Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Genesis 20: 1
  • Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:48:54 EDT


We have seen that neither the Sinai Desert nor the Negev Desert fits either
the text of the Patriarchal narratives or secular history as the place where
Isaac was born and raised. Now lets look at southern Lebanon.
C. Sur ("Tyre") in Southern Lebanon
Historical Garu (Biblical "Gerar") likely extended as far west as the
city-state of Sur in southern Lebanon. Amarna Letter #256: 19-28. So
Abraham could
simultaneously (i) sojourn in Garu/Gerar, (ii) settle between Qadesh and
Sur, and (iii) go to the southland between Qadesh and Sur. The mainland
just
northeast of the tiny island of Sur ("Tyre") fits all three descriptions
perfectly. (The Lebanese city-state of Sur was "Surru" in Akkadian
cuneiform and
"Sur" in Arabic, so shin/sin-vav-resh in Hebrew at Genesis 20: 1 is a close
match as to sound. It is true that later books in the Bible decided to
spell
the name of this city-state as tsade-vav-resh, but a tsade in Biblical
Hebrew
was a kind of an S-type sound, and spellings of foreign place names varied
widely in the ancient world [as we saw previously in the many various
spellings of "Qadesh" in the Amarna Letters].)
If there was an historical Patriarchal Age, a likely time period for it
would be the mid-14th century BCE (the time period of the voluminous Amarna
Letters). That would give the first Hebrews just enough time to grow into a
large
tribe by the mid-13th century BCE, and then be important enough for pharaoh
Merneptah to brag about defeating "Israel" in the Merneptah Stele (or Israel
Stele) of about 1207 BCE, near the end of the 13th century BCE. Much of the
nomenclature in the Amarna Letters matches the Patriarchal narratives
beautifully. The Levant is called "Canaan" in both sources, both sources
reference
"the land of Seir" (which probably references the Trans-Jordan and
Seir/Jazeer, not the future state of Edom southeast of the future state of
Judah), and
both sources are very concerned about the "Hittites"/"Hatti". "Qadesh" and
"Sur" are prominent in the Amarna Letters as Lebanese city-states (and, in my

controversial view, these same words are used in that exact sense in the
Patriarchal narratives as well). Egypt is something like "Misraim" in both
sources ("Missari" or "Misriniwe" in the Amarna Letters), Asshur is Asshur
in both
sources, and Shechem is Shechem (or "Sakmu") in both sources. In terms of
geographical names, the world of the Amarna Letters seems in many cases to
be
the same world as the world of the Amarna Letters. Excluding, that is, the
many new Hebrew nicknames for geographical places created by the author of
the
Patriarchal narratives, such as "Sodom", "Gomorrah", and as locales in the
Sinai Desert, "Qadesh" and "Shur". Both sources prominently feature
tent-dwelling people, called "habiru" in the Amarna Letters and "Hebrews" in
the
Patriarchal narratives. It is true that most scholars today try to insist
that
any similarity in sound between "habiru" and "Hebrew" is 100% coincidence.
But
those same scholars are even more unanimous in trying to insist that the
Patriarchal narratives are mid-1st millennium BCE fiction, despite the
manifest
wealth of matches to the geography and peoples set forth in the ancient
Amarna Letters. We will now examine one droplet of that plenitude of
spectacular
matches between what is in the Amarna Letters, and what the received Hebrew
text of the Patriarchal narratives says. (There is simply no way that any
group of mid-1st millennium BCE Hebrews, regardless of their motivation,
brilliance or divine inspiration, could possibly have made this stuff up.
It fits
the well-documented ancient secular history far, far too closely for that.)
(i) In the mid-14th century BCE, the ruler of Sur was named "Abimilki".
The name "Abimilki" is either the same as, or sounds quite similar to,
"Abimelech" in the Patriarchal narratives. Amarna Letters #146-#155
(ii) The only Amarna Letters that talk about jousting over rights of access
to valuable water wells are 8 Amarna Letters from Abimilki of Sur. Amarna
Letters #146-#151; #154-#155. Thus both in the Amarna Letters and the
Patriarchal narratives, the only ruler who is involved in jousting over water
wells
is named Abimelech/Abimilki. Historical ruler Abimilki specifically refers
to the "habiru" as an ambiguous factor in this volatile mix.
(iii) In the mid-14th century BCE, the classic Philistines did not yet
exist. But in that time period, the Hebrew word translated into English as
"Philistines" could easily be a pejorative Hebrew nickname for foreign
mercenaries, calling them "Invaders". The root of P'lishti/"Philistines"
may likely be
p-l-sh, which means "invade". Southern Lebanon (unlike the Negev Desert)
was
crawling with foreign mercenaries in the mid-14th century BCE, as we know
from the Amarna Letters. In particular, three Amarna Letters talk about the
Sherden foreign mercenaries in Lebanon. Amarna Letters #81: 16; #122: 35;

#123: 15
The Sherden foreign mercenaries (who could be viewed by the first Hebrews as
being "Invaders"/"Philistines") were notorious for doing exactly what the
"Philistines" are reported to do in the Patriarchal narratives: foreigners
hired by rival rulers, who fight on both sides of a dispute. By stark
contrast,
the classic Philistines never did anything like that in any time period.
On this analysis, Biblical "Abimelech" is closely modeled on historical
Abimilki, a west Semitic-speaking Amorite princeling ruler of Sur in the
mid-14th
century BCE (the historical Patriarchal Age), who has hired Sherden foreign
mercenaries ("Philistines") to try to assure him access to the invaluable
water wells on the mainland of Lebanon opposite the tiny island of Sur. The
leader of Abimelech's small militia of foreign mercenaries has a foreign
name
befitting a non-west Semitic-speaking Sherden foreign mercenary: "Phicol".
Abimelech's "herdsmen" and "servants", by contrast, are all west
Semitic-speaking Amorites like Abimelech. Only Phicol and Phicol's
military subordinates
are non-west Semitic Sherden foreign mercenaries/"Philistines"/"Invaders".
Abimelech is "king of the Philistines" in the ironic sense that Abimelech
(who
himself is an Amorite, not a Philistine) can get and maintain access to the
desperately-needed water wells on the mainland of Lebanon only by the drastic

expedient of hiring Sherden foreign mercenaries ("Philistines"/"Invaders").
Since the mainland northeast of the tiny island of Sur off the southern
coast of Lebanon is located both (i) in "Gerar", if Biblical "Gerar" is
historical Garu, and (ii) "between Qadesh and Sur", that means that southern
Lebanon
meets all of the above tests, including fitting the specific wording of all
three portions of Genesis 20: 1 perfectly.
D. Conclusion
Note how everything fits historically if "Gerar" is the Biblical version of
historical Garu, with Isaac being born and raised near Sur in southern
Lebanon. By sharp contrast, nothing matches to secular history if Isaac is
born
and raised in the Negev Desert near the site of the modern Israeli city of
Beersheba.
Why should we continue to ignore the middle third of Genesis 20: 1, which
clearly and unequivocally states that Abraham "settled between Qadesh and
S(h)ur"? Let the Biblical Minimalists ignore that text. The rest of us
should
give full credence to that text. If "Qadesh" means the real Qadesh, in
northern Lebanon, and "S(h)ur" means the real Sur, in southern Lebanon, then
everything is a perfect historical fit.
Certainly the author of the Patriarchal narratives, and his audiences, knew
about the world-famous Lebanese city-states of Qadesh and Sur. By stark
contrast, "S(h)ur" and "Qadesh", as references to sites in the Sinai Desert,
are
Biblical names only, with no basis in secular history. It is likely that
the
author of the Patriarchal narratives decided to use these names as Hebrew
nicknames for sites in the Sinai Desert for the precise purpose of later
punning on the famous names of these two Lebanese city-states. The author
introduces the audience to these new Hebrew nicknames for Sinai sites in
chapter 16
of Genesis, regarding Hagar's brief flight from Hebron (Genesis 16: 7, 14).
Yet in chapter 20 of Genesis, the audience of course still knows the
world-famous Lebanese city-states of Qadesh and Sur by these names. When
the
audience hears or reads that Abraham "settled between Qadesh and S(h)ur"
immediately
before Isaac was born, the audience cannot help but ask "which Qadesh and
which S(h)ur"? Is this verse referencing the Qadesh and Sur everyone knows
about in Lebanon, or rather the sites in the Sinai Desert that we just heard
about, for the first time, regarding Hagar's brief departure from Hebron?
The
author of the Patriarchal narratives knew that the audience would think like
that. That is exactly what the author wants us to be thinking. Is Abraham
going up north from Bethel/Ai to Sur in southern Lebanon, or is Abraham
oddly
following in Hagar's footsteps and going southwest from Hebron toward
"Qadesh"
and "Shur" in the Sinai Desert? This ambiguity is intentional on the part
of the author.
Note that when Hagar and Ishmael are later exiled, there is no mention of
Qadesh or Shur whatsoever in chapter 21 of Genesis. If Hagar and Ishmael
were
exiled from a site near the modern Israeli city of Beersheba, why then
wouldn't Hagar be said to go in the direction of Qadesh and Shur, as had
been stated
at Genesis 16: 7, 14 when Hagar left Hebron? The answer is that Hagar and
Ishmael are exiled after they have moved to southern Lebanon. Hagar is
desperate because she has no experience whatsoever in trying to go from
Lebanon
far up north all the way back to her original homeland of Egypt, by way of
Qadesh-barnea or otherwise. The marked absence of the words "Qadesh" and
"Shur"
when Hagar and Ishmael are exiled in chapter 21 of Genesis is a good clue
that they are in Lebanon, not the Negev Desert. Hagar is clueless as to how
to
get to Egypt from Lebanon, though Hagar had felt confident in chapter 16 of
Genesis that she knew how to go back to Egypt from Hebron by way of
Qadesh-barnea on the way to Shur.
As we are seeing, everything fits perfectly, both in secular history and in
the Biblical text, if Abraham and Sarah are viewed as going to Sur in
southern Lebanon to have Isaac.
When Genesis 20: 1 says that Abraham "settled between Qadesh and Sur", it
means exactly that. That's what the text clearly says, and that's precisely
what makes secular historical sense. It is at Sur, in southern Lebanon
during
the time period of the first Hebrews in secular history, that one finds
ruler
"Abimelech" (historical Abimilki), "Garu" (Biblical "Gerar"), and
"Philistines" (foreign mercenaries/"Invaders"/Sherden) jousting interminably
over
access to valuable water wells. It's all at Sur, just as faithfully
recorded in
the Patriarchal narratives, and nowhere else on the planet earth in
mankind's
long history.
We see that an awful lot is riding on the interpretation of the Hebrew
phrase "settled between Qadesh and Sur" in Genesis 20: 1. If it's
referencing
southern Lebanon, we're talking actual, well-documented, ancient secular
history, not mid-1st millennium BCE fiction.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page