Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Jim,
>  
> Karl: 
> If you would look at p. 12 of Anson Rainey’s “The Sacred Bridge”, you  will 
> see that the traditional scholarly view (at least Rainey’s version of the  
> traditional scholarly view) is that all 10 towns at Joshua 15: 55-57 were  
> located exclusively southeast of Hebron, near the Judean Desert, in a part of  
> Canaan for which there is no evidence in secular history of there ever being any  
> real towns at all.  My point is that  such traditional view is a completely 
> erroneous interpretation of what Joshua is  saying.  The place to find those 10  
> towns is in the foothills on the western edge of hill country, a place where  
> many towns are documented, near the fertile east end of the Sorek  Valley. 
> We expect to see Timnah in the foothills on the western edge of hill  
> country, where Samson operated.  Timnah is at Joshua 15: 55-57.  The town name “
> Jezreel”, at Joshua 15: 55-57, probably means something  like “God will sow”.  
> That makes no  sense in the desolate area southeast of Hebron, but would make 
> perfect sense in  or near the foothills on the western edge of hill country.  We 
> have previously discussed that  “Carmel”, another name at Joshua 15: 55-57, 
> probably means “wondrous garden” or  something like that.  Once again,  that 
> meaning makes no sense southeast of Hebron, yet makes perfect sense in the  
> foothills.  The Zanoah at Joshua 15:  55-57 may be a duplicate of the Zanoah at 
> Joshua 15: 34 that is explicitly  stated to be in the Shephelah.  We  have 
> previously discussed that “Jokdeam”/Jakeb-am, another town name at Joshua  15: 
> 55-57, may reference “winepress”, a concept that is senseless southeast of  
> Hebron, but would make sense in the foothills just east of the  Shephelah. 
> The names of the towns at Joshua 15: 55-57 make perfect sense as names of  
> towns in the foothills of hill country, just east of the Shephelah, while not  
> making sense as names of towns in the desolate area southeast of Hebron (a 
> place  where there were no towns anyway).  The problem is not what the text of 
> Joshua says.  No, the problem is the traditional  scholarly misunderstanding of 
> the Biblical geography set forth in chapter 15 of  Joshua. 
> The city lists in Joshua are much older, and more accurate, than scholars  
> realize. 
>   

HH: I have not been following this thread and do not want to study the 
issue in depth right now, but you have put together some interesting 
facts about the possible placement of these towns. In answer to Karl's 
question later, Anson Rainey is a leading Bible scholar, so it is 
appropriate to refer to him.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard