[b-hebrew] Kadesh-barnea

JimStinehart at aol.com JimStinehart at aol.com
Fri Apr 9 10:57:36 EDT 2010


1.  QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 and Genesis 20: 1 is Qadesh of Upper Galilee.  
 
It’s identical in unpointed text to the QD$ of Upper Galilee that is 
mentioned in the Bible at Joshua 20: 7, Joshua 21: 32, II Kings 15: 29 and I 
Chronicles 6: 61[/76].  It’s attested with that same spelling in Ugaritic 
literature.  With a different spelling, we also see it at item #4 on the mid-15th 
century BCE Thutmose III list, and in the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Letter 
EA 177.
 
2.  By sharp contrast, no name QD$ or Kadesh-barnea is attested in the 
Sinai Peninsula in the ancient world.
 
3.  There is nothing in secular history to support the unanimous, but 
totally erroneous, university scholarly view that QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 and 
Genesis 20: 1 is Kadesh barnea in the Sinai Peninsula.  N-o-t-h-i-n-g.
 
4.  As to Bible interpretation (as opposed to secular history), both 
Genesis 14: 7 and Genesis 20: 1 make a lot more sense if QD$ is the Qadesh in 
Upper Galilee, rather than a Kadesh barnea in the Sinai Desert.  
 
5.  As to an historical approach to the Bible, if we are willing to look 
north of the Dead Sea, virtually each and every name of a people or place at 
Genesis 14: 6-7 can be readily verified by secular historical inscriptions 
from the Late Bronze Age.  By sharp contrast, not a single such name of a 
people or place has a solid pre-Roman attestation south of the Dead Sea, 
including QD$.  One of the main reasons why university scholars insist that the “
four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11 is fictional, rather than having 
pinpoint historical accuracy, is that no university scholar has ever looked 
north of the Dead Sea to identify peoples or places mentioned in Genesis 14: 
6-7.  In Year 14 a military party, having secured the support of the 
Horites/historical Hurrians in the Transjordan per Genesis 14: 5-6 and Amarna 
Letter EA 197, historically passed by Qadesh of Upper Galilee, per the first 
half of Genesis 14: 7 and the ambiguous Amarna Letter (because it is broken) EA 
177, and then, per the second half of Genesis 14: 7 and four unambiguous 
Amarna Letters EA 174, EA 175, EA 176 and EA 363, that military party struck 
the entire Beqa Valley, indeed even [GM] unto the Amorites at Hasi.  Rather 
than being “fictional”, essentially every word of those Bible verses can be 
readily verified by reference to the foregoing Amarna Letters.  But no 
university scholar has ever compared those Amarna Letters to Genesis 14: 5-7, 
because no university scholar has ever looked north of the Dead Sea to evaluate 
the names of peoples and places mentioned at Genesis 14: 6-7.  Thus when 
Anson Rainey, the most preeminent Biblical geographer alive, states at p. 114 
of “The Sacred Bridge” that there is a “total lack of any link with known 
Ancient Near Eastern sources” for the military conflict reported in chapter 
14 of Genesis, we must remember that he denies that the Biblical Horites are 
the historical Hurrians (at p. 114), and rather apparently sees the Biblical 
Horites, per the 17th century AD King James approach, as being unattested 
troglodyte cave-dwellers south of the Dead Sea.  Modern university scholars 
like Anson Rainey would rather view the Biblical Horites as being troglodyte 
cave-dwellers south of the Dead Sea, than recognize that there are 
Hurrian/Horite names galore in the Transjordan in Amarna Letter EA 197.  Needless to 
say, Anson Rainey, along with all other university scholars, sees the QD$ at 
Genesis 14: 7 as being a Kadesh barnea in the Sinai Desert, even though no 
QD$ and no Kadesh barnea by those names is attested in the Sinai Desert in 
the secular history of the ancient world.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list