Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Rob:
 
1.  You wrote:  “(Moderator...hopefully this is still within the  rules).” 
As you have noted, the traditional view is that “Perizzite” means “
village, country or rustic”.  But such a name is not attested historically as 
a 
tribal name.  Many scholars see “Perizzite” in the Patriarchal narratives as 
having an unknown meaning.  If a west Semitic meaning is proposed, it’s hard 
to see how “village, country or rustic people” at Genesis 13: 7 would be 
contrasted with Canaanites, many of whom likewise were “village, country or 
rustic people”.  
 
Your Septuagint citations are very interesting.  Yet one of those examples, 
if it is accurate, would undercut a west Semitic meaning:  “all the country 
round about Argob, belonging to king Og in Basan: 5 all strong cities, 
lofty walls, gates and bars; besides the very many cities of the Pherezites. 
" 
Deuteronomy 3: 4-5.  Why would “village, country or rustic people” have “
very many cities”?  That reference you cite from the Septuagint at 
Deuteronomy 
3: 5 to the Perizzites as having “very many cities” directly contradicts 
your characterization of such people:  “The opinion of scholars is the 
Perizzites were likely an ethnic group who preferred to live in the country 
or 
rural areas, not cities.  I believe there are a number of such groups in the 
US...some disrespectfully called ‘hillbillys’.”
 
2.  You wrote:  “ I pointed to your error when you claimed the Perizzites 
ruled Jerusalem when the Bible clearly states Jerusalem was a Jebusite city 
ruled by the benevolent Melchizeldek.”
 
Historically, Jerusalem was never called “Salem”, and I do not see “Salem”
 as meaning Jerusalem in the Patriarchal narratives.  Melchizedek acts 
exclusively as a priest, not as a “king” or princeling or ruler.  Abimelek, 
who 
dominated western Galilee in the Amarna Age, would have interpreted this 
priest’s name as meaning “Moloch Is Righteous Victory, Moloch Is Safety”.  
With an inversion of the final two consonants, the Canaanites at Rehov and 
Beth Shan in the Amarna Age would have interpreted the same name as meaning “
Mekal Is Righteous Victory, Mekal Is Safety”.  Abraham could interpret this 
same priestly name as meaning “The (Divine) King Is Righteous Victory, The 
(Divine) King Is Safety”.  
Many analysts, perhaps even a majority, think that the Jebusites were 
Hurrians, whereas Melchizedek is not a Jebusite and Melchizedek is a west 
Semitic 
name having nothing to do with Hurrian.  “Jebusite” is YBWS-Y.  That could 
be ya + bu-u-si, or ya + pu-u-si, where pu-u-si is the root of a Hurrian 
verb meaning “to dip”, and Hurrian does not distinguish P and B;  ya can be a 
theophoric in Hurrian.  The Hurrian meaning of “Jebusite” could be “
[people who are] dipped in the divine”.  Whereas there is ample non-biblical 
and 
Biblical support for seeing LBA Jerusalem as having a strong Hurrian 
component, there is no historical basis for viewing Salem as meaning 
Jerusalem.
 
3.  You wrote:  “My second point was the Perizzites, whatever their origin, 
were spread over a wide area in Judah, in the Shephelah, Carmel, Gezer in 
the Aijalon valley and in Shechem.  The point, very simply, is that the 
Perizzites were almost everywhere which would have made it impossible for 
Abraham 
to avoid them wherever he moved.  These issues you did not address.”
 
The same could certainly be said of the Canaanites.  In fact, the original 
purpose of this thread does indeed address that issue.  At Genesis 38: 2 and 
Genesis 13: 7, I see the references to KN(NY and H-KN(NY and H-PRZY as 
being singular in meaning [in addition to being singular in form].  By 
leaving 
the Shechem-Bethel-Jerusalem corridor, Abram and Lot could avoid “the 
Canaanite” and “the Perizzite”, where those references are, respectively, to 
a 
notorious Canaanite strongman ruler of Shechem [Lab’ayu], and to a 
tent-dweller-hating Hurrian princeling ruler of Jerusalem [IR-Heba].  The 
Hebrew grammar 
point of this thread is precisely to assert that the above three Hebrew 
names can properly be viewed as being singular in meaning.
 
4.  You wrote:  “In Genesis 13:17 God tells Abraham _17_ 
(http://bible.cc/genesis/13-17.htm) Go, walk through the length and breadth 
of the land, for I 
am giving it to you.”  Question: Did Abraham disobey this order and simply 
went directly to Hebron...?  No. But most believe he did.”
 
