Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Professor Yigal Levin:
 
You wrote (this time I am quoting your last post on this thread in its 
entirety):  “Jim, didn't you read my whole post? I specifically wrote that I 
thought that at least the context demands "in the 13th year". In my opinion, 
this is more important than the grammar. Let's remember that the text was 
written by humans (or dictated by God "bilshon benei adam"), and human 
language 
often takes "literary license". However, this works both ways. So I don't 
think that the grammar "proves" anything, and I still think that your theory 
is wrong.”
 
>From that post of yours, I deduce the following:
 
1.  Based on Hebrew grammar, the second half of Genesis 14: 4 could 
possibly mean:  “…and 13 years they rebelled”.  
 
You yourself reject that literal translation, not on the basis of Hebrew 
grammar, but rather because “I thought that at least the context demands ‘in 
the 13th year’.  In my opinion, this is more important than the grammar.  …
I don't think that the grammar ‘proves’ anything”.  Or as you explained in 
your prior post:  “[L]ogically, the sequence 12-13-14 seems more poetic than 
chronological, and logically it would make sense that they served 12 years, 
rebelled on the 13th, and he arrived on the 14th.  …To me it seems, that 
which grammatically 13 may be correct, the context calls for 13th. The form 
can be explained in terms of literary form and genre.”
 
2.  Similarly, based on Hebrew grammar, the second half of Genesis 14: 4 
could, alternatively, possibly mean “…and Year 13 they rebelled”.
 
You don’t explicitly say that.  But you do not raise any actual grammatical 
objection whatsoever to my interpretation of Genesis 14: 4.  Rather, what 
you say is:  “Jim, didn't you read my whole post? I specifically wrote that I 
thought that at least the context demands ‘in the 13th year’. In my 
opinion, this is more important than the grammar.  …  So I don't think that 
the 
grammar ‘proves’ anything, and I still think that your theory is wrong.”
 
3.  If I am understanding what you are saying and not saying, it is that on 
the basis of Hebrew grammar, my interpretation of Genesis 14: 4 is 
possible, but that my interpretation should nevertheless be rejected because 
of the 
context.  The “context”, if I am following your reasoning, is that you do 
not think that, historically speaking, a reference to “Year 13” at Genesis 
14: 4 would make sense or is possible.  Might I ask why?  Certainly Abram’s 
and Lot’s movements regarding Shechem and Bethel and the Patriarchs’ Hebron 
in chapters 12 and 13, right before the reference to “Year 13” at Genesis 
14: 4, fit a Year 12 analysis perfectly, in all regards.  A Year 12 analysis 
explains why Abram does not “pitch his tent” at Shechem, why Lot leaves 
Bethel going “east” in order to make a wide detour around the notorious “
Canaanite” at the major city-state of Shechem, and why the 
“Perizzite”/Hurrian 
princeling made Jerusalem another place that Abram wisely gave a wide berth 
as well.  We also know that the opposite of “east” of Bethel, being the 
northeast Ayalon Valley, was a “rural nirvana” for Abram in Year 12, with all 
that lovely land and not a single town or village in sight to spoil it, being 
a true paradise for Abram’s flock of sheep and goats.  Abram gets along 
swimmingly with the Amorite princeling from Gezer, who historically allied 
with 
tent-dwelling-type people and Canaanites and Hurrians, exactly as stated at 
Genesis 14: 13, and whose very name, that is his historical name, is in due 
course honored at Genesis 46: 17.  How many  p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t  historical 
matches do you want?  Shall I go on?  How can you say that “context” rules 
out a “Year 13” interpretation of the second half of Genesis 14: 4, when Year 
13 fits  p-e-r-f-e-c-t-l-y  in every single regard?  Abram’s and Lot’s 
movements in chapters 12 and 13 of Genesis are inexplicable in any year other 
than Year 12, yet are totally logical, and virtually inevitable, in a Year 12 
context.  If the hieratic docket on Amarna Letter EA 254 from Lab’ayu of 
Shechem is “Year 12” as originally read, as I believe it is, then  e-v-e-r-y  
aspect of the historical context fits.
 
Prof. Levin, if we’re down to discussing “context”, and Hebrew grammar 
itself is not a problem with my interpretation of Genesis 14: 4 as expressly 
referring to “Year 13”, then I see myself as being on very solid ground.  
Only in historical Year 12 do Abram’s and Lot’s movements in south-central 
Canaan make sense, with every single particular detail matching perfectly.
 
You say that the numbering sequence at Genesis 14: 4-5 is “poetic”, but I 
keep showing that it’s fully historical.  Think “Year 13”, and you’ll see 
it.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois