Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Pere Porta:
 
1.  You wrote:  “In Gn 12:6 and 13:7, H-KN(NY is a generic to designate the 
entire group of the Canaanites, the same as "the Perizzite" (in the same 
verse) means the Perizzites, in general.”
 
As to “the Canaanite”, here’s an interesting comment I found regarding the 
use of the same term at Judges 1: 1:  “Though most translations [of Judges 
1: 1] use the term ‘Canaanites’, in the plural, the Hebrew is actually 
singular, ‘Canaanite’.  The Canaanites are treated as a singular force whom 
the 
Israelites fear.  The singular usage creates a more personal situation. It 
is not a nameless horde but a personal enemy.”  Tammi Schneider, “Judges” 
(2000), at p. 2.  I also found out that the Targums generally change “
Canaanite” in Judges to “Canaanites”.  On the other hand, it makes little 
sense, 
does it, to interpret Genesis as twice saying that “at that time there were 
Canaanites dwelling in the land (of Canaan)”?  As to Perizzites, there is no 
tribe having such name. 
 
 2.  You wrote:  “In Gn 12,6 and 13:7 the intention is that "the Canaanites 
and the Perizzites" were dwelling in the country... Determined, so article 
H.”
 
But it wouldn’t make sense, would it, to tell us once, much less twice, 
that at that time there were Canaanites dwelling in the land of Canaan?  Why 
would that fact cause both Abram and Lot to leave the Bethel area, which is 
the context here?  Wherever both Abram and Lot or either of them went in 
Canaan, there would always be Canaanites in the land of Canaan.  If H-KN(NY 
means 
the tribe of the Canaanites in those two verses, in the plural, how does 
that explain Abram’s wise decision that both Abram and Lot should leave the 
Bethel area, and also that there was no need for Abram and Lot to continue to 
sojourn together?  (i) If the Canaanites and Perizzites were potentially 
hostile tribes, shouldn’t Abram and Lot have stayed together (whether at 
Bethel 
or elsewhere), despite their quarreling herdsmen?  (ii)  And since there 
were Canaanites throughout the land of Canaan, how would leaving the Bethel 
area be a rational response to the observation that there were Canaanites in 
the land of Canaan?
 
Pere Porta, I like your use of logic.  My own point is that a plural 
meaning of H-KN(NY just does not seem to make logical sense here in context.  
Just 
as “Every and all girls in this world are the daughter of some man”, so 
also, prior to Joshua, it’s just as obvious that at that time there were 
Canaanites in the land of Canaan.  The presence of Canaanites in the land of 
Canaan would not be a reason for both Abram and Lot to leave the Bethel area, 
and the presence of the tribes of Canaanites and Perizzites would seem to 
argue in favor of Abram and Lot staying together at all costs (even if they 
left 
the Bethel area).  In this particular context, I fail to see the logic if 
H-KN(NY is interpreted in these verses as having a plural meaning.  Since we 
agree that Genesis 38: 2 uses KN(NY with a singular meaning, shouldn’t we 
then ask if H-KN(NY at Genesis 12: 6 and 13: 7 may likewise have a singular 
meaning?  Isn’t it the presence of one awful Canaanite ruler at Shechem, 
north 
of Bethel, and one awful Perizzite ruler at Jerusalem, south of Bethel, 
that leads Abram to make the wise decision that both Abram and Lot should 
leave 
the Bethel area?  Abram and Lot don’t need to sojourn together, because 
those two awful rulers are largely limited to operating in hill country 
between 
Shechem and Jerusalem.  So if, per Genesis 13: 11, Lot and Abram exit 
Bethel by going east and west (with hill country running north and south), 
both 
Lot and Abram will thereby neatly avoid both of those awful individual 
rulers.  Note how logical everything is in this context if H-KN(NY here has a 
singular meaning.  Then the text can be viewed as explaining  w-h-y  Abram 
wisely decided that both Abram and Lot should leave the Bethel area, rather 
than 
the text twice making the innocuous and irrelevant remark that “at that time 
there were Canaanites dwelling in the land (of Canaan)”.
 
What do you think of my logic?
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois