Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] gen. 25 (tam?)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
  • To: kwrandolph AT gmail.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] gen. 25 (tam?)
  • Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:44:09 -0400


Karl:

1. You wrote: “Where in Genesis does it say that they were ‘magnificent’
oak trees?”

Genesis 13: 18, 14: 13, and 18: 1. The reference to oak trees three times,
in close succession, to identify the Patriarchs’ X-BR-W-N implies that these
oak trees were notable, and indeed magnificent.

If one approached the northern Shephelah from the east [that is, from
Bethel], going the opposite direction as Lot did in leaving Bethel, then what
would have been the most impressive aspect of the lovely, low-lying verdant
valley [that in modern times is called the “Aijalon Valley”] that one comes
to? Why of course, it would be the magnificent “oak trees” that surrounded
that valley.

2. You wrote: “That is something that you made up. They could have been the
dry land oak trees, like what grow in the deserts of the American South West.”

Let’s assume then that there were a few dry land oak trees on the towering
mountains that surround the walled fortress city northwest of the Judean
Desert [which city in the early 1st millennium BCE began to be called XBRN,
though not XBR-W-N, and not until many centuries after Moses’ day]. Why on
earth would the Hebrew author (i) explicitly refer to those few,
non-magnificent oak trees on three separate occasions, while (ii) never once
mentioning, even in passing, either the truly massive fortifications of that
Early and Middle Bronze Age city, or the mountains that utterly dominate the
non-urban area away from the city itself where Abraham would have sojourned
in tents?

By contrast, if the early Hebrew author wanted to reference a valley in the
northern Shephelah that had no formal name in the ancient world [the place we
call today the “Aijalon Valley”], for a person like Abraham who had started
out at Bethel, then the very three words that we would rightly expect are all
right there in the text: a “valley” that is the opposite of “east” of
Bethel, and that is surrounded by magnificent “oak trees”. All of the common
words in the text describe the Late Bronze Age Aijalon Valley perfectly,
while not fitting the city northwest of the brutal Judean Desert at all well.
[As to the proper name X-BR-W-N, see #3 below.]

Karl, what common words in the Hebrew text do you see as being inconsistent
with my view that the Patriarchs’ X-BR-W-N is the Aijalon Valley?

Karl, you do realize, don’t you, that the Shephelah is part of the Promised
Land of Canaan? There’s nothing remotely blasphemous about the idea that the
Patriarchs sensibly chose to sojourn in the lovely Shephelah, west of hill
country. I don’t quite understand why you’re fighting so hard here against
what the Hebrew text says. It says “valley” and the opposite of “east” of
Bethel and “oak trees” and “Amorites”, all of which describe the Late Bronze
Age Aijalon Valley perfectly, and none of which fit the towering mountains
that surround the city just northwest of the Judean Desert. The words “up”
and “mountains” are very conspicuous by their complete absence in the text’s
description of the Patriarchs’ X-BR-W-N. Why fight the text? Why not go
with the text, and relish its pinpoint accuracy? There’s nothing wrong with
the text! The problem, rather, is with the longstanding erroneous
interpretation of the text.

3. In response to my assertion that “QRYT )RB( is a Patriarchal nickname for
the historical city of Rubutu”, you wrote: “There is no where in the text
that can support this idea. How can you expect us to agree with you that the
patriarchal narratives are historical, when you yourself treat it as fiction?”

The adroit use of apt nicknames does not make a text fictional. The text
portrays Sarah [and the Patriarchs and Rebekah and Leah, but not Rachel] as
being buried in a cave in a field just outside of the historical Late Bronze
Age city of Rubutu, which is close to, but not identical with, where the
Patriarchs sojourned in the Late Bronze Age Aijalon Valley. The early Hebrew
author was forced to come up with a Patriarchal nickname for the northernmost
valley in the Shephelah, because such valleys had no formal names in the
ancient world, as we know from the Thutmose III list. [By contrast, every
single city, including very small towns, had historical names.] The author
chose to use a Patriarchal nickname for Rubutu. “Rubutu” itself is a west
Semitic name meaning “Great City”: RB + T. But in the Patriarchal Age,
although most of the Aijalon Valley was dominated by Amorites [especially
Milk-Ilu/“Mamre”], the city of Rubutu was dominated by Hurrian lords like
Tagi and Suwardata, per the Amarna Letters. So the early Hebrew author
brilliantly came up with a nifty Patriarchal nickname that (i) means
“(Hurrian) lords” in Hurrian, and (ii) is based on the two key consonants
R-B, just like RB-T, and hence the reference to historical Rubutu is clearly
there. Neat! [In the Hebrew rendering of Hurrian names, the aleph and the
ayin need to be in )RB(/ir-bi, in order to show the syllable division. But
they are prosthetic in nature, being vowel indicators, not true consonants.
The only two true consonants in )RB( as a Patriarchal name are R-B.]

Meanwhile, no place named “City of Four” [the west Semitic meaning of )RB(]
or anything remotely like that is attested in Canaan, either during Moses’
time or in the Late Bronze Age or in any other time period. And there’s no
XBRWN, using five letters, attested in non-biblical sources prior to
post-exilic times, to the best of my knowledge, and there’s no XBRN, using
four letters, referring to the city northwest of the Judean Desert, to the
best of my knowledge, until the early 1st millennium BCE. The nomenclature
that the Patriarchal narratives use is consistently Late Bronze Age in nature
[except for a mere handful of the inevitable post-exilic added comments],
never Early or Middle Bronze Age in nature, and not Iron Age or later in
nature either. For example, X-BR-W-N/xa-vur-u-ne in Hurrian [a Late Bronze
Age language] means “heaven on earth”, and its root [before adding Hurrian
suffixes] is XBR. Compare XBR as the name used for King Keret’s ideal
kingdom in Ugaritic mythology. Everything here is Late Bronze Age in nature,
including Rubutu, the RB city or Great City, QRYT )RB(, in the Late Bronze
Age Aijalon Valley, w-e-s-t [not south!] of Bethel.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page