Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Karl:
 
You wrote, in the context of my pointing out that the seemingly unanimous 
scholarly view is that the QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 is Kadesh-barnea in the Sinai 
Desert:
 
“Wrong, wrong, wrong. There was another place that was named Kadesh, which
 was to the south and east of Moab. It is also mentioned in Numbers, in a
 context that places it not far from Sodom and Gomorrah south of the Dead
 Sea. Because there were two places, one named Kadesh, and the other
 Kadesh-Barnea, the rest of your argument is moot. I don’t care how many “
experts” you line up trying to converge the two places into one, the text of 
Tanakh clearly indicates that they were two places.  …What do you define as 
“conventional
 understanding”?” as being a common university teaching. I follow the
 linguistic meaning of the text *as written* as the way to understand the
 text. When one reads the text according to its linguistic and literary
 structure, both what you call “conventional and scholarly view” and your
 theories are equally impossible.  See above that Kadesh ≠ Kadesh-Barnea. 
There is no way they can be the same.”
 
Karl, as I interpret your post, you seem to be agreeing with me that it is  
i-m-p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e  for the QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 to be Kadesh-barnea in 
the Sinai Desert, if the words $WB and GM are given anything approaching 
their 
normal meanings.  But Karl, you still seem to doubt that scholars are 
apparently unanimous in contorting the Hebrew text of Genesis 14: 7 beyond 
belief 
in order to shoehorn Kadesh-barnea in there, some way, somehow.  So maybe 
we better take a look at a few more scholarly comments on this subject.
 
P. 114 of Anson Rainey’s much-respected “The Sacred Bridge” (2006) shows 
the “Route of the Kings of the North” as taking a  v-e-r-y  wide right turn 
and heading northwest to “Kadesh-barnea/En-mishpat” in the Sinai Desert, 
where “Amalekites” are shown on the map as living.  Karl, are you saying we 
can’t trust that esteemed scholar?  Come to think of it, the map doesn’t 
disclose that there are no “Amalekites” in the secular history of the ancient 
world, and no Amorites south of the Dead Sea, nor that the names “
Kadesh-barnea” and “En-mishpat” are not attested in southern Canaan in the 
secular 
history of the ancient world.  What’s more, neither the map nor the text says 
that it is  i-m-p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e  for the QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 to be 
Kadesh-barnea, unless both (i) $WB at the beginning of Genesis 14: 7 is 
interpreted 
[that is, grossly misinterpreted] to mean "and then they did  n-o-t  return, 
but rather they pressed on, and made a  v-e-r-y  wide turn to the right, 
and proceeded to go in a new, completely different direction, namely 
northwest”
, and (ii) GM in the middle of Genesis 14: 7 is interpreted [that is, 
grossly misinterpreted] to mean "and then they made a dramatic change in 
direction, and began marching northeast".
 
Karl, if we can’t trust esteemed scholar Anson Rainey, then let’s try 
another scholarly source, John J. Bimson’s “Baker Encyclopedia of Bible 
Places” 
(1995), at p. 186:  “Kadesh.  1.  Kadesh-barnea.  A location apparently 
[with the word “apparently” being the scholarly word that means “there is no 
attestation whatsoever of this name in the secular history of the ancient 
world;  we’re just blindly following the traditional view here”] in the 
north-east of the Sinai peninsula….  When Chedorlaomer and his allies marched 
south through Transjordan they penetrated Mount Seir as far as El Paran, 
turned 
back to the north-west, came to En-mishpat (i.e. Kadesh) and subdued the 
Amalekites….”  Note the unanimity of scholarly view.
 
Well then, how about the venerable German scholar, Gerhard von Rad?  In his 
book “Genesis” (1961), we read at p. 177:  “The route of the Eastern kings 
on their punitive expedition is especially strange.  [Actually, it’s 
university scholars’ bizarre interpretation of $WB and GM at Genesis 14: 7 
that is 
“especially strange”, not the impeccable Biblical text.]  It does not 
advance toward the rebels but goes to the extreme south of East Jordan, 
returning [note that English word “returning”] from there to Kadesh -- sixty 
miles 
south [actually, southwest] of the Dead Sea!”  [That’s Prof. von Rad’s own 
exclamation point, by the way.]  But wait a minute, after attackers coming 
from the east by way of Ashteroth in the northeast go to “the extreme south 
of East Jordan”, how can they possibly be said to “return” to Kadesh-barnea, 
far to the west in the Sinai Desert, 60 miles southwest of the Dead Sea?
 
Karl, I admire your willingness to depart from the seemingly unanimous 
scholarly view that we should contort the wording of Genesis 14: 7 beyond 
belief 
in order to view the QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 as somehow, some way being 
Kadesh-barnea, 60 miles southwest of the southern end of the Dead Sea, to 
which 
the attacking force from the east “returned”/$WB.  Need I mention that most 
university scholars, after contorting the meaning of the words $WB and GM in 
Genesis 14: 7 beyond belief, then tell us that we should trust them that the 
military expedition chronicled at Genesis 14: 5-7 is completely fictitious 
and non-historical?  If it’s fictitious and non-historical, then why is no 
university scholar willing to even  c-o-n-s-i-d-e-r  the ordinary, routine 
meanings of the words $WB and GM in analyzing Genesis 14: 7?!  If we give $WB 
and GM their ordinary meanings, the historicity of Genesis 14: 7 comes 
shining through, brilliantly.  And Yes, I 100% agree with you, Karl, that 
despite 
the seemingly unanimous scholarly view to the contrary, there’s absolutely 
no way that the QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 could possibly, under any 
circumstances, be Kadesh-barnea in the Sinai Desert.
 
Karl, isn’t it suspicious that university scholars are seemingly  
u-n-a-n-i-m-o-u-s  in insisting that the QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 is 
Kadesh-barnea in the 
Sinai Desert, given the following facts:
 
1.  No name Kadesh-barnea or QD$ is attested in southern Canaan in the 
secular history of the ancient world.
 
2.  No name XCCN/Hazezon is attested in southern Canaan in the secular 
history of the ancient world.
 
3.  No Amalekites are attested in the secular history of the ancient world.
 
4.  No Amorites are attested south of the Dead Sea in the secular history 
of the ancient world.
 
5.  The word $WB at the beginning of Genesis 14: 7 must be contorted out of 
all reasonable recognition to mean:  "and then they did  n-o-t  return, but 
rather they pressed on, and made a  v-e-r-y  wide turn to the right, and 
proceeded to go in a new, completely different direction, namely northwest”.
 
6.  The word GM in the middle of Genesis 14: 7 must be contorted out of all 
reasonable recognition to mean:  "and then they made a dramatic change in 
direction, and began marching northeast".  [If we give the words $WB and GM 
their normal meanings, then it appears that throughout the entirety of 
Genesis 14: 7, this military expedition is moving in a single direction:  
north.  
They first “return”/$WB north to Ashteroth, and then proceed on north from 
there, going “even”/GM farther north, having never been anywhere in the 
general vicinity of Kadesh-barnea or the Sinai Desert.  On that reading, the 
text of Genesis 14: 7 is super-smooth and natural, as I showed in my first 
post on this thread.] 
 
7.  Scholars themselves openly admit, in the words of Gerhard von Rad, that 
on their view of Genesis 14: 7:  “The route of the Eastern kings on their 
punitive expedition is especially strange.”  [I won’t even bother to mention 
that the four attacking rulers in fact are  n-o-t  “Eastern”, either in 
the text of chapter 14 of Genesis or in secular history.  The word “east” is 
never mentioned in chapter 14 of Genesis, nor is it properly implied.]
 
Despite all of the foregoing, university scholars nevertheless seem  
u-n-a-n-i-m-o-u-s  in insisting that the QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 is 
Kadesh-barnea in 
the Sinai Desert.  On the b-hebrew list, the key question is this.  How can 
university scholars unanimously agree to contort the meanings of $WB and GM 
at Genesis 14: 7 out of all reasonable recognition, in such an egregious 
fashion?  
  
Is it just me, or is something terribly wrong here?
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois