The Meaning of ’Z / אז / “then” at Genesis 13: 7

[Jason Hare]

I agree that out of context, that might be a legitimate reading of Genesis 13: 7. You see the Patriarchal narratives as having been written after the Canaanites had been eliminated from Canaan. I, by contrast, see the Patriarchal narratives as having been written (in cuneiform) in the mid-14th century BCE, when virtually all of the inhabitants of Canaan were Canaanites.

In other words, the way that you interpret the text on a macro level influences how you view the meaning of individual words and leads you to reject what they are traditionally taken to mean.

I don't know how you could possibly support the claim that the text was written in cuneiform or that it was written in the 14th century BCE. This is so far afield of the study of biblical Hebrew that I just don't know what its relevance is for this forum. I don't see anything in what you present that actually forwards or engages the study of the Hebrew language. What cuneiform language do you think the Torah was written in? Akkadian? Sumerian? Hurrian? Do you surmise that Hebrew was originally written in this fashion? Are you just arguing for a re-definition of אז based on your theory on the dating of the Torah's composition?

Help me understand what you're saying and how it relates to Hebrew.

[Jason Hare]

If פריזי is a Hurrian name meaning “Hurrian lord” or “Hurrian nobleman” or “Hurrian princeling”, I don't know as I have no inkling of the "Hurrian" language. I think we should better stay with what we know first hand.

I have to agree. I know nothing about Hurrian language or culture, and it's hard to see how this directly relates to what we are all here for: Biblical Hebrew. One would think that a discussion of the meaning(s) of אָז (for example) would take into account the various verses in which the word is used and how it might take on specific nuances within given contexts. Instead, we just throw out the single Hebrew word and re-interpret it based on a complete re-alignment of the authorship of the Pentateuch in connection with obscure texts in languages that we don't know.

I can certainly appreciate the value of Comparative Semitics. But I don't see how all of this relates to the language that brings us all here: Hebrew. I just keep coming back to that because my head kinda spins in trying to make sense of the amount of assumptions that are made to hold up these theories.

[Jim Stinehart]

Jason Hare:

You wrote: “I don't know how you could possibly support the claim that the text was written in cuneiform or that it was written in the 14th century BCE. This is so far afield of the study of biblical Hebrew that I just don't know what its relevance is for this forum. I don't see anything in what you present that actually forwards or engages the study of the Hebrew language. What cuneiform language do you think the Torah was written in? Akkadian? Sumerian? Hurrian? Do you surmise that Hebrew was originally written in this fashion? Are you just arguing for a re-definition of אז based on your theory on the dating of the Torah's composition? Help me understand what you're saying and how it relates to Hebrew.”

Glad to be of assistance.

Only the Patriarchal narratives, not any other part of the Torah, was originally written in cuneiform. Instead of pairing Akkadian vocabulary with Canaanite grammar as is oddly done in the Amarna Letters, the cuneiform writing used for the Patriarchal narratives paired Canaanite vocabulary with Canaanite grammar. Canaanite is quite similar to Biblical Hebrew.

On my theory of the case, the Patriarchal narratives are much older than any other part of the Bible. Also on my theory of the case, as opposed to the scholarly view, the Patriarchal narratives have pinpoint historical accuracy in describing the world of the tent-dwelling first Hebrews in Year 13 in the mid-14th century BCE. My prior posts on this very thread have documented a wealth of accurate historical information from the mid-14th century BCE in the received text of the last 40 chapters of Genesis that could not possibly have been known by anyone on planet Earth in the 1st millennium BCE.

To address your specific question, the single best example of the Patriarchal narratives being a mid-14th century BCE written text in cuneiform is, as I have noted before on an earlier thread, the word transliterated by KJV at Genesis 14: 15 as “Hobah”.

The direct evidence for the Patriarchal narratives having originally been written in cuneiform is a series of cuneiform-induced scribal errors in the received text of the last 40 chapters of Genesis. First and foremost in this regard is “Hobah”, at Genesis 14: 15.

In context, “Hobah” at Genesis 14: 15 must mean “a site north of Damascus, Syria”, or to be more precise (based on the Amarna Letters cited below): “the Hurrian-based name used in the Amarna Age mid-14th century BCE for the area northwest of Damascus, which adjoins the central Beqa Valley”. Yet the name “Hobah” has heretofore been considered inexplicable; as Prof. Gordon Wenham puts it: “Hobah, a site mentioned nowhere else in the Bible or in other ancient texts.” Abram rescues Lot at a locale north of (“on the left hand of”) Damascus, in the region northwest of Damascus, Syria (“Hobah”), at or near the beginning point of the Orontes River / Danu in the central Beqa Valley.

Cuneiform writing cannot distinguish between heth/ḫ/ח and he/h/ה. Pursuant to a cuneiform-induced scribal error (with cuneiform not distinguishing between heth/ḫ and he/h [and with the latter rendering ha and meaning “the” in Hebrew]), what the received text shows as “Hobah” / ḪWBH / חובה was intended to be H - [’]WBH / אובה - ה / “the Ubi”, being the Hurrian name in the Amarna Letters for land northwest of Damascus, Syria. If Genesis 14: 1-15 was written down in cuneiform at the time of the Great Syrian War (my controversial view), then it is very possible both that the “four kings with five” reflects long-forgotten nomenclature that was used regarding Syria at that time, and also that, understandably, a cuneiform-induced scribal error applies to the mysterious name “Hobah” at Genesis 14: 15.

By the time the original cuneiform text was transformed into alphabetical Hebrew (in 7th century BCE Jerusalem, on my view), the archaic Hurrian geographical place name (“the Ubi”) from the mid-14th century BCE had long been forgotten. This truly ancient name had been recorded in cuneiform using an ambiguous cuneiform sign that did not distinguish ה/h/he from ח/ḫ/heth. Accordingly, the “Hobah” / ḪWBH / חובה that we see in the received text must have been intended to be H - WBH / ובה - ה -- where the initial H/ה = ha / “the”, rather than being heth/Ḫ. As to the second letter [vav/W/ו], in standard Hebrew orthography, unlike in cuneiform, the vowel sound U at the beginning of a word or name cannot begin with vav/W/ו, but rather must begin with either aleph/’/א alone or aleph-vav/’W/או. So the proper rendering in alphabetical Hebrew is H - ’WBH / אובה - ה, where (i) the first letter is H/ה / ha / “the”, and (ii) the second letter (vav) must be preceded by an aleph: aleph-vav/’W/או. As such, “Hobah” = the Ubi.

As to cuneiform not distinguishing he from heth, we know that the cuneiform of the Amarna Letters did not distinguish ה/h from ח/ḫ: “n the [cuneiform of the] El Amarna tablets the h, ḥ, ǵ, and sometimes even ’ [aleph] and ‘ [ayin] are represented by [cuneiform] signs with ḫ....” Yohanan Aharoni, “The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography” (1979), p. 113.

Three Amarna Letters from Hurrian princelings -- including EA 189: R12 from Etakama [Biblical “Arioch”] and EA 53: 56-62 from Akizzi [Biblical “Shemeber”], as well as EA 197: 34 -- reference “Ubi”, and all three refer to Ubi in the context of the region northwest of Damascus that adjoins the central Beqa Valley. This is fully consistent with Genesis 14: 15 expressly referring to land north of Damascus. (This Hurrian name “Ubi” is alternatively rendered as “Ube” or “Upu” or “Apu”.)

From a Biblical Hebrew language point of view [the long suit of this forum], the name of a region is preceded by the definite article ha/h/H/ה; thus “the Mizpeh [region]” at Genesis 31: 49 is H-MṢPH / המצפה, and likewise at Joshua 10: 40 we see both “the south region” as H-NGB / הנגב, and “the Shephelah [region]” as H-ŠPLH / השפלה. So in the Amarna Age, the Hurrian-dominated Damascus region would have been known as “the Ubi”, if Canaanite / pre-Hebrew had the definite article that early. In two recent articles, linguist Na’ama Pat-El has argued for a much earlier development of the west Semitic definite article than previously supposed. In response to a specific question from me as to how old the definite article was in Hebrew and Canaanite, Prof. Pat-El responded as follows:

“Indeed, the article is probably very old. I think it already existed at least as far back as proto Canaanite, i.e. it developed before Hebrew split from its sister languages.”

In fact, the west Semitic / Canaanite / pre-Hebrew definite article ha, meaning “the” and spelled h/H/ה in Hebrew, is probably attested as early as the 15th century BCE, in the geographical place name Hassil‘a / ha-Sil‘a / H-ÇL‘ / הסלע / “The Rock”. Anson Rainey, “The Sacred Bridge” (2006), p. 70.

As such, the ultra-mysterious name “Hobah” / ḪWBH / חובה that we see in the received text at Genesis 14: 15 is revealed to be a cuneiform-induced scribal error for what was intended: H - [’]WBH, that is, “the Ubi”. Indeed, once one knows to ask whether an otherwise inexplicable cuneiform heth in initial position may be the Canaanite word for “the” (being he / ha), the foregoing analysis of “Hobah” becomes quite obvious. But one must be willing to take into consideration the well-attested Hurrian name (Ubi) in the Amarna Letters for land northwest of Damascus, Syria that adjoins the central Beqa Valley.

* * *

Jason Hare, I hope you would agree that no one knew the Hurrian-based name for land northwest of Damascus (Ubi) in the 1st millennium BCE. The only plausible explanation for “Hobah” in the received text is as a cuneiform-based scribal error, which could occur only on the basis of a written cuneiform text of the Patriarchal narratives from the Late Bronze Age.

Jim Stinehart

[Isaac Fried]

1. There is no "definite article" in Hebrew, "definite article" is English not Hebrew. The front -הַ is in my opinion the personal pronoun
היא - הוּא that gives the following subject a name and thereby renders it specific. As such, היא - הוּא dates back to really olden times.
It is possible that היא - הוּא were once upon a time (and place) חִיא - חוּא (possibly out of חַי, 'existing, alive.) Hebrew speakers today routinely further soften היא - הוּא into a mere אִי -אוּ.

2. "proto Canaanite" as well as "proto Semitic" is a myth - historical fiction, legends.

3. I am unable to comment on "cuneiform writing", the "Akkadian vocabulary", nor on "the Amarna Letters", since I am unable to read them, and I prefer to stay with what I know first hand only .

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Jason Hare:

You interpret ’Z / אז / “then” at Genesis 13: 7 as reflecting a composition date for the Patriarchal narratives as being after the elimination of the Canaanites from Canaan. In addition, you have specifically questioned whether I can adduce any substantial evidence to support my controversial view that the Patriarchal narratives (i) were originally written in cuneiform in the mid-14th century BCE, and (ii) set forth an accurate account of the world of the tent-dwelling first Hebrews in Year 13, featuring large amounts of specific historical details that could not possibly have been known by any Jewish author in Jerusalem after the elimination of the Canaanites from Canaan.

Isaac Fried has requested that there be no consideration of any non-west Semitic names or words.

Here is my attempt to prove my above assertions definitively, while not using any non-west Semitic names or words.

Jason, you and Isaac Fried and everyone else have uncritically accepted the following seven falsities that all university scholars claim apply to the stories in chapters 20-21 and 26-28 of Genesis about Abraham and Isaac at a Beersheba:

(i) Isaac gets rich growing wheat near Beersheba of the Negev Desert. (Absolutely impossible.)

(ii) Each of Abraham and Isaac effortless builds a series of wells near Beersheba of the Negev Desert that are worth fighting over, that is, that work in the dry season. (Absolutely impossible.)

(iii) After proceeding southeast from near Gaza, and being at a point that is at a higher elevation than Beersheba of the Negev Desert, Isaac goes “up” / alah / עלה to Beersheba of the Negev Desert, which lies at the bottom of a basin. Genesis 26: 23. (Absolutely impossible.)

(iv) Esau routinely successfully hunts big game, to his father Isaac’s delight, at Beersheba of the Negev Desert. (Absolutely impossible.)

(v) Isaac’s younger twin son, Jacob, becomes the Bible’s best shepherd tending a large flock of sheep and goats for his father for many years at Beersheba of the Negev Desert. (Absolutely impossible.)

(vi) There is no historical evidence of a ruler named “Abimelek” in the Patriarchal Age near the Beersheba where Abraham and Isaac dig wells. (Totally false.)

(vii) There is no historical evidence of a ruler, who lived near the Beersheba where Abraham and Isaac dig wells, constantly complaining about contested access to valuable water wells (as Abimelek is portrayed in the Biblical text). (Totally false.)

I think everyone would agree that all Jewish authors of any part of the Bible know the geography of southern Canaan like the back of their hand. The first five items above are impossible near or at Beersheba of the Negev Desert, due to geography, climate and topography, as was well known by every Jewish Biblical author and their entire original audiences.

However, all seven of the above falsities disappear entirely if the Beersheba in question in the above chapters of Genesis is Beersheba of Upper Galilee, rather than being, as always has heretofore been assumed, the more famous Beersheba of the Negev Desert.

The received text of Genesis 20: 1 refers to שור, being either “Shur” or “Sur” (with a shin or sin). Outside of the Bible, no place on planet Earth has ever been attested as having that geographical place name.

But now consider my view, that the Patriarchal narratives were originally recorded in cuneiform. In cuneiform, ssade-vav cannot be distinguished from sin-vav; and since unpointed Hebrew writing does not distinguish sin from shin, shin-vav is another possibility. Accordingly, we should ask if שור at Genesis 20: 1 is a cuneiform-induced scribal error, where the first letter in this hitherto inexplicable geographical place name was intended to be a ssade. Hey, now the reference is to one of the most famous cities in the world: ҪWR / צור / Ṣu-ur (with a ssade, not a sin or shin), which due to Greek mispronunciation is conventionally spelled in English as “Tyre”.

Now e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g makes perfect sense, with the Beersheba in question being revealed to be Beersheba of Upper Galilee (not, as ordinarily supposed, Beersheba of the Negev Desert). All seven falsities disappear completely:

(i) Isaac gets rich growing wheat near Beersheba of Upper Galilee. (Makes perfect sense.)

(ii) Each of Abraham and Isaac effortless builds a series of wells near Beersheba of Upper Galilee that are worth fighting over, that is, that work in the dry season. (Makes perfect sense. Indeed, after Israel was founded as a state after World War II, Israeli scientists determined that the best place to build wells was, precisely, the west coast of Upper Galilee.)

(iii) After digging wells near the coast of Upper Galilee, Isaac goes “up” / alah / עלה to Beersheba of Upper Galilee, high up in the foothills. (Makes perfect sense.)

(iv) Esau routinely successfully hunts big game, to his father Isaac’s delight, immediately east of Beersheba of Upper Galilee; in the Bronze Age, the entire central plateau of Upper Galilee was covered by a dense forest that, as far west as Beersheba of Upper Galilee, was ideal for hunting big game. (Makes perfect sense.)

(v) Isaac’s younger twin son, Jacob, becomes the Bible’s best shepherd tending a large flock of sheep and goats for his father for many years just west of Beersheba of Upper Galilee. (Makes perfect sense.)

(vi) We know from the Amarna Letters that ’Z / אז / “then”, that is, in Year 13 (per Genesis 14: 4), the leading princeling in western Upper Galilee (at Tyre) was indeed named “Abimelek”.

(vii) Historical Abimelek in the Amarna Letters has the identical key characteristic as Biblical Abimelek in the Patriarchal narratives: he was constantly complaining about contested access to valuable water wells.

Please note that no Jewish author, after the Canaanites had been eliminated from Canaan, could possibly have known the above detailed historical facts about Abimelek of Tyre in Year 13 in the mid-14th century BCE. No way.

