Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III:
 
You wrote:  “[T]he calendars of Israel were of two types: sacred and secular. 
There is a six month difference between them since Passover, followed by 
Feast of Unleavened Bread, begins the sacred calendar in March-April; while 
the secular calendar begins with Hashanah, followed by the Feast of 
Tabernacles (Booth), in September-October. Your calendrical half-years is 
speculative.”
 
But that’s after the Exodus.  What were the calendars of Canaan like before 
the Exodus?  Didn’t Canaan have a fall New Year, for the harvest of fruits, 
and a spring New Year, for the harvest of grains?  Weren’t those two New 
Years of approximately equal importance in Canaan prior to the Exodus, 
because the people of Canaan got about half their caloric intake from each of 
those two harvests?
 
Joseph cannot be age 17 in 12-month years at Genesis 37: 2.  The sympathetic 
narrator calls him a “boy”.  That works perfectly if Joseph had witnessed 17 
fall and spring New Years, being a boy age 8½ in 12-month years.  But it 
would be a terrible insult for the narrator to call Israel’s favorite son 
“boy” if he were a full-grown man in the ancient world, age 17 in 12-month 
years.

And consider how, with childish naivete, Joseph excitedly tells all his older 
half-brothers of his dream when all their sheaves of grain bow down to him.  
That is charming for a boy age 8½ in 12-month years.  But it would be dumb 
for an adult man, age 17 in 12-month years, to be that naïve as to how his 
older half-brothers would react to the telling of such a dream.

We know that Joseph was born in Year 12 tenfold, being Year 120.  So Genesis 
37: 2 announces to the audience that chapter 37 of Genesis will begin in Year 
128.5, as Joseph is age 8½ in 12-month years.  The audience knows that 
Benjamin was born in Year 13 tenfold, being Year 130, shortly after the 
bloody Shechem incident [per chapter 35 of Genesis], with the ruler of 
Shechem historically being assassinated in Year 13.  So the audience knows 
that chapter 37 of Genesis is a flashback.

Why do you say my counting of people’s ages in the Patriarchal narratives is 
“speculative”?  You don’t think that Ishmael lived to age 137 in 12-month 
years, do you?  You don’t think Sarah bore Isaac at age 90 in 12-month years, 
do you?  Sarah had witnessed 90 fall and spring New Years, and was age 45 in 
12-month years.

As you probably know, scholars advise us to ignore all the numbers in the 
Patriarchal narratives for all purposes.  Do you think that’s good advice?  
When Genesis 37: 2 says that Joseph was stated age 17, don’t you think that 
has real meaning?  It tells us he’s a boy, age 8½ in 12-month years, and that 
chapter 37 of Genesis is a flashback, going back to the time period shortly 
before Benjamin’s birth.

My guess is that you yourself do not see the name BN-YMYN as being a 
“euphemism”.  It’s a perfectly logical name, once one realizes that not only 
Rachel, but also Joseph, had disappeared from Jacob’s life shortly before 
Jacob decided to call Rachel’s second son “Son of my Right Hand”, that is, 
Jacob’s heir-apparent.

My guess is that you agree with me that all the numbers in the Patriarchal 
narratives are perfect, as is, rather than being senseless and something that 
should be ignored.  Every single stated age in that text makes perfect sense, 
once one realizes that all stated ages are set forth in terms of how many 
fall and spring New Years a person had witnessed.  Only on that basis can we 
understand why Jacob called Rachel’s second-born son, non-euphemistically, 
BN-YMYN/“Son of my Right Hand” [because Joseph had just recently disappeared 
and was presumed dead by Jacob, so that Benjamin promptly took Joseph’s place 
in Jacob’s heart].  And finally, my guess is that you would agree with me 
that there’s not a single mistake in chapters 37 and 35 of Genesis.  Rachel 
is not alive at Genesis 37: 10, after previously being dead at Genesis 35: 
19.  No, chapter 37 of Genesis is a flashback.  The received Hebrew text is 
perfect, as is.  We simply need to figure out how the early Hebrew author 
wants us to interpret his incomparable text.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois