Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Karl Randoph wrote:

 

“As far as Abram’s connections with a particular Amorite, that it was mentioned only once shows that it was probably no more than the likes of a rental agreement. That it was not a close relationship can be seen in that Abram told the king of Sodom to make a separate arrangement with Abram’s Amorite ally after the battle instead of the two acting in concert.”

 

Not true.

 

For people like the first Hebrews who lived in tents, it was of critical importance to have an understanding with the most powerful princeling in the area where you had pitched your tents.  Ideally, it would even rise to the level of an alliance [or league or covenant], as it does between Abram and Mamre the Amorite at Genesis 14: 13.  That meant that you had the legal right to pitch your tents there, and you would not be surprised in the middle of the night by some horse-mounted noblemen kicking you off of their land.

 

The Biblical text emphasizes that although the Patriarchs were quite wealthy, they did not own the land on which they sojourned.  Thus it was very important to be in league with the most powerful princeling in the area.  We see that with Mamre the Amorite at the Patriarchs’ Hebron at Genesis 14: 13, with Abimelek and Abram in GRR in chapters 20-21 of Genesis, with Abimelek and Isaac in chapter 26 of Genesis, and with Jacob and Hamor at Shechem at the beginning of chapter 34 of Genesis [before the situation with Hamor quickly turns bad].

 

The early Hebrew author is telling us, albeit indirectly, that once Mamre the Amorite died after chapter 14 of Genesis, that by the time we get to chapter 15 of Genesis the new princeling ruler in the area of the Patriarchs’ Hebron has refused to get along with the early Hebrews.  Historically, tent dweller-friendly Mamre the Amorite was succeeded in Year 14 [referenced at Genesis 14: 5] by his firstborn son who hated tent dwellers, and who was a disaster as the new princeling ruler of the general area where the Patriarchs loved to sojourn.  That firstborn son is “the Amorite” whose “iniquity” is of great concern at Genesis 15: 16.  We’re not given his historical name [unlike the historical name of Mamre the Amorite, which is set forth at Genesis 46: 17, immediately before the XBR root of “Hebron”], nor are we even given much of a Patriarchal nickname for this nefarious firstborn son, other than “the Amorite” whose “iniquity” is of such concern.  

 

The text is telling us what historically was the case:  after the beginning of Year 14, the tent dwellers at the Patriarchs’ Hebron no longer were in covenant relationship with the most powerful princeling in the area.  That meant that from then on, they could not be sure of their status in their rural nirvana pastureland that was their homeland.  The divine promises of land in Genesis were particularly important to a people who had just now lost their legal status as tent dwellers in this fine pastureland.  Abram’s covenant with Mamre the Amorite was never replicated by any Patriarch at that location, after Mamre the Amorite’s death early in Year 14 shortly after the end of chapter 14 of Genesis.  If per Genesis 14: 5 we realize that Year 14 is the time period in which these traumatic events for the first Hebrews are playing out, we can readily confirm  a-l-l  of the above by reference to non-biblical sources regarding Year 14.  The received text of the Patriarchal narratives has  p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t  historical accuracy in these regards.

 

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois