[b-hebrew] Genesis 20: 1

Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Thu Oct 11 01:16:25 EDT 2007

Dear Jim,

I would have check out Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, pp.248-254, paragraph 90. This
sections deals with "Real and Supposed Remains of Early Case-endings."

Qames-He, local
Sureq, in compound proper names
Hireq-yod, or Holem (Full), in contruct state.

Of particular interest is pp. 249-250, section2, C,
(a)    Most commonly to express direction towards an object, or motion toward a
place. 'eReTZAH, means "to the earth." This is the accusatice ending. When used
with a place name that place name has the article followed by a Genitive of
definition, or ar proper names; hence, "to the land of the south," Gn 20:1 [
'eReTZAH HaNeGeB]; "to the land of Egypt, Exod 4:20 [ 'eReTZAH MiTZRaYiM];etc.

Since the locale, or place/proper name, in this instance, is referring to a
piece of "land" in the south, i.e. the Negev. Furthermore, since chapter 20 is
the lie of Abraham regarding Sarah to Abimelech, king of Gerar, it requires us
to understand that verse 1 is indicating a movement from a previous location to
another location. Abraham moved from Mamre [Hebron,18:1] to the Negev.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <JimStinehart at aol.com>
To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:31 PM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Genesis 20: 1

> Yitzhak  Sapir:
> Thank you so much for your specific comments  on the Hebrew wording of
> Genesis 20: 1.
> A.  You wrote:  "However -ah is a locative case  in Hebrew.  My general
> impression is that it is more often used with proper  place names.  Thus, the
> ?arcah would mean
> 'to the Land.'…?arcah  hannegev is an indivisible construct chain that means
> 'Land of
> the Negev',  most likely a proper name because it ('Land') takes the  locative
> case."
> Based on my investigation, your analysis of that key phrase is not borne  out
> by the received Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives.  In the
> Patriarchal narratives (beginning  with the first mention of Abraham at
Genesis 11: 26),
> the Hebrew letter  combination aleph-resh-tsade-he appears 22 times in 21
> verses.  These 21 verses are referenced below,  along with the relevant
> of the JPS1917 translation.  We see that in a clear majority of  cases,
> aleph-resh-tsade-he is not used with a proper place name.
> 1.  Genesis 11: 31  "to go into the land of  Canaan"
> 2.  Genesis 12: 5 (twice)  "to go into the land of Canaan;  and into the land
> of Canaan they  came"
> 3.  Genesis 19: 1  "he fell down on his face to the  earth"
> 4.  Genesis 20: 1  "Abraham journeyed from thence toward  the land of the
> South"
> 5.  Genesis 24: 52  "he bowed himself down to the  earth"
> 6.  Genesis 28: 12  "behold a ladder set up on the  earth"
> 7.  Genesis 29: 1  "and came to the land of the children of  the east"
> 8.  Genesis 31: 18  "to go…unto the land of  Canaan"
> 9.  Genesis 32: 4  "Jacob sent messengers…unto the land of  Seir"
> 10.  Genesis 33: 3  "bowed himself to the ground"
> 11. Genesis 37: 10  "to bow  down to thee to the earth"
> 12. Genesis 38: 9  "he  spilled it on the ground"
> 13. Genesis 42: 6  "bowed  down to him with their faces to the earth"
> 14. Genesis 42: 29  "they  came…unto the land of Canaan"
> 15. Genesis 43: 26  "bowed  down to him to the earth"
> 16. Genesis 44: 11  "took  down every man his sack to the ground"
> 17. Genesis 44: 14  "they  fell before him on the ground"
> 18. Genesis 45: 17  "get you  unto the land of Canaan"
> 19. Genesis 46: 28  "they  came into the land of Goshen"
> 20. Genesis 48: 12  "he fell  down on his face to the earth"
> 21. Genesis 50: 13  "his sons  carried him into the land of Canaan"
> In the Patriarchal narratives, the Hebrew letter combination
> aleph-resh-tsade-he is most often used in the phrase "bowed down to the
earth".  The other
> common use is "go  into the land of Canaan".  No one  translates the second
> phrase "go into The Land of Canaan" or "go into the Land  of Canaan".  (Of
> course, no one  would translate the first phrase as "to the Earth".)
> In Genesis 20: 1, "earth" or "ground" do not fit the context.  In Genesis 20:
> 1, the English  translation of aleph-resh-tsade-he should either be "to the
> land" or "to the  region" (before we get to the issue of how to translate
> he-nun-gimel-bet in this  connection), not "to the Land".
> B.  Now consider what would  result if, per your suggestion, one were to
> translate the first third of Genesis  20: 1 to say that "Abraham journeyed
> thence to the Land of the Negev".  Or, more consistent with JPS1917's usage
> prepositions elsewhere, the translation would be:  "Abraham journeyed from
> thence into the  Land of the Negev".  That rendering  would contradict the
> immediately following phrase, which tells us "and he dwelt  between Qadesh and
> S(h)ur".  The  Negev Desert is not located "between Qadesh and S(h)ur".
> Excluding Genesis 20: 1 for one moment, note that in all 10 of the other  10
> uses above of aleph-resh-tsade-he in the Patriarchal narratives in connection
> with a geographical location (Canaan, the land of the children of the east,
> Seir, and Goshen), the person goes "into" or "unto" or "to" that place, and
> then  stays there, rather than immediately passing through there.  Only at
> Genesis 20: 1 is it claimed that  Abraham went aleph-resh-tsade-he -- to the
> in question -- but did not stay  there, instead immediately passing through
> Negev Desert to settle in the  Sinai Desert.  That to me is  "special
> pleading":  translating  Genesis 20: 1 differently than all other uses of
> aleph-resh-tsade-he in the  Patriarchal narratives, for the purpose of trying
to deny
> that each of "the land  of the South" and Gerar is located "between Qadesh and
> S(h)ur".  Note how JPS1917 uniquely comes up with  the word "toward" at
> 20: 1, a word never used in the other 21  occurrences of aleph-resh-tsade-he
> in its translation of the Patriarchal  narratives.  Why is everyone  straining

> so mightily to make Genesis 20: 1 nonsensical?
> C.  Both the place to which  Abraham goes ("the land of the South" per JPS
> 1917), and the land where Abraham  sojourns (Gerar), should logically be
> "between Qadesh and S(h)ur", which is the  place where Abraham "dwelt" or, in
> translations, "settled", or else  Genesis 20: 1 reads very awkwardly.  On my
> view of the case, Genesis 20: 1 reads very naturally, as it conveys  the
> following substantive content:
> (i)  Abraham traveled to a  locale that is located between Qadesh and Sur, in
> the southern part of that area  (near Sur);  and
> (ii) Abraham settled between Qadesh and Sur;  and
> (iii) Abraham sojourned in the part of Gerar that is located between  Qadesh
> and Sur.
> On my view, Abraham did all three of those things simultaneously, in the
> same southern Lebanon locale:  Sur  ("Tyre").
> I see Genesis 20: 1 as telling us that Abraham traveled from Bethel/Ai to
> the southern region between Qadesh and Sur (in southern Lebanon, near Sur),
> he settled there between Qadesh and Sur (near Sur), and he sojourned in a
> part  of Gerar that is located between Qadesh and Sur.  It all makes logical
> sense.  Southern Lebanon was a logical place to  go to have the baby.  At the
> he  left Hebron, Abraham knew that Sarah would be getting pregnant with Isaac
> about  30 days after they left Hebron.  A  desert environment like the Negev
> Desert, or even worse the Sinai Desert, would  not be an appropriate place to
> go to have the baby.  It would make no sense at all, given  Sarah's impending
> pregnancy with Isaac, to first go to the Negev Desert, then go  to the Sinai
> Desert and "settle" in the Sinai Desert, and than go all the way  back to the
> Negev Desert, to a locale not near either Qadesh or S(h)ur.  And how could all
> that traveling be  completed before Sarah gets pregnant with Isaac?  Sarah
> apparently does not get pregnant  with Isaac (in chapter 21 of Genesis) until
> after Abraham and Sarah have  interacted with Abimelech at Gerar (in chapter
> of Genesis), yet Genesis 20: 1  tells us that Abraham "settled between Qadesh
> and S(h)ur".  I just do not see how your proposed  translation of Genesis 20:
> can possibly make substantive sense (even though it  is possible
> grammatically).  Why  would Genesis 20: 1 tell us that Abraham "settled
between Qadesh and
> S(h)ur", if  in fact Abraham settled, less than 30 days after leaving Hebron,
> near the site  of the modern Israeli city of Beersheba, nowhere near to
> either Qadesh or  S(h)ur?  How are you interpreting  the middle third of
> 20: 1, which explicitly tells us that Abraham  "settled between Qadesh and
> S(h)ur"?  We should not ignore that portion of Genesis 20: 1, should we?
> As to whether "negev" may mean "dry land", I will show in a later post  that
> all that jousting over water wells in chapters 21 and 26 of Genesis is
> historically documented at Sur in southern Lebanon in this time period.  And
Yes, it
> involves "Philistines", as  frequently referenced in chapters 21 and 26.  As
> you probably know, the urban classic  Philistines were never in the Negev
> Desert or the Sinai Desert (in addition to  not yet being in existence in the
> Patriarchal Age), and "Gerar" is not  associated with the classic Philistines
> are described, more or less  accurately, in many other books of the Bible, so
> we should be able to figure out  whether or not the classic Philistines are
> being referenced in the Patriarchal  narratives).  Historically, the
> activities described in chapters 21 and 26 took place only near Sur, in
> Lebanon, and only in the time period of the first Hebrews.  We need (i)
> "Philistines" who are (ii)  jousting over water wells, (iii) a leader named
> and (iv)  interaction with tent-dwelling people (v) in the secular historical
> time period  of the first Hebrews.  The one and  only place to get all that in
> secular history is Sur in the Patriarchal  Age.  There's nothing like that in
>  the secular history of the Negev Desert or the Sinai Desert (regardless of
> how  oddly people may choose to translate Genesis 20: 1, or how insistent
> people are  in resolutely ignoring the part of Genesis 20: 1 that explicitly
> that  Abraham "settled between Qadesh and S(h)ur").
> Genesis 20: 1 makes perfect historical sense, if we will  only use a
> sensible, literal translation of that key verse.  Abraham went straight to Sur
> southern  Lebanon from Hebron, Sarah bore Isaac near Sur, and Isaac was raised
> near  Sur.  Only after the binding  incident did the family leave Sur in
> Lebanon and return to Hebron.  After returning to Canaan from Egypt,  Abraham
> on my view never again lived or sojourned in either the Negev Desert or  the
> Sinai Desert.  (Why would an  extremely wealthy man with 318 armed retainers
> [Genesis 13: 2;  14: 14] move into a desert?  Why would his son Isaac later
> move into  a desert when drought/famine hit Hebron?  Does any of that make
> sense?)  Nor did Abraham move around much either.  Rather, Abraham is at
> then at  Sur in southern Lebanon, and then back at Hebron, with there being
> little  wandering involved during this very long period of time.
> It all makes perfect sense, once we accept the fact that,  per Genesis 20: 1,
> Abraham "settled between Qadesh and Sur".
> 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


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.6/1061 - Release Date: 10/10/07 8:43

For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list