Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 20: 1

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 20: 1
  • Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:52:23 -0700

Jim:

To me it looks as if you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

First of all, we don't know what the climate was back then. The Negev
may have had a far more pleasant climate then than now. In fact, there
is evidence that the climate there formerly was more amenable to human
habitation.

Secondly, while some names remain constant, other names change.
Abraham was living in the Land of Canaan, today nobody calls it that.
To the south of Canaan was the land of the Negev, which apparently
included Palestine and much of the Sinai. Today the historic Negev is
split up into three separate areas.

What you propose is to take a constant name, Tyre, and change it,
while restricting Negev to its modern limits. Can that be justified? I
don't think so.

I also think you make too much of a belief that Isaac was born in the
spring, whereas I don't think Genesis is that clear on that.

Why not just take the historic meanings, as most of us do, and go with
that? The historic understanding is not ambiguous.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 10/11/07, JimStinehart AT aol.com <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:
>
> Based on the critical comments made concerning my first attempt at a new
> translation of Genesis 20: 1, I have revised my new translation. Set forth
> below
> are three versions of my new translation. Each version uses identical
> English wording, but different punctuation and capitalization are used in
> each
> version, recognizing (per Version #1) that the original Hebrew had no
> punctuation or capitalization at all.
> 1. Version #1
> No punctuation or capitalization [ambiguous as to whether Isaac is born in
> southern Lebanon at Sur or in the Negev Desert]
> "and departed from there abraham to the south land and he settled between
> kadesh and s(h)ur and he sojourned in gerar"
> 2. Version #2
> Dashes [Isaac is born in southern Lebanon at Sur]
> "And departed from there Abraham to the southland -- and he settled --
> between Kadesh and Sur and he sojourned in Gerar."
> 3. Version #3
> Semi-colons and capitalization [Isaac is born in the Negev Desert]
> "And departed from there Abraham to The South Land; and he settled between
> Kadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar."
> * * *
> I agree that Version #3, the traditional interpretation of Genesis 20: 1,
> works grammatically. But what I am saying is this:
> (i) Version #2 is also a legitimate interpretation of Genesis 20: 1, and
> is
> not impossible grammatically.
> (ii) Version #2 makes perfect sense substantively, whereas Version #1 is
> virtually nonsensical substantively. If Abraham journeyed into The Land
> of
> Negev, how then could Abraham settle in the Sinai Desert? Wrong desert.
> And
> having "settled" in the middle of the Sinai Desert, how is it then that
> Abraham
> sojourned at Gerar in the Negev Desert? Wrong desert again. And there's
> not enough time for Abraham first to settle in the Sinai Desert, and then
> commence sojourning in the Negev Desert at Gerar, with all this happening
> over a
> period of less than 30 days after Abraham leaves Hebron. Sarah must get
> pregnant about 30 days after they leave Hebron, which is presumably after
> Abraham
> and Sarah have interacted with Abimelech at Gerar (in chapter 20, with
> Sarah's pregnancy becoming known only in chapter 21), in order for Sarah to
> bear
> Isaac "when the season cometh round", that is, when spring returns again.
> Finally, it makes no sense for Abraham and Sarah to go to a desert in
> order to
> have, and raise, Isaac.
> On this list, the key issue is the Hebrew grammar. I view Version #2 as
> being a legitimate possible interpretation of Genesis 20: 1 based on Hebrew
> grammar, even though I admit that Version #3 would be most people's first
> reading
> of Genesis 20: 1. In my view, the author of the Patriarchal narratives
> did
> all this deliberately. He is deliberately causing us to think initially
> that
> Abraham may have followed in Hagar's footsteps from chapter 16 of Genesis,
> leaving Hebron and going toward Kadesh(-barnea) and Shur. But we gradually
> figure out that in fact, Abraham went in exactly the opposite direction.
> Abraham went north from Bethel/Ai (not southwest from Hebron), toward the
> Lebanese
> city-states of Kadesh and Sur ("Tyre"). Isaac is born near Sur, in
> southern
> Lebanon, in fulfillment of the Covenant.
> I see the ambiguity in Genesis 20: 1 as being deliberate. The Hebrew author
> is forcing us to think. And by forcing a parallel with Hagar from chapter
> 16 of Genesis, who (along with her son Ishmael) is left outside of the
> Covenant, the author is making an important point by this deliberately
> ambiguous
> wording of Genesis 20: 1.
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page