Ezra: Adding a Yod in Genesis to Save Judaism

For discussions which focus upon specific words, their origin, meaning, relationship to other ANE languages.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Ezra: Adding a Yod in Genesis to Save Judaism

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Ezra: Adding a Yod in Genesis to Save Judaism

On this thread, let’s discuss whether Ezra added a yod at Genesis 13: 18 (and, in the same way, at Genesis 14: 13 and Genesis 18: 1 as well), in order to save Judaism.

It is generally agreed that Ezra was the final editor of Genesis, in the mid-5th century BCE. Having said that, there is little or no agreement as to what extent, and in what precise manner, Ezra may have edited Genesis. But most analysts would agree that Ezra did at least some editing of Genesis. That means that Ezra was in position to add a yod at Genesis 13: 18, if Ezra determined that adding such yod was desirable.

In my opinion, (i) Ezra made only a fairly small number of editorial changes to the truly ancient text of the Patriarchal narratives that he inherited; (ii) all of Ezra’s editing consisted exclusively of adding a letter or a phrase, while never changing or deleting a letter or a phrase; Ezra, who was an honorable man, considered himself to be doing nothing more or less than creating an annotated version of the Patriarchal narratives; whereas today we would use footnotes, Ezra had to put his “annotations”/editorial additions/glosses/“footnotes” right into the text; one great aspect of this for us today, by the way, is that we can recover the original, unedited version of the Patriarchal narratives by simply identifying, and then deleting, Ezra’s short edits; (iii) virtually all of Ezra’s edits were geographical in nature; in the guise of providing a modern (mid-5th century BCE) “explanation” of geographical references in the Patriarchal narratives via “annotations”, Ezra in fact instituted a new, ultra-southerly geographical orientation to the Patriarchal narratives; and finally, (iv) Ezra’s honorable motivation for re-imagining the geography that underlies the Patriarchal narratives was to save Judaism by making the Patriarchs, for the first time, become beloved to the Jews of Jerusalem.

It is my considered opinion that prior to Ezra’s editing of the text in the mid-5th century BCE, the truly ancient text of the Patriarchal narratives had portrayed the Patriarchs as generally operating northwest or north of Jerusalem, and as never operating in the land that later became the heart of Judah. For that reason, Jews in pre-exilic and post-exilic Jerusalem did not view the Patriarchs as being beloved figures, but rather viewed them as having been northern Hebrews (not southern Hebrews), who were the predecessors not of beloved Judah, but rather of now-hated Israel/northern Canaan. The Jews in Jerusalem blamed Israel for failing to protect Judah from the onslaughts of the Assyrians and Babylonians.

Indication that, prior to Ezra, the Patriarchs were not beloved in pre-exilic Jerusalem is that after Genesis, the Hebrew Bible contains relatively few references to Abraham. Abraham is referenced only once in Leviticus, only once in Numbers, only twice in Joshua, not at all in Judges or I and II Samuel, and only once in each of I and II Kings. Yet by the beginning of the Common Era, after Ezra’s editing of Genesis, Abraham had become one of the most beloved figures of all time, a monumental position that Abraham has retained until this very day. Thus we read at Luke 16: 22: “And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom….” Though that is part of the New Testament, certainly it reflects the key fact that by the beginning of the Common Era, Abraham was a truly revered figure among the Jews of Jerusalem generally.

Ezra had an additional motive for wanting the Patriarchs to become truly beloved. By hyping the Patriarchs, Ezra supported his controversial view (required by imperial Persia) that Jewish men should not marry foreign women: each Patriarch had married a relative.

On this thread, let’s ask if Ezra saved Judaism, and made Abraham and the Patriarchs beloved figures (as southern Hebrews) to the Jews of post-exilic Jerusalem, by deftly adding a yod at Genesis 13: 18. If the problem, prior to Ezra, was that the Patriarchs were identified with Israel and the now-extinct, maligned northern Hebrews, after Ezra’s edits the Patriarchs were solidly re-positioned, retroactively, as having allegedly operated in the very heart of Judah. The main thing that was needed in order to accomplish that critically-important goal was for Ezra to add one particular yod at Genesis 13: 18. That one yod changed everything.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Ezra: Adding a Yod in Genesis to Save Judaism

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Did Ezra add a strategically-placed yod at Genesis 13: 18, in order to save Judaism (by re-positioning the Patriarchs, retroactively, as supposedly having been southern Hebrews who sojourned in the heart of what later became the state of Judah)?

In order to investigate that question, we will compare straight up the relevant portion of Genesis 13: 18 without the yod vs. with the yod. [I have separated the Hebrew words by xx-- in an attempt to keep the computers from auto-reversing the letter-order or word-order.]

#1 [my suggested original version of Genesis 13: 19, prior to Ezra adding a yod]:
xx-- בחברון xx-- אשר xx-- ממרא xx-- באלן xx-- וישב xx-- ויבא xx-- אברם xx--

#2 [received text of Genesis 13: 18 today, as edited by Ezra who may have added a yod]:
xx-- בחברון xx-- אשר xx-- ממרא xx-- באלני xx-- וישב xx-- ויבא xx-- אברם xx--

We can start with #2, which is the received text of Genesis 13: 18 as we have it today. Here is a standard translation, by NRSV, of the above portion of Genesis 13: 18 (per #2, being the received text): “Abram moved his tent, and came and settled by the oaks of [אלני] Mamre, which are at Hebron….”

Now let’s note the manifest problems with that received text.

1. “by the oaks of” would not be expected to be spelled as באלני.

The Biblical spelling of “oak” has an interior vav near the end, אלון, as at Genesis 12: 6. Gesenius gives only that spelling, and says that it means “a strong and hardy tree,…specially the oak”.

“oak” or “oak of” is consistently spelled אלון in the Bible, with an interior vav, per Genesis 12: 6; Judges 4: 11; 9: 6, 37; I Samuel 10: 3.

And that interior vav does not disappear when a yod is added at the end, as “oaks of” at Deuteronomy 11: 30 is spelled: אלוני.

Excluding the three disputed examples that we are examining on this thread (Genesis 13: 18; 14: 13; 18: 1, all of which I see as being a product of Ezra adding a yod at the end), we see that the five letters in the received text, namely באלני, are in a real sense “impossible”, as they never appear elsewhere in the Bible. Rather, we know that both “oak of” and “oaks of” are consistently spelled elsewhere in the Bible (including in the Patriarchal narratives at Genesis 12: 6) with an interior vav.

This is our first important clue that prior to Ezra, the text read as in #1 above, with the key word/phrase in question being spelled באלן, having no yod.

2. “came”, not: “went up [to]”

If the Patriarchs’ Hebron is one and the same place as the high altitude city of Hebron 20 miles south of Jerusalem (which later became King David’s first capital city), then the text should not say that Abram “came” to that high altitude city, but rather should say that Abram “went up [to]” that high altitude city. The Hebrew word that means “go up” is עלה.

Since King David’s city of Hebron is virtually the highest altitude city in Canaan, the only way to get there is to “go up” [עלה] to such city of Hebron. We see this manifest in spades at II Samuel 2: 1: “And it came to pass after this, that David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up [עלה] into any of the cities of Judah? And the LORD said unto him, Go up [עלה]. And David said, Whither shall I go up [עלה]? And he said, Unto Hebron.”

Starting from Bethel, Abram would “go” [בוא] to the Ayalon Valley, but Abram would “go up” [עלה] to the high-altitude city of Hebron (located high on the Ridge Route, 20 miles south of Jerusalem).

3. No Oak Trees at the City of Hebron

Canaan’s climate in the Patriarchal Age was abnormally dry, being prone to droughts and drought-famines. Each of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob experiences such a strong drought-famine in Canaan that the Patriarch either goes to Egypt, or in Isaac’s case planned to go to Egypt but ended up going instead to “Gerar”.

In an abnormally dry time period, there would be no “oaks” at the high-altitude city of Hebron, located in the hills/mountains 20 miles south of Jerusalem. “Oaks” in the plural implies a magnificent grove of oak trees. Even in normal climate times, the mountainous city of Hebron has never featured a magnificent grove of oak trees, or anything remotely like that. Rather, what is prominent at the high-altitude city of Hebron are “hills” : “mountains” : הר, but that word is never used in Genesis to characterize the Patriarchs’ Hebron.

In the dry, drought-prone Patriarchal Age, it is unlikely that there was a single oak tree at or near the mountainous city of Hebron on the Ridge Route. At a minimum, the notion that in the drought-prone Patriarchal Age such high-altitude city of Hebron would be characterized by oak trees, being so prominent and noteworthy as to be mentioned three times in the Biblical text (at Genesis 13: 18; 14: 13; 18: 1), is “impossible”.

* * *

We begin to see that the received text of Genesis 13: 18, and its traditional, universal interpretation, are “impossible”. There is no such Biblical Hebrew phrase spelled באלני. Abram would not “go” [בוא] to the high-altitude city of Hebron (that later became King David’s first capital city); rather, Abram would “go up” [עלה] to such high-altitude city. And there probably were no “oaks” at all at or near the high-altitude city of Hebron in the drought-prone Patriarchal Age.

#2 (the received text, after Ezra’s editing), together with the conventional/unanimous interpretation thereof, is essentially impossible. In my next post, we will ask if, by sharp contrast, all such problems disappear entirely, and everything makes perfect sense on all levels, if the original text, prior to Ezra’s editing, was #1, without that fateful yod that, in my opinion, Ezra added in the mid-5th century BCE in order to save Judaism.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Ezra: Adding a Yod in Genesis to Save Judaism

Post by Isaac Fried »

אלון is a lofty (על) tree, as are the אלה ELAH of Hos. 4:13, and the אילן, 'tree' of Dan 4:7.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Ezra: Adding a Yod in Genesis to Save Judaism

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Isaac Fried wrote: “אלון is a lofty (על) tree, as are the אלה ELAH of Hos. 4:13, and the אילן, 'tree' of Dan 4:7.”

Yes, but באלני in the received text of Genesis 13: 18 has neither an interior vav like the word for “lofty tree”, nor an interior yod like the Aramaic word for “tree” at Daniel 4: 10, and unlike the word for “tree” that you cite in Hosea, it features a nun. That backs up my prior post, which showed that the received text of Genesis 13: 18, which features a yod at the end of the phrase באלני, together with the conventional/universal interpretation of Genesis 13: 18, are essentially “impossible”. The phrase “by the oak trees of” would require an internal vav that is not there, there were likely no oak trees at the city of Hebron, and one would have to “go up” to the mountainous city of Hebron, not (per the wording of Genesis 13: 18) “go” to the city of Hebron.

Was that yod in the received text of Genesis 13: 18 deftly added by Ezra in the mid-5th century BCE, in order to save Judaism (by re-positioning the Patriarchs, retroactively, as supposedly having been southern Hebrews who sojourned in the heart of what later became the state of Judah)? If we today are willing to consider removing that one suspicious yod, as perhaps not having been in the text of the Patriarchal narratives for the 900 years preceding Ezra, does removal of that one particular yod solve all of the many problems we have noted with Genesis 13: 18 (without incurring any new problems)? If that one yod is removed, would Genesis 13: 18 then make perfect sense linguistically, logically and textually, and could we even then verify the pinpoint historical accuracy of Genesis 13: 18, based on well-known non-biblical sources? Would the scholarly community then be forced [wake me if I’m dreaming here] to give up its insistence that there is not a single specific historical fact from the Bronze Age accurately set forth in the Patriarchal narratives? In a word, one’s entire view of the Patriarchal narratives may well be riding on that one yod which, in my considered opinion, was not in the text of Genesis 13: 18 in the 900 years that this verse was a written text (beginning as a cuneiform text) prior to Ezra.

If we remove that suspicious yod, then the relevant portion of Genesis 13: 18 (without that yod) would read as follows:

xx-- בחברון xx-- אשר xx-- ממרא xx-- באלן xx-- וישב xx-- ויבא xx-- אברם xx--

In the 900 years prior to Ezra, how would that sentence (without the yod) logically have been interpreted? With there being no interior vav, the Hebrew letters באלן would not have been understood as meaning “by the oak trees of” (which is the majority view today of what those letters entail in the received text, which features a yod at the end of those letters). Rather, the Hebrew letters באלן would have been understood as literally meaning “in Ayalon” or “in Ayalon of”, and as necessarily implying: “in the Ayalon Valley” or “in the Ayalon Valley of” (or, by implication in context: “in the Ayalon Valley[, whose ruling princeling at the time was]”).

I see the first written version of Genesis 13: 18 as being in cuneiform writing and as dating to the Amarna Age in the mid-14th century BCE. If so, then we can be certain as to how “Ayalon” would have been spelled in cuneiform at that time and in that place. At Amarna Letter EA 287: 57, the Hurrian scribe of IR-Heba of Jerusalem writes this city name as: ia-lu-na. (Per various idiosyncrasies that are semi-unique to IR-Heba’s Hurrian scribe and the text of the Patriarchal narratives, it is fairly likely that IR-Heba’s Hurrian scribe may have been the very person whom the early tent-dwelling Hebrews retained, on a single occasion, to record in cuneiform writing their grand account of the Hebrew Patriarchs.) IR-Heba’s Hurrian scribe in Jerusalem wrote the name “Ayalon” with three cuneiform signs, so per defective Hebrew spelling (which consistently applies to proper names throughout the Patriarchal narratives, as opposed to common words), we would expect there to be precisely three Hebrew letters in the Biblical Hebrew rendering of this name in the Patriarchal narratives. The 3-letter defective Hebrew spelling of “Ayalon” would then be: אלן.

It’s true that in later Books of the Bible (where ancient cuneiform spellings are entirely irrelevant), “Ayalon” usually has full-plene spelling, having both an interior yod near the beginning, and an interior vav near the end: אילון. See for example Joshua 21: 24. But even in those later Books of the Bible, there are clues that both the interior vav and the interior yod were optional, being optional elements of the plene spelling of “Ayalon”. At I Samuel 14: 31, there is no interior vav near the end of the spelling there of “Ayalon”. So adding a he/H at the end, since the phrase there is “to Ayalon”, we see: אילנה. As to whether the interior yod near the beginning of the spelling of “Ayalon” may also have been optional, we turn to Judges 12: 11-12. At Judges 12: 12 we see the normal spelling of the west Semitic man’s name transliterated as “Elon”, which is “Ayalon” without an interior yod near the beginning of such personal name: אלון. That same verse, Judges 12: 12, also references “Ayalon” itself, with its normal full-plene spelling: אילון. But in the immediately preceding verse, Judges 12: 11, that same man named “Elon” has his name spelled with an interior yod near the beginning, being the normal spelling of “Ayalon”: אילון. Since “Elon” as a man’s name seems to be an obvious play on “Ayalon” at Judges 12: 11-12, and “Elon” there can be spelled with or without an interior yod, that implies that “Ayalon” likewise could be spelled with or without an interior yod.

Thus based on (i) I Samuel 14: 31 and Judges 12: 11-12, (ii) the cuneiform spelling at Jerusalem of “Ayalon” as ia-lu-na, with precisely three cuneiform signs, and (iii) the fact that true defective spelling of names is commonplace in the Patriarchal narratives, we can deduce that the defective spelling of “Ayalon” is: אלן.

We would expect both absolute singular and construct singular to have the same spelling.

So if there’s no yod/י at the end (prior to Ezra’s edits), then אלן at Genesis 13: 18 would mean either “Ayalon” or “Ayalon of”.

Note the dramatic change as to the geographical locale of the Patriarchs’ favorite place to sojourn in Canaan, namely the Patriarchs’ Hebron, based on the presence or absence of that one yod. The thesis of this thread (which in due course will set forth further support for this proposition) is that Ezra added a yod at the end, which changed this proper name, “Ayalon of”, into a common word, “oak trees of”. By simply adding a single yod into the text, Ezra deftly took the Patriarchs out of the Ayalon Valley, retroactively, and then was able to re-locate the Patriarchs in the heart of the future state of Judah, at the site of King David’s first capital city of Hebron. Prior to Ezra’s ingenious editing, no one had ever thought that the Patriarchs’ Hebron was one and the same place as King David’s Hebron, in part because Genesis 13: 18 had expressly stated (for the preceding 900 years, in writing) that the Patriarchs sojourned at Ayalon (that is, in the rural northern two-thirds of the Ayalon Valley), and in part because, as we will see in a later post, the description of the Patriarchs’ Hebron fits the Ayalon Valley perfectly, while being incompatible with the high-altitude city of Hebron. But by adding one yod at Genesis 13: 18, Ezra was then free to equate King David’s city of Hebron for the first time with the Patriarchs’ rural Hebron. Voila! Per Ezra’s adept geographically-oriented editing, the Patriarchs were now, retroactively and forevermore, southern Hebrews, whose favorite place to sojourn was in the heart of the future state of Judah.

And to think, all it took to accomplish that dramatic change (and perhaps save Judaism in the process) was, for the most part, simply adding one yod at Genesis 13: 18. No one ever said Ezra wasn’t smart.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Ezra: Adding a Yod in Genesis to Save Judaism

Post by Jim Stinehart »

On this thread we are examining whether, at Genesis 13: 18 (and Genesis 14: 13; 18: 1), the text before Ezra’s edits said אלן, rather than the אלני that is in the received text. If, as I assert, the text before Ezra read אלן, then that would mean that the Patriarchs’ Hebron was in the low-lying, rural, severely-underpopulated northern Ayalon Valley (אלן = “Ayalon”), being a completely different place than King David’s first capital city of Hebron, 20 miles south of Jerusalem. This post will compare the text’s description of the Patriarchs’ Hebron first to King David’s high-altitude first capital city of Hebron, and then to the low-lying Ayalon Valley, to see whether the Patriarchs’ Hebron is or is not one and the same place as the city of Hebron.

The high-altitude city of Hebron, located on the Ridge Route in the heart of Judah, is a classic “mountain city”, as lovingly and unforgettably described over a 100 years ago by a Jewish traveler as follows:

“Ancient Hebron stood higher than the present city…. [T]he hills of Judea reach their greatest elevation in the neighborhood…. Most towns in Palestine are built on hills, but Hebron lies low. Yet the surrounding hills are thirty-two hundred feet above the level of the Mediterranean, and five hundred feet higher than Mount Olivet. For this reason Hebron is ideally placed for conveying an impression of the mountainous character of Judea. In Jerusalem you are twenty-six hundred feet above the sea, but, being high up, you scarcely realize that you are in a mountain city. The hills about Hebron tower loftily above you, and seem a fitting abode for…giants….” Israel Abrahams, “A Visit to Hebron”, in The Book of Delight and Other Papers (1912).

The Patriarchs would not have been living in tents, tending their sheep and goats, in the city of Hebron proper, of course, but rather would have been living in “the surrounding hills[, which] are thirty-two hundred feet above the level of the Mediterranean, and five hundred feet higher than Mount Olivet[,…]conveying an impression of the mountainous character of Judea”. That’s “mountainous” southern “hill” country, with the accent on הר [“hill” : “mountain”].

In this connection, it is important to note that the English word “valley” does not have exactly the same meaning as the Hebrew word עמק. The Hebrew word עמק means “a low-lying tract of land” or “a broad true valley”. Although in English we could refer to a very high-altitude “mountain valley”, the Hebrew word עמק is not used in that sense in the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, in the context of southern Canaan, the Hebrew word עמק in the Hebrew Bible almost always refers to the Shephelah, or one of the valleys that comprise the Shephelah. So although in English we might say (with Israel Abrahams) that the city of Hebron is located in a high-altitude mountain “valley”, King David’s high-altitude first capital city of Hebron (as opposed to the Patriarchs’ low-lying Hebron) is never referred to in the Hebrew Bible as being situated in an עמק.

On three separate occasions, the site of King David’s high-altitude city of Hebron, namely southern hill country, is said to be “up”/עלה [the Hebrew verb that means “go up”]: Joshua 10: 36; Judges 16: 3; II Samuel 2: 1.

And on four separate occasions, the site of King David’s high-altitude city of Hebron, namely southern hill country, is said to be in the “hills” or “mountains”/הר, that is, “mountainous” southern “hill” country: Joshua 11: 21; Joshua 20: 7; 21: 11; Judges 16: 3.

Indeed, how on earth could repeated references to the Patriarchs’ Hebron in the Patriarchal narratives never once use the word הר : “hill”/“mountain”, if the Patriarchs’ Hebron is one and the same place as, or is located in the “hills”/“mountains” near, the high-altitude “mountain city” of Hebron on the Ridge Route?

The Patriarchs’ Hebron, which surely must be a completely different place than the high-altitude city of Hebron, is never once said in the Patriarchal narratives to be “up”/עלה or to be in or near “hills” or “mountains”/הר. Rather, by sharp contrast, the Patriarchs’ Hebron is said at Genesis 37: 14 to be a “low-lying tract of land” : “a broad, true valley” : עמק. That description fits the Ayalon Valley perfectly, but not the high-altitude city of Hebron. (For example, at Joshua 10: 12 Ayalon is described, not at all surprisingly, as being an עמק.)

In the Patriarchal narratives, the Patriarchs’ Hebron is described as being an עמק, and the words עלה and הר are never used to describe the Patriarchs’ Hebron. Certainly the Patriarchs’ Hebron cannot be the high-altitude city of Hebron! No way. Rather, every aspect of the description of the Patriarchs’ Hebron in the Patriarchal narratives fits perfectly the proper name of such place’s locale that was in the written text (first in cuneiform, and later in alphabetical Hebrew writing) for 900 years, prior to Ezra adding a yod: אלן : “Ayalon”.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Ezra: Adding a Yod in Genesis to Save Judaism

Post by Jim Stinehart »

On this thread, we are examining my contention that Genesis 13: 18 originally said that Abram came to אלן : “Ayalon”, that is, the Ayalon Valley as the site of the Patriarchs’ Hebron, a locale outside of the heartland of the future state of Judah. On my view, Ezra added a yod to that verse in the mid-5th century BCE, so that for the last 2,500 years (but not before then), Genesis 13: 18 has been misinterpreted as saying that Abram came to אלני : the “oak trees of” the city of Hebron, 20 miles south of Jerusalem on the Ridge Route, in the very heart of the later state of Judah (even though the city of Hebron has never been notable for “oak trees”).

In this post, we will examine which locale is a “logical” place for Abram to choose to sojourn, given what the text tells us about the movements of Abram and Lot.

Coming from Harran in eastern Syria, the path of Abram and Lot through Canaan, and then to Egypt and back again, must have been as follows:

(i) Abram and Lot first traveled south through northern Canaan to Shechem in northern Canaan. Genesis 12: 6. In so doing, Abram and Lot of necessity traversed the lush Jezreel Valley (Canaan’s breadbasket), where there was plenty of wealth, and the soft life of living in cities enticed Lot.

(ii) Continuing to move south through northern Canaan, Abram and Lot finally made it to Bethel, which effectively divides the northern two-thirds of Canaan (north of Bethel) from the southern one-third of Canaan (south of Bethel). Genesis 12: 8.

(iii) From Bethel, Abram went to Egypt. (Apparently Lot went with Abram to Egypt, though Lot is not mentioned in Egypt. Genesis 13: 5 later says that Lot “went with Abram” in describing Abram’s return to Canaan from Egypt.) The logical way for Abram and Lot to take their families and flock from Bethel to Egypt was first to traverse southern Canaan by way of the Diagonal Route, a slow, winding road that went southwest through the Shephelah to the Negev Desert. JPS 1985 (similar to Robert Alter) translates Genesis 12: 9 as follows: “Then Abram journeyed by stages toward the Negeb.” Both logic and the wording of Genesis 12: 9 fit the Diagonal Route perfectly, which went by the small city of Ayalon in the Ayalon Valley in going through the Shephelah west of the future state of Judah.

It would not have made sense for Abram and Lot to proceed straight south from Bethel to and past Jerusalem, and then to the city of Hebron, using the Ridge Route. That was a fine route for King David’s army to take, but it was not appropriate for a slow-moving set of families with all their livestock. The mountainous Ridge Route was too narrow, with little or no room to the left or the right, for families with livestock to proceed slowly “by stages” along such route. Moreover, no mention of Jerusalem or the city of Hebron is made at Genesis 12: 9. [If university scholars were right that (a) Jews living in the holy city of Jerusalem in the mid-1st millennium BCE made up the Patriarchal narratives as convenient fiction umpteen centuries after any historical Patriarchal Age, and that (b) Abram is allegedly portrayed as walking right past Jerusalem three times (in going to Egypt, in returning from Egypt, and then in allegedly going to settle at or near the city of Hebron), then why oh why doesn’t Genesis 12: 9 or Genesis 13: 3 or Genesis 13: 18 ever mention Jerusalem?] The fact of the matter is that based on what the text says and does not say, and basic geographical logic, then certainly Abram and Lot and their large entourage took the Diagonal Route slowly southwest through the Shephelah in traversing southern Canaan, just before leaving Canaan to head out for Egypt.

On his blog “Roses and Razorwire”, Owen Chestnut, an archaeology PhD student in Israel, described these two very different routes through southern Canaan as follows:

“[In approaching Canaan from Egypt and then proceeding north through southern Canaan,] there are two main routes…. One is the Diagonal Route running through the Shephelah, beginning at Lachish and running northeast past Mareshah, [Moresheth]-Gath, Azekah, Zorah, and ending at Aijalon. This route can still be traveled today as a modern road runs along most of it. The other route is the Watershed Ridge Route through the Hill Country, beginning at Hebron and running past Beth-zur, Etam, and Bethlehem to Jerusalem.”

Owen Chestnut was kind enough to answer an e-mail from me, in which he agreed with me that the logical route for Abram to take through southern Canaan in going to and from Egypt was definitely the Diagonal Route, not the Ridge Route. [By the way, the reason why the valley west of Jerusalem is called the “Ayalon” Valley, rather than the “Gezer” Valley, even though Gezer was a much larger and much more important city than Ayalon, is precisely because countless travelers passed by this valley via the small city of Ayalon on the Diagonal Route, whereas the large city of Gezer is well west of the city of Ayalon and is not on the Diagonal Route.]

As to the incompatibility of the Ridge Route for Abram, consider that the Ridge Route follows a mountainous narrow ridge, and there is no space to go left or right to enable travelers or their livestock to rest, so that one cannot proceed “in stages” along the Ridge Route:

“In the section between Hebron and Shechem it [the Ridge Route] follows a single track corresponding approximately to the watershed, and the deep wadis on both sides prevent any deviation to the right or left.” Yohanan Aharoni, “The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography” (1979), p. 57. “The original path would have been three or four feet wide,
…a stone-riddled trail winding around the mountains to avoid steep climbs.” Bruce Feiler, “Walking the Bible” (2005), p. 51.

(iv) Abram and Lot return from Egypt using the same route (in particular taking the Diagonal Route northeast through the Shephelah in traversing southern Canaan), ending at Bethel. (Bethel had been their starting point upon reaching the dividing line between northern and southern Canaan, and it is at Bethel where Abram and Lot will famously and permanently part ways.) JPS 1985 (similar to Robert Alter) uses the following wording, redolent of the Diagonal Route, in describing Abram’s path through southern Canaan in returning from Egypt: “[Abram] proceeded by stages from the Negeb as far as Bethel.” Genesis 13: 3.

On the foregoing scenario, all the movements of Abram and Lot are 100% logical, and fit what the text says (and does not say) perfectly.

Note that Abram goes past the small city of Ayalon in the Ayalon Valley twice: in going to Egypt from Bethel, and in returning from Egypt to Bethel, in both cases per the Diagonal Route. So it would be logical for Abram, upon parting with Lot at Bethel, to return to Ayalon and the Ayalon Valley. The rural northern two-thirds of the Ayalon Valley was ideal for tending a large flock of sheep and goats in the Late Bronze Age, because lack of rain had caused that land to revert to pastureland and to become severely underpopulated. Note also that neither Abram or Lot is ever anywhere in the general vicinity of either (a) the city of Hebron, 20 miles south of Jerusalem on the mountainous Ridge Route, or (b) the Dead Sea area.

Incredibly, university scholars unanimously assert that when Abram and Lot part ways at Bethel, (a) Abram allegedly goes to the high-altitude city of Hebron, though he had never been anywhere near that part of Canaan, it is not suitable for a large flock of sheep and goats, and nothing in the description of the Patriarchs’ Hebron fits the city of Hebron (whereas everything fits perfectly the rural northern Ayalon Valley), and (b) Lot allegedly goes to the Dead Sea area to live the soft city life, even though Lot had never been anywhere near that part of the world, and no soft city life was to be had at, or in the general vicinity of, the Dead Sea. How can university scholars be so certain that the author or authors of the Patriarchal narratives were allegedly utterly ignorant of the basic geography of southern Canaan? Is that a reasonable position to take?

Contra the scholarly view, using logic and fully consistent with what the text says (and does not say), upon splitting up with Lot at Bethel Abram naturally went back southwest from Bethel to the Ayalon Valley. Prior to Ezra’s editing (which added a yod), Genesis 13: 18 flat out said that, where אלן = “Ayalon”. Just as naturally, Lot went back north to the soft city life he had previously seen in the lush Jezreel Valley. (Lot’s initial movement upon leaving Bethel was to proceed straight “east” [Genesis 13: 11] to the Jordan River, so that Lot could thereupon instantly lay claim to the entire Greater Jordan River Valley, that is, the two-thirds of Canaan north of Bethel. Though Lot was younger than his uncle Abram, nevertheless Lot represented the older branch of the descendants of Abram’s father Terakh; Lot represented Lot’s father Haran, Abram’s older brother who had predeceased Terakh at Ur of the Kassites. As the representative of Terakh’s firstborn son, Lot thought that Lot deserved a double share of the division of Canaan between these two branches of Terakh’s descendants, so Lot logically picked the attractive northern two-thirds of Canaan. The unanimous scholarly view that Lot forsook all of lovely Canaan and idiotically insisted on proceeding to and living in the ultra-dry Dead Sea area makes no sense on any level, and should be jettisoned once and for all. Lot’s Sodom is located in the lush Jezreel Valley, not the barren Dead Sea area.)

Thus using logic, and based on what the text says and does not say, Genesis 13: 18 should logically be expected to say that Abram came to Ayalon. It does. Or at least it did. Prior to Ezra’s editing in the mid-5th century BCE, by which Ezra added a yod in order to re-position the Patriarchs, retroactively, in the heart of the state of Judah (at the city of Hebron), Genesis 13: 18 had said (without that later-added yod) that Abram came to אלן = “Ayalon”.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Ezra: Adding a Yod in Genesis to Save Judaism

Post by Jim Stinehart »

On this thread we have seen that prior to Ezra adding a yod in the mid-5th century BCE, Genesis 13: 18 may have said that Abram “came to Ayalon of Mamre”. In context, that would mean that Abram “came to the Ayalon Valley, in the days when the princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley was Mamre the Amorite”. We have noted that the description of the Patriarchs’ Hebron as being an עמק, while never being characterized by הר or עלה, fits the Ayalon Valley perfectly, while not fitting the high-altitude city of Hebron 20 miles south of Jerusalem in hill country. We also noted that Abram went to and from Egypt by way of the Diagonal Route through southern Canaan, which passes right by the small city of Ayalon in the Ayalon Valley; as such, it would have been logical for Abram to return to the Ayalon Valley upon splitting with Lot at Bethel, instead of Abram allegedly going to a place he had never been before and which was not conducive in any event to tending a large flock of sheep and goats: the high-altitude city of Hebron.

The issue addressed in this post is as follows. If the text originally portrayed Abram as sojourning in the Ayalon Valley in the days when Mamre the Amorite was the princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley, can that be verified historically?

Genesis 14: 4, 13 can be paraphrased in relevant part as follows: “4…in Year 13 they rebelled. …13…Abram the Hebrew dwelt in the Ayalon Valley of Mamre the Amorite [the princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley in Year 13], who was in fraternal relationship with [the Canaanite princeling] Eshcol and [the Hurrian princeling] Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.”

On the historical front, the following key questions then present themselves:

1. Who was the historical princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley at the beginning of Year 13? Is “Mamre the Amorite” an appropriate Patriarchal nickname for this historical princeling, and is this princeling’s actual historical name honored elsewhere in the Patriarchal narratives?

2. Was this historical Amorite princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley in Year 13 well-known as being allied (per Genesis 14: 13) with a Canaanite princeling, a Hurrian princeling, and tent-dwellers?

Issue #1: Biblical “Mamre the Amorite” = Historical Milkilu the Amorite

“Year 13” at Genesis 14: 4 may well be referencing historical Year 13 in Late Amarna. Based on the Amarna Letters, we know that at the beginning of Year 13, the princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley (at Gezer) was Milkilu.

“Milkilu” is probably an Amorite name (as analyzed below; see also the statement to this effect at “Peake’s Commentary on the Bible” (1962), p. 109). If so, then the historical princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley in Year 13 was Milkilu the Amorite, whereas the Biblical princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley in Year 13 was Mamre the Amorite. As to an Amorite analysis of the name “Milkilu”, note that the Amorite god was called either Amurru or Ilu Amurru: “The Amorite deity [is] called Amurru and Ilu Amurru…in cuneiform sources….” Frank Moore Cross, “Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic” (Harvard University Press 1997), p. 57. In Amorite names, this godly name was almost always shortened to “Ilu”. “Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament” (1974), p. 242. The name “Milkilu” consists of two west Semitic elements: (i) “Milk” = מלך = “king”; (ii) “ilu” is the Amorite theophoric for “God”, being short for the Amorite god’s name “Amurru”. The name “Milkilu” is an Amorite name that means “God [is] King” or “[the god] Amurru [is] King”.

There is no strong scholarly consensus as to the west Semitic meaning of the Biblical name “Mamre” : ממרא. On one level, “Mamre” : ממרא may possibly be a deliberate play on the historical name “Milkilu”. The first part of both the historical name and the Biblical name begins with M/mem. In context, the initial Biblical M could be viewed as being short for M[LK]. The second half of the historical name is “Ilu”, but that’s short for “Amurru”. Note that the consonants in Amurru are MR, plus ending. In cuneiform, Amurru is MAR.TU, where the consonants are MR, plus ending. Now look at the Biblical name after taking off the first M/mem, which leaves: MR’ : מרא. We see that, once again, the consonants are MR, plus ending. Accordingly, it is possible that the Biblical name “Mamre” : ממרא is intentionally a play on the historical name “Milk-Ilu”.

Although “Mamre” is a Patriarchal nickname for Milkilu, it is very important to note that the actual historical name “Milkilu” is honored later in the Patriarchal narratives. The name “Milk-Ilu”, spelled in Hebrew as מלכיאל, is set forth at Genesis 46: 17, immediately before the חבר root of “Hebron” : חברון, being names of two Hebrews who shared the honor of accompanying Jacob to Egypt. At p. 114 of “Amarna Personal Names” (1993), Richard S. Hess says that this Biblical name is the same name as the name “Milk-Ilu” in the Amarna Letters.

Finally, note that Joshua 10: 12 associates the Ayalon Valley with Amorites: “Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.” This may possibly be because (i) prior to Ezra’s editing, Mamre the Amorite was portrayed in Genesis as being the princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley, and/or (ii) in the Amarna Age, Milkilu the Amorite historically was the princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley.

Issue #2: The Attributes of Historical Milkilu the Amorite Match the Attributes of Biblical Mamre the Amorite

Per Genesis 14: 13 above, Biblical Mamre the Amorite is portrayed in the Patriarchal narratives as taking military actions on the basis of being allied with (i) a Canaanite princeling [“Eshcol”], (ii) a Hurrian princeling [“Aner”], and (iii) tent-dwellers [Abram the Hebrew]. These are the precise characteristics that historically applied to Milkilu the Amorite as the princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley in Year 13. At Amarna Letter EA 289, IR-Heba, the princeling ruler of Jerusalem in Year 13, complains to pharaoh that Milkilu the Amorite, in taking military actions, is in cahoots with (i) the Canaanite sons of Labaya, (ii) Milkilu’s Hurrian father-in-law Tagi, and (iii) the tent-dwelling Ḫapiru.

* * *

We come to see that Mamre the Amorite at Genesis 14: 13 is one and the same person as historical Milk-Ilu the Amorite in the Amarna Letters. Each was the fine Amorite princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley in Year 13 of Late Amarna.

All of this is right there in the text of the Patriarchal narratives, once we realize that prior to Ezra’s geographical editing, Genesis 13: 18 had for the preceding 900 years always said that Abram “came to Ayalon of Mamre”, that is, to the Ayalon Valley in the days when its princeling ruler was Mamre the Amorite (historical Milkilu the Amorite). The subsequent reference to “Hebron” in that passage is the Patriarchal pet nickname for their favorite place to sojourn: the rural, under-populated pastureland of the northern two-thirds of the Ayalon Valley. The historical geographical place name at Genesis 13: 18 is not “Hebron” (which is a Patriarchal nickname), but rather is “Ayalon” : אלן.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Post Reply