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

[Jim Stinehart]

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

KJV translates the second half of Genesis 13: 7 as follows:

“and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then [’Z / אז] in the land.”

In a later post on this thread, we will see that per Genesis 14: 4, the specific year being referenced at Genesis 13: 7 is likely Year 13. But in this post, I am asking a different question.

Gesenius says that at least in some contexts, ’Z / אז / “then” means “at that time”. A possible alternative translation of Genesis 13: 7 is:

“and at that time, the primary inhabitants of the land of Canaan were the Canaanites and the Perizzites.”

My Biblical Hebrew language question is this. In Biblical Hebrew, does ’Z / אז / “then” / “at that time”, as used at Genesis 13: 7, imply all three of the following: (i) in Year 13 Perizzite princelings were, very surprisingly, of equal prominence in Canaan as were Canaanite princelings; (ii) in prior decades, the Perizzites had not been prominent in Canaan; and (iii) soon after Year 13, the Perizzites greatly declined in prominence in Canaan (not surprisingly), with Canaan thus reverting to norm. In English, that is the implication (in my opinion) of the English word “then” or the English phrase “at that time”, in the context of Genesis 13: 7. But of course, what counts is the Biblical Hebrew meaning of ’Z / אז / “then” / “at that time”, in that context.

My question is whether the same implication as in English can and should be made for the Hebrew word ’Z / אז.

If we can come to a complete knowledge of the meaning of ’Z / אז / “then” / “at that time” at Genesis 13: 7, then in my opinion we will be able to understand the historical background of the Patriarchal narratives. (In a later post on this thread, I will note that today’s scholars have abandoned the old idea that Perizzites always means “hamlet dwellers”. Note that at Genesis 13: 7, Perizzites cannot mean “hamlet dwellers”, as the people who were hamlet dwellers in Canaan were Canaanites.)

Everyone knows that the Canaanites, as opposed to the Perizzites, were extremely prominent in Canaan for centuries before the Patriarchal Age and for centuries after the Patriarchal Age. To me, Genesis 13: 7 makes good sense if and only if the implication of ’Z / אז / “then” / “at that time” in that particular context means that by contrast to the Canaanites, the Perizzites were a short-lived phenomenon in Canaan, who were at their absolute peak in Year 13, but who were destined to lose their prominence in Canaan quite quickly, beginning already in Year 14.

Is my understanding correct or incorrect as to the implication at Genesis 13: 7 of ’Z / אז / “then” / “at that time”?

Jim Stinehart

[Jason Hare]

I imagine that it just means that at the time in question these peoples inhabited the land, in distinction to the time of the writing of the text. When the text was being written, we are to assume that these peoples no longer occupied the land.

[talmid56]

Just so we're clear, year 13 or 14 of what era? And how would the meaning of the Hebrew support or not support a particular chronology? Do you hold that the patriarchs are at an earlier or later period than about 20th to 18/17th centuries B.C.? (Abraham to Joseph) If so, why, and how is this relevant?

[Jim Stinehart]

Jason Hare:

1. You wrote: “I imagine that it [’Z / אז / “then” at Genesis 13: 7] just means that at the time in question these peoples inhabited the land, in distinction to the time of the writing of the text. When the text was being written, we are to assume that these peoples no longer occupied the land.”

Yet as to the Canaanites, everyone knows that during the Patriarchal Age, Canaan was largely populated by Canaanites. Thus the second half of Genesis 13: 7 seems to be focusing, rather, on the Perizzites. At that time [’Z / אז / “then”] during the Patriarchal Age, the shocking fact we are being told is that Perizzite princelings were as prominent in Canaan as were Canaanite princelings! As we will see on this thread, virtually the only time in 5,000 years of human history when that was true was Year 13.

Let us now turn to the question of whether ’Z / אז / “then” at Genesis 13: 7 is referring specifically to Year 13.

2. The second Hebrew language question I would like to pose on this thread is whether the Hebrew words at Genesis 14: 4 in fact say “Year 13”.
The Hebrew words in question at Genesis 14: 4 are as follows :

ŠLŠ ‘SRH ŠNH / שנה
עשרה
שלש

Several years ago I asked noted Hebrew scholar Shlomo Izre’el about this important issue. He sent me an e-mail dated September 28, 2014 concerning the meaning of Genesis 14: 4, in which he stated:

“I can say that I don't see any real difficulty in interpreting the phrase שלוש עשרה שנה [at Genesis 14: 4] as meaning ‘in year 13’, ‘on the 13th year’, or ‘Year 13’.”

Accordingly, the Hebrew wording of Genesis 14: 4 is consistent with a reading of “Year 13”.

As we will see on this thread, virtually the only year in history when “Perizzite” princelings were as prominent in Canaan as were Canaanite princelings was, indeed, Year 13.

University scholars seem to acknowledge that, in theory and out of context, this phrase at Genesis 14: 4 could possibly mean “Year 13”. Yet 100% of university scholars nevertheless insist that they are 100% certain that this is not an intended reference to historical Year 13 in the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Age.

University scholars must take that position, you see, because there is no way on earth that one or more Jewish authors in 1st millennium BCE Jerusalem could have known that in Year 13, and virtually only in Year 13 (in the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Age), Perizzite princelings were as prominent in Canaan as were Canaanite princelings. Only a Hebrew author living in the mid-14th century BCE would have known that, and he could easily have hired a scribe to record his narrative in cuneiform on clay tablets, à la the famous Amarna Letters.

So when Jason refers to “When the text was being written,” please realize that contra the unanimous scholarly view to the contrary as to this matter, I myself see the Patriarchal narratives as having been written, in cuneiform, in the mid-14th century BCE (about 5 years after Year 13).
In a later post on this thread, we will determine who the “Perizzites” are. But for now, simply note how important in that connection is the apparent reference at Genesis 14: 4 to “Year 13”.

3. Based on the foregoing, here is my suggested paraphrase of the second half of Genesis 13: 7:

“and at that time, namely in Year 13, the primary inhabitants of the land of Canaan were Canaanite commoners, Canaanite princelings, and [of surprisingly great importance], Perizzite princelings.”

Jim Stinehart

[Jim Stinehart]

Dewayne Dulaney:

You wrote: “Just so we're clear, year 13 or 14 of what era? And how would the meaning of the Hebrew support or not support a particular chronology? Do you hold that the patriarchs are at an earlier or later period than about 20th to 18/17th centuries B.C.? (Abraham to Joseph) If so, why, and how is this relevant?”

1. Per #2 in my response to Jason Hare above, I view a “Year 13” as being explicitly referenced at Genesis 14: 4 (and, indirectly, at Genesis 13: 7). That is a very important Hebrew language question.

2. As to which Year 13, in which century, is being referenced, that will be examined in additional posts on this thread. Of importance in that connection will be the following questions:

(i) In what non-Biblical source or sources, from which time period, is the name “Perizzite” attested?

(ii) What language is the name “Perizzites” from, and what does that name mean in that language?

(iii) When, if ever, were Perizzite princelings as prominent in Canaan as were Canaanite princelings?

We will find that historical Year 13 in the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Age is virtually the only time in human history when “Perizzite” princelings were, very surprisingly, as prominent in Canaan as were Canaanite princelings.

3. As to “how is this relevant?”, I am not exactly sure what you mean by that. I have raised two Biblical Hebrew language questions on this thread, both of which are extremely important in determining who the Perizzites were. If we don’t understand who the Perizzites were, then among other things it will be impossible to understand what the historical sin of Lot’s Sodom was, and why Lot’s Sodom is portrayed (using artistic license) as deserving to be devastated by divinely-sent fire and brimstone.

Jim Stinehart

[Jason Hare]

Again, it reads to me as though neither the Canaanites nor the Perizzites were living in the land when the author was writing. He was using the word אז to indicate that they both had lived there before but no longer did. I don't see a division between Canaanites and Perizzites. They are tossed into the same bucket of peoples who once inhabited the land but had been disinherited when Israel took over Canaan and ousted the former inhabitants. I don't think we should read it otherwise.

[Jim Stinehart]

Jason Hare:

1. You wrote: “Again, it reads to me as though neither the Canaanites nor the Perizzites were living in the land when the author was writing. He was using the word אז to indicate that they both had lived there before but no longer did. I don't see a division between Canaanites and Perizzites. They are tossed into the same bucket of peoples who once inhabited the land but had been disinherited when Israel took over Canaan and ousted the former inhabitants. I don't think we should read it otherwise.”

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. On this very thread, we will slowly see that contra your mainstream view, the great amount of historical information that is set forth in spades in the Patriarchal narratives, as verified by the Amarna Letter discovered about 1890 AD (and findings at Ugarit, etc.), was utterly unknown by any human being in the 1st millennium BCE, including Jewish authors (JEPD, etc.) in 1st millennium BCE Jerusalem.

2. First, however, I want to consider the etymology of PRZY / פרזי (being the third Biblical Hebrew language issue I am raising on this thread).

At Deuteronomy 3: 5, PRZY / פרזי is a Biblical Hebrew common word that refers to a town that is “unwalled”, that is, a rural hamlet:

“All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled [PRZY / פרזי] towns a great many.”

But at Genesis 13:7 and 15: 20 and 34: 20, do those same four Hebrew letters, PRZY / פרזי, have the same, or a somewhat similar, or at least a related, meaning?

Here is the KJV translation of those three verses from the Patriarchal narratives:

Genesis 13: 7: “And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite [PRZY / פרזי] dwelled then in the land.”

Genesis 15: 20: “And the Hittites, and the Perizzites [PRZY / פרזי], and the Rephaims,”

Genesis 34: 30: “And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites [PRZY / פרזי]: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.”

Gesenius sets forth the older scholarly view of the meaning of PRZY / פרזי at Genesis 13: 7; 15: 20; 34: 20, seeing it as being based closely on what PRZY / פרזי means as a Biblical Hebrew common word in verses such as Deuteronomy 3.5:

“ ‘belonging to a village’…a Canaanitish race, dwelling in the mountains of Judah, …(their dwelling in the mountains need not set aside the etymology proposed, as their ancient abodes may have been in the plains)….”

The Blue Letter Bible briefly summarizes this theory of the case as follows: “Perizzite = ‘belonging to a village’; a people who inhabited southern Canaan prior to the conquest”.

But today’s university scholars have generally (and wisely) abandoned that old view, seeing the etymology of the Perizzites [PRZY / פרזי] at Genesis 13: 7, etc. as possibly being inscrutable:

“The Perizzites are mentioned 23 times in the OT [Old Testament / Hebrew Bible], and once in the Amarna Letters. Their racial affiliation and the etymology of their name is unknown, though the latter is often connected with [the Biblical Hebrew common word PRZ /] פרז ‘village’. However, it seems likely that the term designates an ethnic grouping.” Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis 1-15” (1987), p. 296.

What “ethnic grouping” would that be? Though carefully not noted by Prof. Wenham, (i) “Perizzites” is a Hurrian name, which is attested non-Biblically only in the 14th century BCE, and (ii) its Hurrian root, piri, means “Hurrian lord” or “Hurrian nobleman” or “Hurrian princeling” in Hurrian. As such, Perizzites / PRZY / פרזי is a perfect, Hurrian-based Patriarchal nickname for Hurrian princelings.

On that reading, Genesis 13: 7 could be paraphrased as follows:

“and at that time, namely in Year 13, the primary inhabitants of the land of Canaan were Canaanite commoners, Canaanite princelings, and [of surprisingly great importance], Hurrian princelings.”

That then in turn raises the key question here. Is it in fact historically true, based on the Amarna Letters, that Hurrian princelings were, shockingly, as prominent as Canaanite princelings in the land of Canaan in Year 13 in the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Age? Please note, per #1 above, that no Jewish author in 1st millennium BCE Jerusalem could possibly have known that. If Genesis 13: 7, as paraphrased above, has pinpoint historical accuracy, then the Patriarchal narratives (i) are truly ancient, (ii) were a written composition in the mid-14th century BCE, and (iii) far from being wild, fictitious musings by Jewish authors in 1st millennium BCE Jerusalem, set forth an accurate portrayal of the world of the first Hebrews in Year 13.

Jim Stinehart

[Isaac Fried]

פריזי = פריז-היא is a variant of
פרידי, פריזי, פריטי, פריסי, פריצי, פרישי
which appears to mean, 'spread out'.
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.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Isaac Fried:

“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.”

O.K. then. But remember that one of the critical questions we are discussing on this thread is whether the Patriarchal narratives were composed by an early tent-dwelling Hebrew, and reduced to (cuneiform) writing (by a scribe hired for the occasion, à la the Amarna Letters), in the mid-14th century BCE (my controversial view), as opposed to the scholarly view that the Patriarchal narratives are fiction ginned up by multiple Jewish authors in 1st millennium BCE Jerusalem.

1. In the non-Biblical Bronze Age, the only monotheistic ruler of his people reigned in Egypt for 17 years. This is deftly referenced at Genesis 47: 28 by the statement that Jacob was an early monotheistic ruler of his people, in Egypt, for 17 shaneh. No one in the 1st millennium BCE knew about a 17-year reign in Egypt of an early monotheistic leader of his people.

2. Contrary to popular belief, Genesis 14: 3 does not in fact refer to the Sea of Arabah, which would be an unambiguous reference to the Dead Sea. Rather, the text says “sea the salt”, so that such reference could just as easily be to the Mediterranean Sea / the Great Sea as to the Dead Sea, since both bodies of water are salt seas. Now consider that no “valley of cultivated fields” / Vale of Siddim is present at the Dead Sea, whereas the Orontes River Valley is a “valley of cultivated fields” / Vale of Siddim, with the Orontes River running north through central Syria and then emptying into the Mediterranean Sea (a “sea the salt”). Finally, the only two unambiguous geographical references in the “four kings with five” are both to places in Syria: Damascus and the Ubi / “Hobah”.

Now compare the “four kings with five” military conflict in chapter 14 of Genesis straight up with the Great Syrian War. In both cases, the instigating events occurred in Year 13, while the main fighting was done in Year 14. In both cases, most of the fighting was done along the “vale of Siddim” / Orontes River Valley. And in both cases, four invading parties destroyed five rebellious parties. (I would like to point out that all of the historical names brilliantly match to apt Patriarchal nicknames, but since there are no Hebrew names [either Biblically or non-Biblically], I will not mention them here.)

3. The only monotheistic leader of his people in the Bronze Age historically had the same main problem as Abraham: desperately wanting to sire a proper male heir by his original main wife #1. Isaac and Jacob have variants of that same vital concern.

4. All three successors to a Hebrew Patriarch -- Isaac, Jacob, Judah -- have the same key characteristics as the only monotheistic leader of his people in the Bronze Age historically had: a younger son, not his father’s favorite son, whose birth mother was his father’s original main wife #1. (I will not mention that furthermore, both non-Biblically and Biblically, all of these men had, or are portrayed [somewhat unrealistically] as having, Hurrian maternal bloodlines.)

5. In 7 out of 7 cases, each firstborn son in the Patriarchal narratives gets the shaft and properly so: Haran, Lot, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Er, Manasseh. That deftly reflects the feelings of the only monotheistic leader of his people in the Bronze Age (in non-Biblical history).

6. The mid-14th century BCE was one of the rare times when Canaan was frequently wracked by drought-famines. Each Hebrew Patriarch is portrayed as facing a major drought-famine.

7. In or about Year 13, the Canaanite princeling ruler of Shechem -- Labaya historically, Hamor Biblically -- was assassinated by use of devilish trickery: on behalf of, but without the prior knowledge or approval of, an early monotheistic leader of his people.

I will stop there.

* * *

Isaac, maybe you would agree that many of the people in the Patriarchal narratives are not Hebrews and do not have Hebrew names (or other west Semitic names). Those non-Hebrew names are explainable only in the context of the world of the first Hebrews in Year 13 of the mid-14th century BCE.