As to the other three geographical references at Genesis 20: 1: (i) “Kadesh” is the real Kadesh, the well-known Late Bronze Age city in eastern Upper Galilee (with there being no Kadesh or Kadesh-barnea being attested outside the Bible anywhere near the Negev Desert or the Sinai Desert); (ii) GRR / “Gerar” is Gariree, being the Late Bronze Age pronunciation of “Galilee”, per item #80 on the mid-15th century BCE Thutmose III list of places in Canaan; and (iii) in context, we can now figure out that the “Negev” here refers to Adami-the-Negev, in eastern Lower Galilee, as attested at item #57 on the T III list (with “Negev” not being attested as the formal name of the desert south of Canaan until Roman times).

* * *

I rest my case for the Patriarchal narratives being originally written in cuneiform in the mid-14th century BCE, which set forth an accurate account of the world of the tent-dwelling first Hebrews in Year 13, featuring large amounts of specific historical details that could not possibly have been known by any Jewish author in Jerusalem after the elimination of the Canaanites from Canaan.

The Patriarchal narratives are much older, and much more historically accurate, than university scholars realize.

Jim Stinehart

[Isaac Fried]

60% of all the wheat grown in Israel today is grown in the Negeb

https://school.kotar.cet.ac.il/KotarApp ... D=72966602

גידולים בולטים בנגב: היישובים הכפריים שהוקמו באזורי הנגב השונים מאמצע המאה העשרים ואילך , ביססו את המשקים שלהם על חקלאות מודרנית וגידלו גידולים שונים . כיום מגדלים בנגב מיגוון גידולים נרחב - ירקות , גידולי שדה , מטעים , בעלי חיים ועוד . נכיר כמה גידולים בולטים - כמה מהם מהווים חלק מהחקלאות בנגב מאז הקמת המדינה , והאחרים גידולים שהוחדרו בתקופות מאוחרות יותר . t ו . "ארץ חיטה ושעורה " החיטה היא מרכיב חשוב במזונו של האדם . בישראל מגדלים כיום רק כשליש מכמות החיטה הדרושה לתושבי המדינה , ואת השאר מייבאים ממדינות אחרות . כ 60% משטחי החיטה בארץ נמצאים בנגב , בעיקר בחלקו הצפוני . ומדוע דווקא שם ? - כי בצפון הנגב יש שטחי לס נרחבים - קרקע שהיא נוחה לגידול החיטה לאחר פעולות הכשרה מתאימות . - כי בצפון הנגב - בניגוד לשאר חלקיו של הנגב - שורר אקלים צחיח למחצה , וכמות המשקעים השנתית הממוצעת מספיקה בדרך כלל כדי לגדל את החיטה כגידול בעל , כמעט ללא תוספת השקיה מלאכותית . - כי הטמפרטורות בתקופת החורף נוחות ואין כמעט סכנת קרה העלולה לפגוע ביבולי החיטה .

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Isaac Fried:

You wrote: “60% of all the wheat grown in Israel today is grown in the Negeb.”

Yes, it’s unbelievable what Israelis have done in the Negeb. But that’s all in modern times. In the Patriarchal Age, there was no wheat grown near Gaza or near Beersheba of the Negev Desert. Rather, in the Patriarchal Age the breadbasket of Canaan was the lush Jezreel Valley (the site of Lot’s Sodom). A second good site for growing wheat in ancient times was Galilee, with its lovely rolling plains.

Here’s a 1987 article on the subject of how Israelis have performed agricultural miracles in the Negev Desert, titled “Turning sand into land. Desert farms in Israel grow lush crops from sand and salty water.”

“IMAGINE a vast expanse of moonscape rock and sand that has been a desolate hothouse since pre-history. Here at the lowest point on Earth, 1,200 feet below sea level, with an average of 355 sunny days and barely an inch of rain each year, where daytime temperatures often exceed 120 degrees F. and nights can fall below freezing, is the Negev Desert, the southern two-thirds of Israel. And that's where Kalman Eisenmann makes a nice living growing tomatoes, peppers, and melons.

…Nearby, golden fields of midget wheat able to produce 35 percent more grain per acre than full-size plants are ready for harvest.”

https://www.csmonitor.com/1987/0519/dsand.html

Jim Stinehart