B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Jason Hare:

You wrote: “Based on Joshua 15:10, people seem to say that there is a second location called Mount Seir near Kiryat-Yearim (link). In fact, this reference also mentions "Mount Seir" specifically. This is the one that is directly west of Mahanaim, yet it also names it a mountain.”

1. Although Joshua was pulled together in final form in the 1st millennium BCE, nevertheless its geographical knowledge reflects a solid grounding in the Late Bronze Age. Yes, Joshua knows that the hill country of Seir historically was west of Mahanaim.

2. As you must certainly know, the Biblical Hebrew word har / HR / הר can mean either “hill country” or “hill” or “hills” or “mountain” or “mountains”. The actual meaning can only be determined by context. Both Joshua and the Patriarchal narratives in Genesis know what they are talking about when they use the historical term “Seir”. So in those two Biblical sources, the meaning is the historical meaning: the hill country of Seir. Historically, no “Mt. Seir” ever existed.

3. Not a single university scholar asserts that Esau lived at the Seir referenced at Joshua 15: 10, west of Mahanaim / Penuel. No, all university scholars insist, on a non-negotiable basis, that Esau allegedly lived at the site of the 8th -- 6th century BCE state of Udumu / “Edom”, south of the Dead Sea.

4. Jason Hare, I am not quite sure at this point whether you do or do not agree with me that a natural reading of Genesis 32: 3 is:

“And Jacob [who was slowly heading west toward Canaan] sent messengers ləp̄ānāv / before him / before his face / ahead of him / on ahead to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Udumu / ‘Edom’.”

If, and only if, Esau is viewed (contra the scholarly view) as living in historical Seir, east of the Jordan River, north of the Jabbok River, and west of Mahanaim / Penuel, then the foregoing natural reading of Genesis 32: 3 makes perfect sense on all levels. We know from Genesis 31: 18 that Jacob was heading toward Canaan, which is west of Mahanaim / Penuel. Jacob is going west, very slowly, and he sends messengers on ahead of him, going west much faster than Jacob, to meet up with Esau, who lives at a locale west of Mahanaim / Penuel. Note that on the foregoing reading, (i) e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g makes perfect sense, on all levels, with nothing being forced, and (ii) in particular, the Biblical Hebrew word ləp̄ānāv can be given its natural meaning: before him / before his face / ahead of him / on ahead.

Now consider, by contrast, how university scholars interpret Genesis 32: 3, given that they insist that, per chapter 2 of D-e-u-t-e-r-o-n-o-m-y , Esau’s adopted homeland of Seir in G-e-n-e-s-i-s must be located south of the Dead Sea. University scholars admit that having reached the Jabbok River, Jacob himself is heading west toward Canaan (per Genesis 31: 18). Here then is the “scholarly” interpretation of Genesis 32: 3, which is such a “forced” reading that it makes one shudder:

“And Jacob [who himself was slowly heading west toward Canaan] sent messengers ləp̄ānāv / making a sharp left turn to the south, and going 100 miles out of the way, to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom.”

I hope you may agree that the Biblical Hebrew word ləp̄ānāv cannot possibly have that meaning, in the context of Jacob heading west toward Canaan (per Genesis 31: 18). This thread focuses on the Biblical Hebrew word ləp̄ānāv in the specific context, and only in the specific context, of Genesis 32: 3.

Jason Hare, what you do not realize is that no university scholar can tolerate a natural reading of Genesis 32: 3. The reason for that is this: if the Biblical Hebrew word ləp̄ānāv at Genesis 32: 3 is given its natural meaning, then in context, all of the following would ensue:

(i) The author of the Patriarchal narratives knew the Late Bronze Age historical meaning of “Seir”.

(ii) Esau did not live south of the Dead Sea, but rather is portrayed in this Biblical text as living in the area near the later city of Jerash: east of the Jordan River and north of the Jabbok River, in the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan.

(iii) Esau’s in-laws, the ḫry / ḪRY / חרי, are not fictional cave-dwelling troglodytes living in a place where there are no caves: the land south of the Dead Sea. Rather, the ḫry / ḪRY / חרי in the Patriarchal narratives are the historical Hurrians, living in locales where Hurrians historically lived in the Late Bronze Age, such as the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan.

(iv) Jacob’s very close relative, his older twin brother Esau, is portrayed in the Patriarchal narratives as having as his adopted homeland certain territory which, in the 1st millennium BCE, later became part of Israel, rather than Esau being portrayed as living south of Judah.

(v) The “scholarly” theory of the Patriarchal narratives is thereby demolished, since Israel-hating Jewish authors in 1st millennium BCE Jerusalem creating a fictional history of their fictional ancestors would not choose to portray a close relative of Hebrew Patriarch #3 Jacob as living on land that later became part of, ugh!, Israel.

Jason Hare, I hope that you and I can agree to give a natural reading to the Biblical Hebrew text of Genesis 32: 3. University scholars cannot.

Jim Stinehart

Jim Stinehart wrote:1. Although Joshua was pulled together in final form in the 1st millennium BCE, nevertheless its geographical knowledge reflects a solid grounding in the Late Bronze Age. Yes, Joshua knows that the hill country of Seir historically was west of Mahanaim.

I see a lot of assumption in that first remark. How could you possibly know when Joshua was completed as a document?

Jim Stinehart wrote:2. As you must certainly know, the Biblical Hebrew word har / HR / הר can mean either “hill country” or “hill” or “hills” or “mountain” or “mountains”. The actual meaning can only be determined by context. Both Joshua and the Patriarchal narratives in Genesis know what they are talking about when they use the historical term “Seir”. So in those two Biblical sources, the meaning is the historical meaning: the hill country of Seir. Historically, no “Mt. Seir” ever existed.

No, I know no such thing. If it were in the plural (הָרֵי שֵׂעִיר) as opposed to singular (הַר שֵׂעִיר), you might have a case. I have never understood the singular har to mean anything other than mountain (or a large hill similar to a mountain).

Jim Stinehart wrote:3. Not a single university scholar asserts that Esau lived at the Seir referenced at Joshua 15: 10, west of Mahanaim / Penuel. No, all university scholars insist, on a non-negotiable basis, that Esau allegedly lived at the site of the 8th -- 6th century BCE state of Udumu / “Edom”, south of the Dead Sea.

I can't say that this is the case, since it's never been a field of interest for me. Do you take this point as seriously as it seems you do? Why is this such an important question?

Jim Stinehart wrote:4. Jason Hare, I am not quite sure at this point whether you do or do not agree with me that a natural reading of Genesis 32: 3 is:

“And Jacob [who was slowly heading west toward Canaan] sent messengers ləp̄ānāv / before him / before his face / ahead of him / on ahead to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Udumu / ‘Edom’.”

I don't see why it shouldn't be read the way that you're proposing, but I don't see why it matters which direction he was going in.

Jim Stinehart wrote:If, and only if, Esau is viewed (contra the scholarly view) as living in historical Seir, east of the Jordan River, north of the Jabbok River, and west of Mahanaim / Penuel, then the foregoing natural reading of Genesis 32: 3 makes perfect sense on all levels. We know from Genesis 31: 18 that Jacob was heading toward Canaan, which is west of Mahanaim / Penuel. Jacob is going west, very slowly, and he sends messengers on ahead of him, going west much faster than Jacob, to meet up with Esau, who lives at a locale west of Mahanaim / Penuel. Note that on the foregoing reading, (i) e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g makes perfect sense, on all levels, with nothing being forced, and (ii) in particular, the Biblical Hebrew word ləp̄ānāv can be given its natural meaning: before him / before his face / ahead of him / on ahead.

When you put dashes inside a word, it makes the word unsearchable. Why not use italics ([‎i‎]...[‎/i‎]) to give stress to the words you want to emphasize? Whether they interpret the phrase to mean going south or going west, the word לפניו would mean the same thing.

Jim Stinehart wrote:Now consider, by contrast, how university scholars interpret Genesis 32: 3, given that they insist that, per chapter 2 of D-e-u-t-e-r-o-n-o-m-y , Esau’s adopted homeland of Seir in G-e-n-e-s-i-s must be located south of the Dead Sea. University scholars admit that having reached the Jabbok River, Jacob himself is heading west toward Canaan (per Genesis 31: 18). Here then is the “scholarly” interpretation of Genesis 32: 3, which is such a “forced” reading that it makes one shudder:

“And Jacob [who himself was slowly heading west toward Canaan] sent messengers ləp̄ānāv / making a sharp left turn to the south, and going 100 miles out of the way, to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom.”

I hope you may agree that the Biblical Hebrew word ləp̄ānāv cannot possibly have that meaning, in the context of Jacob heading west toward Canaan (per Genesis 31: 18). This thread focuses on the Biblical Hebrew word ləp̄ānāv in the specific context, and only in the specific context, of Genesis 32: 3.

I agree that the most natural reading is that Jacob was on the way to his brother at Seir (wherever that was) and that he sent messengers ahead of him (in the same direction) to his brother. Is there anything that indicates that Jacob wouldn't have turned south with the express intent to meet his brother at Seir? I don't see why it's a problem reading it either place.

Jim Stinehart wrote:Jason Hare, I hope that you and I can agree to give a natural reading to the Biblical Hebrew text of Genesis 32: 3. University scholars cannot.

This isn't me joining you against anyone. I don't see the importance of the distinction. Wherever Jacob was heading to meet Esau, he sent his messengers on ahead. No direction is specified. If the "Mt. Seir" (yes, it says MOUNTAIN in the HEBREW!!!) was in the south, then Jacob turned south to meet his brother. If the "Mt. Seir" was in the west, then Jacob continued west into Canaan. I don't see the importance of taking a position on this question.

Regards,
Jason

Jason Hare:

Let me first address (out of order) two critically important points you make in your latest post, and then in #3 below I will try to summarize this thread.

1. You wrote: “I agree that the most natural reading is that Jacob was on the way to his brother at Seir (wherever that was) and that he sent messengers ahead of him (in the same direction) to his brother. Is there anything that indicates that Jacob wouldn't have turned south with the express intent to meet his brother at Seir?”

(a) It would make no sense whatsoever for Jacob to go 100 miles out of his way (with Jacob planning to go to Canaan), to land south of the Dead Sea, to visit his estranged older twin brother Esau, because Genesis 32: 7 flat out tells us that Jacob was terrified of Esau at this point in time at the prospect of a meeting with his twin brother:

“Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed….”

(b) And this was the worst possible time for Jacob to meet with his potentially hostile older brother Esau anyway, because Jacob was at his weakest, with his flocks and shepherds exhausted from the long journey (at a fast pace) all the long way from eastern Syria to the Jabbok River:

“And he [Jacob] said unto him [Esau], My lord knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks and herds with young are with me: and if men should overdrive them one day, all the flock will die.” Genesis 33: 13

If Esau actually lived 100 miles to the south, south of the Dead Sea, then surely Jacob would have proceeded on west from Mahanaim / Penuel into Canaan, and then later, when his flock and shepherds had recovered, Jacob could have notified Esau that Jacob had returned to Canaan.

I presume you understand the underlying premise of the entire Jacob-Esau sequence in the Patriarchal narratives. Jacob, although being the younger twin son, has gotten the birthright, so Jacob is the sole proper leader of the Hebrews in Canaan. Esau, though the older twin son, has accordingly been forced to leave Canaan altogether. Thus on this Biblical account, Jacob does not need Esau’s permission to return to Canaan, since YHWH has twice confirmed that Jacob is the rightful sole leader of the Hebrews in Canaan.

(c) Finally, Genesis 31: 18 flat out tells us that Jacob was heading toward Canaan to see his father Isaac, n-o-t that Jacob was illogically heading to south of the Dead Sea to see his estranged older twin brother Esau:

“And he [Jacob] carried away all his cattle, and all his goods which he had gotten, the cattle of his getting, which he had gotten in Padanaram, for to go to Isaac his father in the land of Canaan.”

* * *

Accordingly, the natural reading of Genesis 32: 3 (contra the scholarly view) is as follows:

“And Jacob [who was slowly heading west toward Canaan] sent messengers ləp̄ānāv / before him / before his face / ahead of him / on ahead to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Udumu / ‘Edom’.”

That natural reading of Genesis 32: 3 r-e-q-u-i-r-e-s Seir to have its Late Bronze Age historical meaning of the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan, north of the Jabbok River (west, not south, of Mahanaim / Penuel). University scholars err grievously in relying solely on chapter 2 of D-e-u-t-e-r-o-n-o-m-y for their baseless assertion that Esau’s Seir was allegedly located south of the Dead Sea. That is false historically, and is also impossible to square with a natural reading of Genesis 32: 3. Esau’s in-laws are not cave-dwelling troglodytes in a place where there are no caves, namely the land south of the Dead Sea; rather, Esau’s in-laws are the historical Hurrians, living in northerly locales, such as the northern Transjordan / Seir / Udumu / “Edom”, that historically were dominated by Hurrian princelings during part of the Late Bronze Age.

2. But now let me ask you an honest question, given your expertise in Biblical Hebrew. I was surprised that you wrote:

“I have never understood the singular har to mean anything other than mountain (or a large hill similar to a mountain).”

Here are two examples where the singular har in Biblical Hebrew is routinely viewed as meaning “hill country”, not “mountain” or “Mt.”:

(i) Joshua 13: 6

(ii) Joshua 21: 11

Certainly Joshua 21: 11 for example is not talking about “Mt. Judah”, is it? Rather, isn’t it clearly using har, in the singular, to refer to “the hill country of Judah”?

This is an important question for this thread, because historically no “Mt. Seir” has ever existed, whereas there is plenty of Late Bronze Age non-Biblical attestation of “the hill country of Seir”, being the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan near the later city of Jerash.

3. Remember, no university scholar can tolerate a natural reading of Genesis 32: 3. Jason Hare, isn’t that telling us something? This is potentially a real game-changer.

If, per Genesis 31: 18 and the underlying logic of the situation, Jacob is headed west toward Canaan when he stops temporarily with his exhausted flock at Mahanaim / Penuel, then a natural reading of Genesis 32: 3 entails the following two key consequences:

(i) Esau is living west of Mahanaim / Penuel, with Esau’s Seir as such having its Late Bronze Age historical meaning: the Hurrian-dominated northern Transjordan, north of the Jabbok River.

(ii) Jacob’s in-laws are not cave-dwelling troglodytes living in a place that has no caves -- the land south of the Dead Sea, as university scholars would have it. Rather, Jacob’s in-laws are the historical Hurrians, having Hurrian-type names with sensible meanings (Genesis 36: 20-30), and living in northerly locales where Hurrian princelings historically operated in the Late Bronze Age, such as Seir / Udumu / “Edom” in the northern Transjordan.

The text tells us that Esau has the same lifestyle as Jacob (Genesis 36: 7), and the same amount of material success (Genesis 33: 8-11). That’s because far from living in the desolate wasteland south of the Dead Sea (after the destruction of Lot’s Sodom), where such lifestyle and material success would be manifestly impossible, Esau is in fact portrayed in this Biblical text as living in the hill country of Seir -- fine land just across the Jordan River from Canaan.

The cartoonish characterization of the Patriarchal narratives by university scholars collapses of its own dead weight, if we insist upon a natural reading of the Biblical Hebrew text of Genesis 32: 3, with special focus on the critically important Biblical Hebrew common word ləp̄ānāv.

Jim Stinehart

The original name פניאל or פנואל is possibly for the point on the river יבוֹק where it turns פוֹנה sharply from north to west.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

ל־פן—πρός ωπον (ὤψ) "from the face"
אדם־פן—>ἀνήρ ὤψ—>ἄνθρωπον "man-faced" (בן־אדם)

עשו—δασύς "with a shaggy surface"
שעיר—δείρᾶς "ridge of a chain of hills"
יעקב—ἀκρόπους "extremity of the leg"
פניאל—γωνιώδης "at a sharp angle" (γωνία εἶδος) > γωνιώδης > πωνιώλης > פניאל

Joints, knees, thigh are emphasised in the story of Jacob, its all geography.