabites in the sense that they did what the Rechabites do (go out into the wilderness to live the Law right).

I suspect that at the moment Nibley wrote those words he meant literally that "Lehi and his family were Rechabites" and that "they joined that particular movement." He may have had evolving views, and he did say elsewhere that "Lehi was, no doubt, a friend of the Rechabites because he was close to Jeremiah." I don't know which statement came first.

In either case, I don't get the sense that Nibley meant the Lehites just happened to do what the Rechabites did, that they were just imitating a group of strangers wandering through the same desert at the same time, both bound for an island somewhere. Nibley is proposing a relationship between the two groups. He's saying the Lehites were a part of the Rechabite movement.

32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is no evidence to suggest they joined the actual group.

There is no evidence that a group called the Lehites joined a group called the Rechabites. But the accounts (apocryphal or not) of the two groups are strikingly similar.

[Rajah Manchou]

58 minutes ago, Lagrange said:

I'm inclined to think that the shoe fits. Beyond this however, and I hope Braginsky(?) explores it if he hasn't as yet, I suspect some connection between (possibly involving Nestorians) between Russia's Molokans and "Mormony" and the Christian land in Southeast Asia.  I've got no hard evidence though I suspect you may have drilled into it, possibly via the Mongol invasions, possibly through the Silk Road. 

Braginsky does touch on the Old Believers and their efforts to locate the Island of the Blessed Ones. The accounts of the Rechabites (or Rahmans as they were known in Slavonic texts) inspired a number of texts and even guide books describing the route.

The Old Believers and related offshoots like Molokans are interesting pre-Mormon groups, but I don't yet see a solid case that the Mormoni holy book (if it exists) predates the publication of the Book of Mormon. You may have seen some of my speculation on that elsewhere, but its pretty weak sauce until a book actually surfaces.

[Lagrange]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The Old Believers and related offshoots like Molokans are interesting pre-Mormon groups, but I don't yet see a solid case that the Mormoni holy book (if it exists) predates the publication of the Book of Mormon. You may have seen some of my speculation on that elsewhere, but its pretty weak sauce until a book actually surfaces.

I've not seen those speculations.  Where would I find them? I'll drill down at Mormon Dialogue just in case in the meantime.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I suspect that at the moment Nibley wrote those words he meant literally that "Lehi and his family were Rechabites" and that "they joined that particular movement." He may have had evolving views, and he did say elsewhere that "Lehi was, no doubt, a friend of the Rechabites because he was close to Jeremiah." I don't know which statement came first.

In either case, I don't get the sense that Nibley meant the Lehites just happened to do what the Rechabites did, that they were just imitating a group of strangers wandering through the same desert at the same time, both bound for an island somewhere. Nibley is proposing a relationship between the two groups. He's saying the Lehites were a part of the Rechabite movement.

There is no evidence that a group called the Lehites joined a group called the Rechabites. But the accounts (apocryphal or not) of the two groups are strikingly similar.

I do not mean to suggest they did not know each other but if they were Rechabites I would expect them to have gone out and been Rechabites. They were not in the beginning as they were still living near Jerusalem. When Lehi has his vision to get out of town he was going with the Rechabite model but they already had wilderness settlements and Lehi did not join them.

[ksfisher]

15 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If this be true, and the Lehites were Rechabites, then the Lehites most likely were led by God to the same island the Rechabites were carried to in the 6th century BC.

How is this likely?  I don't see any reason that they had to be led to the same place or even that it was likely to be the same place.  The scriptures seem to attest that God had a particular plan in mind for Lehi and his family upon leading them out of Jerusalem.

Edited February 28, 2018 by ksfisher

[phaedrus ut]

Lehi was supposed to be from the Tribe of Manasseh where the Rechabites & Kenites were independent tribes. 

 

Phaedrus 

[Rajah Manchou]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I do not mean to suggest they did not know each other but if they were Rechabites I would expect them to have gone out and been Rechabites. They were not in the beginning as they were still living near Jerusalem. When Lehi has his vision to get out of town he was going with the Rechabite model but they already had wilderness settlements and Lehi did not join them.

Rechabites lived in tents, but also lived in Jerusalem.

"But we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us. But it came to pass, when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, ‘Come, let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans and for fear of the army of the Syrians.’ So we dwell at Jerusalem.”
- Jeremiah 35:10-11

[Rajah Manchou]

9 hours ago, ksfisher said:

How is this likely? I don't see any reason that they had to be led to the same place or even that it was likely to be the same place. The scriptures seem to attest that God had a particular plan in mind for Lehi and his family upon leading them out of Jerusalem.

The Lehites were led to a land that was isolated from the Old World and set aside for them by God.
The Rechabites were also led to a land that was isolated from the Old World and set aside for them by God.

The two events happened in the same time period and the accounts describing the two events use similar phrasing. There was a Zion-like period of happiness during the first two or three centuries AD in both locations. The Nephite account states "there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God" while the Rechabites were also said to live lives of immense joy and happiness during the same time period. 

It is possible that these are two different accounts of two separate locations set aside by God and isolated for two independent groups who left Jerusalem at the same time. I just think it unlikely. The two accounts are too similar to be describing unrelated events and characters. 
 

Edited March 1, 2018 by Rajah Manchou
first two or three centuries AD*

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The Lehites were led to a land that was isolated from the Old World and set aside for them by God.
The Rechabites were also led to a land that was isolated from the Old World and set aside for them by God.

The two events happened in the same time period and the accounts describing the two events use similar phrasing. There was a Zion-like period of happiness during the first two or three centuries in both locations. The Nephite account states "there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God" while the Rechabites were also said to live lives of immense joy and happiness during the same time period. 

It is possible that these are two different accounts of two separate locations set aside by God and isolated for two independent groups who left Jerusalem at the same time. I just think it unlikely. The two accounts are too similar to be describing unrelated events and characters. 
 

It is also possible the Rechabite account was an idealistic fabrication.

[Rajah Manchou]

8 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

Lehi was supposed to be from the Tribe of Manasseh where the Rechabites & Kenites were independent tribes. 

Phaedrus 

Good point, so perhaps Nibley's comments that they had joined the Rechabite movement, and were friends with the Rechabites, would be more accurate. Although there is @J Green's literary analysis proposing that Lehi's background is to be found among the Midianite/Kenite/Rechabite lienage.

The Nephite-Kenite Hypothesis: Introduction
The Nephite-Kenite Hypothesis: Nephi as Scribe

[Rajah Manchou]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is also possible the Rechabite account was an idealistic fabrication.

Which Rechabite account are you talking about, the one attributed to a 19th century New York farmboy, or the one attributed to a 5th century Palestinian monk?

[The Nehor]

Just now, Rajah Manchou said:

Which Rechabite account are you talking about, the one attributed to a 19th century New York farmboy, or the one attributed to a 5th century Palestinian monk?

Both.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The Lehites were led to a land that was isolated from the Old World and set aside for them by God.
The Rechabites were also led to a land that was isolated from the Old World and set aside for them by God.

The two events happened in the same time period and the accounts describing the two events use similar phrasing. There was a Zion-like period of happiness during the first two or three centuries in both locations. The Nephite account states "there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God" while the Rechabites were also said to live lives of immense joy and happiness during the same time period. 
 

The phrase "there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God" is from verse 16 in 4 Nephi, which was not about the Lehites during the first two or three centuries, but six centuries post arrival.

[Rajah Manchou]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

The phrase "there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God" is from verse 16 in 4 Nephi, which was not about the Lehites during the first two or three centuries, but six centuries post arrival.

Thanks for catching that. I meant "There was a Zion-like period of happiness during the first two or three centuries AD in both locations."

It is possible that the Rechabites were always a happy near-perfect people, from the time they left Jerusalem to the time they were visited in the early centuries AD. But then there would be the conflict with the claim that the Lehites during the 200 years of peace were the happiest people ever created. I think its more probable that the accounts are meant to describe the same people during the same period of time. 

