Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Genesis 20: 1

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] Genesis 20: 1
  • Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:02:49 EDT


Tory Thorpe:
Let me respond in this post only to your comments about Qadesh.
As to whether Ain Qedeis might have been Qadesh-barnea, take a look at this
site:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch2.html
Although that site has an anti-Bible bias, it does report some important
objective facts from secular history concerning Qadesh-barnea. Here are a
few
excepts:
“Kadesh-barnea is today almost unanimously identified with the oasis of Ain
el-Qudeirat in the eastern Sinai, on the western margin of the Negev
foothills about 50 miles southwest of Beersheba (_Finkelstein and Silberman
2001_
(http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarchrefs.html#fs2001) , p. 268). A
nearby, smaller spring, Ain Qedeis, seems to echo the ancient name, but
initial
acceptance of this claim fizzled when it was realized that Ain Qedeis was
far
too small and barren to have sustained a large population for any length of
time; one visitor described it as ‘a shallow pool of water surrounded by a
desert wasteland’ (_Cohen 1981_
(http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarchrefs.html#cohen1981) , p. 23). …
Most importantly, however, no evidence of
occupation exists at Kadesh-barnea for the time of the Exodus. Not even a
sherd from
the Bronze Age has been found (_Finkelstein and Silberman 2001_
(http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarchrefs.html#fs2001) , p. 63),
despite thorough
excavation of the site and surveys of the surrounding area.”
Ain Qedeis has an attractive name (though such name almost certainly
post-dates the Hebrew Bible), but it does not match the description of
Qadesh-barnea. Ain el-Qudeirat, by contrast, does not have a name that
matches, but it
does nicely fit the Biblical descriptions of Qadesh-barnea. Alas, extensive

excavation has shown no human inhabitants in the Bronze Age, which would be
the
time period for an historical Patriarchal Age (as well as for the Exodus).
Thus there is no match in secular history to Qadesh as a site in the Sinai
Desert as referenced at Genesis 16: 14 for Hagar. Meanwhile, every human
being in the Middle East in the Bronze Age knew the super-famous Lebanese
city-state of Qadesh, and knew it by the name “Qadesh”. So when the
audience
heard it said at Genesis 20: 1 that Abraham “settled between Qadesh and
S(h)ur”,
the audience would naturally wonder if the reference there was to the real
Qadesh, the super-famous Lebanese city-state of Qadesh, or rather if the
reference was to an otherwise unknown site in the Sinai Desert, which Genesis
16:
14 had referenced regarding Hagar. That is exactly what the Hebrew author
wants us to think. First ask if perhaps Abraham simply followed in Hagar’s
footsteps. And then gradually realize that No, Abraham went in the opposite
direction from Hagar, and went north toward historical Qadesh in northern
Lebanon.
Archaeology strongly supports my theory of the case, while virtually
destroying the traditional theory of the case. The Amarna Letters strongly
support
my theory as well. In my controversial view, the Patriarchal narratives
are
not mid-1st millennium BCE fiction, as all of today’s secular scholars
insist
is the case. No, the Patriarchal narratives are very closely based on the
well-documented secular history of the mid-14th century BCE.
If you reject my theory of the case, I am afraid that you may find that you
then have no defense against the theory of today’s secular scholars, who see
the Patriarchal narratives as being fiction ginned up by four southern
Hebrews (or possibly four schools of southern Hebrews) in the mid-1st
millennium
BCE, about 700 – 1,000 years after the fact. Though people may not like the
fact that my theory deviates in some respects from the traditional religious

interpretation of this ancient text, please note that my theory is arguing
for
an historical Patriarchal Age, a text (the Patriarchal narratives) that was
composed during the historical Patriarchal Age, and a text which closely
follows the well-documented secular history of the mid-14th century BCE.
The real reason why my suggestion that Isaac was born in southern Lebanon is
anathema to secular scholars is not because such view of mine lacks support
in the text or in secular history, but rather is because it flies in the
face
of the scholarly insistence that the Patriarchal narratives were, like the
rest of the Hebrew Bible, composed by a group of southern Hebrews in the
mid-1st millennium BCE who had a strong anti-northern Hebrew bias. That
simply
is not the case, but it is the seemingly unanimous scholarly view today.
If Qadesh at Genesis 20: 1 is not the real Qadesh, the famous city-state in
northern Lebanon, then I myself see no defense against the seemingly
unanimous scholarly view that the Patriarchal narratives are late religious
fiction,
nothing more than that.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page