Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jmlineb AT comcast.net (John M. Linebarger)]

Happy New Year!  I'm considering purchasing VanGemeren's New International 
Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (all five volumes).  Does 
anyone on the list have experience with this work, such that they could pass 
recommendations and caveats on to me?  Thanks!

John M. Linebarger, PhD (Computer Science)
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
>From JimStinehart AT aol.com  Fri Jan  2 09:56:53 2009
Return-Path: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 773174C039; Fri,  2 Jan 2009 09:56:53 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE, 
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE
        autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from imo-d22.mx.aol.com (imo-d22.mx.aol.com [205.188.144.208])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36FBC4C037
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri,  2 Jan 2009 09:56:51 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from JimStinehart AT aol.com
        by imo-d22.mx.aol.com  (mail_out_v39.1.) id 3.d4b.45efcdcf (65099)
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:56:46 -0500 (EST)
From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Message-ID: <d4b.45efcdcf.368f852d AT aol.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:56:45 EST
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5046
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: [b-hebrew] Joshua 15: 52-59:  Hill Country Cities?
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:56:53 -0000


RUBUTU
=20
(a) Why Is Rubutu a Major Problem for the Scholarly View of  Joshua?
=20
The one and only major problem that scholars openly acknowledge regarding=20
their interpretation of the cities listed at Joshua 15: 48-60 is the questio=
n of=20
Rubutu.  One quite common scholarly view, as Prof. Yigal Levin properly note=
d,=20
holds that Rabbah at Joshua 15: 60 is Rubutu.  (=E2=80=9CRabbah=E2=80=9D 
is=20=
actually =E2=80=9Cthe=20
Rabbah=E2=80=9D:  H RBH.)  One terrible problem with that scholarly view, ho=
wever, is=20
that it blatantly contradicts the scholarly attempt to insist that  e-v-e-r-=
y =20
city listed at Joshua 15: 48-60 is located in hill country.  Rubutu was loca=
ted=20
in the south-central portion of the Aijalon Valley, not very close to hill=20
country.  If one asserts (as many scholars do) that Rabbah at Joshua 15: 
60=20=
is=20
not located in hill country, that would then open the door to having to look=
 at=20
each and every city listed at Joshua 15: 52-60, individually, one by one, to=
=20
see which of such cities are, and which are not, located in hill country=20
(which is precisely my controversial approach to analyzing Joshua 15: 48-60)=
.  Yet=20
if we go with Nadav Na=E2=80=99aman=E2=80=99s semi-persuasive argument 
that=20=
Rabbah at Joshua=20
15: 60 is in fact a small, inconsequential town in hill country (the other=20
mainstream scholarly view of this matter), then the scholarly view of Joshua=
 has=20
an even greater problem.  Could it be that the entire book of Joshua never=20
mentions the great city of Rubutu even once?  That is a major problem for th=
e=20
scholarly view, because Rubutu was the most important city in the entire nor=
thern=20
Shephelah in the Late Bronze Age.  Rubutu is mentioned in every single Late=20
Bronze Age source of city names in Canaan, as Nadav Na=E2=80=99aman is the f=
irst to=20
admit.   How then could Joshua be thought to miss Rubutu completely, when Jo=
shua=20
records literally hundreds of cities, towns, villages and encampments in=20
southern Canaan?
=20
(b)  Where Should the Great City of Rubutu Logically Be Listed at Joshua 15:=
=20
48-60?
=20
Where should Rubutu logically appear in the sequence of cities listed at=20
Joshua 15: 48-60?  It makes little sense to think that the great city of Rub=
utu=20
would be shoehorned in as the very last city listed in the Joshua 15: 52-60=20
sequence, almost as an afterthought.  That is one reason to go with Nadav Na=
=E2=80=99aman=E2=80=99
s view that the Rabbah at Joshua 15: 60 was an unimportant village in hill=20
country.=20
=20
The great city of Rubutu should logically have a prominent place in the=20
Joshua city list.
Joshua 15: 48-51 lists 11 cities that are explicitly stated by the text to b=
e=20
located in hill country.  The most logical place for the greatest Late Bronz=
e=20
Age city in the northern Shephelah to appear would then be the very first=20
city listed after those 11 cities in hill country, that is, the very first c=
ity=20
listed at Joshua 15: 52.  If I am right that not all of the cities at Joshua=
=20
15: 52-60 are either presented as being, or actually are, in hill country (a=
nd=20
remembering that many scholars, perhaps a majority of scholars, have seen=20
Rabbah at Joshua 15: 60 as being a non-hill country town), then the #1 place=
 we=20
should look for the =E2=80=9Cmissing=E2=80=9D great city of Rubutu is the ve=
ry first city listed=20
at Joshua 15: 52.  Note that if this listed city is Rubutu, Joshua=E2=80=99s=
=20
contemporaries likely would have instantly recognized this variant of the ci=
ty name =E2=80=9C
Rubutu=E2=80=9D.  There was no reason for Joshua to explicitly state that th=
is city was=20
not located in hill country, because his contemporary audience knew that the=
=20
great city of Rubutu was not located in hill country.  It was sufficient tha=
t=20
this city, unlike the previous 11 cities, is not explicitly stated in the te=
xt=20
to be located in hill country.
=20
Once we know where to look for the Late Bronze Age great city of Rubutu on=20
the city list in chapter 15 of Joshua, it=E2=80=99s right there, plain as da=
y, staring=20
us in the face:  =E2=80=9CArab=E2=80=9D/aleph-resh-bet/)RB.  That is the fir=
st city listed at=20
Joshua 15: 52, exactly where it should be, well befitting Rubutu=E2=80=99s g=
rand=20
status as being the greatest city of its day in the northern Shephelah in th=
e Late=20
Bronze Age.
=20
(c)  A Linguistic Analysis of RBT (Rubutu) on the Thutmosis III List From th=
e=20
Mid-15th Century BCE:  RBT =3D =E2=80=9CArab=E2=80=9D at Joshua 15: 52
=20
RBT is item #105 on the Thutmosis III list.  Scholars are virtually unanimou=
s=20
that this RBT is the city of Rubutu, in the south-central portion of the=20
Aijalon Valley, with Rubutu being one of the most important cities in Canaan=
 in=20
the Late Bronze Age.
=20
Is there a linguistic equivalent to the Aijalon Valley Late Bronze Age city=20
of RBT/Rubutu at Joshua 15: 52-59?  Rubutu is not portrayed in Joshua as bei=
ng=20
assigned to either Ephraim or Dan.  So on my theory of the case, Rubutu must=
=20
be at Joshua 15: 52-60.  And if Nadav Na=E2=80=99aman is correct (as he prob=
ably is) in=20
seeing =E2=80=9CRabbah=E2=80=9D at Joshua 15: 60 as being a small town in hi=
ll country=20
(rather than being the major city of Rubutu in the Aijalon Valley), then the=
 major=20
Late Bronze Age city of Rubutu in the Aijalon Valley needs to be at Joshua 1=
5:=20
52-59, in order for my theory of the case to work.
=20
We start with a linguistic analysis of RBT.  A final T is the second most=20
common ending for the 119 items on the Thutmosis III list.  As a practical=20
matter, a final T on the Thutmosis III list effectively means =E2=80=9Ccity=
=E2=80=9D.  That final T=20
is a mere suffix, which is not part of the root.  (The final T is probably=20
the construct state here, though in other cases a final T can technically me=
an=20
feminine, plural, or feminine plural.   But the bottom line result is always=
=20
the same in all these various cases on the Thutmosis III list.  That final T=
=20
effectively means =E2=80=9Ccity=E2=80=9D, in the extremely limited context o=
f a Late Bronze Age=20
west Semitic geographical place name.  Most importantly for us, that final T=
=20
is not part of the root.)  Thus the final T does not affect the meaning of t=
he=20
root of the city name.  Moreover, as a mere suffix the final T is optional a=
nd=20
can be dropped.  In particular, note that many scholars have matched =E2=80=
=9CRabbah=E2=80=9D
 at Joshua 15: 60 with Rubutu, despite the absence of a final T in the city=20
name =E2=80=9CRabbah=E2=80=9D.  Indeed, the most passionate opponent of 
the=20=
theory that Rabbah=20
at Joshua 15: 60 is Rubutu, namely Nadav Na=E2=80=99aman, never mentions the=
 absence=20
of a final T in the city name =E2=80=9CRabbah=E2=80=9D as possibly being a d=
istinguishing=20
feature from Rubutu.
=20
RBT is thus RB + T, where T is a mere optional suffix effectively meaning=20=
=E2=80=9C
city=E2=80=9D.  RBT =3D RB + T =3D the =E2=80=9CR-B City=E2=80=9D. =20
=20
The 2-letter archaic root of RBT is R-B, a root which is present in all the=20
early Semitic languages, such as Akkadian, Assyrian, Ugaritic and Hebrew.  T=
he=20
most common meaning of R-B is =E2=80=9Cgreat=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cbig=E2=80=
=9D.  (R-B can have a fairly=20
broad range of related meanings, however, including, in a Bronze Age context=
, =E2=80=9Cmany
=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cmore than three=E2=80=9D, or =E2=80=9Cfour=E2=80=9D.)  H=
ere, the most likely meaning of RB + T=20
is =E2=80=9CGreat City=E2=80=9D.  Since it is such a run-of-the-mill Canaani=
te city name, it=20
is not surprising that there was a second RBT/Rubutu farther north, near=20
Megiddo.  And Rabbah at Joshua 15: 60 may also mean =E2=80=9CGreat City=E2=
=80=9D.  But from its=20
location on the Thutmosis III list (with RBT at item #105 being right next t=
o=20
item #104, Gezer, which is a famous city just northwest of the Aijalon Valle=
y),=20
we can tell that this RBT is the city of Rubutu that was located in the=20
Aijalon Valley.
=20
As we have now seen, the root of RBT (Rubutu) is RB.
=20
In a slightly different connection, we learn from Nadav Na=E2=80=99aman that=
 in the=20
Late Bronze Age, an initial prosthetic aleph could be placed at the beginnin=
g=20
of such a root, without changing the meaning, and with both forms being=20
linguistic equivalents:
=20
=E2=80=9CThe identity of Canaanite Rubutu [the Rubutu up north, near Megiddo=
] and=20
biblical Aruboth [at the same location] (as suggested by Abel and 
Albright)=20=
is=20
self-evident;  the omission of the initial vowel [a prosthetic initial aleph=
]=20
has many parallels in Palestinian and ancient Near Eastern onomasticon (for=20
references, see Zadok 1978: 164-165;  1982: 124).=E2=80=9D  Nadav Na=E2=80=
=99aman, =E2=80=9CRubutu/Aruboth
=E2=80=9D, in Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.E.: Collected Essays (2005=
), at p.=20
210.
  =20
Thus, per logic and Nadav Na=E2=80=99aman, aleph-resh-bet/)RB cannot be dist=
inguished=20
linguistically from either RB or RBT on the basis of the presence or absence=
=20
of the initial prosthetic aleph, because the initial prosthetic aleph is not=
=20
part of the root and in a Late Bronze Age context is optional.  Moreover, as=
=20
noted earlier, the presence or absence of the final T is also not a=20
distinguishing factor, because the final T is an optional suffix that can be=
 dropped (as=20
recognized by all the many scholars who try to equate =E2=80=9CRabbah=E2=80=
=9D at Joshua 15:=20
60, with no final T, to Rubutu).  Thus )RB is the linguistic equivalent of R=
BT=20
at item #105 on the Thutmosis III list.  The presence of the initial=20
prosthetic aleph/) in )RB can be ignored, and the presence of the final T in=
 RBT can=20
likewise be ignored, because each such letter is optional and is not part of=
 the=20
underlying root.  The Bronze Age root of each of )RB and RBT is RB, and as=20
Late Bronze Age city names, each of )RB and RBT effectively means =E2=80=9CG=
reat City=E2=80=9D.
=20
)RB, or =E2=80=9CArab=E2=80=9D, is exactly what we see, letter for letter, a=
t Joshua 15: 52.
=20
(d)  Joshua Had a Good Late Bronze Age Source of City Names
=20
We are finding that Joshua in fact had a very good Bronze Age source for man=
y=20
of the city names that Joshua cites.  Magaroth (Maarath), Halhul, and Arab=20
all are very close linguistic matches to Late Bronze Age cities in the Aijal=
on=20
Valley at items #100 - #106 on the Thutmosis III list.  Letter-for-letter=20
accuracy like that in comparison with the mid-15th century BCE Thutmosis lis=
t=20
cannot be =E2=80=9Cfaked=E2=80=9D, or =E2=80=9Cedited in=E2=80=9D 
centuries=20=
later by an editor.  No way.  Rather,=20
the above three city names from Joshua 15: 52-59 exhibit, in spectacular=20
fashion, pinpoint historical accuracy in a Late Bronze Age secular historica=
l=20
context.
=20
Note that the text of Joshua itself does not say that all the cities listed=20
at Joshua 15: 52-59 are located in hill country south of Jerusalem.  That=
=E2=80=99s=20
because at least some of those cities are located in the Aijalon Valley, rat=
her=20
than in hill country.  Joshua presents these cities as being Late Bronze Age=
=20
cities in southern Canaan.  Though disputed by scholars, we are slowly but=20
surely seeing that (i) Joshua in fact did indeed have a good Late Bronze Age=
 source=20
of city names, and (ii) many of the cities listed at Joshua 15: 52-59 are no=
t=20
located in hill country.
=20
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making=20
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=3Demlcntaolcom00000026)