Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:26 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>
> Karl:
>
> 1.  You wrote:  "Since you assume that the central theme of Joshua, namely
> the invasion of Canaan by Israel in the late 15th century BC, is a myth and
> false history,
>  why do you give any credence to the city lists in the book?"
>
> I agree with mainstream scholars that Joshua cannot be relied upon in its
> account of a Conquest.
>
> But one of the main points of my recent threads is that the city lists in
> Joshua derive in large part from accurate, Late Bronze Age sources.  There
> are a
> few late glosses, but there's a great deal of accurate information from the
> Late Bronze Age in Joshua's city lists, in my opinion.
>
> The reason why I give "credence to the city lists in the book" is because
> the cities in southern Canaan named in Joshua, especially at Joshua 15:
> 52-59,
> match up so closely to the last 30 items on the Thutmosis III list.
>
> For example, there is no way that Joshua could come up with "Magaroth" (per
> the Septuagint) at Joshua 15: 59, which beautifully matches MQRT at item
> #106
> on the Thutmosis III list, unless Joshua had good Late Bronze Age sources
> for
> those city lists.
>

Is this not illogical? If a person has a reputation for accuracy in one
area, does he not almost always has a reputation for accuracy in all his
dealings? If Joshua is accurate in his listing of cities, then should we not
expect that his account of the invasion is equally accurate?


> 2.  "[W]hy do you ignore that the pharaoh $$Q (probably pronounced
> "Shishakka") is
>  Shisherka, otherwise known as Thutmosis III? In your latest posting, you
>  moved him back to mid 15th century BC, a contemporary of Moses, instead of
>  late 10th century BC?"
>
> To the best of my knowledge, all mainstream scholars place Thutmosis III in
> the 15th century BCE, and Shishak/Sheshonq in the 10th century BCE.  The
> b-hebrew list is not the place to discuss a New Chronology alternative
> theory
> regarding when the pharaohs reigned.
>

Then is it the place to discuss the mainstream of when the pharaohs reigned?
You can't push the mainstream and at the same time censor alternate
theories: either both, or neither, are discussed.

How can you censor new chronology dating when there are linguistic clues
that back it up? One good example is that an alternate name for Thutmosis
III is Shisherka, almost a dead ringer for the Hebrew name of $$Q who sacked
Jerusalem after Solomon died. It is closer than Shishonk.


> 3.  You wrote:  "Where is your evidence that Yakob-El is an old Amorite
> name?"
>
> I believe that is the majority view of mainstream scholars, or at least it
> is
> a common view among mainstream scholars.  I previously quoted Gordon J.
> Wenham:  "The name Jacob…is usually regarded as a shortened form of Y(
> QB-)L
> ya[ayin] qob-el 'may El protect, reward' (the  meaning of the verb is
> unsure) and
> is a typical Amorite name of the early second millennium."
>
> Let me now add to that Robert Alter, at p. 128 of his book "Genesis":
>
> "The original meaning of the name Jacob was probably something like 'God
> protects' or 'God follows after'."
>
> The scholarly view is that the name "Jacob" started out as being a
> shortened
> form of "Jacob-El", which is an old Amorite divine blessing.  The author of
> the Patriarchal narratives, however, associates the name "Jacob" with
> "heel":
>
> "In this instance [the account of Jacob's birth], the etymology is
> transparent:  Ya[ayin]aqob, 'Jacob', and [ayin]aqeb, 'heel'.  The grabbing
> of the
> heel by the younger twin becomes a kind of emblem of their future
> relationship,
> and the birth, like the oracle, again invokes the struggles against
> primogeniture."  Alter at p. 128
>

In other words, where's the evidence? All you listed is speculation.


> 4.  You wrote:  "Except for Joshua, which you believe is untrustworthy,
> city
> names were not listed except when something significant happened in or near
> them, so why do
>  you think that the Bible has a near exhaustive record of all town names in
>  pre-Babylonian Exile Israel? What is your reasoning?"
>
> The Hebrews knew a lot more about cities in southern Canaan than the
> Egyptians.


So? Isn't that a "Duh ..." statement that says nothing? Did you notice you
are repeating yourself? It is that statement, along with the following, that
are the reasons for my question, which you didn't answer.


>  Joshua lists hundreds of cities (or towns, villages, etc.) in southern
> Canaan, and as noted above, Joshua's city lists definitely seem to be
> based, in
> large part, on authentic, accurate Late Bronze Age sources.
>

How does that add up to a near exhaustive listing? On what basis does your
claim rest that the Bible has a near exhaustive record of all town names in
pre-Babylonian Exile Israel?


> The problem with Biblical geography is not what the Bible says.  No, the
> problem with Biblical geography is how post-Biblical analysts have
> mis-interpreted
> what the Bible says about geography.
>

And how can we be sure that the mainstream, which you represent in this
discussion, is not the school that has misinterpreted what the Bible says
about geography?


> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
> Karl W. Randolph.