Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Appositional Phrase vs. Adjectival Phrase

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
  • To: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Appositional Phrase vs. Adjectival Phrase
  • Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:30:40 +0200

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page