Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Kadesh-barnea

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: uhurwitz AT yahoo.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kadesh-barnea
  • Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:21:48 EDT


Unlike most of the Patriarchal narratives, Genesis 36: 8-43 is very late as
to its composition date, as I believe a majority of scholars would agree.
It is so late that the author of that addendum to the original Patriarchal
narratives may have been aware of the 1st millennium BCE state of Edom.

There is an important Hebrew language issue here regarding Seir. At
Genesis 36: 8-9, whose composition is very late, we see a standard reference
to a
named mountain or a named mountain range: “Mount/HR Seir”. At Genesis 36:
8-43, that is Mount Seir, which is a named mountain or named mountain range
south of the Dead Sea that borders the Arabah. Note that HR (i) is a
2-letter word, (ii) is singular, and (iii) routinely in the Bible precedes a
proper name of a mountain or mountain range.

Completely different is the following reference in truly ancient chapter 14
of Genesis, a section of the Patriarchal narratives which many scholars
(perhaps even a majority of scholars) agree may date all the long way back to
the mid-2nd millennium BCE: “HRRM Seir”, at Genesis 14: 6. HRRM is an
archaic plural, found only in chapter 14 of Genesis. HRRM means “hill
country”
. Note that HRRM, so unlike HR, (i) is a 4-letter word, (ii) is plural, and
(iii) no plural form of HR or HRR is ever used with an immediately
following proper name in the Bible to reference a named mountain or a named
mountain
range. So HRRM has a very different meaning here than HR, where both of
them are immediately followed by the proper name Seir.

By the word HRRM, Genesis 14: 6 is referring to the “hill country” of the
Transjordan that surrounds the city of Seir/Jazer, on the east bank of the
Jordan River. Seir/Jazer is located precisely in the middle of the hill
country of the Transjordan. There is no hill country south of the Dead Sea.

If we focus on the difference between HRRM at Genesis 14: 6 and HR at
Genesis 36: 8-9, we see that they are referring to two completely different
places. Unfortunately, when the #1 Biblical geography scholar in the world,
Anson Rainey, places “Mt. Seir” on a mountain range south of the Dead Sea in
setting forth the route of the 4 attacking rulers in Genesis 14: 5-7 at p. 15
of “The Sacred Bridge”, he is actually picking up “Mt. Seir” from the
centuries later addendum to the Patriarchal narratives at Genesis 36: 8-9,
which
has nothing to do with the 4 attacking rulers. In that very late section
of Genesis (namely Genesis 36: 8-9), HR Seir is referring to Mt. Seir south
of the Dead Sea. But in chapter 14 of Genesis, the reference at Genesis 14:
6 is to HRRM Seir. That’s a completely different part of the world. That’
s hill country. The sentence in which that reference occurs began at
Genesis 14: 5 with a reference to Ashteroth, which everyone agrees was in the
northern Transjordan. So the reference at Genesis 14: 6 to HRRM Seir makes
perfect sense as being a reference to the hill country near Seir/Jazer in the
Transjordan.

It is really quite striking that not a single item that the #1 Biblical
geographer lists south of the Dead Sea at p. 15 of “The Sacred Bridge” can be
verified by a secular historical inscription pre-dating the Roman Era. Not
one. The closest one, in fact, is “Mt. Seir”, but that is not what Genesis
14: 6 says. Genesis 14: 6 is referring to HRRM/hill country, and there is
no hill country south of the Dead Sea. If we distinguish HRRM from HR, as
we should, then we see that every single reference at Genesis 14: 6-7 makes
perfect sense north of the Dead Sea, with almost all such references being
confirmed by secular historical inscriptions from the Bronze Age north of the
Dead Sea, whereas none of such references makes any sense south of the Dead
Sea.

Anson Rainey insists that there is no secular historical documentation to
back up the Biblical “four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11, which he
views as being pure fiction. In fact, there is secular historical
documentation from the Bronze Age out the wazzoo to show the pinpoint
historical
accuracy of the “four kings against five”. But it’s a-l-l north of the
Dead
Sea, and that is why university scholars have never found it. University
scholars have, unfortunately, never once looked north of the Dead Sea for
secular historical verification of Genesis 14: 6-7, which is one key reason
why
university scholars erroneously assert that the “four kings against five”
at Genesis 14: 1-11 is completely fictional. In order to show the pinpoint
historical accuracy of Genesis 14: 1-11, only the following two things are
needed: (i) look n-o-r-t-h of the Dead Sea for verification of each people
and place referenced at Genesis 14: 6-7, and (ii) do not rely for such
identifications upon later books in the Bible, which were composed many
centuries after chapter 14 of Genesis, and in many cases no longer understood
the
ancient references in chapter 14 of Genesis. For example, chapter 14 of
Genesis is so old that the Amorites had not yet gone extinct when it was
composed. So Genesis 14: 7 knows that the historical Amorites were in
Lebanon, and
were not, as Rainey’s totally erroneous map would have it, non-historically
located south of the Dead Sea. The fact that later books in the Bible did
not understand who the historical Amorites had been should not prevent us
today from appreciating the pinpoint historical accuracy of truly ancient
Genesis 14: 1-11, which was composed by a Hebrew contemporary of the “four
kings
against five” in the Bronze Age.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page