Biblical Hebrew Forum

[LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>]

I agree.  There is no reason why someone can accept the documentary 
hypothesis and yet be religiously conservative.  Cannot God inspire a 
critically understood Bible?

 
Lloyd Barré
http://freewebs.com/lmbarre
 

--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au> wrote:

From: Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources
To: "b-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 7:10 AM

I suspect that depends on how you define "conservative".  I think you
will
find that there are many who would define themselves as conservative in
religious terms who would either accept the idea of documentary sources
[even if not in the classical EDJP form] or have an open mind on the subject
 Among Christians iIt seems to be mainly among conservative evangelicals who
hold to the concept of an inerrant Bible that any form of documentary
sources are unacceptable.  They do not make up the totality, or even the
majority, of conservative Christians and Jews who would consider themselves
to be biblical scholars.  

Kevin Riley
 
-------Original Message------- 
 
From: Bryant J. Williams III 
Date: 4/02/2009 5:54:49 PM 
 
Dear Lloyd, 
 
Amongst "mainstream" scholars "so-called" it is accepted.
Amongst
conservative 
Scholars it is NOT accepted. 
 
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III 
 
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




>From l_barre AT yahoo.com  Wed Feb  4 17:20:11 2009
Return-Path: <l_barre AT yahoo.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 E6F634C015; Wed,  4 Feb 2009 17:20:10 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
        autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from n75.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (n75.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com
        [98.136.44.51])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C43334C01E
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed,  4 Feb 2009 17:19:59 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [216.252.122.217] by n75.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        04 Feb 2009 22:19:59 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.81] by t2.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        04 Feb 2009 22:19:59 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.111] by t1.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        04 Feb 2009 22:19:59 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        04 Feb 2009 22:19:59 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 20354.77285.bm AT omp115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 81183 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Feb 2009 22:19:58 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: 
VaManh0VM1nWyUR4qlTsLS7xLk54BM.ElFbRCMi8KY1Omb97wt4Uid9dhC8xRy5wBaekVvZmaaPFlrTTFI8iPbgj1aQ.i0r_9CcSa.xtk6FbvHalgYvkRfn3IkPOYmO1JG6IVJrPgGa17KgMHLfkiU7V5CFp0FsjSfx_Hyez6._QC6o6s3xPXnrPvOfxP98NS54_lw--
Received: from [98.173.36.135] by web110004.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
        Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:19:58 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:19:58 -0800 (PST)
From: LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>
To: b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <4935D3107B0F4655B1DB97F79D28A354@ConniePC>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <848482.80826.qm AT web110004.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:55:35 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: l_barre AT yahoo.com
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: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:20:11 -0000

What is your point?  Knowledge is impossible?

 
Lloyd Barré
http://freewebs.com/lmbarre
 

--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Edward Andrews <edandrews AT roadrunner.com> wrote:

From: Edward Andrews <edandrews AT roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources
To: "Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>, "b-Hebrew" 
<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 9:11 AM

You wrote: "that depends on how you define. . . ." This is the second
time this idea has been said in the last two posts.

This is a part of the problem. Everyone has their own definition of this or
that. This independent spirit has caused 28,000 varieties of Christianity. But
then again, I guess that depends on how you define Christianity.

I guess that depends on how you define Christianity
I guess that depends on how you define Conservative
I guess that depends on how you define inerrancy
I guess that depends on how you define inspired
I guess that depends on how you define evidence

Edward Andrews
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kevin Riley 
  To: b-Hebrew 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources


  I suspect that depends on how you define "conservative".  I think
you will
  find that there are many who would define themselves as conservative in
  religious terms who would either accept the idea of documentary sources
  [even if not in the classical EDJP form] or have an open mind on the subject
   Among Christians iIt seems to be mainly among conservative evangelicals who
  hold to the concept of an inerrant Bible that any form of documentary
  sources are unacceptable.  They do not make up the totality, or even the
  majority, of conservative Christians and Jews who would consider themselves
  to be biblical scholars.  

  Kevin Riley
   
  -------Original Message------- 
   
  From: Bryant J. Williams III 
  Date: 4/02/2009 5:54:49 PM 
   
  Dear Lloyd, 
   
  Amongst "mainstream" scholars "so-called" it is accepted.
Amongst
  conservative 
  Scholars it is NOT accepted. 
   
  Rev. Bryant J. Williams III 
   
  _______________________________________________
  b-hebrew mailing list
  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




>From l_barre AT yahoo.com  Wed Feb  4 17:27:10 2009
Return-Path: <l_barre AT yahoo.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 AAF8E4C01F; Wed,  4 Feb 2009 17:27:10 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
        autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from n68.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (n68.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com
        [98.136.44.44])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 449C74C01C
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed,  4 Feb 2009 17:26:57 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [216.252.122.217] by n68.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        04 Feb 2009 22:26:56 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.83] by t2.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        04 Feb 2009 22:26:56 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.99] by t3.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        04 Feb 2009 22:26:56 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        04 Feb 2009 22:26:56 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 135499.58673.bm AT omp103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 40556 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Feb 2009 22:26:55 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: 
ahawxtIVM1k_21y0524yOCO5cBhiwAIBx4nqAWPGSQUHLDZju5ImaeNMJhZ83LFFaP6CqZkmXacbJG9SHYZ44YEcVQjXaiYCryVsQGQlaJF7SGlRytkHKAbyqME4XL.ByCEorFU7pNdMPh2_AEzn_rAmVyCmZhtajCLOGzSCzNrB6rLj9FtVOzZ3ak5QIn76hCu34Vw_IqmCVRJOpOP9
Received: from [98.173.36.135] by web110001.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
        Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:26:55 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:26:55 -0800 (PST)
From: LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>
To: b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <acd782170902040817u26048dc8x7cf97961eec5426c AT mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <718504.40374.qm AT web110001.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:55:35 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A different generation of biblical scholarship
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: l_barre AT yahoo.com
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: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:27:10 -0000

Sir,
 
You need to actually read the sources as they have been distinguished.  Let 
me recommend that you use the New Jerusalem Bible.  There are books the 
separate the sources.  Try "Who Wrote the Bible" by Richard Friedman.

Why do you think Moses wrote c1440.  Is this conclusion based upon personal 
piety?
 
Moses was an Egyptian as his name tells us.
 
Lloyd Barré
http://freewebs.com/lmbarre
 

--- On Wed, 2/4/09, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A different generation of biblical scholarship
To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 4:17 PM

George:
Please explain, in what way is it a straw man argument? Did you really
understand what I was saying? How does my argument make everything a breach
of list protocols?

For example, I think that grammarians make Hebrew grammar harder than it was
in ancient times, and that because some of the points from the Masoretes are
wrong. That is a testable statement because we can compare pointed vs.
unpointed text and see what are the meanings that we can tease out of them.
There may be disagreements and discussion, but any answer will be based on
the analysis of the text.

Another example. I think Moses wrote Exodus about 1440 BC telling the true
story of the exodus. This is what is indicated when cross referencing other
verses in the Bible. But a Naturalist will come along and say that it is
impossible for the story to be true, because of all the claims of the
supernatural acting into history. Therefore, these stories of the exodus
must be myths written much later, much the same way as my ancestor Odin was
made into a god by the myth makers. Because of the Naturalist's faith in
that the supernatural does not act into history, he comes to the table with
the à priori intent of looking for clues showing how the myth was cooked up.
In the case of the Bible, the clues that he "finds" elicit the
response of
"are you crazy?" from those who admit to the possibility that the
supernatural might have acted into history. Notice the difference in the
interpretations of the text, based on the different faiths.

The first example above starts with the text, then analyses it: the second
one starts with expectations then reacts to the text according how it fits
those expectations. The first starts with concrete evidence, then looks to
try to understand it: the second starts with faith, only afterwards looking
at the text. The first starts with the observable, then, if consistently
practiced, stays with the observable: the second starts with
the unobservable (faith), and interpretations based on the unobservable are
viewed by some as evidence, by others as foolishness.

If the Documentary Hypothesis is correct, where are the source documents
that demonstrate it? Where are those that lack the Priestly insertions, or
lack the Elohimist sections? Where is the concrete evidence? Likewise, where
are the copies that long predate the DSS, even the Babylonian Exile, if the
supernatural is a possibility? In both cases, the adherents of both sides
are acting according to faith in the absence of evidence.

Until concrete evidence that demonstrates either one or the other is
produced, matters of faith should not be pushed on a neutral forum. Or do
you think matters of faith are legitimate subjects for discussion here?

Karl W. Randolph.

