Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Canaanitemare!

Expand Messages
  • saintxmas
    ... Grave risk of the whole thing deteriorating into semantics; Translation is all important of course; I have used the NRSV. Genesis 12;6 ...At that time the
    Message 1 of 113 , Sep 1, 2011
      --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, jimstinehart@... wrote:
      >
      > Rod:
      >
      >
      > As to the issue of whether "the Canaanite" in the Patriarchal narratives
      > (at Genesis 12: 6 and elsewhere) can have a singular meaning, rather than
      > the more common plural meaning (Canaanites, per the translation that you
      > used), I see the 9 uses of that Hebrew word as basically being evenly split in
      > meaning in the Patriarchal narratives. I see four uses with a singular
      > meaning (with the last one being feminine), referring to an individual
      > Canaanite, not the Canaanites or the Canaanite people: Genesis 12:6; 13:7;
      > 38:2; 46:10. I see five uses as having the more common plural meaning
      > (Canaanites or the Canaanite people): Genesis 15:21; 24:3; 24:37; 34:30;
      > 50:11.

      Grave risk of the whole thing deteriorating into
      semantics;
      Translation is all important of course;
      I have used the NRSV.

      Genesis 12;6 "...At that time the Canaanite(s)
      were in the land."

      Lets accept your singular theory.

      Genesis 13;7 "At that time the Canaanite(s)
      and the Perizzites lived in the land."

      On your reading that is one bad chap
      and a tribe of Perizzites [who occupied southern Canaan];
      viz Canaanites:?

      Canaan was the 4th son of Ham, son of Noah.
      The story in Genesis 9;18-27 foretells the curse of Canaan
      and hence the Canaanites are destined to be slaves.
      So the J source weaves some predestination into the text
      at an early point.

      Moving back to your boundaries, to Genesis 13;10 "...Lot
      looked about him, and saw that the plain of the Jordan
      was well watered everywhere like the Garden of the Lord,
      like the land of Egypt; in the direction of Zoar; this was
      before the Lord had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

      Only a later author would know of the destruction these two cities?
      [cf Genesis 19;24-29]


      >
      > The point is that a translation of "Canaanite" at Genesis 12: 6, both
      > singular in format and, more importantly, singular in meaning (one individual
      > Canaanite), is one literal, legitmate translation of Genesis 12: 6. If
      > Genesis 12: 6 is referring to an individual Canaanite, as I see the case as
      > being (as opposed to the translation that you used), then the reference must
      > be to the notorious strongman Canaanite who in Year 12 had suddenly and
      > ruthlessly seized control of the largely Hurrian city of Shechem, briefly
      > turning it into a huge city-state (before his assassination in Year 13), and who
      > had a Canaanite name: Lab'ayu.

      This is a bit picky; one 'strongman' with presumably
      a multitude of support; and as such leading a group of
      Canaanites?

      So Abraham moves to Hebron Genesis 13;18...surprise,
      surprise David is crowned King there hundreds of years
      later [cf 2Samuel 3,4] so the history is being slowly
      set by I would suggest,
      post exilic authors.


      >
      >
      > Lot looks north at Genesis 13: 10, and Lot will end up going north, to the
      > richest part of Canaan. But Lot cannot re-trace his steps and go directly
      > north through Shechem, because in Year 12 the notorious "Canaanite" was
      > holding forth at Shechem. In any other year, instead of making a wide detour
      > to avoid Shechem and so leaving Bethel going "east" (Genesis 13: 11), Lot
      > would have simply re-traced his steps and headed straight north, through
      > Shechem. But not in Year 12, which was the one year in history when "the
      > Canaanite" Lab'ayu was a legitimate threat to gobble up most of central Canaan,
      > cynically using tent-dwellers to accomplish his fleeting military
      > victories that are chronicled in the Amarna Letters.

      A thoroughly bad 'Lot' chose to live in Sodom; and
      was rescued by Abram who had miraculously become a warring
      'Sheik' with an army of 300+ [Genesis 14;14].

      Rod
    • aris hobeth
      Ian: If you want more truths (from between the lines, and from the Egyptian versions) check out my reconstruction. Moses definitely had many choices between
      Message 113 of 113 , Sep 26, 2011
        Ian: If you want more truths (from between the lines, and from the Egyptian versions) check out my reconstruction. Moses definitely had many choices between evils. Sincerely, Aris M. Hobeth

        --- On Sun, 9/25/11, aris hobeth <ahobeth@...> wrote:


        From: aris hobeth <ahobeth@...>
        Subject: ABH 2 Aris: mothers rule? Abraham of Chatsor
        To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sunday, September 25, 2011, 3:21 PM


         



        I am not offended or surprised by horrible truths. The bible indeed throws lots of horrible truths at us. What's a few more? Royalty stinks with horrible truths, some visible, some not so visible. Even God Himself seems a little harsh (bloodthirsty) for modern views. Again royalty suffers from such occuptional hazards. Army logic includes collateral damage. Public health also requires exterminations for the survival of those not yet infected. Life often gives choices between evils, not just between good and evil as some would want.
        Sincerely, Aris M. Hobeth
        --- On Sat, 9/24/11, Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...> wrote:

        From: Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...>
        Subject: Re: ABH Aris: mothers rule? Abraham of Chatsor
        To: "AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com" <AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Saturday, September 24, 2011, 3:59 PM

         

        Aris,

        Of course. If you use your common sense, it is clear that in reality those elites and beauties did what they wanted to do, as long as they could prospered from it. If they needed to murder someone or prostitute their own daughters for their own benefit, they probably did so in those good old days when everything was possible and nobody would even know about it. But we are now talking about what is literally written in the now extant Bible versions, not what is likely the horrible truth behind all those white lies.

        Regards,
        Ian
        Holland, Den Haag

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.