Kejadian 12:16

12:16 and he did treat Abram well ¹  on account of her. Abram received ²  sheep and cattle, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels.

Kejadian 13:2

13:2 (Now Abram was very wealthy ³  in livestock, silver, and gold.) ⁴ 

Kejadian 13:5-7

13:5 Now Lot, who was traveling ⁵  with Abram, also had ⁶  flocks, herds, and tents. 13:6 But the land could ⁷  not support them while they were living side by side. ⁸  Because their possessions were so great, they were not able to live ⁹  alongside one another. 13:7 So there were quarrels ¹⁰  between Abram’s herdsmen and Lot’s herdsmen. ¹¹  (Now the Canaanites and the Perizzites were living in the land at that time.) ¹² 

[12:16]  ¹ sn He did treat Abram well. The construction of the parenthetical disjunctive clause, beginning with the conjunction on the prepositional phrase, draws attention to the irony of the story. Abram wanted Sarai to lie “so that it would go well” with him. Though he lost Sarai to Pharaoh, it did go well for him – he received a lavish bride price. See also G. W. Coats, “Despoiling the Egyptians,” VT 18 (1968): 450-57.

[12:16]  ² tn Heb “and there was to him.”

[13:2]  ³ tn Heb “heavy.”

[13:2]  ⁴ tn This parenthetical clause, introduced by the vav (ו) disjunctive (translated “now”), provides information necessary to the point of the story.

[13:5]  ⁵ tn Heb “was going.”

[13:5]  ⁶ tn The Hebrew idiom is “to Lot…there was,” the preposition here expressing possession.

[13:6]  ⁷ tn The potential nuance for the perfect tense is necessary here, and supported by the parallel clause that actually uses “to be able.”

[13:6]  ⁸ tn The infinitive construct לָשֶׁבֶת (lashevet, from יָשַׁב, yashav) explains what it was that the land could not support: “the land could not support them to live side by side.” See further J. C. de Moor, “Lexical Remarks Concerning Yahad and Yahdaw,” VT 7 (1957): 350-55.

[13:6]  ⁹ tn The same infinitive occurs here, serving as the object of the verb.

[13:7]  ¹⁰ tn The Hebrew term רִיב (riv) means “strife, conflict, quarreling.” In later texts it has the meaning of “legal controversy, dispute.” See B. Gemser, “The rîb – or Controversy – Pattern in Hebrew Mentality,” Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East [VTSup], 120-37.

[13:7]  ¹¹ sn Since the quarreling was between the herdsmen, the dispute was no doubt over water and vegetation for the animals.

[13:7]  ¹² tn This parenthetical clause, introduced with the vav (ו) disjunctive (translated “now”), again provides critical information. It tells in part why the land cannot sustain these two bedouins, and it also hints of the danger of weakening the family by inner strife.