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: "biblical hebrew" <jcr.bhebrew AT gmail.com>
  • To: "JimStinehart AT aol.com" <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 20: 1
  • Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:38:32 +0100

Hi Jim,

this is an interesting discussion you've aroused. Until now I've been a
passive bystander and listened to the arguments of both sides. Positive and
negative points worthy of consideration have been raised by both sides and
it has been interesting to listen in on. May I offer a few comments and
raise a few questions.

Firstly, I would like to say that the concerns raised with regard to
inseperable Hebrew constructions are valid concerns and any translation you
offer should be in harmony with them. At this point I would like to request
that you provide a colloquial English translation of what you are proposing
as the punctuation scheme you seem to be offering does nothing, in my mind,
to illuminate new meaning to the verse but does everything to completely
obscure any sensical meaning from it.

I understand your argument about 'to the South' versus 'to the Negeb
(desert)' and agree that you have a valid point worth considering, however,
your arguments based on where a nomad would go to have a child are, as
previously observed, meaningless and hardly worth considering.

Regards confusion over spelling of place names I would like to grant your
theory the benefit of the doubt as there are many multi lingual forces at
play with such things as ANE place names and so won't raise any serious
objections to these suggestions.

What is of greatest interest to this discussion is evidence you have offered
from the Armana letters regarding the situation with Abimelech. Could you
provide specific quotes from these letters regarding the hebrews and the
philistines and Abimelech? It would enrich the discussion no end to have
something concrete to look at. The reason I ask is that I am wondering if
there was any confusion between the Hebrews and the Philistines from
Abimelech's point of view. When the same story is told from different
viewpoints there are generally typical differences between the two accounts
as any experienced policeman will be glad to relate to you.

Finally, a polite request. Could you please separate your paragraphs with
empty lines and in some way signify where your quotation of another list
member ends (preferably also with a line space and some sort of indication
of where your comments start)? Some list members adopt the unofficial
protocol of initialising where their comments begin so that it is clear who
is talking. It would make your sizeable posts more readable if there were
some visual layout to them so that readers already familiar with the context
of points raised by other list members you quote can skip to the beef - that
is to say, your response to the points you are quoting. Also separating your
paragraphs with empty lines, for me, would make it more digestible to read
your long posts as when you can see one small paragraph at a time it makes
it less daunting to read in the brief spare moments our busy lives allow us
to have.

Thanks in advance. Great discussion!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Christian Read - BSc Computer Science

http://www.lamie.org/hebrew Thesis 1 - Aleppo codex machine translation
http://www.lamie.org/lad-sim.doc Thesis 2 - language acquisition simulation


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



On 10/14/07, JimStinehart AT aol.com <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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