Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:34 PM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  Karl:
>
>
>
> 1.  Let me start with what appears to be your main objection to my line of 
> reasoning on this thread:
>
>
>
> “Where do you get these imaginary siblings and half siblings [of Jacob]?
>
>
>
> There are many indications in the text that Jacob and Esau had brothers and 
> sisters, including half-brothers and half-sisters.
>
>
>
> (a)  First and foremost, here is the JPS1917 translation of Genesis 27: 29,
>
>
When are you going to give any indication that you know Hebrew? Everything
so far has been translation and citations of who you think are authorities.


>  when Isaac famously gives a grand blessing to a disguised Jacob, with 
> Isaac thinking he is giving this critical blessing to Isaac’s firstborn son 
> Esau:
>
>
>
> “Be lord over thy brethren [plural brothers of Esau], and let thy mother's 
> sons [plural sons of Rebekah, excluding Esau himself] bow down to thee.”
>
>
Indications are that this was a formulaic blessing, but that the plural can
denote the sons of Esau. This in no way indicates that Rebecca had more than
the twins.

>
>
> That blessing makes sense if and only if Rebekah gave birth to other sons 
> after the twins Esau and Jacob.
>
>
See above.

>
>
> (b)  Daughters of the Patriarchs are rarely named, other than Dinah.  But 
> of course, the Patriarchs did not sire only sons.  So Isaac doubtless sired 
> a number of unnamed daughters.
>
>
>
> Conjecture, based on what ???

>
>
> (c)  Isaac almost certainly sired sons and daughters by minor wives.  
> Abraham and Jacob did that.
>
>
>
> And what was to stop him from not having more than his one wife?

(d)  Here is a critical clue that there were many female descendants
of Isaac and Rebekah, who were not descendants of either Jacob or
Esau:
>
>
>
> “And the sons of Simeon:  Jemuel, and Jamin, and Ohad, and Jachin, and 
> Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman.”  Genesis 46: 10
>
>
Why isn’t it more likely that Jacob’s sons took wives from among the slaves
that Jacob had brought from Padam Aram?

>
>
> The mention of Simeon having a minor wife or later wife who was a 
> Canaanite, as if that was something unusual, implies that most of Jacob’s 
> 12 sons, excluding Judah and Joseph, married women who were related by 
> blood to the Hebrews.
>
>
See above. When a documented alternative exists, there is n-o reason to make
up imaginary sons and daughters to make up the imaginary gap.


>   It seems likely that a majority of the main wives of Jacob’s sons were 
> female descendants of Isaac and Rebekah, who were not descendants of Esau 
> and Jacob.  These marriages would be marriages to first or second cousins, 
> or descendants of such cousins, which were often thought of as being ideal 
> marriages in the ancient world.
>
>
When cousins were lacking, other women fit the bill nicely enough, thank
you.

>
>
> Thus all in all, we can be virtually certain that at the time Jacob left 
> Harran, Jacob had many siblings and descendants of siblings (including 
> half-siblings and their descendants), other than Esau and his descendants.  
> Thus Jacob had many MWLDT in Canaan.
>
>
Imaginary to the hilt, including an imaginary definition of MWLDT. That
MWLDT n-e-v-e-r occurs in what is clearly a plural form in Genesis is
evidence that what we are dealing with is a singular of a place, not
people.

>
>
> 2.  As to my pointing out that Ur was a city, not a country, you oddly 
> replied:
>
>
>
> “Where does it say that it [Ur] was a single city?  How do you know that Ur 
> of the
>
> Chaldeans was not an Early Bronze Age country with several cities?”
>
>
>
> Not a single historian has ever thought that “Ur of the Chaldeans was...an 
> Early Bronze Age country with several cities”.
>
>
>
> How do you expect people to take such an argument seriously?
>
>
How do you expect me to take your argument seriously when the Chaldeans did
not reach Ur of the Sumerians until many centuries after even you claim that
Abraham lived? All the s-e-c-u-l-a-r historians I read make that point.

As for Ur of the Chaldeans, we have so little information surviving from the
Early Bronze Age that we cannot rule out that it was a country with several
cities. Therefore for you to insist that it was a single city makes no
sense.

>
>
> But perhaps I should agree with you, as follows.  Your analysis of MWLDT in 
> the Patriarchal narratives makes sense if and only if Ur is not a city, but 
> rather Ur is a country with several cities.  By making such an argument, 
> you in effect concede that if Ur is a single city, like everyone else 
> thinks it is, then )RC MWLDT cannot mean “land of one’s birth”.
>
>
Wrong. Just illogical on your part.

>
> 3.  You also noted, somewhat oddly, since you seem to be assuming that my 
> views are exactly the opposite of what I have stated my views to be:
>
>
>
> “One thing is certain, that the Chaldeans, moving from north to south, did
>
> not reach Sumer and its capital Ur until many centuries after Abraham, even
>
> by your reckoning. Therefore, even by your reckoning, Ur of the Sumerians
>
> could not be where Abraham was from.”
>
>
>
> My whole point is that the Hebrews are not from Ur!  My whole point is that 
> the Hebrews are indigenous to Canaan.
>
>
You have a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y n-o evidence for this claim, not from Genesis.

>
>
> On the other hand, I do not see “Kasdim” at Genesis 11: 28 as referring to 
> the Chaldeans.  The Chaldeans long post-date both the Patriarchs and the 
> composition of the Patriarchal narratives, in my view.  I see Kasdim at 
> Genesis 11: 28 (though not elsewhere in the Bible) as referring to the 
> Kassites, who ruled Ur and the rest of southern Mesopotamia in the mid-14th 
> century BCE.
>
>
“In my view.” But what does your view count in contrast to ancient records?
Which carries more weight, ancient records or your view?

>
>
> The Patriarchal Age is, in my view, more than 500 years after Ur ceased to 
> be the capital of Sumer.  But Ur was still in existence in the mid-14th 
> century BCE, and indeed was a wealthy provincial city that was still the 
> main place for a caravan to buy lapis lazuli at wholesale prices.
>
>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
Why don’t you get a blog so you can post your theories in an organized
manner? Some of the blogging sites are free, so you should have no problem
setting one up.

Karl W. Randolph.