Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Where Is En-Mishpat?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org, George.Athas AT moore.edu.au, JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Where Is En-Mishpat?
  • Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:39:36 +0100

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.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page