Hebron and Kiriath Arba: A Close Textual Analysis

[Jim Stinehart]

Hebron and Kiriath Arba: A Close Textual Analysis

On this thread, I would like to focus first on the intended meaning of various Biblical Hebrew common words which establish the precise geographical relationship between (i) the “plain” of Mamre and (ii) the Patriarchs’ Hebron and (iii) the Patriarchs’ Kiriath Arba. [At least in this first post, I am going to ignore temporarily most geographical place names, especially the much-maligned Onkelos/KJV translation “the ‘plain’ of Mamre” (which, however, I will end up at the end of the day defending, after a fashion, believe it or not).]

First up in this regard is the key phrase ב אשר at Genesis 13: 8. KJV translates Genesis 13: 18 as follows:

“And Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in [ב אשר] Hebron….”

How should the phrase ב אשר be understood and translated in this verse? It seems to me that the KJV translation, “which [is] in”, is wrong. Rather, a better first crack at the intended meaning is: “that [is], in”.

So my first suggested improvement in the KJV translation of common words at Genesis 13:18 is:

“And Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, that is, in [ב אשר] Hebron….”

Note that on my reading, the “plain” of Mamre is n-o-t “in” the Patriarchs’ Hebron. I see the KJV understanding of the common words at Genesis 13: 18 as being in error. It is Abram who “dwelt… i-n ” the Patriarchs’ Hebron. Genesis 13: 1 is not saying, in my opinion, that the “plain” of Mamre is located “in” the Patriarchs’ Hebron, as the KJV wording would have it.

On second thought, however, the implied meaning of the phrase ב אשר may actually be specifically as follows (in context, after considering other Biblical verses that we can discuss in later posts on this thread): “that [is], in [ב אשר] [the portion of the plain of Mamre that is] Hebron….”

I suggest that better English wording of Genesis 13: 18, though admittedly not as literal, would be:

“And Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, that [is], in [ב אשר] [the portion of the plain of Mamre that is] Hebron….”

I see that sentence as implying that the Patriarchs’ Hebron is located “in” the plain of Mamre, with the Patriarchs’ Hebron constituting a large portion of, though not all of, the “plain” of Mamre. As is so often the case, however, the Hebrew wording here is, at least out of context, somewhat ambiguous and admits of various interpretations.

[Based on other factors, I myself see the Patriarchs’ Hebron (where the Patriarchs loved to sojourn) as being the rural, underpopulated northern two-thirds of the “plain” of Mamre, expressly excluding the urban southern one-third of the “plain” of Mamre. The southern one-third of Mamre was a fairly densely-populated urban area where the tent-dwelling Patriarchs never sojourned.]

But if I’m wrong in my interpretation of what the phrase ב אשר means or can mean here, please let me know.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
 

[Jim Stinehart]

I apologize for the fact that the b-hebrew list computer has, in interacting with my computer, reversed the order of the 2-word Hebrew phrase discussed in my first post on this thread. That phrase shows up correctly on my own computer, but then when I send it in to the list, somehow the computers reverse the Hebrew word order. (I can't understand why I am the only one who seems to have this perplexing problem.)

So my apologies for the computers messing up the Hebrew word order, but honestly I don't know what I can do about that. (Perhaps I should be glad that this time, the computers didn't mix up the letter order as well.)

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

Genesis 23: 2: Is Kiriath Arba the Prior Name of the Patriarchs’ Hebron? No!

Having considered what I take to be the implied meaning of the common words in Genesis 13: 18, let’s now move on to the next Bible verse that helps establish the exact geographical relationship between (i) the “plain” of Mamre and (ii) the Patriarchs’ Hebron and (iii) the Patriarchs’ Kiriath Arba, namely Genesis 23: 2.

Here is the KJV translation of Genesis 23: 2: “And Sarah died in Kirjatharba: the same [הוא] is Hebron in the land of Canaan: and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her.”

In my opinion, the 800-pound gorilla here, which will threaten to (but should not) overshadow all other considerations, is that for reasons that will now be discussed, each and every geographically-oriented phrase in the Patriarchal narratives that starts with הוא, as here, should be viewed as likely being a later-added editorial addition that, by using the tell-tale word הוא, is in fact openly-disclosed as being an editorial addition. Moreover, editorial additions of this type in the Patriarchal narratives, which begin with הוא, should in my opinion be viewed as having been added into the text in 6th century BCE post-exilic Jerusalem, for the express purpose, we will see later, of re-imagining the Patriarchs, for the first time, as allegedly having been southern Hebrews. As such, these geographically-based הוא phrases in the Patriarchal narratives are later-added editorial additions that in most, and perhaps all, cases are substantively false.

Scholars generally agree with me that such phrases in the Patriarchal narratives that start with הוא are very likely later-added editorial additions to an older text. But then, for reasons I cannot fathom, scholars, without batting an eye, then rush to assure us that surely any such later-added editorial additions merely repeat, simply using different, updated geographical terminology, exactly what had been said in the original version of the text. As if we can rest assured that any such later-added editorial additions were done on a 100% altruistic basis and are 100% accurate? How is that a plausible theory of the case?
Here is the classic scholarly statement of that peculiar scholarly view (relating to geographically-based הוא phrases at Genesis 14: 2-17, but the principle is the same as regarding the geographically-based הוא phrase at Genesis 23: 2 here):

“It may be too that the glosses on place names in vv 2 [‘which is [הוא] Zoar’], 3 [‘which is [הוא] the salt sea’], 7, 17 are…to be ascribed to…the J editor: they clarify the sense of the story without adding to it. These editorial additions simply update and clarify the account: even after they are removed there is left a coherent and well-integrated narrative…. [T]he explanatory phrase, ‘that is [הוא] Zoar’, is the first of several glosses in this chapter, indicating that this chapter is based on an old source that has been updated”. Gordon J. Wenham, “World Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15” (1987), pp. 306, 310.

I myself cannot accept the breezy reassurance of scholars that allegedly “[t]hese editorial additions simply update and clarify the account”. No way. For example, in the phrase “vale of Siddim, which is [הוא] the salt sea”, the words “the salt sea” are not updated terminology for “the vale of Siddim”, for heaven’s sake. Rather, anyone can see that the phrase “which is [הוא] the salt sea” is setting forth n-e-w information. How could we possibly trust a later editor to be 100% altruistic and 100% accurate in adding in n-e-w information to an older text? Shouldn’t we at least a-s-k what the older text said, and meant, prior to the time when some later editor, probably in the 6th century BCE, added in these various geographically-based הוא phrases? [Never trust an editor!]

Surely in fact it is more likely that a later editor was instead bent on c-h-a-n-g-i-n-g the meaning of what the older, original text had said. T-h-a-t is why that editor put in that editorial addition in the first place!

So let’s delete that suspect הוא phrase at Genesis 23: 2 and see what the original text said and meant:

“And Sarah died in Kiriath Arba: and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her.”

Actually, that’s not a bad translation right there. But I myself see the following as being the implied meaning here of Genesis 23: 2:

“And Sarah died in Kiriath Arba: and Abraham came [out from the Patriarchs’ rural Hebron] to mourn for Sarah [at the town of Kiriath Arba], and to weep for her.”

We know for sure that the Patriarchs’ Kiriath Arba is a town or city, because the very word “Kiriath”/קרית means “town, city”. By contrast, I myself don’t think that the Patriarchs’ Hebron is a city; but that’s controversial, and that is one of the main issues we are beginning to explore on this thread.

I myself see Kiriath Arba as being a town located (i) immediately south of the “plain” of Mamre, and (ii) several miles south of the Patriarchs’ Hebron. I specifically deny what the KJV translation of Genesis 23: 2 says, where it is alleged that Kiriath Arba “is Hebron”. I even more emphatically deny the oft-heard claim, based on Joshua 14: 15, that what Genesis 23: 2 is actually saying is that Kiriath Arba is allegedly the former name of the Patriarchs’ Hebron. In that case, by the way, then neither Abraham nor Moses would have ever heard of the name “Hebron”! No, no and no. That’s totally wrong in my opinion.

Here’s what the actual facts are, as I see them:

1. Kiriath Arba is n-o-t the Patriarchs’ Hebron (though the town of Kiriath Arba is located fairly close to the Patriarchs’ Hebron).

2. Nor is Kiriath Arba the former name of the Patriarchs’ Hebron.

3. Joshua 14: 15 is historically accurate in correctly saying that the former name of King David’s high altitude first capital city, also called “Hebron”, located 20 miles south of Jerusalem in southern hill country, was “Kiriath Arba”. That’s what was confirmed in my prior thread. But in my considered opinion, that has n-o-t-h-i-n-g to do whatsoever with the Patriarchs’ Hebron.

4. The Patriarchs’ Kiriath Arba -- where first Sarah, and then eventually Abraham, Rebekah, Isaac, Leah and Jacob (but not Rachel) were buried -- is a town located a few miles south of the Patriarchs’ rural Hebron pastureland.

On this thread I am trying to pin down the exact geographical relationship between (i) the “plain” of Mamre and (ii) the Patriarchs’ Hebron and (iii) the Patriarchs’ Kiriath Arba. In doing so, I suggest giving zero weight to each and every geographically-based phrase in the Patriarchal narratives that begins with הוא, because each such phrase appears to me to be an openly-disclosed, geographically-oriented, later-added editorial addition, which more than likely dates to the 6th century BCE, when the geographical understanding of the Patriarchal narratives was suddenly and dramatically changed in post-exilic Jerusalem. The reason for adding in that series of editorial additions in the 6th century BCE, we will later see, was in order to re-position the Patriarchs, retroactively, as supposedly having been southern Hebrews. As such, each of these geographically-based הוא phrases in the Patriarchal narratives is likely substantively false.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

Next up, as we continue to try to pin down the exact geographical relationship between (i) the “plain” of Mamre and (ii) the Patriarchs’ Hebron and (iii) the Patriarchs’ Kiriath Arba, is Genesis 23: 19. Once again, as with Genesis 23: 2, we have here a geographically-oriented phrase in the Patriarchal narratives that starts with הוא, which I myself take as being an openly-disclosed, later-added editorial addition which, like most if not all other geographically-oriented phrases that start with הוא in the Patriarchal narratives, is in my opinion substantively false.

Here is the KJV translation of Genesis 23: 19: “And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre: the same [הוא] is Hebron in the land of Canaan.”

I would delete entirely that suspect phrase that begins with הוא, leaving us then with: “And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre.”

But to clarify what I take to be the intended meaning of this Bible verse, I would add an additional bracketed clarifying phrase at the end, resulting in the “corrected” translation of Genesis 23: 19 being:

“And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre [that is, in the town of Kiriath Arba, located ‘before’ (i.e., just south of) the ‘plain’ of Mamre].”

Now let’s focus here on the fascinating, critically-important phrase “before Mamre”. In Hebrew, that’s: עלפניממרא . The logical meaning of the phrase “before Mamre” is a geographical site that is located just outside of the “plain” of Mamre, being “next to” the plain of Mamre, if you will, but not “in” the plain of Mamre. That is fully consistent with my views that (i) the Patriarchs’ Kiriath Arba is a town located immediately south of the “plain” of Mamre, that is, “before Mamre”, whereas (ii) the Patriarchs’ Kiriath Arba is located a few miles south of the Patriarchs’ Hebron (with the Patriarchs’ Hebron being the rural, underpopulated northern two-thirds of the “plain” of Mamre).

As we are seeing, if (i) we give zero weight to each and every phrase in the Patriarchal narratives that begins with הוא, with each such phrase being viewed as being an openly-disclosed, geographically-oriented, later-added editorial addition which, more than likely, is substantively false, and also (ii) carefully reconsider the originally-intended meaning of the common words in these various Bible verses, then e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g makes sense. In particular, all of these various Bible verses in the Patriarchal narratives we are examining concerning (i) the “plain” of Mamre and (ii) the Patriarchs’ Hebron and (iii) the Patriarchs’ Kiriath Arba make perfect sense, individually and collectively, but if and only if we disregard completely each and every geographically-based הוא phrase, as being an openly-disclosed, later-added editorial addition which, more than likely, is substantively false.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

The fourth and last Bible verse we will examine on this thread, as we continue to try to pin down the exact geographical relationship between (i) the “plain” of Mamre and (ii) the Patriarchs’ Hebron and (iii) the Patriarchs’ Kiriath Arba, is Genesis 35: 27. Once again, as with Genesis 23: 2 and Genesis 23: 19, this verse contains a geographically-oriented phrase in the Patriarchal narratives that starts with הוא, which I myself take as being an openly-disclosed, later-added editorial addition which, like most if not all other geographically-oriented phrases that start with הוא in the Patriarchal narratives, is in my opinion substantively false.
But regarding Genesis 35: 27, we will find another issue of importance regarding Hebrew common words that occur in such verse before such suspect phrase.

Here is the KJV translation of Genesis 35: 27: “And Jacob came unto Isaac his father unto Mamre unto the city of Arbah, which [הוא] is Hebron, where Abraham and Isaac sojourned.”

I suggest making two changes here. First, as always, delete entirely that suspect phrase that begins with הוא. But secondly, quite importantly, please consider my further suggestion that instead of implying the second “unto” [with no word at all being there in the Hebrew text, but obviously something must be implied there to render this verse into English], I myself would imply
the following phrase: “, and also unto”.

Making my two suggested changes results in the following “corrected” text of Genesis 35: 27:

“And Jacob came unto Isaac his father unto Mamre, and also unto the city of Arba [the town of Kiriath Arba].”

I explicitly deny what the KJV translation of this verse implicitly asserts, namely that Abraham and Isaac allegedly sojourned at the city of Arbah/Kiriath Arba. No they did not sojourn at Kiriath Arba! They buried Sarah (and others) at the town of Kiriath Arba, at an urban gravesite, but they never sojourned there.

Note how logical my reading of Genesis 35: 27 is. When the text says that “Jacob came…unto Mamre”, that is obviously referring on one level to the rural pastureland, usually referred to as “Hebron”, where the Patriarchs most often sojourned. When Jacob returned home (to rural Hebron), the first thing he did, naturally, was to visit his elderly father Isaac, who seemed to be practically on his deathbed. But the second thing that Jacob did, also very naturally, was to visit his mother Rebekah’s gravesite (where his paternal grandparents Sarah and Abraham also were buried), namely the urban gravesite in the town of Kiriath Arba, located several miles south of the Patriarchs’ rural Hebron (with the Patriarchs’ Hebron not being a town or city, in my opinion), and being located immediately south of the “plain” of Mamre. (The Patriarchs’ Hebron was the rural, lightly-populated northern two-thirds of Mamre, here denoted by the following phrasing in KJV: the “plain” of Mamre. The southern one-third of Mamre was located between the Patriarchs’ rural Hebron pastureland, to the north, and the town of Kiriath Arba, to the south. The southern one-third of Mamre was a fairly densely populated urban area, as such being very much unlike the underpopulated rural Hebron where the tent-dwelling Patriarchs loved to sojourn in southern Canaan.) We won’t get this translation and meaning quite right until we address the question of why Onkelos chose to translate אלני as “plain of”, but that key issue will have to wait until another post.

You see, when old Sarah was undergoing her final illness, which would soon result in her death, Abraham had decided, for better or for worse, but admirably in any event, that maybe Sarah’s life might be prolonged if she saw a doctor in a town, rather than Sarah dying with no medical treatment in the Patriarchs’ rural Hebron. So Abraham took ailing Sarah a few miles south of the Patriarchs’ rural Hebron pastureland to the town of Kiriath Arba. Abraham then returned to his beloved rural Hebron pastureland to tend his sheep and goats, leaving Sarah with a doctor in the town of Kiriath Arba. But then Sarah quickly died, in the town of Kiriath Arba, a few miles south of the Patriarchs’ rural Hebron. Yes, one’s first thought might be that surely Abraham would have taken Sarah’s corpse back to the Patriarchs’ beloved rural Hebron, and would have then buried Sarah on the open range, not having to pay a dime to anyone for a burial site. But clearly that’s not what Abraham did! However, there is nevertheless a half-truth there: normally tent-dwellers often buried their dead on the open range, in part because that avoided having to pay out money for an urban gravesite, but also because tent-dwellers lived on the open range, so why not bury their dead there?

But Abraham wanted to have formal legal ownership of Sarah’s gravesite, being a legal ownership that would be officially recognized and honored by the townspeople of Kiriath Arba. So instead of utilizing the cheap, readily-available alternative of taking Sarah’s corpse a few miles north back to the Patriarchs’ rural Hebron, and burying her for free out on the open range/pastureland as might ordinarily have been expected for tent-dwellers, we know for certain that Abraham in fact did nothing of the kind. Rather, Abraham paid a huge price to acquire full legal title to an urban gravesite. Yes, it’s a large field with a cave, but the key here is that it is nevertheless an urban gravesite, which as such, not surprisingly, was very expensive. Large urban lots don’t come cheap! Now we understand how Ephron could demand, and get from Abraham, a sky-high price for Sarah’s gravesite -- it was an urban gravesite, and a large field with a cave in an urban environment is going to cost you serious money.

The scene of Abraham bargaining with Ephron to buy Sarah’s gravesite is definitely very urban: “And Ephron [a Hurrian name literally meaning “the lord” in Hurrian] dwelt among the children of Heth [that is, Hurrians living in southern Canaan in the 14th century BCE]: and Ephron the [חתי/xu-ti-ia -Y/the Praise Teshup people/KJV: “]Hittite[”, i.e. Hurrian] answered Abraham in the audience of the children of Heth [Hurrians living in southern Canaan in the 14th century BCE], even of all that went in at the gate of his city, saying”. Genesis 23: 10. Note in particular the phrase near the end that is so urban: “all that went in at the gate of his city”. And of course “his city” is the town of Kiriath Arba (which I see as being historical Rubutu, as mentioned in the Amarna Letters, where both city names have as their root RB/רב).

Per Genesis 23: 6, the Hurrian townspeople had several places in the town of Kiriath Arba where townspeople were buried. But per Genesis 23: 8-9, Abraham was only interested in one place in the town of Kiriath Arba for Sarah’s gravesite -- a cave owned by the powerful Hurrian lord “Ephron” [ עפרון = I-pi-ri-i[n]-ne]. Abraham wants that one cave, and he wants to pay for it (to obtain legal title to it), and he wants all the Hurrian/חתי townspeople of Kiriath Arba to formally acknowledge that Abraham has thereby acquired full legal ownership of that cave. [Note, by the way, how this entire scene makes perfect sense in the Amarna Age, which is when Hurrian princelings briefly dominated Canaan, including southern Canaan, as we know from the Amarna Letters -- Hurrian princelings IR-Heba, Tagi and Shuwardata largely dominated southern Canaan in Year 13; whereas this scene, involving Hurrian townspeople in southern Canaan and an imperious Hurrian lord who sells an urban lot to Abraham, makes no sense whatsoever in any other historical time period.]

True, Abraham didn’t really want that large field. All that Abraham wanted was the cave in the field, which is where Abraham will bury Sarah. If Abraham could have bought only that cave, the price would naturally have been much lower. But crafty Ephron was having none of that! Ephron sensed, correctly, that Abraham was d-e-s-p-e-r-a-t-e to have full legal ownership of that particular cave as an urban gravesite. Ephron was the person who had the strong bargaining position here, and he utilized it to the hilt. Ephron refused to sell Abraham just the cave that Abraham wanted, but instead shrewdly forced Abraham to buy as well the large field in which that cave was located. That greatly increased the price for this urban gravesite.

The reason w-h-y the Patriarchal narratives portray Abraham as paying a small fortune to acquire an expensive urban gravesite for Sarah is this. The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives was at pains to portray b-o-t-h of the following: (i) the Patriarchs were tent-dwellers, who never lived in cities; b-u-t (ii) the Patriarchs were definitely a cut above (to say the least) most other tent-dwellers, who were the Habiru, and who generally had a very bad reputation. In order to portray the Patriarchs as being extremely high-class people (which indeed they were!), and as such being a big cut above most all other tent-dwellers/Habiru, the Patriarchal narratives portray Abraham as spending a small fortune to purchase a proper gravesite, being an expensive urban gravesite, for Sarah in the town of Kiriath Arba.

Please note that the foregoing would seem to be the only possible logical explanation for why Abraham paid a king’s ransom for Sarah’s urban gravesite, instead of burying Sarah for free out on the open range/pastureland where he tended sheep and goats, as one might ordinarily have expected.

In a word, e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g makes complete sense on all levels, if we (i) reconsider the intended meaning of the common words in these four Bible verses, and (ii) delete entirely each and every phrase in the Patriarchal narratives that begins with הוא, with each such phrase being viewed by me as being an openly-disclosed, geographically-oriented, later-added editorial addition which is substantively false.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

Is “Ayalon”/אלן Intended to Be Referenced by אלני at Genesis 13: 18?

At Genesis 13: 18; 14: 13; and 18: 1 we see the following Hebrew phrase: באלני. The first letter, ב, means “in” or “at”. The final yod is a masculine plural construct ending. The basic form of the main word then is, using defective spelling: אלן.

As we will now see, the defective spelling of both “oak” and “Ayalon” is: אלן. At least on one level, אלני is the masculine plural construct form of the defective spelling of “oak”, and as such means “oaks of”. Yet on another level, I see אלני as either being (i) a natural pun in Hebrew on “Ayalon”, since “oak” and “Ayalon” have the same defective spelling; and/or (ii) literally meaning, on one level, “Ayalons of”, for reasons that we will explore in this post.

1. “oak”

The ultra-literal meaning of אלן is “strong one” or “something strong”. Depending on the context and what plene spellings are implied, as a common word this could mean (i) “oak” or “great tree” or “terebinth” (in all such cases meaning a strong tree); (ii) “stag” (a strong male deer); (iii) “ram” (a strong male sheep); or (iv) “(male) leader”. Note that all four of these Hebrew common words are masculine. In the context of Genesis 13: 18, however, the last three of such possible meanings won’t work, so only the first such meaning as a common word is possible here: “oak”.

אלני is the defective spelling of the masculine construct plural form of “oak”, hence meaning: “oaks of”. Accordingly, most modern translations (unlike KJV) translate אלני at Genesis 13: 18 as “oaks of”. That includes: NRSV, ASV, ESV, and also Darby, etc. True, the normal spelling of “oak” has an interior vav near the end, as אלון, as at Genesis 12: 6. Gesinius gives only that plene spelling, and says that it means “a strong and hardy tree,…specially the oak”. (In a later post we will discuss the odd KJV translation of “plain” in these cases.) But modern translators of Genesis 13: 18 recognize that the defective spelling of “oak” in masculine construct plural form, meaning “oaks of”, is: אלני. [Note that the spelling at Genesis 12: 6 is אלון, being plene spelling of the masculine construct singular form (which has the identical spelling as masculine singular absolute), whereas the spelling at Genesis 13: 18 is אלני, being defective spelling of the masculine construct plural form (which adds a yod at the end).]

2. “Ayalon”

In later Books of the Bible, “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 at I Samuel 14: 31, there is no interior vav near the end of the spelling there of “Ayalon”. So adding ה at the end, since the phrase there is “to Ayalon”, we see: אילנה.

Judges 12: 11-12 is a bit confusing, but it seems to imply that “Ayalon” could be spelled without an interior yod near the beginning. 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 Samuel 14: 31, Judges 12: 11-12, and the fact that true defective spelling of place names is more common in the Patriarchal narratives than elsewhere in the Bible, we can deduce that the defective spelling of “Ayalon” is: אלן.

Thus the bottom line as to the above spelling issues is that both “oak” and “Ayalon” can have the defective spelling of אלן, and as such can have the defective spelling in masculine construct plural form of exactly what we see at Genesis 13: 18: אלני.

* * *

Now let’s tackle Genesis 13: 18, knowing that אלני there can be “oaks of”, but that, if this would make substantive sense, it could also mean “Ayalons of”. We also know that even if a literal meaning of “Ayalons of” were to be ruled out, nevertheless, since the defective spelling of “oak” and “Ayalon” is identical, namely אלן, then as such, אלני is redolent of “Ayalon”, as a natural pun as it were in Hebrew.

Because the KJV translation of Genesis 13: 18 has “plain of” for its translation of אלני, which raises additional issues, I am temporarily going to set the KJV translation aside for now and instead use the NRSV translation of Genesis 13: 18, which is:

“So Abram moved his tent, and came and settled by the oaks of [אלני] Mamre, which are at Hebron; and there he built an altar to the LORD.”

Issue #1: “which are at”

First, I should note that despite the NRSV translation using “which are at”, this is not a הוא phrase, which as I have noted before would be the hallmark of a later-added editorial addition. Rather, the Hebrew word used here is אשר, so that no editorial addition appears to be present here.

A translation of “which are at Hebron” seems fine here, although I see as a viable alternative thereto (which would be needed in certain contexts): “that is, at Hebron”. The Hebrew wording is: אשרבחברון. (As we can note later, this is a far better translation than the KJV translation in this respect.)

So far, so good.

Issue #2: “oaks of” vs. “Ayalons of” or “Ayalon”

Now we come to the key part.

The problem with the NRSV translation is that, like all other English translations, it hides the fact that, as asserted above, אלני/“oaks of” is either a natural pun on “Ayalon”, since the defective spelling of “oak” [albeit in the singular] is identical to the defective spelling of “Ayalon”, and/or אלני is literally intended here to mean, or to have the alternative/additional meaning here of, “Ayalons of”. We will now explore both of those possibilities.

(a) אלני/“oak trees of” as being a natural, intended pun in Hebrew on “Ayalon”/אלן.

This is a very natural pun in Hebrew. So if other factors in the text suggest or mandate that the Patriarchs’ Hebron was located in the Ayalon Valley (nowhere near the site of King David’s first capital city, which was located high “up” in southern “hill” country 20 miles south of Jerusalem), then this natural pun should be recognized. There’s really no Hebrew grammar issue here. Rather, the only question is whether, depending on the circumstances, such a pun was intended here, as opposed to being an unintended coincidence.

On this view of the case, I would recommend the following modification of the NRSV translation of Genesis 13: 18:

“So Abram moved his tent, and came and settled by the oaks [Ayalon?] of Mamre, which are at Hebron; and there he built an altar to the LORD.”

The bracketed phrase in that proposed translation conveys that there may (or may not) be an intentional pun in Hebrew here, where “oaks of” has a similar spelling to “Ayalon” (and the defective spelling of “oak” [in the singular] is identical to the defective spelling of “Ayalon”).

(b) אלני/“oak trees of” as having an intended sole, or alternative/additional, meaning in Hebrew of “Ayalons of”/אלני.

True, at first glance, one would not normally expect to see a plural form of a geographical place name like “Ayalon”. But let’s consider this matter.

Why might “Ayalons” be plural here? The reason would be because the Ayalon Valley had two such distinctive parts: (1) the northern two-thirds was practically deserted, being rural pastureland (which is where the Patriarchs sojourn); while (2) the southern one-third was quite urban, having both the huge city of Gezer and the town of Ayalon, and just south of there was the town of Rubutu [Biblical Kiriath Arba]. The Patriarchs never sojourn in the southern, urban one-third of the Ayalon Valley.

First let’s try “Ayalons of” as the sole meaning of אלני:

“So Abram moved his tent, and came and settled in the Ayalons of Mamre, that is, at Hebron; and there he built an altar to the LORD.”

Instead of “settled by”, that phrase must now be “settled in”, but that’s fine, because “in” is actually a more literal translation of ב than is “by”. What comes after “Mamre” now needs to be switched to singular, but the Hebrew wording is neutral as to that, and I noted above that in any event, I see “that is, at” as being a suitable translation here.

This verse as so translated now starts out by saying that Abram settled in the Ayalon Valley, with the initial reference being to both “Ayalons”, that is, both the rural northern two-thirds and the urban southern one-third of the Ayalon Valley; but then that is immediately clarified by saying (actually, implying) that the only part of the two Ayalons where Abram actually sojourned was the rural northern two-thirds of the Ayalon Valley, to which Abram gave the affectionate Patriarchal nickname: “Hebron”. I see “Hebron” as being an affectionate Patriarchal nickname (meaning, in Hurrian, “earth, heaven, heaven on earth, nirvana”, where a Hurrian nickname would be possible only in the Amarna Age, when for a short time southern Canaan was largely dominated in Year 13 by Hurrian princelings: Tagi, Shuwardata, and IR-Heba). The name “Hebron” applies solely to the rural northern two-thirds of the Ayalon Valley, and in particular does not reference any city, either directly or indirectly. The Patriarchs’ Hebron is rural pastureland, where in fact there were no cities or towns, and not even any villages worthy of the name -- the virtually deserted northern two-thirds of the Ayalon Valley. You see, longstanding drought or semi-drought conditions had forced the peasants and noblemen to abandon viticulture in the northern two-thirds of the Ayalon Valley in the Amarna Age; with farming now being impossible there, the northern two-thirds of the Ayalon Valley was virtually abandoned, its pastureland now being enjoyed only by a relative handful of tent-dwellers. See how e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g makes perfect sense, in the historical context of Year 13? [Genesis 14: 4 explicitly references “Year 13”.]

Finally, let’s see what the translation would look like if “Ayalons of” is an alternative/additional meaning of אלני, but was not intended to be its sole meaning:

“So Abram moved his tent, and came and settled by the oaks of [in the Ayalons of] Mamre, which are [that is,] at Hebron; and there he built an altar to the LORD.”

Yes, it’s extremely clumsy in English. But it’s silky smooth in Hebrew.

* * *

Well, we’ve made great progress here. But we still must ask why Onkelos and KJV chose the odd translation of “plain of” for אלני. That, however, will have to wait until a later post.

Jim Stinehart

[Jim Stinehart]

Why Did Onkelos and KJV Use a Translation of the “Plain” of Mamre at Genesis 13: 18?

Now let’s reconsider why Onkelos, the most brilliant translator of all time, who also was the most observant Jew of his day and a man of honor, allegedly made the bone-headed, indefensible decision to translate (into Aramaic from Hebrew) as “plain” the Hebrew word אלן [which at Genesis 13: 18 appears in the form of באלני]. KJV followed Onkelos here, translating the Hebrew word אלן as “plain” at Genesis 13: 18 and Genesis 14: 13, and as “plains” at Genesis 18: 1.

No, this is not a 3,000-year-old Biblical mystery. But it is a 2,000-year-old Biblical mystery (with Onkelos living in the 1st - 2nd century A.D.), and we will solve it right here in this very post.

The phrase in question at Genesis 13: 18 is: באלניממרא.

If Onkelos didn’t mind getting “excommunicated” for blasphemy, and if he had been willing to use several words to translate into Aramaic the single Hebrew word אלני [neither of which was the case], here’s how Onkelos would have translated this phrase, in my opinion: “the rural plain in the Ayalons of Mamre”. The meaning is that Abram settled in the rural plain portion of Mamre’s Ayalon Valley, where use of the plural “Ayalons” is a colorful way for the original Hebrew author to emphasize that the northern two-thirds of the Ayalon Valley, being rural and almost deserted at the time, was so very different from the southern one-third of the Ayalon Valley, which was very urban and boasted the large city of Gezer, the small town of Ayalon, and at or just beyond the southern edge, the small town of Rubutu (being the Patriarchs’ Kiriath Arba).

אלן is the defective spelling of “Ayalon”, which of course Onkelos knew. But he didn’t want to get excommunicated for blasphemy (since from the 6th century BCE to the present almost all analysts have assumed, erroneously, that the Patriarchs’ Hebron was located at or near the site of King David’s first capital city also called Hebron, with such capital city being located high “up” in the southern “hill” country 20 miles south of Jerusalem, in the very heart of Judah). Nor did Onkelos want to use multiple Aramaic words to translate a single Hebrew word, nor was he willing to cop out and translate אלן as “oak tree” or “male deer” or anything like that (which would have been defensible, but likely not correct, translations). So instead, he truncated the phrase “the rural plain of the Ayalons of Mamre” to just: “the plain of Mamre”. Voila! Onkelos brilliantly solved all his problems.

Abram in fact does go to “the plain of Mamre”. It’s just that (a) a fuller statement of where Abram went is “the rural plain of the Ayalons of Mamre”, meaning the rural northern two-thirds of the Ayalon Valley, and (b) אלנ means “Ayalon”. Abram did not sojourn in all of Mamre’s Ayalon Valley. No, he only sojourned in “the rural plain of the Ayalons of Mamre”, meaning the almost-deserted northern two-thirds of the Ayalon Valley, which was still good pastureland in these drought conditions, but viticulture or other farming by peasants there had long been out of the question. Abram never sojourned in the southern one-third of the Ayalon Valley, which was an urban area containing all of the cities of the Ayalon Valley.

We can document in a future post on this thread that the physical description in the rest of the Bible of the site of King David’s first capital city of Hebron is the e-x-a-c-t o-p-p-o-s-i-t-e of how the Patriarchs’ Hebron is described in the Patriarchal narratives. We noted on a prior thread that Joshua was historically accurate in saying that Kirath Arba was the former name of the city that later became King David’s first capital city. But on this thread we have seen that nothing in Genesis makes a similar claim about the Patriarchs’ Hebron, if we give zero weight to openly-disclosed, geographically-based, later-added editorial additions using הוא that likely date to the 6th century BCE and probably are substantively false. We suddenly realize that there are no legitimate text-based arguments that the Patriarchs’ Hebron is one and the same place as, or located anywhere in the same general vicinity as, King David’s first capital city called Hebron. Everything that is said in the Patriarchal narratives about the Patriarchs’ Hebron fits the rural northern two-thirds of the Ayalon Valley perfectly. The Biblical Kiriath Arba of the Patriarchs is historical Rubutu. Everything checks out historically for Years 12-13 (note the explicit reference to “Year 13” at Genesis 14: 4), but if and only if the Patriarchs’ Hebron is the rural portion of the Ayalon Valley -- the rural plain of the Ayalons of Mamre, that is, the rural plain portion of the Ayalon Valley, which comes out in KJV, per Onkelos’ utter brilliance, as: “the plain of Mamre”. Biblical Mamre the Amorite is historical Milkilu the Amorite, who ruled the Ayalon Valley from Gezer until dying early in Year 13. Both Biblically and historically, Abram was in confederate relationship with him.

The closer one looks, the clearer it becomes that e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g fits! The p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives, in a Year 13 context, is truly stunning.

Onkelos may have been the greatest translator of all time. When Onkelos, unlike the vast majority of modern translators, declines to translate אלני at Genesis 13: 18 as “oaks of”, that’s telling us something important.

* * *

Let me close this post by setting forth now the “corrected” text of the four Bible verses we have examined on this thread that establish the geographical relationship between (i) the “plain” of Mamre, (ii) the Patriarchs’ Hebron, and (iii) the Patriarchs’ Kiriath Arba. The material in brackets constitutes my annotations (and in effect are footnotes, not part of the formal translation).

1. “And Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the rural plain of the Ayalons of Mamre [the Ayalon Valley], that is, in Hebron [i.e., the rural northern two-thirds of the Ayalon Valley]….” Genesis 13: 18.

2. “And Sarah died in Kiriath Arba [a town located immediately south of the Ayalon Valley]: and Abraham came [out from the Patriarchs’ rural Hebron] to mourn for Sarah [at the town of Kiriath Arba/Rubutu], and to weep for her.” Genesis 23: 2.

3. “And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre [that is, in the town of Kiriath Arba/Rubutu, located just south of (“before”) the Ayalon Valley proper].” Genesis 23: 19.

4. “And Jacob came unto Isaac his father unto Mamre [i.e., unto the rural plain portion of the Ayalon Valley (which is the primary meaning, though it’s also the case that the princeling ruler Mamre himself was still living and ruling there)], and also unto the city of Arba [the town of Kiriath Arba/Rubutu, located immediately south of the Ayalon Valley (where Jacob visited his mother Rebekah’s gravesite; his paternal grandparents Sarah and Abraham were also buried there)].” Genesis 35: 27.

