Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Order of Death: A Key to Understanding Genesis

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: sshead.email AT gmail.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Order of Death: A Key to Understanding Genesis
  • Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:21:43 -0400 (EDT)


Stephen Shead:

1. In response to my assertion that "Though we don’t hear about Abraham’s
sons by minor wives until a later point in the text, nevertheless such sons
WOULD HAVE BEEN sired by Abraham at a younger age", you wrote:

“Really? How do we know? Genesis certainly doesn't tell us that. All of
them born before Ishmael in Genesis 16??? Then why on earth does Sarah say
what
she does in Gen 16:2? And why did Abraham say in Gen 15:2 that Eliezer of
Damascus would be his heir, if in fact he already had at least half a dozen
natural sons?”

(a) Genesis 16: 2 reads as follows: “
(http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=16&v=2&t=KJV#comm/2) And
Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now,
the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it
may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice
of Sarai.”

Sarai has never borne a child to this point. Using a custom documented at
the Hurrian province of Nuzi [and remembering that Abram and Sarai had spent
some time near there, at Harran in eastern Syria], Sarai gives Abram one of
Sarai’s maids to be the birth mother of a son on Sarai’s behalf. The key
is that Hagar is S-a-r-a-i ’ s handmaiden, not a concubine of Abram’s.
Abram had previously sired 6 named sons by Keturah, so Sarai and Abram both
knew that Abram was fully capable of siring sons.

(b) Genesis 15: 2 is probably best understood as being a cry of
exasperation by Abram, rather than being a heartfelt proposition by Abram.
Moreover,
the translation of “childless” is not the literal meaning of the Hebrew
word, which means “void of aid” or “stripped bare” or “desolate” or “solitary
”, etc. What Abram is alluding to is that he is desperate to sire a proper
male heir by his beloved main wife Sarai, which just is not happening.
Abram is not in fact complaining about any lack of virility on Abram’s part.
To that point, Abram had sired 6 named sons by minor wife Keturah, and
probably about 4 other sons by other concubines, but Abram did not want to
name
any of those sons by minor wives as his heir. Abram never says that Abram is
not virile. Indeed, almost immediately after Sarai gives Hagar to Abram,
Hagar promptly gets pregnant. So Abram’s complaint is not a complaint about
his own lack of virility [with Abram, like the other Patriarchs, being plenty
virile], but rather the complaint is that Abram’s beloved original main
wife #1, Sarai, unfortunately has reached middle age and is still barren. In
the ancient world, as you probably know, if a man was capable of having
relations with a woman, but the woman did not get pregnant, then everyone
assumed
that it was the woman who had the problem, not the man. Though we would
not necessarily jump to that conclusion today, that was ubiquitous throughout
the ancient world.

(c) The text presents Abraham as being righteous and admirable in no small
part because Abraham properly insists on having a proper male heir by his
beloved original main wife #1. [Abraham in fact has only one main wife,
Sarah.] The depth of Abraham’s righteousness in this regard does not become
fully apparent to the audience until chapter 25 of Genesis, when belatedly
the
author reveals that Abraham had sired many sons by minor wives. In the
ancient world, one’s heirs were normally and properly one’s children by one’s
main wife, and normally and properly excluded children borne by minor wives
or concubines.

2. You wrote: “In fact, if the author of the Patriarchal Narratives had
wanted us to see the connection, why on earth would he not have specified
that there were 4 sons of concubines?? And named them also, as was customary?
There is no reason whatsoever for the omission. Actually, I think the most
likely explanation for the lack of names is that the "sons of his concubines"
is a shorthand for Ishmael and the sons of Keturah (notwithstanding the
details his relations with Hagar and Keturah, in terms of their respective
statuses). That is, they have already been numbered and named, and there
aren't
12. And Keturah is called Abraham's "concubine" in 1 Chr. 1:32, so there is
ancient interpretation on my side.”

(a) At a minimum, Abraham has 8 named sons. The text presents Abraham
siring Isaac in Abraham’s old age as being semi-miraculous, a feature which
is
an integral part of the Covenant between Abraham and YHWH. So we know that
Abraham’s other 7 named sons were born before Isaac. The implication is
that the 6 named sons by Keturah were born before Ishmael, because at the
time
that Abram sires Ishmael, Abram and Sarai are already getting quite old. So
even on your theory of the case, Ishmael is the second to last born of 8
named sons of Abraham. That is comparable to Joseph being the second to last
born of 12 named sons of Jacob. In fact, there is no reason to think that
Abraham had only one minor wife or concubine, namely Keturah.

(b) The Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives is a master
storyteller who gives us only enough information to enable us to be able to
figure
things out, and sometimes he strategically withholds certain information
until
later, so that we find out certain important information after the fact.
The text implies that Abraham had 12 blood sons, without explicitly stating
that.

3. You wrote: “Jim, what you fail to mention is that, aside from this
supposed instance, NPL is never used in the Patriarchal narratives to mean
"die". Not once, not even with a faint dying connotation. In fact, as far as
I
can tell, in the whole Hebrew Bible, where NPL means "die", it is almost
always (if not always) in the context of battle - i.e. "fell [in battle]" -
clearly not applicable in this case. It is simply not a normal word to report
a
person's death.”

Please see Genesis 14: 10 in this regard: “And the vale of Siddim [was
full of] slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled [NPL], and fell
there; and they that remained fled to the mountain.”

Several commentators have noted that if the text ended here, we would think
that the princeling ruler of Sodom had “died”, since NPL in a battle
context normally implies “died”, not merely “fell”. But in fact, we find out
at the end of chapter 14 of Genesis that the princeling ruler of Sodom had
merely literally “fallen” into the slimepits, rather than having died there.
It’s a great example of how NPL can mean “die”, and it’s also a great
example of how the Hebrew author often makes us wait before giving us
additional important information that is needed to understand things he has
said
before.

4. You wrote: “Furthermore, there is a clear reference to the prophecy of
Genesis 16:12: "He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against
everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all
his
kinsmen." The last phrase is almost identical to the last part of Gen.
25:18: W(L-PNY KL-)XYW Y$KN. The only difference is that, in Gen. 16:12, the
verb
$KN "settle, live, dwell" is used, rather than NPL.”

(a) Yes, the different verb makes all the difference. The second half of
Genesis 25: 18 is telling us Ishmael’s order of death.

(b) You use the translation “kinsmen”, but that’s not what the Hebrew
text of Genesis 16: 12 says. It says: “brothers”. Ishmael has no
full-brothers, but as we have been discussing, Ishmael has many
half-brothers. As to
the Hurrian state of Mitanni in eastern Syria, Abraham’s sons MDN and MDYN
by Keturah are sent out “east” to Mitanni [Genesis 25: 6], yet Ishmael’s
descendants are there, too, as MDN-YM/Mitannians at Genesis 37: 27-36, so we
know that Ishmaelites are interacting with Abraham’s sons by Keturah in
eastern Syria. More importantly, of course, is that these particular
Ishmaelites
pass right through the center of Canaan, near where Ishmael’s elderly
half-brother Isaac and Abraham’s grandson Jacob are living, and take Joseph
to
Egypt as a slave. So the Ishmaelites also interact with Ishmael’s
half-brother
Isaac in Canaan, at least indirectly, and they interact very directly with
Isaac’s descendants in Canaan.

(c) Once again, the old KJV is a rare accurate translation of the second
half of Genesis 16: 12: “and he shall dwell in the presence of all his
brethren.” Based on the last third of chapter 37 of Genesis, we know that
that
prophecy comes true in spades. Ishmael dwells in the presence of his
half-brothers, and so naturally Ishmael’s descendants interact both with the
descendants of Keturah’s sons MDN and MDYN in eastern Syria, as some
Ishmaelites
are Mitannians/MDN-YM, and more importantly some Ishmaelites traverse Canaan
proper and take Joseph [the grandson of Ishmael’s half-brother Isaac] to
Egypt as a slave. Chapter 37 shows that the prophecy at Genesis 16: 12 is
confirmed to the nth degree.

5. You wrote: “In sum: "the Hebrew text of Genesis" tells us none of the
things you claim it does.”

The Hebrew text presents each of Ishmael and Joseph as being the second to
last of many sons born to a great Patriarch, who nevertheless predeceases
all of his many older half-brothers. Neither Ishmael nor Joseph is picked by
his father to be the leader of the next generation of the Hebrews, though
each had been his father’s favorite son. The birth mother of neither Ishmael
nor Joseph is the original main wife #1 of such son’s father the Patriarch.
[Joseph’s mother Rachel married Jacob 7 days after Jacob first married
Leah, so that Leah is Jacob’s original main wife #1, not Rachel.] If, as is
a
reasonable surmise, Abraham had 12 blood sons, then the birth order and death
order of Ishmael and Joseph is i-d-e-n-t-i-c-a-l : each is the second to
last born of 12 sons of a great Patriarch, who nevertheless predeceases all
10 of his older half-brothers, showing divine disfavor for this son whose
birth mother was not his father’s original main wife #1. That’s what the
received Hebrew text is telling us.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page