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: davidhamuel AT sbcglobal.net, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] "Amalek"/(MLQ vs. "Valley"/(MQ
  • Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:07:26 EST


David Hamuel:

Thank you for clarifying that citation concerning Seir/Jazer. (I typed
that post on my secondary computer which, believe it or not, does not allow
links to be cut and pasted.)

1. Though the modern evidence is vastly less important than the ancient
evidence, the fact that the citation is old, dating to 1850, is a positive,
not a negative. That shows that at least since 1850, the ruins near Jazer
have been called Seir. But the rest of this post focuses on the much more
important ancient evidence.

2. There’s no “Jazer” by that name in the Patriarchal narratives, the
Amarna Letters, or on the Thutmose III list. But all three such sources
reference “Seir” where we might have expected to see “Jazer”. That may well
indicate that this town in the middle of hill country in the Transjordan was
called “Seir” in the Late Bronze Age, whereas from the Iron Age to the
present it has been called “Jazer”.

3. Jazer has an important location, being in the very middle of the long
north-south range of hill country along the east bank of the Jordan River in
the Transjordan. In the ancient world, the most logical way to reference
the hill country of the Transjordan would be to refer to either “the hill
country of Seir [Jazer]” or “the land of Seru [Seir/Jazer]” or “the land of
Seir [Jazer]”.

4. Now consider the following three critical phrases from ancient times:

(i) At Genesis 14: 7, “the hill country of Seir” makes perfect sense if it
’s referring to the hill country north and south of Jazer. That’s where
the Horites/Hurrians historically were, per Amarna Letter EA 197. It can’t
be referring to Mt. Seir south of the Dead Sea, as scholars would have it,
because (a) there were no Hurrians south of the Dead Sea, and (b) it makes no
sense for a military party that started at Ashteroth to be mucking about in
the desolate Arabah south of the Dead Sea.

(ii) In Amarna Letter EA 288: 26, it would make sense for Abdi-Heba of
Jerusalem to refer to the nearby hill country in the Transjordan near Jazer,
using the phrase “the land of Seru”. It would make no sense for Abdi-Heba to
care a fig about a handful of Bedouin-type people in the desolate Arabah
south of the Dead Sea.

(iii) Most obviously is “the land of Seir” at Genesis 32: 4. If that
were Mt. Seir south of the Dead Sea, Jacob would be in no fear of running
into
Esau! No, the reference in context there must be to the hill country of the
Transjordan, north and south of Jazer/Seir.

5. If we could just get university scholars to take a new look at the
actual, northern geography of the Patriarchal narratives, we could inaugurate
a
renaissance in the study of the Patriarchal narratives. If scholars would
consider a northern geography of the Patriarchal narratives, all of a sudden
they would see the text’s historicity.

David, all it would take is for one university scholar to take a serious
new look at the underlying geography of the last 40 chapters of Genesis. If “
the hill country of Seir” at Genesis 14: 6 is the hill country north and
south of Jazer, then all of a sudden, like magic, Genesis 14: 6 is
historical,
per Amarna Letter EA 197. If the Biblical Hebrew common words $WB and GM at
Genesis 14: 7 are given their normal meanings, then the military party
returned from near Jazer back north to Ashteroth, passed by Qadesh of
Galilee,
and entered the fields (or “plain”, that is, non-mountainous area) of the “
valley”/(MQY, being the Beqa Valley (not the Amalekites!), and ended up
attacking the Amorites who historically (in the Late Bronze Age) were indeed
at
Hasi/Hazezon, just as the text accurately states. That’s Amarna Letters EA
177 and EA 175.

Why oh why won’t even one university scholar ever consider that $WB at
Genesis 14: 7 may mean “return”, just like it does 390 other times in the
Bible? Or consider that in context, Seir in chapters 14 and 32 of Genesis
must
mean Jazer?

Although Yigal Levin is one of my very favorite university scholars, note
that in his posts on these threads, he does not even c-l-a-i-m to have any
inscriptions from the secular history of the ancient world to back up the
scholarly view, which insists upon an Ezra-age ultra-southerly geography of
the Patriarchal narratives. That’s because there are no such inscriptions in
the secular history of the ancient world to back up that scholarly view.
There’s no there there. All the many inscriptions, rather, back up a
northern
geography of the Patriarchal narratives. So if the QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 is
historical Qadesh of Upper Galilee, per many Late Bronze Age inscriptions,
then per the reference at Genesis 20: 1 to QD$, Isaac was born, in
fulfillment of the Covenant, in Upper Galilee. What’s wrong about that?
That’s
what the text is telling us. GRR/Gerar is GLL/GLYL/Galilee, as attested at
item #80 on the mid-15th century BCE Thutmose III list of places in Canaan.
The text is telling us where Isaac is born, if only we would interpret the
text on the basis of historical names that are attested in the Late Bronze
Age.

David, if we could get just one university scholar to consider a northern
geography of the Patriarchal narratives, then the historical foundation of
Judaism is right there, right in the received text, with pinpoint historical
accuracy. It’s simply a question of getting the historical geography right,
and considering historically attested geographical place names.

Your interest in Biblical Seir is much appreciated.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page