Jim, I'm not an expert in "Patriarcal narratives". I'm rather a grammarian. So I'm afraid I won't be able to help you in your question/s. Let us hope that someone on this list is able to help.
Heartly, Pere Porta 2011/6/22 <[email protected]> > ** > > Pere Porta:**** > > ** ** > > 1. You wrote: “In Gn 12:6 and 13:7, H-KN(NY is a generic to designate the > entire group of the Canaanites, the same as "the Perizzite" (in the same > verse) means the Perizzites, in general.”**** > > ** ** > > As to “the Canaanite”, here’s an interesting comment I found regarding the > use of the same term at Judges 1: 1: “Though most translations [of Judges 1: > 1] use the term ‘Canaanites’, in the plural, the Hebrew is actually singular, > ‘Canaanite’. The *Canaanites* are treated as a *singular* force whom the > Israelites fear. The *singular* usage creates a more personal situation. It > is not a nameless horde but a personal enemy.” Tammi Schneider, “Judges” > (2000), at p. 2. I also found out that the Targums generally change > “Canaanite” in Judges to “Canaanites”. On the other hand, it makes little > sense, does it, to interpret Genesis as twice saying that “at that time there > were Canaanites dwelling in the land (of **Canaan**)”? As to Perizzites, > there is no tribe having such name. **** > > **** > > 2. You wrote: “In Gn 12,6 and 13:7 the intention is that "the Canaanites > and the Perizzites" were dwelling in the country... Determined, so article > H.”**** > > ** ** > > But it wouldn’t make sense, would it, to tell us once, much less twice, that > at that time there were Canaanites dwelling in the ****land** of > **Canaan****? Why would that fact cause both Abram and Lot to leave the > ****Bethel**** area, which is the context here? Wherever both Abram and Lot > or either of them went in Canaan, there would always be Canaanites in the > ****land** of **Canaan****. If H-KN(NY means the tribe of the Canaanites in > those two verses, in the plural, how does that explain Abram’s wise decision > that both Abram and Lot should leave the Bethel area, and also that there was > no need for Abram and Lot to continue to sojourn together? (i) If the > Canaanites and Perizzites were potentially hostile tribes, shouldn’t Abram > and Lot have stayed together (whether at ****Bethel**** or elsewhere), > despite their quarreling herdsmen? (ii) And since there were Canaanites > throughout the **land** of **Canaan**, how would leaving the **Bethel** area > be a rational response to the observation that there were Canaanites in the > ****land** of **Canaan****?**** > > ** ** > > Pere Porta, I like your use of logic. My own point is that a plural meaning > of H-KN(NY just does not seem to make logical sense here in context. Just as > “Every and all girls in this world are the daughter of some man”, so also, > prior to Joshua, it’s just as obvious that at that time there were Canaanites > in the ****land** of **Canaan****. The presence of Canaanites in the land of > Canaan would not be a reason for both Abram and Lot to leave the Bethel area, > and the presence of the tribes of Canaanites and Perizzites would seem to > argue in favor of Abram and Lot staying together at all costs (even if they > left the Bethel area). In this particular context, I fail to see the logic > if H-KN(NY is interpreted in these verses as having a plural meaning. Since > we agree that Genesis 38: 2 uses KN(NY with a singular meaning, shouldn’t we > then ask if H-KN(NY at Genesis 12: 6 and 13: 7 may likewise have a singular > meaning? Isn’t it the presence of one awful Canaanite ruler at Shechem, > north of **Bethel**, and one awful Perizzite ruler at **Jerusalem**, south of > **Bethel**, that leads Abram to make the wise decision that both Abram and > Lot should leave the ****Bethel**** area? Abram and Lot don’t need to > sojourn together, because those two awful rulers are largely limited to > operating in hill country between Shechem and ****Jerusalem****. So if, per > Genesis 13: 11, Lot and Abram exit ****Bethel**** by going east and west > (with hill country running north and south), both Lot and Abram will thereby > neatly avoid both of those awful individual rulers. Note how logical > everything is in this context if H-KN(NY here has a singular meaning. Then > the text can be viewed as explaining w-h-y Abram wisely decided that both > Abram and Lot should leave the Bethel area, rather than the text twice making > the innocuous and irrelevant remark that “at that time there were Canaanites > dwelling in the land (of Canaan)”.**** > > ** ** > > What do you think of my logic?**** > > ** ** > > Jim Stinehart**** > > ****Evanston**, **Illinois******** > > -- Pere Porta _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
