Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Chavoux Luyt <chavoux AT gmail.com>]

Dear Jim

From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
> To: if AT math.bu.edu
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:37:55 EDT
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Mighty
>
> Isaac Fried:
>
> You wrote:  “It is not completely clear to me what is your point.  As I
> understand it ABRAM kept to the high, semi arid, semi desolate, sparsely
> populated, eastern and southern parts of country where he could graze his
> flocks
> on the natural growth and dwell free of molestation.”
>
> Could you point out anything in the Hebrew language of the Patriarchal
> narratives that supports that traditional view of yours?
>
Probably only the fact that the narratives make it fairly clear that the
Patriarchs were primarily semi-nomadic lifestock farmers and not permanently
settled planters of fields, vineyards and trees. And the kind of veld most
favorable for lifestock farming is not the same as for other kinds of
farming. E.g. forests do not provide the best grazing for sheep! More water
does not always equal better grazing.

>
> 1.  As I noted previously, XBRWN may be a nickname for the Shephelah, since
> over 300 XBRN lmlk seals were found in the Shephelah, and only a few were
> found in southern hill country.  Both King David, and the composition of
> the
> King David stories, post-date the Patriarchal narratives.  So the place 20
> miles south of Jerusalem could have been re-named XBRWN by the Hebrews in
> honor of the Patriarchs.  I hope you may agree that in determining where
> the
> Patriarchs’ favorite place was to sojourn in southern Canaan, we should not
> view XBRWN as mandating a mountainous site just northwest of the Judean
> Desert.
>
Do you really think the abundance of "XBRN lmlk" seals in the Shephelah is
sufficient evidence for the claim that XBRN is a nickname for the Shephelah?



> 2.  You say “high”, but neither at Genesis 13: 18, nor in any other
> reference to the XBRWN locale in the Patriarchal narratives, do we see a
> Hebrew
> word for “high” or “up” or “mountains”.  Isn’t that telling us something?
> What we do see at Genesis 37: 14 is a reference to XBRWN being a “valley”.
>
However, Abraham was able to see the destruction of Sedom and `Amorah from
close to the oaks of Mamre (Gen.18-19). How can this fit the Shephelah? The
area around Hebron includes both valleys and hills and it is therefore easy
to refer to the valley (emek) of Hebron.



> 3.  What Hebrew words in the Patriarchal narratives support seeing Abraham
> as customarily sojourning in a “semi arid, semi desolate” part of Canaan?
> Wouldn’t that effectively contradict YHWH’s divine promise that  a-l-l  of
> Canaan is there for Abraham and his descendants?  YHWH is so excited about
> the wonderful land of Canaan that YHWH is promising to Abraham in the
> immediately preceding verse, Genesis 13: 17, strongly implying that Abraham
> is
> going to sojourn (i) throughout Canaan [not just on the marginal, southern
> edge
> of Canaan], and (ii) in the best parts of Canaan for having a huge flock of
> sheep and goats:  “Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in
> the breadth of it; for unto thee will I give it.”  Genesis 13: 17
>
And once again, the shephelah and the coastal plains might not have been the
best kind of country for lifestock farming (indeed, it would appear as if in
terms of both their large flocks and possibly more traditional lifestyle it
was across the Jordan, in the land of Gilead, that the emphasis on lifestock
farming persisted even up to shortly before the galut.


> 4.  I see no words in the Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives that
> support your view that Abraham sojourned in the “eastern and southern parts
> of
> country”.  Genesis 13: 9,11 says exactly the opposite!  Abram tells Lot to
> go whatever direction Lot wants to from Bethel, and then Abram will go the
> opposite way.  The text explicitly says that Lot went “east”.  We would
> then
> naturally think that Abram went the opposite way, which is west.  Why would
> you think that Abraham would go south or east?  That contradicts what the
> Hebrew words say.
>
Only if you insist on "East" excluding the fact that Lot actually went
South-East to Sedom. And that Abram going West can be just as plausibly be
seen as going West relative to Lot rather than West relative to Bethel.


> 5.  As to Abraham sojourning in “sparsely populated” land, Genesis 14: 13
> tells us that Abraham was in treaty relationship with three rulers in the
> area, two of whom were Amorites (including Mamre), and one of whom was a
> Hurrian princeling [Aner].  Each of those three princelings can muster
> quite a
> few fighting men.  Abraham for his part musters a large number of his
> father’s
> relatives who are living in the general area, coming up with 318 well-armed
> men at Genesis 14: 14.   Four leaders, one of whom has mustered 318
> well-armed fighting men, does not to me sound like “sparsely populated”.
>
His father's relatives?? As I understood it, these men would actually all
have been slaves of Abram and in his service as herders etc. (since we know
that he was very rich). "Sparsely populated" is obviously relative. The fact
remains that it was possible for a nomad with the amount of livestock that
Abram had, to live in peace in the area, without these 3 rulers with whom he
had a treaty, feeling threatened by his presence or amount of livestock.


> 6.  As to “where he could graze his flocks”, the best place for that on
> planet Earth in the Bronze Age was the Shephelah and Upper Galilee.  Since
> YHWH has given Abraham  a-l-l  of Canaan, why wouldn’t Abraham then be
> portrayed as sojourning in the two best places for a huge flock of sheep
> and goats:
> the Shephelah [whose Patriarchal nickname is xa-vur-u-ne/XBRWN, just like
> XBR was used as a similar name for an idealized kingdom in Ugaritic
> literature], and Upper Galilee/GRR [where the dominant ruler’s name, both
> historically and in Genesis, is Abimelek]?  Are there any Hebrew words in
> the
> Patriarchal narratives that support your traditional view that Abraham
> confined
> himself to sojourning in the most marginal parts of the inhabitable land of
> Canaan?
>
I would agree with you that Abraham would not be restricted to a single area
of the land. But Gen. 20:1 seems to me fairly clear that Gerar was in the
Negev? Unless you understand the last part as a separate sentence talking
not of his time between Shur and Kadesh, but of a later place of sojourn
somewhere in the North (cf. Gen.10:19) at another Gerar? At least in the
later narratives of the wells being dug close to Gerar, it would beter fit
the South where open water would be scarce, than the North with fountains
and streams.

 7.  Focusing on Genesis 13: 18, we know where to find (i) oak trees and
> (ii) villages whose names mean oak trees and (iii) a dominant Amorite
> ruler:
> that’s the northeastern Shephelah, just west of Bethel.  Meanwhile, there’s
> not a single village or city in southern hill country whose name references
> oak trees.
>
That is, unless you exclude the mention of the Oaks close to Hebron in
Genesis. In this case, oak trees in an area with few trees would be much
more memorable than oaks in an area with abundant forests.

Just a few thoughts...
Regards
Chavoux Luyt