Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] "Amalek"/(MLQ vs. "Valley"/(MQ

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] "Amalek"/(MLQ vs. "Valley"/(MQ
  • Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:44:58 EST


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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page