Panym at Genesis 32: 3

[Jim Stinehart]

Jason Hare:

You wrote: “Essentially, you're arguing for a re-identification of Mt. Seir in the Patriarchal Narratives? That's what this whole thing is about?”

1. Rather than “Mt. Seir”, a better translation would be: “the hill country of Seir”.

2. This thread is about a close reading of the Hebrew text of Genesis 32: 3, in particular the precise implications of ləp̄ānāv in that particular context.

Jacob was near Mahanaim / Penuel, and was, very slowly, heading straight west along the northern bank of the Jabbok River to Succoth. Then after his livestock had recovered there (and, in my opinion it is implied though not expressly so stated, also after completing his reconciliation with Esau), Jacob eventually headed on further west to Shechem in Jacob’s beloved homeland of Canaan, which Jacob had not seen for 20 long years. At Genesis 32: 3, Jacob is heading west (very slowly), and Jacob is thinking west (since beloved Canaan is west of where Jacob was at the time).

Genesis 32: 3 says that Jacob sent messengers ləp̄ānāv / before him / before his face / ahead of him / on ahead to Esau in Seir / Udumu / “Edom”. The question posed by this thread is whether such Biblical Hebrew nomenclature -- ləp̄ānāv -- in that particular context effectively mandates that Esau’s Seir must be located west of Mahanaim / Penuel: north of the Jabbok River, east of the Jordan River, and south of Bashan.

Most all of today’s university scholars insist that Esau was living 100 miles south of Mahanaim / Penuel, south of the Dead Sea, based on what is said in chapter 2 of Deuteronomy. This, despite the inconvenient facts that outside of the Bible, Seir is never attested near the Dead Sea, and the only historical attestation of Seir is as the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan in the Late Bronze Age: north of the Jabbok River, east of the Jordan River, and south of Bashan.

The expertise of the b-Hebrew list is the precise meaning of Biblical Hebrew language, in various contexts. This thread
asks whether ləp̄ānāv, in the context of Genesis 32: 3, effectively mandates that Esau’s Seir must be located west of Mahanaim / Penuel, n-o-t south of the Dead Sea, as ordinarily supposed.

Ultimately, the reason why this question of the precise meaning of the Biblical Hebrew word ləp̄ānāv in context is so very important is as follows: (i) as you say, “a re-identification of Mt. Seir in the Patriarchal Narratives” is being proposed; (ii) such a re-identification of the hill country of Seir in Genesis would mean that Seir in the Patriarchal narratives has its historical meaning of the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan in the Late Bronze Age -- north of the Jabbok River, east of the Jordan River, and south of Bashan; and (iii) this is an important first step in showing that the Patriarchal narratives, far from being fiction ginned up by Jewish authors in 1st millennium BCE Jerusalem, as university scholars would have it, instead date all the long way back to the Late Bronze Age, having been recorded in cuneiform writing at that time, and as such having the real possibility of being incredibly accurate on an historical basis.

My posts on the b-Hebrew list attempt to show that if we look carefully at what the precise words of the Biblical Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives actually say, as opposed to blindly accepting “forced” readings by university scholars, we will find to our wondrous amazement that the Patriarchal narratives have pinpoint historical accuracy in describing the world of the first Hebrews in the mid-14th century BCE.

Exhibit A in this regard is the Biblical Hebrew word ləp̄ānāv, in the context of Genesis 32: 3, which in my opinion effectively mandates that Esau is portrayed as living with Hurrian in-laws in the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan / Seir / Udumu / “Edom” in the Late Bronze Age: w-e-s-t of Mahanaim / Penuel.

Jim Stinehart

[Jason Hare]

2. This thread is about a close reading of the Hebrew text of Genesis 32: 3, in particular the precise implications of ləp̄ānāv in that particular context.

Excellent! I'm glad to see you say this, that the thread (indeed, the forum!) is about close readings of the Hebrew text. How closely have you read the Hebrew text itself? Apart from לְפָנָיו, is there anything that you get specifically from reading the Hebrew text that would indicate that we need to re-direct our thinking on this issue?

Google Maps has Mahanaim (מַחֲנָ֫יִם) nearly directly north of Mt. Seir, which I must assume is related to the "land of Seir" (אֶ֫רֶץ שֵׂעִיר). This must be taken as a reference to the land around the mountain, which was in Moab.

Why do you imagine him traveling westward instead of southward? Why is this a major point of conflict?

Exhibit A in this regard is the Biblical Hebrew word ləp̄ānāv, in the context of Genesis 32: 3, which in my opinion effectively mandates that Esau is portrayed as living with Hurrian in-laws in the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan / Seir / Udumu / “Edom” in the Late Bronze Age: w-e-s-t of Mahanaim / Penuel.

So, you have Jacob living in Hurrian territory and then traveling back through Moab into the Promised Land? Why could he not be traveling south? I don't get the importance of this divergence from the standard position. I think I need to go back and look through your postings here. I wonder to what extent your arguments are self-sustaining and confirming of one another, and how much you find the need to reject what is said by all other scholars of the Hebrew Bible.

I'll read through the thread again.

[Schubert]

My simplistic response is that much of this thread has wandered beyond the remit of B-Hebrew.

[Jason Hare]

My simplistic response is that much of this thread has wandered beyond the remit of B-Hebrew.

Did it begin within said remit? I don't think it's gone anywhere beyond where it began.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason says
Hence my twice mentioned statement that it was either temporal (time) or spatial (location).

Yes, except that it would be good to bring a biblical quote to support such a claim of space and time about the interesting Hebrew word לְפָנָיו.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Jason Hare:

1. You wrote: “How closely have you read the Hebrew text itself? Apart from לְפָנָיו, is there anything that you get specifically from reading the Hebrew text that would indicate that we need to re-direct our thinking on this issue?”

University scholars tell us that the ḪRY / חרי in Genesis are fictional cave-dwelling troglodytes in a place where there are no caves: the land south of the Dead Sea, which per chapter 2 of D-e-u-t-e-r-o-n-m-y is supposedly, per university scholars, the geographical locale of Seir in G-e-n-e-s-i-s .

But at Late Bronze Age Ugarit, those identical three letters, ḫry, being the same as ḪRY / חרי at Genesis 14: 6, referencing a people who are said there to live in Seir, refer to the historical Hurrians, including Hurrians who lived in Seir. The one and only historical meaning of Seir as a geographical place name is the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan in the Late Bronze Age: north of the Jabbok River, east of the Jordan River, and south of Bashan.

The natural reading of Genesis 32: 3 is that (i) Jacob is traveling west along the northern bank of the Jabbok River toward his beloved homeland of Canaan, and has temporarily stopped near Manahaim / Penuel, (ii) Esau lives a short distance to the west -- north of the Jabbok River, east of the Jordan River -- in Seir, given the Late Bronze Age historical meaning of “Seir”, and (iii) Jacob sends messengers ləp̄ānāv / before him / before his face / ahead of him / on ahead to Esau in Seir / Udumu / “Edom”.

2. You wrote: “Google Maps has Mahanaim (מַחֲנָ֫יִם) nearly directly north of Mt. Seir, which I must assume is related to the "land of Seir" (אֶ֫רֶץ שֵׂעִיר). This must be taken as a reference to the land around the mountain, which was in Moab.”

There is no “Mt. Seir”. Why on earth would you rely on Google Maps, of all sources, for the geographical location of a Biblical place name? Google Maps knows n-o-t-h-i-n-g about the historical meaning of “Seir” as a geographical place name, for heaven’s sake.

The only non-Biblical reference to the hill country of Seir (not “Mt. Seir”, which does not exist outside of the Bible) is in Late Bronze Age primary sources that identify Seir (a Hurrian name) as referencing the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan: north of the Jabbok River, east of the Jordan River, and south of Bashan.

3. You wrote: “Why do you imagine him traveling westward instead of southward?”
Because Jacob is returning to his beloved homeland of Canaan, after 20 long years of absence, and Canaan is to the w-e-s-t of Manahaim / Penuel.

Genesis 31: 18 explicitly tells us that Jacob was heading toward Canaan to see his father Isaac: “And he [Jacob] carried away all his cattle, and all his goods which he had gotten, the cattle of his getting, which he had gotten in Padanaram, for to go to Isaac his father in the land of Canaan.”

Once Jacob got to the Jabbok River (Genesis 32: 22), Canaan was straight w-e-s-t of there, not south.

Why on earth would you think that Jacob might be going southward?! Going to the southern end of the Dead Sea would be 100 miles out of the way, if Jacob’s objective is (per logic and per Genesis 31: 18) to return to his beloved homeland of Canaan. That makes no sense at all.