Edited March 1, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Nibley meant they were Rechabites in the sense that they did what the Rechabites do (go out into the wilderness to live the Law right).

There is no evidence to suggest they joined the actual group.

But of course they were actually LDS because they did not drink wine. 

That's all the evidence we need.  

[Calm]

Rajah, Figured it was something like that.  You don't usually make extreme errors.  Almost didn't post it.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Calm

[SamIam]

On 2/27/2018 at 7:01 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

In another thread we discussed briefly the similarities between the Book of Mormon and the History of the Rechabites. Both accounts tell of a group of Israelites that were led by God from Jerusalem to an island in the 6th century BC. Since these accounts have been shown to be similar in detail, it occurred to me that we might find some clues in the numerous versions of  Rechabite apocryphal history that could help us identify the intended setting of the Book of Mormon account.

But, you might ask, the Rechabites are not Lehites. So what would it matter?

Well, I came across this interesting statement in the writings of Hugh Nibley:

"Chapter 35 tells us how [Jeremiah] dealt with the Rechabites (they come out earlier in the history of Israel). This tells us that he set them up to the Jews as an example of integrity. The Rechabites were given a permanent position in the temple. Lehi and his family were Rechabites; they joined that particular movement. They were the people who went out into the wilderness and tried to live the gospel in its purity out there." (source)

If this be true, and the Lehites were Rechabites, then the Lehites most likely were led by God to the same island the Rechabites were carried to in the 6th century BC. This island was called Qamara and it was said to be inhabited by the Camarini, an Eden-like civilization documented in the first few centuries of the Christian era. (source) This would be the same period as the Book of Mormon's 200 years of peace when the Lehites lived in the Land of Cumorah as a Zion-like society.
 

It is highly unlikely that Lehi is of the Rechabites. Lehi knew he was from the loins of Joseph. The Rechabites are associated with Midian which is the lineage of Abraham.  Thus Jethro of Median is a legitimate holder of the Melchizedek priesthood through Abraham which was provided to Moses. Keturah the 3^rd wife of Abraham is a member of the Kennites, another tribe most likely descended from Abraham’s lineage and a probable subset of the Midianites.  It is through Abraham that the Rechabites have the proper genealogy to be adopted into the house of Israel. As another Poster associated earlier the Kennites are generally considered to be the forebears of the Rechabites and both are descended from the Midianites as descendants of Abraham. However, the Rechabites appear to have absolutely no association or potential to be of the lineage or parentage of Joseph.  According to Smiths Bible Dictionary the Rechabites were adopted into the House of Israel by the Lord and assigned to the tribe of Levi. (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, see entries for Keturah and Kenite, and Rechabite)

Edited March 4, 2018 by SamIam

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, SamIam said:

It is highly unlikely that Lehi is of the Rechabites. Lehi knew he was from the loins of Joseph. The Rechabites are associated with Midian which is the lineage of Abraham.  Thus Jethro of Median is a legitimate holder of the Melchizedek priesthood through Abraham which was provided to Moses. Keturah the 3^rd wife of Abraham is a member of the Kennites, another tribe most likely descended from Abraham’s lineage and a probable subset of the Midianites.  It is through Abraham that the Rechabites have the proper genealogy to be adopted into the house of Israel. As another Poster associated earlier the Kennites are generally considered to be the forebears of the Rechabites and both are descended from the Midianites as descendants of Abraham. However, the Rechabites appear to have absolutely no association or potential to be of the lineage or parentage of Joseph.  According to Smiths Bible Dictionary the Rechabites were adopted into the House of Israel by the Lord and assigned to the tribe of Levi. (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, see entries for Keturah and Kenite, and Rechabite)

We often forget that half of the Lehite party was from the line of Ishmael. Despite the speculation (not found in the Book of Mormon text) that Ishmael was from the Tribe of Ephraim, it would seem more likely that there was a connection to the Ishmaelites and/or Midianites. Ishmael is a name more frequently assigned to Arabs who claim descent from Abraham via Ishmael. I don't know if it would be common practice for anyone in the Tribe of Ephraim to name a child Ishmael. Is that something we could expect?

In either case, Ishmael's addition to the Lehite party increases the probability that the Lehites were also Rechabites. Southern Arabs and other Ishmaelites often claim descent from Rechab. A number of Arabian Jewish groups also claim descent from Rechab. Since Rechabites and Lehites are both said to have departed Jerusalem in the 6th century BC for a land set aside for them by God, I see it as a proof that the Book of Mormon is far more complex than critics allow.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

Found this in Nibley's Commentary on the Book of Mormon:



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If this be the case, and Lehi and Ishmael were partly (if not mostly) Arab Ishmaelites, then the probability of them being Rechabites goes from likely to highly likely.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Lagrange]

55 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

 this be the case, and Lehi and Ishmael were partly (if not mostly) Arab Ishmaelites, then the probability of them being Rechabites goes from likely to highly likely.

Just an aside here.  Brian Stubbs has noted that Uto-Aztecan, a language family with Polynesian influences as well as Semitic influence seems to have a strong Arab element.  How interesting it would be to were we to  find that the Arab element was transmitted via a Polynesian linguistic route? 

 

[SamIam]

12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Found this in Nibley's Commentary on the Book of Mormon:



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If this be the case, and Lehi and Ishmael were partly (if not mostly) Arab Ishmaelites, then the probability of them being Rechabites goes from likely to highly likely.

Boy, I feel to apologize before I voice my perspective as it opposes Nibley in the extreme. A few years back I did extensive research into the Joseph and Asenath  issue in the scripture.  It is poor scholarship to observe that God vehemently forbids Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with warnings that they will forsake the entire covenant of Abraham if they marry into the Canaanite bloodlines and then think that Joseph get's a free pass to marry into the Canaanite bloodlines without sacrificing the covenant. In behalf of Isaac these verses note the limitation to not take wives of the Canaanites: 

Quote

 

(Genesis 24:2-7.)

2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh:

3 And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:

4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.

5 And the servant said unto him, Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land: must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from whence thou camest?

6 And Abraham said unto him, Beware thou that thou bring not my son thither again.

7 ¶ The LORD God of heaven, which took me from my father's house, and from the land of my kindred, and which spake unto me, and that sware unto me, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land; he shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence.

 

These verses note the same limitation for Jacob:

Quote

 

(Genesis 28:1-2.)

1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.

2 Arise, go to Padan-aram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother.

3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people;

4 And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.

 

Part of Esau's loss of the birthright was that he took a wife of the Canannites:

 

Quote

(Genesis 26:34-35.)

34 ¶ And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:

35 Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.

 

(Genesis 28:6-9.)

 6 ¶ When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away to Padan-aram, to take him a wife from thence; and that as he blessed him he gave him a charge, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan;

7 And that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Padan-aram;                                                                                                                   

8 And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father;

9 Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.

 

In these verses we see where Isaac forbids Jacob of the same:

Quote

(Genesis 28:1-9.)

1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.

2 Arise, go to Padan-aram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother.

3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people;

4 And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.

5 And Isaac sent away Jacob: and he went to Padan-aram unto Laban, son of Bethuel the Syrian, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob's and Esau's mother.

 

It would be highly doubtful that such an issue is made of marrying a Canaanite for Isaac and Jacob but Joseph is clear to go.

We could say that the Lord never makes the distinction with Joseph but that would ignore the fact that Ephraim and Manasseh are not Joseph heirs but Jacob required Joseph to give them to him to replace Ruben and Simeon. Please note:

Quote

 

(Genesis 48:5,14-22.)

 5 ¶ And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine.

 14 And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.

 15 ¶ And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day.

 16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

 17 And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head.

 18 And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.

 19 And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.

 20 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.

 

So the restriction would remain with Jacob that his heirs could not marry into Canaanite bloodlines.  So how to solve the conundrum.

Trying to cut this short I will skip a lot of material and go straight for the connection:

Quote

 

Joseph and Aseneth 1:3

3 And there was a man in that city, a satrap [(sa·trap (să trăp) n. 1. A governor of a province in ancient Persia.2. A ruler. 3. A subordinate  bureaucrat or official)] …and the name of that man was Pentephres (Potipherah)[(frequently throughout the text of Joseph and Aseneth, Pentephres is referred to as Aseneth’s foster-father)] a priest of Heliopolis.

4 And he had a daughter, a virgin of eighteen years, very tall and handsome and beautiful to look at beyond all virgins on the earth. 

5 And this girl had nothing similar to the virgins of the Egyptians, but she was in every respect similar to the daughters of the Hebrews; and she was tall as Sarah, and handsome as Rebecca, and beautiful as Rachel.

6 And the name of that virgin was Aseneth…(The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol 2, p. 204. Charlesworth, James H., Joseph and Aseneth)

 

These verses above come from a Pseudepigrapha writing called Joseph and Aseneth which is purported to have originated between 100 B.C. and 200 A.D. While it is difficult to determine the legitimacy of the entirety of these writings, I find that where they sustain certain Biblical patterns and themes it is wise to consider them a valid source of worth and not discount them summarily.  The writers are drawing upon the legends and themes of the times and certainly are painting portraits that reflect the historical conclusions of the people of the times.  In these verses, the essence of Aseneth’s perceived status as a legitimate member of the House of Israel is sustained and the comparisons to her own grandmothers is particularly interesting.

 

Charlesworth elaborates, in the introductory notes to Joseph and Aseneth on a more specific reference to her lineage to Joseph through his sister Dinah:

Quote

And the wife of this priest (Putiphar took her (the baby) and brought her a nurse. And they rejoiced with great joy, for they had neither a boy nor a girl. And when the little girl grew up, Puriphar had a splendid dwelling constructed where he allowed her to live, and appointed virgins to serve her. And many chiefs’ sons asked (for) her (in marriage), for she was beautiful to look at: but they did not suit her. And when Joseph came before Pharaoh he made him mount his carriage, and gave him the seal of the kingdom. And the Egyptians escorted him in triumph across all of Egypt, and his fame spread in all regions . And he (Pharaoh) gave him the daughter of the priest, Putiphar, for his wife, and he (Joseph) did not repulse [lit. hate] the daughter of Dina, (his) Sister.  (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol 2, p. 183. Charlesworth, James H.)

In other words the apocryphal writings have Putiphar adopting Dinah's shamed daughter (from the rape (or at least ill thought) relationship of Shechem and Dinah) of Jacob's bloodline and thus we connect Putiphar's adopted daughter of Dinah, (Joseph's Sister/Half Sister) whom he names Aseneth. 

Thus it seems probable that the Lord has provided a means to protect the covenant of Abraham and validate that Joseph's son's of Aseneth are legitimate heirs to priesthood authority.  Because of how stringent the requirement to not marry into Canaan and this connection through Jewish sources to Dinah - Aseneth I cannot in any manner presume Ephraim to be of the blood of Canaan / Egyptus as that, for me makes God somewhat arbitrary in his perspectives for that era of bloodline development.

Edited March 4, 2018 by SamIam

[Calm]

4 hours ago, SamIam said:

In other words the apocryphal writings have Putiphar adopting Dinah's shamed daughter (from the rape (or at least ill thought) relationship of Shechem and Dinah) of Jacob's bloodline and thus we connect Putiphar's adopted daughter of Dinah, (Joseph's Sister/Half Sister) whom he names Aseneth. 

Thus it seems probable that the Lord has provided a means to protect the covenant of Abraham and validate that Joseph's son's of Aseneth are legitimate heirs to priesthood authority.  Because of how stringent the requirement to not marry into Canaan and this connection through Jewish sources to Dinah - Aseneth I cannot in any manner presume Ephraim to be of the blood of Canaan / Egyptus as that, for me makes God somewhat arbitrary in his perspectives for that era of bloodline development.

Patriarchal blessings allow for the baptism/adoption into the covenanted bloodline.  Why not in the past as well as now?

The problem with intermarriage was imo about marrying nonbelievers.  Once they were part of the covenant, marriage would be acceptable.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Calm