Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Joshua 15: 52-59: Hill Country Cities?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Joshua 15: 52-59: Hill Country Cities?
  • Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:52:09 EST


Karl:

1. You wrote: “Whereas Yigal Levin is "mainstream", I am historical in that
I accept Joshua as a source that pre-dates Thutmosis III. But at the same
time I recognize
that my main contribution to this discussion is linguistic and literary, not
archaeology. As such, I am willing to defer to those who have on the ground
archaeological experience unless there is clear evidence to the contrary,
which you also don't have.”

Let me first state that, although I disagree with Prof. Yigal Levin’s
mainstream scholarly view of the city list at Joshua 15: 48-60, I well
realize both
that (i) Prof. Levin’s view is very mainstream and enjoys tremendous
scholarly
support (rather than Prof. Levin’s view being idiosyncratic, etc.), and (ii)
we on the b-hebrew list are extremely fortunate (especially me) to have a
moderator who is one of the best-informed persons there is on the critical
subject
of identifying Biblical cities in southern Canaan. But having said that,
please re-read Prof. Yigal Levin’s posts on this thread. Prof. Levin has not
cited any archaeological evidence. Rather, if I understand Prof. Levin’s
posts
(which of course is not certain), Prof. Levin seems to be relying in large
part
on an analysis of m-o-d-e-r-n Arabic names of m-o-d-e-r-n Arabic towns to
say that (i) each and every city listed at Joshua 15: 52-59 is located in
hill
country, and that (ii) this Joshua city list is “late”. Jim Stinehart is
citing the mid-15th century BCE Thutmosis III list to back up the historicity
and antiquity of the city list at Joshua 15: 48-60, whereas Prof. Levin is,
by
sharp contrast, relying in large part (I think) on m-o-d-e-r-n Arabic names
of
m-o-d-e-r-n Arabic towns to contradict Jim Stinehart’s assertions. For the
benefit of people who either did not read, or who forgot, Prof. Levin’s
mainstream scholarly statements on this subject, here is a much-shortened
version
of what he said:

“Identifying biblical sites by their names being preserved in modern Arabic
is a well-established procedure, which is…[based]…on continuity of settlement
by speakers of Semitic languages through history, who passed the names, often
without understanding them, from Canaanite to Hebrew to Aramaic to Arabic.
True, this does not work in all cases, and many false identifications have
been
made in the past, but the fact that there just happens to be a village named
Halhul in just the area which MOST people who have read Josh. 15 and know the
land think that it must be, is probably not just a coincidence. If it looks
like
a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it probably is a duck.”

(For fear that I may be quoting Prof. Levin out of context, and/or
misunderstanding Prof. Levin’s actual views on these subjects, I urge
everyone to please
re-read Prof. Levin’s post in its entirety.)

2. You wrote: “From a literary viewpoint, when the context says that the
cities were in the hills, they were in the hills. Your theory is
controversial
precisely because it violates the linguistic and literary structure of the
texts involved. Whether the text is historically accurate or not is beyond
the
purview of this group - Yigal says it is not, I say it is - but the
linguistic,
contextual and literary structure clearly places all these towns in the
highlands. I have no choice but to reject your theory on that basis
alone. (Remember, B-Hebrew is not a site to argue about history, but to
discuss the
language and literature of Biblical Hebrew. But where a theory has a
literary and/or linguistic aspect to it, we may discuss that literary and/or
linguistic aspect.)”

That is a key issue here. As I read Joshua 15: 48-60, the text explicitly
says that the cities listed at Joshua 15: 48-51 are located in hill country.
By
sharp contrast, the text is silent as to the precise location of the cities
listed at Joshua 15: 52-60. I note that a majority of scholars, probably
including Prof. Levin himself (based on what he said in his post), see
“Rabbah” at
Joshua 15: 60 as n-o-t being located in hill country (or at least as fairly
likely not being located in hill country), but rather being the major city of
Rubutu, located in the south-central portion of the low-lying Aijalon Valley
in the low-lying northern Shephelah. If scholars are quite willing to
concede
that a city listed at Joshua 15: 60 quite likely is not located in, or even
very near, hill country, then on what “linguistic and literary structure” do
you base your view that every single city listed at Joshua 15: 52-59 is
necessarily portrayed as being located in hill country?

3. You wrote: “You are just plain illogical. If the Bible is the most
accurate
record of the Bronze Age, then you have to admit that Abraham lived in the
early bronze age, that the exodus took place during the middle bronze age,
and
so forth, because that's what the text explicitly says when correlated to
modern nomenclature.”

The secular historical evidence points to the Patriarchal Age as being the
Late Bronze Age. I realize that, on your view, that would not allow enough
time
for an Exodus. I have no expertise on the Exodus, and I do not post on the
Exodus.

I am not being “illogical”, simply because my views differ from yours. As I
see it, the Patriarchal narratives have pinpoint historical accuracy in a
Late Bronze Age secular historical context. That’s what I am saying.
Whether or
not there ever was an historical Exodus is for you and others to decide.

4. You wrote: “Another practice where you do the same things as the ‘
mainstream scholars’ is to assume that place names were unique, that other
cities
or places did
not have the same or similar names. It is that presupposition that makes
many people claim that the reference to Dan in Genesis 14:14 is an
anachronism….”

On the contrary, I agree with your analysis of that issue.

Let me cite another important example of that. More than one place was
called “Qadesh” in the ancient world. Genesis 20: 1 makes complete sense if
the “
Qadesh” referenced there is the historical Qadesh in Upper Galilee. But
scholars insist that Genesis 20: 1 is referencing a fictional “Qadesh”, deep
in
the Negev Desert near the Sinai Desert, even though scholars admit that no
historical document from prior to the common era ever references any place
named “
Qadesh” in that location.

Indeed, my #1 concern these days is to establish that the Patriarchs’ “Hebron
” is a completely different place than King David’s city of Hebron south of
Jerusalem. If we look at what the Bible says, and what historical documents
from prior to the common era say, while largely ignoring post-Biblical
comments
by analysts of the Bible, we can verify that not a single Biblical author
thought that the Patriarchs’ “Hebron” was the same place as King David’s city
of Hebron.

5. You wrote: “[T]he listing of a city name on Thutmosis' list could very
well refer to
a similarly named place in a different area than among those cities given to
Judah. Thus it is illogical to insist that similarly name places in
Thutmosis' list and Joshua's list of cities assigned to Judah must refer to
the same
sites.”

On this thread, I am documenting among other things that all 7 city names at
items #100 - #106 on the Thutmosis III list are names of cities or towns in
the Aijalon Valley. It is logical to assume that some of the cities in the
Aijalon Valley area are portrayed by Joshua as being assigned to Judah, even
though we are certain that Gezer and the city of Aijalon are not portrayed in
that
fashion. As to whether two different places might have the same name, a lot
depends on how unusual the city name is. On the one hand, “Rubutu”/“Arab”/“
Rabbah” is such an extremely common name, meaning “Great City”, that it is
little surprise that at least 3 different places had that same name. By
sharp
contrast, “Magaroth” and “Halhul” and “Jokdeam” are strange names. If those
three strange names of obscure small towns in the area of the Aijalon Valley
match between the Thutmosis III list and Joshua 15: 52-59, that strongly
confirms my point that the city list at Joshua 15: 52-59 is not “late”,
contrary
to the views of mainstream scholars. That is precisely the reason I am
spending quite a bit of time on these obscure, “unimportant” cities that went
extinct either in the Late Bronze Age or early in the Iron Age. It is
precisely
tiny places like that, with unique names, that can be used to prove the great
antiquity of a Biblical passage, despite the current unanimous position of
university scholars to the contrary.

6. You wrote: “In conclusion, do you claim that the story of Abraham is a
distorted set of legends from the 14th century BC Aijelon, or a true history
of
18th to 19th
centuries Canaan?”

Neither. The Patriarchal Age is the 14th century BCE. The Patriarchal
narratives have extraordinary, pinpoint historical accuracy in a Late Bronze
Age
secular historical context. The Patriarchs’ “Hebron” is the Aijalon Valley.
Every single Biblical author, as opposed to post-Biblical analysts, knew that
the Patriarchs’ “Hebron” was not the same physical place as the city of
Hebron, and most of the Biblical authors probably knew that the Patriarchs’
“Hebron”
was either the Aijalon Valley, or at least was in or near the northern
Shephelah.

The Patriarchal narratives are not “distorted”.

The Patriarchal narratives are not “legends”.

But on my view, there is nothing about Canaan in the 19th to 18th centuries
BCE in the Patriarchal narratives.

7. You wrote: “Your present theory that the Bible is accurate but talks
about 14th century BC Aijelon makes no sense, as it is illogical to claim
that
the text is both highly accurate and a distorted legend.”

Karl, I know you are being honest and sincere, and you are not deliberately
trying to distort what my controversial view of the Patriarchal narratives
is.
Yet you still, at this late date, do not understand my basic position. I do
not claim to know anything about the Exodus. I do not claim that my view of
the Patriarchal narratives “leaves room” for an historical Exodus. I never
post about the Exodus. Rather, my position is that the Patriarchal
narratives
are very closely based on what actually happened in the 14th century BCE in
secular history, and that the Patriarchal narratives were also composed in
that
same time period.

It is fine for you to point out, for the umpteenth time, that my view of the
Patriarchal narratives conflicts with your view of both the Exodus and the
Patriarchs, in that my view does not leave room for the Exodus that you
posit.
But I am not being “illogical”. I am defending the historical integrity of
the Patriarchal narratives, in a 14th century BCE historical time period,
while
not vouching for, or saying anything about, the Exodus. That is not
illogical. It may be wrong, but it is not illogical.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page