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 6:01 PM, George Athas
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> Karl, you've just proven that this is a straw man. If your argument is
> right, then everything is a breach of the list protocols. If they are not,
> then why won't you discuss these types of questions on B-Hebrew?
>
> Let's drop this old chestnut, shall we?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au
>
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




>From l_barre AT yahoo.com  Wed Feb  4 17:31:28 2009
Return-Path: <l_barre AT yahoo.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 AB4184C015; Wed,  4 Feb 2009 17:31:28 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
        autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from n63.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (n63.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com
        [98.136.44.33])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 19ED34C01C
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed,  4 Feb 2009 17:31:17 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [69.147.84.144] by n63.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        04 Feb 2009 22:31:16 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.83] by t6.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        04 Feb 2009 22:31:16 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.103] by t3.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        04 Feb 2009 22:31:16 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        04 Feb 2009 22:31:16 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 391345.36215.bm AT omp107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 31858 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Feb 2009 22:31:16 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: 
ujIxgQkVM1kwrx7N9kRGSc3lTRAArKsgFD7nDI.Ooi.83XbtPLYS.G1_P_gCA5fqb3ay.sBS36gWVMc_VBTPaHDzMWV.d4OZTDNyrO4MLHg8PcUWV4KPhkrndX2dQiuZMjY9JjV4SNOPvnYFuwAn4QpiRNQ1dqPF.zIuLGEww8n6G6NAJuzx23Xa6q9VErVmxqD3Ndw-
Received: from [98.173.36.135] by web110009.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
        Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:31:16 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:31:16 -0800 (PST)
From: LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>
To: b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <4989D3A4.1060207 AT cascadeaccess.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <282403.31194.qm AT web110009.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:55:35 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A different generation of biblical scholarship
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: l_barre AT yahoo.com
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: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:31:28 -0000

The question about the dating of the Pentateuch is not simply a matter 
of "interpretations built on pre-chosen ideologies/religious
beliefs". 

This is solipcism, locked into one's subjectivity where objectivity is 
denied.  This is patently false.  We touch the objective world, especially 
through science.

 
Lloyd Barré
http://freewebs.com/lmbarre
 

--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Gabe Eisenstein <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com> wrote:

From: Gabe Eisenstein <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A different generation of biblical scholarship
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 5:43 PM

Karl knows a lot more Hebrew than I do, but I know a lot more about 
evidence, logic and interpretation. Karl supports his idiosyncratic 
views of the latter by links to kooky Christian websites. I suggest that 
a clearer view of the role of interpretation in science can be found by 
studying books like the following:

Truth and Method -- Hans-Georg Gadamer
Fact, Fiction and Forecast -- Nelson Goodman
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions  -- Thomas Kuhn
Conjectures and Refutations -- Karl Popper
The Structure of Scientific Inference  -- Mary Hesse

Karl will say that authors like these represent some kind of
"bandwagon" 
-- which is the whole mainstream and university world of science. It is 
a matter of pride for him that only religious fundamentalists share his 
views. And yet his whole rhetorical style is based on constantly using 
the words "evidence", "logic", etc. in order to falsely
suggest that he 
has something in common with real scientists and philosophers of science.

The question about the dating of the Pentateuch is not simply a matter 
of "interpretations built on pre-chosen ideologies/religious
beliefs". 
Remember that Karl also thinks that theories about the formation of 
galaxies, stars and planets, or the different structures of rocks and 
minerals (let alone the development of current life forms on earth), are 
also a matter of religious belief. Because the events they refer to 
HAPPENED IN THE PAST! But just like theories in astronomy and geology, 
theories about the Pentateuch are possible because different accounts of 
the past have different consequences for the present (e.g. what we find 
in existing documents). Some are plausible, some are possible and some 
are impossible. Some fit nicely with other plausible theories, while 
others do not.

To put things very simply: there are degrees of evidence and 
plausibility. It's not just  a binary world of "evidence" versus 
"interpretation" and "religious belief". Rather,
interpretation is 
absolutely necessary to scientific practice, as we try to refine 
theories and sort the wheat from the chaff. This is what George Athas 
was getting at by saying that Karl's talk of interpretation raised a 
straw man. (And again, see the authors mentioned above.)

Karl wrote:
One example, do the different words for God refer to different sources of
documents, or did even the earliest documents indicate  that the people
recognized one God, but that he had a few titles besides his name? The
answers to that question shows how the different ideologies interpret the
same data. And the different ideologies / faiths predetermine the answers to
those questions.

This paragraph utterly misrepresents the arguments of source-criticism, 
as others have mentioned. It isn't a matter of "different names for 
God", but of sets of texts in which, for no apparent reason, God has one 
name or the other, AND the fact that these texts correlate with 
geographical, ideological AND stylistic features that also distinguish 
the texts. The most succinct and cogent arguments I know of here are 
contained in Friedman's The Hidden Book in the Bible (appendix). None of 
his arguments are based on premises that are accepted on faith. In 
contrast, the explanation that "[God] had a few titles besides his
name" 
is no explanation at all.
(Does this mean I "believe in" Friedman? No, I disagree with several
of 
his conclusions, and I think that the whole theory is subject to 
revision or disconfirmation. I am also neither a maximalist nor 
minimalist; my current guesses put the authorship of  the bulk of the 
Pentateuch in the 9th-6th centuries.)

I would also like to challenge Karl's assertion that the text of the 
Pentateuch itself claims to have been written by Moses. I don't know if 
this has been discussed on the list before, but the evidence of verses 
referring to "this book" or "this teaching" (torah) are
extremely 
ambiguous. They could refer to various subtexts like Deuteronomy or the 
Holiness Code, or they could refer to the entire Bible (the book you are 
holding in your hands which talks of "this book"). What, you
don't think 
that Moses' death counts against the latter hypothesis, do you? After 
all, Talmudists believed that everything in the "oral Torah" was
already 
stated on Mt. Sinai (including the words of rabbis from the first 
century and later). As for me, I don't accept supernatural accounts 
(including statements showing knowledge of the future) in the absence of 
very compelling evidence. On the other hand, I do accept as evidence 
against Mosaic authorship even details such as the claim that Moses was 
the most humble man (a claim that the most humble man could not make 
about himself). This is indeed a matter of interpretation, but also of 
plausibility.


Gabe Eisenstein


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




>From JimStinehart AT aol.com  Wed Feb  4 17:58:42 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 B90714C01C; Wed,  4 Feb 2009 17:58:42 -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-m21.mx.aol.com (imo-m21.mx.aol.com [64.12.137.2])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07204C015
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed,  4 Feb 2009 17:58:10 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from JimStinehart AT aol.com
        by imo-m21.mx.aol.com  (mail_out_v39.1.) id 9.cad.49e2ba82 (41811);
        Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:52:24 -0500 (EST)
From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Message-ID: <cad.49e2ba82.36bb7628 AT aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:52:24 EST
To: George.Athas AT moore.edu.au, 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: Re: [b-hebrew] Halhul, Jezreel and Timnah
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: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:58:42 -0000


George:
 
1.  You wrote:  “Jim, I'm not sure where you're getting 'hilly' from in 
your 
definition of MIDBAR.”
 
“Hilly” is not part of the definition of MDBR.  But much MDBR in Canaan 
is 
hilly.
 
I have set forth 6 definitions of MDBR, from all the standard sources.  
Everyone agrees on the meaning of MDBR.  It cannot be cultivatable land, 
where 
wheat and barley are grown.  It can be almost anything else.  It often is 
modest 
pastureland.  Though not part of the overall definition, rugged, hilly 
pastureland is classic MDBR land.  Sheep and goats can be pastured in the 
rugged, 
hilly pastureland north and northeast of the city of Hebron, but there are 
precious few villages there, and no towns or cities, because MDBR is not 
conducive to 
settled human inhabitation in villages, much less towns or cities.
 
As I noted in my response to Karl, Koehler and Baumgartner in “Hebraisches 
und Aramaisches Lexikon” (1995) define MDBR as “Trift, Steppe, Wuste”, 
and per 
the 2005 Oxford-Duden German Dictionary, “Trift” means “common (esp. 
mountain) pasturage”.  “Mountain pasturage” looks a lot like “rugged, 
hilly 
pastureland”.
 
For purposes of this thread, the relevant question is whether the land north 
and northeast of the city of Hebron is or is not MDBR.  If that land is not 
MDBR, then it could not be the “MDBR of Ziph”.  In fact, the land north 
and 
northeast of the city of Hebron is classic MDBR:  decent enough for grazing 
sheep 
and goats, but not good enough land to support any sizable population of 
humans, especially no cities or towns of any size.  The land north and 
northeast 
of the city of Hebron is rugged, hilly pastureland.  All 6 standard sources I 
cited for MDBR include “pastureland”.
 
2.  Where is Ziph located?  I Samuel 30: 26-31 tells us “all the places 
where 
David and his men had roamed”.  All of those places are the city of Hebron 
and places south of the city of Hebron.  No place southeast of the city of 
Hebron is listed.  Ziph is not listed, so Ziph must not be located south of 
Hebron. 
 Ziph is not where David customarily hung out during this period of time, 
when David was hanging out south of the city of Hebron.  Nor did David ever 
hang 
out southeast of the city of Hebron, a desolate locale where there were no 
cities or towns at all, being the westward extension of the Judean Desert.
 
So where was Ziph?  Joshua 15: 55, 57 tells us that Ziph was located close to 
Timnah.  We know from Judges that Samson’s Timnah was just west of the 
foothills of hill country, in the Sorek Valley.  If the Timnah at Joshua 15: 
57 is 
the real Timnah in southern Canaan, then Ziph was located near the eastern 
edge 
of the Sorek Valley.  David takes as wife #2 a woman from Jezreel.  I Samuel 
25: 43  This must be the Jezreel in Judah, that is referenced at Joshua 15: 
56, in the same group as Ziph and Timnah.  David is taking wives from the 
border 
area between the northeast Shephelah and hill country, as he seeks to extend 
his influence north of the city of Hebron.  David’s third wife is Abigail 
of 
Carmel.  Carmel is right there at Joshua 15: 55, in the same group as Ziph 
and 
Timnah and Jezreel.  Can Anson Rainey be right that all these towns are 
located in the uninhabitable area southeast of the city of Hebron?  There has 
never 
been a single sizable city located southeast of the city of Hebron in 5,000 
years of human history.  All the Biblical authors knew that, as did their 
entire 
audience.  Meanwhile, Carmel in the Sorek Valley is historically attested in 
the Amarna Letters.
 
Now consider the mid-15th century BCE Thutmosis III list, which lists many 
towns on the eastern edge of the Shephelah, which had to be secured in order 
to 
protect the east flank of the Egyptian army being assembled in the Aijalon 
Valley for the conquest of central Canaan.  There’s Ziph at #116.  
Underlined D 
is zayin/Z.  F is the soft side of peh/P.  The final T is a standard 
geographical place name suffix.  DFT = DF + T = ZP + suffix = Ziph/ZYP.  
Jezreel is 
there, too, at immediately preceding item #115 (which I misidentified on an 
earlier thread).  DRR, where the D is underlined, is ZR + L, where the 
underlined D 
is, as always, zayin/Z, the first Egyptian R is resh/R, and the second 
Egyptian R is lamed/L (as the Egyptians made no distinction between resh/R 
and 
lamed/L).  That’s ZR + L.  ZR is the two-letter archaic root of YZR(, where 
the Y is 
a verbal prefix, and in the Bronze Age (unlike in fully-developed Hebrew) the 
final ayin is a verbal suffix, with both prefix and suffix being dropped in 
this geographical place name.  And Carmel/KRM + L is KRM + N at item #96.  
Apparently Timnah, at least by that name, was not yet in existence in the 
mid-15th 
century BCE.  It’s not in the Amarna Letters either.
 
So we have secular historical documentation from the Late Bronze Age for 
Ziph, Jezreel and Carmel on the border between the northeast Shephelah and 
hill 
country.  Meanwhile, there are no ancient inscriptions, and no archaeology, 
indicating that there ever was even a single sizable town located southeast 
of the 
city of Hebron.
 
If we follow all the clues, the conclusion is inescapable.  Ziph is located 
near Timnah, just east of the Sorek Valley, in the foothills on the western 
edge of hill country.  The MDBR directly east of there, being the MDBR north 
and 
northeast of the city of Hebron, is the “MDBR of Ziph”.  It all makes 
perfect 
geographical sense.
 
3.  If you don’t think that the land north and northeast of the city of 
Hebron was MDBR, please tell us why.  All the standard sources indicate that 
MDBR 
could be pastureland, and the land north and northeast of the city of Hebron 
was basically only used for pastureland, as it was not good enough land for 
farming or for towns and cities.  
 
Not all MDBR was hilly, but a lot of MDBR in Canaan was hilly, including the 
MDBR north and northeast of the city of Hebron.    
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to 
stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)