Meaning of לפניו: “Before Him”
1. Actual Situation: Genesis 46: 28
At Genesis 46: 28, Jacob in Canaan sends Judah “before him” : לפניו to see Joseph in Goshen, so that Jacob will know exactly where to go in leading all the Hebrews out of Canaan into the land of Goshen. Though not expressly so stated, the logic of the situation is that Judah will then come back to Jacob (in Canaan, though Jacob may have already begun the journey, and may have reached a spot in southernmost Canaan just before beginning to cross the desert in going southwest down to Egypt); Judah will then guide Jacob and the Hebrews to Goshen, after Judah has re-confirmed with Joseph that all the Hebrews can and should move to Goshen.
As I see it, the nomenclature “before him” : לפניו works if and only if (i) Joseph is at (or near) Goshen; and (ii) Jacob will in due course be traveling to Goshen; and (iii) Judah is sent “ahead of” Jacob to Goshen (to make sure everything is set for Jacob to take all the Hebrews to Goshen).
2. Hypothetical Situation: Joseph Is Temporarily in Edom
Now let’s consider a hypothetical situation to test what the Hebrew phrase “before him” : לפניו means. All the facts are the same as for Genesis 46: 28, except for these key differences. Joseph is temporarily in Edom, straight south of where Jacob is living, as Jacob inspects Egypt’s copper mines south of the Dead Sea. Jacob is on the verge of taking the Hebrews southwest down to Egypt, to the land of Goshen. Jacob sends Judah in a different direction (than where Jacob himself will be going): Judah is to go straight south, to see Joseph in Edom, in order to re-confirm with Joseph that all the Hebrews can and should move to Goshen. As with the actual situation, Judah will return to Jacob, prior to when Jacob leaves Canaan and begins to cross the desert into Egypt (on his way to the land of Goshen).
In my opinion, the Hebrew phrase “before him” : לפניו could not be used in this hypothetical situation. Judah is n-o-t going “before him [Jacob]” : לפניו, because Judah is going straight south to Edom to confer with Joseph, whereas Jacob, by contrast, will be going a different direction -- southwest -- in taking the Hebrews into Egypt (to the land of Goshen). Since in this hypothetical Joseph is not in (or near) Goshen, and Judah is not being sent to Goshen (but rather Judah is going straight south to Edom to see Joseph), Judah is n-o-t being sent by Jacob “before him” : לפניו, because Jacob is going southwest to Egypt, whereas Judah by contrast is going straight south to Edom. In both #1 and #2, Judah will confer with Joseph and report back to Jacob, who likely will by then be on the verge of entering the desert to proceed southwest down to Egypt. But the critical difference, as I see it, is that since Judah is not being sent to the same place where Jacob is going in #2, the Hebrew nomenclature “before him” : לפניו does not fit, and could not be used in, this hypothetical situation.
The question I am raising here is the precise meaning of the Hebrew phrase “before him” : לפניו when used in a situation like Genesis 46: 28. Obviously, that Hebrew phrase is used correctly at Genesis 46: 28. The question is whether that same phrase could still be used (I don’t think it could be) if Joseph were temporarily at Edom, and Judah were being sent straight south to Edom to confer with Joseph.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Meaning of לפניו: “Before Him”
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Meaning of לפניו: “Before Him”
In my prior post, I noted that the phrase “before him” : לפניו has the following specific parameters at Genesis 46: 28: (i) Joseph is at (or near) Goshen; and (ii) Jacob will in due course be traveling to Goshen; and (iii) Judah is sent “ahead of” Jacob to Goshen (to make sure everything is set for Jacob to take all the Hebrews to Goshen). The question being posed on this thread is whether the phrase “before him” : לפניו always has such specific parameters. I think it does. This issue is of critical importance in evaluating the originally-intended meaning of Genesis 32: 3.
Here is the KJV translation of Genesis 32: 3, where the identical Hebrew phrase is used, which I have placed in brackets:
“And Jacob sent messengers before him [לפניו] to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom.”
I myself interpret that phrase לפניו at Genesis 32: 3 as having the same meaning as לפניו has at Genesis 46: 28. If so, then this is what Genesis 32: 3 necessarily entails:
(i) Esau is at (or near) southern Seir/Edom; and (ii) Jacob will in due course be traveling to southern Seir/Edom; and (iii) Jacob’s messengers are sent “ahead of” Jacob to southern Seir/Edom (to try to make sure everything is set for Jacob to take his family and exhausted flock to and through southern Seir/Edom, to and past Succoth, on their way west to Canaan).
The phrase לפניו at Genesis 32: 3 works if and only if Succoth [just north of the Jabbok River and just east of the Jordan River, in the southwest corner of northwest Gilead], which is where Jacob in due course ends up going and staying for some time (on his way back home to Canaan after living in eastern Syria with kinsman Laban for 20 years), is located on the southwest corner of Seir/Edom. That is to say, the phrase לפניו at Genesis 32: 3 works if and only if both Seir and Edom at Genesis 32: 3 reference northwest Gilead.
If, per received opinion, Seir/Edom is located south of the Dead Sea, then in my opinion the phrase לפניו could not be used at Genesis 32: 3. Jacob’s messengers are not going “before him” : לפניו if, instead of going where Jacob will in due course soon be going ( w-e-s-t , along the northern bank of the Jabbok River through the southern end of northwest Gilead, past Succoth, and then later to proceed further west across the Jordan River into Canaan [fairly near Shechem]), those messengers have been sent s-o-u-t-h to a locale south of the Dead Sea to see Esau. As I see it, the Hebrew phrase “before him” : לפניו cannot tolerate that traditional reading of the text of Genesis 32: 3. Rather, in my opinion, the phrase “before him” : לפניו at Genesis 32: 3 has the same meaning as it clearly has at Genesis 46: 28.
Nothing is wrong with the Hebrew text, which as per usual is perfect at both Genesis 32: 3 and Genesis 46: 28. No, what’s wrong is the longstanding traditional misunderstanding of what the phrase “before him” : לפניו necessarily entails at Genesis 32:
3. In chapters 31-33 of Genesis, Esau is portrayed as living at a Seir/Edom that is northwest Gilead, having nothing whatsoever to do with the Dead Sea area.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Here is the KJV translation of Genesis 32: 3, where the identical Hebrew phrase is used, which I have placed in brackets:
“And Jacob sent messengers before him [לפניו] to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom.”
I myself interpret that phrase לפניו at Genesis 32: 3 as having the same meaning as לפניו has at Genesis 46: 28. If so, then this is what Genesis 32: 3 necessarily entails:
(i) Esau is at (or near) southern Seir/Edom; and (ii) Jacob will in due course be traveling to southern Seir/Edom; and (iii) Jacob’s messengers are sent “ahead of” Jacob to southern Seir/Edom (to try to make sure everything is set for Jacob to take his family and exhausted flock to and through southern Seir/Edom, to and past Succoth, on their way west to Canaan).
The phrase לפניו at Genesis 32: 3 works if and only if Succoth [just north of the Jabbok River and just east of the Jordan River, in the southwest corner of northwest Gilead], which is where Jacob in due course ends up going and staying for some time (on his way back home to Canaan after living in eastern Syria with kinsman Laban for 20 years), is located on the southwest corner of Seir/Edom. That is to say, the phrase לפניו at Genesis 32: 3 works if and only if both Seir and Edom at Genesis 32: 3 reference northwest Gilead.
If, per received opinion, Seir/Edom is located south of the Dead Sea, then in my opinion the phrase לפניו could not be used at Genesis 32: 3. Jacob’s messengers are not going “before him” : לפניו if, instead of going where Jacob will in due course soon be going ( w-e-s-t , along the northern bank of the Jabbok River through the southern end of northwest Gilead, past Succoth, and then later to proceed further west across the Jordan River into Canaan [fairly near Shechem]), those messengers have been sent s-o-u-t-h to a locale south of the Dead Sea to see Esau. As I see it, the Hebrew phrase “before him” : לפניו cannot tolerate that traditional reading of the text of Genesis 32: 3. Rather, in my opinion, the phrase “before him” : לפניו at Genesis 32: 3 has the same meaning as it clearly has at Genesis 46: 28.
