Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 13:18 Abraham and Abimelech

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rob acosta <robacosta AT hotmail.com>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 13:18 Abraham and Abimelech
  • Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 14:18:49 -0600


Jim You wrote: " Based on Genesis 14: 4, we can deduce that Abram and
Lot leave Bethel in Year 13. "
This statement is pure fabrication and is irrelevant to the discussion
of Genesis 13:18. and my focus to whetheror not Abraham obeyed the command
literally and immediately. I could demonstrate you don't have a accurate
grasp of the events of the Amarna period but this is not the time.
Still, you go on: "Abram cannot perfect his claim to all of Canaan
until Lot’s provisional claim to the northern two-thirds of Canaan, which
Abram effectively allowed at Genesis 13: 9-11, has been eliminated"
Jim, where does this "northern two thirds" come from? It is fantasy,
there is nothing in the Hebrew textthat gives any such indication. The land
was promised to Abraham and Abraham alone from the beginningyet you drag in
Lot time after time and some froth about a "provisional claim" mentioned
nowhere. you do seem to be personally taken by "provisional
claim"...sounds impressive I guess, to some. As
for your description of the political situation in Canaan let's review again
how inaccuratemost of your claims have been. You have insisted, for
years, the Abimeleck of Abraham is Abi Milku of the Armana letters. Yet
even a casual reading the the letters tells a far different story. Abi
Milku was appointed as mayor of Tyre by Akhenaten after the murder of the
real King and his family. EA 89 letter Rib Addi After a few brief
years Abi Milku leaves Tyre amidst the wars and NEVER returns.
" I go away with all the ships and my whole city so let the King care
for his servant and protect the ships of the King in..." (number 155 letter
10)."
Abi Milku is likely murdered before he gets to Egypt as he is never
heard from again. Nor is he ever referred to by any other ruler. He must have
been a minor player only stage for a brief few years. Yet, you claim
Mamre is named after Abi Milku and that some twenty years after his death
Abraham dashes off to interact with Abi Milki because according to you he
cannot "perfect his claim" on Canaan and Sarah cannot get pregnant until he
sees Abi Milku. You take a bit player in the Amarna period and make him
the foundation of Genesis This is your record. It is obvious you did not
study Abi Milku. . Now you claim the political situation of the time is
the real reason why Abraham and Lot leave Bethel, andthe biblical version in
the bible that it was due to strife between the shepherds is a lie.
You repeat yet again" we can then see the p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t accuracy of this
Biblical text in the historical context of Year 13. There is no way that
multiple authors in the 1st millennium BCE would know all these precise
details about the e-x-a-c-t historical situation as of early in Year 13!
"Jim, you yourself have no clue what happened in year thirteen and that is
painfully obvious to even the casual researcher.You present what I consider
grade school level Amarna history here. Again, some may be impressed, but to
me this is simplistic nonsense for the most part.. You invent myths like Abi
Milku and now you inject Lab’ayu in yet another distortion of events. I
can dismantle your Labayu story as easily as I did Abi Milku. The flaws in
chronology as as plain as the sun. Of course, when faced with
authoritative contradiction, you claim everyone else is wrong, not you.
*You disputed King Suppiluliumas' own record describing the capture of
Aitakama and claimed he was wrong, thathe actually captured Aitakama in
some secret raid a year earlier.... " Now that was a doozy * You dismissed
Israel Finklestein's petrographic evidence Aziru had yet to control Amurruby
the time the Great Syrian war was over. You claim camels can't live in
Hebron in winter. Too cold....so OBVIOUSLY Abraham couldn'tlive there... You
claim Hebron can't support more than a few cows. Not enough watermoutains too
high... Nevermind it supports 250,000 people Now you claim the Dead Sea
Scrolls that confirm Abraham immediately obeyed God's order in Genesis 13:18
is "fanciful" This is your pattern. Everyone, including Abraham, is wrong.
he lied about theshepherds., lied about Abimelech... I contend Abraham
followed God's order in Genesis 13:17-18. He Obeyed God, no matter ifyou are
convinced he did not. HE traveled the land(not the world and the Dead Sea
Scrollsdon't say he traveled the world). He traveled in peace. He wasn't
concerned about Labayu,there was no Labayu at that time. He traveled during a
time of peace in Canaan. Lot was irrelevant to his journey. Lot was
irrelevant to Abraham's inheritance. ...
Rob Acosta

From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:00:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 13:18 Appositional Phrase vs. Adjectival
Phrase
To: robacosta AT hotmail.com; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org








Rob: 1. Of course Abimelek's water wells, both historically and in Genesis,
are on the mainland. Your two E-mails to me [perhaps only one of which was
posted to the b-hebrew list] focus a lot on Abimelek, and do not seem to
raise issues of Hebrew grammar suitable for discussion in this forum. But
your posts do also continue to raise the question of Lot’s role in the
Patriarchal narratives, which is important to this thread [which, as
discussed in #2 below, will then return us to this thread’s Hebrew grammar
focus on whether H-KN(NY at Genesis 12: 6 and 13: 7 can have a singular
meaning: “the Canaanite”]; so in this post I will limit myself to that
subject, because it is directly related to Hebrew grammar. In the
Patriarchal narratives, the firstborn son gets the shaft in every generation,
and properly so. That’s Haran, Lot, Ishmael, Esau and Reuben. Haran
predeceases his own father, but then Lot, as Haran’s only son, in effect
thereafter represents the line of Terakh’s firstborn son. The text
emphasizes this by on four occasions referring to Lot as being Abram’s
“brother”. Genesis 14: 14, 16; Genesis 13: 8, 11. At Genesis 13: 8, Abram
could have forced Lot to leave Canaan, using some of Abram’s 318 armed men at
Genesis 14: 13 if necessary; YHWH has already at Genesis 12: 7 promised all
of Canaan to Abram, which implies that Lot, representing the line of Terakh’s
firstborn son, will get none of Canaan. But instead of booting out of Canaan
the son of Abram’s older brother, and thereby commandeering all of Canaan of
his own accord, Abram quite properly does just the opposite, and graciously
allows Lot to go anywhere from Bethel that Lot may choose to go, provided
that both Lot and Abram will leave Bethel, and Abram will go the opposite of
whatever direction Lot chooses to go from Bethel. “And Abram said unto Lot,
Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my
herdmen and thy herdmen; for we are brothers. [Is] not the whole land before
thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if [thou wilt take] the left
hand, then I will go to the right; or if [thou depart] to the right hand,
then I will go to the left.” Genesis 14: 8-9. Lot chooses to sojourn in the
Jordan River Valley, the KKR of the Jordan, which is in Canaan, and is north
of where Abram then sojourns at the Patriarchs’ XBRWN. Although YHWH has
promised Lot nothing, Abram has graciously and provisionally allowed his
“brother”/nephew Lot to lay claim to all of Canaan north of Bethel, at least
for the time being, until such time as YHWH may divinely direct otherwise.
As I explained in my prior post, Abram on at least three occasions declines
the opportunity to hasten Lot’s downfall or to remove Lot from Canaan [even
though from the beginning, YHWH has promised all of Canaan to Abram and
Abram’s descendants, while not promising anything to Lot]: Abram does not
kick Lot out of Canaan in chapter 13 of Genesis, he rescues Lot as a hostage
in chapter 14, and he pleads for Sodom (where Lot is living) to be spared if
there are at least 10 righteous people there in chapter 18. So even though
YHWH has promised Abram all of Canaan a second time at Genesis 13: 14-15,
nevertheless Abram cannot perfect his claim to all of Canaan until Lot’s
provisional claim to the northern two-thirds of Canaan, which Abram
effectively allowed at Genesis 13: 9-11, has been eliminated, and that
elimination will be done by YHWH, not by Abram on his own motion elbowing Lot
aside. Though Abram graciously helps Lot, instead of unilaterally kicking
Lot out of Canaan, nevertheless Lot as the firstborn/only son of Terakh’s
firstborn son Haran does not have a chance, as we realize after we have read
the entirety of the Patriarchal narratives. As with the case of every
firstborn son in the Patriarchal narratives, the firstborn son always gets
the shaft, and properly so. Haran predeceases his own father, Lot is reduced
to living in a cave, Ishmael is exiled by his own father, Esau never gets the
grand blessing that his father had planned to give him and ends up living
outside of Canaan, and Reuben gets a final curse, rather than a blessing,
from his father. Jacob is going to win out over Esau, because Esau is
Isaac’s firstborn son, and in every generation the firstborn son gets the
shaft and properly so. Ditto with Isaac being fated to win out over Ishmael,
and Abraham regarding both Haran, his literal older brother, and Lot, the son
of Abraham’s older brother who in effect represents in Canaan the line of the
firstborn son of Abraham’s father. [Moreover, Joseph’s firstborn son gets
the shaft, at the express direction of Jacob/“Israel”, and Judah’s firstborn
son by Tamar does not even get to come out of Tamar’s womb before his
“younger” twin brother is born. How can scholars see multiple authors here,
when the monolithic unity of thought is readily apparent?] 2. Of more direct
relevance to the linguistic issue on this thread, however, is to ask why
Abram properly insists that both Abram and Lot must leave the Bethel area,
with neither man remaining in central hill country. Based on Genesis 14: 4,
we can deduce that Abram and Lot leave Bethel in Year 13. Now think what the
historical situation was at the beginning of Year 13 from Shechem to
Jerusalem. Two leaders dominated that entire area, with Bethel in effect
being a no-man’s land, if you will, separating their two spheres of
influence. Lab’ayu was a Canaanite strongman temporarily operating out of
Shechem, who was trying to become the most powerful princeling in all of
Canaan, largely by recruiting tent-dwelling Habiru to do his fighting for
him. IR-Heba was the Hurrian princeling ruler of Jerusalem, who rants and
rails against the tent-dwelling Habiru in the Amarna Letters, and who would
give no ground to anyone. As we have seen on this thread, KN(NY and H-KN(NY
and H-PRZY can all be understood as having a singular meaning, in addition to
being singular in form. As such, Genesis 12: 6 and 13: 7 refer to “the
Canaanite” at Shechem, that is, Lab’ayu, the Canaanite strongman ruler of
Shechem, north of Bethel. Genesis 13: 7 by necessary implication then refers
to the powerful Hurrian princeling ruler south of Bethel, H-PRZY, “the
Perizzite”, meaning “the Hurrian lord”, namely IR-Heba. Abram has wisely
decided that both Abram and Lot should vacate central hill country, because
that area would obviously soon descend into civil war in Year 13, given
rapacious Lab’ayu, “the Canaanite”, and uncompromising IR-Heba, “the
Perizzite”/“the Hurrian lord”. The foregoing analysis as to non-biblical
history is largely confirmed by Israel Finkelstein here: “The fourteenth
century BCE Tell el-Amarna letters confirm the partition of the central hill
country between two city-states, or actually early territorial states,
Shechem and Jerusalem…. A number of the letters refer by name to the rulers
of these two city-states -- a king called Abdi-Heba who reigned in Jerusalem
and a king named Labayu who reigned in Shechem -- each of whom controlled
territories of about a thousand square miles. These were the largest areas
held by a single local ruler…at this time….” Israel Finkelstein, “The Bible
Unearthed” (2001), at p. 155. So if Genesis 14: 4 is giving us Year 13 as
the exact date when Abram and Lot were at Bethel in chapter 13 of Genesis,
then Abram would have known about both “the Canaanite”/H-KN(NY/Lab’ayu of
Shechem, and “the Perizzite”/“the Hurrian lord”/H-PRZY/IR-Heba of Jerusalem,
and would have known that it was wise not to have anything to do with either
of those awful rulers. T-h-a-t is why Abram insists that both Abram and Lot
must leave Bethel [with Abram graciously and wisely trying to get Lot out of
harm’s way, instead of Abram looking out solely for Abram], and that is why
the two men go “east” and the opposite of east (that is, west) from Bethel
(per Genesis 13: 9-11), thereby leaving hill country (which runs north and
south of Bethel, not east and west). If we can understand the Hebrew grammar
here, where each of H-KN(NY and H-PRZY can be singular in meaning, in
addition to being singular in form, we can then see the p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t
accuracy of this Biblical text in the historical context of Year 13. There
is no way that multiple authors in the 1st millennium BCE would know all
these precise details about the e-x-a-c-t historical situation as of early
in Year 13! Nor would whoever composed the Genesis Apocryphon know such Year
13 details either. My point is that chapters 12-14 of Genesis must have been
composed by a contemporary in the mid-14th century BCE, the first historical
Hebrew, because there is no non-miraculous way that multiple authors in the
1st millennium BCE, be they JEPD or whoever, could possibly know all the ins
and outs of exactly what life was like in Canaan in Year 13. The magnificent
wealth of pinpoint accurate details about Year 13 in chapters 12-14 of
Genesis is telling us that these three chapters were composed by a
contemporary who knew exactly what he was talking about, rather than JEPD
somehow conjuring up this material in the 1st millennium BCE. I am trying to
make the point that an analysis of Hebrew grammar can lead us to make great
discoveries as to Biblical mysteries like this that have baffled analysts for
millennia. The key is simply to realize that each of H-KN(NY and H-PRZY at
Genesis 13: 7 can be singular in meaning, in addition to being singular in
form, which is the Hebrew grammatical thesis of this thread. Jim
StinehartEvanston, Illinois



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page