Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:44 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  Karl:
>
>
>
> You’re dreaming up an Amalek that is not attested either in the Bible or in 
> secular history,
>
>
It is attested to in the Bible.

And let’s be honest, what you call “secular” history is really ancient,
religious, Egyptian history. Compared to the totality of surviving ancient
history, the ancient, religious, Egyptian history is only a small snippet
that ignores much of what happened in ancient times.

 a QD$ that is not attested either in the Bible or in secular history,
>
>
The Bible attests to two towns named QD$ south of Canaan proper.


>  and off-list you even considered dreaming up an Ashteroth that is not 
> attested either in the Bible or in secular history.
>
>
All I said is that you can’t rule it out.


>   Why are you doing that?
>
>
Because that’s what the text when analyzed according to lexicography,
grammar, syntax and context indicates. All I do is follow the text.


>   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$?
>
>
It is not a “unanimous scholarly view”. To claim such is a factual error.
How can we trust your other claims when you make factual errors such as
this?

>
>
> For my part, I accept all of Genesis 14: 1-11 as written,
>
>
How can you, when you don’t know Hebrew?


>  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.
>
>
And there is good reason to consider the emendation in Judges is wrong, just
as wrong as your emendation in Genesis 14.

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.
>
>
Only in your mind.

>
>
> Karl, in evaluating the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives, the 
> accepted, normal view of secular history is our friend, not our enemy.
>
>
What you call “secular history” is at war with itself right now. They are
fighting a defensive battle against archeology, against the histories of
nearby countries, against scholars who note inconsistencies within the
reconstruction, and against the Bible as it is written. It is the last point
why its adherents are fighting so fiercely.


>   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.
>
>
You’ll not be able to do that by contradicting what the Bible teaches.


>   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.
>
>
There is no reason to believe that we have the geography wrong, which is one
reason why not one of us on this list agrees with you.


>   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.
>
>
Then why do you try so hard to change history and geography?


>   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.
>
>
Do you know the history of that school of thought? … Thought so, you are
completely ignorant. It is that history that will not allow its
practitioners to change their minds.


>   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.
>
>
Geography is only one brick in the total structure. By contradicting
history, context, linguistics, yes even geography as attested to in the
Bible, your theory is even less believable than reading the text as it is
written.

I have no interest to “force scholars” to adopt any point of view. I will
point out weaknesses in their logic and disagreements including the reasons
for those disagreements, but scholars are answerable to their own craft for
the quality of their work. Further, they are able to think for themselves.
If any comes to agree with me, it will be because of his own free will, not
as a result of force.

>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
I have come to the conclusion that your theories are but one big mass of
logical error. You seem to think that you can defend the historicity of the
Bible by contradicting its own claims concerning history. You contradict the
meaning of the text according to standard rules of linguistics. And you
violate other standard rules of logic. Then you expect us to agree with you?

Karl W. Randolph.