Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Jim, although your interpretation is certainly possible, it's not the only 
one. Remember that Gen. 13:13 already informed us that when Lot chose to 
settle in Sodom, its inhabitants were evil. So they did not only become evil 
after chapter 14. 

I have just finished reading a paper by Dr. David Elgavish of Bar-Ilan 
University, which will be published in a volume that I am co-editing, in 
which he points out that Bera's behavior is far from "good". He makes no 
attempt to pursue the four kings in order to free the hostages that they have 
taken. Unlike Melchizedek, he does not thank or bless Abram for returning the 
Sodomite prisoners. He offers Abram what he already has – the possessions 
taken from Sodom. As far as Lot, while Abram did rescue him out of kinship 
obligations, the two do not meet. So Lot was certainly not a "good" person 
even then.

  

As I said, different interpretations are possible.

 

Yigal Levin

 

From: jimstinehart AT aol.com [mailto:jimstinehart AT aol.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 3:20 AM
To: leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] a mystery regarding gen14:24?

 

Professor Yigal Levin:
 
Although I agree with much of what you wrote, I totally disagree with this 
key assertion of yours:  “‘Bera’ would certainly be a fitting name for a king 
of evil Sodom….”
 
BR( as the ruler of SDM is presented in a positive light in chapter 14 of 
Genesis.  BR( rightfully opposes the 4 attacking rulers who nefariously take 
Lot and Lot’s family as hostages.  BR( is then very gracious in accepting 
Lot’s return, stating that he welcomes the return of Lot and Lot’s family 
even if Abraham should decide to keep all of SDM’s loot that had been taken 
by the attacking rulers [and recovered by Abraham]:  “And the king of Sodom 
said to Abram, ‘Give me the persons, but take the goods for yourself.’"   
Genesis 14: 21  Remember, accepting Lot back as a former hostage was risky 
for BR(.  Though Lot, Lot’s family, and SDM’s loot had been liberated 
(apparently with few if any casualties on either side), the 4 attacking 
rulers were still at liberty to return again.  An obvious target would be to 
re-take the loot that had now been repatriated to SDM, and perhaps Lot as 
their former hostage as well.  So BR( is both very brave, and extremely 
gracious, at Genesis 14: 21.  [Even if the claim that Abraham could keep all 
the loot was largely rhetorical, it still was gracious, and accepting Lot 
back into SDM was definitely not mere rhetoric.  As opposed to BR( himself 
being so gracious about Lot, we later learn that the ordinary townspeople of 
SDM resented Lot as an outsider:  “And they said, ‘This fellow came to 
sojourn, and he has become the judge!  Now we will deal worse with you [Lot] 
than with them.’  Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near 
to break the door down.”  Genesis 19: 9]  
 
What you have unfortunately overlooked is that when SDM is later portrayed in 
a very negative light in chapters 18 and 19 of Genesis, BR( is conspicuous by 
his absence!  Some time  a-f-t-e-r  chapter 14 of Genesis, the people of SDM 
most unfortunately went over to the dark side, and no longer followed their 
gracious former ruler BR(.
 
As I see it, there simply is no basis whatsoever for the conventional view 
that BR( is a west Semitic pejorative nickname that means “In Evil”.  Why 
would righteous Abraham be portrayed as turning over his own nephew to a 
ruler whose very name means “In Evil”?  Is that a tenable theory of the case?
 
If you don’t see that BR( is a good character who is portrayed by the early 
Hebrew author in a generally positive light, then you will not see the 
terrible, terrible threat that the early Hebrews historically faced that is 
being accurately recalled here.  The early Hebrews’ greatest fear was that 
the good non-Semitic princeling rulers in Canaan like BR( might soon be 
overruled by popular fear of the Hittites, and that all of Canaan might then 
iniquitously sell out to the fearsome aggressors, who historically were led 
by a powerful king who had seized the Hittite throne by the dastardly 
expedient of murdering his own older brother named TD(L [and whose apt 
Biblical nickname, TD(L, as such effectively means “Murderer”].
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Thu, Aug 19, 2010 5:37 pm
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] a mystery regarding gen14:24?

Jim, regarding the names in Gen. 14, as in other biblical narratives, there 
are 
really only two possibilities: either the names are historical, or they are 
made-up.
 
If they are historical (by which I don't mean that every detail in the story 
actually happened as told, but that the writer used names that he was 
familiar 
with from his sources), then they are "real-life" names that once belonged to 
real people. In that case, just like with names today, their meaning might be 
clear, but it might not. Does everyone named "Jim" in the English speaking 
world 
know that his name is ultimately derived from the Hebrew "Ya'akov"? Would you 
attach the meaning of "heel" to every Jim?
 
On the other hand, if a name is made-up, we would assume that it would fit 
the 
character in the story, but even that's not always true. 
 
SO - if "Aner" was a real person, I really don't think that we can know what 
his 
name originally meant to his parents (or to whoever named him). We can guess, 
but considering that he lived at least 3000 years ago, a guess is all it 
would 
be. I could be western Semitic, it could be Hurrian, it could be Girgashite 
or 
Kadminite or Kryptonite. 
 
 
On the other hand, "Bera" would certainly be a fitting name for a king of 
evil 
Sodom, especially when juxtaposed with Melchizedek (king-justice) of 
(Jeru)salem. But that would only work if you think that the names were "made 
up" 
by the author as a literary device.
 
Or maybe not. I always remind my students of the town of Yamit, the largest 
of 
the Israeli settlements in Sinai to be disbanded when Israel handed the Sinai 
over to Egypt in 1982. The town was called Yamit because it was on the 
seashore 
(fantastic beaches!). But I'm sure that sometime in the future, it will be 
"obvious" to historians that the whole episode of Israeli settlements in 
Sinai 
was made-up, and that the name invented for the town, which means "will be 
put 
to death" was  a play on it's fate...
 
 
Yigal Levin  
 
-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org 
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org 
<mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org?> ] 
On Behalf Of JimStinehart AT aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:51 AM
To: George.Athas AT moore.edu.au; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] a mystery regarding gen14:24?
 
 
George Athas:
 
You wrote:  “Jim, the mysterious -R suffix is so mysterious because it's no 
more a suffix than the 'm' at the end of 'Jim'. In other words, it's not a 
suffix at all.”
 
1.  What, then, is your theory of the name (NR at Genesis 14: 13, 24?  The 
conventional explanation of (NR is that it is a west Semitic name that means 
N(R, or “boy”.  To me, that conventional explanation makes no sense on any 
level.  Why would the letters N(R be mixed up to produce (NR?  And why 
would one call a brave princeling who helps Abraham rescue Lot and Lot’s 
family 
“
boy”?
 
2.  Do you think that Abraham is portrayed at the end of chapter 14 of 
Genesis as handing over Lot and Lot’s family to a princeling who graciously 
welcomes Lot’s return, whose name is west Semitic and means “In Evil”?  If 
not, 
what is your explanation of the name BR(?
 
I am suggesting that if we don’t look at the non-Semitic elements of these 
names in chapter 14 of Genesis, we will not understand the Hebrew text of 
the “four kings against five”.  I myself see BR( as being a non-Semitic 
princeling, who has a non-Semitic name.  I see (NR as being an Amorite 
princeling, but who has close contacts with non-Semitic princelings, and 
whose 
name 
has a non-Semitic suffix.  But if you know that I am wrong about all of that, 
and that neither (NR nor BR( has any non-Semitic element [even though I 
presume you may agree with the mainstream scholarly view that truly ancient 
chapter 14 of Genesis was composed at a time when there was a considerable 
non-Semitic presence in Canaan (or at least the remembrance of such)], then 
please set forth your own explanations for these two names.  Based on my 
reading 
 
of the scholarly literature, scholars have had a very difficult time trying 
to explain these two names.  But if you know the answers, then please set 
them forth, and we’ll all learn from you.
 
If the R at the end of the name (NR is not a suffix, then what does the 
name (NR mean?  From what is the name (NR derived?
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois 
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
 
 
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew