Hebrew Exegesis of Genesis 11:27-12:4

  1. I.                   Text

Genesis 11:27 וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ תּוֹלְדֹ֣ת תֶּ֔רַח תֶּ֚רַח הוֹלִ֣יד אֶת־אַבְרָ֔ם אֶת־נָח֖וֹר וְאֶת־הָרָ֑ן וְהָרָ֖ן הוֹלִ֥יד אֶת־לֽוֹט׃ 28 וַיָּ֣מָת הָרָ֔ן עַל־פְּנֵ֖י תֶּ֣רַח אָבִ֑יו בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מוֹלַדְתּ֖וֹ בְּא֥וּר כַּשְׂדִּֽים׃ 29 וַיִּקַּ֙ח אַבְרָ֧ם וְנָח֛וֹר לָהֶ֖ם נָשִׁ֑ים שֵׁ֤ם אֵֽשֶׁת־אַבְרָם֙ שָׂרָ֔י וְשֵׁ֤ם אֵֽשֶׁת־נָחוֹר֙ מִלְכָּ֔ה בַּת־הָרָ֥ן אֲבִֽי־מִלְכָּ֖ה וַֽאֲבִ֥י יִסְכָּֽה׃ 30 וַתְּהִ֥י שָׂרַ֖י עֲקָרָ֑ה אֵ֥ין לָ֖הּ וָלָֽד׃ 31 וַיִּקַּ֙ח תֶּ֜רַח אֶת־אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֗וֹ וְאֶת־ל֤וֹט בֶּן־הָרָן֙ בֶּן־בְּנ֔וֹ וְאֵת֙ שָׂרַ֣י כַּלָּת֔וֹ אֵ֖שֶׁת אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֑וֹ וַיֵּצְא֙וּ אִתָּ֜ם מֵא֣וּר כַּשְׂדִּ֗ים לָלֶ֙כֶת֙ אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן וַיָּבֹ֥אוּ עַד־חָרָ֖ן וַיֵּ֥שְׁבוּ שָֽׁם׃ 32 וַיִּהְי֣וּ יְמֵי־תֶ֔רַח חָמֵ֥שׁ שָׁנִ֖ים וּמָאתַ֣יִם שָׁנָ֑ה וַיָּ֥מָת תֶּ֖רַח בְּחָרָֽן׃ ס  12:1 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֶל־אַבְרָ֔ם לֶךְ־לְךָ֛ מֵאַרְצְךָ֥ וּמִמּֽוֹלַדְתְּךָ֖ וּמִבֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑יךָ אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַרְאֶֽךָּ׃ 2 וְאֶֽעֶשְׂךָ֙ לְג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל וַאֲבָ֣רֶכְךָ֔ וַאֲגַדְּלָ֖ה שְׁמֶ֑ךָ וֶהְיֵ֖ה בְּרָכָֽה׃ 3 וַאֲבָֽרֲכָה֙ מְבָ֣רְכֶ֔יךָ וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ֖ אָאֹ֑ר וְנִבְרְכ֣וּ בְךָ֔ כֹּ֖ל מִשְׁפְּחֹ֥ת הָאֲדָמָֽה׃ 4 וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ אַבְרָ֗ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֙ר דִּבֶּ֤ר אֵלָיו֙ יְהוָ֔ה וַיֵּ֥לֶךְ אִתּ֖וֹ ל֑וֹט וְאַבְרָ֗ם בֶּן־חָמֵ֤שׁ שָׁנִים֙ וְשִׁבְעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה בְּצֵאת֖וֹ מֵחָרָֽן׃

  1. II.                Translation

Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. And Haran became the father of Lot. 28While his father Terah was still alive, Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth. 29Abram and Nahor both married. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife was Milcah; she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milcah and Iscah. 30Now Sarai was barren; she had no children.31Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Haran, they settled there. 32Terah lived 205 years, and he died in Haran.

1The Lord had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you.

2“I will make you into a great nation

and I will bless you;

I will make your name great,

and you will be a blessing.

3I will bless those who bless you,

and whoever distain you I will curse;

and all peoples on earth will find blessing in you.”

