Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

OK,

I've got some time on my hands so I waded through your reply.

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).

Why are you telling me this? Which part of 'I want primary sources' do  
you not understand?


> I myself do not know of a single reputable modern historian who asserts
> that the Hebrews originated in Ur.

And I care because...?


> 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.

I don't remember anybody on this list saying that the Ur in question  
has to be the one way down south at the end of the river.


> 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.

Incorrect presumption. Your second incorrect presumtion was assuming  
that I care. I'm not going to bother asking how you quantify 'most  
respected' or 'by whom'. Frankly, I don't care. I'm still waiting for  
some real data to be brought to the fore.


> 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!”

It's a simple concept really. In a court case for a murder trial  
people bring forth exhibit's for the jury to consider. This is what we  
call evidence. Witnesses who come to the box and say things like 'I  
think he did it' is what we call hearsay. Is the difference starting  
to become clear to you?


> 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”.

Well if they said it then it must be true, eh?!?!?!? Wouldn't like to  
be in a trial with you on the jury!

Are we going to start to start seeing some exhibits at any point in  
this discussion?

Words are defined by their usage! NOT a dictionary, a person you  
consider to be a leading scholar, or a list member whose made it to  
professorship.


> This is the b-Hebrew list.  The
> specific meaning of Biblical Hebrew words is important here.

Yes it is. When are we going to start seeing some concrete evidence of  
the meaning of the words in question?


> 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.

Hysterical laughter!!! The what? The 'well-documented secular history  
of the Late Bronze Age'? I can't even bring myself to repeating that  
phrase without absolutely p****ng my sides with uncontrollable  
laughter. I think you must have meant the shaky framework of theories  
of what we think might have happened, probably (with complex structure  
of nested ifs). Don't you?


> 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.

At long last. We finally get to some data. Something that we can  
actually discuss. In any future posts could you please cut out the  
pages of tripe I have to wade through to actually get to this bit?

Where exactly do you get the idea that Haran was the firstborn? Don't  
seem to be able to find this anywhere in Genesis 11.

The only point I get from the text is how Abram came to take Lot under  
his wing.


I won't comment on the rest of your long post for now because most of  
the rest of it is based on your understanding of this point.

James Christian





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