Nothing is wrong with the Hebrew text, which as per usual is perfect at both Genesis 32: 3 and Genesis 46: 28. No, what’s wrong is the longstanding traditional misunderstanding of what the phrase “before him” : לפניו necessarily entails at Genesis 32:
3. In chapters 31-33 of Genesis, Esau is portrayed as living at a Seir/Edom that is northwest Gilead, having nothing whatsoever to do with the Dead Sea area.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Meaning of לפניו: “Before Him”
Biblical scholars have been baffled by the following sequence of events at Genesis 33: 14-16: (i) twin brothers Jacob and Esau have just now reconciled (at least to the point that it is clear that neither will take actively hostile action toward the other); (ii) Jacob says that as soon as his exhausted flock has rested a bit, Jacob will “come unto my lord [Esau] unto Seir”; and then (iii) Jacob proceeds to Succoth.
The traditional analysis cannot explain why Jacob says he is going to Seir, and Jacob then proceeds to Succoth. As scholar Bruce Waltke perceptively observes [at p. 452 of his 2001 book on Genesis]: “[T]he narrator’s [silence here] excludes the interpretation of deception. Moreover, the narrator implies that Esau bears him no grudge, for he draws this book to conclusion with the brothers in peace together burying their father (35: 29).”
Hey guys, this is yet another 3,000-year-old Bible mystery that we can solve right here on the b-hebrew list.
The answer to that longstanding Bible mystery is that Jacob in fact did exactly what he said he would do: Jacob said that he would go to Seir, and Jacob promptly proceeds to Succoth which, being just east of the Jordan River and just north of the Jabbok River, is located on the southwest corner of Late Bronze Age Seir/“Edom”/northwest Gilead. Consider now the following overwhelming historical evidence for the proposition that “Seir”/“Edom” in chapters 31-33 of Genesis is northwest Gilead in the Late Bronze Age:
1. Per Amarna Letter EA 288: 26, Še-e-ri : שעיר : “Seir” is northwest Gilead.
2. Per Amarna Letter EA 256: 24 [written by the princeling ruler of Piḫilu, just east of the Jordan River], ú-du-mu : אדום : “Edom” is a city just east of the Sea of Galilee on the northern edge of northwest Gilead. That’s the same city as (i) Udm, located east of the Sea of Galilee in Hurrian-dominated northwest Gilead in the 15th century BCE Ugaritic heroic myth of Keret; and (ii) ì-t-m-m or ’(a)-ta-m-m, at item #36 on the 15th century BCE Thutmose III list of places in and near Canaan, where such city name appears three places after Piḫilu, and two places after the Sea of Galilee.
3. Both (a) Še-e-ri : שעיר : “Seir” and (b) ú-du-mu : אדום : “Edom” are attested as northwest Gilead in the mid-14th century BCE, at a time when we know from the Amarna Letters that Hurrian princelings like Tadua, Artamanya, Biridašwa and Biryawaza dominated the northern Transjordan. Accordingly, Esau’s in-laws at that location, the חרי : ḫry [KJV: “Horites”], are the historical Hurrians, who historically dominated Še-e-ri : שעיר : “Seir” / ú-du-mu : אדום : “Edom” / northwest Gilead in the Late Amarna time period. Thus unlike the scholarly community, we on the b-hebrew list are not shocked, or even surprised, to see the following gorgeous, vintage Late Bronze Age nomenclature from Ugarit used at Genesis 36: 20-21, 29-30 with the meaning “Hurrian prince” in describing certain of Esau’s important in-laws: אלוףחרי : ulp.ḫry :’ullūpu ḫry [KJV: “Horite duke”].
