[b-hebrew] Joshua 15: 52-59: Hill Country Cities?
JimStinehart at aol.com
JimStinehart at aol.com
Sat Jan 3 11:49:27 EST 2009
Karl:
1. You wrote: “[V]erses 48 – 60 [of Joshua] make up a complete
section. There is no indication in the text that any of the sites listed are
anywhere other than in the hill country, which would be needed for your theory to
stand on linguistic and literary grounds. … Then you agree that it is wrong
to insist that Rubutu in the Thutmosis list must be the same as Rabbah in the
Joshua list. The same with the other names.”
This is an important issue for us to discuss. As I read Joshua 16: 5-10 and
19: 40-48, neither Rubutu in the south-central Aijalon Valley, nor any town
in the southeast quadrant of the Aijalon Valley, is portrayed in Joshua as
being assigned to Ephraim or Dan. It makes all the logical sense in the world
for Joshua to portray Rubutu and the towns in the southeast quadrant of the
Aijalon Valley as being assigned to Judah. That part of the Aijalon Valley
area is next to the hill country south of Jerusalem, and is fairly close to
the city of Hebron. Thus it makes perfect sense for Joshua 15: 48-60 to assign
both the hill country south of Jerusalem, and the southeast quadrant of the
Aijalon Valley as far west as the major city of Rubutu, to Judah. Only the
cities at Joshua 15: 48-51 are explicitly stated to be in hill country. The
towns at Joshua 15: 52-60 logically are located both in the hill country south
of Jerusalem, and in the southeast quadrant of the Aijalon Valley as far
west as Rubutu. I myself see “Arab” at Joshua 15: 52 as being historical
Rubutu. Magaroth, Halhul and Jokdeam are small towns in the southeast quadrant of
the Aijalon Valley, as we know from items #100 - #106 on the Thutmosis III
list from the mid-15th century BCE.
On the traditional view, either (a) Joshua “forgot” about the major city of
Rubutu and the small towns in the southeast quadrant of the Aijalon Valley,
or (b) Joshua “forgot” about the small towns in the southeast quadrant of
the Aijalon Valley, and only put in Rubutu at the very end, at Joshua 15: 60.
To me, my proposed analysis of Joshua 15: 48-60 makes more logical sense than
either of those two traditional views. And my proposed analysis has strong
historical backing from the Thutmosis III list. Since Joshua literally lists
hundreds of towns in southern Canaan, it makes no sense to me to think that
Joshua “forgot” about Rubutu or the small towns in the southeast quadrant of
the Aijalon Valley, all of which should logically have been expressly
assigned to Judah.
1. As to the rest of your post, let me try to explain my view of the
Bible in a slightly different way. I plead “guilty” as charged to your claim
that I basically follow mainstream scholars as to my view of whether the
Hebrews were in bondage in Egypt for 400 years, whether there was an Exodus as
described in the Book of Exodus, and whether there was a Conquest as described
in Joshua. My views on those subjects are totally un-original, and simply
follow mainstream modern secular scholarship. Perhaps what has irritated you
all this time is your perception that I was trying to “dodge” that tag. On
the contrary, with the notable exception of the Patriarchal narratives, I
tend to accept the modern secular scholarly view of most of the rest of the
Bible. (I disagree with mainstream scholarship as to certain passages in Joshua,
as we are discussing on this thread.)
But I honestly assert, in a logical fashion, that in my opinion the
Patriarchal narratives are very closely based on the well-documented secular history
of the mid-14th century BCE, and were composed during that same period.
You wrote: “That is ridiculous. The Exodus was 15th century BC, the
Patriarchs from
centuries earlier. That's according to the text as written. Either you have
to say that the text is wrong, a distorted legend at best, and 14th century
BC, or you have to say that it is correct and 18th to 19th century BC. You
don't have other options, except nonsense.”
You and I have an honest disagreement as to those issues. I myself see no
evidence in secular history for a 15th century BCE Exodus. When you refer to “
the text as written”, if you are referring to the Book of Exodus, then I
agree that I see no historical basis for the Book of Exodus. But if by the
phrase “the text as written” you are referring to the Patriarchal narratives,
that is a completely different issue. I do not think that the Patriarchal
narratives are “wrong”, or “a distorted legend”, nor is my view that the
Patriarchal Age is the 14th century BCE “nonsense”.
At the end of Genesis, we read: “And Joseph said unto his brethren: 'I
die; but God will surely remember you, and bring you up out of this land unto
the land which He swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.' And Joseph took
an oath of the children of Israel, saying: 'God will surely remember you,
and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.'” Genesis 50: 24-25 I interpret
those verses to mean that according to the author of the Patriarchal
narratives (whom I do not view as being Moses), the early Hebrews returned to Canaan
from Egypt a few months after Joseph’s death.
I do not accept your traditional interpretation of Genesis 15: 16, which
reads: “And He said unto Abram: 'Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a
stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall
afflict them four hundred years”. I myself see no reference to Egypt there.
The reference to “a land that is not theirs” means Canaan, during the
Hebrews’ early years when the Hebrews lived in tents and owned no land in Canaan.
The reference to “four hundred years” means 400 “years” in 6-month “years
”, which is 200 regular years. Abraham lived to age 175 “years” in terms
of 6-month “years”, which is 87½ regular, 12-month years. Genesis 15: 16
correctly predicts that for the first 200 regular years, the early Hebrews will
be non-landowners in Canaan, from the mid-14th century BCE to the mid-12th
century BCE. Then, as we know from secular history, in the mid-12th century
BCE, suddenly hundreds of Hebrew villages sprang up in the hill country north
of Jerusalem.
I see the Patriarchal narratives as being closely based on the
well-documented secular history of the mid-14th century BCE. The Patriarchal narratives
are not “legends” or “distorted”, but rather are the historical foundation
of Judaism. As to most of the rest of the Bible, however, you are completely
correct that I basically accept the mainstream secular scholarly view of
most of the rest of the Bible.
Karl, I have learned a lot from your perceptive analysis of Hebrew words and
sentences. For example, your novel interpretation of Genesis 49: 3 is truly
brilliant. Why don’t we just agree to disagree as to the historical time
period of the Patriarchal Age? My view of that may be wrong, but it is not
illogical, much less is it “nonsense”.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list