Excuse me, but the land of the Negev did NOT include Palestine, since
there was no such place as Palestine, as there still is not, today.
Shoshanna
Secondly, while some names remain constant, other names change.
Abraham was living in the Land of Canaan, today nobody calls it that.
To the south of Canaan was the land of the Negev, which apparently
included Palestine and much of the Sinai. Today the historic Negev is
split up into three separate areas.
What you propose is to take a constant name, Tyre, and change it,
while restricting Negev to its modern limits. Can that be justified? I
don't think so.
I also think you make too much of a belief that Isaac was born in the
spring, whereas I don't think Genesis is that clear on that.
Why not just take the historic meanings, as most of us do, and go with
that? The historic understanding is not ambiguous.
Karl W. Randolph.
On 10/11/07, JimStinehart AT aol.com <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Based on the critical comments made concerning my first attempt at a new
translation of Genesis 20: 1, I have revised my new translation.
Set forth below
are three versions of my new translation. Each version uses identical
English wording, but different punctuation and capitalization are
used in each
version, recognizing (per Version #1) that the original Hebrew had no
punctuation or capitalization at all.
1. Version #1
No punctuation or capitalization [ambiguous as to whether Isaac is born
in
southern Lebanon at Sur or in the Negev Desert]
"and departed from there abraham to the south land and he settled between
kadesh and s(h)ur and he sojourned in gerar"
2. Version #2
Dashes [Isaac is born in southern Lebanon at Sur]
"And departed from there Abraham to the southland -- and he settled --
between Kadesh and Sur and he sojourned in Gerar."
3. Version #3
Semi-colons and capitalization [Isaac is born in the Negev Desert]
"And departed from there Abraham to The South Land; and he settled
between
Kadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar."
* * *
I agree that Version #3, the traditional interpretation of Genesis 20: 1,
works grammatically. But what I am saying is this:
(i) Version #2 is also a legitimate interpretation of Genesis 20: 1,
and is
not impossible grammatically.
(ii) Version #2 makes perfect sense substantively, whereas Version #1
is
virtually nonsensical substantively. If Abraham journeyed into The
Land of
Negev, how then could Abraham settle in the Sinai Desert? Wrong desert.
And
having "settled" in the middle of the Sinai Desert, how is it then
that Abraham
sojourned at Gerar in the Negev Desert? Wrong desert again. And
there's
not enough time for Abraham first to settle in the Sinai Desert, and
then
commence sojourning in the Negev Desert at Gerar, with all this
happening over a
period of less than 30 days after Abraham leaves Hebron. Sarah must
get
pregnant about 30 days after they leave Hebron, which is presumably
after Abraham
and Sarah have interacted with Abimelech at Gerar (in chapter 20, with
Sarah's pregnancy becoming known only in chapter 21), in order for
Sarah to bear
Isaac "when the season cometh round", that is, when spring returns
again.
Finally, it makes no sense for Abraham and Sarah to go to a desert
in order to
have, and raise, Isaac.
On this list, the key issue is the Hebrew grammar. I view Version #2 as
being a legitimate possible interpretation of Genesis 20: 1 based on
Hebrew
grammar, even though I admit that Version #3 would be most
people's first reading
of Genesis 20: 1. In my view, the author of the Patriarchal narratives
did
all this deliberately. He is deliberately causing us to think
initially that
Abraham may have followed in Hagar's footsteps from chapter 16 of
Genesis,
leaving Hebron and going toward Kadesh(-barnea) and Shur. But we
gradually
figure out that in fact, Abraham went in exactly the opposite direction.
Abraham went north from Bethel/Ai (not southwest from Hebron),
toward the Lebanese
city-states of Kadesh and Sur ("Tyre"). Isaac is born near Sur,
in southern
Lebanon, in fulfillment of the Covenant.
I see the ambiguity in Genesis 20: 1 as being deliberate. The Hebrew
author
is forcing us to think. And by forcing a parallel with Hagar from
chapter
16 of Genesis, who (along with her son Ishmael) is left outside of the
Covenant, the author is making an important point by this
deliberately ambiguous
wording of Genesis 20: 1.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.6/1060 - Release Date:
09/10/2007 16:43
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.