Karl Randoph wrote: “As far as Abram’s connections with aparticular Amorite, that it was mentioned only once shows that it was probablyno more than the likes of a rental agreement. That it was not a closerelationship can be seen in that Abram told the king of Sodom to make aseparate arrangement with Abram’s Amorite ally after the battle instead of thetwo acting in concert.”
Not true. For people like the first Hebrews wholived in tents, it was of critical importance to have an understanding with themost powerful princeling in the area where you had pitched your tents. Ideally, it would even rise to the level ofan alliance [or league or covenant], as it does between Abram and Mamre theAmorite at Genesis 14: 13. That meantthat you had the legal right to pitch your tents there, and you would not besurprised in the middle of the night by some horse-mounted noblemen kicking youoff of their land. The Biblical text emphasizes thatalthough the Patriarchs were quite wealthy, they did not own the land on whichthey sojourned. Thus it was veryimportant to be in league with the most powerful princeling in the area. We see that with Mamre the Amorite at the Patriarchs’Hebron at Genesis 14: 13, with Abimelek and Abram in GRR in chapters 20-21 ofGenesis, with Abimelek and Isaac in chapter 26 of Genesis, and with Jacob andHamor at Shechem at the beginning of chapter 34 of Genesis [before thesituation with Hamor quickly turns bad]. The early Hebrew author is telling us,albeit indirectly, that once Mamre the Amorite died after chapter 14 ofGenesis, that by the time we get to chapter 15 of Genesis the new princelingruler in the area of the Patriarchs’ Hebron has refused to get along with theearly Hebrews. Historically, tentdweller-friendly Mamre the Amorite was succeeded in Year 14 [referenced atGenesis 14: 5] by his firstborn son who hated tent dwellers, and who was adisaster as the new princeling ruler of the general area where the Patriarchsloved to sojourn. That firstborn son is “theAmorite” whose “iniquity” is of great concern at Genesis 15: 16. We’re not given his historical name [unlikethe historical name of Mamre the Amorite, which is set forth at Genesis 46: 17,immediately before the XBR root of “Hebron”], nor are we even given much of aPatriarchal nickname for this nefarious firstborn son, other than “the Amorite”whose “iniquity” is of such concern. The text is telling us whathistorically was the case: after the beginningof Year 14, the tent dwellers at the Patriarchs’ Hebron no longer were incovenant relationship with the most powerful princeling in the area. That meant that from then on, they could notbe sure of their status in their rural nirvana pastureland that was theirhomeland. The divine promises of land inGenesis were particularly important to a people who had just now lost theirlegal status as tent dwellers in this fine pastureland. Abram’s covenant with Mamre the Amorite wasnever replicated by any Patriarch at that location, after Mamre the Amorite’sdeath early in Year 14 shortly after the end of chapter 14 of Genesis. If per Genesis 14: 5 we realize that Year 14is the time period in which these traumatic events for the first Hebrews areplaying out, we can readily confirm a-l-l of the above by reference to non-biblical sources regarding Year14. The received text of the Patriarchalnarratives has p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy in these regards. Jim Stinehart Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
