Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

   Hello Karl,

  The root is NKH,( Nun, Kaf, He) "hit", quite common

 in Hiph'il; in the verse you inquired about it is a

 passive form in Huph'al  (or Hoph'al, if you prefer)

in the imperfect, "you, pl., will

be/are beaten."

   Uri Hurwitz

 

 

b-hebrew chaberim:    In looking at Isaiah 1:5, what is the meaning of TKW? 
Is it connected  with TWK inside? Or is it a verb TKK or maybe TKH, as also 
used in  Deuteronomy 33:3 and Ezekiel 22:20–22?  Or have I made an elementary 
mistake that I need someone to slap me on  the side of the head to recognize? 
   Karl W. Randolph.  

       
---------------------------------
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who 
knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. 
>From JimStinehart AT aol.com  Mon Oct 15 17:50:16 2007
Return-Path: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from imo-d23.mx.aol.com (imo-d23.mx.aol.com [205.188.139.137])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 647CC4C010
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:50:16 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from JimStinehart AT aol.com
        by imo-d23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id 3.d27.160266a7 (29679)
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:50:11 -0400 
(EDT)
From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Message-ID: <d27.160266a7.34453a93 AT aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:50:11 EDT
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5377
X-Spam-Flag: NO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: [b-hebrew] Genesis 20: 1
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:50:16 -0000