  1. III.             Textual, Word, and Syntactical Analysis

*וְאֵ֙לֶּה : וְ can be translated “Now.” It indicates a close connection of the present with the preceding section.[1] That the Samaritan Pentateuch [2] has it readאלה instead of ואלה (which is attested by MT) is pointed out by Wenham.[3]

*תּוֹלְדֹ֣ת תֶּ֔רַח: “generations of Terah”—not of Abram, two reasons are noticed for this literary design: 1) the designation of Abram’s genealogy would have been occupied with the career of. Abram’s son; as a result, “generations of Terah” is an appropriate heading of Abra[ha]m’s story. 2) the mention of Terah will include Nahor’s connection, through Rebekah, with the promised seed.[4]

* בְּא֥וּר כַּשְׂדִּֽים: “Ur of the Chaldeans.” NET Notes (Gen 11:28) suggests that “the phrase of the Chaldeans is a later editorial clarification for the readers”, for “Chaldeans” is not a name known to the ancient world of Hebrew patriarchs. Historical evidence shows that the term comes into existence at around the time of the neo-Babylonian empire in the first millennium B.C.

*וַיִּקַּ֙ח : verb qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular of לָקַח with waw consec, meaning  “and he took.” The singular verb is associated with multiple subjects. GKC explains that it is not  infrequent that the verb agrees in gender and number with the subject nearest to it, “thus the predicate is put in the singular masculine before several masculines singular in Gn 9:23, 11:29, 21:32, 24:50, 34:20, Ju 14:5.”[5]

*שָׂרָ֔י… מִלְכָּ֖ה…: “Sarai…Milcah.”  After saying that Abram and Nahor each took wives for themselves (לָהֶ֖ם נָשִׁ֑ים), the two clauses followed are appositional without Be-verb: “the name of Abram’s wife is Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife is Milcah.” The name Sarai means « princess.”  Milcah means “queen.” Their names are respectively associated with the Mesopotamian moon god Sin’s wife “Sharratu” and daughter “Malkatu.” NET Notes (Gen 11:29) suggested that these names may reflect more the religious culture of Abram’s birthplace than the faith of the two women themselves.

*v.30. “And Sarai was barren; there is no child to her.” V.30a and v.30b are semantic synonymous but 30b is an antithetic apposition clause in terms of syntax.

* וַיֵּצְא֙וּ: “they went out,” waw consec + Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine plural of יצא.” Samaritan Pentateuch has a textual variant ויוצא, (waw consec + Hiphil imperfect 3rd person masculine יצא , meaning “he brought out.” This is followed by LXX, Latin Vulgate, and the Masoretic Text. The following word אּתָּם  “[they went out] with them” also has to be pointed differently asאֹתָם  to mean “[he brought] them.” Wenham thinks this variant is the harder reading.[6]

* לָלֶ֙כֶת: qal infinitive construct of הלך , “to go.”

* אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן: “towards the land of Canaan.” ארץ + directional ending ה.

* חָמֵ֥שׁ שָׁנִ֖ים וּמָאתַ֣יִם שָׁנָ֑ה: “Two hundred and five years”;  Samaritan Pentateuch has 145 for 205. More will be discussed in the next section.

*12:1. לֶךְ־לְךָ֛ “Go for yourself.” GKC calls this construction “ethical dative” (pleonastic dativus ethicus), which serves to “give emphasis to the significance of the occurrence in question for a particular subject.”[7]  Wenham further develops the notion in the construction here with a quote of T. Muraoka: “This particular usage of the preposition” … conveys “the impression … that the subject establishes his own identity, recovering or finding his own place by determinedly dissociating himself from his familiar surroundings. Notions of isolation, loneliness, parting, seclusion or withdrawal are often recognizable.” (T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew)[8]

* אַרְאֶֽךָּ׃: “I will show you”; Hiphil imperfect 1st person common singular of ראה with 2nd person masculine singular suffix.

*וְאֶֽעֶשְׂךָ : “I will make you”; qal cohortative  1st person common singular of עשׂה with 2nd person suffix

*וַאֲבָ֣רֶכְךָ֔: “I will bless you”; piel cohortative 1st person common singular of ברך with 2nd person masculine singular suffix

* וַאֲגַדְּלָ֖ה: “I will magnify”; piel cohortative 1st person common singular of גדל

*12:3  וַאֲבָֽרֲכָה: “and I will bless”; piel cohortative 1st person common singular of ברך. The four consecutive cohortatives following the imperative “go for thyself” in 12:1 express consequence (“so that I may”) or purpose (“then I will”) rather than simple correlation (“and I shall”).[9]

* מְבָ֣רְכֶ֔יךָ: “those who bless you”; piel participle masculine plural construct of ברך with 2nd person masculine singular suffix. Noticing that a Piel cohortative has as its object a Piel participle here, NET notes (Gen 12:3) perceives that an extension of God’s covenant blessing is significant through the intentional use of Piel stem.

* וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ֖: “the one who distains you”; piel participle masculine singular construct of קלל with 2nd person masculine singular suffix.  That the parallel and contrasting participle מְקַלֶּלְךָ is now singular and not plural is noteworthy. Certain Masoretic manuscripts and versions (LXX, Vulgate, and Samaritan Pentateuch,  have plural reading “מקלליך” (masc. pl. ptcp + suff, ie., “those who disdain you”). From the perspective of textual criticism, there would be no reason to alter the parallel in the agreement of number and change it to the singular.

*3.a-a. “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse.” The two clauses are place in chiastic structure, with the word order being “verb-object // object-verb.”

* אָאֹ֑ר: “I will curse”; Qal imperfect 1st person common singular of ארר. Notice that the second half changed the verbal mood from cohortative to a simple imperfect. This obligatory imperfect expresses God’s covenantal binding with Abram: “but the one who treats you with contempt I must curse” (NET Notes [Gen 12:3]).

* וְנִבְרְכ֣וּ: “they will be blessed”; Waw consec + niphal perfect 3rd person common plural of ברך. Theoretically the Niphal can be translated either as passive or reflexive/reciprocal. This will be one of the exegetical issues that will be pursued in our following discussion.

*v.4a  וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ: “and he went”; Waw consec + qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singularof הלך.

* בֶּן־חָמֵ֤שׁ שָׁנִים֙ וְשִׁבְעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה: literally “son of five and seventy years.”

* בְּצֵאת֖וֹ: “when he departed”; בְּ particle preposition +  qal infinitive construct of יצא with 3rd person masculine singular suffix.

  1. IV.             Comment on exegetical issues

#1: Is Terah’s lifespan 145 or 205?

We have pointed out that Samaritan Pentateuch has 145 instead of 205. Wenham conjectures the reason for this is that they assume that Abram did not leave Ur until Terah is dead (cf. Acts 7:4). Since Abram was born when Terah is 70 years old (Gen 11:26) and Abram was 75 years old when he left Ur (Gen 12:4), so 70 + 75 =145. According to The Masoretic Text, on the other hand, Abraham must be 135 when Terah died at the age of 205 if Terah was at least 130 at Abraham’s birth. Abraham gave birth to Issac when he was 100 and Sarah was 90. So when Sarah died at the age of 127, it must have only been two years after Terah’s death, for at this time Abraham is only 137 (23:1). This creates an obvious problem: if Abraham had remained in Haran until Terah is dead at the age of 205, then Isaac must also have been 35 and lived all his youth at Haran! And why did Abraham even regarded his own ability to beget a son at age 100 as somewhat incredible (Genesis 17:1, 17), if he himself was born when his father Terah was 130?

Through the comparison of Gen, 47:9, 28, 45:6,11, and 41:46, we can conclude that Jacob was 91 when Joseph was born, and some scholars suggest that Benjamin, Jacob’s youngest son was 13 or 14 years younger than Joseph, with no hint of any miracle involved in his birth.[10] So if we insist on the number of 205, then either Stephen’s testimony is wrong—that Abraham could have left Haran long before his father’s death, or indeed Terah was 130 (instead of 70) when he begot Abram. This latter solution depends on a reinterpretation of Gen 11:26. Namely, Gen 11.26 is a summary statement saying that Terah was 70 “when he started to give birth to his sons.” In addition to the unlikelihood that Abraham, Nahor, and Haran were all born in the SAME year, we can also suppose that the order of names (Abraham is placed in the first) in 11:26 is probably only related to significance, not chronology.[11]

Bruce Waltke raises three objections to this understanding: “(1) it accords badly with the rest of the genealogy from Shem to Terah, who have their firstborn in their early thirties; (2) there would be nothing exceptional in Abraham fathering Isaac at 100 years of age; (3) Stephen could not have known that Abraham left Haran after his father’s death, for Abraham could have left Haran before his father’s death (see Acts 7:2-4).”[12] F.F. Bruce align with him for the reading of 145 in his commentary of the Acts where he thinks that Stephen (or Luke) and Philo relied on a Greek version that is no longer extant which agreed with the Samaritan reading of Gen 11:32.[13]

This issue is further complicated by the reading of LXX. We have stronger reason to reject Samaritan Pentateuch if we have MT and LXX agreed with each other. But actually it is not the case. LXX reads: “And all the days of Tharrha in the land of Charrhan [ἐν Χαρραν] were two hundred and five years, and Tharrha died in Charrhan [ἐν Χαρραν].” (LXA) The insertion of the first “ἐν Χαρραν” is to make Terah’s total life span at least 275 (70+205) and even 335 (130+205)!

However, when critical textual evidence is lacking to support the reading of 145, we must still try to answer Waltke’s challenge: (1) even though from Shem to Terah most of them have their firstborn in their early thirties (Gen 11), Terah is still an exception when he gave birth to his firstborn at the age of 70. (2) The unusualness of Abraham’s begetting Isaac cannot be explained merely by age factor, since Jacob at comparable age is still paternally fertile (and Ismael was also born while Abraham was as old as 86), and it is implied throughout Gen 11 that from Shem to Terah, people lived hundreds of years in their life and bore many sons. The mere fact that men gave birth to their firstborn at about 30 does not entail that men at that time would be physically unable to bear children at about 90 or 100. The specificity of Abraham’s case must be appealed to his rather special physical condition. Namely, he may have always wanted to have a child since 25 or 30 (his forefathers had the firstborn at comparable ages) but failed to beget one for decades. (3) Luke may not be precise in recording Stephen’s words. Or more plausibly, we could say that Stephen had a revelation about the unspecified chronological link between Gen 11:32 and 12:1.

For these reasons, we may still go with 205 and believe that Abraham was born when Terah was 130 (the precedence of his name in Gen 11:26 is about his importance not about his birth order).

#2: Is Iscah Sarai?

Gen 20:12 supports Sarah being Abraham’s half-sister. We do not otherwise see a family lineage of Sarah.  There is speculation that Sarah could actually be Iscah, Haran’s daughter (Abraham’s brother, see Gen. 11:29), which would technically make Sarah Abraham’s niece, closer than what Abraham was claiming. In Gen 11:29, every other name mentioned is of biblical significance, so the name ‘Iscah’ may also refer to someone of some biblical relevance. It is a name that has been mentioned only once in the Bible. Ibn Ezra said, “[Iscah’s] name is related to the Aramaic NESACH – princes and Sarah means princess in Hebrew.” Another view draws on the root word sakkah, which means “to watch”, whence her name means ‘one who looks forth’. This provides the clue to identify Sarah with Iscah for she was so beautiful that all gazed (sakkah, « to look ») at her beauty which she has retained even in her old age (Gen. 40:4).

Considering the fact that Sarah is only ten years younger than Abraham, we must rule out the possibility that Abram, Nahor, and Haran are triplets. Otherwise, Haran had to beget Sarai/Iscah when he was ten.

Another suggestion, made by Ewald (History of Israel, vol. i., Tübingen, 1843) is that Iscah was Lot’s wife. [14] The conjecture is loosely based on Gen 19:26, where “she gazed [נָבַט] back. But this will make Lot and Iscah a brother and sister married to each other. Even though we could further speculate that they are actually half-brother and half-sister to each other, all these do not help us make better sense of the passage except for fulfilling our desire to force the scripture to say something for us.

Now we must evaluate if Gen 20:12 allows us to make the identification of Sarah to Iscah. Abraham said that “[Sarah] is in truth my sister, my father [Terah]’s daughter though not my mother’s; and she became my wife.” If Sarah is Iscah, he really should have said “my brother [Haran]’s daughter. Could it be that since Haran was dead, Iscah is considered Terah’s daughter? Indeed, in Hebrew, father (אָב) is the same word that can mean “grandfather” or “forefather”, and son can also mean descendent according to the context. If we make this exegetical move, the mention of Iscah’s name in Genesis 11:29 makes good sense: Abram and Nahor each married one daughter of their brother Haran, whose unfortunate death before their father Terah became the cause for Abram and Nahor to “take care” of his unmarried female offspring according to the ancient Sumerian custom.

This explanation is not without flaw. But if Sarah was indeed Abram and Nahor’s sister, then the fact that Gen 11:29 says nothing about her origin (while it mentions twice Milcah’s relationship to Haran and tells us an otherwise irrelevant figure “Iscah”) could hardly be justified.

#3 נִבְרְכ֣וּ בְךָ֔—“all the families of the earth will bless themselves by you” or “all the families of the earth will be blessed by you”?

Theoretically the Niphal can be translated either as passive or reflexive/reciprocal. Traditionally, interpreters have understood the verb as passive (e.g., LXX, Tg. Onq., Vg., Sir 4:21, Gal 3:8; Rev 3:25, NIV, AV, NASB, NRSV). In this sense Abram were going to be a channel or source of blessing. Others (e.g., Rashi, Skinner[15], Westermann, RSV, NJB, NEB, REB, NJPS; NET) argued for reflexive meaning.[16] The meaning then changes to mean that Abram will be held up as a paradigm of divine blessing and that people will use his name in their blessing formulae (cf. Gen 48:20 and Ruth 4:11 for such use).

One of the deciding factors, presented by NET notes, is that the Niphal of « bless » is used in formulations of the Abrahamic covenant only three times (Gen 12:2; 18:18; 28:14), and in later formulations of the Abrahamic covenant (see Gen 22:18; 26:4) the Hitpael replaces this Niphal form. Grammatically, the basic sense of the Niphal is medio-passive, while the Hitpael stem of the verb  » בָּרַךְ » has been more consistently used with a reflexive/reciprocal sense thoroughout (Deut 29:18; Ps 72:17; Isa 65:16; Jer 4:2). Wenham thinks this suggests that the two stems are totally interchangeable within Genesis, since there is yet a better stem (pual) to express the passive sense (Ps 112:2; Num 22:6).[17]

Another clue is in 12:2c. Already it has been stated that Abram will be a blessing, which presupposes the passive sense.[18] The passive aspect “Abram is blessed” is expressed in 12:2a, and then 12b states that Abram’s name will be magnified, so that he “will exemplify divine blessing” (12:2c; NET). 12:3a immediately states that all individuals who bless Abram will themselves be blessed. Therefore, if 12:3c is understood in the reflexive sense—that men will use his name in blessing each other, the Abrahamic covenant passages will then display a “progressive buildup” ending a “triumphant and universal conclusion.” In Wenham’s diagram, it looks like this:

1) Abram alone is blessed → 2) Abrams name used as a blessing →
3) Abram’s blessers are blessed → 4) All families find blessing in Abram. [19]

Even though NET’s and Wenham’s considerations are not the same, both provided good reasons to treat the Niphal here as reflexive rather than passive. God has exalted Abram and made the blessing flow unto others in a way that both “blessing him” and “blessing each other in his name” will bring prosperity.

 

 

 

Bibliography

Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Book of the Acts. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Gesenius, F. W. (2003). Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar (E. Kautzsch & S. A. E. Cowley, Ed.) (2d English ed.) (468). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Joüon, P., & Muraoka, T. (2003; 2005). A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew; Jouon-Muraoka (2:381). Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.

Mathews, K. A. (2007, c2005). Vol. 1B: Genesis 11:27-50:26 (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (117). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers

The Pulpit Commentary: Genesis. 2004 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Waltke, Bruce K., and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis : A Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001.

Willis, John T. Genesis, The Living Word Commentary on the Old Testament. Austin, Tex.: Sweet Pub. Co., 1979.


[1]The Pulpit Commentary: Genesis. 2004 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.) (174). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[2]Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, ed. A. F. von Gall. Giessen: Verlag von Alfred Topelmann, 1918.

[3]Wenham, G. J. (2002). Vol. 1: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary (265). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

[4]The Pulpit Commentary: Genesis. 2004 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.) (174). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[5]Gesenius, F. W. (2003). Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar (E. Kautzsch & S. A. E. Cowley, Ed.) (2d English ed.) (468). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[6]Wenham, G. J. (2002). Vol. 1: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary (266). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

[7]Gesenius, F. W. (2003). Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar (E. Kautzsch & S. A. E. Cowley, Ed.) (2d English ed.) (381). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[8]Wenham, G. J. (2002). Vol. 1: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

[9]Joüon, P., & Muraoka, T. (2003; 2005). A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew; Jouon-Muraoka (2:381). Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.

[10] John T. Willis, Genesis, The Living Word Commentary on the Old Testament (Austin, Tex.: Sweet Pub. Co., 1979)., 433. Cf. Also Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

[11] See for example, Gen 5:32 “And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” This does not mean that they are triplets. Cf.  Hamilton, V. P. (1990). The Book of Genesis. Chapters 1-17. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[12] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis : A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001).

[13] Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Book of the Acts. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[14]The Pulpit Commentary: Genesis. 2004 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.) (175). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Tg. Targum Onqelos, ed. B. Grossfeld

[15] J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, ICC, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910), 244–45.

[16]Mathews, K. A. (2007, c2005). Vol. 1B: Genesis 11:27-50:26 (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (117). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[17]Wenham, G. J. (2002). Vol. 1: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary (277). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

[18]Wenham, G. J. (2002). Vol. 1: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary (277). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

[19]Ibid (278).

1 thought on “Hebrew Exegesis of Genesis 11:27-12:4”

  1. Saint Augustine couldn’t do it, but can someone else explain what kind of fruit Adam and Eve ate in the story? After 6000+ years I think we are all due an intelligent explanation. No guesses, opinions, or beliefs, please–just the facts that we know from the story. But first, do an Internet search: First Scandal.

Poster un commentaire 我有話說

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s