Upon splitting from Lot at Bethel, Abram did indeed go directly to the 
Patriarchs’ XBRWN.  But while there, Abram cannot sire a son by Sarah, nor 
perfect his claim to all of Canaan.  Rather, Abraham must go all the long way 
up 
north to GRR/Galilee, as soon as, but not until, Lot forfeits his 
provisional claim to the northern two-thirds of Canaan and is reduced to 
living in a 
cave.  Whereupon Abraham immediately goes up north to GRR, properly claims 
all of Canaan for Abraham’s descendants, and only then is the divine blessing 
of fertility bestowed on Sarah.  Amarna Letter EA 256 has the shortened form 
of GRR, namely GR [Garu], meaning Galilee.  Note that all 3 of these major 
problems regarding Abraham are resolved virtually simultaneously:  (i) Lot’s 
provisional claim to much of Canaan is divinely rejected in its entirety, 
(ii) Abraham then promptly perfects his claim to all of Canaan by going up 
north to GRR/Galilee, and (iii) Abraham and Sarah are justly rewarded by 
Sarah 
almost immediately getting pregnant with Isaac.  If we can understand the 
underlying geography of the Patriarchal narratives, these stories practically 
tell themselves.
 
Note also that the Amarna Letters attest Akkadian versions of all three of 
these names:  Canaanite and Piri-izzi/PRZ-Y [the Hurrian name of a Hurrian 
messenger from the Hurrian state of Nahrima/Mitanni] and GR for GRR/Galilee.  
[Another Hurrian messenger from that Hurrian state is named Pu-u-xi, where 
the pu-u element might be compared to the B-W in Y + B-W-S + Y.]
 
5.  You wrote:  “That Abraham did indeed travel the length of Canaan is 
indicated by the traditions of Abraham in such unexpected places as Aleppo 
and 
the "Halab Ash Shahba", "Where Abraham milked his cows" at the 
Citadel....Nicolaus of Damascus also mentions little known traditional sites 
throughout 
what is now Syria and ancient Phoenicia.”
 
There is nothing in the Hebrew Bible to support such speculations.  Rather, 
the Genesis 13: 17 problem, which you are right to point out, is fully 
resolved once one understands that GRR means “Galilee”, being the LBA 
Akkadian 
forerunner of the later Hebrew GLYL, and that the Biblical Abimelek of 
GRR/Galilee is one and the same person as historical Abimelek, who dominated 
the 
western two-thirds of Upper Galilee in the Amarna Age. 
 
6.  You wrote:  “Summary:  * Abraham left Bethel solely because of the 
disruption caused by Lot's Shepherds, not as a result of any danger or threat 
by 
the Perizzites which is unsubstantiated.”
 
That view cannot be squared with what the second half of Genesis 13: 7 
says.  The most important reason why both Abram and Lot left Bethel was 
because 
of the presence, just north and south of Bethel, of “the Canaanite” [at 
Shechem] and “the Perizzite”/Hurrian princeling ruler [at Jerusalem].  My 
interpretation fully accounts for what the second half of Genesis 13: 7 says. 
 
The key is the Hebrew grammar point that KN(NY and H-KN(NY and H-PRZY can 
have a singular meaning [in addition to being singular in form].
 
7.  You wrote:  “*The notion Abraham disobeyed God's direct order to travel 
the land and went directly to Hebron is beyond absurd and is solely the 
result of added punctuation and connectives that do not exist in the Hebrew.  
 
Ancient Jewish scholars, rarely considered by most today, agree Abraham 
obeyed God, saw all of Canaan, then settled in Hebron and built the Altar 
after 
a period of many months or more likely, years.”
 
No, Abraham could not obey the divine directive of Genesis 13: 17 until Lot’
s provisional claims to Canaan had first been divinely disposed of.  The 
very day that happened, Abraham was off like a flash to sojourn in the land 
of 
Abimelek at GRR/Galilee in northern Canaan.
 
8.  You wrote:  “God's command to Abraham to walk the land superceded any 
plans Abraham may have had as to where to go.”
 
Not true.  Abram and Lot made a provisional division of Canaan.  Abraham 
could not override that until YHWH divinely rejected all of Lot’s claims to 
Canaan, which does not occur until chapter 19 of Genesis.  Genesis 13: 17 
does 
foreshadow what YHWH had foreseen:  that Lot in due course would forfeit 
all right to Canaan by not affirmatively opposing Sodom’s later turn to the 
dark side.  It would not have been proper for Abram to have unilaterally cast 
Lot aside by Abram on his own claiming all of Canaan.  No, the proper thing 
to do was exactly what Abram/Abraham did:  wait until such time as YHWH 
divinely determines that Lot has forfeited any claim to any part of Canaan, 
and 
then [and only then] claim all of Canaan on behalf of Abraham’s descendants. 
 
*       *       *
 
Rob, in fact I agree with you that Genesis 13: 17 is of critical importance 
in understanding chapter 13 of Genesis.  But as I see it, only my 
interpretation sticks with what the Hebrew text actually says, as fully 
supported by 
the well-attested Bronze Age history of Canaan.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois