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: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:31:46 EDT


Oun Kwon:
You wrote: “A question: you place Gerar in southern Lebanon? What about
these texts: Gen 10:19 'And the territory of the Canaanites extended from
Sidon in the direction of Gerar as far as Gaza, 2Ch 14:12 So the LORD
defeated
the Ethiopians before Asa and before Judah, and the Ethiopians fled. 2Ch
14:13 Asa and the people who were with him pursued them as far as Gerar,
and
the Ethiopians fell until none remained alive, for they were broken before
the LORD and his army. The men of Judah carried away very much spoil.' Does
not
this Gerar sound like to be located further south of Gaza?”
With the exception of the Patriarchal narratives, which begin at Genesis 11:
26 with the first mention of Abraham (and do not include any material that
appears earlier in the Book of Genesis), I agree with today’s secular
scholars
that the rest of the Hebrew Bible was composed in the mid-1st millennium
BCE. This includes the Bible passages that you cite. That means that the
authors of those Bible passages had never heard of historical Garu, which
had
disappeared 700 years earlier (after the 14th century BCE). To those
authors, “
Gerar” was like “Qadesh” and “S(h)ur” as sites in the Sinai Desert, and
like “Sodom” and “Gomorrah”. No one in the 1st millennium BCE had any
knowledge of such names relating to secular history, but rather only knew
such
names from the Patriarchal narratives. Thus on my view, we cannot look
outside
of the Patriarchal narratives in the Bible for accurate information about
the
secular history of the mid-2nd millennium BCE, or, for that matter, for an
historically accurate interpretation of the Patriarchal narratives.
If the Patriarchal narratives are reflecting accurate information from the
well-documented secular history of the mid-14th century BCE (which is my
controversial view of the case), the Patriarchal narratives will contain
detailed,
specific information about that time period that was unknown to any human
being in the mid-1st millennium BCE, but which we today can verify based on
historical sources, such as the Amarna Letters. Thus regarding Genesis 20:
1,
just look at what the author of the Patriarchal narratives knew, and that no
human being in the mid-1st millennium BE could possibly have known:
1. A west Semitic-speaking Amorite princeling ruler in southern Lebanon
in mid-14th century BCE was named Abimilki (Biblical “Abimelech”).
1. This ruler’s city-state was named Sur (Biblical shin/sin-vav-resh at
Genesis 20: 1).
1. Sur is located on the western edge of a vaguely-defined region
(which included the area immediately east of the Sea of Galilee) that in the
mid-14th century BCE was called Garu (Biblical “Gerar” in chapters 20, 21
and 26
of Genesis; other parts of the Bible do not know historical Garu).
1. Abimilki/Abimelech has hired a small number of foreign mercenaries (“
Invaders”/“Philistines”) to try to assure his access to the invaluable
water wells on the mainland of southern Lebanon immediately northeast of the
tiny
island of Sur. (These are the “Philistines” referenced in chapters 21 and
26 of Genesis, who have nothing to do with the later classic Philistines.
The classic Philistines are inseparable from their 5 great cities on the
southwest coast of Canaan, none of which cities is ever mentioned, even in
passing,
in the Patriarchal narratives. The author of the Patriarchal narratives
knew nothing of the classic Philistines, who were not in existence yet at
the
time of the composition of the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives.)
1. But now rival princelings have hired their own foreign mercenaries (“
Invaders”/“Philistines”), who often succeed in denying princeling
Abimilki/Abimelech access to the much-needed water wells on the mainland of
southern
Lebanon. Genesis 26: 15, 18
1. Tent-dwelling habiru (Biblical “Hebrews”) are present at Sur, and
are an ambiguous factor in this volatile mix. Abimilki/Abimelech is nervous
about the habiru (Hebrews), yet Abimilki’s/Abimelech’s real problem is with
the rival princelings, and the foreign mercenaries
(“Invaders”/“Philistines”)
that the rival princelings have hired to deny Abimilki/Abimelech access to
the much-needed water wells.
No human being in the mid-1st millennium BCE could possibly have known all
those specific, detailed secular historical facts from the mid-14th century
BCE. All those facts are in the Patriarchal narratives, in chapters 20, 21
and
26 of Genesis, and all those facts are fully documented in the Amarna
Letters.
The Patriarchal narratives cannot be mid-1st millennium BCE fiction, because
they track the well-documented secular history of the mid-14th century BCE
far too closely for that. The fact that the rest of the Bible is confused
as
to where “Gerar” was located, as reflected in your post, does not undercut
the pinpoint secular historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives on
this
and so many other matters from the mid-14th century BCE.
If we translate Genesis 20: 1 accurately, we come to see that this key Bible
verse accurately reflects a detailed knowledge of the well-documented
secular history of the mid-14th century BCE. The key, you see, is how one
translates and understands the Hebrew text of Genesis 20: 1.
There’s really not much dispute as to what happened in secular history
regarding Abimilki of Sur. Rather, the key, somewhat surprisingly, is how
people
on this b-Hebrew list decide to translate and understand the Hebrew text of
Genesis 20: 1.
Whether the Patriarchal narratives are mid-1st millennium BCE fiction or, on
the contrary, are closely based on mid-2nd millennium BCE historical fact,
depends primarily on how the experts on this b-Hebrew list decide to
translate, and understand, Genesis 20: 1. The problem lies not with the
secular
history or with the Hebrew text. The Hebrew text of Genesis 20: 1 is perfect
as
is. Rather, as I see it, the problem lies exclusively with the traditional
translation and understanding of Genesis 20: 1.
I can understand why the remaining Hebrews after 701 BCE reinterpreted the
truly ancient Patriarchal narratives from a southern Hebrew perspective,
which
neatly cut Lebanon out of the picture. It is no surprise that such southern
Hebrew bias has continued throughout the common era, and is embraced by
virtually all secular scholars today, including, but by no means limited to,
Biblical Minimalists and staunch atheists. But what I am asking people on
this
b-Hebrew list to do is to look at Genesis 20: 1 anew, with new eyes, and see
if
a slightly-disguised reference to southern Lebanon may be discerned there.
If so, then the Patriarchal narratives are not mid-1st millennium BCE
fiction, but rather are very closely based on mid-14th century BCE secular
historical fact. It’s the translation and understanding of the Hebrew text
that will
determine whether the Patriarchal narratives are largely factual or are
completely fictional. There’s nothing wrong with the text. The Hebrew
text is
perfect as is. In my view, it’s the perennial misunderstanding of that text
that is standing in our way.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois



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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page