Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Dave:

We read in the text that Laban lived in Padan Aram, and he was called an
Aramean (e.g. Genesis 31:20) while the town of Shechem was a Hivite town,
further Jacob did not remain in Shechem after his sons (not he) took the
town. Rather Jacob remained a tent dweller, moving from place to place until
he went to Egypt.

Therefore I understand Genesis 48:22 in the context of the statements as
referring to his livestock which he took from an Aramean (Laban) rather than
a set piece of land in the territory of Canaan.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:46 PM, <dwashbur AT nyx.net> wrote:

> Karl,
> I can't speak for Gabe, obviously, but I'm gonna need a LOT more exposition
> on this idea
> before I can respond to it.  I agree there's no connection with the town of
> Shechem, but I
> don't see the connection with Gen 31:26, either.  More info please, my
> friend!
>
> On 13 Oct 2008 at 20:49, K Randolph wrote:
>
> > Dave and Gabe:
> > Both of you are making an assumption that the property that Jacob took is
> > land. But I understand it that the Amorite in question was Laban, his
> uncle
> > and father-in-law, and the property was his wives, children and
> livestock,
> > as mentioned in Genesis 31:26. Therefore the connection with the town of
> > Shechem is completely spurious.
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> >
>