Nir Cohen: Genesis 15: 16 cannot be saying “so far i find not enoughwrong with the emorites (so as to expel them from the land)", because justa few verses later we read at Genesis 15: 18, 21:
“In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram,saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto thegreat river, the river Euphrates: …theAmorite, the Canaanite, and the Gera-ge-$e-ya and the A-bu-u-se-ya.” The issue at hand is not that “so far i find not enoughwrong with the emorites (so as to expel them from the land)", but ratherthat the Amorite successor to Mamre the Amorite is behaving iniquitously towardthe first Hebrews right now, threatening to drive the Hebrews out of the ruralnirvana pastureland that was their homeland. Why is “the Amorite” singled out for concernas to “iniquity” at Genesis 15: 16? It’sbecause that one Amorite princeling ruler, namely the successor to Mamre theAmorite, is now acting iniquitously toward the first Hebrews, and somethingmust be done about that. Please note that once Mamre the Amorite is out of thepicture after chapter 14 of Genesis, neither Abraham nor any other Patriarchever again succeeds in having a covenant relationship with a princeling rulerin or near the Patriarchs’ Hebron. Assuch, there no longer was any guarantee that the tent dwelling Hebrews couldcontinue to stay there! Each of Abrahamand Isaac establishes such a valuable alliance relationship with princelingAbimelek in GRR, and unfortunately Jacob briefly establishes such arelationship with the untrustworthy Amorite princeling Hamor of Shechem. But never again does a Patriarch have analliance with a princeling who lives in or near the Patriarchs’ Hebron. Can’t you see that something has goneterribly wrong? What is it? The Amorite successor to Mamre the Amoritehates tent dwellers [such as the Hebrews], and is trying to drive the Hebrewsout of their beloved homeland. T-h-a-t is “the iniquity of theAmorite”. That’s what happened historically,and all the clues are there for us to determine that such is being accuratelyrecounted in the Patriarchal narratives. We even know the e-x-a-c-t year that this happened, by reference toGenesis 14: 5. It all checks out,with p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy. There’s no way that JEP could be making thisstuff up! Not when e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g checks out perfectly in the precisehistorical timeframe stated at Genesis 14: 4-5 [about 700 years or so beforeJEP]. When 7 out of 7 firstborn sons in the Patriarchal narrativesget the shaft and properly so -- Haran, Lot, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Er andMannaseh -- that’s telling us something. That’s telling us that historically, the first Hebrews got shafted bythe unduly favored firstborn son of Mamre the Amorite, who hated having tentdwellers in his land. Mamre the Amoriteshould have done as Abraham did: although initially favoring firstborn son Ishmael, Abraham eventuallymade the gut-wrenching, correct decision to name younger son Isaac as Abraham’sproper successor. Do you see theanalogy? In order that we will be sureto see that analogy, Mamre the Amorite was married to a Hurrian woman, and thatis how Abraham is portrayed: Sarah’sbirth name $RY is not attested as a west Semitic name, but is attested in thistime period as the Hurrian woman’s name $aru-ya. Mamre the Amorite was wealthy, and that ishow Abraham is portrayed. They bothlived in the same general locale. Do yousee what I mean? The point of all this is that based on the Biblicaltestimony, the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives was trying totell Mamre the Amorite on his death bed, by means of composing and telling toMamre the Amorite an early version of the Patriarchal narratives, that Mamrethe Amorite should not name as his successor his tent dweller-hating firstbornson, but rather should name as his successor Mamre the Amorite’s fine youngerson. We know for certain historicallythat the younger son was more than willing to ally with tent dwellers like theearly Hebrews. But alas, Mamre theAmorite did not heed that good advice, and in due course was succeeded by histent dweller-hating firstborn son, both historically and as implied by chapters14-15 of Genesis, who proved a disaster as Mamre the Amorite’s successor. That’s “the iniquity of the Amorite”. It’s fully historical. Everything checks out. Everything. Jim Stinehart Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