=20
Tory  Thorpe:=20
1.  Gaza=20
You wrote:  "There need be no mention of Gaza in  Genesis for it to have=20
existed =20
before Genesis was composed, or for it  to have existed in the time =20
Abraham is believed to have lived. The  city evidently predates the =20
Amarna age and the reign of Pharaoh  Thutmose III. So the non-mention =20
in Genesis is for you merely an  argumentum ex silentio."=20
I agree completely that Gaza was in  existence, and was very well known,=20
during the Patriarchal Age.  But that just means that the fact that  Gaza is=
 not=20
mentioned in the Patriarchal narratives is extremely  important.=20
2.  Qadesh and Shur=20
You wrote:  "The same is true in the secular  material for the Qadesh and=20
Shur located south of Hebron and  Beer-Sheba."=20
I disagree with that assertion  completely.  As far as I know, there  is no=20
secular historical evidence for a Qadesh or a Shur being in or near the  Sin=
ai=20
Desert in Biblical times.  That is completely different from (i) Gaza, a=20
well-known historical city  just northeast of the Sinai Desert, and (ii) the=
=20
Lebanese city-states of Qadesh  and Sur, who were very famous during the his=
torical=20
time period of the first  Hebrews, and whose names are suspiciously 
similar=20=
to=20
the sites of Qadesh and  Shur in the Sinai Desert that are mentioned in the=20
Bible but are not known  outside of the Bible.=20
3.  Beersheba  =20
You wrote:  "There is only  one "biblical" city named Beer-Sheba attested in=
=20
the =20
biblical  sources.  =E2=80=A6It is much simpler to see  that Hagar's 'wilder=
ness of=20
Beer-=20
Sheba' (whatever the name of the place was  at this moment) became =20
popular overnight once news spread that water  was there. Abraham =20
later gave it the name Beer-Sheba which stuck,  according to Genesis, =20
and the rest is Jewish history."=20
You  say "later", but that is not what the text says.  The transition from=20
Hagar's story to  getting back to Abraham is introduced as follows:  "And it=
=20
came to pass at that  time,=E2=80=A6."  Genesis 21: 22  That logically means=
 that at the=20
same  time as YHWH was showing Hagar a pre-existing, functioning well at=20
Hagar's  "Beersheba", Abraham was dealing with Abimelech and calling a 
well=20=
that =20
Abraham's men had dug "Beersheba", a well which Abimelech's men had violentl=
y =20
taken away from Abraham's men.  It  defies credulity that Abraham would exil=
e=20
Hagar and Ishmael, and then Abraham  would promptly follow in Hagar's=20
footsteps and go to the very place to which  Hagar and Ishmael had been exil=
ed. =20
Whereas Hagar's Beersheba is in the lonely wilderness, where both Hagar  and=
=20
Ishmael are in grave danger of dying of thirst without a soul being around 
=20=
to=20
notice them, Abraham's Beersheba is the center of unbelievable hubbub, 
with=20=
 all=20
sorts of various peoples everywhere one looks.  "And it came to pass at that=
=20
time, that  Abimelech and Phicol the captain of his host spoke unto Abraham,=
=20
saying: 'God is  with thee in all that thou doest.  =E2=80=A6  And Abraham r=
eproved=20
Abimelech because of the well of water, which Abimelech's  servants had viol=
ently=20
taken away.  =E2=80=A6 Wherefore that place was called Beer-sheba;  
because=20=
there they=20
swore both of  them.  So they made a covenant at  Beer-sheba;  and Abimelech=
=20
rose up,  and Phicol the captain of his host, and they returned into the lan=
d of=20
the  Philistines."  Genesis 21: 22, 25,  31-32  All that activity and =20
commotion signify a very different geographical location than the deadly sil=
ence =20
and loneliness of Hagar's Beersheba.=20
4.  Philistines=20
You wrote:  "Not everyone agrees that classic Philistines  are being=20
described in=20
the Patriarchal narratives. How about  Proto-Philistines?"=20
That  might address the problem of the classic Philistines being an=20
historical  anachronism.  But why would the  leader of the proto-Philistines=
 have the=20
purest west Semitic name on earth:  "Abimelech"?  Wouldn't a Hebrew author=20
portray the  proto-Philistines as being foreigners to Canaan?  And if the=20
Patriarchal narratives were  composed after the classic Philistines had been=
 deadly=20
rivals of the Hebrews for  centuries (a view which is apparently unanimous a=
mong=20
secular scholars today,  though it is not my view), why then would Abimelech=
=20
be portrayed as being so  gallant?  "And Abimelech said [to  Abraham]: =20
'Behold, my land is  before thee:  dwell where it  pleaseth thee.'  =E2=80=
=A6And it came to =20
pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phicol the captain of his host spoke=20
unto  Abraham, saying: 'God is with thee in all that thou doest.'"   Genesis=
 20:=20
15;  21:  22=20
Abimelech, you see, is not a "Philistine" at all.  Rather, Abimelech has=20
hired some foreign  mercenaries to try to secure access to those all-importa=
nt=20
water wells on the  mainland.  The author of the  Patriarchal narratives=20
disparagingly refers to those foreign mercenaries as  being "Invaders"/"Phil=
istines". =20
The  Hebrew author is trying to show some solidarity with Amorite princeling=
=20
ruler  Abimelech, while subtly castigating the foreign=20
mercenaries/"Philistines" that  Abimelech has hired.  Only the head  foreign=
 mercenary, Phicol, has a=20
non-west Semitic name, befitting a Sherden  foreign mercenary who is not a=20
west Semitic speaker.  Note that all the facts in the received  Hebrew 
text=20=
work=20
perfectly for viewing the "Philistines" as being foreign =20
mercenaries/"Invaders"/Sherden, who were important factors in Lebanon during=
 the  Patriarchal Age=20
of the mid-14th century BCE.  These foreign mercenaries/"Philistines"  have=20
no relationship whatsoever to the later classic Philistines, in my  view. =20
There were no foreign  mercenaries in either the Negev Desert or the Sinai =20
Desert.=20
5.  Bethel/Ai  =20
You wrote:  "[T]here is certainly nothing in our text  about =20
Abraham journeying to Ai where he then viewed the destruction  of =20
Sodom from higher ground."=20
Au  contraire, that is exactly what the text portrays.  At Genesis 12: 8,=20
Bethel/Ai (just north  of Jerusalem) is where Abraham first calls the name Y=
HWH. =20
At Genesis 13: 2, those critical facts  are repeated.  Then at Genesis 13: =20
2-17, Abraham is at Bethel/Ai when he separates from Lot, and YHWH 
promises=20=
to =20
Abraham and his descendants all the land that can be seen from that=20
mountaintop  at Bethel/Ai.  Genesis 13: 14  Years later, after Abraham has b=
een told =20
that Sodom will probably be destroyed by YHWH the next morning, Abraham goes=
 =20
north from Hebron 27 miles to that same mountaintop at Bethel/Ai, in order t=
o =20
witness the after-effects of the dramatic destruction of Sodom and  Gomorrah=
: =20
"And Abraham got up early in the  morning to the place where he had stood=20
before the LORD [YHWH].  And he looked out toward Sodom and  Gomorrah, and t=
oward=20
all the land of the [kikkar/river valley/Jordan River  Valley/"Plain"], and=20
beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the land went up as the smoke  of a 
furnace."=20=
=20
Genesis 19:  27-28  =20
The next time we hear about Abraham is when Genesis 20: 1  tells us that=20
Abraham departed "from there" and settled between Qadesh and  S(h)ur. =20
Accordingly, the reference  to "from there" at Genesis 20: 1 must be referri=
ng to=20
Bethel/Ai.  Please note that the text does not state  that Abraham 
returned=20=
south=20
from Bethel/Ai to Hebron.  No, Abraham had already gone 27 miles  north of H=
ebron=20
to Bethel/Ai.  Presumably after waiting for the rest of his people and=20
animals to make  it up to Bethel/Ai to join him, Abraham then leads his huge=
=20
entourage further  north, to southern Lebanon, where Abraham settled between=
 the=20
Lebanese  city-states of Qadesh and Sur, in historical Garu (Biblical  "Gera=
r").=20
Note how the entire text makes perfect sense on this  view.  The Hebrew text=
=20
is perfect,  as is.  The problem is our lack of  understanding of what the=20
Hebrew text is actually saying.  If one drops the millennia-long  
erroneous=20=
view=20
that the Patriarchal narratives were composed by a southern  Hebrew from=20
Judah, who never would have considered portraying Isaac as being  born in Su=
r on=20
the northern edge of, or just north of, Israel, then one can see  what 
this=20=
text=20
is actually saying.  There's nothing wrong with Isaac being born in Sur.  Su=
r=20
was considered to be part of Canaan,  as it was south of Sidon (south-centra=
l=20
Lebanon), which appears to have been the  dividing line.=20
6.  Secular  History  =20
In secular history, there is no "Qadesh", and there is no  "Shur", as a site=
=20
in the Sinai Desert in Biblical times.  In secular history, there is no=20
"Gerar"  in the Negev Desert in Biblical times.  But in secular history, 
in=20=
Lebanon,=20
we see "Qadesh", we see "Sur", and we  see "Garu".  Not only that, but in =20
secular history, during the time period of the first Hebrews, we also see in=
 =20
Lebanon "Abimilki" as the princeling ruler of Sur, we see "habiru", and we s=
ee =20
Abimilki interacting in an awkward, ambiguous way with the habiru as he =20
desperately seeks to gain and maintain access to much-needed water wells.  C=
an all=20
of that be but a bizarre  "coincidence"? =20
Everything makes sense if Genesis 20: 1 is referring to  southern Lebanon as=
=20
the place where Abraham and Sarah went to have the  baby.  The story is then=
=20
sensible,  and it closely tracks many elements of the well-documented secula=
r=20
history of  the mid-14th century BCE, which is a likely time period for the=20
first  Hebrews.=20
7.  Genesis  20: 1  =20
Why not give some consideration to a sensible, historical  re-interpretation=
=20
of Genesis 20: 1? We know for sure that Qadesh and Sur were  world-famous=20
Lebanese city-states during that time period.  Why not then explore the=20
possibility  that Genesis 20: 1 may be referencing those historical Lebanese=
 =20
city-states?=20
Jim Stinehart=20
Evanston, Illinois



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