The two key attributes of the foregoing four “corrected” translations are as follows: (i) Kiriath Arba was n-o-t the former name of the Patriarchs’ Hebron [though Kiriath Arba was, both historically and Biblically, the former name of King David’s first capital city also called Hebron]; and (ii) the Patriarchs’ Hebron was the rural northern two-thirds of the Ayalon Valley (not a city!), located west of Jerusalem in the northern Shephelah, and as such the Patriarchs’ Hebron was n-o-t located in the same general vicinity as King David’s first capital city also called Hebron, which city was located high “up” in in southern “hill” country on the Ridge Route 20 miles south of Jerusalem, in the heart of the state of Judah. The Patriarchs’ Hebron, in the north-central Ayalon Valley, was by contrast located just outside of the land that would effectively be controlled by the later state of Judah, with that part of the Ayalon Valley being borderland territory that for the most part was effectively controlled in the first half of the 1st millennium BCE by either the Philistines or the northern state of Israel, not by the weakest of those three parties, the southern state of Judah.

The Patriarchal narratives are accurate historically as to the Late Bronze Age time period in which they were composed. But such accuracy often did not sit well with Biblical authors and editors in post-exilic 6th century BCE Jerusalem. Through a series of short, openly-disclosed, geographically-based editorial additions, often utilizing the Hebrew word translated as "which is", 6th century BCE editors deftly re-positioned the Patriarchs, on a retroactive basis, as allegedly having been southern Hebrews, who preferred to sojourn in what later became the very heart of the 1st millennium BCE state of Judah. That is not true historically, and is not what the text of the Patriarchal narratives said through the end of the 7th century BCE. But beginning in the 6th century BCE, and continuing to this very day, that is how the Patriarchs have been (erroneously) viewed, thanks to that series of short, openly-disclosed, geographically-oriented editorial additions that were shrewdly inserted into this truly ancient text in post-exilic Jerusalem. The only one who saw through that was Onkelos!

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

Physical Description of Patriarchs’ Hebron Cannot Be Made to Forcefit That of King David’s First Capital City of Hebron Located High “Up” in Southern “Hill” Country

Although oddly overlooked entirely by all of today’s scholars, we will see in this post that the physical description in later books of the Bible of the site of King David’s first capital city of Hebron is the e-x-a-c-t o-p-p-o-s-i-t-e of the physical description in the Patriarchal narratives of the Patriarchs’ Hebron.

1. The description in later Books of the Bible of the site of King David’s first capital city of Hebron, located high “up” in southern “hill” country, not surprisingly focuses on two words, הר : “hill, mountain” and עלה : “go up”, while never characterizing such site as being עמק : “a low-lying tract of land”.

(a) The Site of King David’s City of Hebron Is Routinely Associated with הר/“Hills, Mountains”

Here are two examples of this:

Joshua 11: 21: “And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains/ הר, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains/ הר of Judah, and from all the mountains/ הר of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities.”

Joshua 20: 7: “And they appointed Kedesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali, and Shechem in mount Ephraim, and Kirjatharba, which is Hebron, in the mountain/ הרof Judah.”

(b) People Are Often Said to “Go Up”/ עלהto King David’s City of Hebron

The three Bible verses that introduce us to King David’s decision to establish his first capital city at Hebron, high “up” in southern “hill” country, use the word “go up”/ עלהan astonishing five (5) times!

II Samuel 2: 1-3: “And it came to pass after this, that David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up/ עלהinto 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. So David went up/עלה thither, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail Nabal's wife the Carmelite. And his men that were with him did David bring up/עלה, every man with his household: and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron.”

(c) Meanwhile, the Site of King David’s First Capital City Is Never Said to Be “A Low-Lying Tract of Land”/עמק.

Given the notable fact that the site of King David’s first capital city of Hebron is virtually the highest altitude place in all of Canaan where humans can live in significant numbers, it should be no surprise that never, never, never does the Hebrew Bible ever characterize such site as being “a low-lying tract of land”/עמק.

2. The description in the Patriarchal narratives of the Patriarchs’ Hebron n-e-v-e-r associates it with הר : “hill, mountain”, and no person (whether a Patriarch or anyone else) is e-v-e-r said to עלה : “go up” to the Patriarchs’ Hebron, which rather is expressly stated at Genesis 37: 14 to be עמק : “a low-lying tract of land”.

By sharp contrast to the Bible’s characterization of the site of King David’s high altitude first capital city of Hebron, in the Patriarchal narratives the Patriarchs’ Hebron is never described by using the Hebrew words for “hill, mountain” (הר) or “go up” (עלה). Rather, the Patriarchs’ Hebron is explicitly said at Genesis 37: 14 to be a עמק, which is the Hebrew word that means “a low-lying tract of land” [and is given the one-word translation of “vale” by KJV].

Here is Genesis 37: 14: “And he [Jacob] said to him [Joseph], Go, I pray thee, see whether it be well with thy brethren, and well with the flocks; and bring me word again. So he sent him out of the vale/עמק of Hebron, and he came to Shechem.”

* * *

The only reasonable conclusion from the foregoing is what was asserted at the outset of this post. The physical description of the Patriarchs’ Hebron in the Patriarchal narratives cannot in good faith be made to forcefit the physical description in later Books of the Bible of the site of King David’s first capital city of Hebron located high “up” in southern “hill” country. Indeed, their descriptions are precisely the o-p-p-o-s-i-t-e of each other.

Fully consistently with all that has been posted on this thread, we see that there’s no way that the Patriarchs’ Hebron was located anywhere in the general vicinity of King David’s first capital city of Hebron, the latter being located high “up” in southern “hill” country, south of Jerusalem, in the very heart of Judah. Rather, the Patriarchs’ Hebron was indeed, both Biblically and historically, “a low-lying tract of land”/עמק : the Ayalon Valley!

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois