[b-hebrew] Genesis 12: 5: RK$
Isaac Fried
if at math.bu.edu
Wed Nov 14 11:19:33 EST 2007
Jim,
I would include in REKU$ cattle, goats, tents, indentured servants,
garments, jewelry, gold and silver, and the basic household articles
and implements.
I am sure that the invading armies mercilessly and methodically
picked Sdom and (amorah to their bare stones.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Nov 14, 2007, at 10:22 AM, JimStinehart at aol.com wrote:
>
> 1. Isaac Fried wrote: "I would translate RKU$ of Genesis 12:5 as
> 'assembled possessions', or 'mobile property' [German: Möbel,
> Moebel], or
> 'transportable possessions'. In particular, the word does not
> appear to refer to owned
> land…."
> Yes, all the sources agree with that, as far as it goes. But BDB
> goes on to
> say regarding the meaning of RK$: "esp. as booty Gn 14:
> 11,12,16,16,21".
> That is the specific question we need to investigate here. Does RK
> $ (the
> 'defective' spelling of this word that is used at Genesis 12: 5 and
> in chapter
> 14 of Genesis) imply "luxury goods"? Booty, by its very nature,
> consists
> primarily of luxury goods.
> 2. Isaac Fried wrote: "'luxury commercial goods [a pillow and a
> stool?]'
> is an added
> flourish of the imagination."
> In response, I would say that RK$ certainly does not mean "a
> pillow and a
> stool" in chapter 14 of Genesis.
> "And they [the four attacking rulers] took all the goods [RK$] of
> Sodom and
> Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way." Genesis
> 14: 11
> The four attacking rulers would not take "a pillow and a stool".
> Rather,
> the looting done by the four attacking rulers would be of luxury
> goods.
> Attacking rulers need to eat in the conquered territory. So it is
> not
> surprising that they would take provisions/"victuals", which they
> would quickly
> consume. But as to non-edible goods, the attacking rulers would take
> primarily only valuable luxury goods, not pillows and stools, on
> their way back home.
> "And the king of Sodom said unto Abram: 'Give me the persons,
> and take the
> goods [RK$] to thyself.'" Genesis 14: 21
> Here, the king of Sodom offers Abraham a share of the booty, that
> is, a
> share of the valuable luxury goods that formerly had been stolen
> by the four
> attacking rulers. The king of Sodom is not offering Abraham "a
> pillow and a
> stool".
> 3. The key question, then, is whether RK$ at Genesis 12: 5 has a
> similar
> meaning to RK$ the five times that word is used in chapter 14 of
> Genesis.
> Abraham and Lot may have brought pillows and stools from Harran
> into Canaan. But
> the critical question is whether Abraham and Lot also brought luxury
> commercial goods into Canaan, which they had bought in Mesopotamia
> for the precise
> purpose of selling such luxury goods in Egypt.
> Since RK$ means "luxury goods" in chapter 14 of Genesis, why
> wouldn't we
> then expect that the RK$ that Abraham and Lot bring into Canaan at
> Genesis 12: 5
> may well include a substantial amount of luxury goods?
> 4. I own most of the book-length studies of Genesis that secular
> scholars
> at leading universities have published. Not a single such book
> that I have
> seen asks the question of what the RK$ was that Abraham and Lot
> brought into
> Canaan from Harran at Genesis 12: 5. Why does no one appear to
> have any
> curiosity about this critically important question?
> 5. Most analyses say that the reason why Abraham had silver and
> gold when
> he got back to Canaan after leaving Egypt was because of the
> ravishing beauty
> of his wife Sarah, age 65. Why doesn't anyone ask whether the RK$
> that
> Abraham and Lot are stated at Genesis 12: 5 to bring with them from
> Harran may
> instead have been the real source of the silver and gold that
> Abraham has coming
> out of Egypt? Sarah's beauty was probably a factor in Pharaoh's
> decision to
> have his royal buyers purchase Abraham's luxury commercial goods
> at a high
> price. In that sense, Pharaoh "dealt well with Abram for her
> sake…." Genesis
> 12: 16 Yet the real source of Abraham's silver and gold, in my
> view, is the
> RK$/luxury commercial goods that Abraham had recently bought in
> Mesopotamia
> on a one-time caravan trip there, for the express purpose of
> selling such
> luxury goods in Egypt. Sarah's beauty probably helped Abraham
> sell those
> valuable luxury goods in Egypt. But as I see it, it was the
> valuable luxury goods,
> not some deception regarding the marital status of beautiful
> Sarah, that was
> the fundamental basis for Abraham coming out of Egypt with silver
> and gold.
> 6. Does it make sense for Abraham to get rich in Egypt based
> solely on the
> ravishing beauty of his wife Sarah, age 65? That seems neither
> logical nor
> historical to me. And what theological point would that be
> making? Did YHWH
> choose Abraham because Abraham happened to have a wife, age 65,
> who was a
> ravishing beauty? Is that a sensible analysis of this text?
> Should we not
> explore any other possible lines of analysis?
> 7. Why does no one ever seem to ask whether the RK$ that Abraham
> and Lot are
> said to bring with them from Harran at Genesis 12: 5 is the real
> source of
> the silver and gold that Abraham has upon returning to Canaan from
> Egypt?
> Does everyone accept, without question, the basic analysis of
> Isaac Fried that
> all that Abraham and Lot brought with them out of Harran were
> simple things of
> little economic value, such as "a pillow and a stool"? Why
> doesn't anyone
> challenge that peculiar notion?
> What am I missing here? Why do I seem to be the only one who
> wants to
> investigate the possibility that Abraham and Lot may have brought
> luxury
> commercial goods out of Harran with them from a one-time caravan
> trip to Mesopotamia
> and, as planned, then sold such luxury goods in Egypt for a
> fortune? Why does
> virtually everyone, including university scholars so far as I can
> tell by
> their published works, see Sarah, age 65, as being such a
> ravishing beauty that
> she is the sole source of Abraham's possession of silver and gold
> coming out
> of Canaan? I myself see the RK$ at Genesis 12: 5 as being luxury
> goods,
> having the same meaning as RK$ does in chapter 14 of Genesis. On
> that analysis,
> the primary source of Abraham's silver and gold in Canaan is the RK
> $ that
> Abraham bought as luxury commercial goods on a one-time caravan
> trip way out to
> Mesopotamia and sold in Egypt, not the ravishing beauty of Abraham's
> long-barren wife, Sarah, age 65.
> How one interprets the Biblical Hebrew word RK$ at Genesis 12: 5
> (and in
> chapter 14 of Genesis) is of critical importance in understanding the
> Patriarchal narratives. If RK$ at Genesis 12: 5 is referring
> primarily to luxury
> commercial goods (my controversial view), then the opening
> chapters of the
> Patriarchal narratives make perfect sense in the secular
> historical context. But if
> Isaac Fried is right that Abraham and Lot brought only mundane
> items like "a
> pillow and a stool" from Harran to Canaan (which would appear to
> be the
> prevailing view of university scholars, although they do not
> directly address this
> subject), then it is hard to make any historical sense at all out
> of the
> first three chapters of the Patriarchal narratives. Everything is
> riding on
> how we understand the Biblical Hebrew word RK$ at Genesis 12: 5.
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's new at http://
> www.aol.com
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list