Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>]

I think, especially with Hebrew names, the most plausible  
reconstructions come from considering what the name meant and whether  
there is any geographical phenomenon which can justify it.

The trouble we have in English speaking cultures is that we are  
brought up, by and large, with names for people and places which have  
no more relevance than the label which we attach to them. However, we  
return to the natural naming conventions of people and places when we  
a)either do not know that name, b) there is not yet a name or c) we  
make up a so-called 'nick name'

e.g. Tower hill (a hill we distinguish from the others because it has  
a tower on it). Church road (a road with a church on it). A few of my  
friends at school were called big head, long head and bell head (i'll  
leave the reader to guess why).

While I was travelling around the Sinai I noticed that we could rely  
on the archaic names of many places because their names could be  
justified by what they were

e.g. hamam farun (The Pharaoh's bath)

Any argument for a location name and identification with a  
geographical location would start well with this kind of  
consideration. These are the place names we can be most sure of. Then  
starting from this solid framework we can work out the rest with  
reference to the places we do know. Of course, tradition helps as well  
e.g. this is the well were such a famous patriarch did such and such,  
but we're better to work forward than backward.

James Christian

Quoting "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>:

> Dear Jim,
>
> I respectively disagree with your reasoning. You are attempting to match the
> Tutmose list with the Bible. You are trying to make the Bible lists   
> of cities,
> places and names match the secular list in a way that it was not   
> written to do.
> True, the names, places and cities were historical and were added to  
>  show that
> the events described did take place. Whether they coincide with   
> secular records
> is not the issue. You are making the secular records the standard by  
>  which the
> sacred record must match; otherwise the sacred is wrong. It is the other way
> around.
>
> Furthermore, you definitely need to learn Hebrew not only for   
> reading the text,
> but for the pure joy of knowing what God had revealed to the people who wrote
> the Hebrew text in their language.
>
> Finally, the use of cognate languages is helpful for understanding   
> the Hebrew of
> the text, but the pitfalls are there also. Just because the cognate language
> indicates that a certain word is similar to the Hebrew does not mean  
>  it is the
> same.
>
> En Xristwi,
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
> To: <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>; <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 7:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Where Is En-Mishpat?
>
>
> > George:
> >
> > 1.  You wrote:  “‘En’ does not mean gateway - it means 'spring' or
> > 'fountain'. Plain and simple.”
> >
> > Not true.  All lexicons agree that the primary meaning of (YN is “eye”.
> > Of particular relevance here, the Patriarchal narratives in a majority of
> > cases use (YN in the sense of “in sight of”.  For example, Abraham does not
> > buy Sarah’s burial plot at a “fountain”, but rather “in sight of”/L-(YN-Y
> > the sons of the Hittites.  Genesis 23: 11, 18  (YN M$P+ can thus be  
> >  viewed as
> > meaning “in sight of M$P+/MCPH”, that is, “in sight of the Beqa Valley”.
> > Rather than being mere speculation, this is an historically attested Late
> > Bronze Age nickname for QD$ of Upper Galilee, per item #5 on the mid-15th
> > century BCE Thutmosis III list.
> >
> > 2.  You wrote:  “Incidentally, there is no evidence for Amalekites in
> > Galilee, but plenty for the Negev region.”
> >
> > Not true.
> >
> > (a)  In secular history, there’s no evidence for Amalekites anywhere.
> >
> > (b)  In the Bible after Genesis, Amalekites pop up anywhere and everywhere,
> > always in armed, militant, nefarious opposition to the Hebrews.  Thus at
> > Judges 12: 15, the Amalekites are in “the land of Ephraim”, in central
> > Canaan, north of Judah.  “Amalekites” is not used in the Bible after Genesis
> to
> > designate a particular ethnic group or locale.  Rather, (MLQY effectively
> > means “foreign devils”.
> >
> > (c)  I would be delighted to explain the secular historical meaning of
> > (MLQY at Genesis 14: 7, but that would take a separate post.
> >
> > 3.  In 5,000 years of human history, there was only one “country of the
> > Amorites” referenced at Genesis 14: 7:  Amurru in 14th century BCE Lebanon.
> >
> > 4.  There is no QD$, and no (YN M$P+, 60 miles south of Gaza, or anywhere
> > in that general location, that is attested by those names in secular history
> > prior to the common era.  By contrast, I have shown QD$ (YN [M]$P[+] in
> > northeast Canaan at items #4-#5 of the T III list:  KD$ (EN $-Wi.  All three
> of
> > those names, both at Genesis 14: 7 and on the T III list, are referencing
> > historical QD$ of Upper Galilee.
> >
> > 5.  All the objective evidence from the secular history of the ancient
> > world supports my view that the unpointed text of Genesis 14: 7,   
> > prior to its
> > radical reinterpretation by Ezra (under duress and horrible circumstances),
> > referred to historical places in northernmost Canaan and Lebanon, using
> > well-attested historical nomenclature for such places from the Late Bronze
> Age.
> > There is  n-o-t-h-i-n-g  in the secular history of the ancient world that
> > backs up the scholarly view of Genesis 14: 7.  That scholarly view merely
> > follows Ezra’s radical, ultra-southerly reinterpretation of the geography of
> the
> > Patriarchal narratives, in claiming that QD$ is not historical QD$ of Upper
> > Galilee, the country of the Amorites is not historical Amurru in Lebanon,
> > and that the four invading rulers nonsensically headed for a spot   
> > deep in the
> > western Negev Desert that is 60 miles south of Gaza.  Although you claim
> > that my view of Genesis 14: 7 is “far-fetched” and “implausible”, in fact it
> > is the scholarly view of Genesis 14: 7 that has no backing whatsoever in
> > secular history, logic, or the unpointed text of Genesis.
> >
> > Jim Stinehart
> > Evanston, Illinois
> >
> > **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
> > steps!
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322936x1201367173/aol?redir=http://
> www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd
> > =Mayfooter51209NO115)
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date:   
> 02/21/07 3:19 PM
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.