Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Eliezer of Damascus:  Another 3,000-Year-Old Biblical Mystery Bites the Dust

 

Genesis 15: 2 is often thought of as being one of the most ambiguous and inexplicable and/or corrupt sentences in the Bible.  Here is how the leading Genesis scholar in the world, Gordon J. Wenham, describes scholars’ bafflement at this sentence:  “ ‘My heir is Damascus, Eliezer.’  This phrase is very difficult and widely regarded as corrupt and impossible to correct.”  “Genesis 1-15” (1987), p. 328.

 

The translation “heir” is incorrect, nor does BN-M$Q mean [per KJV] “steward”.  Rather, M$Q derives from $QQ.  As old Gesenius aptly observed [though unfortunately he then failed to follow his own linguistic logic], just as MMR comes from MRR, so also M$Q can likewise come from $QQ.  $QQ means:  “to rush, be eager, greedy”.  Gesenius and KJV try to see $QQ as meaning “to run”, and on that basis KJV translates BN-M$Q as “steward”, being one who “runs”/$QQ another person’s house.  But $QQ in fact means “to seek greedily”, as at Proverbs 28: 15 a wicked ruler is like a bear who “seeks greedily”/$QQ [not a bear who “runs”!].  Thus a BN-M$Q is a person who “seeks greedily” another person’s house, a “usurper”, not a “steward” who properly “runs” another person’s house

 

On that analysis, BN-M$Q:  “usurper”, that is, one who is eager to greedily rush [$QQ] to take over other people’s houses.

 

At Genesis 15: 2, Abram is complaining that Eliezer of Damascus is a usurper [BN-M$Q] who, if Abram remains without a son, will greedily rush in [$QQ] to take over Abram’s house.  Wenham notes that Snijders [OTS 12 (1958) 261-79] suggested a translation of “usurper” way back in 1958.  But scholars have continued to reject that proposed solution, not on linguistic grounds, but rather because no one has been able to figure out why the heck Abram would be worried about an Eliezer of Damascus taking over/usurping Abram’s house.

 

Who is Eliezer of Damascus?  The name “Eliezer” is )L -Y- (ZR.  This name only makes sense in west Semitic, where the analysis seems clear.  )L is “God”:  either “El” or, if an Amorite name, “Ilu”.  -Y- is a dash, the xireq compaginis.  (ZR is a Hebrew noun that means “help”.  The name means “God [Is] Help”.  A variant of this name would imply, rather than set forth, the divine reference:  (ZR.

 

Per the foregoing interpretation, let me now change the standard English transliteration of this Biblical name slightly to the following [for reasons that will become apparent later]:  El-i-Ezir.  And a directly comparable, though shorter, name would be:  Ezir.

 

But Abraham hasn’t been to Damascus, he doesn’t have the personal acquaintance of anyone from Damascus, and he doesn’t have a servant named El-i-Ezir!  [Abraham had all the servants he needed coming out of Harran, per Genesis 12: 5, and he certainly didn’t need to weigh himself down with another servant from Damascus.  Moreover, Genesis 15: 2 is not talking about a steward or servant, or for that matter about an heir.]

 

So what gives?  Why is Abram, who has had no contact with Damascus and is not personally acquainted with anyone named El-i-Ezir, worried about an El-i-Ezir [or Ezir] of Damascus usurping his house if Abram has no sons?  Who is Ezir of Damascus in the historical time period of Genesis 14: 4-5?  If we’re willing to give an historical interpretation to Genesis 15: 2, we will see that we can solve this 3,000-year-old Biblical mystery.

 

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois