Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Nir Cohen:

 

Genesis 15: 16 cannot be saying “so far i find not enough wrong with the emorites (so as to expel them from the land)", because just a few verses later we read at Genesis 15: 18, 21:

 

“In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:  …the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Gera-ge-$e-ya and the A-bu-u-se-ya.”

 

The issue at hand is not that “so far i find not enough wrong with the emorites (so as to expel them from the land)", but rather that the Amorite successor to Mamre the Amorite is behaving iniquitously toward the first Hebrews right now, threatening to drive the Hebrews out of the rural nirvana pastureland that was their homeland.  Why is “the Amorite” singled out for concern as to “iniquity” at Genesis 15: 16?  It’s because that one Amorite princeling ruler, namely the successor to Mamre the Amorite, is now acting iniquitously toward the first Hebrews, and something must be done about that.

 

Please note that once Mamre the Amorite is out of the picture after chapter 14 of Genesis, neither Abraham nor any other Patriarch ever again succeeds in having a covenant relationship with a princeling ruler in or near the Patriarchs’ Hebron.  As such, there no longer was any guarantee that the tent dwelling Hebrews could continue to stay there!  Each of Abraham and Isaac establishes such a valuable alliance relationship with princeling Abimelek in GRR, and unfortunately Jacob briefly establishes such a relationship with the untrustworthy Amorite princeling Hamor of Shechem.  But never again does a Patriarch have an alliance with a princeling who lives in or near the Patriarchs’ Hebron.  Can’t you see that something has gone terribly wrong?  What is it?  The Amorite successor to Mamre the Amorite hates tent dwellers [such as the Hebrews], and is trying to drive the Hebrews out of their beloved homeland.   T-h-a-t  is “the iniquity of the Amorite”.  That’s what happened historically, and all the clues are there for us to determine that such is being accurately recounted in the Patriarchal narratives.  We even know the  e-x-a-c-t  year that this happened, by reference to Genesis 14: 5.  It all checks out, with  p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t  historical accuracy.  There’s no way that JEP could be making this stuff up!  Not when  e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g  checks out perfectly in the precise historical timeframe stated at Genesis 14: 4-5 [about 700 years or so before JEP].

 

When 7 out of 7 firstborn sons in the Patriarchal narratives get the shaft and properly so -- Haran, Lot, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Er and Mannaseh -- that’s telling us something.  That’s telling us that historically, the first Hebrews got shafted by the unduly favored firstborn son of Mamre the Amorite, who hated having tent dwellers in his land.  Mamre the Amorite should have done as Abraham did:  although initially favoring firstborn son Ishmael, Abraham eventually made the gut-wrenching, correct decision to name younger son Isaac as Abraham’s proper successor.  Do you see the analogy?  In order that we will be sure to see that analogy, Mamre the Amorite was married to a Hurrian woman, and that is how Abraham is portrayed:  Sarah’s birth name $RY is not attested as a west Semitic name, but is attested in this time period as the Hurrian woman’s name $aru-ya.  Mamre the Amorite was wealthy, and that is how Abraham is portrayed.  They both lived in the same general locale.  Do you see what I mean? 

 

The point of all this is that based on the Biblical testimony, the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives was trying to tell Mamre the Amorite on his death bed, by means of composing and telling to Mamre the Amorite an early version of the Patriarchal narratives, that Mamre the Amorite should not name as his successor his tent dweller-hating firstborn son, but rather should name as his successor Mamre the Amorite’s fine younger son.  We know for certain historically that the younger son was more than willing to ally with tent dwellers like the early Hebrews.  But alas, Mamre the Amorite did not heed that good advice, and in due course was succeeded by his tent dweller-hating firstborn son, both historically and as implied by chapters 14-15 of Genesis, who proved a disaster as Mamre the Amorite’s successor.  That’s “the iniquity of the Amorite”.  It’s fully historical.  Everything checks out.  Everything.

 

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois