Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Chavoux Luyt
 
1.  You wrote:  “The way I always used to read this was not so much that 
the Canaanites were hostile (cf. Abraham's covenant with Aner and his 
brothers)
….”
 
I believe that virtually all scholars agree that Aner is not a west Semitic 
name.  So Aner is not a Canaanite.  Mamre is expressly stated at Genesis 
14: 13 to be an Amorite, corresponding to historical Milk-Ilu, the princeling 
ruler of the Ayalon Valley at Gezer who has a vintage Amorite name.  
Historically, Milk-Ilu [Biblical “Mamre”] was allied with Tagi, a Hurrian 
princeling, and Aner is a Hurrian name [based on the Hurrian primordial god 
Anu].  
Note that both Mamre and Aner are stated at Genesis 14: 13 to be B(LY:  “lords
”.  That means they’re princeling rulers in southern Canaan:  an alliance 
of an Amorite princeling with a Hurrian princeling, both at Genesis 14: 13 
and in the Amarna Letters.  The Biblical text has pinpoint accuracy in 
reflecting the exact situation that existed in southern Canaan in Year 13 
[even 
having that exact year number, Year 13, referenced at Genesis 14: 4].
 
2.  You wrote:  “…but that in addition to the huge numbers of Abraham and 
Lot's flocks, the Canaanites also used part of the land, making the 
available land even


less for the tent-dwellers'/pastoralists' flocks. Thus the emphasis is 
simply on the fact that the available land became "too narrow" for both 
Abraham 
and Lot, especially since there were other (sedentary?) tribes in the land 
as well.  That they both left Bethel can simply be explained by the fact 
that:  the grazing in the area has been exhausted by the combination of 
flocks 
(at least until the veld has had some rest).”
 
(a)  There were Canaanites all over Canaan in the Patriarchal Age.  Why 
would the Biblical text need to tell us that, twice?  And if the problem is 
Canaanites in Canaan, why does Genesis 13: 12 bend over backwards to tell us 
explicitly that Abram continued to sojourn in Canaan after leaving Bethel?
 
(b)  If Lot really wanted more grazing land so that he could continue to be 
a shepherd, why does Lot quickly move into the city nicknamed Sodom and 
live with a roofbeam over his head, never being a shepherd again?  Isn’t it 
clear from Genesis 36: 7 that the claim that Abram and his older brother’s 
son 
Lot did not sojourn together is a diplomatic fiction, as Jacob and his older 
twin brother Esau engage in that very same diplomatic fiction?
 
(c)  If what’s driving this is that “the veld” at Bethel has to be given “
some rest”, then why doesn’t either Abram or Lot return to Bethel with 
their flocks later on?
 
(d)  Why would there be a reference at Genesis 13: 7 to “the Canaanites” 
in the plural, a very well known, very broad designation, coupled with a name 
that is not attested in west Semitic:  PRZ-Y?  Isn’t that an odd 
combination?  [I agree with Richard Hess, who wrote “Amarna Personal Names”, 
that 
PRZ-Y is a Hurrian-based reference to the Hurrians.]
 
3.  In my opinion, H-KN‘NY should be viewed as having a singular meaning at 
Genesis 12: 6 and 13: 7, meaning “the Canaanite”, that is, the notorious 
strongman Canaanite ruler who operated out of Shechem in early Year 13:  Lab’
ayu.  H-PRZY should be viewed at Genesis 13: 7 as meaning “the Hurrian lord”
, in the singular, referencing the anti-tent dweller Hurrian princeling 
ruler IR-Heba of Jerusalem.  Abram wisely decided that neither Abram nor Lot 
should sojourn where those two infamous princelings were sure to collide. 
 
I see chapters 12-14 of Genesis as referencing the three most prominent 
rulers in the Amarna Letters.  “The most prominent kings from the region of 
Palestine in the Amarna archives are Milkilu (Gezer), Abdi-Heba (Jerusalem), 
Lab
’ayu (Shechem) and [in northern Canaan] Abdi-Tirshi (Hazor).”  John H. 
Walton, Victor Harold Matthews and Mark William Chavalas, “Bible Background 
Commentary” (2000), at p. 216.  Milk-Ilu is an Amorite princeling ruler from 
the Ayalon Valley, west of Bethel, and so is Biblical Mamre at Genesis 14: 13 
[where I see the Patriarchs’ XBRWN as being the eastern Ayalon Valley;  per 
Genesis 13: 9,11, Abram goes the opposite of “east” in leaving Bethel].  
IR-Heba is the Hurrian princeling ruler of Jerusalem, whom I see as being 
“the 
Perizzite”/“the Hurrian lord” at Genesis 13: 7, south of Bethel.  Lab’ayu 
is the notorious Canaanite strongman who operated in early Year 13 out of 
Shechem, north of Bethel, whom I see as being referenced as “the Canaanite” 
at Genesis 12: 6 and 13: 7.  In all three cases, both the ethnicity and the 
location of these princeling rulers are exactly right.  Chapters 12-14 of 
Genesis are filled with such a wealth of accurate information as to the 
southern half of Canaan in early Year 13 [with “Year 13” itself being 
expressly 
referenced at Genesis 14: 4] that they must have been composed by a 
contemporary:  the first historical Hebrew.  The first Hebrew only liked one 
of these 
three princelings, Milk-Ilu [Biblical “Mamre”, with whom Abram is allied], 
so his is the only one of these three names that is set forth explicitly in 
the Biblical text.  At Genesis 46: 17, in the listing of Jacob’s 
descendants, we see XBR, which is the root of the Patriarchs’ beloved XBRWN, 
and which 
is associated with Biblical “Mamre”/historical Milk-Ilu, followed 
immediately by what Richard Hess confirms is the Hebrew version of the 
Amorite name 
Milk-Ilu:  MLKY)L.  This level of detail could only have been composed by a 
contemporary, who lived in the Late Bronze Age and knew exactly what he was 
talking about, namely the first historical Hebrew, who is chronicling the 
troubled times during which Judaism historically was born.
 
The  p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t  historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives is 
absolutely stunning.  
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois