Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Karl:
 
You’re dreaming up an Amalek that is not attested either in the Bible or in 
secular history, a QD$ that is not attested either in the Bible or in 
secular history, and off-list you even considered dreaming up an Ashteroth 
that 
is not attested either in the Bible or in secular history.  Why are you doing 
that?  How can we hope to show that the “four kings against the five” is 
historical, as opposed to the unanimous scholarly view that it’s fictional, 
by dreaming up an unattested Amalek and an unattested QD$?
 
For my part, I accept all of Genesis 14: 1-11 as written, except for a 
single letter:  the interior lamed/L in the word customarily translated as “
Amalekites”.  I have cited Judges 5: 14 as a similar case, where both the ESV 
and the NSRV, having considered the matter, have opted not to follow the 
Masoretic Text as to that particular letter in a very similar word, under 
somewhat similar circumstances (with the circumstances there indeed not being 
as 
compelling as at Genesis 14: 7).  Unless you dream up an unattested Amalek, 
there’s no way that Amalek fits Genesis 14: 7.  So there’s good justification 
for suggesting that that single letter, an interior lamed/L, is a 
centuries-later scribal error.
 
As this military party moves north of Ashteroth and Qadesh of Upper 
Galilee, and before getting to the historical enclave of Amorite princelings 
in the 
north-central Beqa Valley at and near Hasi, that military party must go 
through the country of Amqu, meaning the Beqa Valley.  We’re expecting to see 
(MQ + ending, and what we see in the received text is (MLQ + Y.  Other than 
that interior lamed/L, the word there is exactly what we would be expecting 
to see.  If $WB means “and then they returned (back north to the Ashteroth 
area)”, and QD$ means Qadesh of Upper Galilee, and the Amorites are the 
historical Amorites of Lebanon (connected in the Late Bronze Age to the 
people of 
the Amorite state of Amurru on the northern coast of Lebanon, but not 
confined to that locale), and Hazezon is Hasi + nominative suffix, all of 
which 
makes perfect historical sense, then all that’s missing is a reference to the 
Beqa Valley.  The four letters we would expect for the Beqa Valley are all 
there.  There’s just one extra letter, that interior lamed/L, that’s all.  I 
see that as being similar to Judges 5: 14, and suggest viewing that 
original word as, contra the received Masoretic Text, originally being (MQ + 
Y and 
meaning “valley”. 
 
In evaluating Genesis 14: 1-11, I do not rely on unattested peoples or 
places, as you keep on proposing to do.  I do see the Hebrew author as making 
brilliant use of nicknames, where appropriate, but he’s not reporting 
fiction. 
 Rather, Genesis 14: 1-11 is a pinpoint historically accurate account of 
the onset of the Great Syrian War, which potentially threatened the early 
tent-dwelling Hebrews south of Lebanon.
 
Karl, we’ll never get the scholars to re-examine the historicity of the “
four kings against the five” by dreaming up an unattested Amalek and an 
unattested QD$.  By contrast, by virtue of comparison to Judges 5: 14, it is 
possible that scholars may be willing to consider that one interior lamed/L 
in 
the text is a centuries-later scribal error, if everything else checks out 
historically to the nth degree. 
 
Karl, in evaluating the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives, the 
accepted, normal view of secular history is our friend, not our enemy.  It’s 
just that we need to force scholars to compare what’s stated in the text of 
the 
Patriarchal narratives to what we know happened north of Jerusalem in the 
Late Bronze Age.  Genesis 14: 7 is a classic example of what applies to the 
Patriarchal narratives as a whole.  If we could just get the underlying 
geography right, the historicity of the text would come shining through.  The 
#1 
problem in analyzing the Patriarchal narratives is the completely erroneous 
geography that has led analysts astray for the last 2,500 years.  All the 
fighting chronicled at Genesis 14: 7 is north of Ashteroth, both historically 
and textually.  We don’t need to change history.  We just need to change the 
scholars’ erroneous understanding of the underlying geography of the 
Patriarchal narratives.  The scholarly view is dead wrong that the 
Patriarchal 
narratives are late fiction by multiple authors that is focused on 
southernmost 
Canaan.  Rather, the Patriarchal narratives were composed by a single 
author and have pinpoint historical accuracy in a Late Bronze Age context, 
and no 
one is ever portrayed in the text as being in southernmost Canaan, except 
in going to and from Egypt.  Until and unless we can force scholars to 
re-consider the underlying geography of the Patriarchal narratives, it will 
be 
impossible to get scholars to appreciate the historicity of the Patriarchal 
narratives.  Geography is the key.  And that means that we need to focus on 
historical names of peoples and places in evaluating the Patriarchal 
narratives.  Dreaming up an unattested Amalek or an unattested QD$ won’t help.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois