Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 14: 7 Translation

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
  • To: kwrandolph AT gmail.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 14: 7 Translation
  • Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:19:13 EST


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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page