Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

In this post we will compare the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Aramaic of 
Onkelos as to Genesis 12: 6 vs. a phrase that appears in the following three 
verses:  Genesis 13: 18, 14: 13 and 18: 1.
 
At Genesis 12: 6, we see )LWN in Hebrew, which is masculine singular 
construct, and in context likely means “Oak Tree of”.  Note that it’s 
singular.  
As noted in my prior post, in the Aramaic of Onkelos we see MY$R, which 
could be translated into English as either “plain” or “valley”.
 
Three verses -- Genesis 13: 18, 14: 13 and 18: 1 -- have a related phrase.  
The longest version of this phrase is its first occurrence, at Genesis 13: 
18, which I will reproduce in full because its context is important.  In 
Hebrew we see W-Y$B B-)LNY MMR) )$R  B-XBRWN.  An ultra-literal translation 
would be:  “and he dwelt in oak trees of Mamre, that is, in Hebron”.  
[Genesis 
14: 13 and 18: 1 have a different verb, and do not say “Hebron”.]  Note in 
particular that in all three of these fairly similar verses, )LNY is plural 
[masculine plural construct, to be specific].
 
Abram is not literally pasturing his flock of sheep and goats “in oak trees”
.  Indeed, B-)LNY is an extremely awkward phrase, yet it’s repeated, 
verbatim, three times, in fairly quick succession.  Something special must be 
going on here.  As to context, just a few verses before Genesis 13: 18 we are 
told at Genesis 13: 9, 11 that Abram told Lot to go whatever direction Lot 
chose from Bethel, and that Abram would then go the opposite direction from 
Bethel, and then we are told specifically that Lot left Bethel going “east”.  
Though oddly denied by 100% of Biblical analysts, logically the clear 
implication here is that Abram left Bethel going the opposite direction as 
Lot, 
with Abram thus going west from Bethel.  On that fairly literal reading of 
Genesis 13: 9, 11, we see that Abram leaves hill country at Bethel and 
proceeds 
west into the northeast corner of the Ayalon Valley.  By definition, when 
you leave hill country that runs north and south by going west, you are of 
necessity going to quickly come to a “valley” of some sort.  Thus per Genesis 
13: 9, 11, we know that Abram is coming to a “valley”, and that is later 
confirmed at Genesis 37: 14 by the reference to the Patriarchs’ Hebron as 
being (MQ -- a broad, true valley;  meanwhile, Genesis 13: 18 says that Abram 
dwelt “in oak trees”.  Putting the two concepts together, Abram dwelt “in [a 
valley lined with] oak trees”, with the Ayalon Valley indeed being a 
classic broad, true “valley” west of Bethel that is indeed lined with “oak 
trees”
.
 
But why did the Hebrew author use this ultra-awkward phrase, B-)LNY, that 
literally means “in oak trees”, and why did he use it three times over?  Is 
he trying to  f-o-r-c-e  us, against our will as it were, to recognize a 
clever pun here?  With the final -Y being a mere ending [that shows masculine 
construct plural], the root of the word here is obviously )-L-N.  Realizing 
that Abram is said at Genesis 13: 9, 11 to go west from Bethel, which would 
bring Abram to the Ayalon Valley, how would “Ayalon” be spelled in defective 
spelling, or in shortened [hypocoristic] defective spelling?  At Amarna 
Letter EA 287: 57 from Hurrian princeling IR-Heba of Jerusalem, “Ayalon” is 
spelled in Akkadian cuneiform as a three-syllable name:  ia-lu-na.  With the 
plene spellings later in the Bible of “Ayalon” all beginning with aleph, we 
might expect a shortened defective spelling of “Ayalon” to be:  )-L-N, with 
each Hebrew letter representing a discrete syllable.  Even if people insist 
that that’s not the “correct” defective spelling of “Ayalon”, I hope 
people may realize that such spelling is close enough to make a great pun.  
As a 
pun, B-)LN-Y implies:  “in Ayalon”.  So in Hebrew, the first meaning of 
Genesis 13: 18 is that Abram “dwelt in [the valley lined with] oak trees of 
Mamre, that is, in [the Patriarchs’] Hebron”, and the second meaning is 
[utilizing a clever pun] that Abram “dwelt in Ayalon of Mamre, that is, in 
[the 
Patriarchs’] Hebron”.  Remember, the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal 
narratives is the greatest Hebrew wordsmith who ever lived, so tremendous 
puns like this are par for the course in the last 40 chapters of Genesis 
[even 
if such great puns are rare as hen’s teeth in the rest of the Bible].
 
Can you see why the Hebrew version of Genesis 13: 18 was anathema to 
Onkelos?  Modern scholars err in thinking that Onkelos was primarily worried 
about 
Abram being viewed as committing the blasphemy of worshipping trees:
 
“[Genesis 12: 6]  Tg, Vg read ‘plain’.  ‘The Aramaic versions of the 
Pentateuch consistently render MT [the Hebrew word] )LWN by [the Aramaic 
word] 
MY$R (or slight variations of the same noun) – evidently because terebinths 
and oaks were used for idolatrous worship….  Tg. Onk.’s rendering…may have 
been designed to remove Abraham from any association with centers of tree 
worship’ (M. Aberbach and B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis, 79).”  
Gordon Wenham, p. 279, “Genesis 1-15” (1987), p. 279.
 
Heavens to murgatroid, Onkelos had bigger things to worry about than “
remov[ing] Abraham from any association with centers of tree worship”!  While 
the 
tree worship angle works after a fashion for )LWN in the singular at 
Genesis 12: 6, it doesn’t work for )LNY in the plural at Genesis 13: 18, 14: 
13 
and 18: 1.  Sojourning [ultra-literally] “in oak trees” with one’s large 
flock of sheep and goats does not imply tree worship!  Certainly there must 
be a 
better explanation than that for Onkelos’ choice to render )LNY in the 
plural as “plains” or “valley”/M$RY.
 
Note that the Aramaic word MY$R [here in a plural form, M$RY] is so vague 
and generic that it will fit any locale in Canaan other than an actual 
mountaintop:  “plain” or “valley” pretty much covers the waterfront.  MY$R 
would 
fit the Ayalon Valley, but it also fits the Shechem Valley and the Hebron 
Valley as well, even though those latter two “valleys” are small depressions 
at high altitude, and as such are not a true, broad valley [(MQ in Hebrew].
 
Note Onkelos’ brilliant gambit.  If )LNY in the plural in Hebrew can imply “
valley”, namely “in [a valley lined with] oak trees”, then why not (1) use 
an Aramaic word, MY$R, at Genesis 13: 18, 14: 13 and 18: 1 that can mean “
valley” or “plain”, and (2) then stretch the same Hebrew word, albeit in the 
singular, )LWN, at Genesis 12: 6 to mean “plain” or “valley” as well?  
MY$R fits both the narrow Shechem Valley, as needed at Genesis 12: 6, and 
that 
vague Aramaic word also fits either the Ayalon Valley or the high altitude 
mountain valley of King David’s city of Hebron.  If )LNY in the plural can 
be MY$R, then why not also render )LWN in the singular as MY$R as well?  
Onkelos was much smarter, and more devious, than modern scholars realize.  
The 
tree worship angle was small potatoes for him.  The big kahuna, as we are 
starting to see, was the remarkable feat of neatly transferring the 
geographical location of the Patriarchs’ Hebron in the Ayalon Valley all the 
long way 
southeast to King David’s mountainous city of Hebron in southern hill 
country.  Do you think that was easy to pull off?  No way.  But Onkelos did 
it in 
style.  Onkelos’ Aramaic mistranslations of the Hebrew Masoretic text are 
what made his audience feel comfortable about changing the site of the 
Patriarchs’ Hebron from the Ayalon Valley, just outside of Judah’s effective 
control in the ungovernable, defenseless Shephelah, to King David’s 
defense-oriented mountainous city of Hebron in hill country, the only sizable 
city outside 
of Jerusalem that was consistently an integral part of Judah.
 
If you wonder why 100% of Biblical analysts place the Patriarchs’ Hebron at 
or near the geographical locale of King David’s mountainous city of Hebron 
in southern hill country, despite the notable fact that there’s  
n-o-t-h-i-n-g  anywhere in the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the entire Bible to 
support 
that erroneous view [as the Patriarchs’ Hebron is never said to be “up” or “
high” or “hills” in Hebrew, but rather is expressly stated at Genesis 37: 14 
in Hebrew to be (MQ -- a broad, true valley, which King David’s mountainous 
city of Hebron most certainly is not, being precisely the opposite:  HR, 
per Joshua 11: 21], you can thank Onkelos for that.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois