Rob:
1. You wrote: “(Moderator...hopefully this is still within the rules).”
As you have noted, the traditional view is that “Perizzite” means “
village, country or rustic”. But such a name is not attested historically as a
tribal name. Many scholars see “Perizzite” in the Patriarchal narratives as
having an unknown meaning. If a west Semitic meaning is proposed, it’s hard
to see how “village, country or rustic people” at Genesis 13: 7 would be
contrasted with Canaanites, many of whom likewise were “village, country or
rustic people”.
Your Septuagint citations are very interesting. Yet one of those examples,
if it is accurate, would undercut a west Semitic meaning: “all the country
round about Argob, belonging to king Og in Basan: 5 all strong cities,
lofty walls, gates and bars; besides the very many cities of the Pherezites. "
Deuteronomy 3: 4-5. Why would “village, country or rustic people” have “
very many cities”? That reference you cite from the Septuagint at Deuteronomy
3: 5 to the Perizzites as having “very many cities” directly contradicts
your characterization of such people: “The opinion of scholars is the
Perizzites were likely an ethnic group who preferred to live in the country or
rural areas, not cities. I believe there are a number of such groups in the
US...some disrespectfully called ‘hillbillys’.”
2. You wrote: “ I pointed to your error when you claimed the Perizzites
ruled Jerusalem when the Bible clearly states Jerusalem was a Jebusite city
ruled by the benevolent Melchizeldek.”
Historically, Jerusalem was never called “Salem”, and I do not see “Salem”
as meaning Jerusalem in the Patriarchal narratives. Melchizedek acts
exclusively as a priest, not as a “king” or princeling or ruler. Abimelek, who
dominated western Galilee in the Amarna Age, would have interpreted this
priest’s name as meaning “Moloch Is Righteous Victory, Moloch Is Safety”.
With an inversion of the final two consonants, the Canaanites at Rehov and
Beth Shan in the Amarna Age would have interpreted the same name as meaning “
Mekal Is Righteous Victory, Mekal Is Safety”. Abraham could interpret this
same priestly name as meaning “The (Divine) King Is Righteous Victory, The
(Divine) King Is Safety”.
Many analysts, perhaps even a majority, think that the Jebusites were
Hurrians, whereas Melchizedek is not a Jebusite and Melchizedek is a west
Semitic
name having nothing to do with Hurrian. “Jebusite” is YBWS-Y. That could
be ya + bu-u-si, or ya + pu-u-si, where pu-u-si is the root of a Hurrian
verb meaning “to dip”, and Hurrian does not distinguish P and B; ya can be a
theophoric in Hurrian. The Hurrian meaning of “Jebusite” could be “
[people who are] dipped in the divine”. Whereas there is ample non-biblical
and
Biblical support for seeing LBA Jerusalem as having a strong Hurrian
component, there is no historical basis for viewing Salem as meaning Jerusalem.
3. You wrote: “My second point was the Perizzites, whatever their origin,
were spread over a wide area in Judah, in the Shephelah, Carmel, Gezer in
the Aijalon valley and in Shechem. The point, very simply, is that the
Perizzites were almost everywhere which would have made it impossible for
Abraham
to avoid them wherever he moved. These issues you did not address.”
The same could certainly be said of the Canaanites. In fact, the original
purpose of this thread does indeed address that issue. At Genesis 38: 2 and
Genesis 13: 7, I see the references to KN(NY and H-KN(NY and H-PRZY as
being singular in meaning [in addition to being singular in form]. By leaving
the Shechem-Bethel-Jerusalem corridor, Abram and Lot could avoid “the
Canaanite” and “the Perizzite”, where those references are, respectively, to a
notorious Canaanite strongman ruler of Shechem [Lab’ayu], and to a
tent-dweller-hating Hurrian princeling ruler of Jerusalem [IR-Heba]. The
Hebrew grammar
point of this thread is precisely to assert that the above three Hebrew
names can properly be viewed as being singular in meaning.
4. You wrote: “In Genesis 13:17 God tells Abraham _17_
(http://bible.cc/genesis/13-17.htm) Go, walk through the length and breadth of
the land, for I
am giving it to you.” Question: Did Abraham disobey this order and simply
went directly to Hebron...? No. But most believe he did.”
Upon splitting from Lot at Bethel, Abram did indeed go directly to the
Patriarchs’ XBRWN. But while there, Abram cannot sire a son by Sarah, nor
perfect his claim to all of Canaan. Rather, Abraham must go all the long way
up
north to GRR/Galilee, as soon as, but not until, Lot forfeits his
provisional claim to the northern two-thirds of Canaan and is reduced to living
in a
cave. Whereupon Abraham immediately goes up north to GRR, properly claims
all of Canaan for Abraham’s descendants, and only then is the divine blessing
of fertility bestowed on Sarah. Amarna Letter EA 256 has the shortened form
of GRR, namely GR [Garu], meaning Galilee. Note that all 3 of these major
problems regarding Abraham are resolved virtually simultaneously: (i) Lot’s
provisional claim to much of Canaan is divinely rejected in its entirety,
(ii) Abraham then promptly perfects his claim to all of Canaan by going up
north to GRR/Galilee, and (iii) Abraham and Sarah are justly rewarded by Sarah
almost immediately getting pregnant with Isaac. If we can understand the
underlying geography of the Patriarchal narratives, these stories practically
tell themselves.
Note also that the Amarna Letters attest Akkadian versions of all three of
these names: Canaanite and Piri-izzi/PRZ-Y [the Hurrian name of a Hurrian
messenger from the Hurrian state of Nahrima/Mitanni] and GR for GRR/Galilee.
[Another Hurrian messenger from that Hurrian state is named Pu-u-xi, where
the pu-u element might be compared to the B-W in Y + B-W-S + Y.]
5. You wrote: “That Abraham did indeed travel the length of Canaan is
indicated by the traditions of Abraham in such unexpected places as Aleppo and
the "Halab Ash Shahba", "Where Abraham milked his cows" at the
Citadel....Nicolaus of Damascus also mentions little known traditional sites
throughout
what is now Syria and ancient Phoenicia.”
There is nothing in the Hebrew Bible to support such speculations. Rather,
the Genesis 13: 17 problem, which you are right to point out, is fully
resolved once one understands that GRR means “Galilee”, being the LBA Akkadian
forerunner of the later Hebrew GLYL, and that the Biblical Abimelek of
GRR/Galilee is one and the same person as historical Abimelek, who dominated
the
western two-thirds of Upper Galilee in the Amarna Age.
6. You wrote: “Summary: * Abraham left Bethel solely because of the
disruption caused by Lot's Shepherds, not as a result of any danger or threat
by
the Perizzites which is unsubstantiated.”
That view cannot be squared with what the second half of Genesis 13: 7
says. The most important reason why both Abram and Lot left Bethel was because
of the presence, just north and south of Bethel, of “the Canaanite” [at
Shechem] and “the Perizzite”/Hurrian princeling ruler [at Jerusalem]. My
interpretation fully accounts for what the second half of Genesis 13: 7 says.
The key is the Hebrew grammar point that KN(NY and H-KN(NY and H-PRZY can
have a singular meaning [in addition to being singular in form].
7. You wrote: “*The notion Abraham disobeyed God's direct order to travel
the land and went directly to Hebron is beyond absurd and is solely the
result of added punctuation and connectives that do not exist in the Hebrew.
Ancient Jewish scholars, rarely considered by most today, agree Abraham
obeyed God, saw all of Canaan, then settled in Hebron and built the Altar after
a period of many months or more likely, years.”
No, Abraham could not obey the divine directive of Genesis 13: 17 until Lot’
s provisional claims to Canaan had first been divinely disposed of. The
very day that happened, Abraham was off like a flash to sojourn in the land of
Abimelek at GRR/Galilee in northern Canaan.
8. You wrote: “God's command to Abraham to walk the land superceded any
plans Abraham may have had as to where to go.”
Not true. Abram and Lot made a provisional division of Canaan. Abraham
could not override that until YHWH divinely rejected all of Lot’s claims to
Canaan, which does not occur until chapter 19 of Genesis. Genesis 13: 17 does
foreshadow what YHWH had foreseen: that Lot in due course would forfeit
all right to Canaan by not affirmatively opposing Sodom’s later turn to the
dark side. It would not have been proper for Abram to have unilaterally cast
Lot aside by Abram on his own claiming all of Canaan. No, the proper thing
to do was exactly what Abram/Abraham did: wait until such time as YHWH
divinely determines that Lot has forfeited any claim to any part of Canaan, and
then [and only then] claim all of Canaan on behalf of Abraham’s descendants.
* * *
Rob, in fact I agree with you that Genesis 13: 17 is of critical importance
in understanding chapter 13 of Genesis. But as I see it, only my
interpretation sticks with what the Hebrew text actually says, as fully
supported by
the well-attested Bronze Age history of Canaan.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