As opposed to the foregoing historical explanation of Esau’s “Edom”, the majority view of today’s university scholars is, believe it or not, that Esau’s in-laws are allegedly fictional cave-dwelling troglodytes south of the Dead Sea. If you object that certainly no university scholar could take such an absurdist view of this magnificent Biblical text (which frequently has pinpoint historical accuracy in a Late Bronze Age context), read it and weep:
“As to the ethnonym ḥōrî its etymology may also reveal a link between Horites and Israelites. E.A. Speiser’s suggestion to derive this ethnonym from Heb. ḥōr (or ḥôr), ‘a hole, a pit’ and thus to understand it as ‘cave dwellers, troglodytes’ was rejected by R. de Vaux, who pointed out, inter alia, that south of the Dead Sea caves are rare. However, caves, ravines and all kinds of holes in the ground may serve as natural fortification, not only as dwellings.” S. Frolov, The Open University of Israel, “Merneptah’s Israel and the Horite Genealogy in Gen 36: 20-30”, Aula Orientalis, No. 13, vol. 2 (1995), p. 207.
As I was saying, the scholarly community has no explanation for why Jacob says that as soon as his exhausted flock has rested a bit, Jacob will “come unto my lord [Esau] unto Seir”, and then Jacob proceeds to Succoth. If one starts with the absurdist scholarly premise that Esau’s in-laws are fictional cave-dwelling troglodytes south of the Dead Sea, then nothing about Esau’s “Edom” in Genesis makes sense. But why would the finest and most extensive genealogy of non-Hebrews in the entire Bible, at Genesis 36: 20-30, be wasted on fictional cave-dwelling troglodytes south of the Dead Sea? Does anyone on the b-hebrew list think that university scholars have analyzed Esau’s “Edom” in the Patriarchal narratives correctly?
The entire premise of chapters 31-33 of Genesis is that Jacob cannot avoid meeting up with his potentially hostile older twin brother Esau when Jacob is in the process of returning home to Canaan from eastern Syria, as Jacob travels straight west through the heart of Gilead [slowly passing through the southern end of northern Gilead] along the northern bank of the Jabbok River. Chapters 31-33 of Genesis thus mandate that (a) Še-e-ri : שעיר : “Seir” and (b) ú-du-mu : אדום : “Edom” in this truly ancient Biblical text must have their historically-attested meanings from the Late Bronze Age: “Seir”/“Edom” is northwest Gilead.
As has been the linguistic focus of this particular thread, when the text explicitly s-a-y-s (at Genesis 32: 3) that Jacob sends his messengers “straight ahead of him” : “before his face” : לפניו to see Esau in “Seir”/“Edom”, the text means exactly what it says: Jacob will soon be traveling straight west to Succoth on the southern edge of “Seir”/“Edom”, and Jacob sends his messengers straight west : “straight ahead of him” : “before his face” : לפניו to see Esau in the land of “Seir”/the fields of “Edom”. Why torture the Hebrew text, as scholars do, to try to force the text to say that Jacob allegedly sent his messengers 90 long miles out of the way, in a completely different direction, s-o-u-t-h , to a locale south of the Dead Sea? The text does not say that!
Note that the text uses some version of the word “face” : פנים on 11 occasions (in 8 verses) from Genesis 32: 3 - Genesis 33: 14 in describing how Jacob is proceeding “straight ahead” : “before his face” : לפניו to his fateful “face-to-face” meeting with Esau. Genesis 32: 3, 16, 17, 20, 21; 33: 3, 10, 14. The point of making such repeated use of that particular nomenclature is to emphasize that Esau is “straight ahead of” Jacob, “before his face”, and Jacob cannot avoid having a “face-to-face” meeting with a potentially hostile Esau, as Jacob proceeds straight west [לפניו] along the northern bank of the Jabbok River through the southern end of Gilead on his way back home to Canaan.
Consider also that as Prof. Waltke properly notes at p. 444 regarding Jacob’s gift of livestock which Esau accepts: “A total of 550 animals is a very large gift.” As a practical matter, if Esau lived, as scholars would have it, south of the Dead Sea, would Esau want to take 550 animals on a long, extremely difficult journey of 90 miles, south to an arid locale that could not support such a large addition to Esau’s current flock of animals? Does that make sense?
Once again we have solved a 3,000-year-old Bible mystery right here on the b-hebrew list. Jacob tells Esau at Genesis 33: 14 that Jacob will soon come unto Esau at Seir. Hebrew Patriarch #3 Jacob/“Israel” then proves to be a man of his word when, per Genesis 33: 16, Jacob proceeds to Succoth -- because Succoth is located in the southwest corner of “Seir”/“Edom”, i.e. northwest Gilead in the Late Bronze Age.
This fine, truly ancient Biblical text (which was originally recorded in cuneiform writing way back in the Late Bronze Age, by a scribe retained for the occasion by tent-dwelling early Hebrews in rural southern Canaan) makes perfect sense on all levels on the foregoing historical analysis.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
The traditional analysis cannot explain why Jacob says he is going to Seir, and Jacob then proceeds to Succoth. As scholar Bruce Waltke perceptively observes [at p. 452 of his 2001 book on Genesis]: “[T]he narrator’s [silence here] excludes the interpretation of deception. Moreover, the narrator implies that Esau bears him no grudge, for he draws this book to conclusion with the brothers in peace together burying their father (35: 29).”
Hey guys, this is yet another 3,000-year-old Bible mystery that we can solve right here on the b-hebrew list.
The answer to that longstanding Bible mystery is that Jacob in fact did exactly what he said he would do: Jacob said that he would go to Seir, and Jacob promptly proceeds to Succoth which, being just east of the Jordan River and just north of the Jabbok River, is located on the southwest corner of Late Bronze Age Seir/“Edom”/northwest Gilead. Consider now the following overwhelming historical evidence for the proposition that “Seir”/“Edom” in chapters 31-33 of Genesis is northwest Gilead in the Late Bronze Age:
1. Per Amarna Letter EA 288: 26, Še-e-ri : שעיר : “Seir” is northwest Gilead.
2. Per Amarna Letter EA 256: 24 [written by the princeling ruler of Piḫilu, just east of the Jordan River], ú-du-mu : אדום : “Edom” is a city just east of the Sea of Galilee on the northern edge of northwest Gilead. That’s the same city as (i) Udm, located east of the Sea of Galilee in Hurrian-dominated northwest Gilead in the 15th century BCE Ugaritic heroic myth of Keret; and (ii) ì-t-m-m or ’(a)-ta-m-m, at item #36 on the 15th century BCE Thutmose III list of places in and near Canaan, where such city name appears three places after Piḫilu, and two places after the Sea of Galilee.
3. Both (a) Še-e-ri : שעיר : “Seir” and (b) ú-du-mu : אדום : “Edom” are attested as northwest Gilead in the mid-14th century BCE, at a time when we know from the Amarna Letters that Hurrian princelings like Tadua, Artamanya, Biridašwa and Biryawaza dominated the northern Transjordan. Accordingly, Esau’s in-laws at that location, the חרי : ḫry [KJV: “Horites”], are the historical Hurrians, who historically dominated Še-e-ri : שעיר : “Seir” / ú-du-mu : אדום : “Edom” / northwest Gilead in the Late Amarna time period. Thus unlike the scholarly community, we on the b-hebrew list are not shocked, or even surprised, to see the following gorgeous, vintage Late Bronze Age nomenclature from Ugarit used at Genesis 36: 20-21, 29-30 with the meaning “Hurrian prince” in describing certain of Esau’s important in-laws: אלוףחרי : ulp.ḫry :’ullūpu ḫry [KJV: “Horite duke”].
As opposed to the foregoing historical explanation of Esau’s “Edom”, the majority view of today’s university scholars is, believe it or not, that Esau’s in-laws are allegedly fictional cave-dwelling troglodytes south of the Dead Sea. If you object that certainly no university scholar could take such an absurdist view of this magnificent Biblical text (which frequently has pinpoint historical accuracy in a Late Bronze Age context), read it and weep:
“As to the ethnonym ḥōrî its etymology may also reveal a link between Horites and Israelites. E.A. Speiser’s suggestion to derive this ethnonym from Heb. ḥōr (or ḥôr), ‘a hole, a pit’ and thus to understand it as ‘cave dwellers, troglodytes’ was rejected by R. de Vaux, who pointed out, inter alia, that south of the Dead Sea caves are rare. However, caves, ravines and all kinds of holes in the ground may serve as natural fortification, not only as dwellings.” S. Frolov, The Open University of Israel, “Merneptah’s Israel and the Horite Genealogy in Gen 36: 20-30”, Aula Orientalis, No. 13, vol. 2 (1995), p. 207.
