[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