Jim Stinehart

[Jim Stinehart]

In order to understand the historical meaning of the second half of Genesis 13: 7 (concerning the “Perizzites”, as opposed to the Canaanites, in Year 13), what is needed is to document the surprising, shocking (though very short-lived) prominence of Hurrian (“Perizzite”) princelings in Year 13 in mid-14th century BCE Canaan. Consider in that regard the well-known case of Labaya, who is the Canaanite princeling ruler of Shechem in the Amarna Letters. In my opinion, Labaya’s Biblical equivalent in the Patriarchal narratives is Hamor of Shechem. Both historically and Biblically, each such Canaanite princeling is assassinated on behalf of, but without the prior knowledge or approval of, an early monotheistic leader of his people, using devilish trickery, in or about Year 13.

What everyone has missed here is that virtually all of the enemies of Canaanite princeling Labaya are Hurrian princelings!

Here is a partial list, based on the Amarna Letters, of Labaya’s Hurrian [“Perizzite”] princeling enemies, with all such names and princelings being Hurrian:

(i) IR-Heba of Jerusalem (EA 289)

(ii) Bayada (EA 237 [by analogy to EA 238])

(iii) Biridiya of Megiddo (EA 244) [See also EA 365, though it does not expressly reference Labaya.]

(iv) Yashdata (EA 244)

(v) Zurata / Súrata (EA 244, EA 245)

(vi) Shuwardata (EA 280)

[See Richard S. Hess, “Amarna Personal Letters” (1993), for a technical analysis of the above names.]

Importantly, the very same dynamic applies to the Patriarchal narratives:

(a) “Ephron” (chapter 23 of Genesis) is a Hurrian name with the same Hurrian root -- piri -- as “Perizzites”.

(b) Genesis 36: 20-30 lists 25 Hurrian-type names of Esau’s male Hurrian in-laws, 19 of which are Hurrian-based Hurrian names (as opposed to being Akkadian- or Kassite-based Hurrian names).

(c) All of the defeated princelings in chapter 14 of Genesis are Hurrian princelings with Hurrian-based Patriarchal nicknames.

(d) And Yes, “Seir” is a Hurrian geographical place name (per Genesis, Joshua, the Amarna Letters, and Late Bronze Age Egyptian inscriptions, contra chapter 2 of Deuteronomy, which knows nothing about such Late Bronze Age matters), referencing the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan (north of the Jabbok River) in the Late Bronze Age.

This surprising prominence in Canaan of Hurrian princelings was very short-lived, being at its absolute height in Year 13. Beginning in Year 14 (with the devastating defeat of Hurrian princelings in the Great Syrian War / “four kings with five” in Year 14, per Genesis 14: 5), Hurrian princelings quickly ceased to be a major factor in Canaan. Canaany reverted to norm, being inhabited almost exclusively by Canaanites for centuries after Year 14.

Note now the pinpoint historical accuracy, in the context of Year 13 in the mid-14th century BCE, of my proposed paraphrase of the second half of Genesis 13: 7:

“and at that time, namely in Year 13, the primary inhabitants of the land of Canaan were Canaanite commoners, Canaanite princelings, and [of surprisingly great importance], Hurrian princelings.”

No Jewish author in 1st millennium BCE Jerusalem could have known any of that! Nor could any such Jewish author possibly have created an apt, Hurrian-based Patriarchal nickname -- “Perizzites” -- for Hurrian princelings, being a name whose Hurrian root means, in Hurrian: “Hurrian princeling”. And no Jewish author would ever, in a million years, offer to set forth, and then succeed in setting forth, 25 Hurrian-type names at Genesis 36: 20-30.

No way. We begin to see that, contra the scholarly consensus, the Patriarchal narratives were both composed, and reduced to (cuneiform) writing, in the mid-14th century BCE. We know that because the last 40 chapters of Genesis convey a plethora of accurate mid-14th century BCE historical facts that were utterly unknown (by anyone on planet Earth) in the 1st millennium BCE.

Jim Stinehart