Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Ok.

I got about 1 paragraph into this and then stopped reading. Could you  
please explain the thought process that turned my question 'Could you  
please define the term 'university scholars' and explain to me how  
exactly you consider that term to scale in ladder of values when  
compared with primary data which is what I intended to discuss?' into  
'please give me a list of scholars that I don't care about and ignore  
my request for primary data'?

Failing that, start a blog that no-one will read.

James Christian



Quoting JimStinehart AT aol.com:

> James Christian:
>
> 1.  In response to my statement that “No university scholars view the
> Hebrews as originating in Ur”, you wrote:  “Could you please define the term
> 'university scholars' and explain to me how exactly you consider that term to
> scale in ladder of values
>  when compared with primary data which is what I intended to discuss?”
>
> The following scholars, among many others, state that according to secular
> history, the Hebrews and pre-Hebrews were indigenous to Canaan, not to
> Mesopotamia.  Ann E. Killebrew, “Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity:  An
> Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and   
> Early Israel 1300 – 1100
> B.C.E.” (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005);  W. G. Dever, “
> Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?” (Grand Rapids:
> Eerdmans, 2003);  Lawrence E. Stager, "Forging an Identity:  The Emergence of
> Ancient Israel", in “The Oxford History of the Biblical World” (ed. M.D.
> Coogan;  New York: Oxford University Press, 1998);  Israel Finkelstein, “The
> Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement” (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
> Society, 1985).
>
> I myself do not know of a single reputable modern historian who asserts
> that the Hebrews originated in Ur.
>
> Indeed, one of the classic attacks on the historicity of the Patriarchal
> narratives is that the Patriarchal narratives set forth a myth that the
> Hebrews were originally indigenous to Ur.  But that’s not an   
> accurate reading of
> the text.  The rest of this section of my original post shows that the text
> of the Patriarchal narratives does not present the Hebrews as being
> indigenous to Ur.
>
> 2.  One of the key, controversial issues in evaluating the meaning of
> Genesis 11: 28 is the meaning of the word MWLDT.  I presume you realize that
> Gordon Wenham is one of the leading, most respected scholarly commentators on
> Genesis.  I do not know what you mean when you say:  “In the world according
> to you could you please define 'leading commentator' and why you would expect
> that to mean anything to me?  I want data!”
>
> The “data” is the considered opinion of leading scholar Gordon Wenham, our
> own fine Prof. Yigal Levin, and BDB, that MWLDT in Biblical Hebrew means “
> kindred”, not “birth” or “birth place”.  This is the b-Hebrew list.  The
> specific meaning of Biblical Hebrew words is important here.  If we pay close
> attention to what the text of the Patriarchal narratives actually says, we
> will find that it closely tracks the well-documented secular history of the
> Late Bronze Age.
>
> In response to my statement that “Genesis 11: 28 says that Haran died in
> the presence of his father, at the place where Haran’s kindred/MWLDT were, in
> Ur of the Kasdim…”, you wrote:  “This reading doesn't make any sense. Of
> course he was with them.  The context already said that.”
>
> You have missed the main point of what the text is talking about.  Every
> firstborn son in the Patriarchal narratives gets the shaft, and rightly so.
> In the first few verses of the Patriarchal narratives, we get our first taste
> of this ubiquitous theme.  Haran, who is the firstborn son of Terakh,
> suffers the ignominy of not even surviving his own father.  Moreover, both of
> Haran’s brothers and Haran’s son were there to witness Haran’s unfortunate
> untimely death.  When you say “of course he was with them”, that shows that
> you do not understand the point that the author is making here.
>
> This theme continues throughout the Patriarchal narratives.  Abraham’s
> firstborn son Ishmael gets the shaft, and rightly so.  Isaac’s firstborn son
> Esau gets the shaft, and rightly so.  Jacob’s firstborn son Reuben gets the
> shaft, and rightly so.  The pattern is clear.  The first instance of that
> ubiquitous pattern is at Genesis 11: 28.  The author is not trying to tell us
> about the Hebrews’ origins at Genesis 11: 28.  No, the author is carefully
> documenting the first instance of his incessant theme that the firstborn son
> gets the shaft, and properly so.
>
> 3.  I wrote:  “No (M of Abraham or Terakh is ever mentioned in Mesopotamia
> in the
>  Patriarchal narratives.  That’s  not an oversight.  No, that’s because no
> ancestor of Terakh ever stepped foot in Mesopotamia.  The Hebrews are
> indigenous to Canaan.”
>
> You oddly responded:  “What are you talking about? Evidence!?!”
>
> One key bit of evidence that the Patriarchal narratives do not present the
> Hebrews as originating in Ur is that the word (M never appears when the text
> refers to Mesopotamia.  Rather, the word consistently used is MWLDT.  The
> word (M is frequently used regarding Canaan, but never regarding Mesopotamia.
>  (M always includes ancestors.  MWLDT never includes ancestors.  So the
> choice of wording is important here in determining what place the   
> text views as
> being the origin of the Hebrews.
>
> Thus the Patriarchal narratives never assert that Terakh’s (M, that is,
> Terakh’s people/ancestors, were ever in Mesopotamia.  We know from secular
> history that they weren’t.
>
> On the traditional view that the Patriarchal narratives present the Hebrews
> as being indigenous to Ur, it is inconceivable that the word (M would not
> be used in that connection.  The absence of the word (M/people/ancestors in
> all references to Mesopotamia in the Patriarchal narratives is important
> textual  e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e  that the author is not portraying the   
> Hebrews as being
> indigenous to Ur.
>
> 4.  Regarding my analysis of Genesis 25: 8, you say:  “You are reading
> things into the text that are not there. The greater context says that he is
> buried in a field he bought from a Hittite. No logical interpretation of the
> verse would have us believe that his ancestors were already buried in a field
> he had bought.  The whole context of the narrative is that Abraham is an
> alien to the land he is roaming.”
>
> (a)  The textual reference in chapter 23 of Genesis is not to “Hittite”,
> but rather is to “the sons of the Hittites”.  The sons of the Hittites, or “
> Little Hittites”, are the historical Hurrians.  There were never any
> Hittites in Canaan, but Hurrians were commonplace in Canaan in the   
> Late Bronze Age
> (though not later).
>
> (b)  All of the Patriarchs, including Abraham, are buried in Canaan.
> (Joseph is not, but as you yourself have pointed out, it’s Judah,   
> not Joseph, who
> is selected to be the leader of the next generation of the Hebrews.)
> Terakh was not able to make it back to Canaan from Ur, as he was so   
> weak that he
> ended up stopping at Harran.  All of Abraham’s other ancestors (presumably
> including Abraham’s mother) were buried in Canaan.  If Abraham’s ancestors
> (other than Terakh) were not buried in Canaan, then Genesis 25: 8 would make
> no sense.
>
> (c)  Abraham steadfastly refuses to take over the leadership of his father’
> s relatives/tribe.  Rather, Abraham sees the Covenant as belonging only to
> Abraham and Abraham’s favored line of descendants, not to Terakh’s relatives
> generally.  So Abraham refuses to live in the part of Canaan where Terakh’s
> relatives had lived before.  In that important sense, “Abraham is an alien
> to the land he is roaming.”  Having said that, Abraham is indigenous to
> Canaan.  Abraham has no problem talking with any of the Canaanites,   
> because the
> Canaanites and Abraham speak various patois of west Semitic languages.  (The
> Hurrians in Canaan presumably learned west Semitic as a second language in
> order to be able to get along with the numerically dominant Canaanites.
> Thus the Hurrians are presumably speaking broken pre-Hebrew to Abraham in
> chapter 23 of Genesis, rather than Abraham speaking broken Hurrian   
> to the “sons
> of the Hittites”.)
>
> 5.  I thought you were saying that the Patriarchal narratives either say,
> or are at least consistent with the traditional view that, the Hebrews were
> in bondage in Egypt for 400 years.  In response to that traditional view, I
> said:  “All of Joseph’s prophecies come true in the Patriarchal narratives.
> The Patriarchal narratives end with Joseph’s prophecy that very shortly
> after Joseph’s death, YHWH will lead the Hebrews back home to   
> Canaan.  Genesis
> 50: 24-25”  Your very odd response to that was:  “Why are you telling me
> this?”
>
> Don’t you care what the unpointed Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives
> says?  If you don’t care what the Hebrew words say, why are you posting on
> the b-Hebrew list?  I am asserting that the text of Genesis is inconsistent
> with the traditional view that the Hebrews were in bondage in Egypt for 400
> years.  As such, the text of Genesis fits perfectly with the view on that
> subject held by most university scholars today:  the Hebrews were never in
> bondage in Egypt in secular history.  On the b-Hebrew list, we approach these
> important questions largely from the standpoint of what the Hebrew text
> actually says, and what the Hebrew words mean.
>
> 6.  I wrote:  “Biblical Hebrew is a virgin pure west Semitic language.
> There are virtually no traces of Egyptian in Biblical Hebrew.  The   
> Hebrews were
> never in bondage in Egypt.”  Your very odd response was:  “Evidence!?!”
>
> We’re talking about Hebrew language issues on the b-Hebrew list.  There are
> very few Egyptian words in Hebrew.  Nothing of the structure of the Hebrew
> language owes a fig to the Egyptian language.  The manner of writing the two
> languages is completely different.  The total, complete difference between
> the Egyptian language and the Hebrew language is strong  e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e
> that the early Hebrews were not in bondage for 400 years in Egypt.
>
> 7.  I don’t see that you yourself have presented any evidence for anything
> at all.  I myself am pointing out that your traditional view of the
> Patriarchal narratives is not supported by either (i) the   
> well-documented secular
> history of the ancient world, and (ii) more importantly on the b-Hebrew list,
> what the unpointed Hebrew text of the last 40 chapters of Genesis actually
> says.
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
> **************Huge savings on HDTVs from Dell.com!
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221836042x1201399880/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.ne
> t%2Fclk%3B215073686%3B37034322%3Bb)



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