Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

Jim,

I'm not an expert in "Patriarcal narratives".
I'm rather a grammarian.
So I'm afraid I won't be able to help you in your question/s.
Let us hope that someone on this list is able to help.

Heartly,

Pere Porta

2011/6/22 <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********
>
>


-- 
Pere Porta