Note also that at this particular point and time, Jacob is at his very weakest. His flock and shepherds are utterly exhausted (Genesis 33: 13), and Jacob is in strange territory with no friends or acquaintances in the area. Jacob fears that his older twin brother Esau may be hostile (Genesis 32: 7). If Esau lived 100 miles south of Manahaim / Penuel, south of the Dead Sea, in Moab or where the state of Udumu / “Edom” later arose in the 8th century BCE, then there’s no way that Jacob would go 100 miles out of his way to see a potentially hostile Esau at this time. Rather, Jacob would in that event have gone straight west into Canaan, and then at some later point in time, when Jacob’s flock and shepherds were not exhausted, Jacob could have sent messengers down south to make contact with Esau.

4. You wrote: “So, you have Jacob living in Hurrian territory and then traveling back through Moab into the Promised Land? Why could he not be traveling south? I don't get the importance of this divergence from the standard position.”

(a) No one in the Patriarchal narratives is ever in Moab. (The only two references to Moab in Genesis are obviously later-added glosses. For example, the phrase “unto this very day” makes that explicit at Genesis 19: 37.)

(b) Jacob is traveling straight west along the northern bank of the Jabbok River in returning west to Canaan. Genesis 32: 22 explicitly references the Jabbok River, whereas there is no reference in this sequence whatsoever to Moab (or the Dead Sea or any other desolate area). Jacob must travel through Seir to get to the Promised Land of Canaan, where Seir has its historical Late Bronze Age meaning: the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan, north of the Jabbok River, east of the Jordan River, and south of Bashan.

(c) Jacob cannot be traveling south, because (i) Genesis 31: 18 explicitly tells us that Jacob was returning to Canaan, and Canaan is west, not south, of Jacob’s location at Manahaim / Penuel at Genesis 32: 3, and (ii) Jacob would not, idiotically, make a detour 100 long miles out of his way to visit his twin brother near the southern end of the Dead Sea, because per Genesis 32: 7, “Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed” concerning meeting his estranged older twin brother, and as noted above Jacob was at this moment and time at his weakest.

(d) As to “the importance of this divergence from the standard position”, if we examine what the Biblical Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives actually says, instead of blindly following the scholarly misinterpretation thereof, it turns out that no one in the last 40 chapters of Genesis is ever at or near the Dead Sea. When in or near Canaan, both the Hebrew Patriarchs and their close relatives (Lot, Esau) invariably choose to sojourn on land that, centuries later, became part of Israel, while never stepping foot in the heartland of Judah (or south of Judah).

On this particular thread, the focus is on ləp̄ānāv and “Seir” at Genesis 32: 3. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. In addition to Genesis 32: 3, there are dozens of other places in this Biblical text where university scholars “force” the Hebrew text to say something that it manifestly does not say, in order to try to save their false theory that the Patriarchal narratives are allegedly fiction ginned up by Israel-hating Jewish authors in 1st millennium BCE Jerusalem.

Jason Hare, after reading this post, don’t you agree that the “standard” reading of Genesis 32: 3 is in fact a “forced” reading, which cannot honestly be squared with what the Hebrew text is actually saying? Jacob was traveling w-e-s-t to get back to his beloved homeland of Canaan to the west, and he sent messengers ləp̄ānāv / before him / before his face / ahead of him / on ahead to Esau in Seir / Udumu / “Edom”. Genesis 32: 3 makes sense, in context, if and only if “Seir” is given its Late Bronze Age historical meaning: the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan, north of the Jabbok River, east of the Jordan River, and south of Bashan.

But no university scholar can tolerate that reading, so they “force” Genesis 32: 3 to allegedly have a meaning that it does not have.

Jim Stinehart

[Jason Hare]

There is no “Mt. Seir”. Why on earth would you rely on Google Maps, of all sources, for the geographical location of a Biblical place name? Google Maps knows n-o-t-h-i-n-g about the historical meaning of “Seir” as a geographical place name, for heaven’s sake.

The Bible mentions "Mount Seir" (see Deuteronomy 1:2, where it mentions הַר־שֵׂעִיר). You seem to want to confirm that the biblical text is historical, yet you would do this by denying that the Bible calls Seir a mountain? I'm sorry, but you've got me confused.

Because Jacob is returning to his beloved homeland of Canaan, after 20 long years of absence, and Canaan is to the w-e-s-t of Manahaim / Penuel.

I think you mean Mahanaim (מַחֲנַ֫יִם Maḥănáyim, related to the the Hebrew word מַחֲנֶה maḥănɛh). Based on Joshua 15:10, people seem to say that there is a second location called Mount Seir near Kiryat-Yearim (link). In fact, this reference also mentions "Mount Seir" specifically. This is the one that is directly west of Mahanaim, yet it also names it a mountain.

Once Jacob got to the Jabbok River (Genesis 32: 22), Canaan was straight w-e-s-t of there, not south.

Apparently true. Where does this get us?

Why on earth would you think that Jacob might be going southward?! Going to the southern end of the Dead Sea would be 100 miles out of the way, if Jacob’s objective is (per logic and per Genesis 31: 18) to return to his beloved homeland of Canaan. That makes no sense at all.

I agree. I wasn't aware before today that there was a second place called "Mount Seir." Going south wouldn't make sense if his intention was to get back into Canaan. Given that Mount Seir is mentioned as existing near Kiryat-Yearim is enough to demonstrate that the name referred to two distinct places.

(a) No one in the Patriarchal narratives is ever in Moab. (The only two references to Moab in Genesis are obviously later-added glosses. For example, the phrase “unto this very day” makes that explicit at Genesis 19: 37.)

You're right. I was thinking Edom, not Moab. The two shared a border at the southeast corner of the Dead Sea. I was thinking of that general area.

... if we examine what the Biblical Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives actually says, instead of blindly following the scholarly misinterpretation thereof...

How much Hebrew have we examined in this interlocution?

... there are dozens of other places in this Biblical text where university scholars “force” the Hebrew text to say something that it manifestly does not say, in order to try to save their false theory that the Patriarchal narratives are allegedly fiction ginned up by Israel-hating Jewish authors in 1st millennium BCE Jerusalem.

Could they not be forcing the English text to say what they want? I don't see how you're getting your opinions based on the Hebrew text itself.

Jason Hare, after reading this post, don’t you agree that the “standard” reading of Genesis 32: 3 is in fact a “forced” reading, which cannot honestly be squared with what the Hebrew text is actually saying?

I haven't seen anyone forcing what you're saying. You're the only person I've seen making an argument about the direction in which Jacob was traveling. I didn't see the point in your argument before. Now I see what point you're making, but I don't see how it is based at all on the Hebrew Bible. It could be established by reference to the English text alone. Nothing has been added here by calling up the Hebrew words pānîm and lip̄nê.

Jacob was traveling w-e-s-t to get back to his beloved homeland of Canaan to the west, and he sent messengers ləp̄ānāv / before him / before his face / ahead of him / on ahead to Esau in Seir / Udumu / “Edom”. Genesis 32: 3 makes sense, in context, if and only if “Seir” is given its Late Bronze Age historical meaning: the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan, north of the Jabbok River, east of the Jordan River, and south of Bashan.

The English "before him" means exactly the same thing as the Hebrew ləp̄ānāv. Nothing is added by using the Hebrew term.

But no university scholar can tolerate that reading, so they “force” Genesis 32: 3 to allegedly have a meaning that it does not have.

Is it your position that every university scholar agrees that "Seir" here refers to the southern location?

My ultimate question is: To what extent is this an issue of the Hebrew language and the Hebrew Bible? To what extent are you making this a much more important issue than it is really is and calling out scholars as part of a conspiracy?

If you present good information, do you think that no one will listen? Do you need to vilify those who hold opposing views?

It concerns me that the Hebrew language plays no part in the argument. What you have brought up about Hebrew is entirely tangential.

[Jason Hare]

Jason says
Hence my twice mentioned statement that it was either temporal (time) or spatial (location).

Yes, except that it would be good to bring a biblical quote to support such a claim of space and time about the interesting Hebrew word לְפָנָיו.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

עַל־הַמְלָצָֽתְךָ וְעַל־זֶה שֶׁהוֹסַ֫פְתָּ בַּעֲבוּרִי פָּסוּק מֵהַמִּקְרָא אֲנִי מוֹדֶה לְךָ, חַבִּ֫יבִּי.

[Jason Hare]

Jason, I found your explanation helpful.

By the way, I missed responding to this. Thanks for your feedback. Sometimes it feels like you're typing into space.

[Jason Hare]

This thread asks whether ləp̄ānāv, in the context of Genesis 32: 3, effectively mandates that Esau’s Seir must be located west of Mahanaim / Penuel, n-o-t south of the Dead Sea, as ordinarily supposed.

So, to answer the thread question, there is nothing about לְפָנָיו ləp̄ānāv that indicates a specific direction. It could be in any direction, provided we can determine which direction Jacob himself was traveling in.

If the text had said מַעְרָ֫בָה maʿrā́ḇâ or יָ֫מָּה yā́mmâ, we would know for sure that it was talking about "toward the west" or "toward the sea." Without such a reference, it is up to interpretation.