Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:52 PM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>
> Karl:
>
> 2.  You wrote:  "From a literary viewpoint, when the context says that the
> cities were in the hills, they were in the hills. Your theory is
> controversial precisely because it violates the linguistic and literary
> structure of the texts involved. Whether the text is historically accurate
> or not is beyond the purview of this group - Yigal says it is not, I say it
> is - but the linguistic, contextual and literary structure clearly places
> all these towns in the highlands. I have no choice but to reject your theory
> on that basis alone.  (Remember, B-Hebrew is not a site to argue about
> history, but to discuss the language and literature of Biblical Hebrew.  But
> where a theory has a literary and/or linguistic aspect to it, we may discuss
> that literary and/or linguistic aspect.)"
>
> That is a key issue here.  As I read Joshua 15: 48-60, the text explicitly
> says that the cities listed at Joshua 15: 48-51 are located in hill country.
>  By sharp contrast, the text is silent as to the precise location of the
> cities listed at Joshua 15: 52-60.


Context.

Verses 21 - 47 concerned the Negev, vast swaths of what is today part of the
Sinai and part of Philistia (Gaza Strip). This territorial distinction is
listed only in verse 21. Are you trying to say that only some of those towns
were in the region listed?

Likewise verses 48 - 60 make up a complete section. There is no indication
in the text that any of the sites listed are anywhere other than in the hill
country, which would be needed for your theory to stand on linguistic and
literary grounds.

 I note that a majority of scholars, probably including Prof. Levin himself
> (based on what he said in his post), see "Rabbah" at Joshua 15: 60 as  n-o-t
>  being located in hill country (or at least as fairly likely not being
> located in hill country), but rather being the major city of Rubutu, located
> in the south-central portion of the low-lying Aijalon Valley in the
> low-lying northern Shephelah.  If scholars are quite willing to concede that
> a city listed at Joshua 15: 60 quite likely is not located in, or even very
> near, hill country, then on what "linguistic and literary structure" do you
> base your view that every single city listed at Joshua 15: 52-59 is
> necessarily portrayed as being located in hill country?
>
> Note: I disagree with Prof. Levin and other mainstream scholars for the
reason #4 below.


> 3.  You wrote:  "You are just plain illogical.  If the Bible is the most
> accurate record of the Bronze Age, then you have to admit that Abraham lived
> in the early bronze age, that the exodus took place during the middle bronze
> age, and so forth, because that's what the text explicitly says when
> correlated to modern nomenclature."
>
> The secular historical evidence points to the Patriarchal Age as being the
> Late Bronze Age.  I realize that, on your view, that would not allow enough
> time for an Exodus.  I have no expertise on the Exodus, and I do not post on
> the Exodus.
>
> I have done a linguistic and literary study of the Exodus to see exactly
what the text says.

Joseph, when he was sold into slavery, he was situated in the capital of
Egypt that was apparently some distance from Goshen. It was relatively near
in that it was within the borders of Egypt so that he could go visit without
leaving Egypt, therefore he didn't need special permission from the Pharaoh
to go visit, but his trips were so infrequent that he did not introduce his
sons to his father until some time after his father and family settled in
Egypt.

The Pharaoh of the Exodus could be no later than the Hyksos period at the
latest. None of the later Paraohs fits the descriptions given in the text.
Forget the dating of Manetho, it is wrong. Another option is
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/moses.asp which gives a good
argument that the Exodus occurred before the Hyksos, that the devastation
caused by the plagues gave an opening for the Hyksos to invade. Whether that
is true or not, all I can say for certain is that the text rules out a post
Hyksos Exodus.

Since the Patriarchs predated the 15th century BC Exodus by centuries, the
text as written rules out your interpretation.

>
> 4.  You wrote:  "Another practice where you do the same things as the
> 'mainstream scholars' is to assume that place names were unique, that other
> cities or places did not have the same or similar names. It is that
> presupposition that makes many people claim that the reference to Dan in
> Genesis 14:14 is an anachronism…."
>
> On the contrary, I agree with your analysis of that issue.
>
> Then you agree that it is wrong to insist that Rubutu in the Thutmosis list
must be the same as Rabbah in the Joshua list. The same with the other
names.

Joshua doesn't list all the names of the towns assigned to the different
tribes. As a result, towns he doesn't list can be among the names listed by
Thutmosis.


> 6.  You wrote:  "In conclusion, do you claim that the story of Abraham is a
> distorted set of legends from the 14th century BC Aijelon, or a true history
> of 18th to 19th centuries Canaan?"
>
> Neither.  The Patriarchal Age is the 14th century BCE.


That is ridiculous. The Exodus was 15th century BC, the Patriarchs from
centuries earlier. That's according to the text as written. Either you have
to say that the text is wrong, a distorted legend at best, and 14th century
BC, or you have to say that it is correct and 18th to 19th century BC. You
don't have other options, except nonsense.


> 7.  You wrote:  "Your present theory that the Bible is accurate but talks
> about 14th century BC Aijelon makes no sense, as it is illogical to claim
> that the text is both highly accurate and a distorted legend."
>
> Karl, I know you are being honest and sincere, and you are not deliberately
> trying to distort what my controversial view of the Patriarchal narratives
> is. Yet you still, at this late date, do not understand my basic position.
>  I do not claim to know anything about the Exodus.  I do not claim that my
> view of the Patriarchal narratives "leaves room" for an historical Exodus.
>  I never post about the Exodus.  Rather, my position is that the Patriarchal
> narratives are very closely based on what actually happened in the 14th
> century BCE in secular history, and that the Patriarchal narratives were
> also composed in that same time period.
>
> Let me get this in my own words: you are saying that the Patriarchal
stories were distorted legends composed in the 14th century BC, not that the
Patriarchs lived at that time? Therefore the Patriarchs may have lived
centuries earlier, but by the time their stories were recorded, it reflected
a later period, namely 14th century BC? In this you differ from the
"mainstream" only in the timing, not the methodology?


> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>

Karl W. Randolph.