Nota Bene-- C:\DOCUME~1\XPMUSER\MYDOCU~1\NBFILE~1 ...

vis-à-vis Ephron in the first place (cf. חוה in 23:7, 12). 45 In other words, Abraham is not merely
seeking their permission, for their legal participation is vital to the permanency the patriarch
desires. Westbrook (following Boyer) suggests the section be read as a “tripartite transaction”
which finds parallels in Akkadian at Ugarit, Boğazköy, and Mesopotamia during the same time
period, and in earlier Elamite material (16c). In this situation the monarch functions as an
intermediary, making the sale more secure by such involvement (Westbrook 1991, 32–34). 46 It is
not difficult to see why this type of deed would appeal to a non-native desiring an enduring
inheritance for the family name. If this is the background for Abraham’s request, later references
to the purchase should reflect this important dimension and indeed they do. Abraham’s burial
account (Gen 25:10) and Jacob’s burial request (Gen 49:32) both support this view with their
focus on the Hethites as finalizing the transaction.
In the financial dimension Ephron haḥittî sets the price of the property and receives
payment from Abraham. A number of financial idioms appear throughout the passage, and all of
them relate directly between Abraham and Ephron. 47 A cooperation then exists between three
———————————
45 For a supposed Hittite legal background see Lehmann (1953). For a supposed NB background see
Tucker (1966). For an informative critique of these two proposals see Hoffner (1969, 33–37) and Westbrook
(1991; cf. Singer 2006, 728). The general nature of the patriarchal account preserves parallels which are arguably
present in both first and second millennia legal texts (Hoffner 1969, 37; Westbrook 1991, 34). HL §§ 46-47, to
which the biblical account has been compared, are provided here for convenience, following Hoffner’s critical
reading (1997, 54–58):
§ 46 If in a village someone hold land (lit. fields) as an inheritance share, if the [larger part of] the land
has been given to him/her, (s)he shall render the luzzi-services. But if the sm[aller part] (of) the land [has been
given] to him/her, (s)he shall not render the luzzi-services: they shall render them from the house of his/her father.
If an heir cuts out for himself/herself unused(?)/Idle(?) land, or the man of the village give land to him/her (in
addition to his/her inherited land), (s)he shall render the luzzi-services (on the new land).
§ 47b If anyone buys all the land of a man having a TUKUL-obligation, he shall render the luzzi-services.
But if he buys only the largest portion of the land, he shall not render the luzzi-services. But if he carves out for
himself idle/fallow land, or the men of the village give (him land), he shall render the luzzi-services.
46 In Westbrook’s words: “[W]e suggest that the widespread existence in the latter half of the second
millenium BCE of a legal fiction of double transfer, by sovereign as well as by property-owner, in cases where the
long-term rights of the alienee to the land were to be particularly emphasized, might well give rise to the popular
notion of the alienee acquiring the land both from sovereign and owner, either of which could be indifferently
mentioned as alienator” (1991, 34).
47 These are as follows: נתן (consistently used for “sell” and “buy”; 23:4, 9, 13, etc.), ‏ְּבֶכֶסף ‏ָמֵלא (“for full
price”; 23:9), ‏ֶּכֶסף ‏ַה ‏ָּׂשֶדה (“the price of the field”; 23:13), ‏ַאְרַּבע ‏ֵמ ‏ֹאת ‏ֶׁשֶקל ‏ֶּכֶסף (“four-hundred shekels of silver”; 23:15,
(“acceptable to the merchants”; 23:16). For the possible ‏ֹעֵבר ‏ַל ֹ ‏ּסֵחר 23:16), money”; (“to weigh out ‏ׁשקל + ‏ֶּכֶסף 16),
socio-economic dimensions of Abraham’s self-designation as a “foreigner” ‏;ּתֹו ‏ָׁשב)‏ 23:4), see Hamilton
21