Chavoux Luyt 1. You wrote: “The way I always used to read this was not so much that the Canaanites were hostile (cf. Abraham's covenant with Aner and his brothers) ….” I believe that virtually all scholars agree that Aner is not a west Semitic name. So Aner is not a Canaanite. Mamre is expressly stated at Genesis 14: 13 to be an Amorite, corresponding to historical Milk-Ilu, the princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley at Gezer who has a vintage Amorite name. Historically, Milk-Ilu [Biblical “Mamre”] was allied with Tagi, a Hurrian princeling, and Aner is a Hurrian name [based on the Hurrian primordial god Anu]. Note that both Mamre and Aner are stated at Genesis 14: 13 to be B(LY: “lords ”. That means they’re princeling rulers in southern Canaan: an alliance of an Amorite princeling with a Hurrian princeling, both at Genesis 14: 13 and in the Amarna Letters. The Biblical text has pinpoint accuracy in reflecting the exact situation that existed in southern Canaan in Year 13 [even having that exact year number, Year 13, referenced at Genesis 14: 4]. 2. You wrote: “…but that in addition to the huge numbers of Abraham and Lot's flocks, the Canaanites also used part of the land, making the available land even
less for the tent-dwellers'/pastoralists' flocks. Thus the emphasis is simply on the fact that the available land became "too narrow" for both Abraham and Lot, especially since there were other (sedentary?) tribes in the land as well. That they both left Bethel can simply be explained by the fact that: the grazing in the area has been exhausted by the combination of flocks (at least until the veld has had some rest).” (a) There were Canaanites all over Canaan in the Patriarchal Age. Why would the Biblical text need to tell us that, twice? And if the problem is Canaanites in Canaan, why does Genesis 13: 12 bend over backwards to tell us explicitly that Abram continued to sojourn in Canaan after leaving Bethel? (b) If Lot really wanted more grazing land so that he could continue to be a shepherd, why does Lot quickly move into the city nicknamed Sodom and live with a roofbeam over his head, never being a shepherd again? Isn’t it clear from Genesis 36: 7 that the claim that Abram and his older brother’s son Lot did not sojourn together is a diplomatic fiction, as Jacob and his older twin brother Esau engage in that very same diplomatic fiction? (c) If what’s driving this is that “the veld” at Bethel has to be given “ some rest”, then why doesn’t either Abram or Lot return to Bethel with their flocks later on? (d) Why would there be a reference at Genesis 13: 7 to “the Canaanites” in the plural, a very well known, very broad designation, coupled with a name that is not attested in west Semitic: PRZ-Y? Isn’t that an odd combination? [I agree with Richard Hess, who wrote “Amarna Personal Names”, that PRZ-Y is a Hurrian-based reference to the Hurrians.] 3. In my opinion, H-KN‘NY should be viewed as having a singular meaning at Genesis 12: 6 and 13: 7, meaning “the Canaanite”, that is, the notorious strongman Canaanite ruler who operated out of Shechem in early Year 13: Lab’ ayu. H-PRZY should be viewed at Genesis 13: 7 as meaning “the Hurrian lord” , in the singular, referencing the anti-tent dweller Hurrian princeling ruler IR-Heba of Jerusalem. Abram wisely decided that neither Abram nor Lot should sojourn where those two infamous princelings were sure to collide. I see chapters 12-14 of Genesis as referencing the three most prominent rulers in the Amarna Letters. “The most prominent kings from the region of Palestine in the Amarna archives are Milkilu (Gezer), Abdi-Heba (Jerusalem), Lab ’ayu (Shechem) and [in northern Canaan] Abdi-Tirshi (Hazor).” John H. Walton, Victor Harold Matthews and Mark William Chavalas, “Bible Background Commentary” (2000), at p. 216. Milk-Ilu is an Amorite princeling ruler from the Ayalon Valley, west of Bethel, and so is Biblical Mamre at Genesis 14: 13 [where I see the Patriarchs’ XBRWN as being the eastern Ayalon Valley; per Genesis 13: 9,11, Abram goes the opposite of “east” in leaving Bethel]. IR-Heba is the Hurrian princeling ruler of Jerusalem, whom I see as being “the Perizzite”/“the Hurrian lord” at Genesis 13: 7, south of Bethel. Lab’ayu is the notorious Canaanite strongman who operated in early Year 13 out of Shechem, north of Bethel, whom I see as being referenced as “the Canaanite” at Genesis 12: 6 and 13: 7. In all three cases, both the ethnicity and the location of these princeling rulers are exactly right. Chapters 12-14 of Genesis are filled with such a wealth of accurate information as to the southern half of Canaan in early Year 13 [with “Year 13” itself being expressly referenced at Genesis 14: 4] that they must have been composed by a contemporary: the first historical Hebrew. The first Hebrew only liked one of these three princelings, Milk-Ilu [Biblical “Mamre”, with whom Abram is allied], so his is the only one of these three names that is set forth explicitly in the Biblical text. At Genesis 46: 17, in the listing of Jacob’s descendants, we see XBR, which is the root of the Patriarchs’ beloved XBRWN, and which is associated with Biblical “Mamre”/historical Milk-Ilu, followed immediately by what Richard Hess confirms is the Hebrew version of the Amorite name Milk-Ilu: MLKY)L. This level of detail could only have been composed by a contemporary, who lived in the Late Bronze Age and knew exactly what he was talking about, namely the first historical Hebrew, who is chronicling the troubled times during which Judaism historically was born. The p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives is absolutely stunning. Jim Stinehart Evanston, Illinois _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
