Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] a mystery regarding gen14:24?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] a mystery regarding gen14:24?
  • Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:34:12 +0300

Jim, although your interpretation is certainly possible, it's not the only
one. Remember that Gen. 13:13 already informed us that when Lot chose to
settle in Sodom, its inhabitants were evil. So they did not only become evil
after chapter 14.

I have just finished reading a paper by Dr. David Elgavish of Bar-Ilan
University, which will be published in a volume that I am co-editing, in
which he points out that Bera's behavior is far from "good". He makes no
attempt to pursue the four kings in order to free the hostages that they have
taken. Unlike Melchizedek, he does not thank or bless Abram for returning the
Sodomite prisoners. He offers Abram what he already has – the possessions
taken from Sodom. As far as Lot, while Abram did rescue him out of kinship
obligations, the two do not meet. So Lot was certainly not a "good" person
even then.



As I said, different interpretations are possible.



Yigal Levin



From: jimstinehart AT aol.com [mailto:jimstinehart AT aol.com]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 3:20 AM
To: leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] a mystery regarding gen14:24?



Professor Yigal Levin:

Although I agree with much of what you wrote, I totally disagree with this
key assertion of yours: “‘Bera’ would certainly be a fitting name for a king
of evil Sodom….”

BR( as the ruler of SDM is presented in a positive light in chapter 14 of
Genesis. BR( rightfully opposes the 4 attacking rulers who nefariously take
Lot and Lot’s family as hostages. BR( is then very gracious in accepting
Lot’s return, stating that he welcomes the return of Lot and Lot’s family
even if Abraham should decide to keep all of SDM’s loot that had been taken
by the attacking rulers [and recovered by Abraham]: “And the king of Sodom
said to Abram, ‘Give me the persons, but take the goods for yourself.’"
Genesis 14: 21 Remember, accepting Lot back as a former hostage was risky
for BR(. Though Lot, Lot’s family, and SDM’s loot had been liberated
(apparently with few if any casualties on either side), the 4 attacking
rulers were still at liberty to return again. An obvious target would be to
re-take the loot that had now been repatriated to SDM, and perhaps Lot as
their former hostage as well. So BR( is both very brave, and extremely
gracious, at Genesis 14: 21. [Even if the claim that Abraham could keep all
the loot was largely rhetorical, it still was gracious, and accepting Lot
back into SDM was definitely not mere rhetoric. As opposed to BR( himself
being so gracious about Lot, we later learn that the ordinary townspeople of
SDM resented Lot as an outsider: “And they said, ‘This fellow came to
sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you [Lot]
than with them.’ Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near
to break the door down.” Genesis 19: 9]

What you have unfortunately overlooked is that when SDM is later portrayed in
a very negative light in chapters 18 and 19 of Genesis, BR( is conspicuous by
his absence! Some time a-f-t-e-r chapter 14 of Genesis, the people of SDM
most unfortunately went over to the dark side, and no longer followed their
gracious former ruler BR(.

As I see it, there simply is no basis whatsoever for the conventional view
that BR( is a west Semitic pejorative nickname that means “In Evil”. Why
would righteous Abraham be portrayed as turning over his own nephew to a
ruler whose very name means “In Evil”? Is that a tenable theory of the case?

If you don’t see that BR( is a good character who is portrayed by the early
Hebrew author in a generally positive light, then you will not see the
terrible, terrible threat that the early Hebrews historically faced that is
being accurately recalled here. The early Hebrews’ greatest fear was that
the good non-Semitic princeling rulers in Canaan like BR( might soon be
overruled by popular fear of the Hittites, and that all of Canaan might then
iniquitously sell out to the fearsome aggressors, who historically were led
by a powerful king who had seized the Hittite throne by the dastardly
expedient of murdering his own older brother named TD(L [and whose apt
Biblical nickname, TD(L, as such effectively means “Murderer”].

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois





-----Original Message-----
From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Thu, Aug 19, 2010 5:37 pm
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] a mystery regarding gen14:24?

Jim, regarding the names in Gen. 14, as in other biblical narratives, there
are
really only two possibilities: either the names are historical, or they are
made-up.

If they are historical (by which I don't mean that every detail in the story
actually happened as told, but that the writer used names that he was
familiar
with from his sources), then they are "real-life" names that once belonged to
real people. In that case, just like with names today, their meaning might be
clear, but it might not. Does everyone named "Jim" in the English speaking
world
know that his name is ultimately derived from the Hebrew "Ya'akov"? Would you
attach the meaning of "heel" to every Jim?

On the other hand, if a name is made-up, we would assume that it would fit
the
character in the story, but even that's not always true.

SO - if "Aner" was a real person, I really don't think that we can know what
his
name originally meant to his parents (or to whoever named him). We can guess,
but considering that he lived at least 3000 years ago, a guess is all it
would
be. I could be western Semitic, it could be Hurrian, it could be Girgashite
or
Kadminite or Kryptonite.


On the other hand, "Bera" would certainly be a fitting name for a king of
evil
Sodom, especially when juxtaposed with Melchizedek (king-justice) of
(Jeru)salem. But that would only work if you think that the names were "made
up"
by the author as a literary device.

Or maybe not. I always remind my students of the town of Yamit, the largest
of
the Israeli settlements in Sinai to be disbanded when Israel handed the Sinai
over to Egypt in 1982. The town was called Yamit because it was on the
seashore
(fantastic beaches!). But I'm sure that sometime in the future, it will be
"obvious" to historians that the whole episode of Israeli settlements in
Sinai
was made-up, and that the name invented for the town, which means "will be
put
to death" was a play on it's fate...


Yigal Levin

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
<mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org?> ]
On Behalf Of JimStinehart AT aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:51 AM
To: George.Athas AT moore.edu.au; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] a mystery regarding gen14:24?


George Athas:

You wrote: “Jim, the mysterious -R suffix is so mysterious because it's no
more a suffix than the 'm' at the end of 'Jim'. In other words, it's not a
suffix at all.”

1. What, then, is your theory of the name (NR at Genesis 14: 13, 24? The
conventional explanation of (NR is that it is a west Semitic name that means
N(R, or “boy”. To me, that conventional explanation makes no sense on any
level. Why would the letters N(R be mixed up to produce (NR? And why
would one call a brave princeling who helps Abraham rescue Lot and Lot’s
family

boy”?

2. Do you think that Abraham is portrayed at the end of chapter 14 of
Genesis as handing over Lot and Lot’s family to a princeling who graciously
welcomes Lot’s return, whose name is west Semitic and means “In Evil”? If
not,
what is your explanation of the name BR(?

I am suggesting that if we don’t look at the non-Semitic elements of these
names in chapter 14 of Genesis, we will not understand the Hebrew text of
the “four kings against five”. I myself see BR( as being a non-Semitic
princeling, who has a non-Semitic name. I see (NR as being an Amorite
princeling, but who has close contacts with non-Semitic princelings, and
whose
name
has a non-Semitic suffix. But if you know that I am wrong about all of that,
and that neither (NR nor BR( has any non-Semitic element [even though I
presume you may agree with the mainstream scholarly view that truly ancient
chapter 14 of Genesis was composed at a time when there was a considerable
non-Semitic presence in Canaan (or at least the remembrance of such)], then
please set forth your own explanations for these two names. Based on my
reading

of the scholarly literature, scholars have had a very difficult time trying
to explain these two names. But if you know the answers, then please set
them forth, and we’ll all learn from you.

If the R at the end of the name (NR is not a suffix, then what does the
name (NR mean? From what is the name (NR derived?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page