As I was saying, the scholarly community has no explanation for why Jacob says that as soon as his exhausted flock has rested a bit, Jacob will “come unto my lord [Esau] unto Seir”, and then Jacob proceeds to Succoth. If one starts with the absurdist scholarly premise that Esau’s in-laws are fictional cave-dwelling troglodytes south of the Dead Sea, then nothing about Esau’s “Edom” in Genesis makes sense. But why would the finest and most extensive genealogy of non-Hebrews in the entire Bible, at Genesis 36: 20-30, be wasted on fictional cave-dwelling troglodytes south of the Dead Sea? Does anyone on the b-hebrew list think that university scholars have analyzed Esau’s “Edom” in the Patriarchal narratives correctly?
The entire premise of chapters 31-33 of Genesis is that Jacob cannot avoid meeting up with his potentially hostile older twin brother Esau when Jacob is in the process of returning home to Canaan from eastern Syria, as Jacob travels straight west through the heart of Gilead [slowly passing through the southern end of northern Gilead] along the northern bank of the Jabbok River. Chapters 31-33 of Genesis thus mandate that (a) Še-e-ri : שעיר : “Seir” and (b) ú-du-mu : אדום : “Edom” in this truly ancient Biblical text must have their historically-attested meanings from the Late Bronze Age: “Seir”/“Edom” is northwest Gilead.
As has been the linguistic focus of this particular thread, when the text explicitly s-a-y-s (at Genesis 32: 3) that Jacob sends his messengers “straight ahead of him” : “before his face” : לפניו to see Esau in “Seir”/“Edom”, the text means exactly what it says: Jacob will soon be traveling straight west to Succoth on the southern edge of “Seir”/“Edom”, and Jacob sends his messengers straight west : “straight ahead of him” : “before his face” : לפניו to see Esau in the land of “Seir”/the fields of “Edom”. Why torture the Hebrew text, as scholars do, to try to force the text to say that Jacob allegedly sent his messengers 90 long miles out of the way, in a completely different direction, s-o-u-t-h , to a locale south of the Dead Sea? The text does not say that!
Note that the text uses some version of the word “face” : פנים on 11 occasions (in 8 verses) from Genesis 32: 3 - Genesis 33: 14 in describing how Jacob is proceeding “straight ahead” : “before his face” : לפניו to his fateful “face-to-face” meeting with Esau. Genesis 32: 3, 16, 17, 20, 21; 33: 3, 10, 14. The point of making such repeated use of that particular nomenclature is to emphasize that Esau is “straight ahead of” Jacob, “before his face”, and Jacob cannot avoid having a “face-to-face” meeting with a potentially hostile Esau, as Jacob proceeds straight west [לפניו] along the northern bank of the Jabbok River through the southern end of Gilead on his way back home to Canaan.
Consider also that as Prof. Waltke properly notes at p. 444 regarding Jacob’s gift of livestock which Esau accepts: “A total of 550 animals is a very large gift.” As a practical matter, if Esau lived, as scholars would have it, south of the Dead Sea, would Esau want to take 550 animals on a long, extremely difficult journey of 90 miles, south to an arid locale that could not support such a large addition to Esau’s current flock of animals? Does that make sense?
Once again we have solved a 3,000-year-old Bible mystery right here on the b-hebrew list. Jacob tells Esau at Genesis 33: 14 that Jacob will soon come unto Esau at Seir. Hebrew Patriarch #3 Jacob/“Israel” then proves to be a man of his word when, per Genesis 33: 16, Jacob proceeds to Succoth -- because Succoth is located in the southwest corner of “Seir”/“Edom”, i.e. northwest Gilead in the Late Bronze Age.
This fine, truly ancient Biblical text (which was originally recorded in cuneiform writing way back in the Late Bronze Age, by a scribe retained for the occasion by tent-dwelling early Hebrews in rural southern Canaan) makes perfect sense on all levels on the foregoing historical analysis.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois